these things hang together for my part I cannot see Would to God your selfe had taken the paines to shew it But this is your solemne fault you quote the sayings of the Fathers and leaue mee to gather your Conclusions I may well thinke because you saw no great force or strength in them And whether Gregory did favor Transubstantiation or no let it be tried by these words As the Divinity of the word of God is one which filleth all the world so although that body bee consecrated in many places at innumerable times yet are there not many bodies of Christ nor many cups but one body of Christ and one bloud with that which he tooke in the wombe of the Virgin and which he gaue to the Apostles For the Divinity of the word filleth that which is every where and conioyneth and maketh that as it is one so it bee ioyned to the body of Christ and his body be in truth one Here according to Gregory the body of Christ doth not succeed and fill vp the roome of bread after the substance thereof is abolished but the fulnesse and vertue of the Divinity which filleth the bread maketh it â—o passe into the body of Christ and so to be one body of Christ. Which how it can stand with your Transubstantiation iudge you N. N. These Hereticks admit not the Eucharists and oblations because they will not confesse that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Iesus Christ which hath suffered for our sins which the Father hath raised vp againe by his goodnesse These words alleaged by Theodoret are reported by him to be the words of St. Ignatius the Apostles scholler written in an Epistle ad Smyrnenses and therefore of greater antiquitie I. D. These words are not found in that Epistle ad Smyrnenses which is now extant Whereby you may perceaue it is true that I said the Epistles of Ignatius are not come perfect to our hands Of this Epistle saith Eusebius Ignatius when he wrote to them of Smyrna vsed words I knowe not whence taken And Hierome If you vse not his testimonies for authoritie at least vse them for antiquity And the Abbot of Spanheâ—m reckons it not among the rest of his Epistles as being doubtfull Yet for all this the credit of this Epistle shall not be questioned by mee I answere therefore the Heretikes which Ignatius meanes were Menander and the Disciples of Simon These denied that Christ was come in the Flesh and consequently that hee had Flesh. Wherevpon they reiected the Eucharist also least thereby they should be constrained to confesse that he had true Flesh. For granting the signe of a body you must also grant a true body Figure and Truth being Correlatiues whose Relation is to figure and to be figured And thus they added aloes vnto wormwood one error vnto another first denying the truth of Christs body and then that the Eucharist was the Sacrament of his body or that it was Sacramentally his body More then this cannot bee meant For I presume Theodoret would not alleage this to crosse himselfe who holdeth that Bread and Wine still remaine and argueth from them for the verity of Christs body because they are symbols of his body as is aboue declared N. N. Doth not the Evangelist Iohn say in the Apocalyps If any man shall adde vnto these things God shall adde vnto him the plagues that are written in this booke and if any man shall minish of these words of the booke of this Prophecie God shall take away his part out of the booke of life and out of the holy City and the things which are written in this booke Is this malediction or curse lesse to be feared here that we diminish not or put any thing to the words of him that said This is my body which shall be delivered for you this is my bloud of the New Testament which shall be shed for many in the remission of sinnes For when he saith This is my body wee shall put to an vnderstanding saying a Figuratiue Body or that it is spoken by a similitude when I say he saith this is my Body we shal say this signifieth my Body is it not much that we put to his words or by an evill change take from them and make a sense which so great an author God man in no place hath spoken nor at any time did ascend into his heart This man especially with many of the rest answereth M. Downe and all Protestants fully I. D. In this Authority I cannot but greatly pitty you to see how miserably you are gulled and beguiled by your Author For what was this Rupertus but a man of yesterday one that liued towards twelue hundred after Christ and a very Heretike in this point of the Sacrament For he maintained that the Eucharisticall Bread is hypostatically assumed by the Word iust after the same manner that the humane nature was assumed by the same Word This he expresseth in words as cleare as the noone day For expounding that of our Saviour The Bread which I will giue is my Flesh he saith That the eternall word by incarnation was made man not destroying or changing but personally assuming the humanitie and after the same manner by consecration of the Eucharist the same word is made Bread not destroying or changing but personally assuming Bread This he declareth elsewhere very largely shewing that Bread is made the Body of Christ not by turning it into his Flesh but because it is assumed by the Word Whence it followeth that Bread is the Body of Christ yet not his Humane or Carnall but Bready Body much differing from that which he tooke of the Virgin That yet these two bodies may be said to be One because the Person is but one or Christ is one who assumed them both so that the same Christ aboue that is in heauen is in the Flesh and beneath that is on the Altar is in Bread This grosse errour Algerus who liued in the same time with Rupertus confuâ—ed calling it as it iustly deserued a new and most absurd heresie What say you now to this good sir Is this the man who especially among the rest fully answereth Mrâ— Downe and all Protestants Doth he not as fully answere you Papists who cleane contrary to his Tenet destroy and change the bread to make it Christs body Yea but we adde vnto the Text vnderstanding it to be a Figuratiue body That is a shamelesse slander for wee place no Figure in the word bodie but litterally interpret it of Christs naturall body At least we say bread signifieth his body So wee say indeed and so say the Fathers also And to giue the true sense vnto a Text is not to adde vnto it Neither can I conceaue why it should be counted addition in vs to say This is my body Sacramentally or by way of signification more then in you to say it is so by way of Transubstantiation or
Chrysostome doe proue not only this but the Resurrection also of our Bodies by the truth of Christs Flesh in the Sacrament for that our Flesh ioyning with his Flesh which is immortall shall bee immortall also I. D. The truth of Christs Flesh in the Sacrament and the Coniunction of our Flesh with his Flesh neither is nor ever was by vs denied And therefore to heap vp Fathers for the proofe thereof is but to spend your labour to no purpose That you should proue is the Presence of Christ by Transubstantiation Which hitherto you haue but little aymed at In the Sacrament say these Fathers our Flesh is ioyned to Christs Flesh Ergo our Flesh shall rise againe The Antecedent is true and the sequele is good But what ioyning doe they meane The taking of Christs flesh into the mouth They neuer dreamt of it And if it were so it would follow that all they that eat Christ Sacramentally among whom how many Reprobates are there shall rise againe vnto life everlasting For I hope you will not say that the sacred Flesh of Christ doth quicken any vnto everlasting death How then is it By eating him not only Sacramentally but also spiritually and by Faith For by this meanes Christ becomes the food of our soules which redounding vpon the Flesh by making it the Temple of the Holy Ghost and an instrument of righteousnes fitteth and prepareth it to a glorious Resurrection Hence our Sauiour He that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud hath life everlasting and I will raise him vp at the last day And the Apostle S. Paul If Christ bee in you the Body indeed is dead because of sinne but the spirit is life because of righteousnesse But if the spirit of him that raised vp Iesus Christ from the dead dwell in you hee that raised vp Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortall bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you And that this is the meaning of the Fathers appeares by that they say Our bodies come not into corruption but partake of life by being nourished with the body bloud of the Lord. For that our bodies in litterall sense should be nourished with Christs body is to make it the food of the belly not of the minde then which saith Bellarmine nothing can bee deuised more absurd And what I pray you is Nourishment properly Only to take meat into the mouth No but the alteration and conversion of the substance thereof into the substance of that which is nourished which to affirme of the Body of Christ is horrible impiety Of force therefore must the Fathers be vnderstood to speake of such a Nourishment by the body of Christ as is spirituall Now if the Nourishment be spirituall such is the Eating also and it is as absurd to say that the soule is nourished by bodily eating as that the body is nourished by spirituall eating Will you haue all in a word The things that wee eat with our mouth in the Sacramēt are not the causes but the pledges of our Resurrection So saith the great Councell of Nice We must beleeue these things to be the symbols or pledges of our Resurrection N. N. And the same S. Irenaeus doth proue farther that the great God of the old Testament Creator of heauen earth was Christs Father For proofe whereof hee alleageth this reason that Christ in the Sacrament did fulfill the Figures of the old Testament and that in particular wherein bread was a figure of his Flesh which he fulfilled saith Irenaeus making it his Flesh indeed I. D. The Marcionites whom Irenaeus confuteth taught that the God of the old Testament was not the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ and that the Creator was knowne but the Father of Christ was vnknowne Against this hee endeauoureth to proue that the Father of our Lord was he who created the world That this he intendeth manifestly appeareth by those words where hee saith Others saying that another besides the creator is his Father and offering vnto him those creatures that are here amongst vs shew that he is greedy and covetous of that which is anothers And among other arguments this he vseth for one Bread and Wine are the creatures of the Creator of the world which creatures Iesus Christ vseth in the Sacrament the one to be his Body and the other to be his Bloud and therein are they offered to his Father Ergo the Creator is his Father Were he not his Father he would never haue takē that which belongs vnto another or whervnto he had no right and convert it to his owne vse So that here your Author hath notably deceaued you For Irenaeus proueth Christ to bee the sonne of the Creator not by his omnipotence in turning Bread and Wine into his Flesh and Bloud a thing that neuer came into his thought but from his right and title to the Creatures which maketh nothing for Transubstantiation Touching the Figures of the old Testament and how they prefigured our Sacraments we haue spoken enough already N. N. What is so sacrilegious saith Optatus Milevitanus as to breake downe scrape and remoue the altars of God on which your selues haue sometimes offered and the members of Christ haue beene borne c. What is an altar but the Seat of the Body and Bloud of Christ And this monstrous villanie of yours is doubled for that you haue brokē also the chalice which did beare the Bloud of Christ himselfe When the mixed chalice and the Bread broken taketh the word of God the Eucharist of the bloud and body of Christ is made Bread receauing the calling of God is not now common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things one earthly another heavenly the earthly thing is the old forme of bread the heavenly is the body of Christ newly made vnder that forme Let vs now consider also the persons to whom this Commandement was giuen they were those twelue Apostles whom Christ at his last Supper taught the new Oblation of the new Testament giuing them authority by this precept to consecrate to make present and to offer to God his body and bloud I. D. Where little or nothing is objected the answer is soone made Optatus saith that the altar is the seat of Christs body and bloud and that the chalice beareth his bloud Irenaeus saith that after consecration the Eucharist of the body and bloud is made that in it there is a heavenly thing and the Apostles had authority to make present the body of Christ. Ergo the body and bloud of Christ is really corporally locally and by way of Transubstantiation present in the Sacrament A poore and silly consequence which all the wity our author hath wil neuer be able to make good For those words of the Fathers may be salued and verified if Christ be Present any other way And Present hee is Sacramentally to the signes and spiritually to the Faith of
Conversion Mutation and the like I. D. Had you attentiuely read my Answer you would never haue said I excepted to two or three Passages only For I excepted to all the passages of Ignatius Cyril of Hierusalem in his Catechismes Ambrose de Sacramentis and Mysterijs initiandis Eusebius Emissenus Cyprian de caena Domini the Canon of the Nicen counsell and Magnetes as suspected by your owne Rabbies not to be the men whose names they beare Againe of Damascen Theophylact Euthymius Nicephorus and Rupertus as being Punies and too young to be Fathers besides those many Passages which are miserably either curtald or rackt or falsely alleaged Neither are their words so plain for you as you pretend For I haue made it to appeare that some of them say nothing at all for you some speak rather against you then for you and to those that seeme to say any thing I haue opposed a whole grand Iury speaking farre more plainely on our side For what words can be more plaine then these This is my body that is the figure of my Body that Christ said This bread is my body which your owne men grant cannot bee true vnlesse figuratiuely vnderstood that Bread and Wine still are what they were that the Nature of bread continues that the nature of bread and wine cease not to be but continue in the propriety of their nature that the signes after consecration depart not from their proper nature but remaine in their former substance figure and forme and suchlike many But perhaps your Fathers speake as plainely Let vs try that They say that the Body flesh and bloud of Christ is truly in the Sacrament Ergo a Reall Presence Who denies it Transubstantiation is that which you should proue which Reall Presence inferres not This you say you vnderstand not The more is your dulnesse For Really and Corporally are not all one and that which is Spiritually present is Really present vnlesse you will say that a spirit is Nothing Is not the Bloud of Christ really present in Baptisme to the washing away of sinne Is hee not Really also present to the Faith of every true beleever even out of the Sacrament Doubtlesse he is and none will deny it but he that never felt the vertue and efficacy thereof What should let then but the Flesh of Christ may bee present in the Eucharist Really and yet not after the Corporall manner Nay what if I should yeeld you a corporall presence Would that necessarily inferre a Transubstantiation Nothing lesse For it may be by consubstantiation the flesh being there together with the Bread without turning the Bread into Flesh. Neither may you deny this to be possible vnlesse you will deny the Omnipotency of God and your Transubstantiation withall for therevpon doe you build it Transubstantiation therefore and the Reall presence are not all one Yea but the Fathers vse the tearmes of Conversion Mutation What then Ergo Transubstantiation A pittifull consequence For this is to argue from the Generall to Speciall as if you should say It is a colour therefore it is blacke there being many colours besides blacke Learne then that Change is a generall word and there are divers kindes thereof of Substance by Generation and corruption of Quality by Alteration of Quantity by Augmentation and Diminution of Place by Lation Now he that affirmeth a Change doth not presently affirme Change of Substance for it may be some other either of Quality or Quantity or Quantity or Place The Fathers therefore speaking of a Change in the Sacrament may as well meane a Change of Alteration in the Vse and Uertue of the Elements as of Substance by way of Transubstantiation And so for ought the Fathers say Transubstantiation may still be a brat of the Lateran Councells disputed of perhaps before but neuer beleeved as an Article of Faith till then N. N. I allow no authority after 600. yeares Ergo I acknowledge the next 1000. to be contrary in this and all other controversies betwixt vs. I. D. To speake plainely I allow no Authority at all as Infallible but only that of Christ and his Apostles Those that afterwards succeeded were all of them subiect vnto errour and cannot be the ground of our Faith as I haue elsewhere answerably demonstrated Howbeit those of the first 600 yeares wee reverence more and rather admit then those of the 1000 following because they were freer from errour as liuing neerer the Apostles times and before the first discouery of Antichrist which was about the yeare 607. when Boniface the third purchased of that bloudy tyrant Phocas the title of Vniversall Bishop and with it the supremacy over all Churches Whereof his predecessor Gregory the great seemed to prophecy when writing against Iohn B. of Constantinople for vsurping that title he gathereth from thence that the times of Antichrist are at hand After which discouery although errours every day crept in apace yet wee yeeld you not that all your opinions instantly and at once leapt into the Church For as Rome it selfe was not built in a day so neither was that huge heape of Romanish impieties raised in one age It was a good while after this before Transubstantiation began to appeare Damascen in the East not contenting himselfe with the old language of the Church fell a coyning of new Phrases yet reached not home to Transubstantiation A hundred yeares after Amalarius in the west maintained in plaine tearms that the simple nature of Bread and wine is turned into a reasonable nature to wit of the body and bloud of Christ. And herein was he seconded by Paschasius Radbertus and others Yet could they not carry it so clearly but that they were mightily opposed by the most famous writers in their times whose names you haue in mine Answer But specially by Bertram vnder Carolus Calvus of whom Turrian the Iesuit thus to cite Bertram what is it other then to say the heresie of Calvin is not new And a good time afterwards againe by Berengarius on whose side many disputed both by word and writing and those not of one nation only but English French and Italians as Mathew of Westminster saith But all these Antichrist who was now in his height bare downe and at length anno 1215. vnder Innocent the third in the Lateran Councel was the Idol set vpon its base and adored So lately with so much adoe was your doctrine of Transubstantiation brought in and established N. N. For 900. yeares was no outward face of a Church in England but the Catholike In which it were vncharitable to say that none knewe the meaning of Scriptures and Fathers as well as we or all liued in ignorance till the true light came in with Luther Yet in this last age England hath yeelded many learned men among others an vnkle of yours and Master of Arts who left all his hopes for his conscience and would not bee perswaded to returne to his great possibilities which
and with more patience then he But this in no case may be imagined His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his feare and consternation his strong cries his agonie and bloudy sweat his earnest prayer that if it were possible the cuppe might passe from him and that lamentable expostulation my God my God why hast thou forsaken me doe all mainely argue that his pangs were high strained and extraordinary For although he were not forsaken of his Father either by breach of personall vnion or losse of vnction or diminution of grace or despaire of protection and deliuerance yet he was abandond and â—eft destitute of all present comfort so that his sorrowes could not but bee aboue all other sorrowes And indeed how could it bee otherwise For not to speake of the paines of the body which yet some affirme to be more intense then could be of other men by reason of the perfection and finenesse of his complection his sorrowes were not for the sinnes of one man but of the whole world which could be no lesse then a world of sorrow And if his loue to vs were so infinite that he was content to suffer all these extremities for vs his sorrow for the miseries wee were in could be no lesse but must every way bee answerable vnto his loue So must it vnto his wisdome also for by it perfectly knowing and apprehending all the causes and reasons of sorrow it cannot be avoided but that according to this knowledge apprehension his sorrowes should be strained and intended The last point is the Duration of his paines or how long he suffered them They were not eternell nor might continue vpon him for ever Had they so continued hee had never conquered death nor hell and hauing not freed himselfe from them how could hee set vs free They continued therefore vpon him but that houre the time destined by his Father therevnto which being once expired all his paines and sorrowes ceased together therewith Here it will surely be obiected the punishment due vnto sinne is an eternall punishment If then the sufferings of Christ were only temporarie and not eternall how hath he suffered and satisfied sufficiently for sinne For time holdeth no proportion with eternity Wherevnto I answer first that in regard of the dignity of his person the shortest punishment inflicted vpon him is equivalent to the eternall punishment laid vpon others For hee is not a meere man but God and man And as there is not betweene time and eternity so neither is there betweene God and meere man any proportion at all I answere secondly that eternall punishment is due only to an eternall sinne not to that which is interrupted and broken off by grace Sinne though the act thereof bee transient yet it leaueth such a staine vpon the soule as continueth in it evermore if by mercy it be not blotted out and evermore disposeth vnto sinne Now he that is so disposed sinneth in suo aeterno and hauing as much as lies in him a perpetuall purpose of sinning he shall as he deserues perpetually and everlastingly bee punished But they for whom Christ died haue their sinnes broken off by grace their soules by little and little cleansed from the staines of sin in his bloud a hatred and detestation of sinne wrought in them together with a sincere loue and study of holinesse vntill sinne be vtterly destroyed and abolished in them Christ therefore thus purposing to put a full end to all their sinnes reason would that an end 〈◊〉 should bee set vnto his sufferings and their sinnes not being eternall that neither his sufferings should bee eternall And thus much for the Duration of his Passion The vse of all may be this First seeing Christ hath suffered all these things and that for vs it is fit that we by all waies and meanes should study to come to the full knowledge thereof It was not for Angells and yet they earnestly desired to looke into this mistery Vs it concernes only and nothing more then it and can wee possibly neglect the learning of it The Apostle Saint Paul accounted the knowledge hereof to be of all other the most excellent and all other things in comparison of it to bee but losse and dung Wherevpon he protesteth that among the Corinthians he was resolved not to know any thing saue Christ Iesus and him crucified Why then should not wee bee of the same and pray with him that wee may be able to comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height That knowing what great matters hee hath done for vs wee may be the more incited to bee thankefull vnto him for it Secondly seeing it pleased the Father thus to decree that his sonne should suffer all these things for the satisfaction of his iustice and that otherwise he would not be appeased for sinne we may thereby learne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how precisely rigorous God is in the punishment of sinne together with the vilenesse and odiousnesse thereof The due consideration whereof would both terrifie vs from the committing of sinne and worke in our hearts a loathing detestation of sinne For if God will not be pacified without full satisfaction how dare we commit it And if nothing can cleanse the leprosie thereof but only the bloud of the sonne of God how can we but abhorre it Thirdly seeing he hath resolued to appease his wrath and to rest satisfied for sinne in the sufferings of his sonne wee may therein as in a crystall glasse clearly behold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great loue of God towards man It was not for the sinning Angells and their redemption that he gaue his sonne but for vs men and our salvation Rather then he would loose the whole race of mankind he would spare nothing no not his best beloued With whom although he were ever well pleased yet he must needs suffer for vs that in him he may be also well pleased with vs. Feare we not therefore nor despaire of grace Though our sinnes be never so many and greivous yet the sonne of God hath satisfied for them all Tender wee this payment vnto his Father and it cannot but be accepted But yet lastly seeing his sufferings were but a short time and so not intended for eternall sinnes but those only which were to haue an end it may giue vs a cave at to breake off our sinnes be time least being iustly cut off in them they proue eternall to vs and so we haue no benefit in the sufferings of Christ. For as the Apostle St Paule saith if obstinately and wilfully we resolue to sinne after we haue received the knowledge of the truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sinnes For this is to tread vnder foot the Sonne of God to count the bloud of the Couenant wherewith we were sanctified an vnholy thing and to doe despite vnto the spirit of grace But of this second part the worke of the houre enough The third
the Church may be without them So was it for some while after Christs Ascention for then neither was the Christian Church so Eminent as that of the Iewes nor was it Vniversall as being confined within Iudea nor great in number as consisting but of a very few nor in Possession of the name Catholike it being a word of a latter date and such as could not well be giuen it vntill it was growne Catholike So will it be also if wee may beleeue your owne writers in the time of Antichrist For then the Church shall bee darkned all externall communion with it shall cease there shall be no Sacrament in publike places all the glory and dignity of Ecclesiasticall order shall lye buried none shall come vnto the solemnity of the Lambe an innumerable multitude shall cleaâ—e vnto Antichrist even all besides the elect and those whose names are written in the booke of life But lastly whether these things be Markes or no is not now much materiall for it makes little to the purpose wee haue sufficiently proued that the Church is not the last Resolution of Faith As touching the second point that the Church may be beleeved securely for that shee can neither deceiue nor bee deceiued I demand what you meane by the Church If the company of all true Beleeuers that now are and heretofore haue beene including the holy Apostles together with them then I grant it For these were so lead by the Spirit into all truth that they could not possibly erre in any matter of Faith that was either to be taught by them or knowne by vs. But if you meane the Present Church in every age successiuely after the Apostles as here Saint Austin doth referring his friend Honoratus therevnto then I distinguish Either you must vnderstand thereby the whole number of true beleeuers who for the present life in the world or the Society and Fellowship of those that in their time rule and sway most in the Church If you take it in the former sense I grant what you say to be true in Fundamentall points but not in such as are not absolutely necessary nor preiudice the Foundation of Faith If in the latter then I affirme that the Church may both deceiue and be deceiued even in Doctrines of highest consequence neither can with such security bee beleeued Witnesse the time when the whole world groaned vnder Arianisme and the greatest part of the Prelates together with Liberius Bishop of Rome subscribed therevnto Neither doth the passage you alledge out of Saint Austin inferre the contrary For although the surest course to put an end to all labours and turmoiles be to follow the way of Catholike discipline which hath flowne downe to vs from Christ by his Apostles yet the Authority that swayeth most in the Present Church doth not alwaies either follow this way her selfe or direct others vnto it as for example it did not in the time aboue mentioned of the Arian heresy And thus much in answere vnto your generall ground N. N. Now I will shew first out of the old Testament how it was prefigured and prophecied and in the new both promised againe exhibited and confirmed by the intendment interpretation of the gravest and most ancient Fathers that haue lived in the Church of God from age to age who vnderstand so the said Figures and foreshewing of the old Testament As for example the Bread and Wine mysteriously offered vnto almighty God by Melchizedek King and Priest who bare the type of our Saviour The shew-bread among the Iewes that only could bee eaten of them that were sanctified And the Bread sent miraculously by an Angell to Elias whereby he was so strengthned as hee travelled forty daies by vertue only of that Bread These three sorts of bread to haue beene expresse Figures of this Sacrament of the true flesh of Christ therein contained doe testify by one consent the ancient Fathers as Cyprian â—lemens Alexandrinus Ambrose Hierom Chrysostom Augustine Cyrill Arnobius Euseb. many others as my author fetâ—eh downe Three other figures not expressed in the forme of Bread but other things more excellent then Bread as the Paschal Lamb the blood of the testament described in Exodus and to the Hebrues and fulfilled by Christ when he said This cup is the new testament in my blood and againe this is my blood of the new testament The Manna also sent by God from heaven was an expresse figure of this Sacrament as appeareth by the words of our Saviour and of the Apostle I. D. This Argument seemeth to be of great esteeme among you for who almost vrgeth it not and that with great confidence It standeth thus Melchizedecks Bread and Wine the Shew-bread Elias his Bread the Paschal-Lambe the Bloud of the Testament and Manna bee Figureâ— of our Sacrament Ergo Christ is corporally and locally present therein by way of Transubstantiation The consequence you maintaine in the next Section the Antecedent in this Wherevnto I answer first that the Legall sacraments and ceremonies if we may beleeue Scripture directly respected Christ So saith S. Paul They are a shadow of things to come but the Body is of Christ. And again Sacrifice and offerings thou wouldest not but a Body hast thou prepared me And hence is it that he doubteth not to call Christ our Passeouer or 〈◊〉 Lambâ— and to affirm that the Rock whereof the Israelites dranke in the â—â—ldernesse was Christ. Yea our Saviour himselfe plainly professeth that the Brasen serpent did prefigure him and that he was the Bread or Manna that came downe from heauen But that those Sacraments and Ceremonies are Types Figures of ours otherwise then by representing the same Substance together with ours I suppose if you searched every corner of Scripture neuer so narrowly you should never finde it therein Adde herevnto that our SacrameÌ„ts are themselues Figures being as S Augustine saith one thing and signifying another Whence it would follow that the old Sacraments being Figures of the New they should be Figures of Figures and Sacraments of Sacraments which standeth not greatly with reason For thus the Circumcision of the foreâ—kinne should figure the Water of Baptisme and water Christ and curious heads might runne on infinitely and as Irenaeus sometime obiected vnto the Heretikes of his time might ever bee devising of types vpon types and figures vpon figures Lastly if the Sacraments of the old Testament were but Signes of ours it would follow that they were ordained rather for the benefit of the Christian then the Iewish Church which is absurd For of our Sacraments which you say is the thing signified by theirs benefit they never reaped any as neuer being partakers of them and to leaue vnto them no more but bare signes that is emptie shels without the kernell how it might availe them I cannot conceaue Certainely all Sacraments
say that he brought forth Bread and Wine and not to God as an Oblation but to Abraham for his refection If he had offered vp Bread Wine as a Sacrifice to God how commeth it to passe that the Apostle comparing the Priesthood of Christ and Melchizedeck so particularly maketh no mention at all thereof For certainly the point being so materiall and the place so fit it must needs bee great ignorance or negligence to omit it To say nothing that if your owne reason be good the Sacrifice of Melchizedeck shall be inferiour to that of Aaron Bread and Wine being of lesse value and not so evidently representing the death of Christ as the slaying of Beasts doth Secondly you say that the true Flesh of Christ is contained in this Sacrament and that the ancient Fathers with one consent testifie the same which in your sense and meaning is vtterly false For neither is the Flesh of Christ vnder the Accidents of Bread by Transubstantiation neither doth any of the ancient Fathers testifie it as in the sequele God willing shall more plainely appeare Thirdly where you say and many others as my Author setteth downe it seemeth that in this point you beleeue but by an Attornie pinning your Faith vnto the credit of I knowe not whom The true flesh of Christ say you is contained in the Sacrament How knowe you that By the ioint consent of Fathers And how know you they consent therein My Author tells me so And what may he be Peter or Paul or one of them vpon whom clouen tongues descended I trow no but some equivocating Priest or Iesuite A sure rock I promise you to stay your faith vpon You say lastly that the Bloud of the Testament described Exod. 24. Heb. 9. was fulfilled when Christ said This cup is the new Testament in my Bloud False For then hee did but institute the Sacrament of his death and fulfilled it the day following when really hee suffered death vpon the Crosse. And what reason haue you to thinke it was performed in a Commemoratiue sacrifice wherein your selues confesse there is no effusion of Bloud rather then in the true Sacrifice vpon the Crosse wherein the pretious bloud of the sonne of God was plentifully shed N. N. Out of all which Figures is inferred that for so much as there must bee great difference betwixt the Figure and the thing prefigured no lesse if we beleeue S. Paul then betweene the Shadow and the Body whose Shadow it is it cannot be imagined by any probability that this Sacrament exhibited by Christ in performance of the Figures should be only creatures of Bread and Wine as Sacramentaries doe imagine for then should the Figure be either equall or more excellent then the thing prefigured it selfe For who will not confesse but that Elias his Bread made by the Angell that gaue him strength to walke fortie daies vpon the vertue thereof was equall to our English Communion Bread and that the Manna was much better I. D. The Antecedent being as we haue shewed vntrue it is no matter what Consequence soeuer you deduce from it Neverthelesse let vs for the present suppose it to be true What inferre you therevpon The Real Presence and Transubstantiation How so I pray you Because otherwise the Figure would be either equall or more excellent then the thing prefigured which is absurd and contrary to the rule of S. Paul This indeed I confesse would bee absurd but how doe you shew it to be so in this particular By a double instance of Elias his bread and Manna whereof you say the one was equall the other more excellent then our English Communion Bread But still I deny the consequence the weaknesse whereof if you see not in this I hope you will in the like Argument The Cloud the Red sea and Circumcision were all as you say Figures of Baptisme and the Figure is euer inferiour to the thing Figured If therefore Baptisme be only Water and suffer no Transubstantiation at all the Figure is equall or more excellent then the thing Figured For the Water of the Cloud the Red sea was equall to the Water of Baptisme and the Foreskin in Circumcision is much better as being part of the Flesh of man What say you now Doth this Argument follow yea or no If yea then haue wee a Real Presence also in Baptisme by Transubstantiation of Water which I suppose you will not admit If no then neither doth it follow in the Eucharist for the reason is exactly the same in both Would you yet more plainely see your errour It is this your Disiunction is not sufficient either there is a Real Presence or the Iewish Figures equall our Sacraments For there are diuers other waies wherein our Sacraments excell theirs although there be no such Presence at all What waies will you say Verily not in the worth or value of the outward Elements for therein they may be exceeded nor in the thing signified for it is one the same in both even Christ Iesus Wherein then Even in these particulars First their Sacraments respected Christ yet to be exhibited in the flesh our Christ alredy exhibited Now as the Faith of things future is ever more languid and faint then of things past so is the adumbration and shadowing of them vnto Faith more obscure also Secondly although Flesh may perhaps seeme better to expresse Christs body then Bread the killing of the sacrifice his death then the breaking of Bread yet in regard of the word annexed vnto ours plainly declaring what they are to what end instituted and what proportion there is betweene the signe and the thing signified ours must needs be more evident and cleare then theirs Even as a Picture to vse S. Chysostomes similitude when it is perfected and set forth with liuely colours better representeth the person of the Prince then when no more but the first lineaments thereof are drawne or it is yet but darkly coloured Thirdly in the Eucharist are figured two things the Death of Christ our Communion with him That without this availes no more to our soules health then the sight of meat without touching it to the nourishment of our bodies That is shadowed by the breaking of Bread and powring out of Wine Not so expresly will you say as by the Leviticall sacrifices Suppose it though in regard of the Sacramentall words the cleare knowledge we haue of this mysterie it is far otherwise Yet this I meane our Communion with Christ is as exactly represented by the Eating of Bread and Drinking of Wine as nothing can be more Finally seeiâ—g the Iewes were strictly commanded to abstaine from Bloud and we on the other side are charged Sacramentally in the Wine to drinke Bloud and in the Bread to eate Flesh our Sacrament even in regard of the externall ceremonie is to bee preferred to the Iewish And thus you see wherein our Sacraments excell theirs Now where you affirme that
that receaue it The body of Christ not many Bodies but one Body Whence I argue as wee by receauing the Sacrament are made Christs Body so is the Bread But wee are not made his Body corporally by way of Transubstantiation Ergo neither is the Bread nay much lesse is the Bread But Saint Chrysostome saith Not by faith only but in very deed True Yet not as if he that is ioyned to Christ by Faith were not indeed ioyned for as Saint Augustine saith The Apostle deceiueth vs not who saith that Christ dwelleth in our harts by faith He is in thee because faith is in thee Nor as if he would exclude Faith and that a man might be vnited vnto Christ by some other meanes without Faith How then His meaning plainly is this that wee are ioyned vnto Christ by Faith and by charity and that this coniunction is not only imaginary as some may foolishly conceiue by the apprehension of the mind and phantasy or by participation of the spirituall gifts and graces of Christ but true and Reall by communication of his very Flesh vnto vs. Of which more in the next testimony Saint Cyril saith that wee are conioyned vnto Christ corporally by communication of his flesh and againe that in the Sacrament wee corporally and substantially receiue the Sonne of God Wherevnto I answere that Saint Cyril disputeth against a certaine Heretike who held that wee are one with Christ by Faith in his Deity and not by coniuction with his Flesh and to this purpose wrested that saying of our Saviour wherein he calleth himselfe a Vine vs the branches and his Father the Husbandman To refute this he endeavoureth to shew that wee are ioyned vnto him not only by that Faith whereby wee beleeue him to be the Sonne of God and that Charity whereby wee loue him and spiritually embrace him but also in our Flesh to his very Flesh and that therefore Christ not only in regard of Deity is the Vine and wee his Branches but also in respect of his Body May it not saith hee conveniently be said that his humanity is the vine and wee the Branches by reason of the identity of nature And to proue this he drawes his argument from this Sacrament for that by it not only the gifts and graces of his Deity but also his true reall Body is after an inscrutable and vnspeakable manner communicated vnto vs. True it is he vseth the word corporally but he saith also by the participation of the same flesh Whereby he insinuateth that hee intendeth not by that word to expresse the Manner how we are vnited but the Thing wherevnto wee are vnited after a Bodily manner but vnto the Body Else this absurdity will follow that wee by the Sacrament are after a Bodily manner in Christ as well as Christ is in vs for Saint Cyril affirmeth both that wee are corporally in Christ and Christ corporally in vs. Whereas therefore Cyril saith not only by Faith and charity but also corporally he doth not exclude the one but admitteth both as appeareth by that he saith both spiritually and corporally are wee the Branches and Christ the Vine And the plaine meaning is that not only in regard of the Spirit or Deity of Christ and our faith charity but also in respect of his very Flesh are wee truly ioyned vnto him More briefly wee are vnited not to his Divinity or Humanity alone but vnto both N. N. Wherevnto for more explication addeth Theophilact When Christ said this is my Body hee shewed that it was his very Body indeede and not any Figure correspondent therevnto for he said not This is the figure of my body but this is my body By which words the bread is transformed by an vnspeakable operation though to vs it seeme still bread And againe in another place Behold that the Bread which is eaten by vs in the mysteries is not only a figuration of Christs flesh but the very flesh indeed for that the Bread is transformed by secret words into the flesh And another Father more ancient then he aboue twelue hundred yeares past handled these words of Christ This is my Body saith It is not the figure of Christs Body and Blood as some blockish minds haue trifled but it is truly the Body and Blood of our Saviour indeed I. D. The testimonies of Theophilact I might safely if I would passe over in silence for that hee liued some nine hundred yeares after Christ and therefore is too young to be reckoned among the ancient Fathers Neverthelesse let vs heare what he brings Christ saith not This is the figure of my body but this is my body True neither was it fit to speake otherwise For in the institution of a Sacrament what forme can be more fit then that which is proper to a Sacrament That forme is to giue vnto the signe the name of that whereof it is a signe Hence is circumcision called the covenant and the Lamb the Passeover and Baptisme our Death and Buriall with Christ. The reason because of the resemblance that is betweene the Sacraments and those things whereof they are Sacraments as Saint Augustine saith As also to raise our thoughts from setling on that which is earthly and elementall in them to the contemplation of that heauenly grace which is signified and exhibited by them as Theodoret saith But of this what doth he collect That it is his very body indeed and not any figure thereof Not any Figure Those that are both his ancestors and betters say otherwise Tertullian The bread that was taken and given to the Disciples Christ made his body saying This is my body that is the Figure of my body Augustine The Lord did not sticke to say This is my body when hee gaue the signe of his body And againe The Lord at his supper commended and deliuered to his Disciples the figure of his body and blood Amhrose The new Testament is confirmed by blood in a Figure of which blood wee receiue the mysticall cup. Hierom Iesus tooke bread and giuing thankes brake it transfiguring his body into the bread Finally for it would be infinite to alledge all what more frequent in the writings of the Fathers then Signes Sacraments Figures Symbols Types Anti-types Mysteries Samplars Images Similitudes Remembrances and the like Against all whose yea Theophilacts Nay is not worth a straw Yet for all this if you will giue him leaue to interpret himselfe I see not but his Nay may easily bee reconciled to their Yea. For in the next passage by you vouched he faith It is not only a Figuration as if hee should say A figure it is but it is not only so not a bare and naked Figure but a Figure endued from on high with the efficacy of the Spirit according to that of St Cyprian The truth is present to the signe and the spirit to the Sacrament As