one no more then Christs body and the glorification of it nor againe the transfiguration the present glorification The Argument therefore is neither idle nor forcelessâ— for ought that he hath yet shewed Diuision 10. HIs next Argument pag. 13. is grossely carnall and vnfit indeede to be answered For who but a babbling ignorant Person would as he doth there make such an inference Christs hands and feete were visible and palpable after his passion which tediously and needelesly he prooueth But they are not so in the Eucharist Ergo the naturall parts of Christs bodie are not at all in it For if the Argument were good we might rightly inferre that Christ had no body at all when in Emaus for example after he had blessed and brake bread he vanished out of the Disciples sight when he hid himselfe from the Iewes who would haue stoned him in the Temple not by running into a corner as this grosse fellow peraduenture may of Christ basely and vnworthily imagine but by becomming vndiscernable by them as he became also inuisible and impalpable to the Nazarites holding and drawing him towards the hill on which there Citie was built whence they ment to tumble him As if locall extension visibilitie palpabilitie and other naturall Accidents and sensible properties could not by Gods omnipotency be seuered from his owne bodie without the totall destruction thereof This is a grosse kinde of Philosophie and Diuinitie fit for such a stupide Professour MY fourth Argument was taken from the Nature of Christs Body which hath slesh blood and bones is an organicall body endued with limmes and lineaments yea and life too Whereas that which is giuen and receiued in the Eucharist is as Epiphanius well obserueth liuelesse and limmelesse c. Now here according to his vsuall manner he letteth the Argument goe and falleth to raile downe right that it is an argument grossely carnall and vnfit indeede to be answered of a babbling and ignorant person and a stupide professour He sheweth where his shoe wringeth him Yet that he may not seeme to say nothing to it he frameth me an Argument of his owne on this wise Christs hands and feete were visible and palpable after his Passion But they are not so in the Eucharist ergò Whereas I tell him that Christs body hath flesh blood and bones and sense and life and limmes and lineaments of a body organicall But their silly sorry wafer-cake hath none of all these And then he telleth vs that I might as well affirme that Christ had no body when at Emaus hee vanished out of the sight of his Disciples when he hid himselfe from the Iewes that would haue stoned him in the Temple when he passed through the midst of them that would haue thrown him downe head-long c. 1. Let him prooue vnto vs that at any of these times those that had Christs body in their hands to feele at their pleasure as his Disciples had when hee appeared vnto them after his passion and resurrection which in prosecution of mine Argument I produce also and presse did finde it and feele it to haue neither hands nor feete flesh blood nor bone life nor limme and the consequence shall then bee granted him but neuer till then And looke what limmes and lineaments our Sauiour then had when hee was here on earth the same he retaineth still Augustine demanded whether Christs body had bones and blood still and other bodily limmes and lineaments I beleeue saith he that Christs body is now in heauen as it was on earth when he went vp into heauen For so when the Disciples doubted whether it were a body or a spirit that they saw he had them see and feele his hands and feete for that a spirit had not flesh and bones as they saw that hee had So he was on earth so he was seene to be when he went to heauen and so shall he as the Angell told come againe from thence But such wee are sure their little breaden God is not It is none of Christ therefore 2. Looke how this man argueth so did the Heretâ—kes of old to prooue our Sauiour Christ to haue an aiery spirituall aad fantasticall body Let it not deceiue you you simple sots saith Iohn of Ierusalem when you reade that Christ shewed Thomas his hands and his side or when you heare him say that he hath flesh and bones These things he made some shew of indeede to strenghthen the saith of his doubting Disciples But he shewed that hee had an aiâ—ry and spirituall body in truth when he came to his Disciples while the doores were shut and hee vanished out of their sight And to the like purpose did the Marciâ—nites vrge his escape froÌ„ those of Nazareth Now what do the ancient Fathers hereunto answer That Christs body saith Tertullian is no fancy euer hereby appeareth in that it endâ—red violent handling when hee was taken and held and haled to the hill-brow For albeit hee made an escape through the midst of them being first forcibly held and after let goe either the throng being dissolued or forcibly broken through yet was it not by any fantasticall delusion For he had a true body still and hands that hee touched others still with and were by them felt and then his body belike was not impalpable as this fellow saith it was And againe when Christ sheweth his Disciples his hands and his feet without doubt he hath hands and feet and bones which a spirit hath not And Ierome refuting Iohn of Ierusalem As Christ shewed his Disciples true hands and a true side so hee ate truely with them spake with his tongue truely to them and with his hands truely brake and reached them out bread For that he suddenly vanished out of their sight as before his passion also at Nazareth he passed through the midst of them that is he made an escape out of their hands it was done by his diuine power not by any fantasticall delusion Could not Christ doe as much as some Magitians haue done Apollonius as he stood in the Court before Domitian vanished suddenly out of sight Yet doe you not therefore match Christs power with Magicians iuglings in making him seeme to bee that that hee was not to eate without teeth breake bread without hands walke without feet speake without tongue shew a side without ribs And whereas it might be demanded how it came to passe that those two Disciples did not know him till a little before hee left them Ierome maketh answer out of the Text it selfe that it was not because his body was not the same it had beene but because their eyes were held that they might not know him And the same Ierome else-where dealing against the same dotages Christ saith hee had hands and sides had breast and bellie too he that had hands and feete had armes
as spoken to assure them that hee came downe from heauen The truth is this exposition it not Chrysostomes but Bellarmines from whom this Collector hath filched it who yet to adde some grace and procure some weight to an inuention of his owne saith that c Chrysostome to him seemeth to point at some such thing And what Bellarmine saith cautelously and timorously Chrysostome to him seemeth to point at that this blinde bayard saith boldly and confidently that Chrysostome saith and vpon the Exposition as backed now sufficiently with Chrysostome he buildeth a peremptory answer to all mine Obiections that will easily remooue them all Did this man thinke that these things would euer be examined Or is his credit so meane already that he need not feare to bee discredited that hee dare vse such sorry shifts as these are 2. Grant all to be Chrysostomes and all to bee as true as if not Chrysostome but Christ himselfe had said it what will thence bee concluded to prooue that Christs body may be in many places at once But since hee hath cited this place though to small purpose let him heare Augustines words on it going directly agaiust them and these absurd fantasies of theirs Christ saith he doth in these wordes solue that that mooued them and openeth that whereas they were jcandalized For they thought that hee would giue them out his body but he told them that be should gâ—e vp whole into heauen As if hee had said When you shall see the Sonne of Man ascend where hee was before certainely then you shall see that he doth not giue out his body in such a manner as you imagine Certainely euen then you shall vnderstand that his grace is not consumed by bits And to Augustine addewe Athanasius one as ancient as the Nicene Councell and a principall person in it Christ disputing saith hee of the eating of his body and seeing many therevpon scandalized thus spake Doth this scandalize you What then if you shall see the Sonne of Man ascend where before he was It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing The words that I speake are spinit and life For heere he spake of both both his flesh and his spirit and distinguished the spirit from the flesh that beleeuing not onely that that appeared to the eyes but that also that was invisible they might learne that those things also that he spake were not carnall but spirituall For to how many men could his body haue sufficed to eate of that it might be the foodalso of the whole world But therefore made he mention of his ascension into heauen that hee might withdraw them form the corporall vnderstanding and that then they might vnderstand that his flesh which hee spake of was heauenly meate from aboue and spirituall food to be giuen by him For saith he Those things which I haue spoken to you are spirit and life Which is euen all one as if hee had said My body that is shewed and giuen shall be giuen to bee meate for the whole world that it may spiritually be distributed to each one and become to each one a safegard and preseruatiue for resurrection to life eternall So little doth this place auaile for this purpose as the Ancients both Latine and Greeke expound it making much rather against them this popish doctrine of a carnall feeding on Christs flesh which those Fathers gather and prooue thence to be wholly spirituall But thus iudicious is he in the choice of his allegations and so sincere in his citations of the Ancients putting downe their names only but pointing to no place that his fraud and forgeries may not be discouered and fastening vpon them his owne or his owne associates expositions wholly differing and dissenting from that that themselues say MOreouer it is a wilde kinde of arguing from the naturall and locall extension of bodies to inferre as my Adversary doth page 16. that by no possible power of God any body can want this locall extension this being a secondary effect of quantity and an accidentall propriety which God may therefore easily hinder and conserue without it bodily substance as our Sauiour himselfe insinuateth in the Gospell affirming for a thing possible with God to make a great Camell to passe through the eye of a needle by taking to wit from it exterior bignesse and locall extension Of which Camell so extenuated and straitned in place all the very same may be proportionably affirmed which this Minister accounteth so absurd by vs held of Christs body in the Sacrament And supposing truely that the body of Christ hath no extension in place it is ridiculous for this ignorant Minister to make such inferences as that any part of Christs body must be as great and greater then his whole body and his whole body lesse then any part of it For if neither the whole nor any part thereof as it is in the Sacrament hath any exterior bignesse at all how can one part be said to bee bigger then the whole as of two blacke things a man should say one was whiter then the other when neither had any whitenesse at all in them § 4. TO the recitâ—ll of their absurd assertions that there is a whole Christ flesh blood and bone head hands and feet belly breast and backe in euery little wafer-cake and euery least crumme of each and consequently the whole body of Christ on earth lesse then the least limme or fingers end of it in heaven as also to the allegations out of Augustine that this cannot be for that in euery true body the parts cannot bee altogether but must haue their due distance and each of them his space or place according to his bignesse and none of them can be bigger then the whole He maketh answer that this is but a wilde kinde of reasoning and yet it is Augustine that so reasoneth whom hee might haue beene pleased to vse with better tearmes telleth vs what our Sauiour saith of a Camell passing thorow a needles ey as if what were spoken there by our Sauiour of the one did relieue the absurditie of the other which no whit it doth being onely an hyperbolicall speech vsed to set forth the impossibility with man of such a rich mans salvation as hee there speaketh of and informeth this ignorant Minister that neither the whole body of Christ nor any part of it as it is in the Sacrament hath any exterior bignesse at all 1. Did any man euer before heare of a body without bignesse or a coâ—pus non quantum without those dimensions that are so vnseparable from a body that the very same name is giuen vnto either and wee haue no particular name either in Greeke or Latine to expresse the one by but that which is the vsuall appellation of the other But a number of such absurd dreames and dotages doth this prodigious doctrine produce Accidents without subiects
fruit of the vine in the next verse And that which is called Christs body by the Apostle is immediately after more then once or twice expounded to bee bread § 3. The very scope saith he or Bellarmine by him of visions and parables doth still shew in what sense the words are literally to be taken as the seuen kine ten hornes c. And doth not the very nature of signes and Sacraments shew in what sense the wordes vsed of or in them are to be taken to wit figuratiuely and symbolically not properly or essentially For what are Signes and Sacraments but reall parables both therefore tearmed Mysteries as Chrysostome noteth because one thing is seene in the one as heard in the other and some other thing vnderstood Or what is more vâ—uall then as Augustine and others well obserue that Signes and Sacraments be called by the names of those things which they are signes and sacraments of What Sacrament also is there wherein or whereof such speeches are not vsed Circumcision is called the Covenant the pasohall Lambe the Passeouer the Rocke Christ Bapâ—â—sme the Laver of Regeneration And in like manner saith Augustine is the bread Christâ— body the name of the thing signified saith Theodoret being giuen to the signe So that whereas this worthy writer thus argueth out of Bellarmine In visions and parables the very scope euer sheweth that the things spoken are to bee vnstoode figuratiuely But these places the seven kine and the ten hornes are visions and parables And therefore the things therein spoken are to be taken figuratiuely Why may not we as wel reason on this wise The very nature of signes and sacraments leadeth vnto this that when the names of the things whereof they are signes and sacraments are given vnto them it is to bee vnderstood not properly but figuratiuely But it is a Sacrament wherein and whereof these speeches are vsed This is my bodie and This is my blood These wordes therefore wherein the name of the thing signified is giuen to the Sacrament are to bee vnderstood figuratiuely And so hee hath from his owne grounds by due proportion somewhat more to conclude then was before required to wit not onely that there is nothing that may enforce vs to expound them literally but that there is somewhat of moment to induce vs to expound them figuratiuely § 4. In all such figuratiue speeches saith he further out of Bellarmine Semper praedicatur de disparato disparatum One thing is said to be another when it cannot be indiâ—idually or specifically the same but wholly different in nature from it A man for example as Christ was cannot but similitudinarily be a Rock a Vine or a Lion But in Christs words This is my body no such absurd or impossible thing is affirmed but only that the substance which he had in his hands was his body made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it 1. In this speech of our Sauiour This is my body as well as in that speech of the Prophet This is Ierusalem or in that speech of the Apostle The Rocke was Christ is one thing to wit bread as is afterward prooued both by the course of the context the words of the Apostle and the doctrine of the ancient Fathers said to bee an other thing to wit the flesh of Christ which is wholly different in nature from it Nor can this worthy Disputer prooue theÌ„ contrary vnlesse you grant him the point in question which heere hee shamefully beggeth to make good his Assertion to wit that that which Christ had in his hands was his bodie made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it 2. A man may as well be a rocke as a rocke may bee a man or bread may be flesh And why was it not as possible for the rocke to be turned into Christ and so to become Christ as for bread to bee turned into the bodie of Christ and so to be the flesh of Christ that the one might be vnderstood properly as well as the other If they will say It is impossible that the rocke should bee turned into the flesh of Christ before Christ was incarnate I might answer them as they vse to do vs that God is able to do all things And questionlesse it is as possible that the rock should be turned into that flesh that as yet was not as that a little thinne wafer cake or the compasse of it at least should containe Christs whole and entire body here on earth while the very selfe same indiuiduall body should be whole and entire still in heaven A creature may as well be and yet not be at once as a naturall body may at the same time be wholly and entire thus contracted on earth and yet whole and entire also in his full stature in heauen Yea how is it not a thing absurd and impossible that Christs body sitting whole and entire at the table should hold the selfe-same body whole and entire in its two hands on the table and should giue the selfe-same body away whole and entire ouer the table to twelue seuerall persons to goe seuerally into each of their mouthes still whole and entire and to become so many whole and entire humane organicall bodies in their mouthes as in chewing they made pieces of that that was giuen them and yet the selfe-same body that they did thus take and eate remaine sitting there still vnstirred and vntouched If these things be not absurda absurdorum absurdissima as he speaketh as monstrous absurdities as euer were any I know not what are 3. Obserue how these men that cannot endure to heare vs say This or that thing is impossible yet tell vs themselues of many impossibilities and that euen then also when they speake of these miraculous mysteries in the confuting one of another It is impossible saith this worthy writer for a man as Christ was otherwise then similitudinarily to be a rock or a vine It is impossible saith Aquinas that a man should be an Asse It is impossible saith the Glosse that bread should be Christs bodie It is altogether impossible saith Bellarmine that this sentence This bread is my body should be true properly It is impossible saith Biel that Christs body should be broken or divided and so bee spoiled being impassible It is impossible saith Aquinas that Christ in his last Supper should giue his body impassible It is impossible that his body being now impassible should be altered in shape or hew It is impossible that Christs body in his proper shape should be seene in any other place but that one onely wherein he is definitiuely It is impossible that the substantiall forme of bread should remaine after consecration or that the substance of bread and wine should abide there It is impossible that Christs body by a locall motion should come to bee in the Sacrament It is impossible
once And is it not as impossible then for one to bee in two places at once And it is impossible that one single effect should haue diuerse totall causes and impossible therefore that one and the same accident should bee in diuerse subiects And why not as impossible for one subiect to haue diverse accidents as diuerse seates sites qualities and quantities at once which Christsbody must needs haue iâ— it bee with vs in the Eucharist It is impossible saith Durand that one and the same thing should mooue two contrary wayes at once And It is impossible saith Aquinas that the same body should by locall motion arriue in diuerse seuerall places at once And It is impossible that one and the selfe same thing should both rest and stirre at once And yet should Christs body if it were in the Host or if it were the very Host rather doe all this when at the same time it both resteth in the Pyx in one place and goeth in Procession in another place and is in diuerse processions or on sundry seuerall occasions carried contrary wayes to seuerall persons and places at the same instant No more therefore doe we curb or restraine Gods â—mnipâ—tency when we deny that a body can bee by any meanes in two distant places at once then they doe when they deny a possibility of the things before spoken And for the reason of our denyall let them heare be side Durands Aquinas his confession For one body saith hee to bee locally in two places at once it implieth a contradiction and therefore cannot a body be in two places at once no not by miracle neither For those things that imply contradiction God cannot do God therefore cannot make a body to bee locally in two places at once The very selfe same saith Aegidius too and Amolynus on him that although a thousand miracles were wrought nothing could bee effected that implyeth a contradiction as this doth CErtainely the holy Fathers doubted not to affirme that Christ left his body here on earth and yet assumed with him the same bodie into heauen hee held his body in his owne hands at his last Supper and distributed it severally to his Apostles as hath beene already out of S. Chrysostome S. Augustine and other holy Fathers formerly by me alleâ—dged Insomuch as Melancthon one of the maine pillars of Protestant Religion vnderstood the opinion of the holy Fathers so well in this point and attributed so much withall to Gods omnipotency as hee writeth thus of this very Argument I had rather offer my selfe to death then to affirme as Zwinglians doe that Christs body cannot bee but in one place at once And S. Augustine as Bellarmine prooueth was so farre from denying this to the bodie of Christ as he doubted whether the holy Martyrs may not be at the selfe same time in severall Churches and Memories erected of them albeit naturally no spirit nor body can bee more then in one place or remaine without some certaine place of beeing which latter is in the places ciced by this Minister out of him onely affirmed And if a perfect substance or nature as was the humanity of Christ could want the naturall personality and subsistence thereof supplyed by the divine person and hypostasis of the Sonne of God as our Christian faith teacheth vs why cannot in like manner by Gods omnipotency the accidents of bread and wine remaine without actuall inhering and being in their naturall subiect His other Arguments page 15. are drops of an afterstorme and obiections gathered out of S. Augustine which doe onely prooue that Christ is not visibly but in heauen not denying his sacramentall beeing in many places as this Minister would haue him And surely our Saviour himselfe in the 6. Chapter of S. Iohn verse 61. solueth this very obiection as S. Chrysostome vnderstandeth him when perceiving that his Disciples murmared at his promise of giuing his flesh for meate c. he said to them Doth this scandalize you If then you shall see the Sonne of Man ascending where he was before c. As if hee had said Are you scandalised that I said being now present with you I will giue my flesh for food what then will you doe or how farre will you be from beleeuing that I canso giue you my flesh when I â—…ll ascend to heauen and be absent so sarre from you § 2. THe places of the Fathers here pointed at were before answered where by him they were aâ— large alledged And howsoeuer Augustine spake modestly after his manner of a difficult Question not daring peremptorily to determine by what meanes that was effected that by diuers other meanes might be yet in his bookes against Faâ—stus the Manichie hee saith expressely and peremptorily that Christ in regard of his bodily presence could not bee at once in the Sunne and in the Moone and vpon the Crosse also as they absurdly imagined and maintained that he was And againe in his Comment aries on the Gospell of S. Iohn not as Bellarmine corruptly citeth him as hee doth also many others that Christs body in which he rose againe M AY be but as Peter Lombard and other of their owne Authors acknowledge him to say that it MVST be in one place howsoeuer his verity that is his Deitie be every where Yea discusing the question at large in one of his Epistles and hauing concluded the Negatiue hee saith that they take away the truth of his body that maintaine it to be in many places at once Whereas though immortality bee conferred on it yet nature is not taken from it To which purpose hee disputeth much of the nature of a true body and deliuereth those things which I presse out of him all which together with the testimonies of other of the Ancients this superficiall Answerer passeth ouer with sad silence onely boldly and bâ—asen facedly auouching that all that is alleadged out of Augustine prooueth nothing but this that Christ is not visibly but in Heauen Did hee thinke that his Reader would not cast an eye on them whem they were verbatim set downe before him § 3. Yea but our Saviour himselfe he saith solveth this Obiection Iohn 6. 61. as Chrysostome vnderstandeth him when hee saith Doth this scandalize you What if you shall see the Sonne of Man ascending where hee was before c as if hee had said Are you scandalized because I said being now present with you I will giue my flesh for food What then will you doe or how farre will you be from beleeuing that I can so giue you my flesh when I shall ascend to heauen and be so farre aboue from you 1. Where Chrysostome thus expoundeth the place I know not Vpon the place I am sure he hath nothing but this that Christ by these wordes did intimate to them his Deitie Yea so Iansenius also saith that Chrysostome vnderstandeth these words
Bodies without bignesse Parts bigger then the whole The whole lesse then the least part A growne mans entire body with all limmes and toynts of it couched and cooped vp in a thinne wafer-cake and in every crum of it The same body that is entire in heauen still in a thousand places entire too at the same time here on earth and yet never stirre an inch from the place that in heauen it still holdeth These are magicall mysteries indeed which it is no maruell if this ignorant Minister cannot conceiue 2 Yea but our Sauiours wordes of a Camell passing through a needles eye sheweth that a body may be freed from it exterior bignesse and locall extension that is as much as if hee had said they shew that a bodie may become no bodie and yet be a body still The speech is hyperbolicall and no more prooueth a possibility of the thing therein spoken as Piscator well obserueth answering Bellarmine from whom he here hath it then of many other things spoken commonly in speeches of the like kinde Quantitie saith Bonaventure is of the verity of a body and a true bodie consequently cannot bee without it And though it were granted that some substance might bee without quantitie yet it cannot be that any quicke or organicall body such as a Camels is and such as hee granteth Christs to be should be without it Yea and therefore also not the veritie onely as this fellow would haue it but the quantity also as Bonauenture auoweth and this fellow denieth that is the exterior bignesse of Christs body must needs bee with it in the Sacrament if it bee at all there 3. To conclude this wilde discourse indeed because we are in it compelled to follow one that turneth round till hee be giddy againe when wee reason thus from the nature and property of a true body to be but in one place wee reason no otherwise howsoeuer hee esteeme it a wilde kinde of reasoning then wise and learned men yea Angels too haue taught vs to reason For as the Angell reasoneth with the nomen that came to seeke Christ in the Sepulcher He is not here for he is risen againe which were no good Argument if his bodie might haue beene in two places at once So the ancient Fathers also reason in their disputes against Heretikes where it stood them vpon to speake warily and not to argue wildly as this giddy braines tearmeth it Christs body saith Theodoret albeit it be now glorified yet is a bodie still and hath the same circumscriptiō that before it had Which as the Angels teach shall come in the same manner as it was seene goe to heauen But they saw it then circumscribed Yea our Lord himselfe saith You shall see the Son of Man come in the clouds But that nature cannot be seene that is not circumscribed He sheweth then that his body is circumscribed It is not therefore changed into another nature but it remaineth still a true body though filled with divine glory So Fulgentius One and the same Christ saith hee is both locall man of man and God infinite of his Father One and the same according to his humane nature absent from heauen when he was here vpon earth and leaving the earth when he went vp into heauen but according to his divine and infinite nature neither leaving heauen when he came downe from heauen nor forsaking the earth when hee went vp into heauen Which may most certainely bee gathered from his owne wordes who to shew that his humanity was locall said I goe vp to my Father c. Now how went he vp into heauen but because hee was locall and true man Or how is hee yet present with his faithfull ones but that hee is infinite and true God And Uigilius most euidently against Eutyches to passe by all other places which are more then one in him If the Word saith hee and the Flesh were both of one nature how should not the flesh bee euery where as well as the word For when it to wit Christs flesh or his body his humanity was on earth it was not in heauen and now because it is in heauen it is not on earth for that according to it we expect Christ to come from heauen whom according to the Word that is his Deitie we beleeue to be with vs on earth It is apparent therefore that the same Christ is of a twofold nature and is every where indeed according to the nature of his diviniti◠but is cōtained in a place according to the nature of his humanity And hee concludeth his discourse thus This is the Catholike Faith and Confession which the Apostles haue deliuered Martyrs haue confirmed and the faithfull keepe to this day And if this be so then sure the Popish doctrine that affirmeth the cleane contrary to it is not Diuision 12. PAge 16. and 17. My Adversarie wisely after his accustomed manner vndertaketh by comparisons to declare the true manner of Christs body and blood being conveighed vnto vs in the Sacrament and that so easily as if there were no difficulty at all in the explication thereof whereas Caluin himselfe accounteth it an inconceiuable and vnexplicable mysterie worthy with wonder and astonishment to bee by vs beleeved how to wit Christs body so remotely distant as heauen is from the earth can be eaten and receiued by vs. Wee confesse it saith Beza to be an incomprehensible mystery wherein it commeth to passe that the same body which is and still remaineth in heauen and is no where but there should be truely cōmunicated to vs who are now on earth and no where else This indeed is a mystery and true Iewell of Protestanticall doctrine harder to be conceived as Caluin Beza and other chiefe Calvinists seeme sometime to meane it then to conceiue all those true miracles which we teach to be wrought by God in the consecration and vse of this wonderfull Sacrament Yea surely it implyeth an evident contradiction that Christs body should be truely given together with the sacramentall signes as Caluin expressely affirmeth and so by vt eaten that is no neerer then the top of heauen is to the mouth of such as receiue him If by faith onely and a gratefull memory of his passion we eate Christ in the Sacrament as this Minister solueth the former riddle no more present therein nor in any other manner conioyned with the sacramentall signes then the land conveighed by an Indenture sealed is present or conveighed with the seale thereof or then he is present in the water of Baptisme they are his owne comparisons then is their Sacrament a bare signe and figure of Christs body having no mystery at all worthy of admiration in it For what wonder is it for a man to eate one thing thinking vpon another bread for example remembring our Saviours passion And then are Caluin Beza
a Serpent in so much that Moses himselfe at the first sight was afraid of it And so we shall finde it to haue beene euer in all miraculous conuersions that the change wrought in them was apparent to the outward sense to the sight as in the water turned into blood to the taste as in the water turned into wine Whereas in the Sacrament there is no such matter We see no flesh there we taste no blood there Nay we see euidently the contrary to that these men affirme For we see Bread and Wine there and we finde the true taste of either And we haue no reason vpon their bare words to distrust either sense and beleeue the contrary to that that we see and taste onely because they say it That which you see saith Augustine is bread and a cup that which our eyes also informe vs that which your faith requireth you to be informed of is that the bread is Christs body and the cup his blood which they cannot be but figuratiuely as Bellarmine before confessed A mysterie we acknowledge we deny a miracle they may be honoured saith Augustine as religious things not wondred at as strange miracles saue in regard of the supernaturall effects of them in regard whereof there is a miraculous worke as well in Baptisme as in the Eucharist And yet no such miraculous transubstantiation in either It is a rule saith the Schooleman that where we can salue Scriptures by that which we see naturally we should not haue recourse to a miracle or to what God can doe 3. We reason from the nature of Signes and Sacraments That which the Apostle saith of one Sacrament to wit Circumcision is true of all for there is one generall nature of all Sacraments are Signes A Sacrament saith Augustine that is a sacred Signe And Signes appertaining to diuine things are called sacraments Now this is the Nature of Signes that they are one thing and signifie another thing that they signifie some other thing beside themselues or diuers from themselues And in like manner saith Augustine Sacraments being Signes of things they are one thing and they signifie some other thing But the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are Signes of Christs body and blood as hath beene before shewed and the Auncients generally auow And therefore are they not essentially either They signifie Christs body and blood and what they signifie they are not And It is a miserable seruitude as Augustine wel saith for men to take the Signes for the things themselues by them signified 4. Wee reason from the nature of Christs Body euen after his Passion and Resurrection Christs naturall Body hath flesh blood and bones the limmes and lineaments of an humane body such as may be felt and seene to be such This appeareth plainely by that which he said to his Disciples after he was risen from the dead when they misdoubted some delusion Behold mine hands and my feete for it is I my selfe Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me haue But that which is deliuered handled and eaten in the Eucharist hath no such thing It is not in any wise saith Epiphanius equall or like vnto Christ either his humanitie that is clad with flesh or his Deitie that is inuisible or to the lineaments of his limmes For it is round senselesse and liuelesse as Christ himselfe is not It is not therefore the naturall body of Christ. Our sight and sense euidently enforme vs the contrary howsoeuer Bellarmine boldly sticketh not to tell vs that Christs body is verily and visibly vpon the boord after that the words of Consecration be once vttered they thinke belike they may make men beleeue any thing And our Sauiour himselfe teacheth vs by sight and sense to iudge of his Body As if to this day saith Pope Lee he spake still to each one that sticketh and staggereth as he spake there to his Apostles Why sticketh our vnderstanding where our sight is our Teacher I may well say here as Augustine in somewhat the like case I feare least we seeme to wrong our sâ—â—ser in seeking to prooue or perswade that by speech wherein the euidence of truth exceedeth all that can be said 5. We reason from the Nature of all true Bodies Christs body is in Heauen from whence wee looke for him And there is to abide till the end of the world Now a true naturall body as Christs still is cannot be in two much lesse in twentie or rather in twentie hundred places at once which yet Christs body must needs be if that be true that they say Augustine questioned by one Dardanus how Christ could be both in Paradise and in heauen at once supposing Heauen and Paradise to be two seuerall places howsoeuer with the Apostle Paul they are not maketh answer that he could not as he was man or in his humanitie his body and his soule though he might as he was God or in his Deitie that is euery where And he addeth The same Iesus Christ is euery wherein his Deitîe but in heauen in his humanitie And further in his discourse hereof saith he Take spaces and places from bodies and they will be no where and because they will be no where they will not be Take bodies from qualities and wanting wherein to subsist they must needs cease to be and yet in the Popish hoast are qualities found as before that haue no subiect body to subsist in being not the qualities of Christs body and yet hauing no other body for them to subsist in for they are the qualities of Bread and yet there is no bread there if they say true to beare them Euery Bodie therefore must needs haue a certaine place and they are so circumscribed with and confined vnto that place that they cannot at the same time or so long as they keepe that place be in any other place but it And so is it also euen with the glorified body of Christ Iesus Christs body saith Leo in no respect differeth from the truth of our bodies And therefore Christ saith Gregorie Naziâ—nzen in regard of his body is circumscribed and conteined in a place in regard of his spirit or his Deitie he is not circumscribed nor conteined in any place And Augustine Our Lord is aboue but our Lord the Truth is here too For our Lords body wherein he rose againe must needs be in one place but his Truth that is his diuine power is diffused into all places And therefore Doubt not saith he but that the Man Christ is now there from whence he is to come He is gone vp into heauen and thence he shall come as he was seene to goe thither the Angel saith it that is in the same forme and substance of flesh which though he haue giuen immortalitie vnto it yet he hath
not taken nature away from it According to this forme he is not euery where For we must take heede that we doe not so maintaine the deitie of the Man that we ouerthrow the veritie of his Body In a word As the Angel reasoneth speaking to the women that sought Christ in the Sepulcher He is not here for he is risen againe So reasoneth the same Augustine concerning Christs bodily presence reconciling those two places that might seeme the one to crosse the other Behold I am with you till the worlds end And Me shall you not haue alwaies with you ' ' In regard saith he of his Maiestie his prouidence his grace we haue him alwaies here But in regard of his flesh which the word assumed which was borne of the Virgin nailed on the crosse c. We haue him not alwaies And why so Because he is gone vp into heauen and he is not here And againe speaking of Christâ— being on earth and not in heauen as man and yet in both places as God Man according to his body is in a place and passeth from a place and when hee commeth to another place is not in that place from which he came But God is euery where and is not contâ—ined in any place So that the Romanists if they will haue Christs Body in the Eucharist they must fetch it out of Heauen and indeed as if they had so done they doe in their Masse request God to send his Angels to carry it vp againe thither And their Glosse saith that so soone as men set their teeth in it it retireth instantly thither though that crosse their common tenent Or rather they must frame a new body and so make Christ haue two bodies one that remaineth whole still in heauen and another that the Priest maketh or createth here vpon earth But what speake I of two Bodies Christ must haue as many seuerall Bodies as there be consecrated Hoasts for the whole Body of Christ they say is in each Hoast yea more then so there is an whole entire mans body flesh blood and bones with all limmes and lineaments for so it must needs be if it be Christs naturall Body not in euery Communicants mouth onely but in euery crum of the Hoasâ— that they breake of it when they crush it betweene their teeth as they also flatly and precisely affirme And by this reason the whole body of Christ against all reason For it is a principle in Nature that The whole is euer greater then any part shall be lesse in quantitie then the least limme or member of his Body then a nailes paring of his little finger then which nothing is more absurd and senselesse Euen an immortall body saith Augustine speaking of and instancing euen in Christs body is lesse in part then it is in the whole For a body being a substance the quantitie thereof consisteth in the greatnesse of bulke And since that the parts of a body are distant one from another and cannot all be together because they keepe each one their seuerall spaces and places the lesse parts lesser places and the great greater there cannot be either the whole quantitie or so great a quantitie in each single part but a greater quantitie in the greater parts and a lesser in the lesse and in no part at all so great a quantitie as in the whole But if their opinion be true any part of Christ is in quantitie as great and greater then his whole body and his whole body lesse then any part of it is But how will you say is Christs Body and Blood conneighed vnto vs or how is his flesh eaten and his blood drunke then in the Eucharist if it be not really there present I might with Aug. well in a word answer this Question How saith he shall I hold Christ when he is not here How can I stretch mine hand to Heauen there to lay hold on him Send thy faith thither saith he and thou hast him Thy forefathers held him in the flesh hold thou him in thy heart You haue him alwaies present in regard of his Maiestie but in regard of his Flesh as himselfe told his Disciples not alwaies But for fuller satisfaction I answer 1. Sacraments are seales annexed to Gods couenant And as a deede being drawne of the Princes gift concerning office land or liuelyhood and his broad seale annexed to it and that deede so drawne and sealed being deliuered that office or that land though lying an hundred miles of is therein and thereby as truly and as effectually conueighed and assured vnto the party vnto whom the same deede is so made and to whose vse and behoofe it is so deliuered as if it were really present So these seales being annexed to Gods Couenant of grace concerning Christ his Flesh and Blood and his Death and Passion and our title too and intereâ—t in either the things themselues euen Christs body and blood themselues though sited still in Heauen are as truly and as effectually conueighed with them and by them vnto the faithfull receiuer when they are to him deliuered as if they were here really and corporally present 2. We receiue Christ in the Eucharist as in the Word and Baptisme wherein also we doe truly receiue him yea and feede on his flesh and blood as well as in the Encharist albeit he be not corporally exhibited in either We are buried together with Christ saith the Apostle by Baptisme into his Death And h As many of you as haue beene baptized into Christ haue put on Christ. We are dipped in our Lords passion saith Tertullian Sprinkle thy face with Christs blood saith Hierome speaking of Baptisme that the destroyer may see it in thy forehead Thou hast Christ saith Augustine at the present by faith at the present by the signe of him at the present by the Sacrament of Baptisme at the present by the meate and drinke of the altar Yea No man ought to doubt saith Augustine but that euery Faithfull one is made partaker of the Body and Blood of Christ when in Baptisme he is made a member of Christ and that he is not estranged from the communion of that Bread and Cup though he depart out of this life ere he eate of that bread and drinke of that Cup because he hath that which that Sacrament signifieth And for the Word Christian men saith Origen eate euery day the flesh of the Lambe because daily they receiue the Flesh of Gods word And The true Lambe is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world for Christ our Passeouer is offred for vs. Let the Iewes in a carnall sense caete the flesh of a Lambe but let vs eate the flesh of the Word of God For he saith vnlesse ye eate my flesh ye shall haue no life in you This that I now speake is the Flesh of the Word
stuffe their packets with for want of better and choiser wares And yet may wee but haue leaue to expound this Cyril or whosoeuer he is else by himselfe we shall soone shew him to say no more then we willingly admit For in the same Catechising that is here alleadged Doe not regard saith he these things as bare â—read and wine And in the Catechising next before Doe not suppose that ointment to be bare ointment For as the Bread of the Eucharist after the inuocation of the holy Ghost is no longer bare bread but Christs bodie so this holy Oyntment after inuocation is no more bare or common ointment but a gift of Christ and the holy Ghost by the presence of his Deitie And looke what he saith concerning the not trusting of our senses in the matter of the Eucharist the same doth the Ambrose before cited say of the Sacrament of Baptisme What seest thou saith he Water but not water alone c. First the Apostle teacheth thee to contemplate not the things that are seene but the things that are not seene Beleeue the presence of the Deitie For how could it worke there if it were not present And againe afterward Beleeue not thy bodily eyes alone that is better seene that is not seene And say not we as much that it is not bare bread nor bare wine that is offered vs in the Eucharist whatsoeuer this lying wretch hereafter shamelesly auoweth as when we come to it shall be shewed which is all that our outward sense is able to enforme but spirituall signes and seales and effectuall instruments of grace which the eye of our soule is alone able to conceiue and our faith to assure vs of 4. Chrysostome is alleadged but little to the purpose The former allegation is here cited out of Sermon 60. ad Popul Antioch which Sermon this Answerer had hee beene so well acquainted with the Author hee citeth as would beseeme such a Doctor as he professeth himselfe to be he should haue found to be an Homily neuer made by Chrysostome but by some other composed of part of two Sermons of his on the Glosse of S. Matthew pieced together to wit the 83. and the 51. according to the Latin or the 82. and 50. according to the Greeke The place produced is out of the 83. on Matthew for that is the proper place of it In which Sermon Chrysostome speaketh no more of the Eucharist then he doth of the Sacrament of Baptisme in the very next words It is no sensible thing saith hee that Christ hath left vs but in things indeed sensible matters all intelligible In like manner it is in Baptisme By a sensible thing to wit water is the gift giuen but the thing that is there wrought to wit regeneration and renovation is a thing intelligible If thou wert not corporall he would haue giuen thee the gifts themselues naked and spirituall but because thy soule is conioyned with thy body thereforeby sensible things he giveth thee things intelligible And in the other Sermon out of which that Homily is pieced Beleeue thou that the same supper wherein Christ himselfe sate downe is now celebrated For there is no difference betweene this and that For it is not a man that doth the one and Christ the other But it is Christ himselfe that doth both the one and the other When therefore thou seest the Priest reaching somewhat to thee do not imagine that it is the Priest that doth it but that it is Christs hand that is stretched out to thee For as when thou art baptised hee doth not baptize thee but it is God that holdeth thy head by his inuisible power and neither Angel nor Archangel nor any other dare approach and touch So is it now also Now what is here spoken but of Mysteries or Sacraments in generall applied after in particular as well to Baptisme as to the Eucharist and therefore may as well prooue a reall or essentiall transmutation in the one as in the other and if not in both in neither since the very same things are spoken of either to wit that we must in either regard not so much what our bodily eye seeth as what the spirituall eye of the beleeuing soule by faith apprehendeth and vpon ground of Gods word beleeueth and that by things sensible are things intelligible conueighed to vs and effected in vs as well in the one as in the other The 2. place of Chrysostome is out of his 3. booke de Sacerdotio Wherein this alleadger of him fareth as ill as in the former allegation Chrysost. saith indeed that Christ that sitteth aboue with his Father in heauen is at that time to wit when the Eucharist is celebrated held in the hands of each one and offreth himself to those that will claspe him about and embrace him But not to insist vpon what was aboue said by him that Christ himselfe and not Man both there and in Baptisme administreth nor vpon other phrases in the same place vsed by him both before of the same Eucharist that the people are all died purple-red in it with Christs blood and afterward of Baptisme that in it wee are buried together with Christ Which cannot bee vnderstood but figuratiuely he sheweth in the very next words to those here cited what his meaning was in them and how all this is done when hee saith And this they doe all then with the eyes of faith The third place is not as he seemeth to cite it out of the same booke but out of his 2. Sermon ad populum Antiochenum He found them ioyned together in Bellarmine out of whom he hath all and therefore tooke them it seemeth to bee both out of one booke Chrysostome there saith that Christ hath left vs his flesh and yet hath it still in Heauen But how that may be verified he himselfe sheweth in the same place a little before when he saith that there was a twofold Elias whom he compareth Christ withall when Elias was translated an Elias aboue and an Elias beneath he meaneth Elisaeus on whom rested the spirit of Elias whom hee therefore esteemeth a symbolicall Elias as Iohn the Baptist is called Elias because he came in the power and the spirit of Elias and so was also Elias as our Sauiour auerreth and Augustine well obserueth though not essentially Elias yet Elias symbolically And so here in like manner Christs essentiall flesh is in heauen whither they must also saith Chrysostome ascend and flie vp like Eagles that will haue it his symbolicall Flesh is here vpon earth as the Symbolicall Elias was in the Sacrament of his body which saith Augustine in some sort is his body being a Signe and Sacrament of it And thus you see what substantiall proofes this great Blusterer hath brought to prooue their Transubstantiation and how well he hath acquit himselfe
for a man well read in the auncient Fathers as hereafter hee boasteth himselfe to be Diuision 3. THis is the true Doctrine of the auncient Fathers and so plainely and vnanswerably doe they teach the literall vnderstanding of our Sauiours words and the miraculous coÌ„uersion of the bread wine of the Altar by the omnipotent force of them into the bodie and blood of Christ telling vs that we must not beleeue our sense or reason telling vs the contrarie nor conceiue it so impossible as our carnall and grosse Aduersaries pretend for the bodie of our Sauiour to bee in heauen and in numberlesse places of the earth together iâ—…sibly existing Whose plaine testimonies are in a whole Booke together by learned Bellarmine truly and particularly collected where also he refuteth the shifting answeres of Protestanticall Diuines vnto them soluing all Obiections gathered out of their obscurer sayings against Catholicke doctrine Who is by this Minister ignorantly or malitiously traduced and made directly against the whole drift of his Controuersie to teach a probabilitie at least of Protestant Doctrine about the figuratiue and tropicall sense of our Sauiours words This is my Body because disputing against Luther supposing as well as he the literall sense of our Sauiours words argumento ad hominem by an Argument drawne from Luthers owne grounds hee driueth Luther either to confesse Transubstantiation necessarily purported in our Sauiours words This is my Bodie or for to admit barely against the knowne opinion of himselfe and all his disciples a figuratiue and metaphoricall vnderstanding of them For if Christs words be literally to be vnderstood and bread also admitted to remaine in the Sacrament the Pronoune Hoc This would naturally and necessarily demonstrate it and not the bodie of Christ inuisibly therein present and so bread in our Sauiours speech should falsly be affirmed to be Christs bodie Whereas if bread remaine not but be truly conuerted into Christs bodie no such absurd and impossible sense followeth out of the literall vnderstanding of Christs words Why then doth this Minister falsely make Bellarmine in this place seeme to affirme that there is nothing in the holy Text that may enforce vs to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament or which is all one that may enforce vs literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand Christs words c. Ignorance and mistaking must be my aduersaries best meanes to salue this falshood and many others which doe ensue afterward IN the next place hauing digressed all this while from the Argument he should haue answered he addeth that that which they teach coÌ„cerning the literall sense of Christs words and the miraculous conuersion of the bread and wine into the very body and blood of Christ is the true doctrine of the auncient Fathers and to saue himselfe the labour of proouing that which neither he nor any of his side shall euer be able to make good he turneth his Reader ouer to Bellarmine out of whom he picked all that before he had said and telleth him that he hath both prooued it and refuted all the shifting answeres of the Protestanticall Diuines Bellarmine it seemeth is his Aiax behinde whose shield hee must shroud himselfe or else he dare abide no brunt of encounter againe Now to make Bellarmine againe some part of requitall because he is so much beholden to him he will doe his best to cleere him from either the ignorant or malicious abuse of this bad Minister by whom he is traduced and made directly against the whole drift of his Controuersie to teach a probabilitie at least of the Protestant doctrine concerning the figuratiue sense of our Sauiours words and to affirme c. It is true I say that Bellarmine granteth and so he doth I haue set downe his owne words they are not nor can be denied that these words This is my bodie may imply either such a reall change as the Catholickes hold or such a figuratiue change as the Caluinists hold and that is all I say of him The truth contrary to the maine drift and scope of his controuersie as it falleth out oft with those that against their owne knowledge maintaine errour did start from him vnawares Nor is the question now de re but de propositione as Bellarmine there speaketh the question is not of the maine matter in controuersie whether Christ did really conuert the Bread into his Body which Bellarmine affirmeth but whether that speech of our Sauiour may not beare such a figuratiue sense as we giue which Bellarmine in plaine and precise tearmes granteth And all that this his Champion can say for him is nothing but this that Bellarmine doth not say that which in expresse words I haue cited out of him without alteration of any one syllable and the falshood therefore lyeth manifestly on him that denieth it when he knoweth them to be Bellarmines owne wordes in precise tearmes But he hopeth it seemeth that with facing hee may carry away any thing I will adde a little more out of Bellarmine and yet no more then himselfe in precise tearmes saith Scotus and Cameracensis two great Schoolemen grant that the doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot necessarily bee gathered out of the text of the Evangelists howsoeuer they hold it because the Church of Rome that cannot erre hath so expounded it And Bellarmine himselfe granteth that this is not improbable For though the Scripture saith he that we bring may seeme so cleere that it may constraine a man that is not wilfull to yeeld it yet it may well bee doubted whether it be so or no since most learned men and most acute such especially as Scotus was are of a contrary minde And now we haue besides Scotus and others three Cardidinals Card. Bellarmine Card. Caietan and Card. Cameracensis all confessing that the Popish doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot cleerely or vnanswerably bee prooued by Scripture I conclude then with mine Adversaries grant It is all one saith he to say that there is nothing in the text that may enforce vs to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament and to say that there is nothing to enforce vs literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand Christs words Card. Caietan freely confesseth the latter and vnlesse hee can disprooue Caietan which as yet hee hath not assaied to doe he must by his owne confession yeeld the former Diuision 4. PAge 3. He maketh a great stir in asking how the Chalice may be called the new Testament in our Sauiours blood I answer him because our Sauiours blood by the effusion whereof his last Wâ—ll and Testament was confirmed and our eternall inheritance purchased and applied vnto vs is in this Chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the altar for vs. For the word Testament as all learned men know is apt to import not onely the interiour act of the dying mans Wil but also the authenticall instrument or deed wherein that his dying
but bare bread which by the instance of the other Sacrament of Baptisme besides other proofes I shew euidently to be otherwise as if hee thought that like an hare by iâ—mping and wheeling to and fro hee should keepe himselfe safe from being traced and taken when either he reported grosse vntruths or dissembled those things that it stood him vpon to giue answere vnto if he would either make good their cause or ouerthrow ours He runneth backe to an allegation of Tertullian and then forward againe to Theodoret c. and if his words may beare weight with vs he would make vs beleeue that this Doctrine of my Master Caluine if like a dull Scholler I had sooner vnderstood him would salue many of my Obiections as namely that of Tertullian This is my Body that is a figure of my body and the like speech of Augustine and what I cite out of Gratian to the like purpose c. Surely this man was of that opinion that Polybius saith some are who thinke other men cannot see them if they winke themselues The Question is whether our Sauiours words This is my Bodie may not be or are not to be figuratiuely vnderstood not whether the bread and wine be bare Signes or no which none say but this shamelesse wretch contrary to mine expresse words affirmeth me to affirme This being the Question I produce Tertullian who precisely so expoundeth them This is my Body that is a figure of my body I produce Augustine who not onely doth the like but rendreth a reason also why he so doth to wit because Signes and Sacraments are called vsuaelly by the names of those things that they signifie and represent I produce the Glosse on Gratian that saith It is called Christs body improperly not in the truth of the thing itselfe but in a significant mysterie and that when it is said that it is called Christs bodie the meaning of the words are that it signifieth Christs bodie All which produced to prooue that our Sauiours words are to be vnderstood figuratiuely which how pregnantly they doe prooue he cannot but see that will not wilfully winâ—ke he can giue no answer vnto but saith onely they may be soâ—…d with that which Caluine saith that they are not bare signes which neither is denied nor is any part of the Argument here in hand § 4. Thus hauing leapt a page backe he now iumpeth againe as faâ—re forward where he lighteth againe vpon Pope Gelasius for so is his worke stiled in all editions of him and so by Fulgentius he is prooued to be howsoeuer they would faine shift him of because he is so expressely against their Transubstantiation as he is also against their mangling of the Sacrament and giuing the bread without the Cup which he condemneth as grosse Sacriledge and with him vpon Theodoret that speaketh in effect the same with him Theodoret and Gelasius both auerre that the Elements in the Eucharist after consecration retaine still not the same shape and forme onely but the same Nature and Substance Can any thing be more plaine or any testimony more pregnant Yet this nimble-headed Doctor wanteth not aneuasion for it such as it is For saith he Theodoret and Gelasius doe not meane thereby that the physicall nature and substance but the Accidents that is the shape and outward â—oâ—me c. onely remaine vnaltered They say that they retaine still the same both shape and substance too And this shamelesse fellow sticketh not to tell vs that they meane contrary that they retaine the same shape but not the same substance It is a cursed glosse they say that corrupteth the Text. Yet such is the glosse that this Sophisâ—er giueth Gelasius and Theodoret not corrupting onely but directly crossing that that they say denying them to say that that in precise tearmes they do The Substance say they Not the Substance saith he The Substance say they that is The Accidents saith he Not vnlike that Glosse on Gratian that expoundeth We ordaine that is We â—brogate or disannull If this be not a most sorry and senselesse shift I know not what is But yet will you see another as grosse as the former By Sacramentall Signes saith he Theodoret meaneth not the Substances of Bread and Wine but the Accidents onely for either those then or else nothing at all 1. Here is a new distinction betweene the Elements of Bread and Wine and the Sacramentall signes in the Eucharist And indeed if their doctrine be sound and true neither Bread nor Wine are euer or euer were Signes of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist though the Auncients commonly so tearme them For before Consecration they are not and in Consecration they cease to be as they say and after Consecration they cannot be because they haue now no being and so consequently they neuer are 2. Here is a strange Interpretation and a most abfurd assertion The Sacramentall Signes that is the Accidents retaine still their Substance that is their Accidents This is like Christs blood in his blood that wee had a little before These are abstruse riddles indeede and it is no great maruell if dull pates and shallow braines cannot easily conceiue them 3. Will you see how grosse and palpable this euasion is Theodoret and Gelasius saith Bellarmine whom hee learned some of this from teach the very selfe same thing Now looke what Theodoret calleth the mysticall Signes that Gelasius tearmeth expressely Bread and Wine By the mysticall Signes therefore in Theodoret is the Bread and Wine meant not the Accidents as this corrupt and corrupting Glosser saith of either § 4. Yea but if Theodoret had beene fully cited all had vtterly beene ouerthrowne and the Ministers hereticall and fraudulent purpose of citing him had beene defeated If lying and out-facing would serue the turne this man would be sure euer to giue his Aduersarie the ouerthrow Heare you but Theodoret at large and then iudge if this man haue not either a brazen brow or a leaden braine or both The worke of Theodoret is a Dialogue wherein hee bringeth in disputing an Orthodoxe Diuine against an Hereticke that held that after Christs resurrection his Hemanitie lost it owne nature and his flesh was turned into his Deitie in the same manner as these Transubstantiators now say that the Bread in the Euchorist looseth it owne nature and is really changed into Christs naturall body In debating of this Question they light vpon the Eucharist and fall to dispute how the Bread is there said to bee Christs body and what change is wrought on it The Hereticke would haue it changed to fit his turne as our Papists now hold The Orthodoxe Diuine saith it is no more turned into Christs body then Christs body is now turned in heauen into his Deitie But you shall haue them both verbatim in their owne words Orthodox Tell me the mysticall Signes which are offred God by Gods Priests what say
who I pray you doubteth of or denyeth ought that is here said who teacheth men to speake otherwise then Christ euer taught but they that tell vs of bread transubstantiated and of a body of Christ made of bread of Christs flesh contained in bread or vnder the accidents of bread and of his blood in the bread and his body by a concomitancie in the Cup c Who doubteth with vs of the truth of Christs body and blood For of the corporall presence of either in the Sacrament Hilarie hath not heere a word Or who denyeth but that by the receiuing of those venerable mysteries Christ is spiritually in vs and we in him Doth not the Apostle say of Baptisme that by it we are ingraffed into Christ and Chrysostome that by it we become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone Hilaries scope is to shew that Christ is one with God and his Father and we one with him not by consent of will onely as some Heretikes said but by a true and reall vnion yet spirituall as his words implie when he saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him Vpon whinch wordes their owne Bishop Iansenius They saith hee that thus eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood either by such faith alone or in the Eucharist are said to haue Christ abiding in them and to abide themselues in him in regard of the true vnion of our nature with the diuine nature by the spirit of Christ whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature Yea those words of our Sauiour cannot be meant of Christ corporally receiued in the Eucharist nor could Hilarie so meane if he were otherwise of their minde appeareth For Christs body so taken as they imagine doth not abide long in those that so receiue it but by their owne doctrine goeth away againe I know not whither a while after Whereas by vertue of such receiuing Christ as our Sauiour there speaketh of We doe abide in him and he in vs that is we are most inwardly and inseparably knit vnto Christ and he vnto vs they are still Iansenius his tearmes and Hilarie also saith the same and obteine therefore thereby not a transitorie life as we doe by the eating of corporall meate that passeth est-soones away and abideth not in him that eateth it but life permanent and eternall Whence it is manifest also saith the same Author that all are not in this place said to eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood that receiue the Sacraments of his body and blood since that all such haue not Christ abiding in them But they eate his flesh and drinke his blood as he there speaketh who beleeuing that his flesh and blood were giuen on the Crosse for the Saluation of mankinde and that by vertue of the hypostaticall vnion they haue a power to giue life do either by such faith alone or in the holy Eucharist also receiue the Lord himselfe within themselues imbrace him and by faith fast clasping him so keepe him within them as one by whom whatsoeuer we desire commeth to vs and is conferred on vs. Thus he by whose words it plainely appeareth that our abiding in Christ and Christ in vs which Hilarie from our Sauiour speaketh of dependeth not vpon any such corporall presence of his body and blood in the Sacrament nor doth necessarily require the same which by their owne doctrine also it doth not effect Diuision 9. HIS next Argument drawen from the Nature of Signes and Sacraments is idle and forcelesse For wee denie not as there he supposeth the Sacramentall Signes containing the bodie of Christ vnder them to signifie somewhat distinct from themselues to wit the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace that worthily receiue them They signifie likewise Christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his passion And so a thing considered in one manner may be a signe of it selfe in another manner considered as Christ transfigured represented his owne bodie as now it is in heauen glorified his triumphant entrance into Ierusalem on Palme Sunday figured his owne entrance into heauen afterwards as Eusebius Emissenus and other Fathers teach and as an Emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victories c. MY third Argument was taken from the Nature of Signes and Sacraments whose nature is to signifie one thing and to be another The Argument is this No Signes or Sacraments are the same with that that they signifie But the bread and wine signifie Christs body and blood in the Eucharist They are not therefore essentially either To this idle and forcelesse Argument as he pleaseth to style it he thus answereth 1. That the Sacrament all Signes signifie the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace as also Christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his Passion Now 1. what is this to mine Argument was this man thinke we euer a disputant that answereth Arguments on this wise which part of my Syllogisme I pray you is this Answer applied to I had thought that a Syllogisme being propounded the Answerer should either haue denied or distinguished of one of the former Propositions 2. It is not true that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are signes of these things Some affections of them and Actions vsed about them indeede are The bread and wine themselues are signes of spirituall nutriment not nutrition The eating and drinking is a signe of it Signes they are of Christs body and blood not of the dolorous seuering of them in the passion though their being apart is a signe of it also 3. He saith that a thing in one manner considered may be a Signe of it selfe in another manner considered as Christ transfigured of himselfe now in heauen glorified his triumphant entrance into Ierusalem of his triumphant entrance into heauen and an Emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victorie But 1. If signum res signata the Signe and the thing signified by it be relatiues as without all Question they are a Father may as well be a father to himselfe as a signe may be the signe of it selfe Not to adde that the Ancients as hath formerly beene shewen are wont to call the Sacraments pictures and pledges and it is against common sense to say that ought is either a picture or a pledge of it selfe 2. I might well put this Defendant to prooue that Christs transfiguration was a representation of his present glorification or that his entrance into Ierusalem was a type of his glorious entrance into heauen whatsoeuer his bastardly Eusebius Emissenus say of it whose authoritie is no better then his owne 3. Let him haue what he would that the one was a type of the other Doth it follow Christs transfiguration was a type of his glorification therefore Christ was a type or a signe of himselfe 4. An Emperour and his victorie I suppose are not all
and thighes too And seeing hee had all the members of the body hee must needs haue a whole body that consisteth of those members Let vs reason backward as well wee may If Christ haue an entire body consisting of those limmes then he hath all those limmes whereof such a body consisteth And then let vs say to these as he then to them You heare of flesh and feet and hands and other limmes And doe you forge vs some Stoicall round bals and aiery dotages As these doe little round wafer-cakes which they beare vs downe to be Christs body He alludeth to the Stoicks who held that the Gods had some shape and that shape was as a body but yet no body and had as it were blood and yet no blood Wherein the Marcionites also in a manner agreed with them and our Romanists at this day with either imagining our Sauiour saith Tertullian to haue flesh hard without bones solide without muscles bloody without blood clad without coate speaking without tongue eating without teeth c. Whereupon Tertullian concludeth that since Christ had all his limmes when hee shewed them to his Desciplâ—s they that imagined such a Christ as this that deceiueth beguileth and deludeth all mens eyes and senses and touchings and taste too hee might haue said we at least may say should not bring him from heauen from whence the Marcionites said their Christ had his body though the Papists dare not say they haue theirs from thence but fetch him rather out of some iuglers box the Popish pyx or the like not to worke saluation but to make sport with This I haue the rather insisted vpon to shew how the Papists iump in their conceits about this their breaden God and strange fantasticall body that hath all parts of a mans body and yet none at all to be seen felt heard yea or vnderstood with the Hereticks of old time and to confirme these their dotages vse and vrge the very same Arguments that they then did by the ancient Fathers long since answered As also that the ancient Fathers vsed then the very same Arguments against them that we doe now against these which yet it pleaseth this vaine trifler to tearme grossely carnall and vnworthy to be answered § 2. Oh but saith hee it is a grosse kinde both of diuinity and philosophie fit for such a stupide Professor to hold that locall extention visiblitie palpability and other naturall accidents and sensible proprieties cannot by Gods omnipotency be severed from his owne body without the destruction of it 1. Yea and to omit that it is a very sorry shift to haue recourse to Gods omnipotency for the iustifying of such monstrous fictions and forged miracles as either in this their prodigious dotage or in their lying Legends they haue endeauoured to obtrude vpon the world To say that God can make Christs body to remaine still in his full stature and yet at the same time to be no bigger then to enter in at a mans mouth or goe downe a childs throat or to make a mans body consisting of flesh blood and bone to haue no dimensions or extention at all not other accidents and properties of a naturall body is manifestly to say that God can make a thing at the same time to be and not to be to be a body and no body which implyeth contradiction And those things that imply contradiction they theÌ„selues grant that God cannot doe For it were to make falshood truth which hee that is Truth it selfe can neuer doe 2. In this very manner also did the Heretickes reason as appeareth by Theodoret to maintaine their absurd dotages against the Orthodox Christians who likewise answered them then as wee doe these now There is nothing saith the Hereticke that God cannot doe Wee say that all things are possible with God And Iob saith that God can doe all things and there is nothing impossible with him There is nothing therefore but he can doe that is able to doe all things Now how doth the Orthodoxe disputer answer this God saith hee can do whatsoeuer he will But God neither can doe nor will any thing which is not agreeable to his owne nature As for example he cannot sin hee cannot ly nor do any vniust thing being iustice and truth it selfe Many things there are therefore that God that can doe all things yet cannot doe Yea it is a part of his power that he cannot doe them no argument at all of any impotency in him This was deemed a sufficient answere to those Heretikes then and may as well now be returned our Popish Adversaries fighting with the same weapons that they then did for points as absurd as euer any of them held Diuision 11. ANother Argument is by my Aduersarie tediously prosecuted pag. 12. wherein from Christs locall being still in heaven hee argueth and endeauoureth to prooue an vtter impossibility of his bodily being in the Sacrament Of which kinde of disputing I may fitly say with Saint Augustine Behold with what manner of Arguments humane infiâ—mity possessed with vanity contradicteth Gods omnipotency As if naturall vnder standing were able to comprehend the vtmost limit and extention of Gods power which is in it selfe infinite and inforutably manifested in many of his wonderfull miracles of which as I haue said no other reason can be giuen but that hee is omnipotent that did them and cannot deceiue vs when hee is pleased to testifie them Can wee conceiue for example the creation of the world of nothing at all preexisting the resurrection and repaire which God will make of all bodies so vtterly by frequent and successiue conuersions into other things altered and consumed the personall vnion of man with God the torment of soules and diuels wholly spirituall by corporall fire the consubstantiall subsisting of the divine nature simply one of it selfe in three distinct persons and other like mysteries of faith not conceiuable more then the bodily being of our Saviour in the Sacrament yet vpon the warrant of Scripture and doctrine of Christs Church faithfully by vs beleeued Can this Minister tell me to come more neerely to our purpose how our Sauiour appeared visibly to S. Paul on earth as diuerse plaine texts import particularly by Bellarmine produced and discussed and yet as himselfe will not deny still remaining in heauen Or can he tell me how our Sauiours body went out of his Sepulcher without remoouing that huge stone rolled afterward by the Angell from it Or how hee entred the house the doores being and remayning still shut vpon his disciples as for a great miracle the Euangelist recounted Or how he pierced the solide and huge Orbes of heauen in his ascension without making any hole in them Sithence it is equally aboue nature for many bodies to possesse one place as for one bodie to be in many places And if according to
Christian true Philosophy the soule of man being a spirituall and indiuisible substance can at one be entirely in distant parts of mans body exercising all distinct operations in them why is it impossible for God to giue his humane body distant presences and a spirituall manner of being in the Sacrament when as by personall vnion with himselfe he giueth to the same body a far higher and more inconceiuable manner of beeing MY fift Argumâ—nt is from the nature of a true body which cannot possibly be the same whole and entire in many places at once much lesse in places as farre distant as East and West Heauen and Earth Now heere againe is hee faine to fly as before to Gods omnipotency That is their Deus è machina as they had wont to speake that is the knife still at hand to helpe to cut all those knots that by their wanton wits and absurd fantasies they haue snarled themselues in And the better to enforce this Catholike Answer that seâ—ueth them for the saluing of all sores hee reckoneth vp a long bead roll of wonderfull works as the Creation the Resurrection the Hypostaticall vnion the Trinity in Unity the torment of Spirits by corporall fire Christ comming out of the Sepulcher without remooving the huge stone his entring into the house while the doores were still shut his appearing to Paul on earth while hee was still in heauen which he telleth vs Bellarmine hath plainely prooued his piercing of the solide Orbes of heauen in his Ascention the soule being at once entirely in distant parts of mans body c. And then demandeth why God cannot cause Christs body to be as well one and the same whole and entire in so many seuerall distant places at once the rather since that it is equall aboue nature for many bodies to possesse one place as for one body to be in many places 1. Here are diuers things that are questionable both in Diuinity and Philosophy which albeit he take pro concessis will not so easily be granted him till they be better prooued then as yet they are howsoeuer we exclude not diuerse of them out of the reach of Gods omnipotency euen as he vnderstandeth them as 1. The manner of the soules being in distant parts of the body is disputable nor is there the same reason of bodies and of spirits 2. The torment of spirits whether it be by corporall fire or no is not agreed on as a matter of faith Bellarmine himselfe so confesseth 3. The manner of Christs apparition to S. Paul is not certaine Neither doth Bellarmine prooue that Christ was below on earth or neere the earth in his humanity nor is it to the purpose whether he were or no. Steuen saw him in heauen the heauens opened Paul was rapt vp himselfe into heauen Yea in heauen and from heauen it was that Christ appeared to him if we may beleeue Pope Gregory and one that goeth ordinarily for Ambrose Nor can Bellarmine produce any one of the Ancients that saith otherwise Howbeit neither do we so pen vp Christ in heauen but that he may at his pleasure though ordinarily he doth not descend 4. For Christs comming in to his Disciples when the doores were shut Why might not as Ierome speaketh the creature giue way to the Creator as the iron gate did to Peter It is said saith Durand one of their Schoolemen that Christ came when the doores were shut but it is not said that he came in through the doores so shut he might enter in by some other place or cause the doores to open suddenly and shut instantly againe 5. For Christs resurrection Let him heare the same Durand It cannot saith hee be prooued by any Text of Scripture that Christ rose againe while the Tombe was so shut and so consequently that his body passed through the stone Or if Durands authority will not serue let them heare Pope Leo in one of his decretall Epistles Christs body saith he rose againe the stone being rolled away 6. For his Ascension to omit that this solidity of the Orbes is in Philosophy a thing questionable and such a point as if it bee denyed this great Doctor will hardly be euer able to make good I answer with Durand that Whether the heauens bee divisible in their owne nature or by divine vertue as the one they well may bee and the other certainly they are there is no necessity that Christs body in his Ascension should be together in the same place with the bodies of the Orbes So that in none of these Examples there is any necessitie of two bodies being in one place at once Which yet if it were prooued if they will beleeue their owne Schoolemen were not suffiicient For howsoeuer this great Doctor tell vs that it is equally aboue nature for many bodies to be in one place and for one body to bee in many places yet they say that it is not so Though two bodies saith Aquinas may be in one places at once yet it followeth not that one bodie may bee in two places at once The former is not possible but by miracle the latter not at all It is not alike saith Durand for two bodies to be at once in one place and for one body to be at once in more places then one For the one implieth a contradiction the other doth not the former he meaneth though it may seeme so to doe 2. And so he hath a direct answer why wee deny that a body can be in diuerse places at once notwithstanding we beleeue and acknowledge Gods wonderfull workes of Creation Resurrection Christs Incarnation and those vnsearchable mysteries of the Trinitie and Hypostaticall vnion c. because the one implyeth a contradiction those other doe not And here let me entreat the Reader since that these men so much presse vs with Gods omnipotency to cast his eye backe with me to those manifold impossibilities before mentioned and by themselues acknowledged euen in this very businesse concerning the Sacrament Whereby it may appeare that they make vse of it onely to serue their owne turnes vrging it then when it may stead them and denying it then when it doth not To recite againe some one or two of them onely adding one or two more to them Luthers opinion saith Bellarmine cannot be true because it is no way possible that one thing should not be changed and yet should become another And It is impossible saith Lanfranck that one thing should be turned into another and not cease to be so farre forth as it is converted It is impossible saith this Defendant that cannot endure here to heare of any impossibility That a man should be a Rocke or a Uine And It is impossible saith Bellarmine that bread should bee Christs body It is not possible saith Maironis that one should be in two times at
and many more of their learnedest companions meer Iuglers and Impostors who seeke to plaister rotten wals and maske with great wordes the naked breadinesse of their Protestanticall Sacrament AT the end of this Argument I answer an Obiection how Christs body and blood can be conveighed vnto vs or eaten and drunke of vs in the Eucharist if hee be not there present Which Question from the Fathers as you heard before may in a word be soone answered Because our Sauiour shewed it by those wordes of his concerning his ascension his speech therunto annexed to be a spirituall not a corporall kind of communication And if they will heare one of their owne Bishops Iansenius hee will tell them that to eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood is to beleeue in his Incarnation and in his passion and blood sheading and that so by faith either of them are both present with vs and conueighed to vs as well in the Sacrament as out of it But hereupon this mine Aduersary befooling me for my labour for taking such a task vpon me to answer such a Question saith I vndertake to declare that by comparisons as if there were no difficulty at all in it which Calvin and Beza confesse to be a mysterie vnconceiuable incomprehensible inexplicable yea which as wee hold it implyeth an evident contradiction affirming that Christ is no more present therein nor in any manner conioyned with the sacramentall signes then the land conveighed by an Indenture sealed is present with the same or then hee is present with the water in Baptisme Whereupon hee worthily inferreth that this our Sacrament then is but a bare signe or figure of Christs body having no mystery at all worthy of admiration and Calvin and Beza c. are but Iuglers and Impostors It might well haue been one of Hercules his labours to purge this mans writings Augaeus his stable was not fuller of durt and dung then they are of foule and filthy corrupt matter and of lowd and lewd lies 1. Where doe I affirme it to bee a matter without all difficulty fully to explicate the admirable efficacy and operation of divine mysteries or the manner how the same is effected I shew onely by some comparisons and those such as the Apostle warranteth the vse of how Christ may being absent bee truely and effectually conueighed and assured vnto vs. But followeth it thence that I hold the thing it selfe for the manner of effecting it to haue no difficulty at all in it Doe not the ancient Fathers hold the Trinitie an vnsearchable mysterie And yet what is more common among them then by Comparisons and similitudes to shew how in one nature there may be a plurality of persons This Disputant himselfe among other wondrous workes reckoneth the resurrection of mens bodies for one will hee say that the Fathers therefore deeme that there is no difficulty in it because by sundry similitudes they endeauour to proue a possibilitie of it notwithstanding the frequent and successiue conuersions of them into other things altered and consumed as hee speaketh 2. Let him shew how it implieth an evident contradiction to say that Christs bodie is truely given with the sacramentall signes though it bee no neerer then heauen-top is to the mouthes of the receivers How this may be without colour of contradiction not in the Sacrament onely but out of it also when as the thing is done spiritually beside the comparisons that I expresse it by his owne Iansenius will shew yea or his owne Albert will enforme him where hee saith that Some eate and yet eate not and some eate not and yet eate The former hee meaneth of those that eate vnprofitably in the Sacrament the latter of those that eate spiritually out of it If out of the Sacrament men may truely receiue Christs body though it be no neerer then heauen top to their mouthes then is it no such strange paradox as should imply contradiction to say that the selfe same is done in the Sacrament also I will tell him of a stranger matter Many thousands thus did eate Christs flesh a thousand yeeres before hee was in the flesh For howsoeuer hee required before to haue it prooued and Bellarmine in diuerse places would faine deny it and in effect sometime doth though directly and absolutely he dare not yet it was shewed before out of Augustine to whom I now adde Gregorie Nyssene who in his tenth Sermon on the Canticles speaking of those wordes Eate and drinke my friends There is no difference saith hee betweene the wordes here vsed and the words vsed in the Institution of the Eucharist For that which hee exhorteth vs to doe in the one was then also done in that divine meate and drinke And very many yea the most of their owne writers vniformly confesse it Thomas Aquinas on 1 Cor. 10. They did eate all the same spirituall meate that is Christs body in a signe spiritually vnderstood and dranke all the same spirituall drinke to wit Christs blood in a signe They did eate Christ spiritually according to that Beleeue and thou hast eaten Anselm or Hervae◅s rather that goeth vnder his name They did eate in the Manna the same food of Christs body that wee eate in Bread and the same drinke of Christs blood that wee drinke out of the Chalice did they drinke from the Rocke Hugh of S. Uictors The same saith hee that is signifying the same and having the same effect And Hugh the Cardinall They did eate signified in the Manna the same spirituall meate that is the body of Christ and dranke the same spirituall drinke the blood of Christ and this did they by faith according to that of Augustine Beleeue and thou hast eaten If Christs flesh then might be spiritually eaten by faith so long before it was and it implyeth no contradiction to say that Christs flesh was so eaten even before his Incarnation much lesse doth it to say that it is now spiritually eaten though locally and corporally it be no neerer then heauen-top is to the mouth or lips of him that so eateth it Faith like an Epistle maketh things and persons absent present Nor doth a spiritual feeding necessarily require a corporall presence of that that is fed on 3. Where say I that Christ is no otherwise conioynrd with the Sacrament then the land with the Indenture and seale of it I say onely that Christs body maybe and is as effectually conveighed vnto vs by the one as land is cōveighed to vs by the other though neither of them be locally or materially present And if no more then so were done in the Sacrament yet were there much more done thereby then by their owne confession is done by their orall and corporall manducation in which manner they grant themselues that many so eate Christ as yet hee is neuer effectually conueighed or assured
that through Iesus Christ by whom he continually createth quickeneth and blesseth all these good things And againe that that which they haue taken may of a temporall gift become an eternall remedie How stand now these speeches and prayers with their Transubstantiation Are Christs body and blood those temporall gifts and good things that God by Christ daily createth and quickeneth Or needeth Christ the Priest to entreate his Father to looke propitiously vpon him Or any Angell to cary him vp and present him before his Father in heauen in whose presence and sight he is continually there Or is it not absurd to place Abels fatlings and Abrahams Ramme in equipage with the body and blood of Christ Iesus But these things it seemeth were in their ancient Liturgies before euer this new monster was hatched and to their owne shame confusion are yet vnwisely still retained And if you will see how handsomely things therein hang together obserue but this one passage The Priest prayeth to God to send an Angell to fetch the holy Housell vp into heauen and yet they tell vs withall the most of them that it neuer came from thence nor neuer returneth againe thither wherein we better beleeue them then we doe some other of their fellowes that say otherwise and within a while after hee swalloweth it downe himselfe and then praieth God as if he repented him of his former prayer that that which hee hath eaten may sticke fast to his guts Let him shew any such absurdities as these if he can in our Seruice If some pieces of Antiquity found in theirs be retained still in ours that is neither derogation to ours nor commendation to theirs Wee embrace true and sound Antiquity wheresoeuer we finde it their corrupt nouelties which it suteth so euillfauouredly withall we deseruedly reiect THey pretend cleare places of Scripture for each point of their doctrines wherein they differ from vs. But when they come to be duly discussed they either make against themselues or prooue nothing at all against vs as I will briefely declare in this very controuersie for a Corollarium of my whole doctrine For whereas S. Cyprian S. Hilarie Saint Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Augustine Cyrill Hesychius Theodoret and vniuersally all the ancient Fathers commenting the 6. Chapter of S. Iohns Gospell haue literally vnderstood Christs promise of giuing his flesh to eate and his blood to drinke in the Sacrament these men restraine them to a metaphoricall and spirituall eating by faith onely and for this their interpretation quite contrary to the iudgement of the ancient Church they onely cite those wordes of Christ It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing c. and affirme them to import that Christs wordes are figuratiuely to bee vnderstood and not at all according to the literall signification of them to wit of Christs body and blood receiued in the Sacrament Whereas at most they can import that Christ promised not to giue his flesh and blood cannally as the Capharnaits vnderstood him cut to wit in pieces and by bits eaten as S. Augustine explicateth them but that Christs body and blood were to be after a spirituall manner present and receiued in the Sacrament which we deny not And great Authors as Tolet noteth so expound them as to make this sense It is the deity or diuine spirit which is vnited with my flesh that viuificateth by grace soules worthily receiuing it and not by flesh alone barely of it selfe eaten Neither of which explications prooue a figuratiue vnderstanding of Christs wordes this being a Glosse of their owne besides the text neuer before them taught by any Catholike Doctor and so it can be no solide sufficient ground sor them to rely vpon for their hereticall deniall of Christs true body and blood really present and receiued in the Sacrament For Scripture ill vnderstood is no Scripture but Gods word abused § 7. YEt in concluâ—ion to say somewhat againe of the present point hee telleth vs that S. Cyprian Hilarie Ambrose Chrysostome Augustine Cyrill Hesychius Theodoret and all the ancient Fathers vniuersally vnderstood that place of Iohn concerning the eating of Christs flesh not figuratiuely but literally whereas wee contrary to the iudgement of the whole ancient Church vnderstand them of spirituall eating by faith alleadging onely for this our exposition those words of our Sauiour It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing which wordes as Tolet sheweth may beare another sense 1. How prooueth hee that these Fathers so expound that place Forsooth he sendeth vs to seeke the proofe of it in Bellarmine It is enough that he saith it let Bellarmine if he can prooe it But is not this impudent out-facing to say that these Fathers all literally vnderstand it when out of diuerse of them the contrary hath beene euidently shewed Yea when Augustine one of them giuing rules to expound Scripture doth expressely affirme that the place is to be taken figuratiuely and that it were an haynous and flagitious thing otherwise to vnderstand it 2. It is another vntruth as grosse as the former to say we ground our exposition on those wordes onely Wee vrge indeed the wordes following The wordes that I speake are spirit and life And we vrge and expound them no otherwise then diuerse of the Ancients haue done before vs. To omit Athanasius formerly alleadged Augustine besides that that is in the selfe same place cited What meane those wordes saith he They are spirit and life but that they are to be vnderstood spiritually And againe He spake this that hee might not bee vnderstoode carnally as Nicodemus before had done Yea and of those former wordes Thomas Aquinas out of Chrysostom When Christ saith It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing his meaning is that we ought spiritually to vnderstand those things that wee heare of him and that whoso heareth carnally getteth thereby no good Now to vnderstand them carnally is to looke on the outward things onely and to imagine no more then wee see To vnderstand them spiritually is not so to iudge of them but also with the inward eyes to looke on them Which in all mysteries ought alwayes to be done And Tertullian When Christ saith that The flesh profiteth nothing His meaning must be drawne from the matter of his speech For because they thought his speech hard and intollerable as if hee determined to giue them his very flesh to bee eaten or his flesh verely to bee eaten to place the state of saluation in the spirit hee premiseth It is the spirit that quickeneth and then adioyneth the flesh profiteth nothing to wit to quicken And withall he sheweth what he meaneth by the spirit The words that I haue spoken are spirit and life As he said before Hee that heareth my word and beleeueth in him that sent mee hath life eternall So
heare Augustine expounding the words of the Apostle what it is not to discerne the Lords body to wit not to discerne that from other meates by a reuerence singularly due vnto it which is as he speaketh else-where in some sort Christs body because a Signe and a Sacrament of it Yea let him heare himselfe where he saith The sinne of such persons is made this by the Apostle that they distinguish not this bread from other common bread And then see how well they serue to prooue that that here they are alleadged for For the latter Not to demand of them how chance they oft celebrate contrary to both our Sauiours and the Apostles practice without any breaking of bread at all if their paper wafer-cake at least deserue that name Who denied euer a communication of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament But must it needes bee corporall or else it is none at all The tongue tripping now and then telleth truth And the truth start out of his mouth before vnawares where he said that Christ is present there in a spirituall manner And in a spirituall manner as out of Athanasius and Augustine yea and their owne Iansenius I haue shewed doe wee participate of and communicate with the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament sending the hand of our faith as Augustine speaketh vp into heauen yea reaching it as I may well say to Christs Crosse. I will adde to the former onely one obseruation of Bernard who in many places speaketh of this our communication with Christ Alluding to those words of our Sauiour Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him Christ saith he both eateth vs and is eaten of vs that wee may the more firmely and strictly be fastened vnto him Otherwise should wee not bee perfectly vnited to him For if I eate and be not eaten he may seeme to be in me but not I yet in him Againe if I be eaten but eate not he may seeme to haue me in him but not to be yet in me For there is no absolute vnition in either of these alone But when both he eateth me that I may be in him and is eaten of me that he may be in me then is there indeed a firm and an entire connexion I being in him and hee in mee But Christs eating of vs is not orall or corporall but mentall and spirituall of the like kinde therefore is our eating of him and our mutuall participation alike in either Which in these wordes also most sweetly doth Iansenius expresse By faith this bread is not simply taken but being chewed as it were with teeth while it is well considered what and what manner of food it is and so broken it is conueighed with a kinde of delight and spirituall taste into the bowels of the soule and is incorporated into vs that so Christ being in an hidden and secret manner by faith vnited vnto vs may dwell as the Apostle speaketh in our hearts by his presence there quickening and nourishing them and so expell all hunger and thirstinesse out of them while he remooueth both the want of things needfull to true life and the desire of other transitorie things And it is the same in effect that Caluine meaneth when he saith To feede on Christ is somewhat more then barely to beleeue in him and that it is not so much beliefe it selfe as an effect and fruite of it That which Bonauenture the Schooleman also not vnfitly thus expresseth Eating saith hee is properly spoken of the body and is by way of similitude applied to the soule That therefore we may know what is meant by spirituall eating wee must haue an eye vnto corporall feeding Now in corporall manducation there are these two things mastication and incorporation or a chewing of the meate in the mouth and an incorporating of it into the body In like manner in spirituall eating there is first a spirituall chewing that is a recogitation or a serious consideration and faithfull meditation of the spirituall meate that is of Christs flesh exposed for vs both as a ransome to redeeme vs and as food also to feed vs and secondly a spirituall incorporation when vpon such recogitation or consideration the soule is by a louing affection vnited and incorporated to the thing considered and is thereby refreshed or nourished and so made in grace more and more like vnto it So that vnto spirituall manducation are two things required a faithfull recogitation and a louing affection Whence it followeth that neither is euery kinde of faith sufficient to effect this spirituall feeding on Christ but such faith onely as worketh by loue nor is euery effect of faith a feeding on Christs flesh but that onely whereby Christs flesh that was boyled as it were to make food for vs on the Crosse is so considered and in a spirituall manner digested and conâ—â—cted as was before said for the feeding and refreshing of our soules So that Caluines doctrine and ours concerning this spirituall feeding on Christ and so communicating with his body and blood is no other then the Ancients long since taught and their owne writers themselues acknowledge Which in one word I shut and seale vp with that short saying of Chrysostome tha tboth in Baptisme and the Eucharist It is faith that doth all Yea but Chrysost. saith that that that is in the Chalice is that which flowed out of Christs side and we are made therof partakers And out of S. Lukes Greeke Text it is plainely gathered What out of S. Luke hee alleadegth wee shall see anone Onely mark how he fleeth from their onely authenticall Latine heere to the Greeke Text which at other times they say is so corrupted that there is little certainety of ought from it further then their Latine and it concurre Chrysostome saith indeede as hee is here cited But it must be remembred what both their Sixtus Senensis and Bellar. also say of him to wit that Chrysostome is wont to speake many things hyperbolically or excessiuely in his sermons especially To passe by other places where hee saith that the Church is that very Chamber where Christ celebrated his last Supper that we touch his side with our lips that we set our teeth in his flesh that we cut his flesh assunder that our tongue is died with blood and our mouth is filled with fire while no man but an Angell with tongs reacheth a coale of fire to vs that Christ doth â—neade as dough and mingleth himselfe together with vs and that we are likewise knod as dough and mixed or tempored together with him into his flesh To let these passe I say in the very Sermon here cited he hath diuerse passages which themselues will not deny must needes be
figuratiuely meant as where he saith that Christ suffereth that in the Sacrament that he did not suffer vpon the Crosse to wit the breaking euen of his bones which there he did not that the altar is bloodied with Christs blood as hee saith else-where that the people are all died red with it that the bread is Christs bodie which in propriety of sense saith Bellarmine is impossible and that by taking it we are not onely vniâ—ed to Christs body and become one body with Christ or Christs body and all of vs one body but that wee our selues are that selfe same bodie that we take Not vnlike that which Haimo hath that Christs naturall bodie and the Eucharisticallbread and the Communicants themselues are all but one and the same body Yea that he is to be vnderstood figuratiuely appeareth as by that that hee addeth there that like Eagles we must soâ—re aloft vp to heauen and not flagge downeward nor creepe below vpon the ground if wee will come at Christs body so by that which hee saith elsewhere that it was wine that Christ deliuered when hee deliuered this mystery that which hee prooueth also by the wordes of our Sauiour himselfe in the place before discussed I will drinke no more of this fruite of the vine Chrysostome saith that the Altar is bloodied with Christs blood and his body suffereth that there which really it doth not as the Apostle faith that Christ was crucified in the sight of the Galatians who in likely hood many of them neuer saw peece of his Crosse and as August saith he lies not that saith that Christ is immolated on Easter-day in regard of the similitude that that Sacrament hath of his passion that that day is celebrated and in like manner may it very well be vnderstood when hee saith that Christs blood is in the Cup. Nor hindreth it but that this speech of Chrysostome may be taken tropically because he saith That that flowed out of Christs side as Augustine also though no friend to Transubst antiation is reported to say the same no more then it would haue hindered but that the Apostles words might haue bin takeÌ„ figuratiuely as Caietan also well obserueth hough of the Rocke hee should haue said That Rocke was that Christ that was crucified and died and rose againe from the dead § 10. In the next wordes hee commeth to prooue a Sacrifice there The very manner saith hee of Christs speeches Quod pro vobis datur quod pro vobis effundetur which is giuen for you which shall bee shed for you import plainly a Sacrifice which he hath as all that euer he hath almost out of Bellarmine As if those wordes had not a manifest relation to his passion which is a true Sacrifice indeed and a most perfect yea the full complement of all other that which their owne vulgar Translation also plainely importeth yeelding the wordes as they are also in the very Canon of the Masse by the future tense Tradetur effundetur shall be giuen shall be shed as hauing an eye to the passion then neere at hand wherein his body was to bee giuen and his blood to be shed So Gregorie of Ualence That is or shall be giuen or broken that is that shall bee offered by me for you being slaine or sacrificed on the Crosse as saith hee the Apostle himselfe also expoundeth it So Cardinall Hugh h He tooke bread and brake it thereby signifying that his body should be broken on the Crosse and that hee did himselfe expose it to be so broken and crucified And when he said that shall bee shed he foretold them of his passion then shortly to ensue Yea so Card. Caietan who addeth also not vnfitly that Christs body is said then to be giuen and his blood to be shed because his passion was then in a manner begun l a plot being now laid for his life and his bodie and blood already bought and sold by them And to omit that Christs words concerning his bodie do no more intimate a present act of deliuering it then those wordes of his the like else-where n I lay downe my life for my sheepe Let him but shew vs how Christs blood is shed in this Sacrifice For as for Bellarmines bold assertion that bread is said to be broken when it is giuen by whole loaues and wine is said to bee poured out when it is giuen by whole hogs-heads or rundlets at least not by pots or pitchers full onely it is most senselesse and abfurd But why doth not this eager disputer vrge rather that which many of them doe that Christ bad them r Doe this that is as they senselesly expound it Sacrifice this For that is a maine pillar that they pitch much vpon Which expositioÌ„ yet as Bellarmine is almost ashamed of and blameth Caluin wrongfully as if he had wronged them therein by charging them with such expositions and arguments as they make not nor alleadge so Iansenius acknowledging ingenuously that some did so argue as indeede not a few doe yet confesseth that that is but a weake argument and granteth in effect that it cannot either out of that or any other place of the Gospel be prooued that the Sacrament of Christs body and blood is a Sacrifice And is faine therefore to runne to tradition for it and yet there also findeth he little footing for such a Sacrifice as they would haue it to be For Irenaeus saith he that liued neere the Apostles times calleth the Sacrament of Christs body and blood a Sacrifice in regard of the bread and wine therein offred as types of Christs body and blood as also in regard of the thankesgiuing therein offred as well for the worke of our Creation as for the worke also of our redemption And howsoeuer this doughty Doctor say that our Sauiours words so plainly import it yet is their graund Champion Bellarmine where at large he debateth this businesse euill troubled to finde it out either in Christs Institution or in their owne Masse booke or to shew wherein it consisteth Where it is not indeede hee can easily tell vs but he cannot so easily tell vs where it is It is not he saith he in the oblation that goeth before Consecration for then not Christs body but bare bread should be sacrificed It is not in the Consecration for therein appeareth no oblation nor no sensible immutation which is needfull in an externall sacrifice It is not in the Oblation that commeth after Consecration for that oblation neither Christ nor his Apostles at first vsed It is not in the breaking for that is sometime â—mitted nor doe we saith vse such breaking as Christ did now adaies It is not in the peoples communication for then the