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
of God And againe We are said to drinke Christs blood not in the Sacramentall rites onely but when we receiue his word wherein life consisteth as he saith The words that I speake are Spirit and Life And Hierome also vnderstandeth those words of our Sauiour He that eateth not my Flesh and drinketh not my blood not of the Sacrament of the Eucharist onely but more specially or as he speaketh more truly of Christs word and doctrine and addeth therefore that t When we heare the word of God both the word of God and the Flesh of Christ and his Bloud is powred in at our eares If in the Sacrament of Baptisme then and in the Ministery of the word we truly receiue Christ and become partakers of Christ yea we eate and drinke Christ in either as well as in the Eucharist what needeth any such reall transmutation more in the one then in the other 6. We reason from the Qualitie of the Communicants in the Eucharist If Christs body be really and corporally present in the Eucharist then all that eate of the Eucharist must of necessitie eate Christ in it But many eate of the Eucharist that yet eate not Christ in it For none but the faithfull feede on Christ none eate him as we shewed before but those that liue by him yea and in him that are liuing members of his mysticall Body Whereas many wicked ones eate of the Eucharist many eate of it that are out of Christ. The other Disciples saith Augustine did eate that Bread that is the Lord Iudas did eate the Lords Bread against the Lord. And disputing against those that hold that wicked men should be saued if they liued in the Church because they fed on Christ in the Eucharist saith that such wicked ones are not to be said to eate Christs body because they are not members of his body And that Christ when he saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I i◠him doth thereby shew what it is truly and not sacramentally onely to eate Christs body and to drinke his blood and that no man eateth his body and drinketh his blood that abideth not 〈…〉 Christ and Christ in him And againe he saith He receiueth the Bread of Life and drinketh the Cup of eternitie that abideth in Christ and in whom Christ dwelleth But he that disagreeth from Christ neither eateth his Flesh nor drinketh his Blood though to his owne iudgement for his presumption he daily receiue indifferently the Sacrament of so great a thing And againe They that eate and drinke Christ eate and drinke life To eate him is to be made againe to drinke him is to liue That which is taken visibly in a Sacrament is eaten and drunke spiritually in the truth it selfe For This meate and drinke maketh those that take it truly immortall and incorruptible This is therefore to eate that flesh and drinke that drinke for a manto abide in Christ and to haue Christ abiding in him And consequently he that abideth not in Christ nor Christ in him without doubt doth not eate his flesh nor drinke his blood spiritually though carnally and visibly with his teeth he crush the Sacrament of Christs Body To Augustine I adde Origen who hauing spoken what shall anone be related of Christs typicall and symbolicall Body as he calleth the Sacrament Much saith he might be said more of the Word it selfe that became Flesh and true Foode which whosoeuer eateth shall surely liue for euer and which no euill man can eate of For if it were possible that any man that continueth euill still should eate of the Word that became Flesh since it is the liuing Bread it had neuer beene written Whosoeuer eateth of this Bread shall liue for euer It is impossible then that any wicked man or any that are damned should eate Christ But many wicked men eate of the Eucharist many are damned that eate of it The Eucharist therefore is not really Christ. Lastly we reason from those things that are done about or may be fall those Creatures that in the Eucharist are consecrated which cannot be done to or betide now Christs glorified Body 1. The Eucharisticall Bread was broken in pieces and diuided into parts by our Sauiour at his last Supper And the like rite was obserued by the Apostles in the administratiof the Eucharist And is in the Romish Church also not vnusuall But as Christ saith the Apostle is not diuided so Christs Body is not diuided into parts as they themselues confesse nor broken into pieces His Body indeede is said to be broken not that it was really broken into pieces but as by the Prophet it is said that It pleased God to breake him and to put him to griefe which was fulfilled in those paines and torments that for vs he sustained and as we vse to say of men that with griefe and care they are broken Otherwise it was neuer broken much lesse is it now broken being wholly quit euen of all those infirmities that it was so broken with before Yea the Papists themselues not daring to auow that of Christs verie bodie are enforced to affirme that euery Communicant receiueth the whole and entire body of Christ. Yet they receiue but a part saith their owne Canon as you shall heare anone of the Element in the Sacrament That therefore that is so diuided there is not Christs naturall Body And here the Popish Glosser is strangely troubled to salue and reconcile the words of their Canons and to make their owne doctrine agree with the sayings of some of the Ancients there cited There is inserted into the Canon this saying of Augustine We doe 〈…〉 make parts of Christ when we eate him Indeede in the Sacrament we doe so and the faithfull know how we eate Christs flesh there Each one taketh his part and the Eucharist it selfe is therefore called their Parts Christ is eaten by parts in a Sacrament and yet remaineth whole in Heauen and yet remaineth whole in thy heart On which place saith the Glosser This is contrary to that which Pope Nicolas saith in Berengarius his Confession And so it is indeede for therein as before you heard it is said that not the Sacrament onely but Christs very Body it selfe is broken by the Priest But that cannot be saith the Glosse for a glorified Body cannot suffer any such maime or harme And therefore saith the same Glosse The Body and Blood of Christ is called by the name of Parts or the Species that are diuided are called the Body and Blood of Christ in a significant mysterie that is as we say because in a mysterie they signifie Christs Body and Blood That then which is taken in the Sacrament is diuided into parts and eaten by peece-meale But Christs naturall Body is not so diuided or taken corporally That therefore that is taken in the Eucharist
the first Nicene Councell will vs in this diuine table not to regard onely bread and wine proposed but to eleuate our minde by faith and behold on this table the Lambe of God taking away the sinnes of the world by Priests vnbloodily sacrificed and receiuing his body and blood to beleeue them to bee symboles and pledges of our resurrection c. O holy Ephrem renowned so for thy great learning and singular sanctitie as Saint Ierome testifieth thy writings to haue beene read in the Church after the holy Scriptures why doest thou will vs not to search after these inscrutable mysteries c. but to receiue with a full assurance of faith the immaculate body of the Lord and the Lambe himselfe entirely adding those wordes which cannot agree to such a communion of bare bread and wine as this Minister teacheth The mysteries of Christ are an immortall fire search them not curiously least in the search thou become burned c. telling vs that this Sacrament doth exceed all admiration and speech which Christ our Sauiour the onely begotten Sonne of God hath instituted for vs. Finally why doe other ancient â—nd chiefe Fathers of the Greeke and Latine Church call the consecrated bread and wine on the Altar dreadfull mysteries the food of life and immortality hidden Manna and infinitely excelling it a heauenly banquet the bread of Angels humbly present while it is offered and deuoutly adoring it c. If there bee no more but bare bread and wine therein receiued in memorie of our Sauiours passion as my Aduersarie affirmeth of his Protestanticall Sacrament THe next Diuisiâ—â— hee maketh entrance into with a grosse and shamelesse deprauation and thereupon prosecuteth it to the end with an impertinent digression Hauing cited the forenamed Testimenies of Theodoret and Gelasius in mine Answer to that Obiection brought commonly against vs as if by a deniall of such a reall presence as Papists maintaine wee should make the Sacrament to be nothing but bare bread I conclude both mine Answer and the Allegation of those two Authors in these wordes Thus they to wit Gelasius and Theodoret and thus we and yet neither doe they nor we therefore make the Sacraments of Christs body and blood NOthing but bare bread and wine Now this shamelesse wretch wanting matter to be dealing with turneth me NOthing into ANY thing a man able indeed with his shamelesse senselesse shifts to picke any thing out of nothing and relateth my wordes in this manner to a cleane contrary sense Thus they and thus we and yet neither doe they nor wee therefore make the Sacraments of Christs body and blood ANY thing but bare bread and wine Had either I or my Transcriber for the truth is it was not mine owne hand-writing that hee had I write a worse hand I confesse then he is aware of that accounteth that so bad an one If either I or hee I say had slipt heere with the pen as I suspected hee might haue done till I saw the copie againe that this Answerer had yet the whole tenour of my speech wherein I shew that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are no more bare bread or bare wine then the water vsed in the Sacrament of Baptisme is bare water would sufficiently haue shewed my meaning But when the copie that was deliuered him remaining in the custodie of that Noble Personage for whom at first it was written is found apparantly to haue the wordes in the very same manner as I haue before cited them I cannot deuise what colour this audacious wretch can bring to salue his owne credite with and excuse his corrupt carriage It argueth not a bad but a desperate cause that without such senselesse and shamelesse shifts cannot bee vpheld And I beseech your Ladiship well to consider what credite is to be giuen to these men alleadging Authors Fathers Councels c. which they know you cannot your selfe peruse and examine when they dare thus palpably falsifie a writing that you haue in your owne hands and may haue recourse to when you will § 2. Now hauing thus laid a lewd and loud vntruth for the ground of his ensuing Discourse 1. Hee falleth into an Inuectiue against our Protestanticall Communion as acknowledged by me to haue nothing holy heauenly and diuinely for so it pleaseth him to speak therein contained but bare bread and wine c. adding withall that neuer Câ—ietan neuer Bellarmine neuer Gratian neuer Father or other Catholique Diuine beleeued or taught this sacrilegious doctrine a lye he meaneth of his owne forging as my Aduersarie in these wordes They and wee falsly pretendeth In which wordes first for hee cannot forbeare fâ—lsifying for his life no not then and there where he chargeth others with falshood he intimateth that in those words Thus they I should haue reference to Caietan Bellarmine and Gratian whereas my wordes euidently point at Gelasius and Theodoret whose owne wordes in precise tearmes I had next before cited 2. He chargeth me falsely to say that of the Eucharish that neither I nor any of our Diuines euer said yea which being by way of Obiection before produced I not onely disauow and disprooue approouing freely and at large proouing the contrary but in this place in plaine tearmes conclude the direct contrary vnto in the very wordes by him fowly falfified 3. Hee runneth out to giue vs some taste of his rowling Rhetoricke as well as his loose Logicke into a solemn inuocation of his forged S. Dionyse together with some of the Ancients as if hee were raising of Spirits with some magicall inchantment to fight with a shadow and to skirmish with a man of straw of his owne making to testifie in that against vs that hee would faine put vpon vs but none of vs by his owne confession euer said or doe say Thus hee hath nibled here and there cauilled at by-matters coined lies forged and faced but giuen no direct Answer to the Argument whereunto hee should haue answered and whereby it was prooued that these wordes of our Sauiour This my body may well beare a figuratiue sense so expounded by the Ancient Fathers and confessed by their owne writers not so much as attempted to prooue the contrary thereunto § 3. Now howsoeuer I might very well let passe as impertinent those citations and sayings of the Authors here summoned to giue in either testimony or sentence against that that none of vs auoweth and which therfore though all that either they doe say or hee would haue them say were true did no way crosse vs or once touch vs in ought that is heerein affirmed of vs and I had sometime therefore determined wholy to passe by them for feare of ouercharging this Discourse yet considering that some weake ones peraduenture may stumble at some passages in them especially as they are vnfaithfully by this alleadger of them here translated I haue thought good now ere wee part with them to examinine what they say that
that is the meate that I will giue is my flesh it selfe that is to be crucified and staine for the saluation of mankind And he addeth that peraduenture our Sauiour called his flesh sometimes bread to shew that vnder the species of bread it was to be eaten So that all the force of Bellarmines Argument is but meerely coniecturall and dependeth vpon a peraduenture which hee cannot certainely auerre But without all peraduenture hee affirmed before that the bread of which our Sauiour said My Father giueth you the true bread from heauen and The bread of God is hee that came from heauen and giueth life to the world and I am the bread of life hee that commeth to mee shall neuer hunger and hee that beleeueth in mee shall neuer thirst and I am the bread that came downe from heauen and againe I am the bread of life and This is the bread that came downe from heauen that whosoeuer eateth thereof should neuer die and I am the liuing bread that came downe from heauen if any man eate of this bread hee shall liue for euer that the bread I say of which hee said all this was not the Encharist or the sacramentall bread and none of all this directly and properly concerneth it And well may wee put it out of peraduenture that the bread of which our Sauiour saith it is his flesh that he wil giue for the life of the world and whosoeuer eateth of it hath life euerlasting which no man also can haue without it is no other then that of which hee had before said that it is himselfe and that it giueth life to the world and life euerlasting to euery one that eateth of it the rather also for that our Sauiour himselfe so informeth vs when he saith not passing as Bellarmine would haue it from a second bread to a third but more particularly expressing what the second bread was and repeating more fully what before hee had said I am the liuing bread that came downe from heauen if any man eate of this bread hee shall liue for euer and the bread that I will giue what bread thinke we but the same that he was euen then speaking of which yet was none of the sacramentall bread saith Bellarmine is my flesh that I will giue for the life of the world Those ensuing passages therefore are not meant of the sacramentall bread or the Eucharist no more then the former But leaue wee Bellarmine and returne we to this our Defendant whom we are principally now to deale with His last Argument out of Tolet is not so much for the Eucharist as against the spirituall eating Christs flesh and drinking his blood by faith If our Sauiour had meant nothing but that they should beleeue in him it had been a strange course by such an obscure manner of speaking to driue away so many that had formerly followed him and beleeued in him without any word added that might open this darke doctrine To omit that here againe he departeth from Augustine who saith thus expresly Our Lord being about to giue the holy Ghost called himself bread exhorting vs tobeleeue in him For to beleeue in him is to eate that liuing bread He that beleeueth in him feedeth on him he is fatted inuisibly because he is inuisibly bred againe he is there filled where he is renewed And again They that shed Christs blood drank his blood whē they beleeued in him and they drank it by beleeuing in him 1. It pleased our Sauiour sometime as to Nicodemus and to the people oft-times to speake things in obscure Parables which yet to them he did not explicate Nor may any taxe the wisedome of Christ without impiety for so doing Yea so saith Augustine he spake that here which he would not haue all to vnderstand 2. Those that went away from him vpon it were as our Sauiour himselfe intimateth such as followed him onely to be fed and did not beleeue in him 3. If his meaning had beene that they were to eate of his very flesh it selfe miraculously made of bread as these men would make vs beleeue had it not beene as obscure and as difficult for them to haue conceiued it 4. It is not true that our Sauiour added nothing to explicate himselfe Augustine in the place before cited sheweth that he did And both in the beginning when hee first told them of this bread and d they desired him euer to giue them of it he maketh them answer in these words I am the bread of life Hee that commeth to me shall neuer hunger and he that beleeueth in me shall neuer thirst and in the processe of his speech againe Uerely verely I say vnto you Hee that beleeueth in mee hath life euerlasting Whereby saith Iansenius they might well haue vnderstood in what manner hee would giue them his flesh to eate Who also thence gathereth agreeably to Augustine and other of the Ancients that it is all one to feed on Christ and to beleeue in him As also in the Conclusion and shutting vp of all when hee saw how they mistooke him It is the spirit that quickneth the flesh availeth nothing the wordes that I speake are spirit and life In which wordes saith the same Iansenius out of Chrysostome Theophylact and Augustine hee sheweth how they should vnderstand what before he had said MY Aduersaries Arguments to the contrary are meerely topicall and prooue nothing For first it is false that the faithfull Iewes before Christ did sacramentally receiue our Sauiour as well as we which hee barely affirmeth and prooueth not page 7. Secondly those words of Christ Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of Man and drinke his blood you shall not haue life in you was a precept respectiuely giuen and onely obliging such persons to an actuall receiuing of the Sacrament as they were to whom it was vttred such persons to wit as are by age capable of Sacramentall manducation And surely if Christs words be onely vnderstood as my Aduersarie would haue them of spirituall eating Christ by faith they must necessarily import a precept more impossible to be fulfilled by children then sacramentally to receiue him For sooner may children receiue the Sacrament especially drinke of the consecrated Chalice as anciently in the Greeke and Latine Churches they were went to doe then actually beleeue in him His next Argument pag. 8. maketh more if this Minister had wit to discerne the force thereof against his owne exposition of Christs words then it doth against our vnderstanding of them For as all that receiue Sacramentally Christs flesh and blood are not saued no more are all that spiritually and by faith eate him This being sufficient for the veritie of our Sauiours speeches that the Sacrament is ordained to produce those excellent and
A DISCVSSION OF THE POPISH DOCTRINE OF Transubstantiation Wherein the same is declared by the Confession of their owne Writers to haue no necessary ground in Gods Word As also it is further demonstrated to be against Scripture Nature Sense Reason Religion the Iudgement of the Auncients and the Faith of our Auncestours Written by THOMAS GATAKER B. of D. and Pastor of Rotherhith LONDON Printed by I. L. for William Sheffard and are to bee sold at his shoppe at the entring in of Popes-head Alley out of Lombard-streete 1624. This Treatise consisteth of two parts 1. A briefe Discourse containing diuers Arguments against the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation 2. A Iust Defence of the same Discourse and Arguments against the Answer of a namelesse Popish Priest thereunto To the Reader BE pleased I pray thee to vnderstand in a word as the occasion of vndertaking so the motiue of publishing this Controuersie Hauing had some Conference with an Honourable Lady nobly descended whom some Factors for Rome had endeauoured to peruert about the Point of Transubstantiation and Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist I was by her requested to deliuer her in writing the summe of that that had passed then by word of mouth from me as well in way of Answere to the exceptions taken to our Doctrine as in way of opposition to the Romane tenet therein Whereupon within a few daies after hauing digested it as well as streights of time would permit and added some further enforcements of the generall heads then insisted on I deliuered it verbatim as here thou now hast it Which writing being imparted to one of those Factors a speedy answere was promised and after long expectation of it at length performed such as here it is exhibited vnder the letters of N. P. put for a Namelesse Popish Priest without word or syllable detracted added or altred Vnto which I soone after dispeeded a Reply which was to the same Honourable Personage also not long after represented Now hauing hitherto heard of nothing returned further thereunto albeit some yeeres be past since the exhibition of it I haue thought good by the aduice of some iudicious Friends to publish all together my Reply onely in some few places enlarged as well thereby the more fully to cleere some obiections vrged commonly to the simpler sort especially against our Faith and Doctrine concerning that Sacrament and our exposition of some passages of holy writ either concerning or supposed to concerne the same as also further to discouer to such especially as are not so well acquainted therewith the grosse and palpable frauds and falshoods with such Popish Factours too frequent which in the aduised reading and perusing hereof may easily and euidently be descried And this is all that not listing to detaine thee long from the discourse it selfe I was desirous by way of Preface to fore-acquaint thee withall The Lord vouchsafe thee and vs all true vnderstanding sound iudgement and a loue of the truth both in this and in all other things Thine in our common Sauiour THO GATAKER Errata IN the Text. page 31. line 21. for said reade say p. 33. lin 10 for these r. those l. 20. for a mans r. mans l. 23. for difficultie r. difficulties p. 39. l. 3. for confimeth r. confirmeth l. 12. for maine r. maime l. 27. for commodioas r. commodious p. 40. lin 5. for to passe r so passe p. 41. l. 11. for and r. with p. 42. l. 8. for is r. is not p. 47. l 7. for Crosse r. Grosse p. 51. l. 24. put out simply and p. 53. l. 7. for these r. in those p. 54. l. 17. for to conclude r. concluded p. 56. l. 25. after Christs put in body p. 60. l. vlt. for things r. thing p. 64. l. 30. for Catechising r. Catechisings p. 65. l. 5. for one r. of one p. 66. l. 17. for Glosse r. Gospell p. 74. l. 9. for this r. this is p. 75. l. 30. for their r. that their p. 87. l. 34. for either r. either p. 99. l. 24 26 36. put out 1. 2. 3. l. 35. for receiue r. receiuing p. 103. l. 5. after they put out was p. 199. l. 9. for Galathians r. Galatians p. 148. l. 10. for conuersion r. conuersion l 33. for it r. it p. 149. l. 35. for here read how l. 37. for before r. before p. 1â—0 l. 25. for body r. bodies p. 151 l. 20. for therefore r. thereof p. 152. l. 4. for to as r. as to l. 26. for bread r. bred p. 154. l. 31. for what r. what this p. 155. l. 31. for like like r like nature p. 158. l. 28. for whinch r. which l. 34. for those r. that those p. 169. l. 8. for Christ r. Christs p. 171. l. 3 for places r. place p. 187. l. 16 for seemed r. seeme p. 189. l. 27. for assumped r. assumpted p. 197. l. 31. for canot r. can not p. 199. l. 24. for in r. is in l. 33. for that is r. that which is p. 202. l. 21. for prooe r. proue p. 212. l. 13. place the before The contrary p 219. l. 20. for tempored r. tempered p 222. l. 29. after not put out he p. 226. l. 19. for Emissemus r. Emissenus In the Margent page 13. letter z. for signifitatiuè r. significatiuè p 17. l. e. for Videt r. Vide p. 20. * for dentis r. dentibus p. 21. * for mittar r. mittam p. 33. l. vst for est et r. esset p. 64 l. m. for Lenserus r Leuâ—aeus p. 66. l. k for Greg. 8 r. Graec. 82. p. 98. l q. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 100. * for hom r. nom p. 118. l. f. for ducatur iestis r. ducaturi estis p. 131 l. b. sor oniensis r. omensis p. 138. l. s remoue Gal 4. 3. to p. 139. p. 140. l. f. for l. 8. r. l. 1. p 165. l. b. for Sticorum r. Stoicorum p. 173. l. c. for Gerob r. Gorol p. 177. l. l. for paâ—is r. panis p. 192. l. x. for and r. ad l. a. for frantur r. frangitur l. b for sacerdotes r sacerdos p. 199. l x. for Christum r. Christi p. 219. l. u for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 220 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Briefe Discourse conteining diuers Arguments against the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation THE Question is whither Christ be corporally present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by vertue of a Transubstantiation or a reall conuersion of the Bread and Wine into the naturall Body and Blood of Christ. This those of the Church of Rome affirme we deny refuse to yeeld to for these Reasons 1. That which no Scripture enforceth vpon vs that in matter of Faith wee are not bound to beleeue For the Scripture is the Rule of our Faith In it saith August are found all those things Which concerne faith and good life And That which hath not authoritie from it saith Ierome may as
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
Theodorets owne words By Sacramentall Signes saith he Theodoret meaneth not the Substance of Bread and Wine 1. He vnderstandeth by the mysticall Signes that that is offered to God by Gods Priests And doth the Priest then offer nothing to God but accidents onely Indeed they tell vs that Melchisedech offred bread and wine and that their Priests are Priests after the order of Melchisedech and so offer such offerings as he did And the auncient Fathers alluding to that story by them allegorised say that Bread and Wine are offred to God in the Eucaarist But in the Popish Masse according to their opinion of it no such thing can be offred because no such thing is there present 2. More particularly explaining himselfe he saith that by the one signe he meaneth the food that of certaine graine is made and by the other the fruite of the Vine And is there any such foode or fruit at all that is no physicall substance or that consisteth of meere accidents He deserueth to be fed till he starue with such food that would feede or infect rather mens soules with such draffy stuffe as this is Yea in precise tearmes he saith that Christ called Bread not the accidents of bread his Body as he called his Body else-where bread 3. The very maine drift and scope euidently manifesteth his meaning which is to shew that the Lords Body though it be not a common body but hath glorious endowments yet remaineth a true body still as the Sacramentall bread though it be not common bread yet retaineth still it former nature and substance and is true bread still 4. If wee aske Theodoret himselfe what hee meaneth here by Substance and whether hee take the word in such sense as it is vsually taken hee telleth vs himselfe a little before he entreth into this discourse that by Substance he vnderstandeth a body and by Accidents which hee opposeth to Substance such things as betide bodies and yet may depart from them And they may as well say that by Substance Theodoret meant Accidents when hee saith that Christs body retaineth still the same bodily substance as they may say hee so meaneth when of the bread which hee compareth therewith hee saith the very same But what take I so much paines to set vp a light when the Sun shines the proofe is so plaine and his meaning so perspicuous that it may seem written as Tertullian speaketh with a beame of the Sunne saue to lay open a little this mans shamelesse carriage and senslesse shifts who yet with a confident face telleth his Reader that his Aduersarie both heere and else-where sheweth how learned and iudicious hee is in the choice of his authorities as if this allegation made wholly for them and against vs were it read all out or were nothing pertinent at least to the purpose § 5. In conclusion for Gratians Glosse acknowledging the truth by vs maintained that our Sauiours wordes are figuratiuely to bee vnderstood and Cardinall Caietan confessing that they may well beare that sense hauing nothing and that is maruell for he dare say any thing to except against either hee excuseth himselfe that hee hath not the bookes by him as if they were not commonly in Pauls Church-yard to be had if hee had listed to looke after them A bad excuse as we say is better then none at all with him Onely hee addeth that they are both of small account with them Caietan especially In regard whereof hee wondereth that I should so much magnifie him as if he were the Oracle of their Church c. For the former none can be ignorant what Authority among their Canonists the Glosses haue and in the place cited the rather because hee buildeth vpon Augustines owne wordes For the latter I cite him onely by the name of Cardinall Caietan nor had they many Cardinals in his time for learning his equals one of our Aduersaries that is all my magnifying of him But mine Adversaries lips must need ouer-runne Yet of what repute and esteeme Caietan was for both kinds of learning as well Philosophy as Diuinity to omit the titles commonly giuen him in the Inscriptions of his workes by those that set out some of them stiling him the most eminent Doctour and professor of diuinity his Commentaries on Thomas whence this testimony is taken most luculent and euen diuine Commentaries his smaller Treatises golden workes I may referre you to the workes themselues so many so learned so elaborate and to the storie of his life written by Antonius Fonseca and set out with some of them It is apparent and it is enough that a prime Cardinall of the Sea of Rome confesseth ingenuously that the wordes of our Sauiour This is my body may be siguratiuely taken for ought in the text were it not that their Church that is the Pope will haue them otherwise expounded Diuision 5. HE concludeth his first Discourse thus page 5. Thus they and thus we and yet neither doe they nor wee therefore make the Sacrament of Christs body and blood ANY thing but bare bread and wine Which Corollarium of his plainely so delivered may make any man see the Protestanticall Communion truely anathomized and plainely shewed to haue nothing holy heauenly and diuinely as the Fathers speake therein contained but bare bread and wine which any man may eate when and where hee pleaseth remembring withall our Sauiours passion Neuer Caietan neuer Bellarmine neuer Gratian neuer Father or other Catholique Diuine of our Church beleeued or taught this grosse and sacrilegious doctrine as my Aduersarie in his wordes They and Wee falsely pretendeth Neither doth Caluine or any other noted Diuine of their Church speake at least whatsoeuer they thinke so poorely and grossely of this Sacrament but they endeauour with Epithets and wordes to couer the bready nakednesse thereof making it seeme mysterious at least if not miraculous Blessed Saint Dennis great Scholler of Saint Paul himselfe I will heere presume to aske thee If the Sacrament of the Altar bee but bare bread and wine why doest thou so absurdly speake and blasphemously praey vnto it in this manner O most diuine and holy Sacrament vouchsafe to open those signifying signes and appeare perspicuously vnto vs and replenish the spirituall eyes of our soule with the singular and cleere splendor of thy light c. Why likewise thou holy Martyr and great Doctor of Christs Church Saint Itaeneus liuing so neere the Apostles times as to know great Polycarpus S. Iohns disciple and deeply seene in the knowledge of heauenly verities doest thou deny this bread after consecration to bee any more accounted common bread but the Eucharist cōsisting of two things heauenly and earthly that being receiued into our bodies they may bee no more corruptible hauing the hope of resurrection If no more then bare bread and wine be in this Communion as my Aduersarie affirmeth why did yee noble Confessors of
may seeme to make in any sort not against that heere charged on vs which we vtterly deny but against that which of this Sacrament we hold otherwise The first testimony is S. Dennis his shewed before to be but a counterfeit by the confession euen of Popish writers themselues But whosoeuer hee were for certaine enough it is that he was not the party whose name hee beareth but one of a farre later time vnknowne vtterly to Athanasius Eusebius and Ierome though curious searchers and enquirers after the workes of those that were before them nor knowne commonly to the world before Gregories dayes as Bellarmine also himselfe acknowledgeth hee maketh little for them in this point either in that that here is alleadged or in ought else that Bellarmine can fish or fetch out of him His wordes in the place heere cited are these and no more O most diuine and holy Mysterie symbolically discouering those enigmaticall ensoldments bee declared brightly vnto vs and replenish our intellectuall eye sights with single or immixt and vnenueloped light These I say his wordes are as neere as I can expresse them Which I so doe to giue you a taste of this Dennis his stile writing rather like a Dithyrawhicall Poet the boldest sort of them then like a sober and sound Diuine as taking vpon him to determine the degrees orders and offices of the Angels in heanen which other the Ancients durst not doe so discoursing of them and such other matters as hee entreateth of in an affected swelling and abstruse straine and coining a world of strange wordes and phrases no where else to bee found And no more they are then these which I adde because to the end of his allegation this fellow putteth an c. as if the Author had in that place vsed some longer discourse of that kinde Nor is the spâ—â—ch as he would haue it a prayer but a meere prosopopoeiâ— or rhetoricall compellation directed not to the Elements alone but to the Eucharist or the Lords Supper if with the Apostle they will giue vs leaue at least so to tearme it the whole Mysterie or mysterious rite as the word there vsed properly importeth Which Pachymeres the Greeke paraphraser of this Dennis well paralleleth with another of Gregorie Nazianzenes of the same nature and as well might Bellarmine or this Defendant haue alleadged the one as the other Who in his Easter-day Sermon turning his speech to the Festiuity it selfe and then from it to Christ himselfe the substance of it as Nicetas also well obserueth x O great and holy Passeouer saith he the purgation of the whole world For I will speake to thee as tâ— some liuing thing O word of God and light and life and wisedome and might For I take delight in reckoning vp all thy titles Haue thou this Oration as wellâ—gâ—atulâ—torie as supplicatorie and so forth And Nicet as thereupon Those wordes O Pasch or Passeouer he speakes or referreth to the Feast it selfe But those O word of God and so forward by way of acclamation hee directeth to Christ the spirituall Passeouer Nor is it vnlike to the speech that Ambr. makes in generall to the Element of water though with more special allusion and application to the water of Baptisme O water that hast merited that is in the vsuall language of those Auncieuts too much abused by our Aduersaries hast beene vouchsaâ—ed the grace to be a Sacrament of Christ that washest all vnwasht of any Thou bringest in the first thou closest vp the last Mysteries The beginning is from thee and the end in thee or rather thou makest vs to bee without end And so he goeth on in a long speech to the Element which yet no wise man will say that he had any purpose there to pray vnto Nor any more had this Dennis when he discoursed thus to the Eucharist the rather to be admitted and so conceiued in him considering his Poeticall and aenigmaticall vaine and manner of discourse I might well put them in minde of that Hymne of theirs wherein they thus if not inuocate at least parley with the Crosse All hâ—ile O Crosse our onely Hope This Passion time thy power set ope In righteous Persons grace encrease To sinfull soules their sinnes release Which howsoeuer they would faine salue with such a prosopopoeia some of them yet Aquinas ingenuously confesseth that therein they giue diuine worship to the woodden Crosse or of the like speeches that in a forme both of praise and praier they vse to the Veronicke or the print of Christs face in a towel and to our Ladies girdle and othèr the like wherein they craue â—o lesse of them beside sundry other graces then to be clensed from all sinne and to attaine eternall happinesse in so much that one of their writers relating the latter of them breaketh out into these words O how many and how marueilous things are requested of that holy girdle To which I might well adioyne also what Aquinas saith that they speake pray to the Crosse as to Christ crucified himself and what Bellarmine telleth vs that their Priests and Friers in the pulpit are wont to say to the woodden Crucifix Thou hast redeemed vs and reconciled vs to God the Father Which he thus salueth that this they say to it not as it is a piece of wood nor as it is an image neither but as it supplyeth the place of him whom it representeth that is they say it to Christ whose Deputie vicegerent the Image there is And yet from all this though too too bad and grosse indeed yea absurd and blasphemous by this mans owne grant will no man inferre that they hold either that girdle to be the Uirgin Mary or either the woodden Crosse or the stained towel or the carued Crucifix to be Christ himselfe So that though that of Dennis were a prayer indeede which yet plaine it is that it is not yet were it not by their owne grounds and graunts sufficient to prooue that he held the Sacrament therefore to be Christ himselfe I adde onely what from Augustine venerable Bede hath that holy Signes not onely are called by the names but doe in some sort sustaine the persons also of those things that they represent Which as being well considered it may helpe to cleere many speeches of the Ancients wherin they speak those things of the sacred Elements which cannot be vnderstood but of the things by theÌ„ signified so it occasioned them to take the more libertie to themselues for such Rhetoricall compellations as before haue bin spoken of Yea but else-where may some say and that but a little after he turneth himselfe to the Host which is said there to be his better or aboue him and therefore not bare bread excusing himselfe to it that he presumeth to deale with it Indeede so
is a deale of durt indeede and mud raised to trouble Augustines cleere water The Question is whether our Sauiours words be to be vnderstood properly or figuratiuely They say properly and not figuratiuely Augustine saith figuratiuely and so consequently not properly which is as much as is here required Christs body saith Bellar mine is with the body properly eaten in the Eucharist But it is no proper but a figuratiue eating saith Augustine that Christ speaketh of Iohn 6. It is no such eating of Christs body therefore as they imagine to be in the Eucharist Yea so contrary to them and so pregnant for vs is that passage of Augustine that in Fulbertus his workes where those words of his are related they haue with a foule insertion branded them for hereticall Yea but saith mine Aduersarie there are many plaine places in Augustine cited by Bellarmine for the reall receiuing of Christ which my superficiall Aduersarie taketh no notice of Bellarmine is still much in this mans mouth and the superficialnesse of his silly and vnlearned Aduersarie But this I am sure is a very vnlearned slender and superficiall proofe of points questioned to turne his Reader ouer still for satisfaction to some other Yet I will doe him the couttesie since he telleth vs of other plaine places in Augustine to present him with one of them though such an one it may be as will not easily goe downe with him Augustine speaking of this place in Iohn on Psal. 98. saith that Christ hauing vsed those words Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you When some vnderstood them foolishly and carnally he taught them to vnderstand them spiritually saying It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speake are Spirit and life As if he should haue said vnderstand you spiritually what I haue spoken You are not to eate that body which you see and to drinke that blood which they will shed that shall crucifie me I haue commended a kinde of Sacrament vnto you which being spiritually vnderstood will quicken you Though it must be visibly colebrated yet is it inuisibly to be vnderstood Thus Augustine in plaine tearmes and yet if we beleeue these men the very same body of Christ that was then seene and that very same blood that was shed on the Crosse is orally eaten and drunke in the Eucharist ANd surely if the Authoritie of holy Fathers might preuaile with the Minister further then himselfe listeth he cannot be so ignorant as not to know that all the auncient Doctors expounding or treating of Christs words Ioh. 6. haue literally vnderstood them of the Sacrament as learned Tolet Saunders Bellarmine and other of our diuines haue particularly prooued collecting from them inuincible Testimonies also to prooue the verity of our Sauiours body and blood really in the Sacrament conteined and receiued Insomuch as S. Austin affirmeth S. Iohn purposely to haue emitted all mention of the Sacrament in our Sauiours last Supper because he had in the 6. Chap. of his Gospell so particularly expressed the promised excellency and heauenly fruits thereof and many euident and vnanswerable Arguments are by Catholike expositors of that Chapter made to prooue the same which with silence my Aduersarie ouerpasseth First for example our Sauiour from the 31. to the 60. verse of that Chapter maketh a difference betwixt the gift which his Father had giuen to the Iewes louing the world so as to giue his onely begotten Sonne for it and the gift which himselfe meant to giue to them speaking of the one as a gift already past but of the other as of a gift afterwards to bee giuen vnto them Secondly He compareth the eating of his flesh to the Israelites eating of Manna in the desert which was a corporall food really eaten by them Thirdly If by eating his flesh and drinking his blood our Sauiour meant no other thing then that they should beleeue in him it had beene a strange course in him who so thirsted after the saluation of soules by an obscure manner of speaking to driue away so many such persons especially as had formerly followed him without any word added which might open this obscure doctrine vnto them as Card. Tollet excellently relateth there the whole processe of our Sauiours doctrine § 5. MY second Proposition is that Christ in that whole Discourse Iohn 6 doth not speake of the Eucharist That Augustine and diuers others of the ancient Fathers doe expound it of feeding on Christ yet not corporally but spiritually in the Sacrament for so Bishop Iansenius also ingenuously confesseth that Augustine holdeth it to be vnderstood of seeding on Christ spiritually not corporally yea and so Pope Innocent himselfe witnesse Durand and Biel and Peter Lombard also witnesse Bonâ—uenture expound it I deny not nor doth it at all impeach our cause in the maine point here in question of Christs corporall presence Yet the rather herein wee are inforced together with diuerse Popish writers to depart from them in that their exposition so farre forth as they vnderstand the same as directly speaking of the Eucharist as for the one moitie of that discourse also euen Bellarmine himself doth in regard of some erronious consequences that they were by that meanes enforced vnto which euen the Papists themselues now condemne and for other weighty reasons as in my first writing I shew Yea but Catholique Expositors saith this Answerer by many euident and vnanswerable Arguments haue prooued that it is so to be vnderstood which his Aduersarie also saith hee euerpasseth with silence And say I A Catholique Expositor in their language to wit Corn. Iansenius no Iesuite now for so this Answerer hath informed me and yet a Bishop of Flanders in a worke of his by common consent of the learned among them well approoued of they are the Popes owne Censurers wordes of it hath by euident and vnanswerable Arguments prooued that it cannot so bee vnderstood which this mine aduersarie also ouerpasseth with silence And the like also doth Frier Ferus and Gabriel Biel at large in the place aboue recited But hee will at length I hope say somewhat himselfe 1. Our Sauiour saith he maketh a difference there betweene the gift which his Father had â—iuen the Iewes and the gift that himselfe ment to giue speaking of the one as past of the other as to come This out of Bellarmine I maruell where this man learned his Logicke He neuer is luckie in the framing of his Consequences There is a difference betweene the gift that God the Father had giuen and the gift that Christ would giue Ergò Christs wordes must needs be vnderstood of his corporall presence in the Eucharist How hang these things together or by what necâ—ssity of consequence doth the one follow from the other For first Are they diuerse gifts that God
the Father had giuen and that Christ would giue then the wordes are not meant of Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist For therein the very same Christ that the Father gaue is giuen to the faithfull as we say spiritually to both faithfull and vnfaithfull as they affirme corporally And therfore the gift is not diuers as he saith but the selfe same 2. If hee say that the gift is diuers in regard of the diuers manner of giuing who knoweth not that Christ who had beene giuen by his Father and yet by himselfe also in his incarnation was after giuen also by himselfe and yet by his Father also in his passion So their owne Iansenius expoundeth his words that he would giue his bâ—die also vnto death and Frier Ferus that hee would giue it vnto death on the Crosse for there saith hee was that bread to bee basked and there that flesh of his saith Bonauenture was to be boyled Yea so Gregory of Valence My flesh that I will giue that is that I will offer for the life of the world Where thinke we but on the Crosse 2. Christ saith he compareth the eating of his flesh to the Iewes eating of Manna which was a corporall food really eaten by them and he must needs therefore speake of the Eucharist Bellarmine was not so absurd indeed as to argue on this manner As if the Manna were not also a spirituall type of Christ and Christ might not as well compare the type with the truth as the type with the counter-type the type of the Manna a spirituall food then really taken with the spirituall eating of Christ that was therin figured Or 〈…〉 â—f he might not compare our spirituall feeding on him with some corporall food really eaten which both here and else-where it is confessed as shal presently be shewed that he doth and yet not mention the Sacrament of the Eucharist at all Bellarmine saith indeede that Christ compareth there with the Manna his bodie not as it is receiued by faith alone and then belike by Bellarmines grant it is truely so also receiued euen out of the Sacrament but as in the Sacrament it is receiued But how doth he proue it 1. From the Apostle where hee compareth Baptisme with the red Sea and Manna with the Eucharist But how doth this follow The Apostle doth so there therefore our Sauiour doth so heere especially considering how diuers the scope of either in either place is The Apostles scope is to shew that the old Israelites had as good and as sure outward pledges of Gods fauour and loue as wee Christians now haue and yet were not spared when they prouoked him to wrath for all that Our Sauiours scope is to prooue that the spirituall food of his flesh which he there tendred them and aduised them to seeke after was much more excellent and of farre greater vertue and efficacie then the Manna that their Fathers did once eate in the Wildernesse For that that considered as corporall food was it selfe corruptible and could not preserue them that eate of it from death whereas this was food incorruptible and being spiritually fed on would cause them to liue for euer For the Apostles purpose therefore it was necessary to consider the Manna as a Sacrament and to compare the Eucharist with it as with our Baptisme hee had paralleled the Red Sea before But for our Sauiour so to do there was no necessity at all Nor indeed doth he consider the Manna there as a Sacrament no more then the Iewes did that there mentioned it to him nor doth hee speake cught of the Sacrament where hee speaketh of the Manna as Bellarmine also himselfe acknowledgeth His speech to them occasioned by the bread that they had eaten of and the Manna that they spake of is the very like to that other speech of his to the Samaritane woman occasioned by the water that hee had asked of her He that drinketh of this water shall thirst againe but he that drinketh of the water that I shall giue him shall neuer thirst more c. Which had it been considered would easily haue assoyled those difficulties that as Iansenius obserueth so much troubled Augustine and Caietan yea and Iansenius himselfe too Nor was there any necessity that the bread of the Eucharist should bee more mentioned in the one place then the drinke of it in the other 2. Because Christs bodie as by faith it is receiued was not wanting to those of old time that liued before Christs Incarnation What hee giueth vs heere wee take that Christs body was by faith receiued euen before hee was incarnate But how prooueth this that Christ therefore spake there of a sacramentall eating of it and not rather that he called home those his carnall followers from the corporall feeding either on the bread that they had eaten of or the Manna that they mentioned and would faine still haue been fed with that they might liue without labour not to an eating of sacramentall bread which they would not haue much misliked but to that spirituall feeding which as well their holy forefathers as all true and faithfull Christians now were eternally saued by Yea this may be confirmed by Bellarmines owne grants Who first confesseth this as a certaine truth that there is no mention at all of the Eucharist in all that our Sauiours discourse before those wordes which were spoken after hee had done speaking of the Manna The bread that I will giue is my flesh that I will giue for the life of the world 2. Hee granteth expresly that those wordes I am the brad of life hee that commeth to me shall not hunger c. doe not properly belong to the Sacrament 3. He obserueth a three fold bread spoken of by our Sauiour the first that materiall bread that Christ had fed them withall the second spirituall bread himselfe incarnate which hee wisheth them to get and must by faith be apprehended that it may refresh â—s the third hee might well haue said Mâ—nna which he omitteth termed also bread there but the sacramentall bread saith he expressed in those wordes the bread that I will giue is my flâ—sh that I will giue for the life of the world as if this were not the same spirituall bread that hee spake of before 4. Being pressed with this that there is no bread at all in the Eucharist as they say k therfore it cannot be the sacramentall bread that is there spoken of neither can it bee meant of the bread that Christ was to giue in the Supper as hee elsewhere had said he saith that bread there signifieth not wheaten bread nor Christs body absolutely but meate or food in generall and so the sence of it is this The bread
heauenly effects which Christs promises there import in the soules of such as worthily receiue it and such centrarily as come vnworthily thereunto receiue death and iudgement to themselues by it As for those few Catholike writers who haue denied Christs words in that 6. Chap. of Saint Iohn to haue beene vnderstood at all of Sacramentall manducation I answer that their number is not great and their authoritie of no weight at all against a numberlesse multitude of ancient Fathers and moderne Doctors of better note contrarily vnderstanding them yeelding better reasons for that their literall true explication and easily soluing all hereticall Obiections gathered from the literall sense of our Sauiours words in that Chapter against our communion vnder one kinde and other points of Catholike doctrine And sithence my Aduersaerie will not sticke to contemne these very Authors in their other knowne Catholike doctrines why doth he so highly value and mainely vrge them in this opinion wherein without any hereticall intention or obstinacie of Iudgement they differ from vs § 6. AT length he commeth to refute mine Arguments which he saith are topicall and prooue nothing My first Argument is this None are saued but such as so feede on Christ as is there spoken of But many are saued that neuer fed on Christ in the Eucharist as the Fathers before Christ the children of the faithfull that die infants c. Ergò it is not spoken of the Eucharist To this he answereth 1. That I barely affirme that the Iewes before Christ did sacramentally receiue Christ as well as we but I prooue it not It is true I say obiter that they fed on Christs flesh spiritually as well as we now doe though that be no part of mine Argument And I adde a place or two of Augustine for the proofe of it grounded on the Apostles words 1. Cor. 10. 3 4. Which seeing that this shifter ouerslippeth let him heare Bishop Iansenius himselfe not to goe any further relate a little more at large to wit that the good Iewes in the old Testament were quickned by eating of Manna because vnder that visible foode they also spiritually did eate the true Bread of Life by Manna signified Or if Iansenius will not serue let him heare their great Albert There is saith he a three-fold eating of Christ sacramentally onely spiritually onely or sacramentally and spiritually both In the first sort all that euer were saued did eate in the second sort euill Christians eate him in the Sacrament in the third sort good communicants onely And againe alleadging those words of the Apostle All those good Auncients in the Manna vnderstood beleeued and tasted Christ himselfe and were thereby saued And this no Papist I suppose will be so absurd as to deny But this is but a by-matter no part of the maine Argument and therefore I forbeare here to insist further on it 2. That is as impossible for children to eate Christ by faith spiritually as to receiue him sacramentally in the Eucharist Not to runne out into more Questions then needs must at the present I answer 1. Many yong ones die though at yeeres of discretion when in ordinary course they may well haue faith and beleeue actually yet ere they be admitted to the Eucharist and yet is not their saluation at all thereby preindiced 2. By the doctrine of their Church euen Infants haue an habite of faith infused into them in Baptisme 3. Neither is it a thing impossible for the Spirit of God by an extraordinary manner to worke faith in such infants as are to be saued dying before yeeres of discretion no more then it was to regenerate Iohn Baptist in his mothers wombe of whom Gregorie therefore saith that he was new bred yet vnborne 4. The speech is of the same latitude and extent at least with those other whosoeuer beleeueth in me hath life eternall And Whosoeuer beleeueth not in the Sonne of God shall neuer liue but shall be damned and the like which comprehend those onely to whom it appertaineth actually to come vnto Christ and to beleeue in him saith Iansenius And that is enough for my purpose § 7. My second Argument was thus framed All that so feede on Christ are eternally saued our Sauiour so saith But many feede on the Eucharist that are eternally damned Ergò Christ speaketh not there of orall eating in the Eucharist Now this Argument saith he if I had wit to discerne the force of it maketh more against vs then against them And why so Forsooth because all are not saued that spiritually and by faith feede on Christ. This is like Bâ—llarmines bold assertion that some that beleeue in Christ perish eternally because they die before they can haue a Priest to assoile them And what is this but to say that all that doe truly beleeue in Christ are not saued Yea what is this not to repeate all the allegations both of Scripture and Fathers produced for the proofe of the Proposition which he purposely passeth ouer not being able to answere but to giue our Sauiour himselfe and the holy Ghost the lye who so oft say Whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall be saued Nor is it sufficient as he addeth for to verifie our Sauiours speeches that the Sacrament is ordained to produce such effects in the Soules of such as worthily receiue it though the contrary befall those that doe vnworthily reÌ„ceiue it For to answer them againe in the words of one of their owne Authors our Sauiours words imply manifestly a certaine effect as he speaketh not a matter that may be as Augustine and Cyril also in the places cited by me there shew whereupon also he concludeth that it is apparent thence that all are not there said to eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood that receiue the Sacraments of Christs body and blood § 8. To their owne Authors Cardinals Schoelemen Canonists publike Professors or Readers of Diuinity in their Vniuersities Friers I might haue said too and in steed of Iesuites being better informed by him I now say Bishops which will not much mend the matter 1. Hee answereth that they bee but few in number and their authoritie of no great weight in regard of those that hold the contrarie Yet one of their owne Bishops though of an other mind himselfe confesseth that there are very many of them that are of this iudgement But had there beene but one or two of them especially of note as some of them were of some one sort it might well haue weighed much on our side For the witnesse of an aduersarie is of no small weight How much more when so many of all sorts of so speciall repute shall so vniformely speake for vs and herein accord with vs 2. He demandeth of his Aduersarie why he doth so highly value them and mainely vrge them herein when in other points he will not
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
that he maketh the word the quickner because the word is spirit life and he called it also his flesh because the Word also became flesh and is therefore to be longed aâ—ter for life to be deuoured by the hearing chewed by the vnderstanding and digested by faith Heere is the eating that our Sauiour spake of in that place not carnall but spirituall which our Aduersarie also earstwhiles confessed Neither vrge we this alone as he vntruely here affirmeth But wee vrge diuerse other passages also as before hath beene shewed wherein our Sauiour expoundeth himselfe obserued by Augustine long since and by their Flaunders Bishop Iansenius of late beside diuerse others of their owne And if he had had any thing of moment to say against this our exposition why did hee not then produce it where the place was discussed But he thought it better and safer it seemeth to let all this alone there lest the allegations to the contrary being then in the eie might easily conuince him of grosse and palpable falshood 3. Doe we alone thus expound that place Doe not very many of their owne writers herein agree with vs Or do those of theirs build onely vpon the clause he here mentioneth To which purpose howsoeuer enough hath already beene said yet for his better information concerning both the soundnes of our exposition of that place and the reasons thereof drawne from our Sauiours owne wordes let him heare one though not then Pope yet that afterward came to bee Pope and was as learned a Pope as any of late times Aeneas Syluius writing against the Bohemians It is not saith he any sacramentall drinking but a spirituall that our Sauiour speaketh of in that 6. of Iohn For there is as Albertus Magnus she weth a threefold drinking of Christ a sacramentall that the Priests onely receiue an intellectuall that the people take in the species of bread and a spirituall which all vse that are to be saued by daily deuout meditation ruminating on Christs incarnation and his passion And of this drinking our Sauiour speaketh in Iohn 6. as the very series of the Euangelists wordes clearely sheweth For when some of them that heard it murmured our Sauiour said Doth this scandalize you What if you should see the Sonne of Man ascend where before he was It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing In which wordes he declareth that hee speaketh not there of any carnall eating or drinking But would you plainly see that he speaketh of spirituall eating that is by faith Marke what hee saith He that eateth and drinketh He speaketh in the present tense not in the future There were euen then those that so ate him and dranke him when as the Sacrament was not yet instituted And how did they then eate and drinke Christ but spiritually by faith and loue and doing his wordes For he said also before I am the bread of life hee that commeth vnto mee shall not hunger and he that beleeueth in me shall not thirst For Christs speech was figuratiue So also the Glosser vnderstandeth this Gospell and so doth that great Augustine noble both for doctrine and modestie whose glory is so great that no mans commendation can adde to his credit no mans dispraise can disparage him And yet dare this shamelesse out-facer confidently affirme that none of the Fathers euer so expounded the place and that the Heretickes as he esteemeth them as if none but they so expounded it had no other inducement so to expound it but those wordes onely It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing all which you see are nothing but grosse vntruths SEcondly whereas we prooue that Christs wordes This is my body c. as being vttered to the Apostles to whom it was giuen to vnderstand the mysteries of Christs Church plainely and without parable and containing in them the institution of a Sacrament fit in plaine wordes to be deliuered and vnderstood by all Christians bound to receiue it are as we say literally to bee vnderstood and not in tropicall and figuratiue senses as our Aduersaries expound them producing for our opinion all the Fathers successiuely in all ages since Christ so vnderstanding them Protestant Diuines slenderly obiect first that of the sacramentall Chalice Christ affirmed that he would no more drinke of the fruit of the vine vntill after his passion ergò it was wine contained in the Chalice wee answer that S. Luke expressely mentioneth two Chalices one drunke after the Paschall Lambe eaten and the other afterwards blessed by Christ and distributed to his Apostles and that Christ onely called the first the fruit of the vine c. So S. Ierome S. Bede and other great Authors explicate and solue this difficulty with vs. Secondly they obiect those words of Christ Doe this in memory of me ergò the Sacrament is a bare memorie of Christs body and blood c. We answer and make S. Paul to interpret these words of our Sauiour for vs 1 Cor. 11. saying As oft as you shall doe this you shal represent or declare Christs death till hee come Which is best declared and represented by the parts of the Sacrifice and Sacrament as they containe the very body and blood of our Sauiour in them For so himselfe present seemeth to triumph more gloriously and exhibite vnto vs a more liuely memorie of his passion then if the Sacrament were no more then a bare signe thereof § 8. HAuing affirmed that all the holy Fathers in all ages from Christ haue expounded the wordes of our Sauiour This is my body literally and not tropically as they also do The contrary wherevnto hath as clearely been shewed as that the Sunne is vp at noone-day nor had this trifler ought of moment to except thereunto where the same is shewed and yet now craketh as their manner is of all the Fathers when indeed they cannot bring any one vndoubted testimony to confirme what they so confidently affirme Hee will at length forsooth for fashion sake vndertake to answer two slender obiections of ours to the contrary 1. Christ say wee calleth that in the Cup or Chalice the fruit of the vine He answereth that S. Luke mentioneth two Chalices the Paschall and the Euangelicall or Eucharisticall and so S. Ierome and S. Bede solue this difficulty 1. Hee spake of slender obiections And so it seemeth indeed he esteemeth them for he returneth very slender answers to them For who would be so senslesse as to reason on this manner S. Luke mentioneth two Chalices ergò our Sauiour did not speake any such thing of the Eucharisticall Cup as yet both Mathew and Marke say expressely he did 2. Ierome and Bede saith he so solue the difficulty He would make his Reader beleeue that Ierome and Bede had long since propounded this obiection and so assoiled it as he doth Whereas the truth is they take no notice either of them of the two
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
For Commenting on the storie of the Institution of this Sacrament The old Paschall solemnity saith hee being ended which was celebrated in memorie of the deliuerance out of Egypt Christ passeth to a new one which hee would haue the Church vse in memory of redemption by him instead of the flesh and blood of a Lambe substituting a Sacrament of his body and blood in a figure of bread and wine c. And hee breaketh himselfe the bread that he deliuereth to shew that the breaking of his bodie to come was by his owne will and procurement And againe because bread strengtheneth the flesh and wine breedeth blood the one is mystically referred to Christs body and the wine vnto his blood Where is any tittle here that may stand well with their Transubstantiation much lesse that soundeth ought that way A Sacrament of his body and blood a memoriall of his redemption bread broken and giuen and both bread and wine hauing a mysticall reference to the body and blood of Christ. It was well and aduisedly therefore done by Bellarmine to leaue Bede cleane out of the Catalogue of his Authors though a writer of the greatest note in those times because he could finde nothing in him that might seeme but to looke that way which if he could we should be sure to haue heard of Yea that long after Augustines time the same beleefe of the Sacrament that we at this day hold was commonly taught and professed publikely in this Iland notwithstanding the manifold monuments by that Popish faction suppressed appeareth by some of them in ancient Manuscripts yet extant and of late published also in print Among others of this kinde are the Epistles and Sermons written in the Saxon tongue of one Aelfricke a man of great note for learning that liued about the yeere 990. wherein the same doctrine is taught concerning the Sacrament that we hold at this day and the contrary Popish doctrine is impugned In an Epistle of his written for Wulfsine then Bishop of Shyrburn to his Clerks bearing title of a Sacerdotall Synode he saith that The holy Housell is Christs bodie not bodily but ghostly Not the body that he suffered in but the body of which he spake when hee blessed bread and wine to housell and said by the blessed bread This is my body and by the holy wine This is my blood And that the Lord that then turned that bread to his body doth still by the Priests hands blesse bread and wine to his ghostly body and his ghostly blood And in another Epistle to Wulstane Archbishop of Yorke that The Lord halloweth daily by the hands of the Priest bread to his body and wine to his blood in ghostly mystery And yet notwithstanding that liuely bread is not bodily so nor the selfe same body that Christ suffered in nor that holy wine is the Sauiours blood which was shed for vs in bodily thing but in ghostly vnderstanding And that that bread is his body and that wine his blood as the heauenly bread which we call Manna was his body and the cleere water which did then run from the stone in the wildernes was truely his blood as S. Paul saith And that stone was Christ. And in the Paschall Homily by him translated out of Latine and read commonly then on Easter-day Men saith hee haue often searched and doe as yet search how bread that is gathered of corne and through fires heat baked may be turned to Christs body or how wine that is pressed out of many grapes is turned through one blessing to the Lords blood To which he there answereth that it is so by signification as Christ is said to be Bread a Rocke a Lamb a Lion not after truth of nature And againe hauing demanded Why is that holy housell then called Christs body and his blood if it be not truely that that it is called Hee answereth It is so truely in a ghostly mysterie And then explicating further the manner of this change As saith he an heathen childe when hee is Christened yet hee altereth not his shape without though hee be changed within and as the holy water in Baptisme after true nature is corruptible water but after ghostly mystery hath spirituall vertue And so saith he The holy Housell is naturally corruptible bread corruptible wine but is by might of Gods word truely Christs body and blood yet not bodily but ghostly And afterward hee setteth downe diuerse differences betweene Christs naturall body and it Much is betwixt the body that Christ suffered in and the body that he hallowed to housell 1. The body that hee suffered in was bred of the flesh of Mary with blood and bone and skin and sinewes in humane limmes and a liuing Soule His ghostly body which we call the housell is gathered of many cornes without blood and bone limme and soule And it is therefore called a mystery because therein is one thing seen and another thing vnderstood 2. Christs body that he suffred in and rose from death neuer dieth henceforth but is eternall and impassible That housel is temporall not eternall corruptible and dealed into sundry parts chewed betweene the teeth and sent into the belly 3. This mysterie is a pledge and figure Christs body is truth it selfe This pledge doe we keepe mystically vntill we come vnto the truth it selfe and then is this pledge ended Truly it is as we said Christs body and blood not bodily but ghostly And yet further he addeth that As the Stone in the wildernesse from whence the water ran was not bodily Christ but did signifie Christ though the Apostle say That stone was Christ so that heauenly meate that fed them 40. yeeres and that water that gushed from the Stone had signification of Christs body and blood and was the same that wee now offer not bodily but ghostly And that As Christ turned by inuisible might the bread to his body and the wine to his blood before he suffred so he did in the wildernesse turne the heauenly meate to his flesh and the flowing water to his owne blood before hee was borne That when our Sauiour said Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath euerlasting life He bad them not eate the body wherewith he was enclosed nor to drinke that blood which hee shed for vs but he ment that holy housel which is ghostly his body and his blood and hee that tasteth it with beleeuing heart hath euerlasting life That As the sacrifices had a sore-signification of Christs body which he offered to his Father in Sacrifice So the housell that wee hallaw at Gods Altar is a remembrance of Christs body which he offered for vs and of his blood which he shed for vs which suffering once done by him is daily renewed in a mystery of holy housell Lastly that This holy housell is both Christs body and the bodie of all faithfull men after ghostly mysterie and so
incipis prima tu coÌ„ples perfecta mysteria A te principium in te finis vel potius tu facis vt finem nesciamus c h O aue Crux spes vnica Hoc passionis tempore Auge piis iustitiam Reisque dona veniam i Gabr. Vasquez de Adorat l. 2. c. 4. dis 3. num 430. Bellar. de cult Sanct. l. 2. c. 24. k Thom. Aq. summ par 3. quae 25. art 4. Crux adoratur adoratione latriae l Salue sancta facies nostri Seruatoris Impressa panniculo niuei candoris Dataque Veronicae signum ob amoris Nos ab omni macula purga vitiorum Atque nos consortio iunge beatorum c. Oratio à loanne Pp. 22. instituta Antidot animae m O veneranda Zona fac nos haeredes aeternae beatae vitae c. Oratio ab Euthymio composita n O quam magna mira petit a veneranda Zona Lipoman o Crucem alloquimur deprecamur quasi ipsum crucifixum Thom. vbi sup p Sic concionatores alloquuntur imaginem crucifixi c. Bellar de imagin c. 23. q Tu nos redemisti c. r Dicuntur Christo cuius imago vicem gerit s Ex Aug. de ciuit lib. 18. c. 28. Bed in 1. Cor. 10. t Omnia significantia videntur quodammodo earum rerum quas significant sustinere personas u At certè purus panis non supra nos est Bellarm. de Euch. l. 2. c. 3. x Bellarm. Ibid. y Pontifex quod hostiam salutarem quae supra ipsum est litet c. z Se excusat ad ipsum exclamans c. a Perionii versio à Lansselio Soc. Ies. subornata suppleta b Dionys. Hierarch Eccles cap. 3. part 3. c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrificium quod signis continetur Lauss e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diuinorum operuÌ„ laudes g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De sacrificio quod ipsius dignitatem superat se purgat Laus * It is vsed by this Author oft speaking of Baptism chap. 2. h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Corpus Christi siue Christus ibi videt audit quamuis non loquitur ne deprehendatur Bonauent in sent I. 4. dist 10. quaest 2. m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Cor. 2. 16. n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vt Math. 3. 11 8. 8. Luke 3. 17. 7. 6. o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Maxim Schol. in Hierarch Eccles. c. 3. y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Maxim ibid. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem in interpret nom b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem in schol c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem in cap 4. d Dionys. eccles hierar c. 4 e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Maxim in lib de diuin nomin c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Non iam communi pani c. k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iustin. apolog 2. l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril catech myst 3. * Non iam aqua communis Chrysost. hom in Psal. 22. Greg. Nyssen de Baptism 〈…〉 Irenaeus contr Valent. l. 4. c 34. m Ambros. nom de initiat myst c. 3. * Greg. Nyssen de baptis n Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 6. o Ad spem resurrectionis Baptizatur corpus quae nisi corporalis non alias sic baptismate corporali obligaretur c. Tertull. de resurr carn Hinc Hilar. de Trinit l. 9. Regeneratio baptismi resurrectionis est virtus p Quomodo dicunt carneÌ„ in corruptionem deuenire c. quae à corpore Domini sanguine alitur Iren. l. 4. c. 34. q Quando mixtus caliâ— fractus panis percipit verbum Dei fit Eucharistia sanguinis corporis Christi ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostrae substantia Idem l. 5. c. 4. r Idem ibid. s Ea dispositio quae est secundum hominem quae ex carnibus neruis ossibus consistit de calice qui est sanguis eius nutritur de pane qui est corpus eius augetur Ibid. t Ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iustin. apolog 2 u Eucharistia nutriri corporis nostri substantiam nihâ—l fingi potest absurdius Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 2 c 4. x Offerimus ei non quasi indigenti sed gratias agentes donationi eius sanctificantes creaturam Irenaeus l. b. 4. cap. 34. y Primitias earum quae sunt eius creaturatum offerentes z Offerens ei cum gratiarum actione ex creatura eius Ibid. a Patres in votis primi Niceni Consilii b Baron annal tom 3. anno 325. num 62. 63. c I de ex Photio ibid. et annal tom 6. anno 496. d Baron ibid. Greg. de Valent. de transubstan l. 2. c. 7. “ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gelas. Cyzic de act Conc. Nic. diatyp 4. f Diuis 8. sect 4. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Ibid. diatyp 5. h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. i Mysticè immolatur in mysterio Christi passio traditur Paschas Pp. apud Grat de cons. dist 2. c. Iteratur k Non rei veriâ—â—te sed significante mysterio Aug. ibid. c. Hoc est l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 m Discourse Argument 〈…〉 Answer to Obiection n DiuisioÌ„ 12. o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p Caro abluiter vngitur signatur manuum impositione adumbratur corpore sanguine Christi vescitur c. Tertul de resur carn r Quam Deus sacramentis suis disciplinis que vestiuit cuius munditias amat castigationes probat passiones adpreciar haeccine non resurget Ibid. s Bella. de Euchar l. 3 c. 19. t Idem ibid. u Harding answer to Iewel art 10. Sect 6. q Sacrificia Deo grata de bonis carnis adolentur Deo x Hieron in catolog Script a A cumen sublimis ingen i. Hieron catal scr b Hieron ibid. Sozom. hist. l. 3. c. 16. c In his last Will and Testament that he neuer in all his life spoke foolish word nor cursed any one nor was contentious c. And yet the direct contrary in his Relation to the Monks of his Conâ—ersion d Saluete omnes Sancti saluete Apostoli Prophetae c. De poenit c. 7. y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret. hist. l 4. c. 19. Sozom. l. 3. c. 16. e