the praier added to it and the word spoken of it that maketh it profitable to the worthy receiuer But to say so or to thinke so of Christs blessed and glorious Body were most hideous most horrible Well therefore saith Ambrose It is not this Bread that goeth into the belly but the Bread of eternall life that sustaineth the substance of our soules And Augustine expressely telleth vs that We are not to eate that body that the Iewes saw nor drinke that blood which they shed that crucified Christ but there is a Sacrament commended vnto vs which being spiritually vnderstood will put life into vs. There can nothing be imagined more absurd saith Bellarmine himselfe then to thinke that Christs Body should nourish the mortall substance of mens bodies and so should be the foode not of the minde but of the belly But by the Popish doctrine this it must needs doe and worse then this the Popish doctrine therefore is most absurd Lastly what can be more horrible then to imagine that Christs body or any part of it should be not in the belly of a man but in the belly of a beast Christian eares saith Benauenture abhorre to heare that Christs body should be in the draught or in a mouses maw Yet by this Popish doctrine both the one the other too must needs be if a mouse chance as he may to meete with a consecrated Hoast Nor doe the Popish writers ordinarily make daintie of it to acknowledge as much If a pigge or a dogge saith Alexander of Hales should swallow downe an whole consecrated hoast I see not why or how Christs body should not passe into its belly And Thomas Aquinas A brute beast may by accident eate Christs body And Though a Mouse or a Dog eate a consecrated Hoast yet the substance of Christs body ceaseth not to be there no more then it doth if the Hoast be cast into the durt If it be said saith the Glosser that a mouse eateth Christs Body there is no great inconuenience in it since that the most wicked men that are receiue it Nene eateth Christs flesh saith Augustine but hee that first worshippeth it And I doubt much whether any of these dogs pigs or mice euer adored it howsoeuer Cardinal Bellarmine and some others tell vs either of an Horse or an Asse that worshipped the Hoast But let them and their brutish miracles and imaginations goe together Yet so necessarily doth this follow vpon their doctrine of the Eucharist that whereas some of their Doctors seeme to doubt what the mouse eateth when she meeteth with an Hoast and maketh a good meale of it And the great Master of the Sentences saith God knoweth for he knoweth not but he enclineth rather to thinke that the mouse eateth not Christs body though shee seeme so to doe whereupon the Masters of Paris giue him a wipe for it by the way and said the Master is out here And others of them to salue the matter would coine vs a new miracle and say that so soone as the mouses mouth commeth at it or her lips kisse it Christs Body conueigheth it selfe away and the bread miraculously commeth againe in the roome of it and this say they is the commoner and the honester opinion Here is miracle vpon miracle such as they are Yet Thomas Aquinas their chiefe Schooleman and one that could not be deceiued herein for they say that his doctrine of the Sacrament was confirmed by Miracle a woodden Crucifix miraculously saluting him with these words Thou hast written well of me Thomas telleth vs peremptorily that it cannot be otherwise if Christs body be in the Eucharist but that Mice and Rats must eate it when they meete with the Hoast and make meate of it Some say saith he that so soone as the Sacrament is touched by a dogge or a mouse Christs Body ceaseth to be there But this opinion derogateth from the truth of the Sacrament Thus you may see what hideous horride and horrible conclusions this carnall and Capernaiticall conceite of Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist hath bred and brought forth and must needs breede and bring forth with all those that vphold it The Summe of all that hath beene said 1. THat there is nothing in the Gospel whereby it may appeare that those words of our Sauiour This is my Body may not be figuratiuely vnderstood is by Cardinal Caietan confessed 2. That our Sauiours words of eating his flesh and drinking his blood are to be vnderstood not corporally but spiritually is acknowledged by many Popish writers of great note and is beside other Reasons by a Rule giuen by Augustine euidently prooued 3. That the Elements in the Sacrament remaine in Substance the same and are not really transubstantiated into Christs Body and Blood is euinced by diuers Arguments 1. From the Course of the Context which plainely sheweth that Christ brake and deliuered no other then he tooke and blessed 2. From the expresse words of Scripture that calleth the one Bread and the other Wine euen after consecration 3. From the Nature of Signes whose propertie it is to be one thing and to signifie another thing 4. From the Nature of Christs Body that hath flesh blood and bones which the Eucharisticall bread hath not that which our taste our sight and our sense informeth vs by which our Sauiour himselfe hath taught vs to discerne his body 5. From the nature of euery true Body such as Christs is which cannot be in many places at once nor haue any part of it greater then the whole 6. From the qualitie of the Communicants good and bad promiscuously feeding on the Elements in the Eucharist whereas none but the faithfull can feede vpon Christ. 7. From these infirme and vnseemely yea foule and filthy things that doe vsually or may befall the Elements in the Eucharist which no Christian eare can endure to heare that they should befall Christs blessed and glorious body Whence I conclude that since this Corporall presence such as the Church of Rome maintaineth hath no warrant from Gods word as their owne Cardinal confesseth and is besides contrary to Scripture to nature to sight to sense to reason to religion we haue little reason to receiue it as a truth of Christ or a principle of Christianitie great reason to reiect it as a figment of a mans braine yea as a doctrine of the diuell inuented to wrong Christ and Christianitie It is the Rule of a Schooleman We ought not to adde more difficultie vnto the difficulties of Christian beliefe But rather according to that which the Scripture teacheth we should endeauour to cleere that that is obscure And therefore since that the one manner of Christs presence in the Eucharist is cleerely possible and intelligible whereas the other is not intelligible yea nor possible neither it seemeth probable that that manner of his presence that is
principall workes to passe by all others Our Lord saith he at the Table in his last Supper gaue Bread and Wine with his owne hands and on the Crosse he gaue vp his body to be wounded with the Souldiers hands Marke bread at the Table his Body on the Crosse that the sincere truth and true sinceritie more secretly imprinted in his Apostles might expound to the Nations how Bread and Wine were Flesh and Blood and by what meanes the causes agreed with their effects and diuers names or kinds were reduced to one essence and the things signifying and signified were called by the same names In which last words he most euidently sheweth how Bread is said to be Christs Body to wit because signes and the things by them signified are wont to haue the same titles giuen them The Bread is Christs Body as Christ himselfe is bread Christ giuing saith Theodoret the name of the signe to his Body and the name of his body to the Signe Or The Bread is Christ as the Rocke was Christ as Augustine well obserueth Yea that the Bread is said to be Christs Body is apparent and that it can in no other sense so be said Cardinal Bellarmine himselfe confesseth This sentence saith he This Bread is my Body either must be taken figuratiuely that the Bread be Christs body significatiuely that is by signification onely or else it is altogether absurd and impossible for it cannot be that the Bread should be the Body of Christ he meaneth essentially or otherwise then by signification or representation So that The Bread is said to be Christs body the course of the Text sheweth it and the Auncients commonly acknowledge it but it cannot so be saith Bellarmine but figuratiuely In no other sense therfore are our Sauiours words to be vnderstood 2. We reason from the expresse words of Scripture wherein after Consecration there is said to be Bread and Wine in the Sacrament The Bread which we breake saith the Apostle is it not the Communion of Christs Body It is apparent by the Story of the Institution that Consecration goeth before fraction The Bread is blessed that is consecrated for the Benediction is in truth the Consecration before it be broken But it is bread saith the Apostle euen when it is broken It is bread therefore still euen after it is consecrated Yea is it bread when it is broken and is it not bread when it is eaten Yes if the Apostle may be credited euen when it is eaten 100. For as ost saith he as you eate this bread and Whosoeuer shall eate this bread vnworthily And Let a man therefore examine himselfe and so eate of this bread It is not so oft called Christs Body but it is called bread as oft euen after it is consecrated and by consecration made Symbolically and Sacramentally Christs body The Apostle then telleth vs of the one Element that it is bread euen after it is consecrated and of the other our Sauiour himselfe saith that it is wine For after that he had deliuered them the Consecrated Cup he telleth them that He will drinke no more of this Fruite of the Vine c. Now the fruit of the vine what is it but wine There was wine saith Augustine in the mysterie of our redemption when our Sauiour said I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine And yet was that after consecration that he spake it And if it be wine still then sure it is not essentially Christs blood howsoeuer it may well be symbolically as we say So Origen In the first place he gaue his Disciples bread Yea He gaue them saith Cyril pieces of bread And Cyprian saith It was wine that hee called his blood And He deliuered wine saith Chrysostome when hee deliuered this mysterie which he prooueth also by those words of our Sauiour Of this fruite of the vine And here let me debate the matter with those that vse to presse vs with Christs words which yet we thinke not much to be pressed with if they be vnderstood as they ought Christ saith This is my Body And shall wee not beleeue what he saith The Apostle saith it is bread that is broken and that is eaten in the Eucharist and our Sauiour himselfe saith it was the fruite of the vine that he gaue them in the Cup. And will they not beleeue what the Apostle saith or what Christ saith Or shall we beleeue those that tell vs contrary to the expresse words of either that the one is not bread though the Apostle say it is or the other was not wine albeit our Sauiour say it was For how our Sauiours words may be true in the one place though the bread be not essentially but symbolically Christs body we can easily shew and themselues see and acknowledge as hath formerly beene shewen But how the Apostles and Christs words should be true or beare fit sense in the other places vnlesse there be bread and wine in the Eucharist after consecration I suppose they will not easily shew If they will say it is called bread because it was bread before as Aarons rod is called a rod after it was turned into a serpent I answer The reason is not alike For 1. The Serpent was made of that Rod but it is absord to say that Christs body is made of bread Yea the Papists themselues are at a stand here and cannot well tell what to say For they say indeede commonly that the Bread is turned into Christs Body and they say sometime also that Christs body is made of bread and that the Priest maketh Christs body of bread Yea Bellarmine sticketh not to say that That body of Christ which was crucified was truly or verily made of bread They may beleeue him that lift And yet they deny that Christs Body is made by the Priest He maketh Christs body of bread and yet Christs body is not made by him or that the body of Christ is produced of bread but doth succeede onely in the roome of bread But it is absurd to say a thing is made of that in the roome whereof it onely succeedeth or is turned into that that succeedeth onely in the roome of it or to call a thing seriously for in mockery indeed sometime we doe by the name of some other thing onely because it is now in the place where that thing before was vnlesse it be in some Magicall action wherein that seemeth to be done that indeede is not and so the speech is not according to the truth of the thing but according to that that seemeth to be In a word we may truly say of that Serpent that it was once a Rod but we cannot truly say of Christs body that euer it was bread 2. The Serpent there though tearmed a Rod because it so had beene and should againe so be yet appeared euidently to be
a Serpent in so much that Moses himselfe at the first sight was afraid of it And so we shall finde it to haue beene euer in all miraculous conuersions that the change wrought in them was apparent to the outward sense to the sight as in the water turned into blood to the taste as in the water turned into wine Whereas in the Sacrament there is no such matter We see no flesh there we taste no blood there Nay we see euidently the contrary to that these men affirme For we see Bread and Wine there and we finde the true taste of either And we haue no reason vpon their bare words to distrust either sense and beleeue the contrary to that that we see and taste onely because they say it That which you see saith Augustine is bread and a cup that which our eyes also informe vs that which your faith requireth you to be informed of is that the bread is Christs body and the cup his blood which they cannot be but figuratiuely as Bellarmine before confessed A mysterie we acknowledge we deny a miracle they may be honoured saith Augustine as religious things not wondred at as strange miracles saue in regard of the supernaturall effects of them in regard whereof there is a miraculous worke as well in Baptisme as in the Eucharist And yet no such miraculous transubstantiation in either It is a rule saith the Schooleman that where we can salue Scriptures by that which we see naturally we should not haue recourse to a miracle or to what God can doe 3. We reason from the nature of Signes and Sacraments That which the Apostle saith of one Sacrament to wit Circumcision is true of all for there is one generall nature of all Sacraments are Signes A Sacrament saith Augustine that is a sacred Signe And Signes appertaining to diuine things are called sacraments Now this is the Nature of Signes that they are one thing and signifie another thing that they signifie some other thing beside themselues or diuers from themselues And in like manner saith Augustine Sacraments being Signes of things they are one thing and they signifie some other thing But the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are Signes of Christs body and blood as hath beene before shewed and the Auncients generally auow And therefore are they not essentially either They signifie Christs body and blood and what they signifie they are not And It is a miserable seruitude as Augustine wel saith for men to take the Signes for the things themselues by them signified 4. Wee reason from the nature of Christs Body euen after his Passion and Resurrection Christs naturall Body hath flesh blood and bones the limmes and lineaments of an humane body such as may be felt and seene to be such This appeareth plainely by that which he said to his Disciples after he was risen from the dead when they misdoubted some delusion Behold mine hands and my feete for it is I my selfe Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me haue But that which is deliuered handled and eaten in the Eucharist hath no such thing It is not in any wise saith Epiphanius equall or like vnto Christ either his humanitie that is clad with flesh or his Deitie that is inuisible or to the lineaments of his limmes For it is round senselesse and liuelesse as Christ himselfe is not It is not therefore the naturall body of Christ. Our sight and sense euidently enforme vs the contrary howsoeuer Bellarmine boldly sticketh not to tell vs that Christs body is verily and visibly vpon the boord after that the words of Consecration be once vttered they thinke belike they may make men beleeue any thing And our Sauiour himselfe teacheth vs by sight and sense to iudge of his Body As if to this day saith Pope Lee he spake still to each one that sticketh and staggereth as he spake there to his Apostles Why sticketh our vnderstanding where our sight is our Teacher I may well say here as Augustine in somewhat the like case I feare least we seeme to wrong our sâ—â—ser in seeking to prooue or perswade that by speech wherein the euidence of truth exceedeth all that can be said 5. We reason from the Nature of all true Bodies Christs body is in Heauen from whence wee looke for him And there is to abide till the end of the world Now a true naturall body as Christs still is cannot be in two much lesse in twentie or rather in twentie hundred places at once which yet Christs body must needs be if that be true that they say Augustine questioned by one Dardanus how Christ could be both in Paradise and in heauen at once supposing Heauen and Paradise to be two seuerall places howsoeuer with the Apostle Paul they are not maketh answer that he could not as he was man or in his humanitie his body and his soule though he might as he was God or in his Deitie that is euery where And he addeth The same Iesus Christ is euery wherein his Deitîe but in heauen in his humanitie And further in his discourse hereof saith he Take spaces and places from bodies and they will be no where and because they will be no where they will not be Take bodies from qualities and wanting wherein to subsist they must needs cease to be and yet in the Popish hoast are qualities found as before that haue no subiect body to subsist in being not the qualities of Christs body and yet hauing no other body for them to subsist in for they are the qualities of Bread and yet there is no bread there if they say true to beare them Euery Bodie therefore must needs haue a certaine place and they are so circumscribed with and confined vnto that place that they cannot at the same time or so long as they keepe that place be in any other place but it And so is it also euen with the glorified body of Christ Iesus Christs body saith Leo in no respect differeth from the truth of our bodies And therefore Christ saith Gregorie Naziâ—nzen in regard of his body is circumscribed and conteined in a place in regard of his spirit or his Deitie he is not circumscribed nor conteined in any place And Augustine Our Lord is aboue but our Lord the Truth is here too For our Lords body wherein he rose againe must needs be in one place but his Truth that is his diuine power is diffused into all places And therefore Doubt not saith he but that the Man Christ is now there from whence he is to come He is gone vp into heauen and thence he shall come as he was seene to goe thither the Angel saith it that is in the same forme and substance of flesh which though he haue giuen immortalitie vnto it yet he hath
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
easily be reiected as it is auerred And Of that saith Tertullian there is no certaintie that the Scripture hath not But that Christ is present corporally in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by vertue of any such Transubstantiation or reall conversion of the Creatures into the naturall Body and Blood of Christ no Scripture enforceth vs to beleeue Nor are we therefore bound to beleeue it That no Scripture enforceth vs to beleeue it shall appeare by examination of those places that are alleadged commonly to prooue it The places vsually produced are principally two The former place is out of the Institution it selfe those words of our Sauiour This is my Body Matth. 26. 26. Marke 14. vers 22. Luke 22. vers 19. 1. Corinth 11. vers 24. That these words enforce vs not to beleeue any such thing is thus prooued If these words may well be taken figuratiuely as well as some other speeches of the like kinde in Scripture and other the like phrases vsuall in ordinary speech then these words enforce vs not to beleeue any such thing But these words This is my Body may well be taken figuratiuely as well as other speeches of the like kinde in Scripture to wit The seauen kine and the seauen eares are seauen yeeres The ten hornes are ten Kings The Rocke was Christ and as other phrases vsuall in ordinary speech as when pointing to the pictures of Alexander Caesar William the Conquerour Virgil Liuie and the like we say This is Alexander that conquered Asia This is Caesar that conquered France This is King William that conquered England This is Virgil that wrote of Aeneas This is Liuie that wrote the Romane storie and the like These words therefore enforce vs not to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament by vertue of any such Transubstantiation The truth hereof is acknowledged euen by our Aduersaries themselues Cardinal Bellarmine granteth that these words This is my Body may imply either such a reall change of the Bread as the Catholikes hold or such a figuratiue change as the Caluinists hold but will not beare that sense that the Lutherans giue them And Cardinal Caietan acknowledgeth and freely confesseth that there appeareth not any thing out of the Gospel that may enforce vs to vnderstand those words properly This is my body And he addeth that nothing in the text hindreth but that those words This is my body may as well be taken in a metaphoricall sense as those words of the Apostle The Rocke was Christ and that the words of either proposition may well be true though the thing there spoken be not vnderstood in a proper sense but in a metaphorical sense onely And I finde alleadged out of Bishop Fisher in a worke of his against Luther for the booke I haue not these words There is not one word in S. Mathewes Gospel from which the true presence of Christs flesh blood in our Masse may be prooued Out of Scripture it cannot be prooued Thus by the Confession of our Aduersaries themselues our Sauiours words may well beare that meaning that we giue them and there is nothing in the Text that may enforce vs to expound or vnderstand them otherwise It is absurd therefore for any to reason thus as many yet are wont to doe Christ saith This is my Body and we are bound to beleeue Christ and therefore we must needs beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament Since that the words of Christ by our Aduersaries their owne confession may be most true and yet no such thing at all be meant by them or intended in them And the same may well be shewed as Caietan pointeth vs to it by the like For must we not beleeue the Apostle as well as Christ or must we not beleeue Christ as well in one place as in an other But the Apostle saith that The Rocke was Christ And yet no man beleeueth therefore that the rocke was turned into Christ though he beleeue the Apostles words in that place Yea our Sauiour himselfe saith This Cup is the new Testament and This Cup is my Blood And yet is no man so senselesse as therefore to beleeue that the Cuppe which our Sauiour then held was turned either into the New Testament or into Christs blood As well therefore may a man prooue that the Rocke was turned into Christ because the Apostle saith not The Rocke signified Christ but expressely The Rocke was Christ or that the communicants themselues are turned into bread because the Apostle saith We are all one Bread or that the Cup was turned either into the New Testament or into Blood because our Sauiour saith This Cup is the New Testament and This Cup is my Blood as that the bread is turned into the Body of Christ because our Sauiour saith of it This is my Body The Rocke was Christ onely symbolically and sacramentally by representation and resemblance and the Cup that is the wine in the Cup for so our Sauiour saith it was the fruite of the vine was the New Testament as Circumcision the Couenant as a signe and a seale of it And in like manner is the bread said to be the Body of Christ as the Paschal Lambe is called the Passeouer not really or essentially but typically and sacramentally as a type and signe of the same Yea so the Ancient Fathers expound the words The Bread saith Tertullian that Christ tooke and distributed to his Disciples he made his Body saying This is my Body that is a figure of my Body And The Lord saith Augustine doubted not to say This is my Body when he deliuered the signe of his Body And he giueth else-where a reason of such manner of speech to wit because Signes are wont to be called by the names of the things by them signified and Sacraments by the names of those things whereof they are Sacraments in regard of the similitude that they haue of them And so saith he the Sacrament of the body of Christ is in some sort the Body of Christ and the Sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ. Yea you shall finde that which wee herein maintaine euidently confessed and confirmed by the Glosse vpon Augustine in the Popes owne Canons Augustines words inserted into the Corps of the Canon Law are these As the heauenly Bread which is the Flesh of Christ is in it owne manner called the bodie of Christ when as in deede and truth it is a sacrament of that body of Christ which being visible palpable and mortall was placed on the Crosse and that immolation of Christs flesh which is done with the Priests hands is called Christs passion death and crucifying not in the truth of the thing but in a mystery signifying it so the Sacrament of faith whereby we vnderstand Baptisme is faith And the Popish Glosse vpon that
place thus speaketh The heauenly bread that is the heauenly Sacrament which truly representeth the slesh of Christ is called the Body of Christ but improperly and therefore is it said In it owne manner but not in the truth of the thing but in a significant mystery So that the meaning is It is called the body of Christ that is it signifieth the body of Christ. Thus word for word the Glosse Thus you see what our very Aduersaries themselues graunt vs concerning the exposition of these words This is my body and that which may be gathered from them The wordes of Christ prooue not necessarily saith the Romish Cardinall that the bread is turned into Christs body And when the bread is called Christs body the meaning is saith the Popish Canonist that it signifieth Christs body And what is this but the very same that we say To conclude as Augustine well obserueth Christ saith Iohn is Elias and Iohn himselfe saith I am not Elias and yet neither of them crosse the other because Iohn spake properly and Christ figuratiuely So Christ saith This bread is my body in one sense and we in another sense that it is not his body and yet wee crosse not Christ because wee speake properly hee figuratiuely as the Glosse it selfe confesseth And on the other side they were false witnesses though they alledged Christs owne words mis-expounded of the materiall Temple which hee meant of the mysticall Temple his humanity And so may others be though they alleadge Christs owne wordes of the bread being his body vrging that as spoken properly that by him was figuratiuely spoken If it be obiected that by this our deniall of Transubstantiation and of Christs corporall presence we make the Sacrament to be nothing but bare bread I answer that notwithstanding such Transubstantiation and corporall presence bee denied yet it maketh the Sacrament no more to be but bare bread then it maketh the water in Baptisme to be but bare water because all deny any such conuersion or corporall presence in it A piece of waxe annexed as a seale to the Princes Patent of pardon or other like deed is of farre other vse and farre greater efficâ—cy and excellency then other ordinary waxe is though it be the very same in nature and substance with it and with that which it was it selfe before it was taken vnto that vse And so is the bread in the Lords Supper being a seale of Gods couenant and of Christs last will and Testament of faire other vse and of farre greater efficacie and excellencie then any other ordinary bread is though it be the same still in nature and substance with it and the same with that for substanse that it was before it was so consecrated That which Pope Gelasius and Theodoret both expresly anouch Surely the Sacraments saith Gelasius which wee take of Christs body and blood are a diuine thing and thereby therefore are we made partakers of the diuine Nature and yet ceaseth there not to be there the nature or substance of bread and wine but they abide still in the propriety of their owne Nature And certainely an image and similitude of Christs body and blood is celebrated in those mysteries And The mysticall signes saith Theodonet after the sanctification doe not forgoe their owne nature but retaine still their former substance and figure and forme And againe the same Theodoret He that called that which is by nature his body wheat and bread and againe named himselfe a vine he hath honoured the symbols and signes which we see with the titles of his bodie and blood not changing the nature of them but adding grace to it Thus they and thus we and yet neither doe they nor wee therefore make the Sacraments of Christs body and blood nothing but bare bread and wine The latter place vsually alledged to this purpose is that large Discourse our Sauiour hath concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood Ioh. 6. 51-58 True it is indeed that if the bread and wine in the Eucharist be transubstantiated into the naturall body and blood of Christ and there bee such a corporall presence as Papists imagine it must needs follow that Christs very flesh is eaten and his very blood it selfe is corporally drunke in the Sacrament And to this purpose also Pope Nicholas in that solemne forme of recantation that hee enioyned Berengarius inserted into the body of the Canon auoweth that the very body of Christ in the Eucharist is broken with the Priests hands and torne in pieces with mens teeth not sacramentally only but sensually and that all that hold the contrary deserue to be eternally damned A sensuall indeed and a senslesse assertion yea an horrible and an hideous speech full fraught I may well say though it proceeded from a Pope who they say cannot erre with extreame impiety and blasphemy and such as Christian eâ—res cannot but abhor to hear In so much that their owne Glosser vpon the place well warneth vs to take heed how we trust him Lest 〈…〉 fall into a worse heresie then Berengarius euer held But thus one monstrous opinion breedeth and begetteth another And this indeed must needs follow vpon the former The corporall presence of Christ in the thing eaten must needs inferre and enforce a corporall eating of him and to prooue the same they presse commonly our Sauiours words in that place of eating his flesh and drinking his blood Which as with some of the Ancients indeed they vnderstand of the Eucharist so they expound though without their consent therein of a corporall and carnall eating of Christs flesh But neither are those words of our Sauiour to be vnderstood of any such corporall eating and drinking nor doth Christ at all in that whole Discourse speake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist which was not then as yet instituted but of feeding on him spiritually by faith which is done not in the Sacrament onely but out of it also And first that the place is not to bee vnderstood of any such corporall eating and drinking it is aparent For it is a good and a sure Rule that Augustine giueth If in any precept some hainous or flagitious thing seeme to be enioyned you may thereby know it to be a figuratiue speech I need not apply this generall Rule to the point in hand Augustine doth it for mee Hee instanceth in that very particular that wee now treate of Vnlesse you eate saith he the flesh of the Sonne of Man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you It seemeth to enioyne an hainous and flagitious thing It is a figuratiue speech therefore commanding vs to communicate with Christs passion and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. So that this place by Augustines Rule and his owne application of it is to be vnderstood figuratiuely and doth
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
is not Christs naturall Body To conclude Christ when he brake either he brake Bread or his Body but he brake not his Body for his Body remained entire still he brake Bread therefore and so the Euangelist saith He tooke Bread and brake it and yet he had blessed it and so consecrated it first as Pope Innocent and other Popish writers confesse It remained Bread still therefore euen after Consecration when as Cyril speaketh He gaue his Disciples fragments of Bread for of his Body it could not be Yea that which they breake at this day either it is Christs very body or but bread not Christs body For Christs body if it were broken and diuided would bee spoiled saith Biel the Schooleman but that it is impossible because it is impassible Therefore Bread onely For what they speake out of Pope Innocent therein crossing Pope Nicholas as Durand also well obserueth of diuiding nothing but the colour and shape and sauour and weight and the like accidents is friuolous and contrary to the words of the Institution that admit no such sense I might adde hereunto that which Pope Nicholas acknowledgeth that if the body of Christ be corporally in the Eucharist it is not onely broken by the Priests hands but torne to pieces also with mens teeth And though the Euangelist tell vs that No boâ—e of him was broken God indeede so kept them that not one of them was broken euen when they pierced with nailes his hands and his feete yet if it be as they say his very bones must needs be broken betweene their teeth that here chew him and he sustaineth more hard measure in that kinde by the teeth of his owne Disciples then he did then at the hands of those that were his executioners Hard teeth they haue doubtlesse that can so easily breake bones and hard hearts that can finde in their heart to vse their Sauiour so hardly Who is so sottish saith the Heathen man as to thinke that that he eateth to be God What man in his wits saith Theodoret wil account that to be God which either he abhorreth or that he offereth to the true God and himselfe eateth And who is so impious say I as to eate thus that which he thinketh to be God 2. That which is consecrated in the Eucharist is subiect to corruption putrefaction and foule abuse Christs naturall body now glorified is not so That therefore is not Christs naturall body that is consecrated in the Eucharist That which is consecrated in the Eucharist I say is subiect to corruption For If we regard those visible things saith Augustine wherewith we administer the Sacraments who knoweth not that they are corruptible But if wee respect that that is intended in them who seeth not that it cannot be corrupted The Elements in the Eucharist if they be kept any long time are prone to putrisie In regard whereof their counterfeit S. Clement instructing for so he speaketh the Apostle S. Iames how to deale with the Sacrament How shamelesse are they that dare obtrude such things on the Church of God how blockish and sottish that beleeue them doth very grauely and sagely admonish him to haue speciall care of keeping the reliques of the Hoast or the fragments of Christs bodie for so he calleth them from growing mouldy in the Pyx and that no mouse dung be found among the fragments of Christs portion lest great wrong be done to some portion or piece of Christs body And yet they told vs before that Christs body is not parted And Cardinal Bellarmine telleth vs of the Sacramentall wine that it cannot be kept long but it will grow sowre Or if they be taken they are consumed and perish as the Apostle speaketh in the vse of them The Bread saith Augustine that is made for this vse is in the Sacrament consumed But Christs naturall Body is in no wise consumed No multitude saith one consumeth this bread no continuance maketh it stale That heauenly foode refresheth and yet neuer faileth it is neuer spent at all though it be neuer so oft taken It neuer perisheth saith our Sauiour but lasteth to life eternall Yea in many places the manner was anciently if any bread were left after the celebration of the Sacrament either to distribute it among the Catechumeni who might not as yet receiue the Eucharist or to burne it with fire in imitation of the Paschal Lambs remainders which yet it is to be thought they would not haue done with it if they had held it to be Christs body Yea to this day the Romanists are enioyned in their Church Canons if the hoast grow mouldy or breede mites neither of which I suppose Christs Body now can doe Or n if a sicke body that hath bin houseled bring it vp againe Or if the Priest being drunke before chance to spew it vp againe to burne both the one and the other if no man be found so hardy as to take either and to lay vp or reserue the ashes of it for a relique and if the dogs chance to licke that vp that the Priest cased himselfe of he must doe double penance for it Or if a mouse chance to picke their God almightie out of the Pyx of which more anone and she can be taken againe she must be opened and Christs body if it may be picked out of her and if no man haue a stomacke to so delicate a morsell both shee and it must be burnt and the ashes reserued For that that is both taken and kept by the Communicanes let them not blame vs if with due reuerence to such holy mysteries we argue from our Sauiours owne words the Auncients haue done so before vs Whatsoeuer saith our Sauiour goeth into the mouth entreth not into the heart but goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught which is the purging of all meates Whereupon as Augustine saith hauing spoken both of the foode that is sanctified for the sustenance of our bodies and of the bread that they vsed to giue to the Catechumeni after the celebration of the Sacrament This sanctification of meates hindreth not but that that which goeth into the mouth goeth into the belly and is by corruption cast out into the draught whereupon our Lord exhorteth vs to another meate that corrupteth not So Origen speaking of the Sacrament it selfe of the typicall and symbolicall Body of Christ for so expressely he explaineth himselfe If saith he whatsoeuer goeth in at the mouth goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught then euen that Bread also that is sanctified or consecrated all is one by the word of God and by prayer as it is materiall goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught nor is it the matter of the bread but
say This my Blood is the Testament in my blood 3. He saith that Christs blood is offered in the Eucharist vnbloodily or not as blood 4. He expoundeth a place of Theodâ—ret thus * The Sacramentall Signes that is the Accidents retaine still the same Substance that is the same Accidents 5. He saith that Christs Body is in the Eucharist but without bodily existence that is his body is there but not as a body 6. That it is there and yet it followeth not that it is eaten though that that is there be eaten 7. He maintaineth a corporall eating of Christ in the Sacrament and yet that he is not there corporally eaten 8. He affirmeth that all are not saued that beleeue in Christ and so feâ—de spiritually on Christ. 9. He saith that the Sonne of God is contained in the bread that is eaâ—en in the Eâ—châ—rist whereas they dery any brâ—… at 〈…〉 to be there 10. He maintaineth that a thing may truly be said to be turned 〈…〉 that that commeth onely in the place of it 11. He affirmeth that one and the selfe same thing may 〈…〉 12 That Christs bodie in the Sacrament hath no exteâ—… bignesse a◠〈…〉 13. He affirmeth Christs very bodie to be present in the Sacrament but in a spirituall manner or as a Spirit and therefore can no more there be broken then Angels wounded iâ—bâ—diâ—s â—ffirmed or then his Deâ—… on the Crosse and that nothing but accâ—â—â—nts are broken in the Euchâ—rist 14. That Christs hiding himselfe in the Sacrâ—â—ent is 〈…〉 exâ—…ion of him 15. He saith that Christ is not touched in the Sacrament and yet we touch him that he inâ—…th 〈…〉 there and yet he cannot be touched of vs. 16. He saith that Christs body is not abused though mice and Rats eate it 17. That their Masse is the very selfe same with Christs Sacrifice on the Crosse and yet it is vnbloodie 18. He maketh Christ himselfe a memoriall of himselfe Crosse and wilfull falshoods and falsifications 1. That I affirme Sacraments to be nothing but bare Signes and Types and that we make the Sacrament but a bare Memoriall of Christ. 2. That I affirme them to bee nothing but bare bread and wine 3. That I affirme Caietane Bellarmine and Gratian to say the same 4. That Iustine Martyr describeth the Celebration of the Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist iust as they now celebrate it 5. That the Fathers affirme that Iâ—das receiued Christs naturall body 6. That all Christians in the World celebrate as they doe 7. That Augustine and all the auncient Fathers vnderstand Christs words Iohn 6. literally and not figuratiuely 8. That all the Fathers expound those words property This is my bodie 9. That Christ did not say of the Eucharist Cup I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine 10. That the Centurists blame all the Fathers almost of Constantines time vniuersally for teaching Transubstantiation and adoration of the Sacrament 11. That the auncient Britens held the same 12. That Origen Basil Ierome and Augustine make the sinne of such as come vnworthily to the Sacrament equall with the sinne of those that betraied and kild Christ. But passe we from his Preamble to the Worke it selfe Diuision 2. HIs first endâ—… for three leaues together is to prâ—… that there is nothing in the Gospel whereby it may appeare that those words of our Sauiour This is my Body may not be vnderstood figuratiuely as well as other speeches of the like kinde in Scripture as when Seuen kine are said to be seuen yeeres ten Hornes ten Kings The Rocke was Christ c. So he not telling withall his Reader as he ought to haue done like an ingenuous solide Author the many differences noted by Bellarmine and other Catholike Authors soluing this very Obiection betweene Christs literall words This is my Bodie and other figuratiue speeches these being simply and without any other explication vniformally recounted by three Euangelists as also by Saint Paul in their historicall narrations whereas where the Lambe is called the Passeouer the Rocke is said to be Christ c. Something is still added in the text to explicate the literall and true meaning of them The Lambe for example is called in the same place the sacrifice of the Passeouer Christ is said to be a spirituall Rocke c. And the very scope of visions and parables doth still shew in what sense the words of them are literally to be taken â—s the seauen kine ten hornes c. Besides in all such figuratiue speeches Semper predicatur de disparato disparatum One thing is said to be another which cannot be â—…dually or specifically the â—ame but wholly different in nature from it A man for example as Christ was cannot 〈…〉 â—…narily be a Vine a Lyon a Rocke c. But in Christs words This is my bodie no such absurdor impossible thing is affirmed but onely that the substance which he had in his hands was his bodie made by the miraculous conuersion of bread into it Christs words being operatiue saith S. Ambrose and omnipotently able to make that to be which is signified by them in in these words Perhaps thou wilt say I see another thing How prooue you to me that I take the bodie of Christ And this remaineth yet for vs to prooue that it is not what nature framed but what benediction hath consecrated and that the force of benediction is greater then the force of nature because euen nature it selfe is changed by benediction Moses holding a wand in his hand did cast it from him and it became a serpent Now if mans benediction were of such force as that it could change nature what say we of that same diuine Consecration where the words of our Lord and Sauiour doe worke For this Sacrament which thou takest is made by the speech of Christ. And if the speech of Elias was of such powâ—â— as to draw fire from heauen shall not Christs words be of foâ—ce to change the formes of the elements Thou hast read of the workes of the whole world Because he spake the word they were made he commaunded and they were created The word of Christ then which of nothing could make that which was not cannot it not as well change those things which are into that which before they were not Since it is not a lesse matter to giue new natures vnto things then to change natures c. It is indeede Bread before the words of the Sacraments But after that consecration is once added vnto it of bread it is made the flesh of Christ c. I haue told you saith S. Augustine that before Christs words that which is offered on the Altar is called bread but when Christs words are vttered it is called no more bread but his bodie And explicating the
Title of the 33. Psalme wherein these words are written Et ferebatur in manibus suis And-he was carried in his owne hands Who saith he conc 1. is able to conceiue how this can happen in man For who is carried in his owne hands A man may be carried in the hands of an other But in his owne hands he cannot be carried How this may be literally vnderstood in Dauid we finde not But in Christ we doe For Christ was carried in his owne hands when giuing his bodie he said This is my Body For then did he carry that body in his owne hands c. When as Christ himselfe saith S. Cyril affirmeth and saith of the bread This is my Bodie who may presume to make any doubt thereof And when the same Christ confirmeth and saith This is my Blood who can doubt and say it is not his blood Againe Let vs not consider it as meere bread or bare wine For it is the bodie and blood of Christ. For although the sense teacheth thee that it is bread and wine yet let thy faith confirme thee that thou iudge not the thing it selfe by thy taste And a little after This knowing for most certaine that the bread which we see is not bread although thy taste thinketh it to be bread but that it is the bodie of Christ and the wine which we behold although to the sense of tasting it seemeth to be wine yet that it is not wine indeede but the blood of our Sauiour c. Let vs beleeue God saith S. Chrysostome in euery thing not gain-saying him though what he saith may seeme absurd to our sense and cogitation I beseech thee therefore that his speech may ouercome our sense and reason Which point we are to obserue in all things but especially in holy mysteries not onely beholding those things which lie before vs but also laying hold of his words for his words cannot deceiue vs but our sense may easily be deceiued And elsewhere lib. 3. de Sacerd. O miracle saith he O the bountie of God! he that sitteth aboue with his Father euen in the same instant of time is handled with the hands of all and deliuereth himselfe to such as are willing to entertaine and imbrace him Againe Elias did leaue his garment to his disciple But the Sonne of God ascending to heauen did leaue his flesh But Elias by leauing it was deuested thereof Whereas Christ leauing his flesh to vs yet ascending to heauen there also he hath it AFter that he hath thus spent some part of his railing Rhetorick in traducing vilifying this Protestantical Diuine his Aduersary asignorant vnacquainted with the Authors he citeth a petty writer a meere collector a filcher a falsifier c. and disgraced his Discourse as consisting of proofes tedious and superficiall and allegations impertinent maimedly and corruptly produced and that nothing may escape him without some nip written with a very bad hand which he taketh to be his owne and the partie therefore one it may be not so fit to write for Ladies as himselfe being both a man of worth as before he intimated himselfe to be and writing a faire hand too though not very Scholerlike as the worke it selfe sheweth Hee commeth now to deale with the matter and substance of the Discourse Where the first Proposition that he vndertaketh to oppugne as I propound it is this These words in the Gospel This is my Body may well be taken figuratiuely Which how it may be I shew by some instances to wit these other in Scripture The seuen kine are seauen yeeres The ten hornes are ten Kings The Rocke was Christ or as those other in ordinary speech This is Caesar That is Cicero c. Nor is there any thing in the Gospel that may enforce the contrarie Now this worthy man that taxeth me for a meere Collector and a filcher out of Bellarmine hath nothing here to answere but what he fetcheth from Bellarmine whom he saith I filch all from But let vs see how well he vrgeth and maketh good Bellarmines answeres 1. The words are simply and without any other explication simply and vniformally for so in his scholerlike manner he speaketh recounted by three Euangelists and Saint Paul And therefore they cannot be taken figuratiuely For that must follow or else he speaketh nothing to the purpose We shall not neede to goe farre to discouer the weakenesse of this consequence The three Euangelists and S. Paul speaking of the other part of this Sacrament doe all simply and without another explication vniformally to retaine his owne precise tearmes say This Cup is c. therefore the Cup cannot be taken figuratiuely there which if it be not they must inuent a new Transsubstantiation of some other matter or mettall then the fruite of the Vine either into the New Testament or into Christs blood § 2. When the Lambe is called the Passeouer and the Rocke said to be Christ something is added in the Text to explaine the literall true meaning of them The Lambe for example in the same place is called the Sacrifice of the Passeouer Christ is said to be a spirituall Rocke c. 1. It is not true that he saith that in the same place where the Lambe is called the Passeouer the same Lambe is called the Sacrifice of the Passeouer There is no more said Exod. 12. 11. but this Ye shall eate it in hast it is the Lords Passeouer there being nothing by way of explication there added But after indeede verse 27. not the Lambe precisely but the whole Seruice is said to be the Sacrifice of the Lords Passeouer When your Children shal aske you What seruice is this that you obserue Then shall you say It is the Sacrifice of the Lords Passeouer Neither is Christ said to be a spirituall Rocke 1. Cor. 10. 4. But the reall Rocke is called a spirituall Rocke as the Manna and the water that issued from it are called spirituall meate and drinke And that Rocke for matter corporall for vse spirituall is said as Augustine well obserueth not to signifie but to be Christ Nothing being added more to intimate a figuratiue sense there then heere in the wordes This is my Body which two speeches both Augustine and Caietan compare the one with the other 2. It is senselesse thus to reason In some places where figuratiue speeches are vsed something is added to explicate them therefore wheresoeuer nothing is added to explicate the figure the words are not or cannot be figuratiuely taken 3. In many of the instances giuen no such explication is added as these The ten Hornes are ten Kings The seven Kine are seuen yeeres This is Caesar This Cicero c. 4. In the very Context there is added that which sheweth the sense to bee figuratiue For that which is called Christs blood by the Euangelist in the one verse is expresly said to be the
fruit of the vine in the next verse And that which is called Christs body by the Apostle is immediately after more then once or twice expounded to bee bread § 3. The very scope saith he or Bellarmine by him of visions and parables doth still shew in what sense the words are literally to be taken as the seuen kine ten hornes c. And doth not the very nature of signes and Sacraments shew in what sense the wordes vsed of or in them are to be taken to wit figuratiuely and symbolically not properly or essentially For what are Signes and Sacraments but reall parables both therefore tearmed Mysteries as Chrysostome noteth because one thing is seene in the one as heard in the other and some other thing vnderstood Or what is more vâ—uall then as Augustine and others well obserue that Signes and Sacraments be called by the names of those things which they are signes and sacraments of What Sacrament also is there wherein or whereof such speeches are not vsed Circumcision is called the Covenant the pasohall Lambe the Passeouer the Rocke Christ Bapâ—â—sme the Laver of Regeneration And in like manner saith Augustine is the bread Christâ— body the name of the thing signified saith Theodoret being giuen to the signe So that whereas this worthy writer thus argueth out of Bellarmine In visions and parables the very scope euer sheweth that the things spoken are to bee vnstoode figuratiuely But these places the seven kine and the ten hornes are visions and parables And therefore the things therein spoken are to be taken figuratiuely Why may not we as wel reason on this wise The very nature of signes and sacraments leadeth vnto this that when the names of the things whereof they are signes and sacraments are given vnto them it is to bee vnderstood not properly but figuratiuely But it is a Sacrament wherein and whereof these speeches are vsed This is my bodie and This is my blood These wordes therefore wherein the name of the thing signified is giuen to the Sacrament are to bee vnderstood figuratiuely And so hee hath from his owne grounds by due proportion somewhat more to conclude then was before required to wit not onely that there is nothing that may enforce vs to expound them literally but that there is somewhat of moment to induce vs to expound them figuratiuely § 4. In all such figuratiue speeches saith he further out of Bellarmine Semper praedicatur de disparato disparatum One thing is said to be another when it cannot be indiâ—idually or specifically the same but wholly different in nature from it A man for example as Christ was cannot but similitudinarily be a Rock a Vine or a Lion But in Christs words This is my body no such absurd or impossible thing is affirmed but only that the substance which he had in his hands was his body made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it 1. In this speech of our Sauiour This is my body as well as in that speech of the Prophet This is Ierusalem or in that speech of the Apostle The Rocke was Christ is one thing to wit bread as is afterward prooued both by the course of the context the words of the Apostle and the doctrine of the ancient Fathers said to bee an other thing to wit the flesh of Christ which is wholly different in nature from it Nor can this worthy Disputer prooue theÌ„ contrary vnlesse you grant him the point in question which heere hee shamefully beggeth to make good his Assertion to wit that that which Christ had in his hands was his bodie made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it 2. A man may as well be a rocke as a rocke may bee a man or bread may be flesh And why was it not as possible for the rocke to be turned into Christ and so to become Christ as for bread to bee turned into the bodie of Christ and so to be the flesh of Christ that the one might be vnderstood properly as well as the other If they will say It is impossible that the rocke should bee turned into the flesh of Christ before Christ was incarnate I might answer them as they vse to do vs that God is able to do all things And questionlesse it is as possible that the rock should be turned into that flesh that as yet was not as that a little thinne wafer cake or the compasse of it at least should containe Christs whole and entire body here on earth while the very selfe same indiuiduall body should be whole and entire still in heaven A creature may as well be and yet not be at once as a naturall body may at the same time be wholly and entire thus contracted on earth and yet whole and entire also in his full stature in heauen Yea how is it not a thing absurd and impossible that Christs body sitting whole and entire at the table should hold the selfe-same body whole and entire in its two hands on the table and should giue the selfe-same body away whole and entire ouer the table to twelue seuerall persons to goe seuerally into each of their mouthes still whole and entire and to become so many whole and entire humane organicall bodies in their mouthes as in chewing they made pieces of that that was giuen them and yet the selfe-same body that they did thus take and eate remaine sitting there still vnstirred and vntouched If these things be not absurda absurdorum absurdissima as he speaketh as monstrous absurdities as euer were any I know not what are 3. Obserue how these men that cannot endure to heare vs say This or that thing is impossible yet tell vs themselues of many impossibilities and that euen then also when they speake of these miraculous mysteries in the confuting one of another It is impossible saith this worthy writer for a man as Christ was otherwise then similitudinarily to be a rock or a vine It is impossible saith Aquinas that a man should be an Asse It is impossible saith the Glosse that bread should be Christs bodie It is altogether impossible saith Bellarmine that this sentence This bread is my body should be true properly It is impossible saith Biel that Christs body should be broken or divided and so bee spoiled being impassible It is impossible saith Aquinas that Christ in his last Supper should giue his body impassible It is impossible that his body being now impassible should be altered in shape or hew It is impossible that Christs body in his proper shape should be seene in any other place but that one onely wherein he is definitiuely It is impossible that the substantiall forme of bread should remaine after consecration or that the substance of bread and wine should abide there It is impossible that Christs body by a locall motion should come to bee in the Sacrament It is impossible
that the same thing should both rest and mooue at once It is impossible that the same body should by locall motion arriue in diuers severall places at once It is impossible that Christs should personally assume the bread in the Sacrament It is impossible that Christs body should bee in the Sacrament any other way but by the conversion of bread into it All these and many other impossibilities they tell vs of that cannot endure to heare vs speake of any Now if they will tell vs why these things are impossible we shall as soone tell them againe in their owne wordes why such a Transubstantiation and reall presence as they dreame of is impossible 4. How doth this follow There is no impossible thing affirmed in Christs words Therefore they must needs bee taken properly or they cannot bee taken figuratiuely Hee might by the same reason prooue that the Apostles words where he saith of himselfe I die dayly or where he saith I am crucified together with Christ or where he saith of the Galathians that Christ was crucified among them or the Psalmists as some fantasticall Rabbines haue held where hee saith of the Heavens that they relate Gods glory c. or our Sauiours where hee saith that the tongue of the Rich mans soule was in torment must of necessity be all vnderstood literally and properly because there is nothing simply impossible affirmed in them § 5. He telleth vs in Conclusion that the meaning of our Sauiour Christs wordes is this The Substance which I hold in my hands is my Body made by the miraculous conuersion of bread into it But where is ought in the Text that inti nateth this miraculous conuersion yea if this were the sense of them it should be made Christs body ere those wordes were spoken of it Whereas hee and his associates commonly hold that this miraculous conuersion is wrought by those wordes This is my body and is not effected till those wordes be all out which they giue the Priest a speciall charge thereof to vtter speedily with one breath And here let this profound doughty Doctor giue an ignorant petty writer leaue to demand of him what is ment by the word This in those wordes This is my body for I suppose hee will not be so absurd as the Glosser is to say that Hoc or this there signifieth nothing at all or what that substance was as hee speaketh that Christ held in his hands when hee spake the word Hoc or this If it were Christs body made before of bread then the vttering of those wordes did not then nor doth now worke any conuersion of the bread into Christs body for nothing can bee turned into it selfe or into that that already it is or if it were bread still as for ought ap peareth in the text still it was then must this needs bee the summe and sense of Christs wordes This bread is my body and so by his owne rule when disparatum de disparato dicitur one thing is said to be another different in nature from it it must needs be taken figuratiuely § 6. Well wotting that there was no such thing either in the Text or gatherable to vse his owne tearmes out of it hee would faine finde out some Author that would say that for him that the text it selfe will not and alleagdeth therefore some few Testimonies Concerning which I might well say as hee saith if I would doe as hee doth that they haue beene answered long since by the L. Morney the B. Morton D. Fulke and others and hee doth not deale sincerely in concealing their Answers and so turne my Reader over to them as his manner is when he hath nothing to answer But I answer to them severally 1. Ambrose is alleadged out of his bookes de Mysterijs c. and de Sacramentis which bookes howsoeuer for diuers passages of them and phrases vsed in them they may well be doubted of whether they were written by him or no and Posseuine himselfe implieth that some haue denied it when hee saith that all almost hold them to be his and part of them as we shall see anone goeth commonly vnder another name yet not to stand thereupon but admit them for his Nothing there said doth necessarily enforce any such Transubstantiation as the Romanists hold yea some subsequent wordes if they had beene annexed would euidently speake against it For first Ambrose there expressely teacheth that the creatures of bread and wine still abide euen after Consecration which vtterly ouerthroweth the Popish Transubstantiation If saith he there were so much force in the word of the Lord in the worke of Creation that those things began by it to be that before were not how much more operatiue is it to cause that things should be still what they were before and be changed into another things So that by this Ambroses confession the elements remaine still what they were and yet are changed indeed which wee deny not into that which they were not as waxe is turned into a seale being annexed to a deed though it remaine still for substance what erst it was 2. That which Ambrose saith in the latter place that This bread is bread before the wordes sacramentall but when consecration commeth to it it is of bread made Christs flesh that hee speaketh in these wordes in the former place which this mangler of him omitteth Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes is another kinde named but after Consecrationis Christs body signified And againe in the latter place Wine and water is put into the Cup but by Consecration it becommeth blood Thou wilt say I see no kind or shew of blood But it hath saith hee a similitude of it For as thou hast taken a similitude of death in Baptisme hee meaneth as lib. 3. cap. 7. so thou drinkest a similitude of Christs precious blood c. And thereupon he concludeth Thou hast learned now that that which thou receiuest is Christs body So that it is in regard of signification and similitude that the one is said to be Christs flesh and the other his blood as this Ambrose explicateth himselfe 3. Expounding what manner of change hee meaneth when he saith They are changed into that which erst they were not Thou thy selfe saith he wast before but thou wast an old creature after thou wast consecrated thou begannest to be a new creature which newnesse yet as Tertullian well obserueth importeth no corporall but a spirituall change in the party so consecrated not in substance but in quality differing from what he was before 4. In the next Chapter relating the wordes of their Church Liturgie then in vse hee calleth that holy oblation a figure of Christs body and blood which they entreate God to accept of as hee did Abels gifts and Abrahams sacrifice c. which cannot
for a man well read in the auncient Fathers as hereafter hee boasteth himselfe to be Diuision 3. THis is the true Doctrine of the auncient Fathers and so plainely and vnanswerably doe they teach the literall vnderstanding of our Sauiours words and the miraculous coÌ„uersion of the bread wine of the Altar by the omnipotent force of them into the bodie and blood of Christ telling vs that we must not beleeue our sense or reason telling vs the contrarie nor conceiue it so impossible as our carnall and grosse Aduersaries pretend for the bodie of our Sauiour to bee in heauen and in numberlesse places of the earth together iâ—…sibly existing Whose plaine testimonies are in a whole Booke together by learned Bellarmine truly and particularly collected where also he refuteth the shifting answeres of Protestanticall Diuines vnto them soluing all Obiections gathered out of their obscurer sayings against Catholicke doctrine Who is by this Minister ignorantly or malitiously traduced and made directly against the whole drift of his Controuersie to teach a probabilitie at least of Protestant Doctrine about the figuratiue and tropicall sense of our Sauiours words This is my Body because disputing against Luther supposing as well as he the literall sense of our Sauiours words argumento ad hominem by an Argument drawne from Luthers owne grounds hee driueth Luther either to confesse Transubstantiation necessarily purported in our Sauiours words This is my Bodie or for to admit barely against the knowne opinion of himselfe and all his disciples a figuratiue and metaphoricall vnderstanding of them For if Christs words be literally to be vnderstood and bread also admitted to remaine in the Sacrament the Pronoune Hoc This would naturally and necessarily demonstrate it and not the bodie of Christ inuisibly therein present and so bread in our Sauiours speech should falsly be affirmed to be Christs bodie Whereas if bread remaine not but be truly conuerted into Christs bodie no such absurd and impossible sense followeth out of the literall vnderstanding of Christs words Why then doth this Minister falsely make Bellarmine in this place seeme to affirme that there is nothing in the holy Text that may enforce vs to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament or which is all one that may enforce vs literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand Christs words c. Ignorance and mistaking must be my aduersaries best meanes to salue this falshood and many others which doe ensue afterward IN the next place hauing digressed all this while from the Argument he should haue answered he addeth that that which they teach coÌ„cerning the literall sense of Christs words and the miraculous conuersion of the bread and wine into the very body and blood of Christ is the true doctrine of the auncient Fathers and to saue himselfe the labour of proouing that which neither he nor any of his side shall euer be able to make good he turneth his Reader ouer to Bellarmine out of whom he picked all that before he had said and telleth him that he hath both prooued it and refuted all the shifting answeres of the Protestanticall Diuines Bellarmine it seemeth is his Aiax behinde whose shield hee must shroud himselfe or else he dare abide no brunt of encounter againe Now to make Bellarmine againe some part of requitall because he is so much beholden to him he will doe his best to cleere him from either the ignorant or malicious abuse of this bad Minister by whom he is traduced and made directly against the whole drift of his Controuersie to teach a probabilitie at least of the Protestant doctrine concerning the figuratiue sense of our Sauiours words and to affirme c. It is true I say that Bellarmine granteth and so he doth I haue set downe his owne words they are not nor can be denied that these words This is my bodie may imply either such a reall change as the Catholickes hold or such a figuratiue change as the Caluinists hold and that is all I say of him The truth contrary to the maine drift and scope of his controuersie as it falleth out oft with those that against their owne knowledge maintaine errour did start from him vnawares Nor is the question now de re but de propositione as Bellarmine there speaketh the question is not of the maine matter in controuersie whether Christ did really conuert the Bread into his Body which Bellarmine affirmeth but whether that speech of our Sauiour may not beare such a figuratiue sense as we giue which Bellarmine in plaine and precise tearmes granteth And all that this his Champion can say for him is nothing but this that Bellarmine doth not say that which in expresse words I haue cited out of him without alteration of any one syllable and the falshood therefore lyeth manifestly on him that denieth it when he knoweth them to be Bellarmines owne wordes in precise tearmes But he hopeth it seemeth that with facing hee may carry away any thing I will adde a little more out of Bellarmine and yet no more then himselfe in precise tearmes saith Scotus and Cameracensis two great Schoolemen grant that the doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot necessarily bee gathered out of the text of the Evangelists howsoeuer they hold it because the Church of Rome that cannot erre hath so expounded it And Bellarmine himselfe granteth that this is not improbable For though the Scripture saith he that we bring may seeme so cleere that it may constraine a man that is not wilfull to yeeld it yet it may well bee doubted whether it be so or no since most learned men and most acute such especially as Scotus was are of a contrary minde And now we haue besides Scotus and others three Cardidinals Card. Bellarmine Card. Caietan and Card. Cameracensis all confessing that the Popish doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot cleerely or vnanswerably bee prooued by Scripture I conclude then with mine Adversaries grant It is all one saith he to say that there is nothing in the text that may enforce vs to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament and to say that there is nothing to enforce vs literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand Christs words Card. Caietan freely confesseth the latter and vnlesse hee can disprooue Caietan which as yet hee hath not assaied to doe he must by his owne confession yeeld the former Diuision 4. PAge 3. He maketh a great stir in asking how the Chalice may be called the new Testament in our Sauiours blood I answer him because our Sauiours blood by the effusion whereof his last Wâ—ll and Testament was confirmed and our eternall inheritance purchased and applied vnto vs is in this Chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the altar for vs. For the word Testament as all learned men know is apt to import not onely the interiour act of the dying mans Wil but also the authenticall instrument or deed wherein that his dying
Will is contained and his legacy conueighed vnto vs which here in the Chalice is our Sauiours blood to cleanse and inebriate deâ—â—â—t soules Afterward in the same page confusedly and tediously hee endeauoureth to shew the bread and wine to bee no other then bare signes and types of Christs true body and blood as Alexanders picture representeth his absent person as Circumcision is called the Couenant because it was a signe thereof c. either not vnderstatding like a dull Scholler his Master Caluines doctrine or ouer sawcily willing to contradict him who towards the end of his booke de Coena Domini expressely denieth bread wine to be empty signes of our Sauiours body and blood but such signes as haue the signified substances of our Sauiours body and blood conioyned with them For Christ saith hee is no deceiuer to delude vs with bare figures c. According to which doctrine of Caluine it will be easie for my Adversarie himselfe to salue many of his owne obiections that for example which he maketh out of Tertullian page 3. saying The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his Disciples he made his body saying This is my body that is a figure of my body For as Caluines former words import so also Tertullian meaneth the sacramentall symbols not to be naked signes of Christs absent body and blood as the Minister would haue them but such signes as haue the signified substance conioyned vnto them as smoake is the signe of fire warme blood of life the fiery tongues ouer the Apostles in that day of Pentecost and the Doue ouer our Sauiour in his Baptisme were signes of the holy Ghost present c. Which manner of being signes of Christs body and blood doth not exclude but suppose the Accidents of bread and wine to containe the true substances of our Sauiours body and blood in them So is Saint Augustine to be vnderstood where he saith Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when hee deliuered the signe of his body And when out of Gratian my Aduersary citeth those wordes The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ c. is a Sacrament of Christs body visible palpable mortal and pierced on the Crosse c. So when Theodoret and Gelasius affirme the substance and nature of bread and wine still to remaine in the Sacrament they meane not physicall substances and nature of bread and wine still to remaine after the consecration but onely the accidents to remaine vnaltered in their nature signifying and containing our Sauiours body and blood vnder them And if hee had cited the place of Theodoret fully out he had vtterly ouerthrowne his hereticall and fraudulent purposes of citing him His wordes are these Neither do the sacramentall signes after consecration depart from their nature for they remaine note how hee speaketh of the signes not of the substances of bread and wine remaining in their former substance figure and forme to be seene and touched as before but they are by our vnderstanding conceiued to be as they are made and they are beleeued and adored according to our faith of them So iudicious and learned is mine Aduersarie here and in other places in the choise of his Arguments and Authorities alleadged against vs. But howsoeuer he faileth in that he will be sure to helpe out the matter by maiming and corruptly citing such testimonies I haue iust cause to suspect his like dealing in citing Gratians Glosse on S. Augustines wordes in the precedent page and Caietans words cited by him page 2. But I haue not these Authors now by me to examine the places in themselues And they are of so small esteeme with vs especially Caietan in his dangerous and inconuenient manner of expounding Scripture with more subtilty many times then truth as I cannot but wonder to see the Minister so to magnifie him as if hee were the Oracle of our Church and his ipse dixit and bare assertion so certaine a proofe as it could not be denied by vs. IN the next place therefore skipping ouer this Confession of Caietan that there is nothing in the Gospell that may inforce vs to take those words of our Sauiour properly This is my body but that they may for ought that is in the Text be taken figuratiuely as well as those wordes The Rock was Christ. As also leaping quite ouer the Answer giuen to that Obiection that we are bound to beleeue our Sauiour when hee saith This my body as if wee could not beleeue those wordes of his vnlesse wee beleeue Transubstantiation whereas their owne writers grant that the words of our Sauiour may be true though no such thing be He picketh out here and there some by-matter to bee nibling vpon that hee may seeme to say somewhat though hee keepe aloofe off from the maine matter And first because hee thought hee had found out a pretty quirk and a strange crotchet which hee was desirous to vent He saith I make a great stirre in asking how the Chalice may bee called the New Testament in Christs blood I halfe suspect that some body hath sometime pusâ—ed him with this Question and he is willing therfore here to explicate it for the saluing of his owne credit the rather hauing lighted vpon a new deuice that hee thinketh wil easily helpe out For I mooue no such Question much lesse make such adoe about asking it but say onely We must beleeue our Sauiour as well when he saith This Cup is the new Testament or This Cup is my blood as wee must beleeue him when he saith This is my body and that either may bee true though there be no such reall conversion either of the Cup into the new Testament or Christs blood in the one or of the Bread into his body in the other And his part had beene if he ment to keepe to the point to shew why the one may not be true in a figuratiue sense as wel as the other But let vs heare how learnedly though it bee beside the matter he explicateth our Sauiours wordes This Cup is the New Testament in my blood Thus forsooth My blood in this Chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the altar is that by the effusion whereof my last Will and Testament is confirmed and the eternall inheritance purchased and applied vnto vs and it is therefore called the New Testament in my blood Did any man in his right wits thinke wee euer expound Scripture on this manner Yea but he hath a singular piece of Schollership by himselfe to iustifie his Exposition For all learned men saith hee know that the word Testament is apt to import not the dying mans Will onely but the deed wherein it is contained and the legacy conueighed by it which here in the Chalice is our Sauiours blood to cleanse and inebriate deuout soules c. If he had beene himselfe inebriated when hee writ this hee could not lightly haue beene more absurd For 1. By this
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
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
the Sonne of God is as he telleth vs conteined What is this but that which Bellarmine condemneth in the Lutherans to forge vs a Christ impanated or enclosed in bread Nor doth their owne doctrine any whit mend the matter For as Bellarmine saith of Rupert us and some others that they make Christ haue a breaden body so may wee as truly say the same of them For what is a body made of bread but a breaden Body But that you see this Doctor here swarueth from and saith that Christs body is but couched in Bread ANd I maruaile not to finde this Minister to corrupt the sayings of the holy Fathers to his hereticall purpose sithence he maketh Bellarmine himselfe page 10. to speake like a Protestant and seeme to say against his owne expresse doctrine that the bread blessed and consecrated on the Altar is not nor cannot be called Christs body Whereas Bellarmine onely disputeth against Luther teaching naturall bread to remaine still in the Sacrament and making the sense of Christs words This is my body to be the same as if he had said This bread is my body saith this and no more that Naturall bread cannot be otherwise then figuratiuely and significantly affirmed to be Christs body Speaking not at all of bread consecrated and by consecration conuerted into the true body of Christ yet still retaining the name of bread for the Accidents of bread still remaining as this false fellow would haue frequently citing Authors which he vnderstandeth not § 2. ANd here againe as one running the wild goose race he windeth backe to a passage in the former Argument and saith he marueileth not to finde me corrupt the sayings of the Fathers he thought sure euery one would beleeue whatsoeuer he said though he neuer assaied to shew it since I make Bellarmine himselfe speake like a Protestant No I make him speake nothing but what hee saith of himselfe and by his owne graunts prooue that either the auncient Fathers spake very absurdly or else they ment as we meane The Argument is this The ancients Fathers say oft that the Bread in the Eucharist is Christs body But this saying saith Bellarmine This bread is my body must either be taken figuratiuely or else it is absurd and impossible The Fathers therfore when they vsed such speeches shewed euidently thereby that they ment as we meane that is they vnderstood Christs words figuratiuely or else by Bellarmines confession they spake very absurdly Nor is it enough to prooue that I corrupt Bellarmine to say that he disputeth in that place against Luther who taught that bread remained still in the Sacrament For what is that to the purpose much lesse to say vntruly that he spake not of bread consecrated when the very Question is there concerning the consecrated bread But I cite Authors he saith that I vnderstand not It is true indeede In this very place I cite some sayings of Bellarmine that neither I nor any such dull-heads as I am I thinke can easily vnderstand as for example where he saith as I here cite him that The Priest maketh Christs body of bread and yet Christs body is not made by the Priest And againe that the body of Christ that was crucified was truly or verily made of Bread And yet confuting Rupertus he saith else-where that it was not a breaden body that was crucified for vs as Tertullian inferred from the doctrine of the Marciâ—nites and as we may well inferre from theirs He waiueth else-where Metaphysicall subtilties in disputing of this Sacrament And taxeth Caluine for his fond and foolish Metaphysicks But these are such transcendent subtilties if not absurdities as any Metaphysicks will afford And this deepe Metaphysicall Doctor that hath no want of wit and vnderstandeth him so well should haue done well to vnfold to vs these mysteries and arreade vs these riddles whereas he very vncharitably passeth them by and onely controlling vs for our ignorance leaueth vs sticking still in the bryers with them not vouchsafing to helpe vs out PAg. 12. He affirmeth it to be most absurd to affirme as we doe that a thing is made of that in the roome whereof it onely succeedeth or is turned into that which succeedeth onely in the roome thereof Whereas in euery substantiall conuersion one substance is destroied and another succeedeth in the place thereof by the same action as where wood is conuerted into fire c. The difference betwixt Transsubstantiation in the Sacrament and other substantiall naturall conuersions chiefely consisting in this that the whole substance of bread passeth into another praeexisting substance Christs body to wit introduced in place thereof so as nothing thereof remaineth whereas in them the same matter albeit receiuing a new forme and so made a distinct substance from what it was before still remaineth which is to the Ministers purpose wholly impertinent vnlesse hee will falsely and foolishly withall affirme that God can destroy no substance intirely leauing the Accidents thereof still remaining to introduce an other substance in place thereof And albeit we cannot say of Christs body that it was bread which is another Argument of the Minister ibidem yet may it be said to haue beene of bread as being by the same miraculous and omnipotent power of Christs words whereby bread looseth naturall being in place thereof Sacramentally produced and made present And this is without any difficultie affirmed by vs who know the same in a propertionable manner to be found in all other substantiall and accident all conuersions howsoeuer his poore Iudgement will not serue to consider it heate for example was neuer cold albeit in place thereof produced fire was neuer wood but as a substance as naturall vnderstanding might teach him essentially different and produced by the others destruction § 3. AFter he hath thus recoiled back a little now he beginneth to make againe forward And 1. wheras they not knowing wel how to salu or shift of such absurdities as follow necessarily vpon this their senselesse conceit of the conuersion of bread into Christs body affirme that Christs body is therefore said to be made of bread and the bread said to be turned into Christs body because the bread ceasing to be there Christs body as they say doth onely come in the roome of it For they dare not say that Christs body is produced of it or that the Substance of the bread is that whereof as the materiall cause Christs body is framed as ashes are made of wood or glasse of some ashes And I thereupon reply that it is absurd to say that a thing is made of that in the roome whereof it onely succeedeth or is turned into that that succeedeth onely in the roome thereof That which Suarez himself also confesseth to be rather a translocation then a transubstantiatioÌ„ or a true substantiall conuersion He telleth me that if my poore iudgement would serue to consider it such a succession is
wine there whereas the whole substance as this fellow beareth vs in hand that is both matter and forme of bread passeth into Christs body here 9. To say that one substance passeth into another substance preexisting is to say that that is made that already is or that is produced and hath beeing giuen it that is in beeing already when as a thing cannot be in making and beeing at once nor can beeing be giuen to that that already is or to say that a creature is now made that was fully made before or that a creature that was before is new made of that that before was not it Yea to speake more plainely it is all one to as say that a man is killed when hee was dead before or is quickened when hee was aliue before or is now stript when hee was starke naked before or is now bred or begotten when he was borne before Lastly to say that Christs body long before preexisting is now made of bread that some two or three dayes past had no existence it selfe is all one as to say that wine of a twelue-month old is made of grapes that were but yesterday gathered and pressed and were yet growing the day before or that an Oke hauing stood vpward of an hundred yeeres and yet standing in the Forrest is sprung vp this yeere of an acorne of the last yeares growth And consider wee now how well these things agree together The body of Christ is contained in the bread and yet there is no bread at all in the Eucharist The body of Christ succeedeth onely in the roome of bread and yet the substance of the bread passeth into the substance of Christs body The whole substance of bread is so abolished that nothing remaineth of it and yet the whole substance of the same bread passeth into the substance of Christs body Christs body was in beeing before and yet it is now made of another substance that before it was not yea Christs body that was bread and borne aboue a thousand yeeres since is now made of a wafer-cake of yesterdayes baking The whole essence of that wafer cake passeth into Christs body and yet wee cannot say of Christs body that euer it was that wafer-cake But like ropes of sand as wee are wont to say doe these things hang together and to spend much time in refuting them may be deemed I feare as ridiculous to vse their Dennis his tearmes as to stand seriously and curiously pulling downe by piece-meale such castles as little children haue in sport built vp of sand NEither is it a good or Christian kinde of Argument which my Adversary in the end of the same 12. page to this purpose maketh Other substantiall conversions are sensible and easily discerned albeit miraculous as when Aarons rod was made a Serpent c. Wheras in the Sacrament we see wholly the contrary therefore we are not to beleeue therein any such conversion citing thus for proofe thereof a place of S. Augustine in his margent which directly if hee had marked it overthroweth his owne doctrine and purpose of citing it That which you see saith this Father is bread and a Cup but that which your faith requireth you to be enformed of is that the bread is Christs body and the Cup his blood Could hee affirme any thing more plainly against this Ministers sensuall and absurd Argument which were it good would lead vs to beleeue nothing faith being onely of things which appeare not to our vnderstanding or senses How farre is this carnall poore vnlearned man from the holy Fathers spirit and doctrine as I haue formerly cited their assertions wherein they teach vs to renounce the naturall iudgement of our vnderstanding and senses and with the Apostle to captivate our vnderstandings to the obedience of faith in this and many other mysteries of faith humbly to bee vpon the warrant of Gods word assented vnto and not ouer-curiously searched after by vs. We are saith S. Hillarie that great Doctor of Christs Church and victorious Champion of his deity not to dispute as my Adversarie doth in a secular and sensuall manner of diuine things For of this naturall veritie of Christ in vs speaking of the Sacrament vnlesse we learne of Christ himself we speake foolishly and impiously Wherefore sithence hee saith My flesh is truely food and my blood is truely drinke Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood remaineth in mee and I in him there is no place of doubting left cōcerning the verity of Christs body and blood For now by the profession of our Lord and faithfull beleefe which we haue thereof it is his true flesh and blood and these being receiued by vs do make vs to be in Christ and Christ in vs. Is not this truth Surely it is but to those that deny Iesus Christ to be true God c. With a cloud of such ancient and vncontrollable Testimonies of the holy Fathers formerly touched could I confound my sensuall Adversary and teach him a new manner of disputing of these heauenly and diuine Mysteries instituted by the Sonne of God with equall wisedome power and goodnesse for vs wherein the omnipotency of him that chiefly doth them is to be assigned for a sufficient reason of them § 4. NOw further whereas I alleadge among other things that in euery miraculous conversion of bodies there is a sensible change whereas no such thing at all is found in the Sacrament Our eyes saith Augustine informe vs that it is bread that is there He telleth me this is no good nor Christian but an absurd secular and senslesse arguing and such as would leade vs to beleeue nothing but what we see and that Augustine if I had marked him whom I cite in the margent as if his very wordes were not in the text vtterly ouerthroweth it as also Hillarie and other Fathers when they teach vs in diuine mysteries to renounce the naturall iudgement of our vnderstanding and senses which this poore carnall vnlearned man his Adversarie is so farre from c. And withall as commiserating and bewailing my simplicity Oh how farre is this poore c. He telleth his Reader that he could with a cloud of such ancient and vncontrolleable testimonies of the holy Fathers confound this his sensuall Adversarie and teach him a new manner of disputing of these heauenly and divine mysteries Wel when he doth this you may beleeue that he can doe it and his poore puny Adversary shall be eternally obliged to him for it But meane while let vs see what Pyrgopolinices here saith 1. Augustine telleth vs that something is seene in the Sacrament and something else is to bee belieued But doth Augustine tell vs that wee must not beleeue that there is bread there though our eyes informe vs that there is No He telleth vs expressely that there is bread there as our eyes doe informe vs. And what can be more euidently or plainely spoken Yea
but hee addeth withall that our faith informeth vs that the bread is Christs body Yea but saith Bellarmine that sentence is most absurd and impossible if it be not meant figuratiuely In which manner Augustine as before was shewed expoundeth himselfe else-where 2. Doe the Fathers tell vs that in this holy Mystery we must not so much regard what our sense informeth vs as what our faith apprehendeth And doe they not say the same of Baptisme and of all mysteries or Sacraments in general Heare we one or two of them speake for all The Fathers of the Nicene Councell whom before he alleaged Our Baptisme say they must not with bodily eyes be considered but with spirituall Seest thou water vnderstand the power of God hidden in it conceiue it full of the holy Ghost and diuine fire And then wil they the same regard to be had also at the Lords Table That Ambrose that this Author and his Associates so oft cite as making so much for them You are come saith hee to the Font consider what you there saw consider what you said c. You saw the Font you saw water c. you saw all that you could see with your bodily eyes and humane aspect You saw not those things that worke and are not seene The Apostle hath taught vs that wee are to behold not the things that are seene but the things that are not seene For farre greater are the things that are not seene then those that are seene Beleeue not thy bodily eyes alone That is better seene that is not seene So Gregory Nyssene Both the spirit and water concurre in Baptisme And as man consisteth of two parts so are there medicines of like like appointed for either for the bodie water that appeareth and is subiect to sense for the soule the spirit that cannot bee seene nor doth appeare but is called by faith and commeth in an ineffable manner Yet the water that is vsed in Baptisme addeth a blessing to the Body baptised Wherefore doe not contemne the divine Laver neither make little account of it as common because of the water that is vsed in it For it is a greater matter that it worketh and marueilous effects proceed from it And a little after of the Eucharist y The bread also is at first common bread but when the Mystery hath sanctified it it is called Christs body And in like manner the wine though it be a thing of small price before the blessing yet after the sanctification which proceedeth from the Spirit both of them worke excellently And so in many other things if you regard it you shall see the things that appeare to be contemptible but the things wrought by them to be great and admirable And so Chrysostome speaking of those wordes of our Sauiour The wordes I speake are spirit and life To vnderstand saith hee things carnally is to consider the things simply as they are spoken and no otherwise Where as all mysteries and then not the Eucharist onely are to bee iudged not by the externall things that are visible but are to be considered with the inward eyes that is spiritually And in particular of Baptisme else-where The Gospell is called a mystery because we beleeue not in it what we see but wee see somethings and beleeue other things For that is the nature of our mysteries which my selfe therefore and an Infidell are diversly affected with c. Hee when hee heareth of a Laver thinketh it but bare water but I consider not the thing seene simply but the purging of the soule by the Spirit c. For I iudge not the things that appeare by my bodily sight but with the eyes of my minde Againe I heare Christs body I vnderstand the thing spoken one way and the Infidell another And as children or vnlettered persons when they looke on bookes know not the power of the letter nor know what they see but a skilfull man can finde matter in those letters contained liues or stories and the like c. So it is in this mystery the Infidels though hearing seeme not to heare but the faithfull hauing spirituall skill see the force of the things therein contained Nothing then in this kinde is said of the Eucharist but what is said of all Sacraments and of Baptisme by name Nothing therefore that argueth any miraculous change more in the one then in the other Nor doth it follow that we would haue men to beleeue nothing but what they see because we refuse to beleeue that that we see is not so We may not saith Tertullian call in question our senses lest in so doing we detract credit from Christ himselfe as if he might be mistaken when hee sawe Sathan fall downe or heard his Fathers voyce from heauen or mistooke the smell of the oyntment that was poured vpon him or the tast of the wine that he consecrated for a memoriall of his blood Neither was nature deluded in the Apostles Faithfull was their sight and their hearing on the mount Faithfull was their taste of the wine that had beene water Faithfull was the touch of incredulous Thomas And yet as Augustine well obserueth Thomas saw one thing and beleeued another thing Hee saw Christ the man and beleeued him to bee God Hee beleeued with his minde that which hee saw not by that which appeared to his bodily senses And when we are said to beleeue our eyes saith hee by those things that wee doe see wee are induced to beleeue those things that we doe not see In a word Rehearse mee saith Tertullian Iohns testimony That which we haue heard and seene with our eyes and felt with our hands that declare we vnto you A false testimony saith he an vncertaine at least if the nature of our senses in our eyes eares and hands be such But these men would haue vs as the sonnes of Eliah speake to thrust out our eyes and as the Iewish Rabbines say abusing a place of Scripture to that purpose that a man must beleeue the High Priest in all things yea though hee shall tell him that his left hand is his right and his right hand the left so they would haue vs to beleeue whatsoeuer the Pope or they say though they tell vs that that both our sight and sense informeth vs to be most false § 5. But to make good in part yet his former glorious flourish hee citeth a place of Hilarie where hee affirmeth that concerning the veritie of Christ in vs not speaking as hee here saith specially of the Eucharist but of our vnion and coniunction with him in generall vnlesse we speake as Christ hath taught vs wee speake foolishly and impiously that there is no place left to doubt of the verity of Christs body and blood that the Sacraments being receiued cause that Christ is in vs and we in him Now
Cups but allegorising the wordes as their manner is to doe many times letting the literall sense alone expound the vine to be the people of the Iewes and so the fruit of the vine the legall obseruances c. And what is all this to the literall sense of the words that this trifler is troubled with and cannot tell how to auoyd Let him produce if he can any one Father who denieth that Christ spake those wordes of the Eucharisticall Cup and of the liquor therein contained I alleadged Clemens of Alexandria Cyprian Chrysostome Augustine and might adde many others that affirme it Yea not onely Iansenius ingenuously acknowledgeth that it can be meant of no other then the Eucharisticall Cuppe which onely Matthew and Marke mention But Maldonate the Iesuite also freely confesseth that Origen Cyprian Chrysostome Epiphanius Ierome Augustine Bede Euthymius and Theophylact doe all expound those wordes of it howbeit himselfe saith that Christ spake there not of his blood but of wine Where first obserue we that Ierome and Bede cleane contrary to this fablers assertion by the Iesuites confession expound it of the Eucharist And secondly conclude wee from the Iesuites owne grants It was of that that was in the Eucharisticall Cup that our Sauiour spake those wordes as the ancient Fathers generally and ioyntly affirme But our Sauiour spake them not of his blood but of wine saith the Iesuite It was not his blood therefore but wine that was drunke in the Eucharist 2. Wee obiect the words of our Sauiour Doe this in remembrance of me not as this shamelesse lyer saith therby to prooue the Sacrament to be a bare memorie of Christs body and blood somewhat like the lye he told before that his Adversarie should affirme it to bee nothing but bare bread and wine but to prooue that Christ is not there corporally present For what needeth a memoriall of him when we haue him in our eye when if we may beleeue Bellarmine he is visibly present with vs When we see him and touch him as this fellow telleth vs else-where Or who would be so absurd as to say I giue you my selfe to be a memoriall of my selfe It is as if a man when hee dieth saith Primasius or when he goeth to trauell saith one that goeth for Ierome should leaue a pledge or a token with one that hee loueth to put him in minde of him in his absence and of the good turnes he hath done him which the partie if hee loue him entirely cannot looke on without teares And who would be so senselesse as deliuering his friend a ring on his death bed to say I deliuer you this ring to bee a pledge of this ringe or to be a pledge of it selfe But let vs heare I pray you his Answer Saint Paul saith hee interpreteth these wordes of our Sauiour when he saith So oft as you doe this you represent Christs death till hee come Would any man that had either braines in his head or wit in his braine answer in this manner or reason on this wise Christs death is represented in the Lords Supper Ergo Christs very body and blood must needs bee there present Yea or thus either In the Lords Supper is a representation of Christs death Ergò it is not a memoriall of it As if representation were not ordinarily of things absent or memorials represented not the things that they commemorate He wanted his Bellarmine heere to helpe him out who where Tertullian saith that Christ represented his body in bread saith that to represent there signifieth to make a thing really present But it is well that the word vsed by the Apostle here will not beare any such sense else it may be we might haue had it Meane while hee should haue done well as his vsuall manner is else-where to haue snipt off or concealed at least the last clause Till I come For after hee is come saith Theodoret we shall haue no neede of signes or symbols of his body any more when his body it selfe shall appeare He were scarce in his wits I thinke that would leaue a thing with his Friends at his departure from them to bee remembred by in his absence till hee returned againe to them that should lie lockt vp and kept out of their sight and should neuer come in their view but when himselfe should come personally in presence to shew it them or should bid them by such a thing remember him till hee came againe to them a twelue-moneth after when as euery weeke or moneth in the meane space hee meant to returne to them as oft as euer they desired to remember him in it But mine Adversary thought belike that none but such silly sots should reade what hee writ as would marke nothing but what he would haue them LAstly S. Paul literally declaring the institution of the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. to the end that the Corinthians might vnderstand the excellency thereof maketh the sinne of such as vnworthily receiue it to consist in this that they discerne not that bread to be the body of Christ and his words read alone without hereticall glosses expresse plainely Catholicke doctrine And in the Chapter before hee mentioneth benediction or consecration of the Chalice then vsed saying Calix benedictionis The Chalice of benediction which wee blesse is it not the communication of Christs blood and the bread which we breake is it not the communication of Christs body c. Of which words saith S. Chrysostome this is the meaning That which is in the Chalice is that which floweth out of Christs side and wee are made partakers thereof Which is out of the Greeke text of S. Luke plainely to be gathered And the very manner of Christs speeches Quod pro vobis datur quod pro vobis effundetur Which is giuen for you which shall be effused for you import plainely a Sacrifice of his body and blood wherein the one is offered not to vs but for vs the other was to be not infused as wine but effused as blood for vs c. § 9. AT last remembring himselfe wherein he failed at the first hee will prooue out of S. Paul hee saith that Christs words are literally to be vnderstood This had beene more seasonable where it was questioned at first But better at last we say then neuer 1. The Apostle maketh saith hee this the sinne of those that vnworthily receiued the Sacrament that they discerned not the Lords body 2. Hee saith the bread broken is the communication of the body of Christ and the blessed Chalice of his blood Stout Arguments and fit for such a Champion as he is For the former how followeth it Men sinne in not discerning the Lords body when they come vnreuerētly to the Lords board Ergò our Sauiours words This is my body are to bee vnderstood properly Let him