exposition of his our Sauiour should say This Cup that is this blood contained in the Chalice is the New Testament in my blood And so Christs blood shall be not in the Chalice onely but in his blood would any reasonable man say My body is in my body or My blood is in my blood But they care not what absurd language they fasten vpon our Sauiour so it may make for their owne turne 2. There is the blood of Christ really contained in the Chalice and yet this blood is vnbloodily offered It is vnbloodily offered and yet it is really blood yea there is nothing there but blood True it is the ancient Fathers oft tearme the Eucharist an vnbloody sacrifice which sheweth their speeches where they say that the Altar and the people are besprinckled and dyed purplered with blood were metaphoricall and hyperbolicall and well might they so call it not dreaming of any such bloody stuffe in the Chalice as these men seeme to imagine But how there can bee an vnbloody offering where there is much more blood then flesh and Christ offered vnbloodily where men drinke nothing but meere blood yea if Chrysostomes speeches were to be taken properly where all the Communicants are dyed red with blood let any reasonable man iudge 3. All learned men he saith of which number I hope he counteth himselfe one know that a Testament is apt to import not a will onely or a deed but a legacie too Vsus loquendi Magister Use is the Lord and Master of language We should thinke they say as the best speake as the most and vse as such coine so such speech as is commonly currant We ignorant and vnlearned Protestanticall Ministers are vnacquainted with this learning But I would request him if hee can here as well for the sauing and saluing of of his owne credite as for our better instruction to produce any one learned man besides himselfe and his associates that euer so said or euer so spake that euer called a legacy by the name of a Testament Such learned men I see as hee is may say what they list we vnlearned must speake by rule when we speake least such learned men as hee is controll vs if we doe otherwise for ignorant 4. Marke I beseech you this learned mans Logicke how soundly and substantially he argueth This word Testament may well signifie either a Will or a Legacie ergo Christs blood wherewith his last Will was confirmed may well be tearmed the New Testament What connexion there is betweene these two Propositions the one produced by him to prooue the other let any one that is not vtterly senslesse consider 5. Let it be obserued how these men that cannot endure at our hands to heare of any figure in the wordes of our Saviour though one neuer so frequent in signes and Sacraments especially which both they grant these things to be yet themselues in the explicating of them are enforced to flie to figures yea take liberty to themselues to coine and forge such figures as were neuer heard of before either in holy writ or in prophane writer For let him if he can shew a legacie so tearmed in either Lastly Christs blood indeed may in some sense be said to inebriate mens soules and the Ancients sometime so speake But that which is in the Chalice if it be taken which the Priest sometime may chance to doe ouer-largely will as Aquinas well obserueth inebriate the bodie and not the soule which I neuer yet heard that blood did or could doe And therefore wee haue cause to thinke if we see the Priest drunke with it yea we haue reason to beleeue because we know he well may that it is not Christs blood but the fruit of the vine the blood of the grape that is in the Chalice and produceth such effects § 2. In the next place like a man in a maze going backward and forward as vncertaine which way to turne himselfe Afterward saith hee relating but misrelating as his vsuall manner is some things spoken before confusedly and tediously hee endeauoureth to shew the bread and wine to be no other then bare signes and types of Christs body and blood as Alexanders picture representeth his absent person as Circumcision is called the Couenant because it was a signe thereof c. True it is I say these wordes of our Sauiour This is my body may as well be vnderstood figuratiuely as those speeches are where the Rocke is called Christ and when pointing to the pictures of Caesar and Alexander it is the comparison that Augustine vseth we say This is Caesar and That is Alexander And in Answer to the Obiection before recited I say that the Cup that is the wine in the Cup is said to be the New Testament as Circumcision the Couenant because a signe and seale of it But that the bread and wine are no other then bare signes and types c. I no where say It is his vntruth not mine assertion I say expressely more then so that they are not signes onely but seales and signes and seales so effectuall as after I shew that by them the things signified by them and sealed vp in them are truely and effectually yet spiritually conueighed vnto those that doe faithfully receiue them Hee dealeth herein but as Bellarmine whom hee imitateth doth with Caluine one while charging him to make the Sacramemt nothing but a symbole and memoriall of Christs passion and so no better saith hee nay nor so good as a Crucifixe and yet else-where acknowledging that hee maketh it not a signe onely but a seale also confirming and sealing vp Gods promises made in the Word But like a dull Scholler he saith herein I vnderstood not my Master Caluine Master in these matters wee acknowledge none but Christ whose Word alone is absolutely authenticall with vs. Caluine we reuerence as a worthy seruant of Christ. And as dull a Scholler as I am I vnderstand him well enough where in that booke he calleth Transubstantiation a deuice of the Diuell their Consecration a kinde of Incantation the Masse an Histrionicall action and the Priest acting it a meere Ape The signes indeed saith hee in the Eucharist are not naked signes but such as haue the truth of the thing conioyned with them that which is true of Baptisme as well as of the Lords Supper Yet not inclosed in them nor carnally but spiritually partaked Nor doth God delude vs with bare figures though there bee no such reall change of the elements in the Eucharist more then hee doth vs now in Baptisme or did the Israelites of old when hee fed them with spirituall food and water in the Wildernesse § 2. And heere againe I cannot say cunningly but knauishly rather hauing falsly related my wordes and passing ouer mine Answer to this very Obiection wherein they challenge vs to make the Sacrament nothing
For Commenting on the storie of the Institution of this Sacrament The old Paschall solemnity saith hee being ended which was celebrated in memorie of the deliuerance out of Egypt Christ passeth to a new one which hee would haue the Church vse in memory of redemption by him instead of the flesh and blood of a Lambe substituting a Sacrament of his body and blood in a figure of bread and wine c. And hee breaketh himselfe the bread that he deliuereth to shew that the breaking of his bodie to come was by his owne will and procurement And againe because bread strengtheneth the flesh and wine breedeth blood the one is mystically referred to Christs body and the wine vnto his blood Where is any tittle here that may stand well with their Transubstantiation much lesse that soundeth ought that way A Sacrament of his body and blood a memoriall of his redemption bread broken and giuen and both bread and wine hauing a mysticall reference to the body and blood of Christ. It was well and aduisedly therefore done by Bellarmine to leaue Bede cleane out of the Catalogue of his Authors though a writer of the greatest note in those times because he could finde nothing in him that might seeme but to looke that way which if he could we should be sure to haue heard of Yea that long after Augustines time the same beleefe of the Sacrament that we at this day hold was commonly taught and professed publikely in this Iland notwithstanding the manifold monuments by that Popish faction suppressed appeareth by some of them in ancient Manuscripts yet extant and of late published also in print Among others of this kinde are the Epistles and Sermons written in the Saxon tongue of one Aelfricke a man of great note for learning that liued about the yeere 990. wherein the same doctrine is taught concerning the Sacrament that we hold at this day and the contrary Popish doctrine is impugned In an Epistle of his written for Wulfsine then Bishop of Shyrburn to his Clerks bearing title of a Sacerdotall Synode he saith that The holy Housell is Christs bodie not bodily but ghostly Not the body that he suffered in but the body of which he spake when hee blessed bread and wine to housell and said by the blessed bread This is my body and by the holy wine This is my blood And that the Lord that then turned that bread to his body doth still by the Priests hands blesse bread and wine to his ghostly body and his ghostly blood And in another Epistle to Wulstane Archbishop of Yorke that The Lord halloweth daily by the hands of the Priest bread to his body and wine to his blood in ghostly mystery And yet notwithstanding that liuely bread is not bodily so nor the selfe same body that Christ suffered in nor that holy wine is the Sauiours blood which was shed for vs in bodily thing but in ghostly vnderstanding And that that bread is his body and that wine his blood as the heauenly bread which we call Manna was his body and the cleere water which did then run from the stone in the wildernes was truely his blood as S. Paul saith And that stone was Christ. And in the Paschall Homily by him translated out of Latine and read commonly then on Easter-day Men saith hee haue often searched and doe as yet search how bread that is gathered of corne and through fires heat baked may be turned to Christs body or how wine that is pressed out of many grapes is turned through one blessing to the Lords blood To which he there answereth that it is so by signification as Christ is said to be Bread a Rocke a Lamb a Lion not after truth of nature And againe hauing demanded Why is that holy housell then called Christs body and his blood if it be not truely that that it is called Hee answereth It is so truely in a ghostly mysterie And then explicating further the manner of this change As saith he an heathen childe when hee is Christened yet hee altereth not his shape without though hee be changed within and as the holy water in Baptisme after true nature is corruptible water but after ghostly mystery hath spirituall vertue And so saith he The holy Housell is naturally corruptible bread corruptible wine but is by might of Gods word truely Christs body and blood yet not bodily but ghostly And afterward hee setteth downe diuerse differences betweene Christs naturall body and it Much is betwixt the body that Christ suffered in and the body that he hallowed to housell 1. The body that hee suffered in was bred of the flesh of Mary with blood and bone and skin and sinewes in humane limmes and a liuing Soule His ghostly body which we call the housell is gathered of many cornes without blood and bone limme and soule And it is therefore called a mystery because therein is one thing seen and another thing vnderstood 2. Christs body that he suffred in and rose from death neuer dieth henceforth but is eternall and impassible That housel is temporall not eternall corruptible and dealed into sundry parts chewed betweene the teeth and sent into the belly 3. This mysterie is a pledge and figure Christs body is truth it selfe This pledge doe we keepe mystically vntill we come vnto the truth it selfe and then is this pledge ended Truly it is as we said Christs body and blood not bodily but ghostly And yet further he addeth that As the Stone in the wildernesse from whence the water ran was not bodily Christ but did signifie Christ though the Apostle say That stone was Christ so that heauenly meate that fed them 40. yeeres and that water that gushed from the Stone had signification of Christs body and blood and was the same that wee now offer not bodily but ghostly And that As Christ turned by inuisible might the bread to his body and the wine to his blood before he suffred so he did in the wildernesse turne the heauenly meate to his flesh and the flowing water to his owne blood before hee was borne That when our Sauiour said Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath euerlasting life He bad them not eate the body wherewith he was enclosed nor to drinke that blood which hee shed for vs but he ment that holy housel which is ghostly his body and his blood and hee that tasteth it with beleeuing heart hath euerlasting life That As the sacrifices had a sore-signification of Christs body which he offered to his Father in Sacrifice So the housell that wee hallaw at Gods Altar is a remembrance of Christs body which he offered for vs and of his blood which he shed for vs which suffering once done by him is daily renewed in a mystery of holy housell Lastly that This holy housell is both Christs body and the bodie of all faithfull men after ghostly mysterie and so
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
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
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
who I pray you doubteth of or denyeth ought that is here said who teacheth men to speake otherwise then Christ euer taught but they that tell vs of bread transubstantiated and of a body of Christ made of bread of Christs flesh contained in bread or vnder the accidents of bread and of his blood in the bread and his body by a concomitancie in the Cup c Who doubteth with vs of the truth of Christs body and blood For of the corporall presence of either in the Sacrament Hilarie hath not heere a word Or who denyeth but that by the receiuing of those venerable mysteries Christ is spiritually in vs and we in him Doth not the Apostle say of Baptisme that by it we are ingraffed into Christ and Chrysostome that by it we become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone Hilaries scope is to shew that Christ is one with God and his Father and we one with him not by consent of will onely as some Heretikes said but by a true and reall vnion yet spirituall as his words implie when he saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him Vpon whinch wordes their owne Bishop Iansenius They saith hee that thus eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood either by such faith alone or in the Eucharist are said to haue Christ abiding in them and to abide themselues in him in regard of the true vnion of our nature with the diuine nature by the spirit of Christ whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature Yea those words of our Sauiour cannot be meant of Christ corporally receiued in the Eucharist nor could Hilarie so meane if he were otherwise of their minde appeareth For Christs body so taken as they imagine doth not abide long in those that so receiue it but by their owne doctrine goeth away againe I know not whither a while after Whereas by vertue of such receiuing Christ as our Sauiour there speaketh of We doe abide in him and he in vs that is we are most inwardly and inseparably knit vnto Christ and he vnto vs they are still Iansenius his tearmes and Hilarie also saith the same and obteine therefore thereby not a transitorie life as we doe by the eating of corporall meate that passeth est-soones away and abideth not in him that eateth it but life permanent and eternall Whence it is manifest also saith the same Author that all are not in this place said to eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood that receiue the Sacraments of his body and blood since that all such haue not Christ abiding in them But they eate his flesh and drinke his blood as he there speaketh who beleeuing that his flesh and blood were giuen on the Crosse for the Saluation of mankinde and that by vertue of the hypostaticall vnion they haue a power to giue life do either by such faith alone or in the holy Eucharist also receiue the Lord himselfe within themselues imbrace him and by faith fast clasping him so keepe him within them as one by whom whatsoeuer we desire commeth to vs and is conferred on vs. Thus he by whose words it plainely appeareth that our abiding in Christ and Christ in vs which Hilarie from our Sauiour speaketh of dependeth not vpon any such corporall presence of his body and blood in the Sacrament nor doth necessarily require the same which by their owne doctrine also it doth not effect Diuision 9. HIS next Argument drawen from the Nature of Signes and Sacraments is idle and forcelesse For wee denie not as there he supposeth the Sacramentall Signes containing the bodie of Christ vnder them to signifie somewhat distinct from themselues to wit the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace that worthily receiue them They signifie likewise Christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his passion And so a thing considered in one manner may be a signe of it selfe in another manner considered as Christ transfigured represented his owne bodie as now it is in heauen glorified his triumphant entrance into Ierusalem on Palme Sunday figured his owne entrance into heauen afterwards as Eusebius Emissenus and other Fathers teach and as an Emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victories c. MY third Argument was taken from the Nature of Signes and Sacraments whose nature is to signifie one thing and to be another The Argument is this No Signes or Sacraments are the same with that that they signifie But the bread and wine signifie Christs body and blood in the Eucharist They are not therefore essentially either To this idle and forcelesse Argument as he pleaseth to style it he thus answereth 1. That the Sacrament all Signes signifie the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace as also Christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his Passion Now 1. what is this to mine Argument was this man thinke we euer a disputant that answereth Arguments on this wise which part of my Syllogisme I pray you is this Answer applied to I had thought that a Syllogisme being propounded the Answerer should either haue denied or distinguished of one of the former Propositions 2. It is not true that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are signes of these things Some affections of them and Actions vsed about them indeede are The bread and wine themselues are signes of spirituall nutriment not nutrition The eating and drinking is a signe of it Signes they are of Christs body and blood not of the dolorous seuering of them in the passion though their being apart is a signe of it also 3. He saith that a thing in one manner considered may be a Signe of it selfe in another manner considered as Christ transfigured of himselfe now in heauen glorified his triumphant entrance into Ierusalem of his triumphant entrance into heauen and an Emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victorie But 1. If signum res signata the Signe and the thing signified by it be relatiues as without all Question they are a Father may as well be a father to himselfe as a signe may be the signe of it selfe Not to adde that the Ancients as hath formerly beene shewen are wont to call the Sacraments pictures and pledges and it is against common sense to say that ought is either a picture or a pledge of it selfe 2. I might well put this Defendant to prooue that Christs transfiguration was a representation of his present glorification or that his entrance into Ierusalem was a type of his glorious entrance into heauen whatsoeuer his bastardly Eusebius Emissenus say of it whose authoritie is no better then his owne 3. Let him haue what he would that the one was a type of the other Doth it follow Christs transfiguration was a type of his glorification therefore Christ was a type or a signe of himselfe 4. An Emperour and his victorie I suppose are not all
and thighes too And seeing hee had all the members of the body hee must needs haue a whole body that consisteth of those members Let vs reason backward as well wee may If Christ haue an entire body consisting of those limmes then he hath all those limmes whereof such a body consisteth And then let vs say to these as he then to them You heare of flesh and feet and hands and other limmes And doe you forge vs some Stoicall round bals and aiery dotages As these doe little round wafer-cakes which they beare vs downe to be Christs body He alludeth to the Stoicks who held that the Gods had some shape and that shape was as a body but yet no body and had as it were blood and yet no blood Wherein the Marcionites also in a manner agreed with them and our Romanists at this day with either imagining our Sauiour saith Tertullian to haue flesh hard without bones solide without muscles bloody without blood clad without coate speaking without tongue eating without teeth c. Whereupon Tertullian concludeth that since Christ had all his limmes when hee shewed them to his Desciplâ—s they that imagined such a Christ as this that deceiueth beguileth and deludeth all mens eyes and senses and touchings and taste too hee might haue said we at least may say should not bring him from heauen from whence the Marcionites said their Christ had his body though the Papists dare not say they haue theirs from thence but fetch him rather out of some iuglers box the Popish pyx or the like not to worke saluation but to make sport with This I haue the rather insisted vpon to shew how the Papists iump in their conceits about this their breaden God and strange fantasticall body that hath all parts of a mans body and yet none at all to be seen felt heard yea or vnderstood with the Hereticks of old time and to confirme these their dotages vse and vrge the very same Arguments that they then did by the ancient Fathers long since answered As also that the ancient Fathers vsed then the very same Arguments against them that we doe now against these which yet it pleaseth this vaine trifler to tearme grossely carnall and vnworthy to be answered § 2. Oh but saith hee it is a grosse kinde both of diuinity and philosophie fit for such a stupide Professor to hold that locall extention visiblitie palpability and other naturall accidents and sensible proprieties cannot by Gods omnipotency be severed from his owne body without the destruction of it 1. Yea and to omit that it is a very sorry shift to haue recourse to Gods omnipotency for the iustifying of such monstrous fictions and forged miracles as either in this their prodigious dotage or in their lying Legends they haue endeauoured to obtrude vpon the world To say that God can make Christs body to remaine still in his full stature and yet at the same time to be no bigger then to enter in at a mans mouth or goe downe a childs throat or to make a mans body consisting of flesh blood and bone to haue no dimensions or extention at all not other accidents and properties of a naturall body is manifestly to say that God can make a thing at the same time to be and not to be to be a body and no body which implyeth contradiction And those things that imply contradiction they theÌ„selues grant that God cannot doe For it were to make falshood truth which hee that is Truth it selfe can neuer doe 2. In this very manner also did the Heretickes reason as appeareth by Theodoret to maintaine their absurd dotages against the Orthodox Christians who likewise answered them then as wee doe these now There is nothing saith the Hereticke that God cannot doe Wee say that all things are possible with God And Iob saith that God can doe all things and there is nothing impossible with him There is nothing therefore but he can doe that is able to doe all things Now how doth the Orthodoxe disputer answer this God saith hee can do whatsoeuer he will But God neither can doe nor will any thing which is not agreeable to his owne nature As for example he cannot sin hee cannot ly nor do any vniust thing being iustice and truth it selfe Many things there are therefore that God that can doe all things yet cannot doe Yea it is a part of his power that he cannot doe them no argument at all of any impotency in him This was deemed a sufficient answere to those Heretikes then and may as well now be returned our Popish Adversaries fighting with the same weapons that they then did for points as absurd as euer any of them held Diuision 11. ANother Argument is by my Aduersarie tediously prosecuted pag. 12. wherein from Christs locall being still in heaven hee argueth and endeauoureth to prooue an vtter impossibility of his bodily being in the Sacrament Of which kinde of disputing I may fitly say with Saint Augustine Behold with what manner of Arguments humane infiâ—mity possessed with vanity contradicteth Gods omnipotency As if naturall vnder standing were able to comprehend the vtmost limit and extention of Gods power which is in it selfe infinite and inforutably manifested in many of his wonderfull miracles of which as I haue said no other reason can be giuen but that hee is omnipotent that did them and cannot deceiue vs when hee is pleased to testifie them Can wee conceiue for example the creation of the world of nothing at all preexisting the resurrection and repaire which God will make of all bodies so vtterly by frequent and successiue conuersions into other things altered and consumed the personall vnion of man with God the torment of soules and diuels wholly spirituall by corporall fire the consubstantiall subsisting of the divine nature simply one of it selfe in three distinct persons and other like mysteries of faith not conceiuable more then the bodily being of our Saviour in the Sacrament yet vpon the warrant of Scripture and doctrine of Christs Church faithfully by vs beleeued Can this Minister tell me to come more neerely to our purpose how our Sauiour appeared visibly to S. Paul on earth as diuerse plaine texts import particularly by Bellarmine produced and discussed and yet as himselfe will not deny still remaining in heauen Or can he tell me how our Sauiours body went out of his Sepulcher without remoouing that huge stone rolled afterward by the Angell from it Or how hee entred the house the doores being and remayning still shut vpon his disciples as for a great miracle the Euangelist recounted Or how he pierced the solide and huge Orbes of heauen in his ascension without making any hole in them Sithence it is equally aboue nature for many bodies to possesse one place as for one bodie to be in many places And if according to
Christian true Philosophy the soule of man being a spirituall and indiuisible substance can at one be entirely in distant parts of mans body exercising all distinct operations in them why is it impossible for God to giue his humane body distant presences and a spirituall manner of being in the Sacrament when as by personall vnion with himselfe he giueth to the same body a far higher and more inconceiuable manner of beeing MY fift Argumâ—nt is from the nature of a true body which cannot possibly be the same whole and entire in many places at once much lesse in places as farre distant as East and West Heauen and Earth Now heere againe is hee faine to fly as before to Gods omnipotency That is their Deus è machina as they had wont to speake that is the knife still at hand to helpe to cut all those knots that by their wanton wits and absurd fantasies they haue snarled themselues in And the better to enforce this Catholike Answer that seâ—ueth them for the saluing of all sores hee reckoneth vp a long bead roll of wonderfull works as the Creation the Resurrection the Hypostaticall vnion the Trinity in Unity the torment of Spirits by corporall fire Christ comming out of the Sepulcher without remooving the huge stone his entring into the house while the doores were still shut his appearing to Paul on earth while hee was still in heauen which he telleth vs Bellarmine hath plainely prooued his piercing of the solide Orbes of heauen in his Ascention the soule being at once entirely in distant parts of mans body c. And then demandeth why God cannot cause Christs body to be as well one and the same whole and entire in so many seuerall distant places at once the rather since that it is equall aboue nature for many bodies to possesse one place as for one body to be in many places 1. Here are diuers things that are questionable both in Diuinity and Philosophy which albeit he take pro concessis will not so easily be granted him till they be better prooued then as yet they are howsoeuer we exclude not diuerse of them out of the reach of Gods omnipotency euen as he vnderstandeth them as 1. The manner of the soules being in distant parts of the body is disputable nor is there the same reason of bodies and of spirits 2. The torment of spirits whether it be by corporall fire or no is not agreed on as a matter of faith Bellarmine himselfe so confesseth 3. The manner of Christs apparition to S. Paul is not certaine Neither doth Bellarmine prooue that Christ was below on earth or neere the earth in his humanity nor is it to the purpose whether he were or no. Steuen saw him in heauen the heauens opened Paul was rapt vp himselfe into heauen Yea in heauen and from heauen it was that Christ appeared to him if we may beleeue Pope Gregory and one that goeth ordinarily for Ambrose Nor can Bellarmine produce any one of the Ancients that saith otherwise Howbeit neither do we so pen vp Christ in heauen but that he may at his pleasure though ordinarily he doth not descend 4. For Christs comming in to his Disciples when the doores were shut Why might not as Ierome speaketh the creature giue way to the Creator as the iron gate did to Peter It is said saith Durand one of their Schoolemen that Christ came when the doores were shut but it is not said that he came in through the doores so shut he might enter in by some other place or cause the doores to open suddenly and shut instantly againe 5. For Christs resurrection Let him heare the same Durand It cannot saith hee be prooued by any Text of Scripture that Christ rose againe while the Tombe was so shut and so consequently that his body passed through the stone Or if Durands authority will not serue let them heare Pope Leo in one of his decretall Epistles Christs body saith he rose againe the stone being rolled away 6. For his Ascension to omit that this solidity of the Orbes is in Philosophy a thing questionable and such a point as if it bee denyed this great Doctor will hardly be euer able to make good I answer with Durand that Whether the heauens bee divisible in their owne nature or by divine vertue as the one they well may bee and the other certainly they are there is no necessity that Christs body in his Ascension should be together in the same place with the bodies of the Orbes So that in none of these Examples there is any necessitie of two bodies being in one place at once Which yet if it were prooued if they will beleeue their owne Schoolemen were not suffiicient For howsoeuer this great Doctor tell vs that it is equally aboue nature for many bodies to be in one place and for one body to bee in many places yet they say that it is not so Though two bodies saith Aquinas may be in one places at once yet it followeth not that one bodie may bee in two places at once The former is not possible but by miracle the latter not at all It is not alike saith Durand for two bodies to be at once in one place and for one body to be at once in more places then one For the one implieth a contradiction the other doth not the former he meaneth though it may seeme so to doe 2. And so he hath a direct answer why wee deny that a body can be in diuerse places at once notwithstanding we beleeue and acknowledge Gods wonderfull workes of Creation Resurrection Christs Incarnation and those vnsearchable mysteries of the Trinitie and Hypostaticall vnion c. because the one implyeth a contradiction those other doe not And here let me entreat the Reader since that these men so much presse vs with Gods omnipotency to cast his eye backe with me to those manifold impossibilities before mentioned and by themselues acknowledged euen in this very businesse concerning the Sacrament Whereby it may appeare that they make vse of it onely to serue their owne turnes vrging it then when it may stead them and denying it then when it doth not To recite againe some one or two of them onely adding one or two more to them Luthers opinion saith Bellarmine cannot be true because it is no way possible that one thing should not be changed and yet should become another And It is impossible saith Lanfranck that one thing should be turned into another and not cease to be so farre forth as it is converted It is impossible saith this Defendant that cannot endure here to heare of any impossibility That a man should be a Rocke or a Uine And It is impossible saith Bellarmine that bread should bee Christs body It is not possible saith Maironis that one should be in two times at
eate vnworthily of it as some did of the Manna and eternally died But heare we Augustine in a word what hee saith hereof and so learne we to expound Augustine and other the Ancients not by this idle fellowes friuolous conceits but by Augustine himself The Sacrament hereof saith hee to wit of Christs body and blood and our vnion with either is taken at the Lords table by some to life by some to death But the thing it selfe whereof it is a Sacrament is taken by euery one that partaketh thereof to life by none to death And if of all to life by none to death then vndoubtedly not vnworthily or vnprofitably of any Diuision 14. LAstly when pag. 19 20 21 22 and 23. hee argueth that Christs body cannot be in the Eucharist first because then it should be broken as the bread is broken Secondly it should be subiect to many vndecencies as corruption putrefaction mice-eating and other foule abuses apt to happen to the bread and wine of the Sacrament I answer him that Christs body being in it selfe now glorious and impossible and after a spirituall and indivisible manner present in the Sacrament cannot be in it selfe broken or otherwise abused then Angels in assumped bodies can bee wounded or then the Maiesty of the diuine person in Christ was by thornes torne nayles pierced or other torments defaced for all such indignities and painfull alterations were immediately onely inflicted on the corporall nature of our Sauiour defaced vtterly by them and touched not immediately the diuine person albeit personally therein subsisting So all indignities and alterations happening to the sacramentall signes touch not at all the body it selfe of our Sauiour impassibly and iudiuisibly vnder them more then the maiesty it selfe of the diuine nature-present in all creatures is defiled in fonle places c. Such Arguments as these made against our Sauiours reall true presence in the Sacrament by our inconsiderate Aduersaries are like to those other Arguments wont to bee made by the Eutycheans Nestorians Arians and other ancient Heretickes against the diuinity of our Sauiour and personall vnion of two natures in him as that it was not fit or reasonable to be conceiued that either God so vnited with man or man deified by personall assumption should be torn with whips thornes and nayles spet vpon buffeted and finally die in agonies and torments that fleas and flies should sucke the blood of God bite his flesh c. which indeed is more then can be done vnto the same as it is here in the Sacrament euen when mice eate the sacramentall signes or when in our stomacks wee receiue them or by fire wee consume them or â—…wise abuse theÌ„ Christ being not quantitatiuely and corporally with them extended and so not to be touched or altered by any corporall action done about them And holy soules considering with what humility and effusion of his bounty the Son of God was pleased to institute this great Sacrament affording therein for his glory and our great good his owne comfortable presence vnto vs haue iust reason to cry out his mercy and to admire his wisedome power and goodnesse wonderfully manifested in this second exhiminition of himself as I may iustly call this Sacramentall presence or hiding of himselfe in this Sacrament to become thereby an heauenly food and diuine refection of soules deuontly receiuing him as also a louing spouse visiting embracing delighting adorning and enriching them with his presence daily triumphing himselfe in his victory ouer Sathan and our redemption solely and abundantly purchased by his passion and making vs also to triumph with him And whereas the Diuell once by his ministers Iewes and Gentiles caused his blood to be separated from his body he deuised to haue that real separation mysteriously continued and daily exhibited to the fâ—ce of his eternall Father for vs which is the declaring of the Lords death till he come mentioned by the Apostle MY last Argument is taken from those things that are done aboâ—… or may befall the consecrated creatures which if they be Christs body and blood must needs befall Christ as fraction corruption putrefaction mitebreeding mice eating c. To this he answereth 1. That though these things be done to or befall the Sacrament yet Christs body being now glorious and impassible and after a spirituall and indiuisible manner present it can no more thereby be broken and abused then Angels in assumpted bodies can be wounded or Christs Deity was wounded or pierced on the Crosse. 1. We take what hee granteth Christs body is now glorious and impassible and therefore not subiect vnto such indignities as these creatures are and the one consequently is not the other Yea is Christs body it self impassible What is it then that as Origen speaketh goeth into the draught c. which this Defendant taketh no notice of because hee knoweth not what to say to it Or let him resolue what those ashes that they will to be reserued for reliques or what those mites are made of that breed in the consecrated bread when either they burne it and so deale with it as they doe with Heretickes or reserue it ouer long 2. It is present in a spirituall manner Had hee but added onely he had marred all hee had beene a foule Hereticke and perchance might fare no better if he would stand to his words then this their little God almighty doth when he groweth hoary But is hee come to that now Christ is spiritually in the Sacrament What is become I maruell of that carnall and corporall presence then that they prate so much of and for want whereof they so much vilifie the Protestantical CoÌ„munion Or what is the reason why hee could not endure to heare that those wordes of our Sauiour of eating his flesh Iohn 6. should be spiritually vnderstood 3. If these things cannot befall Christs body because it is after a spirituall manner present then belike these things may befall it yea must needs befall it when they doe fall out if it be present in a carnall or corporall manner which Bellarmine granteth it is and they sticke not vsually to afifrme 4. If Christs body bee in an indiuisible manner there what is it that is there broken Or what did our Sauiour breake at his last Supper at which time also his body was not indiuisible or impassible Or how doth Pope Nicholas tel vs that Christs body it selfe is sensually broken Where marke I pray you how the Arguments and Allegations produced to prooue the thing broken in the Sacrament to be bread and to shew the absurdity of their doctrine in this point as well of Pope Nicholas that saith that Christs very body it selfe is broken and torne in peeces as also of others that say that nothing is broken at all or nothing but accidents only here is not a word answered The hoast they say is Christs body and the Priest breaketh the hoast and yet he
breaketh not Christs body For Christs body neither is nor can be broken We may reason well backward Christs body is not broken But the hoast is broken The hoast therefore is not Christs body Or Christ is not diuided But the hoast is diuided The hoast therefore is not Christ. 5. Christs body though it be there yet it cannot be abused No Is it not abused when the drunken Priest speweth it vp againe which their Church Canons therefore make prouision for Or is it not abused when it is burnt by them and vsed like an Hereticke Or when it is deuoured and swallowed downe by mice and rats as their owne Schoolemen confesse How is it then that their S. Clement giueth S. Iames such charge as you heard before of it least some foule abuse befall Christs body 6. Yea but though it bee so yet is it no more abused then an Angell in an assumpted body can bee wounded or Christs Deity was on the Crosse. Is Christs humanity then turned into his Deitie Or hath c Christ now assumed the nature of Angels and so is now become a Spirit It is a spirituall body saith Augustine yet not a Spirit As an animal body is not a soule but a body so such a spirituall body as the Apostle speaketh of is not a spirit but a body But who dare say either that Christs body rose not againe a spirituall body or if it did rise againe a spirituall body that it was no more a body now but a Spirit When hee himselfe refuteth this opinion in his Disciples who when they tooke him for a Spirit he bad them Feele and see for a spirit had not flesh and bones as they saw hee had Euen then therefore was that flesh of his a spirituall body and yet was it a bodie and not a Spirit And Bellarmine himselfe Christs body as it is in the Eucharist is a true reall naturall liuing big coloured body and the flesh of Christ is corporall not spirituall vnlesse we take spirituall as the Apostle doth for obedient to the spirit It is absurd then to reason from Christs God-head to his man-hood or from an Angell in an assumpted body to Christs pretended body in the Eucharist or in things concerning the true nature of a bodie from a Spirit to a bodie An Angell could not be hurt though the body assumed by him should bee hacked or hewed asunder but Christs bodie saith Biel one of their Schoolemen being a liuing and organicall bodie if it should be broken and diuided would be destroyed § 2. Such Arguments hee saith as these were made by the ancient Heretickes to wit the Eutychians Nestorians Arrians c. against our Sauiours diuinitie and the personall vnion of two natures in him viz. that it was vnfit to conceiue that God to be man so vnited or man Deified should be beaten buffetted whipped torn with nayles and thorns c. 1. It is true that some Heretickes yet not the Eutychians how should they argue against Christs Deitie that held his humanity wholly turned into it no nor the Arrians but the Nestorians and long before them the Marcionites whose absurd dotages these men reuiue againe made obiection of the things here spoken of But hee knoweth well enough what was then answered them if he know ought at least in the Fathers whom he would seeme to haue at his fingers ends by those that refuted them to wit that our Sauiour was then in a state of humiliation whereas now he is in a state of glorification and freed consequently from all those infirmities and indignities that hee was then content to expose and subiect himselfe vnto to bring vs vnto glory 2. They obiected these things truely but without iust cause then We obiect them though not supposing them to be true yet finding them to follow necessarily from their carnall conceits vpon iust ground against them And belike hee findeth himselfe and his guilty of exposing subiecting Christ glorious body a thing most impious to such indignities a new § 3. Yea but saith this Fantastick there is a second exhiminition of Christ in this sacramentall presence or hiding of himselfe in this Sacrament 1. In the beginning of his Discourse he came ouer me for writing a bad band I know not whether the faire band be his owne or no that his owne Discourse is written in If it be sure I am his Schollarship is very small that putteth exhiminition for exinanition for so I suppose his meaning is because I finde it so in Turrian from whom it is like enough hee had it fathered vpon one Methodius whom Bellarmine was much to blame that hee ouerslipt when hee mustered his Fathers for Christs corporall presence in the Sacrament But here is a new doctrine indeed and yet most true if all be as they say that our blessed Sauiour is returned to a state of exinanition that is humiliation deiection infirmity indignity paine and infamie againe for all this the word of exinanition importeth Belike they thinke hee suffered not enough or was not throughly enough exinanited while he was here on earth that they must needes bring him backe againe to snffer such ignominious things out of heauen as to be chewed to be burnt to grow mouldy to putrefie to turne into mites and maggots to passe into the bellies of mice and rats c. to vndergoe those things in his second exinanition that in the first he neuer did 2. Hee thought it before a most base and unworthy thing to imagine that Christ should haue hid himselfe in a corner from the Iewes when they would haue stoned him in the Temple as if he must of necessitie either so do or else make his body to bee for the present as they say it is now in the Eucharist yet here hee telleth vs that hee hideth himselfe in the Sacrament not in a corner of the Temple but in a little round wafer-cake or in the Pyx at least that reserueth it so long now and then for want of good looking to that it breedeth pretty little quicke creatures as good a God euery one of them as any crumme of the hoast was of which they were bred But as our Saviour forewarned vs though they tell vs that Christ is hid in the Pyx or in some other secret place yet we little beleeue them Wee may rather beleeue that the wiser and learneder sort among them hardly beleeue themselues herein 3. He telleth vs here that Christ hideth himselfe in the Sacrament and a little before that being not quantitatiuely and corporally extended therein he is not touched nor altered with any corporall action done about it If hee be hid there how saith Bellarmine that hee is there visibly vpon the board Or if hee be neither seene nor touched there why would hee make vs beleeue that Chrysostome saith that we doe see him and touch him and handle him there Or how saith hee a little after
that through Iesus Christ by whom he continually createth quickeneth and blesseth all these good things And againe that that which they haue taken may of a temporall gift become an eternall remedie How stand now these speeches and prayers with their Transubstantiation Are Christs body and blood those temporall gifts and good things that God by Christ daily createth and quickeneth Or needeth Christ the Priest to entreate his Father to looke propitiously vpon him Or any Angell to cary him vp and present him before his Father in heauen in whose presence and sight he is continually there Or is it not absurd to place Abels fatlings and Abrahams Ramme in equipage with the body and blood of Christ Iesus But these things it seemeth were in their ancient Liturgies before euer this new monster was hatched and to their owne shame confusion are yet vnwisely still retained And if you will see how handsomely things therein hang together obserue but this one passage The Priest prayeth to God to send an Angell to fetch the holy Housell vp into heauen and yet they tell vs withall the most of them that it neuer came from thence nor neuer returneth againe thither wherein we better beleeue them then we doe some other of their fellowes that say otherwise and within a while after hee swalloweth it downe himselfe and then praieth God as if he repented him of his former prayer that that which hee hath eaten may sticke fast to his guts Let him shew any such absurdities as these if he can in our Seruice If some pieces of Antiquity found in theirs be retained still in ours that is neither derogation to ours nor commendation to theirs Wee embrace true and sound Antiquity wheresoeuer we finde it their corrupt nouelties which it suteth so euillfauouredly withall we deseruedly reiect THey pretend cleare places of Scripture for each point of their doctrines wherein they differ from vs. But when they come to be duly discussed they either make against themselues or prooue nothing at all against vs as I will briefely declare in this very controuersie for a Corollarium of my whole doctrine For whereas S. Cyprian S. Hilarie Saint Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Augustine Cyrill Hesychius Theodoret and vniuersally all the ancient Fathers commenting the 6. Chapter of S. Iohns Gospell haue literally vnderstood Christs promise of giuing his flesh to eate and his blood to drinke in the Sacrament these men restraine them to a metaphoricall and spirituall eating by faith onely and for this their interpretation quite contrary to the iudgement of the ancient Church they onely cite those wordes of Christ It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing c. and affirme them to import that Christs wordes are figuratiuely to bee vnderstood and not at all according to the literall signification of them to wit of Christs body and blood receiued in the Sacrament Whereas at most they can import that Christ promised not to giue his flesh and blood cannally as the Capharnaits vnderstood him cut to wit in pieces and by bits eaten as S. Augustine explicateth them but that Christs body and blood were to be after a spirituall manner present and receiued in the Sacrament which we deny not And great Authors as Tolet noteth so expound them as to make this sense It is the deity or diuine spirit which is vnited with my flesh that viuificateth by grace soules worthily receiuing it and not by flesh alone barely of it selfe eaten Neither of which explications prooue a figuratiue vnderstanding of Christs wordes this being a Glosse of their owne besides the text neuer before them taught by any Catholike Doctor and so it can be no solide sufficient ground sor them to rely vpon for their hereticall deniall of Christs true body and blood really present and receiued in the Sacrament For Scripture ill vnderstood is no Scripture but Gods word abused § 7. YEt in concluâ—ion to say somewhat againe of the present point hee telleth vs that S. Cyprian Hilarie Ambrose Chrysostome Augustine Cyrill Hesychius Theodoret and all the ancient Fathers vniuersally vnderstood that place of Iohn concerning the eating of Christs flesh not figuratiuely but literally whereas wee contrary to the iudgement of the whole ancient Church vnderstand them of spirituall eating by faith alleadging onely for this our exposition those words of our Sauiour It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing which wordes as Tolet sheweth may beare another sense 1. How prooueth hee that these Fathers so expound that place Forsooth he sendeth vs to seeke the proofe of it in Bellarmine It is enough that he saith it let Bellarmine if he can prooe it But is not this impudent out-facing to say that these Fathers all literally vnderstand it when out of diuerse of them the contrary hath beene euidently shewed Yea when Augustine one of them giuing rules to expound Scripture doth expressely affirme that the place is to be taken figuratiuely and that it were an haynous and flagitious thing otherwise to vnderstand it 2. It is another vntruth as grosse as the former to say we ground our exposition on those wordes onely Wee vrge indeed the wordes following The wordes that I speake are spirit and life And we vrge and expound them no otherwise then diuerse of the Ancients haue done before vs. To omit Athanasius formerly alleadged Augustine besides that that is in the selfe same place cited What meane those wordes saith he They are spirit and life but that they are to be vnderstood spiritually And againe He spake this that hee might not bee vnderstoode carnally as Nicodemus before had done Yea and of those former wordes Thomas Aquinas out of Chrysostom When Christ saith It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing his meaning is that we ought spiritually to vnderstand those things that wee heare of him and that whoso heareth carnally getteth thereby no good Now to vnderstand them carnally is to looke on the outward things onely and to imagine no more then wee see To vnderstand them spiritually is not so to iudge of them but also with the inward eyes to looke on them Which in all mysteries ought alwayes to be done And Tertullian When Christ saith that The flesh profiteth nothing His meaning must be drawne from the matter of his speech For because they thought his speech hard and intollerable as if hee determined to giue them his very flesh to bee eaten or his flesh verely to bee eaten to place the state of saluation in the spirit hee premiseth It is the spirit that quickeneth and then adioyneth the flesh profiteth nothing to wit to quicken And withall he sheweth what he meaneth by the spirit The words that I haue spoken are spirit and life As he said before Hee that heareth my word and beleeueth in him that sent mee hath life eternall So
heare Augustine expounding the words of the Apostle what it is not to discerne the Lords body to wit not to discerne that from other meates by a reuerence singularly due vnto it which is as he speaketh else-where in some sort Christs body because a Signe and a Sacrament of it Yea let him heare himselfe where he saith The sinne of such persons is made this by the Apostle that they distinguish not this bread from other common bread And then see how well they serue to prooue that that here they are alleadged for For the latter Not to demand of them how chance they oft celebrate contrary to both our Sauiours and the Apostles practice without any breaking of bread at all if their paper wafer-cake at least deserue that name Who denied euer a communication of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament But must it needes bee corporall or else it is none at all The tongue tripping now and then telleth truth And the truth start out of his mouth before vnawares where he said that Christ is present there in a spirituall manner And in a spirituall manner as out of Athanasius and Augustine yea and their owne Iansenius I haue shewed doe wee participate of and communicate with the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament sending the hand of our faith as Augustine speaketh vp into heauen yea reaching it as I may well say to Christs Crosse. I will adde to the former onely one obseruation of Bernard who in many places speaketh of this our communication with Christ Alluding to those words of our Sauiour Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him Christ saith he both eateth vs and is eaten of vs that wee may the more firmely and strictly be fastened vnto him Otherwise should wee not bee perfectly vnited to him For if I eate and be not eaten he may seeme to be in me but not I yet in him Againe if I be eaten but eate not he may seeme to haue me in him but not to be yet in me For there is no absolute vnition in either of these alone But when both he eateth me that I may be in him and is eaten of me that he may be in me then is there indeed a firm and an entire connexion I being in him and hee in mee But Christs eating of vs is not orall or corporall but mentall and spirituall of the like kinde therefore is our eating of him and our mutuall participation alike in either Which in these wordes also most sweetly doth Iansenius expresse By faith this bread is not simply taken but being chewed as it were with teeth while it is well considered what and what manner of food it is and so broken it is conueighed with a kinde of delight and spirituall taste into the bowels of the soule and is incorporated into vs that so Christ being in an hidden and secret manner by faith vnited vnto vs may dwell as the Apostle speaketh in our hearts by his presence there quickening and nourishing them and so expell all hunger and thirstinesse out of them while he remooueth both the want of things needfull to true life and the desire of other transitorie things And it is the same in effect that Caluine meaneth when he saith To feede on Christ is somewhat more then barely to beleeue in him and that it is not so much beliefe it selfe as an effect and fruite of it That which Bonauenture the Schooleman also not vnfitly thus expresseth Eating saith hee is properly spoken of the body and is by way of similitude applied to the soule That therefore we may know what is meant by spirituall eating wee must haue an eye vnto corporall feeding Now in corporall manducation there are these two things mastication and incorporation or a chewing of the meate in the mouth and an incorporating of it into the body In like manner in spirituall eating there is first a spirituall chewing that is a recogitation or a serious consideration and faithfull meditation of the spirituall meate that is of Christs flesh exposed for vs both as a ransome to redeeme vs and as food also to feed vs and secondly a spirituall incorporation when vpon such recogitation or consideration the soule is by a louing affection vnited and incorporated to the thing considered and is thereby refreshed or nourished and so made in grace more and more like vnto it So that vnto spirituall manducation are two things required a faithfull recogitation and a louing affection Whence it followeth that neither is euery kinde of faith sufficient to effect this spirituall feeding on Christ but such faith onely as worketh by loue nor is euery effect of faith a feeding on Christs flesh but that onely whereby Christs flesh that was boyled as it were to make food for vs on the Crosse is so considered and in a spirituall manner digested and conâ—â—cted as was before said for the feeding and refreshing of our soules So that Caluines doctrine and ours concerning this spirituall feeding on Christ and so communicating with his body and blood is no other then the Ancients long since taught and their owne writers themselues acknowledge Which in one word I shut and seale vp with that short saying of Chrysostome tha tboth in Baptisme and the Eucharist It is faith that doth all Yea but Chrysost. saith that that that is in the Chalice is that which flowed out of Christs side and we are made therof partakers And out of S. Lukes Greeke Text it is plainely gathered What out of S. Luke hee alleadegth wee shall see anone Onely mark how he fleeth from their onely authenticall Latine heere to the Greeke Text which at other times they say is so corrupted that there is little certainety of ought from it further then their Latine and it concurre Chrysostome saith indeede as hee is here cited But it must be remembred what both their Sixtus Senensis and Bellar. also say of him to wit that Chrysostome is wont to speake many things hyperbolically or excessiuely in his sermons especially To passe by other places where hee saith that the Church is that very Chamber where Christ celebrated his last Supper that we touch his side with our lips that we set our teeth in his flesh that we cut his flesh assunder that our tongue is died with blood and our mouth is filled with fire while no man but an Angell with tongs reacheth a coale of fire to vs that Christ doth â—neade as dough and mingleth himselfe together with vs and that we are likewise knod as dough and mixed or tempored together with him into his flesh To let these passe I say in the very Sermon here cited he hath diuerse passages which themselues will not deny must needes be