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
stuffe their packets with for want of better and choiser wares And yet may wee but haue leaue to expound this Cyril or whosoeuer he is else by himselfe we shall soone shew him to say no more then we willingly admit For in the same Catechising that is here alleadged Doe not regard saith he these things as bare â—read and wine And in the Catechising next before Doe not suppose that ointment to be bare ointment For as the Bread of the Eucharist after the inuocation of the holy Ghost is no longer bare bread but Christs bodie so this holy Oyntment after inuocation is no more bare or common ointment but a gift of Christ and the holy Ghost by the presence of his Deitie And looke what he saith concerning the not trusting of our senses in the matter of the Eucharist the same doth the Ambrose before cited say of the Sacrament of Baptisme What seest thou saith he Water but not water alone c. First the Apostle teacheth thee to contemplate not the things that are seene but the things that are not seene Beleeue the presence of the Deitie For how could it worke there if it were not present And againe afterward Beleeue not thy bodily eyes alone that is better seene that is not seene And say not we as much that it is not bare bread nor bare wine that is offered vs in the Eucharist whatsoeuer this lying wretch hereafter shamelesly auoweth as when we come to it shall be shewed which is all that our outward sense is able to enforme but spirituall signes and seales and effectuall instruments of grace which the eye of our soule is alone able to conceiue and our faith to assure vs of 4. Chrysostome is alleadged but little to the purpose The former allegation is here cited out of Sermon 60. ad Popul Antioch which Sermon this Answerer had hee beene so well acquainted with the Author hee citeth as would beseeme such a Doctor as he professeth himselfe to be he should haue found to be an Homily neuer made by Chrysostome but by some other composed of part of two Sermons of his on the Glosse of S. Matthew pieced together to wit the 83. and the 51. according to the Latin or the 82. and 50. according to the Greeke The place produced is out of the 83. on Matthew for that is the proper place of it In which Sermon Chrysostome speaketh no more of the Eucharist then he doth of the Sacrament of Baptisme in the very next words It is no sensible thing saith hee that Christ hath left vs but in things indeed sensible matters all intelligible In like manner it is in Baptisme By a sensible thing to wit water is the gift giuen but the thing that is there wrought to wit regeneration and renovation is a thing intelligible If thou wert not corporall he would haue giuen thee the gifts themselues naked and spirituall but because thy soule is conioyned with thy body thereforeby sensible things he giveth thee things intelligible And in the other Sermon out of which that Homily is pieced Beleeue thou that the same supper wherein Christ himselfe sate downe is now celebrated For there is no difference betweene this and that For it is not a man that doth the one and Christ the other But it is Christ himselfe that doth both the one and the other When therefore thou seest the Priest reaching somewhat to thee do not imagine that it is the Priest that doth it but that it is Christs hand that is stretched out to thee For as when thou art baptised hee doth not baptize thee but it is God that holdeth thy head by his inuisible power and neither Angel nor Archangel nor any other dare approach and touch So is it now also Now what is here spoken but of Mysteries or Sacraments in generall applied after in particular as well to Baptisme as to the Eucharist and therefore may as well prooue a reall or essentiall transmutation in the one as in the other and if not in both in neither since the very same things are spoken of either to wit that we must in either regard not so much what our bodily eye seeth as what the spirituall eye of the beleeuing soule by faith apprehendeth and vpon ground of Gods word beleeueth and that by things sensible are things intelligible conueighed to vs and effected in vs as well in the one as in the other The 2. place of Chrysostome is out of his 3. booke de Sacerdotio Wherein this alleadger of him fareth as ill as in the former allegation Chrysost. saith indeed that Christ that sitteth aboue with his Father in heauen is at that time to wit when the Eucharist is celebrated held in the hands of each one and offreth himself to those that will claspe him about and embrace him But not to insist vpon what was aboue said by him that Christ himselfe and not Man both there and in Baptisme administreth nor vpon other phrases in the same place vsed by him both before of the same Eucharist that the people are all died purple-red in it with Christs blood and afterward of Baptisme that in it wee are buried together with Christ Which cannot bee vnderstood but figuratiuely he sheweth in the very next words to those here cited what his meaning was in them and how all this is done when hee saith And this they doe all then with the eyes of faith The third place is not as he seemeth to cite it out of the same booke but out of his 2. Sermon ad populum Antiochenum He found them ioyned together in Bellarmine out of whom he hath all and therefore tooke them it seemeth to bee both out of one booke Chrysostome there saith that Christ hath left vs his flesh and yet hath it still in Heauen But how that may be verified he himselfe sheweth in the same place a little before when he saith that there was a twofold Elias whom he compareth Christ withall when Elias was translated an Elias aboue and an Elias beneath he meaneth Elisaeus on whom rested the spirit of Elias whom hee therefore esteemeth a symbolicall Elias as Iohn the Baptist is called Elias because he came in the power and the spirit of Elias and so was also Elias as our Sauiour auerreth and Augustine well obserueth though not essentially Elias yet Elias symbolically And so here in like manner Christs essentiall flesh is in heauen whither they must also saith Chrysostome ascend and flie vp like Eagles that will haue it his symbolicall Flesh is here vpon earth as the Symbolicall Elias was in the Sacrament of his body which saith Augustine in some sort is his body being a Signe and Sacrament of it And thus you see what substantiall proofes this great Blusterer hath brought to prooue their Transubstantiation and how well he hath acquit himselfe
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
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
same Or doth not Baptisme the like you may be pleased to consider what out of their owne Ambrose was before said of it as also out of Gregorie Nyssene is here after related For it is nothing to the purpose that Bellarmine obiecteth that no man would say that the water of Baptisme consisteth of two things the one earthly the other heauenly For neither doth Irenaeus say that the bread of the Eucharist but the Eucharist it selfe of such two things consisteth But I would faine know how the Eucharist according to their doctrine should when the bread is once consecrated consist at all of any earthly thing when the substance thereof is as they say thereby vtterly abolished Sure Irenaeus his Eucharist consisting of matter in part earthly and theirs hauing none at all such are not one and the same Thirdly Irenaeus saith that our bodies receiuing the Eucharist are no more now corruptible in regard of hope and expectation he meaneth of their future resurrection which thereby they are assured of and sealed vp vnto for otherwise who seeth not that they are not yet incorruptible as he afterward expoundeth himselfe And what is said more here of the Lords Supper then Tertullian and others say of Baptisme to wit that by it the Flesh also hath its assurance of resurrection to life eternall yea let them looke backe but a line or two and they shall soone see how little Irenaeus fauoureth their cause How saith he say they that the flesh perisheth and liueth not euerlastingly that is nourished with the body and blood of Christ He affirmeth our flesh to be nourished with that which hee calleth the body and blood of Christ. And else-where more plainely When the Cup mixed and the bread broken receiueth the word of God it becommeth the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ of which the substance of our bodies groweth and consisteth Now how deny they the flesh to be capable of life eternall that is nourished with Christs body and blood And againe That part of man that consisteth of flesh sinewes and bones is nourished by the cup that is his blood and groweth or is encreased by the bread that is his body The same with that which out of Iustine wee shall hereafter further consider of that our flesh and blood are nourished by the Eucharisticall foode by a change thereof that is it being changed and turned into them But to say so of the very body and blood of Christ is by these mens owne grants most absurd That in the Eucharist therefore that Irenaeus and before him Iustine speake thus of is not the very flesh and blood of Christ it selfe but the creature sanctified as he himselfe tearmeth it or the first-fruits of Gods creatures which in way of thankefulnesse with thankesgiuing he saith they offer vnto God why so tearmed is out of Augustine and others shewed else-where The third allegation is as he saith out of the voices of the Fathers in the first Nicene Councel Where I might well out of Cardinal Baeronius except that there are noâ— Acts of that first Nicene Councel now extant and that the worke out of which this allegation is taken is no record of those Acts but a story onely of that Councell written by one that liued long after it whom they themselues account to be but a sorry obscure fellow and one of no great credite But let the Author or the Relator rather passe and let vs heare his relation Those holy Confessors saith hee will vs at the diuine Table not to regard onely bread and wine proposed but to eleuate our minde by faith and be holde on the holy Table the Lambe of God c. by Priests vnbloodily sacrificed and receiuing his body and blood to beleeue them to be symboles and pledges of our resurrection Heere is nothing at all that any way hurteth our cause First they acknowledge bread to be and abide in the Euchaerist which these men vtterly deny Secondly they will vs not basely to regard therein the bread and cup or the elements onely And the very same in the same place of Baptisme they say that wee must not so much regard in it the water that wee see as the power of God accompanying it of which wee shall speake more vpon another the like occasion hereafter Thirdly they will vs to lift vp our minde and by faith to consider for so their words are the Lambe of God lying on the Table And by faith we grant that hee is not seene and considered onely but receiued also in the Eucharist Fourthly they say not as this man translateth it that hee is vnbloodily there sacrificed but that hee is without sacrificing there sacrificed that is not really but mystically and symbolically sacrisiced or not in truth of the thing but in a mystery signifying the same as out of Pope Pascasius and Augustine in their Canons themselues speake Fiftly they say that wee receiue his bodie and blood in the Encharist yea they are reported to say which hee omitteth here that wee doe truely receiue them which that we doe truely also and effectually according to our doctrine though spiritually and not corporally hath already beene shewen and shall in his due place againe bee further confirmed And lastly that these are symboles or pledges of our resurrection which how they was are was before shewed out of Tertullian who from those Sacraments and sacred rites and exercises in generall as well other as these that the body partaketh in draweth Arguments to confirme the faith of the resurrection of it The next allegation is out of S. Ephrem whose both praises and speeches he hath borrowed from Bellarmine which Bellarmine when hee hath cited addeth withall in a brauery as if the proofes were so pregnant that there were no gainesaying of them To this testimonie our aduersaries neither doe answer nor indeede can answer ought That none had then answered was not much to be maruelled as Harding saith of their Cyrill few had yet the sight of him One of that name indeed wrote many things in the Syriacke tongue long since hauing no skill at all in the Greeke And vnder his name our Popish Fatherbreeders haue of late set out a many of Sermons and Treaeises that haue no testimonie at all from antiquity the most of them translated as they tell vs out of Greeke which hee good man neuer spake quoting some of them Greeke Authors at large whom hee neuer vnderstood wanting all of them that subtilty and sublimitie of wit that Ierome commendeth in Ephrems workes and appeared euen in the trarslations of them as both hee and others affirm of them very sorry and silly things a great part of them not free from grosse vntruths and contradictions yea and ridiculous too if not impious
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
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
may seeme to make in any sort not against that heere charged on vs which we vtterly deny but against that which of this Sacrament we hold otherwise The first testimony is S. Dennis his shewed before to be but a counterfeit by the confession euen of Popish writers themselues But whosoeuer hee were for certaine enough it is that he was not the party whose name hee beareth but one of a farre later time vnknowne vtterly to Athanasius Eusebius and Ierome though curious searchers and enquirers after the workes of those that were before them nor knowne commonly to the world before Gregories dayes as Bellarmine also himselfe acknowledgeth hee maketh little for them in this point either in that that here is alleadged or in ought else that Bellarmine can fish or fetch out of him His wordes in the place heere cited are these and no more O most diuine and holy Mysterie symbolically discouering those enigmaticall ensoldments bee declared brightly vnto vs and replenish our intellectuall eye sights with single or immixt and vnenueloped light These I say his wordes are as neere as I can expresse them Which I so doe to giue you a taste of this Dennis his stile writing rather like a Dithyrawhicall Poet the boldest sort of them then like a sober and sound Diuine as taking vpon him to determine the degrees orders and offices of the Angels in heanen which other the Ancients durst not doe so discoursing of them and such other matters as hee entreateth of in an affected swelling and abstruse straine and coining a world of strange wordes and phrases no where else to bee found And no more they are then these which I adde because to the end of his allegation this fellow putteth an c. as if the Author had in that place vsed some longer discourse of that kinde Nor is the spâ—â—ch as he would haue it a prayer but a meere prosopopoeiâ— or rhetoricall compellation directed not to the Elements alone but to the Eucharist or the Lords Supper if with the Apostle they will giue vs leaue at least so to tearme it the whole Mysterie or mysterious rite as the word there vsed properly importeth Which Pachymeres the Greeke paraphraser of this Dennis well paralleleth with another of Gregorie Nazianzenes of the same nature and as well might Bellarmine or this Defendant haue alleadged the one as the other Who in his Easter-day Sermon turning his speech to the Festiuity it selfe and then from it to Christ himselfe the substance of it as Nicetas also well obserueth x O great and holy Passeouer saith he the purgation of the whole world For I will speake to thee as tâ— some liuing thing O word of God and light and life and wisedome and might For I take delight in reckoning vp all thy titles Haue thou this Oration as wellâ—gâ—atulâ—torie as supplicatorie and so forth And Nicet as thereupon Those wordes O Pasch or Passeouer he speakes or referreth to the Feast it selfe But those O word of God and so forward by way of acclamation hee directeth to Christ the spirituall Passeouer Nor is it vnlike to the speech that Ambr. makes in generall to the Element of water though with more special allusion and application to the water of Baptisme O water that hast merited that is in the vsuall language of those Auncieuts too much abused by our Aduersaries hast beene vouchsaâ—ed the grace to be a Sacrament of Christ that washest all vnwasht of any Thou bringest in the first thou closest vp the last Mysteries The beginning is from thee and the end in thee or rather thou makest vs to bee without end And so he goeth on in a long speech to the Element which yet no wise man will say that he had any purpose there to pray vnto Nor any more had this Dennis when he discoursed thus to the Eucharist the rather to be admitted and so conceiued in him considering his Poeticall and aenigmaticall vaine and manner of discourse I might well put them in minde of that Hymne of theirs wherein they thus if not inuocate at least parley with the Crosse All hâ—ile O Crosse our onely Hope This Passion time thy power set ope In righteous Persons grace encrease To sinfull soules their sinnes release Which howsoeuer they would faine salue with such a prosopopoeia some of them yet Aquinas ingenuously confesseth that therein they giue diuine worship to the woodden Crosse or of the like speeches that in a forme both of praise and praier they vse to the Veronicke or the print of Christs face in a towel and to our Ladies girdle and othèr the like wherein they craue â—o lesse of them beside sundry other graces then to be clensed from all sinne and to attaine eternall happinesse in so much that one of their writers relating the latter of them breaketh out into these words O how many and how marueilous things are requested of that holy girdle To which I might well adioyne also what Aquinas saith that they speake pray to the Crosse as to Christ crucified himself and what Bellarmine telleth vs that their Priests and Friers in the pulpit are wont to say to the woodden Crucifix Thou hast redeemed vs and reconciled vs to God the Father Which he thus salueth that this they say to it not as it is a piece of wood nor as it is an image neither but as it supplyeth the place of him whom it representeth that is they say it to Christ whose Deputie vicegerent the Image there is And yet from all this though too too bad and grosse indeed yea absurd and blasphemous by this mans owne grant will no man inferre that they hold either that girdle to be the Uirgin Mary or either the woodden Crosse or the stained towel or the carued Crucifix to be Christ himselfe So that though that of Dennis were a prayer indeede which yet plaine it is that it is not yet were it not by their owne grounds and graunts sufficient to prooue that he held the Sacrament therefore to be Christ himselfe I adde onely what from Augustine venerable Bede hath that holy Signes not onely are called by the names but doe in some sort sustaine the persons also of those things that they represent Which as being well considered it may helpe to cleere many speeches of the Ancients wherin they speak those things of the sacred Elements which cannot be vnderstood but of the things by theÌ„ signified so it occasioned them to take the more libertie to themselues for such Rhetoricall compellations as before haue bin spoken of Yea but else-where may some say and that but a little after he turneth himselfe to the Host which is said there to be his better or aboue him and therefore not bare bread excusing himselfe to it that he presumeth to deale with it Indeede so
it pleaseth Bellarmine to cite him as if hee had said The high Priest that he sacrificeth the sauing Host that is aboue him excuseth himselfe to him or to it crying out Thou hast said Doe this c. But let Dennis speake in his owne language or but as their owne writers translate him and both Bellarmines mis-alleadging of him will soone be discouered and the force of his reason drawne from thence vtterly dissolued That which he saith is word for word thus The diuine Hierarch standing at the diuine Altar celebrateth that is praiseth and extolleth Christs holy diuine workes out of his most diuine care of vs for our saluation by the goodwill of his Father in the Holy Ghost by him consummated Which hauing celebrated and by contemplation with intellectuall eyes taken a venerable and spirituall view of them he passeth vnto the symbolicall celebration or holy administration of them and that according to diuine Tradition Wherefore religiously and hierarchically that is as becommeth an Hierarch or a Bishop after the holy celebration or solemne praise of those diuine workes he maketh an Apologie for himselfe in regard of that boly seruice or sacrifice as they translate it though the word be more generall that is to worthy for him to deale with crying out to him to whom but to Christ Iesus before mentioned Thou hast said Doe this in remembrance of me And then hauing requested that he may be vouchsafed the grace of performing this holy and diuine seruice in holy manner and that those that are to communicate may religiously partake in it hee performeth the most diuine seruice c. For vncouering the bread that was hitherto couered and vndiuided and diuiding it into many pieces and distributing to them all the one onely Cup be doth symbolically further their vnitie thereby performing his most holy seruice Now where is there here any mention of an Host or affirming that Host to be aboue him or better then himselfe or making any speech at all to it And yet if it were Christ to whom should he direct his speech more fitly then to it what should he speake to him as sited else-where when hee hath him corporally there present The rather if as they tell vs he seeth there what we doe and heareth what we say though he say nothing himselfe because he would not be discouered Yea but he acknowledgeth the holy seruice then and there to be performed to be too worthy for him to deale with And doth not the Apostle say as much of the ministery of the word that no man is sufficient or worthy enough for such a worke Or may not the same truly be said of the Sacrament of Baptisme and the administration of it There is nothing here then in either allegation that may at all helpe to establish the Popish Transubstantiation And yet this is all that out of this Dennis Bellarmine is able to produce Who though indeede otherwise not free from sundry fantasticall conceipts yet is so farre from enclining to that prodigious fancy that the whole tenure of his discourse concerning that Sacrament as the auncient Scholiast also hath well obserued on him runneth cleane another way He calleth the Eucharist as you haue heard a symbolicall seruice and a distribution of bread and a Cup and the bread and the Cup vsed in it symboles or signes and images or pictures and paternes resembling the truth of their principals to which he doth also there oppose thē And not we but the Monke Maximus aunciently expounding him Marke you saith he how still he calleth this diuine seruice a Symbolicall seruice that is a seruice saith he consisting of Symboles or Signes and the holy gifts themselues signes or symboles of the true things aboue And againe He calleth them pictures and images of true things vnseene And if we aske him what that word Symbole or Signe signifieth A Symbole or Signe saith he is a thing sensible taken for something intelligible as bread and wine for the spirituall and diuine foode and refection and the like Yea hereupon he inferreth that because these things are Symboles and Signes they are not therefore the truth it selfe For the image saith he else-where and that from Dennis himselfe too albeit it haue neuer so neere a resemblance yet in substance differeth from that whereof it is a resemblance The thing indeede it selfe saith this Dennis that by an exact image or picture is represented is if we may so say thereby doubled while the truth is shewed in the type and the precedent or principall in the picture or patterne but yet there is for all that a diuersitie of substance in either From this Dennis his owne grounds therefore we may wel reason and conclude thus against the Popish doctrine which they would haue him to vphold No picture is the same in substance with that whose picture it is But the bread and wine in the Eucharist are pictures and images so he tearmeth them of the spirituall foode to wit the body and blood of Christ. They are not therefore the same in substance with it Or as Maximus directeth vs No type is the Truth for it were then no type But these are Types and consequently other then the Truth The second allegation is out of Irenaeus 1. Irenaeus saith he denieth the bread after consecration to be any more accounted common bread but 2. The Eucharist consisting of two things heauenly and earthly that being receiued into our bodies they may be no more corruptible hauing the hope of resurrection These words indeede are found the most of them in Irenaeus but are foulely disioynted and related in other manner then they lye in Irenaeus his context As the bread saith he that is from the earth after diuine inuocation is no more common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things the one earthly the other heauenly So our bodies receiue the Eucharist are not now corruptible hauing the hope of resurrection 3. Where first He denieth the bread after consecration to be any more common bread as before him Iustin Martyr that they receiued those creatures not as common bread or common drinke And doth not their Cyril as before you heard deny the oyle also after it is consecrate to be any more common oyle Or may we not say truly as the Auncients also oft doe yea dare any Christian man say otherwise but that the water in Baptisme being once consecrated is no more common Water There is nothing then hitherto said by Irenaeus of the bread but what may truly be said of any other consecrated creature since that holy and common in this sense oppose and expell either other Secondly he saith that the Encharist consisteth of two things the one earthly the other heauenly And doe not all Sacraments the
with some shew of allegations 1. Hee telleth vs that Iohn Husse was of their iudgement concerning the Sacrament and alledgeth a sorry Rome to prooue it which whence hee hath I know not nor am able to say what Husse sometime held But sure I am that in the Councell of Constance one of the Articles wherewith he was charged and for which condemned and contrary to the Emperours safeconduct granted him perfidiousâ—â— burnt was the deniall of Transubstantiation as a deuice inuented to delude simple people with and the teaching and maintaining as well publikely as priuately that the substance of bread and materiall bread remained after Consecration in the Sacrament deposed by many that had heard him and that had argued about it with him 2. He citeth a few Fathers some forged as the Author of the Passion of S. Andrew some falsified as that of Iustine Martyr which shall by and by be examined some saying nothing but what wee will willingly yeeld him as both Irenaeus and that also out of the apocryphall Story of S. Andrew which howsoeuer he saith that Bellarmine which is his wonted manner of proofe hath proued to be authenticall Yet neither are his proofes pregnant no iust antiquitie being produced for it and by others of their owne as we shewed before it is confessed to be apocryphall and if we may beleeue Bellarmine himselfe there is some grosse vntruth in it For this vncertaine Author affirmeth that S. Andrew was not nailed with nailes but with cords eyed to the crosse as their counterfeit Abdie also saith that he might liue the longer in paine as he did preaching two daies together as he hung there aliue Whereas if Bellarmine may be beleeued it was not so but he was with nailes fastned as Christ was to the Crosse. But to leaue that as saying nothing that we neede sticke at no more then we doe at ought that out of Irenaeus is alleadged I may not let passe his falsifying of Iustine Martyr whom hauing so little occasion to alledge here he may well seeme for no other end to haue alleadged but to falsifie what he saith of this Sacrament in which kinde he hath the best gift one of them that euer I knew any Iustine Martyr saith he in his 2. Apologie where as far as was fit c. he describeth the whole order of the Sacrifice and distribution of the Sacrament as it is now celebrated by vs telleth Antoninus the Emperour that they did therein eate bread and drinke wine conuerted by the miraculous force of Christs words into his naturall flesh and blood Now heare Justines owne words Hauing spoken before of Baptisme After this saith he is there bread and a cup of water and wine presented to the Prelate of the brethren Who receiuing the same sendeth vp praise and glory to the Father of all by the name of the Sonne and the holy Ghost and at large giueth thankes to him for being vouchsafed to be by him reputed worthy of these things And when he hath ended his prayers and thankes-giuing all the people answer Amen Now when the Prelate hath giuen thankes and all the people haue answered those that we call Deacons giue to each one of those that be present to partake of the blessed Bread and wine and water and they carry of it to those that be not present And this foode is with vs called the Eucharist which none may partake of but those that beleeue haue beene baptised and liue as Christ taught For we receiue not these things as common Bread and Wine but in like maner as Christ our Sauiour being by the word of God incarnate had flesh and blood so haue wee beene taught that the foode blessed by the word of prayer that is from him whereby our blood and flesh by a change are nourished is the flesh and blood of that Iesus Christ incarnate For so in the Gospels haue the Apostles deliuered that Iesus enioyned them hauing taken the bread and giuen thankes to say Doe this in remembrance of me This is my Body And taking the Cup likewise and hauing giuen thankes to say This is my blood and to giue it to such onely Now first tell me I pray you where there is any mention of a Sacrifice in Iustine distinct especially from the Sacrament that this corrupter of all almost that he dealeth with should say Iustine describeth the whole order of the Sacrifice and distribution of the Sacrament True it is that the Fathers tearme the Lords Supper oft a Sacrifice as we also in our Liturgie partly in regard of the spirituall Sacrifice of praise therein offred and partly because it is a liuely representation and commemoration of Christs Sacrifice once offred on the Crosse as their Master of the Sentences himselfe explaineth it and partly also because it succeedeth in the roome of the Passeouer and those other Sacrifices that in the old Testament were offred But that they euer dreamed of any other Sacrifice distinct and diuers from the Sacrament no Papist shall euer be able to prooue Nor either out of our Sauiours words or Iustines report can be gathered 2. Obserue how iustly Iustine describeth the whole order of this Sacrifice and distribution of the Sacrament as it is celebrated by them Yea marke and iudge I pray you whether his description of it come neerer vnto ours or vnto theirs 1. Where are all those crossings and bendings and â—ringes and turnings and eleuations and adorations and mimicke gestures and apish sooleries that their Masse-bookes enioyne 2. As well the cup as the bread is giuen to all present which Iustine also saith that Christ enioyned them to giue and which Pope Gelasius saith cannot be seuered from the Bread without great Sacriledge Whereas with them the people may not meddle at all with it How many toyes are there in theirs that are not touched at all in Iustine And againe what is there in Iustines relation that is not found in our Protestanticall as he tearmeth it communion that sending of it home ordinarily onely excepted which neither they themselues vse ordinarily when they celebrate and the danger of repaire hindring accesse it seemeth then occasioned 3. Where doth Iustine say as this corrupt corrupter reporteth him that they eate bread and drinke wine conuerted by the miraculous force of Christs words into his naturall flesh and blood No one word in him of a miraculous conuersion nor of their being the naturall flesh and blood of Christ. There is mention indeede of a change and that a naturall change not of the creatures into Christs naturall flesh and blood but of the blessed foode Or the foode made the Eucharist as Bellarmine translateth it into our flesh Which words though Bellarmine would faine wrest awry because they wring him yet no Grammer will admit any other sense of them From whence it is apparent that the blessed foode that Iustine speaketh of is not really but
is a deale of durt indeede and mud raised to trouble Augustines cleere water The Question is whether our Sauiours words be to be vnderstood properly or figuratiuely They say properly and not figuratiuely Augustine saith figuratiuely and so consequently not properly which is as much as is here required Christs body saith Bellar mine is with the body properly eaten in the Eucharist But it is no proper but a figuratiue eating saith Augustine that Christ speaketh of Iohn 6. It is no such eating of Christs body therefore as they imagine to be in the Eucharist Yea so contrary to them and so pregnant for vs is that passage of Augustine that in Fulbertus his workes where those words of his are related they haue with a foule insertion branded them for hereticall Yea but saith mine Aduersarie there are many plaine places in Augustine cited by Bellarmine for the reall receiuing of Christ which my superficiall Aduersarie taketh no notice of Bellarmine is still much in this mans mouth and the superficialnesse of his silly and vnlearned Aduersarie But this I am sure is a very vnlearned slender and superficiall proofe of points questioned to turne his Reader ouer still for satisfaction to some other Yet I will doe him the couttesie since he telleth vs of other plaine places in Augustine to present him with one of them though such an one it may be as will not easily goe downe with him Augustine speaking of this place in Iohn on Psal. 98. saith that Christ hauing vsed those words Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you When some vnderstood them foolishly and carnally he taught them to vnderstand them spiritually saying It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speake are Spirit and life As if he should haue said vnderstand you spiritually what I haue spoken You are not to eate that body which you see and to drinke that blood which they will shed that shall crucifie me I haue commended a kinde of Sacrament vnto you which being spiritually vnderstood will quicken you Though it must be visibly colebrated yet is it inuisibly to be vnderstood Thus Augustine in plaine tearmes and yet if we beleeue these men the very same body of Christ that was then seene and that very same blood that was shed on the Crosse is orally eaten and drunke in the Eucharist ANd surely if the Authoritie of holy Fathers might preuaile with the Minister further then himselfe listeth he cannot be so ignorant as not to know that all the auncient Doctors expounding or treating of Christs words Ioh. 6. haue literally vnderstood them of the Sacrament as learned Tolet Saunders Bellarmine and other of our diuines haue particularly prooued collecting from them inuincible Testimonies also to prooue the verity of our Sauiours body and blood really in the Sacrament conteined and receiued Insomuch as S. Austin affirmeth S. Iohn purposely to haue emitted all mention of the Sacrament in our Sauiours last Supper because he had in the 6. Chap. of his Gospell so particularly expressed the promised excellency and heauenly fruits thereof and many euident and vnanswerable Arguments are by Catholike expositors of that Chapter made to prooue the same which with silence my Aduersarie ouerpasseth First for example our Sauiour from the 31. to the 60. verse of that Chapter maketh a difference betwixt the gift which his Father had giuen to the Iewes louing the world so as to giue his onely begotten Sonne for it and the gift which himselfe meant to giue to them speaking of the one as a gift already past but of the other as of a gift afterwards to bee giuen vnto them Secondly He compareth the eating of his flesh to the Israelites eating of Manna in the desert which was a corporall food really eaten by them Thirdly If by eating his flesh and drinking his blood our Sauiour meant no other thing then that they should beleeue in him it had beene a strange course in him who so thirsted after the saluation of soules by an obscure manner of speaking to driue away so many such persons especially as had formerly followed him without any word added which might open this obscure doctrine vnto them as Card. Tollet excellently relateth there the whole processe of our Sauiours doctrine § 5. MY second Proposition is that Christ in that whole Discourse Iohn 6 doth not speake of the Eucharist That Augustine and diuers others of the ancient Fathers doe expound it of feeding on Christ yet not corporally but spiritually in the Sacrament for so Bishop Iansenius also ingenuously confesseth that Augustine holdeth it to be vnderstood of seeding on Christ spiritually not corporally yea and so Pope Innocent himselfe witnesse Durand and Biel and Peter Lombard also witnesse Bonâ—uenture expound it I deny not nor doth it at all impeach our cause in the maine point here in question of Christs corporall presence Yet the rather herein wee are inforced together with diuerse Popish writers to depart from them in that their exposition so farre forth as they vnderstand the same as directly speaking of the Eucharist as for the one moitie of that discourse also euen Bellarmine himself doth in regard of some erronious consequences that they were by that meanes enforced vnto which euen the Papists themselues now condemne and for other weighty reasons as in my first writing I shew Yea but Catholique Expositors saith this Answerer by many euident and vnanswerable Arguments haue prooued that it is so to be vnderstood which his Aduersarie also saith hee euerpasseth with silence And say I A Catholique Expositor in their language to wit Corn. Iansenius no Iesuite now for so this Answerer hath informed me and yet a Bishop of Flanders in a worke of his by common consent of the learned among them well approoued of they are the Popes owne Censurers wordes of it hath by euident and vnanswerable Arguments prooued that it cannot so bee vnderstood which this mine aduersarie also ouerpasseth with silence And the like also doth Frier Ferus and Gabriel Biel at large in the place aboue recited But hee will at length I hope say somewhat himselfe 1. Our Sauiour saith he maketh a difference there betweene the gift which his Father had â—iuen the Iewes and the gift that himselfe ment to giue speaking of the one as past of the other as to come This out of Bellarmine I maruell where this man learned his Logicke He neuer is luckie in the framing of his Consequences There is a difference betweene the gift that God the Father had giuen and the gift that Christ would giue Ergò Christs wordes must needs be vnderstood of his corporall presence in the Eucharist How hang these things together or by what necâ—ssity of consequence doth the one follow from the other For first Are they diuerse gifts that God
sticke to contemne them Had he any wit in his adle braine he would neuer haue asked this idle Question It is as if in a Law-suite because a man taketh hold as he may well doe of somewhat that falleth from his Aduersaries or is granted him and confessed by them because it furthereth his owne cause he were therefore bound to beleeue or admit all that euer they say to the preiudice of his right The greater differences are betweene them and vs yea in the present controuersie concerning the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament the lesse cause there is to suspect that they should speake partially for vs and the greater cause to suppose they were by euidence of truth enforced to confesse that that should take away some of those grounds whereby the cause that themselues stiffely maintained is ordinarily vpheld 3. He addeth in the end These men herein without hereticall intention or obstinâ—cie of iudgement differed from vs. Whom he meaneth by that Vs I leaue to himselfe to explaine And the lesse hereticall their intention was as he vnderstandeth hereticall the lesse suspition there is of collusion or any purpose therein to gratifie vs and so much the stronger therefore is their testimonie for vs. The testimonie of a meere stranger or no well-willer to the cause maketh it to be of more moment But when he speaketh of obstinacie of iudgement he glaunceth at a secret in their Church which I shall in a word or two take occasion hereby to discouer It is no matter what a man hold or maintaine among them so long as he acknowledgeth the Popes Supremacie the maine pillar of their faith and submit himselfe and his workes wholly to his censure and so be ready to vnsay what he saith when he will haue him so to doe For his censure indeede alone is that which they call commonly the censure of the Church And to this purpose they confesse that many of their writers haue held the very same points for which they condemne vs now as Heretikes of whom yet they say that they were not Heretikes because they submitted themselues to this Censure I will adde an instance or two hereof out of Bellarmine 1. In this very particular he confesseth that many of the Authors before mentioned expound that 6. Chap. of Iohn as the Heretikes doe but they submit themselues saith he and their writings to the Censure of the Councels and Popes which the Heretikes doe not 2. In the present controuersie Durandus held not a Transubstantiation but a transformation in the Sacrament which opinion saith he is hereticall and yet was hee no Heretike because he was ready to yeeld to the iudgement of the Church 3. Ambrose Catharines opinion of the Ministers intention in the Sacrament differeth not saith he for ought I see from the opinion of Chemnicius and other Heretikes saue that he in the end of his booke submitteth himselfe to the Apostolike Sea and Councel 4. Durandus in the point concerning merite of workes held as we now doe that no reward was due to them but out of Gods meere liberalitie and that it were temerarious and blasphemous to say that God were vniust if he should not so reward them And yet was he also no Heretike for the cause before-mentioned And thus are we at length arriued after much winding to and fro while wee follow a shifting wind at the end of the former part of my Discourse wherein hath beene shewed beside other Arguments confirming the same by the confession of their owne Authors that those places of Scripture doe not enforce any such corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament as Papists maintaine which they commonly produce to prooue it Diuision 7. PAg. 9. My Aduersarie becommeth a more formall Disputant then before and against our Doctrines of Transubstantiation and reall presence of our Sauiour in the Sacrament ignorantly by him in many places confounded he frameth this wise Argument Looke what our Sauiour tooke that he blessed what he blessed that he brake what he brake that he deliuered to his Disciples what he deliuered of that he said This is my Body But it was bread that he tooke And bread therefore that he blessed bread that hee brake and bread that he deliuered and bread consequently of which he said This is my Body Which is a formelâ—sse and fallacious kinde of arguing wholly forcelesse if we suppose the former doctrine of the holy Fathers to be true that Christs words haue force now as then they had when himselfe vttred them to change the substance of Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood As if after the like manner of the water conuerted by Christ into wine I should make this deduction The Ministers drew water out of the well carried what they drew therefore that which they drew and carried was water If the Minister shall tell me that they drew water but carried it made wine by our Sauiours omnipotent operation so I will tell him that Christ tooke bread and wine and conuerted them by his miraculous and omnipotent benediction into his owne bodie and blood before he distributed them as he by his plaine words pronounced of them saying This is my Body c. HItherto if you will beleeue this worthy Doctor his Aduersarie hath disputed without forme or figure that you may not maruaile why his Answer is so diffused deformed and mis-figured for the fault it seemeth was in his Aduersaries mishapen Syllogismes which made him also so loath to meddle with any of them Here he confesseth he becommeth a more formall Dissutant and I hope therefore we shall finde him a more formall Defendant Yet ere he come to my first Argument he must needs haue a fling at me for confounding their doctrine of Transsubstantiation and the reall presence corporall hee should haue said for more perspicuitie for so I speake ignorantly the one with the other I perceiue well what his drift herein is to make some beleeue that howsoeuer Transubstantiation was not generally held till of late times yet a reall that is a corporall presence was euer acknowledged But if we will beleeue Bellarmine Aquinas and the Councel of Trent the one of them is euery iot as ancient as the other yea the one cannot possibly bee without the other This the Councel of Trent telleth vs was alwaies the faith of the Church that by the consecration of Bread and Wine the whole Substance of the Bread was turned into the Substance of Christs body and the whole Substance of wine into his Blood And A body saith Aquinas cannot be where it was not before but either by locall motion or by the conuersion of some other thing into it But it is manifest that Christs bodie beginneth not to bee in the Sacrament by any locall motion And therefore it must needs come there by the conuersion of the bread into it Yea by locall motion it cannot be there nor by any meanes but
by this And Bellarm. cleane contrary to himselfe else-where It cannot be that the words of Christ should be true but by such a conversion and transmutation as the Catholike Church calleth Transubstantiation It is no matter of ignorance therefore in this Controversie to confound those things which those we deale with conioyne yea which they tell vs cannot be dis-ioyned To ouerthrow this their opinion then of Transubstantiation and Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist I first reason from the Context Christ tooke bread and blessed it and gaue it and said This is my body Whence I thus argued What Christ tooke hee blessed what he blessed he brake what he brake he deliuered what he deliuered of that he said This is my body But it was bread that hee tooke blessed brake and deliuered It is bread saith Durant a Popish writer that all those verbes are referred to It was bread therefore of which he said This is my body Now this saith mine Adversarie forgetting it seemeth what he had said but euen now that heere I began to dispute formally is a formlesse fallacious and wholly forcelesse kinde of arguing if we suppose with the holy Fathers who belike held Transubstantiation then as well as a reall and corporall presence if this worthy man vpon his bare word may bee beleeued that the substances of bread and wine were by the force of Christs wordes turned into Christs body and blood That is as if hee should say this Argument is of no force at all if the point in Question be granted or if that be yeelded that is not at all in the Text. Yea but this is as if a man should make the like deduction of the water that Christ turned into wine The Ministers drew water out of the well carried what they drew Therefore that which they drew and carried was water How formall a Disputant soeuer this mans Adversary is sure I am hee disputeth neither in forme nor figure But let vs helpe him a little to bring his Argument into forme and then hee shall haue an Answer Thus it seemeth he would argue if he could hit on it What the Ministers drew out of the well they caried But they drew water Therefore they carried water And now I deny his Proposition The Ministers carried not that that they drew They drew water they carried not water but wine And for his addition hereunto that Christ after hee tooke the bread and wine and before hee distributed them by his miraculous and omnipotent benediction converted them into his owne body and blood as hee sheweth by his wordes plainely pronounced of them This is my body Though it be nothing to the Argument and a meere begging of the point in Question yet let vs consider a little of it where in the Text hee findeth that Christ thus converted them for the wordes This is my body as was formerly shewed doe not euince it But he findeth it it seemeth in the benediction or the blessing of the bread which is yet against the common conceite of his Associates that say there was no conversion at all till Christ vttered those words This is my body Heare we Bellarmine a little arguing this point against Luther Hauing acknowledged as was said formerly that Christs words This is my body may beare either the sence that wee giue them or the sense that they giue them but not that sense that the Lutherans giue For saith hee the Lord tooke bread and blessed it and gaue it his Disciples saying This is my body Bread therefore he tooke bread hee blessed and of bread of he said This is my body Either therefore Christ by blessing changed the bread into his body truely and properly or he changed it improperly and figuratiuely by adding signification or as Theodoret rather by adding to nature that grace which before it had not If hee changed it truely and properly then gaue he bread changed and of that bread so changed he truely said This is my body that is that which is contained vnder the shape of bread is no more bread but my body and this we say If it be said that he changed the bread figuratiuely then shall there be that bread given the Apostles that is siguratiuely Christs body and those words This is my body haue this sense This is the figure of my body and so the Protestants hold Yea so indeede as you haue heard before did Augustine in precise tearmes after Tertullian expound them who belike then by Bellarmines ground was in this point a Protestant Now let either Bellarmine or this Answerer prooue that our Sauiour by his blessing wrought any other conuersion and wee will yeeld vnto them But they will as soone proue that Christ turned the children that hee blessed into bread as that he turned the bread by blessing it into his naturall bodie Yea runne ouer all the whole Chapter in Bellarmine wherein hee propoundeth to himselfe to proue Transubstantiation out of Gods word in the entrance whereunto hee confesseth that the words of Christ may be taken as well our way as their way but not Luthers way and you shall finde that there is neuer a word in it much lesse any sound proofe either to prooue that Christs wordes are so to be vnderstood as they say or that they are not to bee vnderstood as we say but it is wholly spent in confuting of Luthers opinion to wit that bread remaineth together with Christs body in the Sacrament Which opinion also themselues confesse that Luther admonished by Melancthon renounced before he died Hee beginneth with a first Argument without any second the summe and substance whereof was before related Either his second he saw was vnsound and it seemed best therefore to suppresse and conceale it or else he wanted a second and thought to let the first though without a fellow stand still as first by the rule of the Ciuilians who say That is first that hath none before it though no other come after it or that is first that hath none before it that is last that hath none after it And so is this Bellarmines both first and last Argument there And in Conclusion he is faine to flie to the Councels and pretended Fachers Though there were some ambiguity saith hee in our Sauiour Christs words yet it is taken away by Councels what Councels think we Surely none but such as themselues held within these 300. yeeres as himself afterward sheweth and the consent of Fathers which remaineth yet to be shewed As for the benediction the best nay the sole Argument whereby hee can prooue such 〈…〉 conuersion wrought there is this Christ is not wont to giue thankes but when hee is about to worke some great and maruelous thing For he is read onely to haue given thankes when hee would multiply the fiue loaues and againe when the seuen and when hee was to raise Lazarus from the
dead and lastly in the institution of this Sacrament And in like manner hee is not wont to blesse insensible things but when he was to worke some admirable thing with them For he is neuer read so to haue done but when hee blessed the bread to be multiplied and in the Encharist As on the contrary when hee cursed the figtree for it withered away instantly For Gods blessing is a well-doing not a praying as ours but an effecting as appeareth when hee blessed the beasts for by that blessing hee bestowed fruitfulnesse vpon them Nor do we reade that Christ euer blessed the water in Baptisme And what of all this Therefore forsooth it must needs follow that Christ by that blessing turned the bread into his owne naturall body Where to omit that it is not true that Christ is neuer read to haue giuen thankes oftner then is here said for at other times also hee is reported to haue giuen thankes and that when hee was not about to worke any miracle neither Nor is it truely said that Christs blessing was not a prayer which that it was not Iansenius onely but Maldonat the Iesuite from some of the Ancients also confesseth being conceiued by him as man but effected by him as God and beside that it is absurd to reason à non scripto ad non factum hee is not read oftâ—er to haue blessed or given thankes therefore hee neuer oftner did either yea it is impious to imagine that Christ who for our sakes made himselfe subiect to the Law did not ordinarily blesse and sanctifie the food that he tooke commonly by thankes-giuing and prayer who denyeth but that Christ went about a marueilous worke when hee was to institute this Sacrament or who doubteth but that Christs benediction was a most effectuall benediction and as effectuall as that of Gods was in the Creation whereby he blessed the creatures by vertue whereof yet the creatures so blessed were not transformed into new shapes but had a naturall facultie only conferred vpon them which before they had not nor of theÌ„selues could haue and so haue the elements a spirituall and supernaturall by our acknowledgement in the Sacrament But who seeth not what a silly and senselesse consequence this is Bellarmine could not be so silly and sottish as not to see it himselfe Christ gaue thankes and blessed the bread ere hee gaue it therefore hee wrought such a miracle on it as wee would haue or therefore if you will he turned it into the very substance of his body It may as well bee said that Samuel wrought some miracle by blessing the sacrifice as our Sauiour here by blessing the bread For the water in Baptisme it is easie to answer though it be little to the purpose It is not to bee maruelled if hee be not read to haue blessed it for we are told expresly that he neuer baptised saue as he doth spiritually baptise to this day But dare any say that his Disciples were so prophane as to baptise without blessing or must a bald yea a Baals Priests blessing of bread at this day be needes more effectuall then their blessing of water then was Or doe not the ancient Fathers compare the blessing of the water and the effect thereof in Baptisme with the blessing of the waters and the moouing of the Spirit vpon them in the Creation And why must the blessing then of necessity import such a change more in the one Sacrament then in the other Diuision 8. AS for the names of bread and wine after giuen by Saint Paul and the holy Fathers to the consecrated parts of the Sacrament which with this Minister is a great argument tediously vrged page 10. hee cannot be ignorant I suppose as not to conceiue the little sorce of the Argument For if Aarons red after it was conuerted into a Serpent and retained not the essence or figure of a rod bee notwithstanding called so with much more reason may the Accidents of bread and wine still remaining and containing in them Christs body and blood retaine their old names especially with articles superadded importing the singular and diuine excellency of them still vsed by Saint Paul 1 Cor. 10 11. as this bread this Chalice the bread which wee breake c. willing them to prooue themselues c. before they come to eate of this bread least eating it vnworthily they eate their owne damnation not discerning the body of Christ or which is all one not distinguishing it from other common bread it being indeed bread blessed and conuerted into the very body of Christ and therefore not irreuerently and vnworthily to be receiued by any Christian vnder paine of damnation as the ancient Doctor and holy Mariyr of Christs Church S. Cyprian affirmeth S. Basil also S. Chrysostome S. Ierome Origen and S. Augustine with other Fathers expressâ—ly teach the sinne of such as come vnworthily to the Sacrament to be haynous and equall even to the sinne of such as betrayed and killed Christ because they presume vnworthily to eate that bread wherein the Son of God himselfe is contained MY second Argument was taken from the expresse words of Scripture wherein after Consecration there is said to be bread and wine in the Sacrament 1. The little force of this Argument hee saith I cannot be so ignorant as not to conceiue because Aarons rod after it was conuerted into a Serpent and retained not the essence or figure of a rod yet was notwithstanding so called c. And hee cannot bee so ignorant as not to conceiue that this very Obiection is there by me propounded and answered yea and that Bellarmine himselfe reiecteth it as not very sound but such as iust exception may be taken vnto Did hee thinke that any one not voyd of common sense would not soone see this 2. He saith that the accidents of bread and wine remaining retaine still their old names To what purpose For who doubteth but that the accidents that is the colour sauour shape sise c. of the elements remaine still in the Eucharist not without a subiect as they say for how can accidents so do when the very essence of an accident as it is an accident is to be in some subiect but in the selfe same subiect wherein formerly they were And what should hinder but that remaining so they should retaine still their old names But neither are the accidents of bread and wine bread and wine and it is absurd to say either that the Apostle by bread meant the accidents of bread onely when he said The bread which wee breake c. and Let a man eate of that bread c. Or that by the fruit of the vine our Sauiour meant nothing but the acci dents of wine when hee said I will drinke henceforth no more of this fruit of the vine c. So that his
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