it were the thinge which it was not in substance To the same effect he saith Non dictum est petra significat Christum sed petra erat Christus it a enim scriptura solet loqui It is not said that the rock did signify Christ but that the rock was Christ for so the scripture vseth to speake This forme of speach he and sundrie other of the fathers acknowledges in the sacrament Ad hibâ—â—t Iudam ad conuiuium in quo corporis sui figuram discipulis commendauit Christ admitted Iudas to the Supper in which he commended to his disciples the figure of his bodie And againe Non dubitauit dicere hoc est corpus meum cnm daret signim cerporis sui Hee doubted not to saye This is my bodie when hee gaue to his disciples the signe of his bodie Chrysostom saith Christus mortuus non est cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est Christ is not deed of whome this sacrifice is a symboll and a signe Theodoret saith Qui seipsum vitem appell at ille symbola et signa quae videntur appellatione corporis et sanguinis honor auit non naturam mutauit He who called himselfe a vine honoured the signes and symbolles which are seene with the name of his bodie and bloode not changing their nature Nazianzenus calleth them â—oon megaloon mysteerioon antitypa The figures of great mysteries And in another place tou timiou soomatos antitypon The figure of his glorious bodie Tertullian to proue against Marcion that the bodie of Christ is not a fantasie taketh an argument from the Sacrament in these wordes Acceptum panem acdistributum discipuilis corpus suum illum fecit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei figura autem non â—uisset nisi veritatis fuisset corpus That is taking breade and diuiding it among his disciples hee made it his bodie saying This is my bodie That is this is a figure of my body Now it coulde hot haue beene a figure of his bodie if his bodie had not beene a very bodie because men vseth not to make figures of phantasies August de doctrina teaching in a long discourse that the scriptures alwayes implyeth some figure when they seeme to command facinus or flagitium That is as he him self expoundeth it an ill turne to him selfe or to an other in the ende bringeth for example the place out of the 6. of Iohn The letter whereof these men vrge so instantlie and concludeth it to be a figure in dispite of the pope the counsell of Rome which did in cannon it eight hundreth yeares after him to be catholick doctrine to grinde and rend the sacred bodie of Christ with sacrilegious teeth Nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis et sanguinem biberitis c. Facinus saith he vel flagitium videtur iubere figura ergo est Except thou eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood seemeth saieth August to command a foull turne and therefore is a figure In these places of August Chrysostom Theodoret Nazianzen and Tertullian and many moe that might bee alledged to this effect it is manifest that these fathers and the Church in their times tooke the wordes of the institution this is my bodie figuratiuely Origen saith Si secundum literam accipis id quod dictum est nisi manducaâ—eritis carnem filii hominis litera illa occidit If thou vnderstand after the letter the wordes of our sauiour except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. that letter killeth Hyeronimus saith De hac quidem hostia quae in commemor atione Christi mirabiliter fit edere licet de illa uero quam Christus in ara crucis obtulit secundum se nemo potest edere Of that oblation which was made wonderfullie in remembrance of Christe a man may eate but of that which was offered vpon the alter of the crosse of it self no man can eate Chrysostom saith Si carnaliter accipis nihil lucraris If thou receaue it carnallie it will doe thee no good Of these places it is plaine that the flesh of Christe is not eaten with our teethe and that the eating the flesh of the sonne of man is not to bee vnderstood literallie Cyrillus saith Christus credentibus discipulis fragmenta panis dedit Christ gaue to his beleeuing disciples peeces of bread Hieronymus saith Christus in typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum Christe in the type of his blood offered not water but wine Cyprianus saith Dominus sanguinem suum vinum appellauit de botris et acinis plurimis expressum The Lorde called wyne pressed out of many clusters grapes his bloode And againe Inuenimus vinum fuisse quod dominus sanguinem suum dixit Wee finde that it was wine which the Lorde called his bloode Of these places it is cleare that it was bread and wine which Christ gaue to his disciples bittes of bread wine wrong out of grapes Irenaeus saith panis eucharisticus carnis nostrae substantiam auget The bread of the eucharist that is of the Lordes supper turneth to the substance of our flesh augumentes it Origenes saith Ille cibus qui sanctificatur iuxta illud quod habet materiale in ventrem abit et in secessum eâ—citur That meate which is sanctified that is consecrated to a holie vse according to the matter or substance of it goeth downe into the bellie and is cast out into the iakes Be these two fathers it is plaine that the breade in the Sacrament doth nourish the body passeth through the belly and auoydeth into the draught which were an absurd thinge to speake of the precious flesh of our Sauiour Cyrill saith Christus cum discipulus suis etsi non corpore tamen virtâ—te deit atis semper futurus Christ will be with his disciples howbeit not bodilie yet bee vertue of his diuine power alwayes And in an other place Christus non poter at in carne versari cum apostolis post quam ascendisset ad patrem Christ coulde not in his flesh conuerse with his disciples after that hee was ascended to his father Athanasius saith Quomodo vnius hominis corpus vniuerso mundo sufficeret Quod tanquam in illorum cogitationibus versatus Christus commemorat A quibus cogitationibus vt eos auocaret quemadmodum Paulâ— ante suae descensionis de coelo mentionem fecit ita nunc reditus sui in coelum How can the body of one man suffice the whole world which thinge hee recordes as if hee had beene in their heartes From which thoughts to drawe them now hee maketh mentioÌ„ of his ascending into heauen as hee had done before of his descending from heauen By these two fathers yow maye see that Christ is ascended into heauen as concerning his bodie And to perswade the Caparâ—aites
the answere is cleare and reddie Christes flesh is the meare of the soule and not of the bodie of the minde and not of the mouth It is eaten be hearing chawed bee vnderstanding and digested bee faith saith Tertullian This our Sauiour teacheth him selfe who knew it better then the pope without sauing his holinesse and all the Iesuites to helpe him I am the breade of life saith he he that commeth to me shall not hunger and hee that beleeueth in me shall neuer thirst Out of which words this argument floweth To come to Christ and beleeue in him is to eate the breade of life that thou neuer hunger nor thirste againe But to come to Christ and beleeue in him is not to eate with thy tethe the reall flesh of Christ which was borne of the Virgine Marie Ergo to eate the reall flesh of Crhiste which was borne of the Virgine Marie with thy teeâ—hâ— is not to eate the bread of life that thou neuer huÌ„ger nor thirst a gain And a little after he that beleeueth in me hath euerlasting life I am the bread of life Which Syllogisme adding the proposition may haue this forme Whosoeuer beleeueth in the breade of life hath euerlasting life But I am the breade of life Ergo Whosoeuer beleeueth in me hath euerlasting life where you â—ee beleeuing for eating But that which followeth in the rebuke of them who tooke him to speake of a carnall and fleshlie eating is most pregnant It is the spirit which quickneth the flesh profiteth no thing the wordes that I speake are spirit and truth That is to saye it is the spiritual eating of my flesh that quickneth and giueth life the fleshlye and carnal eating of it can doe you no good For my wordes are spirituâ—ll and liuelie that is effectual to life In all that cap. he that will marke attentiuely shal finde that whole discourse with the câ—pernaites to be spiritual and the difference betweene them and him to bee their carnall concept of his spirituall wordes Hee shall finde the meate spirituall the life that it feedeth spirituall and the teethe that eateth spirituall There he shall finde that hee that eateeth not his flesh hath no life in him that is no spirituall life and hee that beleeueth in him hath eternall life that is to eate the breade of life that came downe from heauen and giueth life vnto the worlde Thirdlye Maister Rainolds againste Maister Robert Bruce reasoneth thus Christes bodie is there present where it is broken But it is broken in the sacrament Ergo it is present in the Sacrament To the maiore we answere that it is present in the Sacrament as it is broken in the Sacrament But it is broken onely in a figure and therefore is present onely in a figure But to the faithfull Christ presents in deede bee a divine communication with the Sacrament his verie bodie to feede the soule Bvt if he wer bodily in the Sacrament then the wicked would also participate his bodie which thing Christ himselfe denieth in Ioan. c. 6. v. 56 Fourthly the same man in the same place reasoneth out of the wordes of Moses concerning the olde couenante and the wordes of Christe concerning the newe thus That whereof Christe spoke is the bloode of the newe TestameÌ„t as â— whereof Moses spoke was the blood of the olde But yâ— whereof Moses spake was the verie bloode of the olde Testament Ergo that whereof Christe spoke was the verie bloode of the newe Testament Of this argument we deny the minor The blood of both couenants waâ— one the bloode of Christ Iesus who made the vnion in the olde Lawe betweene god them maketh the vnion in the new Testament betweene god and vs. The blood of beâ—es in the olde testameÌ„t was not the very blood of the covenant And therefore this man hath founde a knife to cut his owne throate The wine of the newe Testament is the bloode of the newe couenant as the bloode ofâ— beues and sheepe was the bloode of the olde couenant But the bloode of beues and sheepe was not the very blood of the olde couenant but a figure thereof Ergo the wine in the new Testament was not the very blood of the couenant but a figure thereof Lastly they cast vp to vs incredulity and not beleeuing the omnipotencie of Christ. They beare the worlde in hande that wee denying Christe to turne the bread into his bodie are more incredilous then sathâ—n who beleeued that he coulde make breade of stones To cast this sweete simile into the teethe that it came from These men are as captious as the devill Hee reasoned a potentiae ad actum If thou arte the Sonne of GOD command that these stones bee made breade they follow the same â—rade hee was the sonne of God Ergo he changed the breade into his flesh The question is not heare what Christ could doe but what he would doe We know and confesse as wel as they that Christ can doe what he will but will not doe all that he can To proue that Christs will was to doe a thing as I haue said so contrarious to nature so refuted bee sense it behooueth the testimonie to be without exception That Christ was borne of a virgine that he walked on the waters that hee turned water into wine these are the exemples of their induction the spirit of truth that cannot lye hath tâ—stified in plaine tearmes If that spirit had testified as plainely that in his last Supper hee turned the breade into his bodie and left nothing to our taste but accidents we should beleeue this as well as that and bee Gods good helpe haue stoode as surely to it as all the Iesuites since the first Iesuit Ignatius Laiola But seeing these proofes are noâ— thing but figured scriptures turned to their naked skinne wee hope that all Christians will abhore that vgly sinne to rend with mercilesse teethe his flesh that hath borne the horrour of hell â—o purchase mercie to vs. Heare they woulde faine buckle on vs an absurditie out of the words of the institution which we may not passe by In the wordeâ— This is my body which was broken for you The prononne this demonstrateth that which was broken for the sinnes of the elect But in our opinidion the pronoune this demonstrateth the breade Whereof say they it will follow that breade was broken for the sinnes of the elect Firste the maiore is not true for the pronoune this demonstrates not the thing but the figure of the thing tha was broken for the elect Secondly there is a parte of the maiore left out of the conclusion which should haue been expresseâ— Ergo the bread is the bodie which was broken for yâ— elect which conclusion is true in a figure And heare it is a world to see the blindnesse of these men for of their liâ—erall sense this absurditie will followe without a warde The pronoune
nature I am persuaded that these men will not saye that the substance of the water is also changed in Baptisme into the bloode of Christ how-be-it the reason be as good to saye this as that Bee these examples I woulde haue the circumspect reader warned that when he readeth in any of the fathers that the nature of the breade is changed in the Sacrament hee take it not for substance alwayes I will giue the an example or two of the moste peremptorie places that these men hath and which maye begâ—â—le a wise and circumspect reader Harding against Iewell alleadges out of Câ—prian these wordes Panis iste quem dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigiâ— sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro This breade which the Lord gaue to his disciples changed not in shawe but in nature be the omnipotencie of the worde was made breade Where firste note that hee calleth it breade which hee gaue his disciples which thing as this day were heresie in Rome Secondly that hee saith not the substance of the bread is changed but the nature of it which being created to feede the bodye of man to temporall life is now changed be the omnipotencie of the worde that is Christ to feede the soule to eternall life Thirdelye where hee saieth the breade was made flesh it proues not a chaÌ„ging of the one substance into the other For Iohn saith of the sonne of God that the worde was made flesh which not-withstanding was not turned into flesh Lastly the hyperbole of the omnipotencie of the worde sundrie of the fathers vseth of the water in Baptisine which abideth water still and is not changed into the blood of Christ. Beda saith Panis et vini creatura in sacramentum â—arnis et sanguinis Christi ineff abili spiritus sanctificatione transfâ—rtur The creature of breade and wine be the vnspeakable sanctification of the spirite is translated to the Sacrament of Christes bodie and bloode Where you see as hyperbolicall wordes not to change the breade and wine into the bodie and blood of Christ but into the Sacrament of his bodie and blood Maister William Rainold againste Maister Robert Bruce alleadgeth two places out of Ambrose which being weighed in these confiderations will proue no transubstantiation Ambrose comparing the efficacie of Christes wordes with the words of Elias at laste concludeth if his wordes were of such force that they caused fire to come downe from heauen shall not Christes speach be of sufficient force to alter the nature of the elements First the Latine worde which hee interpreteth nature is species elementorum The shapes of the elements which it is certaine to the sense remaineth vnchanged and so the wordes beareth a manifest hyperbole It is true that Ambrose in that place vseth sundry high amplifications not to persuade the breade to be transubstantiated into the essentiall bodie of Iesus Christ but from the authoritye and power of the consecratoure to settle into the heartes of men a dreadefull account of the consecration That this is his drift it is plaine in the same place Where he saith ante benedictionem rerborum coelestium alia species nominatur post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur Before the celestiall blessing an other forme is named after consecration Christs body is signifyed saith hee not in deede transubstantiated For that which doth signifie his bodie can not be the same thing which it signifieth In the other place Ambrose teacheth that the consecration is made bee the wordes of Christe the selfe same whereby all things were created and after a long induction concludeth it was not the body but breade before secration but after when Christs words came there to then was it the bodie of Christ. and addeth thou seest then how many wayes the speach of Christe is able to change all thinges This long induction of Christes power as I haue saide is to noe other ende but bee the powerful consecration of the elements to settle a resolute persuasion in our heartes of Christs presence which is the vnseene subiect of our faith That Ambrose knewe not transubstantiation of the elementes it is plaine in that same cap also Where he saith Si tantavis in sermone domini fuit vt inciperentesse quae non â—rant quanto magis operatorius est vt sinâ— quae erant et in aliud commutentur If there was such power in the worde of the Lorde to make thinges beginne to bee that they were not howe much more powerfull is it to make thinges byde that which they were before and to be changed into an other Where note that he saith the bread and wine abideth the thinge which they were that is breade and wine which these men denieth And a little after warde hee saith similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis Thou drinkest the lâ—kenesse of that precious bloode In the cap. following also hee calleth it figura corporis et sanguinis A figure of the bodie and bloode of our Sauiour Iesus Christe If Ambrose had thought the elementes of breade and wine to be the essentiall and reall body of Christ hee woulde neuer haue called them similitudes and figures thereof If these men woulde buckle that opinion on Ambrose or anye other father let them produce him in his monstruous coloures of accidents without their naturall subiects and subiectes without their naturall accidents and substance changed into substaÌ„ce For we are surely persuaded that transubstantiation was neuer beleeued before these strange theoremes were vniuersallie receaued And if they cannot find these theoremes which muste haue rung in all the pulpits and schooles if that doctrine had beene receaued before the counsell of Rome which condemned Berengarius let them pardon vs to thinke that that doctrine was not till theÌ„ knowne in the own complexion To conclude this matter of the fathers it is no wonder that these men presumâ—â—g on the ignorance of their readers draw the amplifications of the fathers to their bent seeing they blush not to take Calvin and Maister Robert Bruce whome all men knoweth to dissent from them at such stottes Maister Rainolds quoteth out of Caluines institutiâ—ns foure or fiue places which if hee had written a thousand yeares before would make a greater shew for their transubstantiation then anye thinge that father Robert Bellarmine hath founde among all the fathers and more pregnant then these places which I haue answered of Cyprian and Ambrose The firste is in the mysterie of the Supper saieth Caluin Christ that is Christs bodie and blood be the signes of bread and wine is truly deliuered vnto vs. And al-be-it it may seeme incredible that in such distance of places he shoulde passe downe to vs Yet let vs remember howe farre his power exceedeth our sense and that our minde cannot comprehend let our faith conceaue Againe in his holy supper hee willeth me vnder the symboles of breade and wine to take eate and drinke his bodie and