it is bread saith he but after consecration of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. And againe before the words of Christ be vttered in the consecration the Chalice is full of Wine and Water but when the words of Christ haue wrought their effect there is made the bloud that redeemed the People I. D. Whether those bookes of the Sacraments here cited by you vnder the name of Ambrose be his or no is not agreed vpon by all Possevine the Iesuite affirming that all almost together with Cardinal Bellarmine hold them to be legitimate plainely insinuates by the word almost that some are of another minde Their reasons are first because the stile much differeth from that of Ambrose his being cleare perspicuous florid and elaborate this oftentimes negligent harsh rude savouring of Monkish barbarisme Secondly because no writer before Lanfrank Guitmund who liued six hundred yeares after Ambrose quote them which were strange if they be his especially considering the matter of these bookes and how commonly the rest of his writings were alleaged Lastly because repeating the Lords Prayer hee deliuereth the sixt Petition in these words And suffer vs not to bee led into temptation whereas the words of Christ are And lead vs not into temptation which it is not to bee thought that S. Ambrose either was ignorant of or meant to amend As touching the other booke de Imitandis you should say de mysterijs initiandis the same iudgement haue they as of the former But if you will let them bee Saint Ambroses For I meane not to be peremptory herein What would you conclude out of him That hee denies it expresly to bee bread after consecration Certainely in expresse tearmes he doth not All he saith is that after consecration bread is made flesh and wine bloud out of which it followeth not that it ceaseth to be bread and wine for S. Ambrose himselfe affirmeth that this notwithstāding they still remaine what they were If saith he there bee so great power in the word of the Lord Iesus that they should beginne to bee that which they were not how much more effectuall is it that they be what they were yet be changed into another thing But how may this be will you say that it should remaine bread and yet be made flesh Let S. Chrysostome resolue you The grace of God saith he sanctifying the bread it is freed from the name of bread and counted worthy of the name of the Lords body Yea and S. Ambrose himselfe also The Lord Iesus himselfe saith he cryeth this is my body Before the blessing of the heauenly words it is named another kinde after consecration the body of Christ is signified He saith his Bloud Before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud Where by the way I cannot but marvel at the fore-head of your Cardinall Bellarmine who vouching this place changeth that clause the body of Christ is signified into this it is the body of Christ. Happily he did not brooke the word signifie because it cleareth this point of the Real Presence more then willingly he would But hereby it is evident how bread may be made flesh and yet still remaine bread namely because it is made so only typically and in a signifying mystery N. N. Whereas Christ hath said of the Bread This is my Body who will dare to doubt thereof And whereas hee hath said of the Wine This is my Bloud who will doubt or say it is not his Bloud He once turned Water into Wine in Cana of Galilee by his owne will which Wine is like vnto Bloud And shall we not thinke him worthy to bee beleeued when he saith he hath changed Wine into his Blood Our Lord Iesus Christ doth testifie vnto vs that we receiued his Body and Bloud and may we doubt of his credit or testimonie Those things that are written let vs read and what we read let vs vnderstand so shall we perfectly performe the duty of Faith for that these points which wee affirme of the naturall verity of Christs being in vs except we learne thē of Christ himselfe we affirme them wickedly and foolishly c. Wherefore whereas he saith My Flesh is truly Meat and my blood truly drinke there is no place left to vs of doubting concerning the truth of Christs body and blood for that both by the affirmation of Christ himselfe and our owne beleefe there is in the Sacrament the flesh truly and the blood truly of our Saviour Eusebius bringeth in Christ our Saviour speaking in these words For so much as my flesh is truly meat and my Blood truly drinke let all doubtfulnesse of infidelity depart for so much as he who is the author of the gift is witnesse also of the truth thereof And Saint Leo to the same effect Nothing at all is to be doubted of the truth of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and those doe in vaine answere Amen when they receaue it if they dispute against that which is affirmed And finally St Epiphanius concludeth thus Hee that beleeueth it not to bee the very Body of Christ in the Sacrament is fallen from grace and Salvation I. D. Your Argument Christ saith This is my Body This is my Blood True no man denieth it The Fathers say He is worthy to be beleeued and wee may not doubt of his testimonie True also and he is an infidel whosoever questioneth any thing he saith What then Ergo by the judgement of the Fathers the flesh of Christ is Really and by way of Transubstantiation present in the Sacrament It followeth not For Christ saith not so and his Flesh without Transubstantiation may be present Sacramentally and Spiritually Saint Paul expresly saith The rocke was Christ and he is worthy to be beleeued neither may wee doubt of his credit Yet I hope you will not inferre thereupon Ergo in S. Pauls iudgement the Rocke was transubstantiated into Christ. No more can you conclude the like Change out of Christs words for the case is exactly the same In a word to argue from the Thing to the Manner It is Ergo it is so or so is meerely ridiculous With this generall answere might I at once quit all your authorities but to three of them I haue somewhat more to say in particular Christ saith Cyril hath said of the bread This is my Body and who will dare to doubt thereof Verily no true beleever Yet Papists dare For that Bread should bee Christs Body tropically figuratiuely they iest flout at and that it should be so literally and properly they flatly deny It is impossible saith your law that Bread should be the Body of Christ. And Bellarmine which sentence this is my body either must be vnderstood tropically that bread is the body of Christ significatiuely or it is altogether absurd and impossible for it cannot be that bread should
be the body of Christ. Now if bread neither tropically nor literally be Christs Body then doe not Papists beleeue Christ who according to Cyril saith of the bread This is my body Yea but Cyril farther saith Christ hath changed wine into his blood I grant but every change is not Transubstantiation Whatsoever the holy Ghost toucheth is sanctified and changed saith Cyril So is Water in Baptisme changed and so is Bread and Wine in the Eucharist yet neither by substraction of substance but addition of Grace as saith Theodoret. To Saint Hilary I answere that in the place by you quoted he speaketh not of the Eucharist and that therefore those words in the Sacrament inserted by way of Parenthesis into the text are but a Glosse not expounding but corrupting it Had he meant it of the Sacrament hee would never haue said No man shall be in him but he only in whom himselfe is hauing only taken his flesh into him who hath taken his What No man to be in him but hee only in whom himselfe is by the Sacrament God forbid for then all are out of Christ that receiue not the Eucharist and your selues hold not such an absolute necessity thereof Of the Mysticall Vnion therefore betweene Christ and vs doth he speake as also of the Spirituall eating of his Flesh and Drinking of his Blood whereby it is wrought and which as you know is as well done out of the Sacrament as in it Lastly to your Eusebius Emissenus I answere that if it be that ancient Bishop of Emesa in Syria mentioned by Saint Hierom in his Catalogue hee who florished vnder the Emperour Constantius and wrote many short Homilies vpon the Gospels then is his authority of no value For your owne Bellarmine and Possevin haue observed out of Hierom that he was a ring-leader of the Arian faction But indeed it is not the same Emissenus as the foresaid Bellarmine and Possevin together with Baronius and Canisius testify For the one wrote in Greeke the other in Latine the one died a good time before the Pelagian heresie sprang vp the other writeth against it If it be not he who is it then It is vncertaine saith Bellarmine Some Latine writer saith Sixtus Senensis who stitched these Rapsodies together out of the Latine Fathers and whose stile savoureth of Bede or Rabanus or some one like vnto them A Frenchman saith Canisius and Possevin and others yet can they not finde either in France or any part of Europe a place whence he should be called Emissenus One suspecteth him to be Faustus Rhegiensis another Caesaries Bishop of Arles a third ascribeth some of his Homilies to Eucherius some to Maximus and some to others Frier Walden citeth this very Homily here by you quoted vnder three severall names Isidore Eusebius Emisenus Anselme All which are but meere coniectures and there is no certainty either of his name or the time when he liued So that for ought wee know he may be some Monke or Frier who finding Emissenus to be an ancient writer thought good for the gracing of his doings to set them forth in his name a practise not vnusuall among them Howbeit be he never so Orthodox never so ancient that which he saith is little to your purpose For all he saith is but this wee may not doubt that Christs flesh is truly meat and his blood truly drinke forasmuch as himselfe affirmeth it So saith Ambrose so Leo so Epiphanius and it is already answered in the generall to which I referre you N. N. And the Fathers farther affirming that not by Faith only or in figure or image or spiritually alone the flesh of Christ is to be eaten by vs but really substantially and corporally Not only by Faith saith Chrysostome but in very deed he maketh vs his Body reduceing vs as it were into one masse or substance with himselfe And Saint Cyril not only by faith and Charity be wee spiritually conioyned vnto Christ by his Flesh in the Sacrament but corporally also by communication of the same flesh And Saint Chrysostome againe Not only by loue but in very deed are wee converted into his flesh by eating the same And Saint Cyril againe wee receauing in the Sacrament corporally and substantially the Sonne of God vnited naturally vnto his Father wee are clarified and glorified thereby and made partakers of his supreame nature Thus they I. D. That which you would or should proue is that Christs body is in the Sacrament after a corporall manner and by way of Transubstantiation That where by you endeavour to proue it is the testimony of those Fathers who affirme that Christs flesh is really substantially and corporally conioyned vnto vs by the Sacrament But betweene these two there is great distance neither doth that any way follow vpon this Wee all saith the Apostle S. Paul are by one spirit baptized into one body Wherevpon Saint Augustine baptisme availeth to this that they which are baptized be incorporated into Christ. And Leo he that is receaued of Christ and receaueth Christ is not the same after washing that he was before baptisme but the body of the regenerate man is made the flesh of him that was crucified In regard whereof the foresaid Apostle sticketh not to say wee are Christ. And accordingly Saint Augustine Let vs reioyce and giue thankes that wee are made not only Christians but Christ. By all which it is evident that we are as really substantially and corporally vnited vnto Christ in Baptisme as we are in the Lords Supper And yet I hope you will not therevpon inferre a Reall presence in Baptisme If not why should you presume to doe it in the Lords Supper For there is no more reason for the one Sacrament then for the other Certainly if the only way of vniting vs really vnto Christ be by receauing this Sacrament then woe vnto all those who being Baptized dyed before they could receaue it For it is impossible for any man to be saued by Christ vnlesse first he be really made one with him But let vs breefely examine your witnesses Saint Chrysostome saith Not by faith only but indeed he maketh vs his body and Not only by loue but indeed are we converted into his flesh What literally and in proper signification so as wee are reduced into one masse or lumpe with him Or that by receauing the Communion wee are really substantially and corporally transubstantiated into the very Body of Christ I know you cannot conceaue so rudely and grosly of him and least you should he himselfe qualifieth and tempereth the vehemence of his speech with an as it were reducing vs as it were into one masse In which words alluding to that of the Apostle we are one loafe and one body and explicating the same What speake I saith he of communication wee are that selfe-same body For what is bread The body of Christ. And what are they made
enough to be numbred among the ancient Fathers In regard whereof as also because of those many shamefull errors and fabulous narrations every where appearing in his writings hee is one of little or no authority in the Church of God He was the first that removed the bounds of the ancient Doctors in this matter bringing in sundry new strange terms never heard of in former times the misvnderstanding of which by little and little prepared a way to that deformed monster of Transubstantiation Neverthelesse it is certaine that howsoever many of his speeches may seeme harsh and inconvenient and great advantage hath beene taken of them that way yet himselfe was cleane of another mind Let vs therefore heare what hee saith It is made saith hee by the Holy Ghost even as our Lord made for himselfe a body out of the Virgin mother If so then is it not made by Transubstantiation for Christ assuming a body turned not his Deity into it Yet was the worke of the Holy Ghost necessary for he alone is able to sanctify the Naturall element and to invest them with Supernaturall graces The same saith he of Baptisme He hath ioyned the Grace of the Holy Ghost to oile and water and hath made it the washing of Regeneration And Leo yet more fully vsing the selfe-same comparison Christ gave vnto water that which he gaue vnto his mother for the power of the most high and over shaddowing of the holy Ghost which made that Mary brought forth the Saviour hath made water to regenerate the beleeuer Whereby you see that the same power of Gods Spirit by which the blessed Virgin conceived may be emploied in a Sacrament without that change and conversion that you imagine of And that Damascen though hee aknowledged a change of the Bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ yet was not acquainted with your change may appeare by these words Because it is the manner of men to eat bread and to drinke wine with water he hath conioyned his divinity with them and made them his body and blood that by vsuall things and which are according to nature we might be setled in these things that are aboue nature Here you see hee conioyneth the Divinity with bread and wine Now coniunction is only of those things that are and haue a being Bread and Wine therefore still are If they be then are they not abolished And if they be not abolished then is Transubstantiation gone Adde herevnto that Accidents without Substance are not Vsuall things nor according to Nature and therefore not they but true bread and true Wine are the things which in Damascens judgement raise vs vp to those things that are aboue Nature But of him enough N. N. The perishing meat and pleasures of this world please me not I long for Gods Bread the heauenly Bread the bread of life which thing is the flesh of Christ the Sonne of God I. D. That Ignatius wrote an Epistle to the Romans both Eusebius and Hierom testify and that this which now passeth vnder that title may be the right Epistle I deny not Howbeit it is confessed of all that those Epistles which are granted to be his are not come vnto our hands perfect For some passages are cited out of them by some of the ancients as Hierom Theodoret and others which now are not found in them and some are manifestly corrupted and depraved as appeareth So that if Baronius and Bellarmine might challenge them of corruption in those places which make for Saint Pauls marriage and against halfe Communions I hope I haue as much liberty to challenge the place by you alleaged if it made any thing against vs. But it needs not for Ignatius speaketh not there of the Sacrament and therefore it maketh nothing to the purpose Neither doth it follow The bread is flesh Ergo by Transubstantiation N. N. We ought so to communicate with our Lords table that wee doubt nothing of the verity of his Body and Bloud seeing he said Except yee eat the Flesh of the Son of man c. I. D. Leo disputeth in this place against the Eutychians who denied the truth of Christs body and thus he argueth The Eucharist is a symboll of the body of Christ Ergo Christ hath a true body and whosoever will rightly communicate must nothing doubt thereof So reasoneth also Theodoret. For Orthodoxus demanding whether Bread and Wine were Symbols of the true body blood of Christ or no and being answered yea he thus concludes If the divine mysteries be samplars of the true body then the body of the Lord is now also true and not changed into the nature of the Divinity Hence may you see the weaknesse of your Argument Communicants may not doubt that Christ hath a true body or if you will that the true body of Christ is in the Eucharist Ergo bread is transubstantiated into body Ridiculous N. N. As therefore our Baptisme is made by reall washing with water and reall renewing of the Holy Ghost so now in the Supper of Christ it behooueth wee bee really fed with the fruit of the tree of life which is none other thing besides the flesh of Christ. I. D. If we yeelded Euthymius vnto you the matter were not great For he liued vpward of eleven hundred yeares after Christ and your owne Chronologers place him after Gratian and Peter Lombard Yet what saith hee It behooueth that in the supper wee be really fed with the flesh of Christ. Really fed Who doubteth of it But you are to know that Reall doth not necessarily import your Carnall manner For Spirituall is also Reall vnlesse you will say a spirit is no thing N. N. It is a remembrance of Christs death by the presence of the body which died It is the Body and Bloud of Christ covered from our eyes revealed to our Faith feeding presently our body and soule to everlasting life I. D. This Nicephorus also liued eleauen hundred yeares after Christ and therefore is none of the Fathers nor of any great authority Neither doth that which hee saith conclude your purpose For Christs Body may bee and is present Sacramentally and to our faith and presently feed both soules and bodies to everlasting life and yet Bread and Wine remaine still in the Sacrament Else where hee calleth the outward Elements symbolls and signes of the Passion of Christ. If symbolls and signes then not the Body it selfe N. N. They receiue not the fruit of Saluation in the eating of the healthfull sacrifice They eat the healthfull Sacrifice which surely is nothing else but the naturall body of Christ but the frute they receiue not As many men take an healthfull medicine but because their bodies bee evill affected it proueth not healthfull to them I. D. Thus you reason The healthfull Sacrifice is the naturall body of Christ Ergo Bread by Transubstantiation is made the body of Christ. How
the best hand Games are but matters of Recreation I answere and first to the Maior negatiuely For although in Extraordinary lots wherein there is an expectation of Gods immediat providence for direction it is fit by prayer to craue the same of God yet in those Ordinary lots wherein it is not materiall which way they fall and no notable inconvenience can ensue thereof it is not necessary so to doe The confirmation which you bring for your Maior is authority negatiuely in point of Fact which is a meere Sophisticall Elench of no validity Wherein also you take for granted that which cannot bee yeelded without much folly nor demanded without much impudence namely that whatsoever the Saints did is recorded in Scripture which wee haue shewed to be farre otherwise Vnto the Minor and the proofe thereof I say no more but this that as all other our actions so our Gaming also is sanctified vnto vs by Prayer Not that at the commencement of every act a man is bound to put himselfe on his knees and to make his particular addresses vnto God for the morning sacrifice through the acceptation of God is sufficient to that end and stretcheth it selâ—e to all the daies actions Although I deny not but as at our meales so also in the beginning and closing vp of our play wee may with short eiaculations both craue a blessing vpon our recreation and praise him for the same But as touching the fall of the lot in our games because it is like hearb Iohn in a pot of broth doing neither good nor harme I hold it as inconvenient to pray for it as it is to pray for good successe at a match of bowles For as for those who adventure at play more then they can well spare without disabling themselues they passe beyond their bounds and offend against the rule of moderation in play Yet if such a one finding his rashnesse and sincerely resoluing not to commit such an errour againe shall in his heart entreat God to free him from the present danger I thinke such prayer should not be vnlawfull to him N. N. Fiftly a Lot is a thing that belongs to the art of Divinity and can be defined no where but there nor handled by any other way Wee may as I thinke sport our selues with any thing that belongs to any other art or recreate our selues in iest by any rules of any other art But thus wee must not doe with any thing or rule that belongs to Divinity we may not meddle with Divine things in light matters the Majesty of God and them requires more respect at the hands of Creatures The King nor any of his Lawes may not bee dallied with by the Subiect how much more is the Creature being but sinfull dust and ashes bound to his Creator being a consuming fire which wicked men make light of yea make sport with oathes vowes prayer the Sabbath the Sacraments and the Word of God For they will sweare vow pray without serious consideration they will for their pleasures sake breake the holy day of the Sabbath they vse the Sacraments as a matter of custome and fashion not of Conscience else the Dog would not so soone turne againe to his vomit And as for the Word of God he is commended for the best wit that can breake the most savory iests in the repeting of some phrase of Scripture We say it is no iesting with edgtooles and all say non est bonum ludere cum Sanctis yet what is wicked mens practise else with any Divine thing To follow whose example is farre vnbeseeming the humility and gravity of Gods professed servants DEFENCE Your reason is to be reduced into this forme or syllogisme That which belongs to the art of Divinity and can no otherwhere bee defined or handled may not bee sported withall or medled with in light matters But a lot belongs to the art of Divinity and can no otherwhere bee handled or defined Ergo it may not be sported withall or medled with in light matters In the proofe of the Maior you enlarge your selfe very much discoursing of the Maiesty of God and divine things and what respect is due to them from the creatures Then with many words you inveigh against all those wicked ones who make a Game of Oaths Vowes Prayer Sacraments Sabbath Scripture and what not In all which I readily joyne with you and had you prest it much farther and with more vehemence you could never haue offended mee The only thing that I dislike is that you bestow so much paines in maintaining that which no man denies and spare it there where it greatly needed I meane vpon the confirmation of your Minor What Did you thinke you should be taken for another Pythagoras Or that your owne bare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would be of sufficient authority Verily either it was great dimnesse of sight if you foresaw not the Assumption would be denied or if you foresaw it extreame negligence or weaknesse that you endeavoured not to proue it Your Assumption therefore I deny That a Lot belongs to the art of Divinity and is there to be defined handled If you aske a reason of the deniall you may know I am not bound to render it your place is not to aske questions but to proue what you affirme Neverthelesse the reason is this because the termes of the definition belong not vnto Divinity Not the Genus which is a Chance or Casuall event for that belongs vnto the Metaphysicks as also doth Necessity Not the Forme which is the applying of the chance to resolue a doubt for that belongs vnto Pollicie or Morality If you foist any other thing into the Definition whatsoever it be it is superfluous and impertinent But why should any man thinke that it pertaines to a Divine to define a lot Is it because there is in them a Divine providence So is there also in Chesse Bowles and all other things whether serious or lusory yet are they not therefore Theologicall Is it because there is in them an immediat providence So indeede you dreame but wee haue already clearly demonstrated the contrary Is it then because they haue beene vsed in holy and religious businesses So is bread and wine and water also vsed yet I hope you will not say that the Definition of these things is proper to Divinity or that wee may not play with them and vse them in light matters Every applying of a creature vnto a holy end is not by and by an appropriating thereof vnto that end neither doth God by his Extraordinary vsing of a thing barre vs ever after from the Ordinary and naturall vse thereof And thus you see that as good reason may be rendred to the contrary so iust reason for it you can render none why the defining of a lot should be so confined to Divinity Yet one word more with you ere I leaue this point For I must entreat leaue to plucke you by the eare
deserueth with no other then equal disdaine and contempt For it hath abundantly beene manifested to the world that as in the goodnesse of our cause wee are every way superiour vnto you so in all kinde of learning both Humane and Divine wee are no way inferiour to the best of you Howbeit seeing I am put in good hope by some of your best friends that you carry a minde prepared to imbrace the truth if at any time it shall bee discouered vnto you and your selfe haue freely professed vnto mee that your meaning is not any way to contest with me but only to be instructed by me I am content laying aside all advantages whatsoever to enter the lists with you by framing vp a short yet full answere to endeauour your best satisfaction God grant that as it is intended so it may redound first to his glory and then to the reducing of your straying soule from the servitude of Babylon into the liberty of Ierusalem which is from aboue and the right Mother of all true Beleeuers N. N. Catholike grounds for the Article of the Real Presence I. D. This title prefixed vnto your Writing intimateth that you craue resolution in the article as you terme it of the Real Presence and the Grounds thereof For the better performance whereof and to cleare the way of all rubs before vs you may be pleased to know that we denie not either the Presence or the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Not the Presence For seeing therein his Body is delivered receaued eaten as the Scriptures testifie and that can no way be deliuered receaued eaten which is every way absent we cannot but beleeue with the heart confesse with the mouth that Christ is present Nor the Reall presence For seeing Eating betokeneth our Vnion and Incorporation with Christ whereby we are so closely joyned and joynted vnto him that wee are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones certainely vnlesse wee will question either the power of Faith or whether God be able to worke such an effect we cannot well doubt but that the Presence is True and Real not Imaginarie and Fained According herevnto S. Chrysostome Christ offereth himselfe vnto vs in these Mysteries not onely to bee seene but also to be touched and felt And S. Augustin We cannot with our hand feele Christ sitting in heauen but by Faith we may touch him Agreeing therefore in the Thing that there is a Real Presence wherein lies the difference betwixt vs It lies partly in the Manner of Presence and partly in the kinde of Change whereby the Presence is wrought As touching the Manner of Presence wee acknowledge it to bee double the one Sacramentall the other Spirituall The sacramentall is a Relatiue Presence of the thing signified vnto the signes partly for that they are significatiue represent Christ vnto vs even as the word spoken vnto the eare represents the thing signified thereby vnto the minde and partly because they are Exhibitiue God in them offering vs his Sonne vpon condition of Faith And in regard hereof it may also well be called a Pactionall presence The spirituall is a presence of Christ vnto the Faith of the Receauer or which is all one vnto the Receauer by Faith whereby we seeke him not here on earth in with or vnder the Accidents of bread but aloft in heauen where hee sitteth at the right hand of his father For where the carcase is thither saith Christ will the Eagles resort Whence S. Chrysostome He must climbe vp on high whosoeuer commeth to this Body And S. Augustine How shall I convay my hand into heauen that I may hold him sitting there Send thy faith thither and thou holdest him Now if any farther demand how this sacramentall and spirituall presence is wrought I answere it is done by a Change in the Elements of Bread and Wine By a change I say yet not of their Nature and Substance but of their Vse and Vertue For they are now no longer common but consecrated Bread and Wine ordained by Christ to bee effectuall symbols and Pledges of our Vnion and Communion with his Flesh and Bloud So saith Theodoret The visible symbols hath hee honoured with the name of his Body and Bloud not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature And so the rest of the Fathers But all this little contents you except withall we yeeld you a Corporall and Locall Presence of Christ vnder the Accidents of Bread and Wine and that by way of Transubstantiation Transubstantiation a terme as lately devised so also inconvenient Lately deuised for it is but foure hundred yeares old or thereabouts bâ—ing forged in the Lateran councell vnder Innocent the third Inconvenient for properly it imports a Productiue kinde of Conversion by which one Substance is produced out of another or whereby one Substance is turned into another such as was the turning of Water into Wine by the power of Christ at Cana in Galilee But you vnderstand thereby an Adductiue kinde of Conversion by which as Bellarmine defineth it the Body of Christ which before was only in heaven is now also vnder the Accidents of Bread So that more fitly it might haue beene tearmed Cession or Succession or Substitution or Translocation or some such like rather then Transubstantiation the meaning you giue vnto it being no other then a succeeding of Christs Body into the roome of Bread vpon the abolishing of the Substance thereof Yet is it not so much the Newnesse and Inconvenience of the terme as the Impietie of the Doctrine intended thereby which we condemne For it crosseth the truth of Scripture ouerturneth the Articles of Faith destroyeth the Nature of a Sacrament gainesayeth the perpetuall consent of antiquity and implieth in it innumerable contradictions all which God willing shall in due place be demonstrated In the meane season hauing thus briefly stated the Question I come now to examine the particulars of your Writing and whether the passages you quote in such abundance reach home to that Corporall and Locall Presence which you hold or passe no farther then that Sacramentall and Spirituall Presence which we maintaine N. N. The first ground that Catholike men haue for these and all their mysteries of Christian Faith that are aboue the reach of common sense and reason is the Authority of the Catholike Church by which they were taught the same as Points of Faith revealed from God I. D. If by the first Ground you vnderstand the first introduction vnto Faith I grant the Authority of the Catholike Church to be the first ground that by it wee are taught the same But if thereby you meane as vndoubtedly you doe that highest Principle into which all the Mysteries of Faith are finally resolued and by which the Mind is staied and freed from farther doubting I deny the Catholike Church so to be the first ground For as Bellarmine truly writeth Faith beginneth from
Sacramentaries imagine this Sacrament to be only the creatures of Bread and Wine I would faine knowe whom you vnderstand by these Sacramentaries If the Church of England it is a loud vntruth For we acknowledge that the Sacrament consisteth of two things the one Earthly the other Heavenly as Irenaeus speaketh that is of the outward Elements and the Lords Body If there be any other who imagin as you say spare them not let them hardly be called Sacramentaries But know withall that we detest both them you them for retaining no more then the signes you for excluding them and establishing nothing but Shewes Accidents insteed of them In regard whereof they may iustly requite you with the name of Accidentaries N. N. And if Protestants will say for an evasion as they doe that their Bread is not Common Bread but such Bread being eaten and receaued by Faith worketh the effect of Christs Body in them and bringeth them his Grace Catholikes answer that so did the Figures and Sacraments also of the old Testament being receaued by Faith in Christ to come as the ancient Fathers and Preachers receaued thē And forasmuch as Protestants doe farther hold that there is no difference betweene the vertue and efficacie of those old Sacraments and ours which Catholikes deny it must needs follow that both Catholikes and Protestants agree that the Fathers of the old Testament beleeued in the same Christ to come that we doe now being come their Figures and Shadowes must be as good as our truth in the Sacrament that was prefigured if it remaine Bread still after Christs institution and Consecration I. D. Here least wee should escape your hands by some one Evasion or other you endeavor very diligently to block vp the passage against vs. For whereas your Argument was that vnlesse Christ be really present in the Sacrament the Iewish Figures are as good as our truth you bring vs in answering thereto that our Bread is not Common Bread but such as being eaten by Faith worketh the Effect of Christs Body and bringeth Grace Indeed we say that our Sacramentall Bread is not Common Bread and we farther confesse that whosoeuer receaueth the same worthily eateth withall the Body of Christ and receaueth Grace But we neuer say it in answer to your Objectiō neither cā we with any reason For wee are not ignorant that the signes also in the old Sacraments were not Common or Profane things but sanctified and set apart to holy vses and that being receaued by Faith they were thereby partakers of Christ and all his benefits as well as we The right answer wee giue is by denying the consequence our Sacraments as wee haue shewed many waies excelling those of the old Testament though there be no Transubstantiation at all So that this is not an Evasion as you say of ours but rather a fiction and device of yours to the end you may seeme to prevaile in something being not able to gainesay the true Answer But Catholikes you say deny the old Sacraments that Vertue and efficacie which they grant to the new I know they doe For they hold that the new Sacraments justifie and conferre Grace by the very work done without any respect to the merit or Faith of the receauer which the old Sacraments did not But hereby you vtterly overthrow your owne Argument For how doth this follow vnlesse there be a Real Presence our sacraments excell not seeing in your owne opinion they are farre more Vertuous and Effectual then those of the old Covenant Howbeit this Tenent of yours is too palpably absurd for it giueth vnto the creature a divine vertue of percing into the soul and cleansing the sinnes thereof which is proper vnto God And if the word preached profit vs nothing vnlesse it be mingled with Faith no nor the Flesh of Christ it selfe except it be eaten by Faith how can it be imagined that Water or Bread or any other Sacramentall Element should availe vnto Iustification without any respect vnto Faith at all Herevnto agree the Fathers S. Hierom Man only applyeth water but God the holy spirit by whom ou◠filthinesse is cleansed the sinnes of bloud are purged And S. Augustine Without this sanctification of invisible grace what doe the visible sacraments availe That visible Baptisme which wanted invisible sanctification nothing profited Simon Magus And againe Water clenseth the heart the word effecting it not because it is spoken but beleeued But of this enough N. N. But Catholike Fathers did vnderstand the matters far otherwise And to allege one for all for that hee spake in the sense of all in those daies S. Hierom talking of one of those foresaid Figures to wit of the shew-Bread and comparing it with the thing figured and by Christ exhibited saith thus There is so much difference betweene the Shew-bread and the body of Christ prefigured thereby as there is difference betweene the shadow and the Body whose shadow it is and betweene an image and the truth which the image representeth and betweene certaine shapes of things to come and the things themselues prefigured by those shapes And thus of Figures and presignifications of the old Testament I. D. To what end this passage of St Hierom To proue our Sacraments to be of greater vertue efficacy then those of old This indeed should be your conclusion but St Hieroms words inferre it not For hee compareth the Shew-bread not with the bread in the Eucharist but with Christs body betwixt which I confesse there is as maine a difference as there is betwixt the Shaddow and the Body But I beseech you is there not as great a difference betweene water in Baptisme and the Blood of Christ or bread in the Eucharist and the Body of Christ Doubtlesse there is for they are all but figures of the same Verity namely Christ. Whereas therefore you argue thus Hierom preferreth the body of Christ vnto Shew-bread as farre as the substance exceedeth the shadow Ergo our Sacraments are more vertuous then those of old or if you will for indeed I know not well what you would conclude Ergo the body of Christ is really present by transubstantiation it is a miserable non sequitur and without either rime or reason For vpon the same ground I may aswell inferre the contrary thus Christs body excells Eucharisticall Bread as much as the substance doth the shadow Ergo Shew-bread and the old Sacraments are more vertuous then ours The maine error is that you tye the Body of Christ vnto our new Sacraments if not vnto the Eucharist only whereas indeede he is the Truth of all Sacraments both old and new and therefore is alike present and powerfull in them all to all that beleeue as contrarily to the incredulous and vnbeleeuers his Grace is alike vneffectuall And thus much of your first Argument N. N. The opinion of the ancient Fathers grounded vpon the Scriptures as vpon those speeches of our Saviour This is
my body that shall bee giuen for you My flesh is truly meat and my blood is truly drinke the bread that I shall giue you is my flesh for the life of the world and other like sentences of our Savioâ—r I. D. Your second Argument is drawne from the opinion of the ancient Fathers grounded vpon the Scriptures An invincible and irrefragable Argument if you bee able to make it good For who is hee that dares withstand so great Authority as is that of the Fathers backt with Scripture But bragge is a good dogge as they say and it behooueth you to cracke and boast of much least otherwise you be thought to be destitute of all For I will be bold to affirme that neither you nor your author shall ever be able to proue any one of the ancient Fathers whether with Scripture or without to bee of your side in this present point Those that you pretend to make for you wee shall examine as they offer themselues in order And as for grounding their opinion vpon Scripture neither could they doe so seeing they never dreamed of your Reall presence neither doe the particular places by you vouched import any such thing The first place This is my body shall hereafter at large be vnfolded the rest as is already demonstrated speake not a word of the Sacrament but only of Spirituall eating If the Fathers either in their Homilies or Commentaries alledge these words discoursing of the Eucharist it maketh nothing against vs. For seeing Christ is Spiritually eaten not only out of the Sacrament but in it also and Spirituall eating cannot well be expressed but by tearmes borrowed from Bodily eating no marvell if the ancient Fathers speaking of the Sacrament accomodate these words and the rest in the sixt of Iohn thereunto N. N. The Fathers doe not only vrge all the circumstances here specified or signified to proue it to be the true naturall Body of Christ as that it was to be giuen for vs the next day after Christs words were spoken that it was to bee given for the life of the whole world and that it was truly meat and truly Christs flesh but doe adde also divers other circumstances of much efficacy to confirme the same affirming the same more in particular that it is the very Body which was borne of the blessed Virgin the very same Body that suffered on the Crosse. The selfe-same body saith St Chrysostome that was nailed beaten crucified blouded wounded with a speare is receiued by vs in a Sacrament Whereunto St Augustine addeth this particularity that it is the selfe-same that walked here among vs vpon earth As he walked here in earth saith he among vs so the very selfe-same flesh doth he giue to bee eaten and therefore no man eateth that flesh but first adoreth it And Hesychius addeth that hee gaue the selfe-same Body whereof the Angell Gabriel said to the Virgin Mary that it should be conceiued of the Holy Ghost And yet farther It is the same body saith St Chrysostom that the Major or learned men did adore in the manger but thou doest see him saith he not in the manger but on the Altar not in the armes of a woman but in the hands of a Priest The very selfe-same flesh saith St Augustine againe that â—ate at the table in the last supper washed his Disciples feete the very same I say did Christ giue with his owne hands to his Disciples when he said Take eate this is my body c. and so did he beare himselfe in his owne hands which was prophecied of David but fulfilled only by Christ in that supper These are the particularities vsed by the Fathers to declare what Body they meane and can there be any more effectuall Speeches then these I. D. Pliny in one of his Epistles adviseth him that would be a Writer oftentimes to looke backe vnto the title of his Booke and to consider what his drift and purpose is least ere he be aware he step aside and fall vpon things impertinent Which wise and prudent counsell of his had you duly regarded I perswade my selfe you would not haue spoken so little to the purpose as in this section you haue done For out of all these sayings of the Fathers you conclude no more but this that the true naturall flesh of Christ which was borne of the blessed virgin conversed among vs here on earth and suffered on the crosse c. is present in the Sacrament which who denies Certainly none of our side for wee all freely confesse the same together with you So that the difference betwixt you and vs lies not in the thing it selfe but in the Manner nor whether Christ be present but how and in what sort hee is present Two waies say wee he is present Sacramentally Spiritually as is aboue already declared And this Presence wee affirme to be so strait and neere that wee are thereby bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh But the Presence that you maintaine is a Corporalland Locall Presence of the Flesh of Christ vnder the Accidents of Bread and Wine and that by way of Transubstantiation And this is the point which you haue vndertaken to proue out of the Fathers and to which you ought to speake but in this place you performe it not For how doth this follow The Fathers say that true Christ is present Ergo they say he is present Corporally Locally and by way of Transubstantiation Certainly not at all for hee may otherwise be Present namely Sacramentally as wee hold and Spiritually Neither shall your Author with all his wit and skill ever bee able to make good this or the like consequence from the thing to the manner And thus much for answere in generall Particularly St Chrysostome saith the selfe-same Body which was crucified c. is receaued by vs. But how In a Sacrament that is Sacramentally and by Faith Even as in Baptisme we are made partakers of the Blood of Christ and the power of the Holy Ghost not by a Reall presence or Transubstantiation of Water into them but only as St Chrysostome here speaketh in a Sacrament The which comparison I vse the rather because it is the Fathers own who elsewhere saith that it is in the Lords supper as it is in Baptisme wherein by the sensible element of water the gift is bestowed and that which is intelligible to wit regeneration and renovation is performed The Reddition whereof must needs be this that in like manner by the sensible creatures of Bread and Wine the gift is giuen we are made partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ to the Spirituall nourishment of our soules By which proportion it seemeth that as the one is effected without Transubstantiation so is the other also Your next Author is Saint Augustine who saith that the same Flesh which walked here among vs doth he giue to be eaten True but to bee eaten by Faith not by the mouth For
in Rupertus himselfe by way of Impanation N. N. Let vs therefore beleeue God alwaies and not repine against him although that which he saith seemeth absurd to our sense and vnderstanding Let his words surmount and passe both our sense and reason which thing wee ought to doe in all things but chiefly in the mystâ—ries having more regard vnto his words then to things which lye before vs. For his words are infallible but our sense may very easily be deceaued they cannot possibly bee false but this sense of ours is many and sundry times beguiled Seeing therefore he said This is my Body let vs haue no doubt but beleeue and behold it with the eyes of our vnderstanding I. D. Whatsoeuer Christ saith must be beleeued although to our sense and reason it seeme neuer so vnlikely This I grant for he is truth it selfe and can neither deceaue nor be deceaued But Christ saith This is my body And this also I grant for they are part of the words of Institution Ergo these words must be beleeued And let them bee esteemed as Gentiles and Publicans that beleeue them not But what meaneth he when he saith Let vs behold it with the eyes of our vnderstanding In the words immediatly following he declareth it thus Christ deliuered no sensible thing vnto vs but by sensible things things intelligible And this he illustrats by the Sacrament of baptisme So also in baptisme saith hee by water a thing sensible the gift is giuen but that which is wrought namely Regeneration and Renovation is intelligible By all which you may easily see what St Chrysostome intendeth namely to draw our eyes from the sensible Obiect vnto the spirituall and Intelligible Grace exhibited to our vnderstanding by it as knowing that Water and bread are now become instruments in the hand of Christ of the spirituall Renovation and Refection of our soules Which as it is effected in Baptisme without the Transubstantiation of Water so for ought St Chrysostome saies it may bee done in the Lords supper also without Transubstantiation of bread N. N. What wil you say then if I shew you that so many of vs as be partakers of the holy mysteries doe receaue a thing farre greater then that which Elias gaue For Elias left vnto his Disciples his cloake but the sonne of God ascending into heauen left with vs his Flesh. And againe Elias went himselfe without his cloake but Christ left his flesh with vs and ascended hauing with him the selfe-same Flesh. I. D. Here Christ ascending into heauen and carrying his true flesh with him is compared to Elias who also ascended and carried his flesh thither with him But the flesh that he left here with vs is compared to Elias cloake which he left with Elizeus And the comparison standeth thus that as the Cloake which Elias left was a symbol of the spirit and Vertue which fell from him vpon Elizeus so the mysticall elements in the Sacrament are pledges and tokens vnto vs of the true flesh of Christ in the Church Thus therefore is St Chrysostome to be vnderstood as if he had said Christ ascending carried his true flesh with him corporally into heaven and left his mysticall flesh here vnto vs spiritually in the Sacrament N. N. The supper then being prepared both old and new ordinances met together at the Sacramentall and mysticall delicates and the Lamb being consumed which the old tradition did set forth our Master setteth before his Disciples a meat which cannot be consumed Neither is the people invited now to sumptuous costly and artificiall banquets but the food of immortalitie is giuen which differeth from common meats keeping the outward form of the corporall substance but prouing declaring that there is present by an invisible and secret working the presence of a divine power I. D. Thâ— booke of the Cardinal workes of Christ divided into twelue Tracts among which this De coenâ Domini is one is none of Cyprians that was Bishop of Carthage Pamelius staggers For although the Words and phrases and figures and the like seeme vnto him to make for Cyprian yet he professeth that of certainety hee hath nothing to say But Possevine is peremptory that it is falsly fathered on Cyprian So is Sixtus Senensis also and Cardinal Bellarmine And they render reasons For that Cyprian never refused to set his name to his bookes which this Author doth Neither would hee haue called his writings Childish toyes or haue said that the sublimitie of Cornelius ought to be delighted with his stammering tongue Nor finally would he haue vsed so many barbarismes nor haue written things contrary to himselfe As for this particular Tract de coenâ Domini Bellarmin ingeniously acknowledgeth that not Cyprian but some one later then hee wrote it Howbeit they all conclude that the Author of these Tracts is ancient How ancient It is cleare saith Pamelius that this booke was written in the time of Cornelius and Cyprian and therefore deserueth the same authoritie with Cyprian Nay not so saith Bellarmine for the Author thereof is later then Cyprian yea without doubt later then S. Augustine that is a hundred and fifty yeares yonger then Cyprian at least And who certainely knoweth but he may yet be much younger then so In the Library of All Soules College in Oxford there is a Manuscript very ancient of all these Tracts vnder the name of Arnoldus Bonavillacensis dedicated not to Cornelius as it is now falsely inscribed but to Hadrian the fourth the which Arnoldus liued not much lesse theÌ„ twelue hundred yeares after Christ. Which inscription if it be true as it is not vnlikely then is not this author the man you tooke him for namely that graue Father and Martyr as in the next Section you tearme him to wit St Cyprian If false yet because it is vncertaine who he is and in what age he liued his authority cannot be of of any great value Neverthelesse whatsoeuer he be let vs in a word or two examine his testimonie And first be it obserued that all the Presence hee speaketh of in these words is but the Presence of divine vertue or power which falleth short of that Real Presence of the naturall Body of Christ which you intend But after the Lambe saith Cyprian was consumed our Lord set before his Disciples an inconsumptible meat which cannot be Bread Indeed it cannot and who saith it is For the meat that cannot be consumed is the Body of Christ offered and exhibited in the Sacrament together with Bread And this is also that food of immortalitie which hee speaketh of represented and figured vnto vs by Bread it being so truly Bread sacramentally But it followeth differing from common meats and keeping the forme of bodily substance and these happily are the words which you thinke strikes all dead What for Transubstantiation Suppose then your Author had said The water in Baptisme differeth from common water
of names only insteed of the Whole ranke of Fathers bearing witnesse and giuing evidence for you I hope as it ought so it will proue a sufficient Retentiue against your Motiue This that it may yet more plainely appeare giue me leaue before I conclude to recapitulate what hath beene said and as it were in a briefe Synopsis to lay before your eyes the weaknesse and impertinence of all your allegations First you vouch the authority of some who are vehemently suspected even by your owne Rabbies not to bee the men whose names they beare and therefore cannot bee very authenticall Such are Ignatius Cyril of Hierusalem in his Catechismes Ambrose de Sacramentis my sterijs initiandis Eusebius Emissenus Cyprian de coenâ Domini the Canon of the Councell of Nice and Magnetes Againe some you alleage who by reason of their nonage deserue not to be reckoned in the number of the Fathers and so are too young to beare witnesse in these businesses Such are Damascen Theophylact Euthymius Nicephorus and Rupertus who besides his minority was also in this point little better then an Heretike Thirdly among the true Fathers some affirme the Sacraments of the old Testament to be Figures of ours Yet thereby they acknowledge no more Transubstantiation of bread into the Eucharist then of Water in Baptisme Fourthly others affirm that Christs true body is in the Sacrament and we affirm the same also But that hee is there corporally in such sort as you imagine they affirme not Fiftly they say that the bread is changed and made the body of Christ wee say the same with them But that it is done by a substantiall change of bread into body they say not Sixtly they forbid vs to doubt of Christs words to enquire the manner How We doubt not of them thinke the manner to be inexplicable But they say not that to reiect your grosse and Capernaiticall manner is to doubt of Christs truth Seauenthly some of them say it is not common Bread nor only a Figuration of Christs body and we readily yeeld vnto it But they say not that whatsoeuer is sanctified and more then figureth is therefore transubstantiated Lastly some say that the Vnion and Coniunction betweene Christ and vs is reall naturall and bodily We hold the same that we are bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh But they say not wee are so vnited by receaving Christs flesh into our mouthes nor deny but that it may be done by Faith without euer partaking of the Sacrament And this is the full summe of all whatsoeuer your witnesses testifie for you besides which they say nothing at all Whereby you may now easily perceaue how sleight and impertinent your Motiues are and how little cause of comfort your Catholikes haue in beholding them Rather you haue great cause to be ashamed confounded that haue suffered your selfe thus to bee deluded by your Author who to proue the subsistence of Accidents without subiect hath brought you nothing else but meere Shewes without substance But alas we poore Protestants are so farre from having the consent of all expositions and the whole ranke of Fathers standing by vs that wee haue not so much as one authority nor can produce any one at this day that expresly saith that Christs Real body is not in the sacrament or that it is only a Figure Signe or Token thereof I beseech you Sir and can you Papists produce any one of the Fathers that expressely saith Bread is transubstantiated into Christs body If you cannot and yet thinke it sufficient to vouch that which you conceaue to bee equivalent why doe you so vrge the word Expressely vpon vs doe not leaue vs that liberty which you assume vnto your selues But to leaue this advantage we freely confesse we cannot produce any one Father who either expresly or by consequence saith so Nay we farther say that they affirme the cleane contrary namely that Christs Real body is in the Sacrament and that it is not only a Figure Signe or Token thereof But be it knowne vnto you that wee affirme the same together with them and it is but your dreame to imagine otherwise For as oftentimes you haue heard we deny not the Presence of Christs Body but that manner of Presence which you obtrude vnto vs. Neither doe wee say that it is only a Figure for besides signification wee acknowledge that it also exhibiteth Christ Iesus himselfe and sealeth vp all his Promises vnto vs. As for those impertinent peeces of some Fathers speeches which you say we now and then pretend to alleadge I hope you shall by by finde them so pertinent and direct that your Author who ever he be with all his learning and skill shall never be able to satisfie them For now hauing fully answered and dispatched all what you haue said for your selfe in behalfe of Transubstantiation it remaineth that I performe the promise made you in the beginning and demonstrate that this Doctrine of yours first crosseth the truth of Scripture secondly overturneth the Articles of Faith thirdly destroyeth the nature of a Sacrament fourthly gainesayeth the perpetuall consent of antiquity and lastly implieth in it infinite contradictions I will finish all in as few words as I can First it crosseth the truth of Scripture I instance only in the words of institution which you so often vrge against vs This is my body Wherein I demand what that is wherevnto the article This hath reference For it must either be something or nothing If nothing as some of you say then is the Proposition thus to bee supplied Nothing is my Body then which what can be more palpably absurd If something I demand what Your common sort of Catholikes answer that which is contained vnder this But so the speech would bee Tropicall the Continent being put for that which is contained which hitherto you could never endure And I thinke neither in Scripture nor in any other writer whether sacred or prophane shall you be able to shew the like example where This is put for that which is vnder This. Yet he it so Then I againe demand what that is which is vnder this If you know it not then neither doe you knowe what it is that is turned into Christs Body If you knowe it let me entreat you to expresse it Certainely it must either bee Christs Body or Bread Christs Body it is not for that is not made vntill the last syllable of those words be spoken and therefore not assoone as the word This is vttered To say nothing that then the Proposition would be very ridiculous This is my Body that is My body is my body It is bread therefore and though your side for the most part will not haue it so yet will they nill they the meaning is and must be this This Bread is my Body for they cannot name at hird This may yet farther be demonstrated by the circumstances of the Text. For
called his bloud What words can bee more plaine And yet againe the Bloud of Christ cannot seeme to be in the cup when wine is wanting to the cup whereby the bloud of Christ is declared Athanasius He distinguished the spirit from the flesh that wee might learne that the things hee spake are not carnall but Spirituall For how many men would his Body haue sufficed that it might be the food of the whole world But therefore hee made mention of his ascension into heaven that hee might draw them from corporall vnderstanding and then might vnderstand his flesh whereof he spake to be meate from aboue the Heavenly and spirituall food which he would giue Here expresly he reiecteth the Corporall eating of Christs Body and acknowledgeth none other but that which is spirituall Eusebius Bishop of Cesaâ—ia Our Saviour and Lord first and then all the Priests that haue followed in all nations celebrating the spirituall divine service according to the ordinances of the Church signifie vnto vs by the Bread and Wine the mysteries of his body and bloud If they signify them they are not the same Macarius They knew not that in the Church Bread and Wine was to be offered as the anti-type of his flesh and bloud and that those who partake of the visible bread spiritually eat the flesh of the Lord. A knot of arguments Bread Wine are offered they are Anti-types of Christs Flesh and Bloud they are receiued of vs and the eating of Christs flesh is spirituall Your Cyril of Hierusalem As the Bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Ghost is no more common bread but the body of Christ so this holy ointment is no more bare and common ointment after it is consecrated but the gift of Christ. Not common bread saith hee yet bread and the body as the Ointment is the Grace of Christ. But Grace it is not by conversion into it for it remaineth ointment still but by accession of Grace vnto it Ambrose speaking of the miracles of the Prophets who changed the Nature of things and comparing therewith that which is done in the Sacrament as being nothing lesse at length concludeth It is no lesse to giue new natures vnto things then to change their natures plainely intimating that in the Sacrament Nature is not changed but some thing is added aboue Neture Wherefore else where hee saith in expresse tearmes If there bee so great force in the word of the Lord that they should beginne to bee what they were not how much more operatiue are they that they bee what they were and yet be changed into another thing Lo bread and Wine are changed yet remaine what they were changed therefore not in substance but in vse and signification Saint Basil in his Liturgy for him you make the author thereof He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of thy Maiesty on high who shall also come to render vnto every one according to his workes But hee hath left these Memorialls or monuments of his healthfull passion which wee set forth according to his commandement Hee is gone and hath left vs Memorialls of himselfe Ergo himselfe is not here For remembrance is of things past not present Gregory Nazianzen Now we shall bee partakers of the Passeouer but as yet in a figure though more cleare then in the old Law for the passeouer of the Law I will not be a fraid to say it was but a more obscure figure of a figure The Passeouer therefore in proper speech is not a figure of the Lords Supper but both of them are Figures of the death of Christ. Gregory Nyssen declaring the change of Water in Baptisme expresseth it by three similitudes of an Altar which being dedicated vnto Gods Worship of a common stone is made a holy table of Bread in the Eucharist which by Consecration is no longer common bread but the Body of Christ and of a Priest who of a vulgar and ordinary man is by the blessing made a teacher Prelate of divine mysteries Bread therefore is no more transubstantiated then Water in Baptisme the stone of the Altar or the Priest Cyril of Alexandria Doest thou say that our Sacrament is the eating of a man and doest thou Vrge our minde vnto the grosse thoughts that beleeued so and doest thou attempt with humane thoughts to handle those things which cannot bee receiued but only with a pure and exquisite faith The Flesh of Christ therefore is not eaten with the mouth for that were to eate a man but only with a pure Faith Epiphanius After he had given thankes he said This of mee is that and wee see that it is not equall nor like neither to the incarnate image nor the invisible Deity nor to the lineaments of his members For this is oblong or of roule fashion senselesse as concerning power If it bee vnequall to Christ and void of Sence then is it not Christ. Saint Chrysostome before consecration wee call it bread but Divine grace through the ministry of the Priest sanctifying it it is freed from the name of bread and counted worthy of the appellation of the Lords body although the nature of bread continue in it Behold the nature of bread remaineth after Consecration and yet it is called the Body of Christ. And againe If therefore it be dangerous to convert vnto private vses these sanctified vessels in which the true body of Christ is not but the mystery of Christs body is contained how much more the vessels of our body which God hath prepared to be an habitation for himselfe ought wee not to giue way vnto the Divell to doe in theÌ„ what he pleaseth Not the Body but the mysteries are contained in the vessels if so what becomes of your Reall presence Hierom The wicked nor eate the flesh of Iesus nor drinke his bloud But they eat and drinke the Eucharist Ergo it is not the Flesh and Bloud of Christ. Againe Wee may eate of that Sacrifice which is wonderfully made in commemoration of Christ but of that which Christ offered vpon the Altar of the Crosse no man may eate The Sacrifice then of the Sacrament is not that of the Crosse and the Body offered on the Crosse is not eaten in the Sacrament Saint Augustine The Apostles ate the Bread the Lord Iudas the bread of the Lord against the Lord. Againe He that disagreeth from Christ neither eateth the Flesh of Christ nor drinketh his Bloud although he daily receiue the Sacrament of so great a thing to iudgement Obserue the Bread of the Lord not that which is the Lord and the Sacrament of Christs Flesh and Bloud not his Flesh and Bloud So againe you shall not eate this body which you see nor drinke that bloud which my crucifiers shall shed I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament which spiritually vnderstood shall quicken you And yet againe
much strengthens and confirmes you I. D. By Catholike you still meane Roman for Catholike Roman are now growne convertible tearmes a mystery that the Primitiue Church never so much as dreamed of But what No outward face in England for so many hundred yeares together but Roman What face then I pray was it which it bare some 650 yeares since when the Saxon Homilie of Aâ—lfrick Abbot of Malmsbury not only agreeing with Bertram in this matter of the Sacrament but also for sundry passages expresly translated out of him was publikely appointed to be read vnto the people vpon Easter day before they receaued the Communion Or when the Bishops at their Synods deliuered vnto their Clergie the same doctrine out of two other writings of the same Aelfrick the one whereof saith thus That housel is Christs body not bodily but spiritually Not the body which hee suffered in but the body of which hee spake when he blessed the bread wine to housel the night before his suffering and said by the blessed bread this is my body and againe by the holy wine this is my blood c. The other likewise saith thus The Lord which hallowed housel before his suffering and saith that the bread was his owne body and the wine was truely his bloud halloweth dayly by the hand of the Priest bread to his body and wine to his blood in spirituall mystery as we read in bookes 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 Saviours bloud which was shed for vs in bodily thing but in spirituall vnderstanding Both bee truely that bread his body and that wine also his blood as was the heavenly bread which we call Manna that fed forty yeares Gods people and the cleare water which did then run from the stone in the wildernesse was truly his blood as Paul wrot in one of his Epistles Thus he Tell mee now good Sir was the face of the English Church Roman when such doctrine so crosse vnto Transubstantiation was by publike authority deliuered to the Clergie and commanded to be read vnto the people or was it at that time other then a Roman face truely Catholike and Orthodoxe You haue heard I suppose of those Christians whom anciently they tearmed Wâ—ldenses and Leonists Your Ranerius saith of them that they had beene of very long continuance even from Pope Sylvesters time or as some say ever since the Apostles so Vniversall also that there was scarce any country wherein they abounded not finally that where other Sects most fearefully blaspheamed God these made faire shew of religion liued honestly among men beleeued all things rightly touching God and all the Articles contained in the Creed onely they blaspheamed hated the Church of Rome What Was the face of this Church also Roman How so being so opposite vnto it Certainely it was rather the face of our Church For as your Poplinerius testifieth they differed very little from vs and in this point of the Sacrament they perfectly agreed with vs. It is true they were charged with many foule opinions but enviously and maliciously as appeareth by the publike Confessions of their Faith and by the testimonie of Cardinal Sadolet others who by commission were commanded to examin it It is true also that they were most barbarously and bloudily persecuted by the Roman Synagogue But what saith Michael Cesaenas who flourished some 250. yeares since There are two Churches the one of the wicked flourishing in which the Pope doth raigne the other of the godly afflicted Whence it plainely appeareth that there hath heretofore beene another face of the Church besides Roman if not visibly glorious yet at leastwise visibly persecuted You adde it is vncharitable to thinke that all this time there was no knowledge of the meaning of Scriptures and Fathers vntil Luther brought in the true light True neither is there any man that saith so Neverthelesse bee it spoken to the glory of God and the honour of the present times the meaning both of Scriptures and Fathers was never better knowne shall I say never so well knowne as now This I haue elsewhere proued both by the causes thereof and the testimonie of your owne men As for your nine hundred yeares questionles they were not the learned'st times The knowledge of languages quickly decayed and blindnesse and barbarisme crept in apace insomuch as by the testimonie of Genebrard Bellarmine Baronius there was never age more Vnlearned and vnhappy then the ninth Century wherein were no men famous either for wit or learning and whosoever studied the Mathematicks or Philosophie was presently counted a Magician Neither were some of the after times over much amended when the chiefest of their Schooles scarce knewe whether Saint Paul wrote in Greeke or in Latine as Ludovicus Vives saith and to haue skill in Greek was suspicious but in Hebrew almost heretical as Espencaeus But blessed be God who in the midst of these blindest times hath still preserued the light of his truth and though envy burst and split at it blessed be his holy name for that greater light of his Gospel which we haue receaued both by Luther and since Luther Hee was a noble champion of Christ Iesus and gat so much ground of the Papacie as I hope will never be recouered againe vntill by the brightnesse of our Lords comming it be vtterly destroyed If England in these latter times haue yeelded such learned men of your side you may be pleased to knowe that it hath afforded on our side also as learned Clarks in the knowledge of tongues all kind of literature whatsoever as any in your Church wheresoeuer if not excelling them Yea but yours were content to forgoe all their meanes and hopes for their conscience And did not ours trow you doe so also in Q. Maries daies Nay did not Archbishop Cranmer and sundry other Bishops to speake nothing of those of inferiour ranke chuse rather to loose their present honours and estates and themselues cruelly to be martyred in the fire then to perish their coÌ„sciences by subscribing vnto the Romish Apostacy As for your vnkle whose domestical example so much confirmes you I thinke hee was a man of no great note sure I am of no great fame either at home or abroad Yet were his deserts far greater I am not vnprovided of a domesticall example able every way to match him yea and over-match him too My mothers Brother I mean that vnvaluable Iewel whose name is renowned throughout all the Churches Who being Fellow of Corpus Christi Colledge in Oxford and Bachelour in Divinitie possessed also of a Benefice neere the Vniversitie and by reason of his eminence in learning as likely to rise as any yet hee readily forsooke Fellowship Friends Benefice Hopes and all for Christs sake and put himselfe into a voluntary exile all the raigne of Q. Mary
Body of Christ. This sheweth they thought the Sanctified Elements to be Christs Body no longer then they might serue for the comfortable instruction of the faithfull by partaking in them Here wee haue a plaine argument against Reservation and that the Fathers thought not the Elements properly to bee Christs body For had they so thought they would never haue burnt them He intimateth indeed that they thought the Elements to be the Body neither doth any deny it For as I haue shewed in my Answer they all vnderstood Christ as if he had said This bread is my Body But Bread in proper sense is not Christs Body nor cannot be as your owne Bellarmine confesseth How then Tropically only as Circumcision is the Covenant and Water in Baptisme Regeneration And so as St Augustine saith the Sacrament of Christs body is after a manner Christs body to wit Sacramentally the outward signe putting on the name of the thing Signified And whereas Dr Covel addeth that Gods Omnipotency maketh it his Body neither doth this import Transubstantiation For as you might haue learned out of my Answere no power is able to make a Sacrament and by earthly Creatures to convay vnto vs heavenly graces saue only that which is Omnipotent and Divine N. N. Sir Edwin Sands With Rome the Greeke Churches concurre in the opinion of Transubstantiation and generally in the Service and whole body of the Masse in offering of sacrifice and prayer for the dead their liturgies be the same that in the old time namely S. Basils S. Chrysostoms S. Gregories translated And another among all these nations Greece Asia Africa Ethiopia Armenia c. all places are full of Masses there be seaven Sacraments c. I. D. Ergo what That the Knight vnderstands the Fathers as you doe Ridiculous For the now Grecians are not the ancient Fathers Or thus therefore you are in the right Absurd for they are in your opinion but Schismaticks and Hereticks Yet saith the Knight they hold Transubstantiation He saith so indeed but by his leaue I much doubt thereof For the Patriarch Ieremy expresly saith that when our Saviour said take eat this is my body and my bloud the flesh of the Lord which he carried about him was not given to the Apostles to eat nor his bloud to drinke nor is now in the divine celebration of those mysteries What then Surely an extraordinary bread which yet is his Body but how saith hee a thousand tongues are not sufficient to vtter As farre as I can conceaue this they hold that the matter of the Bread still remaineth and the Body of Christ still continueth in Heaven but yet the forme or hidden qualities and properties of his body are after an vnspeakable manner derived to the Bread And because as the same Patriarch saith the better things haue the preeminence therefore is it not from thence Bread but Body And even as Iron vnited with fire becometh fire and yet the matter of Iron remaineth and Christs Body vnited with vs changeth vs into it not it into vs our nature still continuing so the secret properties of Christs flesh being imparted to the Bread by putting on this new forme it becometh Flesh and yet still retaineth the matter of Bread This in my shallow vnderstanding is the meaning of the Greeke Church in this point which as you see no way sutes with Transubstantiation But to put the matter out of all doubt the Councell of Florence held some two hundred yeares after that of Lateran plainely declareth that that Church flatly refused to yeeld vnto them therein And if so then neither doe they admit of your Sacrifice which hath no other ground then Transubstantiation Prayer also for the reliefe of soules tormented in Purgatory how can they hold not beleeuing that there is a Purgatory The rest that followeth is little to the purpose and your other author is so misnamed both in your text and margent that I cannot imagine whom you should meane Transeat Ergo. N. N. Midleton witnesseth that the Dead were prayed for in the publike Liturgies of Basil Chrysostome and Epiphanius that the Sacrifice of the Altar and vnbloudy Sacrifice were vsed in the Primitiue Church that to pray make doles and offer Sacrifice at the Altar for the Dead was a tradition of the Apostles and Fathers I. D. Still you wander out of the way For how doth it appeare from hence that Protestants vnderstand the Fathers in point of Transubstantiation as you doe But as you lead so must I follow There are two Liturgies that passe vnder the name of St Basil the one in Greeke the other lately translated out of Syriake by Andreas Masius Betweene which there is such difference that they seeme not both to haue had one Father Of these the Greeke is the prolixer and as the said Masius censureth neither doth Possevin the Iesuite mentioning it disproue thereof hath suffered much change by many alterations and additions and those superstitious too so that whosoeuer be the Author it is not now the same it was at first That which goes vnder the name of St Choysostome either is supposititious or in processe of time much corrupted In it Prayers are made for Pope Nicholas and the Emperour Alexius whereof the one liued almost fiue hundred the other about seaven hundred yeares after Chrysostome And that many things are added your Claudius Espencaeus freely doth confesse So that these Liturgies cannot be of any great authority For as for Epiphanius I cannot yet find that ever he composed any But what saith Midleton of them That the Dead were praied for in them What dead Patriarks Prophets Apostles Evangelists Confessors Bishops Anachorits and the blessed Virgin Mother And for what Not to releeue them but to glorifie God in his Servants and to profit the Church by commemoration of their vertues Thus hee which I trow is not according to your meaning He saith farther the sacrifice of the Altar and vnbloudy sacrifice were vsed in the Primitive Church Suppose so yet hee saith withall that the sacrifice of the Altar hurts vs no more then the Sacrifice of the Table doth you and the Vnbloudy sacrifice hurts you more then vs. For in your Sacrifice Bloud is offered and there is no more reason why you should call it Vnbloudy then Vnfleshy If you say because Bloud is not shed therein I say neither is Flesh broken therein Lastly he saith that Prayers Doles and Sacrifices at the altar for the Dead is a tradition of the Apostles and ancient Fathers But here your author overlasheth for he saith expresly from the Fathers not from the Apostles And addeth yet notwithstanding prayer was then made not after the Popish fashion to ease the dead of the paines and torments of Purgatory but to perswade the liuing that they are not vanished into nothing but liue and haue their being with the Lord which knocks out the braines of Purgatory And by and by This