Discussion of the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Part 2 · Division 8
Diuision 8.
AS for the names of bread and wine after giuen by Saint Paul and the holy Fathers to the consecrated parts of N. P.the Sacrament; which with this Minister is a great argument tediously vrged, page 10. hee cannot be ignorant (I suppose) as not to conceiue the little sorce of the Argument. For if Aarons red after it was conuerted into a Serpent, and retained not the essence or figure of a rod, bee notwithstanding called so; with much more reason may the Accidents of bread and wine still remaining and containing in them Christs body and blood, retaine their old names: especially with articles superadded, importing the singular and diuine excellency of them, still vsed by Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 10, 11. as this bread, this Chalice; the bread which wee breake, &c. willing them to prooue themselues, &c. before they come to eate of this bread; least eating it vnworthily, they eate their owne damnation, not discerning the body of Christ; or (which is all one) not distinguishing it from other common bread, it being indeed bread blessed and conuerted into the very body of Christ, and therefore not irreuerently and vnworthily to be receiued by any Christian vnderunder paine of damnation; as the ancient Doctor and holy Mariyr of Christs Church aS. Cyprian serm. 5.S. Cyprian affirmeth: bS. Basil. l. 2. de bapt. c. 3.S. Basil also, cS. Chrysost. hom 24. in 1. ad Corinth. & hom. 83. in Mat. & hom. 45. in Joan.S. Chrysostome, dS. Ierom. in …. cap. Malac.S. Ierome, eOrigen in Psal. 37.Origen, and fS. Aug. l. 5. de bapt. c. 8. & l, 8. contr. Crescon. c. 25.S. Augustine, with other Fathers express…ly teach the sinne of such as come vnworthily to the Sacrament to be haynous, and equall even to the sinne of such as betrayed and killed Christ, because they presume vnworthily to eate that bread wherein the Son of God himselfe is contained.
MY second Argument was taken from the expresse T. G.words of Scripture, wherein after Consecration there is said to be bread and wine in the Sacrament.
1. The little force of this Argument (hee saith) I cannot be so ignorant as not to conceiue: because Aarons rod after it was conuerted into a Serpent, and retained not the essence or figure of a rod, yet was notwithstanding so called, &c. And hee cannot bee so ignorant as not to conceiue that this very Obiection is there by me propounded and answered: yea, and that Bellarmine himselfe reiecteth it as gHaec solutio non videtur solidissima. Bellar. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 14.not very sound, but such as iust exception may be taken vntounto. Did hee thinke that any one not voyd of common sense would not soone see this?
2. He saith that the accidents of bread and wine remaining retaine still their old names. To what purpose? For who doubteth but that the accidents, that is, the colour, sauour, shape, sise, &c. of the elements, remaine still in the Eucharist, not without a subiect, as they say, (for how can accidents so do, when the very *Accidentis esse est messe.essence of an accident, as it is an accident, is to be in some subiect?) but in the selfe same subiect, wherein formerly they were? And what should hinder but that remaining so, they should retaine still their old names? But neither are the accidents of bread and wine, bread and wine: and it is absurd to say either that the Apostle by bread meant the accidents of bread onelyonly; when he said ''1 Cor. 10. 16.The bread which wee breake, &c. and, “1 Cor. 11. 28.Let a man eate of that bread, &c. Or that by the fruit of the vine our Sauiour meant nothing but the acci dents of wine, when hee said, *Mat. 26, 29,I will drinke henceforth no more of this fruit of the vine, &c. So that his reason is …idiculous, The accidents remaining retaine still their old names; therefore the substance that is gone retaineth it owne name still: or, the colour, savour shape and sise retaine their old names, and that which is in the Eucharist what euer it be, is said still to be white, round, thin well tasted, &c. and that with good reason, since it is so still as it was; therefore though it be no more bread now, yet is it said to be so still. Sure reason and this mans braine were farre asunder, when he writ this.
3. He addeth that the Apostle when hee calleth it bread, (for so I suppose he would say, and not when he speaketh of the accidents of bread onelyonly) speaketh with such articles superadded, as may note the singular and divine excellency of it, This bread, and so This Chalice, and The bread which we breake: and requireth men to examine themselues before they come there: least they sinne in not distinguishing it from other common bread, &c. And that the ancient Fathers shew what an horrible sinne it is to come vnreuerently to it, &c. because they presume to eate that bread, wherein the Son of God himselfe is contained.
And is not this a most silly Argument to prooue that that hee should prooue, vnlesse you take in withall his ly at the last, where he saith that the Sonne of God himselfe is contained in the bread, which hee falsely also fathereth vponupon those Fathers, as would hauehave appeared, had hee cited their wordes; and which being the point in Question (had it beene propounded as it should hauehave beene) vnlesse you grant him hee sticketh fast still and cannot goe forward? For may not a man say as much of Baptisme, that the holy Ghost speaks of it with such hRom. 6. 4. Col. 2. 12. Tit. 3. 5. Gal. 3. 27.elogies superadded, as may note the singular & diuine excellency of it; that those therefore that are of yeeres iSee Bellar. de bapt. l. 1. c. 25.ought with great care to addresse and prepare themselues vntounto it, when they are to be baptised, and that those that distinguish it not from ordinary water, or vse it irreuerently, commit an hainous sinne euen against Christ himselfe? And yet who euer dreamed therefore of any such Transubstantiation in Baptisme? yea the very same Authours here produced by him so plentifully (though by their bare names onelyonly out of Bellarmine) in a point for the generall not at all denied, to wit the hainousnesse of their sinne that abuse this Sacrament: yet distinguish expressely some of them (as in mine allegations I hauehave noted) betweene the bread of the Lord, (as k1. Cor. 11. 27.the Apostle tearmeth it) and the Bread the Lord; of which lIoh. 6. 32, 33.our Sauiour in the Gospel; betweene the body that was on the Crosse, and the bread that is on the bord: Which he taketh no notice of.
4. And yet neither is it true that so confidently here he affirmeth, that all those Fathers in all those places, yea or that any one of them, in any one of those places that he quoteth, (nor as I verily beleeue, in any place of their writings else-where) doe (as he saith) expressely and purposely teach that the sinne of vnworthy receiuers is equall (for the hainousnesse of it) with the sinne of those that betraied and killed Christ. Which no sober Diuine will say; nor can it be iustified, vnlesse the Stoicall paritie of sinnes (charged mAug. de haeres. c. 82.vponupon Iouinian by some, nNihil enim eiusmodi I…uiniano Hieronymus obiicit.how truly I know not, oCampiā rat. 8. Sed & …occius idem ferè, Thes. Cathol. tom. 1. l. 8. art. 3.vponupon vsus by some of their side, falsely I am sure, pLutherani non dicunt paria esse peccata. Bellarm. de Iustif. l. 3. c. 16.Bellarmine himselfe therein acquitting vsus) be in Theologie admitted. Bellarmine indeede qDe Euchar. l. 1. c. 13.in the Chapter, whence he tooke all these quotations as he found them there mustered together, hath somewhat out of Oecumenius that may seeme to looke that way, (rOecum. cō parat indignè communicantes cum eis qui Christum crucifixerunt. He compareth vnworthy communicants, saith he, with those that killed Christ) which this man hauing strained more then an inch further, ascribeth vnaduisedly and vntruly to them all. Whereas onelyonly Basil (if those ascetica at least be his) and Chrysostome, (who is wont to presse farre in reproouing of sinne) the one of them willeth vsus to repaire holily to Gods bord, least we incurre the iudgement of them that killed Christ: the other of them in one of the places there quoted saith, that as those that defile the princes robe are tforeign, &c. Chrysost. in Ioan. hom. Grae. 46. Lat. 45. foreign vel vt alii, foreign;punished in like manner, as those also that rend it; so it is u not vnlikely or vnequal that those that with an vnholy heart receiue the Lords body, vndergoe xforeign.the same punishment with those that tore it with nailes; that is, that the one be damned for so doing as well as the other; which may well foreign. Basil de bapt. l. 2. c. 3.be, albeit their sinnes be not equall. The rest of them, to wit, Origen, Hierome and Augustine hauehave not any one word at all in any of all those places of the sinne of those that killed Christ; yea the places well weighed vtterly ouerthrow the ground of that yBellarm. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 13.Argument, which from the words of the Apostle, and their application of it, they would frame to prooue a reall and essentiall presence of Christs naturall body and blood in the Eucharist, because such vnworthy receiuers are said to be a1. Cor. 11. 27.guilty of wronging Christs body and blood, and thereby bIbid. …9.to acquire iudgemen… c De baptism. l. 5 c. 8. Vide & eundem contra Faust. l. 19. c. 11, 12.or condemnation to themselues. For beside that in the one place Augustine saith nothing but this, that the Sacrament of Baptisme, as well as that other of the Eucharist, is a true Sacrament euen to those that vse it otherwise then they ought: which is nothing at all to that for which here it is alleadged. In dContra Crescon. l. 1. c. 25, 26.the other place he saith nothing of the Eucharist, but what he saith also both of eRom. 7. 7. 13. 1 Cor. 8. 1.the Word of God, or the Law, and Baptisme expressely in the same place; to wit, that euen fObsunt sancta & diuina malè vtentibus.holy and diuine things hurt those that vse them otherwise then they ought. Yea Hierome goeth further in the place alleadged, and g In Malac. 1.applieth what he speaketh not to the Sacraments onelyonly of the New Testament, but to the Sacrifices also (which were Sacraments too) of the old. For commenting on those words, hMalac. 1. 7.Wherein doe we pollute thee? iDum Sacramenta violantur, ipse cuius sunt Sacramenta violatur.When the Sacraments (saith he) are violated, he is violated whose Sacraments they are. And that is all he saith there. Now were not the kColos. 2. 17. Heb. 10. 1, … ▪ 10. & 13. 11, 12. Talium figurarum obseruatio, Christi fuit praefiguratio. Aug. ad Faust. l. 19. c. 11.Sacrifices and the Sacraments of the old Testament (as the l Paschall Lambe at least) Sacraments of Christ, yea *Heb. 10. 10. & 9. 7, 11, 12.and of his body and blood too? If they were, as no doubt can be but they were, then by Hieromes Rule was Christ and his body and blood wronged in them, when any wrong was done to them, albeit it were not essentially or corporally present in them: nor doth such wrong therefore or guilt acquired by euill vsage of the Eucharist imply any such corporall presence thereof in it.
5. Let me adde onelyonly, that this Defendant telleth vsus, …hat the Sonne of God is contained in that bread that is eaten …n the Eucharist: and yet by their doctrine there is no bread at all there. How is he in bread where no bread is? Or how is there no bread there, where in bread the Sonne of God is (as he telleth vsus) conteined? What is this but that which Bellarmine condemneth in the Lutherans, to forge vsus mChristum impanatum. Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 11.a Christ impanated, or enclosed in bread? Nor doth their owne doctrine any whit mend the matter. For as Bellarmine saith of Rupert us and some others that they make Christ hauehave nCorpus panaceum, non carneum. Ibida breaden body: so may wee as truly say the same of them. For what is a body made of bread but a breaden Body? But that (you see) this Doctor here swarueth from and saith, that Christs body is but couched in Bread.
ANd I maruaile not to finde this Minister to corrupt the sayings of the holy Fathers to his hereticall purpose, sithence N. P.he maketh Bellarmine himselfe page 10. to speake like a Protestant, and seeme to say against his owne expresse doctrine, that the bread blessed and consecrated on the Altar is not, nor cannot be called Christs body: Whereas Bellarmine onelyonly disputeth against Luther teaching naturall bread to remaine still in the Sacrament, and making the sense of Christs words, This is my body, to be the same as if he had said, This bread is my body; saith this and no more, that Naturall bread cannot be otherwise then figuratiuely and significantly affirmed to be Christs body: Speaking not at all of bread consecrated, and by consecration conuerted into the true body of Christ, yet still retaining the name of bread for the Accidents of bread still remaining, as this false fellow would hauehave; frequently citing Authors which he vnderstandeth not.
§ 2. ANd here againe, as one running the wild goose T. G.race, he windeth backe to a passage in the former Argument: and saith, he marueileth not to finde me corrupt the sayings of the Fathers (he thought sure eueryevery one would beleeue whatsoeuer he said, though he neuer assaied to shew it) since I make Bellarmine himselfe speake like a Protestant. No: I make him speake nothing but what oDe Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 1.hee saith of himselfe: and by his owne graunts prooue that either the auncient Fathers spake very absurdly, or else they ment as we meane. The Argument is this:
The ancients Fathers say oft, that the Bread in the Eucharist is Christs body.
But this saying (saith Bellarmine,) This bread is my body, must either be taken figuratiuely, or else it is absurd and impossible.
The Fathers therfore when they vsed such speeches, shewed euidently thereby that they ment as we meane, (that is, they vnderstood Christs words figuratiuely) or else (by Bellarmines confession) they spake very absurdly.
Nor is it enough to prooue that I corrupt Bellarmine, to say that he disputeth in that place against Luther, who taught that bread remained still in the Sacrament: For what is that to the purpose? much lesse to say vntruly, that he spake not of bread consecrated; when the very Question is there concerning the consecrated bread.
But I cite Authors (he saith) that I vnderstand not. It is true indeede; In this very place I cite some sayings of Bellarmine, that neither I, nor any such dull-heads as I am (I thinke) can easily vnderstand; as for example, where pDe Euchar. l 3. c. 24.he saith, as I here cite him, that The Priest maketh Christs body of bread; and yet Christs body is not made by the Priest: And againe, qIbid.that the body of Christ that was crucified, was truly or verily made of Bread: And yet confuting Rupertus he saith else-where, that rDe Euchar. l. 3. c. 11.it was not a breaden body that was crucified for vsus; as Tertullian inferred from the doctrine of the Marci…nites; and as we may well inferre from theirs. He waiueth sDe Euchar. l. 3. c. 9.else-where Metaphysicall subtilties in disputing of this Sacrament. And tInepta Caluini Metaphysica. Idem de Euchar. l. 1. c. 10.taxeth Caluine for his fond and foolish Metaphysicks. But these are such transcendent subtilties, if not absurdities, as any Metaphysicks will afford. And this deepe Metaphysicall Doctor, that hath no want of wit, and vnderstandeth him so well, should hauehave done well to vnfold to vsus these mysteries, and arreade vsus these riddles: whereas he very vncharitably passeth them by, and onelyonly controlling vsus for our ignorance, leaueth vsus sticking still in the bryers with them, not vouchsafing to helpe vsus out.
PAg. 12. He affirmeth it to be most absurd to affirme, as N. P.we doe, that a thing is made of that in the roome whereof it onelyonly succeedeth, or is turned into that which succeedeth onelyonly in the roome thereof; Whereas in eueryevery substantiall conuersion one substance is destroied and another succeedeth in the place thereof by the same action: as where wood is conuerted into fire, &c. The difference betwixt Transsubstantiation in the Sacrament, and other substantiall naturall conuersions chiefely consisting in this, that the whole substance of bread passeth into another praeexisting substance, Christs body, to wit, introduced in place thereof, so as nothing thereof remaineth; whereas in them the same matter, albeit receiuing a new forme and so made a distinct substance from what it was before, still remaineth: which is to the Ministers purpose wholly impertinent, vnlesse hee will falsely and foolishly withall affirme that God can destroy no substance intirely leauing the Accidents thereof still remaining, to introduce an other substance in place thereof.
And albeit we cannot say of Christs body, that it was bread, (which is another Argument of the Minister, ibidem) yet may it be said to hauehave beene of bread, as being by the same miraculous and omnipotent power of Christs words, whereby bread looseth naturall being in place thereof Sacramentally produced and made present. And this is without any difficultie affirmed by vsus, who know the same in a propertionable manner to be found in all other substantiall and accident all conuersions, howsoeuer his poore Iudgement will not serue to consider it: heate (for example) was neuer cold, albeit in place thereof produced; fire was neuer wood, but as a substance (as naturall vnderstanding might teach him) essentially different, and produced by the others destruction.
§▪ 3. AFter he hath thus recoiled back a little, now he T. G.beginneth to make againe forward. And 1. wheras they not knowing wel how to salu or shift of such absurdities as follow necessarily vponupon this their senselesse conceit of the conuersion of bread into Christs body, affirme that Christs body is therefore said to be made of bread, and the bread said to be turned into Christs body, because the bread ceasing to be there, Christs body (as they say) doth onelyonly come in the roome of it: For they dare not say that Christs body is produced of it, or that the Substance of the bread is that whereof as the materiall cause Christs body is framed, as ashes are made of wood, or glasse of some ashes: And I thereupon reply, that it is absurd to say that a thing is made of that in the roome whereof it onelyonly succeedeth, or is turned into that that succeedeth onelyonly in the roome thereof. (That which uSuarez in Thom. part. 3. quaest. 75. disp. 50. sect 5. Per …olam actionem adductivam. non explicatur vera conuersio substantialis, sed solum translocatio quaedam. Quando vna substantia solum succedit loco alterius, non potest dici vna conuerti in aliam, Ibid.Suarez himself also confesseth to be rather a translocation, then a transubstantiatiō, or a true & substantiall conuersion. He telleth me, that, if my poore iudgement would serue to consider it, such a succession is to be found in eueryevery subst…ntiall conuersion, whereby one substance is destroyed, and another succeedeth in the roome of it.) And consequently (for that or nothing must follow) that it is not absurd so to say. Did euer man (thinke we) either sober or in his right wits thus reason? In eueryevery substantiall conuersion one thing succeedeth in the roome of another, and is turned into it. Therefore whatsoeuer thing doth succeede onelyonly in the roome or place of another, is conuerted into it. Suppose a puppy should get vp into the Chaire that this Disputant had sat in when he writ this discourse, after he quitted it: would he not take it euill, if a man should say therefore that he were turned into a puppy, because the puppy were got into his place. Or suppose some light-fingred person hauing pickt his purse and taken a piece of gold or two out of it, should put in a copper counter or two in the roome of it; would it follow that his gold were really turned into copper, because the one is gone, and the other is come in the roome of it? Or suppose an old house pulled or burnt downe, and an other raised vp againe in the roome of it, and that iust of the same proportion with it: would any man say, that the one were turned into the other, because the one succeeded in the roome of the other being destroied? But idle and absurd consequences are no strange matters with this Disputant for all his great learning, that which a little learning will serue to discouer.
2. Whereas answering that silly shift of theirs, that Christs body is called bread still after Consecration, as Aarons rod is called a rod after it was turned into a Serpent, because it had sometime so beene; I say (among many other things, which he here ouerslippeth) that the case, by their owne confession, is not alike: for that, of the rod it may be said that it was once a Serpent, but of Christs body it cannot be said that euer it was bread; he replieth; that albeit we cannot say of Christs body that euer it was bread, no more then of heate that euer it was cold, nor of fire we can say that euer it was wood, though by the others destruction it be in place thereof produced, Yet it may be said to hauehave bin of bread; because in this their prodigious yTransformatio.Metamorphosis or zTransmateriatio.methyleosis, or what euer you will tearme it; (for new inuentions require new names) the whole substance (to vse his owne tearmes; that is both the matter and forme) of bread passeth into a praeexistent substance, to wit, Christs body, in the roome of it introduced, so as nothing thereof remaineth, whereas in other naturall conuersions the matter remaineth still, though receiuing another forme. In which few lines it is not easie to tell how many contradictions are implied both to his master Bellarmines doctrine, and to his owne assertions.
For first, If it cannot be said of Christs body that euer it was Bread; here is it affirmed by them, as aBellarm. de Euchar. lib. 1. c 14.Bellarmine himselfe also acknowledgeth, that bVocari panem, quia auteà suit panis.Christs body is therefore called Bread, because it was bread before. Neither doth Bellarmine at all controle them therein: yea cDe Euchar. l. 3. c. 18.he confesseth, dIn Thom. p. 3 q. 75. a. 4.with Caietan, that it may truly be said, eQuod fuit panis, nunc est corpus Christi.That is now Christs body, that once was bread.
2. If it may be said to hauehave beene of bread, why may it not be said that once it was bread? as of Adam because he was fGen. 2. 7. 1. Cor. 15. 47.of the earth, it may truly be said that once gGen. 3. 19.hee was earth. As for his instances, they are idle: the one is of an accident not made of, but succeeding onelyonly in the roome of another, or in the same subiect whence it hath expelled the other; and for the other we may say truly that a fire made of wood, not onelyonly was wood once, but is wood still, till the forme of the wood be vtterly destroied, and the wood turned into coales, or dissolued into ashes; whereof we may also truly then say, that those coales or those ashes were once wood; in such sense as they say, that the rod was sometime a snake.
3. If it may at any time be said, Christs body hath beene of bread, it might at sometime be said, Christs body is of bread: and if of bread, why not hCorpus panaceum.a breaden body? which yet iBellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 15.Bellarmine will by no meanes admit. For what is a body of bread (as was said before) but a breaden body, as a pot of earth, an earthen pot, a dish of wood, a wooddendish? &c.
4. Not to demand if nothing remaine of the bread, what figure, and colour, and weight, and taste it is that we discerne in the Eucharist, whither the breads or Christs bodie; because for those things they tell vsus that they hang, I know not how nor where, neither in the bread that now is not, nor in Christs body neither, *Neque enim potest verè dici, hoc album & rotundum est corpus Christi. Bellarm. de Euch. l. 3. c 19.the accidents whereof they are not: and in that answer we must rest (though it be hard for any man indued with reason so to doe) for them; since no other from them can be had: I aske, if the whole substance of the bread be vtterly abandoned, so as nothing thereof remaineth; how saith kPanis in Eucharistia verè non annihilatur. Bellarm. ibid.Bellarmine, and lQuod panis substantia in nihilum vertatur, nemo dicit. Roffens. contr. Occolamp. lib. 2. c. 14.other of them, that the bread is not annihilated, or mWe doe not say that the substance of bread is cleerely consumed to nothing; as many hauehave dreamed, Harding ag. Apolog. part. 2.is not cleerely brought to nothing? and checke vsus for nIdem ibid.belying them when we say that any such thing is maintained by them? albeit their great oVel in praeiacentem materiam solui, vel in nihilum redigi. Lombard. sent. l. 4. d. 11. D.Master of the Sentences say as much. For how is it not annihilated, if nothing remaine of it?
5. If no bread bee left in the Eucharist, how said hee before, that Christ is there contained in bread; and that the ancient Fathers so affirme? For how can hee be contained in that that is not?
6. If the whole substance of it be destroyed so that nothing remaineth of it, how doth the whole substance of it passe (as hee saith) into Christs body? For how can that passe into it, that is not at all? Or how can that substance passe into the substance of some other thing, that vtterly perisheth and ceaseth to be, so soone as euer that other substance approacheth?
7. If the very substance of bread passeth into the substance of Christs body, then Christs body (belike) doth not barely succeed in the roome of it, (as before was affirmed) but is produced therefore and consisteth of it, which yet pNon est producti…a, sed adducti…a cō-uersio. Bellar. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 18.they vsually deny. Else how doth the substance of the one passe into the substance of the other?
8. If the whole substance of bread (that is, both matter and forme) passeth into Christs body, why may it not as wel be said of Christs body, that that body was once bread; as of qExod. 4. 3.Moses his rod it might well bee said, that that rod was once a Snake; or of rIoh. 2. 9.the wine that our Sauiour so miraculously produced, that that wine was sometime water? the rather since that but part of the substance, to wit, the matter onelyonly of the Snake and the water passed into the substance of the rod and the wine there, whereas the whole substance (as this fellow beareth vsus in hand) that is, both matter and forme of bread, passeth into Christs body here.
9. To say that one substance passeth into another substance preexisting; is to say, that that is made, that already is, or that is produced and hath beeing giuen it, that is in beeing already, when as a thing cannot be in making and beeing at once; nor can beeing be giuen to that, that already is; or to say, that a creature is now sActum agere. Cic. de amic.made, that was fully made before, or that a creature that was before is new made of that that before was not it: Yea (to speake more plainely) it is all one to as say, that a man is tforeign. Sophocl. Antig.killed, when hee was dead before; or is quickened when foreign. Chrysost. in Mat. hom. 83. An ignoras nudum nec à decem palaestritis despoliari posse? Apul. metam. l. 1. Itaque maximas nugas agit, Nudo detrahere vestimēta qui iubet. Plaut. Asin. 1. 1.hee was aliue before; or is now stript, when hee was starke naked before, or is now bred or begotten, when he was borne before.
Lastly, to say that Christs body long before preexisting is now made of bread that some two or three dayes past had no existence it selfe, is all one as to say, that wine of a twelue-month old is made of grapes that were but yesterday gathered and pressed, and were yet growing the day before; or that an Oke hauing stood vpward of an hundred yeeres, and yet standing in the Forrest is sprung vp this yeere of an acorne of the last yeares growth. And consider wee now how well these things agree together: The body of Christ is contained in the bread; and yet there is no bread at all in the Eucharist: The body of Christ succeedeth onelyonly in the roome of bread; and yet the substance of the bread passeth into the substance of Christs body: The whole substance of bread is so abolished that nothing remaineth of it, and yet the whole substance of the same bread passeth into the substance of Christs body: Christs body was in beeing before: and yet it is now made of another substance that before it was not: yea Christs body that was bread and borne aboue a thousand yeeres since, is now made of a wafercake of yesterdayes baking: The whole essence of that wafer cake passeth into Christs body; and yet wee cannot say of Christs body, that euer it was that wafer-cake. But like xforeign. v…l. ar…a fine calce.ropes of sand (as wee are wont to say) doe these things hang together: and to spend much time in refuting them may be deemed (I feare) as yforeign. Dionys de diuin nomin. c. 8.ridiculous, (to vse their Dennis his tearmes) as to stand seriously and curiously pulling downe by piece-meale such castles as little children hauehave in sport built vp of sand.
NEither is it a good or Christian kinde of Argument N. P.which my Adversary in the end of the same 12. page to this purpose maketh; Other substantiall conversions are sensible and easily discerned, albeit miraculous, as when Aarons rod was made a Serpent, &c. Wheras in the Sacrament we see wholly the contrary: therefore we are not to beleeue therein any such conversion; citing thus for proofe thereof a place of S. Augustine in his margent, which directly if hee had marked it, overthroweth his owne doctrine, and purpose of citing it: That which you see (saith this Father) is bread and a Cup: but that which your faith requireth you to be enformed of, is, that the bread is Christs body, and the Cup his blood. Could hee affirme any thing more plainly against this Ministers sensuall and absurd Argument; which were it good, would lead vsus to beleeue nothing; gAd Heb. 11.faith being onelyonly of things which appeare not to our vnderstanding or senses. How farre is this carnall, poore, vnlearned man from the holy Fathers spirit and doctrine, as I hauehave formerly cited their assertions? wherein they teach vsus to renounce the naturall iudgement of our vnderstanding and senses, and with the Apostle to captivate our vnderstandings to the obedience of faith in this and many other mysteries of faith, humbly to bee vponupon the warrant of Gods word assented vntounto, and not ouer-curiously searched after by vsus. hLib. 8. Trin.We are (saith S. Hillarie, that great Doctor of Christs Church, and victorious Champion of his deity) not to dispute (as my Adversarie doth) in a secular and sensuall manner of diuine things. For of this naturall veritie of Christ in vsus (speaking of the Sacrament) vnlesse we learne of Christ himself, we speake foolishly and impiously. Wherefore sithence hee saith, iIoh. 6. 55, 56.My flesh is truely food, and my blood is truely drinke: Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, remaineth in mee and I in him: there is no place of doubting left cōcerning the verity of Christs body and blood. For now by the profession of our Lord and faithfull beleefe which we hauehave thereof, it is his true flesh and blood: and these being receiued by vsus do make vsus to be in Christ and Christ in vsus. Is not this truth? Surely it is; but to those that deny Iesus Christ to be true God, &c. With a cloud of such ancient and vncontrollable Testimonies of the holy Fathers formerly touched could I confound my sensuall Adversary, and teach him a new manner of disputing of these heauenly and diuine Mysteries instituted by the Sonne of God with equall wisedome power and goodnesse for vsus; wherein the omnipotency of him that chiefly doth them is to be assigned for a sufficient reason of them.
§ 4. NOw further, whereas I alleadge among other things that in eueryevery miraculous conversion of bodies T. G.there is a sensible change; whereas no such thing at all is found in the Sacrament: Our eyes, saith Augustine, informe vsus that it is bread that is there. He telleth me, this is no good, nor Christian, but an absurd, secular, and senslesse arguing, and such as would leade vsus to beleeue nothing but what we see: and that Augustine, if I had marked him, whom I cite in the margent, (as if his very wordes were not in the text) vtterly ouerthroweth it: as also Hillarie and other Fathers, when they teach vsus in diuine mysteries to renounce the naturall iudgement of our vnderstanding and senses, which this poore, carnall, vnlearned man his Adversarie is so farre from, &c. And withall as commiserating and bewailing my simplicity, (Oh how farre is this poore &c.) He telleth his Reader, that he could with a cloud of such ancient and vncontrolleable testimonies of the holy Fathers confound this his sensuall Adversarie, and teach him a new manner of disputing of these heauenly and divine mysteries. Wel, when he doth this, you may beleeue that he can doe it: and his poore puny Adversary shall be eternally obliged to him for it. But meane while let vsus see what Pyrgopolinices here saith.
1. Augustine telleth vsus that something is seene in the Sacrament, and something else is to bee belieued. But doth Augustine tell vsus that wee must not beleeue that there is bread there, though our eyes informe vsus, that there is? No: He telleth vsus expressely, that there is bread there, as our eyes doe informe vsus. And what can be more euidently or plainely spoken? Yea but hee addeth withall, that our faith informeth vsus that the bread is Christs body. Yea but, saith Bellarmine, that sentence is most absurd and impossible, if it be not meant figuratiuely. In which manner Augustine (as before was shewed) expoundeth himselfe else-where.
2. Doe the Fathers tell vsus that in this holy Mystery we must not so much regard what our sense informeth vsus, as what our faith apprehendeth? And doe they not say the same of Baptisme, and of all mysteries or Sacraments in general? Heare we one or two of them speake for all. The Fathers of the Nicene Councell, whom before he alleaged: *foreign. Gelas. Cyzic. act. Conc. Nic. diatyp. 4.Our Baptisme (say they) must not with bodily eyes be considered, but with spirituall. Seest thou water? vnderstand the power of God hidden in it: conceiue it full of the holy Ghost, “foreign. Ibid.and diuine fire. And then wil they the same regard to be had also at the Lords Table. That Ambrose that this Author and his Associates so oft cite, as making so much for them: tAmbrosii nomine de sacram. l. 1. c. 2, 3. & de initiand. c. 3.You are come (saith hee) to the Font: consider what you there saw; consider what you said, &c. You saw the Font; you saw water, &c. you saw all that you could see with your bodily eyes and humane aspect. You saw not those things that worke and are not seene. The Apostle hath taught vsus that wee are to behold not the things that are seene, but the things that are not seene. For farre greater are the things that are not seene, then those that are seene. Beleeue not thy bodily eyes alone. That is better seene that is not seene. So Gregory Nyssene: uGreg. Nyss. de sacr. bapt.Both the spirit and water concurre in Baptisme. And as man consisteth of two parts, so are there medicines of like like appointed for either: for the bodie water that appeareth and is subiect to sense; for the soule the spirit that cannot bee seene, nor doth appeare, but is called by faith, and commeth in an ineffable manner. Yet the water that is vsed in Baptisme, addeth a blessing to the Body baptised. Wherefore doe not contemne the divine Laver: neither make little account of it as common, because of the water that is vsed in it. For it is a greater matter that it worketh: and marueilous effects proceed from it. And a little after of the Eucharist: y The bread also is at first common bread: but Idem ibid.when the Mystery hath sanctified it, it is called Christs body. And in like manner the wine, though it be a thing of small price before the blessing, yet after the sanctification which proceedeth from the Spirit, both of them worke excellently. And so in many other things, if you regard it, you shall see the things that appeare to be, contemptible; but the things wrought by them, to be great and admirable. And so Chrysostome speaking of those wordes of our Sauiour, aIoh. 6. 63.The wordes I speake are spirit and life. bChrysost. in Ioan. hom. 46. Lat. 47. Graec.To vnderstand (saith hee) things carnally, is to consider the things simply as they are spoken, and no otherwise. Where as *foreign, &c.all mysteries (and then not the Eucharist onelyonly) are to bee iudged not by the externall things that are visible, but are to be considered with the inward eyes, that is, spiritually. And in particular of Baptisme cIdem in 1. Cor. hom. 7.else-where: The Gospell is called a mystery, because we beleeue not in it what we see; but wee see somethings, and beleeue other things. *foreign.For that is the nature of our mysteries: which my selfe therefore and an Infidell are diversly affected with, &c. Hee when hee heareth of a Laver, thinketh it but bare water: but I consider not the thing seene simply, but the purging of the soule by the Spirit, &c. For I iudge not the things that appeare by my bodily sight, but with the eyes of my minde. Againe, I heare Christs body. I vnderstand the thing spoken one way, and the Infidell another. And as children or vnlettered persons, when they looke on bookes, know not the power of the letter, nor know what they see: but a skilfull man can finde matter in those letters contained, liues, or stories and the like, &c. dforeign.So it is in this mystery: the Infidels, though hearing, seeme not to heare; but the faithfull hauing spirituall skill, see the force of the things therein contained. Nothing then in this kinde is said of the Eucharist, but what is said of all Sacraments, and of Baptisme by name. Nothing therefore that argueth any miraculous change more in the one then in the other.
Nor doth it follow that we would hauehave men to beleeue nothing but what they see, because we refuse to beleeue that that we see is not so. eTertul. de anima. cap. 7. Non licet nobis in dubium sensus revocare: ne & Christo de fide eorum deliberetur. &c.We may not (saith Tertullian) call in question our senses; lest in so doing we detract credit from Christ himselfe, as if he might be mistaken when fLuk. 10. 18.hee sawe Sathan fall downe, or gMat. 3. 17. & 17. 5.heard his Fathers voyce from heauen, or hMat. 26. 27, 28, 29.mistooke the smell of the oyntment that was poured vponupon him, or the iVini saporē quod in sanguinis sui memoriam consecrauit.tast of the wine that he consecrated for a memoriall of his blood. Neither was nature deluded in the Apostles. Faithfull was k2 Pet. 1. 17, 18their sight, and their hearing on the mount: Faithfull was their taste of the lIoh. 2. 9.wine that had beene water: Faithfull was mIoh. 20. 27.the touch of incredulous Thomas. (And yet, as nAug. in Ioan. tract. 79.Augustine well obserueth; oNon hoc credidit quod vidit: Sed aliud vidit aliud credidit. Vidit enim hominē credidit Deum.Thomas saw one thing, and beleeued another thing: Hee saw Christ the man, and beleeued him to bee God: Hee beleeued with his minde that which hee saw not, by that which appeared to his bodily senses. And when we are said to beleeue our eyes, pIdem. ibid:saith hee, by those things that wee doe see, wee are induced to beleeue those things that we doe not see.) In a word, qTertul. ibid.Rehearse mee (saith Tertullian) Iohns testimony: r1 Ioh. 1. 1.That which we hauehave heard and seene with our eyes, and felt with our hands, that declare we vntounto you: sFalsa vtique testatio, si oculorum, & aurium, & manuum sensus natura mentitur.A false testimony (saith he, an vncertaine at least) if the nature of our senses in our eyes, eares, and hands be such. But these men would hauehave vsus as tNum. 16. 14.the sonnes of Eliah speake, to thrust out our eyes, and as the Iewish Rabbines say (abusing uDeut. 17. 11.a place of Scripture to that purpose) that a man must beleeue the High Priest in all things, yea xTalmudici Glossatores in eum locum. teste Lyra in Deut. & Hieron. à S. Fide Hebraeomastig. l 2, c. 2.though hee shall tell him that his left hand is his right, and his right hand the left: so they would hauehave vsus to beleeue whatsoeuer the Pope or they say, though they tell vsus that, that both our sight and sense informeth vsus to be most false.
§ 5. But to make good in part yet his former glorious flourish; hee citeth a place of Hilarie, where hee affirmeth, that concerning the veritie of Christ in vsus (not speaking, as hee here saith specially of the Eucharist, but of our vnion and coniunction with him in generall) vnlesse we speake as Christ hath taught vsus, wee speake foolishly and impiously: that there is no place left to doubt of the verity of Christs body and blood; that the Sacraments being receiued cause that Christ is in vsus, and we in him.
Now who (I pray you) doubteth of, or denyeth ought that is here said? who teacheth men to speake otherwise then Christ euer taught, but they that tell vsus of bread transubstantiated, and of a body of Christ made of bread, of Christs flesh contained in bread, or vnderunder the accidents of bread, and of his blood in the bread, and his body by a concomitancie in the Cup, &c? Who doubteth with vsus of the truth of Christs body and blood? For of the corporall presence of either in the Sacrament, Hilarie hath not heere a word. Or who denyeth but that by the receiuing of those venerable mysteries, Christ is (spiritually) in vsus and we in him; Doth not the Apostle say of Baptisme that by it yforeign. Rom. 6. 5. & Pachymer. in Dionys. hier eccles. c. 4.we are ingraffed into Christ? and Chrysostome, that zChrysost. in Ephes. hom. 20.by it we become flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone? Hilaries scope is to shew that aIoh. 10. 30.Christ is one with God and his Father, and bIoh. 17. 21. 23.we one with him, not by consent of will onelyonly, (as some Heretikes said) but by a true and reall vnion, yet c1 Cor. 6. 17.spirituall; as his words implie when he saith, dIoh. 6. 56.He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. VponUpon whinch wordes their owne Bishop Iansenius. eIansen. concord. Euag. cap. 59.They (saith hee) that thus eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood either by such faith alone, or in the Eucharist, are said to hauehave Christ abiding in them, and to abide themselues in him, in regard of the true vnion of our nature with the diuine nature by the spirit of Christ, whereby we are made *2 Pet. 1. 4.partakers of the divine nature. Yea those words of our Sauiour cannot be meant of Christ corporally receiued in the Eucharist, nor could Hilarie so meane, if he were otherwise of their minde, appeareth. For Christs body so taken as they imagine, doth not abide long in those that so receiue it, but by their owne doctrine goeth away againe, I know not whither, a while after. Whereas by vertue of such receiuing Christ as our Sauiour there speaketh of, We doe abide in him, and he in vsus; that is, we are most inwardly and inseparably knit vntounto Christ, and he vntounto vsus (they are still fIansen. ibid.Iansenius his tearmes, and *Per honorem nobis datum … Dei, & Permanentem in nobis carnaliter filium, & in co nobis corporaliter & inseparabiliter vnitis, mysterium verae & naturalis vnitatis est praedieandū. Hilar. de Trin. l. 8. Et Ibid. Vt nos quoque in eo naturaliter inessemus, ipso in nobis naturaliter per manente.Hilarie also saith the same,) and obteine therefore thereby not a transitorie life, as we doe by the eating of corporall meate, that passeth est-soones away and abideth not in him that eateth it, but life permanent and eternall. gIdem ibid.Whence it is manifest also (saith the same Author) that all are not in this place said to eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood that receiue the Sacraments of his body and blood, since that all such hauehave not Christ abiding in them. But they eate his flesh and drinke his blood, as he there speaketh, who beleeuing that his flesh and blood were giuen on the Crosse for the Saluation of mankinde, and that by vertue of the hypostaticall vnion they hauehave a power to giuegive life, do either by such faith alone, or in the holy Eucharist also, receiue the Lord himselfe within themselues, & imbrace him, and by faith fast clasping him so keepe him within them, as one by whom whatsoeuer we desire, commeth to vsus, and is conferred on vsus. Thus he; by whose words it plainely appeareth, that our abiding in Christ and Christ in vsus, which Hilarie from our Sauiour speaketh of, dependeth not vponupon any such corporall presence of his body and blood in the Sacrament, nor doth necessarily require the same: which hIdeircò voluit Christus à nobis manducari, vt nos sibi incorporaret, quod non intelligitur nisi de spirituali manducatione; quia in sacramentali tantum non fit haec incorporatio. Biel in Can. Miss. lect 36.by their owne doctrine also it doth not effect.