Discussion of the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Part 2 · Division 14

Discussion of the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation · Part 2 · Division 14

p. 189Diuision 14.

LAstly, when pag. 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23. hee argueth that Christs body cannot be in the Eucharist: first, because N. P.then it should be broken as the bread is broken. Secondly, it should be subiect to many vndecencies, as corruption, putrefaction, mice-eating and other foule abuses apt to happen to the bread and wine of the Sacrament. I answer him that Christs body being in it selfe now glorious and impossible, and after a spirituall and indivisible manner present in the Sacrament, cannot be in it selfe broken or otherwise abused then Angels in assumped bodies can bee wounded, or then the Maiesty of the diuine person in Christ was by thornes torne, nayles pierced, or other torments defaced: for all such indignities and painfull alterations, were immediately onelyonly inflicted on the corporall nature of our Sauiour defaced vtterly by them, and touched not immediately the diuine person, albeit personally therein subsisting: So all indignities and alterations p. 190happening to the sacramentall signes touch not at all the body it selfe of our Sauiour impassibly and iudiuisibly vnderunder them, more then the maiesty it selfe of the diuine nature-present in all creatures is defiled in fonle places, &c.

Such Arguments as these made against our Sauiours reall true presence in the Sacrament by our inconsiderate Aduersaries, are like to those other Arguments wont to bee made by the Eutycheans, Nestorians, Arians, and other ancient Heretickes, against the diuinity of our Sauiour, and personall vnion of two natures in him; as that it was not fit or reasonable to be conceiued, that either God so vnited with man, or man deified by personall assumption should be torn with whips, thornes, and nayles, spet vponupon, buffeted, and finally die in agonies and torments; that fleas and flies should sucke the blood of God, bite his flesh, &c. which indeed is more then can be done vntounto the same, as it is here in the Sacrament, euen when mice eate the sacramentall signes, or when in our stomacks wee receiue them, or by fire wee consume them, or …wise abuse thē, Christ being not quantitatiuely and corporally with them extended, and so, not to be touched or altered by any corporall action done about them. And holy soules considering with what humility and effusion of his bounty the Son of God was pleased to institute this great Sacrament, affording therein for his glory and our great good his owne comfortable presence vntounto vsus, hauehave iust reason to cry out his mercy, and to admire his wisedome, power and goodnesse wonderfully manifested in this second exhiminition of himself, as I may iustly call this Sacramentall presence, or hiding of himselfe in this Sacrament, to become thereby an heauenly food and diuine refection of soules deuontly receiuing him; as also a louing spouse visiting, embracing, delighting, adorning and enriching them with his presence, daily triumphing himselfe in his victory ouer Sathan, and our redemption solely and abundantly purchased by his passion; and making vsus also to triumph with him: And whereas the Diuell once by his ministers Iewes and Gentiles, caused his blood to be separated from his body, he deuised to hauehave that real separation mysteriously continued p. 191and daily exhibited to the f…ce of his eternall Father for vsus, which is tt1 Cor. 11.1 Cor 11the declaring of the Lords death till he come, mentioned by the Apostle.

MY last Argument is taken from those things that T. G.are done abo…, or may befall the consecrated creatures, which if they be Christs body and blood must needs befall Christ, as fraction, corruption, putrefaction, mitebreeding, mice, eating, &c.

To this he answereth;

1. That though these things be done to or befall the Sacrament, yet Christs body being now glorious and impassible, and after a spirituall and indiuisible manner present, it can no more thereby be broken and abused then Angels in assumpted bodies can be wounded, or Christs Deity was wounded or pierced on the Crosse.

1. We take what hee granteth. Christs body is now glorious and impassible: and therefore not subiect vntounto such indignities, as these creatures are: and the one consequently is not the other. Yea, is Christs body it self impassible? What is it then, that (as Origen speaketh) goeth into the draught? &c. which this Defendant taketh no notice of, because hee knoweth not what to say to it. Or let him resolue what those ashes, that they will to be reserued for reliques or what those mites are made of, that breed in the consecrated bread, when either they burne it, and so deale with it as they doe with Heretickes, or reserue it ouer long.

2. It is present in a spirituall manner, Had hee but added, onelyonly, he had marred all: hee had beene a foule Hereticke, and perchance might fare no better, if he would stand to his words, then this their little God almighty doth, when he groweth hoary. But is hee come to that now, Christ is spiritually in the Sacrament? What is become (I maruell) of that carnall and corporall presence then, that they prate so much of? and for want whereof they so much vilifie the Protestantical Cōmunion? Or what p. 192is the reason why hee could not endure to heare, that those wordes of our Sauiour, of eating his flesh, Iohn 6. should be spiritually vnderstood?

3. If these things cannot befall Christs body, because it is after a spirituall manner present; then belike these things may befall it, yea must needs befall it when they doe fall out, if it be present in a carnall or corporall manner; which uuCarnaliter. Bellar. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 12. Corporaliter. Idem ibid. l. 1. c. 12.Bellarmine granteth it is, and they sticke not vsually to afifrme.

4. If Christs body bee in an indiuisible manner there, what is it that is there broken? Or what did our Sauiour breake at his last Supper? at which time also his body was not indiuisible, or xxAs themselues grant. Duran. ration. diuin. l. 4. p. 4 and 6. part. Can. & Thō. sum. p. 3. q. 81. a. 3. ex Innocent. 3. de sacr. altar. l. 4. c. 12.impassible. Or how doth Pope Nicholas tel vsus that Christs yyCorpus ipsum.body it selfe is sensually broken? Where marke (I pray you) how the Arguments and Allegations produced to prooue the thing broken in the Sacrament to be bread, and to shew the absurdity of their doctrine in this point, as well of Pope Nicholas that saith that Christs very body it selfe is broken and torne in peeces, as also of others that say, that aaQuidam dicunt quia nihil …bi frantur. Lombard. sent. l. 4. d. 12. C.nothing is broken at all, or nothing but accidents only, here is not a word answered. The hoast (they say) is Christs body, and bbDurand rational diuin. l 4. p. 4. c. 3. Et Biel in Can. Miss. lect 80. Frangit sacerdotes hostiam.the Priest breaketh the hoast: and yet he breaketh not Christs body. For Christs body neither is nor can be broken. We may reason well backward: Christs body is not broken: But the hoast is broken: The hoast therefore is not Christs body. Or Christ is not diuided: But the hoast is diuided: The hoast therefore is not Christ.

5. Christs body, though it be there, yet it cannot be abused. No? Is it not abused when the drunken Priest speweth it vp againe? which their Church Canons therefore make prouision for. Or is it not abused, when it is burnt by them and vsed like an Hereticke? Or when it is deuoured and swallowed downe by mice and rats? as their owne Schoolemen confesse. How is it then that their S. Clement giueth S. Iames such charge as you heard before of it, least some foule abuse befall Christs body?

p. 1936. Yea but, though it bee so, yet is it no more abused, then an Angell in an assumpted body, can bee wounded, or Corpus spiritale, non spiritus sicut animale corpus non est anima sed corpus: ita & spiritale corpus non spiritum debemus putare sed corpus. Aug. ep. 146.Christs Deity was on the Crosse. Is Christs humanity then turned into his Deitie? Or hath ^c Christ now assumed the nature of Angels, and so is now become a Spirit? It is a spirituall body (saith Augustine) yet not a Spirit: As an animal body is not a soule, but a body; so such a spirituall body as the Apostle speaketh of, is not a spirit but a body. But eeQuis audeat opinari vel Christi corpus spiritale non resurrexisse, vel si spiritale surrexit, iam non corpus fuisse sed spiritum?who dare say either that Christs body rose not againe a spirituall body: or if it did rise againe a spirituall body, that it was no more a body now but a Spirit? When hee himselfe refuteth this opinion in his Disciples; who when they tooke him for a d 1 Cor. 15. 44.1 Cor 15:44Spirit, ffLuk. 24. 39.Luke 24:39he bad them, Feele, and see; for a spirit had not flesh and bones, as they saw hee had. ggIam igitur illa caro spiritale erat corpus, n…c tamen spiritus erat, sed corpus.Euen then therefore was that flesh of his a spirituall body, and yet was it a bodie and not a Spirit. And Bellarmine himselfe, hhCorp. Christi, vt est in Bucharistia, est verum, reale, naturale, animatum, quantum, coloratū, &c. & caro corporalis, nō spiritualis, nisi vt obediens spiritui in omnibus Bellarm. de Euchar. liq. 1. cap. 2.Christs body, as it is in the Eucharist, is a true, reall, naturall, liuing, big, coloured body: and the flesh of Christ is corporall, not spirituall, vnlesse we take spirituall as the Apostle doth, for obedient to the spirit. It is absurd then to reason from Christs God-head to his man-hood; or from an Angell in an assumpted body to Christs pretended body in the Eucharist; or in things concerning the true nature of a bodie, from a Spirit to a bodie. An Angell could not be hurt, though the body assumed by him should bee hacked or hewed asunder: but iiGabr. Biel in Can. Miss. sect. 80. Corpus Christi cum sit animatum & organicum, si frangeretur & diuideretur, corrumperetur.Christs bodie (saith Biel, one of their Schoolemen) being a liuing and organicall bodie, if it should be broken and diuided, would be destroyed.

§ 2. Such Arguments (hee saith) as these were made by the ancient Heretickes, to wit, the Eutychians, Nestorians, Arrians, &c. against our Sauiours diuinitie and the personall vnion of two natures in him, viz. that it was vnfit to conceiue that God to be man so vnited, or man Deified should be beaten, buffetted, whipped, torn with nayles and thorns, &c.

p. 1941. It is true that some Heretickes; yet not the Eutychians (how should they argue against Christs Deitie, that held his humanity wholly turned into it?) no nor the Arrians; but the Nestorians, and long before them the Marcionites (whose absurd dotages these men reuiue againe) made obiection of the things here spoken of. But hee knoweth well enough, what was then answered them (if he know ought at least in the Fathers, whom he would seeme to hauehave at his fingers ends) by those that refuted them; to wit, that our Sauiour was then in a state of humiliation; whereas now he is in a state of glorification; and freed consequently from all those infirmities and indignities that hee was then content to expose and subiect himselfe vntounto, to bring vsus vntounto glory.

2. They obiected these things truely; but without iust cause then: We obiect them, though not supposing them to be true, yet finding them to follow necessarily from their carnall conceits, vponupon iust ground against them. And belike hee findeth himselfe and his, guilty of exposing & subiecting Christ glorious body (a thing most impious) to such indignities a new.

§ 3. Yea but (saith this Fantastick) there is a second exhiminition of Christ in this sacramentall presence, or hiding of himselfe in this Sacrament.

1. In the beginning of his Discourse he came ouer me for writing a bad band. I know not whether the faire band be his owne or no that his owne Discourse is written in. If it be (sure I am) his Schollarship is very small, that putteth exhiminition for exinanition: for so I suppose his meaning is; because I finde it so in kkTurrian. de Euchar. tract. 1. cap. 11.Turrian; from whom it is like enough hee had it, fathered vponupon one Methodius, whom Bellarmine was much to blame that hee ouerslipt, when hee mustered his Fathers for Christs corporall presence in the Sacrament. But here is a new doctrine indeed, and yet most true, if all be as they say, that our blessed Sauiour is returned to a state of exinanition, that is, humiliation, deiection, infirmity, indignity, paine and infamie againe: p. 195for all this the word of llPhilip. 2. 7.Phil 2:7exinanition importeth. Belike they thinke hee suffered not enough, or was not throughly enough exinanited while he was here on earth, that they must needes bring him backe againe, to snffer such ignominious things, out of heauen, as to be chewed, to be burnt, to grow mouldy, to putrefie, to turne into mites and maggots, to passe into the bellies of mice and rats, &c. to vndergoe those things in his second exinanition, that in the first he neuer did.

2. Hee thought it before mmDiuis. 10. ad Arg. 4.a most base and unworthy thing, to imagine that Christ should hauehave hid himselfe in a corner from the Iewes, when they would hauehave stoned him in the Temple: (as if he must of necessitie either so do, or else make his body to bee for the present as they say it is now in the Eucharist) yet here hee telleth vsus, that hee hideth himselfe in the Sacrament; not in a corner of the Temple, but in a little round wafer-cake, or in the Pyx (at least) that reserueth it, so long now and then, for want of good looking to, that it breedeth pretty little quicke creatures, as good a God eueryevery one of them, as any crumme of the hoast was, of which they were bred. But as nnMat. 24. 26. See Dr. Sheldens Sermon on it.Matt 24:26our Saviour forewarned vsus; though they tell vsus that Christ is hid in the Pyx, or in some other secret place, yet we little beleeue them. Wee may rather beleeue that the wiser and learneder sort among them, hardly beleeue themselues herein.

3. He telleth vsus here that Christ hideth himselfe in the Sacrament, and a little before that being not quantitatiuely and corporally extended therein, he is not touched nor altered with any corporall action done about it. If hee be hid there, how saith Bellarmine, that ooSuper mensam visibiliter adest Bellar. de misla. l. 1. c. 12.hee is there visibly vponupon the board? Or if hee be neither seene nor touched there, why would hee make vsus beleeue that Chrysostome saith, that we doe see him, and touch him, and handle him there? Or how saith hee a little after that Christ, as a louing Spouse, doth there visitt and imbrace vsus? It is true indeed that their Priests vse much wanton dalliance with their breaden p. 196God, while they make the poore people like silly ideots, adore him, and like Ixion for a substance embrace a meere shadow.

THis is that cleane hoast, as S. Irenaeus affirmeth, which N. P.the Gentiles were by Malachy foretold to offer vntounto God in all places; and the onelyonly sacrifice of Christians, as S. Augustine calleth it; figured by Melchisedechs oblation of bread and wine, as the holy Fathers ioyntly teach vsus, and represented by the Iewish as well bloody as vnbloody sacrifices: not distinct from the sacrifice of the Crosse, by which alone our redemption was consummated, as **Ad Heb. 5.Heb 5S. Paul teacheth vsus, but the same in the hoast and chiefe offerer thereof, daily repeated now in an other vnbloody and mysterious manner by the Ministery of Christs consecrated servants. So as all Christian Nations of the world, Grecians (for example) Rutenians, Armenians, Mozaribites, Cataians, Ethiopians, and other Christians in India, neere mount Libanus and in other the remotest places in the world, such as hauehave not euer heard peraduenture of the Roman Church since their first Apostolicall conuersions, or had any commerce between themselues, are knowne to conspire (not withstanding their other late errors) with vsus in the celebration and true beliefe of this great sacrifice and Sacrament, as D^r. Philippus Nicolai a chiefe Protestant Diuine in his Commentary of Christs Kingdome, and Sir Edwin Sands in his Relation of Religion, &c. with other aduersaries of our Church plainely acknowledge. Which may bee to any wise and well minded man an euident argument, that they receiued this common beliefe and celebration of this diuine sacrifice, from no other fountaine but the instruction and example of their first Apostolicall conuerters.

And when Luther taught by the Diuell (as hee plainely confesseth) vponupon plaine sophismes and doceitfull arguments by himselfe particularly related (as I hauehave seene in ““Tom. 6. Germ. Ienensi. sol. 28. in lib. de Missa angulari. Tō. 7. Wittenberg. anno Dom. 1588, in lib. de Miss. priuata, & vnctione sacerdot. fol. 413. & fol. 228.his works first printed at Iene and now extant in the great Library at Oxford) began to impugne that holy sacrifice which hee had formerly offered, and presented that his hereticall doctrine and p. 197whole confession of Augusta to be accepted, as he hoped by, the Grecian Churches, Ieremias their Patriarch in his Censure (as he calleth his booke) of the East Church, yet extant in Greeke and Latine, plainely condemneth amongst their other hereticall doctrines, this very denyall of Christs sacrifice, transubstantiation, &c. vrging (as we doe) invincible arguments, and the vniuersall euer continued practise of Christs Church to prooue them; vsing (as I my selfe hauehave seene in their Churches) alike forme to ours for the mysterious and decent celebration thereof, causesly wont by our Aduersaries to be derided: whereas their owne Liturgie or forme of diuine seruice is as a shadow chosen in place of the substance, hauing nothing decent therein but what they hauehave stollen from vsus and picked here and there out of our Missals, gracing all with a riming Psalme, sung to a liggish tune, with iarring and for the most part vntunable voyces, neuer vsed before in any Christian Churches.

The first Authors of this new Sect, were Aposta…aes of our Church for their confessed disorders of life, and miserable ends plainely discouered to hauehave been no Apostolicall persons: whose endeauours hauehave neuer tended at any time to conuert Pagans to Christ, as his true Church shall euer doe, but to corrupt Christians truly already conuerted: And they hauehave seldome planted themselues in any Countrey, but vponupon very carnall, grosse occasions, as here in England, or with open rebellion, and tragicall acts against lawfull Princes and Magistrates, namely in Scotland, France, Flanders, Swisserland Sueuia, Polonia, seuerall Prouinces of Germany, Geneua it selfe and other Protestant territories.

The pretence of a Church and Religion like to theirs in former ages canot colourably be defended without many shifts & contradictory deuices: Some will hauehave it to hauehave beene latent and inuisible for 800. others 900 other 1000 or 1200. yeers: Others contrarily teach it to hauehave beene euer visible and conspicuously dilated into many Christian Countries, as the Oraculous predictions of the Prophets and expresse promises of God himselfe describe it: Others say that our Church was p. 198euer the true Church of Christ; onelyonly in some parts of faith not fundamentall erring, and by them since Luther reformed: Others deny that euer our Church was the true Church of Christ, or other than a preuailing faction in the true Church professing at all times visibly and in all Christian countries their present doctrine. But no one of these dreamers and Church-deuisers (as I may tearme them) is able before Luther to assigne in any age since Christ or Country of the world one Parish of Protestant true prosessors, or single person iumping in all points with any one sect of them: their religion indeed being like a beggers cloake patched together out of olde condemned Heresies and vnsutably composed. Their markes of a Church, to wit, preaching of true doctrine and a rightfull administration of Sacraments are such as any hereticall sect past or to come may equally peetend according to the maine grounds of Protestant doctrine; which are to admit no common translation or interpretation of Scripture, but what themselues list for discerning of true doctrine and rightly administring Sacraments.

§ 4. HE magnifieth their Masse, by telling vsus that T. G.this is that cleane hoast, that Irenaeus saith Malachie foretold; the Christians onelyonly sacrifice figured by that of Melchisedeck; and represented by the Iewish as well bloody as vnbloody Sacrifices; not distinct from the Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse, but the same repeated in another vnbloodie manner.

1. It is true indeede that ppIren. adu. Valent. l. 4. c. 32, 33.Irenaeus vnderstandeth by that qqMal. 1. 11.Mal 1:11pure Offring in Malachie the Eucharist now in vse: and that the rrCypr. ep. 3. lib. 2. Euseb. praepar. Euan. lib. 5. cap. 3. Hieron. ad Marcell. Aug epist 95. & alii.Avncients many of them suppose it resembled in ssGen. 14. 18.Gen 14:18that action of Melchisedeck: And they call it the Christians (yet ttHeb. 13. 16 & 1 Pet. 2. 5. Vide & quot Sacrificiorum Christianorum mentionem …aciant, Lactant instit. l. 6. c. 24. & …5. Te…tull contr. Marc. l. 3. & 4. Chrysost. contr. lud orat. …. Eiusdem nomine in Psal. 95. Cyrill. contr. Iulian. l. 10. Aug. de Ciuit. l. 10. c. 4. &c.Heb 13:161 Pet 2:5Ps 95not the onelyonly Christian) Sacrifice, succeeding in the roome of the Iewish Sacrifices; the Sacrament, p. 199I say, of the Eucharist, not their Sacrifice of the Masse. In what sense Augustine will tell vsus: uuSacrificium laudis, &c. Aug. contr. …ust. l. 20. c. 21.A Sacrifice of praise (saith he out of the Psalmist) shall glorifie me; and there is the way that I will shew him my Saluation. xxHuius sacrificii caro & sanguis ante aduentum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur: in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur: post ascensū Christum per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur.The flesh and blood of this Sacrifice before Christs comming was promised by Sacrifices resembling it: in Christs passion it was exhibited in the truth it selfe: since his ascension it is celebrated in a Sacrament of remembrance. And againe: yyAug ibid. cap. 18.The Hebrewes in their Sacrifices of beasts, which they offered vntounto God, zzChristiani peracti eiusdem sacrificii memoriam celebrant, &c.did celebrate a prophecie of the Sacrifice to come that Christ offred: And Christians now celebrate the memorie of the same Sacrifice past in an holy oblation and participation of Christs body and blood. And Procopius vponupon Genesit; aaProcop. in Gen c. 49.Gen 49Christ dranke to his Disciples in mysticall Wine, saying, This is my Blood: and gaue them withall bbTypum, effigiem, vel imaginē corporis sui.a type, figure, or image of his Body, no more admitting or accepting the bloodie Sacrifices of the Law.

2. Is this their Sacrifice the very same with Christs on the Crosse. Then belike Christ is anew crucified againe. The Apostle indeede telleth vsus of some ccHeb. 6 6.Heb 6:6that crucifie Christ againe: and it is to bee feared that to many of them are indeede guilty of that sinne. But if this their Sacrifice be, as he saith, not ddGal. 3. 1.Gal 3:1a resemblance, or ee1. Cor 11. 25, 26.1 Cor 11:251 Cor 11:26commemoration, as we say in the Eucharist, of Christs passion, but the very same with that of Christ on the Crosse, how can it be but a new crucifying of him indeede? Yea then Christ must needs die and suffer againe in it. For ffBellarm. de missa lib. 1. c. 27.a true and a reall Sacrifice (saith Bellarmine) requireth a true and reall death or destruction of the thing sacrificed. And againe, ggIbid. l 1. c. 2.A sacrifice besides the oblation requireth a mutation and consumption of the thing offred; yea and hhIbid. l. 1. c. 25.the slaying of it, if it be a liuing thing: And, iiIbid. l. 1. c. 2.vntounto a true sacrifice is required, that that is offred vntounto God in Sacrifice be vtterly destroyed. Yea euen the Apostle himselfe saith, that kkHeb. 9. 26, 27, 28.Heb 9:26Heb 9:27Heb 9:28If Christ he oft sacrificed, then he must die and suffer ost. But llRom. 6. 9.Rom 6:9Christ being once dead, he dyeth no more. Yea and Bellarmine himselfe p. 200granteth that mmBellarm. de missa l. 1. c. 25.Christ doth not truly die in the sacrifice of the Masse: and that nnChristum non mori nisi in Sacramento seu signo repraesentāte vnicam illam mortē, quam aliquando obiit.he dyeth not there but in a Sacrament or a Signe representing that one onelyonly death that once he died. He is not therefore really, properly, or verily there sacrificed: Nor is this their Sacrifice of the Masse therfore the selfe same with that of Christs on the Crosse.

3. Is this Sacrifice of theirs a repetition of Christs sacrifice? then belike Christs Sacrifice was imperfect. For the Apostle euidently maketh ooHeb. 10. 1, 2, 3, 11Heb 10:1Heb 10:2Heb 10:3Heb 10:11the reiteration of Offrings an Argument of imperfection. And if Christs Sacrifice then be (as this blasphemous wretch saith) repeated, it must needs be (by the Apostles Argument) defectiue and imperfect. But Christs Sacrifice was most absolutely perfect, consummate and all-sufficient. For ppHeb. 10. 10, 12, 14. foreign. Athanas. Serm. contr. Arian. 3.Heb 10:10Heb 10:12Heb 10:14by one oblation of himselfe once offred hath he obtained eternall redemption, and for euer consecrated them that are sanctified. Christs Sacrifice therefore needs no reiteration. Nay, it is an impious wrong to it to say it is reiterated: and such as some of their owne writers themselues either are ashamed of, or at least dare not a…ow. Peter Lombard the grand Master of the Sentences (as they tearme him) and qqQuanquam Petro Abeilardo honorē hunc deferat Beat. Rhenan. not. ad Tertull.the first Father of their Schoole-Diuinity; rrPetr. Lombard. sentent. l 4. d. 12. G.moueth this Question among others, Whither that which the Priest doth be properly termed an immolation or a Sacrifice: & whither Christ be daily sacrificed, or was once onelyonly sacrificed. Now to this Question, (saith he) we may briefely say, ssVocati Sacrificium, quia memoria est & repraesentatio v…ri Sacrificii & sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis.that that which is offred and consecrated by the Priest is called a Sacrifice and an oblation, because it is a memoriall and representation of the true Sacrifice and the holy immolation made vponupon the Altar of the Crosse. ttSemel Christus mortuus in cruce est, ibique immolatus est in seipso: quotidiè autem immolatur in Sacramento, quia in Sacramento record …io fit illius, quod factum est semel.For once Christ died vponupon the Crosse, and was there sacrificed in himselfe: but he is daily sacrificed in the Sacrament, because in the Sacrament is there a remembrance of that that was once done. Whereupon saith Augustine; uuAug. prefat. in 2. expos. Psal. 21. & apud Grat. de consecr. d. 2. c. Semel.Ps 21Sure we are that Christ risen againe from the dead p. 201dieth no more, &c. But yet least we should forget the same, that that was once done, is in our remembrance done eueryevery yeare, to wit, when the Passeouer is celebrated. (xxAug. epist. 23. And we oft therefore so speake as to say, when the Pasch is at hand, Tomorrow or the next day will be the Lords Passeouer; whereas hee suffered so many yeeres agone; and his passion was but once in all performed: and yet yyDicitur illo die fieri, propter Sacramenti celebrationem, quod non illo die, sed olim factum est.in regard of the celebration of the Sacrament, is that said to bee done that day, which not that day, but long since was done; **Ex similitudine sacramē ta nomina rerum ipsarum accipiunt.the Sacrament bearing the name of the thing thereby represented.) zzLomb. ibid.But is Christ then so often slaine? No: but ““Sed tantum anniuersaria recordatio repraesentat quod olim factum est, &c.onelyonly an anniuersarie memoriall doth represent that that was once, and maketh vsus so to be affected, as if we saw Christ on the Crosse. And what is this more then wee also say? or how is it the very same with Christs sacrifice on the Crosse, if it bee not it, but a memoriall of it onelyonly?

4. He saith, Christs sacrifice on the Crosse is repeated there in an other vnbloody manner: and yet the one is not so much as distinct from the other. What not mysticall, but mistie riddles are these? For 1. what is the sacrifice of Christ but his bloody passion, but the shedding of his blood, and the pouring out of his soule vntounto death, as aaEsa. 53. 10, 12.Isa 53:10Isa 53:12the Prophet Esay expoundeth it? And how is this then the very same with that, when it is in an vnbloody manner performed?

2. If this be (as they say) an vnbloody sacrifice, and Christ be therein vnbloodily sacrificed: how is it that they affirme that bbVera & realis effusio sanguinis Christi.Christs blood is verily shed in it, and was therein really shed before it was shed vponupon the Crosse: which to prooue also ccBellar. de sacrif. miss. l. 1. c. 12. &c. 25. & l. 2. c. 2.Bellarmine in expounding the words of Christs Institution (contrary to the expresse ddDecret. de Sacr. Script. Concil Trident. sess. 4. Vt Latina vetus & vulgata editio pro authentica habeatur, & nullo praetex… reiiciatur.Canon of the Councell of Trent) leaueth their owne vulgar translation, which they count autenticall; as also the Canon of their Masse, the principall part of their seruice; which both hauehave, Qui pro vobis effundetur, That shall be (or, is to be) shed for you; because they fitted not p. 202his turne so well; and presseth the wordes according to the Greeke, eeforeign. Luk. 22. 10.Luke 22:10Qui pro vobis effunditur; That is poured out for you. If Christs very blood bee poured out in it, how is it an vnbloody offering? Or how is not this a riddle? There is blood there, but not as blood: And it is the very same with Christs bloody passion, and yet celebrated in an vnbloody manner.

3. Is it be an vnbloody offering, how is it (as they vse to say) a sinne sacrifice; when ffHeb. 9. 22.Heb 9:22without sheading of blood (as the Apostle telleth vsus) there is no remission of sinnes, ggBellar de miss. l. 1. c. …5.Nor was there euer any sinne sacrisice without blood-shead, saith Bellarmine. The truth is, that hhHeb 9. 12.Heb 9:12Christ once for all went into the holy place with blood, and thereby obtained eternall redemption. As for their vnbloody blood, it is but a meere counterfaite. And in this case with their owne Glosse may we soone stop their mouthes, which expoundeth (contrary to Bellarmine) those words in the Canon, Christs blood is shead, or poured out; iiEffunditur, i. significatur effundi. Gloss. ad Grat. de consecr. d. 2. Si quotiescunque.that is the sheading of it is signified, in the Eucharist.

4. How doe these two stand together: The one is bloody, and the other vnbloody: and yet the one is not so much as distinct from the other. Here is not a distinction (as they say) without a difference; but a difference (which is more strange) without a distinction. Did this fellow (thinke we) vnderstand what he said? But if the sacrifice of the Masse be not so much as distinct from the sacrifice of the Crosse, how doth Bellarmine tell vsus that kkBellarm de Miss. l. 1. c. 6.the sacrifice of the Crosse is of greater value then the sacrifice of the Masse; the one of infinite, the other but of finite worth.

Whereof llIbid. lib. 2. cap. 4.he rendereth a two-fold reason:

1. In regard of the hoast that is offered: because Christs naturall being was destroyed in the one: whereas his sacramentall being onelyonly is destroyed in the other.

2. In regard of the person offering, or the offerer; because he was offered immediately in the one, whereas he is offered by a Minister or Priest in the other. And yet this fellow telleth vsus, that the sacrifice of the Masse is not distinct from p. 203he sacrifice of the Crosse, but is the same both in the hoast, and the chiefe offerer thereof. These things hang together like harp and harrow, as they say. But our great Doctor (it seemeth) for all his bragging and blustering, is but a Nouice; and is not yet throughly acquainted with his Master Bellarmines doctrine in all points, though hee make vse of him otherwise.

§ 5. Hee telleth vsus that all Christian Nations in the world, Grecians, Rutenians, Armenians, Mozaribites, Catayans, Ethiopians, Indians, &c. conspire with them in the celebration and true beliefe of this Sacrifice, and Sacrament.

1. This is like their Iesuites tricks to tell vsus of many strange miracles wrought by their Fathers in the Indies, in Goa, in America, in Iapan, in China, whither they know before hand, that mmQuod Cardano …ul. Scal. de …ubtil. exerc. 177. Sect. 5. Cedā potiùs quàm credam, credam citiùs quàm sciam.no man will goe to disprooue them: and whence Popish writers yet say nnMiracula & signa nulla audio. Fr. Victor. relect. 5.they can heare no such matter: yea some of their owne coat ooSigna non edimus. Ios. Acost de procur. Ind. sal. l 4 c. 4. Prodigia nulla producimus. Ibid c. 12.sometime confesse it is not so.

2. This fellow is either extreamely impudent, or grossely ignorant, that dare so boldly and confidently auouch that all these Nations conspire with them in the celebration and beleefe of Sacrifice and Sacrament: Whereas it is commonly knowne that the most of these hauehave their Litur gies in their owne languages, which they hauehave not; communicate the people in both kindes, which they do not; consecrate, not wafers, as they doe, but whole loaues: and many of them, the Greekes especially, not vnleauened but leauened; hold the consecration to be effected, not by the repetition of those wordes, This is my body, but by prayer and supplication; mingle no water with their wine; vse no eleuation for the worshipping of the Sacrament; nor admit the Popish Transubstantiation: as out of good Historiographers, their seuerall Liturgies, and some of their owne writers, both M. Breerwood in his booke of Religions and Languages, and Th. A. in his Discourse of Catholicke Traditions, at large shew. Ieremy the Greeke Patriarcke, whom he afterward citeth, affirmeth expresly, p. 204that **Ieremie Patriarch. in his Answer chap. 10 alleadged by Th. A. of Cathol. Tradit.at our Sauiours last Supper that flesh of our Lord which hee carried about him was not giuen the Apostles to eate, nor his blood to drinke; nor are they now giuen in the holy mysteries, &c. And againe, that this bread, when it is offered, is common bread offered onelyonly to God; but afterwards is made extraordinarie bread. And in the Councell of Florence (as appeareth in the last Session) some controuersie there was betweene the Greeke Church and theirs about the ““De Panis transmutatione.transmutation of the Elements in the Eucharist; nor do we finde that they euer came therein to any generall accord or agreement vntounto this day. Now where (thinke you) is this mans face or his forehead, that dare so confidently auerre that both these and all the Christian world but we conspire with them herein, both for opinion and in practise? Yea when hee telleth vsus (to let vsus vnderstand that he hath beene a Traueller; and it may bee brought as little wit or honesty with him home, as he caried out) that hee hath seene their celebrations the same with theirs: hee sheweth therein, (if he say true, that he hath seene their celebrations) that against his owne knowledge, when he thus writ, he told vsus a grosse vntruth; and wee neede returne him for the rest of them no further answer, saue that which is commonly said, that **Quod de Vlysse Homer. Odyss foreign. Et quod Aristot. metaph. l. I c. 2. foreign. Ita etiam & foreign. Quibus atque Poetis Quidlibet audendi (ac fingendi) semper fuit aequa potestas.far Trauellers may lye by authority, or (as it may be hee hopeth) rather, that they may tell lyes without controll. Yet when we finde him false in things neerer home, and by name heere in his assertion concerning the Greeke Churches, he must not blame vsus, if wee suspect him in his report of of Mozaribites, Cathaians, Indians, Ethiopians, and others more remote; the rather, hauing as good cards to shew as any he can produce, to the contrary.

§ 6. In the next place he runneth out in an idle discourse of Martin Luther, as if he had learned the doctrine he taught in this point, of the Diuell, (a friuolous fable refuted long since by ppAnswer to the Censure, &c.M. Charke, qqDefence of that Answer.D^r. Fulke and others:) by the way glancing at our manner of celebration of the Sacrament; and an inuectiue against the first Authors p. 205(as hee falsely tearmeth them) of our Religion; with an apendix concerning the markes of a Church, and of the Church before Luther. Concerning all which for the present I say nothing but that of Ierome, rrHieron. ad Laetam.Asellus lassus in via quaerit diuerticula. He is a wearie (it seemeth) of the worke hee hath in hand, and would faine slip aside therefore into some other debate, that it might not so well appeare how hee sticketh in the mire here. One thing (they say) at once doth well: and I suppose this will finde him worke enough for a while; if he hauehave any stomacke to reioyne. Let him (if hee can) first maintaine their prodigious doctrine in the point present; and then (if he desire it) hee shall further be dealt with, either in these, or in any other Controuersie betweene them and vsus.

OnelyOnly for what hee saith of our Liturgie as pieced (I know not how) together out of their Missals, and graced with aryming Psalme sung to a liggish tune. Not to put him in minde of those apish gesticulations, and histrionicall firks, that their Masse almost wholly consisteth of, and of their Hymnes running in rime indeed, but full oft without reason, fraught with grosse Barbarismes and Soloecismes; yea stuft with ssThey professe to place their whole hope in the wooden Crosse: and so worship it (as Aquinas confesseth) with diuine worship. They pray to be saued by Thomas Becker a traytors blood: they entreat the Virgine Mary to command her Sonne Christ: and pray to her, that being redeemed by her, they may be able to climbe to heauen, &c.not a few impious blasphemies; which their Collects also are not free from. Let the ancient manner of Church-seruice and celebration of this Sacrament related before out of Iustine Martyr be considered; and then see what is wanting in ours that was then in theirs, and whether is liker to that, ours or theirs. Their Missall indeede is a meere patchery of old and new together, so euill contriued (whatsoeuer ttId est maximè admirandum & commend indum quod Canon Missae sit multorum aut…rum, & tamen ita aptè partes omnes in…er se iungantur, & cohaereant, vt vnius autoris videatur. Bellar. de Miss. l 2. c 19Bellarmine prate to the contrary) and so handsomly agreeing the one with the other, that from those very fragments of antiquitie, that remaine yet in their Masse, this very doctrine of theirs may very euidently bee confuted. For p. 206therein after consecration they pray vntounto God, to accept that holy sacrifice, which of his gifts they offer, and vouchsafe to looke propitiously vponupon those his gifts, and to accept them as hee did Abels offering and Abrahams sacrifice: and, that he will command them to be caried vp by the hands of his Angell, to bee presented on the high Altar in the sight of his Maiesty; and that through Iesus Christ, by whom he continually createth, quickeneth, and blesseth all these good things: And againe, that that which they hauehave taken may of a temporall gift become an eternall remedie. How stand now these speeches and prayers with their Transubstantiation? Are Christs body and blood those temporall gifts and good things, that God by Christ daily createth and quickeneth? Or needeth Christ the Priest to entreate his Father to looke propitiously vponupon him? Or any Angell to cary him vp and present him before his Father in heauen, in whose presence and sight he is continually there? Or is it not absurd to place uuGen. 4. 4.Gen 4:4Abels fatlings and xxGen. 22. 13.Gen 22:13Abrahams Ramme in equipage with the body and blood of Christ Iesus? But these things (it seemeth) were in their ancient Liturgies, before euer this new monster was hatched, and to their owne shame & confusion are yet vnwisely still retained. And if you will see, how handsomely things therein hang together, obserue but this one passage: The Priest prayeth to God to send an Angell to fetch the holy Housell vp into heauen: (and yet they tell vsus withall, the most of them, that yyNos vt descensū negamus, ita nec ascensum statuimus. Petr. Scarga de Euchar. art. 5. Non descendit de coelo corpus Christi: Ex Damasc. orthod. fid. l. 4. c. 14. Biel in Can. lect 54. But Pope Innocens would not hauehave vsus ouer-curious in this point. Non oportet in talibus curiosos existere. Innocent. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 16.it neuer came from thence, nor neuer returneth againe thither; wherein we better beleeue them then we doe some other of their fellowes that say otherwise) and within a while after, hee swalloweth it downe himselfe; and then praieth God (as if he repented him of his former prayer) zzCorpus tuum, Domine, quod sumpsi, & sanguis quem potaui, adhaereat visceribus meis. In post commun.that that which hee hath eaten may sticke fast to his guts. Let him shew any such absurdities as these p. 207(if he can) in our Seruice. If some pieces of Antiquity found in theirs be retained still in ours; that is neither derogation to ours, nor commendation to theirs. Wee embrace true and sound Antiquity, wheresoeuer we finde it: their corrupt nouelties, which it suteth so euillfauouredly withall, we deseruedly reiect.

THey pretend cleare places of Scripture for each point of N. P.their doctrines wherein they differ from vsus. But when they come to be duly discussed, they either make against themselues, or prooue nothing at all against vsus; as I will briefely declare in this very controuersie, for a Corollarium of my whole doctrine. For whereas S. aaVide Bellar. lib. 1. de Euchar. cap. 5.Cyprian, S. Hilarie, Saint Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, S. Augustine, Cyrill, Hesychius, Theodoret, and vniuersally all the ancient Fathers commenting the 6. Chapter of S. Iohns Gospell hauehave literally vnderstood Christs promise of giuing his flesh to eate and his blood to drinke in the Sacrament, these men restraine them to a metaphoricall and spirituall eating by faith onelyonly; and for this their interpretation quite contrary to the iudgement of the ancient Church, they onelyonly cite those wordes of Christ, It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, &c. and affirme them to import that Christs wordes are figuratiuely to bee vnderstood, and not at all according to the literall signification of them, to wit, of Christs body and blood receiued in the Sacrament. Whereas at most they can import, that Christ promised not to giuegive his flesh and blood cannally, as the Capharnaits vnderstood him, cut (to wit) in pieces, and by bits eaten, as S. Augustine explicateth them; but that Christs body and blood were to be after a spirituall manner present, and receiued in the Sacrament, which we deny not: And great Authors (as Tolet noteth) so expound them, as to make this sense, It is the deity or diuine spirit which is vnited with my flesh, that viuificateth by grace soules worthily receiuing it, and not by flesh alone barely of it selfe eaten. Neither of which explications prooue a figuratiue vnderstanding of Christs wordes: this being a Glosse of p. 208their owne besides the text, neuer before them taught by any Catholike Doctor: and so it can be no solide sufficient ground sor them to rely vponupon for their hereticall deniall of Christs true body and blood really present and receiued in the Sacrament. For Scripture ill vnderstood is no Scripture, but Gods word abused.

§ 7. YEt in conclu…ion to say somewhat againe of the T. G.present point, hee telleth vsus that S. Cyprian, Hilarie, Ambrose, Chrysostome, Augustine, Cyrill, Hesychius, Theodoret, and all the ancient Fathers vniuersally vnderstood that place of Iohn concerning the eating of Christs flesh not figuratiuely, but literally; whereas wee contrary to the iudgement of the whole ancient Church, vnderstand them of spirituall eating by faith; alleadging onelyonly for this our exposition those words of our Sauiour, It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: which wordes as Tolet sheweth, may beare another sense.

1. How prooueth hee that these Fathers so expound that place? Forsooth, he sendeth vsus to seeke the proofe of it in Bellarmine. It is enough that he saith it; let Bellarmine (if he can) prooe it. But is not this impudent outfacing, to say that these Fathers all literally vnderstand it, when out of diuerse of them the contrary hath beene euidently shewed? Yea when Augustine (one of them) giuing rules to expound Scripture, doth expressely affirme that the place is to be taken figuratiuely, and that it were bbFacinus & flagitium.an haynous and flagitious thing otherwise to vnderstand it?

2. It is another vntruth as grosse as the former, to say we ground our exposition on those wordes onelyonly. Wee vrge indeed the wordes following ccIoh. 6. 63.John 6:63The wordes that I speake are spirit and life. And we vrge and expound them no otherwise then diuerse of the Ancients hauehave done before vsus. To omit Athanasius formerly alleadged: Augustine besides that that is in the selfe same place cited; ddAugust. in Ioan. tr. 27.What meane those wordes, (saith he) They are spirit and life, but p. 209eeSpiritaliter intelligenda sunt.that they are to be vnderstood spiritually? And againe, ffIdem tr. 11.He spake this that hee might ggNe carnaliter intelligerent.not bee vnderstoode carnally; as hhIoh 3. 4.John 3:4Nicodemus before had done. Yea and of those former wordes Thomas Aquinas out of Chrysostom, iiEx Chrysostomo Aquin. in Ioan. 6.John 6When Christ saith; It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: his meaning is, that kkSpiritualiter oportet ea quae de me sunt audire.we ought spiritually to vnderstand those things that wee heare of him: and that llQui carnàlites audit, nihil proficit.whoso heareth carnally, getteth thereby no good. Now to vnderstand them carnally, is to looke on the outward things onelyonly, and to imagine no more then wee see. To vnderstand them spiritually is not so to iudge of them, but also with the inward eyes to looke on them. mmOmnia mysteria interioribus oculis aspicere.Which in all mysteries ought alwayes to be done. And Tertullian, nnTertul. de resurr. carnis.When Christ saith that The flesh profiteth nothing; His meaning must be drawne from the matter of his speech. For because they thought his speech hard and intollerable, ooQuasi verè carnem suam illis edendā determinasset.as if hee determined to giuegive them his very flesh to bee eaten; (or, his flesh verely to bee eaten) to place the state of saluation in the spirit, hee premiseth; It is the spirit that quickeneth: and then adioyneth; the flesh profiteth nothing, to wit, to quicken. And withall he sheweth what he meaneth by the spirit: The words that I hauehave spoken are spirit and life. As he said before; ppIoh. 5. 14.John 5:14Hee that heareth my word, and beleeueth in him that sent mee, hath life eternall. So that he maketh the word the quickner; because the word is spirit & life; and he called it also his flesh; because the qqIoh. 1 14.John 1:14Word also became flesh; and is therefore rrSe…o caro factus, in causam vitae appetendus, deuorandus auditu, …ummand…s intellectu, …de digerendus.to be longed a…ter for life, to be deuoured by the hearing, chewed by the vnderstanding, and digested by faith. Heere is the eating that our Sauiour spake of in that place, not carnall but spirituall; which our Aduersarie also earstwhiles confessed. Neither vrge we this alone, (as he vntruely here affirmeth;) But wee vrge diuerse other passages also (as before hath beene shewed) wherein our Sauiour expoundeth himselfe; obserued by Augustine long since, and by their Flaunders Bishop Iansenius of late, beside diuerse others of their owne. And if he had had any thing of moment to say against this our exposition, why p. 210did hee not then produce it, where the place was discussed? But he thought it better and safer (it seemeth) to let all this alone there, lest the allegations to the contrary being then in the eie, might easily conuince him of grosse and palpable falshood.

3. Doe we alone thus expound that place? Doe not very many of their owne writers herein agree with vsus? Or do those of theirs build onelyonly vponupon the clause he here mentioneth? To which purpose, howsoeuer enough hath already beene said, yet for his better information concerning both the soundnes of our exposition of that place, and the reasons thereof drawne from our Sauiours owne wordes, let him heare one, though not then Pope, yet that afterward came to bee Pope, and was as learned a Pope as any of late times. Aeneas Syluius writing against the Bohemians; ssAeneas Syl. aepist. 130. cō tra Bohem.It is not (saith he) any sacramentall drinking, but a spirituall that our Sauiour speaketh of in that 6. of Iohn. For there is, as Albertus Magnus she weth, a threefold drinking of Christ: a sacramentall, that the Priests onelyonly receiue; an intellectuall, that the people take in the species of bread; and a spirituall, which all vse that are to be saued, by daily deuout meditation ruminating on Christs incarnation and his passion: And of this drinking our Sauiour speaketh in Iohn 6. as the very series of the Euangelists wordes clearely sheweth. For when some of them that heard it, murmured, our Sauiour said, ttIoh. 6. 61. 62, 63.John 6:61John 6:62John 6:63Doth this scandalize you? What if you should see the Sonne of Man ascend where before he was? It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. In which wordes he declareth that hee speaketh not there of any carnall eating or drinking: But would you plainly see that he speaketh of spirituall eating, that is, by faith? Marke what hee saith: uuIoh. 6. 54.John 6:54He that eateth and drinketh. He speaketh in the present tense, not in the future. There were euen then those that so ate him and dranke him, when as the Sacrament was not yet instituted. And how did they then eate and drinke Christ, but spiritually by faith, and louelove, and doing his wordes? For he said also before, xxIoh. 6. 35.John 6:35I am p. 211the bread of life; hee that commeth vntounto mee, shall not hunger; and he that beleeueth in me shall not thirst. For Christs speech was figuratiue. So also the Glosser vnderstandeth this Gospell: and so doth that great Augustine, noble both for doctrine and modestie, whose glory is so great, that no mans commendation can adde to his credit, no mans dispraise can disparage him. And yet dare this shamelesse outfacer confidently affirme that none of the Fathers euer so expounded the place: and that the Heretickes (as he esteemeth them, as if none but they so expounded it) had no other inducement so to expound it, but those wordes onelyonly; yyAnd yet those words also doth Durand vse to prooue that Christs wordes Iohn 6. 54, 55. are meant of eating spiritually, not corporally. In rational, diuin, p. 2. l. 4. ad 6. p. Can.John 6:54John 6:55It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: all which you see are nothing but grosse vntruths.

SEcondly, whereas we prooue that Christs wordes, This is N. P.my body, &c. as being vttered to the Apostles, to whom it was giuen to vnderstand the mysteries of Christs Church plainely, and without parable, and containing in them the institution of a Sacrament, fit in plaine wordes to be deliuered and vnderstood by all Christians bound to receiue it, are as we say literally to bee vnderstood, and not in tropicall and figuratiue senses, as our Aduersaries expound them; producing for our opinion all the Fathers successiuely in all ages since Christ so vnderstanding them: Protestant Diuines slenderly obiect, first that of the sacramentall Chalice Christ affirmed, that he would no more drinke of the fruit of the vine, vntill after his passion: ergò it was wine contained in the Chalice: wee answer that S. Luke expressely mentioneth two Chalices, one drunke after the Paschall Lambe eaten, and the other afterwards blessed by Christ and distributed to his Apostles, and that Christ onelyonly called the first the fruit of the vine, &c. So S. Ierome, S. Bede, and other great Authors explicate and solue this difficulty with vsus. Secondly, they obiect those words of Christ, Doe this in memory of me: ergò the Sacrament is a bare memorie of Christs body and blood, &c. We answer p. 212and make S. Paul to interpret these words of our Sauiour for vsus, 1 Cor. 11. saying. As oft as you shall doe this, you shal represent or declare Christs death till hee come. Which is best declared and represented by the parts of the Sacrifice and Sacrament, as they containe the very body and blood of our Sauiour in them. For so himselfe present seemeth to triumph more gloriously, and exhibite vntounto vsus a more liuely memorie of his passion, then if the Sacrament were no more then a bare signe thereof.

§ 8. HAuing affirmed that all the holy Fathers in all T. G.ages from Christ hauehave expounded the wordes of our Sauiour, (This is my body, literally and not tropically, as they also do. The contrary wherevnto hath as clearely been shewed, as that the Sunne is vp at noone-day: nor had this trifler ought of moment to except thereunto, where the same is shewed; and yet now craketh (as their manner is) of all the Fathers, when indeed they cannot bring any one vndoubted testimony to confirme what they so confidently affirme.) Hee will at length forsooth for fashion sake vndertake to answer two slender obiections of ours to the contrary.

1. Christ (say wee) calleth that in the Cup or Chalice, the fruit of the vine.

He answereth that S. Luke mentioneth two Chalices, the Paschall, and the Euangelicall, or Eucharisticall; and so S. Ierome, and S. Bede solue this difficulty.

1. Hee spake of slender obiections. And so it seemeth indeed he esteemeth them: for he returneth very slender answers to them. For who would be so senslesse as to reason on this manner, S. Luke mentioneth two Chalices: ergò our Sauiour did not speake any such thing of the Eucharisticall Cup, as yet both aaMat. 26. 29.Matt 26:29Mathew and bbMat. 14 25.Matt 14:25Marke say expressely he did.

2. Ierome and Bede (saith he) so solue the difficulty. He would make his Reader beleeue that Ierome and Bede had long since propounded this obiection, and so assoiled it as p. 213he doth. Whereas the truth is; they take no notice, either of them of the two Cups, but allegorising the wordes (as their manner is to doe many times, letting the literall sense alone) expound the vine to be ccEsa. 5. 1, 7. Psal. 80. 8, 14.Isa 5:1Isa 5:7Ps 80:8Ps 80:14the people of the Iewes, and so the fruit of the vine, the legall obseruances, &c. And what is all this to the literall sense of the words, that this trifler is troubled with, and cannot tell how to auoyd? Let him produce (if he can) any one Father, who denieth that Christ spake those wordes of the Eucharisticall Cup, and of the liquor therein contained. I alleadged ddClem paedag l. 2. c. 2.Clemens of Alexandria, eeCypr. ep. 3. l. 2.Cyprian, ffChrysost. in Mat hom. 83.Chrysostome, ggAug. de dogmat. Eccles. c. 75.Augustine, and might adde many others that affirme it. Yea not onelyonly Iansenius ingenuously acknowledgeth that it can be meant of hhNullus alius calix intelligi potest Iansen. concord. c. 131.no other then the Eucharisticall Cuppe, which onelyonly Matthew and Marke mention: But Maldonate the Iesuite also freely confesseth that iiOrig. in Mat. tr. 30.Origen, kkCypr. ep 68.Cyprian, llChrysost. in Mat. hom. 83.Chrysostome, mmEpiph. haer. 47.Epiphanius, nnHie. on. in Mat. 26.Matt 26Ierome, ooAug. quaest. Euang. l. 1. q. 42.Augustine, ppBeda in Mat. 26.Matt 26Bede, qqFuthy. ib.Euthymius, and rrTheoph. ib.Theophylact, doe all expound those wordes of it: howbeit himselfe saith that ssNon de sanguine suo, sed de vino dixit. Maldon. in Mat. 26.Matt 26Christ spake there not of his blood, but of wine. Where first obserue we that Ierome and Bede (cleane contrary to this fablers assertion, by the Iesuites confession) expound it of the Eucharist. And secondly, conclude wee from the Iesuites owne grants: It was of that that was in the Eucharisticall Cup that our Sauiour spake those wordes, as the ancient Fathers generally and ioyntly affirme: But our Sauiour spake them not of his blood, but of wine; saith the Iesuite: It was not his blood therefore, but wine that was drunke in the Eucharist.

2. Wee obiect the words of our Sauiour, ttLuk. 22. 19.Luke 22:19Doe this in remembrance of me: not as this shamelesse lyer saith, therby to prooue the Sacrament to be a bare memorie of Christs body and blood: somewhat like the lye he told before, that his Adversarie should affirme it to bee nothing but bare bread and wine: but to prooue that Christ is not there corporally present: For what needeth a memoriall of him, when we hauehave him in our eye? when (if we may beleeue p. 214Bellarmine) he is visibly present with vsus? When we see him, and touch him, as this fellow telleth vsus else-where? Or who would be so absurd as to say, I giuegive you my selfe to be a memoriall of my selfe? uuPrimas. in 1 Cor. 11. Vt siquis moriens relinquat ei quem diligit, pignus aliquod, &c. Idem habet & Herueus, & Haimo.1 Cor 11It is as if a man when hee dieth (saith Primasius) or, xxPeregrè proficiscens. Hieron. nomine in 1 cor. 11. & Sedul. ibid. foreign. Basil. Caes. hom. de charit.when he goeth to trauell, (saith one that goeth for Ierome) should leaue a pledge or a token with one that hee loueth, to put him in minde of him in his absence, and of the good turnes he hath done him; which the partie if hee louelove him entirely, cannot looke on without teares. And who would be so senselesse, as deliuering his friend a ring on his death bed, to say, I deliuer you this ring to bee a pledge of this ringe, or to be a pledge of it selfe?

But let vsus heare (I pray you) his Answer. Saint Paul (saith hee) interpreteth these wordes of our Sauiour, when he saith; yy1 Cor. 11. 26.1 Cor 11:26So oft as you doe this, you represent Christs death, till hee come. Would any man that had either braines in his head, or wit in his braine, answer in this manner, or reason on this wise? Christs death is represented in the Lords Supper. Ergo Christs very body and blood must needs bee there present. Yea or thus either? In the Lords Supper is a representation of Christs death: Ergò it is not a memoriall of it. As if representation were not ordinarily of things absent; or memorials represented not the things that they commemorate. He wanted his Bellarmine heere to helpe him out; who where Tertullian saith, that aaTertul. contra Marc l. 1. Panem, in quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat.Christ represented his body in bread: bbBellar. de Euch l. 2. c. 7.saith that to represent there signifieth ccPraesentem rem facere & reipsa exhibere.to make a thing really present. But it is well that ddforeign.the word vsed by the Apostle here, will not beare any such sense: else (it may be) we might hauehave had it.

Meane while hee should hauehave done well (as his vsuall manner is else-where) to hauehave snipt off or concealed at least, the last clause, Till I come. eeEtenim post eius adventum non amplius erit opus symbolis seu signis corporis, cum ipsum corpus apparebit. Theodoret. in 1 Cor. 11.1 Cor 11For after hee is come (saith Theodoret) we shall hauehave no neede of signes or symbols of his body any more, when his body it selfe shall appeare. He p. 215were scarce in his wits (I thinke) that would leaue a thing with his Friends at his departure from them to bee remembred by in his absence till hee returned againe to them, that should lie lockt vp and kept out of their sight, and should neuer come in their view, but when himselfe should come personally in presence to shew it them: or should bid them by such a thing remember him, till hee came againe to them a twelue-monethmonth after, when as eueryevery weeke or monethmonth in the meane space hee meant to returne to them, as oft as euer they desired to remember him in it. But mine Adversary thought belike that none but such silly sots should reade what hee writ, as would marke nothing but what he would hauehave them.

LAstly S. Paul literally declaring the institution of the Sacrament, N. P.1 Cor. 11. to the end that the Corinthians might vnderstand the excellency thereof, maketh the sinne of such as vnworthily receiue it to consist in this, that they discerne not that bread to be the body of Christ: and his words read alone without hereticall glosses expresse plainely Catholicke doctrine. And in the Chapter before hee mentioneth benediction or consecration of the Chalice then vsed, saying, Calix benedictionis, The Chalice of benediction which wee blesse, is it not the communication of Christs blood? and the bread which we breake, is it not the communication of Christs body? &c. Of which words saith S. Chrysostome, this is the meaning; That which is in the Chalice, is that which floweth out of Christs side, and wee are made partakers thereof. Which is out of the Greeke text of S. Luke plainely to be gathered: And the very manner of Christs speeches, Quod pro vobis datur, quod pro vobis effundetur; Which is giuen for you, which shall be effused for you; import plainely a Sacrifice of his body and blood, wherein the one is offered not to vsus, but for vsus; the other was to be not infused as wine, but effused as blood for vsus, &c.

p. 216§ 9. AT last remembring himselfe, wherein he failed T. G.at the first, hee will prooue out of S. Paul (hee saith) that Christs words are literally to be vnderstood. This had beene more seasonable, where it was questioned at first. But better at last (we say) then neuer.

1. The Apostle maketh (saith hee) this the sinne of those that vnworthily receiued the Sacrament, that ff1 Cor. 11. 29.1 Cor 11:29they discerned not the Lords body.

2. Hee, saith, gg1 Cor. 10. 16.1 Cor 10:16the bread broken is the communication of the body of Christ; and the blessed Chalice of his blood.

Stout Arguments, and fit for such a Champion as he is.

For the former: how followeth it, Men sinne in not discerning the Lords body, when they come vnreuerētly to the Lords board: Ergò our Sauiours words, This is my body, are to bee vnderstood properly. Let him heare Augustine expounding the words of the Apostle, what it is not to discerne the Lords body, to wit, hhAug. epist. 118. c. 3. Qui hoc non discernebant à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita.not to discerne that from other meates by a reuerence singularly due vntounto it; which is as he speaketh else-where, iiIdem ep. 23.in some sort Christs body, because a Signe and a Sacrament of it. Yea let him heare himselfe where he saith, kkDiuis. 8. Sect. 1.The sinne of such persons is made this by the Apostle, that they distinguish not this bread from other common bread. And then see how well they serue to prooue that that here they are alleadged for.

For the latter: Not to demand of them, how chance they oft celebrate (contrary to both our Sauiours, and the Apostles practice) without any breaking of bread at all; if their paper wafer-cake at least deserue that name. Who denied euer a communication of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament? But must it needes bee corporall; or else it is none at all? llforeign.The tongue tripping now and then telleth truth. And the truth start out of his mouth before vnawares, where he said, that Christ is present there in a spirituall manner. And in a spirituall manner (as out of Athanasius and Augustine, yea and their owne Iansenius I hauehave shewed) doe wee participate of, and communicate p. 217with the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament; mmQuomodo mittam manuum in coelum? Fidem mitte; tenuisti. Aug. in loan. tr 50.sending the hand of our faith (as Augustine speaketh) vp into heauen; yea reaching it (as I may well say) to Christs Crosse. I will adde to the former onelyonly one obseruation of Bernard, who in many places speaketh of this our communication with Christ: Alluding to those words of our Sauiour, nnIoh. 6. 56.John 6:56Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him: ooBernar. in Cant. serm. 71. Et manducat nos, & mā ducatur à nobis; quo arctius illi astringamur.Christ (saith he) both eateth vsus, and is eaten of vsus; that wee may the more firmely and strictly be fastened vntounto him. Otherwise should wee not bee perfectly vnited to him. For if I eate and be not eaten, he may seeme to be in me, but not I yet in him. Againe, if I be eaten, but eate not; he may seeme to hauehave me in him, but not to be yet in me. For there is no absolute vnition in either of these alone. But when ppSi manducat me, vt habeat me in se, & à me vicissim manducatur, vt sit in me, quatenus integra firmaque sit connexio, &c.both he eateth me, that I may be in him; and is eaten of me, that he may be in me; then is there indeed a firm and an entire connexion, I being in him and hee in mee. But Christs eating of vsus is not orall or corporall, but mentall and spirituall: of the like kinde therefore is our eating of him, and our mutuall participation alike in either: Which in these wordes also most sweetly doth Iansenius expresse: qqPer fidem panis iste non simpliciter sumitur, sed veluti dentibus quibusdā masticatur, &c. Iansen. concord. c. 59.By faith this bread is not simply taken, but being chewed as it were with teeth, while it is well considered what and what manner of food it is, and rrFrangitur, & in animae viscera traiicitur.so broken, it is conueighed with a kinde of delight and spirituall taste into the bowels of the soule, and ssNobis incorporatur.is incorporated into vsus, that so Christ being in an hidden and secret manner by faith vnited vntounto vsus, may ttEphes. 3 17.Eph 3:17dwell (as the Apostle speaketh) in our hearts, by his presence there quickening and nourishing them, and so expell all hunger and thirstinesse out of them, while he remooueth both the want of things needfull to true life, and the desire of other transitorie things. And it is the same in effect that Caluine meaneth when he saith, **Amplius quiddam esse Christum manducare, quam in Christum credere Vide Caluin. Institut. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 5, 6, 7.To feede on Christ is somewhat more then barely to beleeue in him, and that it is yyNon tam ipsum credere, quam effectum eius. Ex Caiuini sent. Bellar. de Euch. l. 1. c1.not so much beliefe p. 218u Viuificet, alat, esuriem pellat, &c.it selfe, as an effect and fruite of it. That which Bonauenture the Schooleman also not vnfitly thus expresseth: zzBonauent. in sent. l. 4. dist. 9. quae. z.Eating (saith hee) is properly spoken of the body, and is by way of similitude applied to the soule. That therefore we may know what is meant by spirituall eating, wee must hauehave an eye vntounto corporall feeding. Now in corporall manducation there are these two things, aaMasticatio & incorporatio.mastication and incorporation, or a chewing of the meate in the mouth, and an incorporating of it into the body. In like manner in spirituall eating there is first bbSpiritualis masticatio est recogitatio cibi i. carnis Christi pro nobis expositae in pretium ad redimendū & in cibum ad reficiendum.a spirituall chewing, that is, a recogitation or a serious consideration and faithfull meditation of the spirituall meate, that is, of Christs flesh exposed for vsus, both as a ransome to redeeme vsus, and as food also to feed vsus; and secondly, ccIncorporatio dum recogitans charitatis amore ei quod cogitatur iungitur, & sic incorporatur, & dum incorporatur reficitur, eique assimilatur.a spirituall incorporation, when vponupon such recogitation or consideration the soule is by a louing affection vnited and incorporated to the thing considered, and is thereby refreshed or nourished, and so made in grace more and more like vntounto it. So that vntounto spirituall manducation are two things required, ddRecogitatio fidei, & affectio charitatis.a faithfull recogitation, and a louing affection. Whence it followeth that eeNon sufficit qualiscunque fides.neither is eueryevery kinde of faith sufficient to effect this spirituall feeding on Christ, but such ffGal. 5. 6.Gal 5:6faith onelyonly as worketh by louelove: ggNon quilibet actus credendi manducare facit, &c.nor is eueryevery effect of faith a feeding on Christs flesh, but that onelyonly whereby Christs flesh, that was boyled (as it were) to make food for vsus, on the Crosse, is so considered, and in a spirituall manner digested and con…cted (as was before said) for the feeding and refreshing of our soules. So that Caluines doctrine and ours concerning this spirituall feeding on Christ, and so communicating with his body and blood, is no other then the Ancients long since taught, and their owne writers themselues acknowledge: Which in one word I shut and seale vp with that short saying of Chrysostome, tha tboth in Baptisme and the Eucharist, hhforeign Chrysost in 2 Tim. hom. 2.It is faith that doth all.

Yea but Chrysost. saith that that that is in the Chalice, is that which flowed out of Christs side, and we are made therof partakers: And out of S. Lukes Greeke Text it is plainely gathered.

p. 219What out of S. Luke hee alleadegth wee shall see anone. OnelyOnly mark how he fleeth from their onelyonly authenticall Latine heere to the Greeke Text, which at other times they **Vide Lindā. de opt Gen. interp. l. 1 c. 11 Canum. loc. com. l. 2. c 13. & Analys. fid. l. 8. c. ….say is so corrupted, that there is little certainety of ought from it, further then their Latine and it concurre.

Chrysostome saith indeede as hee is here cited. But it must be remembred what both their Sixtus Senensis, and Bellar. also say of him; to wit, that Chrysostome is wont to speake many things kkPer hyperbolen enunciare. Sixt. Sen. biblioth. lib. 6. annot. 152.hyperbolically or llPer excessum Bellarm. de Missa l. 2. c 10.excessiuely, in his sermons especially. To passe by other places, where hee saith, that the Church is mmforeign Chrylost. in Mat. hom 82.that very Chamber where Christ celebrated his last Supper; that nnforeign. Idem in encoen siue de poenit. tom. 6. orat.we touch his side with our lips; that ooforeign. Idem in Ioan. hom. 46. & ad pop. Ant. 62.we set our teeth in his flesh; that ppforeign. In Mat. hom 82.we cut his flesh assunder; that our qqforeign. Ibid.tongue is died with blood; and our rrforeign. Ibid.mouth is filled with fire; while ssforeign. In encaen.no man, but an Angell with tongs reacheth a coale of fire to vsus; that Christ doth ttforeign. In Math. hum: 82.…neade as dough, and uuforeign Ibid foreign in Ioh 46mingleth himselfe together with vsus; and that xxforeign. In Math. 46.we are likewise knod as dough and yyforeign. In … 46.mixed or tempored together with him into his flesh. To let these passe, I say; in the very Sermon here cited he hath diuerse passages, which themselues will not deny, must needes be figuratiuely meant; as where he saith, that aaforeign. In 1 Cor. hom. 24.Christ suffereth that in the Sacrament, that he did not suffer vponupon the Crosse; to wit, the bbforeign.breaking, euen of his bones, which there he did not; that ddforeign Ibid.the altar is bloodied with Christs blood, (as hee saith else-where that the people are eeforeign. Dr sacerd lib. 3.all died red with it:) that ffforeign In 1 Cor. hom 24.the bread is Christs bodie: (which in propriety of sense, saith ggDe Euc ar lib 1. c. 11.Bellarmine, is impossible) and that by taking it we are not onelyonly hhforeign.vni…ed to Christs body, and become iiforeign.one body with Christ; or kkforeign.Christs body; and all p. 220c foreign Ioan. 19. 36John 19:36of vsus one body: but that llforeign.wee our selues are that selfe same bodie that we take: Not vnlike that which Haimo hath, that mmIlia caro quam assumpsit, & iste panis, omnis que ecclesia, non faciunt tria corpora, sed vnum corpus. Haimo in 1 Cor. 10.1 Cor 10Christs naturall bodie, and the Eucharisticallbread, and the Communicants themselues are all but one and the same body. Yea that he is to be vnderstood figuratiuely, appeareth, as by that that hee addeth there, that nnforeign.like Eagles we must so…re aloft vp to heauen, and ooforeign.not flagge downeward, nor creepe below vponupon the ground, if wee will come at Christs body; so by that which hee saith elsewhere, that it was ppforeign Chrys. in Mat. hom 82.wine that Christ deliuered, when hee deliuered this mystery; that which hee prooueth also by the wordes of our Sauiour himselfe in the place before discussed, qqMat. 2. 6. 29.Matt 2:6Matt 2:29I will drinke no more of this fruite of the vine. Chrysostome saith that the Altar is bloodied with Christs blood; and his body suffereth that there, which really it doth not: as the Apostle faith, that rrGalat. 3. 1.Gal 3:1Christ was crucified in the sight of the Galatians, who in likely hood many of them neuer saw peece of his Crosse: and as August. saith, ssAug. epist. 23.he lies not, that saith that Christ is immolated on Easterday, in regard of the similitude that that Sacrament hath of his passion, that that day is celebrated: and in like manner may it very well be vnderstood, when hee saith that Christs blood is in the Cup. Nor hindreth it, but that this speech of Chrysostome may be taken tropically, because he saith, ttforeign. Chrys. in 1 Cor. hom 24.That that flowed out of Christs side: (as uuIn sacramē to spei consociatur Ecclesia quamdiu bibirur, quod de Christi latere manauit. Aug. contr. Faust. Beda in 1 Cor. 11. Hoc accipite in Calice quod manauit de Christi latere. Ex Aug. serm. ad Neophyt. I… ad Haimer. de corp. Dom.1 Cor 11Augustine also, though no friend to Transubst antiation, is reported to say the same) no more then it would hauehave hindered, but that the Apostles words might hauehave bin takē figuratiuely (as Caietan also well obserueth) hough of the Rocke hee should hauehave said, That Rocke was that Christ, that was crucified, and died, and rose againe from the dead.

§. 10. In the next wordes hee commeth to prooue a Sacrifice there, The very manner (saith hee of Christs speeches, Quod pro vobis datur, quod pro vobis effundetur; which p. 221x 1 Cor. 10. 4.1 Cor 10:4y Caietan. in Thom. part. 3. quaest. 75. art. 1.is giuen for you, which shall bee shed for you; import plainly a Sacrifice: which he hath (as all that euer he hath almost) out of aaBellarm. de miss l. 1 c. 12.Bellarmine.

As if those wordes had not a manifest relation to his passion; (which is bbEsai 53. 10, 12 Ephes. 5. 2. Heb. 8. 3. & 9. 12, 14.Isa 53:10Isa 53:12Eph 5:2Heb 8:3Heb 9:12Heb 9:14a true Sacrifice indeed, and ccHeb. 10. 1, 10, 12, 14.Heb 10:1Heb 10:10Heb 10:12Heb 10:14a most perfect yea ddHeb. 10. 8, 9. De qua Chrysost. nomine in Psal. 95. foreign.Heb 10:8Heb 10:9Ps 95the full complement of all other:) that which their owne vulgar Translation also plainely importeth, yeelding the wordes (as they are also in the very Canon of the Masse) by the future tense, Tradetur, effundetur; shall be giuen, shall be shed: as hauing an eye to the passion then eelo. 13. 1.neere at hand, wherein his body was to bee giuen, and his blood to be shed. So Gregorie of Ualence; ffQuod tradetur siue datur, siue frangitur. 1. quod offeretur à me pro vobis in cruce mactatum. Greg de Valent. de miss. sacr. l. 1. c. 3.That is or shall be giuen, or broken; that is, that shall bee offered by me for you being slaine or sacrificed on the Crosse: ggTradetur. i. dabitur atque offer…etur in cruce in odorem suauitatis vt Apostolus interpretatus est. Ibid. c. 4.as (saith hee) the Apostle himselfe also expoundeth it. So Cardinall Hugh; ^h He tooke bread, and brake it, thereby signifying that his body should be broken on the Crosse, and that hee did himselfe expose it to be so broken and crucified: And when he said kkAccepit & fregit 1. frangendum in cruce signauit. Hugo in Math. 26. i Sponte sua frangendum & crucifigendum exposuit. Idem in Marc. 14.Matt 26Mark 14that shall bee shed, he foretold them of his passion then shortly to ensue. Yea so llCaietan. in Math. 26.Matt 26Card. Caietan; who addeth also not vnfitly, that Christs body is said then to be giuen, and his blood to be shed. because his passion was then in a manner begun, ^l a plot being now laid for his life, and mmIoh. 10. 15.John 10:15his bodie and blood already bought and sold by them. And to omit that Christs words concerning his bodie do no more intimate a present act of deliuering it, then those wordes of his the like else-where, ⁿ I lay downe my life for my sheepe: Let him but shew vsus how Christs blood is shed in this Sacrifice. For as for Bellarmines bold assertion that ooBellarm. de miss. lib. 1. cap. 25.bread is said to be broken, when it is ppIntegri panes dentur.giuen by whole loaues; and wine is said to bee poured out, when it is giuen by qqPlenae amphorae donentur.whole hogs-heads, or rundlets at least, not by pots or pitchers full onelyonly; it is most senselesse and abfurd. But why doth p. 222k Effundetur: de passione praedixit. Idem in Luc. 22.Luke 22not this eager disputer vrge rather that which many of them doe, that Christ bad them, ^r Doe this, that is, as they senselesly expound it, Sacrifice this. For that is a Hoc facite, Luk. 22. 19.Luke 22:19maine pillar, that they pitch much vponupon. Which expositiō yet, as Bellarmine is almost ashamed of, and ssBellarm. de miss. l. 1. c. 12. Fingit Catholico… ità probare, &c. Non tam ineptè argumentantur.blameth Caluin wrongfully as if he had wronged them therein, by charging them with such expositions and arguments as they make not, nor alleadge: so ttIansen. concord. cap. 131. Sunt qui Sacramentum istud esse Sacrificium ostendere conantur ex verbo facere, quod aliquando per sacrificare accipitur, &c.Iansenius acknowledging ingenuously that some did so argue, (as indeede uuInter caeteros Sanderus nostras de Coena Dom. l. 3. c 9. circumst. 19. Item Gregor. de Valent. de Miss. Sacrif. l. 1. c. 4.not a few doe) yet confesseth that that is but a weake argument: and granteth in effect, that it cannot either out of that or any other place of the Gospel be prooued, that the Sacrament of Christs body and blood is a Sacrifice: And is faine therefore to runne to tradition for it: and yet there also findeth he little footing for such a Sacrifice as they would hauehave it to be. For Irenaeus (xxIansen. ibid. saith he) that liued neere the Apostles times, yyIren. lib. 4. cap. 31.calleth the Sacrament of Christs body and blood a Sacrifice in regard of the bread and wine therein offred (as types of Christs body and blood:) as also in regard of the thankesgiuing therein offred, as well for the worke of our Creation, as for the worke also of our redemption. And howsoeuer this doughty Doctor say that our Sauiours words so plainly import it, yet is their graund Champion Bellarmine, where at large he debateth this businesse, euill troubled to finde it out either in Christs Institution, or in their owne Masse booke, or to shew wherein it consisteth. Where it is not, indeede hee can easily tell vsus: but he cannot so easily tell vsus where it is. ooBellarm. de miss. l. 1. c. 27.It is not he (saith he) ppIn oblatione panis & vini non consistit.in the oblation that goeth before Consecration: for then not Christs body, but bare bread should be sacrificed. It is not in the Consecration: for qqIn consecratione non apparet vlla oblatio, nec sensibili… vlla immutario, &c.therein appeareth no oblation, nor no sensible immutation, which is needfull in an externall sacrifice. It is not in the Oblation that▪ commeth after Consecration: for rrOblationem i…am n…c Christus nec Apostoli faci…bant, quam nos post co…ationem fac….that oblation neither p. 223Christ; nor his Apostles at first vsed. It is not in the breaking: for ssNon solet frangi quandoque.that is sometime …mitted: ttFractio nostra Christum autorem non habet.nor doe we (saith) vse such breaking as Christ did now adaies. It is uuManducatio & consumptio non sit à Solo Sacerdote.not in the peoples communication: for then the people should be Priests. But where is it then? Surely it is partly in the Consecration: and yet it is not there neither: because there is xxConsecratio non veram & realem mortem, sed mysticam tantum efficit.no true or reall, but a mysticall death onelyonly there; and partly in the Priests manducation, or eating of it. And why there? forsooth, because it is no where else, and somewhere it must needs be: For yyIn tota actione Missae nulla est alia realis destructio victimae preter istam.in the whole action of the Masse there is no reall destruction of an Host but there onelyonly. Thus you see how they delude the people, telling them of a true, proper, reall Sacrifice, wherein they offer Christ againe for the poore soules in Purgatorie, to picke their purses: And yet cannot tell themselues what or where it is, or wherein it consisteth. But if Christ (as they say) be the thing sacrificed or the Hoast: and not bread, but this Hoast is really destroied, when the Priest eateth it: then how scapeth Christ from being then destroied? or how scapeth the Priest from being a destroier of Christ? Yea at the first Institution either Christ did eate the consecrated Host or bread, or he did not. If he did, (**Vide Bonauent. in sent. l. 4. d. 9. q. 4. a Iansen. concord. cap. 131. which yet indeede is not so easily prooued) then by Bellarmines doctrine he did therein really destroy himselfe; and the rather, for that his body was not as yet then impassible. If hee did not, then belike there was no sacrific… there. For the Apostles (they say) were not made Priests till Christ bad them, Hoc facite, doe this; and **Concil. Trident. seff. 6. de Sacrif. Mis…. cap. 1. & can. 2.thereby made them such; which might well be not till after they had eaten. Or if they were Priests when they did eate, then belike they destroied Christ before the Iewes did him to death. But it is not to be marueiled, if they cannot finde it in Christs Institution when they know not where to finde it in their owne Missall. In which kinde it is not vnworthy the obseruation, that Corn. Iansenius hauing sifted ouer and ransackt the whole story of the Institution, conioyning all the three Euangel…st…, that report it, together, yet can p. 224finde no Sacrifice there expressed saue in the bbGratiarum eūim actio est quoddam Sacrificium. Idem ibid.thankesgiuing, which is (saith he) a spirituall …inde of Sacrifice, and of which the Lords Supper is called the Eucharist, and may therefore well be …earmed a Sacrifice. Which we deny not; but expressely say the same. OnelyOnly he saith, ccProbabile est quod oblatio sui Deo sit facta. Ibid.it is probable too, that Christ then offred himselfe to his Father. But at last he is faine to flie to this, that though it be granted that Christ offred not himselfe in the Supper, yet it followeth net that the Priests should not therein now offer him. For they * Vt demus Christum non obtulisse, &c. non consequitur sacerdotes non offerre debere.are bidden by Christ to doe something that Christ did not, to wit, to doe it in remembrance of him, which could not be done then, when he was present, (nor is hee present then belike now when it is done) ““Cum memoria tantum sit rei absentis.since that remembrance is of a thing absent onelyonly: and that therefore it may well bee called a Sacrifice, because it is done in memorie of Christs Passion. This is the very same that Peter Lombard before said: and to the same purpose Gabriel Biel (applying that out of Augustine to the Sacrifice, which we did formerly to the Sacrament, whereupon mine Aduersarie tooke occasion to keepe such a coile, as if I made the Sacrament nothing but a bare Signe, like Alexanders picture, &c.) ddGabr. Biel in Can. Miss. lect 85.Augustine (saith he) saith that eeAug. ad Simplie lib. 2. quaest. 3.Images or Pictures are went to be called by the Names of these things whereof they they are Pictures or Images, as when looking on a Table or a painted Wall, we say; that is Cicero, that is Salust: Now the celebration of this Sacrament is a kinde of Image or representation of Christs Passion; which is the true immolation or sacrificing of him: And therfore is it also called an immolation, or an oblation & a Sacrifice, because it is a representation and a memoriall of that true Sacrifice and holy oblation made on the Crosse. And this also we all willingly and generally graunt. But such a Sacrifice will not serue their turne. They must hauehave a Reall and a proper Sacrifice, the very selfe same with Christs on the Crosse, though they know not whence to fetch, nor where to finde it. Nor is it to be … (as I said before, if in Christs Institution there be ffNec vola, nec vestigium.… …ing … all found of this their Sacrifice: p. 225since they confesse that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the Sacrifice of the Masse are two seuerall things; which both the Councell of Trent therefore dealeth with seuerally, and Bellarmine handleth vnderunder seuerall heds: as also M. Harding derideth Bishop Iewel for confounding the Communion and the Masse together. We finde in the Gospel Christs Institution of the one, and therefore willingly embrace it: but we finde there not so much as any mention at all of the other; and therefore iustly we reiect it.

THE Protestant Writers of Magdeburgh in their N. P.fourth Century Dedicated vntounto our late Soueraigne Queene Elizabeth vndertaking to declare the Primatiue estate of the Church, which in Constantines time illustrated the whole world, blame almost vniuersally all the ancient Fathers for teaching free-will, Iustification by works, merite of workes done by the assistance of grace, confession of sinnes to a Priest, and enioyned Penance, absolution of such as had confessed giuen with Imposition of hands, Inuocation of Saints, Purgatorie, Altars called the seate of the body and bloud of Christ offered on them, the reall Presence, Transubstantiation, with care, more then was had of the water of Baptisme, that no part of the Sacrament should fall to the ground, reseruation of the Sacrament, worshipping of it, receiueing it fasting and chast, offering it in Sacrifice to God as being propitiator…e not onelyonly for the liuing, but for the dead, afferming it to be a Sacrisice according to the order of Melchisedeck, liberty for Deacon… to distribute it but not to offer it, tearming it Viaticum for sick persons, Im…ges in the Church sumptuously built for celebration of Masses in them, holy vestments vsed by the Priest in time of the Sacrifice, Corporals and Couerings of the Altar, Lights by day burning on them, placing of Saints Reliques vnderunder them, the care of d…ceased persons, praying before them, and making pilgrimages vntounto them, and other like confessed points and practises of Catholike Doctrine.

p. 226§ 11. TO make vsus beleeue that this their doctrine of T. G.Transubstantiation is of great antiquitie, he telleth vsus that the Centurists blame almost all the Fathers vniuersally of Constantines time, among other things, for teaching the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and adoration of the Sacrament.

This is all most false, as much is also of the rest by him here affirmed. They alleadge onelyonly some passages out of counterfeit workes, ggCentur. 4. cap 6. p. 430.some going vnderunder Ambrose his name, as the praiers preparing to the Masse, censured by hhIn Censur. ad Ambros. Non esse Ambrosii.Erasmus for such, wherein mention is made of Adoration of the bread in the Sacrament; which they note also not to be found in any of Ambrose his owne workes; iiCentur. 4. c. 4. pag. 294.some going vnderunder Athanasius his name, as an idle Legend of an Image of Christ; which kkBaron. in Martyrolog. Nouembr. 9. Planè constat Autorem illius historiae non esse Athanasium Alex.Baronius himselfe disauoweth; wherein mention is made of no flesh of Christ left in the world, but what is made vponupon the Altar: (and how hauehave they llCaluin. de reliq. Charrouienses Monachi iactant se praeputium habere.his foreskin among their holy reliques then?) mmCentur. 4. cap. 10. pag. 985.some vnderunder the name of Eusebius Emissemus, confessed by nnBellarm. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 30. de confir. lib 2. cap 6. de script. Eccles. ann. 430. & in recognit. Reuerâ Eusebius Emissenus non potuit esse.Bellarmine in diuers places to be meere counterfeits; as an Homely, wherein the bread and wine are said to be turned into the substance of Christs body and blood: (words not found once in the writings of any one of the Auncients: We produce expresse places, where the Substance of bread is said to remaine still in the Sacrament; they not one where the bread is said to be turned into the substance of Christs body. But a number of such counterfeits doe they daily coine and forge, and then cry out that men condemne antiquity, when they censure them, and such grosse errors as they meete withall in them:) And withall ppCentur. 4. cap. 4. pag. 294.they obserue that two or three of the Fathers that were, not in Constantines time, but somewhat after, vsed some new tearmes and phrases in their discourses of these Mysteries, that were not vsuall in auncienter times. But that they condemne any one Father that liued in Constantine, p. 227… Rob. Coqui Censur. Patrum quorundam; & Andr. Riuetti Specimen Criticum.time or within that age, much lesse all of them almost vniuersally for teaching Transubstantiation and adoration of the Eucharist, is most vntrue. He should hauehave done well to hauehave added, what indeed they obserue, and therein hee should not hauehave lied, qqCentur. 4. cap. 6 p. 428.that they did in those times deliuer the Sacrament entire to all, and not mangle it, as their Church doth now adaies, bereauing the people of one principall part of it: as also rrIbid. p. 429.that they deliuered them the bread into their hands, and not popped it into their mouthes, as their manner now is.

AND of Constantine that renowmed first Christian N. P.Emperour they confesse from the testimonie of Eusebius liuing with him and writing his life, of S. Ierome likewise and other certaine Authors, that he erected Temples in memorie of Martyrs, dedicated a most sumptuous Church in honour of the Apostles, prouided his sepulcher there, to the end that after his death he might be made partaker of the praiers there offered; he dedicated his Church with great solemnitie, and celebrated the dedication thereof with a yeerely festiuall day; he carried about with him a portable Church or tabernacle, and Priests and Deacons attending it for the celebration of the diuine mysteries; he had lights by day burning therein; he translated to Constantinople the holy reliques of S. Andrew, S. Luke, and Timothie, at which diuels did roare, and certaine reliques of the Crosse, found by his Mother for conseruation of the Citie built by him; hee honoured sacred Virgins professing perpetuall chastitie; VnderUnder him were Monkes throughout all Syria, Palestine, Bithynia, and other places of Asia and Affrick; he greatly reuerenced Anthony the Monke; hee went to embrace the sepulcher of Saint Peter, and Saint Paul, humbly praying to their Saints that they would be intercessours to God for him; he much honoured the Crosse and signed his face with it; VnderUnder him in that age were Pilgrimages made to Ierusalem: he reprooued Acesius the Nouatian for denying the power giuen vntounto Priests to remit sinnes, vnderunder pretence that God onelyonly remitteth p. 228sinnes: of his Cleargie, Priests and Bishops assembled by him to the dedication of his Church some of them did did preach and interpret holy Scriptures, others of them, who could not doe so, appeased the Deitie with vnbloody Sacrifices and mysticall consecrations, praying for the health of the Emperour: At the time of his death he intended to expiate his sinnes by efficacie of the holy Mysteries, and confessed his sinnes in the house of Martyrs: After his death praier was made for his soule, and the mysticall Sacrifice offered. So euident was hee and the Primatiue flourishing Church of Christ in his daies, in these and all other points Catholike, and continued so in our Countrey and other Christian parts of the world vntill Luthers foule Apostasie and reuolt from it.

The Brittish auncient Inhabitantt of this Ile conuerted in or neere the time of the Apostles, agreed in all other points of faith with S. Austin our first Apostle, excepting some different Ceremonies of Baptisme, and the Iewish obseruation of Easter, as S. Bede testifieth: whose religion is euidently knowne and confessed by our chiefe Aduersaries to hauehave beene Romane and Catholike. And neuer any countrey was in any age conuerted from Paganisme to Christ, but it receiued our doctrine, namely, the practise of the Masse and beleefe of the Sacrament.

§ 12. TO passe by his impertinent Catalogue of bymatters T. G.in Constantines time; (whereof some also are vntrue, and some vncertaine;) which he is very forward to run out into, willing to be dealing with any thing, though neuer so impertinent, then the point that against his will he must be held to: Whereunto I answer no more for the present, but this; Let him first quit himselfe of the taske that he hath already vndertaken, to wit, to maintaine this their Metaphysicall Transmutation in the Eucharist; and when he hath so done let him then produce, if he can, any one Article of Faith, that was held generally as such in Constantines time by vsus now reiected, and he shall not want an Answere. But to passe by this (I say) he would make vsus beleeue (if we will take p. 229it on his word) that the Brittish auncient inhabitants of this Ile held the same beleefe concerning this Sacrament, that the Romanists doe at this day. All the reason he produceth for it is this, that they differed from Augustine that was sent by Pope Gregorie into England onelyonly in some ceremonies about Baptisme, and the obseruation of Easter.

Surely this man hath a notable vaine in disputing and arguing: he can prooue any thing, if you doe but grant him all that he saith. The Brittish Inhabitants (saith he) here presently after the Apostles time held Transubstantiation then, as we doe now at Rome. Whereas he well knoweth that **Doctrinam hanc de conuersione hac, seu de Transsubstantiatione non admodum antiquam esse dicunt Scholastici, inter quos lo, Scotus dist. 4. q. 1. & d. 11. q 3. & Gabr. Biel in Can. lect. 41. Suarez. Tom. 3. disp. 5. quaest. 75. art. 5. Ait Scotus ante Lateranense Concilium (quod fuit Anno Domini 1215.) Transsubstantionem non fuisse dogma fidei. Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 22. In Synaxi Transubstantiationem serò definiuit Ecclesia. Erasm in 1 Cor. 7.1 Cor 7for aboue 1000. yeeres after Christ their Transubstantiation was not generally held; scarce heard of for farre more then halfe that time. Neither is hee able to produce any title of true Antiquitie to shew, that it was then held here.

Yea but (saith he) there was no difference here about it, when Austin came into these parts, betweene him and them that hee found here. But I demand how it appeareth that Gregorie that sent Austin, held Transubstantiation? or that in the Church of Rome it was then held? Till hee can prooue this to vsus, not out of lying Legends or bastard writings, but out of some authentick Story, or Gregories owne vndoubted workes, we hauehave little reason to beleeue him. ssBellarm. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 32.Bellarmine (I am sure) can fish very little out of him, nothing at all, that prooueth ought.

Sure we are that our Country-man venerable Bede, whom he here citeth as the reporter of Augustines arriuall here, was of an other iudgement, as by his writings appeareth. For Commenting on the storie of the Institution of this Sacrament; ttBeda in Marc. 14. & in Luk. 22. Nam in Math. non habeo.Mark 14Luke 22The old Paschall solemnity (saith hee) being ended, which was celebrated in memorie of the deliuerance out of Egypt, Christ passeth to a new one, which hee would hauehave the Church vse in memory of redemption by him, p. 230uuPro carne agni & sanguine sui corporis & sanguinis sacramentum in panis & vini figura substitutens.instead of the flesh and blood of a Lambe substituting a Sacrament of his body and blood, in a figure of bread and wine, &c. And xxFrangit ipse panem quem porrigit.hee breaketh himselfe the bread that he deliuereth, to shew that the breaking of his bodie to come was by his owne will and procurement. And againe, yyQuia panis corpus confirmat, vinum verò sanguinem operatur in carne, hic ad corpus Christi mystice, illud refertur ad sanguinem.because bread strengtheneth the flesh, and wine breedeth blood, the one is mystically referred to Christs body, and the wine vntounto his blood. Where is any tittle here that may stand well with their Transubstantiation? much lesse that soundeth ought that way? A Sacrament of his body and blood: a memoriall of his redemption: bread broken and giuen: and both bread and wine hauing a mysticall reference to the body and blood of Christ. It was well and aduisedly therefore done by Bellarmine, zzLib. 2. de Eucharist.to leaue Bede cleane out of the Catalogue of his Authors, though a writer of the greatest note in those times, because he could finde nothing in him, that might seeme but to looke that way; which if he could, we should be sure to hauehave heard of.

Yea that long after Augustines time the same beleefe of the Sacrament, that we at this day hold, was commonly taught and professed publikely in this Iland, notwithstanding the manifold monuments by that Popish faction suppressed, appeareth by some of them in ancient Manuscripts yet extant, and of late published also in print. Among others of this kinde are the aaThey are of late reprinted and set forth by M. William Lisle.Epistles and Sermons written in the Saxon tongue, of one Aelfricke a man of great note for learning, that liued about the yeere 990. wherein the same doctrine is taught concerning the Sacrament that we hold at this day, and the contrary Popish doctrine is impugned.

In an Epistle of his written for Wulfsine then Bishop of Shyrburn to his Clerks bearing title of a Sacerdotall Synode, he saith, that The holy Housell is Christs bodie, not bodily, but ghostly: Not the body that he suffered in, but the body of which he spake, when hee blessed bread and wine to housell, and said by the blessed bread, This is my body; and by the holy wine, This is my blood. And that the Lord that then p. 231turned that bread to his body, doth still by the Priests hands blesse bread and wine to his ghostly body and his ghostly blood. And in another Epistle to Wulstane Archbishop of Yorke; that The Lord halloweth daily by the hands of the Priest, bread to his body, and wine to his blood in ghostly mystery. And yet notwithstanding that liuely bread is not bodily so, nor the selfe same body that Christ suffered in: nor that holy wine is the Sauiours blood, which was shed for vsus in bodily thing, but in ghostly vnderstanding. And that that bread is his body, and that wine his blood, as the heauenly bread, which we call Manna, was his body, and the cleere water which did then run from the stone in the wildernes was truely his blood; as S. Paul saith, bb1 Cor. 10. 4.1 Cor 10:4And that stone was Christ.

And in the Paschall Homily by him translated out of Latine, and read commonly then on Easter-day; Men (saith hee) hauehave often searched, and doe as yet search how bread that is gathered of corne, and through fires heat baked, may be turned to Christs body; or how wine that is pressed out of many grapes is turned through one blessing to the Lords blood. To which he there answereth, that it is so by signification, as Christ is said to be Bread, a Rocke, a Lamb, a Lion, not after truth of nature. And againe hauing demanded, Why is that holy housell then called Christs body and his blood, if it be not truely that that it is called? Hee answereth, It is so truely in a ghostly mysterie. And then explicating further the manner of this change; As (saith he) an heathen childe when hee is Christened, yet hee altereth not his shape without, though hee be changed within: and as the holy water in Baptisme after true nature is corruptible water, but after ghostly mystery hath spirituall vertue. And so saith he; The holy Housell is naturally corruptible bread & corruptible wine, but is by might of Gods word truely Christs body and blood, yet not bodily, but ghostly. And afterward hee setteth downe diuerse differences betweene Christs naturall body and it. Much is betwixt the body that Christ suffered in, and the body that he hallowed to housell: 1. The body that hee suffered in was bred of the flesh of Mary, with blood, and bone, p. 232and skin, and sinewes, in humane limmes, and a liuing Soule. His ghostly body which we call the housell, is gathered of many cornes without blood and bone, limme and soule. And it is therefore called a mystery, because therein is one thing seen, and another thing vnderstood.

2. Christs body that he suffred in and rose from death, neuer dieth henceforth, but is eternall and impassible: That housel is temporall, not eternall, corruptible, and dealed into sundry parts, chewed betweene the teeth, and sent into the belly.

3. This mysterie is a pledge and figure. Christs body is truth it selfe. This pledge doe we keepe mystically, vntill we come vntounto the truth it selfe, and then is this pledge ended. Truly it is, as we said Christs body and blood, not bodily, but ghostly. And yet further he addeth that, As the Stone in the wildernesse, from whence the water ran, was not bodily Christ, but did signifie Christ, though the Apostle say, cc1. Cor. 10. 41 Cor 10:4That stone was Christ: so that heauenly meate that fed them 40. yeeres, and that water that gushed from the Stone, had signification of Christs body and blood, and was the same that wee now offer, not bodily, but ghostly. And that, As Christ turned by inuisible might the bread to his body and the wine to his blood before he suffred; so he did in the wildernesse turne the heauenly meate to his flesh, and the flowing water to his owne blood, before hee was borne. That, when our Sauiour said, ddIoh. 6. 54.John 6:54Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath euerlasting life; He bad them not eate the body wherewith he was enclosed, nor to drinke that blood which hee shed for vsus: but he ment that holy housel, which is ghostly his body and his blood; and hee that tasteth it with beleeuing heart, hath euerlasting life. That, As the sacrifices had a sore-signification of Christs body which he offered to his Father in Sacrifice: So the housell that wee hallaw at Gods Altar is a remembrance of Christs body which he offered for vsus, and of his blood which he shed for vsus: which suffering once done by him is daily renewed in a mystery of holy housell. Lastly, that This holy housell is both Christs body, and the bodie of p. 233all faithfull men after ghostly mysterie: and so when we receiue it, we receiue our selues too. For, ee1 Cor. 12. 27.1 Cor 12:27You are Christs body saith the Apostle; and, ff1 Cor. 10. 17.1 Cor 10:17We many bee one bread, and one body.

Whence it is apparent that the same Faith that wee hold concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and Christs presence in it was publikely taught and ordinarily professed in this Iland euen for a long time also after Austins accesse into these parts. So far is it from that which this flourisher affirmeth, that the ancient Brittons neere the Apostles times were of the same Faith & iudgement in that point with our Romanists. But lost labour it is, and (as Optatus speaketh) ggQuae est ista noua & stulta sapientia, nouitatem quaerere in visceribus vetustatis? Optat. adv. l'armen. lib. 4.a meere folly to seeke for any such noueltie in the bowels of true antiquitie. Neither is this Defendant, or any other of that faction, able to produce any one sentence or syllable, whereby that which he so confidently here auoucheth, may be prooued, out of any graue and approoued Author, that liued neere those times, or that hath written of the same. Let him but make this his assertion good (that shall be our last issue) and he shall hauehave me a Proselyte, at least, in that point.

FINIS.

End of the text · Thomas Gataker, Discussion of the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation (1624)