Discussion of the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Part 2 · Division 4

Discussion of the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation · Part 2 · Division 4

p. 71Diuision 4.

PAge 3. He maketh a great stir in asking, how the Chalice N. P.may be called the new Testament in our Sauiours blood. I answer him, because our Sauiours blood by the effusion whereof his last W…ll and Testament was confirmed and our eternall inheritance purchased and applied vntounto vsus, is in this Chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the altar p. 72for vsus. For the word Testament (as all learned men know) is apt to import not onelyonly the interiour act of the dying mans Wil, but also the authenticall instrument or deed, wherein that his dying Will is contained, and his legacy conueighed vntounto vsus, which here in the Chalice is our Sauiours blood to cleanse and inebriate de…t soules.

Afterward in the same page confusedly and tediously hee endeauoureth to shew the bread and wine to bee no other then bare signes and types of Christs true body and blood; as Alexanders picture representeth his absent person; as Circumcision is called the Couenant, because it was a signe thereof, &c. either not vnderstatding like a dull Scholler his Master Caluines doctrine, or ouer sawcily willing to contradict him; who towards the end of his booke de Coena Domini expressely denieth bread & wine to be empty signes of our Sauiours body and blood, but such signes as hauehave the signified substances of our Sauiours body and blood conioyned with them. For nnIn cap. 11. ad Cor. 1.Christ (saith hee) is no deceiuer to delude vsus with bare figures, &c. According to which doctrine of Caluine it will be easie for my Adversarie himselfe to salue many of his owne obiections: that for example, which he maketh out of Tertullian, page 3. saying, The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his Disciples he made his body, saying, This is my body, that is, a figure of my body. For as Caluines former words import, so also Tertullian meaneth, the sacramentall symbols not to be naked signes of Christs absent body and blood (as the Minister would hauehave them) but such signes as hauehave the signified substance conioyned vntounto them; as smoake is the signe of fire; warme blood of life; the fiery tongues ouer the Apostles, in that day of Pentecost, and the Doue ouer our Sauiour in his Baptisme, were signes of the holy Ghost present, &c. Which manner of being signes of Christs body and blood doth not exclude but suppose the Accidents of bread and wine to containe the true substances of our Sauiours body and blood in them. So is Saint Augustine to be vnderstood, where he saith, Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when hee deliuered p. 73the signe of his body. And when out of Gratian my Aduersary citeth those wordes, The heauenly bread, which is the flesh of Christ, &c. is a Sacrament of Christs body visible, palpable, mortal, and pierced on the Crosse, &c. So when Theodoret and Gelasius affirme the substance and nature of bread and wine still to remaine in the Sacrament; they meane not physicall substances and nature of bread and wine still to remaine after the consecration, but onelyonly the accidents to remaine vnaltered in their nature, signifying and containing our Sauiours body and blood vnderunder them. And if hee had cited the place of Theodoret fully out, he had vtterly ouerthrowne his hereticall and fraudulent purposes of citing him. His wordes are these: Neither do the sacramentall signes after consecration depart from their nature; for they remaine (note how hee speaketh of the signes not of the substances of bread and wine remaining) in their former substance figure and forme to be seene and touched as before: but they are by our vnderstanding conceiued to be as they are made; and they are beleeued and adored according to our faith of them. So iudicious and learned is mine Aduersarie here and in other places, in the choise of his Arguments and Authorities alleadged against vsus. But howsoeuer he faileth in that, he will be sure to helpe out the matter by maiming and corruptly citing such testimonies. I hauehave iust cause to suspect his like dealing in citing Gratians Glosse on S. Augustines wordes in the precedent page, and Caietans words cited by him page 2. But I hauehave not these Authors now by me to examine the places in themselues. And they are of so small esteeme with vsus, especially Caietan in his dangerous and inconuenient manner of expounding Scripture with more subtilty many times then truth, as I cannot but wonder to see the Minister so to magnifie him, as if hee were the Oracle of our Church, and his ipse dixit and bare assertion so certaine a proofe as it could not be denied by vsus.

p. 74IN the next place therefore, skipping ouer this Confession T. G.of Caietan, that there is nothing in the Gospell that may inforce vsus to take those words of our Sauiour properly, This is my body: but that they may for ought that is in the Text be taken figuratiuely as well as those wordes, The Rock was Christ.

As also leaping quite ouer the Answer giuen to that Obiection that we are bound to beleeue our Sauiour, when hee saith, This my body: as if wee could not beleeue those wordes of his, vnlesse wee beleeue Transubstantiation: whereas their owne writers grant that the words of our Sauiour may be true, though no such thing be: He picketh out here and there some by-matter to bee nibling vponupon, that hee may seeme to say somewhat, though hee keepe aloofe off from the maine matter.

And first, because hee thought hee had found out a pretty quirk and a strange crotchet, which hee was desirous to vent: He saith I make a great stirre in asking, how the Chalice may bee called the New Testament in Christs blood. I halfe suspect that some body hath sometime pus…ed him with this Question; and he is willing therfore here to explicate it for the saluing of his owne credit, the rather hauing lighted vponupon a new deuice, that hee thinketh wil easily helpe out. For I mooue no such Question, much lesse make such adoe about asking it, but say onelyonly, We must beleeue our Sauiour as well, when he saith, This Cup is the new Testament, or This Cup is my blood; as wee must beleeue him when he saith, This is my body: and that either may bee true, though there be no such reall conversion either of the Cup into the new Testament, or Christs blood in the one, or of the Bread into his body in the other. And his part had beene (if he ment to keepe to the point) to shew why the one may not be true in a figuratiue sense as wel as the other.

But let vsus heare how learnedly (though it bee beside the matter) he explicateth our Sauiours wordes, This p. 75Cup is the New Testament in my blood. Thus forsooth; My blood in this Chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the altar is that by the effusion whereof my last Will and Testament is confirmed, and the eternall inheritance purchased and applied vntounto vsus: and it is therefore called the New Testament in my blood. Did any man in his right wits (thinke wee) euer expound Scripture on this manner? Yea but he hath a singular piece of Schollership by himselfe to iustifie his Exposition. For all learned men (saith hee) know that the word Testament is apt to import, not the dying mans Will onelyonly, but the deed wherein it is contained, and the legacy conueighed by it; which here in the Chalice is our Sauiours blood, to cleanse and inebriate deuout soules, &c. If he had beene himselfe inebriated when hee writ this, hee could not lightly hauehave beene more absurd. For,

1. By this exposition of his, our Sauiour should say, This Cup, that is, this blood contained in the Chalice, is the New Testament in my blood. And so **Not vnlike Hugo Card. on Luke …. Hic est calix in sanguine m…o, i. sanguis meus in calice.Christs blood shall be not in the Chalice onelyonly, but in his blood; would any reasonable man say, My body is in my body; or, My blood is in my blood? But they care not what absurd language they fasten vponupon our Sauiour, so it may make for their owne turne.

2. There is the blood of Christ really contained in the Chalice, and yet this blood is vnbloodily offered. It is vnbloodily offered, and yet it is really blood; yea there is nothing there but blood. True it is the ancient Fathers oft tearme the Eucharist ooforeign. Euseb. demonstr. l. …. c. 6. Chrysost. nomine in Psal. 95. & alii.Ps 95an vnbloody sacrifice; which sheweth their speeches, where they say, that ppChrysost. vt supr.the Altar and the people are besprinckled and dyed purplered with blood, were metaphoricall and hyperbolicall: and well might they so call it, not dreaming of any such bloody stuffe in the Chalice, as these men seeme to imagine. But how there can bee an vnbloody offering, where there is much more blood then flesh; and Christ offered vnbloodily, where men drinke nothing but meere blood; yea if Chrysostomes speeches p. 76were to be taken properly, where all the Communicants are dyed red with blood, let any reasonable man iudge.

3. All learned men (he saith) of which number I hope he counteth himselfe one) know that a Testament is apt to import, not a will onelyonly, or a deed, but a legacie too. Vsus loquendi Magister: Use is the Lord and Master of language. qqLoquendū cum multis: sentiendum cum paucis.We should thinke (they say) as the best, speake as the most; and rrVtendum planè sermone, vt nūmo, cuius publica forma est. Quintil. institut. …. 1. c. 10.vse, as such coine, so such speech, as is commonly currant. We ignorant and vnlearned Protestanticall Ministers are vnacquainted with this learning. But I would request him, if hee can here, as well for the sauing and saluing of of his owne credite, as for our better instruction, to produce any one learned man besides himselfe and ffFor from Bellarmine also (it seemeth) he hath this: who to those two significations of a Testament de Euchar. l. 1. c. 11. which all acknowledge: addeth this third, pro bonis à testatore legatis. de Euchar. l. 4. c. 19.his associates, that euer so said, or euer so spake, that euer called a legacy by the name of a Testament. Such learned men (I see) as hee is, may say what they list; we vnlearned must speake by rule, when we speake, least such learned men as hee is controll vsus if we doe otherwise, for ignorant.

4. Marke (I beseech you) this learned mans Logicke, how soundly and substantially he argueth. This word Testament may well signifie either a Will or a Legacie: ergo Christs blood wherewith his last Will was confirmed, may well be tearmed the New Testament. What connexion there is betweene these two Propositions, the one produced by him to prooue the other, let any one, that is not vtterly senslesse, consider.

5. Let it be obserued, how these men that cannot endure at our hands to heare of any figure in the wordes of our Saviour, though one neuer so frequent, in signes and Sacraments especially, which both they grant these things to be; yet themselues in the explicating of them are enforced to flie to figures, yea take liberty to themselues to coine and forge such figures, as were neuer heard of before, either in holy writ, or in prophane writer. For let him if he can, shew a legacie so tearmed in either.

p. 77Lastly, Christs blood indeed may in some sense be said to inebriate mens soules, and the ssEx Psal. 23. 5. Hieron. ad Hedyb. q. 2. Ruffin. in Psal. 22. Ambr. in Psal. 1 …8. serm. 21. & alii.Ps 23:5Ps 22Ps 1:8Ancients sometime so speake. But that which is in the Chalice, if it be taken (which the Priest sometime may chance to doe) ouerlargely, will (as ttAquin sum. part. 3 quaest. 77. art. 6.Aquinas well obserueth) inebriate the bodie and not the soule: which I neuer yet heard that uuAlbeit the whore of Babylon be said to be drunke with blood. Apoc. 17. 6.Rev 17:6blood did, or could doe. And therefore wee hauehave cause to thinke, if we see the Priest drunke with it, yea we hauehave reason to beleeue, because we know he well may, that it is not Christs blood, but **Mat. 26. 19.Matt 26:19the fruit of the xxGen. 49. 11. foreign. Sirac. 50. 16. 1 Mac 6. 34. foreign. Eustath. ad Iliad. foreign. Clem. …ex. paed. l. 1. c. 6. Vinum sanguinem terrae dixit Androcydes apud Plin. hist. nat. l. 14. c. 5. foreign. H…liod. apud Fulgent. mythol. l. …. c. …. …um vuarū sanguis, cruentus liquor, purpura potabilis, violeum nectar. Cassod. v…r. l. 12.Gen 49:111 Macc 6:34vine, the blood of the grape, that is in the Chalice, and produceth such effects.

§ 2. In the next place, like a man in a maze going backward and forward, as vncertaine which way to turne himselfe, Afterward (saith hee, relating, but misrelating, as his vsuall manner is, some things spoken before) confusedly and tediously hee endeauoureth to shew the bread and wine to be no other then bare signes and types of Christs body and blood, as Alexanders picture representeth his absent person, as Circumcision is called the Couenant, because it was a signe thereof, &c.

True it is, I say these wordes of our Sauiour, This is my body, may as well be vnderstood figuratiuely, as those speeches are where the Rocke is called Christ, and when pointing to the pictures of Caesar and Alexander (it is the comparison that aaAug. ad simplic. lib. …. quaest. 3.Augustine vseth) we say, This is Caesar, and That is Alexander. And in Answer to the Obiection before recited; I say, that the Cup, that is, the wine in the Cup, is said to be the New Testament, as Circumcision the Couenant, because **Hic calix est nouum Testamentum, i calix quem vobis trado nouum Test. significat, vt Fulgent. vel nouum Test, confirmat. Haimo in 1 Cor. 11.1 Cor 11a signe and seale of it. But that the bread and wine are no other then bare signes and types, &c. I no where say: It is his vntruth, not mine assertion. I say expressely more then so, that they are not signes onelyonly, but seales, and signes and seales so effectuall, (as after I p. 78shew) that by them the things signified by them, and sealed vp in them are truely and effectually, yet spiritually, conueighed vntounto those that doe faithfully receiue them. Hee dealeth herein but as Bellarmine (whom hee imitateth) doth with Caluine, one while charging him to make the Sacramemt **Nihil nisi symbolum reuocans ad memoriam Christi Passionem. Bellar. de Euchar. l. 1. c. ….nothing but a symbole and memoriall of Christs passion, and so no better (saith hee) nay nor so good as a Crucifixe, and yet else-where acknowledging that hee maketh it not a signe onelyonly, but ““Sigillum obsignans & confirmans promissionem verbo factam. Ibid. l. 1. c. 1.a seale also confirming and sealing vp Gods promises made in the Word.

But like a dull Scholler (he saith) herein I vnderstood not my Master Caluine. bbMat. 2…. 8.Matt 2:8Master in these matters wee acknowledge none but Christ; whose Word alone is absolutely authenticall with vsus. Caluine we reuerence as a worthy seruant of Christ. And as dull a Scholler as I am, I vnderstand him well enough, where in that booke he calleth Transubstantiation a deuice of the Diuell; **Eorum consecratio ab incantationis specie nihil differt.their Consecration a kinde of Incantation; ddTransubstantiatio cō mentum Diaboli.the Masse an Histrionicall action; and the Priest acting it a meere Ape. The signes indeed, saith hee, in the Eucharist are not eeNuda signa. f Non tamen quasi pane inclusum, aut signo visibili …ocanter affixum. &c.naked signes, but such as hauehave the truth of the thing conioyned d Mera fimiae ae mulatio, & actio histrionica.with them, (that which is true of Baptisme, as well as of the Lords Supper.) Yet not inclosed in them, nor carnally but spiritually partaked. Nor doth God delude vsus with bare figures, though there bee no such reall change of the elements in the Eucharist, more then hee doth vsus now in Baptisme, or did the Israelites of old, when hee fed them with gg1 Cor. 10. 3, 4.1 Cor 10:31 Cor 10:4spirituall food and water in the Wildernesse.

§ 2. And heere againe, I cannot say cunningly, but knauishly rather, hauing falsly related my wordes, and passing ouer mine Answer to this very Obiection, wherein they challenge vsus to make the Sacrament nothing but bare bread; which by the instance of the other Sacrament of Baptisme, besides other proofes, I shew euidently to be otherwise, (as if hee thought that like an hare by i…mping and wheeling to and fro, hee should keepe himselfe safe from being traced and taken, when either he reported p. 79grosse vntruths, or dissembled those things that it stood him vponupon to giuegive answere vntounto, if he would either make good their cause, or ouerthrow ours.) He runneth backe to an allegation of Tertullian, and then forward againe to Theodoret, &c. and (if his words may beare weight with vsus) he would make vsus beleeue that this Doctrine of my Master Caluine, if like a dull Scholler I had sooner vnderstood him, would salue many of my Obiections, as namely, that of Tertullian; This is my Body, that is, a figure of my body; and the like speech of Augustine; and what I cite out of Gratian to the like purpose, &c.

Surely this man was of that opinion that hhforeign. Polyq. hist. lib. 4.Polybius saith some are, who thinke other men cannot see them, if they winke themselues. The Question is whether our Sauiours words, This is my Bodie, may not be, or are not to be figuratiuely vnderstood; not whether the bread and wine be bare Signes or no, which none say, but this shamelesse wretch contrary to mine expresse words affirmeth me to affirme. This being the Question I produce Tertullian, who precisely so expoundeth them, This is my Body, that is, a figure of my body. I produce Augustine, who not onelyonly doth the like; but rendreth a reason also why he so doth, to wit, because Signes and Sacraments are called That which Rib…ra the Iesuite also obserueth in Apoc. 14. …. Pervulgatum est in Scriptura, vt figura nomen habeat rei figuratae.Rev 14vsuaelly by the names of those things that they signifie and represent. I produce the Glosse on Gratian, that saith; It is called Christs body improperly, not in the truth of the thing itselfe, but in a significant mysterie: and that when it is said that it is called Christs bodie, the meaning of the words are, that it signifieth Christs bodie. All which produced to prooue that our Sauiours words are to be vnderstood figuratiuely, (which how pregnantly they doe prooue, he cannot but see, that will not wilfully win…ke) he can giuegive no answer vntounto; but saith onelyonly they may be so…d with that which Caluine saith that they are not bare signes; which neither is denied, nor is any part of the Argument here in hand.

§ 4. Thus hauing leapt a page backe, he now iumpeth p. 80againe as fa…re forward; where he lighteth againe vponupon Pope Gelasius (for so is his worke stiled in all editions of him, and so by Fulgentius he is prooued to be; howsoeuer they would faine shift him of, because he is so expressely against their Transubstantiation, as he is also against their mangling of the Sacrament, and giuing the bread without the Cup, which iiGelas. Papa apud Grat. de consecrat. dist. 2. c. Comperi…us. Sine grandi sacrilegio non potest prouenirehe condemneth as grosse Sacriledge) and with him vponupon Theodoret, that speaketh in effect the same with him.

Theodoret and Gelasius both auerre that the Elements in the Eucharist after consecration retaine still not the same shape and forme onelyonly, but the same Nature and Substance. Can any thing be more plaine? or any testimony more pregnant? Yet this nimble-headed Doctor wanteth not * And this also after Morman apud Rid …eium de Coe…. Dom. hath Bellarmine de Euchar. l. 2. c. 27. And it is as good that that he saith else-where that the Accidents are as Substances in the Sacrament. de Euchar. l. …. c. 2.aneuasion for it, such as it is. For (saith he) Theodoret and Gelasius doe not meane thereby that the physicall nature and substance, but the Accidents (that is, the shape and outward …o…me, &c.) onelyonly remaine vnaltered. They say that they retaine still the same both shape and substance too. And this shamelesse fellow sticketh not to tell vsus that they meane contrary; that they retaine the same shape, but not the same substance. It is kkMaledicta glossa, quae corrumpit textum.a cursed glosse (they say) that corrupteth the Text. Yet such is the glosse that this Sophis…er giueth Gelasius and Theodoret, not corrupting onelyonly, but directly crossing that that they say, & denying them to say that that in precise tearmes they do. The Substance, say they: Not the Substance, saith he. The Substance, say they: that is, The Accidents, saith he. Not vnlike that Glosse on Gratian, that expoundeth, We ordaine, llStatuimus. i. abrogamus. Gloss. ad Grat. dist. 4. c. Statu…mus. Et Gloss. ad Cod. lib. 3. de Iudicus leg. Quoties. Quo magis i. quo minus. Et Alciat. parerg. l. 7. c. 13. Imperare, …. parere, teste Duareno disput. l. 1. c. 34.that is, We …brogate, or disannull. If this be not a most sorry and senselesse shift, I know not what is.

But yet will you see another as grosse as the former? By Sacramentall Signes (saith he) Theodoret meaneth not the Substances of Bread and Wine; but the Accidents onelyonly; for either those then, or else nothing at all.

p. 811. Here is a new distinction betweene the Elements of Bread and Wine, and the Sacramentall signes in the Eucharist. And indeed if their doctrine be sound and true, neither Bread, nor Wine, are euer, or euer were Signes of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist, though the Auncients commonly so tearme them. For before Consecration they are not; and in Consecration they cease to be, as they say: and after Consecration they cannot be, because they hauehave now no being: and so consequently they neuer are.

2. Here is a strange Interpretation, and a most abfurd assertion: The Sacramentall Signes, that is, the Accidents, retaine still their Substance, that is, their Accidents. This is like Christs blood in his blood, that wee had a little before. These are abstruse riddles indeede: and it is no great maruell, if dull pates and shallow braines cannot easily conceiue them.

3. Will you see how grosse and palpable this euasion is? Theodoret and Gelasius (saith Bellarmine, whom hee learned some of this from) mmIdem prorsus docent. Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 27.teach the very selfe same thing. Now looke what Theodoret calleth the mysticall Signes, that Gelasius tearmeth expressely Bread and Wine. By the mysticall Signes therefore in Theodoret is the Bread and Wine meant, not the Accidents (as this corrupt and corrupting Glosser saith) of either.

§ 4. Yea but if Theodoret had beene fully cited, all had vtterly beene ouerthrowne, and the Ministers hereticall and fraudulent purpose of citing him had beene defeated.

If lying and out-facing would serue the turne, this man would be sure euer to giuegive his Aduersarie the ouerthrow. Heare you but Theodoret at large; and then iudge, if this man hauehave not either **Quomodò Canus Autorem Legendae (vt… appellant) Aureae, ait hominem fuisse ferr…i oris & plumbei cordis. Loc. com. l. 11. c. 6. Reg. …. Sed & frontis aereae, vel aheneae, rectissimè addidisset.a brazen brow, or a leaden braine, or both.

The worke of Theodoret is a Dialogue, wherein hee bringeth in disputing an Orthodoxe Diuine against an Hereticke, p. 82that held that nnPost resurrectionem amisit humanitas naturam suam; & accepit caro mutationem in naturam diuinitatis.after Christs resurrection his Hemanitie lost it owne nature, and his flesh was turned into his Deitie; in the same manner as these Transubstantiators now say that the Bread in the Euchorist looseth it owne nature, and is really changed into Christs naturall body. In debating of this Question they light vponupon the Eucharist, and fall to dispute how the Bread is there said to bee Christs body, and what change is wrought on it. The Hereticke would hauehave it changed to fit his turne, as our Papists now hold. The Orthodoxe Diuine saith it is no more turned into Christs body, then Christs body is now turned in heauen into his Deitie. But you shall hauehave them both verbatim in their owne words.

Orthodox.

ooTheodoret. Dialog. 2. qui & foreign. You may if you will in steed of Orthodoxe and Heretike put Protestant and Papist.Tell me; the mysticall Signes which are offred God by Gods Priests, what say you are they Signes of?

Heretike.

Of the Lords Body and Blood.

Orthodox.

Of a body that is truly? or of one that is not truly?

Heretike.

Of one that is truly.

Orthodox.

Very well. For of the Image there must needs be some Originall. For Painters imitate nature; and draw Images of such things as are seene.

Heret.

True.

Orthodox.

**foreign, &c.If then the diuine mysteries represent that that is truly a body, then the Lords body is a true body still, not changed into the Nature of the Deity, but filled with Diuine glorie.

Heret.

You hauehave in good time made mention of the diuine Mysterie, for euen thereby will I shew you that the Body of our Lord is turned into another Nature. Answer you therefore my Question.

Orthodox.

I will.

Heretike.

What call you the gift that is offred before the Priests Inuocation?

Orthodox.

I may not tell openly, because it may bee there be some here that are not yet initiated.

Heretike.

Answere then aenigmatically.

p. 83Orthodox.

The foode that is made of certaine graine.

Heret.

The other Signe, how call you it?

Orthodox.

By that common name that signifieth some kinde of drinke.

Heret.

But after sanctification how doe you call them?

Orthodox.

The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ.

Heret.

And doe you beleeue that you are made partaeker of Christs body and blood?

Orthodox.

I doe beleeue so.

Heret.

As then the Signes of the Lords body and blood are one thing before the Priests prayer; but after it are changed and become another: So the Lords body also after his Assumption is changed into a diuine Substance.

Orthodox.

You are taken now in a net of your owne weauing. **foreign.For the Mysticall Signes doe not after Sanctification depart from their owne Nature. For they remaine still in their former Substance, and figure and forme; and may be seene and touched as before: But they are vnderstood to be that which they are made; and they are beleeued and adored (or ““Quomodo Tertull. adv. Hermog. Adoro plenitudmē Scripturarum. Et Aug. Ep. 164: Baptismum Christi vbique veneramur.reuerenced) as being those things that they are beleeued to be. Compare then the Image with the Originall, and you shall see the Similitude. For it is meete that the Figure bee like to the Truth. For **foreign.that Body hath indeede its former forme, and figure, and circumscription, and to speake in a word, bodily Substance. But since the Resurrection it is become immortall, and such as no corruption or destruction can befall; and it is vouchsafed to sit at Gods right-hand; and is worshipped of eueryevery creature, as being called the Lords naturall Bodie.

Heretike.

Yea but the mysticall Signe changeth his former Name. For it is not any more called as it was before, but it is called a Body. In like manner therefore should the Truth be called God and not a Body.

Orthodox.

Me thinkes you are very ignorant. For it is not onelyonly called a Body, but it is called, ppIoh. 6. 35.John 6:35Bread of Life. So the Lord himselfe called it. And moreouer the Body it selfe we call a diuine Body, and a quickning Body, and the p. 84Lords Body: and teach that it is not the common Body of any man, but the Body of our Lord Iesus Christ, who is God and Man. For qqHeb. 13. 8.Heb 13:8Iesus Christ is yesterday and to day the same, and for euer.

Will you heare more yet of Theodoret? In his first Dialogue; out of which I cite also one or two Sentences, which this scambling Answerer hath not list (it seemeth) to take notice of; he bringeth in the same Parties thus discoursing together.

Orthodox.

rrTheodoret Dialog. 1. qui & foreign.Do you not know that the Lord called himselfe a Vine?

Heretike.

I know that he said, ssIoh. 15. 1.John 15:1I am the true Vine.

Orthodox.

And how call you the juice of the fruite of the Vine?

Heretike.

Wine.

Orthodox.

When the souldiers opened Christs side with a speare, what saith the Euangelist did then issue ont?

Heretike.

ttIoh. 19. 34.John 19:34Water and Blood.

Orthodox.

The Patriarch Iacob then calleth Christs blood the blood of the Grape. For if Christ be called a Vine, and the frnite of the Vine; and streames of blood and water issuing out of Christs side trickled downe his whole Body; he is fitly uuGen. 49. 11. Hinc Tertull. contr. Marc. l. 4. Ita & …unc sanguinem suum in vino consecrauit, qui tunc vinum in sangine figurauit.Gen 49:11said by him to wash his coate in wine, and his raiment in the blood of the Grape. For as we call the mysticall fruite of the Vine after sanctification the Lords blood; so doth he call the blood of the true Vine, the blood of the Grape.

Heretike.

That which was propounded hath both mystically and cleerely beene shewen.

Orthodox.

Though the things said be sufficient; yet I will adde another proofe.

Heretike.

You shall doe me a pleasure, because the more profit in so doing.

Orthodox.

Doe you not know that God called his body Bread?

Heretike.

I know it.

Orthodox.

And else-where againe hee called his Flesh wheate.

p. 85Heretike.

I know that too. For, xxIoh. 12. 24.John 12:24vnlesse the wheate corne, saith he, fall into the ground, &c.

Orthodox.

Now in the deliuery of the Sacraments **foreign.he called Bread his Body; and that which is poured into and mixt in the Cup, Blood.

Heretike.

He did so call them.

Orthodox.

Yea but ““foreign.that which by nature is his Body is also iustly tearmed his Body; and in like manner his Blood.

Heretike.

It is acknowledged.

Orthodox.

Our Sauiour indeede, ''''foreign.hee changed the Names, and imposed that Name on his Body that was the Name of the Symbole and Signe of it: and on the Symbole or Signe he imposed that Name, that is the Name of his Body. And so hauing named himselfe a Uine, he called that that was a signe Blood.

Heretike.

It is true that you say: But why did he thus change the Names?

Orthodox.

Because his will was, that those that are partakers of those diuine Mysteries, should not attend the nature of the things that they see; but for the change of the Names beleeue the change that by grace is wrought. For hee that y Ioh. 6. 32, 33, 35.John 6:32John 6:33John 6:35called that that by Nature is his Body, wheate and bread, and againe, named himselfe a Vine; **foreign.he honoured the Symboles and Signes that we see with the appellation of his Body and Blood, not changing Nature, but to Nature adding Grace.

And at length, the Orthodoxe Diuine thus concludeth: **foreign.It is cleere that that holy Foode is a Symbole and a Signe of Christs body and blood, the name whereof it beareth. For our Lord when he had taken the Symbole or Signe, said not, This is my Deitie; But, zzMatth. 26. 26, 28.Matt 26:26Matt 26:28This is my Bodie; and againe, This is my Blood: and else where, **Ioh. 6. 51.John 6:51The bread that I will giuegive, is my Flesh that I will giuegive for the life of the world.

You hauehave heard Theodoret at large. It remaineth now to consider how he ouerthroweth that which I produce him for, to wit, that the bread & wine in the Sacrament remaine p. 86for substance still the same; and that the Bread is called Christs body figuratiuely; as his body is else-where called Bread; and the wine his blood figuratiuely, as himselfe is tearmed a Vine: Or to consider rather, if you please (because that any one at the first sight may see) how fitly this mans explication of Theodoret agreeth with Theodorets owne words.

By Sacramentall Signes (saith he) Theodoret meaneth not the Substance of Bread and Wine.

1. He vnderstandeth by the mysticall Signes that that is offered to God by Gods Priests. And doth the Priest then offer nothing to God but accidents onelyonly? Indeed they tell vsus that aaGen. 14. 18. Quo loco tamen vulg. versio, non, Obtulit, sed, Protulit. Et Card. Caietan. in Gen. Nihil scribitur hîc de sacrificio seu de oblatione, sed de prolatione, qua… Iosephus dicit factam ad reficiendum victores.Gen 14:18Melchisedech offred bread and wine; and that their Priests are bbVide Bellar. de missa. l. …. c. 24. & 25. & Rhemens. in Heb. 7. 12, 17.Heb 7:12Heb 7:17Priests after the order of Melchisedech, and so ccRhemens. ibid.offer such offerings as he did. And the auncient Fathers, alluding to that story by them allegorised, say, ddOffertur sub sacerdote Christo quod protulit Melchisedech. Aug. de ciuit. Dei l. 17. c. 17. i. panes & vinum: vt Theodoret. in Psal. 109. Vide & Clem. Strom. l. 4. Tertull. adv. Iudaeos. Chrysost. in Gen. hom. 34. &c.Ps 109that Bread and Wine are offred to God in the Eucaarist. But in the Popish Masse according to their opinion of it, no such thing can be offred, because no such thing is there present.

2. More particularly explaining himselfe he saith that by the one signe he meaneth the food that of certaine graine is made, and by the other the fruite of the Vine. And is there any such foode or fruit at all that is no physicall substance, or that consisteth of eeAccidentia tamen mera nutrire corpora humana; & Species tantumdem facere quantum alias substantias, asserunt Patres Inquisitores in Indic. Belg. expurg. lit. B. Nec id mirum esse debet: cum Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 2. non accidentium sed substantiae rationem velit habere, vti sunt in Sacramento.meere accidents? He deserueth to be fed, till he starue, with such food, that would feede or infect rather mens soules with such draffy stuffe as this is. Yea in precise tearmes he saith, that Christ called Bread (not the accidents of bread) his Body, as he called his Body else-where bread.

p. 873. The very maine drift and scope euidently manifesteth his meaning; which is to shew that the Lords Body, though it be not a common body, but hath glorious endowments, yet remaineth a true body still; as the Sacramentall bread though it be not common bread, yet retaineth still it former nature and substance, and is true bread still.

4. If wee aske Theodoret himselfe what hee meaneth here by Substance; and whether hee take the word in such sense as it is vsually taken; hee telleth vsus himselfe a little before he entreth into this discourse, that ffforeign. Corpus ergò substantia vocandū: Accidentia, non substantias, nominate cō uenit, quae corpori & accidunt & recedunt. Theodoret, dialog. 2.by Substance he vnderstandeth a body; and by Accidents (which hee opposeth to Substance) such things as betide bodies and yet may depart from them. And they may as well say, that by Substance Theodoret meant Accidents, when hee saith that Christs body retaineth still the same bodily substance; as they may say hee so meaneth, when of the bread, which hee compareth therewith, hee saith the very same. But what take I so much paines ggSuper vacuis laborat impendiis qui solem certat facibus adiuuare. Anaclet, apud Grat. c. 6. q. 1. In rebus vero apertis argumentari tam sit stultum, quam in clarissimum Solem mortale Iumen inferre. Quintil. institut. l. 5. c. 12.to set vp a light when the Sun shines? (the proofe is so plaine, and his meaning so perspicuous, that it may seem hhIpsius solis radio putes scriptum; ita claret. Tertul. de resurr. car.written, as Tertullian speaketh, with a beame of the Sunne) saue to lay open a little this mans shamelesse carriage and senslesse shifts, who yet with a confident face telleth his Reader, that his Aduersarie both heere and else-where sheweth how learned and iudicious hee is in the choice of his authorities; as if this allegation made wholly for them and against vsus, were it read all out, or were nothing pertinent (at least) to the purpose.

§ 5. In conclusion, for Gratians Glosse, acknowledging the truth by vsus maintained that our Sauiours wordes are figuratiuely to bee vnderstood; and Cardinall Caietan confessing; that they may well beare that sense: hauing nothing (and that is maruell, for he dare say any thing) to except against; either hee excuseth himselfe that hee hath not the bookes by him, as if they were not commonly p. 88in Pauls Church-yard to be had, if hee had listed to looke after them. A bad excuse (as we say) is better then none at all with him.

OnelyOnly hee addeth that they are both of small account with them; Caietan especially: In regard whereof hee wondereth that I should so much magnifie him, as if he were the Oracle of their Church, &c.

For the former, none can be ignorant, what Authority among their Canonists the Glosses hauehave: and in the place cited the rather, because hee buildeth vponupon Augustines owne wordes. For the latter, I cite him onelyonly by the name of Cardinall Caietan (nor had they many Cardinals in his time for learning his equals) one of our Aduersaries: that is all my magnifying of him. But mine Adversaries lips must need ouer-runne. Yet of what repute and esteeme Caietan was for both kinds of learning, as well Philosophy as Diuinity; to omit the titles commonly giuen him in the Inscriptions of his workes by those that set out some of them, stiling him iiProfessor Theologiae eminentissimus.the most eminent Doctour and professor of diuinity; his Commentaries on Thomas (whence this testimony is taken) kkLuculentisma & planè diuina.most luculent and euen diuine Commentaries; his smaller Treatises llAurea opuscula.golden workes; I may referre you to the workes themselues, so many, so learned, so elaborate; and to the storie of his life written by Antonius Fonseca, and set out with some of them. It is apparent, and it is enough, that a prime Cardinall of the Sea of Rome confesseth ingenuously, that the wordes of our Sauiour, This is my body, may be siguratiuely taken for ought in the text, were it not that their Church, **Nam Papa virtualiter est tota Ecclesia. Herv. de potest Papae. Vide Bellar. de Concil. & Eccles. l. 1. c. 18. Sed & Georg. Dounam Derens. Ep. de Papa Antichrist. l. 4. c. 6.Sir 50:1that is, the Pope, will hauehave them otherwise expounded.