Truth and Falsehood, Book · Chapter 13
Of the Lordes Supper, or Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour Chriſt, and namely of Tranſubſtantiation. CHAP. 13
THE PROTESTANTS
WE teach, that by thoſe viſible ſigns of bread and wine, the bodie and blood of our ſauior Chriſt is ſo liuely, and effectually repreſented and offered vntounto our faith, that the faithfull receiuers, in the ſame Supper, doe as truly receyue by faith Chriſt himſelfe, with all his treaſures and graces, to the comfort and foode of their ſoules, as they receiue the bread and wine with their mouth to the nouriſhment of their bodies. And that this our ſpirituall nouriſhment maye bee the more liuely repreſented, the ſubſtance of the bread & wine muſt needs remaine for our bodilie nouriſhment, as in Baptiſme likewiſe the water remaineth vnchanged, to ſignifie our ſpirituall waſhing. So that as we chāge not the ſubſtance of theſe creatures, without which they cannot bee a Sacrament, ſo we teach Chriſt to be receiued ſpiritually, and therefore moſt truly of the faithfull receiuer.
THE PAPISTS
BVt the Church of Rome, not content with this ſpirituall and true receiuing of Chriſt, do teach, that by the wordes of conſecration (as they cal them) the very bread and wine hauehave their ſubſtance chaunged into the bodie and bloud of Chriſt. So that Christ, whome in the Creed we confeſſe to be aſcended into heauen, and that he ſhall come from heauen to iudge the quick and the dead, is by that means brought into eueryevery Pix: which ouerthroweth the nature of man, which hee tooke of the Ʋirgin Marie, for man can bee but in one place. Wherby alſo there follow ſuch inconueniences, that it is with them a great queſtion, whether the Mouſe that eateth the hoſt,Hom. par. 3 quaeſt. 80 artic. 3. do eate Chriſtes bodie, or not: ſome affirme it, and ſome anſwer, to ſay ſhee doth,Gloſ. diſt. 2 de conſec. cap. Qui bene. Durand. ra… . diu. lib. 4 rubr. 41. is not greatly abſurd, becauſe the moſt wicked men doe eate it. Others ſay, that it miraculouſly ceaſeth to bee Chriſtes bodie. But ſeeing the first miracle is wrought by the words, I pray you howe hath the Mouſe wrought this ſecond miracle, in making it ceaſe to be Chriſts bodie, and ſaid nothing?
Seeing this doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, doth bring with it, ſo groſſe, or rather ſo monſtrous abſurdities, a man would thinke that no Chriſtian would ſtand in defence of the ſame. For how can we not abhorre ſuch teachers, as indeuour to make vsus beleeue, that the moſt wicked perſons may eate the fleſh of Chriſt,Iohn 6. Which whoſoeuer eateth ſhall liue for euer, as our Sauiour Chriſt doth often tell vsus. And yet to defend their Tranſubſtantiation,Bel. de euch. lib. 3. ca. 9. they defend this as a good and fruitfull opinion. Who will folow ſuch guides, as lead vsus into ſuch mariſhes, as themſelues know no way to get out. Such is the queſtion which before I touched, whether the Mouſe doe eate the bodie of Chriſt if he eate the hoſt. A queſtion not mooued by vsus, as Bellarmine would ſeeme to make men beleeue,De Ecuhar. lib. 3. cap. 14. and therefore would make vsus like the Iewes, Pagans and Heritikes, but moued and diſputed by themſelues, as may appeare by the maſter of Sentences, lib. 4. diſt. 13 in diſt. 2. de conſecrat. cap, Qui bene: and alſo in the place before alledged out of Durand. Yea, Bellarmine is not a little troubled about this matter in the place next before alledged. For firſt hee ſetteth downe flatly, That although Chriſt be truly in the Sacramēt, yet can he not be hurt, and therefore not eaten with Mice, but the formes onelyonly of bread may be eaten. The abſurditie hereof I will not ſtand vponupon in this place. But Bellarmine will ſhewe vsus this by a demonſtration: The Diuinitie (ſayeth hee) is euerie where, & yet not cōſumed by fire, nor defiled by filth. Is this good diuinity, to make the body of Chriſt not ſubiect to corruption, becauſe ye godhead is not: Glorified it is, and therfore not corruptible: but deified it is not. This ſeemeth to bee all one with the hereſie of Neſtorius, who taught that Chriſt had a defiled bodie. But afterwards maiſter Bellarmine, perchaunce not liking very well of his firſt anſwere, ſeemeth to me to hauehave chaunged his opinion, as after ſhall appeare. But here in my iudgement he is of another minde than Durand hath learned of Pope Innocentius, of the which I ſpake before in the compariſon. For there Durand ſayth, that it miraculouſly ceaſeth to be Chriſts bodie. But, if we apply this ſimilitude brought by Bellarmine, it ſhould ſeeme that he will hauehave Chriſts body to remaine, but not to be hurt, as the deitie which is euerie where, cōtinueth, and yet is hurt of nothing. But if he be of one minde with Pope Innocentius, and Durand, I would then faine know, where that bodie of Chriſt that ceaſeth to bee in that Mouſeaten hoſt, doth reſt, or what becommeth of it. But in the ende of that Chapter: becauſe manie (ſayth he) miſlike that Chriſtes bodie ſhould bee eaten of Mice, or beaſts: When he was an infant, he might ſo be: and therefore why may hee not much more now in another ſhape, and when he cannot bee hurt thereby, bee eaten of them? Before he ſaid, he could not bee eaten: Nowe hee ſayth, he may. Whereby, it appeareth he knew not well what to ſay. Theſe ſtraights are they brought vntounto, whileſt they ſeeke to maintaine that their doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation.See of this point Bell. de Euch. li. 1 ca. 9. in the beginning. Now beſide theſe, and many other abſurdities which follow this doctrine of tranſubſtantiation, as that Chriſt hath his owne body: the darknes and hardnes of that doctrine is ſuch, as that the ſchoolemen cannot agree vponupon it, how Chriſts body ſhould bee in the forme of bread. Whoſoeuer ſhould read the third book that maſter Bellarmine writeth of the Euchariſt, wherein he endeuoureth to eſtabliſh this doctrine,De Euch. li. 1. cap. 6. ſhall find it too hard for them that hauehave many yeares profeſſed learning, to vnderſtand their ſubtilties in this point. And who then can imagine that our ſauiour Chriſt would deliuer vntounto his Church for Sacraments which ſhould bee common to all thoſe things that ſhould containe ſuch hidden myſteries as the verie learned men cannot vnderſtand?De doct. Chriſt. li. 3. cap. 9. Nay Bellarm. thinketh it abſurd ſo to thinke, or that ſaint Auguſtine would hauehave commended our Sacraments as moſt eaſie, when all the learned finde theſe popiſh opinions to be moſt intricate and hard. We hauehave ſeene the abſurditie of this doctrine: now let vsus view the weakneſſe of the proofe.
In the ſcriptures (for the moſt part) they can finde but one place, Take, eate, this is my bodie. Tit. Tranſub. Ioh. 6.51For that which Eckius in his Enchiridion alledgeth out of the ſixt of ſaint Iohn his Goſpel, The bread which I will giuegive is my fleſh, his owne friends thinke it not worth citing for this poynt. For what a reaſon is this? The breade which I ſaide before came downe from heauen is my fleſh: therefore the Sacramentall bread is tranſubſtantiated into the bodie of Chriſt. But for thoſe wordes, This is my bodie, alledged out of the three firſt Euangeliſts, and ſaint Paul, becauſe they are the verie rocke and refuge, which at all needes they hauehave recourſe vntounto, for helpe of this their doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, it would be ſomewhat particularly examined. Sundry arguments therefore I hauehave to induce me to affirme that this place can not proue tranſubſtantiation. The firſt is this: If theſe words This is my body, do proue tranſubſtantiation, then is that doctrine proued by plaine and expreſſe wordes of ſcripture: But, by expreſſe words of ſcripture that doctrine cannot be proued, therfore that place proueth not Trāſubſtantiation: The truth of the firſt propoſition is apparant, becauſe either the plaine and literall ſenſe of theſe wordes prooue that doctrine, or elſe it is not proued therby. And the minor or 2. propoſition is not mine, but it is the words of Mel. Canus a learned Papiſt & of D. Chadſy. De locis Theol. li. 3. cap. 3. Diſp. cum Pet. Mart. de Euchariſtia.Therfore the firſt being true, and the ſecond being by them confeſſed, the concluſion muſt needes be ſtrong againſt them. The ſecond argument maiſter Bellarmine will affoord me. The Sacraments are inſtituted and appointed by ſuch wordes as may giuegive leaſt occaſion of errour or doubt, for this Bellarmine proueth in many words,De Euchar. li. 1. ca. 9. and by many reaſons, But ſo to expounde this place, that Tranſubſtantiation ſhould be forced out of it, bringeth many obſcurities and doubts, therefore Tranſubſtantiation is not to be prooued out of theſe wordes. The firſt propoſition is Bellarmines (as I hauehave ſayd) and therefore I neede not proue it. That ſo to expound the wordes, This is my bodie, that Tranſubſtantiation ſhould be proued out of it, is to make Chriſt ſpeake very obſcurely and doubtfully, appeareth by their manifeſt wringing and wreſting of the place. For the word (This) ſpoke by Chriſt,Bellar. de. Euchar. li. 1. cap. 11. when he had the bread in his hand, they will not hauehave to be vnderſtood of the bread, no, nor of the bodie of Chriſt, but ſomthing contained vnderunder the forme of bread, as Bellarmine out of Thomas of Aquine, and out of Guitimund teacheth. And I pray you, when ſhall the people vnderſtand what that third thing is that is contained vnderunder thoſe formes. But why ſhould I looke for this at the hands of the vnlearned, ſeeing that the learnedſt can not ſhew what this is. Are not ſuch darke deuiſes the cauſe of many errours? Where now is (I pray you) that plainneſſe and aptnes of ſpeach in the inſtitution of a ſacrament, which before Belarmine commended? Not in ſuch vnſauorie ſubtilties.Bellarmi. de … ar. li. 3. cap. 8. Yea, it is by him flatly confeſſed, that although, in reſpect of that regard they hauehave of the councels and the Church, their Diuines agree herein, yet in the maner thereof they diſagree verie much. But what ſhould I ſtand vponupon this point?cap. 9. Bellarmine which in the firſt booke of the Euchariſt, doth make his argument againſt Luther. of the eaſineſſe and of the plainneſſe of the wordes that belong to the inſtitution of the Sacrament, proouing that of neceſſitie they muſt ſo be, leaſt thereby men ſhould take occaſion of errour or doubting, and condemneth Luthers doctrine as obſcure: as though hee had beene then in a ſound ſleepe, and nowe were well wakened.li. 3. cap. 8. In his third booke he commendeth their doctrine vntounto vsus concerning the Sacrament, becauſe it is exceeding hard, and condemneth ours becauſe it is ſo eaſie, that eueryevery bodie may vnderſtande it. Well, to be ſhort, thus I reaſon, The wordes of the inſtitution muſt be taken in the plaineſt ſenſe or meaning: But that ſenſe that is wreſted out of them for Tranſubſtantiation is not plaine: Therefore that ſenſe of thoſe wordes muſt not be taken that teacheth tranſubſtantiation. Thirdly, the circumſtances of the place it ſelfe are flat againſt this doctrine of tranſubſtantiation. For if any thing els had bin ſignified by the worde This, then that which Chriſt tooke and brake, that is, the bread, it could not but verie much hauehave aſtoniſhed them that were preſent, that ſpeaking as it were of the bread, hee ſhould hauehave meant any thing elſe. But to hauehave taught, that it had beene his very naturall bodie indeede, it would hauehave made them much more wonder than they did … e ſixt of Saint Iohns Goſpel, when they ſayd,Ioh. 6.6… . This is a hard ſaying, who can heare it. For, if they could not abide to heare our Sauiour Chriſt ſay, they muſt eate his fleſh, and drinke his blood, howe much leſſe woulde they not onelyonly hauehave heard this ſaide againe, but alſo ſeeing him ſit at the Table, and hauing taken bread into his hand, to pronounce that that bread was his naturall bodie, that was borne of the Virgine Marie, and that they muſt ſo eate him? But they knew, that about Sacraments, ſacramentall ſpeaches are to be vſed. And neuer imagined that becauſe he ſaid, This is my body, therefore that bread ſhould bee chaunged in ſubſtaunce to the bodie of Chriſt, no more than there ſhould be an alteration in Chriſt, becauſe he ſayth, I am the doore, I am the vine, yea no more than the cup it ſelfe was changed in the words of conſecration, into another thing. They knew, that it is not ſuch a kinde of ſpeach, as is vſed when God is purpoſed to make any thing:Gen. 1. Let there be light: let there be a firmament. It is not a ſpeach of cōmanding, but of ſhewing or declaring, when he ſayth: This is my body. And therefore they made no ſuch doubts, they did not ſo much as aſke any queſtion how it could bee, that he whoſe bodie they ſaw ſitting with them at the table, could hauehave alſo an other bodie, though inuiſible, yet a verie true and naturall bodie, hidden in thoſe formes of bread. And as the Apoſtles did neuer imagine ſo groſly of Chriſt, and ſo abſurdly, that he had two bodies, the one viſible, the other inuiſible, the one ſitting at the table, the other lurking in the formes of bread, but did eate that which Chriſt tooke, brake and gaue to them, that is to ſay, bread: ſo Saint Paule doeth flatly call it bread,1. Cor. 11.27 28. de Euchar. li. 1. cap. 14. yea, and that after the words of conſecration. And although Bellarmine would ſeeme to anſwere this argument, and indeed iuſtly cyteth the anſwere which is commonly made to it, that it is called bread, not becauſe it is ſo nowe, but becauſe it was ſo: for, (ſayeth hee) it is not needfull that if ſometime that be vſed, yet that ſhould bee vſed alwayes: yet neither will the anſwere that hee beſt liketh of ſerue the turne: For, (ſayeth hee) it is called bread according to the Hebrew phraſe, which calleth all meate by the name of bread. Now, to ſtrike him with his owne weapon, if it bee ſo ſometimes, muſt it ſo ſignifie alwayes? I am ſure maiſter Bellarmine will not ſo ſay, for then ſhall wee doubt what it was that our Sauiour Chriſt tooke for the inſtitution of the Sacrament. And if he dare not ſay, that ſo it muſt bee alwayes, then muſt hee giuegive better reaſon why heere it ſhould not bee ſo, or elſe wee cannot beleeue him. Eſpecially ſeeing the Apoſtle immediately before, ſpeaking of the inſtitution of the Sacrament, hath ſhewed howe our Sauiour Chriſt tooke bread, which I truſt maiſter Bellarmine will there confeſſe to bee bread in deed, and not other foode: why ſhould hee then without proofe or reaſon, ſay here it is more generally taken, to applie it perchaunce to the foode of the ſoule? Yea, this replie may ſerue for all the anſweres that hee hath to this argument, becauſe it is not inough for him to ſay, ſuch a worde may ſo bee taken ſometime, but hee muſt prooue that it muſt in this place ſo be taken. Moreouer, if you conſider of that which they call the forme of bread, it is no other in colour, taſte, or faſhion, than it was: it putrifieth and corrupteth as ſoone as when it is not conſecrated. Which to affirme, if it were tranſubſtantiated into the bodie of Chriſt, were in my mind abſurd and blaſphemous. Laſtly, we ſee by the practiſe that the godly hauehave ſometime vſed, that the fathers in the primitiue Church thought not the bread to be tranſubſtantiated: For if they had knowne of any tranſubſtantiation, they woulde not hauehave burned that which remained of the Euchariſt, as Heſichius, Heſich. in leuit. Ori. in Leuit.and alſo Origen vponupon Leuiticus ſhew that they did. Thus then by many reaſons, I truſt it ſufficiently appeareth, that the church of Rome cannot without great violence done to the place, wring trāſubſtantiation out of theſe words, this is my body:In Ioh. tract. 47. for Chriſt is many things by ſimilitude, which he is not in deed, a rocke, a doore, &c. as ſaith S. Auguſt. And ſo we may ſee the words to be moſt eaſie and plaine, if according to the maner of ſuch ſacramentall ſpeaches, we vnderſtand the worde (Is. 1. Cor. 10.2) The rocke was Chriſt, that is, it was a figure of Chriſt: ſo here, This is my body, that is, ye figure of my bodie,Cont. Adimant. c. 12. as S Auguſt. moſt plainly expoūdeth in this place, ſaying: The lord made no doubt to ſay, this is my body, when he gaue the figure of his bodie. And thus much to take frō them that one weapon which they hauehave wreſted frō the ſcriptures to fight againſt vsus wtal. Now ye which they can bring againſt vsus out of the writings of men, can hauehave no ſuch force, and therfore is not ſo dangerous.
Anſwer to the places out of the fathers for tranſubſtantiation. Inſt. Apol. 2 neer the endAnd yet it will not be amiſſe, to take a ſhort viewe of that which they alledge out of the Fathers of the purer ages, namely that liued fiue hundred, or ſixe hundred yeares after Chriſt. Iuſtinus Martyr is the firſt whom he nameth, out of whom he gathereth, That the meate whereof our fleſh is nouriſhed, that is the bread ſanctified by the prayer of the worde of God, is the bodie of the Lorde. Wherein I note firſt, that becauſe hee ſpeaketh of meate, wherof our fleſh is nouriſhed, he acknowledgeth no change of the ſubſtance of the bread: for it muſt be the ſubſtance of the bread that nouriſheth our bodies, no change, I ſay, but Sacramentall, in regard whereof, he hath ſaid a little before, that we receiue it not as common bread, becauſe that being ſo ſanctified, it is a Sacrament of the bodie of our ſauior Chriſt. Thē, the ſubſtance of the bread being proued, euen by theſe words, to remaine, it is nothing hard to ſee what he meaneth, when he ſayth, it is the bodie of the Lord. For it is nothing elſe then it is, that is, it ſignifieth the bodie of the Lord.Col. cum Trypho. Iud… o. Which expoſition I hauehave from himſelfe, who ſaith in an other place, That Chriſt hath deliuered vsus bread, for the Remembrance of his bodie that is taken vp (into heauen.) Where he doth not onelyonly ſhew the Sacrament to be a Memoriall of Chriſts bodie, which here is to be proued, but alſo, that his bodie is abſent and in heauē, in that he ſaith, it is for a remēbrance of his body that is taken vp. And in the ſame book afterwards, ye ſame father ſaith, that By the dry and moiſt nouriſhment (the bread & wine) we are admoniſhed of thoſe things, which it is ſaid Chriſt hath ſuffred for vsus. Where, by calling thē nouriſhment, & that of our bodies, for ſuch nouriſhment belongeth to thē, he plainly denieth any alteration of the ſubſtance in thoſe viſible ſignes: and then further ſheweth the true vſe of ye ſacramēt, which is, to admoniſh vsus of Chriſts ſuffring for vsus. Out of Iren. he allegeth theſe words: How ſhal they know, Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34.that that bread wherin thanks are giuē, is the body of their lord; but yt Iren. did not dream there of any Tranſubſtantiation, it is plaine by his wordes that folow immediately, when he faith, that the Euchariſt conſiſteth of two things, the earthly, and the heauenly. If the bread were tranſubſtantiate, it could not be called an earthly thing. Moreouer, hee writeth in that place againſt the heretikes that ſayd, there was another God the father, beſides him that made all things. Nowe he inferreth, if they ſhould ſay true, howe ſhall they knowe that that bread is the bodie of their Lord? Whereby it appeareth, that his purpoſe is here, not to ſhew what is in that bread, but which Lord it repreſenteth vntounto them: As the verie next wordes in that ſentence declare, which are theſe, If they ſay not, that he is the ſonne of him that made the world: ſo that the chiefeſt force of this reaſon after Irene his true meaning, is in this word, Their Lord. And beſides, to call the ſigne by the name of that which it ſignifieth, the bodie of Chriſt, for the ſacrament of the bodie of Chriſt, is verie agreeable vntounto the Scriptures: but ſuch maner of ſpeaches are but a weake proofe for tranſubſtantiation. Next commeth in Tertullian, but ſo maimed & mangled, that thereby maiſter Bellarmine proclaimeth vntounto the world, that he meant nothing leſſe, than to hauehave the truth knowne. Out of him hee alledged theſe wordes:Con. Marcionem li. 4. neer the ende The bread which he tooke he made his bodie, ſaying: this is my bodie. A man would thinke this were a very plaine place, but Bellarmine dealeth falſly herein. For when Tertullian hath ſpoken for him what he would hauehave him, then he ſtoppeth his mouth leaſt he marre all. For the very next wordes are, that is the figure of his bodie. Nowe, let vsus take the whole ſentence together, and ſo trie what hee can make of it. The bread which hee tooke hee made his bodie, ſaying: this is my bodie, that is, the figure of my bodie. And after alſo, to ſhew what he meant by that he ſaide he made it his bodie, he deliuereth it in other termes, he calleth it his bodie. If then maiſter Bellarmine will aſke, how the bread can bee made his bodie? Tertullian telleth how,Li. de Euch. 3. cap. 18. Sacramentally, or figuratiuely. So that this bold queſtion of maiſter Bellarmine commeth out of ſeaſon, like a triumph before the conqueſt. His fourth witneſſe that he produceth,Cyp. de coena domini. is Cyprian, whoſe wordes are theſe: This bread which the Lord did reach to his diſciples, being changed, not in ſhape or forme, but in nature, by the omnipotencie of the worde, is made fleſh. This teſtimonie hee eſteemeth as the club of Hercules, that no man can withſtand:De Euch. li. 2 cap. 9. and therefore in another place, alledging it, he ſayth thus: This teſtimonie cannot bee anſwered, although the aduerſaries hauehave often aſſayed to anſwere it. Let vsus then examine a little this vnanſwerable place. And firſt, it is confeſſed by Bellarmine, that that booke is not Cyprians, and therefore the father of that booke is vncertaine, but yet wee will not denie it, but anſwere the place, if we can. How the bread is made fleſh, hath beene ſufficiently declared in the anſwer to the former arguments: ſo that all the hardneſſe is in this, howe the bread is chaunged, not in forme, but in nature. Firſt, that is true in reſpect of the vſe that it is put to: For as it is a ſacrament, and repreſenteth vntounto vsus our nouriſhment in Chriſt: ſo muſt it truely nouriſh our bodies, it beeing chaunged in vsus to that ende, and nowe, not the accidents, but the ſubſtaunce of bread, can worke this nouriſhment. And therefore, if wee take nature for ſubſtaunce, it may well ſo be expounded, and agree with that which Iuſtinus Martyr ſayeth, as before is ſaide. And admit, that nature doeth here ſignifie ſubſtaunce, let vsus ſee what they can prooue by it. They ſay the ſubſtance of the bread ceaſſeth, and is quite taken away: But Cyprian ſayeth, the bread is but chaunged in nature, but ſtill it remayneth bread you ſee, for hee ſo calleth it. Therefore becauſe he vttereth it in ſuch a maner, it is moſt certaine, that he meaneth not by that worde nature, the ſubſtance of bread, but ſomething elſe. Nature therefore is ſomtime taken for the diſpoſition, or for the propertie or vſe of a thing, as the authour of the booke of Wiſdome ſayth,Sap. 7.20 That God had giuen him knowledge, of the nature of beaſts. In like maner, Rom. 1.26. Epheſ. … .3 Iam. 3.7We were by nature (ſaith ſaint Paul) the children of wrath. And ſaint Iames ſaith, The whole nature of beaſts, hath beene tamed by the nature of man. So that this word nature, very often doth not ſignifie the ſubſtance. And here it cannot ſignifie the ſubſtance of the bread, becauſe the ſubſtance of it cannot be changed, but yt it muſt alſo be annihilated, or broght to nought, therfore he ſpeaketh but of the vſe or propertie of it, that it is altered. And doctor Chadſey, a learned Papiſt, as was any in Oxford in his time, doth confirme this my anſwer: For when Peter Martir diſputing againſt D. Treſham, had preſſed him with an authoritie of Theodorets, Dialog. 1which was this: Chriſt hōnored thoſe ſignes which we ſee, with the names of his bodie and blood, yet not changing the nature, but to nature adding grace. And he (as it ſeemeth) not liking well of D. Treſham his anſwer, this Doctor Chadſey diſputing another day, tooke vponupon him to anſwer ſuch places as maſter Martyr had before alledged againſt maſter Treſham: and amongſt others he anſwereth this place out of Theodoret thus: I ſay that Thodoret meaneth as other fathers doe, who, when they ſay that the nature remayneth, they meane the propertie of the bread. I truſt then, it will not bee anie hereſie for mee to expounde nature, the properties of the bread, ſeeing doctor Chadſey a catholike doth it. We ſee then, that this vnanſwerable argument, that he made ſo great account of, and bragged that it could neuer be anſwered, is long ſince fully anſwered by one of his owne friends, & he knew not of it. Ciril is his fift witnes, not that learned father that was biſhop of Alexandrie, but another that was B. of Ieruſalē, Ciril. Ieruſ. cathec. Miſtagog. 4whoſe books are but lately ſet forth by thēſelues, that now bring him in for a witnes, & therfore we may doubt whether he be wel delt wtal. Out of him he aledgeth 3. places: He once turned water into wine, & ſhal he not be worthy to be truſted that he turned wine into bloud. Beholde here (ſayth maiſter Bellarmine) a reall change. And why ſo? I knowe he will anſwere: becauſe it was ſo in the water, for it was really changed into wine: and therfore alſo ſaint Iohn, Iohn 2, 11who reporteth the ſtorie, ſaith, it was a myracle. Now to change wine into bloud, is as great a miracle, and therefore it is likely, that if there had bin any ſuch miracle wrought, ſome or other would hauehave noted it for a miracle, ſeeing ſo many hauehave ſpokē of that matter: namely three Euangeliſts, and S. Paul. Maſter Bell. knoweth, that the fathers vſe many times to ſpeake verie hyperbolically, and to amplify with exceſſiue ſpeaches ye matters that they would ſet forth, as here this Ciril doth: & yet we muſt not gather thereof ſuch a real change in the wine, as I hauehave ſaid was in the water: but this is ſpoken to win that at our hands, that he in that place moueth vsus vntounto, that we ſhould not thinke the ſacramentall wine to bee but bare wine. His ſecond witneſſe for maiſter Bellarmine, is after in that place, VnderUnder the forme of bread, the bodie is giuen, and in forme of wine, the bloud. Wherupon maiſter Bellarmine againe inſulteth thus: Behold the accidents of bread which remaine. We grant it, but not the accidents or ſhew of bread only, but the ſubſtance alſo, and that he hath not yet denied: therefore let vsus ſee his third place. Knowe this for a certaintie, that this bread which is ſeene of vsus, is not bread, though thy taſt perceiue it to be bread. In deed hee ſpeaketh here farre otherwiſe than the auncient fathers doe, in that hee ſayeth, It is not bread: For there is not one of the fathers, for at the leaſt ſix hundred yeeres after Chriſt, that euer ſpake ſo, but this man onelyonly. And therefore howſoeuer he amplifieth the matter in wordes, to bring vntounto the holy Sacraments due regarde, which the fathers at thoſe times vponupon great cauſes did much endeuour,Catec. Miſt. 3 yet he is not to be thought to hauehave meant otherwiſe than that hee ſayd before, that it is no more common bread. For although, if they regarde but the taſte, they ſhall finde no change, yet that ſacrament is an authenticall ſeale of our faith, which aſſureth vsus, that Chriſt is ſpiritually giuen vntounto vsus. And thus much briefly of theſe authorities: that men may ſee, that they are not ſo very plaine, that infallible arguments may be gathered out of them.
But now I muſt needes ſpeake ſomewhat of the Author. And firſt for the Booke it ſelfe,Lib. Eccleſ. hiſt. … . ca. 23. out of which theſe places are alleaged, it ſeemeth to me, that ſaint Hierome hath ſomewhat burnt it in the eare, when he ſaith, that hee wrote it when hee was but a yong man, noting thereby (perchance) his yong and ſlender iudgement. And of himſelfe Ruffinus ſaith,Lib. 2. ca. 40 That hee did change ſometime in faith, and in Communion often. And Socrates in his Eccleſiaſticall hiſtory ſaith of him, that being ſummoned to anſwere ſome accuſations that were laid againſt him, he fearing to come to his triall, for two yeares together appeared not, and therefore was depoſed. What reaſon then, that wee ſhould be content to ſtand to his triall for matters in queſtion, that was himſelfe afraide to be tried by the learned men of his time: Or that hee who was depoſed from his ſeate, by them that beſt knew him (yea, and that, as it ſeemeth by Ruffinus his ſaying of him, for ſome hereſie) ſhould now ſit as Iudge, yea or elſe be allowed as witnes in ſo weighty matters? As for ſaint Ambroſe, De iis qui initiantur miſt. cap. 9.whom next he alleageth, he maketh not againſt vsus. He ſaith indeede, that the bread is that which Nature hath formed, but that Bleſsing hath hallowed. Which is nothing elſe but that which hath beene anſwered before, that it is not common bread, but as Theodoret ſaith,Theod. Immutabili… , dialog. 1. the Nature not being changed, to Nature is Grace added. And that this is S. Ambroſe his meaning, is moſt plaine, (not only by that which he afterwardes ſaith in that very chapter, Before the bleſsing of the heauenly wordes, an other thing is named: after the conſecration, the bodie of Chriſt is ſignified) but alſo moſt euidently in his bookes of the Sacraments:Lib. 4. cap. 4. where ſpeaking of the change that is in theſe viſible ſignes, hee vſeth theſe wordes: If there bee ſo great vertue in the worde of the Lorde Ieſus, that the thinges that were not, beganne to bee, how much rather can it worke that they (the viſible ſignes in the Sacrament) bee that which they were, and be changed into an other thing. By which hee can meane no other but a ſacramentall change, becauſe hee flatly affirmeth, that theſe ſignes are that which they were. The firſt place that hee alleageth out of Chryſoſt. is this: It is he that doth ſanctifie theſe things (the outward elements and change them: In Matth. Hom. 83.but that hee ſpeaketh of a ſacramental change only, his owne wordes a litle before, in that place, do prooue. For, in teaching how that by theſe ſenſible creatures, he deliuereth vntounto vsus things not ſenſible, hee bringeth his example of Baptiſme, wherein I know they wil not ſay the water is tranſubſtantiated. And yet Chryſoſtome maketh no difference betweene it and the ſacrament of Chriſtes body and blood, but that in them both, in like ſort by ſenſible creatures, inſenſible graces are deliuered. But moſt plainely in an other place doeth he confute that which the Papiſts woulde force out of theſe wordes, namely, the change of the ſubſtance of the bread, ſaying: Before the bread is ſanctified, Ad Caeſarium monachum.wee call it bread, but the diuine grace hauing ſanctified it by the Prieſt, it is freeed from the name of bread, and is vouched worthy of the name of the Lordes body, although the nature of the bread abide in it. Whereby wee ſee, the change that hee ſpeaketh of is in the vſe, not in the ſubſtance of the bread. In the latter place Chryſoſtome ſaieth thus: Doeſt thou ſee bread, De Euchar. in encaenus.doeſt thou ſee wine? doe theſe thinges goe to the draught as other meates doe? God forbid. Thinke not ſo. For as waxe being put into the fire is made like vntounto it, none of the ſubſtance remaineth, nothing aboundeth: euen ſo heere thinke the myſteries to bee conſumed by the ſubſtance of the body.
In which words he bringeth nothing for Popiſh tranſubſtantiation. For although they doe teach, that the ſubſtance of the bread is periſhed, yet the accidentes they teach ſtill to remaine, and euer they ſay, that Chriſt is preſent in the ſacrament vnderunder the formes of bread and wine: But when waxe is caſt into the fire, there is not ſo much as a ſhew that there hath beene waxe, but all is conſumed: Therefore this ſimilitude maketh not for tranſubſtantiation. And in trueth whoſoeuer ſhall reade that whole ſermon, ſhall eaſily perceiue, that Chryſoſt. there doeth but by rhetoricall amplifications exhort the people, ſo to be affected when they come vntounto the holy ſacrament, that their eie ſhoulde not bee occupied about anie earthly creatures, but their minde altogetherr exerciſed in heauenly cogitations, according (ſaith he) vntounto the promiſe that you made vntounto the Prieſt when as hee ſaide, Lift vp your mindes and hearts, and you anſwered, I hauehave it lifted vp vntounto the Lord. Which is according to the councell which hee giueth vntounto vsus in an other place, that eſpecially in theſe holie myſteries, Chryſoſt. in Math. hom. 83wee ſhoulde not onelyonly beholde that which is before our eyes, but eſpecially remember his wordes. But it were too tedious to anſwere eueryevery place particularly that they doe alleadge, and out of this which is already ſpoken, it is eaſie to anſwere any thing that they can bring out of the fathers for fiue or ſixe hundred yeares. But if any man wil aſke, why our ſauiour Chriſt doth giuegive vntounto the bread the name of his Bodie, and to the wine, the name of his Blood? And why the fathers doe ſo call theſe outward ſignes, the bodie and blood of our ſauiour Chriſt, I will anſwere with Theodoret an ancient father:Dial. 1. Immutabil… . Hee would hauehave them that are partakers of the diuine myſteries, not to bee occupied in thinking of the nature of the thinges that are ſeene, but in reſpect of the change of the name, to beleeue the change that is made through grace.
As for the Councels which they bring for proofe of this doctrine,Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3 cap. 23 the firſt of them was more than a thouſand yeeres after Chriſt, whereby it may appeare, how late this doctrine is: whereupon Scotus a ſchooleman doeth confeſſe, that this tranſubſtantiation was not a doctrine of faith before the councel of Lateran, although Bellarmine reproue him for it. Seeing now this their lately hatched doctrine doeth bring with it ſo many abſurdities, is darkened with ſo many doubtes, hath no warrant in the Scriptures, no ground in the ancient fathers, and is not to be accounted as an article of faith (euen by the confeſſion of them that ſpeake of the greateſt antiquitie of it much more than fiue hundred yeares ſince:) let vsus take heed of them, who crie continually, Antiquitie, Antiquitie, and yet indeuour to bring in new doctrines and deuiſes of their owne, and to turne away the hearts of the ignorant from the true ancient faith, deliuered by Chriſt and his apoſtles, and ſincerely preſerued many hundred yeeres in the church of God. But of this, becauſe it is one of the ſpeciall points of doctrine wherein we diſſent, I hauehave ſtoode longer.