crucifyed his bloud shed And therefore if vve exactly scan the povverfull and effectuall vvordes of Consecration vvhich immediatly produce no more then they signify vve may truly auerre that Christ in this svveet and admirable manner is heere dayly killed and crucifyed againe For if he vvere sayd to be killed in the Apoc. 5. 9. 138. imperfect thaddovves and darke resemblances of the old Lavv and tearmed by S. Iohn The Lambe slaine from the beginning of the world because the Goates Lambes and other victimes were slaine which obscurely shadowed and resembled him how much more truely may he be said to be daily crucified in our dreadfull mystery of the Masse which is not onely a bare and naked figure but so liuely an Image so neere a Character such a perfect representation of that on the Crosse as it is the same body the same bloud the same Host Oblation which there was made And no difference at all but that that was sacrificed vpon the ignominious wood of the Crosse and this vpon the hallowed Altar of the Church That was all imbrued with bloud this cleane from the effusiō of bloud That offered by the treacherous hands of the Iewes this by the annoynted hands of the Priests That in his true proper and natiue shape this in a couert hidden and Sacramentall manner Heereupon S. Cyprian Cyp. ep 63. Pascha de cons◠dist ◠c. Iteratur Greg. do Conse dist 2. c. Quid sie hom 37. in euan Aug. de fide ad Petrum c. 19. The Sacrifice which we offer is the Passion of Christ. Paschasius Daily Christ is mystically immolated for vs and the Passion of Christ in mystery is deliuered S. Gregory Christ in himselfe immortally liuing dieth againe in this mystery S. Augustine speaking of the carnal Sacrifices of the Leuiticall Law and this Commemoratiue of the new In them he saith Christ was foreshewed as to be killed in this he is shewed as killed The reason heereof is manifest because the seuerall substances of bread and wine as I touched aboue are not directly changed and transubstantiated into the whole person of our Sauiour Christ as here he liued vpon earth or as he now raigneth in heauen but the bread into his body apart from the bloud and the wine into his bloud apart from the body In so much that if nothing else ensued but that which the words precisely signifie and effectuate the body should be there truly dead deuoid of bloud and the bloud truly shed seuered from the body 28. Notwithstanding al this we constantly beeleue that per concomitantiam as the Deuines tearme it or by sequell of all parts each to other the body of our Sauiour is in the Sacrament as it is in it selfe that is glorious immortall and fully replenished with his pretious bloud His bloud is likewise vnder the other kind as it now existeth conteyned in his veynes his veynes in his body his body conioyned to his soule his soule and body Hypostatically vnited to the Sonne of God so that Christ by this sequell or Concomitance is here wholy vnder both kinds his whole body his whole bloud his whole soule his whole Godhead his whole man-hood Yea by essentiall connexion of one with the other all the persons of the holy Trinity the Father Sonne and holy Ghost 29. O most rare and vnspeakable mysterie which M. Bell M. Reynolds and their vnhappy Consorts either blinded with ignorance or transported with malice can Heb. 5. ver 11. not conceaue O great and inexplicable speach which S. Paul thought vnfit to vnfold to the Hebrewes feeble in faith and weake in vnderstanding And indeed it is too deepe a point to explaine to the itching eares of our captious Heretikes if the calamity of our times importunity of our Aduersaries did not presse vs thereunto 30. Besides these cauils gathered out of Scripture M. Bils 4. p. pag. 692. 693. 752. Rey. p. 536. Bilson and M. Reynolds huddle vp certaine obiections out of the Fathers writings as that S. Gregory Nazianzen calleth our daily Sacrifice An Image of that on the Crosse S Chrysostome A signe a remembrance of Christs death Others say That Christ is ossered in a Sacrament in mysterie in memory Some tearme it A spirituall Sacrifice A Sacrifice of praier S. Augustine A Sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing But how do these sayings infringe our doctrine We allow it an Image yet the truth it self A signe yet the thing signed An image in respect of the outward forms the truth in respect of the inward substance A signe in shew the thing it selfe indeed We agree with the Fathers That Christ is offered in a Sacrament in mysterie c. in regard of the visible elements and outward representation as I haue already declared we call the Masse A spirituall Sacrifice A Sacrifice A Sacrifice of Praier for that it is made with blessing and praier mysticall for that the manner of consecrating this victime is not grosse carnall and sensibly bloudy as the Iewish victimes were but cleane spirituall and vnbloudy Vnbloudy in Sacrification in substance bloudy Aug. con lit Petil. l. 2. ca. 86 ◠Tertul. ad Mar. li. 4. Iren. l. 4 ca. 33. 34. the manner spirituall the thing corporall We subscribe to S. Augustine Tertullian Irenaeus and the rest That it is a Sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing because hereby God is highly praised aboundant thankes are surrendred vnto him And whatsoeuer the old Law with many Hosts and burnt offerings nakedly resembled by our sole and singuler Sacrifice is wholy honorably fully accomplished In which respect we are the true worshippers of God Who neither in the Temple of Ierusalem nor in the mount Garizim but in euery Coast and Climate of the earth adore the Father of Heauen according of our Sauiours prophesie in spirit and truth He saith in spirit by reason of the life and spirit of God which our Host containeth Ioan. 4. 23. In truth because it is indeed the truth it selfe the true body of Christ which the figures of the old Law shadowed and resembled Or he addeth in spirit not to debar vs from all externall Sacrifices or outward ceremonies as Caluin misconstrueth the word but to exclude the grosse corporall victimes of the Iewes as S. Chrysostome Caluin in his Com. vpon this place Chrys and Euthy vpon this place Amb. de Spi. l. 3. ca. 11. Cyr. in Io. l. 2. ca. 93. and Euthymius expound this place In truth to oppose it against the false and vnlawfull worship of the Samaritans which is the interpretation of S. Ambrose S. Cyril and Theophilact 31. And this is sufficient to cleare the Fathers sufficient if not to stop the mouth of clamous Aduersaries yet to quiet the minds of indifferent Readers sufficient to acquit our Sacrifice from calumny our selues from Idolatrie our Priests from iniury and incroachment vpon Christs incommunicable right in their immaculate and daily immolation of his body
and bloud THE FIFTH CONTROVERSY WHERE IN The Communion vnder one kind is defended against D. Bilson D. Fulke and all other Protestantes CHAP. I. THe late Nouellists of our tyme not contented to impugne our Sacrament controule our Sacrifice eagerly also inueigh against our manner of Communion Amongst whome a chiefe Ensigne-bearer M. Thomas Bilson condemneth Bils 4. Par pag. 684. 685. of Christian subiection Fulk in bis answere to the Rhem. Test. in â— 6.10 sect 12. it as mangled broken imperfect He presumeth to say That we chase the people from the Cup of their saluation from the Communion of Christs bloud and fellowship of his holy spirit D. Fulke auoucheth The Chapter of Trent so he scornefully tearmeth that Venerable Councell vainely goeth about to proue that one halfe of the Sacrament is not necessary But they purposly misconstrue or ignorantly mistake the truth of our doctrine For if they knew that vnder the formes of bread alone or wine alone and that in euery part and parcell of them the whole body of Christ and all his pretious bloud is contained Conc. Triden seâ— 13. cap. 13. as we with that sacred Councell mantaine they must needes belieue that he who enioyeth the least particle of either kind receaueth not a mangled or imperfect but an absolute complete entire and perfect Sacrament the true Author and giuer of life the whole refection of Christs body and bloud And whereas more then the whole more then all none can expect he that partaketh the least portion is no way defrauded but aboundantly replenished with whatsoeuer he can desire Secondly we teach that not only the entire Sacrament and totall substance thereof but the whole fruite grace and vertue Conc. Triden sel 21 cap 3. Ioan. 6. 1. Cor. 10. Iraâ— l. 4. cont haer cap. 34. Hilar. l. 8. de Trinit Greg. Niss orat cate c. 36. 37. Cyr. lib. 10. 11. in Ioan. which proceedeth from both kinds togeather is fully also exhibited vnder one alone For which cause our Blessed Sauiour attributeth the same effect and life of our soules to one as he doth to both speaking only of the bread he sayth This is the Bread descending from heauen that if any eate of it he may not dye Againe He that eateth this Bread shall liue for euer And S. Paul He that eateth the Host is partaker of the Altar Which S. Irenaus S. Hilary S. Gregory Nissen S. Cyril of Alexandria very notably confirme in sundry places 2. Hence it followeth that the Priest receaueth not any more benefite by both kinds then the people by one For albeit the Chalice by it selfe be both the wel conduit of grace yet taken at the same tyme with the body it infuseth no more then was enioyed before Euery particle of a deuided Host euery drop of the Chalice is a maine Ocean of spirituall blessings yet many of them by the same morall action successiuely receaued affoard no more grace then one alone because that one instilleth the whole fountaine it selfe which cannot at that tyme be further increased or produced a new In the mistery of the Holy Trinity we belieue the same we belieue the vnderstanding of the Sonne to be alike fruitfull powerfull as the vnderstanding of the Father yet it begetteth not any Image of it selfe any word of the mind because the true and consubstantiall Image the eternall and perfect word of the vnderstanding is already begotten So in earthly thinges where the burning lampe once casteth his clearest beames of light although it shineth still it enlightneth no more Where the fire hath inkindled all degrees of heate although it worketh still it can heate no more In the Holy Sacraments we find the like When the Character of Baptisme is once imprinted let the child be baptized againe it cannot be imprinted anew When the body of Christ is once consecrated vnder the formes of Bread let the wordes be repeated it cannot be consecrated againe After the same manner in our Communion when the full and plenteous refection of our soule with the whole Body and bloud of Christ is by any parcell of either element perfectly accomplished let new Hosts be imparted let another element be applyed as long as the former heauenly repast morally nourisheth and remaineth we cannot be fed anew or be more daintily refreshed Why then say you do the Priests communicate vnder both kindes I answere Not to partake more aboundantly the vertue of the Sacrament but more perfectly to represent the Passion of Christ the inregrity of his Sacrifice the violent separation of his body bloud which is most liuely signifyed as I haue already declared by the seuerall consecration and separate consumption of distinct and diuers elements 3. But Christ sayth M. Fulke instituted both kinds the Apostles ministred the Sacrament in both indifferently to all Our Sauiour sayth M. Bilson commanded the Chalice to be M. Fulke in c. 6. 10. Bils 4. par pag. 679. drunke of the people aâ— well as of the Priests when he sayd Drinke yee all of this What Was this spoken to all vniuersally Was it spoken to Iewes Turkes and Infidels Was it spoken to Infants to whome the Protestants themselues doe not minister the Cup No. It was spoken only to them that sate downe at supper with Christ to them to whome before he brake and distributed the formes of bread to them to whome he reached the Chalice to them who after songe the Hymne and went into the mount Oâ—iuet with him to them to whome he sayd All you shal be scaÌ„dalized in me this night But these only were the Marc. cap. 14. Apostles of Christ as the Euangelist witnesseth Therfore to them alone and in their persons to all Bishops and Priests their successours it way sayd Drinke yee all of this This history of the institution of the Sacrament S. Paul Math. â—6 v. â—8 1. Cor. 11 V. 23. deliuereth to the Corinthians yet neither commandeth himselfe all to drinke of the Chalice nor auoucheth any I. Cor. II v. 23. such ordinance or decree to haue been enacted by Christ 4. M. Bilson presseth further To whome then were these wordes spoken Take yee eate yee Not to the selfe same partyes to whome it was sayd Drinke yee If none may drinke but Priests Bils 4. par pag. â—79 then by the same logicke none should eate but Priests I answere that by the force of that commandment Take eate the Laity are not tyed to tast of the Holy Eucharist for these wordes were spoken to the Apostls only but they are obliged by the institution of this holy Mistery as a Sacrament necessary to saluation They are obliged by those threatning words of Christ Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Ioan. 6. 〈◊〉 53. Sonne of Man and drinke his Bloud you shall haue no life in you 5. He doth not heere command the manner of eating and drinking but the substance of the thing He doth
Alphonsus de Castro diligently reciteth and as learnedly disproueth some he suggested to prophane and defile it with most vile and execrable ceremonies as the Manichies the Pepuzians the Guostickes of whom S. Augustine and Epiphanius Others to mingle it with the terren earthly substance of bread wine as Berengarius who hauing recanted and abiured his former heresy against Bils in his booke of Christian SubiectioÌ„ 4. par p. 720 727 728. Sparkes in his answere to M. Ioan. Albines p. 114 115. 116. Aelius LaÌ„pridiuâ— de Anton. Heliogabalo Matt. 26 Melancth in l. de ver Corp. Christi in Sacra Reyn. in his conferenco with M. Hart. c. 2. diuis 2. p. 82. Cyr. l. â— in Ioan. â— 4. Beza in c. 17. Matt. in â—iew of those words hic est filiuâ— meus dilectus translaâ—â—th out of the â—reek hic est silius ille meus dilectus ille the Reall presence presently brake forth into this wicked Blasphemy imbraced fince by Luther and his followers Some others he excited to robbe and despoile it of all true vertue fruit and dignity as Wiclesse Caluin Beza with their suruiuing of-spring D. Bilson D. Sparkes and such like who only furnish this heauenly table with voyd and empty dishes of fayth conteining neyther the body nor bloud of our Sauiour Christ. But as Heliogabalus the Emperour inuiting the Roman Princes to a feast set painted and artificiall dainties before them which could neyther delight their tast nor satisfy their hungry appetites so our Aduersaries in this diuine banquet prepared by the hand of our B. Redecmer deuise figured and Metaphoricall meates vnworthy the maister therof vnworthy the Maiesty of God not answerable to his loue not agreable to the necessities of his inuited guests 2. Yea most dissonant to the words himselfe vsed at the institution of the same where he tooke bread as S. Matthew recordeth blessed brake gaue to his Disciples said This is my Body Which wordes seemed so forcible to Luther and his adherents as Melancthon one of his chiefest Scholers saith fulmina erunt they will be like thunderbolts against him that shall deny the receiued opinion of Christs true body in the Sacrament And not without cause For if we examine them euen by the rules our Aduersaries themselues prescribe in the interpreting of Scripture to wit By conference of places connexion of texts agreement of Translations they all notwithstanding open and vnfold the approued sense of the Catholike Church 3. To begin with the translations the Greeke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this restraineth the nowne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 body to his determinate and proper signification as S Cyril in the like case learnedly noteth of the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Beza putteth great Emphasy in the same article in diuers places The Syriake or vulgar Hebrew of S. Mathew in which he first wrote readeth This is the substance S. Mark hath this particle reuerà in the Syriach tongue 1. Cor. 11. Mat. 16. Mar. 1 Luc. 2â— 4. Bils 4. par p. 754. 755. of my body The Syriake of S. Marke This truly is my body The connexion of the text recorded by S. Paul and the three Euangelists conuinceth it more plainly he speaking of the body This is my body which shal be delinered for you Where I demand how in what sense that Nowne Body is taken whether properly for Christs true body or improperly for the signe of his body Properly you will not say lest you accord with vs improperly you cannot say without hainous blasphemy For when S. Paul sayd This is my body to expresse what body he addeth which shal be deliuered for you 4. Therefore if a signe only called by the name of the thing signed as M. Bilson fayneth was then giuen a signe only bearing the name of the thing as the Manichees dreamed was after deliuered and crucifyed for vs seeing the same body was ministred to the Apostles at the supper which was afterward hanged and dyed on the Aug. in exposit Ps 33. Read him also in Psal 65. 93. con Faust l. 12. c. 10. l. 3. de trin c. 10. l. 6. confess cap. 1â— Chrys hâ—m 24. in 1 Cor c. 10. Dam. l 4. de fi ort c. 14. Crosse as the Euangelists likewise testify writing of the bloud This is my bloud of the new Testament which shall be shed for many into remission of sinnes For which cause S. Augustine greatly commended the goodnesse of God in that he giueth vs the same body to eate In quo tam muâ—â— a perpessus est In which he endured and suffered so much And his bloud to drinke which he affirmeth to be The same liquor which flowed from his pierced side In another place he teacheth the same victim or boly sacr fice to be dispensed from the Altar whereby the hand-writing is defaced which was contrary vnto vs. S. Iohn Chrysostome auerreth that to be in the Chalice Quod exlatere fluxit which issued from his side And the same body to be in the Eucharist which was whipped imbrued with bloud wounded with a speare and which the Sunne seeing crucifyed withdrew his beames S. Iohn Damascen writeth that Christ sayd not This bread is a figure of my body but This is Epiph. in Nic. Synodo 2. act 6. my body c. Epiphanius Theophilact and Euthymius haue almost the same words who because they vtterly reiect all figuratiue glozes M. Bilson so farre enrageth against them as he sayth Damascen minceth and strayneth the wordes of Christ Epiphanius that famous Proloquutour in the second Councell of Nice was a pratling Deacon of more tongue then Theop. Euthym. in Matt. 26. Bils 4. par pag. 752. 753. Conc. Nic. 2. act 6. wit more face then learning Theophilact and Enthymius he discardeth as yonger Writers To omit therefore these learned men and to insist vpon the ceremonyes Christ obserued at his last supper The blessing of bread the circumstances of tyme and place the matter of which he spake the persons to whome all thinges concurre to strengthen confirme this infallible truth of his Reall Presence 5. First our heauenly Bishop neuer blessed any earthly element in which he wrought not some admirable effect as his blessing of fiue loaues and two fishes in the 8. of S. Marke make manifest proofe And yet this action is heere performed in such speciall manner as the Sacrament often from it borroweth his name So it is Cyr. l. 4. in Ioan. c. 16. 19. Ambr. de â—js quiinitiantur ca 9. Greg. orat cate Bils 4. par p. 660. 661. 662. 663 1. Cor. 10. Cyp. de coena dom tearmed by S. Cyrill The blessing of the mistery the blessing of Christ or the mysticall blessing By S. Ambrose The blessing of the heauenly wordes And the same S. Ambrose with S. Gregory Nissen by vertue of this blessing affirme The sulstance of bread and
wine to be turned into the body and bloud of Christ But what strang effect doe our Protestants heere assigne Euen none at all For M. Bilson will haue blessing to be nothing els but earnest prayer to God and no action at all immediatly applyed to worke any effect in the element of bread And so maketh the Euangelists vainly to coÌ„found thankesgiuing to God with blessing of his creatures checketh S. Paul who appropriateth the blessing directly to the Chalice it selfe controlleth S. CypriaÌ„ calling it The cup consecrated with solemne blessing 6. If we vrge some other circumstances the place was miraculously chosen to be betoken a rarer miracle to ensue The time was that very night in which he was betraied Marc. â—4 Luc. 22. a tyme when the Law of figures was to be abolished law of truth begaÌ„ The persons to whom he spak were the twelue Apostles the chiefest Prelates and Gouernours of his Church the matter of which he treated was concerning a law which then he enacted as appeareth by those wordes of commaund Take eate Do this It was touching his last Will and Testament which then he made as himselfe auoucheth This is my bloud of Matth. 2â— the new Testament It was belonging to the perpetuall memory and euerlasting inheritance he then bequeathed to the whole Church his beloued Spouse Excuse vs then O Lord excuse and free vs from the calumniations of our Aduersaryes if we attribute so much wisedom vnto thee as to thinke that in such a place at such a tyme to such persons concerning such weighty affaires thou wouldest not disclose thy mind in any secret hidden or ambiguous tearmes 7. We see all Law-makers most carefull in penning the Statutes Canons and Decrees of their lawes which must be obserued by their subiects according to the natiue sound and construction of the wordes We find all Testatours exact and diligent in setting downe their last Wils and Testaments least any cauils arise after their decease And shall we not graunt this care and prouidence to our Sauiour Christ Shall we either thinke he wanted wordes to expresse or diligence to record or power to performe his will in this behalfe When an earthly Testatour Inleg Non afiter ff delega 3. for examples sake bestoweth a Pretious stone vpon any one of his friends which he determinately nameth the Executors whome the law commandeth not to depart from the proper signification of the words cannot satisfy him with a painted pearle and when our heauenly Testatour namely leaueth and bequeatheth vnto vs the diuine legacy the inestimable Iewel of his own sacred body may we be contented with the signe shadow and seale thereof May we thinke he meant a figuratiue body By conference of places we shal discouer no doubt the drift of his meaning 8. Before Christ instituted this Sacrament he promised it Iohn 6. The bread which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the World according to the Greeke 〈◊〉 â— Now what construction can our Aduersaryes heer make of these wordes without appeaching our Sauiour Christ of manifest falshood For he auoucheth that the bread which he will giue is his flesh vsing the word est is in the present tense and yet it was not then a signe of his flesh neither could it take the name of the thing signed which is M. Bilsons common answere For the Sacrament was Bils 4. â—ar pag. 754. c. not then instituted but only promised as the word dabo I will giue doth demonstrate Most falsly then had Christ sayd The bread which I will giue is my flesh to wit is a signe or seale of my flesh seeing then it was neither signe seale or token except you will haue it a signe before it was made a signe before the Sacrament was instituted or Bils 4 par pag. 753. Consecration vsed which is impossible as M. Bilson himselfe will instruct you 9. Againe our Sauiour inculcateth the same with an oath or solemne asseueration saying Amen Amen I say Ioan. 6. vnto you except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you And then that no doubt as S. Hilary teacheth might be made of the truth Hilar. l. 8. de Trinit This word verè may be translated truly or indeed Chrys hom 46 in IoaÌ„ hom 60 ad popu 83 in Mat. Cyr. Alex. l. 10. in Io. c. â—â— l. 1â— c. 26. 27. item l. 4. c. 17. of his flesh and bloud he addeth My flesh is meate indeed and my bloud is drinke iadeed Hearken M. Bilson hearken M. Sparkes harken all yee Sacramentaryes my flesh is not figuratiuely nor metaphorically but truely meate and my bloud truely drinke Where S. Chrysostome sayth That Christ vseth these wordes that he might not be thought to speake parabolically And in another place By eating his flesh he reduceth vs as he writeth into one and the selfe same masse with him Neque id fide tantùm sed reipsa nos corpus suum efficit And that not only by fayth but he maketh vs his body indeed S. Cyril of Alexandria Christ dwelleth corporally in vs And a little after He is in vs non habitudine tantùm verùm etiam participatione naturali Not by relation only but by naturall participation also And in other places he affirmeth him to be naturally substantially carnally or according to the flesh vnited vnto vs. 10. As the promise was agreable to the performaÌ„ce the performance answerable to the promise so the practise â— Cor. cap 10. v. 1â— Iren. l. 5. cont haer c. 2. Note his wordes of the Apostles mentioned by S. Paul is correspondent to both The chalice of benediction which we blesse is it not the Communion of the bloud of Christ And the bread which we breake is it not the participation of the body of our Lord Wherupon S. Irenaeus inferreth That our bodyes are capable of incorruption by partaking of the body bloud of Christ not according to the spirituall and inuisible man but according to the true man who consisted of flesh bones and sinewes Againe S. Paul sayth â— Cor. 11. v. â—9 Whosoeuer shall eate this bread and drinke the Chalice of our Lord vnworthily shall be guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord. But how can we incurre this heinous guilt but only as Theodoret affirmeth By taking Christs holy body with vnclean Theod. vpon this place Cypr. serm de laps Chrys ho. de non contâ—m Eccle. hands and by putting it into a defiled and vnchast mouth By offering violence as S. Cyprian teacheth to his body and bloud Yea and villany as S. Chrysostome sayth to Christs owne Person Which cannot be verifyed by our Aduersaryes any more in this Sacrament then in Baptisme in which our Sauiour in their opinion is as much present as heer Let vs now conferre Moyses with Christ the Prophets with the Apostles
the shaddows with the truth and see whether any place sentence or sillable of holy Writ disaduantage our cause The bread and wine of Melchisedech Gen. 14. v. 18. Exod. 12. 16. Deuter. 8. the Pascall Lambe the Manna which God rayned from heauen were figures of this Sacrament as the ancient Fathers witnesse But what Were they figures of any other figure Were they shaddowes of a shaddow only Againe figures are as far inferiour to the thing figured as the Image or picture of the King to the King himselfe For which cause our Sauiour preferreth the Eucharist many degrees before Manna in the sixt of S. Iohn And yet such as make it a signe or resemblance do not preferre it but much debase it beneath the excellent food of Manna whereby the Iewes fed vpon Christ by fayth farre more daintily then the Protestants by their bare Communion of which the Prophesyes also make tooto honorable mention to accord with them 11. The Prophet Esay speaking in commendation of Esa 25. v. 6. this feast calleth it A banquet of fat things of fat things full of marrow of purified and refined wines Zachary tearmeth it The wheat of Gods elect the wine which springeth Virgins Malachy A cleane oblation Iacob The delight of King S Iohn Zach. 9. v. 17. Mala. 1. v. 11. Gen. 49. v. 20. Apoc. 2. v. 17. Psal 77. 110. 71. Hidden Manna Holy Dauid the bread of Angels the memory of Gods meruailous workes the stability or strength in earth vpon tops of Mountaines Now vpon what table did these blessed Prophets looke when they so highly praised this Celestial feast Did they commend the poore and beggarly supper of the Caluinists their Wheaten bread which hath no prerogatiue aboue the Iewish naked Elements their wine of grapes which may be fitlier tearmed wine in which lechery raigneth to vse Saint Pauls phrase then wine which springeth Virgins No no. They looked vpon ad Eph. 5. 18. this diuine and heauenly table of ours This this is that magnificall banquet that memorable Wheat those refined wines that cleane Oblation that bread of Angels those delights of Kings which worthily deserue such Our Reall Presence is manifestly gathered out of the Acts of the 1. Nicen out of the general Councell of Ephesus vo constat ex ep Cyr. ad Nestorium out of the Councell of Chalcedon art 3. admirable titles 12. I will not here speake of innumerable myracles of generall Councels of authenticall Histories of the Sibillian Oracles truely recorded in confirmation of this truth I only adde that the whole Lutheran sect vntil this day the whole Church of England in the time of King Henry euen after his reuolt in publicke Parlament decred the Reall Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament And now of late after the repealing of that and certaine other Articles after the vtter abolishment and manifold condemnation for many yeares of the former doctrine it is with great applause reuiued againe by the Bishop of Ely who writing of the Reall Presence in the holy Eucharist against Cardinall Bellarmine saith We agree with you concerning the obiect all the strife is about the manner And then We beleeue the Presence we beleeue I say the true Presence aswell as you concerning the manner of the Presence we do not vnaduisedly define Which priuate assertion of his Casaubon alloweth in his Maiesties name coÌ„fidently CasauboÌ„ in the answer to the Card. Peron to the first instance fol. 31. in English Moys Ha. com in Ps 36. Symeon l. qui inscribitur Reuelatio sâ—cretor Caha in Gen. c. 49. graceth with this publik approbation This is the fayth of the King this is the faith of the church of EnglaÌ„d which being so I might surcease my paines and spare the search of further proofes in a matter already confessed by the aduerse part 13. But I adde that the ancient Iewish Rabbins ratifie and confirme the same as Rabby Moyses Hadarsan Rabby Simeon Rabby Cahana whose words to let passe many others are these In the Sacrifice which shall be made of bread notwithstanding it be white as milke the substance shall be turned into the substance of the body of the Messias And there shal be in the sacrifice it self the substaÌ„ce of the bloud of the Messias red as wine There shal be also in the sacrifice the bloud flesh of the Messias both shal be in the bread because the body of the Messias cannot be diuided And then he assigneth another reason Because the flesh without the bloud and so againe the bloud without the flesh are dead things But the Body of the Messias after his Resurrection because it shall be glorified shall alwaies liue 14. Doctor Sparkes and sundry others of the learned Protestants vanquished with these euident and irreprouable Sparks in his answer to M. Iohn Albines pa. 108. 10â— 110. c. testimonies confesse the Reall presence of Christs body in the Eucharist but to the faith forsooth of the right Receiuer not to the mouth of euery Communicant D. Sparkes further boasteth That he learned of Christ of his Apostles of all the ancient writers of credit and account in the Church for 700. or 800. yeares togeather to denie our Reall Presence to the mouth of all Receiuers I wonder he blushed not to publish so vaine a bragge when Christ when the Apostles when all the famous writers as I haue already conuinced most manifestly teach the contrary when S. CypriaÌ„ saith speaking of the lapsed That they more offended our Lord with their hands and mouth who vnworthily receiue then Cyp. ser 5. de lap Aug. â—iâ— coÌ„ adu leg Proph. â—ap 9. when they denied him S. Augustine We receiue with a faithfull heart and mouth the Mediator of God and man Christ Iesus giuing vs his flesh to eate and bloud to drinke S. Leo This is taken with the mouth which is beleeued with faith S. Gregory What is the bloud of the Lambe now not by hearing but by drinking you haue learned which bloud is sprinckled vpon both posts Leo. ser â— de iâ—iu 7. menfis Greg. ho. 22. in euan Tertu l. de resur car cap. 8. Nyss ora cate c. 37. Cyril l. 10. in Io. c. 13. Chrys ho. 69. ad po Idem de Eu cha in En. caen Aug. in Ps 33. Cyr. Alex. li. 10. in Ioan. c. 23. when not onely with the mouth of the body but with the mouth of the heart it is drunke When Tertullian writeth That the flesh is fed with the body and bloud of Christ S. Gregory Nissen That the body of Christ is admitted into the bowels of maÌ„ S. Cyril That it is tempered mingled and ioyned with vs like other wax powred into melted wax S. Chrysostome That our hand deuideth his flesh and our tongue becommeth red with his tooto dreadfull bloud And in another place Imagine saith he that wholsome bloud to flow out of the diuine and vndefiled breast
and approaching receiue it with pure lips S. Augustine That Christ carried his owne body in his owne hands when he said This is my body and that secundum literam according to the letter and so as King Dauid could not carrie himselfe Which two points are worthilie noted because the Apostles eat with their corporall mouthes what Christ held in his corporall hands In fine S. Cyril saith We doe not deny our selues with assured faith and sincere charity to be spiritually conioyned to Christ but that we haue no manner of coniunction with him according vnto the flesh this truely we deny 15. Is it not strange M. Sparkes should vaunt of all these learned Writers within eight hundred years when all disclaime his false imputation when all confesse the Reall Presence not only to fayth but also to the mouth Bils 4. par pag. 754. 755. c. to the tongue to the lips to the hands to the flesh to the bowells of all Communicants Is it not as strange M. Bilson should goe about to defeate these and the former authotityes with his accustomed sleight of Seales Sacraments bearing the names of the things themselues For if the outward seales onely were receaued into the mouth the outward seales only were eaten by fayth bare figures and seales nourish the soule seeing the same flesh the same bloud the same body the same Mediatour of God and Man Christ Iesus which is belieued by fayth is auouched as you see to be receaued into the hands mouths harts bowels of the faythfull Deny then M. Bilson the true reall flesh to the mouth of the body deny it also to the mouth of the soule and so become a Manichee a Marcionist a denyer of Christ Or giue leaue at least to them and other Heretikes to subuert by like sophistry the chief principles of our beliefe LiceÌ„ce them to expound by sound of names without sense of wordes whatsoeuer is written of the true flesh bloud and body of our Lord of his Incarnation Passion and glorious Resurrection 16. What pretense then can any Protestant make vnlesse he open the gate to a floud of blasphemyes why he should delude such ineuitable proofes Why he should discredit so many lights Lampes and Ornaments of the Church and preferre the hard wrested construction of some new fangled teachers before such vndeniable texts of Fathers and testimonyes of Scripture Perchance he may pretend with D. Bilson and D. Sparkes the impossibilty inconueniency and contradictions our doctrine Bils 4. par pag. 790. 794. 795. 796. Sparks p. 180. sequentibus implyeth To which I might answere Philosophers Infidells obiected such stuffe against the true IncarnatioÌ„ and Passion of our Lord I might say that he yieldeth assent to diuers articles of our fayth more contrary and repugnant to the reach of our naturall reason as to the mistery of the holy Trinity to the fecundity of our B. Lady remayning a Virgin to the Resurrection of putrifyed and decaied flesh c. I might also reply that we should not measure the works of the Almighty by the weakenes of our feeble vnderstanding as S. Basil singulerly teacheth against Eunomius by the example of the Emmet Basil Epist â—68 But what if I demonstrate the Reall Presence to be possible conuenient and without any repugnance or contradiction at all 17. To begin with the possibility of our conuersion or Transubstantiation We do not as M. Bilson iniuriously fathereth vpon vs make the creature the Creatour or the dead Bils 4. par pag. 729. element of bread the Sonne of God We only teach the bread and wine to be changed into the flesh bloud of Christ And that one substance may be turned into another yea and bread into flesh experience it selfe aboundantly teacheth For the bread which we eate and wine which we drinke by the naturall heat and concoction of our stomacke is conuerted into the flesh and bloud of man the same effect had the food which Christ receaued Likewise the graine of seed sowed in the ground altereth in nature buddeth vp into a faire eare of Corne. Wax cast Niss orat cate ca. 37. Damas l. 4 defi c. 14. Irenaus l. 5. cap. 2. Chryshom de Euâ—h Centurywrit c. 4. col 4â—6 Ambro de init myst cap. 9. Cyr. Iero. cate 4. mystag into fire is melted consumed and turned into fire Which similitudes the Fathers of former ages haue vsed to illustrate this mistery S. Gregory Nissen and S. Iohn Damascen the first S. Irenaeus the second S. Chrysostome the third who annexeth thereunto that as Nothing of the substance of Wax remaineth so heere the Misteryes are consumed by the substance of the body By which passage if the Century-writers may be credited S. Chrysostome doth seeme to confirm TransubstaÌ„tiation S. Ambrose whome they likewise reproue for not writing well of the same matter sometime coÌ„pareth the substantiall mutatioÌ„ of bread in the Eucharist to the creation of heauen and earth of nothing Otherwhile to the conuersion of the Rod of Moyses into a serpent of bloud into water water into bloud and the like S. Cyrill of Hierusalem conuinceth it by the miraculous change our Sauiour made of water into wine disputing thus Christ confirming and saying this is my bloud who Gauden tract 2. de Exo. will euer doubt and say it is not his bloud He once conuerted water into wine in Cana of Galily and is he not worthy to be belieued that he hath changed wine into bloud S. Gaudentius hath the like who flourished within the 400 yeares after Christ He that produceth bread out of the earth of bread againe maketh Greg. Nyssen oracate cap. 37. his owne body for he is both able and promised it and he that made of water wine maketh of wine his owne bloud S. Gregory Nissen We rightly belieue the sanctifyed bread to be changed by the word of God into the body of the Sonne of God S. Ambrose Thou sayest perhaps to me I see another manner of thing How Ambro. lib. de â—js qui iniâ— myst cap. â— then tellest thou me that I receaue Christs body Then this is yet to be established by vs. And how many exampls may we vse to proue 〈…〉 is not that which nature framed but that which the blessing consecrated and that the power of blessing ouer commeth nature because by blessing euen the very nature it selfe is changed Behould that is not sayth S. Ambrose which nature made but what did nature make The substance of bread what becommeth of it It is changed quoth he how by blessing into what Into that which the blessing consecrateth What it that The body of Christ for he tooke Ciryl ep ad Colas bread blessed and sayd This is my body S. Cyrill of Alexandria who succeeded them in the next age God condescending to our frailtyes instilleth into the thinges offered the power of life Conuertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis onuerting
to the multitude of externall seales Not the same least one and the selfe same thing which you abhorre should be at the same tyme in sundry places Not seuerall vnlesse you make many seuerall and distinct Communions not all to partake as S. Paul sayth of the 1. Cor. â—oâ— Bils 4. par pag. 7â—0 711 712. c. same bread And therfore when neyther of these retraites will serue M. Bilsons last craft and subtilty is That Christ is present in the Sacrament not mixing his substance with the elements but entring the harts of the faithfull Then tell me I beseech you how doth he enter Accidentally by some supernaturall quality infused into our soules Or Substantially by the entrance of his substance it selfe What Accidentally Then the Holy Eucharist is not as S. Paul waiteth The Communion of the bloud and participation of the body of our Lord but the participation only of your 1. Cor. 10. new created accident Of which I likewise demand whether the same or distinct accidents be produced in euery soule and so entangle you in all the former briars What Substantially How then doth the substance enter Whole or deuided into parts If by parts the glorious body of Christ should be mangled disfigured and remayne imperfect If whole the whole substance should be at the same tyme in diuers places cherishing the soules of diuers persons Besides how is he who sitteth at the right hand of his Father substantially vnited with vs vpon earth Can he enter our soules as M. Bilson dreameth not departing from the heauens and can he not enter the Hoast as Catholikes teach not departing from thence 4. M. Sparkes perchance will be more dexterous and expert in auoyding these difficulties As intricate and perplexed euery whit For he not contented with Christs spirituall Sparks p. â—16 presence only by faith auoucheth him to be also truly and really present to the harts of the faithfull Yet with such a strang and hidden presence as no tearmes can expresse no wit conceaue For answere M. Sparkes in what sort is Christ really present Withall his locall dimensions or without dimension Without is to destroy * Sparkes pag. 110. Vvhitaker cent 2. q. 5. c. 7. fol. 389 Spark pag 114. 115. 116. as you vrge against vs the nature of his body With all his dimensioÌ„s is impossible without penetration of Christs body with the body of his Communicant without multiplication rarefaction condensation and many other in your Shoole condemned absurdities Also how conioyne you Christ with vs Are our harts by the communion aduanced to heauen to be really vnited to him aboue or doth he descend to be personally conioyned with vs vpon earth Without a reall coniunction no Reall Presence by fayth can be framed much lesse such a Reall Presence as you imagine of Christs body broken and bloud shed of his passible and crucified body and bloud shed long since vpon the Crosse and not of his glorified and impassible body which now existeth Especially when you affirme in the same place That the body once broken and bloud shed haâ—h not beene really at any tyme iterated nor can be Are you not heere entrapped in your owne discourse Do not these words imply most palpable contradiction Is it possible for that which neyther really is nor really can be to be really present Doth not Aristotle and all Philosophers accord that Prius est esse quà m esse praesens A thing must first be before it can be present What leuity then what ignorance is this M. Sparkes in you and your fellows who auouch Christs body broken to be really present and not to be at all 5. Poore deceaued soules I lament your misery who in no trifling matters credit such triflers as mind not what they say nor how they write so they dazell the eyes and inueigle the harts of their vnhappy followers Yet least their hideous outcries fright the simple from imbracing the truth I will make answer to the residue of their pretended Calumnies Bils 4. par p. 731. c. Exod. 7. Matth. 11. Gen. 18. Aug. epist 23. Amb. l. 4. de Sacram. c. 3. 4. Orig. in 15. Matth. Ioan. 6. Gen. 49. Psal 77. Matth. 6. The greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Hebrew Segula 6. First M. Bilson and his Sect-mates often argue That the Eucharist is called by S. Paul and the ancient Fathers bread the Chalice wine euen after Consecration I graunt that for diuers causes the elements retaine these names First because they were bread and wine before as Araons rod was sayd to deuour the rods of the Aegyptians when they were Serpents The men healed by Christ were termed Blind Lame Deafe and Dead when they Saw Walked Heard and were Reuiued because such they had byn before Secondly because they reserue the outward formes of bread and wine as the Three that appeared to Abraham in humaine shape were called men whereas they were Angels Thus S. Augustine is to be vnderstood thus S. Ambrose thus Origen in the places cited in the margent where they attribute vnto the sacrament the name of bread Thirdly it is termed Bread for that it coÌ„teyneth the Bread of life The true Bread which came downe from heauen Christ Iesus And therfore called in Scripture Fat bread Bread of Angels Supersubstantiall bread according to the Greeke Hebrew copies S. Hierome nameth it Egregious and most singuler Hier. in c. 6. Matth. Iere. 11. v. 19. Aug. l. 1. loquutio in Gen. n. 138. 178. 172. quaest 34. in Exod. bread And Ieremy the Prophet alluding hereunto calleth his true body Bread without any Epithete saying Mittamus lignum in panem eius Let vs fasten the wood on his Bread Lastly it is called Bread after the Hebrew phrase which stileth all sorts of meats by the name Lechem Bread as in the 34. of Genesis 4. Regum 6. Witnesse also S. Augustine in his speaches vpon Genesis and Exodus 7. But M. Bilson produceth some ancient writers who do not only giue vnto the Eucharist the name of bread but determinately auow the nature and substance of bread to abide after consecration Among whome Gelas coÌ„t Eutichen Gelasius leadeth the way writing thus against Eutiches The Sacraments which we receaue of the body bloud of Christ are a diuine thing and by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet for all that ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread and wine to be Then Theodoret The mysticall signes do not after Theod. dialog 2. sanctification depart from their owne nature For they remaine in their former substance figure and shape I answere They are sayd to remaine because they perseuer still in vertue power and efficacy For the outward formes and qualities which continue haue the same operations and worke the same effects which the substances before performed Or because the accidents which abide haue a miraculous yet substantiall manner of being not stayed not
Conference of originall texts the promise which Christ made the institution of a Sacrament the establishment of a Law the enacting of his last Will and Testament conuince as I say a most true and proper kind of speach 11. Yet because some Protestants challenge vs to assigne a disparity why there should not be Transubstantiation Ioan. 15. v. 1. when he said I am a Vine as well as when he said This is my Body I assigne these differences First TransubstaÌ„tiation is a passage froÌ„ one substance into another which supposeth two substances to be and one to loose his being by incompossibility with the other So in my present case there are two substances Bread and the Body of Christ and the one by Consecration is changed into the other but when Christ said I am the Dore I am the true Vine there is one only substance For the Vine the Dore doth not signifie any other Dore then Christ himselfe He is that spirituall Dore that true spirituall Vine to whom some propertie of the corporall Vine and Dore in a most eminent degree belongeth And therefore here it is impossible any Transubstantiation should be 12. Further S. Augustine giueth this rule to discerne a Aug. l. 3. de doct Christ c. 10 Vnum disparatum non potest de alto praedicari figuratiue speach from a proper when that which is spoken in Holy Writ Cannot properly be referred either to honesty of manners or verity of faith it is be expounded figuratiuely But it is repugnant to reason that one substance should be properly affirmed of another much more so many different substances verified of Christ as he is said to be a Vine a Dore a Shepheard and such like Repugnant to faith that the Sonne of God should be changed into the Vine which groweth in the field I am the Lord saith Malachy and am Mala. 3. v. 6. not changed Dishonorable to God to change the noblest creature that euer was the humanity of our Sauiour Christ into so ignoble as a Vine or Dore. Disagreable to the vvordes themselues for in this proposition I am the Vine Christ is auouched to be therfore he cannot by transubstantiation at the same time loose his being And yet at our Lords supper not one of these incoÌ„ueniences follow Heere one different thing is not verifyed of the other but that which the Pronowne this doth in generall inderminatly demonstrate vnder the formes of bread is particulerly specifyed when the complete signification of the wordes is indeed to be the body of Christ Moreouer this change is possible for bread was often changed into the flesh and wine into the bloud of Christ when he was nourished vpon earth This change is honorable to God of worse to better of an ignoble thing into a most noble of common bread in to the bread of life into the immaculate flesh of the Sonne of God In this bread is not sayd to reserue any being but another substance that is to say Christs body and bloud sustayning the accidents of bread and wine by reason whereof they loose their being Such and many other reasons there are of Transubstantiation in the one and not in the other 13. M. Sparks presseth vs with that maine obiection their chiefe Achilles It is the spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing Nothing indeed Then the word to become Sparks p. 109. Io. 6. Aug. tra 27. in Io. Cyr. ad â—uo Cyr. in Io. l. 4. c. 23. Conc. Eph. anath 11. Aug. 27. in Ioan in Psal 98. Chrys in hunc loc Orig. l. 3. ep ad Rom Aug. locis citatis flesh benefiteth nothing Then the flesh of Christ crucifyed buryed reuiued what doth it auaile vs The sense therefore of these words is that the Capharnaites grosse and carnall vnderstanding of them profited nothing For they imagined they should eate dead flesh the flesh of a meere man depriued of the life soule diuinity as Nestorius also weened of which flesh our Sauiour pronounced that it profiteth nothing But it is the Word and Spirit of God in the flesh that quickneth and giueth life as S. Cyril against Nestorius S. Augustine and the Ephesine Councell declare Secondly they thought that Christ would cut in peeces sayth the same S. Augustine and mangle his owne flesh and so giue vs to eate as it is commonly sould in the Butchers shambles Which rude and sauage conceite our Sauiour also reiected as togeather with him S. Chrysostome Origen and others obserue As though he speaking to their thoughts had sayd The flesh after that manner profiteth nothing It is the spirit that quickneth to wit a more diuine spirituall and sacramentall manner of eating his flesh affoardeth vs the fruit of eternall life 14. Our Opponents at length not able to find any footing in Scripture take hold of the Fathers quoting many passages wherin the Sacrament is called A remembrance a signe a figure of Christs body therefore not his true body The like oposition Apollinaris and Marcion made against the humanity Sparks p. 110. seq Bils 4. par p. 716. 717 of Christ That he was made according to the similitude â—hape and likenesse of man The like others framed against his diuinity that S. Paul intitleth him The Image of God the Character or figure of his Fathers substance But as both we Phil. 2. v. 7. Col. 1. v. 15. Haeb. 1. v. 3. Orig. in c. 15. Matt. Aug. câ—t Adaman 12. l. 3. de Trin. c. 4. Basil in his Liturgy Nazi ora in Gorg. Macar hom 27. Theod. in dialog 1. Aug. in Psal 98. Aug. l. 5. de doct Christ c. 13 Facinus est tract 25. in Io. and you reply hereunto that Christ had the likenesse of man and was a true and perfect man was the image of God yet true God the figure of his Fathers substance and the substance it selfe so I say the Eucharist is a commemoration and signe of Christs body and also his true and naturall body It is a signe in respect of the externall and visible elements which do not promise grace absent only as our Sectaryes teach but containe the Authour of grace and body of our Lord inuisibly present as Origen Augustine and all others auouch 15. Againe not only the outward formes but the body of Christ as vnder them is a Sacrament Image or Signe of his body as offered on the Crosse For although it be the same body in substance yet not in shew and appearance not endued with the same qualities of extension passibility circumscription c. In this sense S. Basill S. Gregory Nazianzen Macharius Theodoret call it an Image a Figure In this sense S. Augustine writeth Not that body which you see shall you eat nor drinke that bloud which shall be shed by them that crucifie me That is not that body in such a carnall palpable and bloudy sort For this in his booke of Christian Doctrine he counteth an hainous and barbarous fact
improperly but properly called Sacerdotes sacrifycing Priests And S. Paul teacheth That euery Priest or Bishop is ordained to offer Gifts and Sacrifices To conclude then wheras M. Reynoldes himselfe is faine to yeild That these thinges are linked by nature in relation and mutuall dependance as I may say one of the other the Altar the Sacrifice and the Sacrifycers seeing I haue already proued that we haue true and reall Altars true and proper Priests he cannot deny vs without open shame and contradiction a true reall and proper Sacrifice 12. If we looke into the old Law we shall find that King Dauid in the feruour of his Propheticall spirit speaketh of Christ Thou art a Priest for euer according to the order of Melchisedech which S. Paul often repeateth But what was the order of Melchisedechs Priest-hood Wherein was he a figure and type of Christ M. Bilson recounteth certaine prerogatiues S. Paul mentioneth yet no priuiledge no act of Priest-hood no signe or shew of Sacrifice properly belonging to any Priest But S. Cyprian and Primasius wisely tell vs That the singularity of his order consisted in offering not the bloud of brute beasts but Bread Wine As the holy Ghost also in Genesis witnesseth Melchisedech King of Salem brought forth bread and wine for he was the Priest of the most high Or and he was the Priest of the most high agreeable to the Greeke and Hebrew copyes where both the causall coniunction for as Copulatiue and of necessity inforce that he brought forth bread and wine as a Priest to offer them vnto God And therein the Fathers affirme against M. Bilson That he figured and resembled our Sauiours oblation of the holy Eucharist S. Clemens of Alexandria S. Ambrose S. Cyprian S. Augustine Isidorus S. Hierome cyting to the same purpose many others S. Cyprians words are these Our Lord Iesus Christ offered a sacrifice to God the Father Chrys hom 60. ad pop Nos ministrorum tenemus locum qui verò sanctificat ea immutat ipse est Arno. in Psal 109. Lact. l. 4. Inst ca. 14. Prima in com cap. 5. ep ad Heb. Epiph. haer 55. Aug. in Psal 109. ep 95. ad Inno. l. â— con ad le prophe c. 20. Oecum in cap. 5. ad Hebr. and offered the same that Melchisedech did that is Bread Wine to wit his Body and bloud 13. Moreouer Christ is not only called a Priest according to the peculiar ranke of Melchisedech and therfore must offer a peculiar Sacrifice proper to his order and different from others but he is tearmed also in this kind a Priest for euer So that heerein he continueth both the dignity and function of his eternall Priest-hood because heere by his commandment by his authority by his speciall concurrence with the Priests Prelats of his Church he incessantly offereth vnto his Father his owne body bloud vnder the forms of Melchisedechs Sacrifice For as in the administration of other Sacraments he is the chiefe and principall Agent when we baptize Ipse est qui bapâ—zat He is he that bapâ—izeth sayth S. Iohn when we ordaine or consecrate Priests he is he who consecrateth them In like manner when we celebrate Masse he is he who inuisibly celebrateth he is the chiefe high-priest and we his Ministers he the true and supreme Bishop and we the Suffragans or Substitutes who supply his roome We may then vndoubtedly inferre with Arnobius Lactantius Primasius Epiphanius S. Augustine That the eternity of Christs Priest-hood according to the singuler order of Melchisedech still perseuereth in the true Oblation of his body and bloud made at the Altar and offered now in al parts of the world And if we examine the learned Protestant what els can he assigne in which Christ doth exercise at this tyme the proper act of his neuer ending Priest-hood The Sacrifice of the Crosse That remayneth not and in respect of that Oblation and Host once offered as Oecumenius noteth he cannot be called a Priest for euer The prayer and intercession he maketh for vs aboue But this is not any peculiar and proper act of Priest-hood much lesse of any determinate and particuler order The vertue and efficacy of his bloudy Sacrifice which he still offereth and representeth to his Father But if this euerlasting effect disappoint the new Law of all proper Sacrifices it should by the same reason haue frustrated Act. 4. v. 12. the old For there is no other name vnder heauen giuen to men in which we ought to be saued No other vertue by which our forefathers were sanctifyed then the death of Christ Againe this representation which our Sauiour maketh of his Passion in the sight of his Father is no such Sacrifice whereby he may either chalenge the name or reserue the office of an euerlasting Priest Or if it be any such besides that you applaud the Reall Sacrifice in heauen which in earth you detest seeing this is only exercised among Angels aboue and no act of Priesthood perseuereth amongst men no kingdome of Christs Church no CoÌ„mon-wealth of his people no law of Christianity now flourisheth vpon earth but is vtterly disanulled extinguished and altogeather translated to the Court of heauen according to that of S. Paul Priesthood being translated Heb 7. v. 12. it is necessary also a translation of the Law be made 14. Now if Christian harts can neuer subscribe to these impietyes if we must of necessity graunt that God hath euer some Church some inheritance some chosen Isa 19. v. 21. Prou. 9. 1. Dan. 11. v. 31. Psalm 17. 16. Hier. in Psalm 71. people vpon earth we must needs allow some visible outward proper law by which as his peculiar flock they appertaine vnto him and are combined in mutuall fellowship and society togeather If a Law a Priesthood if a Priesthood a Sacrifice if a Sacrifice what other then this which Isay foresaw The Aegyptians shall know their Lord in that day and worship him in Hosts and guifts c. And there shal be the Altar of our Lord in the midst of Aegypt SalomoÌ„ shaddowed Wisedome hath built an house imolated rictimes mingled wine c. Daniel mentioned calling it the Dayly Sacrifice which Antichrist shall deface and abrogate at least in publike King Dauid specifyed There shal be a sirmament in the earth vpon the tops of Mountaines Where S. Hierome expoundeth Firmament Memorable wheat The Caldaicall translation Supersubstantiall bread The learned Hebricians commonly interprete Placentam tritici A * The Hebrew word Pissathbar signifyeth a Cake of wheat as Reuelinus sayth Cake of wheate substantiall Bread or a sacrifice of Bread So Rabbi Salomon There shall be a Cake of wheat in the earth in the Rab. Saloin â—sa 72. Rab. Achilas in â—undeÌ„ locum Rab. Iona. l. col in Psal 72. Read Gal. l. 10. de area cap. 4. 5. 6. 7. Mal. 1. v. 11. Reyn. c. 8. diuis 4. Bils 4. par pag. 695. Alan de
is the generall cause of mans saluation God will haue all men to be saued yet besides that will sufficient for their saluation he must haue a determinate and speciall will for the sauing of this or that man in particuler The same I auow in our present case But M. Reynoldes replyeth Reyn. pag. 463. in his confe with M. Hor◠Heb. 10. v. 18. 26. That there is not left an offering for sinne after the death of Christ I answere with the same forenamed Canus that as Almighty God hauing once created the vniuersall cause of light need not produce a new Sunne Moone or Starres as a Physitian hauing made one generall and during medicine to heale all kind of diseases neuer needeth to deuise any other In like manner our mercifull Redeemer who offered one perfect and superaboundant ranfome by which he defrayed the whole debt of sinne hath no necessity at all to make the like purchase any more Which S. Paul mentioneth when he sayth There is not left an offering for sinne to wit any generall offering by which the debt of sinne should be discharged a new Notwithstanding as in the former examples the Sun vseth diuers succeeding illuminations by which euery Coast of the world partaketh his light as the Phisitian composeth sundry potions to minister vnto his Patients the vertue of his sole and single medicine after the same māner the church of God maketh many proper peculiar Oblations to accomodate vnto our seuerall necessityes the soueraigne fruit of that one and principall sacrifice We see that when the King granteth a general pardon to all guilty persons it seldome auaileth any particuler offender except he sue it forth out of the Court of Chancery vnder the seale and warrant of his Maiesty no lesse can that great Charter of pardon which Christ vouchsafed to purchased by his death be beneficiall vnto vs except we receaue it vnder his seale and signet that is according to his commandment from such Officers as he ordained to offer and dispense his heauenly blessings Neither may we iustly be censured by this meanes partial redeemers or sauers of our selues or concurre any more to our owne saluation then the Fellon concurreth to acquite himselfe of his fellonyes who sueth forth the pardon his King promulgated Or the sicke person to the recouery of his health who drinketh the potion his his Physitian tempereth 24. Thirdly our Aduersaryes obiect That the often iteration of the Iewish Sacrifice the continuall succession and multiplication Reyn. in his Confer with M. Hart. c. 9. diuis 4. Sparkes in answere to M. Iohn d'Albins of their Priests bewrayed both the infirmity of the one and defect of the other Wherefore if we daily repeate the sacrifice of the Crosse we prophane sayth M. Reynolds the bloud of Christ If we ordaine and multiply our Priests we abase sayth Maister Sparkes the prerogatiue or impeach the sunction of Christs priesthood I answere that the multitude of old Priestes was a note of imperfection for that euen the chiefe of them were many in equall dignity succeeding one another who neither by themselues being sinners nor by the sanctity of any of their order whose roome they supplyed were sufficiently gracious vnto God But the Priests of the new Law as they are all vnited amongst themselues in the same deputation and ministery so they haue not many but one chiefe they all depend of one holy and impolluted head Christ Iesus to whome they are not as M. Sparkes mistaketh any successours but Sparks p. 7. 9. 23. Deputyes and Viceregents dispensers of his holy Mysteryes And therefore neither can the diuersity of their persons or multitude of such Ministers import any want or defect in the eternall Priest or Bishop of our soules when as by them he no way looseth or surceaseth but still continueth not according to their imperfection but according to his owne excellency the sacred office of his euerlasting Priesthood 25. In like manner to the other braunch of their obiection I yield that the variety of the Leuiticall Hosts bewrayed their weaknes because the Iewes had neither any holy and innocent Priest by whome they had accesse vnto God nor any Host pure and vnspotted Which caused them to offer diuers poore distinct and naked Elements shaddowes of things to come an euident signe of the vnprofitablenesse of the Law But we doe not so we haue one only Host holy and vndefiled this we soly sacrifice vnto God We offer not as S. Ambrose testifyeth Ambr. in c. 10. ad Haebr now one lambe to morrow another but alwayes the selfe same thing c. One Christ in euery place heer whole and there whole one body Not another sacrifice sayth S. Chrysostome as the Chrys hom 17. in epist ad Haeb. Sparks in the places aforenamed high Priest of the old law but the selfe same we do alwayes offer Neither is this repeated againe as though Christ had not offered it well inough as M. Sparkes still cauilleth neither to purchase any new price of Redemption as others contend but only to dispense and apply the treasures of his mercy once purchased for vs. In which we do derogate no more from the high preheminēce of that sauing Host then we detract from the absolute and generall pardon of our Prince when by diuers Notaryes it is copied forth for the behoofe and benefite of sundry Malefactours 26. In fine as M. Bilson and other Sectaryes allow the Bils 4 par pag. 688. 689. c. Caluin l. 4. Insti c. 28. preaching of the word the sacramēt of Baptism the supper of our Lord to be not only memoryes but also applications of Christs bountifull merits without any impeachment to his bitter Passion Why may not we by the same authority without any derogation to the Oblation of the Crosse approue our sacrifice of Masse both as a liuely memoriall to expresse in the neerenesse of it selfe the death of Christ and as an application conduct or conueyance to deriue the waters of grace frō that ouerflowing fountaine of his precious bloud 27. Another obiection M. Bell affoardeth them out of the Epistle to the Romans Christ rysing againe from the Bell in his downfall of Popery 9. p. Rom. 6. v. 9 dead henceforth dyeth no more The Papists sayth he tell vs a contrary tale that he dyeth euery day yea a thousand tymes a day in the dayly sacrifyce of their Masse It is most false that Christ suffereth in our sacrifice cruell violent and iniurious death of which S. Paul there speaketh he only dyeth after an hidden mysticall and impassible manner which is not contrary but agreable to S. Pauls doctrine conformable to the institution of Christ vvho commanded vs not only to preach teach or belieue but to Doe that solemne and mysticall action vvhich he performed of Luc. 22. consecrating the bread into his body vnder one kind vvine into his bloud vnder another to represent thereby his body
so great a maister in Israel why blame you vs for approuing what your selues allow Why appeale you to Scripture alone and yet subscribe to such and so many points of fayth not comprised in Scripture Or if these Traditions be necessary to be imbraced what meane you M. Field to renounce others as ancient as behoofull as warrantable as these euen by the rules your selfe prescribe which are Field l. 4. cap. 19. pa. 242 Iran lib. 4. c. 32. â—ulke in his confut of Purgat p. 362. 303. 393. August tract 84. in Ioan. Chrys bo 21. in act Concil Nicen. 2. Damas lib. 4. c. 17. Hiero. con Vigil c. 2. Middlâ—ton Papis pag. â—34 Bils part 2. pag 265. Rom. 10. 17. Basil de spir Sanct. c. 27. Chris ho. 4. in â— Thes 5. Aug. Ep. 119 86. Field l. 4. cap. 20. Rein. conclus 1. pag. â—17 The authority and custome of the Church Consent of Fathers or testimony of an Apostolicall Church By these Irenaeus alloweth the new oblation of Christs body and bloud as a Tradition from the Apostles Why reiect you this Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Chrysostome S. Hierome S. Augustine approue as M. Fulke your great Golias granteth the Sacrifice and prayer for the dead as an Apostolicall traditioÌ„ Why disproue it you S. Augustiue S. Chrysostome admit a memory or Inuocation of Saints in the selfe same sacrifice Three hundred Fathers of the second Councell of Nice defend with S. Iohn Damascen the adoration of Images as a Tradition from the Apostles S. Hierome by the custome of the Church and consent of Fathers D. Fields rules for true Traditions mantaineth against Vigilantius the religious worship of holy Reliques By the same Tradition of the Church and consent of the Fathers M. Middleton auerreth vowes of Chastity to be obserued What meane you to make no reckoning of these Are you only priuiledged to admit or discard what Traditions you please to countenance or deface whatsoeuer you list But an ill cause without cosenage cannot be vpholden I acknowledge the shifts of pouerty and falshood 13. Against these vnanswerable grounds M. Bilson opposeth in this weake and impertinent manner Fayth is by hearing and hearing by the word of God therefore S. Paul alloweth not matters of faith vnwritten How often shall I repeate inculcate a truth that the word of God is partly written partly vnwritten and this as S. Basil S. Chrysostome S. Augustine affirme is as worthy to be credited as the other Which speach albeit M. Whitaker noteth in S Chrysostome as inconsiderate and vnworthy so great a Father yet M. Field approueth it and reason perswadeth it vnles you belieue that letters figured with inke and paper add awe of reuerence to Gods hidden verityes M. Reynolds obiecteth out of S. Iohn These thinges are written that yee may belieue that Iesus is Christ the Sonne of God and that belieuing you may haue life in his name Heereupon M. Reynolds inferreth Ioan. 20. v. vlt. that S. Iohns Ghospell alone is sufficient to faith and saluation What may not be proued where such illations go currant S. Iohn speaketh of signes and miracles M. Reynoldes extendeth himselfe to many other matters S. Iohn writeth there of one principall point of fayth he concludeth all necessary to saluation S. Iohn disputing against Cerinthus who denyed the diuinity of Christ affirmeth that he hath written sufficient to proue that Christ is the sonne of God M. Reynoldes arguing against vs forceth him to say that he hath written inough concerning that and all other necessary articles of our beliefe Againe if S. Iohns Ghospell alone haue sufficient to saluation needlesse are the rest of the Euangelists the Epistles of S. Paul of S. Peter of S. Iude the Reuelations of S. Iohn wholy needlesse If S. Iohns Ghospell alone haue sufficient the Natiuity and birth of Christ his Circumcision Apparition the Institution of our Lords supper and many other thinges of which S. Iohn writeth nothing are not necessary to saluation Which to confesse is vtterly to subuert all Christian Religion to deny is plainely to ouerthwart M. Reynoldes assertion Rein. con â— 1. p. 618 â— 619. 2. Cor. 3. 16. 14. Secondly he alleadgeth out of S. Paul That all Scripture inspired by God is profitable to teach argue c. That the man of God may be perfect instructed to euery good worke Our Aduersaryes boast much of the pregnancy of this place and yet if it made any thing in their behalfe it would conuince that all and euery Scripture euery Epistle euery Chapter euery sentence which is some Scripture were The Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latin Omnis Al or euery auailable to these foresayd effects Which they perceauing resolue rather to abuse the word of God then loose the force of their argument when insteed of all or euery Scripture they most fraudulently translate the whole Scripture contrary both to the Greeke and Latin text But no deceite will serue to betray the truth The whole Scripture was not finished when S. Paul wrote that Epistle the Ghospell of S. Iohn which by it selfe alone as M. Reynolds auerreth â— sufficient to saluation the Apocalips and other bookes of Scripture were wanting at that tyme he could Rein. loc citat not then speake of the whole Scripture before the whole was extant or if he meant of the whole that was written it maketh nothing against vs. For S. Paul speaketh of the profitablenes of Scripture to instruct argue c. and not of 1. Tim. 4. v. 8. the sufficiency thereof Many thinges are profitable to promote vs to perfection which are not sufficient to atchieue the same Piety as S. Paul writeth is profitable to all thinges yet not alone sufficient nor only profitable You cannot deny but that rayne is profitable for the fruits of the earth yet without the labour of men fertility of soile heate of the sunne not sufficient to make them increase So as when M. Reynolds disgraceth this as a mincing distinction he discrediteth not vs but S. Paul for mincing in this manner 15. Fourthly others obiect That Christ reprehendeth the Traditions of men S. Paul condemneth them and S. Peter exempteth all Christians from them They mistake Christ Mat. 15. v. 9. Colos 2. v. 22. only reprehendeth the fond and friuolous Pharisaicall traditions or deprauations of the law called Deuteroses Of which also S. Peter speaketh or of the superstitious errours of the Gentils from which we are redeemed by the bloud of Christ S. Paul forewarneth vs of the vaine Sophismes 1. Pet. 1. â— 18. and fallacyes of the Philosophers which impaireth not the authority of our soueraigne and holy Traditions deriued from the Apostles and their successours inspired by the holy Ghost 16. Yet M. Field will needs endite vs of two hainous faults 1. That we charge the Scriptures with imperfection 2. Field l. 4. c. 15. That therfore we rely vpon humane interpretations and vncertaine
them into his true and proper flesh that the body of life may be in vs as a certaine quickening seed Eusebius Emissenus The inuisible Euseb Emiss ser de cor Domi. Cyp. de coens Dom. Priest Christ Iesus turneth by his word with a secret power the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud saying Take and eate for this is my body S. Cyprian who liued before any of these This bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples not in outward apparence but in nature changed by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh The like he hath in other places In so much as a famous * Vrsin in commonef cuiusdam Theol. de sacra Coen Aug. ser citato à Bedain c. 10. â— Cor. Humfrey Iesu pâ— 2â— ca. 5. pag. 626. Matth. 4. v. â— ProtestaÌ„t confesseth That in Cyprian are many sayings which seeme to conforme TraÌ„substantiation S. Augustine and sundry others euidently also graunt our Reall mutation or Transubstantiation of the elements Which doctrine Gregory the Great and Augustin our Apostle brought into England as D. Humphrey teacheth and the Diuell himselfe acknowledged to be possible when he sayd vnto Christ Dic vt lapides isti panes fiant Commande that these stones be made bread 18. Secondly if we respect the conueniency it was meet we should really eate and really drinke of the reall victime truly slaine and offered for vs. It was meet that he who became our companion in the manger our teacher in the Temple our Priest at the Altar our price sacrifice and ransome on the Crosse should likewise be our food and sustenance at the table It was most meet that he who imparted his owne diuine person and all the riches of his Godhead by Hypostaticall vnion to the flesh and bloud of a pure and vnspotted man should also coÌ„municate the same flesh and bloud and all the treasures of his diuine and human nature to the soules and bodyes of As our first Parents were not infected by a Metaphoricall but by a true eating of the accursed Tree so we cannot be healed by a Metaphoricall but by a tru eating of the Tree of life NisseÌ„ orat catech ca. 37. Ignatius Ep. ad Ephes Athan. de huâ—â—atur suscep Cyril in Io. â—p ad Calosy â—re 1. 4. c. â—4 l. 5. c. 2 alibi Cyr. Alex. 1. 10. in â—o c. 13. Spaâ—kes in his answer to M. Iohn d'Albins pag. no. 257. his faithfull seruants The wisedome of God requireth that as our Forefathers and we were first impoisoned not by the desire but by the true and real eating of the forbidden apple so we should be cured by the true and substanciall feeding of this blessed fruit For S. Gregory Nissen proueth After the manner of the poyson so likewise the medicine must enter into our bowells the vertue therof be traÌ„sfused into all partes of the body 19. Againe the poyson which Adam receaued was a venemous fountaine of a double contagion ioyntly infecting both body and soule two wounds it inflicted it defiled our soule with sinne our body it enthralled to death and corruption What could be more behoofull for our Redeemer then to prepare a medicine against both these wounds A medicine to wash our soules from sin and rayse our body from dust to beautify the one with grace and cloath the other with incorruptioÌ„ And what could sooner worke this admirable cure then the glorious flesh of this holy Sacrament Which is not only the Ocean of Grace but the medicine of immortality the preseruatiue as S. Ignatius calleth it against death The first fruites of glory as Athanasius writeth The liuely and reuiuing seed of our bodyes as S. Cyrill sayth The pledge the earnest the hope or expectation of Immortall life as Irenaeus affirmeth According to that of Christ He that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting and I will rayse him at the later day The body then must eate his flesh and drinke his bloud that it may partake the benefit of Resurrection our soule by fayth might enioy the dowryes of blisse But this terrestriall nature of our body cannot as S. Cyrill of Alexandria teacheth be aduanced to immortality except the body of naturall life be conioyned vnto it 20. Yet D. Sparkes maugre S. Cyril or whosoeuer els obstinatly persisteth that the body of Christ cannot be really conioyned with ours Because Christ is ascended into heauen sitting at the right hand of his Father and the heauens must Bils 4. par pag. 788. 789. c. Ioan. 20. Read S. Aug. ep 3. ad Volus Amb. l. 10. in cap. 24. Luc. Hila. l. 3 de Tri. Iustin q. 117. Cyril l. 12. in Io. c. 53. Bede Theoph. Euthym. Ruper boc loco whoproue Christs entrance the dores being shut containe him vntill the restitution of all thinges As though good Syr he could not be at the same tyme in diuers places to wit in heauen sitting on the right hand of his Father and heere vpon earth in euery consecrated hoast not naturally as the Fathers copiously quoted by M. Bilson constantly teach but supernaturally by the power of him vnto whome nothing is impossible For so he hath wrought many wonderfull workes aboue the course of nature He came forth of the Virgins wombe preseruing her virginity rose out of the sepulcher not remouing the stone entred into his Disciples the dore being shut ascended to his Father not deuiding the heauens when he penetrated them But as in these examples diuers bodyes were supernaturally in one place so by the same supernaturall power one body may likewise be at the same tyme in diuers places for it is a common Axiome approued by Philosophers that Contrariorum eadem est ratio Amongst contraryes the same reason holdeth on both sides Moreouer we are instructed by fayth that the single person of Christ is vnited to most distinct diuers natures to the nature of God and to the nature of man that the sole essence of God is in three persons really distinct that one and the selfe same moment of eternity is answerable correspondent to most different and contrary tymes to tyme past tyme present and tyme to come But as one person sustaineth diuers natures one nature is communicated to diuers persons one moment coexisteth to diuers Amb. orat in Auxen Aeges l. 3. de exid vrbis Hieros cap. 2. â—o Dams orat de B. Virgine tymes why cannot one body be resident in diuers places 21. Els how could our Sauiour after his Ascension haue met S. Peter flying the persecution of Rome as S. Ambrose and Aegesippus record How could he haue descended to honour the funeralls of our B. Lady as S. Iohn Damascen and Nicephorus witnesse How could he appeare to S. Paul as in the 9. Chap. of the Actes of the Apostles in the 22. and 23. For in none of these apparitions could he Calu. in c. 9. act l. 4. Instit c. 17. §.
29. Act. 9. v. 17. Act. 23. v. 11. 1. Cor 15. v. 5. Act. 23. v. 11. Act. 22. v. 78. 15. depart from the right hand of his Father as Scripture teacheth and Protestants do confesse He must needes therefore be at the same tyme in heauen and vpon earth in most remote and separate places For if M. Sparkes answere with Caluin and his consortes that Christ appeared either in the heauens to S. Paul or that these were not true but imaginary apparitions S. Luke himselfe reproueth them saying That Christ appeared to S. Paul not in the heauens but in via in the way Not a farâ—e off but neere at hand assistens ei standing by him Not as to S. Steuen but as to Cephas to Iames to the fifty brethren Not aboue the cloudes in any vnknowne place but vpon the earth in the Castle of Claudius Lysias Tribune of the souldiers Not in a traunce or illusion by night but in a cleare vision in a plaine conference at noone day so as he might see the iust one and heare his voyce out of his owne mouth Lastly not by any imaginary reprâ—sentation but by such a true and perfect apparition as the Resurrection of Christ is proued therby 1. Cor. 15. Chrys hom 38. in c 15. 1. Cor. Tho. 3. p. 4. 57. art 6. ad 3. Bils 4. par pag. 793. Chrys lib. 3. de Sacer. For which cause either at some of these tymes he appeared truly to S. Paul as S. Chrysostome and S. Thomas conclude euen in his owne proper person and with his naturall body or S. Paul deceiptfully proueth Christs Resurrection by his apparition vnto him To accuse S. Paul is to appeach the holy Ghost of fraud and deceipt to graunt he truly appeared is to subscribe to his being in many places And consequently that of S. Chrysostome which M. Bilson phraseth an Hyberbolicall vehemency is an absolute verity In the tyme of our Sacrifice he that sitteth aboue with his Father at that very instant and moment of tyme is handled with the hands of all 22. Another repugnance against which M. Bilson Bils 4. par pag. 794. 795. c. mightily inueygheth is That we make the body of Christ in the Eucharist without the propertyes of humane shape length extension c. because we defend it to be wholy and indiuisible in euery part of the Blessed Host as the soule of man is wholy in the head wholy in the feet and wholy in euery part of the body But this likewise by the Almighty hand of God may easily be effectuated For to be corporally or locally confined to any determinate place is no such absolute and inherent necessity no essentiall Bils locis citatis property as M. Bilson how diligent soeuer in other points not diuing in this into depth of Philosophy inconsideratly mantayneth but only an accidental quality relation or sequell which naturally followeth euery bodily substance as heate floweth from the nature of fire and grauity or weight from the condition of any earthly or heauy thing Yet as God supernaturally suspended Dan. 3. v. â—0 Matth. 14. v. 26. the actioÌ„ of heate in the Furnace of Babylon froÌ„ burning the three Children the poyse of his earthly body when he walked vpon the waters so he may also separate and seclude all locall extension from the quantity of his flesh and bloud whose essence only consisteth in the inward proportion of shape extension of parts in respect of themselues wherby one part is truely distinguished and immediatly conioyned to this and not to that other which inward extension distinction and proportion the body of Christ retayneth albeit it be wholy in the whole and wholy in euery part of the consecrated Host Eutychius the Patriarch of Constantinople Euty apud Nic. lib. 3. â—nnal about one thousand yeares agoe expressed this by the voice of man which being one only collision or beating of the ayre is wholy notwithstanding heard of many hundred togeather and wholy receaued into the Organ of euery particuler mans hearing as the body of Christ is wholy contayned vnder euery particle of the sacred host 23. The third false supposed implicancy by our Aduersaryes is the separation we affirme of the externall formes of bread and wine and making them abide without their substances for therein we destroy as they imagine the Nature it selfe of accidents whose innate and essentiall property is in their conceite to inhere in their subiects But heere in they bewray the like ignorance as before Because all the best Philosophers deny inherency to be any essentiall condition of an accident and the chiefe of Peripatetickes Aristotle himselfe Arist lib. 3. de anima tex 9. sayth greatnes is one thing and the existency of greatnes another Now if the existency be different much more the inherency which is the quality and manner of existency Basil in Hexam ho. 6. The same is taught and proued by S. Basil who affirmeth that the accident of light was first created in the beginning and remained without a subiect and that the spheare or globe of the Sunne was after made as a waggon or chariot for that original light Then meeting with this our Protestants cauillation that an accident caÌ„not be without a subiect he addeth Say not vnto me it is impossible that the light should be separated from the body of the Sunne For neither do I affirme this separation possible to thee or me but I iudge it auoucheable that such thinges as by the thought and cogitation of the mind may be seuered the power of him that created both can actually and indeed part and disseuer The adustine and burning force of the fire thou truly canst not separate from the gloming brightnes thereof but God diuided them in the fiery bush wherin he appeared to his seruant Moyses Yea and the like strange anatomy his mighty hand will make as that great Doctour goeth forward of the whole element of fire when in the later day he will separate according to him The hoat and scorching violence from the cleare light or Basil ibid. splendour thereof and depute that to hell for the due punishment of the reprobate aduance this to heauen for the comfort of his elect Besides al learned deuines auer the personality of Christ S. Thom. â— part q. 4 art 2. Cyril epist ad Nestor 5. Synod can 5. â—ulg lib. de incar c. 4. which is a substantiall mode or manner of being alike intrinsecal to substaÌ„ce as inherency is to any accident to be secluded froÌ„ his humane nature the humane nature to subsist without his proper person which although it be a greater and deeper mistery theÌ„ that we haue now in hand yet this parity I find betweene them that as the humane nature of Christ doth efficiently subsist supported by the person of the word without the formal effect of subsistency so the accidents of bread and wine doe heer remaine efficiently preserued by the
body of Christ without the formall effect of their inherency Which is an example so fit and sutable to my purpose as our Aduersaryes haue nothing to oppose against it vnles they ouerthrow that article of our fayth and by attributing vnto Christ the person of man annihilate with Nestorius the value of his sufferings worke of our Redemption 24. Many other obiections M. Bilson and his fellowes make as the vnseemlinesse of Christs passage through vile loathsome Bils 4. par pag. 78. c. places But he that thoght it not vnseemly to be torne with whips wounded with nailes massacred by his cruel enemyes to purchase our Redemption he that maketh the beames of the Sunne to shine vndefiled vpon the foulest dâ—â—ghil will not feare for the benefit of our souls to enter without horrour passe without infection the vncleanest harbour of our harts Then saith he the elements Aug. l. de fide sym cap. 4. may putrify the flesh of Christ caÌ„not Neither do we say it can but when the formes of Bread Wine are putrifyed or destroyed the body without putrifaction detriment or consumptioÌ„ ceaseth to be vnder them as the soule without Bils 4. par pag. 783. destruction leaueth to informe any dead decayed or deuided member For when our finger or arme is cut or rotten away the soule neither rotteth nor receaueth hurt no more doth the flesh of Christ when the Accidents of bread are putrified stabbed consumed to dust because it existeth in the Eucharist albeit in substance truly yet after an indiuisible impassible now glorious manner 25. Others demand how the body of Christ is not wholy spent deuoured so many dayly feeding therof To which Innocentius the third briefly answereth As the Innocen l. 3. de offio missâ—e 3. Reg. 17. Widdow of Sarepâ—ha did daily eate neuer diminish the Meale of her Pot or Oyle of her vessell so the vniuersal Church doth daily receaue and neuer consume the flesh bloud of Iesus Christ Let not then Gentle Reader any faygned difficulty or forged incouenience any seeming repugnance euer withdraw thee from allowing our Real Presence euidently defined in holy writ strongely warranted by the Fathers honourably recorded in all Antiquity THE SECOND CHAPTER IN WHICH D. Bilson D. Sparkes and all Sacramentaries are more particulerly refelled and other their chiefest arguments answered ALMIGHTY God accounteth it not sufficient to haue his Temples raised and true worship aduanced vnlesse the Altars of Ieroboam be destroied 3. Reg. 22. and the prophanations of Idolators vtterly abolished It is not then iÌ„nough for me to haue confirmed the right and Orthodoxall belief of the Catholick Church in this chiefest point of faith except I beate downe the errours raze the fortresses our enemies mantaine to strengthen Biâ—s 4. par pag. 725. cum sequeÌ„tibus Sparks pag 116. Bils 4. par pag. 785. their follies Which will seeme by so much more intricate and cumbersome vnto me by how much I find them in this question most slippery and inconstant For M. Bilson vtterly renounceth the Reall Presence M. Sparkes with their Communion-Booke alloweth it M. Bilson will haue vs mount like Eagles with the winges of faith to fasten on the Lords flesh Caluin will haue Christ descend and feed vs not by fayth alone but with the substance of his Body M. Bilson with Calu. in c. 16. Mat. Bils 4. par pag. 783. 785. 786. c. Sparks p. 114. 115. Bils 4. par pag. 710. 711. 712. his Adherents hold That we are nourished in the Sacrament wiâ—h the liuely impassible body and bloud of Christ M. Sparks with others contend that we haue not here to do with his impassible and glorified but with his dead passible and broken body and bloud shed vpon the Crosse Zuingilus and Oecolampadius teach the Eucharist to be a bare signe or figure of our Lord. M. Bilson not pleased with that admitteth besides some diuine vertue thereunto annexed Thus the builders of Babylon are deuided thus they say and gain-say auerre and reuerse like men amazed they know not what 2. For aske M. Bilson what he meaneth when he said That we must mount with wings of faith to eat Christ in the Sacrament If his meaning be that to lift vp our thoughts and hearts to Christ to beleeue in him be to eate him Then the Patriarkes and Prophets who reposed their affiance in the Messias to come were partakers of this Sacrament long before it was instituted Then the Heretikes who should denie the Eucharist yet beleeued and reuerenced our Sauiour Christ should both reuerence and dishonour partake and detest the benefit of their Communion Then likewise to beleeue the Diuels were to eate the Diuels to beleeue the fire and torments of Hell were to be fed with flames to be nourished with torments Then what need we runne to your Churches What need we be sollicitous of your morsels of bread when in euery corner by the faithfull remembrance of Christs death and Passion we may farre easilier enioy the Bils 4. par pag. 763. Calu. lib. 4. instit c. 14. alibi fruit of your Sacrament We ought to repaire saith Bilson to the Communion table to receaue the confirmation and seale of Gods mercies Or the assurance as Caluin writeth of our beliefe and incorporation with Christ. Is it only so And what if we should not receiue this outward seale and testimony of grace would God be so iniurious as to depriue vs of his gifts bestowed vpon vs or so faithlesse as not to fulfill his promise vnlesse he assured it by his letters Patents Nay how often by this meanes should Truth it selfe deceiue and beguile vs by sealing a false warraÌ„t to all those Rom. 11. Cor. 11. as receiue vnworthily eating as S. Paul sayth their Iudgment yea their death and damnation To these God should become a lying witnes a pernitious surety affoarding them that outward communion as a publike assurance of his inwrad grace and their right beliefe when notwithstanding they are vtterly voyd and depriued of them Oh tymes most perilous what monstrous heresies haue you hatched what men are these who cannot acquit themselues of folly without viperlike appeaching their Creatour of so great impiety 3. Another traine M. Bilson layeth to beguile with Bils 4. par pag. 71â— more cunning yet to beguile too For finding the Eucharist honoured by the Fathers aboue the basenes of a figure he alloweth not with them the Diuine preseÌ„ce of Chryst but he deuiseth Some diuine vertue annexed to the outward signes A meere deuise For what vertue I pray will you haue it of what quality or condition Spirituall or Corporall If Spirituall how is it conioyned to corporall elements of bread and wine What vnion without proportion What proportion will you make betweene this spirituall vertue and those bodily things If Corporall eyther the same you adde to euery element or seuerall vertues according
inherent in any other thing Somewhat like to that which the former substances enioyed Thus Gelasius ought and no otherwise can he be expounded Gelasius answered for he doth not say yet ceaseth not in substance and nature c. but vsing first the word substance as a tearme ouer strict he corecteth and enlargeth it with this addition or nature and after explicating of what nature he meant he calleth the same proprietas naturae the property or quality of nature Then he affirmeth the Eucharist to be made a diuine thing and we by it partakers of the diuine nature a little after he addeth The elements are changed by the Holy Ghost into a diuine substance which confirmeth our and wholy subuerteâ—h the aduersaryes doctrine therefore M. Bilson very warily leâ—t it forth 8. As touching Theodoret the Greeke in which he Theodoret answered wrote explaineth his meaning for in the first place insteed of nature he vseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which compriseth as all Grecians know the accidentall nature as well as the substantiall and signifyeth sometymes the vertue or quality of nature In the second place in lieu of substaÌ„ce Vide dicti Graecolat Conradi Gesneri Thesaurling graecae H. Stephani he hath the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Essence as Quinâ—ilian and Budaeus out of Philo or nature also as Tully translateth it And so we graunt that the true nature essence of the accidents still remaine Neither can the word nature essence no nor substance which the translatour vseth be vnderstood as it is diuided against accident For Theodoret sayth The signes depart not from their owne nature they remaine in their former essence But they neuer had nor could haue any other then an accidentall nature an accidentall essence or substance if you will so call it Because the nature and substance of bread and Wine was not their owne nature not their former substance but really distinct from theirs Therefore Theodoret could not truly affirme That they remained in their former substance which formerly they had not but in the accidentall essence which they formerly had and in which they still perseuere Nor yet can any Cauiller say that remaine is heere taken for inhere because then the accidents should also inhere in their figure inhere in their shape to which the verbe remaine is as necessarily referred as it is to their substance 9. Although this answere fully satisfyeth and taketh Another answer to Theodoret away all manner of cauillations yet I will not omit another which Reuerend Father Cotton gaue at a disputation in France to wit that the three Genitiues in Greeke should not all be turned into Ablatiues in Latin but two into Ablatiues the first into the Genitiue case thus Manent enim mystica Symbola 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in prioris essentiae seu substaÌ„tiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 figura specie videri tangi pessunt sicut priùs that is The mystical signes remaine in the figure and shape of their former substance The reall presence and TransubstaÌ„tiatioÌ„ proued by Theodorets owne wordes in the very same place whom the CeÌ„turistes also reiect for the same Cent. 5. c. 4. col 517. 1008. and may be seene and touched as before Which answere somwhat varieth in wordes but is the same substance with the former both are notably strengthened and our TraÌ„substantiation established by this ensuing sentence which immediatly followeth But they are vnderstood to be those thinges which are made and belieued and adored as being those thinges which are belieued Now what are the thinges belieued what adored Not the outward signes barely of themselues they are seene not belieued they cannot without Idolatry be adored The thinges beleeued euen in our and in the Sacramentaryes opinion are the body and bloud of Christ those they apprehend those they adore by fayth yet they belieue and adore them absent we present but Theodoret auoucheth that the misticall signes Are made those thinges which are belieued which are adored therfore they are made the body and bloud of Christ And how are they made By representation by signification only No but truly and really As being sayth he those thinges which are belieued Can we deuise to speake more plainely for our selues then this Father speaketh in our behalfe whome quarreling enemyes would wrest against vs. The rest of M. Bilsons allegations I let passe because some of them make nothing against vs others may be answered as these before others are plainly of no account as the authority of Bertram a late suspected authour and of the false impious and sacrilegious CouÌ„cell of Constantinople vnder Constantinus Copronymâ—s so alleadged in the 2. Nicen Synod euen in the place quoted by M. Bilson howbeit his conscience serued him to produce their testimonyes for want of better 10. M. Bilson vrgeth againe The Lord tooke bread Bils pag. 730. 731. brake bread But that which he tooke that which he brake he gaue to his disciples therfore he gaue bread The same fallacy might I returne vpon him That he tooke prophane and common bread Therfore he gaue prophane and not Sacramentall bread With the same collusion any heathen Matth. 9 v. 26. might depraue the most famous miracles of Christ That of the Gouernous daughter raised by him he might say for example That Christ was inuited to the maid dead that he entred to her dead held her by the hand dead spake to her dead but she to whom he entred she to whom he spake arose Therfore she arose not aliue but dead He might after the same manner delude the resuscitation of Lazarus For vpon whom did Christ call when he sayd Lazarus come forth Did he call vpon the liuing Ioan. 1â— v. 43. or vpon the dead I know you wil grant that he called vpon the dead and yet as you must needs confesse by the power of his God-head and force of his voyce he came forth aliue So I answere vnto you That Christ tooke bread blessed bread c. yet by the power and efficacy of his words when he sayd This is my body the bread was changed and transubstantiated into his body Perhaps you will cauill that the beholders saw the actions of life in the fornamed parties Whà t then Will you credit the eyes of men which might be deceaued witnessing them to liue and will you not belieue the words of Christ who cannot beguile vs auouching this his body No sayth M. Bilson for Christ vseth these words I am the dore I am the vine and yet he is not really eyther dore Chrys ho. 83. in Mat. Bils 4. par pag. 717. c. or vine Is this your guise of arguing from a Liâ—erall to a figuratine speach Heere the things themselues the connection of the text fayth reason and whatsoeuer els inforceth a figure In the words of our Lords Supper all things plead the property of the letter The Collation of places the
Figura ergo est It is therefore a figure It is a Sacrament because albeit the same body be really eaten the same bloud really drunke yet in a mystery in a figure in a Sacrament after a sweet spirituall and vnbloudy manner 16. Nay S. Augustine as our Sacramentaries contend saith What doest thou prepare thy teeth and belly Beleeue and thou hast eaten True he writeth there of the spirituall eating of Christ the bread of life by faith beleefe onely he had not begun to discourse of the Sacrament or Sacramentall eating At least after say they he speaketh of the Sacrament yet vseth these wordes He that feedeâ—h wiâ—h Aug. tra 2â— in Io. the hart not he that grindeth with the tooth True not he that grindeth only can partake the fruit of this Sacrament he that feedeth with hart without corporall eating may benefit himself but he that corporally eateth without faith can receaue no profit at all They vrge againe that S. Aug. tra 59. 2â— in Ioan. Augustine sayth The Apostles eat the bread our Lord Iudas the bread of our Lord. And in another place he denyeth The wicked to eate the body of Christ. Most true He denyeth theÌ„ to eate the bread our Lord or to feed of his body because they are not incorporated in his mysticall body Or because they do it not fruitfully by grace to the benefit Psalm â—â— Augu. de Bapt cont Donatist l. 9. â— 8. con Pulgent c. 6. cont lit Petil. l. 2. c. 20. c. 55. Biâ—s 4. pâ— pag. 772. 773. 774. 776. of their soules as King Dauid sayth The wicked shall not rise in Iudgment Because they shall not rise to saluation but to damnation Otherwise S. Augustine graunteth that Iudas did and the wicked do truely eaâ—e the body of Christ in his booke of Baptisme against the Donatists against Fulgentius and against the letters of Petilian 17. In summe many Fathers obiected by M. Bilson exhort vs to eate the Sacrament by fayth to cleanse our soules prepare our harts they call it spirituall food the bread of the mind and not of the belly no bodily but ghostly meat the proper nourishment of the spirit All most true for a liuely fayth a cleane soule a pure hart are necessarily required in the worthy receauer and the purer he approacheth the more plenty he receaueth of Gods heauenly graces Then it is stiled spirituall food ghostly meate the bread of the mind the proper nourishment of the spirit because the spirituall repast and refection Cyr. Alex l. 10. in Ioan. c. 13. of our mind the perfect vigour and increase of spirit is the chiefe and most soueraigne effect of this diuine banquet Neuertheles it excludeth not as S. Cyrill noteth but presupposeth the corporall from which as from the fountaine and sea of grace the spirituall is deriued Our Aduersaryes reply The Fathers exclude it by certaine negatiue tearmes which they vse calling it No bodily but Ghostly meate the bread of the mind and not of the belly They call it so indeed and speake in the Scriptures phrase euen as Almighty God spake when he sayd I will mercy and not sacrifice yet thereby he neither excluded Ose 6. v. 6. Matth. 9. v. 13. nor forbad sacrifice which himselfe prescribed exacted and commanded but only preferred mercy as an act of charity more acceptable vnto him So the Fathers by the like words exclude not the bodily but preferre the ghostly as the dayntiest food of our soules Or they deny it to be any bodily sustenance as bodily is commonly taken for that which is opposite to ghostly This is not so this is both bodily and ghostly both spirituall corporall meate this relisheth the mouth and cheereth the hart quickneth the body and refresheth the soule Therefore it is not a meere corporall but a spiritual dainty because it hath a spirituall manner of being is seasoned with spirituall qualityes affoardeth all spirituall comfort and is principally ordained to our spirituall nourishment For the flesh as Tertullian writeth is fed Tertul. l. de resurr carnis with the body and bloud of Christ that the soule may be fattened with God 18. And if Protestants would be as ready to defend as they are to cauill at the former sayinges they might learne by the like speaches which the Apostle vseth how to explaine the Fathers wordes for as they call the body of Christ in the Sacrament spiritual so he the body which 1. Cor. 15. v. 44. shall rise in the later day It is sowen a naturall body it shal ryse a spirituall body as they account it a barbarous and sauage thing to eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of Ibid. v. 50. Christ so he a thing impossible that flesh and bloud can possesse the kingdome of God as S. Augustine sayth Not that Ibid. v. 37. body which you see shall you eate c. so he not the body that shall be dost thou sow Which place togeather with the former Eutichius vrged against the corporall resurrection of our flesh with no lesse colourable pretense then Sectaryes do the precedent sayings against the bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament But as they are constrained vnles they deny that article of our fayth with S. Gregory and other of our Deuines to construe S. Pauls meaning Greg. lib. 4. in lob c. 32. 33. that the body which ryseth shall be both spirituall and corporall spirituall by reason of the glorious dowryes it shall receaue and corporall in respect of the true and tractable substance it shall still retaine That flesh and bloud according to humane misery and corruption cannot possesse the Kingdome of God but according to immortality and corruption that not the body which is sowed shall rise but another another in quality the same in substance another in perfection of glory the same in property and condition of nature another in powerfull vertue the same in corporall verity another in manner and forme the same in realty and essence of being Apply the like constructions to the fornamed sentences written against the reall presence and you shall rightly expound those learned writers and soundly answere your owne obiections 19. To conclude when these new-fangled teachers with no euidence of Scripture or sentence of Father can disproue the truth of our doctrine they fall to their accustomed Pulk in c. 6. Io. sect 13. Bils 4 par pag. 791. Ambr. l. 30 de Spirit sanct c. 12. Aug. in Pâ—al 24. in 1. Cor. Bils 4. par p. 710. c. rayling They tearme vs Capharnaites Vbiquitaries Idolaters c. whereas we detest the inhumane grosse imagination of the Capharnaites condemne the Vbiquity or euery where being of Christ adore not with diuine honor as M. Bilson is pleased to impose vpon vs the elements of bread and wine but we adore to vse S. Ambrose words the flesh of Christ in the mysteries That flesh which â—ce man eateth as S. Augustine
which it is distinguished from the former lawes To abrogate all kind of Sacrifice is to disanull the law to abolish our Religion as S. Cyprian proueth And to fly as D. Bilson and D. Reynolds are here constrained to spirituall only is vaine and friuolous First because euery true Religion is a seuerall and peculiar worship wherby people vnited professe their duty and obedience to God which is not inough inwardly to acknowledge vnlesse we also expresse it by some outward and sensible signe And in the chiefest Religion that euer was by the perfectest and most principall signe of subiection to wit by the externall oblation I mentioned before Secondly we haue not only as all Catholikes teach against the Manichees Our soule from God we receaue from him both body and soule both the flesh and the spirit both our S. Iren. l. 4. cap. 34. S. Tho. l. 4. c. 56. con GeÌ„tes visible and inuisible our corporall and spirituall substance Therefore besids the secret and inuisible prayers of our hart it is necessary we likewise serue him with corporall bodily and visible things in token that he only is Authour Creatour and Lord of all things Thirdly spirituall Sacrifices of prayer almesdeeds and the like were continually practised and obserued by the Iewes not proper to vs Christians as that Sacrifice ought to be by which our Religion is established and distinguished from others 5. D. Reynolds D. Sparkes and their associates otherwhile Reyn. c. 8. diuis 4. Sparks in his answer to M. Iobn Alb. p. 7. 8. 23. answere That the Sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse is the peculiar and perpetuall Host in which our Priesthood law and Religion is constituted But they satisfy not For that was only offered in one place and at one tyme to that all Nations christened could not refort to do homage vnto God that was not any rite or ceremony instituted by him but if we speake of the action a detestable Sacriledge committed by the Iewes that also was common to all the former true states of Religion who belieued in Christs Passion to come And yet the externall and diuine worship in which Christian Religion florisheth and consisteth ought to be apointed by God proper to Christians in all tymes and places practised ought to be such vnto which all faithfull people might repaire which can be Reyn. pag. 539. Luc. 22. v. 19. Iewel in his Reply against the Sacrifice Bils 4. par p. 690. 691. none other then the Oblation of the holy Eucharist as I will manifestly proue notwithstanding M. Reynolds impiously traduceth it as the Monster of abhomination 6. Christ offered and instituted this Sacrifice in S. Luke This is my Body which is giuen for you He doth not say which shall be giuen hereafter only as M. Iewell commenteth nor which is giuen in bare Mistery and signification as M. Bilson glozeth but which euen now in the present is giuen as an Host and Sacrifice offered to his Father truly really in propitiation pardon and forgiuenes of sinnes as more plainly appeareth by the Greeke text which Bezae for this cause chargeth with corruption where all copies read The Cuppe or bloud as conteyned in the Chalice to be truly Cyp. l 2. Epist 2. Aug. in Psal 33 â— con 2. Chrys bo 24. â—â— Corinth NisseÌ„ orat deresur Andreas Crastouâ— de opif. miss l. 2. ser 164. Cyr in 1. Cor. c. 10. bo 24. Aug. 17 de ciuit Dei cap. 20. shed that is offered vnto God as a Propitiatory Sacrifice in remission of sinnes Which all the Fathers with vniforme consent most constantly confirme S. Cypryan S. Augustinè S. Chrysostome and innumerable others by Coccius and Garetius abundantly cyted Amongst which S. Gregory Nissen whom our Aá¸uersaries hereupon shamfully calumniate hath these words Christ after an ineffable and hidden manner of Sacrifice preoccupated the violent force to wit of his death and offered himselfe for vs an Oblation and victim the Priest to geather and lambe of God When was this done When he exhibited his Body to be eaten and Bloud to be drunke to his familiar frinds This is that marueilous and honourable Sacrifice where in lieu of the slaughter of brute beasts Christ coÌ„maunded as S. Chrysostome sayth himselfe to be offered this is that Sacrifice which succeeded all those Sacrifices of the old law that were offered in shaddow of that to come as S. Augustine testifyeth This is that soueraigne worship of God in which the law of Christianity is established as the allusion it selfe importeth which our Sauiour here maketh betweene the dedication of the old Testament and this of the new 7. Moyses when he ratified and began the old law Exod. 2â— dedicated it in the bloud of Calues Christ beginninng to confirme the new solemnizeth the same in his owne bloud Moyses powred his bloud into a goblet Christ consecrateth his in a Chalice Moyses tooke that bloud and sprinkled the people Christ taketh this and inwardly washeth the harts of his Apostles Moyses said This is the bloùd of the couenant or testament Christ sayth This is the bloud of the new Testament Moyses added which God hath deliuered vnto you Christ annexeth which shall be shed for you So as that which Moyses performed was an euident figure of this which Christ accomplished And therefore as that was a true Sacrifice so this being the truth it selfe must be a farre more true and perfect Sacrifice As that was the bloud of a victime offered vnto God before it was spinkled vpoÌ„ the people so this ought to be the bloud of a purer victim of Christ himselfe before it cleanseth the soules of his Disciples As that was the solemne seruice in which the state of the Iudaicall law consisted so this must be the proper and publike worship of God on which the externall form of Christian Religion dependeth 8. As we may yet more manifestly gather out of that Luc. 12 v. 19. precept of our Sauiour Christ Do this for commemoration of me By which words we are strictly commanded to execute 1. Some outward visible act signifyed by the Pronowne This. 2. That it must be an act of doing not of belieuing only the Verbe Doe conuinceth 3. That the doing of this external actioÌ„ should represent the Passion of Christ is manifest by the Nowne which followeth for a commemoration of me And by S. Paul As often as you shall eate this Bread and drinke the Chalice you shall shew the dead of 1. Cor. 11. v. 26. our Lord vntill he come 9. It is not inough To take bread and wine to excite stirre vp an inward remembrance as M. Bilson faigneth of his death and Passion We must also do as Christ commandeth Bils 4. par pag. 693. 694. 695. an outward action commemoratiue of him sensibly shewing as S. Paul writeth the death of our Lord. The Iewes belieued and visibly sacrificed their Calues and lambes in token of Christ Wherefore least we
who are charged to make a sensible memory of our Blessed Redeemer should be as our Protestants are farre short of the Iewes it is needfull by some publike rite we set forth his Passion in a more excellent sort then they As indeed we Aug. l. 26. cont Faust cap. 18. do in this most holy and mysticall Oblation where not only the action done but the substance of the thing as I shall hereafter declare and manner of doing more neerly and liuely represent the death of our Sauiour then all the Iudaicall or figuratiue Hosts In so much as S. Augustine might wel say That Christians now celebrate the memory of the accomplished Sacrifice with a most holy Oblation and Act. 133. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Syriake participle Meâ—b chaschipin signifieth as Soderiê° in Lexico Syri A Sacrificing â—ction Mart. Ep. ad Burdeg cap. 3. Hesyeb l. 1. cap. 4. Cyp. l. 2. Epist. 3. Amb. c. 10 Ep. ad Heb. Primasius in idem c. Anselm in comment c. 11. 1. Cor. Paul ad heb c. 13 1. Cor. c. 10. Reyn. c. 8. diuis 4. p. 476. Aug. l. 10. de Ciu. Dei c 20 q 57. in Leut. l. 9. conf c. 12. Greg. Nazi orat 3. 4. in Iulia. Cyr. Alex. in Con. Ephes aâ—not 11. Ifido d. 3 ep 75. participation of the Body of Christ With that holy Oblation which Christ enacted promulgated and commanded when he sayd Do this for a commemoration of me 10. Which the Apostles practised when in the Actes they sacrificed to our Lord as the Greeke and Syriak or exercised some publike ministery vnto him as the Latin text importeth Which their scholer S. Martial taught followed We offer his Body and Bloud to obtaine euerlasting life c. That which the Iewes through malice immolated we for our saluation exhibite vpon the hallowed Altar for this our Lord charged vs to do for a comemoration of him Hesichius saith Christ preuenting his death offered himselfe vp in Sacrifice in the Supper of the Apostles S. Cyprian likewise Iesus Christ our Lord and God he is the High-Priest of God the Father and he first offered himselfe a Sacrifice to his Father and the same he commanded to be done in his remembrance S. Ambrose Primasius S. Anselme I I omit because I hasten to other proofes 11. S. Paul sayth We haue an Altar and an Altar to Sacrifice on both the Greeke and Hebrew word implieth as M. Reynolds accordeth with vs whereof they haue no power to eate which serue the tabernacle And in another place You cannot drinke the Chalice of our Lord and Chalice of Diuells Where he discourseth of the Sacrifices of Iewes Gentills Idolatours and in all outward and reall points matcheth ours with theirs our Hosts with theirs our Chalice with theirs our immolation with theirs the participation which we make of our victime with the participation which they make of theirs Wherby it ensueth that as theirs were true Sacrifices true Hosts true Victimes true Altars so likewise ours or els the comparisons were to no purpose Hereupon S. Augustine tearmeth the holy Eucharist A most true Sacrifice by which true remission of sinnes is purchased The Sacrifice of our price or ransome S. Gregory Nazianzen An vnbloudy Sacrifice S. Cyril of Alexandria A quikening holy Sacrifice Isidorus The Sacrifice of an vnbloudy victime S. Cyril of Ierusalem An holy and dreafull Sacrifice Cyr. Hier. â—ate 5. Tert. l. de velo Virgin c. 7. 9. Concil Nice Câ—â— 14. Chrys hom 17. in 9. ad Heb. Amb. exhor ad virg Cyr. Hier. cate 5. Leo. ser 8. de Psal Iran l. 4. â—a 32. Ieron in Com. cap. â— ad Tit. Aug. l. 9. Conf. c. 13. Optat. l. â— â—on Par. Gre. Naziâ—n orat 2. in Iulian. Aug. ser de San. 19. S. Gre. Niss oratbap Euseb l. 1. Demonst c. 6. 9. Nys de Virg. c. vlâ— Orig. bo 23 in l. Num. Amb. l. 2. of â—â—c c. vlt. Chrys bo 2. de pa. Iob. Reyn. c. 8. diuis 4. p. 472. profiting the soules of the departed Tertullian A Sacrifice which no woman can be permitted to offer no nor Deacons according to the Councel of Nice We haue not then a spirituall sacrifice only which women and Deacons may offer but a true Sacrifice in the Church of God A true Host which cannot be coÌ„sumed as S. Chrysostome sayth Which offered on the Altar as S. Ambrose teacheth abolisheth the sinne of the word Which is a Propitinion as S. Cyrill of Hierusalem calleth it for all that need help A true oblation which being only one fullfilleth according to S. Leo the variety of al carnall sacrifices Being new yet receaued from the Apostles is offered vnto God according to Ireneaeus in the vniuersall world A true victime vndefyled which the Bishop dayly offering for his own the peoples sins ought to abstaine as S Hierome writeth from the company of his wife An holy victime which dispensed from the Altar as S. Augustine confesseth cancelleth the hand-writing which was contrary vnto vs. True Chalices which containe the Bloud of Christ which to breake or prophane is hainous sacriledge Optatus against Parmenian True Altars such as take their name of the most pure vnbloudy sacrifice S. Gregory Nazianzen Such as are consecrated with the character of the Crosse S. Augustine Such as by nature being common stones by blessing are made holy immaculate no longer to be handled by all sorts of people but only of Priests S. Gregory Nissen Such as Moyses inhibited to be made in any Land but in Iury only and that in one Citty thereof Eusebius Which cannot be vnderstood of the Spirituall Altars of our harts as our Aduersaryes would shift of the matter True Priests annointed to this end S. Gregory Nissen Wedded to perpetuall continency because it only belongeth to them to offer this sacrifice Origen Whose immaculate ministery cannot be violated with carnall mariage S. Ambrose Who ought to shine with all kind of Chastity S. Chrysostome Rare priuiledges not appertaining to any Protestant much lesse to all Christians whome M. Reynolds installeth in Priestly dignity least of all to the Ministers of his Ghospel to whome he attributeth not the true name of a Sacrifycing Priest which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke Sacerdos in Latin but improperly only yet S. Augustine the most Aug. l. 20. deciu. Dei c. 10. Caluin l. 3. Insti c. 3. §. 10. ad Heb. 5. v. 1. Reâ— p 477 Psal 109. 4 ad Heb. 7. Bils 4. par pag. 702. Sparks locis citatis Cyp. l 3. ep 2. Prima in com c. 5. ad Heb. Gen. 14. Bils 4. par pag. 702. Clem. Alex l. 4. strom Amb. l. 5. de Sacram. cap. 1. Cypr. l. 2. epist 3. Aug. ep 95. ad Innocen â—fido l. de voc Gen. cap. 26. Iero. ep ad Marcel ad Euag. faythfull witnes of all antiquity as Caluin reporteth him purposely sayth The Priests and Bishops of our Church are not
it had byn long before sweetly song in the East and in all the Prouinces Concil Cart. 2. c. 3. Conc. Agath cap. 47 Conc. Calc act 3. S. Cyril cat myst 5. S. Amb. l. 5. epist 33. Greg. l. 7. Ep. 63. l. 12. Ep. 15. Bed l. 1. hist â—â—cles cap. 19. Aug l. 10. confâ—ss c. 1â— â—o l. 22. de Ciui Dei cap. 8. Chrys l. 6. de Sacer. Bils 4. par pag. 993. Caluin de coen â—ni the like he hath lib de vâ—ra Eccles refor in cap. 7. ad Heb. Magdeb. Câ—nt 2. c. Io. col 107 Cent. â— c. 4 col 63. Cent. 3. c. 4. 5. Mâ—lanct l. 4 Chroâ—iâ— Henr. 4. of Italy Was it not there further enacted that the thrice sacred Anthymne Holy Holy should be repeated in morning Masses in the Masses of Lent or in such as were offered for the dead as it was accustomed to be in solemue Masses Is not our Sacrifice of the Masse or vnbloudly Host mentioned also in the second Councell of Carthage of Agatho of Chalcedon and in many others Did not S. Cyril Patriarch of Ierusalem S. Ambrose Bishop of Millan S. Gregory the great Pope of Rome did they not say Masse 19. And the same S. Gregory did he not send all Priestly ornaments to S. Austen our Apostle Did not S. Augustine likewise the Doctour say Masse Did he not in treat others to doe the same for his fathers and mothers soule And which is more doth he not write of a Priest of his who sacrificed the Body of our Lord in a house infected with euill Spirits and the infestation ceased Doth not S. Chrysostome teach That the Angells themselues with reuerence assist our sacrificing Priest in honour of him that is offered on the Altar Which maketh me wonder how M. Bilson should ouershoot himselfe so farre as to auouch That for twelue hundred yeares after Christ our Sacrifice was not knowen to the world Was he so litle conuersant I will not say in these learned Fathers but in the Century-writers his Companions in Caluin his Coronell in Melancthon and other his Protestant Peeres as not to know what they had written in this behalfe Or was he so bold as against vs against them all to broach this stander Caluin sayth It is well knowen the olf Fathers called the Supper a Sacrifice c. Neyther can I excuse the custome of the ancient Church for that with gesture and outward rite they did set forth a certaine forme of Sacrifice with the same ceremonies in a manner that were practised in the old law saue that they vsed the Host of bread in lieu of a beast 20. The Century-writers blame Ignatius the scholler of the Apostles Irenaeus S. Cyprian Tertullian and diuers others in all ages within the compasse M. Bilson speciâ—yeth for the like Melancthon writeth of S. Gregory the First who liued about the 600. yeare of our Lord He allowed sayth he by publike authority the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud not only for the living but also for the dead M. Bale Bale in his Pageans sal 27. Fulk in his confut of Purgat p. 264. 265. c. Beacon in his Treat intituled The reliques of Rome sol 344. Luth. l. de cap. Baby l. de abrog Missae auerreth of S. Leo the first who florished about 440. years after Christ He allowed the sacrifice of the Masse not without great blasphemy to God M. Fulke reprehendeth Tertullian for the same M. Beacon concludeth The Masse was begotten conceaâ—ed borne auone after the Apostles tyme if all be true that Historiographers write So as it was the badnes only I suppose of M. Bilsons cause which made him bolster that foule report 21. Yet I will examine what he and his associates pretend against vs The Eucharist say they is a Sacrament which we receaue from God therfore it cannot be likewise a Sacrifice we offer to God because it implyeth the same thing should be both offered and receaued I answere that one and the self same thing diuersly considered may be both offered and receaued proceed from vs and be giuen to vs be a sacrament and a sacrifice And so the holy Eucharist is a Sacrament imparted vnto vs in that it is a signe of inisible grace ordained by God to nourish our soules with heaueÌ„ly food It is a sacrifice offered vnto God in that this signe or gift consecrated with sacred Ceremony is surrendred vnto him in acknowledgment of his highest Maiesty in protestation of our lowest duety and allegiance In this sense Cyp. ser de â—â—n Dom. it is called by S. Cyprian Medicamentum simul HolocaustuÌ„ Both a medicine and a sacrifice A medicine to heale our spirituall infirmityes A sacrifice to appease the wrath of God A medicine composed by him for the behoofe of vs A 1. Para. 29. v. 14. sacrifice offered and consumed by vs in honour of him This the Prophet Dauid rightly obserued when he sayd All thinges O Lord are thyne and the things we haue receaued from thy hand we haue restored vnto thee Thus we offer our spiritual Hosts as S. Peter exhorteth we offer vnto God â— Pet. 2. â—ers 5. Iac. 1. v. â—7 the Sacrifice of prayer of prayse of thankefulnes c. yet they are all mercifull guifts Descending from aboue from the Father of Lights from whom euery good motion and thoght proceedeth 22. The second and chiefest bulwarke which M. â—eynolds M. Bilson M. Sparks raise to batter the Forr of our Reyn. c. 8. diuis 4. p. 474. Bils 4. par pag. 695. Spark pa. 7. 23. sequen Haeb 10 v. 12. 14. v. 18. ad Heb. c. 9. v. 28. blessed Sacrifice is that S. Paul often inculcateth to the Hebrewes How Christ by one Host one Oblation once offered redeemed vs all How Christ was once offered to exhaust the sinnes of many I graunt that he was only once bloudily sacrifyced in his proper forme and shape yet vnbloudily sacramentally couered vnder the veiles of his creatures he is dayly offered vpon the Altar of his Church Which S. Paul impugneth not but only the iteration of the former bloudy as may be gathered out of the drift and scope of his discourse in that epistle to the Hebrewes 23. Secondly I answere that S. Paul speaketh of the chiefe generall ransoming Host of the full redeeming Heb. 10. v. 14. sacrifice Which once perfected on the Crosse consumated for euer them that are sanctifyed Yet it is nothing repugnant but altogeather correspondent heereunto that we should likewise haue our particuler Oblation to communicate the priuiledges of that vniuersall For so all generall Melchior Canus l. 12. de lo. Theo. c. 12. 1. Tim. 2. v. 4. causes as Melchior Canus noteth are determined and restrained by their particulers The Sunne is the generall cause of light yet we receaue the benefite thereof by many seuerall and particuler illuminations The will of God
Alexan. 4 par sum â— 53. in I. iuxta edit antiquam Alex. l. 1. Euchar. c. 41. not say as our Aduersaryes would wrest his meaning vnlesse you eate my flesh vnder the shape of bread and drinke my bloud vnder the forme of wine But vnlesse you eate my flesh and drinke my bloud which may be truely performed vnder one kind alone For he that eateth the bread is entyrely nourished not only with the flesh but with the whole substance of Christ his precious bloud as certaine monkes of whome Alexander de Hales and Cardinall Allan write were miraculously instructed by aboundance of bloud which issued from the signs of bread And he that drinketh the Chalice is likwise fed with the whole quantity of our Sauiours flesh And so he that participateth one kind which perfectly containeth the meate Claud in repe vle de Eucha 1. Cor. 3. v. â— 9. v. 7 Cyp ser de coen Dom. Vvald to 2 de SacaÌ„ rap 93. Pasch l. de Cor. Christi Aug. l. 3. q in Leuit. cap. 57. Chrys ho. 18. m 2. ad Cor. Bils 4. par pag. 632. S. Igna. ep ad Philad Amb. l. de mit myst cap. 9. Hier. in c. 2. Mala. Cyp. ser de coen Dom. Toles in c. 6. Ioan. Exod. 22. v. 15. Iob. 31. Eze. 13. Psal 129. 1. Cor. 11. v. 27. cap. 10. v. 17. and drinke of both may truly be sayd to eate in regard of the one and drinke in respect of the other As Claudius Xainctes proueth by the authority of many Fathers and excellently gathereth out of S. Paul to the Corinthians where the same milke is tearmed drinke and meat which S. Cyprian verifyeth of the food of the holy Eucharist After the like manner Thomas Waldensis expoundeth Paschasius when by these wordes Drinke yee all of this he willeth all faythfull belieuers To drinke the Bloud that is vnder the outward accidents and shew of bread Which is also the meaning of S. Augustine S. Chrysostome and others alleadged by M. Bilson where they say We are all exhorted to drinke the Bloud And That the cup is ministred to all Or they speake of the vse and practise of the Church in their tymes as S. Ignatius S. Ambrose and S. Hierome do Or lastly they speake of the necessity of receauing both kinds at least by some in the Church but not by all As S. Cyprian doth when he sayth The lâ—â— prohibiteth the eating of bloud the Ghospell commandeth it to be drunke 6. Otherwise we may auerre with the renowned Cardinall Tolet in that passage of S. Iohn Vnles you eate c. and drinke his bloud that the Coniunction and is according to the Hebrew phrase disiunctiuely taken for or As in Exodus where the Hebrew text hath He that striketh his Father and his Mother Let him dye the meaning is as our vulgar translation interpreteth and readeth He that striketh his Father or his Mother The like we find in Iob Ezechiel and other places the like in S. Paul in plaine confirmation both of this exposition and doctrine of the Sacrament For wher some read Whosoeuer shall eate this bread and drinke the chalice our of Lord vnworthily in the Greeke it is or drinke And in the immediate chapter before where the ancient latin copies haue We are one bread and one body all that partake of one bread and one Chalice the Greeke only readeth All that partake of one bread Because by one kind we receaue the true nourishment and perfect substance of both 7. Thus we easily put off the force of that argumeÌ„t but how our Aduersaryes will auoyd it I know not For they interpreting S. Iohns wordes of the spirituall eating of Christs flesh bloud by fayth I would vnderstand of them what difference they make betweene eating and drinking For certes in the sole act of faith there is no difference no difference in belieuing his flesh wounded from belieuing his bloud shed in respect of beliefe therefore you neither obey the precept nor feare the coÌ„mination of Christ Vnles you eate the flesh of the Sonne of Man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you Heere Christ Ioan. 6. v. 53. commaundeth the reall eating which you renounce mentioneth the drinking which you haue not the belieuing which in that place he neither commaundeth nor mentioneth you imbrace and yet you would be the Ghospellers of Christ Neuerthelesse at your importunity let vs leaue his words leaue his meaning and admit your false construction Then I propose this questioÌ„ whether he that stedfastly belieueth in Christ the Sauiour of the world with one firme assent without separatly thinking of the wounds of his Body and effufion of his bloud doth truly fullfill according to you the former precept and enioy the promised life or not Without doubt you must graunt he doth as our Sauiour often auoucheth saying He that belieueth in me hath life euerlasting Ioan. 6. v. 47. Ioan 3. v. 16. Ioan. 11. v. 25. euery one that belieueth in the Sonne of God shall not pèrish c. Besides He that belieueth in me although he be dead shal liue Wherefore as this satisfyeth in the spirituall eating why should it not also satisfy in the corporall by one act and vnder one kind to receaue the authour himself and price of our redemption without receauing him twise by two seuerall acts of eating and drinking Because you will say in the corporall Christ commandeth both and doth he not so in the spirituall supposing you spiritually expound his wordes Or will you say that in the spiritual eating of our Redeemer his death and Passion and by consequence his body broken and bloud shed are inuolued So say I that in the corporal teceauing of one kind both are not only consequently inuolued but perfectly contained and in the sole act of eating the other of drinking is vertually implyed Which this very passage Ioan. 6. v. 57. ensuing apparently conuinceth He that eateth me the same also shall liue by me For what doth the word me comprehend but the whole person of Christ his flesh his bloud his body his soule his deity whatsoeuer els belongs vnto him Therefore he that eateth only eateth him eateth and drinketh all 8. But out of the former sayings of S. Iohn M. Bilson with his confederates picke a new quarrel that the wicked according to vs eate Christ yet dye the death of sinners therfore our Sauiour speaketh not of the corporall but only of the spirituall eating by fayth by which we perish not but liue for euer I answere that the former sentences many such like are vnderstood conditionally if he eate worthily and still perseuere in that happy state he shal liue for euer otherwise if he eate vnworthily he eateth as the Apostle sayth iudgment to himselfe Ioan. 4. v. 13. Marc. 16. v. 16. Ioel. 2. v. 32. So it is sayd He that shall drinke of the water that I will giue him shall not thirst
for euer He that belieueth and is baptized shall be saued Euery one that shall inuocate the name of the Lord shal be saued to wit if he inuocate and call vpon him in fayth and charity as he ought if he belieue aright and doth not finally loose his fayth nor the grace of Baptisme and water of the holy Ghost once receaued as I shall proue heereafter he may Therefore this argument of theirs maketh no more against the corporal then spirituall feeding for as euerlasting life is promised to the faythfull and pious belieuer so to the reall and worthy Receauer and as the one may fall from his worthy dignity so the other make shipwracke of his liuely fayth and eternally perish Perchance you will obiect that this answere suteth not with the prerogatiue which our Sauiour giueth to the holy Eucharist aboue Manna That Ioan. 6. v. 49. 50. the Fathers did eate Manna in the desert and they dyed this is the bread that descendeth froÌ„ heauen that if any man eat of it he dye not For whosoeuer did worthily feed on that dainty Manna and continued in the same state neuer tasted the bitternes of spirituall death therefore according to this construction it is not inferiour to the blessed Sacrament I answere first that such as then liued for euer enioyed not the priuiledges of life by the vertue and force of Manna but by their loue of God and fayth in Christ their true Messias and yet they that worthily receaue the Eucharist truely liue by the vertue power and efficacy of Christs reall presence the spring of life and fountaine of grace therein contained 9. Secondly I reply that Christ doth not only compare the Eucharist with Manna in respect of the life and death of the soule but of the body also after this sort Manna could not affoard to your Fathers life of body much lesse of soule during their short passage through the desert This bread affoardeth life to the soule much more to the body during the length of all eternity They that eate Manna dyed in body a temporall death they that eate this bread shall not dye the eternall death neither of the body nor soule And heerein consisteth as Maldonate commenteth vpon this text the singular grace elegancy of our Sauiours comparison in passing from Maldonatâ— in hunc loeum Matt. 8. v. 22. Ioan. 4. v. 13. one kind of life and death to another which plesant digression he often vseth as the same Author discourseth in other places In S. Matthew Let the dead bury the dead The first he calleth dead in soule the next in body In S. Iohn Euery one that drinketh of this water shall thirst againe but he that shall drinke of the water that I will giue him shall not thirst for euer First he speaketh of the corporall Matt. 26. v. 29. water and thirst of the body then of the spirituall water and thirst of the soule Likewise I wil not drinke from hence forth of this fruit of the vine vntill that day when I shall drinke it with you new in the kingdome of my Father Heere he first mentioneth the naturall wine of the grape then the metaphoricall wine of celestiall ioyes So now he first speaketh of the corporall then of the spirituall and euerlasting life which our Blessed Sacrament of his owne nature yeildeth to all such as daily receaue it although Manna yielded not as much as the corporall if they doe not after by sinne willfully destroy the quickening grace and liuely seed it imparteth vnto them And thus the wordes are of more emphasy the comparison more pithy and the preheminence of the Eucharist aboue Manna more remarkable then if our Sauiour had spoken in both places only of the spirituall Lastly if our Sectaryes expound S. Iohn of the eating by fayth how vncongruously will they make S. Paul to speake writing of the same matter and saying He that eatech vnworthily which 1. Cor. 11. v. 27. cannot be properly attributed to the belieuer because he that belieueth not as he ought doth either falsly or fainedly belieue we cannot with any congruity of speach say that he belieueth vnworthily therefore as S. Paul so likewise S. Iohn ought to be vnderstood not of the spirituall but of the corporall eating of Christs sacred flesh 10. That which M. Bilson alleadgeth out of Gelasius S. Leo condemning the Communion vnder one kind Bils 4. par pag. 684. 685. Gelas can Comperiâ—ê° dist 2. Leo. ser 4. de quadra is of no force at all For they condemne the dry Communion not of the Catholiks but of the Manichees who teaching that Christ brought into this world and walked vpon earth with a meere empty and phantasticall body deuoyd of true and natural bloud they in testimony of this errour abstained from the bloud with great sacriledge as Gelâ—sius writeth deuided one and the selfe same mistery which all Catholikes had iust cause to reprehend in them no Protestant any cause to obiect against vs who neither deuide the mistery nor abstaine from the bloud but constantly teach that by fequele concomitance we receaue it wholy and entirely contained in the body we inioy the full participation of Christ Fulke loco â—itato Bils 4. par pag. 682. as M. Fulke requireth 11. At last both he and D. Bilson ioyntly oppose the Practise of the vniuersall Church which for many ages togeather ministred the Sacrament vnder both kinds euen to the Laity I grant that the Church vsed it as a thing lawfull not as a Aug. epist 23. ad Bonif Tolet. Con. cap. 11. Tho. 3. p. q. 80. art 9. ad 3. Cypr. serm de lapsis thing prescribed or decreed by God or vniuersally without exception in all times and places practised Which manner of receauing the Church might after change when her Communicaâ—ts were so many as wine sufficient could not be fitly consecrated nor without eminent perill of shedding or danger of abusing be conueniently ministred It was an vsuall custome both in the Greeke and Latine Church for many ages to communicate with the Chalice young sucking babes of which S. Augustine the x j. Toletan Councell and S. Thomas make mention And S. Cyprian writeth of the consecrated Bloud powred into the mouth of an Infant But as the Church vpon iust cause abrogated that custome leauing the children the benefit of neither kind without any wrong vnto them and Protestants allow hereof why write they so bitterly against debarring the people vpon as many important reasons from the vse of the Chalice where notwithstanding the whole fruit and benefit thereof to their comfort remayneth 12. Besides in many things you your selues who count it in vs a crime so damnable stray from that which Christ practised in the institution of the Sacramenâ— for example Christ communicated only men you women also he in a priuate house you in a publike Temple he at night you in the morning he with * For
the Iewes had no other then vnleaâ—ened bread at that tyme. Exod. 12. Ther shall not be found leanened in your houses Luc. 24. Aug. l. 3. de consen Euang. c. 25. Chry. hom 17. oper imperfect in Matth. Theoph. in eumlocum Beda in iâ— loc Luc. Act. 2. v. 42. 20. v. 7. vnleauened you with leauened bread his Communicants receaued sitting yours kneeling his after yours before meat may you in these points vary from Christ and may not we by the ineriable warrant of his Church alter that which he hath left indifferent vnto her Especially seeing she followeth herein the president of Christ who ministred the Sacrament vnder one kind only to the two Disciples at Emaus as S. Augustine S. Chrysostome Theophilact and Venerable Bede auouch the example of the Apostles who did often the like the practise of S. Paul who at Troiâ—s before he fell into danger of Ship-wracke as S. Chrysostome teacheth performed the same the prescription of Chry. hom 17. oper imperf Tertul. l. 2. â—â—vâ—or Cypr. serm de lapsis Amb. or â—â— de obitu Satyâ—i Basil ep ad Casar Euse lib. 6. bist c. 36. Pauliâ—us in vita Ambros Amphilo in vi Basil Fulke in c. 6. 10 sect 11. Conc. Tol. 2. cap. 11. August serm 252. detemp Conc. Anâ—ifiod cap. 3â— 38. Ambr. in orat de obitu Satyrifratris sui Basil ep ad Caesar am Patric Alâ—uinus l. de Offi. Eccles c. de Parasâ—eue Inno. â— ep 1. cap. 4. Euseb loc citato Fulke vbi suprâ— the ancient Church which ministred to Children only the bloud reserued most commonly the body alone both in priuate houses and in Wildernesses for the Ermites as Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Ambrose and S. Basil testifie housled the sicke often vnder one kind after which manner Serapion S. Ambrose S. Basill receiued their Viaticum lying on their death beds witnesse Eusebius Paulinus and Amphilochius 13. M. Fulke laboureth to auoid the authorities of these Fathers by two Sophisticall shifts First by the figure of Synecdoche which taketh the part for the whole secondly by disgracing the practise S. Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Basil S. Chrysostome Eusebius and others record with the note of a superstitious custome Where on the one side he ouerthroweth himselfe he contradicteth on the other those learned writers He ouerthroweth himselfe calling it a superstitious custome which must consequently sauour of some point of Popery conformable to our ancient prescription and wholy disagreable to his new inuented doctrine He contradicteth those learned Fathers who expresly speake of the sole infusioÌ„ of the bloud into the mouthes of yong sucking babes or into the mouths of the sicke who could not for drinesse receaue the body as it was decreed in the second Toletan Councell Of fine Linnen clothes called Dominicaâ—â—a prouided by deuout women to in wrap the body vnfit to infold the bloud Of a sole particle of the body which S. Ambrose his brother inclosed in a Pix and hanged for safegard about his necke Of keeping the body so long in Alexandriâ— Aegypt those hoat Countries where the wine without corruption could not be reserued nor carried with safty nor kept with decency Of the Custome of the Roman Church whose Priest vpon Good-friday many yeares agoe communicated only vnder one kind as Alcuinus and Innocentius the first â—elate Of the moysture which was vsed for the better swallowing downe of the Host mentioned by Eusebius altogeather needlesse if the Cup had beene exhibited Where I desire the Reader to register the folly of M. Fulke who affirmeth the moistned Sacrament whereof Eusebius speaketh To be the Cup dropped into the mouth of â—erapion whereas it was the body dipped in some prophane liquor the easier to swallow downe that diuine food But any Common liquor faithfully receaued is wholy as good as the wine of their Table therefore he may wel entitle it the Cup of his Communion 14. Not the Fathers only our Sectaries also Vrbanus Vrbanus Regius in li. de locis com 69. Luther ep ad Bohemoâ— christus inquit hac in re nihil tâ—quaÌ„ necessarium praecepit Melanct. in Centu. ep thâ—o pag. 252. Bucer in Colloq Raâ—isbon Iewel in his Reply p. 110. 106. Regius a Lutheran Doctour confesseth the Sacramont in one kind to haue beene ordained in the first Councell at Ephesus about a thousand yeares before the Synode of Basill or Constance for extinguishing Nestorious heresie who held the Body without the Bloud in the one the Bloud without the Body in the other kind comprised Yea M. Luther the Protestants first Progenitour and chiefest Patriarch affirmeth That Christ commanded nothing as necessary touching Communion vnder one or both kinds And Melancthon his scholler and Bucer with him accounteth it as a matter of indifferency as many other Protestants doe whom M. Iewell in his Reply neither reproueth or gaine-sayth And it is strange the Sacramentaries should begin to plead for the necessity of both who beleeue their bread and wine to be nothing els but outward tokens to stirre vp their faith memory and deuotion which may be farre better excited by the sight and view of the seuerall Hosts which our Priests doe offer then by the participation of the signes their Ministers exhibit Or if they will needs tast of the Cup we allow our faithfull Communicants whatsoeuer they for their Sect-mates prouide and the same for which they contend We minister to our Laity the wine of the Grape the dayntiest Nectar of their Communion Table we affoard them besides the precious food of Christs Body and Bloud a Celestiall banquet infinitely surpassing their poore prophane and hungry feast 15. Goe then M. Bilson goe M. Fulke goe you Sectaries reuile and vpbraid vs as transgressors of Christs commandement goe you their fauoruits declaime in your Oratories and crie out in the Pulpits that we defraud the people of the Cup of their saluation of the Communion of Christs Bloud Whereas you are they who rob them indeed of the sacred Bloud and Body also bereaue them of their spirituall life and of all the heauenly delights and treasures of their soule yeelding bare signes vaine figures in lieu of the diuine verities and reall substances our Blessed Sauiour bequeathed vnto them And we fensed by Christ by his Apostles by the Church the neuer-erring Spouse of our Lord refreshing all with the maine fountaine of life performe it in that manner as is most behoofull for time for place for Priests and People THE SIXTH CONTROVERSY CONVINCETH The Necessity of Confession against D. Sparkes and D. Fulke CHAP. 1. I May fitly compare the Sectaries of our tyme as S. Gregory NazianzeÌ„ doth that enemy of God Iulian the Apostata Nazian orat 1. in Iulianum Sparkes in his answer to M. Iohn de Albins pag. 3. 6. 337. Eu. ke in cap. 20. 10. sect 5. Kemnitius in Censu ad c. 5. Conâ—ilâ— Trident. to the Camclion For as he changeth himselfe into all variety
Apostles tyme who florished not six hundred whole years before Gregory not fiue hundred before Leo. Whereupon the worthy Authour of the fornamed Apology citeth Caluin Musculus D. Whitguift D. Couell affirming amongst the Apostles themselues there was one chiefe who had chiefe authority ouer the rest And D. Couell approueth that saying of Hierom Among the twelue one was chosen that a chiefe or head being appointed occasion of dissention might be preuented 20. Now let vs examine what M. Reynoldes and M. Bilson oppose against vs and these their Sect-mates They produce S. Hilary S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome and others interpreting the Rocke whereupon the Church is built to be the fayth which Peter confessed of Christ. I graunt they apply the Rocke to Peters fayth but therein they imply the person of Peter For they meane not it should be built on that fayth separate from Peter but vpon Peter confessing it or vpon his fayth and confession as proceeding from him which is all one in effect maketh nothing against vs. Then they obiect That Peter and Paul gaue the right handes of fellowship ech to other That the rest of the Apostles as S. Cyprian writeth were the selfe same that Peter was endued with like fellowship of honour and power I answere Foure things are to be considered in the Apostles 1. Their Apostolicall dignity 2. Their power of preaching 3. Their order of Priesthood 4. Their power of regiment or iurisdiction I confesse then the Apostles were all fellowes equall in Apostleship equall in authority of preaching equall in Priesthood for they could all equally consecrate the Body and bloud of Christ but they were not equall in regiment not equall in iurisdiction because the Iurisdiction of the rest was subiect to Peters theirs vniuersall and absolute ouer others Peters ouer others and Leo Epict. 84. ad Anastas Episc c. 11. them themselues Which S. Leo insinuated saying Among the BB. Apostles in the likenes and equality of honour there was a certaine difference of power And whereas the election of all was equall yet to one it was giuen to be preheâ—â—inent aboue the rest 21. But M. Reynoldes vrgeth The Apostles which were Reyn. c. 4. diuis 3. fol. 1â—7â— Act. 8. v. 14. Act. 11. v. 3. at Hierusalem sent Peter and Iohn to the people of Samaria The Apostles and Brethren that were in Iury called Peter to an account when he had preached to Cornelius Therefore he was not head of the rest I answere there be foure sorts of missions or sendings The one by naturall propagation as the tree sendeth forth her branches the branches their leaues or by inward procession as the Father and the Sonne sent the holy Ghost the third person in Trinity The second is by authority or command as the Lord sendeth his vassall the maister his seruant which supposeth inferiority or subiection The third is by lot suffrage or election as many fellowes of a house or parteners of an incorporation send one of their companions Iosue 22. v. 13. which argueth equality The fourth is by aduise and humble intreaty as the people of the Iewes sent Phinees the high Priest to the sonnes of Ruben and Gad. And as the Counsell may aduise the King to vndertake some heroicall enterprize for the good of the Common-wealth which importeth superiority in him that is sent 22. And thus S. Peter by intreaty was sent to the See Lorin in Act. 11. vers 2. people of Samaria and he of curtesy or charity rather did giue an account afterward why he preached to the Gentils by telling the vision he receaued of Gods diuine pleasure therein to instruct such of the Apostles as doubted whether the time were yet expedient to admit the Gentils or free them that were addmitted from the burden of the law if at least they were the Apostles as S. Chrysostom and Hugo teacheth who reasoned heereof Or he gaue Chrys Hugo in hunc loc Epiphan haeres 28. that account to free himselfe from the calumniation of his enemies and scandall of the Iewes if it were as Epiphauius thinketh Cerinthus the Arch-heretike who stirred vp the people to expostulate that matter with him both wayes he might of great humility and singular charity deliuer what he did and be sent as he was without any abasement to the Primacy of his Apostleship 23. To the other obiections that Peter was reprehended Bils par pag. 69. Calu. l. 4â— Inst c. 6. §. 7. Tertul. in praescript cap. 23. by Paul that Paul was appointed the Apostle of the Gentils Peter of the Iewes therefore not superiour to Paul or in dignity aboue him I answere the thing for which Peter was reprehended and resisted by S. Paul was an errour of fact not of fayth It was as Tertullian sayth Conuersationis vitium non praedicationis a fault of conuersation not of preaching And it is lawfull for the inferiour vpon iust cause with modesty and reuerence to correct his Superiour as S. Augustine declareth by this reprehension S. Paul the later Apostle vsed to S. Peter Secondly I reply to the second branch of this obiection The diuision which was made betweene S. Peter and S. Paul of assigning the Iewes to one and Gentils to the other was no diuision or limitation of Iurisdiction but a distribution only of Prouinces for the more commodious preaching of the Ghospell And therefore as S. Paul was not restrained heereby from intermedling with the Iewes whom the acts of the Apostles report as the worthy Bellar. l. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 16. Carninall Bellarmine diligently quoteth euery where to haue entred their Synagogues and to haue preached vnto them So S. Peter by his particuler regard and care of the Iewes was no way abridged from his generall charge and care of Gentils neither did he heereupon preach only in Iury or in the Prouinces adioyning not Baron in annal an Christ. 44. 45. in Syria Bithynia Pontus Galatia Cappadocia but as vniuersall Pastour he planted the fayth sent preachers ordayned Priestes consecrated Bishopes in the vniuersall Church So he placed S. Marke at Alexandria Euodius at Antioch Iason at Thessalonia at Rauenna Apollinaris at Capua Rufus Euprepius at Verona at Naples Aspernates Prochorus at Nicomedia So as many Ecclesiasticall histories Metaphrastes apud SuriuÌ„ die 29. â—umj record he appointed Sixtus in France Martiall and Eucherius in Germany Torquatns in Spaine Marcianus Berillus and Philippus in Sicily diuers in Italy where he raysed his seate which be as all Cosmagraphers describe the CouÌ„tryes of Gentils 24. And Innocentius concludeth that S. Peter sent ministers Inno. primus in ep 1. ad Decennium of the word and Sacramentes throughout all the west the north throughout all Asia and the Ilands that lye betweene He to whome Christ committed the charge of all his sheep tooke care to prouide food for all his pastorall solicitude reached euen to the vttermost partes of the world Enioy therefore
hier cap. 4. Concil Agâ—â—hens can 14. Aug. ser 19. de Sanctis Optatus lib. cont Parm. Peter Mart. in his com places in English pag. 227. Cartwrig in his 2. reply p. 264. Centurist Centur. 4. col 409. Centur. 3. cap. 4. colum 83. Greg. Nazi in ep 8. ad Simplician Fulke in his reioynder to Bristowes reply p. 28. Calu. in Haeb. c. 7. v. 9. pag. 9. 4. in tract theolog pag. 389. Neither M. Higgons nor any Catholike writer euer maintained any such intention of helping all The Patriarches Prophets and Martyrs are remembred and not desired to be holpen the damned who dye in mortall sin are neither holpen nor remeÌ„bred as you may often read in S. Augustine and generally in all the rest howbeit you guilfully misconstrue some of their sayings to be meant of the mitigation of their paines But there are some of a middle sort who depart this life neither deadlywounded nor perfectly recouered of the infirmityes of sinne these only they intended to relieue as M. Higgons proueth and you without iugling should haue laboured to disproue 15. Your answeres to his former two differences are as full fraught with vntruth as this with fraudulency and deceit For you reply to the first We haue Altars in the same sort the Fathers had c. To the second We admit the Eucharist to be rightly named a Sacrifice Both cunning escheats You haue spirituall Altars only they had corporall and externall By nature common stones by blessing Holy and immaculate S. Gregory Nissen On which we Sacrifice vnto one God which were consecrated with Chrisme and the signe of the Crosse S. Augustine S. Dionyse and the Councell of Agatho Which were seats and receptacles of the body bloud of Christ Optatus Sayings disliked by Peter Martyr M. Cartwright and the Centurists who also affirme That the Altars erected within the first 400. yeares after Christ from Iewish obseruation crept into the Church 16. Secondly they had true and proper Sacrifices vnbloudy victimes propitiatory Hosts as I haue largely demonstrated in the Controuersy of the Masse They had A Sacrifice offered to God the Father wherin the Priest supplyeth as S. Cyprian according to the Centurists superstitiously writeth the roome of Christ. They had a Sacrifice The name whereof as M. Fulke affirmeth they tooke of Iewes and Gentils and not from Scripture They as Caluin sayth forged a Sacrifice in the Lords supper without his Commandment and so adulterated the supper with adding of Sacrifice And in another treatise The ancients quoth he are not to be excused for it is apparent they haue heerein swarued from the pure and proper institution of Christ. 17. Now M. Field haue you I pray such Altars such Sacrifices as these Such Altars as Crept into your Church from the Iewish custome Such Sacrifices as were forged without our Lords Commandment Such as adulterated his supper Such as swarued from the pure and proper institution of Christ If you haue let your hart abhorre these villanous inuectlues pronounced against them by the principal Captaines of your sect If not let your Pen retract your former asseueratioÌ„ Let it disclaime from the Altars and Sacrifices of the Fathers and be content to haue no society with them in these as your men account Superstitious abuses 18. In fine the chiefe Ring-leaders of the Protestants Centu. loc citat profession do not only reiect the Altars condemne the Sacrifices but they controle also the very manner of prayer the Fathers vsed for the Dead Therefore they practised some other kind then those foure which M. Calu. l. 3. Inst c. 5. §. 10. Bulling Decad. 4. serm 10. Field his consortes allow Caluin sayth About one thousand three hundred years ago it was receaued as a coÌ„mon custom to vse Prayers for the dead c. But they were all I confesse beguiled with errour Bullinger writeth I know â—he Ancients prayed for the dead I know the excellent Doctour S. Augustine the eloquent S. Chrysostome and many other old and renowned men what they haue left written of this matter I know the Fathers affirme prayer for the dead to be a TraditioÌ„ of the Apostls And S. Augustine Aug. ser 32. de verb. Aposto Centu. 3. c. 5. col 138. Osiand Cent. 3. l. 1. c. 5. p. 10 Hosp in hist Sacr. pag. 167. Spark p. 371. 372. Fulke in c. 10. 1. ep ad Cor. sect 8. prope finem Fulke in his Confutation of Purgatory pag. 262. writeth It is obserued in the vniuersal Church that Sacrifice be offered for the dead I know Aerius was condemned because he disauowed these Prayers But I aske whether the Fathers did well heerin or no The Centurists and Osiander blame Tertullian because he approued Oblations for the Dead and Anniuersary-prayers in their Obite-dayes Hospinian affirmeth of S. Cyril He sayd indeed according to the preuailing custome of his tyme that the Sacrifice of the Altar is a great help to soules Of S. Augustine D. Sparkes He was both greatly carryed by the sway and opinions of the multitude in determining the auaylablenes of prayers for the dead Whereupon in the very next page he sayth I may lawfully discent from him in that case M. Fulke auerreth Prayer for the dead was the drosse of Augustine and Chrysostome Tertullian sayth he S. Cyprian S. Augustine S. Hierome and a great many more do witnesse That Sacrifice for the dead is the Tradition of the Apostles 19. Another where he sayth But of memories of the Dead and prayers for the dead also we will not striue but that they were vsed before the tyme of Bede Ephrem Ambrose but without warrant of Gods word or authorityes of Scripture Indeed Is this the cause you reproue a custome so general supported by the greatest Pillers both of the Greeke Latine Church because they want the testimonyes of holy Writ for such is your common excuse repeated in another place We must not belieue Chrysostome without Scripture affirming that mention of the dead in the celebration of the Lords supper was ordained by the Apostles Would not a man thinke this Ghospeller meant to imbrace S. Chrysostome and admit those ancient Writers if they countenanced their assertions with the authority of the Ghospell Would not a man thinke he would then submit his iudgement vnto theirs No other sense I wis can be picked from his wordes notwithstanding farre other is his meaning this is a veile to couer his shame a disguised glosse of speach to pretend the awe and reuerence of Gods word when as neither God nor man neither humane writing nor heauenly Oracles doth he regard vnles they sound very tuneable to his straine Which that you may not condemne as a forgery deuised by me read the sayings of these Fathers and confront with them his answeres 20. S. Augustine first proueth that prayer for the dead disagreeth not from Scripture Not from that of S. Paul We ought all to be summoned before the tribunall
l. de Euchar opinion of the Church concerning imputatiue Iustice. The like accusation of the most ancient Fathers made by Bullinger D. Whitguift Humfrey Whitaker and others you may see heereafter recyted in the Treatise of merit and in the first part of this worke in the Controuersy of Satisfaction which more then aboundantly conuinceth the consent Feild in append 1. p. fol. 19. of the Primitiue Church for of the later there is no doubt to be wholy with vs in this substantiall point of Fayth and that our Reformers bandy against it and the long continued current of truth in all tymes and Countryes euer since Howbeit M. Field to win credit with the simple audaciously craketh We no way oppose our selues against the vniuersall resolution and practise of the whole Church which to do Augustine pronounceth insolent madnes Let this then M. Field be your taske or let some of your * Thus S. Ambrose derideth ProtestaÌ„ts before they were hatched l. 10. ep â—p 82. new Maisters take the payns to discouer some other publick or hidden Congregration of theirs some other pastours besids the fornamed who taught your doctrine and reproued our errours in S. Cyprian S. Hierome S. Austine the rest as the true sheepheards watchmeÌ„ ouer the house of God haue alwayes done Were they reckoned such small defects as might be cloaked dissembled And not essentiall not fundameÌ„tall points of fayth which shake the whole ground of Religion Were they whispered in corners by some vnknowne or obscure companions not printed in books preached in pulpits diuulged to the whole world by sundry troups of learned men in such vast Regious kingdomes and not one of your â—olifidian professours to open their mouth against them Shall we expect after so long tyme your wresting of their words to some fauourable exposition of your deuising The Centurists your own Collegues partners in beliefe wanted neither will wit diligence or cunning to haue performed it had they not found their sayings vnanswerable their words vndefeatable the mayne drift scope of their discourses wholy vncapable of other construction Shall we thinke they also fauoured the opinion of Protestants and so breathed out of the same mouth truth falshood fire water heate Pomeran vbi supra cold as Pomerane blasphemeth or which is all one that they contradicted themselues as the Centurists sticke not in plaine tearmes to auerre of Clemens Alexandrinus that famous Cent. 2. c. 4. Colum. 6â— Cent. 5. c. â— Colum. 1008. Writer and Maister to Origen and of Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus It were too notorious a stumbling and headlong course not heard of before that so huge an army of deuout and learned pillers of the Church should all vniformely precipitate and contradict themselues in this sole point In a chiefe point of Fayth and that not once or twice but ech of them diuers and sundry tymes and none to haue the grace to see so great an ouersight or seeing it to amend it to recant it to seeke to reconcile it with other of their sayings no zealous man in the whole world for so many ages who durst note or twite them of it vntill drunken Lutherans enraged with the fury of an Apostata Frier began to espy that horrible Antichristian and often repeated contradiction It is incredible it cannot be imagined or of it could certes they were no Protestants who maintayned beleeued an article of Fayth quite opposite to the life of Protestancy or worse then Infidells who sought to perswade and inculcate to others that which they beleeued not or knew to be falfe Fye vpon such impious Chams as cannot vphold their follyes without disgracing their predecessours who cannot enter the kingdome of heauen without they condemne these Saints into the pit of hell nor become Christians themselues without making them impious Luth. tom 5. in Gal. c. 4. f. 382. hypocrits damnable Idolaters for no better doth Luther account such as dissent from him and his mates in the iustice of only Fayth Let vs heare his words 13. Whosoeuer falleth from the article of Iustification he becommeth ignorant of God and is an Idolater therefore it is all Luth. ibid. fol. 400. one whether he be a Monke a Turke a Iew or Anabaptist for this article once taken away there remayneth nothing but meere errour hipocrisy impiety idolatry although in shew there appeare excellent truth worship of God holynes c. And some VVhitak l. 8. aduers Dureum and in his answere to 〈◊〉 Câ—mpiaÌ„â— râ—ason Abbot in his defence caâ— 4. Fulke vpon sundry of these places against the new Testam few lines after If that face and forme of old papistry stood now if that discipline were obserued now with so much seruerity and rigour as the Hereâ—its as Hierome Augustine Gregory Bernard Francis Dominicke and many others obserued it little perhaps should I profit by my doctrine of Fayth against that state of papistry yet neuertheles after the example of Paul inueighing against the false Apostles in appearance most holy good men I ought to fight against such Iustice workers-of the Papistical kingdome Thus he confessing S. Hierome S. Augustine S. Gregory S. Bernard c. to haue beene iustice-workers of our kingdome and to haue beene bondmen of the law of sinne and the Diuell cast out of the house of God as he wretchedly auoweth in the same place of which some of his followers being since ashamed haue clipped and pared off much of this his discourse in the later editions But it is high time to view the forces wherein the Aduersary confideth 14. The huge host of obiections which the mutinous enemy disorderly leuieth against vs the Tenent of their Ancestours in â—his and the former two Controuersyes I for more perspicuity and orders sake sunder and part into diuers wings or squadrons In the first I rank those texts of Scripture which attribute vnto Fayth the corporall benefite of health or saluation by which the Matth. â— v. 22. Luc. 18. v. 42. Luc. 8. v. 50. Luc. 17. v. 19. Matth. â— v. 2. spirituall was betokned because our Sauiour seldome cured any in body whome he cured not also in soule As when to the woman troubled with an issue of bloud he sayd Haue a good hart daughter thy Fayth hath made thee safe To the blind man Do thou see thy fayth hath made thee whole To the Prince of the Synagogue Feare not beleeue only and she shal be safe To the cured leaper Aryse go thy wayes because thy fayth hath made thee safe Likewise Iesus seeing their fayth sayd to the sicke of the palsey Haue a good hart Sonne thy sinnes are forgiuen thee These and the like which our aduersaryes produce rather witnes against them then speake in their behalfe for not one of them mentioneth their speciall assurance and particuler fayth relying on the mercy of God remitting their sinnes of which the fornamed Calu. l.