for us Now though Christs Body is not according to his materiall substance wholly and intirely under the outward elements yet the Bread may bee truly termed Christs Body because of a Relative and Sacramentall union and donation of the thing signified together with the Signes worthily received PA. What reason have you to interpret these words figuratively this is my body that is this bread is a signe of my body and not plainely and literally as they sound PRO. Figurative speeches are oftentimes plaine speeches now there be no other Figures or Tropes in the Lords Supper but such as are and alwaies were usuall in Sacraments and familiarly knowne to the Church Now Sacraments must bee expounded Sacramentally and accordingly the words alledged must not bee taken literally but figuratively Christ taking bread and breaking bread said of the same This is my body now this cannot bee properly taken therefore for the right expounding of these words we are necessarily to have recourse to a figurative interpretation and the reason hereof is that common Maxime Disparatum de disparato non propriè praedicatur that is nothing can bee properly and literally affirmed joyntly of another thing which is of a different nature By this rule bread and Christs body cannot bee properly affirmed one of another bread being of a different nature from flesh can no more possibly be called the flâ—sh or body of Christ literally than lead can be called wood and this makes us interpret the words figuratively and wee have in Scripture most manifest places which proove these woâ—ds This is my body to be figuratively taken and understood because in Scripture whensoever the signe as the Bread being called Christ's body hath the name appellation of the thing signified the speech is alwayes tropicall and figurative And this agreâ—th with S. Austiâ—s Rule Sacraments bee signes which often doe take the names of those things which they doe signifie and represent therefore doe they carry the names of the things themselves thus is the signe of the Passeover the Lambe called the Passeover Math. 26.17 Exod. 12.11 27. the Rocke the signe of Christ in his passion is called Christ and the Rocke was Christ 1. Cor. 10 4. Circmmcision the signe of the Covenant called the Covenant and Bapâ—isme the signe of Christs buriall called Christs buriall for so saith S. Augustine that as Baptisme is called Christs buriall so is the Sacrament of the Body of Christ callâ—d his Body Now this shew or semblance of words concludes not that Christ or the Lambe were really the Rocke the Passeover but that these things are meant figuratively it being usuall in Scripture specially in such Sacramentally speeches as this is we are now about to give the name of the thing to that which it betokeneth and so to call Circumcision the Covenant because it is a signe thâ—t betokneth the Covenant and so of the rest Besides the other part of the Sâ—crament to wit This Cup is the New Testament in my blood Luke 22.20 is figurativâ— and not to be literally taken for you your selves sâ—y that Calix or the Cup is there taken for that which is iâ— the cup so that your sâ—lves admit a trope in the institution of this Sacrament PAP If these figurative speâ—ches were true yet I cannot see what argument you can draw from hence or how you can hence prove any thing against our Tenet saith our â—nglish Baron for it is a rule in Divinitie that Theologia Symbolica non est aâ—gumentativa that figurative speeches affoord no certaine proofe in matters of Faith PRO. The zeâ—lous Reverend and learned L. Bishop of Durâ—sme Doctor Morton tells your Baron and his Suggester that upon the no-pâ—oper sense of the words This is my body it must follow that there is no Transubstantiation in your Romish Masse no Corporall presence no râ—all Sacrifice no proper eating no lawfull divine adoration therof and as for the rule that Symbolicall arguments mâ—ke no necessary Conclusions the said learned and reveâ—end Father saith That this makes not against us touching the fiâ—urative woâ—ds of Christ This is my body the position maketh onely against them who extract either a liteâ—all sense out of a parabolicall and figurative speech as Origen did when having râ—ad that scriptureâ— Thâ—re bee some that castrate thâ—msâ—lves for the kingdome of God whâ—ch was but a pâ—rabolicall speech hee did really and thereforâ— fâ—â—lishly castrate himselfe or else when men tâ—râ—e the words of Scripture properly and literally spoken intâ—â— figurative meaningâ— as when Pope Innoâ—ent thâ— third tâ— pâ—oove that his Papall authoritie was above thâ— Impâ—riall aâ—lâ—dged that Scripture Gen. 1. God made two great lights the Sun and the Moone as if the Imperiall like the Moone had borrowed its authoritie from the Papall as from the Sun or as Pope Boniface 8 from those words Luk. 22. Behold here are two swords argued that both the temporall and spirituall sword are in the Pope as he is Vicar of Christ. Now such kinde of Symbolicall reasoning is indeed of no force â—ut by that position was it never forbid whensoever in Scripture the name of the thing signified is attributed to the symbol or signe that then the Symbolicall and Sacramental speech should be judged tropicall But this kind of exposition was alwayes approved of Christ and by his Church so here Christ taking bread and breaking bread which was the symbol and signe of Christs body and saying of the same Bread This is my body the sense cannot possibly bee literall but alâ—ogether figuâ—ative as hath bin shewne by divers â—xamples in Scripture to wit the signe of the passing over called the Passeover the Rock but a signe of Christ called Christ In each onâ— of these the Symbols being a Signe and Figuâ—e the speech must infallibly bee Figurative And therefore Bread being a Figure of Christs Body is called Christs body Figuratively And thus farre our learned Bishop of Duresme Of Images and Prayer to Saints The Church of Rome holds that Images are to bee had and retained and that due honour worship and veneration is to bee given to them The Church of England holds that the Romish doctrine of Adoration of Images and Reliques and also of Invocation of Saints is grounded upon no warraâ—tie of Scripture but rather repâ—gnant to the word of God And so indeed we finde that the Lord in his Morall law hath condemned in gâ—nerall all Imaâ—eâ— and Idols devised by man for worshâ—p and adoration And this Precept being a part of his Morall law it binds us in the state of the new Testament as it did the Israelites of old for in all the Apostles doctrine wee doe not finde that ever this prâ—câ—pt was abâ—ogated so that it bindes Israelites Christians and all PA. If all worship of Images be forbidden Exod. 20. ver 4 5. then all making of them is forbidden for the same precept which saith thou shalt not bow downe
Christ gave unto his Disciples a Figure of his Body Therefore Christ had a true Body Tertullians words are these Christ taking the Bread and distributing it to his Disciples made it his Body saying This is my Body that is to say this is a figure of my Body but a figure it could not be unlesse there were a Body of a truth and in deed for a void thing as is a fantasie can receive no figure Here Tertullian affirmeth expressely of Bread which he received into his hand and distributed to his Disciples that it it is a figure of Christs Body The Rhemists answer that when some Fathers call the Bread a figure or signe they meane the outward formes of Bread and Wine but Tertullian proving the truth of Christs humanitie by the Sacrament of the Supper interprets these words This is my Body that is to say the figure of my Body where if by the figure of Christs Body there were nothing else to be understood but the formes and outward shapes the Hereâ—ike upon this construction might have concluded for himselfe that the figure of his Body is nothing but a bare forme and shape of a thing therefore he himselfe was nothing else but a â—hew of a Body no true Body Others expound Tertullians words in this sort The figure of my Body is my Body or this Bread which under the Law was a figure of my Body is now my Body But Tertullian both here and in divers other places makes Bread the Subject of the proposition this is my Body now the Accidents and shape of Bread are not Bread In a word Tertullian sheweth that Christ called Bread his Body in saying this is my Body as the Prophet Ieremie called the body bread in saying Let us put wood upon his bread meaning his Body shewing them both to be spoken equally in a figurative sense For although Tertullian say that the Bread of the Old Testament was a figure of Christs body yet he denyeth not thereby that it is so in the new The truth is Tertullians exposition is so full for us that Gregorie Valence rejects it Cyprian in the third Epistle of his second booke saith Wee find that the Cup which the Lord offered was mixed and that that which he called bloud was wine So that if we aske Cyprian what consecrated thing it was which Christ had in his hands and gave to his Disciples he answereth it was bread and wine and not absolutely that which hee gave up to be crucified on the Crosse by Souldiers namely his body and bloud if againe we demand of Cyprian why Christ called the bread which he had in his hand his body he readily answereth saying the things signifying or signes are called by the same names whereby the things signified are termed Objection Cyprian saith that this bread is changed not in shape but in nature naturâ mutatus and by the omnipotencie of God is made flesh now omnipotencie is not required to make a thing to be a signe significant Answer Bellarmine saith Cyprian was not the Author of the booke De Coenâ Domini and he saith well for these Sermons are extant in All-Soules Colledge Library in Oxford in an ancient Manuscript under the name of Arnoldus Bonavillacensis and Dedicated not to Pope Cornelius as these are pretended but to Adrian the fourth about the yeare 1150 the same time that Saint Bernard lived and wrote an Epistle to this Arnoldus But to let it passe for Cyprians it followes not the bread is changed in nature therefore it is Transubstantiated for every change of nature is not a change of substance nature implies qualities and properties as well as substances an evill man changeth his nature when he becomes a good man yet is he not Transubstantiated bread is châ—nged when of common it becomes consecrated to an holy use and office and omnipotencie is required to make the dead and corruptible elements a bit of bread and a draught of wine not onely significative but truly exhibitive seales of the body and bloud of Christ and to elevate them so high as to bee chanels and effectuall instruments of Grace Besides the Author by the words naturâ mutatus changed in naâ—ure understood not a coporall change for in the same sentence he declareth himselfe by the example of Christs humanitie which being personally united to the Deitie is changed but not so as that it looseth his naturall forme and substance Origen against Christs Body going into the Draught To proceed Origen saith that meat which is Sanctified by Gods Word and Prayer as touching the materiall part thereof goeth into the belly and is voyded into the draught but as touching the Prayer which is added according to the portion of Faith it is made profitable neither is it the matter of bread but the word spoken over it which profits him that doth not unworthily eate thereof and these things I speake of the Typicall and Symbolicall bodie Here wee see Origen distingâ—isheth betweene the Spirituall bread which is the reall body of Christ and the bread Sacramentall saying that not that body but this bread goeth into the draught or seege which no sanctified heart can conceive of Christs body Now whereas Bellarmine saith that the Accidents onely are called by Origen the materiall part wee answer that it was never heard that meere Accidents were called which are Origens words in this place either meates or materialls The truth is this place of Origens touching the typical and symbolical body is so cleere for us that Sixtus Senensis growes jealous of it to speake my mind freely saith he I suspect this place to bee corrupted by Heretikes Of Images and Prayer to Saints Concerning Images Origen replieth thus to Celsus the Philosopher that it is not a thing possible that one should know God and Pray to Images and that Christians did not esteeme these to be Divine Images who used not to describe any figure of God who was invisible and without all bodily shape nor could endure to worship God with any such kinde of service as this was In like manner when the Gentiles demanded of the ancient Christians why they had no knowne Images Minutius Felix returnes them for answer againe What Image shall I make to God when man himselfe if thou rightly judge is Gods Image and againe we neither worship nor wish for Crosses these holy Images which vaine men serve want all sense because they are earth Now who is there that understandeth not that it is unâ—it for an upright creature to be bowed downe that he may worship the earth which for this cause is put under our feete that it may be troden upon not worshipped by us wherefore there is no doubt that there is no Religion wheresoever there is an Image thus farre Lactantius Tertullian stood not onely against adoration of Images but alâ—o against the very making
Timothie was it holds in others also for if the Scripture be so profitable for such and such uâ—eâ— that thereby it perfects a Divine much more an ordinary Christian that which can peâ—fit the teacher is sufficient for the learner PA. Doe you disclaime all Traditions PRO. We acknowledge Traditions concerning Discipline and the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church but not concerning the doctrine or matter of faith Religion You equalize unwritten traditions to holy Scripture receiving them saith your Trent Councell with equall reverence and religious affection as you receive the holy Scriptures themselves we daâ—e not doe so but such traditions as we râ—ceive we hold and esteeme farre inferiour Concerning the Scriptuâ—e Canon the Trent Councell accurseth such as receive not the Bookes of Machabees Ecclesiasticus â—oby Iudith Baruch Wisdome for Canonical Scriptuâ—e Now wee retaine the same Canon which Christ and his Apostles held and received from the Iewes unto whom were committed the Oracles of God being as Saint Augustine speakes The Christians Library-keepers Now the Iewes never received these Bookes which wee terme Apocryphall into their Canon yea Christ himselfe divided the Canon into three severall rankes iâ—to the Law the Prophets and the Psalmes now the Apocryphal come not within this reckoning Indeed as S. Hierome saith The Church reades these Bookes for example of life and instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to stablish any Doctrine Of Comunion under both kindes and the number of Sacraments If any shall say The Church was not induced for just causes to communâ—caâ—e the â—ay people under one kinde vâ—z of bread onely and shall say they â—rred in so doing let him bee accursed saith the Trent Councell Now our Chuâ—ch holds That both the parts of the Lords Sacrament ought to bâ—e ministred to all Gods people so thaâ— according to us In the publâ—kâ— celebraâ—ion of â—he Eâ—chaâ—ist Communion in boâ—h kinds ouâ—ht to bee given to all sorts of Câ—riâ—â—ians righâ—ly disposed and prepared and this oâ—â— Tenet is agâ—eâ—able to Christes Institution and Precept who saith exprâ—sly and liâ—erally Drink yee all of this It agrees aâ—so with Saint Pauls precept and with the practice of the holy Apostleâ— and the priâ—ative Church Dionysius Arcopagita who as you say was Saint Pauls Scholler and Disciple relates the practice of the Church in his time on this manner After the Priest hath prayed that hee may hoâ—â—ly distribute and that all they that are to partake of the Sacrament may receiue it worthyly he breakes the Bread into many pieces and divides one Cup among all Ignatius who was Scholler to Saint Iohn the Evangelist saith That one Bread is broken unto all and one Cup destributed unto all PA. Bellarmine saith the words of Ignatius are not as you alleage them There is one Cup distributed unto all but there is one Cup of the whole Church and though the Greeke Copies reade as you doe yet he saith That much credit is not to be given to them PROT. Shall we give more credit to a Translâ—tion then to the Originall If the Well-head and Spring bee corâ—upted how shall the Brooke or Streame runne cleare It may be indeed that divers errors are crept both into the Greeke Latine Copies but for the place alleagâ—d there is no colour of corruption in asmuch as the same that Ignatius spake of the Bread the same are repeated of the Cup according to Christs Institution and howsoever Bellarmine may produce some Latine Copie that translateth the words of Ignatius as Bellarmine sets them downe Vnus Calix totius Ecclesiae yet as D. Featly observes in the Grand Sacriledge of the Romish Church Vitlemius and divers other Latin Copies following the originall verbatim render them thus Vnus Calix omnibus distributus that is One Cup distributed unto all and not as Bellarmine and Baronius ad Ann. 109 sect 25. would have it as if Ignatius had said that one Cup was distributed not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnibus but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro omnibus not to all but for all that is for the behoofe and benefit of all Howsoever they wrest it Ignatius tels us of one Cup and this not the Priests Cup but the Churches Cup and this Cup was distributed But now adaies in the Masse there is no distribution of the Cup. PA. Christ spake these words Drinke yee all of this only to the Apostles as they were Priests and not to the Laitie PRO. By this meanes you might take away the Bread as well as the Cup from the Lay-people for when Christ administred the Sacrament none were present for ought we know but onely the Apostles Besides the Apostles were not yet fully ordained Priests though they had beene once sent to Preach Christ after his Resurrection breathed on them the holy Ghost and fully endued them with Priestly power Iohn 20.22 Againe the Apostles at this Supper were Communicants not Ministers of the Sacrament Christ was then the onely Minister in that Action Now Christ delivered them the Cup as well as the Bread saying to the same persons at the same time and in the same respect Drinke yee all of this to whom hee had said before Take and Eate giving both alike in charge so that you must either barre the people from both or admit them to both now if neither precept of eating or drinking belong to the Laitie the Laitie are not at all bound to receive the Sacrament PA. Although it be said of Drinking the Cup Doe this in remembrance of me Yet the Words Doe this are spoken Absolutely of the Bread and but Conditionally of the Cup namely as often as yee shall drinke it 1 Cor. 11.25 So that these Words Doe this in remembrance of me inferre not any Commandement of receiving in both kindes PRO. According to your Tenet our Saviour saith not Doe this as often as you Lay men communicate but whensoever you receive the Cup and drinke then doe it in remembrance of me as much as to say as often as you Lay people drinke which needeth never be done by you according to Romish Divinitie Doe this nothing in remembrance of mee Besides as there is a Quotiescunque as often set before the Cup As oft as you drinke so there is a Quotiescunque set before the Bread As often as you shall eate this Bread vers 26. so that quotiâ—scunque biberitis as often as you Drinke cannot make the Precept Conditionall in respect of the Cup more than of the Bread it being alike referred to the Bread and to the Cup. PA. We wrong not the Laitie ministring unto them under one kinde onely they receiving the same benefit by one that they should doe by both Christs body and bloud being whole in each so that the people receive the bloud together with the Host by a Concomitancy PRO. In vaine have you devised Concomitance to
disguise your sacriledge of the Cup taken from the people as if our Saviour Christ were not sparing enough in ordainiâ—g as few outward Ceremonies as might wel be but that he must doe that by two which might have beene compassed by one or as if he would have the Ministers receive his body and bloud superfluously that is to say both in the Bread and in the Cup too which was sufficiently received in either of them Againe though the devout Communicant receiving Christ spiritually by Faith is thereby possessed of whole Christ crucified in the inward act of the soule yet we deny that the whole is received Sacramentally in this outwad act under one onely part of this Sacrament so that if Concomitance were granted yet Communion in one kinde is not justifiable for although it deprive not people of Christs bloud as it is a bodily part conteined in the veines yet it depriveth them of the bloud of Christ as it was shed powred out and offered in sacrifice for them neither can suâ—h manner of receiving shew foorth the Lords death which is one chiefe end of the celebration of this Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.28 The breaking of Bread repesenteth in no wise the effusion of bloud this is lively represented by the powring out of the consecrated Wine and dâ—inking of the Cup there being a perfecter signification in both kinds then in one Lastly though the people might receive the blood together wiâ—h the host â—et he that so receives the blood cannot properly bee said to drinke now Christ saith expresly Vnlesse you drinke his blood you shall not have life in you Iohn 6.53 which place your Papists themselves understand of the Eucharist Concerning the number of Sacraments the Trent-Councell accurseth all such as shall say that the number of Sacraments is either more or lesse then seaven but our Church holds that of the Sacraments of the Newe Testament there bee two ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospell that is to say Baptisme and the Lords Supper and those five which by the Church of Rome are called Sacraments to wit Confirmation Penance Orders Matrimony and Extreame Vnction are not to be accounted Sacraments of the Gospell Now that there are and ought to be two Sacraments onely in the New Testament appeareth hereby in that there is no promise made unto us of life everlasting in Iesus Christ which is not sufficiently witnessed and assured unto us by these two Sacraments For the summe of all the promises of God in Christ is reduced unto these two heads that for his sake we are received into the favour and houshold care of God and that being once received we shall be continued in the saâ—e for ever the former whereof is sealed unto us by Baptisme for our entrance and admission into the Covenant and the later by the Lords Supper for our continuance growth and confirmation therein These two were instituted by Christ Hoc facite Doe this in remembrance of mee is our warrant for the one and goe teach and baptise for the other x there is deepe silence in the rest Of the Eucharist The Trent Councel holds that there is a conversion of the whole substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christs body and blood wrought by the words of consecration and that there onely remaine the semblances and shewes the outward shapeâ— formes or accidents of bread and wine yea the Councel accurseth such as affirme bread wine to remaine in this Sacrament after consecration And yet S. Paul tells us that after consecration it is bread which is broken and eaten it is no lesse than fivetimes so called after the pretended change Neither is it called Bread because it was bread but because it is bread not in name onely but in nature and properties for after consecration the bread and wine they nourish the body and comfort the heart as before but the bare formes of bread and wine as the roundnesse of the Hoste or colour of the Wine such as they say onely remaine the substance thereof being abolished cannot nourish without corporall substance Now our Church holds that the change of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ commonly called Transubstantiation cannot be prooved by holy Writ but is repugnant to plaine testimonies of holy Scripture PA. How doth it appeare that Christs bodie and bloud are not corporally given and taken in the Sacrament PRO. By these reasons First wee receive the body and blood of Châ—ist in the Sacrament as the Discâ—ples of Christ did in the first Iâ—stitution of it Now the body and blood of Chriâ—t were not corporally received by them but onely spiritually Secondly Christ his body is ascended and taken up into heaven and the heavens must containe him till the end of the world Thirdly Christ hath but one body and that a true body and such as cannot be in many places at once and it filleth a place wheresoever it is and may bee both seene and felt This was also the judgement of otherâ— whom you much reverence Dionysius Areopagita held not Transubstantiationâ— For he distinguisheth bâ—tweene the substantiall Signâ—s and Christ signâ—fied by them saying that By those reveâ—end Signes and Symboles Christ is signified and the faithfull made partakers of him He calleth not tâ—e ministration of the holy mysteries the sacrificing of Christ unto his Father as the Papists doe but a Typicall or Symbolicall Sacrifice that is a figuâ—e or signe of that great sacrifice and the same Denys as Bellarmine confesseth calleth the Sacrament an Anâ—iâ—ype and that after consecration so that according to Saint Denys the Elements of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament are Types Antitype and Symbols that is Figures and Signes of the body and bloud of Châ—ist and yet not onely bare naked and Signes significative but reâ—lly exâ—ibiting Christ for that is Denys his word to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the faithfull thereby partake Christ Iesus PA. The Scripture is plaine for us where Christ saith This is my Body Math. 26.26 PRO. Although Christ say This is my Body yet hee saith not as you doe this is made or shall be changed into my Body he saiâ—h not that his body and bloud is conteined under the shapes or formes of Bâ—ead and Wine Againe you that stand so for the Letter take not Christs Words litterally for it is an improper speech to say This is my Body that is the thing conteined under these formes is by conversion and substantiall transmutation my Body but your Papists mainteining Transubstantiation expound Christs words in this or the like manner therefore in the point of Transubstantiation you depart from the Letter and consequently make it figurative You indeed alleage the Words and Letter but not the true meaning we beleeve Christs words in their right sence now the shew makes for you the sence and substance
and Wine in the Sacrament of the Supper are made flesh and the bloud of Iesus in that same manner that the eternall Word of God was made flesh but so it is that the substance of the Divine nature neither evanished nor yet was changed into the substance of flesh and in like manner the Bread is made the Body of Christ neither by evanishing of the substance thereof nor yet by changing the substance thereof into another substance Iustine Martyr telleth us that the Bread and the Wine even that sanctified food wherewith our bloud and flesh by conversion are nourished is that which we are taught to be the flesh and bloud of Iesus incarnate Our Lord saith Clemens of Alexandria did blesse Wine when he said take drinke this is my bloud the bloud of the Vine Irenaeus saith that our Lord taking Bread of that condition which is usuall among us confessed it to be his Body and the Cup likewise containing that creature which is usuall among us his bloud so that in their construction it was Bread and Wine which Christ called his Body it was Bread in substance mateâ—iall Bread and the Body of the Lord in signification and Sacramentall relation The Lord called Bread his body now since Bread could not be his body substantially it must needs be it was onely his body Sacramentally Of Images and Prayer to Saints Concerning the use of Images we find that in these best ancient times Christians were so far from bringing them into their Churches that some of them would not so much as admit the Art it selfe of making them so jealous were they of the danger and carefull for the prevention of deceipt whereby the simple might any way be drawn on to the adoring of them we are plainly foâ—bidden saith Clemens Alexandrinus to exercise that deceitfull Art for the Prophet saith Thou shalt not make the likenesse of any thing either in the Heaven or in the Earth beneath Moses commandeth men to make no Image that should represent God by Art for in truth an Image is a dead matter formed by the hand of an artificer but we have no sensible Image made of any sensible matter but such an Image as is to be conceived with the understanding yea but thine Images are of Gold be it so now I pray thee what is Gold or Silver Iron Brasse Ivorie the Adamant Diamond or Precious Stones Are they not terra et ex terrâ are they ought but Earth and made of the Earth now being nothing else but a piecâ— of more refined Earth I have learned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 terram calcare non colere to walke on the Earth and not to worship it to set my foote on it not to bow my knee to it And thus farre Clement of Alexandria holding it a monstrous thing to bow downe to a stock or a stone Irenaeus reckons it among the abuses of the Gnostikes that they had certaine painted Images and others made of other stuffe saying that it was the Picture of Christ made by Pilate When the Emperour Adrian in favour of the Christians had commanded that in every City Churches should be built without Images which at this day are called Adrians Temples because they have no Gods in them which they said he made for that end to wit to pleasure the Christians it was presently conceived that he prepared those Temples for Christ as Aelius Lampridius noteh in the life of Alexander Severus which is an evident Argument that it was not the use of Christians in those dayes to have any Images in their Churches Learned Master Casaâ—bone in his notes upon this place of Lampridius thinketh that this story is rather to be referred to Tiberius the Emperour â—han to Hadrian and that Adrian causd Temples to be dedicated to his owne name and thâ—se Temples Adrian being prevented by death remained unfinished and without any Images at all whence it came to passe that many wâ—n thought that Adrian built those Temples not to himselfe but unto Christ and with these agreeth Lampridiusâ— as one who knew that which none could then be ignorant of that both the Iewes in the Temple at Hierusalem did worship God without Images and Pictures as both Strabo and Dio write and that in their dayes the Christian Churches were such as afterwards Saint Austine reports them to have beene in his dayes Saint Austin upon the hundred and thirteenth Psalme expounding those words of David that Idols have a mouth and speake not makes this objection that the Church hath also divers instruments and vessels made of gold and silver for the use of celebrating the Sacraments but he answers have these instruments mouths and speake not eyes and see not doe we addresse our prayers to them now surely he could not have spoken thus if he had Images in Churches or if Images had bin a part of the Churches Vtensils and moveables in his dayes Concerning Prayer to Saints Iustine Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian have reported the publike formes of Christian service and Religious excercises of the Primitive Christians and yet make no mention of Prayer to Saints or Angels but onely of Prayer directed to God in the name and mediation of Christ alone Irenaeus tels us that in his dayes the Church per universum mundum Irenaeusâ—aith â—aith not as Fevardentius and the Papists now a dayes would teach him that the Heretikes called upon false and imaginary Saints and Angels and the Church upon the true Saints and holy Angels but this he saith that the Church called upon God in Christ Iesus Eusebius in his Storie setteth downe Verbatim a long Prayer used by Polycarp the Martyr at the time of his suffering wherin if Invocation of Saints had beene reputed any part of Christian devotion in those dayes he would undoubtedly in so great perill and at his deaâ—h have recommended himselfe to God by the Prayers and Merits of Saints but his forme of Praier is Protestant-like tendered to God himselfe only by the mediation of Christ concluding his Prayer in this manner therefore in all things I Praise thee I blesse thee I Glorifie thee through the eternall Priest of our profession Iesus Christ thy beloved Sonne to whom with thee O Father and the Holy Ghost be all Glory now and for ever Amen When the people of the Church of Smyrna desired to have the body or bones of their Martyredâ— Bishop Polycarp to buriall the Iewes perswaded the Governour not to grant it for that then the Christians would leave Christ and worship the body of Polycarp to which surmise they reâ—urne this answer we can never be induced either to forsake Christ which hath suffered for all that are saved in the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to worship any other for him being the Sonne of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wee adore him but the Martyrs as the
and Austine in this point are ours Of Communion under both kinds Saint Chrysostome saiâ—h that whereas Vnder the Law there was a difference betweene Priests and Laicks in communicating of victimâ—s In the nâ—w it is otherwise for one body and one Cup is ministred to all Hierom saith that the Pastors administred the Eucharist and distributed the bloud of our Lord to his people the same Hierome reportâ—th how Exuperius Bishop of Tholouse in France was wont to carry the CoÌ„munion to persoâ—s absent There was no man saith he richer than Exuperius who carried the Lords body in a Wicker basket and his bloud in a Glasse It is true indeed that the Bishop sold the Churchâ—Plate for the reliefe of the poore so that he was driven to use Osier baskets and Glasse-cups but withall the story saith he carried the consecrated bread and wine severally and apart and not by way of Concomitancie Besides that the wine might be carried abroad in a viall to sicke persons without any such danger of spilling as the Iesuit dreames on Saint Austine saith All that would have life are exhâ—â—ted to drinke of the bloud and that The whole Church having received the Cup answereth Amen Pope Lâ—o râ—proveth such as in his time refused the Cup which is a token that the Cup was then in use among the Laietie his words are these Whereas some to hide their infidelitie come sometimes to Catholike Churches and are present at the celebration of sacred mysteries they so temper the matter that with unworthy mouthes they receive the Lords body but decline to drinke the bloud of our Redemption I would â—herefore have your holinesse take notice that by these signes they may be discovered and their Sacrilegious dissembling may be found out and descried that being thus discovered they may by Priestly authoritie he cast out of the societie of the Saints In like sort Gelasius enjoyned Communion in both kinds We have found saith he That certaiâ—e having received a poâ—tion of the sacred body onely abstaine from the Cup of the most holy blâ—ud which men because they are said to be intangled with I know not what superstition either let them receive the whole Sacrament or else let them be wholly â—xcluded from receiving because there can be no dividing of one and the same mysterie without grievous Sacriledge Reply Gelasius hap'ly speaketh of some Priests who consecrated the elements but themselves received not in both kinds Answer The words hee useth are Recipiant and Arceantur which doe evidently prove that he speakes of the people who doe not themselves receive the Sacrament but from the Ministers hand as also the word Arceantur that is Let them not be received though they offer themselves Besides the ancient histories speake not of any Priest that ever made scruple of drinking of the Chalice which himselfe had consecrated Reply The Manichees had an opinion that Wine was not created by God but by some evill spirit and that Christ did not shed his bloud on the Crosse and hereupon they abstained from the Chalice therefore the Church in detestation of this errour for a time commanded Communion under both kinds upon this occasion Gelasius made the Decree recorded by Gratian. Râ—joynder This was not done upon occasion of the Manichee's errour for before ever they appeared in any number Communion in both kinds was practised as appeareth by the Apostles Ignatius Iustin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian and Saint Cyprian Now Cyprian the youngest of these flourished about the yeere two hundred and fiftie and the Manichees rose not till about the yeere two hundred seventy three Againe although Leo speake of the Manichee's yet Iesuit Vasques sayth that He commanded not the use of the Cup because of them but required that those which feigned themselves Catholikes and came to the holy Communion receiving the bread and taking the Cup into their hands pretending that they dranke the wine and yet did not should carefully be observed Now among a multitude of Communicants some few might hold the Cup to their mouth and make shew of drinking and yet receive no wine The Cup then was not for a time only allowed to the Laicks by Leo and Gelasius thereby to discover who were Manichees but in these Popes dayes the Cup was usually and ordinarily given to the Laicks and upon the refusing of the Cup then in use among the Catholikes the Manichees were discovered otherwisâ— how could the Pope have reproved their practice How could the Manichees have beâ—ne espyed and kâ—owne if they and the Catholikes had received in one kind both alike For this is the token that Leo would have them knowne by for that Thâ—y refuse to drinke the bloud of our Redemption by which words it is cleere that the Cup was offâ—red orderly unto them as unto others but thâ—y refused it Now touching the place of Gâ—lasius the same Vasquâ—z sayth that Whereas some of his part apply the same to the Manichees Canonâ— for therein he teacheth That the mysterie of the Eucharist is of that natuâ—e in regard of it selfe that without griâ—vous sacriledge it cannot bee dâ—vided and severed the one part from the other to wit because of the institution and signification Admit then that the Manichees occasioned this Decree yet this Decree is backed with a generall â—eason which forbids all to communicate in one kind onely under the perill of Sacriledge so that the Popes Canon reacheth not onely to the Manichee but to all such as halve the Communion be they Manichees oâ— Papists or whatsoever they be Of the number of Sacraments Saint Austine with others tell us That the Sacraments of the nâ—w Law flowed out of Christ's side now none issued thence but the Sacrament of water which is Baptisme and the Sacrament of bloud in the Supper The same Austine sayth Our Lord and his Apostles have dâ—livâ—red unto us a few Sacraments in stead of many and the same in doing most easie in signification most excellent in obsâ—rvation most revâ—rend as is the Sacrament of Baptisme and the celebration of the body and bloud of our Lord. And the same Father speaking of the same Sacraments whiâ—h he calleth for number the fewest for observation easiest for signification excellentest withall indeed addeth a si quid aliud if any such other Sacrament bee to bee found in Scripture but himselfe could not find any other for he concludeth them within the number of two saying These be the two Sacraments of the Church Of the Eucharist Saint Chrysostome saith that Before the Bread be sanctifyed we call it Bread but when Gods grace after consecration hath sanctifyed it by the meanes of the Priest it is freed from the name of Bread and is accounted worthy of the name of the Body of Christ although the nature of the Bread remaine still in it Châ—ysostome sayth the nature of bread remayneth after consecration they say
the Scriptures Sufficiencie and Canon Iustus Orgelitanus compares the Scriptures to Davids Tower wherein hang a thousand shields and all the targets of the strong men it being furnished with all sorts of armour to encounter Satan and his Instruments withall Saint Bede records of the successors of Colum-kille the great Saint of Ireland That they observed only those workes of pietie and chastitie which they could learne in the propheticall evangelicall and apostolicall writings and these they esteemed as their chiefe riches according to that of Columbanus Sint tibi divitiae divinae dogmata legis Iunilius an African Bishop treating of the Canonicaâ—l bookes and having said that some account Tobie with others Canonicall he puts the question and then resolves it Why are not these bookes inserted amongst the Canonicall Scriptures and he names amongst other Tobie Esdra Iudith and the second of the Maccabees Because saith he The Iewes did make a difference of them as Saint Hierome and others witnesse Of Communion under both kinds and number of Sacraments Hinemar in the life of Rhemigius Archbishop of Rhemes who converted King Clovis of France to the Christian faith reports that the Archbishop gave a Chalice for the peoples use with this Motto Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine sacro Injecto aeternus quem fudit vulnere Christus Rhemigius domino reddit sua vota sacerdos Rhemigius Priest that gave this cup Prayeth that in it the people sup And still draw life from flowing blood Out of Christs side as of a flood Hee saith not Hauriat hinc Clerus but populus not Let the Priest but let the people drinke of this ministeriall Cup as Cassander cals it The Divines of this Age as others of former times acknowledged onely two Sacraments Baptisme and the Lords Supper Of the Eucharist Fulgentius speaking of the Eucharist saith In this sacrifice there is a thankesgiving and remembrance of the flesh which hee offered and the blood which Christ shed for us and this sacrifice of bread and wine was offered throughout the whole Catholike Church Here Fulgentius mentions a Sacrifice not proper and propitiatorie for the quick and dead but Eucharisticall and Commemorative of prayse and thankesgiving a lively memoriall and representation of the Sacrifice offered on the Crosse. The words alleadged are found amongst S. Austines workes but Bellarmine saith Many father them on Fulgentius and that Bertram citeth these words under his name and so indeed I find it howsoever were it Austin or Fulgentius the Master or the Scholler so they taught and so wee learned both from them and others namely Primasius Ambrose and Chrysostome who by way of correction say Wee offer the same sacrifice or rather the remembrance thereof Besides the same Fulgentius saith They receive the onely Sonne of God Of Images and Prayer to Saints Fulgentius saith That as in the first Precept the worship of one God is manifestly commanded so the faithfull are utterly forbidden to yeeld the service of Adoration to any creature Dracontius in his booke of the Creation saith It is Gods pleasure Esse nihil prorsus se praeter ubiquè rogandum That nothing beside himselfe should every where be prayed unto Of Faith and Merit Primasius saith that We are freely justified by faith only and not by workes Fulgentius saith From this our originall corruption not any power of nature or letter of the Law but faith onely in Iesus Christ doth free us Now this saving faith though it never goe alone yet may there be some gift of God which it alone is able to reach unto as Columbanus also implyeth in that verse Sola fides fidei donâ— ditabitur almo Concerning Merit Fulgentius saith Our glorificacation is not unjustly called grace not onely because God doth bestow his owne gifts upon his owne gifts but also because the grace of Gods reward doth so much there abound as that it exceedeth incomparably and unspeakably all the merit of the will and worke of man though good and given from God and That this is wholesome doctrine to challenge nothing to our selves in any good we doe And Iustus Orgelitanus saith Wee must thanke the Stocke Christ Iesus if any good fruit grow on our branches Cassiodore saith That Gods vocation goes before our merit not â—inding us worthy but accepting us for such The Councell of Orange hath notably decreed against the Semi-pelagians There are many good things saith the Councell done in man which man doth not but man doth no good things which God doth not make man to doe This also doe wee wholsomely professe and believe that in every good worke wee doe not begin and are holpen afterwards by the mercy of God but hee first of all no good merits of ours going before inspireth into us both faith and the love of him which place Binnius hath corrupted reading for nullis multis many good workes going before surely this was none of his good workes to corrupt the Councell Now also was held the fifâ—h Generall Councell at Constantinople Anno 553. Called by the Emperour Iustinian and not by the Pope This Councell confirmed the decrees of the former and withall according to the former Canons decreed That the See of Constantinople should have equal dignity with the See of old Rome Vnto these forraine testimonies we may joyne some of our owne namely the Britaines about the yeare five hundred ninetie sixe what time as Gregory the Great sent Austin the Monke into England PAP It was our Gregory and his Austin that first converted your Iland PRO. It was converted long before Austins comming even in the first Age of the Church as is already showne Besides at his comming there were in Britaine seven Bishops with other learned men professing and teaching the Christian faith and above two thousand Monks in the Monastery of Bangor All living with the labour of their hands Yea Geffrey of Monmouth speaking of Cornwaile and the Westerne parts saith In a part of the Britaines Christianity yet flourished the which being received in the dayes of Eleutherius in the yeare 179. Never fayled amongst them so that Austin was not our first Converter PA. You say the Britaine 's held the Christian faith how then differed they from our Austin PRO. They differed both in Ceremonies and Substantiall doctrine namely in not acknowledging the Popes Supremacie which is now a grand Article of the Romane Faith for whereas Austine came with a kind of Legantine power from the Pope and for the execution of this Commission not unknowne to the Ilanders used both prayers and threats to move them to conformity with the Romane Church at least for their manner of baptizing and keeping of Easter but they told him plainely that They would not yeeld to any of his motions nor acknowledge him for their Arch bishop yea
resiant at Constantinople and part of the countrey that rebelled was Conquered by the King of Lumbardie and Rome and the Romane Dukedome fell unto the Pope now was the Emperour driven out of Italie and every one caâ—cht what he could the Lumbards were the strongâ—st partie and with them the Pope falls at oddes about the dividing of the spoyle and finding them too hard for him as before he had used the strength of the Lumbards to suppresse the Emperour so now he cals in Pipin Marshall of the Palace or Constable of France and â—â—aâ—les his son surnamed the Great and by their power he suppressed the Lumbards this service did Pipin and his sonne to the See of Rome in requitall whereof Chilpâ—ricke being a weake Prince was deposed Pipin and the Barons and the people of France are absolved from their Oath of Allegeance and by Pope Zacharies favour Pipin sonne to Carolus Martellus is crowned King of the Fâ—aâ—ks and Charles the Great sonne to Pipin is crowned Emperour of the West by Pope Leo the third who sâ—cceeded Adrian Then came the Pope and Charlemaigne to the partage of the Empire leaving a poore pitâ—ance for the Emperour of Greece And this was the issue of the fierce contentions about Images The Popes pulling downe Emperours and setting up Images and indeed these babies and puppits served the Popes to stalke withâ—ll but other fowle was shot at to wit Iurisdiction and a temporall Monarchie and indeed about this time the Pope grew great so that it was Gods gracious dealing with his Church that he found such opposition as he did the Easterne Emperour not daring and the Westerne in regard of late courtesies received from the Pope being haply not willing openly to affront him And thus much of Images come we now to speake a word or two of Prayer to Saints Concerning Prayer Bede in his Commentarie on the Proverbes rightly ascribed to Bede and not to Saint Hierome saith We ought to invocate that is by prayer to call into us none but God Antonius in his Melissa or mellifluous Sermon saith that Wee are taught to worship and adore that nature onely which is uncreated but the Spanish Inquisitors have clipt off a piece of his tongue Commanding the word Onely to be blotted out of his writings now the word Onely is the onely principall word that shewes us the Authors drift and the word which Gregorie Nyssen from whom he borrwed this speech used in the Originall Of Faith and Merits Bede held that we are justified by the merits of Christ imputed to us Christs condemnation is our Iustification his death is our life Hee disclaimed Iustification by inherent Righteousnesse for speaking of a regenerate man he saith That no man shall bee saved by the righteousnesse of workes but onely by the righteousnesse of Faith and therefore No man should beleeve that either his freedome of will or his merits are sufficient to bring him unto blisse but understand that he can be saved by the grace of God onely And elsewhere he saith That in the life to come we shall be well rewarded and that not by merits but by grace onely and he hath a sweet prayer that the Lord would take compassion of him and that after the worth and condignitie of his mercies and not after the condignitie of wrath which himselfe had deserved His Scholler Alcuinus maintained the same truth as appeares by these passages following I could saith Alcuinus defile my selfe with sinne but I cannot clense my selfe it is my Saviours bloud that must purge me and againe Whiles I looke on my selfe I find nothing in mee but sinne thy righteousnesse must deliver mee it is thy mercy not my merits that saves mee And elsewhere he saith very sweetly He onely can free me from sinne who came without sinne and was made a sacrifice for sinne And thus by Gods prouidence was the weightie point of Iustification preserved found in these latter and declining times THE NINTH CENTVRIE From the yeare of Grace 800. to 900. PAPIST WHat say you of this ninth Age PROTESTANT The seeds of Knowledge which our worthy Coâ—ntrey-men Bede and Alâ—win planted in Gods Field shewed themselues in their Schollers such as were Claudius Scotus Scholler to Saint Bede Rabbanus Maurus Abbot of Fulden one who as Trithemius saith for his learning had not his match in Italy or Germanie Haymo bishop of Halberstat and our Countrie-man Ioannes Scotus Erigena all three Schollers to Alcuinus Now also lived Christianus Druthmarus the Monke and the Abbot Walafridus Strabo who collected the ordinary Glosse on the Bible Agobardus bishop of Liâ—ns Claudius bishop of Thurin in Piemont Bertram a Pâ—iest and Monke of Corbey Abbey wherâ—of Paschaâ—ius was sometimes Abbot and about the yeare Eight huâ—dred and â—inetie according to Bellarmine lived the Monke Ambrosius Ausbertus About the yeare 880â— lived Remigius borne at Auxâ—rre in Fraâ—ce and sometimes called Rhemensis haply because he taught at Rhemes there was another Remigius Archbishop of Rhemes who liued in the sixth Age and converted King Clovis of France to the Christian Faith but this Saint Remigius for ought wee know wrot nothing Claudius Scotus already mentioned was one of the Irish Nation by birth a famous Divine and accounted one of the Founders of the Vniversitie of Paris this Claudius Clemens Presbiter was of latter standing and inferiour in place to that other Claudius Scotus bishop of Auxerâ—e a great opposite to Boniface Archbishop of Meâ—ts This latter Claudius wrote on the Gospels and Epistles and is often alleaged by the Reverend and learned Lord Primate Doctor Vsher. Of the Scriptures sufficiencie and Canon Claudius Scotus saith That men therefore erre because they know not the Scriptures and because they are ignorant thereof they consequently know not Christ who is the power and wisdome of God Hee also bringeth in that knowne Canon of Saint Herome This because it hath not authoritie from the Scriptures is with the same facilitie contemned wherewith it is avowed Nicephorus Patriarke of Constantinople gives us to understand That the Bookes of the old Testament were twenty and two And treating of the Apocriphall Bookes he mentioneth in particular the Bookes of Maccabees Wisdome Ester Iudith Susanna Tobie Of Communion under both kindes and number of Sacraments Paschasius upon our Saviours words Drinke yee all of this saith Drinke yee all of this as well Ministers as the rest of the Faithfull Rabanus saith That the Lord would have the Sacrament of his Body and bloâ—d to be received by the mouth of the Faithfull Haymo saith The Cup is called the Communion because all communicate of it and doe take part of the bloud of the Lord which it containeth in it Hee saith all did communicate so that the People as well as the Priests were admitted to the Cup. And Rhemigius hath the very same words
with Haymo as indeed his Commentaries on Saint Pauls Epistles are in a manner all taken out of Haymo as Doctor Rivet hath observed It is the report of our Ancestors saith Walafridus Strabo that in the Primitive times they were wont according to Christs Institution to Communicate and partake of the Body and Bloud of our Lord even as many as were prepared and thought fit Regino describeth the manner of Pope Adrians delivering the Communion to King Lotharius and his followers in both kindes The King saith hee takes the Body and Bloud of our Lord at the hands of the Pope and so did the Kings Fallowers Paschasius saith These bee the Sacramentâ— of Christ in the Church Baptisme and Chrysme and the Body and Bloud of Christ and Rabanus hath the selfe same words Now with Baptisme they joyne Chrysme because they used to annoint such as were baptized for otherwise Rabanus speakes precisely of two saying What doe these two Sacraments effect and then hee answers That by the one we are borne anew in Christ and by the other Christ abides in us Of the Eucharist Rabanus saith Bread because it strengthneth the body is therefore called the Body and Wine because it maketh bloud is therefore referred to Christs bloud Haymo saith the same with Rabanus Rabanus farther saith That the Sacrament in one thing and the power thereof another the Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of the body by the vertue of the Sacrament we attaine â—ternall life Hee saith the Sacrament which is the Bread is turned into our bodily nourishment nâ—w spâ—cies shewes and accidents can not nourish but these latter words of Rabanus are razâ—d â—ut whereas the Monke of Malmesbury witnesses that Rabanus wrote accordingly as is alleaged and this razure is observed by the publisher of Mathew of Westminsters Historie Haymo calls the Eucharist A Memoriall of that Gift or Legacie which Christ dimised unto us at his Death Rabanus saith that Christ at first instituted the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud with blessing and thanksgiving and delivered it to his Apostles and they to their Successors to doe accordingly and that now the whole Church throughout the world observes this manner Christianus Druthmarus reporting our Saviours Act at his last Supper sayth Christ changed the bread into his body and the wine into his bloud Spiritually he speaks not of any change of substances Walafridus Strabo saith That Châ—ist delivered to his Disciples the Sacraments of his body and bloud in panis vini substantiâ in the substance â—f bread and Wine When Carolus Calvus the Emperour desired to compose some diffeâ—ences about the Sacrament then on â—oot he râ—quired Bertram a learned man of that Age tâ— deliver hâ—s jâ—dgement in that poynt Whether the body and bloud of Christ which in the Church is received by the mouth oâ— tâ—â— faithful be celebrated in a mystery or in the truth anâ— whether it be the same body which was borne of Mary Whereunto hâ— returnes this answer That the bread and the wine aâ—e tâ—â— body and bloud of Christ figuratively that This body is tâ—e pledge and the â—igure the other the very naturall bodie That for the substance of the Creatures that which they were before consecration the same are they also afterward That they are called the Lords body and bloud because they take the name of that thing of which thâ—y are a Sacrament That there is a great difference betwixt the mystery of the bloud and body of Christ which is taken now by the faithfull in the Church and that which was borne of the Virgin Mary All which he proves at large by Scriptures and Fathers Your wisedome most excellent Prince may perceive saith he that I have proved by the testimonies of holy Scriptures and Fathers that the bread which is called Christs body and the Cup that is called his bloud is a figure because it is a mysterie PA. I except against Bertram his booke is forbid to be read but by such as are licenced or purpose to conâ—ute him PRO. Bertram wrote of the body and bloud of Chrâ—st as Trithemius saith and by your Belgicke or Lâ—w Countrey Index Bertram is stiled Catholicke Now this Index was published by the King of Spaines commandment the Duke of Alva and first printed at Antwerp in the yeare 1571 and often since reprinted Now so it is howsoever he be accounted a Catholicke Priest and much commended by Trithemius yet are this Catholicks writings forbid to be read as appeares by severall Indices the one set forth by the Deputies of the Trent Councel and another printed at Parts under Clement the eight Now these Inquisitors dealt too roughly and therefore the divines of Doway perceiving that the â—orbidding of the booke kept not men from reading it but rather oâ—casioned them to seeke after it thought iâ— better policie that Bertram should be suffered to goe abroad but with his keeper to wit some popish glosse to wait on him Seeing therefore say they we beare with many errours in other old Catholicke writers and extenuate them excuse them by inventing some device oftentimes deny them and â—aine some commodious sense for them when they are objected in disputation with our adversaries we doe not see why Bertram may not deserve the same equitie and diligent revisall lesâ— the Herâ—ticks cry out that we burne and forbid such antiquity as maketh for them and accordingly they have dealt wiâ—h Bertram for by their Recognition We must reade Invisibiliter in stead of Visibiliter and these words The Substance of the Creatures must be expounded to signifie outward shewes or Accidents But this will not serve the turne for Bertram speaking of the consecâ—ated bâ—ead and wine saith that for the substance of the creatures they remaine the same after consecration that they were before Now if they doe so then is not the substance of bâ—ead and wine changed into the substance of the flesh and bloud of Christ as the Trent Councel would have it Nor will it serve to say that by the substance of the Creatures is meant the outward accidents as the whitenesse of the bread the colour of the wine or the like for Bertram speakes properly that the consecrated bread and wine remaine the same in substance And it were an improper speech to attribute the word Substance to Accidents as to say the substance of the colour or rednesse of the wine or the like PA. Master Brerely suspects that this booke was lately set forth by Oâ—colampadius under Bertrams name PRO. This suspicion is cleered by the antient Manuscript copies of Bertram extant before Occolampadius was borne one whereof that great Scholler Causabon saw in the Librarie of Master Iames Gilot a Burgesse of Paris as he witnessed to the Reverend and learned Primate Doctor Vsher. And yet besides these Mâ—nuscripts Bertram
his realm was subject to the Court of Rome or the Pope and that he had that libertie in his realme that the Emperour had in his Empire Anselme therefore was accused of high treason and being still desirous to goe to Rome the King told him That if hee would promise and sweare neither to goe nor Appeale to Rome for any affaires whatsoever he should then well and peaceably enjoy his Bishopricke if not that it should be free for him to passe the Seas but never to returne as the Monke of Saint Albans reports the matter Now also there arose great contention about the carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament under Pope Victor and Nicholas the second Hildebrand being the brand that kindled it making Berengarius subscribe to their Tenet That all the faithfull in the Sacrament doe really teare with their teeth the body of Christ which position neverthelesse in these dayes is with them accounted hereticall And to say the truth they really teare the body of Christ who by their ambition doe miserably teare in pieces the Church of Christ. Now to proceede there lived in this Age Fulbertus bishop of Chartres Anselme of Laon Author of the Interlineall Glosse Theophylact Archbishop of the Bulgarians a great follower of Chrysostome and indeed his Epitomizer or Abbreviator and our Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury a man of speciall note in this Age. For as the Monke of Malmsbury reports in the Councel at Barre when the Greekes disputed against Pope Vrban so eagerly against the procession of the Holy Ghost that the Pope was at a Non plus remembring himselfe that Anselme was in the Councel he cried aloud before the whole Councel Pater Magister Anselme ubi es Oh my Father and Master Anselme where are you come now and defend your Mother the Church and when theâ— brought him in presence among them Pope Vrban said Includamus hunc in orbe nostro quasi alterius orbis papam Let us inclose him in our Circle as the Pope of the other world Now also lived Oecumenius Radulphus Ardens and Berengarius And now let us see what these good men and â—â—ue Catholâ—cke witnesses can say to the matter in quâ—stion Of the Scriptures suâ—ficiencie and Canon Saâ—nt Paul saith of the Scriptures that They are able to make us wise unto salvation that the man of God may bee peâ—fited thorowly furnished unto all good workes That the man of God saith Oâ—cumenius may bee not onely partaker after a vulgar manner of every good worke but perfect and compleate by the doctrine of the Scripâ—uâ—e And Anselme in his Commentarie upon this place saith They are able to make thee sufficiently learned to obtaine eternall salvation Petrus Cluniacensis Abbot of Clugin abutting on these times for he was saith Bellarmine of the same standing with Saint Bernard who was borne in this Age â—ut flourished about the yeare 1130 after the recitall of the canonicall bookes saith that There are besides the Authenticall bookes â—ixe others not to be rejected as namely Iudith Tobias Wisdome Ecclesiasticus and the two bookes of Maccabees which though they attaine not tâ— the high dignitie of the former yet they are received of the Church as containing necessary and profitable doctrine Of Communion under both and number of Sacraments Theophylact sharply reproves those who delighted in drinking alone and quaffing by themselves saying to such How dost thou take thy cup alone considering that the dreadfull Chalice is alike delivered unto all The Normans saith Mathew Paris thâ— morning before they fought with Harald strengthned themselves with the body and bloud of Christ. Hildebert B. of Mans â—â—lates and approves that Canon of the Councel of Brachara which condemneth the delivering of the bread sopt in the wine to the Laitie for the whole CoÌ„munion It is the manner saith Hildebert in your monasteries to give the Sacramentall bread to none but dipt in the wine which custome we find is not taken either from the Lords institution nor out of authencall constitutions Now they that misliked the receiving of the bread dipt in wine how would they have beene pleased with a dry feast for of the two it is better to receive the bread dipt in wine than the bread and no wine at all Fulbertus shewes us the way of Christian Religion Is to believe the Trinitie and veritie of the Deitie and to know the cause of his Baptisme and in whom duo vitae Sacramenta the two Sacraments of our life are contained Anselme mentions but two Sacraments common to us under the Gospâ—l as the other were to the Iewes under the law they two and we two two and no more Of the Eucharist In the year 1608 there were published at Paris certaine works of Fulbertus pertaining as wel to the refuting of the heresies of this time for so saith the Inscription as to the clearing of the history of the French Among these things that appertain to the confutatioâ—â—f the heresies of this time there is one specially fol. 168. laid down in these words Vnlesse saith Christ ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye shall not have life in you he seemeth to command an outrage or wickednesse It is therefore a figure will the Heretick say requiring us only to communicate with the Lords passion and sweetly and profitably to lay up in our memory that his flâ—sh was crucified wounded for us He that put in these words Dicet Haereticus thought he had notably met with the Hereticks of this time but was not aware that therby he made S. Austin an Hereticke for company for the words alleadged are S. Austins de doctrinâ Christianâ lib. 3. cap. 16. Which some belike having put the publisher in mind of he was glad to put this among his Errata to confesse that these two words Dicet Haereticus were not to be found in the Manuscript copie which he had from Pâ—tavius buâ— telleth us not what we are to think of him that for the countenancing of the Popish cause ventured so shamefully to abuse S. Austin as both the learned Archbishop of Armagh Doctor Vsher and Master Moulin have observed PA. Here is much a doe about a mistake of two words saith our Iâ—suit Maloune PRO. There hath been much a doe ere this about one word the word Deipara whether the blessed Virgin Maâ—y were to be called the mother of God or no great difference raised in the Church touching the Sacrament and all about three prepositions Trans Con and Sub and the greatest stirre that ever was in Gods Church was about one letter it was but one little Iota whilst the Arriansâ—eld â—eld Christ to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the like substance with the Father but denied him to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consubstantiall of the same substance with the Father Besides was it