heere continueth still the same what the substance is that is conteined vnder the formes The body of Christ they say is not there till o Tho. Aquin. summ p. 3. q. 75. art 7. ad 2 vltimuminstans prolationis verborum est primum instans in quo est in sacramento corpus Christs in toto autem tempore praecedente est ihi substantia panis the last instant of the words of consecration and till then the substance of bread is there The sustance then demonstrated by This must necessarilie be granted to be bread as wee expoundit because as yet there is no other Much adoe they make about this matter and can resolue nothing and whilest they will not submit themselues to the truth they are so intangled in their owne errour that they know not which way to quit themselues 49. W. BISHOP Thirdly Per. 3. Bread was not giuen for vs but onely the bodie of Christ and in the first institution the body of Christ was not then really giuen to death Ans This maketh nothing at all against the reall presence but doth greatly fortifie it For Christ gaue vs in the Sacrament that which should be put to death for vs this is my body that shall be giuen for you Now not bread but Christs true body was giuen to death for vs ergo Christ gaue vs to eate not bread but his true reall body R. ABBOT If M. Bishops argument be good against vs we will returne it to himselfe againe Christ gaue vs in the Sacrament that which should be put to death for vs but not the forme of bread but Christs true body was giuen to death for vs therefore Christ gaue vs to eate not the forme of bread but his true reall body And doth M. Bishop beleeue so If he doe not then let him answer his owne argument and wee shall thereby finde a way to answer him It is true that Christ in the Sacrament giueth his body but he giueth not onely his body but also the Sacrament of his body He giueth the Sacrament of his body externally and corporally to be receiued by the mouth hee giueth-his true bodie internally and spiritually to be receiued by faith He giueth vs then that bodie that was giuen to death for vs but hee doth not giue it to the swallowing of the throat but to the meditation of the heart And this S. Austin notably declareth when for exposition of the words of Christ Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud c. he saith or rather maketh Christ to say a August in Psal 98. spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent sacramencum aliquod comn endani vohiâ— spiritualitèr intellectum viuificabit vâ—s Vnderstand spiritually that which I haue said Yee shall not eat this bodie which yee see nor drinke that bloud which they shall shead that crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament which vnderstand spiritually and it shall giue you life Where vnderstanding eating and drinking properly with the mouth hee denieth the very body and bloud of Christ to this eating and drinking and leaueth onely the Sacrament to be appertaining thereto Now in this meane while M. Bishop hath slipped M. Perkins argument and let it goe without answer that the Sacrament is not simplâ—e the body of Christ but onely as it is giuen to death for vs and because the body of Christ neither was in the first institution nor now is in the Sacrament really giuen to death for vs therefore the Sacrament is not really the body of Christ 50. W. BISHOP Fourthly Per. 4. The cup is the new Testament by a figure why not then the bread the body of Christ by a figure Answ A goodly reason if there bee one figure there must needs be two How followeth this if those words of S. Paul be obscure why did he not rather cleare them by conferring them with S. Matthew and S. Marke who deliuer it plainely thus this is my bloud of the new Testament that shall be shedde c But hee that delighteth in cauilling must seeke darknesse R. ABBOT M. Bishop anone a Sect. 63. after telleth vs that no good Christian may thinke but that our Sauiour Christ Iesus very well foreseeing all such inconueniences as he hath there expressed did deliuer the Sacrament in such termes as he would haue to bee taken properly and not bee construed at mens pleasures figuratiuely If this be true how doth hee heere thinke of himselfe that doth admit that Christ in the deliuering of the Sacrament namely of the cup did speake figurariuely Or if he be a good Christian notwithstanding that contrary to his owne rule he admit a figure in Christs deliuering of the Sacrament must we be no good ChristiaÌ„s if we admit two Surely there is the same reason of the one part of the Sacrament as there is of the other and sich there is a necessity to vnderstand a figure in the one either hee must giue vs sound reason to the contrary or else he must leaue vs to our own reasons to conceiue the like of the other also Though it be not a goodly reason to say if there be one figure there must needs be two yet it is a good reasoÌ„ to say if there may be one figure nothing hindreth but there may be two If Christ might say by a figure a Luk. 22.20 1. Cor. 11.25 This cup is the new Testament in my bloud as S. Luke and S. Paul haue set downe then hee might say also by a figure This is my bodie this bread is my body But saith he if those words of S. Paul bee obscure why did he not rather cleere them by conferring them with S. Mathew and S. Marke So then there may be here somewhat obscure but it must bee onely what pleaseth them who notwithstanding of that that is most cleere as we haue seene in the former section saue one doe by their exposition make a matter most intricate and darke But what cleering doth S. Paul receiue from S. Mathew and S. Marke Forsooth they deliuer it plainly thus This is my bloud of the new testament that shall be shed c. Hee setteth downe the words but what cleering it is that he meaneth he sheweth not And indeed the words on both sides are alike S. Luke and S. Paul speake by a figure and so doe also S. Mathew and S. Mark S. Mathew saith b Mat. 26.28 This is my bloud of the new testament but what meaneth he by This Surely This hath heere the nature of a relatiue and must be referred to his antecedent before set downe And what is the antecedent but the cup Iesus tooke the cup and gaue it to them saying Drinke yee all of this of what but of this cup for this that is this cup is my bloud of the new testament
that others may drinke of it or not drinke of it as it shall be thought most expedient by the Pope whom hee falsly nameth the supreme Pastour But how may it appeere that there is any such authoritie left to the Pope Surely if Christ spake only to the Priests it should not seeme likely that the Pope should haue liberty to extend this fauour to the people and if the Pope may giue libertie heereof to the people then it is certaine that Christ did not speake only to the Priests But there is a speciall secret heere which I would gladly haue M. Bishop to vnfold for if the words of Christ Drinke yee all of this were spoken onely to Priests and doe belong to them how is it that c Concil Trid. ses 5. can 2. Ecclesia iustu causis rationibus adducta vt laicos atque etiam Clericos non conficientes sub panis tantum modo specie communicaret c. Priests also in the church of Rome he only excepted that ministreth are excluded from being partakers of the cuppe Christ saith by their owne confession Drinke all yee Priests how impudently then doe they transgresse the commandement of Christ who barre all Priests from the Cup but him only that saith Masse Here their wicked and damnable hypocrisie most plainly appeareth and the knots wherewith they are tied are such as that they know not which way to vntie them The Priests that minister not are with them in that behalfe as in the case of lay-men and therefore are forbidden to be partakers of the cup. But in that case also the Apostles were at the institution of the Sacrament for Christ only ministred and not any of them And yet to the Apostles being thus as in the state and condition of lay men because they ministred not our Sauiour Christ saith Drinke ye all of this What now followeth hereof but that to lay men and of lay men as well as of Priests our Sauiour Christ said Drink ye all of this euen you all that haue eaten of this bread drinke ye also of this cup But all men confesse saith M. Bishop that these words hoc facite doe ye this were spoken only to the Apostles and in them to the Clergy alone And it may be that all his men confesse so or all the men that he had in his head when he wrote this but otherwise all men will not so confesse because to confesse so should be to confesse an vntruth For those words haue reference to the whol celebration of this mystery requiring the same to be performed in remembrance of him by whom it was first ordained Yea and that they haue their respect to the receiuers appeareth plainly by the very coherence and consequence thereof d Mat. 26.26 Luke 22.19 Take eat doe this namely that I haue bidden you doe to take and eat in remembrance of me And this is as cleere in the Apostles description of the institution of the Cup e 1. Cor. 11.25 He tooke the cup saying This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you this doe as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me Which later words sound plainly to this effect Drinke ye all of this and as oft as ye do so doe it in the remembrance of me But yet we will deale curteously with M. Bishop and grant him his desire that Christ here speaketh of the ministration of the sacrament which appertaineth to the Clergy alone and will he hereof conclude that when hee saith Drinke ye all of this his meaning was that the Clergy only should drinke thereof Verily the contrary rather most plainly followeth For when he saith Doe this what else doth he say but what ye see me doe the same doe ye I say to you all here present Take and eat I deliuer the cup to you all that you may all drinke thereof doe you administer to others in the same sort what I haue done to you the same doe you to them in remembrance of me And this rule Cyprian most vehemently presseth and vrgeth it to Cecilius again and again f Cyprian lib. 2. ep 3. In commemorationem dominâ— hoc faciamus quod secit dominus c. Ab Euangeiiâ—iâ— praeceptis omninò recedendum non esse eadem quae magister docuit fecit discipulos quoque obseruare facere debere c. Vtique ille sacerdos vice Christi verè fungitur qurid quod Christus fecit imitatur c. Nihil aliud quà m quod ille fecit facere debemus c. Quotiescunque calicem in commemorationem domint passionis eius offerâ—musâ—â— quod consiaâ— dominum fecisse faciamus c. that in remembrance of the Lord we are to do the same that the Lord did that we are not in any sort to depart from the precepts of the Gospell and the disciples are to obserue the same things which their master hath taught and done that that Priest doth truely supply the roome of Christ who imitateth that which Christ hath done that we ought to doe nothing but what he hath done that so often as we offer the cup in remembrance of the Lord and of his passion wee are to doe the same which we are assured Christ did Now if the minister bee to doe the same that Christ did then is he to administer both parts of the sacrament alike to all that are present because we find that Christ did so Yea but why should the Apostles saith M. Bishop haue a speciall charge more to drinke of that cup then to eat of that food vnlesse it were to signifie that wheras all men should be bound to receiue Christs body they namely the Apostles should be further bound to receiue that holy cup also from which bond other men should stand free Thus he falsifieth the institution of Christ that from an imagined ground of his owne he may infer a conclusion answerable thereto For had not the Apostles as speciall charge to eat of that food as to drinke of that cup did not Christ aswell say to all his Apostles Take eat this is my body doe this in remembrance of me as he said Drinke ye all of this If hee did so and thereby all men are bound to eat of that food doth it not follow that by the other all men are bound also to drinke of that cup Christ commandeth all his Apostles to take eat He commandeth al his Apostles to take the cup drinke On the one side he saith Do this On the other side he saith Doe this What reason can M. Bishop giue why al Christians should be concluded on the one side and all saue the Priests should be excluded on the other yea and all the Priests also that are present saue he onely that administreth for the time What will hee wilfully blinde himselfe Will he stoppe his owne eies that he may not see that which hee cannot choose but see Well he will yet make
calum vtique integrum Cum vid eritis filium hominis c. certè vel tunc videbitis quia noÌ„ eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum certè vel tunc videbitis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus They thought saith Austin that he would impart to them his very body but he telleth them that he will goe vp to heauen euen whole When ye shall see the sonne of man ascend where he was before surely then ye shall see that he doth not impart his body in that maner as you thinke ye shall then vnderstand that his grace is not deuoured by morsells Now if the ascending of Christ into heauen were an argument for the reforming of their fancy and correcting of their error then it must needs be a misconstruction of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ whereby the same is said to be done by his being really present vpon the earth And that it might not be so vnderstood he further saith k vers 63. The words which I speake vnto you are spirit and life it is the spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing thereby aduertising them as S. Austin giueth to vnderstand that l Aug ibi Quomodo quidem edatur quisnam sit manducandi modus ignoratis they knew not in what sort his flesh was eaten or what the maner thereof is and that they should spiritually conceiue the doing of it in such maner as was before expressed out of Austin And hereof Origen saith m Ori. in Leuit. hom 7. Est in nouo testameÌ„to litera quae occidit eum qui non spiritualiter aduertit Nam si secunduÌ„ literamsequaris id quod dictum est Nisi manducaueritis carnem c. litera illa occidit There is in the new Testament a letter which killeth him that doth not spiritually listen to it for if thou folow according to the letter that which is written Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood that letter killeth Therefore S. Austin deliuering certaine rules whereby figuratiue speeches are to be knowen doth by his rule find that this speech of Christ is not properly or literally to be vnderstood but by a figure n Aug. de doct Christ l. 3. c. 16. si flagitium aut facinus videtur iubere aut vtilitatem beneficentiaÌ„ vitare figurata est Nisi manducaâ—eritis carnem filij hominis c. facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere figura ergò est praecipiens passioni domini esse coÌ„municandum suauitèr atque vtiliter recondendum in memoria quod carâ— eius pro nobis crucifixa vulnerata sit If any speeche seem to command a hainous or wicked act or to forbid well doing or any profitable thing it is a figuratiue speech Where Christ saith Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood c. he seemeth to command a hainous thing It is therefore a figure instructing that we are to communicate of the passion of the Lord and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in minde that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. In which sort S. Bernard also expoundeth that o Bernar de verb. Habac. super custodiaÌ„ c. sub edendi corporis sus mysterio discipulos ad communâ—â— andum passionibus suis aumonens vnder the mystery of eating his body Christ admonisheth his disciples to communicate of his passions Here is therefore no other but a spirituall action of the heart and soule which requireth no reall presence because the spirit of man by faith climbeth vp to heauen and looketh backe vnto the crosse of Christ and there receiueth nourishment and strength of him to liue by him for euer 58. W. BISHOP Thirdly Christ said in most cleere tearmes this is my body this is my blood What could be more certaine or more perspicuous R. ABBOT The words as wee expound them out of the circumstance of the text and the consent of ancient fathers are indeed perspicuous and cleere yeelding this meaning This bread is my body this wine is my blood that is the signe the sacrament the participation of my body and blood But M. Bishop for his life cannot make any certaine and definite meaning of them whereby their transubstantiation and reall presence may be made good If the words be so perspicuous and cleere for them how commeth it about that they haue so tossed and tumbled them and yet there is no certaine meaning thereof concluded amongst them till this day I need not stand hereupon hauing before said what is sufficient for this purpose in the eight and fortieth section 59. W. BISHOP Fourthly These words of the institution are recorded by three Euangelists and by S. Paul and they all vniformely deliuer it to be not the figure of Christs body but his body and that his body which should be giuen for our redemption on the crosse ergo it was that his true reall body which was nailed to the crosse for vs. R. ABBOT Euen so three Euangelists and S. Paul doe vniformely deliuer that the cup is the bloud of Christ or the new testament in his bloud as hath been a Sect. 50. before said and yet M. Bishop will not say I hope that the cup is really the bloud or testament of Christ That the Sacrament is the figure of Christs body is no new speech S. Austin saith that b Aug in Psal 3. Conuinium in quo corporu sanguinis sui figuram discipuâ—usuis coâ—mendauit tradidit Christ commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his bodie and bloud Tertullian expoundeth thus c Tertul. cont Marcion â—â— 4. Acâ—eptum panem corpus suum fecit dicâ—â—do hoc est corsus meum id est figura corporis mei This is my body that is to say a figure of my body Gelasius the Bishop of Rome saith that d Gelas cont Eutych Nest. Et certo imago similitudo corporis sanguinis domini in actione mysteriorum celebratur an image and semblance of the body and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the administration of the Sacraments Chrysostome saith that e Chrysost Opimperf in Mat. hom 11. In quibus non verum corpus Christi sed mystâ—rium corporu eius continetur in the sacred vessels not the true body of Christ but the mysterie of his body is conteined The ancient Liturgies doe vsually call the Sacraments f Constit Clem. l. 7. c. 26. Antitypa corporis c. Iacobâ— Liturg Typus corporis sanguinis Christi tui the signes of the body and bloud of Christ and so g Carol. Magn. epist. ad A cuin Panem fregit calicâ—m paâ—iter dedit eis in figuram corporis sanguinis sui Charles the great stileth them in his epistle to Alcuinus It should not therefore seeme strange to M. Bishop that wee also should expound the sacrament to
as he rightly speaketh he would not vnderstand it to be receiued by the body And thus Christ sealing vnto vs in the Lords supper all the fruits of his passion and giuing himselfe vnto vs spiritually to become one with vs and to make vs one with him hee hath without reall presence bestowed as M. Bishop saith an inestimable gift vpon vs such a one as neuer any other did or possibly could doe 63. W. BISHOP Moreouer the institution of a religious rite and ceremonie to be vsed in the whole Church vnto the worlds end and to be receiued of all Christian people of age and discretion did necessarily require that it should bee done in most certaine and cleare tearmes otherwise there might arise great strife and contention about it and be the ruine of thousands And specially great perspicuitie is required in this holy Sacrament where the mistaking of it must needs breeed either idolatrie if wee worship for Christ that which is not Christ or impietie if on the other side we should not giue to it being Christ God and man diuine honour Wherefore no good Christian may thinke but that our prouident Sauiour Christ Iesus who verie well foresaw all these inconueniences did deliuer it in such tearmes as he would haue to be taken properly and not be construed at mens pleasures figuratiuely Adde that hee spake those words to the twelue Apostles onely whom hee was accustomed to instruct plainly and not in parable darkely and who were woont also to aske for the interpretation of obscure speeches who here made no question about this high mysterie because they were sufficiently forewarned that they should eat Christs flesh Ioh. 6. and that his body was truly meat and therefore beleeued Christs words without further question R. ABBOT The institution of a religious rite and ceremonie for the vse of the Christian Church required such termes as had beene formerly accustomed in the institution of such religious rites wherein as hath beene a Sect 48. before noted out of Austin Sacraments commonly beare the names of those things whereof they are Sacraments So is circumcision called b Gen. 17.13 the couenant of the Lord being but the signe and seale of his couenant So is the lambe called c Exod. 12.11 the Lords Passeouer though it were but a signification and remembrance thereof So were the sacrifices of the law called d Leuit. 1.4 4.20 c. attonements or reconciliations for sinne which yet they were not in themselues because e Heb. 10.4 it was vnpossible that the bloud of calues and goats should take away sins but were onely signes and figures of the attonement that should be made by the bloud of Iesus Christ And thus Cyprian saith expresly of the Lords supper that therein f Cyprian de Vnct. Chrismat significantia significata eis dem nomenibus censentur the signes and the things signified are reckoned by the same names being both termed the body bloud of Christ And herein is no occasion of contention but to them only that are contentious will prefer their own absurd fancies before the light and truth of the word of God Who as they do peruersly and wilfully mistake so doe wilfully by mistaking runne into idolatrie g Rom. 1.25 worshiping the creature insteed of the creatour giuing to the signe or sacrament that diuine honour which belongeth properly to Christ himselfe And if it be idolatrie as heere he telleth vs to worship for Christ that which is not Christ then hee hath told vs amisse before that men doe not commit idolatrie though they worship the Host when the Priest hath had no intention of consecration In a word our Sauiour Christ though he spake by a figure yet spake so as that not at mens pleasures but according to the course of Gods word he might easely be vnderstood And as for the Apostles we cannot doubt but that they were so well instructed in those other signes and sacraments wherewith they had beene before acquainted as that they could not make any scruple or question what his meaning was in the institution of this Therefore no cause was there for them to be troubled or to aske interpretation heere as of some darke and obscure matter but there had beene cause for them to haue questioned many things in the words of Christ according to that interpretation which the Church of Rome hath made thereof For though Christ spake to them before of the eating of his flesh and that his flesh was truely meate yet had hee said nothing vnto them that they should eate a whole body in the likenesse of a peece of bread Yea though hee spake to them of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud yet withall he spake enough wherby to giue them instruction how that should bee vnderstood as h Sect. 49. 57. before hath been declared 64. W. BISHOP Finally this holy Sacrament is a principall part of the new Testament and one of the chiefest legacies by Christ bequeathed vnto vs Christians Now what law or conscience will permit that any legacie should be interpreted figuratiuely to wit that for a house goods or lands bequeathed and giuen by last will and testament you should vnderstand a figure of a house to be giuen or the signification and representation of some goods or lands If this be most absurd and ridiculous in the testament of any ordinary man about temporall goods how much more pernicious and intollerable is it to suffer this in the eternall Testament of the Sonne of God and that in his diuine and inestimable treasures And thus at length by the grace of God I come to the end of this booke wherein good Christian Reader if thou finde any thing that may confirme thee in the true Catholike faith or further thy knowledge therein giue God the Father of lights from whom all good gifts descend the whole praise If any thing be amisse impute it partly to my slender skill ouersight or negligence and partly to the want of a conuenient resting-place commoditie of bookes and conference all which these times of persecution doe depriue vs of R. ABBOT He that maketh his last will and testament and giueth thereby great legacies of lands and goods and putteth to his seale for confirmation of the legacies that he hath giuen shall he be said in giuing his seale to bequeath only a peece of waxe or a figure and representation of landes and goods The seale indeed is but wax it is but a signe and token of somewhat but yet it serueth to giue assurance of the legacies for confirmation whereof it is appointed The new testament of Christ is the couenant and promise of forgiuenesse of sinnes purchased by his bloud This hath he published by the Gospell to all that repent and beleeue in him For confirmation heereof he hath put to his Sacrament as a seale thereby to deliuer after a sort and to put into our hands the thing which
needs confesse themselues to be farre from it which hold that to be impossible and with the principall part of true religion which consisteth in offering a true reall and externall sacrifice vnto God as in that question hath beene prooued they are at vtter defiance R. ABBOT You haue shewed your owne folly M. Bishop and dishonestly The Protestants teach faith hope and charitie aright but for the peruerting of any articles of faith on our side you haue shewed nothing We teach faith hope and charitie as God hath taught them not as your schoole hath newly framed them We teach faith wherby a 1. Io. 5.10.11 to beleeue the record that God witnesseth of his Sonne that God hath giuen vnto vs eternall life and this life is in his Sonne We teach hope whereby b Rom. 8.25 to wait with patience for the reueilling of that which God hath giuen vs. Wee teach charitie whereby to performe c Eph. 2.10 those good works which God hath prepared for vs as the way wherein to walke to the receiuing of it True reall and externall sacrifice for propitiation of sin we teach none but the sacrifice of the passion of Christ because by d Heb. 9.28 10.14 being once offered he hath taken away our sinnes and made perfect for euer them that are sanctified Therefore the sacrifice which he intendeth is no other but sacriledge and idolatrie and because God hath condemned it therefore are we iustly at defiance with it I may not omit how he heere bobbeth his Reader with as in that question hath beene prooued whereas of that question hee hath said iust neuer a word 25. W. BISHOP 2 Touching the second Commandement after our account as God is honoured by swearing in iustice iudgement and truth so he is also by vowes made vnto him of godly and religious duties which the Prophet Dauid signifieth when he saith vow yee Psal 75.13 and render your vowes vnto the Lord your God Heereupon many Catholikes haue and doe continually vow perpetuall pouertie chastirie and obedience the more fully and freely to serue God which holy vowes the Protestants disallow wholly neither doe they allow of any other vowes for ought I haue heard they doe therefore diminish the seruice of God and pare away a part of that which is reduced to the second Commandement R. ABBOT We diminish not the seruice of God because we teach al that the word of God hath taught and with mens deuises God will not be serued Spirituall vowes admitted Popish vowes reiected The true spirituall vowes whereby we consecrate our selues to God we duly approoue but Popish vowes we reiect and detest not onely as superstitious but also as they teach them with opinion of merit and purchase of remission of sinnes for themselues and others most wicked and damnable There needeth heereof nothing more to be said then hath beene before deliuered in the handling of that question 26. W. BISHOP 3. And whereas in the third wee are commanded to keepe holy the Sabaoth day which is principally performed by hearing attentiuely and deuoutly that diuine seruice which was instituted by Christ and deliuered by his Apostles which is the holy Masse they may not abide it but serue God after the inuention of their owne braines with a mingle-mangle of some old some new odly patched together R. ABBOT What Christ instituted appeareth in the Gospell what the Apostles practised and deliuered appeareth by S. Paul holding himselfe entirely to that a 1. Cor. 11.23 which he had receiued of the Lord. What doe wee finde there that doth in any sort resemble the ougly monster of the Popish Masse Gregory Bishop of Rome saith that b Greg. ep l. 7 Indict 2. ep 63. Mos Apostolorum fuit vt ad ipsam solummodo orationem dominicam oblationis hostiam consecrarent the Apostles were woont with the Lords praier only to consecrate the sacred host and shall we then thinke the Apostles to haue been the authours of those gew-gawes and fooleries those turnings and windings and crossings blessings and murmurations and eleuations that are vsed in the Masse Iulius Bishop of Rome the first condemned the dipping of the Sacrament of Christs body in the cup of the bloud of Christ c De cons dist 2. Cum omne Quòd pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt Eucharistiam populis nec hoc prolatum ex Euangelio testimonium receperunt c. because no witnesse heereof is brought out of the Gospell If nothing be to be done in the celebration of the Sacrament but whereof there is witnesse in the Gospel and d Cyp. l. 2. ep 3. In sacrificio quod Christus est nonnisi Christu sequendus est none as Cyprian saith be to be followed therein but only Christ we haue iust cause to reiect the Masse which hath so little of that that Christ did and so much that he did not The Masse therefore is no sanctifying but a prophaning of the Lords Sabaoth but the true sanctifying of the Sabaoth is in our diuine seruice wherein Gods word is read and taught praier is made to God in the name of Iesus Christ and the Sacraments are administred accordingly as Christ himselfe hath left the same vnto vs. Wherein we haue reteined whatsoeuer the abomination of desolation had left remaining of the ancient seruice of the Church and whatsoeuer was wanting we haue supplied agreeably thereto and to the word of God and no man will account it odly patched together but such odde fellowes as M. Bishop is who are so farre in loue with the Romish harlot as that they like to eat no bread but what is moulded with her vncleane and filthie hands 27. W. BISHOP In the fourth we are commanded to obey our Princes as well as our parents and all other our Gouernours in all lawfull matters yet the Protestants hold that our Princes lawes doe not binde vs in conscience R. ABBOT What Is Saul also amongst the Prophets Princes lawes how they binde in conscience Is M. Bishop now come to speake of obedience to Princes by the problemes of whose religion no Prince shall be obeied if the Pope list by any pretense of religion to picke a quarrell against him nor any matters shall be lawfull for him to command but what must stand with the Popes law Doth he speake of obedience to Princes who because his Prince liketh not to follow his course hath before threatned him a Epist to the king sect 34. God knoweth what that forcible weapon of necessitie will driue men vnto at length When the Fox preacheth beware the Geese To the point I answer him briefely we teach that Princes lawes in things subiect to their command do binde the conscience to externall obedience though not to any spirituall opinion of the things wherein we doe obey And that we doe not denie this he himselfe b Preface to the Reader sect 3. before hath testified for
answer and yet in this booke there is no such chapter where his answer should be found But touching the reall presence M. Perkins argueth out of the words of Christ to this effect that Christ brake that which he tooke and that which hee tooke was bread and not his body and therefore that it was bread and not really his body which hee brake it being absurd that Christ should bee said to breake himselfe and therefore remaining that that which hee brake was the Sacrament only and not himselfe To answer this M. Bishop wee see is somewhat hardly bestead and forceth the words of Christ to another order than the Euangelists and S. Paul haue obserued in the deliuering of them Yea hee crosseth the Canon of the Masse of rather setteth the Canon of the Masse at variance with the institution of Christ In a word hee saith hee knoweth not what and and cannot tell what to say The Euangelists and the Apostle constantly and with one consent put blessing before breaking but he saith that Christ first brake and then blessed He saith that it was bread which Christ brake but if it were bread which Christ brake then what is it which the Priest breaketh If it be bread then there is no transubstantiation If it be not bread then he swarueth from Christs institution Hee maketh Christ to breake the host before consecration but the Masse-priest breaketh it not till after consecration How then shall the Masse-book and the Gospell be thought to agree together All this it seemeth he runneth into because he cannot tell how it should be said that Christ did breake himselfe which was the thing that M. Perkins vrged But let him reconcile these differences and then send vs a more perfect answer otherwise we must hold him for a simple man that could not auoid such a simple ouerthrow 48. W. BISHOP Againe M. Per. 2. Christ said not vnder the forme of bread or in bread but this that is bread is my body Answ It is false to say that this word Hoc This doth demonstrate bread for it is of a different gender from it both in Latin and Greeke and if he had said that that bread had been his body his word was so omnipotent that it had beene of force to make it his body so that M. Perkins maketh a false constraction which nothing helpeth his error R. ABBOT His exception as touching the different gender is excepted against I will not say by his Grammar rules for I will not shame him so much as to send him to his Grammar but by their glosse of the Canon law which telleth him that a Extravag de schismat c. dudum in glossa Neutrum adiectiuum de omni genere praedicatur the adiectiue in the neuter gender is spoken of euery gender Though therefore the particle demonstratiue This be in the neuter gender in the Greeke and Latin tongue yet that hindereth not but that bread being of the masculine gender may bee demonstrated thereby And so the ancient fathers vnderstood it that b Tertul. cont Marcionem l 4. Panem corpus suum appellans Christ called bread his body euen c Cyprian l. 1. epist 6. Corpus suum panem vocat de multorum granoruÌ„ adunatione congestum bread made of many cornes he calleth his body that d Theodoret. Dialog 1. symbola signa quae videntur appellatione corporis sanguinis honorauit he honoured the visible signes with the name of his body and blood that e Orig. de rectae in deum fide Corporu sanguinis signa imagines â— anem poculum ministrauit he ministred bread and wine for signes and tokens of his body and bloud that f Cyprian de vnct Chris In mensa in quae vitimum cum Apostoâ—is participauit conuiuiuÌ„ proprijs manibus tradidit panem vinum he gaue to his Apostles at his last supper bread and wine and in a word that g Aug. ser ad Infant Quod autem fides postulat instruenda panis est corpus Christi bread is the body of Christ. Now if there be no bread then it cannot bee said that bread is the body or that it is called the body of Christ If bread be called the body of Christ then is it necessarily imported that there is bread which is so called Which because it cannot be before consecration therfore after consecration there must be bread to be and to be called the body of Christ And beyond this the omnipotent force of the word of Christ doth not extend it selfe Hee thereby maketh the bread his body not as h Iohn 2.9 of water hee made wine so as to be no longer water but as i Iohn 1.14 the word was made flesh and yet still continued to be the word k Theodoret. vt supra Non naturam mutans sed naturae gratiam adijciens not changing nature as Theodoret expresseth it but adding grace vnto nature Albeit to dispute here what the word of Christ had been of force to doe is fantasticall and idle what hee did intend to doe is manifest and plaine vnto vs. He purposed to institute a Sacrament and l Aug. epi. 23. si sacramenta similitudinem quandam non haberent earum reruÌ„ quarum sunt sacramenta omninò sacramenta non essent Ex hac autem similitudine plerunque reruÌ„ ipsaruÌ„ nomina acciâ—iunt sacraments haue a resemblance of the things whereof they are sacraments and by reason of that resemblance they commonly take the names of the things themselues Christ therefore according to this accustomed maner calleth the Sacrament of his body and bloud by the name of his bodie and bloud and saith of bread This is my body and of the Cuppe This is my bloud and not in name enely but m Cyprian de resurrect Christi Quod videtur nomine virtute Christi corpus censetur in power and effect they are to the faithfull receiuer the same that they are called Heerein the force of Christs word is seene that to so weake and simple creatures he addeth so rich and vnspeakable grace and by so slender meanes worketh so great effects whereby he maketh vs poore creatures of the earth to become one with himselfe in heauen But if M. Bishop will deny the meaning to be This bread is my body we desire him to declare a better meaning and to tell vs certainly whereto to refer This which if he can define we will hold him for a wiser man than any hitherto hath been amongst them After much tossing this matter to and fro needlesse here to be stood vpon their great Master Bellarmine commeth to strike the matter dead and telleth vs that the meaning is n Bellar. de sacram Eucharist l. 1. c. 11. Hoc id est substantia sub his spectebus contenta This that is the substance contained vnder these formes But his wisedome might haue seene that the question
if we see it not how should we remember any thing by it seeing signes of remembrance must be things seen Such was Goliaths sword such was the husbands blood kept by the wines as much pertinent to this purpose as a goose quill to a woodcocks taile The reall presence therfore in this behalfe is altogether idle neither is there any fruit or effect of it because there is nothing thereby to be seen Albeit Christ did not say see this in remembrance of me but do this in remembrance ofme And what he bid vs doe S. Paul telleth vs namely b 1. Cor. 11.26 to eat of this bread and drinke of this cup. And how shall wee eat of this bread in remembrance of him if it be true which they say that in the sacrament there is no bread If he will say that by the forme of bread we may be remembred though the body be not seen we can also say that by the bread we may be remembred though there bee no reall presence of the body and therfore the reall presence because it is needlesse is iustly affirmed to be none at all 54. W. BISHOP Eightly If the reall presence be granted Per. 8. then the body and blood of Christ are either seuered or ioined together if seuered then Christ is still crucified if ioyned together then the bread is both the body and blood of Christ wheras the institution saith the bread is the body and the wine is the blood Answ The body and blood of Christ are by force of Christs words consecrated apart so that if they could be naturally separated they should bee also seuered in that Sacrament as they might haue been at Christs death when all the blood was poured foorth of his body but euer sithence Christs resurrection they are so ioined together that they can bee no more seuered so that we grant vnder one kind of the Sacrament to be both Christs body and blood which is not wrought by the words of the institution but by the necessary and inseparable coniunction of Christs body with his blood euer since his glorious resurrection R. ABBOT To this it shall be needlesse to say any thing here because it commeth more fitly to be spoken of in the next section 55. W. BISHOP Finally M. Perkins condemneth the administration of the Sacrament vnder one onely kind for the commandement of Christ is drinke ye all of this Mat. 26. vers 27. and this commandement is rehersed to the Church of Corinth in these words doe this as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me vers 25. and no power can reuerse this commandement because it was established by the soueraigne head of the Church Answ He began to set downe the institution of the Sacrament out of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. heere he leapeth backe to S. Mathew because he fitteth him better in this point to whom I answer that Christ there spake only vnto his twelue Apostles who were afterward to administer that holy Sacrament to others and so something ther-about is spoken to them which may not bee extended vnto lay-men but vnto Priests onely who were to succeed the Apostles in that ministery All men do confesse these words hoc facite doe yee this that is administer yee this Sacrament to be spoken onely to the Apostles and in them to all of the Clergie alone euen so drinke yee all of this was in like maner spoken vnto them onely as Clergie men and therfore it is a commandement onely to Priests so to do and as for others they may either drinke of it or not drinke of it as it shall bee thought most expedient by their supreame Pastors and this may be gathered out of those very words drinke ye all of this For why should the Apostles haue a speciall charge more to drinke of that cuppe then to eat of that food vnlesse it were to signifie that whereas all men should be bound to receiue Christs body they should bee further bound to receiue that holy cuppe also from which bond other men should stand free But to come to the purpose when they quarrell with vs for taking away from the people one kind of the Sacrament we answer that we doe them no hinderance thereby because we giue them both the blessed body and sacred bloud of Christ together vnder one kinde yea whole Christ both God and man because they be so vnited that they cannot be separated But what can they answer when we complaine vpon them for that they haue defrauded the poore people of both body and bloud of Christ and in lieu of that most pretious banquet doe giue them a cold breake-fast of a morsell of bread and a suppe of wine this is a most miserable and lamentable exchange indeed our blessed Lord giue them grace to see it and deliuer them speedily from it Heere is the place to shew how the Protestants doe not onely bereaue their vnfortunate followers of this most heauenly food of Christs body but that they also depriue them of the manifold and great graces of God deriued vnto vs in siue other Sacraments but because I haue touched it in the Preface I will omit it heere and make an end with M. PER. assoone as I haue requited him by propounding briefly some arguments for the real presence as hee hath done against it R. ABBOT Whether it bee S. Mathew or S. Paul they serue both for the confirming of one truth and doe both condemne the Antichristian and damnable sacriledge of the Church of Rome in maiming the Sacrament of Christ contrary to the institution of Christ himselfe to the very intention and purpose of the Sacrament to the example and practise of all ancient churches Our Sauiour Christ saith a Matt. 26.27 Drinke yee all of this But the Church of Rome saith Not so for there are iust and reasonable causes why it is not fit that all drinke therof but it is sufficient that the Priest alone drinke for all M. Bishop to make this good telleth vs that Christ there spake to his Apostles onely and that some thing thereabout is spoken to them which may not bee extended vnto lay-men but vnto Priests onely But how will hee make it appeare that Christ in the one part of the Sacrament spake to the Apostles onely and not in the other also There were none there present but the Apostles and what direction haue we in the words of Christ to restraine the vse of the cup as peculiar to the Priests and to make the other common to the people And if Christ did so intend how falleth it out that the Apostle S. Paul in the recitall of Christs institution professing b 1. Cor. 11.23 to deliuer precisely what he had receiued of the Lord maketh no mention of this restraint and what presumption was it in the whole primitiue Church contrary to that intendment to make that common to the laitie which Christ had made the prerogatiue of the Priests onely He saith
amends for all telling vs that when they take away from the people one kinde of the Sacrament they do them no hinderance thereby because they giue them both the body and bloud of Christ together vnder one kinde But who hath taught them so to doe or that so they can doe and if both may bee giuen vnder one why did Christ by his institution ordaine seuerally a Sacrament of both Let him satisfie vs in this behalfe if the whole intention of the Sacrament be atteined in one kinde why our Sauiour Christ would do a needlesse worke to institute both and if it be needfull for the Priest to drinke of the Lords cup why is it needlesse for the people or if it be sufficiently auaileable for the people that the Priest drinke thereof why is it not also sufficient that the Priest onely doe eate for all Hee telleth vs that the body and bloud of Christ bee so vnited that they cannot be separated and we grant so much of the bodie and bloud of Christ as now they are but he should remember that by this Sacrament g 1. Cor. 11.26 wee shew foorth the death of the Lord and in the death of the Lord his bodie was broken and his bloud was shed for vs accordingly as it is said h 1. Cor. 11.24 This is my body which is broken for you l Mat. 26.28 this is my bloud which is shed for you and therefore that the sacrament must represent and offer vnto vs the bloud of Christ as separated from the body Which because it cannot do being vsed in one kinde therefore it followeth that the Popish vsage thereof in that sort excludeth the intention of the sacrament and robbeth vs of the comfort of Christs bloud shed for the forgiuenesse of our sins And surely if the effect of the sacrament be wholly attained by receiuing onely in one kinde there was no cause why Gelasius Bishop of Rome hearing of some k De consecrat dist 2. Comperimus quosdam qui sumpta sacri corporis portione à calice sacrati cruoris abstineant qui quia nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi aut integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integru arceantur quia diuisio vnius einsdemque mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest prouenire who receiuing the portion of Christs sacred body did forbeare the cuppe of his sacred bloud should decree as he did that either they should receiue the whole sacrament or else be excluded from the whole adding a reason thereof which cleerely cutteth off all Popish exceptions because the diuiding of one and the same mysterie cannot come without great sacriledge Why should Gelasius vrge a matter so needlesse if it be true which now is taught in Poperie or if Gelasius then saw it to be sacriledge to diuide this mysterie of Christ how commeth it about that it is not so now In the time of Iulius the first long before Gelasius another abuse was creeping into the Church of dipping the Sacrament of Christs body into the cup as thereby to saue a labour and so vnder one to deliuer both It appeareth heereby that Christian people were not then taught as they are now in the Romane church that the one part of the Sacrament is by concomitancy as their Schoolemen haue deuised both the bodie and the bloud of Christ neither did Iulius vpon that ground condemne that dipping as superfluous and causelesse which both hee and they should in that respect haue conceiued so to bee if that fancie were true But they by Christs institution conceiued a necessitie to receiue both and therefore in this sort by dipping the Eucharist in the cup prouided so to doe in which sort notwithstanding to receiue both Iulius approoued it as a thing vnlawfull l Dist 2. cap. Cum omne Quod pro complemento câ—mmunionis ineinctam tradunt Eu haristiam populis nec hoc prolatum ex Euangelio testimoniuÌ„ receperunt vbi Apostolu corpus suum commendauit sanguinem seorsum enim panu scorsum calicis commendatio memoratur because there is no testimony heereof in the Gospell where Christ commended to his Apostles his body and bloud for there is recorded seuerally the deliuery of the bread and seuerally of the cup. Now if Christ to the end he might commend to vs both his body and bloud would seuerally commend the one and seuerally the other surely the church of Rome in debarring the people from the cup confoundeth the institution of Christ and commendeth the one onely without the other And sith Iulius did hold that for direction in this behalfe the Church is to haue recourse to the example of Christ in the Gospell to doe as Christ there is recorded to haue done wee must needs conceiue that the Church of Rome now is not of the same mind that Iulius was which so manifestly crosseth that which is described in the gospell And not Iulius only but the whole Church of Christ held it selfe tied to that example and practised accordingly neither was there any Church in the world which held it sufficient or lawfull to administer the sacrament to the people in one kind Hierome saith that m Hieron in 1. Cor. 11. Dominica coena omnibus debet esse communis quia ille omnibus distipulu suis qui aderant aequaliter tradidit sacramenta the Lords supper ought to be common to all because the Lord Iesus equally deliuered the sacraments to all his disciples that were present So Chrysostome saith n Chrysost in 2. Cor. hom 18. Est vbi nihil differt sacerdos a subdito vt quando fruendum est sacris mysterijs similiter enin omnes vt 〈◊〉 participemus digri habemus that in the receiuing of the holy mysteries there is no difference betwixt the Priest and the people for we all saith he are vouchsafed to receiue them alike o Theophylact. in 1. Cor. c. 11. praesertim cum tremendus hic calix pari cunctis conditione sit traditus This dreadfull cup saith Theophylact was in like or equall condition deliuered to all In a word when Cyprian saith that p Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 2. Quomodo ad martyrij poculum idoneos facimus si non eos ad bibendum prius in ecclesia poculum domini iure communicationis admittimus by right of communion we admit the people to drinke in the Church of the Lords cup what doth hee but plainly declare that the Church of Rome doth apparant wrong to the people of God in that it bereaueth them of this right We may therefore iustlie thinke them very impudently obstinate whom neither the authority of Christ nor the consent of fathers nor the practise of Christian Churches vniuersally through the world nor the very reason of the Sacrament it selfe can mooue to reform this maiming of the sacrament of Christ but doe make choise rather to continue still in error than to acknowledge that they haue erred But M.