Mat. 26.28 But when they speake of Christs naturall bloud they speake For the remissione of sinnâ— So when Christ speaketh actiuelie as he gaue hee brake it is alwaies spoken of the sacrament But when be speaketh passiulie vvhich is given vvhich is broken vvhich it shed and for you not to you then he spâ—akes of his naturall bodie given and broken on the crosse And this rule is a plaine and sure rule to direct vâ—in and to the true vnderstanding of hoc est corpus meum This is my bodie In which plaine pathes of the holie Scriptures if you would walke Bread and vvine remain afer consecration by Câ—riâ—t his testimony therefore traÌ„substanstâ—â—tion is a fâ—rged and false fable invented by nevv Rome to support your new heresies of Christs carnall presence you might be preserved from wandring Thus you see how distinctlie Christ disioynes them sundring them with their severall properties the s gne from the thing signified not confounding them as you vntrulie teach yea and after that Christ vttered hâ—c est corpus meum which you call your coâ—â—ecration Now let vs compare the phrase and words that the holie Ghost vseth in both the new Testament the old and then you will say they are so like that they are rather borrowed of the old testament then instituted in the new and so of necessitie seeing they are beâ—â— Sacraments and of like words and ordained by one Author and to one end they wâ—st needs haue one sence so that the one will best expound the other and the one being Sacramentall and relatiue the other cannot be Grammaticall and proper As it is said in the old (a) Gen. 17 10. Testament of the sacrameÌ„t of circumsition hic est pactum meum this is my covenant So it is said in the new (b) math 26.26 testameÌ„t by the same spirit hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie but as by those words like to these in sâ—llables sound and sence there was no transubstansiation of the peece of flesh of the foreskin that was cut off into Gods covenant made with his Church so there is no naturall nor miraculous chaunge made of anie part of the bread or wine into Christs bodie and bloud Exod. 12 And as it was said of the Paschall Lambe hâ—c erit vobis in memoriam this shall be to you a rememberance so it is said of the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 11.24 Exod. 24.8 Doe this in rememberance of me And as it was said in the olde Testament hic est sanguis faederis This is the bloud of the covenant yet was not the couenant but a signe of the covenant So is it said by Christ himselfe Luc. 22.20 This cup is the new Testament in my bloud yet the cup was neither the Testament nor the bloud but a signe representation 〈◊〉 rememberance of Christs bloud And the new Testament is an obligation or bond therein God for his part binds himselfe with most see covenaunts and seales it with word oath and sacraments that hee will receiue into his protection and favour the beleever and penitent And the beleever and repentant of their parts binde themselues 〈◊〉 like indented covenants to performe vnto his saued Maiestie Rom. 1.5 a liuelie and steadfaste faith with holy obedience Now the cup or the wine in the cup is a representation or commemoration vnto vs of this coveâ—â—nt of grace made in the newe Testament as the Paschall Lambe and the bloud of beasts were signes of Gods covenant in the old Testament This may sâ—â—fice for the plaine and true vnderstanding of these words this is my bodie and this is my bloud beeing â—â— pounded according to the holie scriptures Now to your first proofe out of saint Paul 1. Cor. 11. This is my bodie vvhich shall bee delivered for you whoso doth eate vnworthelie Catho Priests c. shall be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of Christ A Most learned writer in the like case Rider Athenaus Dâ—pnâ—sophist lib. 12. brings in an Athenian historie of Thrasilaus a frâ—ntick man amongst the Greekes who whensoever â—e saw anie ships arriue in the harbor thought them all his own tooke an Inventorie of their wares bad theÌ„ welcome home verie ioyfully as if they had bin his own servants ships After the same maner pardon the coÌ„parison you deal in the proofe of this question for wheresoever you finde in scriptures or fathers hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie or this is my bloud or my flesh is meat trulie c. or except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud c. or the bread vvhich I will giue is my flesh or the like tropical or sacramentall phrase which ever carrieth with it a spirituall sence presentlie you clap hands lift vp Stentorian voices and crie to the Catholickes against vs poore heretickes that all these texts of Scriptures and testimonies of Fathers are on your side and prooue your carnall presence and condeme our opinion as hereticall and damnable and then you register in your note-books as in an Inventorie all these proofes for your owne proper evidence when as God knowes you are neither Owners Marchants nor faithfull Factors And it shall be directlie prooved that these texts of Scriptures and testimonies of Fathers belong no more to the proofe of your carnall presence then the Merchants ships and goods of Athens belonged to franticke Thrasylaus But now to prooue that I speak that the Catholickes may see yea and let maister Henry Eytsimon trulie censure wee speake nothing without proofe I will beginne to examine your slips and slâ—ights in this place of the 1. Cor. 11. First you bring a peece of a verse so much as you thinke by the sound of your eare will fit your purpose then you cut off the beginning and ending of the same verse which would expound the Apostles meaning and overthrow your opinion Then you ioyne a peece of the 17 verse with the 24. verse and overskip the 25 and 26 verses whi h all that you left out and cut off doth first deliver Christs institution secondly expounds his owne meaning in everie particuler point that is in controversie betwixt vs and thirdlie overthrowes your opinions Now what mooved you thus to mangle cut off disioynt and dismember this place of Paul as you did with the text before let the Reader after my examination of your errors iudge But first I must deliver you this generall rule observed of all sound Divines that all the Evangelists and Apostles doctrine being pend by one spirit doe agree in the matter of the Sacrament one expounding another as partlie you heard a little before So that the three Evangelists must not be expounded to contradict Paul nor Paul expounded to contradict them but all duke and trulie in the spirit of humilitie being examined according to the Canon and rule of the word of God you shall finde neither darknesse in
can you prooue that Christs holie bloud is but an effect of your consecration or benediction of the cup If Christs bloud bee an effect of your cup benediction then your cup benediction is the cause of Christs holie bloud O hellish and damnable divinitie as if a sinfull ignorant Priest could by his magicall consecration make the holie bloud of Christ my Saviour which was shed on the crosse for my sinnes Now Catholicks looke to your selues I mean to your soules You cannot prooue it either by scripture or fathers for this is the doctrine of Rome and Rhemes fitteâ— to be taught in hell by fiendes then maintained in earth by Priests Fifthlie and lastlie by what scripture do you prooue nay by what auncient Father that this blessing or thanksgiving is referred to the cup or challice and not vnto God scriptures you haue none and fathers of the first sixe hundred yeareâ— never heard of it And that the Catholickes may leâ— the antiquitie and veritie of this out doctrine and thâ— noveltie and heresie of yours I will onelie producâ— but two learned Fathers with vs against you forbeare to alleadge the rest till you giue mee furtheâ— occasion Chrys super 1 Cor. 10. Chrysostome vpon this place calleth it the cuppe oâ— blessing because when we haue it in our hands wâ—â—â— admiration and a certaine horror of that vnspeakableâ— gift we praise and blesse him because he hath sh d hâ—â— bloud that we should not remaine in error and hath not onelie shed it but made vs all partakers of it 〈◊〉 like sort did Photius and Oecumenius expounde thiâ— word Photius Occumenâ—us which vvee blesse which having in our handes blesse him which hath graciously given vs his bloud tâ—at is we giue him thanks or which we prepare when we blesse or giue thankes Now the Catholickes may see by the auncient fathers whom your selues doe brag of that they condemne your cup blessed exposition And the Catholickes may see as in a glasse that wee ioine with the scriptures and fathers in the true sence of these words The cup vvhich vve blesse and that your exposition iâ— erronious and superstitious and therefore to be recâ—nted by you and shunned by the Catholickes and my reasons be drawne out of the foresaid fathers not made on my owne fingers 1 Fi st he saith that benediction blessing or thanksgiving is referred to him that shed his bloud for vs I hope you will not say the cup shed anie bloud for vs. 2 Secondlie this father saith that blessing God and praising God is all one and therefore when we say the cup of thanksgiving we follow Christ Paul the Greek text and the olde fathers And when you translate it The challice of benediction it is flat contrarie to Christ Paul veritie and antiquitie And there is as great difference betwixt your opinion and the old fathers faith is betwixt praising with mouth and crossing with fingers nay as much as betwixt your superstitious challice and our soule-saving Christ for so if you marke the fathers words the difference stands The text it selfe offers vs three things in a comfortable distinction and you would confound them with your new imagined transubstansiation 1 The first is Christs bodie crucified and his bloud shed with all his purchased benefits 2 Secondlie our communion fellowship which all beleevers haue in that crucified Christ and those soule saving merits 3 Thirdly the outward seals of those benefits which are called the cup vvhich vve blesse and the bread which â—â—e breake to witnesse to the world and to confirme to our selues the fruition and possession of all those benefits Now if I should say that the bread cup being outward seals were our coÌ„munion with Christ the wicked would laugh at my folly though the godly would pittie my ignorance in the trueth or my malice against the trueth and the reason is this because the seal be things outward and the communion of Christs bodie and bloud be things inward the one sensible the other spirituall and intellectuall as much difference it betwixt them as there is betwixt outward and inward sensible and intellectuall so much difference there is betwixt the outward seals of Christs body and bloud and his bodie and bloud And if the seales cannot be changed into the communion of Christs bodie and bloud but remaine st ll in their severall natures and substances everie one performing his severall distinct office much lesse can they be reallie and substantiallie changed into Christs bodie and bloud which are things more remote but mosâ— impossible And if you had added the next verse thâ— Apostle had made it plaine in shewing you a doubtâ— communion sealed in this Sacrament The first our coÌ„munion with Christ and his benefits The second ouâ— communion amongst our selues 1. Soli. which both are proper onely to gods church 2. Omni. to euery one of gods church and all waies to gods Church 3. Jemper Now let the learned Iudge whether you or we misconster scripture wrest fathers deceaue Christs flocke and the Queenes subiects peruerte the true meaning of this Text. And now to the next Catholick a Priests This councell consils of 318. fathers The second Proofe by Councells and Fathers Concilium Nicen cap 14. Anno 363. No rule or custome doth permittae that they which haue not the authority to offer the sacrifice should giue it to theâ— that offer the bodie of Christe Rider GEntelmeÌ„ you are possessed with a threefold erroâ— which is the cause wheÌ„ you read the scriptures Councells fathers you misunderstand theÌ„ your first error is wheÌ„ you vnderstand that spoken of the outward Elements with these three Sophisticall points you peruert all the fathers you bring for this purpose deceue the Catholickes which is meant of the inward invisible grace Your second error is wheÌ„ you referre that to the visible partes of the bodie which they intended to the inuisible powers of the minde and soule Thirdlie your former two errors beget a third eror which is your mistaking the state of our questioÌ„ And so wheras you should proue the maner of Christs presence in the Sacraments you offer to proue the matter but of that we haue spoken before Thus if you will reade the scripturs fatheres Councells with these .3 cautions or derectioÌ„s you shall easily see how farre thus longe you haue gone from the truth and misled the Queenes subiects Now with Gods permission wee will proceed to the â—e examination of your proofe as it is alledged out of your owne Colen print Ex officina Iohannis Quinâ—d Typographi Anno Domini 1561. which you cannot denie it is in the first Tome and the fourteenth Chapter and the two hundreth fiftie fiue page of the first edition and the Chapter beginnes thus Peruenit ad sanctum Concilium quod in lociâ— quibusdam ciuitaâ—â—us presbyteris Sacramenta Diaconi porrigant Then followes your fraction verie abruptlie
phrase addeth a dignitie to the sacrament but changeth not the nature of the sacrament to terme the visible signe by the name of the thing signified as circumscision is called the couenaunt the Lambe is called the Pasâ—ouer In Baptisme iâ— called the fountaine of â—egeneration and bread Christs bodie and yet in deed th y are but outward signes and to the faithfull onely seales graâ—â—d by the holie Ghost with the names of the things they represent and confirme the more to 〈◊〉 me and stiâ—â—e vp oâ—r affections and to edge our zeale with a religious preparation to receiue the same and to life vp our hearts and soules by faith to behold consider and feed vpon Christ crucified the thing signified Yet for your further satisfaction I will intreat Augustine to aunswere you doubt who saith (a) Aug. epistol 22. ad bonifatium Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem â—arum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent omnino sacramenta non essent ex hac autem similitudine plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christs corpus Christs est sacramentum sanguinis Christs sanguis Chriâ—ti est ita sacramentum fides fides est In English thus If the Sacrament had not some certaine similitude and likenesse of the things whereof they be Sacraments they should be no Sacraments at all And of this similitude manie times they haue the names of those things themselues as the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ is after a certaine manner the bodie of Christ and the sacrament of his bloud is after a certaine maner his bloud So the Sacrament of faith or Baptisme is faith Out of which wee may note first they are but Sacraments or similitudes of the thing signified not the things themselues secondlie that bread wine are the bodie bloud of Christ bâ—â— secundum quendam modum after a certaine maner and shewes how by an example as the Sacrament of faith is faith so the Sacrament of Christs body is Christs bodie but the Sacrament of faith is not faith naturallie substantiallie by a chaunge of substance for by chaunge of qualitie or vse therefore the Saâ—â—â—t of Christs bodie is not chaunged into the â—â—â—tance of Christs bodie but onely in qualitie and â—â—se is Theodores saith in his first dialogue Theodoret dialog 2. cap. 24 pag 113. dialog 1. cap. 8. pag. 54. read them I pray you not changing nature but adding grace vnto nature And the â—â—â—e Father in his second dialogue explaines this more plainly saying the misticall signes after sanctifâ—cation Non recedunt a sua natura manere enim in pure substantia figura c. they depart not from theâ— nature but remaine in their former substance 〈◊〉 figure may be seene touched as before Out of which auncient learned Father I obserue these necessarie points for the Catholickes instruction and your confutation First he saith Post sanctificationem Consecration vnknovvn to Theodor. therefo e it is a new terme The change is in the name honour and vse not in the nature Father ansvvere this fâ—str or confesse the truth after sanctification then your new comed terme of consecration was not known in the Church of God but sanctification and benediction Secondly I note cut of this father that though the Sacraments haue gotten a new diuine qualitie yet they haue not lost their nature they had before as you vntrulie teach Thâ—rdlie I obserue that he confuted by the example of bread and wine in the Sacrament certaine Heretickes who held that Christs bodie was changed into his deitie after his ascention for this is the Fathers proofe against those heretickes That as bread and wine are trulie bread and wine after sanctification as they were before sanctification euen so is Christs bodie as trulie a bodie now after his ascention as it was before his ascention So now the Priests of new Rome cannot say that the bread and wine haue lost their true natures and properties in the Lords supper after sanctification vnlesse then will also say with the Heretickes that Christ hath lost the nature of a true bodie now after his ascention And Chrisostomâ— seconds Theodores saying Ante Sanctificationem 〈◊〉 â—sost ad Caesarium Monach Mark this well yet Preists Iesuets c. Before it he sanctified we cal it bread buâ— the deuine gracâ— once sanctifying it by the ministrie of the Priest it â— deliuered from the name of bread and counted worthy to be called the Lords body though the nature oâ— bread continue there still Out of which I note 〈◊〉 the father calles it sanctification not consecration Secondly it is called bred before sanctification is breaâ— in nature after sanctification Aâ—d lâ—rdly after sanctificatioÌ„ it is called the Lords body yet it is not the â—ord body in deede because the nature of bread remaine And therefore in that it is calld the Lords body it muâ—â— be so Sacramentally figuraâ—â—uâ—ly improperly And Gelasius your owne Pope whom you dare not contradict such plainely Noâ— defiant esse substantia panis 〈◊〉 natura vini What can you saie to thâ—se pregnaâ—te proofes to satisfie the doubtfull catholiques There scaceth not to be the substance oâ— bread and the nature of wine But you here will obtrude your oulde slanderous obiection that we accepâ— of the Sacraments no better then bare figures No we acknowledge a change and an alteration but not oâ— the substance but of the vse Is not this a maruelous change wrought by the holy Ghost in the due administration of the Lords supper according to Christ Institution that of commen bread and wine such as daily we feede our bâ—â—ches with is made the dreadefull and reuerend misteries of Christ crucified where by we neither looke vppon the bare naked elements as common creatures but as sanctified food And in such sort that even as the bâ—ead doth nourish our bodies and the wine doth comfort our spirits so trulie reallie and vnfainedlie doth the heavenlie food of his bodie crucified and his bloud shed for our sinnes by faith in the time of the holie Supper feede and nourish our soules into everlasting life and so is made and sealed our reall coniunction with Christ not by his bodilie and locall discention into our stomackes but by 〈◊〉 spirituall ascention to him by faith This is our â—â—nne touching these figuratiue propositions warâ—ed by Scriptures Clem. Alex Theod August with many not neuer heard of consecration but of santification Benedection and witnessed by the auncientest â—thers Hitherto hath beene plainly and directlie â—ooved that your two propositions bee figuratiue 〈◊〉 proper Secondlie that the substances of bread 〈◊〉 â—ime remain after coÌ„secration therfore there can 〈◊〉 no such carnall presence of Christ by Transubstantation vnder the formes of bread and wine as 〈◊〉 deeme Now I am come to your two maine pilâ— that support vnderprop your carnall
so then this Pope will haue this sence hoc eâ—â— corpus meum that is nothing is my bodie But in thâ— three of the last lines of that chapter his wisedomâ— changed his minde said this is my bodie that is whaâ— soever is vnder the formes of bread is my bodie Iâ— not this thinke you deepe divinitie for a Pope You may see herein how the Pope vseth shamefull shifts tâ— cover his sensible errors and to deceiue Christs littâ— flocke In his Marc. Anton Con. Stephen Gardner living buâ— latelie seeing every man opinion expounding what hoc should be heed slikes 〈◊〉 them all and saith it signifieth iudiuiduum vagum as iâ— Christ had said This but what it is I cannot tell but iâ— must of necessitie be somewhat is my bodie De consec dist 2. can P morem Glossa ibi dem But I will conclude with your owne Popes Canoâ— and Glosse which you hold for Canonicall though in deed hereticall solet quari quid demonstratur per pronâ—â—â— men hoc It is a common question what is meant by â—hiâ— pronounce this whether bread or the bodie of Christ not bread for that is not the bodie of Christ nor yet thoâ— bodie of Christ for it appereath not that there is anie transubstansiation till the words hoc all pronounced yea the last sillable â—m To this question this must be aunswered That by the word this nothing is meanâ— but it is there put materially without anie signifi aâ—ion at all See now whither you are brought or rather whither haue you brought Gods people from â—â—deth to falsehood if hoc signifieth nothing where then is your transubstanstation For if in 〈◊〉 word which should first worke in the change there bee no mention of bread how câ—n that which is no waâ— comprised in them be chaunged by them so you spâ—ake against your selues Againe as you are rent in sunâ—â— opinions touching hoc so also are you touching â—â—er when you saw that est would not serue in his propet Evangelicall and Apostolicall signification What est signifieth there is great variance amongst the Romish Prelats Est i. Fit Est est verbum anuntiativum non constetutium Est 1. erit Iosephus Angles iâ— loco praedicto pag. 115. then you gaue him a new exposition For Bonaventure seeing that est as Christ and Paul meant it would not fit their purpose then hee of purpose expounded it by fit vt fit sensus panis fit corpus meum that it might be thus in sence The bread is made my bodie Yet Occham hee likes not Bonaventures Fit because hee thinkes it is too grosse and too false and therefore he will expound est by erit that it may carrie with it this sence this shall be my bodie but saith he it is a verie rash and brainsicke opinion and alleadgeth as brainsicke a reason as there you may see Yet Caietanus the Cardinall de Encharistia cap. 7. pag. 104. col 2. C. D. denieth est to haue anie such signification vnlesse it be in metaphors and parables But lest that I shuld be too offensiue vnto you I could del ver so many several opinions of yours touching the praedicat corpus one saith it must bee meant of Christes bodie glorified no saith another that is false but it must be vnderstood of his bodie as it was before his passion And a third opinion obiects certaine doubts against both the former Magister Sententiarum lib 4. distinct 12. page 60. delivers foure severall opinions de fractione partibus Now Gentlemen I appeale to your consciences if they be not cauteriated whether you haue dealt well with the ignorant Catholickes of this land in perswading them that in all your doctrine there is consent without jarres antiquitie without innovation and vniversalitie without limittation whereas there is nothing but iarres discords dissentions in your coÌ„secration in your transubstantiatioÌ„ in every word almost nay perticle as hoc and est be so wrested by your construction that you haue brought both their propeâ— significations to plaine destruction Is this exposition Catholicke what auncient fatheâ— ever expounded it so let the Catholickes know oâ— else they with vs will iudge neither you nor you doctrine Catholicke Will you follow a foolish Frier an ignorant Abbot a late vpstart Pope or Priest thaâ— writ and wrested within these foure hundred yeares and forsake Scriptures and the auncient Doctours oâ— the Church Now let the indifferent minded Catholikes be iudges whether you or wee haue antiquiâ—â— consent and veritie on our sides And who differs from Scriptures fathers from amongst themselues not onelie in one point of religion but almost in â—verie point and particle of doctrine Thus much coâ—cerning your discords amongst your selues and â—l â—gainst the auncient Apostolicall and Catholick truth Now to conclude this matter I will shewe plainlâ—â— by scriptures Hoc est corpus meum expouâ— bâ— scripente that hoc est corpus meum can haue no such sence as you teach which is that bread is not by this or anie other words transubstantiated or chauâ—ged into Christs bodie and bloud but that bread remaineth after sanctification or as you say consecratâ—on and that the scriptures speaking of Christs bodie and of the bread speake distinctlie not confusedlie that is they doe divide them not confound them giving to eâ—ther of them their severall nature and propertie yea after consecration And whereas we haue now heard too much of the jarres of your late Popes and writers voide of vnitie and veritie Now let vs heare the holie scriptures expound hoc est corpus meum plainlie and truelie by the Evangelists and Paul who knew best Christs meaning Vpon whose exposition all Christians may and must onelie rest satisfied inspite of Pope and poperie Debt math 26 26. ANd first we will prooue it from the difference of the signe and the thing signified The scriptures when they speak of bread they speak actiuely He gaue Dâ—tur Luc 22.19 But when they speake of Christs naturall bodâ—e they speake passiuelie Is given â—regit Luc. 21.19 When they speake of bread they speake actiuelie He brake it â—â—ngitur 1. Cor. 11.24 But when they speake of Christs body they speake passiuelie Which is broken â—â—s marke 14.22 When they speake of bread they say To you Pro vobis 1 Cor. 11.14 But when they speake of Christs naturall bodie they say For you Dedit marke 14 12 Likewise when they speake of wine they speake actiuely He gaue â—â—â—nditur Luc. 11.20 But when they speake of Christ his bloud they speake passiuelie Is shed â—it math 26.27 When they speake of the wine they say To them Pro multis prâ—rebis Luc. 22 â—0 math 26.26 But when they speake of Christs bloud they speake For you or for manie Iâ— meaÌ„ commemotationem 1. Cor. 11.24 When they speak of the cup they speak In rememberance of me Iâ— remissìonem peccatorum
speech nor difficultie in sence but that the simplest may know Christs meaning You should haue begunne at the 23. verse and so to the end of the 29. verse and that had been plaine dealing Christs institution penned by Paul delivers vs foure observations First Christ his action Secondlie Christes precept Thirdlie Christs promise Fourthlie Christes caution 1 Christes action He gaue thankes brake bread tooke the cup c. 2. Christes precept 1. Take yee eate yee 2. This do as often as yee drinke it and both in rememberance of me 3. The minister must shewe and preach the Lords death till he come 3. Christes proudâ—e 1. This is my body which is broken for you 2. This is the new Testament in my bloud 4. Christes caution or caveat Whosoever â—hall eate this bread or drinke this cup vnvvorthelie shall bee guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. Thus you see plainlie without anie dismemb ing or curtalling Christs action precept promise caution delivered out of the text Out of which place I obserue for the Catholickâ— better instruction and your confutation two things against you in this your skipping and curtalling of thâ— text First the comforts you conceale from them by this mangling of the text Secondlie the errours you still hold them in in concealing the most part of thâ— text first by following your Latten translation neglecting the holie tongue the Greeke wherein the holie Ghost pend this institution You traâ—slate Whicâ— shall be delivered for you for which is broken for you Ouâ— of which I note first you change the tense that is in the Greeke that is the present tense for so wee haue it and you follow the Latten translation which is the future tense Euallage and therefore not so comfortable Christ vseth a sweet figure of the time present for the time to come to assure our soules and consciences that whatsoever Christ promiseth is as surelie to bee performed in his appointed time as if it were alreadie done And this tense Christ vsed to take all doubts from his disciples who in respect of their vnworthinesse might iustlie haue doubted that Christ would not haue died and shed his precious bloud for them they being such vnprofitable servants and miserable sinners But to take away that doubt from them and the Church now hee assures both that whatsoever is promised by him is as sure to be done as if it were alreadie done And this staieth Christs Church and everie perticular member of the same from distrusts doubts grudgings c. in and vnder their severall crosses because they know there is a ioyfull Iubile and freedome for them purchased and prepared and shall as surelie be accomplished as if now it weere performed Now your altring of this particle is depriveth vs of all this comfort Againe you following still your corrupt Latten translation say delivered for you wheras you should say as the Greeke is and as Christ saith Broken for you for this word broken is more Emphatical and piercing then delivered for it is one thing for a man to be delivered or to be betraied for me another thing to be broken in peeces for me Out of this I obserue first the greatnesse of my sinne secondlie the kindnes and exceeding loue of my Saviour In the first that Christs birth and life though both innocent was not sufficient to cleanse my sinne In the second Christ would vndergoe shamefull buffets on the face pricking of thornes vpon his head piercing nailes into his hands and feete a bloudie speare into his blessed side before mans sinne could bee satisfied Gods wrath appeased Sathan death and hell conquered this our living Christ would haue his bodie broken for vs he would not leaue one sigh in his soule for our sâ—kes nor one drop of bloud in his bodie vnshed for our sinnes These comforts are expressed by this word broken which are not nor can be gathered by this word delivered Another comfort is concealed from the Catholickes in omitting the 25. verse in these words The newe Testament in my bloud Math. 25.40 Heb. 2.12.13.17 Ioh. 10.27 Out of which everie man may gather these comforts to himselfe by particular application First that I am not a straunger to Christ but one of his younger brethren and not onelie well knowne vnto him but also as well beloved of him which appeareth in this that hee did not onelie remember me in his last will but also most freelie and liberallie bequeached vnto my soule and bodie most precious Legacies where wee may finde them registred most safelie kept in Gods booke and daylie pronounced in our Creed as remission of sinnes of both guilt punishment peace of conscience in this life at the latter day rising of my bodie from death and dust afterwards life eternall both to soule and bodie These Legacies be bequeathed and contained in this Testament which he hath not onely sealed outwardlie with Sacraments but also inwardlie with his bloud by faith to assure vs of the performance of his promise and therefore he addeth in me bloud so that all other Testaments Wils Bâ—ls or Pardons which are not sealed with Christs bloud but with lead or wax are but counterfeit labels stâ—â—cht to Christs testament by some false forgeries of pâ—â—ured Nâ—â—â—ies wherin they doe falselie promisâ— remission of sinnes and the kingdome of heaven Acts 5.3 These deceivers must be told as Peter told Ananias Why hath Sathan fild thy heart that thou shouldest lie not onelie vnto men but also vnto the holie Ghost In Ananias heart there was a wicked conceit in his practises a wicked deceit and for his reward a suddaine dâ—ath You Chaplens of the Pope doe tell the poore people many waies to haue remission of their sinnes besides Christes Testament and Christes bloud which I will deliver particularlie if I be vrged but you are deceived and so you deceiue them and because you would keepe them still blinde that they should neither see your deceit nor their owne daunger therefore you kept this comfortable clause from them The new Testament in my bloud without which there is neither remission of sins nor saving of soules Another comfort you conceale from the devout meditation of everie good Christian which is In rememberance of me Suetonius Plutach We read in histories after Iulius Caesar was slaine Marcus Anthonius made an Oration to the people of Rome in which he shewed Caesars loue and pointed out verie Rhetoricallie Caesars bountie to them while he lived but in the heat of his speech he made a pause and shewed theÌ„ Caesars robes sprinkled with his princelie bloud shed by the bloudie hand of his cruell and malicious enemies which when the Cittiezens sawe remembring hâ—s loâ—e presentlie they ranne vpon the murtherers and slew them Did the Cittizens of Rome being Pagans revenge Caesars death vppon his enemies onelie remembring his loue and liberalitie Then with what Christian courage and spirituall manhood ought we that
in them by his spirit as hath been plainelâ— handled before And now I will be bolde to vrge your owne Pope â— decrees against you Part 3. distinct 2. cap. 65. Qui discordus a Christo c whosoever dissenteth from Christ doeth neither eate his flesh nor drinke his bloud but the wicked distent from Christ therfore they neither eat Christs flesh noâ— drâ—â— his bloud And cap. 69. following quie unque panem c. Whosoever eateth this bread the Lord shall live for ever but the wicked liue nor for ever therefore the wicked eate not this bread the Lord. Now Gentlemen I would faine see how you can disprooue these Fathers and old Popes and satisfie the Catholicks in this case but I shall haue a fâ—t place to speak of the vnreasonablenesse of this opinion in the title of the Masse where I must shewe to the Catholickes the Popes Priests and Iesuits shamefull opinions that you thinke it no inconvenience not onelie for the wicked but also for all such bruit beasts as cats or dogs rats or mice hogs or swine to eate the blessed bodie and drinke the precious bloud of Iesus Christ This you blush not to print but I protest my hand shakes and my heart quakes to write it because it is so monstâ—ous and beast â—e a blasphemie to that blessed bodie that precious bloud that suffered and was shed for my salvation Now for this second part of your Rhemish note vppon this place Chrysost Tom. 3. Hom. 60. 61. de lumâ—nâ—â—buâ— iudigne divina sancto mysteria praecipuâ— de caena Dominâ— de baptismate which is Hovv can a man bee guiltie of Christs bodie if he touch not Christs bodie I had rather Chrisostome vpon this text in one of his workes should aunswe e you then I his words be these Nam si Regâ—am contamiâ—antes purpuram similiter puniuntur sicut c. For if he that hath disteined violated or polluted the â—â—gs robes whether it bee of purple or some other â—â—ter shall be as severelie in iustice punished as if he had rent theÌ„ Even so it shall be with such as receiue â—he Lords bodie unpura mente with an vnprepared and â—â—lean mind they shall be punished with equall torments with such as nailed him to the crosse Out of which I obserue first that Chrysostome condemneth your carnall presence and corporall eating in â—â—ing you they must be eaten with the mind not with the mouth but of this we haue sufficientlie spoken of before Secondlie by comparison he sheweth you how you may bee guiltie of treason against the kings person though he neither touch nor hurt his person in offering disgrace but to his garments his person being abseâ—t And as he that contuineliously receiveth the princes seale though of waxe is guiltie of the Maiestie of the Prince not which he receiueth but which hee despiseth so he that eateth this bread and drinketh this cap of the Lord without due preparation as aforesaid considering they are seales of Christs promised benefits purchased in his bitter and blessed passion committeth high treason against Christ though in deed in substance they receiue but bread and wine And as a man may be guiltie of treason in renting defacing or â—â—pping the kings picture seale or coine though the king be not locallie in place so the wicked in the Sacraments which are Christs seales which being abused by them they are guiltie of Gods iudgements though Christ be not inclosed locallie in the bread wine And what Chrysostome speaketh heare of the Lords Supper the same hee doth of Baptisme and saith a man may be as well guiltie of the Lords bodie and bloud in contemning Baptisme which is but a seale of 〈◊〉 washing in the bloud of Christ though hee never washed but in water and alleadgeth Paul Heb. 10 1â— saying Of how much sorer punishment suppose yeâ— shal he be worthy which treadeth vnder foot the lonne of God counteth the bloud of the testameÌ„t as an vnholie thing c. These Fathers haue aunswered you and I hope will satisfie fullie the indifferent Reader Now three sorts of men are guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. The first are plaine Atheists that are without God or godlinesse in this present world and such eate this bread vnworthelie and therefore are guiltie of Christes bodie and bloud Three sorts of men guilty of the Lo â—die 2 The second sort haue a historicall faith and a generall knowledge and beleeue that whatsoever is taught in Gods booke is true but they lacke apprehension and application to make a particular and holy vse of the same and therefore if such come and eate of this bread they are guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. 3 The third sort haue a liuelie apprehending applying faith yet in their life they slippe and fall yea sometimes verie grievouslie yet they awake weep with Peter and repent for the same All these are said to eate vnworthelie but the first two sorts vnto their condemnation The third sort for their faults frailties negligences and vndue preparation are in this life of the Lord corrected least with the world they should be damned The two first sorts eateth onelie the outwardelements the last sort eateth the bodie of Christ and drinketh the bloud of Christ And now to your second proofe out of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 10.16 The challice of benediction vvhich vvâ—â— blesse Catho Priestes is it not the communication of the bodie of Christ And the bread vvhich wee besse is it not the participation of his flesh GEntlemen yee wrong the Apostles text Rider first in your abuse of words Verse 21. secondlie in mistaking the sence Your words be these The challice of benediction Pauls words in Greeke that must be iudge betwixâ— vs and which wee doe follow if we will follow Christ are these The cup of thansgiving And the holie Ghost so expounds his owne meaning after calling it peculum Domini the cup of the Lord. But you are much to be blamed of all good men because you had rather follow some late corrupt translation vse some superstitious Inkhome-termes latelie devised and so forsake the olde Apostolical phrase which the holie Ghost vseth in that holie tongue and in which it is still recorded for our instructionâ— either confesse your ignorance in the Greeke or your malice against the trueth that the Catholickes bee no longer seduced by you that long trusted in you and to your doctrine Againe you say The bread vvhich vve blesse we say to Paul said and the holie Ghost pend The bread which vve breake Alasse alasse what sinne doe you commit in thus seducing Christs flocke and the Queens subiects who hitherto haue builded their saith vâ—pon your baâ—e words Is this plaine dealing with Gods heritage are you Catholicke Priestes I pray you certifie the Catholickes what tongue or translation hath it thus as you pen it The bread which vvee blesse
Protestants be of your opinion touching your reall presence or else that there is aâ—iarie amongst our selues touching the same And because few of you haue read Luther as appeareth by your omissions transpositions and your imperfect translation and therefore in this point know not exactlie the difference betwixts your selues Luther and vs I will plainlie and trulie set downe the three severall opinions touching this question that the Reader may see wherin the differnce one from another on agreement one with another consisteth The manner Christ willing shall bee by question and aunswere as followeth Questi 1 1. Question WHat is given in the Lords Supper beside bread and wine Aunsw 1 1 Aunsvvere First you say the bodie and bloud of Christ Secondlie Luther saith the bodie and bloud of Christ Thirdlie we say the bodie and bloud of Christ Questi 2 2 Quest How is Christs bodie and bloud given in the sacrament Aunsw 2 2 Auns You say corporallie Luther saith corporallie We say with scriptures and fathers spirituallie Questi 3 3 Quest In what thing is Christs bodie and bloud given Aunsw 3 3 Auns You say vnder the formes or accidents oâ— bread the substance being quite chaunged the accidents onelie remaining Luther saith in with or vnder the bread neither substance nor accidents changed but both remaining We with scriptures and fathers say Christs bodie and bloud are given in his mercifull promise which tendereth whole Christ with all his benefites vnto the soule of man sealed and assured vnto vs in the worthie receiving of the sacraments Questi 4 4. Quest Hâ—w must Christs bodie and bloud bee received Aunsw 4 4 Aun You say with the mouth Luther saith with the mouth and faith Wee say according to the holie scriptures that Christ must be received by faith and there loâ—ge dâ—ell in our hearts for whatsoever Christ giues by promise must of man be received by faith Questi 5 5 Quest To what part of man is Christes bodie and bloud given Aunsw 5 5 Auns You say to your bodies which is absurd Luther saith both to bodie soule which is impossible We say to our souleâ— for the promise is spirituall the things promised spirituall the meanes to receiue them spirituall so the place into which it must bee received must needs be spirituall not corporall not that the substance of Christs bodie is vnited to our spirits but that those precious benefits purchased for vs in the crucified bodie of Christ must be vnited to our spirits by faith This doctrine is Apostolicall sound and Catholicke vppon which wee boldlie may venture our soules and salvations â— Quest To whom is Christs bodie and bloud given Questi 6 â— Auns You say to the godlie or godlesse beleevers Aunsvv 6 and infidels as hath been aboue said Luther saith both to the godlie and godlesse 〈◊〉 say onelie to the godlie beleevers as heeretofore hath been prooved â— Quest What doe the wicked eate in the Lords supper Questi 7 â— Auns You say accidents of bread and Christs bodie Aunsw 7 Luther saith the wicked eat bread both substance and accidents and the bodie of Christ also We say the wicked eaâ—e nothing in the Lords supper but bare bread and drinke nothing but meere wine being the outward elements of the sacrament As for the inward grace of the Sacrament which is Christ crucified with all his merits they eate not they receiue not because they haue neither a liuelie faith to receiue him nor a purified heart by faith to intertaine him And therefore they onelie eate as â—udas did and as Augustine said Tract 59. super Iohn page 205. Illi manducaâ—ant paâ—em Dominum illi paâ—em Domini contra Dominum The godlie eate bread the Lord the wicked onelie the bread of the Lord against the Lord. â— Quest What is it to eate Christs bodie Questi 8 â— Auns You say carnallie to eate Christs flesh with Aunsw 8 your bodilie mouth c. Luther saith carnallie to eate Christs flesh and spirituallie to beleeue in him Wee say with the Scriptures that to beleeue that all Christs merits are ours and purchased for vs in his passion This is to eat Christs bodie as hath been alreadie prooved Questi 9 9 Quest What is it to drinke Christs bloud Aunsw 9 9 Auns You say carnallie to drinke his bloud Luther saith carnallie and spirituallie We say with the scriptures it is to beleeue that Christs bloud was shed on the crosse for our sinnes Questi 10 10 Quest How is bread made Christs bodie Aunsw 10 10 You say by Transubstansiation Luther saith by Consubstansiation We say by appellation signification or representation as aforesaid Questi 11 11 Quest. Where is Christs bodie Aunsw 11 11 Auns You say everie where Both of you erre for then Christ should not haue a true bodie Luther saith every where We say according to Scripture and Creed onelie in heaven Quest 12 12. Quest How is Christ every where Aunsw 12 12. Auns You say according to both natures But both of you speak Monkerie P perie Luther saith according to both natures But both of you speak Monkerie P perie We say with Scriptures and Fathers as hath been proved onely according to his Godhead Now gentle Reader you see the agreement difference that is betwixt the Papists Lutherans and Protestants And how impertinentlie I will not say vnscholler like this is brought against vs which neither helpeth their carnall presence nor hurteth our faith touching Christs spirituall presence And now to the â—â—st that followeth Amongst factions of opinions Catho Priests Magdeburg in Epist ad Eliz. Anglia Reg. Rider some latelie take avvay the bodie and bloud of Christ touching his reall presence contrarie to the most plaine most evident and puissant vvords of Christ GEntlemen this concerneth not vs it may fitter be inverted vpon your selues for we denie not Christs spirituall presence taught in the Scriptures and received in Christs Primitiue Church but we denie your imagined carnall presence never recorded in Gods booke nor beleeved of auncient father nor ever knowne to Christs spouse the Primitiue Church as you haue heard trulie prooved But this is your great fault vsuallie practised that whether in Scriptures or Fathers you heare of Christs bodie and bloud and his presence or reall presence you imagine presently without further examination that it is your carnall presence which thing is growne vp with you from a private errour to a publike heresie Tyndall Frith Barnes Cranmer left it as a thing indifferent to beleeue the reall presence Catho Priests So that the adoration saith Frith be taken avvay because there then remaineth no poison Fox in Marâ—yrel Kemnitius in Exam. Conc. â—rid contra â—â—n de Fâ— châ—ristia vvhereof anie ought to be afraid of Yet Kemnitius vpon the assurance of the reall presence approoveth the custome of the Church in adoring Christ in the Sacrament by the authoritie of Saint Augustine and S. Ambrose in Psal 98.
altereth the Catholickes question and is farre from our first meaning For we hold with Christs trueth Ioh. 20.31 that vnlesse the written word of God first warrant it we are not bound in conscience to beleeue it though all the Doctors and Prelates in the world should sweare it And this was demaunded of you not as the demaunders doubted that the canonicall Scriptures were insufficient to prooue any article of faith but onelie that all men might see and so be resolved whether the Protestants or the now Romane Catholicques ioyne neerest to Christs trueth and the faith of the first primitiue Fathers For that faith which can bee prooved to bee taught in Christs time and so receiued and continued in the primitiue Church for the first fiue hundred yeares after Christs ascention must needs be the true auncient Apostolicall and Catholicque faith And that other faith that cannot be so proved is but base bastardly and counterfeit and I trust in Christ that the Reader easily shall perceiue before the ende of this small Treatise that this your opinion touching Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament and so in the rest of the other Positions was never taught by Christ nor once dreamed on by the auncient Fathers but invented and deviled a thousand yeares after Christ by the late Church of Rome grounding their proofes onelie of an emptie sound of syllables without Apostolicall or Catholicque sence enforcing both Scriptures and Fathers to speake what they and you pleased not what the holie Ghost and the Fathers purposed But first heere you wrong your selfe much your cause more but the simple people most of all in altering the state of the question for our controversie is of the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament whether he be there corporallie or spirituallie The Catholicque Priests subtilly alter the state of the question And you no doubt in your conscience knowing it vnpossible to prooue your carnall presence alter the question verie deceiptfully from the manner to the matter That Christ is really in the blessed Sacrament A thing never denied by vs nor ever in question betwixt Protestant and Papist for both you and we hold Christs reall presence in the Sacrament but you carnallie and locallie we misticallie and spiritually you by Transubstantiation we in the commanded and lawfull administration But here you forget your grounds of divinitie and rules of Logicke in making an opposition betwixt spirituall receiving and reall receiving opposing them as contraries whereas the opposition is not betwixt spirituall and reall but betwixt corporall and spirituall for spirituall receiving by faith is reall receiving and corporall receiving by the mouth is also reall receiving So that the Scriptures and Fathers that here you alleadge bee altogither impertinent to prooue your carnall presence of Christ and his new conception of bread not of the blessed Virgin by a sinfull Priest not by the holy Ghost For Christ willing I will make it plaine vnto you that you haue shewed little divinitie and concealed much learning in this onely hudled vp a number of texts of Scriptures and Testimonies of Fathers out of Eckius Common-places and other like Enchiridions and neuer read the fathers themselues which at first was requested And thus trusting other mens reports and not your owne eyes you haue wrongd your self weakned your cause and abused the simple For if you had diligently read throughly weighed these Scriptures and Fathers you might haue seene and knowne that these confute your erronious opinions and confirme them not But this you should haue here prooved for the Catholicques satisfaction in which you haue altogither failed That after the Priest hath spoken over and to the Bread and Wine Rhem. test 1. Cor. 11. Sect. 9. Hoc est corpus meum and vsed powrefull words over it and theÌ„ which you call your consecration that presentlie the substances of Bread and Wine are gon not one crumme or drop remaining but wholly transubstantiated transnatured and chaunged into the verie reall naturall and substantiall bodie and bloud of Christ which was borne of the Virgin Marie Rhe. Test â—â—th 26. Sect. 4. and nailed on the crosse is now in heaven and yet in the Sacrament whole aliue and immortall and that this bodie of Christ must bee received with our corporall mouth and locally descend into our corporall stomackes Which bodie so made by the Priest is offered by the Priest to God the father as a propitiatorie mercifull and redeeming sacrifice by which the Priest applieth as hee saith the generall vertues of Christs passion to every particular mans necessitie either quicke or dead for mâ—tters temporall or graces spirituall for whom and when he listeth and for what hee pleaseth Your carnall presence shall bee first handled The second point which is your propitiatorie sacrifice shall bee handled in the title of the Masse This is your Romane â—â—e learning which you should haue prooved but how your owne proofes being duely examined disprooue you let the learned iudge But now to your first proofe out of the sixth of Iohn to prooue your opinion touching the first position Ioh. 6. vers 51. The bread vvhich I vvill giue is my flesh c. Catho Priests Ioh. 6. vers 53. Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his bloud you shal haue no life in you Ioh. 6. vers 55. My flesh is meat truly my bloudes c. GEntlemeÌ„ you mistake vtterly Christs meaning Rider wresting Christs wordes from the spirituall sence in which he spake to the litterall sence which he never meant ancient Fathers never taught Primitiue Church of Christ for one thousand yeares at least after Christs ascentioÌ„ never knew or received For the words and phrases be figuratiue and allegorical therefore the sence must be spirituall not carnal For this is a generall rule in Gods booke ancient Fathers yea and in your Popes Canons and glosses that everie figuratiue speech or phrase of Scripture must be expounded spirituallie not carnally or litterallie as anone more plainlie you shall heare But that the simple be no longer seduced by your Romane doctrine expounding this 6. of Iohn grammaticallie and carnally contrarie to Christs meaning constraining these places to prooue your carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament when there was no Sacrament then ordained J will set downe GOD willing Christs meaning truelie and plainlie which you shall nor be able either by Scriptures or auncient Fathers to contradict 1 First I will plainelie deliver the occasion why Christ vsed the Metaphor of Bread calling himselfe Bread 2 Secondlie according to which of Christs nature he is our living bread whether as hee is man onely or God onely or as he is compleate God and man 3 Thirdly how this bread must be taken and eaten whether by the mouth of the bodie or the mouth of the soule 4 Fourthly the fruit that comes to the true eaters thereof 5 Lastly the reasons shall bee alleadged out of
flesh of the sonne of man c. Loe heere is another Pope against you For you late Iesuites Semynaries Rhemists and Priests take this as â—poken of Christs flesh in the sacrament and they take it for â—â—at spirituall and divine flesh of Christ whereon all the faithfull fed by faith as well before Christs incarnation as since his ascention I would bring more witnesses against your vnâ—â—ue expositions and allegations The Pope your Father and Rome your mother witnes against you Priestes the rest of their degenerat children but that I thinke it sufficient that the Parentes Testimonie is the strongest Evidence against their degenerat children And after the Pope alleadgeth Augustine and the Canon Quid parat deutem ventrem crede â—â—â—â—acasti and then concludes against your carnall eating of Christes flesh most strongly Qui credit 〈◊〉 Deum comedit ipsum Caro Christi nisi spiritualiter comedatur non ad salutem sed ad iudicium mandutatur Why saieth your Pope preparest thou thy teeth to eate and thy bellie to be filled beleeue thou hast eaten hee that beleeues eates For the flesh of Christ is not eaten to salvation but to destruction vnlesse it be eaten spirituallie And there in the next chapter the Pope giues this marginall note Christus est spiritualis Eucharistia Pag. 180. Christ is our spiritual Euchariste not our carnall food in the Sacrament And in the same page he saith Cibus est non corporis sed animae this is not meat for the bodie but for the soule And if it bee meate for the soule then it must bee received by faith not the mouth spirituallie not carnallie You see now the Scriptures Fathers Popes olde and new the Text and glosse of your deare mother the Church of Rome against you And least you should cavil I haue alleadged the Bookes Chapters Distinctions and Pages And if you will still tel the Catholâ—ques that these places by mee allâ—â—dged be not true then I tell you all your owne Authors and prin s be false for I alleadge Father Pope and Canons of your owne print and if you doubt looke vnto your owne bookes and prints and you shal find them so verbâ—â—â—â— Printed Anno. 1599. Impâ—â—sis Lazari Zetâ—â—terâ— vnlesse your late Index expurgatorius hath blotted out the trueth as in manie things it hath But I will of these your former improper and impertinent testimonies out of the sixth of Iohn conclude and vrge no further but this one argument against you and them and then let the indifferent Reader iudge whether you haue not deceived Gods people by misvnderstanding the holie Scriptures or no Whosoever teacheth that there is a carnall reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament before consecration is a lyer a depraver of the truth and a deceiver of the people But some late Popes the new church of Rome with the colledge of Cardinals new creatâ—d Iesuits Semynaries and all the Romish Priests now in Ireland â—â—â—ch This is vnaunswerable that there is a carnall reall presenâ—â— of Christ in the Sacrament before consecration Therefore some late Popes the new Church of Rome with the colledge of Cardinals new created Iesuits Semynaries and all the Romane Priests now in Ireland be lyers depravers of the trueth and deceivers of the people The maior or first proposition is your owne doctrine for you teach that before Hoc est corpus meum be pronounced there is no consecration The assumption or later proposition is as cleere for your perswade the simple people to beleeue that these texts out of the sixth of Iohn prooue a carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament a yeare before Hoc est corpus meum was by Christ pronounced or the Sacrament by Christ instituted Therefore the conclusion that you be lyers and deceivers of the people is inevitable Thus the Catholiques of this kingdome by the rules of your owne religion you haue deceived in teaching Christes carnall presence in the Sacrament a yeare before either Sacrament or consecration in the Sacrament were instituted And that your leaden divinitie without care or conscience you thrust vppon the simple people aâ— sound doctrine But if there were no other errour or heresie held and taught by you but this one point it were sufficient to make all the Catholicks in this kingdome nay in Christendome to forsake your opinion considering your ignorance or malice presuming to iustifie that which holie scriptures auncient Fathers Gods Church yea and the perticuler Church of Rome with their Bishops Archbishops Popes for a thousand yeares after Christs ascention never spake or heard of and therefore it is no olde faith taught by them but a new heresie invented by you But now to the rest of your proofe Math. 26.26 Christ tooke bread did blesse it Catho brake it and gaue it to his disciples and said Priests take and eate this is my bodie This is my bloud of the new Testament which shal bee shed for â—â—ame for remission of sinnes GEntlemen this is your proofe out of Christs owne words Rider this was delivered by Christ owne mouth at the time of the institution oâ— the Supper and the night before his blessed passion and either this must helpe you or else you are helplesse but Christ willing I will plainlie shew this your proofe to be your reproofe and I pray God for Christ his sake that the eies of your vnderstanding may be opened to see the truth your hearts toucht to receiue and confesse the truth and renounce your errors and so cease to deceiue Gods people and the Queenes subiects least a worse thing come vnto you All the doubt and controversie of this question betwixt vs dependes on this Text which you say must bee taken properlie and litterallie wee say Sacramentallie improperlie figuratiuelie and misticallie And our opinion God willing shall be proved by Scriptures auncient Fathers and Popes and the olde Church of Rome But this is straunge that men of your great learning as the Catholiques take you to be wil deale so child shlie and weaklie in so weightie a matter Bee not offended that I say you handle this childishlie for in Schooles he that alleadgeth for the probation of a proposition the proposition it selfe for the probation of a text the text it selfe is counted childish and it is a childish point of Sophistrie and a fallacie to be vsed among young schollers not to be practised among simple Catholiques The Catholiques demand of you how you prooue Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament and you bring in Hoc est corpus meum which is the proposition wherevpon all this disputation and contention dependeth Ioh. 19. â—7 After the same manner a man may prooue the blessed virgin Marie to be Iohn the Evangelists mother and say still notwithstanding any text brought against him as Christ said Ecce mater tua Behold thy mother say what yee will the words be Christs words therefore they must be
Readers good I wil repeat they be these If the scripture seem to coÌ„mand any vile or ill fact the speech is figuratiue as Except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you Facinus vel flagitium videtur tubere â—â—ther can use S. â—â—â—â—d or confess your erroâ— the â—â—â—st â—â—possâ—le the second were commendable Christ seemeth to commaund a wicked act that is carnallie and grosly to eate Christs flesh c. it is therefore a figuratiue speech So that Augustine thus reasons against you To eate Christs flesh and drinke Christs bloud corporallie is a hainous thing therefore Christs wordes be figuratiue so that if to eate Christes flesh with our mouths and teare his flesh with our teeth as also actually drinking of his bloud bee hainous and wicked why doe you so eagerly presse the litterall sence of theâ—e your two propositions against trueth against faith and the auncient Father â—ead it it coâ—taines but 6. or 7 lineâ— The marginall note there coâ—demes your litterall sence Agustine in that short 19. chap. of the same booke immediatly going before wisheth alwaies the interpretation of these and all other figuratiue speeches to be brought ad regnum charitatie to the kingdome of charitie to haue their true exposition Now if you expounde this litterallie and properlie you forsake Agustines rule charities kingdome and the Apostolicall and Catholike exposition It is but small charitie to devoure the food of a friend but to eate and devoure corporallie and gutâ—urallie the precious bodie and bloud of our Christ and Saviour Augustine would haue you catholicks but you wil bee Capernatis and Canibals it is no charitie Nay saith Augustine it is plaine impietie and a wicked and a most damnable fact And so to prooue the action lawfull the kingdome of charitie hath ever taken these and the like propositions to bee figuratiue and the sence to be spirituall Therefore if you will bee loyall subiects of charities kingdome shewe your subiection to her charitable and Catholicke exposition otherwise you will stand indited of spirituall and vncharitable rebellion Ambr. lib. 4 de Sacramentis cap. 5. Ambrose is of the same opinion with vs against you saying Fac nobit inquit oblationem ascriptam nationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura corporis sangaâ—â—is Domine nostri Iesu Christi make vnto vs saith the Priest this oblation that it may bee allowable reasonable and acceptable which is a figure of the bodie bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ And Ambrose presentlie after saith the new Testament is confirmed by bloud in a figure of which bloud wee receiue the misticall bloud By these words the Reader may see that Ambrose and the Church in his daies tooke it not for the naturall bodie of Christ but for a figure of his bodie and therefore cease to bragge heereafter to the simple of Ambrose and Augustine set they are not of your opinion (a) â—â—noâ— Papae lib. tartius cap 12. Fol 148 there shal you see the foolish and phantasticall reasons the Pope giues for those said crosses Aug. in enarratione Psal â— pag. 7. col 1. Printed at Paris anno 1586 And in the Canon of the Masse you haue these â—â—â—ds of Ambrose in that part which begins Quam oblationem but you deale deceitfully with Gods people for you leaue out these words quod est figura corporis and there dash in fine red crosses and still teach the people it is Catholicke doctrine and the old religion but these iuglings with the Fathers must be left or else good men that follow those Fathers will doubt that Gods spirit hath left you And Augustine elsewhere saith Christ commended â—â—d delivered to his disciples the figure of his body â—â—d bloud And Origin saith not the matter of bread but the words recited over it doth profit the worthy receiver this I speake saith he of the typicall figuratiue bodie which is in deede the Sacramentall bread Vpon the 15. of mathew Augustine confuting Adimautus the Hereticke that hold that the bloud in man was the onelie soule of man aunswered it was so figuratiuely August tom 6 contra Adâ—â— cap. 12. not otherwise and to prooue it he vseth this proposition of Christ Hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie saying Possum etiam interpretari illud praeceptum in signo posiâ—â—â— esse non enim dubitauit Dominus dicere hoc est corpuâ— meum cum singnum daret corporis sui I maye 〈◊〉 Augustine expound the precept of Christ figuratiuelie â—or the Lord doubted not to say this is my â—oâ—â—e when he gaâ—e the figure of his bodie Augustine saith Hoâ—â—â—st corpus meum is a phrase figuratiue you say no but it is litterall Now let the Catholicks take this Friendlie Caueat to heâ—â—â— for they haue no reason to follow you that forsake the Fathers and heâ—re may you see that our expositiâ—n is auncient Catholicke and Apostolicall yours new private and 〈◊〉 all Tertaâ—â— lib 4. contraâ— Mâ—recon pag. â—23 line 26. Tertullâ—â— an ancient Father saith Acceptum panem dâ—stributum discipâ—lis c. The bread which was taken and given to his disciples Christ made his bodie by saying this is my bodie that is the figure of my bodie what could be more spoken of them for vs against you And Hierome calls it a representation of the truth of Christs bodie bloud Hierome super 26. math Ambrose on Cor. 11. not the body and bloud And Ambrose seconds his former sayings in these words In edâ—â—do c. in eating drinking the bread wine we doe signifie the flesh bloud which was offered for vs so that they doe but signifie the flesh and bloud they are not the flesh and bloud And Chrisostome saith Chrisâ— in hâ—â—a vpâ—n Hebr. sâ—per Cor. 11. Offermus quidâ—â— sed ad recerdaâ—â—â—nem and afterwards Hoc autem sacrificium exemplâ—â— est ellius c. We offer in deed but in rememberance of his death this sacrifice is a token or figure of that sacrifice the thing that we do is done in ten emberance of the thing that was done by Christ before c. Here is a manifest â—â—ace against you which you shall never aunswere Chris in hâ—n 11 â—â—rk â—â—â—ent Alâ—â— on paâ—â—go lib. 1. cap. 6 pag 18. line vlt. pag 19. lâ—ne 1. And elsewhere be saith in the soâ—e sanctified vessels there is not the bodie of Christ in deed bâ—â— a masterie of the bodie is contained And Clemens Alexandrinus who lived 1300. yeares agoe saith Comedite cornes meas bibite sanguinem â—eum c. Eâ—t ye my flesh and drinke my bloud meaning hereby vnder an allegorie or figure the meat drinke that is of faith and promise And the same reverend Father in his second booke and second chapter of his Pedagogs and 51. pag and line 21 22 23. hath these words Ipse quoque vine vsus
est nam ipse quoque homo vinum benedixit cum dixit accipite bibite hoc est sanguis meus sanguis viâ—â—s c. For our Lord Christ red wine blessed wine when he said take drinke that my bloud the bloud of the vine the word which is â—â—ed for manie for the remission of sinnes doth signifie allegorie allie the holy river of gladnesse Out of which I note First it is sarguis vitis the bloud of the grope properlie and that is wine It is called Christs bloud â—acromontallie and by way of signification Secondlie it appeares to be figuraâ—ne in this word shed for the bloud of the grape which is â—â—â—e was not shed for manie but the bloud of Ch i st But you will save it is true before conseceâ—tion but after consecration it is Christs verie naturall bloud No saith Clement immediatlie following Qued autem vâ—num esset quod benedictum est c. And that it was wine which was blessed hee sheweth againe when he saith to his disciples I will not drinke of the fruit of the vine c. Read Clem nt follow Clem. Out of which premisâ—es I note three things First that that which you call consecration this learned Father calls it benediction Second he that after consecration the nature of wine remaineth still and it is not changed as you imagine Thirdly that the phrase is figuratiue and not proper Peda â—u Inc. 22. page 476 And veâ—â—rable Beda one countrie man tells you that in England in his time the text was taken figuratiuely The solemnities of the old Passover saith he being ended Christ commeth to the newe which the Church is desâ—ous to continue in remembrance of her redemption that in stead of the flesh and bloud of a LAMBE hee substituting the Sacrament of his flesh and bloud in the figure of bread and wine might shew himselfe to bee the same to whom the Lord sware and will not repent c. Beds calleth it not the naturall bodie of Christ that worketh our redemption but a rememberance of our redemption a figure of it Thus the indifferent Reader may see that Augustine Ambrose Origin Tertullian Hiorome Clemens Alexandrinus Beda and manie others which I omit for brevities sake all of them being auncient approoved wâ—iters and all of them of your owne Prints doe hold with vs against you that your propositions be not proper but Sacramentall improper significatiue representatiue allegoricall figuratiue which greatlie wounds the bodie of your cause and will weaken your credits with the Catholickes But you will say these testimonies of these Fathers though of your owne Prints yet they prooue nothing against you vnlesse the Church of Rome should receiue and allow that exposition of the fathers to be Catholicke If you should so replie surely it were a weake replication and subiect to manie exceptions and you would wring I cannot say wrong the church of Rome that she should hold a doctrine against all the old Doctors But if you will thus replie to bleate the eies of the simple yet will I frustrate your expectation for now I will shew you that the auncient Popes and the auncient Church of Rome held at these Fathers did that the proposition Hoc est corpus meum to be significatiue and improper and therefore figuratiue against your opinion You shall heare the Church of Rome deliver her owne minde with her owne mouth Dist 2. do consecratione canon which you cannot denie her wordes be these Ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Châ—â—â—ti pâ—ssio more crucifixio dicitur non rei veritate sed significante misterio That offering of the f esh which is done by the hand of the Priest Hecost pag. 434. You cannot denie but this Pope was a Protestant And if this canon be Catholicke then it your carnall presence antichristian is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ but not in exactnesse of truth but in misterie of that which was s gnified and the glosse there maketh most plaine against you Dicitur corpus Christi sed improprie vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat corpus Christi It is called the bodie of Christ but improperly that is figuratiuely that this be the â—enceâ—t is called the bodie of Christ that is it signifieth the bodie of Christ J will alleadge in this case other Popes and the saith of the Church of Rome in another age whereby the Reader may plainelie see that the auncient Pâ—pes and auncient Rome had the true succession in doctrine which we stand now on not that false succession of the place and a rotten worme-eaten chaire that you brag of the glosse speaketh thus against your litterall sence of Hec est corpus meum De consecratione dist â— Panis est in altare Glossa ibid page 43â— Not possible by their owne confession that bread should bee the bodie of Christ. Hoc taâ—â—â— est impossible quod panis sit corpus Christi yet this is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ Now gentle Reader see the wrong the late Popes and Priests offer to the Catholicks of this kingdome they would haue them imbrace that fot faith which the old Church of Rome held for heresie that for poss b litie which she saith is impossible Why would you haue vs to beleeue that which you your selues say is impossible This all the Iesuits and Priests in Christendome cannot aunswere If you say these two Popes and the Church of Rome then taught the truth why doe you now dissent from the olde Romane faith If you saye the Popes and Church of Rome then cited you will be counted an hereticke and therefore in Gods feare confesse the trueth with vs and the olde Church of Rome and deceiue the Catholickes of this kingdome no more with this litterall sence of Hoc est corpus meum which you borrow from the late Popes and late Church of Rome and is a new error dissenting from the old Catholicke faith dist 2. can Corpus Christi pag. 4. 8. col 4. You cannot dâ—nie this Pope to be a protestanâ— in 〈◊〉 point And I will adde one other Popes Canon Corpus Christi quod fuexitur de Altari figura est dum panis â—inum videntur extra veritas autem dum corpus saâ—guâ—s Christi in veritate interins creditur The bodie of Christ which is taken from the Altar is a figure so long as the bread and wine are seene vnreceived but the truâ—â—â— of the figure is seene when the bodie and bloud are received trulâ—â— inwardly and by faith into the heart Now the glosse in that place expondeth the teâ—t and saith Corpus Christs est sacrificium corporis Christi alias falsum est quod dicit the bodie of Christ in the text signifieth the sacrifice of the bodie of Christ otherwise it is false Out of which I note that the Church of Rome calls the outward Elements
professe to bee Christians revenge our Christs death vpon his cruell bloudie and malicious enemies which so mercilesse put him to death these enemies be our sinnes for he died for our sinnes which Rom. 4. the last verse let vs mortifie nay murther them let vs kill surfetting by abstinence adulterie by continencie crueltie by mercie hatred by loue covetousnesse by almes superstition by religion c. These and the like consorts of sinne put our Caesar Christ to death Therefore when we heare not Marcus Anthonius but anie man of God out of the booke of God preach vnto vs Christs bloudie passion that died in our quarrell and shed his bloud for our sinnes let the rememberance of his precious death and mercifull deliverance put vs in minde to revenge his death by killing our sinnes which slew our Saviour and endevour to serue him with all thankfulnesse in a life spirituall who hath delivered vs freelie from death eternall Now see what comfort the Catholickes loose for the lacke of this Apostolicall rememberance of me and this commeth by your omitting of that you should not passe without expressing the true tenour of it as you received it of the Lord 1. Cor. 11.22 for the profit of his Church Thus much touching the spirituall comforts concealed from the people by your skipping of Scriptures now let vs see what errours purposelie you seeke to cover by this course First if you had put downe these words Errors In rememberance of me and till I come these two had overthrowne your carnall presence for if the bread wine must bee received in rememberance of Christ then bread and wine are not Christ substantiallie corporallie and by way of transubstantiation And if Christ be risen as the Angell said math 28.6 and as wee in our Creed confesse and that we must receiue this Sacrament 〈◊〉 his rememberance till he come then Christ being not come but to come is not nor cannot be carnallie and bodilie vnder the formes of bread and wine as you fondlie imagine And these words doe this in rememberance of mee condemneth all your Masses that be said in rememberance of He-Saints and Shee-Saints Missale Printed at Venice 1494. and no Saints aâ— your Popes Bishoppes and in rememberance of Pilgrims Marriners women in travaill and mutten oâ— beasts So that all the foresaid Masses said or sung in rememberance of Saints persons or diseases be abhominable vnlesse you will say which were damnable to thinke that those Saintes Popes Bishopes Pilgrims c. died for you But I will cease to speake oâ— those abhominable abuses vntill I come to the controversie of the Masse and yet then nothing but what shall be found in your owne bookes whose chapters leaues pages if not lines shall be quoted trulie without fraud or affection Another errour you would cover in leaping over the 26. verse in these wordes you doe shevv the Lords death till he come Chrisostoâ—â— Tom. 4. Hom. 27. vpon these words Facietis commemorationem salutis vestrae beneficij mei This shewing of the Lords death consisteth in preaching and expounding some scripture wherein the communicants must be instructed of the horrour of their sinne the greatnesse of Gods loue the price of the precious merits of Christâ— blessed passion which is the remission of sinnes and our reconciliation to Gods favour through his bitter and bloudie passion And this condemneth your foolish May games and Puppet-plaies in your vaâ—â—e shewing of Christ his death by such ydle gestures and dumbe shewes without anie glorification of GODS name oâ— edification of Christ his people that I dare boldlie say and so God willing will plainlie prooue that from your first Introibo ad Aliare Dei which is the beginning of your Masse vntill you come to the last hoe see missa est there is nothing but magicall superstition heresie idolatrie without veritie or antiquitie Now let the Catholickes iudge what wrong is done them when in stead of a comfortable declaration of the Lords death they haue a histrionicall dumbe-shew without true signification or sence warranted from Christs trueth And wheras you exclaime against vs for allowing tropes and figures and Sacramentall phrases in the handling of this controversie if you had not concealed this phrase This cup is the new Testament is my bloud the Catholicks might haue seen your error and that we in so doing onelie immitate Christ whom you should rather follow then the precepts doctrine of men whose precepts are no warrants for you nor me to build our faith vpon nor for the Catholickes to imitate And you with vs must either say that Christ vsed a double figure or else most absurdly confesse that not onelie the wine is transubstantiated changed into Christs last Testament but that the challice or cup is transubstantiated into his last testament is his testament substantiallie properlie reallie the accidents of the challice onlie remaining that is to say the height depth weight colour c. Now if you cannot denie a figure in the challice how dare you for the like or worse inconvenience denie it in the bread This you thought to omit hoping thereby to cover this your error But it was ill done to deceiue the Catholicks who so liberallie relieue you so dearely haue loved you And wheras you translate challice for cup telling the people that the challice coÌ„secrated by you is holier then other vsual cups that Christ vsed in the institutioÌ„ a challice no vsual drinking-cup I say in saying thus you shew your self ignorant in the Greek tongue Poterion wherein Christ spake it the Evang. writ it for they all so hath Paul but one vsuall word which signifieth a vsual drinkinâ— cup and no charmed Challice as you ydlie vainâ— informe the Catholickes And now to your 27. verse which you would coâ—ple to your 24. verse which thus you recite ve y coâ—ruptlie vvho so doth eate vnworthelie c. shall be guâ—tie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord but if you haâ— meant plainlie and trulie you should haue reci ed aâ— the Apostles words in this manner whosoever shall â—aâ— this bread and drinke this cup of the Lord vnvverthelâ—â— shall be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. Bread ramaines after Consecration therefore no carnall presence likewise the Cup therefore noâ— Transubstansiation in either Out of which I obserue that you would cover anâ— conceale that which overthrowes your carnall presence for if bread remaine after consecration theâ— there is no carnall presence but bread remaineâ—h afteâ— consecration therefore there is no carnall presene And because this verse sheweth to the world that therâ— is bread after consecration therefo e you cut off thâ— part of the verse which is verie deceitfully done Anâ— leaue this word bread out after consecration to blinâ— the eies of the simple And also you cut off the neâ— words to cover other two errors the words be these
Or drinke the Challice of the Lord vnvvorthelie Out oâ— which I note first that you keepe this backe hoping thereby to establish your halfe communion vnder onâ— kinde that the Catholickes might thinke that the receiving of bread were sufficient because you saye Christs bodie must needes even by the necessitie of concomitancie haue bloud in it ConcomitaÌ„cie suine vvhat yonger then your Transubstantiation both forged by your selues neuer known in Christs Church for a 1000 yeares at leaste And therfore they are to nevv to be Catholick no straÌ„g to be true and therefore it is no need to receiue the cup which if it be true but I aâ—sure it is most false then Christ was deceived in his wisedome and the Apostles and primitiue Church in their practise which I hope you daâ—e not say for sinne and shame And therefor giue over these irreligious practises of Additions Subtractions Interpositions and vaine expositions with new Inkhorne-termes of â—â—mitancie and confesse Christ his a melent and Aâ—â—olicall trueth truelie Thus much to giue the Catholickes a taste of the 〈◊〉 you offer them in lulling them a sleepe in the â—â—e of ignorance and superstition whereas they â—â—ld be most willing and readie to obey the aunâ—t (a) Reuel 14.6 Rom. 1.16 2. Thess 1.8 powerfull and everlasting Gospell of Iesus â—ist if you d d not mislead them by your wilfull â—â—ors and keepe backe from them the reading of the â—â—ptures which holds them and hardeneth them in â—â—usancie But take heed least you by this ignorance which you keepe them and the disobedience to the â—ospell in which you letter them you with them and 〈◊〉 them hazard not that dolefull taste and torment â—epâ—ted for wilfull ignorant Recusants of Christ his â—ospell where it is said Rendring vengeance in flaâ—ng fire to theâ—â— that knevv not God nor obey not the gosâ—â— of Iesus Christ Now Gentlemen if you be authors â—f their sinnes you must be partakers of their punishâ—â—â—t which both the Lord in mercie prevent The Text is the Lord not Christ the vvriter mistook at the Author I blame not Now floweth another part of your proofe drawen out of part of the 27. verse in these words Shal be guiltie 〈◊〉 the bodie and bloud of Christ Out of these words some late writers since your â—â—ansubstansiation was invented would prooue two â—ine questions that are in controversie betwixt you â—â—d vs. 1. The first is your carnall presence of Christ in â—â—e Sacrament The second that the wicked doe eate the bodie â—â—d drinke the bloud of Christ In handling and aunswering these I shall hardlie â—ver the one from the other but as you inferre that the graunting of the one confirmes the other So must in confuting the one destroy the other and so one aunswere will serue to confute both Rhâ—m Teâ—t 1. Cor 11 Sect 16. Thus you record to the worlds wonder Rome Rhemes shame against God Christ Scriptures and Fathers that ill livers and Infidels eate the bodie and drinke the bloud of Christ in the Sacrament and your reason there followeth that they could not bee guiltie of that they received not and that it could not bee so hainous an offence for anie man to receiue a peece of bread or a cup of wine though they were a true Sacrament First old father Origen shall answere you who saith Origen super Math 15 page 2â— â— st verus cibus quem nemo malus potest edere It is true meat which no wicked man can eate Heere Origen condemneth the Rhemists Romanists and all late Priests and Iesuites for holding this opinion iâ—urious to Christs death and all true Catholickes saith But you may obiect against Origen and say the Rhemists laid downe their opinion and gaue reasons to confirme it But where is Origens reason by which he prooues â—â—s former position that no wicked man can eate Christs bodie Super Math. 26. forsooth it is in his Comentarie vpon your text brought forth of mathew in these words Panis quem silius Dei corpus suum esse dicit verbum est nutritoriâ—â— animarum the bread which the son of God said to be his bodie is the nourishing word of our soules Out of which this we gather that seeing this bread or meate is the nourishment of our soules not of our bodies he spake of the heavenlie part of the sacrament For we know in common sence that bread and wine cannâ—t nourish the soule but the bodie I have proved by scriptures and Fathers before that the hand and mouth of the soule is a liuelie iustifying faith which you all your side cannot denie but the wicked want Now if the wickâ—d haue no mouth nor stomacke to recâ—â—â— this spirituall food and digest it as the foresaid Fa◠〈◊〉 haue affirmed why doe you say that the wicked and Infidels can eate the bodie of Christ wanting both hands mouth and stomacke And the scriptures call wicked men dead men Now you know dead men cannot eate meate corporall Chrysost Hom. 60. ad pop Antioch no more can the wicked which are dead spirituallie eate meat caelestiall And Chrysostome saith Let no Iudas stand to no covetous person if anie be a disciple let him be present for this Table receiues no such as Iudas or Magna for Christ saith I keepe my Passover with my disciples And to conclude with Augustine Tract 26. super lib. pag. 175. Qui non manet in Christo in quo non maneâ— Christus procul dubio c. Hee that abides not in Christ and in whom Christ abides not out of doubt eateth not spirituallie his flesh nor drinketh his bloud although carnallie and visiblie he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ but rather eateth and drinketh the Sacrament of so great a thing to his iudgement the reason followeth Quia iâ—mundus c. because hee is vncleane in heart and presumes to come to the Sacrament of Christ which no man can worthilie receiue Math. 5. vnlesse he be pure and cleane in heart as Christ saith Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God Out of Augustine I obserue against both your opinions these things First hee makes a difference of Christes flesh and the Sacrament of Christes flesh for they bee two things and to be distinguished with their severall substances and properties and not to bee confounded or transubstantiated one into the other and so the nature of bread perish as you vntruelie imagine and teach Secondlie that the wicked receiue and grinde with their teeth and swallow with their throat the outward Sacrament that is the outward visâ—ble creatures of bread and wine to their iudgement or condemnation because they presume to come without a cleane heart and conscience purified by faith Acts. 15 9 But the godly eat the heavenlie part of the Sacrament which is Christ with his benefits because they dwel in Christ by faith and Chrih
I tell you plainelie yet in charitie that you doe belie the Texte falsifie the tongue and seeke to keepe the people in blinde ignorance and superstitious palpable darkenes to their everlasting condemnation vnlesse the Lord recall them and they repent them Paule wordes are these in Greeke and so your owne Ieromes translation hath them The bread which vve breake But you are so besotted with the crossing of your fingers which you tell the simple people is the true Catholicke blessing that you forget and forgoe the true blessing of the cup which is the Apostolicall thanksgiving to God for ouâ— redemption purchased in Christs bloud whereof the cup iâ— the true signe Againe we say as the holy Ghost indited it and Paul writ it The communion of the bodie of Christ you say as no learned man or the Greeke text ever said the participation of his flesh Thus much I haue shewed how vntrulie you deale First in abusing the words of the Apostle secondlie in seducing and deceiving the Catholickes Let heere the charitable Catholickes iudge how you will abuse their eares with fables that dare thus falsifie the plaine text Error in the sence of the Texte Now I come to shâ—w how you mistake the sence of the words in the text seeking by indirect wresting to make the text prooue your errour which it denieth in flat termes and trueth For I assure the Catholickes that not one word silâ—able letter or title of this text once souâ—dâ— of your carnall presence Rhem. Testament 1. cor 10. sect 4. You follow the Rhemist who in this place thus expounds the words of the Apostle The cup which vviâ— blâ—sse that is to say the challice of consecration vvhich we Apostleâ— priest by Christs commisâ—ion do consecrate c. and afterwards it followeth the Apostle expresly referreth hâ— benediction to the Challice and not to God making the holie bodie and the communicating thereof the effect of the benediction Now let mee intreate you to aunswere â—e and the Catholickes but these necessarie qvestions drawne out of this your owne opiâ—ion 1. First by what scripture do you prooue that you â—ee Apostles 2 Secondlie by whaâ— scripture doe you prooue that you are Priests 3 Thirdlie by what scripture doe you prooue your commission to consecrate Challices 4 Fou thly by what scripture doe you prooue that the holie bloud of Christ is an effect of your benediction of the cup 5 Last ie by what scripture prooue you that this blessing or thanksgiving is reâ—eâ—â—ed to the Challice and not to God Vâ—l sse you prooue these points by canonicall scriptures to be true Apostles ye are not Gall 1.1 1. Cor. 9.1 2. Acts 9.15 Rom. 1.1 which you shall never doe they bind no â—anâ— conscience to beleeue them or you Against the fi st I thus obiect that you are no Apostles thus I prooue it A true Apostle mvst be called by Christ immediatlie and that you are not He must see the Lord Iesus in the flesh wh ch you haue not Hee must haue his immediat commission from Christ to preach everie where which neither Priest Semynarie Iesuit Cardinall noâ— Pope can haue as your owne consciences full well doth know Gall 2. Ephes. â— and therefore you are not Christs Apostles The true Apostles were equall in authorit e you disdaine iâ— nay more you have made against this a new article of the Popes supremacie and whole volâ—â—es of Cardinals Primacies Iesuits Excellencies Priests Soveraignties But I will say to you Ter tuiaâ— contra Marcion as Tertullian saide to Marcion the hereticke If you bee Prophets foretell vs some things to come if that you be Apostles preach every where and agree with the Apostles in doctrine For whosoever preach not the same doctrine the Apâ—stles did haue not the same commission the Apostles had But you late Priests and Iesuits preach not the saâ—â— doctrine the Apostles did Iesuits Priests be no Apostles therefore you haue not the same commission the Apostles had The maior hath no difficultie the minor is so plaine it needs no proofe the conclusion is inevitable Priests ye are not We read of foure kinds of Priests in Gods Bookeâ— three of them in the old Testament and one in thâ— new First Because yee will not offer the flesh of beasts The first after the order of Aaron and one other after the order of Melchisedechs and the third afâ—ther the order of Baall After Aaroaâ— order you wil noâ— be And after Melchised ch you cannot be And concerning the third order I would you were as freâ— from the ydolatrie of that salte order as you would be free of the imputation of their heresies Secondly none after Melchisedechs order but Christ onely Now (a) 1. Pet. 2 9. Exod. 19.6 Saint Peter in the new Testament seueth downe a fourth order of Priests which is a kinglie oâ— royall Priesthood but that is spirituall not carnalâ— inward not outward common to all beleevers noâ— proper as you imagine to anie naturall order or ecclesiasticall function For this is sound divinitie whiâ—â— you shall never disprooue that the office of â—acuâ—cers and sacrificing is either singular to Christ in respect of his sacrifice propitiatorie onelie vppon thâ— crosse or else common to all true Christianâ— in respect of their spirituall sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving The name office of Priests abused by Priests neither shall you ever finde this word Sacerdoâ— ever applied in the new Testament to any Ecclesiasticall order and function of men And therefore you deceiue the people by this name of Priest which is no more proper to you then to everie beleâ—ving Christian But it is likely you will giue me occasion to speake of this in the controversie oâ— your M ssâ— and therefore J will heere be the briefe in this place Thirdlie in what place of scripture did Christ groâ— you commission to consecrate challices or to maâ—â— â—â—ie challice more holie by your charmed consecratiâ—n then Christs cup was in his blessed institution which did none of your consecration for this the Catholicks must know by the premisses formerly haÌ„dled that your consecration is not like to Christs consecration for either Christs blessing or thanksgiving with the whole action of Christ in the institution was sufficient to consecrate or insufficient if you will affoord Christ that favor that it was sufficient then yours is frivolous And whereas we vse the same sanctification Christ did how dare you say ours is defectiue without blasphemie to Christes institution But this your vsurped title of sanctitie which yee attribute to your selues in making the people beleeue that you can make one cup water sâ—lte or season more holie then an other by your fingred blessing is vntrue and a pharisaicall brag This maintaineth your Priesthoode in glorie pompe and worldlie estimation but hath brought many of sâ—elie Catholickes to beggerie ignorance and grosse superstition Fourthlie by what scripture
in the midst of a sentence Hoc neque regula neque consuetudo c. The sacred Councell is aduertized that in certaine places and Citties the Deaâ—ons doe reach and giue the sacraments to the Priests al this you leaue out and then followes your weake warrant Noe rule or custome doth permite c. I praie you what one word of this prooues your Carnall presence Let me knowe it for my learning and the Catholickes better Instruction if you would gather out of this word Sacrifice then you are deceued for that Councell in another place calles it Sacrificium Eucharisticum a Sacrifice of praise thanksgiuing not propitiatorie And if out of these wordes The bodie of Christ the councell expounds their meaning in that which you omitte and purposely conceale when they call that Sacrifice and the bodie of Christ by the name of Sacraments giuen by the Deacons to the priests for the Deacons deliuered them after Consecration to the priestes and still were Sacramenta Sacraments not the bodie or bloud of Christ made of bread wine by the Priest for the Sacrament and Christs bodie differ as much as the lambe the Passover circumcisioÌ„ the couenant the washing of new birth regeneratioÌ„ for the one is the outward seal the other the inward grace and here is another error of yours of the second and third kinde in referring that to the mouth which is proper to our faith and still mistaking the matter for the manner Catho Priests Concilium Ephesiuum in Epist. ad Nestorium Wee approach to the misticall benedictions and we are sanctified And this had 200. Fathers being partakers of the holie bodie and precious bloud of Christ THis your proofe is trulie quoted pag. 535. the Epistle beginneth thus Religioso Deo amabilâ— consacerdoti Nostorio Rider Cyrillus c. The Councell calleth it a misticall benediction no miraculous transubstansiation And this neither prooues your opininion nor disprooues ours for you say yee are made partakers of the holie bodie and precious bloud of Christ and so say we but you say with the late church of Rome that you are made partakers of that holie bodie and precious bloud by your mouth teeth throat and stomacke And we sey with Scriptures fathers and the old Church of Rome that we are made partakers of Christs bodie and bloud by the hand mouth and stomack of our soules which is a liuelie faith in Christ crucified as you haue heard before And thus you referre that to the visible parts of the bodie as your mouth teeth and stomacke which the scriptures and fathers meant of the invisible powers of the soule as our Euelâ—e he faith being the spirit all hand mouth and stomacke thereof And heere is your errour of the second k nde And so your two testimonies out of those two Councels are proofes neither proper nor pertinent brought onelie to dazell the eies of the simâ—le and oâ—mâ—â—e the minds of the weake But I referâ—e the the baâ—nesse of youâ— curse and the weaknesse of your proofâ—s nay your disproofes to the censure of the indifferent Reader Onelie giving the Reader this note by the way that these Councels were called by the Emperour not by the Pope nay the Pope was not president in these Councel but other Bishops chosen by the Emperour And in the Councell of Nice the Popes Legat had but the fourth roome no better account was made of him For in deed he then was no Pope but an Archbishop Thus the Reader may see that these Councels be against you And now to your testimonieâ— out of the fathers The flesh is fed by the bodie and bloud of Christ Catholick Priests Tertullian de resurrectione caruis floruit 200. that the soule might be fat in God OVt of this thus you frame an argument as sometimes an old Romane friend of yours did to maintaine your carnall presence The soule â—led by that which the bodie eateth Rider but the soule is sed by the flesh of Christ therefore the bodie eateth the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament I might as fitlie invert this argument vpon you as â—learned man of our side once inverted it saying As the soule feeds vpon Christ so doth the bodie but the soule is fed by faith therefore the bodie is fed by faith which is verie absurd and improper yet as partinent and as proper as yours And heere you should remember the olde distinction of the fathers spoken of before The Sacrament is one thing and the matter of the sacrament is another thing Outwardlie the bodie eateth the sacrament and inwardly the soule by faith feeds on the body of Christ As in Baptisme the flesh is washed by water as that old father saith in that place that the soule may be purged spirituallie so our bodies eate the outward Sacrament that the soule may be fed of God Againe it 〈◊〉 not generall is true that whatsoever the bodie eateth the soule is fed by the same And if you would propound but particularlie this instance of eating oneliâ— in the Sacrament then the argument proven nothinâ— standing vpon meere perticulers Moreouer the bodie and soule are fed by the samâ—â—ear in the sacrament but not after the same manner For the bodie is nourished by the naturall propertie of the Elements which they haue to nourish But thâ— soule by the sacramentall and supernaturall power aâ— they are signes and scales of heavenlie graces Anâ— we graunt that the soule is sed by the precious bodiâ— and bloud of Christ but not after a carnall maner aâ— you say but spiritualitie by saith Againe a mean Scholler in Gods booke may seâ— this phrase is figuratiue and therefore the sence spirituall For how can a soule be sat in God will yeâ— say it is a corporall fatnesse such as is proper to bodies I thinke yee will not I know you should not then this place is in pertine pille brought neither savoring of sence â—orâ—nâ—reable to that you alleadge it Foâ— if you would haue read the same Father in the samâ— booke following be would haue told you so for saitâ— he the word which was made flesh which is Christ Devorandus est 〈◊〉 page 47 printed 〈◊〉 paâ—â—â— 1580. â—uminandus intellellâ— f de aspereâ—â—â— This Lord Christ must be swallowed whole by heauing must be meditated vpon of remembred by vnderstanding digested by faith Now you see Tertullian of your owne Parts print aunsweres you expâ—nnâ—s himselfe And seeing no man can better expound Tertullian his meaning then Tertullian himselfe therefore haue brought him from your owne Catholicke Presse of Paris to condemne all Iesuits and Priest that sh ll set a litterall sâ—nce vppon an allegorâ—â—ll phrase onelie to deceiue the simple plaine Catholicks and to abuse the godlie learned Fathers by an ignoraâ—â— and foâ—tish construction And now to the rest of youâ— proofes that follow And in bless vs his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke Catholicke
and the miraculous aboundant gushing of water and bloud out of the image his side Like opinion like proofe that cured all diseases in all parts and places of the world to prooue your carnall presence of the Sacrament by your fained transubstansiation When fathers helpe not you bringe fables For aunswere to which first I say that you should fitter haue placed this proofe in the ranke of your fained miracles following or in your question of ymages hereafter But to cover the fooletie and forgerie thereof you couch it amongst the auncient Doctors and Fathers of the Church thereby hoping 〈◊〉 haue him passe with more credit But I will shew first that you haue not dealt well nor trulie with the Author of this fable not with the Catholickes of this kingdome because you haue left out such worâ—es as would wound both your credit in this case and spoile 〈◊〉 cause besides your Translation is nothing â—â—nd You leaue out in your two lines these foure words â—oc si per manus and spiritualiter you left out quaâ—â— because belike it was but an Adverb of likenesse and 〈◊〉 because omne simile is not idem you thought it â—ere better to leaue it behinde then to bring it to your hurt Secondlie you leaue out per manus for your â—â—bout saith per manus sacerdotum by the handes of the Priestes and you leaue them both out and say per sacerdotem least the people should thinke and say if onelie the Priest made it then it can neither haue flesh nor bloud and so the miracle were â—â—â—red And therfore it were better to leaue out per eâ—aâ—◠〈◊〉 to say per sacerdotem by the Priest for then might be vnderstood not onelie all the members of his bodie to intentions of his minde but also all the gesturâ—s and motions of both required to the conception of sâ—ch a woddâ—n Saviour And lastlie you leaue out spiritualiter sâ—iritualle hee saith not caâ—nallie and therefore this prâ—ofe is verie vnschollerlike alleadged when our question is of a presence carnall you produce a presence spirituall this word makes for vs but that wee sâ—orne and knowe it sinfull to bring in such forgerie for proofe in a question of divinitie For this you shoulde haue brought in thus vvhich is dailie made by the Priest spirituallie Now how this proofe fitteth you let others censure shame makes mee scilent This fable containeth seven chapters of the crucifying of the image of CHRIST done by the Iewes for envie to CHRIST who no sooner pierced the Image his side but Continue exiuiâ— sanguis aqua The word is Hydria which you may ses Iohn 2. verse 6. containes two or three measures or firkines a peece which shewes it to be a notable loudlie lewd legend forthwith gushed out both water and bloud in such aboundance that they filled manie vesseles with the same and this bloud was carried into all the parts of the world through Asia Affricke Europe and cured all manner of diseases Vpon sight of which miracle the cruell Iewes repented were baptised and presentlie there was a holie (a) Quinto Iduâ— Nouemb day made in rememberance thereof which was kept with no lesse solemnitie then the feast of Easter and the Nativitie of our Lord as the Author saith Then in the seventh and last chapter comes in your proofe which concludeth a peace amongst the Chargie touching the trueth of Christs bloud for now saith the Author there can no other flesh nor bloud of Christ be found in the vvorld then that vvhich is daylie made by the hands of the Priests spirituallie vpon the Altar But this your proofe is not trulie translated according to the Latten but because it is a loude lie I will neither reprooue you for your defectiue translation nor correct it for anie mans direction for I see no reason to bestow a true translation vpon a false miracle or forged fable Other circumstances as where this image was saide to bee kept and brought foorth (b) Like Translation like truth c. I referre the curious Reader to the foolish forged Author Bâ—t that all the Catholicks of this kingdome may see the reasons that mooue me to think it to be a fable be these all of them gathered out of Reason 1 the bodie of this fable falselie fathered vpon Athanasius So seuerall places persons falsly chaleâ—g to themselues that euery oâ—e hath a proper peece of Christs crosse Athanasius printed at Paris 1581. pag. 534 c. So our Iesuits and Priests novv vvould persvvade the Catho The first reason is the occasion for no small error sprung vp in those daies touching the bloud that issued saith of Christs side on the crosse one sort of Priests said that they had the right bloud and another sort of Priests in other citties said that they had Christs verie bloud that assured forth of his side and so the content on among the Priestâ— grew to bee verie hote as it is this day betwixt you Iesuits and Priestes about other matters wherevpon the whole Cleargie met togither 〈◊〉 Cesaria in Cappadotia for the appeasing of this dangerous broile The reverend Fathers were no sooner â—et but vpstart Don Petrus Bishop of Nicomedia said â—everend Fathers I haue a little booke heere of Athanasius which I greatlie desire to present to your fatherhoods view and consideration Sancta Synodus responâ—e place bene vt legatur optamus The holy Synode unswered wee are verie well pleased and desire it may be read Thus concerning the occasion which 〈◊〉 a solemne Synode to appease a foolish supersticion contention amongst the lying covetous Priests of that age when everie hedge-priest would perswade the simple people that he had in his viall the very bloud of Christ which was of force to pardon their sinnes The stile of this agreeth not with the booke which Reason 2 〈◊〉 knowne to bee Athanasius worke contra Idola a meane Grammarian may see it and discerne it and therefore it cannot be his worke Athanasius writ a most sharp tractate against Idolatrie Reason 3 when he was living and now they would father his fable vpon him after his death and therefore it â—â—not bee his worke for so wee should wickedlie â—arge that godlie father either with recantation of trueth contradiction in and with himselfe or open maintenance of palpable Idolatrie It was taken to be Athanasius worke onelie vpon Reason 4 he credit of the Popes Stipendarie chaplen Petrus â—ishop of Nicomedia as you may see in the title page â—34 and therefore is not his worke by open confession The time bewraies the forgerie for this thing should Reason 5 â—e done by report of your owne stories seven hundred and threescore yeares after Christ Sigebert in anno 755. vnder Constantine he fift yet coloured with Athanasius name as writâ—â— by him that was dead foure hundred yeares before this matter hapned and therefore plaine and palpable forgerie Reason 6 It was imagined
to be done some twentie yeares or thereabouts Actione quarta synodi 2. Niâ—eâ—ae tom 3. before the second Councell of Niceuâ— as a preparatiue for the planting of images in Churches in which Councell it was accordinglie performed and this fable registred in the same as a suiâ— foundation for such a building and a fit proofe foâ— such a proposition Now let the indifferent Reader peruse at his leisure but the seven chapters of this Treatise and hee shall scarce read one line without a lie Yet superstition blusht not to in sert this fable into this fathers worke But if we should render such proofes and preach such fabulous stuffe for sound divinitie to the people you would call vs sots and soule slaiers But for Christes sake and the peoples salvation confesse your errourâ— and forsake them with these lying fables it is no shame to forsake sinne but it is daungerous when sinne forsakes you And so to your next proofe Catho Priests Damascen lib. 4 de fide orthod cap. 14. floruit 391. Let vs approach in ardent faith laying our hands in manner of a crosse and let vs receiue the bodie of him that vvas crucified YOu leaue out ei for it is in the father Accedâ—mus ei let vs come and approach to him which is in heaven Rider not on your Altar or in your miraculous accidents Damascen flatlie shevveth the impossibilitie of your carnall presence and then sheweth the maner how in ardent faith not with mouth teath and stomacke So this father is against your selfe for the manner of receiving of Christ which is spirituall not corporall And in the same chapter the same father saith Carpuâ— Christi c. that Christs bodie being vnited to the godhead descended not from heaven to the earth and therefore cannot be in your sacrament corporally and carnallie And as fire and heat be in a burning coale so and more neerelie are Christs humanitie and divinitie ioyned together so that he which shall touch the coale should taste of heat and hee that should eate Christs humanitie must also eate Christs divinitie which is damnable to thinke for a man to eate and devoure his God But because this your impâ—rtinent proofe is your apparant disproofe I will proceed to the next Cath. Priests This bread is bread before the consecration but when it is consecrated of bread it is made the flesh of Christ Ambr. de sacramentâ—s lib 4 cap. 4. flâ—ruit 40â— ALl this we graunt to be true but you come not to the point whether Christs flesh be made of bread by way of transubstansiation that is by the changing of one nature or substance into another by hec est corpus meum this is our question Rider but you dare not touch it because you cannot prooue it But seeing you recite fathers by peeces and patches taking that you thinke will fit your purpose and leaving that which would crosse your course or weaken your cause I will for the trueth sake and the Catholickes good adde that out of Ambrose which I am sure some of you would wish out of Ambrose If you had read a few lines moe you should haue heard him tell you another â—ale In the same chapter and haue expounded himselfe in this place his words be these Si ergo tanta vis est in sermonâ— Domini Iesu vt inciperent esse qua non erant quanto magis operatorius est vt sint quae erant in liud commutentus If there be such a force in the word of the Lord Iesus that the things which were not began to bee how much more can it worke this that they shall be the same they were and yet bee changed into another thing And then bringeth in an example how a thing may be that that it was and yet be chaunged Tu ipse eras sed eras vetus creatura c. Thou tâ— selfe waste but thou wast an olde creature afteâ— when thou wast baptised thou begannest to be a neâ— creature wilt thou know how a new creature eveâ— one saith the Apostle that is in Christ is a new creâ—ture Learne then how the word of God is accustâ—med to change everie creature and when he will 〈◊〉 altereth the course of nature If you had read 〈◊〉 knowne this you would never haue alleadged the â—ther for his example is this as he that is baptised suâ—fereth no materiall substancial or corporall changâ— though he be borne a new spirituallie Vide dist 2 de consecr cap. quia corpus page 432. and put oâ— Christ But he his changed not loosing or altrinâ— thâ— bodie or soule which hee had but in attaining thâ— grace which hee had not And so the change is accâ—dentall not substantiall as from vice to vertue So 〈◊〉 substance the bread and wine are the same they weâ— before but in accident or qualitie they are turned lâ— to another thing of common bread made a Sacrâ—ment Chrisost â—n Math. hom 83. So Chrisostome amplifying the change of bread 〈◊〉 the Euchariste he addeth immediatlie withall Sic â—tium in baptisme even so there is the like change 〈◊〉 water in baptisme as of bread in the Lords Suppeâ— but that is not of substance but in qualitie respecâ— or vse and so in this Dialog 1. cap. 8. And this change is not in casting away the substancâ— of bread or wine but in casting grace vnto them 〈◊〉 Theodoret saith Non naturam ipsam transmutans sâ— naturae adijciens gratiam not changing nature but â—â—ding grace to nature Ambrose de sys qui Initiantrâ— cap. 9. But who can better expoud Aâ—brose his meaning then Ambrose himselfe who saitâ— Ante benedictionem c. before the blessing of the heâ—venlie words it is called another kind after the worâ— of consecration the bodie of Christ is signified doâ— not say is the bodie of Christ but signifieth the bodâ— of Christ And else where In comedendo potando c. 〈◊〉 eating and drinking we signifie the bodie bloud â—â—at were offered for vs. And againe he saith Ambr. 1. cor 11. Quod 〈◊〉 figura Ambr. de Sacramentis lib. 4 cap. 4. c. which is a figure of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. But of this we haue sufficientlie spoken before And thus now the Reader may be sufficientlie satisfied that the change is not naturall but misticall not of substance but of accidents and qualities And so bread remaineth in substance but is changed in misterie And so is bread made the flesh of Christ not by your miraculous transubstansiation but by mistical and Apostolicall benediction or sanctification not in changing the nature of it but adding grace to it as beforesaid And thus Ambrose hath aunswered Ambrose And if you would read him without partiall affection hee would withdraw you from this your imagined opinion But now to that which followeth Catholicke Priests Not onelie the Sacrament but the bodie of Christ is propounded vnto vs
not that vve should touch is onely Chrisost hom 51. in cap. 4. Math. floruis 410. but that vve should eate it GEntlemen it is in the 51. Hom. of the 14. chapter of Mathevv not in the fourth though it cost me great labour to finde the place Rider yet I blame not you it might be the writer not the Author and if it were the Author it is but the slip of his penne and therefore in discretion pardonable But you alleadge it verie impertinentlie and improperlie still prooving the matter never denied Still you runne from the maner to the matter and skipping the manner which I vrged and you should aunswere But if you had read a few lines more Chrysostome would haue told you the manner how Christ is to be received not by your mouth teeth throate or stomacke but Magna cum fide mundo cum corde with great faith and a clean heart You stopt before your full period This father is wholy with vs therefore vnaduisedly brought in by you which is in you stil a great fault and will keepe still the Catholickes by this your means in great blindnesse and doubts who beleeues when they heare you alleadge one sentence of a Father that all his workes are suttable to that iudging him to speake on your side by the sound of the eare not by the touch of knowledge whereas if you would read a Father your selues from the beginning of a controversie to the end though it were painfull vnto you yet it were profitable vnto you and the Catholicks then you should see the thing plainlie by the father expounded which is by you often and too much wrested Read this father vpon the seventeeth Homilie vpon the tenth of the Hebrevves and 1. Cor 11. Hom. 27 and you shall finde him there condemning your carnall presence masse with your sacrifice wherby you may perceiue in this point your opinion new and doubtfull and our religion old and certaine But though this place be impertinent to prooue the maine which is our question yet it proveth with vs against you that Christ must be eaten by faith spirituallie not by the mouth â—arnallie and that overthroweth one of your chiefe pillers And so to to your next proofe Catho Priests We ought rather to beleeue in Christ and humbly to learn of him Carill in Ioh. lib. 4. cap. 13. floruit Anno. 423 then like drunken sots to crie out hovv can he giue vs his flesh GEntlemen I wonder you bring in this for your proofe alâ—sse this is nothing pertinent to our matter in hand we crie not how can he giue vs his flesh Rider For we know that hee gaue his flesh for vs substantiallie on the crosse misticallie in the Sacrament spirituallie in his word And therefore this might haue beene rather well spared then ill applied â—y by your leaue there is no such sentence in that â—lace as you preciselie alleadge some such sound of â—ords he hath but no such carnall sence But read â—e chapter through and these marginall quotations Ciria lib 4 cap. 14.21.22.24 lib. 11. cap 26. 〈◊〉 you shal plainly see how you are deceived For what â—oever hee speaketh in all those places is nothing else 〈◊〉 to confirme and explaine our spirituall vnion with Christ our head and for that purpose brings in for exâ—mple the neere and naturall vnion coniunction of â—â—e vine and the branches head and members so of Christ and all beleevers So this being lesse pertinent â—hen the rest shal haue a more short yet a sufficient anâ—â—ere then the rest The bread vvhich descended from heaven is the bodie of our Lord and the wine he gaue his disciples is his bloud Catho Priests THis place in deed is in his third Tom. pag 142. Hieron ad Hedib Q. 2. floruit Anno 424. There was a learned and godlie woman proposed twelue questions of divinitie to Hierom wherin of which she desired resolution For in those daies it was lawfull for women and all men to aske doubts touching religion Rider and for their further instruction consolation might read Gods word freelie conferre touching matters that concerned their salvatoÌ„ And this greatly blemisheth your Roman doctrine that will haue neither men nor women to read divinitie the reason is thâ— least they should see your errors Marke this yee Catholickes and forsake your profession For this is your strongest tenure to keepe them in blindnesse with ydle ceremonies dumb shewes Latten service But I trust in Christ shortlie to see most of their eies opened that wil discover your privie plots discourage your haughtie stomacks and generallie forsake your new religion being in deed but mans invention This is the second question of the twelfth but you omit some words cut off some which obscures the matter But if a little charitable chiding would make you more painfull in your bookes and lesse carefull to please mens humors I could finde in my heart to bestow it vpon you but prameniti pramuniti you are now fore warned I hope you will bee hereafter better armed or better minded which I wish with all my soule as to my selfe But your proofe is thus in Latten Siergo panis qui de caelo descendit corpus est Domini vinum quod discipulis dedit sanguis illius est novi Testamenti qui pro multis effusus est in remissionem peccatorum iudaicas fabulas repellamus c. If therefore the bread that descended from heaven bee the bodie of the Lord and the wine which he gaue his disciples be his bloud of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes then let vs cast away all Iewish fables Here you omit Siergo and novi Testamenti qui pro multis effusus est in remissionem peccatorum If therefore and of the novv Testament vvhich is shed for manie for the remission of sinnes All this you haue left out which was ill done What now can you gather out of this to prooue that Christes bodie is made of bread and his bloud of wine no substance of either creature remaining but onelie Christs carnall presence as he was on the crosse Surelie here is not one word sillable or letter to prooue it but the contrarie You wronged the father so to mangle him yet as you deliver him it prooveth nothing of the manner of Christs presence that is in question but the matter never in controversie for saith shee to this learned father if therefore the bread which came downe from heaven bee the bodie of Christ so she speakes of Christs divinitie that came downe from heaven for his humanitie did not and our question is of his humanitie by transubstansiation in the Sacrament so that this proofe nothing sorteth your purpose And the bloud here spoken of is his bloud of the new Testament shed on the crosse not is the Sacrament once for all not for anie that
confirmes ours Reade page 7. 8. on the same Epist where he bringes in the Sacraments of Redemption of Regeneration First Leo saith the trueth of Christs bodie and bloud is in both the two sacraments as well in Baptisme as in the L rds Supper and as he is reallie in the one so is he reallie in the other and what presence of Christ is in the one sacrament there is the like presence in the other as hath been prooved before But least this would marre the fashion of your transubstansiation and carnall presence therefore you translate it sacramentum in the singuler number not sacramenta in the plurall Secondlie â—ou haue left out two words communis fideâ— of common faith because no man should see it was then a Cotholick opinion to beleeue that the t uth of Christ bodie and bloud was as reall e in Baptisme as in the Lords Supper yet in both spirituallie in neither corporallie But you will say I abuse the Reader because Leo never spake of this word spirituall or spirituall e therfo e I wrong both the Author Reader I answere as Elâ—â—s the Prophet answered Achab the king when he told Eliah that he troubled Israel no saith the Prophet 〈◊〉 iâ— thou and thy Fathers house that haue troubled Israell 1. Kings 18.17.18 〈◊〉 that you haue forsaken the commandement of the Lord and follovved Balaam So Gentlemen it is not J that wrong the Author that is dead or the people that yet doe thâ—t it is you and your confederates that followe Balaam of Rome God keep you free from fo lowing Balack of Spaine and that the Reader shall see I will prooue that Leo ioyneth with vs and we with him and both of vs with Christs trueth against your trash I wil make him speake in his owne defence and vtter that which you concealed It followeth imediatlie after your profe in the next immediat words after this maner In the same page quia is illa mesticad stributione spi itualis alimoniae hoc impartitur vt accipientes caelestis cibi in carnem ipsius qui caro nostra factus est transeamus Because that in the misticall distribution of that spirituall food this is given and received that we which receiue the vertue of that heavenlie meat wee passe into his flesh which was made our flesh Gentlemen this you should haue added to your former for the Author ioyned them togither the one to accompanie the other in Gods service and in deed the latter to expresse the former But now let vs out of this but compare the old doctrine of the old Bishoppes of Rome and the doctrine of the moderne Popes and his Chaplens 1 The old Bishops of Rome said the food in the sacrament was spirituall and heavenlie the late Popes Iesuits and Priests say that it is carnall and materiall 2 The old Popes said the distribution of that spirituall food was misticall you say presbiteriall 3 They said in old times that the worthie receiverâ— of this spirituall meat were transformed into Christ his flesh The late Popes and you his â—echoes say no But the sacramentall bread and wine are transubstantiated and transnatured into Christs flesh and bloud 4 The Bishop of Rome brought in this to prooâ— Christs humanitie conceived by the holie Ghost anâ— borne of the virgin Marie against heretickes whâ—â— taught that Christs bodie was phantasticall And yoâ— alleadge the same place to prooue Christs humanitiâ— to be made by a sinfull ignorant Priest that of bread and so contrarie to Scripture and Creed will recreat Christ of a new matter which is as blasphemous anâ— hereticall So Tertull contra Marcion lib. 4. 5 The olde Bishoppes and Church of Rome held that the Sacraments could not be true signes of Christ bodie vnlesse he had a true bodie and because the were true signes therfore Christ had a true bodie Anâ— the late popes and Papelings teach that Christs bodie is made a new of the signes and so counfoundeth the signes with Christs bodie and in deed maintaineth anâ— heresie as grosse as the Manicheans For they held thaâ— either he had no bodie or a phantasticall bodie And you hold that there be no signes in the Sacraments but that they are transubstantiated into Christs bodie and bloud Iohn 6. And so Christs bodie is dailie made of a peece of bread which must needs be a bodie phantasticall 〈◊〉 not a true bodie as our Creed witnesseth And as in the manner of eating Christs bodie you disagree not much from the Capernaits so in this case you differ not much from the Manicheis Isale 5.3 Now will I say as the painfull owner of the vineyard said Novv therefore oh you Inhabitants of Ierusalem and men of Iudah iudge I pray you betvveen me and my vineyard So oh you Inhabitants of this worshipfull Cittie of Dublin and you loyall subiects of Ireland and all the learned and well minded of both England and Ireland iudge I pray you charitablie yet trulie betwixt me and these my adversaries And if you refuse to censure vs and this our conference according to the trueth i. Sam. â—4 13 then I say as David said to Saul The Lord be a 〈◊〉 betvveen thee and me so the Lord be iudge betwixt vs whether of vs haue more trulie and with â—â—â—â—ter sinceritie of trueth and conscience behaved our selues in this matter for his glorie discharge of our owne consciences instruction and salvation of the Catholickes Catho Priests Thus much for the fathers as a skantling or taste leaving the surplus to the curious Reader I might haue recited Martial Epist ad Rurdâ—galenses cap. 3. Anaclet Epist general Dionisius Arcop cap. 3. page 3. vvho lived vvithin the compasse of the first hundred yeares I thinke your meaning vvas 500 years otherwise it cannot be true but I obserue (a) I praie you obserue veritie brevitie as by the next proofe shall appeare GEntlemen Martiall neither in this place nor in the tenne chapters following saith anie thing against vs but for vs as I thinke altogither against you For Martiall reproveth those that honoured such Priests as sacrificed mutis surdis statuis Rider to dumbe and deaffe images which neerlie toucheth your freeholde and deswaded them from it Martiall saying Nunc autem multo magis sacerdotes Dei omnipotentia qui vitaâ— vobis tribuunt in calice panc honorare debetis For now you ought much rather to honour the Priests of Almightie God which giue you life in the cup and bread This is that which you thinke knocks vs in the head But first let it be examined and then censured 1 First you must prooue that you are Priests of Almightie God which you shall never do as hath been plainlie prooved 2 Secondlie you must prooue that you giue life to the communicants in the cuppe and bread which is impossible And vnlesse you prooue the premisses the allegation is Impertinent 3
Thirdlie and lastlie if the Priest could giue life in the cup wine or bread then it were cleare that the substance of bread wine remained And that would knocke out the braines of your miraculous transubstansiation Now maisters in alleadging Martiall you are brought into a labyrinth get out as you can For if you ever had read Martiall you would never haue alleadged him in this case for in the end of the same chapter hee sheweth to Sigeborâ— and to others newly conveited from ydolatrie ad sâ—nceram fidem to true religion that Christ is sacrificed three maner of waies First by himselâ— on the crosse once for all Secondlie by the cruell Iewes who cried Crucifie him crucifie him Thirdlie per nos in sui commemorationem by vs in rememberance of him Thus Martiall telleth you that in rememberance of Christ is not Christ Now if you will needs sacrifice Christ after Martials opinion you must chuse one of these three after the first if you would you cannot after the second I am sure yee will not and after the third you ought but do not Thus your proofes mend as sower Ale doth in Sommer woorse and woorse even like a conie in a net or a bird amongst limetwigs the more they stirre the faster they sticke But you cannot helpe it seeing the cause is bad how can your proofes bee good But in Gods name leaue wresting of Fathers deceiving of Catholickes and come to the confession of your faults and recantation of your errors and you shall glorifie God edifie his people and saue your soules which God graunt for Christs sake Aaclete For Anaclete I haue not seen him and therfore cannot censure him but if he be auncient he will speake with vs if he be a late writer hee is a weake witnesse and at first excepted against and vnlesse he lived within the first fiue hundred yeares after Christ he must neither helpe you nor hurt vs. And for Dionisius Arcop because he speaketh not the word for you Dionisius Arcop therfore I haue no reason to speake are word against him And wheras you say theâ—e fathers you haue brought as a scantling or taste I tell you â—â—inlie scant a taste of anie truth And the fathers you haue not brought with you but left them behind you because yee know they would witnesse what they should noâ— what you would Then you say you will leaue the Surplus to the curious Reader by your leaue it is better to be curious then carelesse For if the Reader had not been more carefull then you were it had been informâ— Chaos and as Ovid hee said Ovid. Metam lib. 1. page 1. â—udis indigestaque miles nec quiâ— quam nisi pendus mâ—â—â— But now to the rest The third proofe That the chiefe Protestants did beleeue the reall presence Catho Priests and alleadged all the Fathers for the maintenance thereof THis trulie is vvorthie admiration Luther 〈◊〉 7. D fens verb. cana fol. 391. that none of the fathers vvhereof there is an infinite number but did speake cleane contrarie to Sacramentaries And though the fathers all vvith one mouth affirme yet the Sacramentaries harden themselues to denie them And they vvould never vtter this that Christ his bodie is not in the blessed Sacrament if they had anie regard of the Scripture Idem fol. 390. and vvere not their hearts full of infidelitie I trulie vvould giue the franticke Sacramentaries this advise Idem â—bâ— fol. 41â— that seeing they vvill needes bee mad they should thâ—y their parts rather vvhollie then in part therefore let them make short vvorke and rase out of the scripture these vvords This is my bodie which is givâ—n for you For touching their faith it is allone if thâ—â— they kepe it Christ tooke bread and gaue thankes brake it and gaue it to his Disciples saying take eate doe this in rememberance of mee For this prooveth sufficientlie that bread is to be eaten in rememberance of Christ This is the vvhole and entire Supper of the Sacramentaries Luther Tom. 2. fol. 263. In vaine doe the Sacramentaries beleeue in God the father God the Sonne and God the holie Ghost seeing they denie this one article as false of the reall presence vvheras Christ doth say This is my bodie Luther in 〈◊〉 ad Ioh. HarnagiuÌ„ Typograph Argent The whole opinion of the sacrament the Sacramentaries began vvith lies and vvith lies they defend the same GEntlemen you knowe Luther was a Munke and though he recanted Poperie and vtterlie condemned your Transubstansiation as a fable Rider having neither scripture nor Father to warrant it yet he stuck fast in another error De Cons dist 2. canon prem en glossa tertia tenet page 429. fitlie named (a) Luthers heresie vvas on â—ome before Luther vvas borne Consubstansiation which errour hee also suckt from the Popeâ— owne brest as you may see in his distinctions For you in your Transubstansiation teach that of the substance of bread and wine is made by the Priest the verie naturall bodie and bloud of Christ no substance of either remaining but onelie the outward formes Luther by his Consubstansiation saith that Christs bodie and bloud bee received togither in the bread vnder or with the bread both substance accidents of bread and wine remaining Now I pray you how fitteth this your purpose you will say in this that Luther held a reall presence True but Luther denied your reall presence as a fable And yet his opinion was farre wide from the trueth Wee regard not Luthers censure against vs for Chrâ—st his spirituall presence no more then you doe for his condemning of your Transubstansiation And Luther is more to bee commended then all the Popes Cardinals Priests and Iesuits in Christendome who with Augustine though he did erre yet would not persever in errors as you and they doe least he should be an hereticke Ad â—â—ctorem Tom. 1 page 1. and therefore in his Epistle to the Christian Reader saith in this manner Ante omnia â—ro 〈◊〉 â—â—cteram ore propter Dominum nostrum Jesuits Christum vt ista legat cum iudicio imo cum multa miseraluus sciat me fuisse aliquando Monachum Before all things or first of all I beseech the godlie Reader Quid aquâ—â—â— petipotuit and I beseech him for our Lord Iesus Christ his sake that he will read these my workes iudiciallie with great compassion and pittie and let him knowe and vnderstand that I was sometimes a Monke As if he should say if I haue erred or doe erre impute that to my Monkerie Poperie which in deed is but a sorge of bles and a legend of lies Bâ—t because you say Luther helde a reall presence therefore you conclude agaiâ—st vs with his testimonie because you call him a chiefe Protestant The Priests thinke euerie real presence to be their Transubstansiated reall presence perswading the Catholickes that either some chiefe
your Paris print his words be these Aug. in psa 98. Quid. carâ—â— Maria carnem accepit quia in ipsa carne hic ambalauit c. ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit Nemo autem illam carnem manducat nisi prâ—us adorauerit which tooke flesh of the flesh of Marie and because in that flesh he walked here vpon the earth he gaue to vs that flesh to eat to our salvation for no man eateth that flesh vnlesse first he worship it Now let vs examine this place and see how that fitteth your purpose First the flesh of Christ that Augustine will haue worshipped must be thus conditioned 1 First it must be borne of the virgin Marie bâ— yours was made of bread and therefore not that trâ— flesh of Christ which Augustine speaketh of and not to be worshipped without ydolatrie 2 Secondlie that flesh of Christ which August 〈◊〉 will haue vs worship walked visiblie with his Churâ— here vpon earth before Christs ascention And vnâ— you can approoue vnto vs by canonicall warrant sâ—â— a Christ in your Sacraments as walked vpon the earâ— and died on the crosse Augustine will not haue hâ— worshipped which you shall never be able to doe â—â—ring the world 3 Thirdlie that flesh of Christ which Augustâ— will haue vs to worship was given to vs for our sâ—vation which I hope you will say if you say truelâ— was actuallie reallie and in deed vpon the crosse A in the Sacrament misticallie or by representation hath been prooved out of your owne bookes Thus you wrest that which Augustine spake of tâ— blessed flesh of Christ to your fabulous supposed fleâ— made by a priest whereby you wickedlie abuse tâ— learned father and deceiue the simple Reader For thâ— flesh of Christ which was conceived by the holie Ghoâ— and borne of the blessed virgin must be eaten with tâ— spirit adored with the spirit as Augustine there speâ—keth and neither adored with your externall apiâ— worship nor eaten with your corporall mouth But speake according to the Scriptures and Fathers the vrie eating of Christ is the true adoring or worshippinâ— of Christ because as he is eaten so he is adored bâ— he is eaten spirituallie by faith therefore he is adorâ— spirituallie by faith For faith is the chiefest braunâ— of Gods honour Your next Author is Ambrose vpoâ— the 98. Psal which you imagine proveth your exteâ—nall worship of Christ in the Sacrament But Gentlemen why deale you so vntrulie wâ— Gods heritage in a matter of this importance did â—rose ever write vpon this place I tell you no Amâ—se indeed writ vpon the Psalmes till the end of the â—entie one Psal and there brake off and recontiâ—ed at the 118. Psal but never writ of the 98. or 99. â—d as you vntrulie deliver For Chemnitius saieth â—s Iâ—a Ambrosius in eundem Psalmi versum inquit 〈◊〉 speaketh Ambrose vpon the same fifth verse of the â—â—e adorate scabellum worship yee his foote stoole Tâ—mâ— â— lib. de spiritu-sancto cap. 12. page 157. the saith not that Ambrose writ vpon that Psalme but â—on a verse of the Psalme and not in that Tome but another and yet not of a worship externall as you 〈◊〉 but of a spirituall worship such as Christ teaâ—th in the fourth of Iohn For if you had read Amâ—se you should haue heard him speak thus Hoc in loco sprituali Christs adoratione c. In this place we will â—eake onelie of the spirituall worship of Christ So â—mbrose vtterlie if you had vnderstood him rightlie â—demneth your externall worship of Christ But beâ—se Aug. writing vpon this Psal expoundeth Ambrose â—s opinion vpon that one verse adorate scabellum worâ—â—p yee his footstoole c. and both against your exâ—nall worship I will only desire you to read your own â—gustine of your owne print both thorowlie deliâ—â—ratelie and then I doubt not but you will see your â—rour and reforme your iudgement But now let vs 〈◊〉 how fitlie you alleadge Eusebius to prooue your exâ—ernall worship of Christ in the sacrament Saint Hierome maketh mention of Eusebius Emesenus â—shop of Emesa in Syria Hieron de scriptâ—â— Ecclesiast in Eusebio Emeseuâ— Tom 1. page 296. who writ in Greeke verie â—amedlie and lived about the time of Constantius aâ—out the yeare of our Lord 342. and was buried in â—ntioche yet some verie craftilie haue stitched certaine â—atten Homilies vpon this Greeke fathers sleeue and â—orkt vpon him a straunge wonder in making him â—peake Latten at least fiue hundred yeares after his death that was ignorant of the language during his life But here I wil not take vpoÌ„ me to discusse whether this was Eusebius Emesenus the Syrian or Eusebius Emissenus that Canisius saith was a Frenchman Cauisij â—râ—n in Anno. 500. hoc fortâ— tempore charuis and peradventure peradventure not florished at that time or whether it was Gratians Eusebius But this is most sure that Gratian doth grace his Canon with his name but which of them anie or none of them it shall neither helpe nor hurt because wee wil examine the matter not the man The Canon is this Dist 2. de consecr canon quia corpus page 432. in fino cum reverendum Altarecibis spiritualibus ascendis satiandus sacrum Dei tus corpus sanguinem fide respice honora maxime totum haustu interioris hominis assume That is and when thou commest to the reverend Altar to be fed with spirituall meates looke vpon and consider with thy faith the bodie and bloud of thy God Your first decrees printed at Paris your last at Louaine something differ in words periods honour it with great reverence and receiue the whole bodie with the swallow of the inward man Now examine Chemnitius his doctrine and your opinion he brings in this Canon to approoue the spirituall eating or worship of Christ in the Sacrament And you alleadge it to make good your external Tridentine adoration of your breaden God Behold everie word of this your owne Canon is a witnesse against you for the meat is spirituall the man is spirituall the manner is spirituall the sight is spirituall and the worship or honour is spirituall Here is nothing corporall or outward as you say but all inward and spirituall as we teach In Epitaphio Gorgonia soreâ—is sua And so to the next witnesse which is Gregorie Nazianzen his words bee these Invocaâ—as Christum c. she called vpon Christ that is worshipped on the Altar were the misteries are celebrated I yray you what can you gather out of this to prooue your externall worship of Christ in the Sacrament with cap. thumpe and knee Gregorie saieth shee worshipped Christ therfore you will conclude it was your breaden Christ too hastie a conclusion to be true Or doe you thinke she worshipped Christ as inclosed in those â—isteries Surelie no for Gregorie saith it was in the darke night shee approached to the Altar At
which time there was neither prieste standinge by the Altar misteries vpon the Altar nor he (a) The Pixe was inuented by Innocentius 3 1214. Gregorie Naz. write Anno. 567. Ioh. 4.20 Exod. 3.12 pixe hanging over the Altar and therefore she worshipped Christ that was called vpon at the Altar in the celebration of the misteries not that hee was inclosed vnder the formes of those misteries no more then the mountaine wherein the father 's worshipped was either God substantiallie or that God was inclosed in that mountaine vnder the formes and shapes of the mountaine But the mountaine was the place where God was worshipped And so the Altar was the place where Christ was called vppon and worshipped not that Christ was there locallie by a corporall descention but that he was worshipped there being called vpon and served with a spirituall ascention And if you had read Gregorie Nazianzen a litle after you should haue read that Gorgonia his sister caried about her still some peeces of the figure of the sacred bodie and bloud of Christ as it was the custome of that age and with her repentant teares shee bedewed the same not that she externallie honoured the same Here Gregorie calleth the Sacrament but a figure of the sacred bodie and bloud of Christ Esaia 42. â—â— therefore it had been ydolatrie to haue worshipped it Yet notwithstanding your missaleadging and misvnderstanding of the premisses as also your dissenting from Scriptures Fathers and auncient Popes irreligious dangerous â—arres amonge your selues you easily disburden your braines from further answere thinking you haue confuted the protestants satisfied the Catholicks and so strike vp your victorious plaudite in this maner So that the brâ—â—d beeing of such agreement vvee haue the lesse occasion to embusie our braines to confute them Here Gentlemen you call vs a brood we will take it in the best sence for we confesse wee are Christ his brood hatcht vnder the warmth of his mercifull wings comming vnto him like hungrie chickens at the heavenlie clocke and call of his preaching ministerie to receiue that promised meat which indureth vnto everlasting life math 23.37 Ioh. 6.27 And as for your pleasant Rhetoricall conceit expressed vnder this word agreement it sheweth that in a merrie mood you haue not forgot all your verball tropes and figures But when you can shew plainlie wherein the Protestants iarre amongst themselues Antiphrasis or dissent from the Scriptures and primitiue Church in matter of faith then bestow vpon them these biting figures In the mean time your iarres amongst your selues nay your revoult from scriptures and all primitiue practise being made now so manifest to the Catholicks it stands you vpon for the discharge of a good conscience to confesse and recant them for cure them you cannot And thus much concerning your vnfortunate successe in alleadging some of our chiefe Protestants Fox page 586 Acts monuments as you terme them And now to that which followeth The sixe Articles established by act of Parliament Anno 1540. at the planting of the Protestants faith Catho Priests 1 That there is the reall presence of Christs naturall bodie and bloud in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and vvine 2 That the communion vnder both kinds is not necessarie 3 That Priests by the lavv of God may not marrie 4 That vovves of chastitie ought to be observed 5 That Masses are agreable to Gods lavv and most fruitfull 6 That confession is necessarie The foresaid Parliament and everie one saying publishing preaching teaching disputing or holding opinion against the first of these Articles is adiudged a manifest (a) (a) was burnt loste his Lands goods as in case of highe Treason hereticke and misbeleevers in the (b) (b) They but loste life goods as in case of Felonie which was then a favour rest rigorouslie punished GEntlemen I expected that your proofes should haue ascended to the first fiue hundred years after Christs ascention now they descend so low that there is small hope either of your recall or recoverie I might iustlie take exceptions against this your Parliament proofe because it is manie hundred yeares too young to prooue our matter in question yet in respect it is an Act done by all the Nobles and learned of the land and least the Catholickes should thinke it vnaunswerable I am content to admit it yet still keeping my ordinarie course in examination of the proofes by Scriptures Fathers and the auncient Bishops and Church of Rome 1 The first Article is sufficientlie confuted in the Article 1 premisses alreadie handled 2 The second Article crosseth Christs blessed institution Article 2 and therefore is abhominable And your Parliament saith it is not necessarie to salvation to minister or receiue in both kinds as Christ and his Apostles did Reuel 22.19 But you know there is a wofull curse pronounced by Gods spirit against such as adde or detract to or from Christs Testament Dist. 2. de consec canon Comperimus fol. 430. And your owne Pope Gelasius saith flat sacriledge to their and your charge for this your halfe communion contrarie to Christs institution saying Aut integra sacramenta percipeant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio vnius eius demque mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest pervenire Either let them receiue the whole sacraments or else let them bee kept backe from the whole because the parting of one and the same misterie cannot be done without great sacriledge The beginning of your Canon calleth this halfe communion superstition and the later part calleth it sacriledge Yet saieth your parliameÌ„t proofe the receiving in both kinds is not necessarie to salvation Then I say if it be not necessarie why did Christ vse it if we should not practise it why did he command it Now if either Christs commaundement Hoc facite Doe this or the Popes law can prevaile with you follow Christ his institution If you care for neither Christ nor Pope then the Catholicks may see that you are Antichrists and Antipopes and denie Christs written trueth the primitiue practise of the Church of Rome and the best that you can make of your selues is not ancient Romane Catholickes but new vpstart Romish heretickes And so to your third Article Article 3 3 The third That priests by the lavv of God may not marrie I may not here make anie stay onelie touch a point or two and so away This Article is contrarie to holie Scriptures auncient fathers the practise of the primitiue Church and the Canons of the Popes In the old Testament the marriage of the priests is recorded and commended Ierem. 1.1 Exod. 18. The holie Prophet Jeremie was the sonne of a priest Zappâ—ra was the priest of Midians daughter married to Moses the Lords Maiestrate Luke 1.8.9 Againe in the new Testament John Baptist was the sonne of Zaoharie a priest And the Scriptures touching marriage giue rules