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
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
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
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
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
Christs owne words to prooue that your round Wafer-cakes vpon your supposed hallâ— wed Altars are not that true bread Christs flesh which Christ heere speakes of 1. OccasioÌ„ The question vvas mooued by some Bellie-gods that tasted of Christs banquet bountie in feeding fiue thousand men vvith fiue loaues and tvvo fishes vvhether Moses or Christ vvere the more excellent and liberall in feeding men 1 FIrst they commend Moses from the greatnesse of hâ— place and person being Gods Lieutenant to conduct Israel out of Egypt 2 Secondly they commend their Manna from the place whence it came which was the heavens as they supposed 3 Thirdly they commend the bread from the vertue of it which was it fed their Fathers in the drie sandie and barren wildernesse and saved them from famine therfore they thoght that no man was greater theÌ„ Moses no bread to be compared with Manna Now Christ by way of opposition and comparison confutes them opposing God to Moses and himselfe to Manna 1 First denieth that Moses was the given of that Manna but that God was the authour Moses onely the Minister 2 Secondlie that it came not from the eternall kiâ—gdome of God which is properlie called heaven but from the visible clouds improperly called heaven 3 Thirdlie Christ denieth Manna to bee the true bread because it onelie preserved life temporall but could not giue it but this bread Christ doeth not onelie giue life corporall but also l fe spiritual in the kingdome of grace life eternall in the kingdome of glorie 4 Fourthlie this bread Manna ceased when they came into Canaan and 〈◊〉 no more bee found but this bread Christ doth feed vs â—eere in this earthlie wildernesse Iosua 5.12 and raignes for ever with his triumphant Church in our everlasting glorious Canaan the kingdome of heaven 5 This bread Manna so all corporall meates when they haue fed the bodie they haue performed their office they perish without yeelding profit to the sâ—â—e but this bread of life Christ is the true bread Ioh. 6.54 which once beeing received into the soule doth not onelie assure and giue vnto it eternall life but also 〈◊〉 the bodie like assurance of resurection salvation so that the soule must first feed on Christ before the body can haue any benefit by Christ contrarie to your doctrine which is that the bodie must first feed on Christ carnally then the soule shal be thereby fed spiritual ie And because they were so addicted in Moses time to Manna in Christs time to his miraculous loaues respecting the feeding of their bodies not the feeding of their soules Th refore Christ deborted them from food corporall to food spirituall Ioh. 6.27 Labor not saith he for the meat that perisheth but for the meat that endureth to euerlasting life which the sonne of man shall giue vnto you c. And thus much touching the occasion why Christ is saide to bee the true bread of life which as farre excelled Manna as the soule the bodie life death eternitie time and heaven earth 3 Point NOw let vs see according to which of Christ natures hâ— is called out living Bread whether according to his manhood or godhead or bâ—th Christ calls this b ead his flesh and Christ his flâ—sh are al one therefore Christ his flesh are all onâ— the same breâ—â— as our bodies are fed with material brâ—â—d so are our soules fed with the flesh of Christ this flesh hee will giâ—e for the life of the world wâ—â—ch flesh is not Christ bodie separated from his sonâ—e as some of you imagine and vntruelie teach not Christs bodie and soule separated from his divinitie but even his quickning flesh which being personally vnited to his eternall sâ—irit was by the same given for the life of the world not corporaâ—lie and really in the Sacrament as you vntruly teach But in the sacrifice of his bodie and bloud once oâ— the crosse as the Scriptures â—ccord for the flesh of Christ profiteth not but as it is made quickning by the spirit Neither do we participate the life of his spirit but as it is communicated vnto vs by his flesh by which we are made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone as hath bâ—n shewed before Which holie misterie is represented vnto vs in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and the trueth thereof assured and sealed in the due administration and receiving of the same So this true bread spoken of in the sixt of Iohn which hath this spirituall quickning and nourishing power iâ— compleate Christ God man with all his soule â—â—ving merits And neither Manna in the wildernesse nor your â—oâ—â—d Wafer-cakes vppon your supposed hallowed Altars Manna it could not be for it ceaâ—â—d manie hundred years before Your imagined and transnatured bread it could not bee because the Sacrament was not then instituted And 〈◊〉 to the third point The manner how this true bread Christ must be eaten THe meat is spirituall 3 Point and therefore the manner of eating must not bee corporall for such as is the meat such most be the mouth but the meat is spirituall therefore the mouth must be spirituall as before you haue heard Fide non dâ—nte In the epâ—stle to tâ— Reader c. which thing being there handled before out of holy Scr p ureâ— Fathers and your Popes Canons I will onelie referre you thither where you may vnlesse you bee maleconteâ—ts tâ— be fully satisfied touching the true manner of eating Christ where you may find proued out of Gods booke that comming to Christ beleeving in Christ abiding in Christ dwelling in Christ and to be clad with Christ and to eate Christ are all one so that out of everie one you might frame this or the like vnaunswerable argument Whosoever dwels in Christ and Christ in them Ioh. 6.5 35. onelie eates Christs flesh and drinkes Christs bloud B t the true bel evers onelie dwell in Christ and Christ in them therefore the true beleevers oneliâ— we Christs flesh and drinke Christs bloud The proposit on is Christs owne words Ioh. 6 56. Ephâ— 3.17 of which it were damnable to doubt The assumption is Pauls Let Christ dvvell in your hearts by faith therefore the conclusion cannot be denied And so to the fourth The fruit and profit that redoundes to the true eaters of this bread of life vvhich is Christ MAnie rich benefits we haue by eating Christ in the manner aforesaid that is 4 Point by apprehending applying and appropriating vnto vs whole Christ with his benefits I will onelie name one or two and referre you for the rest to the sixth of Iohn Ioh. 6 41.54.50.51 He that eateth this bread I will raise him vp at the last day to life concerning hiâ— bodiâ— and hee shall neuer die but liue for euer concerning his soule But an opposition being made betwixt this true bread Christ and this Sacramentall bread
as was betwâ—xt Christ and Manna it will bee cleere nay vnpossible that your consecrated bread should bee the bread of life which is spoken of in the sixth of Iohn 1 Your consecrated bread never came from the heaven of heavens therefore it is not the true bread of life spoken of in this place 2 All that eat of this true bread Christ are saved but manie that eate of your Sacramentall bread are damned therefore it is not that bread spoken of in the sixth of Iohn 3 Your bread onelie enters the bodilie mouth and is received into the stomacke of the bodie and so passeth the way of all excrements and therefore is not the true bread 4 Your bread cannot for ever preserue temporall life much lesse giue it but not at all life eternal and therefore it is not the true bread of life spoken of in this sixth of Iohn Ioh. 6.54.50 Now seeing that Christ had not all this time when he made this sermon in the sixth of Iohn ordained his last Supper and therefore not the bread in the Supper And seeing this bread can neither assure the bodie of the receivers of resurrection nor their soules of salvation it cannot be that this bread in the Sacrament was the same that Christ spake of in Iohn And therefore your proofes brought to prooue your carnall presence of Christ by these texts be impertinent savouring by your leaue of smaal reading in the Fathers and lesse vnderstanding in the Scriptures But that all men that read this may see your errours so beware of your new daungerous doctrine J will bring Augustine other Fathers to disprooue you in plaine termes for misalleadging these texts Agustine bringeth forth as it were vpon a staâ—e the three Evangelists mathew Mark Aug. Tomo quarâ— de consensu EvangelistaruÌ„ lib. Câ—p. 1. math 26 mark 14. Luk. 22. Ioh. 6. These three Evang. â—andled as it were the bodie of Christ Iohn the soule and divinitie of Christ Lyra in psal 110. and Luke delivering the doctrine of the Sacrament but wheÌ„ he came to Iohn he saith Iohannes autem de corpore sanguine Domini hoc in loco nihil dixit Iohn in the 6. of his gospel spake nothing of the Lords body and bloud I woÌ„der with what face you can brag to follow the fathers no meÌ„ nor sect more opposit to their faith facts then you There Aug. hath tract your credit salâ—e it how you can And your own Doctour Lyra condemnes your erronious opinion which will applie these as spoken of the Sacrament his words be these Nihil directe pertinet ad Sacramentalem vel corporalem manducationem hoc verbum Nisi manducaueritis c. Nam hoc veâ—bii fuit dictum diu antequam Sacramentum Eucharistia suerit institutum Th s saying of Christ vnlesse you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud doth nothing directly appertaine to the Sacramentall or corporall eating of Christ in the Sacrament For Christ spake this long before he ordained this Sacrament Therefore no sound argument saith he can be grounded vpon that litterall exposition of the Sacramentall communion and â—e giues a reason vnaunswereable Nam primo debet â—â—istere in rerum natura For first the Sacrament must â—e ordained before it can be a Sacrament But you here would haue Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament before it bee a Sacrament And then Lyra concludes De Eucharistia Sacramentali quae noâ—dum suit tam alia sententia pâ—oferri non potuit quae dicitur Nisi manducaueritis c. Therefore of this place there can bee made no good sufficient argument touc ing the sacramentall communion vnlesse saith he some curious Heriticquet will take these words spoken by Christ to be spoken propheticallie Quod noÌ„dumed non datur priuilegâ—â— Lyra. eodem loco Now sâ—â—eth your owne Doctour if you take this chapter of the â—â—xt of Iohn litterallie as you d then it is impossible and absurd because you wil haâ—e a carnall presence in the Sacrament before there be a Sacrament if prophetically then your owne champion calls you curious He etiques And to prooue your litterall exposition grosse false and absurd He produceth ag inst you two famous examples the fast of the Theefe on th crosse Luk 13.41 who by his liuely faith performed the tenor of this text yet never communicated Sacramentallie And Iudas who communicated vnder both kinds and yet failed in the meaâ—ing of this precept Lib. 4 dist 9. And then shuts vp the m uths of all Latteralists and Heretiques that bold th s spoken of the Sacrament alleadging Thomas Aquinas his draught out of Augustine Non manducans manducat manducans non manducat Hee that eateth not Sacramentally may yet eate Christ spiritually by faith and so did the Theefe on the crosse and was saved Some eate the Sacramentall bread but not Christ which is the inward grace of the Sacrament as Iudas did and was damned manie moe Fathers shall you haue to second these agai st y u if these satisfie you not Thus you are condemned by two learned Fathers that you ignorantlie or malicio sly or both mistake and misapplie the sixth of Iohn to speake of the Sacrament before the Sacrament was instituted Now you shall heare Augustine tell you that thâ—s sixt of Iohn is to be taken figuratiuelie and allegoricallie and therfore spirituallie meaning that the speeches and phrases which Christ vsed be borrowed and translated from the bodie to the mind you are not onely taxed by Aug. to bee ignorant in the circuÌ„stance of the text but also in the sence of the text which is a grose thing in diuines from eating and drinking to beleeving from chamming with the teeth to the beleeving with the heart So that what eating and drinking is to the bodie that beleeving is to the sâ—ule And as bread and flesh be meat corporall for the bodie so Christ our bread is made spirituall for the soule And as corporall meats are tak n with the corporall mouth so are spirituall meate Christ crucified with all his benefits received with faith the mouth of the soule And therefore to teach all postâ—rities low to expound these words of Christ hee giues a generall rule perpetually to be observed in GODS church Saying (a) Dedoct Christ lib. 3. cap. 16. The second proofe out of the sixt of Iohn Si praeceptiua locutio est c. if the Sciptures seeme to commaund an horrible or vile fact the speech is figuratiue and then alleadgeth your second proofe that you bring out of the sixt of Iâ—hn for example Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye shall haue no life in you Facâ—â—us flagitiâ—m videtur iubere Christ in this place seemes to commaund a wicked and horrible act Figura est ergo It is therefore a figuratiue speech commaunding vs to keepe in mind that his flesh was crucified and
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
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
presence which if theâ— faile you then your foundation is santifâ—â— your building will not be able to abide the least 〈◊〉 of Christs breath The first is consecration the second transubstantiation for vnles there he consecration there can be no transubstantiation then no carâ—â—l presence of Christ in the Sacrament And then neither your masse nor mattes worth two pece And so the â—oules then in your imagined purgatorie may crie and yell for lacke of a dirge and a masse of Requiem But lâ—â—t I must tell you the word is new neither vsed by Christ or his Apostles in the institution of the sacrameÌ„t â—or heard of in any ancient Father for manie hundred yeares after Christ Again you never read in anie aâ—â—e 〈◊〉 sacred or prophane that consecration should signifie to change one substance into another for the nature of the word wil not beare it Now seeing by Christ â—or his Apostle Paul it was not vsed nor ancient father euer tooke it in this sence Again the nature of the word 〈◊〉 no such signification I see not but you deserue much blame in binding the Catholickes consciences to beleeue that which is against divinitie antiquitie and â—omon sence Now Gentlemen pardon me to demand of you but this question what words be they that coÌ„seâ—â—â— that is which turn the substances of bread wine â—nto the naturall substantial bodie bloud of Christ Me thinkes I heare you Iesuits and Priests calling me a foole for demaunding such a question considering as yee pretend that the Church of Rome her learned men haue euer from Christs time held with one consent one manner of consecration with a certaine set number of words without addition or alteration Such fathers as lived next to Christs time shold know best the practise of the primitiue church these fathers you refuse and chose others a thousand years yonger and therefore they be of lesse credit Gala. 9. and therefore my question is frivolous needlesse and no doubt you make your Catholickes beleeue so but alasse you deceiue them it is not so for I will show you manie several opinions amongst your learned men yea Popes themselues one contrarie to another I praye you let me and the Catholickes of this kingdome therefore be certified and satisfied by Gods word the practise of the Primitiue Church for the fi st six hundred years which be the words of consecration that worketh this miraculous alteration of substances which if you cannot prooue as I am sure you cannot then the Catholickes haue good cause to looke to their consciences to follow you no further then you follow Christ according to his word For if anie man nay all men nay if an Angell nay all Angels should come from heauen and preach otherwise then Christ and his Apostles haue taught let him be accursed If Angels nay all Angels from heauen must not be beleeued bringing contrarie doctrine to Christ and his Apostles will you then bindle the Catholickes of this kingdome to beleeue you onely comming from Rome Rheme whence you being new doctrine not onelie contrarie to Gods truth but to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church And to beginne with Guide in his Manipulo curatorum Guidâ— cap. 4. pag 23. 24. 25. But more you 〈◊〉 see on the cantels or sleights of your masso concerning the necesâ—â—tie of the crosses vvord of the canon of the masse and the priests intention Who saith there be foure several opinions amongst the learned Rabbins of Rome touching the words of consecration The first fore saieth hee will haue besides the words of the â— Euangelists and Paule the intention of â—he Preiste a and so saith your masse booke the precepts of the Church to bee dulie observed jumping with your said Masse-booke that vnlesse the Priests intention bee to consecrate there is no consecration though he vse all Christs words and Pauls And if the priest omit pracepta ecclesia that is the commaundements of the Church of Rome in his consecration â—â—ttalissime pecearet he sinnes most deadlie and is to be punished most grievously But Abbot panormitaue do celebratione messarum page 220. is of another minde saying Etiamsi sacerdos celebres vt Deus perdat aliquem 〈◊〉 bene consecrat Notwithstanding the priest saie Masse with intention that God would destroy some 〈◊〉 yet doth hee consecrate well (a) In he canteli prin at Venice 1464 What Christian heart doth not loath this divelish intention and hellish religion Heere let all Catholickes marke that this first opinion holds that Christes institution is not sufficient without the priests intention At the people are not sure of the priests intention so they are not surs of Christs carnal presence so commit â—dolatrâ—t â—â—o worshippâ—â—g bread beiâ—â— not consecrated For if his head be otherwise occupied he consecrates not and the due observation of the precepts of the Church which partlie consist in wordes partlie in gestures c. so that by this opinion those that simplie and plainlie for the first eight hundred or a thousand yeares next after Christ vsed the forme of Christs institution onelie never consecrated rightlie no not Christ himselfe nor Paul and so till of late daies there was no consecration Transubstantiation or carnall presence So that this opinion prooveth your owne transubstantiation carnall presence not to be either Apostolicall or Catholicke but new invented and phantasticall The second opinion in of maister Doctor Subtilis for so he callâ— him he statlie contradicteth the former opinion saith that all he words from qui priâ—â—â—â— to Simili modo in the Canon of your masse booke are necessarilie required to consecration and therefore the former Doctor If you say Christs institution vvere sufficient then your canon oâ— your mâ—sse is super sludus if you say it is not sufficient without your masse caugâ— then Christs institution vvere imperfect Which to thinke is blasphemy flint short But Gentlemen you know that the Canon of the masse was not made by one Pope nor by tenne Popes bâ—t in manie hundred years it was in patching togither I hope you will not saâ—e that those Saints and Martirs of God from Christes time to the making of that Idolatrous Canon of the masse beeing manie hundred yeares had not the right consecration when they practiz d Christs institution Alij dâ—xerunt there is a third opinion of divers Doctors which held contrarie to both the former but because it is but fabulous and not woorth reading therefore I will seilence it as not worth the writing But Guido his opinion is flat contrarie to them all and saith preâ—sely that hoc est enim corpus menin doth consecrate without anie more helpe So Guido is contrarie in opinion to the former three opinions and everie of them all contrarie one to another Heere now the Catholickes may see the consent and vnitie of the late Church of Rome touching consecration Yet I will bring you a
confirme them in true religion and revoke them from your grosse superstition Thus much concerning the vncertaintie absurditie and blasphemie of your consecration Now the true Apostolicall consecration is this when the elements of bread and wine are set apart from their common vse and applied to a holie vse according to Gods word And when the lawful minister hath taught the prepared coÌ„municants the grievousnes of their sinnes What true consecration is which the Gospellers teach the â—â—â—nes of Gods wrath the sufficiencie of Christs ments fully to appease the same the nature of the Sacrament which is a commemoration of that passion the office of faith to appprehend and applie Christâ— meâ—â—s promised in the word and tendred in the due administration of the Sacraments then is there I say a right consecration of the Sacrament Now whether this consecration of yours is warranted by Christ his words let the indifferent Reader iudge and with the trueâ—h aâ—â—cionâ— opinion ioyne Transubstansiation Yet we contend with you not for names and words live for 〈…〉 Thus much concerning youâ— imagined new stamped consecration Now to your second piller which iâ— transubstansiation First I must tel you in this as in the former that the term is new lately invented coÌ„pounded by your selues as your consecration was never found in the new Testament so transubstansiation was never found in the â—â—â—â—us old No I do not remember that in al my Grammatical travels studies that ever â—ead it I can sâ—â—w you Dictionaries many Grammers â—â—â—e of divers priâ—â—â— and in diverse ages printed in severall Vniversities of Christendome but none of them makes mention of this word transubstantiure much lesse of the sence which is to chaunge substances of severall kinds one substance into another But brieflie as the word cannot be found in Gods booke nor auncient Doctor so the sence hath neither warrant from holie scriptures noâ— Catholicke writers For this is your opinion that after consecration which yet you know not what it is the substance of bread and wine should be converted into the naturall bodie and bloud of Christ the accidents of bread and wine as whitnesse foundnesse breadth weight faâ—or and taste of them onely remaining You may assoone and to as good a purpose prooue a transaccidentation as a transubstantiation But as there is no change of the former so not of the latter but a meere Friers fable and therefore frivolous And whereas the Fathers vse these words change conversion mutation transelementation they alwaies expound themselues in their severall workes that it is a changing of the vse not of the substance neither can you shew anie one father that euer ment such a change of one substance into another for everie change of one thing into another carrieth not with it at all transubstantiation of one substance into another for there may be a change without conversion of substances but conversion of substances cannot bee without a change for there is as much difference betwixt change and transubstantiation as betwixt the generall the speciall for change is the generall and containes vnder 〈◊〉 transubstansiation but not contrariwise And as there is a change of substances so there is a change of accidents to wit of qualities of times of places of habits and such other like things according to their natures and to the predicaments vnder the which they are comprehended These Logicall ruâ—â—nuats I hope you haue not forgotten Our regeneration is a change not substantiall We confes a change of name of vse but onelie during the action not after to be a sacrament no more then water in the fond after that baptisme is finished by the minister but accidentall that is it is not a change of the substance of our bodies and soules into anie other substance but the change iâ— in qualitie which is from vice to vertue from sinne to righteousnesse c. and this our change now in question is sacramentall not substantiall of the vse of the creatures not of the substance But if you will needes haue a change of substances speake like schollers and tell me for my learning in what predicament I shall seeke it and yet I thinke I shall never finde it But I will not bee tedious in transubstansiation seeing the great Rabbynes of Rome can no more agree vpon this then they could about consecration as also because we haue confuted it in such places where we prooue bread to remaine after consecration for so manie fathers as prooue bread to remaine after consecration confute transubstansiation I will oneâ—iâ— giue the best minded Catholickes iuste of the rest of your late School-doctors by alleadging one Grand-captain in stead of the rest whose words be these magister Sent. lib. â— dist 11. pag. 58. Si tandem queritur qualis sic illa conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis di finire van sufficiâ— But if it be asked mee saith this your great Moderator what kinde of change is made in the Sacrament whether it be formall or substantiall or of anie other kinde I am not able to define it vnto you Will you heare your owne friend Cuthb Tâ—nustall Bishop of Dirrhâ—m deliver his opinion de mode de Eucharistia lib. 1 pag. 46. quo id fieret fortasie satius erat curiosum quemquâ— suae nelinquere coniectutae sicut liberum fuâ—t ante concilium Lateranum Of the maner of this change or conversion how it might be done perhaps it had been better to leaue every man that would be curious to his own opinion or coniecture as it was before the Councell of Laterane left at libertie Is this your antiquitie vniversalitie and consent you see it is a jarring noveltie voide of veritie Why then will you take vpon you to teach that which you never learned and perswade the Catholickes to beleeue that which the chiefest on your side maketh a doubt of nay all of your side cannot prooue nay which is in deed but a fable without trueth for one thousand two hundred yeares after Christ never heard of And therefore seeing it is neither Apostolicall not Catholicke Absurdities follow the granting of Transubstatiation no mans conscience is bounde to beleeue it Now J will onelie shewe some grosse absurdities that followe the graunting of it and so proceed to the rest This fable of transubstansiation overthroweth sundrie articles of our faith and therefore it is abhominable It teacheth a new conception of Christ to bee made of bread by a sinfull priest and every day in everie place where it pleaseth the priest contrarie to the Article of our faith which is that Christ was conceaved by the holie Ghost and borne of the blessed viâ—gin and but once for such a Christ as you tender to the poore ignorant Catholickes is not a true Christ neither can be for manie respects which are before in the beginning alleadged Secondlie if Christ be in the Sacrament he is
not then ascended and so there is another article of our faith destroyed by this damnable fable And thirdlie if hee be couchant or dormant in the pixe then the Scriptvres deceiue vs in telling vs hee shall come from heaven to iudge both quicke and dead so another article of our faith is overthrowne And if your doctrine were true Christ should haue eaten himselfe corporally but you confesse he did eat himselfe (a) Iosephus Angles page â—â—0 conclusioness cunda spiritually Jf your doctrine of transubstansiation were true then the Lords supper were no Sacrament the reason is this for every Sacrament consisteth of the outward signe the inward â—ing signified they must both still remaine during â—e outward action of the Sacrament Now if bread which is the visible outward part of the Sacrament be changed into Christs bodie then there is no sacrameÌ„t because there remaines but one part of the Sacrament which is the thing signified then you vtterlie deceiue â—he people which â—oâ—l them it is the Sacrament of the Altar when it is no Sacrament at all Againe another â—surditie followes vppon it for if the substance of â—read be changed then there is no proportion or analogie betwixt the signe and the thing signified because accidents cannot nourish For the likenesse or resemblance betwixt bread and Christ consisteth chieflie in this that as bread nourisheth the bodie so Christs body crucified nourisheth the soule but if the substance of â—read be changed into another substance then the â—roportion and propertie is so changed that it must â—â—ease to be the thing for which it was first ordained and so the best you would make of the Sacrament is â—â—t a shaddow without a substance Another vnreasonable absurditie wilâ— follow that Christ hath two bodies one of bread made by the Priest another of the blessed virgin conceived by the holie Ghost Againe of his owne bodie shall be in manie places at once that is contrarie to a naturall bodie and is as voyde of learning as the other of religion and by this your new thirteenth Article of your 〈◊〉 faith you would maintaine the being of qualities without a subiect and the being of quantities without a substance which both are impossible But because the opinion is false and forged without Scripture or testimonie of auncient Father I will alleadge no more absurditities at this time till I be vrged See now the fruits of your fained transubstansiation not fâ—ll foure hundred yeares olde yet forsoeth you teach it is Apostolicall and Catholiâ—ke whereas it lackes one thousand and two hundred yeares of that age Lib 4. sent fol. 257. Innocentius 3. de sacro Altaris mysteria lib. 4 cap. â—0 per totum Distinct de consecr distinct 2. canon 1. pag. 429. But he that list to see the shifts and wranglings of your Schoolmen to vphold this rotter Romish heresie let him read Guillermus Innocentius the third a Pope parent and patrone of this fable the first Canon of the second distinction where you shall finde in the Glosse there varia sunt opiniones That in the Popes Court and in his Consistorie there bee divers opinions touching transubstansiation yet the deniall of it or the contradicting of the Popes opinion was then (a) Deniall of Transubstantiation in Rome was no death no death though in those mercilesse daies of Spanish Philip and Romish Marie it was made the thirteenth Article of our faith and it had been lesse daunger to haue denied those twelue old articles of our old faith then this one of your new faith for the one was dispensed with for monie but the deniall of the other was punished with death without mercie But you will replie and say notwithstanding the dissentions aforesaid yet Christs words be true he cannot lie he hath said hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie therefore it is his bodie We confesse these words to be Christs words and therefore true but the litterall sence is yours therefore false But that I will not bee tedious vnto you I could shew you as manie severall opinions dissenting about the meaning of hoc est and corpus as I haue done in the premisses but that the Catholickes shall know there is no such vnitie not veritie in your doctrine as you confidentlie but vntrulie haue taught them therefore I will giue them but a taste till some other time onelie pointing you and them to their Authors and places and then read aduisedlie and iudge without partiall affection This Frier you heard latelie recited your severall 〈…〉 touching consecration Iosepus Angles de Essentialibus Euch. pag. 114. 115. 116. now heare him with your patience to deliver his and other severall opinions touching the exposition of these three words severallie hoc est corpus The first opinion is that this demonstratiue proâ—oune hoc must bee referred not to the bread but to the bodie of Christ that this should be the sence 1. Iosepus hoc 〈◊〉 c. id est corpus est corpus meum That is this my bodie is my bodie but how absurd this is let the young Sophisters in the Schooles giue their censures But the second opinion is of Bonaventura 2. Bonauentura who saith this pronoune hoc must be referred to the bread â—â—â—t must be converted into Christs bodie but not to Christs bodie The third opinion is Occhams 3. Occam in lib. 4. and he is of opinion with the first There followeth three other learned mens opinions contrarie to all the former 1. S. Thom. 2. Ricar 3. Scotus Nec paâ—em nec corpus sub ratione corporis sed corpus Christs sub ratione entis vel Indiuidui c. lib. 4 pag. 182 de sacro Altaris mysterio cap. 17 and say flatlie that this demonstratiue hoc must not be referred to note either the bread or the bodie of Christ but that this might be the sence hoc eus vel hac substantia quae continetur sub speciebus c. This thing or this substance which a contained vnder the accidents of bread is my bodie but how well these opinions with their straunge Logicall manner of reasoning will content the learned Priests and Iesuits I would faine know for this I am 〈◊〉 they sound not either of divinitie or learning But this Frier for a farewell concludes pag. 118. pronoâ—â—n hoc nihil This pronoune hoc signifieth nothing till the last sillable vm be pronounced Pope Innocentius the third saith that hoc signifieth â—either bread nor Christs bodie because the whole words of consecration were not spoken vnlesse saith he you will say the Priest consecrates at this word Benedixit Hoc nihil demosstrat In the same pag. marke this you Iesuits priests he blessed But the Pope saith hee signifieâ— nothing and his reason is that the Priest sheweth 〈◊〉 noteth nothing because he vseth hoc est c. not bâ— way of demonstration but by way of cursorie repetition
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Eusebius Emissenus c. Saint Gregorie Nazianzen and saith it is impietie to doe the contrarie So that the brood being of such agreement vve haue the lesse occasion to embusie our braines to confute them GEntlemen by peeces you repeat some of their words not knowing as it seemeth the occasion and so you vtterlie mistake the sence which was this These godlie Martirs perceiving the flame of persecution to burne so fast and mount so high as it was neither bounded in measure nor mercie and onelie for a new vpstart opinion having no warrant from Gods word They in a Christian brotherlie discretion exhorted the learned bretheren onelie to preach that necessarie Article of our free iustification by faith in the personall merits of Christ And touching the Lords Supper to teach to the people the right vse of the same yet not to meddle with the manner of the presence for feare of daunger if not death but leaue it as a thing indifferent till the matter in a time of peace might be reasoned at large on both parties by the learned Provided ever that poisonfull adoration be taken away The premisses considered what can yee now gather that prooveth with you or disprooveth vs Nay heere is nothing but against you altogither For if you had dealt trulie with the dead Martirs or the living Catholickes these collections and not yours you should from hence haue gathered 1 First these Martirs taught with their breath and sealed with their bloud that your carnall presence and transubstansiated Christ was neither commandement given by God nor Article of our faith ever taught in the primitiue Church but a late invented opinion devised by man 2 Secondlie they wished the bretheren considering it was but mans invention and never recorded in gods booke that therefore they should not hazard tâ—â— lâ—â—â— of their liues which would tend so much to th◠〈◊〉 of Christs Church 3 Thirdlie they wished it to be taken for a season as a 〈…〉 yet not absolutelie but with these cautions 1 First that adoration or worshipping of the creatures were quite taken away which never was done by you and therefore they held it not absolutely indifferent 2 Secondlie till the Church of Christ had peace and test from your bloudle and butcherly slaughters wherein the matter might be decided not with faggots but scriptures which was not graunted in their daies and therefore you greatlie wrong the dead when you make them speake that thing absolutelie which was limitted by them with conditions Now I appeall to the indifferent Reader whether you deserue not a sharpe reproofe thus to dazell the eies and amaze the minds of the simple Catholickes by violent wresting the writings of the martirs perswading the ignorant that they should either dissent in this opinion amongst themselues consent with you or varie from vs. Whereas both they and we then and now consent with Scriptures Fathers and Primitiue Church in vnitie and veritie of doctrine against your dissentions pestiferous errours and open blasphemies And next you bring in another learned Protestant Chemnitius who you say alleadgeth Augustine Ambrose and Gregorie Nazianzen to approoue your adoration in your sacrament Intimating to the world that we should either allow that in you which publikely we preach against or else that we should be at a discord amongst our selues touching this your opinion But the matter being exactlie examined out of these Fathers themselues and not by your Enchiridions or hearesay the Catholickes shall see you wrong vs and abuse them And first it seemeth verie plaine you never saw or at least never read Chemnitius and my reasons bee these First you know not so much as his right name much lesse his precise opinion for you misspel his name Keâ—â—nitius for Cheâ—â—nitius which had been a small fault if you had rightlie alleadged him touching the matter For your â—ridentiue Canon commaundeth an externall or outward worship of Christ in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine And Chemnitius hee condemneth your outward worshippe for ydolatrous and teacheth onelie an inward spirituall worship And to prooue what I say I will trulie alleadge your Canon then Chemnitius his examination of it and then let the Catholickes but iudge indifferentlie whether of vs deal more trulie and syncerelie in this case â—qum pars 2. canon 6. page 434. This is your Canon Si quit dexerit in sancto Eucharistia sacramento Christum vnigenitum Dei filium non esse cultulatriae etiam externo adoranduÌ„ solemnitor circumgestandum c. Anathema sit That is if anie man shall say that in the blessed sacrament of thanksgiving that Christ the onelie begotten Sonne of God is not to bee worshipped with that outward and divine worship which is proper and due onelie to God as well when the Sacrament is carried about in procession as in the lawfull vse of the same page 435. 436. 437. let him be accursed Martyn Chemnius examining this your Canon first condemneth your fained Transubstansiation and sheweth the reason for saith he vnlesse the Church of Rome had devised this Transubstansiation you should haue been palpable ydolaters worshipping the creatures for Christ And therefore she imagined that the substance of bread and wine were quite chaunged into Christs bodie bloud no substance of them remaining lest the simplest should spie their ydolatrie Secondlie he expreslie condemneth your outward worship as ydolatrous page 444. lines 2. 3. 4 and sheweth there that Christ must be received by faith and worshipped in spirit and truth And afterwards hee saith comprehenditur antem veta interior spiritualis veneratio adoratio Christi iâ— ilâ—is verbis institutionis hoc facite c. for the true inward and spirituall worship of Christ is comprehended in the words of Christs institution Doe this in rememberance of me Now let the best minded Catholicks see your vniust dealing with both quick and dead pretending that either Chemnitius as you say allowed your outward worship in your Sacrament or that wee â—arre amongst our selues touching the same which both bee vntrue For you hold the worship to bee outward hee and we inward you carnall he and we spirituall and brieflie if you will yet read him diligentlie you shall find he vtterlie condemneth your carnall presence and your externall worship approoving the one to bee a fable the other blasphemie And thus much for your ignorance touching Martyn Chemnitius whom it seemeth you never saw but onely tooke him by the eares as Water-bearers do their Tankerds Againe you say that Chemnitius vpon the assurance of the real presence approveth the custome of the church in adoring Christ in the Sacrament by the authoritie of Saint Augustine Ambrose in Psal 98. by Euschius Emissenus Saint Gregorie Nazianzen charging as manie as doe the contrarie with impietie to everie of which thus I aunswere This Psal according to the Hebrew is the 99 Psal and vpon this place S. Augustine writ as I will a leadge him of
that they did receiue the bodie of Christ GEntlemen Rider in that booke are fiue and twentie chapters and not one word of this matter in anie of those and againe you mistake the time for Severus then governed not If it were vnder Severus it should then be in the sixth booke where you shal finde fortie fiue chapters yet there also is not one word of this Yet if you marke this that you bring against vs if it were to be found in Eusebius it maketh nothing against vs for though the Pagans were as grosse in the matter of the Sacrament as Nicodemus was in the matter of regeneration it is neither miracle nor wonder but a thing too common now and then And for true Christians to eate Christes flesh spirituallie by faith is or ought to be no miracle in the Church but the practise of the Church But if you had read Eusebius your selfe diligentlie you should haue found that in the fifth booke and seventh chapter hee would haue tolde you that then miracles ceast were not in Gods Church and he produceth old Father Jraneus for confirmation of the same Ex lib. 2. Iranes cap 58. You bring in Eusebius to maintaine miracles and Eusebius himselfe denieth them This is your olde fashion to inforce the fathers to speake not what they would but what you please but read that place well and remember that Eusebius records that Church wherein miracles are wrought not to be Gods church and so by his opinion your Church of Rome must bee planted in the suburbs of Babylon not in Civitate Dei within the gates of Sion Catho Priests Amphil. Guitmundus in vita Basilij A Ievv present at masse vvhich Saint Basill did celebrate vvas converted by seeing a childe devided in the blessed Sacrament I Finde in Basill pag. 171. that he writ thirtie chapters ad sanctum Amphilochìum Iconij Episcopum but your Munkish Amphilochius I never saw Rider neither doe I care because he is a forger of false miracles and thus I prooue it The fabler saith the Iew saw a childe devided in the sacrament that could not be Christ for hee was a perfect man before his passion And if it were anie besides Christ or if it had been anie in Christ his likenesse it must be done as your owne Authour said a little before either by mans sleight or the divels illusion A lier hath need of a good memorie But to be briefe and yet plaine this must needes be a verie shamefull lie For how could Basill that lived about the yeare of our Lord 367. say your masse that was in hatching vp and patching togither at least foure hundred or fiue hundred yeares after his death as shall God willing bee prooved vnto you out of your owne bookes Tom. 6. Biblioth patrum in lib Guitmundi Archiâ— de veritate Euch. li. 2. pag. 405 in my next Treatise of the masse and so you feed the Catholickes with these lying legends instead of holie scriptures a As for Guitmundus he hath neither one word of Saint Basils life nor of your miracle yet hee hath some other thing as foolish and as vntrue or else he had not been made Archbishop for his paines wherein he greatlie serviced the Pope Cath. Pri. Amb. oratio 1. de obit Satyri Ambrose speaketh of a happie preservation of one from drovvning for devotion tovvards the same IN deed Ambrose Tom. 5. pag. 720. Rider writeth a treatise of the death of his brother Satyrus wherein he sheweth the great mercie of God alwaies towards his Church and children in preserving them from daunger and amongst the rest hee bringeth in an example of a great number of passengers that in a storme suffered shipwracke amongst whom there was one seeing the daunger desired of some fellow passenger So simple people foolishlie cary about them halliâ— bread Crosses Crucifixses aguus dies such trasâ— to giue him some part of the misticall bread for in those daies it was a superstitious custome wickedlie tollerated to carrie some part of the sacramentall bread about them which peece of bread when hee had inclosed fast in his garment he leapt over boord and did swimme safe a shore This now is your wonderfull miracle out of which let vs see what may be gathered The best note saith a learned writer is that he was a good swimmer But to overthrow your miracle I will alleadge Ambrose his owne words in that place First he calleth it but onlie fidei auxilium a helpe of his faith And if hee had thought it had beene Christ as you vntrulie teach hee would haue called it the Authour and finisher of his faith and therefore he tooke your Oste not to bee his maker as you teach nor his present preserver but a strengthening of his faith And that you may see it is true which I say afterwards he calleth it Divinum fidelium sacramentum the divine Sacrament of the faithfull And therefore he thought not as you doe that Christ was locallie in the sacrament And againe there was no miracle in this because other passengers that had not such misticall bread escaped safe to shore as well as he for if the having of that Host preserved him the lacke of the Host should haue drowned the rest If your hoste cannot doe the lesser much lesse the greater And it is verie straunge that the Catholicks being so wise men in all other matters should be so sotted in this as to thinke that a Wafercake consecrated by a Priest or Pope should preserue a man from drowning in water when it cannot preserue anie good fellow from being drunke with wine But to the rest as they follow Catho Priests lib 8. cap. 5. Sozomen recounteth hovv a vvoman not beleeving that Christ had transformed bread into his bodie was in danger by transformation of bread into a stone Rider SOme such thing there is but you misse Sozomens words sentences and purpose and applie it still to your Host The priest told Sozomen that in giving the Sacramentall bread to a woman shee tooke it in her hand and privilie gaue it her maide behinde her which the maid no sooner toucht with her tooth but it turned into a stone the print of the tooth is this day to be seen in Constantinople Beleeue it that lâ—st I pray you Gentlemen is this your Oste Christs bodie if it be as you teach but fâ—e it is a false lie theÌ„ were Christs bodie turned into a stone to be seen at Constantinople vnder the forms of a stone as wel as at Rome vnder the formes of bread O hellish divinitie Acts. 13.10 but I say vnto you Priests Iesuits as Paul said to that false Arch-Iesuit Bariesus O full of all subtiltie and mischiefe children of the divell and enemies of all righteousnesse vvill yee not cease yet to pervert the straight vvaies of the Lord but still like Elimas seeke to turne