followeth after sheweth in what sense he tooke the word supreme At this day sayth he where Poperie continueth howe many are there which lode the king with all the right and power they can that there should be no disputing of religion but this authoritie should rest in the king alone to appoint at his pleasure what hee list and that to stande good without contradiction They that first so highly aduanced king Henry of England were inconsiderate they gaue him supreme power of all thinges and that was it which alway wounded me Then succeede your wordes and withall a particular exemplication howe Steuen Gardiner alleaged and constred the Kings stile in Germanie That Iuggler which after was Chauncelour I meane the Bishop of Winchester when hee was at Rentzburge neither would stande to reason the matter nor greatly cared for any testimonies of the scriptures but said it was at the kinges discretion to abrogate that which was in vse appoint new He said the king might forbid priests mariage the king might barre the people from the cup in the Lordes supper the king might determine this or that in his kingdome And why Forsooth the king had supreme power This sacrilege hath taken hold on vs in Germanie whiles Princes think they cannot raign except they abolish al the authoritie of the church be thēselues supreme Iudges as wel in doctrin as in al spirituall regiment This was the sense which Caluin affirmed to bee sacrilegious and blasphemous for Princes to professe them-selues supreme Iudges of Doctrine and discipline and in deede it is the blasphemie which all godly heartes reiect and abomine in the Bishoppe of Rome Neither did King Henry take any such thing on him for ought that wee can learne But this was Gardiners Stratageme to conuey the reproche and shame of the sixe articles from himselfe and his fellowes that were the authors of them and to cast it on the kings supreme power Had Caluin been told that supreme was first receiued to declare the Prince to be superior to the Prelats which exempted themselues from the Kings authoritie by their Church liberties and immunities as well as to the Lay men of this realme and not to bee subiect to the Pope who claymed a iurisdiction ouer all Princes and Countries the woorde woulde neuer haue offended him but as this wylye foxe framed his answere when the Germanes communed with him about the matter wee blame not Caluin for mistaking but the Bishop of Winchester for peruerting the kings stile wresting it to that sense which all good men abhorre Phi. Do not you at this day make the Queene supreme Gouernour of al ecclesiasticall doctrine and discipline And what discrepance I pray you between Iudge and Gouernour Theo. You may be Steuen Gardiners scholer you bee so wel trained in his methode and maximes Wee told you long since and often enough if that will serue the prince by her stile doth not chalenge neither do we by our othe giue her highnes power to debate decide or determine any point of fayth or matter of religion much lesse to bee supreme iudge or gouernour of all doctrine and discipline But if in her realme you will haue the assistance of the magistrates swoord to settle the trueth and prohibite error and by wholesome punishments to preuent the disorders of all degrees that authoritie lieth neither in Prelate nor Pope but onely in the Prince and therefore in her Dominions you can neither establish doctrine nor discipline by publike Lawes without her consent This neither Caluin nor the compilers of the Centuries nor any other of sound religion euer did or iustly can mislike onely Iesuites their adherents would faine reserue this power to the Pope in al Christian realmes because they be sure he will allowe and suffer no religion but his owne and so long their profession shall not miscarie Phi. The Centurists say Princes may not bee heads of the Church that primacie is not fit for them Theo. That word if they mislike wee stand not for it The holy Ghost hath inuested the sonne of God with it and therefore reason princes euen for reuerence to him should forbeare the stile which hee first vsed most esteemeth And though some defence might be brought for the word as that which Samuel said to Saul When thou wast litle in thine own sight wast thou not made HEAD of the tribes of Israel For the Lorde annoynted thee king ouer Israel and that which Dauid sayth of himself Thou hast made me HEAD of the heathen and that which Esai saith of the king of Syria THE HEAD of Aram is Damascus and the HEAD of Damascus is Rezni and again the honorable mā he is the HEAD as also S. Paul the man is the womans HEAD Chrysostom not sticking to call certaine women that laboured in the Gospel HEAD OF THE CHVRCH at Philippi and saying of Theodosius the Emperor Summitas caput omnium super terram hominum SVPREME AND HEAD of all mortall men Though these and many like places might bee brought to auouche the worde HEAD yet because that title HEAD OF THE CHVRCH rightly and properly belongeth onely to Christ not to Princes without many mitigations and cautions and head as it is applied to Princes is al one with Supreme for it importeth but the chiefest or highest person of the Church on earth and with the regiment of the Church whereof Christ is head I meane his mysticall bodie Princes haue nothing to doe yea many times they be scant members of it and the Church in each countrie may stand without Princes as in persecution it doth and yet they not headlesse we thinke not good to contend with our brethren for wordes and to greeue their eares with titles first abused by the pope and first reproued in him so long as in matter and meaning there is no discord betwixt vs. Phi. Will you make vs beleeue they mislike nothing but the wordes head of the Church Theo. Yeas they mislike that Princes should mingle trueth with falsehood and temper religion with corruption as their priuate fancies lead them which we mislike no lesse than they This is the scope of our speach say they that it is not lawful for ciuill Magistrates to deuise formes of religion in destruction of the truth and so to reconcile truth and error that they may both be lulled asleepe They may not prescribe religions alone they must not ingender new articles of the faith they must not strangle the trueth with errors and shackle it when it is reueiled that they may let loose the bridle to corruption These be the points which they dislike and we be as farre from approuing any such thing in Princes as you or they Phi. If the Prince establish any religion whatsoeuer it be you must by your oth obey it Theo. We must not rebel and take armes against the prince
to attend on his person Phi. And they be seruants as well as others Theo. It may be so neither do I denie that Princes must serue but whom Phi. The church so saith S. Hierom The nations kings that will not serue the church shall perish with that destruction which is prepared for the wicked Theo. You should shew that Princes which will not serue the Pope must loose their crownes Phi. Grant that Princes must serue the church for the rest we will do well enough Theo. First grant you that Popes were subiects seruants to christiā Princes 850. yeares after Christ which I haue proued you haue not answered and for seruice to be done by Princes to the church of Christ I will not long dissent Phi. Howe can they serue the church not serue the Pope which is head of the church Theo. To whom were these wordes spoken The kingdome that will not serue thee shall perish Phi. To the church Theo. To the whole church or to some speciall members of the church Phi. To the whole Theo. Then may the poorest member of Christs church euery Parish-priest chalenge to be the master of Princes to be serued at their hands as well as the Pope That which is spoken to all must be common to all Againe your owne answere ouerthroweth your own assertiō for this was spoken you say to the church but the Pope is not the church ergo this was not spoken to the Pope Phi. You go too far It was spoken to the whole but not ment of the whole Theo. Of whom then was it mēt Phi. Of the head which is a part of the whole The members of Christs church are not bound to serue one an other but all to serue the head In respect of their head they be seruants in respect of themselues they be brethren Theo. Is the head a part of the bodie Phi. Though the head can not properly be called a member of the bodie but the head yet in the whole are contained both the head and the members as in an Armie sometimes the Captaine and Souldiers and a kingdom compriseth both the king and his subiects Theo. Then where Esaie saith to Ierusalem kingdoms shall serue thee that is not euery member of thee but the chiefest and noblest part of thee which is the head that all the members serue Phi. And that head is the Pope Theo. When you proue the Pope to bee head of the church then call for Princes to doe him seruice In the meane time let Princes heare what Dauid saith Bee wise yee kinges serue the Lord and what our Sauiour alleadgeth Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onelie shalt thou serue At the name of Iesus euerie knee shall bowe of thinges in heauen and of thinges on earth Yea let not onely Princes but all the Angels of God worship him hee is the head to the church which is his bodie Your holy father must staie for his seruice till his headship may be found in some better records than in your bare supposals Phi. You infer this vpon my confession which I may change vppon better aduisement The nation kingdom that wil not serue thee shall perish No doubt these words bind Princes to do seruice to the church if not to the Pope Theo. You bound them before to serue the head and not the bodie now you wil haue them serue the bodie and not the head Well since there is no more hold in your word I will take surer hold of Esaies wordes The text which you bring is allegorical as the whole chap. besides is therefore you may draw no literal conclusion from these words no more than from wals gates brasse yron gold siluer Sunne Moone milk teats camels rammes firre trees pine-trees which also be reckned and promised to Ierusalem in this place Phi. Run you to allegories Theo. You cannot run from them vnlesse you run from this chapter read it ouer and see whether I faine or no. Phi. Shall then the promises of God be frustrate because the speaches bee figuratiue Theo. Did I saie they should No they bee greater and richer than mans tongue can expresse But if you presse the letter they bee false and absurde For example All the sheepe of Kedar shall bee gathered vnto thee the rammes of Nabaioth shall serue thee For brasse will I bring golde and for yron siluer for wood brasse and for stones yron Thou shalt haue no more Sunne to shine by daie neither shall the brightnesse of the Moone shine vnto thee These thinges bee not literally true Phi. I know they be not Theo. The whole chapter goeth after the same sort expressing by temporal and terrestrial things the blessings of God vpō his church which be celestial and eternal Phi. I mislike not this Theo. Euen so the seruice which kinges must do to the church is not corporall nor external such as seruing-men yeeld to their masters or subiectes to their superiours but an inward deuotion and an humble submission to the graces and mercies of God proposed offered in his church In effect kings must become religious faithful members of the church to serue God in holines righteousnes al the daies of their life To beleeue the word that is preached to frequent the sacraments that be ministred to fear the Lord that is honored in al aboue al this is the seruice which the church of Christ hartily wisheth earnestly seeketh at al mens hāds other solemnities with cap and knee shee neither liketh nor looketh for Phi. Kinges in respect of their calling must serue the church I meane with their princely power Theo. You say somwhat In deed kings in that they be kings haue to serue the Lord so as none cā do which are not kings For their power ought so to serue the Lord that by their power they which refuse to be subiect to the wil of God should be punished but this seruice you will not haue thē to busie with if happily they command against your liking you not only discharge thē of their seruice but of their kingdoms also Phi. Not if they serue the church as Esaie saith they should Theo. The seruice that is done to Christ the church imbraceth as done to hir self because she requireth no more but that Christ her Lord master be serued and yet the seruice which I nowe speake of namely to preserue subiects in godlines quietnes with wholsome lawes to fraie men from vices heresies is done to Christ not in respect of himselfe but of his church concerneth the profit welfare of the whole church euery mēber thereof Phi. This is not to serue but to rule the church Theo. Kings as kings that is as publike Magistrates can not serue the church but by defending her members repressing her enemies this is better seruice to God his church than that which
Father or Councell for 800. yeares that proueth the Pope superiour to the Prince Bring somwhat to that end or else say you can not and I am answered Phi. I proue the church superior to the Prince which is enough to confute the supreme power that you giue to Princes Theo. And what for the Pope Shall he be superiour to Princes or no Phi. We wil talke of that an other time we be now reasoning of the church which I trust you will grant to be superiour to Princes God saide to the Church The nation and kingdom that will not serue thee shall perish And kinges shall serue thee Theo. This is right the trade of your Apologie to pretende the church and meane the Pope You sawe you were neuer able to proue the Popes vsurped power ouer Princes and therefore you thought it best to put a visarde of the Church vppon the Popes face and to bring him in that sort disguised to the stage to deceiue the simple with the sounde and shewe of the Church And for that cause your fourth chapter neuer nameth the Pope but stil vrgeth The regiment of the church The iudgement of the church The churches tribunall conuerted kingdomes must serue the church and euerie where the church the church and when the Church is confessed to bee superiour to Princes you set vppe the Pope as heade of the Church to take from her all the superioritie power and authoritie which before you claymed for her and so you make the Church but a cloke-bagge to carrie the Popes titles after him but staie your wisedomes the Church may bee superiour and yet the Pope subiect to Princes Kinges may serue the Church and yet commaund your holie father and his gymmoes the parish Priestes of Rome for their turning winding euery way iustly called Cardinals Phi. Can Princes bee supreme and the church their superiour Theo. Why not Phi. If any thing bee superiour Princes bee not supreme Theo. That I denie The Scriptures bee superiour to Princes and yet they supreme the Sacramentes bee likewise aboue them and yet that hindereth not their supremacie Truth Grace Faith Prayer and other Ghostlie vertues bee higher than all earthly states and all this notwithstanding Princes may bee supreme gouernours of their kingdomes and Countries Phi. You cauill nowe you shoulde compare persons with persons and not thinges with persons there may bee thinges aboue Princes and yet they supreme but if anie persons bee superiour then can they not bee supreme Theo. No The Sainctes in heauen and Angels of God bee persons superiour to Princes and yet may Princes bee supreme Phi. Why Theophilus these bee wrangling quiddities for shame leaue them The Sainctes bee superiour in perfection and dignitie but not in externall vocation and authoritie Theo. I like that you saie but if you looke backe you shall see Philander that you giue iudgement against your selfe Phi. Against my selfe Why so Theo. The Church is superiour to Princes for those very respectes which I nowe repeated First because the Saincts in heauen which are part of the church in happines perfection and dignitie bee many degrees aboue worldely states Secondly though the members of the Church bee subiect and obedient to Princes yet the thinges contayned in the Church and bestowed on the Church by God him-selfe I meane the light of his worde the working of his Sacramentes the giftes of his grace and fruites of his spirite bee farre superiour to all Princes Nowe view your consequent The Church in respect of her members in heauen and graces on earth is aboue the Prince ergo the Prince is not supreme but subiect to the Pope This is worse than wrangling You confound things and persons heauen and earth God and man to beare out the Popes pride Phi. You stretch the name of the church whither you list Theo. I may better stretch it to these thinges which I specifie than you restraine it to one onelie man as you doe But why doe I stretch the church farther than I should The Sainctes in heauen bee they not members of the church Phi. They bee membees of the church which is in heauen Theo. And the church in heauen is it an other church from this on earth or the same with it Phi. I thinke it bee the same Theo. You must not goe by thoughtes Sainct Paul saith You are of the same citie with the Sainctes and Ierusalem which is aboue is no straunger to vs but the mother of vs all Cum ipsis Angelis sumus vna ciuitas Dei cuius pars in nobis peregrinatur pars in illis opitulatur Wee saith Austen are one and the same citie of God with the Angels whereof part wandereth on earth in vs part in them assisteth vs. And againe The true Sion and true Ierusalem is euerlasting in heauen which is the mother of vs all She hath begotten vs shee hath nurced vs in part a stranger on earth in a greater part remaining in heauen For the soules of the godly that be dead be not seuered from the church which euen now is the kingdome of Christ. Certaynely Christ hath but one bodie which is his church and of that body since the Sainctes be the greater and worthier part they must bee counted of the same Church with vs. Phi. I stick not at that so much as at the next where you make the word and Sacramentes togither with their effectes and fruites to be parts of the church Theo. I do not say they be members of the Church but thinges required in the church without the which we can neither become nor continue the members of Christ. In a naturall bodie the spirits and faculties be no members yet without them the members haue neither life motion sense nor action So in the mysticall bodie of Christ the members be men but the meanes and helpes to make vs and keepe vs the members of Christ are the word and Sacraments without the which we can neither be planted quickned nor nourished in Christ. For the members be dead if they liue not by faith if they grow not by grace if they cleaue not by loue to their heade and moue at his will by obedience And therefore these thinges though they bee not members yet they bee ioyntes and sinewes vaines and vessels that giue life groeth strength and state to the bodie of Christ which is his church and may iustly bee called the principall powers or partes of his bodie Phi. Powers if you will but not partes Theo. As though the powers of the soule were not partes of the soule Phi. Not properly partes but powers and faculties Theo. What call you partes Phi. Whereof the whole consisteth Theo. And since without these there can be no Church ergo these be partes of the church Phi. You take partes very largely Theo. No larger than I should The foundation of the house is it not a part of the house Phi. Yes a chiefe
part Theo. Faith is the foundation of the church why then should not faith be a part of the church Phi. The Church consisteth of persons not of thinges Men are the church saith S. Augustine Againe The church that is the people of God throughout all nations Theo. I doe not deny the church to bee many times taken for the faithfull on earth but I adde that the graces mysteries and word of God bee contained in the Church and without them the Persons are no Church Our bodies and soules doe not make vs members of Christ but our faith and obedience By Baptisme not by birth doe we Put on Christ and grace not meates establish our heartes They bee the sonnes of God that he led by the spirit of God And if any man haue not the spirit of Christ the same is no member of his Phi. All this is true Theo. The church then consisteth not of men but of faithfull men and they bee the Church not in respect of flesh and blood which came from earth but of trueth and grace which came from heauen Phi. I graunt Theo. Ergo the perfection of Gods giftes the communion of his graces and direction of his word are the verie life and soule of his Church so within the compasse of the church are comprised not onely the persons that bee earthly but also the things that be heauenly whereby God gathereth preserueth and sanctifieth his Church Phi. What doth this helpe you Theo. That when wee saie with S. Ambrose Imperator bonus intra Ecclesiam non supra Ecclesiam est A good Emperour is within the Church not aboue the Church you can conclude nothing out of these words against vs. Phi. Can we not If good Princes bee not aboue the church ergo they be not aboue the prelats pillours of the church Theo. That is no consequent Phi. Why not Theo. By the Church are ment sometimes the places somtimes the persons sometime the things that be cheefely required in the Church Of the place S. Austen saith We cal the Church the temple where the people which are trewly called the Church are conteined that by the name of the Church I meane the people which is conteined we may signifie the place which conteyneth And againe The Church is the place where the Church is assembled for men are the Church The Church as it is taken for persons hath a triple distinction First the Church of glorious and elect Angels and men Ecclesia deorsum ecclesia sursum Ecclesia deorsum in omnibus fidelibus ecclesia sursum in omnibus Angelis There is a Church beneath there is a Church aboue The Church beneath in all the faithfull the Church aboue in all the Angels And againe The right order of confession required that in our creed next to the three persons in Trinity should stand the Church as next to the owner his howse to God his tēple to the builder his citie which must here be taken for the whole not only that part which is a pilgrime on earth but also for that part which abiding in heauen hath euer since it was created cleauen vnto God This part in the holy Angels persisteth in blessednes and helpeth as it ought her other part wandring in earth The temple of God therfore is the holy Church I mean the vniuersall in heauen and earth Secondly the Church is the people of God through out all nations ioyning reckning al the Saints which before his cōming liued in this world The whole Church euerie where diffused is the bodie of Christ and he is the head of it Not only the faithful which are now but also they that were before vs and they that shall be after vs to the end of the world they al pertaine to his bodie The Church is the body of Christ not the church which is here or there but that which is here and euery where throughout the world neither that Church which is at this time but from Abel vnto those which shall hereafter bee borne and beleeue in Christ euen till the end the whole companie of saintes belonging to one Citie which is the bodie of Christ and whereof he is the head Thirdly the Church may bee limited by time and place as the particular Churches of Rome Corinth Ephesus and such like Behold saith Austen in the Church there be Churches which be members of that one Church dispersed throughout the world There be many Churches yet one Church and in that sort many that there is but one Somtimes the church importeth besides the persons y◠things in which those persons must communicate before they can be members of the Church as when the church is called the kingdome citie and howse of God whereby wee learne that it is furnished not onely with persons but with all thinges needefull for the seruants citizens and people of God to the conuerting and sauing of their soules In that sense saith S. Paul The kingdome of God is righteousnes peace and ioy in the holy Ghost meaning these be fruits and effects of Gods kingdome which our Sauiour threatned to take from the Iewes The kingdome of God shall bee taken from you and giuen to a nation that shall bring forth the fruites thereof shewing that when the woorde of trueth and seales of grace are taken from vs wee cease to bee the people and Church of God Christ raigneth in his Church by his word and spirit without these men are not the Church An earthly citie must haue vnitie societie regiment sufficiencie for an earthly state the number of men doeth not make a citie if these thinges want Howe much more must the citie of God haue abundance of al thinges profiting to eternall life S. Austen sayth of the house of God which is the Church It is founded by beleeuing erected by hoping perfected by louing noting these three to bee the maine partes in the building of Gods house It is playner than that longer proofe shall neede If wee woulde define the Church wee must comprehend not onely men but other thinges also which may seuer the Church from those that are not the Church and those thinges that are required to the explication are wee say contained in the appellation of the Church The Church is not simply a number of men for Infidels heretikes and hypocrites are not the Church but of men regenerate by the woord and Sacraments truely seruing God according to the Gospell of his sonne and sealed by the spirite of grace against the day of redemption Men thus qualified are the Church and the giftes and graces of GOD that so qualifie them bee not onely the iewels and ornaments wherewith the spouse of Christ is decked but euen the seede and milke whereby like a mother shee conceyueth and nourceth her children The church our mother saith Austen conceiued vs of Christ nourished yea nourisheth vs with the milke of faith Shee conceiueth by the Sacraments
must haue Theo. The charge which Christ gaue Peter to feede his sheepe is common to all Pastours But with the mercy which Christ shewed him in conuerting him and restoring him after his fall what haue his successors to do Christ promised Peter repentance will you therefore inferre that all Popes haue the like promises Or had they as they haue not doeth this let but they may forsweare their master and loose their faith as Peter did notwithstanding this praier and promise of Christ made vnto him Phi. But they shall also repent as Peter did Theo. If you could proue that promise to pertaine vnto them as you can not yet might their errour be publike and their conuersion secret as Peters was and since they bee subiect to Peters fall namely to denie both their faith and their master though they were promised repentance with him as they bee not yet howe can you knowe what thinges proceeded from the Popes mouth erring and which from the Popes hart repenting Which vnlesse you doe you may erre with him to your eternall confusion and not repent with him for that you haue not the like promise Phi. I will bee with you to the worldes ende saith Christ and hee forsaketh those that erre So that if the church should erre this promise of his were not kept which God forbid Theo. You shew the goodnesse of your cause when you reele thus from the Pope to the church and from the church to the Pope and yet finde nothing to fitte you Christ is with euery one of his and not onely with the Pope as you would haue the place to sound and yet I thinke you will not affirm that no christian can erre Many good men haue erred euen in matters of faith and yet not beene forsaken of Christ. The longer you reason the farther you bee from prouing that the Pope can not erre For this promise concerneth him no more than it doth any other christian and perhaps not so much or if it did yet doth it not free him from errour Phi. The promise which is generall to euery member of the church concerneth him chiefly that is head of the church Theo. Keepe this head of yours till the body need it the church of Christ hath a surer and better head thā the Pope or else it were ill with her Phi. Christ we know is the head of his church and the onely head in such soueraigne and principall manner as no earthly man is or can be yet the Pope may be the ministeriall head Theo. When you proue it then say it in the meane while abuse not the word of God to serue your follies Christ dwelleth in the hartes of all that bee his by faith with them he remaineth vntill the worldes end What is this to the Pope or how doth this fense him from errour Phi. If he be Christs he can not erre Theo. This text doth not proue him to be one of Christs but if he bee then Christ is with him as hee is with all other his members Phi. And they can not erre with whom Christ is Theo. Bee these your demonstrations that the Pope can not erre to shewe for him no better nor other priuilege than that which is common to him with women children if they be mēbers of Christ And were he a mēber of Christ which as yet for ought that I see you can hardly proue hee might be deceiued in some cases of religion as well as Lactantius Irineus Cyprian and others men of great learning and good account in the church of God Phi. Our Sauiour saieth it is not possible that the electe shoulde be seduced Theo. Not possible they should bee seduced to fall from God as the wicked are Yet as they may sinne but not vnto death euen so may they erre but not vnto destruction Their errour shall either be not finall or not mortall Phi. May they that erre bee saued Theo. If they holde fast the foundation which is Christ and erre not of wilfull obstinacie but of humane frailtie why may they not bee saued S. Cyprian said of those that were before him If any of our predecessours either ignorantly or simply did not obserue and keepe that which the Lord by his example and authoritie willed his simplicitie may be pardoned by the goodnesse of God And S. Augustin said of him when an errour of his was alleadged by the Donatistes for their defence Cyprian either was not all of this opinion or he after corrected it by the rule of truth or this blemish in his most beautifull brest he couered with the teates of charity And farther alleadgeth and alloweth this saying of Cyprians Ignosci potest simpliciter erranti he that erreth of simplicity may be pardoned Of himselfe and all others S. Augustine saith Homines sumus vnde aliquid aliter sapere quà m se res habet humana tentatio est In nullo autem aliter sapere quā se res habet Angelica perfectio est We are men and therefore to thinke otherwise than the truth is is humane infirmitie or a tentation common to man To be deceiued in nothing is Angelicall perfection And therefore writing to S. Hierom and of S. Hierom he saith Prorsus non te arbitror sic legi libros tuos velle tanquam Prophetarum aut Apostolorum de quorum scriptis quòd omni errore careant dubitare nefarium Absit hoc à pia humilitate veraci de temetipso cogitatione I am fully of opinion that you would not haue your books to be read in such sort as wee do the Prophetes and Apostles of whose writinges to doubt whether they be free from all errour is wickednesse Be this far from godly humilitie and the true perswasion of your selfe So that set the Apostles aside and their writinges no man ought to thinke of himselfe that hee can not erre neither can you haue that opinion of any man without a proude false perswasion aboue mans state and against Gods truth Phi. What shall wee then saie to the promise which our Lorde made to his When hee the spirite of trueth commeth hee shall teach you all trueth Theo. If it bee referred to the Apostles then present with him as the wordes next before doe specifie I haue yet many things to saie vnto you but you can not beare them nowe wee graunt those witnesses chosen by Christ to teach all Nations were to bee furnished with all trueth and to bee established in the same but if it bee extended to all the faithfull they also shall bee ledde into all trueth needefull and requisite to saluation I meane the substantiall groundes of faith though in some questions of Religion happilie they shall not all bee like minded Phi. And what for the Churche shall shee haue no parte in this promise Theoph. If the faythfull haue the Church which is the number and collection of the faythfull must needes haue But that the
mentio habetur In the said declaration of Pope Nicolas there is mention made of renouncing the proprietie only but none other right And so Ius aliud a proprietate habuisse potuerunt they might haue some other right besides the proprietie Phi. So they might Theo. As if Christ and his Apostles had been cunning in the ciuill Lawes to renounce the proprietie for a fashion and yet to reserue an interest in those thinges which they seemed to renounce so that they might both keepe and vse them at their willes This exposition that Christ taught men to renounce the proprietie of their goods and reserue the vse is as false and hereticall as the former assertion of Pope Nicolas that Christ and his Apostles renounced their right in al earthly things both in special and common and taught others to do the like Your gloze tumbleth a long while in the myre after he hath confessed the one to be expresly contrarie to the other at length submitteth himselfe to the Church of Rome though hee see not howe to loose the knot Nicolaus the second in a Councel of 114. Bishoppes appointed Berengarius to confesse that The very body of Christ is in trueth and sensually broken and brused in pieces with the teeth of the faithful this confession the Pope receiued allowed and sent to the Bishoppes of Italie Germanie and Fraunce as catholike which your owne gloze saith is a greater heresie than euer Berengarius held Phi. Hee saith it is vnlesse you vnderstand it soberly Lheo And that sober vnderstanding hee graunteth must bee cleane against the text For where the text affirmeth this of y◠very body of Christ excludeth the outward sacrament as the words declare your gloze sayth that vnlesse you vnderstand this of the outward formes of bread and wine and not of the bodie of Christ it is a greater heresie than that of Berengarius and so is it in deede a very palpable a brutish error and can no way bee salued except you take the woords cleane contrarie to themselues which conuinceth the Pope and his whole Councell of a monsterous error Phi. This was Berengarius fault in his confession but not the Popes iudgement or resolution Theo. You would faine wind out if the text it selfe did not hold you fast but there it is sayde that Pope Nicolas and the Synode deliuered this faith and assured it to be Apostolike and Euangelike And therefore if Berengarius erred in subscribing this fourme of confession the Pope his Councell erred in prescribing the same Phi. You take nice aduantages of words which men may soone misse Theo. The heresie of Arius differed but one letter from the truth and yet his doctrine wa◠very blasphemous One word may containe a whole kingdome of impietie Phi. The best is you find not many such ouersightes in the Popes decrees Theo. You print and publish none but such as you thinke your selues able to defend suppressing the rest that might bee chalenged and then you aske vs howe wee prooue that euer the Bishoppe of Rome gaue definitiue sentence against the fayth in open Court or Councel which refuge of yours is very ridiculous For what hath Christes prayer for Peter to doe with definitiue sentences and open Consistories If the Pope may beleeue defende and preach an error what neede wee care whether his sentence bee conclusiue or perswasiue definitiue or interlocutorie And so for the place what skilleth it where and in whose presence the words be written or spoken if they be certainely his And where you thinke it maketh much for the Bishoppe of Rome that wee can not proue these errors of Popes to haue beene definitiuely pronounced in their publike Consistories if that were true as it is not you shew your selues to be but wranglers For wee can name an infinite number of Bishoppes and Churches that neuer erred in this speciall precise maner which you propose Howe prooue you that euer the Bishops of Yorke or Durham in England of Poycters or Lions in Fraunce of Valeria or Carduba in Spaine of Rauennas or Rhegium in Italie of Corinth or Athens in Greece of Miletus or Sardis in Asia gaue definitiue sentence against the faith in their publike consistories A thousande others I coulde obiect on whom that thing shall neuer bee fastened which you crake can not be proued by the Bishop of Rome Heretikes haue been euer conuinced by their confessions writings not by their definitiue sentences or iudiciall proceedings And therefore if Popes haue erred in writing and teaching they were as right heretikes as euer were Arius Sabellius Nestorius Eutiches and such like which neuer gaue definitiue sentēce against the faith in Courts and Consistories but onely taught or wrate against the truth Phi. Though one or two Bishops of Rome were deceiued they erred not so often there as in other places Theo. Set Constantinople aside and in no one See did the bishops erre oftener than in Rome but this is not our marke If one or two haue erred why may not others Yea though none of them had erred heretofore yet that which is possible may happen hereafter and so long they can be no absolute iudges of trueth Phi. If they might erre they were no fit iudges of faith but because their Tribunall is the highest that is in the Church they must therfore be free from error Theo. You euer proue that which we doubt of by y◠which is more doubtful We denie the Popes Tribunal to bee the highest that is in the church Prouinciall and generall Councels by the Canons are aboue him And in matters of faith the highest Court that is in earth may misse therfore no man is bound to Pastor Prelate or councel farther than their decrees be coherēt agreeable with the faith For against God we owe neither audience nor obedience vnto the perswasions or precepts of any men Phi. No question we must as well in faith as in manners obey rather God than man and therefore if the iudgements of bishops and conclusions of Councels might be repugnant to the word of God duetie bindeth vs to preferre the preceptes of God before the pleasures of men but it is not possible that God should leaue his Church without direction and directed shee can not bee but by iudgement and in giuing iudgement the head must be highest and so the soundest left that peruert the rest and endanger the whole bodie Theo. The church of Christ neuer was nor euer shall bee without direction but that direction proceedeth from the word and spirit of Christ not from the courts and Consistories of Popes Assemblees of learned Bishoppes voyd of pride and strife are good helpes to trie the faith and moderate the discipline of the Church and the greater the better yet the direction of Gods holy Spirite and infallible determination of trueth is not annexed to any certaine places Persons or numbers
depriue Princes of their Crownes and take their Scepters from them because the Apostle willed the christians to be tried rather by their brethreÌ„ than by their enemies which were Infidels Phi. In all which there is no difference betwixt kinges that bee faithfull and other Christian men who all in that they haue submitted themselues and their Scepters to the sweete yoke of Christ are subiect to discipline and to their Pastors authority no lesse than other sheepe of his fold Theo. In beleeuing the word receiuing the Sacraments and obeying the Lawes of God there is no difference betweene the Ruler and the Subiect but the temporall states and possessions of priuate men you may not meddle with by no color of ecclesiastical power or discipline much lesse may you touch the bodies or take the Crownes of Princes into your handes by your accidentall indirect authoritie which is nothing else but a sillie shift of yours to crosse the commaundements of God Phi. Though the state regiment policie and power temporall be in it selfe alwaies of distinct nature qualitie and condition from the gouernment ecclesiasticall and spirituall common wealth called the church or bodie mysticall of Christ and the Magistrate spirituall and ciuill diuerse and distinct and sometimes so farre that the one hath no dependance of the other nor subalteration to the other in respect of themselues as it is in the Churches of God residing in heathen kingdoms and was in the Apostles times vnder the Pagan Emperours yet now where the lawes of Christ are receiued and the bodies politike and mysticall the Church and ciuill state the Mâ—gistrate Ecclesiasticall and Temporall concurre in their kinds togither though euer of distinct regimentes natures and endes there is such a concurrence and subalternation betwixt both that the inferiour of the two which is the ciuill state must needs in matters pertayning any way either directly or indirectly to the honor of God and benefit of the soule be subiect to the spirituall and take direction from the same Theo. This is tossing of termes as men doe tenez-balles to make pastime with The state regiment policie and power temporall is in it selfe you saie alwaies of distinct nature qualitie and condition from the gouernment ecclesiasticall and spirituall Common-wealth called the Church or bodie mysticall of Christ. You seeke to confound that which you would seeme to distinguish and when you haue spent much breath to no ende you conclude that though the church and the Common-wealth be distinct states as you can not denie yet you will rule both by reason the Common-wealth as the inferiour of the two dependeth on the Church and hath subalternation to the church as to the superiour But Sir in plaine termes and more trueth to the Sonne of God ruling in his Church by the might of his worde and spirite all kingdomes and Princes must be subiect their swordes Scepters soules and bodies mary to the Pope attyring himselfe with the spoiles of Christ and his church no such thing is due The watch-men and sheepeheardes that serue Christ in his church haue their kinde of regiment distinct from the temporall power and state but that regiment of theirs is by counsell and perswasion not by terrour or compulsion and reacheth neither to the goods nor to the bodies of any men much lesse to the crownes and liues of Princes and therefore your shifting of wordes and shrinking from the Popes Consistorie to the Church the spirituall Common wealth the mysticall bodie of Christ and such like houering and vncertaine speaches is but a trade that you haue gotten to make the Reader beleeue wee derogate from Christ and would haue Princes superiours to the worde and Sacramentes which Christ hath left to gather and gouerne the church withall Howbeit this course is so common with you that now it doth but shame you A christian king must take direction not from the Popes person or pleasure but from the Lawes and commaundementes of Christ to whome alone hee oweth subiection And as for the Bishoppes and Pastours of his Realme whome you falsly call the spirituall Common-wealth and the mysticall bodie of Christ because they bee but partes thereof and not so much except withall they bee teachers of truth those he must and should consult in respect they be Gods messengers sent to him and his people but with great care to trie them and free libertie to refuse them if they be found not faithfull And when the Prince learning by their instruction what is acceptable to God in doctrine and discipline shall receiue and publish the same the Bishoppes themselues are bounde to obey and if they will not the Magistrate may lawfully see the rigour of his lawes executed vpon them On the other side if the Prince wil not submit himselfe to the rules and preceptes of Christ but wilfully maintaine heresie and open impietie the Bishops are without flatterie to reproue and admonish the Prince of the daunger that is imminent from God and if he persist they must cease to communicate with him in diuine prayers and mysteries but still they must serue him honour him and pray for him teaching the people to doe the like and with meekenesse induring what the wrath of the Prince shal lay on them without annoying his person resisting his power discharging his subiectes or remouing him from his throne which is your maner of censuring Princes Phi. The ciuill Gouernour is SVBIECT to the spirituall amongest christians Theo. I haue often tolde you howe The ciuill Gouernour must heare beleeue and obey the meanest seruaunt that God sendeth if hee speake no more than his Masters will That subiection Princes owe to the sender and not to the speaker But were they simplie subiect to the messengers of God as they are not will you reason thus Princes should obey the Preachers of God ergo if they doe not they may bee deposed This is the argument which wee so often haue denied why then labour you so much about the antecedent when we denie the consequent That Princes shoulde obey God and his worde is a clearer case than that they shoulde obey the Pope For of that no man doubteth and this wee not onely doubt but denie Take therefore that which is confessed on both sides and set your conclusion to it that the force of your reason may the better appeare Princes without all question are bounde to obey God ergo if they doe not their dueties to God they may be deposed by Priestes This is the sequele which we alwaies denied and this is the point which you first assumed to proue Phi. The condition of these two powers as S. Gregorie Nazianzen most excellently resâ—mbleth it is like vnto the distinct state of the same spirit and body or flesh in a man where either of them hauing their proper and peculiar operations endes and obiectes which in other natures may be seuered as in Brutes where flesh is not spirit in Angels
after the manner of Sacramentes called the soule I can interprete this precept to consist of a signe or figure for the Lord did not sticke to say this is my bodie when hee gaue the signe of his bodie And speaking in Christes person he sayeth This bodie which you see you shal not eate neither shal you drinke the blood which they that crucifie me shall shed I haue commended a Sacrament vnto you that Sacrament spiritually vnderstood shal quicken you It is therefore as you hearde before out of the same Father a figure of speech commaunding vs to be partakers of the Lords passion For the Lord at his supper saith he commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his body and blood Cypriā The Lord at his last supper gaue bread and wine with his own hands on the crosse he gaue his body to be wounded by the souldiers handes that syncere truth secretly printed in his Apostles might teach the Nations how bread and wine were his flesh and blood and how the causes agreed with their effectes and different names and kindes might be reduced to one essence and the signes signifieng and the thinges signified might be called by the same names Origen There is in the very Gospell a letter that doth kill not onely in the old Testament is there a deadly letter found but in the new Testament there is a letter that doth kill him which doeth not spiritually conceiue the thinges that be spoken For if you take this saying except yee eate my flesh and drinke my blood according to the letter this letter killeth And againe Not the matter of bread but the word recited ouer it doth profit the worthy receiuer This I speake of the typical and figuratiue body Ambrose It was the true flesh of Christ that was crucified and buried this therefore is the Sacrament of that true fleshe The Lord Iesus himselfe sayth this is my body Before the blessing of these heauenly wordes it is called an other kind of thing after consecration the body of Christ is thereby signified In eating and drinking at the Lords table We signifie the body and blood of Christ that were offered for vs. The new Testament is confirmed by blood in a figure of which blood We reciue the mysticall cup. The priest in the church seruice faith Make this oblation ascribed reasonable and acceptable for vs which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Hierom When the Pascal lambe was eaten Iesus taketh bread which strengthneth the heart of man and goeth to the true sacrament of the passouer that as Melchisedec had done offering bread wine in a profiguratiō of him so he likewise might represent the truth of his body blood For Iesus tooke bread and giuing thankes brake it transfiguring his body into the breade Chrysostom This table hath he prepared for his seruants that hee might euery day for a similitude of the body and blood of Christ shew foorth in a Sacramēt vnto vs bread and wine after the maner of Meschisedec Before it be sanctified we cal it bread but the diuine grace once sanctifieng the same by the ministerie of the priest it is deliuered from the name of bread coūted worthy to be called the Lordes body though the nature of bread continew there still So that in the sanctified vessel there is not the true body of Christ but a mystery of his body is there contained Nazianzene Let vs bee partakers of the passeouer figuratiuely notwithstanding as yet though this Passeouer bee more manifest than the former Theodoret. Our Sauiour in deed changed the names called his bodie by the name of the signe and the signe by the name of his body The reason whereof is manifest to those that are acquainted with the diuine mysteries He would haue the receiuers of these heauenly mysteries not looke to the nature of the things which are seen but hearing the alteration of names beleeue the chāge which is there made by grace For he that called his natural body wheat bread named himself a vine the same Lord honored the signes elements of bread wine which we see with the name of his body blood not changing the nature of the signes but casting grace vnto nature Prosper The diuine breade which is the flesh of Christ is after a sort called the body of Christ being in deed but the sacramēt of Christs bodie Which words your own law thus expoundeth The diuine bread which truly representeth the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly wherfore it is said after a sort which is non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not in exactnes of truth but in a mysterie of signification So that this is the meaning it is called the body of Christ that is the body of Christ is thereby signified Bede The solemnities of the old Passeouer being ended Christ commeth to the newe which the church is desirous to continue in remembrance of her redemption that in steede of the flesh and blood of a lamb he substituting the sacrament or sacred signe of his flesh and blood in the figure of bread and wine might shew himselfe to be the same to whome the Lord sware and will not repent thou art a Priest after the order of Melchisedec Druthmarus The Lord gaue his disciples the sacrament of his body for the remission of sinnes that being mindfull of his deede they might alwaies in a figure do that which he was to do for thē not forget his loue This is my body that is in a sacrament Wine maketh glad increaseth blood and for that cause the blood of Chirst is aptly figured thereby Bertram That bread wine is figuratiuely the body and blood of christ the maner thereof is in a figure representation in mysterio non veritate in a mysterie not in truth plaine speech Phi. You thinke to winne the spurres but you may chance to loose bootes and all These places which you bring haue a shew before the simple but there is no pith nor substance in them and with one puffe wee can blowe them all away Theo. It must be such a puffe then as wherwith you first blew away christ and his gospel and brought in your own decrees to ouerrule both God and man with the breath of your mouthes Phi. You scoffe my meaning is that I can crosse them all with one answere Theo. If they were sprites you might driue them away with crossing but being ancient and godly fathers they will tell on their tales to your reproofe crosse you what you will or can in their wayes Phi. I will not crosse it in their way but in yours Theo. When you will wherefore serue my feete but to tosse it out of the way or at lest to step ouer it that it hinder not
mysterie that Christ is eaten vnder the formes of bread and wine Theo. None at all if you set your teeth and iawes on worke to eate him as the Capernites thought they should when they peruerted the wordes of Christ. Phi. They supposed they should haue seene and tasted mans flesh which is horrible Theo. Eating as I haue shewed you doth consist not in seeing or tasting but in chamming and swallowing since you therein consent with the Capernites though you could alleadge twentie diuersities betweene their maner of eating yours yet both are corporal and contrary to that doctrine which Christ deliuered in the sixt of Iohn â— For that as I haue proued was intended and referred to the soules and spirits of men not to their throats or entrals and therefore well in couering the body of Christ and deluding your senses you may differ from the Capernites but in preparing your teeth and iawes for the flesh of Christ and in drawing his wordes from their mystical and figuratiue sense you ioyne with the Capernites against all the Catholike Fathers that euer wrate in the Church of Christ. Phi. Haue we thinke you no fathers with vs as well for the literall construction of Christs wordes as for the corporal eating of his flesh in the Sacrament Corporall I call it not because we see it or tast it as we doe other meates but because we be sure it entereth our mouthes when we receiue our rightes and is really contained in our bodies Theo. You may abuse some fathers to make a shew but otherwise you haue no ground in them either of your literall vnderstanding Christs speach or corporal eating of christs â—lesh Phi. Haue we not S. Damascen S. Epiphanius Theophilact Euthymius and others earnestly presse the literal construction of christs words against your signes and figures and as for eating the flesh of Christ with our very mouthes S. Austen S. Chrysostom S. Leo S. Gregorie S. Cyril Tertullian others are resolute whoÌ„ I trust you wil not condemn for Capernites By this way the simple learne what to looke for at your hands that wil out-face so plaine a trueth Theo. He that will be good at outfacing let him studie your Testament and hee neede none other teacher but what trueth is it that we outface Phi. Neuer father you said auouched the literal sense of Christes wordes Theo. I said no ancient father of which number I do not account these late Grecians to be And therefore if they did contradict that which Tertullian Austen Origen Chrysostome and others did teach long before them wee would not regard them but as yet I seeâ— no such thing proued by them Phi. The proofe is easie S. Damascene rehearsing the wordes of Christ This is my body immediately addeth not a figure of my body but my body not a figure of my bloud but my bloud S. Epiphanius likewise Christ said take eate this is my body Hee saide not take eate the Image of my body And Theophilact Bread is the very bodie of our Lord and not a figure correspondent For he said not this is a figure but this is my body And so Euthymius Christ said not these are signes of my body but these are my body These be manifest places and yet such is your impudencie that you affirme no father euer vrged the literall force of Christes words And so for the corporall eating of Christs flesh with our mouthes S. Augustine saith It hath pleased the holy Ghost that in the honour of so great a Sacrament our Lordes bodie should enter into the mouth before other meates And S. Chrysostome Our mouth hath gotten no small honour receiuing our Lordes bodie And S. Gregorie The bloud of the lambe is sucked not only by the mouth of the heart but also by the mouth of the body And S. Leo That is receiued by the mouth which is beleeued by the heart And Tertullian Our flesh doth feede on the bodie and bloud of our Lord And S. Cyril It was needfull that this rude and earthly body should be recouered to immortalitie by touch tast and foode of the same kind with it selfe You aske for fathers here they be both many in number and auncient in time to discharge vs that we be no Capernites and to refell your foolish vaunt that all antiquitie were of the verie same mind that you are now It may bee you neuer heard the places before If you did not I will pardon your ignorance so you repent your rashâ—es Theo. Yeas sir I haue seene them and â—â— may bee weighed them better than euer you did And notwithstanding your magnificence it will appeare you be not free from ignorance whatsoeuer you be from impudencie Phil. I will burne my cloathes to my shirt if euer you answere them Theo. But saue your skinne from the fire though you spare not other mens blood nor bones Phi. We vse you but as heretikes should be vsed Theo. If it be heresie for vs to serue god according to the Gospel of his sonne what is it for you to serue him with your own medlees Phi. You would flie the fielde rather than your life but I must keepe you to it Theo. You runne so fast from God and your Prince that you may soone ouer-goe vs if we would flie but as yet I see no cause Damascene Theophilact and Euthymius presse the letter of christes speach not to deriue thence your carnal and guâ—tural eating of christs flesh nor to controll that which Tertullian Austen Origen Chrysostome and others men of farre greater learning and authoritie than these taught long before them in the church of God but to shew that bread and wine be not only tokens and bare signes of christes fleshe and bloud but also cary with them and in them the vertue power and effect of his death and passâ—on Euthymius Christ said not these be the signes of my body and bloud but these are my bodie and bloud We must therefore NOT LOOKE TO THE NATVRE of the giftes which are proposed BVT TO THE VERTVE Against them which defend that this Sacrament doth only figure not offer signifie not exhibite grace the letter may wel be forced to proue the diuine power and operation of the mysticall elemenets Against vs which hold the visible signes in substance to bee creatures in signification mysteries in operation and vertue the things themselues whose names they bearâ— this illation concludeth nothing Yet for the better explication of him selfe and others vsing the like kind of speach Theophilact addeth this worde ONLY Marke that the bread which is eaten of vs in the mysteries Non est TANTVM figuratio quaedam carnis Domini is not an only figuring of the Lords flesh but the Lords very flesh For he saide not the bread which I will giue is a figure of my flesh but is my flesh Their meaning was as we see
by their own words to teach more than idle signes or ONLY figures in the Lords supper because together with the name goe the vertâ—es and effects of Christes flesh bloud vnited in manner of a Sacrament to the visible signes And this their assertion neither troubleth our Doctrine nor strengthneth your error Againe these writers may very well say the Sacraments of the Gospell BE NO FIGVRES but TRVETH IT SELFE in that respect as figures bee taken for samplers of things to come Such were the figures of the law which did premonstrat the coÌ„ming of christ in flesh ceased at his coÌ„ming And so the mysteries of the Lords table were not figures of things expected but euidences of the truth there sitting in persoÌ„ the next day to be nailed to the crosse therby to fulfil abolish al figures our sacrameÌ„ts are now not signes of farther promises but memorials of his mercies alredy performed Do this saith christ not in figure of an other truth to come but in remeÌ„brance of me which am come for memorie you know stretcheth only to things past and doone and in this sense the letter may bee safely pressed and your carnall conueyance nothing relieued I find a third cause that might induce them to force the letter in this sort yet no way confirming your grosse supposall which is this When the Greeke church fell at variance for Images they which held that Christ ought not to be figured after the likenes of our bodies amongest other reasons alleadged this for one that the Lord at his Supper for a true and effectuall Image of his incarnation chose the whole substance of bread not any way like the proportion of a man lest it should occasion Idolatry The defenders of Images whose side Damascene tooke pressed with this obiection durst not flee to your annihilation of the substance of bread and adoration of the Sacrament with diuine honour which no doubt they would haue doone with great triumph had those two points of your Doctrine beene then counted catholike but yeelding and by their silence confessing that the substance of bread remayned in the supper and was not adored for so the contrarie part opposed at length for very pure neede came to this shift that the mysticall bread was not ordained to resemble and figure Christs humane nature nor so called by christ at his maundie who said not this is a figure of my body but my body nor a figure of my bloud but my bloud and when Basil and Eustathius were produced affirming the bread and wine to be figures and resemblances of Christs flesh and bloud the Patrones of Images replied that was spoken alwaies before neuer after consecration Wherefore Damascene first beganne this myncing and straining the wordes of Christ not to build on them any reall or corporall conuersion of the bread into the flesh of christ but in fauour of his artifical pictures and Images he could by no meanes abide that the mysteries should after consecration be called Images and figures of Christs bodie The next that traced this path after Damascene was Epiphanius not that auncient and learned Bishoppe of Cyprus but a pratling Deacon in the bastard Councell of Nice whose furious and fanaticall answer to the Councel of Constantinople that made this obiection declareth more tongue than witte more face than learning Christ did not say take ye eat ye the Image of my bodie Reade whiles thou wilt saith hee thou shalt neuer find that either the Lord or his Apostles or the Fathers called that vnbloudie Sacrifice which the Priest offereth AN IMAGE Thus doth he braie foorth defiance to the whole worlde without trueth without shame For Chrysostome saith If Iesus were not once dead whose image and signe is this Sacrifice This Sacrifice is an image and samplar of that Sacrifice And Gelasius Surely the IMAGE and resemblance of the bodie and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries We must therefore so thinke of the Lord Christ himselfe as we professe and obserue in his IMAGE And likewise Theodoret. Ortho. The mysticall signes which are offered to god by his Priests whereof doest thou call them signes Eranist Of the body blood of the Lord. Ortho It is very well saide Conferre then the image with the paterne and thou shalt see the likenes Dionysius calleth it both an image and a figuratiue sacrifice Nazianzene excusing himselfe How should I saith he presume to offer vnto God that externall sacrifice the image of the great mysteries Clemens Offer you in your churches the image of the royall body of Christ. Macarius In the Church are offered breade and wine the images of his flesh and blood The 〈◊〉 â—aâ—hers keepe the same word the same sense Ambrose In the law was a shadow in the Gospel is an image in heauen is the trueth Before was offered a lambe or a calf now Christ is offred here in an image there in truth where he intreateth his father as an aduocate for vs. AusteÌ„ Christ gaue an image of his burnt offering to be celebrated in the church for a remembrance of his passion The rest say the like but what neede we farther refutation of so ridiculous and vnshamefast a bragge such causes such councels such poppets such Proctors The very children in the church of God knowe that the diuine mysteries by the generall definition of a Sacrament be visible signes of inuisible graces and as Augustine interpreteth the word Sacramentum id est sacrum signum a Sacrament that is a sacred signe So that vnlesse they be signes they can possibly be no sacraments neither sacraments nor signes can they be without or before coÌ„secration which this stout champion had not yet learned therfore his verdict in matters of religion except his cunning were greater may be wel refused As Damasene and your prating Epiphanius were more than 700. yeares after Christ so Theophilact and Euthymius are farre younger The first of them was Bishoppe of the Bulgarians who were conuerted to the faâ—eth 868. yeares after Christ the second your owne chronologie placeth after Gracian and Lombard 1100. yeares short of Christ. Were then these later Grecians wholy with you what gaine you by them If you woulde oppose them to Tertullian Origen Cyprian Austen Gelasius Thedorete others of purer times and sounder iudgements you could winne nothing by that bargaine the choice were soone made which to take which to leaue but in deede you do them wrong to returne them for transsubstantiators they neuer knew what it ment They say the mysteries of the Lords table be not only figures but haue the truth annexed No figures of grace differed but seales of mercy perfourmed in Christ and inioyed of vs no called figures or images of Christes flesh after consecration but bearing as well the names as the fruits and effects of the things themselues whose
the faithfull stand in to this day This faith and confession if you infringe of violate you ioyne handes with Eutyches against the church of God and against the groundes of our common creede and this you must needes impugne if you defend the naturall body of Christ to be euery where present as you would gather out of Ambroses and Chrysostomes wordes Philand Wee say not euerie where but in the Sacrament Theoph. But their wordes are euerie where Vnus vbique est Christus one Christ is euerie where Philand That is in the Sacrament Theophil That is your additament They say generally one Christ is euerie where Phil. To say that his humane nature is euerie where without any restraint were in deede a braunch of Eutyches errour Theophil And since they say so you must either vnderstande it of his diuine nature which is rightly and truely sayde to bee euerie where present without addition or else of the spirituall and effectuall presence of his bodie which entereth the soules and strengthneth the hearts of all the faythfull by the power of his grace and trueth of his promise And either of these wayes their wordes are verie sound your locall presence no part of their speech Phi. S. Chrysostom saith Omnium manibus pertractatur he is eueÌ„ handled with al men fingers Theo. You do that father very much wrong to wrest his eloquent and figuratiue speeces to your carnall and grosse surmises The verie tenor of his wordes wil declare that hee meaneth nothing lesse than your corporal and locall touching With our bodily hands wee neither can nor doe touch Christ. S. Ambrose saith Non Corporali tactu ChristuÌ„ sed fide tangimus We touch not Christ with our fingers but with our faith And so S. Austen Ipsum iam in caelo sedentem manu contrectare non possimus sed fide contingere We cannot handle Christ with our fingers sitting now in heauen but with our faith we may In this sense Chrysostomes wordes are very true but nothing to your corporall vbiquitie of Christs flesh Phi. How shall wee know that this was his meaning finding no words of his to direct vs to that sense Theo. His speech is otherwise so false that none but Iesuits would make any doubt of it And yet the very next wordes before these are a plain admonition to the hearers what to conceiue of this such like places Annon euestigio in caelos transferris annon carnis cogitationem omnem abijâ—iens nudo animo mente pura circumspicis quae in caelo sunt Art thou not presently caried vppe to heauen Doest thou not casting all cogitation of thy fleshe aside with a pure mind and soul seuered from the bodie looke round on the things which are in heauen In this spirituall and yet hyperbolicall vehemencie he goeth on amplifieng euery poinct saying that Christ is handled with al their fingers and that in the open sight of all that stoode about concluding no corporall or locall comprehension of Christ in the Sacrament by any of these mysticall and figuratiue speaches whereof he is ful but only that grace flowing into the Sacrifice should inflame all their hearts and make them cleaner than siluer purged and tried in the fier This is the presence of Christ which Chrysostome auoucheth euen the influence of his heauenly grace that spiritual force and grace as Gregorie saith may very wel be constered to be the trueth of his bodie and bloud in the mysteries So that the same christ is euery where present not by local or corporal diffusion but by mysticall operation and one bodie is proposed to all not to â—ill their mouthes but to clense their hearts and to giue them assurance of eternall life Phi. May not the body of Christ in the sacrament bee such as wee defend though his bodie in heauen be not Theo. If the body of Christ in the sacrament be the very same that is in heauen how can it so much differ from it If it be an other how can it be his since he hath but one naturall bodie and that by no meanes capeable of such contrarieties as you imagine Phi. Is not Christ omnipotent Theo. Almightie hee is in working his will not in changing his nature Phi. Wil you limite his might Theo. The christian faith is not repugnant to his might but agreeable to his trueth which you may not subuert with a pretence of his power at your pleasures Tertullian saith very wel If in our owne presumption we abruptly vse this reasoâ— nothing is hard to God wee may faine what we list of God as though he had doone it because he could do it We must not because he can doe all things therefore beleeue he hath doone that which he hath not But we must search whether he hath doone it or no. For this respect some things may be hard vnto God himselfe to witte that which he hath not doone not because he could not doe it but because he would not Phi. Can not the power of Christ alter the nature of his manhoode Theo. Were it possible that the manhoode of Christ might be changed and altered in his essentiall proprieties which assertion the Church yet alwayes reiected as hereticall why stand you so much on this what Christ can doe when you plainly perceiue by your Creed what Christ will doe Shal his power ouerthwarte his will Or his arme disappoint his mouth We neede not dispute whether it be possible or no this sufficeth vs that the Lorde himselfe saith he will leaue the world and be no more in the worlde Whatsoeuer he can doe this we be sure he will doe his worde is trueth and his will knowen against that if you stand and oppose his power to make him a lyar assure your selues hee hath power enough to be reuenged on your obstinacie for vrging his power which is no part of your care against his wil which he hath commanded you to beleeue and obay Phi. It is you that neither beleeue his wil nor agnise his power we build our selues on both Theo. His wordes by which you gather his will you â—rame and inuert to your owne purposes and when we would reduce you from the misconstruction of his speach by the very tenor of the Christian faith you pleade his power to delude his trueth and ouerflorish a lewd heresie with a shew of his omnipotencie Phi. We do not pretend that power of God for any vntrueth Theo. If the Christian faith bee trueth you vrge his power against his trueth Phi. Go we against the Christian faith Theo. Confesse you the distinction of two natures in Christ after his ascension Phi. We do Theo. And the proprieties of either to remaine without confusion conuersion or alteration Philand What els Theophil This then is the Christian faith that hâ—th natures in Christ now doe and euer shall keepe and continue their seuerall and different proprieties without
nouelties and thy life stayned with so manifold infamies wee let thee vnderstand that as we neuer promised thee obedience so hereafter will wee yeeld thee none because no man amongst vs as thou openly gauest out hath bene hereto accounted a Bishoppe by thee thou also from henceforth shalt be taken by none of vs for Apostolike The Bishops and nobles at Brixia concluded against him in these woordes Because it is certaine that he was not chosen by God but by fraude and briberie most shamelesly intruded himselfe which also subuerteth the order of the Church and troubleth the Christian Empire which practiseth to kill both the body and soule of our Catholike and peaceable king and maintaineth a periured king which hath sowed discord betwene those that agreed strife betwene those that were at peace offences betwene brethren and diuorces betweene man and wife and hath shaken whatsoeuer stood quiet amongst the godly we assembled togither in the name of God agaynst the said Hildebrand a most impudent person breathing out sacrileges spoiles defending periuries and murderers calling in question the Catholicke and Apostolike faith of the body and blood of our Lorde an olde disciple of the heretike Berengarius an obseruer of diuinations dreames a manifest cōiurer vsing familiaritie with diuels and therefore fallen from the true faith adiudge him to be Canonically deposed expelled And this toke place three yeres after when the Romanes desired a day to be appointed in the which the Pope and all the Senators shoulde come before the Emperour but the Pope woulde not come in presence whereupon the Romanes being moued yeelded to the king and with one consent reiected Pope Hildebrand who secretly fleeing gate him to Salerna and there stayed till he dyed Phi. Henry did this by force and the Bishops that so reuiled the Pope were of his faction but the stories commend Gregorie the seuenth for a wise iust milde man a fauourer of the poore of orphanes and widowes and the only stout and earnest defender of the Romane Church against the treacheries of heretikes and power of ill disposed princes seeking to possesse the goods of the Church by violence Theo. Gregories life I will not examine it is not incident to this matter Yet if we beleeue Beno the Cardinall that liued at the same time he deserueth no such prayse as you giue him but I respect not that in this place Certaine it is the Bishops of Germanie and Italie not onley refused but also deposed him yea thirteene Cardinals of the wiser and better sort the Archdeacon and chiefe president and many of the Laterane Clergie at Rome seeing his intollerable Apostasie forsooke his communion and so by the iudgement of the Romanes themselues Hildebrand was turned out of his Popedome Phi. I know they did it but therein they passed their boundes Theo. If the crimes by them obiected were true they did but their dueties Phi. Their accusations were all false Theo. That is lustily spoken but faintly proued and yet if it were so my first assertion standeth good that your owne Cardinals Councels haue often resisted repressed the Bishop of Rome Phi. And my answere standeth as good that they were schismatikes which did so Theo. What say you then to the Councel at Pisa where the whole Colledge of Cardinals with one consent depriued Gregorie Benedict of their Popedomes all nations allowing that strait sentence besides a few that fauoured Benedictus and Alexander the fift on his death bed protesting their actes in that Councel to be good and lawfull Will you nowe replie that all nations and all the cardinals yea the Pope himselfe were schismatikes Or if you care not for that what say you to the generall Councell of Constance that deposed as many Popes as the Councell of Pisa and not only de facto did it but also expressely and aduisedly decreed that they might doe it Dare you thinke the Councell of Constance to be schismatical And what if the general Councel of Basill by manifest positions conclude you an heretike for holding that a Councell may not depose the Pope will you rather incurre the guilt of heresie than forsake your new found diuinitie Phi. You load mee with too many allegations at once I can not tell which to answere first Theo. I will seuer them with a good will say what you can against them The general Councel of Pisa deposed two Popes and chose Alexander the first ergo the Pope may bee both resisted and depriued by a Councell Phi. Was that Councell generall Theo. Reade the Bull of Iohn the 23. conuocating the Councell of Constance Dudum felicis recordationis Alexander Papa quintus praedecessor noster in sacro generals Pisano Concilio tunc praesidens c. Not long since Alexander the fift of happie memorie our predecessor then sitting chiefe in the sacred generall Councell at Pisa. Laziardus a writer of that age sayth Both Colleges of Cardinals or at least the most part of them called a generall Councell at Pisa where they stayed from the Annuntiation of the virgine Marie till the xxvi of Iune with a great number of Prelats Ambassadours of Kings Princes Vniuersities Vpon which day those two which stroue for the Popedome being first depriued by sentence and order of lawe in all thinges obserued they chose Alexander the fift Phi. Doe al stories agree that they deposed Gregorie and Benedict Theo. See Blondus Auentinus Nauclerus Sabellicus Paulus Aemylius or whome you will The Cardinals of Gregorie and Benedict sayth Nauclerus meeting conferring resolued the citie of Pisa to be the fittest place for a general coūcel to be kept Whereupon by letters and messengers they called al Bishops Prelats Princes cōmunities to come to the Coūcell that should be held at Pisa exhorting them to send their Legats to withhold obedience from those two Popes whom they had cited to be present there In the yeere of our Lord 1409. at Pisa they began to proceed and against both Popes Gregorie and Benedict not appearing vpon lawfull citation but wilfully refusing they pronounced sentence of deposition and depriuation as against heretikes and schismatikes forbidding all Christians to cal either of them Pope or yeld either of them obedience as Bishop of Rome This done they went to the election of an other whom they called Alexander the fift Phi. Might they cal and keepe a Councell without any Pope Theo. Looke you to that Nauclerus addeth that About the deposition of these two Popes there was a great debating in the Councel of Pisa whether graunting that both these Popes did scandalize the Church by manifest collusion and periurie c. the Cardinals might cal a councel both of them being cited to come to the Councell not appearing but persisting in their contumacie whether they might be deposed and an other chosen And after long disputation in the presence of very many Doctors of diuinitie and
cause I say of fayth Bishops are wont to iudge of Christian Emperours not Emperours of Bishoppes And where Valentinian required Ambrose to yeeld his Church depart whither hee woulde for yeelding his Church his answere was Nec mihi fas est tradere nec tibi accipere Imperator expedit Domum priuati nullo potes iure temerare domum dei existimas auferendam Allegatur imperatori licere omnia ipsius esse vniuersa Respondeo It is neither lawfull for mee to yeeld it nor expedient for you O Emperour to take it The house of a priuate man you can not by right inuade doe you thinke you may take away the house of God by violence It is alleaged the Emperour may do what hee will all things are his I answere Doe not burden your selfe O Emperour to thinke you haue any Emperiall right ouer those thinges which bee Gods Exalt not your selfe so high but if you will raigne long bee subiect to God Palaces pertayne to Emperours Churches to Priests The Church is Gods it ought not to be yeelded by mee to Cesar. The temple of God can not bee Cesars right I can not deliuer that which I receiued to keepe in Gods behalfe to heretiks Would God it were apparant to me that my church should not be deliuered to the Arrians I would willingly offer my self to the iudgement of your highnes Would God it were decreed that no Arrian should trouble my Churches and of my Person pronounce what sentence you will With my consent I will neuer forgoe my right if I bee compelled I haue no way to resist I can sorow I can weepe I can sigh teares are my weapons Priests haue only those defences by other meanes I neither ought nor can resist Flee forsake my church I vse not lest any thinke it done to auoyde some sorer punishment If my goods bee sought for take them if my body I will be ready Will you put me in Irons or lead me to death You shal do me a pleasure I wil not gard my self with multitudes of people I wil not flee to the altar to intreat for life but wil gladly be sacrificed for the altars of god Depart Ambrose would not thereby to saue himselfe leaue his Church to Arians the Emperour should banish him or els he would not forsake his flocke I could wish you had not sent me word to go whither I would I came euery day abroad I had no gard about me You should haue appointed me whither you would Now the rest of the Priests say to me there is no difference whether thou be content to relinquish or thy selfe yeelde vp the altar of Christ for when thou doest forsake it thou doest deliuer it If a strong hande remoue me from my Church my flesh may bee caried thence my minde shall not Betray my Church I cannot but fight I ought not These answeres bee full of humilitie and as I thinke full of that affection and reuerence which a Bishoppe should beare to a prince Wee see the groundes that Ambrose stood on resolued rather to suffer any death than by his consent or departure to betray the Church of Christ into the handes of Auxentius the Arrian His meaning was not with violence to resist or with pride to despise the yong prince but either to die with his flocke or at least to bee remoued from his flocke by the princes power without his own cōsent because it were sinne in him to resigne or leaue the house of God as a pray for heretikes vnlesse he were thereunto compelled and forced against his will Phi. I thereby gather that Princes may not meddle with Churches without the Bishoppes assent Theo. You may thereby well collect that Bishoppes were better to giue their lyues than yeelde their churches for Christ to bee blasphemed in except they bee constrained Phi. The Bishoppe refused though the Prince commanded Theo. Hee refused to put his consent to the Princes will but hee resisted not the Princes power Phi. No thankes in that hee could not Theo. Yes great thankes in that hee would not when all the citizens of Millan tooke part with him and the souldiers denyed to wayte on the Emperour to any other church but onely to that where he was and greater obedience in that hee confessed he should not Aliter nec debeo nec possum resistere otherwise than by teares and sighes I neyther ought nor can resist and likewise hee commended the people for saying Regamus Auguste non pugnamus wee make request O Soueraigne wee make no tumult So that Ambrose in these wordes which you bring doth not generally dislike that Princes should meddle with religion or make Lawes for Christ but first affirmeth which wee confesse that Princes be no iudges of faith and next auoucheth that his refusall to deliuer his Church to the handes of Arrians was no stubburnnes against the Prince but obedience to God whose house it was and that he could not consent to betray the same to Gods enemies but hee should highly displease and offend God in so doing By this you may proue that wee must obey God before man and that al Pastours ought rather to giue their liues than their consents that heretikes shoulde inuade their flockes but against the Princes authoritie to commaund for trueth and punish error by the wordes or deedes of Ambrose for ought that I see you can conclude nothing Phi. Hee reporteth and commendeth the wordes of Valentinian the elder the father of this yong Valentinian Non est meum iudicare inter episcopos It is not for me to iudge among Bishops Theo. He gaue the yong Prince to vnderstand what a weightie matter it was To sit iudge betweene Bishoppes in cases of fayth and not among Bishoppes as you translate it in that his father a man of ripe yeres great wisedome and good experience refused this as a burden too heauie for him And what if the question betwixt the christians and Arrians were so intricate that Valentinian durst not take vpon him to discusse or determine the same is that any reason to proue that princes may not establish trueth and abolish falshood by their publike Lawes Phi. Was that the matter wherein Valentinian refused to bee iudge betweene the Bishoppes Theo. Euen that if you dare beleeue the storie of the Church For The Bishops of Hellespontus and Bithinia sayth Sozomene and as many as professed the sonne of God to be of the same substance with his father sent Hypatianus in a legacie to Valentinian the Emperour to request him that he would permit them to meete in a Councell to correct the Doctrine which trobled the Church When Hypatianus came to him declared the petition of the Bishops Valentinian aswered For me that am a Lay man I think it not lawful to search curiously such deepe matters let the priests that haue charge of these things meete where they like best among themselues This fearefulnes of Valentinian
impossible reproueable by all diuine and humane learning which neuer king much lesse Queene Christian nor heathen Catholike nor heretike in this Realme or in all the worlde besides before our age did chalenge or accept You heape authorities and absurdities and terrifie the simple with woordes and crakes of the largest life as if the doctrine were so barbarous and monsterous that heathen and prophane men would abhorre it and when the bottom of your skil is seene and the pride of your tongues spent notwithstanding your often and ioyly profers you neuer so much as come neere the question Phi. Will you make vs beleeue that Theo. Marke the points that wee teach and see howe wide you bee from refuting that which wee defend Wee say Princes onely be Gouernours that is higher powers ordayned of God and bearing the sword with lawful and publike authoritie to command for trueth to prohibite and with the sword punish errors and al other ecclesiastical disorders as well as temporall within their Realmes This wee proue this you graunt to bee good and sound doctrine Of this then there is no question betwixt vs. Secondly wee teach that as all their subiects Bishoppes and others must obey them commanding that which is good in matters of religion and endure them with patience when they take part with error so they their Scepters and swordes bee not subiect to the Popes tribunall neither hath he by the lawe of God or by the Canons of the Church any power or preeminence to reuerse their doings and depose their persons but this is a wicked and arrogant vsurpation lately crept into the West partes of Europe since the Bishops of Rome exalted themselues aboue all that is called God and for this cause we confesse Princes within their owne regiments to bee SVPREME that is not vnder the Popes iurisdiction neither to bee commaunded nor displaced at his pleasure but to bee reserued to the righteous and Soueraigne iudgement of God who will syncerely iudge and seuerely punish both Popes and Princes if they bolster or suffer any kind of Impietie within their dominions This is the very point that is in question betwixt vs of which in your whole Apologie you speake not one woord but cunningly shift your handes of it knowing your selues not able to iustifie your wicked assertion And lest the reader should distrust your silence in that behalfe you followe the woorde supreme with huy and crie as if God were highly dishonoured and the Church of Christ robbed of her right and inheritance because the Pope may not set his feete in Princes neckes and be Lord Paramount of all earthly states and kingdomes Phi. Doe wee mistake your meaning or doe you rather pull in your hornes when you see your selues compassed round with so many grolie and sensible absurdities Theo. What one inconuenience can you fasten on vs for teaching this doctrine Phi. A thousand Theo. You bee better at craking than concluding Proue but one and spare the rest Phi. This Soueraigntie giueth power to the Queene to conferre that to others as to the Priestes and Bishops to preach minister Sacraments haue cure of soules and such like which shee neither hath nor can haue nor doe her selfe It giueth her that may neither preach nor speake in publike of matters of religion to do that which is much more euen to prescribe by her selfe or her deputies or Lawes authorised onely by her to the preachers what to preach which way to worship and serue God howe and in what forme to minister the Sacraments to punish and depriue teach and correct them and generally to prescribe and appoint which way shee will bee gouerned in soule It maketh the body aboue the soule the temporall regiment aboue the spiritual the earthly kingdom◠aboue Christs body mysticall It maketh the sheepe aboue the Pastor It giueth her power to command them whom and wherein she is bound to obey It giueth power to the subiect to be iudge of the Iudges yea and of God himselfe as S. Cyprian speaketh It maketh her free from Ecclesiasticall discipline from which no true child of Gods familie is exempted It derogateth from Christes Priesthoode which both in his owne person and in the Church is aboue his kingly dignitie It diuideth which is a matter of much importance the state of the Catholike Church and the holy communion or societie of all Christian men in the same into as many partes not communicant one with on other nor holding one of an other as there bee worldly kingdomes differing by customes Lawes and manners eche from other which is of most pernitious sequele and against the very natiue qualitie of the most perfect coniunction societie vnitie and entercourse of the whole Church and euery Prouince and person thereof together It openeth the gappe to all kinde of diuisions schismes sectes disorders It maketh all Christian Bishops Priestes and what other soeuer borne out of the Realme forainers and vsurpers in all iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall towardes vs there can bee no iurisdiction ouer English mens soules but prooceeding and depending of her soueraigne right therein Which is directly against Christes expresse commaundement and commission giuen to Peter first and then to all the Apostles of preaching baptizing remitting retayning binding and loosing ouer all the worlde without difference of temporall state or dependance of any mortall Prince therein It keepeth the Realme from obedience to generall Councels which haue beene or shal be gathered in forraine Countries It taketh away al conuenient meanes of gathering holding or executing any 〈◊〉 Councels and their decrees as appeared by refusing to come to the late Councell of Trent notwithstanding the Popes messengers letters of other great Princes which requested and inuited them to the same When a Realme or Prince is in error it taketh away all meanes of reducing them to the trueth againe no subiection being acknowledged to Councels or Tribunals abroad all other Bishoppes Patriarkes Apostles Christ and all because they were and bee forrainers not hauing iurisdiction nor sufficient authoritie to define against English Sectaries and errors Finally if this iurisdiction spirituall bee alwaies of right a sequele of the Crowne and scepter of all Kings assuredly Christ nor none of his Apostles could otherwise enter to conuert Countries preach and exercise iurisdiction spirituall without Caesars and others the Kinges of the Countries licence and delegation Theo. Upon what part of our doctrine inferre you these absurdities Phi. Upon the supremacie wherewith you flatter Princes For all these thinges be consequent to the princes ecclesiasticall soueraigntie Theo. You must tell vs howe Phi. See you not that Theo. Surely not I. There bee two partes of our assertion as I shewed you before the first auouching that Princes may commaunde for trueth and abolish errour the next that Princes bee supreme that is not subiect to the Popes iudiciall processe to bee cited suspended deposed at his becke
Upon one of these twayne if you reason against vs must your absurdities bee grounded The first you can not impugne but you must therewith impugne the Scriptures the best and most famous Princes of Christendome the Church of God it selfe which for eight hundred yeeres and vpwarde embraced and obeyed the Lawes and Edicts of religious Princes commaunding for truth And if you thinke you may say and vnsay with a breath and refell that now as absurd which I before proued and you yeelded to bee sounde and good doctrine take either of our positions rightly vnderstoode for your antecedent and marke howe ioyntlesse and senselesse the sequeles bee that you set downe for ineuitable consequents When Princes commaunde for trueth it is euident they commaund the selfe same thing that God commaundeth or rather as S. Augustine plainly declareth God himselfe commaundeth by their heartes that are in his handes the thinges which no man shoulde refuse Emperours saith hee commaund the selfe same thing that Christ commaundeth for when they commaund that which is good it is Christ and no man els that commandeth by them Againe Marke sayth hee with howe manifest trueth God himselfe speaketh by the Princes heart which is in his hande euen in this lawe which you complaine to bee made against you And therefore hee concludeth when Princes commaund for trueth Whosoeuer neglecteth their commaundement shall haue no part with God for not doing that which TRVETH BY THE KINGS HEART COMMAVNDED HIM TO DOE If you build your absurdities vpon the first part of our doctrine then must you thus conclude When God commandeth by the Princes heart that which is good in matters of religion The bodie is aboue the soule the sheepe aboue the Pastor the subiect is iudge of the Iudges yea of God himselfe and consequently Neither Christ neither any of his Apostles could enter to conuert Countries preach and exercise iurisdiction spirituall without Caesars licence and delegation Well your Rhetorike may beguile fooles sure your Logike will neuer enforce wise men to regard your conclusions Phi. Wee make no such arguments Theo. You must make these or worse The first part of our assertion is that Princes bee Gods seruants and ministers appointed to beare the sword with full commission to command what God commandeth and to prohibite what God prohibiteth as well in matters pertayning to religion as Ciuill iustice You inferre vpon vs that wee make The body aboue the soule the temporall regiment aboue the spirituall the earthly kingdome aboue Christes body mysticall the sheepe aboue the Pastor the subiect to bee iudge of the Iudges yea of God himselfe with many like childish and friuolous consequents Let your owne fauourers bee iudges in this case whether we be absurd in affirming that we doe or you more absurd in refelling vs as you doe If it be no absurditie with you for princes to command that which the Pope appointeth them as your selues defend that is your opinion what inconuenience can it bee for Princes to commaunde that which Christ the Soueraigne Lorde and head of the Church commaundeth which is all the power that wee giue to Princes notwithstanding your fayned and false reports in this slaunderous libell of yours to the contrarie Phi. Wee neuer denyed but Princes might commaund that which God commaundeth and in so doing they be rather to be commended for their pietie than to be charged with any absurditie Theo. And wee neuer affirmed that Princes might commaund that which God forbiddeth or prohibite that which God commandeth And therefore you must seeke out some others whome you may persue with your absurdities they touch no part of our doctrine Phi. They shewe what an absurd thing it is for temporall Princes to chalenge supreme power ouer Christes Church in causes of religion Theo. If you take the word supreme as it euer was and is defended by vs to make Princes free from the wrongfull and vsurped iurisdiction which the Pope claimeth ouer them your illations haue as litle strength and trueth as the former for what fond and vntoward reasons bee these If the Pope may not depose Princes and discharge their subiects from all obedience ergo we giue Power to the Queene to prescribe to the Preachers what to preach which way to worshippe and serue God howe and in what forme to minister the Sacraments to punish and depriue teach and correct them and generally to prescribe and appoint which way shee will bee gouerned in soule ergo wee make her free from ecclesiasticall discipline wee derogate from Christes Priesthoode and open the gap to all kinde of diuisions schismes sectes and disorders ergo there can bee no iurisdiction ouer English mens soules but proceeding and depending of her wee keepe the Realme from obedience to generall Councels and take away all meanes of reducing the Realme and Prince when they bee in error to the trueth againe with many such loose and vnsauory sequences Phi. If the Prince be supreme she may doe what she list in all matters of religion and Ecclesiasticall regiment and so these absurdities follow very directly vpon that assertion of yours Theo. That Princes may do what they list in matters of religion and the regiment of the Church is neither coherent nor consequent to our opinion but a wicked and wylie pretence of yours to cause men that can not so wel discerne of your sophismes to distrust our doctrine as false and absurde and in the meane time to conuey your selues awaie as it were in a mist vnespied And as for the wordes supreme gouernour which you wring and wrest to that purpose take the true construction of them as the oth importeth and we professe them and infer duly but one of your absurdities vpon them we yeeld you the rest Phi. What not one Theo. No not one descend to the specialties when you will Phi. It giueth power to the Queene to conferre that to others which she neither hath nor can haue nor doe her selfe as to the Priestes and Bishops to preach minister the Sacramentes haue cure of soules and such like Theo. It giueth no such power to the Queene as you speake of Bishoppes haue their authoritie to preach and minister the Sacramentes not from the Prince but from Christ himselfe Goe teach all nations baptising them so forth onely the Prince giueth them publike libertie without let or disturbance to do that which Christ commaundeth If you see no difference between the commission which Christ giueth vnto Bishops and the permission whereby Princes suffer and incite them with peace and praise to doe their duties your learning is not so great as you would make the world beleeue it is For what a foolish collection is this The Prince permitteth those that are sent of Christ to preach and administer the Sacramentes ergo the Prince conferreth that power or function to them You might as well conclude The Prince permitteth men to liue
breath ergo the Prince conferreth life and breath to thē Or the Prince permitteth her Subiectes to beleeue in God and relieue ech others ergo the Prince conferreth faith and charitie to them Phi. It giueth her to do that which is more euen to prescribe by her selfe or her deputies or lawes authorised onely by her selfe which waie to worship and serue God how and in what forme to minister the Sacramentes to punish and depriue teach and correct them and generally to prescribe and appoint which waie she will be gouerned in soule Theo. That Princes may prescribe what faith they list what seruice of God they please what forme of administring the Sacraments they thinke best is no part of our thought nor point of our doctrine And yet that Princes may by their lawes prescribe the christian faith to be preached the right seruice of God in spirit and truth to be vsed the Sacraments to be ministred according to the Lords institution this is no absurditie in vs to defend but impietie rather in you to withstande And that Princes may punish both Bishoppes and others for heresie dissention and all kinde of iniquitie by banishing and commaunding them to bee remoued from their Churches which you call depriuing cā not now be coūted absurd vnlesse you reiect the stories of the church and lawes of christian Princes which I before cited as absurd For there shall you finde that Emperours by their Lawes and Edictes haue commaunded Bishops to be iudicially depriued by other bishops actually displaced by their temporal Magistrates as well for erronious teaching as vicious liuing Phi. When you giue princes supreme power in matters of religion you giue thē leaue to do what they lift The. If you affirm that of vs your report is vtterly vntrue if you infer it vpon vs your reason is very ridiculous For what a fond illation is this Princes be supreme that is not subiect to the Popes iurisdictiō ergo princes may lawfully do what they wil. Phi. We say not lawfully but if there be none to cōtrole thē none can let thē to do what they list The. The dreadful iudgements of God not the leud practises of Popes must bridle Princes frō doing euill If they feare not a reuenger in heauen whom they can not escape they will neuer regard a conspirator in earth whom they may soone preuent yet we dispute not what tyrāts de facto wil do but what godly Princes of dutie should of right may do This is it that we seek for therfore you must conclude this or nothing Phi. You giue thē authority to make lawes punish for religion without anie mētion of truth or error The. The oth expresseth not their duty to God but ours to thē as they must be obeied whē they ioin with truth so must they be endured whē they fal into error which side soeuer they take either obediēce to their wils or submissiō to their swords is their due by Gods law that is al which our oth exacteth And yet when we professe thē to be gouernors that word restraineeh thē from their own lusts referreth thē to Gods ordināce For they which resist God impugn the truth oppresse the righteous assist error fauor impietie be no gouernors vnder God as all princes oughtto bee but tyrantes against God not bearers but wilful abusers of the sword which God hath appointed for the punishment of euill doers and for the praise of them that do well And this though it be not expressed yet is it euer imploied in the very scepters swords thrones of princes For dominiō power maiesty belōg of right to god alone are by him imparted to Princes with this condition to this end that they shold raign vnder him not ouer him cōmand for him not against him be honored obeied after him not before him therefore this quarrell sauoreth not of ignorance but of malice when you say we giue Princes power to do what they wil in matters pertaining to God his seruice We reiect detest that sinful assertion more than you do In deede we say that the Pope may not pull Princes crownes frō their heads nor seeke to master them with contriuing rebellions treasons against them whiles hee pretendeth to depose them In this onely sense wee defende them to bee supreme that is not at libertie to do what they lift without regard of truth or right but without superiour on earth to represse them with violent meanes and to take their kingdomes from them Phi. It maketh the bodie aboue the soule the temporall regiment aboue the spirituall the earthly kingdom aboue Christes mysticall bodie It maketh the sheepe aboue the Pastour it giueth her power to commaund them whom wherein she is bound to obey It giueth power to the subiect to be iudge of the iudges yea of God himselfe as S. Cyprian speaketh Theo. I am loth to bring you out of loue with your owne conceits otherwise I neuer saw more boldnes lesse soundnes in any man If we did preferre earthly things before heauenly you might iustly charge vs that we set the body aboue the soule but betweene Princes Priests that comparison is foolish except you thinke Priests to be without bodies Princes without soules which were a mery deuise The spirituall regiment which Christ hath ouer the faithfull in his Church is infinitely before the temporal regiment of Princes ouer their subiects But if by this you would inferre that good Princes may not punish euill Priestes you deface godlinesse and trueth in Princes as temporall and exact wickednesse and error in Priestes as spirituall which is more than absurde As for the right functions of Preachers and Princes if that bee the matter you speake of for you speake so doubtfully that wee can gather no certaintie what you meane know you that as in spiritual perfection and consolation the Preacher excelleth the Prince by many decrees God hauing appointed Preachers not Princes to bee the sowers of his seede messenges of his grace stewardes of his mysteries so for externall power and authoritie to compell punish which is the point that we stande on God hath preferred the Prince before the Priest so long as the Prince commaundeth that which God alloweth And in this case wee make not temporall aboue spirituall as you tricke it with termes but auouch that the same God who teacheth the simple and leadeth the willing by the Preachers mouth driueth the negligent and forceth the froward by the Princes sword which himselfe that is a spirit and the father of spirites hath ordained to that end The mystical bodie of Christ which is his church containeth not only Prists bishops but all the faithfull in heauenly graces inward vertues far exceedeth all earthly kingdomes and yet hath God himselfe authorized the sword on earth in Princes handes to be keepers
father and his Cardinals were eighteene yeres prouoking working the Princes States adherent to them to spill christian blood to make hauocke of al places persons that were not â—â—â—dient to the Bishop of Rome yet you count it some great absurditie for vs to reiect this Councell as not generall Phi. You acknowledge no subiection to Councels or Tribunals abroad all other Bishops Patriarkes Apostles Christ all because they were be forrainers not hauing iurisdiction or sufficieÌ„t authoritie to define against English Sectaries or Errors And this when a Realme or Prince is in error taketh away all meanes of reducing theÌ„ to the truth againe Theo. To Christ his Apostles we acknowledge more subiection than you doe We honor adore him as the true son of God equall with his father in authority maiesty We make him no forrainer to this Realm as you do but professe him to be the only master redeemer ruler of his church as wel in this as in all other Nations To whom Princes Preachers are but seruaÌ„ts the preachers to propose the Princes to execute his will commandements whom all that wil be saued must beleeue obey aboue against all Councels Tribunals be they regall or papall if they dissent from his word The preachings writings of the Apostles we receiue with greater reuereÌ„ce exacter obedience than you do We giue no man leaue to dispence against theÌ„ which your law witnesseth of the Pope Papa coÌ„tra ApostoluÌ„ dispensat The Pope dispeÌ„seth against the Apostle We neuer said as Pigghius saith The Apostles wrote certaine things not that their writinges should bee aboue our faith and religion but rather vnder Wee confesse The Apostles were men allowed of God to whom the Gospel should be committed therefore we receiue the word from theÌ„ not as the word of man but as it is in deed the word of God assuring our selues it is the power of God to saue all that beleeue detesting your erronious and heynous presumptions that take vppon you to adde alter diminish and dispence with that which the spirite of Christ spake as well by the pennes as mouthes of the Apostles To Councels such as the Church of Christ was wont by the helpe of her religious Princes to call we owe communion and brotherly concord so long as they make no breach in faith nor in christian charitie subiection and seruitude wee owe them none the blessed Angels professe themselues to bee fellowe seruantes with the Sainctes on earth what are you then that with your Tribunals and iurisdictions woulde bee Lordes and Rulers ouer Christes inheritance Peter saith Cyprian whom the Lord made first choice of on whom he built his church when Paul after stroue with him for Circumcision did not take vpon him nor chalenge any thing insolentlie or arrogantly nor aduaunce him-selfe as Primate and one to whom the nouices and puinees shoulde bee subiect And as it were in open defiance of your Tribunals and iurisdictions which Stephen the Bishoppe of Rome began then to exercise he directeth the Bishops assembled in a Councell at Carthage on this wise It resteth that of this matter wee speake euerie one of vs what we thinke iudging no man nor remouing any man from the communion though he be not of our minde For none of vs maketh himselfe Bishop of Bishops or by terrour like a tyrant forceth his collegues to yeeld him obedience whether they will or no considering euerie Bishop by reason of his Episcopal power and freedom hath the rule of his owne iudgement as one that can not bee iudged of an other nor hee him-selfe iudge an other but let vs al expect the tribunal or iudgement of our Lord Iesus Christ which only solely hath power to set vs in the gouernment of his Church and to iudge of our actes And because you be so earnest with vs for subiection to Tribunals abroade to bee plaine with you it is boyes plaie before you name them or proue that wee owe them any subiection to skore it vppe as an absurditie that wee acknowledge none vnto them and yet least you shoulde thinke vs the first that refused Tribunals abroade you shall see that ancient and worthy fathers haue done the like before vs. What Tribunals abroade did Cyprian and the 80. Bishoppes at Carthage with him acknowledge when hee saide as you hearde Christus vnus solus habet potestatem de actu nostro iudicandi Christ only and none else hath authoritie to iudge of our act And agaiâ—e Episcopus ab alâ—o iudicari non potest cum non ipse nec alterum iudicare A Bishop may not be iudged of others nor iudge others Expectemus vniuersi iudicium Christi Let vs all both abroad and at home expect the iudgement of Christ. What Tribunals abroade did Polycrates and the Bishops of Asia with him acknowledge when hee replied to the Bishoppe of Rome threatning to excommunicate him and the rest Non turbaborijs quae terrendi gratia obijciuntur I passe not for these threats that are offered to terrifie me What Tribunals abroad did S. Aug. the 216. African Bishops acknowledge when they decreed that none Appealing ouer the Sea to Tribunals abroad should be receiued to the communion within Africa And when they repelled the Bishop of Rome laboring to place his Legates a latere within their Prouince willed him nâ—t to bring Fumosum seculi Typhum That smoky pride of the world into the Church of Christ What Tribunals abroad did the Bishop of the Britons acknowledge when they proued to August the Moncke that was sent from Rome that they ought him no subiection Nay what Tribunal abroad did Greg. the Bishop of Rome chalenge when he wrote thus to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria Vestra beatitudo mihi loquitur diceÌ„s sicut iussistis quod verbuÌ„ iussionis peto à meo auditu remouete quia scio quis sum qui estis Loco enim mihi fratres estis moribus patres NoÌ„ ergo iussi sed quae vtilia visa sunt iudicare curauâ— Your blessednes in your letters saith to me as you coÌ„maÌ„ded which word of coÌ„maÌ„ding I beseech you remoue froÌ„ mine eares because I know who I am what you are In calling you are brethreÌ„ to me in behauior fathers I did not theÌ„ coÌ„mand you but aduertise you what semed best to me The same Greg. teacheth you what it is for any one man to require vniuersall subiection of the whole church as your holie father now doth If Paul saith he would not haue the meÌ„bers of the Lords body to be subiect to any heads but to Christ no not to the Apostles themselues what wilt thou answere to Christ the head of the vniuersall church in the last daie of iudgement which goest about to haue all his members in subiection to thee by the
Gods appointment ergo they beare it in all thinges where the sworde must or may be vsed as well spirituall as temporall Phi. No doubt where the sword must or may bee borne they beare it but howe proue you that in spirituall thinges and causes the temporal sword must or may bee vsed Theo. Pitch that for the question and trie how wel you shall speede with it Phi. Wee neuer denyed but in some sort the temporall sword might bee vsed for spirituall thinges and causes as namely to defend the fayth and Canons of the Church and to put them in execution This Princes may do and must doe with their royall power but they may not commaund what they list in ecclesiasticall causes as you would haue them Theo. You snarle stil when you see your selfe brought to the wall What we woulde haue Princes to doe shall soone appeare if you cease from slaundering and keepe to the matter Our tongues ake with telling you that we hold no such opinion and yet you neuer leaue grating at vs as if we did The point that nowe wee stande at is this whether in a Christian common wealth the temporall sworde as you call it that is the publike authoritie of the Magistrate must bee vsed to receiue establish and defende the true faith of Christ and wholesome discipline of his Church and to prohibite displace and punish the contrarie say nay if you dare Phi. Wee neuer ment it Theo. Then in all spirituall thinges and causes Princes onely beare the sword that is haue publike authoritie to receiue establish and defende all poyntes and partes of Christian Doctrine and Discipline within their Realmes and without their helpe though the fayth and Canons of Christes Church may bee pryuately professed and obserued of such as bee willing yet can they not bee generally planted and setled in any kingdome nor vrged by publike Lawes externall punishments on such as refuse but by their consents that beare the sword This is it that wee say refell it if you can Phi. This is not your opinion but ours Wee confesse Princes to bee defenders of the faith and assisters of the Church with their secular might and power you auouche them to bee supreme moderatours and directours of all spirituall thinges and causes without restraint Theo. Wee auouche you to bee Supreme lyars and that which is worse you thinke with facing in time to get some credite to your fabling You finde no such thing in our words nor deedes as you report of vs. We confesse Princes to bee supreme gouernours that is as wee haue often told you supreme bearers of the sworde which was first ordained from aboue to defend and preserue as well goodlines and honestie as peace and tranquillitie amongest men We giue Princes no power to deuise or inuent new religions to alter or change Sacraments to decide or debate doubtes of faith to disturbe or infringe the canons of the church The publike power and outward meanes which God hath vnited and annexed to their swords as namely to commaund by their Edicts and dispose the goods and bodies of such as resist them this power and meanes wee say must be conuerted and vsed first to the seruice and glorie of God next to the profit and welfare of their Realmes that is as much or rather more for thinges spirituall than temporall Phi. If you giue Princes no iudicial nor spiritual power in matters of religiō but an externall and temporall power to permit and establish that which God commaundeth howe can they bee supreme Theo. Supreme they be for that by Gods Lawe they bee not vnder the Popes checke and correction though to leade on the simple sort with a better shewe you conceale that superiority which the Pope chalengeth ouer Princes and enter your whole action for the Church which woord you knew was more gratious and will in no case bee brought to take our meaning right lest you shoulde bee driuen either to proue your assertion which you can not or to confesse ours which you will not And therefore you wrest the word supreme against the very grounds of our common fayth and rules of your priuate speach to make it seeme false and absurde and then as valiant Captaines you wrestle with the fansies which your selues haue deuised fighting thus with your own shadowes you thinke your Seminaries the only lights and lanternes of Christendome but you must go more syncerely to worke before you can winne the cause Phi. Supreme is superiour to all and subiect to none Theo. And so bee Princes superiour to all men within their Realmes and subiect to no man without their Realmes Phi. What superiour to Christ the Church and all Theo. Haue you neuer done with that idle and eluish obiection Wee compare not man with God nor bodies on earth with spirites in heauen but wee conferre mortall men with their like bearing flesh about them which the sworde may touch and in comparison of them wee say Princes are superiour to all men within their dominions Bishoppes and others and subiect to no man without their dominions Prelate nor Pope to bee commaunded corrected and deposed by their tribunals This is the supremacie which wee attribute to Princes that all men within their Territories shoulde obey their Lawes or abide their pleasures and that no man on earth hath authoritie to take their swordes from them by iudiciall sentence or martiall violence Leaue wrangling and rouing and speake directly to this question Phi. I will if you first graunt that your meaning is not so large as your woordes bee Theo. You would fayne seeme with your eloquent nifles to woorke some masteries but it will not bee Our woordes are no larger than our meaning and both be true Phi. Why supreme is superiour to al none excepted no not Christ himselfe The. And what are these phrases the most holy the most mightie the most blessed which you applie to the Pope do they except Christ or no Phi. If nothing else be added they doe not by rigor of comparison but common vse of speach vnderstandeth them of earthly men and alwayes excepteth first God with whom there can bee none compared and next his Saints which be farre from vs in an other and better life Theo. I crie you mercie You may salute your Romish Pharaoh when you will with the most mightie Priest the most blessed father the chiefe Pastor and many such loftie stiles and wee must come after with salt and spoones and conceaue that Christ is excepted though he bee not because your flatteries bee common and if wee to signifie that Princes by Gods lawe bee not vnder the Popes yoke defende them to bee superiour to all men at home and subiect to no mans Courts or Consistories abroade and therfore call them supreme Gouernours of their owne people and Countries you sounde alarme against vs as if wee went about to defeate Christ of his kingdome and disseism
and shunne the wicked when as yet there were no Christian Magistrates to represse them or punish them may not rashly be stretched to the Magistrates person or function neither must you so force generall and indirect speeches of the Scripture that they shall euert the speciall and expresse commaundements of God But God hath expressely prescribed subiection and tribute to vitious tyrannous and Idolatrous Princes for such they were of whom Christ and his Apostles spake as no man can denie Therefore no consequent of Scripture may be wrested against it least you make the wil of God changeable or repugnant to it selfe which is heinous impietie to perswade or beleeue Phi. To tyrants and idolaters we must he subiect but not to heretikes although they bee Princes Theo. Confessing the former which you can not chose but admit by what meanes auoide you the later Heretiks may be Princes as well as idolaters and to Princes in respect of their power not of their vertues God will haue vs subiect S. Paul doeth not say Let euerie soule bee subiect to christian and vertuous powers but vnto supreme powers euen whē they were worshippers of diuels and spillers of christian blood Let vs therefore heare what ground you haue out of Gods law why this precept you must be subiect shall hold in blasphemous and Idoolatrous Princes but not in hereticall or excommunicate persons Phi. I told you before S. Iohn saith If any man bring not this doctrine salute him not Theo. Did those Tyrants and idolaters that were Prnces whiles S. Iohn liued bring the doctrine of Christ with them Phi. No but this is ment of heretikes Theo. It was spoken of all as well impugners as betraiers of the faith and why then do you restraine it to heretikes Phi. Christians might eate with Infidels but not with heretikes Theo. They might with those that were ignorant of the faith with purpose no winne them but not with those that impugned the faith for that could haue none other intent but feare or flatterie And with such S. Paul forbiddeth the christians all concord communion and fellowship Draw not the yoke with infidels For what fellowship hath righteousnes with vnrighteousnesse what communion hath light with darknesse what concord hath Christ with Belial or what part hath the beleeuer with the infidel Wherefore come out from among them and separate your selues saith the Lord. Separate your selues from them is as much as salute them not or eate not with them and yet were Christians bound to obey such with all submission if they were Magistrates Againe they might not eate with adulterers raylers drunkards extorsioners nor with any couetous persons might they therefore disobey the magistrate that was spotted with any of these or the like vices Phi. Not except hee were excommunicated for those vices Theo. Then neither Apostasie nor heresie depriue Princes of their authoritie but excommunication only which you may inflict as well for any disorder as for heresie Phi. What fault finde you with that Theo. You make excommunication but a limetwigge to intangle the persons and indaunger the states of Princes by maintaining rebellion against them vnder the name of religion when they wil not be ruled as you would haue them or not suffer their Realmes to ly open to the pray and pride of the Bishop of Rome For then hee must take vppon him to be the whole church which he is not excommunicate them whom hee should not and after that excommunication denounced you teach the people to refuse subiection to beare armes against their lawfull Magistrates vppon this pretence that you haue deposed them and disinherited them of their kingdoms which is a wicked and false presumption of yours resistant to the lawes of God and man For graunt hee might excommunicate them which yet is not proued the vttermost perill of excommunication before men is that which our Sauiour expresseth in Sainct Matthewes Gospel If he neglect to heare the church let him bee to thee as an Ethnike and a Publicane But Ethnikes by your confession may not bee depriued of their kingdomes ergo neither persons excommunicate Againe your owne lawe graunteth that excommunication dischargeth neither seruauntes children nor wiues from the duetie which they owe to the father of the familie and shall it set free subiectes from a stronger and higher bonde of duetie which God hath more straitly prescribed and inioyned them to the father of their Countrie What wilfull and obstinate blindnesse is this in you that where excommunication is a meere spirituall punishment and reacheth no farther by Gods Lawe than to take from offenders the remission of their sinnes by wanting the worde and Sacramentes vntill they repent you to gratifie the founder of your Rhemish and Romish hospitales stretch it vnto the states Crownes lymmes and liues of Princes and deriue thence not onely the deposing but also the murdering of Christian kinges and Queenes and that by their owne subiectes if hee saie the worde And this you assaie to perswade by corrupting and maintaining the Scriptures bolstering the conspiracies and impieties of your holy father against Princes with an vnshamefast prophaning and adulterating of the worde of truth which is not the least of your irreligious attemptes Resist your places and shewe vs but one halfe worde out of the holie Scripture that Princes may be iudicially deposed by Priestes or that you haue authoritie from Christ to punish such as you excommunicate with externall and temporal paines and losses which is it that you now would faine inferre and for the rest though wee neede not you shall haue our assents Phi. Least any man should thinke this power to bee so meerely spirituall that it might not in any wise be extended to temporall or corporall domage or chastisement of the faithfull in their goods liues possessions or bodies being meere secular thinges and therefore not subiect to their Pastours spirituall or Priestly function it is to bee marked in the holy Apostles first execution of their commissions authority that though their spirituall power immediatly directly concerneth not our temporall affaires yet indirectly and as by accident it doth not only concerne our soules but our bodies goods so farre as is requisite to our soules health and expedient for the good regiment thereof and the churches vtility being subiect to their spirituall Gouernours Theo. It is to be marked that if you may be suffered you will soone chalenge not only spirituall things as your peculiar but euen the goods liues possessions and bodies of the faithfull and as well of Princes as others to be subiect to your tribunals if not directly yet indirectly that is if not by one means yet by an other so far as you thinke it expedient for the regiment health of the soule vtility of the church that shall be far enough I dare vndertake If you affirme this vpon your own credite we little esteeme it your
opinion is common but not currant with vs If you meane to proue it you shall haue the longer and stiller audieÌ„ce Phi. S. Peter being but a meere spiritual officer and Pastor of mens soules yet for sacrilege and simulation stroke dead both man and wife S. Paul stroke blind Elymas the Magician So did he threaten to come to his contemners in rod of discipline So did be excoÌ„municate a Principal person in Corinth for incest not only by spiritual punishment but also by bodily vexation giuing him vp to Satans chastisement As he corporally also corrected and molested with an euill spirit Himeneus and Alexander for blasphemie and heresie Finally he boldly auoucheth that his power in God is to reuenge al disobedience and to bring vnder all loftie hearts to the loialtie of christ and of the Apostles and Sainctes in this life Nescitis quoth he quoniam Angelos iudicabimus quanto magis secularia knowe you not that wee shall iudge Angels how much more secular matters Theo. Such dissolute mariners were neuer like but to make such desperate aduentures You shoulde proue that spirituall Pastours haue power to sease the goods and possessions and chastise the bodies of such as they excommunicate and you shewe where God afflicted those for their sinnes which the Apostles cast out of the Church either with euill spirites or some corporall plague or death as hee sawe cause which is not pertinent to your purpose Can you not distinguish the finger of God from the factes of men Or see you no difference between miraculous vengeance from heauen and iudicial processe on earth God strake Ananias dead for tempting him in Peter and Elymas for resisting him in Paul May Preachers therefore putte out mens eyes and murther such as beleeue them not In deede you practise this new kinde of preaching but not by warrant from Christ or his Apostles Philand Did not Peter kill Ananias and Sapphira with his worde Theo. And since you can not do the like with your words you will take helpe of your handes Phi. With wordes or handes so they bee slaine all is one Theo. Not so The one is a miracle wrought by God the other is a murder committed by man which God prohibiteth and of all other thinges ought to bee farthest from the Preachers of peace Phi. Peter did so Theo. Peter reproued them for tempting the holie Ghost but the hande of God and not of Peter inflicted the punishment Reade the place Then saide Peter Ananias why hath Satan filled thine heart that thou shouldest he vnto the holie Ghost Thou hast not lied vnto men but vnto God Nowe when Ananias hearde these words saith the Scrâ—pture hee fell downe and gaue vppe the Ghost I aske not what faâ—t of Peters you finde that shoulde hasten the death of Ananias but what one worde purporting any such thing can you shewe vs in all that Peter saide to Ananias Phi. In his wordes to Sapphira wee can For hee saide to her The feete of them that haue buried thine husband are at the doore and shall carrie thee out Theo. Did Peter by these words kill her or foretell her that God would doe to her as hee had doone to her husbande Phi. Which say you Theo. Peter we say neither desired nor inflicted that iudgement on them but onely signified what God would doe The like we saie for Paul when Elymas was stroken blind He warned that Sorcerer what should befall him from God but himselfe did neither enuie nor iniurie the Sorcerers eyes His wordes were Wilt thou not cease to peruert the streight waies of the Lord Now therefore behold the hand of the Lord is vpon thee and thou shalt be blind not seeing the Sunne for a time Paul denounced Paul imposed not that corporall chastisement on him The deede was Gods who may iustly take from his enemies not onely their eies but their breathes and spirits when he wil and in what sort it pleaseth best his righteous and sacred wisedome Phi. But Paul himselfe corporallie corrected and molested with an euill spirite Himineus and Alexander for blasphemie and heresie So did he excommunicate a Principal Person in Corinth for incest not onely by spiritual punishment but also by bodilie vexation giuing him vp to Satans chastisement Theo. You drawe the word of God to your fansies by turning doubtes into certaineties antecedentes into consequentes mans actions into Gods iudgementes That the Apostle deliuered Himineus and Alexander vnto Satan and so the incestuous Corinthian whom you of your owne head without any witnesse call a Principal Person in Corinth because the slide you saw was easie from Principall to Princes is a matter out of question but that he corporally corrected and molested them with euil spirites these be your additamentes wherewith you thought to lengthen the text to your own liking Phi. S. Paul gaue iudgement of the Corinthian that he should bee deliuered vnto Satan for the destruction of the flesh And how could the flesh be destroied without bodily vexation affliction The. This phrase for the destruction of the flesh hath diuerse expositions therefore vpon a doubtful kinde of speech you can not build an vndouted conclusion S. Ambrose expoundeth the place thus The Apostle decreed that by the consent in the presence of all men he should be cast out of the Church Cum eijcitur traditur Satanae in interitum carnis Et anima enim corpus intereunt His casting him out of the Church is the deliuering of him to Satan to the destruction of the whole man which is nothing but flesh For both soule and bodie perish And lest you shoulâ— thinke it much that the soule is called fleshe he giueth this reason Victa anima libidine carnis fit caro the soule once ouercome by the lustes of the flesh becommeth flesh and is in the Scripture so commonly called the lusts of the flesh deliuereth the soule defiled with it and also the body to hell Phi. But S. Paul addeth that the spirite may bee saued in the day of our Lord Iesus Christ which can not stand with this exposition that both fleshe spirit were deliuered vnto perdition Theo. The same father will tell you that the spirit may be referred not to him that was excluded but to the rest that remained in the church as if S. Paul should haue saide I haue decreed to cast this vncleane person out from among you to his iust condemnation that the grace of Gods spirit may be preserued in the rest of you to the day of iudgement The same Sainct Augustine followeth What spirite doeth the Apostle affirme shoulde bee preserued when he saieth I haue deliuered that man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh c. The destruction of the flesh ment in this place is a man addicted to pleasures and fleshly delightes purchaseth hell to himselfe For by such sinnes the whole man becommeth
flesh in so much that the flesh is heere called the soule Such a man when the church casteth from her shee keepeth the spirit safe to wit the holie spirite of God which is the guider of the church For if they suffer any such one to bee amongest them hee defileth all and the holie spirite departeth Phi. S. Hierom taketh it otherwise To deliuer him vnto Satan for the destruction of the flesh saith he vt arripiendi illum corporaliter habeat potestatem that the diuell may haue power corporally to possesse him so Saint Chrysostom For the destruction of the flesh that the diuell may strike him with some grieuous sore or other disease Theo. This I told you before was a doubtfull speech and therefore woulde yeelde you no certaine conclusion For besides Sainct Augustine and Sainct Ambrose Sainct Hierom in those bookes which are assuredly his vseth these wordes To deliuer vnto Satan to the destruction of the fleshe for a perpetuall consequent to excommunication in all ages and not for corporall vexation permitted onely to the Apostles Illi si peccauero licet tradere me Satanae in interitum carnis vt spiritus saluus sit A clergie man sayth hee may deliuer mee to Satan if I sinne for the destruction of the fleshe that the spirite may bee safe And inueighing against Vigilantius I maruaile sayth hee the Bishop vnder whome hee is doeth not crush this vnprofitable vessell with the Apostolike rodde euen a rodde of yron and deliuer him into the destruction of the fleshe that the spirite may bee safe Noting by these wordes the right force of excommunication which doeth and shall indure to the ende not any corporall punishment or plague wherewith God sometimes touched such as would not otherwise be reformed A thirde interpretation of these wordes you shall finde in Sainct Augustine writing against Parmenian What did the Apostle sayth hee but prouide for the health of the soule by the destruction of the fleshe whether it were by some corporall punishment or death as in Ananias and his wife which fell down at Peters feete or else that the partie by repentance because he was giuen ouer vnto Satan should kil in himself the wicked concupiscence of the fleshe This later exposition cutteth off cleane your bodilie punishmentes and sheweth the ende of Apostolike excommunication to be this that the offendour by repentaunce should destroy the lustes of his flesh and not that an euill spirit should corporally correct and molest him which you conclude out of these wordes with as great confidence as if it were some maine principle of faith Phi. S. Augustine repeateth both expositions disliketh neither Theo. His accepting of both dischargeth your illation which is wholy grounded on the first But admit that also which Chrysostom seemeth to follow what shall your conclusion be Phi. That the Apostles punished the bodies of such as were christians Theo. Did they lay violent handes on them or vse any externall meanes Phi. They needed not the diuell did it at their word Theo. And because the diuell will not doe the like for you you will supplie the diuels roome and intermedle with his office Are you not wise Diuines that to chalenge the correction of other mens bodies make your selues the Diuels substitutes Phi. Wee make our selues the Apostles substitutes Theo. Then deliuer them to the Diuell as they did and offer them no farther violence nor torment with your owne handes and see what power you haue to chastise the bodies of such as you reiect from the church for so did the Apostles Mary if you content not your selues with speaking the word as they did but because the Diuell fayleth you you take helpe of your handes to punish the bodies of men beware least you be now not Pauls associats in deliuering but Satans in tormenting the carkasses of offendors Phi. Is euerie one that punisheth the bodie Satans associate Theo. They that beare the sworde with lawfull power from God to represse the wicked if cause require to kill the bodie they bee Gods ministers seruing for that intent but they that without this sworde claime to bee the correctors and punishers of mens bodies by violent meanes are the Diuels vicegerentes and not Gods For they bee murderers and the right members of Satan Phi. But wee appoint the Magistrate to doe it Theo. Doe you appoint Magistrates to lay violent handes on themselues Phi. No but on others Theo. And we be disputing of Princes whether they may bee defeated of their crowns and chastised in their bodies vpon your excommunications Phi. Excommunicate persons may bee corporally chastised whosoeuer bee the deede doer and that S. Chrysostoms exposition fully proueth For if it were lawfull then whiles the Apostles did excommunicate why not as well after and in other ages Theo. But if you relent from this that your selues may bee the deed doers then you misse the marke which you shot at The Magistrate wee knowe may corporally punish these and all other offendours but what is that to your position which hold that spirituall Pastors may punish the bodies of the faithful And therfore look to your footing least you faile in your leaping and backe with this legge that a meere spirituall officer may touch the liues and take the goods of heretiks and other excommunicate persons It is a wicked intrusion of Antichrist seeking indirectly and as you call it by accident that is by hooke or by crooke to bring the world and worldly things in subiection to his appetite The Apostles did nothing but separate sinners from the church and house of God because in those dayes there were no christian Princes with ordinarie power to reuenge the disorders committed in and against the church of Christ it pleased God that whom the Apostles and their after-commers for a season cast out of the church as intangled with great and haynous offences the Diuell shoulde afflict them vnto death or otherwise with some grieuous disease as the fault deserued that the rest might feare and not bee bolde to sinne because there was no magistrate to punish them yea many times God visited the sinnes of hypocrites and such as remained in the church in like maner as Paul himselfe testifieth to those of Corinth For this cause many amongest you are stroken with infirmities and diseases and many are dead For if we would iudge our selues we should not bee iudged but when wee are iudged we are chastened of the Lord that wee should not bee condemned with the world And Chrysostom alleadging this place Many such things fall out in the church at this day Because the priest knoweth them not that loden with sinne receiue the reuerend mysteries vnworthily therefore God himselfe often times culleth them out and deliuereth them to Satan And that the Apostles did nothing but cast them out of the church when they deliuered anie to Satan the same Father will teach
you Marke howe Paul deliuered the man of Corinth to Satan Eijciebatur nempe a communi fidelium caetu hee was cast out of the congregation of the faythfull hee was cutte off from the flocke of Christ and left naked and being so destitute of Gods helpe hee lay open to the Wolfe and subiect to euerie assault So sayth Theodorete By this place where Paul deliuered the incestuous Corinthian to Satan we are taught that the diuell inuadeth them which are seuered cut off from the bodie of the church finding them destitute of Gods grace Keepe your selues therefore within your limites Pastors haue their charge which is as S. Paul noteth to watch ouer soules they haue not to doe with the goods or bodies of the faithfull Their goods are Caesars by the plaine resolution of our Sauiour Giue vnto Caesar the thinges which are Caesars Which God willed Samuel to aduertise the people of when they first demaunded a king Shew them the right or law of the king that shall raigne ouer them And so Samuel did saying This shall be the law of your king He shall take your sonnes and appoint them for his charets and to be his horsemen shal make theÌ„ captaines ouer thowsandes captaines ouer fiftyes set them to eare his grounds to reape his haruest to make his instruments of war things to serue for his charets And he wil take your fields vines best olyues giue them to his seruants And he wil take the tenth of your corn wine giue it to his Princes seruitors And he wil take your men seruaÌ„ts maideseruants the choice of your yong meÌ„ your asses vse theÌ„ to his work The tenth of your sheep wil he take ye shal be his seruaÌ„ts Phi. Make you the king Lord of al without exception Theo. Though God neuer ment that Princes inordinate priuate pleasures should wast consume the wealth of their Realmes yet may they iustly commaunde the goods and bodies of all their Subiects in time both of warre and peace for any publike necessitie or vtilitie Whereby God declareth Princes and not Pastours to bee the right ouerseers of temporall and earthlie matters and consequentlie that the power of the keyes extendeth not to those thinges which are committed to the Princes charge I meane neither to the goods nor to the bodies of christian men To a king sayth Chrysostom are the bodies of men committed to the Priest their soules The king pardoneth corporall offences the Priest remitteth the guiltinesse of sinne The king compelleth the Priest exhorteth the one with force the other with aduise the kings weapons are sensible the Priâ—stes are Ghostly The like distinction betweene them doth S. Hierom make Rex nolentibus praest Episcopus volentibus ille timore subijcit hic seruituti donatur ille corpora custodit ad mortem hic animas seruat ad vitam The king ruleth men vnwilling the Priest none saue the willing the king hath his in subiection with terrour the Priest is appointed for the seruice of his the king mastereth their bodies with death but the Priest preserueth their soules to life This power of the sword our Sauiour precisely prohibited his Apostles as I haue shewed and therefore you may not indirectly nor by accident chalenge it Phi. Why then did Paul saie Knowe you not that wee shall iudge the Angels howe much more secular matters Theo. If this bee the best hold you haue in the new Testament for secular matters you must take the paynes to light from your horse and goe on your feete as well as your neighbours For the Apostle speaketh that of all Christians which you restraine to Priests and moueth the parties striuing rather to make their brethren arbiters of their quarrelles than to persue one an other before Infidels What grant is this to you in your owne right to bee iudges ouer your brethren in all secular affaires and not onely without their consents to determine their griefes but also to bereaue them of their goods and lands and afflict their bodies yea to pull the sword out of Princes handes take their Crownes from their heades when the rulers are beleeuers as well as the Preachers Do you not know saith S. Paul that the Saincts not onely Priests shal iudge the world If the world then shal be iudged by you speaking to all that were of the church at Corinth are ye vnworthy to iudge the smalest matters He saith not it was their right to iudge secular matters but they were worthy to bee trusted with them whom God would trust with greater and shewing that hee spake this of the people not of the Priests he saith If then you haue any iudgementes concerning the thinges of this life make euen the contemptible in the church your iudges Hee saith not God hath made them your iudges but rather thaÌ„ your contending brabling about earthly things which you professe to contemn should be knowen to Ethniks such as hate deride both Christ you your selues make the meanest of your brethren whom you will your iudges Nowe ioyne your conclusion ergo the Pope hath authority to dispose the goods lands and liues of all the faithâ—ul euen of Princes theÌ„selues be they neuer so iust or religious Magistrates and see what a non sequitur you conclude out of S. Pauls wordes Phi. The Primatiue church vnderstood this place of Priests and Bishops as appeareth by Sainct Augustine complaining of the tumultuous perplexities of other mens causes in secular matters to the which troubles sayth he the Apostle hath fastened vs. 1. Corinth 5. The like hee witnesseth of S. Ambrose at Millan And S. Gregory reporteth the same of himselfe at Rome Theo. Trueth it is the Bishoppes of the Primatiue church were greatly troubled with those matters not as ordinarie iudges of those causes but as arbiters elected by the consent of both parties And I coulde requite you with Gregories owne wordes of the same matter in the same place Quod certum est nos non debere which it is certaine we ought not to do but yet I thinke so long as it did not hinder their vocation function though it were troublesome vnto them they might neither in charitie nor in dutie refuse it because it tended to the preseruing of peace loue amongest meÌ„ And the Apostle had licenced all men to choose whom they woulde in the church for their iudges no doubt meaning that they which were chosen shoulde take the paynes to heare the cause and make an ende of the strife But it is one thing to make peace between brethren as they did by heaping their griefes with consent of both sides and an other thing to claime a iudiciall interest in those causes in spite of mens heartes Which wrong you shoulde not offer the least of your brethren much lesse may you
and chastise the bodies of such as offende Preachers may shut the gates of heauen against non-repentants Princes may roote them from the face of the earth and let them feele the iust vengeaunce of their sinnes in this worlde This is the power of Princes which wee say must bee directed by Bishoppes but is not subiected to their willes or Tribunals and though the Preachers charge concerne thinges which bee more perfect and excellent yet that is no reason why Bishoppes should corporally correct or depose Princes no more than if Philosophers or schoolemasters shoulde take vpon them to doe the like because they professe to trayne vp others in wisedome and vertue which farre exceede the feeding or clothing of the bodie which seeme to bee the Princes care And yet may you not rashly exclude the Princes function from caring for religion and vertue It is euident that God first ordained and authorized the sworde to punish error and vice and to maintaine trueth and integritie amongst men and therefore the Princes and the Preachers functions by Gods institution shoulde concurre euen in those Ghostly and heauenly thinges which you would chalenge to your selues the Preacher declaring the Prince establishing the word of trueth the Preacher deliuering the Prince defending the Sacraments of grace the Preacher reproouing the Prince punishing the sinnes and offences of all Degrees and States Howbeit wee must confesse the Preachers seruice in these cases excelleth the Princes for that the woorde in the Preachers mouth engendreth faith and winneth the soule vnto God to serue him with a willing mind whereas the sword in the Princes hand striketh onely a terror into men to refraine the outwarde act but refourmeth not the secrets of the heart Phi. When the temporall power resisteth God or hindereth the proceeding of the people to saluation there the spirituall hath right to correct the temporall and to procure by all meanes possible that the terrene kingdome giue no annoyance to the state of the Church Theo. What you want in proofes you make out in woordes Wee haue heard you I know not how often full solemnly affirme that the Spiritual power hath right to correct the temporal whereby you meane that the Pope may depose the Prince but as yet we see you not prooue it Your exquisite and affected vtterance which is the chiefest furniture of your booke and the best support of your cause can not turne hard into soft nor sower into sweete men must haue some better euidence for the depriuation of Princes before they beleeue it than your meretricious and deintie speach Pastours are you say to procure by all meanes possible that the terrene kingdome giue no annoyance to the state of the Church you shoulde haue added by all meanes possible and lawful for by periurie rebellion and slaughter of Princes though it bee possible yet is it not lawfull to procure the welfare of Christes Church If you receiue that addition and auouche it lawfull for Bishoppes to depese Princes you runne to the point which wee first beganne with absurdly presuming and neuer proouing the thing which is called in question Phi. The Church excelleth the terrene state and Domination as farre as the Sunne passeth the Moone the soule the bodie and heauen the earth By reason of which excellencie and preeminence aboue all states and men without exception of Prince or other our Lorde proclaimeth in his Gospel that whosoeuer obeyeth not or heareth not the Church must bee taken and vsed no otherwise than as an heathen Theo. You must needes bee cunning in counting howe many degrees a Priest excelleth a Prince Innocentius the third twelue hundred yeeres after Christ beganne this comparison and proueth it out of the Scripture full like a Pope Thou shouldest haue knowen sayth hee to the Emperour that GOD made two great lights in the firmament of heauen the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night Whereby is meant that GOD made two great lightes that is two great dignities which are the Priest and the Prince for the firmament of heauen that is of his vniuersall Church But that which ruleth the day to witte spirituall thinges is the greater that which ruleth carnall thinges is the lesser that wee should acknowledge as great difference to bee betweene Bishops and Princes as there is betweene the sunne and the moone Your gloze setteth downe and casteth by plaine Arythmetike howe much that amounteth to Therefore sayth hee since the earth is seuen tymes bigger than the Moone and the Sunne eyght tymes bigger than the earth it resteth that the Bishoppe bee fourtie seuen tymes greater than the Prince And yet aduising himselfe better for that his totall summe rose no faster hee sheweth out of Ptolomie that the sunne contayneth the bignes of the moone seuen thousande seuen hundred fourtie foure tymes and so many degrees iumpe is euery Bishoppe aboue euery Prince These paringes and offscouringes of your Decretals you haue swept together and vsing the name of the Church to make the matter more saleable though by the Church you vnderstande as they did the Bishoppe of Rome and his Colledge of Cardinals you perfume their follies with a fewe words of your owne and newe proclaime them for some precious wares but take backe the filth and slime of your vnlearned and ill aduised Canonistes wee looke for grauer and better authorities than either your or their flatteries Phi. Whosoeuer obeyeth not or heareth not the Church must bee taken and vsed no otherwise than as an heathen Theo. I coulde answere you that this place toucheth onely wronges and iniuries done by men to their brethren when as yet there were no Christian Princes And that in these woordes our Sauiour charged his Disciples not to breake the bonde of peace and vnitie with any brother that offered wrong vntill they had first secretly warned them then with witnesses and last of all publikely before the whole multitude of the faithfull where hee and they liued and if after so many lawfull warnings hee ceased not to afflict and vexe his brother the partie grieued should no farther be bound to communicate with him in brotherly loue and charitie no more than hee was with an Ethnike or a Publicane S. Ambrose giueth this note vpon the wordes In te Against thee Pulchrè posuit si peccauerit in te Non enim aequa conditio in deum hominemque peccare The Lorde very well added if hee sinne against thee for the same rule doeth not serue when hee sinneth against God that doeth when hee trespasseth man Saint Hierom likewise If our brother sinne against vs and in any thing doe vs wrong wee haue power to forgiue it yea wee must forgiue it but if a man sinne against God the matter is out of our handes Lest therefore in priuate quarrels and offences men should at their listes forsake the communion and felowshippe of their brethren our Sauiour will haue
three admonitions and the last publike after the which if that take not place we shal be excused before God if we no longer accept him that did vs wrong in the number of our brethren Let him be to thee as an Ethnike and a Publicane that is sayth S. Augustine Noli illum deputare iam in numero fratrum tuorum nec ideo tamen salus eius negligenda Do not accompt him in the number of thy brethren and yet his saluation must not bee neglected For the Ethnikes themselues that is heathen men and Pagans wee doe not recken to bee our brethren and yet we seeke to saue them By this you may doe well to erect a Court where euery subiect may sewe his Prince for priuate iniuries and to make your selues Iudges of all such matters that if the Prince refuse your order you may take his Crowne from him Is not this thinke you good diuinitie for a Christian Common-wealth Phi. If hee that will not heare the Church in priuate offences betweene man and man must bee taken and vsed as an heathen how much more he that will not heare nor obey the Church in publike and haynous sinnes against God Theo. Take the place howe you will of priuate or publike iniuries or sinnes against man or against God no such thing is consequent as you would seeme to inferre If hee heare not the Church whosoeuer whensoeuer in what cause soeuer graunt all this that your antecedent may bee the freer from checke or chaunce what will you conclude Phi. He must bee to vs as an heathen Theo. And what then must heathen Princes bee depriued of their Crownes and Scepters Was not Caesar an heathen when our Sauiour willed all men to giue to Caesar the thinges which were Caesars Was hee not an heathen Magistrate before whome Christ stoode when hee sayde Thou couldest haue no power ouer mee vnlesse it were giuen thee from aboue Were they not heathen Princes to whome Peter and Paul required and charged all Christian Princes to bee subiect without all resistance Did not the Church of Christ taught by them so to doe submit her selfe for the space of three hundered yeeres to heathen Princes and those terrible and most bloudie tyrants Phi. We deny not this Theo. You can not If then disobayers of the Church must be vsed no worse than heathens and publicanes ergo they must neither bee spoiled of their goodes nor afflicted in their bodies nor remoued from their seates if they be Princes For these things by Gods Law the Church might not offer to Pagans nor Publicans Phi. This that Christ saith if he heare not the Church let him be to thee as an Ethnicke and a Publicane is by the iudgement of S. Augustine more grieuous than if he were slaine with the sword consumed with fier or torne with wilde beastes Theo. And why because the iudgement of God to the which he is reserued shall bee more heauie to him than any humane torments can be And this maketh rather against you than with you For if the neglecter of the Church shal be so grieuously punished at Gods hands why doe you challenge to your selues the corporal correcting and chastising of such as disobay the Church And so Saint Augustine expoundeth himselfe It is by and by added saith he by our Sauiour Amen I say vnto you What you bind on earth shall bee bound in heauen that we should vnderstand how grieuous a punishment it is to bee left vnpunished by man and to be reserued to the iudgement of God Phi. The Church hath decreed that heretikes shall not beare rule ouer Catholikes and this voice of the Church all men are bound to heare vnlesse they will be counted for Pagans and Infidels Theo. First the Church can make no such decree next the Church of Christ neuer made any such Decree Phi. May not the Church make that Decree Theo. Shee may not Her power concerneth the soules of men and not their bodies and neuer goeth beyond the word and Sacraments Shee may not intermeddle with the temporal states and inheritances of Priuate men against their willes much lesse with the thrones and swords of Princes The Church cannot giue leaue that children shall disobay their Parents nor seruants their Masters nor weomen their husbandes because God hath already commanded they shall obay whose precepts the Church is with al reuerence to receiue and with all diligence to obserue and not to frustrate or hinder the least iote of his heauenly will and Testament If any particular places or persons attempt the contrarie they cease to be the Church of GOD in that they wilfully reiect and change the worde of God S. Augustine saith well Non debet ecclesia se Christo praeponere The Church may not preferre her selfe before Christ. Neither may we beleeue the true Churches them selues vnlesse they say and doe those things that are consonant to the Scriptures Yea we must accurse the Angels in heauen if they should do otherwise The whole Church oweth the same dutie to all and euery the precepts of God that ech priuate person doth And therfore shee may not dissolue nor disappoint the least of them Now the Church her selfe is commanded by the mouth of Christ and his Apostles to honor and obay Princes For these precepts be general touch the whole church Giue to Caesar the things that be Caesars Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers Submit your selues to the king as the chiefest For so is the will of God neither Monke Priest Prelate Pope Euangelist or Apostle exempted as in the place where I haue already shewed Ergo shee hath no right to dishonour or depose Princes nor to licence their subiects to resist them at her will and on her warrant which is the grounde that you build on Phi. They be but flatterers of Princes that so say or heretikes that so thinke that the ministers of Christes most deare spouse of his very mysticall bodie his kingdome house on earth whom at his dâ—parture hence he did indowe with most ample commissioÌ„ and sent foorth with that authoritie that his father before gaue vnto him haue no power ouer Princes to denounce or declare them to be violators of Gods and the Churches Lawes nor to punish them either spiritually or temporally not to excommunicate them nor to discharge the people of their oth and obedience towards such as neither by Gods Law nor mans a true Christian may obay Theo. If we knewe not your accustomed brauerie you might somwhat trouble vs with your insolent vanities but now we haue so good experience of your fierce lookes and faint harts that we neede not feare your force Bring somwhat besides your own conceit that the Pope may depose Princes and then call vs flatterers and heretikes at your pleasure If not take heede you proue not presumpteous and stately rebels against God and man I winne you be the
ministers of Christs spouse and kingdom no more than his Apostles were if so much and your commission is no larger than theirs if it be so large and yet the Apostles themselues had no power to depose Princes but submitted their bodies and liues to the powers which God had ordained and taught Christes most deare spouse his very bodie mystical to do the like and shee did so not offering any example of resisting and deposing Princes for a thousand yeres after shee first receiued at her husbands mouth a charge to honour them and in earthly things to obay them As for your Episcopall power ouer Princes if that be it you seeke for and not to take their kingdomes from them I tolde you before if they breake the Law of God you may reproue them if they heare you not you may leaue them in their sinnes and shut heauen against them if they fall to open heresie or wilfull impietie you may refuse to communicate with them in prayers and other diuine duties yea you must rather yeeld your liues with submission into their hands than deliuer them the word and sacraments otherwise than God hath appointed farther than this if you will go to the temporall punishing and finall displacing of them from their thrones and to the discharging of the people from the oth and obedience towards such Princes which is the right intent of your Romish censures as your owne woordes import though your cause were neuer so good as yours is starke naught you then turne religion into rebellion patience into violence wordes into weapons preaching into fighting fidelitie into periurie subiection into sedition and in steede of the seruantes of GOD which you might bee by enduring you become the Souldiers of Satan by resisting the powers which GOD hath ordayned Phi. Your threates were somewhat if the Church had not first deposed them Theo. Pull not out your owne eyes with your owne handes The Church hath no such Commission from Christ. Shee can not discharge smaller dueties as of children to their Parents and wiues to their husbandes much lesse greater as subiection othe and loyaltie to Princes Say if you dare that the Preceptes of subiection and submission vnto Princes in the sacred Scriptures doe not binde Bishoppes as well as others If they doe then marke what mockeries you make of the woorde of God Let euery soule and therefore euery Bishoppe bee subiect to the higher Powers that you will haue to stande vntill the Bishoppes depose them and take their power from them You must bee subiect the Bishoppes you meane as long as they list For if they like not their Prince by your Doctrine they may displace him Submit your selues to the king as excelling all others but you will bee sure to excell him and when you see your time to make him the meanest amongest the people Giue vnto Caesar the thinges that bee Caesars but if Caesar anger you you take from him goods Landes Scepter sworde life and all O worthie interpreters of Gods heauenly will A fewe such glozes will helpe Christ himselfe out of his kingdome such cunning you haue to defeate the commaundementes of the holy Ghost and to spoyle innocent and Christian Princes of their Crownes when you lyst to displace them Phi. They bee your foolish additions and not ours Theo. Auoyde the textes which wee bring without these or the like constructions and take the whole cause for your labour Well you may florish with the name of the Church where I say the Bishoppes and require some causes before Princes shoulde bee deposed which I referre to the discretion of the deposer but in effect your answeres must bee as I report them For what if the Pope offer open wrong to Princes of his owne Religion as hee did to Philippe the Faire King of Fraunce to Frederike the second Germane Emperour and to many others Who shall reuerse his definitiue sentence by your doctrine but himselfe that either for shame may not or for pride will not relent from his error Phi. Therefore wee referre the right of deposing Princes to the Church because wee woulde bee sure to haue it done by Lawe order and iudgement Theo. And that solemne proces of Lawe order and iudgement in your Church which you crake of when all is done is nothing els but the Popes pleasure for hee will bee tied neither to Councell nor Canon farther than standeth with his liking his Decrees be Canons and a reason of his fact may no man aske him by your Lawes and therefore Princes haue a warme sute to depend on such Lawes orders and iudgements As for the Church of Christ she neuer tooke any such thing vpon her neither did shee euer make any Decree that Prelats might depose Princes She endured as well heretikes and Apostataes as Pagans and persecutours many hundred yeeres to the glorious triall of her fayth and eternall reward of her patience Onely Gregorie the 7. Bishop of Rome more than a thousande yeres after Christ in the heighth of his pride and furie gaue the first onset to depose his Lord and master and others after him were easily led to followe his example but to this day neuer christian king nor Realme acknowledged or obeyed that power in the Pope which yet he doth wickedly chalenge as you do wilfully defend Phi. It may please the gentle readers to enforme their consciences partly by that is sayde before and specially by that which followeth Where they shall finde that streight vppon the first conuersion of kinges to the faith as the good and godly haue euer obeyed the Church and submitted themselues to ecclesiasticall censures and discipline so the euill and obstinate could neuer orderly discharge themselues from the same without euident note of iniustice tyrannie and irreligiositie and were either in fine brought to order penance or else to confusion both temporal and eternal Theo. Hee must be very gentle that will enforme his conscience with your bare surmises other enformations you giue none That which is said before is to small purpose that which followeth is to smaller Neuer good nor godly king obeyed the Popes sentence of deposition and besides the Pope neuer Church Councell nor Pastour offered any such wrong to Christian or heathen Princes What you call orderly discharging of themselues I knowe not the wisest and worthiest Princes that those dayes bred neither dissenting in fayth from the Bishop of Rome nor then doubting of his Pastoral headship ouer the Church such was the blindnes of their times yet openly despised and vtterly resisted his arrogant censures in depriuing Princes and howsoeuer by warres conspiracies and treasons hee tyred some of them God giuing Princes for the neglect of his trueth and number of their sinnes into the handes and power of Antichrist yet others bridled and kirbed your holy father himself in such sort that he had small ioy of his enterprise Of their eternall confusion
reportes wee may hardly trust since your speciall instaunces be so corrupted and wrested And could you shewe that which you speake of as you can not you must also proue it well done or at leâ—t to haue beene liked and allowed of the Church of Christ before we can receiue it The Apostles rule is strong against it You must bee subiect not onely for wrath but for conscience sake Many thousand Martyrs Bishoppes others submitted themselues and endured the vilest torments that coulde bee deuised against them as the ten persecutions of Christes Church vnder heathen Princes most clearly witnesse that euer any of their subiects rebelled against those bloody persecutors in respect of religion must be your care to shewe Wee reading all the monumentes of those tymes verily find none and by your silence it should appeare your selues know none otherwise we do not thinke you woulde disfurnish your cause and trouble the reader with impertinent matters That the Citizens of Antioch defended their Church with armes against the Emperour Galerius his officers I find it writteÌ„ in no good Author neither do you quote the place that Storie you may put in your Legende as taken thence by most likelyhood The temples of their bodies which were farre more precious they did not defend from the furious and insatiable rage of Diocletian Maximinus but as well at Antioche as in all other places subiect to the Romane Empire the christian men women mildly gladly suffered those torments deaths and shames which in our eyes neither flesh could beare nor nature brooke so that wee haue cause rather to maruaile at their patience than to mistrust their disobedience Phi. S. Basil and S. Ambrose people defended them against the inuasions of Heretikes Theo. After Valens the Emperour had twise decreed to banish S. Basil and was the first tyme stopped of his course by the suddaine sicknes of his sonne and terror of his wife and the second time by a straunge trembling of hande and heart as he was subscribing the sentence of deportation against him hee neuer after offered to meddle with Saint Basill but suffered him quietly to enioy his Bishopricke Yet fell there out after this a contention betweene the Lieutenaunt of Pontus and Saint Basill about the liberties of the sanctuarie for a Noble woman that had taken the Church for her refuge to saue her selfe from one that woulde haue forced her to mariage against her will The Deputie required the woman to bee deliuered the Bishoppe replied that hee might not violate the Lawes of GOD and man The Deputie stomacking Saint Basill and the more for his stout defence otherwise of the Christian faith sent for the Bishoppe to his Tribunall and commaunding him to bee stript threatned to whippe him and to teare his flesh with Iron hookes This indignitie the people could no longer abide but seeing their Pastor thus shamefully handled without the Emperours commandemeÌ„t or knowledge vpon the priuate displeasure of a Deputie for the liberties of the Church established by the Romane Lawes the whole citie men and women fell to an vprore and were like enough to haue done the Deputie some mischiefe but that Saint Basil with much adoe repressing the people deliuered his persecutor from that perill This is the true report of Saint Basils case euen out of the same author which you auouche Gregorie Nazianzene Their griefe you see was not against the Emperours power or fact but against the malice of a Lieutenant presuming vpon a priuate grudge without any warrant from the Prince not onely to doe that which the Emperour in his owne person had refrained but in most spitefull and seruile manner to abuse their Bishop against all order of Lawe And this tumult S. Basil neither procured nor praised but asswaged with his presence and offered himselfe to the Deputies pleasure Of S. Ambrose wee spake before by occasion and thither we send you It is most vntrue that the people of Millan either did or might take armes against the Emperour though hee were then but a child and therefore might make no Lawes for Religion or otherwise without Theodosius ioynt Emperour with him in possession of the scepter before him Which exception neither S. Ambrose nor other godly bishops vsed against him but submitted themselues with al meekenes when in reason they might haue taken this aduantage Of the people S. Ambrose himselfe giueth this testimonie In singulis vobis Iob reuixit in singulis sancti illius patientia virtus refulsit Quid enim praesentis dici potuit a viris Christianis quà m quod â—odie in vobis locutus est Spiritus sanctus Rogamus Auguste non pugnamus non timemus sed rogamus Hoc Christianos decet In euery one of you Iob is aliue againe in eche of you his patience and vertue shined What coulde bee sayde fitter by Christian men than that which the holy Ghost this day spake in you We beseech O Emperour we offer not armes Wee feare not to die but we intreate thy clemencie This beseemeth Christians to desire tranquillitie of peace faith but to bee constant in the truth euen vnto death And for his part when hee heard that his Church was taken vp by the Emperours souldiers he fet only somewhat the deeper sighes sayd to such as exhorted him to goe thither deliuer vp my Church I may not but sight I ought not Phi. But the people were in a commotion which appeareth by that S. Ambrose answered when they willed him to asswage their furie It lay in him not to incite them but hee had no meanes to represse them Theo. Truth it is that the people flocked to their Churches and chose rather to bee slaine in the place than to leaue them vnto Arians But that they offered armes or attempted any force either for S. Ambrose or against Valentinian is a manifest vntrueth The merchaunts were amerced and emprisoned the Nobles were hardly threatned and S. Ambrose himselfe charged as with a sedition and yet all the violence that was offered was this The people passing from one Church to an other met a Chapleine of the Arrians and some vnruly persons as in such heates it can not otherwise be chosen beganne to illude and abuse the man but the Bishop presently sent his Priestes and Deacons and rescued him from that iniurie which yet the Emperour tooke so grieuously that hee layd a number of them in Irons and imposed a great mulet vpon the whole Citie to bee paide within three dayes Farther force was none offered by the people of Millan and yet of that small disorder Saint Ambrose saith If they thought him to bee the inciter or stirrer of the people they should straightway reuenge it on him or banish him into what wildernesse they would And to that end he departed home to bed to his owne house that if any man woulde haue him into exile
it were done by forsaking threatning compelling or inuading him the Storie doeth not expresse neither may you suppose what you list without any proofe Had they assaulted him with armes it had beene as easie to haue slaine him there as to haue driuen him thence but no doubt Peter their Bishoppe kept them from that which Moses a conuert of the Saracenes not long before bitterly reprooued in Lucius Phi. You meane Moses the Moncke that Mauia the Queene of the Saracens required to haue for the Bishopppe of her Nation whose fayth the Bishoppe of Rome confirmed in the same letters with Peters election Theo. I doe Phil. What of him Theo. When hee was brought to Lucius to bee made Bishoppe hee sayde I thinke my selfe vnworthie of this function but if it bee profitable for my Countrie that I take it Lucius shall neuer lay handes on mee to make mee Bishoppe for his right hand is embrued with blood Lucius answering that he should not raile but first learne what religion he taught I aske not a reason sayth Moses of thy religion thy doings against thy brethren conuince what religion thou hast A christian doeth not strike doeth not slaunder doeth not fight The seruant of God may not fight But thy woorkes openly shewe themselues by those whome thou hast banished whom thou hast cast to bee deuoured of beasts and consumed with fire If Moses thus abhorred Lucius for fighting and striking what would hee haue sayd to Peter for bearing armes and rebelling if he had beene so good a warrier as you make him Phi. So did Atticus Bishop of Constantinople craue ayde of Theodosius the yonger against the king of the Persians that persecuted his Catholike subiects and was thereby forcibly depriued and his innocent subiects deliuered Theo. The christians of Persia being barbarously persecuted by Bararanes an Infidel and put as Theodorete sheweth to straunge and vnusuall torments fled their Countrie and sauing themselues within the Romane Dominion besought the Christian Emperour they might bee harboured within his land and not bee yeelded vnto the furie of their king The Persian presently sent Legates to haue them backe that were departed his Realme Atticus the Bishoppe of Constantinople opened their cause to the Emperour and laboured what he could for them Theodosius the Emperour woulde not deliuer them as being suppliants to him and no offendours against their king but only that they professed the Christian Religion and hauing besides iust cause to make warre vpon the Persians for that they spoiled his merchants and woulde not restore his Goldminers which they hired of him bid open battell to them and caused the king to be glad with peace and to cease his persecution against the Christians Here is nothing for your purpose vnlesse you say that subiects may rebel for Religion because straungers may bee harboured for religion which were a mad kind of conclusion The Persians asked not armes against their King though a Tyrant but refuge for themselues neither did they assault their Prince on the one side when the Romanes inuaded on the other but with praier expected what end God would giue Atticus was no subiect to the king of Persia and therefore whatsoeuer hee did against a straunger and an enemie is no president for subiects to do the like to their Princes and yet all that he did was this Atticus Episcopus supplicantes cupidé suscepit totus in eo erat vt pro viribus ipsis succurreret Imperatori Theodosio quae gererentur significauit Atticus the Bishoppe embraced their request for themselues with great good will and laboured what hee could to helpe them and signified their state to Theodosius the Emperour Theodosius was a lawfull magistrate and had other and those iust causes to warre vpon the Persian and in that hee refused to deliuer the profugient and innocent Christians to the slaughter hee had the Lawe of nature and nations for his defence And lastly the king of Persia was neither depriued of his kingdome as you falsely report nor his subiects discharged frō their obedience but a peace concluded wherin the King was contended to cease from pursuing the Christians All this you shall find not in the second booke as you quote but in the seuenth where Socrates describeth the occasion and conclusion of this Persian warre From him Nicephorus taketh his light and more than Socrates said before he neither doth nor could affirme Phi. So did holy Pope Leo the first perswade the Emperour called Leo also to take armes against the Tyraunt of Alexandria for the deliuerie of the oppressed Catholiques from him and the heretiques Eutichians who then threw downe Churches and Monasteries and did other great sacrileges Whose wordes for examples sake I will set downe O Emperour saith Sainct Leo if it be laudable for thee to inuade the heathens how much more glorious shall it bee to deliuer the Church of Alexandria from the heauie yoke of outragious heretiques by the calamitie of which Church all the Christians in the world are iniuried Theo. Leo was so holy that hee neuer taught any man to beare armes against his Prince and yet it did nothing hurt his holynes to pray the Emperour to pursue with due punishment the wicked vprore that was made in Alexandria by Timotheus an heretike that placing himselfe in the Bishoprike and killing Proterius the true Bishoppe at the font in the Church caused the carkas by some of his faction to bee drawen along the streetes in a rope and to bee so cutte and mangled that the very intrayles drayled vpon the stones and the rest of the bodie to bee burnt and the ashes scattered into the ayre That villanous and diuelish fact Leo the Bishoppe of Rome beseecheth Leo the Emperour with all seueritie to reuenge assuring him that it is as glorious a conquest before Christ to punish such outragious heretikes as to represse miscreantes and Infidels But howe this shoulde serue your turnes wee can not imagine Will you reason thus Leo the Bishoppe of Rome perswaded the Emperour to chastise some of his subiects that were heretikes and murderers Ergo the people may assault their Prince with armes Take heede left Timotheus heresie and furie reuiue in you again if you fal to liking such consequents Phi. In briefe so did S. Gregorie the great moue Genadius the Exarch to make warres specially against heretikes as a very glorious thing Theo. You speake truer than you are ware of In deede Gregorie the great wrate to Genadius the Exarch in the selfe same sense that Leo before did to Leo the Emperour which is that Magistrates ought to resist and punish the aduersaries of Christes Church as well as the troublers and disturbers of the Common-wealth neither is there any difference in their writings or meanings saue that Leo wrate to the Prince himselfe and Gregorie to his Deputie And since you be come
writer witnesseth who also bringeth three reportes of his death one that hee fell mad and slue himselfe an other that in hunting he was cast off his horse and torne of dogges the thirde that wandering into a straunge Countrie he became a skullin in a certaine monasterie and there in repentance ended his life Phi. If his ende were so straunge his life coulde not bee good Theo. I commend not his life if it be true that Cromerus writeth of him I rather acknowledge the iust iudgement of God in taking vengeance of his sinnes Phi. Why doe you not acknowledge the like in his deposition Theoph. Because the Pope is not God to whom the punishing of Princes sinnes doeth rightly belong Phi. Would you that Princes should kill Bishops at the verie Altar for doing their duties and yet goe free Theo. As if God were not both as sincere and seuere a iudge as the Pope Phi. Who doubteth of that Theo. Then shall they not goe free that sinne against his lawe bee they Princes or others Phi. I speake of the meane time before that day come wherein hee shall iudge Theo. And in the meane time which you speake of God mightily punisheth all sortes and states though not by the Pope Phi. He punisheth by diseases and straunge kinde of deathes as hee seeth cause but yet good Lawes must be made and maintained by men for the repressing of vice amongst men Theo. Uerie true but those lawes must bee made by Princes and not by Popes Bishops haue not to do with the sworde which God hath giuen vnto Princes for the punishment of euill doers Phi. And what if Princes them-selues be the doers of euill who shall punish them Theo. Euerie soule must bee subiected to them and they to God They beare the sworde ouer others not others ouer them Besides them or aboue them no man beareth the sworde by Gods appointment Phi. The keyes are aboue the sworde Theo. The keyes open and shutte the kingdome of God they touch not the bodies nor inheritances of priuate men much lesse of Princes Onely the sworde is corporally to compell and punish which is not the Priestes but the Princes charge as I haue often shewed Phi. To let Princes doe what they will without feare of punishment is the next way to ouerthrow common-wealthes Theo. What kingdom can you shewe wherein it hath beene otherwise Saul willed Doeg in his presence to â—lea fourescore and fiue of the Lordes Priestes and hee smote their citie with the edge of the sworde both men women children and sucklinges Did Abiathar the high Priestes sonne that fledde and escaped depriue Saul of his kingdome or did Dauid for whose cause they were slain when shortly after hee had Saul in his power to doe with him as hee woulde seeke the kings life or suffer his men to take it that were readie to doe it Dauid when he was king defloured Bethsabe and caused her husbande to be murdered Did therefore any Priest or Prophet in all his Realme offer to depose him or did Absolon well to conspire against him Achab ioyned with Iesabel in putting Naboth to death and killing the Lords Prophets Did Elias depriue him or incite his subiectes to forsake him Herod beheaded Iohn Baptist and likewise Iames and apprehended Peter with a purpose to sende him after but that hee was deliuered by an Angell did Peter therefore take vengeance on Herode which hee might haue done with a worde as well as on Ananias or did he leaue him to the iudgement of God which shortly after insued with an horrible plague The tyrantes of all ages and vices of all princes both before the comming of our Sauiour and since haue they beene punished by Priestes as you woulde haue it or else haue they beene reserued to Gods tribunals as we affirme Phi. Some haue beene punished by Priestes though not all Theoph. Shew but one prince for fiue thowsand yeares since the first foundation of the earth that was iudicially cited examined corrected by a priest til Hildebrand began this new president If any princes were during all that time repressed it was done by their own states realms that for their extreme tyranny priests alwaies refrained those attempts and neuer thought it any part of their vocatioÌ„ to medle with the changing and altering of kingdoms Phi. It is a better readier way to reforme princes to subiect them to the tribunall of one godly Bishop as we do than to leaue them in thraldome to popular tumults and mutinies as you do Theo. We leaue them in thraldom to none but only to God and to serue him is no thraldome but an honorable and princely liberty Yet if princes were to choose their iudges among men they were farre better referre themselues to the generall consent of their Nobles commons at home than hold their scepters at the pleasures of disdainful seditious Popes which seeke to dishonor their persons impouerish their Realmes Phi. You speake this of spite Theo. Your own examples wil proue it a truth How dealt Adrian the fourth and Alexander the third with Frederike the first a wise valiaunt and vertuous prince Did not Adrian receiue a great summe of mony to excommunicate the Emperor the stomack which the pope tooke against the prince grew it not vpon these causes for that the Emperor in his letters put his own name before the Popes and required homage fealty of the Bishops for their temporalities and would not suffer the Cardinals to pray vpon the churches of Germany Did not the Cardinals conspire bind themselues with an oth that they would neuer choose any to be Pope but one that should be an opposite to this Emperor And when AlexaÌ„der the third was shuffled in by that faction against Victor did he not twise refuse to haue the matter discussed by councel and stirred vp the kings of Scicily France and the states of Venice against the Emperour and caused all the cities countries of Italie to rebell against him and hauing taken his thirde sonne prisoner would hee restore him or make peace with the father til in presence of al the people at the dore of S. Marks church in Venice the prince had cast his body flat on the ground the pope setting his foote on the Emperors neck had auanced himself with that part of the Psalme which saith Thou shalt walke vpoÌ„ the aspe the basilisk and shalt tread the lion and dragon vnder thy feete The parts that were plaied by the Bishops of Rome with Frederike the second Lodouik of Bauaria king Iohn of this Lande and Lewes the 12. of that name king of France which are your own examples if I should largely pursue theÌ„ a whole volume would not suffice them I wil therfore rip vp so much only as shal let the reader see with what cunning these princes were wearied with what pride they
well erre in their generations before vs Phi. They kept the steppes of their fathers which if you doe you shall not erre Theo. This is the next way round about to come to the wood For how will you proue that euery generation which hath beene these 1500. yeares since Christ hath precisely kept the rules and limites of their forefathers Phi. You can not shew when or where they swarued Theo. If wee could not our ignorance in that point is no great securitie for your faith The defection of euerie age from their fathers might be either not marked or not recorded or since oblitered and therefore reason you proue your faith to haue descended from age to age without alteration before we beleeue it to be the faith of your fathers But what meaneth this that you prescribe that way to iudge of religion and the seruice of God which God himselfe prohibiteth Phi. Doth God forbid vs to follow our fathers Theo. In as plaine wordes as can be spoken with a tongue by the mouth of Ezechiel he saith Walke ye not in the preceptes of your fathers neither obserue their manners nor defile your selues with their idols I am the Lord your God walke in my statutes and keepe my iudgementes By Dauid he saith Let them not be as their fathers were a disobedient and rebellious generation a generation that set not their heart aright whose spirit was not faithful vnto God And dehorting them from their fathers steps To day saith Dauid if you wil heare Gods voice harden not your harts as in the day of coÌ„tention as in the day of temptation in the wildernes where your fathers tempted proued me though they had seen my workes Fourtie yeares did I contend with that generation and saide they are a people that erre in heart they haue not knowen my wayes By Zacharie he saith Be ye not as your fathers vnto whome the former Prophetes haue cried saying Thus saith the Lord of hostâ—â— turne you now from your euill waies and from your wicked workes but they would not heare nor harken vnto me saith the Lord. And what you count deuotion humilitie for the people to follow their fathers that God himself calleth defection conspiracie I haue protested vnto your fathers euer since I brought them out of the land of Aegypt to this day saying obey my voice Neuertheles they wold not obey nor incline their eare but euerie one walked in the stubbernesse of his wicked heart And of the children doing as their fathers did he saith A coÌ„spiracie is found among the men of Iudah and among the inhabitants of Ierusalem They are turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers that refused to heare my wordes With what face then can you deale so earnestly with the simple subiectes of this Land to regard neither God nor his word but only to runne the race of their Elders seeing God so straitly commaunded the children of Israel to beware the pathes and presidentes of their forefathers Phi. We must beware their wickednesse Theo. Then may they be wicked and so no paterns for vs or any others to follow Phi. The Iewes were wicked Theo. What charter can you shew that christians shall not be the like Phi. Hell gates shall not preuaile against the church of Christ. Theo. No more did they preuaile against the chosen and elect of Israel but the greatest number and gaiest men are not alwaies the church of God The foundation of God standeth sure and hath this zeale the Lord knoweth who are his Of his elect which are his true church our Sauiour hath pronounced it is not possible they should bee deceiued the rest haue no such priuilege yea rather the holy Ghost forewarneth that all besides the elect shall bee deceiued Our Sauiour our saith There shal arise false Christes and false Prophetes and shal shew great signes and wonders so that if it were possible they should deceiue the verie elect The rest then which are not elect they shall deceiue And so S. Paul speaking of the verie same deceiuers addeth whose comming is by the working of Satan with all power and in all deceiueablenesse of vnrighteousnesse among them that perish because they receiued not the law of the truth that they might be saued And therefore God shall sende them strong delusion that they should beleeue lies that al they might be damned which beleeued not the truth but had pleasure in vnrighteousnesse And S. Iohn speaking of the beast that made warre with the Saintes had power ouer euerie kindred and tongue and nation saith Therefore all that dwell vpon the earth shall worship him whose names are not written in the book of life So that the visible church consisting of good bad elect and reprobate hath no such promise but she may erre only the chosen of Christ which are the true members of his body properly called his church they shall not erre vnto perdition and those if you could point them out with your finger the people might safely follow otherwise if you set men to follow the rest of their fathers be they neuer so many neuer so graue neuer so godly to your seeming you bid them take the wide gate and broade way that leadeth to destruction because there were many that entered it before them Phi. Will you make vs beleeue that our fathers are perished Theo. Who are perished is not for vs to pronounce They were his seruants that iudgeth iustly neither haue we to medle with their doome but to looke to our owne yet this we can assure you that many be called and few chosen And therefore if you aduise the people to imitate the multitude of their fathers you teach them the right way to hell And though wee may not iudge of your fathers yet knowe you for a certainty that God is not afraide to iudge them and condemne them if they refused his truth as you do Neither is it any such daungerous doctrine to say that our forefathers haue sinned and displeased God as you woulde make it the godly haue alwaies confessed it of their fathers and not spared to tell the wicked so much to their fates Dauid slandered not his forefathers when he said We haue sinned with our fathers we haue done wickedly Our fathers vnderstood not thy wonders in Aegypt neither remembred they the multitude of thy mercies but rebelled at the Sea euen at the red Sea Daniell knewe what he pronounced when hee confessed O Lord to vs belongeth open shame to our kinges to our Princes and to our fathers because wee haue sinned against thee Ezechiah was not ashamed to say Our fathers haue trespassed and done euill in the eyes of the Lord our God and haue forsaken him and turned their backes And loe our fathers are fallen by the sword Iohn told the Pharisees to their faces their fathers were vipers and
be whether euerie ladde or lasse prentise and ploughman exactly vnderstand euery word that is written but whether they edifie the church of Christ or no that is whether they haue in them many thinges fruitfull to be knowen and easie to bee learned if the hearers will be diligent and delight in the law of God as they ought are bound to doe And in this case masters you be not only snappish but very saucy with God himself that wil not suffer him to speak in his Church by the mouthes of his Prophetes and Apostles if you finde any sot or simâ—le idiote in the company that happily vnderstandeth not euery word which the holy Ghost vttereth Were you Surgions of the body and had some in cure that could not see with one eye to remedy that imperfection would you put out both and make them starke blind Phi. A wise similitude Theo. As wise as your illation against our diuine seruice For where some be so dull and ignorant that they conceiue not diuerse thinges in the Psalmes Lessons and prayers to helpe that you would take from them the rest which they doe vnderstand and so fill their eares with the strangenesse of an vnknowen tongue that their hearts perceiue iust asmuch of your prayers as blind men â—o of colours And see you not that your assertion strangleth it selfe and clearly conuinceth the vnfruitfulnesse of your latine prayers For if the people bee so simple that they vnderstande not the sense of many thinges in their mother tongue how many thinke you among them vnderstand the same or any thing else in the latine tongue If the Scriptures must be inioyned silence in the Church because they speake some thinges which the ruder sort can not easily attain what place can be left for your latine Masse Mattines and seruice of which the people vnderstand not one word and the knowledge of so much as one sentence thereof before they can get they must be not only Diuines which you say they are not but good Grammarians which in their education is not possible What else is this but to put out both their eyes where before they vnderstood many things that were both fruitfull and needefull for them so to mure vp their eares and choke vp their harts with a barbarous sound of vnknowen speech that neither the simpler nor wiser sort of them perceiued any line or letter of your seruice Phi. Call you the latine tongue barbarous Theo. Not in it selfe but in respect of the hearer which is not acquainted with it And so S. Paul calleth any language that is not vnderstood barbarous to him that vnderstandeth it not If I know not the power or signification of the speech I shall bee barbarous to him that speaketh and hee that speaketh shall be barbarous to me that vnderstand him not Phi. You are deceiued There is here no worde written or ment of any other tongues but such as men spake in the primatiue Church by miracle Theo. Did not the twelue Apostles that were Hebrewes borne speake Greeke and Latine by the miraculous gift of the holy Ghost descending on them in the likenes of clouen and firie tongues as it is specified in the second of the Actes Phi. I thinke they did because the Romanes are there named amongest those that hearde euery man their owne language at the Apostles mouthes Mary though the Hebrew Greeke and Latine might bee giuen by miracle and without study it being knowen to the Iewes Romanes or Greekes in euery place they be not counted among the differences of barbarous and straunge tongues here spoken of Theo. S. Paul doth not here like a Rhetorician as you would haue him distinguish the tongues which bee most eloquent and oratoricall in themselues that was farre from the Apostles minde or purpose but onely sheweth that euery tongue not vnderstood bee it Hebrew Greeke Latine Persike Arabike or what language you list seemeth not without iust cause to bee barbarous to him that knoweth not the force and signification of the speech And so he limiteth the word barbarous when hee saith If I knowe not the power of the voice I shall bee barbarous to him that speaketh and hee likewise to mee Omnis sermo qui non intelligitur barbarus iudicatur Euery tongue that is not vnderstood is deemed saith Hierom to be barbarous And Chrysostom He shal be barbarous to me and I to him Non vtique ob naturam vocis sed ob imperitiam not by the nature of the toung but by the vnskilfulnes of the hearer Non enim barbarus inquit ero sed loquenti barbarus Et rursus non qui loquitur barbarus est inquits sed mihi barbarous For S. Paul saith not I shal simplie be a barbarian but barbarous to him that speaketh And againe hee that speaketh shall not be absolutely a barbarian but barbarous vnto me saith the Apostle Phi. This we say was not ment of any of the three learned toungs namely not of the Latine Greeke nor Hebrew The. That is one of your oracles in your Rhemish obseruatioÌ„s but we would heare your reasons not your fansies why the Latine toung if it be not vnderstood may not bee counted barbarous to the hearer Phi. Know you that nothing in this chapter is ment of those toungs which were the common languages of the world or of the faithfull vnderstood of the learned and ciuill people in euery great citie and in which the scriptures of the old and new Testament were written Theo. This is pride to affirme what you will your selues â— it is no reason to confirme that which is now in question betwixt vs And yet that which you affirme is either not true or not much to the matter For first in latine no Scriptures were written but the Apostle writing to the Romans wrate in the Greek toung not in latine which argueth that the laâ—ine toung was nothing so much esteemed or so generally dispersed as the Greeke Next that the learned ciuile people in euery great city had the knowledge of the Hebrew Greeke latine is an other of your Iesuitical truthes auouched by no man but by your selues no way possible to be proued but by your magistrall surmises The Hebrew was hard neglected of all men sauing of the Iewes whose peculiar tongue it was the greater cities despising as well the Nation as their language til Christ was ascended between that the preaching of the Gospel in the greater cities the people though they were ciuil had neither time capacity nor meanes to learne a newe tongue and so difficult a tongue both to pronounce and vnderstand as the Hebrew is The Greeke tongue was in high price and farther spred before the birth of our Sauiour not only by reason of the Monarchie which was amongest the Grecians before it came to the Romanes but specially for that all liberall studies artes
precepts eate ye drinke ye but in al respects the cup was deliuered at the same time to the same persons when the bread was So that you must either exclude the people from both which I trust you dare not or admit them to both which is the very point that we presse you with Heare what a man of your side thinketh as well of this consequent as of your halfe communion There be some false catholikes that feare not to stop the reformation of the church what they can These spare no blasphemies least that other part of the Sacrament shoulde bee restoared to the lay people For say they Christ spake drinke ye all of this onely to the Apostles but the words of the Masse be these take and eate ye al of this Here I would know of them whether this were spoken only to the Apostles then must laymen abstaine likewise from the element of bread which to say is an heresie yea a pestilent and detestable blasphemie It is therefore consequēt that both these words eate ye drinke ye were spoken to the whole Church I will not take this aduantage that your owne fellow doth proclaime you for false Catholikes heretikes and horrible blasphemers God giue you grace to see whither you be fallen and whence This for your liues you cannot shifte but these two precepts eate ye drinke ye by the tenor of Christs institution must be referred to the same persons and so both or neither pertaine to the people Surely the wordes which our Sauiour vsed in deliuering the cup are more generall and effectiue than when he gaue the bread Drinke ye all of this and they all dranke of it take it diuide it among you This cup is the newe Testament in my blood which shall be shed for you Now the Lord shed not his blood for the Priest onely but also for the people neither was the new Testament established in the blood of Christ for the Priestes sake but as well for the redemption of the people Then as the fruites and effects of the blood of Christ are common to the people with the Priest so should the cup also which is the communion of his blood shed for the remission of the peoples sins be diuided indifferently betweene the Preist and people There is saieth Chrysostome where the Priest differeth nothing from the people as when wee must receiue the dreadfull mysteries For it is not here as it was in the olde Lawe where the Priest eate one part and the pleople an other neither was it lawfull for the people to be partaker of those thinges which the Priest was but now it is not so but rather one bodie is proposed to all and one cup. Phil. The church then might like that the people shoulde haue the cup as the church after did mislike it for many and weightie causes but how proue you that Christes precept extendeth vnto the people Theo. Wee can haue no better interpreter of Christes speech than his Apostle that was best acquainted with the true meaning of our Sauiour Wee haue sayth he the minde of Christ and that which I deliuered you I receiued of the Lorde So that hee did not correct but onely report the Lordes ordinaunce and in deliuering both kindes to the whole church of Corinth priest and people without exceptiō the teacher of the gentiles did neither swarue frō the first institutiō nor right intentiō of Christ his master The cup of thāksgiuing which we blesse is it not the communion of Christes blood The bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christs body Ye can not drink the cup of the Lord the cup of diuels Ye can not be partakers of the Lordes table and of the table of diuels Can you frame vs a reason out of these wordes of Sainct Paul to dissuade the Corinthians from eating and drinking such things as the Gentile there sacrificed to Idols not confesse that they dranke of the Lords cup It is not possible For this is Sainct Paules argument You can not drinke both the Lordes cuppe and the cuppe of diuels the cuppe of thankes giuing which wee blesse and you all drinke of is the communion of the Lordes blood therefore you maie not drinke of the cup of diuels YOV CANNOT DRINKE BOTH inferreth they did and should drinke one which was the Lordes cup not the cup of diuels els Paul should haue said you maie drinke neither not the cup of diuels for they might haue no fellowship with diuels neither the Lordes cup for that is reserued for the Priest by your doctrine but both saith Paul you cannot drinke ergo they must drinke one which was not the cup of diuels Againe the cup which they dranke not could to them be no Communion For nature teacheth vs that to be partaker of a cup is to drinke but the Lordes cup was to them the communion of his blood ergo they dranke of the Lordes cup. My collection is so cleare that the vulgar translation which you are tied to by the Councell of Trent putteth these verie woordes in the text Omnes de vno pane de vno calice participamus we all are partakers of one bread AND OF ONE CVP. Ambrose Hierom Bede Haymo and others found it so consequent to S. Pauls former woords and coherent with his maine reason that they sticke not to keepe this addition de vno calice in their verie terts on which they comment So that out of question Paul taught the Church of Corinth to distribute the Lordes supper to the Christians in both kindes and that as he saith he receiued of the Lorde And who◠that hath anie shame or sense left reading the next Chapter that followeth where Christes institution is fullie proposed and largelie debated by S. Paul will or can doubt but the Lorde at his last Supper ordained both kindes for all the faithfull As often saith Paul to the whole Congregation as ye shall eate this bread and drinke this cup ye shewe the Lordes death till he come Whosoeuer shall eate this bread drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthilie shall be guiltie of the bodie and blood of the Lorde Let a man therefore not speaking of this or that man but of euerie man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread and drinke of this cup. And least you should want a generall affirmatiue to iustifie this our exposition take these woordes of S. Paul and quiet your selfe By one spirit are we all Baptized into one bodie whether we be Iewes or Grecians bond or free and WE ALL HAVE DRVNKE into one spirit Can you looke for directer or plainer woordes All Iewes and Gentiles bond and free not onelie dranke but by drinking were made partakers of one and the same spirite uen as by baptisme they were grafted into one bodie Then if Christ himselfe deliuered both kindes at his last Supper
similitude image of that oblation to be celebrated for a remēbrance of his passiō in so much that we may see that which Melchisedec offred to God now sacrificed in the church of Christ throughout the world Emissenus Considering that Christ was to take his body from our eyes place the same in the heauens it was requisite he should institute the sacrament of his body and blood for vs at his last supper that it might alwaies be continued in a mysterie which was once offred for a ransom because the work of our redemption did neuer faile the sacrifice of our redemption might be perpetual and that euerlasting oblation of Christ on the crosse might remaine fresh in memorie and present for euer in grace Theodorete If Christ by his owne sacrifice on the crosse brought to passe that other sacrifices should be superfluous why doe the Priests of the new Testament execute the mysticall Lyturgie or Sacrifice It is cleare to them that are instructed in our mysteries that we doe not offer an other sacrifice but continue the memorie of that one and healthful Sacrifice For so the Lord himself commanded vs doe this in my remembrance that in beholding the figures we should remember the paines which he suffered for vs beare a louing heart towards him that did vs so much fauour and expect the receiuing of good things to come which he promised Theophilact Do we then offer vnbloody sacrifices No doubt wee doe◠mary by being a remembrance of the Lords death He was once offred and yet we offer him alwaies or rather we celebrate the memorial of that oblation when he sacrificed himselfe on the crosse Receiue this addition which they make and wee graunt you that oblation which they teach Christ is offered or rather a memorial of his death and oblation is celebrated This later correction doeth expound and interprete their former assertion You can require no plainer nor sounder doctrine They piese not Christ with their handes they shroud him not in accidences they pray not for him that God will vouchsafe to respect and accept him as hee did the giftes and external sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchisedec as you do in your Masses they neuer tolde vs the very fact and intention of the Priest were meritorious these bee your absurdities and blasphemies They did offer an vnbloody sacrifice not of flesh but of Spirite and mynd the selfe-same which Melchisedec did two thousande yeeres before Christ tooke flesh and therefore not the flesh of Christ a figuratiue sacrifice to witte Signes Samplars Similitudes and Memorials of his death and bloodshedding So that Christ is offered dayly but Mystically not couered with qualities and quantities of bread and wyne for those be neither mysteries nor resemblances to the death of Christ but by the breade which is broken by the wyne which is drunke in substance creatures in signification Sacraments the Lordes death is figured proposed to the communicants and they for their parts no lesse people than Priest do present Christ hanging on the crosse to God the father with a liuely faith inward deuotion and humble prayer as a most sufficiēt and euerlasting Sacrifice for the full remission of their sinnes and assured fruition of his mercies Other actual and propitiatorie sacrifice than this the church of Christ neuer had neuer taught You beleeue not mee Well what if your owne fellowes and friends teach the same What if the master of your Sentences what if the Glozer of your decrees what if the Ringleader of your Schoolemen make with vs in this question and euince that for twelue hundred yeres after Christ your Sacrifice was not knowen to the woorlde will you giue the people leaue to bethinke themselues better before they call you or account you catholikes Then heare what they say Peter Lombard in his 4. booke and 12. distinction I demaund whether that which the Priest doeth bee properly called a Sacrifice or an oblation and whether Christ be daily offered or els were offered only once To this our answere is briefe that which is offred and consecrated by the priest is called a sacrifice and oblatiō because it is a memorie representation of the true sacrifice holy oblatiō made on the altar of the crosse Also Christ died once on the crosse and there was he offred himself but he is offred daily in a sacrament because in the Sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was once done Now what this meaneth Christ is offred in a sacramēt we need no fairer interpretation thā that which your own gloze oftē repeateth Christ is offred in a sacrament that is his offring is represented a memorie of his passion celebrated It is the same oblation which he made * that is a representation of the same passion Christ is offered euery day mystically * that is the oblation which Christ made for vs is represented in the sacrament of his body blood With these concurreth Thomas of Aquine Because the celebration of this Sacrament is a certaine Image of Christs passion it maie conuenientlie be called the sacrificing of Christ. The celebration of this Sacrament is termed the immolating of Christ in two respects First for that as Austen saith resemblances are woont to be called by the names of those thinges whose resemblances they are next for that by this sacrament wee be made partakers of the fruite of the Lordes passion Here find you no reall locall nor externall offering of Christ to God his father by the Priest for the sinnes of the people which is your opinion at this daie you finde that the celebration of the Lordes supper maie be called an oblation first for that it is a representation of Christs death and sacraments haue the names of the things which they signifie next because the merits and fruits of Christs passion are by the power of his spirite diuided and bestowed on the faithfull receiuers of these mysteries Nowe boast of your Catholike doctrine that your pratling Sophists and wandering Friers inuented but yesterday now call for your souereigne Sacrifice not onelie repugnant to the sacred Scriptures and auncient fathers but reiected by the Mint-master of your sentences refuted by the conclusions of your Seraphicall Doctor shunned by your rude Gloze-maker and cleane thwart to the Canon of your ordinarie Masse If you speede no better in the rest of your causes a worse name than fugitiues will become you and your companions well enough without perill of slaunder or breach of charitie These foundations lying sure to wit that the creatures of bread and wine are offered to God for a thanksgiuing when they be sanctified and receiued according to his sonnes institution and that Christ himselfe is daylie offered and crucified in a mysterie because the breaking of his bodie and shedding of his blood on the crosse are proposed and renewed by the bread
Christ then you giue them diuine honor as if they were Christ but if they be creatures still howe doth your false imagination excuse you from idolatrie Phi. Wee be sure they be not For Christ saide of them This is my bodie and this is my blood and therefore honoring that which the Priest holdeth in his hands and lifteth vp after consecration we be sure we honor Christ and not the creatures of bread and winâ— Theo. So S. Paul said The rocke was Christ and yet to worship that visible rocke with diuine honor had beene idolatrie Phi. The speeches be nothing like Theo. Then tell vs the difference Phi. Christ spake the one actiuely and presently the other was but a collectioÌ„ of things past long before made by S. Paul And again the one is in the new Testament the other in the old Theo. You might haue added that the one was stone the other bread the one in the desert the other in the city Philand Keepe your trifling distinctions for your selues Theo. They wil no way but be ioyned cheek by cheek with yours Christ you say spake the one who spake the other in Paul but Christ Paul said of himselfe that Christ spake in him and Christ saieth of his Apostles It is not you that speak but the spirit of your father that speaketh in you And therefore you must receiue that which Paul spâ—ke not as the word of men but as it is in deed the word of god that cannot went trueth because the word of God is truth Phi. We do not deny but he spake truth Theo. Then haue we plainer proofe that the stony rock in the desert waâ— Christ than you haue that the bread on the Lords table is Christ. For Christ doth not say in precise terms that the bread was his body but only this is my body And as for the diuersitie of the two testaments that maketh nothing to this issue For if the rocke of the old test were Christ the bread of the new Test. can be no more and therfore diuine adoration was as due to the rocke then as it is to the bread now Phi. By no meanes For the rocke was not transubstantiated into Christ as the bread is The. If Pauls words be true without chaÌ„ging the rock into Christ why may not the words of Christ be likewise true without turning the substaÌ„ce of bread into the substance of his body Phi. We tell you the reason The one is substantially conuerted into Christs flesh and so was not the other Theo. This is your fansie to dreame of a difference where none is the affrmations be like why should not the adorations bee like And if you could not worship the rock without coÌ„mitting idolatrie though the rock were Christ how can you giue diuine honor to the bread and wine since they bee Christ euen after the same sort that the rock was Or if that comparison do not please you why do you worship the pixe wherein the bread is so the chalice wherein the wine is not the priest that by your doctrine doth create eate Christ Phi. We worship neither the pixe nor the chalice but Christ that is contained in them both Theo. And is not the same Christ that was contained in them both inclosed in the priests body when he eateth and drinketh your sacrifice Phi. Yeas Theo. And as really contained in his body as in your golden boxe or gilden chalice Phi. But yet we adore not the flesh of christ after it is once entered the mouth of man Theo. You do not I know but why should you not Why suffer you Christ in any place to be without the honor that is due vnto him Wil you serue him where please you ourskip him at your discretions Phi. Should we adore him when we know not where he is The. You be as sure he is in the Priest as in the pixe for you see him in neither Why then do you adore him in the one and not in the other Phi. I think you would not haue vs adore our sauiour The. I would not haue you adore him wheÌ„ where you only list much lesse to adore a peece of bread in his steed be first sure you haue him then adore him wheresoeuer you find him Phi. So we do Th. You do not You adore him not in the priest Phi. We see him not The. Wil you not adore him till you see him How then do you see him in the chalice or in the pixe Phi. There we be certaine he is Theo. You be as certaine of the other Phi. The fathers wil vs to adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries but not in other meÌ„s bodies The. Do they wil you to adore the mysteries themselues I mean the mystical sacramental signes Phi. Not the signes theÌ„selues they bee but accidents not to be adored but the sacrament it self they teach vs to adore The. With diuine honor Phi. With what els The. Adoration if it be attributed in any father to the mystical signes is that kind of reuerence which we yeeld to things that be sanctified for Gods vse not godly honor Phi. I smel a rat The. You were best then looke to your host for that of all others that is a most dangerous beast to your deuotion Phi. Why The. I wil tel you that anon in the mean time what was it that troubled your wits Phi. With a sly distinction of twofold adoration you think to slip the fathers which we will bring against you for the worshipping of the blessed sacrament The. Is that al your feare Phi. That is a way to wrangle to make the people beleeue our doctrine touching adoratioÌ„ of the sacrament is not catholik The. Set aside one father whom your selues shall not deny but that he speaketh of the substaÌ„ce of bread wine in the rest which you bring we wil vse no such aduaÌ„tage Phi. What wil you not do The. We wil not choke you with that second acception of adoration shew that the fathers adored the sacrament or taught the people to so doe wee require no more Phi. That I will presently S. Austen saith ep 118. c. 3. that it is he that the Apostle saith shal be damned that doth not by singular veneration or adoration make a difference between this meat al others And again in Psa. 91. No man eateth it before he adore it And S. Ambro. li. 3 c. 12. de spi. sanct We adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries S. Chrysost. hom 24. in 1. Cor. We adore him on the altar as the Sages did in the manger S. Nazianzene in Epitap Gorgon My sister called vpon him which is worshipped vpon the altar Theodoret Dial. 2. In coÌ„fes The mystical tokeÌ„s be adored S. Denys this Apostles scholer made solemne inuocation of the sacrament after consecration Eccl. Hierar ca. 3. part 3. in princip before the
receiuing the whole church of God crieth vpon it Domine noÌ„ sum dignus Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori Lamb of god that takest away the sins of the world haue mercie on vs. And for better discerning of this diuine meat we are called from coÌ„mon profane houses to Gods church for this we are forbiddeÌ„ to make it in vulgar apparel are appointed sacred solemne vestments Hier. in Epitap Nepot li. 2. adv Pel. ca. 9. Paulinus ep 12. ad Seuer Io. Diac. in vit D. Greg. li. 3. ca. 59. For this is the hallowing of Corporals chalices Ambr. 2. off ca. 28. Nazian Orat. ad Arianos Optatus li. 6. in initio For this profane tables are remoued altars consecrated Aug. Serm. de temp 255. For this the very priests themselues are honorable chast sacred Hier. ep 1. ad Heliodor ca. 17. li. 1. adv Iouin ca. 19. Ambr. in 1. Tim. 3. For this the people is forbidden to touch it with common hands Nazian orat ad Arian in initio For this great care solicitude is taken that no part of either kind fall to the ground Cyril Hieros mystag 5. in fine Orig. ho. 13. in ca. 25. Exod. For this sacred prouision is made that if any hosts or partes of the Sacrament doe remaine vnreceiued they bee most religiously reserued with all honour and diligence possible and for this examinatioÌ„ of consciences confession continencie as S. Augustine saith receiuing it fasting Thus do we catholiks the church of God discerne the holy body blood by S. Pauls rule not only from your prophane bread wine which not by any secrete abuse of your Curates or clearkes but by the verie order of your booke the Minister if any remaine after your Communion may take home with him to his own vse and therfore it is no more holie by your own iudgement than the rest of his meates but from al other either vulgar or sanctified meates as the catechumens bread our vsual holy bread Theo. I had thought we should haue had adoration of the sacrament proued here commeth hallowing of coapes corporals chalices Altars priestes pixes and not at al or last of al the hallowing of soules which in wisemens account deserued to goe alone or at least first in the Kalender For your often curious clensing of the outsides of coates cups stones handes such like implementes sauoreth of the Pharisees holines who supposed then as you do now that God is highly serued with such solemne prouision sacred solicitude though this be more than euer Christ at his last supper had care for or mind of for ought that we find by report of the Gospell Mary this is not our purpose You must proue your adoration of the sacrament let hallowing of Uestments and Altars alone till an other time and persue that which is denied Phi. So we do Haue you not here S. Austen S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom S. Nazianzene Theodorete S. Denys that the sacrament should bee adored Theo. Theodorete is not in your bookes that he is not sainted with the rest yet is he an ancient learned writer but take your pleasure The rest well deserue it and therefore I am not angrie with it though S. Paul extende the name sainct to the hearers as well as to the â—eachers to the liuing aswell as to the dead Phi. You would be saints The. God grant vs to be his seruants Phi. You must change your faith first The. Why We worship no creatures in steed of Christ as you do Phi. Wil that lying neuer be left Theo. Would God for your own sakes it were a ly but I feare it is 〈◊〉 true Phi. Christ wee adore creatures we do not Theo. The sacramentes you adore and those be creatures as in Baptisme the water in the Lords supper the bread wine Phi. We adore the B. sacrament of the Altar as wee learned of the catholike fathers creatures we adore none Theo. Of what fathers did you learn it Phi. I haue told you of S. Austen S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom S. Nazianzene Theodorete S. Denys Theo. Set Theodorete aside who writing in greeke vseth the word adoration for an externall regard reuerence such as we giue to the books vessels that are sanctified to diuine vses though more amply to the sacramentes ordained by God himself saith that the mystical signes themselues remaining in their former earthly substance are adored that is reuerently religiously handled as becommeth so great mysteries I say set him aside not one of the rest so much as toucheth that which you should proue Phi. They say the sacrament must be adored Theo. They say Christ must be adored Phi. Yea but in the mysteries and on the altar Theo. So Christ is to bee adored in heauen in his church most of al in our own hearts bodies will you thence collect that either heauen or the Temple or our selues are to be adored Phi. But neither heauen nor the temple are sacraments Theo. Yet Christ is adored in them though they be not in like sort with him so may Christ be adored in the misteries though the mysteries themselues may haue no such honor Phi. S. AusteÌ„ saith It is he that the Apostle saith should be damned that doth not by singular veneration or adoration make a difference betweene this meate all others Theo. S. Austen in that place speaketh not one word of adoration He saith The Apostle affirmeth it to be vnworthily receiued of theÌ„ qui hoc non discernebaÌ„t à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita which did not discern it from other meates with the veneration that was properly or singularly due vnto it Phil. Uery wel Singular veneration is al one with diuine adoration Theo. In your corrupted iudgemeÌ„ts Phi. What els is it Theo. VeneratioÌ„ is a word that S. Austen fourdeth al the signes sacraments of the old new Testament adoratioÌ„ he reserueth only to God Of veneratioÌ„ he saith Qui veneratur â—ignum vtile diuinitus insâ—itutum non hocâ— vèneratur quod videtur transit sed illud potius quo talia cuncta referenda sunt Hee that reuerenceth a signe that is profitable and ordayned by God reuerenceth not the thing which is visible and transitorie but that rather to which all such signes are referred And so concludeth namely of baptisme and the Lordes Supper Quae vnusquisque cuÌ„ percipit quâ— referantur imbutus agnoscit vt ea non carnalâ— seruitute sed spirituali potius libertate veneretur Which two Sacramentes when euerie Christian receiueth he knoweth being once partaker of them whither to refer them that he may reuerence them with a spirituall libertie rather than with a carnall seruitude And least you should not vnderstand what difference he putteth betweene the corporall creature and the heauenly brightnesse in this and so in other sacramentes he saith farther
tooke a stocke for their father and a stone for their maker They thought they worshipped God and not the Image Philand But wee bee sure that Christ made this to bee him-selfe when hee sayde this is my body Theo. He sayd I am the doore I am the vyne and yet neither doore nor vyne are really and personally the sonne of God Philand Hee spake those things in parables and by way of resemblance this he spake in plaine trueth without all figures and therefore this must bee substantially turned into Christ though that bee not Theoph. You make your reall and corporall presence a refuge for your erroneous and absurde assertions But if that bee false as well as the rest then are you plunged ouer head and eares in the myre and sinke of sinne and heresie Phi. If God bee not in heauen wee shall neuer come there but if hee bee wee can not misse our way For hath the whole Church thinke you lyen in sinne and heresie till your newe doctrine came lately from Geneua Theo. In deede I thinke this reason is euen as good as the most of those which your friendes haue freshly sent vs from Rhemes but abuse not your selues with such stately follies GOD may well bee in heauen and is no doubt and yet you neuer come there for refusing the right way thither Philand Wee goe the same way that the whole church since Christes time went before vs. Theoph. This pride so bewitcheth you that you can not see howe farre you bee fallen from the fayth of Christes Church which was in auncient and vncorrupted ages Philand As though wee did not ioyne with them in this and all other poyntes of Religion Theoph. You ioyne with them as darke-night doeth with day-light Philand Haue wee not their full consent for those thinges which you impugne Theoph. As namely for adoration of the sacrament where you pretend the whole Church and shewe not one man that euer taught of the Sacrament that It should bee adored Philand Was not the whole Church taught to say vnto It and crie vpon It Domine non suum dignus Lorde I am not woorthie Theo. Prooue that this or any other inuocation or adoration was vsed TO IT as you say and you shall goe free for all Phi. Origen ho. 5. in diuers When thou eatest sayth hee and drinkest the body and blood of our Lorde hee entereth vnder thy roofe Thou also therefore humbling thy selfe say Lord I am not woorthy So sayde S. Chrysostome in his Masse Theoph. This they were taught to say but to what were they taught to say it Philand To the Sacrament Theo. Who sayth so besides you Phi. Origen and Saint Chrysostome Theoph. Perhaps they taught the people that kinde of prayer when they did communicate at the Lordes Table but did they teach the people to say so to the Sacrament Philand Euen thus to crie VPON IT and thus to say VNTO IT Lorde I am not woorthie Theo. We would gladly heare that of their owne mouthes wee trust not yours Philand Looke the places and you shall find it to bee as wee say Theo. We haue viewed the places and find you to be Lyars Phi. Are not those Origens words which we rehearse Theo. Origen hath the words which you cite but he teacheth not the people to direct them to the Sacrament Philand To whome then Theoph. To whome but to christ the sonne of God Phi. And he is in the sacrament Theo. Their assertions not your additions are the thinges we aske for That these and all other partes of diuine honor are due to christ no christian maie doubt but that the same maie be directed and applied to the host that is your blasphemie no father â—uer taught it Origen discussing the Centurions fact and faith telleth his audience that Christ entereth vnder the roofes of all beleeuers two waies first by his ministers then by his mysteries Intrat nunc Dominus sub tectum Credentium duplici figura vel more The Lorde euen at this daie entereth the roofe of those that beleeue after two sortes or manners For when holie and acceptable pastours of the Church to GOD enter our howsen euen then and there the Lord entereth by them and be thou so affected as if thou receiuedst the Lorde himselfe An other waie is when thou receiuest that holy meate and eatest and drinkest the bodie and blood of the Lord for then the Lorde entereth thy roofe also Thou therefore humbling thy selfe imitate the Centurion and saie Lord I am not worthie that thou shouldest come vnder my roofe This must be said as well when the preacher entereth our house as when we receiue the sacrament for it is plaine by Origen that christ commeth vnder our roofe in both these cases and we are not worthie in either of them or in any other case that the sonne of God should come vnder our roofe As then it were madnes to deifie the Preacher because Christ voutsafeth to come in him and with him or to salute him with the diuine honour due to christ and to say to a mortall man Lord I am not worthy so can it be no lesse impietie to saie to the dead creatures in which or with which we receiue christ from his table Lord I am not worthie Phi. Doe you thinke that Christ is none otherwise in the Sacrament than he is in a mortall man Theo. He is more truelie reallie and naturallie in those men that be his members than he is in the elements that be vsed at his table Phi. O shamefull heresie Is anie mortall man transsubstantiated into Christ as the elements are by power of consecration Theo. That which I saie is most true men are the members of Christ bread is not Christ abideth in them and they in him in the breade he doeth not he will raise them in the last day the breade he will not they shall raigne with him for euer the breade shall not And therefore take backe your shamefull error of transsubstantiating the elements into christ since he is more really in vs than in the pixe or the chalice and yet we are not substantiallie conuerted into him Phi. I will neuer beleeue this whiles I haue a daie to liue Theo. Neither doe I meane in this place to enter that discourse yet for the confirmation of it I send you to Chrysostome Cyrill and Hilarie who will teach you so much in plaine wordes that christ is in vs reallie naturallie corporallie carnallie substantiallie which of the Sacrament you shall neuer be able to prooue For the sacrament is no part of his mysticall bodie as we are and therefore we are knit vnto him euen by the trueth of his and our nature flesh and substance as members of the same bodie to their head the Sacrament is not but onelie annexed as a signe to the heauenlie grace and vertue of Christ mightilie present and trulie entering the soule of euerie man that
and from whence we looke for our Sauiour euen the Lord Iesus Christ. Phi. All the places which are yet alleaged against you you haue shyfted off by referring the speaches to Christ him-selfe sitting in heauen and as you say not in the sacrament But Theodorets woordes are so cleare that no shift will â—erue Hee speaketh of the very mysticall signes and Sacraments which are seene with eyes and touched with handes and of them hee sayth Intelliguntur ea esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur vt quae illâ— sint quae creduntuâ— The Sacraments are vnderstood to be the things which they are made are beleeued and ADORED as being the same which they are beleeued Theo. Onely Theodoret of all the fathers that euer mentioned adoration spake of the Sacrament it selfe The rest direct their words to Christ raigning in glory not to the host or Chalice in the Priestes hande Hee in deede speaketh of the mysticall signes which the rest did not Philand Then yet there is one Father for the adoration of the Sacrament you sayde wee had none Theo. Woulde you prooue so high a point of Religion as this is to bee Catholike by one onely Father and such an one as you thinke not worthy to bee called a Saint Phi. These exceptions are but dilatorie and quite besides the matter Doe you graunt that hee sayth the mysticall signes must bee adored Theo. Hee sayth so Philand And such vpstarts as you are woulde bee credited against him when you say the Sacrament is not to bee adored Theoph. Wee reason not about our credite but about your conclusion Philand That is too plaine for your stoare Theo. Why doe you then conceale it so long Phi. You shall soone heare it and haue your belly full of it The mystical tokens bee adored sayth that auncient Father Theodorete Marke nowe howe nimbly we come within you ouerthrow you in plain field If you deny it we haue here antiquitie for it If you grant it then are you worse than miscreants for holding all this while against it Theo. With such weapons I thinke Alexander the great did conquere the worlde Phi. When you come to a non plus then you fall to idle talke But leaue digressing and giue vs a short and direct answere which wee knowe for your heartes you can not Theo. You knowe much but if you knewe your selues and your owne weakenes it were better Phi. Did I not tell you this place would ouerthrowe you Theo. Because hee sayth the substance of bread and wyne must be adored Phi. Hee sayth no such thing but the mysticall tokens must be adored And what are the mysticall tokens but the mysteries themselues which are all one with the Sacrament Theo. Can you take the top and the tayle and leaue out the myddle so cunningly Phi. Wee leaue out nothing Theo. Theodorets wordes are Neque enim sigra mystica post sanctificationem recedunt a sua natura Manent enâ—m in priore substantia figura forma videri taâ—gi possunt sicut prius Intelliguntur antem ea esse quae facta sunt creduâ—tur adorantur vt quae illa sint quae creduntur The mysticall signes after consecration doe not depart from their owne nature For they remaine in their former substaunce and figure and forme and may bee seene and touched as they were before but they are vnderstoode to bee those thinges which they are made and are beleeued AND ADORED as being the things which they are beleeued The mysticall signes not departing from their owne nature but remayning in their former substance are adored By this you may prooue if you bee so disposed that the creatures of bread and wyne must bee adoren which perhaps in your Church is no fault because it is so often But the Church of Christ abhorreth it as a wicked impietie to adore any dead or dumbe creature And therefore you must bee driuen as well as we to seeke for an other and farther meaning in Theodorete otherwise you will shake the foundation of your owne fayth with your owne antiquitie more than you shall doe ours Our answere is easie The mysticall signes hee sayth are adored but not with diuine honour and adoration with the Grecians as also with the Scriptures when it is applied to mortal men or creatures signifieth onely a reuerent regard of their places or vses Your owne Lawe sayth In hoc sensu possumus quamlibet rem sacram adorare id est reuerentiam exhibere In this sense wee may adore any sacred thing whatsoeuer that is giue it due reuerence So that you vtterly ouerthrowe both your adoration and your Transubstantiation when you brought Theodorete to tell vs that the substance of bread is adored that is reuerenced and yet remayneth after Consecration For if it remaine what adore you but the substance of a dead creature And that if you doe howe many steppes are you from open Idolatrie Thus though wee crake not of our conquests as you doe wee returne your authorities for adoring the sacrament as either impertinent or insufficient giue vs cause to consider that your worshipping it with diuine honour is no catholike or ancient veritie but a pernicious and wicked noueltie Phil. Is it wickednes to worship Christ Theop. You defile the name of Christ spoile him of his worship by giuing them both to senseles creatures Phi. How often shall we beate this into your dull heades that we giue this honour to the Sacrament and not to senseles creatures Theo. And howe often shall wee ring this into your deaffe eares that the Sacrament in corporall matter and substance is a senseles and corruptible creature Phi. Did not Christ saie this is my bodie Theo. You must prooue the speach to be literall as well as the wordes to be his Phi. Is not the letter plaine this is my bodie Theo. The letter is so plaine that it killeth the carnall interpreter and hath driuen you whiles you would needs refuse the figuratiue and spirituall constructions of Christs words to these absurdities and enormities which haue euen ouerwhelmed your Church Phi. Can you wish for plainer wordes than these this is my bodie Theo. I could wish that in expounding these wordes you did relie rather on the catholike fathers than on your vncatholike fansies Phi. All the fathers with one voice toyne with vs in this doctrine Theoph. You doe but dreame of a drie Summer Not one of the auncient fathers euer spake of your reall presence or the literall sense of these wordes on which you buyld the rest Phi. Will you haue a thousand places for that purpose or if varietie of writers do rather content you wil you haue three or four hundreth seuerall fathers all auncient and catholike in diuers ages and countries that shall depose for our doctrine in this point Theo. I can enter a course to saue you
Christ if you know not whereof he spake proue no conuersion of the bread into his body For vnlesse THIS be taken to import the bread the bread by those wordes can not be changed and if not by these then surely by none Phi. I see your drift you fet about to force me to confesse that by the strict coherence of our Sauiours wordes the bread is Christ since that propositioÌ„ in precise speech is vntrue you would come in with your figures Theo. And your drift is as open that hauing deuised a reall and carnall presence to your selues by colour of Christes wordes and perceiuing the same to bee no way consequent to the letter which you pretend least you shoulde bee disproued to your faces you will not admit the perfect and plaine context of Christes wordes but stand houering about other sophisticall illusions which will not helpe you For we haue the ful confession of scriptures fathers against you that the pronoune THIS in Christes words must bee restrained to the bread and to nothing else The Lord tooke breade and when hee had giuen thankes he brake no doubt the bread that he tooke and gaue to the Disciples the selfesame that he brake saying take ye eate ye this that I giue you This is my bodie What THIS could our Sauiour mean but THIS that he gaue THIS that he brake THIS that he tooke which by the witnesse of the Scripture it selfe was bread If you suppose that he tooke bread but brake it not or brake it but gaue it not or gaue it his Disciples to eate but told them not this which he gaue them but some other thing besides that was his body you make the Lords supper a merry iest where the later end starteth from the beginning and the middle from the both The pronoune THIS of it selfe inferreth nothing and therefore except you name the bread which Christ pointed vnto when he spake these wordes you coÌ„firme not the faithes but amase the wits of your followers S. Paul proposing the Lordes Supper to the church of Corinth expresseth that very word which we say the circumstances of the Gospel import As often as ye shall eate saith he This bread and drinke this cuppe you shew foorth the Lords death till he come The bread which he brake is it not the communion of Christs body Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of that bread and drinke of that cup for whosoeuer shall eat this breade and drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthily shal be guilty of the body blood of the Lord. So that as wel by the cohereÌ„ce of the former words in the description of the Lords supper as by the manifest adiectioÌ„ which S. Paul putteth to the demoÌ„stratiue we conclude our sauior pronouÌ„ced of the bread that it was his body The referring of THIS to the bread all the catholik fathers that euer wrate with pen in the church of God acknowledge with one consent Iustinus Wee be taught that the sanctified foode which nourisheth our fleshe and our blood is the fleshe and blood of that Iesu. Tertullian So Christ taught vs calling bread his bodie and discussing the wordes of the supper Why saith he doth Christ there call bread his bodie Austen That which your faith requireth to be taught the bread is the body of Christ and the cup his blood Cyprian Our Lord at his table gaue to the Disciples with his own handes bread and wine on the crosse hee yeelded his body to the souldiers handes to be wounded that his Apostles might teach all Nations how bread and wine were his flesh and blood Ireneus How shall it appeare to them that the bread on which they giue thankes is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood if they graunt not Christ to be the sonne of the creator of the world How did the Lord rightly if an other were his father taking bread of this condition that is vsuall amongst vs confesse it to bee his body Hierom Let vs learn that the bread which the Lord brake gaue to his disciples is the Lords body himself saying to theÌ„ take ye eate ye this is my body Athan. or at lest the coÌ„mentary that is extaÌ„t in his name What is the bread the body of Christ. Epiphan Of that which is round in figure sensles in power the Lord would say by grace this is my body Cyrill Christ thus auoucheth and saith of the bread this is my body Theodorete In the verie giuing of the misteries he called bread his body And of all others your selues may not shrink from this resolution of Christs wordes the surest holde of your reall presence though it bee not much standeth onely on this settle For what wordes haue you besides thâ—se to proue that the breade is chaunged from his former substaunce Uerily none Then if in these wordes which should worke the change there be no mention at all of bread how can that which is no way comprised in them bee chaunged by them So miraculous a change can not be wrought by silence but rather if any such be by the power of Christes words and in those words must the thing at least be named that shall be changed Againe the demonstratiue THIS must needes note that which was there present on the Lordes table before the words of consecration were wholy repeated and the flesh of Christ coulde not be present vnder the likenesse of bread without or before Consecration ergo the pronoune inferreth not Christ but the bread which by your owne positions is not abolished but in vltimo instanti prolationis verboruÌ„ in the very last end instant of vttering these wordes And therefore remaine in his owne nature wheÌ„ the first word was pronounced Which some not the meanest men of your side foresaw very well howsoeuer you since haue taken other counsel and therefore they say Dicendum est quod hoc demonstrat substantiam panis We must behold saith Gerson that the pronoune THIS doeth demonstrate the substaunce of bread and Steuen Gardiner Christus ait euidenter hoc est corpus meum demonstrans panem Christ sayeth plainly this is my body pointing to the bread Notwithstanding afterward he changed his minde in this as in many other thinges came to Indiuiduum vagum as if Christ had saide THIS what is it I can not tell but it must needes be somwhat is my body Occam and other profound fellowes of your side bethinking themselues how your opinion might best agree with the wordes of Christ say the pronoune THIS must be referred to the bodie of Christ as if our Sauiour had said this my body is my body To make all cocksure the coronell of your scholmen I meane the gloze resolueth the doubt on this wife Solet quaeri quid demonstretur per pronomen
hoc It is a common question what is ment by the pronoune THIS whether bread or the body of Christ Not bread for that is not the body of Christ nor yet the body of Christ for it appeareth not that there is any transubstantiation till the wordes be all pronounced To this demaund I say that by the word THIS nothing is ment but it is there put materially without anie signification at all Thus you turned and tossed the wordes of Christ so long till you brought all that the Lord did and saide at his last supper to plaine NOTHING With such vnchristian toyes were your scholes fraughted and the worlde deceiued such monsters you hatched when once you left the direction of the Scriptures and Fathers and fell to broaching your owne gesses But you must either admit our explication this breade is my body for the right ordering and perfitting of Christes wordes or else dissent from the manifest Scriptures from al the catholike Fathers and with shame enough from your owne fellowes and fansies Phi. Wee sticke not so much at the filling vp of the wordes which Christ spake as at the constering and expounding of them You delude them with tropes and significations as if Christ had beene speaking parables and not ordaining sacramentes Wee say there must be a reall truth and actiue force in them to perfourme the letter as it lieth For in Scripture so long as the letter may possibly be true we may not fly to figures Theo. In that you say right We must imbrace the sense which is occurant in the letter before all others if it agree with faith and good maners but if it crosse either of them we must beware the letter lest it kill and seeke for an other and deeper sense which must needes be figuratiue That direction S. Augustine giueth to al men when they read the Scriptures Iste omnino modus est locutionis inueniendae propriáne an figurata sit vt quicquid in sermone diuino neque ad morum honestatem nec ad fidei veritatem proprie referri potest figuratum esse cognoscas This is the perfect way to discerne whether a speech be proper or figuratiue that whatsoeuer in the word of God can not be properly referred either to integritie of maners or verity of faith thou resolue thy selfe it is figuratiue Phi. That prescription is very sound but it furthereth not your figuratiue sense For the letter of these wordes which we stand for is neither against faith nor good manners Theo. The literall acception of these words as they lie this bread is my body is first impossible by your owne confession next blasphemous by the plaine leuell of our Creede and lastly barbarous by the verie touch and instinct of mans nature Phi. Charge you Christ with so manie foule ouersightes in speaking the wordes Theo. The wordes which Christ spake be gratious and religious we know but where there may be brought a double construction of them a carnall or a spirituall a literall or a SacrameÌ„tall the literall construction which you will needes defend to deface the other is we say reproued as no part of our Sauiours meaning by those three barres which we proposed Phi. You propose much but you proue litle Theo. I should proue euen as much as you do if I should proue nothing but that which I proposed shall not want proofe The first your owne friendes will helpe me to proue Your Lawe saieth Hoc tamen est impossible quod panis sit corpus Christi Yet this is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ. Why striue you then for that which your selues grant is not possible to be true Why forsake you the mysticall interpretation which is possible what greater vanitie can you shewe than to cleaue to that sense which you see can not stande If it be bread how can it be Christ If it be Christ how can it be bread The second is as cleare For if breade in proper and precise speech bee the flesh of Christ ergo bread is also the feede of Dauid ergo breade was fastned to the crosse for our sinnes ergo bread was buried rose the third day from death and now sitteth in heauen at the right hand of God the Father nay no questioÌ„ if bread be Christ then is bread the Sonne of God and second person in the sacred Trinitie which how wel your stomaks can digest we know not in truth our harts tremble to heare an earthly dead and corruptible creature by your literall carnall deuotion aduaunced to the Lord of life grace the maker of heauen and earth yea the liuing and euerlasting God and yet if bread be truely and properly Christ these monsterous impieties you can not auoide Thirdly what could you deuise more iniurious and odious to christian mildnesse maners than the letter of these words eate you this is my flesh drinke you this is my blood Had you bin willed in as plain termes to cruciâ—ie Christ as you bee willed to eate his fleshe you woulde not I trust haue presently banded your selues with the Iewes to put him to death but rather haue staggered at the letter and sought for some farther and other meaning Yee be now willed to eate his flesh drinke his blood which is a precept far more hainous horrible in christian behauiour and religion if you follow the letter as AusteÌ„ affirmeth It appeareth more horrible to eate mans flesh than to kill it to drinke mans blood than to shed it And againe The Capernites were more excusable that coulde not abide the wordes of Christ which they vnderstood not being in deede horrible in that they were spoken as a blessing not as a cursing They thought saith Cyrill Christ had inuited them to eate the raw flesh of a man and drinke blood which thinges be horrible to the verie eares Why then presse you the letter which is hainous forget that the speech can not be religious except it be figuratiue Uerily S. Austen concludeth the speech to be figuratiue for this only reason If the scripture seeme to coÌ„mand any vile or ill fact the speech is figuratiue Except ye eate the fleshe of the son of man and drinke his blood you shall haue no life in you facinus velflagitium videtur iubere Christ seemeth to command a wicked sinfull act figura est ergo It is therefore a figuratiue speech commanding vs to be partakers of the Lords passion sweetly profitably to keep in mind that his flesh was crucified wouÌ„ded for vs. If then the real eating of Christs flesh with our mouthes and actuall drinking of his blood with our lips be wicked and hainous why presse you the letter of these wordes eate you this is my body drinke you this is my blood against truth against faith against nature neither possibility nor christianity nor coÌ„mon honestie suffering your exposition to be good S.
Austen in plaine termes concluding It is therfore a figure of speech Phi. Sir you bee misconstered all this while The verbe which coupleth both partes of the proposition togither doeth not here signifie this to bee simply that but this to be really changed in that as if our Lord had said THIS breade is now become my body that is substantially changed into my body Theo. Sir you shuffle the words of Christ to serue your dreames yet you scape not the rockes which you thought to shunne If the bread must be changed in substance that is become no bread afore it be the body of Christ ergo breade is not the body of Christ and so your construction is a plaine contradiction to the letter which you would interprete For Christ said this bread is my body that cannot be true say you vnlesse the bread loose first his substance and ceaâ—e in deede to be breade and so where Christ saide this bread is my body you expound his wordes in this sort that it must first be no bread afore it can be his body Besides in absurdity there is no difference whether you say bead is Christ or bread is made Christ changed into Christ. For that which is made Christ without all question is Christ so the same blasphemies are consequent to this exposition that were dependant on the former Phi. Well yet the bread may be abolished and Christs body succeede in the place where the bread was without any of these inconueniences Theo. Thither are you faine to flie when you be hardly pressed with the sequeles of the literall sense but in the meane time you forget that you be cleane gone from the wordes of Christ which you pretended to folow He said this is my body you to expouÌ„d his speach say THIS must first vanish away and then my body shall succeede in the same place and be couered with the same accidents though THIS neither in shew nor substance be my body Phi. This is sophistry which the catholike fathers were neuer acquainted with Theo. If it be any it is yours not ours you first forsooke the exposition of Christs words which the learned and godly fathers with one accord witnessed deliuered then stuÌ„bling at the letter you hatched your carnal local presence against Scriptures and fathers and when the wordes of Christ would not sit your fansies you racked wrenched them til you brought both them to nothing and your selues to a maze that you knew not what you said where as if you had continued their interpretation you had cleared the wordes of Christ from all perplexities inioyed the fruites of the Lords table without perill of Idolatrie or impietie eased your selues of those absurdities which you be now plunged in vp hard to the eares Phi. What interpretation meane you Theo. That which the Fathers generally beleeued publikly taught in the church of Christ. Phi. And what exposition was that but the same which we now vrge you resist The. Shew but one ancient father that euer affirmed the wordes of Christ at his last Supper were properly spoken or literally to be taken and wee will receiue your sense Phi. What you will not Theo. What neede you repeate it when you heare vs offer it Phi. Not a father that euer auouched these words of Christ this is my body to be properly spoken or literally taken Theo. Not a father that is ancient Phi. How would you lie if you might be let alone I can name you presently a good number of them that in exquisite termes shal affirme the words of Christ to be literall Theo. Shal they be auncient Phi. I can not tel what you mean by auncient you would haue them belike before Christ was borne Theo. As though there were not difference both in the ages and credites of those writers that haue gone before vs in the church of Christ. Phi. They shall bee auncient Theo. Damascene perhaps Theophilact Phi. Yea Epiphanius Euthymius and many others The. Many others is a note aboue ela These foure affirme that Christ did not say this is the image or figure of my body but this is my body which we confesse was needefull for the first ordayner and institutor of the Sacrament to say Mary by those wordes our Sauiour did not meane to abolish the substance of breade or wine but to vnite the force and fruite of his flesh crucified and blood shed for our sinnes to the elementes that receiuing the one we might through faith bee partakers of the other by the working of his spirite and power of the word which he then spake much lesse did these later writers the eldest of them being more thaÌ„ 700 yeres after Christ intend to gainesay the fathers that were before them of greater iudgement and deeper knowledge howsoeuer in shew they seeme loth that Christes wordes should be recalled to a bare and naked figure which for our parts we do not Phi. A bare figure nay they will haue no figure in the wordes of Christ to that ende they vrge the very letter as excluding all tropes figures which you now take vp in a spleene to frustrate our proofes Theo. Did the Fathers meane to frustrate your proofes when they tooke vppe this doctrine many hundrethes before you or your reall presence were hearde of Philand Do they teache the wordes of Christ eate this is my bodie to bee figuratiue Theo. I haue shewed you causes sufficient to fray the godly from the letter which doth rather kill than quicken the carnal interpreters yet am I content to forgo them all if in expounding the wordes of Christ figuratiuely the catholike and ancient fathers do not make expressely with vs and against you directly Tertullian The bread which was taken and giuen to the Disciples Christ made his body by saying this is my body that is the figure of my bodie Why doth Christ call bread his bodie Marcion vnderstandeth not this was an old figure of the body of Christ speaking by Ieremie they laide their handes togither against mee saying come let vs cast wood on his bread that is the crosse on his bodie Therefore the lightner of antiquities in calling the bread his bodie fully declared what he would then at his last Supper haue the bread to signifie Augustine discussing the wordes of Moses the soule of all flesh is his blood The thing saith he that doth signifie commonly taketh the name of the thing that is thereby signified as it is written the seuen eares of corne which Pharao dreampt of bee seuen yeres he said not they signifie seuen yeres the seuen kine be seuen yeres many such speeches So was it saide by Paul the rocke was Christ hee sayde not the rocke did signifie Christ but as if it had beene the selfesame thing which by substance it was not but by signification Euen so the blood because it signifieth the soule is
my way Phi. Al these fathers affirme the bread to be a signe figure of Christs body This we grant and thereto adde that it is both a figure and the trueth it selfe You may be gone you haue your errand Did I not tell you I would soone dispatch you Theo. You be very pleasureable whatsoeuer the matter be but had you no better skill to dispatch men of their liues than you haue to defeate vs of ouâ— authorities many a thowsand should now liue that you haue slaine Philan. You would runne to by-quarrels but I must hold you to the stake Theo. In deede that was alwayes the surest answere that you gaue vs. The rest was nothing no more is this For first it is apparently false that in Sacraments the signe the truth may be all one thing Next if that might be yet doth it not disappoint any one of these testimonies For they do not only witnes that the bread is a sign of christs bodie but also that christes wordes were figuratiue and that in deliuering the mysteries he called the bread his body by way of signification similitude representation after the maner of Sacramentes in a signe not according to the letter but in a spirituall and mysticall vnderstanding and if you respect the precise speech improperly and figuratiuely And though the signe might happily be one thing with the truth it self as you affirm wtout al truth yet may not a figuratiue speech be properly takeÌ„ nor the letter vrged against the spirituall meaning least that which was spoken to quicken the inward man subuert the faith and indanger the soul which in mistaking a figure of speech must needs insue as S. Augustine sheweth In principio cauendum est ne siguratam locutionem ad literam accipias Ad hoc enim pertinet quod ait Apostolus litera occidit spiritus autem viuificat Cum enim figurate dictum sic accipitur tanquam proprie dictum sit carnaliter sapitur Neque vllamors animae congruentius appellatur The first thing that you must beware is this that you take not a figuratiue speech according to the letter To that belongeth the Apostles admonition the letter killeth the spirite quickneth For when wee take that which is figuratiuely spoken as if it were properly spoken it is a carnall sense Neither is there any thing more rightly called the death of the soule In vaine then doe you thinke to shift off the matter with this foolish conceite that one and the same thing may be both a trueth and a figure For were that so yet can not a figuratiue speech bee literally taken without killing the soule and the Fathers which I produced affirme the minde and speech of our Sauiour in calling the bread his body was spirituall figuratiue and mysticall by way of signification such as is vsed in Sacramentes not literall nor carnall according to the strict sâ—und and order of the wordes Marie now your answere besides that it is altogether idle is vtterly false For in this sacrament as in al others there is great difference betwixt the signes and the things theÌ„selues and the distinct properties of ech are so sensible that if your wits be not laid vp for holy daies you can not but perceiue theÌ„ The signes are visible the things inuisible the signes are earthly the things heaueÌ„ly the signes corruptible the thinges immortall the signes corporall the thinges spirituall The signes are one thing the trueth is not the same but an other thing and euen by plaine Arythmetike they be two things and not one The Eucharist as Ireneus teacheth Consisteth of two things an earthly an heauenly This is it that wee say this is it that we seeke by all meanes saith Austen to approue to wit that the sacrifice of the church is made of two and consisteth of two thinges sacramento re sacramenti of the sacred signe and the thing it selfe For sacramentes are signa rerum aliud existentia aliud significantia signes of truthes being one thing in themselues and signifieng an other It were no figure saith Chrysostome if all thinges incident to the truth were to be found in it much lesse if it were the truth it selfe Sacraments haue a certaine similitude but no identitie with the thinges whose signes they be If therefore To take the signes for the thinges bee a miserable seruitude of the soule as Austen noteth what is it to affirme the signes to be the things themselues but a wilfull blindnesse of heart choosing rather to rush into any brake with daunger both of credit and conscience than to acknowledge the truth once disdayned and refused Phi. I haue yet an other answere in stoare Theo. If that be no better than this your stoare is little worth Phi. The most part of the Fathers which you bring speake not of Christes wordes when hee did institute the Sacrament but declare his meaning in the sixth of Sainct Iohns Gospell when the Capernites stumbled at his doctrine Theo. You may keepe this still in stoare for the goodnes of it Tertullian Austen Cyprian Ambrose Hierom Chrysostom Theodorete Prosper Bede Bertram Druthmarus and your own law speake directly of the sacrament and so doth Origen when he calleth the bread on the Lords table the typicall and figuratiue body onely that place of his mentioneth the sixt of Iohn where he saith If you take this saying according to the letter this letter killeth Phi. Mary Sir that place is the chiefest how closely you could conuey it in amongest the rest to make men beleeue he spake that of the sacrament which is nothing so Theo. Why doth not the 6. of S. Iohn foretel and declare the same kinde of eating Christs flesh and drinking his bloode which was after perfourmed by Christ at his last supper wheÌ„ he said This is my body this is my blood Phi. Doth it say you Theo. I do not say Christ speaketh in the sixth of Iohn of the materiall elementes of bread and wine which were then first ordained to bee pledges of his inuisible graces when the Supper was first instituted and therefore not spoken of before that time but this is it which I affirme and in this the learned and auncient Fathers agree with mee that where this mystery consisteth of two partes an earthlie matter and an heauenly vertue the sixth of Sainct Iohn treateth not of the signes but of the thinges them-selues not of the figures representing but of the trueth represented not of that which is corporally proposed but of that which is Ghostly receiued in the Lordes supper which is the better and diuiner part of this Sacrament and that the Disciples there learned in what sort themselues and all the faithfull after them should eate the Lords flesh and drinke the Lords blood at his table to be thereby quickned norished and incorporated with him as members of his mysticall body So that if any
of this this is my blood and as for the men of your side they run all to this issue that the sixt of Iohn not only treateth of the sacrament but also strongly concludeth your reall presence and externall eating of Christs flesh with bodily partes as with teeth throte and such like in so much that if you goe that way which you were about you goe alone Your friende Master Harding with a present courage as his manner is saith We can not finde where our Lord perfourmed the promise which he made in the first chapter of Iohn the breade which I will giue is my fleshe which I will giue for the life of the world but only in his last supper Steuen Gardiner his Master vttered euen the very same wordes before him Promisit Dominus se daturum nobis in pane carnem suam dicens panis quâ—m ego dabo caro mea est quam ego dabo pro mundi vita Sed quod promisit Christus noÌ„ legimus cum praestitisse nisi in coena The Lord promised that he would giue vs his flesh in bread when he said the bread that I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world But that which Christ promised wee doe not read that he perfourmed except it were in the Supper And though they both ouerlash when they say he performed it only in the supper yet in this you may not vary froÌ„ them that he performed that promise of his verified that doctrine of his in the supper For so the fathers said before them as I haue proued and so your late Testament vpon the sixt of S. Iohn saith of al their side The catholikes teach these wordes to be spoken of the sacrament Phi. We do so The. Then what exposition the learned ancient fathers made of Christs words in the 6. of Iohn the same they inteÌ„ded referred to the words of the supper But the words of christ teaching vs in the 6. of Iohn that we must eate his flesh drinke his blood before we can haue my life in vs are by the coÌ„mon consent of all the fathers Allegoricall mysticall figuratiue ergo the figuratiue interpretatioÌ„ of Christs words in the supper is catholike Phi. Think you we are so foolish as to beleeu that the fathers were the autors of your figures Th. Chuse whether you wil beleeue vs or no we speak no more thaÌ„ we mean to proue Clemens Alexan. The Lord in the gospel of Iohn when he said eate ye my flesh drink ye my blood he called that by an alegory meat drink which is euideÌ„tly meÌ„t of our faith his promise Tertul. He pronounced his flesh to be that heaueÌ„ly bread vrging theÌ„ al along that dicourse with an allegory of needefull foodes to remember their fathers that preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt before the diuine vocation Origen Our Lord and Sauiour saith except you eate my flesh and drinke my blood you shall not haue life in you My flesh is truely meate my blood is truly drinke He that can no skill of these things may perhaps turn his eare from them as they did which said how can he giue vs his flesh to eat who can heare it they departed froÌ„ him But you if you be the children of the church if you acquainted with mysteries Sacraments of the Gospell acknowledge the thinges that wee say they be the Lords Acknowlege that there be figures in the diuine books therefore examine theÌ„ as spirituall men not as carnall vnderstand what is said If you conster these thinges as carnall men they hurt you they doe not nourish you Chrysostom The words that I speak to you are spirite that is spirituall hauing nothing that is carnall in them If a man should carnally take them he should gaine nothing What is carnally to vnderstand theÌ„ Simply as they be spoken neither to seek any farther For the things that we see must not so be iudged of but all mysteries Sacraments must be considered with the inward eyes that is spiritually Phi. Spiritually we grant we must vnderstand them but not figuratiuely Theo. What is spiritually but figuratiuely Eating and drinking are corporall actions not spirituall and properly perfourmed with the partes of our bodies not with the powers of our soules Since then by the constant confession of all the fathers the Lord throughout this chapter did not refer eating drinking to the bodies of his Disciples but vnto their soules and ment their faith not their teeth it is apparant that the wordes of our Sauiour are allegoricall and figuratiue I meane translated and deriued by an allegorie from the body to the mind from chamming to beleeuing from swallowing to remembring to be short from the flesh of his Disciples to their spirites and in that respect called spirituall The manner of eating there specified is spirituall the wordes there vsed are mysticall to wit not literall but allegoricall and so the Fathers mainly teach Basil Tast see how sweete the Lord is We haue often marked that the powers of the soul are called by the same names by which the members of the body are Because then our Lord is the true bread his flesh is meate indeede it must be that the sweetnes of that delicious bread be felt of vs by meanes of spirituall tast There is a certaine mouth of the minde and â—oule within man which is nourished by the word of life the bread I mean which came from heauen Origen To euery part or power of the soule Christ becommeth euerything Therefore he is called the true light that the eyes of the soule may haue wherewith to be lightned therfore the word that the eares of the soule may haue what to heare therefore the bread of life that the tast of the soule may haue what to relesse Tertullian The wordes that I haue spoken to you be spirit and life Making his word to quicken by reason his word is spirite and life hee called the same word his flesh because the word was made flesh and so for the procuring of life was to bee desired yea TO BE DEVOVRED WITH HEARING CHEWED WITH VNDERSTANDING AND DIGESTED WITH BELEEVING Cyprian The master of this ordinance and feast saide that except we did eate his flesh and drinke his blood we should haue no life in vs directing vs with a spirituall instruction and opening our wittes for the conceiuing of so great a matter thereby to let vs vnderstaÌ„d that our abiding in him is eating our drinking is as it were an incorporating with him in that mutual seruices are yeelded wils ioyned and affections vnited The eating therefore of this flesh is a certaine coueting and desiring to abide in him Athanasius Therefore doth he mention his ascending into heauen to pull from them their corporall cogitations and thinking
after the same sort the blood of christ euen so the sacrament of faith meaning thereby baptisme is saith We he buried saith Paul with christ through baptism into his death Hâ— saith not we signifie that his burial but he saith plainly we 〈…〉 The sacrameÌ„t of so great a thing he would not cal but by the 〈…〉 thing it self Upon this verie ground be concluded as you heard 〈…〉 Lâ—â—d doubted not not to say this my body when he gaue the signe of his body What maâ—uell then if the catholike Fathers vsed often the names of the body blood of Christ where the materiall elementes of bread and wine must be vnderstood since this is the certaine rule of al sacraments and the common order of all ancient diuines writing of the Lordes supper to call the giftes proposed at the Lordes table the body and blood of Christ. The wilfull contempt of which obseruation hath miserably snared and hampered you and your fellowes euerie where referring and forcing that to the naturall fleshe of Christ which by the learned and godly fathers was spoken and ment of the visible signes called by the names of the body and blood of Christ. The second thing that you sticke at is the substance of bread which we say remaineth and abideth as well after consecration as before You wil haue it either vanish to nothing or else to bee turned and conuerted into the very fleshe of Christ there present God maÌ„ vnder the whitenes roundnes such like shewes appearances of bread left only to content the sight and palate least the raw flesh of Christ should displease your eyes or offend your tast This is your doctrine and this we say is not catholike The church of Christ neuer held that the substance of bread perished or ceased after consecration it is a late deuise you can bring no father that is ancient for this assertion they neuer taught they neuer heard they neuer dreampt any such thinges They taught that the mysticall signes were creatures well knowen not straunge and miraculous accidentes that the substance of bread was not changed but remained still after consecration and this they taught in as plaine words as heart can imagine or tongue expresse lette the Reader bee iudge if I â—aye not the truth Gelasius an ancient Bishop of Rome for his antiquitie reuerenced of vs for his place not to be refused of you writeth thus against Eutiches The sacraments which we receiue of the body blood of Christ are a diuine thing by them are we made partakers of the diuine nature yet for all that ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread wine to be Theodoret The mystical signes do not after sanctification depart from their own nature for they remaine in their former substance figure forme Ambrose Thou camest to the altar â—awest the sacraments theron wonderest at the very creature yet it is a â—olemn known creature Ireneus Christ counseling or willing his disciples to offer to God the first fruits of those creatures tooke that bread which is a creature gaue thankes saying this is my body We must therefore in all thinges be found thankefull to God the creator offering the first fruits of those creatures which be his and this oblation the Church onely maketh in puritie to the creatour offering to him of his own creatures with thankes giuing Origen The Lords bread according to the material partes thereof goeth into the belly and thence to the draught so that it is not the matter of breade that doeth proâ—itte the râ—ceiuer but the worde rehearsed ouer it Epiphanius That which our Sauiour our tooke in his hand and saide this is my body wee see to bee neither proportional nor like to his image in flesh nor his inuisible Deity for this is of a round figure hath no power of sense but our Lord wee knowe to bee wholy sense wholy sensitiue Cyprian Since the Lord said do this in my remembraÌ„ce this is my flesh this is my blood as often as with these words this faith we do that he did this substantial bread cup sanctified with a solemn blessing is profiâ—able for the life safegard of the whole man being both a medicine to heal our infirmities a sacrifice to clense our iniquities Chrysostom After coÌ„secration it is deliuered from the name of bread reputed worthy to be called the Lords body nothwithstanding the nature of bread still remaine Austen These things are therefore called Sacramentes because in them one thing is seen an other thing vnderstood That which is seen speciem habet corporalem hath a corporal shape or kind that which is vnderstood hath a spiritual fruit This is of al other a miserable seruitude of the soule to mistake the signes for the things themselues not to be able to lift vp the eye of the minde aboue the corporall creature to behold the light that is eternall The councell of Constantinople Christ commaunded the whole substaunce of breade chosen for his image to bee set on his table least if it resembled the shape of a man idolatrie might bee committed Bertram The signes as touching the substances of the creatures are the same after consecration which they were before Can you looke for plainer or directer witnesses Do they not all ioyne together in one profession and succession of truth that the mysticall signes after consecration be knowen corporal and senselesse creatures abiding in their proper and former yea their whole nature and substance Be not these wordes significant and pregnant directly conâ—uting your reall inclosing and corporall eaâ—ing of Christ vnder the shewes and accidentes of bread and wine The third thing that I saide was to bee considered in the elementes of bread and wine is their power and operation For since the substance of the creatures is not chaunged the signes coulde not iustly beare the names of the thinges them-selues except â—â—e vertue power and â—ffect of Christs fleshe and bloode were adioyned to them and vnited with them after a secrete and vnspeakable manner by the working of the holy Ghost in such sort that whosoeuer duelie receiueth the signe is vndoubtedly partaker of the grace offered vnto all but inioyed onely by those that with fayth and repentance clense the inward man from that corruption of flesh spirit which Christ abhorreth Cyprian of Sacraments in generall writeth thus To the elements once sanctified not now their owne nature giueth effect but the diuine vertue worketh in them more mightily the trueth is present with the signe and the spirit with the Sacrament so that the worthines of the grace appeareth by the verie efficiencie of the things Of the Lordes Supper in speciall thus he saith b There is giuen the foode of immortalitie differing from commoÌ„ meates Corporalis substantiae etmens speciem retaining the kind or truth
peruert the meaning of Leo and if you did but vnderstand the right course of his reason you would suppresse both his voice and your vaunt for verie shame Phi. He that will trust your sayings shall haue manie false fiers when he should not Theo. And he that will credit your doings shall feele manie quick flames when he would not Phi. You be better at quipping than at answering Theo. You are lothe we should encroch on your common But returne to Leo. Can you tell against whome he wrote Phi. Against such as you are that denied the trueth of Christes bodie and blood in the Sacrament Theo. Were they men without names or names without men Phi. Mock not they were your auncetours Theo. They say it is a wise childe that knoweth his owne father Doe you But in sadnes whome did Leo traduce in that sermon Phil. Mary Eutiches and such like heretikes Theoph. You saie well for Leo nameth him but a litle before in that sermon and against his opinion he reasoneth Philand I am content with that Theoph. What was his error Phi. He denied the trueth of Christes bodie and blood in the Sacrament Theo. Who told you so Phi. I gather it by those that refute him Theo. By them you shall learne his error but this it was not Philan. What was it say you Theo. Eutiches affirmed that Christes humane nature and substance was not onely glorified by his ascension but consumed and turned into the nature immensitie of his Godhead Against him wrate Theodorete Gelasius and others and one of the cheefest argumentes which they bring against him is that which Leo here toucheth in a woorde or two Phi. That argument cleane confoundeth your sacramentarie Sect. Theo. Yours or ours it must needes confound for this it is As the bread and wine after consecration are changed and altered into the bodie and bloud of Christ so is the humane nature of Christ conuerted into his diuine after his resurrection ascension but the bread and wine are not changed neither in substance nor forme nor figure nor naturall proprieties but only in grace and working ergo Christs humane nature is not changed into his diuine EITHER IN SVBSTANCE circumscription or forme but only endewed with glory and immortalitie Phi. This is no Catholike reason but sauoreth altogether of your hereticall poison Theo. They which first framed and vrged this reason against Eutiches in your opinion were they heretikes Phi. No father euer vsed it Theo. If they did must not they be doubbed for heretikes as the first proposers of that reason or at least you for affirming now the quite contrarie For you reiect both their assumption conclusion against Eutiches as starke false and whose ancetour then is Eutiches but yours Phi. They do not vse it as you report it Theo. Looke you offspring of Eutiches whether Gelasius Theodoret and Augustine do not vrge it in those verie pointes and wordes which I repeate Thus Gelasius framed his reason against Eutiches An image or similitude of the bodie and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries It is therefore apparant and euident enough that we must holde the same opinion of Christ the Lord which we professe celebrate and receiue in his image That as those signes by the working of the holy Ghost passe into the diuine substance and yet remaine in the proprietie of their owne nature Euen so that verie principall mysterie it selfe whose force truth that Image assuredly representeth doth demonstrate one whole and true Christ to continue the two natures of which he consisteth properlie remaining And lest you should not vnderstand what he ment by this The signes still abide in the proprietie of their owne nature he expoundeth himselfe an saith Non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis vini The substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not or perisheth not When Theodoret had made an entrance to the very same reason by laying this foundation Oportet archetypum Imaginis esse exemplar the Originall must be answerable to the Image the heretike caught the words out of his mouth and said It hapned in good time that you did mention the diuine mysteries for euen thereby will I prooue the Lordes bodie to be chaunged into an other nature As then the signes of the Lordes bodie and blood are other thinges before the inuocation of the Priest but after they are chaunged and become other than that they were so the Lords bodie after his assumption is chaunged into his diuine substance The maior being good such as Gelasius and Theoderet did both auouch that as the signes were changed after consecration so was Christes humanitie after his assumption if your opinion had then beene taught in the church that the substance of bread and wine were changed by consecration the conclusion had beene infallible for Eutiches error that the substance of Christes humanitie had beene changed by his ascention into his diuinitie and not only both these Fathers had had their mouthes stopped but Eutiches error had beene inâ—olâ—ble as beeing grounded on a Maior that was a confessed and famous trueth and on a Minor that was as you thinke the vndoubted saith of the Church Mary the Minor in deed was apparantly false though you now defend it for Catholike Doctrine and with the plaine deniall of that as a manifest vntrueth Theodoret inferreth the contrarye that because neither the Substance nor naturall proprieties of the bread and wine are chaunged by consecration as the whole Church then beleeued and confessed therefore neither the substance nor shape nor circumscription of Chrisâ—es humane nature were changed by his ascention but his body remaineth in the â—ame substance quantitie and forme that he rose from death and ascended vp withall and with the very same forme and substance of flesh shall come to iudge the worlde These are his wordes Thou art caught saith Theodoret to the heretike with the same nets that thou laiedst for others The mysticall signes after sanctification doe not depart from their own nature For they remanie in their former substance and figure and forme c. Conferre then the Image with the originall and thou shalt see the likenes betweene them For the figure must be like to the trueth That body therefore of christ in heauen hath his former shape and figure circumscription to speake al at once his former substance Lay all your heades together aâ—d graunting the Maior which the whole Church held auoide the conclusion of Eutiches withâ—ut the denying the Minor as Theodoret did which yet is your faith and beleefe at this day and we wil grant you to be Catholiks and our selues heretikes If you cannot see how far you be falleÌ„ from the doctrine of Christs church and that in no lesse point than the greatest and chieâ—esâ— Sacrament on which you haue wickedly founded your adoration oblation halfe communion priuate masse and barbarous prayers without
example without warrant of God or man Phi. Theodoret hath set you vppe in your Ruffe but I would you knew it in this case we care neither for Theodoret nor you if that were his opinion as it is yours Theo. And who hath put you into your ruffe that you not only despise that learned and auncient Bishoppe but the whole Church in him which then so beleeued and you cannot auoide at this day except you will bee Eutichians Phi. The Maior is not altogether so sâ—und as you thinke it Theo. Yet did Gelasius and Theodoret confound that error with that comparison and S. Augustine long before thâ—m did vrge the same This is it that wee say this is it that by all meanes we labour to confirme to witte that the Sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things the visible kinde of elementes and the inuisible flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ the Sacrament and the thing of the SACRAMENT euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man for so much as euery thing containeth the nature and trueth of those things of which it consisteth By which rule it is certaine there musâ— be in the sacrament the nature truâ—th and substance of bread and wine euen as in Christes person either nature hath his trueth and substance without confusion or distraction Phi. We haue fathers to the contrary if the time did serue to produce them as anon I will In the meane while what is this to Leo Theophil Leo in few words abbridgeth the sumâ— of this reason and saith the followers of Eutiches doe in vaine with their mouthes receâ—ne the Sacrament since with their hartes they doe not beleeue the tâ—ueth of Christs humane nature and answer AmeÌ„ to no purpose so long as they dispute against that which they would seâ—m to enioye by receiuing the seale and pledge thereof in the church with others Phi. This is your Commentarie besâ—des the text his wordes are The selfe same bodie which wee beleeue with faith is receiued with mouth Which you cannot interprete to be mâ—ant of the bread For the breade is not beleeued with hart and against the trueth of Christs bodie not against the bread did the followers of Eutiches dispute Theo. Doth Leo â—aie the selâ— same bodie Phi. He saith Hoc ore sumitur quod fide creditur that is receiued with the mouth which with our faith is beleeued and that cannot be the bread The. Much lesse maie it be the natural bodie of Christ. For then Leo had mightilie confirmed not confuted Eutiches opinion His error was that the humanitie of christ after his ascension was swallowed vp of his diuinitie and so changed that it was now no naturall bodie Against this if Leo should haue opposâ—d your reall presence in the Sacrament where Christs body is without quantity shape circumscription distinction of partes and all other conditions of a naturall body he had beene a Proctour â—or Eutiches impiety not a confuter of it Neither could Eutiches himsâ—lfe haue wished a better defence for his heresie than the confessâ—on â—f such a bodâ—e as you imagine in the sacrament and therfore you haâ—k that HOC ilfauouredly when you make Leo rather a consenter with Eutiches than a disprouer of him with your fantasticall presence which is an approbation and no refutation of Eutiches error Phil. What a slander this is that the reall presence should be a refuge for Eutichâ—s error Theoph. Such a slaunder as with all your cunning you shall neuer wipe awaie Phi. Doe we not affirme the substance of Chrisâ—es humane flesh to be in the Sacrament The. Such a substance as Eutiches him selfe imagined hauing neither proportion of shape nor position of parts nor repletion of place nor anie condition incident to a naturall bodie but the godly fathers were farre from vrging such a substance against Eutiches They pressed him with the bodilie shape circumscription extension and perfeâ—â—ion of Christes flesh as well in all other requisites as in substance and to prooue this amongst other arguments they brought as I haue shewed the Sacrament for a resemblance and demonstrance of both natures in Chrisâ— that as the bread after consecration keepeth his quantity quality shape and substance notwithstanding it be vnited and annexed to the heauenly grace that worketh in the sacrament so the bodie of Christ after his assumption retaineth his former perfection proportion figure and substance loosing no poinâ—â— nor part of his humane nature but only replenished with immortall glorie This must be Leoes Hoc if he will do any good with alleaging the Sacrament against Eutiches as I haue proued by Austen Gelasius and Theodoret Otherwise if he do but mention your real presence he openeth the gappe and leuelleth the way to Eutiches furie and runneth headlong against the rest of his fellow seruants and successours that vsed the same argument to confute Euâ—iches with a manifest contradiction of your reall presence Phi. I bring you Leoes wordes Theo. Leoes wordes haue nothing in them to crosse that sense which I establish Hoc signifieth any thing and hath no relation to Christes flesh in the sacrament but to the proportion rather betweene Christ the sacrament in that they beleeued no other thing of Christ than they saw with their eyes receiued with their mouths in the Sacrament to wit the perfect shape substance of bread after Consecration consequently they must holde the same opinion of Christs humanitie after his ascension Phi. If you vse this trade you may peruert all the fathers writings and make what sense you list to their sayings Theo. Peruert them no more than we doe and you shall neuer euert the maine doctrine as you haue doone We measure â—heir wordes by their owne warrant and suffer nâ—t a phrase here and there which may bee well reuoked to their rules to vndermine the chiefe grouâ—des of their faith Phi. No more doe we Theo. Why then rage you to heare vâ— say that these few places which you haue brought for eating christs bodie with your mouthes and iawes may be referred to the signes called by those names as well as to the things themselues Phi. You take vpon you to bee Iudges and to pronounce at your pleasures when the wordâ—s shall belong to the one and when to the other so that no father shall say any thing against your heresie but yet will by and by turne it and wind it I knowe not whither Theo. Nothing more hindereth the search for trueth than a desire to lye We shew you the general admonition of the fathers themselues that after consecration they call the visible signes no longer by their woonted names but by the names of those things whose signes they are and whose vertues they haue This Rule we say is then to take place when the speach which we find in a father if it should be referred to the things themselues would be both absurd and repugnant to
which I will giue is my fleshe giuen for the life of the world Hee that eateth mee shall liue through mee hee abideth in mee and I in him I am the liuing bread which came downe from heauen if any man eate of this bread hee shall liue for euer Most delightful bread heale thou the tast of my heart that I may feele the sweetenesse of thy loue Let mine heart eate thee and with thy present relesse let the bowels of my soule bee replenished Angels eate thee with full mouth let man that is a pilgrime on earth eate thee as his weakenesse will suffer him that hee faint not in the way hauing this prouision for his iourney Holy bread liuing bread beautifull bread which camest from heauen and giuest life to the worlde come into my heart and clense mee from all filth of flesh and spirit Enter into my soule heale and sanctifie me within and without No man earnester in this point than S. Austen This visible bread confirmeth the stomack confirmeth the bellie There is an other bread which confirmeth the hart because it is the bread of the hart There is a wine that doth rightly cheere the hart can do nothing but cheere the hart Therfore vnderstand so of the bread as thou doest of the wine inwardly hūger inwardly thirst blessed are they which hunger thirst after righteousnes for they shal be satisfied That breade is righteousnes that wine is righteousnesse is trueth and Christ is the trueth I am saieth hee the liuing bread which came from heauen and I am the vine you are but braunches To beleeue in him this is to eate the liuing bread hee that beleeueth eateth Man is inuisibly fedde because hee is inuisibly regenerated He is inwardly in soule a babe inwardly in minde renewed Looke in what part man is newe borne in that part is hee fedde The vnbeleeuing Iewes were farre from this heauenly breade neither knewe they howe to hunger for it the iawes of their hearts were dull and this bread requireth the hunger of the inward man Take heed brethren eate you this heauenly bread spiritually bring innocencie to the altar Eate life and drinke life For then is the bodie and blood of the Lord life to each man when that which is visiblie taken in the Sacrament is in very trueth spiritually eaten spiritually drunken When Christ is eaten life is eaten neither when wee eate him doe wee make peeces of him In deede in the Sacrament it is so and the faithfull knowe howe they eate the fleshe of Christ euerie man taketh his peece Wherefore grace it selfe is termed peeces Christ is eaten by peeces in the sacrament and yet hee remaineth whole in heauen hee remayneth whole in thine heart Prouide not your iawes but your heart Thence is this Supper commended Beholde wee beleeue in Christ wee receiue him with our fayth In taking wee know what wee should thinke wee take him but a litle and our heart is replenished Macarius In the church is offered breade and wine the samplar of his body and blood and they which are partakers of the visible breade doe spiritually eate the Lordes fleshe Emissenus When thou goest vppe to the reuerende Altar to bee filled with spirituall meats by fayth beholde honour and wonder at the sacred bodie and bloode of thy God touch it with thy mynde take it with the hand of thyne heart and chiefely prouide that the inwarde manne swallowe the whole This Doctrine continued eight hundreth yeares after Christ. Bertram then liuing is witnesse sufficient The bodie and blood of Christ if thou consider the outward appearance is a creature subiect to mutation and corruption but if thou waigh the vertue of the mysterie it is life performing immortalitie to those that receiue it As touching the visible creature the mysteries feed the body but by the vertue of a mightier substance they feede sanctify the soules of the faithful What we should eat what we should drinke the holy Ghost expresseth by the Prophet Tast and see howe sweete the Lord is Doeth that breade corporally tasted or that wine sipped shewe howe sweete the Lorde is whatsoeuer tast that hath it is corporall and pleaseth the iawes Hee doeth therefore inuite vs to vse the relesse of our spirituall tast in that breade and drinke to dreame of no corporall thing but to conceiue all to bee spirituall This meate confirmeth our heart and this drinke cheereth the heart of man sayeth the Prophet By the which it is euident that nothing in this meate nothing in this drinke must bee corporally taken but the whole spirituallie considered For the soule which is ment by mans heart in this place is not fedde with corporall meate or drinke but is refreshed and nourished with the worde of God Faith beleeueth that which is not seene and spiritually feedeeth the soule and cheereth the heart and giueth eternall life whiles wee marke not that which feedeth the bodie not that which is pressed with teeth not that which is brused in peeces but that which is spiritually taken with faith For this is a spirituall foode and a spirituall drinke spiritually feeding the soule Paschasius commeth after Bertram in age but ioyneth with him in the same confession of trueth The diuine mysteries our inwarde man receiueth through the grace of Christ with vnderstanding and by them is hee made one bodie with Christ through the power of faith The fleshe and blood of Christ because they bee thinges spirituall are fullie receiued by fayth and vnderstanding It is not lawfull to eate Christ with teeth Christ is the meate of Angels and this Sacrament is truely his fleshe and his blood which fleshe and blood man eateth and drinketh spirituallie And so by what food the Angels liue by that also man liueth because in this that man receiueth all is diuine and spirituall Wee drinke spiritually and wee eate the spirituall flesh of Christ in which is beleeued to bee eternall life All that wee eate is spirituall The power of faith and vnderstanding which doubteth nothing of Christ doeth tast and relesse the whole spiritually Otherwise but for faith and vnderstanding what finde they which tast these thinges besides breade and wine The visible quantitie must not bee esteemed in this mysterie but the power of the spirituall Sacrament Wee must not respect howe much of the quantitie is pressed with our teeth but how much is receiued through faith and loue Therefore my sonne when thou commest to the participation of this mysterie OPEN THE BOSOM OF THY MINDE cleanse thy conscience and receiue thou not what a morsell containeth but AS MVCH AS THY FAITH APPREHENDETH Fulbertus a thousand yeres after Christ treadeth the same path That which appeared outwardly to be the substance of breade and wine is nowe made the bodie and blood
Ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed reuera manducare corpus Christi eius sanguinem bibere The Lord sheweth what it is to eate the flesh of christ drinke his bloud not by way of a sacrament but in deede As if he had said hee that remaineth not in me and in whom I doe not likewise remaine let him neuer say nor thinke that he eateth my flesh or drinketh my bloud That which here he calleth Sacramento tènus before in the same Chapter hee called solo Sacramento opposing against it reuera maÌ„nducare prouing that neither heretikes nor wicked Christians do in deede eate the bodie of Christ but only the Sacrament that is the sacred signe of his bodie They rightly vnderstand that he must not be said to eate the bodie of christ which is not in the body of christ as heretikes be not and of wicked liuers though they keepe in the Church he saith Nec isti dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quia nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Neither are these that liue wickedly to bee saide to eate the bodie of christ since they must not be counted the members of Christ. Phi. Not spiritually but Sacramentally they do eate the bodie of Christ though they be wicked and so Sainct Augustine teacheth Theo. Keepe the wordes and sense which S. Augustine hath you shall be free from this error which now you are in He that remaineth not in Christ and in whom Christ abideth not without all doubt doth not spiritually eate his fleshe nor drinke his bloud though carnally and visibly he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of Christs bodie and bloud Sacramentall eating is the carnall and visible pressing with teeth the Sacrament of Christes bodie and bloud it is not the reall eating of Christ himselfe Phi. The Sacrament is Christ we say Theo. But so said not Sainct Augustine He diligently distinguisheth Sacramentum rem Sacramenti the Sacrament and the thing which is the other part of the Sacrament interpreting the Sacrament to be Sacrum Signum a sacred Signe and the thing it selfe to be the bodie of Christ. The Sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two parts Sacramentâ— re Sacramenti id est corpore Christi of the sacrament the thing of the Sacrament which is the bodie of Christ. There is therefore the Sacrament the thing of the Sacrament to witte the body of Christ. Of the Sacrament he saith It is receiued at the Lordes table of some to life of some to destruction Res vero ipsa cuius Sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit But the thing it selfe whereof that is a Sacrament is receiued of all men to life and of none to death whosoeuer is partaker of it The rest ioyne with him in that assertion Heretikes saith Hierom doe not eate his fleshe whose fleshe is the meate of the faithfull Whosoeuer saith Ambrose eateth this bread he shall not die for euer and it is the bodie of Christ. None is partaker of this lambe saith Cyprian that is not a right Israelite The worde saith Origen was made fleshe and true meate the which whosoeuer eateth shall liue for euer Quem nullus malus potest edere whom no wicked person can eate The Sacraments that is the sacred signes of Christes bodie and bloude the wicked doe eate Christ him-selfe they doe not And why The Sacraments are carnally pressed with teeth which they are partakers of as well as the Godlie but Christ him-selfe is not eaten with teeth and therefore the wicked wanting both spirite and faith by which he is receiued cannot possibly eate his fleshe or drinke his bloud though they come to his table neuer so often Phi. If Christ be really contained in the visible Sacrament how can they receiue it but they must receiue him also Theo. If hee were locally and substantially there inclosed it could not be auoided but receiuing the one into their mouthes they must needs also receiue the other into the same passage but because neither he is eaten with teeth nor entereth the bodies of the wicked as where hee abydeth not therefore wee rightly conclude that hee is not corporally couered with the accidentes of bread and wine as you grossely conceiue Phi. The lambe of God lieth on the Altar by the very profession of the first Nicene Councel we aske you now where and how if not vnder the forms of bread and wine Theo. The best handfast you haue in fathers or Councels for this cause is a few speeches wrested and forced from the inward man to the outward from the soul which they ment to the bodie which you vrge thereby to settle your reall and bodily presence but all in vaine For as we doubt not that Christ is alwaies present on his table in trueth grace vertue and effect if we open the eyes of our faith to beholde him and mouth of our spirites to receiue him so the local and corporal hiding of his humane substance vnder the shewes of breade and wine was neuer taught by any Catholike father or councel least of al by the first Nicen Synode exhorting vs in those mysteries or on that sacred table by faith to consider the lambe of God that tooke away the sinnes of the world Whâ—ch if any doe not both professe and perfourme he is not worthie to be counted a Christian. Phi. How saith S. Chrysost wilt thou stand before the tribunal of Christ which inuadest euen his own bodie with wicked hands and lippes Theo. This is not the way to seeke for trueth but to shadowe the same with phrases of speeches And yet in these and al other your allegations out of Chrysostom and others you coÌ„mit these two grosse ouersightes You vnderstand that of the sensible creatures in the sacrament which was spoken of the insensible grace you refer that to the visible parts of our bodies which was inteÌ„ded to the inuisible powers of the mynd with these false fouÌ„dations you run along the fathers peruerting euerie place that you quote as a meane diuine may soone perceiue Phi. These be your shifts to auoide the fathers which we bring because you will not acknowledge the real corporal presence of christ in the sacrament Theo. First proue that Christ is really and corporally present vnder the forms of bread and wine then reproue vs if we do not â—cknowledge it Phi. Doubt you that Theo. Can you proue that Phi. What That Christ is present in the sacrament Theo. Is that the thing which we deny Phi. For ought that I see you graunt not so much The. God forbid we should deny that the flesh bloud of christ are truly present truely receiued of the faithfull at the Lords table It is the doctrine that we â—each others and comfort our selues with Wee neuer
doubted but the trueth was present with the signe the spirite with the sacrameÌ„t as Cyprian saith We knew there could not follow an operation if there went not a presence before Set a side your carnal imaginations of Christ couered with accidences his flesh chammed betweene your teeth and say what you will either of his inuiâ—â—ble presence by power and grace or of the spiritual and effectuall participation of his flesh and bloud offered and receiued of the faith-full by this Sacrament for the quickening and preseruing of their soules and bodies to eternall life we ioyne with you no wordes shal displease vs that any way declare the trueth or force of this mysterie Your locall compassing of Christ with the shewes and fantasticall appearances of bread wine your reall grinding of his flesh with your iawes these be the points that we deny to be Catholike these doe the fathers refute as erroneous and in these your owne fellowes be not yet resolued what to say or what to hold Phi. Be not we resolued what to hold of Christes reall being in the Sacrament and the corporall eating his flesh with our mouthes Theo. How you be secretly resolued I know not your iudgementes laid downe to the world in writing are cleane contrarie Phi. Ours Theo. Whose said I but yours Phi. Howsouer in other thinges we retaine the libertie of the Schooles to dispute pro con yet in this you shall finde vs all together Theo. Together by the eares as dogges for bones Omit your contentions what the pronowne H O C supposeth what the verbe E S T â—ignifieth when and how the bread is abolished whether by conuersion or annihilation what bodie succeedeth and whether with distinction of parts and extension of quantity or without what subiect the accidents haue to hang on whether the aire or the body of Christ what it is that soureth and putrifieth in the formes of bread and wine whether it be the same bodie that sitteth in heauen and if it be how so many contradictions may be verified of one the same thing Omit I say these with infinite other like contentions the corporall eating of christ with your mouthes are you all agreed about it Philan. We are Theo. Your two Seminaries are perhaps because they hearken rather for sedition in the realme than for Religion in the Schooles But the great Rabbins of your side are they in one opinion concerning this matter Phi. Great and small consent togither against you Theo. Against trueth they doe but in their owne fantasticall error they doe not The cheefest Pillours of your church when they come to that point which is now in handling wander in the desert of their owne deuises as men forsaking and forsaken of trueth Your Gloze is content if a man gape wide that the body of christ shall enter his mouth but he holdeth it for an heresie that the teeth should touch the same and therefore when the iawes beginne to close he dispatcheth away the body of christ in post towards heauen Certum est It is no coniecture but certaine that as soone as the formes of bread be pressed with the teeth tam cito presently the bodie of christ is caught vp into heauen Durandus is more fauourable to the teeth and will haue christ present in the mouth chamme he that list till his â—awes ake but hee is as strait laced against the stomack as the glozer is against the teeth and wil by no meanes haue the bodie of christ to passe thither building himselfe on these wordes of Hugo Christ is corporally present in visu in sapore whiles wee see or tast the sacrament As long as our bodily senses are affected so long his corporall presence is not remooued but when once the senses of our bodie beginne to faile that we neither see nor tast the formes then must wee seeke no longer for a corporall presence but retaine the spirituall because christ passeth from the mouth neither to heauen as the Gloze said nor to the stomack as the rest affirme but to the hart And better it is that he goe straight to the mind than descend to the stomacke Others is whome Bonauenture more inclineth will no way but Christ must take vp his lodging as wel in the stomacke as in the mouth maâ—y thence they suffer him not to wagge neither vpward nor downward whatsoeuer become of the accidentâ—l forms of bread and wine And lest it should be â—hought as Durand and Hugo say that the bodie of Christ goeth to the hart he repâ—ieâ—h that Quantum ad substantiam corporis certum est quod non vadit in meâ—tem sed vtrum sic vadâ—t in ventrâ—m dubium est propter diuersitatem opinionum as touching the substance of his bodie it is cleare that he passeth not to the mind but whether he so come that is in the substance of his bodie from the mouth to the belliâ— this is yet in doubt by reason of the diueâ—sitie of opinions in so great varietie what to hold is haâ—d to iudge Yet he liketh not that Aut mus in ventrem traijceret aut in cloacam descenderet the bodie of Christ shuld goe into the bellie of a mouse or be cast foorth by the draught because the eares of well disposed persons would abhorre that sidiceremus haeretici infideles deriderent nos irriderent and if we should defend that the heretiks and infidels would iest at vs and laugh vs to scorne This notwithstanding Alexander de Hales in spiâ—e of al heretikes and infidels â—entereth on it If a dog or an hogge saith he should eat the whole consecrated host I see no cause but the Lords bodie should goe therewithall into the bellie of that dog or hog Thomas of Aquine sharpely reprouâ—th them which thinke otherwise Some haue saide that as soone as the Sacrament is taken of a mouse or a dog streight way the bodie and bloud of Christ cease to be there but this is a derogation to the trueth of this Sacrament In â—auour of Thomas Petrus de Palude Ioannes de Burgo Nicolaus de Oâ—bellis with the whole sect of Thomists neither few in number nor mean in credite with the church of Rome defend the same yea where the master of the sentences seemed to shrinke from this loathsome position It may wel be said that the bodie of Christ is not receined of brute beasts the facultie of diuines in Paris with full consent gaue him this check here the master is refused And for feare lest the field should be wonne without him in steppeth Antonius Archbishoppe of Florence and recompenseth his late comming with his lewd writing First hee telleth how Petrus de Palude dressed the Glâ—ze for saying that Christ is caught vp to heauen as soone as the formes of the sacrament are pressed with our teeth Quod dicere est haereticum which
failing or changing Phi. That we beleeue Theo. How theÌ„ can the manhood of Christ be in many places at one time Or how can it in any place or time be without shape quantitie circumscription and such like proprieties of mans nature Phi. In heauen it hath them Theo. If they can not be changed or altered the manhoode of Christ must haue them not in heauen only but in earth also in euery place where the substance of his bodie is Philand Saue in the Sacrament Theophi If that be the same bodie which was on the Crosse it must haue the same natural proprieties of a body which that had Phi. It hath as many as it may Theo. It must haue as many as it should Phi. Which be they Theo. Proportion of shape distinction of parts extension of quantitie circumscription of place and the very same substance of fleshe which hee tooke of his mother Marie Phi. You name these things which you see bee not in the Sacrament Theophi I name those which the manhood of Christ must haue wheresoeuer it be Phi. Must haue What necessitie is in that Theo. As much as the denying of your faith contradicting of his trueth For these proprieties the body had that hung on the Crosse and without these hee can be no true man Philan. In heauen we tell you he hath them Theophil And in the Sacrament wee tell you â—ee hath them not Ergo the manhoode of Christ is not in the Sacrament Phi. Cannot Christ be where he list without those consequents Theo. His bodie can not Phi. Doe not you nowe deny him to be omnipotent Theophi Doe not you now alleadge his power to frustrate both his will and your faith Philand You hold christ cannot if he would Theo. We say christ would not though he could And since his will is euident by his worde as our common faith auoucheth you doe wickedly to crosse his will with his power and make his might attendant on your follies Dei velle posse est non posse nolle The power of God which we must stand on is his wil and that which he will not that he cannot You must not therefore imagine what you list and then ground vpon the power and strength of GOD it is error and impietie whatsoeuer is repugnant to his trueth and to father your falsehoodes on his almightie power is irreuerent and insolent blasphemie Phi. You doe not so much as confesse that he can doe it and that causeth vs to suspect you doubt of Gods omnipotencie Theo. Because we suffer you not to vnload your absurdities and impieties on Gods power at your pleasures Philand First graunt hee can doe it and of that wee will commune afterward Theo. What shall I graunt Phi. That Christ according to his corporall presence may be in many places at one time if it please him Theo. What then shal become of S. Austen that said Christ could not concerning his corporall presence be at one time in the sunne in the moone and on the crosse And of S. Cyril affirming that Christ could not be conuersant with his Apostles after he once ascended If hee could not bee in three places at one time how could hee bee in moe If not in earth when he was in heauen how both in heauen and earth as you your selues conceiued and woulde haue vs confesse And yet the thing which we withstand is far more impossible than this For the manhoode of Christ by the tenour of the christian faith hath and must haue after his ascension humane shape partes length breadth both extended circumscribed and otherwise to thinke is the wicked and cursed opinion of Eutyches condemned long since by the church of God for a meere impietie You to auoide the burdeÌ„ of that sentence confes these properties are must be permaneÌ„t in the body which our sauiour tooke of the virgin wherein he now sitteth at the right hand of God his father marie the selfesame bodie you defend to bee in the sacrament without shape partes length or breadth either extended or circumscribed which is wee say simplie impossible For shaped not shaped extended not extended circumscribed not circumscribed be plaine contradictions those of one thing at one time are not possible Phi. Is any thing impossible to God Theo. Doth not the Apostle say Negare seipsum non potest God cannot deny himselfe Impossibile est Deum mentiri it is impossible that God should lie S. Austen well noteth Dicitur omnipotens faciendo quod vult non patiendo quod non vult vnde propterea quaedam non potest quia est omnipotens God is said to be omnipotent in doing that he will not in suffering that hee will not And therefore can he not doe some things because he is omnipotent And S. Ambrose likewise Quid ergo ei impossibile Non quod virtuti arduum sed quod naturae eius contrarium What then is impossible to God not that which passeth his power but that which is contrarie to his nature Impossibile istud non infirmitatis sed virtutis maiestatis quia veritas non recipit mendacium nec Dei virtus leuitatis errorem This impossibilitie proceedeth not of infirmitie but of might and maiestie because the trueth of God admitteth not a lie nor the power of God any note of inconstancie So that all changes against his nature or falshoods against his trueth bee vtterly impossible to GOD and that because hee is almighty Phi. That we know Theo. Then this also you must needs know that contradictions be impossible for of theÌ„ if one part be true the other is euer false and that God should be false it is not possible You must therfore either with Eutyches affirme the manhood of christ to be changed from his former shape partes quantitie and circumscription and consequently from his former substance or els against religion and learning reason and sense defend contradictions that is trueth and falshoode to bee possible both at one time which is nothing but to make God a liar in his workes as you be in your wordes for maintaining that error Phi. At diuers times and in 〈…〉 contradictions may bee true Theo. There can be but one part 〈…〉 other at the same instant is ineuitablie false and as for your 〈…〉 the proprieties of christes bodie which wee speake of bee absâ—lute and inherent necessities no relations nor comparisons you may keepe them for some better â—art in this assertion they will doe you no seruice Phi. What if we say the bodie of christ in the Sacrament hath the same proportion of shape extension of partes and circumscription of place which it hath in heauen how can you refell vs Theo. Neuer take the paiâ—es to incur new contradictions a shorter answer will serue you for all and that is say you beleeue you cannot tell what For otherwise men
Friers vnder the names of ancient and learnâ—â— Fathers Phi. Whatsoeuer he was ancient he was and taught the same doctrine without all question which we doe Theo. His antiquitie you know not and his doctrine you vnderstand not For though we like not your shuffling and exchanging of names with the fathers and broaching your fancies and heresies vnder their 〈…〉 this whâ—le sermon we can and doe admitte as hauing nothing either dissident from true antiquitie or repugnant to that which we teach Phi. Will you say that doctrine of his is not repugnant to yours Theo. Why should I not Phi. Wil you confesse that the visible creatures are turned into the substance of christs flesh by the secret power of his word The. His words I say make nothing for your abolishing the substance of bread and wine and leauing the accidents Phi. He saith the visible creatures are turned into the substance of Christs body and bloud Theo. But he saith not the substance of the visible creatures is turned into the substance of christs flesh Phi. How can one creature bee turned into the substance of an other but by loosing his former substance Theo. In natural mutations it is so but this is nothing lesse than natural Phi. It is diuine and supernaturall Theo. And so is it likewise spirituall and mysticall not really changing the matter and substance of the elements but casting grace vnto nature Phi. Nay he saith the substance of the creatures is changed Theo. Where saith he so Phi. He saith which is al one that the visible creatures are changed into the substance of christs body The. But by no material nor corporal change Phi. How can the creatures be turned into christs substaÌ„ce but by a material corporal change Theo. That is your error not your authors addition Phi. It is not possible to be otherwise Theo. What if your own writer in this very case and place reproue you for a liar Phi. That earthly creatures shoulde be turned into Christs substance without a materiall and substantiall change Neuer say it it cannot be Theo. Will you looke but two lines farther and you shall see this great impossibilitie auouched by your own author Quomodo tibi nouum impossibile esse non debeat quod in Christi substantiam terrena mortalia conuertuntur te ipsum qui in Christo es regeneratus interroga How this to thee should neither be strange nor impossible that mortal earthly creatures are turned into Christs substance aske thy selfe which art regenerated in Christ. Somtimes since thou wast farre from life excluded from mercie and banished from the path of saluation as being inwardly dead suddenly initiated by the lawes of christ renued by the healthfull mysteries thou didst passe into the body of the church not by sight but by faith thou which wert the sonne of perdition obtainedst to be made the adopted child of god by a secret puritie remaining in the same visible measure thou grewest inuisibly without increase of quantitie being thy self the very same that thou wast before in processe of faith thou becamest another in the outward man nothing was added al changed in the inward Taking this spiritual immaterial change of euery christiaÌ„ in baptism to shew in what sort how he ment that mortal earthly creatures by consâ—â—ration are conuerted into the substance of christ which is far froÌ„ a corporal substantial change such as you would vrge by preteÌ„ce of his words in yâ— creatures of bread wine Phi. This construction cannot stand that creatures should be turned into an other substance and yet remaine in their owne and former substance For then how are they chaunged Theo. In your physical conceits it cannot but if you consult those Fathers that were the first introducers of this speeche you shall finde it may Gelasius ioyneth them both together in one sentence the one to expound the other In diuinam transeunt spiritu sancto perficiente substantiam permanent tamen in suae proprietate naturae The sacraments of the bodie and blood of Christ passe into a diuine substance by the working of the holie Ghost and yet remaine in the proprietie of their owne nature And lest you shoulde cauell that they kept their former qualities and not their substance in expresse woordes he saith tamen non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis vini and yet for all they passe into a diuine substance the former substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not nor is abolished no more than the manhood of Christ was chaunged from his former substance when after his ascension it was replenished with diuine glorie Phi. You frustrate the sayings of the fathers with your comparisons Theo. They be their owne comparisons principal intentions in those places where they speake these wordes and therefore if you will rack the one to your length and not respect the other you may soone force some phrases to feede your fansies But this is not the safest way for you to walke in matters of faith nor the rightest course for you to take to come by their meaning You must looke how far they presse their own words what they would conclude not what you lâ—st to conceiue or imagine of their speaches Howsoeuer they mention a change of the bread into the diuine essence substance no father auoucheth any corporal material or substantial change of the elements into the bodie blood of Christ but a spirituall mystical and effectual annexing vniting the one to the other either paâ—t retaining the trueth of his former and proper nature and substance This is apparent by those very places sentences which you bring to prooue a chaunge the fathers teach not the one without the other as you saw for eâ—ample in Gelasius and your Eusebius and so in Cyprian Panis iste quem dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro This bread which the Lord gaue to his disciples chaunged not in shape but in nature by the omnipotencie of the word is made flesh and lest you should dreame of any materiall or substantiall chaunge as your manner is the verie next wordes in the same sentence are Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat diuinitas ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infundit essentia and as in the person of Christ his humanitie was seene his diuinitie was hidde and secret so in the visible sacrament the diuine essence doth infuse it selfe after an vnspeakeable manner Phi. Did you bring this place for vs or against vs you could not haue lighted on a fitter for our purpose if you shuld haue sought these seuen yeares The. I knowe it is one of your best authorities as you make your account and yet it is no way preiudiciall to vs if
you suffer the father him-selfe to tell out his owne tale and bee content to heare as well the ending as the entring of it Hee saieth the bread is chaunged in nature into the flesh of Christ by the almightie power of the woorde expressing in what into what and by what the bread is chaunged moe parts you cannot make Phi. Wee need not Theo. And yet all these notwithstanding he meaneth no materiall nor corporall change of the bread or wine but that as in the person of Christ there were two distinct perfect substances vnited and ioyned the one his manhood that was seene the other his godhead that was hid euen so to the visible Sacrament persisting in his former substance doth the diuine essence infunde it selfe after a secret and vnsearchable manner proouing the presence of an heauenly vertue to bee there by the inuisible efficience Philand If you will haue the bread keepe his proper and perfect both nature and substance what change is there made in the bread Theoph. This chaunge is not the casting awaie of any thing that was in the bread either nature or substance but the casting vnto it of an heauenly and inuisible grace and so Theoâ—orete expresseth the mutation that is in this sacrament Non naturam ipsam transmutans sed naturae adiiciens gratiam Not changing or casting away nature it selfe but adding grace vnto nature And that is S. Ambrose his meaning when hee saieth Sunt quae erant in aliud commutantur The bread and wine are the verie same that they were both in nature and substance and are changed into an other thing Philand How can this be that they should be changed and yet continue the same but as wee expound it that in substance they be chaunged and yet in shew continue as they were before Theoph. This is your fansie wee know but the learned fathers by their change meane no such thing they teach not any detraction or diminution of that which was but an adiection and apposition of that which was not And therefore they witnes both as well the permanence of the elements in their former nature as their change into an other Chrysostome said as you heard before The bread sanctified is counted worthie to be called the Lordes bodie etsi natura panis in ipso permansit though the nature of bread remaine there still and Theodoret Neque enim signa illa mystica post sanctificationem recedunt à sua natura those mysticall signes doe not by Consecration depart from their nature And Gelasius Non tamen desinit esse substantia vel natura panis vini and yet the substance or nature of bread wine doth not cease or perish And to this verie sacrament S. Austen applâ—eth this Rule Omnis res naturam veritatem illarum rerum in se continet ex quibus conficitur Euerie thing containeth or keepeth the nature truth of those things of which it consisteth Phi. You refuâ—â— Cyprian you doe not expound him He saith the nature of the bread is changed you prooue it remaineth be not these contrarie Theo. Bâ— your exposition they are by ours they are not For the nature of bread wee say remaineth and is in nothing diminished but encreased with an heauenly vertue that is added to it And this though it be a chaunge to that which it was not yet is it no change from that which it was Philand That is properly chaunged which is altered from that it was Theo. And that is as properly saied to be chaunged which is increased with that it was not though it be not altered in substance from that it was The soule of man is often chaunged but neuer in substance The bodie from the cradle to the graue hath many increases and changes but in substance persisteth the same that it was before it came into the worlde Euerie thing that groweth keepeth that it had atchiueth that it had not and yet is that a change But what neede we other examples since the fathers themselues doe both by their words similitudes shew what changes they ment A childe is changed by baptisme not in loosing or altering the substance of bodie or soul which hee had but in attaining the grace blessing of God which he had not The Lorde himselfe is changed in person by his ascension not that the trueth shape or circumscription of his flesh are abolished but endued with immortall glory So shall he alter our vile bodies not by spoiling them of their substance but by imparting to them of his brightnes and as S. Paul writeth We shall not all sleepe but we shall be changed Phi. S. Pauls wordes are nothing to the Sacrament Theo. They are somwhat to the vse of the word which I proposed and yet Ireneus doth not sticke to resemble the change in the Sacrament to the verie hope and assurance which our bodies now haue of that glorie before they be changed or haue cast off their mortal and earthly corruption As saith he the bread which is of the earth receiuing the inuocation of god is now no common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an earthlie an heauenlie so our bodies receiuing the Eucharist be now not corruptible that is not wholly destinated to corruption as hauing hope of resurrection Phi. But S. Ambrose repeateth examples of corporall and substantial changes when he would proue that blessing in this sacrament ouerbeareth nature Theo. S. Ambrose doth not say that the bread is changed after the same manner but meaning to shew that praier and benediction worketh where nature cannot yea many times altereth nature hee bringeth seauen examples whereof fiue are no substantial changes in the end concludeth that if the praiers speech of meÌ„ could turn alter things aboue against nature much more can the word of christ bring to passe that the elements shal bee that they were yet be changed into that they were not and which by nature they are not Phi. He hath no such wordes in that chapter Theo. His conclusion there is this Sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant The worde of Christ who could of nothing make that which was not can hee not change those things which are into that which before they were not And in the next booke intitled De Sacramentis assuming the same matter and producing almost all the same examples and arguments he resolueth in these wordes Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini Iesu vt inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est vt sint quae erant in aliud commutentur If there bee such force in the worde of the Lord Iesu that the things which were not at his worde beganne to be how much
〈◊〉 fourteene hundreth yeares after Christ and neuer anie man saw the bookes besides him Why should not a man beleeue the legend as well a◠〈◊〉 Walden the legend that being of more authoritie antiquitie thaÌ„ the frier * From Pope Hildebrand downeward a number of proud and stately prelates haue beene of your faction a Chrys. sermo 1. de Eucharist in Eucâ—eniis Chrysostoms words examined * That is thinke not on the clements but lift vp the eyes of thy mind aboue them as if they were consumed Accidents must be consumed as wel as substance by Chrysostomes similitude That which is not is no mysterie and Chrysostome saith the mysteries are consumed The end of Chrysostomes admonition and instruction b Chrys. in Eucaeniis sermo 1. de Eucharist Chrysostome would haue the communicants thinke the Priest is no man and the sacrament is a fierie coale It is wilfulnes to vnderstand one part of this sentence and to peruert the other Ibidem The right coÌ„struction of Chrysostoms wordes Cyril Catechis mystagogica 4. d Theophil in 26. Matth. That the Sacrament is no breade is a new kinde of speach though not much materiall for the Iesuits 1. Cor. ca. 10. f 1. Cor. 11. g Matth. 26. h Tertul. lib. 1. contra Marcionem i Clemens Alex. lib. 2. cap. 2. pedago k Cypr. lib. 2. epist 3. l Orig. in 15. Matth. m August tract in Iohan. 26. The elder fathers affirme the SacrameÌ„t to be bread n Cyril in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 14. o Hesych in Leuit cap. 8. ii 12. * What they meane that say it is no bread p Theophil in Marc. cap. 14. q Cyril Catech. mystagogica 3. r Idem Catech. mystagogica 4. No breade that is no bare and coÌ„mon bread s Iust. Apol. 2. t Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. u Ambros. de iis qui mysteriis initiantur ca. 9. Species panis is not taken for the qualities of the bread without the substance Wee haue no triall of substance but by sense Species doeth rather import than exclude the substance of these and all other creatures The comparison is liker than you are ware of No more is that in the bread any substantiall change The word species taken for euident truth a Ambros. de iis qui initiantur mysteriis cap. 4. b Idem de sacramentis li. 4. c. 4. Lib. 6. cap. 1. Species is the substance kind of anie creature Ambr. de iis qui initiantur mysteriis cap. 4. Ambros. de iis qui initiantur mysteriis cap. 9. f Ibidem g Ibidem h August de catechizandis rudibus ca. 26. i Idem in psal 77. k Idem tract 26. in Iohan. l Idem in tract 45. in Iohan. Species is nothing lâ—sse with the auncient fathers than a shewe without substance Ambro. de iis qui initiantur mysterâ—is cap. 9. n Aug. â—ermo ad infantes Citaâ—ur à Beda 1. Cor. cap. 11. * A change of the elements they confesse but not yours The chaunge in the elemeÌ„ts is indeede wonderfull One sacrameÌ„t in his effect and force is more miraculous than manie corporall and sensible woonders Christs eternall power trueth is required for the working of â—â—erie sacraâ—â—nt God is maruelous in his sacrameÌ„ts without transsubstantiation No father auoucheth the substanee of breade and wine to be chaunged De cons. dist 2. ¶ quia corpus This sermon is forged in Eusebius Emisenus name If his age be not knowen how can his authoritie be esteemed * Hier. de scriptoribus â—ccles in Euseb. Emeseno The Iesuits say he was a Frenchman Canisij Chronologia in 500. * Perhaps is as much as you cannot tell when Emesenus is bishop of Emesa in Syria Gracian hath put Emissenus for Emesenus by negligeÌ„ce or wilfulnes choose you whether No such place in all Europe as whence Emissenus shoulde be deriued This was a common practise with the friers in the faâ—hersâ— woâ—â—â—s * Canisij Chronologia in anno Dom. 500. Nothing is more easie than to giue a false inscription to aiâ—e booke Tomo 2. de sacramentis Walden citeth a peece of this sermoÌ„ vnder Anselmus name before he was ware Walden tomo 2. de sacramentis cap. 68. * You muâ—t care for the author before you cite him as a witnes in religion * They are but by no maâ—eriall or corporal change * How are we made flesh of Christs flesh and bones of his bones and yet keepe our earthly substance Yea forsooth the next words will tell you so much De cons. dist 2. ¶ quia corpus How mortall creatures may be turned into Christs substanâ—e Such a chaÌ„ge is in the sacred â—lements by your authors owne confession A thing may be chaunged and yet keepe his former substance Gelasius contrâ— Eutich A man may soone rack a woâ—d to any purpose if he respect not the intent concuâ—rents Cypr. de caenâ— Domini Cypr. Ibidem Two substances in the sacrament as there weâ—e in Christ. This is one of their surest places Virtutis diuinae inuisibili efficientia probans adesse praesentiam Cypr. de â—aena Domini Theod. dial 1. Ambos de Sacrament lib. 4. cap. 4. * And so Bertram 700. yeares agoe did expound these wordes of S. Ambrose Chrysost. ad Caesâ—rium Theod. dial 2. Gelas. contrâ— Eutychen De cons. dist 2. ¶ Hoc est * It is chaunged by adding grace vnto it not by taking substance fro it * By these examples the fathers declare what chaunge is in the bread * By these examples the fathers declare what chaunge is in the bread * By these examples the fathers declare what chaunge is in the bread 1. Cor. 15. Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. * De iis qui mysteriis initiantur cap. 9. S. Ambrose by his seauen examples sheweth the power of the worde not the manner of the chaunge that is in the Sacrament Ambros. de iis qui initiantur mysteriis cap. 9. Ambros. de Sacramentis lib. 4. cap. 4. Ambr. Ibidem lib. 4. cap. 4. In this chaptâ—r his examples are no substantiall chaunges though he purposely persue the 〈◊〉 point that he did before * Neuer catch â— Iesuit without a crake * Some forgeries you shewed vs but one place of anie auncient writer you neither did nor can shew vs. The summe of all the obiections that they can make which are worth the answering Wee prooue our exposiâ—ion by other direct places they haue nothing but the generall ambiguitie of the wordes See fol. 756. Cypr. de caena Domini Their after-commers kept the same doctrine for almost a thousand yeares Walafrid Abbas de rebus eccles cap. 16. Citatur a Garetio Christianus Druthmarus in Matth. Paschas de corpore sanguine Domini cap. 28. Citâ—â—â—r a Tho. Walden to 2. de Sacramentis cap. 65. Two substances in the sacrifice as well as in Christ. The doctrine preached in the Saxons Churches of this realme vntill the conquest The sacrameÌ„t is a corruptible mutable creature The sacrameÌ„t is not Christs bodie corporallie This then is not the reall and naturall body of christ Lancfrancus and Anselme since the conquest the first authors of transsubstantiation within this realme Worldly kingdomes honors haue bin subiect to Antichrist in these latter ages The Iesuits are eueÌ„ drunk with the glory and renowne of them selues and their adherents God may call in all times places whomâ— he please though wee know it not It is not of our worthines but of his great mercy that wâ— haue his trueth which others had not Mat. 24. Mat. 24. Luk. 18. Iude. We must neither dislike the iustice of God towards others nor refuse his mercie offered to our selues The Iesuits are so deepe in loue with them-selues their fathers that they take skorne to stoope to the grace of God What subiection the Iesuits yeeld to their Princes that displease the Pope The Iesuites talke a pace of their catholicisme but they prooue it verie slowly An old practise of the Pharisies We desire nâ— more of their owne friends but to weigh their proofes in these cases These God willing shal be handled afore it be long They studie Machauel more than S. Paul If they defeÌ„d rebellions in open sight what do they in secret corners Persons recoÌ„ciled must in the end be traitors whether they ment it at first or noâ— the Iesuits haue so tempered religion and treasoÌ„ to flatter the Pope * Vnlesse they recall this position the coÌ„clusion is ineuitable
of Christ inwardly Tast therefore and see howe sweete the meate is but learne before what manner of tast it hath It beareth the tast of Angels foode hauing in it a mysticall and pleasaunt relesse which thou canst not discerne with thy mouth but mayest vnderstande with thine inwarde affection Holde readie the mouth of thy fayth open the iawes of hope stretch out the bowels of loue and take the breade of life which is the nourishment of the inwarde man Tast I saie the sweetenesse of this heauenly banquette but lothe the smatche of the earthlie fruites For from the faith of the inwarde man commeth the tasting of the diuine iuyce whiles by the taking of the healthful Eucharist CHRIST FLOWETH INTO THE BOWELS OF THE SOVLE OF THE RECEAVER AND THE RELIGIOVS MINDE ADMITTETH HIM INTO HER CHAST AND INNERMOST ROOMES There shall neede no long discourse to proue that these Catholike Fathers teach in the Lordes Supper a spirituall kinde of eating the fleshe of Christ by faith and vnderstanding as wee doe not a corporall with teeth and iawes as you doe The places bee manie the wordes plaine you can not shift them vnlesse you will desperatly take fleshe for spirite bodie for soule chamming for beleeuing earth for heauen yea a dumme and dead creature for the liuing and euerlasting sonne of God which were not onely sensible blindnesse but in excusable madnes Phi. The spiritual eating wee doe not deny but we adde to that a corporall because the soul may bee partaker of Christ by faith notwithstanding the mouth receiue the very flesh of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine Theo. This is your onely refuge that is left and this will not helpe you For examine this answere a while and you shall soone see the weakenesse of it My flesh is truely meate saith Christ and my blood is truely drinke Hee that doubteth of this we holde him accursed you doe the like thus farre we agree Mary for what part of man soule or bodie this meate was prouided in this we dissent You say for the body no lesse than for the soule wee say for the soule and not for the body So saide Chrysostome before vs. This meate feedeth not the body but the soule So saide Ambrose It is no bodilie but Ghostlie meate So said Augustine Prepare not your iawes but your harts thence is this super commended so saide Cyprian This is the proper nourishment of the spirit and not common to the flesh Now that which is eaten is meate And therefore if Christ bee no meate for the bodie but onely for the soule assuredly Christ is not eaten of our bodies but of soules only Next you confesse that the mortall and sinnefull bodies of men may not bee substantially nourished with the glorious and immortall flesh of Christ and eating is altogither in vaine euen of the flesh of Christ it selfe without norishing al the fathers with one consent teach this to be the end of caring the fleshe of Christ that we should be thereby norished to life eternal Why then striue you for a corporal eating where your selues dare not defend any corporal norishing Why distract you eating frō norishing by referring them one to the body the other to the soule which the Fathers alwayes ioyned applied to one the self same part of man Many mothers saith Chrysost. deliuered their infants whē they are born to other norces which he would not do but norisheth vs with his own body And in the same place where he saith Ipsum vides ipsum tangis ipsum comedis thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him addeth Ea namque re nos alimur quam Angeli videntes tremunt For we are nourished with that thing which the Angels tremble when they behold And so the rest of the Fathers call it not onely meate to eate but nutrimentum alimoniam norishment food to keepe the receiuer in plight and good liking So that that part of man doth not eat the fleshe of Christ which is not norished with it And since you dare not auouch that our bodies are really nourished with the flesh of Christ why shoulde you hold that our mouthes do reallie eate him Lastly with what one meate can you fit both the bodies and soules of men That which entereth the body must bee locall and corporall That which feedeth the soule must bee spirituall and intellectuall The soule hath no locall receites nor corporall instrumentes for her kinde of eating but onely faith and vnderstanding So that if the fleshe of Christ in this mysterie bee materiall and locall how canne it feede the soule If it bee spirituall and intellectuall howe can it bee chammed with teeth or closed in the streites of the stomack Local not local corporal not corporal be plaine contradictions and by no meanes incident to the naturall flesh of Christ. One it must needs be both it cannot be though you would sweate out your hearts with wrangling And that Christ is not eaten with teeth or mouth the Ghospell in plaine wordes auoucheth with vs. Whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life my flesh is meat indeed my bloud is drinke in deed hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him saith our Sauiour The wicked liue not by Christ neither abide in Christ and therefore by the verie determination of the Lorde him-self they neither eate his flesh nor drinke his bloude Runne nowe to your distinction of corporall and spirituall eating when you will but so long as these wordes stand written in the Ghospell he that eateth me euen he shall liue by me the Godly will soone conclude that SVCH AS LIVE NOT BY CHRIST DOE NOT EATE CHRIST and so that corporall eating of Christes flesh which you would erect common to the faithfull and faithlesse to be no kind of eating at al notwithstanding they receiue the materiall and external elementes of this mysterie Phi. In spite of all your places and proofes there is a Sacramentall eateing of Christs flesh with mouth and iawes besides your spirituall eating it with faith and spirite which you could not doe vnlesse it were really present therefore you doe not well to beguile the simple in this sort with refuting one trueth by an other whereas the fathers confessed both Theo. In spite of all your late deuises euasions the flesh of Christ is not truely eaten with Capernites teeth or Iesuits iawes neither do the fathers auouch any such thing saue in that sense which I last declared that the signes so called are eaten of the wicked with their mouthes and throates but of the flesh it selfe and bloud of Christ they plainly affirme the contrarie S. Augustine expounding the wordes of our sauiour hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud remaineth in me and I in him saith