these things hang together for my part I cannot see Would to God your selfe had taken the paines to shew it But this is your solemne fault you quote the sayings of the Fathers and leaue mee to gather your Conclusions I may well thinke because you saw no great force or strength in them And whether Gregory did favor Transubstantiation or no let it be tried by these words As the Divinity of the word of God is one which filleth all the world so although that body bee consecrated in many places at innumerable times yet are there not many bodies of Christ nor many cups but one body of Christ and one bloud with that which he tooke in the wombe of the Virgin and which he gaue to the Apostles For the Divinity of the word filleth that which is every where and conioyneth and maketh that as it is one so it bee ioyned to the body of Christ and his body be in truth one Here according to Gregory the body of Christ doth not succeed and fill vp the roome of bread after the substance thereof is abolished but the fulnesse and vertue of the Divinity which filleth the bread maketh it â—o passe into the body of Christ and so to be one body of Christ. Which how it can stand with your Transubstantiation iudge you N. N. These Hereticks admit not the Eucharists and oblations because they will not confesse that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Iesus Christ which hath suffered for our sins which the Father hath raised vp againe by his goodnesse These words alleaged by Theodoret are reported by him to be the words of St. Ignatius the Apostles scholler written in an Epistle ad Smyrnenses and therefore of greater antiquitie I. D. These words are not found in that Epistle ad Smyrnenses which is now extant Whereby you may perceaue it is true that I said the Epistles of Ignatius are not come perfect to our hands Of this Epistle saith Eusebius Ignatius when he wrote to them of Smyrna vsed words I knowe not whence taken And Hierome If you vse not his testimonies for authoritie at least vse them for antiquity And the Abbot of Spanheâ—m reckons it not among the rest of his Epistles as being doubtfull Yet for all this the credit of this Epistle shall not be questioned by mee I answere therefore the Heretikes which Ignatius meanes were Menander and the Disciples of Simon These denied that Christ was come in the Flesh and consequently that hee had Flesh. Wherevpon they reiected the Eucharist also least thereby they should be constrained to confesse that he had true Flesh. For granting the signe of a body you must also grant a true body Figure and Truth being Correlatiues whose Relation is to figure and to be figured And thus they added aloes vnto wormwood one error vnto another first denying the truth of Christs body and then that the Eucharist was the Sacrament of his body or that it was Sacramentally his body More then this cannot bee meant For I presume Theodoret would not alleage this to crosse himselfe who holdeth that Bread and Wine still remaine and argueth from them for the verity of Christs body because they are symbols of his body as is aboue declared N. N. Doth not the Evangelist Iohn say in the Apocalyps If any man shall adde vnto these things God shall adde vnto him the plagues that are written in this booke and if any man shall minish of these words of the booke of this Prophecie God shall take away his part out of the booke of life and out of the holy City and the things which are written in this booke Is this malediction or curse lesse to be feared here that we diminish not or put any thing to the words of him that said This is my body which shall be delivered for you this is my bloud of the New Testament which shall be shed for many in the remission of sinnes For when he saith This is my body wee shall put to an vnderstanding saying a Figuratiue Body or that it is spoken by a similitude when I say he saith this is my Body we shal say this signifieth my Body is it not much that we put to his words or by an evill change take from them and make a sense which so great an author God man in no place hath spoken nor at any time did ascend into his heart This man especially with many of the rest answereth M. Downe and all Protestants fully I. D. In this Authority I cannot but greatly pitty you to see how miserably you are gulled and beguiled by your Author For what was this Rupertus but a man of yesterday one that liued towards twelue hundred after Christ and a very Heretike in this point of the Sacrament For he maintained that the Eucharisticall Bread is hypostatically assumed by the Word iust after the same manner that the humane nature was assumed by the same Word This he expresseth in words as cleare as the noone day For expounding that of our Saviour The Bread which I will giue is my Flesh he saith That the eternall word by incarnation was made man not destroying or changing but personally assuming the humanitie and after the same manner by consecration of the Eucharist the same word is made Bread not destroying or changing but personally assuming Bread This he declareth elsewhere very largely shewing that Bread is made the Body of Christ not by turning it into his Flesh but because it is assumed by the Word Whence it followeth that Bread is the Body of Christ yet not his Humane or Carnall but Bready Body much differing from that which he tooke of the Virgin That yet these two bodies may be said to be One because the Person is but one or Christ is one who assumed them both so that the same Christ aboue that is in heauen is in the Flesh and beneath that is on the Altar is in Bread This grosse errour Algerus who liued in the same time with Rupertus confuâ—ed calling it as it iustly deserued a new and most absurd heresie What say you now to this good sir Is this the man who especially among the rest fully answereth Mrâ— Downe and all Protestants Doth he not as fully answere you Papists who cleane contrary to his Tenet destroy and change the bread to make it Christs body Yea but we adde vnto the Text vnderstanding it to be a Figuratiue body That is a shamelesse slander for wee place no Figure in the word bodie but litterally interpret it of Christs naturall body At least we say bread signifieth his body So wee say indeed and so say the Fathers also And to giue the true sense vnto a Text is not to adde vnto it Neither can I conceaue why it should be counted addition in vs to say This is my body Sacramentally or by way of signification more then in you to say it is so by way of Transubstantiation or
in such ascantling of time there could bee no expounding In the dayes of good King Iosiah the booke of the law which Hilkiah had found in the house of the Lord was read in the eares of all the people but of exposition not a word Ezra also the Priest read the law before the congregation from morning till midday but that his reading was interrupted by interpretation is not so cleare as you are borne in hand For first if any did interpret it was the Levites but that Ezra the Priest and a Scribe so learned should be put to the inferior and baser office of reading and the Levites but pettie ones in comparison advanced vnto the higher and worthier of interpreting seemes altogether improbable Secondly where it is said the Levites caused the people to vnderstand the law that it seemes was done not by way of expounding but by causing the people to stand still in their places and to giue due attention As for that which followes they gaue the sense and caused them to vnderstand the reading it is in the originall thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and may fitly be rendred they made attention and vnderstood the reading referring the distinct reading of the law vnto Ezra making of attention to the Levites vnderstanding to the people And thus doe sundry worthy Divines conceiue of this place All which not withstanding because diverse other great clarkes amongst the rest our late translators are of another mind I may not be too peremptorie herein Yet will I be bold to inferre that vnlesse they can proue that sermons were every Sabbath made in evey Synagogue which I thinke they will neuer proue Preaching in this place will be all one with Reading So will it be also vnlesse they can shew that whatsoever was read was expounded for it seemes by the text that whatsoever was read was preached But as with vs the Psalmes and Lessons and Epistles and Gospells with other parcells of Scripture read every Lords day in our Churches are not nor cannot all at once be expounded but only some small portion so the Petaroths or Sections of the law and the Prophets ordained by Ezra of old to be read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day are as they are set downe by the sonne of Maimonie so large that they could not possibly at leastwise conveniently bee interpreted at one time I presume therefore all was not interpreted which was read yet all was preached which was read wherefore Preaching cannot in this place bee interpreted but only Reading Besides these reasons least any should thinke I stand single and by my selfe alone it may please you to know that I am backed with the authority of sundry graue Divines of whom I will name two onlie with either of whom that one to whom we are referred is no way to be compared The one is reverend Whitgift late Archbishop of the See of Canterbury in his defence against Cartwright the other is learned and profound Hooker the hammer of our Schismatickes whose bookes they are afraid to looke vpon least they be confounded in his Ecclesiasticall Politie These both affirme Preaching in this place to be no other then Reading Whitgift addes that all expositors he could meet withall were of the same mind so that in effect I am warranted with a cloud of witnesses Against all which besides confident asseveration I find nothing opposed saue one only passage out of the second tome of Homilies wherein say they our church doth principallie fasten on this text to proue a distinction betweene Preaching and Reading Wherevnto I answere that the intent of the Homilie is to shew the right vse of Churches and that in them the word of God should be both read and interpreted and to this end are alledged sundry passages out of the Acts together with this text all which ioyntly but not severally conclude what was intended For Act. 13.5 speaketh only of Preaching this text only of Reading and Act. 13.14 of both But how soever the Homilie vnderstand this place sure I am both this booke and the Church of England account of Reading as an effectuall Preaching as shall anon in the due place be demonstrated In the meane season I hope I may be bold out of all these premises to inferre this conclusion that if any haue publikely said that whosoever collecteth out of this text Reading to be Preaching is no better then a seducing spirit giues the lye to his mother the Church of England yea to God himselfe and is mad with reason Hee himselfe at that time spake more out of Passion then reason For a seducing Spirit is not every one that erreth and delivereth what he conceiueth to be true but hee who out of the loue of errour endeavoureth to lead others astray from the truth And ô thou glorious Archangell of the Church of England Whitgift wert thou also a seducing Spirit Or was it true of our Church in thy time which the Prophet spake of his Doctores tui Seductores tui thy teachers are thy seducers And thou profound Hooker then whom never any man spake with more reason werst thou also mad with reason And yee both when yee vndertooke the defence of the Politie and government of your Mother did you vnder pretence thereof giue the lye vnto your Mother yea even to God your Father also What shall I say The Lord forgiue these intemperate speeches The best buckler to defend off such venimous arrowes is a good conscience and Christian patience And thus armed I passe to the second part The second Quere is whether Reading be a kinde of Preaching That Reading should be called or counted a kinde of Preaching there is a generation that at no hand can endure Such language they hold to be a foule Solecisme in divinity but the doctrine it selfe a great impeachment vnto Preaching What say they when our Saviour commanded his Apostles to goe into the World and to preach the Gospell vnto all creatures is it not a sottish thing to thinke hee meanes no more then this goe learne to read well then call the people together and read the word vnto them When St Paul saith to the Romans How can they preach except they bee sent doth not this imply that Preaching is more then bare Reading When the Prophet Esay said How beautifull vpon the mountaines are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings that publisheth peace c. Doe you thinke hee spake this of one that should come with a booke in his pocket and read vnto Sion Who saith S. Paul is sufficient for these things Now if Reading be Preaching who is not sufficient for these things Finally When S. Paul chargeth Timothy to preach the word to be instant in season out of season to reproue rebuke exhort withall long suffering and doctrine What meanes he no more then this goe take a care to read well These are their choicest objections out of
tearmes or the vntruth of the proposition For indeed I finde you so variable and vncertaine that I know not well where to finde you Is it the language that seemeth so harsh and jarring to your eares It seemed not so vnto the ancients who made no scruple to speake so Learned Hooker who carefully inquired into this businesse hath obserued to my hands divers passages The Councell of Vaux saith If a Presbyter or Minister cannot through infirmity preach by himselfe he may preach by his Deacon reading some Homily of the Fathers Where note by the way that if reading an Homily bee Preaching Reading of Gods word is much more The Councell of Toledo also calleth the Reading of the Gospell Preaching So doth Isidor and Rupertus likewise the reading of a Lesson in the Church And a right learned Lawyer of our own country hath obserued it also in the Law Quae Prophetae Vaticinati sunt populis praedicare id est legere to preach that is to read vnto the people what the Prophets haue foretold Thus they But if it be so inconvenient to say Reading is Preaching why doe you yourselues call Preaching Reading For doe you not in ordinary speech call your Preachers Lecturers And what is that but Readers And when you would knowe who preaches is it not your manner to aske who reades And the Sermons of a Preacher doe you not style them his Lectures or Readings But to leaue descanting besides that the Originall words as we haue said include both Reading and Sermoning let it in particular be observed that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in Scripture indifferently vsed for either As namely in one place of Esay it is said The book is deliuered to him that is not learned saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Read this I pray thee but in another place the Lord hath annointed me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach or proclaime the acceptable yeare Neither is it to bee neglected that from the selfe same root commeth also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scripture Thus the ancients sticke not to call Reading Preaching Neither sticke they to call Writing Preaching Iustin Martyr saith that the very writings of the Gentiles preach iudgement to come Clemens of Alexandria Ambo verbum praedicant c. Both preach the word one by writing the other by voice and the science of Preaching availeth both waies whether it worke by the hand or by the tongue S. Augustine also They who vnderstand these things produnt ea caeteris notific or preach the same vnto others either by speaking or writing Vnto these ancients our moderne writers agree Duplex est praedicandi modus Sermo Scriptio there is two sorts of Preaching Speech and Writing saith Iunius And againe who dare say S. Paul preached not when as he wrote vnto the Corinthians woe is me if I preach not the Gospell Dr Fulke S. Paule did preach the Gospell also by writing Dr Whitaker The Apostles were commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach or make Disciples tum voce tum scripto both by voice and writing Dr Iohn Reynolds I who now cannot with my voice as heretofore through the infirmitie of my body evangelizo manu ac scriptione preach yet with my hand and writing as well as I can Gomarus There are two kinds of Preaching Enuntiation and writing Zanchie not only approueth it but proueth it too Goe teach all nations saith Christ here is a dutie commanded Lo I am with you to the end of the world this is a promise annexed With whom is he with the Apostles How long vnto the end of the world Therefore must they preach to the end of the world They cannot by word of mouth for they must die By Writing therefore Finally the booke of Homilies and the learned Translators of our last Bible affirme the same The booke of Homilies in the Law written with his owne finger that in the first table in the beginning thereof is this doctrine against Images not briefly touched but at large set forth and preached The Translators The seaventie Interpreters prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written Preaching as S. Iohn Baptist did among the Iewes by vocal And thus if either ancient or later Divines knew how to speake fitly it cannot be inconvenient or scandalous to call Reading or Writing Preaching What then Is there vntruth in the proposition If so then haue all those worthies aboue cited spoken not only inconveniently but vntruly also But I beseech you my brethren doe you indeed thinke Reading is no way a publishing or making knowne of Gods will I can hardly beleeue it When God first commanded the law and afterward the Sermons of the Prophets and successiuely the whole Canon of Faith to be written the old Testament in the vulgar language of the Iewes the new in the tongue that then was most generally vnderstood what was his intent and purpose therein Was it not to endoctrinate his Church that we through patience comfort of the Scripture might haue hope When the Septuagint by the speciall providence of God translated the bookes of the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greek and the whole body of Scripture vnder Christianity was so carefully turned into all languages was not the one done for the information of those Iewes that were Hellenists and vnderstood not Hebrew and the other for the instruction of such Christians as knew no other but their mother tongue Doubtlesse it was For translation say our last learned translators is it that openeth the window to let in the light that breaketh the shell that wee may eat the kernell that putteth aside the curtaine that wee may looke into the most holy place that remoueth away the couer of the well that we may come by the water Furthermore what is the reason that so many graue and learned men haue in all ages published so many excellent bookes and that Preachers also not content to haue spoken by word of mouth vnto their auditory cause their Sermons to be set forth in print vnto the world Is it not that they who never knewe nor heard them may yet reape benefit by their writing True it is that neither Originall nor Translation nor any booke whatsoever can availe if it be locked vp in a chest or laid on a deske and never be opened or looked into God therefore commanded in the old Testament that the law should be read both publikely privately and Christ hath ordained the same in the new And S. Paul when he wrote his Epistles meant not that they should lie still vnder seale but saith he when this Epistle is read among you cause that it bee read also in the Church of the Laodiceans and that yee likewise read the Epistle from Laeodicea And againe I adiure you by the Lord that this Epistle be read vnto all the holy
Reading gathered by the Author since the Preaching of this Sermon Babington on the second petition TWo extremities there are which of all Gods chosen are to be eschewed the one is an estimation of Reading so great as that being had wee feele no want neither thinke it a want never or seldome to haue any Preaching The other is so farre to extoll Preaching as that wee vtterly contemne Reading yea exclude it from all power in the blessing of God to worke faith in vs or any The meane betwixt both which is a right and true conceit both of Reading and Preaching Know we therefore that in the word they are both commended yea commanded and ordained of the Lord as meanes to erect this kingdome of his in our hearts for which wee pray and of which we now speake And first for reading to name but a few places of a number marke what the Lord saith in his law laid downe for all his people Deut. 31.9 Act. 13.15 Luc. 4.16 Ier. 36.6 See and marke both the warrant of Reading and a profit hoped for by it of the godly So farre were they ever from either contemning this meanes or from denying it power in Gods blessing to worke Faith and repentance in the hearers Also a little after Let no Harding therefore in the name of all blasphemous Papists call reading of the Scripture to the people in the Church a spirituall dumbenesse and a thing vnprofitable but let vs euer with the chosen of the Lord receiue the good of it and blesse God for our liberty Dr Davenant B. of Sarum vpon the Epist. to the Collâ—ssians pag. 522. They erre who deny that the reading of the Scriptures doth not availe to the edifying of Christian people in Faith and Charity vnlesse at the same time there bee ioyned therewith an enarration or explication of them by a Preacher God forbid that we should extenuate the vtility or necessity of preaching yet wee affirme with the Psalmist touching the word of God studiously and devoutly read that the law of God is immaculate converting soules the testimony of the Lord is faithfull giuing wisdome to the simple Psal. 19.7 Dr Fulke against Heskins Pag. 6. The force of Christs word is as great by his spirit in the Scriptures which this dogge calleth the dead letters as it was in the voice when it was vttered Pag. 25. This to wit that the people must be taught and learne hard cases of the Priests shall be granted to the vttermost so that you will allow the people to Learne such things as are easie not only of the Priests but also of their owne reading studie and conference with them that are no Priests Dr Googe in his whole armour of God Pag. 217. Quest. Whether is the word preached only or the word read also a meanes of working Faith Ans. It may not be denyed but the holy Scriptures themselues and good commentaries on them and printed Sermons or other bookes laying forth the true doctrine of the Scripture being read and vnderstood may by the blessing of God worke faith But the speciall ordinary meanes and most powerfull vsuall meanes is the word Preached This is it which the Scripture layeth downe Rom. 10.14 1. Cor. 1.21 Mayer on Iames cap. 1. v. 18. Pag. 183. Quest. But is it necessarie that the word should bee Preached to the engendring of faith in vs or will it not suffice to read it Ans. It is not to be doubted but a man may be converted by the word read For Luther by reading was turned from Popery and Iohn Huske by reading of Wickliffes bookes And in the margent he noteth that Saint Augustine saith he was converted by reading Confes. lib. 8. cap. 12. whatsoeuer is set forth in Preaching the same is read also and the reading of the word in a large sence as Preaching is put for publishing Gods will to the hearer is said to be Preaching Act. 15.21 and such as read are pronounced blessed Rev. 1.3 yet notwithstanding when the word is preached as preaching in a more strict sence signifieth expounding teaching and exhorting out of the word of God it is more effectuall Wheatly in his new birth Pag. 17. There may be a question made whether the word of God read only may become effectuall to regenerate or whether it must want this efficacy vnlesse it be Preached as well as Read To which question mee thinkes that this should be a true answer that the instrumentall power of regenerating cannot bee denied to the Scriptures barely read though Preaching be not ioyned withall For why seeing the doctrine of the Gospell is called the ministration of the spirit and it is the doctrine of the Gospell when it is offered to the vnderstanding by bare reading therefore it must follow that in such case also it may become the power of God vnto salvation and the instrument of the spirit vnto regeneration The same precepts promises and threats are by reading delivered to the mind of the man that readeth or heareth the word read And why then should wee thinke that the Holy Ghost either cannot or will not worke together with them Yea doubtlesse hee can doe it when he will and will doe it then whensoeuer he doth not as oftentimes he doth not afford to men a possibility of enioying any other helpe then reading Vnlesse the not being preached could make the word not to be the law of God I see no reason that it should be thought vnable to convert soules without being preached And a little after It will not at all follow that because the word read is able to beget Faith either the Ministers may content themselues vsually to read it without preaching or the people vsually content themselues to heare it so and not be carefull to seeke for the preaching of it Amies in his Medulla Theologiae lib. 2. cap. 8. Numb 5. Hearing therefore in this place is any Perception whatsoeuer or comprehension of the words of God whether they be communicated by Preaching or reading or by any other meanes Numb 6. This word therefore of Hearing is not so narrowly and strictly to be vnderstood that either principally or necessarily it should alwaies include the outward sence of hearing but that it should denote any perception of the will of God Tilenus in his defence of the Perfection of Scripture Pag. 5. Let vs see this enthymeme or imperfect argument of Pyrrhonian Logicke The Apostles first taught by liuely voice Ergo they pretended not to teach by their writings which succeeded their preaching The consequence is as good as who should say one eateth first for to nourish himselfe therefore drinke serueth nothing to nourishmeÌ„t A non distributo ad distributum c. And a little after Wee know that to preach and to write are things very accordant and which are comprehended in one and the same commandement giuen to the Apostles teach all nations which yet to this day they teach by their writings He which commanded them the
meane season I answer by distinguishing of that tearme the Servants of God For by it you may vnderstand either all those holy men of God who haue beene since the creation downe vnto this present instant or onely those few Saints of God whom the Scripture maketh mention of If you take it in the former sense the Assumption is manifestly false that none of the Servants of God vsed lots in gaming at any time but only in weightie matters For I thinke there is no man so vncharitable as to say that all those who haue or doe sometime play at Cards Tables are vnregenerate and no seruants of God If you take it in the latter sense then is the Major false that what those few mentioned in scripture never did we may not doe For as their actions without a precept binde vs not to imitation so their omissions without a prohibition lay not vpon vs an obligation of forbearance If they did then might we not play at Chesse or the Philosophers game or bowles or the like because those Servants of God for ought we knowe neuer vsed any of them But let vs see how you proue that Gods Seruants neuer vsed lots but in serious matters Thus you proue it They vsed lots in serious matters Ergo they vsed them only in serious matters A sillie Consequence and neere a kin to that protrite Enthymeme The sunne shines in heauen Ergo the staffe stands in the bench corner But to satisfie the reader more fully I answere three things First where to proue your Antecedent you affirme among other things that Priests were chosen by lot you are fouly mistaken For Aaron and his posterity without intervention of a lot by the immediate voice of God were perpetually appointed to the Priesthood Secondly these lots here mentioned were all of them Extraordinary whence if your reason be good it would follow that none but Extraordinary lots may be vsed or rather that now adaies no lots at all may be vsed considering that God hauing not promised the like Extraordinary assistance it would be but tempting of God to expect an Extraordinary working from him in a lot Thirdly lastly it followeth not Wee read not in scripture that the Saints vsed lots in light matters Ergo they vsed them only in weightie For it is a meere Fallacie to dispute from authority negatiuely in a case of Fact In a question of Faith the sequele is good We read it not in scripture Ergo it is not a matter of Faith the reason because scripture containeth all matters of Faith But in questions of Fact it is not so because it was not the purpose of the holy Ghost to register downe in the Scripture all whatsoeuer his Servants had done much lesse their sports and recreations Had it beene his purpose so to doe hee would neuer haue said so often in the booke of Kings The rest of the acts of such or such a King are they not written in the booke of the Chronicles of the Kings of Iudah For to vnderstand these words of those two bookes of Chronicles written as it is thought so long time after by Ezra were in the iudgement of learned Iunius very ridiculous N. N. But it may be obiected some matters of small moment haue beene determined by Lots as for example who should be dore keepers of the Temple of Ierusalem I answere that was no light matter First it was Gods command expresly in his word which is neuer light or meane to Gods seruāts Secondly Dauid belike had a reverend respect of this office when he said that hee had rather bee a dore-keeper in the house of God then to dwell in the tents of wickednesse And is it nothing to be one of the King of Englands Porters Many a man if it should be tried had rather haue that office then twenty pounds by the yeare and that is a matter if it were of much lesse weight in which we may lawfully vse a Lot Now much more might the dore-keepers of Gods house be warranted from reason suppose they had no speciall command to cast Lots or to haue Lots cast vpon them to determine who should supply that worthy office DEFENCE As a pound compared to a scruple is weightie but light compared to a talent so the Porters office in regard of the Nethinims hewers of wood and drawers of water might be of some reckning but very meane in respect of the Priesthood So that a man may safely say the Porters office was but a low place and the lots were vsed in no very high matter But whether high or low it is not greatly materiall seeing the sinewes of your Argument are cut already Yet let vs heare what you say First it was Gods command and his command is neuer light True yet this letteth not but God may giue command touching light things as he did when he tooke order for every petty and small matter that the hearing and determining of them should bee referred vnto the inferiour officers And if his Providence reach euen to the smallest matters what impeachment can it be to his honour to giue commandment touching them also The Pins of the Tabernacle and the beesoms of the Temple were no great matters yet God disdained not to giue order for them And as in a building 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great stones can never bee well laid without the lesse so also in the gouernment of the world for the better ordering of the greatest things God takes care of the smallest also Secondly say you David so honoured the Office that he had rather be a dore-keeper in the house of God then to dwel in the tents of wickednesse But what if David in that place spake not of Dore-keepers What then is become of your argument The words in the Original are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I could wish rather to threshold it Iunius translates it limen frequent are often to passe ouer the threshold of Gods house and to be conversant in the Church which may belong vnto any other of the people of God aswell as the Porters But be it that he meane them inasmuch as the Psalme is inscribed to the Korhites who were Dore-keepers yet doth it not argue such dignitie in the office If a man should say I had rather be a Sexten or Dog-whipper in the poorest parish in England then the great Caliph of Egypt or Pope of Rome would any therevpon say hee spake reverendly of a Sextens or Dog-whippers place Nay verily but that he doth the more abase the Caliphat or Popedome Even so Dauid preferring a Porters place vnto the tents of wickednesse doth not so much intend to honour that as to avile these And hence is it that the Septuagint renders it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be laid as an abiect at the threshold and the vulgar translation Elegi abjectus esse in domo deimei I haue chosen to bee an abject in the house of my God and Calvin
cause to bee confident vpon them then your selues but only to vindicate the honour and dignity of the Scriptures which of your side are too basely sleighted and neglected And as touching this particular place of Saint Augustine notwithstanding all the flourish you make therewith yet shall you never be able to proue what you intend thereby as I come now to demonstrate This booke de vtilitate credendi I haue now twice for your sake throughly read ouer and with the best attention I could In it I find the authority of the Catholik Church made the first motiue or meanes vnto Faith by which we doe beleeue but not the first principle and reason of faith for which wee doe beleeue The occasion of writing it was this Saint Augustine hauing lately through Gods grace escaped out of the toiles of the Manichean Heretiks in which for the space of nine yeares hee had beene entangled is very desirous to recouer from them his friend Honoratus also as yet continuing in his error and held fast by them This he doubteth not through the same grace of God soone to effect may hee but find him duly prepared and disposed For vntill hee be wrought from his hereticall pertinacy and stifnesse vnto a more Christian moderation and equability he shall with all his arguments but wash a bricke as they say and spend his oile and labour to little purpose That which made him so vntoward and hard to be wrought vpon was the faire and plausible insinuation of the Manichees that they pressed no man to beleeue vntill they had first cleared and manifested the truth whereas others terrified men with superstition and commanded Faith before they tendred any reason vnto them Wherefore to remoue this preiudice and to frame him vnto a more indifferent temper he employeth in this booke all his strength and skill labouring to demonstrate the Vtility of beleeuing and how requisite it is to yeeld to authority before with pure minds we can discerne the truth And this is the only drift and scope he aimeth at in this booke neither medleth hee therein with any of the Manichean heresies but reserueth the confutation conviction of them vntill some other time as appeareth by the very closing vp thereof where he willeth Honoratus to remember that he hath not yet begunne to refute the Manichees nor to seâ— himselfe against those toies nor hath opened any great matter touching Catholike Doctrine Whence thus I argue If S. Augustin in this booke dispute against Honoratus from the Churches authority as the last resolution of Faith then hath he opened therein the greatest point of Christian religion and confuted thereby the Manichean heresie inasmuch as the Catholike Church vtterly condemned it But S. Augustin in expresse words affirmeth that he hath not so much as begun to refute the Manichees nor opened any great matter touching Catholike doctrine Therefore he disputeth not from the Churches authority as the last resolution of Faith True it is he is much in commending authority setting forth the benefit of beleeving it But what authority What beleeuing that authority which is grounded vpon the Generall opinion fame and consent of people nations that Beleeuing which is Morall and only prepares the minde to divine illumination If so then certainly cannot St Augustins authoritie be the last Principle of Faith For this is infallibile and absolutelie necessarie as well to the wise as vnwise that but an vncertaine step or staire to raise vs vp vnto God not necessarie to them that are wise What then is it in S. Augustins iudgment Surely the first inducement or Introduction to the search of divine Mysteries For saith he it is authoritie only which moueth fooles to hasten vnto wisdome And againe to a man that is not able to discerne the truth that he may be made fit for it and suffer himselfe to be purged authority is at hand Had hee thought it to be more then so he would never haue considered it without certainty of truth Yet so doth hee even in the passage by you alledged They saith hee that know the Church affirme her to be more sincere in truth then other sects but touching her truth is another question In a word as in other arts and sciences He that will learne must beleeue his teachers so in these heavenly mysteries also would Saint Augustine haue all those that are not initiated such as his friend Honoratus was to beginne with Authority Not that it is a sufficient warranty for whatsoever we learne but for that it is the readiest and likeliest way to bring vs vnto learning N. N. Thus Saint Augustine teaching his friend how he might both know and beleeue the Catholike Church and all that she taught simply and without asking reason or proofe And as for knowing or discerning her from all other Churches that may pretend to be Catholike wee heare his marks that shee is more eminent vniversall greater in number and in possession of the name Catholike The second that shee may be beleeued securely and cannot deceiue nor bee deceiued in matters of Faith he proueth elsewhere concluding finally in this place If thou doest seeme to thy selfe now saith Augustine to haue beene sufficiently tossed vp downe among Sectaries and wouldst put an end to these labours and turmoiles follow the way of Catholike discipline which hath flowne downe vnto vs from Christ by his Apostles and is to flow from vs to our posterity I. D. Out of that passage of St Augustine you obserue two things first what be the Marks by which the Catholike Church may be discerned secondly that shee may be beleeued securely as one that can neither deceiue nor he deceiued As touching the former you say Saint Augustines Markes are these foure Eminence Vniversality Multitude and Possession of the name Catholike Wherevnto I answere first that Saint Augustine maketh none of these things Notes of the Church For three of them namely Eminencie Vniversality and Possession of the name Catholike he doth not at all mention Eminencie I confesse is foisted into your translation but no where appeares in the Originall Of the fourth to wit Multitude all that he affirmeth is this that in his time there were more Christians then of any other religion and that among all Sects of Christians there was one Church consisting of a greater number then all the rest which is not enough to establish it for a marke of the Church Where by the way giue me leaue to demand why whereas Saint Augustine saith Christians are more then Iewes and worshippers of Images put together you render it the Iewes and Gentiles put together For what the reason should bee I cannot conceiue vnlesse it be the same for which you raze out of your Catechismes the second Commandement But I answere secondly that as St Augustine maketh none of them Marks so neither are they Markes for Proper they are not nor Perpetuall and
they were only manuscript and knowne but to a few learned men Since which time they haue beene published in print and perhaps to winne more authority vnto them mis-fathered vpon Cyril of Hierusalem For if wee may beleeue Gesner or Simler or your owne Gretzer a Iesuit sundry written copies entitle them to Iohn Bishop of Hierusalem one who liued well neere eight hundred yeares after Christ even then when the quarrell about Images and relicks was on foot Whence happily proceeded that overlashing speech that the wood of the Crosse was so multiplied as the whole world was now full of it Howsoever seeing they are come to our hands from no better places then Trent the Popes Vatican and Cardinal Perrons Library you cannot blame vs if we vehemently suspect that they haue passed through Purgatory and suffered much addition and substraction For wee are not ignorant of your Pious fraudes and holy couznages in purging of bookes not permitting them to speake what their Authors wrote but what maketh most for your owne advantage But let it be supposed for the present that your author is the right Cyril of Hierusalem and free from all corruption and if you will also that he wrote his Catechismes in his elder yeares what then is the testimonie that begiueth for Transubstantiation Forsooth that which seemeth to be Bread is not Bread but Christs body though the tast iudge it Bread And againe Vnder the shew of bread and Wine the Body and Bloud of Christ is giuen Wherevnto I answer and first to the former that the common Latine Translation reads it otherwise thus This bread which wee see is not bread so denying it to be Bread that yet hee affirmeth we see Bread Which seeming contradiction is easily accorded by Cyril himselfe where hee saith it is not simple or naked or common bread as if hee should say Bread it is yet not only bread but something else besides Even as when we deny Christ to be meere man we meane not that he is no man but that he is Man and besides that God also It is not then bread that is Prophane or Vnsanctified bread but the Body of Christ that is bread sanctified to bee a Type or Sacrament of Christs Body And although our tast iudge it to bee no more then bread yet Faith teacheth vs not to stay on bread but to mount higher even vnto the Body of Christ. I beseech you when Pachymeres saith The holy oyle is no longer called oyle for the oyle is Christ doth he meane it hath lost its nature and is transubstantiated into Christ I trow no. In like manner might Cyril say The bread we see is not bread but Christs body and yet neuer dreame of your Real Presence For in his opinion there is the like reason of both Even as saith he the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the holy Ghost is no more common bread but the body of Christ so also this holy ointment is no more bare or common ointment after it is now consecrated but a grace which worketh the Presence of Christ and the holy Ghost To the second passage I answere that your Author whosoeuer hee bee hath rendred it captiously vnder the forme or shew or shape of Bread and Wine as if hee had meant your Accidents without substance whereas indeed Cyrils owne words are in the Type or Figure of Bread and Wine And this wee acknowledge to bee most true For in the receauing of the Bread and Wine which typically are the body and bloud of Christ wee truly and really after a spirituall manner receaue his very body and bloud also In regard whereof as he calleth bread winetypes so he maketh the body bloud of Christ their Anti-types They are commanded saith he to tast not of bread and wine but of the Anti-type the body and bloud of Christ. The body therefore and the bloud is in the bread and in the wine as the Anti-type is the type or the thing figured in the figure which I hope may be done without any Transubstantiation Certainely if wheresoeuer you read of Formes shewes or shapes you by and by conceaue of nothing but Accidents without substance it cannot be avoided but you must needs fall into dangerous errours When Saint Paul saith that Christ being in the forme of God counted it no rapine to be equall with God Neverthelesse emptied himselfe taking the forme of a servant made after the similitude of men and being found in figure as a man humbled himselfe c. What will you conclude hence that Christ is onely shew without substance and neither true God nor true Man I knowe you will not And seeing you dare not doe it in this I would advise you to beware how you coÌ„clude so in the like As for the testimonie of S. Chrysostome I answere vnto it breefly We must not beleeue our senses saith he True for they discerne nothing else but bare bread and Wine and are not capable of the mystery signified and exhibited by them To apprehend that belongeth vnto Faith and not sense Yet is not sense every way to bee discredited for we beleeue it is Whitenesse which we see and sauour which we tast yea we may safely beleeue it is bread which we take and eat Wherein then may we not beleeue sense That it is meere bread For it perceaueth not that it is sanctified and sacramentall bread But of this more hereafter Againe We must saith he simply and without all ambiguity beleeue the words of Christ saying This is my body Questionlesse we must and hee that beleeueth them not is an infidell But seeing as your selues confesse bread in proper signification is not the body of Christ neither was it Christs meaning we should beleeue it to be so To beleeue Christs words then is to beleeue them in Christs meaning which because it is not literall as we haue said it must needs be Figuratiue thus This bread sacramentally is my body But of this also more hereafter Lastly saith he He giueth himselfe not only to bee seene but also to bee touched handled and eaten This is sufficiently answered already whether to avoid tautologie I referre my selfe Only I adde that if properly we see touch tast Christ theÌ„ may we beleeue our senses contrary to that which Chrysostome saith But if we may not beleeue them then neither doe we see nor touch nor tast him properly but as himselfe interpreteth himselfe after a manner that is in a sacrament spiritually and by Faith which importeth not your Real Presence N. N. Nor only doe the Fathers affirme so asseverantly that it is the true naturall Body of Christ though it appeare to bee Bread in forme and shape and that we must not beleeue our Senâ—es herein but doe deny expresly that it is Bread after the words of Consecration as appeareth out of S. Ambrose in his booke de Sacramentis Imetandis Before the words of consecration
it is bread saith he but after consecration of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. And againe before the words of Christ be vttered in the consecration the Chalice is full of Wine and Water but when the words of Christ haue wrought their effect there is made the bloud that redeemed the People I. D. Whether those bookes of the Sacraments here cited by you vnder the name of Ambrose be his or no is not agreed vpon by all Possevine the Iesuite affirming that all almost together with Cardinal Bellarmine hold them to be legitimate plainely insinuates by the word almost that some are of another minde Their reasons are first because the stile much differeth from that of Ambrose his being cleare perspicuous florid and elaborate this oftentimes negligent harsh rude savouring of Monkish barbarisme Secondly because no writer before Lanfrank Guitmund who liued six hundred yeares after Ambrose quote them which were strange if they be his especially considering the matter of these bookes and how commonly the rest of his writings were alleaged Lastly because repeating the Lords Prayer hee deliuereth the sixt Petition in these words And suffer vs not to bee led into temptation whereas the words of Christ are And lead vs not into temptation which it is not to bee thought that S. Ambrose either was ignorant of or meant to amend As touching the other booke de Imitandis you should say de mysterijs initiandis the same iudgement haue they as of the former But if you will let them bee Saint Ambroses For I meane not to be peremptory herein What would you conclude out of him That hee denies it expresly to bee bread after consecration Certainely in expresse tearmes he doth not All he saith is that after consecration bread is made flesh and wine bloud out of which it followeth not that it ceaseth to be bread and wine for S. Ambrose himselfe affirmeth that this notwithstāding they still remaine what they were If saith he there bee so great power in the word of the Lord Iesus that they should beginne to bee that which they were not how much more effectuall is it that they be what they were yet be changed into another thing But how may this be will you say that it should remaine bread and yet be made flesh Let S. Chrysostome resolue you The grace of God saith he sanctifying the bread it is freed from the name of bread and counted worthy of the name of the Lords body Yea and S. Ambrose himselfe also The Lord Iesus himselfe saith he cryeth this is my body Before the blessing of the heauenly words it is named another kinde after consecration the body of Christ is signified He saith his Bloud Before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud Where by the way I cannot but marvel at the fore-head of your Cardinall Bellarmine who vouching this place changeth that clause the body of Christ is signified into this it is the body of Christ. Happily he did not brooke the word signifie because it cleareth this point of the Real Presence more then willingly he would But hereby it is evident how bread may be made flesh and yet still remaine bread namely because it is made so only typically and in a signifying mystery N. N. Whereas Christ hath said of the Bread This is my Body who will dare to doubt thereof And whereas hee hath said of the Wine This is my Bloud who will doubt or say it is not his Bloud He once turned Water into Wine in Cana of Galilee by his owne will which Wine is like vnto Bloud And shall we not thinke him worthy to bee beleeued when he saith he hath changed Wine into his Blood Our Lord Iesus Christ doth testifie vnto vs that we receiued his Body and Bloud and may we doubt of his credit or testimonie Those things that are written let vs read and what we read let vs vnderstand so shall we perfectly performe the duty of Faith for that these points which wee affirme of the naturall verity of Christs being in vs except we learne thē of Christ himselfe we affirme them wickedly and foolishly c. Wherefore whereas he saith My Flesh is truly Meat and my blood truly drinke there is no place left to vs of doubting concerning the truth of Christs body and blood for that both by the affirmation of Christ himselfe and our owne beleefe there is in the Sacrament the flesh truly and the blood truly of our Saviour Eusebius bringeth in Christ our Saviour speaking in these words For so much as my flesh is truly meat and my Blood truly drinke let all doubtfulnesse of infidelity depart for so much as he who is the author of the gift is witnesse also of the truth thereof And Saint Leo to the same effect Nothing at all is to be doubted of the truth of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and those doe in vaine answere Amen when they receaue it if they dispute against that which is affirmed And finally St Epiphanius concludeth thus Hee that beleeueth it not to bee the very Body of Christ in the Sacrament is fallen from grace and Salvation I. D. Your Argument Christ saith This is my Body This is my Blood True no man denieth it The Fathers say He is worthy to be beleeued and wee may not doubt of his testimonie True also and he is an infidel whosoever questioneth any thing he saith What then Ergo by the judgement of the Fathers the flesh of Christ is Really and by way of Transubstantiation present in the Sacrament It followeth not For Christ saith not so and his Flesh without Transubstantiation may be present Sacramentally and Spiritually Saint Paul expresly saith The rocke was Christ and he is worthy to be beleeued neither may wee doubt of his credit Yet I hope you will not inferre thereupon Ergo in S. Pauls iudgement the Rocke was transubstantiated into Christ. No more can you conclude the like Change out of Christs words for the case is exactly the same In a word to argue from the Thing to the Manner It is Ergo it is so or so is meerely ridiculous With this generall answere might I at once quit all your authorities but to three of them I haue somewhat more to say in particular Christ saith Cyril hath said of the bread This is my Body and who will dare to doubt thereof Verily no true beleever Yet Papists dare For that Bread should bee Christs Body tropically figuratiuely they iest flout at and that it should be so literally and properly they flatly deny It is impossible saith your law that Bread should be the Body of Christ. And Bellarmine which sentence this is my body either must be vnderstood tropically that bread is the body of Christ significatiuely or it is altogether absurd and impossible for it cannot be that bread should
for the Transformation of Bread into Flesh which he speakes of though still it seeme Bread it is plaine hee meanes not that of Transubstantiation for in this Bread ceaseth to be but in that he confesseth it still to remaine and that it is Bread which is eaten by vs in the Mysteries Which yet he more plainly expresseth where hee saith God in mercy condescending to our infirmity preserueth the Species or Nature of Bread and wine but trans-elementeth or changeth it into the vertue of his flesh blood where it is farther to be obserued that hee saith not into flesh and blood but into the vertue thereof intimating a Change not of Substance but of Operation and Efficacy Your next witnesse is Magnetes an author to me vtterly vnknowne saue that Gesner in his Bibliotheca reporteth that he was very ancient and that about thirteene hundred yeares since hee wrote in the Greeke tongue certaine bookes in defence of the Gospell vnto Theosthenes against the Gentiles that flandered it and that he is quoted by Fr. Turrian By which words it seemes that hee never yet saw the Presse and what is alledged out of him is warranted only by Turrians testimony But Turrian is one that deserues no credit at our hands as being a Iesuite and knowne to haue plaid many foule tricks this way Yet if to make your author agree with the rest of the Fathers you will giue the same construction to his words that aboue is giuen vnto Theophilact you may Otherwise his authority is as easily reiected as alledged N. N. St Hilary vseth this kind of argument If the word of God were truly made flesh then doe wee truly receiue his flesh in the Lords supper and thereby he is to bee esteemed to dwell in vs naturally St Cyril proueth not only a Spirituall but also a Naturall and Bodily vnion to be betweene vs and Christ by eating his flesh in the Sacrament I. D. That Hilary speaketh of the Lords Supper or of our Coniunction with Christ by Eating thereof I thinke it will hardly be proved Had he so meant how cometh it to passe that he never alledgeh those words of the Sacrament This is my body which would haue made more for his purpose but ever voucheth the sixt of Iohn which maketh little to the Sacrament Howbeit if you will needs vnderstand him so I will not striue Know then that in those bookes St Hilary disputes against the Arians To them he obiected that saying The Father and the Sonne are one One answered they as wee are with Christ by Will not by Nature wherevnto he replied that wee are even by Nature one with Christ. And this he proues first because both in Christ and vs there is the same Humane nature by the Incarnation of the Sonne of God which hee calls the Sacrament of perfect vnion Secondly because the Faithfull are ioyned vnto him by his Spirit dwelling in them which regenerateth quickneth sanctifieth them and not only conformeth them vnto him but also transformeth them into him And for proofes hereof hee alledgeth divers passages of St Iohns Gospell such as your selues confesse no way to belong vnto the Sacrament Thirdly for that by Baptisme we are ioyned vnto Christ and that not only by consent of will but naturally according to that of Saint Paul As many as are baptized into Christ haue put on Christ. Whereunto lastly if you please you may adde for that also in the Lords Supper wee are vnited vnto him by Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood All these waies saith Hilary are wee Naturally ioyned vnto Christ. If so then not only by the Eucharist And if for the establishing of the other meanes there needeth no Transubstantiation at all as of the Sonne of God into Man of Faith into the Spirit of Christ or of Baptismall water into the Bloud of Christ neither is it necessarie for this that bread be Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ. Or if to bring Christ into vs and our mouth you will needs transubstantiate the bread into his body I wonder what Transubstantiation you will devise to bring vs into him and his mouth For Hilary affirmeth that by the same Mysticall coniunction not only is Christ in vs but also wee are Naturally in him The same Answere may serue for Cyril also wherevnto for farther explication of the word Naturally and Naturall so often vsed both by Cyril and Hilary I adde that in them Naturally signifieth Truly Naturall True if wee may beleeue him who best knew their meaning even Cyril himselfe For thus he Not according to naturall vnity that is true vnity By nature wee are the children of wrath where by nature we are to vnderstand truth So that Naturall vnion is true vnion and naturally to be vnited is truly to be vnited which I hope may bee without Transubstantiation N. N. Theodoret doth proue that Christ tooke Flesh of the blessed virgin and ascended vp with the same and holdeth the same there by that he giueth to vs his true flesh in the Sacrament for that otherwise hee could not giue vs his true Flesh to eat if his owne flesh were not true seeing that he gaue the same that he carried vp and retaineth in heauen I. D. I marvell much not one of the Fathers being more expresse against Transubstantiation then Theodoret that yet you durst to praise him in the maintenance thereof Evē for this cause doth the Preface to the Roman Edition goe about to weaken his authority and Gregorie of Valentia flatly condemneth him It is no wonder saith he if one or two or more of the Ancients haue thought or written of this matter not so considerately and rightly Adde herevnto that Theodoret was noted by the Councell of Ephesus for some other errours besides But how much Theodoret maketh against Transubstantiation you shall heare hereafter Now you may be pleased to knowe that in the place by you cited he disputeth against an Eutychian Hereticke who held that the Humanitie of Christ was abolished and absorpted by his Deitie This hee would proue by the Eucharist that as the Symbols before Consecration are one thing but after it are changed and become another even so the Body of Christ after the Assumption thereof is chāged into the Divine Substance Now if Theodoret had beene Transubstantiator hee had beene finely taken for Transubstantiation abolisheth the substance of Bread and turneth it into the substance of Christs Body But hee taketh the Heretike in his owne nets affirming the Mysticall signes after their sanctification doe not depart from their nature and that therefore Christ after the Assumption thereof retaineth his Humanity still Whereby you may see that although it be yeelded that Christ giueth vs his true Flesh in the Sacrament yet in the iudgement of Theodoret he so giueth it that the Mysticall signes retaine their Nature still which vtterly overturnes your Transubstantiation N. N. S. Irenaeus S. Iustin and S.
in Rupertus himselfe by way of Impanation N. N. Let vs therefore beleeue God alwaies and not repine against him although that which he saith seemeth absurd to our sense and vnderstanding Let his words surmount and passe both our sense and reason which thing wee ought to doe in all things but chiefly in the mystâ—ries having more regard vnto his words then to things which lye before vs. For his words are infallible but our sense may very easily be deceaued they cannot possibly bee false but this sense of ours is many and sundry times beguiled Seeing therefore he said This is my Body let vs haue no doubt but beleeue and behold it with the eyes of our vnderstanding I. D. Whatsoeuer Christ saith must be beleeued although to our sense and reason it seeme neuer so vnlikely This I grant for he is truth it selfe and can neither deceaue nor be deceaued But Christ saith This is my body And this also I grant for they are part of the words of Institution Ergo these words must be beleeued And let them bee esteemed as Gentiles and Publicans that beleeue them not But what meaneth he when he saith Let vs behold it with the eyes of our vnderstanding In the words immediatly following he declareth it thus Christ deliuered no sensible thing vnto vs but by sensible things things intelligible And this he illustrats by the Sacrament of baptisme So also in baptisme saith hee by water a thing sensible the gift is giuen but that which is wrought namely Regeneration and Renovation is intelligible By all which you may easily see what St Chrysostome intendeth namely to draw our eyes from the sensible Obiect vnto the spirituall and Intelligible Grace exhibited to our vnderstanding by it as knowing that Water and bread are now become instruments in the hand of Christ of the spirituall Renovation and Refection of our soules Which as it is effected in Baptisme without the Transubstantiation of Water so for ought St Chrysostome saies it may bee done in the Lords supper also without Transubstantiation of bread N. N. What wil you say then if I shew you that so many of vs as be partakers of the holy mysteries doe receaue a thing farre greater then that which Elias gaue For Elias left vnto his Disciples his cloake but the sonne of God ascending into heauen left with vs his Flesh. And againe Elias went himselfe without his cloake but Christ left his flesh with vs and ascended hauing with him the selfe-same Flesh. I. D. Here Christ ascending into heauen and carrying his true flesh with him is compared to Elias who also ascended and carried his flesh thither with him But the flesh that he left here with vs is compared to Elias cloake which he left with Elizeus And the comparison standeth thus that as the Cloake which Elias left was a symbol of the spirit and Vertue which fell from him vpon Elizeus so the mysticall elements in the Sacrament are pledges and tokens vnto vs of the true flesh of Christ in the Church Thus therefore is St Chrysostome to be vnderstood as if he had said Christ ascending carried his true flesh with him corporally into heaven and left his mysticall flesh here vnto vs spiritually in the Sacrament N. N. The supper then being prepared both old and new ordinances met together at the Sacramentall and mysticall delicates and the Lamb being consumed which the old tradition did set forth our Master setteth before his Disciples a meat which cannot be consumed Neither is the people invited now to sumptuous costly and artificiall banquets but the food of immortalitie is giuen which differeth from common meats keeping the outward form of the corporall substance but prouing declaring that there is present by an invisible and secret working the presence of a divine power I. D. Thâ— booke of the Cardinal workes of Christ divided into twelue Tracts among which this De coenâ Domini is one is none of Cyprians that was Bishop of Carthage Pamelius staggers For although the Words and phrases and figures and the like seeme vnto him to make for Cyprian yet he professeth that of certainety hee hath nothing to say But Possevine is peremptory that it is falsly fathered on Cyprian So is Sixtus Senensis also and Cardinal Bellarmine And they render reasons For that Cyprian never refused to set his name to his bookes which this Author doth Neither would hee haue called his writings Childish toyes or haue said that the sublimitie of Cornelius ought to be delighted with his stammering tongue Nor finally would he haue vsed so many barbarismes nor haue written things contrary to himselfe As for this particular Tract de coenâ Domini Bellarmin ingeniously acknowledgeth that not Cyprian but some one later then hee wrote it Howbeit they all conclude that the Author of these Tracts is ancient How ancient It is cleare saith Pamelius that this booke was written in the time of Cornelius and Cyprian and therefore deserueth the same authoritie with Cyprian Nay not so saith Bellarmine for the Author thereof is later then Cyprian yea without doubt later then S. Augustine that is a hundred and fifty yeares yonger then Cyprian at least And who certainely knoweth but he may yet be much younger then so In the Library of All Soules College in Oxford there is a Manuscript very ancient of all these Tracts vnder the name of Arnoldus Bonavillacensis dedicated not to Cornelius as it is now falsely inscribed but to Hadrian the fourth the which Arnoldus liued not much lesse theÌ„ twelue hundred yeares after Christ. Which inscription if it be true as it is not vnlikely then is not this author the man you tooke him for namely that graue Father and Martyr as in the next Section you tearme him to wit St Cyprian If false yet because it is vncertaine who he is and in what age he liued his authority cannot be of of any great value Neverthelesse whatsoeuer he be let vs in a word or two examine his testimonie And first be it obserued that all the Presence hee speaketh of in these words is but the Presence of divine vertue or power which falleth short of that Real Presence of the naturall Body of Christ which you intend But after the Lambe saith Cyprian was consumed our Lord set before his Disciples an inconsumptible meat which cannot be Bread Indeed it cannot and who saith it is For the meat that cannot be consumed is the Body of Christ offered and exhibited in the Sacrament together with Bread And this is also that food of immortalitie which hee speaketh of represented and figured vnto vs by Bread it being so truly Bread sacramentally But it followeth differing from common meats and keeping the forme of bodily substance and these happily are the words which you thinke strikes all dead What for Transubstantiation Suppose then your Author had said The water in Baptisme differeth from common water
vntill Q. Elizabeth of blessed memory being advanced to the Crowne hee returned into England where hee was according to his worth soone after preferred to the Bishoprick of Salisbury Now if so obscure a man as your vnkle liuing but as a serving Priest beyond seas doe so much strengthen you I hope the example of so profound a Clarke and so reverend a Bishop and Confessour as my vnkle may much more confirme and settle me But it is high time to heare the reasons why you cannot beleeue the Fathers meaning to be as I say N. N. Your first reason some of our writers giue the same sense to the Fathers that you doe as Mason Perkins Field Covel Sir Edwin Sands Midleton Morton the now Archbishop of Canterbury I. D. Suppose all this were true yet seeing the sense I giue I haue by sundry plaine arguments demonstrated to bee the right sense the bare saying of others cannot be a sufficient reason why you should forbeare assent But what Doe all these indeed interpret the Fathers as you doe A vast vntruth vtterly incredible saue only to those whom the Romish Circe hath turned out of their wits For would any man thinke that they who so confidently alleage the Fathers against Transubstantiation should notwithstanding in their writings acknowledge that their meaning is cleane contrary to that they alleage thē for Were it not that you haue bound your Faith absolutely to beleeue what every Popish shaueling tell◠you how vnlikely soeuer it be and never to beleeue vs with what strength of reason soever we speake so absurd a thought as this could never haue entred into your mind Let vs yet examine the Particulars N. N. Mason is forced to these Words St Ambrose testifieth that imposition of hands is certaine mysticall words whereby he that is elected into the Priesthood is confirmed receiving authority his conscience bearing him witnesse that he may be bold to offer sacrifice to God in the Lords steed S. Chrysostome saith in many places there is offered not many Christs but one Christ every where being full and perfect S. Augustine saith that Christ commanded the Leper to offer sacrifice according to the law of Moses because this sacrifice the holy of holies which is his Body was not yet instituted And elsewhere what can be offered or accepted more gratefully then the Body of our Priest being made the flesh of our sacrifice And Cyril Leo Fulgentius and other Fathers haue commonly the like I. D. First these words are altogether impertinent to the matter of Transubstantiation being vouched for the Sacrifice of the Masse and therefore no way opening the meaning of the Fathers for you in that point Secondly these are not the words of Mason but the Obiection of a Papist For you are to knowe that this booke of Mason is written Dialogue-wise as a conference betweene Philodoxus the Papist and Orthodoxus the Protestant Now these words are by Mason put into the mouth of Philodoxus and are indeed obiected to vs by Bellarmin whom he calling himselfe Orthodoxus vndertaketh in that place to answere Whereby you may easily perceaue what credit is to be giuen vnto such cheating companions as your Author is who beare you in hand that the Objection of a Papist is the resolution of a Protestant Which that it may yet more plainely appeare take Masons Answer also S. Ambrose elsewhere expoundeth himselfe saying What therefore doe we Doe we not offer daily Truly we offer but so that wee make a remembrance of his death And againe We offer him alwaies or rather we worke a remembrance of his sacrifice S. Chrysostome expoundeth himselfe in the same place We offer him or rather we work a remembrance of the sacrifice What S. Augustines meaning was let himself declare Was not Christ once offered or sacrificed in himselfe And yet he is offered in a Sacrament not only at all the solemnities at Easter but every day to the people Neither doth he lye that being asked doth answere that he is offered For if Sacraments haue not a certaine resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments they should not be sacraments at all And for this resemblance they take the names commonly of the things themselues Therefore as after a certaine manner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is the bloud of Christ so the sacrament of Faith is Faith And else-where The flesh and bloud of the sacrifice of Christ was promised by sacrifices of resemblance before he came was performed intruth and indeed when he suffered is celebrated by a sacrament of remembrance since he ascended Thus he Whereof nothing maketh for your sense but every thing rather for the contrarie N. N. Mr Perkins writeth thus the ancients when they speak of the supper haue many formes of speech which shew a conversion S. Ambrose vseth the name of conversion and mutation S. Cyprian saith it is changed not in shape but in nature Origen saith that bread is made the body Gaudentius saith Christs body is made of bread and his bloud of wine Eusebius Emissenus that the Priest by secret power changeth the visible creatures into the substance of Christs body and bloud and that the bread doth passe into the nature of our Lords body I. D. Here Mr Perkins only reporteth the words of the Fathers but declareth not the sense of them That hee doth by and by in the words following The ancient Doctors saith he when they speake of the conversion and changing of bread vnderstand the change of vse and condition not substance In the reading of them therefore the Sacramentall change in signification and obsignation is to bee distinguished from substantiall And we are to know that for 800 yeares at least they knew not Transubstantiation but condemned it rather And all this he proues by the sayings of Cyprian Ambrose Theodoret Gelasius and others which I forbeare here to set downe because you haue them already in my answere Now if your meaning accord with this of M. Perkins I am the gladder If not it was too great boldnesse to say he vnderstood the Fathers in the same sense you doe N. N. D. Morton the Centuriators and others are plentifull in such citations and so manifest for the verity that D. Field writeth thus that the Primitiue Church thought the sanctified and consecrated Elements to bee the body of Christ. D Covel saith the Omnipotency of God maketh it his Body I. D. Quote the sayings of the Fathers they may and that plentifully But Transubstantiation or your sence they doe not nor cannot find in them for they never dreamed of it The words of Dr Field are these The manner of the Primitiue Church was as Rhenanus testifieth if any parts of the consecrated Elements remained so long as to bee musty and vnfit for vse to consume them with fire which I thinke they would not haue done to the
els would not Calvin haue cavilled at those words Vnlesse a man be borne againe of Water c. Is not the doctrine of the blessed Sacrament necessary Yet how many expositions of this is my Body So is that of Iustification yet twenty expositions of Scripture about the formall cause thereof So also is the doctrine of the Trinity and of Christs Divinity and humanity yet Ebionits Arians Nestorians Eutychians Valentiâ—ians Monothelites and Apollinarists holding heresies against them proue them all to their thinking out of Scripture Ergò Scripture is not so easy as I make it For where all things are plaine there men commonly agree I. D. The truth is being demanded the rule of Faith I named the Scripture and being farther demanded a rule whereby to know the sense of Scripture I answered two things First that all things necessary to salvation are so expresly and plainly set downe that there needs no farther rule secondly that those places which are more obscure are to be expounded by those that are more plaine and that sense which disagreeth is to bee reiected that which agreeth may safely be admitted Safely I say for although haply it may not be the right yet dangerous it cannot be as long as it accords with the Analogy of Faith This I declared somewhat at large in the writing sent to Mr Bayly which I perceaue hath come to your hands also yet satisfies not Otherwise you would not thus dispute against it But know you against whom you dispute Certainly not against me only but the ancient Fathers who affirme the same that I doe For touching the Perspicuity of Scripture in things necessary thus St Augustine In those things which are openly laid downe in Scripture are to be found all things which containe Faith and manners of liuing to wit Hope and Charity And St Chrysostome All things necessary are open and manifest so that there needed not homilies or Sermons were it not through our owne negligence And Cyril of Alexandria To the end they might be knowne to all both small and great he hath delivered them vnto vs in such familiar speech that they exceed no mans capacity So the rest And this is so true that your Gregory of Valentia confesseth it Such verities saith he concerning our faith as are absolutely and necessarily to be knowne and beleeued of all men are plainly taught in the Scriptures themselues So Sixtus Senensis also and others of your side As touching the interpretation of darker places by the plaine thus Saint Basil those things which seeme to bee ambiguous and obscurely spoken in some places of holy writ are enlightned by those which in other places are open and perspicuous And St Augustine There is nothing almost among these obscurities but in other places one may finde it most plainly delivered And St Chrysostome The Scripture every where when it speaketh any thing obscurely interpreteth it selfe againe in another place And this is the common voice of all the rest So that the answere I gaue you being no other then that wich I had learned of the Fathers you cannot reiect it but you must reiect the Fathers with all But let vs heare your reason The Doctrine say you of Baptisme of the Eucharist of Iustification of Christs two natures are necessary yet some texts vpon which they are grounded be litigious Grant it be so yet some againe are clear and evident That Christians are to be baptized what more plaine then that Goe teach all nations Baptizing them That the Eucharist is to be administred and receiued is clear by the institution of our Saviour and the practise of his Apostles That wee are iustified by Faith without the workes of the law wee haue the evident testimony of Saint Paul That Christ is God the very first words of Saint Iohns Gospell testifie In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and that word was God And lastly that hee is Man also what more expresse then those words of Saint Paul There is one God and one Mediator betweene God men the Man Christ Iesus If other places be not so plain they are to be expounded by these or the like But it may be your Doctrine of Baptisme is the absolute necessity thereof vnto salvation If so then certainely that place of S. Iohn is not cleare enough for it For it is not necessary it should be vnderstood of Christian Baptisme which was not yet instituted or it must be meant of those that are Adulti such as Nicodemus was to whom our Saviour spake In like manner if your doctrine of the Eucharist be Transubstantiation neither is that other place plaine enough for it For it is manifest both by the circumstances of the Text and the testimonie of the Fathers that the Relatiue This hath reference to Bread Now Bread in proper speech cannot bee Body as your owne men confesse Then is it so tropically and consequently no Transubstantiation The same doe I say of the errours about Iustification which should particularly haue beene shewed if you had quoted any particular place As for those Hereticks they were such as the Prophet speaketh of who in seeing saw and yet perceaued not hauing closed their eyes that they might not see And therefore it is a foule fault in you to excuse their obstinacy by charging the Scriptures with obscurity That Rule is sufficient which is able to convince the Conscience and satisfie all those who loue the truth and are ready to acknowledge it when it is made known though it stop not the mouths of refractary stubborne Hereticks This perhaps your living judge by vertue of fire and fagot may bee able to effect but the other if evidence of Scripture cannot nor he nor his Church will ever be able to performe More of this see in the Treatise sent to Mr Baylie N. N. If as I write to M. Baylie you may not relye too much on the authority of the Fathers because of their differences in opinions much lesse may you vpon the authority of our men being worse divided For they differ not in essential points we doe They wrote not so bitterly one against another as we doe Lastly they differed in matters as yet vndefined by a generall Councell and so not dangerous but wee haue no Councells nor any other meanes to decide our causes So that you cannot knowe which of vs giueth the true sense of Scripture I. D. That the Fathers are no way a sufficient ground of Faith I haue so strongly proued vnto M. Baylie that me thinkes none of you is in hast to answere it Among the rest of my reasons this I confesse was one that they varied so much in opinion one from another yea and are now made to vary from themselues through your intolerable abusing of them This I declared at large wherevnto for farther evidence I now adde an example or two S. Ambrose or whosoever is author of
the bookes de Sacramentis was wont to say thus If there bee so great force in the speech of our Lord Iesus that the things which were not began to be how much more operatiue is it that things still be what they were and yet bee changed into another things But now because that clause that things still bee what they were make sore against Transubstantiation in the Roman Edition and that of Paris an 1603. that clause is cleane left out and S. Ambrose must no longer say so S. Chrysostom or the Author of the imperfect worke vpoÌ„ Mathew was wont to haue these words If it be so dangerous to transferre vnto private vses those holy vessels in which the true body of Christ is not but the mystery of his body is contained how much more c. But what is become of them now In the edition printed at Antwerp by Ioannes Steelsius anno 1537. at Paris by Ioannes Roigny 1543. and by Audoenus Parvus 1557. not a syllable of those words in which the true body of Christ is not but the mystery of his body is contained appeares Why Because they make so strongly against your Reall Presence So likewise where he vsed in the elder impressions to say the sacrifice of bread and wine now in these latter editions hee is forced to change his language and to say the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ. More examples I might easily produce but these are sufficient to shew that Vincentius Lirinensis had good reason when hee gaue this Caveat But neither alwaies nor all kind of heresies are to bee impugned after this manner but such only as are new and late when they first arise while by straightnesse of time it selfe they be hindred from falsifying the rules of the ancient Faith and before that their poison spreading farther they attempt to corrupt the writings of the Ancient But farre spread and inveterate heresies are not to be set on this way forasmuch as by long continuance of time a long occasion hath layne open vnto them to steale away the truth But returne we againe to the matter from which we haue a little digrest The Fathers say you differed not in points essentiall True Neither doe we as is aboue shewed yet by your leaue their differences were not alwaies in petty matters vnlesse Rebaptization Communicating of infants the Popes vniversall iurisdiction and the like bee of small consequence with you Their differences were not so bitter as ours No were When they proceeded not only to curse one another but to fire bloudshed and banishment also And when casting off the rule of pietie they did nothing but increase strife threats envy and quaâ—rels every man with all tyranny pursuing his ambition whereby as S. Basil saith the Church of God was vnmercifully drawne in sunder and his flock troubled without all care or pittie Lastly say you they differed in matters vndecided by a generall Councell What then No danger No danger Then belike a man may safely beleeue all he lists before a Councell determine it The very high way to Atheisme For so the very Articles of the Creed during the first three hundred yeares after Christ should be but disputable points and not necessary For vntill Constantine the great there were no generall Councels By the same reason your Adoration of Images was no matter of Faith till the second Councel of Nice about 800 yeares after Christ nor Transubstantiation till the Councell of Lateran some 1200 yeares nor Merit nor Iustification by workes nor the most of your Tenents till the Trent Councell aboue foureteene hundred yeares after Christ. If they were I require you to shew what generall Councell had before determined them If you cannot then are you but novellers and hold not the ancient Faith The truth is Councells cannot make that an Article which was not but whether they decree or not decree whatsoever God affirmeth in his word as soone as it commeth to our knowledge is absolutely and vpon paine of damnation to be beleeued And it is horrible sacriledge and impiety to thinke that it is not necessary to beleeue God vnlesse a Councell of the Pope say Amen vnto it Yea but say you we nor haue nor can haue generall Councels No more can you nor any Church in Christendome without the generall consent of Christian Princes Synods of our owne Churches we may haue and haue had by the indulgence of our Princes More then this you cannot haue For you are but a handful of the Christian world and the greatest part thereof neither is nor will bee subject vnto you When you can get the Greek Church and that in Prester Iohns countrey with the Armenians and others to submit themselues vnto the Popes omnipotent and vbiquitaâ—y power then may you peradventure haue hope to call a generall Councell But that I think will be at the Greek Kalends that is in plaine English at Nevermasse Howsoever say you if you may not relie on the Fathers because of their differences neither may you on vs because of ours If this be a sound reason as I confesse it is neither may you rely on the Church of Rome because of theirs But you mistake the matter much if you thinke wee require men to relie on our bare authoritie That privilege belongs vnto Christ only and vnder him to those holy Pen-men of the Bible that wrote by inspiration To vs appertaineth to proue what we say by their authoritie and when wee haue so done to require assent and not before If Scripture and sound deduction from it according to the art of reasoning together with the proofe of the sense thereof by the circumstances of the place and the analogie of Faith will not moue you we can but pittie your wilfulnesse and leaue you vnto God till he turne your heart and haue mercy vpon you For certainely miserable is the case of that man who knowing the Scriptures to be Gods word and hauing the vse of right reason shall refuse triall both by the one and the other preferring therevnto the authoritie of man which may erre it selfe and lead others into errour N. N. Your conclusion is you meane not to forsake the religion taught in that Church which is descended from Christ and his Apostles by succession but with Litinensis to preferre it before all things That you will follow vniversality Antiquitie and consent in your beleefe that faith which hath beene held from time to time in all places in all seasons by all or the most Doctors of Christianity That Church which as S. Augustine saith had her beginning by the entring of nations got authority by miracles was increased by charity and established by continuance and hath had succession from S. Peters chaire to our time That church which is knowne by the name of Catholike both to friends and foes even Heretikes tearming her so calling themselues for distinctions sake Reformers Illuminates Vnspotted brethren In