and louely societie of the Churche When as the Lordes meaning dyd reatch to a farre higher mystery in this institution of the Supper which may be made most euidently apparant by the very wordes and circumstances of the words of the Supper For when the Lorde did commaunde to take and eate he doeth not say this is my mysticall body that shal fructifie and encrease out of many members of the Church But this is my body that shal be geuen for you Whereupon if I might now argue in the schooles of Diuines I would on this wise proceede against mine aduersaries The thing that is properly signified in this Sacrament is the only fleshe of Christe geuen for vs. The power of the vnitie and societie of the Churche was not deliuered for vs. Ergo The vnion of the Church oâ—ght in no respect be called the substance of the Sacrament Therfore this doctrine of Lombarde is false vtterly to be abandoned wherein hee affirmeth that this visible forme is a sacrament of a double thing And albeit I wil not deny that this mystery of Ecclesiastical vnion christian conâ—unction is a matter of vnspeakable excellency to haue singulâ—r likenes relation to bread as S. Paul testifieth Yeâ— Paul â—eacheth no such doctrine to wit that the sacrament was instituted to that ende or that the â—lements of bread and wine were deliuered to bee eaten and druÌ„ken for this purpose namely to expresse this mysticall â—â—ion but that it shoulde allure vs to an otheâ— matâ—eâ— rather to wit to the very body of Christe which shoulde suffer for vs that is to say shoulde represent the passion of Christe which doth truely quicken vs make vs too fructifie and to growe vp Therefore the estate of this Sacrament doth require that the Sacrament it selfe and the thing of the Sacrament alsâ— be both of this naâ—â—re to comfort to nourish for otherwise howe can the thinâ— significant agree with the thing signified vnlesse â—he nourishment of the one bee answerable too the nourishment of the other Now this is without al question that nothing can nourishe vnlesse it bâ—â— first eaten Wherefore as there bee twoo thinges that â—oe nourishe so must there be two thinges that muste bâ—e eaten In the one whereof is the Sacrament of the body in the other the verye thing it selfe is deliuered namely the passion of his naturall body And as they both nourishe so they muste both bee eaten The bread feedeth the flesh of Christ crucifâ—ed feedeth but after an other maner The bread feedeth corporally the fleshe feedeth spiritually That one the naturall body this other the spiritual part of the soule the bread feedeth this present lyfe the fleshe feedeth vnto the euerlasting life to come For as the life of the bodie doth growe encrease by dayly bread and foode euen so the spirituall life is preserued by the passion of Christ. Which the Lord himselfe foreseeing before did vtter these woordes of himselfe not without great consideration My fleshe is meate indeede my blood is drinke in deed geuing vs to vnderstande that by blood hee did meane the blooddy Sacrifice of his owne flesh Therfore as there is two kinds of mans life To wit earthly and heauenly so haue they both theyr proper foode The earthly life is preserued with foode and bread the heauenly life is obteined with the death of Christ. And for this cause nothing câ—ulde haue beene more commodiously handled then that the Lorde shoulde deliuer the bread and wine for a memorial of his passion because of the agreable application of the mutuall resemblaunce And heereof aryseth al the substaunce of this Sacramentall Action whereby bread and wyne doe obteine too bee called by the name of the body and blood not because the thinges themselues doe alter theyr substances but after the vâ—uall phrase of speach which is commonly frequented in all languages almost chiefly aboue others in the mysticall Scriptures Namely that thinges significaÌ„t shoulde obteine too bee called by the thinges which they doe signifie Which being most manifestly to be approued by innumerable testimonies of the Scripture is aboue all other moste iustifiable in this one Sacrament chiefly where the name of the body is attributed too the bread but not the substaunce none otherwise in very deede then as by like phrase of wordes is set downe in the booke of Genesis where seuen eares of corne are called Seuen Yeeres Fleshe Heye Seede the Worde a Fielde the World the heauenly Father an Husbandman Christe named a Uine or a Lambe the Apostles called Salt of the earth Peter a Stone and Iohn the Euangelist not only called of Christes own mouth the sonne of the Uirgin but accepted of the mother of Christe as her sonne by the Lordes commaundement Yet wil no man be so mad for this cause to affirme that vnder the figure and forme of this Disciple he either became truely and naturally her sonne or the Uirgin his naturall mother for it is one thing to bee called a mother by name an other thing too bee a naâ—urall mother in deede After the same maner fareth it with the Sacramentes in the which must be considered not what they bee but what they be called and wherfore they be so called For euen amongest vs in our dayly and vsual speaâ—hes as also in the Scriptures chiefly many thinges are many times beautified or described by strange names where notwithstanding no alteration is made of substance but the reason and cause that mooued the holy ghost to name it so is noted After the same maner Christ doth call bread his body not meaning thereby to transubstantiate the substance of the one into the other neither was it to any purpose at all to haue done so but to expresse the power of his passion for this cause therefore hee tooke the bread and cup of wine and called them his body and blood which he would giue for the sins of the world Neither did he only cal them so but also did deliuer them in his last supper to bee eaten and drunken in steede of his body and blood In like maner before Supper he vouchsafed by a like Figuratiue phrase of speache too call his owne fleshe meate and feeding bread from heaueâ— But least any man may fayle in the propertie of woordes I thinke it good too hearken vnto Augustines couâ—salie who discoursing vpoÌ„ the 33. Psalm of Dauid wâ—erin it is said that Dauid did change his couÌ„tenance before Abimelech alias before Achis he doeth transpose this figuratiue speach of chaunged couÌ„tenance to y â— words of Christe vttered touching the supper of his body blood For as Dauid is saide to haue dissembled in countenance before Achis the king seeming outwardly otherwise then hee was inwardly After the selfe same maner of speache the Lorde himselfe treating of his fleshe and blood doeth seeme in Augustines iudgement as it were
manifestly of the bread and wyne The bread sayeth hee and wyne is an exemplar of his â—â—eshe and his blood and they that communicate of the apparaunt bread doo eate the flesh of the lordâ— spiritually Let vs nowe heare Irene speakâ—ng of the bread not beeing cast out but sanctified The elemental bread saith hee taking denomination of the word of God is no more common bread but is made the Euchariste which consisteth of twoo things earthly and heauenly and immediatly after in the same place what is vnderstood by the heauenly thing but sanctificatioÌ„ which commeth by inuocating the name of God And by the earthly thing which commeth foorth of the earth but natural bread which also feedeth our bodies aswel as any vsual bread And againe in his 9. booke When the wyne powred forth into the cuppe and the bread being broken doth receaue the worde of GOD it is made the Euchariste of the body and blood of Christ from the which the substaunce of our flesh receaueth repast and nourishment Of the same iudgemeâ—t is Iustine the holy martyr liuing in the very tyme and age of Irene who wryteth on this wise The Deacons do distribute to al that be present to make them partakers of bread wine water ouer the which thanksgiuing hath bene pronounced or els they carry it to those that be absent Nowe this nourrishement is called amongest vs the Euchariste of the which may no man bee made partaker vnlesse hee bee ioyned with vs in one and the same fayth and baptisme and liue after the example of Christe For wee doo not receaue this as common bread or common wyne but as Iesus tooke vppon him fleshe and blood for our saluation sake after the same maner we also receauing this Sacramentall foode by the which our fleshe and blood is nourished by concoction are taught that it is the flesh blood of Christ that â—ookâ— flesh vpon him for our sakes I coulde alleadge many sentences besides these out of Athanasius and more out of Cyril some out of Epiphanius Dydimus and others many more al which iâ— I shoulde reâ—ken vp particularly I shoulde skarse make an ende of vouching testimonies I meane the â—estimonies of that auncient and primitiue purer age By the which may bee seene plaine without all ambiguity that those visible formes and byhangers of bread without any manner of subâ—â—aunce was neuer hearde of as yet and that the body and blood of Christ was so distributedâ— in the communion as that both bread and wyne did neuerthelesse remayne alwayes in this sacrament amongest them finally that the body and blood of Christe was so conteyned vnder the denomination of meate and drinke that the Churche had alwayes a sacrament of the body but not alwayes the body without the sacrâ—ment if therefore wee haue not the body alwayes without a sacrament then may any man easily perceaue by the very denomination of a sacrament what hee ought too conceaue of the selfe same body for as much as the sacrament of the body is one thing and the very body of the sacrament is an other thing the one whereof may bee called by the others name but can not possibly bee one and the selfe same in substaunce For as his most blessed mother hauing deliuered Christe out of her wombe is sayde properly and truely too haue brought foorth the very natural body of Christe naturally not the sacrament of his body euen so likewyse this holy sacrament of Christes body which is produced and made by the only woorde of GOD without mother at al is called a body by a spiritual construction onely but can not rightely bee called the substantial and natural body which issued foorth of the virgin and in the natural sense therof For although Christ be one and the selfsame in person wheresoeuer hee bee yet is hee not euery where according to the natural substaunce which he receiued of his mother neither is he eaten as he was borne for hee was borne a natural man in deede but hee is eaten not otherwyse then by a mystery significant In mysteries similitudes of thinges are conteined but not the substauÌ„ce themselues properly In the mother the woorde was made fleshe In the Euchariste the flesh of the woorde is made our foode I say our foode not of the mawe nor of the belly but of the minde Wherevppon this meate is called euery where by the auncient ecclesiasticall fathers and that not without cause by spirituall meate as the which is not applyed too the foode of the bodies but which dooth satisfie the hunger of the inwarde man For as the hunger which hungreth after Christe is not the hunger of the outwarde body but of the inwarde man euen so the fleshe of Christe auaileth nothing too the ease of belly hunger but all the commoditie thereof serueth for the nourishement of a better life Otherwyse why woulde the Apostle Paul haue sent backe the hungry belly communicantes to their owne house where they might feede at ful except hee had supposed that in that holy assembly some higher mystery had beene handled besides feeding the belly Which beeing true in deede verified with so many proofes so many manifest euidences of witnâ—sses what wil these Romish counterfaâ—cts bring foorth to shadowe their frenâ—y and to defend their drousy heresy of transubstantiation For if they do so stricktly restraine the sacred body of Christ which without all question sitteth nowe in heauen into and within the sacrament that there shal remaine no place nor any substauÌ„ce at al of bread sweeâ—e nor leauened besides a thing of nought onely and shadowes of accidentes what shal that be then which the auncient fathers doo with so general agreâ—ment call a signe a Sacrament a mystery a type an exemplar an ymage a seale a similitude and a figure of the Lordes body and blood What is that wherewith our bodies bee fedde and nourished as Iustine reporteth Are wee nourished with formes and bare byhangers of accidentes What is that the fragmentes whereof the Deacons did in olde tyme carry vntoo others and the broken pieces wherof if any remained after the communion the priests did giue to boyes that went too schoole too eate too their breakfaste which custome was frequented in the church in the of â—yme Iustinian as Nycephorus reporteth If in that firste age of the Churche those auncient fathers had but ymagined in their mindes that they did eate the natural body of Christe altogither without bread really may any man thinke with him selfe that they would haue yeelded so litle reuerence to Christ their sauiour as that the Priestes shoulde haue beene permitteâ— not onely too deuoure the body of our Lord so broken in pieces but also too deliuer boyes gooing too schoole the crustes and cromines of the leauinges for their breakefastes By the which you see holy father of Rome vnlesse you haue lost your eyes see nothing what
the doctrine and opinion touching the substaunce and fayth of this sacrament was then in that olde auncient age amongest those Catholike and godly auncient fathers and howe farre this your newe vpstart chaungeling of â—raÌ„substantiation doth differre not only from al auncient antiquity but also from the trueth of the scripture it selfe which many of your own frateâ—ny Impes of this later age did not onely very wisely forsee but very frankely confesse as your selfe do know wel ynough For I suppose the name of the Author or the wordes of the Author at the least bee not vnknowen vnto you who albeit neuer durst deny transubstantiation himselfe yet feared nothing â—o vâ—ter his iudgement thereof freely The Churche saieth hee did but very lately set down the determination touching transubstantiation for before that it was thought sufficient that the true body of Christ was conteined really either vnder consecrated bread or by any meanes els but afterwardes when the churche began to looke more narrowly into the substaunce of the matter and to enter into more exact consideration therof it gaue foorth a more resolute determinatioÌ„ of the same c. To the same effect almost writeth also Iohn Fisher bishop of Rochester not the least Apostle of the Romish church who in his booke entituled A Defeâ—ce for the King of England discoursing vppon transubstantiation and the vse of the sacrament commeth at the last to this conclusion to wit that TraÌ„substantiation is grouÌ„ded more vpoÌ„ the authoritie aud determination of the church then can be iustifiable by the scriptures of God the Gospel Wherein he did not amisse For who doth not know that in that first nourcery of the Primitiue Churche yea and many hundred yeeres after whenas Bede Bertram and Rabanus Maurus were liuing in the world euen vnto that vnlucky hatching of Hildebrande and Innocent the thiâ—de not so much as this name Transubstantiation was euer hearde of vntill at the length in a Councell holdâ—n at Laterane in Rome the solemne edicte was established of banishing the substaunce of bread quytâ— out of the sacrament For if at any tyme before that councel the church had defyned any certain and grounded docâ—rine touching the same how falleth it out theÌ„ that there is such a continual falling â—ut amongest theÌ„ that folowed after in diuersities of opinion and iudgement about that transubstantiatiâ—n which some of them do stoutly maintaine some do vtterly deny it some do by coniecture think that others wil not graunt vnto some others haue supposed some doo so deliuer out that the substaunce of bread wyne doth remaine Lombarde himselfe doth think that there is a certain enterchaunge but what manner of enterchanuge that is whether formal or substantial or of some other fashion hee dareth not of himselfe determine any certainty Likewyse Gabriel Biel sticking fast in the same quauemyre vnable too vnwelde him selfe cleane from out the same is faine at the length too set downe by a plaine denial that in the whole Canonical scriptures can not possibly be founde in expresse woordes whether this transubstantiation dooth beginne by enterchaunging of any somwhat into the body or do without enterchaunging beginne too bee the body with the bread the substaunce and accidentes of bread remaining still What shall wee say to this that euen by the testimony of Pope Innocent the thirde his owne mouth were some persons knowen that did affirme that as the very accidentes of bread did remaine after consecration so also did the very substaunce of bread remaine withal Whereby appeareth manifestly that before that late councel of Laterane was no certaine doctryne established touching transubstantiation To the lyke effect wryteth Nicholas Cusanus Some of the auncient fathers saieth hee are founde too haue beene of this minde that the bread is not transubstantiated but is inuested with a certain substauÌ„â—e of more high valour O notable groundwoorke of transubstantiation perdy builded vppon none other platte fourme then vppon so brittle a fundation as that ridiculous decree of the Romish Church being so late an vpstarte as the which was not so much as by name onely euer hearde of or knowen which neuer peeped abroade into the worlde before Satan being let loose out of Hell after the thousande yeeres of his captiuitie was permitted too raunge openly abroade and too defile all thinges with abhominable stenche and corruption For on this wyse dyd Satan after hee was let loose beginne his first practises very neere the tyme wherein Hildebrande or not long after him Innocent the thyrd began too prop vp theyr Ierarchie ouer the worlde O Sacred and Catholike doctrine of Transubstantiation issuing from so gracious a stocke forsooth and grafted in suche an holy and seasonable a time O neate and fine forgers of fraude of whom notwithstanding if any man will demaunde for the firste Originall of y â— theyr doctrine they wyll not be ashamed to fetche the pedigree thereof euen from the very Apostles themselues and too deduce the auncientie of this theyr transubstantiation euen vnto Melchisedech not much vnlike too theyr neere Cozens the Gebaonites which too colour theyr falshoode shewed foorth theyr olde shoes so do these Romanists make a shew of the auctoritie of theyr owne Churche and the same aduaunce alofâ— as it were Gorgones heade before the eyes and eares of the vnlettered multitude with very solemne protestations Wherein theyr fraudulent guâ—le had not beene altogeather amisse if that the holy Scriptures had not long before discouered vntoo vs that same gracious Church of theirs which they glorifie with the title of Catholike to bee none other then that abhominable strumpet of Babylon And yet for all this these Gentlemen spare not too claime holde of Christe himselfe also as an especiall Patrone of theyr error but not muche vnlike their owne great graundsire Satan who long sithens gaue assaulte vpon the same Christ in his owne person with the words of Scripture synisterly wrest after the bare sense of the letter and as the Iewes doe at this present hacke the Propheticall Scriptures of the old Testament of whom Ierome maketh mention Who following the bare construction of the letter sayeth hee slew the sonne of God The selfe same almost may seeme very aptly appliable vnto them who following the bare letter of the newe Testament doe change the Sacramentes into Idolles doe extinguishe the spirite of the Scripture and doe crucifie Christe with the Iewes a frâ—she in his members againe besides this also because they doe not perceiue sufficient sauetie enough set downe for them in the scriptures they runne by heapes to the chiefe Fortresse of Gods omnipotent power What say they did not Christe affirme in plaine woordes This is my body shall wee doubt that hee was not able to perfourme that which hee spake If Christe woulde vouchsafe vpon his departure from hence to leaue behind him too his dearely beloued Spouse some speciall token or remembrance of him selfe
17. Gregâ—ry in his 4 booke the 38 Epiâ—tlâ— to Luâ—oâ— Peter was neither head of the Church nor vniuersall Apoâ—â—lâ— Galat. 2. Chrysâ—st vpon Paules Epâ—stle to the Romanâ—s The vniuersall Iurisdiction of the Pope confuted Iohn .6 Luke .14 Iohn .13 Matth. 23. Luke .16 Matth. 5. In what sense Peter was calleâ— prince of the Apostles Peter called prince of the Apostles as Cicero was called prince of eloquence in reâ—pect of eâ—cellencie not of superâ—oritie Mat. 4. Luke 5. Iohn 21. Peter made fisher of men not prince of men Actes .8 Pope Alexander the 3. Hâ—stiensis Extrauagan dâ— eâ—ectâ— electi poâ—â—state Hadriâ—n Clâ—mâ—nt 5â— Honâ—rius 3. Gregory 9. Vrbanus 4. Innocent 4. Clement 4. All the French in Sicile yong and olde were slaine at the sound of a bell Martin 4â— Honorius 4. Nicholâ—s 4. Boniface 8. Clement .5 Iohn .22 Vrbane .6 Clement Martine .5 Pius .2 Sixtus .4 Iulius .2 Paulus .3 The succession of the Pope discouered and confuted 2. Quest. 7. Omnes Dist. 40. â—erome writing to Helyodore The councel of Constance The ordinary succession prefiteth nothing in the sight of God Maâ—asses Caiaphas The Iâ—wes Iohn .9 Mat. 3. Luâ—e 2. Mat. 23. Iames .1 Ephe. 5. No resemblaÌ„ce betwixt Peter and the Pope The state of the chayre of the Romish Monarchyâ— Betwixt the Pope and Peter Esay 5. 2. Ezechiel .34 It is not the chayre but the good life that maketh a man Apostolical Neanthus sonnâ— of Pittacus The continuance of succeeding Bishops in the Church is no sufficient cloke to coulor error The ordinary succession of popeâ— hath bin discontinued broken of The light of doctrine and trueth restoreâ— The Popâ—s Bullâ—s against the faithfâ—l sâ—ruants of Christâ— The slaunders of the Pope against the Queene of Englandâ— The Oration of Queene Elizabeth to the Pope Matth. 5. Lâ—â—ius The cause of the Popes malice against Elâ—zabeâ—h Queene of England How this saying without the Churche is no hope of saluation must be conâ—trued The Câ—tholâ—kâ— fayâ—h Athanasius Creede The Nycene Creede The Romish fayth Bâ—â—â—â— in his 78. Epiâ—â—le The Catholike church amongst the Grecians eâ—empt from the Church of Rome We read in our Creeâ— the holy and Catholike Church but not the Romain Church The onely faiâ—h and doâ—trine of Christ doth vnite Câ—ristiâ—â—s to the Câ—uâ—châ— Three Tabernacles â— Thessal 2. Luke â—2â— Matâ— 20. 2â—â— Luke 18. A compaâ—ison betwixt the auncieÌ„t church of Rome and the Romish prelates nowe The life and conuâ—rsation of the auncient aâ—d Apostolical â—hurche Great differeÌ„ce betwixt the biâ—hops of the ancâ—ent and the new churche of Rome Bernard in his Epistle to Eâ—genius â— The life of the Bishoppes of Rome may seeme lesse Apostolike then Apostatique The Popes doctrine conninced in nouelty The nouâ—lâ—y of the Popes docâ—ryne was in many things vnknown to the auncieÌ„t fathers In howe many how weighty matters the Apostolicke doctryne varyeth from the popes Tertullianusâ— Apocal. 2. Apoca. â—3 Cicero in his Tusculanes the 3. booke Apoc. 13. Though the Pope with his crew be part of the church yet be they not the vniuersall church The Popes arguments deducted from the vniuersalitie The Papiâ—â—â—â— obiection Two sortes of men in the visible Church A disagreement not a departure bâ—twiâ—t the protestantes and the Papistes Osâ—c â— The errours filthines of the Popes doctryâ—e A comparison betwixt the Iewes and the Romish catholikes The persecution of Christians by the pope and his papâ—sts The ceremonies of the Iewes and the Papistes compared together The superstitioÌ„ of the Romanists in defending their traditions is more than Iewish As the Iewes do looke for a worldly Messiâ—as so the Papists doe expect a worldly vicar Like Pope like Church The very pattâ—â—â—e â—â—age of the Romish Church The Papists do play the Iewes in establishing the doctrine of rightuousnesse by workes â—om 9 10â— How fayth is esteemed with the Papistes Only faith with out works â—oâ—h accomplish the whole worke of our iusâ—iâ—icatioâ— Oâ—orâ— agaynst Haddon pagâ— 94. Oâ—or in his Epistle to the Queene of England pag. 27. 32. Tridâ—â—â—in Conc. Ses. 6. cap. 7. How fayth dotâ— beget good workes Faith as oportunitie is offred can neuer cease from doing good working alwayes throâ—â— loue Fayth in iustification is onely and alone but in working is not alone Tridentin Conc. Ses. 6. cap. 16. The infallible doâ—trine of the Tridâ—ntine Councâ—ll Sâ—ssiâ— 6 Cap. 7 Ephesians 2. Iohn .6 Iohn .11 Euerlasting life promised to the beleeuers The diffeâ—ence betwixt the law and the Gospel The vse and duetie of the lawe Wherein the vse of the law consisteth properly The Euangelicall faith The preaching of faith * 2. Cor 3. Who hath made vs able ministâ—rs of tâ—e new Testament not of the letter but of the spirite The fruite and prayse of good workes Psalm â—5 In what respect good workes be auayleable and what they bring to passe Ianuensis is his booke called Cathoâ—ico Psal. 1â—â— From whence ariseth the welâ—spring of eternal life Iustificaâ—ion is proper to faith only Mark .9 Good woorkes do not procure a man to be iustâ—fiâ—d but bee fruites and effectes of him that is iustified alâ—eady August de graâ—ia 〈◊〉 Cap. 3. Romans 4â— Titus .3 Obiection The answeres of the Apostle Howe faith and good woorkes doe agree and disagree ech with other Tully in his orâ—tion for Milo The obiectioâ— is confuted Eâ—he 5. A brief Catalogue of the popish doctrine Osor. in his 7. booke de Iustitia â—ala 3. A comparison betwixt the preachers of the lawe and the Gospel and betwixt theÌ„ which plod vpon nothing els then the rightâ—ousnes of the lawe and workes The supremacâ— of the Pâ—pe confuted Luke 22.26 Inuocation of saintes confuted Hebr. 7. Pictures and images of saintes Uowes of vâ—maried life Masses and sâ—â—rifices Satisfactions â—or â—iâ—nes 1. Iohn 2â— Actes 1â— Osor. In his Epistle to the Queene of Englande Rightuousnes by faith Iustification free One only oblation The Papistes suppâ—r without wyne The holy ghost the vicar of Christ. Tertullian de praescrip aduersus Haereticos Being taken hence into heauen to the right hande of the father hee sent his vicar power of the holy Ghoste which might comfort the faithful Christ the ende of the lawe The ende and mark of romish doctryne Iohn .5 An vnknowne toung doth not edifie Mat. 24. Idolatroâ—s pilgrimages Peter the Apostle is denied to haue beene bishop of Rome The functions of Apostles and Bishoppes bee diuerse The Pope of Rome is falsely supposed to bee Peteâ—s successor How much the popes doctryne is swarued froÌ„ the disciplyne Apostolique 1. Peter .2 Of the sacramentes The abhominable corruptions of the papists in the Lordes supâ—er * Aug. ad Infantes is cyted by Bedâ— 1. Cor. 10. That which you see is bread and wine which also your eyes do declare maniâ—eâ—â—ly * Augustâ— de trinitate 3. booke cap. â— Myracles are properly applyed too declare to our senses some supernatural and heauenly power In the sacrament nothing