of the diuine scripture admonishing vs and will not be healed or reformed by the reprehensions thereof it is certaine that fire abideth vs which is prepared for sinners and we shal come vnto that fire in which of what sort euery mans work is the fire shall trie And as I thinke it is of necessitie that wee must all come vnto that fire Although one be Paul or Peter yet he commeth to that fire But they that are such do heare Although thou passe through fire the flame â—hal not burn thee But if any be a sinner like me he shal â—ome in deede vnto that fire as Peter Paul but he shall â—ot so passe through it as Peter Paul More of his geâ—eral purgation of al men and not the damned onely you â—ay read in Num. Hom. 25. Vides quomodo c. Thou seâ—st howe euery man that departeth out of the battel of this life hath neede of purification c. yet saith Bristow that of the purgation of such as die in gods fauour there is no word which although he speak of Augustin whose wordes he citeth Ad quod vult Hae. 43. yet he saith vntruely for thus he writeth in the same place Sunt alia c. There be other opinions of this Origen which the Catholike Church doth not receiue at all in which it doth not falsely accuse him neither can be so excused by his defenders especially coÌ„cerning purgation deliueraÌ„ce and againe after long time the reuolution vnto the same euils of euery reasonable creature I suppose he that speaketh of the purgation of euery reasonable creature speaketh of the purgation of such as die in Gods fauour also wherefore it is manifest that Origen erred not only about hell heauen and the purgation of the damned but also about the purgation of such as dye in Gods fauour Therefore Bristowe neede not gather mine argument as he doth in scorne There is no such Purgatorie as Origen Carpocrates would haue therefore there is no purgatorie at all But what should Carpocrates come in this title but for a sorie sophisme wheÌ„ we speake of Origen onely Wherefore if you wil giue mee leaue to frame mine argument although I meant not an argument out of Origens purging fire onely it should be thus There is no such purging fire as Origen would for them that dye in Gods fauour such as Origens fire is the fire that the papistes would haue therefore there is no such purging fire as the Papists woulde haue Releeuing of the dead by prayer If the dead be not releeued we say quod Bristowe as S. Paul saith they must indure a fierie and therefore a most painefull purgation And for this saying hee quoteth most impudently 1. Cor. 3. But I pray you Bristowe where saith S. Paul the deade must endure a fierie purgation or where maketh he any exception of their releeuing Hee saith the fire shall trie euery mans worke Is euery man onely some kinde of deade men or is euerie mans worke the man him selfe or is the triall of euerie mans worke of what sort it is a purgation either of the man or of the worke Arte thou not ashamed to charge S. Paul to say that whereof hee saith nothing at all euen by the iudgement of S. Augustine But that Aerius was not the first that denyed prayers for the dead to be profitable I shewed by that of the most auncient writers The Heracleonits among other their heresies were charged to burye their dead with inuocations and to redeem them with oyle balme and water and inuocations said ouer their heades as Augustine and Epiphanius shewe out of Irenaeus Nowe commeth Bristowe and in many needelesse words rehearseth other partes of their heresie with their manner of seasoning or receiuing those that beleeue in them by a counterfait marriage and baptisme and by anoynting with balme c. concluding that this practise of theirs maketh as much against true baptisme solemnizing of matrimony as against prayer for the dead anealing or anoynting c. Likewise might they conclude that all their ceremonies are as good as baptisme and marriage But whatsoeuer wee reade of the practise of heretikes we must learne to distinguish that which is their owne inuention from that which is the ordinance of God And how shall wee knowe Gods ordinance from heretikes inuention but by the holy scriptures Separating therefore baptisme and marrying which are the ordinance of God contained in the scriptures from the rest that haue no ground in the same prayers for the dead which they vsed with such like matters were the inuention of heretikes Howbeit saith Bristowe of prayer for the dead in all this was neuer a worde No was Howe read you Irenaeus lib. Cap. 18. out of which you cite so much could not see that after he hath spoken of their seasoning of their disciples aliue he telleth how they redeeme them when they are dead Alij sunt qui mortuis redimunt c. Other there be that redeeme the dead at the end of their departing powring on their heads oyle water or the foresaid oyntment with water and with the foresaid inuocations c Do you not heare the same prayers sayde by the heretikes for the dead which they vttered before for the liuing But if the Heracleonites should faile mee I affirme that Montanus had in all pointes the opinion of the Papistes because Tertullian a Montanist vttereth al those pointes in such bookes as he made being a Montanist and especially in his booke de anima That Terrullian vttereth the opinion of the Papistes in all pointes Bristow wil not denye But he asketh whether all be Montanisme that Tertullian hath in that his booke de anima and in so many other bookes as he wrote being a Montanist No forsooth sir. But Montanus the heretike helde whatsoeuer he wrote in those bookes Howe then shall we discerne that which is proper to Montanus from that which he hath common with the catholike church I deliuered a rule euen nowe concerning the practise of the Heracleonites Prayer for the dead and Purgatorie are not found in the holy Scriptures but they are found in a disciple of Montanus therfore they stinke of Montanisme Adde hereunto that in so many bookes as Tertullian did write being a catholike there is no mention of prayer for the dead or suffering after this life of the faithfull Last of all Tertullian him selfe telleth you plainly that Paracletus the comforter by which he meant the spirite of Montanus had reuealed very often that euery small offence must be punished after this life in that the soule of any except martyrs shall not go immediatly into Paradise but tarie in prison vntil it haue payde the vttermost farthing What needed he to cite the authoritie of his Paracletus if he had spoken nothing but that which was commonly receiued in the catholike Church Which saying sith I haue set downe in Tertullians wordes in the page of Purg. 417. by
I haue written so much already in confutation of Heskins and Sanders and that Bristowe bringeth nothing nor halfe so much as hath bene refelled in their books concerning these places Where I saide it was not the beleefe of S. Aug. that the sacrament is the natural body and blood of Christ. Bristow asketh if it be his mystical body or whether Christ haue any more bodies It were an easy matter to shewe that it is called by Augustine the mysticall body of Christ which is his Church but I pardon Bristowes ignorance and answere him that the sacrament is neither his naturall nor his mysticall body in proper speeche But secundum quendam modum as Aug. saith after a certain manner both And I read in Theodoret of a third body which the sacrament is De typico symbolicoque corpore a typicall or sacramentall body The place of Augustine in Psalm 58. with the cauillation of Adoration which Bristowe maketh is examined in mine answere to Heskins Lib. 2. Cap. 45. And in mine answere to Sander Lib. 6. Cap. 2. The place of Augustine which I translated worde for worde and faithfully gaue the sense thereof as euerie man may see that readeth it Purg. 309. Bristowe shamefully peruerteth setting the carte before the horse in rehearsing of it to make a contrary sense But euen in that same booke and Chapter De Trinitate Lib. 3. Cap. 10. Augustine is cleare against that monstrous opinion of transubstantiation speaking of signes namely of the bread which is spent in receiuing of the sacrament Sed quia haec c. But because these thinges are knowen to men because they are done by men they may haue honour as religious things but wonder as miracles they cannot haue Whereof if he had known the carnal presence change of the bread such as the papistes speake of he must needes haue acknowledged many wonders and miracles contrary to the order of nature which they are constrained to faine although no man can see them wheras al corporal miracles wroght by God are sensible The place of Iustinus with Bristowes cauil confuted is in mine answere to Heskins Lib. 2. Cap. 43. The place of Irenaeus in the same answere Lib. 2. Cap. 4â— And Theodoret the last Doctor that I cited who perchance might he ignorant of transubstantiation saith Bristowe because it was not clearely defined to be in fourme and matter before the last councell of Trent you shall finde with his cauill confuted Lib. 3. Cap. â—2 56. Against Sanders booke of the sacrament Lib. 6. Cap. 5. 6 About the sacrament of penance Absolution About the sacrament of penance the Popish Church saith foure thinges first that by the Priestes absolution the guilt of sinne and eternall paines due for it are taken away but one houres torment in Purgatorie as the master of the sentences teacheth is not taken away therby and Allen confesseth Bristowe saith it auaileth to take away the torments of hell But Allen Purg. 167. requiring submission to Gods ministers for absolution giueth them in most ample manner a commission of executing Christes office in earth both for pardoning and punishing of sinne that suffering here in his Church sentence and iust iudgement for his offences he may the rather escape our fathers greeuous chastisement in the life to come Thus Allen is cleane contrarie to Bristowe and himselfe and left naked in this place as almost in all places by Bristowe who would seeme to take vpon him his defence The second thing is temporall debt remaining after absolution Touching this matter I said Purg. 42. That Augustine saith of the deathes of Moses and Aaron that they were signes of things to come not punishments of Gods displeasure Quaest. in Num. lib. 4. cap. 53. Here Bristowe complayneth of my synceritie and rehearseth the wordes before When it is said to them that they should be gathered to their people It is manifest that they be not in the wrath of God which separateth from the peace of the holy eternall societie Thereby it is manifest that also their deathes were signes of thinges to come not punishments of Gods indignation What want of synceritie is here except there be so great difference betweene indignation and displeasure But Bristowe cauilleth of the wrath that separateth for euer as though they were in a wrath that separateth for a time Yet the scripture presseth where God saide you shall die because you did not beleeue me This was no satisfaction for their temporall debt remaining after absolution wherof the question is but a fatherly correction to them and an example vnto other Yea such a correction as was a greater benefite namely to be receiued into the eternall land of promise then the punishment was that they should not enter into the earthly possession Likewise I reported that Augustine Cont. Faust. Lib. 22. Cap. 67. and De Pecc mer. ac rem Lib. 2. Cap. 23. saith that the punishment laide vpon Dauid after â—his adultery remitted was the chastisment of Gods fatherly scourge Bristowe asketh if it be no punishment because it is a scourge yes verily and whether it be not for sinne yes truly But neuer the sooner a temporall debt remaining after absolution when it is the scourge of a fathers chastisement For I chastice not my childe that his punishment should satisfie any part of his fault but to keepe him in humility and feare for committing the like and for example to the rest of my family as wise a father and diuine as Bristowe will esteme me And how can Bristowe defend Augustine against the Pelagians shewing why death that came in by sinne stil remaineth euen vpon them whose original sinnes he confesseth to be so fully forgiuen in baptisme that they owe nothing neither eternally nor temporally for them if death in such be any temporall debt remaining after absolution when he will haue the fatherly scourge of God to be a punishment to satisfie the debt of sinne But for a contradictorie of Allens assertion I cited out of Chrysostome in Rom. Ho. 8. where there is forgiuenesse there is no punishment Bristow saith he speaketh of the forgiuenesse in baptisme to a Iewe Allen of forgiuenesse in penance But he may not creepe out at that hole it is too straight for him Chrysostome speaketh generally wheresoeuer there is forgiuenesse there is no punishment yea he saith Vbi gratia ibi venia where grace is there is forgiuenesse therefore if there be grace in penance there is forgiuenesse and where there is forgiuenesse there shal be no punishment neither doth Chrysostome in that place speake a word either of Iewe or Baptisme but of all Christians escaping by grace the wrath which the lawe worketh and beeing made heires of the promise by faith The third thing is satisfaction against which Bristow saith I alledged Chrysostome and Ambrose so fondly that the wordes which I alledge will declare Chrysost. De Compunct Cord. lib. 1. Non requirit c. God
set down Pur. 413. but that Bristowe can do nothing but cauill Allens rule is of the first rising of the persons wherevnto I require to be added that their opinion must also be newe which if Bristowes blinde malice could haue seene he needed not to haue painted his margent with so many quotations to proue that the true opinion was auncient and perpetuall Where I shewed Ar. 93. that the Pope in secret not by open contradiction caused a most horrible blasphemous lake called the Gospell of the holy Ghost c. written by the Friers to be priuily burned for shaming their order which continued 55. yeares without reprehension of the Pope or any but such as were accounted heretikes Bristowe calling it fauourably but a new scandalous booke asketh what fault it was Verely such a fault as proued him to be more zelous of the glorie of beggerly friers then of Christ and his Church neither can it be shadowed by the example of Augustine at the first forbearing the name of Pelagius while there was hope of amendment in him and he not throughly vnderstoode his heresie But contrary wise the Pope fauoureth the blaspheâ—â—ous friers and condemneth their reprehenders for heretikes Where I saide this was an argument from mans auctority negatiuely therfore nothing worth No man preached against Purgatory and prayer for the dead at their first entry therefore they are true Bristow saith it is according to the Scriptures Fathers and Histories that All heresâ—es haue bâ—ne preached against at their first entrie Beside that he flitteth from errors to heresies as though there were no difference betwene theÌ„ those Scriptures Fathers and Histories are not yet shewed by which it may be apparant what men and of what names and in what time did openly preache against all heresies at their first entrie which is the thing that is vrged vpon vs. In the sixt demand which is of the name of Catholiques where I saide he is a foolish Sophister that reasoneth from names to the things Bristowe saith he knoweth not in what Logike I haue that axiome He is a greate straunger in Aristotel that knoweth not that a carcase although he be called a man yet is not a man in deede moreouer he chargeth me to reason so my self in the seuenth demand where indeed I do only deride the vaine kinde of reasoninge from the name to the thing when the name is not rightly giuen retorting the argument vpon the Papists who of vs are called heretiks as we are of them But Saint Augustine reasoneth of the name of the Catholique Church Aug. in Psa Cont. Part. Donat. Diciâ—is c. You say that you be with me but you see it is false I am called Catholique and you of Donates part I aunswere Saint Augustine doth not by the only name of the Catholique Church as a sufficient motiue proue the Catholique Church but by many other weighty reasons proueth that shee was iustly called so because the question was betwene the Donatistes and the Church not onely of the Church but euen of the name of Catholique Where I shewed Ar 6. that the Grecians are called Catholiques by as many Nations as the Papists Bristow hath nothing to replie but that the heretike Grecians and Latines do not mistake the person when common talke and bookes call Catholique Latines or Catholique Grâ—cians therefore they be true Catholiques A miserable conclusion vpon a false antecedent for the Grecians by the name of Catholique Grecians vnderstande enemies to the Pope and by the name of heretikes Papâ—sts either Latines or reuolted Grecians That in publique edicts by men of our side papistâ— are called Catholiques it is more then I knowe or think to be true although edicts penned by papists or neuters call the papists Catholiques as they call vs of the religion reformed which appellations proue neither the one nor the other Where I compared the papists Ar. 67 glorying in the name of Catholique Church to the Infidel â—ewes criing The temple of the Lorde when they had made it 〈◊〉 denne of theeues Bristowe aunswereth That our Lordâ— both in the Prophet Ier 7. and in the Gospell Math. 21. acknowledgeth it to be his Temple although they in it were theeues and wicked persons The place indeede had bene the Temple of God and therefore Christ vsed his auctority as high Priest in purging it of corruptions but of their making it was not Gods Temple but a den of theeues except Bristowe will say that a denne of theeues may be Gods Temple And although vnto the godly notwithstanding the corruptions it was still the Temple of God yet had not the vngodly the Temple of God nor were in it as in Gods Temple but as in a theeuish denne so are papists in the Catholique Church Where I said supposing we were not called Catholiqueâ— we should not be in worse case then Christ his Apostles who not only had not that name but were of the Iewes who were as rightly called Gods people as the papists are called the Christian worlde called heretikes and deceiuers Bristowe biddeth me bate an ace of that except I can shewe by predictions of the Prophets the reprobation of the Christian worlde in these daies as they shew the reprobation of the Iewes in those daies A wretched refuge as though papists were only named the Christian worlde or that the Iewes were reprobated in the time of Christes preaching or the Apostles either before the extreme obstinate refusing of the Gospell Or as if it were not sufficient to shewe the popish apostasie from the faith by those vndoubted notes which the spirite speaking euidently doth giue of them 1. Tim. 4. Beside this Bristowe derideth me for requiring the Iewes to vse those names which they neuer hearde of And is Bristowe so well redde in the Scriptures that the name of true Church was neuer hearde of the Iewes in his opinion as for the name of Catholique I required it not of them neither do I thinke we ought to be tried by the bare name of Catholique seeing we beleeue not barely and simply the Catholique but the holy Catholique and Apostolique Church Which Church is not called Catholique because it should be euery where for that it neuer was nor neuer shal be but because that wheresoeuer it be in parts it is one bodie of Christ. But here Bristowe taketh me vp for haulting charging me to be the first of all heretikes that say it is called Catholica because it is Vna but he playeth his olde parts for I say it is Catholique because that being in diuerse parts it is one so that my reason is not only of vnitie but of vniuersality of the Church which is Catholique in all the parts of it being knitte in one and not of being in euery particular place of the worlde nor at all times in most places of the worlde And with this holy Catholique Church of the whole worlde our Church doth and alwaies hath communicated when it was not
is cloathed and when he is naked when he is shauen and when he was bearded when he is sicke and when he is whole Such are the manners in which you houlde that the sacrifice of the masse is the same after another manner The 13. is where I attribute to diuorsement which the scripture in many places doth deny to diuorsement and doth attribute onely to death What is it to make her no wife that was a wife Verily diuorsement for adulterie maketh her no wife that was a wife as is gathered euen by those textes of scriptures which Bristowe quoteth Matt. 5. 19. Mark 10. c. where the exception of fornication maketh the case to be the same that was vsed by permission of the lawe in diuorsementes and mariage after diuorsementes But Bristowe saith I vtter herein my skil in many thinges As in saying that mariage after diuorsements is dispensed with all by the Pope And doe I not say true although the Popes law denyeth such mariage to be lawfull Are there not many examples of such dispensations Secondly I say that the Popes canon lawe hath farre many more causes of diuorsement then for adulterie Bristow distinguisheth the perpetuall diuorse for adulterie where the innocent partie cannot be compelled to receiue the guiltie partie although he become neuer so chast and separation where the furie of a man is so great that the wife is in danger of her life asking if we doe not allow her to dwell away from him vntill he be amended No verily but we would compell him to lie in prison from her vntill his amendement might sufficiently appeare But what saith your lawe concerning frigiditie concerning error in the condition of the person as if she marie a man which is bond whō she supposed to haue beene free c. Doth not your lawe allow diuorsements perpetuall in such cases But where I wish that adulterers might be punished with death first he quarelleth as though I held that the Iudiciall lawe were stil to be obserued as though it be not free in such poyntes as it is conuenient for other common welthes to receiue it albeit it is not necessarie Secondly he houldeth that a man was not punished by death if he sinned against his wife with a single woman Where as the case is expresly of a single man lying with another ' mans wife or of one that was betroathed to another man which must needes be all one of a maried man lying with a single woman Leuit. 20. and Deut. 22. And yet he noteth mine ignorance of the lawe because I charge the Papistes to allow dispensation for such persons to marie as the lawe of God and nature abhorreth Then he asketh me what lawe of God do I meane but Leu. 18 and whether I thinke that law to binde Christians Yea verily for the sense of nature abhorreth all those forbidden coniunctions What else moued the heathen Romanes to make lawes euen of the same But Bristow bringeth in Gods dispensation in the old Testament which is false for after the propagation of mankinde for which it was of necessitie allowed it can neuer be proued that God allowed any one of those mariages forbidden 18. But the Pope dispenseth not onely with marying of the brothers wife in affinitie but euen with the Vncle to marie his Neece in consanguinitie as we see in the mariage of King Philippe of Spaine in our daies The 14. after such ignorance in Gods lawe discouered Bristow marueileth not if I be ignorant in the Popishe Churches lawe and diuinitie in making it a certaine thing that the Pope giueth his pardons by the sacrament of penance Athough it be no great shame for me to professe mine ignorance in many of the popes lawes some part of his diuinitie yet herein Bristow doth me wrong to charge me to say absolutely that the Pope giueth his pardons by the sacramēt of penance As though the Pope being at Rome might minister a sacrament to one in England And that so great a D. doth not trowe that the power of binding and loosing is exercised many other wayes besides that sacrament Seeing the Master of the sentences cōprehendeth vnder the title of the sacrament of penance al that power or what soeuer he can enquire or define of it Lib. 4. Dist. 14. 15. 16. 17. But if sins may be forgiuē in popery without repentance that the Popes pardons require no repentāce in them that should take the benifite of them it is one poynt of poperie that I am content to confesse that I haue learned of Bristow The 15. poynt is that I am ignorant in our own diuinity because I wonder that a Papist should say that God sometime punisheth sinne with sinne and complaine that when we say but halfe somuch they chardge vs to make God the auctor of sinne For Bristowe asketh if it be not a cōmon position large discourses vpō it in our masters bookes that God is the author of sinne O impudent and malitious lyer hast thou read those bookes of Caluine Insti lib. 1. cap. 17. 18. Melancthō ad Rom. which thou quotest and darest thou for shame of the world if thou haue no feare of God to charge them with holding such a blasphemous positiō when they in the same bookes doe refute it as an horrible slaunder which they neuer thought of but alwayes affirmed that God as a righteous iudge not as an euill author Ioseth Satan and vseth his ministerie for the punishmēt of sin sinners and for the trial and amendment of his children as in Dauid Iob As for those blasphemies that God worketh sinne in vs by himselfe willing appoynting and predestinating vs to sin no lesse thē he which leadeth a blind man out of his way c. are nothing else but Bristowes lies slanders alwaies detested of those godly writers of all them that truly professe and imbrace the Gospel The 16. poynt is of mine ignorance in histories ecclesiastical as of the celebration of Easter by the Britons and Grecians noted before and answered Secondly because I say as it seemeth that Iulianus the Apostata was Emperour after Valens the Arrian Surely where I learned that he was a persecutor of the Church I might haue learned the time of his Emipre that he was next to Cōstantius after him Iouianus Valentinianus Valens sure I am that I learned it out of Carions Chronicle 30. yeares agoe Which being so vulgar a matter I thought none had beene so malicious to charge me with ignorance therof But indeede he chargeth me very iniuriously for when I say after that when Iulianus the Apostata was Emperour I meane to shewe how persecution and Gentility was restored after that Constantine had giuen peace beside the trouble of heresie which was in the time of Constantius and Constans to whom I ioined Valens as agreeing in that same heresie of Arrianisme Againe where I saide the newe Testament is printed in the Syrian tongue
vnanswered GOD BE PRAYSED The cauils of Nicholas Sander D. in Diuinitie about the Supper of our Lord and the Apologie of the Church of England touching the doctrine thereof confuted by W. Fulke Doctor in Diuinitie MAN HV what is this The figure Exod. 16. This is the breade which our Lorde hath giuen c. The prophecie Prouerb 9. Come eate my breade and drinke the wine which I haue mixed for you The promise Iohn 6. The breade which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the world The performance Matth. 26. Luke 22. He gaue saying take eate this is my bodie which is giuen for you The doctrine of the Apostles 1. Cor. 10. The breade which we breake is the communicating of the Lordes bodie The beliefe of the Church Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit Both our Lord hath professed and we beleeue it to be flesh in deede The custome of Heretikes Tertul. de resur car The contrarie part raiseth vp trouble by pretence of figures THese notes and sentences D. S. hath set before his booke as the pith and martowe of all his treatise In which as he pleaseth him self not a litle so he sheweth nothing but his ignorance vanitie and falshood His ignorance in the interpretation of the Hebrue wordes Man Hu which doe signifie This is a readie meate prepared without mans labor as euen the author of the booke of Wisedome expoūdeth it Which Sāder readeth interrogatiuely folowing the errour of some olde writers which could put no difference betweene the Hebrue and the Chaldee tongs For Man in Hebrewe signifieth not what neither doth the Chaldee Paraphrase expound it so but Manna hu that is This is Manna that is to say a ready meate Againe he sheweth him selfe ignorant in the Apostles doctrine when he maketh Manna a figure of the sacrament which the Apostle plainely affirmeth to haue bene the same spirituall meate which the sacrament is to vs. 1. Cor. 10. His vanitie appeareth that when he can racke neuer a saying of the Prophetes to his purpose he dreameth of a prophecie in the Prouerbes of Salomon which booke was neuer accounted of wise men for propheticall but doctrinall and this pretended prophecie is an allegorical exhortation of wisdome to imbrace her doctrine and not a prophecie of Christ instituting his sacrament an inuiting of men in Salomons time and all times to studie wisedome and not a foreshewing of a supper to be ordained by Christ in time to come In the words which he alledgeth for the promise of the sacrament is discouered a manifest falsification of the text of Scripture to peruert the meaning of Christe which is of his passion vnto the institution of the sacrament thereof For the wordes of our Sauiour Christ Ioh. 6. 51. are these And the breade which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world These last words which I will giue Sander hath fraudulently omitted that this promise might seeme to be referred not vnto the passion of Christ in which he gaue his flesh for the life of the world but vnto the giuing of the sacrament of his flesh in his last supper In the title of performance he omitteth to shewe what Christ gaue when he saide This is my body that he might seeme to haue giuen nothing but his body whereas the Euangelistes teach that he brake and gaue the breade which he tooke affirming it to be his body The doctrine of the Apostles Sander doth not holde because he neither breaketh breade which he denieth to be in the sacrament nor acknowledgeth a communicating or participation of the Lordes body which he alloweth to be receiued of the reprobate which haue no communicating or partaking with Christ. So that he denieth the sacrament or outward signe to all men and giueth the heauenly matter or thing signified by the sacrament euen vnto wicked men The beleefe of the Church which Hilarie professeth Sander maintaineth not for Hilarie saith that we do truely eat the flesh of the body of Christ sub mysterio vnder a mysterie per hoc vnum erimus and by this we shal be one with him and the father which can not be vnderstoode of the Popish corporall receiuing Last of all he followeth the custome of heretikes which is to draw mens sayings inio a wrong meaning for Tertullian in the place by him alledged speaketh not of such heretikes as pretended a figure in the sacrament where none should be acknowledged but he him selfe by that the breade is a figure of the body of Christ proueth against Marcion the heretike that Christ had a true body ad Marc. lib. 4. To the body and blood of our Sauiour Iesus Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine all honor praise and thankes be giuen for euer I Can not tell whether I should complaine more of the vanitie or blasphemy of this dedicatorie Epistle the forme whereof being so newe and strange that the like was neuer heard of in the Church of Christ euery word almost containeth a great and grosse heresie For not content to make the sacrament the very naturall body and blood of Christ he maketh it the very essentiall deity it selfe For vnto whom is all honor and glory dewe but vnto God himselfe Againe seeing he ioineth not the persons of God the Father and of God the holy Ghost in participation of the praise by this forme of greeting he doth either exclude them or if he will comprehend them for that inseparable vnity which they haue with the godhead of Christ he bringeth forth an horrible monster of heresie that God the father and God the holy Ghost is with the body and bloud of Christ vnder the formes of breade and wine Much like the Sabellians and Patripassians which affirmed that God the father was borne of the virgine Marie and was crucified as well as God the Sonne Euen so Sander by this blasphemous and heretical epistle if he denie not honor glorie power and presence euery where vnto the Father and the holie Ghost yet comprehendeth them with GOD the Sonne and God the Sonne with his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine For thus he writeth I adore thee my God and Lord really present vnder the formes of breade and wine To which also he saith And to whom should I referre the praise and thankes for it but vnto thee alone Or of whome should I craue the protection thereof but of thee seeing thou onely art a meete patron for the defence of any booke which only art alwaies present wheresoeuer and whensoeuer it shall be examined To the honour therefore of thy body and bloud I offer this poore mite c. By these wordes you see that Sander acknowledgeth no GOD nor Lorde but him that is really present vnder the formes of breade and wine except hee acknowledge more Gods and Lordes than one And consequently that either he acknowledgeth not God the Father and God
Gardener others challenge Theodoret Gelasius Againe he sayth The fathers are against the Protestants because they excuse Hilarie Chrysost. Cyrill by the figure of Hyperbole which is a Rhetoricall lye but in deede this argument is a lewde lye of one which knoweth neither Logike nor Rhetorike but like a young smatterer or a sophisticall cauiller For the figure of Hyperbole is not a lye more then any other figure of Rhetorike in the true vnderstanding thereof whereas after wrong vnderstanding euen that which is spoken without all figure is false and vntrue Finally whereas he chargeth vs to denye the workes of the auncient writers Dionysius Ignatius Polycarpus Abdias c. that is a lowde lye shadowed neither with Rhetorike nor reason for we denye not the workes of those fathers but we refuse counterfeit workes falsely ascribed to them which thing if we proue not by manifest demonstration we require no credit As for that which he cauilleth against master Nowel I omitte as being confuted by master Nowel him selfe But where he sayeth the scriptures woulde neuer abide him that should saye This is not my body I answere we neuer say This is not Christes body after any manner but this is not his body after a grosse carnall or naturall maner and that saying the scripture will abide euen as well as this The rocke was not Christ naturally substantially or essentially although the scripture saye The rocke was Christ. Or this Christ was not a vine properly naturally or substantially notwithstanding that he sayeth I am a verie or true vine The prowde bragge which Sander maketh that popish Catholikes lacke no scripture for any of their assertions how true it is let all men iudge seing that for many things they confesse they haue nothing to shewe but tradition vnwritten Likewise how aptly in this controuersie of the supper he hath examined the wordes of Christes supper noted the circumstances of thinges done and saide there conferred the scriptures of both the testaments and ioyned the fathers of the first sixe hundred yeres And yet he fauoureth him selfe so much in his doing that hee boldly affirmeth vs to haue no helpe of those things For scriptures we cannot conferre to make the wordes of the supper plaine because Doing and the words therof are more playne then any other place of scripture concerning it as the passion of Christ is more playne then the lawe and Prophets c. If this were true the Apostles labored in vayne to proue the passion of Christ out of the lawe and the Prophets and the rest of the writings of the Apostles are needlesse and vncertayne instruction if the historye of the passion doth teach all the doctrine that is necessary to be knowen concerning it But it is a clarkly conclusion of Sander That if the words of the supper be figuratiue none other can be playne as though figuratiue speaches cannot be playne when they are vsed for playnesse sake of them that knowe how to vse them And because Sander chargeth vs Tell me masters c I say likewise Tell me masters Are these wordes recorded to be spoken in the institution action of the supper This is the new Testament in my bloud Tell me I say are these the verie words which Christ then spake or the interpretation of them If they be the very words which of you wil say they are not figaratiue If they be the interpretation then are they more cleere plaine then those words which he vttered This is my bloude Now whether the iudgement of the primitiue Church for the first 600. yeares maketh for vs as it hath in many treatises so in this that followeth it shal be shewed sufficiently Last of all it wil appeare both by the scriptures and testimonie of the fathers that the iudgemēt of the externall senses or naturall reason was not the first argument that might moue thē that first departed from antichristianitie to the ancient true vnderstāding of the mysteries of Christ in his supper Of the almightie power of Christ we doubt no more then of his will reueiled in scriptures in which seeing we learne that Christ concerning his humanitie was made like vs in all things except sin and that our bodies after the resurrection shal be made like to his glorious body Heb. 2 ver 17 Phil. 3. 21 which seeing it cannot stand with transubstantiation wee may not reasō of his power so that we should ouerthrow his wil. For he is almightie to do whatsoeuer he will not willing to do whatsoeuer he can But of the whole matter we shal intreate more at large as occasiō is giuen in the bookes following CAP. II. Certaine notes about the vse and translation of holy scripture to be remembred of him that shall read this booke Sander prosessing that he followeth most the vulgar Latine translation and lest the English Bible because it almost neuer translateth any text well whereof any cōtrouersie is in these our dayes taketh in hand to proue many falsifications and wrong translations in the onely matter of the sacrament of Christes bodye and bloud The first is Iohn the 6. ver 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Operamini cibum permanentem The true English were worke the meate which carieth The English bible turneth Operamini labor for We labor saith he for that which we seeke and 〈◊〉 not we worke that stuffe which is present with vs. This corruption the Sacramentaries haue vsed because they doe not beleeue the meate which taryeth to be made really present so that we may worke it by faith and bodie This finall cause is falsely alledged for we beleeue the meate that tarieth vnto eternall life to be made really present by faith to them that receiue the sacrament worthily Contrariewise the papistes holde that the same meate is receiued where it taryeth not vnto etetnall life namely in the wicked And concerning the corruption pretended it is false which Sander saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth alwayes to worke that which is present and not to labour or seeke for that which is absent for saint Paul writeth 2. Thessa. 3. ver 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Si quis non vult operar◠If any man will not labour neither let him eate Euery man cannot worke that stuffe which is present as in Sanders example of a Carpenter working a peece of tymber therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to labour generally either in seeking that which is absent or in working that which is present Wherefore this is a doltish distinction of doctor Sander and a manifest corruption of the text by leauing out such words as shewe the vanitie of this cauill and ouerthrowe the difference of this distinction For the wordes of Christ are these speaking to the Iewes which sought him being absent not because they sawe his miracles but because they had beene filled with his breade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Labor ye not for the meate which perisheth but for the
the wordes in such order as they shoulde giue no manifest occasion of heresie by disordering them The fift corruption is in saint Luke 22. and Saint Paul 1. Corinth 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc facite the truest English were make this thing The fullest doe and make this thing The common Bible readeth in Saint Luke this doe In saint Paul This doe yee And that which is most abhominable of all in the homily of the sacrament it is translated doe ye thus This great abhomination if in any booke it bee so founde is but the Printers faulte although in sense there bee no great difference But seeing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and facere signifieth to doe as well as to make what corruption or falsification can there be when it is translated To do As for Sanders fullest translation by doing and making is most absurde For when a word hath two significations no wise translator will render them both but onely that which is most proper for the place and doing is here more proper then making For though it sounde not absurdly in Sanders blasphemous eares when hee saieth doe this is all one as if he had said make this my body yet that the body of Christ should be properly said to be made by meÌ„ which was once made in the wombe of the virgin by the holy ghost in all godly mens minds it is both absurde and blasphemous And that the word facite is to be translated by doing and not by making it is euident by this that S. Paule referreth it to the whole action of the supper 1. Cor. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This doe as often as you shall drinke it in my remembrance c So doth S. Cypryan manifestly lib. 2. Ep. 3. Caecilio Quòd si à domino praecipitur ab apostolo eius hoc idem coÌ„firmatur traditur vt quotiesâ—unque biberimus in commemorationeÌ„ domini hoc faciamus quod facit dominus inuenimur non obseruari à nobiâ— quod mandatum est nisi eadem quae dominus fecit nos quoque faciamus Et calicem pari ratione miscentes à diuino magisterio non recedamus If then it be commanded by the Lord the same thing is confirmed and deliuered by his Apostle that so often as we drinke we should doe this thing in remembrance of our Lord which our Lord himself did we are found that we do not obserue that which is commanded except we also doe the same thinges which our Lord did And ministring the cuppe after the same manner we depart not from his diuine teaching Last of all Heskins the papist and other likewise before this Momus translate it as we do Hesk. lib. 2. ca. 42 Where he cauileth that our translation omitteth the word Thing it is without all shadowe of reason for by This what can be vnderstood but this thinge And seing our English Pronown This doth aptly answere the Greeke pronowne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what neede is it to adde the worde Thing which is not expressed either in the Greeke or in the Latine The sixt falsification is affirmed to be in S. Luke and Saint Paul Luke 22. 1. Corinth 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In meam commemorationem The true English were For the remembrance of me or To the end I may be remembred The common bible turneth in the remembrance of me A strange quarell if a man could vnderstande it A thing sayth he may be donne best in the remembrance of a man when the man is first remembred and afterward the thing is done in the remembrance of him And may not a man be firste remembred and afterward a thing don for the remembrance of him Or would Sander that Christ should not be thought vpon before he see the Masse cake lifted vp which he saith is made for the remembrance of him For thus he fantasieth that Christ should say When my body is made by the preist and lifted vp to be adored and all the people taught to bow downe to the body of Christ and to come with pure conscience to receiue it then Christ is remembred by reason of his body made and so the scripture is fulfilled which sayth do and make this thing for the remembrance of me If this be the fulfilling of the scripture then was it not fulfilled for more then a thousand yeares after Christ vntill eleuation and adoration of the sacrament were decreed And then is it not fulfilled in any priuate Masse where none of the people receiue nor yet be taught to receiue it Where he saith that Christ can not be remembred by eating of bread drinking of wine as the Sacramentaries would haue it so effectually and with such contrition confession and satisfaction as he requireth but by folowing of his crosse and death by penance by humilitie by confessing our finnes to his ministers and taking absolution of them I answere the Protestants require not only eating and drinking but preaching of the Lords death repentance fayth loue and reuerence in the receiuers as for the rest of popish trumpery when he can shewe that Christ required or the Apostels vsed we will gladly admit it In the meane time let the readers iudge how this later kind of remembrance can be learned out of the former which I haue set downe in his owne wordes of making lyfting adoring c. Beside these great corruptions there are other two small faults in S. Paul The first 1. Cor. 10. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is turned the partaking where it should be the communicating of the body bloud of Christ. This he counteth a lesser fault because the Catholike Latine translation in one place calleth it participatio a partaking which is saith he when parte of a thing is taken and not the whole I thinke the translatour vsed the word of partaking because it is better knowen to English meÌ„ then the terme of communicating Especially seing the Apostle vseth both termes indifferently as one For in the next verse he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The vulgar Latine is Omnes qui de vno pane participamus All wee which do partake of one breade And speaking of them which did eate the Sacrifices of Israelites of which euery one did not eate the whole he saide they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicators of the altar And them that take part of the sacrifice of the Gentiles he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicators with diuels And returning to the Christians he sayeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You cannot partake of the table of the Lorde and of the table of diuels Wherefore in that translation there is neither falsification nor corruption great or small The last fault is 1. Cor. 10. in the place by mee cited wee all partake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should de Englished of the one bread For such strength hath the Greeke article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometime the coÌ„mon bible turneth the Greeke article
be the worthier of the two but also the chiefe of many Sacramentes The authority of Dionysius which he voucheth as though it were without controuersie of antiquitie hath often bene disproued to be without the compase of the sixe hundreth yeares seing neither Eusebius nor Hierom nor Germadius in their seueral times did euer heare of any such bookes of Dionysius the Arâ—opagite S. Paules disciple But where the Apologie confesseth the Lordes supper to be a Sacrament a signe and an euident token of the bodie of Christ Sander saith it is constrained to beleeue many vnwriten verities and will not beleeue that only which is written in the scripture of this supper that it is the body and bloud of Christ. Beholde the vanitie of this fonde quareller because these truethes are not expressed in so many Latine or English words in the scripture therefore they be vnwritten verities The froward man himselfe in the Chapter last before confessed that mysterium in the Greeke was the same that is called Sacramentum in Latine If therefore the Lordes supper be called in Greeke mysterium we may find it in the scripture to be called a Sacrament For where S. Paul saith let a man thus esteeme vs as the ministers of Christ and as the dispensers of the mysteries of God who doubteth but vnder the name of mysteries the Lordes supper and baptisme is comprehended although the name of mystery be larger in Greke then we vse the name of Sacrament in Englishe yet in spight of the diuell the name of mysterie and Sacrament is truly verified out of the scripture of the Lordes supper and baptisme Likewise the name of signe being giuen by the holy ghost vsually to other Sacramentes by analogie must likewise apperteine to this SacrameÌ„t Ge. 17. Circumcision is called the signe of the couenant betweene God and the people Likwise Exo. 12. the bloud of the Paschal Lambe is called a signe and S. Paul Ro. 4. calleth the signe of circumcision a seale of iustification Last of all hauing found in the scriptures the Lords supper to be a Sacrament signe or seale the argument of relatiues leadeth vs by the hand to cal it an euident signe or token of the body bloud of Christ giuen for vs for that is the thing signified which is proued by these words This is my body which is giuen for you c. Euen as the Lambe is called the passeouer which was the Sacrament signe or euident token of the Passingouer and not the Passeouer it self But Sander vrgeth vs to answer whether the signe of the body and the body it self may stande together or no I answere him plainly except he destroye the nature of things opposite the signe and the thing signified cannot stande together at one time and in one respect as it is vnpossible that Abraham can be the father of Isaac and the sonne of Isaac also But in diuerse respectes they may stande together as Abraham is the father of Isaac and the sonne of Therah So the bread and wine cannot be both the signe of Christes naturall bodie and bloud giuen for vs and the verie same naturall bodie it selfe But as it is a diuine mysterie and heauenly seale it is truely called that whereof it maketh assurance namely the bodye and bloud of Christe euen as the cuppe is called the newe testament whereof it is a seale and assurance and as baptisme is called regeneration beeing a seale and assurance therof vnto the children of God CHAP. X. That the supper of our Lorde is both the signe of Christes bodie and also his true bodie euen as it is a sacrament He requireth diligent eare as though he had founde out a great argument for his cause when in deede it ouerthroweth himselfe altogether For he will shewe that such a signe as belongeth to Christes institution must needes haue the same trueth present whereof it is the sacrament Which being graunted it prooueth no more the trueth present in the one sacrament then in the other seeing they belong both to the institution of Christ. But God and Christ sayth he cannot institute a false signe or token I say so also and withall I say that seeing God instituted all the Sacramentes of the olde Testament which were signes and tokens of Christ Christ was truely present in them euen as truely as in our Sacramentes and therefore Saint Paul teacheth that Our fathers did drinke of the same spirituall drinke that wee doe for they dranke of the spirituall rocke which rocke was Christ. If Sander coulde content himselfe with such trueth and presence of Christ as he doeth exhibit in baptisme and did exhibit in all the Sacraments of the olde testament which were of his institution we might soone be agreed But in the meane time you see him ouerthrowen in his owne argument Other matters not incident to the present controuersie I omitt as that the holy ghost in baptisme at the same instant doeth wash the soule from sinne as though the effect of baptisme extended no farther then to the time of washing with water Likewise that the outward pronouncing of the wordes ouer the breade and wine is the Sacrament Whereby it followeth that when the sound of the wordes is once past it is no longer a Sacrament and consequently the Papistes must not call that which they worship the Sacrament of the altar c. CAP. XI What signe must chiefely be respected in the Sacrament of Christes supper and what a Sacrament is There be if we beleeue Sander foure kinde of signes in the Sacrament of the altar The first be tokens making consecrating the Eucharist which are the words of coÌ„secratioÌ„ the second be signes of it made which are the accidents of bread wine The third a signification of the Church And the fourth eating is a signe of a meruailous banket in the life to come Of these foure the first must be chiefly respected which is an outward tokeÌ„ of an inward trueth the outward token is called the Sacrament the inward trueth is called the thing of the sacrament wherupon the diffinition of a sacrament alleaged by Gratian out of S. Augustine is this A Sacrament is the visible forme of inuisible grace Out of this diffinition which imployeth two partes of a Sacrament he wil proue the trueth of the reall presence for if the bodie be not present saith he the words make a false tokeÌ„ I denie the consequence for the wordes make a true token and yet the body is not present after his grosse imagination of bodily manner of presence His exemplification of the order of priesthood giuen to the Apostles by these words Hoc facite doe and make this is to make a proofe of one controuersie by another For we denie the power of making which he pretendeth there to be giuen affirming that it is a commandement to continue that sacrament of his institution and shewing the vse thereof His second argument is that Christ spake not
bread of euer lasting life which holdeth vp the substance of our soule I like this saying of Ambrose or whosoeuer writ that booke very well The Sacrament is not that bread which goeth into the body ergo the Sacrament is not the naturall body of Christ which the Papistes affirme to be a kind of bread that goeth into the body Seuenthly Gregory of Nyssa saieth in vita Mosis panis est c. It is bread prouided for vs without seede without plowing without any other worke of man But he saith immediatly before that it is receiued with a pure and cleane mind and is an heauenly meate therefore a spirituall food spiritually to be receiued and not bodily Eightly S. Augustine Tra. 26. in Ioâ—n saith when would flesh vnderstand this thing thâ—â— he called bread flesh In deed the spirituall manner of nourishing is not possible to be vnderstood of the flesh but the fleshly transubstantiation may be vnderstood of euery fleshly man Ninethly Isychius in Leuit. li. 6. C. 22. nameth the bread which S. Paule saith is eaten vnworthily nutritorem substantiae nostrae intelligibilis the nourisher of our spirituall substance He meaneth if it bee worthily receiued otherwise it is damnation to him that eateth vnworthily Lastly Sedulius in Op. Pasc. saieth of the bread which Christ gaue to Iudas Panem cui tradidit ipse Qui panis tradendus erat To whome he himselfe gaue bread which bread was to be betrayed A great miracle if a Poet speake specially But nowe directy against transubstantiation speake many doctors Origen saith in Mat. Cap. 15. The sanctified meat by that which it hath materiall goeth into the belly and is cast foorth into the draught Likewise the matter of the bread profiteth not c. Theodoret Diâ—l 1. saith Simbola c. The symboles or tokens which are seene he honoured with the name of his bodie and bloud not changing the nature but adding grace to the nature Likewise Dialog 2. he saith Manent in pâ—iori substantia the bread and wine after sanctification abide in their former substance Gelasius a bishop of Rome cont Eutich writeth of the bread and wine in the Sacrament Et tamen esse non definit substantia natura panis vini The substance and nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to remaine These sayings with diuerse other are direct against transubstantiation and therefore lewdly doth Sander abuse the readers with a number of places of the old writers to proue it of which not one of them hath a reasonable colour when it is examined CAP. XII The presence of the bodie bloud of Christin his last supper is proued by the conference of holy scriptures taken out of the old testament In deede of scriptures he bringeth ether vaine allegories fantastical figures of his own brain or els shamefully racketh the sentences of the old testament to make them prophecies of transubstantiation which were not once spoken of the Sacrament And first he slandereth S. Paul to haue said that to the Iewes al things chanced in figures where he saith of such things as came to passe in the wildernes all these things happened to them as figures or examples are written for our instruction And although Saint Paul had so saide as hee reporteth yet it followeth not that he may drawe their figures whither he will He beginneth with the figure of Abel whom he maketh the first shepeheard Priest Martyr and perpetuall Virgine in all which he would haue him to be a figure of Christ. Although that hee was the first shepeheard it is not like for it is not to bee thought that Adam altogether neglected the feeding of Cattell before Abel tooke it in hand no more then it is like that he occupied no tillage before Cainefell vnto it But that he calleth Abel the first Prieste it is vtterly false For Adam was the first Prieste and receaued or God the lawe of sacrificing which hee taught vnto his sonnes except Sander thinke that Adam liued so many yeares without exercise of religion vntill Abel and Caine were made Priestes For Caine is named to haue offered sacrifice as soone as Abel Whereby it is probable that neither of them both was Priest but Adam the heade of the familie to whom they brought their seuerall oblations vnto that place which was called the presence of the Lorde from whence Caine was bannished after his murther committed Concerning Abels virginitie I will not contend although if I should followe the Iewish traditions as Sander doth in his allegoricall comparison in diuerse pointes I must say he was a married man hauing to wife his sister Delbora But to the comparison Sander saith that Abell first offered himselfe vnder the shape of other things and after went forth to be offered in his owne person being traiterously slaine This is nothing else but a drousie dreame of Sanders sleepâ—e heade The sacrifice of Abel was a figure of the sacrifice of Christes death and not of his last supper Neither did he offer himselfe vnder the shape of his satte lambes but he offered his lambes in signe that God by the mediation of Christs death should accept him Neither did Abel go forth of purpose to be offered in his own person when he was murthered as Christe did neither was the death of Abel a sacrifice whose bloud cried vengeance whereas the bloud of Christs sacrifice crieth mercie Heb. 11. Wherefore this is nothing else but a grosse abusing of the Scriptures to faigne such foolish figures which haue no grounde in the worde of God but are such as euerie one will inuent out of his own imagination Euen as that iest of Sander that Caine did beare a figure of the English communion in which nothing but a few bsse fruits of the earth are offered when much rather I might say that Cain did beare a figure of the murdering church of Rome which hath slain so many Abels because her sacrifice of the fruits of the erth is no better accepted But what should I trifle after so vaine a ma ner The second figure is of Melchizedek which in deed seemed plausible to many of the old fathers Against all which I oppose the credit of the Apostle to the Hebrewes who omitting nothing that in Melchizedeks priesthood might be referred to Christ maketh no mention of the sacrifice of bread and wine which Melchizedek brought forth of princely liberalitie not of priestly dutie And yet it is a vaine thing for the Papists to brag of Melchizedeks bread wine when they in their sacrifice wil acknowledg to remain neither bread nor wine But of al that euer I heard it is a most impudent comparison that Sander maketh of Melchizedek consecrating AbrahaÌ„ by blessing of him that was really present as it were in his haÌ„ds And Christ consecrating his owne bodie bloud present in his hands at the time of his blessing consecrating and tanteth the Sacramentaries for acknowledging the one denying
the other Although he speake contrary to poperie which teacheth the presence to be after consecration and not at the time of consecrating But what bridle may hold in the shameles furie of Sander The third figure is of the paschall lambe which was a figure of Christs death and so applied by S. Iohn in that saying you shal not break a bone of him Ioan. 19. S. Paul 1. Cor. 5. not a figure of the supper from which as it differeth in signe so it is all one in the thing signified The fourth is the prophesie and figure of Manna which as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 10 was the same spirituall meate that we eate not a figure thereof but a sacrament of our spirituall feeding by the flesh of Christ like as the water of the rocke which was Christ was a Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment by the bloud of Christ. Wherefore the partes of this comparison as they haue ben all answered before in the third book so they are of no force to prooue the real presence or transubstantiation but the contrary seing the differeÌ„ce of these two Sacramentes Manna and the Lordes bread is only in the signes nothing at all in the vertue of the things signified according to S. Aug. rule The fist figure is of the bloud of the old Testament wherunto the bloud of Christ shedde on the crosse doth answere as the Apostle manifestly teacheth Heb. 9. therefore these wordes of the supper This is the bloud of the new Testament of necessity must be figuratiue euen as these which are of the same sense This cuppe is the new Testament in my bloud For we may not so farre aduance the Sacrament that we abase the death of Christ which is the only Sacrifice for our sinnes The sixt is the prophecy and figure of Iob which is a manifest peruerting of the scripture from the true meaning for either Iob complaineth of the cruelty of his seruantes that would euen eate his flesh in his aduersity and speaketh not of the loue that his seruantes had to be ioyned vnto his flesh as the context of that place Iob. 31. doth euidently shew or els he sheweth the complaint of his seruantes that were so occupied in hospitality that they had no leasure to eate their meat and therefore desired to eate the meare that was prouided for the stranger Or if with Chrysost. we should vnderstand their desire to be of eating of Iobs flesh yet it perreineth not to transubstantiation seing we may eate the flesh of Christ without eating of the Sacrament The seuenth conference is of prophecies taken out of Dauid and Salomon whereas neither of both speaketh of the Sacrament Dauid saith Psa. 22. Thou hast prepared a table in my sight against them who afflict me By which wordes he sheweth how bountifully God had bestowed his benifâ—â—â— vpon him both in this life and also with assurance of the 〈◊〉 to come without any special regard vnto the supper of Christ or any Sacrament that was of the same signification vnto him The saying of Salomon Pro. 9. I haue an swered in the beginning of this work where it was placed by Sander The 8. conference is another Prophecie of Dauid where he saith all that be fat vpon earth haue eaten adored Sander saith they haue adored that which they do eat but Dauid saith not so Ps. 21. but that they shal worship God the author of their food as it followeth immediatly They shall all fall down c. And whereas Sander quoteth Aug. in Ps. 98. to iustifie the adoratioÌ„ of the blessed Sacrament of the altar the footstoole wherin the fulnes of the godhead corporally dwelleth you shall vnderstaÌ„d that Augustine vtterly denieth the Lords supper to be that bodie that was crucified but a Sacrament which being spiritually vnderstood shall quicken vs. The last conference is of many prophecies figures ioyned together as he saith for breuities sake The first is of Noe being naked after he was drunk laughed to scorne of his sonne So saith Sander was Christ after he had drunke his owne bloud in his supper which he planted for him selfe in the virgins wombe hanged naked laughed to scorne not only of the Iewes but also of the Sacramentaries for so grosse a deede that he drank his owne bloud vnder the form of wine What shal I say to this monstrous blasphemie wherein he compareth that filthie drunkennes shameles nakednes of Noe to the holy mysterie and passion of Christ After this he ioyneth the cakes that Abraham set before the Angels as figures of that mystical cake which was to come in Christs supper but whereof then were the butter milk calues flesh figures O madnesse more then folly for now wheresoeuer bread corn wine vines fruits of the earth were named all were figures of the sacrament wherin yet he saith is neither bread nor wine nor substance of any earthly fruit Isaac blessed Iacob which corne wine saying to Esau what caÌ„ I do more to theeâ— Iacob prophecied of the fat bread of Aser that should giue deinties to the faithful kings of that church God promiseth as the highest reward for keping of his coÌ„mandement to blesse the loaues of his people to giue abundance of bread wine If it be lawfull for Sander on this sort to play with the holy scriptures he may proue what he list And more probably might we proue the substaÌ„ce of bread wine to remaine in the SacrameÌ„t of which the scripture speaketh so often with so great coÌ„mendation if we should reason after his maner As for the meat of the sacrifice the she we bread the priests Ioaues they were in deede figures ofy e spiritual feeding that both they we had haue of yâ— flesh of Christ. But the curse of Elies house that his posterity should come beg a morsel of bread at the successors of Sadoc it is a grosse prophanatioÌ„ of Gods word to apply it to a submission of the Priests of the Church to obteine the Sacrament And the dissembling of Dauid before Achis which came of infidelity is blasphemous to apply to our Sauiour Christe and especially with such termes as Sander vseth At his last supper he driuelâ—d like a child to their seeming that be wise in the world he changed his countenance and caried himselfe after a sort in his owne handes when holding and giuing to be eaten that whith seemed bread he doubted not to say this is my body c. For Christ carying him selfe after a sort in his owne handes Augustine is cited in Ps. 33. who being deluded with that fond translation ferebatur in manibus suis which is neither according to the Hebrue text 1. Sam. 21. which saith he plaied the mad man in their handes nor according to the vulgar Latine which saith collabebatur inter manus eorum he fell downe among their handes troubleth himself to find how Dauid as a figure of Christ should
the bodie and bloude of Christ to be the onely image of his passion that is left for Christian men to imbrace The last Chapter of this booke being entituled by name against that reuerende father Master Nowels challenge is so plentifully and substantially confuted by himselfe against whom it was written that I neede not once to meddle with it Onely I note that Sander vrging Master Nowel to replie promiseth a speedie reioynder yet Master Nowels booke hauing beene so manie yeares abroade Sanders reioynder is not yet come to light The fift Booke To the Preface IN this fift Booke he laboureth to peruert what soeuer saint Paul hath written of the sacrament to drawe it to his reall presence And that he might be more bolde without all shame to reiect the scripture he would haue it to be considered that Augustine affirmeth Sainct Paule to dispute according to the apostolike manner more plainelie and rather to speake properly then figuratiuely In deede Augustine affirmeth as Sander saieth that the Apostle in these wordes He that will not labour let him not eate speaketh rather properly then figuratiuely but that all his wordes of the sacrament be proper and none figuratiue he neither saide not thought And yet he saith that manie thinges and almost al things in the Aposto like writings are after that manner de Oper. Monac cap. 2. But Sander of meere fraude to deceiue the ignorant left out those wordes because he woulde haue men thinke that Augustine speaketh either peculiarly of the sacrament or generally of euerie worde that is in the Apostles writing Wherefore although the Apostle vse more commonly to speake properly then figuratiuely yet it followeth not that speaking of the sacrament which is afigure in his owne nature he shoulde not speake rather figuratiuely then properly and yet God be thanked he hath spoken so plainely that all the transubstantiators in the world shall not be able to cleere themselues from his authoritie CAP. I. The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud is proued by the blessing and communicating of Christs bloude whereof saint P 〈…〉 speaketh The cup is blessed that it might be the bloud of Christ vnto all the worthy receiuers of it vnto whom only it is yâ— coÌ„municating of the bloud of Christ. But this prooueth no real prefence Yes saith Sander a blessing made by words worketh that which the words do signifie and therefore bring mee no more saith he those paltrie examples I am a 〈…〉 ore I am a vine the rocke was Christ c. for none of these were spoken by the way of blessing Heare you not howe this Turkish dog blasphemeth the words of holy scriptures and calleth them paltrie examples but let that goe When blessing words are ioyned saith he we are certified that those words are not figuratiue nor only tokens bare signes but working making that which is said c. This is the maine poste of Sanders building which if it be prooued rotten then his house standeth vpon a false ground In Genesis 49. blessing and wordes are ioyned together and yet moste parte of the wordes are figuratiue Iacob in the name of God and by his holy spirite blessing his sonne Iuda saith Iuda is a lyons whelpe Likewise Isachar is a strong asse Nephtali is an hynde let goeâ— Ioseph is a fruitfull branche Beniamin is a rauening wolfe The like figuratiue speaches are in the blessinges of Moses the man of God Deut. Cap. 33. Therefore blessing or consecrating prooueth no reall presence nor excludeth figuratiue speaches As for only tokens bare signes we neuer acknowledge the Sacraments to be such but effectuall and working signes in them that receiue them worthily But Ambrose is cited to proue that the blessing of God in the Sacrament is able to change the nature of things which we confesse but Ambrose speaketh not of transubstantiation for in the same place Dâ— ijs qui myst Cap. 9. hee declareth his meaning Iufficiently Vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepuâ—ia est Verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clamaâ— Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus meum c. It was the true fleshe of Christe that was crucified that was buried therefore this is truely a Sacrament of that flesh Our Lorde Iesus himselfe crieth out This is my body before the blessing of the heauenly words it is called one kinde after consecration the body of Christ is signified He himselfe calleth it his bloud before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud But now concerning the worde of communicating Sander saith that it sheweth both the effect wrought by blessing which is the presence of the bloud of Christ and the finall cause why it is made verily to communicate vnto vs the merites of Christes death where the said bloud was shedde for the remission of sinnes If the chalis after blessing had no bloud in it how did it communicate to vs the bloud of Christ This is Sanders deepe diuinity As though the bloud of Christ is not communicated to vs in baptisme for the remission of sinnes by the merites of Christes death where yet the bloude of Christ is not really present But seing the Apostle saith that the cuppe of blessing which wee blesse is the communicating of the bloud of Christ it followeth that the wicked which haue no fellowship with Christ receiue nor the bloud of Christ in the cuppe and consequently that the bloud of Christ is not really present Yet Chrysostome giuing the literall sense saith Sander of those wordes writeth thus Eorum autem huiusmodi est sententia quod est in calice id est quod a latere fluxit illius sumus parâ—icipeâ— Of these wordes this is the meaning The same which is in the chalice is that which flowed from the side and thereof we are partakers I answere Chrysostom doth so giue the literal sense that he meaneth the bloud of Christ to be no otherwise then sacramentally in the chalice for in the same Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. he affirmeth that Christ suffereth himselfe to be broken in the Sacrament which he suffered not on the crosse That wee are the selfesame body that we receiue Finally to shew where we are partakers of Christes body he saieth that by this Sacrament we are made eagles and flye vp to heauen or rather aboue heauen for where the dead body is thither will the eagles be gathered CAP. II. The reall presence is prooued by the name of breaking and communicating He brabbleth much of breaking forgetting that it is bread which Saint Paul saith to be broken but common bread saith he cannot haue such vertue that Christ might be knowne thereby as he was of the two disciples in the breaking of the bread which S. Augustine thinketh to be the communion I answere the Sacrament although it be very bread yet is it not common bread but consecrated to be a seale
saieth hee for all men that by my selfe I may giue life to all and my flesh may bee made a ransome of all For death shall dye by my death and the nature of men shall rise againe together with me You may nowe iudge in what sense Cyrillus writeth and howe farre the sense of Sander is from the meaning of Cyrillus The sixt Booke To the Preface BEcause the adoration of the Sacrament doeth most of all conuince the reall presence Sander pretendeth that he hath appointed this booke seuerally to proue that poynt whereas in deede hee laboureth for the most part to prooue the adoration by the presence which is a beggerlie crauing of the principle or that which is in question CAP. I. The adoration of Christes bodie is prooued out of the Pâ—phâ— Da 〈…〉 id in the 21. Psalme The adoration of Christes bodie is no question betweene vs but whether the sacrament is to be adored that thereby the reall presence might be proued The place of the Psalme 22. after the Hebrewes is this verse 26. I will paye my vowes before them that feare him The poore or meeke shall eate and be satisfied they shall praise the Lord seeking him your soule shall liue for euer All the ends of the earth shall remember and be conuerted vnto the Lord. And all the families of the Gentiles shall bow themselues before thee Because the kingdome is the Lordes and he hath dominion among the Gentiles All that be fat on the earth shal eate and bow downe themselues before him they shall all fal downe which descend into the duste In this prophetical Psalme Christ proseth three things that the faithfull shall bee sedde and nourished by him that they shall praise God and that they shall haue eternall life But for as much as Christ nourisheth the faithfull otherwise then by the sacramâ—t it is great violence to draw this prophecie only or chiefly to the sacrament as Sander doth As for adoration of the sacrament heere is no colour for it Christ promiseth plainely that such as he hath redeemed shall praise Iehoua shall worship him fall downe before him but of worshipping the meate whereof they eate and are satisfied there is no mention in the worlde I passe ouer his fantasticall application of the words of the Psalme and meddle onely with that which is pertinent to the question But the kingdome of God requireth an inuisible presence saieth Sander concerning the person of the king But yet visible concerning the formes of bread wine to the end his mebers may know where to worship him And must wee haue the visible formes of bread and wine that we may know where to worship him Why doe wee not knowe that he is ascended into heauen and sitteth on the right hand of God the father shall wee not worship him sitting at the right hande of god in heauen S. Paul willeth vs to seek those things that are aboue where Christ is and not those things that are on earth because Christ is in heauen Col. 3. But that this interpretation of the Psalme to be meant of the sacrament is not of Sanders inuention we must heare the iudgement of the elder writers And first he beginneth with Hierome in Psal. 21. Vota Christi The vowes of Christ are his natiuitie and passion the vowes of the church are good workes or els I will offer the mysterie of my bodie and bloud with them who celebrate those things in his feare Although this writer referre the text partlie to the mysterie of the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament yet hath he no worde of adoration of the Sacrament but reserreth it altogether to God and Christ beside that his exposition farre differeth from Sanders explication The like sayings he alleageth out of Augustine Cassiodorus Beda Euthymius all which affirm this prophesie of eating to perteine to eating the body of Christ in the Sacrament although not onely to it But what say they to adoration of the Sacrament Forsooth saith Sander manducauerunt adorauerunt are both referred to one thing they haue eaten the Sacrament therfore they haue adored the Sacrament I deny the maior the text is plaine that they haue adored bowed and fallen downe to God not to that which they haue eaten If I say Sander hath eaten giuen thanks do I mean that he hath giuen thanks to his meate or to him that gaue him meate This is a miserable argument But S. Augustine doth fortifie it For he saith vpon that Psalm Euen the rich of the earth haue eaten the body of the lowlines of their Lord neither are they so filled as yâ— poore euen vnto imitation sed tamen adorauerunt but yet they haue adored I heare that they haue worshipped but I heare not that they haue worshipped or adored the SacrameÌ„t And if you say they haue worshipped or adored the bodie of their Lords humilitie how proue you that they worshipped the same really present in the SacrameÌ„t Or that the Sacrament may be called the bodie of the lords humilitie If this wil not serue Augustine is more plaine in Ep. 120. ad Honoraâ—â—m ca. 27. Suprà dictum est c. It was 〈◊〉 before the poore shal eat be filled But here it is said all the rich of the earth haue eaten haue adored For they also are brought to the table of Christ. And they take of his bodie bloud But they adore only be not filled also because they follow not For although they eat Christ the poore man yet they disdaine to be poore And againe because God hath raised him from the dead hath giuen him a name which is aboue euery name that in the name of Iesus euerie knee shold be bowed of things heauenly earthly vnder the earth They also moued with the fame of his highnes with the glorie of his name which glorie is spred round about in the Church they come themselues to the table they eate adore but yet they are not filled because they do not huÌ„ger thirst af ter righteousnes Al this while I heare adoring of Christ but not of the Sacrament nor of the bodie of Christ really present in the Sacrament I would haue al men that eat the Sacrament not only to eat but also adore giue thanks not to the Sacrament but to him that spiritually feedeth vs by the Sacrament But â—eda expoundeth the adoring thus Adorabunt quia cum quadam exteriori veneratione accedent They shall adore because they shall come with a certein outward reuerence or worshiping Although Beda liued in a corrupt time yet the Sacrament in his time was not worshipped Therfore he speaketh of a certeine outward reuerence that men vsed in comming to the lords table which is vsed of all them that worship not the Sacrament For if Beda had meant as Sander woulde haue him he should not haue said a certeine externall worshipping but with all honor worship both
singularly due but such a worship of which sorte there is but one and in the tenth hee saith such a worshipping that onely is which is due to God who as he hath no fellow in nature so he hath no partaker in honor I aunswere the veneration honor worship or reuerence due singularly to the sacrament is spoken of Augustine in comparison of all other meates and not of all other thinges in generall His wordes are Which did not discerne the sacrament from all other meates by a reuerence singularly due to it that is to say of all other meat onely the sacrament ought to haue that reuerence or honor Euen so the water of baptisme must bee discerned from all other waters veneratione singulariter debita by a veneration or reuerence singularly due vnto it being consecrated to the mysticall washing away of our sinnes and yet no diuine honor must be giuen to the water of baptisme Wherefore S. Augustine meaneth nothing lesse then that the sacrament shoulde bee worshipped as God man really present vnder those visible shapes of bread wine as Sander impudently doth slander him But it is worthie to be remembred saith he That Augustine vseth the word Sacramentum for the substance of Christes fleshe conteined vnder the signe of bread Who wil graunt this vnto Sander well if you will not graunt it he hath reason to prooue it For Augustine saith he would neuer haue granted that either the substance of materiall bread or the forme thereof ought to be honored For honor can be giuē to no vnreasonable creaturs Is this that Sander which defendeth the honoring of images or else be images reasonable creatures But hee careth not what he saith so he may seeme to say something to the matter in hande In deede Augustine woulde neuer defende that diuice honor shoulde be giuen to the sacrament but there is a kinde of honor which may bee giuen euen vnto the vnreasonable creatures not in respect of themselues but in respect of him to whome all honor and glorie is dewe if they be of him taken and appointed to any honorable vse Last of all we must consider what it should meane that Augustine saith The Sacrament may bee honored by our absteining sometimes from receiuing it into our mouthes whereas it is no honor to God if wee shoulde any moment absteine to feede on him by faith and in spirite Therefore it is a worthier kinde of substance which is receiued in the sacrament then the grace is which is the effect of spirituall eating For his grace cannot come except wee first bee made meete to receaue it But his bodie maye come to our bodies and so maie condemne vs before we are meete to receiue it To this friuolous collection I aunswere that there is no honor done to the Sacrament by absteining from it but by humilitie as the similitude of the Centurion declareth who counted himselfe vnworthie that the Lorde shoulde come vnder his roofe Againe Augustine defendeth not the acte of either of both partes as good of it selfe but making that to be indifferent he onely defendeth their intent and meaning which was to yeelde due reuerence to the Lordes sacrament the one by often receauing the other by humble intermission least the offences shoulde in their weake nature breede contempte of so high a mysterie For although wee ought continually to feed on Christ by faith yet it is not necessarie nor conuenient nor possible that the pledge and seale of this spirituall feeding shoulde euerie moment be receaued But only at such times as the Church Elders thereof shall thinke expedient for the renuing of our remembrance and confirming of our faith by the visible tokens of Christes institution So that no worthier substance can bee gathered to bee receaued in the Sacrament then the grace of God And where Sander saith that his grace cannot come except wee bee first made meete to 〈◊〉 I answere that we are not made meete to receiue the grace of God but onely by the grace of God preuenting all preparation of our owne As for his bodie comming into our bodies when it is prooued out of the worde of God it shal be graunted but not before Finally whereas he gathereth it is the same substance of Christ which is receiued of which the Centurion said I am not worthie that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe I answere he may no more vrge the substance of Christ in the one similitude of the Centurion then he wil alow me to vrge it is not the same substance by the other similitude of Manna which Augustine likewise vseth As for the same words of the Centurion vsed in the Lyturgie ascribed to Chrysostome in adoring the sacrament I denie that any adoration is meant vnto the Sacrament or that those wordes are spoken vnto the Sacrament but vnto Christ in heauen whose Sacrament that is What is said or done in the Masse booke I neither knowe nor care That Origen Hom. 5. in diuersos exhorteth them that receiue the Sacrament to vse that speach of the Centurion it prooueth neither adoration nor carnall manner of presence For immediatly before he hath these wordes Inerat nunc dominus sub tectuns credentium duplici figura vel more Nunc enim quando sancti Deo acceptabiles ecclesiarum antistites sub tectum tuum intrant tunc ibidem per eos dominus ingreditur Et in sic existimas tanquam dominum suscipient Et aliud quando sanctum cibum c. The Lorde doth now also enter vnder the roofe of the faithfull in a double figure or manner For nowe when the holy and acceptable to God the rulers of the Churches doe enter vnder thy roofe then euen there the Lorde by them doth enter And thinke thou euen as receiuing the Lorde him selfe And againe when thou receiuest that holy and incorruptible meate c. Beholde Origen saith Christ entreth in a figure and after such manner as he entreth by his ministers of which entrance hee teacheth man likewise to say Lorde I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe therefore this saying importeth no substance of the naturall bodie of Christ really present in the sacrament CAP. V. That the fathers of the first sixe hundreth yeares after Christ did adore the bodie and bloude of Christ in the sacrament of the Altar The first which is Dionysius falsely called the Areopagite could be no writer of the first 600. yeares whom neither Euseb. nor Hieronymus nor Germadius gatherers of all ecclesiasticall writers before their time did knowe Concerning his saying I referre the reader to mine answere to Heskins lib. 2. cap. 47. As for Pachymeres cannot be elder then his autor Dionyse on whom he writeth his Paraphrasis The next is Cyprian which lib. 2. Ep. 3. saith that our sacrifice is Christ but Christ is to bee adored saith Sander ergo the sacrifice which is the Sacrament I answere whatsoeuer after any manner is called Christ
body and bloud of Christ to feede the soule as they are corporally digested into the bodie be not our soules washed spiritually by meanes of the water in baptisme The fift generall head He that alleageth a cause why the flesh and bloud is not seene in the mysteries presupposeth although an inuisible yet a most reall presence thereof I answere the allegation of that cause presupposeth no Popish reall presence but sheweth that presence to bee spirituall and not corporall as Ambrose doth plainly in the place which is truncally alleaged by Sander who taketh onely the taile thereof De sacra lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sed fortè duis c. But perhapâ— thou saiest I see not the shewe of bloude But yet it hath a similitude For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death so thou drinkest the similitude of his precioâ—s bloud That there may be no horror of raw bloud and yet that the price of our redemption may worke What argument can bee more plaine then this that which we drinke is the similitude of his bloud ergo it is not his reall bloud As for Theophylact a late writer I will not stand vpon his authority The sixt generall head They that acknowledg a chang of the substance of bread into Christes body must needes meane a reall presence of that body I answere none of the ancient fathers acknowledged transubstantiation but a change of vse and not of substance in the bread and wine The places which he citeth of Iustinus Cyprian I haue satisfied before often times namely Iustine against Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 43. and Cyprian lib. 2. cap. 28. 〈◊〉 are the places which he quoteth and be of antiquitye in mine answere to Heskins Gregory Nyssen in or Cathechet in the second booke Cap. 51. Eusebius Emiss or 5. in Pasch. ibidem also Euthymius ibidem Isychius in Cap. 6. Leuit. the same booke Cap. 54. Ambros. de myst init lib. 2. Cap. 51. The seuenth generall Chapiter All that affirme the externall Sacrifice of Christes bodye and bloude must needes teach the reall presence thereof I answere none of the ancient fathers teach the externall Sacrifice but of thanksgiuing and remeÌ„brance for the redemption by Christes death The places of Dionysius and Eusebius Pamphili which he noteth are answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 35. The councell of Nice hath bene satisfied in this booke lib. 2. Cap. 26. The eight head is the adoration lately confuted The ninth that they affirme wicked men to receiue the Sacrament for which he sendeth vs to his authorities cited lib. 2. Ca. 7. li. 5. Ca. 9. where thou shalt finde the confutation as of the rest so quoted by him The tenth that they teach our bodies to be nourished with Christs flesh bloud li. 2. Ca. 5. li. 3. Ca. 15. 16. The 11. that they teache vs to be naturally vnited to Christ lib. 5. Cap. 5. The 12. that they affirme Christes bodie to be on the altar in the handes in the mouthes and the bloud to be in the cuppe lib. 2. Cap. 5. The 13. that they giue it such names as onely may agree to the substance of Christ c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coena Domini answered by mee against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 29. And Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. aunswered in the fourth Chapter of this booke The 14. that they teache euery man to receiue the same substance in one measure and equall portion for which he quoteth lib. 1. Cap. what is the supper lib. 4. Cap. 12. The 15. that they vse in shewing how it is sanctified the verbs of creating making working consecrating representing c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coen Do. answered by mee against Heskins lib 2. Cap. 7. Also Hierome in 26. Matth. answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 18. The 16. that they spake of it couertly saying norunâ— fideles least the infidels should mocke at it for which hee citeth Augustine Chrysostome is a feeble argument to proue the reall presence for other spake openly euen to Infidels as Iustinus Tertullian The 17. that they haue applyed it to the helping of the soules departed as being the verie selfe substance that ransaked hell is false not proued out of Aug. lib. Conf. 9. Ca. 13. nor Cyprian li. 1. Ep. 9. as I haue shewed against Allen. li. 2. Cap. 9. Cap. 7. The 18. that they taught it to be the truth which hath succeeded in place of the old figures for which he quoteth Augustine de Ciuitate Dei li. 17. Cap. 20. where no such matter is but that the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ is offered in bread and wine in steede of all the old sacrifices deliuered to the coÌ„municants by which he meaneth a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation The 19. that they vsed by the knowne truth therof to proue that Christ had flesh bloud for which he quoteth Irenaeus lib. 4. Ca. â—4 answered by me often times namely contra Hesk. li. 2. Cap. 49. And Theodoret in dialog which you shall finde contra Hesk. li. 3. ca. 52. 56. The 20. that they haue farre preferred it before baptisme that no crumme might be suffered to fall downe for which he quoteth Cyrill Catech. Myste 4. answered in the Chapter next before The 21. that the catechumeni admitted to heare the preaching might not sec the Eucharistie that no man might eat it except he were baptized and kept the commandement and yet the catechumeni had a sanctified broad which was a signe of Christ. For the former parte is cited Dionysins de Eccles. Hier. Cap. 3. for the later August lib. 2. de peccat merit remiss Cap. 26. To this I aunswere that these ceremonies and obseruations partely friuolous partely superstitious are too weake argumentes to prooue the matter in question So that in steede of the testimonies of the auncient fathers wee haue little beside quotations and vaine collections CAP. VIII The reall presence of Christes bodie is prooued by the faith of the whole Church of God in all times and all ages To omit that curious question what shall become of all our fathers that so long haue beleeued th'e reall presence c. it is a great vntrueth that Sander affirmeth Berengarius to haue bene the first that preached taught against the reall presence For the opinion of the reall presence was not taught before Antichrist was openly shewed in the see of Rome in any place nor immediately after commonly receiued but in the seuenth or eight hundreth yere as superstition idolatrie and false doctrine began to increase both in the East and West it began to take strength but yet not to be fully confirmed as it appeareth in the writings of Damaseene the seconde Councell of Nice and other writers since that time Neither was the errour then vnreprooued for the Councell of Ephes. 3. which condemned images gaue a true vnderstanding of the
in the vnitie of his body that is in the couiunction of Christian members the Sacrament of which body the faithful communicating are accustomed to receiue from the altar he is to be said truely to eate the body of Christ and to drinke the bloud of Christ. De ciui Dei li. 21. Cap. 25. In the same Chapiter he apposeth Sacramento tenus reuera manducare corpus Christi to eate the body of Christ as far as the Sacrament and to eate the body of Christ in very deede Ergo they that eate the Sacrament onely eate not the body of Christ in very deede Therefore Christs gift is not onely in the Sacrament Iewel The fathers of the old law receiued the selfe same body that is now receiued of the faithfull Aug. de vtil pâ—n Cap. 1. Sander Augustine saieth the selfe same spirituall meate that is Christ by faith but not the same corporall meate which is the body of Christ Tract 11. in Ioan. Fulke Augustine saith not that the body of Christ is our corporall meat but that which answereth in proportion to Manna as a corporal meat namely bread and wine Tract 26. Sander But Tract 11. he saith Quid est Manna what it Manna I am saith Christ the liuing breade that came downe from heauen Fulke It followeth immediately Manna accipiunt fideles the faithfull receiue Manna therefore hee meaneth not Manna in this place for the corporall meate but for the bodye of Christe whiche is spirituall meate Sander But he sayeth further It is knowen what God had rained from heauen And knowe not the Catechumeni what Christians take Let them blush because they knowe not Let them passe ouer by the redde sea Let them eate Manna that euen as they haue beleeued in the name of Iesus so Iesus may commit him selfe to them Therefore Iesus is eaten bodily of vs after baptisme Fulke I denye the argument except Manna be Iesus bodily If Manna be spiritually taken then Iesus is eaten in the Sacrament as he was in Manna which Sander confesseth to be onely spiritually Sander But Catechumeni might so eate Christ that is spiritually Fulke They might not eate Christ in the Sacrament before they were baptized and therfore they were ignorant of that mysterie Iewell Euery faithfull man is made partaker of the body and bloud of Christ in baptisme whiles he findeth that vnitie which is signified by the Sacrament Therefore the faithfull eate Christes bodie otherwise then in the Sacrament Apud Bedam 1. Cor. 10. Sander They are not partakers really but onely in the Sacrament of the supper in which if the body were not really present hee that is baptized shoulde not at all be partaker of the Sacrament of Christes supper because hee is not partaker of bread and wine but onely is made a member of that mysticall bodie which in the Sacrament is signified Fulke Beda knewe no such distinction of really spiritually Neither doeth he saye they are partakers of the Sacrament of the supper but of the bodie and bloud of Christ in baptisme wherefore I knowe not whereof Sander dreameth Sander Augustine saith of heretikes and schismatikes de ciuit Dei lib. 21. Cap. 25. They are not in that bonde of peace which is expressed in that sacrament The bond of peace expressed is not the wheaten cornes molded in one loaf but the bodie of Christ present really vnder the formes of bread and wine Fulke Alack poore sophistrie Christ is the bonde of peace but the bonde of peace is expressed in the externall Sacrament of breade and wine Although the wheaten cornes are not the bonde of peace expressed yet the bonde of peace is expressed by the wheaten cornes c. Sander Looke in my 5. booke Cap 5. Fulke Looke there for an answere CAP. V. Sander Master Iewell hath not replyed well touching the Capernaites Harding If Christ in S. Iohn had spoken tropically the Iewes and disciples who were vsed to figures would not haue said This is an hard saying Iewell His reason hangeth thus The Capernaites vnderstoode not Christ ergo his bodie is really in the Sacrament Sander No sir They vnderstoode Christ to speake without parables Christs wordes pertaine to the sacrament therefore his bodie is really in the Sacrament They vnderstood what Christ promised but they beleeued it to be either not possible or not conuenient Fulke The maior minor of your mishapen syllogisme are both false Augustin in Ps. 33. Exhorruerunt sermonem c. They were afraide of his speache not vnderstanding they thought our Lord Iesus Christ had spoken some hard thing c. Sander S. Augustine saith they vnderstoode not because they beleeued not in Ioan. Tr. 27. Fulke What though infidelitie were the cause of their not vnderstanding yet he saith Non intelligeÌ„do scandalizati sunt By not vnderstanding they were offended ergo you saide falsely they vnderstoode what he promised And much lesse vnderstoode they the meane howe it should be perfourmed Iewel He said The bread which I will giue c. of spirituall eating It is the spirite that quickeneth Vnderstand ye my words spiritually saith Augustine Sander See in my third booke Cap. 19. 20. Fulke See the answere in the same places Iewel Ye shal not eat saith S Augustine with your bodily mouth this bodie that you see c. I giue you a certeine Sacrament Sander Of this place I haue spoken at large lib. 6. Cap. 2. lib. 3. Cap. 14. Fulk And I haue sufficiently answered in the same places Sander Beside this great dissimulation of S. Augustines meaning Master Iewel hath false translations Fulke Sander heth foolish quarels master Iewell giueth the sense faithfully Iewel We haue a spirituall mouth taste eyes eares as Basil Leo Origen Tertullian say Christ is to be digested by faith he is the bread of the minde not of the bellie to beleeue in him that is to eat the liuing bread therefore Christs meaning is spirituall not reall Sander The fondest kind of reasoning in the world Christ is eaten both spiritually bodily Fulke Al these fathers meane only spiritual eating excluding all other carnal grosser maners of eatings Sander Doth not Tertullian say The flesh is fedde with the bodie bloud of Christ to the ende the scule may be made fatt of God Fulke Tertullian speaketh manifestly of the externall Sacraments which haue the name of the things signified as of the signes of baptisme impositioÌ„ of haÌ„ds c. Iewel Chrysostom will not suffer this euasion who saith to vnderstand carnally is to vnderstand plainly as the thinges be vttered and to thinke vppon nothing else Sander We vnderstand not so For wee seeing the forme of breade thinke vpon the bodie of Christ. Fulke But what did the Capernaites see whose vnderstanding you defende And what other thing do you vnderstand then is vttered in the wordes Iewel S. Augustine saith The saying of Christ is a figure or manner of speach commanding vs to be partakers
the first is alreadie done that is predestination the second third is both done is a doing shal be done the is calling iustification but the fourth is now in hope shal be in deede that is glorification The Sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the body bloud of Christ in some places daily in some places by certeine distance of dayes is prepared in the Lords table to some vnto life to some vnto destruction But the thing it self wherof also it is a Sacrament is to euery man vnto life to no man vnto destruction whosoeuer shal be partaker of it You haue therefore gained thus much by your cauilling that neither the flesh and bloud of Christ promised in the sixt of Iohn nor the thing of the Sacrament is the bodie of Christ which sitteth in heauen but the participation of his mysticall bodie and the fellowship or communion of his bodie and the members therof which is the assurance of eternall life But where you saye the Sacrament is that naturall body of Christ which sitteth in heauen you saye beside your booke for neither Augustine nor any ancient father did euer say that the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ was the body of Christ otherwise then after a certeine manner of speaking as Augustine saith Sander The materiall bread was prepared by the Baker ergo the Sacrament prepared in the table is the bodie of Christ. Fulke I denie the argument The Baker prepareth not the Sacrament although he prepare some parte of the earthly matter that is required vnto it more then the sexton prepareth the sacrament of baptisme by powring of water into the font CAP VII Sander Master Iewell hath not disputed well touching the omnipotencie of Christ in promising the gift of 〈◊〉 flesh Harding Christ by shewing his diuine power wherby he will ascend into heauen confoundeth the vnbeliefe of the Capernaites touching the promised substance of his bodie Iewell When ye see Christ ascend whole ye shall see that he giueth not his bodie in such sort as you imagine His grace is not wasted by morsels saith S. Augustine vsâ—â—g Christs ascension to proue that there is no suâ—â— grosse presence in the Sacrament Sander He is not present to be wasted but yet he is really eaten Fulke S. Augustines place sheweth that Christe reasoned not of his omnipotencie or diuine power but of the absence of his humanitie by his ascension and that the thing which he promiseth to be eaten is not his naturall flesh to be bitten in their mouthes but his grace to be receiued by faith in their hearts Iewell This table is the table for Eagles not for Iayes saith Chrysostome Sander I haue answered your iangling of Iayes in my 2. booke Cap. 27. Fulke And I haue confuted your babling of Eagles in the same place Iewell Saint Hierome saith Let vs goe vp with the Lorde into heauen into that great parlour and receiue of him aboue the cuppe of the newe testament Sander He saith not into heauen but into the great parlour which is the kingdome of the Church Fulke But by the greate parlour into which Christ is ascended he meaneth heauen where the kingdome of the Church is and not the earth where the Church is a stranger the worde heauen is added in Master Iewel for explication and not as parte of Ieromes wordes Sander Chrysostome interpreteth the parlour for the Church in Matth. Hom. 38. Fulke Chrysostome was no interpreter of Ierome In allegories euery man hath his owne inuention Sander Christ giueth his bodie and bloude hee is the feastmaker and the feast he gaue that Moses coulde not giue Fulke All is perfourmed in the great parlour which is heauen Wee must receiue of him aboue the cuppe of the new testament Iewell Cyrillus saith Our Sacrament auoucheth not the eating of a man leauing the mindes of the faithfull in vngodly manner to grosse or fleshly cogitations Sander Cyrillus against Nestorius denyeth the Sacrament to be the eating of a bare man not assumpted into God I haue spoken more lib. 2. Cap. 25. Fulke Cyrillus denieth the Sacrament to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the eating of a man and not onely the eating of such a man as Nestorius blasphemed Christ to be See lib. 2. Cap. 25. Sander Cyril saith that Christ setteth before vs the assumpted flesh of the sonne man Fulke Yea but not in the Sacrament only but as it was eaten of the fathers Ad Theod. de rect fide Sander He saith moreouer the worde is not able to be eaten What M. Iewel not by faith yes verily but not by mouth but according to the dispeÌ„satioÌ„ of the vnioÌ„ Fulke God the word is not able to be eaten by faith but in respect of the dispensatiue vnion Cyril speaketh not of eating by mouth for the properties of both natures remaine to be seen of vs by innumerable reasons as it followeth immediatly Graunt eating of his fleshe by mouth and the propertie of the humane nature is cleane ouerthrowen Your charging of master Iewel with the blasphemies of Nestorius deserueth none aunswere Iewell The olde fathers Chrysostome Augustine Leo acknowledge Gods omnipotencie in baptisme yet is not Christ really there Therfore it was vaine labour to alleage his omnipotencie for the reall presence Sander Baptisme hath no promise to be the flesh of Christ therfore you haue lost your labour Fulke Baptisme hath promise to wash vs in the bloud of Christ to incorporate vs into Christ to make vs partakers of his death buriall resurrection Rom. 6. and yet no reall presence required no not of the holy ghost otherwise than by effectuall grace working our regeneration and newe birth Yea Christ doth wash vs in baptisme Ep. 5. CAP. VIII Sander Whether the Catholikes or Sacramentaries expound more vnproperly or inconueniently the wordes belonging to Christes supper Harding Because these places report that Christ gaue at his supper his verie bodie the fathers saye it is really in the Sacrament Iewell A thing is taken to make proofe which is doubtfll and the antecedent is vnproued Sander Said not Christ take eate this is my bodie Fulke This prooueth not that he gaue it in your sense But where do the fathers say it is really present in the Sacrament Iewell The fathers call the Sacrament a figure a token a signe an image c. Therefore Christes wordes may be taken with a metaphor trope or figure Sander It standeth wel togither to be a signe the trueth As Christ is the image of God yet God also Fulke It is impossible to be a signe the thing signified Neither is Christ God the Father of whome hee is the image although he be God Iewell Euen Duns sawe that following the bare letter we must needs say that the bread it self is Christs bodie Sander The place is not quoted therfore it is doubtful for no man beleeueth you Fulke Looke in the fourth booke vpon the sentences The same
figuratiue words Iewel That M. Harding calleth the catholike faith is in deede a catholike error Sand. No error can be catholike because Christ said Hell gates shal not preuaile against the Church and it is a citie built vpon an hill Fulke And yet all nations are made drunke with the furie of the wine of the whore of Babylons fornication Wherefore an error may bee catholike although not simply yet in comparison of the small number that at sometime doe embrace the trueth CAP. XII Sand. Of Christs glorified bodie and the place of S. Hierome expounded Hard. The bodie which was before the death therof thrall and fraile is now spirituall Iewel To what ende alleageth Master Harding the spirituall state of Christes bodie Enriches saide it was chaunged into the verie substance of God which heresie is like Master Hardings if it be not the same Sand. The defence of the reall presence is directly against that heresie Fulke To graunt the flesh of Christ in worde and to denie the essentiall properties thereof is to come as neere to that heresie as can be Sand. The ancient fathers proued that as the Sacrament of the altar consisted of two thinges the signe or forme of breade and of the bodie of Christ so Christ cōsisteth of two natures the one diuine the other humane Wherefore you denying the presence agree with the Arrians Valentinians c. Fulke The ancient fathers neuer made the forme or accidents of breade but bread it selfe to be the signe or one part of the sacrament representing the bodie of Christ and the thing signified they made like to the godheade whereby they vnderstoode not the naturall bodie of Christ but the effect of his death Hard. S. Hierome shewing two wayes of vnderstanding Christs flesh one spirituall as it is verily meate an other as it was crucified declareth the manner of eating it onely to differ from the manner of it being crucified the substance being all one Iewel He speaketh neither of the Sacrament nor of any reall presence Sand. He meaneth both Fulk He can meane neither of both seeing he distinguisheth that diuine and spirituall flesh which is meat in deede vnto eternall life from that flesh which was crucified which if it were meate in the same sense that it was crucified that is in the naturall substance S. Hieroms distinction should not be of that flesh which c. and that flesh which c. but of the effects and affects of the same flesh Wherefore when he saith the flesh of Christ is two waies to be vnderstanded he meaneth of this word The flesh of Christ and not of the diuerse manners of presence therof in the sacrament and on the crosse Iewel S. Hierom saith of this oblatiō which is merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ it is lawful to eate but of that oblatiō which Christ offered vpon the altar of the crosse according to it selfe it is lawful for no man to eate that is to say in grosse and fleshly manner These words shewe a difference betweene the sacrifice made in the remēbrāce of Christ and the very sacrifice in deede c. Sand. The difference is so great that the thing offered is all one and that which is crucified and eaten is the same in substance but not in manner of presence Fulke The difference is so great as must needs bee betweene a sacrifice once offered and neuer to be repeted and the memoriall of the same The same substance that was crucified is eaten but not by meanes of any bodily presence but by a spirituall kinde or manner of eating by faith Sand. What marueilous making can you finde in the bread and wine except they be made the bodie and bloud of Christ Fulke It is a merueilous thing that the elements of bread and wine are made to the worthy receiuer in earth the communication of the bodie and bloud of Christ sitting in heauen Iewell If a man take it fleshly saith Chrysostome in Ioan. Hom. 47 he gaineth nothing Sand. It followeth immediatly What say we then is not flesh flesh He vnderstandeth fleshly that deuiseth a grosse and fleshly manner of eating but not he that saith the flesh must be eaten if the manner be diuine and spirituall as in our sacrament Fulke The manner you teach is grosse and carnall for spiritual eating we confesse which is not onely in the sacrament Iewell It is a figure or forme of speach saith S. Augustine willing vs to be partakers of Christs passion Sand. You are taken M. Iewel For seeing you say we eate Christ in the supper only by faith and we must bee partakers of the passion Christ by faith at lest how saith S. Hierome we may not eate that oblation which Christ offered on the crosse according to it selfe may we not be leeue in him c. Fulke In the sacrament wee eate bread which is the oblation merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ we eate not that which was sacrificed on the crosse in the reall substance thereof but by faith applying vnto vs the fruites and effects of his passion Iewell S. Hierome calleth the eating of the diuine spiritual flesh of Christ the remēbring that hee died for vs. Sander Then the oblation it self is eaten of vs which he offered on the crosse according to it selfe Fulke What mad man would saye the oblation it selfe the remembrance therof to be all one Iewel Clemens Alexandrinus saith there is a fleshly bloud wherwith we are redeemed a spiritual wherwith we are annointed And this is to drinke the bloude of Christ to be partaker of his immortalitie As Christs bloud is not really present to annoint vs so it is not really present to nourish vs. Sander Clemens speaketh of the effect of Christes bloud Hierom of the carnall bloud it selfe Fulke A monstrous shift when Hierom distinguisheth in expresse wordes the spirituall and diuine bloude by which wee are nourished from the carnall bloud that was shed with the speare by which wee are redeemed Wherefore he speaketh of the effect fruite as well as Clemens Sander That S. Hierom speaketh of the Sacrament it is proued because he citeth such words out of S. Iohn as all the fathers reasons scriptures prooue to appertaine by way of promise to the supper as I haue prooued in twentie Chapiters togither of my thirde booke Fulke His citing of wordes out of the sixt of Saint Iohn prooue no more then drinking of the bloude of Christ c. in Clemens that hee speaketh of the Sacrament Your twentie Chapters are answered in as many by mee Iewel Saint Augustine saith Iudas betrayed Christ carnall thou hast betrayed Christ spirituall For in thy furie thou betrayest the holy gospell to be burned with wicked fire These wordes of Clement and Augustine agreeing so neere in sense and phrase with the wordes of Hierom may stand for sufficient exposition to the same Sander Augustine taketh Christ spirituall another way cleane diuerse from Clement or Saint Hierome
meaneth we are not made consubstantiall to the Trinitie Fulke He denyeth the corporall manner of vniting of substances namely of the substance of our bodies with the substance of the bodie of Christ. Iewell The coniunction because it is spiritual true full and perfect is expressed by this terme corporall Sander As though God because he is spiritual true full and perfect he might therefore be called corporall Fulke As though that which is in somethings is necessarie to bee in all thinges and yet the Godhead which is spiritually truly fully and perfectly in Christ is said to be in him corporally Col. 2. Sander Who euer heard of such vanitie because it is spirituall it is termed corporall Fulke Who euer heard vainer sophistrie then that which diuideth things to be ioyned together Master Iewel addeth true full perfect Iewel Corporall coniunction remoueth all maneâ— light and accidentall ioyning Sander If all accidentall ioyning be remoued only substantiall ioyning remaineth A substantiall ioyning requireth the substances to be present that are ioyned together Fulke The substances that are ioyned together after a spirituall manner neede no locall presence of the substances to be ioyned whome the spirite of Christe can couple though they be in place distant with an inseparable vnion Iewell It is vtterly vntrue that we haue Christ corporally within vs onely by receiuing the Sacrament Sander Neuer a father by you named saith as you doe and therefore you speake of your owne head Fulke All the fathers that saye Christ dwelleth in vs corporally speake generally of all the members of the Church of which many haue not receiued the Sacrament therefore it is not by the Sacrament onely Sander Seeing wee cannot haue him corporally in vs without his bodie be within vs and yet none other thing is his bodie beside that which is deliuered at his supper by that meane onely hee may bee corporally in vs. Fulke Neuer a father by you named either sayeth or meaneth that any of your two propositions are true therefore your conclusion is of your owne heade Iewel By Master Hardings construction the childe is damned who dyeth without receiuing the Sacrament of Christes bodie Sander No Catholike doeth teache so Baptisme sussiceth vntill a man come to yeres of discretion Fulke Ergo Baptisme maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporally Iewell Without naturall participation of Christes flesh there is no saluation Sander If it be so it is you that teach the damnation of all those that receiue not the Eucharistie Fulk It is so because Christ saith Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud c. and because it is so and yet all are not damned that receiue not the Eucharist This naturall participation eating of the flesh of Christ is not onely in the Eucharist Iewell S. Chrysostome saith In the Sacrament of baptisme we are made flesh of Christes flesh and bone of his bones Sander These wordes you haue not in Chrysostome Fulke You cauill at the forme of wordes whereupon M. Iewell standeth not when you cannot auoide the matter Sander He saith they that are partakers of the mysteries can tell how they are formed properly and lawfully out of him Fulke That they are alike formed out of Christ in both the Sacraments it ouerthroweth your corporall presence in the one only Sander Moreouer he giueth another sense expounding ex ipso for secundum ipsum Fulke That taketh not away the force of his authoritie in the former sense Sander He sheweth that we are taken out of Christs side as Eua out of Adam Fulke If that be by baptisme it proueth M. Iewels proposition that we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones Sander Although it were in him yet is it to no purpose for it is one thing to be made of the flesh of Christ which may be meant of his mysticall flesh another thing to partake his flesh naturally We are made of his flesh by spirituall meanes Fulke What can it bee to partake naturally his flesh if it be not to become flesh of his flesh bone of his bones you saye we may be made of his flesh by spirituall meanes what may wee be made of the matter of his flesh Chrysostome telleth you flesh and bones yea of his mysticall flesh What are we made mysticall flesh then verily wee must bee made mysticall bones also This is a mistie exposition of so cleare a matter Sander The reason why certeine places of Scripture are interpreted sometime of baptisme sometime of Christes supper is because in the olde time in manye countries the Sacrament of Christes bodie was giuen straight after baptisme Fulke A wise reason why they shoulde make that common to both the Sacraments which was proper to one They were not ministred so neete in time but they could discerne what was common what was peculiar to either of them Iewel Master Harding is not yet able to find that Christes bodie is either corporally receiued into our bodies or corporally present in the Sacrament Sander It is you that are not able to finde it for D. Harding hath founde it and I haue shewed it in Chrysostome S. Hilarie Gregorie Nyssen Fulke Let the readers iudge what you haue founde but vaine cauillations for neither the words nor the matters you haue shewed Sander So would I shewe it at large out of Cyrillus but that partely the booke is growne alreadie too great partly a marueilous number of places doe proue both Christes bodie to be corporally receiued into our bodies and to bee corporally present in the Sacrament Fulk So would I answere you sufficiently for any thing you can bring out of Cyrillus but that I haue answered alreadie in many places throughout this booke to all that euer you can gather and scrape to make a shewe of any such matter which were meere tediousnesse here to repeate Harding The Catholike fathers sithens Berengarius time haue vsed the termes really substantially c. to exclude metaphors and figures and to confesse a most supernaturall vnion with Christ by meane of his naturall flesh really though not locally present Iewell These doctors liued with in these 300. yeres and are such as Master Harding thought not worth the naming Sander Hee named none because your impudent proclamation bound him to the time Fulke He was not so bound to the time but he might haue named if any had beene of greater antiquitie then 300. yeares Sander Damascen saith the bread wine water is supernaturally changed into the body bloud of Christ. Theophilact saith the bread is with secret wordes changed into our Lordes flesh and these are aboue 700. yeres old speaking of transubstantiation Fulke Neither of both vseth the termes really substantially c. which is the matter in question And although they vse the termes of changing and transformation yet neither of both acknowledged transubstantiation nor the Church of the Grecians whereof they were members vnto this day doth acknowledge
it Sander Haymo Remigius Pascasius Lanfrancus Iuo Guimundus Anselmus Rupertus Algerus were all learned men and all aboue 300. yeres old Fulke Yet you shewe not where any of them although most of them were great enemies of Berengarius did vse the termes really substantially c. Sander Bernard whome you haue often alleaged writeth in ser. de sanct Martyr Euen to this day the same flesh is exhibited to vs which the Apostles had seene in his manhood but yet spiritually forsouth not carnally For there is no cause why we should say the apparition which was made to the fathers of the olde Testament either that presence of his flesh which was exhibited to the Apostles to bee denied in these our daies For to them who faithfully consider the matter it shal be clere that neither of both lacketh For the true substance of the fleshe it selfe is present nowe also to vs no doubt verily but that it is so in the Sacrament Fulke This testimony affirmeth the presence of Christs flesh spiritually which we grant and denieth the terme carnâ—lly which is one of the termes in question Iewel Their doctrine is without comfort They hold that the body of Christ remaineth no longer in our bodies but onely vntill the formes of bread and wine begin to alter Sander It is not without comfort seing a merueilous commoditie by this touching riseth to our spirite and soule as to those whom Christ healed by touching Fulke They were as well healed whome he touched not but onely cured by his word But what is become of that mingling of Christes flesh with ours and his inseparable dwelling corporally in vs out of Chrysostom Hilarius and Cyrillus Cap. 21. 22. and 23. of this booke if Christs body tary no longer with vs where is the hope of resurrection if the quickning flesh of Christ bee not still in vs Sander Moreouer I haue often said our coniunction with Christ in this Sacrament is like the carnall copulation betwene the wife and husband where twaine are in one flesh yet tary not alwaies corporally ioyned togither Fulke You haue often made a shamelesse beastly and filthy comparison betwene so high a mystery and so grosse and carnall copulation Iewell Some others saye that so soone as our teeth touch the bread streightwaies Christes body is taken vp into heauen The wordes be these Certum est quòd quà m citò species dentibus teruntur tam citò in coelum rapitur corpus Christi Sander The greatest flower of your garland lieth in glosses and phrases Fulke The best grace you haue is in railing and slâ—ndering Sander You haue falsely translated the glosse you haue englished teruntur touched and species bread In Berengarius confession you could terme it by the worde grinded Fulke So he could do nowe if he had purposed rather to translate then to shewe that writers opinioÌ„ which according to the custome of Papistes nowe which grind not but swallowe down there what yee call species for shapes I cannot name it because other things of greater moment then shapes are in it must be vnderstoode of touching with teeth and not of grinding where no grinding is and yet if it were grinded with teeth that grinding followeth so neere the touching that there is small difference of time betweene them Iewell Here a man may say vnto M. Harding as he did before to the Arrian heretike Sander He spake against the heretike by the authoritie of Cyrillus which taught vs to be corporally ioyned by naturall participasion to Christ as branches are ioyned to the vine and not by faith onely Fulke And euen so may he speake against Master Harding by the authoritie of Hilarius which saith against the Arrians that we are corporally inseparably vnited in Christ which is contrarie to this popish doctrine of Christes departing from vs. Sander Bring if you can M. Iewel a saying of aboue a thousand yeares olde by which D. Hardings doctrine may be accused of heresie Fulke He hath brought in his two bookes written against D. Harding more them fiue hundred such sayings Iewell Commeth Christ to vs from heauen by by forsaketh vs Sander His bodie commeth not downe from heauen but the bread is changed into his bodie as at his incarnation he came not from heauen by forsaking his glorie but by assumpting flesh of the virgin Fulke His godhead which filleth all places needed no locall ascending or descending Therefore it is ill compared with his body which is circumscriptible except you will become an Eutychian and vbiquist Sander As after his resurrection he ascended into heauen so after the communion the formes of bread wine being consumed Christ ceasseth to be corporally with vs. Fulke A wise similitude The consuming of the formes of bread and wine is compared to the resurrection the ceassing of his being corporally with vs to his ascension But how commeth this ceassing by a newe transubstantiation of the body and bloud of Christ into bread and wine or Christ forsaking the formes by a newe 〈◊〉 of substance vnto them or else are the formes left emptie both of their owne substance and of the substance of Christ Against this ceassing of Christ to be corporally with vs Hilarie saith in eo nobis corporaliâ—er inseparabiliter vnitis We are vnited to him not only corporally but also inseparably Iewel Or that wee eate Christ and yet receiue him not or haue him not or that he entreth not c. Sander Who teacheth the contrarie but that your owne shadowe troubleth you Fulk Those popish doctors that teach that the body of Christ is rauished into heauen as soone as the species are grinded with the teeth Iewel He saith this presence is knowen to God onely then it followeth Master Harding knoweth it not Sand. He saith not this presence but the manner of this pres 〈…〉 why doe you falsifie his words Fulke Woulde any man thinke the manner of the presence shoulde be vnknowne to him which affirmeth it is reallie substantially corporally carnally sensiblie c. Iewel So this article is concluded with an ignoramus Sand. Not so because the question is not of the maner of Christs presence but of his reall presence though the manner be vnknowen Fulke Nay the question is not of the reall presence which we alwayes confesse but of the maner of presence whether it be spiritually or corporally Sand. A non credimus is a worse fault then an ignoramus Fulke It is no fault not to beleeue that which scripture doth not teach Iewel The old fathers neuer left vs in such doubts Sand. S. Cyrillus willeth vs to giue strong faith to the mysteries but to leaue the way knowledge of his worke vnto God The first part ye haue broken Fulke The first part we haue not broken for we beleeue the mysteries to bee the same that Christ saieth they are but you haue broken the laste part because you adde really substaÌ„tially corporally c. which you haue not learned
of Christ. Iewel Emissenus saieth Christ is present by his grace Sand. You haue put a false nominatiue case it is victima the oblation which is present in grace Fulke And what is the substance of that eternall sacrifice but Christ for the action you confesse to be vtterly past Iewel Saint Augustine saith Christ is present in vs by his spirit Sand. That is true when he is in vs by his flesh Fulk It is his spirit that maketh his flesh present to vs after a wonderfull manner Iewel You shall not eate this bodie that you see it is a certaine sacrament that I deliuer you Sand. The wordes of S. Augustine are I haue commended or set forth Fulke To commend or set forth is to deliuer in doctrine Sand. That which was commended at Capernaum was onely the same flesh which dyed for vs therefore that flesh must be deliuered not in a visible manner but yet in truth of giuing by bodie taking by bodie Fulke That giuing and taking by bodie Saint Au gustine denieth in the person of Christ ye shall not eate this bodie that yee see nor drinke that bloude which shal be shedde It is a sacrament or mysterie which I haue commended vnto you which being sp 〈…〉 itually vnderstoode shall quicken you Sand. In deede M. Iewel Christ deliuered his fleshe as well at Capernaum as at his supper by your doctrine But not so by the doctrine of the Gospel Fulke The Gospel saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except ye doe eate the flesh of the sonne of man and doe drinke his bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you haue not nowe life in you Christ speaketh in the present temps But howe coulde they eate his flesh and drinke his bloud that they might haue life except he did then deliuer his flesh as well as at his supper For many of theÌ„ might die before the institution of his supper Againe he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he which doth eate my flesh which doth drinke my bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath nowe life euerlasting and I wil raise him vp in the last day For my fleshe is verily meate my bloude is verily drinke Howe was it verily meate and drinke when he spake if no man might eate and drinke it before his supper Againe He which doth eate my fleshe and which doth drinke my bloude doeth abide in mee and I in him How can this be verified in the present temps so ofteÌ„ repeted except Christ did at that present time deliuer his fleshe and bloude to bee eaten of all that beleeued and offered the same to all that heard him wherefore the doctrine of the Gospel is agreable to that which master Iewel teacheth and directlye contrarie to master Sanders doctrine that Christ deliuered not his flesh and blood to be eaten dronken before his supper but onely promised them at Capernaum Iew. Thus the holy fathers say Christ is present not corporally Sand. Both S. Cyrill and S. Hilarie haue the worde corporally concerning the sacrament Fulk But neither of both saith that Christ is present in the sacrament corporally I 〈…〉 Not carnally S 〈…〉 S. Hilarie hath the word carnally Fulk You play mockeholiday S. Hilarie saith not That Christ is present in the sacrament carnally Iew. No 〈…〉 rally Sand. S. â—â—larie hath the tearme naturally diuerse times and S. Cyrill calleth it natural partaking and naturall vnion Fulk Neither the one nor the other euer saide that Christ is in the sacrament naturally Touching the naturall participation and vnion it hath bene shewed how it may be without Christ being present naturally in the sacrament Iew. But as in a sacrament by his spirit by his grace Sand. Here appeareth what stuffe you haue fedde the reader withall in your whole booke For partly you denie a trueth which is that Christ is not corporally present against the expresse worde of God and the fathers as I haue shewed Fulk And yet neither the expresse word of God nor any of the fathers haue this sentence Christ is corporally present in the sacrament or any thing equiualent to it Sand. Partly you prooue that your heresie by an other trueth which rather establisheth then hindereth the reall presence For Christ cannot be better present in spirit and grace then if he be present in his flesh Fulk The presence of Christ by his spirit and grace excludeth your heresie of presence corporally and he is better present by spirit and grace whereby he tarieth in vs for euer then by your imagined presence of his body in which you confesse him to tarie but a short time no not in them that receiue the sacrament most worthilie Your conclusion being for the most part but a repetition of such cauils slanders and railings as you haue vsed throughout the booke deserueth no seuerall answere partly because the greatest part of them are answered alreadie and partly because both they and the rest conteine nothing but generall accusations without any speciall argument to proue them As for that you make bost that you haue pr 〈…〉 euerie one of your bookes whether I haue a 〈…〉 ough briefly yet sufficiently confuted or no I commit to the iudgement of indifferent readers GOD BE PRAISED Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fuke Bristowe â—Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe F 〈…〉 Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe â—ulkâ— Bristowe Fulkâ— Bristowe â—â—lke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fuâ—ke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristo Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowâ— Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowâ— Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulk 〈…〉 Ambros. de Sacralib 1. cap. 1. Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander â—ulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Ser. 6. de Ieiâ— 7. mens Sander Fulke Esay 9. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Ful 〈…〉 Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sand. Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Cont. duaâ— epist. Pel. lib. 2. Cap. 4. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander 〈◊〉 Sander Fâ—lke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sanden Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Sander Fulk Sande Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke 3. Reg. 17. 3. Reg. 19. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke 〈…〉 der Fulke Sander Fulke â—ander â—ulk Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke