Scripture vnto all which I briefly answer thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I looked that they should punctually conclude Ergo Reading is no kind of Preaching but they insteed hereof substitute another conclusion Reading is not all that Preaching that is required in a Minister which who denies For wee freely confesse more is required then ability to Read except only then when sufficient Ministers or there where sufficient maintenance cannot be had In such a case better a Reader then none to publish Gods word to baptize children to administer the Communion and to performe other necessary duties which but by a Minister may not be done As for the descant vpon this plainsong what did Christ command no more then to come with a book in ones pocket and to read fairely from what spirit it proceeds I will not say sure I am it is a stale popish iest Thinkest thou saith Stapleton vnto Whitaker when Paul preached vnto the Gentiles to convert them hee deliuered them the booke of the old Testament or recited and read the same vnto them But besides testimonie of Scripture they vouch the authority of the booke of Homilies and Canons whereof the one distinguisheth Readers from Preachers which were great wrong vnto them if they be Preachers The other forbiddeth Ministers to preach in private whereby I may not so much as read a chapter in my house if Reading be Preaching This argument I thinke themselues make as little reckoning of as they doe of the authority whereon it is grounded For it is a plaine fallacy of Equivocation and they must needs be very blinde if they discerne it not For when our Church putteth a distinction betwixt Readers and Preachers shee vnderstandeth Preaching in the strict and speciall signification for one kinde of Preaching namely interpreting or making of Sermons And in this sense it is most true Reading is not Preaching and very simple must he be that holdeth bare Reading to be the making of a Sermon But when we say Reading is Preaching we vnderstand Preaching in a more large and generall signification as by and by you shall heare wherevnto because they speake not they speake not to the purpose Furthermore this doctrine say they is a maintainer of Idlers and dumb dogs and soule murtherers what not Pax mifrater good words I pray you for these are but the evaporations of a hot braine Farre be it from vs by any meanes to maintaine any such kinde of Cattle Wee wish with all our hearts that not only all Ministers but all the people of God could prophecie Howbeit were there not an idler nor dumb dog nor soule-murtherer as these men are pleased to tearme them in our Church yet if publicke Reading continue and I hope it will continue so long as the Sunne and Moone endureth Reading will ever bee a kinde of Preaching In the meane season I could wish that they who are so eager against dumbe dogges would sometimes remember to turne the edge of their tongues against bawling curres also with whom the Church of God is as much pestered as the other those I meane who behaue themselues so audaciously confidently in the pulpit yet haue neither the learning nor the wisdome to speake humbly discreetly and to the purpose One argument yet remaines Preaching was before the word written but before writing Reading could not be Reading therefore cannot be Preaching Pardon me my brethren if I call a spade a spade and in plaine English say this is a meere Popish argument For in like manner reasoneth Charron a French Papist to proue that Faith is not taught by Writing or Reading The Scripture saith he came but late into the world and the world had beene without it for the space of two thousand fiue hundred yeares namely all the time from Adam to Moses If then in the meane while the Faith was published to the world and receaued by it it could not bee by the word written or read which then was not but onely by the word preached and heard But in the same sort as Francis Iunius confronteth Charron so will I answere these men First although before Moses no part of the Canon was written yet happily there might be other godly and holy bookes penned out of which the true faith might be learned Secondly grant that at that time nothing at all was written yet the argument followeth not The world was a long time without Scripture Ergo neither now is it the purpose of God to teach by Writing or Reading For contrarily seeing it hath pleased God of his goodnesse at length to commit his word vnto writing it is manifest that he now intends men should learne the knowledge thereof even by Reading also Wherefore I conclude that as before Writing there was happily but one kinde of preaching namely speaking to the eare so now since the time that Gods word hath beene written there are more kindes then one namely speaking to the eye too Thus hauing remoued these rubs as it were out of our way let vs proceed in Gods name to maintaine the truth propounded that Reading is a kind of Preaching wherein I must intreat you againe againe not to mistake me as if I held bare Reading to be all that Preaching which is required in a Minister or that it is the making of a Sermon that is the expounding of a Text deducing of doctrines and particular application of the same by way of exhortation Farre be such vanitie and folly from mee What then Surely by Preaching generally I vnderstand the publishing or notifying or making knowne of Gods word Which seeing it may be done by sundry waies meanes as inwardly outwardly publikely privately by word by writing by speaking by reading by Catechizing by conference and the like I boldly affirme that there are diverse kinds of Preaching and that Reading is one of them And least any man should thinke I stretch the word Preaching too farre bee it knowne vnto you that I doe no more then Martin Bucer sometime Divinity Reader in Cambridge as he is cited by D. Whitgift hath long since done before me for as he granteth that there are sundry sorts of Preaching so among them he reckons Reading for one And whatsoever some punies avouch to the contrary I dare engage all the poore skill I haue in languages vpon it that the originall words vsually translated Preaching as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the old Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the new are not in Scripture no nor in other writers restrained vnto the mouth or scholying vpon a Text but are of far larger extent and capacitie even such as wee haue aboue deliuered So that to come to an issue when we say reading is a kinde of preaching our plaine meaning is that it is a way or meanes by which the word of God is pubâ—lished and made knowne Which being so what is it my bretheren that so much offendeth and angreth you Is it the inconvenience of the
tearmes or the vntruth of the proposition For indeed I finde you so variable and vncertaine that I know not well where to finde you Is it the language that seemeth so harsh and jarring to your eares It seemed not so vnto the ancients who made no scruple to speake so Learned Hooker who carefully inquired into this businesse hath obserued to my hands divers passages The Councell of Vaux saith If a Presbyter or Minister cannot through infirmity preach by himselfe he may preach by his Deacon reading some Homily of the Fathers Where note by the way that if reading an Homily bee Preaching Reading of Gods word is much more The Councell of Toledo also calleth the Reading of the Gospell Preaching So doth Isidor and Rupertus likewise the reading of a Lesson in the Church And a right learned Lawyer of our own country hath obserued it also in the Law Quae Prophetae Vaticinati sunt populis praedicare id est legere to preach that is to read vnto the people what the Prophets haue foretold Thus they But if it be so inconvenient to say Reading is Preaching why doe you yourselues call Preaching Reading For doe you not in ordinary speech call your Preachers Lecturers And what is that but Readers And when you would knowe who preaches is it not your manner to aske who reades And the Sermons of a Preacher doe you not style them his Lectures or Readings But to leaue descanting besides that the Originall words as we haue said include both Reading and Sermoning let it in particular be observed that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in Scripture indifferently vsed for either As namely in one place of Esay it is said The book is deliuered to him that is not learned saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Read this I pray thee but in another place the Lord hath annointed me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach or proclaime the acceptable yeare Neither is it to bee neglected that from the selfe same root commeth also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scripture Thus the ancients sticke not to call Reading Preaching Neither sticke they to call Writing Preaching Iustin Martyr saith that the very writings of the Gentiles preach iudgement to come Clemens of Alexandria Ambo verbum praedicant c. Both preach the word one by writing the other by voice and the science of Preaching availeth both waies whether it worke by the hand or by the tongue S. Augustine also They who vnderstand these things produnt ea caeteris notific or preach the same vnto others either by speaking or writing Vnto these ancients our moderne writers agree Duplex est praedicandi modus Sermo Scriptio there is two sorts of Preaching Speech and Writing saith Iunius And againe who dare say S. Paul preached not when as he wrote vnto the Corinthians woe is me if I preach not the Gospell Dr Fulke S. Paule did preach the Gospell also by writing Dr Whitaker The Apostles were commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach or make Disciples tum voce tum scripto both by voice and writing Dr Iohn Reynolds I who now cannot with my voice as heretofore through the infirmitie of my body evangelizo manu ac scriptione preach yet with my hand and writing as well as I can Gomarus There are two kinds of Preaching Enuntiation and writing Zanchie not only approueth it but proueth it too Goe teach all nations saith Christ here is a dutie commanded Lo I am with you to the end of the world this is a promise annexed With whom is he with the Apostles How long vnto the end of the world Therefore must they preach to the end of the world They cannot by word of mouth for they must die By Writing therefore Finally the booke of Homilies and the learned Translators of our last Bible affirme the same The booke of Homilies in the Law written with his owne finger that in the first table in the beginning thereof is this doctrine against Images not briefly touched but at large set forth and preached The Translators The seaventie Interpreters prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written Preaching as S. Iohn Baptist did among the Iewes by vocal And thus if either ancient or later Divines knew how to speake fitly it cannot be inconvenient or scandalous to call Reading or Writing Preaching What then Is there vntruth in the proposition If so then haue all those worthies aboue cited spoken not only inconveniently but vntruly also But I beseech you my brethren doe you indeed thinke Reading is no way a publishing or making knowne of Gods will I can hardly beleeue it When God first commanded the law and afterward the Sermons of the Prophets and successiuely the whole Canon of Faith to be written the old Testament in the vulgar language of the Iewes the new in the tongue that then was most generally vnderstood what was his intent and purpose therein Was it not to endoctrinate his Church that we through patience comfort of the Scripture might haue hope When the Septuagint by the speciall providence of God translated the bookes of the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greek and the whole body of Scripture vnder Christianity was so carefully turned into all languages was not the one done for the information of those Iewes that were Hellenists and vnderstood not Hebrew and the other for the instruction of such Christians as knew no other but their mother tongue Doubtlesse it was For translation say our last learned translators is it that openeth the window to let in the light that breaketh the shell that wee may eat the kernell that putteth aside the curtaine that wee may looke into the most holy place that remoueth away the couer of the well that we may come by the water Furthermore what is the reason that so many graue and learned men haue in all ages published so many excellent bookes and that Preachers also not content to haue spoken by word of mouth vnto their auditory cause their Sermons to be set forth in print vnto the world Is it not that they who never knewe nor heard them may yet reape benefit by their writing True it is that neither Originall nor Translation nor any booke whatsoever can availe if it be locked vp in a chest or laid on a deske and never be opened or looked into God therefore commanded in the old Testament that the law should be read both publikely privately and Christ hath ordained the same in the new And S. Paul when he wrote his Epistles meant not that they should lie still vnder seale but saith he when this Epistle is read among you cause that it bee read also in the Church of the Laodiceans and that yee likewise read the Epistle from Laeodicea And againe I adiure you by the Lord that this Epistle be read vnto all the holy
meane season I answer by distinguishing of that tearme the Servants of God For by it you may vnderstand either all those holy men of God who haue beene since the creation downe vnto this present instant or onely those few Saints of God whom the Scripture maketh mention of If you take it in the former sense the Assumption is manifestly false that none of the Servants of God vsed lots in gaming at any time but only in weightie matters For I thinke there is no man so vncharitable as to say that all those who haue or doe sometime play at Cards Tables are vnregenerate and no seruants of God If you take it in the latter sense then is the Major false that what those few mentioned in scripture never did we may not doe For as their actions without a precept binde vs not to imitation so their omissions without a prohibition lay not vpon vs an obligation of forbearance If they did then might we not play at Chesse or the Philosophers game or bowles or the like because those Servants of God for ought we knowe neuer vsed any of them But let vs see how you proue that Gods Seruants neuer vsed lots but in serious matters Thus you proue it They vsed lots in serious matters Ergo they vsed them only in serious matters A sillie Consequence and neere a kin to that protrite Enthymeme The sunne shines in heauen Ergo the staffe stands in the bench corner But to satisfie the reader more fully I answere three things First where to proue your Antecedent you affirme among other things that Priests were chosen by lot you are fouly mistaken For Aaron and his posterity without intervention of a lot by the immediate voice of God were perpetually appointed to the Priesthood Secondly these lots here mentioned were all of them Extraordinary whence if your reason be good it would follow that none but Extraordinary lots may be vsed or rather that now adaies no lots at all may be vsed considering that God hauing not promised the like Extraordinary assistance it would be but tempting of God to expect an Extraordinary working from him in a lot Thirdly lastly it followeth not Wee read not in scripture that the Saints vsed lots in light matters Ergo they vsed them only in weightie For it is a meere Fallacie to dispute from authority negatiuely in a case of Fact In a question of Faith the sequele is good We read it not in scripture Ergo it is not a matter of Faith the reason because scripture containeth all matters of Faith But in questions of Fact it is not so because it was not the purpose of the holy Ghost to register downe in the Scripture all whatsoeuer his Servants had done much lesse their sports and recreations Had it beene his purpose so to doe hee would neuer haue said so often in the booke of Kings The rest of the acts of such or such a King are they not written in the booke of the Chronicles of the Kings of Iudah For to vnderstand these words of those two bookes of Chronicles written as it is thought so long time after by Ezra were in the iudgement of learned Iunius very ridiculous N. N. But it may be obiected some matters of small moment haue beene determined by Lots as for example who should be dore keepers of the Temple of Ierusalem I answere that was no light matter First it was Gods command expresly in his word which is neuer light or meane to Gods seruāts Secondly Dauid belike had a reverend respect of this office when he said that hee had rather bee a dore-keeper in the house of God then to dwell in the tents of wickednesse And is it nothing to be one of the King of Englands Porters Many a man if it should be tried had rather haue that office then twenty pounds by the yeare and that is a matter if it were of much lesse weight in which we may lawfully vse a Lot Now much more might the dore-keepers of Gods house be warranted from reason suppose they had no speciall command to cast Lots or to haue Lots cast vpon them to determine who should supply that worthy office DEFENCE As a pound compared to a scruple is weightie but light compared to a talent so the Porters office in regard of the Nethinims hewers of wood and drawers of water might be of some reckning but very meane in respect of the Priesthood So that a man may safely say the Porters office was but a low place and the lots were vsed in no very high matter But whether high or low it is not greatly materiall seeing the sinewes of your Argument are cut already Yet let vs heare what you say First it was Gods command and his command is neuer light True yet this letteth not but God may giue command touching light things as he did when he tooke order for every petty and small matter that the hearing and determining of them should bee referred vnto the inferiour officers And if his Providence reach euen to the smallest matters what impeachment can it be to his honour to giue commandment touching them also The Pins of the Tabernacle and the beesoms of the Temple were no great matters yet God disdained not to giue order for them And as in a building 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great stones can never bee well laid without the lesse so also in the gouernment of the world for the better ordering of the greatest things God takes care of the smallest also Secondly say you David so honoured the Office that he had rather be a dore-keeper in the house of God then to dwel in the tents of wickednesse But what if David in that place spake not of Dore-keepers What then is become of your argument The words in the Original are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I could wish rather to threshold it Iunius translates it limen frequent are often to passe ouer the threshold of Gods house and to be conversant in the Church which may belong vnto any other of the people of God aswell as the Porters But be it that he meane them inasmuch as the Psalme is inscribed to the Korhites who were Dore-keepers yet doth it not argue such dignitie in the office If a man should say I had rather be a Sexten or Dog-whipper in the poorest parish in England then the great Caliph of Egypt or Pope of Rome would any therevpon say hee spake reverendly of a Sextens or Dog-whippers place Nay verily but that he doth the more abase the Caliphat or Popedome Even so Dauid preferring a Porters place vnto the tents of wickednesse doth not so much intend to honour that as to avile these And hence is it that the Septuagint renders it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be laid as an abiect at the threshold and the vulgar translation Elegi abjectus esse in domo deimei I haue chosen to bee an abject in the house of my God and Calvin
these things hang together for my part I cannot see Would to God your selfe had taken the paines to shew it But this is your solemne fault you quote the sayings of the Fathers and leaue mee to gather your Conclusions I may well thinke because you saw no great force or strength in them And whether Gregory did favor Transubstantiation or no let it be tried by these words As the Divinity of the word of God is one which filleth all the world so although that body bee consecrated in many places at innumerable times yet are there not many bodies of Christ nor many cups but one body of Christ and one bloud with that which he tooke in the wombe of the Virgin and which he gaue to the Apostles For the Divinity of the word filleth that which is every where and conioyneth and maketh that as it is one so it bee ioyned to the body of Christ and his body be in truth one Here according to Gregory the body of Christ doth not succeed and fill vp the roome of bread after the substance thereof is abolished but the fulnesse and vertue of the Divinity which filleth the bread maketh it â—o passe into the body of Christ and so to be one body of Christ. Which how it can stand with your Transubstantiation iudge you N. N. These Hereticks admit not the Eucharists and oblations because they will not confesse that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Iesus Christ which hath suffered for our sins which the Father hath raised vp againe by his goodnesse These words alleaged by Theodoret are reported by him to be the words of St. Ignatius the Apostles scholler written in an Epistle ad Smyrnenses and therefore of greater antiquitie I. D. These words are not found in that Epistle ad Smyrnenses which is now extant Whereby you may perceaue it is true that I said the Epistles of Ignatius are not come perfect to our hands Of this Epistle saith Eusebius Ignatius when he wrote to them of Smyrna vsed words I knowe not whence taken And Hierome If you vse not his testimonies for authoritie at least vse them for antiquity And the Abbot of Spanheâ—m reckons it not among the rest of his Epistles as being doubtfull Yet for all this the credit of this Epistle shall not be questioned by mee I answere therefore the Heretikes which Ignatius meanes were Menander and the Disciples of Simon These denied that Christ was come in the Flesh and consequently that hee had Flesh. Wherevpon they reiected the Eucharist also least thereby they should be constrained to confesse that he had true Flesh. For granting the signe of a body you must also grant a true body Figure and Truth being Correlatiues whose Relation is to figure and to be figured And thus they added aloes vnto wormwood one error vnto another first denying the truth of Christs body and then that the Eucharist was the Sacrament of his body or that it was Sacramentally his body More then this cannot bee meant For I presume Theodoret would not alleage this to crosse himselfe who holdeth that Bread and Wine still remaine and argueth from them for the verity of Christs body because they are symbols of his body as is aboue declared N. N. Doth not the Evangelist Iohn say in the Apocalyps If any man shall adde vnto these things God shall adde vnto him the plagues that are written in this booke and if any man shall minish of these words of the booke of this Prophecie God shall take away his part out of the booke of life and out of the holy City and the things which are written in this booke Is this malediction or curse lesse to be feared here that we diminish not or put any thing to the words of him that said This is my body which shall be delivered for you this is my bloud of the New Testament which shall be shed for many in the remission of sinnes For when he saith This is my body wee shall put to an vnderstanding saying a Figuratiue Body or that it is spoken by a similitude when I say he saith this is my Body we shal say this signifieth my Body is it not much that we put to his words or by an evill change take from them and make a sense which so great an author God man in no place hath spoken nor at any time did ascend into his heart This man especially with many of the rest answereth M. Downe and all Protestants fully I. D. In this Authority I cannot but greatly pitty you to see how miserably you are gulled and beguiled by your Author For what was this Rupertus but a man of yesterday one that liued towards twelue hundred after Christ and a very Heretike in this point of the Sacrament For he maintained that the Eucharisticall Bread is hypostatically assumed by the Word iust after the same manner that the humane nature was assumed by the same Word This he expresseth in words as cleare as the noone day For expounding that of our Saviour The Bread which I will giue is my Flesh he saith That the eternall word by incarnation was made man not destroying or changing but personally assuming the humanitie and after the same manner by consecration of the Eucharist the same word is made Bread not destroying or changing but personally assuming Bread This he declareth elsewhere very largely shewing that Bread is made the Body of Christ not by turning it into his Flesh but because it is assumed by the Word Whence it followeth that Bread is the Body of Christ yet not his Humane or Carnall but Bready Body much differing from that which he tooke of the Virgin That yet these two bodies may be said to be One because the Person is but one or Christ is one who assumed them both so that the same Christ aboue that is in heauen is in the Flesh and beneath that is on the Altar is in Bread This grosse errour Algerus who liued in the same time with Rupertus confuâ—ed calling it as it iustly deserued a new and most absurd heresie What say you now to this good sir Is this the man who especially among the rest fully answereth Mrâ— Downe and all Protestants Doth he not as fully answere you Papists who cleane contrary to his Tenet destroy and change the bread to make it Christs body Yea but we adde vnto the Text vnderstanding it to be a Figuratiue body That is a shamelesse slander for wee place no Figure in the word bodie but litterally interpret it of Christs naturall body At least we say bread signifieth his body So wee say indeed and so say the Fathers also And to giue the true sense vnto a Text is not to adde vnto it Neither can I conceaue why it should be counted addition in vs to say This is my body Sacramentally or by way of signification more then in you to say it is so by way of Transubstantiation or
in such ascantling of time there could bee no expounding In the dayes of good King Iosiah the booke of the law which Hilkiah had found in the house of the Lord was read in the eares of all the people but of exposition not a word Ezra also the Priest read the law before the congregation from morning till midday but that his reading was interrupted by interpretation is not so cleare as you are borne in hand For first if any did interpret it was the Levites but that Ezra the Priest and a Scribe so learned should be put to the inferior and baser office of reading and the Levites but pettie ones in comparison advanced vnto the higher and worthier of interpreting seemes altogether improbable Secondly where it is said the Levites caused the people to vnderstand the law that it seemes was done not by way of expounding but by causing the people to stand still in their places and to giue due attention As for that which followes they gaue the sense and caused them to vnderstand the reading it is in the originall thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and may fitly be rendred they made attention and vnderstood the reading referring the distinct reading of the law vnto Ezra making of attention to the Levites vnderstanding to the people And thus doe sundry worthy Divines conceiue of this place All which not withstanding because diverse other great clarkes amongst the rest our late translators are of another mind I may not be too peremptorie herein Yet will I be bold to inferre that vnlesse they can proue that sermons were every Sabbath made in evey Synagogue which I thinke they will neuer proue Preaching in this place will be all one with Reading So will it be also vnlesse they can shew that whatsoever was read was expounded for it seemes by the text that whatsoever was read was preached But as with vs the Psalmes and Lessons and Epistles and Gospells with other parcells of Scripture read every Lords day in our Churches are not nor cannot all at once be expounded but only some small portion so the Petaroths or Sections of the law and the Prophets ordained by Ezra of old to be read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day are as they are set downe by the sonne of Maimonie so large that they could not possibly at leastwise conveniently bee interpreted at one time I presume therefore all was not interpreted which was read yet all was preached which was read wherefore Preaching cannot in this place bee interpreted but only Reading Besides these reasons least any should thinke I stand single and by my selfe alone it may please you to know that I am backed with the authority of sundry graue Divines of whom I will name two onlie with either of whom that one to whom we are referred is no way to be compared The one is reverend Whitgift late Archbishop of the See of Canterbury in his defence against Cartwright the other is learned and profound Hooker the hammer of our Schismatickes whose bookes they are afraid to looke vpon least they be confounded in his Ecclesiasticall Politie These both affirme Preaching in this place to be no other then Reading Whitgift addes that all expositors he could meet withall were of the same mind so that in effect I am warranted with a cloud of witnesses Against all which besides confident asseveration I find nothing opposed saue one only passage out of the second tome of Homilies wherein say they our church doth principallie fasten on this text to proue a distinction betweene Preaching and Reading Wherevnto I answere that the intent of the Homilie is to shew the right vse of Churches and that in them the word of God should be both read and interpreted and to this end are alledged sundry passages out of the Acts together with this text all which ioyntly but not severally conclude what was intended For Act. 13.5 speaketh only of Preaching this text only of Reading and Act. 13.14 of both But how soever the Homilie vnderstand this place sure I am both this booke and the Church of England account of Reading as an effectuall Preaching as shall anon in the due place be demonstrated In the meane season I hope I may be bold out of all these premises to inferre this conclusion that if any haue publikely said that whosoever collecteth out of this text Reading to be Preaching is no better then a seducing spirit giues the lye to his mother the Church of England yea to God himselfe and is mad with reason Hee himselfe at that time spake more out of Passion then reason For a seducing Spirit is not every one that erreth and delivereth what he conceiueth to be true but hee who out of the loue of errour endeavoureth to lead others astray from the truth And ô thou glorious Archangell of the Church of England Whitgift wert thou also a seducing Spirit Or was it true of our Church in thy time which the Prophet spake of his Doctores tui Seductores tui thy teachers are thy seducers And thou profound Hooker then whom never any man spake with more reason werst thou also mad with reason And yee both when yee vndertooke the defence of the Politie and government of your Mother did you vnder pretence thereof giue the lye vnto your Mother yea even to God your Father also What shall I say The Lord forgiue these intemperate speeches The best buckler to defend off such venimous arrowes is a good conscience and Christian patience And thus armed I passe to the second part The second Quere is whether Reading be a kinde of Preaching That Reading should be called or counted a kinde of Preaching there is a generation that at no hand can endure Such language they hold to be a foule Solecisme in divinity but the doctrine it selfe a great impeachment vnto Preaching What say they when our Saviour commanded his Apostles to goe into the World and to preach the Gospell vnto all creatures is it not a sottish thing to thinke hee meanes no more then this goe learne to read well then call the people together and read the word vnto them When St Paul saith to the Romans How can they preach except they bee sent doth not this imply that Preaching is more then bare Reading When the Prophet Esay said How beautifull vpon the mountaines are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings that publisheth peace c. Doe you thinke hee spake this of one that should come with a booke in his pocket and read vnto Sion Who saith S. Paul is sufficient for these things Now if Reading be Preaching who is not sufficient for these things Finally When S. Paul chargeth Timothy to preach the word to be instant in season out of season to reproue rebuke exhort withall long suffering and doctrine What meanes he no more then this goe take a care to read well These are their choicest objections out of
taught in all schooles By what way or meanes is the knowledge of Gods will declared in his word to bee attained By diligent reading and meditating of Gods word or by attentiue hearing the same read and purely expounded by others The booke of Homilies affirmeth that the reading of Scripture breedeth knowledge turneth illuminateth comforteth incourageth and againe expressely The ordinary way to attaine the knowledge of God and our selues is with diligence to heare and read the holy Scripture Finally if the iudgement of the chiefe governours of our Church and the publike authorizing of bookes for the maintenance hereof be a sufficient argument I dare bee bold to say that this is the very doctrine of the Church of England Sure I am that the reverend father of this Diocesse who best should know it gaue expresse commandement that it should publikely in this pulpit bee acknowledged that reading is an ordinary meanes to beget Faith and not Preaching only as they tearme it Thus our latter Divines I haue but one thing more to say in this point and it is this that howsoever these men may differ from Papists in other opinions yet I see not how they can cleare themselues from Popery in this For to omit all consequences which necessarily follow vpon it thus in plaine termes say the Iesuits of Rhemes Faith cometh ordinarily of preaching and hearing and not of reading and writing And Bellarmine Scripture was not given to this end to be a rule of Faith but to be a certaine profitable commonitory to preserue and nourish that doctrine which is receaued by preaching And Stapleton Reading is not via ordinaria the ordinary way to Faith and againe Scripture binds not a man to beleeue neither is Faith to be had by it but only as it is preached by the Church Lastly Charron Faith is by the word Preached and pronounced by voice not written or read Againe Thou beleeuest because thou readest thou art no Christian for the Christian beleeueth afore reading and without And againe Faith got by Reading is acquisite humane studied not Christian and he that hath it is no Christian his Faith must haue another name Iump almost with that ere while quoted out of Hieron ordinarily knowledge so gotten is but vaine iangling and swimmeth in the braine but renewes not the heart Thus Papists against whom our men mainely oppose themselues herein And thus haue I at length resolued the three Questions in the beginning propounded and as I trust maintained the truth of God and that as becommeth the truth with the spirit of meeknesse and sobriety Withall as I suppose I haue made a sufficient Apologie both for my selfe and other my reverend brethren who in the general vnderstanding of the ordinary auditory of this place haue beene publikely censured as Seducing Spirits for holding that which I haue now maintained Reason would that he who seemed to lay this scandall vpon vs should haue made publike amends and either haue interpreted himselfe if he were mis-vnderstood or acknowledged his rashnesse if he did so censure But seeing it will not be and so much charity cannot be found in the heart yea over and aboue seeing I haue since that time beene braued to my face and as I am credibly informed often insulted vpon behinde my back as if I durst not publikely shew my face in these points though otherwise I could haue beene content to hold my peace for the peace of the Church yet now I could doe no other then I haue done and pardon me I beseech you for herevnto haue I beene forced and constrained Sooner perhaps would I haue discharged my selfe of this burthen if sooner I could haue met with so fit an auditory For who can better testifie of what I say or are fitter to be iudges and vmpires in such a businesse then you my reverend and beloved bretheren of the Cleargie To you therefore and to your graue censure doe I referre both my selfe whatsoever I haue said duly remembring that of the Apostle Paul the spirit of the Prophets is subiect to the Prophets And now giue mee leaue to addresse my speech vnto you my beloued bretheren of the Laitie specially you that are the ordinarie auditory of this place Let mee intreat you all not again to mistake me as if by what I haue said I went about any way to derogate from Sermons I say mistake me not againe for once already haue I beene either ignorantly or wilfully misconstrued Preaching some while since in this place on Luc. 20.34.35 and enquiring as my Text occasioned me who they were that should be accounted worthy to obtaine the next world and the resurrection from the dead I affirmed first in generall that it was not semblance only or shew of religion that could make a man worthie and then in particular that a man might be a frequent auditor of Sermons might goe two three foure more miles to heare them all the while might looke the Preacher starke in the face afterward returne with ioy call to minde talke conferre and repeat the same and yet for all this still be counted vnworthy And fearing least I should bee mis-vnderstood I then intreated you not to mistake me as if I misliked Sermons or the going to them Nay I exhorted you to goe provided you went not with contempt of Divine Service at home nor departing from your owne Minister how meane a Preacher soever none I thinke being so meane but is able to teach you more then you knowe provided also that you passe not through the Church-yards of as reverend and learned men as these parts afford any to go a mile further to heare a novice and when you are returned that your repetitions bee not vaineglorious with such a rumble and after the manner of a riot but modest and severally in your owne houses and lastly that the fruit of your often hearing be not a demure looke onely and a prating tongue but true humility charity which best conformeth vs vnto IESVS CHRIST These things I then said and for ought I yet see said not amisse yet am I censured as an enimie to Sermons as one that greeues the hearts of Gods Saints and lash the faults of Hypocrites on the backes of Gods children Wherefore you see I haue reason now to be warie of my selfe and to prevent the like danger that I bee not the second time mistaken as if I spake in derogation of Sermons Sermons I acknowledge to be the blessed ordinance of God as learned Hooker saith they are the keyes to the kingdome of heauen wings to the soule spurres to our good affections food to them that are sound and healthy and vnto diseased mindes physicke Whatsoever any can truely say in honour of them withall our hearts we subscribe vnto it If comparison be made betweene Reading and Sermons wee readily yeeld the precedencie to Sermons For although it be the same word which is read
Reading gathered by the Author since the Preaching of this Sermon Babington on the second petition TWo extremities there are which of all Gods chosen are to be eschewed the one is an estimation of Reading so great as that being had wee feele no want neither thinke it a want never or seldome to haue any Preaching The other is so farre to extoll Preaching as that wee vtterly contemne Reading yea exclude it from all power in the blessing of God to worke faith in vs or any The meane betwixt both which is a right and true conceit both of Reading and Preaching Know we therefore that in the word they are both commended yea commanded and ordained of the Lord as meanes to erect this kingdome of his in our hearts for which wee pray and of which we now speake And first for reading to name but a few places of a number marke what the Lord saith in his law laid downe for all his people Deut. 31.9 Act. 13.15 Luc. 4.16 Ier. 36.6 See and marke both the warrant of Reading and a profit hoped for by it of the godly So farre were they ever from either contemning this meanes or from denying it power in Gods blessing to worke Faith and repentance in the hearers Also a little after Let no Harding therefore in the name of all blasphemous Papists call reading of the Scripture to the people in the Church a spirituall dumbenesse and a thing vnprofitable but let vs euer with the chosen of the Lord receiue the good of it and blesse God for our liberty Dr Davenant B. of Sarum vpon the Epist. to the Collâ—ssians pag. 522. They erre who deny that the reading of the Scriptures doth not availe to the edifying of Christian people in Faith and Charity vnlesse at the same time there bee ioyned therewith an enarration or explication of them by a Preacher God forbid that we should extenuate the vtility or necessity of preaching yet wee affirme with the Psalmist touching the word of God studiously and devoutly read that the law of God is immaculate converting soules the testimony of the Lord is faithfull giuing wisdome to the simple Psal. 19.7 Dr Fulke against Heskins Pag. 6. The force of Christs word is as great by his spirit in the Scriptures which this dogge calleth the dead letters as it was in the voice when it was vttered Pag. 25. This to wit that the people must be taught and learne hard cases of the Priests shall be granted to the vttermost so that you will allow the people to Learne such things as are easie not only of the Priests but also of their owne reading studie and conference with them that are no Priests Dr Googe in his whole armour of God Pag. 217. Quest. Whether is the word preached only or the word read also a meanes of working Faith Ans. It may not be denyed but the holy Scriptures themselues and good commentaries on them and printed Sermons or other bookes laying forth the true doctrine of the Scripture being read and vnderstood may by the blessing of God worke faith But the speciall ordinary meanes and most powerfull vsuall meanes is the word Preached This is it which the Scripture layeth downe Rom. 10.14 1. Cor. 1.21 Mayer on Iames cap. 1. v. 18. Pag. 183. Quest. But is it necessarie that the word should bee Preached to the engendring of faith in vs or will it not suffice to read it Ans. It is not to be doubted but a man may be converted by the word read For Luther by reading was turned from Popery and Iohn Huske by reading of Wickliffes bookes And in the margent he noteth that Saint Augustine saith he was converted by reading Confes. lib. 8. cap. 12. whatsoeuer is set forth in Preaching the same is read also and the reading of the word in a large sence as Preaching is put for publishing Gods will to the hearer is said to be Preaching Act. 15.21 and such as read are pronounced blessed Rev. 1.3 yet notwithstanding when the word is preached as preaching in a more strict sence signifieth expounding teaching and exhorting out of the word of God it is more effectuall Wheatly in his new birth Pag. 17. There may be a question made whether the word of God read only may become effectuall to regenerate or whether it must want this efficacy vnlesse it be Preached as well as Read To which question mee thinkes that this should be a true answer that the instrumentall power of regenerating cannot bee denied to the Scriptures barely read though Preaching be not ioyned withall For why seeing the doctrine of the Gospell is called the ministration of the spirit and it is the doctrine of the Gospell when it is offered to the vnderstanding by bare reading therefore it must follow that in such case also it may become the power of God vnto salvation and the instrument of the spirit vnto regeneration The same precepts promises and threats are by reading delivered to the mind of the man that readeth or heareth the word read And why then should wee thinke that the Holy Ghost either cannot or will not worke together with them Yea doubtlesse hee can doe it when he will and will doe it then whensoeuer he doth not as oftentimes he doth not afford to men a possibility of enioying any other helpe then reading Vnlesse the not being preached could make the word not to be the law of God I see no reason that it should be thought vnable to convert soules without being preached And a little after It will not at all follow that because the word read is able to beget Faith either the Ministers may content themselues vsually to read it without preaching or the people vsually content themselues to heare it so and not be carefull to seeke for the preaching of it Amies in his Medulla Theologiae lib. 2. cap. 8. Numb 5. Hearing therefore in this place is any Perception whatsoeuer or comprehension of the words of God whether they be communicated by Preaching or reading or by any other meanes Numb 6. This word therefore of Hearing is not so narrowly and strictly to be vnderstood that either principally or necessarily it should alwaies include the outward sence of hearing but that it should denote any perception of the will of God Tilenus in his defence of the Perfection of Scripture Pag. 5. Let vs see this enthymeme or imperfect argument of Pyrrhonian Logicke The Apostles first taught by liuely voice Ergo they pretended not to teach by their writings which succeeded their preaching The consequence is as good as who should say one eateth first for to nourish himselfe therefore drinke serueth nothing to nourishmeÌ„t A non distributo ad distributum c. And a little after Wee know that to preach and to write are things very accordant and which are comprehended in one and the same commandement giuen to the Apostles teach all nations which yet to this day they teach by their writings He which commanded them the
the preaching of the Church as touching the Proposition of things to be beleeued but not as the reason of beleeuing For they who propound the doctrine of Faith withall admonish that that doctrine is revealed from God and that God not themselues is to be beleeved And what Is not the holy Catholike Church it selfe an Article of the Creed If it bee why should the rest of the Articles need to be sustained by an higher Principle more then it For if you may be bold to question any of them vntill it be resolued by the Churches authoritie I hope I may be as bold to question the Churches authoritie vntill it be warranted by some farther Principle I demand therefore why you beleeue the Church Because forsooth her authority is infallible And how know you that it is infallible Here of necessity you must either vouch her owne testimonie or betake you to some other thing To stick vpon her testimonie without farther enquirie is absurd For seeing her voice is not the first veritie that being the Prerogatiue of him only who is from all eternity her veracity must needs bee as doubtfull as her infallible authority And indeed this as a very learned Divine exemplifieth it were as if one whose authority is questioned taking vpon him to bee a law-giuer should first make a law and thereby giue himselfe power and afterward by vertue of that power exercise authority over others But if to establish the Churches authority you seek out of her to some other thing as suppose the Scriptures for so I remember you answered me being demanded the same Question then haue I obtained what I would namely that the Church is not the first ground of Faith because by your owne confession there is a former to wit the Scripture Neither is it true that Catholike men hold the Churches authority to be the first Ground For although some pretended Catholikes those I meane who call themselues Roman catholikes may so conceaue of their Church vnderstanding by the Church the Roman church yet neither are they true Catholikes neither is the Roman church the Catholike church neither doe any true Catholikes ground their Faith so True catholikes they are not because they hold a new Faith not that which Catholikely hath beene held in all ages as appeareth by those twelue new Articles lately added to the Creed vnknown vnto the purer times of the Primitiue church Neither is the Roman church the Catholike Church Not in regard of time for Christ had his Church when Rome was not yet Christian. Nor in respect of place for Catholike is Universall Roman Particular that the Church of the whole world this of one Citie or Diocese only Nor lastly in regard of her authority ouer al other Churches for that which she challengeth is but vsurped the Church of Africk in a Councell of two hundred and seuenteene Bishops of whom S. Augustine was a principall with much indignation reiected it and the Greeke church hitherto could never be drawne to acknowledge it And as for those that are true Catholikes they build not their Faith vpon so weake a Ground but rest both it and the Church her selfe vpon the Scriptures The Apostle S. Paul buildeth the whole Houshold of God vpon no other foundation then that of the Prophets and Apostles Knowe thou saith Origen that Christ alwaies appeareth on the mountaines and hills to teach thee that thou seeke him no where but in the mountaines of the Law and Prophets And the Auhor of the imperfect worke on Mathew The Lord knowing the confusion of things that would happen in the latter daies commandeth that such Christians as will receaue assurance of faith fâ—ie to no other thing but the Scripture And Tertullian Take from Hereticks that which they haue common with the heathen that they be content to stint all questions by the scriptures only and they cannot stand And S. Hierom The church of Christ hath for her cities the Law the Prophets the Gospell Apostles she passeth not beyond her limits that is the holy scriptures S. Augustine in the scriptures we learne Christ in the scriptures we learn the Church And againe I say not if we but if an Angell froÌ„ heauen shall deliuer any thing of Christ or his Church or of faith manners besides that which ye haue receiued in the Scriptures of the Law and Gospell let him be accursed And againe he affirmeth that the Church is to be proued by the Canonical bookes of Scripure and nothing else and that they only are the Demonstration of our cause the very foundation and ground plot whereon we are to build N. N. For proofe of this ground Saint Augustine handleth this matter in a speciall booke to his friend Honoratus deceiued by the Manichees as himselfe also sometimes had bin and he entituleth his booke De vtilitate credendi His discourse is this Suppose that wee now first of all did seeke vnto what Religion we should commit our soules to bee purged and rectified Without all doubt wee must begin with the Catholike Church for that shee is the most eminent now in the world there being more Christians in her this day then in any other Church of Iewes Gentiles put together And albeit among these Christians there be Sects and Heresies and all of them would seeme to be Catholikes and doe call others besides themselues Hereticks yet all grant that if wee consider the whole Body of the World there is one Church among them more eminent then all other and more plentifull in number and as they which know her doe affirme more sincere also in the truth But as concerning truth wee shall dispute more afterward now it is sufficient for them that desire to learne that there is a Catholike Church which is one in it selfe wherevnto diverse Heretickes doe faine and devise divers names whereas they and their Sects are called by peculiar names which themselues cannot deny Whereby all men that are indifferent and not letted by passion may vnderstand vnto what Church the name Catholike which all parts desire and pretend is to bee given Thus St Augustine c. I. D. So maine a point as is the last resolution of faith ought to haue beene better warranted then by the single authority of one Father who how eminent soever hee was in his time yet is not his sole word of strength enough to beare vp such a weight Why did you not vouch the testimony of Saint Paul or Saint Peter or some other of the holy penmen of Gods booke which cannot deceiue you then Saint Augustine or any other of the antient Fathers who both haue erred themselues and may mislead you But thus it is with Papists the more the shame the bare name of a Father swayes them more then the clearest passage of holy writ Howbeit this I say not as if we feared the triall of the Fathers for be it known vnto you wee haue more
they were only manuscript and knowne but to a few learned men Since which time they haue beene published in print and perhaps to winne more authority vnto them mis-fathered vpon Cyril of Hierusalem For if wee may beleeue Gesner or Simler or your owne Gretzer a Iesuit sundry written copies entitle them to Iohn Bishop of Hierusalem one who liued well neere eight hundred yeares after Christ even then when the quarrell about Images and relicks was on foot Whence happily proceeded that overlashing speech that the wood of the Crosse was so multiplied as the whole world was now full of it Howsoever seeing they are come to our hands from no better places then Trent the Popes Vatican and Cardinal Perrons Library you cannot blame vs if we vehemently suspect that they haue passed through Purgatory and suffered much addition and substraction For wee are not ignorant of your Pious fraudes and holy couznages in purging of bookes not permitting them to speake what their Authors wrote but what maketh most for your owne advantage But let it be supposed for the present that your author is the right Cyril of Hierusalem and free from all corruption and if you will also that he wrote his Catechismes in his elder yeares what then is the testimonie that begiueth for Transubstantiation Forsooth that which seemeth to be Bread is not Bread but Christs body though the tast iudge it Bread And againe Vnder the shew of bread and Wine the Body and Bloud of Christ is giuen Wherevnto I answer and first to the former that the common Latine Translation reads it otherwise thus This bread which wee see is not bread so denying it to be Bread that yet hee affirmeth we see Bread Which seeming contradiction is easily accorded by Cyril himselfe where hee saith it is not simple or naked or common bread as if hee should say Bread it is yet not only bread but something else besides Even as when we deny Christ to be meere man we meane not that he is no man but that he is Man and besides that God also It is not then bread that is Prophane or Vnsanctified bread but the Body of Christ that is bread sanctified to bee a Type or Sacrament of Christs Body And although our tast iudge it to bee no more then bread yet Faith teacheth vs not to stay on bread but to mount higher even vnto the Body of Christ. I beseech you when Pachymeres saith The holy oyle is no longer called oyle for the oyle is Christ doth he meane it hath lost its nature and is transubstantiated into Christ I trow no. In like manner might Cyril say The bread we see is not bread but Christs body and yet neuer dreame of your Real Presence For in his opinion there is the like reason of both Even as saith he the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the holy Ghost is no more common bread but the body of Christ so also this holy ointment is no more bare or common ointment after it is now consecrated but a grace which worketh the Presence of Christ and the holy Ghost To the second passage I answere that your Author whosoeuer hee bee hath rendred it captiously vnder the forme or shew or shape of Bread and Wine as if hee had meant your Accidents without substance whereas indeed Cyrils owne words are in the Type or Figure of Bread and Wine And this wee acknowledge to bee most true For in the receauing of the Bread and Wine which typically are the body and bloud of Christ wee truly and really after a spirituall manner receaue his very body and bloud also In regard whereof as he calleth bread winetypes so he maketh the body bloud of Christ their Anti-types They are commanded saith he to tast not of bread and wine but of the Anti-type the body and bloud of Christ. The body therefore and the bloud is in the bread and in the wine as the Anti-type is the type or the thing figured in the figure which I hope may be done without any Transubstantiation Certainely if wheresoeuer you read of Formes shewes or shapes you by and by conceaue of nothing but Accidents without substance it cannot be avoided but you must needs fall into dangerous errours When Saint Paul saith that Christ being in the forme of God counted it no rapine to be equall with God Neverthelesse emptied himselfe taking the forme of a servant made after the similitude of men and being found in figure as a man humbled himselfe c. What will you conclude hence that Christ is onely shew without substance and neither true God nor true Man I knowe you will not And seeing you dare not doe it in this I would advise you to beware how you coÌ„clude so in the like As for the testimonie of S. Chrysostome I answere vnto it breefly We must not beleeue our senses saith he True for they discerne nothing else but bare bread and Wine and are not capable of the mystery signified and exhibited by them To apprehend that belongeth vnto Faith and not sense Yet is not sense every way to bee discredited for we beleeue it is Whitenesse which we see and sauour which we tast yea we may safely beleeue it is bread which we take and eat Wherein then may we not beleeue sense That it is meere bread For it perceaueth not that it is sanctified and sacramentall bread But of this more hereafter Againe We must saith he simply and without all ambiguity beleeue the words of Christ saying This is my body Questionlesse we must and hee that beleeueth them not is an infidell But seeing as your selues confesse bread in proper signification is not the body of Christ neither was it Christs meaning we should beleeue it to be so To beleeue Christs words then is to beleeue them in Christs meaning which because it is not literall as we haue said it must needs be Figuratiue thus This bread sacramentally is my body But of this also more hereafter Lastly saith he He giueth himselfe not only to bee seene but also to bee touched handled and eaten This is sufficiently answered already whether to avoid tautologie I referre my selfe Only I adde that if properly we see touch tast Christ theÌ„ may we beleeue our senses contrary to that which Chrysostome saith But if we may not beleeue them then neither doe we see nor touch nor tast him properly but as himselfe interpreteth himselfe after a manner that is in a sacrament spiritually and by Faith which importeth not your Real Presence N. N. Nor only doe the Fathers affirme so asseverantly that it is the true naturall Body of Christ though it appeare to bee Bread in forme and shape and that we must not beleeue our Senâ—es herein but doe deny expresly that it is Bread after the words of Consecration as appeareth out of S. Ambrose in his booke de Sacramentis Imetandis Before the words of consecration
it is bread saith he but after consecration of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. And againe before the words of Christ be vttered in the consecration the Chalice is full of Wine and Water but when the words of Christ haue wrought their effect there is made the bloud that redeemed the People I. D. Whether those bookes of the Sacraments here cited by you vnder the name of Ambrose be his or no is not agreed vpon by all Possevine the Iesuite affirming that all almost together with Cardinal Bellarmine hold them to be legitimate plainely insinuates by the word almost that some are of another minde Their reasons are first because the stile much differeth from that of Ambrose his being cleare perspicuous florid and elaborate this oftentimes negligent harsh rude savouring of Monkish barbarisme Secondly because no writer before Lanfrank Guitmund who liued six hundred yeares after Ambrose quote them which were strange if they be his especially considering the matter of these bookes and how commonly the rest of his writings were alleaged Lastly because repeating the Lords Prayer hee deliuereth the sixt Petition in these words And suffer vs not to bee led into temptation whereas the words of Christ are And lead vs not into temptation which it is not to bee thought that S. Ambrose either was ignorant of or meant to amend As touching the other booke de Imitandis you should say de mysterijs initiandis the same iudgement haue they as of the former But if you will let them bee Saint Ambroses For I meane not to be peremptory herein What would you conclude out of him That hee denies it expresly to bee bread after consecration Certainely in expresse tearmes he doth not All he saith is that after consecration bread is made flesh and wine bloud out of which it followeth not that it ceaseth to be bread and wine for S. Ambrose himselfe affirmeth that this notwithstāding they still remaine what they were If saith he there bee so great power in the word of the Lord Iesus that they should beginne to bee that which they were not how much more effectuall is it that they be what they were yet be changed into another thing But how may this be will you say that it should remaine bread and yet be made flesh Let S. Chrysostome resolue you The grace of God saith he sanctifying the bread it is freed from the name of bread and counted worthy of the name of the Lords body Yea and S. Ambrose himselfe also The Lord Iesus himselfe saith he cryeth this is my body Before the blessing of the heauenly words it is named another kinde after consecration the body of Christ is signified He saith his Bloud Before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud Where by the way I cannot but marvel at the fore-head of your Cardinall Bellarmine who vouching this place changeth that clause the body of Christ is signified into this it is the body of Christ. Happily he did not brooke the word signifie because it cleareth this point of the Real Presence more then willingly he would But hereby it is evident how bread may be made flesh and yet still remaine bread namely because it is made so only typically and in a signifying mystery N. N. Whereas Christ hath said of the Bread This is my Body who will dare to doubt thereof And whereas hee hath said of the Wine This is my Bloud who will doubt or say it is not his Bloud He once turned Water into Wine in Cana of Galilee by his owne will which Wine is like vnto Bloud And shall we not thinke him worthy to bee beleeued when he saith he hath changed Wine into his Blood Our Lord Iesus Christ doth testifie vnto vs that we receiued his Body and Bloud and may we doubt of his credit or testimonie Those things that are written let vs read and what we read let vs vnderstand so shall we perfectly performe the duty of Faith for that these points which wee affirme of the naturall verity of Christs being in vs except we learne thē of Christ himselfe we affirme them wickedly and foolishly c. Wherefore whereas he saith My Flesh is truly Meat and my blood truly drinke there is no place left to vs of doubting concerning the truth of Christs body and blood for that both by the affirmation of Christ himselfe and our owne beleefe there is in the Sacrament the flesh truly and the blood truly of our Saviour Eusebius bringeth in Christ our Saviour speaking in these words For so much as my flesh is truly meat and my Blood truly drinke let all doubtfulnesse of infidelity depart for so much as he who is the author of the gift is witnesse also of the truth thereof And Saint Leo to the same effect Nothing at all is to be doubted of the truth of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and those doe in vaine answere Amen when they receaue it if they dispute against that which is affirmed And finally St Epiphanius concludeth thus Hee that beleeueth it not to bee the very Body of Christ in the Sacrament is fallen from grace and Salvation I. D. Your Argument Christ saith This is my Body This is my Blood True no man denieth it The Fathers say He is worthy to be beleeued and wee may not doubt of his testimonie True also and he is an infidel whosoever questioneth any thing he saith What then Ergo by the judgement of the Fathers the flesh of Christ is Really and by way of Transubstantiation present in the Sacrament It followeth not For Christ saith not so and his Flesh without Transubstantiation may be present Sacramentally and Spiritually Saint Paul expresly saith The rocke was Christ and he is worthy to be beleeued neither may wee doubt of his credit Yet I hope you will not inferre thereupon Ergo in S. Pauls iudgement the Rocke was transubstantiated into Christ. No more can you conclude the like Change out of Christs words for the case is exactly the same In a word to argue from the Thing to the Manner It is Ergo it is so or so is meerely ridiculous With this generall answere might I at once quit all your authorities but to three of them I haue somewhat more to say in particular Christ saith Cyril hath said of the bread This is my Body and who will dare to doubt thereof Verily no true beleever Yet Papists dare For that Bread should bee Christs Body tropically figuratiuely they iest flout at and that it should be so literally and properly they flatly deny It is impossible saith your law that Bread should be the Body of Christ. And Bellarmine which sentence this is my body either must be vnderstood tropically that bread is the body of Christ significatiuely or it is altogether absurd and impossible for it cannot be that bread should
for the Transformation of Bread into Flesh which he speakes of though still it seeme Bread it is plaine hee meanes not that of Transubstantiation for in this Bread ceaseth to be but in that he confesseth it still to remaine and that it is Bread which is eaten by vs in the Mysteries Which yet he more plainly expresseth where hee saith God in mercy condescending to our infirmity preserueth the Species or Nature of Bread and wine but trans-elementeth or changeth it into the vertue of his flesh blood where it is farther to be obserued that hee saith not into flesh and blood but into the vertue thereof intimating a Change not of Substance but of Operation and Efficacy Your next witnesse is Magnetes an author to me vtterly vnknowne saue that Gesner in his Bibliotheca reporteth that he was very ancient and that about thirteene hundred yeares since hee wrote in the Greeke tongue certaine bookes in defence of the Gospell vnto Theosthenes against the Gentiles that flandered it and that he is quoted by Fr. Turrian By which words it seemes that hee never yet saw the Presse and what is alledged out of him is warranted only by Turrians testimony But Turrian is one that deserues no credit at our hands as being a Iesuite and knowne to haue plaid many foule tricks this way Yet if to make your author agree with the rest of the Fathers you will giue the same construction to his words that aboue is giuen vnto Theophilact you may Otherwise his authority is as easily reiected as alledged N. N. St Hilary vseth this kind of argument If the word of God were truly made flesh then doe wee truly receiue his flesh in the Lords supper and thereby he is to bee esteemed to dwell in vs naturally St Cyril proueth not only a Spirituall but also a Naturall and Bodily vnion to be betweene vs and Christ by eating his flesh in the Sacrament I. D. That Hilary speaketh of the Lords Supper or of our Coniunction with Christ by Eating thereof I thinke it will hardly be proved Had he so meant how cometh it to passe that he never alledgeh those words of the Sacrament This is my body which would haue made more for his purpose but ever voucheth the sixt of Iohn which maketh little to the Sacrament Howbeit if you will needs vnderstand him so I will not striue Know then that in those bookes St Hilary disputes against the Arians To them he obiected that saying The Father and the Sonne are one One answered they as wee are with Christ by Will not by Nature wherevnto he replied that wee are even by Nature one with Christ. And this he proues first because both in Christ and vs there is the same Humane nature by the Incarnation of the Sonne of God which hee calls the Sacrament of perfect vnion Secondly because the Faithfull are ioyned vnto him by his Spirit dwelling in them which regenerateth quickneth sanctifieth them and not only conformeth them vnto him but also transformeth them into him And for proofes hereof hee alledgeth divers passages of St Iohns Gospell such as your selues confesse no way to belong vnto the Sacrament Thirdly for that by Baptisme we are ioyned vnto Christ and that not only by consent of will but naturally according to that of Saint Paul As many as are baptized into Christ haue put on Christ. Whereunto lastly if you please you may adde for that also in the Lords Supper wee are vnited vnto him by Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood All these waies saith Hilary are wee Naturally ioyned vnto Christ. If so then not only by the Eucharist And if for the establishing of the other meanes there needeth no Transubstantiation at all as of the Sonne of God into Man of Faith into the Spirit of Christ or of Baptismall water into the Bloud of Christ neither is it necessarie for this that bread be Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ. Or if to bring Christ into vs and our mouth you will needs transubstantiate the bread into his body I wonder what Transubstantiation you will devise to bring vs into him and his mouth For Hilary affirmeth that by the same Mysticall coniunction not only is Christ in vs but also wee are Naturally in him The same Answere may serue for Cyril also wherevnto for farther explication of the word Naturally and Naturall so often vsed both by Cyril and Hilary I adde that in them Naturally signifieth Truly Naturall True if wee may beleeue him who best knew their meaning even Cyril himselfe For thus he Not according to naturall vnity that is true vnity By nature wee are the children of wrath where by nature we are to vnderstand truth So that Naturall vnion is true vnion and naturally to be vnited is truly to be vnited which I hope may bee without Transubstantiation N. N. Theodoret doth proue that Christ tooke Flesh of the blessed virgin and ascended vp with the same and holdeth the same there by that he giueth to vs his true flesh in the Sacrament for that otherwise hee could not giue vs his true Flesh to eat if his owne flesh were not true seeing that he gaue the same that he carried vp and retaineth in heauen I. D. I marvell much not one of the Fathers being more expresse against Transubstantiation then Theodoret that yet you durst to praise him in the maintenance thereof Evē for this cause doth the Preface to the Roman Edition goe about to weaken his authority and Gregorie of Valentia flatly condemneth him It is no wonder saith he if one or two or more of the Ancients haue thought or written of this matter not so considerately and rightly Adde herevnto that Theodoret was noted by the Councell of Ephesus for some other errours besides But how much Theodoret maketh against Transubstantiation you shall heare hereafter Now you may be pleased to knowe that in the place by you cited he disputeth against an Eutychian Hereticke who held that the Humanitie of Christ was abolished and absorpted by his Deitie This hee would proue by the Eucharist that as the Symbols before Consecration are one thing but after it are changed and become another even so the Body of Christ after the Assumption thereof is chāged into the Divine Substance Now if Theodoret had beene Transubstantiator hee had beene finely taken for Transubstantiation abolisheth the substance of Bread and turneth it into the substance of Christs Body But hee taketh the Heretike in his owne nets affirming the Mysticall signes after their sanctification doe not depart from their nature and that therefore Christ after the Assumption thereof retaineth his Humanity still Whereby you may see that although it be yeelded that Christ giueth vs his true Flesh in the Sacrament yet in the iudgement of Theodoret he so giueth it that the Mysticall signes retaine their Nature still which vtterly overturnes your Transubstantiation N. N. S. Irenaeus S. Iustin and S.
vntill Q. Elizabeth of blessed memory being advanced to the Crowne hee returned into England where hee was according to his worth soone after preferred to the Bishoprick of Salisbury Now if so obscure a man as your vnkle liuing but as a serving Priest beyond seas doe so much strengthen you I hope the example of so profound a Clarke and so reverend a Bishop and Confessour as my vnkle may much more confirme and settle me But it is high time to heare the reasons why you cannot beleeue the Fathers meaning to be as I say N. N. Your first reason some of our writers giue the same sense to the Fathers that you doe as Mason Perkins Field Covel Sir Edwin Sands Midleton Morton the now Archbishop of Canterbury I. D. Suppose all this were true yet seeing the sense I giue I haue by sundry plaine arguments demonstrated to bee the right sense the bare saying of others cannot be a sufficient reason why you should forbeare assent But what Doe all these indeed interpret the Fathers as you doe A vast vntruth vtterly incredible saue only to those whom the Romish Circe hath turned out of their wits For would any man thinke that they who so confidently alleage the Fathers against Transubstantiation should notwithstanding in their writings acknowledge that their meaning is cleane contrary to that they alleage thē for Were it not that you haue bound your Faith absolutely to beleeue what every Popish shaueling tell◠you how vnlikely soeuer it be and never to beleeue vs with what strength of reason soever we speake so absurd a thought as this could never haue entred into your mind Let vs yet examine the Particulars N. N. Mason is forced to these Words St Ambrose testifieth that imposition of hands is certaine mysticall words whereby he that is elected into the Priesthood is confirmed receiving authority his conscience bearing him witnesse that he may be bold to offer sacrifice to God in the Lords steed S. Chrysostome saith in many places there is offered not many Christs but one Christ every where being full and perfect S. Augustine saith that Christ commanded the Leper to offer sacrifice according to the law of Moses because this sacrifice the holy of holies which is his Body was not yet instituted And elsewhere what can be offered or accepted more gratefully then the Body of our Priest being made the flesh of our sacrifice And Cyril Leo Fulgentius and other Fathers haue commonly the like I. D. First these words are altogether impertinent to the matter of Transubstantiation being vouched for the Sacrifice of the Masse and therefore no way opening the meaning of the Fathers for you in that point Secondly these are not the words of Mason but the Obiection of a Papist For you are to knowe that this booke of Mason is written Dialogue-wise as a conference betweene Philodoxus the Papist and Orthodoxus the Protestant Now these words are by Mason put into the mouth of Philodoxus and are indeed obiected to vs by Bellarmin whom he calling himselfe Orthodoxus vndertaketh in that place to answere Whereby you may easily perceaue what credit is to be giuen vnto such cheating companions as your Author is who beare you in hand that the Objection of a Papist is the resolution of a Protestant Which that it may yet more plainely appeare take Masons Answer also S. Ambrose elsewhere expoundeth himselfe saying What therefore doe we Doe we not offer daily Truly we offer but so that wee make a remembrance of his death And againe We offer him alwaies or rather we worke a remembrance of his sacrifice S. Chrysostome expoundeth himselfe in the same place We offer him or rather we work a remembrance of the sacrifice What S. Augustines meaning was let himself declare Was not Christ once offered or sacrificed in himselfe And yet he is offered in a Sacrament not only at all the solemnities at Easter but every day to the people Neither doth he lye that being asked doth answere that he is offered For if Sacraments haue not a certaine resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments they should not be sacraments at all And for this resemblance they take the names commonly of the things themselues Therefore as after a certaine manner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is the bloud of Christ so the sacrament of Faith is Faith And else-where The flesh and bloud of the sacrifice of Christ was promised by sacrifices of resemblance before he came was performed intruth and indeed when he suffered is celebrated by a sacrament of remembrance since he ascended Thus he Whereof nothing maketh for your sense but every thing rather for the contrarie N. N. Mr Perkins writeth thus the ancients when they speak of the supper haue many formes of speech which shew a conversion S. Ambrose vseth the name of conversion and mutation S. Cyprian saith it is changed not in shape but in nature Origen saith that bread is made the body Gaudentius saith Christs body is made of bread and his bloud of wine Eusebius Emissenus that the Priest by secret power changeth the visible creatures into the substance of Christs body and bloud and that the bread doth passe into the nature of our Lords body I. D. Here Mr Perkins only reporteth the words of the Fathers but declareth not the sense of them That hee doth by and by in the words following The ancient Doctors saith he when they speake of the conversion and changing of bread vnderstand the change of vse and condition not substance In the reading of them therefore the Sacramentall change in signification and obsignation is to bee distinguished from substantiall And we are to know that for 800 yeares at least they knew not Transubstantiation but condemned it rather And all this he proues by the sayings of Cyprian Ambrose Theodoret Gelasius and others which I forbeare here to set downe because you haue them already in my answere Now if your meaning accord with this of M. Perkins I am the gladder If not it was too great boldnesse to say he vnderstood the Fathers in the same sense you doe N. N. D. Morton the Centuriators and others are plentifull in such citations and so manifest for the verity that D. Field writeth thus that the Primitiue Church thought the sanctified and consecrated Elements to bee the body of Christ. D Covel saith the Omnipotency of God maketh it his Body I. D. Quote the sayings of the Fathers they may and that plentifully But Transubstantiation or your sence they doe not nor cannot find in them for they never dreamed of it The words of Dr Field are these The manner of the Primitiue Church was as Rhenanus testifieth if any parts of the consecrated Elements remained so long as to bee musty and vnfit for vse to consume them with fire which I thinke they would not haue done to the