it or recall you backe from your enterprise is sacrilege Woe bee to you that call good euill and euill good which set darkenesse for light and light for darkenesse and put bitter for sweete and sweete for bitter Woe bee to you that are so wise in your owne eyes and so prudent in your owne conceites that you preferre your owne Counsell before the wisedome of God Philand Nay you preferre your wittes before the whole Church of GOD you woulde not other-wise take vppon you to controle your forefathers and teachers in such sort as you doe Theoph. If they forsooke their fathers yea GOD him-selfe why shoulde wee not renounce them rather as parricides than resemblance of their auncestours Philand They were Catholikes and so are wee Theoph. You leaue the steppes both of Christ and his Church and yet you must and will bee catholikes Philand Wee followe them better than you doe Theoph. So it appeareth by your halfe communion which they condemned for sacrilege and you embrace for Religion Phi. Here is such a stirre about eating and drinking as though all consisted therein and in the meane while you neglect and abolish the holy and vnbloody sacrifice which is farre more Catholike than your communion Theo. You neede not make so light of eating and drinking at the Lordes table There depende greater promises and dueties on that than on your vnbloody sacrificing the sonne of God As often as yee shall eate this breade and drinke this cup yee shewe the Lordes death till hee come Without eating and drinking therefore the Lordes death is not shewed The bread which we breake to be eaten is it not the communion of Christes body The cup of blessing which wee blesse that all may drinke of it is it not the communion of Christes blood If wee refuse eating the one or drinking the other can we be partakers of Christ or his spirit Hee that eateth my flesh sayth our sauiour and drinketh my blood dwelleth in mee and I in him and except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood yee haue no life in you These bee the fruites and effectes of religions and worthie eating and drinking at the Lordes table shewe vs the like for your sacrificing and wee will thinke you had some occasion though no reason to turne the Lords Supper into an offering Philand This one Sacrifice hath succeeded all other and fulfilled all other differences of Sacrifices and hath the force and vertue of all other to be offered for all persons and causes that the others for the lyuing and the dead for sinnes and for thankesgiuing and for what other necessitie soeuer of body or soule Bee not these as great and good effectes of our Sacrifice as those which you nowe rehearsed for eating and drinking at the Altar Theo. They bee great if you had as good authoritie for the one as wee haue for the other Philand Wee haue better Theo. Wee must giue you leaue to say so but you shall giue vs leaue not to beleeue you Phi. All the fathers with one consent stand on our side for the Sacrifice Theoph. Were it so that yet is many degrees beneath the credite of our conclusion You bring vs the speaches of men wee bring you the woorde of God I trust you will aguise some difference betwixt them Phi. As though wee coulde not bring you Scriptures as well as fathers for the sacrifice of the Masse Melchisedec by his oblation in bread and wyne did properly and most singularly prefigurate this office of Christes eternall Priesthoode and sacrificing himselfe vnder the formes of breadâ— and wyne which shall contynue in the Church throughout all Christian Nations in steede of all the offeringes of Aarons Priesthood as the Prophet Malachie did foretell as Saint Cyprian Saint Iustine Saint Irineus and others the most auncient Doctors and Martyrs doe testifie Cyprian epistola 63. num 2. Iustin. dial cum Trypho post med Iren. libro 4. capit 32. And Saint Augustine libro 17. cap. 20. de ciuitat Dei libro primo contra aduers. leg prophet ca. 18. lib. 3. de baptism ca. 19. S. Leo sermone 8. de passione auouch that this one sacrifice hath succeeded all other and fulfilled all other differences of Sacrifices c. Yea in S. Pauls epistle to the Church at Corinth the first and tenth chapter We maie obserue that our bread and chalice our table and altar the participation of our host and oblation be compared or resembled point by point in all effectes conditions and properties to the altars hostes sacrifices and immolatious of the Iewes and Gentiles Which the Apostle woulde not or coulde not haue done in this Sacrament of the altar rather than in other Sacraments or seruice of our Religion if it onelie had not beene a Sacrifice and the proper worship of God among the Christians as the other were among the Iewes and heathen And so doe all the fathers acknowledge calling it onelie and continuallie almost by such termes as they doe no other Sacrament or ceremonie of Christes Religion The Lamb of God laide vpon the table Concil Nicen. The vnbloodie seruice of the Sacrifice In Concil Ephesin epist. ad Nestor pag. 605. The sacrifice of sacrifices Dionys. Eccles. Hieronym cap. 3. The quickning holie sacrifice the vnbloodie host and victime Cyril Alex. in Concil Ephes. Anatâ— the propitiatorie sacrifice both for the liuing and the dead Tertul. de cor Milit. Chrys. ho. 41. in 1. Corinth ho. 3. ad Phil. Ho. 66. ad pop Antioch Cypr. epi. 66. decaena Do. nu 1. August Euch. 109. Quaest. 2. ad Dulcit to 4. Ser. 34. de verb. Apost The sacrifice of our mediator the sacrifice of our price the sacrifice of the newe Testament the sacrifice of the Church August li. 9. ca. 13. li. 3. de baptist ca. 19. The one only inconsumptible victime without which there is no Religion Cyprian de caen Do. nu 2. Chrysost. ho. 17. ad Hebr. The pure oblation the newe ofspring of the newe Law the vital and impolluted host the honoâ—râ—ble dreadful Sacrifice the Sacrifice of thankesgiuing or Eucharistical the Sacrifice of Melchisedec This is the Apostles and fathers doctrine God grant you may find mercy to see so euident and inuincible a trueth Theo. You be nowe where you would be and where the fathers seeme to fit your foote But if your sacrifice bee conuinced to bee nothing lesse than catholike or consequent to the Prophets Apostles or Fathers Doctrine what say you then to your vanitie in alleaging if not impietie in abusing so many Fathers and Scriptures to proppe vp your follies Phi. Bee not these places which we bring you for this matter vndeniable vnauoydable indefeatable vnanswerable Theo. In any case lay on loade of termes You haue made vs so many in your late Rhemish testameÌ„t that now you must not seeme to lack But what if all these places neede
coÌ„prised their politik obseruations as they be for the most part fals passing slaÌ„derous so to their defeÌ„ce are they idle altogether superfluous and argue rather mindes loaden with malice and tongues fraighted with poyson against the present state euen for very temporall and ciuill affaires than anie religious or dutifull respect of authoritie and submission to the Magistrate But such is the doctrine and education of their Romish seminaries they fell first to flattering and because that tooke no place in a rage they be now run to leude and open slaundering An example whereof to him that hath the booke and may read it appeareth as through the the whole so in fewe lines pag. 177. more spitefull wordes than which the rankest caterpiller in Rome could not haue vttered against the state and kingdom where wee liue not touching the persecution which they suffer but obiecting in plaine wordes to the whole body of her Maiesties most honorable most christian Counsel ignominious practises plaguie iniustice yea euen piracies proditions spiâ—ries soule artes to afflict and coosen the world round about vs with many such disloyall vnnaturall vntrue and vnhonest both surmises and reproches whereof that fardle is full This is one of the reasons why I neither might nor would at large refell their Iesuiticall Defence of English Catholikes as they terme it in deede an artificiall inuectiue defacing and slaundering the publike Gouernment of this realme to the vttermost of their powers The other is for that the summe and effect of those chapters which I haue omitted and might not without offence to the state be published are wholy reduced to those principal questions which I haue handled In their first second and fourth chapters their chiefe scopes are these that Manie Priests catholike in England haue bin condemned executed for meere matter of religion that Campian the rest of the Priests condemned executed vpon pretence of treason were neuer yet guiltie of any such crimes but behaued themselues verie discreetly and nothing seditiously in their answeres to the questions of the Bull of Pius Quintus In these the wise Reader soone perceiueth the whole contention toucheth the Popes iurisdiction and claime denied him by the Lawes of this Realme and his power to depriue the Prince of her crowne and scepter which was the sole respect the Bull of Pius Quintus had The iustifying then of these two foundations with cleare and pregnant proofes had beene requisite for the Iesuites if they had purposed to manifest the innocencie of their brethren where nowe by their rhetoricall vagaries inucighing at the partes and circumstances of their inditementes conuictions and executions they storme at the course which the Iudges obserued but saie nothing to the crime wherewith the guiltie were burdened The Popes power to depriue Princes they will say they haue fully proued and so their brethren in trueth and equitie to be cleared If that were so they sayde somewhat but as I haue shewed they profferre it often they neuer proue it And therefore on the contrarie part as I neede not strengthen the publike iudgements of this Realme with the particular reportes behauiors hopes and enterprises of the Iesuites hauing their triall in Courtes of Recorde and places of vsuall and open iustice neither is that incident to my calling or requisite in these cases so for the maine and generall ground of the crime there fastned on them and after punished in theÌ„ which was that to aide assist persuade or defend the Popes Bull depriuing the Prince of her crowne and throne to incourage her Subiectes or enimies on that pretence to rebellion or inuasion was high and hainous treason the trueth I say of this illation is euident by the third part of this my booke where that point of their Defence is refuted So for the rest which would needes venter their liues in the like quarell I meane for inuesting the Pope with the princes sworde the Iesuites should haue brought sound and sufficient proofe that the Pope by Gods lawe hath a Soueraigne and supreme power ouer this Realme to make Lawes to appoint penalties to dispose the goods landes and bodies of Clerkes and others for such causes and crimes as they count spirituall For this is the power which the Pope lately vsurped in this Realme and from which hee is now rightly and orderly repelled by the Lawes of the same It is no treason with vs to make him chiefe Pastour of your soules nor to giue him an Episcopall or Apostolicall authoritie ouer the whole Church though that also bee a wicked and frantike Heresie but to giue him an externall dominion and coerciue iurisdiction ouer this Realme aboue and against the Prince which the Apostles of Christ neither had nor could haue without apparent iniurie to the Magistrate this is it the Execution of iustice doeth duelie respect and this is farre from any matter of faith or religion Right to commaunde and power to compell belong properly to the sworde by the Lawe of God which they can not attribute to the Pope but they must make him a Superiour Magistrate to the prince in guiding and prescribing the vse of the sworde and consequently the prince to holde her sword and scepter at his pleasure and if she refuse to be streightway displaced This wilie conueiaunce to tie Princes swordes fast to the Popes side and to spoyle them of their Crownes if they doe not execute his rage is the chiefest plotte that Iesuites haue at this instant to resettle the kingdome of Antichrist for which they haue not so much as the paring of anie Scripture or Councell or Father in the Church of Christ for a thowsande yeares and yet in our dayes it must bee a meere matter of Religion and the forefront of their brethrens defence But no maruell if they which make open rebellion a point of their faith so soone consent to haue the Popes presumption holden as the surest key of their Religion To their thirde chapter that they haue great cause to complaine of iniust persecution intollerable seueritie and crueltie towardes Catholikes in Englande and wee no reason to doe the like for the iustice as thy call it doone on vs in Queene Maries and other Princes dayes I neede not replie To this conceite of the Iesuites that they may consume whome they will with fire and faggotte and no man must stoppe them of their passage or hinder their pastimes without iniustice and crueltie what shoulde I saie but that I thinâ—e the Scribe was skant waking whiles hee was penning this drowsie Diuinitie What learning I will not aske what witte was in this to make such definitiue resolutions that no Prince may amerce or imprison their adherentes without intollerable seueritie and crueltie forsooth they might hang and burne olde and young men and women for doubting of their Decretalles and all this with prayse though it neuer pleased anie good man in the Catholike Church
opinion is common but not currant with vs If you meane to proue it you shall haue the longer and stiller audieÌ„ce Phi. S. Peter being but a meere spiritual officer and Pastor of mens soules yet for sacrilege and simulation stroke dead both man and wife S. Paul stroke blind Elymas the Magician So did he threaten to come to his contemners in rod of discipline So did be excoÌ„municate a Principal person in Corinth for incest not only by spiritual punishment but also by bodily vexation giuing him vp to Satans chastisement As he corporally also corrected and molested with an euill spirit Himeneus and Alexander for blasphemie and heresie Finally he boldly auoucheth that his power in God is to reuenge al disobedience and to bring vnder all loftie hearts to the loialtie of christ and of the Apostles and Sainctes in this life Nescitis quoth he quoniam Angelos iudicabimus quanto magis secularia knowe you not that wee shall iudge Angels how much more secular matters Theo. Such dissolute mariners were neuer like but to make such desperate aduentures You shoulde proue that spirituall Pastours haue power to sease the goods and possessions and chastise the bodies of such as they excommunicate and you shewe where God afflicted those for their sinnes which the Apostles cast out of the Church either with euill spirites or some corporall plague or death as hee sawe cause which is not pertinent to your purpose Can you not distinguish the finger of God from the factes of men Or see you no difference between miraculous vengeance from heauen and iudicial processe on earth God strake Ananias dead for tempting him in Peter and Elymas for resisting him in Paul May Preachers therefore putte out mens eyes and murther such as beleeue them not In deede you practise this new kinde of preaching but not by warrant from Christ or his Apostles Philand Did not Peter kill Ananias and Sapphira with his worde Theo. And since you can not do the like with your words you will take helpe of your handes Phi. With wordes or handes so they bee slaine all is one Theo. Not so The one is a miracle wrought by God the other is a murder committed by man which God prohibiteth and of all other thinges ought to bee farthest from the Preachers of peace Phi. Peter did so Theo. Peter reproued them for tempting the holie Ghost but the hande of God and not of Peter inflicted the punishment Reade the place Then saide Peter Ananias why hath Satan filled thine heart that thou shouldest he vnto the holie Ghost Thou hast not lied vnto men but vnto God Nowe when Ananias hearde these words saith the Scrâ—pture hee fell downe and gaue vppe the Ghost I aske not what faâ—t of Peters you finde that shoulde hasten the death of Ananias but what one worde purporting any such thing can you shewe vs in all that Peter saide to Ananias Phi. In his wordes to Sapphira wee can For hee saide to her The feete of them that haue buried thine husband are at the doore and shall carrie thee out Theo. Did Peter by these words kill her or foretell her that God would doe to her as hee had doone to her husbande Phi. Which say you Theo. Peter we say neither desired nor inflicted that iudgement on them but onely signified what God would doe The like we saie for Paul when Elymas was stroken blind He warned that Sorcerer what should befall him from God but himselfe did neither enuie nor iniurie the Sorcerers eyes His wordes were Wilt thou not cease to peruert the streight waies of the Lord Now therefore behold the hand of the Lord is vpon thee and thou shalt be blind not seeing the Sunne for a time Paul denounced Paul imposed not that corporall chastisement on him The deede was Gods who may iustly take from his enemies not onely their eies but their breathes and spirits when he wil and in what sort it pleaseth best his righteous and sacred wisedome Phi. But Paul himselfe corporallie corrected and molested with an euill spirite Himineus and Alexander for blasphemie and heresie So did he excommunicate a Principal Person in Corinth for incest not onely by spiritual punishment but also by bodilie vexation giuing him vp to Satans chastisement Theo. You drawe the word of God to your fansies by turning doubtes into certaineties antecedentes into consequentes mans actions into Gods iudgementes That the Apostle deliuered Himineus and Alexander vnto Satan and so the incestuous Corinthian whom you of your owne head without any witnesse call a Principal Person in Corinth because the slide you saw was easie from Principall to Princes is a matter out of question but that he corporally corrected and molested them with euil spirites these be your additamentes wherewith you thought to lengthen the text to your own liking Phi. S. Paul gaue iudgement of the Corinthian that he should bee deliuered vnto Satan for the destruction of the flesh And how could the flesh be destroied without bodily vexation affliction The. This phrase for the destruction of the flesh hath diuerse expositions therefore vpon a doubtful kinde of speech you can not build an vndouted conclusion S. Ambrose expoundeth the place thus The Apostle decreed that by the consent in the presence of all men he should be cast out of the Church Cum eijcitur traditur Satanae in interitum carnis Et anima enim corpus intereunt His casting him out of the Church is the deliuering of him to Satan to the destruction of the whole man which is nothing but flesh For both soule and bodie perish And lest you shoulâ— thinke it much that the soule is called fleshe he giueth this reason Victa anima libidine carnis fit caro the soule once ouercome by the lustes of the flesh becommeth flesh and is in the Scripture so commonly called the lusts of the flesh deliuereth the soule defiled with it and also the body to hell Phi. But S. Paul addeth that the spirite may bee saued in the day of our Lord Iesus Christ which can not stand with this exposition that both fleshe spirit were deliuered vnto perdition Theo. The same father will tell you that the spirit may be referred not to him that was excluded but to the rest that remained in the church as if S. Paul should haue saide I haue decreed to cast this vncleane person out from among you to his iust condemnation that the grace of Gods spirit may be preserued in the rest of you to the day of iudgement The same Sainct Augustine followeth What spirite doeth the Apostle affirme shoulde bee preserued when he saieth I haue deliuered that man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh c. The destruction of the flesh ment in this place is a man addicted to pleasures and fleshly delightes purchaseth hell to himselfe For by such sinnes the whole man becommeth
is adored in the mysteries and on the Altar Why shoulde hee not bee adored in all places and in all his giftes and for all the monumentes of his grace and mercie bequeathed vs in this life that he may prepare vs for the next And if this rule bee generall howe great cause haue wee to adâ—re him in the water where hee clenseth vs from our sinnes and at the table where hee feedeth and strengthneth our soules and spirites with their proper nourishment which is the precious ransome that was paide to recouer vs from death and hell and to bring vs to his immortall light and blisse What Christian heart recounting his aboundant goodnesse and fatherly readynesse with his owne stripes to heale vs with his owne bloode to washe vs with his owne death to quicken vs will not bee resolued into prayers and teares to yeelde all honour and adoration to him that doeth offer vs these treasures at and on his table Phi. These bee goodly words to bleare mens eyes where in deede you denie him to bee present eyther at or on the Altar Theo. Wee confesse him to bee there present with all his giftes and blessinges to him that will beholde him with the eye of faith and reach out the hand of his soule to apprehende him in greater might and maiestie than you doe when you shroude him with your formes of breade and wine and pale him rounde with a pixe as it were with a sepulchre Mary locall dimension or inclusion within the compasse of the host or chalice wee appoint him none His trueth is annexed to the Sacramentes and his power vnited to the creatures after a wonderfull and inspeakeable manner by the mighty working of the holy ghost but yet wee must not direct his diuine honour and seruice to anie part of the Altar or circumference of the visible creatures wee must rather Lyft vp our hearts as the faithfull were alwayes admonished in this sacrament and take heede that wee doe not basely bende our eyes on the bread or wine to seeke Christ in them and vnderneath them much lesse worshippe them in steede of him which is the next way to dishonor him and deifie them against the very rules and Principles of our faith Phi. But S. Chrysostom saith We adore him on the altar as the Sages did in the manger and S. Nazianzene saith of his sister Gorgonia she called on him which is worshipped on the Altar Theo. What wordes soeuer Chrysostom and Nazianzene vse to expresse the place where Christ is serued and adored yet this is euident that they attribute adoration not to the visible element or sacrament but vnto Christ who may well be saide to be worshipped on the Table or altar for so much as there is the fruite force and eâ—fect of his heauenly grace and trueth proposed vnto all and from thence the prayers and thankes of all are offered vnto him by the religious heart and voice of the Pastor that standeth at the Lordes table to bee the mouth of al and yet you deale vntruely with both those fathers as you do almost with al the rest of the writers that passe your pen. Chrysostomes wordes are Tu non in praecepe id sed in Altarivides Thou seest his bodie not in a manger but on the Altar Now betweene seeing adoring there is good difference if you bee not so blinde that you can see nothing Phi. He speaketh it to that ende that we should adore it as the Sages did when they found him in a manger Theo. He hath some wordes tending to this ende that we should adore the body of Christ since the wicked and barbarous Magi did yeelde him that honour but he ioyneth no such wordes togither as you cite he saith not we adore him on the altar but let vs that be citizens of heauen at least imitate those Barbarians Phi. That is in adoring Christ. Theo. As if we doubted of that But where is on the altar which you haue added of your owne without your authors consent Phi. He sayeth thou seest him on the Altar Theo. But neither with corporall eyes nor vnder the formes of bread and wine And that well appeareth in the very same place when he saith Ascende igitur ad coeli portas tunc quod dicimus intueberis Climbe vp to the gates of heauen and then thou shalt see that which we now say To which end he told them before that becomming Eagles in this life they must fly vppe to heauen it selfe or rather aboue the heauens For where the carcas is saith Christ there wil the Eagles be The Lordes body is the carkas in respect of the death which hee suffered Eagles Christ calleth vs to shew vs that he must flie on high which will come to this body euer mount vpward haue the eye of his mind most bright to behold the sonne of righteousnes He that teacheth you to ascend to the highest heauens there to adore Christ neuer ment you should adore the hâ—st in the Priestes handes in steede of Christ and as hee neuer ment it so he neuer spake it though you haue plaied some ligier de main to make his wordes sound to that sense Phi. Nazianzenes sister called on him that is worshipped vpon the altar Theo. She did so but when she made her prayers to Christ there was neither Priest by nor pixe there that you should dreame shee made her prayers to the host Nazianzene saith shee went to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the dark of the night kneeling close to yâ— altar she did inuocate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him that is honoured thereon not meaning the host which at that instant was not on the Altar but Christ who is truly said to be honoured on the altar or Table because his mercies are there layde foorth in the mysteries and the prayers and supplications of all the faythfull offered chiefely from that place vnto him though hee sit in heauen according to the materiall substance of his humane bodie Phi. He is honored on the Altar that is say you the Altar is the place whence honour is giuen vnto him what sleights you haue to auoyd the fathers Theo. Haue you no worse to enforce them and you shal do them lesse wrong than you doe When the woman of Samaria sayd to Christ Our fathers worshipped God in this hill did she meane that God was in the hill or that the worshippe was there dâ—ne vnto him When it was said to Moses Ye shal serue God vpon this mountaine was that mountaine before hand allotted to God or to his seruice So Christ is honoured on earth though hee bee in heauen because the earth is the place where hee is honored and serued And yet wee doubt not but Christ himselfe is also present euen in the mysteries and on the Altar or Table of the Lorde albeit not in that corporall and carnall manner which you conceiue
after the manner of Sacramentes called the soule I can interprete this precept to consist of a signe or figure for the Lord did not sticke to say this is my bodie when hee gaue the signe of his bodie And speaking in Christes person he sayeth This bodie which you see you shal not eate neither shal you drinke the blood which they that crucifie me shall shed I haue commended a Sacrament vnto you that Sacrament spiritually vnderstood shal quicken you It is therefore as you hearde before out of the same Father a figure of speech commaunding vs to be partakers of the Lords passion For the Lord at his supper saith he commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his body and blood Cypriā The Lord at his last supper gaue bread and wine with his own hands on the crosse he gaue his body to be wounded by the souldiers handes that syncere truth secretly printed in his Apostles might teach the Nations how bread and wine were his flesh and blood and how the causes agreed with their effectes and different names and kindes might be reduced to one essence and the signes signifieng and the thinges signified might be called by the same names Origen There is in the very Gospell a letter that doth kill not onely in the old Testament is there a deadly letter found but in the new Testament there is a letter that doth kill him which doeth not spiritually conceiue the thinges that be spoken For if you take this saying except yee eate my flesh and drinke my blood according to the letter this letter killeth And againe Not the matter of bread but the word recited ouer it doth profit the worthy receiuer This I speake of the typical and figuratiue body Ambrose It was the true flesh of Christ that was crucified and buried this therefore is the Sacrament of that true fleshe The Lord Iesus himselfe sayth this is my body Before the blessing of these heauenly wordes it is called an other kind of thing after consecration the body of Christ is thereby signified In eating and drinking at the Lords table We signifie the body and blood of Christ that were offered for vs. The new Testament is confirmed by blood in a figure of which blood We reciue the mysticall cup. The priest in the church seruice faith Make this oblation ascribed reasonable and acceptable for vs which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Hierom When the Pascal lambe was eaten Iesus taketh bread which strengthneth the heart of man and goeth to the true sacrament of the passouer that as Melchisedec had done offering bread wine in a profiguratiō of him so he likewise might represent the truth of his body blood For Iesus tooke bread and giuing thankes brake it transfiguring his body into the breade Chrysostom This table hath he prepared for his seruants that hee might euery day for a similitude of the body and blood of Christ shew foorth in a Sacramēt vnto vs bread and wine after the maner of Meschisedec Before it be sanctified we cal it bread but the diuine grace once sanctifieng the same by the ministerie of the priest it is deliuered from the name of bread coūted worthy to be called the Lordes body though the nature of bread continew there still So that in the sanctified vessel there is not the true body of Christ but a mystery of his body is there contained Nazianzene Let vs bee partakers of the passeouer figuratiuely notwithstanding as yet though this Passeouer bee more manifest than the former Theodoret. Our Sauiour in deed changed the names called his bodie by the name of the signe and the signe by the name of his body The reason whereof is manifest to those that are acquainted with the diuine mysteries He would haue the receiuers of these heauenly mysteries not looke to the nature of the things which are seen but hearing the alteration of names beleeue the chāge which is there made by grace For he that called his natural body wheat bread named himself a vine the same Lord honored the signes elements of bread wine which we see with the name of his body blood not changing the nature of the signes but casting grace vnto nature Prosper The diuine breade which is the flesh of Christ is after a sort called the body of Christ being in deed but the sacramēt of Christs bodie Which words your own law thus expoundeth The diuine bread which truly representeth the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly wherfore it is said after a sort which is non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not in exactnes of truth but in a mysterie of signification So that this is the meaning it is called the body of Christ that is the body of Christ is thereby signified Bede The solemnities of the old Passeouer being ended Christ commeth to the newe which the church is desirous to continue in remembrance of her redemption that in steede of the flesh and blood of a lamb he substituting the sacrament or sacred signe of his flesh and blood in the figure of bread and wine might shew himselfe to be the same to whome the Lord sware and will not repent thou art a Priest after the order of Melchisedec Druthmarus The Lord gaue his disciples the sacrament of his body for the remission of sinnes that being mindfull of his deede they might alwaies in a figure do that which he was to do for thē not forget his loue This is my body that is in a sacrament Wine maketh glad increaseth blood and for that cause the blood of Chirst is aptly figured thereby Bertram That bread wine is figuratiuely the body and blood of christ the maner thereof is in a figure representation in mysterio non veritate in a mysterie not in truth plaine speech Phi. You thinke to winne the spurres but you may chance to loose bootes and all These places which you bring haue a shew before the simple but there is no pith nor substance in them and with one puffe wee can blowe them all away Theo. It must be such a puffe then as wherwith you first blew away christ and his gospel and brought in your own decrees to ouerrule both God and man with the breath of your mouthes Phi. You scoffe my meaning is that I can crosse them all with one answere Theo. If they were sprites you might driue them away with crossing but being ancient and godly fathers they will tell on their tales to your reproofe crosse you what you will or can in their wayes Phi. I will not crosse it in their way but in yours Theo. When you will wherefore serue my feete but to tosse it out of the way or at lest to step ouer it that it hinder not
and eloquence hee seeketh to proue and perswade to the people of this Realme as the chiefest Bulwark of their Defence that were condemned he saith for religion we say for treason and in deed the very ground of all their actions I thought needefull to examine and to let the simple see on what a sandy slime they haue built as well their consciences as their Colleges and in how wretched and vnrighteous a quarell they haue hazarded their liues in this world and their soules in the next to inlarge the power and make vp the purse of their Rhemish founder Taking that therefore in hande I haue worde by worde refelled the fifth chapter of their Defence which purposely treateth of this matter and inserted so much of the fourth as tended to this ende the rest being a voluntarie pang of their vnbridled eloquencc as also I haue ripped vp the shamefull attemptes and tumults of Popes these last fiue hundred yeares for before that time Antichrist neither was nor durst be so bold presuming to displace depose their Lord Maister the Romane Emperor incountering him other Princes with treasons poysons battayles bloodsheds periuries treacheries such as Christendom neuer before tasted of euer since rued Where I haue not only opened the facts noted the meeknes of their martial spirits but haue vnfoulded the causes quarels for which those Princes were thus pursued with such excommunications and depriuations from Rome shewing as I go the Italian stories in fauour of their countrieman and foreman the Pope to bee exceeding partiall The like order I would haue followed in their Apologie but that as I first protested I found nothing in it worthy to bee refuted vnlesse I should haue banded their idle and emptie termes backe againe to them with others of the same making and so brought the cause of Christ and trueth of Religion to a warfare of woordes which I neither ought nor would If any man thinke me no indifferent iudge of their paines it may please him to cast his eye on the second sheete and hee shall find all the proofes and places of their Apologie aunswered in three leanes and of those fewe and weake quotations to haue made a conquest in open writing had beene incke and paper ill imployed I would therefore not take that course which seemed to me neither needeful nor profitable but to benefite the poore deceiued subiectes of this Realme and bring the Iesuites cause to the touch-stone in deede I haue chosen the principall intentes of their Apologie on which their whole foundation standeth and after mine owne course debated them more exactly and largely than the confutation of their Apology would haue suffered me For where they pretend they departed for lacke of the Catholike Sacrifice Sacramentes and Seruice which want in this Realme and because they were forced by oth to confesse an vnnaturall and impossible power in the Prince to be supreme Gouernour of all persons and causes as well ecclesiasticall as temporall and in their absence they resort for reliefe to none but to him that is the head of their catholike communion the chiefe Pastour and Bishoppe of their soules in earth and the vicar generall of Christ to whose predecessors all the famous Fathers called for aide comfort and counsell in their like distresses and traine vppe such as come vnto them in obedience to the churches Lawes Apostolike Traditions both written and vnwritten and to the precepts of Ancients Superiours who haue the promised spirit of trueth and are sent backe againe into this Land to execute spirituall offices and to absolue in foro conscientiae the penitent people from their sinnes of what sort soeuer schisme and heresie not excepted who seeth not that these assertions being the seueral braÌ„ches of their Apologie depend either on religion that is in strife betwixt vs or on the Princes power which they impugne or on the Popes claime to bee head of the church which we deny And therefore the proofe or disproofe of their particular actions must be fet and deriued from those chiefe and capitall springs The consideration whereof first induced mee to neglect the rouing discourses and vaunting florishes of their Apologie no lesse voide of trueth than of proofe and to betake my selfe to a stricter and directer kinde of examining the most materiall pointes on which the rest did hang as first their running to Rome siding themselues with the Pope as Christs Vicar generall against their Prince for which they haue no president in the primatiue Church The next is the princes power to commaund for trueth and right to beare the sword within her owne Realme ouer all persons for thinges and causes as well Ecclesiasticall as Temporall without any subiection or relation to the Popes tribunall which I prooue is agreeable to the Lawes of God and practise of Christes church and therefore the oth importing the same to be good and godlie Thirdly the Popes censuring and depriuing princes of their crownes I shew to be nothing else but a wicked vnchristian pride contumelie not long since deuised by Antichrist to frustrate the word and ordinance of almighty God and to make himselfe great and so of force the subiects which be partakers with him in that hainous conspiracie by perswading assisting executing or defending the same in worde or deede against their princes to bee traytours and not martyrs if they die for that quarell Lastly the publique reformation of diuine Sacramentes and Seruice made by her Maiestie I declare to be Christian and Catholike and the partes of poperie repealed and abolished by the lawes of this Realme to be repugnant I speak for the substance of theÌ„ and not for certain indifferent ceremonies in them to the sacred scriptures and ancient fathers Other incident and adiacent matters I haue handled and those not a fewe as the generall and speciall contentes before and after will better insinuate but these foure bee the pointes that beare the burden both of their first Apologie for their Seminaries and last Defence of English Catholikes By these shal we soone discerne the truth or falshood of their pretences clamors against the Princes Lawes and such as are authorized by her highnesse therefore from the sober sad discussing hereof if they get them as they haue done to outragious and tragicall exclamations we must leaue them as men wilfully diuerting from the right way crying as loude as they can for life to drowne the voices of such as woulde recall them If they looke that all the parts of their Defence should haue bin answered in like sort as the fifth chapter is that labour I say for a man of my calling wold haue bin as fruitles as it is needles the proofs that are not here discussed may â—afely be despised the rest of their rolling rhetorik a diuine neither need regard nor should repeate As much as is inforcing to their purpose is here
your selues and confute your aduersaries but onely the breath of your own mouthes Phi. Wee giue you an oth for our discharge will you not beleeue vs when wee sweare Theo. If wee do it is more of our good meaning than your wel deseruing you dispence so fast with the breach of othes Phi. You misreport vs we do not so Theo. That shal appeare in place conuenient I will not now disgresse from the matter An oth you say we haue to purge al suspition Let vs hear it Phi. The principall of the viage doth protest that he neither ioyned with rebell nor traitor nor any other against the Queene or Realme or traiterously sought or practised to irritate any Prince or potentate to hostility against the same Further inuocating vpoÌ„ his soul that he neither knew saw nor heard during his aboad in the court of Rome of any such writings as are mentioned in the proclamation of Iuly containing certaine articles of confederation of the Pope king of Spaine other Princes for the inuasion of the Realme Theo. We heare you sweare but meane you plainly Phi. Why doubt you that Theo. You teach others wheÌ„ they be called before such as you count heretiks sophisticè iurare sophisticè respoÌ„dere sophistically to swear sophistically to answere that is to mocke the Magistrate with a captious cunning oth or answere And therefore vnlesse you giue vs a preciser strickter oth than this we trust you not You did not traiterously seeke or practise to irritate any Prince or Potentate to hostilitie against the Queene or Realme What needed this addition you sought it not traiterously Your meaning may bee you sought it but lawfully Phi. What fraud you suspect where we meane simply Theo. Then for the better explication of our selues do you thinke it treason for an English man to ioyne with the Pope or any other appointed by him to inuade the Land for the restoring of Religion and execution of the sentence which Pius the fift pronouÌ„ced against her Maiestie Phi. That sentence is extrauagant Theo. Not so For if you count it no treason as we can proue the most part of you do not to obey the Pope deposing the Queene then in your own conceits may you safely sweare you did not these thinges trayterouslie though touching the factes it were certaine you did them Phi. What a compasse you fet to intrap vs Theo. What euasions you get to delude vs but how doth this cleare the rest of your side Phi. Wee bee most assured that no English Catholike woulde or coulde bee the author thereof Theo. It is much to bee sure what euerie man of your faction would or could doe you must bee gods and not men if you can doe that Phi. Wee knowe they woulde not Theo. Leaue this follie you can not search the secretes of other mens heartes nor accompt for their deedes in a matter so impossible the more vehement the more impudent Phi. It verily may bee thought and so is it certaine that some of the principall ministers of the forenamed Princes haue aâ—nswered being demaunded thereof that the Protestantes hauing exercised skill and audacitie in such practises and counterpractises of which Fraunce Flaunders Scotland and other countries haue had so lamentable experience did contriue them to alter her Maiesties accustomed benignitie and mercie towards the Catholickes Theo. It is great pitie that Papistes bee no practisers Aske England Scotland Flaunders Fraunce Spaine Italie Scicile Germanie what practises they haue found I say not in your temporall men but in the Priestes Prelates and Pillours of your Church Righter Macheuels than the Popes them-selues Christendome hath not bred mary this indeede you were alwayes better with poysons and Treasons than with papers and pamflets and yet you spared neither Scriptures Councels nor Fathers but corrupted and enterlaced them to serue your turnes As for the procurers and setters of this late confederacie to assaulte the Realme if you knowe not who they were Charles Paget and others with you can tell or if they would dissemble Throckmorton hath tolde There shall you see whether this were a meere deuise and sleight of ours or a lewde intente and practise of yours These bee the chiefe pointes of your seconde Chapter the rest is lippe-labour and noe waye concerneth your cause Phi. Yes wee prooue it lawfull for men in our case to flie to the Bishoppe of Rome for reliefe either of bodie or soule Theo. Wee bee sure you will saie it with boldnesse enough but will you prooue it Phi. Wee will prooue it Theo. Howe Phi. Whither should wee rather flie than to the head or as Sainct Hierom speaketh to the most secure part of our Catholike communion to the rocke of refuge in doubtfull dayes and doctrines to the chiefe Pastour and Bishoppe of our soules in earth to the Vicar generall of Christ out of the compasse of whose fold and familie no banishment can bring vs to him that by office and vnction had receiued the grace of loue pitie and compassion to him that counteth no Christian nor domesticall of faith a stranger to him whose Citie and Seat is the natiue home of all true beleeuers and the paterne of all Bishoply hospitalitie and benignitie Theo. Whither nowe Maisters are you well aduised Phi. Why not Theo. You presume that to be most true which is most in question betwixt vs and as if your vnshamefast flatteries were sounde and substantiall verities you conclude without prouing the precedents or respecting the consequent For first what witnesse bring you that the Pope is as you say the head the rocke of refuge in doutful daies doctrines the chiefe Pastor and Bishop of your souls in earth the Vicar generall of Christ or that his seat is the natiue home of all true beleeuers and the whole Church his folde and familie What auncient Father or Councell euer liked or suffered these proude and false titles Why proue you not that which you speake Or why speake you that which you can not proue In so weightie matters do you thinke it enough to saie the worde and by and by wee must hush Phi. Wee haue else-where brought you so manie demonstrations for these thinges that nowe wee take them to bee cleare Theo. Omit these vauntes we aske for proofes and till you bring them by your owne rule we neede frame you no farther answere Phi. Make you merrie with that aduantage but yet Sainct Hierom is not so shifted Theo. His name you set in the forefront to lead on the rable of your vnsauorie speeches but the wordes of Sainct Hierom doe little releeue you For let it be that Athanasius and after him Peter Bishops of Alexandria declining the persecution of the Arian heresie fled to Rome as to the safest port of their communion because Rome was then free from the tumults of Arians so long as Constans liued and readie to receiue such as suffered affliction for
and other places at this day do wee not indure all the tormentes you can deuise because wee will not beleeue what temporall Lordes and Masters list Your owne conscience knoweth it is true that wee saie Why then doe you charge vs with this wicked assertion from the which wee bee farther off than you For you holde opinion of Popes that they cannot erre we do not of Princes Why do you father your owne fansies vppon vs Why d ee you purposely peruert the question heaping absurdities and alleaging authorities against that which we do not defend Phi. The oth which you take your selues and exact of others induceth vs thus to thinke of you For there you make Princes the onely supreme Gouernours of all persons in all causes as well spirituall as temporall vtterly renouncing all forraine iurisdictions superiorities and authorities Uppon which wordes marke what an horrible confusion of all faith and Religion insueth If Princes bee the onely Gouernours in Ecclesiasticall matters then in vaine did the holy Ghost appoint Pastours and Bishops to gouern the Church If they bee supreme then are they superiour to Christ himselfe and in effect Christes Masters If in all thinges and causes spirituall then they may prescribe to the priestes and Bishops what to preach which way to worship and serue God how in what forme to minister the Sacramentes and generally howe men shall be gouerned in soule If all forraine iurisdiction must bee renounced then Christ his Apostles because they were are forreners haue no iurisdiction nor authoritie ouer England A thowsand other absurdities are consequent to this oth which anon you shall heare Theo. Wake you or dreame you Philander that in matters of no lesse weight than your duetie to God and the Prince you fall to these childish and pelting sophismes What kinde of concluding call you this Princes onely beare the sword to commaund and punish ergo Bishops may not teach and exhort Princes be not subiect to the Pope ergo superiours to Christ. They may by their lawes establish those thinges that Christ hath commaunded ergo they may change both Scriptures and Sacramentes No forrainer at this day hath any iurisdiction ouer this Land ergo Christ and his Apostles fifteene hundred yeeres ago might not preach the Gospel Phi. We make no such fond reasons Theo. The former propositions are the true contens of the oth which wee take the later are those very absurdities which you infer vpon vs for taking that oth Phi. You would slip from your words which wee knowe to your meaning which we know not but that you shal not We grouÌ„ded our absurdities vpoÌ„ the words of your oth For if princes be supreme gouernors in al spiritual things causes ergo they be supreme iudges of faith deciders of controuersies interpreters of scriptures deuisers of ceremonies appointers of sacrameÌ„ts what not The. You might euen as well haue coÌ„cluded princes be supreme gouernors in al teÌ„poral things causes ergo they be supreme guiders of graÌ„mer moderators of Logik directors of Rhetorik appointers of Musike prescribers of Medicines resoluers of al doubtes iudges of al matters incident any way to reason art or actioÌ„ If this be leud irreuereÌ„t iesting yours is no better Ph. I promise you we iest not The. The more shame for you if you be in earnest to conclude so loosely Phi. Do you make princes supreme gouernors of al spiritual things Theo. You reason as if we did but our words since you wil needes rest vpon wordes are not so Phi. What are they then The. We coÌ„fesse them to be supreme gouernors of their Realms DominioÌ„s Phi. And that in al spriritual things causes The. Not of al spiritual things causes Ph. What differeÌ„ce between those two speeches Theo. Iust as much as excludeth your wrangling Wee make them not gouernors of the things themselues but of all their subiectes which I trust you dare not withstand Phi. I grant they be gouernors of their subiects but not in Ecclesiasticall things or causes They must leaue those matters for Bishops whoÌ„ Christ hath appointed to be yâ— rulers of his church And therfore your oth yeelding that power to princes which is proper to Bishops is repugnant to the lawes of God the church nature Yea it is an euideÌ„t error reproueable by al humane diuine learning that the souerainty or supremacy in causes Ecclesiasticall is by nature or by christian lawes implied in the right title of a temporal king or that it euer was due or can be due to any temporall gouernor heathen or christiaÌ„ in the world And if you will but giue eare you shal heare what a number of absurdities we wil fasten vpon you The. This oth is a great eye sore with you and I remember I promised to discusse the same in this chapter I will therefore first examine the chiefe parts of it and after you shall obiect against it what you can Where we professe that her Highnes is the onely gouernor of this Realme the word gouernor doth seuer the magistrate from the minister sheweth a manifest differeÌ„ce between their office For Bishops be no gouernors of countries princes be that is Bishops bear not the sword to reward reuenge princes do Bishops haue no power to command punish princes haue This appeareth by the words of our Sauiour expressely forbidding his Apostles to be rulers of nations leauing it to princes The kings of nations rule ouer their people and they that be great ones exercise authority With you it shal not be so that is you shall neither beare rule nor exercise authority ouer your brethren Phi. The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they ouerrule their subiects with iniustice violence you shal not do so Theo. So your new translatioÌ„ ouer ruleth the word howbeit Christ in that place doth not traduce the power of princes as vniust or outragious but distinguisheth yâ— calling of his Apostles froÌ„ the maner of regimeÌ„t which God hath allowed the magistrate Christ â—aith not princes bee tyrantes you shal deale more curteously than they do but he saith Princes bee Lords and rulers ouer their people by Gods ordinaÌ„ce you shal not be so Again the word which S. Luke hath is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any composition They be Lords and masters S. Paul confesseth of himselfe other Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not that we be Lords or Masters of your faith yea the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with power force to rule meÌ„ whether they will or no not with wrong iniury to oppresse them therefore the conclusion is ineuitable that princes may lawfully compell punish their subiects which Bishops may not This distinction between them is euident by their seueral coÌ„missions which God hath signed The prince not the priest beareth the sword ergo the prince not
them all obedience with armed violence to take their swords from them but thereof more hereafter In the meane time your argument is very foolish Priestes must not deliuer the Sacramentes but on such conditions as God hath limited ergo Priests be superiour to Princes You might haue concluded ergo God is superiour to them both in that he prescribeth how the one shal deliuer the other take the Seales of his grace but for the Priest no such illation can be made For were you Porter in any Princes palace and commaunded that no man Noble nor other shoulde enter the Court with weapon woulde you thence conclude your selfe superiour to all the Nobles and counsellours of the Land because you might not suffer thē to come within the gates except they first lay their swords aside or would you rather excuse your selfe that the Princes precept being streit and you a seruaunt you could not choose but do your dutie and put them in minde of your Lord and masters pleasure Phi. Our case is not like The. You say truth You haue not so much reason to make Priestes superiour to Princes as this Officer hath to prefer himselfe before all other persons Princes haue soueraign power ouer the goods liues bodies of Priestes Nobles haue not ouer the meanest attendant in the Princes Court Princes must be obeyed or endured with meekenesse and reuerence offer they neuer so hard dealing to their Preachers and Pastours That submission no man oweth to any subiect be he neuer so Noble And therefore euerie seruant in the Princes house hath better cause to aduance himselfe before al the Nobles of the Realme than you haue to set the Priest aboue the Prince whom God himselfe hath pronounced superiour to the Priestes and to whom he will haue euerie soule bee they Monkes Priestes or Bishoppes to be subiect with al submission duetie Much lesse is this a warrant for you to depose Princes and to pursue them with armes against the preceptes of God against the generall and continuall obedience and order of Christs Church as you shal perceiue in place where for this present go on with your absurd lies I shoulde haue said absurdities Phi. It derogateth from Christes Priesthood which both in his owne person and in the Church is aboue his kingly dignitie Theo. Call you this a derogation from Christes Priesthood if the Pope may not tread Princes vnder his feet Your Seminaries must needes be famous that coine vs such conclusions Phi. Neuer mocke at our Seminaries you shall finde them too well furnished for your stoare Theo. So wee thinke your learning is so strange it passeth our intelligence Wee fooles conceiue not how these thinges hang togither For first what meane you by this The Priesthood of Christ in his owne person is aboue his kingly dignitie He is king of glorie in that he is the sonne of God can you name any thing in Christ that is aboue his diuine dignitie Your doctrine is verie curious if it be not dangerous The glorie of the sonne of God as hee is owner and ruler of all thinges in heauen and earth hath no title nor name aboue it As a Priest he purged our sinnes in humilitie as a king hee nowe doeth and euer shall raigne in the highest degree of celestiall and euerlasting glorie His Priesthood washed our vncleannesse in this life His kingdome placeth and preserueth men and Angels in perfect and eternall blisse If you speake this in respect of vs that the Priesthood of Christ which washeth our sinnes and saueth vs from the wrath to come is more comfortable and accceptable to our weake consciences by reason of our guiltinesse and daily transgressions than the power wherewith hee subdueth his enemies besides the straungenesse of your speach that his Priestood should bee aboue his kinglie dignitie in his owne person note the losenesse of your argument The Priesthood of Christ in fauour and mercie to vs ward is aboue his power ergo the Prince must be subiect to the Pope May not we much rather conclude Christ cōpelleth punisheth as a king not as a Priest ergo power to commaund punish belongeth to the kingdom not to the Priesthood that is to the Magistrate not to the minister Phi. It diuideth which is a matter of much importance the state of the Catholike Church and the holie communion or societie of all Christian men in the same into as manie partes not communicant one with an other nor holding one of an other as there be worldlie kingdoms differing by Customs Lawes manners ech from other which is of much pernicious sequele and against the verie natiue quality of the most perfect coniunction society vnitie and intercourse of the whole Church euery Prouince and Person thereof togither Theo. It is a most pernicious fansie to thinke the communion of Christes Church dependeth vpon the Popes person or regimēt and that diuerse nations and countries differing by customes lawes maners so they hold one the same rule of faith in the band of peace can not be parts of the Catholike Church communicant one with an other perfectly vnited in spirite and truth ech to other And fie on your follies that racke your Creede rob Christ of his honor and the Church of all her comfort and securitie whiles you make the vnitie and societie of Christes members to consist in obedience to the Bishop of Rome and not in coherence with the sonne of God The communion of Saintes and neere dependaunce of the Godly ech of other and all of their heade standeth not of externall rites customes and manners as you woulde fashion out a Church obseruing the Popes Canons and deseruing his pardones as his deuote and zealous children but in beleeuing the same trueth tasting of the same grace resting on the same hope calling on the same God reioycing in the same spirite whereby they bee sealed sanctified and preserued against the daie of redemption And why may not Christians in all kingdomes countries haue this communion and fellowshippe though they lacke your holy fathers beads blessinges and such like bables To what ende you alleadge S. Augustine in that place which you quote we cannot so much as coniecture you must speake plainly what you would haue we be not bounde to make search for your meaning As for the communion of the Catholike Church it is not broken by the varietie and diuersitie of rites customes Lawes and fashions which many places and Countries haue different ech from others except they be repugnant to faith or good manners as S. Augustine largely debateth in his epistle to Ianuarius and Irineus whē the bishop of Rome would haue cut the East Churches from the communion of the West for obseruing Easter after an other maner order than their brethrē did sharpely reproued him and shewed him that Polycarpus and Anicetus dissenting in the same case Communionem
inter se habuerunt were this notwithstanding ioyned in communion pacem in vniuersa Ecclesia tum seruantes tum non seruantes retinuerunt and both sides kept the band of peace in the Catholike Church For the discrepant obseruation of fasting before Easter he saith the like Alij vnum sibi diem ieiunandum esse putant alij duos alij plures alij quadraginta horas Nihilo minus tamen omnes illi pacem inter se retinuerunt retinemus etiamnuÌ„ dissonantia ieiunij fidei concordiam commendat Some fast one daie some two dayes some more some fourtie houres and yet all these continued in peace among themselues and to this day we continue the same and our difference in fasâ—â—â—g commendeth our concord in faith Socrates hath a whole chapter purposely made to shew what diuersitie there was in the Church of Christ about Lent the Lordes Supper marying baptizing praying fasting and such like Ecclesiasticall obseruances and yet all those places and countries parts of the Catholik Church and communicant one with an other in Christian peace and vnitie Operosum molestum fuerit imò impossibile omnes ecclesiarum quae per ciuitates regiones sunt ritus conscribere It were an hard and laborious thing saith he yea an impossible to write al the different customes and manners of the Churches in euerie citie and countrie Qui eiusdem sunt fidei de ritibus inter se dissentiunt They that are of the same faith differ in their rites So that this is no breach of the Christian and Catholike communion which all the faithfull ought to keepe among themselues with their head the author and finisher of their faith Phi. It openeth the gappe to all kinde of diuisions schismes sectes and disorders Theo. Why so Because your holy father can not marchandize the soules empt the purses of men as he was wont to do What Sectes Schismes disorders or heresies can there arise if we defend it lawfull for Princes to commaÌ„d for truth within their own Realmes Nay rather hath not the subiecting of Princes to the Popes pride wrought the vtter ruine and decaie of the West Church Where Rulers be many it is easie to finde some good and they wil resist that which is euill and reforme that which is amisse where one ruleth al if he fal as he quickly may he draweth the whole Church into the same danger and error with him Phi. But the successour of Peter can not erre and therefore the Church is safest when it is ruled by him for whose faith Christ praied that it might not faile Theo. Proue that the Pope can not erre and we will graunt not onely this but all your religion besides to be true Phi. What you wil not Theo. The word is spoken accept the condition when you list Till you do we prefer Cyprians iudgement before yours Therefore deare brother saith he writing to Stephanus Bishop of Rome is there a plentifull number of Priestes in the church ioyned togither with the knot of mutuall concorde and bande of peace that if any of our companie make a breach and rent and wast the the flocke of Christ the rest should helpe and as profitable and pitifull Pastours reduce the Lordes sheepe to the flocke againe The number of Rulers in his opinon is no cause of sectes and dissentions but rather a remedie prouided in the Church against disorder and heresie Phi. It maketh all Christian Bishops Priestes and whatsoeuer borne out of the Realme forrainers and vsurpers in all iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall towardes vs that there can be no iurisdiction ouer English-mens soules but proceeding and depending of her soueraigne right therein Theo. Your force is almost spent when you come to these frozen and woodden obiections Wee call those that were borne and liue out of the Realme forrainers What else should wee call them And such as pretend Peters keies to dispose crownes and remoue Princes from their seates ioyning rebellion with remission of sinnes we thinke them vsurpers and abusers of Ecclesiastical iurisdiction A maruelous ouersight in deed We might haue spared you some sharper and quicker termes but by these wee thought good to manifest to the world your iniurious and irreligious drift to be masters of earthly kingdomes by winding and turning Peters keies at your pleasure Phi. Your words exclude Christ his Apostles in as much as they were and be forrainers from hauing any iurisdiction ouer England Theo. It is pitie you can not cauil We striue for iudicial authoritie to depriue Princes you vrge vs with Apostolike power to preach the Gospell and remit sinnes Wee speake of that which is at this present you tell vs what was fifteene hundred yeares since We reason of States in earth you run to Saints in heauen We reiect the Bishop of Rome you wrangle with vs as though wee refused the sonne of God Doth not matter faile you when you flie for helpe to such vnsauory toies Phi. Your oth is so absurdly conceiued that though you ment not to exclude Christ and his Apostles yet in wordes you doe For if No forraine person Prelat State nor Potentate hath nor ought to haue any iurisdiction power superiority preeminence or authority ecclesiasticall or spiritual within this Realme of England surely neither Christ nor his Apostles because they were be forrainers haue or ought to haue any Theo. Not our speaking but your wresting and wrenching of our wordes is far fet most absurd For first where you auouch Christ himself to be a forrainer whoÌ„ we acknowledge to be the right inheritor owner of the whole worlde yea the mighty Lord king of heauen earth in gibing at vs you iest on his birth as if Christ were a forrainer to the Gentiles because he tooke flesh among the Iewes And though you might haue takâ—n some aduantage at his cradle yet you should haue remembred that the Creator is no forrainer to the worke of his handes as likewise the heade is not to the members nor God incarnate to the sonnes of men As for his Apostles in deede whiles they liued on earth they were forrainers but that their spirits now present with God raigning in blisse with Christ bee forrainers is a mad speech of yours no meaning of ours You must send vs word from Rhemes how soules can be French Spanish Scottish or English These with vs be distinctions of couÌ„tries not of souls after death til your new doctrine came wee tooke them to cease With a little helpe I thinke you will make vs some men soules and some women soules you be so skilfull in these conceites Againe might the soules in heauen be called or counted forrainers you must tell vs what ecclesiasticall power authoritie they now exercise on earth We do not affirme that forrainers neuer had any such power in England the Apostles had their commission from
spared by Prinâ—es shoulde bee driuen to earnest and open repentaunce before they bee â—eceiued into the Church or admitted to the diuine mysteries yea rather I thâ—nke it very needefull in a Christian common-wealth that God bee pleased and the Church preserued from all felowshippe with these monsterous impieties as well as the Scepter is intreated for their liues but that you shoulde exempt or saue the workers of wickednes from the Princes sworde and their iust desertes by your priuileges or penances in steede of punishmentes that is quite repugnant to the sacred Scriptures Saint Paul sayth the Prince is Gods minister to reuenge him that doeth euill and not the Priest You may not reuenge malefactours you may separate your selues from them and haue no communion with them the Prince must punish them It passeth your Commission to beare the sworde and without the power of the sworde your corporall correcting and afflicting of them is vnlawfull and wrongfull violence And so for tythes testaments administrations seruitude legitimations and such like you went beyonde your boundes when you restrayned them to your Courtes and without Caesar made Lawes for thinges that belonged vnto Caesar. The goodes Landes Liuings States and families of Lay men and Clerkes are Caesars charge not yours and therefore your decrees iudgements and executions in those cases if you claime them from Christ as thinges spirituall not from Caesar as matters committed of trust to you by Christian Princes are nothing else but open and wilfull inuasions of other mens rightes you chaunging the names and calling those things spirituall and ecclesiasticall which in deede bee ciuill and temporall and shouldering Princes from their cusshins who first suffered Bishoppes to sitte iudges in those causes of Honour to their Persons and fauour to their functions which on your part is but a bad requitall of their Princely graces and benefites Phi. Affinitie consanguinitie contractes mariages diuorces and a number of those which you recken are thinges that depende vpon the lawes of GOD and haue often times such questions incident to them as none but Bishoppes are fit to resolue Theo. All vertues and vices all the partes of mans life both priuate and publike as namely the dueties of Princes Counsellours Captaines Iudges Parents Husbandes Masters Subiectes Souldiers Children Wiues and Seruants yea the woords thoughts and actions of all men depend in this respect vppon the woorde of God whether they shall bee followed as lawfull or auoyded as vnlawfull and haue often tymes in them such questions as none but diuines are â—it to resolue will you therefore inferre that all crimes causes and consultations domesticall Politicall and martiall are within the limittes of your spirituall iurisdiction to bee guided ordered and ended as it seemeth good to your Ghostly fathers Phi. Bishoppes haue power to binde and loose as well in all sinnes as in some Theo. Bishoppes are to teach and instruct men what the will of GOD is in all priuate publike spirituall temporall yea ciuill and warlike affayres but their authoritie goeth no farther than to denounce the woorde and dispence the Sacramentes in such sort as GOD hath prescribed them It passeth their power to make Lawes and appoynt externall and corporall punishments for any sinne that is proper to the sword which GOD hath ordayned of purpose to compell and punish for the better execution of his will and obseruation of his Lawe which â—ee things of all other most spirituall And therefore as Preachers by their office haue instruction and direction in all thinges both temporall and spirituall to compare them and pronounce them consonant or dissonant with the Lawe of GOD so Princes haue compulsion and correction annexed to their swordes as well for spirituall causes as temporall or rather of the twaine to see Godlinesse and honestie preserued amongst men than foode and rayment prouided Phi. This were a Paradoxe in deede that the Princes sworde was first ordayned by God rather for spirituall thinges and causes than for temporall Theo. None at all if you marke it well To buyld and plant sowe and reape eate and drinke there needed no sworde on earth but to preserue the Rules of pietie charitie sobrietie and equitie amongest men for this cause were Magistrates first ordayned by God and these bee thinges precisely and properly called spirituall in the sacred Scriptures The lawe is spirituall sayth the Apostle and the commaundement both the whole and euery part of it is holy iust and good which bee the right notes of spirituall vertues If then the sworde were first erected by GOD to defend and execute the partes and braunches of his Lawe and the contentes of his Lawe be spirituall ergo the Princes power was first ordayned of God for thinges spirituall and not onely for temporall as you fondly dreame and are foully deceiued And this is the meaning of Saint Paul when hee sayth that Princes are not to bee feared for good workes but for euill With whome Saint Peter agreeth calling the king preeminent for the punishment of euil doers and the prayse of them that doe well Nowe good and euill are to bee measured by Gods law not by mans for as no man is good but only God so no mans Lawe is the rule of good and euill but onely Gods And temporall thinges bee neither good nor euill but altogether indifferent ergo Princes were not ordayned of God for temporall things but the goods bodyes and liues of their subiects were coÌ„mitted to their handes for spirituall respects that is for the preseruation of fayth and good maners which shall go for spirituall thinges and causes when your tithes and testaments shall stande backe for temporall Phi. Understand you what temporall is Theo. It should seeme you doe not by your diuiding temporall against spirituall Repugnant to spiritual is carnall corporall and naturall not temporall as you counter set them and opposite to temporall is not spirituall but eternall And here you may see the falsenes and absurdnes of your diuision The spirituall thinges which your Courtes discusse bee temporall not eternall for after this life there bee no such questions nor actions The keyes and Sacraments in which consisteth your spirituall power bee not eternall but temporall they serue for the Church in earth not in heauen Saint Paul will teache you that Prophesyings tongues and knowledge notwithstanding they bee giftes of the spirite and namely rehearsed among spirituall thinges by the holy Ghost yet shall they cease and bee abolished So that all the spiritual things which wee striue for are but temporall and thinges eternall bee neither vnder the Priestes power nor the Princes but reserued onely to God and expected onely from God Phi. Eternall they bee not but spirituall they bee Theo. Then may the selfe-same thinges bee both spirituall and temporall which euerteth cleane your loose diuision of Temporall against spirituall Phi. Temporall wee call those thinges that serue to maintaine this temporall
Theo. S. Paul expressely writeth of the Prince that He beareth the sword not without cause and is Gods minister to reuenge him that doth euil And our Sauiour seuerely forbiddeth Peter the rest of his Apostles to medle with the sword All that take the sword shall perish by the sworde and to them all You know that kinges of Nations raigne ouer theÌ„ and they that be great exercise authoritie with you it shall not be so The sword is but the signe of publike and Princely power and where the thing is not lawfull the signe is vnlawfull Since then the Lord interdicteth his Apostles and messengers all princely power it is euident the sword which is but a signe thereof is likewise interdicted them Thus much Bernard sticketh not to tell Pope Eugenius to his face It is the Lordes voice in the Gospell Kinges of Nations are Lordes ouer them and they that haue power on them are called gracious and the Lord inferreth you shall not be so It is a cleare case the Apostles are forbidden dominion Go thou then saith Bernard to the Pope and vsurpe if thou dare either an Apostleship if thou be a Prince or dominion if thou be Apostolik Thou art expressely forbidden one of them If thou wilt haue both thou shalt loose both The paterne of an Apostle is this dominion is interdicted seruice is inioyned Gird thy selfe with thy sworde the sworde of the spirit which is the word of God And this Pope Nicholas fairely confesseth The church of God hath no sword but the spirituall wherewith she quickeneth she killeth not Your owne law saith It is easily proued of Bishops and other clergimen whatsoeuer that they may not either by their owne authoritie or by the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome take weapon in hand exercise the materiall sworde addeth this reason For euery man besides him and his authoritie which hath lawfull power and which as the Apostle saith beareth the sworde not without cause to whom euerie soule ought to bee subiect euery man I say that without this authoritie taketh the sword shall perish with the sword He that beareth the sword may lawfully put malefactors to death and wage warre with his enimies when neede so requireth which Bishops may not doe The weapons of our warfare are not carnall saith S. Paul Quid Episcopis cum bello What haue Bishops to do with batle saith Athanasius Ambrose Pugnare non debeo I ought not to fight If they may not fight much lesse kil if they may do neither they can not beare the sword which is appointed by God receiued of men to doe both The words of our Sauior are cleare with vs for the negatiue My kingdom saith he is not of this world If then your Priests Prelats Popes wil be the seruants of Christ they must chaleÌ„ge no worldly kingdom as froÌ„ him or in his name The seruant is not aboue his master If the master with his own mouth haue denied it the seruaÌ„ts may not affirm it or vsurp it The souldiers of Christ must not intangle them-selues with secular affaires much lesse make themselues Lords and iudges of earthly matters which office properly belongeth to the sworde and must be sustained of all those that beare the sword The Popes themselues before their power and pride grew so great were of this opinion with vs. When the truth which is Christ was once come after that saith Pope Nicolas neither did the Emperour take vppon him the Bishops right nor the Bishop vsurpe the Emperours name because the same mediatour of God and man the man Christ Iesus distinguisheth the offices of ech power with proper actions and different dignities to this end that the Bishop which is a souldier vnto God shoulde not intangle and snare himselfe with wordly affaires and againe the Prince which is occupied in earthly matters should not be Ruler of diuine things The very same text word for word your Decrees make Cyprian write to Iulian the Emperour if those be Cyprians wordes and not rather an impudent forgerie in his name For how could Cyprian that died vnder Valerian 260. after Christ write to Iulian that began his raigne 360. after Christ But such proppes are fittest to bolster vp your kingdom of darkenesse and error Sure it is which the wordes of our Sauiour apparantly proue that all the Disciples and Apostles of Christ are straitly charged not to medle with princely Scepters and swordes and therefore out of all question only Princes beare the sworde within their owne Realmes and dominions for so much as that honour and power is expressely prohibited and interdicted by the Lord himselfe to all Preachers and Bishops Phi. This wee woulde haue graunted you with halfe these wordes Theo. And this wee woulde haue depende not on your grant which is fickle but on such proofes as we might make iust accouÌ„t of Phi. How then Theo. As the first is apparant that onely Princes haue the sword committed to their charge by Gods appointmeÌ„t so the next is as euident that the sword I meane the publike authoritie of Magistrats in Christian common-wealthes hath been may be and should be vsed for the receiuing establishing and deâ—ending of that which is good and prohibiting abolishing and punishing of that which is euill in all spirituall and ecclesiasticall thinges and causes as well as in temporall which the sacred Scriptures the auncient Fathers the Church Stories the lawes and examples of al ages and countries do sufficiently proue as you saw before Phi. This is not it that we stand on Theo. This is that we affirme stand you on what you lift Phi. If this be granted what will you conclude Theo. If this be proued you shall see what we conclude If it bee not shew where the defect is Phi. That onely Princes beare the sword within their own realms which may be and should bee vsed for the receiuing establishing and defending of the faith Cannons of the church all thinges incident or pertinent to the same and for prohibiting and punishing whatsoeuer is repugnant to either in this we finde no defect Let vs therefore see what you will infer The. First then the words of our oth that Her Highnes is the only gouernor of this realm bearing the sword as wel in al spiritual or ecclesiastical things causes as teÌ„poral be not only tolerable resonable but such by your own coÌ„fessioÌ„ as we may truly defend you can not iustly confute Next the absurdities which you bring against vs as if we deriued the spirituall power of preaching baptizing binding loosing imposing handes and offering prayers to God from the Princes Soueraigne right and title which we doe not all these absurdities I say bee mere follies grounded vpon the carelesse mistaking if not spitefull peruerting of our wordes Thirdly your defacing and imâ—â—ouing the Princes sworde and aduauncing and defending against
which is good and religious to your priuate conceit which sauoreth altogither of mere vanitie and open flattery Phi. What S. Hierom meant God doth know you do not Theo. No more do you but yâ— hee meant not this which you would father on him we haue his owne witnes which you must beleeue vnlesse you can shewe better Thus hee complaineth of the Romanes both Pristes people in the epitaph of Marcella Haeretica in hijs Prouincijs exorta tempestas nauemplenam blasphemiarum Romano intulit portuâ— c. Romanae fidei purissimum fontem caeno lutosa permiscuere vestigia Tunc sancta Marcella postquam sensit fidem Apostolico ore laudatam in plerisque violari ita vt sacerdotes quoque ac nonnullos Monachorum maximeque seculi homines in assensum sui traheret ac simplicitati illuderet episcopi publice restitit An hereticall tempest rising in these Countries of the East caried full saile into the hauen of Rome c. vncleane feete did trouble with mud the most pure fountaine of the Romane faith Then holy Marcella when shee sawe the faith praised by the Apostles mouth violated in most thinges so that this heresie drew the Priestes and some Monkes and specially laimen into the consent of it selfe and deluded the simplicitie of the Bishop of Rome shee began to resist openly Note Sir that come to passe in Hieroms age and knowledge which you would proue by Hieroms words to be in all ages impossible The fountaine of the Romane faith defiled with mud the faith praised by the Apostles violated in most things the Priests the people drawen into the same consent the seely Bishop of Rome abused by them and the first that openly resisted a poore widow Go then and blaze to the world as you haue done in your magistrall annotations or rather deprauations of the new Testament which as you haue dressed it with your deuises and glozes is now nothing lesse than the Testament of Christ proclaime I say that infidelity can not come to the Romanes nor their faith be possibly changed that vpon the credits of Cyprian Hierom when they themselues did see and say the contrary Phi. We take no such care for the people of Rome whether they may straie from the faith or no Peters successour is he that our eyes are and ought to bee rather bent on and touching his holines we be resolued that he can not erre in faith Theo. His holinesse hath very good lucke then and better than all his neighbours besides but how shall wee knowe that hee can not erre Your worde is too weake to be taken for a matter of such weight fathers you bring none Scriptures you haue none which way will you make it appeare that his holinesse can not be stained with error Phi. No maruell that our Master would haue his vicars Consistorie and seate infallible seeing euen in the olde law the high Priesthood and chaire of Moses wanted not great priuilege in this case though nothing like the churches and Peters prerogatiue Theo. But we maruell where you finde that Christ would haue any vicar or that his vicars Seat is infallible or that the Bishop is that vicar which you speake of and we most maruell that you auouch al this vpon your single report without script or scrole to confirme the same The chaire of Moses had no such priuilege as you chalenge The people were to learne the law of God at the Priestes handes and hee that presumptuouslie despised the Priest or Magistrate giuing iudgement according to the tenour of Gods law died the death But this doth not proue that either the Priest or the Magistrate coulde not erre or that the Prophetes did not iustly reproue the Priestes when they sate to iudge according to the lawe for their manifest contempts breaches of the Law God by the mouth oâ— Malachy both describeth what the Priestes should do declareth what the Priests had done The Priestes lippes should preserue knowledge and they shoulde seeke the law at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes But yee are gone out of the way O ye Priests ye haue caused many to fall by the lawe ye haue broken the couenant of Leui saith the Lord of hostes This proude priuilege which you mention was claimed by the wicked Priestes in Ieremies time Come say they let vs imagine some deuise against Ieremie for the law shall not perish from the Priest nor counsell from the wise nor the word from the Prophet But God assureth them by his Prophet for this their arrogant presumption that the law should perish from the Priest and counsell from the auncient What grosse idolatrie Vriah the Priest committed to please king Ahaz the Scripture will tell you And were there no speciall examples the serious inuectiues of the Prophets against them and the whole land as well for false religion as corrupt manners are euident testimonies that Priestes from the lowest to the highest might erre Esaie saith The Priest and the Prophet haue erred they haue gone awaie they faile in vision they stumble in iudgement Our Sauiour charged his Disciples to beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadduces which needed not vnlesse it were erronious And think you these were no errours which the Sonne of God reproued in the Pharisees You haue made the coÌ„maundement of God of no authoritie by your tradition many such like things you do teaching for doctrines the commandements of men The Sadduces errour denying both the resurrection of the bodie and immortality of the soule is often mentioned in the Scriptures and openly refuted by our Sauior And yet the high Priestes were often Sadduces and in the chiefe councels consistories of Ierusalem where the greatest causes of religion and matters of weight were determined sate halfe Sadduces halfe Pharisees sometimes only Sadduces which were plaine Atheisâ—s and wicked heretikes Phi. That ouerthroweth not Peters priuilege Theo. Much lesse doth it establish Peters priuilege for the which cause you allege it but if Moses successour might erre why not Peters Phi. Our assertion is they can not erre you say they can Reason is that you proue your affirmatiue Theo. The Scripture proueth the generall that God is true and all men lyars you except the Bishoppe of Rome as not subiect to errour and ignoraunce reason is you proue your exception and that strongly least you bee conuicted of insolent presumption to fasten the spirite of truth to the Popes chaire without great and good assurance from him that is the fountaine of truth and the giuer of the holy Ghost Phi. We hold by Christes promise Theo. Shew that and you be discharged Phi. Thy faith shall not faile Theo. Proue that to bee spoken to the Bishoppe of Rome Phi. It was spoken to Peter Theo. But not to the Pope Phi. That which Peter had his successour
you bee â—owly deceiued Your consequent is as false as your antecedent is true That Princes shoulde vse their swordes for the seruice of GOD is a cleare and vndoubted principle but that Prophetes Priests or Popes may take their Scepters from them if they vse them otherwise than they ought this is a false presumption of yours and not a consequent either of your former examples or your later excurrents where you fâ—â—rish about with many pretences and prefaces to shew the reason of your wicked assertion Phi. Our conclusion is that the Priests and Prophets rightly opposed themselues in all such actions as tended to the dishonour of God and destruction of religion and in the behalfe of God executed iustice vpon such as contrarie to their obligation and first institution abused their soueraigne power to the aduancement of Idolatrie heresie Theo. What wordes you list to colour and cloake your conclusion with wee care not The matter in question betwixt vs is not whether Prophetes might oppose themselues by way of reproofe or do that which God commaunded them to the terror of Idolatrous Princes which you call executing of iustice in Gods behalfe vpon such as abused their power But in plaine termes whether euer any Priest or Prophet by vertue of their vocation as superiour Iudges did violently withstand or iudicially depose Idolatrous or hereticall Princes You take vppon you to proue by holy Scripture they did we say they did not They reproued them and threatned them by special direction and message from God they neuer deposed any Onely God sent one of them to will Iehu to take the sword in hand and as a lawfull magistrate nominated and elected by God himselfe to take vengeance on Achabs house and race Whence it will not follow that other Priests and Prophets by their ordinarie calling might do the like or giue Crownes and kingdomes as they sawe cause This was and is specially reserued vnto God When hee speaketh the worde Princes shall loose not only Scepter and State but life and soule and vntill hee speake neither Apostles nor Prophets Priests nor Popes may presume to dispose kingdomes or name successours to the Crownes of earthly Princes Phi. In these cases and all other doubtes and differences betwixt one man and an other or betwixt Prince and people that Priestes and namely the high Priest shoulde bee the Arbiter and Iudge the interpreter of Gods wil towards his people is most consonant both to nature reason the vse of all nations and to the expresse Scriptures For in Gods sacred Law thus we read Si difficile ambiguum apud te iudicium esse prospexeris inter sanguinem sanguinem causam causam lepram non lepram c. If thou foresee the iudgement to be hard and ambiguous betwixt bloud and bloud cause and cause leprosie or no leprosie and find varietie of sentences among the iudges at home rise and goe vp to the place which the Lorde thy God shall chuse and thou shalt come to the Priests of Leuies stocke and to the iudge that shall be for the time thou shalt aske of them they will iudge according to the trueth of iudgement and thou shalt doe whatsoeuer they say that haue the rule of the place which God shall chuse and shall teache thee according to his lawe thou shalt not decline neither to the right hand nor left And if any shall bee so proude as not to obey the commandement of the Priest that shall for that time minister vnto the Lord thy God by the sentence of the iudge let that man die and so thou shalt remoue euil from Israel and al the people hearing shall feare and take heede that hereafter they waxe not proude Thus farre in the holy text generally with out all exception subiecting in cases of such doubtes as are recited all degrees of faithfull men no lesse kinges than others to the Priests resolution Theo. What will you doe to help your cause that will thus both corrupt wrest the Scriptures to make them serue your fansies You wilfully peruert the words of the holy Ghost to bring them to your beck and as if that were not corruption enough you wrench force the sense of the Scripture against reasoÌ„ against trueth against the whole course of the Iewes common wealth against the very partes and branches of the text it selfe Phi. First what corruption haue wee committed in the wordes Theo. That where the wordes are If any through pride will not obay the commaundement of the Priest which shall for the time minister vnto the Lord thy God or disobay the Decree of the Iudge that man shall die you change them and say If any man will not obay the commaundement of the Priest by the Decree of the Iudge that man shall die Phi. So the latine is Ex decreto â—udicis morietur homo ille By the decree of the Iudge shal that man die Theo. But the Greeke and Hebrue are cleane against it The words of the Septuagint are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The man whosoeuer he be that shal in pride not obay the Priest that is appointed to minister vnto the name of the Lord or els shal not obay the iudge which shal be in those daies that man shal die thou shalt take the euil one from Israel The Hebrew is answerable to the Greeke The man that shal doe in pride Lebilthi shemóahh el-haccohèn hahhomèd Lesháreth shà m eth-Iehouà elohéca ò el-hasshophèt umeth haïsh hahù not to heare the Priest or the Iudge that man shall die And so did Cyprian repete this text Et homo quicunque fecerit in superbia vt non exaudiat Sacerdotem aut Iudicem quicunque fuerit in diebus illis morietur homo ille omnis populus cum audierit timebit And the man whosoeuer shall in pride not heare the Priest OR THE IVDGE which shal be in those dayes that man shal die and al the people when they heare of it shall feare Phi. But S. Hierom read it otherwise as you see by his translation Theo. You haue corrupted the translation which you call S. Hieroms and now you would bolster out your forgeries with his name Howbeit knowe you that the very same translatioÌ„ not long since was not Ex decreto iudicis but decreto iudicis He that obeyeth not the coÌ„mandement of the Priest and the decree of the iudge that man shall die This was the text of the Bible which you cal S. Hierome not much more than 200 yeres since when Nicolaus de Lyra your ordinarie Glosse did coÌ„ment vpon it And so they read to this day as also many written copies that I haue seene Hereupon Lyra saith In these such cases they must haue recourse to the superiour Iudges that is to the high Priest and the Iudge of the people And sometimes it fell out that both offices did concurre in one person
flesh in so much that the flesh is heere called the soule Such a man when the church casteth from her shee keepeth the spirit safe to wit the holie spirite of God which is the guider of the church For if they suffer any such one to bee amongest them hee defileth all and the holie spirite departeth Phi. S. Hierom taketh it otherwise To deliuer him vnto Satan for the destruction of the flesh saith he vt arripiendi illum corporaliter habeat potestatem that the diuell may haue power corporally to possesse him so Saint Chrysostom For the destruction of the flesh that the diuell may strike him with some grieuous sore or other disease Theo. This I told you before was a doubtfull speech and therefore woulde yeelde you no certaine conclusion For besides Sainct Augustine and Sainct Ambrose Sainct Hierom in those bookes which are assuredly his vseth these wordes To deliuer vnto Satan to the destruction of the fleshe for a perpetuall consequent to excommunication in all ages and not for corporall vexation permitted onely to the Apostles Illi si peccauero licet tradere me Satanae in interitum carnis vt spiritus saluus sit A clergie man sayth hee may deliuer mee to Satan if I sinne for the destruction of the fleshe that the spirite may bee safe And inueighing against Vigilantius I maruaile sayth hee the Bishop vnder whome hee is doeth not crush this vnprofitable vessell with the Apostolike rodde euen a rodde of yron and deliuer him into the destruction of the fleshe that the spirite may bee safe Noting by these wordes the right force of excommunication which doeth and shall indure to the ende not any corporall punishment or plague wherewith God sometimes touched such as would not otherwise be reformed A thirde interpretation of these wordes you shall finde in Sainct Augustine writing against Parmenian What did the Apostle sayth hee but prouide for the health of the soule by the destruction of the fleshe whether it were by some corporall punishment or death as in Ananias and his wife which fell down at Peters feete or else that the partie by repentance because he was giuen ouer vnto Satan should kil in himself the wicked concupiscence of the fleshe This later exposition cutteth off cleane your bodilie punishmentes and sheweth the ende of Apostolike excommunication to be this that the offendour by repentaunce should destroy the lustes of his flesh and not that an euill spirit should corporally correct and molest him which you conclude out of these wordes with as great confidence as if it were some maine principle of faith Phi. S. Augustine repeateth both expositions disliketh neither Theo. His accepting of both dischargeth your illation which is wholy grounded on the first But admit that also which Chrysostom seemeth to follow what shall your conclusion be Phi. That the Apostles punished the bodies of such as were christians Theo. Did they lay violent handes on them or vse any externall meanes Phi. They needed not the diuell did it at their word Theo. And because the diuell will not doe the like for you you will supplie the diuels roome and intermedle with his office Are you not wise Diuines that to chalenge the correction of other mens bodies make your selues the Diuels substitutes Phi. Wee make our selues the Apostles substitutes Theo. Then deliuer them to the Diuell as they did and offer them no farther violence nor torment with your owne handes and see what power you haue to chastise the bodies of such as you reiect from the church for so did the Apostles Mary if you content not your selues with speaking the word as they did but because the Diuell fayleth you you take helpe of your handes to punish the bodies of men beware least you be now not Pauls associats in deliuering but Satans in tormenting the carkasses of offendors Phi. Is euerie one that punisheth the bodie Satans associate Theo. They that beare the sworde with lawfull power from God to represse the wicked if cause require to kill the bodie they bee Gods ministers seruing for that intent but they that without this sworde claime to bee the correctors and punishers of mens bodies by violent meanes are the Diuels vicegerentes and not Gods For they bee murderers and the right members of Satan Phi. But wee appoint the Magistrate to doe it Theo. Doe you appoint Magistrates to lay violent handes on themselues Phi. No but on others Theo. And we be disputing of Princes whether they may bee defeated of their crowns and chastised in their bodies vpon your excommunications Phi. Excommunicate persons may bee corporally chastised whosoeuer bee the deede doer and that S. Chrysostoms exposition fully proueth For if it were lawfull then whiles the Apostles did excommunicate why not as well after and in other ages Theo. But if you relent from this that your selues may bee the deed doers then you misse the marke which you shot at The Magistrate wee knowe may corporally punish these and all other offendours but what is that to your position which hold that spirituall Pastors may punish the bodies of the faithful And therfore look to your footing least you faile in your leaping and backe with this legge that a meere spirituall officer may touch the liues and take the goods of heretiks and other excommunicate persons It is a wicked intrusion of Antichrist seeking indirectly and as you call it by accident that is by hooke or by crooke to bring the world and worldly things in subiection to his appetite The Apostles did nothing but separate sinners from the church and house of God because in those dayes there were no christian Princes with ordinarie power to reuenge the disorders committed in and against the church of Christ it pleased God that whom the Apostles and their after-commers for a season cast out of the church as intangled with great and haynous offences the Diuell shoulde afflict them vnto death or otherwise with some grieuous disease as the fault deserued that the rest might feare and not bee bolde to sinne because there was no magistrate to punish them yea many times God visited the sinnes of hypocrites and such as remained in the church in like maner as Paul himselfe testifieth to those of Corinth For this cause many amongest you are stroken with infirmities and diseases and many are dead For if we would iudge our selues we should not bee iudged but when wee are iudged we are chastened of the Lord that wee should not bee condemned with the world And Chrysostom alleadging this place Many such things fall out in the church at this day Because the priest knoweth them not that loden with sinne receiue the reuerend mysteries vnworthily therefore God himselfe often times culleth them out and deliuereth them to Satan And that the Apostles did nothing but cast them out of the church when they deliuered anie to Satan the same Father will teach
catholike church that heretikes shoulde bee put to death And therefore the ancient Fathers did not extend these preceptes to heresie as you doe or else they thought them-selues and the church of Christ not bounde to the iudiciall part of Moses lawe which properly concerned the Iewes Common-wealth and expired at the comming of our Sauiour But admit this place were ment of heresie which is not so when God saith that Prophetes shal be slaine and thou shalt slea the inhabitants of that citie with the edge of the sworde and destroie it vtterly doeth he speake to priuate or publike persons To priuate men he saide thou shalt not kill ergo this precept hee shall bee slaine is directed to the Magistrate to whome God gaue the sworde for this purpose that hee should take vengeance of the wicked in his name and according to his law Phi. What if the Magistrate him-selfe bee the partie that so sinneth and should be put to death shall he escape Theo. That is the case which you take in hande to proue that the people may punish the Prince offending as wel as the Prince may the people Phi. Either the people or none must do it Theo. And since the people may not doe it it is euident that God hath reserued the magistrate to be punished by himselfe and not giuen the people power ouer their Prince Dauid committed adulterie Salomon eâ—ected Idolatrie both offences being death by Gods lawe Might the people therefore haue put Dauid Salomon to death In many christian common-wealthes rapes thestes murthers be capitall crimes and punished by death shall the people therefore take their Princes if they be culpable in any of these and by their owne lawes chop off their heads I think you be not so mad to put the sword in euerie mans hand that first will vse it Phi. Then Princes haue impunitie to doe what they list without feare of Lawes Theo. Princes appoint penalties for others not for themselues They beare the sworde ouer others not others ouer them Subiectes must be punished by them and they by none but by God whose place they supplie Saint Cyrill saith rightly Nemo leges Regum impunè reprobat nisi Reges ipsi in quibus praeuaricationis crimen locum non habet Prudenter enim dictum est impium esse qui regi dixerit iniquè agis No man may breake the lawes of Princes without punishment but the Princes themselues who may not be charged with the transgression of their owne Lawes For it was wisely spoken he is wicked that sayeth to a king thou art an offendour And if it bee a monster in nature and policie to suffer the children to chastise the father and the seruantes to punish the Master what a barbarous and impious deuise of yours is this to giue the Subiectes power of life and death ouer their Princes Sticke not to these thinges if you bee wise least Children and Seruauntes thinke it more neede you bee purged for Phrensie than answered by Diuinitie Phi. Neither pertaineth this to poore men onely but to the Gouernours and Leaders of the people most of all As wee see in the booke of Numbers where Moses by the commaundement of God caused all the Princes of the people to bee hanged vppon Gibbettes against the Sunne for communication in sacrifice with the Moabites and the rest of the people euerie one by the hande of his neighbour to bee put to the sworde for the same fault wherein Phinees the Priest of God by sleaing a chiefe Captaine with his owne handes deserued eternall prayse and the perpetuitie of his Priesthood By Moses also his appointment the faithfull Leuites slue 3300. of their neighbours brethren and friendes for committing idolatrie and forsaking the true God Mary in all this as you see by the examples alleadged the Prophet and Priestes must direct them for the cause and action that they erre not of phantasie partialitie pride and pretence of Religion as heretikes and rebels do but the quarrel must be for the olde faith seruice and Priesthood against innouation and directed and allowed by those which by order and function haue charge of our soules Theo. Can you see no difference betweene Nobles that bee Subiectes and the Prince that beareth the sworde Moses the chiefe Magistrate was commaunded by God to hang vp the heades and captaines of the people for committing whoordome with the daughters of Moab and bowing down to their gods and so hee did Your conclusion is ergo the people may doe the like to their Magistrates You may hang this reason on a hedge for the goodnesse of it Your antecedent hath two sufficient warrantes which your conclusion lacketh First God precisely commaunded that kinde of reuenge to bee taken and secondly the Magistrate was the reuenger Howe can you then vpon this infer that Subiectes may do the same since Subiectes be no magistrates and haue a streit commandement from God not to laie hands on his annointed Phi. Phinees the Priest of God slue Zimri the Prince of the house of Simeon with his owne hands and thereby gat the perpetuitie of his Priesthood Theo. Phinees had for his warrant afore he did the deede the voice both of God and the Magistrate For Moses had charged the Iudges of Israell before Zimri came with the woman of Midian into the tentes Euery one slaie his men that ioyned vnto Baal Peor And the Magistrate commaunding as in this case you see he did it was lawful for Phinees or any other priuate person to execute that sentence Phi. Why then was Phinees so highly commended and recompenced at Gods handes Theo. Not for attempting to kill without commission as you imagine but for his readinesse to accomplish the will of God and worde of Moses with his owne handes in the sight of them all and hastning in his own person to do that execution though he were the chiefe Prince of the tribe of Leuie and sonne to Eleazar the high Priest whose zeale for his seruice God so imbraced that he willed the office of the high Priest after his fathers death to remaine to him and his line for euer Phi. The Leuites before that slue 3300. of their neighbours brethren and friends for committing idolatrie and forsaking the true God Theo. Why shoulde they not when as God and the Magistrate appointed them so to doe Moses gaue them the charge in these words Thus saith the Lord God of Israel put euerie man his sworde by his side and goe to and fro from gate to gate through the host and slea euery man his brother and euery man his companion and euery man his neighbor And the children of Leui did as Moses had commanded and there fell of the people that day about three thowsand men What fact can be more lawfull than where God prescribeth what shall be done and he that beareth the sword authoriseth others to do it Phi. The Priestes you see made this
forefinger with twenty such nicefinities curiosities haue neither foundation nor relation to Christs action nor institution nor to his Apostles doctrine nor doings who knew their masters meaning and continued their masters example with words gestures reuerent sufficient to satisfie his heauenly will and precept for this matter Phi. You doe not so much as vse any words vpon the elements but let the bread and the wine stand aloofe as if you were afraid to touch them Theo. In déede we blesse with our hearts and voices not with our fingers and therefore we make our account that our praiers are as forceable and as effectuall at sixe féete length as at six haires bredth And to deal friendly with you that blessing with mouth taketh no place except the hand be also winding turning the patene and chalice after your maner we can not beléeue it afore we sée some reason for it sorcerers and coniurers haue such circumstances but we hope you be not of their Seminaries Phi. Did not Christ take the bread likewise the cup into his hands Theo. Yes verily He could not BREAK it with his hand vnles it were in his hand neither could he GIVE it out of his hand afore he TOOKE it into his hand Phil. Then Christ TOOKE the bread so the cup into his hands before he did consecrate so you do not Theo. You would say before he did distribute For breking giuing which wer the ends of his taking are parts of distributiō not of cōsecration Phi. What blasphemy haue we heer did Christ distribute before he did cōsecrate the bread Theo. You be so busie about blessing the host and the chalice that you charge the sonne of God in his doings and the euangelists in their writings with blasphemy Phi. Nay we charge you with blasphemie for saying that Christ gaue vnconsecrated bread and wine to his disciples Theoph. Doth not the Scripture say the same Iesus taking bread and giuing thanks brake it and gaue it to his Disciples and saide take ye eate ye this is my bodie And taking the cup and giuing thanks he gaue it to them saying drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament c. He tooke bread brake it and gaue it to his disciples bidding them take it and eate it before he said this is my body Now if these words this is my bodie be the words of Consecration ergo distribution went before Consecration and when Christ did consecrate the bread was in his disciples and not in his owne hands Phil. But he blessed as we call it or as you terme it he gaue thanks before he brake it Theop. That thanksgiuing or benediction was not consecration as your selues confesse and would séem to prooue by an whole heape of fathers and therfore in spite of all that you do or can say Christ did consecrate by word of mouth whē the disciples had the bread cup in their hands Phi. Would you haue the priest then not at al to touch the elements Theo. When we diuide them we cannot choose but touch them as Christ did Mary they may be sanctified by prayer and made Sacraments by repeating the words of Christ though at that instant we touch them not And therfore your vnsound quidities that Christ blessed the very element and vsed power actiue words vpon the bread and ouer the bread which we doe not but let the bread and wine stand a loofe and occupie the words of Christ by way of report and narration applying them not at all to the matter proposed these nice and new found quddities I say be méere fooleries since the words of Consecration take their effect not from our fingers or gestures but from Christs mouth and commandement that we should do the like Phil. You neuer apply these words this is my body more than the whole narration of the institution nor recite the whole otherwise than in historical maner and for that cause you make it no Sacrament at al. Theo. Can you tell what you say Phil. Why doubt you that Theo. Because it is a wicked and blasphemous lie for the priest to say this is my bodie otherwise than by way of rehearsall what Christ said And therefore your braines be more than distempered if you would haue vs or any other Christian ministers to say it otherwise than by report what Christ saide and commanded vs to do in remembrance of him Phil. Doe you thinke we meane the priest should say of his owne person this is my bodie Theo. If you do meane it Bedlem is a fitter place for you than either Rhemes or Rome Phil. You may be sure we do not Theo. Why then reprooue you vs for repeating the words of Christ by way of rehearsall what he did and saide Phil. You should apply them to the matter proposed Theo. How By praier precedent and consequent or by glozing and interlacing Christs wordes with ours Phil. You should actiuely and presently apply them to the elements of bread and wine Theo. I must aske you the same question that I did before The wordes were spoken by Christ in his own person and cannot actiuely and presently be pronounced by any priest but by way of report what Christ saide without apparent and horrible blasphemie And therefore the application of them in our words must either go before them or after them and not exactly with them much lesse to be comprised in them Phil. We tell you you doe not apply them actiuely and presently Theo. We tell you you knowe not what you say The words of Christ this is my body this is my blood mauger all the diuels in hell must be pronounced in no mans person but only by way of repetition what Christ at his last supper said in his owne person and your Iesuitical nouelties of actiuely and presently be so far from the soundnes of faith and substance of truth that your selues are not able to expound what you speake Phil. Yes that we are Theo. So it should séeme by the readinesse of your answere What then is the present and actiue application which you striue for or which way is it made By word of mouth or intention of hart The Priest when he saith this is my body cannot iointly with those words vtter any other words of his owne to apply them Intention of heart cannot alter the sense of the spéech but only direct before God the purpose of the speaker And vnlesse the meaning of the Priest be to recite the words of Christ by way of repetition I sée not how you can excuse either the Priests hart or mouth from outragious and monstrous impietie Phil. We haue a present and actiue application of the words which you haue not Theo. What is it Phil. The Priest intendeth to doe as Christ did and therefore vttereth the words distinctly and aduisedly ouer the elements that are in his hands and vnder his eies
precepts eate ye drinke ye but in al respects the cup was deliuered at the same time to the same persons when the bread was So that you must either exclude the people from both which I trust you dare not or admit them to both which is the very point that we presse you with Heare what a man of your side thinketh as well of this consequent as of your halfe communion There be some false catholikes that feare not to stop the reformation of the church what they can These spare no blasphemies least that other part of the Sacrament shoulde bee restoared to the lay people For say they Christ spake drinke ye all of this onely to the Apostles but the words of the Masse be these take and eate ye al of this Here I would know of them whether this were spoken only to the Apostles then must laymen abstaine likewise from the element of bread which to say is an heresie yea a pestilent and detestable blasphemie It is therefore consequēt that both these words eate ye drinke ye were spoken to the whole Church I will not take this aduantage that your owne fellow doth proclaime you for false Catholikes heretikes and horrible blasphemers God giue you grace to see whither you be fallen and whence This for your liues you cannot shifte but these two precepts eate ye drinke ye by the tenor of Christs institution must be referred to the same persons and so both or neither pertaine to the people Surely the wordes which our Sauiour vsed in deliuering the cup are more generall and effectiue than when he gaue the bread Drinke ye all of this and they all dranke of it take it diuide it among you This cup is the newe Testament in my blood which shall be shed for you Now the Lord shed not his blood for the Priest onely but also for the people neither was the new Testament established in the blood of Christ for the Priestes sake but as well for the redemption of the people Then as the fruites and effects of the blood of Christ are common to the people with the Priest so should the cup also which is the communion of his blood shed for the remission of the peoples sins be diuided indifferently betweene the Preist and people There is saieth Chrysostome where the Priest differeth nothing from the people as when wee must receiue the dreadfull mysteries For it is not here as it was in the olde Lawe where the Priest eate one part and the pleople an other neither was it lawfull for the people to be partaker of those thinges which the Priest was but now it is not so but rather one bodie is proposed to all and one cup. Phil. The church then might like that the people shoulde haue the cup as the church after did mislike it for many and weightie causes but how proue you that Christes precept extendeth vnto the people Theo. Wee can haue no better interpreter of Christes speech than his Apostle that was best acquainted with the true meaning of our Sauiour Wee haue sayth he the minde of Christ and that which I deliuered you I receiued of the Lorde So that hee did not correct but onely report the Lordes ordinaunce and in deliuering both kindes to the whole church of Corinth priest and people without exceptiō the teacher of the gentiles did neither swarue frō the first institutiō nor right intentiō of Christ his master The cup of thāksgiuing which we blesse is it not the communion of Christes blood The bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christs body Ye can not drink the cup of the Lord the cup of diuels Ye can not be partakers of the Lordes table and of the table of diuels Can you frame vs a reason out of these wordes of Sainct Paul to dissuade the Corinthians from eating and drinking such things as the Gentile there sacrificed to Idols not confesse that they dranke of the Lords cup It is not possible For this is Sainct Paules argument You can not drinke both the Lordes cuppe and the cuppe of diuels the cuppe of thankes giuing which wee blesse and you all drinke of is the communion of the Lordes blood therefore you maie not drinke of the cup of diuels YOV CANNOT DRINKE BOTH inferreth they did and should drinke one which was the Lordes cup not the cup of diuels els Paul should haue said you maie drinke neither not the cup of diuels for they might haue no fellowship with diuels neither the Lordes cup for that is reserued for the Priest by your doctrine but both saith Paul you cannot drinke ergo they must drinke one which was not the cup of diuels Againe the cup which they dranke not could to them be no Communion For nature teacheth vs that to be partaker of a cup is to drinke but the Lordes cup was to them the communion of his blood ergo they dranke of the Lordes cup. My collection is so cleare that the vulgar translation which you are tied to by the Councell of Trent putteth these verie woordes in the text Omnes de vno pane de vno calice participamus we all are partakers of one bread AND OF ONE CVP. Ambrose Hierom Bede Haymo and others found it so consequent to S. Pauls former woords and coherent with his maine reason that they sticke not to keepe this addition de vno calice in their verie terts on which they comment So that out of question Paul taught the Church of Corinth to distribute the Lordes supper to the Christians in both kindes and that as he saith he receiued of the Lorde And who◠that hath anie shame or sense left reading the next Chapter that followeth where Christes institution is fullie proposed and largelie debated by S. Paul will or can doubt but the Lorde at his last Supper ordained both kindes for all the faithfull As often saith Paul to the whole Congregation as ye shall eate this bread and drinke this cup ye shewe the Lordes death till he come Whosoeuer shall eate this bread drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthilie shall be guiltie of the bodie and blood of the Lorde Let a man therefore not speaking of this or that man but of euerie man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread and drinke of this cup. And least you should want a generall affirmatiue to iustifie this our exposition take these woordes of S. Paul and quiet your selfe By one spirit are we all Baptized into one bodie whether we be Iewes or Grecians bond or free and WE ALL HAVE DRVNKE into one spirit Can you looke for directer or plainer woordes All Iewes and Gentiles bond and free not onelie dranke but by drinking were made partakers of one and the same spirite uen as by baptisme they were grafted into one bodie Then if Christ himselfe deliuered both kindes at his last Supper
with a strait and generall charge for the cup drinke yee all of this and Paul receiuing his instructions from Christ his master proposed the same to the Lay men of Corinth no lesse than to the ministers excepting none Iewes nor Gentiles bond nor free from this precept how dare you Philander and your late Conuents restraine the people from drinking of it The Lordes cup is the new couenant which he hath made with all beleeuers do none beleeue but Priests For the remission of sinnes are laie men no sinners as a memoriall of his death maie the people loose that remembrance It is saith Paul THE COMMVNION OF HIS BLOOD and the partaking of his spirite haue the people no right to the blood of Christ that was shed for them or will you claime his spirite as peculiar to Priestes which is common to all the children of God Philand The Church I warraunt you did ponder and consider these reasons when shee tooke this order and finding them vnsufficient shee decreed with vs that the cuppe was not necessarie for the Laie people Theoph. What Church I praie you The primatiue and auncient Church of Christ where catholicisme should beginne Wee can assure you no. They ministred in both kindes to Priest and people men and women without exception DIONYSIVS The breade that was whole being broken into manie partes and ONE CVP DIVIDED AMONG ALL the Bishoppe in these twaine perfiteth the holie Sacrifice The sacred Communion of one and the same breade AND COMMON CVP bindeth Christians to diuine concorde and likenesse of manners as being nourced vp together IGNATIVS There is but one flesh of the Lord Iesu and one blood that was shed for vs there is also but one bread that is broken for all and ONE CVP THAT IS DIVIDED AMONG ALL. ATHANASIVS If those be his expositions which you haue set forth in his name The dreadfull cup was deliuered by the Lorde TO ALL MEN ALIKE CYPRIAN How doe we prepare the people for the cup of martyrdome if we doe not first admit them in the Church to DRINKE THE LORDES CVP BY RIGHT OF COMMVNION AVGVSTINE Not onelie no man is forbidden but rather ALL MEN that seeke for life ARE ENCOVRAGED TO DRINKE And againe speaking to the people simul bibimus quia simul viuimus WE DRINKE TOGETHER at the Lordes table because we liue together CHRYSOSTOME as before One bodie is proposed to al and one cup. GREGORIE The blood of Christ is now not powred into the hands of vnbeleeuers but into the mouthes of the faithfull THEOPHILACT How happeneth thou drinkest alone whereas this dreadfull cup was deliuered to all men indifferentlie HAYMO The cup is called a communion by Paul because all men are partakers of it PASCHASIVS Christ gaue the cup and said Drinke ye all of this as well the Ministers as the rest of the beleeuers Infinite are the places which might be brought to make faith that for a thousand yeares in the Church of God the people were not depriued of the Lordes cup. The master of your sentences who liued verie neare twelue hundred after Christ knewe not this maiming and paring of Christes institution which now raigneth in your churches Therefore is the Sacrament saith he celebrated in two kinds that in Christ the taking of soul and flesh and in vs the redeeming of them both might be signified For the flesh of Christ is offered for our flesh and his soul for our soules It is taken vnder both kindes which profiteth both partes If it shoulde be receiued in one kinde onely that would declare that it auayled for the safegard of one part onely soule or body not for both ioyntly The gloze that followed an hundred yeeres after resteth him-selfe on the same reason with the same wordes and shrinketh not from the communion in both kinds but in the danger of sicknes or point of necessitie Insirmus vel sanus in necessitate potest sumere corpus sine vino a sicke man whome the drinking of wyne might hurt or an whole man in case of necessitie where hee can not choose may receiue the body without the wyne Then in the Church where prouision might soone bee made for all and no necessitie coulde bee pretended it was not as yet counted lawefull for the people to receiue the Sacrament in one kinde Philand But if the Church after vppon good deliberation sawe sufficient cause to chaunge that order who made you controllers of Christes spouse Theoph. That vnshamefast harlot which foureteene hundred yeeres after Christes ascention woulde both alter her husbandes will and defraude his children of that portion which their Lorde and Sauiour had allotted them did prostitute her selfe and bastardize her ofspring as much as lay in her and is no way woorthie to haue the honour of a mother or name of a spouse though shee paint her selfe neuer so freshly with youthfull colours And the reasons which mooued her so to doe were as ridiculous as the fact was impious Durandus sayth Non esset decens tantum sanguinem conficere nec calix capax inueniretur It woulde not bee decent to consecrate so much blood as must serue the people neither can there so bigge a chalice bee gotten Gerson beateth his braines to iustifie that which the councell of Constance did in taking the Lordes cup wholy from the people not yet nyne score yeeres agoe and when hee hath all doone hee commeth in with these toyes THE length of Laymens beardes the lothsomnes to drinke after others the costlynes of so much wyne the difficulties first of getting then of keeping wyne from sowring freezing and breeding of flies the burden in bearing and daunger in spilling it last of all the peoples vnwoorthynes to match Messere magnifico the Priest in the receite of this Sacrament Bee not these valiant inducements for you to chaunge the last Will and Testament of Christ Iesus and abrogate that which was orderly kept in the church for a thousande yeeres and vpward And yet these were the grauest and profoundest considerations that your friendes had to leade them to this attempt and these you knowe bee verie miserable Gerson I graunt shifteth what hee can to bring other proofes that both kindes are not simply needfull but why the councell of Constance tooke the cup cleane from the people which violence before was neuer offered them of this I say Gerson a chiefe agent in that councell labouring purposely to shewe the reason of their doings neither doeth nor could yeelde any better or weightier occasions than these which I nowe repeated and the reader shall find blazed with great confidence in the second part of the foresaid treatise O deintie fathers and sleeke diuines which for long beardes and vnsweete breathes for a litle paynes and no great charges for frostes in winter and flies in sommer thought best to correct Christes institution and not onely to forsake the
full consent of all ages and Churches in expounding the same but also to chase the people by terror of secular power and ecclesiasticall curse from the cup of their saluation from the communion of Christs blood and felowship of his holy spirit Such fathers such fansies What is mockerie what is iniurie to God and man if this be Religion or pietie The Church of Rome you will say concluded with them That increaseth her sinnes and excuseth not their follies If an Angel from heauen had conspired with them our duetie bindeth vs to detest both him and them as accursed if they step from that which the primatiue church receiued from Paul and Paul from Christ Howe much more then ought wee to reiect that which the church of Rome presumeth not onely besides but against the sacred scriptures And yet to speake vprightly the auncient church of Rome maketh wholy with vs in this cause For no church euer resisted your mangled communions with greater vehemencie than the church of Rome did till couetousnesse and pride blinded her eyes and hardned her heart against God and his sonne Pope Iulius that lyued vnder Constantine the great made this decree We heare that certaine led with schismaticall ambition against the diuine ordinances and Apostolike directions doe giue TO THE PEOPLE the Eucharist dipped in wyne for a full communion They receiued not this from the Gospell where Christ betooke his body and blood to the Disciples For there is recited the deliuering the bread by it selfe and the cup by it selfe Let therefore all such error and presumption cease least inordinate and peruerse diuises weaken the soundnes of fayth If the communion bee neither perfite nor agreeable to Christes institution and Apostolike prescription except the people receiue both kinds seuerall and asunder the bread from the cup and the cup from the bread as Christ ordayned and the Gospel declareth Ergo your excluding the people cleane from the cup is altogether repugnant to the manifest intent of our Sauiour and right imitation of his Apostles And what if the first authors of your drie communion were the Manichees are you not wise men and well promoted to forsake the precept which Christ gaue you the president which Paul left you the course which the christian world for so many yeeres obserued and followe so pestilent and pernicious a sect of heretikes reprooued and long since condemned by the church of Rome for that very fraude and abuse in the Sacraments which you bee nowe fallen vnto The Manichees sayth Leo to couer their infidelitie venter to bee present at our mysteries and so carie them-selues in the receiuing of the Sacraments for their more safetie that they take the body of Christ with an vnwoorthy mouth but in any wise they shunne to drinke the blood of our redemption Which I would haue your dâ—uoutnes speaking to the people learne for this cause that such men might bee knowen to you by these markes and when their sacrilegious simulation is founde they may bee noted and bewrayed by the Godly that they may bee chased away by the priestly power Against this disorder of Manichees wrate Pope Gelasâ—â— as your friende Master Harding confesseth Wee haue intelligence that certaine men receiuing onely a portion of the sanctified body abstaine from the cup of the sacred blood who for that it appeareth they be entangled with I knowe not what superstition let them either receiue the whole Sacraments or be driuen from the whole because the diuiding and parting of one and the same mysterie can not bee without grieuous sacrilege The sense is plaine To take the Lordes breade and not drinke of the Lordes cup is a seuering and distracting of this mysterie which by the iudgement of these two Popes is open sacrilege ergo neither Catholike or christian What shift nâ—we Philander to saue your selues from sacrilege Spake Gelasius of the Manichees as Master Harding resolueth Graunt it were so Then what was sacrilege in them can it bee catholike in you If that auncient church of Rome condenmed this in the Manichees howe commeth your late Church of Rome not onely to suffer but also to commaund the same Can you turne darkâ—nes to light and sacrilege to Religion That were a marueilous alteration But Siâ—s your minds may change wee knowe Christes institution can not changâ— The contempt thereof in Manichees in Papistes as then so still was and will be sacrilege Spake Gelasius not of the Manichees but of certaine Priestes that receiuing the bread at the Lordes table neglected the cup Yet Leo speaketh of the Manichees by name and â—hose Laymen and mingled with the people and calleth their forbearing the Lords blood a sacrilegious sleight reason were you should prooue that onely Priesâ—es are ment in this place of Gelasius and not suppose what you list at your pleasures as the gloze doeth and others of your side that stand on this answere The woordes are indefinite and touch as well people as Priest but let vs imagine that Gelasius spake of Priestes first then you commit sacrilege in restraining all Priestes from the communion of both kinds except they say Masse themsâ—lues Next if it bee sacrilege in the Priest why not in the people The precept of our Sauiour drinke ye all of this compriseth all both Laymen and Priestes His Apostle extendeth the same to the whole Church of Corinth Chrysostome sayth the Priest differeth nothing from the people in receiuing the mysteries but one cup is proposed to al In Chalice nobiscum vos estis You sayth Austen to the people are in the Lordes cup no lesse than we The cup was deliuered to all men Priest and people with like condition as Theophilact affiâ—meth Drinke yee all of this that is sayth Paschasius as well other beleuers as Ministers Hence wee frame you this argument The cup was by Christ deliuered to Priest and People with like condition and like precept the refusing of the Lordes cup is sacrilege in priests by the position of Gelasius and the confession of your friends it is therefore no lesse than sacrilege for the people to refraine the same What then is it for you to pull the Lordes cuppe out of their handes by rigor and force for so trifling respectes as you pretende but apparent violent and wilfull sacrilege Phi. It was sacrilege then for the people to refuse or refraine the cup because the church was content to admitte them to it But now the church is otherwise resolued it were sacrilege to expect or demand it Theo. What shall the man of sinne and sonne of perdition when he commeth if hee bee not already come and you his supporters to hold vp his seate in the temple of God say more than you now say that you at your lists may breake the commandements of the great and euerlasting God and alter his ordinances and to blame you for
here on earth though after an inuisible manner which wee take to bee vnder the formes of breade and wyne Theo. That Christ is present with vs here on earth wee firmely beleeue to our great comfort Where two or three sayth our Sauiour are gathered together in my name I am in the middest of them and againe Loâ— I am alway with you vntill the ende of the worlde but that hee is corporally present vnder the formes of bread and wine that is neither auouched by Chrysostome nor admitted by vs it is your vaine and fruitlesse fansie Phi. How can his body bee present but bodily Theo. These woordes of Chrysostom inferre not that Christes body is present but that Christ is present And since Christ consisteth of two natures the diuine may bee present though the humane bee not Christ absent sayth Austen is also present For vnlesse hee were present hee coulde not bee helde of vs our selues But because it is true that hee saith Lo I am with you for euer vnto the end of the world hee is both departed and yet here Hee is returned whence hee came and hath not yet forsaken vs. For his body hee hath caried into heauen but his diuine maiestie hee hath not taken from the world Neither is his diuine power onely present with vs but also wee haue his humane nature many wayes with vs in this worlde Habes Christum in praesenti in futuro In praesenti per fidem in praesenti per signum Christi in praesenti per Baptismatis Sacramentum in praesenti per altaris cibum potum Thou hast Christ sayth Austen in this worlde and in the next In this world by faith in this worlde by the signe of Christ in this world by the Sacrament of baptisme in this world by the meate and drinke of the altar By these things wee haue him in this worlde not really locally or corporally but truely comfortably and effectually so as our bodies soules and spirites bee sanctiâ—â—ed and preserued by him against the day of redemption when wee shall see him and enioye him face to face in that fulnesse and perfection which wee nowe are assured of by fayth and prepared for by cleanesse and meekenesse of the inward man The whole Church therefore neuer cried vppon the Sacrament Lorde I am not woorthy Lord beè mercifull to mee a sinner Lambe of God that takest away the sinnes of the worlde haue mercy on vs You doe sinnefully slaunder them they did exactly and precisely distinguish the corruptible creature from the eternal creator and taught all men to lift vp their hearts from the elements which were before their eyes to him that is in heauen and shall come from thence and from no place else to iudge the world Saint Austen wil haue the rude ones to be taught that the Sacraments are Signacula rerum diuinarâ—m visibilia sed res inuisibiles in eis honorari Visible scales of things diuine but the things visible to be honored in them And as if the case were so plaine that no man could well doubt thereof he saith Si ad ipsas res visibiles quibus Sacramenta tractantur animum conferamus quis nesciat eas esse corruptibiles Si autem ad id quod per illas agitur quis non videat non posse corrumpi If we looke to the visible things or elements by which the Sacraments are perfourmed who can be ignorant that they are corruptible But if we looke to that which is doone by them who doth not see that that can not bee corrupted Saint Ambrose saith Venisti ad Altare vidisti Sacramenta posita super Altare ipsam quidem miratus es creaturam Tamen creatura solemnis nota Thou camest to the Altar and sawest the Sacraments placed on the Altar and maruelledst at the very creature yet is it an vsuall and knowen creature Origen purposely creating what part of the Sacrament did sanctifie the receiuer saith Ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei obsecrationem iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit in secessum eijcitur Nec materia panis sed super â—llum sermo est qui prodest non indigne Domino commedenti illum Haec de typico Symbolicoque corpore The meate which is sanctified at the Lords table by the word of God and praier as touching the materiall partes which it hath goeth into the belly and so forth by the priuie neither is the matter of bread it that profiteth the worthy receiuer but the worde rehearsed ouer it This I speake of the typicall and figuratiue body For this cause the great Councell of Nice directed the whole Church to lift vp their vnderstanding aboue the breade and wine which they sawe and by faith to conceiue the lambe of God slaine for the sinnes of men and proposed and exhibited on the Lordes table in those mysteries Their woordes bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let vs not baselie bend our mindes on the bread and cup that are set before our eyes at the Lordes Supper but lifting vp our thoughtes let vs by faith beholde on or in the sacred table the Lambe of God taking awaie the sinne of the worlde Which admonition the Church euer after obserued by crying vpon the people to lift vp their hartes not to the Sacramentes which they saw but from them to him that liued and raigned in heauen whome they adored in equall degree with the father and the holie Ghost and whome they behelde and touched with the eyes and handes of their faith but not with their corporall limmes or senses Quomodo in caelum mittam manum vt ibi sedentem teneam Mitte fidem tenuisti Howe shall I sende vp my hande to heauen to reach Christ sitting there Sende thy fayth sayth Austen and THOV HOLDEST HIM fast enough Fide Christus tangitur fide Christus videtur non corpore tangitur non oculis comprehenditur By fayth sayth Ambrose Christ is touched by fayth Christ is seene hee is not touched with our body not viewed with our eyes And therefore Chrysostome saith Hee must flie not to the Sacrament but on hie that will come to this body euen to heauen it selfe or rather aboue the heauens for where the body is there also will the Eagles bee Phi. The councell of Nice sayth The Lambe of God is on the sacred table where then did they seeke him or made they prayers vnto him but on the Altar Theo. They lifted vp their heartes to him that sate in heauen and from heauen looke downe vppon them and their prayers before they could please God were directed to the same place and person that their heartes were You must therefore either fasten their hearts and faiths to the Sacrament or suffer their prayers together with their affections to ascend to heauen where Christ sitteth at the right hande of God
Austen in plaine termes concluding It is therfore a figure of speech Phi. Sir you bee misconstered all this while The verbe which coupleth both partes of the proposition togither doeth not here signifie this to bee simply that but this to be really changed in that as if our Lord had said THIS breade is now become my body that is substantially changed into my body Theo. Sir you shuffle the words of Christ to serue your dreames yet you scape not the rockes which you thought to shunne If the bread must be changed in substance that is become no bread afore it be the body of Christ ergo breade is not the body of Christ and so your construction is a plaine contradiction to the letter which you would interprete For Christ said this bread is my body that cannot be true say you vnlesse the bread loose first his substance and ceaâ—e in deede to be breade and so where Christ saide this bread is my body you expound his wordes in this sort that it must first be no bread afore it can be his body Besides in absurdity there is no difference whether you say bead is Christ or bread is made Christ changed into Christ. For that which is made Christ without all question is Christ so the same blasphemies are consequent to this exposition that were dependant on the former Phi. Well yet the bread may be abolished and Christs body succeede in the place where the bread was without any of these inconueniences Theo. Thither are you faine to flie when you be hardly pressed with the sequeles of the literall sense but in the meane time you forget that you be cleane gone from the wordes of Christ which you pretended to folow He said this is my body you to expouÌ„d his speach say THIS must first vanish away and then my body shall succeede in the same place and be couered with the same accidents though THIS neither in shew nor substance be my body Phi. This is sophistry which the catholike fathers were neuer acquainted with Theo. If it be any it is yours not ours you first forsooke the exposition of Christs words which the learned and godly fathers with one accord witnessed deliuered then stuÌ„bling at the letter you hatched your carnal local presence against Scriptures and fathers and when the wordes of Christ would not sit your fansies you racked wrenched them til you brought both them to nothing and your selues to a maze that you knew not what you said where as if you had continued their interpretation you had cleared the wordes of Christ from all perplexities inioyed the fruites of the Lords table without perill of Idolatrie or impietie eased your selues of those absurdities which you be now plunged in vp hard to the eares Phi. What interpretation meane you Theo. That which the Fathers generally beleeued publikly taught in the church of Christ. Phi. And what exposition was that but the same which we now vrge you resist The. Shew but one ancient father that euer affirmed the wordes of Christ at his last Supper were properly spoken or literally to be taken and wee will receiue your sense Phi. What you will not Theo. What neede you repeate it when you heare vs offer it Phi. Not a father that euer auouched these words of Christ this is my body to be properly spoken or literally taken Theo. Not a father that is ancient Phi. How would you lie if you might be let alone I can name you presently a good number of them that in exquisite termes shal affirme the words of Christ to be literall Theo. Shal they be auncient Phi. I can not tel what you mean by auncient you would haue them belike before Christ was borne Theo. As though there were not difference both in the ages and credites of those writers that haue gone before vs in the church of Christ. Phi. They shall bee auncient Theo. Damascene perhaps Theophilact Phi. Yea Epiphanius Euthymius and many others The. Many others is a note aboue ela These foure affirme that Christ did not say this is the image or figure of my body but this is my body which we confesse was needefull for the first ordayner and institutor of the Sacrament to say Mary by those wordes our Sauiour did not meane to abolish the substance of breade or wine but to vnite the force and fruite of his flesh crucified and blood shed for our sinnes to the elementes that receiuing the one we might through faith bee partakers of the other by the working of his spirite and power of the word which he then spake much lesse did these later writers the eldest of them being more thaÌ„ 700 yeres after Christ intend to gainesay the fathers that were before them of greater iudgement and deeper knowledge howsoeuer in shew they seeme loth that Christes wordes should be recalled to a bare and naked figure which for our parts we do not Phi. A bare figure nay they will haue no figure in the wordes of Christ to that ende they vrge the very letter as excluding all tropes figures which you now take vp in a spleene to frustrate our proofes Theo. Did the Fathers meane to frustrate your proofes when they tooke vppe this doctrine many hundrethes before you or your reall presence were hearde of Philand Do they teache the wordes of Christ eate this is my bodie to bee figuratiue Theo. I haue shewed you causes sufficient to fray the godly from the letter which doth rather kill than quicken the carnal interpreters yet am I content to forgo them all if in expounding the wordes of Christ figuratiuely the catholike and ancient fathers do not make expressely with vs and against you directly Tertullian The bread which was taken and giuen to the Disciples Christ made his body by saying this is my body that is the figure of my bodie Why doth Christ call bread his bodie Marcion vnderstandeth not this was an old figure of the body of Christ speaking by Ieremie they laide their handes togither against mee saying come let vs cast wood on his bread that is the crosse on his bodie Therefore the lightner of antiquities in calling the bread his bodie fully declared what he would then at his last Supper haue the bread to signifie Augustine discussing the wordes of Moses the soule of all flesh is his blood The thing saith he that doth signifie commonly taketh the name of the thing that is thereby signified as it is written the seuen eares of corne which Pharao dreampt of bee seuen yeres he said not they signifie seuen yeres the seuen kine be seuen yeres many such speeches So was it saide by Paul the rocke was Christ hee sayde not the rocke did signifie Christ but as if it had beene the selfesame thing which by substance it was not but by signification Euen so the blood because it signifieth the soule is
the thinges themselues whose signes those are Philand It were Theophil Why then since corporall eating serueth only for corporall nourishing and hath a continuall and naturall coherence with it doe you confesse the trueth in the later and not as well in the former part of that action why doe you not expound them both alike Philand To say the immortall fleshe of Christ is conuerted and turned into the quantitie and substaunce of our mortall flesh is an horrible heresie Theophil And so say that his fleshe is eaten with our mouthes and â—awes lâ—â—th in our stomacks is the verie pathway right introduction to that heresie or at least to as brutish and grosse an erour as that is Philand The Fathers affirme that his body is eaten with our mouthes Theophil And so they affirme that his bodie and blood doe increase and augment the substaunce of our mortall and sinnefull bodies Philand But that can not bee Theophil No more can the other Philand Howe shall our bodies rise at the last day if Christes body bee not in them Theophil Our resurrection dependeth not on the act of eating his flesh but of nourishing our fleshe with his as Ireneus telleth vs and the thinges which wee eate are not the causes but as the great Nicene councell admonisheth the pledges of our resurrection Their words be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must beleeue these to bee the signes or pledges of our resurrection Philand S. Chrysostom earnestly inforceth the eating of Christs flesh And sayth wee doe not onely eate it but euen * fasten our teeth in his fleshe Theo. In deede hee saith so but if you did not auert both your eyes and eares from the trueth you would perceiue by that verie sentence both the maner of his other Fathers speeches of that Sacrament and the right intent of their Doctrine in those cases His wordes are Non se tantum videri permittens desiderantibus sed tangi manducari dentes carni suae infigi desiderio sui omnes impleri Christ suffering himselfe not only to bee seene of those that are desirous but to bee touched and eaten and our teeth to bee fastned in his flesh and all to be satisfied of their longing after him Phi. Lord me thinketh these words be verie plain words He suffereth our teeth to bee fastned in his fleshe Theo. Uerie plaine they bee but very false also vnlesse you either take the flesh of Christ for the signe called by that name or else referre teeth and biting to the soule and faith of the â—â—ward man aâ— wel as you do the eyes hands wherewith we see him touch him Phi. Look what an â—â—â—sion you haue since gotten Theo. Nay looke what a subuersion of all truth and saith you be since fallen to Phi. Doth not this Father say wee fasten our teeth in his flesh Theo. Doeth hee not also say We see him with our eyes touch him with our handes Phi. That is referred to our faith as S. Ambrose teacheth Fide Christus videtur side Christus tangitur By faith Christ is seene by fayth Christ is touched Theoph. And why shall not the next which is more vnlikely to bee true bee referred to faith as well as the former Sainct Ambrose likewise saying Comedat te cor meuÌ„ panis sancte panis viue panis munde veni in cor meum intra in animam meam Let mine heart eate thee O holy bread O liuing bread O pure-bread come into my heart enter into my soule and Cyprian calling it the proper norishment of the spirite besides infinite others that for a thowsande yeares taught that doctrine in the church of God not your gutturall eating of Christ with teeth and iawes Phi. Was your maner of eating Christes fleshe which you defende in the sacrament taught in the church for a thowsande yeares Theop. Euen ours was and when yours came first to be proposed your schoolemen ran euery man his way fighting and scratching one an other â—ho should fal fastest and farthest from the truth Philand Blush you not to auouch two such monsterous lies Theop. A lyar will easily suspect any man as knowing him-selfe to delight in lies but GOD bee thanked that lyes with you bee truethes with vs and with all that haue any knowlegde of GOD or care of his truth The things which I affirmed be manifest truethes and such as you will blush at for verie shame if you be not sworne to your holie Father against Christ as well as you bee against your Prince Origen commenting vppon these wordes of the Supper this is my bodie this is my blood this breade sayeth hee which Christ confesseth to bee his bodie is the worde that nourisheth our soules and this drinke which hee confesseth to bee his blood is the worde that moysteneth and passinglie cheereth the heartes of such as drinke it Thou which art come vnto Christ sticke not in the blood of his fleshe but rather learne the blood of his worde and heare him saying to thee this is my blood which shall bee shedde for the remission of your sinnes Hee that is partaker of the mysteries knoweth the flesh and blood of the worde of God For the bread is the word of righteousnesse which our soules eating are nourished with and the drink is the worde of the knowledge of Christ according to the mysterie of his birth and death The blood of the Testament is poured into our heartes for the remission of our sinnes Athanasius Howe fewe men woulde his bodie haue sufficed that this shoulde bee the foode of the whole worlde Yea therefore doeth bee warne them of his ascension into heauen that he might drawe him from thinking on his bodie and they thereby learne that the flesh which he spake of was celestiall meate from aboue and spirituall nourishment to bee giuen by him The wordes which I spake to you are spirite and life which is as much as if hee had sayde this bodie which is in your sight and delyuered to death for the worlde shall bee giuen you for meate that it may bee spiritually distributed in euery one of you and be an assuraunce and preseruatiue to raise you to eternall life Cyprian writing of the Lordes Supper Eating and drinking saieth hee bee referred to the one and same end with the which as the substance of our bodies is increased and preserued so the life of the spirite is maintained with his proper nourishment What foode is to the fleshe that faith is to the soule what meate is to the body that the worde is to the spirite working euerlastingly with a more excellent vertue that which bodily meates doe for a time and vntill a season Ambrose approaching to the sacred communion which you intitle a prayer preparing to Masse amongest other thinges speaketh thus to Christ himselfe Thou Lord saydst with thine holy and blessed mouth the bread
Ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed reuera manducare corpus Christi eius sanguinem bibere The Lord sheweth what it is to eate the flesh of christ drinke his bloud not by way of a sacrament but in deede As if he had said hee that remaineth not in me and in whom I doe not likewise remaine let him neuer say nor thinke that he eateth my flesh or drinketh my bloud That which here he calleth Sacramento tènus before in the same Chapter hee called solo Sacramento opposing against it reuera maÌ„nducare prouing that neither heretikes nor wicked Christians do in deede eate the bodie of Christ but only the Sacrament that is the sacred signe of his bodie They rightly vnderstand that he must not be said to eate the bodie of christ which is not in the body of christ as heretikes be not and of wicked liuers though they keepe in the Church he saith Nec isti dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quia nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Neither are these that liue wickedly to bee saide to eate the bodie of christ since they must not be counted the members of Christ. Phi. Not spiritually but Sacramentally they do eate the bodie of Christ though they be wicked and so Sainct Augustine teacheth Theo. Keepe the wordes and sense which S. Augustine hath you shall be free from this error which now you are in He that remaineth not in Christ and in whom Christ abideth not without all doubt doth not spiritually eate his fleshe nor drinke his bloud though carnally and visibly he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of Christs bodie and bloud Sacramentall eating is the carnall and visible pressing with teeth the Sacrament of Christes bodie and bloud it is not the reall eating of Christ himselfe Phi. The Sacrament is Christ we say Theo. But so said not Sainct Augustine He diligently distinguisheth Sacramentum rem Sacramenti the Sacrament and the thing which is the other part of the Sacrament interpreting the Sacrament to be Sacrum Signum a sacred Signe and the thing it selfe to be the bodie of Christ. The Sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two parts Sacramentâ— re Sacramenti id est corpore Christi of the sacrament the thing of the Sacrament which is the bodie of Christ. There is therefore the Sacrament the thing of the Sacrament to witte the body of Christ. Of the Sacrament he saith It is receiued at the Lordes table of some to life of some to destruction Res vero ipsa cuius Sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit But the thing it selfe whereof that is a Sacrament is receiued of all men to life and of none to death whosoeuer is partaker of it The rest ioyne with him in that assertion Heretikes saith Hierom doe not eate his fleshe whose fleshe is the meate of the faithfull Whosoeuer saith Ambrose eateth this bread he shall not die for euer and it is the bodie of Christ. None is partaker of this lambe saith Cyprian that is not a right Israelite The worde saith Origen was made fleshe and true meate the which whosoeuer eateth shall liue for euer Quem nullus malus potest edere whom no wicked person can eate The Sacraments that is the sacred signes of Christes bodie and bloude the wicked doe eate Christ him-selfe they doe not And why The Sacraments are carnally pressed with teeth which they are partakers of as well as the Godlie but Christ him-selfe is not eaten with teeth and therefore the wicked wanting both spirite and faith by which he is receiued cannot possibly eate his fleshe or drinke his bloud though they come to his table neuer so often Phi. If Christ be really contained in the visible Sacrament how can they receiue it but they must receiue him also Theo. If hee were locally and substantially there inclosed it could not be auoided but receiuing the one into their mouthes they must needs also receiue the other into the same passage but because neither he is eaten with teeth nor entereth the bodies of the wicked as where hee abydeth not therefore wee rightly conclude that hee is not corporally couered with the accidentes of bread and wine as you grossely conceiue Phi. The lambe of God lieth on the Altar by the very profession of the first Nicene Councel we aske you now where and how if not vnder the forms of bread and wine Theo. The best handfast you haue in fathers or Councels for this cause is a few speeches wrested and forced from the inward man to the outward from the soul which they ment to the bodie which you vrge thereby to settle your reall and bodily presence but all in vaine For as we doubt not that Christ is alwaies present on his table in trueth grace vertue and effect if we open the eyes of our faith to beholde him and mouth of our spirites to receiue him so the local and corporal hiding of his humane substance vnder the shewes of breade and wine was neuer taught by any Catholike father or councel least of al by the first Nicen Synode exhorting vs in those mysteries or on that sacred table by faith to consider the lambe of God that tooke away the sinnes of the world Whâ—ch if any doe not both professe and perfourme he is not worthie to be counted a Christian. Phi. How saith S. Chrysost wilt thou stand before the tribunal of Christ which inuadest euen his own bodie with wicked hands and lippes Theo. This is not the way to seeke for trueth but to shadowe the same with phrases of speeches And yet in these and al other your allegations out of Chrysostom and others you coÌ„mit these two grosse ouersightes You vnderstand that of the sensible creatures in the sacrament which was spoken of the insensible grace you refer that to the visible parts of our bodies which was inteÌ„ded to the inuisible powers of the mynd with these false fouÌ„dations you run along the fathers peruerting euerie place that you quote as a meane diuine may soone perceiue Phi. These be your shifts to auoide the fathers which we bring because you will not acknowledge the real corporal presence of christ in the sacrament Theo. First proue that Christ is really and corporally present vnder the forms of bread and wine then reproue vs if we do not â—cknowledge it Phi. Doubt you that Theo. Can you proue that Phi. What That Christ is present in the sacrament Theo. Is that the thing which we deny Phi. For ought that I see you graunt not so much The. God forbid we should deny that the flesh bloud of christ are truly present truely receiued of the faithfull at the Lords table It is the doctrine that we â—each others and comfort our selues with Wee neuer
to say is hereticall And therefore they ioyne both in this that the bodie of Christ may not only be eaten of a Mouse but also it may be vomited vppe by the mouth and purged downe by the draught say Bonauenture what he will or can in detestation of their folke These be their words Igitur corpus Christi sanguis tam diu manet in ventre stomacho vel vomitu quocunque alibi quamdiu species manet Et si specieâ— incorruptae euomuâ—tur illa autem qâ—andoque non corrùpta emâ—ttuâ—tur vt in habentibus fluxum ibi est vere corpus Christi Therefore the bodie and bloud of Christ remaine in the bellie anâ— stomacke or in vomite and in whatsoeuer course of nature so long as the shewes of bread and wine remaine And if they be vomited or purged before they be altered as sometimes in those that are troubled with the fluxe euen there is the true bodie of Christ. O filthie mouthes and vncleane spirites What Capernite what heretike what Infidel was euer I say not so carnall and grosse but so barbarous and brutish Is this the reuerence you giue to the sacred and glorious flesh of Christ Is this the corporal presence that you striue for Shal Mice Dogges and Swine haue eternall life that you bring them to eate the fleshe and drinke the bloud of our Sauiour The rest of your sluttish diuinitie no religious hart can repeate no Christian eares can abide let your neerest frindes be iudges whether this kinde of eating doe not match not only the Capernites but also the Canibals This vile and wicked assertion you will beare men in hand you did euer detest and so think to discharge your selues but you cannot scape so The church of Rome whose factours and attournies you be must answere to God and the worlde for suffering admitting and strengthning this sacrilegious blasphemie For when these things were first broched what did she Did she controle the doers and condemne the filthines of their error Did she so much as note the men or mislike the matter No Philander she proposed the question in her sentences Quid igitur sumit mus vel quid manducat What then doth the mouse take or what doth he eate And with her colde and indifferent answer Deus nouit God knoweth she set the schoole men on work she laid vp the ashes of those mice next her altars for reliques she fauored aduanced and canonized the spredders of it Thomas of Aquin was her only Paramour Hugh of Cluince who commended a Priest for eating the sacrament which a leaper had cast vp Cum vilissimo sputo was Saincted of her she made Antonius no worse man than an Archbishoppe What Call you this the quenching or kindling the suppressing or increasing of heresies No maruaile if you recken Rebels for Martyrs your holy mother the Church of Rome hath the cunning to make saints of blasphemers Returne returne for shame to grauitie trueth and antiquitie Learne to distinguishe that which is seene in this Sacrament from that which is beleeued I meane the visible creature from the grace which is not visible HADST THOV BEENE saith Chrysostome WITHOVT A BODIE Christ WOVLD HAVE GEEVEN THEE HIS INCORPORALL GVIFTS NAKEDLY that is without any coniunction of corporall creatures BVT NOW BECAVSE THY SOVL IS COVPLED WITH A BODIE THEREFORE IN THINGS THAT BE SENSIBLE THINGS INTELLIGIBLE ARE DELIVERED THEE AS BREAD saith Cyril of this sacrament SERVETH FOR THE BODIE SO THE WORD SERVETH FOR THE SOVL. It is neither nouâ—ltie nor absurditie to say that the bread of the Lorde as touching the material substance may bee deuoured of beasts digested of men and will of it selfe in continuance mould and putrifie Such is the condition of all creatures that serue to nourish our bodies and this is a creature well knowen and familiar to our senses But the word of God which is added to the corporall elements the grace which is annexed to the visible signes and the flesh of Christ which quickneth the soul of man by faith these thinges I say be free from all violent and vndecenâ— abuses and iniuries For they be no corporall mortall nor earthlie creatures but spirituall eternall and heauenly blessings and therefore in no case subiect to the greedines of beasts vncleanes of men or weaknes of nature The element is one thing saith Ambrose the operation is an other thing That which is seene in all Sacraments is temporall that which is not seene is eternall If wee looke to the very visible thinges wherein Sacraments are ministred who is ignorant saith Austen that they be corruptible But if wee consider that which is wrought by them who doth not see that that cannot suffer any corruption Of the Lordes Supper Origen affirmeth that the bread as touching the matter or materiall partes thereof goeth into the bellie and forth by the draught but the praier and blessing which is added doeth lighten the soule according to the portion of faith The sacrament that is the sacred element is one thing saieth Rabanusâ— the power of the Sacrament is an other thing The Sacrament is receiued in at the mouth with the vertue of the Sacrament the inwarde man is filled the Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of the bodie by the vertue of the Sacrament wee attaine eternall life This doâ—trine your schoolemen either wilfullie reiected or foolishly peruerted to make Christ substantiallie present in your Masses and for that onely cause felâ— thâ—y to the locall shutting of him within the formes of bread and the corporall eating his flesh with their teeth Which grossenes once preuailing in your Church of Rome Thomas Alexander Antonius and the greatest Clarkes of your side were by the consequent of your reall presence forced to conâ—â—sse that the flâ—sh of Christ might be subiect to the teeth and iawes as well of beastes as of vnbeleeuers For wickednes is worse than sluttishnes and the bodies of sinnefull men God more detesteth than he doth the bowels of vnreasonable creatures Since then by the generall consent of your Church Christ doeth not refuse the bellies and intralles of faithlesse persons why say they should he not be verily contained in the capacities and inwardes of brute beastes if by mischaunce they deuoure the Sacrament This hold fast your gloze layeth hands on Si dicatur quodmus sumat corpus Christi non est magnum inconueniâ—ns cum homines sceleratissimi illud sumant If it be said that a mouse taketh the bodie of Christ it is no great inconuenience seeing most wicked men doe receiue the same and this Bonauenture setteth downe for the chiefest motiue to that vile assertion Phi. To tel you truth I like not that position Theo. So long as you defend Christs humane substance to be locally present in your host you cannot for your hart auoide it but either by mocking your sâ—lues and deluding your senses or
sacrifice 693 The Iesuits heape vp fathers for a shew though they make nothing for them 694 The Sacrifices of the new Testament be spirituall 695 What sacrifice it is that Malachie speaketh of 696 The Lords Supper is a sacrifice for diâ—ers respects 699 The Priests act can not applie the death of Christ 700 The Iesuits sacrifice 701 The word Sacrifice is not vsed by the holy Ghost 702 S. Paul maketh nothing for the sacrifiâ—e of the Masse 703 Adoration of the sacrament 705 The Sacrament must not bee adored 706 The Iesuits proofes for adoration of the Sacrament 707 No Father teacheth the adoratioÌ„ of the sacrament 708 S. Austen was far froÌ„ adoring the sacrament 709 Christ adored in the misteries 710 Chrysostome did not adore the sacrament 712 Nazianzene doth not say that his sister adored the sacrament 713 Dionysius made no inuocation of the Sacrament 714 Dionys. corrupted by the Ies. 715 The whole church slaundered by the Iesuites 716 Origen Chrysâ—st lengthned by the Iesuits to serue the adoratioÌ„ of the Sacrament 718 Origens words 〈◊〉 719 Christ 〈◊〉 our roote 719 Christ dwelleth in vs more truely than in the Sacrament 719 The Church directed her prayers to Christ in heauen 722 The Sacrament is a corruptible creature 722 We must not basely beÌ„d our minds on the visible creatures 723 The mystical signes must be reuerenced but not adored with Godlike honour 724 The signes remaine in their former Substance 725 The Real presence 726 Why the Iesuites mistake the fathers in this matter 728 The bread is made God by the Iesuites constructions of Christs wordes 729 Christ said of the bread this is my bodie 730 The Papistes say THIS in the words of Christ is taken for nothing 732 The causes why the wordes of Christ at his last Supper were not literal 733 For what cause S. Austen concludeth the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue 734 The Iesuits caÌ„not tel how to make the letter agree with ther opinion 735 The figuratiue sense of Christes words auouched by the fathers 736 The signe in the Sacrament caÌ„not be the trueth 739 The 6. of S. Iohn expoundeth the words of the supper 740 The fathers refer the 6. of Iohn to the Lordes supper 741 The fathers themselues refer the 6. of Iohn to the sacrament 742 The words in the 6. of Iohn are figuratiue because the actioÌ„s are spirituall 744 To eate christ is to beleeue and abide in Christ. 745 In S. Iohn the manner of eating is spiritual the manner of speaking is allegorical 746 What the Capernits error was 746 How the Ies. differ from the Capernites 748 What fathers the Iesuits haue for their literall sense corporall eating 750 What the late Grecians ment by pressing the letter 751 The Sacrament is a signe of christ on the crosse 753 In sacraments the signes haue the names of the thinges theÌ„selues 754 The signes remain in their former substance 756 The power and operation of tâ—â— signe is changed 75â— The substance of christs flesh doth not enter our mouthes 759 Christ is not eaten with teeth 759 The Iesuites narrowly driuen wheÌ„ they must take substance for accidents 761 Christ is not eaten with teeth or iawes 762 The refutation of Eutiches error ouerthroweth traÌ„substantiatioÌ„ 764. Eutiches error is not refuted but confirmed by the real presence 766. Leoes words do not import the reall presence 767 The iesuits make the fathers contradict themselues 769 That body which entereth our mouths increaseth the substaÌ„ce of our flesh 770 What manner of eating Christ in the Sacrament the Church taught for a 1000. yeares 772 The spirituall eating of Christ in the Sacrament excludeth the corporall 776 What the Sacramentall eating of Christ is 778 The wicked do not eat Christ. 779 The Church of Rome is not yet resolued of her corporal eating of Christs flesh 780 The first Authors of their corporal eating condemne ech others opinion for heresie 680 The grossenes of Papistes worse than carnal oâ— capernitical 782 The ElemeÌ„ts may putrify the flesh of Christ cannot 783 Their sluttish diuinity is a necessiry sequele to their real preseÌ„ce 783 We must ascend to heauen where Christ sitteth in his glorie 384 Our harts must be lifted vp to heauen not â—o the heâ—â— 785 The true flesh of Christ is in heaueÌ„ and absent from the earth 786 The manhoodâ— of Christ is not in many places at once 788 The substaunce of Christes bodie must be coÌ„tained in one place 790. Christes manhoode is not euery where by the verie principles of our faith 792 How one the same christ is euerywhere present 792 The power of God doth neuer crosse his will 793 Contradictions bee as impossible as falshoods be 796 The Iesuites haue not one father for their transubstantiatioÌ„ 797 S. Austen horribly forged by frier walden 798 Bede vsed in the same sort by the same frier 799 In what sense Chrysostome saide the mysteries are coÌ„sumed 800 How the Sacrament may be saide to be no bread 801 Species doth not signifie shewes without substaunce 803 The Persons of men cannot preiudice the truth of God 817 The happines of our times is gods goodnes not our worthines 818 The Iesuites religion is like their subiection 819 The Iesuites positions bee both trayterous and hereticall 820. Faultes escaped The first number noteth the page the second the line m. margent c. correction Page 9. line 18. safely read falsly p. 20. l. 25. mercy The breath r. mercy the breach p. 25. l. 30. Anastasius r. Athanasius p. 37. l. 38. Tiberius r Liberius p. 63. l. 33 cunning r. cumming p. 64. l. 30. you can r. Phi. You can p. 66. l. 14. Seneca r. Semeca p. 72. l. 9. Athanasius r. Anastasius p. 82. m. 4000. r. 1000. p. 93. l. 12. Burdeaus r. Burges p. 97. l. 24. cattels r. chattels p. 120 l 41. coÌ„uert r. coÌ„triue p. 128. l. 32. and if r Theo. And if p. 149. l. 34. Maximus r. Mariaus p. 173. l. 23. do you not r Phil Do you not p. 180. l. 38. whâ—ch spoken r. which is spokeÌ„ p. 201. l. 1. adiudge to haue r. theÌ„ to haue p. 204. l 41. they do r. they may do p. 228. m. whether the Pope r. while the Pope p. 229. l. 38. nec ipse nec alteruÌ„ r. nec ipse possit alteruÌ„ p. 240. l. 13. goodline r godlines p. 259. l. 8 dare r you dare p. 270. l. 23 Protopius r Procopius 276 12. sound r. found 280. l. 3. resist r. sist. 26 r. Theo. Sure p. 301. l 3. there r. three 303. 3 your r our 35. l. 28. writing r. vttering 318. l. 2. reasonable r. treasonable 333. l. 31. perceiue r. â— perceiue 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 39 shaken r. not shakeÌ„ p. 337. l. 1. you do r. you not do p. 339. l. 28. the defence r. you defend 350. l. 19. maintaining r. maiming p 364. l. 42. christian princes r. christians
word as by his sacrameÌ„ts * Hier. in Psal. 147. The flesh of Christ is eateÌ„ more truely in his worde than in the sacraments * De Cons. dist 2. § vt quid paras August de ciui 〈◊〉 21. ca. 25. No such words are found in Chrysostoms Liturgie The woordes may be there yet not spoken to the sacrament a Pag. 21. l. n. 12 pag. 463. lin 11. b Pa. 452. li. 30. The Iesuites bid vs see the fathers but they doe not tell vs what we shall finde there It is not enough to will vs to see the fathers they must saie to what end they alledge them Chrysostome praieth to Christ in heauen not to the sacrameÌ„t * Liturg Chrys. Ibidem He woulde haue Christ behold the people from heauen not from the sacrament Mat. 18. Mat. 28. How Christ is present with vs. August in Iohan tract 50. His diuinitie is present with vs. Idem Ibidem His humanity present with vs manie waies though not in substance The Rhe. test pag. 453. The auncient Church did exactlie distinguish the sacrament from Christ. a De Catech. rudibus cap. 26. b De Baptis lib. 3. cap. 10. c Ambr. de Sacrament li. 4. cap. 3. d Orig. in 15. Matt. The whole Church cried on the people to lift vp their harts e Concil Nice * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth in as well as on f August in Iohan tract 50. Christ is both seene and touched by faith g Ambr. in Luc. li. 6. ca. 8. de filia princ Synag vesiâ—â—ci h Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom 24. * Ibidem Christ is on the table because his death is solemnized in the mysteries on the table i Colos. 3. k Phil. 3. Theod. dial 2. Not one of the fathers which they bring speaketh of the externall sacrament saue onelie Theodoret The mysticall signes must be adored but not with diuine honor These men caÌ„ plaie with shadowes verie pretilie The mysticall tokens remaining in their former substance must be adored Theod. Dial. 2. If they will adore the substance of breade Theodorets wordes will helpe them forward but not otherwise Adored is sometimes as much as â—eueâ—enced De cons. dist 3. § venerabiles in glossa ¶ cultu The Iesuits authorities for adoration of the Sacrament prooue no such thingâ— The reall presence This is my bodie doth not infer the reall presence Not the words but the exposition of the wordes is the thing that we striue for The Iesuites maie soone bring a thousand authorities for this point and not one to the purpose The papists in this question thinke to conquere with number if not with strength of places The papists beap vp places for their reall presence by hundreths not one to the purpose It were more wisdome for them to vndeâ—staÌ„d what they alledge than to alledge they know not what We striue not for Christs presence in the mysteries but for the manner of his presence The presence which the Iesuits hold the fathers neuer heaâ—d of Garetius Vernierus and the rest if a father do but name the body of Christ bring him in by and by for a witnes on their side and then they muster them by hundreths * You turne all fâ—â—m the thing themselues to the signes that is the cause of your error a Psalm 64. b Ierem. 18. Wisd. 1. These â—wo rules must be obserued in reading the fathers touching this matter els we shall infinitely erre To mistake the signes for the thinges themselues must needes bread a monsterous error Aâ—l their allegaâ—â—ns are answered with theâ—e two obseruations The literall prâ—ssing of those wordes is the gâ—ound of alâ— their error Christ did make the bread a God but added grace to the signe that it might becom a sacrament If bread be not made the sonne oâ— God then sure the bread is not made Christ. If the breade be Christ it must needs be made Christ for before it was not Christ. Christ doth not saie this is chaunged for or with my bodie but this is my bodie If the breade be Christ ergo it is God for he is God THIS in Christs words must needes note somewhat This must bee this somwhat and not this nothing The Iesuits be loath to tell vs what is meÌ„t by this in the wordes of Christ. This indeede is the right literall sense of our sauiours wordes and since that is apparently false the figuratiue sense must take place Matth. 26. The connexion of the gospell reâ—erreth THIS to the bread in the wordes of Christ. THIS of it selfe inferreth nothing and therefore must be guided by the circumstances of the text a 1. Cor. 11. b 1. Cor. 10. a 1. Cor. 11. Saint Paul in plaine speach ioynethâ— THIS to the bread Al the fathers referre THIS to the bread c Iust. Apol. 2. d Tertul. aduer Iedaeos e Idem li. 4. contra MarcioneÌ„ f De cons. dist 2. § qui maÌ„ducas g Cypr. de vnctio Chrismat h Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. i Idem li. 4. c. 57 k Hier. ad Hedibiam quaest 2. l Athan in 1. Cor. cap. 11. m Epiph. in Anchorato n Cyril catechis mystag 4. o Theod. â—ial â— The Iesuites loose all hope of their transsubstaÌ„tiatioÌ„ if THIS in the wordes of Christ do not note the bread p De canâ— disâ— 2. § ante benedictioâ—eâ— Glâ—ssa ibidem q Gerson contr Floretum li. 4. r Gard. contra diabolic sophist s In his Marc. Antoni Consr. t Occam in 4. sâ—ntent dist 13. u De cons. dist 2. § timâ—rem Glossa ibidem Then haue the Iesuits small hold in the literall sense of Christs words for their transsubstantiatioÌ„ That this is the right purport of Christs words it cannot be doubted So long as the letter is true we maie not flie to figures but if that be false we kill our soules except we â—lie to figures * Aug. de dâ—â—tr Christiana lib. 3 cap. 10. When the speach must be figuratiue The literall coherence of these wordes this bread is my bodie is impossible blasphemous and barbarous To reprooue the misconsterer is to reuerence the speaker z De cons. dist 2. § panis est in Altari Glossa ibidem Not possible by their owne confession that breade should be the bodie of Christ. To saie that bread is christ in proper speach is horrible blasphemie To eate flesh in proper speach is against nature and far from all pietie a August contra aduers. legis Propheta lib. 2. cap. 9. b Idem contra eundem lib. 1. cap. 14. c Cyril in Iohan. lib. 4. cap. 22. d August de doctr Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16. To eate flesh is an hainous act ergo Christs words are figuratiue This is S. Austens reason if the Iesuites can reâ—ure him let them Where Christ said this bread is my bodie the Iesuits say this must be no bread before it can be my bodie It is as great blasphemie for the bread to be turned into Christ as to be Christ.