Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	eternal_a	good_a	work_n	4,394	5	6.6946	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65422	Popery anatomized, or, A learned, pious, and elaborat treatise wherein many of the greatest and weightiest points of controversie, between us and papists, are handled, and the truth of our doctrine clearly proved : and the falshood of their religion and doctrine anatomized, and laid open, and most evidently convicted and confuted by Scripture, fathers, and also by some of their own popes, doctors, cardinals, and of their own writers : in answer to M. Gilbert Brown, priest / by that learned, singularly pious, and eminently faithful servant of Jesus Christ M. John Welsch ...; Reply against Mr. Gilbert Browne, priest	Welch, John, 1568?-1622.; Craford, Matthew. Brief discovery of the bloody, rebellious and treasonable principles and practises of papists.	1672 (1672)	Wing W1312; ESTC R38526	397,536	586

Church for calling the marriage of infidels a Sacrament For as we deny marriage to be a Sacrament at all properly so doth your Church deny the marriage of infidels to be a Sacrament properly But to let this pass I say because I will not deceive the Reader as ye do with appearances of contradictions through the ambiguity of the words Alphonsus de Castro lib. contra haeres verbo nuptiae haeres 3. Petrus a Soto lectio 2. de matrimonio two of your Doctors and sundry others say That marriage is not a proper Sacrament of the New Testament And yet the Council of Florence and Trent and sundry others of your Church say the contrary 2. Durandus a great Doctor of your Church saith in 4. dist 26. quaest 3. That marriage is not a Sacrament properly 3. Some of your Church held that carnal copulation in marriage is a part of the Sacrament some the contrary that it is neither a Sacrament nor a part of the Sacrament so Bellarmin testifies lib. 1. de sacram matrim c. 5. pag. 88. 4. Durandus and your Canonists hold That the Sacrament of marriage doth not confer grace unto them that receive it And yet our common doctrine is contrary this as Bellarmin grants ibidem Last of all Canus a learned Papist affirms That every marriage lawfully contracted among Christians is not a Sacrament but only that which is made by the Minister in a certain form of words the which Bellarmin and sundry others deny And you are of great diversity concerning the matter of that Sacrament among your selves These are not now shows of disorders and contradictions but they are so true and manifest that Bellarmin your chief campion hath confessed them de sacram matrim lib. 1. Judge thou now Christian Reader whither is it we or they that is at variance among our selves And this for the ninth point of your doctrine SECTION XVII Concerning Merit of Good Works M. Gilbert Brown ELeventhly our doctrine is that a man in the estat of grace doing good works merits or deserves a reward which is the doctrine of the Prophets Christ and his Apostles as may be perceived in these places and many the like a Gen. 15.1 2. Kings 15.7 Eccles 16.15 and 10.31 Psal 118.112 Prov. 11.18 Sap. 5.16 and ●10 17 Isai 3.10 Jer. 31.16 Fear not Abraham saith God I am thy protector and thy exceeding great reward In another place Therefore be ye of comfort and let not your hands be dissolved there shal be a reward for your work And in the Book Ecclesiasticus All mercy shal make place to every one according to the merit of his works With many more in the Old Testament then I am able to let down here But some of them I have noted And our Savior saith b Matth. 5.12 John 5.29 Matth. 10.42 and 16.1 and 16.27 and 25.34 and 20. Mark 9.41 Luke 6.35 Rejoyce and be glad for your reward is great in heaven And again They that have done good things shal come forth to the resurrection of life but they that have done evil to the resurrection of judgement And whosoever shal give drink to one of these little ones one cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple truly I say unto you he shal not lose his reward And c 1. Cor. 3.8.14 and 9.17.18 Eph. 6.8 S Paul saith Every one shal receive his own reward according to his labor And d 2. John 8. Rev. 22.12 S John saith Look to your selves that ye lose not the things which ye have wrought but that ye may receive a full reward And in his Revelation Behold I come quickly and my reward is with me to render to every man according to his works With many more the like in the Word of God What can our new men say against this doctrine of Christ his Apostles and Prophets seeing that there is no reward without merit because merces and meritum have relation together For there is no reward promised in the Word of God but for doing and working And albeit God hath promised to reward all our good deeds yet this promise is not without a cause that is to them that will labor and work and to do according to his will For he hath promised no reward to them that will not work but to such as deserves the same by their doings as I have noted before in the book called Ecclesiasticus the 16. chapter Maister John Welsch his Reply As for your doctrine of merits of works wherein you say That a man in the estat of grace doth merit eternal life and glory and that as well in respect of the work it self as of the covenant and promise made unto it So Bellarmin lib. 5. de justific cap. 17. yea that the works are in vertue equal and of as great valor as the reward of eternal life is so that there is an equal proportion between the works and eternal life And there are some of your Church and those of the learned among you who have gone further and affirm That the good works of the righteous merits life eternal in respect of the worthiness and excellency of the work it self suppose the Lord had never made a promise or covenant as Cajetanus a Cardinal and Dominicus à Soto as Bellarmin reports of them lib. 5. de justif cap. 19. And M. Reynold saith pag. 105. That good works and evil are laid in different ballance that good works are the cause of heaven as evil works are the cause of hell And Andreas Vega saith in 5 quaest de justific That the reward of glory shal not be greater then our good works have deserved What blasphemy is this your doctrine And surely if in any one point of your doctrine you show your selves to be men who not only knows not the holiness of God the unspeakableness of that other life the perfection and infinit vertue of Christs merits the perfection of his Law and mans infirmity and weakness especially you manifest it in this point For if ye knew any of these things ye would never profess such damnable doctrine For that our works may merit eternal life as ye say and that not only in respect of the covenant but in respect of the work it self there are five things required 1. That the work be perfect according to that measure of perfection which the Law of God requires and the whole Law must be fulfilled and that perfectly and continually 2. The works must not be debt that is such works as we are bound before to do For the paying of that duty which we ow already cannot merit properly a reward For will you say that for the paying of that which you ow already you deserve a reward 3. There must be a proportion and equality between the work wrought and the reward it self For if the work be less and the reward greater then that which is more then the work is not of merit but of liberality 4.

The persons to whom the work is done must be obliged and bound by right to render and recompense the worker for the worthiness of the work so that he is not just if he do it not And last of all the work must be our own and not anothers and the power our own whereby it is done and not anothers ere we can be said properly to merit by the same But all these conditions will fail in our works therefore they cannot be meritorious of eternal life For as to the first the Prophet saith That all our righteousness is as a menstrous cloth And James saith We all offend in many things and none there is that have contained in doing all things written in the Law in that perfection which it craves of us as hath been proved before therefore our works cannot be meritorious of eternal life And as to the second all that we can do or is able to do we are bound to do it already by the vertue of our creation and redemption and his other blessings already bestowed yea they oblige us to more then we are ever able to pay according to that saying of our Savior Luke 17.10 Even so ye when ye have done all that is commanded you say We are unprofitable servants because we have done that which was our duty to do Since therefore it is duty it cannot be meritorious of eternal life And as to the third there is no proportion between eternal life and our works the reward by infinit degrees surpassing the work and therefore the Apostle saith The afflictions of this life are not worthy of the glory which shal be revealed Rom. 8 18. Everlasting life being only the just reward of the sufferings of the Son of God Bernard saith What are all our merits to so great a glory serm 1. de annum And Athanasius saith in vita Antonij Not suppose we would renounce the whole world yet are we not able to do any thing worthy of these heavenly habitations As to the fourth the Lord is debtor to no creature For as the Apostle saith Who hath given him first and he shal be recompensed Rom. 11.35 The Lord is all-sufficient in himself and so needs none of your labors and so our works cannot oblige him And therefore Augustin saith serm 16. de verbis Apostoli God is made a debter unto us not by receiving any thing from our hands but because it pleased him to promise And to the last the Apostle saith What hast thou that thou didst not receive now if thou didst receive it why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it 1. Cor. 4.7 Seeing therefore all our works are imperfect and seeing we are not able to fulfill the Law and seeing all that we can do is but our duty and there is no proportion betwixt eternal life and our works and that the Lord is debtor to no man and all our ability of doing is from the Lord only therefore our works cannot be meritorious of eternal life Hear further what the Fathers say in this point Augustin saith in manuali c. 22. All my hope is in the death of my Lord his death is my merit my refuge salvation life and resurrection my merit is the compassion of the Lord I shal not be void of a merit so long as the Lord of mercies shal not want Origen who lived two hundred years before him saith in Epist ad Rom. cap. 4. lib. 4. I scarcely believe that there can be any work which may of due demand the reward of God forsomuch as even the same that we can do think or speak we do it by his gift or bounty Then how can he ow us any thing whose grace did preveen us And he saith afterward That the Apostle assigns eternal life to grace only Ambrose saith de bono mor. cap. 1. Everlasting life is forgiveness of sins so then it is not merit Jerome saith adversus Pelag. That before God no man is just therefore no man can merit And again he saith The only perfection of man is if they know themselves to be imperfect and our justice consisteth not of our own merit but of Gods mercy I omit the rest for ●●ortness Now to your testimonies and reason to prove your merit of works which you shamefuly abuse bringing forth Scripture to cloke your damnable doctrine unto the which I answer shortly That there is a reward laid up with God for the works of every one be they good be they evil and according to their works shal they be tryed and every man shal be judged and recompensed accordingly as the Scripture plainly testifieth But that this reward of eternal life promised is of debt and not of grace and that our works are the meritorious cause of the same that the Scripture never affirms For the Lord freely and of his meer grace crowneth his own works in us and that not for the excellency of the work it self but of mercy freely for his Christs sake as both I have proved and the Fathers have testified So these Scriptures serve you to no purpose For the controversie betwixt us is not whither there is a reward promised and whither it shal be rendred accordingly to the same for that we grant but whither this reward is of merit or of grace The Apostle saith plainly in the 6 of the Romans The wages of sin is death but everlasting life is the free gift of God And in the 8 of the Romans it is called an inheritance Now if it be heritage to them that are in Christ and they heirs of it through him then it is not their merit As for the 16. of Ecclesiasticus it is Apocrypha and the text hath not that word merit as the old Interpreter whom ye follow translates it but according to his work As for the 118. Psalm and the 16 of Matthew ye are over seen in the quoting of them for they have no such thing As for your reason that a reward hath ever a relation to a merit that is false For the Apostle in the 4. of the Romans speaks of a reward that is imputed freely not to him who worketh but to him that believeth in him who justifieth the ungodly vers 5. And in this sense the reward of eternal life promised and fulfilled in his Saints is taken in the Scriptures And whereas you say that there is no reward promised but to doing and working that is false also for there is a reward of eternal life promised to the believer vers 5. And as for the promises of reward made to good works it is true it is made to them but not as though our works were meritorious causes of that reward but only that they are effects to testifie of our faith in the merit of Jesus Christ in whom only the promises are made to us and our works and for whose sake only they are fulfilled in his Saints For these causes therefore is the promise of reward made unto works first

old heresie in the very time of the Apostles Maister John Welsch his Reply As for this calumny of yours the tryal of it will come in afterward therefore I refer the answer of it to that place And whereas you say that you know not whom I call Fathers either your malice makes you to dissemble your knowledge in this or else palpable must your ignorance be And where you say that Ireneus Cyprian c. and the rest of the holy Fathers are no ways with us against you and that I will not be able to prove it I have not only proved that already in sundry heads of our Religion but also that sundry of your own Popes Cardinals Doctors Bishops Councils and Canon Law have been with us in sundry points of our Religion which we profess against that which ye profess And as for that example of justification by faith only which ye cast in which is one of the chief grounds of our Religion This I will prove both by the Scripture and by the testimonies of the Fathers of the first six hundred years Our doctrine then concerning Justification is this That as our sins was not inherent in Christ but imputed to him 2. Cor. 5 21. which was the cause of his death so his righteousness whereby we are accounted righteous before God is not inherent in us but imputed to us and therefore the Scripture saith that he is made of God unto us righteousness 1. Cor. 1.30 Next the only instrument that apprehends and as it were takes hold of this righteousness of Christ is a lively Faith which works by love and brings forth good fruits so that neither is Faith an efficient or meritorious cause of our salvation for only Christs death and righteousness is that but only an instrument to apprehend the same Neither is every Faith this instrument but only that living Faith which I have spoken of so that true Faith is never without the fruits of good works no more then fire is without heat and yet neither are our works nor the work of Faith it self the meritorious cause of our salvation but only Christs death and righteousness Neither are the fruits of this lively Faith the instrument to apprehend and take hold of Christs righteousness but only Faith it self This then is our doctrine which is so plainly confirmed by the Scripture that he must be exceeding blind that seeth it not The places to confirm the same are these Rom. 3.28 We conclud that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law Rom. 4.2 If Abraham were justified by works then hath he wherein to rejoyce but not with God Ephes 2.9 By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of your selves for it is the gift of God not by works that none should boast And Phil. 3.9 I have counted all things loss that I might win Christ and might be found in him not having my own righteousness which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God through faith And again Tit. 3.5 Not by the works of righteousness which we had done but according to his mercy he saved us Seeing the Scripture so expresly removes all works both of nature and of grace both going before Faith and following after it and therefore the Apostle saith We are not saved by the works of righteousness which we had done and of all men even of those who were justified already and sanctified as Abraham Paul and the Ephesians were from our justification and salvation as the causes thereof therefore we are only justified and saved by a lively Faith apprehending the righteousness of Christ Secondly the Scripture not only removes works as we have said from the cause of our Justification and salvation but also ascribes it to Faith as in these places John 3.16 Whosoever believeth in him shal have eternal life And Luke 8.48 Thy faith hath saved thee c. And again Ephes 2.9 We are saved through faith And Rom. 4.3.4.5 Man is justified by faith And Rom. 3.26.28.30 God shal justifie circumcision of faith and incircumcision through faith And Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness And lest ye should say the Scripture hath not by Faith only read the 8. of Luke and 50. verse where our Savior saith to Jairus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Only believe and she shal be saved Therefore Faith is the only instrument to lay hold on the promise of God And lest ye should say this was not a justifying Faith I answer This Faith which Jairus had was that same Faith which the woman with the bloody issue had but her Faith not only healed her body but her soul also Luke 8.48 which Bellarmin grants lib. 1. de justif cap. 17. pag. 84. our Savior testifieth saying Thy faith hath saved thee c. therefore this is a justifying Faith also Secondly seeing the Faith of miracles justifying Faith is both one in substance with your Church as Bellarmin c. 5. l. de justif the Rhemists annot in 2. Cor. 12. say if it be a greater work to work miracles as they say then to be justified therefore if only Faith suffice to obtain miracles as Bellarmin grants lib. 1. cap. 20. pag. 97. why should not Faith only be also sufficient to justifie For if it suffice for the greater work much more for the less Thirdly the Scripture ascribes our Justification to grace and not to works and so oppones them that the one cannot stand with the other in the matter of our Justification We are justified saith he freely by grace and not by works Rom. 3.24 And to him that worketh the reward is imputed not according to grace but to debt but to him who worketh not but believeth in him who justifieth the ungodly his faith is imputed to him for righteousness Rom. 4.4 And in another place If it be of grace it is no more of works or else were grace no more grace but if it be of works it is no more grace or else work were no more work Rom. 11.6 Seeing therefore our Justification is only of free grace and grace if the Apostle be true cannot stand with works therefore our Justification is not by works or else it were not of grace and so not at all and so the foundation of our salvation were overturned I hope therefore this our doctrine of Justification is plainly warranted by the Scripture Now to the Fathers because ye say it cannot be proved by them they speak as plainly as we do Origen hath these words in epist ad Rom. cap. 3 And the Apostle saith that the justification of faith only sufficeth solius fidei so that he that believeth only is justified suppose no work be fulfilled of him Hilarius Canon 8. in Matth. saith For only faith justifieth fides enim sola justificat Basilius in homil de humil saith This is a perfect rejoicing in God when a man vaunts

the sins of others What is this else but to make themselves in a part Saviors of themselves and Saviors of others also Yea what is this else but to make themselves God For who can satisfie the justice of God but God himself Thirdly as it hath been proved before Christ offered up himself once by shedding of his blood upon the Cross never to be offered up again which hath purchased an everlasting redemption the which is the only ground of mans salvation How they have overturned this by their abominable sacrifice of the Mass and their sacrilegious Mass-Priests I hope hath been proved sufficiently before so that they have both evacuat the vertue of the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross in setting up another sacrifice for the redemption of souls And also they have spoyled him of the dignity of his Royal Priesthood in joyning unto him collegues and fellow-Priests to offer up himself dayly in their pretended sacrifice Fourthly as they spoyl him of his Priesthood so do they spoyl men of that redemption righteousness and salvation which his death hath purchased both in the fountain matter and form thereof The Scripture testifies that the only fountain and efficient cause of our salvation is Gods free love and grace 2. Tim. 1.9 Tit. 2.11 Eph. 1.5 and 1. John 3.16 They teach That an infidel by the works of preparation as they call them even done without faith may procure and merit Gods favor Masuenda in disput Ratisb cum Bucero Scholast And also they joyn with the grace of God mans free-will as a party worker with it as though God did not renew it being corrupted or repair it being perished but only relieve it being weak and raise it up being faint by the which they abolish if the Apostle speak true Rom. 11.6 and 4 5. the grace of Christ for if our salvation be of grace it is not of works and if it be not of works then it is not of grace and so not at all As to the matter of our justification the Scripture ascribes it only to Christ his obedience and his death Rom. 5.19 They by the contrary suppose they grant that Christ hath fulfilled the Law and perfectly satisfied God yet they teach that this righteousness of Christ is not our righteousness by the which we must be justified but they place it in our own works and in our own merits And of this comes the third that whereas the Scripture testifies that this righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us by faith Rom. 4.22.23.24.3.5.6.7 They acknowledge not this imputation but placeth the form of our justification in the merit of our works and so they spoyl man of righteousness and salvation For Bellarmin saith lib. 2. de Pontif. cap. 2. That the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is not required to our justification And the Council of Trent Can. 10. Accurseth them who say that we are justified justos formaliter per Christi justitiam by the righteousness of Christ. And as they have spoyled Christ of the first part of his office of his Priesthood so do they spoyl him of the second part thereof which consists in his intercession in joyning with him innumerable Intercessors and Mediators as well of Angels as of Saints departed at whose hands they seek all manner of grace which is only proper to Jesus Christ to give and that not only for the vertue of the merits of Christ but for their own merits and intercession Every Parish almost among them had their own Patron and every malady disease or calamity their own Saint or Angel to run to And as their doctrine hath robbed the Lord Jesus of his Priestly dignity and man of the benefit of eternal life purchased to him by the same so have they robbed him of that glory and worship that is due unto him in plucking away his glory from him and giving it unto creatures 1. As unto Angels and 2. Unto Saints departed and especially unto the Virgin Mary 3. Unto their relicks 4. Unto images of the Trinity of the Saints of the Cross 5. Unto things consecrated as water oyl c. 6. And unto the Sacrament of the Eucharist unto whom they give that worship which is only due unto God as prayer worship vows sacrifices c. So that if they may be justly called the Antichrist whose doctrine spoyls Christ of the office of his mediation and man of his salvation purchased thereby and God of his due glory which man is bound to give him for his creation and redemption and sets up other Saviors and Mediators other Priests and Intercessors beside him and teaches another way of mans salvation then he hath taught and worship other Gods then the God that made heaven and earth and after another manner then he hath commanded Then I say the Popes of Rome may justly be called and is in truth the Antichrist and adversary to God For they are guilty of all this abomination And because I know that the poor and ignorant people and these that are blinded with the strong delusions of that man of sin will not believe these things of him and of his Church but as Thomas said of Christ Unless I see the print of the nails and put my finger in the print of the nails and put my hand into his side I will not believe Even so unless they see their idolatry and grope it as it were with their hands they will not believe it therefore I am compelled for their conviction and information that none of them that is ordained to salvation perish to let them see their idolatries and to make them to grope their abominations and that by their own Books For I shal not speak here beguess for that were great foolishness to alledge here any other thing then that which is written in their own Books seeing he hath promised to give an answer lest he should challenge me of lying of them I protest therefore Christian Reader that I shal forge nor fain nothing of them but shal only set down those things which are to be found in their own writings And first in their service and Mass Book secundum usum Anglicanum Horae beatae Mariae suffragia c. printed anno 1520. they pray to the Archangels and Angels to defend them in battel to defend them that none condemn them to keep both their soul and body from godless desires and from unclean cogitations to keep their mind from pollution to confirm them in the fear and love of Christ Secondly they pray to the Saints departed That by their merits and intercession they may be defended from all evils obtain all gifts and get eternal life Yea they seek of them Defence in this world from all evils and everlasting life And they pray to God the Father that by their merits and intercession they may be delivered both soul and body from Hell fire and may obtain through their merits faith patience and everlasting life So not only they

breadth and not to have his own length and breadth at once in the Sacrament is a manifest contradiction is yea and nay in Christ therefore both by the Scripture and your own doctrine the omnipotency of Christ cannot be alledged or pretended for this your doctrine which is yea and nay and implyes a manifest contradiction So this in very truth is the invention of your own brain which is alledged for your Transubstantiation and wants the warrant yea is gain-said both by the written Word and your own School-men Next ye would have us to hold away our figurs symbols and similituds I answer our own figurs we shal hold away but these figurs symbols and signs wherein our Savior hath delivered his truth to us we must and will acknowledge So then obeying rather God who hath set them down in his Scripture then you who forbids us to acknowledge them and what a monstrous exposition would you make of infinit places of Scripture if you would admit no figures in them but all to be understood plainly and literally as they were spoken The Scripture ascribes to God eyes ears foot hands and a face and the Scripture calls Christ a door a vine Now if you will admit no figurs here but will have all these places exponed literally as you will have us to do in the Sacrament then you would be reckoned in the number of the old hereticks called Anthropomorphitae who because they saw the Scripture speak so of God they taking it literally and exponing it without figurs as you would have us to expone the Sacrament they thought that God was bodilie yea you must make another monstrous Transubstantiation of Christ in a door and vine-tree for so he calls himself And to come to the Sacraments themselves how many transubstantiations will you make in all the Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament if you will remove figurs and signs from them and expone them literally as you would have us to do in this Sacrament Circumcision is called the covenant Gen. 27. and yet it was but the sign of the covenant the Lamb in the Passover is called the Passover of the Lord Exod. 12. and yet it was but the sign of the Passover the Rock in the wilderness is called Christ 2. Cor. 20. and yet it was but a sign of Christ the Ark is called the Lord Psal 24. and yet it was but a sign of the Lord the land of Canaan is called the rest of the Lord. Heb. 4. and yet it was but a sign of that rest and Baptism is called the washing of regeneration Tit. 3. and yet it is but the sign of our regeneration Do you think that the forms of speaches in all other Sacraments are figuratively taken and the form of speach in this Sacrament only to be literally understood What reason can there be of this diversity But it may be you think that the form of speaches in all other Sacraments should be taken figuratively but the phrase of speach in this Sacrament is to be taken literally But first what then will you say to this speach This is my body which is broken for you and this The cup is the New Testament in my blood and the cup is my blood and the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ and the cup which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ 1 Cor. 11. Luke 22. Mark 14. 1. Cor. 13. all figurative speaches and to be understood figuratively otherwise Christ should have been broken in the Sacrament which is both contrary to the Scripture and also absurd For then he should have suffered twise once in the Sacrament and once upon the cross and not only should there be one transubstantiation in the Sacrament but many as of the cup in the blood of Christ and of the bread and cup in the participation of the body and blood of Christ and so you should not only have one transubstantiation but many And how I pray you can Sacraments which are but figurs signs and symbols be understood but figuratively And how can duo diversa individua alterum de altero praedicari in praedicatione and be spoken of another without a figure as it is here This bread is my body c. Can you or any at all of your Roman Clergy understand such propositions otherwise then figurativelie What an unreasonable thing is it then to you to forbid us to acknowledge figurs in this Sacrament which is but a figure and sign seeing they are so frequentlie used in the Scriptures of God and especiallie in Sacraments as also in this Sacrament So nil ye will ye signs and symbols tropes and figurs ye must admit in the exposition of this Sacrament Last of all ye think a natural bodie cannot be spirituallie eaten Would you be so absurd and blasphemous as to have Christs bodie naturallie eaten For then his bodie must be naturallie chawed digested turned over in our substance and casten out in the draught and so be mortal and suffer again Apage hanc blasphemiam Let me ask you whither is Christs bodie the food of the soul or the food of the bodie If you say it is the food of the bodie to fill the bellie then I say it must be naturally eaten but you are blaspemous in so thinking But if you say it is the food of the soul as it is indeed and as our Savior saith John 6.35 then it cannot be eaten naturally For as the food of the body cannot be eaten spiritually so the food of the soul cannot be eaten naturally but spiritually by faith And if you understood this true eating of Christ by faith all your contention would take an end But this is the stone which ye stumble at and therefore ye forbid us to come in with a spiritual eating of Christs natural body as though it could be eaten otherwise then spiritually by faith Will you neither understand the Scriptures John 6 35. nor the ancient Fathers August tract 26. in Joh. 6 lib 3. de doct Christ cap. 16 Clemens Alex Hierom. S Basilius Bernardus supra citat nor your own Church Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 7. and your Canon Law de consecrat dist 1. cap. 5. who all acknowledge a spiritual eating of Christ by faith What gross darkness is this wherewith the Lord hath blinded you above all that ye cannot understand it As Christ dwells in us and we in him so do we eat him and drink him But the Apostle saith he dwells in us by faith Ephes 3. therefore we eat him and drink him by faith And seeing your Church grants that the eating of Christ corporally doth no good and the eating of him by faith only will bring eternal life as our Savior saith John 6. what needs then this corporal and real eating of Christ And why are ye like the gross and carnal Capernaits who can understand no eating but a corporal eating of him

And what is the cause that ye cannot understand the doctrine of your own Church which acknowledges a spiritual eating of Christ by faith both by the Word and by the Sacrament also de consecr dist 2. cap. Ut quid I had never have thought that ye had been so far blinded of the Lord. But I leave you to the Lord. Let the Christian Reader now judge whether our doctrine or yours be the invention of mans brain and which of them have their warrant out of the written Word of God M. Gilbert Brown And further I say of these words This is my body which shal be delivered for you 1. Cor. 11.24 which is a true proposition and therefore this must follow But there was no body delivered for us but the natural body of Christ therefore it was his natural body that he gave to his Disciples to be eaten Then if it were his natural body it was not natural bread As Saint Ambrose expounds the same Let us prove saith he this not to be that that nature formed but that thing which the blessing hath consecrate and greater strength to be in blessing then in nature for nature it self is changed by blessing He hath the same more amplie in the fourth book in the 4 chap. de Sacramentis Maister John Welsch his Reply First I answer the words of the Apostle is not as ye cite them here which shal be delivered but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is broken and in the present time and so in Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is given so you are not faithful in translating this place of Scripture both contrary to the Greek and Syriak copies Upon the which I reason thus this proposition is true This is my body which is broken for you so the Apostle saith but Christs body was not broken then really for not a bone of him was broken at all as the Scripture testifies Exod 12. and the Scripture saith John 19. and all men confesses that he suffered but once so only his sufferings are signified then by the breaking of the bread in the Sacrament here so as Christs body was not broken then really that is suffered but his suffering only signified by the breaking of the bread so his body was not given really and corporally to be eaten but only signified Secondly I say it is true that Christs natural body was delivered to the death for us but yet it will not follow upon this that it was his natural body which he gave to them to be eaten corporally for his natural body was really delivered to death for us and it was but given to them spiritually to be eaten You must coyn a new Logick M. Gilbert ere you can make these two stick together and the one necessarilie to follow upon the other For by that same reason you may as well conclud that Christ gave his natural body to be eaten corporally in the word for he gives himself to be eaten in his word as well as in his Sacrament 2. John 6.35 Bellarmin grants this also lib. 1. de Eucharist cap. 7. and also he gives that same body to them in the word which was delivered to death for the self same Christ is offered and received as well in the word as in the Sacrament So from his bodilie death to a corporal eating of him it will not follow And further by that same reason you may as well say that the Fathers before Christ under the Law did eat Christs body corporally for they ate that same spiritual food and drank that same spiritual drink in their Sacraments which we do now in ours So the Apostle testifies even that self same Christ his body and blood which was delivered to the death and yet it will not follow that they did eat his natural body c. As for Ambrose it is true he so speaks but he expones himself in that same chapter while as he saith Before the blessing another form or thing is named but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified If the bread then signifie the body of Christ it is not changed in his body And because of this holy use to signifie the body of Christ Ambrose saith That the nature is changed by blessing and that this is his meaning his words following will declare it where he saith Shal not the words of Christ be of force to change the form of the elements In that same sense Ambrose saith the nature of the elements is changed in the which he saith the form of them is changed for he affirmeth both there But ye will not say I suppose unless you will overthrow your transubstantiation that Ambrose means that the form of the elements is changed in substance but only in use and signification for you say the forms remains therefore you must also grant that Ambrose means not by the change of nature the change of the substance of them but only the change in the use of them from a common use to a holy use And because it may be you will delay to subscribe to the truth of our doctrine until you hear the sentence and judgement of the Fathers Therefore I will set them down here Tertullian saith contra Marc. lib. 4. This is my body that is a figure of my body Chrysostome saith in 1. Cor. cap. 10. What is that which the bread signifies the body of Christ Theodoret saith dialog 1. and 2. The bread and wine is signs and figures of the body and blood of Christ And he saith Our Savior in the institution of the Sacrament enterchanged the names and gave to the sign or symbol the name of his body and these mystical signs of these holy things whereof are the signs Unto the which he answers Are they not signs of the body and blood of Christ Hieronymus saith in Mat. 2.6 That Christ by taking of the bread which comforts the heart of man representeth the truth of his bodie Cyrillus saith ad Euop Matth. 11. Bas Liturgia Nazian in orat 2. de Pas funere Gorg. Our Sacrament avoweth not the eating of a man Basilius and Nazianzen calls the bread and wine in the Supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 figurs or signs of the body of Christ Cyprian saith lib. 1. ep 6. ejus contra Adima cap. 12. Psal 3. The Lord called bread made of many grains his body and wine made of many grapes his blood Augustin saith Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body while as he gave but the sign of his body And he calls it the figure of his body and blood And their Canon Law saith de conseer dist 2. cap. Hoc est The heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is called after a manner the body of Christ while as it is but the Sacrament of his body And the Gloss there saith The heavenly bread that is the heavenly Sacrament which represents truly the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly I omit