came with him out of Vr of the Chaldees and as hee begate Isaac in the lande of Canaan and as hee is nowe at rest with God in heauen When you can perswade vs I saye that one man can be father and sonne of himselfe then wil we beleeue you that a figure and the thing figured be all one CAP. XV. The reall preseÌ„ce of Christs bodie is that which setteth his death and life before vs. The eating of common breade saith Sander in answere to the Apologie and drinking of common wine is but a homely manner of setting the death and resurrection and life of Christ before our eyes But if the breade and wine be turned into the same bodie and bloude of Christ which dyed rose againe and wrought all the myracles in the worlde then is the death resurrection and conuersation of Christ in deede set before the eyes of our faith Is not this an absolute answere to tell vs of the eating and drinking of common breade and wine when the Apologie speaketh of the Eucharistie which as Iustinus saith wee haue learned to bee common breade and wine but the bodie and bloude of Christ that was incarnated for vs. Confessing thus much what neede hath our faith of transubstantiation of breade and wine into his bodie and bloude more then of water into the holy ghost in baptisme Tush saith Sander all other wayes of setting the death resurrection and conuersation of Christ before our eyes without the reall presence is painting and shadowing in comparing of this liuely representation If this be true preaching of the death of Christ by which he is euen crucified among vs as S. Paul saith Gal. 3. is painting and shadowing the ministration of baptisme by which we are ingaffed into the death buriall and resurrection of Christ Rom. 6. is but painting and shadowing with Sander and no liuely representation But what affinitie saith he hath breade and wine with the death and resurrection of Christ I will aske him like wise what affinitie hath water with the death buriall and resurrection of Christ which is not nakedly represented but so as we are ingraffed into them by baptisme Rom. 6. By this prophane question you may see what faith he meaneth when he speaketh of setting the death and life of Christ before our eyes namely an hystoricall faith which because it is common to true Christians with diuels is not the faith that we come to feede vpon in these diuine mysteries But such a faith as applyeth to our owne comfort the effecte and fruite of the death resurrection and conuersation of Christ with the which the eating and drinking of bread and wine hath as great affinitie as things corporal can haue with thinges spiritual teaching that the most necessarie and onely sufficient nourishment of our soules is receiued by faith euen as the outward signes therof are taken with the bodie Yet Chrysostome saieth Hom. 83. in Math. Ipsum igitur vides ipsum tangis ipsum comedis Thou seest himselfe thou touchest himself thou eatest himself See saith Sander whether the Apologie do more truely teach that the signe or token wtout the real presence or the body it selfe present doth set forth the death and life of Christ. Then heare Chrysostome in the same homely speaking of the Eucharistye Si mortuuâ— Iesus non est Cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est Vides quantum ei studium fuerit vt semper memoria teneamus prâ— nobis ipsum mortuum fuisse If the Iesus hath not dyed as some heretikes affirme whose token and signe is this sacrifice Thou seest how great desire he had that we should alwayes keepe in remeÌ„brance that he hath died for vs. But I know he wil presse the former words thou seest himself c. therfore not a signe without the reall presence But seeing the reall presence whereof he speaketh by his owne iudgement and confession cannot stand without transubstantiatioÌ„ if transubstantiatioÌ„ be not that real presence which he holdeth is not And that there was no transubstantiation in the supper of Christ Chrysostome telleth vs plainly Quando hoc mysteriuÌ„ tradidit vinum tradidit when he delyuered this mysterie or sacrament he deliuered wine And this saith Chrysostome against theÌ„ that vsed to celebrate with water But to helpe out transuâ—stantiation he bringeth in Damascen a writer out of the compasse of the challeng which saith De ortho fid lib. 4 cap. 14. Non quòd corpus illud 〈◊〉 coelo descendat sed quia panis vinum in Christi corpus sanguinem transmutatur Not as though the bodie of Christ camâ— downe from heauen but because the breade and wine is chaunged into the bodie and bloude of Christ. Damascene helpeth not so much with the worde of chaunging as he hindreth you with denying the comming down of the bodie of Christ except you say it is euerie where And therefore aduise your self what presence and maner of change Damascene speaketh of when the bodie of Christ commeth not out of heauen into the priestes hands But Cyrillus saith he teacheth That we touch the bodie of Christ when wee come to the holy communion euen as Saint Thomas touched the side of Christ when he cryed out My Lorde and my God So wee touch that flesh when we touch the forme of breade as saint Thomas did touch the Godhead when hee touched the fleshe of Christ. For in each place we touch not either the Godhead or the fleshe visiblie These are high poyntes of Metaphysike Master Sander to touch the godhead which is insensible and to touch visiblie or inuisiblie except you meane by touching not visibly to touch that which wee see not as we may handle a thing in the darke which wee see not But howsoeuer you would cloake the matter by leauing out the wordes of Cyril hee saith that Christ in the sacrament appeareth visiblie Where is then your distinction of visible and inuisible presence nay where is your carnall presence become which you grounde vppon touching when he is none otherwise present to be touched then he is present to be seene and so saieth Chrysostome also in the place by you cited Thou seest himselfe thou touchest himselfe thou â—atest himselft If Christ be none otherwise eaten then hee is seene and is not seene but by faith it will follow that he is not eaten but by faith And nowe let vs heare Cyrillus beginning one sentence before SaÌ„d was disposed to heare him speak I n Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 58 Iâ— reigitur sanctae congregationes die octaâ—o in ecclesâ—â—s fiunt foribus sublimiore modo clausis visibiliter simul atque inuisibiliter Christus omnibus apparet inuisibiliter quidem vt Deus visibiliter autem in corpore Prâ—bet enim nobis carneÌ„ suaÌ„ tangendam vâ— firmiter credamus quia templum verè suum suscitauit Quòd autem mysticae benedictionis Communio resurrectionis Christi quaedam confessio est verbis ipsius probatur
argumentes with that impudent slaunder of all the church of God which he affirmeth was ignorant that any soules went to heauen before their church had defined it within these 300. yeres I passe ouer come to the matter in question I said Purg. 57. against Allen mainteining that all the iust before Christ were punished for their sinnes forgiuē ma ny hundreth yeres after their departure in hel That the fathers of the olde testament before Christ were not in hell it is to be proued with manifest arguments autorities out of holy scriptures Although they were not nor yet are in perfect blessednes God prouiding a better thing for vs that they without vs shuld not be made perfect Heb. 11. But by this text saith Brist S. Paul doth meane that their soules were not yet admitted into heauen How proueth he that forsooth the old testament did consummate nothing c. but their sinnes remaining not perfectly remitted Christ died c. A sore bolt as though any man had his sinnes forgiuen but by the new testament or could be heire of the kingdom of heauen but by the death of Christ. But the same apostle saith Heb 9. That the way of the saints was not yet opened while the first tabernacle stood Bristow addeth to the text of his own into soncta or heauen wher the apostle meaneth of the worke of Christs redemption in his death resurrection ascension the effect wherof neuertheles was extended no lesse to the fathers of that olde testament then to vs. Thirdly the apostle saith Heb. 10. that we haue confidence to enter in to the holy place by the bloud of Iesus which hath dedicated that new liuing way for vs through the vayle that is his flesh All which proueth nothing but that there is no entrance into heauen but by Christ which way is comon to all the saintes of God of all ages But Bristow biddeth me conferre the end of my text Heb. 11. with the beginning where he saith they receiued not the promise which is the expositiō of their not consummating I admit it for no Christian receiueth the promise consummate before the resurrection of their bodies The consummation of which promise perfection of the saints God reserueth vnto one time when we shal all receiue the promise consummation together that they without vs saith he shoulde not be consummate the same reason is of the apostles fathers of the primitiue church vs of the later church them that shal be to the end of the world Now to mine arguments autorities of scripture I reason that seeing they all beleeued in Christ they had euerlasting life entred not into condemnation but passed frō death to life Ioh. 5. To what life saith Bristow but the life or resurrection of their bodies for vntil the last day all the dead are in death O prodigious heretike call you that a passage frō death to life to continue in death 5. or 6. thousād years Is God then to this new Saducee the god of the dead not of the liuing yea he saith that life after corporal deth in the new testament lightly euery where signifieth the resurrection of the bodies What is it then to take hold of eternall life in this world which shal be interrupted with so long abyding in death 1. Tim. 6. And how can it be true which our sauiour saith he that beleueth in me hath alreadie eternal life if they that are passed out of this world are all in death wherfore then is this eternall life interupted with any Purgatorie Limbus patrum or death The second argument is of that Christ is called the lamb that was slaine from the beginning of the worlde because the benefite of his passion extendeth vnto the godly of all ages alike Apoc. 13. To this the beast hath nothing to answere but that it is not said that the lambe was slaine from the beginning of the world but that all the reprobates shal adore antichrist whē he cometh And because Apoc. 17. the words be whose names were not written in the booke of life frō the beginning of the world he would haue those wordes from the beginning of the world by a monstrous construction contrary to the manifest composition and pointing both in the Greeke vulgare Latine to be referred not to the lamb slaine but to the booke of life As though both those textes in their seuerall sense might not be true except such manifest violence were offered to the construction cōposition pointing in this text of the Apoc. Yet he confesseth it to be true that the lambe was slaine from the beginning of the world which is no where else written in the scripture but heere the cause of the trueth he will not haue to be my fonde sense but because his death was preordeined of God and prefigured so long before A substantiall cause by which we may say that Bristowe was dead from the beginning of the world because his death was so long before ordeined of God and prefigured in the death of Adam The third argument is that Esay speaking of that righteous that are departed out of this life sayeth that there is peace and that they shall rest in their beddes Esa. 57. like as he affirmeth that Topheth which is Gehinnon or hell is prepared of olde for the wicked To this he answereth that Esay speaketh not of his owne time but as a Prophet of the time now since the cōming of Christ who is our peace as though Christ were not their peace as well as oures And what a shamelesse answere is this to denye the doctrine of the Prophet concerning the comfort of the faithfull after death to perteine to the faithfull of his owne time to whome then it was in vaine preached and published by the Prophet After a little quarreling against my translatiō the sense wherof he cannot deny he asketh if the rest of the soules must needes be the blisse of heauen and telleth vs that their Limbus was not a place of sensible paine But sir Salom whereinto the Prophet sayeth the righteous doe goe will not onely giue them rest without sense of paine but peace with happinesse and prosperitie Finally he sayeth Topheth or Gehenna was not the onely hell because our Creede and the Scripture sayeth that Christes soule was in hell I answere that hell signifyeth either the place or state of torments for sinnes in the former Caluine whome you slaunder sayth not that Christ was in but in the later when he complained that he was forsaken of God there is not therefore proued by Christes discending into hell any other place or receptacle of soules in hell but Topheth and Gehenna the place of the damned The fourth argument against Limbus is that Lazarus was carryed by Angels not downe to hell but vp to Abrahams bosome But the riche man being in hell looked vp and seeth Abraham afarre of Bristowe asketh whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie to
faith which is not of externall things but of things inuisible The tenth we truely taking them beleeue them to be the tokens of our redemption or as some read resurrection for bread wine be not tokens of our redemption Did bread and wine redeeme vs or did they rise from death quoth Sander No verily But the Councell saith for all that that these things which are set on the table namely bread and the cupp are beleeued of vs to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption which the wordes following do declare For this cause wee take not much but litle that we might knowe we take not to fill vs but for holinesse What can that be whereof not much but a litle is taken but the breade and wine for the body bloud of Christ is not taken in quantitie more or lesse Secondly what neede wee by taking litle be admonished that it is not to fill vs if wee did thinke there were no breade nor wine there which could fill vs Finally why take we a little for holines if we take that which is nothing but all holines it selfe and of his owne nature whether we take little or much You see therefore the Councell ment not to make Christes body a mysticall token of it selfe which is a monstrous saying and as monstrous an opinion but the bread and wine in the sacrament to be mysticall and diuine tokens of our redemption wrought in the body and bloudshedding of our sauiour Christ. Wherefore the Apologie without fraude or purpose of deceiuing hath left out no wordes of the Councell that make against it but whatsoeuer it hath omitted it hath left of that aduantage it might iustly haue taken if it had throughly and at large discussed them CAP. XXVII That the Catholikes haue the table of Eagles and the Sacramentaries haue the table of Iayes The author of the Apologie is charged with impudencie for alleaging the place of Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. speaking of flying high with Eagles vnto the bodie of Christ as though the bodie of Christ were not vpon the altar but we onely should by faith ascend into heauen whereas Chrysostome speaketh of going into heauen by good life also and not by faith onely Afterward he rehearseth his words but without the heade or former part of them which sheweth that Chrysostome teacheth vs howe we should come vnto Christe and where wee shoulde finde him Likewise he translateth corruptly to drawe them to his imagined flying by good life Ad hoc enim inducit nos sacrificium formidandum admirabile quod inbet nobis ut cum concordia charitate maxima ad se accedamus aquilae in hat vita facti ad ipsum coelum euolemus vel potius supra coelum Vbi enim cadauer inquit illie aquilae All this hath Sander left out Cadauer domiri corpus propter mortem nisi enim ille cecidisset nos non resurrexissemus Aquilas autem appellat ut ostendat ad alta eum oportere contendere qui ad hoc corpus accedit nihil cum terra debere ei esse commune neque ad inferiora trahi repere sed ad superiora semper volare in solem iust 〈…〉 tae iniuâ—ri mentisque oculum acutissimum habere Aquilarum enim non graculorum haec mensa est For vnto this doeth the dreadful and wonderfull sacrifice bring vs which commandeth vs that with concord and greatest charitie we come to it and being made Egles in this life we flie vp vnto heauen it selfe or rather aboue heauen For where the carcase is saith he there also be the Egles The Lordes body is the carcase through his death for except he had fallen we had not risen againe And he nameth eagles to shewe that he must get vp on high which commeth to this body and that he ought to haue nothing to doe with the earth nor to be drawne downe and creepe to the lowe places but alwayes to flie vp vnto the high places and to beholde the sonne of righteousnes and to haue the eie of the minde most cleare For this is the table of Egles not of Iayes Iudge now whether Chrysostome meane to tell vs that the bodye of Christe is vppon the altar or in heauen For wee must bee made Egles not to hoouer vppon the table but to flie vp into heauen or rather aboue heauen Wherefore must wee flie into heauen or aboue heauen because Christ is there Wherefore must hee that commeth to this bodie contende vnto the highest place and to haue nothing to doe with the earth or lower places if the bodie of Christ lyeth belowe vppon the table But wee must haue a moste cleare eye of the minde sayeth Sander to see the bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine as an Egle flying on high will fee a fish vnder the water and catch it as Augustine writeth But Chrysostome teacheth vs not to flye vpon high to looke downe from on high and see the bodie of Christ vnder the water or clowdes of accidentes but alwayes to flye vp on high and to beholde the sonne of righteousnesse which is in heauen and not belowe on earth for if the bodie were come downe so lowe as the table what neede wee flye from it to beholde it from so great a distance And whereas hee sayeth that wee are Iayes because wee see weakely and content our selues with a base banket of breade and wine I woulde hee knewe wee haue a moste cleare eye of the minde which through that base banket of breade and wine can beholde and see the verie bodye and bloud of Christe sitting aboue all heauens and flye so high with the winges of faith that wee not onely see it but also that wee are thereby fedde and nourished into eternall life That wee thinke good workes to bring small ayde to life euerlasting it is because wee flye like Egles to an higher cause the onely mercy of GOD in Iesus Christ and Papistes bee like Iayes flying belowe which thinke the vnperfect works of earthly and sinfull men can helpe to bring them to perfecte happinesse in heauen But saith Sander hee speaketh of the table whiche standeth in the Church before vs hee speaketh not nowe of heauen which is aboue the sunne This saith Sander without all proofe and against all reason For Chrysostome saith it is the table of Egles therefore it is an higher table then the table in the Church where vnto we must flie vpwarde alwayes euen into heauen where that bodie which once was deade is nowe sitting in glorie yea aboue all visible heauens and therefore aboue the sunne So that the table in Chrysostome signifieth metonymically the spirituall meat and drinke which the faithfull receiue by faith onelie whereof the table on earth with that which is on it is onely a Sacrament pledge assuraÌ„ce But Chrysostome in the same homily saith If no man will rashly handle an other mans garmente howe dare wee
of them that are hence departed c. This saying proueth a remembrance but not a prayer neuerthelesse of this remembrance vsed in the elder times they gathered prayers to be profitable But more clearely that it was a remembrance without prayers it appeareth by Epiphanius which interpreteth the same remembrance to be as a prayer for the sinners and for the righteous of all sortes to be a distinction of them from our sauiour Christ cont Aer ser. 75. 5 Of sacrifice and for the deade The name of sacrifice which the fathers vsed commoÌ„ly for the celebration of the Lords supper they tooke of the Gentiles you might adde and of the Iewes also for that somewhere I doe affirme But howe proue you they had it of the scriptures Because Christ saide not this is I that was borne of the virgin but this is my body this is my bloude The Apostle saith not of him that eateth vnworthely that he is guiltie of Christ but he is guilty of the bodie and bloude of Christ. Why Bristowe doest thou dreame we speake of the name of sacrifice whether it bee vsed in scripture for the celebration of the Lordes supper But if I knewe saith he what is the sacrifice of a liue thing I shoulde see that Christ is heere as properly sacrificed in a mysticall manner as he was properly sacrificed on the crosse in an open manner Syr I knowe what S. Paul meaneth when hee exhorteth vs to offer vp our bodies a liuing sacrifice Rom 12. yet I am neuer the neere to vnderstand your mystical sacrifice of a very bodie vnder the mysterie of shape and colour of breade Also as blinde as you make me I see the Altar Heb. 13. of which it is not lawful for the Iewes to eate so long as they remaine in Iudaisme but that sacrifice is the death of Christ whereof none that continue in obseruation of the Leuiticall Lawe can be partakers As for the table of the Lorde and the table of diuels in one forme of speach 1. Cor. 10. proueth no sacrifice of the Lordes table opposite to the sacrifice of the Gentils but the feast of the Lordes table contrarie to the feast of the idoll offerings whereof the controuersie was and not of communicating with the sacrifices of the Gentils For if hee had ment of the sacrifices of both he woulde haue na 〈…〉 ed the altar of the Lorde and the altar of diuels For 〈◊〉 alter is proper for a sacrifice as a table for a feast or â—past So that yet I stande to mine olde assertion I canâ—ot finde one worde or one syllable in the scripture of â—ny sacrifice instituted by Christ at his last supper But â—ontrariwise I finde in the scripture that he offered onâ—y one sacrifice propitiatorie and that but once vpon the â—rosse Heb. 9. 10. Purgatorie Where I shewe out of Tertullian de anima cap. de recepâ—u that the opinion of Purgatorie after this life came first from the hethen philosophers as most notable heresies did seing all philosophers that graunted the immortalitie of the soule as Pythagoras Empedocles and Plato assigned three places for the soules departed Heauen hell and a thirde place of purifying This argument saith Bristowe proueth as wel that heauen hel â—he immortalitie of the soule had their originall of the â—hilosophers He is a perillous Logician that can so coÌ„â—ude For heauen hel and the immortalitie of the soule â—re founde in the scriptures which are before all philosophers but of the thirde place of purifying we may say as Augustine doth contra Pelag. hypognost lib. 5. Tertium peâ—itus ignoramus The thirde place we know not at al neither doe we finde it in the holy scriptures But if I would reporte the trueth Bristowe saith there is no worde of any thirde place of purifying but that those philosophers made onely two sorts of receptacles But if I find three and the third a place of purifying what shall we thinke of Bristowes trueth First hee graunteth supernas mansiones the high mansions for the soules of the Philosophers and wise men onely secondly Inferos hell or the lowe places whereof Tertulian saith Reliquas animas ad inferos deijciunt the rest of the soules they cast downe into hell 3. What say you Bristowe al the soules except Philosophers soules Could you not see betweene them imprudentes animas the foolish soules remayning according to the Stoikes about the earth which shoulde bee instructed of the wise soules What was this but a third place and a place of purifying But if you woulde haue your purgatorie more plainely described you may resort to Virgil Aeneid 6. where Anchises out of the opinion of Pythagoras rehearseth howe the soules of good men are purged Quin supremo cum lumine vita reliquit c. After this life hath left them saith he yet is not all euill nor all the infections of the bodie departed froÌ„ them and it is necessarie that such things as haue beene long gathered together shoulde by meruailous meanes be done away Therefore they are exercised with paines and suffer the punishment of their auncient euills some soules are hanged vp against the voyde windes to some their sinne remayning is washed away vnder great raging waters or burned vp with fire Euery one of vs suffer our punishments and then being but fewe wee are sent into the ioyfull Elysian fieldes c. Nowe concerning the three kindes of Purgatorie which I saide that Carpocrates the heretike inuented proued by the payment of the vttermost farthing as the papists doe theirs Bristow saith by this argument I wil winne much honestie bicause the purgatorie that Carpocrates inuented was a wallowing in all sinfull operation c. What is that to mine honestie I saide he inuented a kinde of purgatorie and Bristowe saith it was an absurde kinde of purgatorie I said he proued his purgatorie as the papists doe theirs but to that Bristowe aunswereth neuer a worde But this is small honestie for Bristow that such things as are ioyned together by me to shewe by what degrees popishe purgatorie came to perfection they are seuered by him as though I ment to charge the Papistes by such argumentes to confute their purgatorie Purgatorie fire I said that purgatorie fire was taken of the Originists For Origen brought in the purging fire by better reason out of 1. Cor. 3. for all soules then the papistes doe 〈…〉 r some soules and the name of purgatorie fire began 〈…〉 bout Augustines time by some Mediators that would 〈…〉 ccorde Origens error which was of purging all soules 〈…〉 i th the erronius practise of praying for the deade out â—f which they gathered the purging of some soules That I say of Origen although Bristowe confesse it to 〈…〉 e true in effect yet he saith I speake it without proofe My proofe is in Psal. 36. Ho. 3. Si verò in hac vita contemâ—imus c. But if in this life we contemne the words
deede is no argument of myne neither doe I thinke the texte Eccle 11. to be vnderstoode of the state of men after this life onely I shew that Allen by his glosses hath not satisfied them that so expounde it of whom one is S. Hierom Purg 436. 439. 441. Indeede Purg 281. I said immediately after death as M. Allen confesseth followeth iudgement but prayers either neede not or boote not where the partie is either acquited or condemned by 〈…〉 e sentence of the iudge which as Augustine saith canâ—ot be indifferent betweene reward and punishment De 〈…〉 b. arb lib. 3. Cap. 23. To this he aunswereth first that saint â—ugustine there saith the contrary as I shal see if I reade 〈…〉 e place Why sir I read it thus Superfluo quaeri de meri 〈…〉 s c. In vaine doe men moue a question of his merits which hath deserued nothing speaking of the death of 〈…〉 n infant neque enim for it is not to be feared least his 〈…〉 fe coulde haue beene media meane or indifferent beâ—weene well doing and sinne Et sententia iudicis media es 〈…〉 non possit inter praemium atque supplicium and the sentence 〈…〉 f the iudge cannot bee meane or indifferent betweene 〈…〉 ewarde and punishment This I trust shall suffice of my 〈…〉 eading vntill wee see what you reade to the contrarie 〈…〉 ut to mine argument Bristowe aunswereth for them 〈…〉 at are condemned to hell prayers boote not of them 〈…〉 at are acquited some streight rewarded in their soules 〈…〉 oâ— which they neede no prayers but yet not rewarded 〈◊〉 their bodies for which they pray Apoc. 6. vntill they 〈…〉 e hearde Apoc. 11. other not streight rewarded in their 〈…〉 ules of which some be without sense of punishment as 〈◊〉 Limbo other be punished temporally c. If it bee 〈…〉 wfull to make such diuisions and subdiuisions withâ—ut the authoritie of the scriptures we may imagine what we will But sir for them that be acquited of sin and can haue no meane sentence betweene reward and punishment how can their rewarde be deferred or how can they be punished for sinne which are acquited therof As for them that lacke the rewarde of their bodie it â—s that they may receiue it in time most conuenient both for the glorie of God and for the commodities of â—ll the saincts of God together As for the martyrs Apoc 6 I finde they complayned for iustice against their murtherers I finde not that they prayed for the reward of their body which complaint is to be vnderstoode rather of the desert of the wicked persecuters then of the affection of the holy martyrs The bloude of Abel cried vengaunce yet Abel patiently suffered death The differences of punishment for being angrie saying â—acâ— fatue proue difference of damnation greater for greater offences but not of punishment lesse then damnation due for the least seing our sauiour Christ appointeth the same guiltinesse for vnaduised anger which the Pharisees did for murther who neuer were so farre past all shewe of honestie to make murther a veniall sinne not deseruing damnation as you doe Another argument is out of Matth. 7. of the two wayes if there bee but two wayes in this life there are but two abiding places after this life To this Bristowe aunswereth although the argument bee not mine but an obiection that Allen taketh on him to aunswere First that in the wide way some goe wider then some with infinite varietie but all to damnation presently Secondly in the narrowe way some goe narrower then some with infinite varietie yet all in the narrowe way Ergo say I all straight to saluation Although in a way so narrowe that it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thrusting way or a way whose sides are thrust together that there shoulde bee such infinite varietie of narrownesse which must also import an infinite widenes it is against all reason and the worde of the texte Wherefore it cannot bee the way of merites but of faith Another argument is of the text 2. Cor. 5. We shall all stande before the iudgement seate of Christ that euerie one may receiue in his bodie according to such things as he hath done either good or euill Therefore the prayers or deedes of other men helpe not To this he aunswereth out of Augustine that the deade in our Lorde hath in his life deserued that these workes after his death might be profitable to him Against which authoritie he saith I haue no reply to maintain that scripture against such prayer but onely oppose a saying of Hierom. I think the scripture it selfe is a sufficient replie against all authoritie of man Euerie man shall receiue according to his owne workes and not according to the workes of other men as for the deserte of man it is nothing but vnto damnation And yet that argument is 〈…〉 ected by Allen not framed by me An other argument I haue of the iudgement of God 〈…〉 r. 85. If Purgatory be so necessarie to satisfie Gods iu 〈…〉 e by temporall paynes of sinners according to the 〈…〉 e c. and Purgatory shall cease as you affirme out 〈…〉 Augustine How shall the same be satisfied in them 〈…〉 t dye immediately before the day of iudgement so 〈…〉 t they haue not had time inough there to be suffici 〈…〉 tly purged The like may be demaunded of all them 〈…〉 ich in a moment shal be chaunged from mortalitie 〈…〉 immortalitie at the very comming of Iesus Christe 〈…〉 to iudgement These are two doughtie questions 〈…〉 yeth Bristowe for aunswere of which he asketh me 〈…〉 here I finde that principle in Allen That Purgato 〈…〉 is necessarie to satisfie according to the time For 〈…〉 o th sir Where he sayeth if any debt remaine to be dischar 〈…〉 d it must needes rise by proportion weight continuance number 〈…〉 d quantitie of the faultes whereby it must of necessitie be indu 〈…〉 d that because euerie man cannot haue time to repay all in his 〈…〉 e that there is all or some part aunswerable in the worlde to 〈…〉 e. Here sir of faultes we haue proportion weight 〈…〉 ntinuance number quantitie therefore we must 〈…〉 aue satisfaction in purgatorie according to propor 〈…〉 on weight continuance number quantitie of them 〈…〉 xcept you wil as well denie the proportion weight number quantitie of faultes to bee regarded in Purgatory as the time Wherefore if a great proportion of faultes deserue a greate proportion of punishment heauy faultes heauie punishment many faultes many strypes great faultes great paynes what reason haue you why long continuance in faults should not deserue long continuance in Purgatorie You aunswere a short time in great paine will satisfie for long penance in this life But where is the continuance of sinnes by Allens necessitie to be payed in proportion of long time in Purgatorie So that in effecte you aunswere but without book that the fornace of Purgatorie
forth against Purgatory when I came to it Bristow saith I plainly confesse the contrary to wit a memory for the deade I said that for them that kill them selues that Councell decreed that no commemoration should be made Ca. 34. what this coÌ„memoration iâ— I said it appeareth in the next Canon where they cal it the commemoration of the holy oblation that is they decreed that no communion should be celebrated in which being a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ no mention of them that so died should be in their thankesgiuing as was vsed for them that died well Out of the 3. Toletan Cap 22. I shewed that it was decreed that the bodies of the faithfull should be buried only with singing of psalmes which must be thought sufficient for all Christians this I said excluded both prayers and oblations for the deade Bristow cauelleth that although in carrying the corps to the grane they vsed to singe psalmes yet they might haue prayer oblation for their soules in the Church I answere the councell thinketh singingof psalmes sufficient for the office of their buriall therefore prayer and oblation were thought needelesse But that they had prayer and oblation in Spaine for the deade he would proue by a saying of Augustine De cur pro mor. Cap. 1. where he saith the custome of the vniuersall Church is that in the prayers of the priest which are made to God at the altar the commendation also of the deade hath his place This commendation might be without prayer as in the olde liturgie the oblation for all the Patriarkes Prophets Apostles c. or if it were in speciall forme of prayer for the deade in Affrica it proueth not that it was in Spaine For Augustine speaketh of the vniuersall Church no farther then his owne knowledge or if it were in his time it might afterward be reformed in Spaine as diuers other errors were namely in that Councell of Toledo and other before it But Bristowe vrgeth me farther and saith I might as well say the Papists pray not for the deade because they carry the corps with psalmes But he will neuer see the litle worde only ioyned in the Canon to psalmes nor the sufficiency of the office for the buriall of all Christians Againe he demandeth of De profundis being a psalme Is it not a prayer for the deade trowe you I trowe no. Except all prayers that men make for them selues be prayers for the deade As for the buriall of papists claimed by ministers in England I thinke you belie them for they could be content you had all the obstinate papists in your bosome at Loueine quicke and deade But such as die among vs we are not nice in denying them buriall in the vsuall cemiteries although we communicate not with them in their life yet alwaies protesting that more seuere discipline were meete for them in their life and to be executed vpon them euen in their death after the example of Cyprians time although we think worse of them then Cyprian did of Victor I saide farther that the place of Possidonius speaking of the funerall of Saint Augustine proueth that the sacrifice offred for the commending of his bodies deposition was the sacrifice of thanksgiuing Here first Bristowe accuseth mine ignorance in antiquity that I vnderstand deposition for the putting of his body by death where it is the laying downe of it in the earth as Leuatio corporis is the taking vp of Saints bodies or reliques a worshipfull witnesse of antiquity For Cyrillus testifieth that they were not in his time taken out of the earth Lib. 10. Cont. Iulian. But marke how skillfully Bristowe expoundeth Possidonius saying The sacrifice was offred to God for the commending of his bodies deposition That is saith Bristowe expositione prima for the laying downe of it in the earth by burying Why might not his body be laide in the graue without a propiciatory sacrifice The second exposition is that by commending the deposition of his body which is the laying it downe in the graue he meaneth the commendation of his soule to God With such expositions hee may prooue what hee will out of the Doctors But to admitt this monstrous interpretation how agreeth it with popery or Augustines owne opinion that seing he was a perfect man died in persecution while his City was besieged the same day it was taken that any sacrifice should be offred for his soule seeing he himselfe saith it is iniury to pray for a Martyr De Verb. Ap. 517 But that prayers for the deade were vsed in Saint Augustines time and at the celebration of the Lords Supper it is not of me denied and therefore needed not of Bristowe to be proued But he will make me both answerer and replyer Because I graunt that S. Augustine prayed for his parent and yet taunt Allen for translating Memoriam sui a memorie of her to be a memorie for her as though she would haue her sonne to be a Chantrie Priest to sing for her First I say that if the Pope himselfe translate Memoriam sui a memorie for her the translation is false Secondly where he saith the sacrifice of our price was offered for her I shewed that before that so he called the celebration of the Lordes Supper vnderstanding it neuerthelesse not to bee the sacrifice it selfe that beeing once offered did perfectly redeeme vs but a memorie and thankesgiuing for the same as I shewed out of Augustine and other Doctours Pur. 316. and so forth in the rest vnto the leafe 327. Finally Bristowe citeth Augustine De Verb. Ap. Hom. 34. This as a tradition of our Fathers the whole Church doth obserue that for them which are departed in the communion of Christes bodie and bloud when at the healthfull sacrifice they are remembred in their place prayer is made and it is rehearsed that it is offered for them also I answere this oblation being generall for all that are departed in the faith of Christ can be but a sacrifice of thanksgiuing considering that the sacrifice of bread and wine as they called it in remembrance of the onely and insacrificable sacrifice of Christ as S. Augustine calleth his propitiatorie sacrifice coulde be no propitiation but a sacrifice of thankesgiuing or prosperitie or praise August Contra Faustum lib. 6. lib. 20. Cap. 18. 21. Contra aduers. Leg. Prophet lib. 1. cap. 6. 7. 19. 20. and many other places through out his workes Of particular Doctours Whether Saint Augustine doubted of Purgatorie That Saint Augustine allowed prayer for the dead Bristowe citeth many places but without neede seeing I conâ—esse it but that he neuer doubted of Purgatorie that is not proued thereby The Grecians at this day deny Purgatorie yet do they allowpraier for the dead Whereas I cited Saint Augustine Encher Chapter 69. It is not incredible that such a thing is done euen after this life and whether it be so or no it may be enquired And either
without succession vnto their blasphemous sacrificing Priesthood But let vs see what balde reason he bringeth to proue that we haue translated the Priesthood First we haue laboured to chaunge the Apostolicall names of Episcopus and Presbyter into superintendent elder So a translation out of Greeke into Latine or English is a chaunge with him and such as may not be abidden for he reproueth me for translating Presbyterum in Cyprian an elder Secondly I helpe an other argument of theirs concluding out of Ephes. 4. that the Popish Hierarchie is no part of Christian Ministerie by which I declare that we haue chaunged the Priesthoode of the Primitiue Church which had Popish Bishops Priestes Deacons Subdeacons Exorcistes Cantors Acolytes Ostiaries for which he citeth Eusebius lib. 6. cap. 34. where there is no such matter named either in the Greeke or Latine computation of Grynaeus I confesse the names are auncient and the offices in the Primitiue Church were some necessarie some profitable but I speake of the Popish Hierarchie in which nothing remaineth but the names But Bristowe thinketh I do not consider that S. Paule nameth there the onely Ministers of the worde or preachers Yes verily and therfore I exclude all these Popish orders which are such euery one of them as may be and are giuen to men that are no preachers or ministers of the word As for the order of Christian Deacons for ministring to the poore and Elders of gouernement I knowe they are not to be sought in that rehearsall But for those Popish orders that Bristow saith belong to the ministerie of the altar the Scripture speaketh no one word of them Yet he saith I may see the distinction of them Act. 13. where some preachers had not orders 1. Tim. 3. where some good Priestes do not labour in the word and doctrine Concerning the first place I knowe not what he meaneth except he thinke Paule and Barnabas were not Apostles before handes were laid on them and they dismissed to preach abroad among the Gentiles Or else that those Prophetes and teachers named in the beginning of the Chapter had nowe orders which howe he proueth I maruell specially seeing other Papistes doe vnderstand the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth ministring for their sacrificing As for the other place is of Elders of gouernement and not Priestes of the Altar That the auncient writers vsed the names of Sacerdotes Leuitae Pontifices it was not because the ministers of the Gospell are a species or kinde of them but abusiuely for a certaine similitude of the Leuiticall order and Priesthoode with the ministers of the word and sacraments Thirdly he saith the Apostles Bishops and Priestes were made by other Bishops and Priestes ours by Lay men as of Kings and ciuile Magistrates which is an impudent slaunder Fourthly wee confesse their orders to bee good ynough because we reorder not them which is false for I saide their admission of the Church is a newe calling Bristowe saith that is a newe way to giue orders shewing him selfe ignorant that euen in the olde Church suche as were ordained by some heretikes were receiued after they had abiured their heresie to continue in the degree of the Cleargie as of the Nouatians Concil Nicen. cap. 8. Wherefore the rest of his babbling O your Diuinitie O your Scripture as that I bring nothing to defend Pilkington not to be a mocke Bishop but his excellent learning and diligent preaching c. I passe ouer as also the great preaching which nowe at the last is in Popish countries where within these threescore yeares was as great silence as in England at the same time Fiftly arguments neede not where I denie all Priesthoode but the spirituall Priesthoode common to all Christians Sixtly If I will inuent a thirde Priesthoode hee saith that the Primitiue or Fathers Priesthoode was according to the order of Melchisedech and to offer sacrifice in breade and wine as Melchisedek Christ did Beware what you say of a sacrifice of bread and wine offered by you Christ as by Melchisedek But you regarde not our arguments they be but obiections At leastwise I pray you answere our obiections or else they wil be argumentes to proue you all blasphemous vsurpers of Christs singular priesthood But that you wil doe at leasure first you will proue your priesthood out of Augustine Contr. aduers. Leg. Prophet Lib. Cap. 19 20. Where he defendeth the sacrifice of the Church to be after the order of Melchisedek and yet but a sacrifice of praise So that you haue neither your sacrifice propitiatorie whereof the controuersie is nor your particular priesthood for he saith The Church from the Apostles time c. doth offer to God in the body of Christ a sacrifice of praise c. not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedeck Now who knoweth not that the sacrifice of praise is a spiritual sacrifice common to al the Church and not peculiar to any special order of priesthood So that S. Augastine naming the order of Melchisedek alludeth to those places of the scripture in which all Christians are called a royall priesthood Kinges and priestes 1. Pet. 2. Apoc. 1. but neuer intended to make the singular priesthood of Christ confirmed to him by oath Psalm 110. and which passeth not from him Heb. 7. common to ministers of the Church If you obiect He speaketh of celebration of the sacrament which is peculiar to them I answere although the ministration of the sacrament be proper vnto them yet the sacrifice of praise offered in the celebration is common to the whole Church as Augustine both here and else where affirmeth So that although a sacrifice be graunted yet a special priesthood is not proued But the sacrifice of the crosse was both of thankesgiuing of propitiatiō he troweth and therfore the memoriall sacrifice of the altar to be the one what doth it let to be the other This argument standing vpon Bristowes trowing and confounding the members of a diuision shall haue none other answere for me The places that I cite out of Ambrose ad virg laps de virgin Lib. 1. to proue that he vseth the names of sacrifice and propitiation vnproperly as other of the fathers doe Bristow will not allow as sufficient saying I might as wel so argue that S. Paule speaketh vnproperly because he saith our bodies by mortification to be made a liuing sacrifice whereas the Apostle Heb. 10. saith Christs body by death to be made a sacrifice And what offence is it to say S. Paule speaketh vnproperly where he speaketh figuratiuely as when he saith the rock was Christ. Howbeit in this example of Bristow there is great difference but that such a blunderer as he cannot see it which confoundeth the propitiatorie sacrifice of Christ with the eucharisticall sacrifice of Christians as he confounded them both in the sacrifice of the Crosse the one could not be offered without death of the
altar alludeth to the sacrifices of thankesgiuing in the lawe because he vseth also the name of Leuites by which he calleth Gods ministers Let Bristowe nowe goe and say that Leuites also offered sacrifice propitiatoriâ— in the lawe The second flower of mine ignorance is where to deface the sacrifice of Iudas Macha 〈…〉 aeus I say that both the high Priest at that time was a wicked and vngodly man to wit either Iason Menelaus or Alcimus and namely Menelaus the worst of them all three and also that the other Priestes of that time were giuen to the practises of the Gentiles 2. Machab. 4. In so much that it is like that Iudas Machabaeus if hee deuised not the sacrifice of his owne heade yet tooke by imitation of the Gentiles Frst hee maruelleth howe I could thinke that Machabaeus had any commnion with the Gentilizers against whom all his fighting was seeing it is written first of Macab 4 that he chose priestes without spot hauing their heart in the lawe of God I aunswere being such as they were described 2. Machab. 4. hee had hard choise to finde a sufficient number of vnspotted priestes But although he were an enimy of gentility in that corrupt time and state he might be drawen into imitation of the gentiles in some point that had a shewe of pietie although it were not agreeable to the lawe of God His next accusation is that I call them high priestes which were but antipontifices and vsurpers I aunswere I iustifie not their title more then their maners and religion but whereas by his greekelatine word he supposeth that there were other true high priestes in their time he bewraieth his owne grosse ignorance For whereas he saith that the succession of the true high priestes for that time was this Onias Mathathias Iudas Ionathas Simon The truth is that Mathathias and Iudas were neuer high priestes neither doth the Story 1. Macc. 2. or 1. Macc. 3 which he quoteth shewe any thing to proue that they were It sayeth that Mathathias was a priest but not that he was the high priest And Iosephus who did write an history of the Maccabees testifieth plainly that from Iacimus to Ionathan for 7. yeares there was no high priest which Ionathan was made high priest in the yeare 160. Ioseph Antiqu. Lib. 20. Cap. 8. 1. Maccab. Cap. 10. verse 21. which was many yeares after Iudas his brother was slaine Therefore at such time as Iudas should send the offering to Hierusalem there was no such good Bishop as Allen saith but euen Onias cognomento Menelaus as Iosephus calleth him which was depriued both of his life and of his high priesthood at Berytus or as the corrupt story of the Machabes saith at Berea 2. Macc. 13. called in the first of the Machabees Bethzetha But whereas Bristow maketh Ionathas or Simon chiefe priestes in the absence of Iudas and not Menelaus he forgetteth that in those expeditions which Iudas made from Hierusalem for which he quoteth 1. Macc. 4. 5. it is plaine in the same chapter that Simon was sent with an hoast into Galilee and Ionathan went with his brother Iudas ouer Iordane into Gilead which story how he wil reconcile with the 2. Mac 12. either for time or persons I haue great meruaile But that Menelaus as he was then in office of the high priest though vnworthy so that he was at Hierusalem it appeareth by this record of the time The Temple was purged as Bristowe confesseth and it is written 1. Macc. 4. Anno 148. in the 25. of the Moneth Cislewe and in the same yeare Antiochus Eupator by letters sent to Lysias commandeth that the Temple should be restored to the Iewes whereof Lysias writeth to the Iewes the 24. of the moneth of Iupiter Corinthus and king Antiochus himselfe with letters bearing date the 15. of the moneth Panticus sendeth Menelaus to comfort the Iewes 5. Mac. 11. And the next yeare after Anno 149. Antiochus came into Iewrie and did execution vpon Menelaus and made warre vpon Iudas c. 2. Macc. 13. and ordained Iacimus high priest which continued in that place 3. yeares Iosep. Antiqu. Lib. 20. cap. 8. If that this account of the second booke of Maccabees agree not with the story of the first booke as in deede it doth not let Bristowe looke â—â—to it that defendeth these bookes to be Canonicall it is sufficient for me to iustifie that I cited out of this latter booke by the report of the same booke and by Iosephus who knewe the succession of the high Priestes of his nation better than Bristowe whose arrogant ignorance is so much the more odious that hee would charge me with ouersight in that hee is most ignorant him selfe and that against his Maister Allen who supposeth some other to be high Priest or Bishop and not Iudas him selfe The third chapter of my grosse or rather malicious ignorance is saide to be about Antichrist As that the Church of Christ should prepare his way or worke his mysterie But this is a fable of Bristowe neuer affirmed by me As for the other assertions of the time of his reuelation of the Churches fleeing into the wildernesse of the time of Antichristes reigne c. because they are condemned by the onely authoritie of Bristowe without any argument or testimonie of Scripture or Fathers I will referre the reader to such places where I affirme any of them to consider my reasons and to iudge indifferently The fourth point is that the body of Christ is not offered to him selfe but thankesgiuing is offered to him for the offering of his body for vs. Pur. 316. Against this his reasons are these Why sir did not he vpon the crosse offer his owne body as a Man and a Priest to him selfe as to God Sir the Scripture telleth me that Christ being an high Priest by his eternall spirite offered him selfe vnreproueable to GOD Hebr. 9. verse 14. Ergo you will say to him selfe as God because the persons of the godhead are vndiuided Yet I trust you will distinguish the humanitie from the deitie so Christ offered not his body to him selfe that is neither to his humanitie nor to the person of the mediatour which is God and man For though God was made man yet God the Father was not made man nor God the holy Ghost but God the Sonne onely And although it were graunted that Christ offering him selfe to God was offered to him selfe yet it followeth not that men of whome I spake can offer the body of Christ yea whole Christ to him selfe then the which nothing is more absurd An other reason Bristow bringeth that I noted others for saying it is not lawful to pray to God the sonne As though it were al one to pray to Christ to offer his body to Christ him self to him self The fift That I call it a vaine amplification and fond suppositioÌ„ to extend the force of Christes death beyond the limits of his will My words are of
of scripture as I brought to proue the sinne against the holie Ghost to be irremissible First the place of 1. Iohn 5. he saith is meant of them that be deade and damned in hell as he hath taught vs cap. 8. but because I refuse that interpretation as false and newe he citeth Augustine in ret li. 19. cap. 12. whose interpretation at the first was as I holde but afterward he addeth if he end his life in this peruersitie For we must despaire of no man be he neuer so wicked so long as he is in this life Neither is praier made vnwisely for him who is not despaired of Here are two contrarie expositions of one man in which we must consider whether is more proper to the place and not whether better or last pleased the authour of them That no man is to be despaired of while he liueth as it is contrarie to the scripture so to the practise of the Church which refused to pray for Iulianus the apostata and prayed to God against him Maris also the Bishop of Chalcedon denounced him to his face to be impious and an apostata and enimie of God Socrat. lib. 3. cap. 10. Sozo lib. 5. cap. 4. The second text Heb. 6. Bristowe expoundeth it of falling through frailtie in persecution of them which can not be renewed by baptisme but the Apostle saith expressely by repentance and therefore speaketh not of lapsion or falling but of prolapsion or falling cleane away from Christ with manifest contempt of his grace and redemption The terrible denuntiation of Christ against the obstinate and malicious Pharisees Matt. 13. Mar. 3. Bristowe faith he speaketh it not to driue them to desperation but to moue them to repentance What if that be graunted that by shewing the daunger of malitious obstinacie which groweth to irremissible wickednes he should admonish them to beware in time as the Apostle doth Heb. 6. Doth it therefore followe that no man sinneth irremissiblie while he liueth Although it is plaine that our sauiour Christ denounceth their damnation as men so obdurate in their wickednes that nothing could reclay me them or bring them to repētance But Bristow would make me contrarie to my selfe who though in expresse words I count D. Allen his fellowes such as by you Heb. 6. cannot repent yet do exhort them truly to repent c. Pur. 461. But how proueth he that I count Allen and his fellowes such as cannot repent Forsooth because I say they haue sometime beene lightened and tasted of the good gifte of God Why sir are all such come to prolapsion I trow not In deede I admonish them being in the way of prolapsion that are curable Whether Allen were euer a protestant I know not but certaine I am that some of his fellowes haue beene lightned and were protestants of whom I speake and not of him If I say Bristow and his fellowes which are lay-men doe I say Bristow is a lay man This wilfull malicious cauilling Bristow if you take not heede of it in time argueth that you are fallen verie deepe if you be not yet at the bottom of apostasie But this is a cunning cōforter of them that are in desperation which affirmeth that Christ doth no otherwise say that such sinne and blasphemie shall not be remitted then he saith that all other sinne and blasphemie shal be remitted and therfore many one yea and aboue all number may be and is forgiuen the sinne against the holy ghost He meaneth because the condition of repentance is not expressed in them that are forgiuen But if that condition were to be vnderstoode in them also that sin against the holy ghost what distinction were there for which he should say that blasphemie and sinne shall not be forgiuen neither in this world nor in the world to come Such a sinner hath no remission of sinnes but is guiltie of eternal damnation For that none shal be forgiuen without repentance as euerie man knew without that distinction But Bristow would haue it to be an extraordinary matter for God to forgiue the sinne against the holy ghost and so he forgaue one of those Pharisees and he the verie worst of them all namely S. Paule who had bin indeede a Pharisee as he cōfesseth Act. 23. 26. but none of those Pharisees for he knewe not Christ in the flesh 2. Cor 5. yea he had beene a persecuter and a blasphemer as he confesseth 1. Tim 1. but not the worst of all Pharesees for he was an elect vessel of God and his persecution and blasphemie was not of malice or sinne against the holy ghost but of ignorance and blinde zeale of God for he addeth immediatly but I obteined mercie because I did it ignorantly in vnbeleefe As for those Pharisees against whom our Sauiour Christ thundreth that iudgement did blaspheme the holy ghost against their owne conscience and knowledge malitiously attributing vnto the diuell that which they knew to be the finger of God That which I speake out of Samuel Ieremie and Ezekiel Bristow saith is all spoken in one sense of temporall matters to wit of casting Saule from his kingdome and the Iewes into captiuitie But except the persons had bene incurable God would haue beene intreated to giue them repētance to haue continued Saule in his kingdome and the people in their countrie The rule that Ezechiel 33. is vnderstoode of sinnes that are not against the holy ghost as the examples doe plainely declare The 8. poynt is that strange interpretation of the creede a◠he calleth it Christ descended into hell to redeeme vs out of hell by suffering the wrath of God for our sinnes Heb. 5. First Bristow saith there is neuer a word of that article and much lesse of the interpretation thereof in that chapter yet after to proue that to bee prayer which I saide was a complaint as though it might not be be a complayning prayer he citeth the 7. verse of the same chapter of Christ who in the daies of his flesh with a mightie crie and with teares offered vp prayers and supplications to him that was able to saue him out of death and was heard from his feare or from that he feared 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But by this text Bristow would proue that Christ was not forsaken of his father no not corporally although he complayned that he was forsaken as though his lamentable complaint hadbeene more then needed when he sayde My God my God why hast thou forsaken me which to him that was God was greater torment of hell then any heart of man can conceiue And therefore Bristow which maketh all to stand in the bodilie death of Christ and raileth at Caluine for shewing how necessarie it was for Christ to suffer in soule as much as in body for the redemption of the whole man doth nothing but cauil slaūder one while fayning that Caluine should make two deathes of Christ another while that he was in feare lest he should haue
bin dāned for euer c. Which he saith also shal be my reply But when Bristow saith that Christs bodily death without any suffering of his soule was the full redemption of the world he maketh his tormentes of minde whereof he complaineth that his soule was heauie vnto death which made him to sweate bloode before his body was touched to be of no force except it were to argue great imbecillitie of Christ who feared so much bodylie death that many of his seruantes haue ioyfully imbraced and that strange crie and teares with which he vttered his prayers on the crosse and that most lamentable complaint that God had forsaken him were for nothing but for that he was not deliuered from the crosse as Bristow writeth it is too much iniurious to his most bitter passion to imagine and therefore we must needes acknowledge that he suffered more in the sight of God whose iustice he was to satisfie then he suffered in the sight of men And so the question that Bristow propoundeth to me is answered why descendit ad inferos cometh after sepultus because the order of the Symbole is first to shew what suffered before men and then what hesuffered in the sight of God As for the blasphemy of Theodorus Mopseuestenus that Christ had inclination to sinne c. there is no more reason why Bristowe should charge vs with it then with those other blasphemies that Christ did dispaire in God or blaspheme God or commit some other sinne against God for our redemption which he affirmeth to be maintained of some Caluinistes For which detestable slaunder if he haue no better ground then he sheweth let him remember that the mouth which lyeth killeth the soule I wil spare to amplifie though I lack no matter albeit that Bristow fayneth mōsters of slaūders as Iupiters Giantes then casteth thē downe with thūderbolts deriding myknowledge in amplification The 9. is about the honor of the virgin Marie wherein first he chargeth me with the heresie of the Heluidians Antidicomarianites who were condemned for heretikes for denying her perpetual virginitie whereas he cometh neerer to the Colliridians likewise cōdemned thē we to the Heluidians But let vs see his impudent quarels First I say As for the perpetuall virginitie of the mother of Christ as we thinke it is true so because the scripture hath not reueiled it neither perteineth it vnto vs we make no question of it Here is a great cōiunctiō with heretikes which trobled the Church with contention a bout a matter which they were not able to proue by the scriptures yet saith Bristow you forge a principle of onely scripture in their fauour Surely that principle as it is not forged so it fauoreth them nothing at al. For their contentious assertion they were not able to proue by the scriptures but within 4. lines afore I am contrary to my selfe where I say all truth may be proued by the scripture If I had to doe with a man of reason as I haue to do with a papist he would vnderstand my propositiō according to the whole matter in controuersie of such things as are necessarie or profitable for a christian man to know vnto saluatiō For otherwise I thinke many things to be true that are not conteined in the scriptures As I thinke that Bristow lacketh wit learning honesty thus to quarell which is not written in the scriptures but gathered by other reasons yet he saith I might which more honestie haue saide that it may be proued by scripture where she saith Luk. 1. Because I know no man that is saith he because I haue made a vow of virginitie A like matter that she would marie if she had made a vow of viginitie Yet Bristow cōfesseth this place proueth not inuincibly her perpetuall virginitie although it so proue her vow But if Bristow were condēned or had vowed to lie in prison vntil he could frame an inuincible argument to proue her vow out of that place yea or any other place of the scriptures it were all one as if he were condemned to perpetuall prison or vowed the same Another poynt of that dishonor is where I controld Allen for excepting the mother of Christ when he speaketh of sinners which is all one as if he had said Christ was not a sauiour of his mother or that she had no neede of his saluation And here he chargeth me with reading Caluine more then Augustine as though Augustine defended the virgin Marie to be free from sinne because he saith against the Pelagians that he would haue no question of her for the honour of our Lord when he speaketh of sinnes For hereof we know that more grace was giuen to her to ouercome sinne of all partes which was worthy to conceiue and bring forth him 〈…〉 om it is certaine that he had no sin Denat grat 136. It is all one with Bristow to ouercome sinne to be voyde of all sinne What victorie is there without a battel if the flesh in the virgin Marie did not rebel against the spirite what victorie had she by grace But it is plaine Pelagianisme to hold that she was voyde of sinne or perfectly righteous The Pelagian nameth also ipsam etians domini c. the verie mother of our Lord and Sauiour which he saith it is necessarie for godlines that we confesse that she was with out sinne But thereof Augustine for the honour of our Lord will haue no question signifying that although she were not cleere and exempted from fi 〈…〉 e but had grace to ouercome sinne yet for reuerence of Christ her sonne he would not reason thereof to bring her within the cōmon cōpasse of al siners But Bristow perceiueth that I would not haue so answered seeing I affirme that by the reprehension of Christ Iohn 2. she did offend for he would neuer haue reproued his mother without a cause And said what haue I to do with thee woman except she had intermedled in his office more then of dutie she ought But Bristow would colour his reproofe two wayes one by false translation of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what to me and thee O woman not vnderstanding the greek phrase which is by those words to refuse to haue to doe with one As the diuels Matt. 8. cried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What haue we to do with thee Iesus thou sonne of God and not as Bristowe translateth What to vs and thee Iesus c. But because Bristow saith that if Christ should meane that the want of wine perteined neither to him nor to his mother yet she were not discharged of error to moue him in a matter which belongeth neither to him nor her He sayth I might doe well to tell him what were those sinnes of hers I thinke the answere of Christ sheweth what her offence was here and Luk. 5. that she presumed to intermeddle vnder colour of her motherly authoritie with matter apperteining to his diuine office of being Christ
the mediator with which she had nothing to doe as a mother but was esteemed of him as a woman who knew when it was conuenient for him to doe whatsoeuer were for the glorie of Gods kingdome to be done without her or any other bodies admonition Neither doe I charge her as Chrysostom in Ioann Hom. 20. Optabat enim c. For she wished that he might now winne the fauor of men and that she might be made more noble by the fauour of her sonne And perchance she was moued with some humane affection euen as his brethren when they saide shew thy selfe to the world being desirous by his miracles to winne themselues a fame Therefore he answered more sharpely what haue I to doe with thee woman my houre is not yet come For that he did reuerence his mother Luke doth testifie that he was subiect to his parentes and this Euangelist doth shew how great care he had of his mother in the time of his passion For where his parentes did nothing hinder the mysteries of GOD did offend nothing it was meete and necessarie for the sonne to be obedient neither could he deny obedience without greate perill Contrarywise when they desire an vnseasonable thing and that which would haue beene an hinderance to spirituall thinges Who is my mother and my brethren quoth he For as yet they had not such opinion of him as they ought but Marie after the manner of mothers thought she should haue commanded her sonne in all thinges by her authoritie c. But the councell of Trent saith Bristow sheweth that she had more neede of Christes grace then all other saints to preserue her from sinne But in the meane time she had no neede of his redemption for the remission of sinne who was appoynted to saue his people from their sinnes who came to seeke and to saue that which was lost both of the house of Israel and of the Gentiles so many as attained saluatiō So therefore howsoeuer Bristow scorneth at my diuinity I will still conclude that the virgin Mary beeing so principal a persō of Christs people was saued from her sinnes by the redemption of his bloode was lost but sought vp and saued by him Which diuinitie being taken out of the scriptures I trust is more commendable then the contrarie doctrine deriued from the Pelagians and defended by the Papistes The 10. poynt of mine ignorance is about the definition of an heretike whom I saide to be a man in the Church I haue shewed before that I distinguish betweene him that is in the Church and him that is of the Church a Papiste an Anabaptist may be in the Church but they cannot be of the Church except they repent Where I added vnto my definitiō that if any of vs can be proued obstinately to mainteine our opinion contrarie to the doctrine of the scriptures we refuse not to be counted heretikes Bristow saith they may say the like But the triall is all Bristow saith they bring plaine scriptures to proue that all the doctrine of the Apostles traditions is the doctrine of the scriptures And we say the same that whatsoeuer the Apostles deliuered in speech they deliuered also in writing and neither contrarie to other But that all true doctrine necessarie to saluation is not conteined in the scriptures that you proue not neither that such things were of the Apostles deliuerie as you call traditions of the Apostles As for the particular poyntes you prate of concerning the time of the Churches persecution and Antichristes raigne haue beene answered in their proper places The wordes of Christ This is my body we acknowledge to be true in such sense as he spake them neither can you prooue that they importe your carnall Carpernaiticall presence what you hold of Iustification by workes Worshipping of Images Insufficiencie of Christes redemption Impeccabilitie of Marie c. contrarie to the expresse and plaine textes of the scripture it were out of place here o make rehersall The 11. is mine ignorance in wondring at Allen for saying that a christian scholer should first beleeue and after seeke for vnderstāding he hath noted cap 10. Dem. 34. and there haue I answered The 12. poynt proceedeth of like ignorance where I am said to wonder when I heare that the sacrifice of the masse is a likenesse of the sacrifice of Christs death vpon the crosse And then I am asked whether I know not that sacramentes are not likenesses of other thinges and Augustine is called to witnesse with much adoe as though it is all one to haue sacramentes which are similitudes of Christs death and to haue a sacrifice of similitude or likenesse which I saide truly was contrary to the whole scope of the Epistle to the Hebrewes that there should be any shadowes or resemblances when the body and substance it selfe is come which I spake supposing that Allen by likenes of the exemplar meaneth the masse with all the apish pageants thereof to be like the sacrifice of Christes death And indeede it was that monstruous saying of Allen which I wondered at By likenesse of the exemplar as indeede being in an other maner the verie selfe-same But Bristow setting a good countenance vpon so great an absurditie asketh what boy hath not hearde it saide of one the same man being changed by age sicknesse apparel shauing c. he is like or vnlike himselfe But tontrariewise what boy in Oxford or Cambridge would not reply that this similitude or likenesse or vnlikenesse is of two seuerall shapes and not of one and the same substance vnto it selfe as Allen saith the sacrament is like the body of Christ and is the very same in another maner that is vnder couerture of accidentes that belong to another kinde of substance But Bristowe is not so quicke to vnderstand me where I vnderstand not my selfe as he weeneth where I say neither will it helpe that Allen saith it is the selfesame in another manner so longe as the same respect remaineth I am sorie that Bristowe is so dull headed that he cannot vnderstand what the same respecte meaneth in opposition which if it not obserued in the thinges opposed they are not alwayes opposite and specially relatiues who hange altogether vpon respect But Bristowe asketh who can imagine that the verie same respecte remaineth when the same manner doth not remaine Why sir what is the respect of the likenesse of the sacrifice of the masse with the exemplar seeing you confesse the manner tobe vnlike but the verie identitie of the thing sacrificed which is the monster that I maruaile at as also that you cannot imagine the same respect where there is not the same manner Is not God the father of our Lord Christ in the same respect that Abraham is the father of Isaak but yet after a farre other manner yea to follow your owne wise examples is not Abraham father of Isaak in the same respecte when Isaak is yonge and when he is olde when he
now let vs see what fault he findeth with our saying we say the truth saith he but not all the trueth For this had bene somewhat worth before the incarnation of Christ wheÌ„ Christ was eaten only by faith but since his incarnation he giueth vs an other kind of truth theÌ„ euer he gaue to theÌ„ So faith M. S. But S. Paul saith our fathers did al eate the same spiritual meate that we do and drink the same spiritual cuppe that we do for they dranke of the rocke which rocke was Christ as substantially as the bread and wine are his body bloud vnto vs. 1. Cor. 10. But S. saith our eating lacketh some truth because the whol maÌ„ is not fed I answere that is no cause for we hold that the whole man is fed with Christ to be saued both body soule For wher he â—â—ith that faith seedeth but the soule it is false for God by faith feedeth both bodie and soule vnto eternal life But this is Sanders error that he thinketh Christ cannot feede our bodies by faith except he thrust his body in at our mouthes He might likewise say that in baptisme we are but halfe regenerated in soule onely because the holy ghost is not powred ouer our bodies yet we beleue that we are washed regenerated wholy both in body and soule so that our bodies by baptisme are engraffed into the death burial resurrection of Christ. Rom. 6 and so we beleeue that by eating of this bread drinking of this cuppe of the Lord worthily our whole man is fed after a spirituall manner with the quickning flesh and bloude of our sauiour Christ vnto euerlasting life And wheras Leo saith That is taken by the mouth which is beleeued by faith he meaneth none othewise then when the scripture saith that baptisme is the lauer of regeneration and when we confesse that the body of Christ is eaten when we meane the sacrameÌ„t therof is eaten bodily In which sense the same Leo writeth Epistel 10. ad Plaui against the heresie of Eutyches Videat que 〈◊〉 transixa dauis pependerit in crucis ligno aperto per militis lanceam latere crucifixi intelligat vnde saÌ„gnis aqua esfluxerint ut ceclesia Dei lauacro rigaretur poculo Let him see what nature being striken through with nayles hath hanged on the woode of the crosse and when the side of him that was crucified was opened let him vnderstand from whence that blood water flowed that the church of god might be moistened both by a lauer by a cupp By these words he sheweth that the bloud in the cuppe is none otherwise the bloud of Christ theÌ„ the water of baptisme is the water that issued out of his side which is far from the popish vnderstanding As for the often eating drinking recorded in the scriptures in the sacrifices Manna the rocke water the Paschal lambe the shewbread c which SaÌ„der wold haue to be but figures of the bodily eating of Christs flesh I answere they were sacraments of the spiritual norishmeÌ„t of the faithful appointed for that time as this supper is appropriated to our time and not because the bodily eating of the forbidden fruit could not otherwise be purged from vs but by bodily eating of Christs flesh as he assurmeth The sinne of Adam was not in eating but in eating disobediently so that eating of it selfe was no fault nor any poyson was in the nature of the fruite that was eaten as Sander dreameth but disobedience was the sin of Adam which by the obedience of Christ is done awaye as S. Paul teacheth Rom. 5. ver 19. As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so by the obedience of one man many shall be made righteous Neither doth Cyprian saye otherwise although he allude to the tasting of the forbidden fruite De Coen Dom. Bibimus c We drinke of the bloud of Christ himselfe commanding being partakers of eternall life with him and by him abhorring the sinnes of naturall lust as vnpure bloud granting our selues by tast of sinne to haue ben depriued from blessednes and condemned except the mercy of Christ had brought vs againe vnto fellowship of eternal life by his bloud Although Cyprian here allude vnto the acte in which disobedience was committed yet in the end he sheweth that by the obedience of Christe shedding his bloud for vs we are restored into the fauor of God and not by actuall drinking of the naturall bloud of Christ into our bodyes Neither doth Prosper Aquitanicus thinke otherwise Cont. Collat Liberum ergo arbitrium c. Free will therfore that is the voluntary appetite of the thing that pleased it selfe after it had lothed the vse of the good thinges which it had receiued and the aydes of his owne happines waxing of such account with it bent his impotent greedines vnto the experience of disobedience dranke the poyson of all vices and drouned the whole nature of man with the dronkennes of his intemperance Thence it commeth that before the eating of the same flesh of the sonne of man and drinking his bloud he digest that deadly surset he fayleth in memory erreth in iudgment wauereth in going neither is he by any meanes meet to chuse and desire that good thing wherof he depryued himself of his owne accord This eating and drinking cannot be vnderstood of eating and drinking the Sacrament for the will of man must be prepared both to chuse and desire that good from which man is fallen before euer he be admitted to the Lordes table as euery Papist will confesse What impudencie then is it vpon shadowe of some allusion to drawe the ancient Doctors sayings so contrary to their meaning But Sander seeing the shamefull absurditie that followeth of this his imagined reall eatinge of Christes fleshe to satisfie for the reall eating of Adams aple for so he calleth it saith it is no more needfull that euery maÌ„ should eate the body of Christ in his own person then that euerye one should eate of the aple to make them guilty but it is absolutely needful saith he that some â—r other eate it as really as euer the apple was eaten that all the rest who by baptisme enter into the same body may be one perfectly with Christ whiles they are one mystically with theÌ„ who really eate the substance of Christes flesh being the substance of our true sacrifice truly rosted vpon the crosse This shift of descant then will not serue the fathers of the old testament which were not baptised verily as the Papistes holde but in figure only Secondly if any such real eating were necessary it were not to be fulfilled by any but by our sauiour Christ for what soeuer the transgression of Adam was who being but one made al guilty of damnation that was to be satisfied by the iustification of one man which was Christ sufficient for all men vnto iustification of life Rom. 5. ver 18. Last
of all I praye you marke Sander his phrase of speech The flesh of Christ was truly rosted vpon the crosse To omitte the grosse figure of rosting and to register it among the other pointes of fine cookery in the chapter before described Marke that he saith it was truly rosted vpon the crosse and yet I dare say he meaneth not that the crosse was a very spitt nor yet burning with fire to scorche it But when we affirme that Christ is truely eaten he can by no meanes allowe our saying except we should meane as he doth that Christ is putt in at our mouthes and if not chewed with our teeth which some of them holde yet swallowed downe our throte and so receiued into our bodies to nourish them But if he saye well that Christes flesh was truely rosted vpoÌ„ the crosse because his body being broken on the crosse was made meate for vs although it were not rosted with fire c. then may we rightly saye that Christes body and bloud is truely eaten and dronken of vs by faith although it be not put in at our mouthes nor swallowed down our throtes c. He saith â—â—was truly rosted on the crosse and truly rising from death to thâ— intent it might be truly eaten of vs. c. As truly as his flesh was rosted so truely is it eaten but we acknowledge no cooklike rosting but a mystical preparation euen so we beleeue no eating with champing chawing swallowing but a mysticall and spirituall feeding and nourishing of which wee are assured by the visible seales of bread and wine which we eate and drinke bodily After this he alledgeth Gregorius Nyssenus in Orat. Catheâ— to proue that it is necessary as the poisoned apple was eaten of Adam to infect vs with original sinne so that the body of Christ be receiued into our body as really by our mouths as euer the apple came in the mouth of Adam That he nameth not the 37. Chapiter where such a matter is spoken of it may be the copy he saw had no diuision of Chapiters but rather I feare he suppressed it of fraude because that Chapiter is confessed euen by Sonnius a Papiste not to bee found in many copies of that Catheticall booke of Gregory and in deede the argument of that part of the oration which goeth before and of that which followeth after being of regeneration in baptisme which argument is interrupted by this discourse of the supper sheweth that it is foysted in by some late writer which would haue the new doctrine of transubstantiation to bee credited vnder colour of the authority of this ancient father For if Gregory had ben purposed to haue spoken of the Lords supper in this booke of instruction which he did write for to shewe the order and doctrine of Catechizing he would first haue finished his treaty of baptisme and regeneration and afterwarde haue descended to the other parte of Gods dispensation which consisteth in preseruing and feeding his children that are borne vnto him which grace is represented in the Lordes supper I passe ouer that Nicephorus testifieth euen that book in his time to haue bene corrupted by diuers heretiks Origenists by name which corruption and diuersity of copies gaue some transubstantiator good hope that his addition in such variety of bookes might happilye of some be accounted for the authentical authoritie of Gregorie And he was nothing deceiued For M. Sander whether he think it to be such or onely would haue vs to acknowledge it for such dissembling the vn certeintie thereof which other papistes confesse setteth it foorth as the sounde and vndoubted authoritie of Gregorie Nyssene As for his vaine cauilling that the figure of a medicine healeth not is foolish and absurde for so he might reason that baptisme is no medicine for originall sinne but a figure of a medicine We make not the sacraments figures of medicins but outward signes of inward and spirituall healing The vertue of cleansing sinnes is not included in the water no more then the spirituall feeding is in the breade and wine And more absurde it is that hee chargeth vs with shadowes in the sacraments And where he sayeth that all spirituall giftes are inferiour to the flesh of Christ being in our mouth if he meane inferior in vtility it is false for by those spiritual gifts without that flesh which he imagineth in our mouthes the Papists confesse that we may be saued but with that fleshe in our mouthes by their owne doctrine we may be damned From this place he beginneth to raue against Caluin although he haue appointed a whole chapter following to confute his error Caluines supper he sayth in respect of Christs real substance is but a meere sauour of sweete meates As though Caluine did not acknoweledge that Christ is truly eaten of them that worthily receiue the sacraments Beside this he chargeth Caluine as one that setteth forth the kingdom of the diuel abaseth the kingdom gifts of God Because he hath diligently eloquently set forth the doctrin of mans fall daÌ„nation but in the doctrine of saluation renouation by Christ he hath dealt faintly weakly God be thaÌ„ked they which wil read Caluin of this point with indiffereÌ„t iudgemeÌ„t wil coÌ„fesse that he hath shewed no lesse diligence eloquence therin then in the other And wherfore hath he set forth yâ— one but for the glorie of the other And euen by those things which be not slanders in Sand by which he saith he hath abased the kingdoÌ„ gift of God he hath greatly magnified the glorie thereof which is that all power vertue helpe comfort grace giftes come onely from God by the onely meanes of Iesus Christ. Hereof it is that Christes litle flocke is contemptous in the eyes of the worlde that many are called and fewe are chosen that his Church hath no sacrifice propitiatorie no popish priesthood no one sheepheard on earth but onely the death eternall priesthood and greate sheephearde Iesus Christ. As for the colde supper small offering of sufficient grace baptisme like a sheepemarke no authoritie to make lawes no communion of Saintes no reall ioyning and vniting with Christes fleshe and bloud in the holy mysteries c. be Sanders lyes and slanders not Caluins assertions After he hath railed a crash at Caluine vnto whose felicitie this may be added that he is slandered by so euill a person as Sander is he repeteth the diuerse suppers of Luther Zwinglius Caluine ioyning to them also the fantasticall opinion of that epicurian gospeller Carolastadius and disseuering Caluine from Zwinglius with whome he agreeth fully And Caluines supper he saith were good for Angels to feede vpon immortall meate in their soules but Christ hath giuen his bodie and bloud to be eaten and drunken of our bodies to feede on Verily euen as he hath giuen the holy ghost to wash vs body and soule from all our sinnes and to regenerate vs to be the sonnes of God Sander
might say if he would this were a regeneration or birth good for Angels that haue no bodies For hee will not vnderstand that both bodie and soule may bee nourished by spirituall foode as well as both body soule borne a newe by a spirituall washing and engraffing into the body of Christ. But the Corinthians saith he had two faultes both which the heretikes doe followe The first fault they came to it after they had eaten their owne supper so the heretikes first deuise what supper they wil allowe Christ and then they come to it conforming it to their deuise In deede so doe the Papistes The second fault was they did eate and drinke alone without making their meate common to the poore so the heretikes eate and drinke alone teaching that euery man eateth Christ onely by measure of his owne faith Nay rather the Popishe heretikes eate and drinke all alone often times not tarying for other to communicate with them and alwaies they drinke all alone giuing no parte to them that woulde drinke with them which is worse then the Corinthians did for they eate not their supper alone which teach that Christe must be eaten of the whole Church together requiring faith in euery man that shall receiue the Sacrament worthily But Sander maketh Christ so liberall that he giueth himselfe to all that sit at the table riche or poore good or badde In deede he offereth himselfe to al but he giueth himself to none but to such as receiue him thankefully and which take profite by him wherefore he saith He that eateth mee shal liue for me whereupon it followeth inuincibly that hee which liueth not for him eateth him not Neither sayth Hierom any thing contrarie to this where he sayeth that Christ hath giuen his body to be eaten himselfe beeing the meate and the feaster or guest True it is that Christ alone in his death was the priest the Sacrifice and the temple or altar not playing all partes as Sander lewdly speaketh but perfourming throughly in his owne person whatsoeuer was necessarie for our full and perfect redemption the seale and assurance whereof with al benefites thereto belonging he giueth vs in his holy supper and not bare odours of spirituall grace but a true communicating of his body and bloud vnto euerlasting life of as many as with a true and liuely faith receiue it spiritually as their bodies receiue the outwarde elements of bread and wine bodily Like as in baptisme wee receiue not bare odours of spirituall grace but are verily borne a newe and ingraffed into the death buriall and resurrection of Christ after a diuine and heauenly manner with forgiuenesse of our sinnes euen as outwardly our bodies are sprinkled or washed with pure water Wherefore that which wee teache of the receiuing of the body and bloud of Christ by faith is no denying of the Lordes supper but a cleare exposition and setting foorth of the same according to the holy scriptures and the institution of our Sauiour Christe himselfe CAP. VI. A speciall errour of Caluine is confuted who taught This is my body which is giuen for you to be wordes of promise in the way of preaching at Christes supper whereas they are wordes of performance in the way of working The long babling quarelling and wrangling that he vseth in this large Chapter is grounded vpon one poore sophistication of Sander in disioyning those thinges that are to be conioyned matched together Namely where Caluine saith the saying of Christ to be wordes of promise Sander presseth him to say they be words of promise onely where he sayeth expressely that they are also wordes of perfourmance as Sander himselfe translateth his words They are a liuely preaching which may shew his efficacie in accomplishment of that it promiseth Is not efficacie in accomplishment which is al one with perfourmance here ioyned with promise To omit therefore his railing against Caluine for singularitie against the preachers of England for following his fansie c. let vs see what mater he hath to bring against Caluins saying that those words are words of promise First he cōfesseth that they are words of promise fulfilling a promise made before at Capernaū Also they are words of promise in respect of the death of Christ which is promised in these words which is giuē for you or shal be giuē for you c. but this saying This is my body is no more words of promise then the saying This is my welbeloued sonne which are wordes of witnesse of a thing present Then he will teache the difference betweene a promise and a perfourmance a promise sayth he beginneth the bargaine the perfourmance endeth it Let it be so that should proue the wordes of Christ to be a promise whereof the perfourmance followeth vpon the conditions required In the institution of the supper there is mention of a newe couenant In euerie couenant there must be two parties at the least Christ is one partie but who is the other partie will Master Sander saye Euery man or euery faithfull man onely The newe testament is a couenant of forgiuenesse of sinnes but forgiuenesse of sinnes is not obteined of all men but onely of them that beleeue therefore not all men but only the faithfull are the other partie in this couenant Wherefore though the promise of eating of Christes body euen as of forgiuenesse of sinnes is offered by Christ generally to all men yet the perfourmance is onely vnto the faithfull which are the other partie of the couenant Whereof it followeth that the wicked men eat not the body of Christ and so the words of Christ are wordes of promise the perfourmance wherof was in them that did receiue faithfully that which he offred But the wordes of Christ saith he speake not of the time to come but of the present time ergo no promise A sorie reason by which he might proue a thousand words of promise in the Scriptures to be no wordes of promise because they are spoken not onely in the present time but also in the time past And yet the wordes of Christe must haue relation vnto the time to come For Christ did not consecrate breade and wine into his body and bloud but with purpose that they should be eaten and drunken And therefore hee biddeth them first eate drinke and then sayeth This is my body this is my bloud that is to saye In eating and drinking this bread and this cuppe you shall eate and drinke my bodye and bloud Therefore in these wordes This is my bodie the couenant is not ended as Sander sayeth vntill that which is offred on the one partie be accepted on the other partie Where he affirmeth that wordes of promise consist in bare talke he giueth a bare iudgement of the promises of God which are effectuall in worke although they bee vttered in wordes And when hee sayeth they haue no condition or delaye annexed it is vntrue although it bee not necessarie that
corpus suum appellat He calleth the bread his bodie But we cannot call a thing except we speake vnto it Therfore when Christ called the bread his bodie he spake vnto the breade as if he had said vnto the bread be thou my bodie Who woulde haue thought it Sander cannot call a stone a stone but he speaketh to a stone nor a shouell a shouell but hee speaketh to a shouell And with Sander it is all one to say This is a shouell or a stone and be thou a shouell or a stone Nay he will say with God calling and making is all one where he will make one thing of another In deede that is another matter If this will of God coulde be prooued of the bread to make his naturall bodie calling and making might be one and yet it woulde not followe that Christ intending to turne breade into his naturall bodie by these wordes This is my bodie coulde not doe it except hee spake to the bread But nowe let vs see howe hee proueth that Christ made the breade his naturall bodie First Ambrose writeth de iis qui myst init Cap. 9. Ante bene dictionem c. Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is named another kinde after consecration the bodie is signified He himselfe nameth it his bloude Before consecration it is named another thing after consecration it is called bloude And thou sayest Amen that is it is true That which the mouth speaketh let the inwarde minde confesse That which the speech soundeth let the affection feele Out of these wordes Sander saith that it is euident that Christ spake to the breade and wine but by what reason I cannot deuise and that the making of them is in deede so as they are called and signified because the people answered Amen I graunt the breade and wine are made sacraments to signifie the bodie and bloude of Christe and that is it which the people confesse if Ambrose expounde the words of Christ truely when hee saith that the bodie of Christ is signified after consecration by that which was called breade and wine before the words of blessing and afterward is called the body and bloud of Christ. This 1. witnesse speaketh not so much against him but Tertullian his second witnesse speaketh much more Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei He made the breade which was taken and distributed to the disciples his bodie saying This is my bodie that is to say the figure of my bodie Loe hee made the breade his bodie Wee confesse but howe his bodie That is to say a figure of his bodie but beeing a figure stoppeth not the reall trueth of his bodie saieth hee no more then Christ being a figure printe or forme of his fathers substance which is yet also his substance in deede What sayest thou Sabellian heretike Is not Christ a distinct hypostasis from his father because hee is Homousion of the same substance and is not that proued because hee is Character substantiae patris And yet there is great difference in comparing the persons of the diuinitie with the figures of Christ. Yea saieth Sander There can bee no more grosse more vile more blasphemous opinion then to thinke that Christ is a bare man c. Or that his figures are like the figures of the olde Lawe And againe looke what oddes is betweene God and man so much beleeue thou to bee betweene his naming or his figures of the newe Testament and all other figures Why Sander were the namings in the old Testament of man and not of GOD Were the figures instituted of man and not of God Yea were they not instituted of Christe himselfe If they were instituted of God howe followeth thy beastly conclusion of the difference or oddes of figures and naming of the newe Testament and figures and namings of the olde Testament The rocke was Christ it was a figure and naming of the olde Testament so named and instituted by Christ himselfe why shoulde there be more transubstantiation of the breade then of the rocke except as thou wast euen nowe a Sabellian so in this thou art a Marcionite that beleeuest another GOD and Christ of the newe Testament then was of the old Testament Augustine speaking of the figures of the old Testament and comparing them with the figures of the newe Testament sayeth Sacramenta illa fuerunt in signis diuersa sunt in re quae significatur paria sunt Those were sacraments they are diuerse in signes but in the thinge which is signified they are equall in Ioan. 6. Tr. 26. Ouer and beside this examining Tertullian let vs aske him what did Christ distribute to his disciples Hee will answere panem breade Againe howe made hee the breade his bodie hee answereth hee made it a figure of his bodie Yea saieth Sander the Sacrament is a figure of Christes bodie because it sheweth his death vntill hee come But what is the sacrament with you Papistes The naturall body of Christe Then the naturall body of Christe is a figure of the body of Christe if this bee not shamelesse trifling I report mee to you Tertullian is a good expounder to interprete the name of Corpus by figura Corporis if Corpus bee taken properly But to proceede The next reason to proue that Christ spake to the breade is this The Sacrament is a sacrifice the acte which offereth it and voweth it perteineth as well to the thing offered as vnto God to whom it is offered as when a Lambe is offered God in the Lambe is honoured prayed vnto blessed thanked and praysed I omitte these straunge phrases God is prayed to in a Lambe c. But speake plainely Sander if thou darest is the Lambe spoken vnto when it is saide This is the Passeouer This is the bloude of the couenant which God hath made with you For thou must not thinke to reason with men in such sort as boyes woulde not suffer thee to passe The acte of sacrificing perteyneth to the thing offered therefore the thing offered is spoken vnto But howe prouest thou that this Sacrament is a sacrifice Because it is the remembrance of that great sacrifice made by his death vpon the crosse It must also needes partake that nature whereof it is a remembrance and consequently it must bee certainely beleeued to bee a true sacrifice as that of the crosse was Who will grant or how canst thou proue the maior of this argument Euery remembrance must partake the nature of that wherof it is a remembrance Is the remembrance of a man a man or the remembrance of God God or to pose thee in thine owne popery is the memory of a Masse as you call it a Masse But that reason cannot proue authority shall enforce First Irenaeus lib. 5. ad Haereses saith that when the bread broken and the mixed chalice percipis verbion dei the eucharistie of
Fractum enim panem distribuebat dicens hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur in remissionem peccatorum hoc facite in meam commemorationem Participatio igitur mysterii vera quaedam confessio commemoratio est quod propter nos pro nobis dominus mortuus sit reuixerit diuina nos benedictionem propter hoc replet Fugiamus igitur infidelitatem post tactum Christi firmi atque stabiles ab omni longè ambiguitate inueniamur Worthelie therefore the holy congregations are made in the Churches on the eight day and the doores being shut after an highe manner Christ appeareth to vs all both visiblie and inuisiblie Inuisiblie truely as God but visibly in his bodie For he giueth vs his flesh to bee touched that we might beleeue assuredly that hee hath truely raised vp his temple For that the communion of the mysticall blessing is a certaine confession of the resurrection of Christ it is prooued by his owne words For he distributed the bread after it was broken saying This is my bodie which shal be deliuered for you for the remission of sinnes Doe this for the remembrance of me Therefore the participation of the mysterie is a certaine true confession and commemoration that for our sakes and for vs our Lord both hath dyed and is reuiued and through that filleth vs with diuine blessings Let vs therefore flee infidelitie after the touching of Christ and let vs bee found stedfast and strong being farre from al doubtfulnesse You see both Chrysostome and Cyrill agree that Christ is visiblie present in the sacrament as they agree that he is touched And as Chrysostome affirmed that Christ gaue wine so Cyrill affirmeth that he distributed breade By both which confessions it appeareth that breade and wine and not the shapes of breade and wine are giuen in the sacrament and that the bodie and bloud of Christ is visiblie present which cannot be vndestoode of the Popish presence and therfore of necessitie must be ment of a spirituall manner of presence which is seene onely by faith CAP. XVI Our thankesgiuing and remembrance of Christes death is alsogether by the reall presence of his body I haue often shewed what maner of presence we allowe agreable to the scriptures and the iudgement of the ancient fathers But that will not satisfie Sander except he haue a making of Christs body which making he saith is the thankesgiuing for his death Whereupon it followeth that seeing making by his iudgement pertaineth onely to the priestes that thanksgiuing also pertaineth only to the Priestes But Chrysostome whom hee citeth maketh thanksgiuing common to all the faithfull Ipso genere sacrificii c. By the verie kinde of sacrifice inuiting vs to thankesgiuing for his benefites And by the way Chrysostome teacheth what kinde of sacrifice the celebration of the communion is accounted of him Namely a sacrifice of thankesgiuing and not of reconciliation And therefore he writeth in the same Hom. 26. in Matth. Propterea reuerenda salutaria illa mysteria quâ— omni certè ecclesiae congregatione celebramus Eucharistia id est gratiarum actio nuncupantur Sunt enim beneficiorum recordatio plurimorum capútque ipsum diuine erga nos charitatis ostendunt nosque faciunt debitas Deo gratias semper exoluere Therefore euen those reuerend and healthfull mysteries which truly we celebrate in euerie congregation of the Church are called Eucharistia that is a thankesgiuing For they are a calling to minde of many benefites and shew vnto vs the verie heade of the loue of God towarde vs and make vs to yeelde dewe thankes to God alwayes But to a Christian saith Chrysostome Hee himselfe is set before thee dayly lest thou shoulde be vnmindefull Beholde saith Sander not by a feeble token doubtfully but by his owne presence he is called to minde Note heere that he calleth it a feeble token where Christ is bodilie absent by which it shoulde followe that baptisme is but a feeble token where Christ is not bodily present But Christ is present in both his sacramentes although he bee absent bodily and so meaneth Chrysostome that he is present spiritually For in the same Hom. 51. in Mat. he saith Ipsum enim si volumus non vestis solùm sed corpus ipsius nobis propositum est non vt tangamus solummodò sed vt comedamus saturemur For not onely his garment but his bodie is set before vs not onely that wee may touch him if wee will but also that wee may eate him and be satisfied Marke in these words after what manner the bodie of Christe is set before vs to be touched and eaten verilie euen as his garment is set before vs to bee touched But no man will saye that the garment of Christe is otherwise set before vs then after a spirituall manner no more verily is the bodie of Christ. CAP. XVII The true resurrection of our bodies commeth by eating that bodie of Christe whiche is both true and is true in vs. This is confessed by the Apologie that the resurrection of our bodies to glorie commeth by the eating and drinking of the bodie and bloude of Christe but that this eating and drinking may be without the Sacrament it is manifest by this that manie shall bee partakers of the glorious resurrection which did neuer eate this Sacrament But nowe let vs see what vaine reasons Sander bringeth to prooue that the resurrection of our bodies commeth by eating of Christ in the Sacrament onely First Christ prepared a supper and set it forth vpon his table but the breade and wine was prepared by the baker and the vintener therefore Christs preparing was to make of earthly bread the bread of euerlasting life which was his body that he deliuered and they receiued All this we confesse Yea saith Sander but he delyuered it with his owne handes or else doubtlesse they did not eate his bodie But where is the necessitie of this consequence For hee saide in respect onely of that which hee delyuered Take and eate Yea syr but howe prooue you that hee deliuered onely with his handes that hee deliuered and whereof hee saide take and eate Is there nothing delyuered in baptisme but the water which is in the hande of the minister or in the fonte The onely proofe hee bringeth is Chrysostome Hom. 82. in Math. where there is no such wordes at all to bee founde yet thus he citeth them Cogita quid manu capias Bethinke thy selfe what thou takesâ— in thy hande and keepe it from all couetousnesse and violent robberie consider againe that thou takâ—st it not onely in thy hande but also puttest it to thy mouth and after thy hande and tongue thy heart receiueth that dreadefull mysterie Here saieth Sander the hande and tongue receiue the same bodie that the heart doeth And yet Chrysostome if euer hee haue such a context nameth not the bodie but the mysteries It is one thing
thou not promise the Preist when he cried Lift vp your minds and hearts and saiedst thou not we lift them vp vnto our Lord Will you see a wonderfull matter The table is furnished with the mysteries The lambe of God is offered for thee the Priest is hofull for thee a spirituall fire floweth from the table Loe here be the mysteries vppon the table heere is the lambe of God offered which is the sacrifice of the Masse But I pray you sir what is the spirituall fire that floweth from the table O that is a figuratiue speech you will say alluding to the burned offering of the old law Nay if ye haue figures of rhetorike then you haue no trueth you haue but foolish dreames you haue nothing made by your wordes Is not this your owne Logike Master Sander CAP. XXV What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. The wordes of the Apologie are these Cyrillus saith that in the receiuing of the mysteries all grosse imaginations must be put away Sander chargeth the fine penner of the Apologie with foule play in belying Cyrillus as though he had spoken against the real presence which they beleue and therefore citeth where Cyrillus speaketh of those grosse imaginations because the place is merueilous euident against him Would you not think that Sander had great aduantage that so dare be bolde to raile you shall heare the wordes of Cyrillus In 11. Anathemat ad Enoptium against Nestorius but whereas shameles Sander cutteth of the one halfe of the sentence which is merueilous euident against him I wil set down the whole sentence euen to the period and the sentences following also which giueth some light to the former Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc Sacramentum pronunâ—â—as irreligiosè ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum qui crediderunt mentem attentas humanis cogitationibus tractare quae sola pura in exquisita fide accipiuntur Quoniam enim minimè editur diuinitatis natura propter hoc commune dixerit quis sanctum corpus Domini Scire autem operaepretium est quod sicut suprà diximus proprium est corpus eius verbi quod omnia vinificat Quoniam autem est corpus vitae viuificum est Nam per hoc mortalibus nostris corporibus largitur vitam moâ—tiâ— imperium euacuat viuificat autem nos aequali modo sanctus spiritus Christi Spiritus est enim qui viuificat secundum eâ—â—sdem saluatoris vocem Doest thou pronounce this our Sacrament to be the eating of a man And doest thou vnreuerently enforce the mind of the faithfull to grosse cogitations Heere Sander choppeth of but Cyrill proceedeth And doest thou attempt to handle by humaine cogitations those thinges which are receiued by onely pure and vncurious or simple faith For seeing the nature of the Godhead is not eaten for this cause shall any man say that the holy body of our Lord is a common body But it is profitable for vs to knowe that as we saide before the body of that worde which quickeneth all thinges is a proper body And seing it is the body of life it is of power to quicken For by this it giueth life vnto our mortall bodies and doeth make voide the power of death and in equall manner the holy spirite of Christ doeth quicken vs. For it is the spirite that quickneth according to the saying of the same our Sauiour Thus farre Cyrillus whose words doe plainly shewe that he calleth all those grosse and humane cogitations by which it is saide that Christ is eaten in the Sacrament as a naturall man and any otherwise receiued then only by faith Such are the imaginations of the Papistes that Christ is eaten carnally euen without efficacy of his spirite that he is included vnder the formes of bread and wine that he is receiued with the mouth pressed with the teeth swallowed with the throte essentially naturally turned into the substance of our bodies or our bodies turned into him and an hundreth other such grosse cogitations as the Papistes haue of digestion corruption of the accidentes eating of the Sacrament by brute beastes these be grosse imaginations of which Cyrillus speaketh that tende ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the eating of a man or to any kinde of eating the flesh of Christ other then by faith only And therefore Sander might haue spared his paines in noting tenne other grosse imaginations The first that wee should not imagine Christ to lie where he saith it is his bodie as though we did imagine any such blasphemy The second that wee should not imagine his saying to be darke or obscure when Cyrillus ad Calosyrium saith Eo manifestè dicente sith himselfe saith manifestly Although wee doe not imagine his wordes to be obscure yet this is a grosse argument to prooue that his wordes be not figuratiue because Cyrill writeth he saith manifestly that is it is manifest that he calleth the bread his body for he saith as manifestly this cuppe is the newe Testament The third grosse imagination that wee should not thinke any other body to be eaten but the true body of Christ who in one person is God and man as Nestorius thought that the body of a man was eaten but not the proper body of God the worde We imagine no such matter but wee denie that true body to be eaten in the Sacrament otherwise then by faith onely as Cyrillus teacheth vs. The fourth grosse imagination that wee should eate the body of Christ dead and passible whereas it is quicke and of power to quicken vs as Cyrill saith Quoniam c Because the flesh of our sauiour ioyned to the word of God which is life naturally is made able to giue life when wee eate it then wee haue life in vs being ioyned to that flesh which is made life According to this saying of Cyrillus wee beleue that we cannot eate that flesh except wee haue life thereby but the Papistes grossely imagine it may be eaten without effect of life The fift grosse imagination that we should eate Christes flesh rawe as the Capernaits as grossely do they imagine which teach that it is prepared with such cookerie that all spices confection sauces c. are conteined in it as Sander doeth The sixt grosse imagination that it shoulde be eaten by peeces one a shoulder and another a legg against which eating Saint Augustine speaketh And as grosse it is to imagine and meere monstrous that the naturall bodie should be eaten after a corporall manner whole of euery men and in so many places at once The seuenth grosse imagination is of the Lutherans which thinke the flesh of Christ is eaten with bakers breade whereas Christe woulde not haue in his supper an earthly substance of materiall breade More grosse is the imagination of the Papistes which holde that the glorious bodie of Christ must be eaten with vaine accidents of bread and wine which Sander calleth the veiles and curteines
seemeth vnto him clearely to prooue that it is ment of the supper because hee writeth that who so is any long time kept from the sacrament is in daunger of euerlasting life alleaging this text of saint Iohn Except yee eate the fleshe of the sonne of man c. For hee shoulde wholie faile of his proofe saith he if that place did not prooue the necessitie of communicating sacramentally I denie the argument for hee speaketh of them which were cut off from the bodie of Christ by excommunicatioÌ„ whose admission vnto the coÌ„munion was an assurance of their incorporation againe This place is answered more at large in my confutation of Heskins lib. 2 cap. 4. The second is Athanasius in syn nou test lib. 4. which saith Christ reasoneth with the multitude concerning the misteries A sorie argument as though the spirituall eating of Christs flesh were not a mysterie It had bene very vnseasonable to reason with them of that which as yet was not instituted although as I haue saide his doctrine may be extended also to the sacrament The 3. is Hilarie lib. 8. de Trin. disputing of the natural veritie of Christ which is in vs by the sacrament alleageth these wordes My flesh is meat in deede I answere Hilarie affirmeth that the naturall veritie of Christes flesh is in vs by his incarnation if we be faithfull which is testified by the mysterie and sacrament of bread and wine Therefore he saith nâ—â—què verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus we doe truely vnder a mysterie take the flesh of his bodie Againe naturam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub sacramento nobiâ— communicande carnis admis 〈…〉 it hee hath ioyned the' nature of his flesh vnto the nature of eternitie vnder a sacrament of his flesh to be communicated with vs. The 4. is Basil Dei bap lib. 1. Cap. 3. comparing the words of his supper with the words of this Chapter which prooueth not the matter in hande otherwise then I haue shewed but of Basil wee must see more afterward touching this controuersie The 5. is Gregorie Nyssene his brother in vita Mosis who saith that the breade which came downe froÌ„ heaueÌ„ which is the true meat is no vnbodily thing for howe should a thing that lacketh a bodie be made meaâ—â— vnto the bodie Doubtlesse saith Sander Christ is made meate vnto our bodies no where but onely in the Sacrament Sanders Doubtles is all the argument iudge of it as ye list The 6. is Cyrillus of Ierusalem in Catech. Mistagog 4. who intreating of the Sacrament citeth these words except ye eate ergo these words are to be vnderstood only of eating in the sacrament Heere hee desireth license being coÌ„passed with such a multitude of witnesses brieflie to runne ouer the rest as he hath not beene very long in any of the other and the like license I require that one answere may serue them al which are worth the answering that although the Fathers did referre the doctrine of the sixt of S. Iohn vnto the supper yet they referre it not onely vnto the supper which is the matter we sticke vpon Neither Ambrose nor Eusebius Emissenus much lesse Chrysostom Augustine which do plainly extende it further then to the supper And last of all Hierom in the place by Sander cited in 1. Cap. Ep. ad Eph. where he saith the fleshe and bloud of Christ is vnderstanded two wayes either that spirituall diuine wherof he sayd My flesh is meate in deede c. or else that flesh which was crucified for vs that bloud which was sâ—ed with the speare of the souldier Where either he speaketh not of the Sacrament at all or else he declareth manifestly that the flesh which was crucified is not giuen vs in this Sacrament And what his iudgement is of that place he sheweth euidently in Ps. 147. Quando dicit qui non comederit carnem meam biberit sanguinem meum licet in mysterio possit intelligi tamen verius corpus Christi sanguis eius sermo scripturarum est diuina doctrina est WheÌ„ he saith he which shall not eate my flesh nor drinke my bloude c. although it may be vnderstood in the mysterie yet more truely the bodie of Christ his bloud is the wordes of the scriptures it is the doctrine of God The next is Cyrillus whome Sander most impudently affirmeth to interpret the whole Chapter of the Sacrament of the altar because sometime he nameth the mysteries and the mysticall blessing and the communicating of the holye cup. For thus he expoundeth that saying which Sander maketh the promise of his supper The bread which I wil giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the worlde Morior inquit pro omnibus vt per meipsum omnes vinificeÌ„ caro mea omniâ—â— redemptio fiat moriâ—tur enim mors morte mea siâ—ul me cum natura hominuÌ„ resurget I die saith he for al men that I might quicken al men by my self my flesh may be made the redemption of al men for death by my death shal die the nature of maÌ„ shal rise again togither with me Likewise he expoundeth these words He that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me â—inhim QuoniaÌ„res ardua est fide magis quaÌ„ alio modo recipitur ideo multis atque varijs modis mirabileÌ„ eius vtilitateÌ„ exponit fundamentum basim fidem esse confirmans Because the matter that is high and is receiued by faith rather then by any other means he setteth forth the merueilous profite thereof by many and diuers meanes confirming yâ— faith is the ground foundation Concerning the rest whom he reherseth as Sedulius Leo Isychiuâ— Proiper Eucherius Casâ—iodorus Primatius which apply any text of this Chapter to the Lords supper I answeâ—â— as before it is not sufficient to proue that the bread is either only or principally to be vnderstoode of the Lordes supper As for Damaseen Haymo Bernard with other late writers the last councell of Trent and the second of Nice what errors they followed we haue not to regard and much lesse the practice of the Popish Church reading that text for the Gospell of Corpus Christi day but the first councell of Ephesus which he iumbleth vp among the rest in Epistola at Nestorium affirmeth no such matter as he adnoucheth but sheweth what they iudged of that flesh wherof they receiued the sacrament namely that it is the flesh of the sonne of God able to giue life as more at large I haue shewed in answere to Heskias lib. 2. Cap. 16. CAP. IIII. Answere is made to their obiections who teach out of the holy fathers that the sixt Chapter of S. Iohn ought to be expounded only of spirituall eating Where it is alleaged that the fathers expound the wordes of that Chapter partly of beliefe in Christ partly of the vnitie which riseth
be wtout the Sacrament But that bread wherof he shall eate is the flesh of Christ which he will giue for the life of the worlde therefore to eate the flesh of Christ is to receiue Christ by grace although it be without the Sacrament The third argument is Christ was presently the breade of life when he spake to the Iewes saying I am the bread of life and my father giueth you the true bread from heauen therfore Christ was the bread of life when hee was first incarnat for euen then hee came downe from heauen Therfore his wordes cannot be applyed to his last supper which was not yet instituted Sander confesseth that Christ was by his godhead and manhod the bread of life to be eaten of the Iewes presently by faith and not corporally But he saide also Worke the meate which the sonne of man will giue you and the bread which I wil giue is my flesh which gift is fulfilled in his supper For no reason can be shewed saith he why Christ shoulde say his gift was to come except it had bene some other gift then to eate him by faith alone which was lawfull at that instant To this answere of Sander I replye first that he groundeth vpon a strange translation of his owne of working the meate c. Secondly of a patching together of twoo textes that stande farre a sunder Thirdly the worke of meate spoken of in the former text whereunto they are exhorted is expounded of faith by Christ himselfe immediately after This is the worke of God that you should beleeue in him whom he hath sent Fourthly the gift which Christ saith in the Future tense he would giue prooueth not that it was yet present but promiseth it to them that will receiue it presently For if a mā haue a Ring in his hand he may truly say to them that stande before him I will giue a Ring to them that shall first come to me Heere the worde of giuing is in the Future tense promysing the Ring to him that shall come first for it yet for all that is the Ring still in his hande Fifthly this reason I shewe why Christ saieth hee will giue his flesh for the life of the worlde which presently might be eaten and was eaten almoste foure thousand yeares before because his passion by which it is communicated to the faithfull of all ages at that time when he spake was not perfourmed in act although in effect he was the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde The fourth argument which hee consesseth to be of Caietane is that Christes gifte is not meant of his supper because it was the gift of himself to death vpon the crosse such as shall redeeme the worlde Which gift was onely perfourmed vpon the crosse and was partaken alwayes of the olde fathers and may be daily and hourely partaken of vs which points do not agree with the gift of the holy Eucharist in Christes supper This argument saith Sander is wittily deuised no doubt because it was vsed by Caietane a Papist but yet it is insufficient for many causes The first cause is because Christ spake of a meate that he would giue euen vnto our bodies and not onely vnto our soules Howe proueth he that he spake of such a meate because he ordeined the miracle of multiplying the fiue loaues to be an introduction vnto this talk which loaues were eaten corporally as also that he shewed himself to be the true bread that would fulfil and exceede Manna the figuratiue bread of the Iewes Two blinde causes as though he might not take occasion of corporall eating to speake of spiritual eating as in the fourth of Iohn of corporall drinking he taketh occasion to instruct the woman of Samaria of spiritual drinking and in the same Chapter his Apostles of corporall eating hee teacheth them what spirituall meate was As for the figure of Manna of which he speaketh as of a corporall meate whereof they that did eate died our Sauiour Christ was euen to them that did eate it faithfully life euerlasting Manna was the flesh of Christ vnto them But the distinction and contradiction which Christ maketh of Manna and this bread is that which is necessarie to be betweene the bare signe and the thing signified from which to reason as Sander doeth Manna was eaten corporally and spiritually therefore the fleshe of Christ is to be eaten corporally and spiritually is to ioygne together things that are to be deuided which is a poore shift of Sophistrie Beside that it is a ridiculous argument to reason of the similitude of those thinges wherein the auctor sheweth them to be vnlike For our Sauiour saith not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes of which saying it is much more probable to reason your fathers did eate Manna corporally therfore you shall not eate this breade which I will giue corporally But he obiecteth that Origen saith as it is alleaged in the decrees De Cons. Dist. 2. C. De hac No man eateth properly the flesh of Christe as it was crucified Therefore Christ speaketh not of his death Nay rather therefore no man eateth Christe corporally for hee was crucified corporally But Sander will haue vs to marke that Saint Hierom distincteth the flesh of Christ whereof he speaketh in Saint Iohn from the respect which the same flesh hath being crucified in Ep. ad Eph. Chap. 1. Saint Ierom saith the flesh of Christ is two wayes to be considered that spirituall and diuine fleshe whereof he speaketh when he sayth My flesh is meate in deede c. except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. and that flesh which was crucified This distinction is of the maner of receiuing the one which is onely spiritually and of the maner of handling the other which was corporally or it is that distinction which is betweene the effect and the cause Such difference is by Ierom betweene Christ crucified and Christs bodie eaten and drunken which Sander would haue to be all one in substance and differ onely in eating The second reason that Christ speaketh of his supper as well as of his death is that the Greeke text mentioneth two giftes The bread that I will giue is my fleshe which I wil giue for the life of the world Here saith he is I wil giue twise ergo two gifts and then he defendeth the Greeke text to be true although the Latine haue I wil giue but once You see the cunning of the man that can make them both serue his purpose But it is Popish Logike to conclude two giftes of saying twise I will giue as in this example The lande which I will giue you is the maner of Dale which I wil giue to you and to your heires Here is I will giue twise therefore two gifts by Master Doctor Sanders Logike O wonderfull learning of Popish Doctors The third reason is that Christ speaking of the meat saith the sonne of man dabit vobis
Cor. Cap. 11. wherein hee chargeth vs with corrupting his wordes with euil pointing or distincting which he doth himselfe most manifestly For vpon these words he writeth Mortem Domini annuntiantes doneâ— venerit Quiâ— morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus So often as you shall eate of this breade and drink of this cuppe you shall shewe the Lordes death vntill he come Because sayth that writer we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde we being mindefull of this thing in eating and drinking doe signifie the fleshe and blood which were offered for vs. But Sander readeth in eating and drinking the fleshe and bloud wee signifie those things which were offered for vs. Against this wresting by mispointing first is the relatiue quae which lacketh an antecedent if flesh and bloud which was offered for vs be not signified Secondly the wordes Carnem sanguinem are put absolutely not shewing whose theie are and the relatiue is referred to vncertain things For if he had ment the same to be eaten which was offered he would haue saide not quae but eadem last of all the accusatiue case following the verbs eating and drinking can be reasonably none other in an expositor but the accusatiue case which Paul vseth that is this breade and this cuppe The second fowle error of the Sacramentaries is that they expound the wordes of Christ Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man that is to say the figure of his flesh which is breade and wine And here he crieth what ignorance what abusing of Gods word what blasphemie where is honestie where is shamefastnes where is common vnderstanding I answere that for honesty and shamefastnes it is in the diuel as soone as in Sander For what honesty or shamefastnesse is it thou aâ—â—ant traitor and stinking heretike to faine such an interpretation of the Sacramentaries as if thou wouldest hang thy selfe thou canst not finde that euer any vsed or said that the flesh of Christ is a figure of breade and wine or that Christ in that place speaking of his flesh and bloud spake of a figure thereof But if no man haue either written or spoken so thou wilt perhaps inferre it of other sayings or writings of theirs which say those words belong to the supper so truely that they build falsely vpon them the necessitie of both kindes But wilt thou not vnderstande by an hundreth times repeating that none of vs referreth those wordes or any other in that Chapter vnto the supper otherwise then as the supper is a sacrament seale or outward token ordeined of Christ to confirme our faith in that doctrine of our spirituall foode to be giuen by him vnto eternall life which is giuen to the worthie receiuer in that Sacrament in baptisme and without either of them by the working of Gods spirite onely in some in men of discretion not without faith As for the necessitie of both kindes is proued by that analogie which ought to be betweene the things signified the signes and also vpon your owne concession who vnderstanding those wordes onely of sacramentall eating and drinking may no more exclude drinking then you can doe eating CAP. XV. Christes flesh being meate in deede must needes be really receiued into our bodies Three things saith Sander must be considered of him that wil knowe why the flesh of Christ is called meate in deede The first that the Iewes asked howe he would giue his flesh to be eaten The second that Christ saith the eating of his flesh was necessarie and profitable both for bodie and soule The thirde that Christ confirmeth these his sayings with this reason For my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede that is it hath truely and in deed those properties that any man would wish for in true meate But the properties of true meate are to be receiued into the bodie and to be a medicine against death If none be true meate but that which is receiued into the body then that which Sander so often calleth the fathers gift the bread of life which came downe from heauen is not true meate for that he hath often saide may be receiued by saith and spirit not entring into the body yet thereof saith Christ that he is the true bread But Chrysostome vpon these words My flesh is meat in deede c. saith that it meaneth that flesh to be the true meat which saueth the soule or else he speaketh it to confirme them in the former words that they should not thinke him to haue spoken in parables darkely but that they shoulde knowe it to bee by all meanes necessarie to eate his body in Ioan. Hom. 46. He that granteth both these senses saith Sander must needes grant that the true eating of the flesh standeth not for eating truely the signe of the fleshe because hee spake not obscurely in parables Verily he were worthy to weare a cockescombe that would say true eating of the flesh standeth for eating truely the signe of the fleshe Against whome then doeth Sander fight but against an idoll of his owne braine but it is an obscure saying to put eating for beleeuing I answere Chrysostome speaketh of the meate and not of the manner of eating for if there be no obscuritie in the manner of eating let Sander speake of his small conscience when he saith the manner of eating to be vnder another kind then it selfe is which is most obscure and imperceptible But if his flesh be called meate because it must bee eaten bodily wherefore then is his bloud called drinke in deed which Sander holdeth not to be necessarie to be dronke bodily For if his bloud in that sense be drinke in deede it must be drunke in deede and not eaten with the bodie But Augustine lib. 13. De ciuitate Dei Cap â—0 sayeth Tanquam caetera c. That other trees of Paradise were a nourishment the tree of life a Sacrament So that the tree of life should be taken to be after such a sort in the bodily Paradise as the wisedome of God is in the spirituall intelligible Paradise Of which wisedome it is written It is the tree of life to all that embraece it What can Sander make of this saying As corporall tasting in the tree of life was necessarie for the spirituall effect of incorruption so Christes flesh must be corporally tasted that it maie be meate indeede I denie the comparison which shoulde be made of the tree with bread and of life with Christe and not of woode with the flesh of Christ. And it is certaine that Augustine not only compareth the sacrament with the sacrament but also calling Christ the spirituall part of the sacrament the wisedome of God which is a tree of life to all that embrace him signifieth that Christ is otherwise receiued then with the mouth for embracing is more aptly said to
and the same breade and wine must againe signifie the flesh and bloud of Christ although wee say that bread and wine in the sacrament are a seale and confirmation of that doctrine which Christe teacheth in this Chapter concerning the eating and drinking of his very true and naturall flesh and bloud which hath power to seede vnto eternall life them that eat and drinke it spiritually as there is none other way of eating and drinking thereof but by faith through the almightie working of Gods holy spirite The fourth Booke The preface of the fourth Book declareth that he purposeth in the same to shew that the words of the institution of the supper are proper and not figuratiue and so haue beene taken aboue 1500. And that they are proper he wili prooue by circumstances of the supper by conference of scriptures out of the olde and newe Testament by the commandement giuen to the Apostles to continue the sacrament vntil the second comming of Christ. Last of all he craueth pardon if he chaunce to say somewhat that was touched before affirming that his purporse is not so to doe although by affinitie of the argument desire to haue the thing remembred or by his owne forgetfulnesse he may be caused to fall into that default CAP. I. That no reason ought to be hearde why the wordes of Christes supper should nowe be expounded vnproperly or figâ—ratiuely And that the Sacramentarics can neuer be sure thereof Christ saith he in his last supper was both a testator and a lawe maker a testator in giuing his bodie and 〈…〉 oude and a lawemaker in commanding his Apostels 〈…〉 d their successours to continue the making of this 〈…〉 acrament This testament and law was soone after writ 〈…〉 n and published At which time and euer since the Church hath taken these wordes This is my bodie not 〈…〉 guratiuely but properly This last saying is vtterly 〈…〉 alse neither can it bee prooued by Ambrose Chryso 〈…〉 tome Augustine Theodoret whom hee nameth or any before or after their time for 600 yeares that euer the visible Sacrament was adored as the very bodie of Christ. If he haue any thing to shewe we shall haue it hereafter But it is a follie he saith vpon allegation of a thing so farre beyonde the memorie of man as the primitiue Church is to leaue the custome of the present Church which Christ no lesse redeemed gouerneth and loueth then he did the faithfull of the first sixe hundreth yeares I answere shortly that is not the Church of Christ but of antichrist which of late yeares hath taught the worshiping of the sacrament as God and man And whereas Sander replieth that then we shall haue no quietnes or end of controuersies if heretikes may appeale to the primitiue Church as the Trinitaries in Poolande and the Circumciders in Lithuania for these appeale to the primitiue Church and denie writings of Fathers and scriptures as the Protestant I answere the Protestants receiue all the canonicall scriptures by which all heresie may be condemned the autoritie or practise of the primitiue Church they alledge but as a witnesse of trueth which is sufficient prooued out of the worde of God Whereas he saith there was but one vniuersall chaunge to bee looked for in religion which was to be made by Christ I affirme the trueth of Christs religion to be vnchangeable but there was an vniuersall chaunge to be looked for from Christes religion to Antichrist which saint Paul calleth an Apostasie saint Iohn in the Reuelation the cuppe of fornication whereof all nations should drinke c. Yet was not this chaunge so vniuersal but that the seruants of God though in small number and credit with the world were preserued out of that generall apostasie and called out of Babylon as wee see it nowe come to passe by the preaching of the eternall Gospel then also foreshewed Apocal. 14. 17. 18. c. Another reason why we shoulde giue none eare to them that say the words are figuratiue is for that then wee shoulde doubt of our former faith and in doubting become men that lacke faith And why should you not onely doubt but refuse a false opinion beleeued contrarie to the worde of God But wee must tell Sander whether hee that gaue eare first to Berengarius and Zwinglius may giue eare to an other that shoulde say the Apostels had no authoritie to write holie Scriptures No forsooth for hee that gaue eare to Berengarius and Zwinglius did heare them because they brought the authoritie of scriptures which is the onely certaine rule of truth against which no question or doubt may be mooued As for the opinion of carnall presence if it had beene as generally receiued before Berengarius as Sander falsely affirmeth yet it was lawfull to bring it to the triall of holy Scriptures as we doe all the articles of our faith which are true not so much because they are generally receiued as for that they are manifestly approued by the authoritie of the holy scriptures But Sander will yet enter farther into the bowels of the cause before he heare what reasons caÌ„ be brought against the popish faith he saith the Sacramentaries cannot possiblie haue any grounde of their doctrine that the wordes of Christ in the supper are figuratiue either in respect of the worde written or the faith of all Christians or the glorie of God or the loue of Christ toward vs or the profite of his Church Yes verilie all these fiue respects moue vs to take the wordes of Christ at his supper to be figuratiue And First the word written by saint Luke and saint Paul This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloude which wordes being manifestly figuratiue haue the same sense that the other rehearsed by Saint Matthewe and Saint Marke This is my bloude and that these wordes haue This is my bodie which are vsed by all fower Therefore by the written worde they are all figuratiue and signifie the deliuerie of a Sacrament or seale of the newe couenant established in the death and bloudshedding of the sonne of God Secondly the faith of all Christians for sixe hundred yeares and more after Christe hath beene sufficiently prooued to haue vnderstoode the wordes figuratiuely for a figure signe token pledge of the bodie and bloude of Christe and not for the verie substance contained in formes of breade and wine Insomuch that the verie glosse vppon the Canon Lawe De cons. dist 2. Cap. Hoc est hath these wordes Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly Sacrament which truely representeth the fleshe of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but improperly Whereof it is saide to bee after a peculyar manner but not in trueth of the thing but in
Christ left vs not the best token of remembrance of his death because he is not seene with the print of his wounds But we must esteeme the best remembrance according to his wisedome that hath ordained it who in all respects no doubt hath appoinâ—ed the best that might be for confirmation of our saith Yet in Sanders example or any that hee can deuise a remembrance will alwayes differ from the thing remeÌ„bred as the scarie and the fighting are not all one so the remembrance of Christ crucified and Christ crucified himselfe are not all one Neither must Sander baffuâ— vs with the remembrance of an action onely for wee are to remember the person with his benifites in or for the remembrance of me saith Christ vntill he come saith Paul That a thing may be present which is not seene as to a blinde man Sander needed not to proue but that a thing may be both absent and present in the same substance visibly or inuisibly that is the matter which would require Sander to shewe his witte in giuing vs either a reason or an experience But the reall presence of Christ saith he causeth the people to come with due preparation and mortification which as Basil affirmeth is a peece of the remembrance whereas in eating and drinking breade and wine Christe is so remembred that sinnes be neither confessed nor amendement minded nor faith exercised nor charitie vsed as nowe a daies in England it is handled by meanes of the newe preachers What fruitfull remembrance of Christes death the popish doctrine doth worke wee lament to see the remanents yet in diuerse places where the people are not taught that spend their time as they were wont to doe in poperie when they had receiued their maker as they were taught to speake Contrariwise where true doctrine and good discipline haue preuailed enuie her selfe may see examples sufficient to confute the shamelesse slaunders of Sander As for the glorious monument of the Masse which Sander describeth to shewe what remembrance of Christ is made therein he doeth well to compare it to a sepulchre which hath outwardly goodly painting carning but inwardly is ful of rotten bones corruptioÌ„ As good a shewing as that and better too may be made vpon a stage with puppets For what doctrine is there in the masse for the comfort of an afflicted conscience but dumbe shewes and idle ceremonies in exposition whereof the popish doctors themselues cannot agree in which if there were any profitable doctrine it were hidde from the people as it were with the grauestone of an vnknowen tongue But that which of all other is worst what remembrance of Christes death and sacrifice call you that which sacrilegiously challengeth vnto it selfe that which is singular and proper to the death of Christ But Sander hauing once entred into the allegorie of a sepulchre cannot so lightlie leaue it but teacheth that Christ hauing ordained the sacrament for a sepulchre woulde not make it an hearse or sepulchre without his bodie lying therein To this I answere that sepulchres are to laye in deade carcases but Christ is risen from death and ascended into heauen hauing left his sacraments as monuments of him that was deade but nowe liueth eternally not as graues wherein his deade bodie still shoulde remaine But Chrysostome is charged to call Christes bodie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a carcase because it is present after the same rate as it was deade in the sepulchre not without life but without sensible mouing as Epiphanius hath noted I answere hee doth impudently charge Chrysostome to render that reason why hee calleth Christes bodie a carcase in 1. Corint Homil. 24. because hee is present without sensible moouing For there is no such thing in that homily although there bee some excessiue and hyperbolicall speaches as that Christ suffereth to bee broken in the Sacrament which was not broken on the crosse And euen as false it is that hee affirmeth of Epiphanius for hee saith not that Christ is without sensible moouing But speaking of the sacramentall bread Hoc â—st rotundae formae insensibile quantum ad potentiam Et voluit per gratiam dicere hoc meum est hoc hoc This thing is of rounde shape and insensible as concerning power And yet by grace he woulde say This is mine This and this Epiph. Ancor But there followeth a substantiall reason of the Martyrs which haue left their bodies behinde them for our comfort or else some thing equiualent as Manna â—n the tombe of Saint Iohn as the fable of Abdias sheweth Therefore Christ woulde not bee inferiour to them in leauing his bodie But Christ himselfe telleth vs that it is profitable for vs that hee departe from the worlde in his humanitie to prepare vs a place in heauen and to supplie his bodily presence most comfortablie with the presence of his holy spirite Ioan. 16. It is most comfortable therefore for vs that Christ hath carried his bodie into heauen and placed vs in heauen with him Ephe. 2. sending vnto vs his holy spirite with all profitable graces from heauen Origen is cited Homi. 13 in Leuitic Si respicias c. If thou looke to that remembrance whereof our Lorde saide Doe this in the remembrance of mee thou shalt finde that this is the onely remembrance which may make GOD mercifull to men Marke saith Sander this propitiatorie kinde of remembrance Naye marke the treacherie of Sander that cutting off a sentence by the middle applyeth the conclusion to the latter parte onely which of the author is meant of the whole matter together For Origen shewing the insufficiencie of the shewebreade to make propitiation thus writeth Sed si referantur haec ad mysterii magnitudinem inuenies commemorationem istam habere ingentis repropitiationis effectum Si redeâ—s ad illum panem qui de caelo descendit dat huic mundo vitam illum panem propositionis quem proposuit Deus propitiationem per fidem in sanguine eius si respicias ad illam commemorationem de qua dicit dominus Hoc facite in meam commemorationem inuenies quod ista est commemoratio sola quae propitium faciat hominibus deum But if these thinges namely the ceremonie of the shewe breade bee referred to the greatnesse of the mysterie thou shalt finde that this commemoration hath the effect of great reconciliation If thou returne to that breade which came downe from heauen and giueth life to this worlde I say that shewebread which God hath set forth to be propitiation through faith in his bloode and if thou looke vnto that commemoration of which our Lorde saith doe this for the remembrance of mee thou shalt finde that this is the onely commemoration that maketh God mercifull to men Nowe marke this propitiatory kinde of remembrance and you shall finde it to bee neither the masse nor the communion but the ceremonie of shewebreade noâ— barely considered but with faith applied vnto Christe whom it
did signifie and exhibit euen as the sacrament of his supper doth vnto vs. I say marke Master Doctor Sander you that are so great a Grammarian and consider whether Ista commemoratio in the last sentence be not the same that it is in the first And marke whether ille and iste That and this can be referred to one and the same commemoration But Augustine or Fulgentius de fide ad Petrum declareth how the sacrament is a remembrance of Christâ— in rehearsall of which saying Sander playeth the same part that hee did before that is hee omitteth the one halfe of the discourse which maketh altogether against transubstantiation Firmissimè â—ene c. Most stedfastly beleeue thou and nothing doubt that the onely begotten sonne God the worde being made fleshe hath offred himselfe for vs to bee a sacrifice and oblation of sweete sauour vnto GOD to whome with the father and the holy ghost by the Patriarches Prophetes priests in time of the old testament beasts were sacrificed and to whom now that is in time of the new testament with the father and the holy Ghost with whom he hath one diuinitie the holy Catholike Church thoroughout the whole worlde ceaseth not to offer the sacrifice of breade and wine in faith and charitie For in those carnall sacrifices there was a figuring of the fleshe of Christe which hee himselfe beeing without sinne should offer for our sinnes and of his bloude which hee should shedde for the remission of our sinnes now beginneth Sander But in this sacrifice there is thaÌ„ksâ—iuing and a coÌ„memoration of the flesh of Christ which â—e offered for vs and of his bloude which the same God â—id shedde for vs. Therefore in those sacrifices it was fiâ—uratiuely signified what should be giuen vs But in this â—acrifice it is euidently shewed what hath nowe beene â—iuen vs in these sacrifices it was before hande shewed â—hat the sonne of God shoulde bee afterwarde killed for â—icked men but in this he is alreadie shewed to haue â—eene alreadie killed for wicked men That Sander oâ—itteth a sentence which is not materiall I will not â—uarrell with him But nowe we must marke saith he the â—ordes of Fulgentius of the olde sacrifices figuratè signiâ—â—cabatur it was figuratiuely signified by the newe sacriâ—ice euidenter ostenditur it is euidently shewed If wee had â—ot Christes bodie present the old shadows would shew â—is death better theÌ„ bread wine flesh would shew flesh â—nd bloud would shew bloud and killing would shew â—illing In deede it is good to marke the writers wordes Shall we then skippe ouer the authors wordes which calleth this newe sacrifice whereof he speaketh so much sacrificium panis vini the sacrifice of breade and wine Therefore when he saith In this sacrifice I aske what sacrifice he telleth me in the sacrifice of bread and wine is euidently shewed what is alreadie giuen vs You see Fulgentius meaneth euident shewing otherwise then Sander doth which thinketh it cannot be by breade and wine And as to Sanders reason that flesh sheweth flesh more euidently then breade I answere that Fulgentius compareth not so much the euidence of the signes as the difference of the times which then was to come nowe is past concerning the passion of Christ. Although that which is shewed to be perfourmed already is more euidentlie shewed then that which is darkely promised to be perfourmed hereafter And the doctrine of the Gospell in preaching Christes death is a more cleere and euident demonstration of his benefites then the doctrine of the sacrifices was But Sander compareth the flesh of the olde sacrifices and the breade of the Lordes supper as though it were none otherwise shewed to bee the remembrance of Christes death in the Church of Christ then it is in their popish masse whereas Fulgentius speaketh not of the bare ceremonie of the Sacrament but of the Sacrament with the doctrine there vnto belonging which is tence times a more euident shewing of Christes death then the olde sacrifices were Otherwise he might say that circumcision was a more euident shewing of mortification and regeneration then baptisme because that which was done in the member naturally made for generation did more euidently shewe those mysteries then dipping or sprinkling of water But as their ceremonies were more sensible demonstrations so the doctrine of our sacraments is wonderfully more cleere and euident Finally seeing this writer entendeth to teach Peter the Deacon most plainely why doth he call the sacrameâ—â— the sacrifice of breade and wine if there be no breade and wine in that holy office or seruice for so hee taketh the worde Sacrifice and not properly as his whole exposition doeth shewe For if he had meant a popish reall presence why doth hee not once name any thing sounding there to if hee had meant a propitiatorie sacrifice why doth he so manifestly distinguish it from the sacrifice of Christ and place it onely in thankesgiuing and remembrance of Christ crucified Verily this place whether it was written by Augustine or Fulgentius it is vtter enimie to transubstantiation and the propitiatorie sacrifice of the popish masse But what neede I bring the fathers one by one saith Sander sith the whole seconde Councell of Nice doubted not to say A worshipfull Councell of vnlearned Idolaters And what say they Nemo sanctorum c. None of the holy Apostles which are the trumpet of the holy Ghost either of our glorious fathers hath said our vnbloudy sacrifice which is made in the remembrance of Christ our Lord and God his passion and of his whole conuersation to be an image of that bodie If this Councell say true that none of the Apostles haue so said then Sander is condemned by this Councell for falsifying the Scripture Heb. 10. when vnder colour of the Apostles wordes he affirmeth the sacrament not to be a shadowe of thinges to come but to be the image of the thing it selfe Lib. 3. Cap. 10. But that all these fathers do lie when they say none of our fathers haue said the sacrifice to be an image of his bodie it might be proued by diuerse ancient witnesses among which I will name Ambrose Offici lib. 1. ca. 1. who speaking of the sacrament which he calleth the sacrifice wherein Christ is offered saieth Hîc in imagine ibi in veritate heere in an image there hee is offered in trueth where as an aduocate hee maketh intercession with the father for vs. In this saying what is the image but the sacrament and whereof is it an Image of his bodie where the image is also perfectly distinguished from the truth Also Theodoret Dialog calleth the sacrament an image oporâ—es imaginis esse exemplar archeâ—ypum The chiefe paterne must bee an example of the image meaning by the paterne Christ by the image the sacrament of his supper Finally to the authoritie of this seconde Nicen councell I oppose the Ephesine Councell which determined against images and affirmed the Sacrament of
holy spirite after a wonderfull and vnspeakeable manner But it is a daintie matter that Sander vppon the wordes of Saint Paul ye cannot be partakers of the table of our Lorde and of the table of Diuels saith Our â—ewe brethren granting the diuels a reall table will â—ot allowe anie such to Christ. What meaneth our olde enimie thus to bable in his instrument and spokesman Nicholas Sander Doe not wee allowe Christ a reall and visible table wheron the visible sacrament is ministred If he meane that Christ is really present at his table as the diuells are at their table let him aduise himselfe whether they that are partakers of the diuels table are incorporate to the diuell by eating the diuell actually into their bodies or by communicating with his idolatrous ceremonies if onely by the latter what neede haue we of his often vrged reall presence to bee made partakers of the Lordes table and to bee incorporated vnto him When for a sacramental coniunction the ceremonie is sufficient for a true incorporation the spirit of God onely bringeth it to passe both with the sacramentes and without them in euery one of Gods electe which is a member of Christ. CPAP. VI. The reall presence is prooued by the example which Saint Paul vseth concerning the Iewes and Gentiles First he would prooue that the Christians haue a sacrifice because Saint Paul vseth the examples of the sacrifices of the Iewes and Gentiles but he seeth not the analogie S. Paul coÌ„pareth not the sacrifice of the Christians with the sacrifice of the Iewes and Gentiles but yâ— feast of the sacrifice of the Christians with the feastes of the sacrifices of the Iewes Gentiles Nowe the Lordes supper is the feast of the onely sacrifice of Christ once offered by him which maketh vs to communicate with his sacrifice if we receiue it worthily as the feasts of the Iewish and idolatrous sacrifices made the partakers coÌ„municate with their sacrifices them to whom thei are offered And whereas the Apostle saith we haue an altar wherof they haue no power to eat that serue in the tabernacle he meaneth that the ceremoniall Iewes can haue no participation of the sacrifice of Christ except they renounce their Iewish obseruations Or if you wil vnderstand it of such sacrifices of praise as the Apostle within fewe lines after speaketh or of the Lords supper which is a remembrance of Christs onely sacrifice as some haue done the cause of the real presence is neuer awhit holpen Yes saith Sander This then being the meat of our altar it followeth that this meat is no lesse present vpon his holy table then that which the Iewes or Idolaters did eate was present aâ— their sacrifices but that which they did partake was really preseÌ„t and receiued into their mouthes Therfore likewise Christes fleshe is really present and receiued into our mouthes I denie the minor or assumption of this syllogisme For the diuels wherof the Gentiles did partake were not really present in the meate which they did eate nor receiued into their mouthes The like I say of the altar of the Iewes wherof they were partakers which did eat of the sacrifice Wherfore this argument may be rightly turned backe vppon Sanders neck The diuels and the altar whereof the Gentiles and Iewes were partakers were not really present in the meate nor receiued into their mouthes therefore the flesh of Christ whereof the Christrians are partakers is not really present in the bread nor receiued into their mouthes CAP. VII The reall presence is proued by the kinde of shewing Christes â—eath The shewing of Christes death wherof S. Paul speaketh saith â—ander is both by deede and worde The eating of Christes bo 〈…〉 e and drinking his bloud proueth that he was dead really for a â—hing is not eaten while it liueth whereaâ— the figure of Christes â—odie eaten doth shewe a figuratiue death past I answere the â—nely eating proueth not his death past for the Sacraâ—ent was eaten before he died which that Theophylact might salue he saith that Christ sacrificed himself from â—hat time wherein he deliuered his bodie to his disciples which is all one as if he said that Christ died more then once directly contrary to the scripture Heb. 9. But seeing in the determination of God and in respect of the effect of his death he was the lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde the institution of the Sacrament shewed his death before he died as wel as after But how the bloud of Christ was really separated from his body before his passion otherwise then in a Sacrament or mysterie let Sander tell if he can And where he saith a figure eaten can shewe but a figuratiue death past it is vtterly false for the figures of the lawe shewed not a figuratiue but a reall death to come And doeth not baptisme where is no reall presence shewe the Lordes death buriall and resurrection truely past But Sander will helpe the matter by false pointing a place of Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus Because we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde being mindfull of this thing in eating and drinking wee signifie the fleshe and bloud which were offered for vs. Which Sander thus englisheth Because we are made free through the death of our Lorde being mindfull thereof wee in eating drinking flesh and bloud shewe the things that were offered to death for vs. The example he bringeth out of Damascen of them that defended the carying of dead mens bones because they put them in remembrance of death is friuolous maketh nothing to the purpose for I will demaunde of Sander that vrgeth so egerly the real presence for shewing of Christes death is the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament dead or aliue if it be aliue as I am sure he wil say what similitude hath it with the dead bones and howe doeth it shewe his death which is eaten aliue except it be in the dead figures of bread and wine which haue no life If the death be represented only in outward shewes seing the bodie that is receiued is aliue what is become of Sanders diuinitie and Logike that the figures or shewes of a dead bodie cannot shewe but a figuratiue and imagined death As for the argument a consequentibus holdeth aswell of the Sacrament as of the matter therof ye eate the Sacrament of Christ crucified ergo Christ is crucified But Sander would separate all doctrine from the Sacrament and knowe howe we should shew him to haue died by onely eating it I aunswere by onely eating of a liuing bodie we could not knowe that he had died therefore doctrine of necessitie must be ioyned with the outward action And further where he would knowe whether Christ did institute this Sacrament to shewe his death past in deede or
past 〈…〉 a bare shadowe I answere he instituted it before his death and therefore not so much to shewe the historie of his death to come or past as to shewe the vertue of his death by which his bodie was broken and his bloud shed that it might be meate and drinke vnto vs. And when the Apostle saith wee shewe the Lordes death he meaneth not onely the bare storie thereof but the fruit and effect thereof wherefore Sander playeth the foole egregiously to bable so much of Christs death past in deede or in shadowes to come For the olde Sacraments did not only prophecie of an action to bee done but also did confirme the faith of the godly in the fruits effects of the passiō of Christ. Finally Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 24. speaketh figuratiuely where he saith when thou feest this bodie set before thee say with thy selfe This bodie nailed and beaten was not ouercome of death This bodie the sunne seeing crucified turned away his beames c. but he expoundeth himselfe sufficiently in the same Homily where he saith we must be Eagles flie into heauen where the bodie of Christ that died for vs remaineth In the same sense that it is called the bodie of Christ he applyeth to the Sacrament such things as were proper to the bodie of Christ. But as for transubstantiation which the Papists woulde gather out of this place in many places he sheweth that he acknowledgeth not and ad Caesarium monachum he doth expressely denie it CAP. VIII The reall presence is proued by the illation which S. Paul maketh concerning the vnworthie eating dr 〈…〉 ing of euill men The illation proueth no real pr 〈…〉 ce by any consequence in the worlde Hee that dispitefully abuseth or negligently cōtemneth the princes seale offered vnto him offendeth against the maiestie person of the prince yet the maiestie and person of the prince is not really present vnder the formes of parchement and waxe But Sander saith the vnworthie shewing of Christs death is the vnworthie eating Who will graunt him that shewing of Christes death is nothing but eating of the Sacrament Neither doth S. Paul confesse as Sander impudently affirmeth that euil men may haue the bodie bloud of Christ in their mouthes He saith who so eateth this bread drinketh this cup of the Lord vnworthily for so much as the same is honoured with the names of the bodie bloud of Christ is guiltie of the bodie bloud of Christ which he despiseth in these mysteries But it is not bread wine whereof S. Paul speaketh because he doeth name it This bread saith Sander For seeing the Pronown This doth shewe a thing present to some sense or other S. Paul being absent could not shew◠any thing by any corporall action then it remaineth that the thing whereunto This doeth point is the bodie of Christ whereof he spake before This Grammaticall Logike is meete for Papisticall diuinity I thinke there was neuer man that set his penne to the paper that wrot more impudently What say you Master doctor Sander Doth the Pronowne This alway shewe a thing present to some sense or other To what sense is the body of Christ present in that thing whereof it is saide This is my body And doth the absence of Saint Paule hinder him to speake of breade in saying This bread and further him to speake of Christes naturall body in saying this is my body This learning Master Sander passeth my vnderstanding What saied I this learning I knowe not how to speake seing the pronowne This doth shew a thing present to some sense or other but the learning shewed in this Tush I must say in such kind of reasoning is an higher matter then can be conceiued by any sense witt reason or vnderstanding Neither is his sharpnes lesse in answering obiections then in making of argumentes For if you obiect that Christ meant the signe of his body he answereth that seing Saint Paule named no signe as This can not point to that which was not named so it must point onely to the thing named before which was the body of Christ broken for vs therefore this bread meaneth that body of Christ and none other substance I blame not Master Sander if he will not haue This to point to a signe which was not named seeing he will not haue it point to bread which with the Pronown This is named but to the body of Christ which in another sentence was named So that by this bread he doth not mean this bread but that body But seing he can allowe but one substance present and that body in the same truth is named this bread what reason is there that the thing which the word of God calleth bread and al reason and euery sense confirmeth to be bread should not be naturall breade but taken figuratiuely and that which is by the word of God onely called the body of Christ all sense and reason reclaiming that it should be his naturall body must neuerthelesse be his naturall body and by no meanes must be thought to be taken figuratiuely CAP. IX The reall presence is prooued because vnworthy receiuers are guilty of Christes body and bloud A man is guilty saith Sander either for doing an euill deede or leauing a good deede vndone or doing a good deede after an euill manner and after the last manner is he guilty that receiueth vnworthily I will not deale with his diuision nor inquire whether euery one that receiueth vnworthily doth a good deede after an euill manner But to the purpose of the reall presence his deede saith Sander is eating which thing he so really doth that S. Paule affirmeth him to eate and drinke damnation to him selfe Why so Sander is that which he eateth and drinketh really damnation if it be then surely he eateth nor drinketh really the body and bloud of Christ which are in an other predicament then damnation But if to eate and drinke damnation be spoken figuratiuely where the sense is by eating to deserue damnation why may not eating and drinking of the bodie and bloud of Christ be spoken figuratiuely where the sense is by eating and drinking to be assured of saluation wrought by the body and bloud of Christ But no man is guilty saith Sander for doing more then he actually doth therefore the vnworthye receiuer actually doth eate the bodye and bloud of Christ whereof he is guilty I deny the argument which is a balde petition of the principle for the vnworthye receiuer is guilty of the bodye and bloud of Christ not for eating and drinking it but for eatig this bread vnworthily so contemning the body of Christ or not discerning the Lordes body as the Apostle saith The antecedent is also false for a man is guilty especially in the sight of God for his euill mind purpose affection which often are more then actually he doth As in the similitude of abusing the Princes seale which
I vsed in the Chapter last before But Sander exclaimeth against the shamelesse interpretation of heretikes which imagine that S. Paul said he that eating by mouth materiall bread at Christs â—â—â—per refuseth to eate by faith the bodie of Christ sitting in heauen 〈◊〉 guiltie of not eating Christs bodie Who euer heard of such a 〈◊〉 Nay rather who euer heard of such a lie For which of yâ— Sacramentaries as you call them doeth so interprete S. Paul Although we say that he is guiltie of Christs bodie which contemneth the same in his Sacrament and either receiueth it negligently or els refuseth to receiue it contumeliously For not only the reprobates receiue vnworthily but sometimes also the elect of whome the Apostle especially speaketh disswading them from receiuing vnworthily wherby as by other sinnes they pro uoke God to punish them deserue eternal damnation if god should deale with them according to their deserts But to condemne a man for eating the bodie of Christ who did eat only the figure of it semeth great vniustice to Sander And yet the scripture neuer saith that any maÌ„ is condemned for eating the bodie of Christ but for eating the Sacrament vnworthily he is guiltie of the bodie bloud of Christ wherof that is a Sacrament Tush saith Sander if it were so meant the talk of Saint Paul would no more hang together then if it were said he that toucheth vnworthily the kinges garment is guiltie of murthering his person I answer first the Sacrament of the bodie bloud of Christ is a thing that more neere coÌ„cerneth Christ then the kings garment doth concerne the king therfore the similitude is nought but yet he that with contempt toucheth the kings garment is guilty of coÌ„tempt of the kings person And he that of malice thrusteth his weapon through the kinges garment might iustly be guiltie of murthering his person euen so and much rather as the neglect or contempt of the Lords sa crament is lesse or more so much is the guiltines against the Lords person although his bodie bloud be no more touched by the contemners then the kings person by the abusers of his garment image crown scepter seal or instrument Sander after this professeth that he is loath to heap vp in this place the manifold witnesses of the auncient fathers coÌ„cerning that euil men eat Christs body whose words he hath partly touched before li. 2. Cap 3. And I am as loth to repete that I haue so often answered vn â—o him others therfore I wil only note the places wher 〈◊〉 fathers cited by Sander are both rehersed more at larg fully answered Namely Theodoret in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. â—llud autem c. In mine answer to D. Hesk li. 3 Ca. 52. Priâ—osius li. 3. Ca. 50 Sedulius 〈◊〉 Ca 49. S. Hierom in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. â—i 3. Ca. 54 Chrysost in Math. Hom. 83. li. 3 Cap. 46. Augustin de baptismo cont Donatist li. 5 ca. 8. li 3. ca 48. As for Haymo Theophylact late writers I wil noâ— staâ—d vpon their authorities There remaineth only Cy 〈…〉 l in Ioan. li. 9. Ca. 19. vpon these wordâ— Exiuit conti 〈…〉 Iudas went out by by after the supper c. which Sander citeth thus Timet diabolus benedictioris virtutem nâ— sâ—intillam in animo cius accenderit The aâ—uell feareth the vertue of the consecration or blessing lest perhaps it might haue kindled a sparke of grace or of repentance in his minde But the words of Cyrill howsoeuer it bath pleased M. Sander to mangle them are thus Timet vt credo diabolus ne morando locus poenitentiae detur quasi a temulentia mentem suam rectius cogitans homo cripiat hac de causa festinat impellit Nam etiam Iudam cùm post panem omnino se parauerit tum moram tum benedictionis virtutem timens ne scintillam in animo eius accenderit ac inde illuminauerit ad meliora retraxerit magna praecipitem agit ecleritate The diuel as I think feareth lest by tarying place might be giuen to repentance the man thinking better might deliuer his minde as it were from dronkennes For this cause he maketh haste driueth forward For with great celeritie he driueth euen Iudas hedlong when after the bread he had altogither prepared himself fearing both the delaie and the vertue of the blessing least it hath kindled a sparke in his minde and thereof hath lightened him and drawen him to better thinges This saying of Cyrillus doth no lesse differ in sense and vnderstanding from Sanders slanderous report of him then it doth in forme context of wordes from that which Sander affirmeth to be his saying For Cyrill plainly caleth it bread which Iudas had receiued Again it was the vertue of the blessing and not the presence of the body of Christ which the diuel feared What is this for the reall presence ACP. X. The reall presence is prooued by the kinde of discerning 〈◊〉 Lordes body First he laboureth to proue that the fault of the Corinthians was not malicious contempt of Christ but such contempt as riseth of negligence and lack of discretion TheÌ„ he reasoneth thus because S. Paul chargeth them to be guiltie not onely of Christes worship and name but also of his owne bodie and bloude with which fault he neuer burthened any other then the vnworthy receiuers or the Iewes that laide iniurious hands vpoÌ„ Christ at his death it must needes be that such a communicant receiueth Christs naturall bodie I answere not onely they are guiltie of Christes bodie and bloude which receiue the communion vnworthily and which laide violent handes on Christes person but euen they also that crucifie the sonne of GOD againe of whom the Apostle speaketh Heb. 6. verse 6. and corrupt the bloud of his Testament by which they are sanctified wholy Heb. 10. vers 29. Neither are they burthened with a greater fault then they committe which vnworthily receiuing the pledge of Christes presence are saide to offend against Christ himselfe But Sander vrgeth the argument of discerning further because the Apostle biddeth them put a difference betweene Christes bodie and all other meates or creatures in the world it is euident that none other meaâ—e or creature is present besides the bodie of Christ. I deny the argument which followeth as this He that despiseth circumcision hath broken the couenant of God as God saith Gen. 17 ergo circumcision is nothing but the couenant of God and not an outward seale and signe thereof He that despiseth Baptisme despiseth the bloude of Christ and the spirit of God by which baptisme is sanctified therefore the water of baptisme is the bloud of Christ or the holy Ghost really Wherefore he that discerneth not the Sacrament which is called and to the worthy receiuer is in 〈…〉 ede the body and bloud of Christ after a certaine ma 〈…〉 r from common meate is guiltie of the bodie and
saieth hee for all men that by my selfe I may giue life to all and my flesh may bee made a ransome of all For death shall dye by my death and the nature of men shall rise againe together with me You may nowe iudge in what sense Cyrillus writeth and howe farre the sense of Sander is from the meaning of Cyrillus The sixt Booke To the Preface BEcause the adoration of the Sacrament doeth most of all conuince the reall presence Sander pretendeth that he hath appointed this booke seuerally to proue that poynt whereas in deede hee laboureth for the most part to prooue the adoration by the presence which is a beggerlie crauing of the principle or that which is in question CAP. I. The adoration of Christes bodie is prooued out of the Pâ—phâ— Da 〈…〉 id in the 21. Psalme The adoration of Christes bodie is no question betweene vs but whether the sacrament is to be adored that thereby the reall presence might be proued The place of the Psalme 22. after the Hebrewes is this verse 26. I will paye my vowes before them that feare him The poore or meeke shall eate and be satisfied they shall praise the Lord seeking him your soule shall liue for euer All the ends of the earth shall remember and be conuerted vnto the Lord. And all the families of the Gentiles shall bow themselues before thee Because the kingdome is the Lordes and he hath dominion among the Gentiles All that be fat on the earth shal eate and bow downe themselues before him they shall all fal downe which descend into the duste In this prophetical Psalme Christ proseth three things that the faithfull shall bee sedde and nourished by him that they shall praise God and that they shall haue eternall life But for as much as Christ nourisheth the faithfull otherwise then by the sacramâ—t it is great violence to draw this prophecie only or chiefly to the sacrament as Sander doth As for adoration of the sacrament heere is no colour for it Christ promiseth plainely that such as he hath redeemed shall praise Iehoua shall worship him fall downe before him but of worshipping the meate whereof they eate and are satisfied there is no mention in the worlde I passe ouer his fantasticall application of the words of the Psalme and meddle onely with that which is pertinent to the question But the kingdome of God requireth an inuisible presence saieth Sander concerning the person of the king But yet visible concerning the formes of bread wine to the end his mebers may know where to worship him And must wee haue the visible formes of bread and wine that we may know where to worship him Why doe wee not knowe that he is ascended into heauen and sitteth on the right hand of God the father shall wee not worship him sitting at the right hande of god in heauen S. Paul willeth vs to seek those things that are aboue where Christ is and not those things that are on earth because Christ is in heauen Col. 3. But that this interpretation of the Psalme to be meant of the sacrament is not of Sanders inuention we must heare the iudgement of the elder writers And first he beginneth with Hierome in Psal. 21. Vota Christi The vowes of Christ are his natiuitie and passion the vowes of the church are good workes or els I will offer the mysterie of my bodie and bloud with them who celebrate those things in his feare Although this writer referre the text partlie to the mysterie of the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament yet hath he no worde of adoration of the Sacrament but reserreth it altogether to God and Christ beside that his exposition farre differeth from Sanders explication The like sayings he alleageth out of Augustine Cassiodorus Beda Euthymius all which affirm this prophesie of eating to perteine to eating the body of Christ in the Sacrament although not onely to it But what say they to adoration of the Sacrament Forsooth saith Sander manducauerunt adorauerunt are both referred to one thing they haue eaten the Sacrament therfore they haue adored the Sacrament I deny the maior the text is plaine that they haue adored bowed and fallen downe to God not to that which they haue eaten If I say Sander hath eaten giuen thanks do I mean that he hath giuen thanks to his meate or to him that gaue him meate This is a miserable argument But S. Augustine doth fortifie it For he saith vpon that Psalm Euen the rich of the earth haue eaten the body of the lowlines of their Lord neither are they so filled as yâ— poore euen vnto imitation sed tamen adorauerunt but yet they haue adored I heare that they haue worshipped but I heare not that they haue worshipped or adored the SacrameÌ„t And if you say they haue worshipped or adored the bodie of their Lords humilitie how proue you that they worshipped the same really present in the SacrameÌ„t Or that the Sacrament may be called the bodie of the lords humilitie If this wil not serue Augustine is more plaine in Ep. 120. ad Honoraâ—â—m ca. 27. Suprà dictum est c. It was 〈◊〉 before the poore shal eat be filled But here it is said all the rich of the earth haue eaten haue adored For they also are brought to the table of Christ. And they take of his bodie bloud But they adore only be not filled also because they follow not For although they eat Christ the poore man yet they disdaine to be poore And againe because God hath raised him from the dead hath giuen him a name which is aboue euery name that in the name of Iesus euerie knee shold be bowed of things heauenly earthly vnder the earth They also moued with the fame of his highnes with the glorie of his name which glorie is spred round about in the Church they come themselues to the table they eate adore but yet they are not filled because they do not huÌ„ger thirst af ter righteousnes Al this while I heare adoring of Christ but not of the Sacrament nor of the bodie of Christ really present in the Sacrament I would haue al men that eat the Sacrament not only to eat but also adore giue thanks not to the Sacrament but to him that spiritually feedeth vs by the Sacrament But â—eda expoundeth the adoring thus Adorabunt quia cum quadam exteriori veneratione accedent They shall adore because they shall come with a certein outward reuerence or worshiping Although Beda liued in a corrupt time yet the Sacrament in his time was not worshipped Therfore he speaketh of a certeine outward reuerence that men vsed in comming to the lords table which is vsed of all them that worship not the Sacrament For if Beda had meant as Sander woulde haue him he should not haue said a certeine externall worshipping but with all honor worship both
body and bloud of Christ to feede the soule as they are corporally digested into the bodie be not our soules washed spiritually by meanes of the water in baptisme The fift generall head He that alleageth a cause why the flesh and bloud is not seene in the mysteries presupposeth although an inuisible yet a most reall presence thereof I answere the allegation of that cause presupposeth no Popish reall presence but sheweth that presence to bee spirituall and not corporall as Ambrose doth plainly in the place which is truncally alleaged by Sander who taketh onely the taile thereof De sacra lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sed fortè duis c. But perhapâ— thou saiest I see not the shewe of bloude But yet it hath a similitude For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death so thou drinkest the similitude of his precioâ—s bloud That there may be no horror of raw bloud and yet that the price of our redemption may worke What argument can bee more plaine then this that which we drinke is the similitude of his bloud ergo it is not his reall bloud As for Theophylact a late writer I will not stand vpon his authority The sixt generall head They that acknowledg a chang of the substance of bread into Christes body must needes meane a reall presence of that body I answere none of the ancient fathers acknowledged transubstantiation but a change of vse and not of substance in the bread and wine The places which he citeth of Iustinus Cyprian I haue satisfied before often times namely Iustine against Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 43. and Cyprian lib. 2. cap. 28. 〈◊〉 are the places which he quoteth and be of antiquitye in mine answere to Heskins Gregory Nyssen in or Cathechet in the second booke Cap. 51. Eusebius Emiss or 5. in Pasch. ibidem also Euthymius ibidem Isychius in Cap. 6. Leuit. the same booke Cap. 54. Ambros. de myst init lib. 2. Cap. 51. The seuenth generall Chapiter All that affirme the externall Sacrifice of Christes bodye and bloude must needes teach the reall presence thereof I answere none of the ancient fathers teach the externall Sacrifice but of thanksgiuing and remeÌ„brance for the redemption by Christes death The places of Dionysius and Eusebius Pamphili which he noteth are answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 35. The councell of Nice hath bene satisfied in this booke lib. 2. Cap. 26. The eight head is the adoration lately confuted The ninth that they affirme wicked men to receiue the Sacrament for which he sendeth vs to his authorities cited lib. 2. Ca. 7. li. 5. Ca. 9. where thou shalt finde the confutation as of the rest so quoted by him The tenth that they teach our bodies to be nourished with Christs flesh bloud li. 2. Ca. 5. li. 3. Ca. 15. 16. The 11. that they teache vs to be naturally vnited to Christ lib. 5. Cap. 5. The 12. that they affirme Christes bodie to be on the altar in the handes in the mouthes and the bloud to be in the cuppe lib. 2. Cap. 5. The 13. that they giue it such names as onely may agree to the substance of Christ c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coena Domini answered by mee against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 29. And Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. aunswered in the fourth Chapter of this booke The 14. that they teache euery man to receiue the same substance in one measure and equall portion for which he quoteth lib. 1. Cap. what is the supper lib. 4. Cap. 12. The 15. that they vse in shewing how it is sanctified the verbs of creating making working consecrating representing c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coen Do. answered by mee against Heskins lib 2. Cap. 7. Also Hierome in 26. Matth. answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 18. The 16. that they spake of it couertly saying norunâ— fideles least the infidels should mocke at it for which hee citeth Augustine Chrysostome is a feeble argument to proue the reall presence for other spake openly euen to Infidels as Iustinus Tertullian The 17. that they haue applyed it to the helping of the soules departed as being the verie selfe substance that ransaked hell is false not proued out of Aug. lib. Conf. 9. Ca. 13. nor Cyprian li. 1. Ep. 9. as I haue shewed against Allen. li. 2. Cap. 9. Cap. 7. The 18. that they taught it to be the truth which hath succeeded in place of the old figures for which he quoteth Augustine de Ciuitate Dei li. 17. Cap. 20. where no such matter is but that the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ is offered in bread and wine in steede of all the old sacrifices deliuered to the coÌ„municants by which he meaneth a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation The 19. that they vsed by the knowne truth therof to proue that Christ had flesh bloud for which he quoteth Irenaeus lib. 4. Ca. â—4 answered by me often times namely contra Hesk. li. 2. Cap. 49. And Theodoret in dialog which you shall finde contra Hesk. li. 3. ca. 52. 56. The 20. that they haue farre preferred it before baptisme that no crumme might be suffered to fall downe for which he quoteth Cyrill Catech. Myste 4. answered in the Chapter next before The 21. that the catechumeni admitted to heare the preaching might not sec the Eucharistie that no man might eat it except he were baptized and kept the commandement and yet the catechumeni had a sanctified broad which was a signe of Christ. For the former parte is cited Dionysins de Eccles. Hier. Cap. 3. for the later August lib. 2. de peccat merit remiss Cap. 26. To this I aunswere that these ceremonies and obseruations partely friuolous partely superstitious are too weake argumentes to prooue the matter in question So that in steede of the testimonies of the auncient fathers wee haue little beside quotations and vaine collections CAP. VIII The reall presence of Christes bodie is prooued by the faith of the whole Church of God in all times and all ages To omit that curious question what shall become of all our fathers that so long haue beleeued th'e reall presence c. it is a great vntrueth that Sander affirmeth Berengarius to haue bene the first that preached taught against the reall presence For the opinion of the reall presence was not taught before Antichrist was openly shewed in the see of Rome in any place nor immediately after commonly receiued but in the seuenth or eight hundreth yere as superstition idolatrie and false doctrine began to increase both in the East and West it began to take strength but yet not to be fully confirmed as it appeareth in the writings of Damaseene the seconde Councell of Nice and other writers since that time Neither was the errour then vnreprooued for the Councell of Ephes. 3. which condemned images gaue a true vnderstanding of the
haue no figure Wherefore Sander and not Master Iewell reasoneth like a Marcionite confounding the figure with the thing figured Sand. Tertullian speaking most literally of bread as it was an olde figure of Christes body whereof in Ieremie it was saide Let vs put the wood of the crosse into his bread to wit vppon his bodie saith Christ then fulfilling the old figures made bread his bodie if he did so it could not tarie bread any longer Fulk This place of Tertullian is shamefully mangled both in wordes and sense Tertullian asketh But why did he call breade his body and not rather a pepon which Marcion accounted in steed of an hart not vnderstanding that this was an auncient figure of the bodie of Christ saying by Ieremie Against me haue they thought a thought saying Come let vs cast wood on his breade that is the crosse on his bodie Therefore the lightener of antiquities sufficiently declared what he would haue breade then to haue signified when he calleth bread his body These words declare wherefore Christ did appoint bread to signifie his bodie in his supper namely because it had bene an ancient figure of his body in somuch that it was called bread But he made bread his body therefore it is not his body still I aunswere Tertullian sheweth how hee made it his body when he expoundeth it by the name of the figure of his body Baptisme being made regeneration is still a washing with water The rocke when it was made Christ remained still a rocke c. Iew. After consecration saith Saint Ambrose the bodie of Christ is signified Sand. S. Ambrose de myst cap. 〈◊〉 doth speake of that signification which is made whiles the priest pronounceth Hoc est corpus meum which words he saith do worke in the consecration that which they signifie therefore they worke the bodie and blood of Christ. Fulk Fie for shame Sander when Ambrose saith Post consecrationem after consecration will you say hee speaketh of the signification of the wordes which as spoken in the time of the consecration the words of Christ indeede doe worke as Ambrose saith and what worke they but that which is added to the elementes after cōsecration namely a signification of the bodie of Christ. Iew. It is a bondage and death of the soule saith S. Augustine to take the signe in steed of the thinges signified Sand. Saint Augustine meaneth of such kinde of signes when either the thinge which appeareth to bee signified is not at all true according to the letter or else when the thing signified is absent in substance c. Fulk Saint Augustine de Doct. Chr. lib. 3. cap. 5. speaketh expressely of figuratiue speeches when they are vnderstoode as if they were proper and cap 16. of the same booke giuing a rule to knowe figuratiue speaches from proper hee exemplifieth the eating of the fleshe of Christ and drinking his bloode to be a figuratiue speach Wherefore you see master Iewels article of chalenge standeth vntouched for any thing brought in this chapter And that Sander can yelde no good cause why master Iewel hath not fully answered Harding touching the wordes of Christes supper CAP. II. Sand. That the supper of Christ is a naked and bare figure according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries Fulk Sander wil acknowledge nothing in the sacrament whatsoeuer we teach protest and beleeue excepte we acknowledge his real presence but a bare figure Sand. S. Hilarie and S. Cyrill teach that the nature of signes or seales is such as setteth forth y◠who le forme of the kinde of thing printed in them and haue no lesse in them then those things whence they are sealed Fulk Such a seale we beleeue the Lords supper to be of Christes death and our redemption Iew. He must mount on high saith Chrysostome whoso will reach to that body San. Accedere is to come to not to reach He spake of comming to the visible table Fulk He spake of cōming to the visible table so as we might attaine to the body of Christ which is in heauen for that cause he said we must be eagles in this life Chrys. in 1. Cor. Ho. 24. Sand. He saith Ipsa mensa The very table is our saluation life And again This mysterie maketh that while◠we be in this life earth may be heauen to vs. Fulk As earth is heauen to vs the table saluation so is the sacrament the body of Christ. Iew. Send vp thy faith saith Augu. thou hast taken him Sand. The place is abused See lib. 2. cap. 29. Fulk And see the answere there Iew. The bread that we receiue with our bodily mouthes is an eathly thing and therefore a figure as the water in baptisme Sand. The water in baptisme is no figure but the figure is the word cōming to the water As the water in baptisme is no figure when the words are absent so bread could not be a figure any longer when the words are fully past Fulk Maister Iewel speaketh of the water wherevnto the word is come which as it remaineth no sacrament after the vse of baptisme no more doth the bread out of the vse of receiuing That consecration consisteth in the onely words This is my body it is false For Christes wordes are more Take eate c. Iew. The body of Christ is y◠thing it selfe no figure Sand. The body of Christ vnder the forme of bread is it self both the thing also a figure of y◠mystical vnity of the Church So S. Hilary teacheth The natural propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfect vnitie See libr. 5. Chap. 5. Fulk The natural propertie is not the personal substance or proper nature of Christ. See the answer as aboue Iew. In respect of the body we haue no regarde to the figure wherevnto S. Bernarde alluding saith The sealing ring is nothing worth it is the inheritance I sought for Sand. What a desperate custome is it for you to alleadge alwaies the fathers of the last 900. yeres whom you haue alreadie condemned Fulk What a diuelish custome is it for you alwaies to lie and slaunder Sand. S. Bernard saith the bodie and blood it selfe to bee the signe Vt securi suis c. That you may bee without feare you haue the inuestiture of our Lordes sacrament his precious bodie and bloode Fulk You falsifie Bernards wordes in translation and peruert his meaning Vt securi suis sacramenti dominici corporis sanguinis preciosi inuestituram habetis That you may bee without feare you haue the inuestitute of the sacrament of the body of our Lorde and of his precious bloode The sacrament is the inuestiture as the ring and not the bodie of Christ. If the bodie of Christe were the ring of the inuestiture Bernard woulde not haue saide the ring is nothing worth Yet the sacrament as a seale putteth vs in assurance of the inheritance and not bate bread as Sander bableth CAP. III. Sand. That Christes
body is receaued by mouth not by faith onely Iew. The body of Christ is to be eaten by faith only and none otherwise Sand. You are the mainteiner of a blasphemous heresie and affirme the same which the Arrians did Fulk Master Iewel is more free from Arrianisme then you from Eutychianisme Sand. Christ saide after bread taken c. Take eate this is my body but he spake of eating by mouth and not by faith alone and the thing eaten to bee his owne body therefore his body is not eaten by faith only but by mouth also Fulke That which was to be eaten with mouth was breade in nature and his body in mystery which body was to be eaten by faith and not by mouth as the bread was to bee eaten by mouth and not by faith Sander All that was eaten by mouth or by faith at Christes supper came from Christ but all that he is writen to haue giuen came from his handes therefore either his body was not eaten by faith at all or his bodye came then from his owne handes Answere the Gospell master Iewel or els blaspheme no more Fulke I denie your minor For it is writen The spirite it is that giueth life the flesh profiteth nothing Ioh. 6. Life remission or sinnes participation of his death c. were giuen but not all nor at all by his handes but by his diuine spirit Sander The fathers teach that we eate Christes body by our mouthes and not dy faith onely Fulke They teach we eate the Sacrament which is so called and which after a certaine manner is the body of Christ but not absolutely Sander S. Cyprian saith of euill men Ser. de lap 5. Plus modo they sinne now more against our Lord with their handes and mouth then when they denied our Lord. Fulke They sinne against our Lord in receiuing the Sacrament vnworthily more then in denying because denying was of weakenes this other of hypocrisie Sander Cyprian saith the sinne is inuading and doing violence to our Lordes body and bloud Fulke That is to the Sacrament thereof for our Lords body is impassible Sander Chrysostom witnesseth vs to take in our handes in our mouthes to touch to eate to receiue into vs Christes flesh is all this done by faith onely Fulke Chrysostom witnesseth we see All the people to be made red with the bloud of Christ. Is that otherwise then by faith Desacerd lib. 3. Hee saieth Christ iâ— broken in the SacrameÌ„t which he was not on the crosse Is that done really in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. Sander Pope Leo writeth thus of the matter ye ought so to communicate that ye doubt nothing c. Fulke Pope Leo is answered lib. 5. Cap. 8. Sander Cyril against the Arrian lib. 10. Cap. 13. sheweth vs to eate Christ corporally Fulke You slander Cyril he saith the vertue of the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwel in vs corporally by participation of the flesh of Christ not by faith and loue onely Iewel Christes body is meat of the mind not of the belly saith S. Cyprian Sander I find no such wordes in Cyprian but whosoeuer spake them it will follow that the meat he speaketh of is not materiall bread Fulke If you finde not the wordes in Cyprian you may finde them in Gregory who by error of the printer is called Cyprian and you may finde the sense in Cyprian wee sharpen not our teeth nor prepare our belly but with syncere faith we breake the holy bread You find in ser. de coena Dom. That the body of Christ is not material bread we agree with you and euer did Iewel Beleeue and thou hast eaten saith S. Augustine of Christes blessed body Sander These words are not offacramental eating but of spirituall eating Fulke He saith vt quid paras dentes ventrem to what end doest thou prepare thy teeth and belly beleeue and thou hast eaten Therefore he sheweth that Christ is not receiued by mouth and belly but by faith onely Iewel It is better to vse the worde figure than the wordes really corporally Sander It is better to vse the wordes body bloud flesh which are the wordes of scripture than the worde Figure which is vsed of the fathers only Fulk Master Iewel compareth not the worde figure with the wordes of scripture but with the wordes really corporally vsed neither in scripture nor in the fathers CAP. IIII. Sander Master Iewel hath not replied well touching the sixt Chapiter of Saint Iohn but hath abused as well the Gospell as diuerse authorities of the fathers Harding The promise of giuing the flesh which Christ would giue for life of the worlde beeing onely perfourmed in the supper prooueth the very same substance to be in the Sacrament of the supper which was offered vpon the crosse for the life of the world Iewel Master Harding supposeth no man to eate the flesh of Christ but onely in the Sacrament Sander He denieth not but that Christes flesh may be eaten spiritually both by faith and by baptisme but not really saue onely in the supper Fulke If Christ speak there onely of his gift in the supper then all are void of life eternall that receiue not the supper Except ye eate c. Iewel The wordes bee plaine and generall vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man yee shall haue no life in you Sander He saith ye shall not haue life in you Fulke A diuersity without a difference Sander He meaneth of him who hauing discretion to prooue himselfe refuseth to receiue the Sacrament of Christes supper Fulke This is a glosse of your owne discretion and not the meaning of Christes wordes who denieth life to all them that are not fedde with his flesh and bloud Iewel Seeing Christian children receiue not the Sacrament by Master Hading it will followe they haue no life Sander It will followe they haue not in themselues the flesh of life as Cyrillus â—aith in their bodies but it is an vntrue sequel to say they haue no life at all for they haue spirituall life in baptisme Fulke They could haue no life in baptisme if they were not fedde with the flesh and bloud of Christ without which there is no life at all whatsoeuer it please Sander to glosse Iewel S. Ambrose saith Christ giueth this bread to all men daily and at all times Sander He may meane of the gift which is in spirite or which is daily ready in the Sacrament Fulke He doth meane that the breade is not giuen onely in the Sacrament which is not giuen to all men nor at all times Iewel S. Augustine saith They eate Christes body not onely in the Sacrament but also in very deede Behold not onely in the Sacrament Sander S. Augustine speaketh of the mysticall body which is the company of the elect and the holy Church of God not of the naturall bodye which sitteth at the right hand of God Fulke Augustine saith qui ergo est c. He then that is
where also wee must feede on Christ by faith Fulke Because it is the proper sacrament of our spirituall feeding like as baptisme is of our regeneration and yet the bloode of Christ doeth clense our sinnes in the supper as we eate the body of Christ in baptisme Sand. 37 Seeing a figure may be the trueth it selfe whereof it is a figure why shoulde you rather detracte this honor from Christs sacrament then giue the same vnto it Fulk A figure can neuer be that which it figureth in the same respect As Christ is the figure of his father so is he not his father as he is the figure of his fathers substance so is he not his fathers substance but consubstantiall with his father for though hee be the same essence yet hee is an other person beside that we may not say the sacramentes are all that they may bee but that which God will haue them to be You may demaunde the like reason of Baptisme why the water is not the blood of Christ but a figure of it Sand. 38 Christ being equall with his father made promise of the same fleshe which his father had giuen Why deny you the gift of Christ to be as reall as his father gaue him reall flesh Fulk We deny not but he hath giuen the same real fleshe although not to be present really in the Sacrament Sand. 39 How teach you the wordes of Christ which are spirite and life to be notwithstanding figuratiue consequentlie deade and voide of all life and strength Fulk Howe dare you affirme any of Christes words of which many are figuratiue to be deade and voyde of life and strength Are not those figuratiue wordes I am the bread that came downe from heauen This cup is the newe testament Sand. 40 Because the worde of God would be meate of man in respect of the body hee tooke fleshe and said Take eate c yet you make him stil to be the meate of the minde whereby we are excluded from hauing God corporally in vs through the flesh of Christ. Fulk The worde became not fleshe either onely or principally to be giuen in the sacrament but he could not haue beene meat vnto man except hee had taken fleshe which fleshe he communicateth vnto vs through his spirit by faith to feedboth body and minde yet not to be receiued into the body as bodily meats but being receiued of the minde to nourishe the whole man Sand. 41 To conclude whereas ye finde flesh body bloode ioyned with eating drinking taking partaking giuing breaking distributing communicating dijudicating ye expounde al these words figuratiuely As though God by so often repeting had not strengthened the common and proper signification of them Fulk You say vntruely of all these wordes wheras you finde bread cup the fruit of the vine so often repeted you vnderstand all figuratinely to maintaine your grosse vnderstanding or rather your gainefull idolatrie for which you care not to erre against grammar rhetorike Logike Philosophie diuinitie faith trueth nature sense knowledge and conscience Iew. If in these wordes Except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man ye followe the letter it killeth Origen Hom. 7. in Leuit. Sand. He that taketh them as Christ by his fact did expound them doeth followe the spirite and not the letter Fulk Yee assume for granted that which is all the controuersie It is not onely the letter to vnderstande the words of eating by peece meale but of eating his fleshe by mouth carnally as other meates are eaten although couered from the eyes and tast as men eate pils wrapped in a wafer cake CAP. IX Sand. A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by master Iewel Iew. Saint Augustine saith the sacrament of Christs body after a certaine phrase or maner or trope or figure of speaking is the body of Christ. Sand. Secundum quēdam modum is not meant after a certaine manner of tropicall or figuratiue speach but in the sacrament in the thing it self in the substance thereof wherin the likenes is and not in the forme Fulk Saint Augustines words being set downe more at large then Sander citeth them who leaueth out the foremost part let the reader iudge whether he meane of a manner of speach which is figuratiue and tropicall or of a manner of being which is significatiue Ep. 23. Bonifacio Nempe saepè ita loquimur c. Verily oftentimes wee SPEAKE so that wee SAIE Easter drawing neere to morowe or the next day is the passion of our Lorde whereas he hath suffered so many yeeres past and that passion was promised but once in all Verily on the sonday it selfe we SAIE this day our Lorde arose againe notwithstanding there are so many yeres since he arose Why is no man so foolish to reproue vs so SPEAKING as if wee had lyed but because wee CALL these dayes according to the similitude of the dayes in which those thinges were done that it is SAIDE the day it selfe which is not the day it selfe but in reuolution of time like it that it is SAIDE to be done on that daye because of the celebration of the sacrament or mysterie which was not done that day but long before Was not Christ once offered in himselfe and yet in a sacrament not onely at euerie solemnitie of Easter but euerie day he is offered for the people Neither surely doth he lie who being demanded shall answere that he is offered For if the sacraments had not a certayne likenes of those thinges whereof they are sacraments they were not at all sacramentes Out of this likenes also for the most part they take their names Therefore as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the bodie of Christ the sacrament of the bloode of Christ is the bloode of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith The whole discourse being of phrases and manners of speech that are figuratiue and this example of the Lordes supper being brought as one of them iudge whether S. Augustine 〈◊〉 corrupted by master Iewel Euen the Canon law writen as it should seeme before the heresie of carnal presence preuailed doth so vnderstande this place of Augustine de Con. Dist. 2. ca. Hoc est Sicut ergo coelestis panis c. Therfore as the heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ that is saith the glosse the heauenly sacrament which truely representeth the flesh of Christ after his maner is called the bodie of Christ the sense is saith the glosse it is called that is it fignifieth the bodie of Christ whereas indeed it is the sacrament of the body of Christ namely of that body which being visible which being palpable was put on the crosse and the verie immolation of his flesh which is done by the handes of the priest is called the passion death crucifying of Christ not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie so the sacrament of faith which is vnderstod to be baptisme is faith Let this
figuratiue words Iewel That M. Harding calleth the catholike faith is in deede a catholike error Sand. No error can be catholike because Christ said Hell gates shal not preuaile against the Church and it is a citie built vpon an hill Fulke And yet all nations are made drunke with the furie of the wine of the whore of Babylons fornication Wherefore an error may bee catholike although not simply yet in comparison of the small number that at sometime doe embrace the trueth CAP. XII Sand. Of Christs glorified bodie and the place of S. Hierome expounded Hard. The bodie which was before the death therof thrall and fraile is now spirituall Iewel To what ende alleageth Master Harding the spirituall state of Christes bodie Enriches saide it was chaunged into the verie substance of God which heresie is like Master Hardings if it be not the same Sand. The defence of the reall presence is directly against that heresie Fulke To graunt the flesh of Christ in worde and to denie the essentiall properties thereof is to come as neere to that heresie as can be Sand. The ancient fathers proued that as the Sacrament of the altar consisted of two thinges the signe or forme of breade and of the bodie of Christ so Christ cōsisteth of two natures the one diuine the other humane Wherefore you denying the presence agree with the Arrians Valentinians c. Fulke The ancient fathers neuer made the forme or accidents of breade but bread it selfe to be the signe or one part of the sacrament representing the bodie of Christ and the thing signified they made like to the godheade whereby they vnderstoode not the naturall bodie of Christ but the effect of his death Hard. S. Hierome shewing two wayes of vnderstanding Christs flesh one spirituall as it is verily meate an other as it was crucified declareth the manner of eating it onely to differ from the manner of it being crucified the substance being all one Iewel He speaketh neither of the Sacrament nor of any reall presence Sand. He meaneth both Fulk He can meane neither of both seeing he distinguisheth that diuine and spirituall flesh which is meat in deede vnto eternall life from that flesh which was crucified which if it were meate in the same sense that it was crucified that is in the naturall substance S. Hieroms distinction should not be of that flesh which c. and that flesh which c. but of the effects and affects of the same flesh Wherefore when he saith the flesh of Christ is two waies to be vnderstanded he meaneth of this word The flesh of Christ and not of the diuerse manners of presence therof in the sacrament and on the crosse Iewel S. Hierom saith of this oblatiō which is merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ it is lawful to eate but of that oblatiō which Christ offered vpon the altar of the crosse according to it selfe it is lawful for no man to eate that is to say in grosse and fleshly manner These words shewe a difference betweene the sacrifice made in the remēbrāce of Christ and the very sacrifice in deede c. Sand. The difference is so great that the thing offered is all one and that which is crucified and eaten is the same in substance but not in manner of presence Fulke The difference is so great as must needs bee betweene a sacrifice once offered and neuer to be repeted and the memoriall of the same The same substance that was crucified is eaten but not by meanes of any bodily presence but by a spirituall kinde or manner of eating by faith Sand. What marueilous making can you finde in the bread and wine except they be made the bodie and bloud of Christ Fulke It is a merueilous thing that the elements of bread and wine are made to the worthy receiuer in earth the communication of the bodie and bloud of Christ sitting in heauen Iewell If a man take it fleshly saith Chrysostome in Ioan. Hom. 47 he gaineth nothing Sand. It followeth immediatly What say we then is not flesh flesh He vnderstandeth fleshly that deuiseth a grosse and fleshly manner of eating but not he that saith the flesh must be eaten if the manner be diuine and spirituall as in our sacrament Fulke The manner you teach is grosse and carnall for spiritual eating we confesse which is not onely in the sacrament Iewell It is a figure or forme of speach saith S. Augustine willing vs to be partakers of Christs passion Sand. You are taken M. Iewel For seeing you say we eate Christ in the supper only by faith and we must bee partakers of the passion Christ by faith at lest how saith S. Hierome we may not eate that oblation which Christ offered on the crosse according to it selfe may we not be leeue in him c. Fulke In the sacrament wee eate bread which is the oblation merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ we eate not that which was sacrificed on the crosse in the reall substance thereof but by faith applying vnto vs the fruites and effects of his passion Iewell S. Hierome calleth the eating of the diuine spiritual flesh of Christ the remēbring that hee died for vs. Sander Then the oblation it self is eaten of vs which he offered on the crosse according to it selfe Fulke What mad man would saye the oblation it selfe the remembrance therof to be all one Iewel Clemens Alexandrinus saith there is a fleshly bloud wherwith we are redeemed a spiritual wherwith we are annointed And this is to drinke the bloude of Christ to be partaker of his immortalitie As Christs bloud is not really present to annoint vs so it is not really present to nourish vs. Sander Clemens speaketh of the effect of Christes bloud Hierom of the carnall bloud it selfe Fulke A monstrous shift when Hierom distinguisheth in expresse wordes the spirituall and diuine bloude by which wee are nourished from the carnall bloud that was shed with the speare by which wee are redeemed Wherefore he speaketh of the effect fruite as well as Clemens Sander That S. Hierom speaketh of the Sacrament it is proued because he citeth such words out of S. Iohn as all the fathers reasons scriptures prooue to appertaine by way of promise to the supper as I haue prooued in twentie Chapiters togither of my thirde booke Fulke His citing of wordes out of the sixt of Saint Iohn prooue no more then drinking of the bloude of Christ c. in Clemens that hee speaketh of the Sacrament Your twentie Chapters are answered in as many by mee Iewel Saint Augustine saith Iudas betrayed Christ carnall thou hast betrayed Christ spirituall For in thy furie thou betrayest the holy gospell to be burned with wicked fire These wordes of Clement and Augustine agreeing so neere in sense and phrase with the wordes of Hierom may stand for sufficient exposition to the same Sander Augustine taketh Christ spirituall another way cleane diuerse from Clement or Saint Hierome
The name of spirituall may be taken as many wayes at spiritus which is for God the holy ghost Christ Angels winde gifts spiritual the soule the imagination breath anger or punishment and many other waies Fulke So many waies of taking as you knowe yet you cannot tell any other then as Clemens and Hierom take it for that which hath not the substance but the grace and effect of Christ. Sander That which you bring out of Athanasius apperteineth to the Capernaits and to no man else Fulke Yes to as many as erre grossely like the Capernaites as you Papistes doc Harding The fathers vsed the wordes really substantially c. to put away al doubt of the being of Christs verie bodie in the holy mysteries Iewel He diuineth what they meane before they speake Sander Nay because he is sure of their words he expoundeth their minde Fulke He is so sure of their wordes that he knoweth not where they are written nor you neither Being so often called for and so much bragged of bring them out for shame CAP. XIII Sander A place of Chrysostome expounded Iewel Chrysostom saith in the same homilie If Christ died not whose signe and token is this sacrifice therefore he may be also charged with the sacramentarie quarel Sander You proue a signe here but not that the trueth is absent from the signe Fulke The Sacrament is a signe ergo not the thing signified a relatis Sander The sacrifice of the new testament is the bodie of Christ this is the sacrifice of the newe testament therefore it is the bodie of Christ. Fulke The Sacrament is not the sacrifice propitiatorie of the newe Testament but the passion of Christ. The Sacrament is a spirituall Sacrifice of thanksgiuing as prayer almes preaching vnto which is no reall presence required Your syllogisme is all of particulars make the maior vniuersall and the error is soone espied Euery Sacrifice of the newe Testament is the bodie of Christ. Sander Chrysostome there saith that Marcion Valentinus Manichaeus who denied Christes reall flesh and death are confounded by these mysteries How can that be if the true flesh of Christ be not conteined in them Fulke Verie well as Tertullian frameth his argument from the figure to the thing figured The SacrameÌ„t could not be a figure of Christs body except Christ had a bodie in deede For a voide thing that is a phantasme can haue no figure Sander Chrysostom saith it is euident by these mysteries that Christ is alreadie sacrificed which cannot be true if his reall flesh be not present of which point I haue spoken in my fift booke Cap. 1. Fulke And in the same place I haue aunswered the vanitie of your argument Iewell Master Harding knoweth that Chrysostome speaketh generally of all other mysteries for it followeth Euen so in baptisme the water is a thing sensible the regeneration is a thing spirituall wherefore if M. Harding will force his reall presence in the one Sacrament hee must likewise force the same in the other Sander D. Harding brought that place onely to shewe that the bodie of Christ is not visibly present Fulke The place prooueth that the body of Christ is none otherwise present then regeneration in baptisme Sander In baptisme the grace of regeneration which is giuen is conteined and giuen when the worde commeth to the water Fulke The water is no subiect for the grace of God yet Chrysost saith not the grace but regeneratioÌ„ it self Nothing is borne againe but the partie baptized therefore regeneration is not conteined in the element or action of baptisme CAP. XIIII Sander The difference betweene baptisme and our Lords supper Iewel Forasmuch as these two Sacraments be both of like force I wil touch what the fathers think of gods working in baptisme The fathers in the Councell of Nice bid vs thinke that the water is full of heauenly fire c. Basil the kingdome of heauen is set open Chrysostome God himself in baptisme by his inuisible power holdeth thy head Ambrose In the water is the grace of Christ and the presence of the Trinitie Bernard Let vs be washed in his bloud c. By force of which wordes M. Hard. may proue that the power of God the heauenly fire the grace bloud of Christ is really present in baptisme Sander Nothing is really present that is affirmed of a Sacrament except it be signified present in the wordes instituted by Christ which make the Sacrament or of necessitie be inferred vpon them Fulke Neither is all that really present which is affirmed of a Sacrament that is signified present in the words instituted by Christ which make the Sacrament As Christ saide This is my bodie so hee sayde This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud yet it followeth not that the newe Testament is really present in the cuppe no nor in the bloud of Christ which he shedd for vs but is confirmed by it and signified by the other Sander Baptisme the Eucharist hath many differences the one from the other Fulke If they had no differences they should be all one yet haue they not so many as you make But in the matter in question they haue like force to vnite vs to Christ and assure vs of eternall life which none can haue but they that eate the flesh and drinke the bloude of Christ or else what becoÌ„meth of them that are baptized and not admitted to the communion CAP. XV. Sander M. Iewel replyeth not wel touching the authoritie alleaged out of the Nicen Councell Harding We behold saith the Councel of Nice the lambe of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put or laide on that holy table we receiue his precious bodie and bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily in deede which is to say really Iewell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not found in the Greek nor in Tunstall but deuised by M. Harding Sander It is founde in the actes of the Councell that are not all printed but they are extant in diuerse Libraries Fulke You name none where we should find them to trye your trueth and the antiquitie of those coppies Sander In many Latine printed bookes it is translated sâ—â—m situated or put Fulke The question is not what some Latine coppies haue but what is the originall Greeke Iewel Must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to be set or placed needes sounde a reall presence Sander Can you haue a capon set and placed vppon your table which is not really present Fulke A fit comparison betweene a capon and the lambe of God Iewel Christ dwelleth in our heart by faith and yet not really Sander The lambe of God is not saide to be on the holy table by faith but to be set or laide there Fulke How can the Councell saye We behold it set there but by faith Iewel S. Hierom saith as often as we enter into the sepulchre we see our Sauiour lying in his shroode yet he lay not there really Sander But he lay
there once really Howe coulde the Councell say wee beholde the lambe of God placed vpon the holy table which neither nowe nor at any time was really there Fulke By faith as we behold him in his ministers and in baptisme washing our sinnes with his bloude where he is not really present nor euer was after that manner Iewell In the Councel of Chalcedon it is demanded in what scripture lye these two natures of Christ it is the same worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet they lye not really in the scriptures Sander The heretike asked for very materiall and reall wordes Fulke If the natures may be said figuratiuely to lye where the wordes are found why may not the lamb of God be saide to lye where the bread and wine which are signes of him do lye Iewell That word signifieth a naturall situation of place order of parts such as D. Harding in the next article saith Christs bodie hath not in the sacrament Sander It hath such situation as the forme of bread requireth Fulke Then the forme of bread is situated not the bodie of Christ or the lambe of God which you might as well vrge to be taken in his proper sense for a natural lambe as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be laide Iewell The Councell is plaine that we consider not basely the bread and wine that is set before vs. Sander He considereth them basely who saith they remaine still in earthly substance Fulke He considereth them not at all who saith they are no part of the Sacrament Iewel It is said lift vp your heartes so that there is nothing in the action to be considered but only Christ. Sander I haue spoken of this matter at large lib. 2. Cap. 24. of Eagles Cap. 27. Fulke And there I haue briefely answered Iewell S. Ambrose saith it is better seene that is not seene Sander Therfore the bodie of Christ is better sene then bread and wine Fulke Who doubteth of that Iewel For the same cause S. Augustine saith In Sacraments we must consider not what they be but what they represent For they are tokens of things being one thing and signifying another Sander As they be tokens they be one thing signifie another and therefore the substance of Christes bodie is not his death or passion or the vnitie of his Church which thing vnder the forme of bread it doeth signifie but it is another manner of thing to wit a bodie immortal impassible c. Fulke If S. Augustine had beleeued the Sacrament to be the immortall bodie of Christ he would neuer haue said In Sacraments we must not consider what they be but alway what they signifie Con. Max. lib. 3. Cap 22. Iewell Touching our beholding of Christ in the Sacrament S. Aug. saith It worketh such motions in vs as if we saw our Lord himself present vpon the crosse Sander S. Aug. speaketh of the solemnitie of Easter which was kept by preaching shewing some image of Christ by creeping to the crosse Fulke Hee speaketh generally of signes as for images and creeping to the crosse is a moste impudent lye Iewel This is that Eusebius writeth that the bodie might be worshipped by a mysterie that euerlasting sacrifice should liue in remembrance and be present in grace for euer in this spirituall sort not fleshly Christ is laide present vpon the altar Sander You leaue out that he saith the oblation of the redemption should be euerlasting by which wordes Eusebius declareth that the Sacrament is such a mysterie as offereth vs that continuall redemption which Christ hath purchased for vs. Fulke Eusebius declareth no such matter but a memoriall of the euerlasting and one onely sacrifice quod semel offerebatur in pretium which was but once offered for a price or redemption Sander The same Eusebius saith the inuisible preist turneth the visible creatures with his worde into the substance of his body and bloud Fulke So he saith that man is by the workmanship of the heauenly mercy made the body of Christ in baptisme wherefore he speaketh not of Popish transubstantiation but of a spirituall mutation such as is in baptisme Iewell S. Augustine saith you are vpon the table you are in the cup. As the people is laid vpon the table so and none otherwise the councell of Nice saieth the lambe of God is laid vpon the table Sander What Master Iewell is the table turned into vs as Eusebius saith the visible creatures are turned c Fulke Euen such a conuersion is of the bread into his body as is of the table and cuppe into vs namely spirituall For without some kinde of conuersion it were not possible that wee should be on the table and in the cuppe Sander Wee should not bee there if our head Iesus Christ were not vnder the forme of bread wine where in we are signified but of this more lib. 5. Cap 5. Fulke As we are there so is our head Iesus Christ and none otherwise Iewell The Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily by D. Hardings iudgment soundeth no lesse then really But these two wordes truely and fleshly haue sundry meanings and in the sense that Christ spake vnto the Iewes the one doth vtterly exclude the other Sander If you take fleshly for the substance of flesh is is all one in speaking to say truely and fleshly but as concerning the corruptible qualities of flesh it is not all one Fulke The spirituall sense of eating Christes flesh truely in which he spake to the Iewes doth vtterly exclude the Popish sense of eating the substance of his flesh Iewell He that eateth most spiritually eateth most truely as Christ is the true vine the true Manna and we are verily one breade and the Apostles verily the heauens And these are the Paschall feastes wherein verily the lambe is slaine Sander In comparison of bodily eating alone spirituall eating is more true and of a better sort but a thing both eaten in body and spirit is farre more truely eaten both waies then by one way alone Fulke Master Iewel hath well prooued that the word Truly may wel exclude fleshly bodily really As for the bodily eating is the matter in question therefore not to be brought in argument Sander When the name of any thing affirmed of Christe apperteineth to the true nature of his manhod which he hath assumpted it is to be verified of him not onely by a metaphore but in very deede therfore he is man in deede offred in deede killed in deede buried in deede eaten in deede Fulke For a man to bee eaten in the shape of bread apperteineth not to the true nature of his manhood which he hath assumpted therefore it is not to bee verified of him but onely by a metaphor or figuratiue speech by your owne rule Iewel S. Augustine vtterly remoueth the naturall office of the body what preparest thou thy teeth beleue and thou hast eaten Beleeuing in him is the eating of the bread of life
The vnion is made not onely by faith but by the thing it selfe which is neither water breade nor wine nor faith but onely the reall substance of Christs body and blood Fulk That is not the question but of the manner of the mingling whether it be corporall or spirituall Sand. Chrysostome nameth changing sacrifice hand mouth tongue seeing touching eating hauing within vs therefore the manner of mingling must be corporall Fulk Chrysostome nameth the hande breaking the fleshe in peeces the mouth filled with spirituall fire the tonge made redde with this wonderfull bloode as you your selfe confesse therefore he speaketh not properly but figuratiuely of these instrumentes of the body which outwardly receiue the sacrement of so high holy a coniunction the manner of working whereof is wonderfull and not done with handes mouth tong c. of men Sand. Prooue that where Christ dwelleth by faith that such dwelling is made by the thing it selfe not by faith onely Fulk The word is be come flesh and dwelled in vs being verily Immanuel God with vs therefore by the thing it selfe and not by faith only he dwelleth with all the faithfull Sand. Prooue that wee are made Christes fleshe in baptisme by the bodie of Christ for else the vnion of the sacrament will be more reall Fulk By baptisme wee are buried with Christe vnto death c. And what purgeth vs in baptisme but the bloode of Christe which purgeth vs from all â—innes San. Prooue either that wee are vnited to faith it selfe and vnto baptisme it selfe or else the vnion made in this sacrament will farre passe the ioyning which is in the other Fulk Wee are neither vnited to faith baptisme or to the Lords supper but to Christ by faith and by the sacraments Sand. Here wee are vnited to the same body wherewith we are fedde which wee see and touch but there wee bee not vnited to the water wherewith wee are washed Fulk Neither are you here vnited to anye thing that you see or touch excepte you will bee vnited to bread and wine or to the accidentes of them which only you holde remaine to be seene and touched In baptisme we are vnited to Christ whome we put on with whome we die are buried and rise againe being washed with his bloode in our soules as our bodies are washed with cleane water Sand. You say that wee are made Christ by baptisme but prooue that Christ is there deliuered in sensible thinges to your handes to your mouth to your tongue so that you may haue him within you as it is done in the supper These phrases you must prooue to be verified by faith and baptisme if you will haue as reall a ioyning made by faith or by baptisme as is made by the sacrament of the altar Fulk Saint Augustine saith wee are made Christe The phrases that Chrysostome vseth alluding to the externall manner of participation of that sacrament which is by hande mouth and tongue are not necessarie to prooue that the vnion made by the one sacrament is as reall as by the other when there bee phrases of equall force as the phrases of ingraffing putting on dying and being buried with him washed with his bloode c. Iew. As the breaking of this bread is the partaking of the bodie of our Lorde euen so the breade of idols is the partaking of Diuels and if wee eate one bread with idolaters we are made one body with them Primasius in 1. Cor. 10. Sand. You falsifie the wordes of Saint Paul that which he spake of the substance of bread you assigne to the action of breaking Fulke You slaunder him for although he vse the tearme of breaking of bread yet bee assigneth not the communication to the action of breaking but to the thing that is broken as in the other parte of the similitude you might see if malice had not made you blinde Euen so the bread of idoles c. Sand. Primasius tooke not the name of breade materially for wheaten bread but for all kinde of meate and drinke which the idolaters vsed therefore he meant the bread which we breake is no materiall breade but a kinde of meate which Christe hath prepared for vs. Fulk Primasius tooke bread materially for wheaten bread although not onely for wheaten breade Therfore he tooke the breade which we breake for wheaten bread for what else is broken Againe the argument is nought hee tooke bread of idolaters generally for all meates by synecdoche the figure Therefore hee taketh the bread of Christians specially for one kinde of meate which is no bread at all But howe answere you Primasius saying there is the same vnion betweene diuels or idols and them that eate their bread which is betweene the body of Christ and Christians which eat the bread which is broken The participation of the one cannot be bodily ergo not the other CAP. XXII Sand. It is proued that S. Hilarie thought the body of Christ to be really in the sacrament Hard. If the word be verily made flesh and we receiue verily the word being flesh in our Lords meat how he is to be thought not to dwell in vs naturally who both hath taken the nature of our fleshe nowe inseparable to himselfe in that he is borne man and also hath mingled the nature of his owne flesh to the nature of euerlastingnes vnder the sacrament of his flesh to bee receiued of vs in the communion Hil. de Trin. lib. 8. Iew. Master Harding hath not hitherto founde that Christes body is naturally or corporally in the sacrament Sand. You vse many shiftes whereof this is the last which I will nowe declare against your dissembling assertion Fulk Belike then D. Harding had not found that you are faine to seeke for him Iew. Against the Arrians Hilarius reasoned thus Christ is really ioined vnto the father as vnto vs but Christ is ioyned to vs by nature therefore Christ is ioyned to God the father by nature That Christ is ioyned to vs by nature he proueth it thus We are ioyned to Christ by faith that is by the nature of one faith and that is to say naturally Sand. He falsifieth S. Hilarie for he hath not the word naturally Fulk You slander him most impudently for he doth expounde the wordes of Hilarie Per vnius fidei naturam by the nature of one faith to be all one as if he had said naturally Sand. S. Hilaries intent is onely to shewe that faithfull men are one among themselues by nature of faith and not how Christ is ioyned to vs by that faith which he hath not at al for he answereth the argument of the Arrians grouÌ„ded vpon that place Act. 4. of the multitude of the beleeuers there was one soule and one heart Fulk As though there coulde bee anye vnitie of the belieuers among themselues but as they are al ioyned in one by Christ Christ to theÌ„ whoÌ„ blasphemously Sander affirmeth to haue had no faith froÌ„ the instant of his