precepts eate ye drinke ye but in al respects the cup was deliuered at the same time to the same persons when the bread was So that you must either exclude the people from both which I trust you dare not or admit them to both which is the very point that we presse you with Heare what a man of your side thinketh as well of this consequent as of your halfe communion There be some false catholikes that feare not to stop the reformation of the church what they can These spare no blasphemies least that other part of the Sacrament shoulde bee restoared to the lay people For say they Christ spake drinke ye all of this onely to the Apostles but the words of the Masse be these take and eate ye al of this Here I would know of them whether this were spoken only to the Apostles then must laymen abstaine likewise from the element of bread which to say is an heresie yea a pestilent and detestable blasphemie It is therefore consequēt that both these words eate ye drinke ye were spoken to the whole Church I will not take this aduantage that your owne fellow doth proclaime you for false Catholikes heretikes and horrible blasphemers God giue you grace to see whither you be fallen and whence This for your liues you cannot shifte but these two precepts eate ye drinke ye by the tenor of Christs institution must be referred to the same persons and so both or neither pertaine to the people Surely the wordes which our Sauiour vsed in deliuering the cup are more generall and effectiue than when he gaue the bread Drinke ye all of this and they all dranke of it take it diuide it among you This cup is the newe Testament in my blood which shall be shed for you Now the Lord shed not his blood for the Priest onely but also for the people neither was the new Testament established in the blood of Christ for the Priestes sake but as well for the redemption of the people Then as the fruites and effects of the blood of Christ are common to the people with the Priest so should the cup also which is the communion of his blood shed for the remission of the peoples sins be diuided indifferently betweene the Preist and people There is saieth Chrysostome where the Priest differeth nothing from the people as when wee must receiue the dreadfull mysteries For it is not here as it was in the olde Lawe where the Priest eate one part and the pleople an other neither was it lawfull for the people to be partaker of those thinges which the Priest was but now it is not so but rather one bodie is proposed to all and one cup. Phil. The church then might like that the people shoulde haue the cup as the church after did mislike it for many and weightie causes but how proue you that Christes precept extendeth vnto the people Theo. Wee can haue no better interpreter of Christes speech than his Apostle that was best acquainted with the true meaning of our Sauiour Wee haue sayth he the minde of Christ and that which I deliuered you I receiued of the Lorde So that hee did not correct but onely report the Lordes ordinaunce and in deliuering both kindes to the whole church of Corinth priest and people without exceptiō the teacher of the gentiles did neither swarue frō the first institutiō nor right intentiō of Christ his master The cup of thāksgiuing which we blesse is it not the communion of Christes blood The bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christs body Ye can not drink the cup of the Lord the cup of diuels Ye can not be partakers of the Lordes table and of the table of diuels Can you frame vs a reason out of these wordes of Sainct Paul to dissuade the Corinthians from eating and drinking such things as the Gentile there sacrificed to Idols not confesse that they dranke of the Lords cup It is not possible For this is Sainct Paules argument You can not drinke both the Lordes cuppe and the cuppe of diuels the cuppe of thankes giuing which wee blesse and you all drinke of is the communion of the Lordes blood therefore you maie not drinke of the cup of diuels YOV CANNOT DRINKE BOTH inferreth they did and should drinke one which was the Lordes cup not the cup of diuels els Paul should haue said you maie drinke neither not the cup of diuels for they might haue no fellowship with diuels neither the Lordes cup for that is reserued for the Priest by your doctrine but both saith Paul you cannot drinke ergo they must drinke one which was not the cup of diuels Againe the cup which they dranke not could to them be no Communion For nature teacheth vs that to be partaker of a cup is to drinke but the Lordes cup was to them the communion of his blood ergo they dranke of the Lordes cup. My collection is so cleare that the vulgar translation which you are tied to by the Councell of Trent putteth these verie woordes in the text Omnes de vno pane de vno calice participamus we all are partakers of one bread AND OF ONE CVP. Ambrose Hierom Bede Haymo and others found it so consequent to S. Pauls former woords and coherent with his maine reason that they sticke not to keepe this addition de vno calice in their verie terts on which they comment So that out of question Paul taught the Church of Corinth to distribute the Lordes supper to the Christians in both kindes and that as he saith he receiued of the Lorde And who◠that hath anie shame or sense left reading the next Chapter that followeth where Christes institution is fullie proposed and largelie debated by S. Paul will or can doubt but the Lorde at his last Supper ordained both kindes for all the faithfull As often saith Paul to the whole Congregation as ye shall eate this bread and drinke this cup ye shewe the Lordes death till he come Whosoeuer shall eate this bread drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthilie shall be guiltie of the bodie and blood of the Lorde Let a man therefore not speaking of this or that man but of euerie man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread and drinke of this cup. And least you should want a generall affirmatiue to iustifie this our exposition take these woordes of S. Paul and quiet your selfe By one spirit are we all Baptized into one bodie whether we be Iewes or Grecians bond or free and WE ALL HAVE DRVNKE into one spirit Can you looke for directer or plainer woordes All Iewes and Gentiles bond and free not onelie dranke but by drinking were made partakers of one and the same spirite uen as by baptisme they were grafted into one bodie Then if Christ himselfe deliuered both kindes at his last Supper
it or recall you backe from your enterprise is sacrilege Woe bee to you that call good euill and euill good which set darkenesse for light and light for darkenesse and put bitter for sweete and sweete for bitter Woe bee to you that are so wise in your owne eyes and so prudent in your owne conceites that you preferre your owne Counsell before the wisedome of God Philand Nay you preferre your wittes before the whole Church of GOD you woulde not other-wise take vppon you to controle your forefathers and teachers in such sort as you doe Theoph. If they forsooke their fathers yea GOD him-selfe why shoulde wee not renounce them rather as parricides than resemblance of their auncestours Philand They were Catholikes and so are wee Theoph. You leaue the steppes both of Christ and his Church and yet you must and will bee catholikes Philand Wee followe them better than you doe Theoph. So it appeareth by your halfe communion which they condemned for sacrilege and you embrace for Religion Phi. Here is such a stirre about eating and drinking as though all consisted therein and in the meane while you neglect and abolish the holy and vnbloody sacrifice which is farre more Catholike than your communion Theo. You neede not make so light of eating and drinking at the Lordes table There depende greater promises and dueties on that than on your vnbloody sacrificing the sonne of God As often as yee shall eate this breade and drinke this cup yee shewe the Lordes death till hee come Without eating and drinking therefore the Lordes death is not shewed The bread which we breake to be eaten is it not the communion of Christes body The cup of blessing which wee blesse that all may drinke of it is it not the communion of Christes blood If wee refuse eating the one or drinking the other can we be partakers of Christ or his spirit Hee that eateth my flesh sayth our sauiour and drinketh my blood dwelleth in mee and I in him and except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood yee haue no life in you These bee the fruites and effectes of religions and worthie eating and drinking at the Lordes table shewe vs the like for your sacrificing and wee will thinke you had some occasion though no reason to turne the Lords Supper into an offering Philand This one Sacrifice hath succeeded all other and fulfilled all other differences of Sacrifices and hath the force and vertue of all other to be offered for all persons and causes that the others for the lyuing and the dead for sinnes and for thankesgiuing and for what other necessitie soeuer of body or soule Bee not these as great and good effectes of our Sacrifice as those which you nowe rehearsed for eating and drinking at the Altar Theo. They bee great if you had as good authoritie for the one as wee haue for the other Philand Wee haue better Theo. Wee must giue you leaue to say so but you shall giue vs leaue not to beleeue you Phi. All the fathers with one consent stand on our side for the Sacrifice Theoph. Were it so that yet is many degrees beneath the credite of our conclusion You bring vs the speaches of men wee bring you the woorde of God I trust you will aguise some difference betwixt them Phi. As though wee coulde not bring you Scriptures as well as fathers for the sacrifice of the Masse Melchisedec by his oblation in bread and wyne did properly and most singularly prefigurate this office of Christes eternall Priesthoode and sacrificing himselfe vnder the formes of breadâ— and wyne which shall contynue in the Church throughout all Christian Nations in steede of all the offeringes of Aarons Priesthood as the Prophet Malachie did foretell as Saint Cyprian Saint Iustine Saint Irineus and others the most auncient Doctors and Martyrs doe testifie Cyprian epistola 63. num 2. Iustin. dial cum Trypho post med Iren. libro 4. capit 32. And Saint Augustine libro 17. cap. 20. de ciuitat Dei libro primo contra aduers. leg prophet ca. 18. lib. 3. de baptism ca. 19. S. Leo sermone 8. de passione auouch that this one sacrifice hath succeeded all other and fulfilled all other differences of Sacrifices c. Yea in S. Pauls epistle to the Church at Corinth the first and tenth chapter We maie obserue that our bread and chalice our table and altar the participation of our host and oblation be compared or resembled point by point in all effectes conditions and properties to the altars hostes sacrifices and immolatious of the Iewes and Gentiles Which the Apostle woulde not or coulde not haue done in this Sacrament of the altar rather than in other Sacraments or seruice of our Religion if it onelie had not beene a Sacrifice and the proper worship of God among the Christians as the other were among the Iewes and heathen And so doe all the fathers acknowledge calling it onelie and continuallie almost by such termes as they doe no other Sacrament or ceremonie of Christes Religion The Lamb of God laide vpon the table Concil Nicen. The vnbloodie seruice of the Sacrifice In Concil Ephesin epist. ad Nestor pag. 605. The sacrifice of sacrifices Dionys. Eccles. Hieronym cap. 3. The quickning holie sacrifice the vnbloodie host and victime Cyril Alex. in Concil Ephes. Anatâ— the propitiatorie sacrifice both for the liuing and the dead Tertul. de cor Milit. Chrys. ho. 41. in 1. Corinth ho. 3. ad Phil. Ho. 66. ad pop Antioch Cypr. epi. 66. decaena Do. nu 1. August Euch. 109. Quaest. 2. ad Dulcit to 4. Ser. 34. de verb. Apost The sacrifice of our mediator the sacrifice of our price the sacrifice of the newe Testament the sacrifice of the Church August li. 9. ca. 13. li. 3. de baptist ca. 19. The one only inconsumptible victime without which there is no Religion Cyprian de caen Do. nu 2. Chrysost. ho. 17. ad Hebr. The pure oblation the newe ofspring of the newe Law the vital and impolluted host the honoâ—râ—ble dreadful Sacrifice the Sacrifice of thankesgiuing or Eucharistical the Sacrifice of Melchisedec This is the Apostles and fathers doctrine God grant you may find mercy to see so euident and inuincible a trueth Theo. You be nowe where you would be and where the fathers seeme to fit your foote But if your sacrifice bee conuinced to bee nothing lesse than catholike or consequent to the Prophets Apostles or Fathers Doctrine what say you then to your vanitie in alleaging if not impietie in abusing so many Fathers and Scriptures to proppe vp your follies Phi. Bee not these places which we bring you for this matter vndeniable vnauoydable indefeatable vnanswerable Theo. In any case lay on loade of termes You haue made vs so many in your late Rhemish testameÌ„t that now you must not seeme to lack But what if all these places neede
neither denying auoyding defeating nor answering What if not one of these fathers whose works you cite as thick as hops euer spake or heard of your external and real sacrificing the sonne of God afresh for the sinnes of the worlde but they vsing the wordes Sacrifice and oblation to an other purpose you force a priuate and peculiar sense of yours vpon their speaches against their meanings Phi. This is euer your wont when the woordes bee so plaine that you can not deny them to flie to the meaning Theo. In deede this hath beene not the least of Satans sleights in conueying your Religion from steppe to step point by point to keepe the speach and chaunge the sense of the learned and auncient fathers that what with the phrases which were theirs and the forgeries which were not theirs and yet caried their names hee might make the way for Antichrist to set vp his visible Monarchie of error and hypocrisie Phi. This is the way to rid your selues of all obiections Theoph. And the other is the way to drowne your selues in the deapth of all corruption but so long as wee holde their fayth and doctrine which were the lights and lampes of Christes church we can spare you their phrases here and there skattered in their writings you no whit the neerer the trueth of their beliefe Phi. You hold not their fayth in this or any other point of your Religion Theo. The greatest boasters bee not alwaies the greatest conquerours Let it therefore first appeare what they teache touching the Sacrifice of the Lords table and what wee admit and then it will soone bee seene which of vs twaine hath departed from them The fathers with one consent call not your priuate Masse that they neuer knew but the Lordes Supper a Sacrifice which wee both willingly graunt and openly teach so their text not your gloze may preuayle For there besides the sacrifice of praier and thankesgiuing which we must then offer to God for our redemption other his graces bestowed on vs in Christ his sonne besides the dedication of our soules and bodies to be a reasonable quicke and holy sacrifice to serue and please him besides the contribution and almes then giuen in the primatiue Church for the reliefe of the poore and other good vses a Sacrifice no doubt very acceptable to God I say besides these three sundry sortes of offerings incident to the Lordes table the very Supper itselfe is a publike memorial of that great dreadful sacrifice I meane of the death bloodshedding of our sauiour and a most assured application of the merites of his passion for the remission of our sinnes not to the gazers on or standers by but to those that with faith and repentance come to the due receiuing of those mysteries The visible sacrifice of bread and wyne representing the Lords death S. Austen enforceth in these words Hold most firmly neither doubt of this in any case that the only begotten sonne of God taking our flesh offered himselfe a sweet smelling sacrifice to god to whom with the father the holy ghost the Patriarks Prophets Priests vnder the old law sacrificed brute beasts to whoÌ„ now in the time of the new Testament with the same father holy spirite the holy Catholike Church throughout the world doth not cease to ofâ—er the sacrifice of breade and wine in faith charitie In those carnal Sacrifices there was a figuration of the flesh of Christ which he should offer bloud which he should shed for the remissioÌ„ of our sins In this sacrifice there is a thankesgiuing remembrance of the flesh which he hath offered and bloud which the same god hath shed for vs. With him agreeth Ireneus Christ willing his Disciples to offer vnto God the first fruites of his creatures not that god needed them but lest they should be found vnfruiteful or vnthankful toke the creature of bread and gaue thanks saying this is my body And likewise he confessed the cup which is a creature amongst vs to be his bloud teaching the new oblation of the new Testament which the Church receiuing from the Apostles offereth to God throughout the world We must theÌ„ offer to god in al things yeeld thanks to god the maker with a pure mind vnfaigned faith stedfast hope and feruent loue offering the first fruits of his Creatures and this oblation the Church only sacrificeth in purity to the creator offering to God of his creatures with thanksgiuing And this we offer to him not as if he stoode in neede of these presents but rendring him thanks for these his gifts and sanctifieng the creature This oblation of bread wyne for a thankesgiuing to God a memoriall of his sonnes death was so confessed vndoubted a trueth in the church of Christ till your Schoolemen beganne to wrest both Scriptures and Fathers to serue their quiddities that not onely the Liturgies vnder the names of Clemens Basil and Chrysostome do mention it We offer to thee our king and God this bread this cup according to thy sonnes institutioÌ„ tua ex tuis offerimus tibi domine we offer thee O Lord these thy gifts of thine own creatures Which sense Irineus vrgeth against valentine but also the very Missals vsed in your own Churches at this day do confirme the same These be the woordes of your own Offertorie Receiue holy Father God euerlasting this vndefiled host which I thine vnworthy seruant offer to thee my king and true God for my sinnes negligences and offences innumerable for al standers by yea for all faithful christians as wel liuing as departed this life that it may helpe me theÌ„ to attaine eternal life We offer to thee O Lord this cup of saluation intreating thy goodnes that it may be taken vp into thy sight as a sweet smell for the sauing of vs the whole world Receiue blessed Trinitie this oblatioÌ„ which we offer to thee in remeÌ„brance of the passion resurrection asceÌ„tion of Christ Iesus our Lord. We humbly beseech thee most merciful father through Iesus Christ thy son our Lord that thou accept blesse these gifts these preseÌ„ts these holy vndefiled sacrifices which we offer to thee first for thy Church holy and catholike c. For al true belieuers c. For al here present c. For the redemption of their soules and hope of saluation Certainely you speake these words long before you repeate Christs institution your Masse-booke doth apparently prooue that which I report if I mistake the secretes of your masse let the shame bee mine What then offer you in this place Christ or the creatures of bread wine By your own doctrine Christ is not present neither any change made til these wordes This is my body this is my blood be pronounced ergo before consecration the creatures of bread wyne keepe their
proper earthly substance when notwithstanding your selues offer thē to God in your masses for the remissiō of your sins redēption of your soules to profit the quick the dead by that oblation You teach the people that nothing is offred by the priest to god the father for remission of sins but Christ his son Your masse where this should be done conuinceth that you sacrifice not Christ but the creatures of bread wine Be you not more thā blind which see not that the praiers which you daily frequent refute the sacrifice which you falsly pretend Phi. As though the ancient fathers did not also say that Christ himself is daily offred in the church Theo. Not in the substance which is your error but in signification which is their doctrine ours Take their interpretation with their words they make nothing for your local external offring of christ Was not Christ saith Austen once sacrificed in himselfe and yet in a sacrament is he offered for the benefite of the people not euery Paschal feast only but euery day Neither doth he lie that whē the questiō is asked him answereth Christ is offred daily For if Sacraments had not a certain similitude of the things wherof they be sacraments they should be no Sacraments at al. And by reason of this similitude they vsually take the names of the things them-selues Christ is offred daily this is true saith Austen but how The communion is a sacrament of the Lords death sacraments haue the names of the things them selues from a certaine resemblance that is betwene them This doctrine differeth much from yours and yet must Austen stand for a christian and Catholike father when you by your patience shall goe for vpstarts Phi. S. Augustine spake this not of the liuely flesh blood of Christ which we sacrifice to god the father by the priests hands for the sins necessities of mē but of his death passiō represented at our masse by the holy mysteries The. In deed S. Augustin spake of that he knew as for your cōceit of sacrificing the liuely flesh blood of Christ in substance vnder the formes of bread wine by the priests hands neither he nor any good author was euer acquainted with it And to say the truth the very spring roote of your error is this that you seek for a sacrifice in the Lords supper besides the Lords death Marke wel the words of Cyprian The passion of the Lord is the sacrifice which we offer Of Ambrose Our high priest is he that offred on the crosse a sacrifice to clense vs the very same we offer now which being then offred cannot be consumed this Sacrifice is a sāplar of that we offer that very sacrifice for euer Of Eusebius Christ after al things ended offred a wōderful oblation most excellent sacrifice on the crosse for the saluation of vs al gaue vs a memorie therof in stead of a sacrifice we therfore offer the remēbrance of that great sacrifice in the mysteries which he deliuered vs. Of Chrysost. Bringing these mysteries we stop the mouthes of those that aske how we proue that Christ was sacrificed on the crosse For if Iesus were not slaine whose signe and token is this sacrifice Of Austen We sacrifice to God in that only manner in which he commanded we should offer to him at the reuealing of the new Testament the flesh and blood of this sacrifice was yeelded in verie trueth when Christ was put to death after his ascention it is now solemnized by a Sacramēt of memorie The verie elements and actions of the Lordes Supper conuince no lesse The bread which we breake what else doth it represent but the Lordes bodie that was broken for vs The cup which we drinke what els doth it resemble saue the Lordes blood that was shed for our sakes When the host is broken and the blood poured out of the cup into the mouthes of the faithfull what other thing saith Prosper is thereby designed than the offering of the Lordes bodie on the crosse and the shedding of his blood from his side As often as you shall eate this bread and drinke of this cup you shewe forth the Lordes death till he come saith Paul There can be no question of this the spirit of god hath spoken it Then if the death of Christ be the sacrifice which the church offreth it is euident that christ is not only sacrificed at this table but also crucified crucified in that selfe same sort sense that he is sacrificed but no man is so mad as to defēd that christ is really put to death in these mysteries ergo neither is he really sacrificed vnder the formes of bread wine which thing your selues haue lately ventered rashly presumed without al antiquity The catholik fathers I can assure you say christ is offered christ is crucified in the Lords supper indifferently So Ierom Christ is euery day crucified to vs. So Chrysostom The death of christ is here performed So Gregory Christ dieth againe in this mysterie his flesh suffreth for the saluation of the people so to conclude Austen The gētiles now through the whole world tast lick the passion of Christ in the sacraments of his body blood If you can expound this you shall not neede to stagger at the rest The church hath no Sacrifice propiciatorie besides the death of her Sauiour and therefore as she doth kill him so she doth offer him in her mysteries If you can not learne by the direction of your own decrees what doctrin was taught in the primatiue church and euen in your own church for 1300. yeres touching this matter The offering of the Lords flesh by the Priests hands is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ Non rei veritate sed significante mysterio Not in precise truth but in a mystical signification or it your gloze delight you rather In this mysterie Christ dieth that is his death is represented his flesh suffereth that is his passion is represented In this very sense Christ is offred daily Chrysostom Do we not offer euery day we do but a memorial of his death We do not offer an other sacrifice but euer the same or rather we continue the remembrance of that sacrifice Ambrose Because we were deliuered by the Lords death we bearing that in mynd do signifie with eating and drinking the flesh and blood that were offred for vs It is a memorial of our redemption Eusebius Christ offered a wonderful sacrifice for the saluatiō of vs al we haue receiued a memorial of that most sacred oblation to be performed at the Lordes table according to the rule of the new testament Augustin Christ is our high priest after the order of Melchisedec which yeelded himself a slain sacrifice for our sinnes and gaue vs a
Christ if you know not whereof he spake proue no conuersion of the bread into his body For vnlesse THIS be taken to import the bread the bread by those wordes can not be changed and if not by these then surely by none Phi. I see your drift you fet about to force me to confesse that by the strict coherence of our Sauiours wordes the bread is Christ since that propositioÌ„ in precise speech is vntrue you would come in with your figures Theo. And your drift is as open that hauing deuised a reall and carnall presence to your selues by colour of Christes wordes and perceiuing the same to bee no way consequent to the letter which you pretend least you shoulde bee disproued to your faces you will not admit the perfect and plaine context of Christes wordes but stand houering about other sophisticall illusions which will not helpe you For we haue the ful confession of scriptures fathers against you that the pronoune THIS in Christes words must bee restrained to the bread and to nothing else The Lord tooke breade and when hee had giuen thankes he brake no doubt the bread that he tooke and gaue to the Disciples the selfesame that he brake saying take ye eate ye this that I giue you This is my bodie What THIS could our Sauiour mean but THIS that he gaue THIS that he brake THIS that he tooke which by the witnesse of the Scripture it selfe was bread If you suppose that he tooke bread but brake it not or brake it but gaue it not or gaue it his Disciples to eate but told them not this which he gaue them but some other thing besides that was his body you make the Lords supper a merry iest where the later end starteth from the beginning and the middle from the both The pronoune THIS of it selfe inferreth nothing and therefore except you name the bread which Christ pointed vnto when he spake these wordes you coÌ„firme not the faithes but amase the wits of your followers S. Paul proposing the Lordes Supper to the church of Corinth expresseth that very word which we say the circumstances of the Gospel import As often as ye shall eate saith he This bread and drinke this cuppe you shew foorth the Lords death till he come The bread which he brake is it not the communion of Christs body Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of that bread and drinke of that cup for whosoeuer shall eat this breade and drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthily shal be guilty of the body blood of the Lord. So that as wel by the cohereÌ„ce of the former words in the description of the Lords supper as by the manifest adiectioÌ„ which S. Paul putteth to the demoÌ„stratiue we conclude our sauior pronouÌ„ced of the bread that it was his body The referring of THIS to the bread all the catholik fathers that euer wrate with pen in the church of God acknowledge with one consent Iustinus Wee be taught that the sanctified foode which nourisheth our fleshe and our blood is the fleshe and blood of that Iesu. Tertullian So Christ taught vs calling bread his bodie and discussing the wordes of the supper Why saith he doth Christ there call bread his bodie Austen That which your faith requireth to be taught the bread is the body of Christ and the cup his blood Cyprian Our Lord at his table gaue to the Disciples with his own handes bread and wine on the crosse hee yeelded his body to the souldiers handes to be wounded that his Apostles might teach all Nations how bread and wine were his flesh and blood Ireneus How shall it appeare to them that the bread on which they giue thankes is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood if they graunt not Christ to be the sonne of the creator of the world How did the Lord rightly if an other were his father taking bread of this condition that is vsuall amongst vs confesse it to bee his body Hierom Let vs learn that the bread which the Lord brake gaue to his disciples is the Lords body himself saying to theÌ„ take ye eate ye this is my body Athan. or at lest the coÌ„mentary that is extaÌ„t in his name What is the bread the body of Christ. Epiphan Of that which is round in figure sensles in power the Lord would say by grace this is my body Cyrill Christ thus auoucheth and saith of the bread this is my body Theodorete In the verie giuing of the misteries he called bread his body And of all others your selues may not shrink from this resolution of Christs wordes the surest holde of your reall presence though it bee not much standeth onely on this settle For what wordes haue you besides thâ—se to proue that the breade is chaunged from his former substaunce Uerily none Then if in these wordes which should worke the change there be no mention at all of bread how can that which is no way comprised in them bee chaunged by them So miraculous a change can not be wrought by silence but rather if any such be by the power of Christes words and in those words must the thing at least be named that shall be changed Againe the demonstratiue THIS must needes note that which was there present on the Lordes table before the words of consecration were wholy repeated and the flesh of Christ coulde not be present vnder the likenesse of bread without or before Consecration ergo the pronoune inferreth not Christ but the bread which by your owne positions is not abolished but in vltimo instanti prolationis verboruÌ„ in the very last end instant of vttering these wordes And therefore remaine in his owne nature wheÌ„ the first word was pronounced Which some not the meanest men of your side foresaw very well howsoeuer you since haue taken other counsel and therefore they say Dicendum est quod hoc demonstrat substantiam panis We must behold saith Gerson that the pronoune THIS doeth demonstrate the substaunce of bread and Steuen Gardiner Christus ait euidenter hoc est corpus meum demonstrans panem Christ sayeth plainly this is my body pointing to the bread Notwithstanding afterward he changed his minde in this as in many other thinges came to Indiuiduum vagum as if Christ had saide THIS what is it I can not tell but it must needes be somwhat is my body Occam and other profound fellowes of your side bethinking themselues how your opinion might best agree with the wordes of Christ say the pronoune THIS must be referred to the bodie of Christ as if our Sauiour had said this my body is my body To make all cocksure the coronell of your scholmen I meane the gloze resolueth the doubt on this wife Solet quaeri quid demonstretur per pronomen
earthly cogitations of the mysticall elements and to stir them rather to marke in this Sacrament the wonderfull power and effects of Gods spirit and grace than the base condition and naturall digestion of bread and wine Phi. Would S. Chrysostom haue vs thinke the mysteries to bee consumed vnlesse in deede they were consumed Theo. His directing our cogitations for religion and reuerence rather to the inward force than outward appearance of the mysteries doeth not chaunge the sensible qualities of bread and wine whereof hee spake much lesse the substance alone whereof he spake not but draweth the receiuers from that which their eyes behold to that which by faith they beleeue to the secreter and diuiner part of the Sacrament not abolishing the one but preferring the other as more worthy to be considered and desired by the commers to the Lordes table And in this sense he willeth the people not to thinke that the Priest is a man in the verie next wordes that followe without line or letter betwixt Wherefore approaching to the Lordes table doe not thinke that you receiue the diuine body at the handes of a man but that you take a fierie coale by the Seraphims tongues which Esay sawe in his vision Can this be Chrysostoms meaning that in act and verie deede the Priest is changed into a Seraphim his hand into a paire of tongs the body of Christ into a coale of fire Except you be past your fiue wits you wil say no yet Chrysostom in the same place perswadeth the cōmunicants so to think as he did before that the mysteries were consumed by the substance or presence of Christs body Then if the latter wordes inferre no such chaunge why should the former If you be not so foolish as to mistake the second part of this sentence why be you so wilfull as to peruert the first vttered at the same time to the same purpose with the verie same phrase of speach Chrysostomes intent is no more to transsubstantiate the bread than the priest or the bodie of Christ but with vehement amplifications as his manner is he perswadeth the people to come to the Lordes table with no lesse reuerence than if they were to receiue a fierie coale as Esay did in his vision from one of the glorious Seraphims And to this end also doth he kendle them what he can not to be basely minded and affected toward the mysteries as if they were onely bread and wine in that sort to passe through the bellie with other meates but to prepare their hartes and to lift them vp to God as they promised to doe when the Priest saide lift vp your minds and harts they made answere we lift them vp vnto the Lord. These wordes therefore force no reall mutation in the thinges receiued but leade the receiuers from thinking on the weake creatures which they see to the mighty power of Gods graces which they see not and this is done with a religious cōsideration not with any monsterous transubstantiation or annihilation of the sacred mysteries Phi. S. Cyrill of Ierusalem saith Know you for a suerty that this bread which is seene of vs is not bread though the tast find it to be bread but the body of Christ. And so Theophilact It appeareth to bee bread but it is fleshe Theo. The first authors of this speach were late writers as Theophilact or lately set foorth by your fellowes not without great suspition as Cyrill of Ierusalem and the speech it selfe doth somwhat vary from the stile both of the Scriptures and fathers which acknowledge this mysterie to be bread wine The bread which we breake saith Paul is it not the communion of Christes body We all are partakers of one bread As often as you eate of this bread drink of this cup you shew the Lords death til he come Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread and drink of this cup. And our Sauiour in the Gospell speaking of the cup I will not drinke hencefoorth of this fruit of the vine Tertul. Christ hath not euen at this day reiected the water of the creator by which he doth wash his nor the bread by the which hee doth represent his verie body Clemens Alexandrinus This is my blood euē the blood of the grape Cyprian We find it was wine which the Lord called his blood The Lord called his body bread kneaded togither of many cornes and his blood wine pressed out of many clusters of grapes Origen The Lords bread according to the materiall partes thereof goeth into the belly and so foorth by the draught Austen As the men of God before vs did expound this the Lord commended his body blood in those things which are made one of many For the first is kneaded of many cornes into one lumpe the other is pressed of many clusters into one liquour That then which you saw is bread which also your eyes can tell you Cyrill of Alexandria To the beleeuing Disciples Christ gaue peeces of breade saying take eate this is my body Hesychius Hee meaneth that mystery which is both breade and fleshe The phrase it selfe therefore It is not bread sauoreth of later ages and writers and crosseth that course of speeche which both Scriptures and Fathers obserued and yet if you suffer them to declare their owne mindes they may soone be reconciled to the rest Theophilact expressing the same point in other wordes saieth Speciem quidem panis vini seruat in virtutem autem carnis sanguinis transelementat Christ keepeth the shape or kind of bread and wine but changeth thē into the vertue of his body and blood Cyrill openeth his owne saying more at large The bread of the Eucharist after the inuocation of the holy Ghost is nowe no more common bread but the bodie of Christ. In the new Law the heauenly bread and cup of saluation sanctifie both soule and bodie As the bread serueth for the bodie so doth the word for the soule Thinke not therefore of the Sacrament as of bare bread and bare wine it is the body and blood of Christ according to the Lordes owne wordes And although sense tell thee this that is bare bread and wine yet let faith confirme thee neither iudge them by tast but rather by faith assure thy selfe without all doubt that the body and blood of Christ are giuen vnto thee This assertion we grant is right and good and this intent had hee when hee said the bread which is seene is no bread meaning no common no bare bread In which assertion other ancient Fathers concurre with him Iustinus Wee receiue not these thinges as a common vsual bread or accustomed drink but we be taught that the food blessed by praier of the worde receiued from him is the fleshe and blood of that Iesus which tooke fleshe for our sakes Ireneus
similitude image of that oblation to be celebrated for a remēbrance of his passiō in so much that we may see that which Melchisedec offred to God now sacrificed in the church of Christ throughout the world Emissenus Considering that Christ was to take his body from our eyes place the same in the heauens it was requisite he should institute the sacrament of his body and blood for vs at his last supper that it might alwaies be continued in a mysterie which was once offred for a ransom because the work of our redemption did neuer faile the sacrifice of our redemption might be perpetual and that euerlasting oblation of Christ on the crosse might remaine fresh in memorie and present for euer in grace Theodorete If Christ by his owne sacrifice on the crosse brought to passe that other sacrifices should be superfluous why doe the Priests of the new Testament execute the mysticall Lyturgie or Sacrifice It is cleare to them that are instructed in our mysteries that we doe not offer an other sacrifice but continue the memorie of that one and healthful Sacrifice For so the Lord himself commanded vs doe this in my remembrance that in beholding the figures we should remember the paines which he suffered for vs beare a louing heart towards him that did vs so much fauour and expect the receiuing of good things to come which he promised Theophilact Do we then offer vnbloody sacrifices No doubt wee doe◠mary by being a remembrance of the Lords death He was once offred and yet we offer him alwaies or rather we celebrate the memorial of that oblation when he sacrificed himselfe on the crosse Receiue this addition which they make and wee graunt you that oblation which they teach Christ is offered or rather a memorial of his death and oblation is celebrated This later correction doeth expound and interprete their former assertion You can require no plainer nor sounder doctrine They piese not Christ with their handes they shroud him not in accidences they pray not for him that God will vouchsafe to respect and accept him as hee did the giftes and external sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchisedec as you do in your Masses they neuer tolde vs the very fact and intention of the Priest were meritorious these bee your absurdities and blasphemies They did offer an vnbloody sacrifice not of flesh but of Spirite and mynd the selfe-same which Melchisedec did two thousande yeeres before Christ tooke flesh and therefore not the flesh of Christ a figuratiue sacrifice to witte Signes Samplars Similitudes and Memorials of his death and bloodshedding So that Christ is offered dayly but Mystically not couered with qualities and quantities of bread and wyne for those be neither mysteries nor resemblances to the death of Christ but by the breade which is broken by the wyne which is drunke in substance creatures in signification Sacraments the Lordes death is figured proposed to the communicants and they for their parts no lesse people than Priest do present Christ hanging on the crosse to God the father with a liuely faith inward deuotion and humble prayer as a most sufficiēt and euerlasting Sacrifice for the full remission of their sinnes and assured fruition of his mercies Other actual and propitiatorie sacrifice than this the church of Christ neuer had neuer taught You beleeue not mee Well what if your owne fellowes and friends teach the same What if the master of your Sentences what if the Glozer of your decrees what if the Ringleader of your Schoolemen make with vs in this question and euince that for twelue hundred yeres after Christ your Sacrifice was not knowen to the woorlde will you giue the people leaue to bethinke themselues better before they call you or account you catholikes Then heare what they say Peter Lombard in his 4. booke and 12. distinction I demaund whether that which the Priest doeth bee properly called a Sacrifice or an oblation and whether Christ be daily offered or els were offered only once To this our answere is briefe that which is offred and consecrated by the priest is called a sacrifice and oblatiō because it is a memorie representation of the true sacrifice holy oblatiō made on the altar of the crosse Also Christ died once on the crosse and there was he offred himself but he is offred daily in a sacrament because in the Sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was once done Now what this meaneth Christ is offred in a sacramēt we need no fairer interpretation thā that which your own gloze oftē repeateth Christ is offred in a sacrament that is his offring is represented a memorie of his passion celebrated It is the same oblation which he made * that is a representation of the same passion Christ is offered euery day mystically * that is the oblation which Christ made for vs is represented in the sacrament of his body blood With these concurreth Thomas of Aquine Because the celebration of this Sacrament is a certaine Image of Christs passion it maie conuenientlie be called the sacrificing of Christ. The celebration of this Sacrament is termed the immolating of Christ in two respects First for that as Austen saith resemblances are woont to be called by the names of those thinges whose resemblances they are next for that by this sacrament wee be made partakers of the fruite of the Lordes passion Here find you no reall locall nor externall offering of Christ to God his father by the Priest for the sinnes of the people which is your opinion at this daie you finde that the celebration of the Lordes supper maie be called an oblation first for that it is a representation of Christs death and sacraments haue the names of the things which they signifie next because the merits and fruits of Christs passion are by the power of his spirite diuided and bestowed on the faithfull receiuers of these mysteries Nowe boast of your Catholike doctrine that your pratling Sophists and wandering Friers inuented but yesterday now call for your souereigne Sacrifice not onelie repugnant to the sacred Scriptures and auncient fathers but reiected by the Mint-master of your sentences refuted by the conclusions of your Seraphicall Doctor shunned by your rude Gloze-maker and cleane thwart to the Canon of your ordinarie Masse If you speede no better in the rest of your causes a worse name than fugitiues will become you and your companions well enough without perill of slaunder or breach of charitie These foundations lying sure to wit that the creatures of bread and wine are offered to God for a thanksgiuing when they be sanctified and receiued according to his sonnes institution and that Christ himselfe is daylie offered and crucified in a mysterie because the breaking of his bodie and shedding of his blood on the crosse are proposed and renewed by the bread
the thinges themselues whose signes those are Philand It were Theophil Why then since corporall eating serueth only for corporall nourishing and hath a continuall and naturall coherence with it doe you confesse the trueth in the later and not as well in the former part of that action why doe you not expound them both alike Philand To say the immortall fleshe of Christ is conuerted and turned into the quantitie and substaunce of our mortall flesh is an horrible heresie Theophil And so say that his fleshe is eaten with our mouthes and â—awes lâ—â—th in our stomacks is the verie pathway right introduction to that heresie or at least to as brutish and grosse an erour as that is Philand The Fathers affirme that his body is eaten with our mouthes Theophil And so they affirme that his bodie and blood doe increase and augment the substaunce of our mortall and sinnefull bodies Philand But that can not bee Theophil No more can the other Philand Howe shall our bodies rise at the last day if Christes body bee not in them Theophil Our resurrection dependeth not on the act of eating his flesh but of nourishing our fleshe with his as Ireneus telleth vs and the thinges which wee eate are not the causes but as the great Nicene councell admonisheth the pledges of our resurrection Their words be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must beleeue these to bee the signes or pledges of our resurrection Philand S. Chrysostom earnestly inforceth the eating of Christs flesh And sayth wee doe not onely eate it but euen * fasten our teeth in his fleshe Theo. In deede hee saith so but if you did not auert both your eyes and eares from the trueth you would perceiue by that verie sentence both the maner of his other Fathers speeches of that Sacrament and the right intent of their Doctrine in those cases His wordes are Non se tantum videri permittens desiderantibus sed tangi manducari dentes carni suae infigi desiderio sui omnes impleri Christ suffering himselfe not only to bee seene of those that are desirous but to bee touched and eaten and our teeth to bee fastned in his flesh and all to be satisfied of their longing after him Phi. Lord me thinketh these words be verie plain words He suffereth our teeth to bee fastned in his fleshe Theo. Uerie plaine they bee but very false also vnlesse you either take the flesh of Christ for the signe called by that name or else referre teeth and biting to the soule and faith of the â—â—ward man aâ— wel as you do the eyes hands wherewith we see him touch him Phi. Look what an â—â—â—sion you haue since gotten Theo. Nay looke what a subuersion of all truth and saith you be since fallen to Phi. Doth not this Father say wee fasten our teeth in his flesh Theo. Doeth hee not also say We see him with our eyes touch him with our handes Phi. That is referred to our faith as S. Ambrose teacheth Fide Christus videtur side Christus tangitur By faith Christ is seene by fayth Christ is touched Theoph. And why shall not the next which is more vnlikely to bee true bee referred to faith as well as the former Sainct Ambrose likewise saying Comedat te cor meuÌ„ panis sancte panis viue panis munde veni in cor meum intra in animam meam Let mine heart eate thee O holy bread O liuing bread O pure-bread come into my heart enter into my soule and Cyprian calling it the proper norishment of the spirite besides infinite others that for a thowsande yeares taught that doctrine in the church of God not your gutturall eating of Christ with teeth and iawes Phi. Was your maner of eating Christes fleshe which you defende in the sacrament taught in the church for a thowsande yeares Theop. Euen ours was and when yours came first to be proposed your schoolemen ran euery man his way fighting and scratching one an other â—ho should fal fastest and farthest from the truth Philand Blush you not to auouch two such monsterous lies Theop. A lyar will easily suspect any man as knowing him-selfe to delight in lies but GOD bee thanked that lyes with you bee truethes with vs and with all that haue any knowlegde of GOD or care of his truth The things which I affirmed be manifest truethes and such as you will blush at for verie shame if you be not sworne to your holie Father against Christ as well as you bee against your Prince Origen commenting vppon these wordes of the Supper this is my bodie this is my blood this breade sayeth hee which Christ confesseth to bee his bodie is the worde that nourisheth our soules and this drinke which hee confesseth to bee his blood is the worde that moysteneth and passinglie cheereth the heartes of such as drinke it Thou which art come vnto Christ sticke not in the blood of his fleshe but rather learne the blood of his worde and heare him saying to thee this is my blood which shall bee shedde for the remission of your sinnes Hee that is partaker of the mysteries knoweth the flesh and blood of the worde of God For the bread is the word of righteousnesse which our soules eating are nourished with and the drink is the worde of the knowledge of Christ according to the mysterie of his birth and death The blood of the Testament is poured into our heartes for the remission of our sinnes Athanasius Howe fewe men woulde his bodie haue sufficed that this shoulde bee the foode of the whole worlde Yea therefore doeth bee warne them of his ascension into heauen that he might drawe him from thinking on his bodie and they thereby learne that the flesh which he spake of was celestiall meate from aboue and spirituall nourishment to bee giuen by him The wordes which I spake to you are spirite and life which is as much as if hee had sayde this bodie which is in your sight and delyuered to death for the worlde shall bee giuen you for meate that it may bee spiritually distributed in euery one of you and be an assuraunce and preseruatiue to raise you to eternall life Cyprian writing of the Lordes Supper Eating and drinking saieth hee bee referred to the one and same end with the which as the substance of our bodies is increased and preserued so the life of the spirite is maintained with his proper nourishment What foode is to the fleshe that faith is to the soule what meate is to the body that the worde is to the spirite working euerlastingly with a more excellent vertue that which bodily meates doe for a time and vntill a season Ambrose approaching to the sacred communion which you intitle a prayer preparing to Masse amongest other thinges speaketh thus to Christ himselfe Thou Lord saydst with thine holy and blessed mouth the bread
of them is the popish Sacrifice August de side ad Peâ—â— cap. 19. The Catholike Church offeâ—eth bread and wine to God for a thankesgiuing in remembrance of his sonnes death Our Sacrifice is the giuing of thankes and remembring of his death b Irineus lib. 4. cap. 32. c Ibidem cap. 34. The Church offereth to God of his creatures with thanksgiuing sanctifying that which the faithfull receiue at the Lords table d Clemens Apost constitutio lib. 8. cap. 17. e Liturg. Chrys. Basil. f Lib. 4. cap. 34. g Offertorium Missae Their owne Masse-booke is against the sacrifice which they defend to be in their masse h Ibidem i Ibidem k Ibidem By their owne bookes it is euident that they doe not sacrifice Christ but the creatuâ—es of bread and wine Marke this contradiction in their masse-booke to the sacrifice which the Iesuits pretend l Aug. ad Bonif. epist. 23. Christ is offered not in substance but in a Sacrament or representation of his death Christ slaine for our sinnes is the true sacrifice of the Lords table a Cypr. li. 2. ep 3. b Ambros. in 10. ca. epist. ad Heb. c Euseb. de demonst Euang. lib. 1. cap. 10. d Chrys. in Mat. hom 83. e Aug. contra Faust. l. 20. c. 21. The actions and elements of the supper resemble his death f De cons. dist 2. § cum frangitur g 1. Cor. cap. 11. As Christ is crucified in the mysticall supper euen so is he offered h Hier. in ps 95. i Chrysost. in acta Apost hom 21. k De cons. dist 2. § quid sit sanguis l Aug. Euang. quaest l. 2. ca. 38. m De cons. dist 2. § hoc est quod alâ—imus n Glossa de cons. dist 2. § quid sit sanguis o Chrysost. in 10. cap. episâ—â—d Hebr. p Ambr. in 11. ca. epist. 1. ad Cor. q Eusebale demonstra Euangelic lib. 1. ca. 10. r August 83. quaest cap 61. Christ is offered at the table that is a sacrament similitude of his death is celebrated s De cons dist 2. § quia corpus This is Christian comfortable doctrine Theod. in cap. 8. ad Hebr. Theoph. in 10. cap. ad Hebrâ—os What sacrifice the fathers taught and offered * Canon Missae supra § propitio ac sereno vultu a Liturgia Basilij b Cypr. li. 2. epist. 3. August 83. quaest ca. 3. c Dionys. eccles hierach cap. 3. d Paschal de cons. dist 2. § iteratur The true exposition of the Sacrifice at the Lordes table How long the Church was without their kind of sacrifice Sententiarum lib. dist 12. The master of the sentences is against the Iesuits in the sacrifice of their Masse f Glossa de cons. dist 2. ¶ semel g § in Christo. h § Iteratur Thom. part 3. quâ—est 83. art 1. * The latter schoolemen since Thomas mistaking the former turned these words to opus operatum and taught the Priests act to be the right meane to applie Christes death to the quick and the dead Can their doctrine be Catholike that so latelie was vnknowen to their own fellowes 24. places cited by the Iesuits in their testament to no purpose and so 14. by the maker of their Apologie Their reall actuall sacrifice must needes be made with handes and so the gestures of the Priests hands is all the sacrifice the Iesuites haue What Sacrifice it is that God regardeth The Rhemish Test. fol. 447. Malac. 1. The prophesy of Malachie discussed 1. Pet. 2. What sacrifices the newe testament teacheth vs to offer vnto God a Hebr. 13. The Sacrifice of praise Of mercie b Phil. 4. c Rom. 12. Of our selues d Psal. 115. Eccles. 35. Psal. 50. These be the sacrifices of the new testament which God requireth at our handes and of which Malachie speaketh The Iesuites in alledging the fathers vse such cunning that a man caÌ„ hardlie perceiue to what end they name them Three fathers abused by the Iesuits to peruert the words of Malachie Cyprian in that place which they cite doth not so much as speake of Malachie Cyp. ad QuirinuÌ„ lib. 1. cap. 16. Iustinâ—â—n Dial. cum Tryphone aduers. Iudaeos Iustinus restraineth the words of Malachie to praiers and thankes other sacrifice he acknowledgeth none in the Lords supper Irenae li. 4. ca. 33 * Ibidem cap. 34 Ireneus expoundeth Malachies wordes of praier obedience and thankesgiuing as we doe Iren. lib. 4. ca. 34 Ireneus teacheth not the offering of Christ to his father but of creatures for a signe of thaÌ„kfulnes Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34 The rest of the fathers interprete Malachies wordes after the same manner a Tertul. aduer lud eos b Tertul. aduer Marc. lib. 4. c Euseb. de demonst Euang. lib. 1. cap. 6. d Cyril contra Iuliaâ—â—m â—i 10. e Hie. in Zachariam lib. 2. ca. 8. f August contr liter Petilia li 2. cap. 86. We striue not for the worde sacrifice which the Iesuites verie diligentlie prooue but for their kinde of sacrifice which they cannot proue by the testimonie of any one father In what sense the Lords supper is both a Sacrament a Sacrifice Our duties to God are our sacrifices FroÌ„ these sacrifices the Eucharist hath his name This sacrameÌ„t hath the similitude and therefore the name of Christs death and passion The Iesuits are verie plentifull in heaping impertinent allegations The Rhe. Test pag. 447. All these fathers speake of Christs bodie broken and blood shed on the cross which are resembled in this sacrament The power of Christs death the Iesuits attribute to the Priests act The Iesuites sacrifice How the death of Christ is both offered and applied Your feate was to prepare the peoplâ— against a daie A man maie soone peâ—uerâ— the fathers by skores as the Iesuits haue done in their Testament What sacrifice it is the Iesuits woulde establish They produce the name of sacrifice vsed by the fathers and vnderstand thereby their owne fansies The reason whie we doe not vse the worde sacrifice so often as the fathers doe The fathers phrases beguiled the Iesuits whiles they were too eger on them The name of sacrifice hath no warrant in the Scripture The Rhe. Test fol. 447. Heb. 7. A man shall finde manie thinges in the Rhemish obseruations which are not the text of the Scripture The Rhe. Test. fol. 447. The Iesuites would prooue if they could tell how that S. Paul calleth the lords Supper a Sacrifice * This point by point is not worth a blew point Their misconstering of S. Paul examined The faulte which the Apostle reprooueth in the Corinthians This was partaking with Idols and dishonoring of God S. Pauls reason against it by waie of comparison or opposition Though Saint Pauls reason be â—ramed by waie of comparâ—son yet the Iesuits illation is not necessary Eating of thinges consecrated vnto Idols is fellowship with diuâ—lâ— though they be not sole â—â—elie sacrificed vnto them The Iesuites prooue by the
sayth our sauiour a stranger they follow not but flee from him And in baptisme you receiued no mans marke but his for that cause stand bound to regard no mans voyce but his alone Doubt you this Then view the Commission that Christ sent you to baptise with Goe teach all nations baptising them in the name of the father the sonne and the holy ghost teaching them to obserue all the things which I haue coÌ„manded you This text needeth no gloze Baptisme bindeth no man to the Bishop or Church of Rome but to the wil precepts of Christ. Therfore proue your religion seruice which you stoutly but falsely terme Catholike to be coÌ„manded by Christ or els women children be they neuer so seely wil collect by the manifest words of our sauiour that their promise in baptisme doth streitly bind them from beleeuing your errors admitting your masses vntill you shew good and effectuall warrant out of the word of God that you do what Christ did and teach what he taught without adding or altering any iot For this is the duetie that baptisme requireth of vs to beleeue no teacher but one which is Christ to followe no stranger to regard obey no Lord or lawmaker in the Church but only the sonne whom the father appointed to be Master leader and ruler of the Gentiles And as for your odious outcrie since the lawes of this Realme force you to nothing but what is directly commanded in the scriptures as by discussing your Apologie shal appeare you vowed wheÌ„ you were Christened to beleeue obey the will of God reueiled in his word let the worlde iudge whether your Soueraigne offer you wrong in seeking with milde and gentle correction to reforme your frowardnes or you rather forgetting your promise to God and duetie to your Prince take the way to forsake the Christian faith withstand authoritie Phi. It is against your owne doctrine in other nations that any should be forced to religion Theo. When you note the places and name the men I will answere you more directly than I can at this present to so generall an obiection Howbeit with what face can you reproue the sober and moderate proceedings of his Realme which reuenge the smalest contempt of your idle ceremonies with vnsufferable torments for shame rebuke not that in others which in your selues is most rife But graunt some wel disposed persons happily warned you that true religion vseth to perswade not to compell that God did rather teach than exact the knowledge of himselfe and winning credite to his precepts by the strangenes of his heaueÌ„ly woÌ„ders despised the wil that is forced to confesse him Their purpose was to moue your clergy to delight rather in teaching than in tormenting their brethren They thought it a strange and new kind of preaching for bishops to driue men to beleeue with whipping as Bonner did or else they detested your violent and furious maner of compulsion which neither tooke pains to persuade nor alowed meÌ„ time to learn those things which you forced them to beleeue They knewe that if such as wander astray should be terrified not instructed it might be couÌ„ted a wicked ouerruling Or last of al if they spake resolutely without limitation they were nusâ—ed with ouermuch pitie which also beguiled S. Austen at the first in the selfe same point vntil he tooke better aduisemeÌ„t I was once so minded saith he that I thought no man ought to be forced to Christian vnitie but that we shoulde deale by perswading striue by disputing conquere by reasoning least they prooued dissembling Catholiques whom we knewe professed heretiques Our doctrine which you say maketh so much for you is this that your Prelats should not make it their occupation to persecute to death al sorts ages and sexes which refuse your schole trickes or reiect the dregs of your Clementines and Decretals but rather with mildnes patience seeke to recouer such as you thinke lost yet in Princes who beare the sword and are Gods Liuetenants not only to procure peace betweene men but also by lawes to maintaine â—â—â—igioÌ„ towards God we neither did nor do dispraise moderate correction when neede so requireth only we would haue such as stray from truth corrected not murdered For it neuer pleased any good men in the Catholique Church that heretikes should be put to death as Austen affirmeth Many lawes were made to punish them but no Princes law commanded theÌ„ to be slaine Yea the Lorde doth not forbid to skatter the couents of heretikes to stop their mouthes to barre them freedom of speach but to murder and kil them that he forbiddeth saith Chrisostome And therefore your tyranous barbarous hauocke of olde yong men women learned vnlearned we detest with heart and disswade with tongue wishing al Princes to folow the steps of Gratian Theodosius Arcadius Honorius other Christian Emperours who with conuenient sharpnes of positiue laws amerced banished diuersly punished heretikes yet none receiued iudgement of death except only the Maniches whose monstrous blasphemies in agnising the deuil for a god beastly defiling the sacred Eucharist deserued no lesse Such manifold coactions decreed by vertuous Princes when the Donatists rayled at for life the learned catholike father S. Austen earnestly defended to be lawful highly coÌ„mended in sundrie places Thinkest thou saith he to Vincentius no man ought to be forced to righteousnes wheÌ„ as thou readest that the master said to his seruants Compel al that you find to come in and also that Paul was forced to receiue embrace the truth by the great and violent coÌ„pulsioÌ„ of Christ except thou iudge goods landes dearer to men than their eyes Where is nowe sayth hee to Bonifacius that which these Donatists harp at so much it is free for a man to beleue or not to beleue what violence did Christ vse whom did he compel behold Paul for an example Let them marke in him Christ first coÌ„pelling afterward teaching first striking theÌ„ comforting Let them not mislike that they be forced but examine whereto they be forced And citing that part of the second Psalme Be wise ye kings vnderstand ye that iudge the earth serue the Lord in feare how do saith he kings serue the Lord in feare but when they forbid and punish with a religious seueritie those things which are done against the commandements of God as Ezekiah did serue him by destroying the groues and temples buylt against the precepts of God as Iosiah did in like manner as the king of Niniueh did forcing the whole Citie to please God as Nabuchodonosor did restraining all his subiects from blaspheming God with a dreadfull lawe Gaudentius reason that the peace of Christ inuited such as were willing but forced no man vnwilling the same father refuteth in this wise Where you thinke that none must be forced to truth against their
endure for Simonie non residence wrongfull excommunication playing at tables resorting to spectacles ordering any Clerke without diligent examination or contrarie to the Princes ecclesiastical lawes in which cases Iustinian commandeth them to bee SVSPENDED EXCOMMVNICATED DEPOSED as the fault meriteth and his edict appointeth It was then no newes for a Prince to say Diuers complaints haue beene brought vs against Clerks Monks and many Bishops that some leade not their liues according to the sacred Canons others can not the publike praiers which should be sayd at the sacred oblation and baptisme we therefore recounting the iudgement of God with our selues HAVE COMMAVNDED THAT IN EVERY MATTER THVS DETECTED LAWFVLL INQVISITION AND CORRECTION PROCEEDE comprising in this edict those things that were before skattered in sundry constitutions touching the most religious Bishops Clerkes and Monkes with such punishments added as wee rhought expedient And againe OVR CHIEFEST CARE IS FOR THE TRVETH OF GODS DOCTRINE AND SEEMELY CONVERSATION OF THE CLERGIE THE THINGS THEN WHICH WE HAVE DECREED AND MAKE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE SACRED ORDER AND STATE CONSONANT TO THE TENOR OF HOLY RVLES LET THE MOST GODLY PATRIARKES OF EVERY DIOCESSE THE METROPOLITANES AND RIGHT REVEREND BISHOPS AND CLERKES KEEPE FOR EVER HEREAFTER INVYOLABLE THE BREAKER OF THEM SHALBE SVRE TO BE SEQVESTRED VTTERLY FROM GOD AND EXCLVDED FROM HIS PRIESTLY FVNCTION Licencing all men of what sort or calling soeuer they bee that perceiue the least point of these our Lawes transgressed to denounce and infourme the same to our highnes that wee which following the sacred rules and Apostolike tradition haue commaunded these thinges may reuenge such offendours as they well deserue Farther hee sayth Our purpose in this present Lawe is next after those matters which wee haue disposed of the most holy Bishoppes and reuerend Clerkes to set a good order in monasticall discipline for so much as there is no kinde of thing exempted from the Princes inquisition which hath receiued from God a common regiment and soueraintie ouer all men and these things which concerne God must bee preserued from corruption by the sacred Prelates and ciuill Magistrates but most of all by our Maiestie which vse not to neglect any diuine causes but labour by all meanes that our common wealth by the fauour of the great God and our Sauiour Christ towardes men may reape the fruite of that purenes and integritie which Clerkes Monkes and Bishoppes from the highest to the lowest shall shewe foorth in keeping the sacred Canons our lawes prouided in that behalfe which constitutions by this our decree wee strengthen a fresh and ratifie Put on your spectakles and see whether Iustinian do not take vppon him to gouerne the doctrine and discipline of the Church the conuersation of Clerkes Monkes and Priestes and to commaunde Prelates and Patriarkes in the celebration of sacraments conuocation of Synodes election and confirmation of Bishoppes ordering of Clerkes and such like functions except our eyesight fayle vs wholy spirituall and in the iudgement of your neerest friends acknowledged for causes ecclesiasticall I will omitte what Iustinian enacted touching mariages diuorces legacies funerals incests adulteries and such like then pertinent to the Princes power and sworde nowe claymed by your holy father for a surplussage to causes ecclesiasticall and with that seely shift conueyed out of Princes handes who first vppon fauour and opinion of holynes and wisedome in Bishoppes gaue them leaue to meddle with such matters I will omitte I say that and descende to the Lawes of Charles the great Emperour of the West partes eight hundreth yeeres after Christ which Ansegisus gathered together within thirteene yeeres of the death of the sayde Charles In his preface of those Lawes thus speaketh that wise Prince Considering the passing goodnes of Christ our Lord towardes vs and our people and howe needefull it is not onely to giue thankes to God incessantly with heart and mouth but also with good endeuours continually to set foorth his honour and praise c. Therefore O you Pastours of Christes Church and teachers of his flocke Haue wee directed Commissioners vnto you that shall ioyne with you to redresse those thinges which neede reformation in our name and by vertue of our authoritie and to this ende wee haue here annexed certaine briefe chapters of Canonicall or ecclesiasticall institutions such as we thought meetest Let no man iudge this our admonition to godlines to bee presumptuous Whereby wee seeke to correct thinges amisse to cutte off superfluities and leade men to that which is right but rather receiue it with a charitable mynde For in the booke of kinges wee reade what paynes godly Iosias tooke to bring the kingdome giuen him of GOD to the true worship of the same God by visiting correcting and instructing them not that wee compare our selues with his sanctitie but that we should alwayes imitate such examples of the godly We see the reason why these Lawes were published and commissioners sent from the Prince to put them in execution now let vs examine the Lawes themselues and marke what causes they chiefely concerne Peruse the booke you will on my woord expect no farther proofe that Princes had then to doe with persons and causes ecclesiasticall If your leasure serue you not by these fewe which I will report you may coniecture the rest The first seuen and fiftie Canons are borowed out of such generall and prouinciall Councels as Charles best liked for example That no man excommunicated in one place shall bee taken to the communion in an other place That when any Clerk is ordered his faith and life bee first exactly tried That no strange Clerke bee receaued or ordered without letters of commendation and licence from his owne Bishop That no seruant bee made Clerk or Moncke without his masters consent That no man bee made Priest vnder thirtie yeares of age neither then at randon but appointed and fastned to a certaine cure That no Bishop meddle with giuing orders in an other mans diocesse That no Bishop veele any widoes at all nor maydens vnder the age of twentie and fiue That the Bishop of each Prouince and the Metropolitane meete yerely twise in Councel for causes of the Church That Priests when they say their masses shall also communicate That only the bookes canonical shall bee read in the Church That the false names of Martyres and vncertaine memories of Sainctes bee not obserued That Sunday bee kept from euening on Saturday till euening the next day with other such constitutions prescribing a direct order to Bishoppes Priestes and Monkes for ecclesiasticall causes Phi. These bee Canons of former Councels Theo. True but selected and deliuered by Charles to those visitours which he sent with his authoritie to refourme the Church and the rest that followe to the number of an hundred and fiue chapters did Charles frame by conference with learned and godly men at
his discretion Which yet concerne the regiment of the Church no lesse than these doe You must beare with the length of them they be matters profitable to be knowen I speake for the most part of them greatly pertinent to this question You shall thereby resolue your selfe howe farre Princes then lawfully might and carefully did medle with guiding and ruling the Church of God and see both a worthie memoriall and a right president of a Princes visitation and reformation of all states aswell in matters of fayth as good order and discipline These be the Lawes The Priests euery man in his calling shall preach and teach the people committed to their charge The Bishops shall not suffer any man vnder them to propose to the people newe fangled opinions or not Canonical of their owne deuising not agreeable to the scriptures but shall themselues preach fruitfull good doctrine tending to life euerlasting and instruct others to do the like And first they shall teach all men generally to beeleeue the father the sonne and the holy Ghost to bee one omnipotent eternal and inuisible God creator of heauen and earth and all things in them and that there is but one Godhead substance maiestie in these three persons the father the sonne and the holy ghost ITEM they shall preach that the sonne of God through the working of the holy spirit tooke flesh of Marie shee remaining still a virgine for the saluation and redemption of mankind his death buriall rising the third day from the dead his ascending into heauen and how he shall come againe in diuine glorie to iudge all men according to their deserts the wicked for their vnrighteousnes to bee cast into perpetuall flames of fire with the Diuell the iust to bee taken to Christ and his elect angels into blessed life for euer ITEM they shall diligently set forth the resurrection of the dead that men may knowe and beleeue they shal haue their reward good or euill in the same bodies which they now beare about them ITEM they shall admonish all men with all industrie for what offences they shal be condemned to paynes euerlasting Paul telling vs that the workes of the flesh are manifest which are fornication vncleannes wantonnes hatred debate emulation wrath strife sedition heresie sects spite murder drunkennes gluttonie and such other of which I warne you now as I did before that they which commit these things shal not inherit the kingdome of God these things therefore which the great Preacher of the Church of God reckoneth by name let them be with all care prohibited remembring how terrible that saieng is They which doe these things shall neuer come to the kingdome of God BESIDES you shall earnestly teach them the loue of God and their neighbour faith and hope in God humilitie and patience charitie and continencie liberalitie and mercie to giue almes to acknowledge their sinnes and forgiue such as trespasse against them according to the Lordes prayer assuring them that they which followe these thinges shall enter the kingdome of God THIS WEE CHARGE AND ENIOINE YOV THE MORE PRECISELY BECAVSE WEE KNOWE THAT FALSE TEACHERS SHALL COME IN THE LATER DAYES as the Lord in the Gospel foretold and his Apostle Paul to Timothie witnesseth ITEM the Bishoppes shall diligently discusse in euery parish the fayth of the Priestes their manner of baptizing and saying masse that their faith may be sound their baptisme Catholike and themselues well conceiue the prayers of their masse and sing the psalmes by the distinction of verses They must wel vnderstand the Lordes prayer themselues and teach that all others must vnderstand the same to this end that euery man may know what he asketh at gods hand This verse Glorie be to the father the sonne c. shal be song of all with great deuotion the Priestes together with the people shal sing with one voyce holy holy holy Lorde God of hostes and all the faithfull shall communicate and prouide at the time of masse so to do without any other calling or warning No Priest shall admitte an other mans parishioner to the masse except he be a wayfaring man or one that is tyed there with some matter in law ITEM that false and suspected legends or such as bee repugnant to the Catholike faith as that vile and erroneous epistle which some deceaued themselues and deceiuing others pretended a yeare past to fal from heauen bee neither beleeued nor reade but burnt lest the people be seduced by such Pamphlets only the canonical bookes Catholike treaties and sentences of holy writers be read and taught ITEM the Priests shall haue alwaies in readinesse the sacred Eucharist that when any falleth sick or an infant be in danger of death he may minister the communion to him least he die without a communion ITEM we decree that as God hath commaunded no seruile worke to be taken in hand on the Lords day as also the Prince my father of blessed memorie gaue charge by his Synodal Edict to wit no kind of husbandrie neither cutting of vines nor tilling the ground neither reaping nor mowing nor hedging neither rooting or felling of trees nor digging in rocks nor building nor gardening no not keeping of courts or hunting the women likewise to forbeare all kind of manuall works but that all people resort to the Church and praise God for all his blessings On the Sunday shal no market nor faire be kept in any place ITEM the holy dayes that shal be kept throughout the yere are these the birth of Christ S. Steeuens S. Iohns the Innocēts day the octaues of our Lord the Epiphanie octaues thereof the purification of the virgine Marie eight daies of Easter the time of the solemne procession or greater Letanie the Assension of the Lord Whitsontide S. Iohn Baptist S. Peter and Paul S. Martine S. Andrew The assumption of our Ladie I leaue in doubt ITEM the Moncks shall perfectly learne the manner of the Romane tunes like as our father king Pipine decreed they should when he did abrogate the french kinde of singing ITEM that Bishops be chosen by the consent of the clergie and people out of the same dioces according to the Canons without respect of persons or rewards and that they traine vp their Priests in sobrietie and chastitie and see them haue the bookes of their masses and lessons well corrected and that they repaire their Churches decaied to their abilitie instruct the Church widoes how they should be conuersant after the Apostolike precept roote out the superstitions that are in many places about the exequies of the dead and wholly bend themselues to do their duties in al things concerning the Church of God and this that they may the more freely doe wee will bee ready to assist them by all meanes possible ITEM that in one Citie bee not two Bishops nor one prouince diuided
such as be worthie Phi. No. Theo. Then do you giue the same power to the Pope which God claimeth to him-selfe to displace the wicked from their thrones Phi. But vnder God Theo. If your holy father do this without a particular and precise warrant from God hee doth it not vnder God but as well as God that which is in this case done without God is against God But on with your example of Samuel Saul was deposed of his kingdome by Gods appointment and sentence which Samuel pronounced vnto Saul from the mouth of God Ergo what Phi. Ergo king Saul was deposed Theo. Grant he were by whom was it done by God or by Samuel Phi. God prescribed the sentence but Samuel pronounced it Theo. In whose name did Samuel speake in Gods or his own Phi. In Gods Theo. Said he more than God commaunded him Phi. I thinke not Theo. Then God spake the worde and God gaue the iudgement against Saul only Samuel was sent to tell Saul so much that was sore against Samuels will as appeareth by his mourning for Saul which God reproued in him And now to turn your own exāple on your own head I trust God hath as much right to depose Princes as the Pope Phi. What then The. Did all Israel Iudah sinne in obeying Saul so many yeares after hee was deposed by God and an other annointed in his place Phi. They did it for feare because Saul kept the kingdom by tyrannical force notwithstanding his deposition Theo. Did Dauid sinne in seruing Saul long after himselfe was annointed Phi. He durst not doe otherwise Theo. When Dauid had Saul alone in the caue and might haue slain him did he well to spare him Phi. He might lawfully haue killed him as S. Augustine deduceth but he would not Theo. Of that anon in the meane time was it a lie in Dauid to call him his master and the Lords annointed after his deposition Phi. He called him so in respect he had bin so though presently he were not so Theo. Nay Dauid affirmed y◠at that present he was so The Lord saith Dauid keepe me from laying mine hand on him For he is the Lords annointed And after shewing that this was his dutie and not his curtesie when he founde him asleepe one of his Captaines would haue slain him he said Destroy him not for who can lay his hand on the Lords annointed be giltles Where Dauid maketh it no fauor to spare him but a sin to touch him And to the messenger that brought him news of Sauls death How wast thou not afraide saith Dauid to put foorth thine hand to destroy the annointed of the Lord And commaunding the fellow to bee thrust through Thy blood saith hee bee vpon thine owne head for thine own mouth hath witnessed against thee saying I haue slaine the Lords annointed If all Israel obeyed Saul notwithstanding the sentence of God pronounced against him if Dauid himselfe after his annointing serued honored Saul as his master called counted him the Lords annointed to the houre of his death abhorring it as a sinne in himselfe to lay hands on him seuerely punishing it in an other that did it How can you warrant rebellion against Princes or make it a meritorious act to murder them whom the Pope without all authoritie frō God presumeth to displace Phi. Dauid might lawfully haue killed Saul as S. Austen sheweth against Adamātius but he would not The. The words of Dauid are plain to the cōtrary speaking of Saul himselfe Who can lay his hand saith he on the Lordes annointed be guiltles He could not be guilty but of a sinne it had bin therfore no lawful but a sinful deed for any man Dauid himselfe not excepted to haue killed Saul in respect he then was so continued till he died The Lordes annointed Phi. S. Augustine saith Dauid might haue killed Saul without feare His words be Dauid had his enemie persecutour king Saul in his power to do with him what hee woulde and hee chose rather to spare him than to kill him Hee was not commaunded to kill him neither was hee prohibited Imo etiam diuinitus audierat se impunè facere quicquid vellet inimico Yea rather hee had hearde at Gods mouth that hee might freelie handle an enemie how he would and yet so great authoritie hee conuerted to curtesie Theo. Adimantus helde opinion that the olde Testament was contrarie to the newe because the Lawe as hee thought permitted reuenge and allowed men to kill their enimies where the Gospell commaundeth vs to praie for our enimies and to loue them as the wordes of our Sauiour doe witnesse This obiection Sainct Augustine refelleth by shewing that the killing of the Nations which God commaunded proceeded of loue not of hatred and that the iust of the olde Testament loued and fauoured their enimies when it was expedient for them so to do as namely Dauid that spared king Saul his enimie and persecutour though he might easilie haue slaine him Philand Sainct Augustines worde is impunè hee might freely haue doone what hee woulde to him Theoph. Whether that were Sainct Augustines perswasion or an aduauntage taken vppon Adimantus assertion the place it selfe doeth not expresse of the twaine I thinke the later to bee the truer For this was Adimantus erronious position that the Lawe licenced the Iewes to kill their enimies and you may not well charge Sainct Augustine there-with least you bring him againe within the compasse of the Manichees errour Sure it is Sainct Augustine doeth not grounde his speech on this that Saul was deposed and therefore might haue iustly beene destroyed which is our case but on the permission of reuenge which the Lawe of Moses seemed to graunt Dauid towarde his enimie as well as all others towardes their enimies marie that was no right exposition but a misconstruction of the Lawe sufficient to refute Adimantus because it was his owne but not rashly to bee fathered on Sainct Augustine in respect of his learning and credit otherwise in the church of God For the lawe of God gaue no man leaue to kill his enimie but that precept was to bee referred to the Magistrate to whome God gaue the sworde lawfully to kill such as were by his Lawe adiudged to die which our Sauiour doth not prohibite in the new Testament but reproueth the Iewes for hauing this false conceit of Gods lawe that euery priuate person might hate his enimies and loue his neighbours they corruptly expounding neighbours for friendes and acquaintance and assureth them that to loue their enimies and pray for their persecutors which hee then prescribed them was no new addition but the ancient and true intention of Gods law These wordes then Dauid had heard by the Lawe of God for speciall reuelation from God to Dauid Sainct Augustine knewe none that hee might doe freely what hee would to an enimie are assumed
against Adimantus as part of his owne confession and former obiection and conclude that either Adimantus mistooke the meaning of the law as in deede hee did or that Dauid perfourming the precept of Christ when hee spared his enimie gaue example that others vnder the Lawe shoulde doe the like and so the Law neither waie repugnant to the Gospell as his conclusion imported And if any thinke it much Sainct Augustine should pitch himselfe on other mens wordes as they were apparant truethes hee must remember hee dealt with the Manichees that receiued no Scriptures but such as they listed and therefore to presse them with their owne position was a neerer waie to confounde them than to loade them with Scriptures which they regarded not and that maketh Sainct Augustine giue sometimes not the soundest solution hee coulde but the readiest to stoppe their mouthes with their owne assertions Otherwise Sainct Augustine was plainely resolued that Dauid so much esteemed in Saul the holinesse of his regall inunction euen vnto his death that hee trembled at heart for cutting the lappe of Sauls garment Quaero si non habebat Saul sacramenti sanctitatem quid in eo Dauid venerabatur nam eum propter sacrosanctam vnctionem honorauit viuum vindicauit occisum Et quia vel panniculum ex eius veste praescidit percusso corde trepidauit Ecce Saul non habebat innocentiam tamen habebat sanctitatem non vitae sed vnctionis If Saul had not the holinesse of the sacrament I demand what it was that Dauid reuerenced in him For the sacred and holy vnction of a king hee honoured Saul liuing and reuenged his death on him that saide hee slue him And because himselfe had cut but the lap of Saules coate hee was strooken and trembled at heart for the fact Behold Saul was not innocent yet had hee the holinesse not of life but of his annointing Phi. If Dauid might not lawfully haue slaine Saul Dauid might not beare armes against Saul for the putting himselfe in armes proueth hee was either lawfull king or a manifest rebel against the king which I thinke you will not affirme Theo. Dauid was neither king as yet when hee did this nor rebell against the king Hee put him-selfe in armes not to seeke the kingdome nor to subdue the vsurper as you vainly suppose hee fledde to saue his life as euery subiect may by your doctrine doinges yea though life be not sought Phi. Howe coulde Dauid bee annointed if Saul were not first deposed Theoph. You misconster Samuels wordes For by them the Scepter was not taken out of Saules handes but his seede reiected from inheriting the kingdome Philand Nay Samuel sayde vnto him God hath cast thee awaie from being king And againe The Lord hath rent the kingdome of Israel from thee this day hath giuen it to thy neighbor What can this import but he was personallie deposed from the gouernment Theophi The present possession of the kingdome was not denyed him but the inheritaunce of it to him and his issue By a king Samuel ment not one that shoulde gouerne during his life for so did the Iudges of Israel before Saul that were no kinges but one that should haue the kingdome to him and his after him by waye of inheritaunce For that was it which the children of Israel respected when they required a King which was not a Gouernour for the time but a setled succession in the regiment as other Nations had This was it that Samuell saide vnto Saul when he first reproued him Thou hast doone foolishly thou hast not kept the commaundement of the Lord for haddest thou kept it the Lord had now established thy kingdom vpon Israell for euer But now thy kingdom shal not continue This was it that Samuel ment the seconde time when he more sharpely rebuked Sauls disobedience Because thou hast cast awaye the worde of the Lord therefore hath he cast away thee from being king And againe The Lord hath rent the kingdome of Israel from thee this daie and hath giuen it to thy neighbour not meaning his person shoulde bee degraded but the kingdom remoued both from his line and from his tribe Phi. This is your priuate sense for the wordes sound that he should not bee king ouer Israell Theo. Sainct Augustine him-selfe expoundeth these verie wordes as I do Iste cui dicitur spernit te Dominus ne sis Rex super Israel dirupit Dominus Regnum ab Israel de manu tua hodie quadraginta annos regnauit super Israell tanto scilicet spacio temporis quanto ipse Dauid audiuit hoc primo tempore regni sui vt intelligamus ideo dictum quia nullus de stirpe eius fuerat regnaturus Saul to whome it was sayde the Lorde will cast thee away that thou shalt not bee king ouer Israell and the Lorde hath rent the kingdome from Israell out of thine hand this daie euen hee raigned fourtie yeares as long as Dauid him-selfe and this hee hearde in the verie beginning of his raigne that wee shoulde vnderstand it therefore to be spoken because none of his stocke should raigne after him And hadde not Sainct Augustine goone cleare with vs the circumstaunces of the Scriptures doe thus lymitte the wordes of Samuel For Dauid was then a verie young boie or as the text sayeth a little one keeping sheepe when hee was annointed hauing neither age experience nor strength fit for the present vndertaking of the kingdome Next Dauid neither claymed nor pretended any right to the Crowne during Saules life but serued and obeyed Saul as his liege Lorde and Master whiles hee lyued and so confessed him to bee Thirdly Saul him-selfe neuer obiected this vnto Dauid that he sought the kingdome from him but from his sonnes for so he said to Ionathan As long as the sonne of Ishai liueth vpon the earth thou shalt not be established nor thy kingdō And the priests that were charged with treason for helping Dauid did not answere as you do that Saul was an vsurper Dauid the right king but Who is so faithful among all thy seruants as Dauid goeth at thy commandement witnessing for Dauid that he behaued himselfe as a faithfull subiect vnto Saul not as a claimer of the crown from Saul Thus al the Tribes of Israel conceiued constred the wordes of Samuel For when they came to make Dauid king after Sauls death they said In time past when Saul was our king thou leddest Israel in out the Lorde saide vnto thee thou shalt feed my people Israel and thou shalt be captaine ouer my people Israel So came all the elders of Israel and annoynted Dauid king ouer Israel according to the word of the Lord by the hand of Samuel The text it self alleadgeth Gods own words Samuels act not for the present possession but for the rightfull succession of the crowne that after Sauls death
Caluinistes furie phrensie mutinie I know not what You may pursue depose murther Princes when the Bishop of Rome biddeth you that without breach of dutie law or cōscience to God or man as you vaunt though neither life nor limme of yours be touched wee may not so much as beseech Princes that we may be vsed like subiects not like slaues like men not like beasts that we may bee conuented by lawes before iudges not murthered in corners by inquisitours wee may not so much as hide our heades nor pull our neckes out of the greedie iawes of that Romish wolfe but the fome of your vncleane mouth is ready to call vs by al the names you can deuise Howbeit looke well to your selues it is not enough for you to haue lawes of your owne making to licence you to beare armes against your Prince you must haue Gods law for your warrant or else you come within the compasse of heinous and horrible rebellion For you doe not defend your selues but impugne your Prince you seeke not the freedom of your religion but the subuersion of other mens estates you do not take armes that your condition may be tolerable but that her highnes shoulde be no Prince you saue not your own liues but intend her death These shamefull and manifest treasons against the law of God nature and nations you smooth with a few faint colours and publish them to the whole world for iust honorable and godly warres But deceiue not your selues the breath of your mouthes may not ouerbeare the lawes of God states of men You must shew some better warrant than the Popes decrees or else your rising in armes against your Prince though the Bishoppe of Rome back and abet you with all his Buls and Decretals is an vnlawful irreligious and wicked rebellion Phi. Whosoeuer seeketh not after the Lord God of Israell let him bee slaine saide king Asa admonished by Azaria the Prophet from the highest to the lowest without exception And all the people and many that followed him and fled to him out of Israel from the schisme there did sweare and vowe them-selues in the quarrell of the God of their forefathers And they prospered and deposed Queene Maáchah Mother to Asa for Apostasie and for worshipping the venereous God called Priapus Theo. Doth the example of king Asa forcing his Subiectes with an othe and vnder paine of death to seeke after the Lorde God of Israel serue you to proue that Subiectes may assault their king and oppresse him with armes Will this goe for a reason with you The Magistrate may vse the sworde and put offendours to death ergo the Subiect may vse the same and that against his Prince Sure if you make such collections wee shall mistrust rebellion hath so possessed your braynes that reason hath no place in you Phi. This example proueth that heretikes may be deposed and put to death Theo. But by whom By the Prince or the people Phi. The king I grant was the doer Theo. Then seeke farther for your conspiracies against kinges this example will do you no good Phi. The people that fledde to him out of Israel from the schisme there did sweare and vowe themselues in the same quarrell with the king of Iudah Theo. The straungers that fledde out of Israell for their conscience sake tooke an oth to serue the same God but not to beare armes against their owne countrie Phi. They prospered and deposed Queene Maáchah mother to Asa for Apostasie and for worshipping the venereous God Priapus Theo. You inlarge the number where you should not which by your leaue is a plaine corruption of the Scripture The text is And king Asa deposed Maáchah his mother from her regēcie because she had made an idoll And againe not they but he deposed Maáchah his mother from her estate because she had made an idol The Queene mother was remoued from her honor dignitie by the king her sonne for her idolatrie but Asa did not put her to death though that were the summe of the oth which the king and the rest tooke and he that did this deede was the true king of Iudah and in full possession of the crowne many yeares before and suffered his mother not in her owne right but of reuerence curtesie towards her to inioy some part of her former degree and dignitie from the which he lawfully might and worthily did put her when shee fell to erecting and worshipping Idols Phi. The text noteth not howe long hee was king before hee deposed his mother Theo. After the death of Abiah Asa his sonne saieth the Scripture raigned in his steede in whose dayes the Land was quiet tenne yeares Then came the AEthiopians out against him with an huge hie host those hee ouerthrew And at his returne the Prophet Azariah met him and incouraged him to goe forwarde in the reformation of the Lande which hee perfourmed in all the Cities of Iudah and Beniamin and gathered all the people of the Lande togither in the fifteenth yeare of his raigne where this oth was taken and paine appointed before his mother was deposed So that he not shee was rightfull Gouernour of Iudah and that which shee lost was either the honour and dignitie which otherwise did appertaine to so great a State as the kinges mother or else that portion of the Lande which was assigned to her to rule vnder the king in respect of her dowrie Howsoeuer the kingdome shee had not and therefore the crowne she lost not neither finde you here a Prince deposed by his subiectes but a Prince remouing her that in nature was his mother in condition his subiect from that authoritie or dignitie choose you whether which before of fauor not of duety he suffered her to haue Phi. For that case also in Deuteronomie expresse charge was giuen to slea all false Prophetes and whosoeuer should auert the people from the true worship of God induce them to receiue straunge Gods and newe religions and to destroie all their followers were they neuer so neere vs by nature And in the same place that if anie Citie shoulde reuolt from the receiued and prescribed worship of God begin to admit new religions it should be vtterly wasted by fire and sword Theo. The commaundement in Deuteronomie toucheth not heretiks but manifest Apostataes such as cleane forsooke the verie name and outward profession of God and serued straunge and new gods and the rigour of this precept I meane the punishment doeth not binde vs that are vnder the Gospell by the iudgement of the best learned that euer taught in the church of Christ. For by the same law of God blasphemers adulterers witches strikers and cursers of Parentes should die Which penalties your owne church did neuer execute nor any christian Magistrate that euer wee reade of Touching heretikes you heard Sainct Augustines opinion before that it neuer pleased any good man in the
writer witnesseth who also bringeth three reportes of his death one that hee fell mad and slue himselfe an other that in hunting he was cast off his horse and torne of dogges the thirde that wandering into a straunge Countrie he became a skullin in a certaine monasterie and there in repentance ended his life Phi. If his ende were so straunge his life coulde not bee good Theo. I commend not his life if it be true that Cromerus writeth of him I rather acknowledge the iust iudgement of God in taking vengeance of his sinnes Phi. Why doe you not acknowledge the like in his deposition Theoph. Because the Pope is not God to whom the punishing of Princes sinnes doeth rightly belong Phi. Would you that Princes should kill Bishops at the verie Altar for doing their duties and yet goe free Theo. As if God were not both as sincere and seuere a iudge as the Pope Phi. Who doubteth of that Theo. Then shall they not goe free that sinne against his lawe bee they Princes or others Phi. I speake of the meane time before that day come wherein hee shall iudge Theo. And in the meane time which you speake of God mightily punisheth all sortes and states though not by the Pope Phi. He punisheth by diseases and straunge kinde of deathes as hee seeth cause but yet good Lawes must be made and maintained by men for the repressing of vice amongst men Theo. Uerie true but those lawes must bee made by Princes and not by Popes Bishops haue not to do with the sworde which God hath giuen vnto Princes for the punishment of euill doers Phi. And what if Princes them-selues be the doers of euill who shall punish them Theo. Euerie soule must bee subiected to them and they to God They beare the sworde ouer others not others ouer them Besides them or aboue them no man beareth the sworde by Gods appointment Phi. The keyes are aboue the sworde Theo. The keyes open and shutte the kingdome of God they touch not the bodies nor inheritances of priuate men much lesse of Princes Onely the sworde is corporally to compell and punish which is not the Priestes but the Princes charge as I haue often shewed Phi. To let Princes doe what they will without feare of punishment is the next way to ouerthrow common-wealthes Theo. What kingdom can you shewe wherein it hath beene otherwise Saul willed Doeg in his presence to â—lea fourescore and fiue of the Lordes Priestes and hee smote their citie with the edge of the sworde both men women children and sucklinges Did Abiathar the high Priestes sonne that fledde and escaped depriue Saul of his kingdome or did Dauid for whose cause they were slain when shortly after hee had Saul in his power to doe with him as hee woulde seeke the kings life or suffer his men to take it that were readie to doe it Dauid when he was king defloured Bethsabe and caused her husbande to be murdered Did therefore any Priest or Prophet in all his Realme offer to depose him or did Absolon well to conspire against him Achab ioyned with Iesabel in putting Naboth to death and killing the Lords Prophets Did Elias depriue him or incite his subiectes to forsake him Herod beheaded Iohn Baptist and likewise Iames and apprehended Peter with a purpose to sende him after but that hee was deliuered by an Angell did Peter therefore take vengeance on Herode which hee might haue done with a worde as well as on Ananias or did he leaue him to the iudgement of God which shortly after insued with an horrible plague The tyrantes of all ages and vices of all princes both before the comming of our Sauiour and since haue they beene punished by Priestes as you woulde haue it or else haue they beene reserued to Gods tribunals as we affirme Phi. Some haue beene punished by Priestes though not all Theoph. Shew but one prince for fiue thowsand yeares since the first foundation of the earth that was iudicially cited examined corrected by a priest til Hildebrand began this new president If any princes were during all that time repressed it was done by their own states realms that for their extreme tyranny priests alwaies refrained those attempts and neuer thought it any part of their vocatioÌ„ to medle with the changing and altering of kingdoms Phi. It is a better readier way to reforme princes to subiect them to the tribunall of one godly Bishop as we do than to leaue them in thraldome to popular tumults and mutinies as you do Theo. We leaue them in thraldom to none but only to God and to serue him is no thraldome but an honorable and princely liberty Yet if princes were to choose their iudges among men they were farre better referre themselues to the generall consent of their Nobles commons at home than hold their scepters at the pleasures of disdainful seditious Popes which seeke to dishonor their persons impouerish their Realmes Phi. You speake this of spite Theo. Your own examples wil proue it a truth How dealt Adrian the fourth and Alexander the third with Frederike the first a wise valiaunt and vertuous prince Did not Adrian receiue a great summe of mony to excommunicate the Emperor the stomack which the pope tooke against the prince grew it not vpon these causes for that the Emperor in his letters put his own name before the Popes and required homage fealty of the Bishops for their temporalities and would not suffer the Cardinals to pray vpon the churches of Germany Did not the Cardinals conspire bind themselues with an oth that they would neuer choose any to be Pope but one that should be an opposite to this Emperor And when AlexaÌ„der the third was shuffled in by that faction against Victor did he not twise refuse to haue the matter discussed by councel and stirred vp the kings of Scicily France and the states of Venice against the Emperour and caused all the cities countries of Italie to rebell against him and hauing taken his thirde sonne prisoner would hee restore him or make peace with the father til in presence of al the people at the dore of S. Marks church in Venice the prince had cast his body flat on the ground the pope setting his foote on the Emperors neck had auanced himself with that part of the Psalme which saith Thou shalt walke vpoÌ„ the aspe the basilisk and shalt tread the lion and dragon vnder thy feete The parts that were plaied by the Bishops of Rome with Frederike the second Lodouik of Bauaria king Iohn of this Lande and Lewes the 12. of that name king of France which are your own examples if I should largely pursue theÌ„ a whole volume would not suffice them I wil therfore rip vp so much only as shal let the reader see with what cunning these princes were wearied with what pride they
Art Phi. You vnderstand vs not When wee giue diuine honour to the image in respect of Christ we giue it to Christ and not to the image Theo. God graunt you vnderstand your selues You first dishonour the Sonne of God by exhibiting the heauenly seruice that is due to him to an Image made with handes and then with a shift of wordes you thinke to delude him in telling that hee may not choose but like of your doinges because you ment it vnto him when you did it to a dumbe creature for his sake But awake out of your frensie God will not thus be mocked by your relations or intentions Hee is zealous of his honour he will not resigne it to any other and namely not to grauen or carued images If against his worde against his will against his truth and glorie you impart it to anie other or take vpon you to conueie it to him by creatures or images as if hee were not present in all places with might and maiesty to receiue the seruice that is done vnto him you not onely make new Gods but you reiect him as no GOD who alone is the true GOD and will be serued without mate or meane of your deuising Phi. Our Lord shewing what account he maketh of such as represent his person sayth In as much as you haue doone it to one of the least of these you haue doone it vnto me Theo. Did Christ speake that of images Phi. Noâ— but thereby you see it passeth â—â—to Christ whatsoeuer is done in his name or for his sake to others Theo. If you meane such charitable reliefe as Christ hath commaunded vs to yeeld to our brethren in respect of his will their neede and our dutie you say well wee haue for that the manifest precept and promise of our Sauiour accepting it as done to himselfe whatsoeuer is done to any of his brethren or seruauntes but if you leape from men to images from humane comfort to diuine honour you leape too farre to haue the sequele good Philand If diuine adoration may not bee giuen to Images yet humane reuerence may with-out anie daunger Theo. Religious honour may not and as for externall and ciuill reuerence whether that may bee giuen to images can bee no doubt of Doctrine nor point of fayth The one is impious to bee defended the other superfluous to bee discussed Philand So you giue them either wee care not Theophil If you flie from adoration to saluation and stande not on pietie but on ciuilitie then is it a question for Philosophers and not for Diuines and to bee decided rather in the Schooles than in the Churche neyther can any manne bee praysed or preiudiced for vsing or omitting that kinde of curtesie which neyther the Gospell nor good manners conuince to bee necessary Philand Shoulde wee not honour Christ and his Sainctes by all the meanes wee can Theophil Christ you must honour with all power and all your strength as being the Sonne of the liuing GOD but you may not fasten his honour to any Image or creature since hee is alwayes present to beholde and willing to receiue as well the religions submission of knees handes and eyes as the inwarde sighes and grones of the heart neither can you bestowe the least of these gestures on an image in your prayers without open and euident wrong to him to whome you shoulde yeeld them Phi. For adoring of images I am not so earnest as for hauing them in the Church that they may put vs in remembraunce of the bitter paines and death which it peased our Lord to suffer for our sakes and that I am sure is catholike though adoration be not Theo. We doe not gainesay the remembring or honouring the death and bloodshedding of our Sauiour hee is not onely dull but wicked that intermitteth either but this is the doubt betwixt vs whether wee shoulde content our selues with such meanes as hee hath deuised for vs and commended vnto vs thereby dayly to renue the memorie of our redemption or else inuent others of our owne heades fitte perhappes to prouoke vs to a naturall and humane affection but not fitte to instruct our fayth The hearing of his worde and partaking of his mysteries were appointed by him to leade vs and vse vs to the continuall meditation of his death and passion a crucifixe was not hee knowing that images though they did intertaine the eies with some delight yet might they snare the soules of many simple and sillie persons and preferring the least seede of sounde faith beholding and adoring him in spirit and truth before all the dumbe shewes and imagery that mans wit could furnish to winne the eye and moue the heart with a carrâ—all kind of commiseration and pitie such as wee finde in our selues when wee beholde the tormentes and pangues of any miscreant or malefactour punished amongest vs. Phi. All meanes are good that bring vs in minde of his death Theo. By sight you may learn the maner of his death but neither the cause nor the fruits which are the chiefest thinges that the sonne of god would haue vs remember in his death and you very peruersely and wickedly keeping the people from those meanes which Christ ordained as the hearing of the word and right vse of the sacraments which you drowned in a strange tongue that the people vnderstood not set them to gaze on a Roode taught them to giue all possible honour both bodily and ghostly to that which they sawe with their eyes bearing them in hand it passed from the image to the originall that is from a dead and senselesse stocke to the glorious and euerlyuing Sonne of God which in effect was nothing else but to worship and serue the creature before the Creator which is blessed for euer Phi. You are now besides the matter We speake of hauing images for remeÌ„braunce not of adoring them for religion and that is catholike if this be not Theo. Since the hauing of images being neither deliuered nor allowed by Christ nor his Apostles is superfluous and the abusing of them is so daungerous and yet so frequent and often that in all ages and places it hath intrapped many Gentiles Iewes and Christians I see no reason why for a curious delight of the eyes which the Apostles neglected and the primatiue Church of Christ wanted we shoulde scandalize the ignorant and exercise the learned as for a necessarie point of catholike doctrine Phi. Had the Apostles and their scholers no images Theo. Had they thinke you Phi. Remember you not the image which Nicodemus that came to Christ by night made with his owne handes and left to Gamaliel S. Pauls master he to Iames and Iames to Simeon and Zacheus This report you shall finde written by Athanasius 1300. yeares since and besides that it is amongest his workes at this day it was repeated 800. yeares agoe in the second Nicene councell as
knowledge and gift not only permitted but also desired to exhort the people and giue thanks to God in other mens charges Philand This might be but how proue you this was the fault which the Apostle reproued Theo. I need not proue that If this which I speake might easilie come to passe then your inuincible arguments be sensible follies corelude vtterly no such thing as you imagine Your argumeÌ„t cannot be impregnable til your consequent be ineuitable since so many cases may be put though your antecedent be admitted to repel your consequeÌ„t what wisedome was it to make such vaunt of your forces not onely before the victory but when you see your selues so voide of al good artillerie Phi. Againe the publike seruice had but one language in this exercise they speak with many tongues Theo. Againe you can neither verifie your antecedent nor iustifie your consequent Set order of publike seruice they had none in the Apostles time the Pastors and ministers praied by heart as the spirite of God guided them This gift of praier some turned to their owne prayse and ostentation when they were admitted to giue thanks to God in the congregation of the faithfull and made their prayers in such tongues as they preferred or would seeme endewed with though the people vnderstood them not for which attempt the Apostle controlleth them Phi. These are your conceiuements Theo. Were they no mans but mine your reasons are weake and euen contemptible which you proclaimed for inuincible but as you heard S. Ambrose did informe you that these men whom S. Paul here toucheth vsed sometimes the Syrian and most times the Hebrew tongue in tractatibus aut oblationibus in their discourses to the people or ministration of the Sacrament as they pleased Phi. In the publike seruice euery man had not his owne speciall tongue his speciall interpretation special reuelation proper Psalmes but in this they had Theophil In the publike seruice of the church the ministers and Elders which were many both trauelers and there dwellers had euery man his Psalme his instruction his tongue reuelation or interpretation as the spirite of grace thought it most expedient for the setting foorth of Gods glory and the edifieng of their faithes that were present and other order of diuine seruice in the Apostolike and primatiue church wee reade for certaintie of none besides the action of the Lordes supper which the Apostles and so no doubt their churches alwaies vsed in the end of their publik meetings but with not set prayers saue onely the Lordes prayer as Gregorie confesseth the rest of their prayers blessinges and thanksgiuinges were in euery place made by the gift of the holy Ghost inspiring such as were set to teach and gouerne the church And though you haue long since their time framed a Liturgie in Iames name wheron you seeme to ground all the cauils that here are vrged as inuincible arguments yet for so much as the church of Christ did not acknowledge it and the words of Gregory directly impugne it we return that home to the forge whence it came your arguments back to you as wanting both truth strength to beare out your cause Phi. The publike seruice had in it the administration of the holy Sacrament principally which was not done in the time of this conference Theo. Though the Lordes supper was not ministred at that instant when the Pastors people were intending for doctrine yet did it follow immediatly vpon this exercise finished and due thankes offered to God by the whole church for the redemption of the world in the blood of his sonne neither besides your bold and bare negatiue do we see any cause why the singing blessing and thanksgiuing which S. Paul speaketh of should not be vnderstood to be the prayers and Psalmes that were vsed before after and at the Lordes table this I am sure S. Paul willeth all thinges to be done to edification and all must containe the church seruice ministration of the Sacrament as wel as Psalms or any other exercises of the church So that if the special discourse did not touch the ministration of the Lords supper the general direction doeth comprise it so much the more because the whole church as wel the people as the Preachers as well women as men haue equall interest in the Lords supper to be thereat fed and thereby stirred to giue thanks to God for the richesse of his mercie in the death of Christ. And if you thinke that vnderstanding and consenting is more needful for the people in any other prayers than in those that are made at the Lordes Table you erre not of ignorance but of wilfulnesse and care not what you say so you may entertaine the simple with somewhat for the sauing of your credite Phi Into this exercise were admitted the Catechâ—mens and Infidels and whosoeuer would in this weomen before S. Pauls order did speake and prophesie so did they neuer in the ministration of the Sacrament With manie other plaine differences that by no meanes the Apostles wordes can be rightly and truely applied to the Corinthians Seruice then or ours nowe Theo. You should close vppe the matter with the strongest argument you haue and this is the weakest At their prophesies that was at their sermons and exhortations Infidels and nouices not yet baptized might bee at their mysteries they might not be but were sent away and the doores shut when the faithfull approached to the Lordes Table Hence you may conclude that euery hearer of the woorde may not bee partaker of the diuine mysteries but that the one did not presently followe the other in the Seruice of the Church or that S. Paul did not meane them both you shall neuer conclude yea rather the sending them away that might not bee present argueth that the rest which were left did foorthwith addresse them-selues to the participation of the Lordes Table and that all which was doone in the Church before both exhorting and praying was referred to this end to make them meete commers to that heauenlie banquet Phi. That may bee but S. Paul speaketh of the one and not of the other Theo. That you should prooue if you coulde tell howe Phi. We haue alreadie prooued it by inuincible argumentes Theo. Marie that you haue if blinde surmises and loose sequeles may stand for argumentes otherwise what haue you saide that hath any shewe of proofe I will not saie of inuincible proofe Your maine foundation is a dreame of your owne that the Church of Corinth had a prescribed number and order of prayers pronounced by some one Chaplin that sayde his lesson within booke and might not goe one line besides his Missale for any good This you imagine was their Church Seruice all other prayers Psalmes blessings and thankes-giuings though they were vsed openly in the congregation and the whole people bound to say Amen you will not haue to
often as you shal eate you shall shewe forth the Lordes death this is that supper And in an other place This is not to eate the Lordes Supper He meaneth that Supper which Christ deliuered before his passion when all his Disciples were with him For in that Supper the Lorde and all his Seruants sate togither Theodorete Likewise The Lords Supper he calleth the Lords Sacrament And so Photius He calleth it the Lords Supper after the imitation of that dreadfull and mysticall Supper when the Lorde sate togither with the disciples as if he shoulde haue saide the Supper which the Lord disposed and ordained Bede to expound this place citeth the wordes of Augustine that went before The verie receiuing of the Eucharist he calleth the Lords Supper Haymo mentioneth both opinions but concludeth plainlie with vs. Sacramentum igitur corporis Christi à communione Caena appellatur The Sacrament then of Christes bodie is called a Supper by reason of the communion Or if you will haue one place insteede of all reade S. Augustine de verbis Domini secundum Lucam Sermo 33. and you shall finde him not onely call the Sacrament a Supper and the Lords Supper twentie times in one short Sermon but also bring you the authoritie of Christ himselfe for it when hee saide in the fourteenth of Luke a certaine man made a great Supper And therefore you were more angrie than wise to check that terme as hauing smal reason which had so good testimonie both of Scriptures and fathers and in lue of it to offer vs the name of the Masse a word that the greeke Church neuer vsed as your selues knowe and is found in the workes of all the Latine fathers that be theirs but six times in six hundreth yeares set Gregorie aside who liued about that time and vseth the worde somewhat oftner than anie of the rest and yet not in that sense nor for that thing which you intend For neuer father called the Sacrament or Eucharist the Masse And in that point if wee haue but small reason to speake as wee doe you haue vtterlie no reason great nor small to call the Sacrament the Masse as you doe but that rage in you manie times ouer ruleth reason and then you pushe out your violent and vnmastered passions Phi. Wee haue S. Ambrose for our Author when wee denied the blessed Sacrament to be called a Supper and for the name of the Masse in plaine wordes we haue not him only but also August sermo 251.91 Concil Carthag 2. cap. 3.4 cap. 84. Mileuit ca. 12. Leo epist. 88.81 cap. 2. Grego lib. 2. epist. 9.93 c. Theo. S. Ambrose doth not saie that the ministration of the Sacrament may not be called the Lordes Supper but he woulde not haue vs thinke it to be a Supper prouided to fill our bellies And in that sense he saith Ostendit illis mysterium Eucharistiae inter caenandum celebratum non caenam esse The Apostle sheweth them that the mysterie of the Eucharist was celebrated as the disciples were at Supper and not to be the whole Supper which they had and thereuppon groundeth that which he noted before that in the Church vnitatis mysterij causa conuenitur non dissentionis ventris they must assemble for the celebration of the mysterie and obseruation of vnitie not for dissention and the bellie Phi. The circumstances of the text namelie the reiecting of the poore the riche mens deuouring of all not expecting one an other gluttony and drunkennesse in the same can not agree to the holy Sacrament Theo. The worlde wanteth such skilfull interpreters of Scriptures as you are you would easily proue if you were let alone that a man hath no head because hee hath two feete or two armes and those are not his head Phil. Would you make vs so foolish as to thinke a man may not haue feete armes and head though the partes in themselues be different in proportion position and action Theo. But in boulting S. Pauls text you reason as if hee could not For of two thinges that were vsed both together you vrge the one to exclude the other and as if that were some mightie collection you say that we and al the fathers who tooke it otherwise haue smal reason for our doings Phi. We speake of you not of the fathers Theo. You thrust them to the heartes through our sides For if we following their ful consent in expounding this place haue small reason they had as litle who began it vnto vs and went that way before vs we tredding but their steppes after them Phi. We meant not to disgrace them Theo. The sequele of your words doth whatsoeuer your purpose was Phi. Wee giue you the reasons of our exposition and those in our iudgement very cleare Theo. As cleare follies as any can bee Phi. Disprooue them then Theo. The christians you graunt had their common feasts in the Church at that tyme for their relieuing of the poore retaining of brotherly vnitie Phi. They had as wee note vnto you out of Tertullian Apolog. ca. 39. Clemens Alexand. S. Iustine S. Augustine contra Faustum lib. 20. cap. 20. Theo. And that they had therewithall the Lords Supper for so I must call it till you bring some better reason against it I thinke you doubt not Phi. At or about the same time they had but whether before or after I know not Theo. To this purpose it shall not skil The faults for which S. Paul reproued them were these the diuiding themselues into factiōs inso much that they would not expect one an other no not at the Lords table their shaming the poore with whom as it seemed they tooke skorne to sit at the same table abusing the church of God to excesse of eating drinking The two later enormities might be committed at their ordinarie feastes in the Church and so might also the first yet because those brotherly repastes did either end or beginne with the Lords Supper they coulde not diuide themselues eche from other and disdaine the poore at their cōmon meats but they must offer the same abuse at the Lordes supper which was ministred to them as they sate at their tables immediatly before or after their vsuall and corporall refreshings By S. Pauls wordes it shoulde appeare the Communion was distributed to them after meales for so the Apostles receiued it at their masters hands the night that he was betrayed and S. Paul not onely noteth the time when Christ did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after they had supped but to cut off dissention drunkennesse and contempt of their poore brethren in the Church which were the vices then growen amongst them he requireth a precedent examination before they did eate not an answerable conuersation after they had eaten Hee saith not let euery man remember at whose table he hath eaten whose cup hee hath been partaker
which you doe not Theo. What you list to do is no care of ours if you can shew vs any thing in Christs institution which we haue not we wil giue you the hearing otherwise to ad your ceremonies to his commandements we mind it not We knowe you crosse the creatures at benedixit and hold your noses â—o néere the bread when you say hoc est corpus meum that the breath of your mouthes euen warmeth the host but our beliefe is that his mightie word not your vnpausing spéech or intentiue lookes performeth the Sacrament And therfore your blowing Christs words vpon the bread is rather a magicall incantation than any effectuall application of them to the elements and if you hold that his word is too weake to endue the visible signe with inuisible grace except it be backed by your blowing and crossing we say you be proud disciples no right appliers of his heauenly word and power Phil. We do not help his words as if they were of themselues weake but we apply them to the elements in this present and actiue maner which you do not for when you recite the words a man cannot tell whether you speake them to trie your memories or to coÌ„secrate the mysteries you be so far from vsing any gestures or action that should import application Theop. The purpose of our hearts wel knowen vnto God and made open vnto men wheÌ„ we call them to the Lords table the praiers which we make before we come to the words of Christ directly and plainely tending to that end the placing of the bread and the cup in our and their sight the mentioning of Christes institution and commandement that we should follow his example and continue that remembrance of him the duetifull and reuerent rehearsing the words which he spake as the holy Ghost did penne them this demonstration and supplication that we receiuing THESE THY creatures of bread and wine according to thy Sonne our Sauiour Iesus Christes institution in remembrance of his death and passion may be partakers of his most blessed bodie and blood vsed immediatly before we repeate the words of Christ the breaking and giuing of the bread and so likewise the cup immediatly after they be sanctified and offering them to each communicant in remembrance of Christes bodie that was broken and blood that was shed to purchase the remission of their sinnes thereby to preserue them body and soule to euerlasting life the praiers I say precedent the preparation euident the direction adherent the distribution consequent are signes enough to hym that hath but eares or eyes that we presently purposely publikely execute Christes institution and other hooking and haling of Christes words to the elements by crossing crouching gaping and blowing on them as your manner is we acknowledge none to be required or expressed in the Lords Supper Philand It is no Sacrament but as Saint Augustine saith when the words come that is to say actiuely and presently be applied to the elements Theoph. We know that to be most true which S. Augustine saith Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum when the word commeth to the element the Sacrament is perfite but what haue your termes actiuely and presently to do with Saint Austens speach yea what place could you choose more repugnant to your fansies than this which you bring The element without the word is a weake and corruptible creature put the word to it and then it becommeth a Sacrament Philand You marke not the force of the verbe Accedit which signifieth the word must come so néere that it must euen touch the element Theoph. Can you tell vs how words may touch elements Philand What else By actiue and present application Theoph. This is your old song which we would haue you turne to some plainer note What kind of application meane you with the breath of your mouths motion of your hands or cogitation of your hearts You may blowe vppon the bread and wyne but there is some difference betwéene the sounde of your voyce and the breath of your loongs if you looke a little but to Aristotles Predicamentes and therefore your breath may touche the elements your woords can not Much lesse can your fingers apply your speach either actiuely or presently to the elements you must runne to the inward intention of the mynd and that may direct your purpose in speaking as it dooth ours but not actiuely apply your spéech to come néerer the elements in your masse than in our communion And so the comming of the word to the element in Saint Austen to perfite a Sacrament helpeth you to prooue your reall and manuall application of Christs words in your Masse as much as chaulke doth to make chéese when curds are wanting Yea rather if you reade on but foure lines you shall find your follies flatly refuted by Saint Augustine and a cleare resolution for vs that not vttering but beleeuing the words of Christ giueth force to the Sacraments In the water of Baptisme saith he it is the word that clenseth Take away the word and what is water but water Then commeth that which you cite Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum Put the word to the element and then is it a Sacrament Vnde ista tanta virtus aquae vt corpus tangat cor abluat nisi faciente verbo non quia dicitur sed quia creditur Nam in ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens aliud virtus manens Whence hath the water this vertue to touch the body and wash the soule but by the power of the word not in that it is spoken but in that it is beleeued for in the word it selfe the sound passing is one thing and that little woorth the vertue remaining is another thing If the word of Christ do not worke in that it is spoken much lesse in that it is actiuely or exquisitely spoken with square conueiance and nimble gestures the lacke of which is the greatest fault you can find with our Sacraments Philand This is no small fault but yet not the greatest Theoph. You should haue laid foorth in writing what circumstances are required to your actiue application of Christes words and then you might haue béene answered with more perspicuitie Wheras now your obiecting vnto vs the breach of Christes institution in certaine metaphysicall and supermysticall termes neither opened by your selues nor vnderstood of others is but a Iesuiticall deuise to make a brable about words and to get the simple in the meane time to mistrust some-what in our doctrine and doings though they nor you sée no iust cause to mislike But to be short with you if the repelling of your actiue and slipper gestures and hauiours that we might embrace the will and commandement of the high and mightie God be a fault we haue committed many foule faults in this and all other parts of our profession otherwise in pride and presumption you
in them all others to do what he did taught them that his actions were essentiall to his Supper as well as words He did not wil them to say this but to doe this in remembrance of him Phi. Do you not thinke the repeating and vsing of his words to be necessarie in the celebration of the Sacrament Theo. Yeas but I adde that his actions are as necessary Phi. There is difference betweene the making of a medicine or the substance and ingredience of it and the taking of it Theo. There is but wheÌ„ the medicine is neuer so well made if it be not ministred to the patient the making of it is vtterly vaine Phi. Yet the making of it is not the ministring of it Theo. The one is the end of the other and therfore without the ministring the making is superfluous Phi. Then taking and eating is not the substance or being or making of the sacrament or sacrifice of Christs body and blood but it is the vse application to the receiuer of the things that were made offered to God before Theo. Neither did I say that eating and drinking were the substantial partes of the sacrament but of the Lords institution Phi. As though the sacrament were not our Lords institution Theo. Christes institution containeth as well the vse as the matter or forme that must be vsed A supper is not only the meate prouided but also the act of eating that which is prouided so the Lords institution or Supper imploieth the vse and action as well as the word and elements Phi. The vse of it is to be a sacrifice as well as a sacrament and in a sacrifice offering is rather required than eating Theo. That is the way to correct the son of God who saide not take this and offer it but take this and eate it Eating which Chrâ—st commaunded you neglect offering which â—e did not commaunde you esteeme and yet you would bee followers of Christ. Phi. Did not Christ say to his Disciples Do this Theo. You knowe we presse you with that saying of his Phâ— Doe this that is offer this Theo. So you say but where saith Christ so Phi. Doubt you whether this bee a sacrifice Theo. We talke not what names the Lordes supper may be called by but what wordes Christ vsed Phi. Hâ— sâ—ide Doe this Theo. To wit that which he did before for so the demonstratiue bindetâ— the sense Phi. And what if Christ sacrificed himselfe as he sate at table Theo. 〈◊〉 must come to that issue or else your sacrificing is cleane without Christs commaunding Phi. Christ himselâ—e seemeth to mention some such thing when hee sayeth This is my body which is not which shal be broken for you And this is my blood which is shed not which shall be shed for many for remission of sinnes If this were not a sacrifice wâ—at was it Theo. It was the foreteâ—ling of that which was then at hand presently to ensue Phi. Christ vsed the present and not the future tense Theo. And yet the suffering which hee specified by the breaking of his body and shedding of his blood was not present but the next day on the crosse If you teach that Christs blood was really shed at the table for remâ—ssion of sinnes you must put him twise to death make the later death which was on the crosse to be vtterly idle For where remission of sin is there needeth no more sacrifice for sin If theÌ„ remissioÌ„ of sins were obtained by the actual shedding of Christs blood at his last supper his death crosse the next day were superfluous If forgiuenes were not obtained ouer night but that the Lord the next day was to shed his blood for our sinnes then spake he before hand of that which the next day should follow his speech in the present tense noteth nothing but that hee had euen then giuen him-selfe ouer to death for our sakes which immâ—dâ—atly they should beheld No act of Christes therefore at his last supper importeth any reall sacrifice that he then made but he did institute a Sacrament of thankesgiuing and coâ—maunded vs by eating and drinking to bee partakers of his bodie that was wounded and bloode that was shedde the next daie for the remitting and pardoning of our sinnes So that you must either retayne eating and drinking at the Lordes table or else renounce both the beneâ—it of his passion and memoriall of his death with an open neglect of his last Will and Testament Phi. Wee do retaine it and as you know by our canons we bind all priests that consecrate to communicate in both kindes Theo. Let the decrees of men alone do you bind them to it by the words of Christ Phi. We do though the punishment bee expressed in the canons and not in the Scriptures Theo. It in punishment enough to bee guiltie of the body and bloode of Christ a greater you can not impose make your canons as seuere as you will Phil. Yet you see we binde them to communicate Theophil You should breake Christes institution if you shoulde doe otherwise Philand And therefore wee doe that which I tell you Theophil Then eating and drinking are necessary partes of Christes institution Philand Of his action they are partes but not of the Sacrament Theophil Neither doe I say that they are partes of his bodie blood but of his example and ordinance Philand Wee graunt Theo. And the neglecting of those actions which Christ in his person perfourmed before vs is a breach of his institution as well as the changing or omitting of his wordes Philand In the Priest it is Theo. Of the Priest wee speake for Christ charged him and not women or lay-men to doe as he did Phi. Then wee agree to your last position that if the Priest do not obserue Christes actions as well as Christes wordes he transgresseth Christes institution Theoph. Then your Priestes are all guiltie of violating Christes institution Phi. Doe they not eate and drinke at the Altar as hee did Phi. That Christ himselfe did eate and drinke at the ministration of the Sacrament is not expressed in any part of his institution though some wordes that followe after declare he dranke of the same fruite of the vyne which the rest did but the whole course of his actions speeches stood in deliuering the mysteries vnto others He tooke bread that hee might breake it hee brake it that hee might giue it he gaue it that they should eate and so his wordes declare which are both plurall and spoken to others take ye eate ye not singular or to himselfe Though therefore your Priest take and eate for his part yet since Christ brake the bread that it might bee diuided among others bid them take and eate it is certaine your Priestes neither doe as Christ did nor as hee commaunded his Apostles to do nor as the very wordes of Christ which he repeateth do
is the liuely sacrifice whereof it is written Offer to God the sacrifice of praise your coūtinances hang as did that homicides which slue his brother Phi. This nothing infringeth our assertion Theo. But this declareth the meaning of Malachie Phi. Our oblation is a sacrifice of praise thanksgiuing Theo. Had you kept your selues there and not runne farther to fansies of your owne framing and Uictimes as you call them of your own presuming you might haue offered that cleane sacrifice foretolde by Malachie which nowe you doe not Phi. You will not haue his wordes pertaine to the Eucharist Theo. You will neuer speake trueth so long as you may shift with facing Phi. Confesse you thē that Malachie spake of the Eucharist The. With all our hearts Phi. You bee nowe ouer the shooes in your owne cestern The. But it doeth me no hurt for I feele no wet Phi. You graunt the Eucharist to be a sacrifice which your fellowes will be angrie with you for Theo. Neither they nor I euer denied the Eucharist to be a sacrifice The verie name inforceth it to be the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing which is the true and liuely sacrifice of the new Testament Phi. I thought you woulde backe againe Theo. I am nowe as farfoorth as euer I was or as any of these ancient fathers are which haue expounded the wordes of Malachie Phi. Then you must affirme it to be a sacrifice Theo. Leaue this foolish repeating and often inculcating that which neither benefiteth you nor annoyeth vs. The Lordes table in respect of his graces mercies there proposed to vs is an heauenly banquet which we must eate not sacrifice but the duties which he requireth at our handes when wee approch to his table are sacrifices not sacramentes as namely to offer him thankes and praise faith and obedience yea our bodies and soules to bee liuing holy and acceptable sacrifices vnto him which is our reasonable seruing of him Phi. This must bee doone when wee receiue the sacrament but this is no part of the Sacrament Theoph. These bee the conditions without which God will not haue vs come to his Table and for these respects the Eucharist hath his name thereby to put vs in minde of our duties Phi. Wee do not deny these sacrifices to bee good and holy and then most requisite when wee drawe neerest vnto God as at his table but we adde that the very sacrament it selfe is a sacrifice and the celebration thereof is a continuance of that oblation which Christ made in his owne person on the Altar of the crosse Theo. This wee graunt to bee most true in that sense which Sainct Augustine and other auncient and Catholike Fathers doe auouch it that is because Sacramentes haue the names of those thinges whose Sacramentes they are And since this is the Sacrament of the Lords death and a passion we do not sticke to say that Christ is dayly crucified and sacrificed for the sinnes of the world mary not really or corporally but by way of a mysterie that is his crosse and bloodshedding are proclaymed and confirmed in the eyes of all the faithfull by these signes of his death and seales of his truth by which hee first witnessed that his bodie should bee broken and his blood shed for the remission of our sinnes Philand Why then refuse you the fathers expressing their opinion of this sacrifice Theo. Nay why doe you abuse their wordes to support your errors and wheresoeuer you find the names of sacrifice and oblation in them referred to the Lordes supper why alleadge you the places with such confidence as if the fathers were at your commaundement to meane nothing but your reall sacrificing the sonne of God vnder the formes of bread and wine Phi. What other meaning could they haue Theo. I haue already shewed you by their owne writinges what other meaning they had Phi. You say they call it a sacrifice because it is a signe and memoriall of his death on the crosse Theo. That is sufficient to shew their meaning Phi. But their words are so weightie that a cold and naked signification doth not answere the force of them The Lambe of God laide vpon the table conc Nice The quickning holy sacrifice the vnbloody host and victime Cyril Alex. in conc Ephes. Anath 11. The onely inconsumptible victime without which there is no religion Cypr. de caen Dom. nu 2. Chrys. hom 17 ad Heb. The sacrifice of our price Aug. confess lib. 9. cap. 13. Theo. What a patching you keepe to no purpose Phi. Dare you attribute these speeches to the creatures of bread and wine Theo. Dare you attribute them to the Priestes externall gestures Is his act the lambe of God or the price of our ransome or the holy and quickning sacrifice Phi. No but the fleshe and blood of Christ are which the Priest offereth as wee say to God for the sinnes of the people Theo. To what ende then alleadge you these places for the Priests act which shewe the worthinesse of Christes sacrifice and the power of his death Phil. Our sacrifice worketh those effectes Theo. And so doth ours Phi. Then you bee of our opinion Theo. As though we did resist you touching the thing that is offered and not touching the manner of offering That Christ is the lamb of God laid on the Lordes table before the eyes of our mindes that his flesh wounded and bloud shed for our sinnes are an holy quickning and euer during sacrifice and the most sufficient price of our redemption we vrge this against you you neede not vrge it against vs wee fully and faithfully teach it The question betweene vs is howe this sacrifice once made on the Crosse is daily renued in our mysteries You will haue a reall corporall and local profering of Christs fleshe to God the father vnder the formes of bread and wine made by the Priestes externall actions and gestures for the sinnes of such as he lift this is we say a wicked and blasphemous mockerie His passion is the true oblation of the church his flesh wounded and blood shedde are the only sacrifices for sinne which oblation that it might be alwayes in our hearts and sights he hath commaunded vs to continue in his church by a memoriall of his owne erecting and to applie the same to our selues by a stedfast hope in his mercies humble prayer vnto his holynes as often as wee approach to his table to bee partakes of his death merites And therefore the Priestes act can no way bee auailable for those that stand by looke on and neither communicate with him in praier or in the participation of the mysteries And your alleadging four and twentie places of the fathers for this kinde of sacrifice of which they neuer thought sheweth what fidelitie and sinceritie you haue vsed in the rest of your Rhemish obseruations which you sent ouer but to occupy mens
heades whiles you were working an other feate Phi. What feat could we haue in hand but the testifieng of trueth to our Countrie men that wee haue done to the vtter confutation of your hereticall doctrine The. You must needs coÌ„fute vs for besides abusing of scriptures which you wind like a withe about your fingers where the Fathers will not serue your turnes you will force them euen by skores tâ— depose what you list and though they vse but generall and indifferent wordes yet you will by and by quote them to be of your opinion Phi. Where haue we so done Theo. Omit the places that are past in this beadrole of Fathers which here are brought shewe but one that euer mentioned your kinde of sacrifice wee will trouble you no farther you shall set vp your Masse againe Phi. What wee shall not Theo. I will helpe you the best I can Phi. Any of the places which wee bring is sufficient to iustifie our sacrifice Theo. As well euery as any They cal the Lordes Supper ministred according to his institution an OBLATION and SACRIFICE or as your pen runneth an HOST and a VICTIME what then Phi. Then wee say trueth when we teach it to be a sacrifice not only a sacrameâ—t The. Then you lie the more when you say that you really corporally sacrifice the Sonne of God vnder the formes of bread and wine and that the Priestes act though the people neither vnderstand what he saith neither know what he doth but gaze on him whiles he alone murmureth to himself in a touÌ„g vnknown maketh that priuat to one which should be common to al by Christs institution is notwithstanding very profitable before God for such as hire his paines or please his humour to bee had in minde when hee rubbeth his memory Phi. You peruert our doctrine Theo. It may bee my termes doe not please you but I tell you the thinges which wee reiect in your sacrifice Leaue your presumptuous and meritorious application of Christes death as pleaseth the Priest leaue your reall and corporall inclosing of Christ vnder accidentes and shewes of bread and wine confesse the Lords Supper to be a publike actioÌ„ pertinent to the whole church as it was ordained and let your prayers instruct and direct the hearts of the simple and haue their open euident assent as for the name of sacrifice and oblation it shall not offend vs. Phi. The chiefe occasion of your hatred against the dayly sacrifice is this that you do not acknowlege the real presence of Christ in this sacrament that maketh you neither to offer him nor to adore him as we doe yea skant to abide the fathers wordes wherein they witnesse that he is offered and must bee adored vnder the formes of bread and wine Theo. We hate your follies we hate not their speeches and yet there are reasons why wee doe not thinke our selues bounde to take vppe the frequent vse of their termes in that point as wee see you doe For first they bee such wordes as Christ and his Apostles did forbeare and therefore our faith may stand without them Next they be darke and obscure speeches wholy depending on the nature and signification of Sacramentes which the simple doe hardly conceiue Thirdly wee finde by experience before our eyes howe their phrases haue entangled your senses whiles you greedily persued the wordes and omitted the rules that shoulde haue mollified and directed the letter These causes make vs the warier and the willinger to keepe to the wordes of the holy Ghost though the fathers applications if you therewithall take their expositions doe but in other termes teach that which we receiue and confesse to bee true and sincere Philand Woulde you make vs beleeue that the sacrifice of the Altar hath no warrant in the Scripture Theo. Shewe mee the place where it is so called and then will I graunt that in the worde I was deceiued Phil. First you hearde the worde OBLATION in Malachie Theo. I did but I heare him not applie it to the Sacrament Philand Melchisedec by his oblation of bread and wine did properly and most singularly prefigurate this sacrifice Theo. But the Scripture doeth not say that either Melchisedec did sacrifice bread and wine or that Christ at his last supper did imitate Melchisedec Phi. Hee was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedec Theo. Saint Paul sheweth in what thinges Melchisedec resembled Christ as in that hee was the king of righteousnesse and peace without father without mother hauing neyther beginning of his dayes nor ende of his life and remaining a Priest for euer without partner or successour but of sacrificing bread and wine as you say Melchisedec did Saint Paul saith nothing Phil. The Fathers do almost euerie one of them Theo. I doe not deny the resemblace to be both tolerable and vsuall among the fathers but I say the scriptures haue no such thing Phil. Sainct Paul himselfe maketh an whole discourse to proue the Sacrament to bee the Sacrifice of Christs body and blood in the church Theo. Where In his Apocalypse which your law mentioneth Phi. No Sir I alleadge his canonicall writinges Theo. Where may a man seeke to finde it Phil. Looke our obseruations vppon his 10. chapter of the first to the Corinthians Theo. Nay in your obseruations I knowe wee shall finde many thinges that are not in the scriptures they were purposely made that where your religion stood not in the text at lest it might stand in the gloze but I would heare Saint Paul saye so much or but halfe such a worde and then I were aunswered Phi. In all that discourse you may obserue that our bread and chalice our table and Altar the participation of our host and oblation bee compared or resembled point by point in all effectes conditions and proprieties to the Altars hosts sacrifices and immolations of the Iewes and Gentiles Which the Apostle would not nor could not haue doone in this Sacrament of the Altar rather than in other Sacramentes or seruice of our religion if it onely had not been a Sacrifice the proper worship of God among the Christians as the other were among the Iewes and Heathen Theo. Tel me not what I may obserue but what you can conclude Is the worde sacrifice attributed to the Lordes Table in that chapter Phi. By resemblaunce and comparison it is Theophil Speake first whether so much bee expressed by the Apostle in plaine wordes and then after wee will examine what may bee collected Philand In plaine wordes it is not but point by point it is compared in all effects conditions and proprieties to the altars hostes sacrifices and immolations of the Iewes and Gentiles Theo. Where is this resemblaunce of your bread and Chalice table and altar host and oblation point by point in all effectes conditions and proprieties to the altars hostes sacrifices and immolations
hoc It is a common question what is ment by the pronoune THIS whether bread or the body of Christ Not bread for that is not the body of Christ nor yet the body of Christ for it appeareth not that there is any transubstantiation till the wordes be all pronounced To this demaund I say that by the word THIS nothing is ment but it is there put materially without anie signification at all Thus you turned and tossed the wordes of Christ so long till you brought all that the Lord did and saide at his last supper to plaine NOTHING With such vnchristian toyes were your scholes fraughted and the worlde deceiued such monsters you hatched when once you left the direction of the Scriptures and Fathers and fell to broaching your owne gesses But you must either admit our explication this breade is my body for the right ordering and perfitting of Christes wordes or else dissent from the manifest Scriptures from al the catholike Fathers and with shame enough from your owne fellowes and fansies Phi. Wee sticke not so much at the filling vp of the wordes which Christ spake as at the constering and expounding of them You delude them with tropes and significations as if Christ had beene speaking parables and not ordaining sacramentes Wee say there must be a reall truth and actiue force in them to perfourme the letter as it lieth For in Scripture so long as the letter may possibly be true we may not fly to figures Theo. In that you say right We must imbrace the sense which is occurant in the letter before all others if it agree with faith and good maners but if it crosse either of them we must beware the letter lest it kill and seeke for an other and deeper sense which must needes be figuratiue That direction S. Augustine giueth to al men when they read the Scriptures Iste omnino modus est locutionis inueniendae propriáne an figurata sit vt quicquid in sermone diuino neque ad morum honestatem nec ad fidei veritatem proprie referri potest figuratum esse cognoscas This is the perfect way to discerne whether a speech be proper or figuratiue that whatsoeuer in the word of God can not be properly referred either to integritie of maners or verity of faith thou resolue thy selfe it is figuratiue Phi. That prescription is very sound but it furthereth not your figuratiue sense For the letter of these wordes which we stand for is neither against faith nor good manners Theo. The literall acception of these words as they lie this bread is my body is first impossible by your owne confession next blasphemous by the plaine leuell of our Creede and lastly barbarous by the verie touch and instinct of mans nature Phi. Charge you Christ with so manie foule ouersightes in speaking the wordes Theo. The wordes which Christ spake be gratious and religious we know but where there may be brought a double construction of them a carnall or a spirituall a literall or a SacrameÌ„tall the literall construction which you will needes defend to deface the other is we say reproued as no part of our Sauiours meaning by those three barres which we proposed Phi. You propose much but you proue litle Theo. I should proue euen as much as you do if I should proue nothing but that which I proposed shall not want proofe The first your owne friendes will helpe me to proue Your Lawe saieth Hoc tamen est impossible quod panis sit corpus Christi Yet this is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ. Why striue you then for that which your selues grant is not possible to be true Why forsake you the mysticall interpretation which is possible what greater vanitie can you shewe than to cleaue to that sense which you see can not stande If it be bread how can it be Christ If it be Christ how can it be bread The second is as cleare For if breade in proper and precise speech bee the flesh of Christ ergo bread is also the feede of Dauid ergo breade was fastned to the crosse for our sinnes ergo bread was buried rose the third day from death and now sitteth in heauen at the right hand of God the Father nay no questioÌ„ if bread be Christ then is bread the Sonne of God and second person in the sacred Trinitie which how wel your stomaks can digest we know not in truth our harts tremble to heare an earthly dead and corruptible creature by your literall carnall deuotion aduaunced to the Lord of life grace the maker of heauen and earth yea the liuing and euerlasting God and yet if bread be truely and properly Christ these monsterous impieties you can not auoide Thirdly what could you deuise more iniurious and odious to christian mildnesse maners than the letter of these words eate you this is my flesh drinke you this is my blood Had you bin willed in as plain termes to cruciâ—ie Christ as you bee willed to eate his fleshe you woulde not I trust haue presently banded your selues with the Iewes to put him to death but rather haue staggered at the letter and sought for some farther and other meaning Yee be now willed to eate his flesh drinke his blood which is a precept far more hainous horrible in christian behauiour and religion if you follow the letter as AusteÌ„ affirmeth It appeareth more horrible to eate mans flesh than to kill it to drinke mans blood than to shed it And againe The Capernites were more excusable that coulde not abide the wordes of Christ which they vnderstood not being in deede horrible in that they were spoken as a blessing not as a cursing They thought saith Cyrill Christ had inuited them to eate the raw flesh of a man and drinke blood which thinges be horrible to the verie eares Why then presse you the letter which is hainous forget that the speech can not be religious except it be figuratiue Uerily S. Austen concludeth the speech to be figuratiue for this only reason If the scripture seeme to coÌ„mand any vile or ill fact the speech is figuratiue Except ye eate the fleshe of the son of man and drinke his blood you shall haue no life in you facinus velflagitium videtur iubere Christ seemeth to command a wicked sinfull act figura est ergo It is therefore a figuratiue speech commanding vs to be partakers of the Lords passion sweetly profitably to keep in mind that his flesh was crucified wouÌ„ded for vs. If then the real eating of Christs flesh with our mouthes and actuall drinking of his blood with our lips be wicked and hainous why presse you the letter of these wordes eate you this is my body drinke you this is my blood against truth against faith against nature neither possibility nor christianity nor coÌ„mon honestie suffering your exposition to be good S.
on his flesh and that they might thenceforth learne that the flesh of which he spake was celestiall foode from heauen and spirituall nourishment which hee giueth Augustine Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy bellie BELEEVE AND THOV HAST EATEN To beleeue in him this is to eat the liuing bread HE THAT BELEEVETH EATETH He is inuisibly fedde because hee is inuisibly regenerated He is inwardly a babe inwardly new In what part he is renewed in that part is he nourished Bernard that in respect of antiquitie liued but yesterday can teach you the meaning of this place When they heard him say except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his bloud they saide this is an hard speach and departed from him And what is to eate his flesh and drinke his bloud but to communicate with his passions and imitate that conuersation which he ledde here in flesh The text it selfe doth in sight conuince so much The Lord often times expoundeth his owne wordes purposly to this effect Worke not for the meate which perisheth but for the meate which dureth to eternall life and this is the worke of God that you beleeue in him whom he hath sent I am that bread of life he that commeth to me not by walking but by beleeuing shal not hunger he that beleeueth in me shal neuer thirst Hunger and thirst are no way quenched but with eating and drinking Then how can the beleeuer but still hunger and still thirst except we graunt that he which beleeueth both eateth and drinketh Verily verily I say vnto you except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you haue no life in you He then which hath life per consequence eateth the flesh of christ and drinketh his bloud but he that beleeueth hath eternall life as our Sauiour affirmeth in the same place with no lesse vehemencie Verily verily I say vnto you he that beleeueth in me hath euerlasting life ergo he that beleeueth eateth the flesh and drinketh the bloud of Christ. For if eating and drinking in this place were referred to the mouth and teeth how could Iudas or any other of the wicked that is once partaker of the Lordes table perish The wordes of Christ be plaine Your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes and are dead If any man eate of this bread he shal liue for euer whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life But the wicked notwithstanding the corporal chamming of this Sacrament die the death of sinners ergo they neither eat the â—lesh of Christ nor drink his bloud not because their teeth or iawes faile them but by reason they want faith which is the right and proper instrument of spiritual eating Since then man beleeueth with his heart vnto righteousnes as Paul teacheth not with his iawes nor lippes ergo the soul of man which only beleeueth only doth eate the flesh of Christ and our bodies which haue no meanes to beleeue can neither eate nor drinke in that sort and sense that our Sauiour there speaketh of You cannot with honestie steppe from so manifest both Scriptures and Fathers as these bee that I haue brought or if you can dally with so good and graue witnesses in so weightie matters I trust the Godly will bee fully resolued that the manner of eating Christs flesh and drinking his bloud which the Lord himselfe first proposed in the sixt of Iohn was not LITERALL NOR CORPORALL as the Capernites vnderstand him and were deceiued but ALLEGORICALL AND SPIRITVALL ALLEGORICALL in respect of the words which be not there precisely taken in their vsuall signification for grinding with the teeth and straining downe the throate but figuratiuely spoken and import as much as confessing imbracing with hart and inward affectioÌ„ SPIRITVAL because not our mouths but our minds not our bellies but our spirites are nourished with the flesh and bloud of Christ and that not by chewing or swallowing but by remembring and beleeuing that his bodie was wounded and his bloud shedde for our perfect and eternall redemption Now the Lords Supper is correspondent not contrarie to the first of Iohn as we saw before by the verdit of the fathers confession of your selues therefore the Lords table teacheth no literall nor carnal but a spirituall mysticall eating of the â—lesh of Christ and drinking of his bloud which you cannot obserue so long as you presse the letter of these wordes Take eat this is my body For taking and eating in the Supper bee corporall actions euen as breaking the bread and deliuering the cup are Then if the wordes this is my bodie bee literall the consequent is ineuitable that the flesh of Christ is really taken with hands actually brused with teeth corporally lodged in the belly But this error the Lorde in his own person confuted and the Catholike fathers refell as impious irreligious and haynous ergo the wordes of the Supper this is my body bee not literall but rather aunswerable to the doctrine proposed in the sixt of Iohn which is nothing lesse than literal Phi. You make but a double manner of eating Christes flesh where you should make a triple A carnal spirituall and Sacramentall A carnal which the capernites dreampt of when they supposed they should haue eaten raw flesh to sight and tast as they did other meates A spirituall by faith and vnderstanding in which sort euery good man may eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud at any time without the mysteries A Sacramentall as when wee eate the flesh of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine though we neither see nor â—ast flesh or blood Of these three sortes the sixt of S. Iohns Gospell refelleth onely the carnall which the Capernites grossely fell to when they heard our Sauiour speake of the Sacrament Theo. I blame you not if you bee loath to be counted Capernites They were reproued by our Sauiour as grosse mistakers of his speach and lewde forsakers of his fellowship but would God you were as willing to leaue their error as you be to refuse their name Phi. Wee be farder than you from their opinion And you be rather Capernites that aske how can he giue vs his flesh to eate and will not beleeue any eating of Christes bodie with the mouth except your eyes and tongues maie first discerne and tast the same Theo. We aske not him how he can doe anie thing that he will but wee aske you how you know that both his will and his worde are changed since he rebuked the Capernites for their grossenes Phi. We doe not say that either his will or his word are chaunged Theo. Then the doctrine of eating his flesh and drinking his blood which he delâ—uered in the sixt of Iohn remaineth in the same force and strength that it did at first when he reuealed it to his disciples Philand It doth
mysterie that Christ is eaten vnder the formes of bread and wine Theo. None at all if you set your teeth and iawes on worke to eate him as the Capernites thought they should when they peruerted the wordes of Christ. Phi. They supposed they should haue seene and tasted mans flesh which is horrible Theo. Eating as I haue shewed you doth consist not in seeing or tasting but in chamming and swallowing since you therein consent with the Capernites though you could alleadge twentie diuersities betweene their maner of eating yours yet both are corporal and contrary to that doctrine which Christ deliuered in the sixt of Iohn â— For that as I haue proued was intended and referred to the soules and spirits of men not to their throats or entrals and therefore well in couering the body of Christ and deluding your senses you may differ from the Capernites but in preparing your teeth and iawes for the flesh of Christ and in drawing his wordes from their mystical and figuratiue sense you ioyne with the Capernites against all the Catholike Fathers that euer wrate in the Church of Christ. Phi. Haue we thinke you no fathers with vs as well for the literall construction of Christs wordes as for the corporal eating of his flesh in the Sacrament Corporall I call it not because we see it or tast it as we doe other meates but because we be sure it entereth our mouthes when we receiue our rightes and is really contained in our bodies Theo. You may abuse some fathers to make a shew but otherwise you haue no ground in them either of your literall vnderstanding Christs speach or corporal eating of christs â—lesh Phi. Haue we not S. Damascen S. Epiphanius Theophilact Euthymius and others earnestly presse the literal construction of christs words against your signes and figures and as for eating the flesh of Christ with our very mouthes S. Austen S. Chrysostom S. Leo S. Gregorie S. Cyril Tertullian others are resolute whoÌ„ I trust you wil not condemn for Capernites By this way the simple learne what to looke for at your hands that wil out-face so plaine a trueth Theo. He that will be good at outfacing let him studie your Testament and hee neede none other teacher but what trueth is it that we outface Phi. Neuer father you said auouched the literal sense of Christes wordes Theo. I said no ancient father of which number I do not account these late Grecians to be And therefore if they did contradict that which Tertullian Austen Origen Chrysostome and others did teach long before them wee would not regard them but as yet I seeâ— no such thing proued by them Phi. The proofe is easie S. Damascene rehearsing the wordes of Christ This is my body immediately addeth not a figure of my body but my body not a figure of my bloud but my bloud S. Epiphanius likewise Christ said take eate this is my body Hee saide not take eate the Image of my body And Theophilact Bread is the very bodie of our Lord and not a figure correspondent For he said not this is a figure but this is my body And so Euthymius Christ said not these are signes of my body but these are my body These be manifest places and yet such is your impudencie that you affirme no father euer vrged the literall force of Christes words And so for the corporall eating of Christs flesh with our mouthes S. Augustine saith It hath pleased the holy Ghost that in the honour of so great a Sacrament our Lordes bodie should enter into the mouth before other meates And S. Chrysostome Our mouth hath gotten no small honour receiuing our Lordes bodie And S. Gregorie The bloud of the lambe is sucked not only by the mouth of the heart but also by the mouth of the body And S. Leo That is receiued by the mouth which is beleeued by the heart And Tertullian Our flesh doth feede on the bodie and bloud of our Lord And S. Cyril It was needfull that this rude and earthly body should be recouered to immortalitie by touch tast and foode of the same kind with it selfe You aske for fathers here they be both many in number and auncient in time to discharge vs that we be no Capernites and to refell your foolish vaunt that all antiquitie were of the verie same mind that you are now It may bee you neuer heard the places before If you did not I will pardon your ignorance so you repent your rashâ—es Theo. Yeas sir I haue seene them and â—â— may bee weighed them better than euer you did And notwithstanding your magnificence it will appeare you be not free from ignorance whatsoeuer you be from impudencie Phil. I will burne my cloathes to my shirt if euer you answere them Theo. But saue your skinne from the fire though you spare not other mens blood nor bones Phi. We vse you but as heretikes should be vsed Theo. If it be heresie for vs to serue god according to the Gospel of his sonne what is it for you to serue him with your own medlees Phi. You would flie the fielde rather than your life but I must keepe you to it Theo. You runne so fast from God and your Prince that you may soone ouer-goe vs if we would flie but as yet I see no cause Damascene Theophilact and Euthymius presse the letter of christes speach not to deriue thence your carnal and guâ—tural eating of christs flesh nor to controll that which Tertullian Austen Origen Chrysostome and others men of farre greater learning and authoritie than these taught long before them in the church of God but to shew that bread and wine be not only tokens and bare signes of christes fleshe and bloud but also cary with them and in them the vertue power and effect of his death and passâ—on Euthymius Christ said not these be the signes of my body and bloud but these are my bodie and bloud We must therefore NOT LOOKE TO THE NATVRE of the giftes which are proposed BVT TO THE VERTVE Against them which defend that this Sacrament doth only figure not offer signifie not exhibite grace the letter may wel be forced to proue the diuine power and operation of the mysticall elemenets Against vs which hold the visible signes in substance to bee creatures in signification mysteries in operation and vertue the things themselues whose names they bearâ— this illation concludeth nothing Yet for the better explication of him selfe and others vsing the like kind of speach Theophilact addeth this worde ONLY Marke that the bread which is eaten of vs in the mysteries Non est TANTVM figuratio quaedam carnis Domini is not an only figuring of the Lords flesh but the Lords very flesh For he saide not the bread which I will giue is a figure of my flesh but is my flesh Their meaning was as we see
peruert the meaning of Leo and if you did but vnderstand the right course of his reason you would suppresse both his voice and your vaunt for verie shame Phi. He that will trust your sayings shall haue manie false fiers when he should not Theo. And he that will credit your doings shall feele manie quick flames when he would not Phi. You be better at quipping than at answering Theo. You are lothe we should encroch on your common But returne to Leo. Can you tell against whome he wrote Phi. Against such as you are that denied the trueth of Christes bodie and blood in the Sacrament Theo. Were they men without names or names without men Phi. Mock not they were your auncetours Theo. They say it is a wise childe that knoweth his owne father Doe you But in sadnes whome did Leo traduce in that sermon Phil. Mary Eutiches and such like heretikes Theoph. You saie well for Leo nameth him but a litle before in that sermon and against his opinion he reasoneth Philand I am content with that Theoph. What was his error Phi. He denied the trueth of Christes bodie and blood in the Sacrament Theo. Who told you so Phi. I gather it by those that refute him Theo. By them you shall learne his error but this it was not Philan. What was it say you Theo. Eutiches affirmed that Christes humane nature and substance was not onely glorified by his ascension but consumed and turned into the nature immensitie of his Godhead Against him wrate Theodorete Gelasius and others and one of the cheefest argumentes which they bring against him is that which Leo here toucheth in a woorde or two Phi. That argument cleane confoundeth your sacramentarie Sect. Theo. Yours or ours it must needes confound for this it is As the bread and wine after consecration are changed and altered into the bodie and bloud of Christ so is the humane nature of Christ conuerted into his diuine after his resurrection ascension but the bread and wine are not changed neither in substance nor forme nor figure nor naturall proprieties but only in grace and working ergo Christs humane nature is not changed into his diuine EITHER IN SVBSTANCE circumscription or forme but only endewed with glory and immortalitie Phi. This is no Catholike reason but sauoreth altogether of your hereticall poison Theo. They which first framed and vrged this reason against Eutiches in your opinion were they heretikes Phi. No father euer vsed it Theo. If they did must not they be doubbed for heretikes as the first proposers of that reason or at least you for affirming now the quite contrarie For you reiect both their assumption conclusion against Eutiches as starke false and whose ancetour then is Eutiches but yours Phi. They do not vse it as you report it Theo. Looke you offspring of Eutiches whether Gelasius Theodoret and Augustine do not vrge it in those verie pointes and wordes which I repeate Thus Gelasius framed his reason against Eutiches An image or similitude of the bodie and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries It is therefore apparant and euident enough that we must holde the same opinion of Christ the Lord which we professe celebrate and receiue in his image That as those signes by the working of the holy Ghost passe into the diuine substance and yet remaine in the proprietie of their owne nature Euen so that verie principall mysterie it selfe whose force truth that Image assuredly representeth doth demonstrate one whole and true Christ to continue the two natures of which he consisteth properlie remaining And lest you should not vnderstand what he ment by this The signes still abide in the proprietie of their owne nature he expoundeth himselfe an saith Non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis vini The substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not or perisheth not When Theodoret had made an entrance to the very same reason by laying this foundation Oportet archetypum Imaginis esse exemplar the Originall must be answerable to the Image the heretike caught the words out of his mouth and said It hapned in good time that you did mention the diuine mysteries for euen thereby will I prooue the Lordes bodie to be chaunged into an other nature As then the signes of the Lordes bodie and blood are other thinges before the inuocation of the Priest but after they are chaunged and become other than that they were so the Lords bodie after his assumption is chaunged into his diuine substance The maior being good such as Gelasius and Theoderet did both auouch that as the signes were changed after consecration so was Christes humanitie after his assumption if your opinion had then beene taught in the church that the substance of bread and wine were changed by consecration the conclusion had beene infallible for Eutiches error that the substance of Christes humanitie had beene changed by his ascention into his diuinitie and not only both these Fathers had had their mouthes stopped but Eutiches error had beene inâ—olâ—ble as beeing grounded on a Maior that was a confessed and famous trueth and on a Minor that was as you thinke the vndoubted saith of the Church Mary the Minor in deed was apparantly false though you now defend it for Catholike Doctrine and with the plaine deniall of that as a manifest vntrueth Theodoret inferreth the contrarye that because neither the Substance nor naturall proprieties of the bread and wine are chaunged by consecration as the whole Church then beleeued and confessed therefore neither the substance nor shape nor circumscription of Chrisâ—es humane nature were changed by his ascention but his body remaineth in the â—ame substance quantitie and forme that he rose from death and ascended vp withall and with the very same forme and substance of flesh shall come to iudge the worlde These are his wordes Thou art caught saith Theodoret to the heretike with the same nets that thou laiedst for others The mysticall signes after sanctification doe not depart from their own nature For they remanie in their former substance and figure and forme c. Conferre then the Image with the originall and thou shalt see the likenes betweene them For the figure must be like to the trueth That body therefore of christ in heauen hath his former shape and figure circumscription to speake al at once his former substance Lay all your heades together aâ—d graunting the Maior which the whole Church held auoide the conclusion of Eutiches withâ—ut the denying the Minor as Theodoret did which yet is your faith and beleefe at this day and we wil grant you to be Catholiks and our selues heretikes If you cannot see how far you be falleÌ„ from the doctrine of Christs church and that in no lesse point than the greatest and chieâ—esâ— Sacrament on which you haue wickedly founded your adoration oblation halfe communion priuate masse and barbarous prayers without
The faith of our fathers is not alwaies trueth 537 God forbiddeth vs to follow the steppes of our fathers 538 The godly confessed their fathers did erre 539 All humane lawes barres giue place to God 540 The prince might make lawes for trueth maugre the Pope 541 Princes haue setled religion without Councels 542 Christian religion receiued vpon the direction of a lay man 543 Trueth authorised the Apostles against Priests Princes 544 Railing on Princes is a capitall crime 545 The contents of the fourth part No point of Poperie Catholike 546. What is truely CATHOLIKE 547 The worshipping of Images is not Catholike 547 The west Church against the worshipping of Images 548 Corruption to help the credite of the second Nicen councell 549 The worshipping of Images detested in the Church of Christ as Heresie 550 The â—mage of God made with hands may not be worshipped 552 The Iewes Gentiles did erect their Images vnto God 553 The heathen adored their stocks as the Images of God 554 The Image of man set vp vnto God is an Idoll 556 The wodden Image of Christ may not be worshipped 557 The honour done to a wodden Image is not done to Christ. 559 Adoration of Images no Apostolick tradition 562 S. Basill forged to make for adoration of Images 563 The shamefull forgeries and falsities of the second Nicene councell 564 Both Scriptures and fathers wickedly abused by the second Nicene Councâ—l 565 The second Nicene Councel conuincing it selfe of forgerie 566 What an Idole is 567 A wrong seruice of God is Idolatrie 568 The Church of Rome giueth diuine honour vnto Images 569 Christs honour may not be giuen to Images 570 The hauing of Images is not Catholike 572 Athanasius palpablie forged in the second Nicene Councell 574 The Church next to the Apostles reiected Images 574 Images came first from Heathens vnto Christians 575 Images reiected by godly Bishops 576. No corporall submission may be giuen to Images 577 The Nicene Bishops play the sophists in decreeing adoration vnto Images 577 The wodden crosse of Christ may not be adored 578 Not one word in scripture for adoration of Images 580 No point of faith may be built on traditions 581 No point of faith beleeued without Scripture 582 Baptizing of Infants is a consequent of the Scriptures 583 It may be a tradition yet grounded on the Scriptures 584 Baptisme of InfaÌ„ts prooued needfull by the Scriptures 585 Rebaptization repugnant to the Scriptures by S. Augustines iudgement 588 The perpetuall virginitie of Marie the Mother of Christ. 589 The Godhead of the holy ghost expressed in the Scriptures 590 His proceeding from the father and the sonne confirmed by the Scriptures 592 Expresse scripture is the sense and not the syllables 593 Fathers wrested to speake against the scriptures 594 The Popish faith is their owne traditioÌ„ against the scriptures 597 Their adoration of images is a late and wicked inuenâ—ion of their schooles 598 Images adored in the Church of Rome with diuine honour 600 Images reiected by Catholike Bishops 601 S. Austen condemneth Images as vnprofitable signes 602 Custome without trueth is but the antiquitie of error 603 Praier in an vnknowen toung prohibited by Saint Paul in Gods name 604 S. Paul speaketh of vnknoweÌ„ touÌ„gs 606 An vnknowen toung cannot edifie 607 Diuine seruice in a knowen toung cannot choose but edifie 608 S. Paul speaketh of three learned toungs as wel as of others 610 S. Paul speaketh of the Hebrew Greeke and Latine as well as of other tongues 611 S. Pauls wordes comprise both Church seruice sermons 612 Saint Paul 1. Cor. 14. speaketh of Church seruice 613 The Church vnder the Apostles had no set order of diuine seruice 614 The Church vnder the Apostles did sing blesse and pray by the gyft of the spirite 615 The Apostle had no certaine praiers or seruice 616 The Iesuits halting reasons that S. Paul did not speak of the church Seruice 616 S. Paul to the Corinthians speaketh of Church seruice 620 No man may say AMEN to that he vnderstandeth not 624 Necessary to vnderstand our praiers 625 The primatiue Church had neuer her praiers and seruice in an vnknowen tongue 627 The latine seruice was vnderstood in the Countries where it was 629 Alleluia is vsed in all tongues aswell barbarous as others 630 The Britans had no latine seruice 632 Alleluia soung at the plough 632 The Iesuits manner of alleaging impertiment authorities 633 Bede doth not say that the people of this Realme had the latine seruice in his time 634 The prayers of the primatiue Church were common to all the people 636 The Masse book proueth that the people should vnderstand the Priest 639 The Priest needeth no speach in his praiers but to edifie the hearers 640 Praier is as acceptable to God in a barbarous as in a learned touÌ„g 642 Seruice in an vnknowen tongue is no custome of the vniuersall Church 643 The primatiue church had her seruice in such tongues as the people vnderstood 644 The primatiue church allowed praiers in barbarous tounges Whether side commeth nearest to christs institution 650 S. Paul by the Lords supper meaneth the sacrament 651 The name Masse whence it first came 655 We doe not swarue from christes institution 657 Christ did blesse with the mouth and not with the finger 658 Blessing in the scriptures applied to diuerse and sundrie thinges 659 To doe any thing vpon or ouer the bread is not needefull 660 The rehearsall of christs wordes maketh a sacrament 661 We shew our purpose at the Lords table by our words and deedes 662 The worde beleeued maketh the Sacrament 664 Vnlâ—uened bread is not of the substance of the Sacrament 664 Water is no part of Christs institution 663. 670 Water is not necessarie in the Lordes cup euen by the confession of their own schooles 668 No water mingled whiles the Apostles liued 672 The Masse an open profanation of Christs institution 673 Priuate Masse euerieth all that christ did or said at his last Supper 674 Christ did not sacrifice himselfe at his last supper 676 The Primatiue church had no priuate Masse 678 The Lords supper ought to be coÌ„mon 679 The Lords cup was deliuered to the people as well as the bread 679 Christs precept for the cup extendeth as well to the people as to the Priest 680 In the primatiue church the lords cup was common to all 682 The causes for which the church of Rome changed christs institution 683 The auncient church of Rome very vehement against half communions 684 Forbearing the Lords cuppe condemned in laymen as sacrilege 685 Sacrilege in the Priest can be no religion in the people 686 The Iesuits proofes for their sacrifice 687 How the fathers call the Lordes supper a sacrifice 688 Their own Masse booke contradicteth their sacrifice 690 The Lords death is the sacrfice of the Lords supper 691 A memoriall of christs passion is our daily sacrifice 692 The elder sort of Schoolemen knew not their