the euerliuing God and not to blaspheme him as I did for which cause I made this miserable end being murthered by mine owne children Note heere that after Eusebius Senacherib was also called Salmanasar which I thinke consonant to the holy scriptures Assar-addon succeeded Senacherib his father but was not fortunate for the strength of the Assyrians began to decay euen while his father was yet liuing Besides this the mighty prince Merodach-baladan the Chaldee made wars both with him his father before him forthwith after the death of Senacherib hee wanne Babylon and enioyed it with other territories in Assyria vntill the death of Assar-addon from whose death hee possessed the whole Empire Hee raigned tenne yeares Merodach-baladan the first king of the Babylonians for the fame and memorie of the ancient kingdome of Assyria was called king of the Assyrians also as were likewise other kings that followed him He first transported the maiestie of the Assyrians to the Chaldees or Babylonians for the glorie of Niniue where the kings pallace was of olde was nowe translated to Babylon for which benefit Merodach after his death was honoured for a God of the Babylonians Ier. 50 ver 2. he raigned 40. yeares Ben-merodach the second king of the Babylonians was a milde and mightie Prince he raigned 21. yeares Nabuchodonosor the first or the old the third king of the BabyloniaÌ„s after Merodach was father to that Nabuchodonosor who subdued Hierusalem and erected the Babylonian monarchy he made two great battailes the one against Phaortes aliâs Arphaxad king of the Medes the other against Nechao the mightie king of the Egyptians Hee slew king Arphaxad in the mountaines of Ragau as the storie of Iudith maketh mention But Nechao ouercame him and enioyed all Syria he raigned 35. yeeres Nabuchodonosor the great sonne of Nabuchodonosor the first shortly after his fathers death wanne againe all Syria He was the mightiest king of all the kings of Babylon much spoken of in holy Writ Hee subdued the citie of Ierusalem and led away the inhabitants thereof captiues to Babylon This Nabuchodonosor as he was mightie in power so was he prowd in heart He made an image of golde and set it vp in the plaine of Dura in the prouince of Babylon Which done he commaunded all his princes nobles dukes iudges receiuers counsellers officers and all gouernors of his prouinces to come to the dedication of the image Hee appointed an herald to crie aloude that when they heard the sound of the cornet trumpet harpe sackebut psalterie dulcimer and other instruments of musicke then they should fall downe and worship the image And because the three holy Iewes Sidrach Misach and Abednego would not adore the image hee caused them to be cast into a very hote burning ouen from which fiery furnace God deliuered them myraculously In regarde whereof Nabuchodonosor magnified the liuing God made a decree that al people and nations which spake against the God of Sidrach Misach and Abednego shoulde bee drawen in peeces and their houses made a iakes Dan. 3.29 After this the king still swelled in pride so that he was cast out from his kingdome driuen from men ate grasse as oxen and his bodie was wet with the dew of heauen till his haires were growen as Eagles feathers and his nailes like birdes clawes Dan. 4. verse 30. After Nabuchodonosor magnus succeeded Euil-merodach after him Balthazar of which two see the first chapter in the fourth section CHAP. II. Of the destruction of Troy THe kingdome of Troy was of great antiquitie it began as sundrie Chronographers write a little before the death of Moses about the 32. yeare after the departure of Israel out of Egypt They write that Dardanus was the first king of the Troians and Priamus the last Alexander the sonne of Priamus surnamed Paris tooke away violently Helena wife to Menelaus king of the Lacedemonians which fact was the occasion of the most bitter and bloody battell of the Troyans This battel was fought of the most valiant people in Asia and Europe with mortall enmitie and inestimable losse on both sides with the bloud and destruction of many most flourishing regions Troy was taken burnt and vtterly destroyed 340. yeares before Rome was built in the age of the world 2935. From the captiuitie of Troy vntill the first Olimpias were complete 340. yeares albeit Liuiâ—s and some other haue their different supputations CHAP. III. Of the supputation of the Greeks THe olde Greekes did account as wee doe nowe by the yeres of our Lord the first Olimpias the second the third the fourth and so forth Some holde that Olimpias is the space of fiue yeeres but if thou wilt not be deceiued therin gentle reader reckon it but for the space of foure yeares The supputation of the Greeks by the Olimpiads is of all writers deemed true and therefore albeit before their Olympiads euerie one wrote as pleased himselfe yet after their Olympiads wee ought greatly to respect their account Africanus writeth that the first Olimpias was in the first yere of Ioatham king of Iuda and so it should be in the age of the world 3251. others dissent fro that computation affirme it to bee in the time of Ioas and then it chanced in the age of the world 3130. which supputation seemeth not so probable and therefore with Affricanus Eusebius and others I imitate the former but in reckoning the time of Iotham and Ioas I dissent from them both as is alreadie shewed CHAP. IIII. Of the citie of Rome ROme was builded in the end of the sixt Olympias in the age of the world 3218. after the destruction of Troy 340. before the incarnation of our sauior Iesus Christ about 729. yeares Romulus and Rhemus were brothers twinnes both of one age Contention and controuersie fell betweene them after whether of them the citie which they had newly built should be named The contention grew from words to tumults from tumults to strokes from strokes to bloudy battel insomuch as in the bickering Rhemus was slaine after his death Romulus enioyed the Empire alone of whome the City was called Rome Rome hath beene sundrie times sacked and ouerthrowne by the Gothes and Vandals first by Alaricus the Gothe in the yeare of our Lord God 412. This king besieged Rome and after burned it during which siege such famine was in the city that the mothers were constrained with hunger to eate their owne children It was besieged taken and sacked the second time by Gensericus the Vandal in the yeare of our Lord 456. It was besieged sacked and subuerted the third time by Totilas king of the Gothes in the yeare of our Lord 548. in the yeare after the citie was built 1300 in which siege as in the first the famine was exceeding great mothers were enforced contrarie to nature and kinde to kill and eate the flesh of their owne children Procopius Palmerius The same
Iapheth was the eldest sonne of Noah borne in the 500. yeere of his age Cham or Ham his second sonne borne in the 501. yeere of his age Sem his third and yongest sonne borne in the 502. yeere of his age Which tradition is very probable though not altogether certaine and vndoubted for Sem is said to be but 100 yeares olde 2. yeeres after the floud Genes 11. verse 10. yet is Sem named first in the scripture because the historie of the church is continued in his line Noah liued after the floud 350. yeares and when he was 950. yeeres old he died Gen. 9. verse 28. in the yeere of the world 2006. From Adam to the birth of Noah are 1056. yeres Gen. 5.3 from Adam vntill the death of Noah are 2606. yeeres The fourth section of the tower of Babel The tower of Babel was built about 130. yeeres after the floud in the yeere of the world 1788. The place where the tower stoode is now called Babylon that is to say confusion because from thence came the confusion of tongues Ioseph antiq lib. 1. cap. 4. Nimrod was a mightie hunter and the beginning of his kingdome was Babel in the land of Shinar for there was an other citie in Egypt called also Babel Gen. 10. verse 10. Nimrod was a cruell oppressor of the people and a very tyrant so as his tyranny came into a Prouerbe as Nimrod the mightie hunter before the Lord. Gen. 10. verse 9. Before the building of Babel the whole earth was of one language but they were puffed vp with pride and sought to build a tower to reach vp to heauen that so their name might be magnified and their power vnited on earth Yet sodainely such diuision of their vniforme language was made as one of them vnderstoode not another they were scattered abroade and the tower left vnperfect Genes 11. verse 4 7 8. Nimrod was the nephew of Cham who was son to Chus or Cush who first affected empire and beganne the forme of a kingdone in Chaldea his pallace was Babel Hee was the first that exercised hunting after Noahs floud Gen. 10. verse 7.10 About this time beganne a new kingdome amongst the Assyrians by Ashur the sonne of Sem his chiefe citie was Niniueh but he builded also Rehoboth and Calah Genes 10. verse 11. Genebr The fift section of Abraham Abraham was borne 352. yeares after the floud in the yeare of the world 2008. the promise was made to Abraham 427. yeeres after the floud which was 75. yeares after his birth hee was commanded to goe out of his countrey 423. yeares after the floud Abrahams father Terah died when Abraham was but 75. yeares olde Terah was 205. yeares old when he died Genes 11 verse 32. Abraham died when hee was 175 yeares olde Genesis 25. verse 7. At the death of his father Terah he was but 75. yeeres old Genesis 12.4 Gen. 11. verse 26 32. In which age of 75. yeeres Abraham departed out of Haran Genesis 12. verse 4. The first difficultie It seemeth by the twelfth chapter of Genesis that GOD spake to Abraham after the death of his father Thare or Terah when he was in Haran And it is euident by Genes 11. that God spake vnto him when hee was in Chaldea I answere that God spake to Abraham when he was in Chaldea his natiue countrey from whence hee went with his father to Haran where he abode by reason of his fathers infirmitie vntill his death After the death of his father hee went from Haran with Sarai his wife to Canaan the land of promise accordingly as God had commanded him which resolution will be cleare if we ioyne the beginning of the 12. chapter with the latter end of the eleuenth The second difficultie Saint Steuen saith in the seauenth of the Actes that Mesopotamia was Abrahams natiue country from whence he went to Charran Therefore it cannot be that Chaldea was his countrey I answere that Chaldea was his country and that his countrey was indifferently called either Mesopotamia or Chaldea Which I prooue by two reasons First because Plinius lib. 6. cap 26. saith that Chaldea is a citie in Mesopotamia Secondly because S. Steuen Acts 7. verse 4. confirmeth the same neither doth any graue writer denie but that Mesopotamia ioyneth to Chaldea and so Chaldea being in the confines of Mesopotamia may not vnfitly bee taken for the same The third difficultie It is said in the 11. of Genesis that when Abraham went from Vr of the Chaldees he dwelt in Haran but in the 7. of the Acts it is said that when he went out of Chaldea he dwelt in Charran so it seemeth that either holy Moses or S. Steuen must vtter an vntruth I answere that that word which Moses in Genesis calleth Charran is also called Charran by S. Steuen in the Acts although the Latine vulgata editio and other vulgar translations tearme it Haran The reason hereof is this because the first letter of that worde in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of diuers pronounced diuersly See the second chapter aforegoing in the end of the second age The fourth difficultie This is a great difficultie and worthie to be well obserued The doubt standeth thus Moses saith Genes 11. verse 26. that Terah begat Abraham when he was 70. yeeres olde In the same place he saith that Terah died when he was 205. yeeres old in the twelfth of Genesis hee saith that Abraham was 75. yeeres old when he departed out of Haran or Charran for all is one as is already saide so that by this reckoning we must want 60. yeares of Terahs age for albeit the scripture say that Terah liued 205. yeeres yet by the computation already made we cannot finde more then 145. yeeres I answer first that this difficultie hath troubled many learned men Some thinke that God would conceale the 60. yeeres that so the end of the world might be kept secret from vs. Others thinke that Abraham stayed those 60. yeeres with his father at Charran I answere secondly that Terah was 105 yeeres olde when he begat Abraham Neither is holy writ repugnant to this my answere For although it say that Terah was 70. yeeres old when he begat Abraham Nachor and Haran yet doth it not deny him to haue beene more but doth connotate the lesse by the more by the vsuall figure synechdoche very frequent in the holy scriptures See the second chapter aforegoing and the obiection made in the second age The sixt section of Isaac When Izhak was borne Abraham was 100. yeeres old Gen. 21. verse 5. Isaac was circumcised when he was eight daies old Gene. 21. verse 4. in the age of the world 2108. Circumcision of euerie man childe was appointed by God Genes 17. verse 10. in the age of the world 2107. Sodome about this time was destroyed with brimstone and fire descending from heauen Genes 19. verse 24. The promise was made to Abraham in Izhak his sonne Genesis 17. verse 21.
multiplier 11  475  475 The summe amounting 5225 Againe if ye diuide the 5225. dayes by 30. you shall finde 174. moneths and fiue dayes thus The number to be diuided 5225 5 daies 174 moneths The diuisor 30 To these you must adde 87. daies because the moone hath not aboue 29. daies and the halfe of one day Thirdly if ye will diuide the 174. moneths by 12. ye shal finde 14. yeeres and 6. moneths thus The number to be diuided 174 6. moneths 14 yeeres The diuisor 12 Now these 6. moneths remaining togither with the 92. dayes od houres and minutes wil suffice to make vp the 15. yeere that is wanting in the last diuision So then this supputation is consonant to the yeeres of the monarkes and to the iust record of the Olympiades of the Greekes which by vniforme consent of all learned writers are most certaine as also answerable to euery thing in Daniel which no other supputation is able by any possibilitie to affoord For it is without all controuersie that the weekes of Daniel were ended in the 4. yeere of Tiberius Cesar at which time Christ was crucified from which yeere vntill the fourth yere of the 83. Olympiade which was the twentieth yeere of Artaxerxes Longimanus where I holde the 70. weekes of Daniel to beginne be iust 475. yeeres after the course of the sunne which make as is already prooued 490. yeeres after the course of the moone CHAP. V. Of the sabbaoth and festiuall dayes of the Iewes WHen the children of Israel were come againe out of captiuitie they and all such as had forsaken heathenish idolatry and ioyned themselues vnto them kept the feast of vnleauened bread seauen dayes with ioy And after the temple was finished in the sixt yeere of Darius the Priests Leuites and residue of the children of the captiuitie kept the dedication thereof Esdr. 6.16 22. Concerning which festiuall dayes and the like because many are superstitious and some very ignorant it shall not be impertinent in this place to set downe a briefe discourse thereof The first Section Of sabbaoths one is legall an other spirituall the third celestiall The spirituall sabbaoth is a ceasing from sinne and is peculiar to the godly and regenerate for with it dissolute liuers and carnally affected persons such as Sardanapalus was can haue no fellowship at all albeit they professe a certaine externall obseruance of the ceremoniall sabbaoth and glorie no little therein For as the apostle saith Rom. 8.13 they that liue after the flesh must die but they that mortifie the deeds of the bodie by the spirit shal liue This sabbaoth is not tied to any certain time or daies but ought to be kept euery day without anie intermission for we must euer beleeue euer hope euer loue euer bring foorth the fruites of the spirit Otherwise there should be no proportion betweene the spirituall sabaoth and the spirituall man The second Section The celestiall sabbaoth is it in which wee shall rest both in body and soule from the labours and vexations of this present mortalitie Yet in this life we may labor in the body although the mind regenerate do sabbatize vnto the Lord. For the spirituall sabaoth doth not so prohibite the regenerate from corporall labours but that they may in due season exercise the same for their own honest sustentation and of others Yea the minds euen of the godly albeit they sabbatize in the Lord yet are they oft afflicted now w t tentations now with errours with tribulations now with anguishes with charitable cōpassions ouer their brethren These are the imperfections of this present life which the spirituall sabaoth cannot take away but the celestiall sabbath in the heauenly Ierusalem will vtterly make an ende thereof For in that sabbath there shall be no place to anie labours errours tentations or miseries whatsoeuer For the vision beatificall will wipe away all teares from our face This is the pure and perfect sabbath not of the bodie onely as the legall whereof I am to speake by and by nor of the mind only as the spirituall but of soule and body both together which sabbaoth was shadowed in the olde law begunne in the new lawe and shall be accomplished in the kingdome of heauen where we shall celebrate the sabbaoth of all sabbaoths world without end The third section The legall ceremoniall and externall sabboth is a certaine set time appointed in the church for the ministerie of the worde and administration of the sacraments And it is of two sorts immediate and mediate the immediate is that which was instituted immediately in the old Testament and this kind was manifold because there was the sabboth of dayes as the seauenth day of the weeke which was tearmed by the peculiar and proper name of sabboth as well in respect of the diuine rest which God had from creating new creatures as of the rest which Gods people must keepe that day There were also other sabbothes of dayes though not properly so tearmed but by the names of feasts to wit the feast of the Passeouer the feast of Pentecost the feast of Tabernacles the feast of expiacion the feast of blowing trumpets the feast of vnleauened bread the feast of the first fruites Againe there was the sabboth of moneths called neomeniae 2. Paralipomenon the second chapter and the fourth verse Thirdly there was a sabbaoth of yeares as euerie seuenth yeare Leuiticus chapter 25. vers 4. in which yere the Israelites were prohibited to till the ground to sow their seede and to cut their vineyardes Fourthly there was also the sabboth of Iubilee which came euerie fiftieth yeare Leuit. 25. vers 12. in the which yeare libertie was proclaimed to all that were in bondage in which yeare none might sowe none might reape none might gather grapes in which yeare euerie one returned to his owne possession in which yeare all land that had beene sold returned to the familie which yeare when it was farre off they might sell dearer but the nearer it was the better cheap ought they to sel their land An apishimitation of this Iubilee the late Bishops of Rome pretend vnto the worlde But alas who seeth not what a diabolical illusion it is In this Iubilee none did or could pardon their neighbours sinnes but the Pope pardoneth al as well great as small in this Iubilee all bond men were set at libertie but in the Popes Iubilee the Turks stil row in galies in bondage they stil remaine both in Italie in Spain in this Iubilee all sold lands had an end and returned againe to the seller but in the Popes Iubilee not onely sold landes do not returne againe but landes bought with other mens goods do stil remain Note wel gentle reader what I say for of late yeares since the Pope by diabolicall perswasions of ambitious and seditious Iesuites intended the inuasion of this land he hath promised facultie to his Iesuites and seminaries that they may dispense
that the ternarie number doth not determine the apparitions in themselues but the diuersitie of dayes and times in which they were made for al apparitions made in one the same day are reputed named one The second doubt It is saide in these apparitions that Christ came into the middes of his Disciples and stoode among them euen when they were within the house the doores closely shut Wherby it appeareth euidently that Christs body may be both in heauen and in the sacrament at one and the same time for it no more repugneth for one bodie to bee in diuers places at once then for diuers bodies to be in one place at once Which latter is here verified of Christs body and the doore or walles of the house The answere I answere that God cannot by his absolute power make Christes body to be in diuers places at once not because there is any defect in God who is omnipotent but because contradiction is implied in the thing which should be done Which point I haue prooued euidently in the 12. preamble of my Booke of Motiues For the reasons there alleadged are effectuall if they be applied to this purpose In like maner I say that two bodies cannot be in one place at once because to haue parts without parts and to occupie place is of the formall and intrinsecall conceit of euery organicall and quantitatiue bodie such as Christes true body is Whereupon S. Augustine said truely and learnedly that if occupation or spaces of places be taken away from bodies they shall lose their essence and be no bodies at all So then the entrance of Christ into the house when the doors were shut and also his comming out of the sepulchre when the stone was vnrolled away neither doth nor can prooue that two bodies were in one place at once but that the doore and the stone gaue place for the time to Christes mightie power like as the red Sea gaue place to the Israelites and they passed through the middest thereof And as S. Peters chaines gaue place to his handes and as the Iron gate opened to him of it owne accord Furthermore if Christes bodie can be in ten thousand places at once as the papistes impudently auouch it must also follow that it may be in infinite places at once which is the heresie of the Vbiquitaries For after this maner did S. Hierome reason against Iohn the Bishop of Hierusalem when hee laboured to prooue that our bodies may liue without meate after the resurrection If a man may liue fourty daies without meate saith S. Hierome as Moses and Elias did by the power of God then doubtles may he liue eternally by the same power of God In fine this veritie is made euident by that argument which Gods angel made to Mary Magdalen and the other Mary comming to see the sepulchre And because the argument is of force to confound all papistes in the world if it be well vrged I will alledge the argument as it is in the originall and then make effectuall application thereof These are the expresse wordes of the holy Euangelist Saint Matthew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hee is not heere for he is risen as he saide Where I obserue first the assertion simplie in it selfe Secondly the cause and reason of the same assertion The assertion is this Christ is not in the sepulchre the reason heereof is this because Christ is risen Nowe then since Christ cannot be in the Sepulchre because he is risen it followeth of necessitie that either the angel of God inspired with Gods holy spirite made a very foolish and friuolous argument which to affirme is void of all christianitie or els that Christes body cannot be in two places at once which is that that I intend to proue For if it were not as I say the women might haue replied effectually against the angel thus albeit Christ be risen as you say yet may he be in the sepulchre also because his body may be in two places at once but the angel reputing it a thing cleere and euident that Christes body could not be in two places at one the selfe same time concluded directly and forcibly as hee thought Christes absence in the sepulchre bicause he was risen againe See the 3. part 10. chapter 4. conclusion and 3. paragraphe CHAP. VII Of Christes ascension and being in heauen CHrist hauing presented himselfe by many infallible tokens after that hee had suffered his passion conuersing visibly with his disciples by the space of fourtie daies in which time he spoke of thâ—nges pertaining to the kingdome of God told them that they should be his witnesses in Hierusalem al Iudea in Samaria and vnto the vttermost part of the earth he commanded them that they should not depart from HierusaleÌ„ but shuld wait for the promise of the father which things when he had spoken hee was taken vp in a cloud out of their sight While they looked stedfastly toward heaueÌ„ two men stood by them in white apparel said to them ye men of Galilee why stand ye gazing into heauen this Iesus which is taken vp fro you into heuen shal so come as ye haue seen him go into heuen Then y e disciples returned to Hierusalem froÌ„ the mount Oliuet which is neer to HierusaleÌ„ being froÌ„ it a sabaoths dayes iorny which is about 2000. paces or two English miles While the Apostles whose names are Peter Iames the son of Zebedeus Iohn Andrew Philip Thomas Bartholomew Mathew Iames the sonne of Alpheus Symon Zelotes and Iudas Thaddeus expected the comming downe of the holy ghost at Hierusalem there abode with them certain women and Mary the mother of Iesus and his brethren that is his kinsfolkes For it was as well behooueable to haue the wiues confirmed as the husbandes because they were afterward to be partakers of the daungers with them All which praied with one accord not onely for the sending of the holy ghost but also for deliuerance from present daungers wherewith they were beset Christ ascended vp into heauen must there remaine vntill his second aduent the day of doome general And so he neither is nor can be in the round cake as papistes impudently contend After Christes ascension and comming of the holy Ghost his apostles went abroad preaching the gospel to all nations whose limites actes and death the next chapter in particular maner shall describe CHAP. VIII Of the seuerall precinctes liues and deathes of the Apostles taken out of Epiphanius Tertullian Optatus Eusebius Oecumenius Nicephorus and others Of Peter and Philip. S. Peter after that hee had preached the gospell of Iesus Christ in PoÌ„tus Galatia Cappadocia Bithyma Italy was crucified at Rome with his had downward vnder the emperour Nero and buried there the third Calendes of Iulie S. Paul the chosen vessel of God omnipotent and the immoueable piller of his church was beheaded the same yere the
altaria in quibus sacrificemus martyribus sed vni Deo martyrum nostro sacrificium immolamus ad quod sacrificium sicut homines Dei qui mundum in eius confessione vicerunt suo loco ordine nominantur non tamen à sacerdote qui sacrificat inuocantur We build not churches to our Martirs as to gods but we make memories as to dead men whose soules liue with God neither doe we reare vp altars there in which we may offer sacrifice of laud to the martyres but we offer sacrifice of thanksgiuing to one God the God of martyres and ours at which sacrifice they are named in their place and order as the men of God that haue ouercome the world in their confession neuerthelesse they are not inuocated or prayed vnto by the priest that offereth the sacrifice Of honour and reuerence due to Saints Eusebius Caesariensis maketh sufficient relation in these words Neque ChristuÌ„ aliquando possumus derelinquere qui mortem pro totius mundi salute sustinuit neque alium quenquam colere quoniam verum Deum qui solus colendus sit nouerimus martyres vero tanquam discipulos domini dâ—ligamus veneremur quasi integrè fidem magistro seruantes domino quorum nos quoque in fide perseuerantia charitatis optamus esse participes We can neither forsake Christ at any time who suffred death for y e saluatioÌ„ of the whole world neither can we worship any other but him because wee knowe him to be the tru God him that only is to be worshipped yet let vs loue and honor martires as the disciples of our Lord as those that keep their faith vndefiled to their master lord with whom also our selues desire to be partakers in faith and perseuerance of charitie What need more Christ himselfe saith Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God him onely shalt thou serue And saint Iohn was forbidden to worship the angell The first obiection God honoureth his saints and reputeth them for his deare friends Ergo it is our duetie also to honour them The answer We honour them with that honor which God hath appointed we acknowledge their faith their humilitie their patience their constancie and all their gratious gifts and wee desire to imitate the same and this is al the honor that saint Austen wil affoord them as you haue heard The second obiection The saints in heauen pray for vs and therefore it is meete that we inuocate and call vpon them For the angell saide O Lord of hostes how long wilt thou be vnmercifull to Ierusalem and to the cities of Iudah with whom thou hast bin displeased now these threescore and ten yeeres Baruch witnesseth that the dead pray for vs when he saith O Lord almightie heare now the prayer of the dead Israelites and of their children which haue sinned before thee Iudas Machabeus had a vision in which he saw Onias holding vp his handes toward heauen and praying for the whole people of the Iewes And saint Iohn saw 24. Elders fall downe before the lambe hauing euery one of them harpes and golden vialles full of odours which are the prayers of saints The answere I say first that although we grant both angels and saints in heauen to pray for the liuing on earth as they doe indeede in some cases for some respects yet doth it not follow that wee must inuocate and pray to them as shortly shall bee proued I say secondly that there is not the same reason in the saints and angels for the charge and defence of the church in this life is committed vnto the angels Besides this the angell in Zacharie praieth onely for the particular calamities of Iuda which were apparant aswell to men as to angels I say thirdly that Baruch speaketh of the prayers of the Israelites that were yet liuing but as dead for their manifold sins I say fourthly that the booke of Machabees is not canonical as I haue proued in my Motiues at large I adde that albeit Onâ—as prayed for the liuing yet must not the liuing inuocate or call vpon him as is alreadie said I say fiftly that the 24. Elders wherof S. Iohn speaketh do represent the church militant heere on earth and consequently the prayers there mentioned are of the liuing on earth not of the Saints raigning in heauen which interpretation must needes be sound and authenticall because the holy ghost doth confirme the same in the tenth verse following For among other thanks to God one is this that he hath made the elders to raigne on earth S. Irenaeus agreeth hereunto neither is any ancient approued writer of the contrarie opinion The third obiection Yee bewray your ignorance not knowing the difference betwene Latria and Dulia and so wrest the scriptures against the lawful worshipping of saints for the worship prohibited in the gospel and in the Reuelation is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that worship which is proper to God alone The answere I say first that though Saint Augustine made difference betweene Latria and Dulia in ecclesiasticall signification which was the cause of great superstition afterwarde in the Romish church yet did hee ascribe and giue all religious worship to God alone no other then ciuil worship to any creature whatsoeuer Which thing I haue proued out of Saint Austen already and shall more at large hereafter I say secondly that though saint Austen say that Latria is alway or almost alway taken in the scripture for diuine worship yet doeth Lodouicus Viues a learned papist oppose himselfe against saint Austen therein alledging sundry texts of the olde testament for his probation Yet the same Viues addeth that he is coÌ„tent with the distinctioÌ„s inuented by the popish schoole men so they will likewise allow him and others to vse wordes in their proper and natiue significations But heere I can not omit the taunt which hee by the way giueth to his scholasticall masters these are his wordes Obiter tamen admonebo eos duliam latriam penultimam habere longam ne breuem faciant sed has leges ipsi conteÌ„nere se dicunt quia nesciunt Yet must I saith he admonish them by the way that Latria and Dulia haue the last syllable saue one long lest they make it short But they say they care not for these rules because they know not what they meane Which checke doubtlesse were a bloodie word if any but a papist had giuen the same I say thirdly that Valla Suidas and Zenophon all three very skilfull in the greeke tongue affirme Latria and Dulia to haue one and the selfe same signification and that Latria is taken for that common seruice which one creature doth to another Thus writeth Zenophon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I O Cyrus would redeeme euen with my life that she should not serue Suidas also affirmes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Latria is seruice for hire I say fourthly that if this
vnder the obedience of the law bound to frame their liues according to the prescript rule thereof as other scripture maketh mention The replie How can any man frame his life after the prescription of the law if none liuing can keepe the law as you defend The answere I answere that if yee were well studied in your owne doctors and should marke well what they write yee coulde not be ignorant of this point Harken therefore what your owne Bernard saith and after you haue heard him remember well his words and neuer forget his holy instruction Thus writeth he in one place Cupiebat dissolui cum Christo esse sciens quòd peccatum separans inter nos deum penitùs auferri non poterit donec liberemur à corpore Sequitur itaque dico vobis genus illud peccati quod toties conturbat nos concupiscentias loquor desideria mala reprimi quidem debet potest per gratiam dei vt non regnet in nobis nec demus membra nostra arma iniquitatis peccato sic nulla damnatio esthis qui sunt in Christo Iesu sed non eiicitur nisi in morte quando sic discerpimur vt anima sepaietur à corpore The Apostle did couet to be dissolued and to be with Christ knowing that sinne which maketh a diuision betweene God and vs cannot wholy bee taken away while we remaine in this bodie I therefore say vnto you this kind of sin which so often troubleth vs I speake of concupiscence and euill desires ought may be repressed by the grace of God so as it raigne nâ—t in vs nor we giue our members to be weapons of iniquitie vnto sinne and so there is no damnation to those that are in Christ Iesus but it is not cast out saue only in death when wee are so torne that the soule is diuided from the body Thus he saith in another place Sit ergo in corde iustitia iustitia quae ex fide est Haec enim sola habet gloriam apud deum Sit etiam in ore confessio ad salutem securus iam suscipe eum qui in Bethlehem Iudae nascitur Iesum Christum filium Dei Let righteousnes therefore be in thine heart euen that iustice which is of faith for onely that righteousnesse or iustice hath glorie with God howsoeuer righteousnes be esteemed among men Haue also confession in thy mouth vnto saluation and then receiue him with security that is borne in Bethlehem of Iuda Iesus Christ the sonne of God Thus he saith in the third place Omne quod natum est ex Deo non peccat sed hoc dictum est de praedestinatis ad vitam non quòd omnino non peccent sed quòd peccatum ipsis non imputetur All that is borne of god sinneth not but this is spoken of the predestinate to life not because they sin not at al but for that sin is not imputed to them Thus doth he say in the fourth place Vtique quod factum est non potest non fieri ipso tamen non imputante erit quasi non fuerit Quod propheta quoque considerans ait Beatus vir cui non imputabit Dominus peccatum The sinne doubtlesse that is done can not be vndone yet for that God doth not impute sin vnto vs we shal be as if we had not sinned which the prophet considering saith Blessed is the man to whome God shall not impute sinne Out of these foure places conteining most comfortable and christian doctrine I note first that concupiscence remaineth in the regenerate euen vnto death I note secondly that it is properly sinne euen in the regenerate which being vttered by their owne deere Bernard giueth a deadly wound to the papists For he saith that that concupiscence which remaineth to death doth separate vs from God Which effect nothing but that which is properly sinne can possibly worke in man I note thirdly that although this concupiscence can not be taken awaie from the regenerate vntil death yet may it be so repressed by Gods spirite as it shall not raigne in them or haue dominion ouer them I note fourthly that it bringeth not damnation to the regenerate who striue against it and that because God doth not impute it to sinne I note fiftly that the regenerate are saide not to sinne not because they sinne not or haue no sinne indeede but because God of his meere mercie accepting their faith through the merits of Christ Iesus doth not impute sinne vnto them I note sixtly that no iustice but that which is of faith is or can be acceptable in Gods sight Ioyne these sayings of saint Bernard to the testimonie of saint Austen cited in the answer to the first obiection in the seuenth conclusion and that done a mightie article of popish doctrine will be vtterlie ouerthrowne The sixt obiection Wherefore saith S. Peter labour the more that by good works you may make sure your vocation and election Therefore good workes are a meane for vs to attaine to the effect of Gods predestination that is to life euerlasting as whose certainetie if the apostle say truelie is procured by mans freewil and good workes The answer I say first that God did elect and predestinate vs without regard of our works For as the apostle saith he chose vs in Christ before y e foundatioÌ„ of the world not bicause we were holy but that we should be holy I say secoÌ„dly that the words by good works are not in the originall Greek text but only in the popish latin vulgata editio For which like respects your late Tridentine council hath so magnified the same I say thirdly that good works are the proper effects of predestinatioÌ„ electioÌ„ and therfore are a sure testificaton therof in y e sight iudgement of man And if your translation be admitted wherin I wil not contend because y e sense is not much different yet can there no more be inferred vpon y e words vnlesse some wil say that the effect can go before the cause that which foloweth be the cause of that that went before But both their owne doctour Aquinas and their double glossa interlinialis and ordinaria doe giue the same exposition with mee to wit that the apostle willeth vs to make knowne our eleccion by doing of good works as which yeeld to man a morall certitude thereof The seauenth obiection Saint Paul willeth the Philippians to worke their saluation with feare and trembling but doubtlesse he that can worke his saluation may by his works merite heauen The answere I say first with the selfesame apostle in the next verse following that we are so far from meriting heauen by our works that it is God which worketh in vs both the will and the deede euen of his good pleasure Yea as he saith in another place we are saued by grace through faith that neither of our selues nor yet
still the naturall dimensiue quantitie Ergo it is impossible that it bee conteined vnder the forme of a little round cake For the manifestation of this argument I note first that all learned men aswell papistes as others agree in this that God by his absolute power cannot doe those thinges which implie contradiction in the doing the reason wherof I haue yeelded in my booke of Motiues in the 12. preamble I note secondly that it is essentiall to quantitie to haue one part without another as the great philosopher Aristotle doth auouch See the 2. part book 2. chap 6. and note it well I note thirdly that the whole demensiue quantitie of Christes naturall body which he had here visibly on earth and still retaineth in heauen is togither with his body in the eucharist as all learned papistes graunt And so by popish docrine a body being foure cubites long and two cubites broad remaining stil so long broad must perforce be conteined vnder another body which is neither two cubites long nor one cubite broad but it is impossible as implying flat contradiction When occupatiō of place is taken away from a body it then ceaseth to be and is no body at all But Christes body occupieth no place in the Eucharist as learned papistes graunt Ergo Christes body is not corporally there And least any man distrust the proposition Saint Augustine hath these expresse wordes Cum ergò sit corpus aliqua substantia quantitas eius est in magnitudine molis eius sanitas vero eius non quantitas sed qualitas eius est Non ergo potuit obtinere quantitas corporis quod potuit qualitas Nam ita distantibus partibus quae simul esse non possunt quoniam sua quaeque spatia locorum tenent minores minora maiores maiora non potuit esse in singulis quibusque partibus tota vel tanta sed amplior est quantitas in amplioribus partibus breuior in breuioribus in nulla parte tanta quanta per totum Infra Nam spatia locorum tolle corporibus nusquam erunt quia nusquam erunt nec erunt When therfore any substance is a body the quantitie therof is in the magnitude of the bignesse but the health is not the quantitie but the qualitie thereof Therefore the quantitie of the body could not attaine that which the qualitie could For y e parts being so distant which could not be togither because al seuerally keepe their spaces of places the lesse lesser places and the greater greater there could not be in al the places seuerally the whole or so much but there is a larger quantitie in the larger partes a shorter in shorter partes and in no part so much as in the whole For if spaces of places be taken from bodies they shalbe in no place and because they shalbe in no place neither shall they haue any being at all Out of these wordes I note first that euery quantitatiue bodie hath one part distant from another I note secondly that the same partes occupie distinct places I note thirdly that two quantities cannot be in the same place at one and the same time I note fourthly that a greater quantitie must haue a greater place and that it cannot be conteined in the lesser I note fiftly that no one part can conteine so much as the whole I note sixtly that when bodies are without places they lose their natures and beings I therefore conclude that it is impossible for Christs natural body to be contained in a little round cake and his whole bodie in euerie little part thereof all which the papists impudently and blasphemously do auouch Guiliel Ocham and Durandus two popish doctours do both subscribe to S. Austens reason If it were possible for Christs bodie to be in diuers places at once the angel of God should haue made a foolish reason to the women that came to see Christ in the sepulcher for the angell prooued Christ not to be there bicause he was risen These are the words Hee is not here for he is risen as he said But if Christs body could bee in many places at once as the papists would haue vs beleeue then doubtlesse did the angel reason childishly For the women might haue said though he be risen yet may hee be here also Yet the angel who was not to be instructed of the papists but from heauen affirmed that hee could not be there because he was risen For he said not Christ is risen and is not here but he is not here because he is risen Lo his rising is the cause that he coulde not be there Marke this reason well for it doth conuince Peruse the twelfth preamble in my first booke of Motiues and the first replie of the seauenth obiection in the first paragraph The fourth Paragraph Of the originall of transubstantiation Transubstantiation is not onely repugnant to all philosophy but so absurd also in al christian speculation as it was vnknowne to the church of God and to all approued writers the space of one thousand two hundred yeres after Christs sacred incarnation For it was first hatched by pope Innocentius the third of that name in the council of Lateran which was holden 1215. yeeres after Christ. Yea the determination of this synode was reputed of so little force that the zealous papist and famous schoole-doctour Durandus boldely published the contrarie doctrine euen after the flat resolution of the same councell Whose doctrine doth so gall the papists that the Iesuite Bellarmine vnwilling on the one side to oppose himselfe against Durand rigorously and on the other side not knowing what to say in defense of the Romish synode maketh as it were this mitigation betweene them Itaque sententia Durandi haeretica est licet ipse non sit dicendus haereticus cum paratus fuerit ecclesiae iudicio acquiescere Therfore the opinion of Durand is hereticall though himselfe may not be called an hereticke because he was readie to giue place to the decree of the Church thus writeth our Iesuite Out of whose words I note first that a man may steale an oxe proclaime the same to the world without any remorse and yet be no theefe at all for Durand held an hereticall opinion published the same in print constantly and yet as the Iesuite telleth vs was no hereticke for so doing I note secondly that Durand liued more then threescore yeares after the popish Councell of Lateran I note thirdly that he neuer retracted his opinion notwithstanding the decree and censure of the popish Synode and therefore vainely and without reason sayth our Iesuite that Durand was willing to obey the decree of their Church for if he were willing to obey their church heerein how came it to passe that he liuing so long after he knewe their Churches minde did commit that to print wittingly and willingly which is altogether against the same for no man doubtlesse impugneth
and then vttered the wordes of drinking the fruit of the vine For the papists would gladly haue Saint Luke to tell the storie out of order and that Christ spoke these wordes before the deliuerie of the sacrament that is before the consecration of the cuppe which Saint Crysostome and other fathers doe denie Saint Cyprian hath these words Dico vobis non bibam amodò ex ista creatura vitis vsque in diem illum quo vobiscum bibam nouum vinum in regno patris mei Qua in parte inuenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit I say to you I will not drinke henceforth of this creature of the vine vntill that day in which I wil drinke new wine with you in the kingdome of my father Wherein we find that the cup was mingled with our Lord offered and that it was wine which he called his body Out of these words I note first that Saint Luke spoke of the consecrate cup when hee tearmed it the fruit of the vine as is proued already out of Saint Clement and S. Chrysostome I note secondly that the consecrate cup contained naturall wine and not Christs corporall bloud indeed This testimonie doth conuince and so effectually confuteth transubstantiation and the popish reall presence as if S. Cyprian were this day liuing and knew the blasphemous doctrine of the papists yet coulde hee not decide more plainely the controuersie betweene them and vs. Yea this testimonie of saint Cyprian may bee a generall rule for vs as well to expounde himselfe in other places as also the rest of the holy fathers For when they tearme the holy communion or Eucharist Christs bodie and blood the bloud that issued out of his side the body that was nayled on the crosse the flesh that was borne of the virgin the price of our redemption all this is truely saide in their godly meaning that is to say all this is truely verified sacramentally mystically spiritually but not corporally as the Papistes teach For all the Fathers admitte this doctrine of Saint Cyprian that euen after consecration remayneth still the true nature of bread and wine Sixtly Tertullian being consonant to the other fathers hath these wordes Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non potest Hee made that bread which hee tooke and gaue to his disciples to bee his bodie saying this is my body that is to say the figure of my bodie and there shoulde not haue beene a figure vnlesse there had been a true body indeed for a vain thing which is but a falâ—â— imagination cannot receiue a figure Out of these wordes I note first that y â— which Christ gaue to his disciples was bread I note secondly that it was the figure of his body I note thirdly that to be Christes body as Christ himselfe and the fathers speake is nothing els but to be the figure or signe of his body For so doth this learned father declare the very phrase I note fourthly that the thing figured is much different from the figure and consequently that Christes body cannot be the figure of it selfe Seuenthly S. Theodoret hath these words Neque enim signa mystica post sanctificationeÌ„ recedunt à sua natura Manent enim in priore substantia figura forma videri tangi possunt sicut prius The mysticall signes after the sanctification depart not froÌ„ their nature but they abide in their former substance and figure and forme and may be seen and touched euen as before Out of these most golden wordes of this auncient and learned father I note first that hee writeth against certaine heretickes who held that Christes body was chaunged into his deitie after his ascension And they prooued it because as the bread and wine after consecration were changed into the body and bloud of Christ euen so was his body changed into his deitie after his ascension This note is plainly set downe in the wordes aforegoing I note secondly that S. Theodoret confuteth the heretickes euen by their own reason For the mysticall signes saith hee remaine still in their former substance and nature euen after the sanctification therof As if he had said ye lay not a good foundation your supposall is false ye take that as graunted which is flatly denied For although the creatures of bread and wine be sanctified by Gods word and accidentally changed into the mysticall signes of his body and bloud yet doe they still retaine their former nature and substance yet doe they still remaine truely bread and truely wine I note thirdly that though the bread and wine haue gotten by sanctification a new diuine qualitie yet haue they lost nothing that they had before for they haue the same nature the same substance the same figure the same forme they may be seene tasted and touched euen as they might before All the papistes in Europe cannot answere this reason For Theodoret prooueth against the heretickes that as bread and wine are as truly bread and truely wine after consecration as they were before consecration euen so is Christes body as truely a body now after his ascension as it was afore heere on earth So as the papistes cannot now say that the bread and wine haue lost their true natures in y e eucharist vnlesse they wil also say y t Christ hath lost y e nature of a true body now in heaueÌ„ Eightly S. Austen a worthy pillar of Christes Church as the papistes themselues doe graunt hath these wordes Nisi manducaueritis inquit carnem filij hominis sanguinem biberitis non habebitis vitam in vobis Facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere Figura est ergo praecipiens passioni domini esse communicandum suauiter atque vtiliter recondendum in memoria quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa vulnerata sit Vnlesse saith Christ ye shall eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye shall haue no life in you Hee seemeth by these wordes to commaund to doe an heinous offence It is therefore a figure commanding vs to be partakers of Christes passion and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in our mindes that his flesh was crucified and wounded for our sakes In another place hee hath these words Cum videritis filium hominis ascendentem vbi erat prius certe vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum certe vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus When yee shall see the sonne of man ascending thither where hee was before then doubtlesse shall ye see that hee giueth not his body in such sorte as ye imagine then
shall ye truely vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with the bit of the mouth Againe thus In principio cauendum est ne figuratam locutionem ad literam accipias Et ad hoc enim pertinet quod ait apostolus litera occidit spiritus autem viuificat Cum enim figuratè dictum sic accipitur tanquam propriè dictum sit carnaliter sapitur Sequitur ea demum est miserabilis animae seruitus signa pro rebus accipere supra creaturam corpoream oculum mentis ad hauriendum aeternum lumen leuare non posse Before all thinges thou must take heede least thou vnderstand that literally which is spoken by a figure For to this end is that which the apostle saith The letter killeth but the spirite quickeneth For our wisedome is then carnall when we vnderstand that properly which is spoken figuratiuely To conclude that is a miserable bondage of the soule to take signes for the things signified and not to lift vp the eye of our minde aboue the corporall creature so to behold eternall light Againe thus Possum etiam interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum Non enim dominus dubitauit dicere hoc est corpus meum cum signum daret corporis sui I may also interprete this precept to be figuratiue For our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the signe or figure of his body Againe thus Cum adhibuit ad conuiuium in quo corporis sanguinis sui figuram discipulis coÌ„mendauit tradidit When he admitted Iudas to the banquet in which hee commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his bodie and his bloud Againe thus Illi manducabant panem dominum ille panem domini contra dominum They ate the bread that was our Lord he ate not our Lord but the bread of our Lord against the Lord. Againe thus Quomodo in coelum manum mittam vt ibi sedentem tenâ—am fidem mitte tenuisti parentes tui tenuerunt carne tu tene corde quoniam Christus absâ—ns etiam praesens est nisi praesens esset à nobis teneri non posset sed quoniaÌ„ veruÌ„ est quod ait Ecce ego vobiscum sum vsque ad consummationem seculi abijt hic est redijt nos non deseruit Corpus enim suum intulit coelo maiestatem non abstulit mundo Howe shall I reache vp my hand to heauen that I may take holde on him sitting there Reache thither thy faith and thou hast hold on him Thy fathers held him in the flesh holde thou him in thine heart because Christ being absent is also present for if hee were not present hee coulde not be holden of vs but because it is true that hee saith Behold I am with you till the end of the world both he is gone and he is here he is returned and hath not forsaken vs. For hee carried his body vp into heauen yet hee tooke not his maiestie out of the worlde Againe in another place thus Secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum secundum praesentiaÌ„ carnis rectè dictum est discipulis me autem non semper habebitis Habuit enim illum ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modo fide tenet oculis non videt According to the presence of his maiestie wee haue Christ alway but according to the presence of the flesh it was rightly saide to his Disciples but ye shall not haue me alway For the Churche had him in the flesh a few daies but now she holdeth him by faith she doth not see him with her eyes Againe thus Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christâ— corpus Christi est sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ita sacramentum fidei fides est As therefore in a certaine sorte the Sacrament of Christes bodie is Christes body the sacrament of Christes bloud is the bloud of Christ euen so the sacrament of faith is faith In these manifold testimonies Saint Austen prooueth aboundantly that the popishe carnall imagined presence in the Eucharist is blasphemous and most execrable For first he telleth vs that these words of Christ This is my bodie This is my bloud must needes be vnderstood figuratiuely That is to say that the bread and wine are but the sacraments or figures and signes of Christes body and bloud Secondly hee telleth vs that Christ is ascended and that therfore his bodie cannot be eaten with the bit of mouth as the papistes teach blasphemously Thirdly he saith that the soule is neuer in greater bondage then when shee grossely and carnally taketh the figures and signes for the thinges signified by the same Fourthly he telleth vs that since the signes of thinges be vsually termed by the names of the things signified our Lord doubted not to say This is my bodie when hee gaue but the signe of his bodie Fiftly hee saith that the bread which the other Disciples receiued was our Lord yet that which Iudas receiued was but the bread of the Lord. Which assertion is wonderfull if it bee well noted For if our Lord and maker bee present carnally in fleshe bloud and bone vnder the accidentes of bread and that so long as the same accidentes remayne vncorrupte as the Popishe detestable Faith auoucheth Then doubtlesse Iudas shoulde haue receiued his Redeemer Then perforce Iudas shoulde also haue receiued Panem Dominum Then Iudas coulde not by any possibilitie haue barely receiued panem Domini which yet S. Augustine affirmeth most constantly For first if it were true that after consecration the substance of bread were transubstantiated into Christes naturall bodie as it consisteth of flesh bloud and bone and againe if it were also true that the selfe same bodie remained vnder the forme of bread vntill it were corrupted then let all the papistes in England or els where in Europe tel me how Iudas could receiue panem Domini but not panem Dominum as S. Austen saith that is how Iudas coulde receiue the forme of bread with the fleshe bloud and bones of Christes organicall and naturall body hâ—dden vnder the same and for all that not receiue Christ himselfe and panem Dominum as the other apostles did Let them I I say tell me this and I promise to subscribe If they wil not this doe because they cannot for if they can doe it all the worlde must thinke they will doe it then if the feare of God be before their eies they will acknowledge the trueth that I now defend which God graunt they may doe Amen Sixtly he telleth vs that albeit wee cannot reache with our handes to Christes body which is nowe in heauen yet may we by faith take hold vpon the same Which is the flat doctrine that the church of England this day teacheth of the eucharist For we teach that the eucharist is Christes true body spiritually and sacramentally
that body in his handes such is the humilitie of our Lord Iesus Christ. Thus saith Saint Austen By whose words it is euident that that which Christ at his last supper gaue to his disciples was his true reall naturall body euen that which was borne of the virgin Mary For first he telleth vs that Christ did that which Dauid could not do to wit that he did beare himselfe in his own hands Secondly he saith that this was done literally euen as the words do sound Thirdly he coÌ„mendeth Christs great humility in that fact Now it is cleare y t if this could be vnderstood figuratiuely it might be well verified in Dauid for Dauid might haue born the picture figure or image of his owne body in his hands yea this he might haue done literally haue shewed no humilitie therin But Christ did so beare himselfe in his owne hands saith saint Austen as no man can do the like This reason is inuincible all protestants in the world cannot answere the same The answere I say first that this reason seemeth indeede to be inuincible and so my selfe haue sometime thought I say secondly that if S. Austen should so meane as you gather of these words he should contradict himself in many other places as is already proued and consequently his authoritie should be of no force in this behalfe I say thirdly that Saint Austen doth a little after expound his owne meaning in these expresse words Et ferebatur in manibus suis. Quomodo ferebatur in manibus suis quia cum commendaret ipsum corpus suum sanguinem suum accepit in manus suas quod 〈◊〉 fideles ipse se portabat quodammodo cùm diceret hoc est corpus meuÌ„ And he was borne in his hands How was he borne in his hands because when he commended his owne body and his blood hee tooke into his hands that the faithful know and he bare himselfe after a sort when he saide This is my body Where I wish the Reader to marke well the worde quadammodo after a sorte for Christ had his true reall and natural bodie in his handes after a sort that is sacramentally when he said This is my body He had his 〈◊〉 body in his hands but it was after a sort not simplie but sacramentally not naturally but mystically not carnally I say fourthly that neither Dauid nor any other creature coulde haue borne himselfe after this sort in his owne hands For as Aquinas Victoria Antoninus Couarruuias Bellarminus and all learned papists grant no mortall man can institute any sacrament and so no mortal man being pure man could sacramentally beare himselfe in his owne hands I say fiftly that greater humilitie coulde not be then that the Lord of glorie should offer himselfe on the crosse so to appease Gods wrath and to make attonement for our sins and withall shoulde giue vs the sacrament of his body bloud as a seale of our reconciliation and of his beneuolence towards vs. All this discourse S. Austen confirmeth in another place where he hath these words Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum sanguinem quem effusuri sunt qui me â—rucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendaui spiritualiter intellectum viuificat vos Yee shall not eate this body that ye see and drinke that blood which they shal shed that will crucifie me I haue commended a sacrament to you which being vnderstood spiritually doth quicken you The second obiectâ—on S. Cyprian doth prooue this veritie in most plaine and manifest tearmes Thus doeth he write Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro The bread which our Lord did reach to his disciples being chaÌ„ged not in shape but in nature became flesh by the omnipotencie of the word Lo bread was changed not in shape or figure which our sense telleth vs to be so but in nature or substance as the catholike church teacheth vs. And how is it changed euen into flesh and yet wil not you haue Christ to be present in flesh bloud and bone But if it were otherwise the omnipotent power of Gods word shoulde be needelesse which yet Saint Cyprian saieth is it that worketh this mightie change If yee yeeld not to this testimonie ye shew your selfe to be obstinate The answere I say first that the grosse and carnal sense of these words did wonderfully seduce my selfe when the time was I say secondly that if Saint Cyprian meant as you woulde haue him hee should bee contrarie to himselfe For hee affirmeth it to be true wine which Christ gaue to his Apostles I haue already alleaged his expresse words peruse them and marke them well I say thirdly that S. Cyprian can neuer bee more truely expounded then when his owne meaning in one place is gathered out of his owne words in another place That therefore all his words may be consonant one to another we must ioine antecedent to consequent former to latter and one place to another This done wee shal finde with facilitie that hee speaketh onely of sacramentall alteration and that by the word nature hee meaneth natural properties Yea euen so do the papists interprete the same word in their Gelasius concerning this question nowe in hand Thus doeth Saint Cyprian say immediately after the other wordes Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat diuinitas ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infudit essentia Infrà Nostra vero ipsius coniunctio nec miscet personas nec vnit substantias sed affectus consociat confoederat voluntates Iterum sicut panis communis quem quotidie edimus vita est corporis ita panis iste supersubstantialis vita est animae sanitas mentis Panem Angelorum sub sacramento manducamus in tâ—rris eundem sine sacramento manifestiùs edemus in coelis non ministerio corporali And as the humanitie was seene in the person of Christ and the diuinitie hidden euen so hath the diuine essence powred out it selfe vnspeakeably in the visible sacrament For both ours and his coniunction neither mingleth persons nor yet vniteth substances but procureth fellowship in affection and agreement in willes And as the common bread which wee eate daily is the life of the body so is this supersubstantiall bread the life of the soule and the health of the minde We eate here on earth Angel-foode vnder the sacrament but wee shall eate the same more clearely without the sacrament in heauen and that without help of the body Out of these wordes I note first that Christs diuinitie is after an vnspeakeable manner in the sacrament but so is noâ— his bodie or humanitie and consequently that Christ is not there in inuisible carnall presence I note secondly that this sacramentall vnion doth not vnite substances but affections and willes and yet should our bodies be
vnited if we receiued Christ corpoâ—â—lly into our bellies But as the same Cyprian saith a 〈…〉 Recipitur non includitur He is receiued but not shut vp in the sacrament I note thirdly that this bread is spirituall not corporall the bread of the soule not of the bodie I note fourthly that we eate Angell-foode here on earth in the sacrament and that we shall eate the verie same in heauen without the sacrament Which assertion vttered by holy Cyprian sheweth his catholique christian meaning so plainly as all Papistes may be ashamed hencefoorth to alleadge him for their late inuented carnall presence In heauen there is neither accident without subiect nor sacrament administred nor yet any corporall eating and drinking there vsed Angels foode is spirituall not carnall celestiall not terrestriall eternall not corporall Angels neither eate by dint of tooth nor by morsels in the mouth Their nature is not capable of anie such actions Since therefore our sacramentall meate is the same that Angels now eate and the same that our selues shall eate in heauen where all corporall carnall and fleshy eating ceaseth it foloweth of necessitie that it is meere spirituall not corporall fleshy or carnall The reply He saith that the bread is made flesh by the omnipotencie of Gods word to shew the vnspeakeable transmutation Therefore so soone as Gods worde is spoken by the priest it is no more bread but flesh indeede The answere I say first as I said not long before that it passeth the force of any power vpon earth to make common bread a sacrament I say secondly that the alteration is vnspeakeable when the diuine power of Christ doth infuse it selfe into the hearts of the faithful by the visible sacrament as by his ordinarie organ and instrument and then and there worketh the diuine effectes signified by the sacrament I say thirdly that whosoeuer wil peruse the whole treatise of Saint Cyprian De coena Domini and doe it seriously with iudgement and christian zeale that man shal doubtlesse finde his meaning to bee as I haue saide For in an other place thereof he hath these words Ideò ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adiuta infirmitas sensibili argumento edocta est visibilibus sacramentis inesse vitae aternae effectum non tam corporali quà m spirituali transitione Christo nos vniri Therefore the infirmitie of our faith being holpen by the accustomed effect of things is caught by a sensible argument that the effect of eternal life is in the visible sacraments and that we are vnited to Christ not so by corporal as by spiritual transmutation And in the very ende of the tract he concludeth in this manner Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide sincerâ panem sanctum frangimus partimur dum quod diuinum quod humanum est distinguimus separamus itémque simul separata iungentes vnum deum hominem fatemur Sed nos ipsi corpus eius effecti sacramento re sacramenti capiti nostro connectimur vnimur singuli alter alterius membra ministerium dilectionis pro inuicem exhibentes communicamus charitate participamus sollicitudine eundem cibum manducantes eundem potum bibentes qui depetra spiritali profluit emanat qui cibus potus est dominus noster Iesus Christus So often as we doe these things we doe not whet our teeth to eate but we breake and diuide the sanctified bread with a sincere faith while wee distinguish and separate what is diuine and what humane and also ioyning the same things separated together confesse one God and man Our selues also being made his body are knit to our head by the sacrament and vertue thereof and are vnited particularly one an others members exhibiting the ministerie of loue one for another we communicate in charitie we participate in solicitude we eate the same meate and drinke the same drinke which floweth and runneth out of the spiritual rocke which meate and drinke is our Lord Iesus Christ. Out of these wordes I note first that Christ is truely present in the eucharist but yet after a spiritual sort and not corporall I note secondly that we are vnited to Christ spiritually by meanes of the sacrament but not corporally For as wee receiue Christ in the sacrament so are wee vnited to Christ iâ— the same as by an ordinary instrument vnder him I note thirdly that after sanctification it is bread still as before and is broken and deuided none of which can agree indeede with Christs corporall presence I note fourthly that we eate not Christ with mouth and tooth but with a true christian faith I note fiftly that the true and sincere faith by which we must eate the Eucharist is to distinguish in Christ the humanitie from the diuinitie and to ioyne the same againe confessing one Christ to be true God and true man I note sixtly that as we eate Christ in the Sacrament so are we made one anothers members which can not be otherwise vnderstoode then in a mysticall maner I note seuenthly that our sacramentall meate and drinke is spirituall which floweth out from the spirituall rocke Christ Iesus For if the rocke be spirituall whereof we drinke then doubtles the drinke it selfe can not be corporall because as all Philosophers graunt and as right reason prescribeth qualis causa talis effectus the effect is of like condition with the cause neither can a corporall cause bring foorth a spirituall effect nor a spirituall cause a corporall effect whereupon ariseth a great question among the Schoolemen how hell fire can be materiall since a body can haue no action into a spirit The 3. obiection Saint Chrysostome hath these wordes Quod est in calice id est quod à latere fluxit illius sumus participes That which is in the cuppe is the same that flowed out of his side and wee are partakers thereof But doubtlesse no christian can or will denie that to be Christs true bloud indeede which issued out of his side vppon the crosse therefore the same must be granted to be vnder the forme of wine in the masse The answer I say first that I graunt Christes true body and his true bloud to be in the eucharist but not vnder accidents without subiects nor corporally and carnally but in a diuine spirituall and mysticall sort Neither doth saint Chrysostome S. Cyprian saint Austen or anie other ancient father speake one word of your carnall reall presence or once name your accidents without subiects No they teach no other doctrine then that which I willingly imbrace Now that Saint Chrysostome speaketh of a mysticall presence his owne wordes following within a few lines shall witnesse the same with me Thus he saith Et propter te frangi sustinet vt omnes satiet And he suffereth to be broken for thee that he may satiate all Thus saith this holy father By whose words it is
cleare that hee meaneth Christ to be no otherwise present then he affirmeth him to be broken And if any papist wil say that Christs bones are otherwise broken then in a mysterie then must the same papist tell me howe Christs body can be glorious and not mortall then must be tell me how it chauceth that I can not feele and see Christs bones and flesh For so Christ prooued the veritie of his body to his disciples Handle me saith Christ and see for a spirite hath not flesh and bones as ye see me haue Then must he tel me to what end he sent the comforter in his steede if himselfe be still on earth among vs. For himselfe saith If I goe not away the comforter will not come vnto you but if I depart I wil send him to you Then must he tell me how Christ is not alwaies with vs since as they say their round cakes do neuer wāt him For himselfe saith Yee haue the poore alwaies with you but mee shall ye not haue alwaies Then must hee tell me howe accidents can be without a subiect since S. Austen saith that if qualities be takē from the bodies they loose their being Then must he tel me what scripture saith that Christs body which was visible before his ascension visible in his ascension and shal continue visible in heauen till his second aduent is for all that daily and hourely in infinite popish cakes and after an inuisible and insensible maner then must he tel me how Christs bodie being like to ours in all things sinne excepted can neuerthelesse be in many places at once then must hee tell me how Christs body is not a phantasticall body as Marcion and the Manichees held for Saint Austen saith that Christs true body can be but in some one place of heauen Vbi inquit totum praesentem esse non dubites tanquam deum in eodem templo Dei esse tanquam inhabitantem Deum in loco aliquo coeli propter veri corporis modum Thou must not doubt saith saint Austen that Christ is wholie present euerie where as God and in the same temple of God as God inhabiting it and in some one place of heauen for the maner of a true body Lo this graue father telleth vs that Christ as god is euery where but in respect of his true body he is only in heauen and in some certaine place of heauen Only in heauen because the scripture sayth that he shal be there till the worlds end in some certaine place of heauen to declare the nature and veritie of a true body So then if he were present as the papists would haue him his body shuld loose the nature veritie of a true body indeede I say secondly that Saint Chrysostome expoundeth his owne meaning most plainely when hee saith that Christ in his last supper gaue the fruit of the vine to his disciples His words are before alleaged and are flat contrarie to these other heere obiected vnlesse they be glossed as I say The replie Saint Chrysostome in an other place confuteth your sophisticall answers and deliuereth his meaning in so plaine tearmes as no deniall can be made thereof These are his words Non enim sufficit ipsi hominem fieri flagellis interim caedi sed nos secum in vnam vt ita dicam massam reducit neque id fide solum sed reipsa nos corpus suum efficit For it is not inough for him to become man and in the meane time to be whipped scourged but hee doth as it were moulde vs into the same lumpe with himselfe neither is this done by faith onely but hee maketh vs his owne body indeede Lo there is a further kinde of eating then by faith onely we are made his body really and not onely by faith And Saint Hilary saith the very same in effect These are his words De veritate carnis sanguinis non relictus est ambigendi locus nunc enim ipsius domini professione fide nostra verè caro est verè sanguis est Concerning the veritie of his flesh and bloud there is no place left to stand in doubt for now as well by Gods attestation as by our owne faith he is flesh indeede and bloud indeede The answere I say first that I do not denie Christs true and real flesh and bloud to be in the Eucharist but I deny it to bee there in a fleshy corporall carnall and sensible manner In the latter of which twaine I onely dissent from you and your late councell of Trent I say secondly that neither S. Hilary nor yet S. Chrysostome affirmeth Christes fleshe to be present otherwise then I graunt Touching S. Hilary hee hath these wordes a little before Nos verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus per hoc vnum erimus Wee truely receiue the flesh of his body yet not really or corporally but in a mysterie and by this wee shalbe one Loe though we receiue Christes flesh truely as I graunt yet is it in a mysterie not carnally or corporally as the papistes hold Againe S. Hilary saith we are made one by it and yet is it cleere that our vnitie is no other then mysticall the papistes agree thereunto it cannot be denied I say thirdly that to eate a thing really is not to keepe it a while in our mouth vnconsumed and then to put it out againe as euery childe can discerne and yet is this your carnall and reall eating of Christes body ye can it not denie For yee say that his body is hidden vnder the accidentes of bread and is only so long in your mouthes as the accidents be vnconsumed and not eaten vp That done Christ is by and by gone from you His body so loatheth your bellies that it wil by no means come in them or tarrie longer with you then the accidentes do remaine And when it is freed from those accidentes neither doth any see it come out neither can your selues tell whither it is gone But the priest by speaking foure wordes can bring it againe into his fist with a becke Now I would learne of some skilfull papist to what end so manie miracles are feined in your consecration Is it to possesse Christes bodie But alas it is no sooner come then gone againe Is it that Christ may dwell with you but alas he wil not stay Is it because you are delighted with his presence Alas it seemeth not for then the ordinary meane were this to keep your accidents long vndigested And yet are ye so weary of keeping them so greedie of your dinners as I neuer heard of any that kept them in his mouth till supper Christ saith that he will dwell with him that eateth his flesh but that guest cannot truely be said to dwell with one that is gone before dinner I say fourthly that it is true which S. Chrysostome saith to wit