great likelihood of their saluation to whom the benefit of Christian parentage being giuen the rest that should follow is preuented by some such casualty as man hath no power himself to auoid So that the most this Fellow can impute vnto vs is that In some case of ineuitable and inunicable necessity little infants may bee charitably supposed saued by their parents faith And so that of Iohn 3. 5. for necessity of water will iustifiably bee answered If it bee possible to attaine it That of Tit. 3. 5. vrgeth no more but that the washing of Regeneration is the ordinary entrance into life As for Gen. 17. 14. to admit all paralleld in Circumcision and Baptisme all were not damned that died vncircumcised nor all cast away that die vnbaptized as this Fellow himself will or must grant but those that neglect contemn or omit the meanes which may bee had As for Mark 16. 16. the very words doo support this mitigation for though Christ saith Hee that beleeueth and is baptized shall bee saued yet he doth not say Hee that is not baptized shall be damned but Hee that beleeueth not shall bee damned that being euery way of indispensable necessity this sometime tolerable the rather because we are plainly taught of God that The seed of faithfull parentage is holy from the birth which the children of Pagans are not these hauing an habituall interest and consecration to God in their parents which the other want But whatsoeuer in charitable constructions may be thought of extraordinary courses they are not for vs we must leaue them to God in whose most rigorous courses of constitutions and most sharp denunciations deep mercies are euer hidden who though he bee the God of iustice yet is hee the Father of mercies And yet ordinary waies are for vs and our children Ordinary way vnto life eternall there is none but by Baptisme of water and the holy Ghost Gag them Sir Goose that teach otherwise The Church of England is not guilty thereof XXXIIII That imposition of hands vpon the people called by Catholiques Confirmation is not necessary nor to be vsed NOT by Papists alone but by Protestants also is it called Bishopping or Confirmation not vsed onely by them but by Protestants likewise commended commanded to bee vsed Look in the Communion-book good Reader and wonder at the impudent face of this leud Impostor that dares giue the Lie vnto publick Records that dares tell the world It is midnight at mid-day for if there be then any Sun in heauen this imposition of hands by the Bishop alone called Confirmation is both maintained as necessary vsed and commanded as euery man knoweth in the Church of England Would any man but hee or some of his Camerades take vp the priuate fansie of euery Peddler and expose it to view for Protestants doctrine contrary to knowledge to conscience But so it is If it were not for such courses the poor needy Fellow would haue nothing to prate on vnto his Proselyte-gossips in Partridge-Alley The Lie is so loud the case so apparant for Bishopping or Confirmation I shall not need to say any thing but Blush for shame XXXV That the Bread of the Supper is but a figure of the body of Christ. IS but a signe or figure and no more Strange and yet our formal words are This is my body this is my bloud This is is more than this figureth or designeth A bare figure is but a phantasme He gaue substance and really subsisting essence who said This is my body this is my bloud And yet our Catechisme in the Communion-book authorized saith expresly The body and bloud of Christ taken and eaten in the Lords Supper not the figure or signe of his body and bloud which can neither bee taken nor yet eaten Poore Woodcock or Catholique Cockscomb that sendest a Protestant to seek a figure who is as reall and substantiall as any Papist Were the peace of the Church and vnity of faith which is more mystically insinuated in this Sacrament than else-where in the Materials therof both Bread and Wine so deare and precious as it ought to bee vnto such common Barretters of Christendome as Priests and Iesuites are for priuate ends this and many other Controuersies on foot might cease For it is confessed on either side that Sacraments which haue their Beeing from institution are signes of Gods loue and promise seales of his couenant and grace and instruments and conueiances of his mercy What they intimate signifie and represent they conueigh vnto the soule In the ordinary Catechisme alone allowed and I would no other were tolerated the question beeing asked What meanest thou by this word Sacrament the answer is I mean an outward and visible signe of an inward and spirituall grace giuen vnto vs ordained by Christ himself as a meanes whereby wee receiue the same and a pledge to assure vs thereof This is more euen in your little vnderstanding than a bare figure a means and a pledge whereby c. Sir we acknowledge right willingly and professe that in the blessed Sacrament as you call it of the Altar the Body and Bloud of our Sauiour Christ is really participated communicated and by means of that reall participation life from him and in him conueied into our soules This wee beleeue and professe knowing that he is able to effect it who hath spoken it by that mighty working whereby hee is able to doo whatsoeuer he hath said We are not sollicitous for the manner how he worketh it not daring to pry into the secret Counsels of the most High We haue learned that Reuealed things are for vs secret things are for God Therfore we wonder why the world should be so much ammused at and distracted with those vnexplicable Labyrinths of Con-substantiation and Trans-substantiation which onely serue to set the world in diuision nothing to piety nor yet information As we therefore condemn that presumptuous definition of Trans-substantiation in the Laterane Councell so wee doo not like nor yeeld assent vnto that jejune and macilent conceit of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius whereby men account of this Sacrament but onely as of a bare shadow emptie void and destitute of Christ but ingenuously profess that by this Sacrament Christ giueth vs his very body and bloud and really and truely performs in vs his promise in feeding our soules vnto eternall life As for the manner how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This inexplicable that vnutterable it is faith onely that can giue the resolution Trans or con we skill not of Iohn 6. 51. The bread that I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world Therefore his flesh is bread the Bread of life Most true but not therefore his flesh by Trans-substantiation You finde not that in the Gospell or any where else Life begun in Baptisme by the Lauer of Regeneration is confirmed and sustained in the holy supper by his body and blood How I cannot explicate How
faciunt quod secus Christus c. The Cup of the Lord communicated to the Laity And again Quomodo possumus propter Christum sanguinem fundere qui sanguinem Christi erubescimus bibere By which reason of Saint Cyprian no Roman Lay-Catholique can shead his bloud for Christ that neuer drank the bloud of Christ Which argument he vseth in another place Epist 54. Sect. 2. With what ground can we teach or exhort them to shead their owne bloudin confessing the Name of Christ if putting them forth vpon that seruice wee denie them the bloud of Christ or how can wee dispose and fit them to drink the cup of Martyrdome vnlesse wee first admit them to their right of communication in drinking the Lords cup in the Church Let our good Catholiques answer this who so punctually forsooth and precisely follow the steps of Antiquity without any swaruing These are all within 300 yeers after Christ and all expresse for the Cup. Athanasius in his second Apologie being accused for breaking a Chalice writeth thus What manner of cup or when or where was it broken In euery house in euery shop there are many pots any which if a man break hee committeth not sacriledge But if any man willingly break the sacred chalice he committeth sacriledge but that chalice is no where but where there is a lawfull Bishop This is the vse destined to that chalice none other wherein you according to institution do drink vnto and before the Laity This was the custome in Athanasius time this in all the Fathers times as I could deduct almost out of euery one This is euery where the custome in all the world vnto this day but in the Roman exorbitant Church as Cassander saith and was not quite abolished in that Church till about 1300 yeeres after Christ and by much art colluding and fine forgery was retained from being cast out of that Church in the late Conuenticle of Trent onely kept-in for a faction but mightily opposed by learned honest and conscionable Catholiques For why who can alter Christ's Institution who dare change that which he hath ordained Sacrificium verum plenum tune offert in Ecclesia Deo Patri si sic incipiat offerre secundùm quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse saith Saint Cyprian But saith he again and we knowe it is true Constat Dominum obtulisse calicem in commemorationem Passionis Et quia Passionis eius mentionem in sacrificijs omnibus facimâ—â— nihil aliud quà m quod ille fecit facere debemus Why Because otherwise wee offer not the Sacrifice as wee should Nec sacrificium Dominicum legitima sanctificatione celebramus nisi oblatio et sacrificium nostrum responderit Passioni and that cannot be without powring out of wine that representeth the sheading of his bloud But your Church hath altred it presumptuously done Who gaue your Church such authority Heare Saint Cyprian again Quare si solus Christus audiendus est non debemus attendere quid alius ante nos faciendum putauerit sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit Neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet sed Dei veritatem Nam si Iesus Christus Dominus Deus noster ipse est summus Sacerdos Dei Patris sacrificium Patri seipsum primus obtulit hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit vtique ille sacerdos vice Christi verè fungitur qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur sacrificium verum ac plenum tunc offert in Ecclesia Deo Patri si sic incipiat offerre secundùm quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse You doo not this therefore in Saint Cyprian's iudgement your sacrifice is neither full nor true Much more in that Epistle Saint Cyprian hath and also elsewhere vnto the purpose But you haue Scriptures for the nonce expresly in our Bibles contrary to that we teach and practice to iustifie what you practise and teach touching this sacriledge and perfidiousnesse in altering Christs institution Maruell you should haue Scripture against Scripture Christs institution beeing so direct for Drink you all Produce your Scriptures Ioh. 6. 51. If any man eat of this Bread hee shall liue for euer And the Bread which I will giue is my flesh Heere is eating of Bread and that same Bread Christs flesh but heere is no such matter as wee ought to receiue Bread onely or that Bread alone sufficeth Yes for Lo euerlasting life attributed by our Lord himselfe to eating onely vnder one kinde I grant for doe they in your countrey vse to eat vnder two kindes Is Wine eaten with spoones there I haue heard of communicating and receiuing vnder one kinde but neuer till now heard talke of eating vnder one kinde Goe learne to speake and then write In the Interim I take your meaning Christ that mentioneth onely eating doth not exclude drinking doth not say nor meane eating onely sufficeth Bread is not exclusiue heere no more then where our Sauiour went to eat Bread with a Pharise at which time in your Learning and Logick he did not drink all dinner-time or supper-time because he went onely to eat Bread But Sir your wisdome must knowe that hee which eateth Bread according to the Scripture phrase drinketh also Bread importing necessaries for mans life and to eat Bread is both to eat and drink as to eat his Body is as well to drink his bloud So anon the same Euangelist Vnlesse you eat the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his bloud you shall not haue life in you Lo heere euerlasting life not had without drinking Looke you to this if you looke to haue euerlasting life Iohn 4. 14. Christ promiseth Water to drink of which water whoso tasteth shall thirst no more therefore say you He promised no Wine therefore say I By your reason hee gaue not Bread Therefore if needs you will haue one kinde and no more haue it in Wine not Bread Againe hee telleth his Disciples else-where that hee would drink no more of the fruit of the vine vntill hee drink it new in the Kingdome of God hee maketh no mention of any Bread Therefore in Heauen belike Wine is drink and onely Wine drunk but they eat no Bread there And yet wee read of Angels food which I can tell you who take it literally I might say our Sauiour speaketh heere of Bread and not of Wine in regard of that fore-going occasion which was the first motiue vnto this his Discourse namely his miraculous feeding 5000 men with fiue loaues so that hee kept him to the Subiect and occasion But this wise mans obseruation is cleane cashierd by our Sauiours Epexegesis afterward ver 53 54. hee plainely and expresly maketh it plaine that hee meant not to exclude bloud speaking of flesh nor shut out Wine where he mentioned Bread Euerlasting life to returne your owne words vpon your self is attributed by our Lord not to eating onely vnder one but both kinds Except you eat the flesh
feare to doe the like as hee that offendeth against the common order of the Church hurteth the authoritie of the magistrate and woundeth the consciences of the weake Loe Traditions not onely auowed but maintained the infringers censured So that but reade ouer your Position againe That Apostolicall traditions and auncient customes of the holy Church are not to be receiued nor doe oblige vs compare that with this decision and then giue your Catholike honesty the lye Euery particular or national Church hath authority to ordaine to change and abolish ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained onely by mans authoritie so that all things be done vnto edification Nor is this against your Catholique Doctrine or practise and yet this is all that our Church deliuereth touching traditions in their publique authorised receiued constitutions Priuate opinions if there be any tye vs no more then they doe you Nay we deale more sincerely and positiuely than you doe distinguishing Traditions for plainenesse sake whereas your Fathers of Trent giue this onely in commaund That Traditions be receiued as the Scripture playing fast and loose in ambigiuous termes not differencing humane diuine Apostolicall Apotacticall Christian Paganish generall particular free of necessity temporary or permanent Traditions Can you or any Papist defend this The Popish Doctrine thus deliuered is not onely contrary to expresse words of your owne Bibles but to pietie and religion to sense and reason that any idle fantasticke foolish impious prophane humane inuention for your words runne generally and extend to all should be receiued as Holy Scripture but the protestant doctrine declared as before is not contrary to expresse words of our Bibles 2 Thessal 2. 15. Therefore Brethren stand fast and hold the traditions which yee haue receiued whether by word or by our Epistle Therefore c. Wee deny not obedience vnto this exhortation but indeauour to stand fast in the word of truth and hold fast all those Traditions which Saint Paul deliuered either by word or writing All Protestants giue due respect to such diuine authority Shew any that doth not and you say somewhat But good Sir Gagger Hee that refuseth those manifold botcheries and brokerages of your Romish Church and casteth them off as impious and ridiculous doth not streight transgresse this Apostolicall direction no more than he that reiecteth a counterfeit Passe made by some jarkman vnder an hedge for a Rogue doth resist lawfull authority Proue your Tradition such as you pretend then see what we will say vnto you 2 Thessal 3. 6. Now we command you brethren in the name of the Lord Iesus Christ that you withdraw you selues from euery brother that walketh disorderly and not after the Tradition he receiued of vs. Which we receiue and obey But Tradition may runne for Example here in effect not according to our example And so Saint Chrysostome vpon the place or it may be something extant also in writing or order prescribed them by the Apostle temporary and occasionall or of morall dispensation If you can name it wee will not refuse for our conclusion differerh not from yours Traditions are to be receiued and doe oblige vs but you must let vs know them and their credite first 1 Cor. 11. 2. I praise you brethren saith the Apostle that you remember mee in all things and keepe the Traditions as I haue deliuered them vnto you So hee would vs were hee now liuing so would hee not you that haue broken them for that which hee deliuered vnto them that hee receiued of the Lord 1 Cor. 11. 23. and that which hee receiued was touching the whole intire communion the Cups as well as the Bread you haue broken this Tradition through your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and presumptions But can you resolue mee what Tradition hee meaneth heere perhaps they were Temporall and not intended for vs. If such your owne rule is They oblige not It may be no vnwritten Traditions but the written word at least such things as be written now Howsoeuer the allegation is not to purpose for it doth not proue what the Protestants deny and that which it proueth they deny not That Traditions are to be kept 2 Timoth. 2. 2. Where there is no expresse mention of Traditions but onely of things receiued from Saint Paul by which Traditions peraduenture not written are meant and peraduenture things written who can tell whether these or those shew them and we refuse them not Iohn 20. 30. and 21 25. are both to one purpose Tradition is in neither text expressed nor to be collected from either for neither text is for Tradition both one other intimate no more but that all which Christ did or said is not recorded in the Gospels Doth any ideot belieue the contrary This fellow might begge vs if wee said or taught that Christ did nor said any thing but that is written Till then himselfe may be begged for a foole that would put vpon vs this vnhandsome beliefe All that Christ did or said is not written therefore any thing must be receiued that is pretended to be Tradition Apostolicall or Diuine 1 Cor. 11. 34. Paul saith The rest I will set in order when I come Therefore you may goe learne to bake a batch of Bread or goe drinke an health to the Vicar of St. Fooles with your Host of Holborne The inference is Saint Paul had not ordered all till hee came when hee came hee made good his promise and set all things in order at Corinth therefore any thing though neuer so absurd which Papists pretend as Tradition must be receiued as Gods word 1 Timoth. 6. 2. Saint Paul saith nothing of Tradition except these words will beare out Tradition These things teach and exhort which things are written not vnwritten For These things doe designe things there remembred Saint Iohn 2. Epist 12. saith He had many things to write vnto them which hee would not commit to paper but come himselfe and teach them by word of mouth which hee repeateth Ep. 3. vers 13. Therefore hee wrote not all things vnto them And who saith hee did therefore what our Gagger is a goose no other sequell and so hee must stand vntill hee shew that some of his Romish Traditions were part of that which Saint Iohn would not write vnto them but teach them by word of mouth Act. 16. 4. and 15. 28. Wee reade of no Traditions wee doe of Decrees ordayned in the Councell at Ierusalem but the mischiefe is they are written and yet so our Gagger and his Comerades keepe them not For tell mee did you neuer eate a Goose or her pudding Capon Hen or Chickens at your Bottle-Ale house in Partridge-Ally if not there nor otherwhere I haue nothing to say to you But if so I returne it to your teethe you belie vs in that which you doe your selues The Traditions Apostolicall and auncient customes of the holy Church oblige you not For among these Decrees or as you will
recouered after his fall and perseuered vnto the end Our Sauiour said not to him thou shalt not deny mee but That thy faith fayle not and that his faith did not eternally fayle it was out of his speciall fauour vnto him and care of him saith Chrysostome hom 83. in Math. This is the prime true and literall meaning of the Text euen in the opinion of your owne Partiaries that Christs prayer was personall for Saint Peter restrained vnto Saint Peter alone which being so first setled and acknowledged Peter may be said in a secondary sense to sustaine the person of the whole Catholique Church in which sense many and they no Protestants doe vnderstand it And so his Faith that is the Faith of the Church fayled not either totally or finally no not in the greatest eclipse that euer was because Christ was euer heard in that which he prayed for and he prayed for the Church The refiners of Popery the quintessense of villany the Iesuites haue inuented a third sense to fit the purpose more than the former This promise was made say they to Peter not personally but as Pope And therein was inferred thereby assurance made that the Pope neuer did neuer should neuer could maintaine decide hold belieue any thing against Faith A thing not heard of but out of such mouthes a late dayes False in euent for their faith hath failed totally finally vtterly for euer False according to themselues and their other resolutions For Peter was not Bishop much lesse Pope when our Sauiour Christ prayed for him insomuch as by inchoation when hee denied Christ saith Bellarmine And good reason for his saying so lest his successours might fall into the same predicament His principality in and ouer the Church was not inuested in him vntill after our Sauiours Resurrection Thus hee de Rom. Pontif. 4. 8. therefore hee did not pray for him as Pope Therefore Bellarmine contradicteth himselfe and is contrary to his companions Therefore this prater gagleth hee knoweth not what against his owne rules and against his Masters As also out of Matth. 16. 18. The gates of Hell shall not preuaile against it It What Saint Peters Faith Was the Church therefore built vpon Saint Peters Faith Take heede of that It is the Church not his Faith nor his Person nor his Papacy But let it for once be his Faith I answere there is a twofold preuayling against First to ouercome So Iosua in fight preuayled against Amalec by the signe of the Crosse rather than the sword Secondly a preuayling against to destroy So did Saul preuaile against the same Amalec The Gates of Hell did not preuayle against Peters Faith to vndoe it For being lapsed hee recouered and mightily preuayled against them They did preuaile against it to ouercome him For he forswore and denyed his Master The Faith of Marcellinus and Liberius fayled but they recouered as Saint Peter did The Faith of Honorius and Iohn 12 fayled happely hee recanted before his death and so his Faith did not fayle finally But Iohn 12. liued and dyed in his Faith that is in his Sinne and so Body and Soule went to the Diuell Saint Peters Faith fayled onely for a time Of this speake the Protestants His Faith fayled Saint Peters faith did not finally or irrecouerably fall Thus intended our Sauiour in that saying I haue prayed that thy Faith fayle not But Sir it mattereth not much what became of his Faith His Person is the thing to be stood vpon his Power Principality Papall Prerogatiues seated therein this I trow is so cleare in holy Scriptures no great neede to fortifie it by or from the Fathers and yet I maruaile why if so cleare there wee haue so few Texts of holy Scriptures for it onely two Texts nay scarcely that For one of these is cleare for another thing And againe whatsoeuer you vaunt of Fathers needelesse to be brought it is more than presumption you had not one Father to fling at this Faith not fayling For when you haue them you spare them not IX That a Woman may be supreame Gouernesse of the Church in all Causes as well Ecclesiasticall as Temporall as Queene Elizabeth was QVeene Elizabeth was With lye and all No Protestant euer saide so of Queene Elizabeth No Protestant euer thought so of any Woman You shamelesse pennes and brazen faces You haue often vouched Caluin against such Gouernement whom you make the Patriarch fondly of our Profession and yet you impute it to our Doctrine Lyers in this or in that needes Can you of your knowledge say this title was giuen vnto Queene Elizabeth Did shee euer practise it actually or challenge it habituall to her Person or her State And if it had beene challenged or giuen in Her time seeing that it is not at present but disclaimed by him that best may and seeing it dyed if yet it euer liued together with her what meaneth this quarreller to stirre vp a new allayed strife and trouble things setled and well disposed of The truth is Queene Elizabeths stile was no other then than King Iames is now mutatis mutandis Ouer all persons in all Causes not and all causes as well Ecclesiasticall as Ciuil in these her Maiesties Realmes and Dominions next vnder God supreame Gouernour Can your small vnderstanding put no difference betwixt Ouer all and In all betwixt Persons and Causes ouer all Persons in all Causes is one thing Ouer all Persons and all Causes is farre another thing Ouer Each or ouer Causes without Persons looketh your way But Causes with Persons ouer the Parties in their proceedings is no such exorbitances no Scripture expresse none inferred against it to any purpose We doe not professe much lesse propose or propugne that Princes are Heads or Gouernours to any such intent as to coyne or set abroad new Formes of Faith to determine what is defide what not as your side belyeth vs and beareth your Proselites in hand we doe Wee giue no such authority to any humane Power They were of you that did it at Trent that cast it vpon your Lord God the Pope He was one of you none of our side Stephen Gardner by name who to flatter the Prince in state and keepe himselfe in those hurring times in his fauour openly auouched as Cardinal Poole relateth That the King might take away the Cup from the Laity Potestas enim summe est penes regem For the King hath supreamest Power Such aphorismes neuer came out of our mouthes We say Princes haue supreame Power in Earth vnder God ouer all Persons in all Causes whatsouer within their Dominions euen in Causes meerely Ecclesiasticall to compell them to doe their duties by the Ciuil Sword Not ouer all Causes to doe as they will to command or change beliefe or Faith Will it rellish better with you in Saint Augustines words Then this is our profession in his words Kings serue God as Kings if in their owne Realmes they command good things not alone which concerne the
should I that cannot tell how who can doo it my body is nourished by the ordinary meat and drink I take yet is that familiar and in vse euery day When Christ gaue it he said This is my body Saint Paul repeating the Institution saith This is my body It was neuer denied to bee his body it is affitmed still to be his body Mad Papist that imputest to poor Protestants an Idoll a Chimaera of thy owne brain that The bread is but a figure and no more of Christs body Protestants say it not they neuer said it As commonly it happeneth that all Reformations or Innouations are vpon and into extremes so some happely haue that departed long since from the Church of Rome But what is that to our Church that publiquely priuately all and som directly maintains the clean contrary Your great Aduiser C. W. B. hath said enough could he see what himself hath said or you vnderstand what hee alledgeth to stop the mouth of such Gabblers as you and he for euer in the coÌ„trary assertions of the Protestants But the diuell bred you in a Faction and brought you vp in a Faction and sent you abroad to do him seruice in maintaining a Faction otherwise acknowledge there is there need bee no difference in the point of reall presence See your Fathers if I doo I shall doo more than you haue done for I auow it you neuer read Ignatius for this Read that Epistle ouer vnto the Smyrneans and see if you finde any such thing there if you doo then trust not mee again if you doo not what descrueth that impudent imposture S. Ignat. in his Epist ad Smyr But I can shew you better euidence for Bread and Wine out of Ignatius pag. 125. edit Paus Maestrei The flesh of our Lord Iesus Christ is one His Bloud one which was shed for vs also one Bread was broken for all one Cup distributed vnto all Bread and Wine after consecration Both distributed to all against your halfe Communion And againe pag. 261. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Breaking one Bread which is the medicine procuring Immortality Thus I finde nothing in Ignatius for you this I haue and happly more could against you were I desirous with you to maintaine a faction Iustin Martyrs testimony I acknowledge in the end of his Apologie and willingly make his words our owne For wee doe not receiue these things as common Bread or common Drink but euen as our Lord Sauiour Iesus Christ by the Word of God becomming flesh had flesh bloud for our sakes so are we taught that the food which was blessed by him in the Word and Prayer through which food beeing altered and changed our flesh and bloud is sustained becommeth the flesh and bloud of him that Iesus who took our flesh in his Incarnation Thus that antient Father not fully represented by your director who saith not any thing that Protestants deny For they confesse They eat the flesh of the Sonne of God and drink his bloud they are one with him and hee with them but commeth not home to the Papists Resolution that wee eate it and drink it by Transubstantiation but the contrary for but foure lines before hee calleth it Bread and Wine after Consecration Those saith hee whom wee call Deacons doe giue to euery one that is there present part of the Bread Wine and Water consecrated Saint Cyprian Serm. 5. de lapsis Now good Sir Gagger can you tell how many Sermons de lapsis Saint Cyprian wrote ignorant Asse and yet bold Bayard Saint Cyprian wrote no Sermons de lapsis hee wrote a booke de lapsis diuided into sections by some or other But Reader see the audacious Dunsery of this Ignaro C. W. B. had in his Catalogue of the Fathers of the third Age for transubstantiation cited Cyprian thus Ser. 5 de lapsis for Sect. 5. de lapsis vnlesse he also took his Authors by tale vpon trust and Ser. de coena Domini This blunderer stumbled vpon the first false or true to purpose or not all was one to him and set it downe the second quotation hee left out yet that is it which hee should haue taken for in the first Sect. 5. de lapsis there is nothing in the second Ser. decoena Domini as he will haue it though it bee no Sermon Sect. 6. there is thus The Bread which our Lord reached vnto his Disciples beeing changed not in appearance but in Nature by the omnipotency of the Word is made flesh Saint Cyprian said as much as this once or twice before No man denyeth a change an alteration a transmutation a transelementation as they speake no man otherwise beleeueth but that the naturall condition of the Bread consecrated is otherwise then it was beeing disposed and vsed to that holy vse of imparting Christ vnto the Communicants Stay heere be contented with That it is and doe not seeke nor define How it is so and we shall not contest or contend with you Hoc Sacramentum aliquando corpus suum aliquando carnem sanguinem aliquando panem Christus appellat portionem vitae aeternae cuius secundum haec visibiâ—ia corporali communicauit Naturâ— Panis iste communis in carnem et sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam et incrementum corporibus ideoque ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adiuta infirmitas sensibili argumento edocta est visibilibus sacramentis inesse vitae aeternae effectum et non tam corporali quà m spirituali transitione Christo nos vniri Thus the same Saint Cyprian so we we confesse it we beleeue it we cannot comprehend it Saint Ambrose saith no more then wee will subscribe Lib. 4. de sacramentis Before consecration it was Bread common ordinary meere Bread but after consecration it becommeth the flesh of Christ because then the Sacrament is consummate But doth Saint Ambrose tell you how it is so made That I finde not that I expect that I must finde or I finde nothing to your purpose One Father yet you adde Saint Remigius saith but you cannot tell where your Director told you it was in his comments vpon the 10. Chap. 1. ad Corinth The flesh which the Word of God took in the Virgins wombe and the Bread consecrated in the Church are the same body And yet beeing consecrated he calleth it Bread How can your Saint Remigius make that good Hee should haue said for doubtlesse hee meant so The Bread which was beeing consecrated in the Church is transubstantiated into that flesh which the Word of God took in the Virgins womb and becom the same body This Remigius saith not a great signe hee meant not And indeed hee did not meane it hee goeth no further then Reality he determineth not modum praesentiae at all And yet this Remigius is not peraduenture the man you would haue him namely Saint Remigius Archbishop of Rhemes who conuerted King Clouis of France to the Christian Faith who liued within 500