things that were set foorth and to make that bread the bodie of Christ and that wine the bloud of Christ. Then it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For whatsoeuer the holy Ghost hath touched or embraced that must needes be sanctified and changed You see Cyrillus meaneth no change of substance but such as is in all thinges that the holy Ghost commeth vnto Where it is saide in the Actes the Apostles returned adorantes worshipping wee may safely vnderstande that they returned worshipping of Christe as well as of the Father and the holye Ghost but here is no like assurance that the Sacrament is to be worshipped therefore adorantes is not of necessitie or congruitie to be referred vnto it CAP. VII Thereall presence of Christes bodie bloud vnder the forms of bread and wine is proued by the testimonies of the auncient The sayings of the doctors because he hath alreadie alleaged in euery article Chapter he professeth nowe briefely to shewe by what generall Chapters a man may be vndoubtedly assured of their beliefe doctrin And first because diuerse of them alleage the almightie power of God to defende the veritie of those wordes and deedes I answere that allegation prooueth no real presence For the almightie power of God is more considered in feeding vs with the bodie and bloud of Christ which is in heauen then in Popish transubstantiation Yet Sander misunderstandeth Irenaeus li. 4. ca. 34. as hee misquoteth lib. 5. for lib. 4. How can they be sure the breade wheron thankes are giuen to be the bodie of their Lord the cup of his bloud if they say not him to be the sonne of the maker of the world In these wordes Irenaeus reasoneth not of the diuine power of Christ which the heretikes granted but they denied him to be the sonne of that God which made the world therfore by the institutioÌ„ of the Sacrament in bread wine which are creatures of the world Irenaeus proueth that the father of our Lord Iesus Christ was the maker of the world not another iust God as the heretikes affirmed Cyprian in deede in serm de coen Dom. allegeth the omnipotencie of God for that wonderful conuersion of the nature of common bread to be made the flesh of Christ but he meaneth not transubstantiation but an alteration of the vse of the creature to bee a meane to feede spiritually with the flesh of Christ as by the whole discourse of that Sermon it may appeare Hilarie li. 8. de Trin. alleageth the diuinitie of Christ to proue the Sacrament to be truely flesh and bloud which wee grant as he affirmeth vnder a mysterie and after a spirituall manner Finally Basil in Reg. bre q. 172. Ambros. de ijs qui init Cap 9. c. Chrysost. de sacerdot lib. 3. Emissenus hom 5. in Pasc. Cyrillus in Ioan. li. 4. cap. 13. 14 places often cited answered do all vse the argument of omnipotencie but not to proue the Popishe carnall or reall maner of presence but to proué that Christ doth aboue the reach of mans vnderstanding feede vs truely with his flesh bloud and as Damascene saith by an inscrutable meane for he had not learned transubstantiatioÌ„ though otherwise he were a corrupt writer in diuerse things as he doth regenerate vs in baptisme The second general Chapter is that no man requireth credit to be giuen to a figuratiue speach but the fathers require credit to be giuen vnto it therfore it is not figuratiue I denie the major for he that requireth not all the figuratiue speaches in the scripture to be credited in their true meaning is an heretike If these wordes had beene figuratiue saith Sander we should haue bene warned by the watch men of God to beware of them Nay to beware of misunderstanding them so wee are directly by Augustine De dâ—ct Christ. lib. 3. Cap. 16. by others And who is so madde to denye these wordes of the cup to be figuratiue This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud Againe there is neither Basil Epiphanius Cyrillus Ambrosius Chrysostome Eusebius or any other that requireth these words to be credited but they also shewe that they are spiritually and mystically to be vnderstanded The thirde generall Chapter is that the fathers affirme the trueth of Christes flesh and his flesh to be eaâ—en truely in the Sacrament therefore his substance is really present in the Sacrament I denye the argument for it is the true flâ—sh of Christ whereof wee are truely made partakers yet it followeth not that the same should be bodily present but wee are fedd therewith vnited thereto after a spirituall manner the bodie of Christ remaining locally in heauen and no where else aâ— both the Scripture our creede and the ancient fathers do teaâ—h vs. The fourth Chapter general is that they which name the 〈◊〉 of Christ a figure a Sacrament or remeÌ„brance a â—â—â—ne symbole token image type for so many terms thâ—y haue although Sander list to rehearâ—e but the three first do not exclude the substance of Christs flesh but shewe that it is present vnder the signe of another thing after a mysâ—icall secrete manner I answere although they exclude not â—he substance of Christes flesh from his supper yet shewing the bread and wine to be signes tokens remembrantes they exclude the Popish reall presence vnder the accidents of bread and wine For signes and the things signified must needs be diuerse yea opposite as relatiues As when Cyprian saith the diuine substance hath vnspeakably infused it selfe in the visible Sacrament hee meaneth not the substance of Christes fleshe nor of his godhead but the grace of God giuen to the visible Sacrament Dâ— Coen Dom. And when Hilarie saith Wee take the flesh of his bodie vnder a mysterie he meaneth not that the accidents of bread is a mysterie but the whole dispensation of the Sacrament Likewise when Cyril of Ierusalem saith vnder the figure of bread the bodie is giuen hee meaneth that breade is so a figure of the bodie that as the figure is giuen outwardly so the bodie is receiued inwardly Augustine de verb. Apost serm 2. The bodie and bloude of Christ shall then be life to euery man if that thing which in the Sacrament is visibly receiued be in the truth it selfe eaten spiritually c. Behold saith Sander there is a thing in the sacrament so really it is there that it is visibly receiued What a miracle Sander hath founde but what thing is that which is visibly receiued breade and wine or the bodie of Christ It must needes be the body of Christ saith he vnder the forme of breade for nothing els is to be eaten spiritually And is the body of Christe present inuisibly as all Papistes affirme and yet receiued visibly This is strange Logike But why may not the breade and wine be eaten and drunken spiritually when they are by faith vnderstoode to be the sacrament of the
nor Augustine reproued by scripture that which in Aerius they coÌ„pted to be an error But the case is so cleare saith Bristow that the very aduersary confesseth that it was the Catholik Church that iudged Aerius to be an heretike Yea sir for his Arrianisme but I neuer coÌ„fessed neither can you euer prooue that any iudgement of the Catholike Church in general councel passed against Aerius for denying prayer for the dead before the dayes of Epiphanius or Augustine although the error of prayer for the â—ead in that age was commonly receyued not vpon any good ground of Canonical scripture but vpon a corrupt custome first brought in by heretikes Afterward where I following an allegorie of dogges vsed by Allen tell him that hee must not teach his scholers to barke baule against vs nothing but The Church the Church like â—inkers curres c. he cryeth out in the margent O worthy estimation that he hath of the Church as though I think lesse worthily of the Church because I deride the vaine boasting of the name of the Church in theÌ„ which are nothing lesse then the true church Neither do I appoint mine enimy not to inuade me with a gunne as he saith when I make the scripture onely to be my weapon both inuasiue and defensiue But it is a great absurditie as he â—weeneth that I say an heretike is he which in the Church obstinately mainteyneth an opinion contrarie to the scriptures seeing S. Iohn saith exierunt a nobis they are gone out from vs. And if an heretikee be a man in the Church we are cockesure with all heretikes and the Papistes onely in daunger Why Bristow make ye no difference betweene him that is in the Church and him the is of the Church They be not al meÌ„bers of the Church that be in the Church and therfore S. Iohn saith of them that are gone froÌ„ vs If they had bene of vs they would haue tarried with vs. And doe you account him an heretike that holdeth an error cleane out of the Church then may you count all Paganes Turkes and Iewes to be heretikes What say you of Antichrist that sitteth euer in the Temple of God it helpeth not heretikes that they rise vp in the visible Church from whence also they are often times cast out so long as they bee not members of the body of Christ which is the inuisible Church and heauenly Ierusalem which is the mother of vs all Where I sayde that whosoeuer holdeth an opinion obstinately which hee is not able to proue by the worde of God although hee haue many authors before him yet hee is neuerthelesse an heretike Bristowe addeth in the margent though it bee S. Augustine himselfe and though he holde the foundation heere cap. 5. Touching the former part I say not onely though it were Saint Augustine but although it were Saint Peter himselfe or an Angell from heauen Gal. 1. Touching the later parte I aunswere my meaning is of such opinions as are against the foundation and so is my whole discourse purg 412. whence this saying is borowed Agayne where hee concludeth that I confesse Aerius Iouinian and Vigilantius to haue beene condemned by the true Church of Christ in such poyntes of doctrine as wee agree with him I aunswere as before of Aerius alone I neuer made such confession In that I refuse to finde the firste authors of all their errors he saith I am faine to flee to my colde exception of onely scripture as though to iustifie our doctrine by the Apostles and that so sensibly were not inough O sensible iustification by which all errors whose first authors cannot be found must be layd vpon the Apostles But most ridiculous of all is Fulke where he coÌ„meth in with this exception vpoÌ„ Tertullians rule Id esse verum c. That is true what soeuer is first that is false forged which is later But how shall the first doctrine bee knowne but by the worde of God wherein all the doctrine of God is taught What is here I pray you to bee laughed at Forsooth Bristowe saith Tâ—â—â—ullian hath there an other rule against such heresies as presumed to say their founders liued in the Apostles time But this rule hee giueth against all such as rise any time after as Aerius Luther Caluine c. bidding vs consider what was taught and belecued immediatly before they arose for that vndâ—ubâ—â—dly is the trueth and their later doctrine is falshood But what if Bristow take Richard for Robert is not he then ridiculous The rule of Tertullian whereof I speake Purg. 410. Ar. 42. is written in his booke aduersus Praxeam although Allen doe falsely quote it de praescriptionibus But what if Tertullian euen in this rule giuen against heretikes in his booke de praescriptionibus doe expresly affirme the worde of God to bee the triall of that which 〈◊〉 former and true to conuince that which is latter and â—lse is not Bristowe most ridiculous of all His words â—e these Sed ab excessu reuertar ad principalitateÌ„ veritatis â—osteritatem mendaciâ—atis deputandam ex illius quoque parabo 〈…〉 patrocinio quae bonum semen frumenti a Domino seminatum â—rimò constituit auenarum aut sterilis foeni adulterium ab iniâ—ico diabolo postea superducit Propriè enim doctrinarum diâ—tinctionem figurat quia alibi verbum Dei seminis similiâ—do est Ita ex ipso ordine manifestatur id esse dominicum â—erum quod sit prius tradiâ—â—m id autem extraneum salâ—um quod sie posterius immissum Ea sententia manebit aduerâ—s posteriores quasque haereses quibus nulla constantia de conâ—ciencia compettt ad defendendam sibi veritatem But from this â—xcesse I will returne to shew the priority of truth poâ—terioritie of falshood euen out of the defence of the parable â—hich first of al setteth forth the good seed of wheat sowne â—y our Lorde and afterwarde bringeth on the counâ—erfeiting of Otes or baren grasse by the enemie the â—iuel For it figureth properly the difference of doctrines â—ecause elsewhere also the worde of GOD is the siâ—ilitude of seede So by the very order it is made maâ—ifest that to bee the Lordes true which was formost â—eliuered that to be straunge and false which is cast in â—fterward This decree shal remain against later heresies whatsoeuer which haue no constaÌ„cie of conscieÌ„ce to deâ—end the truth to be on the irside Where is there here any word of Bristows glosse of Tertullian bidding vs consider c I thinke he had not redde the place in Tertullian himself but followed some papistes collection vpon it and because hee coulde not auoyde that which I sayd hee thought it best by calling it so much and so often ridiculous to laugh it out as they say when hee was not able otherwise to aunswere it Likewise I sayd that we refuse not the rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis concerning antiquitie so you can prooue God to
scripture 〈…〉 ust be brought and heard which I neuer affirmed but 〈…〉 at onely scripture is sufficient and of soueraigne au 〈…〉 oritie to teach vs all doctrine perteyning to religion 〈…〉 d manners to faith and good workes Whatsoeuer 〈…〉 erefore is brought and heard must bee examined by 〈…〉 at touchstone if it be receiued of Christians Secondly 〈…〉 e slaundereth me to confesse that all other euidences 〈…〉 e euident for them which is an impudent lie for I ne 〈…〉 r made any such confession Thus hauing altered the 〈…〉 ate of the controuersie from that I affirme to that which 〈◊〉 falsely saith meÌ„ to affirme he taketh vpon him to an 〈…〉 ere all such scriptures as I haue alledged to prooue that 〈◊〉 al matters only scripture must be brought heard 〈…〉 nd first he quarelleth that in all mine answere to the arti 〈…〉 es I haue cited but one text of scripture for that pur 〈…〉 se. Where he might more truly say I had cited none 〈…〉 r this question of only scriptures authoritie sufficiencie was none of the demaunds wherevnto I made answere Only in the 4. article 1. demand which demaÌ„deth what church hath vanquished all heresies in times past c. I answere the true catholike Church hath alwayes resisted al 〈…〉 lse opinioÌ„s contrary to the word of god fought against theÌ„ with 〈…〉 e sword of the spirit which is the word of God and by the aide 〈◊〉 God obteined the victory and triumphed euer theÌ„ So did Paul 〈…〉 ercome the Iewes Act. 18. So did the fathers of the primitiue 〈…〉 urch froÌ„ time to time confute heresies by the scriptures and in 〈…〉 eir writing declare that by theÌ„ they are to be confuted c. To 〈…〉 is Bristow answereth that he findeth not that his argumeÌ„ts 〈…〉 gainst the Iewes were none but scriptures wherein he is 〈◊〉 be patdoned because the quotation is a misse and hath Act. 18. for 28. in which chapter 23. ver S. Luke declareth how he proued the whole doctrin of the gospel out of the law of Moses the Prophets Wherefore if Bristow had remeÌ„bred this he might haue found that S. Pauls arguments were the same against the Iewes of Corinth which he vsed against the Iewes of Rome For what other authority shold be vsed against theÌ„ that denied Christ beleue not his Epistles but the authoritie of the scripturâ— which they receiued Wherfore he vsed none other arguments but taken froÌ„ the authoritie of the scriptures Also he might find in the same chapter last verse that Apolloâ— who vsed the same arguments that S. Paul did proued by the scripturs that Iesus was Christ. If he will cauill that it is not said onely by scriptures let him accuse S. Luke which hath omitted other argumeÌ„ts necessarie to proue Iesus to be Christ. But read you Act. 13. saith Brist and you shal find that he vsed against the Iewes the testimonie of certaine men namely of Iohn the Baptist of his owne disciples This is as good an argument to proue that he confuted them not by the onely authority of Gods word conteined in the scriptures as if a man wold deny that a traytor was apprehended by the onely authoritie of the Prince because the constable arested him the Iustice made his warraÌ„t to the Iayler to receiue him Iohn the Baptist testified nothing of Christ but that which was written of him before in the scripture no more did the disciples or Apostles of Christ. Besid that the testimony of the Apostles is not alledged for proofe of any doctrine concerning Christ but only for witnes of a fact namely that Iesus was risen again froÌ„ the dead according to the scriptures Furthermore Bristow willeth â—e to read Act. 4. for the argument of miracles where it is said seing the man also stand with Peter Iohn which was healed The gouernours had nothing to gainsay A man hauing such daily exercise of conferring of scripture as Bristow boasteth himself to haue might haue alledged tweÌ„tie places more proper for the argumeÌ„t of miracles But euen in the same place by him cited the argument of miracles serueth not to prooue any article of doctrine not conteined in the scriptures but to 〈…〉 onfirme the doctrin of the scriptures which was alledged by the Apostles to prooue Iesus to be Christ. The second text of scripture is in the boke of Pur. 6. where I say that other persuasion then such as is grouÌ„ded vpon hearing of Gods word will neuer of Christians be counted for true beleefe so long as the 10. cap. to the Râ—m remaineth in the Canon of the Bible To this Bristow answereth that the word of God is not only in writing but in preaching of such as be sent And therefore wee account it the word of God which we heare of the Church of God either in her couÌ„cels or in her doctors or any other For so said God to thé he that heareth you heareth me I answere that I spake not of the word of God only in writing but in preaching in councels or doctors or howsocuer it be the word of God but I say the only scriptures are a sufficient warant for me euery Christian to try what is the word of God what is the word of man For he that coÌ„manded vs to heare the Apostles ministers willeth vs not to beleue any doctrin which they teach if they haue not the warrant of holy scripture to proue vnto vs that it is the doctrin of God For since god gaue his word in writing al spirits prophets signes miracles were to be tryed thereby Deut. 13. The third text Gal. 1. which S. Paul spéaketh of preaching Bristow saith I alledge it of writing of onely writing In these words Pur. 449. It vexeth you at the verie hart that we require the authoritie of holy scriptures to confirme your doctrine hauing a plaine coÌ„mandement out of the word of God that if any man teach otherwise theÌ„ the word of God alloweth he is accursed First he chargeth me with falsification by changing But what change I haue made let the Lorde God iudge Indeed I haue drawne mine argument from the worde of God to the holy scriptures because they are the only certeine assurance of the word of God For how can I knowe certainely what S. Paul preached to the Romaines and other Churches but by the scriptures both of the old testament and the new which he affirmeth to be able to make a man wise vnto saluation 2. Tim. 3 yea wherefore was the newe Testament written but to assure vs what is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Therefore accursed be he that saith the newe Testiment is vnperfect and doeth not contayne in writing al pointes of the Gospell that Christians are bound to beleeue to their saluation But the scripture saith not that the Apostles did write al that they taught saith Bristow yes verily and that I prooue
by this argument The scripture testifieth that all which the Apostles taught was first taught of Christ himself before theÌ„ Heb. 2. but whatsoeuer Christ taught is written in the Gospel Luk. 1. Act. 5. Iohn 20. c. therefore whatsoeuer the Apâ—stles taught is written And therfore the Church pretending the Apostles tradition receiued by preaching iâ— bound to bring forth the Apostles writing or other holy scriptures giuen by the same spirit The fourth text iâ— 2. Tim. 3. which I alledge in these words saith Bristow Purg. 410. All goodworkes are taught by the scriptures which are able to make the man of God perfect and prepared to all good workes First he taketh exception that these are not the wordes of S. Paul Indeede my wordes are an argument against prayers for the dead grounded vpon the scripture which Bristowe suppresseth But supposing that Saint Paul had saide so what a fonde reasoning is this saith Bristoâ— because one euidence proueth all therefore I can not haue any other euidence but that onely Sir if one euidence prooue all that which is not prooued by that euidence is not prooued at all But if to prooue that which is prooued alreadie by that one euidence you haue other good euidence no man letteth you to vse them Wherefore this is no fond kinde of resoning Maister Brâ—stow but such as the best Logicians do teach All good workes are taught by the scriptures therefore that which is not taught by the scriptures is no good worke But nowe S. Paul saith not that all good workes are taught by the scripture saith Bristowe Hee saith the scriptures are profitable he saith not are able or sufficient to teach all good works Againe he speaketh only of the worke of an Euangelist and not of all good workes To this I aunswere that immediately before Paul saide The scriptures are able to make Timothie wise vnto saluation through faith in Christ Iesu but no man can bee wise vnto saluation but he that knoweth all good workes meete for a Christian man to doe therefore all good workes meete for a Christian man to do may be learned by the scripture And euen in this very text where he saith Al the scripture inspired of God is profitable to teaching of trueth to disprouing of falshoode to correcting of vices to instructing in righteousnes that the man of God that is the Euangelist be perfect furnished to euerie good worke although you restraine euerie worke to the only worke of an Euangelist yet that I saide is necessarily concluded thereof For it is some part of an Euangelists worke to giue example in all good workes that are meet to be done by other men but by the scripture he may be perfectly furnished c. therefore all good workes are taught by the scripture Againe when all the office of an Euangelist which consisteth in teaching disputing correcting instructing in righteousnes may be perfectly furnisht at the scriptures what can be more playne to prooue that nothing ought to bee taught for truth disprooued for error corrected for vice instructed for righteousnesse but that which is taught disproued corrected instructed out of the holy scriptures Seeing therfore that prayers and oblations are to be made for the dead is not taught by the scripture it is no trueth To deny prayer to be profitable for the deade is not disproued by the scripture therefore it is no error To omit prayer for the dead is not corrected in the scripture therfore it is no vice MeÌ„ are not instructed in the scripture to pray for the dead therefore it is no worke of righteousnes The 5. 6. texts I alledge together Pur. 434. Search the Scriptures and trie the spirites to proue that the certeintie of trueth in vnderstanding the Scriptures is not to be had but by the spirite and the spirites are not tried but by the Scriptures Against this conference Bristow saieth Who euer alledged Scripture more blindly And why so I pray you because Christ saieth in the same place that Iohn did beare witnesse to the truth My workes doe beare witnesse of me Also My father who hath sent mee hee hath giuen witnesse of mee In dèed 〈◊〉 Bristowe could proue that Iohn Baptist Christes miracles or God his father did testifie any thing of him which was not before contained in the Scriptures neither had Christ giuen a perfect rule to find him in the scriptures neither is that sentence able to proue that Christ may be sufficiently learned out of the holy Scripture But if the testimonie of Iohn of the workes of God the father do all confirme the Scriptures who euer alledged scripture more blindly then Bristow to proue that Christ may not be learned sufficiently out of the newe Testament the old when Christ sendeth the Iewes to the old Testament as a sufficient witnesse of him Concerning the triall of spirits Bristow biddeth me looke in the text by this we knowe a spirit of trueth a spirite of error namely by hearing or not hearing of the Apostles I like it very well For where shall wee heare the Apostles speaking but in their writings in the other holy writings according to which they spake all that they taught Wherfore here is no tryall of the spirites but by the scriptures And where he sayeth the Romanes doe moste manifestly continue in that they heard of the Apostles because no man can name that time the noueltie the seducer that they went after although it were true that no man could in any point shew as he sayeth yet the argument is naught seeing it is proued by the Apostles writings that they holde many things not onely beside but also contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles The 7. text iâ— Pur. 285. The worde of the Lord is a light vnto our steppes and a lanterne vnto our feere therefore wee will not walke in the darknesse of manâ— traditions The faithfull testimonie of Gods word only giueth true light vnto the eyes But the Prophet sayeth Bristow neither hath the worde only nor saith that Gods word is not but in writing for S. Paul referreth that text to the preaching of the Apostles To the fiâ—st quarrell I aunswere that I alledge not the wordes of the Prophet but his meaning which Bristowe cannot denye to be the onely worde of God that giueth 〈…〉 ue light to the eyes That Gods worde is not but in 〈…〉 riting I neuer sayde or thought but that there is no 〈…〉 erteintie of Gods worde but in the Scripture I affirme 〈…〉 nd that the Apostles preached nothing but that which 〈…〉 as before conteined though not so clearely in the lawe 〈…〉 nd the Prophets Last of all you alledge and saye against Iudas Ma 〈…〉 abaeus saith Bristowe Pur. 210. In the law not so much â—s one pinne of the tabernacle was omitted lest any â—hing might be left to the will of man to deuise in the worship of God You shall not doe sayth the Lorde what seemeth good in your
councels which to this time haue bene holden being sixe in number So expressely saith Bristowe they auouch the authoritie of councels and you alledge them for only Scriptures I crie you mercie sir Doe they alledge the authoritie of Councels as though the preaching of the Gospell and the institutions of the Apostles in their writings were not sufficient when they saide before if men would haue bene content with them there needed no councels But you adde that in their wordes there is no mention at all of Scripture but onely of preaching and teaching What I pray you is the Gospel which they should preach no scripture are not the constitutions of the Apostles conteined in their writinges I know you will answer they are not all contained in their writinges At leastwise what sworde did these warriers vse against Satan styrring vpp his squires doth not the councell say expresly the sworde of the spirit which is the worde of God contained in the Scriptures for what other worde doth Saint Paule commend to the Eph. 6. but the holy Scripture which is profitable to reproue all heresies into perfection 2. Tim. 3. Against Basil maintaining vnwritten tradition I opposed his owne auctority De Ver. Fid. in Proem Morall We knowe that we must now and alwaies auoyde euery worde and opinion that is differing from the doctrine of our Lorde But all is not differing saith Bristowe that is not expressed in the Scripture Neither doe I say so but all is differing that can not be proued by Scripture And so saith Basil in his short definition to the first interrogation Whether it be lawfull or profitable for a man to doe or saie any thing which he thinketh to be good without testimony of the holy Scriptures He answereth For as much as our sauiour Christ saith that the holy Ghost shall not speake of himselfe what madnes is it that any man should beleeue any thing without the auctority of Gods worde Here you see he extendeth the worde of God no farther then the holy Scriptures Yet Bristowe saith If I sawe the place my malice passeth For the wordes are these Who can be so madde that he dare so much as to thinke any thing of him selfe And it followeth But because of those things words that are in vse amongest vs some are plainly taught in the holy Scripture some are omitted Concerning them that are omitted saith Bristowe We haue this rule to be subiect to other men for Gods commandement renouncing quite our owne wills In very deede I abridged the place and gaue the true sense because it is large But if Bristowe vnderstand Basills language his wordes are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Seeing our Lorde Iesus Christ saith of the holy Ghost for he shall not speake of himselfe but what things so euer he shall heare the same shall he speake and of him selfe the sonne can doe nothing of himselfe And againe I haue not spoken of my selfe but the father which hath sent me he himselfe hath giuen me a commandement what I shall saie and speake And I knowe that his commandement is life eternall Therefore the things which I speake euen as the father hath said vnto me so I speake Who is come into so greate madnes that he dare of him selfe take vpon him any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen vnto knowledge which hath neede of the holy and good spirite as a guide that he may de directed into the waie of truth both in minde and speache and deede but walketh blinde and in darknes without the sonne of righteousnes yea our Lorde Iesus Christ him which giueth light with his commandements as it were with beames For the commandement of the Lorde saith he is bright lightning the eies Seeing then that of such things as we haue in vse some are vnder the com mandement of God prescribed in the holy Scripture some are not spoken of concerning those that are written no liberty at all is giuen to any man neither to do any thing of those that are forbidden nor to omit ought of those things which are prescribed Seeing the Lorde hath once charged and saide thou shalt keepe the worde which I command thee this daie thou shalt not adde vnto it neither shalt thou take from it For there is a terrible expectation of iudgment and zeale of fyer which shall deuoure all those which shal be bolde to do any such thing And concerning those things which are not spoken of the Apostle Paule hath set vs a rule saying all things are lawfull for me but all things are not expedient All things are lawfull for me but all things do not edify Let no man seek his own profit but euery one an other mans So that in euery matter it is necessary to be subiect to God according to his commandement For it is written be ye subiect one to an other in the feare of Christ. And our Lord saith he that will among you be great let him be least of all and seruant of all that is to say estraunged from his owne will according to the imitation of our Lorde himselfe which saith I came downe from heauen not that I should doe mine owne will but the will of my father which hath sent me Where hath Bristowe that we should be subiect to other men in such thinges as are omitted by Scripture therefore not my malice but his ignorance passeth and that willful also although he follow the old barbarous translation of Basil when he may haue a better An other place of Basil I cited in his Moral defin 26. Euery word or deed must be confirmed by the testimony of holy Scripture for the persuasion of good men the confusion of wicked men Bristow saith he admonisheth his monkes being students in diuinity to be so perfect in the Scriptures that they may haue a text redy at euery need as when we bidde them cast all away that is not written they haue this text ready where Saint Paule biddeth vs the contrary To holde the traditions which we haue learned whether it be by his Scripture or by his worde of mouth 2. Thess. 2. And doth Paule bidde them holde such doctrine as was not to be proued out of the Scriptures did hee preach any such doctrine among the Thessalonians when those to whom he preached daily searched the Scriptures tosee if those thinges were euen so Act. 17. And where I pray you did you heare any tradition by worde of Saint Paules mouth that you may obiect it to vs we doubt not but whatsoeuer he preached was as true as that he did put in writing if you can assure vs of it but seeing that is impossible and it is certaine he preached no doctrine but such as he committed to writing Basills rule must still stande in force that euery worde and deede must haue confirmation of holy scripture or else it is not good for all good workes are taught in the Scripture and all true doctrine may be
vnanswered GOD BE PRAYSED The cauils of Nicholas Sander D. in Diuinitie about the Supper of our Lord and the Apologie of the Church of England touching the doctrine thereof confuted by W. Fulke Doctor in Diuinitie MAN HV what is this The figure Exod. 16. This is the breade which our Lorde hath giuen c. The prophecie Prouerb 9. Come eate my breade and drinke the wine which I haue mixed for you The promise Iohn 6. The breade which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the world The performance Matth. 26. Luke 22. He gaue saying take eate this is my bodie which is giuen for you The doctrine of the Apostles 1. Cor. 10. The breade which we breake is the communicating of the Lordes bodie The beliefe of the Church Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit Both our Lord hath professed and we beleeue it to be flesh in deede The custome of Heretikes Tertul. de resur car The contrarie part raiseth vp trouble by pretence of figures THese notes and sentences D. S. hath set before his booke as the pith and martowe of all his treatise In which as he pleaseth him self not a litle so he sheweth nothing but his ignorance vanitie and falshood His ignorance in the interpretation of the Hebrue wordes Man Hu which doe signifie This is a readie meate prepared without mans labor as euen the author of the booke of Wisedome expoūdeth it Which Sāder readeth interrogatiuely folowing the errour of some olde writers which could put no difference betweene the Hebrue and the Chaldee tongs For Man in Hebrewe signifieth not what neither doth the Chaldee Paraphrase expound it so but Manna hu that is This is Manna that is to say a ready meate Againe he sheweth him selfe ignorant in the Apostles doctrine when he maketh Manna a figure of the sacrament which the Apostle plainely affirmeth to haue bene the same spirituall meate which the sacrament is to vs. 1. Cor. 10. His vanitie appeareth that when he can racke neuer a saying of the Prophetes to his purpose he dreameth of a prophecie in the Prouerbes of Salomon which booke was neuer accounted of wise men for propheticall but doctrinall and this pretended prophecie is an allegorical exhortation of wisdome to imbrace her doctrine and not a prophecie of Christ instituting his sacrament an inuiting of men in Salomons time and all times to studie wisedome and not a foreshewing of a supper to be ordained by Christ in time to come In the words which he alledgeth for the promise of the sacrament is discouered a manifest falsification of the text of Scripture to peruert the meaning of Christe which is of his passion vnto the institution of the sacrament thereof For the wordes of our Sauiour Christ Ioh. 6. 51. are these And the breade which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world These last words which I will giue Sander hath fraudulently omitted that this promise might seeme to be referred not vnto the passion of Christ in which he gaue his flesh for the life of the world but vnto the giuing of the sacrament of his flesh in his last supper In the title of performance he omitteth to shewe what Christ gaue when he saide This is my body that he might seeme to haue giuen nothing but his body whereas the Euangelistes teach that he brake and gaue the breade which he tooke affirming it to be his body The doctrine of the Apostles Sander doth not holde because he neither breaketh breade which he denieth to be in the sacrament nor acknowledgeth a communicating or participation of the Lordes body which he alloweth to be receiued of the reprobate which haue no communicating or partaking with Christ. So that he denieth the sacrament or outward signe to all men and giueth the heauenly matter or thing signified by the sacrament euen vnto wicked men The beleefe of the Church which Hilarie professeth Sander maintaineth not for Hilarie saith that we do truely eat the flesh of the body of Christ sub mysterio vnder a mysterie per hoc vnum erimus and by this we shal be one with him and the father which can not be vnderstoode of the Popish corporall receiuing Last of all he followeth the custome of heretikes which is to draw mens sayings inio a wrong meaning for Tertullian in the place by him alledged speaketh not of such heretikes as pretended a figure in the sacrament where none should be acknowledged but he him selfe by that the breade is a figure of the body of Christ proueth against Marcion the heretike that Christ had a true body ad Marc. lib. 4. To the body and blood of our Sauiour Iesus Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine all honor praise and thankes be giuen for euer I Can not tell whether I should complaine more of the vanitie or blasphemy of this dedicatorie Epistle the forme whereof being so newe and strange that the like was neuer heard of in the Church of Christ euery word almost containeth a great and grosse heresie For not content to make the sacrament the very naturall body and blood of Christ he maketh it the very essentiall deity it selfe For vnto whom is all honor and glory dewe but vnto God himselfe Againe seeing he ioineth not the persons of God the Father and of God the holy Ghost in participation of the praise by this forme of greeting he doth either exclude them or if he will comprehend them for that inseparable vnity which they haue with the godhead of Christ he bringeth forth an horrible monster of heresie that God the father and God the holy Ghost is with the body and bloud of Christ vnder the formes of breade and wine Much like the Sabellians and Patripassians which affirmed that God the father was borne of the virgine Marie and was crucified as well as God the Sonne Euen so Sander by this blasphemous and heretical epistle if he denie not honor glorie power and presence euery where vnto the Father and the holie Ghost yet comprehendeth them with GOD the Sonne and God the Sonne with his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine For thus he writeth I adore thee my God and Lord really present vnder the formes of breade and wine To which also he saith And to whom should I referre the praise and thankes for it but vnto thee alone Or of whome should I craue the protection thereof but of thee seeing thou onely art a meete patron for the defence of any booke which only art alwaies present wheresoeuer and whensoeuer it shall be examined To the honour therefore of thy body and bloud I offer this poore mite c. By these wordes you see that Sander acknowledgeth no GOD nor Lorde but him that is really present vnder the formes of breade and wine except hee acknowledge more Gods and Lordes than one And consequently that either he acknowledgeth not God the Father and God
the body bloud of Christ is made The bread saith Sander cannot take the word which is not directed to it Yes as well as all creatures are sanctified by the word of God spoken by God to men and by praier directed to God by men and not to the creatures that are eaten dronken The same Irenaeus is cited lib. 4. Cap. 34. saying Panis percipiens vocationem dei bread receiuing the calling of God is not now common bread but the eucharistie consisting of two thinges earthly and heauenly If vocation be not here taken for inuocation or calling vpon God as it is most like yet at least it is taken for the vertue of Gods word which it may receiue although the word be directed to men and not to bread But the earthly thing wherof the sacrament consisteth saith Sander is the old forme of breade as though accidents without the subiect and substance of earth be earthly Secondly the heauenly thing is the body of Christ this is true if he ment as Irenaeus meaneth the body of Christ the diuine vertue and efficacy of Christes body sacrificed for our redemption But as he vnderstandeth it for the naturall body of Christ like as it is monstrous to affirme that the form or shape of bread is an erthly matter so is it hereticall and anabaptisticall to say that the naturall body of Christ is an heauenly matter or substance The second authority is Iustinus in Apol. 2. Cibū qui per verbum precationis c. Wee haue learned that the foode which is consecrated by the worde of praier which wee tooke of him to be the fleshe and bloud of Iesus Christ. He yeldeth the wordes of Iustinus who interlaceth this Parenthefis next to the worde Foode 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which foode our bloude and flesh by transmutation are nourished which confuteth transubstantiation and carnall eating But to the matter in question This worde of prayer saith Sander can bee none other but This is my bodie as though Christ hath not taught vs to frame our prayers but by that saying But see the conclusion that will followe admitting these wordes This is my bodie to bee wordes of prayer Then are they not wordes of performance for prayer and performance differ as much as promise and performance Againe when Sander saieth they are not wordes of preaching because they are wordes of prayer for preaching is directed principally to the people and prayer onely to GOD. Marke the conclusion If they bee wordes of prayer and wordes of prayer bee directed onely to God then are they not directed to the bread The like may be gathered of that hee saieth that they bee wordes of sacrifice which were Idolatrie to direct to any but to God and therefore chargeth Caluine with horrible Idolatrie for directing them to the people not remembring that it is as great Idolatrie to directe them to the breade if they were wordes of sacrifice But they are directed finallie to GOD saieth hee as though wordes of preaching were not finallie directed to GOD and by the way of sacrificing they appertaine to the breade as though wordes of sacrificing appertaine not to the people for whome the sacrifice is offered as much and more then to the thing that is sacrificed For what is a sacrifice of an Oxe or a Calfe of which hee taketh similitudes but a figuratiue preaching Hath any man so greate leasure to confute such insensible arguments But Hierom ad Euag. tom 2. sayeth that at the praiers of Priestes the bodie and bloud of Christe is made Doubtlesse at none other prayers saieth Sander then wherein they saye with minde of sacrificing ouer breade This is my bodie c. seeing his argument is nothing else but doubtlesse wee may not doubt vppon it A straunge prayer wherein nothing is asked and hee that prayeth speaketh not in his owne person but in the person of another But August saith in Psal. 39. The performance of things promised hath taken away the promising words I wil giue is a word of promise I haue giuen is a word of performance The Euāgelists testifie that Christ hath giuen therfore his words are not wordes of promise I answere The Euangelistes testifie that Christ gaue bread which he brake and gaue vnto his disciples promising the communicating of his body to them that did eat it faithfully in saying this is my body which is broken for you the condition of faithfull receiuing required in all Gods couenantes must needes be included in this although in euery place where mention therof is made it be not expressed From this matter he returneth to the former talke of sacrifice These wordes saith he fulfill the act of sacrifice and therfore they are called of Iustinus Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the worde of prayer or vowe It is false that he saith that Iustine calleth these words This is my body wordes of praier or vow for he saith the food to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that for which thankes is giuen by worde of praier yet Augustine saith Ep. 59. Vouentur c. Al things are vowed which are offered to God specially the oblation of the holy altar And againe Orationes c. We take praiers to be saied when that which is on the Lords table is blessed and sanctified and broken to be distributed This blessing and sanctifiing saith Sander is made by praier that praier is vowing to God of bread and wine let all this be granted what followeth The word of vowing is to say ouer it This is my body That is the matter in controuersie which with Sander is alwaies a good argument but yet remaineth to be proued But now we must see the difference betwen Caluine the old fathers Augustine calleth the Sacrament an oblation Irenaeus li. 4. Ca. 32. witnesseth that Christ hauing taken bread and giuen thankes said This is my body and confessed the chalice to be his bloud and taught a new oblation of the new testament which also he prooueth out of Malachie the Prophet Caluine will haue no working vpon the breade but onely in the mindes of the hearers and neither praier nor vowe nor sacrifice in these wordes Neither hath Sander prooued that in these wordes is either praier vow or sacrifice Neuerthelesse Caluine acknowledgeth the celebration of the supper to be such an oblation as the fathers vnder stoode namely a sacrifice of thankesgiuing and not of attonement for sinnes For thus writeth Irenaeus Noui testamenti docuit oblationem quam ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in vniuerso mundo offert deo ei qui alimenta nobis praestat primitias suorum munerum c. He taught the oblation of the newe testament which the Church receiuing from the Apostles offereth to God through out the whole worlde euen to him which giueth foode vnto vs the first fruites of his giftes Here is no oblation of the body and bloud of Christ but thanksgiuing vnto God for his benifites And what the sacrifice foreshewed
things present weight in reasoning eloquence in vttering power in reprouing or whatsoeuer was in olde time accounted for learning I trust al indifferent men will confesse that great steppes therof may be found in Caluins writing But if learning be nothing else with Papists but that which they fantasie theÌ„selues to knowe there is none learned but Papistes Whereas Sander threatneth vpon the defence of Caluins supposed error taken in hand by any of his scholers to discouer more of the ignorance of their arrogant Master if hee can haue so much leisure from his traiterous practises in Ireland which he hath lately taken in hand vnder the seruice of his diuelish blasphemous antichristian master the Pope I wish him not to spare not doubting but as I haue so discouered his proude and yet blockish ignorance in this Chapter in such sort as his friendes will blush to read it although he be past shame himselfe so in any matter wherein the Church of England doth coÌ„sent with Caluins writing I shal be able by Gods helpe so to defende the trueth that all his much babling trifling quarrelling controlling lying railing shal turne to his owne confusion and the reproche of the Baby lonicall strompet which he laboureth both with penne and sworde tongue and hand both like an heretike a traitor to protest and maintaine against the church of God The second booke CAP. 1. The Catholikes require their cause to be vprightly tryed by the holy scriptures which they haue alwaies studied reuerenced THis request is reasonable if it were faithfully meant but it is nothing but an heretical bragge because you seeme to haue colour in the holy scriptures for your carnall and as you call it real presence otherwise what studie soeuer you haue followed in your closets your open writings declare small reuerence vnto the holy Scriptures For Pigghius one of them whome you name to haue conuinced these heresies in our dayes by holy scripture calleth the holy Scripture a nose of waxe and a dumbe Iudge These I weene be wordes of small reuerence Eckius another of them calleth the Scripture a blacke Gospell and an inkish diuinitie And Hosius a thirde man sayeth these wordes of our Sauiour Christ Drinke ye all of this if they be vnderstoode generally aswell of lay men as of Priestes to bee the expresse wordes of the diuell and that there is no worde in all the Scripture of power to saue but one onely worde Dilige And generally all Papistes which before our time and in our dayes haue taken vpon them the exposition of the holy Scriptures submitting the vnderstanding of them to the Popes determination declare that they reuerence them not as the holye worde of God but esteeme them as a leaden rule which they maye drawe to any thing that shall please them The absuide and lewde interpretations of many of the Popes and other their applesquires whereof the subtiler Papists in these dayes are ashamed woulde fill a large volume if I shoulde goe about to rehearse them The best excuse that Harding can finde for many of them is that they are spirituall daliance in the diuels name by which you may see what reuerence they beare to the holy scriptures that make them an argument of daliance CAP. II. It is proued by the worde of God that euill men receiue the bothe of Christ in his supper The Apologie against which Sander fighteth professeth That in the supper vnto such as beleeue there is truely giu en the body and bloud of the Lorde Sander replyeth that Iudas receiued the body of Christ ergo not onely they that beleeue Concerning Iudas it is a question whether he receiued the Sacrament or no. Not only because as Sander confesseth that some ancient fathers thought that hee went out before the supper namely Hilarius in Math Can. 30. Post que Iudas prâ—ditâ—y iudicaur sine quo Pascha accepto calice fracto pane conficitur After which thinges Iudas is declared to be a traitour without whome the Passeouer is made the cuppe being taken and the bread being broken But also by consequence of Sanders owne confession in lib. 1 Cap. 4. fol. 18. where hee affirmeth that Christe did institute the Sacrament after he had eaten the Paschall Lamb washed his disciples feete and then sate downe againe to supper But S. Iohn testifieth that Iudas departed immediatly after the soppe receiued which was before supper was ended For this soppe could not be the sacrament as Augustine thinketh seeing the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a soppe dipped in brothe and so was this soppe dipped in the platter and not in the cuppe But to admitte that Iudas was present and did receiue the Sacrament howe proueth hee that hee receiued the bodie of Christe That which Christe deliuered Iudas receiued Christ deliuered his body ergo Iudas receiued his bodie Neither the maior nor the minor of this argument is out of controuersie For Iudas receiued not whatsoeuer Christ deliuered for Christ deliuered a spirituall communication of his body as Saint Paul witnesseth to them that woulde receiue it which Iudas receiued not therefore the maior is false The minor taketh as graunted that whereof is all the controuersie namely that Christ deliuered his bodie vnder the formes of bread which we deny affirming that hee gaue bread into their handes and his bodie after a spirituall manner to them which receiued it by faith The Apologie further affirmeth the Papists to teach the verie body of Christ to be eaten substantially not onely of wicked men but also which is horrible to speake of mise and dogges Sander answereth that it is not worthe the while to discusse whether mise dogs in some sense eate the body of Christ because the Catholiks kepe it so warily that neither mouse nor dog may com nigh it wherin he controlleth the scholemen who haue long disputations doctorall determinations of that question In the end he thinketh it worse that wicked men shoulde eate then if dogges or mise should eate it But in deede they are both blasphemous absurdities As for the fathers whome he quoteth for wicked mens eating of the body of Christ we shal consider in the next Chapter which is proper for that title His next argument is out of S. Paul whosoeuer shall eat this breade and drinke this cupp of the Lorde vnworthily shal bee guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. Of this text he reasoneth thus vnworthie eating supposeth an eating It is verie true but Saint Paul calleth it eating of this bread and not eating of this bodie Yea saith Sander Saint Paul doeth warily describe that kind of bread both with an article and a Pronoune ergo that breade is the bodie of Christ. I denie that argument The article and the Pronoune shewe that it is not common breade but the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ. But howe can hee which eateth this bread vnworthily bee guiltie of the bodie
Christ we are nourished to immortalitie Hereupon Sander inferreth that nourishmeÌ„r is meat really present ergo the bodie and bloud of Christ is really present This shal be graunted that the bodie bloud of Christ is really present with them whom it norisheth vnderstanding really for truly and indeede and vnfainedly But Christ saith Sander gaue with his handes that which nourisheth In proper forme of speech this is false for he had not his natural bodie and bloud in his hands but a sacrament thereof which was a seale and certaine perswasion vnto the faithfull of the performance of his promise which was the communicating of his body and bloude which was performed after an heauenly and spirituall manner CAP. VI. The vnion which is made by eating Christes reall flesh must needes be a naturall vnion before it be a mysticall For this naturall vnion he bringeth no proofe but promiseth the proofe in other places following therfore vnto those places I deferre the answere In the meane time it is a monstrous absurditie that seeing the mysticall vnion with Christ is of all the elect that euer were he affirmeth that it cannot be without a naturall vnion by eating Christs flesh and bloud in the sacrament CAP. VII That the Apologie speaking of the Lordes supper goeth cleane from the word of God The wordes of the Apologie are these We doe acknowledge the Eucharist or the Lordes supper to be a sacrament that is to say an euident token of the body and bloud of Christ. This is to bring men from the word of God saith he to the traditions of men For where haue you in all the scripture that the Lordes supper is a signe or token of the body and bloud of Christ that is a sacrament And because these wordes are not found in the scriptures from the beginning of the Genesis vnto the end of the Apocalipse writen in so many letters he fometh and fretteth like a mad dogg against the authors of the Apologie for going from the worde of God to the authority of men Augustine and Ambrose c. Then the which quarels nothing can be inuented more foolish or further from all witt learning and honesty For when we appeale to the authority of the scriptures in all thinges we neuer meant or saide that all other wordes should be forsaken which are not expressed in the bible but that no doctrine is to be credited by what terme so euer it be vttered except the same be grounded vpon the manifest sense and meaning of the holy scripture either expressed in plaine wordes or els gathered by necessary consequence Therefore seing the meaning of the names of sacrament signe or token may necessarily bee proued out of the holy scriptures and for that cause haue ben taken vp and vsed by the ancient fathers in the primitiue Church wee vse them as freely as they did and as we vse other names likewise the meaning of which is plaine to be found in the scriptures although the termes them selues be not as Trinity persons consubstantiall c. If Sander durst deny the names of sacrament signe or token to be agreable to the scriptures I would take paines to prooue them but seing he confesseth that they are good and lawfull to be vsed of the supper of Christ it were superfluous la bour to trauell in a needlesse question Among the names that are giuen to the Lordes supper in the scripture That the cupp is called The new testament in the bloud of Christ and that of S. Paul the supper is called spirituall meate and spirituall drinke which last name Sander heaping vp the rest omitteth it doth proue the names of sacrament signe and token soe inuincibly that we are no more afraide to vse them then any of the other expressed in plaine wordes of the scripture The name of sacrifice which he enterlaceth by the way because it is afterward more at large discussed I omit to write of at this time CAP. VIII That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught moe then two sacramentes It had bene meet that a sacrament had bene first defined and then this trifling should not haue arisen of the word Sander himselfe vnderstandeth mysterium in S. Ambrose for a mystery or sacrament And in deed the Greekes call that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Latines call Sacramentum But if euery mystery shall be a Sacrament in that sense that baptisme and the Lordes supper are so called there shall not be onely seuen Sacraments as he would haue but more then seuentie The name therefore of Sacrament or mystery is somtims generally taken for euery secret thing that hath an hidden vnderstanding so is matrimony of S. Paul called a mystery and of Augustine the Sacrament of matrimonie and ordination is vsed De bon Con. Cap. 24. so is oyle and imposition of hands cont Donat. lib. 5. Cap. 20. reckoned among the mysteries and Sacramentes But that which Sander doth alleage out of Ambrose is inforced for speaking of the power which priestes haue to remitt sinnes by repentance or by baptisme he saith Vnum in vtroque mysterium Sed dices quia in â—auacro operatur mysterioruÌ„ gratia Quid in poenitentia nonne dei nomen operatur There is one mystery in both But thou wilt say because in baptisme the grace of the mysteries doth worke What in repentance doth not the name of God worke in these wordes although he call them both mysteries Yet he putteth a manifest difference for in baptisme he acknowledgeth the grace of the mysteries to worke with that visible seale in the other the name of god onely wtout a visible seale which Sander perceiuing and not being able to answere these places of Augustine and Ambrose which are cited by the authors of the Apologie for the number of the Sacramentes flieth to the authority of the late councell of Florence not regarding what Ambrose or Augustine hath written who he saith had not the charge to reckon vp how many Sacramentes there are And I say that the seuen Sacramentes were not named in any session of that councel but only in a decree of Eugenius the fourth vpon the surâ—ised reconciliation of the Armenians which is of small credit the same Eugenius for his notable wickednes being long before deposed by the councell of Basil and an other Pope being chosen in his place CAP. IX That the supper of our Lord is the chiefe Sacrament of all but not acknowledged of the Apologie according to the word of God Seing the holy scripture preferreth not the one Sacrament aboue the other and they are both a like effectual seales of the mercy of God to the saluation of his elect there is no cause why the Apologie shoulde acknoweledge such excellency of the one aboue the other as Sander would imagine But it is a matter of greate importance with Sander that Dionysius calleth it the Sacrament of Sacramentes whereby it is not onely proued to
be the worthier of the two but also the chiefe of many Sacramentes The authority of Dionysius which he voucheth as though it were without controuersie of antiquitie hath often bene disproued to be without the compase of the sixe hundreth yeares seing neither Eusebius nor Hierom nor Germadius in their seueral times did euer heare of any such bookes of Dionysius the Arâ—opagite S. Paules disciple But where the Apologie confesseth the Lordes supper to be a Sacrament a signe and an euident token of the bodie of Christ Sander saith it is constrained to beleeue many vnwriten verities and will not beleeue that only which is written in the scripture of this supper that it is the body and bloud of Christ. Beholde the vanitie of this fonde quareller because these truethes are not expressed in so many Latine or English words in the scripture therefore they be vnwritten verities The froward man himselfe in the Chapter last before confessed that mysterium in the Greeke was the same that is called Sacramentum in Latine If therefore the Lordes supper be called in Greeke mysterium we may find it in the scripture to be called a Sacrament For where S. Paul saith let a man thus esteeme vs as the ministers of Christ and as the dispensers of the mysteries of God who doubteth but vnder the name of mysteries the Lordes supper and baptisme is comprehended although the name of mystery be larger in Greke then we vse the name of Sacrament in Englishe yet in spight of the diuell the name of mysterie and Sacrament is truly verified out of the scripture of the Lordes supper and baptisme Likewise the name of signe being giuen by the holy ghost vsually to other Sacramentes by analogie must likewise apperteine to this SacrameÌ„t Ge. 17. Circumcision is called the signe of the couenant betweene God and the people Likwise Exo. 12. the bloud of the Paschal Lambe is called a signe and S. Paul Ro. 4. calleth the signe of circumcision a seale of iustification Last of all hauing found in the scriptures the Lords supper to be a Sacrament signe or seale the argument of relatiues leadeth vs by the hand to cal it an euident signe or token of the body bloud of Christ giuen for vs for that is the thing signified which is proued by these words This is my body which is giuen for you c. Euen as the Lambe is called the passeouer which was the Sacrament signe or euident token of the Passingouer and not the Passeouer it self But Sander vrgeth vs to answer whether the signe of the body and the body it self may stande together or no I answere him plainly except he destroye the nature of things opposite the signe and the thing signified cannot stande together at one time and in one respect as it is vnpossible that Abraham can be the father of Isaac and the sonne of Isaac also But in diuerse respectes they may stande together as Abraham is the father of Isaac and the sonne of Therah So the bread and wine cannot be both the signe of Christes naturall bodie and bloud giuen for vs and the verie same naturall bodie it selfe But as it is a diuine mysterie and heauenly seale it is truely called that whereof it maketh assurance namely the bodye and bloud of Christe euen as the cuppe is called the newe testament whereof it is a seale and assurance and as baptisme is called regeneration beeing a seale and assurance therof vnto the children of God CHAP. X. That the supper of our Lorde is both the signe of Christes bodie and also his true bodie euen as it is a sacrament He requireth diligent eare as though he had founde out a great argument for his cause when in deede it ouerthroweth himselfe altogether For he will shewe that such a signe as belongeth to Christes institution must needes haue the same trueth present whereof it is the sacrament Which being graunted it prooueth no more the trueth present in the one sacrament then in the other seeing they belong both to the institution of Christ. But God and Christ sayth he cannot institute a false signe or token I say so also and withall I say that seeing God instituted all the Sacramentes of the olde Testament which were signes and tokens of Christ Christ was truely present in them euen as truely as in our Sacramentes and therefore Saint Paul teacheth that Our fathers did drinke of the same spirituall drinke that wee doe for they dranke of the spirituall rocke which rocke was Christ. If Sander coulde content himselfe with such trueth and presence of Christ as he doeth exhibit in baptisme and did exhibit in all the Sacraments of the olde testament which were of his institution we might soone be agreed But in the meane time you see him ouerthrowen in his owne argument Other matters not incident to the present controuersie I omitt as that the holy ghost in baptisme at the same instant doeth wash the soule from sinne as though the effect of baptisme extended no farther then to the time of washing with water Likewise that the outward pronouncing of the wordes ouer the breade and wine is the Sacrament Whereby it followeth that when the sound of the wordes is once past it is no longer a Sacrament and consequently the Papistes must not call that which they worship the Sacrament of the altar c. CAP. XI What signe must chiefely be respected in the Sacrament of Christes supper and what a Sacrament is There be if we beleeue Sander foure kinde of signes in the Sacrament of the altar The first be tokens making consecrating the Eucharist which are the words of coÌ„secratioÌ„ the second be signes of it made which are the accidents of bread wine The third a signification of the Church And the fourth eating is a signe of a meruailous banket in the life to come Of these foure the first must be chiefly respected which is an outward tokeÌ„ of an inward trueth the outward token is called the Sacrament the inward trueth is called the thing of the sacrament wherupon the diffinition of a sacrament alleaged by Gratian out of S. Augustine is this A Sacrament is the visible forme of inuisible grace Out of this diffinition which imployeth two partes of a Sacrament he wil proue the trueth of the reall presence for if the bodie be not present saith he the words make a false tokeÌ„ I denie the consequence for the wordes make a true token and yet the body is not present after his grosse imagination of bodily manner of presence His exemplification of the order of priesthood giuen to the Apostles by these words Hoc facite doe and make this is to make a proofe of one controuersie by another For we denie the power of making which he pretendeth there to be giuen affirming that it is a commandement to continue that sacrament of his institution and shewing the vse thereof His second argument is that Christ spake not
seemeth vnto him clearely to prooue that it is ment of the supper because hee writeth that who so is any long time kept from the sacrament is in daunger of euerlasting life alleaging this text of saint Iohn Except yee eate the fleshe of the sonne of man c. For hee shoulde wholie faile of his proofe saith he if that place did not prooue the necessitie of communicating sacramentally I denie the argument for hee speaketh of them which were cut off from the bodie of Christ by excommunicatioÌ„ whose admission vnto the coÌ„munion was an assurance of their incorporation againe This place is answered more at large in my confutation of Heskins lib. 2 cap. 4. The second is Athanasius in syn nou test lib. 4. which saith Christ reasoneth with the multitude concerning the misteries A sorie argument as though the spirituall eating of Christs flesh were not a mysterie It had bene very vnseasonable to reason with them of that which as yet was not instituted although as I haue saide his doctrine may be extended also to the sacrament The 3. is Hilarie lib. 8. de Trin. disputing of the natural veritie of Christ which is in vs by the sacrament alleageth these wordes My flesh is meat in deede I answere Hilarie affirmeth that the naturall veritie of Christes flesh is in vs by his incarnation if we be faithfull which is testified by the mysterie and sacrament of bread and wine Therefore he saith nâ—â—què verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus we doe truely vnder a mysterie take the flesh of his bodie Againe naturam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub sacramento nobiâ— communicande carnis admis 〈…〉 it hee hath ioyned the' nature of his flesh vnto the nature of eternitie vnder a sacrament of his flesh to be communicated with vs. The 4. is Basil Dei bap lib. 1. Cap. 3. comparing the words of his supper with the words of this Chapter which prooueth not the matter in hande otherwise then I haue shewed but of Basil wee must see more afterward touching this controuersie The 5. is Gregorie Nyssene his brother in vita Mosis who saith that the breade which came downe froÌ„ heaueÌ„ which is the true meat is no vnbodily thing for howe should a thing that lacketh a bodie be made meaâ—â— vnto the bodie Doubtlesse saith Sander Christ is made meate vnto our bodies no where but onely in the Sacrament Sanders Doubtles is all the argument iudge of it as ye list The 6. is Cyrillus of Ierusalem in Catech. Mistagog 4. who intreating of the Sacrament citeth these words except ye eate ergo these words are to be vnderstood only of eating in the sacrament Heere hee desireth license being coÌ„passed with such a multitude of witnesses brieflie to runne ouer the rest as he hath not beene very long in any of the other and the like license I require that one answere may serue them al which are worth the answering that although the Fathers did referre the doctrine of the sixt of S. Iohn vnto the supper yet they referre it not onely vnto the supper which is the matter we sticke vpon Neither Ambrose nor Eusebius Emissenus much lesse Chrysostom Augustine which do plainly extende it further then to the supper And last of all Hierom in the place by Sander cited in 1. Cap. Ep. ad Eph. where he saith the fleshe and bloud of Christ is vnderstanded two wayes either that spirituall diuine wherof he sayd My flesh is meate in deede c. or else that flesh which was crucified for vs that bloud which was sâ—ed with the speare of the souldier Where either he speaketh not of the Sacrament at all or else he declareth manifestly that the flesh which was crucified is not giuen vs in this Sacrament And what his iudgement is of that place he sheweth euidently in Ps. 147. Quando dicit qui non comederit carnem meam biberit sanguinem meum licet in mysterio possit intelligi tamen verius corpus Christi sanguis eius sermo scripturarum est diuina doctrina est WheÌ„ he saith he which shall not eate my flesh nor drinke my bloude c. although it may be vnderstood in the mysterie yet more truely the bodie of Christ his bloud is the wordes of the scriptures it is the doctrine of God The next is Cyrillus whome Sander most impudently affirmeth to interpret the whole Chapter of the Sacrament of the altar because sometime he nameth the mysteries and the mysticall blessing and the communicating of the holye cup. For thus he expoundeth that saying which Sander maketh the promise of his supper The bread which I wil giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the worlde Morior inquit pro omnibus vt per meipsum omnes vinificeÌ„ caro mea omniâ—â— redemptio fiat moriâ—tur enim mors morte mea siâ—ul me cum natura hominuÌ„ resurget I die saith he for al men that I might quicken al men by my self my flesh may be made the redemption of al men for death by my death shal die the nature of maÌ„ shal rise again togither with me Likewise he expoundeth these words He that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me â—inhim QuoniaÌ„res ardua est fide magis quaÌ„ alio modo recipitur ideo multis atque varijs modis mirabileÌ„ eius vtilitateÌ„ exponit fundamentum basim fidem esse confirmans Because the matter that is high and is receiued by faith rather then by any other means he setteth forth the merueilous profite thereof by many and diuers meanes confirming yâ— faith is the ground foundation Concerning the rest whom he reherseth as Sedulius Leo Isychiuâ— Proiper Eucherius Casâ—iodorus Primatius which apply any text of this Chapter to the Lords supper I answeâ—â— as before it is not sufficient to proue that the bread is either only or principally to be vnderstoode of the Lordes supper As for Damaseen Haymo Bernard with other late writers the last councell of Trent and the second of Nice what errors they followed we haue not to regard and much lesse the practice of the Popish Church reading that text for the Gospell of Corpus Christi day but the first councell of Ephesus which he iumbleth vp among the rest in Epistola at Nestorium affirmeth no such matter as he adnoucheth but sheweth what they iudged of that flesh wherof they receiued the sacrament namely that it is the flesh of the sonne of God able to giue life as more at large I haue shewed in answere to Heskias lib. 2. Cap. 16. CAP. IIII. Answere is made to their obiections who teach out of the holy fathers that the sixt Chapter of S. Iohn ought to be expounded only of spirituall eating Where it is alleaged that the fathers expound the wordes of that Chapter partly of beliefe in Christ partly of the vnitie which riseth
for we affirme that euery one of Gods elect from the beginning of the world hath beene fedde truely with the verie naturall flesh of Christ but spiritually receiued and by other meanes then vnder the forme of breade in the supper namely by faith and in other Sacraments in them that were of discretion and might come to them and euen without faith and without Sacraments in such of Gods elect as lacking age were preuented by death before they could be partakers of sacraments by the onely working of Gods holy spirite who no lesse worketh in this wonderfull spiritual nourishment then in any spirituall regeneration And therefore Sander reasoneth like a grosse Philosopher when he sayth that no signe is able to comiey that heauenly bread to vs. It is horrible blasphemie to say that my faith is able to deriue the substance of God as meate into my soule and bodie seeing faith is but a creature onely wherein the fulnesse of Godhead dwelleth not and therefore is not able to attaine to the vnion of Gods nature and much lesse able to giue it mee And yet for all this that Sander sayeth the Apostle prayeth that Christ in whome the fulnesse of the godhead dwelleth corporally may dwell in our heartes by faith In deede not by the worthinesse of faith but by the grace of the holy spirite who giueth strength to the weake elements of the worlde and to our vnperfect faith to bring to passe wonderfull effects as we may see in baptisme Wherefore to reason of the weakenesse of signes and vnablenesse of faith seuerally from the spirite of God is as much as if you would go about to proue that because a mans body without his soule can do nothing therefore being vnited to his soule it is not of force to do any thing To prooue that wee cannot be partakers of the Godhead of Christ without his flesh he alleageth Cyrillus and Augustine whose authorities it is needeles to repeate seeing wee grant as much as he would haue to be proued by them But beside them he citeth Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinit Si verè verbum c. If the worde be truely made flesh and in our Lordes meate wee truely receiue the worde made flesh howe can it bee but hee must be iudged to dwell naturally in vs Hereof he gathereth that wee receiue Christ into our bodies after a carnall manner of receiuing which is farre from Hilaries meaning although he vse the worde naturally which euen Sander must confesse to be vnproperly vsed or else hee shall admitte many vnnaturall conclusions Wherefore by naturally he meaneth properly verily and truely yet after a diuine and spirituall manner not after a grosse naturall and sensible manner of habitation Againe this dwelling of Christ in vs naturally doeth not prooue that hee is corporally receiued into our mouthes and settled in our stomakes But this is sufficient to prooue that he meaneth Christ to be spiritually receiued in that hee affirmeth it is not possible but that he must dwell naturally in them that receiue his flesh in the Lordes meate Sander addeth worthily But Hilarie sayeth truely Therefore whosoeuer truely receiueth the flesh of Christ in the meate of our Lord Christ must needes dwell in him naturally but Christ dwelleth not at all in the vngodly therefore the vngodly receiue not his fleshe in the Lordes meate as the Papistes say in whome also hee shoulde dwell naturally if hee were receiued truly or as they say corporally CAP. IX By the three diuerse giuings which are named in Saint Iohn it is shewed that Christ giueth his reall flesh vnder the figure of another thing The three times of giuing doe not prooue that three diuerse things are giuen neither doeth Sander saye one worde to prooue that they doe and where is then the grounde of this disputation God by Moyses sayeth Sander is sayde to haue giuen in time past he hath giuen them breade from heauen to eate But Christ sayeth Moyses gaue you not breade from heauen but my Father giueth you the true bread from heauen Euen he which gaue them Manna for a Sacrament of the true breade euen he gaue then giueth nowe and shall giue for euer the true breade from heauen which is the fleshe of our Sauiour Christe incarnate crucified reuiued and ascended into heauen for our saluation And howe can Sander prooue that Christ saying hee will giue his flesh meaneth any other gift then God his father did alwayes giue except he referre his giuing to the time of his passion the fruite whereof was and is giuen vnto the ende of the worlde That the breade which Christ giueth is true vnder a figure that is the forme of bread fulfilling the figure of Manna is a dreame of Sanders owne head for Christ speaketh not of any giuing vnder a figure or forme of breade or of giuing the bread of his supper but of the generall foode of eternall life which it is necessarie that al they be partakers of which shal be partakers of eternall life And therefore it is out of measure absurd that Sander would proue his figuratiue forme by Irenaeus which saieth that the Eucharistie consisteth of two things of one earthly which is the forme of bread and wine the other heauenly c Irenaeus saith not that the formes of bread and wine are the earthly part of the Sacrament but bread and wine in deede for those externall formes or accidents bee not any earthly thing which is a substantiall matter Irenaeus saieth of the bread and wine our bodies are increased and nourished so can they not be of Sanders Accidents lib. 5. But hee will shewe the absurdities that rise of the Sacramentaries opinion If Christes gift saieth he consisted of the substance of breade sanctified in qualitie and made a signe of his body as the sacramentaries teach it shoulde neither bee the true bread which his father gaue him nor better then Manna c But where doe the Sacramentaries teach that Christes gifte spoken of in this Chapter is the substance of bread sanctified in qualitie c. Wee teach that Christs gifte is his owne naturall bodie and bloude giuen in his passion to all the faithfull of the worlde to bee the foode of eternall life as for the substance of bread giuen in his last supper wee teach that it is a Sacrament and seale of this gift Therfore he must seeke other Sacramentaries to fight against if any such be For wee teach the true doctrine of the Sacraments according to the worde of God making difference as all Christian diuines haue done before vs of the sacrament and the matter of the sacrament CAP. X. By the shadow of the law past and by the naked trueth to come in heauen it is perceiued that the middle state of the newe Testament requireth the real presence of Christs bodie vnder the forme of breade He groundeth vpon the 10. to the Hebrews The Law hath the shadowe of good things to come
Cor. Cap. 11. wherein hee chargeth vs with corrupting his wordes with euil pointing or distincting which he doth himselfe most manifestly For vpon these words he writeth Mortem Domini annuntiantes doneâ— venerit Quiâ— morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus So often as you shall eate of this breade and drink of this cuppe you shall shewe the Lordes death vntill he come Because sayth that writer we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde we being mindefull of this thing in eating and drinking doe signifie the fleshe and blood which were offered for vs. But Sander readeth in eating and drinking the fleshe and bloud wee signifie those things which were offered for vs. Against this wresting by mispointing first is the relatiue quae which lacketh an antecedent if flesh and bloud which was offered for vs be not signified Secondly the wordes Carnem sanguinem are put absolutely not shewing whose theie are and the relatiue is referred to vncertain things For if he had ment the same to be eaten which was offered he would haue saide not quae but eadem last of all the accusatiue case following the verbs eating and drinking can be reasonably none other in an expositor but the accusatiue case which Paul vseth that is this breade and this cuppe The second fowle error of the Sacramentaries is that they expound the wordes of Christ Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man that is to say the figure of his flesh which is breade and wine And here he crieth what ignorance what abusing of Gods word what blasphemie where is honestie where is shamefastnes where is common vnderstanding I answere that for honesty and shamefastnes it is in the diuel as soone as in Sander For what honesty or shamefastnesse is it thou aâ—â—ant traitor and stinking heretike to faine such an interpretation of the Sacramentaries as if thou wouldest hang thy selfe thou canst not finde that euer any vsed or said that the flesh of Christ is a figure of breade and wine or that Christ in that place speaking of his flesh and bloud spake of a figure thereof But if no man haue either written or spoken so thou wilt perhaps inferre it of other sayings or writings of theirs which say those words belong to the supper so truely that they build falsely vpon them the necessitie of both kindes But wilt thou not vnderstande by an hundreth times repeating that none of vs referreth those wordes or any other in that Chapter vnto the supper otherwise then as the supper is a sacrament seale or outward token ordeined of Christ to confirme our faith in that doctrine of our spirituall foode to be giuen by him vnto eternall life which is giuen to the worthie receiuer in that Sacrament in baptisme and without either of them by the working of Gods spirite onely in some in men of discretion not without faith As for the necessitie of both kindes is proued by that analogie which ought to be betweene the things signified the signes and also vpon your owne concession who vnderstanding those wordes onely of sacramentall eating and drinking may no more exclude drinking then you can doe eating CAP. XV. Christes flesh being meate in deede must needes be really receiued into our bodies Three things saith Sander must be considered of him that wil knowe why the flesh of Christ is called meate in deede The first that the Iewes asked howe he would giue his flesh to be eaten The second that Christ saith the eating of his flesh was necessarie and profitable both for bodie and soule The thirde that Christ confirmeth these his sayings with this reason For my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede that is it hath truely and in deed those properties that any man would wish for in true meate But the properties of true meate are to be receiued into the bodie and to be a medicine against death If none be true meate but that which is receiued into the body then that which Sander so often calleth the fathers gift the bread of life which came downe from heauen is not true meate for that he hath often saide may be receiued by saith and spirit not entring into the body yet thereof saith Christ that he is the true bread But Chrysostome vpon these words My flesh is meat in deede c. saith that it meaneth that flesh to be the true meat which saueth the soule or else he speaketh it to confirme them in the former words that they should not thinke him to haue spoken in parables darkely but that they shoulde knowe it to bee by all meanes necessarie to eate his body in Ioan. Hom. 46. He that granteth both these senses saith Sander must needes grant that the true eating of the flesh standeth not for eating truely the signe of the fleshe because hee spake not obscurely in parables Verily he were worthy to weare a cockescombe that would say true eating of the flesh standeth for eating truely the signe of the fleshe Against whome then doeth Sander fight but against an idoll of his owne braine but it is an obscure saying to put eating for beleeuing I answere Chrysostome speaketh of the meate and not of the manner of eating for if there be no obscuritie in the manner of eating let Sander speake of his small conscience when he saith the manner of eating to be vnder another kind then it selfe is which is most obscure and imperceptible But if his flesh be called meate because it must bee eaten bodily wherefore then is his bloud called drinke in deed which Sander holdeth not to be necessarie to be dronke bodily For if his bloud in that sense be drinke in deede it must be drunke in deede and not eaten with the bodie But Augustine lib. 13. De ciuitate Dei Cap â—0 sayeth Tanquam caetera c. That other trees of Paradise were a nourishment the tree of life a Sacrament So that the tree of life should be taken to be after such a sort in the bodily Paradise as the wisedome of God is in the spirituall intelligible Paradise Of which wisedome it is written It is the tree of life to all that embraece it What can Sander make of this saying As corporall tasting in the tree of life was necessarie for the spirituall effect of incorruption so Christes flesh must be corporally tasted that it maie be meate indeede I denie the comparison which shoulde be made of the tree with bread and of life with Christe and not of woode with the flesh of Christ. And it is certaine that Augustine not only compareth the sacrament with the sacrament but also calling Christ the spirituall part of the sacrament the wisedome of God which is a tree of life to all that embrace him signifieth that Christ is otherwise receiued then with the mouth for embracing is more aptly said to
to giue his bodie did he speake more then he did perfourme For he gaue his bodie in deede and daily giueth it to be receiued spiritually vnder the sacrament of breade and wine But that hee shoulde giue it by conuersion of the elements into his bodie and bloud loue could not moue him to giue it otherwise than as it might be most profitable for vs and most honourable for him that was to giue it spiritually to be receiued The seuenth circumstance of washing the Apostles feete Because Christ washed his Apostles feete the custome of the Church saith he hath bene that all catholike Bishops and priâ—siâ— haue vsed before they came to consecrate to wash the verie tops of their fingers not to handle breade and wine for then Christ might haue washed his disciples handes before they had eaten the Paschall Lambe at the eating whereof was bread and wine but cleane consciences were sufficient for eating of that bread wine but the other must haue also the bodies purified for the more worthie receiuing therof This is newe diuinitiea nd newe Logike also Christ washed his Apostles feete therefore Bishops Priests vse to wash the toppes of their fingers before they consecrate when it were more reason they should wash the peoples feete who by his saying must haue their bodies also purified for the more worthie receiuing This is a poore circumstance to proue that Christs words are not figuratiue The eight circumstance concerning the place of the last supper If the house in which Christ kept his Passeouer had been material some of the Euangelists would haue noted that it stood in Zion as well as Nicephorus Damascen who could hardly know the place seeing Ierusalem was vtterly destroyed long before their time another city built not standing in place of the old Ierusalem That a great vnacustomed matter was done in the house so found by miracle we confesse but that proueth not that Christs speech was proper because it was not abroad in the temple or synagogue but in a close parlour But where Sander saith Christ gaue to euery one of his Apostles a loafe vnder the forme whereof his owne substance was conteined it is against yâ— scripture which saieth he brake the bread he gaue them against Cyrillus which saith he gaue them pieces of bread against reason that euery one should eate a loaf of bread although they wer but smal when they had supped twise before in that euening at the Paschall Lamb at an ordinarie supper But if the table be real saith Sander much more the meat is reall Wee denie not but the meat is real that is real bread wine to the bodie and the bodie and bloud of Christ to be receiued of the soule for if al things be reall why should not the bread and wine be reall The ninth circumstance of the taking bread wine Christ tooke bread wine who neuer touched the thing which he did not sanctifie Yes he touched Iudas lippes with his lippes yet did he not sanctifie them But he sanctified the bread wine to the vse of his supper Neither went the vertue from him as Sander saieth by touching of his garments but by faith for many at the same time did not only touch him but thrust throng him yet they all receiued not vertue from him Secondly he tooke vnleauened bread which was alreadie figuratiue bread therfore he goeth not about to doe that was done alreadie to make it figuratiue bread I answer the Paschall Lamb was eaten and therefore the bread was common bread although vnleauened which was to be eaten seuen dayes after But what letteth if it once figured one thing but that he might take it to make it a figure of an other thing for Saint Paul sheweth that it figured sinceritie and trueth nowe it is a seale of the remission of finnes by the death of Christ. Thirdly Christ taking bread and wine pointeth not to his Apostles as though he would consecrate somewhat in their breasts as Caluine dreameth but in breade and wine wee must seeke the first worke of his supper And therefore Sander dreameth that Christ meant to consecrate nothing in the Apostles brestes He begon with taking bread and wine ergo he did worke nothing in the Apostles breastes A sounde reason I promise you Last of all this putteth vs in minde of that great Priest Melchisedek as Cyprian teacheth But the Apostle writing to the Hebrues could haue taught vs more certeinly if he could haue seene any such comparison betweene Christ and Melchizedeck Heb. 7. And euery sacrifice saith he is changed in substance from the former nature it had sometime killed sometime burned sometime eaten therefore Christ must change the breade wine into his bodie and bloud If we should admitte a sacrifice as most of the olde writers call the celebration of the supper a sacrifice of thankesgiuing verily the change by eating and drinking were sufficient to make it answere to the change required in a sacrifice without transubstantiation which was not vsed in any sacrifice The tenth circumstance of blessing First when Christ blesseth it is not necessarie that hee should make any outward token of lifting vp his eyes or handes and least of all with making the signe of the crosse as Sander dreameth waking And although when he blesse he speake by the way of doing or bestâ—â—ing some reall benefite it followeth not but that his speach may be figuratiue which is not alwayes imperfect as Sander saith but being well vsed is better then comon speech Although what blessing meaneth in this place the other Euangelistes do declare which call his blessing thanksgiuing And yet I denie not but Christ blessed the bread and wine which he sanctified to be a diuine sacrament of his bodie and bloud for the assurance of remission of sinnes by the newe testament which is established in his bloud The eleuenth circumstance of giuing thankes The best thankes saith he are those that are giuen in worde and deede therefore Christ gaue not thankes figuratiuely neither be the wordes of thankesgiuing figuratiue as the Sacramentaries saye The wordes in which Christ gaue thankes are not expressed therefore the Sacramentaries saie not that they are either figuratiue or proper But Sander would haue these wordes This is my bodie to be the wordes of thankesgiuing because Irenaeus saith Panem in quo gratiae actâ—e sunt corpus esse domini that the breade in which thankes is giuen is the bodie of our Lorde as though thankes could not be giuen but by those wordes onlie which are not wordes of thankesgiuing to God but of declaring to men how to esteeme that which Christe giueth namely as a true pledge of his bodie and bloud as if one deliuering the broad seale to a condemned man saie this is a pardon for you That Christ gaue thankes to God both in worde and deede not onlie at this
physicall argument either he commanded it by an other worde or els this worde is vnproper For to eate by faith is to eate vnproperly and not to eate physically as all other meats are eaten The seuenteenth circumstance of these wordes This is my body He will speake of these wordes but as of a circumstance if the â—â—â—be Is import no more but a bare signe Christ is greatly promoted to giue thankes for leauing a bare signe I answere Christ gaue not a bare signe but his body to be spiritually receiued with a seale and an effectâ—â—ll signe but euery figure and token saith he which d 〈…〉 th in substance from his trueth is alwayes bare and naked in respect of the trueth it representeth M 〈…〉 â—â—we the dâ—gge barketh against the dignity of baptisme and all the Sacrament of the old time and caâ—â—lleth foolishly by disioyning of thinges to be conioy 〈…〉 d. But Chriâ—â— saith he hauing a body presented not bread and wiâ—e as figurâ—s of his body and bloud in 〈…〉 e to 〈◊〉 â—â—ther and gaue thankes for them This is a pâ—lting 〈…〉 ion of that in question for we denie the Sacrifice pretended yet Christ at other times gaue thankes for bodily meate much more nowe for spirituall food of the soule as the Sacrament is beeing worthily receiued As for Melchisedek his Sacrifice in breade and wine we finde none that he offered to God but a refreshing to Abraham whome in deede he blessed as the Priest of God and so hath Christ blessed vs with eternall happines Therefore all this babling of Sander that Christ offered bread and wine to his father which were all one as if a man should offer to a Prince a fatte Oxe and giue him in a paper writen this is a fat Oxe c. is not worth one Goates heare Christ offered but one Sacrifice propitiatorie and that but once shedding his bloud the great mystery of which redemption he deliuered to his Apostles in the outwarde creatures of breade and wine But let vs see howe he prooueth that these wordes are not figuratiue First Ambrose saith In the diuine consecration the selfe wordes of our Lorde and Sauiour doe worke and Chrysostome saith that by this word This is my body the thinges set forth are consecrated but figuratiue wordes worke nothing therefore they are not figuratiue This minor is a starke lye often times confuted These wordes in the very institution of the supper are figuratiue This is the new Testament in my bloud and yet worke as much as these This is my body Likewise the wordes of Christ are spirite and life therefore not figuratiue is a beastly argument vnworthy answering which wold denie al figuratiue speches to be the words of Christ. As blockish and brockish it is that in these 4. words Hoc est corpus meum we leaue neuer a one in his own signification plucking them from their gender and case when we expound it thus This doth signifie my body which is a toy to mocke with an Ape For who can expound a sentence in other wordes to keepe the same case and gender and kinde of wordes alwaies But it is a weighty matter that Sander hath obserued in Saint Paules order of wordes placing the Pronowne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 next to the Pronowne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vttering the wordes after this manner This of me is the bodie whereas the other Euangelistes say This is the bodie of me Verily there is not here so much oddes as betweene a milhorse and an horsemill But what is the great mysterie that lyeth in this obseruation forsooth it giueth coniecture such as in the order of words may be had that the Pronowne This onely resteth and endeth his signification in the substantine Bodie and cannot be referred vnto Bread For it were an hard speech to say this bread of me is the signe of bodie But if I say this bread doeth signifie of me the bodie what other sense hath it then if I saye this bread doeth signifie the bodie of mee I blame not Sander for scanning narrowly whatsoeuer is vttered in the scripture but in vrging the composition of the Greeke speech which is not like the English tongue where there is no difference in sense seeing the Latine composition wâ—l wel admitt that which soundeth hardly in the English speeche Hic panis mei signum est corporis The eighteenth circumstance of these wordes which is giuen for you Sander playeth the foole out of measure to vrge the accidents of grammar in a figuratiue speech Saint Luke sayeth Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur If you take corpus figuratiuely saith he then the sense must be Haec est figura corporis mei quae pro vobis datur This is the figure of my bodie which figure is giuen for you and so not his true bodie but a figure thereof was giuen for vs. Sander thinketh he hath to do with young laddes that learne their accidentes of grammar which may perhaps wonder at his learned collections But what if wee expound it thus Hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis mei as Tertullian doeth and reteining the gender of the Relatiue say quod pro vobis datur This is a figure of my bodie which bodie is giuen for you Sander hath his answere readie that the relatiue must repete his whole antecedent which cannot haue at once both a proper and vnproper meaning What coulde Priscian or Aristarchus haue vttered more learnedlie But when God saith in Gene. 17. Hoc est pactum meum quod obseruabitis inter me vos c. This is my couenant which you shall obserue betweene me and you c. If pactum be taken for signum or sigillum pacti the signe or seale of the couenant as it must needes be for circumcision whereof he speaketh was not the couenant how doth the relatiue repete the whole antecedent howe hath one word a proper and vnproper vnderstanding Againe Exodus 12 Haec est religio phase Omnis alienigena non comedet ex eo This is the religion of the Passeouer No straunger shal eate of it Heere co is a relatiue agreeing in the newter gender with phase his antecedent and yet phase the passeouer signifieth a Lambe which was the signe of the passeouer Againe when it is saide Hoc est postrâ—mum pascha quod comedit Iesus cum discipulis This is the last passeouer that Iesus did eate with his disciples hath not quod the same relation which it hath in these wordes quod pro vobis datur But to cut off all these nice questions of Grammar what if the figure bee laide in the verbe est after this manner Hoc est id est significat corpus â—â—um quod pro uobis datur this signifieth my bodie which is giuen for you Where is then our Aristarchus become with his antecedents and relatiues But hee hath founde another mystery in the Greeke worde 〈◊〉
This cuppe is a seale of the newe testament established in my bloude which is shed for the remission of sinnes and the like vnderstanding must needes be of these words This is my bodie The 24. circumstance of the bloude of the new testament The bloud of the newe testament is the bloude thâ—t confirmeth the newe testament but that is reall bloude therefore this is reall bloude saith Sander I answere the argument is naught because in one proposition the speach is figuratiue in the other proper But he replieth that the olde testament had none other thing to signifie the bloude thereof but the bloude of Calues therefore the newe testament hath nothing but the bloude of Christ. I answere the bloude of Calues and Goates was it selfe a figure of the bloude of Christe by which the newe testament is confirmed and therefore there was no figure of that bloude to bee made Heb. 9. But S. Luke and S. Paul by reciting the words otherwise doe so euidently name bloud in the proper signification that no reasonable man will say that the name of bloude standeth figuratiuely for the signe of bloude saying this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude In deede I confesse in this sentence the worde bloud signifieth properly the bloude of Christ shedde vpon the crosse which is that bloude which answereth the bloud of the olde Testament and not that which is in the Chalice But then the former wordes This cup is the newe testament are figuratiue for in proper manner of speaking the cuppe was not â—e is not the new testament but a sacrament or signe thereof which newe testament was confirmed by the bloude of Christe powred forth in sacrifice vpon the crosse This one sworde is sufficient to cut the throate of transubstantiation carnall presence for as much as Saint Luke and Saint Paul giue the true sense of these wordes This is my bloude which is shedde for you which in effect is thus much to say this is the sacrament or seale of the newe testament established by shedding of my bloude on the crosse But Sander can see nothing in Saint Luke and Saint Paul but bloude taken properly whereby he woulde prooue that in the speech reported by the other Euangelists bloud should not be taken figuratiuely which is as good an argument as this Bloud in the exposition of a figuratiue speech is taken properly therefore in figuratiue speech it selfe it is not taken figuratiuely The 25. circumstance of these wordes This â—â—ppe or Chalicâ— The cuppe saith he is named to shewe the manner of fulfilling the olde figures in which the bloud was put in a cuppe as Chrysostome and Oecumenius affirmed and presently sprinkled I deny not that the cup might shewe the manner of fulfilling the old figures of sprinkling of bloude in the sacrifices but that was referred to the passion of Christ and not to the sacrament for those bloudie sacrifices were figures of Christs bloudie sacrifice in which was fulfilled whatsoeuer they did signifie and not in the supper The supper as Augustine sayeth of all our Sacraments is diuerse in signe but equall in signification with those auncient Sacraments in Ioan. Tra. 26. The putting of bloud in the baâ—en did not shew the powring of wine into the cuppe as Sander trifleth but they both did signifie the powring foorth of the bloud of Christ vppon the crosse But Oecumenius saith that in steede of the bloud of beastes our Lorde giueth his owne bloud and that well in a cuppe that hee might shewe the olde Testament to haue shadowed this thing before I answere that Occumenius a late writer to whose authoritie I am not bound of the Sacrament speaketh sacramentally ascribing to the signe that which is proper to the thing signified Otherwise there is nothing in his writing to warrant transubstantiation The 26. circumstance of the verbe est left out in S. Lukes words Saint Luke leaueth out the verbe â—s according to the phrase of the Hebrewe tongue what verbe will you bring in his place saith he the verbe significat you cannot because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Nominatiue case then must you needes haue the verbe est but as soone as it is in his place shal it immediatly be cast out and changed into the verbe significat c And here he amplifieth the matter with such eloquence as Rhetorike wil aford him But when you haue spoken your pleasure of taking in and casting out of compulsion enforcements of verbs substantiue and adiectiue c. I pray you what great piaculum is it if being compelled to take in the verbe substantiue to make perfect the grammaticall sense we be also enforced to vnderstand est for significat to make good the logical sense And how in Gods name doe you vnderstande the verbe substantiue est in these wordes of Saint Luke This cup is the newe Testament in your 23. circumstance when you expound it so that you say that which is in the cup is not the newe Testament which is the newe truce or couenant of remitting sinnes but the thing which witnesseth it to be confirmed You will say the figure is in the words newe Testament and not in the verbe esâ— Then must I sett vpon you with your owne weapons which you fight with all in the 18. circumstance I would faine see the brasen face of Sander with what countenance he would defend this shamlesse stuffe The 27. circumstance of these wordes which is shedde for you This cuppe is the new Testament in my bloud which is shedd for you saieth S. Luke Here saith Sander the relatiue which is referred to the Nowne Cuppe and not to the Nowne Bloud because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the nominatiue case and can not agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the datiue case wherefore the sense must be the cuppe that is that which is in the cuppe was shedd for vs. but the onely reall bloud of Christ was shedde for the remission of our sinnes therefore the onely reall bloud of Christ was conteined in the cuppe And heere he asketh what answere can be framed to this argument if hell were lett loose To the graÌ„maticall construction I haue answered sufficiently in confutation of his rotten rocke of the Romish Church vnto the g. his 9. marke of an Antichristian That if he wil neither admit the coniecture of Beza that those wordes might by error of the writers be taken into the text nor that S. Luke vseth the figure of Soloecophanes in that place as in diuerse other yet at the lest that the article prepositiue standeth for the relatiue 〈◊〉 as often it doth and that the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here vnderstoode being left out as in the former part of the sentence For howsoeuer it be it can not be translated nor vnderstood thus This cuppe that is to say this bloud which is shedde for you is the newe Testament in my bloude
For what sense can these wordes haue This bloud is the newe Testament and this bloud is in my bloud And nowe to the argument in which seing he vnderstandeth the speech to be proper I denie the maior or proposition This liquor in the cuppe of Christes banket was shedde for vs and I prooue it to be false euen by the wordes of Christ vttered by S. Luke and S. Matthew The fruite of the viâ—e was not shedd for vs the liquor in the cuppe of Christs banket was the fruite of the vine therefore the liquor in the cuppe of Christes banket was not shed for vs. That Euthymius a late gatherer referreth these wordes of shedding for vs to the cuppe I force not and yet hee meaneth the cuppe to be his bloud not really but Sacramentally euen as his bloud is not there shedde really except the Papistes will now giue ouer their old distinction of vnbloudy Sacrifice to saye that the bloud of Christ is shedd forth in the Sacrament as Sander saieth it was presently shedde in a mysterie and the next daye shedde naturally What misty speech is this The naturall bloud of Christ is shedde in a mystery if we speake after that manner the reall body and bloud of Christ is present in a mysterye eaten and drunken in a mysterye c. he crieth out that we build a roofe without a foundation of the naturall maner of presence and receiuing But he must be admonished that the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying which is shedd forth and simply shedd and therfore the word hath relation to the bloud which in his passion was shedde forth of his bodie which shedding forth of his bodye if Sander will confesse to be in his Masse he must vtterly renownce the vnbloudy Sacrifice so much prated of among the Papistes for what els is a bloudy Sacrifice but that whereof the bloud is powred out or shedde forth The last circumstance of the hymne saide at Christes supper We neuer read of any hymne saide or song after any feast but this and yet Christ gaue himselfe by faith and spirite at the supper time to some of his disciples before that night as to S. Marie at Bethanie Ioan. 12. therfore the hymne externally song or saide was dewe to this externall worke of God wherein with his owne handes he gaue his owne body and bloud c. Because Sander confesseth that this circumstance aboue doth not prooue the reall presence I will take his confession It may not be denied but that Christ song or saied the hymne at other times although it be expressed but this once And if it were certeine that this was the first and last that he song with them yet there might be greate and sufficient cause of his ioyfull thankesgiuing at this time wherein hee made an ende of the old ceremonie and hauing instituted a newe sacrament of thankesgiuing was euen the same night to beginne his passion which was the principall caufe of his coÌ„ming into the world for the redemption of mankinde As for these circumstances which hee confesseth doe not euerie one by them selfe prooue the reall presence when hee can make an argument of them altogether able to proue it I wil take in hand to answer it In the meane time as he hath set them down seuerally I haue answered that neuer a one of them hath ani force of argument to proue that he entendeth by them CAP. X. The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud and the proper meaning of his words is proued by the coÌ„fereÌ„ce of holie scriptures taken out of the newe testament and speaking of our Lords supper The places that he will conferre are three first Iohn 6. The breade which I will giue is my fleshe and my fleshe is meate indeede The second Math. 26. Take eate this is my bodie and this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude The thirde 1. Cor. 10. The chalice of blessing which wee blesse is it not the communicating of Christs bloud And the breade which wee breake is it not the communicating of the bodie of our Lord Of these sentences Sander will conferre euerie word together which is not the right order of conference of scripture to conferre the wordes whereof some are proper some are figuratiue but to conferre the Logicall sense of diuers places together which either are both manifest in their seueral senses or else may be made open by the circumstances of the places But to folowe Sanders conference In the first sentence he saith The bread which I will giue is described in the supper by these wordes Take eate this and in S. Paul is called The breade which wee breake But I vtterly denie that the wordes of Christ in Saint Iohn are all one with those of the supper And therefore the referring of this to an eateable thing or foode c is not shewed by that conference But S. Paul and Christ. Matth. 26. speake in deede both of one matter namely by the sacrament Christ in S. Iohn speaketh of that meate which tarrieth to life euerlasting but the sacramentall meate doth not so for according to the earthly parte of it as Origen affirmeth it goeth the same way that all other meates doe Ille cibus qui sanctificatur c. That meate which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer according to that which it hath material goeth into the bellie and is cast out into the dunghill Origen in Matth cap. 15. And according to the heauenly part which is the body of Christ by the Papists confession it tarieth not in the wicked nor in the godly in substance but in effect as Sander tolde before therefore Christ in S. Iohn speaketh not of the sacramentall meate Secondly the breaking of the bread which is done before the wordes which the Papistes account the onely wordes of consecration can shewe the pronowne this to signifie no materiall substance but breade although Sander affirme the breaking to be after because it is so vsed in the popish Masse Againe when the Apostle saith the bread which we break he speaketh plainly of a thing that is broken actually but so is not the body of Christ as for Sanders shift of that foode and that eatable thing which we breake is but a cloake of words for if that foode be the natural bodie of Christ and that foode is naturally broken then the naturall bodie of Christ is naturally and really broken Last of all the conference of this and this cuppe to prooue that this meaneth generally the substance vnder this is not worth a chippe for these wordes this cuppe do not meane a generall metaphysicall substance but the wine in this cuppe which is also called the fruit of the vine and therfore This in the other saying signifieth that substance only which was in his hand which was bread and by their owne doctrine could be no other substance but bread before hoc est corpus meum were saide
of flesh with naked soule and pure minde looke rounde about vpon those thinges that are in heauen These wordes declare plainelye that Chrysostome dreamed not of transubstantiation but spake of a spirituall handling and receiuing of Christ as of a spirituall dipping and making redde the people with his pretious bloud and of feeding on Christ in heauen by faith And so it is more wonderfull that wee in body remaining on the earth doe feede on Christ sitting in heauen not by bringing him downe vnto vs but by lifting vs vp vnto him The places of scripture that Sander quoteth as perteining to the supper although they all pertaine not vnto it yet when he can make any argument out of any of them for his carnall manner of presence I shall easily answere it CAP. XI Why the Sacrament is called breade after consecration If Master Sander had first prooued that the Sacrament is not bread after consecration wee might easily haue yelded to the reason that might be brought why it is called that which in nature it is not As wee can yeld many reasons why the Sacrament is called the body of Christ although it be not the body of Christ in the nature of it yet it is meete that first wee prooue that it is not his body after that manner that the Papistes defend and then shewe reasons why it is called by the name of that which it doth signifie But let vs heare Sanders reasons First the Hebrue tongue which the Euangelists Apostles writing Greek doth follow vseth the name bread for all maner of food Secondly a thing is called by the name of that which it was and not which it is as Aarons rod is said to haue deuoured the roddes of the coniurers yet was it turned from a rodde to a serpent Exod. 7. Thirdly a thing is called not onely as it is but as it seemeth outwardly to be so the Angell which the woman sawe at the sepulchre is called a yong man Marke 16. And in all these three respectes the Sacrament is called bread when it is not naturall bread For it is a kind of foode it was bread and seemeth to be breade But I will prooue that in none of these respectes it is called bread but because it is naturall bread in deede without conuersion of the substance First whatsoeuer is saide in Saint Iohn Cap 6. is not particular to the Sacrament for bread is there taken figuratiuely for spirituall foode which wee haue without the Sacrament Secondly when S. Paul calleth the Sacrament bread after consecration there is no reason why the name of bread should not be taken for materiall bread changed in vse not in substance as the name of breade taken before consecration 1. Cor. 11. and where the Apostle saith the breade which wee breake he sheweth plainlie that he speaketh of material breade for the bodie of Christe nor spiritual foode nor general foode are not broken Secondly in the conuersion of Aarons rodde there was a sensible change there is none such in the Sacrament Thirdly as the Angel had some appearance of a man in externall shape of bodie so he had other manifest tokens in him that declared him to be an Angell and no man but the Sacramentall bread hath in it all tokens of material bread and no sensible token of the bodie of Christ therefore the comparison is nothing like The water turned into wine was iudged by the taste to be wine not water There can be no such iudgement in the Sacramentall bread for as materiall bread it tasteth and partaketh all accidents yea it nourisheth and corrupteth which neither bare accidents nor the bodie of Christ doeth or can doe The authorities that Sander citeth to proue that the Sacramentall bread is called the bodie and flesh of Christ do not denie that it is material bread yea many of the old writers expressely affirme that it is so Yet let vs consider his authorities Ignatius Ep. 2. ad Rom. saith Panem Dei volo quod est caro Christi I desire the bread of God quod which thing is the flesh of Christ. Verily Ignatius saith no more here then Zwinglius saide which was no friend to transubstantiation Secondly Iustinus saith Hic cibus c. this meate is called with vs the Eucharist or thanksgiuing after he saith We take not these things as common bread drink but wee haue learned that the meate which is consecrated by the words of praier taken of him to be the flesh bloud of Christ. He that denieth the Sacrament to be coÌ„mon bread doth not denie it to be naturall bread And Iustinus interlaceth that which Sander omitteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That meat of which our bloud flesh by transmutation are nourished we haue learned to be the flesh bloud of that Iesus that was incarnate That which nourisheth our flesh bloud is material bread although it be not coÌ„mon bread Thirdly Hilarie saith Nos verè c. we truly take the word flesh in our Lordes meate The same Hilarie saith afterward verè sub mysterio truely vnder 2 mysterie we receiue the flesh of his bodie Fourthly Cyprian lib. 2. Ep. 3. saith Christ offered bread wine that is to say his owne bodie bloud Here Sander cutteth off the beginning of Cyprians words which manifestly proue material bread wine Obtulit hoc idem quod Melchizedech obtulerat id est panem vinu suum scilicet corpus sanguineÌ„ He offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedek had offered that is to say bread wine namely his bodie bloud Speake Sander tel vs was it not material bread wine which Melchizedek brought forth the selfsame thing saith Cyprian offered Christ which yet was his bodie bloud after a certeine maner After what maner you may learne In these wordes you haue not onely the spirituall manner after which the breade and wine are called his body and bloud but also the same breade and wine to be made of cornes grapes which I trow caÌ„ be none other but material bread and wine Fifthly Irenaeus saith it is not now common bread but the Eucharisty lib. 4. C. 34. The same Irenaeus in the same place saith that Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constant terrena coelesti the Sacrament consisteth of two things an earthly thing and an heauenly Likewise he saith that of the bread wine being made the Eucharisty augeâ—ur consistit carnis nostrae substantia the substaÌ„ce of our flesh is increased and consisteth lib. 5. that is not of accidents nor of the reall body of Christ. Sixtly Ambrose de Sacr. lib. 5. calleth our daiely bread supersubstantiall breade and yet I weene it be still naturall food of the body But he saith more Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus sed illa panis vitae aeternae qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit It is not the bread which goeth into the body but that
holy spirite after a wonderfull and vnspeakeable manner But it is a daintie matter that Sander vppon the wordes of Saint Paul ye cannot be partakers of the table of our Lorde and of the table of Diuels saith Our â—ewe brethren granting the diuels a reall table will â—ot allowe anie such to Christ. What meaneth our olde enimie thus to bable in his instrument and spokesman Nicholas Sander Doe not wee allowe Christ a reall and visible table wheron the visible sacrament is ministred If he meane that Christ is really present at his table as the diuells are at their table let him aduise himselfe whether they that are partakers of the diuels table are incorporate to the diuell by eating the diuell actually into their bodies or by communicating with his idolatrous ceremonies if onely by the latter what neede haue we of his often vrged reall presence to bee made partakers of the Lordes table and to bee incorporated vnto him When for a sacramental coniunction the ceremonie is sufficient for a true incorporation the spirit of God onely bringeth it to passe both with the sacramentes and without them in euery one of Gods electe which is a member of Christ. CPAP. VI. The reall presence is prooued by the example which Saint Paul vseth concerning the Iewes and Gentiles First he would prooue that the Christians haue a sacrifice because Saint Paul vseth the examples of the sacrifices of the Iewes and Gentiles but he seeth not the analogie S. Paul coÌ„pareth not the sacrifice of the Christians with the sacrifice of the Iewes and Gentiles but yâ— feast of the sacrifice of the Christians with the feastes of the sacrifices of the Iewes Gentiles Nowe the Lordes supper is the feast of the onely sacrifice of Christ once offered by him which maketh vs to communicate with his sacrifice if we receiue it worthily as the feasts of the Iewish and idolatrous sacrifices made the partakers coÌ„municate with their sacrifices them to whom thei are offered And whereas the Apostle saith we haue an altar wherof they haue no power to eat that serue in the tabernacle he meaneth that the ceremoniall Iewes can haue no participation of the sacrifice of Christ except they renounce their Iewish obseruations Or if you wil vnderstand it of such sacrifices of praise as the Apostle within fewe lines after speaketh or of the Lords supper which is a remembrance of Christs onely sacrifice as some haue done the cause of the real presence is neuer awhit holpen Yes saith Sander This then being the meat of our altar it followeth that this meat is no lesse present vpon his holy table then that which the Iewes or Idolaters did eate was present aâ— their sacrifices but that which they did partake was really preseÌ„t and receiued into their mouthes Therfore likewise Christes fleshe is really present and receiued into our mouthes I denie the minor or assumption of this syllogisme For the diuels wherof the Gentiles did partake were not really present in the meate which they did eate nor receiued into their mouthes The like I say of the altar of the Iewes wherof they were partakers which did eat of the sacrifice Wherfore this argument may be rightly turned backe vppon Sanders neck The diuels and the altar whereof the Gentiles and Iewes were partakers were not really present in the meate nor receiued into their mouthes therefore the flesh of Christ whereof the Christrians are partakers is not really present in the bread nor receiued into their mouthes CAP. VII The reall presence is proued by the kinde of shewing Christes â—eath The shewing of Christes death wherof S. Paul speaketh saith â—ander is both by deede and worde The eating of Christes bo 〈…〉 e and drinking his bloud proueth that he was dead really for a â—hing is not eaten while it liueth whereaâ— the figure of Christes â—odie eaten doth shewe a figuratiue death past I answere the â—nely eating proueth not his death past for the Sacraâ—ent was eaten before he died which that Theophylact might salue he saith that Christ sacrificed himself from â—hat time wherein he deliuered his bodie to his disciples which is all one as if he said that Christ died more then once directly contrary to the scripture Heb. 9. But seeing in the determination of God and in respect of the effect of his death he was the lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde the institution of the Sacrament shewed his death before he died as wel as after But how the bloud of Christ was really separated from his body before his passion otherwise then in a Sacrament or mysterie let Sander tell if he can And where he saith a figure eaten can shewe but a figuratiue death past it is vtterly false for the figures of the lawe shewed not a figuratiue but a reall death to come And doeth not baptisme where is no reall presence shewe the Lordes death buriall and resurrection truely past But Sander will helpe the matter by false pointing a place of Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus Because we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde being mindfull of this thing in eating and drinking wee signifie the fleshe and bloud which were offered for vs. Which Sander thus englisheth Because we are made free through the death of our Lorde being mindfull thereof wee in eating drinking flesh and bloud shewe the things that were offered to death for vs. The example he bringeth out of Damascen of them that defended the carying of dead mens bones because they put them in remembrance of death is friuolous maketh nothing to the purpose for I will demaunde of Sander that vrgeth so egerly the real presence for shewing of Christes death is the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament dead or aliue if it be aliue as I am sure he wil say what similitude hath it with the dead bones and howe doeth it shewe his death which is eaten aliue except it be in the dead figures of bread and wine which haue no life If the death be represented only in outward shewes seing the bodie that is receiued is aliue what is become of Sanders diuinitie and Logike that the figures or shewes of a dead bodie cannot shewe but a figuratiue and imagined death As for the argument a consequentibus holdeth aswell of the Sacrament as of the matter therof ye eate the Sacrament of Christ crucified ergo Christ is crucified But Sander would separate all doctrine from the Sacrament and knowe howe we should shew him to haue died by onely eating it I aunswere by onely eating of a liuing bodie we could not knowe that he had died therefore doctrine of necessitie must be ioyned with the outward action And further where he would knowe whether Christ did institute this Sacrament to shewe his death past in deede or
〈…〉 oud of Christ and yet no necessitie of reall presence 〈…〉 ereby enforced Last of all Chrysostome is cited in 1. Cor. Hom. 28. 〈…〉 at the receiuer neede to consider nothing else but 〈…〉 ho is set foorth and the greatnes of the thinges sette 〈…〉 rth Therefore saith Sander it is not breade and 〈…〉 ine that is set forth but the body and bloud of Christ. 〈◊〉 answere the body and bloud of Christ is set forth by 〈…〉 e visible creatures of breade and wine Neither did 〈…〉 hrysostome otherwise teach in all his writinges alâ—hough intreating of so high a mysterie hee speaketh many times figuratiuely and hyperbollically as Hom. 6. he saith The Church in which the sacramentes are ministred is the place of Angels the place of Archangels the palace of heauen heauen it selfe Nam hîc 〈…〉 oelum dubitas Mensam istam vide cuius gratia constituta sit quapropter For doest thou doubt that heauen is here behold this table for whose cause and wherefore it is set CAP. XI No figure which is not in substance Christes body can make any man by eating it negligently guiltie of Christes naturall bodie Sander confesseth that when a man by willfull contempt doth breake or defile the kings image it is reputed all one as if he had striken the prince himselfe not because the deede is one but because his will is vttered no lesse in abusing the signe then if he had iniuriously touched the prince himselfe But he saith this similitude is not like because saint Paul maketh his argument rather vpon the reall fact it selfe then vpon the will or minde of the dooer I answere there is no worde in saint Paul to prooue that he maketh his argument vpon the reall fact which is eating and drinking but vpon eating and drinking vnworthily which is with a will and mind not discerning the Lords bodie Secondly Sander obiecteth that the Apostle speaketh not of wilfull contempt but of negligent doing I answere the argument holdeth as well or neglecting as of contemning that which Ch 〈…〉 commaunded to be regarded although it be a greater fault to contemne then to neglect Secondarily saith Sander they that say the signe image or figure of Christs bodie is abused must shewe wherein that figure doth consist and then he maketh a metaphysical discourse of figures and images external internal c. But I wil plainly shew him wherin the figure doth consist not that breade and wine in any thing that the eye discerneth in forme or shape are like to Christs bodie and bloude but in the vse and ende of them which is to nourish bodily as the body and bloud of Christ broken and shedde for vs is made spirituall meate and drinke to feede and nourish vs spiritually of which spirituall feeding and nourishing the bread and wine being sanctified to that vse are not a bare naked or emptie signe Image or figure but a fuil perfect and effectuall seale confirmation and assurance to as many as receive yâ— same bread and wine being nowe made so high a sacrament worthily Neither is there any other presence or Christs natural body required therin theÌ„ in baptisme of his body and bloud where vnto we are incorporated thereby then in any of the sacraments of the old Testament namelie then in Manna or the shewbread of which Sander speaketh But it is a thing neuer heard of saith Sander that either Manna or the shew breade vnworthily eaten or baptisme vnworthily taken made any man guiltie of Christs owne bodie and bloud therefore there is some other substante vnder the formes of bread and wine then was in Manna c Although the scripture saith not in so many words that he that did eate Manna vnworthily was guiltie of yâ— body of Christ yet in effect it saith the same and the same by necessarie consequence may be inferred He that did eate the same spirituall meate that we do vnworthily was so guiltie the fathers did eate the same spiritual meat vnworthily for God was not pleased â—ith them as the Apostole saith therfore they were guil 〈…〉 e of the bodie and bloud of Christ. If Sander will reply â—nd say it was not the same that we eate and drink First 〈◊〉 Paul saith expresly the rocke was Christ of whom wee 〈…〉 te and drinke S. Augustine de vtilitate poenitentioe cap. 2 â—aith expressely they did eate the same spiritual meate that 〈…〉 ve doe for Manna was Christ vnto them Cyrill in Ioan. 〈…〉 b 3. cap. 34. saith that Christ by the figure of Manna was giuen vnto those old fathers The like by Analogie is prooued of all other sacraments But Sander replyeth the â—ewes must then haue prepared examined themselues â—uerie day which is not reade of who doubteth but the Godly Iewes so did that receiued Christ by the figure of Manna and the Rocke and it is reade that they which did not receiue those sacraments worthily were therefore ouerthrowne in the wildernes Why then saith Sander if it were so it had required more perfection in the law then nowe is vsed forsomuch as we receiue our maker perhaps but once a yeare and surely at the most but once a day wheras they did eate Manna as often as hunger prouoked for 40. yeares The Law which is spirituall requireth more perfection then any man can performe but to argue what perfection is required of vs by that we vse corruptly is as grosse a fault in reasoning as theirs was in vnworthy receiuing The scripture requireth oftner communicating then once a yeare In the primitiue Church they receiued euerie day so often they were to prepare and examine themselues And what if I say that euerie day although a man doe not receiue hee ought to vse as great preparation and examination of himselfe as when he doth receiue But wee receiue but once a day at the most saith hee verily they receiued oftner because it was not onelie a spirituall meate but a bodily meate also necessarie for the maintenance of their liues as our Sacrament is not wee may eate breade which is not the Sacrament so coulde not they at that time Howe be it when so euer wee come into the presence of God to pray which wee ought to doe more then once a day I would know what preparation or examination is necessarie for them that receiue the Sacrament excepting the onely relation of receiuing but a Christian man is bounde to vse the same as precisely when he offereth his prayers vnto God I speak not as Sander doth howe vnreuerently men vse to pray but how they ought to behaue themselues in the sight of God CAP. XII The reall presence of Christs bodie is confirmed by the oft repeating of the name of flesh bodie bloud eating drinking and such like wordes And why is not the reall presence of breade and wine prooued by the oft repeating the names of breade and cuppe and the fruite of the vine as for
eating and drinking are more proper for breade and wine then for the bodie and bloude of Christ of which they cannot be saide but figuratiuely especiallie seeing you hold that the bloud of Christ in the cuppe is not really separated from his bodie howe can you properly say that the bloude of Christ is drunke when onely the bodie with the bloude in it is swallowed downe the throate Saint Paul calleth the Sacrament breade at the least sixe times after consecration As for the often repetition of flesh and bloude in the 6. of saint Iohn pertaineth nothing to the Lords supper But let vs see master Sanders autorities for this argument of repetition First Euthymius borrowing the saying out of Chrysostome saith Hoc dixit This he saide confirming that he spake not obscurely or parabolically Yea sir but Euthymius saith otherwise if it had pleased you to cite his saying whole Caro mea verè est cibus Verus est cibus siue aptissimus vtpote animam quâ— propriissima hominis pars est nutriens Et similiter de sanguine Aut hoc dixit confirmans quod noÌ„ aenigmaticè neque parabolicè loqueretur My flesh is meate in deede it is true meate or most apt meate as which nourisheth the soule which is the most proper part of man And likewise of the bloud Or else he saide this confirming that hee spake not obscurely or in parable Chrysostome in Ioan. Hom. 46. Quid autem significat caro mea verè est cibus sanguis meus verè est potus Aut quod is est verus cibus qui saluat animam aut ut eos in praedictis confirmet ne obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur What meaneth this my flesh is meate in deede and my bloude is drinke in deede Either that he is the true meat that saueth the soule or else that hee might confirme them in that was saide before lest they shoulde thinke that hee had spoken darkely in parables By both these places which are disiunctiue sentences it is plaine that the flesh and bloude of Christ is meate to feede the soule which must needes be spiritually because the soule cannot eate carnally and then you see howe plaine and without parable the speach of Christ is to be taken Next these are cited Oecumenius in 1. Cor. 11. Per hoc quod frequenter ait corporis sanguinis domini manifestat quod non sit nudus homo qui immolatur sed ipse dominus factor omnium vt videlicet per haec ipsos exterreat By this that he often saith of the bodie and bloud of our Lord he sheweth that he which is offered is not a bare man but the Lord himselfe and maker of all thinges to the ende verilie that he might put them in a terrour by these thinges This writer affirmeth nothing but that the breade and cuppe is not the sacrameÌ„t of a bare man but of him that is both God and man therefore not the bare substance of breade saith Sander I confesse but a Sacrament of the flesh and bloude of the sonne God Thirdly he citeth Saint Basil de Baptism lib. 2. cap. 3. Vehementius simulque horribilius c. The Apostle setteth forth and declareth more vehemently and more fearefully the condemnation by repetition What is this to the reall presence But Augustine de opere Monachorum cap. 13. saith Neque enim c. For it is not said in one place or shortlie so that it may be drawen or peruerted into another meaning by the ouerthwarting of neuer so subtil a Sophist But what I pray you that meÌ„ ought to work with their hands Doth not this make much for the reall presence confirmed by oft repeating of the names of bodie and bloud when bread and cuppe c. be as often repeated But to conclude Cyrill in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 11. writeth in the same sense saieth Sander Non obdurescamus c. By Master Sanders leaue I will repeate the wordes of Cyrillus a little more at large that wee may see in what sense he writeth Quapropter saluator varia oratione moâ—â— aenigmaticè atque obscurè modò dilucidè atque apertè candemrem Iudaeis proposuit â—vt excusari nequeant si resilierint sed mali malè perdentur tanquam manu propria in animam suam gladium immittentes Iterum igitur planè clamat Ego sum panis qui de coelo descendi Illa figura imago vmbráque solùm fuit Audiatis hoc dilucidè dictum Ego sum panis viuus si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane viuet in aeternum Non obdurese vâ—â—â— igitur toties veritatem a Christo audientes Non est enin ambigendum quin summa supplicia subiucri sint qui saepius haec à Christo iterata non capiunt Wherefore our sauiour by diuerse kinds of speach sometimes enigmatically and obscurely sometimes cleerely and plainely hath set forth the same thing vnto the Iewes so that they cannot bee excused if they start backe but being euill men might be destroyed euilly as they that with their owne hande thrust a sworde into their owne soule Therefore he cryeth out againe plainely I am the breade which came downe from heauen That was a figure image and shadowe onely Heare you this which is clearely spoken I am the liuing breade if any man shall eate of this breade hee shall liue for euer Therefore let vs not harden our selues hearing the trueth so ofte of Christ. For it is not to be doubted but they shall suffer most extreme paines who receiue not these things so often repeated of Christ. Out of this place first I note that sometimes Christ spake in this Chapiter obscurely and figuratiuely contrarie to that which Sander before woulde seeme to affirme out of Euthymius and Chrysostome Secondly that Cyrillus speaketh not of the wordes whose repetition Sander vrgeth but of the matter of our spirituall feeding by Christ onely often repeated in the sixte of Iohn Thirdely that Cyrillus vnderstandeth the matter of this Chapiter to bee all one contrarie to that which Sander before hath stoutly defended that Christ speaketh not of the Sacrament vntill hee come to that saying And the breade which I will giue is my flesh Fourthly that Cyrill affirmeth Christ to haue beene the breade of life which was receiued of the godly Fathers vnder the figure of Manna And last of all that the wordes following And the breade which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the worlde Cyrill vnderstandeth of the death of Christ and not of the sacrament for which Sander straue so much in the thirde Booke The saying of Cyrillus vpon the wordes of Christ And the breade which I will giue is my fleshe c. is in the 12. Chapiter of the same Booke Morior inquit pro omnibus vt per me ipsum omnes viuificem caro mea omnium redemptio fiat morietur enim mors morte mea simul mecum natura hominum resurget I dye
earth in Ioan Tr. 50. Tsll me whether it was the visible forme of bloud which was shedde on the crosse or the very substance of his bloud If thou say it was the very substance which thou must say except thou be a Marcionite or Manichee then it was the verie substance of his bloud which Augustine denyeth to be drunken in the Sacrament But Augustine saith Sander was so fully persuaded that the fleshe of Christ was to bee adored vnder the forme of bread after consecration that he reacheth the Christian people to adore it not as common flesh but as the flesh of God for whose sake we adore it Cùâ—â—d â—erram quamlibet c. when thou bowest thy self or fallest down before any earth looke not upon is as earth but looke vpon that holy one whose footstoole it is which thou adorest for thou adorest for his sake Now saith Sander what is it to say before any earth doubtles before any host coÌ„secrated c. Doubtlesse this is a clearkly interpretation that quaeâ—ibet terra any earth or euery earth that a mâ—n doth bowe vnto is a consecrated host Not onely the flesh of Christe is earth to bee worshipped but all Princes and Magistrates are earth to bee worshipped in respect of whome Augustine saith cùm ad terram c. when thou bowest downe to any earth consider God and not man whome thou worshippest in that man euen as in worshipping the flesh of Christ wee stay not in his flesh but ascend vnto his spirite for thus his wordes runne Numquid autem caro viâ—ificat What doth the flesh giue life Our Lord himselfe hath said when he spake of the commending of the same earth It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing Ideo ad terram quaÌ„libeâ— cùm te incliâ—as c. Therefore also when thou bowest and castest downe thy selfe vnto any earth whatsoeuer behold it not as earth but that holy one whose footstoole that is which thou adorest for thou adorest for his sake Therefore here also he hath added worshippe his footstoole because it is holy c. The coniunction also which Sander hath craftily suppressed declareth that Augustine speaketh not onely of worshipping the flesh of Christ as the footstoole of God but also of worshippe giuen to any other earth which must wholy bee referred to God You see how inuincibly it is prooued that catholike men in S. Augustines time vsed to bowe down and to adore the Sacrament of the altar as San 〈…〉 no no more vntruely then ridiculously doth vaunt and 〈…〉 gge vpon the worshipping of any earth CAP. III. It is proued out of the Prophets that it can be no Idolatry to 〈…〉 ship the body bloud of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar Sander first presupposeth the body and bloud of Christ 〈…〉 be really present in the Sacrament and then he defen 〈…〉 h it is no Idolatry to worshippe it But this is contra 〈…〉 to his promise for he vndertooke to prooue the reall 〈…〉 ence by the adoration that is dew to the Sacrament 〈…〉 d not the adoration by the reall presence But it is a â—onderful absurditie with him to say that it is Idolatry 〈◊〉 worshippe with godly honor the body and bloud of â—hrist in the Sacrament of the altar First because this say 〈…〉 g presupposeth externall Idols not to haue bene taken away by 〈…〉 e comming of Christ which is against the expresse worde of God If all externall Idols had bene taken away by the coming of Christ the Apostles would not so seriously haue warned men to beware of all Idolatry 1. Cor. 10. of the pollutions of Idols act 15. 1. Iohn 5. c. Secondly it presupposeth saith he that Idolatry should be maintained by Christians by Publike doctrine and vniuersall practise in open Churches c. Not by true Christians but by false Christians the times of Antichrist as was prophecied Apo. â—3 9. Thirdly it presupposeth that Christ gaue occasion by his owne word that Idolatry should be committed to bakers bread c. Christ gaue none occasion to worshippe bread more then to worship a dore or a vine tree Last of all it is a most foolish thing to say the Bishop of Rome was the cause of that worshipping and also to teach that hee is Antichrist Nothing more agreeable to reason then that Antichrist should set vp an Idole that he himselfe by it might aspire to the greatest honor But Antichrist saith Sander is an aduersary and setteth himselfe against Christ but the Pope calleth himselfe the vicar of Christ and the seruant of seruantes Vnder the colour of these titles he arrogateth to himselfe power and honor aboue Christ to giue pardoÌ„ in papers sealed with lead a poena culpa when he teacheth that the pardon that Christ sealed with his bloud is only a culpa froÌ„ the fault but not from the punishment And yet the Popein his Canon lawe refuseth not to be called God aboue al Gods Secondly Antichrist aduaunceth himself aboue all that i◠〈…〉 shipped as God therfore he wil not how to an externall Id 〈…〉 commeth of superstition and pusillanimitie I answere 〈◊〉 Pope although he stoop not verie low to the sacramâ—â—â— of the Altar which is carried before him on a pal 〈…〉 when he himselfe is carried on mens sholders yet he pretendeth a familiar kinde of reuerence not of super 〈…〉 on but of subtiltie and fraude to couer his pride by hypocrisie that with deceit of vnrighteousnes he may preuaile in them that perish 2. Thess. 2. Thirdly Antichrist shall shew false signes and wonders to deceiue wicked men by So hath the Pope his members doâ— an infinite number wherof the Legends other lewâ—â— bookes are stuffed ful And euen Pius Quintus late Pope counterfeited casting out of diuels Fourthly Antichrist is aduaunced aboue all idols th 〈…〉 shall set vp no idoll but himselfe therefore if the Pope set 〈◊〉 idol he is not antichrist I answere the Pope hath set vp 〈◊〉 idols but to aduaunce himself aboue them all For although he hath set vp the idolatrie of the Sacramens calling it god man yet what papist thinketh it not 〈◊〉 meritorious to worship kisle the Popes feete at Roâ—â— then to worship the sacrament daily in his owne pa 〈…〉 church What right Papist trusteth not more in a pa 〈…〉 of the Popes then in any thing that he loketh to receiue froÌ„ the sacrament of the altar wherfore this an hundred such like matters but that the Pope hath aduauced hims 〈…〉 aboue yâ— idols which he himself hath made coÌ„manded men to worship not for Christs honor but for his owne diuelish aduancement As for the profession of the Pope to worship Christ in the Sacrament in the signe of the crosse in praying to his saints by which Sandâ—r worlde discharge him froÌ„ antichristianitie is nothing elâ—â— but hypocrisie in him which hath no religion as it hath openly
and thou standest by idle Thy garments are foule and thou carest not But if they are cleane then adore and receiue This adoration Sander would referre to the holy things but he cannot enforce it wee adore and communicate yet wee adore not the Sacrament Chrysostome in the same Homilie saith that we eate him which sitteth aboue which is worshipped of Angels c. by which it is euident that the presence of Christ in the mysteries is after a spirituall manner not that he is bodily present As for the eleuation and the things praised with an hymne that Dionysius speaketh although they prooue no adoration of the Sacrament yet I will not stande vpon them because it is cleare that Dionysius was a writer out of the compasse of sixe hundreth yeres that Sander hath bound himselfe vnto howsoeuer the Papistes impudently woulde affirme that he was Saint Paules scholler whose writinges were not heard of in the Church for sixe hundred yeres after Christ. Next Dionysius the counterfeit Areepagite followeth Basil de spiritu sancto Cap 27. Inuocationis verba c. The words of inuocation vsed in the shewing of the breade of the Eucharistie and the cuppe of blessing which of the Saintes haue left in writing to vs In that place in deede Basil defendeth ceremonies receiued by tradition which are not contrarie to the worde of God among which he nameth the wordes of inuocation which wordes Sander will haue to be the order of saying Masse and prayers and yet after referreth to certeine wordes which the people aunswered when the Priest saide Holy thinges are for holy men One is holy saide they one is the Lorde one Iesus Christ in the glorie of GOD the father with the holy Ghost Amen But these are wordes of declaration who is holy not of inuocation Wherefore the wordes of inuocation were some prayer that was made for the worthie receiuing of the mysteries and not made to the mysteries as Sander imagineth And wheras vpon the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would not onely grounde shewing of the mysteries readie to be receiued but also lifting vp of them it is a simple argument for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doeth not so properly as he saith betoken a shewing by lifting vp as to ordeine to institute to appoint and so wee neede not vnderstand any shewing but an appointment or ordering of the bread and cuppe to be the Sacrament Passing ouer Maximus and Germanus two late writers concerning the shewing and eleuation of the mysteries vsed in their time I come to Eusebius Emissenus Hom. 5. in Pasc Cùm ad reuerendum altare salutari cibo potúqâ— c. When thou commest vnto the reuerend altar to be refreshed with the wholesome meate and drinke Looke with faith vpon the holy bodie and bloud of thy God honour it wonder at it touche it with thy minde take it in the hande of thy heart and especially receiue it with an inwarde swallowing This place being altogether of spirituall beholding honouring receiuing yet is not Sander ashamed to cite it for carnall presence and ad oration of the Sacrament But howe I pray you forsooth hee telleth vs where to haue it on the altar Naye sir faith respecteth not things that are visible therefore not the altar nor that is seene vpon it but him that is in heauen which is represented by that which is seene corporally Nowe seeing the beholding must bee with faith and the receiuing with the hande of the heart and inward swallowing who will graunt vnto Sander that the honouring must bee with outwarde reuerence to that which appeareth breade and wine but with inwarde and spirituall reuerence dewe to Christ which is in heauen But Sander hath a quarell against the English Homilies for translating altare the communion and salutari cibo potúqâ— spirituall meates I thinke the writer meant not to translate but to giue the sense but I know not what Sander meant in translating this place for that which Eusebius sayeth Cordis manususâ—ipe to giue none English at all but leaue it cleane out As for the saying of the receiuers Lorde I am not worthie that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe it hath beene shewed alreadie howe it was vnderstoode of Origen and may be saide of them that neuer meant to adore the Sacrament And whereas Sander sayeth none other Lorde entreth vnder the roofe of his mouth beside that breade I marueile whether he meane to teache vs that tectum is Latine for the roofe of a mans mouth whereas wee haue alwayes taken it for the roofe of an house Christe is sayde to enter vnder the roofe of our house figuratiuely when hee dwelleth in vs by faith spiritually As for eating vnder the roofe of our mouth it is a grosse imagination vnworthie of the maiestie of Christ. The last author is Cyrillus of Ierusalem in Catech. Mystag 5. who biddeth the communicants to take the king and the bodie of Christ in the hollow of the right hande saying Amen and to sanctifie their eyes therewith vsing all diligence that no crumme thereof perishe or fall away What needed that precept saith hee if it were common bread Verely I take it for a meere superstitious precept although it were giuen to young nouices newly admitted to the communion and yet it prooueth not the Popish reall presence vnlesse you thinke a legge or an arme falleth off if a crumme be lost What when a mouse eateth vp all in the Pixe And what can it be but the substance of breade which hath crummes that may fall from it Cyrillus in the same place sayeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For whatsoeuer thou shalt leese it is manifest that in it thou hast lost as it were parte of thine owne bodie I thinke you will not say that the bread is changed into the bodies of the communicants that in leesing a crum they leese a parte of their bodies Hee meaneth therefore a spirituall reuerence to be giuen to the holy mysteries which was signified in careful keeping of the external figures Well after the communion of the bodie Cyrillus biddeth the people come to the chalice of Christes bloud bowing downe and saying in the manner of adoring worshipping Amen If he bad the people come to the chalice of Christes bloud he was no Papist though he bid them come bowing downe saying in worshipping Amen yet you finde not that he biddeth them bowe downe to the chalice or to adore that which is in it as you do We come to the communion with reuerent gesture and bowing downe yet we adore not the Sacrament But if hee meant adoring of the Sacrà ment why did he not bidde them bow downe and worship the bread as well as the cuppe Finally that Cyrillus acknowledged no transubstantiation it is plaine by his words in the same booke where hee sheweth that after the ministers of the church are sanctified by the spirituall hymnes that were song they besought their louing God to sende his holy spirit vpon the
haue no figure Wherefore Sander and not Master Iewell reasoneth like a Marcionite confounding the figure with the thing figured Sand. Tertullian speaking most literally of bread as it was an olde figure of Christes body whereof in Ieremie it was saide Let vs put the wood of the crosse into his bread to wit vppon his bodie saith Christ then fulfilling the old figures made bread his bodie if he did so it could not tarie bread any longer Fulk This place of Tertullian is shamefully mangled both in wordes and sense Tertullian asketh But why did he call breade his body and not rather a pepon which Marcion accounted in steed of an hart not vnderstanding that this was an auncient figure of the bodie of Christ saying by Ieremie Against me haue they thought a thought saying Come let vs cast wood on his breade that is the crosse on his bodie Therefore the lightener of antiquities sufficiently declared what he would haue breade then to haue signified when he calleth bread his body These words declare wherefore Christ did appoint bread to signifie his bodie in his supper namely because it had bene an ancient figure of his body in somuch that it was called bread But he made bread his body therefore it is not his body still I aunswere Tertullian sheweth how hee made it his body when he expoundeth it by the name of the figure of his body Baptisme being made regeneration is still a washing with water The rocke when it was made Christ remained still a rocke c. Iew. After consecration saith Saint Ambrose the bodie of Christ is signified Sand. S. Ambrose de myst cap. 〈◊〉 doth speake of that signification which is made whiles the priest pronounceth Hoc est corpus meum which words he saith do worke in the consecration that which they signifie therefore they worke the bodie and blood of Christ. Fulk Fie for shame Sander when Ambrose saith Post consecrationem after consecration will you say hee speaketh of the signification of the wordes which as spoken in the time of the consecration the words of Christ indeede doe worke as Ambrose saith and what worke they but that which is added to the elementes after cōsecration namely a signification of the bodie of Christ. Iew. It is a bondage and death of the soule saith S. Augustine to take the signe in steed of the thinges signified Sand. Saint Augustine meaneth of such kinde of signes when either the thinge which appeareth to bee signified is not at all true according to the letter or else when the thing signified is absent in substance c. Fulk Saint Augustine de Doct. Chr. lib. 3. cap. 5. speaketh expressely of figuratiue speeches when they are vnderstoode as if they were proper and cap 16. of the same booke giuing a rule to knowe figuratiue speaches from proper hee exemplifieth the eating of the fleshe of Christ and drinking his bloode to be a figuratiue speach Wherefore you see master Iewels article of chalenge standeth vntouched for any thing brought in this chapter And that Sander can yelde no good cause why master Iewel hath not fully answered Harding touching the wordes of Christes supper CAP. II. Sand. That the supper of Christ is a naked and bare figure according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries Fulk Sander wil acknowledge nothing in the sacrament whatsoeuer we teach protest and beleeue excepte we acknowledge his real presence but a bare figure Sand. S. Hilarie and S. Cyrill teach that the nature of signes or seales is such as setteth forth y◠who le forme of the kinde of thing printed in them and haue no lesse in them then those things whence they are sealed Fulk Such a seale we beleeue the Lords supper to be of Christes death and our redemption Iew. He must mount on high saith Chrysostome whoso will reach to that body San. Accedere is to come to not to reach He spake of comming to the visible table Fulk He spake of cōming to the visible table so as we might attaine to the body of Christ which is in heauen for that cause he said we must be eagles in this life Chrys. in 1. Cor. Ho. 24. Sand. He saith Ipsa mensa The very table is our saluation life And again This mysterie maketh that while◠we be in this life earth may be heauen to vs. Fulk As earth is heauen to vs the table saluation so is the sacrament the body of Christ. Iew. Send vp thy faith saith Augu. thou hast taken him Sand. The place is abused See lib. 2. cap. 29. Fulk And see the answere there Iew. The bread that we receiue with our bodily mouthes is an eathly thing and therefore a figure as the water in baptisme Sand. The water in baptisme is no figure but the figure is the word cōming to the water As the water in baptisme is no figure when the words are absent so bread could not be a figure any longer when the words are fully past Fulk Maister Iewel speaketh of the water wherevnto the word is come which as it remaineth no sacrament after the vse of baptisme no more doth the bread out of the vse of receiuing That consecration consisteth in the onely words This is my body it is false For Christes wordes are more Take eate c. Iew. The body of Christ is y◠thing it selfe no figure Sand. The body of Christ vnder the forme of bread is it self both the thing also a figure of y◠mystical vnity of the Church So S. Hilary teacheth The natural propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfect vnitie See libr. 5. Chap. 5. Fulk The natural propertie is not the personal substance or proper nature of Christ. See the answer as aboue Iew. In respect of the body we haue no regarde to the figure wherevnto S. Bernarde alluding saith The sealing ring is nothing worth it is the inheritance I sought for Sand. What a desperate custome is it for you to alleadge alwaies the fathers of the last 900. yeres whom you haue alreadie condemned Fulk What a diuelish custome is it for you alwaies to lie and slaunder Sand. S. Bernard saith the bodie and blood it selfe to bee the signe Vt securi suis c. That you may bee without feare you haue the inuestiture of our Lordes sacrament his precious bodie and bloode Fulk You falsifie Bernards wordes in translation and peruert his meaning Vt securi suis sacramenti dominici corporis sanguinis preciosi inuestituram habetis That you may bee without feare you haue the inuestitute of the sacrament of the body of our Lorde and of his precious bloode The sacrament is the inuestiture as the ring and not the bodie of Christ. If the bodie of Christe were the ring of the inuestiture Bernard woulde not haue saide the ring is nothing worth Yet the sacrament as a seale putteth vs in assurance of the inheritance and not bate bread as Sander bableth CAP. III. Sand. That Christes
Sander S. Augustine spake these wordes to the faithlesse Iewes of Capernaum and not to Catholikes Fulke If Iewes become faithfull what differ they from Catholikes why should they haue another maner of eating Christ then other Catholikes Sander S. Augustine confesseth vs to receiue Christ by mouth also Hominem Iesum Christum c. We doe receiue with a faithfull heart and mouth the man Iesus Christ giuing his flesh vnto vs to be eaten and his bloud to be drunke although it may seeme more horrible to eate mans flesh then to kil it and to drinke mans bloud then to shedde it Therefore his meaning is not to remoue vtterly the naturall office of the body as Master Iewel most impudently saith Fulk He remoueth not the natural office of the body from eating the Sacrament but from eating the natural body of Christ. And most horrible is the impudence of Master Sander which dissembleth that S. Augustine in the place by him cited speaketh of figuratiue sayings contra aduers. leg proph lib. 2. Cap. 9. Immediatly before the words by him rehearsed comparing our eating of Christes fleshe with Christ beeing one flesh with his Church and immediatly after the wordes aforesaied concluding that figuratiue sayinges must not bee contemned Sicut duos c. Euen as wee doe knowe Christ and his Church to be two in one flesh without any obscenity against the will of these men Euen as we receiue with faithfull hart and mouth the mediator of God and man the man Iesus Christ c. Atque in omnibus And in all the holy scriptures if any thing which is spoken or done figuratiuely bee expounded according to the rule of sound faith of any matters or wordes which are conteined in the holy scriptures let not that exposition bee taken contemptuously Sander Said he not for the honour of so great a Sacrament it pleased the holy ghost that our Lordes body should enter into the mouth of a Christian before other meates and yet is the office of the body remoued and that vtterly remoued Fulke Said he not before it was a figuratiue speach to eate the flesh of Christ and to drinke his bloud and is it then a great merueile if the Sacrament be called by the name of the thing whereof it is a Sacrament For the question is not in that Ep. 118. Whether the bodye of Christ should be preferred before other things but whether the SacrameÌ„t shuld be receiued fasting or after meat The rest of your chat concerning the councell of 8. Cardinals compared with the conference Wittenberg I passe ouer as conteining no argument touching the matters in question CAP. XVI Sander Whether Christes body dwell really in our 〈◊〉 by his na 〈…〉 itie Iewell Foure speciall meanes there be by euery of which Christes body dwelleth in our bodies not by imagination but really substantially naturally fleshly and in deede Sander You had ben better to haue subscribed foure times than to haue made an assertion so vaine as this Fulke The assertion is of the phrase or manner o speaking against which you cauilâ— most vainely Iewell Christes body by his natiuity whereby hee embraceth vs dwelleth in our bodies really substantially c. Sander If you had said by his incarnation he dwelleth naturaly in vs or we in him that saying might haue a true sense but to say that his body dwelleth in our bodies not onely naturally but also really c. it seemeth to me very hard Fulke His natiuity importeth his incarnation And what meane you by naturally but in the trueth and real substance of his body after a naturall manner Sander Christ tooke not the common general substance of all mankind but onely the whole particular nature of man Fulke Sander fighteth against his owne shadowe for heere is no man that saith against him and so through the whole Chapiter Wheras Master Iewel defendeth the phrase of speaking Christes body dwelleth really c. in our bodies which in som sense is true Sander answereth it is not true in euery sense And he dwelleth not onely by his birth wheras Master Iewel affirmeth three other waies by which Christ may be said so to dwell in vs. Sander One thing I must put you in mind of You defend that Christes naturall body may not be in many places at once but you say now that his body by his natiuity dwelleth really c. in our bodies which dwel in mani places therfore you are against your own doctrin Fulke So long as there be no greater contrarietie in Master Iewels doctrine it is safe inough This is miserable sophistry more worthy to be hissed at among boys â—hen to be answered of learned men I thinke there is no cobler in Cambridge or Oxforde but he could winde himselfe out of this fallacia To dwell in all men by participation of common nature is one thing and one whole bodie to be whole in tenne thousand places is another thing CAP. XVII Sander Whether Christes bodie dwell in our bodies by faith really or no. Fulke The question should be whether this manner of speach in some sense may not be iustified Sander Master Iewels phrase defendeth Ioan of Kents heresie Fulke If he had saide the virgine Mary conceiued Christ by faith in her heart more happily then carnally in her wombe In affirming the one he had not denied the other and yet he had said nothing but the trueth Did not whole Christ dwell in the godly by faith before his incarnation Did they not eate and drinke the bodie bloud of Christ by faith before his bodie was conceiued in the virgins wombe If these sayings be true the other phrase according to this sense may be defended CAP. XVIII Sander The contradiction of M. Iewel concerning Christ really dwelling in vs by faith and not really dwelling in vs by faith Fulke If the worde really may be taken in diuerse senses what contradiction is there when he saith Christ dwelleth in vs really by faith the word really is made opposite to imaginatiuely figuredly or phantastically and signifieth Christ in deede is communicated vnto vs by the effectes of his incarnation death passion resurrection c. Where he saith Christ is not really and fleshly placed in our hearts by faith the word really is opposite to faith which is a substance of things to be hoped foâ— which are not actually present signifieth that the naturall substance of Christs flesh lyeth not locally in the substance of our heartes According to these two significations what contradiction is there but that you are disposed to cauil CAP. XIX Sander Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by baptisme or no. Fulke This saying may be iustified in the affirmatiue as wel as that he dwelleth really in our bodies by the Sacrament of his supper The diuerse vnderstanding of the word really maketh al the controuersie in this matter M. Iewel taketh it in one sense M. Sander in another Not ignorantly mistaking but wilfully maliciously
The vnion is made not onely by faith but by the thing it selfe which is neither water breade nor wine nor faith but onely the reall substance of Christs body and blood Fulk That is not the question but of the manner of the mingling whether it be corporall or spirituall Sand. Chrysostome nameth changing sacrifice hand mouth tongue seeing touching eating hauing within vs therefore the manner of mingling must be corporall Fulk Chrysostome nameth the hande breaking the fleshe in peeces the mouth filled with spirituall fire the tonge made redde with this wonderfull bloode as you your selfe confesse therefore he speaketh not properly but figuratiuely of these instrumentes of the body which outwardly receiue the sacrement of so high holy a coniunction the manner of working whereof is wonderfull and not done with handes mouth tong c. of men Sand. Prooue that where Christ dwelleth by faith that such dwelling is made by the thing it selfe not by faith onely Fulk The word is be come flesh and dwelled in vs being verily Immanuel God with vs therefore by the thing it selfe and not by faith only he dwelleth with all the faithfull Sand. Prooue that wee are made Christes fleshe in baptisme by the bodie of Christ for else the vnion of the sacrament will be more reall Fulk By baptisme wee are buried with Christe vnto death c. And what purgeth vs in baptisme but the bloode of Christe which purgeth vs from all â—innes San. Prooue either that wee are vnited to faith it selfe and vnto baptisme it selfe or else the vnion made in this sacrament will farre passe the ioyning which is in the other Fulk Wee are neither vnited to faith baptisme or to the Lords supper but to Christ by faith and by the sacraments Sand. Here wee are vnited to the same body wherewith we are fedde which wee see and touch but there wee bee not vnited to the water wherewith wee are washed Fulk Neither are you here vnited to anye thing that you see or touch excepte you will bee vnited to bread and wine or to the accidentes of them which only you holde remaine to be seene and touched In baptisme we are vnited to Christ whome we put on with whome we die are buried and rise againe being washed with his bloode in our soules as our bodies are washed with cleane water Sand. You say that wee are made Christ by baptisme but prooue that Christ is there deliuered in sensible thinges to your handes to your mouth to your tongue so that you may haue him within you as it is done in the supper These phrases you must prooue to be verified by faith and baptisme if you will haue as reall a ioyning made by faith or by baptisme as is made by the sacrament of the altar Fulk Saint Augustine saith wee are made Christe The phrases that Chrysostome vseth alluding to the externall manner of participation of that sacrament which is by hande mouth and tongue are not necessarie to prooue that the vnion made by the one sacrament is as reall as by the other when there bee phrases of equall force as the phrases of ingraffing putting on dying and being buried with him washed with his bloode c. Iew. As the breaking of this bread is the partaking of the bodie of our Lorde euen so the breade of idols is the partaking of Diuels and if wee eate one bread with idolaters we are made one body with them Primasius in 1. Cor. 10. Sand. You falsifie the wordes of Saint Paul that which he spake of the substance of bread you assigne to the action of breaking Fulke You slaunder him for although he vse the tearme of breaking of bread yet bee assigneth not the communication to the action of breaking but to the thing that is broken as in the other parte of the similitude you might see if malice had not made you blinde Euen so the bread of idoles c. Sand. Primasius tooke not the name of breade materially for wheaten bread but for all kinde of meate and drinke which the idolaters vsed therefore he meant the bread which we breake is no materiall breade but a kinde of meate which Christe hath prepared for vs. Fulk Primasius tooke bread materially for wheaten bread although not onely for wheaten breade Therfore he tooke the breade which we breake for wheaten bread for what else is broken Againe the argument is nought hee tooke bread of idolaters generally for all meates by synecdoche the figure Therefore hee taketh the bread of Christians specially for one kinde of meate which is no bread at all But howe answere you Primasius saying there is the same vnion betweene diuels or idols and them that eate their bread which is betweene the body of Christ and Christians which eat the bread which is broken The participation of the one cannot be bodily ergo not the other CAP. XXII Sand. It is proued that S. Hilarie thought the body of Christ to be really in the sacrament Hard. If the word be verily made flesh and we receiue verily the word being flesh in our Lords meat how he is to be thought not to dwell in vs naturally who both hath taken the nature of our fleshe nowe inseparable to himselfe in that he is borne man and also hath mingled the nature of his owne flesh to the nature of euerlastingnes vnder the sacrament of his flesh to bee receiued of vs in the communion Hil. de Trin. lib. 8. Iew. Master Harding hath not hitherto founde that Christes body is naturally or corporally in the sacrament Sand. You vse many shiftes whereof this is the last which I will nowe declare against your dissembling assertion Fulk Belike then D. Harding had not found that you are faine to seeke for him Iew. Against the Arrians Hilarius reasoned thus Christ is really ioined vnto the father as vnto vs but Christ is ioyned to vs by nature therefore Christ is ioyned to God the father by nature That Christ is ioyned to vs by nature he proueth it thus We are ioyned to Christ by faith that is by the nature of one faith and that is to say naturally Sand. He falsifieth S. Hilarie for he hath not the word naturally Fulk You slander him most impudently for he doth expounde the wordes of Hilarie Per vnius fidei naturam by the nature of one faith to be all one as if he had said naturally Sand. S. Hilaries intent is onely to shewe that faithfull men are one among themselues by nature of faith and not how Christ is ioyned to vs by that faith which he hath not at al for he answereth the argument of the Arrians grouÌ„ded vpon that place Act. 4. of the multitude of the beleeuers there was one soule and one heart Fulk As though there coulde bee anye vnitie of the belieuers among themselues but as they are al ioyned in one by Christ Christ to theÌ„ whoÌ„ blasphemously Sander affirmeth to haue had no faith froÌ„ the instant of his
incarnation because his soule was illuminated with the visioÌ„ of God to whose nature it was ioyned in one person and where cleare vision is there is no faith saith Sander Not considering that Christ did voluntarily empty him selfe of all such pretogatiues of his godheade as might hinder him to haue experience of all our infirmities except sinne And therfore S. Luke testifieth that Iesus incresed in wisedom and stature and fauour with God men But where such cleare vision is as Sand. imagineth there is no increase of wisdome gods gifts And concerning faith read the 22. Psal. which is a prophecie of Christ professing his constant faith in so much that he was therefore derided of the wicked which saide he trusted in God let him deliuer him c. Yea the Apostle to the Hebrewes proueth the humanitie of Christ by this Psal. 16. where the prophet speaketh in the person of Christ I wil put my trust in him that is in God yet Sander saith he neuer had faith but more then faith As though a greater a more perfect faith were not faith Iewel Likewise he saith we are ioyned vnto Christ by the regeneration of one nature and againe wee are ioyned to Christ by the nature of one baptisme hereof he coÌ„cludeth therefore are we naturally ioyned to him Sand. S. Hilarie hath not the terme naturally of our coniunction vnto Christ by baptisme which terme D. Harding hath found to appertaine to the sacrament Fulke A simple quarel to make such outcries of the terme naturally when Hilarie hath termes in all reasonable mens iudgements equiualent concluding that all Christians are one not onely by wil but also by nature Because they are cloathed with one Christ by the nature of one baptisme And where I pray you hath either Harding or you found that Christs body is in yâ— sacrament naturally according to M. Iewels challenge wil you neuer leaue this beggerly sophistrie Harding hath found this terme to appertaine to the sacrament ergo he hath answered M. Iewels challenge Iewel Thus it appeareth by S. Hilarie we may haue Christ naturally within vs by three other sundrie meanes and therfore not onely as M. Harding holdeth by receiuing of the sacrameÌ„t Like as Christ is naturally corporally and carnally in vs by faith by regeneration and by baptisme euen so and none otherwise hee is in vs by the sacrament of his bodie Sand. It is not confessed that Christ is in vs naturally c. Fulke But it is prooued that by nature wee are one with him But that Christ shoulde be corporally in our bodies Hilarie saith neither of faith baptisme nor of the supper Sand. You distinguish regeneration from baptisme as though baptisme were not the sacrament that did regenerate Fulke He that distinguisheth the cause from the effect as you make it or the signe from the thing signified as Hilarie meaneth deserueth no reproofe in wisemens iudgement Sand. If Christ be none otherwise in vs by the sacrament of his body then by faith or baptisme why do you make it a seuerall way from the other before named Fulke Because all these 4. seuerall wayes may notwithstanding agree in one spirituall manner of coniunction which hath no neede of your Popish reall presence Sand. The vnitie of Christes birth sufficeth not to proue that Christ is one with vs for that vnitie of nature might be thought to pertaine no more to the good then to the euill Fulke There is farther required the vertue of Christs spirite to make that naturall vnitie effectuall to giue vs eternal life this vniting vertue is testified by the sacrament Sand. S. Hilarie doth vs to vnderstande that in the sacrament we take the word made flesh so verily take it as the word was verily made flesh Fulk He expoundeth himself saying we take it verily vnder a mysterie vnder a sacrament which mysterie is not the forme breade and wine for that is an open and sensible thing Iewell That wee verily and vndoubtedly receiue Christs bodie in the sacrament it is neither denied nor in question Sand. You saide before that Christ in his supper added an outward sacrament to the spirituall eating named in S. Iohn which sacrament you said was commonly called a figure againe you said the bread is a figure this is confuse and contrarie doctrine Fulke This is wretched wrangling An outward sacrament which is a figure added to spirituall eating taketh not away spirituall eating but helpeth our faith in spirituall eating Sand. You confessed before that the sacrament is receiued with the mouâ—â— now you confesse that Christs bodie is receiued in the sacrament therefore Christs bodie is receiued with the mouth Fulke Your minor shoulde be the sacrament is Christs bodie which in your sense is not yet confessed otherwise your syllogisme is as good as this Baptisme is receiued on the outside of the bodie the holy ghost is receiued in baptisme therfore the holyghost is receiued on the outside of the bodie Sand. The aduerbe verily in this place doth signifie naturally really and substantially For as the worde is made flesh really so we take really the word being flesh in our Lords meate The worde was not made flesh onely by our faith but in trueth of his substance Therefore we take the word being flesh not by our faith onely but in trueth of his substance Fulk The aduerbe verily in this place signifieth truly according to the thing but not that according to the manner of the thing in al points wee take the flesh of Christ in the Lordes meate as the same was incarnate in the Virgins wombe but as Hilarie himselfe saith afterwarde Verè sub mysterio We receiue the flesh of his bodie truly vnder a mysterie which excludeth naturally or a natural manner of receiuing We eate Christ as truely as he was made man borne of the Virgin Mary but not in the same manner we eate him not sensibly visibly palpablie in length bredth and thicknesse as hee was made fleshe but vnder a mysterie or sacrament of his flesh which is communicated vnto vs after a spirituall manner And where you say the worde was not made flesh onely by our faith therefore we take his flesh not by faith onely Neither is the antecedent true nor the conclusion right For Christ was not made flesh onely by our faith nor by our faith at all For our faith was no meane of his incarnation Where vpon I might as rightly conclude The word was not made flesh by our faith at all therefore we take not the worde being made flesh by faith at all This argument is as good vpon the aduerbe verily vsed by S. Hilarie as that which you make Iewel It is the bread of the heart hunger thou within thirst thou within Sand. As Christ by taking real flesh is much the better breade of the heart hungred within so it is extreme madnesse to thinke that Christes bodie giuen vnder the forme of breade is therefore lesse hungred
is naturally in none but such as receiue that sacrament and that none liue naturally according to the fleshe by Christ but they that receiue the communion which is false Therefore he meaneth that Christs flesh is truely vnited to vs by vertue of his spirit which is testified in the sacrament and not that the sacrament receiued is the onelie meane but the seale of our faith which apprehēdeth the working of Gods spirit in this merueilous coniunction aboue the reach of mans reason Sand. But Hilarie saith By the Sacrament of fleshe and bloud the proprietie of natural communiō is granted Fulke We say and beleeue the same but not onely by the sacrament of the supper but without it also Sand. And againe by the same tarying carnally to wit in truth of flesh in vs. Fulke But yet after a spiritual manner according to which 〈◊〉 being once entred into vs hee neuer departeth from vs as in the popish sense he doth when the shapes of bread and wine are corrupted Sand. Laste of all the mysterie of true and naturall vnitie is to be preached in eo nobis corporaliter inseparabiliter vnitis We being vnited in him corporally and inseparably Fulke This cannot be restrained to the supper seeing he is corporally and inseparablie vnited to all his members of which manie neuer receiued the communion And that which you teach men to receiue in the communion is not vnseparablie vnited to them for it departeth as soone as the breade and wine by heat of the stomake are putrified according to all your schoolemens opinions Wherefore there is no cause why Maister Iewell shoulde dissemble this point which maketh wholy against your vnderstanding of Christ present naturally corpo 〈…〉 lly really c. Iew. Those wordes that Christ corporally earnally and naturally is within vs in their owne rigor seeme verie hard Sand. They must needes seeme hard to him that beleeueth not Fulk Master Iewel beleeueth them in such sense as they were spoken ment by Hilarie not as you wrest them Iew. Hilarius said we are one with God the father the sonne not only by adoption or consent of mind but also by nature which according to the letter cannot be true Sand. It is a most impudent lie forged vpon S. Hilarie that we are one with God the father by nature or with God the sonne in his diuine nature Fulk You are mad through malice no man chargeth S. Hilarie but with the phrase of speech by which it is manifest he tooke the wordes nature naturally otherwise then you as appeareth euen by that his generall rule Qui per eandem c. Those that by the same thing are one they are one by nature and not by will onely Iew. The fathers haue bene faine to expound and to mollifie such violent and excessiue kindes of speach Sand. Now you shew your self in your colors you think the fathers do not speake wel for violent speaches bee no good speaches excessiue speaches be not literally true Fulk Sometime the fathers speake neither well nor truely But these violent and excessiue speaches are well inough and good speaches if they bee well and rightly vnderstood And what if hyperbolicall speaches bee not literally true are they therefore false in the right meaning of the speakers Metaphors be not literally true wil you therfore say that whatsoeuer is spoken by a Metaphor is spoken vntruely This paltrie is but to mocke selye vnlearned Papistes of whom you haue exhibition for such as knowe what figures of Rhetorike meane woulde thinke you worthie to weare a cockescombe thus to dispute of true and false out of Rhetoricall figures more then of manna literally Sand. Master Iewel is mad he is blinde full of extreme malice Fulk Railing in steede of wordes proouing that Nyssen speaketh of the sacrament or of Christs naturall dwelling in vs. Iew. The purpose of Gregorie Nyssen was onelie to speake of Christes birth Sand. His purpose was to speak of manna which did both signifie the birth of Christ and the sacrament of the altar Fulk What word haue you to prooue that he spake of it as it doth signifie the sacrament of the altar Iew. In like manner of speach Saint Hierome saith The wheat whereof the heauenly bread is made is that of which our Lorde saide my fleshe is meat in deede Sand. The speach of S. Hierome is of the sacrament therefore the speach of Nyssenus which you confesse to be like Fulk It is not like in scope and purpose but in the phrase speaking of wheate Iew. And to this purpose saith Amphilochius vnlesse Christ had bene borne carnally thou haddest not beene borne spiritually Sand. I knowe not to what purpose hee speaketh it but that Christes birth is necessarie to our saluation and because if that birth had not gone before we could not haue eaten that bodie in the sacrament Fulk You might haue inferred eating spiritually a◠well as borne spiritually Iew. As Nyssen saith Christ is made our bread so he saith he becommeth strong meat vnto the perfecte herbes vnto the weake c. Sand. He may be bread herbes and milke in the sacrament and without it but he is bread hearbs and milke to vs in our mouthes as manna was to the Iewes onely in the sacrament Fulk Where haue you in Nyssen your But he is c. in our mouth Is he any of this bodily Iewell Gregorie Nyssen holdeth that wee receiue Christes bodie otherwise then in the Sacrament for hee saith whoso hath aboundantly drunke of the Apostles springs hath alreadie receiued whole Christ. Sander You misse of your proofe you should proue that he receiueth Christs bodie you proue that he receiueth Christ. Gregorie spake of his diuine nature which may be receiued in our heart yet not his body in our bodie Fulke I pray you sir is not whole Christ both the diuinitie the humanitie Sander If the eating of Christ proue his birth it wil follow that as he is borne really so much more hee is eaten really if hee were only eaten by faith thence we could conclude no more but a birth by faith Fulke You may as well conclude if he be eaten only vnder the forme of breade he was borne onely vnder the form of bread such strength is an D. Hardings argumēt CAP. XXIIII Sander That M. Iewel hath not well answered the places of S. Cyrillus Harding Cyrillus saith when the mystical blessing is become to be in vs doth it not cause Christ to dwell in vs corporally by receiuing of Christs body in the communion The same thing he saith in diuerse other places Iewel Cyrillus expoundeth himself natural vnion is nothing else but a true vnion Wee are by nature the children of anger that is in deede truely Sander He saith not it is nothing else but ss naturalē If wee call it a naturall vnion wee shall call it a true vnion Fulke M. Iewel saith not generally that naturall is nothing but
meaneth we are not made consubstantiall to the Trinitie Fulke He denyeth the corporall manner of vniting of substances namely of the substance of our bodies with the substance of the bodie of Christ. Iewell The coniunction because it is spiritual true full and perfect is expressed by this terme corporall Sander As though God because he is spiritual true full and perfect he might therefore be called corporall Fulke As though that which is in somethings is necessarie to bee in all thinges and yet the Godhead which is spiritually truly fully and perfectly in Christ is said to be in him corporally Col. 2. Sander Who euer heard of such vanitie because it is spirituall it is termed corporall Fulke Who euer heard vainer sophistrie then that which diuideth things to be ioyned together Master Iewel addeth true full perfect Iewel Corporall coniunction remoueth all maneâ— light and accidentall ioyning Sander If all accidentall ioyning be remoued only substantiall ioyning remaineth A substantiall ioyning requireth the substances to be present that are ioyned together Fulke The substances that are ioyned together after a spirituall manner neede no locall presence of the substances to be ioyned whome the spirite of Christe can couple though they be in place distant with an inseparable vnion Iewell It is vtterly vntrue that we haue Christ corporally within vs onely by receiuing the Sacrament Sander Neuer a father by you named saith as you doe and therefore you speake of your owne head Fulke All the fathers that saye Christ dwelleth in vs corporally speake generally of all the members of the Church of which many haue not receiued the Sacrament therefore it is not by the Sacrament onely Sander Seeing wee cannot haue him corporally in vs without his bodie be within vs and yet none other thing is his bodie beside that which is deliuered at his supper by that meane onely hee may bee corporally in vs. Fulke Neuer a father by you named either sayeth or meaneth that any of your two propositions are true therefore your conclusion is of your owne heade Iewel By Master Hardings construction the childe is damned who dyeth without receiuing the Sacrament of Christes bodie Sander No Catholike doeth teache so Baptisme sussiceth vntill a man come to yeres of discretion Fulke Ergo Baptisme maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporally Iewell Without naturall participation of Christes flesh there is no saluation Sander If it be so it is you that teach the damnation of all those that receiue not the Eucharistie Fulk It is so because Christ saith Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud c. and because it is so and yet all are not damned that receiue not the Eucharist This naturall participation eating of the flesh of Christ is not onely in the Eucharist Iewell S. Chrysostome saith In the Sacrament of baptisme we are made flesh of Christes flesh and bone of his bones Sander These wordes you haue not in Chrysostome Fulke You cauill at the forme of wordes whereupon M. Iewell standeth not when you cannot auoide the matter Sander He saith they that are partakers of the mysteries can tell how they are formed properly and lawfully out of him Fulke That they are alike formed out of Christ in both the Sacraments it ouerthroweth your corporall presence in the one only Sander Moreouer he giueth another sense expounding ex ipso for secundum ipsum Fulke That taketh not away the force of his authoritie in the former sense Sander He sheweth that we are taken out of Christs side as Eua out of Adam Fulke If that be by baptisme it proueth M. Iewels proposition that we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones Sander Although it were in him yet is it to no purpose for it is one thing to be made of the flesh of Christ which may be meant of his mysticall flesh another thing to partake his flesh naturally We are made of his flesh by spirituall meanes Fulke What can it bee to partake naturally his flesh if it be not to become flesh of his flesh bone of his bones you saye we may be made of his flesh by spirituall meanes what may wee be made of the matter of his flesh Chrysostome telleth you flesh and bones yea of his mysticall flesh What are we made mysticall flesh then verily wee must bee made mysticall bones also This is a mistie exposition of so cleare a matter Sander The reason why certeine places of Scripture are interpreted sometime of baptisme sometime of Christes supper is because in the olde time in manye countries the Sacrament of Christes bodie was giuen straight after baptisme Fulke A wise reason why they shoulde make that common to both the Sacraments which was proper to one They were not ministred so neete in time but they could discerne what was common what was peculiar to either of them Iewel Master Harding is not yet able to find that Christes bodie is either corporally receiued into our bodies or corporally present in the Sacrament Sander It is you that are not able to finde it for D. Harding hath founde it and I haue shewed it in Chrysostome S. Hilarie Gregorie Nyssen Fulke Let the readers iudge what you haue founde but vaine cauillations for neither the words nor the matters you haue shewed Sander So would I shewe it at large out of Cyrillus but that partely the booke is growne alreadie too great partly a marueilous number of places doe proue both Christes bodie to be corporally receiued into our bodies and to bee corporally present in the Sacrament Fulk So would I answere you sufficiently for any thing you can bring out of Cyrillus but that I haue answered alreadie in many places throughout this booke to all that euer you can gather and scrape to make a shewe of any such matter which were meere tediousnesse here to repeate Harding The Catholike fathers sithens Berengarius time haue vsed the termes really substantially c. to exclude metaphors and figures and to confesse a most supernaturall vnion with Christ by meane of his naturall flesh really though not locally present Iewell These doctors liued with in these 300. yeres and are such as Master Harding thought not worth the naming Sander Hee named none because your impudent proclamation bound him to the time Fulke He was not so bound to the time but he might haue named if any had beene of greater antiquitie then 300. yeares Sander Damascen saith the bread wine water is supernaturally changed into the body bloud of Christ. Theophilact saith the bread is with secret wordes changed into our Lordes flesh and these are aboue 700. yeres old speaking of transubstantiation Fulke Neither of both vseth the termes really substantially c. which is the matter in question And although they vse the termes of changing and transformation yet neither of both acknowledged transubstantiation nor the Church of the Grecians whereof they were members vnto this day doth acknowledge
and to great profite of many Likewise in the ende a passing good similitude of wine to finishe his booke which hee beganne with a feast As it is hurtfull to drinke wine alone and then againe water and as wine tempered with water is pleasant and delighteth the taste so the setting out of the matter deliteth the eares of them that reade the storie But to the rest Bristowe asketh if the scribes of the holy ghost must bee alwayes eloquent or able to doe all without sweat or labour I aunswere as vaine eloquence is not profitable for them so they neuer complain for the lack of it but spirituall vtterance they haue abundantly and that without sweat and watching whē they write as the spirite of God doth moue them Neither doth S. Paul confesse that he lacketh vtterance when he said he was rude in speaking 2. Cor. 11. but rehersed what the false Apostles did obiect against him for otherwise his speech was so eloquent in diuine eloquence that he was of the pagans at Lystra taken for Mercurie Act. 14. Neither doth hee excuse his boldnes writing to the Romans as Bristowe saith blasphemously but sheweth that he was bold vpō his office because he was the minister of Christ vnto the gentils Ro. 15 That he vsed the hand of Tertius in writing that Epistle or any other it was not to auoid the labor of endi ting Finally that he vsed intollerable paines in preaching It proueth not that it cost him great labor trauel in studying what to write or preach either which the spirit of God did minister vnto him plentifully But neuer doth he craue pardon as one vncerteine whether he haue don well or no as the writer of the Machabees doth confessing in the end that he hath done as wel as he could and in the beginning leauing to the author the exact diligēce of euery particular so submitting his labour as inferior in perfection to the worke of Iason the Cyrenian That I speake not of so many falshods and fables as hee affirmeth for truth which are refelled both by the former book of Machabees and by Iosephus Where Allen alleged the authority of Ierom in Prol. Mac. I said I knew not what place he noted therby for in S. Ieroms works none such is found now commeth Bristow telleth me it is in a preface before the booke of Machabees in the vulgar latine Bybles taken out of the sēse of Ierom as diuers of those prefaces be and that wil appeare by these two places which I cite out o◠him to proue that booke not canonicall The former is in his preface vpon the book of kings where rehersing the names of the canonical books he omitteth this and after saith expresly it is not in the Canon Bristow aunswereth it is not in the Canon of the Hebrewes As though the church of God since Christ shoulde haue more bookes of the olde testament in the canon then the church of the Hebrews had Ierom saith that this preface of his may be set before al the books which he hath translated out of Hebrew into latin v◠scire valeamus quicquid extrahos est inter Apocripha esse ponendū That we may be able to know that whatsoeuer is beside these is to be placed among the apocriphall writings So that Ierom speaketh expresly that not onely among the Iewes but among Christians also these al other books without the canon are to be taken for apocriphall The other place of Ierom is in his preface vppon the prouerbs that they were neither in the Churches canon Therefore euen as the church readeth in deede the bookes of Iudeth Tobias Machabees but yet receiueth them not among the canonicall scriptures so also these two books Ecclesiasticus and Sapientia she may reade to the edifying of the people but not to confirme the authoritie of the churches doctrin To wit saith Bristow against the Iewes as though the Churches doctrin is not to be cōfirmed against heretikes and euen to the Catholiks themselues by authoritie of the canonicall scriptures That Augustine accounteth these bookes canonicall after a sort it was of me confessed and therefore needed none other testimonies as Bristow bringeth de praed sanct de ciuit Dei lib. 18. cap. 36. But Ierom is also cited in his preface vpon the booke of Iudith to affirme the booke of Iudith to be canonicall by the councell of Nice if that were so what pertaineth it to the book of Machabees But in deede it is not so for though we shoulde doubt nothing of the credit of that preface in Iudith the words are these With the Hebrewes the booke of Iudith is redde among the hagiographaor books called holy writings whose authoritie to strengthen those things that come in controuersie is iudged lesse conuenient yet being written in the Chaldee tongue it is counted among the stories But because the Synod of Nice is redde to haue accounted it in the number of holy scriptures I haue yelded to your request c. First he saith it was reade of the Hebrewes among the Hagiographa which is false as Hierom affirmeth Prolog Gal. in lib. reg Secondly as Erasmus hath noted he affirmeth not that this booke was allowed by the Nicē councell but saith it is read to haue accounted perhaps in some such writer as coyned the canon sent vnto the Aphrican councell Thirdly if we shall vnderstand Hagiographa heere as Bristowe woulde haue them not for those nine that be canonicall but others that be Apocriphal yet holy writings why shoulde we not likewise say that the computatiō of the Nicen councel was to receiue it among such Apocriphall holy writings and not among the canonical scriptures of irrefragable authoritie And therfore Fulke is euen where he was before in saying that Ierom doth simply refuse the books of the Machabees saith the church receiueth thē not for canonicall euen that which Bristow saith I should haue shewed that the church neither did then nor ought afterwards to receiue them that we might be able to know saith he speaking I dare say of himselfe all other members of the Church that whatsoeuer books are without the Canō of the Hebrews are to be taken or placed among the apocriphal where I saide that Luther and Illyrieus were not the first that doubted of the Epistle of Saint Iames but Eusebiu before them saith plainly it is a counterfait protesting that I speake it not to excuse them that doubt of it Bristo◠is not content except I woulde condemne thē for heretikes which afterwarde reuersed their error especially Luther Also he chargeth me to be a falsarie of Eusebius in saying that he refuseth that Epistle as a counterfeite when he saith the cleane contrary and so rehearseth the words of Eusebius I know not out of whose translation But the words of Eusebius are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It must bee knowne that it is a bastard or counterfeit 2 About onely scripture I said Cyprian
would haue nothing done in the celebration of the lords supper namely in ministring of the cup but that Christ himselfe did lib. 2. Ep. 3. Bristow answereth the he writeth against the Aquarians which offered water only wher as Christ offered wine which was clean against Christs doing And what is your sacriledge in robbing of the church of Christ of the whole cup is it not cleane contrary both to his doing his coÌ„maundemeÌ„t drinke ye al of this and such doing as he did for a tradition vnto vs when the Apostle rehersing that tradition reherseth drinking of the Lords cup by the lay as well as eating of the bread As for mingling wine with water which first was but a custome of sobriety after grew into a ceremonie if Cyprian should vrge of necessitie he might be answered by his owne rule Likewise where Chrysostom saith it was decreed by the Apostles that in the celebration of the holy misteries a remembrance should be made of them that are departed I said we wil be bold to charge him with his owne sayings first Hom de Adam Heâ—a satis sufficere c. wee thinke it sufficeth ynough whatsoeuer the writings of the Apostles haue taught vs according to the foresaid rule insomuch that we count it not all catholike whatsoeuer shall appeare contrary to the rules appointed By this Bristow seeth that I am a great reader of the doctors For whosoeuer made this homily saith he he took those words out of the instructions which followeth the Epistle of Pope Celestinus in the first tome of councels where the wordes are not the writings of the Apostles but the writings of the see apostolike which are thought sufficient Whatsoeuer my reading be for the maker of the Homily I cannot depose but I trust he will not deny but it hath in al printed books gone vnder the name of Chrysostom and it containeth nothing vnworthy the iudgement of Chrysostom It is therefore more like that Celestinus or whosoeuer gathered that instruction borrowed those words out of this homily and from the writings of the Apostles peruerted them to the writings of the see apostolike many such borrowing peruersions are commonly found in those pontifical Epistles For admit that not Chrysostom but some later man made that Homily which borrowed such words out of that Epistle or instruction Why did he alter them if hee thought the writings of the apostolike see sufficient to approue all catholike doctrine except perhaps his copie had also apostolica scripta that copie which Peter Crab followed in gathering the councels is corrupted Certaine it is the homily is auncient and made in the time when the Pelagian heresie begun to spring which was in the later time of Chrysostom therfore I haue vsed no fraude or misdemeanour in citing this saying for Chrysostoms wherto Bristow maketh no answere but denyeth the authority Likewise wher I cite out of Chrysost. in Ge. Ho. 58. Thou seest into how great absurdity they fall which will not follow the Canon or rule of the holy scripture but permit al to their owne cogitations Bristow answereth nothing but that Chrysost. answereth heretikes which said our Lord took not ture flesh as though his seÌ„teÌ„ce is not general against al heretiks which go besid the scripture Thirdly I saide if we be further vrged we wil allege that he writeth in Euang. Iac. Hom. 58. He that vseth not the holy scripture but clymeth another way that is a by way not allowed is a theese To this Bristow replyeth that I will call Chrysostom a theefe by his owne saying for vsing tradition yea verely if he be obstinate and why not as well as S. Paul or an Angel accursed if they bring an other Gospel Secondly he saith as though he vseth not scripture which vseth tradition or that scripture doth not warrant tradition as 2. Thessa. 2. I aunswere such tradition as is warraÌ„ted by scripture we refuse not but if al your traditions were warraÌ„ted by scripture wher should be your vnwritten verities Thirdly saith Bristow the thing that he speaketh of is that Antichrist Pseudochrists cannot shewe any commission out of scripture I answere that proueth the Pope to be Antichrist who neither for his authoritie nor for his doctrine can shewe any commission out of the scripture Fourthly I saide we may bee as bolde with Chrysostome as he saide he would be with Paul himselfe in 2. ad Tim. Hom. 2. I will say somwhat more wee must not be ruled by Paul himselfe if he speake any thing that is his owne and any thing that is humaine but wee must obey the Apostle when he caryeth Christ speaking in him Bristow asketh whether he spake onely by scripture No verily but by reuelation he spake to S. Paul by audâ—ble and humaine voyce hee spake to the rest of the Apostles and whatsoeuer hee spake any way pertaining to our instruction is committed to writing and therefore I beleeue not Chrysostom alledging a tradition of the Apostles which is not founde in their writings Another place of Chrysostom I cite in Luke Chap. 16 saying that ignorance of the scriptures hath bredde heresies Therefore hee woulde haue heresies kept away by knowledge of the scriptures We would the same saith Bristowe but what maketh this for onely scripture to be of authoritie yes forsooth If all heresies come through ignorance of the scriptures that which commeth not through ignorance of the scriptures is no heresie And that opinion which is not contained in the scriptures commeth not of ignorance of the scriptures therefore he that knoweth the scriptures knoweth all truth Vnto Leo the great alledging custome and tradition I oppose his owne saying for onely Scripture to be sufficient Ep. 10. They fall into this follie which when they be hindred by some obscuritie to know the truth haue not recourse to the wordes of the Prophets nor to the writinges of the Apostles nor to the authorities of the Gospell but to themselues He doth not say saith Bristowe that all truethes are expressed in the Scripture For he blameth the heretike for not hauing recourse to our common Creede as though there were any thing in our common Creede which is not expressed in the Scripture And if onely Scripture were not sufficient for men to know the truth in any obscuritie howe could they be blamed for not hauing recourse vnto them for that which they cannot find in them The words of the councel of Constantinople the 6. Act. 18. of Bristows true translation are these If all men had simply and without calliditie from the beginning receiued the Gospels preaching and bene content with the Apostles institutions the matters verily had beene well a fine and neither the authors of heresies nor the fautors of the Priestes had bene put to the paynes of conflictes but because the diuell not resting rayseth vp his squires therefore Christe also in time conuenient hath raised vp his warriours against them to wit the general
bene proued by a number of them Iohn the 〈◊〉 being condemned for denying the immort 〈…〉 of the â—â—ale Other Popes of our time calling the Gospel a fable of Christ requiring there pork in despite of God openly blaspheming his maiestie c. As for the Godhead of Christ and honor due to his â—anhoode in respect of the vnitie of person is nedelesse â—boâ— to prooue the adoration of the Sacrament except â—s adunation to the sacrament in one person bee first â—ooued But Esay saith Chap. 2. The Lorde aboue shall bee â—xalted in that daye and Idols shall be vtterly destroiâ—d It is verie true where the Lorde is exalted but that 〈◊〉 not in all places of the worlde neither euer was but â—nely where God hath set vp his true Church which is â—is kingdome Therefore all the prophecies cited by â—ander Ier. 30. Ez. 30. Mich. 1. Zoph 2. Zac. 13. Psa. 9. an â—undreth more that are of the abolishing of Idols and idoâ—atrie are to be vnderstood abolishing theÌ„ sroÌ„ the true â—ingdom Church of Christ not out of all the world â—r out of the kingdome of Antichrist and companie of â—alse Christians as Sander woulde beare fooles in hand And I meruell if any be so foolish to be persuaded that there can be no Idolatrie coÌ„mitted in worshipping that for God and Christ which is a meere creature But Saint Augustin writeth in lib. de diuin dâ—m That it was forespoken of the Prophets that the Gentiles should worship one God the false Gods whome they worshipped before being cast out S. Aug. saith truely of the Gentils they are become true Christians But were al the Gentils such froÌ„ the comming of Christ vnto S. Augustines time which was 400. yeres or be al the gentiles such at this day yea were there not of theÌ„ that were called Christians worshippers of Images in S. Augustines time Doeth he not write De moribus eccl Cath. lib. 1. Chap. â—4 of false Christians Nouimultos esse sepulchrorum picturarum adoratores I knowe there are manie of theÌ„ which are worshippers of sepulchres and pictures See then if Sander haue any shame to cite Augustine for his purpose which is that no Idolatrie can bee committed since Christes time especially of them that are called Christians Beside Augustine hee abuseth the name of Athanasius de inâ—ar verb. Vbi nominatur c. Where Christ or his faith is named thence al Idolatrie is driuen yâ— deceitful guiles of the diuel are detected made open Loe saith Sand 〈…〉 name of Christ putteth away all Idolatrie Yea sir where it 〈◊〉 truely professed beleeued not wheresoeuer it is â—ounded heard with the outward eares This therfore proâ—â—â— not the contrary but Papistes worshippers of bread 〈◊〉 yea of stockes stones be Idolaters as well as the barbâ—rous people in the new Indies where Christ Christiâ—â— faith is named but not imbraced nor beleued oftentiâ—â— of the namers theÌ„selues But Ie. in li. 2. in Esa ca. 4. affirmeâ—â— Post c. after the coÌ„ming of Christ al idols to haue holdâ—â— their peace If Sand. were not a proud asse which disdâ—â—neth to learne I would teach him that Ierom speaketh oâ—â— oracles answeres which by the diuel are giuen at diuâ—â— idols al which not only IeroÌ„ a christiaÌ„ but also Plutaâ—â—â— an heathen man affirmeth froÌ„ that time to haue ceased and not to haue spoken any more But Hierom was neue◠〈◊〉 impudent to affirme that there could be no idolatry coÌ„mâ—â—ted since the time of Christ. Yet San. affirmeth that lightly nâ—â— so much as any heretik yet hath professed to worshipâ—â—â— artificial Idol made with the hands of maÌ„ You may se hâ—â— lightly this man is seene in the old writers or els how impudently he disseÌ„bleth that which he knoweth First Simâ—â— Magus accounted the father of al heretikes did set forth the Images of himselfe and of Helena his harlot to be worshipped of his disciples euen as the Images of Iupiter Minerua c. were among the Gentiles Epiphaniâ—â— lib. 1. Tom. 2. praefat and Augu. Haer. 1. Secondly Carpâ—crates made Images priuily of Iesus and of Paul and 〈◊〉 Homer and of Pythagoras and did offer incense vnto them and worship them Epiph. and Aug. Lib. 6. Thirdly the Gnostikes had Images painted in colours and some of golde and siluer and other matter which they saide were the Images of Iesus made vnder Pontius Pilate wheÌ„ he liued among men Epiph. Haer. 27. Fourthly the Melchisedechians which were in Arabia Petraea Robam and Edom worshipped the Image of Moses which they made Epip contra Melch. Haer. 55. Finally the Collyridians committed Idolatrie vnto the Virgine Marie Epipha cont Collyrid Haer. 79. Beside so many false Christians as in S. Augustines time worshipped pictures sepulchres And to omit them that worshipped Images in France whoÌ„ Gregorie vnto Serenus affirmeth to haue committed Idolatrie although he disallowed the breaking of the Images But Papists are not so insensible saith Sand. to worship bread made with the bakers hand why not as well as to worship metal wood stone in your images yet Chrysostome saith there were fewe cities left in his time in which Idolatrie was vsed there is no citie in Christendome where the sacrament hath not ben worshipped saith Sander for so many hundreth yeares Yes sir where the Waldenses were in Calabria in France Boëmia other places your bread worship preuailed not And God be thanked there are nowe many hundred cities in which that Idolatry is not openly coÌ„mitted except it be by stelth in corners so no doubt but heathenishe Idolatrie was coÌ„mitted in most cities in the world in Chrysostomes time considering what number there were of heathen men in all places Therefore where Sander saith that all Christians for euer haue worshipped the sacrameÌ„t as that very body blod of Christ is vtterly false seeing it is not much aboue 300. yeres since Pope Honorius made the decre of that kind of worship which Sand. defendeth which decree had ben in vain if al ChristiaÌ„s for euer had worshipped it But Sand. at length asketh if ther be no idolatry in ChristendoÌ„ he answereth to much of inward idolatry but no outward idolatry at al. Inward idolatry he couÌ„teth couetousnes heresies so was Luther the first idolater of our age theÌ„ Zuinglius theÌ„ Caluin the sacramentarie english idol the vanitie of which assertion to haue cited is abundanly to haue coÌ„futed He concludeth that to say that the blessed sacrament of Christ is an Idol seemeth necessary to employ that Christ instituted an Idol This implicatioÌ„ must come froÌ„ such a senseles Idol as Sand is for otherwise they that haue eies see eares heare can easily conceiue that an holy sacrameÌ„t instituted by god by abuse of Idolaters may be turned into an Idol as was the brasen serpent therefore was broken by Ezechias Neither did Christ giue any occasion of Idolatrie by his wordes in the
supper more then God did by his commaundement in the wildernes CAP. III. The adoration of Christes bodie in the sacramen 〈…〉 proued out of the new Testament The Apostle saith the vnworthie receiuer eateth and drinketh damnation not putting a difference betweene our Lordes bodie and other meates saith Sander And this difference is in two pointes the first in due preparation of our selues which is required in other sacramentes to receiue the grace of God the seconde is in respect of the substance of the meate that is receaued which is to be honored and adored I answere the earthly substance is not to be adored the heauenly substance is to be adored in heauen where it is really present and not vppon the earth and as well in Baptisme as in the supper But Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. â—8 saith hee eateth vnworthily who considereth not as it behooueth the greatnes of the things set forth not weighing diligently the greatnes of the gift Hee speaketh not of the effect saith Sander but of the substance of the Sacrament because he saith afterwarde If thou doest learne diligently who is s 〈…〉 foorth thou needest to account nothing else I aunswere that admitte he speaketh of the heauenly substance of the Sacrament that is Christ yet he aduocheth no reall presence of him vnder the formes of bread and wine for Christ is set foorth in all his Sacramentes both of the olde Testament and the newe Christ washeth vs in baptisme euen as hee feedeth vs in his supper and hee purgeth vs with his bloode as verily as hee feedeth vs with his bodie and bloode Neither doth Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. meane any other thing when he saith Wee must iudge that he is the Lorde whose blood we drinke in a mysterie For to drinke the bloode of Christ in a mysterie is to drinke it spiritually by meane of a Sacrament euen as to bee washed with the blood of Christ in a mysterie is to bee purged by the bloode of Christ by meane of the Sacrament of Baptisme Wherefore the conclusion that Sander inferreth is false and hath â—o ground nor consequence wee must iudge the subâ—â—ance of this Sacrament as the substance of him that â—s Gâ—d therefore wee must adore the substance of this â—acrament as God For admit that I must adore the boâ—ie of Christ which is God yet it followeth not that I â—ust adore it vnder the visible formes of the breade and â—ine For the body of Christ which as Irenae us saith â—s the heauenly part of this sacrament is in heauen and â—ot vnited to the bread and wine or to the shapes of theÌ„â—n personall vnion more then the bloode of Christ or â—he holy Ghost vnto the water in Baptisme yet I must â—dore the heauenly substance of the sacrament of Bapâ—isme as that which is God or in personall vnion vnited â—o God as is the humanitie of Iesus Christ our Sauiour But Chrysostome saith further in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. The verie table is the strength of our soule the sinewes of the mind the bond of confidence our foundation hope health light life I answere this is nothing else but the effect of our redemption whereof we are assured by participation of that table As for the heauenly substance that it is in heauen Chrysostome sufficiently declareth when hee affirmeth in the same Homily that we must become eagles and flee into heauen for where the dead bodie is thither wil the eagles be gathered Wherefore the adoration that is defended cannot be prooued by the true substance of the sacrament considered but by the reall presence and personall vnion thereof vnto the outward elementes which if Sander cannot shewe hee laboureth in vaine to tell vs of the true substance of the sacrament which wee confesse to bee the bodie and bloode of Christ vnto the worthie receiuer but not personally vnited to that breade and wine or the shapes of them But nowe let vs heare what he hath to say out of Saint Augustine Epi. 118. ad Ianuarium who answereth the question Whether they doe better that receaue the communion euerie day or they which at certaine times onely Neuter eorum exhonorat c. Neither of them depriueth the bodie and bloode of our Lorde of honour if each of them striue who may honor best the most healthfull sacrament For as well the Centurion as Zacheus did honor our Sauiour in manner by contrarie meanes the one by receiuing him with ioie into his house the other by saying Lorde I am not worthie that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe And as among the Iewes Manna tasted to euerie man according to his owne will in the mouth of the faithfull euen so it is to bee iudged concerning the receiuing of that sacrament into euery Christians mouth For both one man for honor sake doeth not take it euery day an other for honors sake dareth not to omitte to take it in any daie As Manna would no loothsomenes so this meate will no contempt For the Apostle for that cause saith it to haue beene vnworthily receiued of them Qui hoc non discernebant a caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita which did not discerne this thing from other meates by a veneration singularly due For streight when he had said he eateth drinketh damnatioÌ„ to himself be said moreouer Not discerning our Lordes bodie the which appeareth sufficiently in all that place in the first Epistle to the Corinthians if it be diligently marked This place to Sander seemeth merueilous notable for honor due to the sacrament And who is he that thinketh the sacrament not to bee honorable Verily hee that honoreth not the sacrament of baptisme is an heretike and yet hee that adoreth the water of baptisme as the holy Ghost or as the bloode of Christ is an idolater But Sander hath no lesse then ten obseruations of this place which for tediousnesse I will not rehearse all but onely such as in which I dissent from him In the fourth obseruation he noteth that we must striue to honor the sacrament whether by this meane or that it skilleth not so it be honored If he vnderstand of those two meanes of which Augustine speaketh I agree with him if he meane that it skilleth not by what meanes so euer we honor the sacrament I say he hath no such grounde in Saint Augustine In the fifth obseruation he saith If it were in deede the substance of bread and wine hee would neuer exhort vs to bee so carefull howe to honor a meere creature were it neuer so great a signe I answere we honour not a meere creature when we honour the sacrament for his sake that instituted the same for we honour God and yet the earthly substance of the sacrament is indeed the substance of bread and wine We honor not a meere creature when we honor a magistrat and yet the magistrate in substance is a man In the ninth obseruation he asketh what is a veneration or worshipping