the word Father be oftentimes vnderstood Essentially that is for the whole Godhead subsisting in all the Persons as namely when it hath reference vnto men or Angells or the rest of the creatures yet here being referred vnto the Sonne or the second Person it must needs be vnderstood Personally for the Father of that Sonne that is the first person in the Trinity True it is the Person of Christ consisteth of two natures his Deity his Humanity this humanity is a Creature as well as that of other men Yet notwithstanding seeing the Person is but one the Humane nature subsisteth not of it selfe but only in the Son of God by his Subsistance it is the first Person in the Trinity and he alone who is the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ. Howbeit the Natures being not one and the same but differing he is Sonne vnto his Father not by one only but by a double Filiation As he is the Word by way of Naturall Generation begotten from all Eternity of the Substance of his Father Of his Substance whereby he is Consubstantiall and Coessentiall with him God of God Light of Light very God of very God as it is in the Nicene Creed From all Eternitie for as the Sunne cannot be without his Beame so neither could the Father ever be without his Word but as himselfe is Eternall so is his Sonne Cöeternall with him also Lastly Begotten not made as Athanasius saith but how and after what manner is incomprehensible and vnspeakable It is enough for vs to know saith Gregory Nazianzen that the Father hath begotten to himselfe a Sonne as for the rest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let it be adored with silence And seeing as Ambrose saith neither Archangells know it nor Angells haue heard it nor the world comprehended it nor the Prophets vnderstood it nor the Apostles inquired after it nor Christ taught it but said no man knoweth the Sonne but the Father nor the Father but the Sunne and he to whom the Sonne will reveale it it is our duty to surcease from further searching into this deepe mistery It is sufficient for vs by Faith simply to beleeue that the Manner whereof Reason cannot reach vnto As touching the Manhood of Christ he is in regard thereof the Sonne of the Father also yet not by way of Naturall generation or else of Adoption as all the Saints of God are but by Grace of Personall Vnion whereby being prevented from hauing any Subsistance in it selfe it hath the very Subsistance of the Word or Second Person communicated vnto it So that although as Man he be not Generatus filius the Sonne begotten yet is he Natus filius Dei borne the Sonne of God according to that of the Angell Gabriell That holy thing that shall bee borne of thee shall be called the sonne of God Now the Sonne prayeth vnto his Father first to testify that his eternall Procession and Filiation is from him and that of him he hath receiued both that individuall Vnion by which his Humane Nature is hypostatically assumpted and vnited vnto his Divine that oile of gladnesse or pretious Vnction of the Spirit wherewith hee is Habitually graced and annointed farre aboue all his fellowes Secondly to manifest his Dispensatiue and voluntary subiection vnto his Father in the forme of a Seruant wherein though he were the Sonne and cöequall with the Father yet he learned obedience as the Apostle to the Hebrewes witnesseth Lastly to giue vs an example of imitation both to whom and to whom alone we are to addresse our Prayers namely to God our Father to none other Not to pray vnto him is meere Atheisme and profanenes to pray to any besides him is Idolatry and Superstition First therefore as Christ to his so are wee to pray to our Father Our Father is the holy and blessed Trinity both by Creation and Adoption For being extrinsecall actions they are vndivided and common to them all and so not the Father only but the Sonne and the Holy Ghost together with him created and adopted vs. To the holy Trinity therefore not excluding any of the Persons are wee to pray And to this our Saviour as by his example so by his Precept also directs vs when he commands vs thus to pray Our Father which art in Heaven Shall I spend time to proue that we are to pray vnto God our Father This were but to light a candle at noone day Search the Scriptures and you shall finde it every where commanded Hath he not made all doth he not sustaine all doe we not depend vpon his goodnesse for all whatsoever either wee are or haue If the eyes of all things looke vp vnto him expecting a supply of all their needs from him should not our eyes much more be fixed vpon him The very light of reason dictates the same vnto all and requires this duty at the hands of all Even Gentiles and meere naturalists haue ever duly practised it in all their needs invoking him whom they supposed to be God yea some of the learned among them as Plato and Aristotle and others also as Proclus saith haue written bookes of this argument and in them giuen excellent precepts and directions how to pray A Giant therefore was hee and we read of no more but hee who commanded that for the space of thirty daies together no man should presume to aske any thing of any God or man saue only of him selfe Atheists and prophane wretches are all those who in their heart denying either the Being or the Providence of God refuse to pray vnto him Such as among the Gentiles were the Epicure Philosophers and among Christians some few furious Hereticks Godles and irreligious also are they who beleeuing and acknowledging both yet never privately and but seldome publikely and then very slightly perfunctorily performe this duty Hence is it that the prophet David makes the not calling vpon God the speciall character of a foolish Atheist who if not with his mouth yet in his heart denies God and despises all religion No marvaile if they want the true wisdome seeing they aske it not of him who is the only donor thereof or if they aske it that yet they haue it not because they aske it overly with the lips and not sincerely from the heart But let vs my beloued brethren follow the president of our blessed saviour and as he so let vs ever addresse our prayers vnto him that is our Father Nothing can be denied vs that wee aske of him in the name of his sonne And if evill Fathers giue not insteed of bread a stone or insteed of a fish a serpent or insteed of an egge a scorpion vnto their children how much more will our Heavenly father giue vs his spirit and together with it all good thinges if we aske them of him As to our Father so to our Father only must we pray if wee will keepe our selues to the
glorie thereof one of the Word another of the Flesh. The glorie of the Word standeth in two things first that hee is the eternall Sonne of the eternall Father begotten after an vnspeakable manner of his owne substance and therefore the brightnesse of his glory and the expresse image of his Person A name too excellent for the Angells themselues For neuer did the Father say to any of them Thou art my sonne this day haue I begotten thee Secondly that being so begotten hee is consubstantiall and coequall with his Father neither counteth he it robbery to bee equall with him For though he be the Sonne and not the Father yet being of the same Substance hee is one and the same God with him and may iustly challenge vnto himselfe the fulnesse of the Deitie as farre forth as the Father A glory infinitely transcending that of any creature The glorie of his Flesh is likewise double of Assumption and Communication Of Assumption by which it was taken into the divine nature For as soone as it began to haue being in the wombe of the blessed virgin it was prevented from subsisting in it selfe and was drawne into the vnitie of the Person of the Sonne of God eternally to subsist therein The highest dignitie that a creature can aspire vnto That of Communication is whereby glorious things are communicated vnto his humane nature And it is either Personall or Habitual Personall is that whereby as the nature of man is truely giuen to the Person of the Sonne so the Person of the Sonne is truely communicated vnto the nature of man Wherevpon because in the Person of the Sonne is the fulnesse of all perfection and all the essentiall attributes of the Deitie as namely Omniscience omnipotence omnipresence and the rest therefore doe wee say that all these attributes and that fulnesse of perfection are communicated also vnto the Manhood Howbeit not Physically and by effusion as if the same properties which are in God should formally and subiectiuely be in man as heat transfused from the fire is inherent in the water For that which is infinite cannot bee comprehended of that which is finite How then Personally in the sonne of God So that by reason of the hypostaticall vnion there is such a reall communion betweene them that the sonne of man is truly the Sonne of God and consequently also Omniscient omnipotent omnipresent and the rest The want of due consideration hereof was it that bred that monster of Vbiquitie and that great quarrell betwixt vs and the Saxon Churches Communication habituall is that whereby the fulnesse of grace was bestowed vpon him to be subiectiuely and inherently in his Flesh. And this is the glory of his Vnction For the spirit of the Lord rested vpon him the spirit of wisdome and vnderstanding the spirit of counsell and might the spirit of knowledge and of the feare of the Lord. By this Spirit was he annointed with the oile of gladnesse aboue his fellowes yea he receiued the spirit without measure or limit both for the essence vertue thereof intensiuely and extensiuely to all effects and purposes both for himselfe and others So that in his Will there was perfect iustice without taint or staine in his Minde perfect wisdome and knowledge both Beatificall whereby he saw God farre more clearly then any other as being more neerely vnited vnto him and Infused whereby he knew all heauenly and supernaturall verities which without the revelation of grace cannot bee knowne yea Acquisite and Experimentall also whereby hee knew all whatsoeuer by the light of reason and nature might bee knowne So that he was ignorant of nothing which hee ought to know or might make to his full happinesse And this was his Habituall glory Now the Glory of his Office breefely was to be the Mediator betweene God and Man An office of so high a nature that it could bee performed by none but only him who was both God and Man For herevnto it was necessary that he should be a Prophet a Priest and a King A Prophet as an Arbiter to take knowledge of the cause quarrell depending betweene them and as an Internuntius or legate to propound expound the conditions of peace that are to be concluded vpon A Priest to be an Intercessor and to make interpellation for the party offending and then to be a Fideiussor or Surety making satisfaction to the party for him A King hauing all power both in heauen and earth to keepe and preserue the Church so reconciled in the state of grace to tread downe vnder his feete all the enimies thereof Wondrous Glory and farre aboue that of any creature And this is the Glory he was already possessed of Wanted he yet any further Glory yes verily and that in regard both of his Divine and Humane nature Of his Divine for the Word had now emptied himselfe of his glory Emptied himselfe I say not simply and absolutely for he could no more in such sort abdicate his glory then cease to be himselfe it being essentiall vnto him and his very selfe but oeconomically and dispensatiuely vailing couering it vnder the cloud of his flesh For if as St Leo saith the exinanition of the divine Maiesty was the advancement of the servile forme vnto the highest pitch of honour then by like proportion the advancement of the servile forme was the exinanition of the divine Maiesty This Exinanition or Emptying of himselfe was in his Incarnation conception nativity obedience actiue to the law of nature as being the sonne of Adam and to the law of Moses as being the sonne of Abraham Passiue in suffering hunger and cold and wearinesse a thousand sorrowes wherevnto the infirmity of his flesh was subiect In this state Christ now stood neither had he as yet recovered the Glory whereof he had emptied himselfe nay he was not as yet come to the lowest degree of his humiliation For though they were instant and nere at hand yet his agonie his sweating of bloud his arraignment his crosse his death his emprisonment in the graue were not yet come All which did more more eclipse the glory of his Deity so that this Glory of the word as yet he wanted In regard of his Humane nature hee had not yet deposed humane infirmities as hunger thirst feare sorrow anguish and the like Neither had hee obtained incorruption impassibility immortality nor that glorious purity strength agility clarity of the body which he expected together with the fulnesse of inward ioyes and comforts in the Soule Adde herevnto that the actions of his mediation namely of his Prophecy Priesthood and Kingdome had not nor could not bee hitherto performe gloriously but only in such an humble manner as suted with the state of humiliation in which presently he stood To make all plaine though as the Schoole speaketh he were Comprehensor in termino affectione iustitiae yet he was viator extraterminum
and yet life continues As touching Power that is Gracious habits imprinted vpon the soule and enabling to operate I distinguish againe For some of them either in themselues or vs argue defect and imperfection and pertaine only to the condition of this present life such as are Faith Hope and Repentance and the like Others import perfection pertaine also to the next life among which excells Charity The former in the end of this life cease For we beleeue because we see not and hope because we possesse not and repent because we sinne But when wee see possesse and are free from sinne then Faith Hope and Repentance vanish away As for the latter they never cease but continue with vs evermore Yet here againe are we once more to distinguish For these habits may be considered either in regard of Substance or Degree In regard of degree we confesse they may suffer abatement For Faith may fall from its Plerophorie oâ— fulnesse to an Oligopistie or lower degree thereof and Charity also may remit much of its fervor So that in this respect a man may be said to bee moribundus declining as it were vnto death But in regard of Substance or Being we confidently affirme in such sort as is aboue said that they never perish and the spirituall man neuer dieth To winde vp all in a word actus intermitti potest gradus remitti sed habitus ipse nunquam potest amitti the act may suffer intermission for a time the degree abatement or remission but the habit or life it selfe never loosing or amission The question being thus clearely stated let vs now proceed to proofe That the life of Grace in all them that are giuen vnto Christ by the Father is eternall might be proued by many arguments All what I haue to say shall be reduced to one If the life of grace at any time fayle and the elect of God spiritually dye either it is through the deficiencie of the Procreant and Conservant causes of life or the efficiencie power of the contrary corrupting causes But it is neither through the one or the other Ergo neither doth the life of Grace at any time fayle nor the elect of God die The Major proposition needs no proofe For a third cause cannot be named and therefore of necessitie it must bee one of the two if there be any The Minor therefore I am by all meanes to fortifie and to maintaine that neither the Procreant and Conservant causes fayle nor the contrary corrupting causes prevaile The efficient and preseruing causes of spirituall life is as wee haue shewed the holy and blessed Trinitie the Father through his Sonne by the powerfull operation and working of the holy Ghost These if they fayle either it is because they cannot or because they will not continue this life To say they cannot is no lesse then blasphemie and contrary both to Scripture and reason For Omnipotence is an essentiall attribute of the Deitie so that he can no more cease to bee almightie then cease to be himselfe and loose his being In the Creed is this title ascribed vnto the Father how-be it not exclusiuely For the Sonne and the holy Ghost being coessentiall with him they are coequall also in might and power The sonne by the word of his power created all things together with his Father and by the same word vpholdeth all things And to the holy Ghost power also is attributed even the same power whereby things were created and wonders aboue the reach of nature are wrought If it bee said that the Sonne by taking our nature vpon him made himselfe inferiour to his Father I confesse it and withall that his mediatorie power is lesse then his Fathers Neverthelesse all power is giuen him both in heauen and earth such a power as no creature besides is capable of and which was giuen to this very ende that he might both giue life continue it vnto eternity Vnto which had it not beene sufficient without question greater had beene giuen for the Father may not fayle of his end Of the power of God therefore there can bee no doubt but that he is mighty to saue able to make vs stand able to keepe vs so that none vnlesse he will can take vs out of his hands What say we then to his will For as in him that is by vertue of the first life wee liue so if either hee withdraw himselfe from vs or suffer others to withdraw vs from him we cannot subsist Surely as he is able so if we may beleeue Scripture hee doth stablish vs in Christ we are kept by the power of God to saluation and our life is hid with God in Christ. But enquire we a little deeper into this mystery And first the will of the Father appeareth many waies By Election vnto life which being absolute not conditionall is immutable For the foundation of God standeth sure hauing this seale the Lord knoweth who are his And the names of all the elect are written in the booke of life out of which they can neuer be blotted For they are ordained vnto life and appointed by God to obtaine salvation through Christ. By his loue also which is the cause of Election I haue loued thee saith he with an eternall loue a loue which as it is without beginning so shall it likewise be without ending Nay if the loue of a mother is more to her child when she beareth it in her armes then while it was in her womb we may not think but the loue of the Father continueth at least as great towards vs when we are new borne of him as it was when we were yet but conceaued as it were by election Thirdly by donation of Christ to the elect For what greater testimonie either of his loue or of his will to saue then this So God loued the world saith Christ that hee gaue his onely begotten sonne that whosoeuer beleeueth in him should not perish but haue euerlasting life Fourthly by donation of vs vnto Christ. For it is the will of the Father that of those he hath giuen him he should loose none And here it is said that he hath giuen vnto the Sonne power over all flesh that to as many as he hath giuen him hee should giue vnto them everlasting life And lastly by the couenant made with vs. It is a couenant oâ— salt an euerlasting couenant And I will betroth thee vnto me foreuer saith God And againe This is my couenant with them saith the Lord my spirit that is vpon thee my words which I haue put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed saith the Lord from hence forth and foreuer And thus you see the Father is willing what the Sonne His willingnesse also appeares many
be the body of Christ. Now if bread neither tropically nor literally be Christs Body then doe not Papists beleeue Christ who according to Cyril saith of the bread This is my body Yea but Cyril farther saith Christ hath changed wine into his blood I grant but every change is not Transubstantiation Whatsoever the holy Ghost toucheth is sanctified and changed saith Cyril So is Water in Baptisme changed and so is Bread and Wine in the Eucharist yet neither by substraction of substance but addition of Grace as saith Theodoret. To Saint Hilary I answere that in the place by you quoted he speaketh not of the Eucharist and that therefore those words in the Sacrament inserted by way of Parenthesis into the text are but a Glosse not expounding but corrupting it Had he meant it of the Sacrament hee would never haue said No man shall be in him but he only in whom himselfe is hauing only taken his flesh into him who hath taken his What No man to be in him but hee only in whom himselfe is by the Sacrament God forbid for then all are out of Christ that receiue not the Eucharist and your selues hold not such an absolute necessity thereof Of the Mysticall Vnion therefore betweene Christ and vs doth he speake as also of the Spirituall eating of his Flesh and Drinking of his Blood whereby it is wrought and which as you know is as well done out of the Sacrament as in it Lastly to your Eusebius Emissenus I answere that if it be that ancient Bishop of Emesa in Syria mentioned by Saint Hierom in his Catalogue hee who florished vnder the Emperour Constantius and wrote many short Homilies vpon the Gospels then is his authority of no value For your owne Bellarmine and Possevin haue observed out of Hierom that he was a ring-leader of the Arian faction But indeed it is not the same Emissenus as the foresaid Bellarmine and Possevin together with Baronius and Canisius testify For the one wrote in Greeke the other in Latine the one died a good time before the Pelagian heresie sprang vp the other writeth against it If it be not he who is it then It is vncertaine saith Bellarmine Some Latine writer saith Sixtus Senensis who stitched these Rapsodies together out of the Latine Fathers and whose stile savoureth of Bede or Rabanus or some one like vnto them A Frenchman saith Canisius and Possevin and others yet can they not finde either in France or any part of Europe a place whence he should be called Emissenus One suspecteth him to be Faustus Rhegiensis another Caesaries Bishop of Arles a third ascribeth some of his Homilies to Eucherius some to Maximus and some to others Frier Walden citeth this very Homily here by you quoted vnder three severall names Isidore Eusebius Emisenus Anselme All which are but meere coniectures and there is no certainty either of his name or the time when he liued So that for ought wee know he may be some Monke or Frier who finding Emissenus to be an ancient writer thought good for the gracing of his doings to set them forth in his name a practise not vnusuall among them Howbeit be he never so Orthodox never so ancient that which he saith is little to your purpose For all he saith is but this wee may not doubt that Christs flesh is truly meat and his blood truly drinke forasmuch as himselfe affirmeth it So saith Ambrose so Leo so Epiphanius and it is already answered in the generall to which I referre you N. N. And the Fathers farther affirming that not by Faith only or in figure or image or spiritually alone the flesh of Christ is to be eaten by vs but really substantially and corporally Not only by Faith saith Chrysostome but in very deed he maketh vs his Body reduceing vs as it were into one masse or substance with himselfe And Saint Cyril not only by faith and Charity be wee spiritually conioyned vnto Christ by his Flesh in the Sacrament but corporally also by communication of the same flesh And Saint Chrysostome againe Not only by loue but in very deed are wee converted into his flesh by eating the same And Saint Cyril againe wee receauing in the Sacrament corporally and substantially the Sonne of God vnited naturally vnto his Father wee are clarified and glorified thereby and made partakers of his supreame nature Thus they I. D. That which you would or should proue is that Christs body is in the Sacrament after a corporall manner and by way of Transubstantiation That where by you endeavour to proue it is the testimony of those Fathers who affirme that Christs flesh is really substantially and corporally conioyned vnto vs by the Sacrament But betweene these two there is great distance neither doth that any way follow vpon this Wee all saith the Apostle S. Paul are by one spirit baptized into one body Wherevpon Saint Augustine baptisme availeth to this that they which are baptized be incorporated into Christ. And Leo he that is receaued of Christ and receaueth Christ is not the same after washing that he was before baptisme but the body of the regenerate man is made the flesh of him that was crucified In regard whereof the foresaid Apostle sticketh not to say wee are Christ. And accordingly Saint Augustine Let vs reioyce and giue thankes that wee are made not only Christians but Christ. By all which it is evident that we are as really substantially and corporally vnited vnto Christ in Baptisme as we are in the Lords Supper And yet I hope you will not therevpon inferre a Reall presence in Baptisme If not why should you presume to doe it in the Lords Supper For there is no more reason for the one Sacrament then for the other Certainly if the only way of vniting vs really vnto Christ be by receauing this Sacrament then woe vnto all those who being Baptized dyed before they could receaue it For it is impossible for any man to be saued by Christ vnlesse first he be really made one with him But let vs breefely examine your witnesses Saint Chrysostome saith Not by faith only but indeed he maketh vs his body and Not only by loue but indeed are we converted into his flesh What literally and in proper signification so as wee are reduced into one masse or lumpe with him Or that by receauing the Communion wee are really substantially and corporally transubstantiated into the very Body of Christ I know you cannot conceaue so rudely and grosly of him and least you should he himselfe qualifieth and tempereth the vehemence of his speech with an as it were reducing vs as it were into one masse In which words alluding to that of the Apostle we are one loafe and one body and explicating the same What speake I saith he of communication wee are that selfe-same body For what is bread The body of Christ. And what are they made
for the Transformation of Bread into Flesh which he speakes of though still it seeme Bread it is plaine hee meanes not that of Transubstantiation for in this Bread ceaseth to be but in that he confesseth it still to remaine and that it is Bread which is eaten by vs in the Mysteries Which yet he more plainly expresseth where hee saith God in mercy condescending to our infirmity preserueth the Species or Nature of Bread and wine but trans-elementeth or changeth it into the vertue of his flesh blood where it is farther to be obserued that hee saith not into flesh and blood but into the vertue thereof intimating a Change not of Substance but of Operation and Efficacy Your next witnesse is Magnetes an author to me vtterly vnknowne saue that Gesner in his Bibliotheca reporteth that he was very ancient and that about thirteene hundred yeares since hee wrote in the Greeke tongue certaine bookes in defence of the Gospell vnto Theosthenes against the Gentiles that flandered it and that he is quoted by Fr. Turrian By which words it seemes that hee never yet saw the Presse and what is alledged out of him is warranted only by Turrians testimony But Turrian is one that deserues no credit at our hands as being a Iesuite and knowne to haue plaid many foule tricks this way Yet if to make your author agree with the rest of the Fathers you will giue the same construction to his words that aboue is giuen vnto Theophilact you may Otherwise his authority is as easily reiected as alledged N. N. St Hilary vseth this kind of argument If the word of God were truly made flesh then doe wee truly receiue his flesh in the Lords supper and thereby he is to bee esteemed to dwell in vs naturally St Cyril proueth not only a Spirituall but also a Naturall and Bodily vnion to be betweene vs and Christ by eating his flesh in the Sacrament I. D. That Hilary speaketh of the Lords Supper or of our Coniunction with Christ by Eating thereof I thinke it will hardly be proved Had he so meant how cometh it to passe that he never alledgeh those words of the Sacrament This is my body which would haue made more for his purpose but ever voucheth the sixt of Iohn which maketh little to the Sacrament Howbeit if you will needs vnderstand him so I will not striue Know then that in those bookes St Hilary disputes against the Arians To them he obiected that saying The Father and the Sonne are one One answered they as wee are with Christ by Will not by Nature wherevnto he replied that wee are even by Nature one with Christ. And this he proues first because both in Christ and vs there is the same Humane nature by the Incarnation of the Sonne of God which hee calls the Sacrament of perfect vnion Secondly because the Faithfull are ioyned vnto him by his Spirit dwelling in them which regenerateth quickneth sanctifieth them and not only conformeth them vnto him but also transformeth them into him And for proofes hereof hee alledgeth divers passages of St Iohns Gospell such as your selues confesse no way to belong vnto the Sacrament Thirdly for that by Baptisme we are ioyned vnto Christ and that not only by consent of will but naturally according to that of Saint Paul As many as are baptized into Christ haue put on Christ. Whereunto lastly if you please you may adde for that also in the Lords Supper wee are vnited vnto him by Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood All these waies saith Hilary are wee Naturally ioyned vnto Christ. If so then not only by the Eucharist And if for the establishing of the other meanes there needeth no Transubstantiation at all as of the Sonne of God into Man of Faith into the Spirit of Christ or of Baptismall water into the Bloud of Christ neither is it necessarie for this that bread be Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ. Or if to bring Christ into vs and our mouth you will needs transubstantiate the bread into his body I wonder what Transubstantiation you will devise to bring vs into him and his mouth For Hilary affirmeth that by the same Mysticall coniunction not only is Christ in vs but also wee are Naturally in him The same Answere may serue for Cyril also wherevnto for farther explication of the word Naturally and Naturall so often vsed both by Cyril and Hilary I adde that in them Naturally signifieth Truly Naturall True if wee may beleeue him who best knew their meaning even Cyril himselfe For thus he Not according to naturall vnity that is true vnity By nature wee are the children of wrath where by nature we are to vnderstand truth So that Naturall vnion is true vnion and naturally to be vnited is truly to be vnited which I hope may bee without Transubstantiation N. N. Theodoret doth proue that Christ tooke Flesh of the blessed virgin and ascended vp with the same and holdeth the same there by that he giueth to vs his true flesh in the Sacrament for that otherwise hee could not giue vs his true Flesh to eat if his owne flesh were not true seeing that he gaue the same that he carried vp and retaineth in heauen I. D. I marvell much not one of the Fathers being more expresse against Transubstantiation then Theodoret that yet you durst to praise him in the maintenance thereof Evē for this cause doth the Preface to the Roman Edition goe about to weaken his authority and Gregorie of Valentia flatly condemneth him It is no wonder saith he if one or two or more of the Ancients haue thought or written of this matter not so considerately and rightly Adde herevnto that Theodoret was noted by the Councell of Ephesus for some other errours besides But how much Theodoret maketh against Transubstantiation you shall heare hereafter Now you may be pleased to knowe that in the place by you cited he disputeth against an Eutychian Hereticke who held that the Humanitie of Christ was abolished and absorpted by his Deitie This hee would proue by the Eucharist that as the Symbols before Consecration are one thing but after it are changed and become another even so the Body of Christ after the Assumption thereof is chāged into the Divine Substance Now if Theodoret had beene Transubstantiator hee had beene finely taken for Transubstantiation abolisheth the substance of Bread and turneth it into the substance of Christs Body But hee taketh the Heretike in his owne nets affirming the Mysticall signes after their sanctification doe not depart from their nature and that therefore Christ after the Assumption thereof retaineth his Humanity still Whereby you may see that although it be yeelded that Christ giueth vs his true Flesh in the Sacrament yet in the iudgement of Theodoret he so giueth it that the Mysticall signes retaine their Nature still which vtterly overturnes your Transubstantiation N. N. S. Irenaeus S. Iustin and S.
the present Roman Church is still in some sort a part of the Visible Church of God but no otherwise then other Societies of Hereticks are in that it retaineth the profession of some parts of Heauenly truth and ministreth the true Sacrament of Baptisme to the salvation of the soules of many thousand infants that dye after they are baptized before shee haue poysoned them with her errours Thus he Wherevnto I adde that of St Hilary God in the Churches of the Arrians called many by the word and Sacraments to the knowledge of the truth whose eares were more pure then were the mouthes of their teachers The issue of all is this You are a Church but neither the Catholike Church nor a sound member thereof What then An Hereticaâ— and impure Church And if Salvation may be had therein it is only by those truths you haue common with vs and not the Papacie wherein notwithstanding there can bee no more security had thereof then of life in a pesthouse of which though there may be a possibility yet the danger is such that a thousand to one if a man escape the infection And what folly is it to leaue that Church wherein there is security and to cleaâ—e vnto that wherein there is no hope but only of a poore possibility Willet remaines for whom what better advocate then himselfe That many Kings and Queenes of this land are Saints in Heaven is not by any protestant denyed For they might be carried away with some errours of the time then not revealed yet holding the foundation through Gods mercy they might be saved It is a divers case when a man sinneth of infirmity or simplicity and when hee offendeth willingly and of obstinacy To stumble in the darke craueth pitty to grope at noone-daies is great folly I say therefore in this case as our Saviour to the Pharisees If yee were blind yee should not haue sin but now ye say we see therefore your sinne remaineth And as St Paul the time of ignorance God regarded not God therefore might shew mercy to them that erred of Simplicity which is no warrant for them that should now be seduced willingly And such are you Recusants to whom wee can promise nothing but fearfull things though of our fore-fathers wee hope all good That which your Author farther addes of himselfe let the same Willet answer Though divers saith hee of those ancient Kings became Monks yet neither was the Monasticall life so farre out of square as now it is they made it not a cloke of idlenesse and filthy liuing a nursery of idolatry and grosse supertitions but they desired that life as fittest for contemplation and free from the encumbrances of the world Neither doth this one opinion of the excellency of Monasticall life shew them to be resolute Papists for it followeth not because they were Monks that consequently they held Transubstantiation worship of images and the more grosse points of the Romish Catechisme Will you haue any more In few words thus Anciently Monks some of them were lay-men some were married they bound themselues with no vowes they made no distinction of meats they laboured with their hands and liued not in Citties but remote places By all which you may see Polydor Virgill had reason to say It is incredible how much nowadaies they are degenerated N. N. Your fourth and last reason the quarrells and bitter speeches of Luther Melancthon Zuniglius Beza Carolus Molniaeus Amsdorfius Hosiander Protestants of Zurich of England c. I. D. This reason differeth not in substance but only in quotations from the second Which quotations whether they be true or false neither will I spend time to search neither is it any whit materiall And therefore neither will I vouchsafe it any farther answer then that which already I haue given to the second The best Churches haue seldome beene without their quarrels and vsually are menaged with two much passion The malice of Satan is the cause of the one and humane infirmity of the other Which infirmity seeing wee cannot altogether put off while we liue here in the flesh Christian charity would rather pitie it then vpbraid it Neverthelesse that which is amisse may not be defended neither meane I to goe about it Only I perswade my selfe that if wee vnderstood one the other better our quarrells would never be so vehement For what was it that set Luther and Zuinglius so farre asunder but misprision And what caused such hard censures to passe vpon Hosiander but his owne inconvenient speeches and other mens mistakings These are the two principall quarrells here mentioned by you giue me leaue therefore to shew so much in them but briefly The quarrell betweene Luther and Zuinglius was about Christs presence in the Sacrament which as you hold to be by way of Transubstantiation so did Luther by way of Consubstantiation Which how it could be vnlesse the body of Christ were every where Zuinglius others could not conceiue and being pressed therewith he and his followers not being able to avoid it maintained that also But how by reason of the Hypostaticall vnion and coniunction thereof with the word For the Word being every where and the Humane Nature being no where feuered from it how can it be say they but every where And hence the distraction and therevpon all those passionate speeches Now saith Zanchy if they meane that the body of Christ is present according to his personall being they say true contradict not those who speake of his Naturall being or being of Essence D. Field thus expresseth it The humane Nature of Christ hath two kinds of being the one naturall the other personall the first limited finite the second infinite incoÌ„prehensible For seeing the nature of man is a created nature and essence it cannot be but finite and seeing it hath no Personall subsistence of it owne but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it which is infinite and without limitation it cannot be denied to haue an infinite Subsistence to subsist in an incomprehensible and illimited sort and consequently every where Thus then the body of Christ according to his Naturall being is contained in one place but according to his Personall being may rightly be said to be every where So Field whereby you may easily perceiue that the warres betwixt hony-bees are not such but the casting vp of a little dust will soone stint them For if this distinction had well beene conceiued this Vbiquitary strife had quickly beene ended If any notwithstanding haue beene so grosse as to maintaine an Vbiquity according to Essence or Naturall being which I can hardly beleeue I must professe I know no excuse for them The second quarrell is against Hosiander who seemeth to define Iustification by a transfusion of the Essentiall righteousnesse of Christ into vs and a confusion as it were and mixture of it together with vs. And against this divers haue written very
note of similitude but importeth a reason or cause In regard whereof Euthimius expoundeth it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he had said forasmuch or because Secondly that the word Power is in the originall not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betwixt which two there is great difference For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth power of right or authority and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Power of might or ability Which although they may and oftentimes doe concurre in the same person yet many times they are divided For some there are who haue right and authority but want might and ability and others there are who haue might and ability but want right and authority These for want of right doe not iustly what they can doe and they for want of might cannot doe that which otherwise they might justly doe These things duly considered the reason of the Consequence will easily appeare For if God haue given him authority as indeed hee had hee ought withall to giue him ability For that without this is fectlesse and to no purpose and it sits not with the wisdome of God to doe things in vaine This were with Herod and the Iewes to set a crowne on his head to put a reed in his hand to clap a purple robe on his backe to make a mock king of him As therefore he hath giuen him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 right and authority so must hee also giue him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strength and ability But Ability hee can haue none nor giue life to them that are giuen him which is the end propounded vnto him except his Father glorifie him This appeares thus The glorification which the Sonne desires stands especially in his Resurrection Ascention Session at the right hand of his Father and Returne to iudgement If then he rise not againe we are yet in our sins as St Paul saith and haue no right either in the first or second resurrection Death hath still power vpon vs yea vpon Christ himselfe and vtterly bars vs from eternall life Againe if he ascend not neither can wee The way vnto heauen is not opened neither are there any mansions there prepared for vs. And what life can there be if we be excluded from those ioyes aboue Thirdly if hee sit not at his Fathers right hand then can he not gloriously interceed for vs with his Father nor send his spirit vnto vs nor governe vs by his spirit nor subdue our enimies vnto vs without which wee cannot be partakers of that life Lastly if hee returne not againe to iudge both the quicke and the dead then can hee not according to promise returne any more to take vs home vnto himselfe that where he is there we also may be to behold that his glory and by beholding to bee made like vnto him wherein standeth our eternall life And thus you see the necessity of this Consequence Thou hast given mee power Therefore must thou glorify mee Come wee now to the Antecedent In which for the fuller handling thereof we may obserue these foure particulars Quid In quos A quo Quorsum Quid what is given him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Power In quos over whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over all flesh A quo from whom from his Father thou hast giuen Quorsum to what end that he may giue eternall life to all that his Father gaue him Of these in order First Quid what hath the Father given him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power that is as we haue aboue shewed Right and Authority over all flesh This is double for it is either Essentiall or Oeconomicall Essentiall is that which he hath qua 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he is the Word In regard whereof being God coequall with his Father looke what Power the Father hath he hath the same also inhering in him namely an infinite vnlimited independent and soveraigne power And this because it is of his very essence so that hee can no more be without it then not be God therefore doe I call it Essentiall And yet as I take it this is not heere meant For the end of the Power heere spoken of is to giue eternall life Now to purpose an end implies Election Deliberation and so an indifference before choice so that it is arbitrary not necessary But this Essentiall power of Christ is not arbitrarie but necessary as proceeding not of choice but of the necessity of his nature and therefore cannot be here meant The Oeconomicall Power then is that which he hath quà Emanuell as he is God-man and hath taken vpon him the forme of a servant For the Man Christ Iesus is our Mediatour therefore our King it being one office of his Mediation to be a King And hence it is that our Saviour affirmeth that authority is giuen him to execute iudgement because he is the sonne of man or as some expound it quatenus as he is the sonne of man In this nature also it is said that the government is vpon his shoulders that he is made a Governor to rule his people Israell This Power because he hath not as the former of the necessity of his nature but only of voluntary dispensatiō therefore I call it Oeconomicall And because it is Oeconomicall therefore is it not infinite vnlimited as is the Essentiall but Subordinate vnto it True it is the humane nature subsisting in the Word the very Word together with all the divine attributes are cōmunicated vnto it so that it may be said the man Christ is Omnipotent hath infinite power But this must cautelously be vnderstood not that the Manhood hath in it formally subiectiuely such infinite power but only personally and by grace of Vnion Otherwise the humane nature being finite is no more capable of infinite power then it is to be God which is impossible The Power then which the Manhood of Christ hath residing in it is finite and created but yet such as is farre greater then of any creature besides For to which of the creatures besides is the Subsistence of the sonne of God communicated If to none then can they not haue such power as hee that subsisteth in the Deity Whence the holy Apostle affirmeth of him that he is advanced farre aboue all Principality and power and might and dominion and every name that is named not only in this world but also in that which is to come againe that God hath highly exalted him and giuen him a name which is aboue every name that at the name of Iesus every knee should bow of things in Heauen and things in earth things vnder the earth and that every tongue should confesse that Iesus is the Lord. And yet againe that hee is made farre greater then the Angells inasmuch as hee hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name then they Read the rest of that Chapter for all makes to this purpose
Iesus whom yee haue crucified both Lord and Christ. Howbeit this power the Father giues not as the former Donatione naturali by naturall donation sed gratuitâ by free voluntary gift And therefore as notwithstanding the former he was co-equall with the Father so in regard of this hee is subiect to the Father Wherefore in this respect hee saith Pater major me est my Father is greater then I and though he be Lord of all yet the Father calleth him his Servant And the Schoole in regard of his humane nature saith that he is Subiectus sibi ipsi subiect to his owne selfe But it will be obiected that Christ obtained his kingdome by conquest how then could he receaue it from his Father by gift Wherevnto I answere first that the right title he had was from the gift of the Father before he went about to conquer it secondly that the power also whereby he conquered it hee receaued from the gift of his Father In regard whereof the Father sticketh not to challenge the conquest vnto himselfe Sit thou saith he vnto the Sonne on my right hand vntill I make thine enimies thy footstoole Which yet is thus to bee vnderstood that the Father by the Sonne and the Sonne vnder his Father by power receaued from him hath subdued and mastered all his enimies But when receaued he this power from him and how long was he to hold it He receaued it then when hee receaued his vnction His Vnction he receaued in the instant of his Incarnation For assoone as the Personall vnion began so soone was he annointed with the oyle of gladnesse aboue all his fellowes that is with the fulnesse of all such graces as were fit for the menaging of so great power as wisdome counsell zeale of iustice strength and the like And no sooner was he annointed but presently hee was a King Melchizedeck a king of righteousnesse wise to doe iudgement iustice It is true he suppressed this power for a time For the Word emptied himselfe of his glory and his humane nature was to suffer many things Wherevpon it is said He could doe no miracle in his owne country nor might not send his Disciples into the way of the Gentiles It was as a sword in the sheath or as Dauids authority before Sauls death At times indeed he shewed some tokens thereof as in stilling the Sea commanding spirits raising the dead and the like yet the execution thereof could not be plenarie till after his resurrection and when he was set at the right hand of his Father Licet Christus quantum ad divinitatem c. saith Lira Although Christ according to his divinity had from all eternity this power in heauen and earth and authoritativè by way of authority had it he also as man from the first instant of his conception yet executivè by way of execution hee had it not before his resurrection but would be subiect to possibility for our redemption But how long was this power to continue with him Forever For as he was a priest so also was he to be a King for ever after the order of Melchizedecke Thy throne ô God saith David is for ever and ever a text which Saint Paul to the Hebrewes applyeth vnto Christ. And Daniel His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not passe a way and his kingdome that which shall not be destroyed And the Angell Gabriell Hee shall raigne over the house of Iacob forever and of his kingdome there shall be no end Yea but doth not the Apostle say that when he shall haue put downe all rule and all authority and power then the kingdome shall be delivered vp by him to God even the Father and that then the sonne himselfe shall also be subiect vnto him It is true hee saith so But we are further to know that the kingdome of Christ containeth in it two things the mediatory function of his Kingly office and his Kingly glory That he shall lay aside for then there will be no further necessity nor vse thereof He shall not need to fight any more with the prince of darknesse nor to governe his Church as formerly by the word and sacrament For God as he is now something in vs so then shall he be all in all vnto vs. But this hee shall hold for ever as being by the acts of his mediation iustly acquired and according to covenant bestowed vpon him by his Father As therefore the Father even now raignes although he haue delivered the kingdome to the Sonne even so then shall the Sonne also raigne although he deliver vp his kingdome vnto the Father And thus hath Christ omnem potestatem in omnia in omnia secula all power over all things and vnto all eternity The vse of this point briefly may be this First seeing Christ vsurped not this power but receiued it by lawfull donation from his Father therefore neither should wee presume vpon any office or place vntill wee be lawfully called therevnto Should we runne without sending wee should but incurre the displeasure of God be authors of much confusion and mischiefe in the Church Secondly seeing he receiued this power together with his Vnction it may lesson vs not to affect any calling till wee be annointed with sufficient gifts for the discharge thereof Go teach baptize all nations saith our Saviour to his Apostles but withall he furnisheth them with cloven tongues and filleth them with the Holy Ghost To adventure on a businesse without due abilities as it proceedeth from abundance of boldnesse so will it be recompenced with equall measure of shame Lastly seeing his power continueth for ever and of his kingdome shall be no end wee may take knowledge that it will bee in vaine for any to oppose themselues vnto it Hell gates shall never be able to prevaile against it how much lesse the policies of mortall men or their strongest attempts For that which is eternall is invincible and can never be destroyed And thus much of the third point A quo from whom The fourth and last is Quorsum to what so great power was given him For wee may not thinke that God doth vse magno conatu nihil agere with much a doe to effect nothing And if nature which is but the creature of God doe nothing in vaine and wise men ever propound some end vnto their actions much more ought we to iudge so of him who is both the author of nature and wisdome it selfe An end therefore was intended and that doubtlesse of highest consequence For otherwise what need so great power and glory to atchieue it If in the creation dixit factum est the word was no sooner said but the thing was done yet here not words no nor so great power without his glorification will not serue the turne this it seemes is of a higher straine then that What then may it be This that to as many as are
given him of his Father he may giue eternall life This I say properly and directly for accidentally he may be vnto some a rocke of offence and the savour of death vnto death namely to all those that shall presume to rise vp against that authority and power which his Father hath giuen him For the further vnfolding of this point foure things are here to bee observed Quid Vnde Quibus Quamdiu Quid what the gift is it is Life Vnde whence it is from the Sonne that hee may giue Quibus to whom it is giuen to as many as thou hast giuen him Quamdiu how long the gift lasteth it is eternall life And of these in order though not according to their worth and desert for who is sufficient for these things yet as it shall please God to enable and assist First Quid what is the gift It is Life Life is double Naturall and Spirituall Naturall is that which things liue by power of nature But this is not heare meant For the Father bestowes this generally on all men whereas the life here intended is to be conferred only on those whom the Father hath given vnto the sonne The Spirituall is likewise double Sinfull or Holy Sinfull is that whereby men liue vnto sinne But because they that so liue are dead vnto righteousnesse the wages thereof is nothing but death neither can this be here meant For this is to be counted rather a Death then a Life whereas the Life here-spoken of is the end wherefore so great power was giuen vnto Christ and so cannot bee but a happy and blessed life The Holy life is therfore here vnderstood a life which none can liue vntill he be dead vnto sinne and elevated by grace aboue nature even that life which in Scripture is called the new life and includeth in it both the life of grace and the life of glory Now because this Spirituall life is denominated Life from the proportion it holds with Naturall life especially that of man vnlesse we first know what this is distinct knowledge of that we cannot well haue any This we cannot know but by the direction of Naturall Philosophy For Naturall life is a terme properly belonging vnto it and the rule of Logicke teacheth that looke to what art the termes doe belong from thence are wee to fetch our demonstrations I must craue pardon therefore if I search a little into it Howbeit I resolue to be very briefe and to trouble you with no more then is necessary for clearing of what is intended Life is of some defined by motion and operation And so seemeth Aristotle to define it where he saith Vivere est intelligere sentire to liue is to vnderstand heare see touch and the like But this definition is more popular then proper For life is one thing the operations of life another and they differ as the cause and the effect Yet because it is best discerned by the operations thereof therefore haue they thought good so to describe it For those things are said to liue which any way moue themselues Moue I say for those things which moue not liue not And moue themselues by an internall principle of their owne For neither doe those things liue which are acted only by an extrinsecall and forreine principle such as was that statue or engine of which the Poet Duceris vt nervis alienis mobile signum and such as are also clocks and watches and the like devices The same Philosopher therefore elsewhere speaking more accurately of this matter defineth life by Being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith hee to liue is to be Which is not yet Simply to be vnderstood as if whatsoeuer had being had also life but respectiuely vnto things that liue for their life is their being And so much doth the Philosopher himselfe insinuate saying more fully 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 life to things that liue is being But such a Being as naturally moueth it selfe Whēce it is not vnfitly defined by one to bee essentia parturiens actiones such a being as is in trauell with action This naturall life is threefold Vegetatiue Sensitiue and Intellectual The Vegetatiue is in Plants that Being whereby they grow and receaue nourishment The Sensitiue is of Beasts Fowles and Fishes that Being whereby they see heare touch tast smell and moue from place to place The Intellectuall is of Angels and Spirits that Being whereby they vnderstand and will These all of them are iointly and together in man For with plants hee hath growth and nourishment with beasts fowles and fishes sense and lation with Angels and Spirits vnderstanding and will Wherevpon it is that the Philosopher maketh the life of man a rule to all the rest And therefore is to be defined Such a Being as is able to produce all these operations but specially those that are Rationall because they are most properly Humane To come then to an issue by all that hath beene said it appeares that to the constitution of the natural life of man and generally of all natural life three things are required Esse Posse Operari being ability and operation Being that there may bee ability and ability that there may be operation For no life where no operation no operation where no ability no ability where no being And such is the naturall life of man Proportionably wherevnto as to me it seemes Spirituall life may thus be defined Such a new or spirituall being as enableth to produce spirituall or supernaturall actions In which definition all those three things necessarily required vnto life are as you see comprehended And first Being not naturall but spirituall superadded vnto nature Superadded then when we are first ingrafted and incorporated into Christ. For no sooner doe we subsist in him but forthwith old things passe away and all things are made new From thence forth become we new creatures new men renewed in the inner man and in the spirit of the minde hauing new hearts new affections new senses all new In a word then are we made Spirituall men not only conformed vnto but also transformed into the image of Christ himselfe Secondly abilitie For together with our new being we receaue also the Spirit of power whereby as while we were out of Christ wee were able to doe nothing so now being in him we are able to all things For then the holy Ghost is pleased to infuse and imprint on our soules the gratious habits of Faith Hope and Charity and the rest and all to facilitate the performance of spirituall duties Lastly Operation without which abilitie is but vaine For to what end is power if it be never brought forth into act Operate therefore it doth and bringeth forth the fruits of spirit loue ioy peace long suffering gentlenesse goodnesse faith meeknesse temperance and the rest All which S. Paul reduceth vnto three Pietie Sobrietie Righteousnesse
vs and why should not we willingly take vp our Crosse for him As touching the last which is our Following of Christ know wee it is our safest course absolutely to resigne our selues into his hands He is farre wiser then we are as being the very wisdome of his Father and therefore knoweth both what is best for vs and how to provide for vs better then we our selues Againe his loue is far greater then ours either is or can be towards vs. The heathen Poet even by the light of nature could say Charior est illis homo quam sibi Man is more deare to God then to himselfe but the light of revelation demonstrateth it more fully in that out of his infinite loue he gaue his only sonne for vs. His loue then being such it cannot be but that hee is most willing to doe vs the best good hee can Now what his wisdome and loue resolue concerning vs his power is able to effect for he is omnipotent and nothing is impossible vnto him What then should let but that it is our safest course to make a perfect surrender of our selues vnto him If we be left vnto our owne selues wee are ever in danger and in the end shall surely perish but being Christs and following him wee can neuer miscarry nor doe amisse All these things being duly weighed considered are sufficient to make vs willing willing I say to deny our selues to take vp our crosse daily and to follow Christ. Vnto which Willingnesse if wee further adde our owne Endeauour doing what lieth in our power confecta res est we shall surely come after Christ that is bee his schollers here and raigne with him for ever hereafter Without trauell and labour nothing can bee had in this world much lesse will the kingdome of heauen be obtained with sitting still and doing nothing No it must suffer violence violent men must take it by force which whosoeuer shall doe he shall never fayle of it Christ will instruct him by his word guid him by his spirit protect him with his providence gard him with his Angels and ever pursue him with his grace vntill he haue brought him vnto the end of his hopes even the eternall saluation of his soule Vnto the which the Lord bring vs all for his Christs sake AMEN FINIS AN APOLOGIE OF THE IVSTICE OF GOD. OXFORD Printed by I. L for E. F. 1633. GEN. 18.25 Be it farre from thee from doing this thing to slay the righteous with the wicked that the righteous should be even as the wicked bee it farre from thee should not the iudge of the whole world doe right ALthough the good in regard of Gods knowledge and their owne affection are chosen out of the world separated from the wicked yet are they not remoued out of the world but still remaine therein mixed with them in place and conversation So that the Church of God while it is militant here on earth is no other then a floore wherein is both chaffe and wheat a field both of corne cockle a net containing both good and bad fishes a flocke consisting both of sheep goats and shall so continue vntill the fanning time come vntill the harvest be cut vntill the net be drawne to the shore vntill the high shepheard survey his flocke but they shall eternally then be divided one from another be ranged into severall places the one into a place of refreshment everlasting ioy the other into a place of torment everlasting woe In the meane season both good and bad being embarked as it were together in the same vessell how can the good escape the common shipwracke of humane calamitie Or being enwrapt in the same punishment with the wicked how is God iust Abraham the father of the faithfull a man of deepe vnderstanding in the mysteries of Gods providence yet stood astonished hereat in Sodoms case where righteous Lot and for ought hee knew divers other holy men dwelling he marvelled how it might stand with the iustice of God in the destruction thereof to involue both righteous and wicked together and therefore saith according to my Text Bee it far from thee from doing this thing A point as you see of great importance and as will evidently appeare by the sequele every way worthy our present consideration which was the cause why I made choice thereof at this time God grant vnto vs the assistance of his blessed spirit that wee may handle it as it deserueth and that it may bee vnto vs as profitable as it is pertinent All that I haue now to say touching these words may be reduced vnto these three heads Gods action Abrahams affection Abrahams argument Gods action how hee dealeth with these mixt societies consisting both of good bad Abrahams affection how hee standeth affected towards them Abrahams argument which so much swayed his owne affection and whereby hee would perswade God also to be of his minde Gods action is intimated implied generally through the whole Text in the words going before it in the twentieth and one and twentieth verses wherein God acquainted Abraham how he meant to proceede with Sodom and Gomorrha Abrahams affection is plainely declared in the Deprecation he maketh vnto God for them His argument is expresly set downe in these words Shall not the iudge of the whole world doe right Which being a question propounded negatiuely is to be vnderstood as an affirmatiue proposition thus The judge of the whole world must needs doe right Of these things briefly and in order The actions of God in this case are not alwaies one the same but as his Wisdome is to vse the Apostles word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 full of variety so are his actions also manifold yet alwaies iust For iustice is vnto God not accidentall as it is vnto man but essentiall and inseparable so that hee can no more doe that which is vniust then cease to bee that which eternally and necessarily hee is namely God First then so great loue beareth God vnto his deare Saints and children that the wicked among whom they liue oftentimes fare the better for them and their temporall prosperitie and deliuerance from dangers is to be imputed vnto them Was not wicked Cham preserued in the Arke from that deluge which overwhelmed the whole earth for his good father Noahs sake Were not the sinfull Sodomites reskued out of the hands of their enimies by the sword of Abraham for righteous Lots sake If fiftie if fortie if thirtie if twentie nay if but ten iust men might haue beene found in Sodom had they not escaped that fearefull storme of fire brimstone which after fell from heauen vpon them even for tennes sake What speak I of ten One Moses standing in the breach before God turned away his wrath so that he did not destroy his people Israel And God himselfe by the Prophet Ieremie saith thus Run to and fro by the streets of
obedientia blinde and absolute obedience is as necessary commendable as in Friars to their superiours it is foolish and vnreasonable To this I answere that God indeed had intimated his purpose vnto Abraham but yet in this forme of words Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great and because their sinne is exceeding grievous I will goe downe now and see whether they haue done altogether according to that crie which is come vnto me and if not that I may know In these words you see he doth not say that he would destroy the godly with the wicked and by the deliverance of Lot it plainely appeares he never intended so to doe and therefore it could be no arrogance in Abraham to make such a charitable deprecation for them Neither doth that appeare by the words that God had past an absolute and peremptory sentence against the wicked Sodomites for if ten righteous men had beene found amongst them they had beene spared and the threatnings of God ordinarily are to be vnderstood with a condition annexed vnto them if men repent not yea although it be not in plaine tearmes expressed as in that against Niniveh yet forty daies Niniveh shall be destroyed for this notwithstanding vpon their repentance they were not destroyed So that this condition being here also vnderstood what presumption could it be in Abraham to desire favour for the Sodomites at least vpon their repentance Finally had God absolutely threatned without condition yet ought not man so much to attend what God intendeth to doe agreeable vnto his owne will and iustice as what he himselfe is to doe agreeable to the law of God and nature and then shall he find that God in denouncing and executing iudgement wills two things both that they perish and that he greeue God had laid Iudea wast and sent away the inhabitants thereof into captivity yet Ieremy lamented for it Christ knew well that God had absolutely determined to destroy Ierusalem yet hee wept over it a sonne may know by evident symptomes that his Father cannot liue and yet desire the prolonging of his life and all without sinne In like manner might Abraham without offence wish all good vnto the Sodomites notwithstanding Gods will vnto the contrary Now this affection of this holy Patriarch is iustifiable both by the law of God and nature hauing a three fold foundation to support it Humanitie Consanguinitie Piety First Humanity for what heart of flint or adamant would not melt to behold so many thousands so fearfully to perish It is reported of Xerxes a king of Persia that leading into Greece a huge hoast of about a leauen hundred thousand men and being desirous on a time to take a view of them from the top of a hill while he beheld thē he burst forth into weeping and shed many teares and being demanded the reason because quoth hee within one age not one of all these will be left If Xerxes were so affected at the consideration of the naturall death of so many should not Abraham be much more moved at the destruction of the Sodomites so sudden so violent so terrible for the manner of death is far more fearfull then death it selfe Nay if God himselfe pittied the great City of Niniveh in which were sixscore thousand persons that could not discerne betweene the right and the left hand why should not Abraham also commiserate these fiue citties in which without question were many thousands of young tender babes and infants who never partaked in their parents transgressions Aboue all If yee consider that this temporall plague of fire and brimstone from heaven was praeludium aeterni a fore runner of eternall miserie in hell what man is he that hath but a sparke of humanity in him but would wish it to be otherwise and prevent it if he could For one man not to sympathize and compassionate with another in his miseries is meere inhumanity Another ground of this affectio◠in Abraham was Bloud and Consanguinity for there liued among the Sodomites Lot his children and family Now Abraham was vnkle vnto Lot Lot being Harans sonne which Haran was brother vnto Abraham and this is so great a neerenesse in bloud that by the very law of nature marriage betweene vnkle and neece aunt and nephew is interdicted and vnkles are accounted as fathers to their nephewes Betweene these therefore there must needs passe a naturall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and affection more then betweene them and others inasmuch as there is a neerer vnion and coniunction betweene them Others may be glewed together by friendship or alliance but these are of the same peece naturally one bone of bone and flesh of flesh Here there ought to be no difference at all let there bee no strife betweene me and thee saith Abraham to Lot for wee are brethren yea extraordinary loue and amity I behaued my selfe saith David as to my friend or to my brother and the more the loue is the more earnest and vehement will the desire be for the prevention of such evills as doe threaten them The third and last ground of Abrahams affection was Religion and Piety For where there is a profession of the same true religion there is a straiter bond then that of bloud being members of the same mysticall body in Christ Iesus hauing one Lord one Faith one Baptisme one body one spirit one hope one God and Father of all which is aboue all through all and in all And out of this Vnion issueth that holy communion of Saints mentioned in the articles of our Creed in regard whereof we are bound to loue the Saints farre aboue other men according to that of St Paul while we haue time let vs doe good vnto all specially vnto those that are of the houshold of faith Of this family was Lot and his houshold and many others for ought Abraham knew and therefore vnlesse hee would be not only without naturall affection but also without religious sympathie and compassion he must needs stand thus affected towards this mixt company in Sodom and beseech God either to spare the wicked for the godlies sake or to preserue the Godly in the destruction of the wicked that it may not every way be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to the one so to the other And thus you see the affection of Abraham both what it is and by what grounds it is justified warranted Let vs apply this before we proceede farther As we all professe our selues to be the children of Abraham according to the faith so is it our duty also to be his children in affection And first even towards the wicked ought wee to be tenderly affected and to pittie them more then they pitty themselues Thus doth Abraham in this place thus did David a true son of Abraham when they were sicke saith he I clothed my selfe with sacke cloath and humbled my soule with fasting Thus did Christ a true sonne both of
without Christ are vnprofitable neither can they be fruitfull at any time but onely in Christ who alone is the Substance and Foundation of them all Wherevpon I conclude that those ancient Sacraments of the Iewes directly looked vnto Christs and prefigured him but were not properly Figures of ours No were What say you then to the Fathers who affirme they were I say two things first that their Authoritie is not a sufficient ground to build our Faith vpon as we haue elsewhere shewed at large For it is but Humane testimonie and argueth as your owne Thomas saith not necessarily but only probably Neither is it reason seeing your selues so often sleight and reiect it even in those points wherein many times they consent that you should so peremptorily vrge it vpon vs and binde vs absolutely to beleeue all they say I say secondly that the Fathers calling the Sacraments of the old Law Figures of ours meane not that they were bare and naked signes without the truth but that in them the thing signified was more darkly and implicitly shadowed then in ours Or rather that they were Figures corresponding vnto ours in the same sense that the Apostle S. Peter intendeth it when he calleth Baptisme the Antitype of Noahs Arke For vnderstanding whereof you are to knowe that Types or Figures are sometimes compared with that truth or thing whereof they are Samplars as where the Holy place of the Tabernacle is said to bee the Antitype of Heauen figured thereby Sometime with some other Secondary samplar and Figure of the same thing as in this place of Peter where Baptisme is made the Antitype of that deliuerance which befell the Church by the Arke in the generall deluge of waters So that the Arke properly was not ordained to be a Figure of Baptisme but both it and Baptisme represent vnto vs our Salvation from the danger both of sinne and death by Christ Iesus therein mutually respecting and answering one the other The same may you also say of the Cloud and the Passing through the Red sea of Manna and the Rock and all the rest And that thus the Fathers heare one for all who to vse your owne words spake in the sense of them all This Bread saith S. Augustine which came downe from heauen Manna signified this Bread the Altar of God signified They were Sacraments divers in signes but in the thing signified alike Heare the Apostle I would not saith hee haue you ignorant Brethren that all our Fathers were vnder the cloud and all passed through the sea and all were baptized by Moses in the â—loud and in the sea and all eat the same spirituall meat The same spirituall I say but another corporall because they Manna We another thing But the same spirituall that we yet our Fathers not their Fathers to whom wee are like not to whom they were like And hee addeth And they all dranke the same spirituall drink They one thing we another as touching the visible nature yet the selfe same in the signifying spirituall vertue For how the same drinke They dranke saith he of the spirituall Rock following them and the Rock was Christ. Thence the Bread thence the drinke The Rocke Christ in the signe true Christ in the Word Flesh. Thus S. Augustine But if the Fathers serue not your turne you haue the Fathers of the Fathers even Christ himselfe and his holy Apostle S. Paul who both affirme that Manna was an expresse figure of this Sacrament And if Manna why not by the same proportion other Sacraments also Indeed now you dispute not Topically but Apodictically you cannot but prevaile if it be true that you say But what are the words I pray you wherein this may appeare Certainely none at all For neither the one nor the other either expresly or implicitly make it a Figure of this Sacrament but of Christ himselfe and his Flesh. For as for the sixt of Iohn it is cleare that our Saviour speaketh not therein of the Eucharist or of Sacramentall Manducation but only of the Spirituall eating of his Flesh by Faith I saith he am the Bread of life hee that commeth vnto mee shall not hunger and hee that beleeueth in me shall neuer thirst Where although to continue the Allegorie hee might haue said He that eateth me shall not hunger and he that drinketh me shall not thirst yet hee chose rather to vse the words of Comming and Beleeuing to teach vs that hee speaketh not of an Oral eating and drinking by the Mouth but only of a Spirituall by Faith And this is so plaine that Bellarmine himselfe confesseth these words Properly not to belong vnto the Sacrament but to the faith of the Incarnation Againe that Eating is meant without which there is no life Except saith hee yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his Blood there is no life in you But without Sacramentall eating a man may haue life in him Spirituall eating therefore is meant And thus also doe sundry of your owne Rabbies vnderstand this place as namely Gabriel Cusan Cajetan Tapper Hesselius Iansenius and others As for that place of S. Paul it is evident that the Apostle putteth no difference betweene the old Sacraments and the New saue only in regard of the externall signes for otherwise he affirmeth the same thing to be Signified and Exhibited in both to wit Christ. And so doth S. Augustine vnderstand it They did eat the same spirituall meat saith he it had sufficed to haue said they did eat a spirituall meat but he saith the same I cannot finde how we should vnderstand the same but the same that wee doe eat And againe Whosoeuer in Manna vnderstand Christ did eat the same spiritual food that we doe But whosoever sought only to fill their bellies of Manna which were the Fathers of the vnfaithfull they haue eaten and are dead so also the same drinke for the Rock was Christ. Therefore they drank the same drinke that we doe but spiritual drink that is which was receiued by Faith not which was drawne in with the Body If happily you stand vpon those words These things are types vnto vs you may knowe that hee saith not they were types of our Sacraments but Examples to vs that we sin not as they did For as they perished in the wildernesse notwithstanding their Sacraments so may we doing as they did notwithstaÌ„ding ours Which argument if that you say be true would be of no force at all For the Corinthians might thus haue replied though their Sacraments availed not them yet ours may vs because ours are Substance theirs but Shadows But enough of the Antecedent Yet before I proceed to the Consequence some of your By-speeches are also to be examined First you say that Bread aud Wine was mysteriously offered to Almighty God by Melchizedeck But both the Original and your Vulgar translation made authenticall by the Councell of Trent
retaining the forme of bodily substance by invisible working proueth the Presence of Gods power to be there would you from hence conclude Transubstantiation I knowe you would not No more can you from this And indeed the word species which you translate Forme yea and outward Forme too though the word outward be not in the text doth not signifie shew without substance or Accident without subiect but in the writings of the Fathers vsually it signifieth the truth nature or kinde of a thing So Ambrose I see not speciem the truth of bloud speaking of the Lords Cup but it hath the resemblance which afterward repeating I see the resemblance saith he but I see not veritatē the truth of bloud Again the word of Christ changeth the species of the Elements What is that The Formes or Accidents of the Elements No for they you say remaine What then but the Elements or things thēselues And St Augustin Their meat was the same with ours but the same in signification not in specie that is in kinde So that when your Author saith it keepeth the species of bodily substance it is not necessary to render it by Forme that is Accident or Shew void of substance for you may as well turne it thus it still retaineth the nature or truth of its bodily substance N. N. This graue Father and Martyr doth plainely shew how Mr Downe hath wrested Pope Gelasius For the Popes and the Doctors of the Church did agree alwaies in matters of Faith notwithstanding the great shew M. Downe hath made to the contrary For here S. Cyprian sheweth you that this food of immortality keepeth the outward forme of the Bodily Substance but prouing that there is present a divine power which is confessed by Gelasius And therefore when Gelasius saith the nature of Bread and Wine ceaseth not to be his meaning is the outward forme of the corporall Substance And with this agree many of the Fathers which are also wrested from their true meaning as appeareth manifestly by the manifold plaine places of the Fathers by me here set downe I. D. If to neglect the Premisses and to contradict the Conclusion by the right way of answering arguments then haue you taken the right course and made vp my mouth for ever replying vpon you For whereas M. Downe as you say hath made a great shew to proue that the Fathers disagree among themselues in some points you passing by all the proofes thinke it sufficient to affirme the contrary that the Popes and Doctors of the Church doe agree Wherevpon you farther inferre that M. Downe hath wrested Pope Gelasius For although hee haue proued by the expresse words of Gelasius that the Bread is not transubstantiated because the substance thereof stil remaineth yet is the conclusion false For Popes and Doctors Gelasius and Cyprian must needs agree But questionlesse if Cyprian for for the present wee will suppose him to bee the right Cyprian doe by Forme of bodily substance vnderstand nothing else but shew without Substance it is impossible to make him agree with Gelasius For Gelasius saith The Substance or nature of Bread and wine cease not to be and Substance cannot possibly be shew without substance So to interpret is to expound white by blacke and light by darknesse and would argue extreame either stubbornesse against the truth or brutishnesse But Cyprian by Forme vnderstandeth not as wee haue shewed Accidents miraculously subsisting without Subiect but them together with the Subiect or the verity and truth of the thing And so hee perfectly agrees with Gelasius and the rest of the Fathers and all of them against Transubstantiation For as for those manifold plaine places by you here set downe I hope by this time they appeare not so plaine vnto you but are all of them fully answered and that without wresting any one of them from his true meaning N. N. Therefore though the Fathers doe sometimes call the Sacrament a Figure or Signe Representation or Similitude of Christs Body death passion and bloud they are to bee vnderstood in the like sense as those places of St Paul are wherein Christ is called by him a Figure the substance of the Father and againe an image of God and farther yet appearing in the likenesse of man all which places as they doe not take away from Christ that he was the true substance of his Father or true God or true man indeed though out of every one of those places some heresies haue beene framed by ancient heretiks against his Divinity or Humanity so doe not the foresaid Phrases sometime vsed by the ancient Fathers calling the Sacrament a Signe Figure Representation or Similitude of Christs Body exclude the truth or Reality thereof I. D. That the Sacraments by the Fathers are called Signes Figures Representations Similitudes and the like is so cleare that you cannot deny it and I feare it greeueth you much to read it in them because it maketh so directly against you Wherefore to salue all some pretty shift or colour must be devised those tearms must bee vnderstood as St Paul meaneth when he saith Christ is the Figure of his Father the Image of God and appeared in the likenesse of man For as here they deny not either the Godhead or Man-hood of Christ so neither in the Fathers doe they exclude the Body or Blood of Christ from the Sacrament And doe they not indeed Why then when Cyprian ere while said Retaining the forme of Corporall Substance did you so hastily exclud Substance and fancy to your selfe shewes subsisting of themselues without it But let vs examine this a little farther A Symbole saith Maximus is some sensible thing assumed insteed of that which is intelligible as Bread and Wine for immateriall and divine nourishment and refection And againe These are Symbols not the truth Sacraments saith Augustine are signes of things being one thing and signifying another It were no figure saith Chrysostome if all things incident to the truth were found in it And Saint Augustine againe If Sacraments haue not a resemblance or Similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they are not Sacraments These sayings of the Fathers plainely shew that in Sacraments they never conceiued the Figure and the Truth to be one and the same thing but that the signe is one thing and the thing signified cleane another And herevpon in expresse tearms they affirme that they are two not one The Eucharist saith Irenaeus consisteth of two things an earthly and an heauenly And Saint Augustine The sacrifice of the Church is made of two and consisteth of two things the sacrament or sacred signe and the thing of the Sacrament And it is to be noted that they speake generally of all Sacraments so as in the Lords Supper the Figure is no more the same with the Truth then it is in Baptisme And indeed vnlesse you can make Sensible and Insensible Corporall and Spirituall Earthly and
Body And wee are stedfastly to beleeue that the Humane nature was so assumpted by the Deity that although they both constitute but one Person yet they still remaine two distinct Natures and each of them retaineth its Essentiall Properties If then as the Apostle saith Christ be made like vnto vs in all things sinne only excepted and our Bodies cannot bee without Dimension of length breadth and depth together with circumscription proportion and Distinction of parts one from the other and the like then neither can the Manhood of Christ be without them Neverthelesse you fancy vnto Christ in the Eucharist such a Body as is vtterly deprived of them all For thus saith your Angelicall Doctor and what he saith is the generall Tenent of the Church of Rome In the Body of Christ in the Sacrament there is no distance of one part from another as of the eye from the eye or the head from the feete as it is in other organicall bodies For such distance of parts is in the true Body of Christ but not as it is in the Sacrament for so it hath not dimensiue quantity O miserable Christ that art driven into such narrow straits that the whole bulke of thy Body should be emprisond and as it were frapt together in every little crum and point of the hoste And more true and seasonable may the complaint now be then it was of old that the Sonne of man hath not so much as a place wherein to rest his head But seeing as Thomas saith The true body of Christ hath distance of parts and the Body of Christ in the Sacrament hath not distance of parts I marvaile what should let but that I may boldly inferre the conclusion Ergo the Body of Christ in the Sacrament is not his true body Againe it is an Article of the Faith that Christ being ascended into Heauen hath quitted the earth and now sitteth at the right hand of his Father This the Scriptures testifie The poore saith Christ yee shall haue alwaies with you but mee yee shall not alwaies haue And I leuae the world and goe vnto the Father And againe Now am I no more in the world but these are in the world and I come vnto thee Hence saith St Peter The heauens must containe him vntill the time that all things bee restored And then as the Angell said This Iesus that is taken vp from you into Heauen shall so come againe as you haue seene him goe into Heauen The Fathers saith the same Origen According to his divine nature he is not absent from vs but he is absent according to the dispensation of the Body which he tooke As man shall he be absent from vs who is every where in his divine nature For it is not the manhood of Christ that is there wheresoeuer two or three be gathered together in his name neither is it his manhood that is with vs at all times to the end of the world nor is his manhood present in every congregation of the faithfull but the Divine vertue that was in Iesus Tertullian In the very pallace of Heaven to this day sitteth Iesus at the right hand of his Father Man though also God flesh and bloud though purer then ours neverthelesse the same in substance and forme wherein he ascended Ambrose Neither on the earth nor in the earth nor after the flesh are wee to seeke thee if wee will find thee Augustine Mee shall you not alwaies haue He spake this of the presence of his Body For touching his Maiesty providence vnspeakable and invisible grace it is true that he said I am alwaies with you to the end of the world But as for the flesh which the word tooke which was borne of the virgin fastned to the crosse laid in the graue you shall not alwaies haue mee with you And why Because hee is ascended into heauen and is not here there hee sitteth at the right hand of the father Cyril of Alexandria He could not be conversant with his Apostles in the Flesh after hee was once ascended to his Father And Notwitstanding he be absent in the flesh yet by that only meanes the power of his Godhead he is able to saue his Finally Gregory the Great The word incarnate both remaineth and departeth he departeh in Body and remaineth in his divinity Thus the Fathers And hence is it that so often in their writings they exhort vs not to settle our thoughts here on earth but to send vp our Faith into heauen and thither to follow him in heart whither wee beleeue him to be ascenâ—â—d in body Now what you The cleane contrary that the Body of Christ is still present with vs here on earth and as ordinarily as he is aboue in heauen Nay more then so For there he is confined circumscribed to one place as also he was here in the daies of his Flesh when he liued among the Iewes but now by your Doctrine he may be and is in more then a thousand places at once even when and where you will For you haue power to reproduce him as often as you list then to keepe him with you as long as you please at least vntill the mouse devoure him or he begin to corrupt and putrifie But is it impossible will you say for the Manhood of Christ to be present in many places at once Impossible if we may beleeue the Fathers neither can you produce any one of them that saith the contrarie If the argument of the Fathers aboue quoted be good Hee is in heauen Ergo he is not in earth then can hee not at one time bee both here and there too And doth not St Cyril expresly say he could not be coÌ„versant with his disciples in the Flesh after he was once ascended to his Father St Augustine likewise Christ according to his bodily presence could not be at once in the Sunne and in the Moone and on the crosse And againe The Body of Christ in which he rose againe can bee but in one place but his truth is every where diffused Vigilius a blessed Martyr and Bishop of Trent The flesh of Christ when it was in the earth was not in Heaven and now because it is in hauen certainly it is not in earth And by and by Forsomuch as the word is every where and the flesh of Christ is not every where it is cleare that one and the same Christ is of both natures that is every where according to the nature of his divinity and contained in a place according to the nature of his humanity Finally Fulgentius One and the same sonne of God having in â—â—m the truth of the divine and humane nature lost not the properties of the true Godhead and tooke also the properties of the true Manhood one and the selfe same locall by that he tooke of Man aâ—d infinite by that he had of his Father
els would not Calvin haue cavilled at those words Vnlesse a man be borne againe of Water c. Is not the doctrine of the blessed Sacrament necessary Yet how many expositions of this is my Body So is that of Iustification yet twenty expositions of Scripture about the formall cause thereof So also is the doctrine of the Trinity and of Christs Divinity and humanity yet Ebionits Arians Nestorians Eutychians Valentiâ—ians Monothelites and Apollinarists holding heresies against them proue them all to their thinking out of Scripture Ergò Scripture is not so easy as I make it For where all things are plaine there men commonly agree I. D. The truth is being demanded the rule of Faith I named the Scripture and being farther demanded a rule whereby to know the sense of Scripture I answered two things First that all things necessary to salvation are so expresly and plainly set downe that there needs no farther rule secondly that those places which are more obscure are to be expounded by those that are more plaine and that sense which disagreeth is to bee reiected that which agreeth may safely be admitted Safely I say for although haply it may not be the right yet dangerous it cannot be as long as it accords with the Analogy of Faith This I declared somewhat at large in the writing sent to Mr Bayly which I perceaue hath come to your hands also yet satisfies not Otherwise you would not thus dispute against it But know you against whom you dispute Certainly not against me only but the ancient Fathers who affirme the same that I doe For touching the Perspicuity of Scripture in things necessary thus St Augustine In those things which are openly laid downe in Scripture are to be found all things which containe Faith and manners of liuing to wit Hope and Charity And St Chrysostome All things necessary are open and manifest so that there needed not homilies or Sermons were it not through our owne negligence And Cyril of Alexandria To the end they might be knowne to all both small and great he hath delivered them vnto vs in such familiar speech that they exceed no mans capacity So the rest And this is so true that your Gregory of Valentia confesseth it Such verities saith he concerning our faith as are absolutely and necessarily to be knowne and beleeued of all men are plainly taught in the Scriptures themselues So Sixtus Senensis also and others of your side As touching the interpretation of darker places by the plaine thus Saint Basil those things which seeme to bee ambiguous and obscurely spoken in some places of holy writ are enlightned by those which in other places are open and perspicuous And St Augustine There is nothing almost among these obscurities but in other places one may finde it most plainly delivered And St Chrysostome The Scripture every where when it speaketh any thing obscurely interpreteth it selfe againe in another place And this is the common voice of all the rest So that the answere I gaue you being no other then that wich I had learned of the Fathers you cannot reiect it but you must reiect the Fathers with all But let vs heare your reason The Doctrine say you of Baptisme of the Eucharist of Iustification of Christs two natures are necessary yet some texts vpon which they are grounded be litigious Grant it be so yet some againe are clear and evident That Christians are to be baptized what more plaine then that Goe teach all nations Baptizing them That the Eucharist is to be administred and receiued is clear by the institution of our Saviour and the practise of his Apostles That wee are iustified by Faith without the workes of the law wee haue the evident testimony of Saint Paul That Christ is God the very first words of Saint Iohns Gospell testifie In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and that word was God And lastly that hee is Man also what more expresse then those words of Saint Paul There is one God and one Mediator betweene God men the Man Christ Iesus If other places be not so plain they are to be expounded by these or the like But it may be your Doctrine of Baptisme is the absolute necessity thereof vnto salvation If so then certainely that place of S. Iohn is not cleare enough for it For it is not necessary it should be vnderstood of Christian Baptisme which was not yet instituted or it must be meant of those that are Adulti such as Nicodemus was to whom our Saviour spake In like manner if your doctrine of the Eucharist be Transubstantiation neither is that other place plaine enough for it For it is manifest both by the circumstances of the Text and the testimonie of the Fathers that the Relatiue This hath reference to Bread Now Bread in proper speech cannot bee Body as your owne men confesse Then is it so tropically and consequently no Transubstantiation The same doe I say of the errours about Iustification which should particularly haue beene shewed if you had quoted any particular place As for those Hereticks they were such as the Prophet speaketh of who in seeing saw and yet perceaued not hauing closed their eyes that they might not see And therefore it is a foule fault in you to excuse their obstinacy by charging the Scriptures with obscurity That Rule is sufficient which is able to convince the Conscience and satisfie all those who loue the truth and are ready to acknowledge it when it is made known though it stop not the mouths of refractary stubborne Hereticks This perhaps your living judge by vertue of fire and fagot may bee able to effect but the other if evidence of Scripture cannot nor he nor his Church will ever be able to performe More of this see in the Treatise sent to Mr Baylie N. N. If as I write to M. Baylie you may not relye too much on the authority of the Fathers because of their differences in opinions much lesse may you vpon the authority of our men being worse divided For they differ not in essential points we doe They wrote not so bitterly one against another as we doe Lastly they differed in matters as yet vndefined by a generall Councell and so not dangerous but wee haue no Councells nor any other meanes to decide our causes So that you cannot knowe which of vs giueth the true sense of Scripture I. D. That the Fathers are no way a sufficient ground of Faith I haue so strongly proued vnto M. Baylie that me thinkes none of you is in hast to answere it Among the rest of my reasons this I confesse was one that they varied so much in opinion one from another yea and are now made to vary from themselues through your intolerable abusing of them This I declared at large wherevnto for farther evidence I now adde an example or two S. Ambrose or whosoever is author of
it is said in expresse words that he tooke Bread and what he tooke he blessed what he blessed he brake and what he brake he gaâ—e to his Disciples and what he gaue he bid them take and eat of what they tooke and eat he said This is my body Of bread therefore he said it there being nothing before spoken of nor nothing else present whereof it could be spoken but only Bread And if our Saviour himselfe made no scruple at all to call his Body bread why should you think it strange if he vouchsafe also to call bread by the name of his body Adde herevnto the testimony of the Fathers Iustin Martyr We be taught that the sanctified food which nourisheth our flesh and bloud and what is that but Bread is the flesh and bloud of that Iesu. Irenaeus How shall it appeare to them that the bread on which they giue thankes is the body of their Lord and the cup his bloud if they grant not Christ to be the sonne of the Creator of the world Tertullian So Christ taught vs calling bread his body And againe Why doth Christ there call bread his body Cyprian Christ called bread made of many graines his body and Wine prest out of many grapes his blood Hierom Let vs learne that the bread which the Lord brake and gaue to his Disciples is the Lords body himselfe saying to them Take yee eat yee this is my body Athanasius or the Comment vnder his name What is the bread The body of Christ. Epiphanius Of that which is oblong or roule figure and senselesse in power the Lord would say by grace this is my body Cyril Christ thus avoucheth and saith of bread this is my body Theodoret In the very giuing of the mysteries he called bread his body Thus the Fathers To whom I may adde some of your owne men also as Gerson Wee must say that the article This doth demonstrate the substance of bread And Stephen Gardiner Christ manifestly saith This is my body demonstrating bread And the Canon Qui manducat bread is the body of Christ. This being so I assume but bread properly and without Figure is not Christs body The reason because Disparates cannot bee so predicated or affirmed one of another An egge is not a stone nor a stone an egg Besides if Bread properly be Christs body then is it of the seed of David conceaued of the Holy Ghost and borne of the blessed Virgin then was it also crucified and died it was buried and descended into hell it rose againe and ascended into heauen and now sitteth at the right hand of God for all these things are truely affirmed of Christ. The grosse absurdity or rather horrible impietie whereof your men well perceauing they are driuen of force to grant vs our Assumption For saith your Canon Law It is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ. Thomas of Aquin It cannot properly be said that of bread the body of Christ is made And Bellarmine It is altogether absurd and impossible for it cannot bee that bread should be the Body of Christ. Out of which Premisses thus I argue That which Christ saith is vndoubtedly true But Christ saith Bread is his body as wee haue shewed Ergo it is vndoubtedly true But it is not literally and in proper signification true as wee haue also demonstrated Ergo after some other manner What manner Let Bellarmine himselfe tell you Either saith hee it is to be vnderstood tropically that Bread is the Body of Christ significatiuely or it is altogether absurd and impossible Now certainly it is absurd and impossible that bread literally should be Christs body Ergo it is so Tropically and Significatiuely And this may yet farther appeare by that which Christ immediatly added This is my body which is broken for you Whence I thus reason As Christs body is broken in the Sacrament so is bread his body But Christs body is broken therein Sacramentally not literally Ergo so is bread Christs body It is farther added Doe this in remembrance of me If the Breaking of Bread be the Remembrance of Christ of his Death then is not bread properly Christ himselfe for nothing is the Remembrance of it selfe Figuratiuely therefore Herevnto the Fathers agree Tertullian Augustine Ambrose Hierome as is already declared With whom I could easily joyne many others but that it is needlesse seeing your selfe confesse that the Fathers call the Sacrament a Figure Signe Representation Similitude of Christs Body If any yet demand why our Saviour then did not rather chuse to say This signifieth my body I answere two things First the language in which he spake knoweth not the word Signifie but alwaies insteed of it vseth the word is as appeareth by these places The seauen fat kine and the seaven full eares of corne are seauen yeares of plenty The seaven leane kine and the seaven empty eares are seven yeares of Famine These bones are the whole house of Israell It is thou o King that art the head of Gold The tree which thou sawest is thou o King The foure great beasts are foure Kings The ten hornes are ten Kings The Ramme with two hornes are the Kings of Media Persia. The goat is the King of Grecia The like Hebraisins haue wee also in the new Testament The Rocke was Christ. Agar and Sara are two Covenants The seaven Heads are seaven hills The woman is the great citty Secondly being about to institute a Sacrament Sacramentall speech was best in which it is vsuall to call the signe by the name of the thing signified as is aboue declared To summe vp all the Article This either demonstrateth bread or doth not If not then can you not hence proue Transubstantiation thereof for that only is Transubstantiated whereof he spake If yea then is the speech Figuratiue and Bread remaines For if it be Sacramentally Christs body then it is and being it is not abolished by Transubstantiation I conclude with the determination of your owne law The Heauenly Sacrament which truly representeth the flesh of Christ is called his Body but improperly not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mystery Secondly it overturneth the Articles of Faith particularly the verity of Christs Humanity A point so materiall Fundamentall that the razing thereof draweth with it the ruine of the whole Christian Religion For this is the only ground of that great mystery of godlinesse God manifested in the flesh And if Christ be not as well true Man as true God then hath hee not suffered for vs nor redeemed vs then are wee yet in our sinnes and stand liable vnto the eternall wrath of his Father Wherefore according to the counsell of Saint Augustine Wee must carefully beware that wee doe not so maintaine the Divinity of the man Christ as to take from him the truth of his