a signe is signification therfore in all such Propositions by the Verbe Est iâ— vnderstood the essence of the same signe Now then seing in those said former examples and propositions one signe doth predicate of another for words are nothing else but signes it followeth that the Verbe Est is taken for Significat and yet without any Trope therin Touching the word CORPVS in which word most of our Aduersaries do choose rather to place the figure then in the former Verbe Est Now that this word Corpus cannot signifie figuraâ— Corporis as our Aduersaries pretend is most euident And first this is proued out of the words following to wit Quod pro vobis dâ—tur in Greeke being for the word datur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as also out of these other following touching the Cup Qui pro vobis effunditur in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now these two Greeke Participles being put in the Nominatiue case ought to be ioyned with a Substantiue of the same case therfore they are to be ioyned in construction with that which â—â— called Corpus and Sanguis and not with any words put in other cases as Corporis and Sanguinis Therfore either the true Body Bloud is in the Eucharist or his Body by way of representation and signification only to wit the Bread and Wine were giuen for vs and shed for vs which is absurd to affirme Secondly the same is proued from the former obseruations touching the Pronowne Hoc for seeing that this Pronowne doth not demonstrate Bread there is nothing left of which these wordâ— â—igâ—â—â— Corporis should predicate except they will say that the tâ—ue and naturall Body of Christ is a signe and figure of it selfe Lastly the Body of Christ wheresoeuer it is read in Scripture is eyther taken for his Mysticall Body to wit the Church or for his true and naturall Body but for a signe and figure of his body we neuer find it to be taken Therfore the Construction of the Sacramentaries giuen of the words of the Institution is most forced without any example or president of that kind throughout the whole Scripture But the more euideÌ„tly to proue that the words of the Institution caÌ„not be taken figuratiuely I do further present besides what hath bene already alledged to the Reader these few ensuing Obseruations First that this Pronowne Hoc designing some particuler thing prâ—uents all Figuratiue constructions And therfore we find that in other acknowledged Metaphoricall speaches of Christ touching himselfe the Pronowne Hoc is wanting as in these Ego sum Ostium Ego sum Vitâ— c. Secondly In all Metaphoricall speaches that are vsed by way of Explication it is not accustomed that one thing do predicate or be affirmed of another thing except the Praedicatum be some such thing in the which the propriety according to the which the similitude of the Metaphor is chiefly intended is more knowne and euident then it is in the other thing of the which the said Metaphor is affirmed And this is the reason that in Metaphoricall Propositions one thing doth predicate of another for the most part in genere or in specie at least But no such obseruation is heere found in the words of the Institution For heere according to our Aduersaries the Body and Bloud of Christ are affirmed of Bread and Wine and yet the vertue of nourishing which they heere assigne to be the ground of the supposed figuratiue speach is lesse euident and knowne in the Body and Bloud of Christ then in the Bread and Wine which before his pronouncing of the words Christ did hould in his hands Thirdly It is to be obserued that in the words of the Institution the Body and Bloud of Christ do not expresly predicate or are affirmed of Bread and Wine but only they do predicate of a word signifying some thing but with confusion and vncertainty to wit of the Pronowne Hoc And yet in other metaphoricall speaches euer a thing which is of one nature doth predicate of another thing of a different nature as Christus erat petra c. Fourthly we are heere to note the words following to wit quod pro vobis datur qui pro vobis effunditur c. Which are added to demonstrate the truth and propriety of the precedent Affirmation But in all Metaphoricall Affirmations nothing for the most part is wont to beadded but what doth more clearly expresse the propriety of that thing from the similitude wherof the Metaphor is drawne Thus one may say Caesar was a Lion by reason of his courage fortitude which later words are added to expresse more cleerly the nature of the Metaphor But now if the addition of words following doth not explicate the similitude of a Metaphor but absolutely doth shew the truth of the thing therin affirmed then doth such an Addition manifest withall the Propriety of the precedent affirmation as in these words That Christ suffered vpon the Crosse who was borne of a Virgin where we find that the later words not expressing any similitude of a Metaphor do intimate a Propriety and literall acception of the former words concerning Christ In like sort we say that those words Quod pro vobis tradetur Qui pro vobis fundetur c. VVhich stalbe diliuered for you c. and VVhich shall be shed for you c. do not import and signify any vertue of nourishing which they should haue done if the Propositions to which they are adioyned had bene Metaphoricall but they do signify that Christs Body and Bloud were the pryce of our Redemption which point hath no necessary coniunction with the vertue and faculty of nourishing And thus much in further explication of the word of the Institution est Corpus meum Hic est Sanguis meus c. A text in respect of a i A Sacrament instituted heerin Sacraments are accustomed to be instituted by God in most plaine words least otherwise we should erre in the vse thereof as appeareth by the Examples of the old Law and of Baptisme Sacrament instituted herein of a Testament k A Testament left therby That the Eucharist conteyneth in it selfe a Testament appeareth out of those words of Luke 22. Hic est Calix nouum Testamentum in meo Sanguine But nothing is accustomed to be expressed in more plaine and litterall words then a VVill or Testament that thereby may be preuented all occasion of contention as touching the Will of the Testator And this appeareth by the example of the old Testament which being instituted in Exod. 24. is there explicated in most proper and familiar words The like course we see performed in the making of the Testaments of men left therby and of a Precept l A Precept or Law That there is a Diuine Precept in the Institution of the Eucharist appeareth out of those words Accipite Edite hoc facite But the words of Lawes and Precepts ought to be most perspicuous and cleere since
Aduersaries heere doe It is not felt not seene Ergo it is not a Body for it may be that a true body may be present and yet neither seene nor felt either in that it is couered with a new Body or else because God may hinder that it shall not transmit any sâ—nsiâ—les species to the sense of sight Besides it may be effected by diuine power that a Body may exist indiuisibly after the manner of a spirit and yet it is impossible that a spirit should exist diuisibly after the manner of a true and naturall Body But of this point also I haue discussed in the former part hereof and felt That the Eucharist euen after Consecration is called u Is called Bread The Eucharist is called indeed Bread in the two former texts of the first to the Corinthians yet it followeth not that therefore Christs Body is not in the Eucharist for it may be called Bread in that in the Hebrew Phrase vnder the name of Bread is vnderstood all kind of meate Againe it may be so called in that the Scripture is often accustomed to call things as outwardly they appeare so it calleth the Brasen Serpent a Serpent Angells appearing in Mens shape Men the brazen Oxen of the Temple Oxen c. Therefore in that the Eucharist externally differeth nothing from Bread no meruayle if it be so tearmed Thirdly the Eucharist may be called Bread because it is made of Bread or because it was Bread before Thus we find that Matth. 11. the blind are said to see and Exodus 7. the wands changed into Dragons were notwithstanding after called wands And Genes 3. Eue is called the Bone of Adam Bread That the Iewes who receaued not the Eucharist did neuerthelesse eate the same spirituall x The same spirituall meate 1. Cor. 10. Patres nostri eamdem â—scam spiritualem manducauerunt eumdem potum spiritualem biberunt All our Fathers did eate the same spirituall foode and did drinke the same spirituall drinke This place prooueth not that the Iewes did eate the same spirituall meate which we Christians doe eate which point is to be proued or else these words make nothing against the Reall Presence but it only euinceth that all those Iewes which then did liue as well the wicked as the vertuous did eate the same spirituall meate And therefore S. Augustine to distinguish the spirituall meate of vs Christians from that of the Iewes thus saith Aliud est Pascha quod Iudaei de oue celebrant aliud quod nos in corpore sanguine Domini accipimus meate with Christians That whatsoeuer entreth in y Entreth in at the Mouth Matth. 15. Omne quod intrat in â—s in ventrem vadit in secessum emittitur Heere our Sauioure speaketh only of meates which are taken for the nourishment of the body for such meates doe hold their ordinary course wherefore when after his resurrection he did truly eate and drinke yet seing he did it not to the end of nourishing his Body therefore that meate and drinke so taken by him had not the ordinary passage with other meates described by our Sauiour In like sort the Body of Christ which is taken by the faithfull not to nourish their bodyes but their soules is not corporally disgested nor hath the common passage with other meates at the mouth is to haue it ordinary and naturall passage with common meates Finally that our Sauiour himselfe affirmes that it is the spirit z The Spirit which quickeneth Iohn 6. Spiritus est qui viuificat caro non prodest It is the spirit which quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing From which place our Aduersaries do gather that seeing the flesh profiteth nothing that therfore Christs flesh is not truly in the Eucharist which Inference is false for heere the litterall sense of these words is not that the flesh of Christ doth not profit but that a carnall vnderstanding of spirituall things doth not profit and so is this place explicated by Cyprian Serm. de caena Domini Origen lib. 3. in epistola ad Romanos Chrysostome vpon this place and by diuers others Now this construction heerof is proued because almost in euery place in the Scriptures the flesh is distinguished against the spirit as we find in Gen. 6. Matth. 16. Rom. 8. Gal. 1. and in diuers other places Therfore our Sauiours meaning in the former wordes is that to thinke that the flesh of Christ is to be eaten after a carnall manner as other meates are to wit to be cut in pieces to be boyled to be conuerted into our proper substance by force of the naturall heat in which sense the Capharnaites did afore think our Lord to haue spoken that thus carnally to imagine profiteth nothing and therfore our Lord immediately subioyneth Verba quae ego locutus sum vobis spiritus vita sunt that is they are words explicating diuine spirituall things and such as bring eternall life and therfore they are not to be vnderstood after a humane and carnall sense But let vs suppose that Christ spake of his flesh yet it proueth nothing against his being in the Eucharist both because by the same reason we may conclude that the bread is not in the Sacrament for if the body of Christ profiteth vs nothing much lesse will a little peece of wheaten bread profit vs Againe if our Lord had spoken of his flesh he would not haue vnderstood it absolutely but only that the flesh without the spirit profiteth nothing since otherwise our Lord should haue crossed himselfe who saith euen in the said Chapter Qui manducat carnem meam habet vitam aeternam Lastly it is no lesse then a great impiety to deny that the flesh of Christ being vnited with his Diuinity profiteth vs nothing seeing that S. Paul Coloss 1. attributes all our saluation to the flesh of Christ since he saith that we are reconciled to God by the said flesh which quickeneth and that the flesh profiteth nothing Let vs I say display at full how in these Texts they euen diuorce the letter from the true sense of the Holy Ghost and that they are so impertinently or forcedly applyed by them as that they appeare hereby to vse the Prophets Idiome a In sua fortitudine confusi Ezech. 16. in sua fortitudine confusi their weakenesse thus rising out of their imaginarie strength yet as men desirous still to intertaine further contestation and dispute they neuer cease to make their sallyes and attempts out of these weake fortresses thus heere enlarging ouermuch the sense of the letter where it is to be rather straitned as afore straitning it when it was to be enlarged and euer forgetting that notwithstanding all contrary machinations of Sectaries whatsoeuer it is recorded in the Scripture that b Scriptura non potest solui Iohn 2. Scriptura non potest solui Let vs laying aside the written Word alledge the diuers stupendious and astonishing Miracles Gods peculiar Language Dialect
pretended when first it l VVhen first it beganne I know well that most of the vulgar Sacramentaries diuulge in their writings that the doctrine of Transubstantiation first came in in the Lateran Councell holden vnder Innocentius the 3. yea Doctor VVhitaker himselfe is not ashamed to teach so much lib. 7. contra Duraeum pag. 480. The falshood of which common error is by seuerall meanes discouered First because that Councell was gathered chiefely to condemne the contrary doctrine of Berengarius then first broaching this Heresy so as this Councell did then suppresse and disallow all innouation of doctrine which very point is acknowledged by Fox himselfe Acts and Monurn pag. 1121. who thus there writeth About the yeare of our Lord 1060. the denying of Transubstantiation began to be accounted Heresy and in that number was first Berengarius who liued about Ann. Dom. 1060. Secondly It is most improbable that a Councell gathered out of all the most distant Nations of Christendome should vpon a present so conspiringly imbrace an innouation of doctrine so contrary to Sense as the Catholike doctrine herein is Thirdly and Lastly The Protestants themselues doe acquite this Councell from bringing in the doctrine of Transubstantiation since they doe charge diuers Fathers therewith lyuing long before this Councell of Lateran As for Example to omit those confessions of the Protestants which hereafter vpon another occasion shall be alledged we find that Doctor Humfrey in Iesuitism part 2. rat 5. thus writeth In Ecclesiam quid inuexerumt Gregorius Augustinus Intulerunt onus cerimoniarum c. Transubstantiationem c. In like sort we find that Vrsinus Commonefact cuiusdam Theologi de Sacra Domini Caena pag. 211. reprehendeth Theophylact and Damascene for the doctrine of Transubstantiation in these words Theophylactus Damascenus planè inclinant ad Transubstantiationem Yea Damascene was so full in this doctrine that he is charged therewith by diuers other Protestants to wit Doctor Fulke against Heskins pag. 217. 204. Oecolampadius l. epist Oecolampad Zuing. l. 3. pag. 66◠so true is that confession of Antony de Adamo a famous Protestant who thus writeth hereof in his Anatomie of the Masse pag. 236. I haue not hitherto beene able to know when this opinion of the Reall and bodily being of Christ in the Eucharist did first beginne And thus far of this point where only it can be obiected that as the former Councell inuented only the word Transubstantiation but not the doctrine so the Councell of Nice inuented the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the doctrine thereof were afore beganne and entered into the Church whereas of the other we are able to note the Author who first did disseminate it to wit Berengarius m Berengarius Archdeacon This appeareth out of Paschasiui lib. de verbis Instit Sacramenti Archdeacon of Angiers The Tyme when Anno 1051. The place where France The paucity at the first beginning of his followers some few schollers first allured to him by gifts The astonishment of the Church hereat as wondering at so strange a Paradoxe like men gazing at a new appearing Comet And lastly the n Contradiction and Opposition For he was written against by Lanfrancus Guitmunaus and Algerus Contradictiō Opposition Censure of the Church giuen against his doctrine in ten o Tenseuerall Councells To wit in Concilio Romano Vercellensi Turonenfi Romano vnder Nicolas the 2. Romano vnder Gregorie the seauenth Romano vnder Innocentius the 3. Viennensi Romano vnder Iohn the thirtenth Constantiensi Tridentino seuerall Councells his Heresie being condemned in them all and himselfe personally Anathematized in some of them So deseruedly was he depriued of the Communion of the Holy Church since he laboured to depriue the Church of her Holy Communion Adde hereto for the greater accession of reasons herein that he was so irresolute in this his Opinion as that he did abiure it three seuerall tymes so forsaking his faith twice for so often he reuolted after his Oath taken with breach of Faith though finally he dyed therein Catholike And thus much of the first origen of the Sacramentarian Heresie from whence it appeareth that it is of a far later Date then our Catholike Faith the discouery of all which particulers doth sufficiently argue the falshood therof since it is true that to reduce an Heresie to the beginning therof is a confutation of the said Heresie Let vs I say alledge all this yet will our Aduersaries maintayne the former Innouator though not as an Inuentor of any New Heresie but as a Restorer forsooth of a former more ancient Faith wheras indeed it is most certaine that before the reuolt of Berengarius this rare Vtopian Nouelist iumping in doctrine with Berengarius and our Sacramentaries was p Neuer heard of For though Ignatius in epist ad Smyrnenses maketh mention of some who denyed the Reall Presence in the Eucharist yet those Heretickes were not properly and formally Heretickes in this point but chiefely in the Article of the Incarnation for seeing they denyed that our Sauiour tooke vpon him true flesh they consequently and by way of inference only denyed that his flesh was in the Eucharist neuer heard of in any place or tyme. And as touching so many Councells condemning Berengarius they reiect and traduce them all most vnworthily affirming them either to be Schismaticall or at the most but Men and therin subiect to Errour Fye of this Iewish obstinacy of our Sectarie who spurnes at the alledged Testimonies of whole Councells the highest Tribunalls in Gods Church because they are but Men and yet himselfe expecteth for Heresie cannot subsist without Pride that others should sweare fealtie to his Iudgment being but the seely weening of one Man Lastly let vs demaund of thē that seeing they cānot be induced to admit our Interpretation of Scripture nor any other afore alledged Authorities or Reasons and seeing it is against the custome of al Schooles against Reason it selfe that the Parties should become their own Iudges that they relying only vpon Scripture themselues only should expound Scripture whether they will be pleased to acknowledge for Vmpiers in this point the most ancient and learned Fathers Men in their life time though much disterminated by Sea and Land yet all breathing one and the same Faith And though Neutralls to our present factions yet parties no doubt to the causes of the said factions Finally such as we who now liue in these Autumnall and decaying dayes of the Church may in their writings be able to glasse the face and beauty of Christs intemerate Spouse I meane the purity and integrity of the faith of Christians during the Period of the Primitiue Church But heere euen at the sound and name of the Primitiue Church our Aduersaries grow pale and yet they blush they are affraid to accept of these conditions as men guilty to themselues of their future ouerthrow and yet they are ashamed that the world
Because the words of those Testimonyes doe almost euer intimate some effect or efficacy of the Eucharist which to Bread and Wyne is incompetent as that it nourisheth our Soules or that it is the Price or Pledge of our Saluation or hope of our Resurrection or that it suffered for our Sinnes or some other such spirituall worke energy or operation whereof the bare Symboles of the Eucharist are not capable Thus may the obseruant Reader cleerely discerne the feeblenes of this their Answere and conclude with himselfe that such Testimonyes of the Fathers cannot be construed of Christs Body as it is in Heauen since the Words precedent or consequent restraine it to the Altar Nor of Bread and Wyne Symbolically and Sacramentally representing the Body and Bloud of Christ since Bread and Wyne cannot produce the spirituall Effects there specified so cleare it is that our Sectary in approaching to answere the said Sentences doth ineuitably runne vpon some one circumstantiall pyke or other of the said Authorityes wherewith he is most dangerously wounded That this my Reply may be more cleerely conceaued I will instance it in this one Testimony following which shall serue as a Precedent for all the rest of the same nature The like couse of exemplifying I will obserue in all other kynds of their Answers and though such places were afore alledged yet here they are produced vpon a different occasion S. Augustine then in l. 6. Confess c. 13. thus writeth touching his Mother Tantummodo memoriam sui ad Altare tuum fieri desiderauit vnde sciret dispensari Victimam sanctam qua deletum est chyrographum quod erat contrarium nobis Only she desired that remēbrance of her might be made at thy Altar from whence she did know the holy Sacrifice to be dispensed or giuen by the which the hand-writing which was contrary to vs is defaced Out of this place we proue as we shewed aboue that by Victima sancta here specified by S. Augustine is vnderstood the Body and Bloud of Christ Now heere it cānot be answered that the Body of Christ is meant as it is in Heauen because he saith that this Victima is dispensed or distributed from the Altar which thing agreeth not with his Body as it is in Heauen Neither can it be said as some seeme to interprete it of the Bread and Wine Typically signifying the Body and Bloud of Christ in that the Bread Wine was not the Sacrifice which was offered for vs vpon the Crosse And thus much of this first kind of our Aduersaries Answere Another forme of euading the pressures weights of the Fathers Authorityes is this That if in the alleaged Authority there can be found but any one word which is to be accepted not litterally but figuratiuely metaphorically or in some other forced construction then our Allegoricall Sectarie inferres therupon that the whole Sentence though most strōgly fortifying the Catholike doctrine heerin is to be taken figuratiuely not literally vrging that seeing both the points are cōtayned in one and the same Sentence or Period and that the one by our confession is not to be vnderstood literally why should the other obiected by vs be taken literally The Transparency of which Answere is easily seene through And first we are to know and obserue that euery thing which is not deliuered in plaine and literall words proceedeth not alwayes from an intention of Rhetoricke or Amplification in the Writer but often euen out of Necessity since somtimes we are forced therunto as not hauing that natiue habit of speach words wherwith otherwise we would apparrell the true conceipts of our Mind which scarsitie of apt wordes may perhaps be sometimes found in the writings of the Fathers yet hence it followeth not that all the rest adioyned therto must partake of the same want Againe whether this kind of writing riseth out of a defect of words or out of a delicacy and choicenesse of a Mans pen yet the Argument hence deduced is inconsequent since by this reason we may inferre that almost no one Text of the Apocalyps may be alleaged as literally to proue or disproue any thing and why because some adioyning parcell therof is set downe in a Figuratiue kind of speach And thus we cannot alleadge contrary to all ancient Expositours that Text in the Apocalyps These are they which haue washed their Robes haue made them white in the Bloud of the Lambe cap. 7. to proue that Martyrs and other Saints of God are saued by the Bloud of Christ because forsooth in the said Sentence there are two Metaphors to wit the long Robes wherby are signified the Bodyes of the Saints and the word Lambe meaning therby Christ and therfore it should follow vpō the said ground that the word Bloud must also be here a Metaphor not signifying bloud indeed and so excluding the Bloud of Christ frō our saluation but some other thing shaddowed therby Yea which is more if this kind of Answere were solide we could scarce produce any one sentence of the Psalmes literally to be expounded of Christ or his Church in which Authorityes we Christians mainly insist against the Iewes since that part of Scripture is most luxuriant of Tropes Schemes and other Figuratiue speaches And yet we see that it is most incongruous to maintaine that any whole Psalme is to be interpreted Allegorically because we find certaine Figures in some Passages thereof Thus it is euident how defectiue this Answere is which consisteth in resoluing the Fathers sentences into Figuratiue Senses But our Aduersaries boldnesse stayeth not heere in deprauing after this sort Mans word but extendeth it selfe to corrupt in like manner by ouer much origenizing and mystically interpreting it Gods sacred word This second Forme of Answere I will illustrate with this Testimony following S. Chrysostome Homil. de Eucharist in Encaenijs thus writeth Num vides Panem num Vinum num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt Absit ne nec cogites Quemadmodum enim si cera igni adhibita illi assimilatur nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit sic hic put a mysteria consumi corporis substantia Doest thou see Bread doest thou see Wyne doe these things goe into the common passage as other meates Let it be farre from thee to thinke so For euen as Waxe being put in the fire is assimilated or made like to it no part of the substance remayning or redounding So heere imagine that the Mysteries are consumed through the Substance of the Body Of this place I haue entreated aboue But heere now we are to take notice that our Aduersaries labour to delude the force therof by answering that those words of this Testimony Mysteria consumi are not to be vnderstood literally for so they should be false in that the externall Formes of Bread and Wyne which are conteyned in the word Mysteria are not consumed by the accession of the Body of Christ for we see that the Accidences of
and Influence ouer a Mans Penne forcing her Enemyes at vnawares euen in impugning her to defend her for so our Sectaryes doe mightily strenghten this our Catholike Faith when in refuting of it they acknowledge the Fathers to be our chiefest Patrons and extorting at their hands the like benefit which Premethâ—us Thessalus recorded by Plutarch had receaued from his capitall Aduersarie who in fight intending to kill him launced only with his sword a most dangerous mole or wenne and so thereby without any further hurt restored him to his more perfect health But as heere I haue deliuered the Protestants Assertion to wit that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church did with a full consent maintaine the Reall Presence so I take it not impertinent heere to set downe briefly another Position to wit That the Primitue Church did neuer ioyntly erre in Faith and Religion Which Proposition is most true both in reason it selfe and by the acknowledgment of our Aduersaries In Reason for seing that Christ fouÌ„ded his Church with such solicitude as he did and being founded did water it for it encrease and continuance with the shedding of his own most precious Bloud and the Bloud of infinite Martyrs during those Primitiue tymes can it stand with his diuine and benigne Prouidence presently after his AsceÌ„sion or at the most vpon the death of his Apostles to abandon his former care had therof Or shall we imagine him so vnkind and vnmercifull who through a mercifull kindnesse was content corporally to dye to preuent our eternall death as instantly then to repudiate his most deare and chast Spouse by suffering an vtter disparition and vanishing away of the true Faith By the acknowledgment of the Protestants the former Assertion is also most true as shall euidently appeare out of their owne words from the Reference b From the Reference appropriated Answerably hereto we find that Iewell in his defence of the Apology thus saith The Primitiue Church which was vnder the Apostles and Martyrs hath euermore beene accounted the purest of all others without exception Kemnitius saith in his Exam. Conc. TrideÌ„t part 1. pag. 74. VVe doubt not but that the Primitiue Church receaued from the Apostles and Apostolicall Men not only the Text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sense thereof And in the same part he also saith VVe are greatly confirmed in the true and sound sense of Scripture by the testimony of the Ancient Church Doctor Sarauia in defens tract de diuersis Ministrorum gradibus pag. 8. writeth Spiritus Sanctus qui in Ecclesia praesidet verus est Scripturarum Interpres ab eo igitur est petenda vera interpretatio cum iâ— sibi non possit esse contrarius qui primitiuae Ecclesiae praesedit per Episcopos eam guberuauit ipsos iam abijcere consentaneum veritati non est In like sort the Confession of Bohemia in the Harmony of Confessions pag. 400. acknowledgeth that The Ancient Church is the true and best Mistresse of Posterity and going before leadeth vs the way Finally Doctor Bancroft speaking of Caluin and Beza thus writeth in his Suruey of the pretended Holy Discipline For M. Caluin and M. Beza I doe thinke of them as their writings doe deserue but yet I thinke better of the ancient Fathers I must confesse All which prayses and commendations giuen by so many of our Aduersaries to the Primitiue Church and the Fathers of those Ages are vnworthily wrongfully and vntruly applyed if so the Church of that Tyme or the Fathers therof should haue generally erred in matter of faith appropriated to this place Now these two Propositions to end this Chapter withall I will combyne and incorporate togeather in this one Argument wherby our Aduersaries may more clearly discerne the ineuitable and dangerous resultancy issuing from such their confessed yet true Assertions Thus then Whatsoeuer the Primitiue Church did iointly teach in matter of Fayth the same is by the confession of the Protestants most true But the Primitiue Church did ioyntly teach by the confession of the Protestants the Doctrine of the Reall Presence Therfore the Doctrine of the Reall Presence is by the confession of the Protestants most true The PropositioÌ„ is acknowledged by our Sectaries in the Marginall Reference The Assumption is abouÌ„dantly confessed by them throughout this whole Chapter for it caÌ„not be denyed but that doctrine which was taught by all the chiefest learned Fathers of the Primitiue Church was the generally taught and receaued Doctrine and Faith of those Ages and Tymes therfore the Conclusion is most truly and necessarily inferred And thus my nyce Protestant Reader if so his stomake can endure the the tast of an Argument hath heere a Compound to wit that the Doctrine of the Reall Presence is by the confession of the Protestants most true made of the mixture or the two former Simples l By D. Humfrey In Iesuitismi part 2. raâ— 5. OF CERTAINE CONSIDERATIONS Drawne from Luther the Lutherans and other Protestants teaching the doctrine of the Eucharist CHAP. XI HAVING in the former Chapter proued euen froÌ„ the Testimonies of our Aduersaries so receauing from them therby a benefit but not a courtesie that the ancient Fathers though most remote froÌ„ vs in circuÌ„stance of Place and Tyme were neuerthelesse conspiring with vs in faith beliefe of the Eucharist and therfore altogeather opposite to the professed doctrine of the Sacramentaries Thus the Fathers God is not as our Aduersaries God euen our * Euen our Enemyes Deuteron 32. Enemies being Iudges It will not in this place seeme I hope inconuenient if I present to the Readers iudgment two obseruations the deliberate consideratioÌ„s wherof though but Morall inducements are able to obtund and blunt the most forcible reasons vrged to the contrary The first of these shal be taken from Luther whose malice towards the Pope for indeed he breathed nothing but Malice Pride and Lust was so implacable as that he endeauoured by all meanes possible to annoy and endomage the Sea of Rome and therupon as the World knoweth he did burst out from the Catholike Church by denying the most poynts denyed at this day by the Protestants Hence now I would demaund how chanced that he changed not his opinion in the Article of the Reall Presence aswell as in the rest since the detriment comming to the Pope by this meanes must haue beene very markeable and far extending for it would haue brought in an Innouation of the externall daily worship of God throughout all Christendome Truly we can assigne no other reason but that the euidency of the Euangelists and the Apostles Texts for a Himselfe confesseth to wit in his epistle ad Argentinos himselfe of this point confesseth no lesse was so vnauoydable as that he could pretend no colour of dissenting from the Church of Rome heerin And so being heere conuinced with the perspicuity of Christs owne words was constrayned to acknowledge him to be in the