bloud of our Christ and Sauiour it is no charitie Nay saith Augustine it is plaine impietie and a wicked and a most damnable fact And so to prooue the action lawfull Augustine would haue you Catholicks but you wil hee Caphernaiâ—â— Canibals the kingdome of charitie hath euer taken these and the like propositions to bee figuratiue and the sence to be spirituall Therefore if you will bee loyall subiects of charities kingdome shewe your subiection to her charitable and Catholicke exposition otherwise you will stand indited of spirituall and vncharitable rebellion That protestants by their owne principles can not affirme Christ our Saluiour not to be spiritualy it selfe in the Sacrament Also that S. Augustin disproueth them 54. HIs late saying that he hath my hand Fitzimon to the great errours which most safely he keepeth with him I graunt to be true yet not to but against the errours which to his perdition most safely as he saythe he keepeth with him which as a candle by fingers snuffed leaueth blacknes and burning to the snuffers hands remayning by their detraction more cleere and in it selfe mor delytsome As in all our processe by Gods grace it hath and shall more and more appeare It is first the 32. vntrueth The 32. vntruth that yf these woords of Christ be figuratiue and Sacramental This is my bodye this is my blood of the new testament they will plainly disproue our transubstantiation For it hath bene oft professed that we allow but not only as you doe spiritual and figuratiue sence of these woords not excluding real substantial and literal It appeareth in the numbers 14. 15. 31. 34. 40. 42. 46. 49. c. You haue bownd your selfe in your first position for which you replye as it is ingrossed by your selfe to stand vpon a spiritual presence only to the faythfull beleeuers Therfor no testimonie or allegation will auayle you wher in only spiritual or only figuratiue is not coÌ„prised Nay yf it coÌ„tayne the woord spiritual it must be also impertineÌ„t to your purpose vnlesse you recant your agreemeÌ„t with the protestaÌ„t martyrs who sealed with their blood as Fox deliuereth Fox Acts Monum pag. 1529. that the difference of doctrin betweene the faithfull and papists coÌ„cerning the Sacrament is that the Papists say that Christ is corporaly vnder or in the forme of bread and wyne but the faythfull say that Christ is not there nether corporaly nor spiritualy Behould how you are ingaged that nether can you hould corporal or the so much spoken of spiritual Caueat in aunswer to our allegation of Tindal c. 1 vnlesse you degenerat from your protomartyrs primatiue protestantcie to whom and which you haue bound your selfe in expresse woords to agree in vnitie and veritie of doctrine Now to our mater and S. Augustins woords First he doth not say that they be figuratiue only coÌ„sequently are not against vs as appeareth in the numbers lately specified nor for yow Secondly he disputeth not against our beleefe but against the Capharnaits August tom 9. trac 27. in Ioan. of whom he saith Sicut illi intellexerunt carnem non sic egâ— do ad manducandum carnem meam as they vnderstood fleash not so do I giue my fleash to eate But how saith he did they vnderstand fleash Quomodo incadauere laniatur aut in macello venditur As it is torne from a carcas or sould in a shambles In such sense only and to such conceits would S. Augustin haue Christs woords to be esteemed figuratiue to witt in regard of them who as S. Cyrill l. 4. in Ioan. c. 22. saith Ad immanes ferarum mores vocari se à Christo arbitrabantur incitarique vt vellent crudas hominum carnes manducare sanguinem bibere They surmised that they were prouoked after the sauage maners of beasts to eate mans raw fleash and drinke his gore bloud Wheras Christ did farr otherwyse intend it as that he would be eaten in the lykenes of bread and wyne which were figures of his operations in our soules But to say that for the seeming of Christs woords to be horrible or to be taken figuratiuely his substantial and real presence should be excluded August tom 6. con aduer leg prophet l. 2. c. 9. is most remote from S. Augustins inteÌ„tion and all his writings Behould here but one yet infallible and palpable proofe therof Mediatorem Dei hominum hominem Christum Iesum carnem suam nobis manducandum bibendumque sanguinem dantem fideli corde ore suscipimus quamuis horribilius videatur humanam carnem manducare quam perimere humanum sanguinem potare quam fundere VVe receaue with faythfull hart and mowthe Iesus Christ man Mediatour betwixt God and man giuing his fleash to eate and his blood to drincke although it seemeth more horrible to eate the fleash of man then to kill and to drincke the blood of man then to shedd it Doth is seeme horrible to eate Christs fleash according to S. Augustin and to drincke his blood yea more horrible then to kill yet he assureth vs that not withstanding such seeming we should eate and drinke not his figure but his fleash and blood not in faithfull hart only but also by mowthe Alas let S. Augustin alone in lyfe a Catholick Frier or Monke in his books a Catholick doctor in bothe an enemye and triumpher against hereticks Hitherto you haue neuer brought S. Augustins testimonies â— Reg. 11. but as Vrias tooke infortunat leters to his owne distruction Aug. l. 3. de Ciu. c. 16. Further S. Augustin would haue these figuratiue speeches so long to be accompted figuratiue till charitie consist with their meaning Out of which you inferr that Christ can not be eaten corporalye it being say you farr against charitie But this consequence is farr against Charitie Ex Serm. de verbis Euan. Citatur a Beda 1. Cor. 10. and veritie Witnes the same S. Augustin saying Quis inuitauit quos inuitauit Et quid preparauit Inuitauit Dominuâ— seruos preparauit eis cibum seipsum Quis audeat manducare Dominum suum tamen ait qui manducat me viuit propter me Quando Christus manducatur vita manducatur Nec occiditur vt manducetur sed mortuos viuificat Quando manducatur reficit sed non deficit VVho hathe inuited whom hathe he inuited and what hath he prepared our Lord hath inuited his seruants and prepared him selfe meat to them VVho dareth deuoure his Lord yet neuer the lesse he sayth who eateth me liueth because of me VVher Christ is eaten lyfe is eaten Nether is he killed that he should be eaten but he quickneth the dead VVhen he is eaten he feedeth but is not impaired Loe whether S. Augustin thinketh it inconuenient or against charitie for any to eate his Lorde himselfe being the inuiter himselfe the preparer himselfe the foode Loe whether the eating of Christ be a tearing digesting or consuming of Christ Tom.
some other qualities lest the receiuers should abhorre rawe and bloodie thinges and that beleeuing they should receiue greater rewards of their faith This faithe Church which dispersed through out the world is called Catholike helde from oulde time now holdeth Yow behowld him of sett purpose to deliuer the ancient fayth to affirme the change into the essence of Christs bodie the accidents to remayne the causes of not seeming what is contayned playnly expressed the same to haue euer befor and then bene the beleefe of the Catholik Church as is now by vs beleeued What thinke yow two such holy archbishops of Canterburie are they not more worthy of credit then M. Rider Alas it is a shamefull demaund to be had in controuersie since therfor he is not worthy to be their chaplins equal wil he not blush yf his forhead be not of brasse to tell hencfoorth our doctrin not to haue bene euer the same in the Catholick Church 73. That in the Popes Court and in his Consistorie Rider there bee diuers opinions touching transubstansiation yet the deniall of it or the contradicting of the Popes opinion was (a) Deniall of Transubstantiation in Rome was no death no death though in those mercilesse daies of Spanish Philip and Romish Marie it was made the thirteenth Article of our faith and it had been lesse daunger to haue denied those twelue old articles of our old faith then this one of your new faith for the one was dispensed with for monie but the deniall of the other was punished with death without mercie But you will replie and say not withstanding the dissentions aforesaid yet Christs words be true he cannot lie he hath said hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie therefor it is his bodie 73. I report me to all considerations Fitzsimon whether they euer obserued a style lesse steeled as I sayd befor or more friuolouse What might I imagin to awnswer to suche pregnant vntruethes In the Popes court and consistorie in this point ther is dissention of opinions Vnder spanish Philipp and Romish Marie transubstantiatoin was made a thirteenth article of beleefe he immediatly telling it was made vnder Innocent the third who liued 300. yeares befor Philipp Marie Then dispensation to haue bene grawnted for mony concerning all other articles of beleefe c. The least that I can do is to score vp of so many the 76. vntrueth The 76. vntruth 74. We confesse these words to be Christs words and therefore true Rider but the litterall sence is yours and therfore false But that I will not bee tedious vnto you I could shew you as manie seuerall opinions dissenting about the meaning of hoc est and corpus as I haue done in the premisses but that the Catholickes shall know there is no such vnitie not veritie in your doctrine as you confidentlie but vntrulie haue taught them therefore I will giue them but a taste till some other time onelie pointing you and them to their Authors and places and then read aduisedlie and iudge without partiall affection This Frier you heard latelie recited your seuerall jarres touching consecration Iosephus Angles do Essentialibus Euch. pag. 114. 115. 116. now heare him with your patience to deliuer his other seuerall opinions touching the exposition of these three words seuerallie hoc est corpus The first opinion is that this demonstratiue pronoune hoc must bee referred not to the bread 1. Iosephus but to the bodie of Christ that this should be the sence hoc est c. id est corpus est corpus meum That is this my bodie is my bodie but how absurd this is let the young Sophisters in the schooles giue their censures 2. Bonauentura 3. Occham in lib. 4. 1. S. Thom. 2. Ricar 3. Scotus Nec panem nec corpus sub ratione corporis sed corpus Christi sub ratione entis vel Indiuidui c. lib. 4. pag. 182 de sacro Altaris mysterio cap. 17. But the second opinion is of Bonauentura who saith this pronoune hoc must be referred to the bread that must be conuerted into Christs bodie but not to Christs bodie The third opinion is Occhams and he is of opinion with the first There followeth three other learned mens opinions contrarie to all the former and say flatlie that this demonstratiue hoc must not be referred to note either the bread or the bodie of Christ but that this might be the sence hoc ens vel hac substantia quae continetur sub speciebus c. This thing or this substance which is contained vnder the accidents of bread is my bodie but how well these opinions with their straunge Logicall manner of reasoning will content the learned Priests Iesuits I would faine knowe for this I am sure they sound not either of diuinitie or learning But this Frier for a farewell concludes pag. 118. pronomen hoc nihil This pronoune hoc signifieth nothing till the last sillable vm be pronounced Hoc nihil demōstrat In the same pag. Pope Innocentius the third saith that hoc signifieth neither bread nor Christs bodie because the whole words of consecration were not spoken vnlesse saith he you will say the Priest consecrates at this word Benedixit he blessed But the Pope saith hoc signifieth nothing and his reason is that the Priest sheweth or noteth nothing because he vseth hoc est c. not by way of demonstration but by way of cursorie repetion Marke this you Iesuits and priests so then this Pope will haue this sence hoc est corpus meum that is nothing is my bodie But in the three of the last lines of that chapter his wisedome changed his minde and said this is my bodie that is what soeuer is vnder the formes of bread is my bodie Is not this thinke you deepe diuinitie for a Pope You may see hereein how the Pope vseth shamefull shifts to couer his sensible errors and to deceiue Christs littell flocke In his Marc. Anton. Con. Stephen Gardner liuing but latelie seeing euery mans opinion expounding what hoc should be hee disliketh them all and faith it signifieth indiuiduum vagum as if Christ had said This but what it is I cannot tell but it must of necessitie be some what is my bodie De consec dist 2. can Timorem Glossa ibidem But I will conclude with your owne Popes Canon and Glosse which you hold for Canonicall though in deed hereticall solet quaeri quid demonstratur per pronomen hoc It is a common question what is meant by this pronoune this whether bread or the bodie of Christ not bread for that is not the bodie of Christ nor yet the bodie of Christ for it appereath not that there is anie transubstansiation till the words bee all pronounced yea the last fillable vm To this question this must be aunswered That by the word this nothing is meant but it is there put
materially without anie signification at all See now whither you are brought or rather whither haue you brought Gods people from trueth to false hood if hoc signifieth nothing where then is your transubstantiation For if in that word which should first worke in the change there bee no mention of bread how can that which is no way comprised in them be changed by them and so you speake against your selues Againe as you are rent in sundrie opinions touching hoc so also are you touching est for when you saw that est would not serue in his proper Euangelicall and Apostolicall signification then you gaue him a new exposition For Bonauenture seeing that est as Christ and Paul meant it would not fit their purpose VVhat est signifieth there is great variāce amōgst the Romish Prelats Est i. Fit Est est verbum anuntiatiuum non constitutium Est i. erit Iosephus Angles in loco praedicto pag. 115. then hee of purpose expounded it by Fit vt sit sensus panis fit corpus meum that it might be thus in sence The bread is made my bodie Yet Occham hee likes not Bonauentures Fit because hee thinkes it is too grosse and too false and therefore he will expound est by erit that it may carrie with it this sence this shall be my bodie but saith he it is a verie rash and brainsicke opinion and alleadgeth as brainsicke a reason as there you may see Yet Caietanus the Cardinall de Eucharistia cap. 7. pag. 104. col 2. C. D. denieth est to haue anie such signification vnlesse it be in metaphors and parables But least that I shuld be too offensiue vnto you I could deliuer so many seueral opinions of yours touching the praedicat corpus one saith it must bee meant of Christes bodie glorified no saith another that is false but it must be vnderstood of his bodie as it was before his passion And a third opinion obiects certaine doubts against both the former Magister Sententiarum lib. 4. dinstinct 12. page 60. deliuers foure seuerall opinions de fractione partibus Now Gentlemen I appeale to your consciences if they be not cauteriated whether you haue dealt well with the ignorant Catholickes of this land in perswading them that in all your doctrine there is consent without jarres antiquitie without innouation and vniuersalitie without limittation whereas there is nothing but jarres discords and dissentions in your consecration in your transubstantiation and in euery word almost nay perticle as hoc and est be so wrested by your construction that you haue brought both their proper significations to plaine destruction Is this exposition Catholicke what auncient father euer expounded it so let the Catholickes know or else they with vs will iudge neither you nor your doctrine Catholicke Will you follow a foolish Frier an ignorant Abbot a late vpstart Pope or Priest that writ and wrested within these foure hundred yeares and forsake Scriptures and the auncient Doctours of the Church Now let the indifferent minded Catholikes be iudges whether you or wee haue antiquitie consent and veritie on our sides And who differs from Scriptures and fathers from and amongst themselues not onelie in one point of religion but almost in euerie point particle of doctrine Thus much concerning your discords amongst your selues all against the auncien◠Apostolicall and Catholick truth 74. Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici Fitzsimon being admitted to behowld this courser I would say discourser can yow good frends refrayne from smyling He telleth yow the third opinion is all one with the first and yet that it is the third and not all one but a seueral opinion This must needs make vp the 77. vntrueth The 77. vntruth Next that the fowerth fift and sixt opinions are all contrary to the former and yet that being different The 78. vntruth they are not different among thēselues but that they all agree This is the 78. Then he maketh a ragged argument yf nothing be conuerted by the first worde all our dealing is vndone Alas yf he would be capable he might thinke that this conuersion is done by Gods infinit vertue in an instant not by parts seueraly according to the woords Hoc est corpus meum as yf to euery woord a sondry part were correspondent but that to all the forme conioyntly all the conuersion is to be referred so that ther be conceaued a diuers substance present whiche was not befor not euery woord but the whole forme being pronownced Is not this a frantick kynde of cofuting to say only this is sayd I am suer it is false how absurd this is let young sophisters iudge I am suer they sound not of Diuinitie or learning is not this deepe diuinitie for a pope and no suche matter sayd but forged by him selfe his assurance childishe the absurditie only in his conceits the diuinitie and learning impugned so inexpugnable as nether in his brayne is ther any reason and by his mowth but Riderian blasts to contradict it Therfor to bring disputations of Doctors therby to testifie a disagreement betwixt them in their beleefe of the substance of transubstantiation they being only of the tyme therof is as wysely done especialy by one more frequent and seasoned with experience in law cowrts then learned colledges as yf he wowld assure that laweyers disagree in allowing the law because they plead seueraly for their Clyents of the construction or tyme of constitution or number of sillables of the law Or yf he wowld say that philosophers doubt whether ther be wynde rayne riuers because they diuersly imagin how when and whence they haue their original Remembre what was informed in the 65. numbre that it is impossible we can haue any dissentiōs among vs according to the saying of the Apostle Si quis autem videtur contentiosus esse 1. Cor. 11.16 nos talem consuetudinem non habemus neque Ecclesia Dei Yf any seeme contentiouse we haue noe suche custome nor the Churche of God Because a Christian wryter among vs must follow as Waldensis saythe Tho. Wald. l. 2. doctrinalis fidei cap. 21.23 the iudgement of the Churche vnder the payne of misbeleefe yf it be a point of faythe or vnder the payne of contumacie yf it be not And all Catholick students among vs doe read the disputations of Doctors vndecided by the Churche cum iudicandi libertate with libertie to censure according to S. Augustins woords S. Augustin cō Faustum lib. 11. c. 5. Et epist 48. ad Vincent and his instructiō toward himselfe and all others imbraceing whatsoeuer they fynde true and imputing it to the Catholick Churche and reiecting what they fynde false imputing it to deceaueable man This is a priuilege of Catholicks to be free from dissentions and neuer but to concurr in one Faythe Luther Zuinglius Cal. n. 19. examinis Not so the wicked not soe as appeareth in the 19. number of the precedent examination
there is no carnal presence Here is an absolute conclusion vpon a conditional proposition yf bread remayne c. which yet in Luthers opinion of companation would be false The other proposition is deceytfully supposed true beyond all controuersie that bread remayneth c. A second Yf you be autheurs of their synns you must be partakers of their punishment but as he deceytfully supposeth or rather as I thinke in my conscience dissembleth to suppose we are autheurs of their synns which being in controuersie one only proofe had bene requisit in forme of argument but that at his hands were to seeke woolle at the goats howse therfor c. Yf Mennon Darius lieutenant against Alexander were among such compagnions how often should he be occasioned to cudgell or bastonad them as he did one of his sowldiours reuiling and reprehending the Macedonians saying I keepe thee to fight and not to scould For yf Memnon lyke you bereaue them of their rayling reasoning that you keepe people in ignorance that you will tast as recusants of Christs gospell vengeance in flaming fyre other such fanatical naked reproaches Other fighting of their learning you nede as litle feare as hurt from a serpent whose sting and teeth are taken away 94. Thus you record to the worlds wonder Rider Rhem Test 1. Cor. 11. Sect. 16. Rome Rhemes shame against God Christ Scriptures and Fathers that ill liuers and Infidels eate the bodie and drinke the bloud of Christ in the Sacrament and your reason there followeth that they could not bee guiltie of that they receiued not and that it could not bee so hainous an offence for anie man to receiue a peece of bread or a cup of wine though they were a true Sacrament First old father Origen shall answere you who saith Est verus cibus quem nemo malus potest edere Origen super Math. 15. page 27. It is true meat which no wicked man can eate Heere Origen condemneth the Rhemists Romanists and all late Priests and Iesuites for holding this opinion iniurious to Christs death and all true Catholikes faith But you may obiect against Origen and say the Rhemists laid downe their opinion and gaue reasons to confirme it But where is Origens reason by which he prooues this former position that no wicked man can eate Christs bodie Super Math. 26. forsooth it is in his Comentarie vpon your text brought forth of mathew in these words Panis quem filius Dei corpus suum esse dicis verbum est nutritorium animarum the bread which the Sonn of God said to be his bodie is the nourishing word of our soules Out of which this we gather that seeing this bread or meate is the nourishment of our soules not of our bodies he spake of the heauenlie part of the sacrament For we know in common sence that bread and wine cannot nourish the soule but the bodie I haue proued by scriptures and Fathers before that the hand and mouth of the soule is a liuelie iustifying faith which you all your side cannot denie but the wicked want Now if the wicked haue no mouth nor stomacke to receiue this spirituall food and digest it as the foresaid Fathers haue affirmed why doe you say that the wicked and Infidels can eate the bodie of Christ wanting both hands mouth and stomacke And the scriptures call wicked men dead men Now you know dead men cannot eate meate corporall Chrysost Hom. 60. ad pop Antioch no more can the wicked which are dead spirituallie eate meat celestial And Chrysostome sayth Let no Iudas stand to no couetous person if anie be a disciple let him be present for this Table receiues no such as Iudas or Magus for Christ saith I keepe my Passouer with my disciples And to conclude with Augustine Tract 26. super Ioh. pag. 175. Qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus proâ—ul dubio c. Hee that abides not in Christ and in whom Christ abides not out of doubt eateth not spirituallie his flesh nor drinketh his bloud although carnallie and visiblie he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ but rather eateth and drinketh the Sacrament of so great a thing to his iudgement and the reason followeth Quia immundus c. because hee is vncleane in heart and presumes to come to the Sacrament of Christ which no man can worthilie receiue vnlesse he be pure and cleane in heart as Christ saith Mat. 5. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God Out of Augustine I obserue against both your opinions these thinges First hee makes a difference of Christes flesh and the Sacrament of Christes flesh for they bee two things and to be distinguished with their seueral substances and properties and not to bee confounded or transubstantiated one into the other and so the nature of bread perish as you vntruelie imagine and teach Secondly that the wicked receiue and grinde with their teeth and swallow with throat the outward Sacrament that is the outward visible creatures of bread and wine Acts. 15.9 to their iudgement or condemnation because they presume to come without a cleane heart and conscience purified by faith But the godly eat the heauenlie part of the Sacrament which is Christ with his benefits because they dwel in Christ by faith and Christ in them by his spirit as hath been plainlie handled before Part. 3. distinct 2. cap. 65. And now I will be bolde to vrge your owne Popes decrees against you Qui discordat à Christo c. whosoeuer dissenteth from Christ doeth neither eate his flesh nor drinke his bloud but the wicked dissent from Christ therfore they neither eat Christs flesh nor drinke his bloud And cap. 69. following quicunque panem c. Whosoeuer eateth this bread the Lord shall liue foreuer but the wicked liue not for euer therfor the wicked eate not this bread the Lord. Now Gentlemen I would faine see how you can dissprooue these Fathers and old Popes and satisfie the Catholicks in this case but I shall haue a fit place to speak of the vnreasonablenesse of this opinion in the title of the Masse where I must shewe to the Catholickes the Popes Priests and Iesuits shamefull opinions that you thinke it no incouenience not onelie for the wicked but also for all such bruit beasts as cats or dogs rats or mice hogs or swine to eate the blessed bodie and drinke the precious bloud of Iesus Christ VVhether the wicked may receaue Christ or noe Fitzsimon The 85. vntruth 94. WHat a ful-mouthe worde worlds wonder is the 85. vntruth thrust out withal that the wicked receaue not the body of Christ Could euer honest or other countenance a true complaint better then Putifars wife or the false harlot before Salomon or the wicked Iudges their false accusations Blame me if M. Rider be not here and euery wher found
it is a name proceeding from meere folly of man that Carolostad vtterly reiected it and that you must be satisfyed with the woord of seale which sayth Bruce God and Christ haue giuen to his Apostle c. Only yf this had bene sayd befor not couertly but playnly and sensiblye we had neuer inueyed against your figuratiue SacrameÌ„t Muscul in loc con c. de canan 2. pag. 327. but against your figuratiue seale And then according to Musculus had we bene neuer the nerer For seale is not fownd so conuenient to specifye your doctrin as appeareth by him in these woords the bread is the body of Christ nether naturaly nor personaly nor realy marke good M. Rider nor corporaly nor yet spiritualy agayne marke I pray you for in the 62. number you are shewed to be a falconer and therfor may obserue your game in your owne phrase nor figuratiuely good Sir attend nor significatiuely you will loose all your opinion yf you take not heede restat post haec omnia Westphal loc cit Clebitius in victoria veritatis ruina Papaâ—us Saxonici argum 12. vt dicamus panemesse corpus Domini sacramentaliter it remayneth after all these that we say the bread is the body of Christ sacramentaly So that this woord Sacrament is nethet allowed nor the woord seale retayned but Sacrament sayth Westphalus then only obserued when Caluinists may shift and lurk vnder it as in this case tearming it a brasen wall being at all other tymes disclaymed as noteth Clebitius Notwithstanding this foisting in of the new fangled woord Seal and enimitie against the woord Sacrament as else where against the woords Christ Churche Catholick traditions preests merit good woorks Romain real Trinitie consubstantial Crosse blesse c. Yet you shall behould our Reformer so Catonicaly to censure this lightnes as yf it had not bene his and his brethrens but our fault Sic curios simulant bacchanalia viuunt Yet mistake me not that I seeme to dissalowe the worde Seale in his naturall signification knowinge that it is founde applyed to Circumcision Gen. 17.10 Rom. 4.11 but what I indeuour is only to taxe this translation of wordes out of the owlde testament into the newe without al authoritie and occasion to prepare a way to exclude al Sacraments of the new testament by proouing them of no greater force then the ceremonies of the ould lawe with whom they agree in appellation P. Martyr 1. Cor. 11. His diuision of three sortes of faithe is borrowed out of Peter Martyr nothing belonginge to any matter in question S. Chrysost hom 45. in Ioan. nothing true and containing nothing needful to be refuted Lastly al his former discourse out of S. Chrisostom of treason by the violence toward the picture as much as toward the Prince in person although it ouerthroweth euery way image-breakers c. yet how it ouerthroweth the point in question is breefly to be declared Yf sayth S. Chrysostom the defylers of the kings robe be noe lesse then the tearers therof punishable what meruayle yf vncleane consciences receauing the body of Christ be as damnable as the crucifiers of him Wherby obserue how this maketh against Protestancie that the vncleane receaue the very body of Christ that it is more treason against Christ to abuse this Sacrament then against a kinge teare to a kings robe it is no lesse then to crucifie him 1. Cor. 10.16 The challice of benediction which wee blesse is it not the communication of the bodie of Christ And the bread which wee blesse is it not the participation of his flesh 97. GEntlemen yee wrong the Apostles text first in your abuse of words Rider Verse 21. secondlie in mistaking the sence Your words be these The challice of benediction Pauls words in Greeke that must be iudge betwixt vs and which wee doe follow if we will follow Christ are these The cup of thanksgiuing And the holie Ghost so expounds his owne meaning after calling it poculum Domini the cup of the Lord. But you are much to be blamed of all good men because you had rather follow some late corrupt translation vse some superstitious inkhorne termes latelie deuised and so forsake the olde Apostolical phrase which the holie Ghost vseth in that holie tongue and in which it is still recorded for our instruction either confesse your ignorance in the Greeke or your malice against the trueth that the Catholickes bee no longer seduced by you that long trusted in you and to your doctrine Againe you say The bread which we blesse we say as Paul said and the holie Ghost pend The bread which we breake Alasse alasse what sinne doe you commit in thus seducing Christs flocke and the Queens subiects who hitherto haue builded their faith vppon your bare words Is this plaine dealing with Gods heritage are you Catholicke Priestes I pray you certifie the Catholikes what tongue or traÌ„slation hath it thus as you pen it The bread which wee blesse I tell you plainelie yet in charitie that you doe belie the Texte falsifie the tongue and seeke to keepe the people in blinde ignorance and superstitious palpable darknes to their euerlasting condemnation vnlesse the Lord recal them and they repent them Paules wordes ar these in Greeke and so your owne Hieroms translation hath them The bread which we break But you are so besotted with the crossing of your fingers which you tel the people is the true Catholick blessing that you forget and forgoe the true blessinge of the cup which is the Apostolical thanksgeuing to God for our redemption purchased in Christs blood whereof the cup is the true signe Againe we say as the holy Ghoste indited it and Paule writte it The communion of the body of Christ you say as no learned man of the Greeke text euer saide Error in the sence of the Texte Rhem. Testament 1. Cor. 10. sect 4. the participation of his fleash Thus much I haue shewed how vntruly you deale First in abusing the wordes of the Apostle Secondly in seducing and deceauing the Catholickes Let here the charitable Catholickes iudge how you wil abuse theire eares with fables that dare thus falsifie the plaine text Now come to shew how you mistake the sence of the words in the text seeking by indirect wresting to make the text prooue your errour which it denieth in flat termes and truth For I assure the Catholickes that nor one word fillable letter or title of this text once sounds of your carnall presence You follow the Rhemish who in this place thus expounds the words of the Apostle The cup which we blesse that is to say the challice of consecration which we Apostles and priests by Christs commission do consecrate c. and afterwards it followeth the Apostle expresly referreth the benediction to the Challice and not to God making the holie bodie and the communicating thereof the effect of the benediction Now let me intreate you to aunswere me
that the simple be no longer seduced by your Romane doctrine expounding this 6. of Iohn grammaticallie and carnally contrarie to Christs meaning constraining these places to prooue your carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament when there was no Sacrament then ordained I will set downe GOD willing Christs meaning truelie and plainlie which you shall not be able either by Scriptures or auncient Fathers to contradict 1 First I will plainelie deliuer the occasion why Christ vsed the Metaphor of Bread calling himselfe Bread 2 Secondlie according to which of Christs natures he is our liuing bread whether as hee is man onelye or God onely or as he is compleat God and man 3 Thirdly how this bread must be taken and eaten whether by the mouth of the bodie or the mouth of the soule 4 Fourthly the fruit that comes to the true eaters thereof 5 Lastly the reasons shall bee alleadged out of Christs owne words to prooue that your round Wafer-cakes vpon your supposed hallowed Altars are not that true bread Christs flesh which Christ heere speakes of The first proofe of Catholicks for the Real presence owt of the 6. of S. Ihon. 36. THe 11. the 12. and 13. vntrueth Fitzimon The 11. 12. and 13. vntruth are here suddenly obtruded to all mens eyes That Christ neuer ment the literal sense that Christs Church for a 1000. yeeres neuer tawght it That euery figuratiue speeche must be expounded not litteraly I might haue added his saying that the phrases in this mysterie be figuratiue and allegorical That we are not able to contradict his expositions That he will expound such things as he promiseth But that the bulke be not to great I promise to dissemble the greatest part of his vntruethes Nether will I proceed but by good proofs against the former few vntruethes calculated The first that Christ intended not the literal sense is contradicted by Christ him selfe saying when he did giue at his last supper what here he promised that it was his body which was to be deliuered Mat. 26.1 Cor. 11.24 Mar. 14.24 and 〈◊〉 â—lood which was to be shedd therfor as not a figure nor any body figuratiuely but literaly and naturaly was giuen for our sinns so no figuratiue sense but literal must haue bene intended by Christ The second is to be testifyed in all our controuersie The third is very absurd Galat. 4.22.23 Genes 16.15.21 For S. Paul certifyed that Abraham had two sonns one by the handmayd and one by the free woman but he by the handmayd was borne according to the fleash and he by the free wooman by repromission Which saith he are figuratiuely spoken Now yf M. Riders words were not vntrue these woords being spoken figuratiuely could not be true literaly Which is knowen to be contrary to Genesis wherin the literal historie is related Lykewyse wheras he saith that what soeuer Christ promised is to be receaued by faithe and wheras S. Paul here affirmeth the sonne of the free woman to haue bene by repromission it should acording to his wysdom follow that such a sonn was neuer borne but only by faith Yea yf to his former saying you conioyne his saying à litle befor that receauing by faith is real receauing and make one saying of bothe that Christs promises are receaued by faithe and being so receaued are really receaued it must ensue first that Abraham had his sonne Isaak really yea and all his posteritie really as soone as he beleued faithfully the promises of our Lord secondly that our bodyes already haue immortalitie really and heauenly glorie and all that we may expect at Gods hands yf we haue faith therof as I sayd already really Yea the punishments of hell being promised to the wicked by M. Riders saying must be receaued by faith and consequently contrary to all protestantcy but not trueth the wicked may haue faith and contrary to protestantcie Esa 29.13 Mat. 15.8 Mar. 7.6 and also trueth the damned them selues must haue faith lykewyse seing they receaue the punishments promised to them by Christ Is not this learned doctrin would any ould woman knowing hir prayers but in latin transgresse so much against faith and religion 1. Occasion The question was mooued by some Belli-gods that tasted of Christs banquet bountie in feeding fiue thousand men with fiue loaues two fishes whether Moises or Christ were the more excellent and liberall in feeding men Rider 37. FIrst they commend Moises from the greatnesse of his place and person being Gods Lieutenant to conduct Israel out of Egypt 2. Secondly they commend their Manna from the place whence it came which was the heauens as they supposed 3 Thirdly they commend the bread from the Vertue of it which was it fed their Fathers in the drie sandie and barren wildernesse and saued them from famine and therfore they thought that no man was greater then Moises no bread to be coÌ„pared with Manna Now Christ by way of opposition and comparison confutes them opposing God to Moises and himselfe to Manna 1. First denieth that Moises was the giuer of that Manna but that God was the authour Moises onely the Minister 2 Secondlie that it came not from the eternall kingdome of God which is properlie called heauen but from the visible clouds improperly called heauen 3 Thirdlie Christ denieth Manna to bee the true bread because it onelie preserued life temporall but could not giue it but this bread Christ doeth not onelie giue life corporall but also life spirituall in the kingdome of grace and life eternall in the kingdome of glorie 4 Fourthlie this bread Manna ceased when they came into Canaan and could no more bee found Iosua 5.12 but this bread Christ doth feed vs heere in this earthlie wildernesse and raignes for euer with his triumphant Church in our euerlasting and glorious Canaan the kingdome of heauen 5 This bread Manna and so all corporall meates when they haue fed the bodie they haue performed their office they perish without yeelding profit to the soule Ioh. 6.54 but this bread of life Christ is the true btead which once beeing receiued into the soule doth not onelie assure and giue vnto it eternall life but also to the bodie like assurance of resurrection and saluation so that the soule must first feed on Christ before the body can haue any benefit by Christ contrarie to your doctrine which is that the bodie must first feed on Christ carnally then the soule shal be thereby fed spiritually And because they were so addicted in Moises time to Manna in Christs time to his miraculous loaues respecting the feeding of their bodies not the feeding of their soules Therefore Christ dehorted them from food corporall to food spirituall Labor not saith he for the meat that perisheth Ioh. 6.27 but for the meat that endureth to euerlasting life which the sonne of man shall giue vnto you c. And thus much touching the occasion why Christ is saide to bee the
DominicuÌ„ corpus accipimus vt sicut videtur illa panis forma in nos intrare sic nouerimus eam quam in terris habuit conuersationem ipsum intrare in nos ad habitandum per fidem in cordibus nostris Whence also this text signifieth that pure Sacrament of the Altar where we receiue the bodie of Christ that as the forme of bread is seen to enter into vs so we shal know Christ entreth into vs to dwell in our hearts by faith by that holie godlie conuersation that he had being in earth Now examine Bernard your owne Abbot though liuing in the palpablest time of the grosest superstition yet he vtterly coÌ„demnes your exposition of this place sheweth you that it doth not signifie Christs carnall presence in the SacrameÌ„t But as the SacrameÌ„t consisteth of an outward signe inward grace so bread the outward signe entreth into the mouth Christ which is the inward grace entreth into our hearts by faith So that your owne Author tells you it is bread that entreth the mouth it is Christ that entereth the heart that by faith not by teeth by beleeuing not by chamming or swallowing So that this your Bernard teacheth you that this your text must be taken for the diuiner part of the Sacrament which is Christ with all his merits to the soules hearts of the beleeuers not to or in the blasphemous mouthes and stinking stomackes of Infidells wicked men dogges cats or other beastes as your owne bookes most wickedly recorde VVhether euery spiritual sentence or mention be a denial of Corporal and Real Fitzimon 42. THey are in extreamitie and want of wolle who wandre among brambles to gather flocks Such is the proceeding of our aduersaries seeking with all ernest attentiuenes fragments from the Fathers in which they commend spiritual receauing spiritual being of Christ in the sacrament a quick and liuely faithe toward Christ and the sacrament and by these sentences they certifie theire brethren that the Fathers stand for their opinion as yf they were excluding true and real receuing That which is so often taught them should once be conceaued that the Fathers toward the Sacrament commend spiritualitie conioyned with realitie and substantialitie and allow figures conioyned with veritie not haueing any purpose or place in their writings by the one to exclude the other Our doctrin that spiritual and corporal were not incompatible but agreable together Chrysost hom 60. ad popul Antioch Idem hom 61. was vttered long since by S. Chrysostom saying of Christs being in the Sacrament that he is medled with vs Non fide tantum sed ipsa re not in faithe only but also in very substance Againe not by charitie only but by very substance is he made our foode Also by S. Cyril Alexandrin Cyrill l. 10. in Ioa. c. 13. Theophylac in cap. 14. Mar. 17. Mat. Greg. hom paschali in conformable woords not by charitie only but by natural partaking is Christ in vs. Also by Theophilact this my body which you receaue is not only a figure or exemplar of our Lords bodie but the body of Christ. Also by S. Gregorie Christ is both the veritie and figure the veritie by his body being made of bread Ansel l. de Diu. offic apud Claud. rep 3. c. 4. and the figure by what outwardly appeareth Also by S. Anselme By the benediction of Christ the bread is made the bodie not significatiuely only but substantialy For nether from this sacrament do we exclude a figure nether do we admitt it alone It is the thing truely for it is Christs body It is a figure because that is sacrificed which is knowen incorruptible Doe not these Fathers affirme both spiritual and substantial both figure and trueth both spirit and letter Why then are they wrested by them who professe only spiritual without substantial only figure without trueth Aug. trac 27. in Ioan. in Psal 98. De verbis Apo toli Ser. 2. Item Cypr. acâ—ana only spirit without letter What meane they to bring S. Augustin disputing against the Capharnaical conceit of receaueing Christ as in cadauere dilaniatum aut in macello venditum in his carcas bowtchered or sould in the shambles as he him selfe expresseth often and in respect of them to call the Sacrament a figure Doth he say only a figure Or his and S. Bernards commending the spiritual sense of scriptures and spiritual receauing of the Sacrament an argument as yf they had or would exclude therby the literal sense or substantial receauing Are you in doubt of their myndes in this controuersie They then resolue you First S. Augustin August in Ps 33. that Christ by saying this is my body was twyse at the table once sitting once houlding himselfe in his owne hands S. Bernard de coena Domini that secundum literam according to the leter Next S. Bernard saying Hostia quam vides iam non est panis sed caro mea c. The host which thow behouldest is not now bread but my fleashe Euen so the lyquor which now you see is not wyne but my blood Euen as the formes are there seene whose substance are not beleeued to be there so the thing truely and substantialy is beleeued whose forme is not seene Here our transubstantiation here our haueing Christs body in diuers places here our literal doctrin here our whole papistrie is assured to haue bene in these Fathers as much as in vs. S. Paul saith Si est corpus animale est spirituale 1. Cor. 15.45 Yf there be a natural body ther is also a spiritual body Therfor the one doth not exclude the other Therfor Christs spiritual body should not be Capharnaicaly supposed to be bitten rent or maÌ„gled by his real substaÌ„tial and corporal being in the Sacrament You would thinke him iniurious who would inferr that because you haue a corporal head corporal body and are a corporal man that therfor you haue no spiritual witt in your head no sense in your body and are no spiritual man Can both consist in you and not a figure and substance spirit and corporal trueth and literal in sacraments and scriptures O protestantcy seely are thy shifts and they discouered fowle and apparent thy falshod and it made manifest yet there are that persist to follow thee fullfilling therin the scripture saying Prou. 29. Verbis non emendabitur seruus durus si enim intellexerit non obedient By woords will not the hardned seruant be amended for althowgh he should vnderstand yet will he not obey I haue bene slack to numbre the 18. vntrueth The 18. vntruth which at least is here produced in playne termes that our owne authour telleth vs it is bread that entreth the mowthe wheras he only saithe panis forma which M. Rider him selfe translateth the forme of bread and not bread it selfe adding that we should know Per eam ipsum intrare in nos Dominicum
therefore figuratiue against your opinion You shall heare the Church of Rome deliuer her owne minde with her owne mouth which you cannot denie her wordes be these Ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio dicitur non rei veritate sed significante misterio That offering of the flesh which is done by the hand of the Priest is called the passion death Dist. 2. de consecratione canon Hoc est pag 434 You cannot denâ—â— but this Popâ— was a Protestant and if this canon be Catholicke then is your carnall presence antichristian and crucifying of Christ but not in exactnesse of trueth but in misterie of that which was signified and the glosse there maketh most plaine against you Dicitur corpus Christi sed improprie vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat corpus Christi It is called the bodie of Christ but improperly that is figuratiuely that this be the sence it is called the bodie of Christ that is it signifieth the bodie of Christ Fitzimon 57. How M. Rider abused the decretals and how by them he receaued vtter destruction to his cause is demonstrated in the 46. number Yet now agayne he kicketh against the prick wel then doth the text and glosse say that the immolation of the preist is called improprely the passion and death of Christ Truly and so will all Catholicks say the same For who euer heard the masse of the preist to be proprely the cruental acte of the Iewes against Christ or called the cruental sacrifice on the Crosse This is as much against vs as when we graunt it to be true we loose no more therby then a candle doth in giuing light to another candle reseruing as much light in it selfe as if it had lighted none So although we affirme all that is now produced M. Riders sute is graunted and our light nothing deminished Rider 58. I will alleadge in this case other Popes and the faith of the Church of Rome in another age whereby the Reader may plainelie see that the auncient Popes and auncient Rome had the true succession in doctrine which we stand now on not that false succession of the place and a rotten worme-eaten chaire that you brag of De consecratione dist 2 Panis est in altare Glossa ibid. page 435. the glosse speaketh thus against your litteral sence of Hoc est corpus meum Hoc tamen est impossibile quod panis sit corpus Christi yet this is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ Not possible by their owne confession that bread should bee the bodie of Christ. Now gentle Reader see the wrong the late Popes and Priests offer to the Catholicks of this kingdome they would haue them imbrace that for faith which the old Church of Rome held for heresie that for possibilitie which she saith is impossible Why would you haue vs to beleeue that which you your selues say is impossible This all the Iesuits and Priests in Christendome cannot aunswere If you say these two Popes and the Church of Rome then taught the truth why doe you now dissent from the olde Romane faith If you saye the Popes and Church of Rome then erred you will be counted an hereticke and therefore in Gods feare confesse the trueth with vs and the olde Church of Rome and deceiue the Catholickes of this kingdome no more with this litteral sence of Hoc est corpus meum which you borrow from the late Popes and late Church of Rome and is a new error dissenting from the old Catholicke faith Fitzimon 58. Here is great want of integritie In the glosse alleaged is affirmed that the saying it is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ should be takeÌ„ according to a sound maner to witt during the being therof bread For the saying that of bread is made the body of Christ Ita vt post consecrationem non sit iam ibi panis sed verum corpus Christi So that after consecration bread is ther no longer but the true body of Christ is towld to be the sound maner and meaning intended in the very same text and glosse Whether then can he seeme to any men Catholicks or others which had the face and conscience to misreport this glosse and to informe the decretals thus distroying protestantcie to stand for protestantcie woorthy to be houlden a lawfull Preacher or a faithfull witnes or conscionable informer or as being a godly spiritual honest preacher when so many others his betters are in great extremitie to haue yearly aboue 1500. raziers or cowmbs of corne besyds other commodities in such a choise deanry I know not how many vntruethes besyd all other faultines any other would skore vp in these woords which I calculat but for the 43 vntrueth only The 43. vntruth Let others imagin what discontentment and tediousnes any religious mynde might conceaue to incountre so contrarious a spirit or such a spirit of contradiction against knowen trueth 59. And I will adde one other Popes Canon Rider Corpus Christi quod sumitur de Altari figura est dum panis vinum videntur extra Dist 2. can Corpus Christi pag. 438. col 4. You cannot denie this Pope to be a protestant in this point veritas autem dum corpus sanguis Christi in veritate interius creditur The bodie of Christ which is taken from the Altar is a figure so long as the bread and wine are seene vnreceiued but the truth of the figure is seene when the bodie and bloud are receiued trulie inwardly and by faith into the heart Now the glosse in that place expoundeth the text and saith Corpus Christi est sacrificium corporis Christi alias falsum est quod dicit The bodie of Christ in the text signifieth the sacrifice of the bodie of Christ otherwise it is false Out of which I note the Church of Rome cals the outward Elements Christs bodie that is a figure of his bodie being not receiued though consecrated Secondly that the bodie of Christ wherof the Sacrament must be a figure The Popes glosse against the Popes text must be receiued by faith into the soule not by the mouth into the stomacke Now the glosse saieth the text is false vnlesse c. But I leaue the iarre to be reconciled by you who be the Popes friends yet this I say And Gelasius another Pope more auncient then those against Eut. is of this opinion Maledicta glossa quae corrumpit textum These three Popes and the Church of Rome in those dayes it was before the birth of your Transubstantiation and your carnall presence jumpt with all the old Fathers and the Primitiue Church that liued the first sixe hundred yeares after Christ and say it is called the bodie of Christ the flesh of Christ the passion and death of Christ but not rei veritate not indeed and
trueth but mistically significatiuelie improperly figuratiuely and by way of representation and that it is impossible otherwise to bee the bodie of Christ Yet when we speake of figures in the Sacrament you mocke vs. When we say the phrase is figuratiue therefore the sence must be spirituall You deride vs as mis-interpreters of Scriptures and Fathers But if your leisure and learning would affoord you but fauour to read with a holie deuotion the canonicall Scriptures the ancient doctors of Christs Primitiue Church that left vs these lessons for our learning you should see that we learne what they taught and doe what they said you follow not what they commanded because you knowe not what they haue recorded Fitzimon 59. As he goeth forward according to the Apostles saying Proficit in peius he increaseth in ill This same text is cited in the 46. number according to the expresse sense therof and title prefixed to this chapter to signifie our beleeuing Christs body bothe substantialy and also figuratiuely in the Sacrament Yf any learned man conferr this sayd text and as it is interpreted by M. Rider I request him not to spyte or spitt at his memorie but to pittie it For to haue thus construed it is a figure as bread and wyne are scene extra owtwardly he translateth as they are seene vnreceaued Secondly for what he should interprett but it is the veritie as the body and blood of Christ in trueth is beleeued inwardly he inserteth a parenthesis making the trueth to be of the veritie of the figure and not of the body of Christ I protest befor God and his Angels that greefe and shame of his misdemeanure do auert my mynde from being imployed to vnfould and refute him and procure me to ouerslipp much filthe deseruing to be sharply and in the most heynouse maner reproued But I pray you considre notwithstanding these faults apparent to all eyes in these woords of his in the text and margent This all the Iesuits priests in Christendom can not aunswer you can not deny this pope to be a protestant in this point confesse the trueth with vs and the owld Church of Rome He that tould you befor him selfe that S. Bernard liuing in the yeare 1190 was in the palpeblest tyme of grossest supersttion meaning therby papistrie here forgetting him selfe informeth that the decretals and popes therin alleaged collected by Gratian at the same tyme of S. Bernard by his saying most superstitiouse doe stand for protestantcy He that would not be tryed but by the Fathers of the first fiue hondred yeares professing the world soone after to haue apostated into papistrie is now come to clayme the decretals compyled after a thowsand yeares He that in clayming the same Fathers as appeareth in the 46. number the number precedent and in this present number is beyond all cōtrouersie vtterly foyled and forsaken of them and therfore iustly doth multiply the 44. and 45. vntrueth that the least be spoaken in the forsayd bowld assured and reiterated protestation The 44 45. vntruth Lactant. l. 5. c. 3. Anaxagoras is generaly reprehended by all men that contrary to sense and vnderstanding only to be singular he would cōfidetly shamlesly and contentiously affirme snow to be as black as inke Haue we not found an heyer to him who can face out black to be whyte that is reproofs to be approbations denials affirmations owld to be yong falshod to be trueth darknes to be light substance to be figurs preaching to be communion the owld testament to be as fruictfull as the new the primatiue Church and Fathers to haue bene late sectaries Catholick to be heretical c. I bequeath then as in my testament to ensuing posteritie that hereafter when men desyer to specifie any readers of such resolution as had Anaxagoras and his forsayd successour they bestow on them for a perpetual memorial of such ancestours not that they are impudent contentiouse frantick deprauers desperat falsifiers corrupters against all pregnant and palpable trueth but only without all iniurie that they ryde or are Ryders As for his annotations that the church calleth the outward elemēts according to their apparence a figure and that the body of Christ must be receaued into the soule vnlesse he doted he would not thinke any preiudice therby to our cause For we graunt both to be true but without being only a figure or foode of the only soule His opposing the glosse and text as contrarie they being euidently most cōcordant and the glosse only telling the text to be intended of Christs bodie not in extensiue maner but as it is a sacrifice also his addition that because it entreth the soule it can not not entre the body what stupiditie doth it not contayne 60. Rider Now briefly I will acquaint the Reader onely with the times when these Doctors liued and the places where they taught this doctrine and then wee shall see whether this your litterall exposition of Hoc est corpus meum be Catholicke or not Clemens Alexandrinus was diuinitie Reader in the famous cittie of Alexandria in Egypt In the yeare of our Lord. If you will read aduisedly these Fathers you shal see plainlie your owne errors 107 Origen was his scholler and succeeded Lectures in the same place 204 Tertullian Diuinitie Reader in Carthage in Affrick 206 Ambrose Bishop of Millaine in Italie 370 Hierome Diuinitie Reader in Stridona in Hungaria and sometime in Slauonia 387 Chrisostome Bishop of Constantinople in Gracia 406 Augustine Bishop of Hippo in Affricke 426 Venerable Beda a famous learned man in England 570 And thus you may see that neither Alexandria Carthage Milano Stridona Constantinople Hippo nor Rome which are famous Citties Nay which is more neither Egypt Italie Hungaria and Slauonia nor England which are famous kingdomes Nay which is most of all the three parts of the world Asia Affricke and Europe neuer heard or had such a litteral exposition of Hoc est corpus meum for at least eight hundred yeares after Christ and yet your Iesuits and priestes will haue their doctrine to be Catholicke Vincentius aduersus Hereticos That is truly catholicke saith he Quod semper vbique ab omnibus est creditum which cannot be vnlesse it were at all times and in all places and of all persons receiued for so your Vincentius defineth Catholicke doctrine And heere you see that for the three parts of the world and for many hundred yeares after Christ it was not knowne And therfore it is neither Apostolicall nor Catholicke Fitzimon 60. One that fayleth to be a physition might perchaunce not be an ignorant musition or not being a gardener might yet be a hors-corser So in degrees of learning he that can not wryte well might yet perhapp indyte wel he that is no rethorician might yet be a grammarian he that is no poet migt yet be a linguist he that is noe diuyne might yet be an antiquarist or chronicler But to
in Cardinall Caietans opinion writing vppon saint Thomas Aquinas in this manner Per Euangelium non possunt catholici hereticos conuincere ad intelligenda verba haec hoc est corpus meum proprie sed tenendum hoc esse solum ex authoritate ecclesia quae ita verba consecrationis declarat That is the Catholickes cannot conuince or inforce the Heretickes by the Gospell to vnderstand these wordes hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie properlie but this exposition must bee fetched and held from the authoritie of the Church So this your religion is none of Christs because it is not warrantted by the gospell of Christ which so expoundeth the words of consecration See I pray you what one of your leardnest Friers reports out of one of your skarlet Cardinals of Rome that you cannot prooue by Christs Gospell these words this is my bodie to haue a proper and litterall signification So that CHRISTS Gospell condemnes your litterall and proper exposition and so your carnall presence of Christ must be maintained from and by the authoritie of the church of Rome though Christ and his Gospell say no. Alasse with what conscience dare you teach the Catholicks this heresie Super quaest 75. Art primo Fol. 236. Printed at Venice 1593. which by your owne confession hath no warrant from Christs Gospell And Cardinall Caâ—etane himselfe writing vpon your saint Thomas Aquinas speaketh to the same purpose that the Scriptures speake nothing expresse expresly of Christ his carnall presence in the Sacrament but onely in these words hoc est corpus meum which words saith he are two waies expounded first properlie secondlie metaphoricallie But saith hee the maister of the sentences is to be taxed Lib. 4. dist 10. who held too much with the figuratiue interpretation And there you shall see that he blusheth not to say that your litterall sence is not from the Gospell but from the church of Rome And if your Romane Church may be both partie witnesse and iudge there is no doubt but the verdict must sound on your side And there the Cardinall handles Duas nouitates valde mirabiles which being dulie examined parturiunt montes c. with manie other forgeries and fooleries to maintaine your carnal kingdome of your Breaden-god Thus much concerning your two consecratorie propositions which by the testimonie of Scriptures and Fathers be figuratiuelie to be expounded as we say not properlie and litterallie as you vntrulie teach How Caietan and the Master of Sentences are by him falsifyed 61. I Confesse that a late Frier might be owld in age Fitzimon But I would fayne be instructed what proofe is affoorded that concerning Angles by him declared late and owld is not shewed litle pithe or method in such medlie Angles then affirmeth saith he that hereticks can not be coÌ„uicted by the gospell to vnderstand This is my bodie properly Why can any doubt therof that hath any common sense Do we not behould that hereticks notwith standing the gospell do denye it Do we not behould that M. Rider among the rest immediatly befor affirmed that it was vnheard of in 800. yeares after Christ and therby is made an heretick by his owne alleadged late and ould Angles Should we not remember the open protestation of a Protestant Bullinger decad 5. de caena apud Schluss lib. 2. art 16. Zuinglianos non posse credere Christum esse in coena praesentem vero suo corpore licet omnia in mundo Concilia omnes Angeli Diui id iubeant credere The Zuinglians not to be able to beleeue Christ to be in the supper according his true bodie although all the Concils of the world all Angels and Saincts did command to beleeue it To inferr also that what can not be proued out of the gospel is condemned by the gospell is a blasphemous Riderian sequel For nether the holy Trinitie nor manifould principal parcels of our beleefe mentioned in the 33. number can be proued by the gospell yet are not condemned nether by the gospell nor by condemned enemyes of the gospell And could impudence it selfe informe and inferr in the woords following that Caietan professed Christ and the Gospell not to stand for the true propre and litteral sense of these woords Hoc est corpus meum Caiet in 3. part D. Th. q. 75. a. 1. O desperat deprauations Thus Caietan discoursed Habemus igitur ex veritate verborum Domini in sensu proprio corpus Christi veraciter esse in Eucharistia hoc est primum quod ex euangelio habemus circa hoc sacramentum VVe haue therfor owt of the veritie of the woords of our Lord in their propre sense the bodie of Christ to be verilye in the Eucharist and this is the first that we haue owt of the gospell belonging to this Sacrament Behould now the forhead of M. Rider and thinke in equitie whether impudence inioyed euer a more ordinarie tabernacle to seat and plant it selfe then therin Caietan saith M. Rider affirmeth that the Scriptures speake nothing expresselye of Christs carnal presence I leaue the woord Carnal to the Carnal interpreter in the sacrament Contrary to which saith Caietan him selfe the woords of our Lord in their propre sense teach the veritie of Christ verilye being in the Eucharist Againe He blusheth not saith M. Rider to say that your litteral sense is not from the gospell Contrary to which worthye to wreast blushing out of a flint saith Caietan and that in the same place cited this we haue out of the gospell belonging to this Sacrament Is it not therfor the 47. vntrueth that we are sayd not to be able by the gospell to proue the real presence because we are sayd to say that hereticks can not be conuicted by the gospell The sacred Scripture saith Prou. 29. Verbis non emendabitur seruus durus Si enim intellexerit non obediet By woords ether of God or man will not the stiffe seruant be amended for although he vnderstand he will not obey Is it not the 48. The 47 48 49. 50. 51. vntruth vntrueth vpon such premisses that Christs gospell condemneth vs The 49. that by our owne confessions we haue no warrant from the gospell The 50. that Caietan relateth proofs against vs As lowd and lewed is the 51. vntruth Caietan to reprehend the Master of Sentences for houlding to much with the figuratiue interpretation he only reporting of him that he pursueth their error who esteemed such woords should be taken metaphoricalie Gentle Readers to you I say in the woords of S. Augustin S. August l. 2. con Petil. VVe are constrayned to heare debat and refute these tryfles only because the seelie by them be not entangled For otherwyse what greefe could be greater then to spend tyme and payne in incountring him whose protection is to peruert disproofs into proofs affirmations into negations falshods into truethes foes into frends and not to weye synn or shame because he
the administration of the Cupp didst not thow command thy collegue or compartner that in the face of the congregation he showld take the cupp from me by force And for that cause did not I howld it fast and with bothe my hands I know that others will lawgh at this disordre but I had rather haue them lament that in all this dissolut or disioynted glosse M. Rider the woords of Christs institution Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur c. this is my body which shal be deliuered for you c. can not be perceaued but in lieu therof our Lord and Saluiour is made to tripp from mater to mater without any one sillable to our purpose in question Wher is here shewed that bread after consecration remayneth still bread Wher is the satisfaction by the Euangelists and S. Paul that we must relye vnto in spyte of Pope and poperie What marrow or substance is in thes woords for any other then for a single Sintaxian to know that dedit and Fregit be actiue verbs and Datur and Frangitur be passiue c. For breuities sake I will not repeat the dismal hate of thes reformers against the woords of Christs institution which I haue alredy amply prosecuted in the 68. numbre yet will I not omitt Luthers verdict against his brethren saying they feare Luther tom 7. defen verb. caena fol. 383. least they should stumble and breake their necks at euery sillable which Christ pronownced And this maketh them range abowt through all the parts of learning and not to come to any issue in the mayne point of his sacred institution truely fullfilling the saying of the royal Prophet Psal 11. impij in circuitu ambulant the wicked wander in a circuit and lyke serpents troden on the heads or henns whose neckes are newly crackt they wreath and wrest vp and downe in manifould skippings spending wasting their small tyme to liue which by being quiet might some what longer continue Rider 78. Thus you see how distinctlie Christ disioynes them sundring them with their seuerall properties Bread and wine remain after consecration by Christ his testimony therefore transubstansiation is a forged and false fable inuēted by new Rome to support your new heresies of Christs carnall presence the signe from the thing signified not confounding them as you vntrulie teach yea after that Christ vttered hoc est corpus meum which you call your consecration Now let vs compare the phrase and words that the holie Ghost vseth in both the new Testament the old and then you will say they are so like that they are rather borrowed of the old testament then instituted in the new and of necessitie seeing they are both Sacraments of like words ordained by one Author to one end they must needs haue one sence so that the one will best expound the other the one being Sacramentall and relatiue the other cannot be Grammaticall and proper As it is said in the old (a) Gen. 17.10 Testament of the sacrament of circumcition hoc est pactum meū this is my couenant So it is said in the new (b) Math. 26.26 Testament by the same spirit hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie but as by those words like to these in sillables sound and sence there was no transubstansiation of the peece of flesh of the foreskin that was cut off into Gods couenant made with his Church so there is no naturall nor miraculous chaunge made of anie part of the bread or wine into Christs bodie and bloud Exod. 12. 1. Cor. 11.24 Exod. 24 8. And as it was said of the Paschall Lambe hoc erit vobis in memoriam this shall be to you a rememberance so it is said of the Lords Supper Doe this in rememberance of me And as it was said in the olde Testament hic est sanguis faederis This is the bloud of the couenant yet was not the couenant but à signe of the couenant Luc. 22.20 So is it said by Christ himselfe This cup is the new Testament in my bloud yet the cup was neither the Testament nor the bloud but a signe representation and rememberance of Christs bloud And the new Testament is an obligation or bond wherein God for his part binds himselfe with most sure couenaunts and seales it with word oath and Sacraments that hee will receiue into his protection and fauor the beleeuer and penitent And the beleeuer repentant of their parts binde themselues by like indented couenants to performe vnto his sacred Maiestie Rom. 1.5 a liuelie steadfaste faith with holy obedience Now the cup or the wine in the cup is a representation or commemoration vnto vs of this couenant of grace made in the newe Testament as the Paschall Lambe and the bloud of beasts were signes of Gods couenaunt in the old Testament This may suffice for the plaine and true vnderstanding of these words this is my bodie and this is my bloud beeing expounded according to the holie scriptures Now to your first proofe out of saint Paul Fitzsimon 78. It is an easie mater vpon all the premisses to tell vs You see you see when nothing is giuen to be seene but gross impietie futilitie I admonished you deere Readers that Reformers conceaued a Vatinian hatred against Christs institution Wil you now behowld a liuely demonstration therof First he saythe that the phrase and woords vsed therin is no new institution but borrowed owt of the owld testament Secondly that the Sacraments of the owld testament and new are so lyke as they must haue one ende and sence and the one not to be literal more then the other It is to be remembred which is mentioned in the 36. and 63. numbers that by Reformers opinion ther is noe more benifit by Christs Sacrament of the Altar then by the Iewish ceremonies which according to their translation Sainct Paul saith to haue bene only bare Galat. 4.9 and beggerly ordonances I request all curteouse readers to spare me the payne to relate the substance of such numbers in this place and that they will not proceed further vntill they haue perused what ther is fownd First then I aunswer that yf by similitud of speeche vsed in the figure and the thing figured should be gathered that they bothe were of equal sence ende and literalitie it would followe that all figurs of Christ in the owld testament were equal with Christ himselfe that the owld testament is as behooful as the new Note because they haue one authour one sence one ende one phrase and one literalitie accordinge to M. Rider Wherefore since Ioseph in the owld testament was called Saluator mundi the Saluioure of the world Genes 41.45 Ioan. 4.42 and Christ in the same Phrase by S. Ihon is called Saluator mundi they must haue on ende one sence one literalitie And therfor as Ioseph was noe
as deliuer bread to the hongry or to litle ones and the literal signification of deliuering is verifyed in Christs passion but not of breaking For he was deliuered for our synnes but I being able to say that he was also broken for vs in the B. Sacrifice of his body vnder the forme of bread and M. Rider denying such his sacrifice and not being able possibly to shew any other his breaking do you thinke that leauing to talke of deliuerie for breaking he knoweth what is with him or against him The amplifying of Christs promise in the present tence there being no promise in these woords this is my body which is broken for you sheweth such mates when they can gett a woord to wander against the trueth for Christ vsed then a present tence to testifye the efficacie of his institution of the B. Sacrament in which his body was presently deliuered inuisibly which was the next day to be deliuered visiblye therevpon they amplifie and descant at full wheras vpon the true and literal institution of Christ arcording the propre signification therof they walke so nicely Luth. tom 7. defen verb. caenae fol 383. as yf they were treading vpon egges Fearing sayth Luther to stumble and breake their necks at euery woord which Christ pronownced 83. In the first that Christs Rider birth and life though both innocent was not sufficient to cleanse my sinne In the second Christ would vndergoe shamefull buffets on the face pricking of thornes vpon his head piercing nailes into his hands and feete a bloudie speare into his blessed side before mans sinne could bee satisfied Gods wrath appeased Sathan death and hell conquered this our liuing Christ would haue his bodie broken for vs he would not leaue one sighein his soule for our sakes nor one drop of bloud in his bodie vnshed for our sinnes These comforts are expressed by this word broken which are not nor can be gathered by this word deliuered 83. In my Examination of the Creed in the 14. numbre Pitzsimon I haue shewed that euery meritt of Christ being of infinit valew had bene sufficient to redeeme a thowsand worlds and that his death and passion were suffred vpon his excessiue abundance of loue which was not content with what had bene sufficient but also powred owt it selfe beyond all respect and measure to the last drop of blood in his bodye for greater manifestation of his bountifull charitie toward mankinde How cometh my Warr-man and sayth that Christs death it selfe was not only not of superabundant affection but that beyond his death the very pearcing of his syde with a speare was necessary to clense his synne Which is blasphemie against all Scripture and Christianitie referring always our redemption to Christs holye passion I knowe not whence it coulde come to him but only to fulfill the saying of S. Nazianzen Inter se certant perinde atque non id metuant ne impijs erroribus sese constringant sed ne in hac re leuius tolerabiliusque peccent quà m alij They stryue among them selues as yf they had no feare to intangle them selues in impious errours but that euery of them be not behinde his compagnions in lesse offendinge Other aunswer is in the forsayd 14. number Rider 84. Another comfort is concealed from the Catholickes in omitting the 25. verse in these words Math. 25.40 Heb. 2.12.13.17 Ioh. 10.27 The newe Testament in my bloud Out of which euerie man may gather these comforts to himselfe by particular application First that I am not a straunger to Christ but one of his younger brethren and not onelie well knowne vnto him but also as well beloued of him which appeareth in this that hee did not onelie remember me in his last will but also most freelie and liberallie bequeathed vnto my soule and bodie most precious Legacies where wee may finde them registred most safelie kept in Gods booke and daylie pronounced in our Creed as remission of sinnes of both guilt punishment peace of conscience in this life at the latter day rising of my bodie from death and dust af erwards life eternall both to soule and bodie These Legacies be bequeathed and contained in this Testament which be hath not onely sealed outwardlie with Sacraments but also inwardlie with his bloud by faith to assure vs of the performance of his promise and therefore he addeth in my bloud so that all other Testaments Wils Buls or Pardons which are not sealed with Christs bloud but with lead or war are but counterfeit labels stitcht to Christs testament by some false forgeries of periured Notaries wherin they doe falselie promise remission of sinnes and the kingdome of heauen Fitzsimon 84. M. Rider shall pull off with his owne hands his maske of consolation by these woords the new testament in my blood and acknowledge to all Readers his contentment to be but forged and his cause and coÌ„science to be full of desolation by means of them First then he sayd in his 78 number that thes woords of Christ ordayned by one authoure haue one sense one sounde one ende with these woords of the ould testament this is the blood of the Couenant Exod. 24.8 But the sense of thes woords of Moises is that the ould testament was ratified by true and real blood substantialy sprinkled vpon the Israelits therfor the sense of Christs woords must lykewyse be yf as he saith they haue one sense that his new testament was made at his last supper and his true and real blood was substantialy powred into the mowthes of his Apostles which blood deliuered them after as S. Luke saith Lâ—c. 22.20 was to be shedd for them Now Sir what consolation haue you about yourt hart Are not you made your selfe to disguise your fayned countenance That Christ made his testament at his last supper it is first the confession of Musculus saying In the same supper being then nighe his death he made his testament How did Musculus ground his opinion because saith he Musculus in locis coÌ„ Cap. de cana n. 2. pag. 332. that a testament be made auaylably is requyred first that the maker therof be at his owne libertie for a slaue a seruant a sonn in his Fathers gouernement can make no testament This libertie had Christ at his supper and not at his death Also he must make executours so did Christ make his Apostles by this institution appointing them to dispense the grace of this testameÌ„t c. wheras ther was no such mater at his death I add that lawfull testaments are made by men befor their death when they are in good memorie and not at the instant of their death Which according to good protestantcie had great occasion in Christ our Saluiour whom at the tyme of his death they affirme to haue bene in desperation in torments of conscience c. as is assured in the 14. and 15. numbers of the Examination Is not this a good
are your oft promised citations of autheurs books chapters leaues lynes Will you neuer ryde otherwyse then lyke your selfe Could the Church of Rome called by S. Cyprian no very partial frend to the Popes supremacie S. Cyprian epist. ad Cornel. 45. epist. 55. Ecclesia matrix radix Ecclesiae Catholicae Cathedra Petri Ecclesia principalis the mother Church and roote of the Catholick Church the cheyre of Peter the principall Church Could Anaclet before S. Cyprian and both long before the Nicen concil Magdeburg centur 2. c. 7. col 139. Ibid. col 781. 782. attribut to the Romain Church primacie and excellencie of power ouer all Churches and the whole flock of Christ euen by testimonie of Protestants Could it sommon general Concils beare preheminencie in them confirme or desanull them could the Nicen Concil seeme to Beza Beza in trac triplicis Episcoporum generis ad Scotos circa annuÌ„ 1579. to make a way for the horrible papacie of Rome slyding on and vnderlay the seat of the harlot an ould marke of an heretick to speake thus of the Romain sea as appeareth in our first number that sitteth vpon seuen hills and yet possesse but the fouerth place in dignitie in the Nicen Concil Saye and wryte what you list M. Rider you neede no longer a visour your face is of proofe For gathering vntruths I may be thought forgetfull but in truth although I would fayne forgett them as I do often dissemble them yet I can not remoue them out of ether my mynde or eyes as long as I reade his booke so exorbitantly repleanished with them In the precedet number Regula in 6. Decretalium he attaynteth vs with a threefould errour wherof we being free for vnusquisque praesumitur esse bonus dones probetur malus euery one is to be accounted in the right vntill he be proued in the wrong Which is not done against vs that may well stande for the 96. The 96. vntruth vntruth Soone after he informeth as yf it were also proued that the B. Sacrament and Christs body do differr as much as outward seale and inwarde grace The 97. and 98. vntruth which maketh the 97. vntruth The 98. is in this number wherin he sayth the Concill calleth the B. Sacrament a mystical benediction no miraculous transubstantiation For it expresly affirmeth such Sacrament to be Carnem viuificatricem ipsius verbi propriam factam to be made a liuely fleashe and the very propre fleashe of the VVorde What is a miraculous transubstantiation yf this be not The 99. that the Scriptures and ancient Fathers The 99 vntruth and ould Church of Rome do specifie the receauing of the B. Sacrament to be only by the hands mouth and stomack of the sowle and not of the body The 100. that these two euidences are our owne disproofs The 100. vntruth The 101. that the Pope was not president in general concils The 101. vntruth ether by him selfe or his legate but other Bishops chosen by the Emperoure The 102. that the Popes legat The 102. vntruth had but the fouerth seat in the Nicen Concil The 103. that then the Pope of Rome was not Pope The 103. vntruth but only Archcbishop of which we are to dispute in the testimonye of S. Leo following not long after These strange exorbitant absurd treatises considered may not I worthely say Tom. 2. operum S. Athan fol. 262. as he in S. Athanasius Qui contentionis studio feruntur eorum insanum furorem nulla credo potest oratio cohibere sed vt mille quis eaue inuicta argumenta proferat veritatem quidem ille demonstrauerit at operarijs mendacij de ea minime persuaserit I beleeue noe eloquence can restrain there madde furie who are caried away by errour But although you alleadge a thowsand and those inuincible proofs you shall in deed demonstrat trueth but you will not reclayme the forgers of falshood Is not this verifyed in M. Rider What wonderfull exceptions supposeth he betwixt him and the cleere light striuing against him most forcible What arguments and proofs doth he struggle against and by what delusions and deceits One sayd truely Ioan. Maxen resp ep ad possess Quamuis verò semper inuicta manet veritas nunquam tamen aduersus eam se attollere desinit falsitas Although trueth alwayes remayneth vnuanquished â—et falshood neuer leaueth to assault it The flesh is fed by the bodie and bloud of Christ Catholick Priests Tertullian de resurrectione carnis floruit 200. that the soule might be sat in God 105 OVt of this thus you frame an argument as sometimes old Romane friend of yours did to maintaine your carnall presence Rider The soule is fed by that which the bodie eateth but the soule is fed by the flesh of Christ therefore the bodie eateth the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament I might as fitlie inuert this argument vpon you as a learned man of our side once inuerted it saying As the soule feeds vpon Christ so doth the bodie but the soule is fed by faith therefore the bodie is fed by faith which is verie absurd and improper yet as partinent and as proper as yours And heere you should remember the olde distinction of the fathers spoken of before The Sacrament is one thing and the matter of the sacrament is another thing Outwardlie the bodie eateth the Sacrament and inwardly the soule by faith feeds on the body of Christ As in Baptisme the flesh is washed by water as that old father saith in that place that the soule may be purged spirituallie so our bodies eate the outward Sacrament that the soule may be fed of God Againe it is not generallie true that whatsoeuer the bodie eateth the soule is fed by the same And if you would propound but particularlie this instance of eating onelie in the Sacrament then the argument proueth nothing standing vpon meere perticulers Moreouer the bodie and soule are fed by the same meat in the sacrament but not after the same manner For the bodie is nourished by the naturall properties of the Elements which they haue to nourish But the soule by the sacramentall and supernaturall power as they are signes and feales of heauenlie graces And we graunt that the soule is fed by the precious bodie bloud of Christ but not after a carnall maner as you say but spirituallie by faith Againe a mean Scholler in Gods booke may see this phrase is figuratiue and therefore the sence spirituall For how can a soule be fat in God will yee say it is a corporall fatnesse such as is proper to bodies I thinke yee will not I know you should not then this place is impertinentlie brought neither sauoring of sence nor suteable to that you alleadge it For if you would haue read the same Father in the same booke following page 47. printed at Paris 1580. he would haue told you so for saith he the
dicat B. Ambrosius episcopus in cuius praecipuè libris Romana fulget fides qui scriptorum inter latinos flos quidam speciosâ—â— enituit cuius fidem purissimum in scripturis sensum nec inuidus quidem ausâ—â— est reprehendere Pelagius so prayseth Ambrose as he saith B. Ambros Bishop in whose books principally the Roman faith reshyneth who among the Latins as a bewtifull flower florished whose fidelitie and pure sense in the scripturs the very malignant durst not reprehend Catholick Priests Chrisost hom 51. in cap. 4. Math. floruit 410. Not onelie the Sacrament but the bodie of Christ is propounded vnto vs not that we should touch it onely but that we should eate it Rider 113. GEntlemen it is in the 51. Hom of the 14. chapter of Mathew not in the fourth though it cost me great labour to finde the place yet I blame not you it might be the writer not the Author and if it were the Author it is but the slip of his penne and therefore in discretion pardonable Still you runne from the maner to the matter But you alleadge it verie impertinentlie and improperlie stil prouing the matter neuer denied and skipping the manner which I vrged and you should aunswere But if you had read a few lines more Chrysostome would haue told you the manner how Christ is to be receiued not by your mouth teeth throate or stomacke but Magna cum fide mundo cum corde with great faith and a clean heart You stopt before your full period This father is wholy with vs therefore vnaduisedly brought in by you which is in you stil a great fault will keepe still the Catholickes by this your means in great blindnesse and doubts who beleues when they heare you alleadge one sentence of a Father that all his workes are suteable to that iudging him to speake on your side by the sound of the eare not by the touch of knowledge whereas if you would read a Father your selues from the beginning of a controuersie to the end though it were painfull vnto you yet it were profitable vnto you and the Catholicks then you should see the thing plainlie by the father expounded which is by you often and too much wrested Read this father vpon the seuenteeth Homilie vpon the tenth of the Hebrewes and 1. Cor. 11. Hom. 27. and you shall finde him there condemning your carnall presence masse with your sacrifice wherby you may perceiue in this point your opinion new and doubtfull and our religion old and certaine But though this place be impertinent to proue the maine which is our question yet it proueth with vs against you that Christ must be eaten by faith spirituallie not by the mouth carnallie and that ouerthroweth one of your chiefe pillers And so to your next proofe The 9. parte of the second proofe of S. Chrysostome 113. COnsider I request you Christian Readers Fitzsimon a desperat dealing in my gentle frend M. Rider You may well remember how Fox and Musculus nu 108. n. 96. Vide fusèn 96. 108. reiected all other maner of Christs being in the Sacrament beside a Sacramental maner which Caluin nu 96. saith is the brasen wall against all incounters of aduersaries to his opinion You also may wel remember how M. Rider relyeth to the phrase sacramental thinking n. 103. c. as oft as it is mentioned so oft to stand for his purpose S. Chrisost Hom. 51. in cap 14. Math. now here in this testimonie S. Chrysostom as he seemeth wreasteth from them this woord sacramental denying Christ to be only as a Sacrament and affirming that besyd the sacrament we both eate and touche the very bodie of Christ. What then was M Riders as I said desperat dealing to leaue the mater and bidd vs read els where here and there and we should finde wonders There was a certaine preacher in Paris A preacher in Paris wo for pointing his audience to autheurs by him named him selfe not producing any allegation out of them but saying seeke here in suche a one and there in such another and you shall finde stoare Wherby he was named by all generaly the poster ouer to seeke where nothing could be found Iudge you whether my Caualiero was not his scholer Could such a mayne assault and by that goulden mouthed Chrysostome as M. Rider worthely tearmeth him haue noe better resolution Now in deed that I may alwayes deale vprightly S. Chrysostom toward any other then such mates doth not in the place cited say not only the SacrameÌ„t but not only the garmeÌ„t Wheras therfor with them the sacrament is made no better then a garment or bare representatioÌ„ of Christ and that S. Chrysostome instructeth S. Chrysost loco cit that not only any such outward garment is in the Sacrament exhibited vnto vs but corpus ipsius non vt tangamus solummodo sed vt comedamus saturemur his owne body not only that we might touche it but also eate it and be satiated it seemed all one sense against such as I sayd compagnions to haue translated sacrament or garment For they compare the sacrament to Helias cloake and informe that it is not more conioyned with Christs body Witaker against M. Martin pag. 11. then such cloake with Elias he being translated and the cloake remayning with Elizeus Wherby as I imagin M. Rider knowing what I could replye if he had made any difference betwixt Sacrament and garment left such translation vncontrowled But thinke you that M. Rider to the passage of Chrisostom alleaged hath said nothing you are deceaued For he answereth that we ronne from the maner to the mater Marye he telleth you not how but because those two woords had some consonance in sound hauing only cuppled them together as hunters do hounds of lyke coloure and proportion he taketh his leaue and is galloped away I haue some tyme noted the same refuge euasion to the same woords in Latimere of whom Fox pag. 1325. col 1. num 27. deliuereth his aunswer saying It is true as touching the mater but not as tuching the maner of the thing The same is repeated in the 70. number following in a playne contradiction of it selfe in this former place So that it serueth as a common place or answer to all obiections and as a harborow against all fowle weather as well for frends as foes For be it to the purpose or against it yet they that know not what mater and what maner is may surmise some answer giuen But I pray you gentle Readers to conceaue the matter of the B. Sacrament being Christs body the maner to be substantialy realy truely present therin and therwith whether haue I declined ether the one or the other alleaging S. Chrisostom as befor Secondly he answereth that the receauing should be according to S. Chrysostom with a great faythe and a pure hart To which I replye porte of those words there in
be their TransubstaÌ„tiated reall presence But because you say Luther helde a reall presence therefore you conclude against vs with his testimonie because you call him a chiefe Protestant perswading the Catholikes that either some chiefe Protestants be of your opinion touching your real presence or else that there is a iarre amongst our selues touching the same And because few of you haue read Luther as appeareth by your omissions transpositions and your imperfect translation and therefore in this point know not exactlie the difference betwixt your selues Luther and vs I will plainlie and trulie set downe the three seuerall opinions touching this question that the Reader may see wherin the difference one from another or agreement one with another consisteth The manner Christ willing shall bee by question and aunswere as followeth 1. Questi 1. Question VVHat is giuen in the Lords Supper besides bread and wine 1. Aunsw 1. Aunswere First you say the bodie and bloud of Christ Secondlie Luther saith the bodie and bloud of Christ Thirdlie we say the bodie and bloud giuen in the sacrament 2. Quest 2 Quest How is Christs bodie and bloud giuen in the sacrament 2. Aunsw 2 Auns You say corporallie Luther saith corporallie We say with scriptures and fathers spirituallie 3. Questi 3 Quest In what thing is Christs bodie and bloud giuen 3. Aunsw 3 Aunsw You say vnder the formes or accidents of bread the substance being quite chaunged the accidents onelie remainning Luther saith in with or vnder the bread neither substance nor accidents changed but both remaining We with scriptures and fathers say Christs bodie and bloud are giuen in his merciful promise which tendereth whole Christ with all his benefites vnto the soule of man sealed and assured vnto vs in the worthie receiuing of the sacraments 4. Questi 4 Quest. How must Christs bodie and Bloud bee receiued 4. Aunsw 4 Auns You say with the mouth Luther saith with the mouth and faith Wee say according to the holie scriptures that Christ must be receiued by faith and there lodge and dwell in our hearts for whatsoeuer Christ giues by promise mâ—st of man be receiued by faith 5. Questi 5. Quest. To what part of man is Christes bodie and bloud giuen 5. Aunsw 5. Auns You say to your bodies which is absurd Luther saith both to bodie and soule which is impossible We say to our soules for the promise is spiritual the things promised spirituall the names to receiue them spirituall so the place into which it must bee receiued must needs be spirituall not corporall not that the substance of Christs bodie is vained to our spirits but that those precious benefits purchased for vs in the crucified bodie of Christ must be vnited to our spirits by faith This doctrine is Apostolicall souÌ„d Catholick vppon which wee boldlie may venture our soules and saluations â— Quest To whom is Christs bodie and bloud giuen 6. Questi â— Auns You say to the godlie or godlesse beleeuers infidels as hath ben aboue said 6. Aunsw Luther saith both to the godlye and godlesse We say onelie to the godlie beleeuers as heeretofore hath been prooued â— Quest What doe the wicked eate in the Lords supper â— Auns You say accidents of bread and Christs bodie 7. Questi Luther saith the wicked eat bread both substance and accidents 7. Aunsw and the bodie of Christ also We say the wicked eate nothing in the Lords supper but bare bread and drinke nothing but meere wine being the outward elements of the sacrament As for the inward grace of the Sacrament which is Christ crucified with all his merits they eate not they receiue not because they haue neither a liuelie faith to receiue him nor a purified heart by faith to intertaine him And therefore they onelie eate as Iudas did and as Augustine said Illi manducabaÌ„t panem Dominum Tract 59. super Iohn page 205. illi panem Domini coÌ„tra Dominum The godlie eate bread the Lord the wicked onelie the Lord against bread of the the Lord. 8 Quest What is it to eate Christs bodie 8. Questi 8. Auns You say carnallie to eate Christs flesh with your bodilie mouth c. 8. Aunsw Luther saith carnallie to eate Christs flesh and spirituallie to beleeue in him Wee say with the Scriptures that to beleeue that all Christs merits are ours and purchased for vs in his passion This is to eate Christs bodie as hath been alreadie prooued 9 Quest. What is it to drinke Christs bloud 9. Questi 9 Auns You say carnallie to drinke his bloud 9. Aunsw Luther saith carnallie and spirituallie We say with the scriptures it is to beleeue that Christs bloud was shed on the crosse for our sinnes 10 Quest. How is bread made Christs bodie 10. Questi 10 Auns You say by Transubstantiation 10. Aunsw Luther saith by Consubstansiation We say by appellation signification or representation as aforesaid 11 Quest Where is Christs bodie 11. Questi 11 Auns You say euerie where Both of you erre 11. Aunsw for then Christ should not haue a true bodie Luther saith euery where Both of you erre for then Christ should not haue a true bodie We say according to Scripture and Creed onelie in heauen 12 Quest How is Christ euery where 12. Questi 12 Auns You say according to both natures 12. Aunsw But both of you speak Monkerie Poperie Luther saith according to both natures But both of you speak Monkerie Poperie We say with Scriptures and Fathers as hath been proued onely according to his Godhead Now gentle Reader you see the agrement difference that is betwixt the Papists Lutherans and Protestants And how impertinentlie I will not say vnschollerlike this is brought against vs which neither helpeth their carnall presence nor hurteth our faith touching Christs spirituall presence And now to the rest that followeth The third Proofe That the cheefe protestants did beleeue the real presence and alleaged all the Fathers for the maintenance therof Fitzsimon 120. THIS proofe being soe important by how much it is greueous and extraordinarie to be ouerthrowen by his owne brotherhood it lay M. Rider vpon to strayne all his senses and imploy all his power to frustrat so many assaults and especialy when his owne domesticals or rather his patriarcks had conspired against him First therfor he saythe that Luther was a Monck therfor by Luthers request all errours and among the rest this of the real presence ought to be imputed to his being a Monck And so all is thought well defended To which for answer I reuoke first into memorie what is deliuered out of Luther in the 117. number of the maner of answering of these people how euery thing to them seemeth a full and bastant resolution to all obiections Luth. Defens verb. cenae fol. 381. 382. 394. 405. 406.
c. in this place Catho Priests Read Gregorie Nazianzen in his funerall sermon of father mother and sister and you shall finde miraculous demonstrations of the reall being of Christ. Rider 158. YOu still abuse the eares of the simple Gregorie hath no such matter as you speake of wrought by your charmed Hoste If you meane the spirituall reall being of Christ in your sacrament This Gregorie was dead 500. yeares before your corporall presence was knowne that is none of yours and if you meane of your corporall presence of Christ alasse Gregorie neuer knew it But Gentlemen you are to blame to vrge these fables to prooue a matter of faith you haue alleadged nothing that will weaken your cause more then this VVhether S. Gregorie Nazianzen beleeued the Spiritual Real and Corporal Presence Fitzsimon 158. MR. Rider in his text and Margent warranteth that this S. Gregorie who liued within the first 400. yeares after Christ was more ancient then our corporal Presence and dead before the knowledge therof 500. yeares So that by this accompt 900. after Christ our Corporal Presence was vnknowen Yea els where by saying that Innocent the third was first autheur therof three hondred yeares mare are added before it had any acquaintance in Gods Church All the tenore and purport of this booke consisting of proofs by Scriptures Concils Fathers Histories Sectarists them selues do confirme and conuict this to be the 208. grosse vntrueth The 208 vntruth And now S. Gregorie Nazianzen him selfe shall ratifie the same to the world to signifie that M. Rider hath in a desperation to be accompted euer faythfull cast his bridle raynes vpon his horses neck to licence him to runne into the wildernes of vntruethes D. Greg. Nazian orat de S. Pasch orat 1. in Iulian. and deprauations Absque confusione dubio comede Corpus sanguinem bibe fi saltem vitae desiderio teneris Neque sermonibus qui de carne habentur fidem deneges VVithout confusion and doubt sayth he eate his bodie and drinke his blood yf thou hast any desyer of lyfe and distrust not for the speeches which are of fleashe Behould carefully how we are aduised by S. Gregorie to eate his flesh and drinke his blood and not to be distrustfull that there is mention of fleashe wherby we might grudge Wherto after he addeth that we should not be letted for his passion as yf he would haue vs thinke that Christ is not receaued by vs in any passible or hurtfull maner to him selfe And that we should be constant firme and vnmoueable notwithstanding the speeches of Christs aduersaries To the same effect sayd Theophilact in cap. 26. Math quoniam infirmi sumus horremus crudas carnes comedere maximè hominis carnem ideo panis quidem apparet sed caro est Because we are weake and do grudge to eate raw fleash especialy mans fleash therfore bread in deede appeareth but it is fleash All this will M. Rider say to be nothing all to be impertinent and will rayle and stamp at it as most absurd But he will not I trow so steal away the senses of Readers but that they will perceaue his shifts now to be naked and nought els but ernest pangs of a desperat decaying doctrin The Pope in the meane tyme that is now could say no more for Christs Real and Corporal Presence then Nazianzen and Theophilact 159. But if you wil haue the world to beleeue your miracles Rider you must giue ouer these iugling trickes and shewe vs what sicke man by your Hoste you haue made sounde out of whom you haue cast diuels Acts. 28.5 what Serpents you haue touched as Paul did and yet were not stung which of you haue drunke drinke deadlie poisoned and were not killed which of you speake with new tonges that were neuer by time nor Tutors taught vnlesse you can doe these miracles Marke the Catholicks must esteeme you no better then iuglers And yet by your leaue if you could doe all these and more to vnlesse your doctrine be answerable to Christ his trueth Galath 1.9 the Apostle will account you accursed and we must not beleeue you VVhether in wysdome we should by M. Rider be prouoked to Miracles 159. S. Paul distinguishing the diuers gifts of the holy Ghost Fitzsimon teacheth that diuersly and not conioyntly they are among Christs disciples saying 1. Cor. 12. But to one is giuen the speeche of wysedome to another the spirit of knowledge according to the same Spirit to another fayth in the same Spirit to another the gift of healing in one Spirit to another the woorking of miracles or vertues to another Prophetie to another discretion of Spirits to another the Kinds of tongues c. This distribution among all faythfull sheweth that of euerie one the speeche of wysdome or knowledge or fayth or the gift of healing or miracles or prophecies or discretion of Spirits or diuersitie of tongs is not rigorously to be exacted Now to our M. Rider for prophecying I find in dede you Puritās would seeme to be expert by your supplication to his Maiestie to haue prophecying allowed in rural deanries as appeareth in the summe of the Conference set foorth by William Barlow anno 1605. pag. 78. But I would giue three halfe pence for euery ownce of good proffit any receaued by your Puritan prophecying vnles they esteeme prophan and vayne speeches proffiting to impietie to be good proffit contrary to S. Paul 2. Tim. 2 or that which he sayth in the next chapter following proffiting to the worse erring and dryuing into errour to be gaynfull proffitable And I pray you my good frend why should you demand these testimonies of our vocation vnlesse you be able to fynde them in your owne Do not thinke but I can shew a diuersitie in our woorking of miracles beyond your fraternitie Let me be instructed for my learning can you or any for your flock or heard in this case say what S. Augustin sayth in our behalfe S. Augustin Ser. de tempore in these woords Yf you say to any of vs sayth S. Augustin thou hast receaued the holy Ghost why speakest thou not all tongs He ought to answer I speake with all tongs because I am in the body of Christ in the Church which speaketh with all tongs The same answer serueth for all other sorts of miracles For in our Church M. Rider euerie one doth dayly behould the blind to receaue their sight the lame their limmes the sicke their healthe yea the dead their lyfe Yet not by euery one of our church but by seueral to whom God according to his good pleasure hath deuided such gifts Your miracles both for all and some are such as your Churche inuisible your Church such as your miracles false and ending in confusion Looke what end the miracles of the sonns of Scena are sayd to haue had in the Acts of the Apostles Acts.
our obiections that they accept of the Sacraments no better then of bare figures pag. 107. VVhether Consecration be a new tearme pag. 110. VVhether there can possiblie be any discord amongst Catholiques in pointes of beleefe pag. 111. VVhat the true Consecration is which the Gospellers teache And whether it be according to Christs institution pag. 121. VVhether Transubstantiation had bene anciently knowne And whether new names may consist with ould doctrine pag. 125. VVhat the sense of Transubstantiation is and how ould it is pag. 128. VVhether the Article of Christes Ascention be not rather a proofe then disproofe of the Reall presence pag. 131. An examination of Protestantrie concerning the twelue Articles of Beleefe in generall pag. 133. An examination of Protestantrie concerning the twelue Articles of Beleefe in particular pag. 139. VVhether Transubstantiation be but fortie yeare ould pag. 166. The fourth part of the Catholikes proofe by Scriptures for the Reall preseÌ„ce p. 181. A discouerie of more Puritancie in M. Rider And of Puritan Protestations how they are performed pag. 183. VVhether the vulgar latin translation of the Bible be to be preferred to all other translations pag. 186. VVhether Masses be said to Saints And whether it be dangerous now a dayes to honor Saints pag. 194. Of his cruell threat against the Masse pag. 196. VVhether Chalices were anciently consecrated and of what matter they were made pag. 197. VVhether the wicked receiue Christ or no. pag. 204. VVhether it be treason to breake Images pag. 210. The last part of the Catholiques proofe by Scriptures for the Reall presence pag. 214. A necessarie digression contayning a declaration what Puritans are and what they teache and preâ—end pag. 217. VVhether M. Rider be a Puritan c. pag. 228. The second proofe of Catholiques for the Reall presence by Concils and Fathers By the Concil of Nice pag. 237. The second part of the second proofe By the Concil of Ephesus pag. 239. The third part of the second proofe by Tertullian pag. 242. The fourth part of the second proofe by S. Cyprian pag. 245. The fifth part of the second proofe by S. Hilarie pag. 248. The sixt part of the second proofe by S. Athanasius pag. 251. The second parcell of the sixt part pag. 252. The third parcell of the sixt part of the second proofe ibid. The seuenth part of the second proofe by S. Damascen pag. 254. The eight part of the second proofe by S. Ambrose pag. 258. The ninth part of the second proofe by S. Chrisostom pag. 261. The tenth part of the second proofe by S. Cyrill of Alexandria pag. 264. The 13. chapter of the 4. booke of S. Cyrill faithfullie translated to testifie the fidelitie of Protestants citations pag. 205. The eleuenth part of the second proofe by S. Hierom wherin is discussed whom and how we allowe and dissalow to reade Scriptures and Hereticall bookes And whether Protestants or we doe most simbolize with Iewishnes pag. 268. The twelfth part of the second proofe by S. Augustin pag. 275. The last part of the second proofe by S. Leo. pag. 282. A confirmation of all our former doctrine by the Disciples of the Apostles Martiall Anaclete Dionise c. pag. 288. A conclusion of these two seuerall proofes out of Scriptures and Fathers p. 251. The third proofe that the chiefe Protestants did beleeue the Reall presence and alleadged all the Fathers for the maintenance thereof pag. 296. How our opinion the Sacramentarian opinion and Luthers opinion are reported pag. 298. VVho are indeed Protestants and wherfore so called pag. 300. The second part of the third proofe how English Protestant Martyrs confessed the Reall presence pag. 304. Of M. Riders binding him selfe to consent with the first Protestant Martyrs And of how many and monstrous beleefes he maketh him selfe thereby pag. 307. Of Kemnitius citation out of S. Ambrose and Eusebius Emissenus pag. 314. VVhether Kemnitius allowed externall Adoration VVhen Pixes began And of the triumphe of Corpus Christi feast pag. 316. How M. Rider behaueth him selfe towards Acts of Parlament And of his impugning Communion vnder one kinde pag. 321. VVhether Continencie of the Clergie was anciently commanded pag. 325. VVhether we forbid Mariages or Meates pag. 327. VVhether Tertullian did write to his wife And whether he were for or against Priestes Mariages pag. 328. VVhether S. Ignatius did fauour Priestes Mariages And whether the Apostles were married pag. 329. VVhether all that may not contemne their wiues may conuerse with them carnallie And whether sometime married men may not be Priestes pag. 331. VVhether Paphnutius perswaded the Concill of Nice to allowe Priestes to marrie pag. 332. Of M. Riders grant of the Concill of Nice to be ours And his clayme of predecessors in Vlster pag. 334. VVhether S. Chrisostom and S. Gregorie allowed Priestes Mariages pag. 337. Catholique doctrine of the not marrying of Priests pag. 340. VVhether Sectarists or Catholiques be greater discommenders of Matrimonie pag. 343. Of Priests marriages in the Orientall Church And of late Sectarists seeking their fauour pag. 347. VVhether ancient denyers of the Reall presence were condemned as Heretiques pag. 350. Berengarius his recantations and condemnations pag. 355. Of many miraculous testimonies of the Reall Presence pag. 358. VVhat Miracles are reproued by Catholique writers pag. 362. VVhether M. Rider vnderstandeth any hard Latin pag. 368. VVhether Eusebius affirmed true Miracles to haue ceased pag. 370. VVhether Christ being a man may notwithstanding appeare in the likenes of a childe pag. 371. How ancient the Masse is pag. 372. VVhether S. Ambrose esteemed it a miracle by the B. Sacrament that his brother was not drowned pag. 375. VVhether Crosses Holie bread or Agnus Deis be allowable pag. 377. VVhether M. Rider or I doe misreport the relation of Sozomen pag. 380. Of his euident deprauing Gods woord pag. 381. VVhether Crantzius be belied by M. Rider or me pag. 382. VVhether Optatus commended or condemned Protestantrie pag. 384. VVhether the Puritan Church hath the sincere preaching of Gods woord lawfull vse of the two Sacraments c. pag. 385. VVhether S. Gregorie Nazianzen beleeued the Spirituall Corporall and Reall presence pag. 338. VVhether in wisdome we should by M. Rider be prouoked to Miracles pag. 389. How suteable the last woordes of M. Rider are to them of ancient Heretiques pag. 391. The Conclusion ibid. A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS CONTAYNED IN THE SECOND VOLVME Intituled A Replye c. A Replye to M. Riders Rescript pag. 1. 1. Title concerning the inscription of M. Riders Rescript pag. 1. 2. Title whether it be true that I vsed sleights and delayes to confute M. Rider pag. 5. 3. Title whether M. Riders pretence concerning the legible Copie be true p. 8. 4. Title whether it be true that I refused to stand to the arbitrement of the College pag. 11. 5. Title of the villanie and iniquitie of these Puritans in this Iudgment pag. 16. 6. Title of other vntruthes and false vawnts of M.