Christs minde and bewray your errours Let me but reason with you out of the first part of the verse from the propertie of this bread heere spoken of by Christ First it is living bread giues eternall life to the receivers yours doth not This came from heaven yours did not Who so eates of this cannot be damned but manie eat of yours and die eternally and therefore the very properties of this bread shew plainely that it cannot be meant of your singing-cakes as hath beene prooved before vnto you Because they haue no life in themselues and therefore can neither giue life nor preserue life vnto others The later part of the verse concerneth Christs flesh which is this true bread And thus out of Christs words I prooue that the flesh of CHRIST spoken of in this place cannot bee the flesh of CHRIST which you would haue given in the Sacrament Christs flesh promised in the sixth of Iohn was onely given on the crosse but the Sacrament was not the crosse Therfore in the Sacrament the flesh of Christ was not given So that these arguments grounded vpon Christs owne words which you concealed confute you your carnall presence in the Sacrament For your sacramental bread neither came form heaven not your imagined flesh of Christ made by the Priest cannot be this flesh here spoken of For it was offered once not often as you teach and that by himselfe not by the Priests vpon the crosse not in your Masse and that for the plenarie remission of the sinnes of all beleevers no for the temporall benefit of some perticuler person quick or dead as the Priest pleaseth The third proofe of the Catholique Priests out of the sixâ—h of Iohn to prooue Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament Catho Priests Vers 55. My flesh is meate truelie and my bloud is drinke trulie Rider IF you should aske your boy in his Grammer rules a question if he aunswered not in the same case or by the same sense of a verbe that the question iâ— asked by you will count him a filte Grammatist But if you aske your Sophister a question in quid and hee aunswere in quale you wil taxe hâ—â— for an improper and impertinent aunswere But most of all if a great Divine be asked a question to prooue the manner of a thing and he neglecting or ommiting that as tâ—o hard or impossible for him prooues the matter that was never demaunded or doubted of what wil the Reader thinke of this matter this man this proofe surelie he must say either hee vnderstandeth not the state of the question or else he is not able to prooue the question and so vseth this shamefull shâ—ft in steed of a sufficient proofe All the Catholiques in this kingdome expected to be satisfied by your aâ—nswere touching the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament whether it be carnall or spirituall and whether he must be eaten by faith spirituallie or the teeth carnally And your aunswere is as improper and impertinent as tither Grammatist or Sophister for you leaue the maner of Christs presence which you should prooue and bring the matter of his presence which was never in question saying My flesh is meat truly c. How this your aunswere doeth relish of learning let the learned iudge When all the Catholiques in the kingdome hang their soules on your saying Are these your contentments you giue them If they aske you how they must eate Christs flesh drinke Christs bloud then you tell them my flesh is meate in deed and my bloud is drinke in deed Doe you aunswere their question or satisfie their conscience or resolue their doubts alasse no. Thus you haue dealt dallied and deceived a long time Christs people with these your improper impertinent vnprofitable nay vntrue aunsweres and yet you will be called Fathers Doctours and what not But I pray you tell me why you added not the next words of Christ you thought they were against you But if you had dealt as men having Gods feare before your eies you would not haue staied there for the next verse plainely discovers your bad dealing with the simple people for that aunswereth their question that would satisfie all good Catholiques in this point For if you aske there the holy Ghost this question how must Gods children eate Christes flesh and drinke Christs bloud he will aunswere you that whosoever dwels in Christ and Christ in him eates Christs flesh and drinkes Christs bloud but the faithfull onely dwell in Christ and Christ in them therefore the faithfull onely eat Christs flesh drinke Christs bloud whether it be in hearing the word in baptisme or in the Lords Supper as you haue heard before Jf you had added this verse it had overthrown your carnall presence in the Sacrament your orall eating of Christ with your mouth teeth c But as you wrong the Catholiques with an impertinent answere and as you abuse them by keeping backe the next words of Christ which expounds his owne meaning So heere you abuse your holie Father the Pope and your deare mother the Church of Rome 〈◊〉 expounding this text contrarie to the Romane sence for you take this flesh of Christ which is our tree meat to be the flesh which was borne of the virgâ—â— and suffered on the crosse but the Popes church of Rome say contrarie for these be the wordes of the Canon Dist. 2. de consec pag 4â—4 canon dupliciter Col. 4. Read the glosse and you may see your errour at in a glasse Dupliciter intelligitur caro sanguis Christi vel spiritualis illa atque diuina de qua ipse ait Caro mea vere est cibus sanguis meus vere est potuâ—â— nisi meam caâ—nem c. Vel caro mea ea quae crucifiâ—a est c. The flesh and bloud of Christ saith your own Church of Rome must be considered two manner of waies either for the spirituall and divine flesh spoken of by Christ my flesh is meat in deed c. and except you drinke his bloud c. or else for that his flesh which was crucified and that his bloud shed by the sharp launce of a cruell souldiour so that heere you forsake your Romane Catholique faith and become Apostates from the Church of Rome Thus you abuse the Catholiques in making them beleeue you teach as the Pope teacheth and you doe not therefore either the Pope or you must erre grosly teaching contraries But that all men may see that not onely this Pope Jnnocenti â—â—â—tertiuâ— lib 4. cap 14. de â—aâ—â—amento Altars page 179. but also other Popes haue held the contrarie opinion to your new broched heresie I will allâ—â—dge him that you dare not contradict that is Innocentiuâ— tâ—rtius that first begat your abortiue Transubstanâ—â—tion De spirituali commestione Doâ—â—nus aâ—â— Nâ—â—i mâ—nducatveritis c. The Lord Christ when hee sâ—â—ke of the spirituall â—aring said Except yee eat the
est nam ipse quoque homo vinum benedixit cum dixit accipite bibite hoc est sanguis meus sanguis viâ—â—s c. For our Lord Christ red wine blessed wine when he said take drinke that my bloud the bloud of the vine the word which is â—â—ed for manie for the remission of sinnes doth signifie allegorie allie the holy river of gladnesse Out of which I note First it is sarguis vitis the bloud of the grope properlie and that is wine It is called Christs bloud â—acromontallie and by way of signification Secondlie it appeares to be figuraâ—ne in this word shed for the bloud of the grape which is â—â—â—e was not shed for manie but the bloud of Ch i st But you will save it is true before conseceâ—tion but after consecration it is Christs verie naturall bloud No saith Clement immediatlie following Qued autem vâ—num esset quod benedictum est c. And that it was wine which was blessed hee sheweth againe when he saith to his disciples I will not drinke of the fruit of the vine c. Read Clem nt follow Clem. Out of which premisâ—es I note three things First that that which you call consecration this learned Father calls it benediction Second he that after consecration the nature of wine remaineth still and it is not changed as you imagine Thirdly that the phrase is figuratiue and not proper Peda â—u Inc. 22. page 476 And veâ—â—rable Beda one countrie man tells you that in England in his time the text was taken figuratiuely The solemnities of the old Passover saith he being ended Christ commeth to the newe which the Church is desâ—ous to continue in remembrance of her redemption that in stead of the flesh and bloud of a LAMBE hee substituting the Sacrament of his flesh and bloud in the figure of bread and wine might shew himselfe to bee the same to whom the Lord sware and will not repent c. Beds calleth it not the naturall bodie of Christ that worketh our redemption but a rememberance of our redemption a figure of it Thus the indifferent Reader may see that Augustine Ambrose Origin Tertullian Hiorome Clemens Alexandrinus Beda and manie others which I omit for brevities sake all of them being auncient approoved wâ—iters and all of them of your owne Prints doe hold with vs against you that your propositions be not proper but Sacramentall improper significatiue representatiue allegoricall figuratiue which greatlie wounds the bodie of your cause and will weaken your credits with the Catholickes But you will say these testimonies of these Fathers though of your owne Prints yet they prooue nothing against you vnlesse the Church of Rome should receiue and allow that exposition of the fathers to be Catholicke If you should so replie surely it were a weake replication and subiect to manie exceptions and you would wring I cannot say wrong the church of Rome that she should hold a doctrine against all the old Doctors But if you will thus replie to bleate the eies of the simple yet will I frustrate your expectation for now I will shew you that the auncient Popes and the auncient Church of Rome held at these Fathers did that the proposition Hoc est corpus meum to be significatiue and improper and therefore figuratiue against your opinion You shall heare the Church of Rome deliver her owne minde with her owne mouth Dist 2. do consecratione canon which you cannot denie her wordes be these Ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Châ—â—â—ti pâ—ssio more crucifixio dicitur non rei veritate sed significante misterio That offering of the f esh which is done by the hand of the Priest Hecost pag. 434. You cannot denie but this Pope was a Protestant And if this canon be Catholicke then it your carnall presence antichristian is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ but not in exactnesse of truth but in misterie of that which was s gnified 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 â—enceâ—t is called the bodie of Christ that is it signifieth the bodie of Christ J will alleadge in this case other Popes and the saith of the Church of Rome in another age whereby the Reader may plainelie see that the auncient Pâ—pes 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 the glosse speaketh thus against your litterall sence of Hec est corpus meum De consecratione dist â— Panis est in altare Glossa ibid page 43â— Not possible by their owne confession that bread should bee the bodie of Christ. Hoc taâ—â—â— est impossible quod panis sit corpus Christi yet this is impossible that bread should be the body 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 fot faith which the old Church of Rome held for heresie that for poss b litie 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 cited 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 litterall 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 dist 2. can Corpus Christi pag. 4. 8. col 4. You cannot dâ—nie this Pope to be a protestanâ— in 〈◊〉 point And I will adde one other Popes Canon Corpus Christi quod fuexitur de Altari figura est dum panis â—inum videntur extra veritas autem dum corpus saâ—guâ—s Christi in veritate interins creditur The bodie of Christ which is taken from the Altar is a figure so long as the bread and wine are seene vnreceived but the truâ—â—â— of the figure is seene when the bodie and bloud are received trulâ—â— inwardly and by faith into the heart Now the glosse in that place expondeth the teâ—t and saith Corpus Christs 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 that the Church of Rome calls the outward Elements
Christs bodie that is a figure of his bodie being not received though consecrated Secondly that the bodie of Christ wherof the Sacrament must be a figure The Popes glosse against the Popes text must be received 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 â—aâ—re to be reconciled by you who be the Popes friends yet this I say Maledicta gloss qua corrumpit textum Aâ—d Gâ—la siuâ— another Pope more auncient then these againâ—t Euâ— â—â— of this oâ—â—â—ion These three Popes and the Church of Rome in those daies it was before the birth of your Transubstantiation and your carnall presence jumpt with all the old Fathers and the Primitiue Church that livâ—d 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 in deed and trueth but mistically significatiuelie improperlie figuratiuelie 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 misinterpreters of Scriptures and Fathers But if your leisure and learning would affoord you but faâ—our 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 wee learne what they taught and doe what they said you follow not what they commaunded because you know not what they haue recorded 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 set whether this your litterall exposition of Hoc est corpus meum be Catholicke or not Clemens Alexandrinus was divinitie Reader in the famous cittie of Alexandria in Egypt In the yeare of our Lord 170 Origen was his scholler If you will read aduisedly these fathers you shal see plainlie your owne errors and succeeded Lecturer in 〈◊〉 same place 204 Tertullian Diuinitie Reader in Carthage in Affrick 206 Ambrose Bishop of Mellaine in Italie 370 Hierome Diuinitie Reader in Stridona in Hungaria and sometime in Slauonia 387 Chrisostome Bishop of Conctantinople in Graecia 406 Augustine Bishop of Hâ—ppo in Affricke 42â— Venerable Beda a famous learned man in Eng 570 And thus you may see that neither Alexandria Carthage Milâ—â—s Stridoâ—a Constantidople Hippo noâ— Rome which are famous Câ—tâ—es Nay which is more neither Egypt â—â—alie Hungaria and Slavoâ—â—â— not England which are â—â—mous kingdomes Nay which is most of all the three parts of the world Asia Affricke Europe neveâ— heard or had such a litteral exposition of Hoc est corpus â—â—um for at least eight hundred years after Christ Vincentius â—â—ner sus Hereticos That 〈◊〉 trulye â—atholicke faith â—e Quod semper vbique abâ—omnâ—bus est eâ—â—ditum Quastio 4 de â—aâ—stentia corpâ—ris Christs en â—ucharilia pag 154. Sâ—â—hâ—â— your â—eligion is none of Châ—ist beâ—aâ—sâ— it 〈◊〉 not war â—â—â—uâ—ed by the â—osoâ—ll of Ch i st and yet your Iesuits and priestes w ll haue their doctrine to be Catholicke which cannot be vnlesse it were at all times and in all places and of all persons received for so your Vincentius defineth Catholicke doctrine And heâ—â—e you see that for the three parts of the world and for many hundred yeares after Christ at was not knowne And therefore it is neither Apostolicall nor Catholicke And a late Frier and friend of yours olde Father Iosephus Angles bâ—ings in Cardinall Caâ—â—tans opinion writing vppon saint Thomas Aquinas in this manner Per Evangelium non possunt catholici hereticâ—â— convincere ad intellegenda verba hac hoc est corpus meum proprie sed tenendum hoc esse salum ex authoritate ecclesâ—â— qua ita verba consicrationis declarat That is the Catholickes cannot convince or Inâ—urce the Heretiâ—kes by the Gospell to vnderstand these wordes hâ—c est corpus meum this is my bodie properlia but this exposition must bee fetched and hold from the authoritie of the Church which so expoundeth the words of consecration See I pray you what one of your learnedst 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 litterall signification So that CHRIST Gospell condemnes your liue all and proper exposition and so your carnall presence of Christ must be maintâ—â—â—ed from and by the authoritie of the church Rome though Christ and his Gospell say no. Alasse with what conscience dare you teach the Catholicks this heresie Super quaest 75. Articl primo Fol. 230 Printed at Venice 1593. which by your owne confession hath no warranâ— from Châ—â—sts Gospeâ— And Cardinall Caietane himselfe writing vpon your saint Thomas Aquinas speaketh to the same purpose that the Scriptures speake nothing expresse expresly of Christ his câ—rnall 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 â—oâ— say that your litterall sence is not froÌ„ the Gospell but from the church of Rome And if your Romane Church may be both partie witnesse and iudge there is no doub t but th verdict must sound on your side And there the Cardinall handles Duas novitates valda mirabiles which being dul e examined parturiuns mâ—â—tes 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 litterallie as you vntrulie teach But yet you perchaunce will demaund the reason why Christ called it his bodie if it be not his body Let me first aske you another question then I wil resolue you this Gen 17. to 11. Rom. 4.11 Exod 12.11 Why did God cal circumscision the covenant when in deed it was not the covenaÌ„t but as god himself saith a sigâ—â— of the covenaÌ„t Why did God cal the Paschall lambe the Passover wheÌ„ it was but a signe of the Angels passing over the houses where the bloud of the lambe was sprinkled one answere wil resolue both our questions It is the vsuall maner of the holy Ghost in all Sacraments both of the old Testament and new Wheresoever the holie Ghost speakes of Sacraments the phrase is tropicall me to yoâ—â—micall and figuratiue attributing the name of the thing signified to the signe signifying as in these examples the
Readers good I wil repeat they be these If the scripture seem to coÌ„mand any vile or ill fact the speech is figuratiue as Except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you Facinus vel flagitium videtur tubere â—â—ther can use S. â—â—â—â—d or confess your erroâ— the â—â—â—st â—â—possâ—le the second were commendable Christ seemeth to commaund a wicked act that is carnallie and grosly to eate Christs flesh c. it is therefore a figuratiue speech So that Augustine thus reasons against you To eate Christs flesh and drinke Christs bloud corporallie is a hainous thing therefore Christs wordes be figuratiue so that if to eate Christes flesh with our mouths and teare his flesh with our teeth as also actually drinking of his bloud bee hainous and wicked why doe you so eagerly presse the litterall sence of theâ—e your two propositions against trueth against faith and the auncient Father â—ead it it coâ—taines but 6. or 7 lineâ— The marginall note there coâ—demes your litterall sence Agustine in that short 19. chap. of the same booke immediatly going before wisheth alwaies the interpretation of these and all other figuratiue speeches to be brought ad regnum charitatie to the kingdome of charitie to haue their true exposition Now if you expounde this litterallie and properlie you forsake Agustines rule charities kingdome and the Apostolicall and Catholike exposition It is but small charitie to devoure the food of a friend but to eate and devoure corporallie and gutâ—urallie the precious bodie and bloud of our Christ and Saviour Augustine would haue you catholicks but you wil bee Capernatis and Canibals 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 the kingdome of charitie hath ever 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 Ambr. lib. 4 de Sacramentis cap. 5. Ambrose is of the same opinion with vs against you saying Fac nobit inquit oblationem ascriptam nationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura corporis sangaâ—â—is Domine nostri Iesu Christi make vnto vs saith the Priest this oblation that it may bee allowable reasonable and acceptable which is a figure of the bodie bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ And Ambrose presentlie after saith the new Testament is confirmed by bloud in a figure of which bloud wee receiue the misticall bloud By these words the Reader may see that Ambrose and the Church in his daies tooke it not for the naturall bodie of Christ but for a figure of his bodie and therefore cease to bragge heereafter to the simple of Ambrose and Augustine set they are not of your opinion (a) â—â—noâ— Papae lib. tartius cap 12. Fol 148 there shal you see the foolish and phantasticall reasons the Pope giues for those said crosses Aug. in enarratione Psal â— pag. 7. col 1. Printed at Paris anno 1586 And in the Canon of the Masse you haue these â—â—â—ds of Ambrose in that part which begins Quam oblationem but you deale deceitfully with Gods people for you leaue out these words quod est figura corporis and there dash in fine red crosses and still teach the people it is Catholicke doctrine and the old religion but these iuglings with the Fathers must be left or else good men that follow those Fathers will doubt that Gods spirit hath left you And Augustine elsewhere saith Christ commended â—â—d delivered to his disciples the figure of his body â—â—d bloud And Origin saith not the matter of bread but the words recited over it doth profit the worthy receiver this I speake saith he of the typicall figuratiue bodie which is in deede the Sacramentall bread Vpon the 15. of mathew Augustine confuting Adimautus the Hereticke that hold that the bloud in man was the onelie soule of man aunswered it was so figuratiuely August tom 6 contra Adâ—â— cap. 12. not otherwise and to prooue it he vseth this proposition of Christ Hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie saying Possum etiam interpretari illud praeceptum in signo posiâ—â—â— esse non enim dubitauit Dominus dicere hoc est corpuâ— meum cum singnum daret corporis sui I maye 〈◊〉 Augustine expound the precept of Christ figuratiuelie â—or the Lord doubted not to say this is my â—oâ—â—e when he gaâ—e the figure of his bodie Augustine saith Hoâ—â—â—st corpus meum is a phrase figuratiue you say no but it is litterall Now let the Catholicks take this Friendlie Caueat to heâ—â—â— for they haue no reason to follow you that forsake the Fathers and heâ—re may you see that our expositiâ—n is auncient Catholicke and Apostolicall yours new private and 〈◊〉 all Tertaâ—â— lib 4. contraâ— Mâ—recon pag. â—23 line 26. Tertullâ—â— an ancient Father saith Acceptum panem dâ—stributum discipâ—lis c. The bread which was taken and given to his disciples Christ made his bodie by saying this is my bodie that is the figure of my bodie what could be more spoken of them for vs against you And Hierome calls it a representation of the truth of Christs bodie bloud Hierome super 26. math Ambrose on Cor. 11. not the body and bloud And Ambrose seconds his former sayings in these words In edâ—â—do c. in eating drinking the bread wine we doe signifie the flesh bloud which was offered for vs so that they doe but signifie the flesh and bloud they are not the flesh and bloud And Chrisostome saith Chrisâ— in hâ—â—a vpâ—n Hebr. sâ—per Cor. 11. Offermus quidâ—â— sed ad recerdaâ—â—â—nem and afterwards Hoc autem sacrificium exemplâ—â— est ellius c. We offer in deed but in rememberance of his death this sacrifice is a token or figure of that sacrifice the thing that we do is done in ten emberance of the thing that was done by Christ before c. Here is a manifest â—â—ace against you which you shall never aunswere Chris in hâ—n 11 â—â—rk â—â—â—ent Alâ—â— on paâ—â—go lib. 1. cap. 6 pag 18. line vlt. pag 19. lâ—ne 1. And elsewhere be saith in the soâ—e sanctified vessels there is not the bodie of Christ in deed bâ—â— a masterie of the bodie is contained And Clemens Alexandrinus who lived 1300. yeares agoe saith Comedite cornes meas bibite sanguinem â—eum c. Eâ—t ye my flesh and drinke my bloud meaning hereby vnder an allegorie or figure the meat drinke that is of faith and promise And the same reverend Father in his second booke and second chapter of his Pedagogs and 51. pag and line 21 22 23. hath these words Ipse quoque vine vsus
presence which if theâ— faile you then your foundation is santifâ—â— your building will not be able to abide the least 〈◊〉 of Christs breath The first is consecration the second transubstantiation for vnles there he consecration there can be no transubstantiation then no carâ—â—l presence of Christ in the Sacrament And then neither your masse nor mattes worth two pece And so the â—oules then in your imagined purgatorie may crie and yell for lacke of a dirge and a masse of Requiem But lâ—â—t I must tell you the word is new neither vsed by Christ or his Apostles in the institution of the sacrameÌ„t â—or heard of in any ancient Father for manie hundred yeares after Christ Again you never read in anie aâ—â—e 〈◊〉 sacred or prophane that consecration should signifie to change one substance into another for the nature of the word wil not beare it Now seeing by Christ â—or his Apostle Paul it was not vsed nor ancient father euer tooke it in this sence Again the nature of the word 〈◊〉 no such signification I see not but you deserue much blame in binding the Catholickes consciences to beleeue that which is against divinitie antiquitie and â—omon sence Now Gentlemen pardon me to demand of you but this question what words be they that coÌ„seâ—â—â— that is which turn the substances of bread wine â—nto the naturall substantial bodie bloud of Christ Me thinkes I heare you Iesuits and Priests calling me a foole for demaunding such a question considering as yee pretend that the Church of Rome her learned men haue euer from Christs time held with one consent one manner of consecration with a certaine set number of words without addition or alteration Such fathers as lived next to Christs time shold know best the practise of the primitiue church these fathers you refuse and chose others a thousand years yonger and therefore they be of lesse credit Gala. 9. and therefore my question is frivolous needlesse and no doubt you make your Catholickes beleeue so but alasse you deceiue them it is not so for I will show you manie several opinions amongst your learned men yea Popes themselues one contrarie to another I praye you let me and the Catholickes of this kingdome therefore be certified and satisfied by Gods word the practise of the Primitiue Church for the fi st six hundred years which be the words of consecration that worketh this miraculous alteration of substances which if you cannot prooue as I am sure you cannot then the Catholickes haue good cause to looke to their consciences to follow you no further then you follow Christ according to his word For if anie man nay all men nay if an Angell nay all Angels should come from heauen and preach otherwise then Christ and his Apostles haue taught let him be accursed If Angels nay all Angels from heauen must not be beleeued bringing contrarie doctrine to Christ and his Apostles will you then bindle the Catholickes of this kingdome to beleeue you onely comming from Rome Rheme whence you being new doctrine not onelie contrarie to Gods truth but to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church And to beginne with Guide in his Manipulo curatorum Guidâ— cap. 4. pag 23. 24. 25. But more you 〈◊〉 see on the cantels or sleights of your masso concerning the necesâ—â—tie of the crosses vvord of the canon of the masse and the priests intention Who saith there be foure several opinions amongst the learned Rabbins of Rome touching the words of consecration The first fore saieth hee will haue besides the words of the â— Euangelists and Paule the intention of â—he Preiste a and so saith your masse booke the precepts of the Church to bee dulie observed jumping with your said Masse-booke that vnlesse the Priests intention bee to consecrate there is no consecration though he vse all Christs words and Pauls And if the priest omit pracepta ecclesia that is the commaundements of the Church of Rome in his consecration â—â—ttalissime pecearet he sinnes most deadlie and is to be punished most grievously But Abbot panormitaue do celebratione messarum page 220. is of another minde saying Etiamsi sacerdos celebres vt Deus perdat aliquem 〈◊〉 bene consecrat Notwithstanding the priest saie Masse with intention that God would destroy some 〈◊〉 yet doth hee consecrate well (a) In he canteli prin at Venice 1464 What Christian heart doth not loath this divelish intention and hellish religion Heere let all Catholickes marke that this first opinion holds that Christes institution is not sufficient without the priests intention At the people are not sure of the priests intention so they are not surs of Christs carnal presence so commit â—dolatrâ—t â—â—o worshippâ—â—g bread beiâ—â— not consecrated For if his head be otherwise occupied he consecrates not and the due observation of the precepts of the Church which partlie consist in wordes partlie in gestures c. so that by this opinion those that simplie and plainlie for the first eight hundred or a thousand yeares next after Christ vsed the forme of Christs institution onelie never consecrated rightlie no not Christ himselfe nor Paul and so till of late daies there was no consecration Transubstantiation or carnall presence So that this opinion prooveth your owne transubstantiation carnall presence not to be either Apostolicall or Catholicke but new invented and phantasticall The second opinion in of maister Doctor Subtilis for so he callâ— him he statlie contradicteth the former opinion saith that all he words from qui priâ—â—â—â— to Simili modo in the Canon of your masse booke are necessarilie required to consecration and therefore the former Doctor If you say Christs institution vvere sufficient then your canon oâ— your mâ—sse is super sludus if you say it is not sufficient without your masse caugâ— then Christs institution vvere imperfect Which to thinke is blasphemy flint short But Gentlemen you know that the Canon of the masse was not made by one Pope nor by tenne Popes bâ—t in manie hundred years it was in patching togither I hope you will not saâ—e that those Saints and Martirs of God from Christes time to the making of that Idolatrous Canon of the masse beeing manie hundred yeares had not the right consecration when they practiz d Christs institution Alij dâ—xerunt there is a third opinion of divers Doctors which held contrarie to both the former but because it is but fabulous and not woorth reading therefore I will seilence it as not worth the writing But Guido his opinion is flat contrarie to them all and saith preâ—sely that hoc est enim corpus menin doth consecrate without anie more helpe So Guido is contrarie in opinion to the former three opinions and everie of them all contrarie one to another Heere now the Catholickes may see the consent and vnitie of the late Church of Rome touching consecration Yet I will bring you a
so then this Pope will haue this sence hoc eâ—â— corpus meum that is nothing is my bodie But in thâ— three of the last lines of that chapter his wisedomâ— changed his minde said this is my bodie that is whaâ— soever is vnder the formes of bread is my bodie Iâ— not this thinke you deepe divinitie for a Pope You may see herein how the Pope vseth shamefull shifts tâ— cover his sensible errors and to deceiue Christs littâ— flocke In his Marc. Anton Con. Stephen Gardner living buâ— latelie seeing every man opinion expounding what hoc should be heed slikes 〈◊〉 them all and saith it signifieth iudiuiduum vagum as iâ— Christ had said This but what it is I cannot tell but iâ— must of necessitie be somewhat is my bodie De consec dist 2. can P morem Glossa ibi dem But I will conclude with your owne Popes Canoâ— and Glosse which you hold for Canonicall though in deed hereticall solet quari quid demonstratur per pronâ—â—â— men hoc It is a common question what is meant by â—hiâ— pronounce this whether bread or the bodie of Christ not bread for that is not the bodie of Christ nor yet thoâ— bodie of Christ for it appereath not that there is anie transubstansiation till the words hoc all pronounced yea the last sillable â—m To this question this must be aunswered That by the word this nothing is meanâ— but it is there put materially without anie signifi aâ—ion at all See now whither you are brought or rather whither haue you brought Gods people from â—â—deth to falsehood if hoc signifieth nothing where then is your transubstanstation For if in 〈◊〉 word which should first worke in the change there bee no mention of bread how câ—n that which is no waâ— comprised in them be chaunged by them so you spâ—ake against your selues Againe as you are rent in sunâ—â— opinions touching hoc so also are you touching â—â—er when you saw that est would not serue in his propet Evangelicall and Apostolicall signification What est signifieth there is great variance amongst the Romish Prelats Est i. Fit Est est verbum anuntiativum non constetutium Est 1. erit Iosephus Angles iâ— loco praedicto pag. 115. then you gaue him a new exposition For Bonaventure seeing that est as Christ and Paul meant it would not fit their purpose then hee of purpose expounded it by fit vt fit sensus panis fit corpus meum that it might be thus in sence The bread is made my bodie Yet Occham hee likes not Bonaventures 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 Encharistia cap. 7. pag. 104. col 2. C. D. denieth est to haue anie such signification vnlesse it be in metaphors and parables But lest that I shuld be too offensiue vnto you I could del ver so many several 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. distinct 12. page 60. delivers foure severall 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 innovation and vniversalitie without limittation whereas there is nothing but iarres discords dissentions in your coÌ„secration in your transubstantiatioÌ„ in every word almost nay perticle as hoc and est be so wrested by your construction that you haue brought both their propeâ— significations to plaine destruction Is this exposition Catholicke what auncient fatheâ— ever expounded it so let the Catholickes know oâ— else they with vs will iudge neither you nor you doctrine Catholicke Will you follow a foolish Frier an ignorant Abbot a late vpstart Pope or Priest thaâ— writ and wrested within these foure hundred yeares and forsake Scriptures and the auncient Doctours oâ— the Church Now let the indifferent minded Catholikes be iudges whether you or wee haue antiquiâ—â— consent and veritie on our sides And who differs from Scriptures fathers from amongst themselues not onelie in one point of religion but almost in â—verie point and particle of doctrine Thus much coâ—cerning your discords amongst your selues and â—l â—gainst the auncient Apostolicall and Catholick truth Now to conclude this matter I will shewe plainlâ—â— by scriptures Hoc est corpus meum expouâ— bâ— scripente that hoc est corpus meum can haue no such sence as you teach which is that bread is not by this or anie other words transubstantiated or chauâ—ged into Christs bodie and bloud but that bread remaineth after sanctification or as you say consecratâ—on and that the scriptures speaking of Christs bodie and of the bread speake distinctlie not confusedlie that is they doe divide them not confound them giving to eâ—ther of them their severall nature and propertie yea after consecration And whereas we haue now heard too much of the jarres of your late Popes and writers voide of vnitie and veritie Now let vs heare the holie scriptures expound hoc est corpus meum plainlie and truelie by the Evangelists and Paul who knew best Christs meaning Vpon whose exposition all Christians may and must onelie rest satisfied inspite of Pope and poperie Debt math 26 26. ANd first we will prooue it from the difference of the signe and the thing signified The scriptures when they speak of bread they speak actiuely He gaue Dâ—tur Luc 22.19 But when they speake of Christs naturall bodâ—e they speake passiuelie Is given â—regit Luc. 21.19 When they speake of bread they speake actiuelie He brake it â—â—ngitur 1. Cor. 11.24 But when they speake of Christs body they speake passiuelie Which is broken â—â—s marke 14.22 When they speake of bread they say To you Pro vobis 1 Cor. 11.14 But when they speake of Christs naturall bodie they say For you Dedit marke 14 12 Likewise when they speake of wine they speake actiuely He gaue â—â—â—nditur Luc. 11.20 But when they speake of Christ his bloud they speake passiuelie Is shed â—it math 26.27 When they speake of the wine they say To them Pro multis prâ—rebis Luc. 22 â—0 math 26.26 But when they speake of Christs bloud they speake For you or for manie Iâ— meaÌ„ commemotationem 1. Cor. 11.24 When they speak of the cup they speak In rememberance of me Iâ— remissìonem peccatorum
professe to bee Christians revenge our Christs death vpon his cruell bloudie and malicious enemies which so mercilesse put him to death these enemies be our sinnes for he died for our sinnes which Rom. 4. the last verse let vs mortifie nay murther them let vs kill surfetting by abstinence adulterie by continencie crueltie by mercie hatred by loue covetousnesse by almes superstition by religion c. These and the like consorts of sinne put our Caesar Christ to death Therefore when we heare not Marcus Anthonius but anie man of God out of the booke of God preach vnto vs Christs bloudie passion that died in our quarrell and shed his bloud for our sinnes let the rememberance of his precious death and mercifull deliverance put vs in minde to revenge his death by killing our sinnes which slew our Saviour and endevour to serue him with all thankfulnesse in a life spirituall who hath delivered vs freelie from death eternall Now see what comfort the Catholickes loose for the lacke of this Apostolicall rememberance of me and this commeth by your omitting of that you should not passe without expressing the true tenour of it as you received it of the Lord 1. Cor. 11.22 for the profit of his Church Thus much touching the spirituall comforts concealed from the people by your skipping of Scriptures now let vs see what errours purposelie you seeke to cover by this course First if you had put downe these words Errors In rememberance of me and till I come these two had overthrowne your carnall presence for if the bread wine must bee received in rememberance of Christ then bread and wine are not Christ substantiallie corporallie and by way of transubstantiation And if Christ be risen as the Angell said math 28.6 and as wee in our Creed confesse and that we must receiue this Sacrament 〈◊〉 his rememberance till he come then Christ being not come but to come is not nor cannot be carnallie and bodilie vnder the formes of bread and wine as you fondlie imagine And these words doe this in rememberance of mee condemneth all your Masses that be said in rememberance of He-Saints and Shee-Saints Missale Printed at Venice 1494. and no Saints aâ— your Popes Bishoppes and in rememberance of Pilgrims Marriners women in travaill and mutten oâ— beasts So that all the foresaid Masses said or sung in rememberance of Saints persons or diseases be abhominable vnlesse you will say which were damnable to thinke that those Saintes Popes Bishopes Pilgrims c. died for you But I will cease to speake oâ— those abhominable abuses vntill I come to the controversie of the Masse and yet then nothing but what shall be found in your owne bookes whose chapters leaues pages if not lines shall be quoted trulie without fraud or affection Another errour you would cover in leaping over the 26. verse in these wordes you doe shevv the Lords death till he come Chrisostoâ—â— Tom. 4. Hom. 27. vpon these words Facietis commemorationem salutis vestrae beneficij mei This shewing of the Lords death consisteth in preaching and expounding some scripture wherein the communicants must be instructed of the horrour of their sinne the greatnesse of Gods loue the price of the precious merits of Christâ— blessed passion which is the remission of sinnes and our reconciliation to Gods favour through his bitter and bloudie passion And this condemneth your foolish May games and Puppet-plaies in your vaâ—â—e shewing of Christ his death by such ydle gestures and dumbe shewes without anie glorification of GODS name oâ— edification of Christ his people that I dare boldlie say and so God willing will plainlie prooue that from your first Introibo ad Aliare Dei which is the beginning of your Masse vntill you come to the last hoe see missa est there is nothing but magicall superstition heresie idolatrie without veritie or antiquitie Now let the Catholickes iudge what wrong is done them when in stead of a comfortable declaration of the Lords death they haue a histrionicall dumbe-shew without true signification or sence warranted from Christs trueth And wheras you exclaime against vs for allowing tropes and figures and Sacramentall phrases in the handling of this controversie if you had not concealed this phrase This cup is the new Testament is my bloud the Catholicks might haue seen your error and that we in so doing onelie immitate Christ whom you should rather follow then the precepts doctrine of men whose precepts are no warrants for you nor me to build our faith vpon nor for the Catholickes to imitate And you with vs must either say that Christ vsed a double figure or else most absurdly confesse that not onelie the wine is transubstantiated changed into Christs last Testament but that the challice or cup is transubstantiated into his last testament is his testament substantiallie properlie reallie the accidents of the challice onlie remaining that is to say the height depth weight colour c. Now if you cannot denie a figure in the challice how dare you for the like or worse inconvenience denie it in the bread This you thought to omit hoping thereby to cover this your error But it was ill done to deceiue the Catholicks who so liberallie relieue you so dearely haue loved you And wheras you translate challice for cup telling the people that the challice coÌ„secrated by you is holier then other vsual cups that Christ vsed in the institutioÌ„ a challice no vsual drinking-cup I say in saying thus you shew your self ignorant in the Greek tongue Poterion wherein Christ spake it the Evang. writ it for they all so hath Paul but one vsuall word which signifieth a vsual drinkinâ— cup and no charmed Challice as you ydlie vainâ— informe the Catholickes And now to your 27. verse which you would coâ—ple to your 24. verse which thus you recite ve y coâ—ruptlie vvho so doth eate vnworthelie c. shall be guâ—tie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord but if you haâ— meant plainlie and trulie you should haue reci ed aâ— the Apostles words in this manner whosoever shall â—aâ— this bread and drinke this cup of the Lord vnvverthelâ—â— shall be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. Bread ramaines after Consecration therefore no carnall presence likewise the Cup therefore noâ— Transubstansiation in either Out of which I obserue that you would cover anâ— conceale that which overthrowes your carnall presence for if bread remaine after consecration theâ— there is no carnall presence but bread remaineâ—h afteâ— consecration therefore there is no carnall presene And because this verse sheweth to the world that therâ— is bread after consecration therefo e you cut off thâ— part of the verse which is verie deceitfully done Anâ— leaue this word bread out after consecration to blinâ— the eies of the simple And also you cut off the neâ— words to cover other two errors the words be these
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 darkenes to their everlasting condemnation vnlesse the Lord recall them and they repent them Paule wordes are these in Greeke and so your owne Ieromes translation hath them The bread which vve breake But you are so besotted with the crossing of your fingers which you tell the simple people is the true Catholicke blessing that you forget and forgoe the true blessing of the cup which is the Apostolicall thanksgiving to God for ouâ— redemption purchased in Christs bloud whereof the cup iâ— the true signe Againe we say as the holy Ghost indited it and Paul writ it The communion of the bodie of Christ you say as no learned man or the Greeke text ever said the participation of his flesh Thus much I haue shewed how vntrulie you deale First in abusing the words of the Apostle secondlie in seducing and deceiving the Catholickes Let heere the charitable Catholickes iudge how you will abuse their eares with fables that dare thus falsifie the plaine text Error in the sence of the Texte Now I come to shâ—w 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 trueth For I assure the Catholickes that not one word silâ—able letter or title of this text once souâ—dâ— of your carnall presence Rhem. Testament 1. cor 10. sect 4. You follow the Rhemist who in this place thus expounds the words of the Apostle The cup which vviâ— blâ—sse that is to say the challice of consecration vvhich we Apostleâ— priest by Christs commisâ—ion do consecrate c. and afterwards it followeth the Apostle expresly referreth hâ— benediction to the Challice and not to God making the holie bodie and the communicating thereof the effect of the benediction Now let mee intreate you to aunswere â—e and the Catholickes but these necessarie qvestions drawne out of this your owne opiâ—ion 1. First by what scripture do you prooue that you â—ee Apostles 2 Secondlie by whaâ— scripture doe you prooue that you are Priests 3 Thirdlie by what scripture doe you prooue your commission to consecrate Challices 4 Fou thly by what scripture doe you prooue that the holie bloud of Christ is an effect of your benediction of the cup 5 Last ie by what scripture prooue you that this blessing or thanksgiving is reâ—eâ—â—ed to the Challice and not to God Vâ—l sse you prooue these points by canonicall scriptures to be true Apostles ye are not Gall 1.1 1. Cor. 9.1 2. Acts 9.15 Rom. 1.1 which you shall never doe they bind no â—anâ— conscience to beleeue them or you Against the fi st I thus obiect that you are no Apostles thus I prooue it A true Apostle mvst be called by Christ immediatlie and that you are not He must see the Lord Iesus in the flesh wh ch you haue not Hee must haue his immediat commission from Christ to preach everie where which neither Priest Semynarie Iesuit Cardinall noâ— Pope can haue as your owne consciences full well doth know Gall 2. Ephes. â— and therefore you are not Christs Apostles The true Apostles were equall in authorit e you disdaine iâ— nay more you have made against this a new article of the Popes supremacie and whole volâ—â—es of Cardinals Primacies Iesuits Excellencies Priests Soveraignties But I will say to you Ter tuiaâ— contra Marcion as Tertullian saide to Marcion the hereticke If you bee Prophets foretell vs some things to come if that you be Apostles preach every where and agree with the Apostles in doctrine For whosoever preach not the same doctrine the Apâ—stles did haue not the same commission the Apostles had But you late Priests and Iesuits preach not the saâ—â— doctrine the Apostles did Iesuits Priests be no Apostles therefore you haue not the same commission the Apostles had The maior hath no difficultie the minor is so plaine it needs no proofe the conclusion is inevitable Priests ye are not We read of foure kinds of Priests in Gods Bookeâ— three of them in the old Testament and one in thâ— new First Because yee will not offer the flesh of beasts The first after the order of Aaron and one other after the order of Melchisedechs and the third afâ—ther the order of Baall After Aaroaâ— order you wil noâ— be And after Melchised ch you cannot be And concerning the third order I would you were as freâ— from the ydolatrie of that salte order as you would be free of the imputation of their heresies Secondly none after Melchisedechs order but Christ onely Now (a) 1. Pet. 2 9. Exod. 19.6 Saint Peter in the new Testament seueth downe a fourth order of Priests which is a kinglie oâ— royall Priesthood but that is spirituall not carnalâ— inward not outward common to all beleevers noâ— proper as you imagine to anie naturall order or ecclesiasticall function For this is sound divinitie whiâ—â— you shall never disprooue that the office of â—acuâ—cers and sacrificing is either singular to Christ in respect of his sacrifice propitiatorie onelie vppon thâ— crosse or else common to all true Christianâ— in respect of their spirituall sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving The name office of Priests abused by Priests neither shall you ever finde this word Sacerdoâ— ever applied in the new Testament to any Ecclesiasticall order and function of men And therefore you deceiue the people by this name of Priest which is no more proper to you then to everie beleâ—ving Christian But it is likely you will giue me occasion to speake of this in the controversie oâ— your M ssâ— and therefore J will heere be the briefe in this place Thirdlie in what place of scripture did Christ groâ— you commission to consecrate challices or to maâ—â— â—â—ie challice more holie by your charmed consecratiâ—n then Christs cup was in his blessed institution which did none of your consecration for this the Catholicks must know by the premisses formerly haÌ„dled that your consecration is not like to Christs consecration for either Christs blessing or thanksgiving with the whole action of Christ in the institution was sufficient to consecrate or insufficient if you will affoord Christ that favor that it was sufficient then yours is frivolous And whereas we vse the same sanctification Christ did how dare you say ours is defectiue without blasphemie to Christes institution But this your vsurped title of sanctitie which yee attribute to your selues in making the people beleeue that you can make one cup water sâ—lte or season more holie then an other by your fingred blessing is vntrue and a pharisaicall brag This maintaineth your Priesthoode in glorie pompe and worldlie estimation but hath brought many of sâ—elie Catholickes to beggerie ignorance and grosse superstition Fourthlie by what scripture
can you prooue that Christs holie bloud is but an effect of your consecration or benediction of the cup If Christs bloud bee an effect of your cup benediction then your cup benediction is the cause of Christs holie bloud O hellish and damnable divinitie as if a sinfull ignorant Priest could by his magicall consecration make the holie bloud of Christ my Saviour which was shed on the crosse for my sinnes Now Catholicks looke to your selues I mean to your soules You cannot prooue it either by scripture or fathers for this is the doctrine of Rome and Rhemes fitteâ— to be taught in hell by fiendes then maintained in earth by Priests Fifthlie and lastlie by what scripture do you prooue nay by what auncient Father that this blessing or thanksgiving is referred to the cup or challice and not vnto God scriptures you haue none and fathers of the first sixe hundred yeareâ— never heard of it And that the Catholickes may leâ— the antiquitie and veritie of this out doctrine and thâ— noveltie and heresie of yours I will onelie producâ— but two learned Fathers with vs against you forbeare to alleadge the rest till you giue mee furtheâ— occasion Chrys super 1 Cor. 10. Chrysostome vpon this place calleth it the cuppe oâ— blessing because when we haue it in our hands wâ—â—â— admiration and a certaine horror of that vnspeakableâ— gift we praise and blesse him because he hath sh d hâ—â— bloud that we should not remaine in error and hath not onelie shed it but made vs all partakers of it 〈◊〉 like sort did Photius and Oecumenius expounde thiâ— word Photius Occumenâ—us which vvee blesse which having in our handes blesse him which hath graciously given vs his bloud tâ—at is we giue him thanks or which we prepare when we blesse or giue thankes Now the Catholickes may see by the auncient fathers whom your selues doe brag of that they condemne your cup blessed exposition And the Catholickes may see as in a glasse that wee ioine with the scriptures and fathers in the true sence of these words The cup vvhich vve blesse and that your exposition iâ— erronious and superstitious and therefore to be recâ—nted by you and shunned by the Catholickes and my reasons be drawne out of the foresaid fathers not made on my owne fingers 1 Fi st he saith that benediction blessing or thanksgiving is referred to him that shed his bloud for vs I hope you will not say the cup shed anie bloud for vs. 2 Secondlie this father saith that blessing God and praising God is all one and therefore when we say the cup of thanksgiving we follow Christ Paul the Greek text and the olde fathers And when you translate it The challice of benediction it is flat contrarie to Christ Paul veritie and antiquitie And there is as great difference betwixt your opinion and the old fathers faith is betwixt praising with mouth and crossing with fingers nay as much as betwixt your superstitious challice and our soule-saving Christ for so if you marke the fathers words the difference stands The text it selfe offers vs three things in a comfortable distinction and you would confound them with your new imagined transubstansiation 1 The first is Christs bodie crucified and his bloud shed with all his purchased benefits 2 Secondlie our communion fellowship which all beleevers haue in that crucified Christ and those soule saving merits 3 Thirdly the outward seals of those benefits which are called the cup vvhich vve blesse and the bread which â—â—e breake to witnesse to the world and to confirme to our selues the fruition and possession of all those benefits Now if I should say that the bread cup being outward seals were our coÌ„munion with Christ the wicked would laugh at my folly though the godly would pittie my ignorance in the trueth or my malice against the trueth and the reason is this because the seal be things outward and the communion of Christs bodie and bloud be things inward the one sensible the other spirituall and intellectuall as much difference it betwixt them as there is betwixt outward and inward sensible and intellectuall so much difference there is betwixt the outward seals of Christs body and bloud and his bodie and bloud And if the seales cannot be changed into the communion of Christs bodie and bloud but remaine st ll in their severall natures and substances everie one performing his severall distinct office much lesse can they be reallie and substantiallie changed into Christs bodie and bloud which are things more remote but mosâ— impossible And if you had added the next verse thâ— Apostle had made it plaine in shewing you a doubtâ— communion sealed in this Sacrament The first our coÌ„munion with Christ and his benefits The second ouâ— communion amongst our selues 1. Soli. which both are proper onely to gods church 2. Omni. to euery one of gods church and all waies to gods Church 3. Jemper Now let the learned Iudge whether you or we misconster scripture wrest fathers deceaue Christs flocke and the Queenes subiects peruerte the true meaning of this Text. And now to the next Catholick a Priests This councell consils of 318. fathers The second Proofe by Councells and Fathers Concilium Nicen cap 14. Anno 363. No rule or custome doth permittae that they which haue not the authority to offer the sacrifice should giue it to theâ— that offer the bodie of Christe Rider GEntelmeÌ„ you are possessed with a threefold erroâ— which is the cause wheÌ„ you read the scriptures Councells fathers you misunderstand theÌ„ your first error is wheÌ„ you vnderstand that spoken of the outward Elements with these three Sophisticall points you peruert all the fathers you bring for this purpose deceue the Catholickes which is meant of the inward invisible grace Your second error is wheÌ„ you referre that to the visible partes of the bodie which they intended to the inuisible powers of the minde and soule Thirdlie your former two errors beget a third eror which is your mistaking the state of our questioÌ„ And so wheras you should proue the maner of Christs presence in the Sacraments you offer to proue the matter but of that we haue spoken before Thus if you will reade the scripturs fatheres Councells with these .3 cautions or derectioÌ„s you shall easily see how farre thus longe you haue gone from the truth and misled the Queenes subiects Now with Gods permission wee will proceed to the â—e examination of your proofe as it is alledged out of your owne Colen print Ex officina Iohannis Quinâ—d Typographi Anno Domini 1561. which you cannot denie it is in the first Tome and the fourteenth Chapter and the two hundreth fiftie fiue page of the first edition and the Chapter beginnes thus Peruenit ad sanctum Concilium quod in lociâ— quibusdam ciuitaâ—â—us presbyteris Sacramenta Diaconi porrigant Then followes your fraction verie abruptlie
pleaseth the Priest And therefore as she said Iudaicas fabelas repellamus let vs cast away Jewish fables So in Gods name for the loue of Gods trueth and of the peoples salvation cast yee from you all Munkish fables and forged legends that haue misled the people into this blinde superstition and ioyne with vs to teach Christs precious flocke the old Apostolicall and Catholicke religion commaunded in Gods word practised in the primitiue Church that you with vs and we with you and all in the Lord may now in this plentifull vintage so labour in the Lords vinyard his Church according to our talents received that every one of vs may deliver his talent with advantage of manie soules and then we shall be partakers of that sweet saying Well done then good and faithfull servant enter into thy maisters ioy Which God graunt to vs both And so to the next as followeth Catholicke Priests The mediator betvvixt God and man Iesus Christ vvith faithfull heart and mouth vve receiue August contra Aduersar legis prophetarum cap. 9. floruit 430. giving vs his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke Although it seeme more horrible to eate the flesh of man then to kill and to drinke the bloud of man then to shee l it AVgustine writing against that pestilent adversarie of the Law and Prophets who obiected that because Abraham by adulterie with Agar brake the Law therefore either the Law was not good Rider or else the vniversall promise made to God by Abraham was of none effect Paris print page 264. confuting him by scriptures and reasons telleth him that the promise was made in Isaack not in Ismaeli and disprooveth him for disliking such figures similitudes and comparisons as it hath pleased the holie Ghost to vse for the plaine expressing of the neere vnion and coniunction that is betwixt Christ and his Church And saith what wilâ— this pestilent adversarie say when hee heareth Pauâ— speake they shall be two in one flesh he will scorne and deride it Ephe. 5. But it is a great misterie spoken of Christ and his Church For saith Augustine we vnderstand by the two sonnes of Abraham and the two mothers two Testaments though in respect of times and ceremonies divers but in respect of the substance all one and the same And also by the neere vnion and coniunction betwixt man and wife we vnderstand our naturall vnion with Christ and that without anie obscenitie or absurditie mangre the beards of the adversarie Then followes your proofe even in the middest of a sentence verie vntowardlie I will not say negligentlie And yet you omit one word Sicut which though it be small in shew yet it is in this place of great consequence For as you alleadge Augustine it is nothing material to confute the adversarie of Gods grace Thus Augustine speaketh and so you should haue said Sicut mediatorem Dei hominum as the mediator betwixt God and man c. And thus after your wonted manner you leaue out the point materiall begin in the middle of a sentence leaving out beginning and ending neither respecting what went before whereof wherefore he spake the thing nor what followeth after to prooue disprooue the thing so spoken of And this your neglecting the coherence makes you faile in the sence and inâ—erence For this word Sicut which you leaue out sheweth plainlie that it is a similitude and I hope you know that similitue be no Sillogismes And as there was no oâ—â—â—eritie or absurditie in the similitude of mâ—â—â—â—â—â— they tâ—â—â—â— shall be one flesh so in liâ—â— case heâ—â— iâ— no absurditie or inhumaine Caniballisme in this similitude of the Sacrament vsed to expresse our vnion with Christ for though it seem more horrible to eate the flesh of man then to kill man and to drinke his bloud then to shed it yet we without horror or absurditie eat the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Mediator betwixt God man Iesus Christ And if the adversarie in Augustines time or you Romanists now would know how this may bee so done without slaughter of Christ sinne to our soules or offence to the world Augustine tells you in that place fideli cordi ore with a faithfull heart and mouth So that now you see Agustines scope and your drift cleane contrarie the one to the other for Augustine brings it as a similitude to expresse our spirituall vnion with Christ by faith you wrest it as spoken of the corporall and gutturall eating and drinking of Christs bodie and bloud in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine with our mouths and stomackes Manie places you haue vnfitlie in deed vntrulie alleadged yet shewed in none of them lesse learning and true meaning then in this For this is your great fault that wheresoever you see or heare in Scripture Father Councell or historie Corpus sanguinem Domini or such like words or phrases presentlie you inferre and so perswade the Catholicks that there is Christs carnal presence in the Sacrament never examining the circumstance of the place or the end wherefore they bee alleadged And thus you erre not knowing or wilfullie contemning the state of the question the sence of the holie writ and iudgement of the auncient Fathers I am sure you never read this place of Augustine your selfe but snatcht it out of some late ignorant and foolish ydle Munkish or Franciscan Euchiridien And my reason why I thinke so of you is drawen out of Augustine himselfe For a few lines before this your proofe he calleth the Sacraments Sacra signa holie signes not the things themselues as you doe and so distinguisheth that which you confound And within three lines after your proofe if you would haue read him you should haue heard him record to your great discredit in this case that this your proofe is as other former examples are figurare dictum secundum sacrae fides regulam that it is spoken figuratiuelie according to the rule of sound faith and religion August in his place as in the places formerly alledged is against you still Now let the Reader iudge betwixt you and mee whether of vs is in the right Augustine saith the Sacraments be sacra signa holie signes and so say wee But you Iesuiets and Priests say no they be the things themselues Augustine saith it is spoken figuratiuelie and so say we you say no but properlie Augustine saith that this opinion is squâ—red out for patterne to Christs Church by the straight rule of sound faith and so say we and as you alleadge your prrofe you say no make a flat opposition betwixt Augustines saith and your faith And yet you will brag of Fathers and that they all speake on your side and you all follow their sayings when they neither speake for you nor you imitate them And so though we follow scripture fathers primitiue Church yet you call vs hereticks And you that
which time there was neither prieste standinge by the Altar misteries vpon the Altar nor he (a) The Pixe was inuented by Innocentius 3 1214. Gregorie Naz. write Anno. 567. Ioh. 4.20 Exod. 3.12 pixe hanging over the Altar and therefore she worshipped Christ that was called vpon at the Altar in the celebration of the misteries not that hee was inclosed vnder the formes of those misteries no more then the mountaine wherein the father 's worshipped was either God substantiallie or that God was inclosed in that mountaine vnder the formes and shapes of the mountaine But the mountaine was the place where God was worshipped And so the Altar was the place where Christ was called vppon and worshipped not that Christ was there locallie by a corporall descention but that he was worshipped there being called vpon and served with a spirituall ascention And if you had read Gregorie Nazianzen a litle after you should haue read that Gorgonia his sister caried about her still some peeces of the figure of the sacred bodie and bloud of Christ as it was the custome of that age and with her repentant teares shee bedewed the same not that she externallie honoured the same Here Gregorie calleth the Sacrament but a figure of the sacred bodie and bloud of Christ Esaia 42. â—â— therefore it had been ydolatrie to haue worshipped it Yet notwithstanding your missaleadging and misvnderstanding of the premisses as also your dissenting from Scriptures Fathers and auncient Popes irreligious dangerous â—arres amonge your selues you easily disburden your braines from further answere thinking you haue confuted the protestants satisfied the Catholicks and so strike vp your victorious plaudite in this maner So that the brâ—â—d beeing of such agreement vvee haue the lesse occasion to embusie our braines to confute them Here Gentlemen you call vs a brood we will take it in the best sence for we confesse wee are Christ his brood hatcht vnder the warmth of his mercifull wings comming vnto him like hungrie chickens at the heavenlie clocke and call of his preaching ministerie to receiue that promised meat which indureth vnto everlasting life math 23.37 Ioh. 6.27 And as for your pleasant Rhetoricall conceit expressed vnder this word agreement it sheweth that in a merrie mood you haue not forgot all your verball tropes and figures But when you can shew plainlie wherein the Protestants iarre amongst themselues Antiphrasis or dissent from the Scriptures and primitiue Church in matter of faith then bestow vpon them these biting figures In the mean time your iarres amongst your selues nay your revoult from scriptures and all primitiue practise being made now so manifest to the Catholicks it stands you vpon for the discharge of a good conscience to confesse and recant them for cure them you cannot And thus much concerning your vnfortunate successe in alleadging some of our chiefe Protestants Fox page 586 Acts monuments as you terme them And now to that which followeth The sixe Articles established by act of Parliament Anno 1540. at the planting of the Protestants faith Catho Priests 1 That there is the reall presence of Christs naturall bodie and bloud in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and vvine 2 That the communion vnder both kinds is not necessarie 3 That Priests by the lavv of God may not marrie 4 That vovves of chastitie ought to be observed 5 That Masses are agreable to Gods lavv and most fruitfull 6 That confession is necessarie The foresaid Parliament and everie one saying publishing preaching teaching disputing or holding opinion against the first of these Articles is adiudged a manifest (a) (a) was burnt loste his Lands goods as in case of highe Treason hereticke and misbeleevers in the (b) (b) They but loste life goods as in case of Felonie which was then a favour rest rigorouslie punished GEntlemen I expected that your proofes should haue ascended to the first fiue hundred years after Christs ascention now they descend so low that there is small hope either of your recall or recoverie I might iustlie take exceptions against this your Parliament proofe because it is manie hundred yeares too young to prooue our matter in question yet in respect it is an Act done by all the Nobles and learned of the land and least the Catholickes should thinke it vnaunswerable I am content to admit it yet still keeping my ordinarie course in examination of the proofes by Scriptures Fathers and the auncient Bishops and Church of Rome 1 The first Article is sufficientlie confuted in the Article 1 premisses alreadie handled 2 The second Article crosseth Christs blessed institution Article 2 and therefore is abhominable And your Parliament saith it is not necessarie to salvation to minister or receiue in both kinds as Christ and his Apostles did Reuel 22.19 But you know there is a wofull curse pronounced by Gods spirit against such as adde or detract to or from Christs Testament Dist. 2. de consec canon Comperimus fol. 430. And your owne Pope Gelasius saith flat sacriledge to their and your charge for this your halfe communion contrarie to Christs institution saying Aut integra sacramenta percipeant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio vnius eius demque mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest pervenire Either let them receiue the whole sacraments or else let them bee kept backe from the whole because the parting of one and the same misterie cannot be done without great sacriledge The beginning of your Canon calleth this halfe communion superstition and the later part calleth it sacriledge Yet saieth your parliameÌ„t proofe the receiving in both kinds is not necessarie to salvation Then I say if it be not necessarie why did Christ vse it if we should not practise it why did he command it Now if either Christs commaundement Hoc facite Doe this or the Popes law can prevaile with you follow Christ his institution If you care for neither Christ nor Pope then the Catholicks may see that you are Antichrists and Antipopes and denie Christs written trueth the primitiue practise of the Church of Rome and the best that you can make of your selues is not ancient Romane Catholickes but new vpstart Romish heretickes And so to your third Article Article 3 3 The third That priests by the lavv of God may not marrie I may not here make anie stay onelie touch a point or two and so away This Article is contrarie to holie Scriptures auncient fathers the practise of the primitiue Church and the Canons of the Popes In the old Testament the marriage of the priests is recorded and commended Ierem. 1.1 Exod. 18. The holie Prophet Jeremie was the sonne of a priest Zappâ—ra was the priest of Midians daughter married to Moses the Lords Maiestrate Luke 1.8.9 Againe in the new Testament John Baptist was the sonne of Zaoharie a priest And the Scriptures touching marriage giue rules