corpus through it our Lords very body to enter into vs to dwell in our harts by faithe Suerly yf M. Rider may receaue his guest into his howse and hart to his meat and mynde as he often professeth so should he imagin that we may and should in like maner receaue Christ in the Sacrament What he saith of doggs and catts Christian shame would haue spared Can the sonne shyne vpon a donghill and neuer be defyled or the three children abyde in the fyer and neuer be burned or Gods diuinitie be in euery thing and euery wher D. Tho. 1. par q. 8. art 3. quo ad potentiam essentiam praesentiam not only by power but by substance and essence equaly in heauen and in earth yea and in hell and vnder waters not be blemished tormeÌ„ted or disgraced why then is it thought an absurditie that Christ true God and man being now immortal and impassible should be any where or in any person how vyle soeuer without al bleamish hurt or disgrace This Ethnical reproaching the heuenly mysteries posteritie will detest by the very testimonie Calu. in prefat Catecheseos Luth. ser Conuiual fol. 158. in pref tom 1. if not Baalamitical prophecie of Caluin saying Posteritatem tandem fraudas nouatorum sensuram antiquis vijs instituram Posteritie will discouer the frauds of Reformers and returne to the ould wayes when as Luther also fortould horum temporum curiositas saturata fuerit the curiositie of these tymes wil be satiated Which are two strange predictions of two Protoplasts of the fift apostolical gospell wherby al their enterprises are insinuated to be fraudulent innouations and desperat doctrines founded only on the curiositie of these tymes Rider Grosse absurdities follow the Priests positions 43. And if your litterall exposition were true then none could bee saued but such as eate your consecrated Christ made of bread then infants that die and communicate not should be damned Captiues that from their cradle liue vnder Tyrants and those that before Christ in Christes time and in the first thousand years after Christ before your new consecration was stamped are damned And contrariwise all that eate of your consecrated Hoste be saued bee they neuer so blasphemous to God traiterous to their Prince and iniurious to their brethren But that both these extreames that spring from your litterall exposition contrarie to Scriptures and fathers be false and horrible to Christian eares no godlie man may doubt vnlesse he will denie Christ and his word the auncient Fathers and the Primitiue church and you shall neuer giue the Catholiques that haue hanged their precious soules vpon your bare sayings due satisfaction in this without publike and penitent recantation of this You follow nether Scriptures nor Fathers If with the Fathers you would but obserue duelie the circumstances of the 5. and 6. of Iohn you might see it cannot be meant of the Sacrament and therefore you are deceiued in the Scriptures because the Sacrament was not then ordained Againe by the iudgement of Augustine the speech is figuratiue and therefore the sence spirituall And so Augustine stands with vs against you Olde Lyra saith that the sixth of Iohn Nihil directe pertinet c. speaketh not one word directly and pertinentlie of the Sacrament The Father saith nihil nothing directe directly yet you against Scriptures and Fathers will wrest these texts indirectlie and impertinentlie to speake of the Sacrament before it was a Sacrament If we should commit such palpable errours against Scriptures Fathers and common sence you would call vs common sots without learning or sence plaine murtherers and soule slayers from which sinne the Lord deliuer vs both Now I will aske your conscience this question how durst you cut off Christs words by the waste meant you plainly in that surely no for if you had recited the whole verse it had marred your market you onely set downe the middle of the sentence concealing the beginning of it and curtalling the end of it and so thinking that to serue your turne and blinde the eies of the simple But God willing I wille discouer the trueth which you seeke to couer and let the simple people see how farre and how long you haue deceiued and misledde them to the great perill of their soules with wresting the Scriptures and wronging the Fathers Christs whole sentence was this Verse 51. I am the liuing bread which came downe from â—eauen if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer and this you cut off Then followes your proofe The bread that I will giue is my flesh Iohn 6.50 then you curtall â—he rest which I will giue for the life of the world If you had dealt plainly and â—eliuered Christs words to Gods people without substraction as Christ deliuered â—hem vnto you then the people euen the simplest of them would not haue so â—ong beene deceaued by you For the former part of the verse and the later conâ—ealed by you expound 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 liuing bread and giues eternall â—ife to the receiuers yours doth not This came from heauen yours did not Who so eates of this cannot be damned but manie eate of yours and die eterâ—ally and therefore the very properties of this bread shew plainely that it cannot â—e meant of your singing-cakes as hath beene prooued before vnto you Because they haue no life in themselues and therefore can neither giue life nor preserue â—ife 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 giuen in the Sacrament How and when M. Rider reiterateth strange Deductions Arguments and Reprehensions 43. DOe not meruayle at these deductions of M. Rider to be often applyed and replyed For in 20. Fitzimon monethes space they being collected he might eftsoons forgett what he had formerly ingrossed and so forgetting him selfe and what he had sayd befor he might insert the self same things often Or not fynding in so long studie any thing to his purpose but rather whersoeuer he turned his eyes and conuerted his mynde to be wholy against his cause and condemning him and it he thought good to make many messes of smal cheare and to furnish the table with one only prouision by art of cookerie diuersely prepared otherwyse it were hard that in one sheete of paper they should be so often inculcated Yet then I aunswer 〈◊〉 before in the 40. numbre that the saluioure of mankind IESVS Christ our Lord is our foode in the Sacrament Whosoeuer of discretion eateth him not or by contempt after denuntiation of his pleasure and merciful gift of him selfe shal neuer be saued Wheâ—
cupps that we are maintayned in glorie and therby many Catholicks beggered that Christs blood is an effect of our consecration that our diuinitie is hellishe and damnable and fitt to be taught in hell that we can not proue the benediction to belong to the cupp that the first Fathers neuer heard of such our doctrin To all which I can say no lesse The 93. vntruth then that all these being most vntrue may by liberal allowance stand vp for the 93. vntrueth Verilie neuer did I reade before to my knowledge so many disioynted maters shuffled together without method or measure but some one of them at least would haue relation to the subiect in discourse Now let all men ad women iudge what haue all these related points to doe with our controuersie of wyne to be the communication of the blood of Christ and bread to be the participation of his fleashe Or how do all these tergiuersations auoyd impugne or reproue that which is in controuersie 101. Chrisostome vpon this place calleth it the cuppe of blessing Rider because when we haue it in our hands with admiration and a certain horror of that vnspeakable gift Chry. super 1. Cor. 10. we praise and blesse him because he hath shed his bloud that we should not remaine in error and hath not onelie shed it but made vs all partakers of it In like sort did Photius and Occumenius expounde this word which wee blesse Photius Oecumenius which hauing in our handes blesse him which hath graciously giuen vs his bloud that 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 aâ— in a glasse that wee ioine with the scriptures fathers in the true sence of these words The cup which we blesse and that your exposition is erronious and superstitious and therefore to be recanted by you and shunned by the Catholickes and my reasons be drawne out of the foresaid fathers not made on my owne fingers Fitzsimon 101. S. Chrysostom aduertiseth to all the world that you here deliuer the 94. â—he 94. vntruth S. Chrysost in c. 5. Math. hom 11. vntruth both because he hath no such matter as you inferr as also because els where he hath expresly the contrarie Saying Si enim vasa sanctificata ad priuatos vsus transferre peccatum est periculâ—m sicut docet nos Balthazar qui bibens in calicibus sacratis de regno depositus est de vita Si ergo haec vasa sanctificata ad priuatos vsus transferre sic periculosum est in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis eius continetur quanto magis vasa corporis Christi c. If then it be synne and danger to transferre sanctifyed note well M. Rider for euery clause of this speeche will wounde your profession vessells as Balthazar teacheth vs who drinking in sanctifyed chalices was deposed from kingdome and lyfe yf then to transferre these sanctifyed vessels to priuat vses be so dangerous in which not the true body of Christ but the mysterie of his body was contayned how much more the vessells of the body of Christ c. Here you haue sanctification of vessels such not to be prophaned Christ to be otherwyse with vs then with the Israelits and our vessels to haue his true bodye How lyke you all these toward your imaginations Photius you produce against your selfe by his saying that Christ gratiously giueth vs his blood Why then he giueth not only a figure of his blood Oecumenius hath noe such mater as neuer expounding any woord beyond the 9. chapter of S. Pauls epistle to the Corinthians ether of the second or the first And so is discouered the 95. The 95. vntruth vntruth Where are the promised citations of books and chapters leaues and lynes Whether you or I will or noe our dealings wil be iudged when we deale vnsincerly and impiouslie For other exclamations of such citations and discourses I can not thinke them conuenient when your dealings are so notorious only I will intreat the glorious S. Augustin S. Aug. l. 2. de Ciu. c. 1. â— 5. c. 27. to giue you your aunswer and let you be gone Quorum dicta contraria si toties velimus refellere quoties obnixa frome statuerint non curare quid dicant dum quocumque modo nostris disputationibus contradicant quam sit infinitum erumnosum infructuosum vides Facile est cuiquam videri respondisse que tacere noluerit Aut quid est loquacius vanitate Quae non ideo potest quod veritas quia si noluerit tacere etiam plus potest clamare quam veritas VVhose contrarie sayings yf we sayth S. Augustin would refell as oft as they with an impudent forhead neglect what they affirme so that any way they contradict our disputations how infinit toylsome and how fruictles it is you behould It is easie for euery one to see to aunswer what he cowld not conceale And what is more talkeatiue then vanitie Yet therfor it can not compare with trueth because yf it will not be silent it can exclame more then truth 102. First he saith that benediction blessing or thanksgiuing Rider 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 thanksgiuing we follow Christ Paul the Greek text and the olde fathers And when you translate it The challice of benediction it is flat contraire to Christ Paul veritie and antiquitie And there is as great difference betwixt your opinion and the old fathers faith as betwixt praising with mouth and crossing with fingers nay as much as betwixt your superstitious challice and our soulesauing 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 transubstantiation 1. The first is Christs bodie crucified and his bloud shed with all his purchased benefits 2. Secondlie our communion fellow ship which all beleeuers haue in that crucified Christ and those soulesauing merits 3. Thirdly the outward seals of those benefits which are called The cup which we blesse and the bread which we 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 seals be things outward and the communion of Christs bodie and
commendations by them vawnted Their confessor according to his dutie instructed them of the heynousnes of those crymes so effectualy that they being sorrowfull for their former lyfe they promised to abstayne heedfully for the future tyme from all disordre and particularly that they would nether lye nor forsweare in bying and selling In the beginning they fownd them selues somewhat interested therby vntill God had fully proued the firmenes of their resolution But after in small processe of tyme their trade customers and welth increased so exceedingly that they came to incomparable wealth So yf our Reformers could refrayne from the same offenses in vtterance of their marchandise in wryting and deale playnly without inhawncing glozing or returning their wares without detracting and belying the prouision sufficience and substance of their neighbours store or beguiling thus their customers I assure you thowsands more would peruse their stuffe and their traffique would be much amended 11. The fift position was this Rider That the Masse which now the Church of Rome doeth vse was not then known in the Church Maister Fitzsymon knowing or else he is ignorant in Durandus Durantus Guido and the rest of the Masse founders that it is impossible to prooue the Masse to be either Apostolicall or Catholicke that in the first fiue hundred yeares it was not hatched vnder the warmth of the Popes wings for then he was scarce Bishop of Rome but that is was to his owne knowledge patched vp in many hundred yeares after those 500 by sundrie Popes and therefore Maister Fitzsymon very wisely passeth the matter ouer without one text of Scripture to prooue it for knowing in his conscience that the Masse neuer came within the letter of Christs will he will not affoord it the least warrant forth of Gods word And for the Fathers that he alleadgeth I am sorrie that a man that hath so fluent a tongue should haue so bad a minde to wrest the Fathers so speake that after their death which they neuer knew in all their life 11. Title VVhether the Masse novv vsed in the Church of Rome vvas knovven to the ancient Church M. Rider denyeth it to haue bene knowen Fitzimon befor Innoncent the thirds tyme. But in the two bookes precedent euen the innocents may iudge whether such be not for the follie therof an InnoceÌ„ts opinion and for the impudencie therof a sycophants protestation When that M. Rider had threatned befor as often appeareth so wonderfully the Masse that he would shew from first to all to be magick when he had promised to trauers it at the first occasion In 〈◊〉 caueat n. â—8 when he had taken vpon him as a litle after followeth that he had followed me closely in euery lyne woord sillable and leter then not only not to accomplish his threat not to imbrace this opportunite now offered not to produce one woord of all my proofes and to deny that I had alleadged any out of Scripture I know not what it is yf it be not to Ryde as fast as his titt can gallopp And that he may not ryde alone Luther hath sent this sentence as a foote boy to compagnie him Qui semel mentitur hic certissime ex Deo non est suspectus in omnibus habetur Luth. in Asser Teu ho. art 25. He that once lyeth he is not most certainly of God and in all things is to be to suspected As I sayd my treatise of the Masse will further totaly and seueraly for what parte soeuer therof you peruse it alone will discouer the forsayd ryding demonstrat not only M. Rider to be vntrue but that magna est vis veritatis quae contra omnium ingenia calliditatem solâ—rtiam contra fictas hominum insidias facile se per scipsam defendet Seneca in epist great is the power of trueth which by it selfe defendeth it selfe agaynst all witts craft industrie and treacherous ambushes of men Yf denials were disproofs yf the dissembling our arguments were the dissoluing of them yf hypocritical protestations be allowed for lawfull pleadings then our cause and case will loose their processe But yf trueth may haue due regarde and proofs their deserued credit and right but a lawfull iudgemeÌ„t then falshod as a disguised queene vpon a stage the Pagent being ended wil be discouered to haue bene but a cowntrefett then dissimulation wil be vnmasked then woords wil be valued according the lightnes of their weight As I sayd my â—wo bookes of the Masse compiled vpon the occasion of such denials dissembling and delusions are committed to the regard of their trueth the credit of their proofe and the iudgement of their equitie Let them be accepted but according to desert and they and I will câ—aue noe more nor others perhapp requyre greater satisfaction Rider 12. The last question was Of the Popes supremacie and whether the Pope of Rome hath vniuersall iurisdiction ouer all Princes and their Subiects in causes temporall and Ecclesiasticall VVith this Maister Fitzsimon dealeth as with all the rest and for the first part he saith that the Popes supremacie was acknowledged but tels you not within the first fiue hundred yeares and therefore is able to say nothing to that first part in question But impertinently misalleadgeth some Texts of Scripture spoken either touching Peters faith which he should hold not one word of his supremacie which hee neuer had And there hee would cunningly subborne the Fathers to prooue Peters pretended supremacie and the Popes vsurped supremacie but all in vaine for he takes them by the sound not by the sense as shall appeare Christ willing in sifting them if he dare shew them And for the second part of the position hee falls quite from the proofe of the Popes Iurisdiction to the largenesse of his possessioÌ„s which was neuer in questâ—on as Sicilia Sardinia c. here you see his weaknesse that cannot draw out of the Lords quiuer one shaft in defence of the Popes Supremacie 12. Title VVhether my proofs of the Popes supremacie speake of the first fiue hondred yeares 12. YOu haue sondrie euidences that M. Fitzimon Rider is nether lawfull Iudge nor witnes In this article it appeareth particulary in his denying it that Scriptures Fathers Protestants especialy the Centuriasts in great prolixitie do professe Yf there had bene no other proofs theÌ„ is in my first title to this Rescript what thinke you are not they alone a stumbling block to humble our Rider into the synke of confusion I will but quote the Centuriasts shewing from age to age the Popes of Rome to haue had and practised supremacie of the whole world Cent. 2. c. 7. col 139. col 770. 778. 779. 781. 782. c. 10. col 1262. and add to the forsayd proofs in my title a few more that euen those who are loath to conceaue M. Rider to be what he is conuicted may be as loath to dowbt of the mater that he contradicteth For euen by
thinke that he is Perseus on his wynged horse Pegasus traÌ„sforming alâ— his aduersaries into stones that they can not discerne these prooft to be no proofs Cal. in 7. mat et in 9. 12 16 18. Ia c. 6. mac v. 16.17.18 in c. 26. mat In c. 2. Luc. 16. In Ioan. 1. Castal in pref Bibl. ad Edw 6. D. Whitg a pag. 31. ad 51. Stow chron pag. 1022. 1189. 1283. 1551. Melan. in loc con An. 1539. Fol. 8. 10. An. 1545. fol. 53. An. 1558. loco de filio Sebast. Fran. apud Bezam ep 6. Cartwr in 2. replie pag. 191. Ioan. 10.31 but of stupiditie in them alleaging them To haâ—e the forsayd woords wel applyed in dede let them first procure that Caluinians leaue to doubt of the diuinitie of Christ. Let them be opposed to Castalio mistrusting the Messias to be yet come Let them be opposed to Atheists abounding euery where since reformation began Let them debarr that there be no successours to Francis Kett master of Art to George Paris and Ihon Lewes lately executed in England for denial of Christs diuinitie Let them confound Melancthon allowing but a parcel of diuinie nature to our Saluiour Let them coÌ„found Sebastiaâ— Franck accompting Christ no more God then Socrates or Trismegistus Let them confound Cartwright saying the Iewes had bene fooles to accompt him their liuing God whom they did behould a seely aend miserable man These things are written that such should beleeue Iesus is the Sonne of God and that beleeuing they might haue life in his name To proue any thing against vs there can not possibly be any wyse application of them Rider 34. For that faith which can bee prooued to bee taught in Christs tyme and so receiued and continued in the primitiue Church for the first fiue hundred yeares after Christs ascention must needs be the true auncient Apostolicall and Catholicque faith And that other faith that cannot be so proued is but base bastardly and counterfeit and I trust in Christ that the Reader easily shall perceiue before the ende of this small Treatise that this your opinion touching Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament and so in the rest of the other Positions was neuer taught by Christ nor once dreamed on by the auncient Fathers but inuented and deuised a thousand yeares after Christ by the late Church of Rome grounding their proofes onelie of an emptie sound of syllables without Apostolical or Catholicque sence enforcing both Scriptures and Fathers to speake what they and you pleased not what the holie Ghost and the Fathers purposed VVhether M. Rider hath condemned his Church to be base bastard and cownterfet Fitzimon All this appâ—areth in our 20. number or 30. number 34. YF any thing by him was vnaduisedly affirmed by this his verdict against his owne Church he hath especialy disconfited his profession For first therby he hath condemned Luther and Caluin and their adherents affirming them to haue bene first preachers of Christ and greatest doctours of trueth not only aboue the primatiue â—thers but aboue all that euer were or euer wil be whether they 〈◊〉 Apostles or noe Yf then the religion of the first fiue hundred â—â—res be only true and all other but base bastard and counterfet â—w can this new religion Haddon in the end of his epistle Bale cent 1. pag. 66. 72 cent 8. pag. 678. Epistle to the Confer betwixt Latimer and Ridley-Harborough in the last oration which Haddon professed to haue bene â—t thirtie yeares knowen of which all English late writters â—compt Latimer to be the Apostle and saying Luther to haue bene not â—ly the reformer of abuses but the very Father of trueth but therby 〈◊〉 condemned Nay how are not the two most glorifyed Foxian â—artyrs Ridley and Cranmer therby coÌ„demned saying they would â—oue all the doctrin sett foorth by K. Edward to be more pure then â—y other vsed in England a 1000. yeares befor Is it not therby â—oth professed vnknowen till that time as also not to be the doâ—rin of Christ For had it bene knowen and his promise true of â—e inuincibilitie therof 16. Matth. it could neuer haue had a 1000. â—ares interruption And what may be sayd of the Prince of Condees â—â—scription in his coyne of Golde Lud. XIII Dei gratia Francorum Rex â—imus Christianus Secondly all the disputations and monuments of all principall â—otestaÌ„ts professing the primatiue Fathers of the first secoÌ„d third â—nd fowerth hundred yeares repugnant to protestantcie as appeaâ—eth in the 30. nuÌ„ber by induction are therby coÌ„demned Awnswer to Sawnders Rock pag. 248. 278. Beza conf Geneu c. 7. 12. Et in c. 2. ad Thes. Thirdly â—ll the learnedest protestants condemning the Church of the Apoâ—les tyme and saying Antichrist to haue then begunne and condemning â—l and euery of the Apostles them selues Euangelists and their â—nmediat disciples all these I say are therby condemned For yf â—ese were fauorable to protestantcye Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. col 558. 559. 560. Cal. in 1. Cor. c. 4. v. 4. c. 7. v. 9. Rom. c. 9. v. â— Quintin apud ResciaÌ„ in pref nimistromachie Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. Vide Calu. loc cit Bullinger com in 19. 22. Apoc. Quintin loc cit Calu. apud Feuard pref in Ruth Beza de hist adultere Luth. tom 5. fol. 439 440. vitus Theod. pag. vlt. in nou test there had bene no occasion 〈◊〉 despise or disprayse them in such maner as to affirme such deâ—cts in S. Peter as by the Centuriasts who curiously and not only â—refully haue calculated 15. synnes of his by Beza by Illyricus are 〈◊〉 disparage him carefully and plentifully registred To affirme of 〈◊〉 Paul with Caluin that he was full of colde and heat of presumption teâ—eritie confusion and precipitation And with Quintinus that he was not a â—oseÌ„ vessel but a brokeÌ„ vessel with the CeÌ„turiasts that he was impatieÌ„t 〈◊〉 in desperation during his afflictioÌ„s in Asia dissentioÌ„s toward Barnabas hypoâ—tical toward Iames others To affirme of S. Ihon with Bullinger that â—his proÌ„ptnes to adore the angel he had synned in apostasie With Quintinus to â—arme him IuueneÌ„ stoliduluÌ„ a foolish youth With Caluin to distrust his 6. Cap. â—nd with Beza his 8. Cap. for vntrue To affirme of S. Iames that he was a â—ruerter of S. Pauls doctrin his epistle bastard couÌ„terfet wicked vnapostolical To affirme with Luther Luth. pref ad nou test in ep Petri tom 3. Wittemb Calu. in c. 2. Mat. v. 15. c. 4. v. 13. c. 8. v. 17. c. 21. v. 9. c. 27. v. 9. Idem Act. 15. v. 40. Tower disp 4. dayes Conference Calu. in c. 21. Act. v. 23. the three first Euangelists to be apochriphal To affirme in particular with Caluin that S. Mathew abused distorted and alleadged vnaptly diuers citations That S. Marke was an Apostat and disloial not to be excused To affirme with Luther that S. Luke was excessiue
as any other not owt of his witt that wher ther is real presence ther also is corporal Secondly Oecolampadius saith Absurdum est si dicamus Christi corpus realiter in coena adesse Oecolamp libello de verbis Domini c It is absurd yf we say the body of Christ to be realy in the supper Fowerthly M. Rider him selfe aunswering the first of the six articles by act of parlament established Caueat before the fowerth proofe that ther is Christs real presence saith this article is sufficiently confuted Yf real presence was neuer in controuersie or denyed how could Lomas and Perne but beleeue it How could it be with Oecolampadius sayd to be absurd to affirme it How could M. Rider say that he denieth it not and yet that he had confuted it Let any frend of M. Riders but read Fox of Ihon Lambert Frith Tindal Barne Anne Askew and all the rest of Foxes principal martyrs to informe M. Rider of this fowle vntrueth and yf he being warned therof by them yet will not reforme it chyde him in my behalfe Secondly in the other vntrueth that I had changed the question why is he not more agreable in suche accusation Sometyme he maketh the state of the question to be betwixt corporal and spiritual sometyme betwixt real and figuratiue sometyme betwixt real and spiritual All is one with him spiritual and figuratiue but not with S. Paul Hebr. 10.1 1. Cor. 15.46 1. Cor. 10.11 graunting the Iewes had figurs and shadd owes in the owld testament but the only new testament to haue thinges spiritual Euery thing with M. Rider that is corporal is suddenly denyed to be spiritual but not with S. Paul saying Yf there be a corporal or natural body ther is also a spiritual Breefly I resolue him in two things First that the question is not altered by me for I inquyre whether Christ be corporaly in the B. Sacrament and not only figuratiuely truely and not only by imagination him selfe and not only his representation figure or appellation Secondly that affirming corporal and spiritual receauing not only to consist but to be requisit together as in all the progresse to be our intention and opinion shall God willing be manifested and is befor certifyed in the 12. nūber I am playnly opposit to protestants in this question who exclude not only the corporal but also the very spiritual being of our Saluiour in this Sacrament Yf you admire that I appeach you to vse the woord spiritual vniustly and deceitfully chafe not but listen and you shal discerne that I proue what I affirme and also defeat your opinion of all the mystie tearmes by you purloined to make your Lords supper vaynely seeme mystical I confesse my selfe to be sometyme offended with our learned Cōtrouertists because they suffre the aduersaries with out all right to chawnt or harp vpon euery mention of spiritual spiritual being of Christ in the B. Sacrament as being fauourable to them wheras indeed their doctrin is carnal not only by grosse and pharisaical conceauing of the woord Corporal but also by not induring the woord Spiritual to be belonging to that diuine mysterie which hetherto few seeme to haue duely obserued I dowbt not by the grace of God but to make it euident euen to the most slumbring eyes that they haue no title or interest in ether the corporal or spiritual or faythfull or figuratiue or Sacramental being in this mysterie Wherof now let these two proofes serue for a tast 〈◊〉 difference sayd the protestant martyrs betweene the faythfull and papists concerning the sacrament is that the papists say that Christ is corporaly vnder or in the forms of bread and wyne but the faythfull say that Christ is not there nether corporaly nor spiritualy Next saith Musculus the bread is the body of Christ nether naturaly nor personaly nor realy nor corporaly nor yet spiritualy Vide n. 96.108 nor figuratiuely nor significatiuely it remayneth after all these that we say the bread is the body of Christ sacramentaly As for Sacramentaly it also shal be recouered from them What occasion had I then to alter the question as yf Christ could not be sayd to be corporally in the Sacrament but therby should be denyed that he were spiritualy or yf he were founde to be spiritualy therby the protestāt opiniō should be fauored or my opinion disaduantaged S. August l. 3. de doctrina Christiana c. 10. Truely sayd S. Augustin when the mynde is preoccupated by any errour what soeuer the scripture hathe so the contrary they take it to be spoken Figuratiuely Which is verifyed in our aduersaries who being preoccupated by errour do strayne and wrest all woords owt of their natural signification by some figuratiue collusion to serue their turns especialy in affecting such as haue dowbtfull and ambiguous significations whether thy belong to them or no therby to lurke vnknowen in darknes As in our controuersie yf any as I sayd inferr Christ to be Corporaly and realy present they except against it yf they can finde that any spiritual woord or vnderstanding be implied together therwith as yf forsooth Corporal Spiritual cowld not in any wise to consist together but they to whom nether of both belong must not be ouerthrowē therby or by any of the rest that refuteth them Yf any suffrage of the Fathers testifie the same yf they finde the least mention of figure Sacrament or signe conioyned ther withall they seeme to be well defensed by such a target inferring thervpon that no veritie cowld be together both trueth and figure substance and sacrament body and signe although hundreds of assurances perswade the contrary and that the same as I sayd is made a safegard to their figure only only signification only representation Such reasoning may some tyme breed tediousnes but litle trauayle in refelling it wherof yf wisdome ouercome the tediousnes discretion shal moderat the trauayle Now at least appeareth how destitute their opinion is of spiritualitie and how pretending it hetherto in shew was to take a Iosephs cloak to a deceitfull cloaking of a synnfull dishonestie 36. GEntlemen you mistake vtterly Christs meaning Turne back to the 3◠pag. and place the four last lines begining The bread which I c. as title to this 36. paragraph of M. Rider and then read as here followeth Gentlemen you mistake c. wresting Christs wordes from the spirituall sence in which he spake to the litterall sence which he neuer meant ancient Fathers neuer taught Primitiue Church of Christ for one thousand yeares at least after Christs ascention neuer knew or receiued For the words and phrases be figuratiue and allegorical therefore the sence must be spirituall not carnal For this is a generall rule in Gods booke ancient Fathers yea and in your Popes Canons and glosses that euerie figuratiue speech or phrase of Scripture must be expounded spirituallie not carnally or litterallie as anone more plainlie you shall heare But
some perticuler persons quick or dead as the Priest pleaseth VVhether Christs woords teach Christs fleash to haue bene only giuen on the Crosse Fitzimon 44. THis argument auerreth effectualy the precedent attestations as being out of all the 19. moods and three figures allowed in philosophie For by haueing the medium or meane twyse in the predicato or later part of the propositions it should be in the second figure and being deformed in that figure it is excluded out of all the rest The deformation appeareth that the second proposition should haue bene and is not in this maner but the fleash of Christ in the Sacrament was not only giuen on the Crosse from which it varyeth by omitting all the former parte and exchangeing the being giuen on the Crosse into the being of a material Crosse The conclusion also is misshapen as which ought only to haue bene therfor the fleash of Christ in the Sacrament was not promised in the sixt of Ihon. Because I am Rom. 1.14 Debitor factus sapientibus insipientibus made a debtour to the learned and vnlearned I haue borrowed licence of the vnskillfull in Philosophie to haue in a start followed this mater in his kinde Now to the capacitie of all I aunswer to the first proposition The 19. vntruth that it is euidently the 19. vntrueth and against Christs expresse promise in the 6. of S. Ihon promising that besyd his giuing his flesh to be crucifyed he would also giue him selfe to be eateÌ„ of vs saying vnlesse you eate c. I aunswear to the next that it is true that Christs fleash in the Sacrament was not only giuen on the Crosse as being also giuen to be eaten in the Sacrament The conclusion is contayned in the premisses and so denyed or affirmed as the premisses All the residue is ether specified and reuersed in the 40. or 43. numbres or els being voyd speeches at randome need noe further resolution Behould beloued reader Ioan. 6. v. 51.53.55 to these woords of Christ this bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the worlde no woord of worthe or witt is replied but time Ioan. 14.6 cap. 7.17 and wynde wasted in most idle diuagations Is Christ the trueth are his woords as the Euangelist affirmeth the veritie why then the bread he gaue was his fleash not his figure then his fleash was not only crucified but also eaten then his fleash is meat truely and not figuratiuely To aunsweare therfor to these pregnant and infallible woords of Christ him selfe only that we mistake not shewing how the Fathers denye when and what they affirme apparently that Christs woords are spiritual and therfor not litteral and for other aunswer to digresse into reproaches to multiply woords to beat the wynde not shewing any defense or warrant of Scripture or Father for your figure only without veritie appellation only without substance representation only without commoditie such aunswearing I say is breefly Psal 4. v. 3. Diligere vanitatem querere mendacium to loue vanitie and to seeke lyes The third proofe of the Catholique Priests out of the sixth of Iohn to prooue Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament Catholicque Priests Vers 55. My flesh is meate truelie and my bloud is drinke trulie Rider 45. YF you should aske your boy in his Grammer rules a question if he aunswered not in the same case or by the same tense of a verbe that theâ— question is asked by you will count him a silie Grammatist But if you aske your Sophister a question in quid and hee aunswere in quale you will taâ—â— him for an improper and impertinent aunswere But most of all if a great Diuine be asked a question to prooue the manner of a thing and he neglecting or omitting that as too hard or impossible for him prooues the matter that was neuer demaunded or doubted of what will the Reader thinke of this matter this man and this proofe Surelie he must say either he vnderstandeth not the state of the question or else he is not able to prooue the question and so vseth this shameful shift iâ— steed of a sufficient proofe All the Catholiques in this kingdome expected to be satisfied by your aunswer touching the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament whether it be carnal or spirituall and whether he must be eaten by faith spirituallie or the teeth carnally And your aunswere is as improper and impertinent as either Grammatist or Sophister for you leaue the maner of Christs presence which you should prooue and bring the matter of his presence which was neuer in question saying My flesh is meat truly c. How this your aunswere doeth relish of learning let the learned iudge When aâ— the Catholiques in the kingdome hang their soules on your saying Are these you contentments you giue them If they aske you how they must eate Christs fleâ— drinke Christs bloud then you tell them my flesh is meate in deed and my bloud 〈◊〉 drinke in deed Doe you aunswere their question or satisfie their conscience or resolue their doubts alasse no. Thus you haue dealt dallied and deceiued a long time Christs people with these your improper impertineÌ„t 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 hauing Gods feaâ— before your eies you would not haue staied there for the next verse plainely discouers your bad dealing with the simple people for that aunswereth their question and 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 whosoeuer dwels in Christ and Christ in him eates Christs flesh and drinkes Christs bloude but the faithfull onely dwell in Christ and Christ in them therefore the faithfull onely eate Christs flesh and drinke Christs bloud whether it be in hearing the word in baptisme or in the Lords Supper as you haue heard before If you had added this verse it hâ—â— ouerthrown your carnall presence in the Sacrament and your orall eating of Chrisâ— with your mouth teeth c. But as you wrong the Catholiques with an impertitiâ—â— 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 in expounding this text contrarie to the Romane sence The second parte of the Catholicks first proofe by Scriptures 45. HEere in the woords of Christ is assured Fitzimon for the matter that it is fleashe and consequently not his appellation only for the manner that it is truely and consequently not figuratiuely only yet doth this proctor of the protestant profession only to cauill tell that the mater was
bread and wyne which in Cambridge by the Bishop D. Ridley was denyed So that M. Rider hath giuen doctor Ridley a knock for denial of a change I thinke you would now know how this change is wrought Attend the means and maner VVe looke saith he vpon the dredfull and reuerend mysteries of Christ crucified not as vpon bare naked elements but as sanctifyed foode I aske you first 1. Pet. 3. in confidence that you are readie alwayes to satisfie euery one that asketh you a reason of that hope that is in you according as S. Peter aduiseth since when these mysteries in your religion haue bene allowed to be called dreadfull and reuerend In the forsayd 39. number the meanest sermon of a Puritan minister is made more auaylable then they They are then declared superfluous but among forgetfull persons no better then bare beggerlie ordonances no more to be regarded then any other common bread c. Yet here they are made very terrible and venerable as in the last woords is contayned I can not among other obseruations conceal that by imputing lesse to the sacraments then to a Puritan sermon you preferre Puritan sermons befor any euer made by Christ or his Apostles How soe For they preached oft yet made not all hearers to ether receaue our Saluiour into hart or harborow no not in Bethsaida or Corozain wher he him self preached most vsualy nor much lesse at his preaching did make them to be true beleeuers Yf therfor none can receaue the sacraments but by faith as you say and yet that by a Puritan sermon ther is more good and proffit attayned then by the sacraments to my slender capacitie Puritan sermons are implyed to make all hearers faithfull considering that sacraments of lesse worth by your surmises then such sermons make all receauers to be faithfull as being receaued by no others Yet that the sermons of S. Paul were not comparable in operation to our sacrament in controuersie S. Aug. l. 3. de Trin. c. 4. is sayd by S. Augustin Nether the tong of Paul nor his paper nor inke nor woords nor wrytings de we esteeme as the bodie or blood of Christ so farr was he from thinking that any Puritan sermon was so effectual as this sacrament Secondly I craue how your supper is sanctified For the Crosse or blessing you will not allow and of prayer and the woord of true Scripture in this discourse you make no mention and other sanctification you can not iustifie Thirdly how by only looking you make the foode to be sanctified Haue you any Gorgonical vertue in your looking that all that you looke on is sanctified as all that looked on Gorgons head were sayd trāsformed Fowerthly how for all this dreadfull and reuerend change ther is any alteration from a bare figure considering that the Iewes ceremonies were as much sanctified and looked at as your supper and also by all protestāts of your sorte equaled therto Fiftly how hath your looking changed the vse of bread which is only to nourish you confessing the vse therof in the sacrament to be no other then to represent Christs feeding and conforting our soules as bread doth feed and confort our bodies The vse therfor therof seemeth to me not to be changed Because I know these demāds insoluble by your whole professiō and that I see your extremitie and perplexitie by your figures and darke woords neuer at an ende or staye but that by means of your figures and signes you can not tell whether to vse great or smal tearmes or deuotion toward them nor do not constantly determine what conceils may be had or held of them but some tyme kneeling therto is requisit and some tyme sitting therat will suffice and some tyme as Barlow in the summe of the conference befor the K. Maiestie pag. 98. saith it must be receaued in ambling therto wherof the indecencie is ther sayd to haue bene very offensiue I will conclude in the woords of S. Epiphanius S. Epiphan l. 2. c. 12 cont Cerdon Vide num 36. Veritati non credentes in mendacio autem volutantes perdiderunt panem verae vitae in profundum vmbrae iacentes similes Aesopi cani qui panem reliquit in vmbram autem eius impetum fecit perdidit escam Not beleeuing trueth and wallowing in falshood they haue lost the bread of true lyfe tumbling in the bottom of a shaddow lyke Esops dogg who left the bread and snatching the shaddow lost his bayt Then which sentence neuer was ther any more pertinent against our figurists For their glosing the sacrament with dreadfull and reuerend woords hauing euacuated the fruict therof and making it but a shaddow when shaddowes are changed into substance and trueth how could any thing more aptly be applyed vnto them then by saying they had left the bread snatched the shaddow and lost the bayte 64. But first I must tell you the word is new Rider neither vsed by Christ or his Apostles in the institution of the sacrament nor heard of in any ancient Father for manie hundred yeares after Christ Again neuer read in anie author 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 or his Apostle Paul it was not vsed nor ancient Father euer tooke it in this sence Again the nature of the word hath no such signification I see not but you deserue much blame in binding the Catholickes consciences to beleeue that which is against diuinitie antiquitie and comon sence Now Gentlemen pardon me to demand of you but this question what words be they that consecrat that is which turn the substances of bread and wine into the naturall and substantial bodie and bloud of Christ Me thinkes I heare you Iesuits and Priests calling me a foole for demaunding such a question Such fathers as liued next to Christs time shold know best the practise of the primitiue church these fathers you refuse and chose others a thousād years yonger therefore they be of lesse credit considering as yee pretend that the Church of Rome and ther 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 and therefore my question is friuolous and needlesse and no doubt you make your Catholickes beleeue so but alasse you deceiue them it is not so for I will shew you manie seueral 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 and the practise of the Primitiue Church for the first 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 and to
not S. Martial call Christ bread as well as you I neuer found one being so forgetfull and contrarious to him selfe better described then in F. Cottons Epigramme befor his treatise of the Sacrifice Colligis haud meminit stringis crepat inijcis odit Iámné negata probat iámné probata negat Summe you his woords he forgetts pinche you he fumes cite you he hateth VVere they now denyed he affirms yf but now affirm'd he rebateth For the point of commemoration or remembrance it is in the 81. and 86. numbers abundantly discussed For discomending our proofes and affirming that we are taken as in a nett it displeaseth me not For neuer thinke I any proofe so strong as what by your lyke is pretended weake nor my doctrin and profession more at libertie and out of danger then when by such it is disabled In not knowing Anaclet yow testifie what your skil is in the primatiue Popes S. Anaclet epist. 2. ad Episcopos Ital. among whom he was of the first in tyme and dignitie By him yow might learne that preists are Corporis Christi tractatores handlers of Christs bodye You haue noe reason you say to speake against Dionisius because he speaketh not one word for vs. Yes M. Rider it is for vs greatly that the preest must S. Dion Hierarchie Ecclesiast cap. 2. 3. first make his confession after hauing placed the signes vpon a holy altar by which signes Christ him selfe signatur sumitur is not only signifyed but receaued Then that the venerable prelat cometh to the altar and sacrificeth Then that after eleuation of the sacred hoste he communicateth him selfe and distributeth part to the assemblie Which is in one woord to say Masse Yf by your owne confession you haue not reason to speake against all this then you will also be destitute of reason in impugning vs any longer for our confessions for our sanctifyed altars for our preists for our masses for our eleuations in one worde for all our papistrie As I answered a little before so now I answere againe that I haue neuer better opinion of my answere that it is nether carelesse nor defectiue but exact and insuportable then I haue by your reprehension of it For that is your last refuge to make vanting your victorie reproaching your reprouing which is as Cicero sayd Exhibere fugam pompae similem to retyre and flye dissembling a triumphe and when you are confounded to pretende you had confuted imitating certayne being wounded in their bowels whom Aristotle relateth Aristoteles lib. 3. de partibus Animal in and by lawghing to perishe So you notwithstanding owtward applaudings God knoweth and euery reasonable man haue as fowly fayled and as forciblie bene foyled as euer needed any enemye of God and godlines Nether wanted I in the next woords of Ouid a more pertinent replye then wherwith I am in the last lynes attaynted But I will aspyre to greater victorie ouer him then by Ouids helpe For I forgiue his accusation without any feeling therof S. Chrysostome hath long since armed me against such reprehensions S. Chrysost hom 2. ad Antiochen Aliquis iniuriam intulit non sensisti nec doluisti non es iniuriam passus magis percussisti quà m percussus es Hath any one sayth S. Chrysostome iniuried thee and thou not feele it nor lament it nor indure any hurt therby thou didst rather strike then wast struken Yet yf he had any sparck of modestie or wysdome he would haue sayd to him selfe out of Horace Horat. 1. epist 18. Ter. in Adelph Nec tua laudabis studia nec aliena contemnes thy owne skill commend not nor it of others condemne But Terence sayd true homine imperito nihil quicquam iniustius qui nisi quod ipse fecit nihil rectum putat A conclusion of these two principal proofes out of Scriptures and Fathers 119. DOe not meruayle Christian Readers Fitzsimon that M. Rider so confidently claymed the Fathers as his fauorers who is so found to haue no interest or title in them Remember the dishonest womans most impudent and peremptorie clayme of another womans childe befor Salomon Remember this our purytans predecessours lyke clayme to the primatiue Fathers so perfectly deliuered by Dioscorus as yow may say not one spirit only but also one mouthe to haue vttred the woords related by him and repeated by M. Rider they are of such agreable sownde and sutable sense Ego cum patribus eijcior Concil Chalcedon Actione prima immediate ante actionem secundam Concilij Constantinop Ego defendo patrum dogmata non transgredior in aliquo Et horum testimonia non simpliciter neque transitoriè sed in libris habeo I am abandoned together with the Fathers I defend the doctrin of the Fathers I departe not a iote and I haue their testimonies not simplye nor sleightly but in their owne books Yet this protestation of Dioscorus was perfidious and most impiously dissembled For as a principal heretick he had departed from both Fathers and Christian fayth and was condemned a reprobat Eutychian heretick Theod. lib. 4. Fab. Conc. Chalced. S. Vigil l. 4. Con. Eutych S. Basil in orat que habetur in 7. Synodo such as affirmed Christs diuinitie to haue bene crucifyed and buryed and traditions to be of no estimation Wherin also our sectarists as appeareth in the examination of the creed voluntarilie conforme their imaginations Now what part of M. Riders Caueat is there but the former woords of Dioscorus are therin verbatim in a maner ingrossed The whole consent of all sort of protestants Lauatherus in epistola de sua visitatione Genebrard chr l. 4. initio pag. 526. dicit excremissâ— supra 200. sectos Spongia pro Societate pag. 100. dicit 250. Eodinus in methodo dicit esse innumerabiles Statius lib. 11. whiche amownt to aboue two hondred sects for the very Lutherans euen by the reporte of Laâ—atherus their Visitor did in his tyme alone attayne to a hondred and fower score disclayming the Fathers The Fathers them selues disclayming all parts of protestant doctrin The knowledge of the graue and learned protestants to the contrary The testimonie of his owne conscience could not retayne him but as Statius sayd it preceps sonipes strictè contemptor habenae on ronneth the head long horse neglecting restrayning raynes and reneweth both Dioscorus clayme and impudencie in affirming yea and that I may vse to him a Lancashyre phrase in threaping and bearing in hand that it was blyndnes and ignorance to contradict him that the primatiue Fathers stood not assuredly for him Neither contented therwith but to be knowen euery way to concurr with ancient hereticks he manifouldly repeateth these woords following of theirs mentioned a thousand yeares past by Vincent Lyrinensis Whose goulden booke he also commended to vs to reade as wherby to know him to be in the right wheras no other booke so much discouereth him to be in the wrong And Iustus Caluinus
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.
blood of Christ not that Christ discendeth from heauen that he might be present in the eucharist but that by the passing and changeing of bread into his body he is made present A heauie sentence as bringing cōtempt where contentment was expected in stidd of consolation a condemnation and a testimonie of hatred against Protestantrie to be vniuersaly in all the world The fourth proofe Denyers of the Reall presence condemned as heretickes Catho Priests 143. IGnatius ad Smyrnenses and Theodoret dialog 3. circa medium do make mention of certain denyers of the Reall presence but so as they had none to accord vnto them Also Iconomachi as may appeare out of the 7 Councell did affirme that the Sacrament was but an image of Christ and they also had no followers onelie Berengarius in the time of Leo the ninth about fiue hundred yeares past who thrice recanted such opinion as eronious mantained the onelie spirituall presence And hee in three Councels was condemned in Conc. Turon sub Victor 2. in Conc. Rom. sub Nich. 2. in Concil Rom. sub Gregorio nono The Councell of Trent remaineth for the rest that haue insued Rider GEntlemen you should haue brought Theodoret before Ignatius because Theodoret onelie reporteth some such thing out of Ignatius but Ignatius himselfe hath not one word of it and it seemeth still you neuer read Theodoret because you say circa medium not knowing in which of the three and thirtie chapters it was To be briefe that which you thinke maketh for you is in the ninteenth chapter which is but a sacramentall Metonymie as the rest of the fathers vse and you would wrest it to your litterall and proper sence which is still your error spoken of and confuted before But read Theodoret dialog 1. cap. 8. and he will expound himself and confute you And for Ignat. I haue read his twelue Epistles vppon this occasion twice ouer and from his first Epistle ad Martam Cassoboliten to his last ad Romanos there is no such thing in that reuerend Archbishop and Martyr but the contrarie which maketh me to wonder with what conscience you can belie so godlie a Martyr and abuse the Catholicks your louing friends And as for your Iconomachi they are verie impertinentlie brought in this place your title of Images were more proper for them Yet that you may see they fit not this purpose I referre you for satisfaction to the Popes owne Synode Decree Ex Synode 2. Act. 5. pag. 549. beginning at Cum diem extremum impiorum Arabum Tyrannus quem Soliman nominabant clausisset c. and after followeth the Popes decree Petrus deuotisimus presbyter c. Read this Act and Decree and they will giue you satisfaction of your impertinent allegations and if the Pope cannot content his Chaplens then you are male content in deed VVhether ancient denyers of the Real presence were condemned as hereticks Fitzsimon 143. MY obiection against M. Rider consisteth in two important accusations The one that the denyers of the real presence as soone as they tooke vp such opinion were condemned as hereticks Th' other that when they tooke it vp they had none to accord vnto them So that only Ignatius and Theodoret could fynde but a glawnce of such opinion which vanished for want of followers in such maner as Ireneus Tertullian Philaster Epiphan Augustin Damascen c. in their calculation of heresies could fynde none so vnfaythfull as to distrust the trueth of Christs real presence To this vrgent accusation M. Rider only answereth first that we should haue brought Theodoret before Ignatius In deed as I haue sayd befor when I am a Puritan wryter I will follow their preposterous proceeding and place Ignatius that was three hondred yeeres befor Theodoret yet both were within the first fiue hundred yeares behinde him Theodoret that alleageth anothers monuments I will place before the monument wryter as yf he were a prophet to fortell what should be written Secondly he answereth that Ignatius him selfe hath not one woord therof Wherunto I reply that the greater our losse by not hauing so much of his wrytings as were found by Theodoret. Thirdly he answereth that it seemeth we neuer read Theodoret because we say about the middest of his third dialogue not knowing in which of the 33. chapters it was I replye that the later chapters being more long then the former I had not strayed in specifying the middest in the 19. chapter Also it is but a Riderian sequel you know not the chapter therfor you neuer read the mater In our 135. number I demonstrat that you mistake the number of S. Ignatius epistle will you therfor be confounded by your owne sequel that you neuer read the woords Thirdly he answereth that the point of the obiection is but a Sacramental Metonimie To which I reply that this answer is M. Riders ignominie to vse obscure woords vnexpownded nothing to the mater What Sacramental is I haue often befor declared For Metonymie it is thus defyned by Festus Metonymia est tropus quum quod continet significatur per id quod continetur c. Metonymie is a figure when it that contayneth is signifyed for it that is contayned as yf you would say drinke of this cuppe meaning the liquoure in the cupp This denomination of the cupp for the liquoure is a Metonymie Now hauing vnmasked M. Riders woords I may be licensed to examin how they serue his defense against the accusation out of S. Ignatius For he thought as Agar abandoned hir child vnder a bushe Gen. 21. remayning remot till it had dyed to leaue the obiection without any other consolation then that in placing it in an obscure shaddow and retyred farr from it lamenting his owne extremitie But I will supplye to him the office performed by the Angel to Agar and say Gen. 21. take vp the Child meaning the forsayd obiection by him forlorned contayned in these woords of Ignatius Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem seruatoris nostri Iesu Christi They allow not Eucharists and oblations because they do not confesse the eucharist to be the fleash of our Keeper Iesus Christ. Compare M. Riders tropical answer to this accusation and tell after that it is out of the compasse of both the tropicks limiting the Zodiac So that the sonn of playne dealing can not reach to be directly ouer it Here is then Agars child Ismael reuyued to the Puritan opinion against the real presence Ferus homo manus eius contra omnes a fierce fellow his hands impugning them all Gen. 16. as the Scripture telleth Ismael to haue bene So that M. Riders expectation that it should haue dyed by being placed in a darke thicket of remote words is frustrated and it now a fierce and cruel aduersarie to them that denye the Eucharist and Sacrifices as prouing them in their first originals to haue bene apparent hereticks
hee scorne your brotherly admonition that bragge is a good dogge more tongue then teeth more talke then truth But you must needs deale with him by writing for otherwise in words he is too hard for a huÌ„dreth of you for you shall finde him old dogge in copia verborum and inopia rerum And thus hoping after your counsaile hee will leaue his woonted gadding rouings from the matter and follow me closely in euery line word syllable and letter as I haue and will doe him Christ willing I commend you him to the blessing of our mercifull God whom I beseech for his Christs sake so to touch your hearts from heauen that you all may renounce your new poperie and feare God in Christ with vs according to his Euangelical truth From my house in Saint Patricks Close this 30. of March 1604. Yours so farre as you are Christ and the Kings readie to treble these kindnesses IOHN RIDER A faâ—t escaped in the print namely quo for qua page 7 line 16. Tit. 14. Vpon the residue of the Rescript to the ende 14. NVllam authoritateÌ„ habet vti qui damnatus est daÌ„nat Fitzimon sayth Seneca his iudgmeÌ„t hath noe authoritie Sen. ep 77. wher he condemneth that is condeÌ„ned This sentence M. Rider hath not only force but ineuitable violence many wayes against you You pretend two hondred errors yet shew none and are besyd condemned by publick authoritie what credit wil be giuen by Catholicks to your words when Protestants discredit you The two hondred errors are but the spotts of cownterfet bloude vpon Iosephes coate Gen. 37. whom Iacob after will fynde vnspotted and know the deceitfull enuiouse brethren to haue bene as treacherouse in selling him as in lying to their parent by his coate And as for the point of miracles I beleeue it to be so aunswered as that M. Rider will blame no further want therof That I did not follow your counsell was the same mercie of God toward me which was toward the late named Ioseph that he followed not the allurements of his adulterous mistres S. Cyprian in conc Carthagin your reformations being a disloialtie toward the spouse of the Church and deuorcing your selues as concubins from trueth to follow licentious sects and errors Roboams example shall make me neuer to follow 3. reg 12.3 the yong mens conseil that is them that are vpstarts in religion such as straying are turned into vayne talke desyrouse to be Doctors of the law 1. Tim. 1.7 not vnderstanding nether what things they speake nether of what they affirme I haue chosen for my cownselor the woord of God to be my compase and card in his holy arke by which I learne to diuert and plye from you as from the rocks and shelfs of certain ruine by these sea marks following placed at your entrie Obserue those that make dissensions and scandals contrary to the doctrin which you haue learned Rom. 16.17 1. Ioan. 2.24 Galat. 1.9 Hebr. 13.9 Rom. 16.17 That which you haue heard from the beginning let it abyde in you Yf any preach otherwyse then you haue alreadie receaued be it accursed Be not mislead by variable and strange doctrins Auoyd them for such do not serue Christ our Lord but their owne bellie and by sweete speeches and benedictions seduce the harts of innocents By thes cownsels I was preuented from being cownseiled by you Auolent quantum volent paleae leuis fidei Tertull. l. de prescrip quocunque afflatu tentationum Let the chaff of light fayth be borne away as farr as they list with euery breath of tentation let the blinde be guided by the blinde Mat. 15 14. into the same snare let wauering children be caried abowt with euery wynde of doctrin Ephes. 4.14 in the wickednes of men in craftines of the circumuention of error Let the denyers of knowing Christ his woorde blush Mar. 8.38 Luc. 9.26 Ecclâ— 6.10 shrinke to acknowledg him in this adulterous and synfull generation let the trenchoure frend depart in tyme of tribulation Isa 51.12 2. Tim. 2.12 Mat. c. 10.38 c. 16.24 Luc. 9.23 c. 14.27 let the timorouse for a mortall man that is to wither as haye forget his maker As for me I hope to raigne with Christ therfor I know I must sustaine with Christ I pretend as a disciple to follow Christ therfor I must take vp my crosse hate my father and mother Mar. 8.38 Luc. 9.26 2. Tim. 2.12 wyfe and children brethren and sisters yea and my owne lyfe in comparison of him I attend not to be denyed of Christ before God and his angels 2. Tim. 4.8 therfor I know I must not deny him or be ashamed of him befor men I aspire to a crownee of iustice therfor I must indeuoure to fight a good fight Rom. 8.39 to consummat my course to keepe my fayth For conclusion I say that nether death nor lyfe nor angels nor Principalities nor powers 1. Cor. 10.13 nor things present nor things to come nether might nor height nor depth nor other creature by the mercie helpe of my faitfull God that will neuer suffre vs to be teÌ„pted aboue our power shal be able to separat me from the charitie of God which is in Christ Iesus our Lord nor to conforme me to the cownsaile of the reformed sedition You affirme that you must deale with me in print and not by woord Prou. 6.2 because I am to hard for a hondred in speech I say that illaqueatus es verbis oris tui captus proprijs sermonibus you are ingaged by the woords of your owne mowth and taken by your owne talke You can not conceale the confusion you had euer in talking with me when at euery woord I disproued and disturbed your conceits which yow heedfully prouided to happen most seldome and spedely to be abrupted I do but appeale to M. Tristram Eccleston Constable of the Castle whether it was so or noe Yf he will not disgrace his goss sip at least M. Alderman Iyans M. Luke Shee esquyer and others can tell the plundge you and Minister Baffe wallowed in at our last meeting So then to God be the glorie and neuer to me you felt the brunt of my woords at that tyme by your owne confession to be irrefragable As for the print you prouided not to tast how it would haue proued but how you should haue felt it yf you would haue indured the trial I leaue to be iudged now that I might without you permission make it knowen What or how much or how litle that wil be to your proffit I trust at lyke opportunitie you will certifie as you haue now done of my woords To perclose the whole and to conclude the late points pertinently in token that I ame not very selfe conceited as euer befor I haue desyred to speake rather in the woords of Scripture and Fathers then my owne so I will now
apochriphal Marcion by Tertullian was called Mus Ponticus the Mowse of Pontus for his nibling the Scriptures as the mowse nibleth cheese therfor yf these loppers or shredders of Scripture had liued in his tyme he might denominat them cormorants or wolues not for nibling lyke a mowse small crummes but for deuowring great gobbets in canceling whole and principale volumes of Gods sacred woord notwith standing the terrible curse in the Apocalips and Deutronomie in prohibition of such presumption Apoc. 22.19 Deutr. 4.2 Can then any not ignorant of their mangling or dismembring thus the Scriptures but abhorr and detest that profession which hath no other refuge then when it is repugnant to Gods holy woord to say that his woord is not his woord or which is all one that his authentical Scriptures are not authentical but Apochriphal and â—hat they beleeue not this they care not for that they passe ouer that as a dreame Giue attendance I pray yow to parte of their modestie and that of the principal in speaâ—ing of sacred Scriptures VVe passe not sayth whiâ—aker for the Raphael of Tobie Whitaker con Campian pag. 17. nether do we acknoâ—ledge those seuen Angels which he speaketh of â—he same that Raphael recordeth sauoureth I wote not what superstion I litle care for the place of Ecclesiasticus nether will I beleeue free will thowgh he affirme it ane hondred tymes As for the booke of Machabees I do care lesse for it then for the other Iudas dreame coÌ„cerning Onias I let passe as a dreame What child but might say as much against any paâ—cel of Scriptures and what Iew but would tremble to say as much of certain Scriptures neuer doubted of in Gods Church at least since the 3. Carthaginian Concil which was anno 397 Next Scriptures traditions by reformers disclaymed are to be exhibited in most breefe maner to your deliberation as being of equal authoritie when they are vndowbtfull with Scriptures and contayning litle lesse mysterie of our beleefe then Scripture For by them we know the mysterie of vnitie in Trinitie Luc. c. 1. v. 2. of the baptizing of Children all contents of S. Lukes gospell which he professeth to haue receaued by tradition The whole creede of the Apostles The ChristiaÌ„ keeping of the sonday in steed of the Sabbaoth of the Iewes the perpetual virginitie of our Ladie the coÌ„municating in the morning fasting the communicating of lay people especialy of women which are not expressed in any written woord of God but only knowen and beleeued by the vnwritten woord or tradition Of which sayth S. Paul Therfor brethren stand 2. Thes. 2.15 and howld the traditions which you haue learned whether it be by woord or by our epistle What cowld be sayd more manifestly in commendation of any parte of our beleefe According to which sayd S. Basil I accompt it apostolical S. Basil de spiritis S. c. 29. in principio to continue firmly euen in vnwritten traditions To whom all the Fathers are conformable And when the Gnosticks Marcion Cerdon Arius Eunomius S. Iren. l. 3. Tertul. de prescr in Sarpiaco S. Basil loc cit c. 27. S. Epiphan her 53. S. Aug. l. 5. con Max. Aerius Nestorius and other owld hereticks opposed them selues to traditions denying and disdayning them they were disproued and condemned therby by S. Ireneus Tertulian S. Basil S. Eiphan S. Austin c. to be detestable hereticks I do therfor only craue what would they affirme of our Reformers not abyding the name of traditions but when it may haue ane odiouse sence translating in liew therof instructions constitutions ordonnances 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greke Mat. 15. v. 2.3.6 by them selues is translated a tradition in S. Mathew Baret in lit Dâ—n 311. when it beareth an odious construction and their dictionaries in english do translat tradition therof yet in this place of S. Paul they would not abyde it to be so englished What can be ane impiouse corruption yf this be not After dispising Scriptures and traditions as the cheefe helpes from God least ther showld want any hindrance betwixt our saluation and vs nothing could after more preiudicialy be denyed then our hauing any free will For by denial therof all our actions being made fatal and God being made as befor by Caluin the tempter nay inforcer of vs to euil and not our owne concupiscence contrary to the Apostle S. Iames we are made deafe toward all Gods promises Iac. 1.14 or threatnings as being vndeserued by vs negligent toward all his commendments as being not to be fullfi led by vs but by God euery one slowthfull to prepare him selfe to any good or to auoyd any euil cum in potestate sua non sit vias suas malas facere Luth. de seruo arbitrio wheras sayth Luther it is not in his power euen to make his owne wayes more wicked because forsooâ—h he is applyed not according his owne inclination but according Gods disposition as well Paul to be conuerted as Iudas to betraye and yf ether God should punish vs or any magistrate condemne vs for any offenses committed against their lawes it should be accompted an iniustice in them to torment vs for that which was not in our power to haue done otherwyse Besyd all which absurd points of licentiouse freedome and vnbridled lewsenes toward all dissolution by denial of the freedome of free will also is implyed that God should neuer be prayed vnto ether for forgiuenes of our synnes or of graunting his grace toward any good by vs intented we nether cooperating to the euil or good of our owne actions and consequently they not being ours but Gods he should be accessorie to neede pardon and not we Nay according S. Bernard cesset voluntas propria infernus non erit S. Bern. ser 3. de resurr take away our will and ther wil be no hell Therfor for taking away all regarde of sinne and good woorks of heauen and hell of God Mans lawes ther cowld nothing be more propre then to inculat no freedome to be in vs but that we were ledd by fatal necessitie without controwlement to thinke saye and doe what soeuer proceeded from vs. This then seemed an important and plausible heresie to Sathan to suggest vnto his Ministers euen from the begining of Christianitie therby to intoxicat the world Wherfor he suborned first Simon Magus S. Clem. l. 3. recogint S. Hier. in pref con Pellag S. Aug. de haeres c. 35.70 S. Bern ep 194. Concil Constan ses 8. a 27. Roffen in art 36. Lutheri after Bardisanus then Priscilian then Peter Abailard then VVickleff then Luther and after him all this late crue and in particular theÌ„ of Cambridg as befor appeareth by VVhytaker to disclayme and denie the freedome of our will Against whom S. Clement S. Hierome S. Austin S. Bernard the Concil of Constance the bishop of Rochester and manifowld other champions of
est solam diem dominicam seruandam esse It is concluded the only sonday should be kept Apud Cornel. Schulting l. 9. hierarchie Anacriseos A second Synod of theirs alloweth only aboue sondayes the feast of the natiuitie Another at Midleburg Synod Midleb an 1581. decret 51. in the 51. decree permitteth the Natiuitie and the Ascension Another in the Electoral Palatinat addeth the two mondayes next Easter and whitsontyde And in the forsayd supplication of puritans to his Maiestie Supplication to his Maiestie an 1603. they againe disalow all others excepting fondayes For they craue that the lords daye be not prophaned and the rest not so strictly vrged Wher vpon the answer of Oxford inquireth The avvnsvver of Oxford pag. 13. would they haue men vpon holy dayes goe to plough or â—art as some of their humor haue caused their seruants to doe on the very feast of Christs Natiuitie Suruey of the booke of common prayer Pag. 65. And this is the determinat Doctrin of their late suruey Wherin first they declare that Ministers proclaming any other holy dayes then the dayes of the lord do communicat the especial honor of the lord to another secondly that therto they haue no warrant of the woord Pag. 66. Thirdly in the 52. Quere or demand they inquyre whether any holy day on fixed tyme though only and immediatly vnto the lord may be sanctified so as at noe tyme therof any worke may be done Fowerthly Pag. 67. they conclud that it is all one to make any holy day without Gods expresse appointment as to violat any day holy by his appointement yea that it is as great idolatrie as it was in the Israelits Pag. 68. to haue sett vp a Calfe Fiftly that yf the translation of the sabbaoth into sonday be not iustified by scriptures it is not lawfull for Christians to sanctifie it For the iustifying wherof these only to their seeming are the principal fundations Ioan. 20.19.26 First that Christ appeared to his disciples the doores being shutt and sayd peace be vnto them Secondly they cite the first chapter of the Acts and 13. verse wherin I fynd noe mention of sonday or reason of sanctifying it For therin is only related how the Apostles went vp to a chamber 1. Cor. 16.2 and did abyde therin Thirdly because S. Paul wished collections of almes for the necessitie of the poore to be collected on the first day which is our sonday of or after the sabbaoth Behowld these feoble reasons are by them exhibited that way be made to take euen the sondayes away noe impedimeÌ„t therto being specified in any of these reasons And so as appeareth in the examination of the crede they behaued them selues toward the diuine mysterie of the Trinitie and Vnitie founding it on the weakest proofes it had of scripture as yf there were no others and in the end Stancar lib. de Trinit Mediatore Schlusselb de Theologia Cal. shewing those proofes to be noe proofes of any force and inferring thervpon that Christ and the Holy Ghost were not coequal to the father Which sacrilegious impietie is with all heynousces charged on Caluin by his owne brethren Stancharus and Schlusselburg And for their proofe they cite Genes 3.15.22 Genes 18.2.3 Gen. 19.24 Num. 24.17 Isa 4.2 Isa 43.24 Isa 50.4.6 Isa 53.8 Isa 63.1 Ierem. 11.19 Ierem. 31.22 Dan. 2.34 Osc 13.14 Ioan. 10.30 Ioan. 14.1.28 In all which places and many more what soeuer proofe is by the ancient fathers brought for Christs eternitie or diuinitie he deflecteth into a contrarie sense or disgraceth them for manifould insufficiencie Contrariwyse he seeming to fynd Vide Synephim P. Hadriani â—angâ— l. 3. c. 6. pag. 306. but one only argument for Christs eternitie which is that God by his people wowld be tearmed father and consequently must haue a sonne wherby not withstanding no eternitie of Christ is gathered at least befor Gods people were created this a gument being left to the decision of the first that would ponder it Caluin therby insinuated that the eternitie of Christ had noe better proofe And so as I sayd is it the intention of Puritans to found the sanctification of any holy daye whatsoeuer vpon arguments of noe worth that in the ende they may be thought to be without all lawfull allowance By the premisses you may behould that your puritan Ministers such as almost only are among you thinking in all their Synods and other resolutions noe such holy dayes to be yet for 12. pens of each parishioner their mercenarian consciences to be able to fynde all their Synods and resolutions false which sheweth them in the meane tyme to haue perfect libertie of such conscience as may striue with the rayne bow for varietie Therfor they are sufficiently knowen to blow could and heate from one mouth Which is so notorious in all the reformed broode that them selues wryte aliquos religionem flectere fingere ac refingere ad nutum cupiditates Dominorum vel caetuum quorum gratiam pluris faciunt quam gloriam Dei Eberus prafat in Comment Philippi super Epist. ad Cor. Some of their preachers to inflect turn and returne their religion to the will and wantones of their lords and congregations whose contentment they search more then the glorie of God This Eberus next successor to Philipp Melancthon expounding his commentaries vpon S. Paul writeth of the brotherhod Whom Peucer sonne in law to the sayd Melancthon testifieth Poucer contra PaulaÌ„ CrelliuÌ„ in Articulis Torgensibas an 1574 to haue bene himselfe and Maior so mutable as vno momento mutati repudiato eo quod proâ—certo vero habuerunt amplexarentur contrarium that in an instant quyte changed reiecting that which euen now they helde for certaine they would auerr the contrarie So that from first to last their variable doctrine according to euerie tyme and commoditie being detected you may haue consolation that these are your infesters to whose profession it can not but be a credit to be repugnant Afflicted Catholicks 8. Of the few that haue shronken in this trial ether by Gods iudgment or by some other secret cause they are litle respected and lesse aduanced by the aduerse partie And in them selues so great a remorse is obserued that nether in contenance nor in hart can they be confortable VVherby very many haue taken occasion to remaine more setledly in their profession The Author IT argueth a greate wysdome in his Maiestie and the state not to esteeme our Cameleon compagnions when they become false to their religion Theod. l. 5. c. 38. For as the glorious Hormisda sayd to the K of Persia Tripart l. 10. c. 30. Sir your Maiestie deceaueth him selfe in affecting our renouncing Christian religion For yf we become treacherous toward God we shall neuer be loial toward man Niceph. l. 14. c. 20. So euer will it be experienced in all other Apostats and Gnatonical sycophants of Kings
conclude in the discourse of B. S. Austin S. Augustin l. 2. 〈◊〉 de ciu c. 1. altogether and as yf it were of sett purpose belonging to this effect Yf the weake sense of human custome dared not to resist the reason of manifest trueth but to holsome doctrin as to a medecin would submitt the weakenes therof vntill by Gods assistance the fayth of pietie intreating it were healed ther should not be requisit any long discourse to conuict the error of vayne opinion by them who are in the right and susficiently can expresse their meaning But now because so much the more the disease of erroneouse mynds is greater and dangerouse by how much they defend their vnreasonable conceits yea after full satisfaction as much as from man to man was due whether foreuer excessiue blindnes wherby they discerne not things apparent or for peruers obstinacie wherby they will not indure things euident to he reason and trueth of necessitie we treat more amply cleere maters as yf we deliuered them not to be viewed of behoulders but in sorte to be felt of handlers and yet winking at them Neuertheles what ende of alteration or meane of speaking would therbe yf we would thinke it requisit alwayes to aunswer them that contradict For they that can not vnderstand what is sayd or are of so hard an opposition of hart that although they vnderstand they will not yeelde such do contradict according as is written and they speake iniquitie continualy they are vayne VVhose cōdradictions yf I would as oft refell as they with a stowt forhead resolue not to care what they say so that howsoeuer they gaynsay our disputations how infinit how miserable and vnproffitable it is you behould Thus I conclude in opinion and speech of S. Austin Laus Deo Opt. M. Virginique Matri ac B. Patrició To the temperat Protestant Reader I Confesse my selfe to haue bene long tyme browght vp in Protestantcie and also to haue waded therim with resolut confidence professing it in Catholick contryes not without as well danger as firme intention to haue dyed for it And when I did abandon it it was not for any greater temporal preferment as is knowen publickly by what I then was and what possibilities I had in respect of what I now ame and do pretend to be The cause of my first conuersion from it was principaly because I obserued the forme of beleefe called the crede and the reformed gospel to be in all articles altogether opposit one to another I report me euen to your arbitrement therin after reading my examination of the Protestant beleefe toward all the articles of the crede whether I had mistaken or noe Next as after I addicted my selfe to the diuers controuersies of both sydes examining them curiously with their allegations I was much more confirmed to be a Catholick by viewing besyd the crede all the whole doctrin of Christianitie from Christs tyme hetherto to be wholy repugnant to reformations Eber in pref com Philippi super ep ad Cor. and when Reformers pretended the contrary that they and the ancients did not disagree in religion such imposture I fownd to be so enormly sycophantical and hypocriticaly pretexed that I blushed to haue euer bene of that profession which cowld neuer purchas or retayne any vertuouse mynde but by such forging and dissembling to be that most which according trueth and playne dealing with all vehemencie it contradicted and was least So is it playnly confessed by Eberus who succeaded Luther and Melancthon in wittemberg Tot tantis confusionibus scandalis deformatur totus caetus vt nihil videatur minus esse quam quod profitetur The whole crue of Reformers is so deformed with so manifowld and great confusions and scandals as that it is nothing lesse then what it professeth Lastly when I came to Gods holy booke the diuine Scriptures and compared them in their originals to the translations of Reformers and these to them I then in dede viewed all to be treason and trapps all to be a transfiguration of the angel of darkenes into ane angel of light or his doctrin of libertie to beare most vndeseruedly the title and countenance of the doctrin of pietie and in the meane tyme true godlines to be as Christ in his passion blasphemed derided spoiled crucified and buried So with me it also rose the third day and appeareth after with hands syde and feete pearced in such palpable maner that of a dowbtfull disciple Ioan. 20.19 by so manifest reuelation I then and now say My lord and my God as he then and now aunswered my sowle Because thow hast seene me thow hast beleeued I haue now informed why my selfe renownced protestantrie Yf you please I will tendre some further important occasions wherby you may also know what to determin toward the same Pondre them in the ballance of a pure eye and not according any preiudicated perswasion and sway with them only according their desert as you tendre your sowls saluation When reformations pretended to exclude papistrie as they tearmed rhe Catholick Profession they alleadged against it that it was forsooth idolatrie superstition magick that it was a following of Antichrist the cupp of the whoore of Babilon a stamp of the beast of the Apocalips that the ancient Fathers weare pernitious dreamers doting fooles idle triflers fanatical wryters falsifyers deprauers blasphemers as is shewed in my first preface Now for their owne authoritie and warrant to abolish papistrie and to establish their reformations they assuredly affirmed the woord of the Lord Gods booke and the holy Scriptures to be their direction the loue of Christ and his truth to be their impulsion the doctrin of the Apostles and their beleefe to be their intended Reformation So that the nick of all their coning consisted in fyne fyled and forged dispraises of Papistrie and as curious sugred deceitfull commendations of Protestantrie approuing them selues as S. Austin sayth dulcissime vanos non peritos sed perituros S. Aug. l. 1. confes c. 14. l. 7. c. 20. nectā disertos in errore quā desertos a veri tate most delyt somely vayne not so much read as reprobat nor eloquent in heresie as emptie of veritie This whole imposture yf it be fownd false must not the frame or building erected theron be also esteemed to incline to destruction Omitting to prosecute Luthers confession Luth. in disp Lipsiaca cum Eccio that this reformation was nether begon for God nor for him should be followed First then I say in general that their bibles by their owne verdict haue not bene the woord of God Nether will I alleadge for proofe therof Zuingl de sacram fol. 412. Sur. in Chron. adan 1523. Lindan dial 1. pag. 84.85.98 c. any Catholicks but them selues In Luthers translations I might affirme that Iohn Dietenbergius had colleted 874 and Emserus 1400 falsifications and that bishop Tonstal had gathered in the only new Testament of Tindal