doe it Nowe what replyed Christ vnto their doubt that he vvould giue them only bread to eate in remembrance of him vvhich vvould surely haue satisfied them throughly because nothing vvas more easie to doe then that But truth is not to be concealed for feare of Pharasaicall scandall and therefore he told them very roundly That vnlesse they did eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud They should not haue life in them And he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting And yet more expresly My flesh is meate in deede and my bloud drinke in deede Howe should he haue made the matter more plaine To this M. PERKINS answereth first That Christ speaketh of a spirituall eating by faith because the very point that he intendeth to proue is that to beleeue in him and to eate his flesh is all one This answere is absurd For euen in their owne doctrine there is a great difference betweene beleeuing in Christ and receiuing the communion for many doe beleeue in Christ when they doe not receiue the communion receiuing being as they teach a seale or confirmation of beleeuing And to say that Christ there maketh no difference betweene beleeuing in him and eating of his flesh is flat against the text For saying that he would hereafter giue them his flesh to eate he doth declare that he speaketh not of beleeuing in him vvhich he vvould haue them to doe presently and many of them did beleeue in him before vvho could not disgest his doctrine of the Sacrament Againe it is altogether vnlikely that our Sauiour would haue vsed such strange offensiue speaches as the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud to signifie only that they must beleeue in him and that he seing them so much scandalized at those his hard and vnvsuall phrases that they vvere ready to forsake him would yet not once in plaine tearmes interprete them for the sauing of so many soules wherefore it remaineth most manifest that by eating of his flesh he meant something else then beleeuing in him And M. PER. other shift that in all the sixt Chapter of S. Iohn Christ speaketh not one word of eating his flesh in the Sacrament is so contrary vnto the euidence of the text it selfe and vnto the exposition of all ancient Fathers that it deserueth no answere especially vvhen neither by reason or authority he goeth about to fortifie it But I muse why he did omit their ordinary objection out of the same place The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit that quickneth It may be perhaps because he knewe that the vvordes being rightly vnderstood make more against the Protestants then for them For the flesh there must be taken either for Christes flesh or for our flesh if for Christes flesh Tract 27. in Ioannē then saith S. Augustine Howe can it be that it profiteth nothing when he said before vnlesse yo eate my flesh you shall haue no life in you What therefore meaneth this it profiteth nothing Marry saith he it profiteth nothing as they vnderstood it For they tooke they should eate it as it is torne and cut in peeces being dead and sold in the shambles and not as it is quickned with the spirit which he doth illustrate with the comparison of knowledge which being alone doth puffe vp scientia enim inflat but being joyned with charity doth edifie Euen so saith he when the spirit is coupled with the flesh then doth it profit verie much or else the worde would not haue beene made flesh and haue dwelled among vs. With S. Augustine agreeth S. Cyril vpon that place In cap. 6. Ioannis but more literall seemeth to be the interpretation of S. Chrisostome followed by Theophilact and others vpon this place that by the flesh is to be vnderstood our fleshly and naturall reason which in these misteries of faith doth rather hinder then helpe vs. For mans wit of it selfe cannot comprehend howe bread may be turned into Christes body not howe so great a bodie can be in so litle a roome c. but informed with faith and Gods grace it is then well assured that whatsoeuer Christ saith is true and that nothing is impossible to him howe contrarie soeuer it seeme vnto flesh and bloud For his wordes as it followeth in the text be spirit and life that is be of diuine force and giue life and being vnto vvhat hee pleaseth And thus much of our first reason Nowe to the second Christ taking bread into his handes gaue it to his Disciples saying 1. Cor. 11. Math. 26 Marc. 14. Luc. 22. this is my body which is giuen for you and giuing them the Chalice said drinke yee all of this for this is my bloud of the newe Testament which shall be shed for you These our Sauiours wordes are so plaine that it was not possible in so fewe wordes to expresse more perspicuously that it was his true naturall bodie which he deliuered vnto them it being the verie same which was to be nailed on the Crosse the morrowe after But M. PER. answereth that they are not to be taken properlie but by a figure the body there being put for a signe or seale of his bodie Reply This is a very extrauagant exposition of Christes vvordes and such a one as if it vvere admitted for currant vvoulde serue to subuert and ouerthrovve all the articles of the Christian faith For example vvhen it is said that the word was made flesh the Manachees heresies against Christes true flesh might be maintayned by saying that the flesh there is put for a figure of the flesh so might the Arrian heresie if vvhen Christ is called God it vvere allowed them to expound and take it for a signe or seale of GOD and so of all other articles of our beleefe wherefore there must be most apparant proof for the drawing of Christes wordes into so strange a sence before it be admitted of any reasonable man But M. PER. and the Protestants are so farre off from producing any such inuincible euidence for their odde interpretation that they cannot alleadge any probable cause of it heare and then judge Genes 17. vers 10. Exod. 12. vers 11. 1. Cor. 10. M. PERKINS saith first That it is an vsuall manner of the Lord in speaking of the Sacraments to giue the name of the thinges signified to the signe as circumcision is called the couenant of God and the next verse the signe of the couenant and the Pascall lambe is called the Angels passing-ouer whereas in deede it was but a signe of it and the Rocke was Christ * 1. Cor. 5. vers 7. the passe-ouer was Christ Answ It may be that sometimes speaking of Sacraments by the way some figuratiue speach may be vsed but we say that when any Sacramēt is first instituted and ordained that then the wordes are to be taken literally without any such figure For example in the Sacraments specified by M. PER.
of bread only doth as vvell present vnto our mindes as if the substance of bread were there present with it Againe saith M. PER. it abolisheth the endes of the Sacrament First it maketh we cannot remember Christ who being present bodily in the Sacrament needeth not be remembred because helpes of remembrance are of thinges absent Answ A man would thinke were not his wits somewhat distempered that he might be remembred best that is most present to vs neither is remembrance only of things absent For as euery one may well remember when they see one whome they haue seldome seene before the very sight of him or his speech or some other token which he telleth calleth vs to remembrance of him who is personally then present But if this were not so yet were the end of the Sacrament accomplished most perfectly For by Christes reall presence in the Sacrament we are admonished to remember not his body barely 1. Cor. 11. but his death on the Crosse as S. Paul expoundeth it which death of his is absent and by the consecrating of his body apart from his bloud and by the eleuation of it is represented vnto vs very liuely and so we are put in minde and made to remember a thing absent to wit the death and passion of Christ Moreouer M. PER. saith that an other end of the Sacrament is to feed the soule with eternall life but by transubstantiation the principall feeding is of the body and not of the soule which is only fed with spirituall foode Answere Alas into what straightes was he brought when he wrote this a man would thinke that if the substance of bread remained still as in their counterfeit Sacrament it doth it should rather be food for the body then for the spirit For bread as fooles knowe as well as phisitions doth nourish the body naturally We then that remoue the substance of bread out of the Sacrament must needes therefore meane to feed only the soule thereby and not the body at all For Christes blessed body receiued in the Sacrament is nurriture only of our soule by his graces bountifully bestowed vpon the worthy receiuer it giueth to the body only a certaine seede or pledge of immortallity according vnto that Ioh. 6. vers 54. He that eateth my flesh c. hath life euerlasting and I will raise him vp in the last day M. PERKINS fourth reason In the Sacrament the body of Christ is receiued as it was crucified and his bloud as it was shed vpon the crosse but nowe the act of crucifying is past it is faith alone that maketh Christ crucified to be present vnto vs in the Sacrament ergo Answere We denie his first proposition for we receiue the same body that was crucified but not after that bloudy manner as it was there vsed but vnder the formes of bread and wine which Christes owne vvordes doe importe take eate this is my body that shall be giuen for you he saith not as M. PER. doth as it shall be giuen for you that is not in the same manner though it be the same in substance Yet as I once said before the consecration of his bloud in the Chalice as it were a part from his body and powred out with the lifting vp of the body after cōsecration as it is done in the Masse with the breaking and receiuing of the holy Host doth liuely represent vnto the faithfull Christes blessed death and passion But what resemblance hath the eating of bread drinking of wine the Protestants holy communion with the crucifying of Christ Is eating and drinking of so pleasing food meete to expresse Christes drinking of gall and most painefull torments by their feeling faith they would salue this but they cannot For besides faith there must be as M. PER. himselfe before confessed a proportion betweene the signe and the thing signified but there is no proportion betweene eating of fine bread drinking of good wine with the dolorous crosse of Christ Seing then that in the Sacrament as M. PER. teacheth Christes body must be receiued as it was crucified he must needes appoint something else then bread wine to be the signes of this Sacrament for they be most vnproper to represent Christes passion Againe saith he discoursing very learnedly That bloud which ranne out of Christes side was not gathered vp againe nay the collection of it was needlesse because after the resurrection he liued no more a naturall but a spirituall life Ans Here is a proper peece of diuinity He might aswel say if his reason were good that Christs body is not risen againe because a body also is as needles vnto a spiritual life The truth is that the body with the bloud in the veines of it is risen againe else were it no true resurrection which is only when the very same body numero with all the same parts and parcels of it which it had before be restored vnto their former essence integrity Note by the way the admirable rare vertue of the Protestants faith whose property is saith M. P. to giue a being vnto thinges which are not What being good Sir that any thing should be extant in the world which before was not yes marry that that bloud should be receiued spiritually which is not at al. True perhaps in the Protestants vaine imagination but in deed most ridiculous to imagine that that can be receiued either corporally or spiritually vvhich is not extant nor hath any being at all For a thing must be of it selfe before it can be receiued of an other 1. Cor. 10. vers 3. M. PER. fift reason The fathers of the old Testament did eate the same spirituall meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of the rocke which was Christ but they could not eate his body which was not then crucified but by faith the Papists answere that the fathers did eate the same meate among themselues and not that which we eate that is all the Israelites did eate the same spirituall foode of Manna and did drinke all of the vvater which issued out of the spirituall Rocke one of them as well as an other yet they had not the same Sacraments that we Christians haue neither did they receiue the same that we doe But M. PER. will proue that they had Because saith he the Apostles intent is to proue that the Iewes were euery way equall to the Corinthians and in nothing inferior Reply S. Paul meant and intended nothing lesse but in the same his Epistle and in many of the rest expresly teacheth the state of the Christians such as the Corinthians were to surpasse farre the state of the Iewes For the old Testament is compared to the letter that killeth 2. Cor. 3. and therefore called the ministration of damnation the newe to the spirit that quickneth and to the ministry of justice and the old Testament did ingender to bondage Gal. 4.14 Vers 1. Ver. 3. 9 Hebr. 10. vers
vvas so commanded to doe by the formall lawes of those foure his temporall Soueraignes and so might without any offence to God haue beene nowe of the old religion then of the newe and againe of neither old nor newe but of a hotch-potch and mingle-mangle of some of the one and some of the other vvhich is most absurd euen so is that of which it followeth And to confirme this with some testimony of antiquity S. Ambrose a most firme pillar of the West Church spake resolutely vnto the Emperour Valentinian saying Epist 35. Trouble not your selfe ô Emperour with thinking that you haue any imperial jurisdiction ouer those thinges that be Diuine and Holy for the right of Ciuill causes was committed vnto you but not the chardge of Holy thinges And another his auncient S. Athanasius Epist ad solita vitaÌ„ ageÌ„tes the first of the foure Doctors of the Greeke Church doth reprehend the Emperour Constantius for intermedling vvith Ecclesiasticall causes and recordeth an notable saying of that venerable Bishop Hosius vvho vvas present at the first generall Councell of Nyce vnto the same Constantius to vvit Command vs not ô Emperour in this kinde of affaires rather learne these thinges of vs for God hath committed the Empire to your chardge but hath bequeathed vnto vs and put vs in trust with the affaires that appertayne vnto his Church And therefore vvould not that most renowmed Emperour Constantine the great judge of Bishops causes although the Bishops themselues referred theiâ— matter to him and requested him to compose them but said That it did not belong vnto him to judge them but to be judged by them vvhose blessed steps the most learned and juditious Emperours that followed him chose rather to followe then the euill example of his Arrian Sonne Constantius For Iustinianus the elder that famous lawe-maker faith vnto Iohn the second Pope of that name In Codice tit primo We doe not suffer any thing to passe that belongeth vnto the state of the Church but that we make it knowne vnto your Holynesse who are the head of all the holy Church And Valentinian the Emperour in an Epistle vnto Theodosius vvriteth We must in our times mainetaine the dignity of â—uâ— reuerence vnto the most blessed Apostle S. Peter Extat inter praeambulas ad Concil Chalced. so farre-forth as the most happy Bishop of Rome vnto whome antiquity hath yeelded the principality of Priestly office aboue all others may haue place and power to judge of matters of faith and of Priests And thus much by the way against the Supremacy of Princes in causes Ecclesiasticall It remayneth nowe that I briefly proue S. Peter to haue had this Supremacy in his time and that therein the Bishops of Rome doe succeede him And for a foundation of this Question I take that for an assured truth vvhich the best Philosophers doe grant and the practise of the best and greatest Kingdome hath confirmed to wit That in one Kingdome it is best to haue one King and supreme gouernour assisted with the counsell of his wisest subjects which is so well knowne and confessed generally that he must needes betaken for a vvrangler that will denie it nowe then to our purpose Christes Church is but one state or spirituall Kingdome vvhich hath but one faith one baptisme and forme of Sacraments one true religion and solemne manner of diuine seruice Nowe seing vve are not to doubt but that he who purchased himselfe this one Church with the shedding of his owne most pretious bloud would haue it gouerned in the best sort therefore we must confesse that he hath ordayned one supreme Gouernour of it They say that this supreme Pastor is Christ himselfe and that he is alwayes present with it in spirit and by his word vvherefore there needeth no deputy or other in his roome This I haue once before confuted graunting that Christ is present to his Church in spirit and that he doth inwardly quicken and gouerne it but that is not sufficient for vnlesse we haue one certayne person visibly present to assure vs vvhich is the vvord of God and what is the true sence of all doubtfull places of it we shall neuer haue vnity of faith for if they who mistake the true sence must be left to their owne judgement and the direction of their owne spirit which they beleeue to be guided with the holy Ghost then shall vve haue so many heresies currant in the Church as there be Archeretikes to coyne and stampe them The like may be said for Sacraments and sacred rites of religion the which without one Supreme Moderatour cannot be kept vniforme so that it resteth most cleare that our Sauiour Christ being to leaue this world and to returne vnto his heauenly Father he was to commit the high charge of his only Spouse and Doue vnto the custody and fidelity of one supreme Pastor This is confirmed by the example of the old Testament vvhich vvas a figure of the newe Deut. 17. ab 8. ad 13. vvhere the soueraigne and supreme authority of deciding all doubtfull questions that should arise about the lawe was by Gods expresse order giuen vnto the high Priests and euery Israelite bound vnder payne of death to obey him and stand to his sentence And that this Supremacy continued all along the state of the old Testament euen vntill Christes dayes both the Magdeburgenses and Caluin doe testifie Centur. 1. lib. 1. c. 7. Lib. 4. Instit ca. 6. But the Protestants object that some Iudges and Kinges of Iuda did take vpon them to deale in matters appertayning to religion I graunt that good Kinges as principall members of the temporalty ought to haue a speciall regard to the preseruation of the seruice of God and to see that matters of religion be duly ordered because the peaceable gouernement of their temporall affaires dependeth much vpon the concord piety and vertue of Ecclesiasticall persons and therefore they are to admonish and call vpon the Bishops and Gouernours of the Clergy to redresse all disorders among them but not to meddle by themselues as their superiours in spiritual causes so did those good Kinges of Israell as it is recorded of one of the best of their King Iosaphat who sought for reformation of Church matters 2. Paralip 19. But reserued the Presidency of those thinges which appertayne vnto God vnto Amarias the high Priest And nowe a-dayes we giue many priuiledges to Princes as the denomination of most Bishops and higher Magistrates of the Church that the two states spirituall and temporal may the better agree and liue more peaceably together S. Augustine also doth declare it to be the duty of Kings to defend the Church and her decrees and to punish with seuere lawes all Heretikes and other condemned by the Church But directly to the former objection let the places of the old Testament be perused where the authority and right of Kinges be specified and you shall not finde