sufficient for thee my strength is perfected in infirmitie c. First he belyeth vs whome hee calleth heretikes to say that to burne is nothing else but to bee troubled with the pricking of the flesh for wee holde there is no praise of virginitie where there is no naturall prouocation vnto luste But to burne wee say is to bee so troubled as men are that are inflamed with lust and haue no lawfull meanes to quench the same Secondly beholde howe shamefully hee slaundereth Saint Paul to be much troubled with such pricking of the flesh where he complayneth of the generall rebellion of the fleshe against the spirite the messenger of Satan to buffet him euen that lawe of his members of which hee complayneth Rom. 7. which brought him captiue vnder the lawe of sinne As for that pricking which Bristowe speaketh of to bee so much in a bodie so exercised with afflictions and trauels with hunger and fastings and in a man of such age as Sainct Paul was at that time when he wrote vnto the Corinthians the second Epistle it is altogether incredible And confessing a generall rebellion of the fleshe against the spirite vnto all sinne it is not probable that he should in this place complaine of that one kinde onely from which age and weakenesse of bodie woulde priuiledge him if godly exercise did not ridde him What is it then to burne saith Bristowe or to be burned saint Paul himselfe telleth vs it is not to containe If they doe not conteine let them marrie for it is better to marrie then to burne for marriage is honorable and vndefiled but fornicatours and adulterers God will iudge The conference whereof is this Let married folke vse their owne bedde c. and let the vnmarried folke enter into marriage rather then not to containe to burne to commit fornication So that to burne not to containe and to commit fornication by Bristowes conference is all one So that hee which committeth not fornication although hee bee continually inflamed with filthie luste yet by Bristowes iudgement hee burneth not he is continent hee is a virgine Againe if not to containe and to burne be nothing else but to commit fornication it woulde followe in saint Paules wordes that men are not commaunded to marrie before they haue made triall of their incontinence by committing fornication which seeing it is horrible absurditie it followeth that the Apostle to preuent fornication exhorting men to marrie which containe not seeing it is better to marrie then to burne vnderstandeth incontinence and burning for an inflaÌ„mation of lust without fornication or actuall filthinesse committed But whatsoeuer saint Paul speaketh of marriage of them that doe not containe hee meaneth it of such as haue made no vowe to liue vnmarried For of those that haue vowed his sentence is saith Bristowe that they incurre damnation if they marrie because they haue broken their first faith 1. Tim. which faith with S. Augustine hee vnderstandeth for their last vowe of widowhood notwithstaÌ„ding that I shewed both by conference in the same chapter by the title of first and by the name of faith that it cannot properly bee so taken but for the faith of Christianitie euen as he saith if any prouide not for his family he hath denied the faith Where I finde the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the scripture is neuer vsed for a vowe or promise made to God Bristowe aunswereth why doe not you say your selfe that both there once afore in the same chapt it is vsed for the vow or promise made in baptisme no sir. I neuer said it I said that the first faith may aptly be taken for the faith of baptisme and Christianitie except you wil say that the faith of Christianitie embraced by baptisme is nothing else but a vowe or promise made to God Againe can you remember neuer a place saith he where the faith of god is the promise of God looke Rom. 3. yea sir I remember 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for the trueth of Gods promise but I finde not yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for the vowe or promise made to God which because you your selfe so great and daily a conferrer of scriptures coulde not finde you curâ—olled my saying repeating my wordes for a vowe or promise and leauing out that I added made to God The Latine phrase of the faith or promise of marriage vsed by Saint Augustine and other Latine writers aunswereth not to my demaunde of the vse of the greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the scriptures which if the Apostle had taken for the promise of widowhood made in their admission it is more like he woulde haue called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their former faith and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their first faith Againe the conference whiche Bristowe vrgeth of them that are alreadie turned back after Satan most aptely agreeth to theÌ„ that had forsaken not onely their widowhood but also their Christianitie Loe saith Bristowe your selfe are compelled to graunt that which you denyed to wit that they shall be damned because they forsake widowhoode and how forsake they widowhoode but by marrying ergo Saint Paul saith they shall be damned for marrying so inuincible is the texte in our exposition Fulke it goeth harde with you And all this because I saide such wanton young huswiues proceede so farre that at length they forsake widowhood Christianitie and al. Saide I onely because they forsake widowhoode No but because they waxe wanton against Christ because they haue forsaken the first faith which is Christianity and not only because they haue married and giuen ouer theyr widowhoode whereof whether there were a vowe or no it is not proued Although it be probable there was a promise made vnto the Church because such poore widowes susteined of the Churches almes were imployed to be helpers 1. Cor. 12. in the office of Deacons Rom. 16. Considering that it was not sufficient for the sicke and impotent that men should be collectors and distributers of the almes but womeÌ„ also were necessary for diuers seruices about them which were not conuenient for men to exercise But if I should graunt vnto you that the first faith here signifieth the last vowe of widowhoode yet it foloweth not of this place that all that haue married after rashe vowes made to the contrary are damned For Saint Paule speaketh not of them that were constreined by the necessity of incontinencie which it is not euery mans gift to auoyde to flye to the generall remedy appoynted by God for auoyding of fornication that euery man should haue his wife and euery woman should haue her husband without any exception but only of them he speaketh that waxed wanton against Christ which being liuing to the worlde were dead to God What is this against them which ignorantly rashly or constrainedly made a vowe to performe that which they were not able namely continence or chastity without mariage the
bin dāned for euer c. Which he saith also shal be my reply But when Bristow saith that Christs bodily death without any suffering of his soule was the full redemption of the world he maketh his tormentes of minde whereof he complaineth that his soule was heauie vnto death which made him to sweate bloode before his body was touched to be of no force except it were to argue great imbecillitie of Christ who feared so much bodylie death that many of his seruantes haue ioyfully imbraced and that strange crie and teares with which he vttered his prayers on the crosse and that most lamentable complaint that God had forsaken him were for nothing but for that he was not deliuered from the crosse as Bristow writeth it is too much iniurious to his most bitter passion to imagine and therefore we must needes acknowledge that he suffered more in the sight of God whose iustice he was to satisfie then he suffered in the sight of men And so the question that Bristow propoundeth to me is answered why descendit ad inferos cometh after sepultus because the order of the Symbole is first to shew what suffered before men and then what hesuffered in the sight of God As for the blasphemy of Theodorus Mopseuestenus that Christ had inclination to sinne c. there is no more reason why Bristowe should charge vs with it then with those other blasphemies that Christ did dispaire in God or blaspheme God or commit some other sinne against God for our redemption which he affirmeth to be maintained of some Caluinistes For which detestable slaunder if he haue no better ground then he sheweth let him remember that the mouth which lyeth killeth the soule I wil spare to amplifie though I lack no matter albeit that Bristow fayneth mōsters of slaūders as Iupiters Giantes then casteth thē downe with thūderbolts deriding myknowledge in amplification The 9. is about the honor of the virgin Marie wherein first he chargeth me with the heresie of the Heluidians Antidicomarianites who were condemned for heretikes for denying her perpetual virginitie whereas he cometh neerer to the Colliridians likewise cōdemned thē we to the Heluidians But let vs see his impudent quarels First I say As for the perpetuall virginitie of the mother of Christ as we thinke it is true so because the scripture hath not reueiled it neither perteineth it vnto vs we make no question of it Here is a great cōiunctiō with heretikes which trobled the Church with contention a bout a matter which they were not able to proue by the scriptures yet saith Bristow you forge a principle of onely scripture in their fauour Surely that principle as it is not forged so it fauoreth them nothing at al. For their contentious assertion they were not able to proue by the scriptures but within 4. lines afore I am contrary to my selfe where I say all truth may be proued by the scripture If I had to doe with a man of reason as I haue to do with a papist he would vnderstand my propositiō according to the whole matter in controuersie of such things as are necessarie or profitable for a christian man to know vnto saluatiō For otherwise I thinke many things to be true that are not conteined in the scriptures As I thinke that Bristow lacketh wit learning honesty thus to quarell which is not written in the scriptures but gathered by other reasons yet he saith I might which more honestie haue saide that it may be proued by scripture where she saith Luk. 1. Because I know no man that is saith he because I haue made a vow of virginitie A like matter that she would marie if she had made a vow of viginitie Yet Bristow cōfesseth this place proueth not inuincibly her perpetuall virginitie although it so proue her vow But if Bristow were condēned or had vowed to lie in prison vntil he could frame an inuincible argument to proue her vow out of that place yea or any other place of the scriptures it were all one as if he were condemned to perpetuall prison or vowed the same Another poynt of that dishonor is where I controld Allen for excepting the mother of Christ when he speaketh of sinners which is all one as if he had said Christ was not a sauiour of his mother or that she had no neede of his saluation And here he chargeth me with reading Caluine more then Augustine as though Augustine defended the virgin Marie to be free from sinne because he saith against the Pelagians that he would haue no question of her for the honour of our Lord when he speaketh of sinnes For hereof we know that more grace was giuen to her to ouercome sinne of all partes which was worthy to conceiue and bring forth him 〈…〉 om it is certaine that he had no sin Denat grat 136. It is all one with Bristow to ouercome sinne to be voyde of all sinne What victorie is there without a battel if the flesh in the virgin Marie did not rebel against the spirite what victorie had she by grace But it is plaine Pelagianisme to hold that she was voyde of sinne or perfectly righteous The Pelagian nameth also ipsam etians domini c. the verie mother of our Lord and Sauiour which he saith it is necessarie for godlines that we confesse that she was with out sinne But thereof Augustine for the honour of our Lord will haue no question signifying that although she were not cleere and exempted from fi 〈…〉 e but had grace to ouercome sinne yet for reuerence of Christ her sonne he would not reason thereof to bring her within the cōmon cōpasse of al siners But Bristow perceiueth that I would not haue so answered seeing I affirme that by the reprehension of Christ Iohn 2. she did offend for he would neuer haue reproued his mother without a cause And said what haue I to do with thee woman except she had intermedled in his office more then of dutie she ought But Bristow would colour his reproofe two wayes one by false translation of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what to me and thee O woman not vnderstanding the greek phrase which is by those words to refuse to haue to doe with one As the diuels Matt. 8. cried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What haue we to do with thee Iesus thou sonne of God and not as Bristowe translateth What to vs and thee Iesus c. But because Bristow saith that if Christ should meane that the want of wine perteined neither to him nor to his mother yet she were not discharged of error to moue him in a matter which belongeth neither to him nor her He sayth I might doe well to tell him what were those sinnes of hers I thinke the answere of Christ sheweth what her offence was here and Luk. 5. that she presumed to intermeddle vnder colour of her motherly authoritie with matter apperteining to his diuine office of being Christ
body is receaued by mouth not by faith onely Iew. The body of Christ is to be eaten by faith only and none otherwise Sand. You are the mainteiner of a blasphemous heresie and affirme the same which the Arrians did Fulk Master Iewel is more free from Arrianisme then you from Eutychianisme Sand. Christ saide after bread taken c. Take eate this is my body but he spake of eating by mouth and not by faith alone and the thing eaten to bee his owne body therefore his body is not eaten by faith only but by mouth also Fulke That which was to be eaten with mouth was breade in nature and his body in mystery which body was to be eaten by faith and not by mouth as the bread was to bee eaten by mouth and not by faith Sander All that was eaten by mouth or by faith at Christes supper came from Christ but all that he is writen to haue giuen came from his handes therefore either his body was not eaten by faith at all or his bodye came then from his owne handes Answere the Gospell master Iewel or els blaspheme no more Fulke I denie your minor For it is writen The spirite it is that giueth life the flesh profiteth nothing Ioh. 6. Life remission or sinnes participation of his death c. were giuen but not all nor at all by his handes but by his diuine spirit Sander The fathers teach that we eate Christes body by our mouthes and not dy faith onely Fulke They teach we eate the Sacrament which is so called and which after a certaine manner is the body of Christ but not absolutely Sander S. Cyprian saith of euill men Ser. de lap 5. Plus modo they sinne now more against our Lord with their handes and mouth then when they denied our Lord. Fulke They sinne against our Lord in receiuing the Sacrament vnworthily more then in denying because denying was of weakenes this other of hypocrisie Sander Cyprian saith the sinne is inuading and doing violence to our Lordes body and bloud Fulke That is to the Sacrament thereof for our Lords body is impassible Sander Chrysostom witnesseth vs to take in our handes in our mouthes to touch to eate to receiue into vs Christes flesh is all this done by faith onely Fulke Chrysostom witnesseth we see All the people to be made red with the bloud of Christ. Is that otherwise then by faith Desacerd lib. 3. Hee saieth Christ iâ— broken in the SacrameÌ„t which he was not on the crosse Is that done really in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. Sander Pope Leo writeth thus of the matter ye ought so to communicate that ye doubt nothing c. Fulke Pope Leo is answered lib. 5. Cap. 8. Sander Cyril against the Arrian lib. 10. Cap. 13. sheweth vs to eate Christ corporally Fulke You slander Cyril he saith the vertue of the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwel in vs corporally by participation of the flesh of Christ not by faith and loue onely Iewel Christes body is meat of the mind not of the belly saith S. Cyprian Sander I find no such wordes in Cyprian but whosoeuer spake them it will follow that the meat he speaketh of is not materiall bread Fulke If you finde not the wordes in Cyprian you may finde them in Gregory who by error of the printer is called Cyprian and you may finde the sense in Cyprian wee sharpen not our teeth nor prepare our belly but with syncere faith we breake the holy bread You find in ser. de coena Dom. That the body of Christ is not material bread we agree with you and euer did Iewel Beleeue and thou hast eaten saith S. Augustine of Christes blessed body Sander These words are not offacramental eating but of spirituall eating Fulke He saith vt quid paras dentes ventrem to what end doest thou prepare thy teeth and belly beleeue and thou hast eaten Therefore he sheweth that Christ is not receiued by mouth and belly but by faith onely Iewel It is better to vse the worde figure than the wordes really corporally Sander It is better to vse the wordes body bloud flesh which are the wordes of scripture than the worde Figure which is vsed of the fathers only Fulk Master Iewel compareth not the worde figure with the wordes of scripture but with the wordes really corporally vsed neither in scripture nor in the fathers CAP. IIII. Sander Master Iewel hath not replied well touching the sixt Chapiter of Saint Iohn but hath abused as well the Gospell as diuerse authorities of the fathers Harding The promise of giuing the flesh which Christ would giue for life of the worlde beeing onely perfourmed in the supper prooueth the very same substance to be in the Sacrament of the supper which was offered vpon the crosse for the life of the world Iewel Master Harding supposeth no man to eate the flesh of Christ but onely in the Sacrament Sander He denieth not but that Christes flesh may be eaten spiritually both by faith and by baptisme but not really saue onely in the supper Fulke If Christ speak there onely of his gift in the supper then all are void of life eternall that receiue not the supper Except ye eate c. Iewel The wordes bee plaine and generall vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man yee shall haue no life in you Sander He saith ye shall not haue life in you Fulke A diuersity without a difference Sander He meaneth of him who hauing discretion to prooue himselfe refuseth to receiue the Sacrament of Christes supper Fulke This is a glosse of your owne discretion and not the meaning of Christes wordes who denieth life to all them that are not fedde with his flesh and bloud Iewel Seeing Christian children receiue not the Sacrament by Master Hading it will followe they haue no life Sander It will followe they haue not in themselues the flesh of life as Cyrillus â—aith in their bodies but it is an vntrue sequel to say they haue no life at all for they haue spirituall life in baptisme Fulke They could haue no life in baptisme if they were not fedde with the flesh and bloud of Christ without which there is no life at all whatsoeuer it please Sander to glosse Iewel S. Ambrose saith Christ giueth this bread to all men daily and at all times Sander He may meane of the gift which is in spirite or which is daily ready in the Sacrament Fulke He doth meane that the breade is not giuen onely in the Sacrament which is not giuen to all men nor at all times Iewel S. Augustine saith They eate Christes body not onely in the Sacrament but also in very deede Behold not onely in the Sacrament Sander S. Augustine speaketh of the mysticall body which is the company of the elect and the holy Church of God not of the naturall bodye which sitteth at the right hand of God Fulke Augustine saith qui ergo est c. He then that is
so farre forth as they teache the way of sal 〈…〉 ation otherwise it is no discomfort vnto them alâ—â—ough they vnderstande not euerie harde place of the â—criptures After this he gathereth that I place all in a mans owne 〈…〉 iligence to trust no man nor men but to reade the scriptures 〈…〉 onferre the places and so gather the meaning by him selfe So that with him it is nothing that saint Augustine saith 〈◊〉 Doct. Christ. libr. Chapter 6. where I receiued my 〈…〉 ule Magnificè igitur salubriter c. Magnificallye â—herefore and wholesomely the holy Ghost hath so 〈…〉 empered the holy scriptures that with open places hee â—ight satisfie hunger with darke places he might wype â—ff lothsomnesse for nothing in a manner is brought â—ut of those obscurities which may not bee founde in â—ome other place most plainely spoken It is nothing â—hat I require the holy ghost the author of the scripâ—ures by earnest prayer to bee obtained of the interpretors But if diligence may doe so much hee telâ—â—th vs of the greate diligence vsed in the Popes semiâ—arie for Englande vnder the gouernement of Doctor Allen which prooueth it selfe to bee a semiâ—arie of treason in much reading and conferring of the scriptures with all other helpes and meanes whereby they must bee more certaine of trueth then wee by mine owne rule No Bristowe not they that reade the scriptures with such minde as you doe without the extraordinarie grace of God shall neuer come to the knowledge of the trueth which they seeke not in them but the confirmation of their preiudicated erronious and hereticall opinions There is a fragment of Clemens cited in the decrees Dist. 37. Chapter Relatum which sheweth the lette of your vnderstanding and in the ende concludeth Non enim sensi 〈…〉 c. you ought not to seeke a forrain and straunge sense without the scriptures that you may by any meanes confirme the same by the authoritie of the scriptures but you ought to take the sense of truth out of the scriptures themselues Concerning the bragge of Hebrewe and Greeke texts to be proued against vs wheÌ„ we see the booke wee will shewe you our iudgement In the meane time if the authour shewe not more witte in suppressing his labour then you in vaunting of it before it come forth I assure you he will shewe himself to the world to haue neither learning wisdome nor honestic The 3. part What he meaneth by his onely scripture and that thereby he excepteth also against scripture I meane by onely scripture what soeuer is taught in plaine wordes or may be gathered by necessarie conclusion which is as good as expresse wordes For all trueth needefull for vs to knowe say I may be prooued by scripture either in plaine words or by necessarie conclusion which is all one Where I vrge Allen to shewe some sentence of scripture to maintaine prayer and sacrifice for the deade Bristow saith I confessed that I haue hearde of him diuerse sentences in the third chapter of his reply pag. 19. but reade that page who will and thèy shall finde neuer a worde of such confession The scripture it self that I except against by calling for Canonicall scripture is the booke of Machabees which he promiseth to proue to be canonicall in the 11. Chapter where his arguments shall receiue aunsweres The 4. part What great promises he maketh to bring most euident scriptures against vs and also by scripture to proue his sense of the scripture Triumphing also before the victorie and saying that 〈…〉 dare not be tried by scripture but reiect the Scriptures where 〈…〉 n a fourefold offer is made vnto him Before he rehearse my words of promise he repeteth 〈…〉 w precise he hath shewed me first to admitte no eui 〈…〉 nce that they alledge but scripture onely both in all 〈…〉 ntrouersies and also in the exposition of scripture 〈…〉 at euidence I admit and howe farre hath beene shew 〈…〉 before more at large in my answere to his motiues 〈…〉 d demaunds Secondly he saith I admitte no scripture 〈…〉 ich maketh so plainly with them that I cannot auoid but by denying it to be canonicall though I graunt 〈…〉 o haue the confirmation of the same true Church which 〈…〉 oueth me as the holy ghost to receiue the other scrip 〈…〉 res for canonical This he speaketh for the Machabees 〈…〉 oke which although I denie to bee canonicall yet I 〈…〉 uer graunted to haue the confirmation of the true 〈…〉 urch neither yet euer had it againe where he saith 〈…〉 e true Church moueth me as the holy ghost to re 〈…〉 ue the other scriptures for canonicall hee doth mee 〈…〉 onge for the Church moueth not me as the holy ghost 〈…〉 t in a much inferior degree of mouing the holye Ghost 〈◊〉 the author moueth mee the true Church as a wit 〈…〉 sse Thirdly hee saith I admit no scripture which I con 〈…〉 sse to be canonicall vnlesse it make so expressely so plainely so manifestly so necessarily with them that it cannot by any subtiltie be auoyded This proposition being in the copulatiue is false for I admit arguments taken either out of the expresse and plaine words of scripture or of collection necessarily concluding Let him make a newe logike if hee will haue me admitte argumentes that doe not conclude necessarily Howe I obserue that law that I so rigorously exact 〈…〉 e will examine in the next Chapter Then folâ—oweth a large rehersall of sentences wherein I affirme â—hat by the grace of God I am able to proue euery arti 〈…〉 e of faith that wee holde against the papistes by ne 〈…〉 essarie argu 〈…〉 ents out of the scriptures Bristowe saith in the next chapter I shall haue ynowe yet if 〈◊〉 will one article shall be this That Antichrist is not one certaine person That I shall easily proue thus One certaine person is not many Antichrists there haâ—â— beene manie therefore Antichriste is not one certaine person The minor is saint Iohn Epist. 1. Cap. 2. vers 18. Againe Antichrist is hee whosoeuer denyeth that Iesus is Christ One certaine person onely denyeth not that Iesus is Christ Therefore Antich rist is not one certaine person onely 1. Iohan. 2. vers 22. Againe Euery spirite that confesseth not Iesus Christ to bee come in the fleshe is the spirite of Antichrist but this is not the spirite of one certaine person ergo Antichrist is not one certaine person The beast described Apocalips 13. and expounded Apocalips 17. is Antichrist but manie kinges are the partes of that beaste therefore Antichrist is no one certaine person The whoore of Babylon whiche is expounded Apoc. 17. to be the citie of Rome is borne by the beast beforesaide which is Antichrist but the citie of Rome is not borne by one certayne person therefore Antichrist is no one certaine person An other article that hee requireth me to proue is That the Churches flying
I aunswere the argument is not of the onely naming of two but of the whole argument of the Apostle which is to proue that â—he fathers in participation of the sacramentes were equall with vs which were not sufficiently proued if hauing named onely two there were other fiue wherein wee are superior to them So that the naming of two is in this place the excluding of all other except those two Nowe let vs discusse Bristowes reasons for the number of Sacraments to be seuen Wee read of the other fiue in other places Where I pray you Of Confirmation Iohn the 7. You reade more then I can finde there named or signified except you meane of the increase of Gods spirite in more excellent and euident graces which the faithfull shoulde receiue after the resurrection and ascension of Christe which differeth farre from confirmation of children by imposition of handes Of Penance you read Iohn 20. Of power giuen to the Apostles to remit and reteine sinnes I reade but of auricular confession and satisfaction I reade not Of extreme vnction you reade Iac. 5 of annoynting the sicke with oyle which by a speciall gift recouered health of body as well as remission of sinnes at the prayer of the faithfull I reade but of anealing men desperatly sicke which hath no hope of bodily recouerie I reade not Of orders you reade Math. 26. but I reade nothing at all although I reade that the Apostles were commaunded to continue the celebration of his supper instituted by him which were before ministers of his sacramentes and preachers of his worde but of Bennet and Collet coniurer subdeacon or masse priest I reade not in all the Scripture nor of Deacon in that Chapter Of Matrimonie both yet and I reade Math. 19 but not instituted at that time by Christ but long before in Paradise and is no more a sacrament of the newe testament then the raynebowe which yet with the couenant thereof remaineth in vse among Christians But you confesse you reade not in those places that they are sacramentes no more doe you reade 1. Cor. 10. that baptisme or the Lordes supper are sacraments or any where else This is a stale quarrell of the name of sacramentes which is not founde in Scripture although the thing signified by the name that is the seales of Gods promises and the name of signe of Gods couenants be often founde But your laste refuge is that the Apostle speaketh onely of the firste entrance into Christianitie which in antiquitie was by baptisme confirmation the complement of baptisme and the Euchariste and therefore speaketh not of the rest Beside that this fantasie is manifestly contrarie to the Apostles purpose which was to shewe that the externall sacramentes of Gods grace without a godly life woulde not serue to assure vs that God was pleased withvs it is cleare that the Corinthians among whome Saint Paul so long had preached coulde not bee without all other sacraments if any other were They had children to bee confirmed they themselues were married elders were to bee ordered offenders by penaunce were to bee reconciled manie were sicke and some were fallen a sleepe to bee anealed And Saincte Paule saith expressely they were behinde in no grace or gifte of Gods spirite 1. Corinth 1. Wherefore that they were younge nouices newely entred the barres and not knightes exercised in battell it is a dreame of Bristowes drowsiâ— heade and no trueth to bee verified of the Corinthians Secondly I say of the sacramentes in generall that they giue not grace ex opere operato of the worke wrought but after the faith of the receiuer and according to the election of Go◠〈◊〉 Corin. 10. Againe howe should the sacrament giue grace of the worke wrought if faith were requisite in them that receiue them This argument saith Bristowe holdeth aswell against the working of Christs passion Why sir the passioÌ„ of Christ giueth not grace but to the faithfull and electe of God But faith you say is no work nor instrumeÌ„t but only a dispofition as drynesse in wodde that the fire worketh vppon I will not enter into any philosophicall disputation with you whether it bee drinesse or moysture in the wodde that the fire worketh vpon perhaps you thinke that water is moyster then ayre which error if you had no more cannot make you an heretike But I meruaile what cause you will make faith seing you exclude it from efficients except you make it a matter for the sacraments to worke vpon or else I know not what you meane by that your disposition lyke drienesse in woode which in deede is the thinne ayer more apte to receiue inflammations then the thicke water but perhaps you make it onely a potentia like materia prima for you adde that by our indisposition wee doe not put obicem But you hold that the sacraments giue grace of the work wrought without the good motion of the vser onely so hee doe no part obicem that is so he doe not withstand the working as if a man be baptised sleeping and thinking nothing of it Neuerthelesse seing the scripture often affirmeth that God worketh in vs by faith faith must needes bee an instrumentall efficient when you haue saide all that you can except you will teach vs newe gramer and Lògike You confesse the scripture sayth that by beleeuing and other good actions wee worke our owne saluation Phil. 2. as by way of meriting but it saith not that we worke the effect of any sacrament neither doe I say that wee worke the effecte of any sacrament but that God worketh in vs according to faith which he giueth vs and his election You say further that the scripture teacheth that the passion of Christ giueth to our deedes vertue to merite where is that scripture written for vntill you shewe me where it is written I will say still to you as I saide to Allen the Church of Christ abhorreth that blasphemie beleeuing stedfastly that we are iustified freely by his grace through the redemptioÌ„ of Christ Iesus without respect of our works Rom. 3. 4. But yet Bristowe will make men beleeue that I shew manifolde ignorance where I say Purg. 35. The meane on Gods behalfe by which we are made partakers of the fruites of Christes passion and so graffed into his bodie is his holy spirite of promise which is the earnest and assuring of our inheritaunce who worketh in vs faith as the onely meane by which the righteousnesse of Christ is applyed vnto vs Ephe. 1. And as for the sacramentes which you seeme to make the only conduites of Gods mercie we are taught in the holy scriptures that they are the seales of Gods promises giuen for the confirmation of our faith as was circumcision to Abraham when he was iustified before through faith Rom. 4. Bristowes eyes being daseled at the cleere light of this trueth turneth his heade away from the matter and wrangleth against diuerse points of Caluinisme as hee saith but in deede of
are sanctified you are iustified by the name of our Lord Iesus and by the spirit of our God By which he plainely sheweth that although they were baptized long before and had committed many sinnes sithence their baptisme yet the cleannesse of their washing the holinesse of their sanctification the righteousnesse of their iustification they retained still and therefore exhorteth them to keepe it to the end So that while Bristowe as he doth alwaies chargeth me with ignorance not knowing what is meant by their making perfect he incurreth great forgetfulnesse euen of the Apostles words where he expouÌ„deth which are not onely he hath made perfect but he hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified So that if sanctification were restrained to baptisme which no logike can proue yet it followeth that they which are sanctified by Christes death in baptisme are made perfect not for a moment as these obstinate blinde Papistes teach from which perfection they fall immediatlie and must recouer it by masses and as Bristowe saith by penance c. But Christ by that one sacrifice but once offered hath made perfect for euer all those that are sanctified That the purpose of the Apostle in all that Epistle to the Hebrewes was no more but to exhort the standing to perseuerance as Bristowe in so many wordes affirmeth let him beleeue that can thinke the greatest part of his disputation for the abolishing of all ceremonies and sacrifices of the lawe to be idle and beside his purpose Likewise that if they fall he telleth them that Christes death will not worke in them an other baptisme but remedie he telleth them none Verily there is no remedie for them that make the death of Christ of none effect vnto themseues by an vtter and vniuersall fall from CHRIST But it is an horrible slaunder of Gods spirite that he telleth no remedie by repentance from particular faulles and daylie offences when he sheweth the perpetuall clensing of our conscience by the bloode of Christ Hebrews 10. verse 14. and in the 12. Chapter he hath many and earnest exhortations to repentance verse 1. and 12. shewing the necessitie of Gods fatherly correction to bring vs to repentance Verses 5. 6. 7. c. But I shewe great ignorance where I conclude that if the greatest parte be left to the sacrifice of the masse namely to take away all sinnes committed since baptisme Christ hath not made them that are sanctified perfect for euer by a sacrifice once offered for all For Papistes deuide not remission of a mans sinnes betwene baptisme and the masse No but you ascribe the whole in such sorte to either of both that you diuide the powre of making perfect for euer from the onely once offered sacrifice of Christ. But you thinke it is highly for the honor of that one high Priest to haue many ministers and many ministeries as it were conduites to deriue his purchase his redemption to his people In deede if he had not one spirite that were of power to apply the grace of his redemption vnto all his elect he had neede of many conduites such as you speake of for which purpose he vseth not the ministerie of man but the vertue of the Holie Ghost The ministerie of man is such as man can execute that is by the worde audible and visible to speake to the eares and eyes of men and beeing â—â—iâ—red vp by the holy spirite to commende the whole effect of his word to the grace of God But you thinke to auoyde exclamation if you ascribe nothing to any man nor any thing but from that Priest and from that sacrifice as though it were lawfull for you to take any thing from the Prieste and sacrifice and bestowe it vpon any man or thing without commission yea against commaundement and against the excellencie of perfection of that singular Priest and singular sacrifice which being once offered neede noe more to be repeated The scriptures thus examined he commeth to the doctors And first to Augustine or rather Fulgentius de fide ad Petrum cap. 19. cited by me Pur. 316. 292. to proue that the olde doctors vsinge the name of sacrifice ment not the popish sacrifice propitiatorie of the naturall bodie and bloode of of Christ because he calleth it Sacrificium panis vini the sacrifice of bread and wine Bristowe replieth that he also calleth it the the sacrifice of the body bloode of Christ wherein as it is cited by him so is it answered by me cap. 6. of this booke Secondly where he saith In this sacrifice is thankesgiuing commemoration c. Bristow replieth that he saith also that in this sacrifice is euideÌ„tly shewed what is giuen for vs he is announced alreadie killed But because this is nothing to the purpose he compareth it to the martyrdomes of Peter Paule commemorated vpon their feast at Rome euidently shewed and announced by their verie bodies and heades there seene and visited A newe way to vnderstand olde doctors by practise of Idolatrous iugling and faining of reliques If these Apostles by their bodies be whole at Rome so many Churches of Peter and Paule as haue presently or haue had in times past reliques of their bones were greatly deceiued For notwithstanding that Petres whole head is at Rome his nether iawe with his bearde is at Poyters and many of both their bones at Triers Saint Paules shoulder at Argentina yea a peece of Saint Peters braine was at Geneua where it was tried to be a good pumice stone The second doctor is August de ciui dei lib. 22. cap. 10. saying the martyrs are that body which is offered in sacrifice whereof I conclude that it is not the naturall body of Christ but his mysticall body which is offered in a sacrifice of thankesgiuing Bristowe answereth that the mysticall body is offered in the offering of the natuâ—ll body But Augustine neuer saith that the naturall body of Christ is offered but expressing what body is offered sheweth that the mysticall body is offered Neuerthelesse Bristowe compareth it to the oblation of Christes naturall body in offering whereof for his Church he offered his Church to God with it But how proueth he that Christ offered his Church to God for a sacrifice The sacrifice of himselfe was propitiatorie for the sinnes of his Church which before he had purged by his sacrifice he could not offer as a cleane and acceptable sacrifice vnto God The third doctor is Tertullian which saith that prayer is the greatest sacrifice that God hath commanded Bristow saith That in the name of that prayer he comprehendeth all that is saide and done in the masse which to this day the priest therfore begineth saying vnto vs after the gospell Dominus vobiscuÌ„ oremus let vs pray immediatly goeth to the bread and wine c. You may thinke I iest they be the very words of Bristow and his onely answere Yea but there be reasons of this saying Because that pure
and in him as it were againe begonne and renewed And cannot this be done except the body of Christ do really conteine all things by your surmised reuolt for I dare not vnderstand you siguratiuely seeing you abhorre figures in this matter of the supper nor Hyberbolically for that you count no better then a rhetoricall lye Wherefore if these things be really conteined as you say I thinke it small for the worship of Christes banket whose excellencie I take to be so great that it conteineth not these grosse meates of the body but an heauenly refreshing of the soule And that will the olde fathers whome you cite for your cookery plainly testifie with me First Cyprian de Coen Dom. Vident haec sacramenta c. The poore in spirite see these sacraments and contenting themselues with this one dish they despise all the delicats of this world and possessing Christ they disdaine to possesse any stuffe of this worlde Beholde Cyprian sayeth nor that this dish conteineth al foules fishes sauces spices c. but that al these are despised of them that are partakers of this dish Againe speaking of the wicked Et a secretis diuinis omnium intra se continentibus summam diffugiunt recedunt c. They fly and depart from the diuine secrets which conteine within them selues the briefe or summe of all mysteries He saith not they containe meates and drinkes syropes and confections but the summe of al mysteries or heauenly diuine treasures But saith Sander when saint Cyprian saith intra se within them he meaneth within the compasse or formes of breade and wine for these onely are the thinges that we can poynt vnto within or without Belike he will teach vs newe Grammar and newe Latine also For in our old Latine and Grammar we learned that sui and suus were reciproca but Sander will teach vs that se signifieth the compasse or formes of breade and wine Or if the worde se signifie themselues as it was wont to doe Sander wil teach vs that the compasse or formes of bread and wine are the diuine secrets themselues For Cyprian saith that the diuine secrets within themselues containe the summe of al mysteries But marke his reason and you wil thinke that an Oxe hath lowed it out rather then a man spoken it The compasse or formes of bread are the onely things that we can poynt vnto within or without for other meat drinke we see not quoth he He will haue nothing but that he can point vnto with his hand and see with his bodily eye Whereas diuine secretes whereof Cyprian speaketh can neither be seene with the eye nor poynted at with the finger but onely be vnderstoode by faith in them to whom God hath reueiled them His next witnesse is Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24 Quando corpus Christi c. When the body of Christ is set before thee say with thy selfe For this bodies sake I am no more earth and ashes For this I hope to receiue heauen and the good thinges which are in heauen immortall life the seate of Angels the companie of Christ. The very table is the strength of our soule the bonde of trust the foundation our hope saluation life If wee goe hence pure with this sacrifice with most great confidence we shall ascende to the holy porch or entrie as it were compassed rounde about with golden garments But what rehearse I thinges to come whiles we are in this life this mysterie causeth that the earth is heauen to vs. Whatsoeuer Chrysostome saith here we acknowledge to be true as he did meane it but nothing he saith for Master Sanders reuolution and as little for the carnall manner of presence or eating of Christes body For euen as we are no more earth and asshes as earth is made heauen which is after a spiritual manner by fayth and yet truly and vndoubtedlye so is the body of Christ present eaten at the table According to which meaning he saith in the same homily QuemadmoduÌ„ enim corpus illud vnituÌ„ est Christo ita nos per hunc panem vnione coniungimur For euen as that body is vaited to Christ so we also by this bread are joyned in an vnion Note heere that body this bread to be diuerse thinges in naturall substance againe our coniunction to be by the bread mystically for naturally and substantially wee are not ioyned one to another but in an heauenly kinde of vnion we are made one bodye of Christ and members one of another And this is not an emptye dish of faith as Sander calleth it but a full mysterie of saluation And although faith shall cease when we haue the full fruition of Gods promises in heauen yet doth Sander both absurdly and vnfaithfully gather therof an opposition of faith and trueth wheras faith hath thereof the name in Hebrue because it is grounded vpon truth But what meaneth he by truth that which he preferreth aboue the receiuing by faith Namely the carnall manner of receiuing Christes body which hee holdeth the wicked may doe to their damnation A worthy truth in respect of which saith is counted litle worth as an empty dish which yet by their owne doctrine must make their trueth effectuall to saluation But see I pray you howe cunningly he reasoneth of the finall cause Christ tooke flesh saith he that our bodies might haue a banket made to them as the soules of the faithfull neuer lacked God whom they might feede on by faith and spirit By which reason the godly of the old testament before Christes incarnation were but halfe nourished namely in soules onely and not in bodyes if Christes flesh bee not a meat otherwise then receiued into the body after the Popishe meaning Yet he supposeth that Cyrillus fauoureth this argument In Ioan. lib. 4. Cap. 14. Oporiuiâ— enim certâ— vt non solùm anima per spiritum sanctum in beatam vitam ascenderet verâ—netiam vt rude atque terrestre hoc corpus cognato sibi gustâ— tactu cibo ad immortalitatem reduceretur For it behoued truely that not onely the soule shoulde ascend by the holie Ghost into the blessed life but also that this rude and earthly bodic shoulde be brought to immortalitie by tasting touching and by meate which were of alliance with vs. Cyrill meaneth of the outwarde element by which our faith being instructed as our bodies are fedde so we are taught that the whole man is nourished to immortalitie Therefore he saith immediatly after in the same place Nâ—â— putet ex tarditate mentis suae Iudaeus inaudita nobis excogitata esse mysteria videbit enim si attentiùs quaerit hoc ipsum à Mosâ— temporibus per figuram semper factitatum suisse Quid enim maiores corum ab ira Aegyptiorum liberauit quando mors in primogenita Aegyptiorum saeâ—iebat nónne palà m est quia diuina institutione perdocti agni carnes manducauerunt postes ac superliminaria sanguine perunxerunt
propterea mortem ab eis diuertisse pernicies námque id est carnis huius mors aduersus genus humanum propter primi hominis transgressionem surebat Terra enim â—s in terram reuerteris propter peccatum â—udiuimus Verùm quoniam per carnem suam Christus atrocem hunc euersurus erat tyrannum propterea id mysterium apud priscos obumbrabatur oâ—inis carnibus atque sanguine sanctificati Deo ita volente perniciem essugiebant Quid igitur O Iudaee turbaris praefiguratam veritatem iam videns our inquam turbaris si Christus dicit Nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis biberitis sanguinem eius non habebitis vitam in vobis cùm oporteret Mosaicis te legibus institutum priscis vmbris ad credendum perdoctum ad intelligenda haec mysteria paratissimum esse Neither let the Iewe of the dulnes of his minde thinke that we haue inuented such mysteries as were neuer heard of for hee shall see if he will search more attentiuely that the same thing hath beene alwaies done by figure since the time of Moses For what hath deliuered their auncestors from the plague of the Aegyptians when death raged against the first borne of the Aegyptians Is it not manifest that they being taught by the institution of God did eate the flesh of a Lambe and annoynted the postes and vpper dore postes with bloude and therefore death departed from them For destruction that is the death of this flesh did rage against mankinde for the transgression of the first man For because of sinne we heard Earth thou art and into earth thou shalt returne But because Christ by his flesh was to ouerthrow this cruel tyrant therefore that mysterie was shadowed to the old fathers and being sanctified with the flesh and bloud of the sheepe God so willing they escaped destruction Why therfore ô Iewe art thou troubled seeing the trueth alreadie prefigured Wherfore I say art thou troubled if Christ say Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of Man drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in your selues whereas it behoued thee being instructed in the Lawe of Moses taught to beleeuing by the old shadows to be most readie to vnderstande these mysteries This place of Cyrill sheweth at large that he meaneth not by tast and touching or meate which is of alliance with vs the naturall bodie of Christ but the outward part of the sacrament namely the bread and wine for of the bodie of Christ there is neither taste nor touching bodily in the sacrament But euen as by eating of the Lambes flesh and anoynting of the bloude which prefigured the flesh and bloude of Christ and was a meate of kindred or alliance with them with whose taste and touching they were acquainted the Iewes were assured of their deliuerance so we by eating and drinking these outwarde signes of Christes bodie and bloude are assured of eternall life For you must note that he saith hoc ipsum the selfe same thing was alwayes done by figure from the time of Moses What was that namely that not onely our soules by the holy Ghost but also our bodies by externall sacramentes were brought to immortalitie But the same thing could not be done according to the Popish meaning before Christs incarnation therefore Cyrill is nothing lesse then of the Popish meaning The last witnesse is Tertullian de resur Carnis The flesh is washed that the soule may be clensed The flesh is oynted that the soule may be consecrated The flesh is signed that the soule may be defenced The flesh is shadowed by imposition of hande that the soule also may be illuminated The flesh is fedde with the bodie bloud of Christ that the soule also may be made fat of God They cannot therfore be parted in reward whom worke ioynesh We agree to that which Tertullian saith that our flesh is fed with that body bloud of Christ but not after a carnall or natural maner by receiuing the body and bloud at our mouthes c but after a spiritual manner as he himselfe sheweth in the same booke Nam quia durum intollerabilem existimauerunt sermonem eius quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinasse vt in spiritum disponeret statum salutis promisit spiritus est qui viâ—ificat For because they thought his saying hard and intollerable as though he had determined that his flesh was to be eateÌ„ of theÌ„ verily that he might dispose the state of saluation into the spirit he saide before It is the spirit that quickeneth In these words Tertullian counteth it the error of the Capernaites to thinke that Christ determined that his flesh should be eaten verily meaning that his fleshe was not to be eaten after a grosse and naturall manner with the mouth and teeth but with faith and heart Againe the argument of the resurrection of our bodies which he draweth of eating the bodie bloud of Christ cannot stande but with a spirituall eating thereof For what hope should all the fathers before the incarnation of Christ and so many thousand Christians as since that time haue neuer receiued the sacrament haue of the resurrection of their bodies if the vertue thereof were included in the popish imagined manner of eating Therfore Tertullian meaneth plainely that the externall sacraments which are receiued with the body beare the name oftentimes of the thinges whereof they are sacraments are arguments and assurances that saluation perteineth both to the bodie and to the soule and not that the bodie eateth and drinketh really the substance of Christs body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine any more then the body receiueth the holy ghost vnder the forme of water or imposition of hands c. What the supper of Christ is according to the doctrine of the Protestantes and Sacramentaries with a confutation thereof He affirmeth that we say Christ giueth to the bodie breade and wine but to the soule he giueth himselfe by saith spirit and vnderstanding This he maketh to be all the banket of the newe brethren Against this he inueyeth in a long chapter But either he is ignorant what we teach or rather he is not willing to shewe it that by rehersing it imperfectly he might haue more aduantage to dispute against it We beleeue that Christ giuing vnto vs bread and wine as visible seales of his inuisible grace giueth to the whole man his body and blood to be receiued of him by faith after a spiritual and wonderful maner passing al vnderstanding of man wherby we are assured that we are spiritually fed vnto eternal life eueÌ„ as by the seale of baptisme we are assured that we are spiritually and wonderfully washed from our sins born anew to be the sonnes of God We say not therefore the god giueth himselfe by faith spirit vnderstanding to our soules onely but he giueth himself vnto vs to be receiued by faith spirituallie But
to receiue the mysteries another thing to receiue the bodie in such manner as the Papistes doe teach And Chrysostome vsing the same wordes but not in such context ad Pop. Antiochen Hom. 21. hath also linguam sanguine tali purpuratam factam aureum gladium the tongue dyed purple with such bloude and made a golden sworde Likewise the eyes by whiche thou hast seene the secretes and dreadfull mysteries which sayings doe shewe that hee spake not of a bodily presence or receiuing but of a spirituall receipt and faith by which wee see Christe present and acknowledge our tongue to bee dyed purple with his bloude and to be made a golden sworde which is not done corporally but spiritually The last argument is that the Lordes supper hath beene of olde time called the Sacrament of the Altar by which saieth hee wee are informed that the sacrifice is made vpon a visible Altar or table and so S. Augustines mother confessed that from the altar was dispensed that holy sacrifice wherby the haÌ„dwriting that was contrarie to vs hath bene put out And we doe likewise confesse that from the holy Altar or table is dispensed in the holy communion the sacrifice of Christs death and passion by which onely that handwriting was put out and nayled on the crosse except you thinke S. Augustines mother was of another opinion then S. Paul Col. 2. v. 14. We coÌ„fesse that regeneration by the spirit of God is dispensed out of the holy fonte of Baptisme and yet it followeth not that the holy ghost is conteined in the fonte or water no more doth the dispensation of the sacrifice of Christes death from the table prooue that Christs bodie lyeth vpon the table The argument of the resurrection of our bodies which Irenaeus Tertullian and Cyril doe gather of receiuing of the Sacrament is from the signe to the thing signified and therefore Tertullian maketh the same argument from the washing of baptisme and from other ceremonies of annoynting signing and laying on of hands lib. de resurrectione carnis Caro abluitur vt anima emaâ—â—litur c. The flesh is washed that the soule may be clensed The flesh is anointed that the soule may be consecrated The flesh is signed that the soule may be defended The flesh is shadowed by laying on of handes that the soule may be lightened of the spirit The flesh eateth the bodie and bloude of Christ that the soule may bee made faâ—t of God What reason is there that there should be a transubstantiation in the last more then in all the rest The flesh is washed with water anointed with oyle shadowed with mens handes signed with mens handes therefore the flesh is fedde with breade and wine which Sander maketh such a daungerous matter yet the same is affirmed both by Irenaeus Cyrill and Iustinus Martyr CAP. XVIII Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according to thâ— doctrine of the Sacramentaries We abase not the supper of the Lorde saith the Apologie or teach that it is but a cold ceremonie onely and nothing to be wrought therein as manie doe falselie slander vs. Yes saith Sander you plucke downe Altars c. and call the blessed sacrament of the altar by vile names c I answere we plucke downe none but Idolatrous altars neither giue we any vile names to the blessed sacrament of Christ but to the stinking Idole of the Papists which is no sacrament but a prophane execrament we call not the honour done to Christes bodie worshiping of breade for that which the Papistes worship is not Christes bodie but vile bread although they call it Christes bodie And when wee teach that Christ giueth vs in his supper an assurance of our spiritual nourishment by him and coniunction spirituall with him we teach a worke of Christ in the supper But you teach not saith Sander that any substantiall thing is wrought in the breade and wine In deede we teach no chaunge of the substance of breade and wine but that they remaine in their former nature and substance but we teach a supersubstantiall thing to be wrought by Christs word which being ioyned to breade and wine maketh of earthly and bodilie nourishment heauenly and spiritual foode to feede both bodie and soule vnto euerlasting life And this is sufficient to prooue that something is wrought in the supper of Christ by our doctrine bable Sander what he will to the contrarie although no transubstantiation be wrought except he will saie that nothing is wrought in baptisme because there is no transubstantiation taught either by them or vs in our doctrine of baptisme CAP. XIX The real presence of Christâ— flesh is proued by the expresse naming of fleshe bloude and bodie which are names of his humane nature Sander woulde beare men in hande that there is great fraude hidden in these wordes when the Apologie saieth that wee affirme that Christ doeth truely and presently giue his owne selfe in his Sacraments in baptisme that wee may put him on in his supper that we may eate him by faith and spirite For by these wordes His owne selfe his owne selfe his owne selfe so often repeated they meane no more then the comming of his grace and charitie into our soules by faith spirite and vnderstanding whollie robbing vs of that fleshe whiche dyed for vs and of that bloude whiche was shedde for vs. If we did neuer vse the names of giuing his bodie his flesh his bloude wee might perhaps come in suspition of Maniâ—heisme but when wee vse these names and the other of Christe giuing himselfe and vs eating of Christe which the Scripture doeth affirme as well as the other none but a peeuish wrangler woulde take exceptions to our termes Of the two natures in one person Christe there neede to bee no question but that Sander by telling what Scriptures are proper to both the natures woulde by authoritie of one Saint Germanus I cannot tell whence hee came for the Louanistes are greate coyners of antiquities teach vs that these wordes of Christe Matth. 28. Behold I am with you to the ende of the worlde may be meant as well by the nature of manhoode which wee haue with his godhead in the Sacrament as by the onely nature of the Godheade and that in this place of Matth. 26. The poore you shall haue alwayes with you mee yee shall not haue alwayes By the worde Mee hee meaneth not his Godheade but the nature of his manhoode as it was when hee spake in a visible forme of a poore man but not as it is in the Sacrament What Master Sander thinke you to playe bopeepe with the nature of manhoode in forme visible and not visible Is not the nature of Christes manhoode the same whether it bee in forme visible or inuisible If it bee the same and the nature of the manhood is simplie denyed to bee present howe can you make the same nature that is absent to bee present vnlesse you will
supper wherin Christ being receiued by faith dwelleth in vs by his spirit we are fed vnto the saluation both of body and soule Last of all howe can it be called the supper of Christ which euery man may make at home without coÌ„ming to the table of Christ For euery man may eate bread and drinke wine at his owne house with his wife and children and remember that Christ died for them neither will Christ leaue his good deuotion vnrewarded wherein the supper that you assigne to Christ consisteth and is fulfilled Beside the shamelesse slander that our supper is fulfilled in such a priuate presumptuous acte marke how he alloweth the sacrilegious arrogance of him ' that should vsurp if any were so madde to doe as he is to imagine such a ridiculous counterfeting and mocking of Christes institution hee doth assure him that Christ will not leaue his good deuotion vnrewarded But this is but a cold assurance Like as it is but a cold preparation which is made by transubstantiation whereby after so greate broiling rosting and saucing to compasse such cookery as Sander taught vs in the first booke Cap. 4. such a presence is wrought as maketh the body of Christ none otherwise present to a faithfull man then to an infidel than to a dog a cat or a rat Alas that is a cold presence a cold body that is wtout efficay of spirit and life in them which receiue it But certeinly the flesh and bloud of Christ is of another nature where it is receiued by faith which is able to warme the stomake of a penitent sinner whose hart was cold for feare of Gods iustice and punishment dew for his sinnes And when Sander hath prated neuer so whotly and reasoned neuer so coldly it will be but a cold comfort that he can minister with his surmised bodily presence except he borrowe the chafingdish of faith and spirituall eating to warme it which though he confesse that wee acknowledge yet he affirmeth it maketh but a sleight and a colde supper whereas by his owne confession there is no heate in his fantasied presence without faith and spirituall feeding and faith and spirituall eating is a good warme recreation euen without the Sacrament CAP. XXI By eating we touch the bodie of Christ as it may be touched vnder the forme of breade That is sayeth Sander as wee are truely sayd to kisse the Kinges knee when wee kisse his hose vnder which the knee is conteined But that is not properly to kisse the Kinges knee which is to kisse his hose for kisse and not kisse as I take it be contradictories But who can deuise an eating of meate in a supper which shal bee without touching the meate with teeth and mouth saith Sander Christ sayeth my meate is to do the will of my father that sent me Iohn 4. And he promiseth his Apostles that they shall eate and drinke at his table in his kingdome Luc. 22. This eating and drinking is without teeth or mouth And Saint Augustine speaking of eating the body of Christ sayeth Vt quid par as dentes ventrem Crede manducasti Why doest thou prepare thy teethe and thy belly Beleeue and thou hast eate it In Ioan. Cap. 6. Tr. 25. Againe Panis quippe iste interioris hominis quaerit esuriem For this bread seeketh the hunger of the inner man Tr. 26. And vpon these wordes If any man shall eate of it he shall not die Sed qui pertinet ad virtuteÌ„ sacramenti non qui pertinet ad visibile sacramentuÌ„ Qui manducat intus non foris qui manducat in corde non qui premit dente But he which perteineth to the vertu of the sacrameÌ„t not he which perteineth to yâ— visible SacrameÌ„t He which eateth within not without which eateth in his heart not hee which presseth with his teeth Likewise Cyprian de Coen Dom. Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide syâ—â—â—ra panem sanctum frangimus partimur As often as wee doe these things we do not whet our teeth to bite but with syncere faith we breake and diuide that holy breade Thus you may see howe we may eate that which wee touche not with teeth and mouth And whereas Chrysostome and Cyrill as we heard before saide that Christ giueth his flesh to be touched they speake improperly and meane a touching by the mouth of faith like as they affirme also that he giueth himselfe to be seene which is not but with the eye of faith And it is strange that Sander dare not as well say We see him as we may see him vnder the forme of breade as that wee touche him vnder the forme of bread but the matter is that then he shoulde destroy his doubtie distinction of the bodily presence visible and inuisible Although Cyrillus as is shewed before affirmeth that Christ is visibly present in the sacrament of his body Touching by beliefe Sander will not deny at length although in the beginning he marueiled how touching could be without the mouth teeth but that touching by beliefe he sayeth is furthered by touching that visibly wherein we beleeue the flesh of Christ to be inuisibly A sorie furthering by touching a bare accident of that which is not there nor is the proper accident of that which is said to be there But howe much more furtherance is it to our feeding by faith to eate substantially that which is Gods seale and assurance of that foode which nourisheth both bodies and soules vnto euerlasting life It is an olde custome of heretikes he saith by assertion of one trueth to imbarre and stoppe another truth but so do not we for we barre not any trueth that is admitted by the Scriptures but it is a custome of the diuell to be enimie to all trueth whome the Papistes followe in this their heresie of transubstantiation denying the breade and wine to be in the Sacrament whereas they be in deede and affirming the naturall body of Christ to be substantially conteined vnder the accideÌ„ts of bread and wine euen in the mouth of wicked men of brute beastes which is both false and blasphemous CAP. XXII The Sacramentaries haue neither vnderstanding nor saith nor spirit nor deuotion to receiue Christ withall We haue no vnderstanding he saith because we say This is my body doth not meane this is my body Yes sir Sophister we say the wordes to meane his body after a certeine manner as Augustine saith although not after your grosse manner And howe do you vnderstande these wordes spoken of the other part of the Sacrament This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud Will you not say in some sense it is not the new testament Secondly ye haue no faith that beleeue not the working and effectuall wordes of Christ which were spoken with blessing Yes forsooth sir wee beleeue they wrought and brought to effect whatsoeuer it pleased him to doe by them Thirdly we
haue no spirite in Sanders corporall iudgement when wee knowe not the wordes of Christ to be spirit and life as the which make all that they saide in the consecration of his holy mysteries but we acknowledge his wordes to be spirite life because he neuer giueth his flesh but with effect of his quickening spirite And that is a grosse spirite and a deadly life which imagineth all that to be made in the mysteries which the words soundeth for then the cuppe should be made bloud and the newe testament in his bloud What is They are spirite and life sayth Augustine in Ioan. T. 27. Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt they are to be vnderstood spiritually therfore not according to the sounde of wordes but according to the minde of the speaker It is colde deuotion saith Sander that hearing the body of Christ by himselfe affirmed to be present can eate without adoring and denye godly honour to it We eate not without adoring Master Sander although wee adore not that which we eate bodily but that which wee eate spiritually giuing this diuine honour vnto him that wee put our whole trust confidence in his redemption wherof this externall and visible sacrament is a pledge and assurance CAP. XXIII The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the confession of the Apologie The Apologie confesseth that Christ is giuen vs in the mysteries that wee may certeinly knowe we be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and that Christ continueth in vs and we in him If Christ be giuen vs sayeth Sander in these mysteries he is present in them for a gift is not made of a thing absent Yes Master Sander if the Prince at Westminster giue a manor lying in Yorkeshire by letters patents the Patentee which receiueth his Patent at Westminster hath the manor truely giuen vnto him which is in Yorkeshire Therefore a gift by sufficient assurance may be of a thing absent in nature thereof and so is Christes body giuen vs in the mysteries which are the seale of Gods promise truely giuing Christes body vnto vs which according to the naturall and corporal manner of presence is in heauen and not on the earth Col. 3. But Sander woulde vnderstande howe wee knowe that wee are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones except it be by the reall corporall presence of Christ in the mysteries Yes forsooth wee knowe it by the worde of God which so testifieth Eph. 5. and by the spirite of Christ which dwelleth in vs Rom. 8. and last of all we haue assurance therof by the holy sacrament as by a seale confirmation and pledge of the perfourmance of Gods promises vnto vs. But a coniunction betwixt the flesh of Christ the flesh of men cannot be made saith he by faith spirite and vnderstanding As man and wife cannot become one flesh by consent of mariage except in deede they come bodily togither Yes sir wee holde that Christ is actually ioyned to the nature of man by his incarnation but this coniunction profiteth not all men but only them to whome he is ioyned by spirite faith vnderstanding and so the incarnation of Christ made all the fathers of the olde testament flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone For otherwise it is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh prositeth nothing What auaileth it the reprobate that God is become man ioyned in the same substance of fleshe bloud and bones and humane soule Nothing because they lacke the spirite of Christ and faith Last of all where he saith that man wise cannot become one flesh without carnal copulation it is a beastly opinion For he that sayde they shall bee two in one flesh spake of the holy coniunction of two persons in mariage according to Gods institution before carnall copulation by which the acte of generation is sanctified and the bed made to bee vndefiled not restraining the coniunction to the coupling of their bodies For the Scripture called Ioseph and Marie husband and wife although there were no comming together of their bodies And howe can the Papistes affirme Matrimonie to be a sacrament when the coniunction in one flesh which is the effect thereof cannot be wrought by the worde of God but is left in the choise of the man and the woman Last of all where Sander saith there is no other meanes taught in the Gospell howe Christ may be present in flesh or his flesh ioyned to our flesh but by meanes of transubstantiation it will fall out that seeing transubstantiation is not taught in the Gospell neither was thought vpon sixe hundred yeares in the Church but the contrarie manifestly proued that Christ is not present in flesh at all nor his flesh shoulde be ioyned to our flesh by any meanes Such trueth is in his assertions CAP. XXIIII The contrarietie of the Apologie is shewed and that the lifting vp of our heartes to heauen is no good cause why we should lift the bodie of Christ from the altar First he chargeth vs with great forgetfulnesse Afterwarde to make a shewe of contrarietie he falsifieth most impudently the wordes of the Apologie which he cited himselfe in the Chapter last before Christ giueth him selfe present in these mysteries c. therefore he is not here but in heauen feeding vs from thence This worde Present hee nowe addeth which because he missed before he would seeme to proue it by reason Shall I saye who euer had to doe with such a forgetfull man or rather with so shamelesse an heretike Although the Apologie neuer denyeth simply the presence of Christ in the mysteries but alwayes that manner of presence which the papists affirme and is now in controuersie betweene vs. That the exhortation to lift vp mens heartes is no good argument to proue that Christ is onely in heauen he vseth much foolish babling as though that saying onely were brought for an argument or that saying of it selfe for a sufficient argument or that saying for any argument But where the Scripture sayth that Christ after his ascension concerning his humanitie hath left the worlde Ioan. 16. which the Apostles vnderstood to be spoken plainly and without all parable and that he sitteth in heauen and not on earth Col. 3. the Apologie sayth this is the cause why the people are exhorted to lift vp their heartes and not as Sander peruerteth it because the people are exhorted to lift vp their heartes therefore Christ is not present in his mysteries But lifting vp of heartes with the olde fathers was to acknowledge the mysteries vpon the table to beleeue the sacrifice of the Masse and not to denye the reall presence of Christ saith Sander Doe you not looke for some sound argument to proue this geare especially of him which immediatly before charged the author of the Apologie to vse an argument more like a tinker than a diuine you shall heare his argument of authority of Chrysostom Hom. de Eucharistia Diddest
will giue to you and not only for you But his death was giuen more properly for vs then to vs. For it was paied to God for our debtes but was not properly giuen to vs for then a sacrifice should be made of Christ to vs and consequently God the father robbed of his glorie What say you Sander Can nothing be said properly to be giuen vs but that which is sacrificed vnto vs So God loued the world that he gaue his onely begotten sonne that euery one which beleeueth in him should not perish but haue life euerlasting Iohn 3. And Esai saith The sonne is giuen to vs. The spirit of God is giuen to vs c. is there no gift but by way of sacrifice are you not ashamed of such senseles shiftes Christ in his death was giuen in sacrifice to his father for vs and his father being reconciled to vs by that sacrifice giueth him to vs and Christ also giueth himselfe for vs because all the fruite of his death and sacrifice is referred to our saluation The fourth reason is that Christ naming breade meate foode Manna c. promiseth an eatable thing which is his flesh in a banket the Iewes vnderstoode his flesh really not erring in vnderstanding but in faith for Christ coÌ„firmeth their vnderstanding with an oth sayth verily verily except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man c. ergo their sense which reterre the gift onely to his death is not sufficient but it must be meant also of the last supper This argument followeth not for although the names of bread food flesh c. proue that Christes flesh is eatable yet it proueth not that it is eatable only in the supper Secondly that the Iewes erred only in faith it is false for they erred also in vnderstanding taking the eating of Christes flesh to be perfourmed carnally which he ment only spiritually His oth confirmeth not their vnderstaÌ„ding but his owne promise of giuing his flesh for the life of the world which except they did eat spiritually they could haue no life in them But whereas it is obiected that Christ speaketh of that gift which was common to the whole world euen to the Patriarkes Prophets therefore it is a spirituall gift for else Dauid AbrahaÌ„ could not haue partaken it he answereth that Christ doth not pro mise any one meat vnto the whole world but his flesh to be eaten which is giuen for the whole world I reply the words are plaine the bread which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world not only for the Iewes Neither doth Christ in his supper giue a far better meat than he gaue to Moyses Elias for he gaue euen to theÌ„ his flesh bloud to be their spiritual food vnto eternal life witnesse the Apostle to the 1. Cor. 10. that all our fathers did eat drink the same spiritual meat that we do and that their meat drinke was Christ. Concerning that dayly we may eat that bread which Christ promiseth he answereth the Sacrament is left to be our daily supersubstantial bread either because we may receiue it daily if we wil or because it tarieth alwayes with vs by some spirituall effect To this I answere that all men cannot receiue it daily and some men not at all which yet must haue spirituall foode to feede them vnto euerlasting life therefore this breade may be eaten without the Sacrament The last argument that he woulde seeme to answere is this Christ in S. Iohn speaketh of that eating which maketh vs tarie in him him in vs therefore not of Sacramental eating for Christ tarieth not in all that eate him in the Sacrament He answereth the fault is not in the Sacrament but in them that abuse the gift of God to their own hurt As though our Sauiour Christ did speak only of the power of his flesh being eaten not of the effect The flesh of Christ being eaten maketh vs one with him him But Augustine is cited contr Crescon gram lib. 1. Cap. 〈◊〉 Quid de ipso corpore what say we concerning the very body and bloud of our Lorde the only sacrifice for our saluation Although our Lord himselfe saith Except a man doe eate my flesh and drinke my bloud he shall not haue life in him doth not the Apostle teach that the selfe same thing is made hurtfull to them that vse it euill For he saith whosoeuer shall eate the bread and drinke the cuppe of the Lord vnworthily he shall be guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. But it followeth immediatly in Augustine Eâ—ce quemadmodum obsint diuina sanctamatè vtentibus Cur non eodem modo baptismus See how diuine and holy thinges doe hurte them that vse them amisse Why not baptisme after the same manner These last wordes declare that Augustine saying that the body and bloud of Christ may be hurtfull speaketh of the Sacrament and not of the thing or matter of the Sacrament as in baptisme As he teacheth in exposition of the doctrine of Christ in Saint Iohn The Sacrament of this thing saith he is receiued of som to life of some to destruction but the thing it selfe or matter of the Sacrament which is the body and bloud of Christ is of none receiued to destruction but of all vnto life as many as receiue it By whose whole discourse it is manifest that Augustine vnderstandeth Christ speaking of spirituall eating which may be without the Sacrament and maketh a difference betwene the meat there spoken of which presently was offered to be eaten the Sacrament therof which afterward was instituted Therfore whatsoeuer Sander doth glory of all authority vpon earth concurring to his position there is no authority from heauen to prooue that Christ in the 6. of S. Iohn spake of his supper at all or that his supper may be vnderstood therin otherwise then the Sacrament and seale of that spirituall and heauenly eating drinking of Christes flesh and bloud which of the fathers and of all the faithfull hath bene eaten and drunken vnto eternall life not only in this Sacrament but in other Sacramentes of Gods ordeining and without all Sacramentes by faith and power of Gods spirite CAP. VI. The meate tarying to euerlasting life which Christ promiseth â—o giue is meant of his reall flesh and bloud to be giuen at his last supper Sander by conference of this verse Operamini cibuÌ„ c. labour for the meate or as he translateth iâ— worke the meate that perisheth not c. with that which foloweth where he saith the bread which I will giue c. prooueth that Christe speaketh of his flesh and bloud to be eaten and drunken But that the same is to be giuen only at his last supper which is the onely matter in controuersie he is not able to prooue His first reason is that because Christ saieth his flesh is meate in
deede the word verè declareth not only a metaphorical worke by faith but a true worke of the body and soule the one in beleeuing the other in eating As though Christ is not meat truly when he is eaten by faith in the soule or as though a metaphorical meat can not be called a meate truly or in deede when Christ speaking metaphorically saith he is a true vine But Tertullian saieth the flesh feedeth of the body and bloud of Christ as before wee haue often heard where he speaketh of externall Sacramentes and outwarde signes as of baptisme oynting imposition of hands c. What Theophylact a late writer saith we esteem not worth the weighing But Cyrillus he alleageth for his purpose who referreth the gift plainly to the incarnation of Christ and not to his supper In Ioan. lib. 3. Cap. 28. Diuina humanis c. He hath ioyned the thinges of man to the thinges of God and touched the whole mystery of his incarnation c. Last of all he citeth Ignatius in Ep. ad Romanos who expoundeth the bread and flesh and bloud spiritually and not of the Sacrament Non mihi placet c. The perishing meate and pleasures of this life please me not I will haue the bread of God the heauenly breade the breade of life which is the flesh of Christ the sonne of God and I will haue the cupp of his bloud which is incorruptible loue and life euerlasting If the cuppe of Christes bloud be incorruptible charity and life euerlasting then is it the effect of Christes bloud that Ignatius speaketh of and not his naturall bloud which is the cause thereof Other prooues then these Sander hath not in this Chapter for his purpose which prooue it nothing at all CAP. VII The equality of substance with his father which Christ alleageth for his gift prooueth the reall presence of his body and bloud in the Sacrament of the altar euen as God the father gau◠him reall flesh and bloud at his incarnation This argument is thus framed The sonne of man i◠equall with God his father God the father hath giuen his sonne to the world and made him true man the true bread of life therefore God the sonne being equall with his father will giue vs the same true flesh of the sonne of man as meate that shall tary with vs to euerlasting life But his father gaue him to the world not only in faith and spirite but in reall and substantiall flesh Therfore God the sonne by drift of his talke doth signifie that he will giue in his supper wherof he speaketh not in spirite and faith only but in truth of nature and substance the selfe same reall and substantiall flesh O what sporte would such an argumente make among the Sophisters in Cambridge and Oxford In which be so many tearmes and neuer a meane so many false propositions so many petitions of principles so much more in the conclusion then was in the premisses finally so many words and so litle to the purpose But I will make answere briefely and plainly The equally of Christ with his father prooueth in deed that he is able to doe whatsoeuer it pleaseth him and to performe whatsoeuer he promiseth But he no where in his Chapter promiseth to giue his reall substantiall flesh to be eaten bodily therefore his almighty power prooueth nothing of that purpose But he promiseth to giue vs the same true flesh which he receiued of his father to be meate tarying vnto eternal life This promise he perfourmeth daiely vnto the electe making his bodye and bloud which was crucified and shedde for vs to be food of euerlasting continuance Yea saith Sander but God gaue him to the world not only in faith and spirite but in trueth of nature and substance therefore Christ will giue vs his reall flesh in substance not in faith and spirite onely A strange argument God gaue Christ to the world in the true nature and substance of fleshe not in spirite and faith only What mean you by this God gaue him not in spirite and faith onely For any thing that I vnderstande of your meaning God gaue him not in faith spirite at all For when you speak of Christs incarnation and of God sending him in the flesh what sense is it to say he sent him in faith or in spirit But God gaue him naturall flesh and God gaue him to the world manifested in the flesh But howe doth the worlde receiue him being giuen in reall and substantiall flesh How did all the Patriarkes Prophetes and elect before the time of his incarnation receiue him who being giuen to the world must needes be giuen to them also Verily no otherwise then in spirite and by faith Euen so Christ promising to giue his flesh and his bloud to be meate drinke vnto vs meaneth not that it should otherwise be receiued then in spirite and by faith either in his supper or in baptisme or without any of the Sacraments And heerevnto the diuine power of Christ serueth to assure our faith that he can giue vs his very naturall and diuine flesh to be receiued spiritually and faithfully to feede and nourish vs vnto life euerlasting assuredly CAP. VIII Seeing Christ is the bread of life to vs by the gift of his flesh the eating of that flesh by our faith and spirite sufficeth not but it selfe also must be really eaten It is marueile why it should not suffice vs to eate hi◠flesh which is the breade of life as all the children of God did eate it before his incarnation and as many thousandes since which haue beene partakers of eternall life and yet neuer were admitted to the Lordes supper But Sander sayeth it is expressely against the worde of God that by the incarnation of Christ wee haue not the breade of life giuen vs by any other way then wee had it before The reason belike is this That the bread of life is nowe first promised by the gift of Christ as who came into the worlde to bring vs this euerlasting meate Marke this Popish diuinitie which restraineth the vertue of Christes incarnation to the instant time in which he tooke flesh and thereby denyeth eternall life to all the Patriarches and Prophets who by his reason neuer tasted of the bread of life He talketh much and to litle or no purpose of the controuersie that the godhead is life properly which that it might be communicated to vs it assumpted flesh and this flesh is made meate for vs but what is the conclusion It is giuen at Christes supper vnder the forme of breade no other meane of giuing will serue Doeth he not by this conclusion exclude all them from eternall life which haue not beene admitted to the Sacrament and yet like a folish hypocrite he cryeth out of our crueltie which depriuing men of the true flesh of Christ depriue them of the godhead and of eternall life Whereas he slandereth vs altogether
and not the verie image of things applying the shadowe to the Lawe the image to the gospel and the things themselues to the life to come In which application he seeth not howe he graunteth to the Gospel but an image of things and not the thinges themselues and thereby in deede denieth the verie flesh of Christ to be giuen vs but an image thereof For his glosse will not stande with the Apostles wordes that we haue the verie flesh of Christ vnder the image o◠forme of bread the Apostle saying we haue the image of things which image if it be none other but the accidents of breade wee haue no great prerogatiue aboue the Law In deede the Apostle meaneth that the same things which were but rudely shadowed as it wer with a cole to the fathers in the Law are in a liuely image described and set forth vnto vs in the Gospel For the Gospel hath not those good thinges which are to come but possesseth them by faith Therefore how foolish is that conclusion of Sander vppon this text Christ gaue vs his real flesh vnder the forme of breade or else he gaue not the thing it selfe and if hee gaue it without figure out state were not an image of the things themselues Wheras the Apostle speaketh not of these things which are giuen but of the clearenes of the doctrine of those things which are promised and therefore he calleth them good things to come and Christ an high Priest of good things to come As madde yea and more frantike is that conclusion that Christ cannot be a mediator betweene the two Testaments except he gaue his flesh vnder the forme and figure of breade By which drunken conclusion it should follow that Christs mediation depended vpon the institution of the Sacrament which the Apostle in expresse words doth affirme to haue bene made complet in his death which was effectuall vnto all ages alike Heb. 9. Also that Christ in Baptisme hath not shewed himselfe to be a mediator greater then Moses because he hath not therein giuen vs his naturall flesh which is in heauen And last of all that Christ is not a mediator vnto the fathers that liued before the institution of his supper but onely to them that are partakers of his flesh in the supper Againe as vntrue it is that because Christ came to fulfill the Law therfore it was necessarie that he should giue his flesh vnder a figure which flesh was not giuen to them that liued vnder the Lawe as though there were one meane of saluation for them and another for vs. The scripture doth often distinguish the Law and the Gospel shewing what is peculiar to either of them but it neuer affirmeth that the persons liuing in the time of the strength of Moses Lawe were saued otherwise then by the Gospel that is by remission of sinnes through faith in the mercie of God reconciled to vs by Iesus Christ. Therefore it is more then blockish to wrest the distinction of the Testamēts to make a difference of the saluation of the persons Seing the new Testament was not first ordeined as Sander seemeth to say when Christ did institute his supper which hee called the new Testament but euen from the beginning of the world but yet to take effect vertue and strength by the death of Christ of which Testament the supper is a sacrament bearing the name of the thing whereof it is a Sacrament as well when it is called the newe Testament as when it is called the bodie and bloude of Christ. And therefore the example of the precept of not killing expounded by Christ to extend to anger proueth not any newe trueth to be added by the Gospel but the ancient right meaning of the cōmandement deliuered from the glosse of the Pharisees which expounded the precept onely of murthering with the hand For who will say that such anger as Christ forbiddeth was lawfull before the time he made that exposition or that to commit adulterie in heart by lusting after a woman was not sinne before Christ did so interpret that commaundement If it were sinne then it was a breach of the Law if it were a breach of the Lawe it was of the Lawe that was giuen therefore the Lawe was alwayes spirituall and had that true meaning and was so taken of all good men before Christ reprooued the corruption of the Pharisaical glosses That all legall instruction and propheticall figures are transferred into the sacraments of Christ as Leo saith we agre We denie not that which Dionyse saieth although wee may not acknowledge him to haue beene S. Pauls scholler that our holy gouernement partaketh of heauen spirituall contemplation and of the Lawe sensible signes Neither of both these autorities proue the matter in question As for the distinction of gifts whervnto Sand. tumbleth againe in the end of this chapter we make not voyd by our figuratiue doctrine But such distinction as was in deede betweene that which Moses gaue and God gaue we vpholde by our figuratiue doctrine which sheweth y◠right difference betweene the auctor and the minister the signe the thing signified But that distinction betwene the gift which the Father gaue alwayes and that which the sonne promiseth to giue to be diuerse whē Sander cā proue we may be brought to acknowledge it In the meane time that promise of continuance of that gift in the Future temps which Christ hath alwayes giuen is a slender argument to proue the distinction of gifts imagined by Sander Finally in substance of the foode of eternal life as we differ not in the life eternall it selfe we are not preferred before the lewes They did all eat the same spiritual meate c Our prefermente is more cleere sight and vnderstanding euen such difference as is between the knowledge obteined by a description of a bodie shadowed and liuely set foorth in colours which is the shadow and verie image that the Apostle speaketh of Heb. 10. CAP. XI The bread that Christ promiseth to giue which is his flesh must needs be meant of the substance of his flesh There is no doubt but Christ did giue the substance of his flesh which being crucified for vs is made the bread of life and spirituall meate and drinke to be receiued of vs not after any corporall manner of eating but by faith in spirit not onely in the Sacrament of his supper but in baptisme also and without any sacrament But that it must stand for a trueth vniuersally receiued that Christ saying The breade which I will giue is my flesh meant the bread which I wil giue you at my last supper that I say I denie What Sander vaunteth he hath proued thereof in the 5. and 6. chapters of this booke let it bee examined with mine answere But admit he had spoken principally of his supper yet doeth it not followe which Sander doth inferre that he promised to giue his flesh to Iudas because he was one of the
twelue which taryed with him at Capernaum for his promise in offer was as large to all that departed and to the world for the life whereof he promised to giue his flesh therefore it cannot be concluded that it was not onely a spirituall gift that was promised but an externall gift deliuered by hand which Iudas might receiue For Christ promiseth such a gift as if it be receiued worketh eternall life in the receiuers Finally it cannot be prooued that Iudas was prseÌ„t at the supper who departed about his treason before the institution of the sacrament as appeareth by saint Iohn immediatly after the soppe receiued wherevnto some of the ancient writers also do consent Furthermore that the gift of Christ doth differ from the gift of his father in person and time and therfore cannot be giuen by faith only it is no good consequent For God gaue his sonne for the worlde and Christ gaue himselfe for vs yet but one gift The difference of time I haue often answered As for the obiection that he faineth the Sacramentaries must say that that flesh heere staÌ„deth for the signe or figure of his flesh is of his owne making for as I said before we vnderstand the flesh of Christ giuen for the life of the world his naturall body crucified for vs and not the sacrament of his body giuen in his last supper CAP. XII A further declaration of the reall presence of Christes body and bloud taken out of the discourse of his owne wordes concerning the different eating of him by faith and the receiuing of his flesh and bloud in the Sacrament of the Altar First he repeteth his three gifts God gaue by Moses naked figures as Manna God giueth presently the flesh of Christ to our eyes and heartes and Christ will giue hereafter the same flesh vnder the forme of breade Of these giftes he maketh three diuerse workes the first by teeth and belly the seconde by faith and spirite and the thirde by both The gift of Christ differing from Manna is expressed in the Chapter But any difference of the gift of the father and of the sonne there is not expressed nor to be gathered by any note of distinction or dissentanie argument Yet Sander hath founde out a great number of differences to prooue that although the Father and the Sonne giue one thing that is the flesh of Christ yet not one way to be receiued the Father giueth it to bee receiued by faith onely the Sonne to be receiued corporally The first difference is of the time The Father doeth giue in the Present tense the Sonne will giue in the Future tense This I haue often answered to be no differeÌ„te for Christ saith in the preseÌ„t temps except ye do eat the flesh c. ergo he did presently giue it Againe he that doth eat often is ofteÌ„ times repeted in the present time and my flesh is meate in deede all which prooue that Christs gift was present when he spake to be receiued therefore it differeth not from the Fathers gift and way of receiuing the same The second difference the Father giueth Christ in the forme of man by the manner of the Fathers gift the faithfull may see that sonne of Man vpon whom they beleeue as it is saide This is the will of my Father which sent me that euery one who seeth the Sonne and beleeueth in him may haue euerlasting life And againe yee haue seene me and haue not beleeued Of the Sonnes gift it is not saide that his flesh shal be seene but rather insinuated that it shal be vnder the couering of another kinde of foode I answere that Christ in neither of both these sayings speaketh of the corporall sight of his body But in the one which is first placed in S. Iohn Yee 〈◊〉 au seene me and not beleeued he exprobrateth to the Iewes their wilfull blindnesse which had acknowledged him before to be the Messias when he fed their bellyes now refuse to beleeue him when hee offereth to feede their soules In the other place he sheweth that obedieÌ„ce of faith ioyned to a manifest acknowledging of Christ by the wil of God is the way to eternal life For if seing should be taken for bodily seeing of Christes flesh it could not extende to vs which cannot bodilie behold him Againe this difference ouerthroweth Sanders supposed way of the fathers giuing which is by faith and spirit onely not sensibly to the eye of the bodie Last of all it is a weake argument it is not saide in this or that text ergo it is not meant or it is not true at all The 3. difference The Fathers gifte is called the true bread from heauen The Sonnes gift is called not onely true breade but also truely breade and meate in deede Some true meate may chaunce not to bee truely meat becâ—â—se it is not eaten but nothing is meate in deede and truelye meate except it bee in deede eaten If this difference bee woorth a strawe then your consecrated hostes bee not the Sonnes gift before they bee eaten and except they bee eaten as some time yee woâ—â— well they are burned they bee not his gifte at all if not his gift then not flesh and bloude The difference of a true Vine and a Vine truelie is sufficiently discussed in the later ende of the fourth booke answered by master Nowel Sander cannot or will not consider the difference of the opposition betweene truely and falsely and truely and properly The fourth difference The Iewes and disciples went not away from Christe for any thing that was spoken about the Fathers gifte thinking that a gifte of eating by faith might stande with the custome of Gods people but in the Sonnes gift they sawe more apparant absurdity not lacking vnderstanding but faith and therefore departed I answere they lacked vnderstanding as much as faith and therefore Augustinâ— saith Sed qui aderant plures non intelligendo sâ—andaliazti sunt non erum cogitabant haec audiendo nisi carnem quod ipsi erant But manie of them that were present were offended for lacke of vnderstanding For heating these thinges they thought on nothing but fleshe which they themselues were It is a simple difference that is gathered of the Iewes ignorance and incredulitie The 5. difference The gift of the father is called by such names only as belong to the persoÌ„ of Christ or to his diuine nature to say the bread of life the liuely bread the true bread for God onely is absolutelie the true bread of life or by the Pronoune I The gift of Christ is called also by the names of his humane nature to wit the flesh and bloud of the sonne of men If this differeÌ„ce proue any thing it prooueth not the diuerse wayes of giuing the same thing but that the same thing is not giuen by the Father and the Sonne Where as Sander saide before that the Father giueth Christ in humane nature to the worlde If the humane
nature of Christ bee giuen of the father the names thereof may well agree to the Fathers gift The 6 difference That Christ endeth his talke of eche gifâ— with repeting the old figure Manna betokening by both the shadowe of Manna to be fulfilled But Manna was more perfectly fulfilled in outward doings by the sonnes gift This is an agreement rather then a difference except in the last illation which is a meere begging of the matter in question But there is a great difference in that it is said of the one If any man eate ex hoc pane of this breade in the other he that eateth hunc panem this breade and heere is made a great difference betweene eating of Christ and eating Christ himselfe the one is onely by faith the other in the Sacrament of the Altar the one is to bee partaker of the vertue and grace of Christ the other to receiue the substance of Christ. c. But our sauiour Christ in S. Iohn confoundeth this difference vsing the Accusatiue case and the Ablatiue with the preposition for all one I am the liuing bread which came downe from heauen if any man shall eate of this bread he shall liue for euer Here is the Ablatiue with a preposition but what is this bread of which he that eateth shal liue he answereth The bread which I wil giue is my flesh whereof he saith afterward Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c where he vseth the Accusatiue by which it is plaine that with Christ to eat this breade to eat of this bread is all one Saint Paul also ouerthroweth this difference shewing that the Israelites did drink of the spiritual Rock which was Christ vnworthily where as none can receiue the effect of Christes death vnworthily So he saith wee are al partakers of one bread But Sand not satisfied asketh if this be the end of our long disputatioÌ„ that Christ came into the world to giue a lesse token then God had giuen before vnder Moses c as though Christ came into the world for no end but to giue the sacrament As for so many differences as he dreameth of his fathers gift and his we finde not any one but that they may all agree in one gift which was not his supper but himselfe to death for the life of the world wherof euery one of his elect is made partaker as of spiritual foode by faith his holy spirit But this difference is learned saith he out of Chrysostome vpon Iohn Ho. 45. c. where he noteth first the diuersitie of persons saying Se non patrem that he not his father dare to giue saith Sander but he falsifieth Chrysostome which saith dedisse to haue giuen which proueth that it is not giuen onely in the Sacrament which then was not instituted 2 That hee saith Hom. 44. that Christ speaketh first of his diuinitie and about the ende of his bodie prooueth not that he speaketh onely of the Sacrament For Hom. 45. he saith plainely as Sander confesseth that the bread signifieth either the doctrine of Christ and saluation and faith in him or else his body Wherin hee dissenteth altogether from Sanders interpretation who will not haue the bodie of Christ promised before flesh be named But Chrysostome saith vpon these wordes my flesh is meat in deed c. that he so saide to the end they should not thinke him to speake in parables but by fleshe to meane the signe of flesh or by eating to meane be leeuing is to speake in parables I answere that wee say neither of both but that Christ is verily eaten by faith and by the spirite of God yet Sander omitteth the other cause which Chrysostome rendreth of his so saying Aâ—â— quòd is est verus cibus c. either that hee is the true meate which saueth the soule or else c. But he saueth not the soule onely by eating the Sacrament therefore this meate is not eaten onely in the sacrament Finally that which is noted out of Hom. 83. in Matth. that Christ is ioyned vnto vs not by faith and loue onely but in verie deede Wee confesse but so is hee ioyned to infants that neuer receiued the supper and so was hee ioyned to all the faithfull before his incarnation in as much as they all were members of his bodie And so confesseth Chrysostome in Ioan. Homil. 46. that Abraham by eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ shall bee partaker of the resurrection and therefore Christ saide He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life eternall and I will raise him vp in the last day The testimonies of Theophilact and Euthynius which are but late writers in comparison I will not stande vpon CAP. XIII The like precept made to men of lawfull age for eating Chrisâ—â— flesh as was made generally for baptisme sheweth his flesh to be as really present in his supper as water is in baptisme Neither the one precept of regeneration is principally of baptisme neither the other of the Lordes supper And the necessitie of eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ is not â—aide onely vpon men of lawfull age because they were of lawfull age to whome Christe spake any more then the necessitie of regeneration vppon all men seeing Nicodemus to whome Christe saide Except a man be borne c. was of lawful age For spiritual food which is nothing else but the body bloud of Christ is as necessarie for al ages as for perfect age But that the flesh of Christ is as necessarie in the supper to feede vs as water in Baptisme to wash vs it is a froward and foolish comparisoÌ„ for water washeth not our soules nor regenerateth vs but the holy ghost whereof water is a signe so the flesh of Christ is as necessarie in the supper to feede vs as the holy ghost to wash vs and regenerate vs which seeing it doth without transubstantiation of the water into the spirite likewise doth the flesh and bloud of Christ nourish vs without transubstantiation of the outward signes into them The right Analogie is betweene water and breade and wine and betweene the spirite of God and the flesh and bloud of Christ not betweene outward water spirituall flesh of Christ which is as preposterous a comparison is if you would compare the holy ghost in baptisme with the breade and wine in the sacrament But of the error of Cyprian Innocentius and Augustine he will prooue the necessitie of the presence of Christs flesh in the supper because they gaue the communion to infantes that coulde not receiue it with faith vnderstanding therfore they thought the very body blod of Christ to be really coÌ„tained in the sacrameÌ„t I answere it was not because they thought so but because they thought the one sacrament as necessarie as the other which might and may in deede be ministred to infants that haue not faith nor vnderstanding actually Therfore that
they ministred the communioÌ„ to infants it shewed their error proceeding of ignorance as all error doth but it sheweth not that they thought the one sacrament to be other wise then the other a seale or assurance of iustification wtout any dreame of transubstantiatioÌ„ That Sand would excuse their custom to haue bin vsed more for a security then for necessitie is to no purpose It is manifest that they thought erroniously that the eternall signe or seale was necessary in both as Aug. Innocent B. of Rome hath defined denying eternall life to infants that dyed without the communion and baptisme as though the grace of God had bene necessarily tyed to the outward elements CAP. XIIII That S. Augustine did not teach thâ—se words Except ye eaâ— the flesh c To betoken the eating of Christonely by faith and spirit nor yet the eating of materiall bread with faithfull remembrance of him but the eating of his flesh to the end we may be the better ioyned to the spirit of God There is no better way to be ioyned to the spirit of god theÌ„ by eating the flesh of Christ spiritually which Aug. doth teach not the carnall manner of eating which Sander doth defend S. Aug. de doct Christ lib. 3. ca 16. as Sander doth confesse affirmeth that this speech of Christ Except yee eat that flesh c containeth a figure And what the meaning of this figure is August telleth vs It is a figure saith he commanding that we should communicate with the passion of our Lord and that we should sweetely and profitably remeÌ„ber that his flesh was crucisied and wounded for vs. But Sander replyeth first against the Lutherans that August calling this speach a figure meaneth not to deny that it appertaineth to the last supper And which of the Lutherans I pray you denyed that it appertaineth to the last supper although they deny that it is singularly spoken of the last supper Secondly he fathereth vpon the Zwinglians an vntruth that they graunt the place to be vnderstoode of Christs last supper to prooue the necessitie of both kinds which is a fable for they graunt none otherwise then I haue often shewed yet a good argument for necessitie of both kinds may be taken out of that place because Christ giueth vs a perfect nourishmeÌ„t of meat and drinke or as Iustine saith of dâ—ie and moyst nourishment vnto which spirituall trueth the externall seale must be made consormable But nowe will Sander teach vs to vnderstande what S. Augustine meaneth by a figuratiue speach which is al one as if he would teach vs to go to supper as it is in the Greeke prouerbe First a siguratiue speach must not denie any word in the speach to be vsed vnproperly but is measured by faith and good manners Whereas Augustine telleth vs that if in any sentence of the scripture the words sound against faith good manners the words must not be taken in their proper sense but they are a figure and signifie some other thing then the words in their proper taking do sound as diuerse examples which he bringeth in the same place beside his plaine wordes do declare This saying hee affirmeth to be a figuratiue speache Thou shalt heape burning coales on his head which he doeth thus interprete Vt intelligas carbones ignis esse vrentes poenitentiae gemitus quibus superbia sanatur eius qui dolet se inimicum fuisse hominis a quo eius miseriae subvenitur That thou mâ—ist vnderstand coales of fire to be the burning groanings of repentance by which his pride is healed which sorroweth that he hath beene enimie of such a man by whome his miserie is helped Beholde euen as coales of fire in this text are not taken in their proper sense for a bodily substance of woodde incensed so is not eating and drinking in the other sentence taken in the proper sense for receiuing at our mouth chawing and swallowing But as Augustine interpreteth for communicating with the flesh of Christ by faith and spirite c. either in the Sacrament or without it And it is a foolish cauil of Sander to say that charitie is not broken when we eate Christ whole vnder the forme of breade without hurting of him c. For Augustine counteth it slagitium an heynous offence to eate the fleshe of man in proper sense of eating that is corporally Yea faith Sander to eate it in peeces as it is solde in tho shambles As though to eate an whole man after that maner were not more monstrous then to eate a piece of him But Sander to shewe his synceritie rehearseth a large place out of Augustine in Psal. 98. which howe cunningly he can wrest for his purpose you shall see Durum illis visum est c. It seemed an hard thing to the Iewes except a man eate my flesh he shall not haue life euerlasting They tooke it foolishly they thought of it carnally and supposed that our Lord minded to cutte of certeine small peeces of his body and to giue them This is an hard talk say they They were harde not the talke For if they were not hard but gentle they would say to them selues He speaketh not this thing rashly but because ther lieth priuie som sacrament being gentle not hard they wold tati with him shal learn of him that thing which after their departure those learned who taried For when the twelue had taried with him the other beeing departed they as who were sory for the others departing warned Christ that they were offended with his word so were departed But Christ instructed them and saied it is the spirite that quickneth the flesh profiteth not the wordes which I haue spoken to you are spirite and life Vnderstand that which I haue spokeÌ„spiritually Ye shal not eate this body which you see wee shall not drinke that bloud which they shall shedde who will crucifie me I haue commended to you a certeine Sacrament which being spiritually vnderstoode shall make you liue And although that Sacrament must needes be visiblye celebrated yet it must be inuisibly vnderstanded Three thinges Sander noteth out of this sayinge First against the Lutherans that Augustine vnderstandeth the precept of eating Christes flesh of the Sacrament I answere that Augustine in other places and namely in his purposed commentary of that place vnderstandeth it not to be singularly spoken of the eating in the Sacrament but otherwise also which is all that wee affirme and denie of referring this place to the Sacrament Secondly he no teth against the Zwinglians that the figuratiue speach which Augustine saieth to be in these wordes is to be meant of the manner of eating in the natural vnderstanding of câ—râ—all men by cutting tearing chawing c. not denying the substance of his flesh whole sound and quicke to be eaten vnder the forme of breade I answere the naturall vnderstanding of carnall men is by eating to receiue in at the mouth that which
is eaten c. wherfore Augustine denieth that also Thirdly he noteth that he calleth it Sacrament which in his booke de doct Christ he called a figure taking the name of a figure for a holy signe of an higher trueth This is a grosle and shameles collection for he calleth the wordes of Christ a figure and a figuratiue and vnproper speache which must not be taken according to the sound of the words Sâ— hoc propri 〈…〉 sonat nulla puteâ—ur figurata locuâ—iâ— If it sound this properly then let it be takeÌ„ for no figuratiue spech By which words you see that a figuratiue spech is an vnproper speach But how can this snake slide away from those wordes of Augustine You shall not eate that body which you see nor drinke that bloud which they shall shedde I commend vnto you a Sacrament Therefore yâ— Sacrament is not his body which then was seen nor his bloud which afterward was shedde But Sander gliding ouer these wordes as though he sawe them not presuming vpon the credulity of Papistes which must beleue that they make nothing against the carnall manner of presence if he say so he passeth to another saying of Augustine in Ioan. Tr. 26. 27. to proue that the error of the lewes was not concerning the substance of the flesh that must be eaten really but concerning the manner of eating of it Because Augustine saith carnem intellexerune quomodo c. They vnderstoode flesh so as it is torne in a carcase or sold in the shambles and not as it is quickned with the spirite of God I answer this was one of their errors but not all For Augustine in Ps. 98. bringeth in Christ denying them his naturall body and bloud ergo they erred in the substance as well as in the manner in Ioan Tr. 24. he saith Illi putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum ille aut em dixit se ascensurum in coelum vtique integrum Cùm videritis fiüum hominis ascendentem vbi erat prius certè vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis errogas corpus suum vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus They thought that he would giue out his body but he said that be would ascende into heauen whole When you shal see the sonne of maÌ„ ascending wher he was before certeinly euen then at lest you shall see that he giueth not out his body after that manner you thinke euen then at lest you shall vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with bitinges In these wordes the argument of his ascension taketh away all corporal presence as wel of Christ whole as broken in peeces secondly the exposition of his grace not consumed with byting sheweth after what manner he vnderstandeth his body to be present namely by spirituall grace not by corporall substance Therefore all Sanders iangling of signes and figures is to no purpose For when he hath prated what he can a signe shall neuer be the thing which it signifieth nor a figure the same thing that it figureth except opposites may agree to one thing at one time and in one respect For to vse his owne foolish example a loafe of bread which a baker setteth out to signifie that bread is there to bee folde although it be of that kinde of breade which it signifieth to be in the house in greater quantity yet it is not that same bread wherof it is the signe No more is the Sacrament that same thing whereof it is a signe and yet an assured testimonie that the thing signified is giuen to our soules and faith as certeinely as the signe to our bodies But because Augustine saith except ye eate my flesh are wordes figuratiue Sander will reason thus as cunningly I warrant you as any collier in Cambridge or Oxford The eating of Christs flesh and drinking of his bloud being reall deades which must be performed in Christes supper and yet being called for good respect figurat 〈…〉 e wordes must needes be figures of somwhat and the deedes and wordes being referred to the supper must needs betoken somwhat as they are considered But the eating of the flesh in Christs supper can betoken nothing at all except his flesh be there eaten the eating whereof maie be the grounde of this betokening Therefore these wordes import of necessitie that in Christes supper the flesh of Christ is really eaten and his blood is really drâ—nken For the fleshe of Christ can not be made the figure of bakerâ— bread c. O what whistling and hissing would be in the Sophisters schooles if such an argument came among them which reasoneth ioyntly of things to be deuided Augustine saith the words are figuratiue not the deeds of eating drinking which are signified by the words Except ye eate c. The wordes I saye of eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ are figuratiue betokening another thing then they sound in common and proper vnderstanding and what they signifie he sheweth the communication with the passion of Christ and profitable remembrance of his death which as they are represented in the supper so may we eate and drinke his flesh and bloud without the Sacrament by faith and working of Gods spirite But saith Sander if the eating of Christes flesh be not the figure the wordes Except ye eate my flesh be not figuratiue Se you not howe this fonde Sophister confoundeth the distinction which he him selfe before had made of figuratiue speeches and figures of thinges themselues betweene rhetoricall figures and sacramentall figures I say the spirituall eating which is the communication with his passion c. is not a figure but that which is vnderstoode by those figuratiue wordes except ye eate the flesh c. And although there may be a reall eating to warne vs of spirituall eating yet that spirituall eating which Saint Augustine calleth communicating with the passion of Christ c. may be without the Sacrament and so is Augustine discharged of Sanders Sophistry But now he will discouer the errors of the Sacramentaries in expounding these wordes the first is that they make the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue onely passiuely whereas they are also figuratiue actiuely But how I pray you are the wordes figuratiue actiuely He answereth the actuall eating of Christes flesh is not onely said to be figured but also is taught to be a figure it selfe of another spirituall eating If Sander were as ignorant as his argumentes are absurd he were the most notable Asse that euer wrote in diuinity but I impute it not to ignorance but to malicious deceitfullnes that he confoundeth wordes and deedes and reasoneth thus the wordes be figuratiue actiuely because the deede is figuratiue actiuely which is such a monster as Sophistry neuer bredde a greater And what proofe haue you of this actuall eating of Christes flesh to be a figure actiuely of spirituall eating Nothing but a mangled place of Ambrose 〈◊〉 1.
he meaneth not a litle of the bodie of Christ nor the bodie of Christ in a litle quantitie but a litle of the consecrated bread and wine which by diuine and spirituall operation is of infinite vertue to conuert vs into an heauenly and spirituall nature aunswerable to our regeneration which is testified vnto vs in baptisme But Sander replyeth that if the Sacrament were wheaten bread it could not be true that a litle therof should drawe the whole man vnto it I answere if it were nothing but wheaten bread it could do no such thing but Cyril calleth it by the name of that which it is more principally as it is a Sacrament that is a blessing which draweth the whole man to it and filleth him with grace Eâ— hoâ— modo in nobis Christus manet nos in Christo and by this meane doeth Christ dwell in vs and wee in him To the terme of tarying naturally vsed by Hilarie I haue answered before Theophylact I force not of as beeing a late writter although he say nothing in effect more thaÌ„ Chrysostom and Cyrill But Sander still vrgeth what ioyning as of waxe leauen what mingling can bee made of things so far distant as heauen earth If you say by faith spirite either you giue a cause of ioyning saith Sander which may stande with the cause alleaged by Christ or else you correct his cause and put a better I answere we neither ad to nor correct the cause of ioyning alledged by Christ but expresse the verie same which he doth The wordes which I speake are spirite life but there be some among you that beleeue not Nay sayth Sander our tarying in Christ is assigned to eating and not onely to beleeuing But we replie that this eating is not corporall eating but eating by faith spirite which may be without eating the Sacrament and yet eating the fleshe of Christ not leauing the eating thereof as Sander saith and staying vppon feeding by faith alone which is an absurde saying for by faith wee feede vpon Christ through the vertue of his holy spirite CAP. XVII We are made one with Christ by naturall participation of his flesh as he being one nature with his father hath assumpted our nature into his owne person Sander alwaies reasoneth so as he maketh eating by faith and spirite to exclude the fleshe of Christ and the vertue thereof as in this chapter he saith Hee that eateth Christs fleshe receiueth life of him not by the meanes of faith spirite onely but also by naturall participation of his flesh as Christ liueth for the father so he that eateth Christ shall liue for him but Christ liueth not for his father in faith nor by meane of spirite alone as we take spirite for deuotion or spirituall giftes and qualities but by his whole substance present in him But wheÌ„ wee say that wee eate Christ by faith spirit we meane not by spirite deuotion or spirituall gifts but the working of the holy spirite as the principall efficient cause and faith as the instrumentall cause by which wee eate Christ present in whole substance The controuersie is not whether wee must bee ioyned to Christ by eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud for that wee beleue without al controuersie that from the beginning of the world to the end none can be ioyned to Christ otherwise then by eating his flesh drinking his bloud but whether Christes flesh can be eaten and drunken without eating bodily the Sacrament that is the question And therfore Sander maketh a large needlesse discourse in this Chapter to shew how Christ liueth for his father and how we must liue for him that is by participation of his flesh and bloud which is that naturall participation whereof Hilary speaketh against the Arrians which saied we are ioyned to him onely in vnity of will which is not so for he by his incarnation is naturally ioyned to vs and we by participation of his flesh are naturally ioyned to him so that wee are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone of which coniunction the Sacrament is an heauenly pledge and assurance But now commeth Sander and saith that in foure pointes the Sacramentaries be against S. Hilary first bâ—couse they prâ—suppose Christes flesh not to be eaten of vs and consequently not to be in vs in his owne nature and substance This is a false supposell for we affirme Christes flesh to be eaten of al the elect of God and whole Christ to be in them Secondly they are against the Godhead of Christ if we doe not liue by eating of Christs flesh as he by the father This is the 2. slanderous cauell answered before Thirdly they are against the life of our bodyes because they say that in the Sacrament we eate nothing into our bodies but bread and wine which are not able to giue life to our bodies whereby they may liue for euer This is a peeuish Sophistry we eate into our bodies and we eate in the Sacrament bodilye nothing but bread and wine therefore we eat not at all Yes we eat the flesh of Christ both in the Sacrament and without it with our soules which is of force to giue life both to bodies and soules Fourthly they are against the foode of our bodies which is the flesh of Christ. No forsooth wee acknowledge that flesh of Christ to be foode to feede the whole man body and soule vnto eternall life but yet so to feede the body as it is not receiued corporally nor feedeth corporally but after a spirituall and diuine manner And heere he maketh the Zwinglians to affirme that the sanctified bread in the supper is the foode of our bodies vnto eternall life as water in baptisme is the instrument and meane as wel to bodies soules of euerlasting life Which is vtterly false for they affirme neither the bread to be food nor the water to be regeneration otherwise then as holy signes seales pledges assurances of spirituall feeding and regeneration But Sander by scripture will destroy this comparison affirming that God in deede may vse what meanes he will to saue vs but by his word he hath testified his wil that baptisme hath his promise of saluatioÌ„ annexed to it but no promise is made to material bread and wine nor to him that eateth and drinketh them I answere neither is any promise made to the water in baptisme but to him that receiueth it worthily and to him that eateth and drinketh materiall bread and wine in the Sacrament the like promise is made of remission of sinnes and of eternall life not in respect of the bread wine but in respect of him that feedeth our faith by that Sacrament and by faith and working of his holye spirite feedeth vs with his flesh and bloud euen when that Sacrament is not receiued But Cyril saith in Ioan lib. 10 Cap. 13. Non poterat c. This corruptible nature of the body could not
otherwise be brought to incorruption and life vnlesse the body of the naturall life were ioyned vnto it This is true but the manner of the coniunction is all the matter we stand vpoÌ„ which we affirme must be such as may ioyne euery body of Gods elect that hath bene shall be to the body of the naturall life which cannot be the SacrameÌ„tal coniunctioÌ„ or corporal receiuing of Christs naturall body into our bodies which was denied to al the fathers before Christes incarnation And yet except euery one of their bodies had bene ioyned to the body of Christ which is the body of naturall life they could not be partakers of incorruptioÌ„ life as Cyril saith Therefore the manner of our coniunction is not the receiuing of Christes body in at our mouthes but an heauenlie diuine manner wrought by the spirit of God apprehended by faith in all that haue heard the word of God â—â—d are partakers of it CAP. XVIII The eating of Christes flesh was so true that it was 〈…〉 ght with the losse of many disciples If Christ had not meant to giue his flesh in deed saith Sander he would not haue cast a stumbling blocke in his disciples way nor hindered their faith by wordes more hard then needed I answere he ment to giue them his flesh in deede to be eaten not only in his supper but euen then presently if they had bene faithfull to haue receiued it And therefore he saith to them he that eateth me shall liue for me or by me my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede Sander must remember what he hath taught vs before that Christes fleshe cannot bee meate in deede except it bee eaten but Christ saith it is meat in deede before it was to be eaten in the Sacrament therefore it was presently eaten by faith and spirite and he speaketh not there of Sacramentall eating onely Neither doth Cyrill say that only in the Sacrament Christes flesh is eaten although he shew that Christ instructed his Apostles when he gaue them fragmenta panis pecces of bread how his flesh might be eaten in Ioan lib. 4. Cap. 14. namely spiritually and not corporally CAP. XIX The right vnderstanding of these wordes It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing Basil Chrysostome and Augustine saith Sander expounde the name flesh for carnall and fleshlye vnderstanding of the Iewes which Caluine of Luciferian pride reprocueth And yet Augustine and Cy 〈…〉 l doe chiefely followe another vnderstanding which also Cal 〈…〉 e followeth that Christes flesh should not profit any thing but that by the spirite of his Godhead it is made able to giue euerlasting life See the ranâ—or of Sander which condemneth Caluine of diuellish pride for refusing one interpretation of some fathers taking the exposition of others and that which one of the same fathers doth cheefely followe as Sander doth confesse But now saith he what neede more adoe If this saying apperteine not to the last supper it maketh nothing against our beleefe If it doe apperteine they are wordes propheticall fulfilled in the supper I haue often shewed how all this doctrine of eating the flesh of Christ perteineth to the supper and howe it perteineth not And this I prooue out of this saying against your Popish opinion wherein you holde that wicked men eate Christes flesh Our sauiour Christe shewing whence his fleshe hath power to giue life namely not of it selfe but of the spirite doth also shewe the necessary effect of his spirit which is neuer separated from his flesh The spirit saith he quickneth or giueth life seeing therefore that no man can receiue the fleshe of Christe separated from his spirite no man can receiue his flesh but he that receiueth it quickning or giuing life But where Sander saith that when Christ gaue his body he gaue it after a spirituall sorte and noâ— after a fleshly manner It might seeme that he fully agreed with vs in minde as he doth in wordes but when he coÌ„meth to expounde spiritually and fleshly he declareth that he meaneth not to exclude all fleshly manners but only one maner of eating his body by pieces as though the eating of it whole according to their imagination into their bodies were not also a fleshly manner but when he coÌ„meth to spirituall sort he expoundeth it only by inuisible sort as though he which giueth a piece of golde closed in a paper so that it could not be seene did giue it after a spirituall manner As for the conuersion of bread and wine into his body and bloud his presence at the table and in their mouthes and in heauen c. shew not a spirituall manner of giuing his body but a monstrous alteration of bodily thinges which are affirmed to be so really and corporally and yet contrary to the nature of all thinges and bodies spoken of I omitt his ridiculous interpretations of Ieremies saying Let vs put wood into his bread which he applyeth to the crucifying of Christs flesh where yet wodde was not put into his flesh but his flesh put vpon wodde But the Prophet rehearseth the saying of his aduersaries which threatened to giue him wood in steede of bread that is to famish him in the stockes Likewise of Abacuks saying Hornes are in his hands which he meanein of the almightie power of God often called figuratiue hornes Sander referreth it to the corners of the crosse which yet were not in the hands of Christ but his hands stretched out toward them CAP. XX. The words of Christ being spirite and life shewe that his 〈◊〉 flesh is made present in his last supper aboue all course of 〈…〉 reason Sander as his manner is can rest in no certeine 〈…〉 sition but wil haue euery interpretation to 〈…〉 sense of the place if it affirme any thing that 〈…〉 first because the flesh of Christ is vnprofitable 〈…〉 the spirite which giueth it power of quickening 〈…〉 haue this saying all one in effecte with the wo 〈…〉 ing before it is the spirite that quickeneth 〈…〉 vpon occasion of a phraâ—e vsed by Cyrillus 〈◊〉 〈…〉 wordes are of the spirite he wil haue the meaning to â—e that the wordes of Christ haue in them some of his spirite diuine power therfore the naming of flesh bloud before was not figuratiue but proper I graunt the conclusion but I denie the argument for he vttered other words before which weâ— figuratiue vnproper as I am the bread that came c. yet were these wordes spirite life and so are all the words of the Gospel that is giue hâ—â— if they be spiritually vnderstood I say not alwayes figuratiuely but always beleued to be true in that sense they are vttered ment by him whether they be figuratiue or proper as concerning the prhase Thirdly the wordes of Christ are spirite and life because they make the spiritual bodie of Christ which is a spirituall food as
Ambrose sayth de ijs qui myster init Cap. 9. Ambrose saith truely that for asmuch as the bodie of Christ is a spiritual bodie it is not a corporal food but a spiritual food Why is it not a corporall food seeing it feedeth our bodies as well as our soules Verily because it is not receiued corporally but spiritually which is the difference in which we stande Wee agreefully with Augustine in Ioan. Tra. 27. The words of Christ are to be vnderstanded spiritually so are spirite life to vs as they be of their owne nature howsoeuer vnfaithful persons esteem of them they worke whatsoeuer it pleaseth him to signifie to be wrought by them as Basil teacheth de Bap. lib. 1. Cap. 2. We beleeue as Chrysostom teacheth Hom. 47. in Ioan. That they conteine no naturall course but are free from all earthly necessitie And therefore when Christ promiseth to giue vs his flesh to be eaten deliuereth the breade calling it his bodie we beleeue his words to be spirite and life that is not to conteine any naturall course but to be free from all earthly necessitie that is we beleeue vnfainedly to be fed with Christes bodie and bloud although we do not eate drinke it corporally with our mouth which is a naturall course of eating we beleeue that by the flesh bloud of Christ both our bodies soules are nourished wonderfully vnto eternall life not thinking it necessarie that the flesh and bloud of Christ should carnally enter into our bodies as the Papistes teache for that is an earthlie necessitie from which the words of Christ are free yet the onlie thing that Sander vrgeth so vehemently without the which he thinketh it impossible to communicate with the fleshe and bloud of Christ. But Sander coÌ„mandeth al heretikes to cease to mocke them for making so many myracles in the Sacrament of the altar because the wordes of Christ This is my body are spirite and life Nay verily this argument will stirre vp all men to mocke the Papistes more then they did before seeing they thinke it lawfull to faine what miracles they will in the Sacrament because Christes words be spirite trueth yet more to laugh at Saâ—ders reason which will prooue these wordes to be most proper least figuratiue because they partake most of the godhead in which there is no change wheras figures or tropes come of the Greeke worde which signifieth changing Notwithstanding this great clerk oftentimes before hath taught vs that whatsoeuer is spoken of bread and meat and eating in Iohn 6. Chapter vntill he come to this saying And the bread which I wil giue is my flesh doth pertaine to the godhead of Christ and the participation therof by faith in which wordes he cannot denie but bread meat eate hunger thirst c. must bee taken figuratiuely But what drunkennesse is it to reason of these words only This is my body when all the wordes of Christ as well figuratiue speeches as proper be spirite and life as well as these Yet now now we shall see a whole world of difference betweene the wordes of the Gospel the interpretation of false gospellers betwen the old fathers the new brethren For Christ saith he was by his incarnation made the bread of life to the end we might eate his godhead otherwise then the fathers had done before The newe brethren bid vs feede vpon him by faith alone as Noe Abraham did I trust it shal be sufficient to proue those new brethren to be the right children heires of those olde fathers when they haue all one matter of saluation the flesh and bloud of Christ all one instrument of eating faith alone And why should the new brethren eate the godhead or manhood of Christ otherwise in substance then the olde fathers did But Sander asketh where is the word of God so giuen me after his incarnation as it could not be giuen before And I aske Sander wherfore it should bee giuen nowe otherwise then it was before and why it could not be giuen before so as it is giuen now but that he will binde the worde of God to a naturall course not suffer his working to be free from earthly necessitie He demandeth further where is any euerlasting meat for his bodie I demaund likewise wher was any euerlasting meat for the bodie of Noe Abraham our fathers But Sander saith his flesh is rebellious to his spirite and hath neede to be fedde his bodie was the meane to poyson his soule therefore his soule must haue a medicine which shall be receiued into his bodie I answere the flesh of our olde fathers Noah and Abraham was rebellious to the spirite had neede to be fed were a meane to poyson the soule c yet needed they not that the flesh of Christ should be receiued into their bodies that it might bee a medicine vnto their soules no more is it needful for the newe brethren that are their children But let vs see the other differences Irenaeus reprooued them that denyed the resurrection of mens bodyes because Godly men in scripture are called spirituall the newe brethren wrest the name of spirite or spirituall bodie to denie the real substance of flesh in the sacrament Nay they inferre that the maner of the eating must be spiritual in which respect it is called a spirituall bodie and not onely for the power of quickning which it hath of that spirit of Christ. But it is a great mysterie that where S. Paul 1. Tim. 3. woulde haue Deacons to be chosen of such men as haue the mysterie of faith in a pure conscience Sander thinketh hee meaneth the Sacrament which in their masse at the consecration of the bloud is called mysterium sidei in Iustinus time was deliuered by the Deacons O blockish imagination such be the arguments of poperie But if it be so why is not the breade so called in your Masse as well as the cuppe And if there bee a speciall reason why the cuppe shoulde rather bee so called what conscience haue your Priests and Deacons to spoile the people therof and not to deliuer it as the Deacons did in the time of Iustinus The other differences that without order he heapeth and repeteth come al to this end that we deny the flesh of Christ any way to be profitable that we affirme that spirit to quicken vs wtout eating of Christ in his supper we wrest to the spirit of man that which Christ saith of the spirit of god al which is false slaÌ„derous for as I haue ofteÌ„ shewed We beleue it to be of necessity that we shold eat drink the flesh blod of Christ which by vertue of his spirit hath power to giue eternal life to al them that receiue it we acknowledge all the words of Christ to be spirit and lâ—â—e so as no mortall mans words can be neither did we euâ—â— say that flesh and bloude signifieth bread and wine
and the same breade and wine must againe signifie the flesh and bloud of Christ although wee say that bread and wine in the sacrament are a seale and confirmation of that doctrine which Christe teacheth in this Chapter concerning the eating and drinking of his very true and naturall flesh and bloud which hath power to seede vnto eternall life them that eat and drinke it spiritually as there is none other way of eating and drinking thereof but by faith through the almightie working of Gods holy spirite The fourth Booke The preface of the fourth Book declareth that he purposeth in the same to shew that the words of the institution of the supper are proper and not figuratiue and so haue beene taken aboue 1500. And that they are proper he wili prooue by circumstances of the supper by conference of scriptures out of the olde and newe Testament by the commandement giuen to the Apostles to continue the sacrament vntil the second comming of Christ. Last of all he craueth pardon if he chaunce to say somewhat that was touched before affirming that his purporse is not so to doe although by affinitie of the argument desire to haue the thing remembred or by his owne forgetfulnesse he may be caused to fall into that default CAP. I. That no reason ought to be hearde why the wordes of Christes supper should nowe be expounded vnproperly or figâ—ratiuely And that the Sacramentarics can neuer be sure thereof Christ saith he in his last supper was both a testator and a lawe maker a testator in giuing his bodie and 〈…〉 oude and a lawemaker in commanding his Apostels 〈…〉 d their successours to continue the making of this 〈…〉 acrament This testament and law was soone after writ 〈…〉 n and published At which time and euer since the Church hath taken these wordes This is my bodie not 〈…〉 guratiuely but properly This last saying is vtterly 〈…〉 alse neither can it bee prooued by Ambrose Chryso 〈…〉 tome Augustine Theodoret whom hee nameth or any before or after their time for 600 yeares that euer the visible Sacrament was adored as the very bodie of Christ. If he haue any thing to shewe we shall haue it hereafter But it is a follie he saith vpon allegation of a thing so farre beyonde the memorie of man as the primitiue Church is to leaue the custome of the present Church which Christ no lesse redeemed gouerneth and loueth then he did the faithfull of the first sixe hundreth yeares I answere shortly that is not the Church of Christ but of antichrist which of late yeares hath taught the worshiping of the sacrament as God and man And whereas Sander replieth that then we shall haue no quietnes or end of controuersies if heretikes may appeale to the primitiue Church as the Trinitaries in Poolande and the Circumciders in Lithuania for these appeale to the primitiue Church and denie writings of Fathers and scriptures as the Protestant I answere the Protestants receiue all the canonicall scriptures by which all heresie may be condemned the autoritie or practise of the primitiue Church they alledge but as a witnesse of trueth which is sufficient prooued out of the worde of God Whereas he saith there was but one vniuersall chaunge to bee looked for in religion which was to be made by Christ I affirme the trueth of Christs religion to be vnchangeable but there was an vniuersall chaunge to be looked for from Christes religion to Antichrist which saint Paul calleth an Apostasie saint Iohn in the Reuelation the cuppe of fornication whereof all nations should drinke c. Yet was not this chaunge so vniuersal but that the seruants of God though in small number and credit with the world were preserued out of that generall apostasie and called out of Babylon as wee see it nowe come to passe by the preaching of the eternall Gospel then also foreshewed Apocal. 14. 17. 18. c. Another reason why we shoulde giue none eare to them that say the words are figuratiue is for that then wee shoulde doubt of our former faith and in doubting become men that lacke faith And why should you not onely doubt but refuse a false opinion beleeued contrarie to the worde of God But wee must tell Sander whether hee that gaue eare first to Berengarius and Zwinglius may giue eare to an other that shoulde say the Apostels had no authoritie to write holie Scriptures No forsooth for hee that gaue eare to Berengarius and Zwinglius did heare them because they brought the authoritie of scriptures which is the onely certaine rule of truth against which no question or doubt may be mooued As for the opinion of carnall presence if it had beene as generally receiued before Berengarius as Sander falsely affirmeth yet it was lawfull to bring it to the triall of holy Scriptures as we doe all the articles of our faith which are true not so much because they are generally receiued as for that they are manifestly approued by the authoritie of the holy scriptures But Sander will yet enter farther into the bowels of the cause before he heare what reasons caÌ„ be brought against the popish faith he saith the Sacramentaries cannot possiblie haue any grounde of their doctrine that the wordes of Christ in the supper are figuratiue either in respect of the worde written or the faith of all Christians or the glorie of God or the loue of Christ toward vs or the profite of his Church Yes verilie all these fiue respects moue vs to take the wordes of Christ at his supper to be figuratiue And First the word written by saint Luke and saint Paul This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloude which wordes being manifestly figuratiue haue the same sense that the other rehearsed by Saint Matthewe and Saint Marke This is my bloude and that these wordes haue This is my bodie which are vsed by all fower Therefore by the written worde they are all figuratiue and signifie the deliuerie of a Sacrament or seale of the newe couenant established in the death and bloudshedding of the sonne of God Secondly the faith of all Christians for sixe hundred yeares and more after Christe hath beene sufficiently prooued to haue vnderstoode the wordes figuratiuely for a figure signe token pledge of the bodie and bloude of Christe and not for the verie substance contained in formes of breade and wine Insomuch that the verie glosse vppon the Canon Lawe De cons. dist 2. Cap. Hoc est hath these wordes Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly Sacrament which truely representeth the fleshe of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but improperly Whereof it is saide to bee after a peculyar manner but not in trueth of the thing but in
time but at all times there is no question for in all things hee was obedient to his father euen to the most curssed and shamefull death of the Crosse neither was it necessarie that he should make transubstantiation so often as he gaue thankes in worde and deede Neither are those our ancestors which denied the sacrament of Eucharistie or thankesgiuing of whom IgnaÌ„tius spake for wee both receiue it and beleeue it to bee the fleshe and bloud of Christe in such sense as hee meant it and as Ignatius tooke his meaning The twelfth circumstance of breaking First Sander findeth fault with the order of wordes vsed by all the Euangelistes in placing breaking before the wordes of consecration because Saint Paul sayeth the breade which we breake is the communion of the bodie of Christ which is no good argument for Saint Paul thereby sheweth that the bread is not altered from his substance although it be vsed for a Sacrament of our spirituall communication of Christ with vs and of vs one with another 1. Cor. 10. But he will salue the matter by saying the Euangelistes first ioyne all the deeds of Christ together and then expresse his wordes The deeds he saith are taking bread blessing thanksgiuing deliuering mark that here he maketh blessing thaÌ„ks giuing to be only deeds which imediatly before he affirmed to be by saying This is my body But howsoeuer our aduersaries are pleased with all saith he let it go for a truth that Christ did breake and giue after the words of consecration Thus when he hath nothing to prooue it a starke lye must goe for a truth contrary to the order obserued by all the Euangelistes because that order is contrary to Popery and the Popishe custome which first consecrateth and then breaketh But taking it for a truth the breaking of that which appeared bread doth shew Christ to be wholy conteined in euery piece thereof whereas Christ eaten onely by faith is receiued according to the measure of euery mans faith which is more or lesse contrary to the figure of Manna I answer whole Christ is receiued by euery one that receiueth the bread and wine in what quantitie soeuer although Christ bestowe not his graces equally For Christ doeth dwell in our hearts by faith ergo he is wholy present by faith Eph. 3. And this meaneth Hieronyme in the place by Sander cited aduers. Iouin li. 2. after he had spoken of Manna Et not c. And wee also take the bodie of Christe equally There is one sanctification in the mysteries of the master and seruant c. although according to the merites of the recâ—iuers that is made diuers which is one By merites Hierom meaneth not workes but worthines of faith by which the grace of God is effectuall vnto good workes in some more than in other Neither hath Eusebius Emissenus aniething contrarie to this meaning Homil. 5. in Pasch. Hoc corpus c. This bodie when the prieste ministreth is as greate in the small peece as in the whole loafe Of this bread when part is taken euery man hath no lesse then altogether one hath all twaine hath all moe haue all without diminishing These words saith Sander cannot be vnderstanded of materiall bread nor of inward grace neither of which are equally receiued But yet Christ and a seale of this redemption is equally receiued without change of the bread into Christ. For Eusebius speaketh of breade and a whole loaf as Sander himselfe translateth bread is not the name of accidentes neither was there euer heard of a loafe of accidentes of bread nor of breaking of accidentes of bread before the Laterane Councell But what saith Germanus Archb. of Constantinople Post eleuationem c. after the eleuation by by a partition of the diuine lody of is made But truly although he be diuided into partes yet he is acknowledged and found vndiuided vncutt and whole in euery parte of the thinges that are cutt Where he saith the diuine body is parted he meaneth the bread which is called his body for the Greekes to this day doe not acknowledg transubstantiation Although the authoritye of Germanus bee not worth the standing vpon beeing but a late writer of a corrupt time But what speake I of fathers saieth Sander The breade which wee breake is it not the communicating of our Lordes body Because wee being many are one bread one body For so much as wee all partake of the one breade If the breade bee broken saith he how partake wee all of one breade that which is broken is not one in number No sir but it was one in number before it was broken whereof when euery one receiued a parte wee vnderstand that wee all pertaine to one whole But the Corinthians saith he haue more then one loafe broken among them How prooue you that sir the wordes of Paul seeme otherwise and if they had twentie loaues yet was it al one bread in kind wherof the Apostle saide wee all partake of one breade which if it be not materiall breade how is it broken for the body of Christ is not broken And Saint Paul saying wee partake all of one bread which is broken meaneth not that the visible Sacrament is nothing els but many accidentes and no breade at all The thirteenth circumstance of giuing Sander will haue the words of consecration to goe before the deliuerie of the bread contrary to the order of all the Euangelistes for else Christ should not giue a sacrament and he promised to giue his flesh c. I answere he gaue a Sacrament and his flesh at his supper although the Sacrament were not perfect in euerie singular action that belonged to it but in the whole Where he sayeth the meate of Christes supper came from his hands and that it is horrible blasphemie to say it came another way because he onely sayeth it it shall suffice plainly to denie it He gaue bread and wine from his handes but he gaue his flesh and bloud from his eternall spirite which giueth life vnto his fleshe and the working of the holy ghost the thirde person in Trinitie maketh it to be effectuall which God the father by his sonne Iesus Christe giueth vs in his supper Nowe hee alleageth Saint Mathewe Saint Marke Saint Luke and Saint Paul which saye he did giue with his handes and seeing in Saint Iohn he had promised to giue his flesh to be eaten what other perfourmance of his promise is there then this gift by his hande and here he asketh what other Gospell wee can bring forth wherein Christ fulfilled at any time his promise there made and here he craueth pardon to crye out vppon false preachers Ye cruell murtherers of Christian soules where is that meate giuen but at Christes table c Thou false hypocrite and errant traytor murtherer both of Christian bodies and soules we haue no Gospell but the Gospell of Christ written by his Apostles and Euangelists But
thou contrarie to the order of all the foure witnesses which thou namest thou I saye defendest the giuing to be after the saying And whereas they all saye he gaue that hee tooke and hee tooke the substance of breade thou denyest that hee gaue the substance of bread Thirdly where Christ sayeth The bread which hee will giue is his flesh which he wil giue for the life of the world which was on the crosse thou affirmest that hee giueth it only at his supper And last of al wheras he gaue presently which then presently was eaten when he said he that eateth me c. thou restrainest his gift onely to his supper wherin although he gaue that before he promised yet he gaue it not only there nor first there nor there with his hands but with his spirite ioyning with his handes that gaue the externall signes For of giuing by hands onely without his spirit it may be truely said The flesh profiteth nothing Ioh. 6. And therfore the Apostle speaking of the oblation of Christes bodie on the crosse saith he offered himselfe by his eternall spirite Heb. 9. The fourteenth circumstance of saying Wordes are vsed for profite and for necessitie therefore the wordes of God are greatly to be regarded and especially the wordes concerning the sacrament which is an hidden mysterie and therefore hath neede to be declared by wordes but the Sacramentaries looking to Christes deedes as taking bread c. trust not his words saying This is my bodie testified by foure of his disciples Yes master Sander those whome you call Sacramentaries trust them better more certeinly beleeue them to be true in that sense which Christe did speake them than you popish transubstaÌ„tiators do in your popish error which to make your selues godmakers of arrogancie and couetousnes you defend among the ignorant But deedes except they be expounded by words saith he may haue many interpretations And the deedes of the last supper seeme to him to be vndoubted parables which the words expounde and therefore be no parables for meere figuratiue words expound nothing Who is so madd to grant to Sanders seeâ—ings that the deeds of Christ in taking bread blessing thankesgiuing breaking giuing are parables but adâ—itte they were parables why may not meere figuratiue wordes expound parables Christ himselfe expoundeth the parable of the tares Matth. 13. altogether by wordeâ— as meere figuratiue as these of the supper He that soweth good seede is the sonne of man the feeld is yâ— world The good seede are the children of the kingdome the tares are the children of the wicked The enimie is the diuell The haruest is the ende of the worlde The â—â—â—pers are the Angels And yet it is so strange a matter to Sander that a meere figuratiue speech should expound a parable who thinketh and saith that this reason alone ought to persuade any man But he will bring a greater reason the wordes of the supper giue substance to the deedes for no Sacrament can be made without wordes ordeined of God If I should vrge this rule against fiue of your Sacramentes I might easily prooue them to be no Sacraments because they haue not wordes ordeined of God to giue substance of Sacraments to the externall deedes Well the worde of Sacrament saith hee must be common and knowen therefore not figuratiue I haue shewed often before that Circumcision and the Paschall Lambe were instituted by such figuratiue speeches as these wordes This is my body This is my couenant This is the Passeouer baptisme is regeneration c. The fifteenth circumstance of take Christ bad all the twelue take ergo saith he he had Iudas to take that which he called his body which was either bare bread a figure of Christ or his body vnder the formes of bread For an â—ffâ—ctuall signe no man corporally tooke because Iudas rocke that the rest tooke and a bare signe Christ was not sent to giue nâ—r onely spirituall gifts which were giuen to the olde pâ—triarkeâ— who tooke his manhood to leaue vs corporall meanes and 〈◊〉 of grace which might worke vppon our soules c. I haue proued before that Iudas was not present â—t the supper but 〈…〉 bâ—â—n pâ—esâ—â—â— as somtiâ—â— there are as 〈◊〉 as he yet â—othing is gained by t 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Christ gaue bread aâ—◠〈…〉 of his bodie and bloud crucified and shedde for remission of our sinnes And what inconuenience is it if one as ill as Iudas receiue this effectuall signe which hath none effect in him because he reiecteth and contemneth it Is not the Queenes broad â—eale an effectuall signe of her pleasure which a traitour may receiue into his handes contemptuously and breake in pieces maliciously But Augustine sayeth Ep. 162. Our Lorde suffereth Iudas to receiue among the innocent disciples that which the faithfull knowe our price Against Augustine who sayeth he was present I oppose Hilarius which sayeth he was absent in Math. Can 30. Against Sanders exposition of these wordes our price to be nothing else but the bodie of Christ and not onely a Sacrament thereof I oppose Augustine himselfe to expounde his owne meaning who sayeth of the rest of the Apostles and of Iudas Illi manducabunt panem Dominum ille panem Domini contra Dominum In Fuan Ioan. Tract 59. They did eate the breade which was our Lorde he did eate the breade of our Lorde against our Lorde The sixteenth circumstance of eating Christ sayeth eate ye once onely meaning that they should eat bodily that he gaue them and eat it also spiritually This I allowe for vnder the signe of bodily eating â—e willed them to be assured of spirituall participation of his flesh and bloud and all benefites of his passion But this will not satisfie Sander but seeing hee sayth eate ye but once hee would haue them to eate bodily the same substance which they should eate spiritually which is no good argument And therefore hee is shamefully graueled when he saith the verbe eate by this meane standeth not vnproperly for hee can abide no figures because eating belongeth naturally both to the soule the bodie which would make any Philosopher blush to heare but the reason more because the cause of eating principally belongeth to the soule and the meane principally to the body which hath instrumentes to eate for a dead body can not eate nor a soule without a body can eate properly What say you Sander is the soule the principall cause of eating and the body the instrumentall cause By this meanes the soule goeth rideth lieth speaketh leapeth daunceth and all whatsoeuer a dead man can not do Well grant then this speculation what then what other spirituall eating can be meant by this word eate ye then by any other eating for euery man eateth whatsoeuer he eateth by this reason spiritually and bodily Wherefore in spight of your nosâ— if Christ commanded his Apostles to eat spiritually as Christians vse to speake and not according to your
of our spirituall feeding by the body of Christ and therefore as sufficient to testifie our communication with Christ as water in baptisme the cleansing of our soules with his bloud In handling the word of communicating he bringeth in a distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Chrysostom which is vaine and to no purpose seeing the Apostle vseth both the wordes for one For when he had said we are one bread and one body being many he giueth a reason thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For we all are partakers of one bread Now concerning the matter of communicating of Christ Sander saith it can not be by a bare signe and token And wee say euen the same but by a Sacrament wherein Christes body and bloud is not really present it may be For els how are they that are baptised only made members of Christ and haue a true communicating of his body and bloud yea how had all the fathers before Christes incarnation this communicating of Christes body and bloud without which they were no members of Christ the like I say of raysing of our bodies not by a figure of Christes body but by the vertue of his body it selfe which vertue if it could not be communicated to our bodies otherwise then by reall presence in the Sacrament as Sander falsly dreameth that Irenaeus shoulde meane by what meanes should the resurrection of all them be wrought which haue not receiued the Sacrament O shameles and yet most blockheaded kinde of reasoning As for Irenaeus hee prooueth the resurrection of our bodies against the heretiks by that they are fed with the body bloud of Christ in the Sacrament by their owne confession But he doth not hold it necessary that who so euer iâ— partaker of the resurrection of the righteous must receiue the Sacrament or the naturall body of Christ really present in the Sacrament For we haue communication with God the father with Iesus Christ by faith as S. Ioan teacheth 1. Ioh. 1. in the Gospell preached and receiued And whereas Sander saith that S. Irenaeus neuer dreamed of bloud that should be receiued from heauen I demande what is the heauenly part of the Sacrament When Irenaeus affirmeth that it consisteth of two thinges an earthly thing and an heauenly thing lib. 4. Cap. 34. I suppose that the heauenly thing can be nothing but the body and bloud of Christ which seing he affirmeth it to be a heauenly thing verily it can not be conteined in an heauenly vessell nor be receiued but from heauen CAP. III. The presence of Christ in his supper is prooued by the one bread which being receiued of vs maketh all one body Nay this vnion which is spiritual of vs and Christ and of vs one with another inuincibly prooueth the presence of Christ to be spirituall and not carnal for it is the spirit of God which maketh this vnion and not the flesh of Christ which is one of the termes to be vnited and not the meane of the vnion For by the spirite of God wee are as verily vnited vnto the body of Christ in baptisme as in the supper therefore the reall presence is not necessary for this vniting I passe ouer how ignorantly Sander abuseth the example of fire conuerting all things into it selfe to shewe how Christ which is a consuming fire turneth vs into his body whereas God in respect of his Iustice and not of his mercy is in scripture called a consuming fire Where he saith the vnion can not be made by wheaten bread I agree with him but wheaten bread and the fruit of the vine receiued according to Christes institution may testifie that vnion vnto vs as well as elementall water in baptisme which is made by the spirit of God So saith Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 6. ad Magnum that QuaÌ„do c. when Christ calleth bread which is made of many graines his bodi he signifieth our people which he bare to be vnited vnto him and when he calleth wine which is pressed out of many grapes and bunches and brought into one his bloud he signifieth likewise our flock coupled togither by commixion of the multitude that is ioyned in one Cyprian saith bread and wine made of graines and grapes and not the forme of bread which was made of graines is now no bread as Sander saith doth represent this vnion Neither did any auncient writer say or thinke that by the accidentes and not by the substance of bread and wine our coniunction is represented CAP. IIII. The reall presence is prooued by ioyning together all the former wordes Now must we haue a further tast of Sander his tedious Sophistrie in ioining the wordes together The bread which we break is the communicating of Christs bodie because we being many are one breade and one bodie for we all partake of the one breade Here bread being thrise named saith hee is put to expresse one and the same mysterie But that is false for in the first and last place breade is put for the earthly matter of the mysterie or sacrament Against this Sander replyeth and saith that if we once take the substance of common bread to be the thing which is broken neither is that substance the communicating of Christes bodie nor wee are all one materiall breade I might likewise reason thus if the bread that is broken be the substance of the bodie of Christ neither is 〈◊〉 the communicating of the bodie of Christ neither aâ—â— we the substance of the bodie of Christ for the bodie of Christ and the communicating thereof differ as much as the substance of a thing and the accidents of the same S. Paul affirmeth it to be the accident ergo it is not the â—â—bstance Wherefore to auoide all cauilling the bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes toâ—ie spiritually sacramentally not really corporally substantially Against this Sandâ—r riseth vp and saith that if to bee is interpreted to signifie then in the next verse where it is saide we that are manie are one bread and one bodie we are said to be the figure of one bread because it is one verbe and one nowne in both places A simple cause as though one verbe and one nowne in diuerse places may not be diuersly taken And yet we can not be called one bread but figuratiuely that is like vnto one loafe of bread made one of many graines one bodie that is like vnto one bodie consisting of diuerse members spiritually vnited together But Sander vrgeth vs further by the wordes of breaking and partaking if the bread broken be materiall bread saith he wee partake of the materiall bread and yet the bread whereof we partake is by Saint Paul named one for seeing it is broken it is not still one I answere wee partake all of one materiall breade which is either one in lumpe or kinde to signifie that wee doe spiritually communicate with the onely bodie
but that I denie for the forme of bread is no secrete but a visible and naturall thing Wherefore the mysterie vnder which we truely take the flesh of Christ must be that secrete and wonderfull manner by which Christ doeth communicate his flesh vnto vs. Thirdly he sayeth that worde Proprietie doeth signifie a person because Augustine saith Christ is a vine by similitude non per proprieâ—atem not by propertie where by propertie Augustine meaneth properly and not a person Wherefore Hilarie meaneth that the naturall propertie of incorporating that meate that is eaten in the Sacrament is a Sacramentoâ— holy signe of a perfect vnitie such as is made betweene the meate and the eater and not such an agreement only as is betweene friends that are of one mind Therefore Sander doeth openly and violently falsifie Hilarie where he saith the naturall proprietie of Christ by a Sacrament is a sacrament interpreting property for person After he hath thus abused Hilarie he commeth to Augustine de ciuitate Dei lib. 10. Cap. 5. This is the Sacrifice of the Christians we being many are one body in Christ the which thing also the Church celebrateth in the Sacrament of that altar knowne to the faithfull where it is shewed to her that in that sacrifice which he offereth her self is offered Here Sander maketh a foolish Dialogisme betweene Christ and his father reprouing him that he hath gotten such a goodly mysticall bodie of the bakers making c. But Augustine speaketh of an Eucharisticall sacrifice offered in the celebration of the Lordes supper by the Church in which the Church her selfe is offered in a mysterie or holy signe of our coniunction with Christ which is celebrated in the Sacrament And so doeth Augustine interpret hemselfe Cap. 5. Sacrificium ergo visibile inuisibilis sacrificij sacramentum id est sacrum sigrâ—â—m The visible sacrifice is a sacrament that is to say an holy signe of the inuisible sacrifice which inuisible sacrifice is by him expounded to be mercie and charitie yelding vp of our selues vnto the obedience â—f God vnto which the reall presence of Christ is nei 〈…〉 er necessarie nor at all required seeing he hath once 〈…〉 fered vp a full sacrifice of perpetuall effect for the reâ—emption of all the elect of God His allegorie of building as it is vaine and no arguâ—ent but of Sanders owne authoritie so I passe it ouer 〈◊〉 vnworthie any answere But I cannot passe ouer that 〈◊〉 the conclusion of his fantastical building he saith Once 〈…〉 enie the flesh of Christ to be really present in the Sa 〈…〉 ament of the altar c and there is no reason why wee â—ould be called his mysticall bodie or flesh of his flesh and bone 〈◊〉 his bone By which saying he denyeth all the Patriarks 〈◊〉 Prophets to be members of Christ flesh of his flesh â—nd bone of his bone But we knowe that by Christs inâ—arnation and communicating of his fleshe and bloud â—nto all his elect by his spirit they with vs and we with â—hem are all members of Christ flesh of his flesh and â—one of his bone without that grosse and fantasticall presence in the Sacrament and this communication is sealed vnto vs as well by baptisme as by the supper Sander citeth Irenaeus Chrysostome Cyrill and Theodoret to prooue that it is the naturall flesh and bones of Christ whereunto we are ioyned and further vrging the similitude of mariage whereunto our spirituall coniunction is resembled not more grossely then filthily compareth our perfect vnitie with Christ vnto the acte of generation in marriage about which matter he spendeth two or three leaues Whereunto I answere shortly that we do acknowledge that we are truely vnited to the naturall bodie and bloud of Christ which he tooke of our nature by such meanes as is common to all the elect of God which can be nothing else but his spirite although the same be assured vnto vs by faith our faith therein effectually confirmed by all the Sacraments of God and especially by the supper of our Lorde but not onely thereby As for the presence of the bodies to be ioyned which Sander requireth is no naturall presence in one proper place more of Christes bodie comming downe from heauen into euery one of our bodies then of al our bodies comming from all partes of the world into one But the bodie of Christ keeping his owne proper placeâ— heauen as Augustine affirmeth by his spirite wee are all brought vp vnto him as the Apostle saith Eph. 2. not â—e brought downe vnto vs. Finally where Hilarie lib. 8. de Trin. saith He hath mixed the nature of his fleshe vnto 〈◊〉 vnder asacrament he meaneth not of anie carrâ—ll manner of mixture but such as is sub Sacramento vnder a sacrament â—nd mysterie that is by the visible sacrament taught to bee truely but yet after a spirituall manner Likewise where Chrysostome saith in Ioan. 24. It is brought to passe by the meate which Christ hath giuen vs that we may bee conuerted into that fleshe not onely by loue but in deede No Christian man can vnderstande this conuersion that is made in deede or in the thing it selfe to bee carnall but onely spirituall For what madnesse were it to say that wee are turned into the naturall fleshe of Christ after a corporall manner To conclude Sander cannot prooue his fleshly presence without manifest falsifying of Cyrillus both in words sense For thus he citeth him in Ioan. lib. 10. cap. 15. iu deede it is cap. 13. 〈◊〉 mystica benedictio in noâ—is fiat nonne corporallier quoque facit communicatione carnis Christi For as much as the mys 〈…〉 al blessing is made in vs doth it not make Christ to dwell in vs corporally through the communicating of Christes fleshe Can the mysticall blessing make Christe dwell corporallie in vs if it selfe haue not Christes flesh corporally in it But Cyrill saith not that the mysticall blessing is made in vs but the vertue of the mysticall blessing which maketh Christ to dwell corporally in vs. For thus he writeth against the Arrians Anfoâ—tesse putat ignotam nobis mys 〈…〉 benedictionis vir 〈…〉 tem esse Quae cùm in nobis fiat nonne â—â—poraliâ—er quoque facit communicatione carnis Christi Christum in nobis habitare c. Or else perchance doth he thinke that the vertue of the mystical benediction is vnknowen vnto vs which when it is wrought in vs doth it not make Christ to dwell in vs also corporally by communicating of the fleshe of Christ It is therefore the vertue of the mysticall blessing and not the reall presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament that maketh Christe â—o dwell in vs corporallie and by naturall paticipation â—s hee saith afterwarde By which tearmes yet Cyrill doeth not vnderstande any corporall or naturall manner of coniunction but a true and vndoubted vniting of vs to the nature and bodie of Christ which is performed by the vertue of his
earth in Ioan Tr. 50. Tsll me whether it was the visible forme of bloud which was shedde on the crosse or the very substance of his bloud If thou say it was the very substance which thou must say except thou be a Marcionite or Manichee then it was the verie substance of his bloud which Augustine denyeth to be drunken in the Sacrament But Augustine saith Sander was so fully persuaded that the fleshe of Christ was to bee adored vnder the forme of bread after consecration that he reacheth the Christian people to adore it not as common flesh but as the flesh of God for whose sake we adore it Cùâ—â—d â—erram quamlibet c. when thou bowest thy self or fallest down before any earth looke not upon is as earth but looke vpon that holy one whose footstoole it is which thou adorest for thou adorest for his sake Now saith Sander what is it to say before any earth doubtles before any host coÌ„secrated c. Doubtlesse this is a clearkly interpretation that quaeâ—ibet terra any earth or euery earth that a mâ—n doth bowe vnto is a consecrated host Not onely the flesh of Christe is earth to bee worshipped but all Princes and Magistrates are earth to bee worshipped in respect of whome Augustine saith cùm ad terram c. when thou bowest downe to any earth consider God and not man whome thou worshippest in that man euen as in worshipping the flesh of Christ wee stay not in his flesh but ascend vnto his spirite for thus his wordes runne Numquid autem caro viâ—ificat What doth the flesh giue life Our Lord himselfe hath said when he spake of the commending of the same earth It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing Ideo ad terram quaÌ„libeâ— cùm te incliâ—as c. Therefore also when thou bowest and castest downe thy selfe vnto any earth whatsoeuer behold it not as earth but that holy one whose footstoole that is which thou adorest for thou adorest for his sake Therefore here also he hath added worshippe his footstoole because it is holy c. The coniunction also which Sander hath craftily suppressed declareth that Augustine speaketh not onely of worshipping the flesh of Christ as the footstoole of God but also of worshippe giuen to any other earth which must wholy bee referred to God You see how inuincibly it is prooued that catholike men in S. Augustines time vsed to bowe down and to adore the Sacrament of the altar as San 〈…〉 no no more vntruely then ridiculously doth vaunt and 〈…〉 gge vpon the worshipping of any earth CAP. III. It is proued out of the Prophets that it can be no Idolatry to 〈…〉 ship the body bloud of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar Sander first presupposeth the body and bloud of Christ 〈…〉 be really present in the Sacrament and then he defen 〈…〉 h it is no Idolatry to worshippe it But this is contra 〈…〉 to his promise for he vndertooke to prooue the reall 〈…〉 ence by the adoration that is dew to the Sacrament 〈…〉 d not the adoration by the reall presence But it is a â—onderful absurditie with him to say that it is Idolatry 〈◊〉 worshippe with godly honor the body and bloud of â—hrist in the Sacrament of the altar First because this say 〈…〉 g presupposeth externall Idols not to haue bene taken away by 〈…〉 e comming of Christ which is against the expresse worde of God If all externall Idols had bene taken away by the coming of Christ the Apostles would not so seriously haue warned men to beware of all Idolatry 1. Cor. 10. of the pollutions of Idols act 15. 1. Iohn 5. c. Secondly it presupposeth saith he that Idolatry should be maintained by Christians by Publike doctrine and vniuersall practise in open Churches c. Not by true Christians but by false Christians the times of Antichrist as was prophecied Apo. â—3 9. Thirdly it presupposeth that Christ gaue occasion by his owne word that Idolatry should be committed to bakers bread c. Christ gaue none occasion to worshippe bread more then to worship a dore or a vine tree Last of all it is a most foolish thing to say the Bishop of Rome was the cause of that worshipping and also to teach that hee is Antichrist Nothing more agreeable to reason then that Antichrist should set vp an Idole that he himselfe by it might aspire to the greatest honor But Antichrist saith Sander is an aduersary and setteth himselfe against Christ but the Pope calleth himselfe the vicar of Christ and the seruant of seruantes Vnder the colour of these titles he arrogateth to himselfe power and honor aboue Christ to giue pardoÌ„ in papers sealed with lead a poena culpa when he teacheth that the pardon that Christ sealed with his bloud is only a culpa froÌ„ the fault but not from the punishment And yet the Popein his Canon lawe refuseth not to be called God aboue al Gods Secondly Antichrist aduaunceth himself aboue all that i◠〈…〉 shipped as God therfore he wil not how to an externall Id 〈…〉 commeth of superstition and pusillanimitie I answere 〈◊〉 Pope although he stoop not verie low to the sacramâ—â—â— of the Altar which is carried before him on a pal 〈…〉 when he himselfe is carried on mens sholders yet he pretendeth a familiar kinde of reuerence not of super 〈…〉 on but of subtiltie and fraude to couer his pride by hypocrisie that with deceit of vnrighteousnes he may preuaile in them that perish 2. Thess. 2. Thirdly Antichrist shall shew false signes and wonders to deceiue wicked men by So hath the Pope his members doâ— an infinite number wherof the Legends other lewâ—â— bookes are stuffed ful And euen Pius Quintus late Pope counterfeited casting out of diuels Fourthly Antichrist is aduaunced aboue all idols th 〈…〉 shall set vp no idoll but himselfe therefore if the Pope set 〈◊〉 idol he is not antichrist I answere the Pope hath set vp 〈◊〉 idols but to aduaunce himself aboue them all For although he hath set vp the idolatrie of the Sacramens calling it god man yet what papist thinketh it not 〈◊〉 meritorious to worship kisle the Popes feete at Roâ—â— then to worship the sacrament daily in his owne pa 〈…〉 church What right Papist trusteth not more in a pa 〈…〉 of the Popes then in any thing that he loketh to receiue froÌ„ the sacrament of the altar wherfore this an hundred such like matters but that the Pope hath aduauced hims 〈…〉 aboue yâ— idols which he himself hath made coÌ„manded men to worship not for Christs honor but for his owne diuelish aduancement As for the profession of the Pope to worship Christ in the Sacrament in the signe of the crosse in praying to his saints by which Sandâ—r worlde discharge him froÌ„ antichristianitie is nothing elâ—â— but hypocrisie in him which hath no religion as it hath openly
is not to be adored Whosoeuer receiueth any of Christs disciples receiueth Christ but hee shal be an Idolater if he giue diuine honour to him which is due onely to the person of Christ. The like answere I make to that Ambrose saith de ijs qui myst cap. 9. that Christ is in the Sacrament To Ignatius Ep. ad Rom. calling the Sacrament the breade of God the heauenly breade the breade of life To Euseb. lib. 10. cap. 10. calling it a Sacrifice full of God and the dreadfull Sacrifices of Christes table To Cyrillus lib. 3. in Ioan cap. 37. saying that by the mysteries wee are made partakers of the diuine nature Neither doe the sayings of Cyrillus nor Hilarius lib. 4. cap. 18. prooue a personall vnion of Christ with the Sacrament when they say it maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporally and by a naturall participation for they say not so simplie but vnder a Sacrament vnder a mysterie c. that is the Sacrament doth assure vs that wee are truely made partakers of the bodie and bloude of Christe after an heauenly and diuine manner and not onely are ioyned to him in loue and faith and will but are made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone by his incarnation and holy spirite vniting vs vnto him in a mystical bodie not in a personal vnion for if any thing which is truely the bodie of Christ must be adored with diuine honour the Church of God should bee so adored which is the bodie of Christ and so called in the Scripture Finally Hesychius calling the Sacrament the breade of life and the mysticall loaues which quicken vs c. gaue no diuine honour vnto it as personally vnited vnto Christ but as to an holy mysterie and seale of our spirituall feeding and coniunction with Christ. For Hesychius affirmeth that mysterie to bee both breade and flesh in Leuit. lib. 2. chap. 8. But Sander vppon these sayings buildeth that the Fathers affirmed that which was on the table to bee the diuine substance yea the substance and nature of God which is to be adored and cannot be eaten corporally but in the Sacrament And yet no one father that hee hath cited saieth any such thing If Cyrill say we are by the mysteries made partakers of the diuine nature Saint Peter saith by Gods promises we are made partakers of the diuine nature 2. Pet. 1. Yet not of the diuine substance And to saye the Godheade can be corporally eaten in the Sacrament it is monstrous heresie When Cyrillus saith Christ dwelleth in vs corporally hee saith not by eating the Sacrament wee eate GOD or Christ corporally but the power of the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporallie by participation of the fleshe of Christ. But let vs yet heare a more full witnesse which is Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. the place although it be fully answered by mee against Heskins lib. 2. cap. 45. yet because Sander maketh so manie obseruations vpon it I will set it downe againe Hoc corpus c. The wise men reuerenced this body in the manger and being men without good religion and barbarous they worshipped it with feare and much trembling after a long iourney taken Let vs therefore who are the citizens of heauen at lest follow those barbarous men For when they sawe the manger and cottage and not any of those thinges which thou nowe seest they came with most great reuerence and quaking But thou seest that thing not in the Manger but in the Altar not a woman which might hold it in her armes but the Priest present and the holy ghost copiously spredde vpon the sacrifice which is set foorth Neither lookest thou barely vpon the bodie as they did but thou knowest the power of it and al the order of dispensing thinges And thou art ignorant of none of these thinges which were done by him and thou hast beene diligently instructed in all things Let vs be stirred vp therefore let vs quake and let vs professe openly a greater deuotion then those barbarous men lest if we come barely and coldly we ieoparde our head into a more vehement fire Out of this place Sander would haue the reall presence and adoration of the sacrament prooued But this place prooueth neither of both For he speaketh figuratiuely of seeing the bodie of Christ of seeing the holy ghost spredde vpon the Sacrifice c. which cannot bee referred to the eyes of the bodie but must needes haue a spirituall vnderstanding The bodie of Christ is so present as it may be seene but it cannot bee seene but spiritually therefore it is not present but spiritually This is sufficient to shewe that Chrysostome spake not of the popish reall presence therefore not of their manner of adoration Nowe let vs see what wise arguments Sander can picke out of this place First we must note these comparisons The Altar the Manger the Virgin the Priest the Wisemen the Christians the adoration of the one and the other but this last comparison is forged for Chrysostome requireth our imitation of the wise men in comming to the Sacrament with reuerence and trembling with earnest desire and affection not in giuing honour to the outwarde creatures but to him that is seene by faith Further Sander chargeth him to say it is the same bodie in both places which Chrysost. saith not although it be the same body which is receiued spiritually in the Sacrament with that which the wise men did worship yet it followeth not that the same real body is present vpon the altar before it be receiued to bee there worshipped Sander vrgeth Chrysostomes words vides in altari thou seest it on the altar Lo it is vpon the altar and not onely comprehended by faith but by the meane of the forme of bread it is seen What say you Sander is the body of Christ seene then is hee present visibly It is a madde kinde of corporall sight of his bodye which is through the forme of bread You were wont to tell vs that a substance is said to be seen where the proper accidents thereof are seene And are the accidents of bread the signes now of the body of Christ O newe Philosophy and Theology but I pray you sir if the body of Christ be not only comprehended by faith but also seen by meane of the forme of bread by what meane is the holy ghost seen whom Chrysostome likewise affirmeth to be seen as the body of Christ is Will you neuer be ashamed of those impudent shiftes in wresting the holy scriptures and sayinges of the ancient fathers As for the foure reasons that Christian men should rather worship the Sacrament then the wise men did Christ in the cottage be in vaine For Chrysostom draweth no example of their worshipping to worshippe that which is visibly seene in the Sacrament or the elementes thereof but of comming with reuerence vnto the bodye of Christ which is really in heauen whereof we are made partakers
of Christes passion Sander The speach is figuratiue not in the substance to be eaten but in the manner of eating therfore when Christ had consecrated bread into his bodie that speache was not figuratiue because the maner of eating was determined vnder the formes of bread and wine Fulk Saint Augustine hath stopped that starting hole expounding the meaning of that figuratiue speach not of eating Christ vnder the forme of bread but of communicating with the passion of Christ which is represented by the Sacrament and is perfourmed without the Sacrament So you faile both in your substance and manner of eating Sander Of the whole saying of Augustine I haue entreated more fully lib. 3. Cap. 14. Fulke And I haue answered more fully Iewel Tertullian saith The Capernaits thought his speach was harde and intollerable as though he had determined to giue them his flesh verily and in deede to be eaten with their mouthes therein saith Tertullian stoode their error Sander The worde ve 〈…〉 doeth not shewe that they tooke it to be eaten in substance but that they thought they should eate it carnally they thought not of eating vnder the forme of bread Fulke Not onely the worde verè must needes shewe they thought the substance of his fleshe shoulde be eaten verily but also the argument of Tertullian doeth plainly proue it For he answereth the obiection of them that denyed the resurrection of the fleshe because of the Angelike perfection whereunto the children of the resurrection shal be changed shewing that the perfection shall not bee through vertue of the fleshe but through the incorruption which the flesh shall put on Vsing a similitude of the flesh of Christ which of it self doeth profite nothing but by vertue of the spirit which maketh it able to giue life Wherefore the error of the Capernaits was in that they imagined the substance of Christes flesh should be eaten bodily which Tertullian affirmed should be eaten spiritually and by faith of his worde onely As for the authoritie of Lyra which followeth is not worth the contention CAP. VI. Sander Master Iewell hath not conferred the supper with the sixt of S. Iohn as it ought to be Iewell Christ in S. Iohn speaking of spirituall eating faith made no mention of any figure But in his supper he added an outward Sacrament to the same spirituall eating which the fathers oft call a figure Sander If spirituall eating by faith be only spoken of why saith he dabo I will giue when spirituall eating was alreadie giuen Fulke Because he would continue his giuing as he had done before and accomplish his passion by which his flesh was made meate Sander The perfourmance doeth expound the promise especially when he saith this is c. Fulke Here is no newe promise but a continuance of the olde of spirituall eating by faith Sander The fathers who call Christs supper a figure must needes meane such a figure as was promised Fulke There was no figure promised in the sixth of Iohn therfore they meane another thing then was there promised or spoken of Iewell Master Harding putteth no difference betweene things perteining seuerally to the body and the spirite Origen in Cantic Sander Origen doth speak of them who reading that book would perhaps apply the names of loue there vsed carnally Fulke Prolog in Cantic he speaketh of diuers meate of the inward man and of the outwarde man The meat of the outward man is agreable to his nature bodily and earthly The meat of the inward man is the bread which came downe from heauen c. Sander You haue set forth the booke of canticles in the vulgar tongue contrary to Origens iudgemēt to be reade of euery wanton boy or girle Fulke As though that booke was not in the vulgar tongue in his time when it was in the Greeke tongue Beside that he saith the litle ones can take no great hurt if they reade it although it bee meate for perfect men Iewell The bread is a figure Sander Before consecration S. Ambrose confesseth it to be a figure but not after the wordes are said ouer it Fulke He confesseth it to be bread before and to be called the bodye of Christ after consecration and that the body of Christ is signified thereby De myst Cap. 9. Yea he calleth it a figure of the body bloud of Christ De Sacram lib. 4 Cap. 5. For it can be no figure of Christ before consecration Touching Damascen and Rabanus Maurus I will not striue because they are both later wnters then 600. yeres although the later be cleare against this peece of Popery the other not clearly for it Iewell The Sacrament saith Augustine is receiued from the Lords table Of some vnto life of some vnto destruction The thing it self whereof it is a Sacrament that is the body of Christ is receiued of euery man to life of no man vnto destructiō whosoeuer be partakers of it Sander Here is a heape of falshood and lies Fulke Here is an impudent cauillation Sander The thing of the Sacrament is not the body of Christ sitting in heauen but the company of Saints and the vnitie of the bodie and bloud of Christ not his natural bodie but his mysticall bodie the church Therfore he saith not simply The Sacrament but the Sacrament of this thing that is to say of the body and bloud of Christ which fiue words M. Iewel hath left out Fulke These fiue words help you as much as fiue egges whereof foure be rotten For Augustine by them vnderstandeth the flesh bloud which Christ promised to giue which if it be not the same bodie which sitteth in heauen that bodie which sitteth in heauen is not giuen by his iudgement in the Sacrament For thus he writeth vpon these words of Christ He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting Therefore he hath not this life which eateth not this bread nor drinketh this bloud For temporall life men may haue without it but eternall they cannot haue at all Therefore he that eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his bloud hath not life in himselfe and he that eateth his flesh drinketh his bloud hath life eternall And that he saith euerlasting life answereth to both it is not so in this meate which we take for sustentation of the life of this bodie for he which taketh it not shall not liue and yet he shall not liue which shall take it For it may be that by olde age or sickenesse or some chance many which shal take it may die but in-this meat drink that is in the bodie and bloud of our Lorde it is not so for both he which taketh it not hath not life he which taketh it hath life that verily eternal Therefore he will haue this meat drink vnderstood to be the fellowship of his body his members which is the holy church in his saints and faithful ones predestinated called iustified glorified Wherof
significat in the consecration of the bloud hic remaineth without a substantiue Fulke A bable answered lib. 4. circumst 23. Sand. 18 In these words this cuppe is the new testament in my bloude you take the nowne bloud for the signe of bloud and so the new testament established by the figure of bloud Fulke Ye fable we take it properly and these words to bee a true exposition of these wordes This is my bloude Sand. 19 If you take bloud properly in these words it must also be proper in these This is my bloud Fulke That followeth not Sand. 20 The construction of these words This cup is shed for you prooueth that which is in the cuppe to be shed which you say is wine Fulke This cauil is answered lib. 4. circumst 26. 27. Sand. 21 In Christs words The breade which I will giue is my flesh you expounde I haue giuen and I doe giue Fulke Yea I will giue as I haue done and doe Sand. 22 In Saint Paul The breade which wee breake is the communicating c. you expounde signifieth the communicating As though the Iewes figures did not the same and yet there S. Paul distincteth our sacraments from theirs Fulke And how can bread be the communicating of the bodie of Christ but as the Iewes Sacramentes were the same Saint Paul sheweth what our sacraments haue like with theirs the ceremonies of the Gentiles also not what difference there is You are wel studied in Saint Paul Sand. 23. The cuppe of blessing you wil haue to be a cuppe of wine as though the blessing wrought nothing in it Fulke As though blessing can worke nothing but transubstantiation Sand. 24. You make Christ giue thankes to his father in beginning the state of the new testament in better words then deede for his words are This is my body yet you will haue him to offer no bodie at all to his father in that thanksgiuing Fulke Where learned you that the beginning of the state of the newe testament was at the institution of the supper Belike baptisme pertained not to the state of the newe testament Secondly howe prooue you that This is my bodie are words of thanksgiuing or oblation to god Sand. 25. You teach Christ to be an instituter of shadowes and to giue to our mouthes lesse then Moses for Manna was better then common breade Fulke Sacraments be no shadows Neither did Moses giue Manna but God for ought that I knowe And it is most conuenient that the signes of the new testament should be lesse glorious then of the old because the doctrine is more cleare Sand. 26. Ye expound to be guiltie of Christs bodie and bloud for eating that is to say for not eating or refusing to eate For you teach euil men not to eat the bodie of Christ. Fulke For wee expounde guiltie for eating to bee guiltie for eating the Sacrament vnworthily that is in some vnreuerently or negligently in some contēptuously refusing that Christ doth offer thereby Sand. 27. You will not haue Christes supper to bee an externall sacrifice and to be worse then Iewish and Idolaters altars and tables who both did sacrifice and S. Paul compareth Christes table with theirs Fulk We will haue no more sacrifices but the onely and once offered sacrifice of Christes death for our redemption The repetition of sacrifice sheweth an imperfection in it and not a betternes Saint Paul compareth Christes table with the altar table of diuels not in sacrifice but in causing the partakers to communicate with their altars tables which sheweth what the communicating of Christes table is and ouerthroweth your carnall presence Sand. 28. You expounde the shewing of Christes death by a figure whereby you shew him not to be truly deade Fulk You shewe it by eating him aliue whereby there is no argument of his death We shewe it by preaching ioyned to the visible element without which it is lame dead and vnperfect Sand. 29 Ye expounde the not making difference c. in such sort that hee will not haue the bodie present wherein difference is to be made Fulk As though difference of the kings person and authoritie can not be made but in the kings presence Sand. 30 Ye denie our vnion with Christes fleshe by corporall participation which S. Paul teacheth by example of Adam and Eue being two in one flesh Fulk Our corporall participation is by his incarnation which is applied vnto vs by faith through his spirite vniting vs vnto him and testifyed in the supper Sand. 31 Whereas Christ is so much more excellent then Angels by howe much he hath a more excellent name you regarde not the name bodie and blood giuen to the mysteries but affirme them to bee as they were before c. Fulk The Apostle reasoneth not because Christ hath a better name but because he hath it by inheritance for else the Angels are named the sonnes of God and princes are called Gods You haue not sought Christ in the scriptures but the confirmation of your heresie Againe we so much regarde the name of bodie and bloode giuen to the mysteries that wee beleeue them to bee the same that they are called after a spirituall manner although they haue not that name by inheritance but by grace affirming in the elementes a greate alteration from that they were before not in substance but in vse and effecte Sand. 32 No promise in the scriptures can be found made to him that eateth and drinketh materiall breade and wine but to him that receiueth the bodie and blood of Christ. Therefore you affirme breade to bee eaten and wine to be dronken in the supper beside the worde of God Fulk The promise is made in scripture to him that eateth and drinketh bread and wine according to Christs institution although not for eating bread and drinking wine onely This reason would prooue that water is vsed without the worde of God in baptisme because no promise is made to him that is washed in water but to him that is washed according to Christes institution Sand. 33 Although Dauid prophecied of eating and adoring you will graunt no meate to bee externally adored Fulk Dauid neuer prophesied of adoring the sacrament Sand. 34 Notwithstanding the Prophets teach that all externall idolatrie is taken awaye by the comming of Christ you say idolatry is committed in worshipping the sacrament Fulk The Prophetes teach not that idolatrie externall shall be taken away by the comming of Christ but among true Christians which do renounce all worshipping of idols Sand. 35 Christ came to saue feed the whole man◠why deny you the foode of life to our bodies Fulk We affirme that Christ feedeth bodie soule vnto eternall life without the sacrament and with it although the foode of life be not receaued at the mouth like other meates nor swallowed and disgested as they are Sand. 36 If in the supper we seede on Christ by faith alone why is it called a supper more then baptisme
where also wee must feede on Christ by faith Fulke Because it is the proper sacrament of our spirituall feeding like as baptisme is of our regeneration and yet the bloode of Christ doeth clense our sinnes in the supper as we eate the body of Christ in baptisme Sand. 37 Seeing a figure may be the trueth it selfe whereof it is a figure why shoulde you rather detracte this honor from Christs sacrament then giue the same vnto it Fulk A figure can neuer be that which it figureth in the same respect As Christ is the figure of his father so is he not his father as he is the figure of his fathers substance so is he not his fathers substance but consubstantiall with his father for though hee be the same essence yet hee is an other person beside that we may not say the sacramentes are all that they may bee but that which God will haue them to be You may demaunde the like reason of Baptisme why the water is not the blood of Christ but a figure of it Sand. 38 Christ being equall with his father made promise of the same fleshe which his father had giuen Why deny you the gift of Christ to be as reall as his father gaue him reall flesh Fulk We deny not but he hath giuen the same real fleshe although not to be present really in the Sacrament Sand. 39 How teach you the wordes of Christ which are spirite and life to be notwithstanding figuratiue consequentlie deade and voide of all life and strength Fulk Howe dare you affirme any of Christes words of which many are figuratiue to be deade and voyde of life and strength Are not those figuratiue wordes I am the bread that came downe from heauen This cup is the newe testament Sand. 40 Because the worde of God would be meate of man in respect of the body hee tooke fleshe and said Take eate c yet you make him stil to be the meate of the minde whereby we are excluded from hauing God corporally in vs through the flesh of Christ. Fulk The worde became not fleshe either onely or principally to be giuen in the sacrament but he could not haue beene meat vnto man except hee had taken fleshe which fleshe he communicateth vnto vs through his spirit by faith to feedboth body and minde yet not to be receiued into the body as bodily meats but being receiued of the minde to nourishe the whole man Sand. 41 To conclude whereas ye finde flesh body bloode ioyned with eating drinking taking partaking giuing breaking distributing communicating dijudicating ye expounde al these words figuratiuely As though God by so often repeting had not strengthened the common and proper signification of them Fulk You say vntruely of all these wordes wheras you finde bread cup the fruit of the vine so often repeted you vnderstand all figuratinely to maintaine your grosse vnderstanding or rather your gainefull idolatrie for which you care not to erre against grammar rhetorike Logike Philosophie diuinitie faith trueth nature sense knowledge and conscience Iew. If in these wordes Except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man ye followe the letter it killeth Origen Hom. 7. in Leuit. Sand. He that taketh them as Christ by his fact did expound them doeth followe the spirite and not the letter Fulk Yee assume for granted that which is all the controuersie It is not onely the letter to vnderstande the words of eating by peece meale but of eating his fleshe by mouth carnally as other meates are eaten although couered from the eyes and tast as men eate pils wrapped in a wafer cake CAP. IX Sand. A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by master Iewel Iew. Saint Augustine saith the sacrament of Christs body after a certaine phrase or maner or trope or figure of speaking is the body of Christ. Sand. Secundum quēdam modum is not meant after a certaine manner of tropicall or figuratiue speach but in the sacrament in the thing it self in the substance thereof wherin the likenes is and not in the forme Fulk Saint Augustines words being set downe more at large then Sander citeth them who leaueth out the foremost part let the reader iudge whether he meane of a manner of speach which is figuratiue and tropicall or of a manner of being which is significatiue Ep. 23. Bonifacio Nempe saepè ita loquimur c. Verily oftentimes wee SPEAKE so that wee SAIE Easter drawing neere to morowe or the next day is the passion of our Lorde whereas he hath suffered so many yeeres past and that passion was promised but once in all Verily on the sonday it selfe we SAIE this day our Lorde arose againe notwithstanding there are so many yeres since he arose Why is no man so foolish to reproue vs so SPEAKING as if wee had lyed but because wee CALL these dayes according to the similitude of the dayes in which those thinges were done that it is SAIDE the day it selfe which is not the day it selfe but in reuolution of time like it that it is SAIDE to be done on that daye because of the celebration of the sacrament or mysterie which was not done that day but long before Was not Christ once offered in himselfe and yet in a sacrament not onely at euerie solemnitie of Easter but euerie day he is offered for the people Neither surely doth he lie who being demanded shall answere that he is offered For if the sacraments had not a certayne likenes of those thinges whereof they are sacraments they were not at all sacramentes Out of this likenes also for the most part they take their names Therefore as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the bodie of Christ the sacrament of the bloode of Christ is the bloode of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith The whole discourse being of phrases and manners of speech that are figuratiue and this example of the Lordes supper being brought as one of them iudge whether S. Augustine 〈◊〉 corrupted by master Iewel Euen the Canon law writen as it should seeme before the heresie of carnal presence preuailed doth so vnderstande this place of Augustine de Con. Dist. 2. ca. Hoc est Sicut ergo coelestis panis c. Therfore as the heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ that is saith the glosse the heauenly sacrament which truely representeth the flesh of Christ after his maner is called the bodie of Christ the sense is saith the glosse it is called that is it fignifieth the bodie of Christ whereas indeed it is the sacrament of the body of Christ namely of that body which being visible which being palpable was put on the crosse and the verie immolation of his flesh which is done by the handes of the priest is called the passion death crucifying of Christ not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie so the sacrament of faith which is vnderstod to be baptisme is faith Let this
exposition of Augustine be conferred with that which Sander maketh â—ee which is more Catholike CAP. X. Sand. The signification of aduerbes discussed Hard. By these words really substantially c. The fathers meant only a trueth of being and not a meane of being after carnall or naturall wise Iew. All aduerbs taken of nownes signifie euermore a qualitie and neuer the substance Sand. An aduerbe hath his name because it is ioined to the verb and it doth make plaine and fill vp the signification thereof which if it signifie a substance the aduerbe doth make it to signifie the same substance more perfectly As Your God is verily the God of Gods This man was verily the sonne of God Fulk The aduerb verily toucheth not the substance but the maner of trueth which is a qualitie Sand. Christ walked corporally vpon the water that is in trueth of a mans body but not in any such accustomed maner as other mens bodyes are wont to walke Fulk Yes verily he walked vpon the water as other men walked on the drie lande giuing strength to the water to beare him not changing the nature of his body otherwise then the nature of Peters body was changed who walked likewise on the water Sand. The maner of the walking did exceede the maner of a meere naturall bodie Fulk TheÌ„ belike Peter had not a meere natural body Hard. When the fathers teach Christ to be in vs carnally corporally or naturally for al these termes Saint Hilarie and S. Cyril haue then they meane that Christ is in vs by the true substance of his flesh and not in such maner as common flesh is wont to be any where Iewel The fathers meane that Christ is in vs after a corporall carnall and naturall manner and not in substance Fulke Yea after some kinde of corporall c. manner that is truely soundly and not shadowedly effectually c. not after euery corporall carnall or naturall manner Sand. The qualities of the body and blood of Christ cannot be in vs without the substance of his bodie and bloode Fulke But the general qualities of a bodie of flesh c. may be in vs as in their subiect without the proper subiect of Christes bodie and blood Sand. S. Hilarie saith Christ hath the father in him according to the spirit naturally Hath Christ a qualitie and not the whole true substance Fulk The question is not what he hath but what he hath by force of the aduerbe naturally which is not of force to giue him the whole substance but signifie that hee hath it after the manner of nature which is truely Sand. Hilarie saith he tarieth in vs naturally Fulk That is truly which is some maner of naturall being Sand. He saith further he is in vs himselfe by flesh Fulk Which he tooke of vs and doth againe giue vnto vs. Sand. And againe Naturally according to the flesh we liue by him that is to say wee haue obteined the nature of his flesh Fulk I aske no better interpreter then Hilarie him selfe Whosoeuer liueth by him hath obteined the nature of his fleshe which is able to giue life but manye liue by him which hath not receiued the supper therfore Hilarie speaketh not of giuing the substance of his flesh in the supper as Sander vnderstandeth but of giuing the nature of his fleshe which is power of life confirmed to vs by the sacramentes of his supper and baptisme CAP. XI Sand. Of the first author of the Sacramentarie heresie Hard. Berengarius began first openly to shewe the Sacramentarie heresie touching the veritie of Christes bodie in the sacrament Iew. Before master Harding said the Messalians were the first fathers of this heresie and so his tales hang not together Sand. The Messalians began priuilie by generall disgracing the sacrament Berengarius began openly by speciall denying the vertue thereof Fulk The Messalians spake as openly as Berengarius and he that vtterly denieth the sacrament to be of any vertue taketh away the special vertue also wherefore Hardings tales agree not but that is a small matter Iew. Ioannes Scotus and Bertram mainteined the same doctrine before Beâ—â—ngarius Sand. If they barked in corners at any ceremonie which is not euident to vs yet they mainteined it not For then they had ben condemned of heresie by them you haue gained litle more then 200. yeres Fulke They preached and wrote openly the one of them dedicating his booke to the Emperor which is extant the other condemned in the Councell of Vercells holden against Berengarius But while they liued their doctrine therein was not controlled Two hundreth yeeres is small gaine to vs which count from the beginning but it is great losse to you that build vpon antiquitie not regarding how it came from the beginning Iewell It shal be necessarie to open Berengarius iudgment Sand. It is ynough you are at a staye and can bring your faith no higher then Ioannes Scotus and Berengarius Fulke We beginne at Christ and bring downe the continuance of our faith herein for 600. yeres and more which you cannot impugne Iewell This is the enforced recantation of Berengarius I beleeue that the body of our Lord Iesus Christ sensiblie and in verie deede is touched with the hande of the Priest and broken and rent and ground with the teeth of the faithfull Sand. You haue Englished the wordes very spightfully you haue added Rent of your own head Atteri doth signifie to be broken in peeces or to bee wasted which may be done without grinding Fulk What great spight is in Rent more then in Broken and why should alteri signifie to be broken wheÌ„ we had the word broken before and what honestie is it for you to say the body of Christ may be wasted with the teeth Finally when you haue dentibus halteri I meruaile why you dare not say ground except it be that you teach the people to swallow the cake and not to grind it with their teeth Iewell The verie glosse saith vnlesse you warely vnderstand these words of Berengarius you will fall into a greater heresie then euer he helde any Sand. The glosse telleth you that al touching breaking or washing is to be referred to the formes of bread and wine Fulke Then the confession of Berengarius was false that the body is touched broken grinded with teeth Iewel These fathers redresse the lesse error by the greater Sand. They teach him to speake as Chrysostome hath spoken in Ioan. Hom. 45. Non se c Christ permitteth himselfe not onely to bee seene to them that desire but also to be touched and to be eaten and their teeth to be fastened in his flesh all men to be filled with desire of him Fulke Chrysostome speaketh figuratiuely except you will say it is a proper speech that Christ is seene in the Sacrament These fathers abhorre all figuratiue speaches in this case and it is nothing like that a recantation of a figuratiue vnderstanding should be expressed by
within or lesse foode of the heart Fulke If Christ had not taken reall flesh to his diuine nature he could not haue bene the foode of eternall life to vs but there is no such necessitie of giuing his bodie in the forme of bread therefore the similitude is vnlike Iewel The thing that is receiued in spirit is receiued in deede Sand. Spirituall receiuing is good and true when it shouldreth not out reall receiuing Fulke If reall receiuing bee receiuing in deede spirituall receiuing shouldreth not out reall receiuing Iewel It is an holy mysterie and an heauenly action forcing our mindes vp to heauen and there teaching vs to eate the bodie of Christ not outwardly by the seruice of our bodies Sand. Is not verè sumimus spoken of taking by the seruice of our bodies Fulke As concerning the outward sacrament but not concerning the bodie of Christ. Sand. Christ hath mingled that nature of his flesh to the nature of euerlastingnesse vnder a sacrament of his flesh to be communicated vnto vs which you passe ouer in Hilarie as you were vtterly blinde The nature of Christs flesh is I trow real It is coÌ„municated vnto vs vnder a sacrament which is receiued by the mouth therfore the nature of Christs flesh is receiued by our bodies and not by faith alone Fulke And is the reall flesh of Christ mingled with his diuinitie what can followe thereof but confusion of the natures If that be hereticall then the nature of his flesh mingled with the nature of his euerlastingnesse is not his reall flesh nor his reall diuinitie but the natural propertie as he termeth it afterward of his diuine flesh which is communicated vnto vs vnder a sacrameÌ„t As for your rotten reason that whatsoeuer is receiued vnder the sacrament is receiued by the mouth because the sacrament is receiued with the mouth is confuted before Iewel The truth hereof standeth not in any reall presence but as Hilarius saith in a mysterie which is a sacrament Sand. Hilarius saide wee receiue verily the flesh of his bodie vnder a mysterie you report him to say in a mysterie Is that no false dealing Fulke It is all one before God and al wise and honest men Sand. Well we receiue Christ verily vnder the sacrament and that sacrament is by your confession also outward and commonly called a figure therefore we verily receiue the flesh of Christs bodie vnder an outwarde figure which is the figure of bread although you meane the substance of bread Fulke There is both an outward sacrament and an inward mysterie S. Hilarie speaketh of the whole dispeâ—sation of the sacrament which is both outwarde and inward and not of the signe of bread onely or principally M. Iewel neuer confessed that the outward figure of bread although in some sense it be called a sacrament yet that it is the whole sacrament Iewell Our regeneration in Baptisme in a certaine bodily sort teacheth vs the purgation of the minde as Diony sius saith so it is in the Sacrament of Christes bodie Sand. Saint Augustine saieth that must be eaten in the trueth it selfe spiritually which is visibly taken in the sacrament and not one thing outwardly taken and another thing inwardly as M. Iewel would haue it De verb. Apost Ser. 2. Fulk Are you such a bussarde that you cannot see the opposition betweene eating in a Sacrament and eaâ—ing in trueth visibly and spiritually I trow the reall substance of Christes bodie is notvisibly eaten in the sacrament but the breade which is so called because it is a sacrament thereof Iewell Although Christ be not bodily present yet that doth not hinder the substance of the mysterie Sand. The substance of the mysterie must needes be hindred where it is absent Fulke Christ is not absent although not bodily present Sand. The substance of the mysterie is the naturall substance of Christ vnder the Sacrament Therfore Saint Hilarie saieth The naturall propertie by the sacrament is the sacrament of the perfect vnitie The naturall propertie is the naturall substance for so S. Hilarie vseth the word proprietas verie much for the substance and personall being of God Fulke So often that you can bring none example but li. 5. cap. 5. you fetch your example our of Augustine Sand. These words can haue none other literal meaning but this The substance of Christ through the forme of bread wherin vnitie is figured is the sacrament of perfect vnitie Fulke Lib. 5. Cap. 5. you shall finde another literall sense more agreeable to the minde and purpose of Hilarie Sand. S. Hilarie saith There is no place to doubt of the trueth of flesh and bloude For nowe both by the profession of our Lorde himselfe and â—by our faith it is flesh in deede and bloude in deede Answere I pray you M. Iewel what is flesh in deed what is the nominatiue case to est I knowe none other beside the word sacramentum c. Fulk The more foolish Priest you For caro the flesh of Christ the bloud of Christ of whose truth we ought not to doubt is by his profession and our faith flesh in deede and bloud in deede Sand. It is meant by S. Hilarie of an outward thing for he saith immediately haec accepta these thinges taken and drunken doe bring to passe that both we may be in Christ and Christ in vs. Fulke You that could construe so pretily before do now forget your concords for haec accepta will not agree with sacramentum in number that should haue bâ—â—â— the nominatiue case to est And what can these thinges being taken haue relation vnto but to the flesh and bloud of Christ which immediately before was auouched to be flesh and bloud truely which being receiued maketh Christ to dwell in vs and vs in Christ. The outwarde thing that is receiued bringeth not to passe that Christ dwelleth in them that receiue it Wherefore the flesh and bloud of Christ are receiued inwardly not outwardly Sand. He saith further Christ himselfe is in vs by his flesh not by the meane of bread and wine Fulk Who saith otherwise Sand. And afterwarde he is beleeued to be in vs by the mysterie of the sacraments ipso in nobis naturaliter permanente himselfe tarying naturally in vs. Fulke This cannot be after the popish vnderstanding by which Christ tarieth no longer in vs then the formes of bread and wine remaine vncorrupted Sand. He concludeth against the third argument of the Arrians Si ergo nos c. If then we liue naturally according to the flesh by him that is to say hauing obteined the nature of his flesh how can hee but haue the father naturally in himselfe according to the spirit seing he liueth for the father By which it appeareth that as the substance of God the father is really in the person of Christ So S. Hilarie meant that Christes natural substance by means of the sacrament receiued is within our owne persons Fulke Then Hilarie should meane that Christ
is naturally in none but such as receiue that sacrament and that none liue naturally according to the fleshe by Christ but they that receiue the communion which is false Therefore he meaneth that Christs flesh is truely vnited to vs by vertue of his spirit which is testified in the sacrament and not that the sacrament receiued is the onelie meane but the seale of our faith which apprehēdeth the working of Gods spirit in this merueilous coniunction aboue the reach of mans reason Sand. But Hilarie saith By the Sacrament of fleshe and bloud the proprietie of natural communiō is granted Fulke We say and beleeue the same but not onely by the sacrament of the supper but without it also Sand. And againe by the same tarying carnally to wit in truth of flesh in vs. Fulke But yet after a spiritual manner according to which 〈◊〉 being once entred into vs hee neuer departeth from vs as in the popish sense he doth when the shapes of bread and wine are corrupted Sand. Laste of all the mysterie of true and naturall vnitie is to be preached in eo nobis corporaliter inseparabiliter vnitis We being vnited in him corporally and inseparably Fulke This cannot be restrained to the supper seeing he is corporally and inseparablie vnited to all his members of which manie neuer receiued the communion And that which you teach men to receiue in the communion is not vnseparablie vnited to them for it departeth as soone as the breade and wine by heat of the stomake are putrified according to all your schoolemens opinions Wherefore there is no cause why Maister Iewell shoulde dissemble this point which maketh wholy against your vnderstanding of Christ present naturally corpo 〈…〉 lly really c. Iew. Those wordes that Christ corporally earnally and naturally is within vs in their owne rigor seeme verie hard Sand. They must needes seeme hard to him that beleeueth not Fulk Master Iewel beleeueth them in such sense as they were spoken ment by Hilarie not as you wrest them Iew. Hilarius said we are one with God the father the sonne not only by adoption or consent of mind but also by nature which according to the letter cannot be true Sand. It is a most impudent lie forged vpon S. Hilarie that we are one with God the father by nature or with God the sonne in his diuine nature Fulk You are mad through malice no man chargeth S. Hilarie but with the phrase of speech by which it is manifest he tooke the wordes nature naturally otherwise then you as appeareth euen by that his generall rule Qui per eandem c. Those that by the same thing are one they are one by nature and not by will onely Iew. The fathers haue bene faine to expound and to mollifie such violent and excessiue kindes of speach Sand. Now you shew your self in your colors you think the fathers do not speake wel for violent speaches bee no good speaches excessiue speaches be not literally true Fulk Sometime the fathers speake neither well nor truely But these violent and excessiue speaches are well inough and good speaches if they bee well and rightly vnderstood And what if hyperbolicall speaches bee not literally true are they therefore false in the right meaning of the speakers Metaphors be not literally true wil you therfore say that whatsoeuer is spoken by a Metaphor is spoken vntruely This paltrie is but to mocke selye vnlearned Papistes of whom you haue exhibition for such as knowe what figures of Rhetorike meane woulde thinke you worthie to weare a cockescombe thus to dispute of true and false out of Rhetoricall figures more then of manna literally Sand. Master Iewel is mad he is blinde full of extreme malice Fulk Railing in steede of wordes proouing that Nyssen speaketh of the sacrament or of Christs naturall dwelling in vs. Iew. The purpose of Gregorie Nyssen was onelie to speake of Christes birth Sand. His purpose was to speak of manna which did both signifie the birth of Christ and the sacrament of the altar Fulk What word haue you to prooue that he spake of it as it doth signifie the sacrament of the altar Iew. In like manner of speach Saint Hierome saith The wheat whereof the heauenly bread is made is that of which our Lorde saide my fleshe is meat in deede Sand. The speach of S. Hierome is of the sacrament therefore the speach of Nyssenus which you confesse to be like Fulk It is not like in scope and purpose but in the phrase speaking of wheate Iew. And to this purpose saith Amphilochius vnlesse Christ had bene borne carnally thou haddest not beene borne spiritually Sand. I knowe not to what purpose hee speaketh it but that Christes birth is necessarie to our saluation and because if that birth had not gone before we could not haue eaten that bodie in the sacrament Fulk You might haue inferred eating spiritually a◠well as borne spiritually Iew. As Nyssen saith Christ is made our bread so he saith he becommeth strong meat vnto the perfecte herbes vnto the weake c. Sand. He may be bread herbes and milke in the sacrament and without it but he is bread hearbs and milke to vs in our mouthes as manna was to the Iewes onely in the sacrament Fulk Where haue you in Nyssen your But he is c. in our mouth Is he any of this bodily Iewell Gregorie Nyssen holdeth that wee receiue Christes bodie otherwise then in the Sacrament for hee saith whoso hath aboundantly drunke of the Apostles springs hath alreadie receiued whole Christ. Sander You misse of your proofe you should proue that he receiueth Christs bodie you proue that he receiueth Christ. Gregorie spake of his diuine nature which may be receiued in our heart yet not his body in our bodie Fulke I pray you sir is not whole Christ both the diuinitie the humanitie Sander If the eating of Christ proue his birth it wil follow that as he is borne really so much more hee is eaten really if hee were only eaten by faith thence we could conclude no more but a birth by faith Fulke You may as well conclude if he be eaten only vnder the forme of breade he was borne onely vnder the form of bread such strength is an D. Hardings argumēt CAP. XXIIII Sander That M. Iewel hath not well answered the places of S. Cyrillus Harding Cyrillus saith when the mystical blessing is become to be in vs doth it not cause Christ to dwell in vs corporally by receiuing of Christs body in the communion The same thing he saith in diuerse other places Iewel Cyrillus expoundeth himself natural vnion is nothing else but a true vnion Wee are by nature the children of anger that is in deede truely Sander He saith not it is nothing else but ss naturalē If wee call it a naturall vnion wee shall call it a true vnion Fulke M. Iewel saith not generally that naturall is nothing but
of Christ. Iewel Emissenus saieth Christ is present by his grace Sand. You haue put a false nominatiue case it is victima the oblation which is present in grace Fulke And what is the substance of that eternall sacrifice but Christ for the action you confesse to be vtterly past Iewel Saint Augustine saith Christ is present in vs by his spirit Sand. That is true when he is in vs by his flesh Fulk It is his spirit that maketh his flesh present to vs after a wonderfull manner Iewel You shall not eate this bodie that you see it is a certaine sacrament that I deliuer you Sand. The wordes of S. Augustine are I haue commended or set forth Fulke To commend or set forth is to deliuer in doctrine Sand. That which was commended at Capernaum was onely the same flesh which dyed for vs therefore that flesh must be deliuered not in a visible manner but yet in truth of giuing by bodie taking by bodie Fulke That giuing and taking by bodie Saint Au gustine denieth in the person of Christ ye shall not eate this bodie that yee see nor drinke that bloude which shal be shedde It is a sacrament or mysterie which I haue commended vnto you which being sp 〈…〉 itually vnderstoode shall quicken you Sand. In deede M. Iewel Christ deliuered his fleshe as well at Capernaum as at his supper by your doctrine But not so by the doctrine of the Gospel Fulke The Gospel saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except ye doe eate the flesh of the sonne of man and doe drinke his bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you haue not nowe life in you Christ speaketh in the present temps But howe coulde they eate his flesh and drinke his bloud that they might haue life except he did then deliuer his flesh as well as at his supper For many of theÌ„ might die before the institution of his supper Againe he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he which doth eate my flesh which doth drinke my bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath nowe life euerlasting and I wil raise him vp in the last day For my fleshe is verily meate my bloude is verily drinke Howe was it verily meate and drinke when he spake if no man might eate and drinke it before his supper Againe He which doth eate my fleshe and which doth drinke my bloude doeth abide in mee and I in him How can this be verified in the present temps so ofteÌ„ repeted except Christ did at that present time deliuer his fleshe and bloude to bee eaten of all that beleeued and offered the same to all that heard him wherefore the doctrine of the Gospel is agreable to that which master Iewel teacheth and directlye contrarie to master Sanders doctrine that Christ deliuered not his flesh and blood to be eaten dronken before his supper but onely promised them at Capernaum Iew. Thus the holy fathers say Christ is present not corporally Sand. Both S. Cyrill and S. Hilarie haue the worde corporally concerning the sacrament Fulk But neither of both saith that Christ is present in the sacrament corporally I 〈…〉 Not carnally S 〈…〉 S. Hilarie hath the word carnally Fulk You play mockeholiday S. Hilarie saith not That Christ is present in the sacrament carnally Iew. No 〈…〉 rally Sand. S. â—â—larie hath the tearme naturally diuerse times and S. Cyrill calleth it natural partaking and naturall vnion Fulk Neither the one nor the other euer saide that Christ is in the sacrament naturally Touching the naturall participation and vnion it hath bene shewed how it may be without Christ being present naturally in the sacrament Iew. But as in a sacrament by his spirit by his grace Sand. Here appeareth what stuffe you haue fedde the reader withall in your whole booke For partly you denie a trueth which is that Christ is not corporally present against the expresse worde of God and the fathers as I haue shewed Fulk And yet neither the expresse word of God nor any of the fathers haue this sentence Christ is corporally present in the sacrament or any thing equiualent to it Sand. Partly you prooue that your heresie by an other trueth which rather establisheth then hindereth the reall presence For Christ cannot be better present in spirit and grace then if he be present in his flesh Fulk The presence of Christ by his spirit and grace excludeth your heresie of presence corporally and he is better present by spirit and grace whereby he tarieth in vs for euer then by your imagined presence of his body in which you confesse him to tarie but a short time no not in them that receiue the sacrament most worthilie Your conclusion being for the most part but a repetition of such cauils slanders and railings as you haue vsed throughout the booke deserueth no seuerall answere partly because the greatest part of them are answered alreadie and partly because both they and the rest conteine nothing but generall accusations without any speciall argument to proue them As for that you make bost that you haue pr 〈…〉 euerie one of your bookes whether I haue a 〈…〉 ough briefly yet sufficiently confuted or no I commit to the iudgement of indifferent readers GOD BE PRAISED Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fuke Bristowe â—Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe F 〈…〉 Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe â—ulkâ— Bristowe Fulkâ— Bristowe â—â—lke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fuâ—ke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristo Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowâ— Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowâ— Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulk 〈…〉 Ambros. de Sacralib 1. cap. 1. Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander â—ulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Ser. 6. de Ieiâ— 7. mens Sander Fulke Esay 9. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Ful 〈…〉 Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sand. Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Cont. duaâ— epist. Pel. lib. 2. Cap. 4. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander 〈◊〉 Sander Fâ—lke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sanden Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Sander Fulk Sande Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke 3. Reg. 17. 3. Reg. 19. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke 〈…〉 der Fulke Sander Fulke â—ander â—ulk Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke
was wrought by them As for the argument that Chrysostome taketh against the Pagans of the reliques of Babylas the Martyr which he would haue me to applie to my disease was to the confusion of Idolatrie and sorcerie not to the setting vp or mainteyning thereof And what worshippe I pray you was giuen to the reliques of Babylas If God shewed miracles by the presence of his bodie in Daphne as by the bones of Elizeus yet it followeth not that his body or ashes were worshipped more then the bones of Elizeus were Concerning inuocation of Angels which they haue common with the Caianes Bristowe sheweth that the Caianes had other greater heresies which the papistes holde not as though those greater errors coulde excuse this lesser The superstition of Angels that Saint Paul warneth the Ephesians and Collossians to beware of hee sayth they be cleare of it because in all their prayers they conclude per Christum c. Through Christ our Lorde as though they that taught the superstition of Angels did cleane exclude Christ or that it was to be doubted lest the Ephesians and Collosians would forsake Christ and cleaue to Angels but rather lest with the religion of Christ as the cheefe they woulde also admitte the superstition of the Angels whereof were named the sect Angelici in Angelorum cultu inclinati bowed downe in the worship of Angels as S. Augustine saith which therefore helde not the heade because they worshipped not him alone but ioyned Angels in part of his glorie That Angels are ministring spirits it proueth not that therefore they must be prayed vnto but the contrarie for inuocation is due onely to him on whome wee beleeue which is God onely So much the more blasphemous is Bristowe that chargeth Saint Iohn Apoc. 1. to haue prayed to the Angels where he sayth Grace and peace bee to you from him that is and was and is to come and from the 7. spirites that are before his throne and from Iesus Christ. Whereas the consent of all auncient writers is that the seuen spirites are taken for the holy Ghost which is seuen folde in his graces according to the prophecie of Isay 11. The spirite of the Lorde shall rest vppon him the spirite of wisedome and vnderstanding the spirite of counsell and power c. And it is also euident that S. Iohn speaketh of the spirit of God as he was shewed to him in the vision according to the dispensation of his manifolde giftes in the figure of the seuen lampes which are the 7. spirites of God according to the number of seuen Churches of Asia to whome he sendeth the copie of his reuelation for the instruction of all Churches in the worlde Apoc. 4. And albeit wee shoulde expounde these seuen spirites for seuen Angels as some late writers do yet it followeth not that S. Iohn shoulde pray vnto them in those wordes but rather to God for their ministerie to the preseruation of the Churches No more then if he shoulde wishe grace vnto them from heauen it followeth that he prayeth vnto heauen That phrase is often in the Psalmes wherein saluation or helpe is prayed to bee sent from Sion from the holy Hill from the Temple from heauen and yet no man was so madde to say that prayers was made to Sion to the Hill to the Temple to heauen And yet it is more monstrous that hee chargeth me to forget that in the same booke of the Apocalips God doeth promise to make the obstinate Iewes to come and to adore before the feete of one Angell And they shall know that I haue loued thee c. I speak vnto thee Th. Stapleton which profesiest that thou hast perused this booke of Bristowes and allowed it Wast thou awake when thou didest pâ—ruse this argument and allowed it Tell me by thy credite is this the Angell of the Church of Philadelphia of whome this is writen to bee vnderstood for one of those heauenly spirites concerning whose worshippe and inuocation we nowe speake in this controuersie Are epistles then written from the Apostle on earth to Angels in heauen is any of those Angels neither whote nor colde in the seruice of God hath any of them a name that he liueth and is deade hath any of them left his first loue doth any of them suffer the woman Iesabell to preach c Out vpon thine impudence if thou affirme all this and fie vpon thy negligence if thou didest peruse it and allow this argument if thou be ashamed to affirme all the rest As for thee Bristowe it shall be sufficient to heare thy Master reproued for thy fault at this time to make the blushe if any sparke of honest shame bee lefte in thy breast that darest set abroad such an intollerable corruption of the holy scripture against all wit and reason that euer was hearde of 3 Of abstinence from fleshmeate and from marriage Bristow would haue the question of prescript fasting dayes and abstinence from flesh to be all one as they are accompted among the Papistes But there is great difference For Aerius which denyed fasting dayes appointed by the church to be obserued did neuerthelesse as Augustine sheweth out of Philaster teach abstinence from flesh Wherefore Bristowe falsely chargeth me to confesse that the Papists haue the error of abstinence from flesh on fasting dayes common with the auncient fathers of the primitiue churche For on their prescript fasting dayes except for necessitie they did eate neither fish nor flesh nor any thing vntill the euening As for the abstinence from meates against which Iouinian did teach was but such particular abstinence as some men prescribed to them selues not onely from fleshe but also from fish and wine also as appeareth by Hieronyme con Iouin lib. 2. Nec hoc dicinius quòd negemus pisces c. Neither say we this sayth Hieronyme that we deny fishes and the rest of meates if a mans will may be taken in meate but as wee preferre virginitie before marriage so fasting and the spirite before fulnesse flesh Likewise in diuers places he speaketh of the abstinence from wine Furthermore he chargeth me to bring no proofe of that I say the fathers tooke prescript times of fasting and vnmeasurable extolling of sole life in the clergie from the Tatianistes Manichees Montanistes If I brought no proofe in that place it was because I presupposed that Allen knewe what Eusebius reporteth out of Apollonius lib. 5. Cap. 18. That Montanus was the first that prescribed lawes of fasting And that the Manichees in their electes and the Tatianistes in their perfectes allowed not marriage out of Epiphanius Augustine But where I charge the Papistes which Aerianisme for abstinence from flesh Bristowe sayeth I take Richard for Robert because the Aerians abstained from fleshe as the Manichees Tatianistes Montanistes as perteining to the yll god according to the heresie of the Valentinians Admit it were so yet how caÌ„ either Richard or Robert dischardg them selues
of the doctrine of diuels and spirite of errour whose fruite is forbidding of marrying eating of meates 1. Tim. 4. which is hereticall and abhominable for what cause of religion so euer it be And seeing the Apostle chargeth them with hypocrisie it is more probable that he speaketh against the Papists than against those open blasphemers But howe proueth Bristowe that the Aerians were of the opinion of the Eucratites or Apotastites Forsooth because Augustine sayeth Quidam perhibent istos sicut Eucratitas vel Apotastitas non admittere ad communionem suam nisi continentes eos qui seculo ita renuntiaverint vt propria nulla possideant ab esâ—a tamen carnium non eos abstinere dicit Epiphanius Philaster verò hanc eis tribuit abstinentiam Some say that these men as the Eucratites or Apotastites do not admit into their societie but onely such as conteine from marriage and haue so renounced the world that they possesse no proper goods yet Epiphanius sayeth not that they abstain from eating of flesh but Philaster layeth to them also this abstinence The similitude which Bristowe by falsifying S. Augustine and displacing his wordes would haue to be in the whole sect of the Eucratites is onely in the abstinence from marriage and meates and possessions not in the opinion or cause for which they abstained For seeing Aerius was an Arrian he could not hold the pluralitie of Gods For the Arrians so held the vnitie of the godhead that they denyed the Trinitie of the persons in equall substance And although he were the scholer of Eustachius yet it followeth not that he held all pointes as his maister did Augustine chargeth him to haue added these matters of his owne Beside that diuerse of Eustachius articles differ little from the opinion of the Papists concerning the marriage of priestes and the abstinence from meates howsoeuer the papistes will not seeme to be so boysterous as Eustachius in denying the kingdome of heauen to them that marry and hope to them that eate fleshe yet Pope Syricius is affirmed to write that they which be marryed be in the flesh and cannot please God Ep. ad Him Tarrat And what a daungerous matter the Papistes count it to eate flesh in tymes by them prohibited all the world doth know 4 Of Ceremonies and Liturgies The church is S. Augustines times approued vnprofitable and hurtfull vsages because Augustine complaineth of them Ep. ad Ianuar. 118. and wisheth that they might be abrogated so soone as occasion serued Bristowe quarreling that my quotation is missing which was but the printers omission answereth that Augustine in the same epistle sayeth Tamen ecclesia c. Yet the church of God approueth not any thing that is against the faith or against good life And I reply notwithstanding that they may be vnprofitable and hurtfull vsages For so the same Augustine writeth in thesame Epistle Quamuis enim c. For although neither this can be founde howe they are against the faith yet they oppresse the religion it selfe with seruile burdens which the mercie of God would haue to be free with moste fewe and manifest sacraments of celebrations so that the condition of the Iewes is more tollerable which although they haue not knowen the time of libertie yet they are subiect to lawfull burthens not to humaine presumptions But Bristowe proceedeth and vrgeth an other saying of Augustine that if the whole church vse any thing it is a point of most insolent madnesse to call in question whether that should be so vsed I answere wee speake of approuing of vsages not of any thing that is generally vsed The church is S. Augustines time approued diuerse vnprofitable vsages by secrete consent without open abrogation which yet were diuerse in diuerse places Where I proue they were vnprofitable by this reason that many of them are abrogated he answereth that is no good argument for there might be good cause to abrogate them although they came of the tradition of the Apostles as the decree of not eating blood nor strangled Act. 15. and the custome of the Apostles and of the churches of God for men to praye and prophesie bareheaded To the former decree I reply that it was temporall and not meant by the makers to be eternall but to beare with the infirmitie of the Iewes for a time To the other custome of praying or preaching bareheaded whatsoeuer the pompous doctors of the popish church obserue I saye it is perpetually to be obserued for the distinction of the man and woman in couering and vncouering of the head and the obseruing of naturall comlinesse in both although for necessitie of health a nightcap kercheffe or such like couering according to the custome of the country be not absolutely prohibited As for the forbidding of solemne fastes and genuflections on sundayes which Bristowe sayeth was ordeined by the Apostles to plant the article of the resurrection and more straitly obserued of the church against the Manichees which might be abrogated nowe that article is receiued and the heresie extinct is but a dreame of his owne head without proofe so 〈…〉 et it passe although I knowe not what he meaneth to say that forbidding of solemne kneeling is still obserued for the papistes kneele as solemnely on sundayes as on other dayes As for the libertie the church hath in altering of ceremonies is neuer denied of me but fondly alledged of him which pretendeth that traditions of the Apostles are as necessarily to be obserued as commaundements of the scripture referring euery blynde ceremonie whereof he knoweth none author to tradition of the Apostles Nowe concerning the Liturgies he sayth Proclus answereth why Basil Chrysostome changed the auncient Liturgies that were before them he sayth forsooth they did but abridge and make shorter the Liturgie of S. Iames which was too loÌ„g for the peoples cold deuotion But his reason will soone proue all the three Liturgies that nowe are called by the names of S. Iames Basil and Chrysostome to be counterfeits for ther is small difference in the length of them and in a manner none at all As for the Councell of Constantinople in Trullo doth in deede name the Lyturgies of S. Iames Basil Chrysostome but that proueth not these which we haue at this day to be the same seeing there are manifest arguments to the contrary as of the Monasteries spoken of in that which goeth vnder the name of Iames and of Alexius the Emperour Nicholas the bishop in Chrysostome which were not borne many hundreth yeares after his death But that prayers for the dead were vsed in the ancient Liturgies that were before Chrysostomes tyme Bristowe sayeth he hath proued by plaine demonstration Cap. 3. where there is nothing but a saying of Chrysostome cited by me in Epist. ad Philip. Hom. 3 Non frustra c. It hath not been in vaine decreed by the Apostles that in the celebration of the holy mysteries memorie should be made
saye this worde Mee signifieth neither his Godhead nor the nature of his manhood nor both together but the visible forme of a poore man Fy on these beggerly shiftes too badde for boyes to vse in their sophismes S. Augustine is a cleare witnesse against you for vnderstanding of both the textes Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui Nam secundum maiestatem suam secundum prouidentiam secundum ineffabiiem inuisibilem gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum omnibus diebus vsque ad consummationem saeculi Secundum carnem verò quam vâ—rbum assumpsit secundum quod de virgine natus est secundum id quod a Iudaeis prehensus est quod ligno crucifixus quod de cruce depositus quod linteis involutuâ— quod in sepulchro conditus quod in resurrectione manifestatus non semper habebitis vobiscum Quare Quoniam conuersatus est secundum corporis praesentiam 40. diebus cum discipulis suis eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo ascendit in coelum non est hîc Ibi est enim sedet ad dextram patris hîc est non enim recessit praesentia maiestatis Aliter secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum secundum praesentiaÌ„ carnis rectè dictum est discipulis me autem non semper habebitis Habuit enim illum Ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modo fide tenet oculis non videt Hee spake of the presence of his bodye For according to his maiestye according to his prouidence according to his vnspeakeable and inuisible grace it is fulfilled which was saide of him Behold I am with you alwaies euen to the ende of the worlde But according to that fleshe which the worde tooke vppon him according to that hee was borne of a virgine according to that hee was taken of the Iewes that hee was crucified on the tree that hee was taken downe from the crosse that he was wrapped in linen clothes that he was laide in the sepulchre that he was manifested in his resurrection you shal not alwaies haue him with you Wherefore Because he was conuersant with his disciples 40. daies according to the presence of his body and they bringing him on his way by seeing not by following he went vp into heauen is not here For he is there where he sitteth at the right hand of the father and he is here for he departed not in presence of his maiestie Otherwise according to the presence of his maiestie we haue Christ alwayes according to the presence of his flesh it is rightly said vnto the disciples but me you shall not alwaies haue For the Church had him according to the presence of his flesh a fewe dayes now she holdeth him by faith she seeth him not with eies In Ioan. 12. Tr. 50. But to returne to Sander it is the flesh and bloud of Christ which worketh our saluation saith he and wee saye no lesse if the materiall cause may be called a working He that taketh this from the Sacrament depriueth vs of the meane to come to eternall saluation saith Sander This I deny for he that should take away the San crament cannot depriue vs of the meane to come by eternall life Yes saith Sander for that redemptiowhich was wrought by his flesh and bloud is applied to all that bee of a lawfull age by worthye eating and drinking therof But where hath he that exception of them that be of lawefull age or that eate it worthily Christ speaketh generally and absolutely of both And why should we thinke there is any other meane to apply the redemptioÌ„ purchased by the fleshe and bloud of Christ for vs then was for the fathers as before Christ came in the flesh Faith was the onely meane vnto them and the Sacraments were the seales of their faith What other meanes need we to atteine to the same saluation He saith when the flesh of Christ was crucified the soul of Christ deliuered the soule of Abraham and all the other fathers out of prison But where findeth he that Abraham and the fathers were in prison vntill that time We find before that time that AbrahaÌ„ was in so happy estate that his bosom was a receptacle of comfort for al his faithfull children Luc. 16. But to end the matter so euill fauouredly begunne Sander saieth that Christ to shew that he would be in his supper by the nature of his manhoode for that cause named not his person but his flesh his body his bloud and Saint Paul nameth his bones And therefore marke this againe and againe beleeue thou â—he presence of body bloud of flesh and of bones as the word of God speaketh Marke you Papistes marke againe and againe Sander saith he named his flesh body bloud because he would be in his supper by nature of his manhood ergo it is true S. Paul saith that euery true Christian and member of the Church that was from the beginning of the world is a member of Christes body and of his flesh and of his bones ergo beleue thou the presence of Christs body flesh and bones in the Sacrament Verily we beleeue pledg and assurance of this coÌ„munication vnion with Christ to be giuen vs in the Sacrament but in such manner as it was giuen to all the faithfull before the incarnation of Christ who were likewise members of Christes body of his flesh and of his bones but such a monstrous presence as the Papistes do imagine as we knowe it to be needles so we affirme it to be against all such places of the scripture as teach vs the trueth of Christs humaine nature to be like vnto vs in all thinges except sinne Heb. 2. CHAP. XX. It is a colde supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ in comparison of his true supper The eating of Christ by faith and spirite which wee affirme Sander confesseth to be no sleight or colde thinge but to say that no more is done in his supper that is sleightly and coldely saide Why so Master Sander Partly he saith because it may be done without the supper And is it therefore a colde supper Because a man may eate at dinner the same meate which he eateth at supper doth it follow that he eateth a cold supper may not his supper be as warme as his dinner Alas this is a cold reason partly it is a cold thing to call men who consist of bodies to a supper of Christes making and to giue their bodyes none other meate then corruptible bread and wine whereas Christ did forbid vs to worke the perishing meat at his banket You might likewise say it is a cold bath to call men which consist of bodies to regeneration and to giue their bodies nothing but cold water whereas the holy ghoste saith the washing of the fil thines of the flesh saueth vs not 1. Pet. 3. or els Sander maketh another cold wreched reason we call men to that