in Rupertus himselfe by way of Impanation N. N. Let vs therefore beleeue God alwaies and not repine against him although that which he saith seemeth absurd to our sense and vnderstanding Let his words surmount and passe both our sense and reason which thing wee ought to doe in all things but chiefly in the mystâ—ries having more regard vnto his words then to things which lye before vs. For his words are infallible but our sense may very easily be deceaued they cannot possibly bee false but this sense of ours is many and sundry times beguiled Seeing therefore he said This is my Body let vs haue no doubt but beleeue and behold it with the eyes of our vnderstanding I. D. Whatsoeuer Christ saith must be beleeued although to our sense and reason it seeme neuer so vnlikely This I grant for he is truth it selfe and can neither deceaue nor be deceaued But Christ saith This is my body And this also I grant for they are part of the words of Institution Ergo these words must be beleeued And let them bee esteemed as Gentiles and Publicans that beleeue them not But what meaneth he when he saith Let vs behold it with the eyes of our vnderstanding In the words immediatly following he declareth it thus Christ deliuered no sensible thing vnto vs but by sensible things things intelligible And this he illustrats by the Sacrament of baptisme So also in baptisme saith hee by water a thing sensible the gift is giuen but that which is wrought namely Regeneration and Renovation is intelligible By all which you may easily see what St Chrysostome intendeth namely to draw our eyes from the sensible Obiect vnto the spirituall and Intelligible Grace exhibited to our vnderstanding by it as knowing that Water and bread are now become instruments in the hand of Christ of the spirituall Renovation and Refection of our soules Which as it is effected in Baptisme without the Transubstantiation of Water so for ought St Chrysostome saies it may bee done in the Lords supper also without Transubstantiation of bread N. N. What wil you say then if I shew you that so many of vs as be partakers of the holy mysteries doe receaue a thing farre greater then that which Elias gaue For Elias left vnto his Disciples his cloake but the sonne of God ascending into heauen left with vs his Flesh. And againe Elias went himselfe without his cloake but Christ left his flesh with vs and ascended hauing with him the selfe-same Flesh. I. D. Here Christ ascending into heauen and carrying his true flesh with him is compared to Elias who also ascended and carried his flesh thither with him But the flesh that he left here with vs is compared to Elias cloake which he left with Elizeus And the comparison standeth thus that as the Cloake which Elias left was a symbol of the spirit and Vertue which fell from him vpon Elizeus so the mysticall elements in the Sacrament are pledges and tokens vnto vs of the true flesh of Christ in the Church Thus therefore is St Chrysostome to be vnderstood as if he had said Christ ascending carried his true flesh with him corporally into heaven and left his mysticall flesh here vnto vs spiritually in the Sacrament N. N. The supper then being prepared both old and new ordinances met together at the Sacramentall and mysticall delicates and the Lamb being consumed which the old tradition did set forth our Master setteth before his Disciples a meat which cannot be consumed Neither is the people invited now to sumptuous costly and artificiall banquets but the food of immortalitie is giuen which differeth from common meats keeping the outward form of the corporall substance but prouing declaring that there is present by an invisible and secret working the presence of a divine power I. D. Thâ— booke of the Cardinal workes of Christ divided into twelue Tracts among which this De coenâ Domini is one is none of Cyprians that was Bishop of Carthage Pamelius staggers For although the Words and phrases and figures and the like seeme vnto him to make for Cyprian yet he professeth that of certainety hee hath nothing to say But Possevine is peremptory that it is falsly fathered on Cyprian So is Sixtus Senensis also and Cardinal Bellarmine And they render reasons For that Cyprian never refused to set his name to his bookes which this Author doth Neither would hee haue called his writings Childish toyes or haue said that the sublimitie of Cornelius ought to be delighted with his stammering tongue Nor finally would he haue vsed so many barbarismes nor haue written things contrary to himselfe As for this particular Tract de coenâ Domini Bellarmin ingeniously acknowledgeth that not Cyprian but some one later then hee wrote it Howbeit they all conclude that the Author of these Tracts is ancient How ancient It is cleare saith Pamelius that this booke was written in the time of Cornelius and Cyprian and therefore deserueth the same authoritie with Cyprian Nay not so saith Bellarmine for the Author thereof is later then Cyprian yea without doubt later then S. Augustine that is a hundred and fifty yeares yonger then Cyprian at least And who certainely knoweth but he may yet be much younger then so In the Library of All Soules College in Oxford there is a Manuscript very ancient of all these Tracts vnder the name of Arnoldus Bonavillacensis dedicated not to Cornelius as it is now falsely inscribed but to Hadrian the fourth the which Arnoldus liued not much lesse theÌ„ twelue hundred yeares after Christ. Which inscription if it be true as it is not vnlikely then is not this author the man you tooke him for namely that graue Father and Martyr as in the next Section you tearme him to wit St Cyprian If false yet because it is vncertaine who he is and in what age he liued his authority cannot be of of any great value Neverthelesse whatsoeuer he be let vs in a word or two examine his testimonie And first be it obserued that all the Presence hee speaketh of in these words is but the Presence of divine vertue or power which falleth short of that Real Presence of the naturall Body of Christ which you intend But after the Lambe saith Cyprian was consumed our Lord set before his Disciples an inconsumptible meat which cannot be Bread Indeed it cannot and who saith it is For the meat that cannot be consumed is the Body of Christ offered and exhibited in the Sacrament together with Bread And this is also that food of immortalitie which hee speaketh of represented and figured vnto vs by Bread it being so truly Bread sacramentally But it followeth differing from common meats and keeping the forme of bodily substance and these happily are the words which you thinke strikes all dead What for Transubstantiation Suppose then your Author had said The water in Baptisme differeth from common water
say ordinarily beget Faith work Repentance and breed sanctity and newnesse of life not so Reading May it please you then to tell vs for our better satisfaction what such coherence there is betwixt Sermons and Faith which is not betwixt it and Reading And what that intrinsicall and proper quality of Sermons is whereby Faith is begotten which is not also to be found in Reading Is it in the doctrine and matter of Sermons It is the very same which wee read Is it in the arguments and motiues whereby they perswade We read either the same or as forcible in the Scripture What then Is it in the vtterance voice gesture behauiour or credit of the Preacher Much lesse for then should we be beholding for our Faith to accidents more then substance to the plausible inticements of humane wisdome rather then the evidence demonstration of the spirit Wherein then lies the vertue Forsooth in Gods blessing for Preaching is the ordinance of God and he hath promised to blesse it But stay my bretheren is not Reading Gods ordinance also And doth God having imprinted in it such an aptnesse and fitnesse ordinarily to beget Faith either curse his owne ordinance or suspend the operation of it so as it shall never worke but only extraordinarily What shall I say When they haue answered what they can vnto the question the summe of all as Hooker obserueth will be this Sermons are and must be the only ordinary meanes but why and wherefore we cannot tell And so I passe from the first argument drawne from the aptnesse and fitnesse of Reading to produce all these kindes of Faith Now in the second place I dispute ex concessis from that which is yeelded and granted by the adversarie First it is granted by Hieron and we haue proued it by the testimonie of M. Fox to be true that many of our forefathers in the blinde time of Popery were converted to the true Faith by reading only This say they was extraordinary but I infer that therfore it was ordinary For if reading be excluded sermōs be the only ordinary means it will follow that the Church at that time was without the ordinary meanes for wholsome Sermons then were not to bee had But it is a strange point in Divinity that the Ordinary meanes should at any time fayle in the Church and I presume when that fayleth the Church of God will fayle also If so then is there some other ordinary meanes besides Sermons and what can that bee but the written word and the Reading thereof It is further granted and that rightly that whosoever readeth the Scriptures or heareth them read is therevpon bound to beleeue And this is so cleare a truth that Whitaker could not forbare to charge his adversary Stapleton with much folly for holding the contrary Sic tu planè desipis saith he Art thou so very a foole as to thinke that the word of God hath no authority or bindeth no man to beleeue but then when it is preached Certainely if the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles was to be beleeued when it was deliuered by them in their Sermons it is as much now to be beleeued when it is convayed vnto vs by way of writing and reading Wherevpon saith Caluin Although the Apostles be dead yet their doctrine liueth flourisheth and it is our dutie to profit by their writing as much as if themselues were now publikely speaking before our eyes Vnlesse therefore Gods word cease to bee his word when it is read an obligation in reading is laid vpon vs to yeeld all credence and obedience vnto it Now God bindeth not but by a commandement He commandeth therefore to beleeue by Reading What Doth he command vs to beleeue by a meanes that is vtterly vnable and vnfit to worke beleefe And doth hee daily and hourely tye our Faith vnto that which hee meanes not to blesse vnto that end but once as it were in an age and extraordinarily Questionlesse seeing God hath ordained that his holy Scriptures be ordinarily read both in publike and private and hath bound vs all to beleeue whensoeuer we either read them or heare them read it cannot be but that Reading is an ordinary meanes to beget faith and that God will alwaies vouchsafe to blesse his owne ordinance to the same end In the third place I vrge the testimonie and authoritie of holy writ But happily so doing I may be counted in the number of those vile men who like venomous spiders suck poyson out of the sweetest flowres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the die is cast and angry speeches may not hinder me from maintaining truth by the word of truth When all Israell saith Moses is come to appeare before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall chuse thou shalt read this law before all Israell in their hearing Gather the people together men and women and children and thy stranger that is within thy gates that they may heare and that they may learne and feare the Lord your God and obserue to doe all the words of his Law Here in expresse tearmes the Reading of the law is commanded and it is particularly commanded to this end that men may learne thereby What the feare of God and obedience to the Law God therefore hath appointed Reading to be an Ordinary meanes of conversion It is answered that such Reading is meant as was accompanied with interpretation So they dreame indeed but in the text there is no mention of interpretation Neither is it likely seeing now the whole law was to be read at once as is aboue said and the scantling of time would hardly beare any exposition Howsoeuer sure I am the holy Ghost ascribeth the effect vnto Reading and I thinke hee both knewe and meant what hee said In the Prophecie of Ieremie God commandeth the Prophet to write all his Prophecies in a booke that all the house of Iudah might heare them read for it may bee saith God that hearing they may returne every man from his evill way that I may forgiue their iniquity and their sinne According to this commandement Ieremie dictates all the Prophecies vnto Baruch Baruch writes them and being written reads them in the house of the Lord. Here againe Reading is commanded by God and to the same end that the people thereby might bee moued to repentance To this they answer first that God speaketh after the manner of men True when he saith it may be as if he knewe no more then man what the effect would bee Yet is it plainely intimated that Reading is an ordinary meanes of repentance Secondly say they Ieremie had preached the same before and so they are Sermons that are commanded to be read Be it so Yet then the very Reading of Sermons may worke Repentance which the Preaching of them could not To say nothing that these Sermons written were Gods word both for matter and manner so that if the Reading of them might be
man by bread Now the soveraigne prime cause of Faith is God God worketh it by his word The word worketh as a Doctrinall or Morall instrument by way of argument perswasion Before it can perswade it must be revealed God therefore revealeth it and that sometimes without meanes by an immediate impression of light and grace vpon the soule as he did vnto the Apostles on the feast of Pentecost and to S. Paul in his iourney towards Damascus But generally and for the most part he revealeth it mediately and by the intervention of meanes The Ordinary meanes is that which is setled and established to continue in the Church for ever That is the Ministerie of the Church whose office is by all meanes to publish the word whether by Writing or by Speaking and this againe whether by Reading or Interpreting All which if they haue in them an ability and fitnesse vnder God to convey into our hearts the knowledge of his word then vndoubtedly are they all Ordinary meanes to beget faith And such an ordinary meanes among the rest doe I affirme Reading to be Which hauing thus fully explained the tearmes I now come to demonstrate and first in that faith whereby we yeeld assent vnto the Scripture that it is the very word of God The last and highest principle whereinto Faith is resolued and wherevpon it finally stayeth it selfe is the Scripture yet is it not so vnto vs vntill we be perswaded that it is the word of the eternall verity which can neither erre nor lead into errour But how come we to bee perswaded hereof By Sermons I deny not but Sermons are vnder God a sufficient meanes to perswade it But when did you ever heare a Preacher treat of this argument or goe about to proue it Or if any haue done it did they not perswade you to that whereof you were already perswaded Yes questionlesse For besides the testimonie of the Church in the publike reading of the Scriptures as the word of God there shineth forth in them such a Majestie and divinenesse as is not to be found in other writings and when by Reading yet take notice of so many oracles and miracles and predictions and sundry other things farre exceeding the power of nature doth not reason it selfe tell you saith Whitaker that they must needs bee of God The same saith D. Iohn White Many times Pagans and Atheists without the Ministery come to Faith by only Reading whence but being convinced by Scripture it selfe If then the very Reading of holy Scripture may bring vnto our knowledge such remonstrances and arguments as convince the minde that it is the word of God certainely it is an ordinary meanes to beget this faith for what can be more ordinary then arguments and demonstrations But the former is true as we haue proued therefore the latter also If so then much more is it apt and fit to beget that Faith whereby we yeeld assent to those articles which are built vpon Scripture especially if two things may be granted first that it is perfect secondly that it is facile easie to be vnderstood That it is all-sufficient and containeth whatsoeuer is necessary either to bee beleeued or done vnto saluation none but a Papist will deny And surely if it be defectiue either it is from God or from the pen-men Not from the pen-men for they were but hands and could not but write what the head indited to them If from God then either because he could not or because he would not perfect it To say he could not is to derogate from his wisdome and power to say hee would not is to detract from his loue and to taxe him of envie But what need mee to spend more time in this point seeing I now deale against those who challenge vnto it such a perfection that nothing may be done no not to the taking vp of a straw without warrant from it The Scripture then is perfect is it also facile and easie to bee vnderstood Aristotle saith of his Acroamaticks that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 published in that they were writtē not published because of their darknesse In the books of Heraclitus there was so great obscurity that he was therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Obscure May wee iustly say the same of the Scriptures and the pen-men thereof Surely it cannot be denied but that some things are difficult yet as there are deepe places where the Elephant may swim so there are shallow where the Lamb may wade and as there is harder meat which the strong man may chew so there is milk also which the infant may suck And I boldly affirme that all fundamentall points and duties necessary to salvation are in Scripture so clearely delivered that if they were written with a sunbeame they could not bee more cleare God hath spoken so that not a few but all may vnderstand saith Hierom. Hee speaketh to the heart both of learned and vnlearned saith Augustin Scriptures are so plaine as they need not to be expounded saith Iustin Martyr They exceed no mans capacity saith Cyril of Alexandria They are easie not to the wise onely but women and boyes saith Chrysostome And againe They are easie to bee vnderstood to the Servant to the Countryman to the widow to the stripling to him that is very simple The same say all our Divines against Papist The Scripture saith Whitaker may easily be vnderstood of any if he will And Zanchie will a Father speake obscurely to his children in things concerning their salvation that they shall need to seeke interpreters No verily But God being wise was able to expresse himselfe and being good he would and it was necessary to speake plainely in things so necessary If then to come to a conclusion Scripture containe all what is necessary and that in such plaine tearmes that whosoeuer readeth may easily vnderstand how can it be but Reading should be an apt and fit meanes and consequently an ordinary meanes to beget this Faith For if once we beleeue that Scripture is the word of God we cannot but yeeld assent vnto those verities that are so plainely deliuered therein and which we knowe to bee witnessed by the truth it selfe The same doe I also affirme of that Faith which wee call iustifying and of the fruits thereof Repentance and New obedience that the Reading of Scripture is an apt fit meanes to beget that also For it presenteth vnto vs store of strong motiues to perswade sweet promises to allure terrible threatnings to affright notable examples to imitate and the like then which there cannot be a better outward meanes and there needs no more but the inward concurrence of Gods spirit to worke a perfect conversion Read among other places the 28 of the book of Deuteronomie and then tell mee whither the Sermons of any man nay whither the tongue of men and Angels be able to perswade more effectually Sermons you
beseech you beloued brethren tandem hoc agamus let vs at length attend the businesse which Christ hath charged vs withall What errand hee hath put into our mouthes that and no other let vs freely deliuer And let vs striue to deliuer it in such manner as may make most to our end that is the building vp of men in their most holy Faith This shall we the better doe if we looke vnto Christ and what forme he vsed A better precedent can we not possibly follow for neuer spake man as he did Him did the holy Apostles make their patterne and by vertue thereof converted the world vnto the Christian Faith If we looke vnto any other and for the pleasing of them forme our Sermons after the humour of those whose humour we should rectifie neither shall we please God nor happily in the end them A certaine Painter hauing with all his skill drawne two pictures as like as possibly hee could reserued the one in his chamber and set forth the other on his stall to the view and censure of all that passed by and whatsoeuer they misliked he would with his pencill alter according to their iudgement vntill it was growne every way deformed At length setting forth his other picture by it and the people commending it as an exquisite peece condemning the other as a deformed monster yet that quoth hee I drew according to your judgement this according to my owne art and skill Certainely certainely if we shall attend the seuerall censures of our auditors and patch vp Sermons according to their liking monstrous and enormious must they needs bee Much better were it therefore by our owne art our art being learned from the example of Christ and his Apostles to frame all our Sermons so shall wee gaine many soules vnto Christ and purchase to our selues true praise with God and in the consciences of all good men What though this way we cannot make so much shew of learning and eloquence Yet therein shall we be like the Apostle S. Paul whose preaching was not in the entising words of mans wisdome but in demonstration of the spirit Yea like vnto Christ himselfe who though hee were rich yet made himselfe poore that he might make many rich In a word let vs duly remember that although we be dispensers of heavenly treasures yet is it the pleasure of God wee haue them in earthen vessels that the excellencie of the power may be of God and not of vs. But of what Iesus spake enough After he had spoken these things then hee lift vp his eyes and prayed Not but that without Prayer he was able to effect what he prayed for For being perfect God and the absolute dispencer of all grace wee cannot without fearefull impiety thinke that out of infirmitie he seekes that by request which of himselfe he could not accomplish No but as Ambrose saith though he were Potestatis author Lord of power yet would be Obedientiae Magister the teacher of obedience by due performing his owne dutie For as we haue said he was a Priest and the duties of Priesthood are three Docere Orare Sacrificare to teach to pray to sacrifice As for the first he hath already carefully taught them and giuen them the words which his Father gaue him As touching the third hee was now ready to offer vp himselfe as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of the world for so saith he by and by Father the houre is come Betwixt these two intercedit intercessio he maketh humble suit that both the one and the other might be effectuall to the eternall saluation of all those whom his Father had chosen out of the world and giuen vnto him And thus as in Christs Priesthood so also in his practise Preaching and Prayer were vsually ioyned together What Christ therefore hath conioyned let no man dare to put asunder The dispensation of the Word and Prayer are by the ioint testimonie of all the Apostles the two principall offices of the Ministery Hardly therefore can they bee divorced without maiming or mangling thereof As in Preaching we are the mouth of God vnto the people so by Prayer ought we to bee the mouth of the people vnto God By the one we teach them the will of God by the other we blesse them in the name of God As we are bound to plant and water by Preaching so are we by Prayer to mediate vnto God for increase For that will affect but coldly except this quicken and inflame it It is not the Word or Prayer severally but the Word and Prayer ioyntly that both sanctifieth the Creature vnto vs and the people vnto God Whence it followeth also that as the Minister is to Preach and Pray so are the People to Heare and Pray For Preaching is to no purpose without Hearing and to what end Praying in the Congregation if none concurre with him Heare therefore they must that they may beleeue for Faith commeth by hearing and hearing by the word of God And Pray they must both for their Pastors faithfully and diligently to dispense the word of truth amongst them and for themselues that God would open the eares of their hearts also that what they heare may be even the savour of life vnto life vnto them This condemneth all those who either out of a disrespect of Preaching are all for Prayer such as were the ancient Euchetae and too many also amongst vs now adayes or out of a contempt of Common Prayer are all for Preaching seldome presenting themselues in the Church vntill the Preacher be in the Pulpit No marvell if the Hearing of the one be fruitlesse seeing they despise the Prayers of the Church by which the blessing is obtained and if the Prayer of the other be vneffectuall seeing they little regard Preaching by which it is to be guided But here happily it will be demanded whether of the twaine Preaching or Prayer is the more noble A question much debated of late and with too much faction and vehemence Wherevnto this I haue to say that if the cōparison be intended betweene Preaching and the Prayer of private men without doubt Preaching is the more excellent For it is publike and therefore more profitable A publike embassage from God and therefore more honourable then a private supplication vnto God To say nothing of the more solemne promise made vnto it of shining as the brightnesse of the firmament and the starres for ever and ever Yea but Preaching is subordinate to Prayer and the end is more worthie then that which is subordinate thereto Nay but it is preordinate rather as the Intelligences are to their orbs or Prudence vnto vertuous actions Or if it be subordinate yet is it in order to the chiefest good as the kingly office is vnto meaner trades for the publike weale and the Mediation of Christ to the salvation of man for the glory of Gods grace which yet are not therefore inferiour But if
Christian ingenuity to acknowledge your errour herein that God may bee justified in all his sayings and cleare when he is judged N. N. Againe its possible we wish it were not common that malice ignorance or bribes corrupt the Swearers sometimes so that we see it directly many times that in an Oth or by the Oth of an vngodly person great sinne and great wrong is committed But now in the Lot mans wit will are so curbed the whole disposition of it being of God it being Gods only pure act without any commixtion of any power will skill or motion of any creature I say man is so curb'd that the most wicked and the most ignorant must needs say that it is of God The very heathen that did vilifie Gods Providence and erected Fortune insteed of it they made a Goddesse of Fortune being forced of their owne Conscience to confesse that there was a Divine thing in every Chance they met withall DEFENCE By an Oth say you great sin and great wrong is committed but never by a Lot Ergo a Lot excells an Oth. I deny the consequence and affirme that the contrary Conclusion would follow much better Ergo an Oth excels a Lot For it is certaine that the higher degree of perfection a thing naturally holdeth the more dangerous is the corruption thereof when it degenerateth as for example Wine the more generous it is when it waxeth eager it turneth into the sharper vineger Were not Angels in their primitiue state more noble and excellent then man and Man againe then the brute creature Yet Man when hee sinned grew thereby more detestable and mischeevous then the brute creature and Angels againe then man Is not Divinitie Architectonicall and soueraigne mistresse of all other Sciences Yet being perverted and abused no other can doe the like mischiefe In like manner the Oth of an vngodly person may worke more villanie and wickednesse then a Lot can yet is it not therefore inferiour to it in the right vse thereof but rather superiour But what is a Lot so priuiledged that there is no place for corruption therein Whence commeth it then that the Dutch by way of Proverb vse to say In Lotterie is Boverie that is to say couznage and knauerie And that all Historians report of so much jugling and false play vsed in them Those Lycian Delian Praenestine Antiatine Lots and those of â—ura in Achaia and of Elis and sundry others were they not all Magicall and of Satans invention And being so doe you thinke that the Divell neuer plaid the Divell by them If every Lot bee as you say Gods pure act without any commixtion of any power will skill or motion of any Creature why are not these esteemed the Oracles of God And why doe all Divines both ancient and moderne ever in their writings call them the Oracles of the Divell But how proue you that Lottery is Gods pure act Forsooth it is enough for you to say it and then what man so wicked or ignorant that dare gainsay it Marry sir many a one neither wicked nor ignorant but farre more learned religious then your selfe Neither will they be of other minde vntill you convince theÌ„ with stronger arguments then confident asseveration For I assure you you haue not yet gotten such authority among wise and vnderstanding men that all your words should passe for Oracles How often haue you now affirmed that God worketh immediatly in every Lot yet hetherto haue you never gone about to proue it as you ought to doe it being the maine foundation of all your building That the Gentiles in deifying of Fortune acknowledged a Divine thing in every Chance is but your own private Mythologie You might as well say they found I knowe not what divine thing in the hinges of a dore in the every in lechery and bawdery and the like when they canonized for Gods and Goddesses Carna and Laverna and Cotytto and Priapus and others of that stampe more then a good many Assuredly whosoeuer seekes or hopes to finde divine things in all the Idolatry of the Heathen either knowes not or remembers not how much God in his iust iudgement infatuated them that when they thought themselues most wise they proued the starkest fooles doing things cleane contrary not only to the rules of Divinity but of right reason also For when they abused the very light of reason to the dishonour of God hee blew out the candle as it were and cast vpon their vnderstanding such a palpable darknesse as they neither knewe or whether they went or what they did Had they beene wise and acknowledge a Providence they would never haue consecrated Fortune for a Goddesse Even the heathen Poet witnesseth as much where he saith Nullum numen abest si sitprudentia sed te nos facimus Fortuna Deam as if he should say It is our ignorance and folly that maketh Fortune a Goddesse for were wee as wise and vertuous as wee ought to be wee would never acknowledge any Deity or divine power at all to bee in her N. N. Againe it excels an Oath in this particular God would not haue one oath or one mans oath to put any man to death there must be two swear But the Lot once cast must determine it There never was an order from God nor a practise amongst Gods people to cast the Lot twice for the determination of the most weightiest matters that ever were either of life or of lands or of office DEFENCE The life of man indeed is in all law Divine Naturall Civill of so pretious account that it will by no meanes hazard it vpon the bare testimony of one man Hence the proverbe vnus testis nullus testis one witnesse is as good as none For one man may easily be mistaken not so many and therefore in ore duorum aut trium testium in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word bee established But what Can a Lot once cast determine it and suffice to put a man to death It cannot if you meane an Ordinary lot no not though it were cast ten thousand times And where is the state I pray you in wich capitall questions are divided by Lot No where I thinke vnlesse happily in Vtopia For seeing God hath not promised it neither doe men beleeue that such a Lot can discover the truth If you vnderstand an Extraordinary Lot I confesse it is sufficient but you dispute not to the purpose for they are now out of vse and to argue from Extraordinary vnto Ordinary is very ridiculous You adde there never was an order from God nor practice amongst Gods people to cast the lot twice What of that Ergo the lot may not be cast twice about one thing It is no difficult matter to alleadge many examples wherein the first fall of the Lot hath beene controled not by a second casting only but by suffrages also But you will say you finde them not in Scripture I
cause to bee confident vpon them then your selues but only to vindicate the honour and dignity of the Scriptures which of your side are too basely sleighted and neglected And as touching this particular place of Saint Augustine notwithstanding all the flourish you make therewith yet shall you never be able to proue what you intend thereby as I come now to demonstrate This booke de vtilitate credendi I haue now twice for your sake throughly read ouer and with the best attention I could In it I find the authority of the Catholik Church made the first motiue or meanes vnto Faith by which we doe beleeue but not the first principle and reason of faith for which wee doe beleeue The occasion of writing it was this Saint Augustine hauing lately through Gods grace escaped out of the toiles of the Manichean Heretiks in which for the space of nine yeares hee had beene entangled is very desirous to recouer from them his friend Honoratus also as yet continuing in his error and held fast by them This he doubteth not through the same grace of God soone to effect may hee but find him duly prepared and disposed For vntill hee be wrought from his hereticall pertinacy and stifnesse vnto a more Christian moderation and equability he shall with all his arguments but wash a bricke as they say and spend his oile and labour to little purpose That which made him so vntoward and hard to be wrought vpon was the faire and plausible insinuation of the Manichees that they pressed no man to beleeue vntill they had first cleared and manifested the truth whereas others terrified men with superstition and commanded Faith before they tendred any reason vnto them Wherefore to remoue this preiudice and to frame him vnto a more indifferent temper he employeth in this booke all his strength and skill labouring to demonstrate the Vtility of beleeuing and how requisite it is to yeeld to authority before with pure minds we can discerne the truth And this is the only drift and scope he aimeth at in this booke neither medleth hee therein with any of the Manichean heresies but reserueth the confutation conviction of them vntill some other time as appeareth by the very closing vp thereof where he willeth Honoratus to remember that he hath not yet begunne to refute the Manichees nor to seâ— himselfe against those toies nor hath opened any great matter touching Catholike Doctrine Whence thus I argue If S. Augustin in this booke dispute against Honoratus from the Churches authority as the last resolution of Faith then hath he opened therein the greatest point of Christian religion and confuted thereby the Manichean heresie inasmuch as the Catholike Church vtterly condemned it But S. Augustin in expresse words affirmeth that he hath not so much as begun to refute the Manichees nor opened any great matter touching Catholike doctrine Therefore he disputeth not from the Churches authority as the last resolution of Faith True it is he is much in commending authority setting forth the benefit of beleeving it But what authority What beleeuing that authority which is grounded vpon the Generall opinion fame and consent of people nations that Beleeuing which is Morall and only prepares the minde to divine illumination If so then certainly cannot St Augustins authoritie be the last Principle of Faith For this is infallibile and absolutelie necessarie as well to the wise as vnwise that but an vncertaine step or staire to raise vs vp vnto God not necessarie to them that are wise What then is it in S. Augustins iudgment Surely the first inducement or Introduction to the search of divine Mysteries For saith he it is authoritie only which moueth fooles to hasten vnto wisdome And againe to a man that is not able to discerne the truth that he may be made fit for it and suffer himselfe to be purged authority is at hand Had hee thought it to be more then so he would never haue considered it without certainty of truth Yet so doth hee even in the passage by you alledged They saith hee that know the Church affirme her to be more sincere in truth then other sects but touching her truth is another question In a word as in other arts and sciences He that will learne must beleeue his teachers so in these heavenly mysteries also would Saint Augustine haue all those that are not initiated such as his friend Honoratus was to beginne with Authority Not that it is a sufficient warranty for whatsoever we learne but for that it is the readiest and likeliest way to bring vs vnto learning N. N. Thus Saint Augustine teaching his friend how he might both know and beleeue the Catholike Church and all that she taught simply and without asking reason or proofe And as for knowing or discerning her from all other Churches that may pretend to be Catholike wee heare his marks that shee is more eminent vniversall greater in number and in possession of the name Catholike The second that shee may be beleeued securely and cannot deceiue nor bee deceiued in matters of Faith he proueth elsewhere concluding finally in this place If thou doest seeme to thy selfe now saith Augustine to haue beene sufficiently tossed vp downe among Sectaries and wouldst put an end to these labours and turmoiles follow the way of Catholike discipline which hath flowne downe vnto vs from Christ by his Apostles and is to flow from vs to our posterity I. D. Out of that passage of St Augustine you obserue two things first what be the Marks by which the Catholike Church may be discerned secondly that shee may be beleeued securely as one that can neither deceiue nor he deceiued As touching the former you say Saint Augustines Markes are these foure Eminence Vniversality Multitude and Possession of the name Catholike Wherevnto I answere first that Saint Augustine maketh none of these things Notes of the Church For three of them namely Eminencie Vniversality and Possession of the name Catholike he doth not at all mention Eminencie I confesse is foisted into your translation but no where appeares in the Originall Of the fourth to wit Multitude all that he affirmeth is this that in his time there were more Christians then of any other religion and that among all Sects of Christians there was one Church consisting of a greater number then all the rest which is not enough to establish it for a marke of the Church Where by the way giue me leaue to demand why whereas Saint Augustine saith Christians are more then Iewes and worshippers of Images put together you render it the Iewes and Gentiles put together For what the reason should bee I cannot conceiue vnlesse it be the same for which you raze out of your Catechismes the second Commandement But I answere secondly that as St Augustine maketh none of them Marks so neither are they Markes for Proper they are not nor Perpetuall and
without Christ are vnprofitable neither can they be fruitfull at any time but onely in Christ who alone is the Substance and Foundation of them all Wherevpon I conclude that those ancient Sacraments of the Iewes directly looked vnto Christs and prefigured him but were not properly Figures of ours No were What say you then to the Fathers who affirme they were I say two things first that their Authoritie is not a sufficient ground to build our Faith vpon as we haue elsewhere shewed at large For it is but Humane testimonie and argueth as your owne Thomas saith not necessarily but only probably Neither is it reason seeing your selues so often sleight and reiect it even in those points wherein many times they consent that you should so peremptorily vrge it vpon vs and binde vs absolutely to beleeue all they say I say secondly that the Fathers calling the Sacraments of the old Law Figures of ours meane not that they were bare and naked signes without the truth but that in them the thing signified was more darkly and implicitly shadowed then in ours Or rather that they were Figures corresponding vnto ours in the same sense that the Apostle S. Peter intendeth it when he calleth Baptisme the Antitype of Noahs Arke For vnderstanding whereof you are to knowe that Types or Figures are sometimes compared with that truth or thing whereof they are Samplars as where the Holy place of the Tabernacle is said to bee the Antitype of Heauen figured thereby Sometime with some other Secondary samplar and Figure of the same thing as in this place of Peter where Baptisme is made the Antitype of that deliuerance which befell the Church by the Arke in the generall deluge of waters So that the Arke properly was not ordained to be a Figure of Baptisme but both it and Baptisme represent vnto vs our Salvation from the danger both of sinne and death by Christ Iesus therein mutually respecting and answering one the other The same may you also say of the Cloud and the Passing through the Red sea of Manna and the Rock and all the rest And that thus the Fathers heare one for all who to vse your owne words spake in the sense of them all This Bread saith S. Augustine which came downe from heauen Manna signified this Bread the Altar of God signified They were Sacraments divers in signes but in the thing signified alike Heare the Apostle I would not saith hee haue you ignorant Brethren that all our Fathers were vnder the cloud and all passed through the sea and all were baptized by Moses in the â—loud and in the sea and all eat the same spirituall meat The same spirituall I say but another corporall because they Manna We another thing But the same spirituall that we yet our Fathers not their Fathers to whom wee are like not to whom they were like And hee addeth And they all dranke the same spirituall drink They one thing we another as touching the visible nature yet the selfe same in the signifying spirituall vertue For how the same drinke They dranke saith he of the spirituall Rock following them and the Rock was Christ. Thence the Bread thence the drinke The Rocke Christ in the signe true Christ in the Word Flesh. Thus S. Augustine But if the Fathers serue not your turne you haue the Fathers of the Fathers even Christ himselfe and his holy Apostle S. Paul who both affirme that Manna was an expresse figure of this Sacrament And if Manna why not by the same proportion other Sacraments also Indeed now you dispute not Topically but Apodictically you cannot but prevaile if it be true that you say But what are the words I pray you wherein this may appeare Certainely none at all For neither the one nor the other either expresly or implicitly make it a Figure of this Sacrament but of Christ himselfe and his Flesh. For as for the sixt of Iohn it is cleare that our Saviour speaketh not therein of the Eucharist or of Sacramentall Manducation but only of the Spirituall eating of his Flesh by Faith I saith he am the Bread of life hee that commeth vnto mee shall not hunger and hee that beleeueth in me shall neuer thirst Where although to continue the Allegorie hee might haue said He that eateth me shall not hunger and he that drinketh me shall not thirst yet hee chose rather to vse the words of Comming and Beleeuing to teach vs that hee speaketh not of an Oral eating and drinking by the Mouth but only of a Spirituall by Faith And this is so plaine that Bellarmine himselfe confesseth these words Properly not to belong vnto the Sacrament but to the faith of the Incarnation Againe that Eating is meant without which there is no life Except saith hee yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his Blood there is no life in you But without Sacramentall eating a man may haue life in him Spirituall eating therefore is meant And thus also doe sundry of your owne Rabbies vnderstand this place as namely Gabriel Cusan Cajetan Tapper Hesselius Iansenius and others As for that place of S. Paul it is evident that the Apostle putteth no difference betweene the old Sacraments and the New saue only in regard of the externall signes for otherwise he affirmeth the same thing to be Signified and Exhibited in both to wit Christ. And so doth S. Augustine vnderstand it They did eat the same spirituall meat saith he it had sufficed to haue said they did eat a spirituall meat but he saith the same I cannot finde how we should vnderstand the same but the same that wee doe eat And againe Whosoeuer in Manna vnderstand Christ did eat the same spiritual food that we doe But whosoever sought only to fill their bellies of Manna which were the Fathers of the vnfaithfull they haue eaten and are dead so also the same drinke for the Rock was Christ. Therefore they drank the same drinke that we doe but spiritual drink that is which was receiued by Faith not which was drawne in with the Body If happily you stand vpon those words These things are types vnto vs you may knowe that hee saith not they were types of our Sacraments but Examples to vs that we sin not as they did For as they perished in the wildernesse notwithstanding their Sacraments so may we doing as they did notwithstaÌ„ding ours Which argument if that you say be true would be of no force at all For the Corinthians might thus haue replied though their Sacraments availed not them yet ours may vs because ours are Substance theirs but Shadows But enough of the Antecedent Yet before I proceed to the Consequence some of your By-speeches are also to be examined First you say that Bread aud Wine was mysteriously offered to Almighty God by Melchizedeck But both the Original and your Vulgar translation made authenticall by the Councell of Trent
Sacramentaries imagine this Sacrament to be only the creatures of Bread and Wine I would faine knowe whom you vnderstand by these Sacramentaries If the Church of England it is a loud vntruth For we acknowledge that the Sacrament consisteth of two things the one Earthly the other Heavenly as Irenaeus speaketh that is of the outward Elements and the Lords Body If there be any other who imagin as you say spare them not let them hardly be called Sacramentaries But know withall that we detest both them you them for retaining no more then the signes you for excluding them and establishing nothing but Shewes Accidents insteed of them In regard whereof they may iustly requite you with the name of Accidentaries N. N. And if Protestants will say for an evasion as they doe that their Bread is not Common Bread but such Bread being eaten and receaued by Faith worketh the effect of Christs Body in them and bringeth them his Grace Catholikes answer that so did the Figures and Sacraments also of the old Testament being receaued by Faith in Christ to come as the ancient Fathers and Preachers receaued thē And forasmuch as Protestants doe farther hold that there is no difference betweene the vertue and efficacie of those old Sacraments and ours which Catholikes deny it must needs follow that both Catholikes and Protestants agree that the Fathers of the old Testament beleeued in the same Christ to come that we doe now being come their Figures and Shadowes must be as good as our truth in the Sacrament that was prefigured if it remaine Bread still after Christs institution and Consecration I. D. Here least wee should escape your hands by some one Evasion or other you endeavor very diligently to block vp the passage against vs. For whereas your Argument was that vnlesse Christ be really present in the Sacrament the Iewish Figures are as good as our truth you bring vs in answering thereto that our Bread is not Common Bread but such as being eaten by Faith worketh the Effect of Christs Body and bringeth Grace Indeed we say that our Sacramentall Bread is not Common Bread and we farther confesse that whosoeuer receaueth the same worthily eateth withall the Body of Christ and receaueth Grace But we neuer say it in answer to your Objectiō neither cā we with any reason For wee are not ignorant that the signes also in the old Sacraments were not Common or Profane things but sanctified and set apart to holy vses and that being receaued by Faith they were thereby partakers of Christ and all his benefits as well as we The right answer wee giue is by denying the consequence our Sacraments as wee haue shewed many waies excelling those of the old Testament though there be no Transubstantiation at all So that this is not an Evasion as you say of ours but rather a fiction and device of yours to the end you may seeme to prevaile in something being not able to gainesay the true Answer But Catholikes you say deny the old Sacraments that Vertue and efficacie which they grant to the new I know they doe For they hold that the new Sacraments justifie and conferre Grace by the very work done without any respect to the merit or Faith of the receauer which the old Sacraments did not But hereby you vtterly overthrow your owne Argument For how doth this follow vnlesse there be a Real Presence our sacraments excell not seeing in your owne opinion they are farre more Vertuous and Effectual then those of the old Covenant Howbeit this Tenent of yours is too palpably absurd for it giueth vnto the creature a divine vertue of percing into the soul and cleansing the sinnes thereof which is proper vnto God And if the word preached profit vs nothing vnlesse it be mingled with Faith no nor the Flesh of Christ it selfe except it be eaten by Faith how can it be imagined that Water or Bread or any other Sacramentall Element should availe vnto Iustification without any respect vnto Faith at all Herevnto agree the Fathers S. Hierom Man only applyeth water but God the holy spirit by whom ou◠filthinesse is cleansed the sinnes of bloud are purged And S. Augustine Without this sanctification of invisible grace what doe the visible sacraments availe That visible Baptisme which wanted invisible sanctification nothing profited Simon Magus And againe Water clenseth the heart the word effecting it not because it is spoken but beleeued But of this enough N. N. But Catholike Fathers did vnderstand the matters far otherwise And to allege one for all for that hee spake in the sense of all in those daies S. Hierom talking of one of those foresaid Figures to wit of the shew-Bread and comparing it with the thing figured and by Christ exhibited saith thus There is so much difference betweene the Shew-bread and the body of Christ prefigured thereby as there is difference betweene the shadow and the Body whose shadow it is and betweene an image and the truth which the image representeth and betweene certaine shapes of things to come and the things themselues prefigured by those shapes And thus of Figures and presignifications of the old Testament I. D. To what end this passage of St Hierom To proue our Sacraments to be of greater vertue efficacy then those of old This indeed should be your conclusion but St Hieroms words inferre it not For hee compareth the Shew-bread not with the bread in the Eucharist but with Christs body betwixt which I confesse there is as maine a difference as there is betwixt the Shaddow and the Body But I beseech you is there not as great a difference betweene water in Baptisme and the Blood of Christ or bread in the Eucharist and the Body of Christ Doubtlesse there is for they are all but figures of the same Verity namely Christ. Whereas therefore you argue thus Hierom preferreth the body of Christ vnto Shew-bread as farre as the substance exceedeth the shadow Ergo our Sacraments are more vertuous then those of old or if you will for indeed I know not well what you would conclude Ergo the body of Christ is really present by transubstantiation it is a miserable non sequitur and without either rime or reason For vpon the same ground I may aswell inferre the contrary thus Christs body excells Eucharisticall Bread as much as the substance doth the shadow Ergo Shew-bread and the old Sacraments are more vertuous then ours The maine error is that you tye the Body of Christ vnto our new Sacraments if not vnto the Eucharist only whereas indeede he is the Truth of all Sacraments both old and new and therefore is alike present and powerfull in them all to all that beleeue as contrarily to the incredulous and vnbeleeuers his Grace is alike vneffectuall And thus much of your first Argument N. N. The opinion of the ancient Fathers grounded vpon the Scriptures as vpon those speeches of our Saviour This is
for the Transformation of Bread into Flesh which he speakes of though still it seeme Bread it is plaine hee meanes not that of Transubstantiation for in this Bread ceaseth to be but in that he confesseth it still to remaine and that it is Bread which is eaten by vs in the Mysteries Which yet he more plainly expresseth where hee saith God in mercy condescending to our infirmity preserueth the Species or Nature of Bread and wine but trans-elementeth or changeth it into the vertue of his flesh blood where it is farther to be obserued that hee saith not into flesh and blood but into the vertue thereof intimating a Change not of Substance but of Operation and Efficacy Your next witnesse is Magnetes an author to me vtterly vnknowne saue that Gesner in his Bibliotheca reporteth that he was very ancient and that about thirteene hundred yeares since hee wrote in the Greeke tongue certaine bookes in defence of the Gospell vnto Theosthenes against the Gentiles that flandered it and that he is quoted by Fr. Turrian By which words it seemes that hee never yet saw the Presse and what is alledged out of him is warranted only by Turrians testimony But Turrian is one that deserues no credit at our hands as being a Iesuite and knowne to haue plaid many foule tricks this way Yet if to make your author agree with the rest of the Fathers you will giue the same construction to his words that aboue is giuen vnto Theophilact you may Otherwise his authority is as easily reiected as alledged N. N. St Hilary vseth this kind of argument If the word of God were truly made flesh then doe wee truly receiue his flesh in the Lords supper and thereby he is to bee esteemed to dwell in vs naturally St Cyril proueth not only a Spirituall but also a Naturall and Bodily vnion to be betweene vs and Christ by eating his flesh in the Sacrament I. D. That Hilary speaketh of the Lords Supper or of our Coniunction with Christ by Eating thereof I thinke it will hardly be proved Had he so meant how cometh it to passe that he never alledgeh those words of the Sacrament This is my body which would haue made more for his purpose but ever voucheth the sixt of Iohn which maketh little to the Sacrament Howbeit if you will needs vnderstand him so I will not striue Know then that in those bookes St Hilary disputes against the Arians To them he obiected that saying The Father and the Sonne are one One answered they as wee are with Christ by Will not by Nature wherevnto he replied that wee are even by Nature one with Christ. And this he proues first because both in Christ and vs there is the same Humane nature by the Incarnation of the Sonne of God which hee calls the Sacrament of perfect vnion Secondly because the Faithfull are ioyned vnto him by his Spirit dwelling in them which regenerateth quickneth sanctifieth them and not only conformeth them vnto him but also transformeth them into him And for proofes hereof hee alledgeth divers passages of St Iohns Gospell such as your selues confesse no way to belong vnto the Sacrament Thirdly for that by Baptisme we are ioyned vnto Christ and that not only by consent of will but naturally according to that of Saint Paul As many as are baptized into Christ haue put on Christ. Whereunto lastly if you please you may adde for that also in the Lords Supper wee are vnited vnto him by Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood All these waies saith Hilary are wee Naturally ioyned vnto Christ. If so then not only by the Eucharist And if for the establishing of the other meanes there needeth no Transubstantiation at all as of the Sonne of God into Man of Faith into the Spirit of Christ or of Baptismall water into the Bloud of Christ neither is it necessarie for this that bread be Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ. Or if to bring Christ into vs and our mouth you will needs transubstantiate the bread into his body I wonder what Transubstantiation you will devise to bring vs into him and his mouth For Hilary affirmeth that by the same Mysticall coniunction not only is Christ in vs but also wee are Naturally in him The same Answere may serue for Cyril also wherevnto for farther explication of the word Naturally and Naturall so often vsed both by Cyril and Hilary I adde that in them Naturally signifieth Truly Naturall True if wee may beleeue him who best knew their meaning even Cyril himselfe For thus he Not according to naturall vnity that is true vnity By nature wee are the children of wrath where by nature we are to vnderstand truth So that Naturall vnion is true vnion and naturally to be vnited is truly to be vnited which I hope may bee without Transubstantiation N. N. Theodoret doth proue that Christ tooke Flesh of the blessed virgin and ascended vp with the same and holdeth the same there by that he giueth to vs his true flesh in the Sacrament for that otherwise hee could not giue vs his true Flesh to eat if his owne flesh were not true seeing that he gaue the same that he carried vp and retaineth in heauen I. D. I marvell much not one of the Fathers being more expresse against Transubstantiation then Theodoret that yet you durst to praise him in the maintenance thereof Evē for this cause doth the Preface to the Roman Edition goe about to weaken his authority and Gregorie of Valentia flatly condemneth him It is no wonder saith he if one or two or more of the Ancients haue thought or written of this matter not so considerately and rightly Adde herevnto that Theodoret was noted by the Councell of Ephesus for some other errours besides But how much Theodoret maketh against Transubstantiation you shall heare hereafter Now you may be pleased to knowe that in the place by you cited he disputeth against an Eutychian Hereticke who held that the Humanitie of Christ was abolished and absorpted by his Deitie This hee would proue by the Eucharist that as the Symbols before Consecration are one thing but after it are changed and become another even so the Body of Christ after the Assumption thereof is chāged into the Divine Substance Now if Theodoret had beene Transubstantiator hee had beene finely taken for Transubstantiation abolisheth the substance of Bread and turneth it into the substance of Christs Body But hee taketh the Heretike in his owne nets affirming the Mysticall signes after their sanctification doe not depart from their nature and that therefore Christ after the Assumption thereof retaineth his Humanity still Whereby you may see that although it be yeelded that Christ giueth vs his true Flesh in the Sacrament yet in the iudgement of Theodoret he so giueth it that the Mysticall signes retaine their Nature still which vtterly overturnes your Transubstantiation N. N. S. Irenaeus S. Iustin and S.
beleeue and aske not How as if wee doubted of the truth of them Nay wee constantly adhere vnto them though we thinke it impossible to know the manner How But your words vnlesse you demonstrate them wee are not bound to beleeue and wee may without offence as I thinke demand How that may be which you affirme yea reiect it too if wee find it repugnant to the rule of Faith or of right reason N. N. I forgot to set downe this place of Saint Paul in his due place which is a cleare confirmation of S. Paul who for resoluing doubts as it seemed had conference with Christ himselfe after his ascension for before he could not being no Christian when Christ ascended the matter will bee more evident His words are these to the Corinthians For I haue receiued from our Lord himselfe that which I haue deliuered vnto you about the Sacrament And doe you note the word For importing a reason why he ought specially to be beleeued in this affaire for asmuch as hee had receiued resolution of the doubt from Christ himselfe and then he setteth downe the very same words againe of the institution of this Sacrament that were vsed by Christ before his Passion without alteration or new exposition which is morally most certaine that hee would haue added for clearing all doubts if there had beene any other sense to haue beene gathered of them then the plaine words themselues doe beare I. D. Omitting your amplifications of Pauls conference with Christ of his learning thereby to resolue all doubts of rendring it as a reason why he is to be beleeued in this matter of the Sacrament although I for my part know of no such conference as you speake of but only of an immediat inspiration into him by the Spirit of Christ of all truths wherein hee was to informe the Church which why you should call a Conference I cannot guesse Omitting I say all these Circumstances and by talks the substance of your argument is this If the words had had any other sense then the plaine words themselues doe beare then certainly S. Paul would haue cleared it But this hee endeavoureth not for he doth but repeat the words of institution and that without alteration or exposition Ergo the words haue no other sense then the plaine words themselues doe beare I answere the plaine words are This namely This bread is my body Which Proposition taken precisely and according to the letter cannot possibly be true The best of your owne side as hath already and shall againe bee shewed confesse so much Why therefore did not S. Paul more plainely expound it Hee needed not for it was a Sacramentall speech And whosoeuer knewe the nature of a Sacrament could not but vnderstand it Sacrameâ—â—ally thus This is the Sacrament of my Body But where you say St Paul added nothing for clearing of doubts you are much deceaued For the sixth seuenth and eight and twenty verses are added to that end In which among other things three times he calleth that Bread which wee eat in the Lords Supper And if that which wee eat then that which is consecrated And if that which is consecrated then Bread remaines after consecration which vtterly overthroweth your Transubstantiation And it is farther to be noted that Saint Paul comming after our Saviour Christ it is to be presumed that he meant rather to cleare and enlighten his words then to obscure darken them Yet he darkens them if that which we eat â—ee truely and properly Christs Body and not Bread Yeâ— hee entiâ—eth people into errour and diggeth a pit for them to fall into For it appearing Bread vnto the Sense and man naturally yeelding credit to the report thereofâ— hee should rather haue called it as it is Flesh if it be Flesh and not feed vs in errour by calling it so often Bread But to this you reply as followeth N. N. I was the more willing to set downe those words of S. Paul although not in their due place because M. Downe iâ— his writing seemeth to take so much â—old of S. Pauls words in calling it Bread in divers placâ—s wherein S. Paul meanâ— no other Bread then that Christ declared it to bee 〈◊〉 his lâ—st Supper and as one of the Fathers before cited calleth it the heavenly Bread the Bread of life I. D. What hold soeuer M. Downe tooke of S. Pauls words this answer is not able to remoue it By Bread say you the Body of Christ is meant If so then haue wee found that which hetherto you could not endure to heare of a Figuratiue speech in the Sacrament for Christs body properly is not Bread But why doth hee call it Bread Because before consecration it was Bread as some say Noâ— so for it was never Bread Or because it seemeth to bee Bread as others say Noâ— so for Christs body nor is nor seemeth Bread Why then because in Scripture all nourishment is called Bread Nor so for in that sense vnder Bread Drinke is comprehended whereas our Apostle distinguishes them as divers things Let him eat saith hee of that Bread and drinke of that Cup. Is it lastly because Christs body lies hid vnder the shewes of bread Absurd for by the same reason you may call the Casket by the name of a Diamond because it containes it The truth is S. Paul vnderstands by bread not Christs body but that which in proper speech is so For Christs true body cannot be broke but this bread even after consecration is broken For so he saith The bread which we breake is it not the Communion of the body of Christ N. N. All which laid together and the vniforme consent of expositions throughout the whole Christian world concurring in the selfe-same sense and meaning of all these Scriptures about the Real Presence of Christs true Body in the Sacrament you may imagine what motiue it is end ought to be to a Catholike man who desireth to beleeue and not to striue contend Besides this Protestants haue not one authority nor can produce any one at this day that expresly saith that Christs Reall Body is not in the Sacrament 〈…〉 only a Figure Signe or token thereof though divers impertinent peeces of some Fathers speeches they will now and then pretend to alleage So on the contrary side the Catholikes doe behold for their comfort the whole â—â—nke of ancient Fathers throughout every age standing with them in this vndoubted truth I. D. Indeed if you haue the Vniforme consent of expositions throughout the whole Christian world concurring with you and the whole ranke of Fathers throughout every age standing with you in this as you suppose vndoubted truth I must needs confesse it both is and ought to be a sufficient Motiue vnto you to perswade assent vnto the truth thereof But if vpon due examination you finde that not one of them all doth so expound as you doe and that your Author hath presented you with a list
one and the very same according to his humane substance absent from heauen when he was in earth and forsaking the earth when he ascended to heauen And a little after how could he ascend but as a locall and true man evidently employing that he cannot be a true man who is not Locall and circumscribed in one place And indeed if the Body of Christ be aboue in Heauen and in many places here on earth at one time as at London Paris Rome else-where and not in the severall spaces betweene either it will follow that there are as many distinct bodies of Christ as there are places wherein it is or that his Body is many hundred miles off and separated from it selfe either of which is most vnreasonable and absurd For as Saint Paul saith there is but one Lord and heauen and earth are many miles asunder Besides it would follow that the Body of Christ is out of that which containeth it consequently that that which containeth it containeth it not which is a meere contradiction Nay if that Mathematicall principle be true as vndoubtedly it is that those bodies which touch the same point doe also touch one the other it will necessarily follow that the Priests fingers which touch the Body of Christ in London must needs at the same time touch his fingers who holdeth the same in Rome And so shall not only the Body of Christ be in divers places at once but by vertue thereof those things also that are many hundred leagues a sunder shall actually touch one the other Vnto these and the like absurdities for the saluing of them you haue nothing to oppose saue only the Omnipotence of God to whom nothing is impossible But withall you forget that this hath beene the ordinary refuge of the heretiks who as Tertullian saith faine what they list of God as if he had done it because hee could doe it whereas we should not because hee can doe all things therefore beleeue he hath done it but rather search whether he haue done it or no. True it is God is omnipotent but by doing what he will as Augustine saith not by suffering what he will not Whence also some things he therefore cannot doe because he is omnipotent He cannot deny himselfe saith Saint Paul and it is impossible that he should lye And This impossibility saith Ambrose is not of infirmity but of maiesty because his truth admitteth not a lye nor his power the note of inconstancie So that whatsoever is repugnant to the Nature and Truth of God because he is Almighty he cannot doe And such are all contradictions both the parts whereof cannot possibly be true at once but if the one be true the other must needs be false Hence it is held for an vndoubted Maxime in Schooles that God cannot doe those things that imply contradiction the reason because so he should be false himselfe Now this Doctrine of yours implies in it innumerable contradictions as by and by shall be demonstrated among the rest this that the same Body at the same time shall in heauen haue shape quantity distinction of parts circumscription and all other essentiall properties of a Body and yet in the Sacrament shall be destitute of them all Both of which if vpon presumption of Gods Omnipotence you will needs still beleeue I must plainely tell you that to build on his Power with impeachment of his Truth is not Faith but Infidelity Thirdly it destroyeth the Nature of a Sacrament For proofe whereof I will vse no other grounds then those which your owne men and Bellarmine in particular haue laid for me To the constitution of a Sacrament of the new Testament three things among sundry other saith he are necessarily required First there must be a Signe that is as Saint Augustine defineth it a thing which besides that shape or kinde that it offereth unto our sences of it selfe causeth some other thing to come into our minde Whence it followeth both that the Signe is something knowne and that it is a thing differing from that which it signifieth or whereof it is a signe Secondly that this signe must be sensible or visible For a Sacrament is intrinsecally and essentially a ceremony of Religion and a Ceremony is an externall act Wherefore the Fathers every-where teach that Sacraments are certaine Footsteps or Manuductions vnto things spirituall Invisible Thirdly that the signe must hold due analogie and proportion with the thing signified according to that of S. Augustin If Sacraments had not a certaine similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they were altogether no Sacraments And hence is it that the Fathers call them Anti-types that is things of like Forme and liuely expressing that which they present These things being thus granted out of them I frame this argument That which destroyeth the signe in the sacrament by confounding it with the thing signified making it invisible and insensible and holding no analogie or proportion with that whereof it is a signe destroyeth the nature of a Sacrament But your doctrine of the Reall Presence by Transubstantiation doth all this Ergo it also destroyeth the nature of the Sacrament The Major or first Proposition is by you as wee haue now shewed yeelded vnto vs and cannot bee denied The Minor or second Proposition I thus proue in every particular And first that it destroyeth the signe For if any remaine either it is bread or the Accidents of bread or the body of Christ for there is not a fourth But bread it cannot bee for the Element is not a signe vntill it be consecrated and bread is no sooner consecrated but forthwith it ceaseth to be And if it be not then neither is it a signe for of that which is not nothing can be affirmed Againe the Accidents of bread as Colour Savours measure and the like are not it For besides that it is impossible that Accidents should haue any subsistence without their subiect the Being of an Accident being to be in its subiect it is very strange and vnconceauable if they could how the meere Accidents of bread should represent and signifie the body of Christ. The rather because the signe was ordained by Christ to bee a helpe vnto our Faith and to lead vs as it were by the hand vnto the thing signified Whereas the Accidents of bread without the substance thereof are rather lets and hinderances vnto vs and with no more reason can bee called signes of Christs body then a darke cloud that keepeth off the light of the Sunne from our eyes may bee called a signe or Representation of the Sunne Adde herevnto that such a signe is required as is materiall and elementall according to that of S. Augustin The word being added to the element it is made a Sacrament So Hugh so Bellarmin so the rest Now to call Accidents by name of Elements is a new straine of Philologie vncouth