est nam ipse quoque homo vinum benedixit cum dixit accipite bibite hoc est sanguis meus sanguis viâ—â—s c. For our Lord Christ red wine blessed wine when he said take drinke that my bloud the bloud of the vine the word which is â—â—ed for manie for the remission of sinnes doth signifie allegorie allie the holy river of gladnesse Out of which I note First it is sarguis vitis the bloud of the grope properlie and that is wine It is called Christs bloud â—acromontallie and by way of signification Secondlie it appeares to be figuraâ—ne in this word shed for the bloud of the grape which is â—â—â—e was not shed for manie but the bloud of Ch i st But you will save it is true before conseceâ—tion but after consecration it is Christs verie naturall bloud No saith Clement immediatlie following Qued autem vâ—num esset quod benedictum est c. And that it was wine which was blessed hee sheweth againe when he saith to his disciples I will not drinke of the fruit of the vine c. Read Clem nt follow Clem. Out of which premisâ—es I note three things First that that which you call consecration this learned Father calls it benediction Second he that after consecration the nature of wine remaineth still and it is not changed as you imagine Thirdly that the phrase is figuratiue and not proper Peda â—u Inc. 22. page 476 And veâ—â—rable Beda one countrie man tells you that in England in his time the text was taken figuratiuely The solemnities of the old Passover saith he being ended Christ commeth to the newe which the Church is desâ—ous to continue in remembrance of her redemption that in stead of the flesh and bloud of a LAMBE hee substituting the Sacrament of his flesh and bloud in the figure of bread and wine might shew himselfe to bee the same to whom the Lord sware and will not repent c. Beds calleth it not the naturall bodie of Christ that worketh our redemption but a rememberance of our redemption a figure of it Thus the indifferent Reader may see that Augustine Ambrose Origin Tertullian Hiorome Clemens Alexandrinus Beda and manie others which I omit for brevities sake all of them being auncient approoved wâ—iters and all of them of your owne Prints doe hold with vs against you that your propositions be not proper but Sacramentall improper significatiue representatiue allegoricall figuratiue which greatlie wounds the bodie of your cause and will weaken your credits with the Catholickes But you will say these testimonies of these Fathers though of your owne Prints yet they prooue nothing against you vnlesse the Church of Rome should receiue and allow that exposition of the fathers to be Catholicke If you should so replie surely it were a weake replication and subiect to manie exceptions and you would wring I cannot say wrong the church of Rome that she should hold a doctrine against all the old Doctors But if you will thus replie to bleate the eies of the simple yet will I frustrate your expectation for now I will shew you that the auncient Popes and the auncient Church of Rome held at these Fathers did that the proposition Hoc est corpus meum to be significatiue and improper and therefore figuratiue against your opinion You shall heare the Church of Rome deliver her owne minde with her owne mouth Dist 2. do consecratione canon which you cannot denie her wordes be these Ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Châ—â—â—ti pâ—ssio more crucifixio dicitur non rei veritate sed significante misterio That offering of the f esh which is done by the hand of the Priest Hecost pag. 434. You cannot denie but this Pope was a Protestant And if this canon be Catholicke then it your carnall presence antichristian is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ but not in exactnesse of truth but in misterie of that which was s gnified and the glosse there maketh most plaine against you Dicitur corpus Christi sed improprie vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat corpus Christi It is called the bodie of Christ but improperly that is figuratiuely that this be the â—enceâ—t is called the bodie of Christ that is it signifieth the bodie of Christ J will alleadge in this case other Popes and the saith of the Church of Rome in another age whereby the Reader may plainelie see that the auncient Pâ—pes and auncient Rome had the true succession in doctrine which we stand now on not that false succession of the place and a rotten worme-eaten chaire that you brag of the glosse speaketh thus against your litterall sence of Hec est corpus meum De consecratione dist â— Panis est in altare Glossa ibid page 43â— Not possible by their owne confession that bread should bee the bodie of Christ. Hoc taâ—â—â— est impossible quod panis sit corpus Christi yet this is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ Now gentle Reader see the wrong the late Popes and Priests offer to the Catholicks of this kingdome they would haue them imbrace that fot faith which the old Church of Rome held for heresie that for poss b litie which she saith is impossible Why would you haue vs to beleeue that which you your selues say is impossible This all the Iesuits and Priests in Christendome cannot aunswere If you say these two Popes and the Church of Rome then taught the truth why doe you now dissent from the olde Romane faith If you saye the Popes and Church of Rome then cited you will be counted an hereticke and therefore in Gods feare confesse the trueth with vs and the olde Church of Rome and deceiue the Catholickes of this kingdome no more with this litterall sence of Hoc est corpus meum which you borrow from the late Popes and late Church of Rome and is a new error dissenting from the old Catholicke faith dist 2. can Corpus Christi pag. 4. 8. col 4. You cannot dâ—nie this Pope to be a protestanâ— in 〈◊〉 point And I will adde one other Popes Canon Corpus Christi quod fuexitur de Altari figura est dum panis â—inum videntur extra veritas autem dum corpus saâ—guâ—s Christi in veritate interins creditur The bodie of Christ which is taken from the Altar is a figure so long as the bread and wine are seene vnreceived but the truâ—â—â— of the figure is seene when the bodie and bloud are received trulâ—â— inwardly and by faith into the heart Now the glosse in that place expondeth the teâ—t and saith Corpus Christs est sacrificium corporis Christi alias falsum est quod dicit the bodie of Christ in the text signifieth the sacrifice of the bodie of Christ otherwise it is false Out of which I note that the Church of Rome calls the outward Elements
A FRIENDLY CAVEAT TO IRELANDS CATHOLICKES concerning the daungerous Dreame of Christs corporall yet invisible presence in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper GROVNDED VPON A LETTER PRETENded to be sent by some well minded Catholickes who doubted and therefore desired satisfaction in certaine points of religion With the aunswere and prooffes of the Romane Catholicke Priests to satisfie and confirme them in the same Perused and allowed for Apostolicall and Catholicke by the subscription of maister Henry Fitzsimon Iesuit now prisoner in the Castle of Dublin VVith a true diligent and charitable examination of the same prooffes wherein the Catholickes may see this nevv Romane doctrine to bee neither Apostolâ—â—â—ll nor Catholicke but cleane contrarie to the olde Romane religion and therefore to bee shunned of all true auncient Romane Catholickes vnlesse they vvill be new Romish heretickes By Iohn Rider Deane of Saint Patrickes Dublin ROM 10.1.2 Bretheren mine hearts desire and praâ—â—r to God for Israell is that they might be saved For I beare them record that they haue the zeale of God but not according to knovvledge DVBLIN Printed by Iohn Frauckton 1602. TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE S. CHARLES BLVNT BARON MOVNTIOY KNIGHT OF THE most noble Order of the Garter Governor of her Maiesties Towne of Portesmouth and Isle of Portesea Lord Deputie of the Realme of Ireland Generall of all her Maâ— forces there And to the rest of the privie Councell DVrt de Pascolo in aulico suo politico page 146. right Honourable being a wise courtier a frendly Councellor advised al petitioners to Princes and to men of State not to tender their suits in vnseasonable times Sed id deferat auribus eius nullo alio negotio defatigatis ne labor vel sit imperfectus vel Inanis Pascolus his counsell is good yet I may not follow it he was an old Courtier seasoned with experience yet his direction at this time I may not embrace For if I should not present these papers vnto your learned honourable censures before such times as your heads were free from publike cares and your persons at rest from her Maiesties service I should sooner write tenne such then find time to present one such And though the day affoords no leisure to survey it yet often it falleth out that cares in the day banish sleep in the night And as it fell out with the great Monarch of whom the scriptures record Ester 6.1 Noctem illam duxit Rex insomnem so it may happen that though your leasures will be little in the day so your sleep may be lesse in the night And as that mightie Prince called for his Chronicles when hee could not sleep so your Honours and VVorshippes would be pleased to peruse this small treatise when your common cares banish desired rest And though Nocturnae lucrubrationes if violent be most daungerous yet being moderatly vsed they cause as wee imagine the watch to wheele the faster and the cloâ—ke to strike the sooner Two reasons haue emboldned me to present it to this â—o Senate the one that without checke of ill disposed it may boldly and plainlie shew to the world with what wresting of Scriptures wringing of fathers and alleadging of fables and munkish miracles the Queenes subiects haue been so long deceived by Romish Priests and yet vnder the colour of Catholicke religion The second reason is that your Honours seeing the manner of our combat may witnesse to all men that if they be beaten with their owne weapons they haue no cause to brag of anie victorie to their favorits In his Traâ— tado paranaetico pag 8. 9. nor complaine of any iniurie against me For I haue dealt with the Romane Priests as the Pilgrime Spaniard exhorted the Princes of Christendome to deale with the Castilian king That if ever they would tame the proud bloudie and insolent Spaniard they should fight with him at home in his owne countrie in Spaine for one blow at home doth more discourage his subiects daunt his Mercenaries male conteth his confederates and displotteth his purposes then twentie overthrowes abroad the one is visible and therefore sensible and terrible but the other is so masked by lying Friers Popish Pilgrims seditious Seminaries that the king of Spaine hath ten foiles abroad before the subiect heares one truth at home This course I haue taken with the Priests because I would discover the weaknesse of poperie to the best minded Catholicks I haue gone home to them to their owne doores fought with them within their own lists at their own weapons in the presence of their best friends with their own translations Fathers Popes Canons Texts and Glosses and if they be foiled at their own weapons then the best minded may see the weaknesse of their owne cause And whereas this small labour hath manie enemies of severall peevish humours some condemned the whole worke of it before ever they saw one word in it others threatned it death before it had life In the first remaineth envie indiscretion for such as will censure before they see are like such wise men as will shoot their bolt assoone at a bush as at a bird In the second remaines malice against which whom if it cannoâ— defend it selfe with canonicall scriptures auncient Fathers and the practise of the Primitiue Church as becommeth a true Apostolicall Catholicke then let them vse their old woodden arguments and burne it as an hereticke But seeing it had enemies before it was borne I knowe it will haue moe now it is abroad because books are like ships at sea for as the one is subiect to all weathers so the other to all censures Therefore in trembling presumption I intreat your Ho. favours shield and protection that though it were coÌ„demned before it was and may be now rent before it be read yet that before it be iudiciallie condemned it may plead in your presence like a subiect for it selfe and according to the equitie of the cause and the qualitie of the evidence receiue your Honours learned and graue sentence yet with all favour VVhich if you graunt though the worke bee simple I doubt not of the good successe if trueth may take place The which patronage of the cause pardon for my boldnesse being obtained I will not cease to praise God for those honorable victories against the insoleÌ„t Spaniards periured rebels in this your Honours godlie politicke government atchieved but also daily pray that you may not onely suppresse rebellion but abaÌ„don superstition plant in the Church truth and in the commonwealth peace for subiection without religion is but temporizing till religion be seated in the heart look for no sound subiection generally perpetuallie in the land For Peter told trueth when he said Feare God honor the king and the lacke of this feare of God true religion hath spent England so much bloud and the Queene in her gracious raigne so much money as the tenth part of both ioyntly at one
one hath drawn them to ydolatrie the other inciteth whom he can to treacherie And if Spaine might haue his will of this kingdome but he is liker to loose Spaine then conquer Ireland the subiects should be vsed as the Dukedome of Millain the kingdome of Naples are by the Spaniards hādled Poperie seeketh to bring Ireland to Spanish slaverie from English libertie al the Nobilitie Gentlemē vpō pain of death are forbidden to dwel in Castles the cittizens in high streets but back-laines no man to wear a weapō but a knife of three inches lōg yet tipt with a French posie No poynt This should be the miserable state of the Irish vnder bloudie Spaines government Now for conclusion let me intreat you as August did his Readers Noli meas literas ex tua opinione vel contentione In his Preface before the third booke de Trinitate c. neither reprooue nor correct these labors according to your own private opinion or contentions humors but correct confute thē lectione divina by Gods word then you shal haue my good leaue loue my best furtherance to the State that after you haue replied to this it may be printed as also your persons for further conference protected the like I desire of you that whē you find the text truth against you you seek not any lying glosse or Romish shift to help you rather contending for victory then veritie The Lord open your eies that you may see the truth that you we ioyntlie ioyfully may preach onely Christ crucified without mans inventions c Your louing friend so far at you are Christs the Queene Iob. Rider A FRIENDLY CAVEAT TO IRELANDS CATHOLICQVES CONCERning the Daungerous Dreame of Christs corporal◠presence in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper grounded vpon a letter sent from the Catholicques c. To the reverend Fathers the holy Iesuits Seminaries and all other Priests that fauour the holy Romane religion within the kingdome of Ireland HVmbly praieth your Fatherly charities F. W. and P. D. with many other professed Catholicques of the holie Romane religion that whereas of late they haue heard some Protestant Preachers confidently affirme and as it seems vnto our shallow capacities plainly do prooue that these positions here vnder-written cannot be proued by anie of you to be either Apostolicall or Catholicque by canonicall Scripture or the auncient Fathers of the Church which liued and writ within the compasse of the first fiue hundred yeares after Christs ascention which assertion of theirs hath bred in your suppliants great doubts touching the trueth of the same vnlesse your fatherly accustomed charities be extended presently to satisfie our consciences in the same by the holy vvritten word of God such Fathers of the Church as aforesaid which being so directly and plainely prooued by you as aforesaid may be a speedie meanes to convert many Protestants to our profession Otherwise if these points cannot be so proued by you vpon whose learned resolutions we greatly relie then not onely we but many thousands more in this kingdome of Ireland can hold these points to be neither Apostolicall or Catholicque And thus hauing shewed some of our doubts wee desire your fatherly resolutions as you tender the credit of our religion the convincing of the Protestants and the satisfying of our poore consciences And thus craving your speedie learned and fatherly answeres in writing at or before the first of Februarie next with a perfect quotation of both Scripture and Fathers themselues not recited or repeated by others for our better instruction and the aduersaries speedier stronger confutation we cōmend your persons and studies to Gods blessed direction and protection Positions 1 That Transubstantiation or the corporall presence of Christ◠bodie and bloud in the Sacrament was neuer taught by the auncient fathers that euer writ in the first fiue hundred years after Christs ascention but a spirituall presence onely to the faithfull beleeuers 2 That the Church of God had not their service in an vnknowne tongue but in such language as euery perticuler Church vnderstood 3 Thirdly that Purgatorie and praiers for the dead were not then knowne in Gods Church 4 Fourthly that images praying to Saints vvere then neither taught by those Fathers nor receiued of the Catholicque Church 5 Fiftly that the Masse vvhich novv the Church of Rome vseth vvas not then knovvne to the Church 6 Sixtly that there ought not to bee one supreame Bishop ouer all the vvorld and that Bishop to be the Pope of Rome and that the said Pope hath not vniversall iurisdiction ouer all Princes and their subiects in all causes Temporall and Ecclesiasticall The Protestant Preachers affirme vnles you prooue the premisses by canonicall Scripture they cannot be Apostolicall and therefore bind not the conscience of anie And if they cannot bee proued by the said Fathers then they be neither auncient nor Catholike And therefore to be reiected as mens inventions PRouoked to prooue either by Scriptures or Fathers Catho Priests vvhich liued vvithin the compasse of fiue hundred yeares after Christs ascention that the Primitiue Church and Catholicques of this time are of consent touching these Articles 1 That Christ is really in the blessed Sacrament 2 That Scriptures should not be perused by the vulgar 3 That praier for the dead Purgatorie vvas beleeved 4 That images vvere vvorshipped and praiers made to Saints 5 That Masse vvas allovved 6 That the supremacie of the Pope vvas acknovvledged GEntlemen Rider the cause of this your provokement was a quiet and milde conference vpon these positions maister W. N. with an honorable Gentlemā and a speciall good friend of yours concerning religion wherein he confidently assumed that the Iesuits and Romane Priests of this kingdome were able to prooue by Scriptures and Fathers these Positions to be Apostolicall Catholicque And that the Church of Rome and the Romane Catholicques in Ireland now hold nothing touching the same but what the holy Scriptures and primitiue Fathers held within the first fiue hundred yeares after Christs ascention Now if you in this conference for your part haue made such proofe by the holy canonicall Scriptures and such Doctors of the Church as aforesaid I haue promised to become a Roman Catholicque if you haue failed in your proofe which I am assured you haue done he likewise before worshipfull witnesses hath giuen his hand to renounce this your new doctrine of the church of Rome become a professor of the gospel of Christ This was the occasion and maner of your prouokement which J hope the best minded will not mistake not you misconster being onelie prouoked by your friend 1. Pet. 3.15 yea faith if you refuse not Saint Peters counsell to be readie alwaes to giue an answere to anie man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you In your first line you chaunge a woord and for or which greatly
altereth the Catholickes question and is farre from our first meaning For we hold with Christs trueth Ioh. 20.31 that vnlesse the written word of God first warrant it we are not bound in conscience to beleeue it though all the Doctors and Prelates in the world should sweare it And this was demaunded of you not as the demaunders doubted that the canonicall Scriptures were insufficient to prooue any article of faith but onelie that all men might see and so be resolved whether the Protestants or the now Romane Catholicques ioyne neerest to Christs trueth and the faith of the first primitiue Fathers For that faith which can bee prooved to bee taught in Christs time and so receiued and continued in the primitiue Church for the first fiue hundred yeares after Christs ascention must needs be the true auncient Apostolicall and Catholicque faith And that other faith that cannot be so proved is but base bastardly and counterfeit and I trust in Christ that the Reader easily shall perceiue before the ende of this small Treatise that this your opinion touching Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament and so in the rest of the other Positions was never taught by Christ nor once dreamed on by the auncient Fathers but invented and deviled a thousand yeares after Christ by the late Church of Rome grounding their proofes onelie of an emptie sound of syllables without Apostolicall or Catholicque sence enforcing both Scriptures and Fathers to speake what they and you pleased not what the holie Ghost and the Fathers purposed But first heere you wrong your selfe much your cause more but the simple people most of all in altering the state of the question for our controversie is of the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament whether he be there corporallie or spirituallie The Catholicque Priests subtilly alter the state of the question And you no doubt in your conscience knowing it vnpossible to prooue your carnall presence alter the question verie deceiptfully from the manner to the matter That Christ is really in the blessed Sacrament A thing never denied by vs nor ever in question betwixt Protestant and Papist for both you and we hold Christs reall presence in the Sacrament but you carnallie and locallie we misticallie and spiritually you by Transubstantiation we in the commanded and lawfull administration But here you forget your grounds of divinitie and rules of Logicke in making an opposition betwixt spirituall receiving and reall receiving opposing them as contraries whereas the opposition is not betwixt spirituall and reall but betwixt corporall and spirituall for spirituall receiving by faith is reall receiving and corporall receiving by the mouth is also reall receiving So that the Scriptures and Fathers that here you alleadge bee altogither impertinent to prooue your carnall presence of Christ and his new conception of bread not of the blessed Virgin by a sinfull Priest not by the holy Ghost For Christ willing I will make it plaine vnto you that you haue shewed little divinitie and concealed much learning in this onely hudled vp a number of texts of Scriptures and Testimonies of Fathers out of Eckius Common-places and other like Enchiridions and neuer read the fathers themselues which at first was requested And thus trusting other mens reports and not your owne eyes you haue wrongd your self weakned your cause and abused the simple For if you had diligently read throughly weighed these Scriptures and Fathers you might haue seene and knowne that these confute your erronious opinions and confirme them not But this you should haue here prooved for the Catholicques satisfaction in which you haue altogither failed That after the Priest hath spoken over and to the Bread and Wine Rhem. test 1. Cor. 11. Sect. 9. Hoc est corpus meum and vsed powrefull words over it and theÌ„ which you call your consecration that presentlie the substances of Bread and Wine are gon not one crumme or drop remaining but wholly transubstantiated transnatured and chaunged into the verie reall naturall and substantiall bodie and bloud of Christ which was borne of the Virgin Marie Rhe. Test â—â—th 26. Sect. 4. and nailed on the crosse is now in heaven and yet in the Sacrament whole aliue and immortall and that this bodie of Christ must bee received with our corporall mouth and locally descend into our corporall stomackes Which bodie so made by the Priest is offered by the Priest to God the father as a propitiatorie mercifull and redeeming sacrifice by which the Priest applieth as hee saith the generall vertues of Christs passion to every particular mans necessitie either quicke or dead for mâ—tters temporall or graces spirituall for whom and when he listeth and for what hee pleaseth Your carnall presence shall bee first handled The second point which is your propitiatorie sacrifice shall bee handled in the title of the Masse This is your Romane â—â—e learning which you should haue prooved but how your owne proofes being duely examined disprooue you let the learned iudge But now to your first proofe out of the sixth of Iohn to prooue your opinion touching the first position Ioh. 6. vers 51. The bread vvhich I vvill giue is my flesh c. Catho Priests Ioh. 6. vers 53. Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his bloud you shal haue no life in you Ioh. 6. vers 55. My flesh is meat truly my bloudes c. GEntlemeÌ„ you mistake vtterly Christs meaning Rider wresting Christs wordes from the spirituall sence in which he spake to the litterall sence which he never meant ancient Fathers never taught Primitiue Church of Christ for one thousand yeares at least after Christs ascentioÌ„ never knew or received For the words and phrases be figuratiue and allegorical therefore the sence must be spirituall not carnal For this is a generall rule in Gods booke ancient Fathers yea and in your Popes Canons and glosses that everie figuratiue speech or phrase of Scripture must be expounded spirituallie not carnally or litterallie as anone more plainlie you shall heare But that the simple be no longer seduced by your Romane doctrine expounding this 6. of Iohn grammaticallie and carnally contrarie to Christs meaning constraining these places to prooue your carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament when there was no Sacrament then ordained J will set downe GOD willing Christs meaning truelie and plainlie which you shall nor be able either by Scriptures or auncient Fathers to contradict 1 First I will plainelie deliver the occasion why Christ vsed the Metaphor of Bread calling himselfe Bread 2 Secondlie according to which of Christs nature he is our living bread whether as hee is man onely or God onely or as he is compleate God and man 3 Thirdly how this bread must be taken and eaten whether by the mouth of the bodie or the mouth of the soule 4 Fourthly the fruit that comes to the true eaters thereof 5 Lastly the reasons shall bee alleadged out of
tormented for vs. Now examine Augustines exposition To eate corporallie reallie and substantiallie Christs flesh with our material mouths and to drinke his precious substantiall reall bloud with our bodilie lips is a horrible thing Therefore Christs words bee figuratiue So that by Augustines owne words your litterall sence and carnall presence is wicked and horrible howsoever you cloake it with fained titles to blinde the eies deceaue the hearts of simple Catholiques And if you would but read the fifth chapter of the foresaid booke you should see his Christian caveat he giues to Gods Church touching this point In principio cauendum est ne figuratam locutionem ad litteram accipiaâ— c. First of all you must beware that you take not a figuratiue speech according to the letter his reason followes for the lâ—tter that is the litterall sence killeth But the spirit that is the spirituall sence giveth life For vvhen one take the figuratiue speech for a proper speech vve make the sence carnall neither is there anie tâ—â—ng more fitlie calld the death of the soule Thus you see Aug. teacheth 〈◊〉 you would learne that if the speech be proper the sence must bee litteralâ— and carnall but if it be figuratiue it must bee misticall and spirituall and alleadgeth this your own text for the same So I would wish you either follow Augustines doctrine or else cease to vse Augustines and the rest of the fathers names for to vsurping their names and perverting their doctrine you abuse the Fathers Ber. Serm 3. in ps Qui habitat Fol 63 Col. 2. and deceiue the Catholiques Your Bernard also in later times condemnes your absurd vnchristianlike exposition of this your owne text Vnlesse you eate the flesh of Christ c. He asketh the question Quid autem est mandâ—â—are euâ—â— câ—â—nem bibere sanguinem nisi communicare passionibus eius caâ— conversationem imitari quam gessit in carne What is to eate Christs flesh and drinke his bloud but to communicate with his passions and to imitate his holie conversation in the flesh And then followeth Vnde hoc disignat illibâ—tum illud Altaris Sacramentum vbi Dominacum corpus accipimus vt ficut viditur â—lâ—a panâ—s foâ—ma in noâ— intrare sic noverimus peâ— eam quam in tâ—rris habuit conversation in ipsum intrare in not ad habitandum per fidem in cordibus nostris Whence also this text signifieth that pure Sacrament of the Altar where we receiue the bodie of Christ that as the foâ—me of bread is seen to enter into vs so we shâ—l know Christ entreth into vs to dwell in our hearts by faith by that holie and godlie conversation that he had being in earth Now examine Bernard your owne Abbot though livâ—ng in the palpablest time of the groâ—est superstition yet he vtterly condemnes your exposition of this place and showeth you that it doth not signifie Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament But as the Sacrament consâ—steth of an outward signe and inward grace so bread the outward signe entreth into the mouth and Christ which is the inward grace entreth into our hearts by faith So that your owne Author tells you it is bread that entreth the mouth it is Christ that entereth the heart and that by faith not by teeth by beleeving not by chamming or swallowing So that this your Bernard teacheth you that this your text must be taken for the diviner part of the Sacrament which is Christ with all his mercies to the soules and hearts of the beleevers not to or in the blasphemous mouthes and stinking stomackes of Jnfidells wicked men dogges cats or other beastes as your owne bookes most wickedly record And if your litterall exposition were true Grose absurdities follow the Priests expositions theÌ„ none could bee saved but such as eate your consecrated Christ made of bread then infants that die and communicate not should be damned Captiues that from their cradle â—â—â—e vnder Tyrant those that before Christ in Christes time and in the first thousand years after Christ before your new consecration was stamped are damned And contrariwise all that eate of your consecrated Oste be saved bee they never so blasphemous to God traiterous to their Prince and iniurious to their brethren But that both these extreames that spring from your litterall eâ—â—osâ—tion contrarie to scriptures and fathers be false horrible to christian ears no godlie man may doubt vnlesse he will denie Christ and his word the auncient Fathers and the Primitiue church and you shall never giue the Catholiques that haue hanged their precious soules vpon your bare sayings due satisfaction in this without publike and penitent recantation of this You follow neither scriptures not Fathers If with the Fathers you would but obserue duelie the circumstances of the fifth and sixth of Iohn you might see it cannot be meant of the Sacrament and therefore you are deceived in the Scriptures because the Sacrament was not then ordained Againe by the iudgement of Augustine the speech is figuratiue and therefore the sence spirituall And so Agustine stands with vs against you Olde Lyra saith that the sixth of Iohn Nihil directe pertinent c. speaketh not one word directlie pertinentlie of the Sacrament The Father saith nihil nothing directs directly yet you against Scriptures and Fathers will wrest theâ—e texts indirectlie and impertinentlie to speake of the Sacrament before it was a Sacrament If we should commit such palpable errours against Scriptures Fathers and common sence you would call vs common sots without learning or sence plaine murtherers and soule slayers from which sin the Lord deliver vs both Now I will aske your conscience this question how durst you cut off Christs words by the waste Verse 51. meant you plainly in that surely no for if you had recited the whole verse it had marred your market you onely set downe the middle of the sentence concealing the beginning of it and curtalling the end of it and so thinking that to serue your turne and blinde the eies of the simple But God willing I will discover the trueth which you seeke to cover and let the simple people see how farre and how long you haue deceived and misledde them to the great perill of their soules with wresting the scriptures and wronging the Fathers Christs whole sentence was this I am the living bread which came dovvne from heauen if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer and this you cut off Then followes your proofe Iohn 6.50 The bread that I vvill giue is my flesh then you curt all the rest vvhich I vvill giue for the life of the vvorld If you had dealt plainly and delivered Christs words to Gods people without substraction as Christ delivered them vnto you then the people even the simplest of them would not haue so long beene deceaved by you For the former part of the verse and the later concealed by you expound
flesh of the sonne of man c. Loe heere is another Pope against you For you late Iesuites Semynaries Rhemists and Priests take this as â—poken of Christs flesh in the sacrament and they take it for â—â—at spirituall and divine flesh of Christ whereon all the faithfull fed by faith as well before Christs incarnation as since his ascention I would bring more witnesses against your vnâ—â—ue expositions and allegations The Pope your Father and Rome your mother witnes against you Priestes the rest of their degenerat children but that I thinke it sufficient that the Parentes Testimonie is the strongest Evidence against their degenerat children And after the Pope alleadgeth Augustine and the Canon Quid parat deutem ventrem crede â—â—â—â—acasti and then concludes against your carnall eating of Christes flesh most strongly Qui credit 〈◊〉 Deum comedit ipsum Caro Christi nisi spiritualiter comedatur non ad salutem sed ad iudicium mandutatur Why saieth your Pope preparest thou thy teeth to eate and thy bellie to be filled beleeue thou hast eaten hee that beleeues eates For the flesh of Christ is not eaten to salvation but to destruction vnlesse it be eaten spirituallie And there in the next chapter the Pope giues this marginall note Christus est spiritualis Eucharistia Pag. 180. Christ is our spiritual Euchariste not our carnall food in the Sacrament And in the same page he saith Cibus est non corporis sed animae this is not meat for the bodie but for the soule And if it bee meate for the soule then it must bee received by faith not the mouth spirituallie not carnallie You see now the Scriptures Fathers Popes olde and new the Text and glosse of your deare mother the Church of Rome against you And least you should cavil I haue alleadged the Bookes Chapters Distinctions and Pages And if you will still tel the Catholâ—ques that these places by mee allâ—â—dged be not true then I tell you all your owne Authors and prin s be false for I alleadge Father Pope and Canons of your owne print and if you doubt looke vnto your owne bookes and prints and you shal find them so verbâ—â—â—â— Printed Anno. 1599. Impâ—â—sis Lazari Zetâ—â—terâ— vnlesse your late Index expurgatorius hath blotted out the trueth as in manie things it hath But I will of these your former improper and impertinent testimonies out of the sixth of Iohn conclude and vrge no further but this one argument against you and them and then let the indifferent Reader iudge whether you haue not deceived Gods people by misvnderstanding the holie Scriptures or no Whosoever teacheth that there is a carnall reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament before consecration is a lyer a depraver of the truth and a deceiver of the people But some late Popes the new church of Rome with the colledge of Cardinals new creatâ—d Iesuits Semynaries and all the Romish Priests now in Ireland â—â—â—ch This is vnaunswerable that there is a carnall reall presenâ—â— of Christ in the Sacrament before consecration Therefore some late Popes the new Church of Rome with the colledge of Cardinals new created Iesuits Semynaries and all the Romane Priests now in Ireland be lyers depravers of the trueth and deceivers of the people The maior or first proposition is your owne doctrine for you teach that before Hoc est corpus meum be pronounced there is no consecration The assumption or later proposition is as cleere for your perswade the simple people to beleeue that these texts out of the sixth of Iohn prooue a carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament a yeare before Hoc est corpus meum was by Christ pronounced or the Sacrament by Christ instituted Therefore the conclusion that you be lyers and deceivers of the people is inevitable Thus the Catholiques of this kingdome by the rules of your owne religion you haue deceived in teaching Christes carnall presence in the Sacrament a yeare before either Sacrament or consecration in the Sacrament were instituted And that your leaden divinitie without care or conscience you thrust vppon the simple people aâ— sound doctrine But if there were no other errour or heresie held and taught by you but this one point it were sufficient to make all the Catholicks in this kingdome nay in Christendome to forsake your opinion considering your ignorance or malice presuming to iustifie that which holie scriptures auncient Fathers Gods Church yea and the perticuler Church of Rome with their Bishops Archbishops Popes for a thousand yeares after Christs ascention never spake or heard of and therefore it is no olde faith taught by them but a new heresie invented by you But now to the rest of your proofe Math. 26.26 Christ tooke bread did blesse it Catho brake it and gaue it to his disciples and said Priests take and eate this is my bodie This is my bloud of the new Testament which shal bee shed for â—â—ame for remission of sinnes GEntlemen this is your proofe out of Christs owne words Rider this was delivered by Christ owne mouth at the time of the institution oâ— the Supper and the night before his blessed passion and either this must helpe you or else you are helplesse but Christ willing I will plainlie shew this your proofe to be your reproofe and I pray God for Christ his sake that the eies of your vnderstanding may be opened to see the truth your hearts toucht to receiue and confesse the truth and renounce your errors and so cease to deceiue Gods people and the Queenes subiects least a worse thing come vnto you All the doubt and controversie of this question betwixt vs dependes on this Text which you say must bee taken properlie and litterallie wee say Sacramentallie improperlie figuratiuelie and misticallie And our opinion God willing shall be proved by Scriptures auncient Fathers and Popes and the olde Church of Rome But this is straunge that men of your great learning as the Catholiques take you to be wil deale so child shlie and weaklie in so weightie a matter Bee not offended that I say you handle this childishlie for in Schooles he that alleadgeth for the probation of a proposition the proposition it selfe for the probation of a text the text it selfe is counted childish and it is a childish point of Sophistrie and a fallacie to be vsed among young schollers not to be practised among simple Catholiques The Catholiques demand of you how you prooue Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament and you bring in Hoc est corpus meum which is the proposition wherevpon all this disputation and contention dependeth Ioh. 19. â—7 After the same manner a man may prooue the blessed virgin Marie to be Iohn the Evangelists mother and say still notwithstanding any text brought against him as Christ said Ecce mater tua Behold thy mother say what yee will the words be Christs words therefore they must be
true they need no interpretation Christ is not a lyer And if a man aske a confirmation and say how prooue you this proposition of Christ to be true litterallie in deed as Christ spake it This is a loâ—se kinde of Logique You bring in for confirmation of the proposition the proposition it selfe and say Ecce mater tua Behold thy mother Thus when the Catholiques demaund of you to prooue your proposition of Hoc est corpus meum whether it must be taken corporallie or spiritualite grammaticallie or misticallie then you bring the proposition it selfe and say Hoc est corpus meum to prooue Hoc est corpus meum Jn Schools it is called Petitâ—o principiâ— so you would prooue idem per idem which is verie childish and a begging of that as graunted which is yet in question betwixt 〈◊〉 and vndetermined But you should haue prooved by other places of Scriptures that Hoc est corpus meum changeth the nature and substance of bread and wine and you should hâ— e proved by the Scriptures Esay 7.14 that the Prophets foreshewed th s strange conception of Christ to be conceaved of bread as well as they did foreshew his conception of the virgin And you should haue prooved by the Scriptures that it is not onelie a Sacrament but a sacrifice not onely Eucharisticall but as well propitiatorie and not onelie profitable to the quicke but also to the dead nay not onelie for plagues among men but murren and diseases also among beasts Cum multis alijs qua nunc c. Now shew by the Scriptures that Hoc est corpus meum hath such a sence that the simple people may repose themselues more securely vpon your opinion and proofes But till you prooue it which you can never doe they must know you haue and doe deceiue them with false expositions against veritie antiquitie authoritie yea consent of the old church of Rome And heere I am sorie I must tell you so plainelie that you wrong greatly and grievously Gods truth and the Queenes Subiects in thus misalleadging this 〈◊〉 1 First by Addition of a word 2 Secondly by misvnderstanding and misapplication of another word 3 Thirdly by omission nay plaine subtraction of a whole verse For the first which is Addition Addition you adde this particle a which is neither in the Greeke nor in your Romane Lattine Bible no nor in your Rhemish Testament nor ever seen in anie Doctor of antiquitie and this â—â—llable altereth the sence and perverteth Câ—â—â—â—s meaning and is added by you to maintaine that which the Text otherwise could not haue anie shew to beare Secondlie you misvnderstand and misapplie this word Blesss Mâ—â—lapplication for we say it signifieth to giue thanks with the mouâ—h and you say to make crosses with the fingers wee say it was spoken by Christ to his Father you say it was spoken to over or vpon the bread and chastice â—he â—ost 1. Cor. â— Sect. 9. and that hee vsed power actiue words vpon them we contrarie will shew out of the word it selfe that it hath no such signification One part of the originall word in Greeke signifieth in English Speech vttered with the mouth not a magicall crossing of or with fingers And the other Greeke word which must be iudge betwixt vs doth signifie to lande to praise and to blesse blessing praising and thanksgiving are all one as anone you shall beere Christ himselfe so to expound it and all the Evangelists Paul agree in one congruence touching this matter against you How blesse blâ—ssing are vsed in Scripâ—â—res But first I will shew the simple how diversly this word Blesse is vsed in the Scriptures To blesse God is to praise him and giue him thankes for all his mercies as you haue in Luke and the disciples continued in the Temple landing blessing God Luk 24.53 I hope you will not say they crost God with their fingers or consecrated him to make him more holie bâ—t praised him with their mouths For if you take bleâ—â—ing of God in that fingered sence then see the absuâ—â—â—â—es you fall into Joh. â— 18. â—oh 4.84 First aganst Scriptures you must hold that God the Father is not a Spirit but hath a bodielie share that may bee touched and crost with our corporall forgetâ— if this you hold you ioyne with those auncieâ—â— heretickes of Egypt Anthropâ—morphita who held that God had a bodie and members as man had And the second absurditie nay blasphemie is this that you should make GOD who is holiâ—esse it selfe the holier by your crossing but I hope you will not take blessing in this sence but joyâ—e with the Disciples and vs that blessing of GOD signifieth praysing of GOD or praying to GOD What it is for one man to blesse another Cen. â— 27 Genes 48. Numb 6.23 for one man to blesse another is nothing else but to praye for them and to beseech God that he would blesse them that is defend them protect them and be mercifull vnto them Let your High-priests of Rome and you low Priestes of â—â—cland learne of Aaron Gods High-Priest hovv to blesse Gods people so cease to deceiue them anie more So Isaack blessed Iacob and Iacob the sonnes of Ioseph And so the LORD commaunded Moses to speake to Aaron and to his Sonnes saying Thus shall yee blesse the children of Israel and say vnto them The Lord blesse the and â—eepe thee the Lord make hiâ— face to shine vâ—on thee and be mercâ—full vnto thee c. A Christian patterne not onelie for Priests but also for Pâ—stâ—urs and Parents dailie to practise the one for his flocke the other for his familie yet both in the Lord. from the Lord. Which blessings are derived from Gods mercies hang not on the ends of Priests fingers Again you see blessing is praying with the mouth not crossing with the fingers as you vainlie and foolishlie make your Ghostlie châ—â—dren beleeue that if you crosse them with your two fingers and a thumbe they are pardoned for their sinnes post and preserved that day from future daungers and evill spirits Which fingered blessing of yours is as powerfull to pardon sinne and feare away spirits as three sups of the Challice is to cure the chinne-cough This blessing was commaunded by God to be practised by Aaron the High-Priest and the rest of the Priests vpon Gods children but how far your blessing differs from this the simplest may iudge For first God commaunded this blessing the Pope your blessings This was by mouth onely yours with some mumbling wordes and charming crosses with your fingers This blessing was a praier to desire God to blesse and you teach that in your breath fingers there is a power a certain working or impression of some blessing vpon them by meanes of your said mumbling and crossing But your Priests agree with Gods Priests and your blessing with fingers with
Gods Priests blessings with praier of the heart and mouth even as well is trueth and falsehood light and darknesse superstition and religion Christ Belial And if the Catholiques will but diligently read this commandement of GOD given to the High-Priest and Priests in this place touching the manner how they should blesse Gods people I am resolved that few Catholiques in this kingdome heereafter will kneele at your feet or begat your hand any finger benediction or crossing because it hath no warrant from Gods word and therefore ten thousand of them not worth a farthing How the Priests blesse the sacrament You crosse the cup or Challice with a set number of crosses and gestures sometimes blowing over the Chalice sometimes crossing it sometimes hiding it that none must see it sometimes lifting it vp that all must see it then ioyning and disioyning of your thumbe and two fingers with manie moe such Apish toies childish trickes and charming prokes which haue neither foundation nor relation to Christs actions and institution But we in administring this holy Sacrament Hovv the Preachers of the gospell blesse the bread the cup. confesse the greatnesse and grievousnesse of our sinnes that can no otherwise bee pardoned but in Christe bloudâ—â— and bitter passion and wee giue thankes to God for Christs blessed obedience to the shamefull death of the cursed crosse by which he hath satisfied Gods wrath and wrought our reconciliation in the bloud of the same and continue this Sacrament as be instituted and commaunded in reverence and rememberance thereof without addition alteration or subtraction And pray that our vnworthinesse and want of faith hinder nor our spirituall vnion reall presence with Christ which is offered in the word of institution and sealed in the right receiving of the Sacrament This is the force and effect of this word Blesse the true vse wherof Christ by his practize delivered the Primitiue Church Fathers and we imitate Now whether your blessing in the Sacrament and your blessing by crossing the people or ours come neerer to Gods word and Christs practize let the best minded to Gods truth iudge and then with GODS trueth ioyne Thus much for your Addition misvnderstanding and misapplication Now to your Omission or Subtraction of a whole verse You bring for proofe of your carnall presence Omission or Subtraction You couer two errors in concealing one ver which is a wicked pollicie the 26. verse and the 28. verse of the 26. chap. of math But you over skip the 27. verse betwixt them both which if you had added it had expounded Christes meaning of this word Blesse overthrown your own crossing and discovered and discomfited other errors of yours which are the receiving of the communion in one kinde of bread onely and onelie the Priest must drinke of the cuppe and not all the communicants which are contrarie to Christs institution and the auncient practize of the ancient Popes church of Rome as shall be shewed hereafter Christ willing The verse that you omit of purpose is this And when he had taken the cup and given thankes he gaue it to them saying drinke yee all of this Now Christ in this verse expoundeth his owne meaning of blessing in the verse before shewing what hee meane by blessing after he tooke the bread by the word of giving of thankes after hee tooke the cuppe So by Christs own exposition blessing giving of thankes are all one or else Christ did rightlie consecrate the bread by vsing the word blessing but not the cup by vsing the word of giving of thankes Nay if blessing and giving of thankes were not all one then neither Luke not Paul haue rightlie penned Christes institution nor Mathevv nor Marke of the cuppe because neither Luke nor Paul ever vsed the word blesse either in taking the bread or cup but the word of giving of thankes nor Mathevv nor Marke ever vsed the word Blesse in receiuing of the cup. I pray you read the three Evangelists and Paul in Greeke and you shall see as in a glasse your errors anâ— shall finde Mathevv and Marke expound Christs meaning in your overslipt verse in giving of thankes in taking the cup what he meant by blessing when he tooke the bread and read also Luke and Paul in Greeke and you shall find that they never vsed the word Blesse as abouesaid So then Luke and Paul expoundeth Mathevv and Marke nay Mathevv and Marke in your concealed verse expound themselues â—ar 8.6.7 If you will read the eighth of Marke in Greeke you shall finde these two words vsed by Christ befoâ—e his miracle of seaven loaues a few fishes and you shall see there the word of thankesgiving put downe first Blessing and giuing of thankes are all one when he tooke the bread and then the word Blesse put downe when hee tooke the fishes there was aâ— great a miracle wrought in the multiplication of the loaues after his thanksgiving as of the fishes after his blessing And mathew speaking of this miracle as Marke did math 1â— 36 did onelie vse the worde of thanksgiving and not the word to blesse at all Wherby you may see by Christs practise that blessing and thanksgiving are all one and they signifie to pray and praiese with voice and not to crosse with the fingers Peruse your owne latten Bible Benedixit by your latten translation is expounded by sanctificante Gen. 2.3 and you shall see that â—â—red is it must be taken in no other sence then sancti scauit is Thus the simple may see how greatly you haue erred in these three points abouesaid And I wonder that maister Henry Fâ—â—rsimon a Gentleman so well learned as the Catholickes account durst put his hand to these grosse errors which most safelie I keepe with me allowing them to bee both Apostolicall and Catholicke whereas they are most antichristian and hereticall And me thinks that all the Priests are greatlie in this to be blamed that will persw de others to follow them and they will neither follow Christs trueth the Apostles writings the Greeke not latten text nor the auncient practise of the P imitiue Church of Rome But now to the test of the bodie of the text and controversie Wherein first let vs examine whether your two propositions this is my bodie this is my bloud of the new Testâ—ment c. be proper or figuratiue litterall or Sacramentall For if they be improper borrowed figuratiue and Sacramentall they prooue neither your Transubstantiation not your carnall reall presence but even plainly disprooue them Augustin de doctr christiâ—nâ— lib. â— cap. 16 pag. 23 Parisâ—â— 1â—80 Saint Augustines â—ulâ— before recited if you would be ruled by it but neither Scriptures nor Fathers can rule you but you will over rule them would presently satisfie you that these two propositions must be figuratiue the latter you coÌ„fesse but the former as yee you wil not His words again for the
Christs bodie that is a figure of his bodie being not received though consecrated Secondly that the bodie of Christ wherof the Sacrament must be a figure The Popes glosse against the Popes text must be received by faith into the soule not by the mouth into the stomacke Now the glosse saieth the text is false vnlesse c. But I leaue the â—aâ—re to be reconciled by you who be the Popes friends yet this I say Maledicta gloss qua corrumpit textum Aâ—d Gâ—la siuâ— another Pope more auncient then these againâ—t Euâ— â—â— of this oâ—â—â—ion These three Popes and the Church of Rome in those daies it was before the birth of your Transubstantiation and your carnall presence jumpt with all the old Fathers and the Primitiue Church that livâ—d the first sixe hundred yeares after Christ and say it is called the bodie of Christ the flesh of Christ the passion and death of Christ but not rei veritate not in deed and trueth but mistically significatiuelie improperlie figuratiuelie and by way of representation and that it is impossible otherwise to bee the bodie of Christ Yet when we speake of figures in the Sacrament you mocke vs. When we say the phrase is figuratiue therefore the sence must be spirituall you deride vs as misinterpreters of Scriptures and Fathers But if your leisure and learning would affoord you but faâ—our to read with a holie deuotion the canonicall Scriptures the ancient doctors of Christs Primitiue Church that left vs these lessons for our learning you should see that wee learne what they taught and doe what they said you follow not what they commaunded because you know not what they haue recorded Now briefly I will acquaint the Reader onely with the times when these Doctors liued and the places where they taught this doctrine and then wee shall set whether this your litterall exposition of Hoc est corpus meum be Catholicke or not Clemens Alexandrinus was divinitie Reader in the famous cittie of Alexandria in Egypt In the yeare of our Lord 170 Origen was his scholler If you will read aduisedly these fathers you shal see plainlie your owne errors and succeeded Lecturer in 〈◊〉 same place 204 Tertullian Diuinitie Reader in Carthage in Affrick 206 Ambrose Bishop of Mellaine in Italie 370 Hierome Diuinitie Reader in Stridona in Hungaria and sometime in Slauonia 387 Chrisostome Bishop of Conctantinople in Graecia 406 Augustine Bishop of Hâ—ppo in Affricke 42â— Venerable Beda a famous learned man in Eng 570 And thus you may see that neither Alexandria Carthage Milâ—â—s Stridoâ—a Constantidople Hippo noâ— Rome which are famous Câ—tâ—es Nay which is more neither Egypt â—â—alie Hungaria and Slavoâ—â—â— not England which are â—â—mous kingdomes Nay which is most of all the three parts of the world Asia Affricke Europe neveâ— heard or had such a litteral exposition of Hoc est corpus â—â—um for at least eight hundred years after Christ Vincentius â—â—ner sus Hereticos That 〈◊〉 trulye â—atholicke faith â—e Quod semper vbique abâ—omnâ—bus est eâ—â—ditum Quastio 4 de â—aâ—stentia corpâ—ris Christs en â—ucharilia pag 154. Sâ—â—hâ—â— your â—eligion is none of Châ—ist beâ—aâ—sâ— it 〈◊〉 not war â—â—â—uâ—ed by the â—osoâ—ll of Ch i st and yet your Iesuits and priestes w ll haue their doctrine to be Catholicke which cannot be vnlesse it were at all times and in all places and of all persons received for so your Vincentius defineth Catholicke doctrine And heâ—â—e you see that for the three parts of the world and for many hundred yeares after Christ at was not knowne And therefore it is neither Apostolicall nor Catholicke And a late Frier and friend of yours olde Father Iosephus Angles bâ—ings in Cardinall Caâ—â—tans opinion writing vppon saint Thomas Aquinas in this manner Per Evangelium non possunt catholici hereticâ—â— convincere ad intellegenda verba hac hoc est corpus meum proprie sed tenendum hoc esse salum ex authoritate ecclesâ—â— qua ita verba consicrationis declarat That is the Catholickes cannot convince or Inâ—urce the Heretiâ—kes by the Gospell to vnderstand these wordes hâ—c est corpus meum this is my bodie properlia but this exposition must bee fetched and hold from the authoritie of the Church which so expoundeth the words of consecration See I pray you what one of your learnedst Friers reports out of one of your skarlet Cardinals of Rome that you cannot prooue by Christs Gospell these words this is my bodie to haue a proper litterall signification So that CHRIST Gospell condemnes your liue all and proper exposition and so your carnall presence of Christ must be maintâ—â—â—ed from and by the authoritie of the church Rome though Christ and his Gospell say no. Alasse with what conscience dare you teach the Catholicks this heresie Super quaest 75. Articl primo Fol. 230 Printed at Venice 1593. which by your owne confession hath no warranâ— from Châ—â—sts Gospeâ— And Cardinall Caietane himselfe writing vpon your saint Thomas Aquinas speaketh to the same purpose that the Scriptures speake nothing expresse expresly of Christ his câ—rnall presence in the Sacrament but onely in these words hoc est corpus meum which words saith he are two waies expounded first properlie secondlie metaphoricallie But saith hee the maister of the sentences is to be taxed Lib. 4. dist 10. who held too much with the figuratiue interpretation And there you shall see that he blusheth â—oâ— say that your litterall sence is not froÌ„ the Gospell but from the church of Rome And if your Romane Church may be both partie witnesse and iudge there is no doub t but th verdict must sound on your side And there the Cardinall handles Duas novitates valda mirabiles which being dul e examined parturiuns mâ—â—tes c. with manie other forgeries and fooleries to maintaine your carnal kingdome of your Breaden-god Thus much concerning your two consecratorie propositions which by the testimonie of Scriptures and Fathers be figuratiuelie to be expounded as we say not properlie litterallie as you vntrulie teach But yet you perchaunce will demaund the reason why Christ called it his bodie if it be not his body Let me first aske you another question then I wil resolue you this Gen 17. to 11. Rom. 4.11 Exod 12.11 Why did God cal circumscision the covenant when in deed it was not the covenaÌ„t but as god himself saith a sigâ—â— of the covenaÌ„t Why did God cal the Paschall lambe the Passover wheÌ„ it was but a signe of the Angels passing over the houses where the bloud of the lambe was sprinkled one answere wil resolue both our questions It is the vsuall maner of the holy Ghost in all Sacraments both of the old Testament and new Wheresoever the holie Ghost speakes of Sacraments the phrase is tropicall me to yoâ—â—micall and figuratiue attributing the name of the thing signified to the signe signifying as in these examples the
so then this Pope will haue this sence hoc eâ—â— corpus meum that is nothing is my bodie But in thâ— three of the last lines of that chapter his wisedomâ— changed his minde said this is my bodie that is whaâ— soever is vnder the formes of bread is my bodie Iâ— not this thinke you deepe divinitie for a Pope You may see herein how the Pope vseth shamefull shifts tâ— cover his sensible errors and to deceiue Christs littâ— flocke In his Marc. Anton Con. Stephen Gardner living buâ— latelie seeing every man opinion expounding what hoc should be heed slikes 〈◊〉 them all and saith it signifieth iudiuiduum vagum as iâ— Christ had said This but what it is I cannot tell but iâ— must of necessitie be somewhat is my bodie De consec dist 2. can P morem Glossa ibi dem But I will conclude with your owne Popes Canoâ— and Glosse which you hold for Canonicall though in deed hereticall solet quari quid demonstratur per pronâ—â—â— men hoc It is a common question what is meant by â—hiâ— pronounce this whether bread or the bodie of Christ not bread for that is not the bodie of Christ nor yet thoâ— bodie of Christ for it appereath not that there is anie transubstansiation till the words hoc all pronounced yea the last sillable â—m To this question this must be aunswered That by the word this nothing is meanâ— but it is there put materially without anie signifi aâ—ion at all See now whither you are brought or rather whither haue you brought Gods people from â—â—deth to falsehood if hoc signifieth nothing where then is your transubstanstation For if in 〈◊〉 word which should first worke in the change there bee no mention of bread how câ—n that which is no waâ— comprised in them be chaunged by them so you spâ—ake against your selues Againe as you are rent in sunâ—â— opinions touching hoc so also are you touching â—â—er when you saw that est would not serue in his propet Evangelicall and Apostolicall signification What est signifieth there is great variance amongst the Romish Prelats Est i. Fit Est est verbum anuntiativum non constetutium Est 1. erit Iosephus Angles iâ— loco praedicto pag. 115. then you gaue him a new exposition For Bonaventure seeing that est as Christ and Paul meant it would not fit their purpose then hee of purpose expounded it by fit vt fit sensus panis fit corpus meum that it might be thus in sence The bread is made my bodie Yet Occham hee likes not Bonaventures Fit because hee thinkes it is too grosse and too false and therefore he will expound est by erit that it may carrie with it this sence this shall be my bodie but saith he it is a verie rash and brainsicke opinion and alleadgeth as brainsicke a reason as there you may see Yet Caietanus the Cardinall de Encharistia cap. 7. pag. 104. col 2. C. D. denieth est to haue anie such signification vnlesse it be in metaphors and parables But lest that I shuld be too offensiue vnto you I could del ver so many several opinions of yours touching the praedicat corpus one saith it must bee meant of Christes bodie glorified no saith another that is false but it must be vnderstood of his bodie as it was before his passion And a third opinion obiects certaine doubts against both the former Magister Sententiarum lib 4. distinct 12. page 60. delivers foure severall opinions de fractione partibus Now Gentlemen I appeale to your consciences if they be not cauteriated whether you haue dealt well with the ignorant Catholickes of this land in perswading them that in all your doctrine there is consent without jarres antiquitie without innovation and vniversalitie without limittation whereas there is nothing but iarres discords dissentions in your coÌ„secration in your transubstantiatioÌ„ in every word almost nay perticle as hoc and est be so wrested by your construction that you haue brought both their propeâ— significations to plaine destruction Is this exposition Catholicke what auncient fatheâ— ever expounded it so let the Catholickes know oâ— else they with vs will iudge neither you nor you doctrine Catholicke Will you follow a foolish Frier an ignorant Abbot a late vpstart Pope or Priest thaâ— writ and wrested within these foure hundred yeares and forsake Scriptures and the auncient Doctours oâ— the Church Now let the indifferent minded Catholikes be iudges whether you or wee haue antiquiâ—â— consent and veritie on our sides And who differs from Scriptures fathers from amongst themselues not onelie in one point of religion but almost in â—verie point and particle of doctrine Thus much coâ—cerning your discords amongst your selues and â—l â—gainst the auncient Apostolicall and Catholick truth Now to conclude this matter I will shewe plainlâ—â— by scriptures Hoc est corpus meum expouâ— bâ— scripente that hoc est corpus meum can haue no such sence as you teach which is that bread is not by this or anie other words transubstantiated or chauâ—ged into Christs bodie and bloud but that bread remaineth after sanctification or as you say consecratâ—on and that the scriptures speaking of Christs bodie and of the bread speake distinctlie not confusedlie that is they doe divide them not confound them giving to eâ—ther of them their severall nature and propertie yea after consecration And whereas we haue now heard too much of the jarres of your late Popes and writers voide of vnitie and veritie Now let vs heare the holie scriptures expound hoc est corpus meum plainlie and truelie by the Evangelists and Paul who knew best Christs meaning Vpon whose exposition all Christians may and must onelie rest satisfied inspite of Pope and poperie Debt math 26 26. ANd first we will prooue it from the difference of the signe and the thing signified The scriptures when they speak of bread they speak actiuely He gaue Dâ—tur Luc 22.19 But when they speake of Christs naturall bodâ—e they speake passiuelie Is given â—regit Luc. 21.19 When they speake of bread they speake actiuelie He brake it â—â—ngitur 1. Cor. 11.24 But when they speake of Christs body they speake passiuelie Which is broken â—â—s marke 14.22 When they speake of bread they say To you Pro vobis 1 Cor. 11.14 But when they speake of Christs naturall bodie they say For you Dedit marke 14 12 Likewise when they speake of wine they speake actiuely He gaue â—â—â—nditur Luc. 11.20 But when they speake of Christ his bloud they speake passiuelie Is shed â—it math 26.27 When they speake of the wine they say To them Pro multis prâ—rebis Luc. 22 â—0 math 26.26 But when they speake of Christs bloud they speake For you or for manie Iâ— meaÌ„ commemotationem 1. Cor. 11.24 When they speak of the cup they speak In rememberance of me Iâ— remissìonem peccatorum
Or drinke the Challice of the Lord vnvvorthelie Out oâ— which I note first that you keepe this backe hoping thereby to establish your halfe communion vnder onâ— kinde that the Catholickes might thinke that the receiving of bread were sufficient because you saye Christs bodie must needes even by the necessitie of concomitancie haue bloud in it ConcomitaÌ„cie suine vvhat yonger then your Transubstantiation both forged by your selues neuer known in Christs Church for a 1000 yeares at leaste And therfore they are to nevv to be Catholick no straÌ„g to be true and therefore it is no need to receiue the cup which if it be true but I aâ—sure it is most false then Christ was deceived in his wisedome and the Apostles and primitiue Church in their practise which I hope you daâ—e not say for sinne and shame And therefor giue over these irreligious practises of Additions Subtractions Interpositions and vaine expositions with new Inkhorne-termes of â—â—mitancie and confesse Christ his a melent and Aâ—â—olicall trueth truelie Thus much to giue the Catholickes a taste of the 〈◊〉 you offer them in lulling them a sleepe in the â—â—e of ignorance and superstition whereas they â—â—ld be most willing and readie to obey the aunâ—t (a) Reuel 14.6 Rom. 1.16 2. Thess 1.8 powerfull and everlasting Gospell of Iesus â—ist if you d d not mislead them by your wilfull â—â—ors and keepe backe from them the reading of the â—â—ptures which holds them and hardeneth them in â—â—usancie But take heed least you by this ignorance which you keepe them and the disobedience to the â—ospell in which you letter them you with them and 〈◊〉 them hazard not that dolefull taste and torment â—epâ—ted for wilfull ignorant Recusants of Christ his â—ospell where it is said Rendring vengeance in flaâ—ng fire to theâ—â— that knevv not God nor obey not the gosâ—â— of Iesus Christ Now Gentlemen if you be authors â—f their sinnes you must be partakers of their punishâ—â—â—t which both the Lord in mercie prevent The Text is the Lord not Christ the vvriter mistook at the Author I blame not Now floweth another part of your proofe drawen out of part of the 27. verse in these words Shal be guiltie 〈◊〉 the bodie and bloud of Christ Out of these words some late writers since your â—â—ansubstansiation was invented would prooue two â—ine questions that are in controversie betwixt you â—â—d vs. 1. The first is your carnall presence of Christ in â—â—e Sacrament The second that the wicked doe eate the bodie â—â—d drinke the bloud of Christ In handling and aunswering these I shall hardlie â—ver the one from the other but as you inferre that the graunting of the one confirmes the other So must in confuting the one destroy the other and so one aunswere will serue to confute both Rhâ—m Teâ—t 1. Cor 11 Sect 16. Thus you record to the worlds wonder Rome Rhemes shame against God Christ Scriptures and Fathers that ill livers and Infidels eate the bodie and drinke the bloud of Christ in the Sacrament and your reason there followeth that they could not bee guiltie of that they received not and that it could not bee so hainous an offence for anie man to receiue a peece of bread or a cup of wine though they were a true Sacrament First old father Origen shall answere you who saith Origen super Math 15 page 2â— â— st verus cibus quem nemo malus potest edere It is true meat which no wicked man can eate Heere Origen condemneth the Rhemists Romanists and all late Priests and Iesuites for holding this opinion iâ—urious to Christs death and all true Catholickes saith But you may obiect against Origen and say the Rhemists laid downe their opinion and gaue reasons to confirme it But where is Origens reason by which he prooues â—â—s former position that no wicked man can eate Christs bodie Super Math. 26. forsooth it is in his Comentarie vpon your text brought forth of mathew in these words Panis quem silius Dei corpus suum esse dicit verbum est nutritoriâ—â— animarum the bread which the son of God said to be his bodie is the nourishing word of our soules Out of which this we gather that seeing this bread or meate is the nourishment of our soules not of our bodies he spake of the heavenlie part of the sacrament For we know in common sence that bread and wine cannâ—t nourish the soule but the bodie I have proved by scriptures and Fathers before that the hand and mouth of the soule is a liuelie iustifying faith which you all your side cannot denie but the wicked want Now if the wickâ—d haue no mouth nor stomacke to recâ—â—â— this spirituall food and digest it as the foresaid Fa◠〈◊〉 haue affirmed why doe you say that the wicked and Infidels can eate the bodie of Christ wanting both hands mouth and stomacke And the scriptures call wicked men dead men Now you know dead men cannot eate meate corporall Chrysost Hom. 60. ad pop Antioch no more can the wicked which are dead spirituallie eate meat caelestiall And Chrysostome saith Let no Iudas stand to no covetous person if anie be a disciple let him be present for this Table receiues no such as Iudas or Magna for Christ saith I keepe my Passover with my disciples And to conclude with Augustine Tract 26. super lib. pag. 175. Qui non manet in Christo in quo non maneâ— Christus procul dubio c. Hee that abides not in Christ and in whom Christ abides not out of doubt eateth not spirituallie his flesh nor drinketh his bloud although carnallie and visiblie he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ but rather eateth and drinketh the Sacrament of so great a thing to his iudgement the reason followeth Quia iâ—mundus c. because hee is vncleane in heart and presumes to come to the Sacrament of Christ which no man can worthilie receiue Math. 5. vnlesse he be pure and cleane in heart as Christ saith Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God Out of Augustine I obserue against both your opinions these things First hee makes a difference of Christes flesh and the Sacrament of Christes flesh for they bee two things and to be distinguished with their severall substances and properties and not to bee confounded or transubstantiated one into the other and so the nature of bread perish as you vntruelie imagine and teach Secondlie that the wicked receiue and grinde with their teeth and swallow with their throat the outward Sacrament that is the outward visâ—ble creatures of bread and wine to their iudgement or condemnation because they presume to come without a cleane heart and conscience purified by faith Acts. 15 9 But the godly eat the heavenlie part of the Sacrament which is Christ with his benefits because they dwel in Christ by faith and Chrih
Priestes that we might he nourished by that by vvhich vve haue been redâ—emed A Blinde man may see that you never read this in Cyprian your selfe Cyprian de Duplici Marts floruit 249. Rider or else that you vnderstand them not For Cyprian saith not God hath left in his flesh but Reliquit nobis edendam carnem suam â—ubquis bibendum sanguinem c. he hath left vs his flesh meate and his bloud to drinke I pray you pardon me to aske you which is the nominatiue case to the tube is Deus no but if you had begunne seven lines sooner as you ought in deed to haue done at Nemo maâ—em charitatem habet c. you should haue found the right nominatiue case that there might haue been not onelie a grammatticall concord but also a Theologicall harmonie and then the sence had bene plaine For it was hee that died for his enemies that left vs his flesh c. And that was Christ not God the father But you begunne after your accustomed manner in the middest of a sentence mistaking the nominatiue case to the verbe and so lay downe heresie for divinities for God the father hath neither flesh nor blould But if I should helpe you with a charitable construction by attributing that to Christes Deitie which is proper to his humanitie yet you still haue wrested the father and abused the Reader But thus Cyprian is to be readâ— Christ truth left vs his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke so we confesse it we beleeue is and we teach it but to be eaten and drunke spirituallie by saith not corporallie nor â—â—turallie as you imagine For this is the inward invisible Grace of the Sacramente that you propound Now how this flesh and bloud of Christ is to be eâ—ten or how Christs flesh and bloud are naturalliâ— substantiallie reallie vnder the formes of bread anâ— wine which is our question you cannot prooue bâ— Cyprian and so still you propound the matter to vâ— when you should prooue the maner to vs and here 〈◊〉 your error in the third kinde if not in moe beforâ— specified Cyprian de Cana Domini nu 9. And heere you bring a testimonie out of Cyprian where hee speaketh not properlie of the sacrament but of the threefold Martyrdome which hee gathereâ— out of the death of Christ and therefore you shew 〈◊〉 great weaknesse in running to that Tractate whereaâ— you might haue spedde better if you had list neereâ— home For if you had reade or woulde reade thaâ— Father vpon his Treatise of the Lords Supper hee would haue either changed your minde or hardned your heart but howsoever discoverd your errors And that the eating of Christs flesh and drinking of Christs bloud is not a grosse corporall swallowing of his blessed flesh and precious bloud What it is to eate Christes flesh and drinke Christs bloud as you deeme but that Esus carnis Christs est quaedam aeuiditas quoddam desyderium manendi in ipso c. The eating of Christs flesh is a certaine egernesse and a certaine desire to abide in Christ c. And three lines before this he saith Our abiding in him is our cating of him and the drinke is a certaine incorporation into him And in the latter end of the Treatise you shall finde that Father touch the point in question betwix vs Hovv Christ must bee eaten haec quotiens agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fidâ— synâ—ora panem sanctum frangimus partimus c. As often as we receiue these holie mysteries we whet not our teeth to bite or chew but breake and divide this holie bread by a sincere faith c. And foure lines before that saith he Edulium carnis Christs de facatis animis c. The food of Christs flesh must be eaten with purified minds saith not with washed mouthes Impij nec se iudicant nec sacramenta diiudicant ibid. n. 13. And â—ttle before that hee saith the wicked lambunt peâ—â— c. licke the rocke but neither sucke honie nor â—â—e c. that is to say they eate the Sacrament but 〈◊〉 the inward grace of the Sacrament Thus I hope â—e indifferent Reader is satisfied that your proofe is 〈◊〉 pertinent to the matter in question and therefore â—â—eweth the weaknesse of your cause Transubstansiation is but in deede a fable and the wilfulâ—esse of your mindes that will seeke so stiflie to mainâ—â—ine fables with wresting fathers for Cyprians place â—â—at you bring handleth the invisible grace of the Saâ—rament And in this place which I bring he toucheth 〈◊〉 manner how that grace is to be received that is â—ith faith as we say not â—eeth as you teach c. And 〈◊〉 Cyprian agrees with himselfe and we with Cyprian â—â—yne against your carnall opinion And thus having â—â—nswered Cyprian with Cyprian and shewed you your â—â—â—e sight and mistaking of Cyprian I will come to â—â—e examination of your next proofe There is no doubt left of the veritie of the flesh and bloud of Christ for novv by the assurance of our Lord Caththoâ— Priests and certaintie of our faith Hyllarius de Trinitate lib 4. 8. floruit 370. it is his true flesh and his true bloud GEntlemen now we must needs commend you for you giue testimonie with the truth and vs against the late church of Rome your selues â—ow you come neere the quicke in deed Rider and therefore â—peake both the trueth and trulie This is the manner â—w Christ must be eaten by faith but you should 〈◊〉 added the next line following Et haec accepta atâ—â— exhausta id efficiunt c. and these that is sanctiâ—â—â—d bread and veine being thus by faith taken thus â—â—ple bring this to passe that Christ is in vs and we â— Christ so now you say with Hyllarie that Christ dwelleth in all them that receiue him by faith Your owne proofe is one our side Anâ— so by this your owne warrant you witnesse to the world that there is no place for the corporall receiving of Christ by the wicked as Rome teacheth it because Christ dwelleth not in them nor they in him And so because this your proofe prooues our part of the matter in question against your selues that Christ iâ— to bee eaten or received by our faith not by our mouth or teeth I will addresse my selfe to the examination of your next proofe Catholicks Priestes Nothing remaineth in the vvorld of the bodie and bloud of Christ Athan lib. de Passione Imaginis Christs cap. 7. florniâ— 375. but that vvhich daylie is made by the Priest on the Altar GEntlemen I perceiue you are soone wearie of well doing in your last proofe you confessed a trueth with vs even against your selues But now you leaue fathers and bring fables and so produce one fable to prooue another fable Rider that is you produce one fable of the crucifying of the image of Christ
repugnant to Christes truth as the rest The fift Article Christ willing in my next Treatise shall be handled the fourth and sixth Article as you hereafter giue occasion Now let the Catholicks consider how vnmercifullie and vnmeasurablie the bloudie Bishop of that Italian murthering Priest shed the innocent bloud of so manie Saints because they would not say and subscribe that these sixe Articles beeing in deed hereticall were Apostolicali and Catholicke Was this the planting of the Protestantes faith no this parliament was established for no other end but to supplant them And therefore these sixe Articles were fitlie termed the whip with sixe strings whip with sixe strings wherwith your forefathers whipt to death these innocent lambes for neither conspiracie nor treason but onelie for the word of God and for the testimonie which they maintained But they cease not to crie still for vengeance against those murtherers saying Hovv long Lord holie and true doest not then iudge avenge our bloud on them that dvvell on the earth Reuel 6.9.10 But thankes be to God those chanels of innocent bloud shed then in England by the Popes direction haue quite for ever banish out of England the Pope his superstition And as the mother that would before Salomon haue the childe divided was not the true mother so the Church of Rome that delighteth so much in bloud 1. Kings 3.17 c. cannot be the true Church Time will not permit to write the damnable fruit that this filthie Munkish chastitie yeeldeth but of that when opportunitie is offered yet stil nothing but what your own friends record The fourth proofe Deniers of the reall presence condemned as heretickes Catho Priests Ignatius ad Smyrnenses and Theodores dialog 3. circu medium do make mention of certaine deniers of the reall presence but so as they had none to accord vnto them Also Iconomachi as may appeare out of the 7 Councell did affirme that the Sacrament vvas but an image of Christ and they also had no follovvers onelie Eâ—rengarius in the time of Leo the ninth about fiue hundred yeares past vvho thricae recanted such opinion as erronious mantained the onelie spirituall presence And hee in three Councels was condemned in Conc. Turon sub Victor 2. in Conc. Rom. sub Nich. 2. in Concit Rom. sub Gregorie none The Councell of Trent remaineth for the rest that haue insued GEntlemen Rider you should haue brought Theodoret before Ignatius because Theodoret onelie reporteth some such thing out of Ignatius but Ignatius himselfe hath not one word of it and it seemeh still you never read Theodoret because you say circa medium not knowing in which of the three and thirtie chapters it was To be briefe that which you thinke maketh for you is in the ninteenth chapter which is but a sacramentall Metonymie as the rest of the fathers vse you would wrest it to your litterall and proper sence which is still your error spoken of confuted before But read Theodoret dialog 1. cap. 8. he will expound himself confute you And for Ignat. I haue read his twelue Epistles vppon this occasion twice over and from his first Epistle ad Mariam Cassoboliten to his last ad Romanes there is no such thing in that reverend Archbishop and Martyr but the contrarie which maketh me to wonder with what conscience you can belie so godlie a Martyr and abuse the Catholicks your loving friends And as for your Iconomachi they are verie impertinentlie brought in this place your title of Images were more proper for them Yet that you may see they fit not this purpose I referre you for satisfaction to the Popes owne Synode and Decree beginning at Cum diem extremum impiorum Arabum Tyrannus quem Soliman nominabant Ex Synode 2. Act 5. pag. 549. claufisset c. and after followeth the Popes decree Petrus deuotissimus presbyter c. Read this Act and Decree and they will giue you satisfaction of your impertinent allegations and if the Pope cannot content his Chaplens then you are malecontents indeed Berengarius Lastlie you bring in poore Berengarius vppon the stage to beare his faggot and recant his error of the spirituall presence of Christ in the Sacrament which we haue sufficiently proved before to be by scriptures fathers and Popes the true presence And now you bring in silie Berengarius his recantation to bee our confutation I pray you let me aske you but one question can a reason drawne from a perticular conclude generallie If it should I would reason thus with you Bonner Standish wih others preached stoutlie against the Popes supremacie in king Edvvard his daies therefore the Popes Supremacie is not lawfull Would you admit this kinde of reasoning These Iurers be too young to giue evidence and too partial to be trusted with the triall of this Issue I thinke no no more doe we the other For shall one mans weaknesse inconstancie and fall from the trueth conclude generallie against the trueth God forbid But you will obiect and say it is not one man but three severall Synods But I pray you remember that subornation of witnesses and packing of Iuries done in Westminster Hall is most severelie punished in that most honorable Starre-chamber and shall not the Pope and his followers be called to an account one day before the great iudge Iesus for the suborning of witnesses and packing of corrupt Iuries to deface Christes trueth and to maintaine their owne forgeries The Catholickes demand a proofe out of Scriptures and fathers for the prooving of your Romane opinion touching Christs reall and corporall presence in the Sacrament and you bring in the Popes Stipendarie Chaplens gathered by the Popes summons to vphold the Popes rotten declining kingdome and everie one of them at least 1100. years after Christs ascention and one of them within this sixtie yeares to prooue a thing done a thousand years before Now I giue Irelands Catholicks this friendlie caveat not to cleaue to the Popes Romish religion but to Paules Romane religion not to rest contented with the name of Catholicks vntill they haue the doctrine that is Apostolicall and Catholicke And now to your fift proofe being your last refuge and least helpe The fift proofe Catho Priests Of manie miraculous testimonies of the reall presence GEntlemen you know in Schooles an fit Rider is ever before quid sit In architecture the foundation is before the building In Christs divinity mans philosophie and common sence the cause is ever before the effect But you contrarie to divinitie reason and philosophie will haue a thing to worke wonders supra naturam aboue nature which is not in rerum natura neither hath anie beeing at all for you would make the simple people beleeue that your transubstantiated Christ worketh miracles and yet you haue not nay you cannot prooue anie such a Christ and if there were such a Christ hee is none of ours for hee was never
Christs flocke from Christs faith Catho Priests Crantzius lib 5 cap 9 And a certaine Duke of Saxonie vpon alike occasion did become a christian ALbertus Krantzius Hamburg you misspell his name writes chronica Regnorum Rider Daâ—ia Suetia Noruagiae I haue read diligentlie the ninth chapter of everie fifth booke of these three histories and there is no such thing in anie of them therfore you are to blame still to abuse learned men to bee the Authours of these fables and the Catholickes most of all to beleeue these fables Optatus reporteth a grievonus punishment of abusere of a sacred Host Catho Priests Optatus lib. 2. contra Donatist OPtatus in deed speaketh of two professed Donatists Vrbanus Formensis and Faelix Iduconeis who comming into the countrie of Mauritâ—nia and entring the Churches at the time of the celebration of the holie communion Rider commanded Eucharistiam the Eucharist to be given to their dogs but the dogges growing mad presentlie set vppon their owne maisters and rent their flesh with their teeth A iust iudgement of God for their vile attempt of so holy misteries But how dare you say that this was your consecrated Host Optatus saith it was Eucharistia the Eucharist that is to say the whole misteries of thanksgiving and not a part which was cast vnto dogges but Optatus saith not that Christ was locallie inclosed in that bread And you stil continue your wonted course that wheresoever you finde this word Ecclesiam it is your Church and where you finde this word Eucharistiam that is your consecrated Oste But a losse you deceaue the Catholickes for you haue neither the true Church because yee lacke the sincere preaching of Gods word and the lawfull vse of his two sacraments which be the two vnfallible markes of Christs Church nor yet haue you Christs sacraments as hee left to his Church but as they are disguised and prophaned by the late Church of Rome which doth as far differ from the primitiue practise of the auncient Church of Rome as Christs institution differs from mans invention Read Gregorie Nazianzen in his funerall sermon of father Catho Priests mother and sister and you shall finde miraculous demonstrations of the reall being of Christ Rider YOu still abuse the eares of the simple Gregorie hath no such matter as you speake of wrought by your charmed Hoste If you mean the spiritual reall being of Christ in your sacrament This Gregorie vvas dead 500. yeares before your corporall presence vvas knowne that is none of yours and if you mean of your corporall presence of Christ alasse Gregorie never knew it But Gentlemen you are to blame to vrge these fables to prooue a matter of faith you haue alleadged nothing that will weaken your cause more then this But if you wil haue the world to beleeue your miracles you must giue over these iugling trickes and shewe vs what sicke man by your Hoste you haue made sound out of whom you haue cast divels what Serpents you haue touched as Paul did and yet were not stung Acts. 28.5 which of you haue drunke drinke deadlie poisoned and were not killed which of you speake with new tongues that were never by time nor Tutors taught Marke vnlesse you can doe these miracles the Catholicks must esteem you no better then iuglers And yet by your leaue if you could doe all these and more to Galath 1.9 vnlesse your doctrine be answerable to Christ his trueth the Apostle will account you accursed and we must not beleeve you Catho Priests I trust this vvill suffiâ—â— for averring the consent of the Catholickes vvith the fathers of the primitiue Church vvhich is the first Article we were provoked to prooue Rider I Know you are vtterlie deceived and I trust this wil suffice the godlie learned and indifferent Reader that you your late Romish Catholicks quite dissent froÌ„ Christs truth old Romes religion therfore remember from whence yee are fallen and returne to the auncient 〈◊〉 while God giues you time which God graunt c. FINIS