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
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
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
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
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
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
Readers good I wil repeat they be these If the scripture seem to coÌ„mand any vile or ill fact the speech is figuratiue as Except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you Facinus vel flagitium videtur tubere â—â—ther can use S. â—â—â—â—d or confess your erroâ— the â—â—â—st â—â—possâ—le the second were commendable Christ seemeth to commaund a wicked act that is carnallie and grosly to eate Christs flesh c. it is therefore a figuratiue speech So that Augustine thus reasons against you To eate Christs flesh and drinke Christs bloud corporallie is a hainous thing therefore Christs wordes be figuratiue so that if to eate Christes flesh with our mouths and teare his flesh with our teeth as also actually drinking of his bloud bee hainous and wicked why doe you so eagerly presse the litterall sence of theâ—e your two propositions against trueth against faith and the auncient Father â—ead it it coâ—taines but 6. or 7 lineâ— The marginall note there coâ—demes your litterall sence Agustine in that short 19. chap. of the same booke immediatly going before wisheth alwaies the interpretation of these and all other figuratiue speeches to be brought ad regnum charitatie to the kingdome of charitie to haue their true exposition Now if you expounde this litterallie and properlie you forsake Agustines rule charities kingdome and the Apostolicall and Catholike exposition It is but small charitie to devoure the food of a friend but to eate and devoure corporallie and gutâ—urallie the precious bodie and bloud of our Christ and Saviour Augustine would haue you catholicks but you wil bee Capernatis and Canibals it is no charitie Nay saith Augustine it is plaine impietie and a wicked and a most damnable fact And so to prooue the action lawfull the kingdome of charitie hath ever taken these and the like propositions to bee figuratiue and the sence to be spirituall Therefore if you will bee loyall subiects of charities kingdome shewe your subiection to her charitable and Catholicke exposition otherwise you will stand indited of spirituall and vncharitable rebellion Ambr. lib. 4 de Sacramentis cap. 5. Ambrose is of the same opinion with vs against you saying Fac nobit inquit oblationem ascriptam nationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura corporis sangaâ—â—is Domine nostri Iesu Christi make vnto vs saith the Priest this oblation that it may bee allowable reasonable and acceptable which is a figure of the bodie bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ And Ambrose presentlie after saith the new Testament is confirmed by bloud in a figure of which bloud wee receiue the misticall bloud By these words the Reader may see that Ambrose and the Church in his daies tooke it not for the naturall bodie of Christ but for a figure of his bodie and therefore cease to bragge heereafter to the simple of Ambrose and Augustine set they are not of your opinion (a) â—â—noâ— Papae lib. tartius cap 12. Fol 148 there shal you see the foolish and phantasticall reasons the Pope giues for those said crosses Aug. in enarratione Psal â— pag. 7. col 1. Printed at Paris anno 1586 And in the Canon of the Masse you haue these â—â—â—ds of Ambrose in that part which begins Quam oblationem but you deale deceitfully with Gods people for you leaue out these words quod est figura corporis and there dash in fine red crosses and still teach the people it is Catholicke doctrine and the old religion but these iuglings with the Fathers must be left or else good men that follow those Fathers will doubt that Gods spirit hath left you And Augustine elsewhere saith Christ commended â—â—d delivered to his disciples the figure of his body â—â—d bloud And Origin saith not the matter of bread but the words recited over it doth profit the worthy receiver this I speake saith he of the typicall figuratiue bodie which is in deede the Sacramentall bread Vpon the 15. of mathew Augustine confuting Adimautus the Hereticke that hold that the bloud in man was the onelie soule of man aunswered it was so figuratiuely August tom 6 contra Adâ—â— cap. 12. not otherwise and to prooue it he vseth this proposition of Christ Hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie saying Possum etiam interpretari illud praeceptum in signo posiâ—â—â— esse non enim dubitauit Dominus dicere hoc est corpuâ— meum cum singnum daret corporis sui I maye 〈◊〉 Augustine expound the precept of Christ figuratiuelie â—or the Lord doubted not to say this is my â—oâ—â—e when he gaâ—e the figure of his bodie Augustine saith Hoâ—â—â—st corpus meum is a phrase figuratiue you say no but it is litterall Now let the Catholicks take this Friendlie Caueat to heâ—â—â— for they haue no reason to follow you that forsake the Fathers and heâ—re may you see that our expositiâ—n is auncient Catholicke and Apostolicall yours new private and 〈◊〉 all Tertaâ—â— lib 4. contraâ— Mâ—recon pag. â—23 line 26. Tertullâ—â— an ancient Father saith Acceptum panem dâ—stributum discipâ—lis c. The bread which was taken and given to his disciples Christ made his bodie by saying this is my bodie that is the figure of my bodie what could be more spoken of them for vs against you And Hierome calls it a representation of the truth of Christs bodie bloud Hierome super 26. math Ambrose on Cor. 11. not the body and bloud And Ambrose seconds his former sayings in these words In edâ—â—do c. in eating drinking the bread wine we doe signifie the flesh bloud which was offered for vs so that they doe but signifie the flesh and bloud they are not the flesh and bloud And Chrisostome saith Chrisâ— in hâ—â—a vpâ—n Hebr. sâ—per Cor. 11. Offermus quidâ—â— sed ad recerdaâ—â—â—nem and afterwards Hoc autem sacrificium exemplâ—â— est ellius c. We offer in deed but in rememberance of his death this sacrifice is a token or figure of that sacrifice the thing that we do is done in ten emberance of the thing that was done by Christ before c. Here is a manifest â—â—ace against you which you shall never aunswere Chris in hâ—n 11 â—â—rk â—â—â—ent Alâ—â— on paâ—â—go lib. 1. cap. 6 pag 18. line vlt. pag 19. lâ—ne 1. And elsewhere be saith in the soâ—e sanctified vessels there is not the bodie of Christ in deed bâ—â— a masterie of the bodie is contained And Clemens Alexandrinus who lived 1300. yeares agoe saith Comedite cornes meas bibite sanguinem â—eum c. Eâ—t ye my flesh and drinke my bloud meaning hereby vnder an allegorie or figure the meat drinke that is of faith and promise And the same reverend Father in his second booke and second chapter of his Pedagogs and 51. pag and line 21 22 23. hath these words Ipse quoque vine vsus
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
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
confirme them in true religion and revoke them from your grosse superstition Thus much concerning the vncertaintie absurditie and blasphemie of your consecration Now the true Apostolicall consecration is this when the elements of bread and wine are set apart from their common vse and applied to a holie vse according to Gods word And when the lawful minister hath taught the prepared coÌ„municants the grievousnes of their sinnes What true consecration is which the Gospellers teach the â—â—â—nes of Gods wrath the sufficiencie of Christs ments fully to appease the same the nature of the Sacrament which is a commemoration of that passion the office of faith to appprehend and applie Christâ— meâ—â—s promised in the word and tendred in the due administration of the Sacraments then is there I say a right consecration of the Sacrament Now whether this consecration of yours is warranted by Christ his words let the indifferent Reader iudge and with the trueâ—h aâ—â—cionâ— opinion ioyne Transubstansiation Yet we contend with you not for names and words live for 〈…〉 Thus much concerning youâ— imagined new stamped consecration Now to your second piller which iâ— transubstansiation First I must tel you in this as in the former that the term is new lately invented coÌ„pounded by your selues as your consecration was never found in the new Testament so transubstansiation was never found in the â—â—â—â—us old No I do not remember that in al my Grammatical travels studies that ever â—ead it I can sâ—â—w you Dictionaries many Grammers â—â—â—e of divers priâ—â—â— and in diverse ages printed in severall Vniversities of Christendome but none of them makes mention of this word transubstantiure much lesse of the sence which is to chaunge substances of severall kinds one substance into another But brieflie as the word cannot be found in Gods booke nor auncient Doctor so the sence hath neither warrant from holie scriptures noâ— Catholicke writers For this is your opinion that after consecration which yet you know not what it is the substance of bread and wine should be converted into the naturall bodie and bloud of Christ the accidents of bread and wine as whitnesse foundnesse breadth weight faâ—or and taste of them onely remaining You may assoone and to as good a purpose prooue a transaccidentation as a transubstantiation But as there is no change of the former so not of the latter but a meere Friers fable and therefore frivolous And whereas the Fathers vse these words change conversion mutation transelementation they alwaies expound themselues in their severall workes that it is a changing of the vse not of the substance neither can you shew anie one father that euer ment such a change of one substance into another for everie change of one thing into another carrieth not with it at all transubstantiation of one substance into another for there may be a change without conversion of substances but conversion of substances cannot bee without a change for there is as much difference betwixt change and transubstantiation as betwixt the generall the speciall for change is the generall and containes vnder 〈◊〉 transubstansiation but not contrariwise And as there is a change of substances so there is a change of accidents to wit of qualities of times of places of habits and such other like things according to their natures and to the predicaments vnder the which they are comprehended These Logicall ruâ—â—nuats I hope you haue not forgotten Our regeneration is a change not substantiall We confes a change of name of vse but onelie during the action not after to be a sacrament no more then water in the fond after that baptisme is finished by the minister but accidentall that is it is not a change of the substance of our bodies and soules into anie other substance but the change iâ— in qualitie which is from vice to vertue from sinne to righteousnesse c. and this our change now in question is sacramentall not substantiall of the vse of the creatures not of the substance But if you will needes haue a change of substances speake like schollers and tell me for my learning in what predicament I shall seeke it and yet I thinke I shall never finde it But I will not bee tedious in transubstansiation seeing the great Rabbynes of Rome can no more agree vpon this then they could about consecration as also because we haue confuted it in such places where we prooue bread to remaine after consecration for so manie fathers as prooue bread to remaine after consecration confute transubstansiation I will oneâ—iâ— giue the best minded Catholickes iuste of the rest of your late School-doctors by alleadging one Grand-captain in stead of the rest whose words be these magister Sent. lib. â— dist 11. pag. 58. Si tandem queritur qualis sic illa conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis di finire van sufficiâ— But if it be asked mee saith this your great Moderator what kinde of change is made in the Sacrament whether it be formall or substantiall or of anie other kinde I am not able to define it vnto you Will you heare your owne friend Cuthb Tâ—nustall Bishop of Dirrhâ—m deliver his opinion de mode de Eucharistia lib. 1 pag. 46. quo id fieret fortasie satius erat curiosum quemquâ— suae nelinquere coniectutae sicut liberum fuâ—t ante concilium Lateranum Of the maner of this change or conversion how it might be done perhaps it had been better to leaue every man that would be curious to his own opinion or coniecture as it was before the Councell of Laterane left at libertie Is this your antiquitie vniversalitie and consent you see it is a jarring noveltie voide of veritie Why then will you take vpon you to teach that which you never learned and perswade the Catholickes to beleeue that which the chiefest on your side maketh a doubt of nay all of your side cannot prooue nay which is in deed but a fable without trueth for one thousand two hundred yeares after Christ never heard of And therefore seeing it is neither Apostolicall not Catholicke Absurdities follow the granting of Transubstatiation no mans conscience is bounde to beleeue it Now J will onelie shewe some grosse absurdities that followe the graunting of it and so proceed to the rest This fable of transubstansiation overthroweth sundrie articles of our faith and therefore it is abhominable It teacheth a new conception of Christ to bee made of bread by a sinfull priest and every day in everie place where it pleaseth the priest contrarie to the Article of our faith which is that Christ was conceaved by the holie Ghost and borne of the blessed viâ—gin and but once for such a Christ as you tender to the poore ignorant Catholickes is not a true Christ neither can be for manie respects which are before in the beginning alleadged Secondlie if Christ be in the Sacrament he is
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
I tell you plainelie yet in charitie that you doe belie the Texte falsifie the tongue and seeke to keepe the people in blinde ignorance and superstitious palpable darkenes to their everlasting condemnation vnlesse the Lord recall them and they repent them Paule wordes are these in Greeke and so your owne Ieromes translation hath them The bread which vve breake But you are so besotted with the crossing of your fingers which you tell the simple people is the true Catholicke blessing that you forget and forgoe the true blessing of the cup which is the Apostolicall thanksgiving to God for ouâ— redemption purchased in Christs bloud whereof the cup iâ— the true signe Againe we say as the holy Ghost indited it and Paul writ it The communion of the bodie of Christ you say as no learned man or the Greeke text ever said the participation of his flesh Thus much I haue shewed how vntrulie you deale First in abusing the words of the Apostle secondlie in seducing and deceiving the Catholickes Let heere the charitable Catholickes iudge how you will abuse their eares with fables that dare thus falsifie the plaine text Error in the sence of the Texte Now I come to shâ—w how you mistake the sence of the words in the text seeking by indirect wresting to make the text prooue your errour which it denieth in flat termes and trueth For I assure the Catholickes that not one word silâ—able letter or title of this text once souâ—dâ— of your carnall presence Rhem. Testament 1. cor 10. sect 4. You follow the Rhemist who in this place thus expounds the words of the Apostle The cup which vviâ— blâ—sse that is to say the challice of consecration vvhich we Apostleâ— priest by Christs commisâ—ion do consecrate c. and afterwards it followeth the Apostle expresly referreth hâ— benediction to the Challice and not to God making the holie bodie and the communicating thereof the effect of the benediction Now let mee intreate you to aunswere â—e and the Catholickes but these necessarie qvestions drawne out of this your owne opiâ—ion 1. First by what scripture do you prooue that you â—ee Apostles 2 Secondlie by whaâ— scripture doe you prooue that you are Priests 3 Thirdlie by what scripture doe you prooue your commission to consecrate Challices 4 Fou thly by what scripture doe you prooue that the holie bloud of Christ is an effect of your benediction of the cup 5 Last ie by what scripture prooue you that this blessing or thanksgiving is reâ—eâ—â—ed to the Challice and not to God Vâ—l sse you prooue these points by canonicall scriptures to be true Apostles ye are not Gall 1.1 1. Cor. 9.1 2. Acts 9.15 Rom. 1.1 which you shall never doe they bind no â—anâ— conscience to beleeue them or you Against the fi st I thus obiect that you are no Apostles thus I prooue it A true Apostle mvst be called by Christ immediatlie and that you are not He must see the Lord Iesus in the flesh wh ch you haue not Hee must haue his immediat commission from Christ to preach everie where which neither Priest Semynarie Iesuit Cardinall noâ— Pope can haue as your owne consciences full well doth know Gall 2. Ephes. â— and therefore you are not Christs Apostles The true Apostles were equall in authorit e you disdaine iâ— nay more you have made against this a new article of the Popes supremacie and whole volâ—â—es of Cardinals Primacies Iesuits Excellencies Priests Soveraignties But I will say to you Ter tuiaâ— contra Marcion as Tertullian saide to Marcion the hereticke If you bee Prophets foretell vs some things to come if that you be Apostles preach every where and agree with the Apostles in doctrine For whosoever preach not the same doctrine the Apâ—stles did haue not the same commission the Apostles had But you late Priests and Iesuits preach not the saâ—â— doctrine the Apostles did Iesuits Priests be no Apostles therefore you haue not the same commission the Apostles had The maior hath no difficultie the minor is so plaine it needs no proofe the conclusion is inevitable Priests ye are not We read of foure kinds of Priests in Gods Bookeâ— three of them in the old Testament and one in thâ— new First Because yee will not offer the flesh of beasts The first after the order of Aaron and one other after the order of Melchisedechs and the third afâ—ther the order of Baall After Aaroaâ— order you wil noâ— be And after Melchised ch you cannot be And concerning the third order I would you were as freâ— from the ydolatrie of that salte order as you would be free of the imputation of their heresies Secondly none after Melchisedechs order but Christ onely Now (a) 1. Pet. 2 9. Exod. 19.6 Saint Peter in the new Testament seueth downe a fourth order of Priests which is a kinglie oâ— royall Priesthood but that is spirituall not carnalâ— inward not outward common to all beleevers noâ— proper as you imagine to anie naturall order or ecclesiasticall function For this is sound divinitie whiâ—â— you shall never disprooue that the office of â—acuâ—cers and sacrificing is either singular to Christ in respect of his sacrifice propitiatorie onelie vppon thâ— crosse or else common to all true Christianâ— in respect of their spirituall sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving The name office of Priests abused by Priests neither shall you ever finde this word Sacerdoâ— ever applied in the new Testament to any Ecclesiasticall order and function of men And therefore you deceiue the people by this name of Priest which is no more proper to you then to everie beleâ—ving Christian But it is likely you will giue me occasion to speake of this in the controversie oâ— your M ssâ— and therefore J will heere be the briefe in this place Thirdlie in what place of scripture did Christ groâ— you commission to consecrate challices or to maâ—â— â—â—ie challice more holie by your charmed consecratiâ—n then Christs cup was in his blessed institution which did none of your consecration for this the Catholicks must know by the premisses formerly haÌ„dled that your consecration is not like to Christs consecration for either Christs blessing or thanksgiving with the whole action of Christ in the institution was sufficient to consecrate or insufficient if you will affoord Christ that favor that it was sufficient then yours is frivolous And whereas we vse the same sanctification Christ did how dare you say ours is defectiue without blasphemie to Christes institution But this your vsurped title of sanctitie which yee attribute to your selues in making the people beleeue that you can make one cup water sâ—lte or season more holie then an other by your fingred blessing is vntrue and a pharisaicall brag This maintaineth your Priesthoode in glorie pompe and worldlie estimation but hath brought many of sâ—elie Catholickes to beggerie ignorance and grosse superstition Fourthlie by what scripture
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
pleaseth the Priest And therefore as she said Iudaicas fabelas repellamus let vs cast away Jewish fables So in Gods name for the loue of Gods trueth and of the peoples salvation cast yee from you all Munkish fables and forged legends that haue misled the people into this blinde superstition and ioyne with vs to teach Christs precious flocke the old Apostolicall and Catholicke religion commaunded in Gods word practised in the primitiue Church that you with vs and we with you and all in the Lord may now in this plentifull vintage so labour in the Lords vinyard his Church according to our talents received that every one of vs may deliver his talent with advantage of manie soules and then we shall be partakers of that sweet saying Well done then good and faithfull servant enter into thy maisters ioy Which God graunt to vs both And so to the next as followeth Catholicke Priests The mediator betvvixt God and man Iesus Christ vvith faithfull heart and mouth vve receiue August contra Aduersar legis prophetarum cap. 9. floruit 430. giving vs his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke Although it seeme more horrible to eate the flesh of man then to kill and to drinke the bloud of man then to shee l it AVgustine writing against that pestilent adversarie of the Law and Prophets who obiected that because Abraham by adulterie with Agar brake the Law therefore either the Law was not good Rider or else the vniversall promise made to God by Abraham was of none effect Paris print page 264. confuting him by scriptures and reasons telleth him that the promise was made in Isaack not in Ismaeli and disprooveth him for disliking such figures similitudes and comparisons as it hath pleased the holie Ghost to vse for the plaine expressing of the neere vnion and coniunction that is betwixt Christ and his Church And saith what wilâ— this pestilent adversarie say when hee heareth Pauâ— speake they shall be two in one flesh he will scorne and deride it Ephe. 5. But it is a great misterie spoken of Christ and his Church For saith Augustine we vnderstand by the two sonnes of Abraham and the two mothers two Testaments though in respect of times and ceremonies divers but in respect of the substance all one and the same And also by the neere vnion and coniunction betwixt man and wife we vnderstand our naturall vnion with Christ and that without anie obscenitie or absurditie mangre the beards of the adversarie Then followes your proofe even in the middest of a sentence verie vntowardlie I will not say negligentlie And yet you omit one word Sicut which though it be small in shew yet it is in this place of great consequence For as you alleadge Augustine it is nothing material to confute the adversarie of Gods grace Thus Augustine speaketh and so you should haue said Sicut mediatorem Dei hominum as the mediator betwixt God and man c. And thus after your wonted manner you leaue out the point materiall begin in the middle of a sentence leaving out beginning and ending neither respecting what went before whereof wherefore he spake the thing nor what followeth after to prooue disprooue the thing so spoken of And this your neglecting the coherence makes you faile in the sence and inâ—erence For this word Sicut which you leaue out sheweth plainlie that it is a similitude and I hope you know that similitue be no Sillogismes And as there was no oâ—â—â—eritie or absurditie in the similitude of mâ—â—â—â—â—â— they tâ—â—â—â— shall be one flesh so in liâ—â— case heâ—â— iâ— no absurditie or inhumaine Caniballisme in this similitude of the Sacrament vsed to expresse our vnion with Christ for though it seem more horrible to eate the flesh of man then to kill man and to drinke his bloud then to shed it yet we without horror or absurditie eat the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Mediator betwixt God man Iesus Christ And if the adversarie in Augustines time or you Romanists now would know how this may bee so done without slaughter of Christ sinne to our soules or offence to the world Augustine tells you in that place fideli cordi ore with a faithfull heart and mouth So that now you see Agustines scope and your drift cleane contrarie the one to the other for Augustine brings it as a similitude to expresse our spirituall vnion with Christ by faith you wrest it as spoken of the corporall and gutturall eating and drinking of Christs bodie and bloud in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine with our mouths and stomackes Manie places you haue vnfitlie in deed vntrulie alleadged yet shewed in none of them lesse learning and true meaning then in this For this is your great fault that wheresoever you see or heare in Scripture Father Councell or historie Corpus sanguinem Domini or such like words or phrases presentlie you inferre and so perswade the Catholicks that there is Christs carnal presence in the Sacrament never examining the circumstance of the place or the end wherefore they bee alleadged And thus you erre not knowing or wilfullie contemning the state of the question the sence of the holie writ and iudgement of the auncient Fathers I am sure you never read this place of Augustine your selfe but snatcht it out of some late ignorant and foolish ydle Munkish or Franciscan Euchiridien And my reason why I thinke so of you is drawen out of Augustine himselfe For a few lines before this your proofe he calleth the Sacraments Sacra signa holie signes not the things themselues as you doe and so distinguisheth that which you confound And within three lines after your proofe if you would haue read him you should haue heard him record to your great discredit in this case that this your proofe is as other former examples are figurare dictum secundum sacrae fides regulam that it is spoken figuratiuelie according to the rule of sound faith and religion August in his place as in the places formerly alledged is against you still Now let the Reader iudge betwixt you and mee whether of vs is in the right Augustine saith the Sacraments be sacra signa holie signes and so say wee But you Iesuiets and Priests say no they be the things themselues Augustine saith it is spoken figuratiuelie and so say we you say no but properlie Augustine saith that this opinion is squâ—red out for patterne to Christs Church by the straight rule of sound faith and so say we and as you alleadge your prrofe you say no make a flat opposition betwixt Augustines saith and your faith And yet you will brag of Fathers and that they all speake on your side and you all follow their sayings when they neither speake for you nor you imitate them And so though we follow scripture fathers primitiue Church yet you call vs hereticks And you that
wrest scriptures falsifie fathers that haue neither with you consent antiquitie nor veritie yet will be Catholickes And thus if a man should haue hired you to haue brought a place out of Augustine against your selues you could no better haue fitted yourselfe or your setter on then in this who verie plainlie delivereth the manner how Christs bodie and bloud is to bee eaten and drunke that is with a faithfull heart and mouth not with our materiall mouth teeth and stomacke as is you vntrulie teach And thus hoping the Catholicks will lesse trust you in the rest that haue so groslie deceived them in this I will proceed by Christes assistance to the examination of your next proofe Catho Priests In vvhat darknesse of ignorance in vvhat sluggish carelesnesse haue they been Leo epist 22. ad Clerum plebem Constantinopolitanae vrbis floruit Anno. 466. as not to haue heard by beare-say nor by reading to haue found vvhich in the Church of God is so plaine as that the mouthes of children do tell the bodie and bloud of Christ to be trulie in the blessed sacrament GEntlemen you mistake the Epistle it is in the 23. Epistle pag. 74. beginning in the 12 line printed at Lovaine 1575. and seeing it is both your owne proofe and your own print Rider if vpon due examination it make against you This Leo was the 13. Archb. of Romes twentie more succeeded him before any vsurped the name of Pope you must thinke God dealeth with you as he did with Balaam who when he made account for gaine to haue cursed Gods people then God put into his heart and vttered by his mouth a blessing to his people You made account to haue here overthrowne the trueth established errour and strengthned your credit and God hath put into your heart and you haue subscribed with your hand to confirme the trueth confute your owne error and discredit your selues and more to the worlds wonder the soile of your Romane faith even by a Bishop of Rome against whom you can take no exceptions So that now the Catholicks shall see that your carnall presence was not known to the first bishops of Rome for the first fiue hundred yeares and therefore it is not Catholicke Nomb. 23.8 And you shall see how vntrulie you not onelie quot him but alleadge him nay wrest and infore him to speake that after his death which hee never meant during his lif So that from the first to the last you deale neither trulie with the booke of God not the works of men Mathew 15.6 And as Christ saide to the Scribes and Pharesees You haue made the commaundement of God of no Authoritie by your Tradition So you Iesuites and Priests haue made neither Scripture Auncient father Councell or Pope of anie Authoritie by your new and false constructions addicions and subtractions c. But now to the examination of your proofe But I will first showe to the Catholicks the occasion why Leo writt this and there they shall see how greatly you are deceaued in mistaking Leo and much al use their simplicitie and the credite they repose in you The occasion whie Leo writte this Epistle was this That whereas the errour of the Manichees had greatlie infected the Church of God throughout all Christendome They denied Christs manhood taught that his bodie was not a true bodie but a phantasticall bodie he in a charitable manner sent Epiphanius and Dionisius two publike Notaries of the Church of Rome to the Cleargie and people of Constantinople requesting them that such as professed these damnable heresies might not onelie bee excommunicated from sermons sacraments but also be banished from their Citties for feare of further infection For saith hee such as beleeue not that Christ hath taken our nature and flesh vpon him beleeue neither the veritie nor vertue of Christs passion and resurrection And then commeth in your proofe which properlie must be applied to such hereticks as denie Christ his manhood to bee borne of the blessed virgin and hold that his bodie is not a true bodie but a phantasticall bodie and not to vs that beleeue both Againe you haue not truelie translated this place for thus it stands in the Author In quibus isti ignorantiae tenebris in quo hactenus desidiae torpore â—acucre vt nec auditu discerent and afterwards Vt nec ab infantium linguiâ— veritas corporis sanguinis Christi inter communis sacramenta fidei tentatur In what darknes of ignorance in what sluggish carelesnes haue they remained as not to haue learned by hearesay not â—eard by hearesay as you translate that the trueth of the bodie and bloud of Christ among the sacraments of our common faith is not kept backe even of the tongues of infants It seemeth you had this out of some mans note-booke by hearesay not by your proper and diligent reading of the Authour himselfe and my reasons why I thinke so be there because you mistake so much and translate so vntrue Yet will not I take exceptions to everie particular fault 1 First you say it is in the two and twentieth Epistle it is not so but in the three and twentieth and therefore I thinke you never read the Author 2 Secondlie you say heard by hearesay the Author saith Learned by hearesay 3 Thirdly you translate lenguis for mouths it should be tongues Yet if the rest had been true J would not haue excepted against this 4 Fourthlie you chaunge a Nowne into an Adverb vere for veritas trulie for trueth and transpose it also ouâ— of that proper place to alter the sence of Leo the Bishop of Rome which is great wrong to the dead Author and living Reader 5 Fiftlie you change the singular number for the plurall sacrament for sacraments Sixtlie you quite leaue out two wordes of great consequence communis and fidei 7 Seventhlie you adde this word Blessed which is not in the Author 8 Eighthlie you point it not right considering the Authour spake it onelie by way of interrogation Which premisses are faultes great and grosse which sheweth plainlie that you never reade the Author himself but borrowed them forth of some other mans papâ— s therfore you sin grievously in perswading mens consciences to take these things at your hands for truth faith when in deed you tender them nothing but things wrested from all faith and trueth Now Gentlemen doe you deale plainlie with thâ— world in bringing this place against vs did ever anie of vs denie that Christ was borne of the virgin Marie and and conceived by the holie Ghost you cannot charge vs with it Did ever anie of vs teach that Christs bodie was phantasticall neither did you ever heare it Then in this as in the rest you wrong vs deceiue the Catholickes and abuse Leo sometime Pope But I will shew you plainlie that this Bishoppe of Rome and this your proofe confutes and confounds your owne opinion and
confirmes ours Reade page 7. 8. on the same Epist where he bringes in the Sacraments of Redemption of Regeneration First Leo saith the trueth of Christs bodie and bloud is in both the two sacraments as well in Baptisme as in the L rds Supper and as he is reallie in the one so is he reallie in the other and what presence of Christ is in the one sacrament there is the like presence in the other as hath been prooved before But least this would marre the fashion of your transubstansiation and carnall presence therefore you translate it sacramentum in the singuler number not sacramenta in the plurall Secondlie â—ou haue left out two words communis fideâ— of common faith because no man should see it was then a Cotholick opinion to beleeue that the t uth of Christ bodie and bloud was as reall e in Baptisme as in the Lords Supper yet in both spirituallie in neither corporallie But you will say I abuse the Reader because Leo never spake of this word spirituall or spirituall e therfo e I wrong both the Author Reader I answere as Elâ—â—s the Prophet answered Achab the king when he told Eliah that he troubled Israel no saith the Prophet 〈◊〉 iâ— thou and thy Fathers house that haue troubled Israell 1. Kings 18.17.18 〈◊〉 that you haue forsaken the commandement of the Lord and follovved Balaam So Gentlemen it is not J that wrong the Author that is dead or the people that yet doe thâ—t it is you and your confederates that followe Balaam of Rome God keep you free from fo lowing Balack of Spaine and that the Reader shall see I will prooue that Leo ioyneth with vs and we with him and both of vs with Christs trueth against your trash I wil make him speake in his owne defence and vtter that which you concealed It followeth imediatlie after your profe in the next immediat words after this maner In the same page quia is illa mesticad stributione spi itualis alimoniae hoc impartitur vt accipientes caelestis cibi in carnem ipsius qui caro nostra factus est transeamus Because that in the misticall distribution of that spirituall food this is given and received that we which receiue the vertue of that heavenlie meat wee passe into his flesh which was made our flesh Gentlemen this you should haue added to your former for the Author ioyned them togither the one to accompanie the other in Gods service and in deed the latter to expresse the former But now let vs out of this but compare the old doctrine of the old Bishoppes of Rome and the doctrine of the moderne Popes and his Chaplens 1 The old Bishops of Rome said the food in the sacrament was spirituall and heavenlie the late Popes Iesuits and Priests say that it is carnall and materiall 2 The old Popes said the distribution of that spirituall food was misticall you say presbiteriall 3 They said in old times that the worthie receiverâ— of this spirituall meat were transformed into Christ his flesh The late Popes and you his â—echoes say no But the sacramentall bread and wine are transubstantiated and transnatured into Christs flesh and bloud 4 The Bishop of Rome brought in this to prooâ— Christs humanitie conceived by the holie Ghost anâ— borne of the virgin Marie against heretickes whâ—â— taught that Christs bodie was phantasticall And yoâ— alleadge the same place to prooue Christs humanitiâ— to be made by a sinfull ignorant Priest that of bread and so contrarie to Scripture and Creed will recreat Christ of a new matter which is as blasphemous anâ— hereticall So Tertull contra Marcion lib. 4. 5 The olde Bishoppes and Church of Rome held that the Sacraments could not be true signes of Christ bodie vnlesse he had a true bodie and because the were true signes therfore Christ had a true bodie Anâ— the late popes and Papelings teach that Christs bodie is made a new of the signes and so counfoundeth the signes with Christs bodie and in deed maintaineth anâ— heresie as grosse as the Manicheans For they held thaâ— either he had no bodie or a phantasticall bodie And you hold that there be no signes in the Sacraments but that they are transubstantiated into Christs bodie and bloud Iohn 6. And so Christs bodie is dailie made of a peece of bread which must needs be a bodie phantasticall 〈◊〉 not a true bodie as our Creed witnesseth And as in the manner of eating Christs bodie you disagree not much from the Capernaits so in this case you differ not much from the Manicheis Isale 5.3 Now will I say as the painfull owner of the vineyard said Novv therefore oh you Inhabitants of Ierusalem and men of Iudah iudge I pray you betvveen me and my vineyard So oh you Inhabitants of this worshipfull Cittie of Dublin and you loyall subiects of Ireland and all the learned and well minded of both England and Ireland iudge I pray you charitablie yet trulie betwixt me and these my adversaries And if you refuse to censure vs and this our conference according to the trueth i. Sam. â—4 13 then I say as David said to Saul The Lord be a 〈◊〉 betvveen thee and me so the Lord be iudge betwixt vs whether of vs haue more trulie and with â—â—â—â—ter sinceritie of trueth and conscience behaved our selues in this matter for his glorie discharge of our owne consciences instruction and salvation of the Catholickes Catho Priests Thus much for the fathers as a skantling or taste leaving the surplus to the curious Reader I might haue recited Martial Epist ad Rurdâ—galenses cap. 3. Anaclet Epist general Dionisius Arcop cap. 3. page 3. vvho lived vvithin the compasse of the first hundred yeares I thinke your meaning vvas 500 years otherwise it cannot be true but I obserue (a) I praie you obserue veritie brevitie as by the next proofe shall appeare GEntlemen Martiall neither in this place nor in the tenne chapters following saith anie thing against vs but for vs as I thinke altogither against you For Martiall reproveth those that honoured such Priests as sacrificed mutis surdis statuis Rider to dumbe and deaffe images which neerlie toucheth your freeholde and deswaded them from it Martiall saying Nunc autem multo magis sacerdotes Dei omnipotentia qui vitaâ— vobis tribuunt in calice panc honorare debetis For now you ought much rather to honour the Priests of Almightie God which giue you life in the cup and bread This is that which you thinke knocks vs in the head But first let it be examined and then censured 1 First you must prooue that you are Priests of Almightie God which you shall never do as hath been plainlie prooved 2 Secondlie you must prooue that you giue life to the communicants in the cuppe and bread which is impossible And vnlesse you prooue the premisses the allegation is Impertinent 3
Eusebius Emissenus c. Saint Gregorie Nazianzen and saith it is impietie to doe the contrarie So that the brood being of such agreement vve haue the lesse occasion to embusie our braines to confute them GEntlemen by peeces you repeat some of their words not knowing as it seemeth the occasion and so you vtterlie mistake the sence which was this These godlie Martirs perceiving the flame of persecution to burne so fast and mount so high as it was neither bounded in measure nor mercie and onelie for a new vpstart opinion having no warrant from Gods word They in a Christian brotherlie discretion exhorted the learned bretheren onelie to preach that necessarie Article of our free iustification by faith in the personall merits of Christ And touching the Lords Supper to teach to the people the right vse of the same yet not to meddle with the manner of the presence for feare of daunger if not death but leaue it as a thing indifferent till the matter in a time of peace might be reasoned at large on both parties by the learned Provided ever that poisonfull adoration be taken away The premisses considered what can yee now gather that prooveth with you or disprooveth vs Nay heere is nothing but against you altogither For if you had dealt trulie with the dead Martirs or the living Catholickes these collections and not yours you should from hence haue gathered 1 First these Martirs taught with their breath and sealed with their bloud that your carnall presence and transubstansiated Christ was neither commandement given by God nor Article of our faith ever taught in the primitiue Church but a late invented opinion devised by man 2 Secondlie they wished the bretheren considering it was but mans invention and never recorded in gods booke that therefore they should not hazard tâ—â— lâ—â—â— of their liues which would tend so much to th◠〈◊〉 of Christs Church 3 Thirdlie they wished it to be taken for a season as a 〈…〉 yet not absolutelie but with these cautions 1 First that adoration or worshipping of the creatures were quite taken away which never was done by you and therefore they held it not absolutely indifferent 2 Secondlie till the Church of Christ had peace and test from your bloudle and butcherly slaughters wherein the matter might be decided not with faggots but scriptures which was not graunted in their daies and therefore you greatlie wrong the dead when you make them speake that thing absolutelie which was limitted by them with conditions Now I appeall to the indifferent Reader whether you deserue not a sharpe reproofe thus to dazell the eies and amaze the minds of the simple Catholickes by violent wresting the writings of the martirs perswading the ignorant that they should either dissent in this opinion amongst themselues consent with you or varie from vs. Whereas both they and we then and now consent with Scriptures Fathers and Primitiue Church in vnitie and veritie of doctrine against your dissentions pestiferous errours and open blasphemies And next you bring in another learned Protestant Chemnitius who you say alleadgeth Augustine Ambrose and Gregorie Nazianzen to approoue your adoration in your sacrament Intimating to the world that we should either allow that in you which publikely we preach against or else that we should be at a discord amongst our selues touching this your opinion But the matter being exactlie examined out of these Fathers themselues and not by your Enchiridions or hearesay the Catholickes shall see you wrong vs and abuse them And first it seemeth verie plaine you never saw or at least never read Chemnitius and my reasons bee these First you know not so much as his right name much lesse his precise opinion for you misspel his name Keâ—â—nitius for Cheâ—â—nitius which had been a small fault if you had rightlie alleadged him touching the matter For your â—ridentiue Canon commaundeth an externall or outward worship of Christ in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine And Chemnitius hee condemneth your outward worshippe for ydolatrous and teacheth onelie an inward spirituall worship And to prooue what I say I will trulie alleadge your Canon then Chemnitius his examination of it and then let the Catholickes but iudge indifferentlie whether of vs deal more trulie and syncerelie in this case â—qum pars 2. canon 6. page 434. This is your Canon Si quit dexerit in sancto Eucharistia sacramento Christum vnigenitum Dei filium non esse cultulatriae etiam externo adoranduÌ„ solemnitor circumgestandum c. Anathema sit That is if anie man shall say that in the blessed sacrament of thanksgiving that Christ the onelie begotten Sonne of God is not to bee worshipped with that outward and divine worship which is proper and due onelie to God as well when the Sacrament is carried about in procession as in the lawfull vse of the same page 435. 436. 437. let him be accursed Martyn Chemnius examining this your Canon first condemneth your fained Transubstansiation and sheweth the reason for saith he vnlesse the Church of Rome had devised this Transubstansiation you should haue been palpable ydolaters worshipping the creatures for Christ And therefore she imagined that the substance of bread and wine were quite chaunged into Christs bodie bloud no substance of them remaining lest the simplest should spie their ydolatrie Secondlie he expreslie condemneth your outward worship as ydolatrous page 444. lines 2. 3. 4 and sheweth there that Christ must be received by faith and worshipped in spirit and truth And afterwards hee saith comprehenditur antem veta interior spiritualis veneratio adoratio Christi iâ— ilâ—is verbis institutionis hoc facite c. for the true inward and spirituall worship of Christ is comprehended in the words of Christs institution Doe this in rememberance of me Now let the best minded Catholicks see your vniust dealing with both quick and dead pretending that either Chemnitius as you say allowed your outward worship in your Sacrament or that wee â—arre amongst our selues touching the same which both bee vntrue For you hold the worship to bee outward hee and we inward you carnall he and we spirituall and brieflie if you will yet read him diligentlie you shall find he vtterlie condemneth your carnall presence and your externall worship approoving the one to bee a fable the other blasphemie And thus much for your ignorance touching Martyn Chemnitius whom it seemeth you never saw but onely tooke him by the eares as Water-bearers do their Tankerds Againe you say that Chemnitius vpon the assurance of the real presence approveth the custome of the church in adoring Christ in the Sacrament by the authoritie of Saint Augustine Ambrose in Psal 98. by Euschius Emissenus Saint Gregorie Nazianzen charging as manie as doe the contrarie with impietie to everie of which thus I aunswere This Psal according to the Hebrew is the 99 Psal and vpon this place S. Augustine writ as I will a leadge him of
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