these things hang together for my part I cannot see Would to God your selfe had taken the paines to shew it But this is your solemne fault you quote the sayings of the Fathers and leaue mee to gather your Conclusions I may well thinke because you saw no great force or strength in them And whether Gregory did favor Transubstantiation or no let it be tried by these words As the Divinity of the word of God is one which filleth all the world so although that body bee consecrated in many places at innumerable times yet are there not many bodies of Christ nor many cups but one body of Christ and one bloud with that which he tooke in the wombe of the Virgin and which he gaue to the Apostles For the Divinity of the word filleth that which is every where and conioyneth and maketh that as it is one so it bee ioyned to the body of Christ and his body be in truth one Here according to Gregory the body of Christ doth not succeed and fill vp the roome of bread after the substance thereof is abolished but the fulnesse and vertue of the Divinity which filleth the bread maketh it â—o passe into the body of Christ and so to be one body of Christ. Which how it can stand with your Transubstantiation iudge you N. N. These Hereticks admit not the Eucharists and oblations because they will not confesse that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Iesus Christ which hath suffered for our sins which the Father hath raised vp againe by his goodnesse These words alleaged by Theodoret are reported by him to be the words of St. Ignatius the Apostles scholler written in an Epistle ad Smyrnenses and therefore of greater antiquitie I. D. These words are not found in that Epistle ad Smyrnenses which is now extant Whereby you may perceaue it is true that I said the Epistles of Ignatius are not come perfect to our hands Of this Epistle saith Eusebius Ignatius when he wrote to them of Smyrna vsed words I knowe not whence taken And Hierome If you vse not his testimonies for authoritie at least vse them for antiquity And the Abbot of Spanheâ—m reckons it not among the rest of his Epistles as being doubtfull Yet for all this the credit of this Epistle shall not be questioned by mee I answere therefore the Heretikes which Ignatius meanes were Menander and the Disciples of Simon These denied that Christ was come in the Flesh and consequently that hee had Flesh. Wherevpon they reiected the Eucharist also least thereby they should be constrained to confesse that he had true Flesh. For granting the signe of a body you must also grant a true body Figure and Truth being Correlatiues whose Relation is to figure and to be figured And thus they added aloes vnto wormwood one error vnto another first denying the truth of Christs body and then that the Eucharist was the Sacrament of his body or that it was Sacramentally his body More then this cannot bee meant For I presume Theodoret would not alleage this to crosse himselfe who holdeth that Bread and Wine still remaine and argueth from them for the verity of Christs body because they are symbols of his body as is aboue declared N. N. Doth not the Evangelist Iohn say in the Apocalyps If any man shall adde vnto these things God shall adde vnto him the plagues that are written in this booke and if any man shall minish of these words of the booke of this Prophecie God shall take away his part out of the booke of life and out of the holy City and the things which are written in this booke Is this malediction or curse lesse to be feared here that we diminish not or put any thing to the words of him that said This is my body which shall be delivered for you this is my bloud of the New Testament which shall be shed for many in the remission of sinnes For when he saith This is my body wee shall put to an vnderstanding saying a Figuratiue Body or that it is spoken by a similitude when I say he saith this is my Body we shal say this signifieth my Body is it not much that we put to his words or by an evill change take from them and make a sense which so great an author God man in no place hath spoken nor at any time did ascend into his heart This man especially with many of the rest answereth M. Downe and all Protestants fully I. D. In this Authority I cannot but greatly pitty you to see how miserably you are gulled and beguiled by your Author For what was this Rupertus but a man of yesterday one that liued towards twelue hundred after Christ and a very Heretike in this point of the Sacrament For he maintained that the Eucharisticall Bread is hypostatically assumed by the Word iust after the same manner that the humane nature was assumed by the same Word This he expresseth in words as cleare as the noone day For expounding that of our Saviour The Bread which I will giue is my Flesh he saith That the eternall word by incarnation was made man not destroying or changing but personally assuming the humanitie and after the same manner by consecration of the Eucharist the same word is made Bread not destroying or changing but personally assuming Bread This he declareth elsewhere very largely shewing that Bread is made the Body of Christ not by turning it into his Flesh but because it is assumed by the Word Whence it followeth that Bread is the Body of Christ yet not his Humane or Carnall but Bready Body much differing from that which he tooke of the Virgin That yet these two bodies may be said to be One because the Person is but one or Christ is one who assumed them both so that the same Christ aboue that is in heauen is in the Flesh and beneath that is on the Altar is in Bread This grosse errour Algerus who liued in the same time with Rupertus confuâ—ed calling it as it iustly deserued a new and most absurd heresie What say you now to this good sir Is this the man who especially among the rest fully answereth Mrâ— Downe and all Protestants Doth he not as fully answere you Papists who cleane contrary to his Tenet destroy and change the bread to make it Christs body Yea but we adde vnto the Text vnderstanding it to be a Figuratiue body That is a shamelesse slander for wee place no Figure in the word bodie but litterally interpret it of Christs naturall body At least we say bread signifieth his body So wee say indeed and so say the Fathers also And to giue the true sense vnto a Text is not to adde vnto it Neither can I conceaue why it should be counted addition in vs to say This is my body Sacramentally or by way of signification more then in you to say it is so by way of Transubstantiation or
brethren According to this commandement hath the practice both of the Iewish and Christian Church ever beene and is duly continued amongst vs to this day Now all this cui bono and to what end such a world of bookes but that by reading them we may attaine to knowledge Surely if wee poore schollers were no better furthered in our studies by Reading then by Sermons small would bee our knowledge and poore God wot the entertainment yee were like to receiue from vs. Our Saviour Christ thought that Reading might instruct when hee said Qui legit intelligat let him that readeth vnderstand and Saint Paul when he wrote By reading ye may vnderstand my knowledge in the misterie of Christ. But what need wee to multiply arguments seeing it is not only confessed that Reading is after a sort a publishing of Gods word but also such a publishing as prepareth way vnto faith and furthereth it when it is obtained which cannot bee but by teaching and notifying the truth I conclude therefore that reading is a meanes whereby the will of God is made knowne and consequently is Preaching Which if any yet againe purpose to gainesay let me intreat them not to say one thing to wit that Reading is not Preaching and to meane another thus Reading is not Sermoning or all the Preaching required but to speake to the purpose and punctually to demonstrate that reading is not a publishing of Gods word which I know they can never doe and I thinke they will bee ashamed to goe about And so I passe from the second vnto the third part The third and last Quere is touching the vertue and efficacie of Reading whether it be an ordinary meanes to beget faith and to convert a soule That it should haue such a faculty is with much confidence denied Faith and conversion by all meanes must be restrained to Sermons and the Preachers mouth Some little of their holy water sprinkle are they content to bestow vpon reading It may pretily fit a man to heare a Sermon and further him when he hath heard it may serue to nourish set forward and increase faith when it is gotten but to begin to breed to worke faith where it is not that belongs vnto a Preacher nothing can effect it but a Sermon If wee say many haue beene converted by reading only as namely St Augustine if either we may beleeue himselfe or Martyr Iewell and others testifying of him and Antonie the Eremite who as Hierom saith was brought to the faith lectione Evangelicâ by reading the Gospell and Iohn Isaac a Iew both by his birth and religion who professeth that he became a Christian by reading the 53. of Esay and Iunius who if I misremember not imputeth his owne conversion to the reading of Saint Iohns Gospell and finally many of our fore-fathers vnlesse wee will damne them all into the pit of hel who liuing in the blind times of Poperie came to the light of the truth as Mr Foxe saith either by reading themselues or hearing others read yea as Hieron himselfe confesseth by parcels of Scripture the writings of good men conference with others though seldome and secret nay by knowing little more then the Lords prayer these I say and sundry others if we obiect vnto them their answere is ready it was Extraordinarie it was miraculous For ordinarily reading saith T. C. cannot deliuer a soule from famishment from the wolfe from destruction yea saith Hieron knowledge so gotten is but vaine iangling and swimmeth in the braine but converts not the heart So that had wee verbatim written all those heavenly Sermons which St Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles preached among them had we that famous Sermon of St Peter by which three thousand soules at once were added to the Church nay had we all the gratious words sanctified by our blessed Sauiours owne mouth while he liued here in the flesh yet could they not beget faith or convert a soule but only extraordinarily and by way of miracle A strange and incredible assertion and they had need to be armed with mighty demonstrations to persuade it Let vs therefore examine the force of them First they vrge that of Elihu in the booke of Iob If there be a messenger with him an interpreter one among a thousand to shew vnto man his righteousnesse then is he gratious vnto him and saith deliuer him from going downe to the pit I haue found a ransome Here deliuerance is by a messenger this messenger is a minister and that not a Reader but Preacher there being in Iobs time no Scripture and consequently no reading Wherevnto I answere first that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies also an Angell that therevpon some interpret it of a good Angell others of the Angell of the covenant rendring the words thus If there be an Angell speaking for him and shewing for man his righteousnesse If so as it is very probable then is the argument of no force here being no speech of a Minister but mediator nor of a Preacher speaking to man but of an advocate interceding for man Secondly be it that a Preaching Minister is meant yet not every one but one among a thousand For to say that not one among a thousand Ministers but one Minister among a thousand men is vnderstood is too sleight Mercer is of another minde and Oecolampade conceiues it of a graue intelligent and wise teacher such as is rarely to be found And so by this reckoning Faith should be tied very sâ—ort and the Sermons of vulgar and ordinary Preachers should not be able to beget Faith Lastlie he that attributeth such efficacy to Sermons doth not so doing deny it vnto other meanes and who saith Iunius hauing any Christian sense or zeale dare say that Faith is not to be advanced by all meanes yea but in Iobs time Reading could not bee a meanes True yet it followeth not but now it may bee a meanes Then it was not when there was nothing to be read now it is as we haue shewed the whole Canon being written In the next place they vrge that of Solomon where there is no vision there the people perish Heere by vision vocall preaching is meant but without vision no saluation Ergo nor without Preaching or Sermons I answere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or vision imports not the act of the seer or a SermeÌ„ but the obiect or thing which he sees Otherwise when it is said the vision which Isaiah saw we might read it thus the Sermon which Isaiah saw so to see a vision shall be no other then to make a Sermon which is absurd By vision then are we to vnderstand the law as it is in the latter clause of the verse or the revelation of Gods will as if the wise man had said where God revealeth not himselfe there the people perish which is vndoubtedly true And as vndouted is it that God revealeth himselfe
by more waies then by Sermons Howbeit I deny not but in some sense it may be truely said where vocall Preaching is not there the people perish not for that they want the Ordinary meanes as long as they haue the written word but because of their negligence and retchlesnesse who of themselues will not search the Scripture nor seeke the truth vntill others bring it home vnto them Thirdly they object that of the Apostle It pleased God by the foolishnesse of Preaching to saue them that beleeue where say they Faith and Salvation are tied vnto Preaching But first I deny that Preaching is here the making of a Sermon for it is not in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports not the act of Preaching but the object or thing preached Hence Whitaker expresseth it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is preached and Zanchy yet more manifestly by Doctrina Evangelica the doctrine of the Gospell And this indeed seemes foolishnes vnto the naturall man yet being knowne by what way soeuer it worketh Faith and is the power of God to â—alvation Secondly suppose that preaching of Sermons were here meant yet what consequence is this Sermons breed Faith ergo Reading doth not For both may This is their solemne errour they labour to shew what vertue sermons haue but never shew that such vertue belongs to Sermons only Lastly they obiect that of S. Paul to the Romans How shall they call on him in whom they haue not beleeued How shall they beleeue in him of whom they haue not heard And how shall they heare without a Preacher Here Invocation is chained to Faith Faith to Hearing and Hearing to Preaching This is their Achilles and therefore will wee endeauour to giue it full satisfaction First then graunt that Faith dependeth vpon such Preaching as may bee heard yet this lets not but it may be the effect of reading for when the word is publikely read I hope it is heard also But I answere secondly and more roundly to the purpose that Hearing in this place betokeneth not onely the outward act or as Philosophers call it passion of the eare but whatsoever else is analogicall and proportionable therevnto as namely Reading and Seeing and the like And herein least any should thinke me singular or to maintaine a strange Paradoxe it may please you to knowe that I am warranted both by the language of holy Scripture and the judgement of our best Divines In scripture the heavens and the firmament are said to haue a speech and when by seeing and contemplating them we learne the invisible things of God wee are said to heare their voice The word written hath in like manner a mouth a voice a speech giuen vnto it whereby it speaketh it cryeth it testifieth and when we looke vpon it or read if for our instruction we are said to heare They haue Moses and the Prophets let them heare them saith Abraham in the Parable and S. Paul Doe yee not heare the Law Scriptum enim est for it is written And if as Cyprian saith When we read God speaketh vnto vs how can it bee but that in reading we heare the voice of God When we receaue a letter from our friend wee are said to heare from him why not from God also when wee read his letter For so the Fathers stile the Scriptures Certainely our worthiest Divines conceaue of hearing no otherwise in this place Learned Iunius It will bee said Faith commeth by hearing the answer is ready Hearing is of the word whether it be spoken or written And againe As the word spoken and written differ only in this that the one is sounded in the ayre the other is apparelled in white paper and garded with blacke lines to the end one may see it and hold it by the coat which pronounced only would fly away so hearing and seeing in regard of the effect is all one Writing to speaking and seeing the booke to Hearing is analogicall So Iunius Zanchie Legendo Scriptur as audimus In Reading we heare the Scriptures Dr Fulke S. Paul did preach the Gospell also by writing and the people did heare by reading D. Whitaker writing is the imitation of speech auditur ergo therefore it is heard And the same D. Whitaker interpreting these very words Faith commeth by Hearing limiteth it not vnto the outward eare but extendeth it thus ex auditu id est ex sensu Scripturae rectè percepto by Hearing that is by vnderstanding the right meaning of Scripture by what way soever This exposition Wotton approuing he further addes that it is not the Apostles purpose to disable the word Read but partly to shew that the meanes of salvation proceed from God alone partly that no man might excuse himselfe by ignorance God hauing sent his servants into all the world without which sending none might preach either by word or writing and without which preaching no man could beleeue And thus haue you both the true meaning of this place and a full answere vnto the objection Other passages besides these doe they vrge but being either of the same nature or of lesse moment I will not trouble you with them Now it remaineth breefly to resolue and confirme the truth Wherein to the end it may appeare that what I haue often maintained in private I am neither afraid nor ashamed publikely to professe in pulpit I here openly proclaime and confidently affirme that Reading is an ordinary meanes to beget Faith and convert a soule Which that I may the more clearely and distinctly demonstrate giue me leaue in few words to open the tearmes meaning of the Proposition First then by Faith I vnderstand not only that whereby wee yeeld assent vnto Scripture the Principle of Faith that it is Gods word to all those articles of Faith specially fundamentall established by this principle which we call Historicall or Dogmaticall Faith but that Faith also whereby we are justified and by which we accept Christ to be our Mediator King Priest and Prophet together with the effects thereof Repentance from dead workes and new obedience All this I comprehend vnder the name of Faith Secondly by Meanes I vnderstand such middle or secondary causes as come betweene the first cause and the effect for the producing of it And these meanes if they be praeter ordinem besides the perpetuall order placed in things there being no coherence betweene them and the effect or no aptnes in them to produce the effect then doe we call them Extraordinary and such was the feeding of Elias by Ravens and the curing of the blinde man by dawbing clay vpon his eyes But if they be secundum ordinem according to the perpetuall order established in things having in them an aptnesse and fitnesse to produce the effect then are they called Ordinary and such is the nourishing and sustaining of
shall be saved and no other Ye see brethren what a large field I haue to expatiate in but the time forceth me to be briefe In other Churches vpon whom the Crosse now lieth heauily this theam perhaps requires a larger handling yet is it not vnseasonable in this our peace to touch it in a few words in regard of the hopes of our enimies and our owne feares if need be to prepare vs for the Crosse. And thus much of the second counsell The third and last is let him follow me This many happily would thinke and many indeed doe thinke to be all one with comming after Christ for what is it to follow but to come after Were it so then were I here to make an end But I suppose there is a farther matter intended in it and therefore let me intreatâ— your patience to adde a word or twaine concerning it Wee are to follow Christ non pedibus sed affectibus not with our feet but with our hearts and affections and we are to follow him Docentem Ducentem both teaching leading vs. For it might be demanded if we must deny our owne selues that is our reason and wills with all their ability and power who then shall direct vs who shall guide vs For our minds being blind we cannot of our selues see the way and our wills being in bondage vnto sin we cannot walke in the way Wherevnto Christ readily returneth this plaine answere Follow me I will be your Teacher I will be your Leader First then Christ is our Teacher even hee who is every way most sufficient to teach He is the eternall word of his eternall Father the very Truth it selfe and the substantiall Wisdome of God He is made of God the grand Counseller of the Church the Angell of the covenant the Apostle of our profession the only Prophet and Doctor of the Church He came out of the bosome of the Father and knoweth all his counsells in him are hid all the treasures of wisdome and knowledge and he hath received the Spirit without measure Being therefore such a Teacher him are we to follow and we are to follow his teaching Audiendo credendo by hearing and beleeuing whatsoever he saith The divine oracle from heaven expressely commandeth vs to heare him This is my beloved sonne in whom I am well pleased heare yee him And our Saviour affirmeth that whosoever are his sheepe heare his voice and will not heare the voice of any other implying that whatsoever heareth him not is none of his sheepe But it is not sufficient to heare vnlesse we also Beleeue that is assent to all that he saies assuring our selues that whatsoever hee affirmes is true and whatsoever he commands is iust To beleeue is the first ground of Christianity He that beleeueth not cannot vnderstand the mysteries thereof O portet discentem credere he that will be a scholler must beleeve his Master if hee will not hee deserues to bee turned out of schoole Christ will not be argued with be it aboue reason or seeme it against reason yet will he be absolutely beleeued And reason for being God who neither can deceiue nor be deceived his bare word is more certaine then a thousand demonstrations Certainely they are none of Christs sheepe that doe not Beleeue and without Faith it is impossible to please God to be iustified in his sight or to obtaine life everlasting Therefore whosoever will come after Christ must thus follow him docentem teaching So must he also Ducentem follow him Leading Hee leadeth and guideth vs two waies Spiritu Exemplo inwardly by his Spirit outwardly by his example By his Spirit first For as Saint Paul saith As many as are lead by the spirit of God are the sonnes of God but if any haue not the spirit of Christ he is none of his Now as the word of Christ sounds outwardly to the eare so doth the Spirit of Christ speake inwardly to the heart He helpeth our infirmities and after a secret and vnconceivable manner suggesteth and putteth good motions into our minds exhorting and persuading vs to the practice of all holy and good duties Which direction of the spirit we are to follow Obediendo by obedience Not to obey the good motions of the Spirit is to resist him to greeue him and to quench him but to cherish the sparke that he hath kindled in vs and to yeeld obedience vnto his holy inspirations and perswasions this is indeed to follow him Which if we doe not wee are yet in the flesh and if wee bee in the flesh we are not in Christ Iesus for they only are in Christ who walke not after the flesh but after the Spirit As Christ leadeth by his Spirit so doth hee also goe before vs by his Example Longum iter per praecepta breve efficax per exempla the way of precept is long and tedious but of example short and effectuall But whose example are we to follow Mans It is not safe for be he neuer so good yet may he erre himselfe and mislead vs. Gods That indeed is safe because he cannot erre nor misguide vs but he is invisible cannot be seene Therefore he became man that being visible in the flesh he might giue vs example Which we are to follow imitando by imitation For as Augustine saith Summa religionis est imitari quem colis It is a chiefe point of religion to imitate him whom wee worship But wherein are we to imitate him In creation of the world in redeeming mankind in meriting for others In working miracles and the like as it is reported of that mad Salmoneus Qui nimbos non imitabile fulmen Aere cornipedum cursu simularat equorum who would needs counterfeit Iupiters thundring and lightning by driuing his chariot over a copper bridge darting torches at the faces of men No if wee would burst our selues with pride we cannot imitate God in these things Potestas subiectionem maiestas exigit admirationem neutra imitationem saith Bernard the power of God requireth subiection his maiesty admiration neither imitation How then Appareat Domine bonitas tua cui possit homo quia ad imaginem tuam creatus est conformari let thy goodnes o Lord appeare wherevnto man being created after thine owne image may be conformed To be breefe wee are to imitate Christ in all those holy duties which hee commandeth and whereof he hath made himselfe an example They are all summed vp in one word Obedience this hee commanded this he practised And he practised it both actiuely and passiuely and in both is he to be imitated He obeyed the law of his father the Morall law as being the sonne of Adam the Ceremoniall as being the sonne of Abraham And this actiuely exampling vs to walke even as he walked in all duties by God enioyned vs. It would bee too long to particularize in all those
actions wherein wee are to imitate him I would therefore commend vnto you these three especially His truth his humility his charity He was full of grace and truth he loved it he spake it never was guile found either in his heart or mouth So humble was he that being in the forme of God and thinking it no robberie to be equall with God he made himselfe of no reputation tooke vpon him the shape of a Servant and humbled himselfe vnto the death of the crosse Lastly such was his Charity that hee was content to shed his most pretious blood for vs even when we were his enimies thē which greater loue cannot be This is the patterne this is the precedent which we must follow He chargeth vs to know the truth to loue the truth to speake the truth to keepe the Feast with the vnleavened bread of sincerity and truth He commandeth vs to learne of him that he is meeke and lowly in heart and to walke worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called in all lowlinesse and meekenesse Finally he straitly enioyneth vs to loue one another yea even our very enimies Certainly whosoeuer resembleth not Christ in these things is not Christs disciple All other markes of Christianity deceiue if these faile Seeme we never so desirous of knowledge and make wee never so faire a shew yet if we loue not truth if we be proud arrogant if we be vncharitable censorious of others wee are no true Christians But Christ obeied Passiuely also for he was obedient vnto death even the death of the Crosse. And he suffered for vs leauing vs an example that wee should follow his steps He was crucified so must wee bee crucified to the world He died and we must dye vnto sinne He was buried and wee must still continue dead vnto sin He bore his crosse and wee must take vp our crosse also Of which at large already And thus haue I at length finished all the three counsells of Christ. It remaineth to adde a word or two by way of application and vse Is it so that whosoever will come after Christ that is be his scholler obtaine everlasting life must deny himselfe take vp his crosse daily and follow him O then the difficulty o the paucity the difficulty of christianity and salvation the paucity of good christians and them that shall be saued Is it an easy thing thinke you for a man to deny himselfe that is to pull out the eyes as it were of his owne head and then to giue his hand to another to lead him which way soever he pleaseth to renounce his owne will and to yeeld blind obedience vnto the will and pleasure of another Is it so easy a matter to take vp the crosse daily that is to forsake to abandon to lothe and detest the delights and comforts of this life and whatsoever is dearest vnto vs and in the meane season to be hated contemned and troden vnder foot of all yea in the midst of the cruellest persecutions and torments to reioyce as if we were bathing in the greatest pleasures and to giue thankes as if we had receiued some inestimable benefit Finally is it so easie to follow Christ that is to disclaime our owne lusts and desires and leauing the broad and beaten way which all men almost walke in finding therein great contentment to imitate Christ in a strict and severe course of life so irkesome to the flesh and so odious to the World They are deceiued then who thinke to dance on roses or to be carried to heauē on a featherbed No Christianity is not Libertinisme nor Epicurisme Vta arcta est the way is narrow and Faith the crosse and Strictnesse of life three necessary conditions thereof make it so O the difficulty O the paucity also How few good Christians are there how few are there that shall bee saved Every one would willingly attaine the end everlasting life but they are loath to endure the roughnesse of the way which leads vnto the end They would with Zebedees children sit at the right or at the left hand of Christs throne if his kingdome But to drinke of the same cup that he dranke of and to be baptized with his baptisme that can they not abide If we should as Diogenes is said to haue done search with a candle every corner of Christendome for a man that denies himselfe that takes vp his crosse daily that followes Christ in such sort as wee haue declared questionlesse wee should hardly finde him Such men are nowadaies very thin sowne On the contrarie side those that giue themselues over to their owne lusts that wallow in sensuality and fleshly pleasure that imitate not Christ in sanctity and newnesse of life but the Divill in all kinde of intemperance iniquity impiety these I say abound and swarme every where O the multitude O the Paucitie the multitude of titular Christians who haue the name of what they are not the Paucitie of true Christians who are so indeed not only called so No marvell therefore that our Saviour affirmeth both that the gate is strait and the way narrow and that very few doe finde it But although it be so hard thus to come after Christ yet is it not impossible and although but few doe thus come yet is it not in Christ that more come not but in themselues Let vs therefore in the name of God quicken vp our dull spirits and striue what wee can to overcome all difficulties On our part nothing is required but Willingnesse and Endeavour the rest God of his grace will supply To worke in vs a Willingnesse I suppose it will not be amisse seriously to consider first as touching the Deniall of our selues what we are by nature thence to learne Humilitie that in vs there is no good at all that of our selues we cannot so much as thinke a good thought much lesse performe any action pleasing and acceptable vnto God Our minde is blinde our will is vnable and as our Saviour saith without him we can doe nothing Why should we then proudly vainely stand vpon our selues Nay rather why should we not in all humility vtterly deny our selues Secondly as touching the Crosse and the taking vp of it that although it bee in it selfe bitter and greevous yet the end is sweet and glorious even an incorruptible crowne of glory So we may attaine eternall blessednesse what mattereth it though we passe through rough and tempestuous seas vnto it Were it not far better for vs with Lazarus to suffer affliction for a short season here and after to receaue eternall comfort in heaven then with the rich glutton to enioy the pleasures of this present life and afterward to be everlastingly tormented in hell If we suffer for Christ he will be in the fierie furnace with vs and refresh vs with the sweet comforts of his blessed spirit He hath willingly borne the Crosse for
fearfull ends And indeede to what end hath God put into the heart of man this passion of feare but to decline and avoid all such euills as would destroy him or afflict him Take away feare and men will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 despise all danger and run headlong into all mischiefe but feare is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a preseruing nature as saith the philosopher inclining and perswading man carefully to keepe himselfe from dangers If then to come to an issue yee will not worke mischiefe vnnaturally vnto your owne selues if yee will avoide the Magistrates fury if yee will not incurre the rigour of the law nor fall vpon the edge of the sword of justice yee must needs be subiect But what need will some man say so much to feare the Wrath of the Magistrate May not a man hide his counsells so deepe and carry his actions so cunningly that nor witnesse nor Iudge shall know them If they come to light and bee discouered doth not greatnesse breake through lawes as wasps doe through cobwebs May not judges jury witnesses by friends fauour bribes be corrupted Are pardons impossible to bee obtained from Princes Nay suppose the worst that the penalty of the law can by no meanes be escaped what care they for fines and amercements who are content to beggar themselues to enioy their pleasures What for shame and ignominy who are growne impudent in all wickednesse What for death who count it worse then death not to liue as they list and to bee barred from their desires For there haue beene who haue said moriar modo regnet let mee dye so he may be King and aut Caesar aut nihil an Emperour or nothing To all this I answere briefly first trust not vnto secrecy but remember what wise Solomon saith Curse not the King no not in thy thought neither the great one in thy bedchamber for the foule of the Heaven will carry the voyce and that which hath wings shall declare the matter Secondly hope not for impunity many as great as gratious as wealthy as thou haue failed thereof and how knowest thou but one time or other thou maist meete with one who will accept nor thy person nor thy fee but will say vnto thee with Saint Peter thy mony perish with thee Lastly if any haue so farre put off naturall affection as not to feare Wrath chusing rather to fall into the hands of justice then to be restrained from his wickednesse let such a one know that what Wrath cannot yet Conscience should worke in him For here it must freely bee confessed that Wrath of it selfe is not sufficient it striketh at the branches not the roote and endeavoureth to reforme outward actions but reacheth not vnto the cause which is inward corruption Which remaining in vs Wrath happily may make vs more wary in offending but cannot worke in vs a loue of goodnesse and a desire not to offend at all Wherefore God in his deepe wisdome hath thought it good to binde vs vnto subiection not by a single but double tie and vnto Wrath to adde Conscience Yee must needs be subiect not only for wrath but also for conscience Conscience is that facultie or power of the Practicall vnderstanding in man whereby he is priuy to all his actions whether they be immanent and conceaued within as thoughts or emanant and issuing forth as his words and workes This Conscience is then said to be bound when by him who hath power and authority ouer it it is charged to performe its dutie that is to beare witnesse of all our actions vnto God and according to the qualitie of them to excuse or accuse vs for that these are the duties of conscience plainely appeareth by that of S. Paul their conscience bearing witnesse and their thoughts accusing or excusing This charge is then laid vpon the Conscience after that by the same authority man himselfe is bound for man being free Conscience also is free but man being bound by a law Conscience stands bound also But who is the binder of the conscience God without question He is the Law-giuer saith S. Iames that can both saue and destroy and he as S. Iohn saith is greater then the conscience But can the Magistrate also by his lawes binde the conscience Papists attribute vnto vs the Negatiue that they cannot themselues hold the Affirmatiue that they can and warrant it by this my Text Yee must bee subiect for conscience Vpon this plaine song sundry of them descant very pleasantly but none plaies the wanton more then Doctor Kellison who inferres that we despoile Princes of authority and superiority and giue subjects good leaue to rebell and revolt that we bring Iudges and Tribunall seats and all lawes into contempt that no Prince can rely on his subjects no subjects on their Prince or fellow subjects in a word that wee take away all society and ciuill conversation To all which I answere breefly First suppose the maine ground were true yet neither can they proue it out of my Text nor doe such absurdities follow therevpon Out of my Text they cannot proue it for that only affirmes that the Conscience is bound but determines not that mans lawes bindeth it Neither doe such absurdities follow for albâ—it wee should deny man to be the binder yet doe wee freely professe that the Conscience is bound which is enough But we answer farther that they much abuse vs for we deny not rem that they binde onely wee differ from them in modo maintaining that they binde not in such manner as they teach They hold that mens lawes binde non minùs guà m lex divina equally with Gods lawes so that were there not any law of God binding to Subiection yet mans law of it selfe and of its owne power would binde This we deny teaching contrarily that humane lawes binde the Conscience not immediatly but mediatly not primarily but secundarily not in themselues of their owne power but in the force and vertue of Divine law Divine law I say whether that which is imprinted in the heart by nature or that which is revealed vnto vs by Scripture both which command Subiection This truth in fâ—w words thus I demonstrate First if mans law immediatly binde the Conscience then is euery transgression thereof without farther respect vnto Gods law a mortall sinne But so it is not for according to St Iohns definition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sin is a transgression of the law meaning not mans but Gods law only in regard whereof St Augustine saith more expresly Sin is dictum factum concupitum any saying doing or coueting against Gods law Besides if man of himselfe without respect vnto Gods law can binde the conscience then either is he Lord of the conscience and may himselfe conuent it examine it take its testimonie and accordingly proceed to sentence either of life or death both vpon body and soule or he hath power to command God to sit in
judgement vpon the Conscience and to be the executioner of his lawes or finally hee bindes the Conscience in vaine and to no purpose To say that man is in such sort Lord of the Conscience is vnreasonable because his knowledge and power reach no farther then the outward man To say that man may command God is sacrilegious aduancing man aboue God Lastly to say that he bindeth in vaine and to no purpose is withall to say that their opinion is vaine and that man hath no such power at all To shut vp all in a word vnlesse a man may with as much security obey man as God man who is subject to error and injustice as God who is free from both vnlesse we be all as deeply bound to study the laws of men and to knowe them as we are Gods and to subject our selues as absolutely vnto them it is altogether vnconceauable how humane lawes can bind the Conscience equally with diuine This point being thus cleared it is euident that by conscience in this place wee are with St Peter to vnderstand Conscientiam Dei conscience towards God and to interpret this of St Paul yee must bee subiect for conscience by that of the same St Peter Submit your selues vnto every ordinance of man for the Lords sake as if he should say because God hath bound you to be subiect For God hath laid this obligation vpon man appeares by the very institution of Magistracie For although St Peter call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a humane creature yet his meaning is not that it is not from man but for man and his benefit otherwise S. Paul expresly affirmeth that it is the ordinance of God and Solomon that by him kings raigne The reason mouing God to institute the same was partly his soueraigne Lordship ouer man by right of creation by which he may order and dispose of him at pleasure partly the great loue he beareth vnto humane society which his infinite wisdome saw could not so well be maintained if euery man should be left to himselfe and orderly gouernment were not setled among them Herevpon hee ordained some to be in authority some to liue in subiection commanding the one to rule according to justice and equitie the other to submit themselues with all lowlinesse and humility as I meane touching subiection hath in the first part which is the Dutie beene sufficiently declared Now man being thus by the commandement and ordinance of God bound Conscience cannot bee free but as man shall either subject or not subject himselfe so is Conscience bound to testifie for or against him and to excuse or to accuse him If then yee breake the commandement of God and refuse to be subject there is one who will surely accuse you and will not spare a witnesse whose testimony is omni exceptio ne majus better then a thousand witnesses that will testifie against you even your Conscience But to whom will it accuse Vnto that great and dreadfull Iudge of the whole world whose wisdome can not be deceaued whose justice cannot be corrupted and the execution of whose sentence cannot be avoided And what will the sentence be Perpetuall imprisonment in the bottomelesse dungeon of hell therein eternall torments both of body and soule which although it be not presently executed vpon you yet the worme of conscience instantly will begin to gnaw vpon your soules fill you so full of vnspeakable horror and anguish that your life shall be but a death and this world a hell vnto you But if on the contrary side yee shall for the Lords sake and in obedience to his ordinance yeeld subjectiō vnto the higher powers and vnder them liue dutifully in all godlinesse and honestie then shall your consciences testifie nothing but good of you and excuse you vnto God he shall justifie and acquit you your soule shall bee replenished with vnspeakable peace and comfort so as yee shal haue a heaven vpon earth and in heauen it selfe in due time such ioyes as nor eye hath seene nor eare heard nor ever entred into the thought of man To conclude and summe vp all if either we will keepe a good conscience that we may both here and ever be blessed or will avoid the sting of an euill conscience and the miseries that attend vpon it wee must of necessity be subject Yee must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for conscience And thus haue I finished the second part also which is the Necesstie of the dutie It only remaineth now to adde a word or two by way of vse and application There is a generation of whom both St Peter and St Iude speake that despiseth all gouernment and speaketh evill of Dignities cleane contrary vnto the doctrine of my Text which commandeth all to be subject and to honour and obey the Magistrate But these are not all of the same kinde for some despise it out of an erronious judgment others out of an euill habit and custome They that despise it vpon errour are either Anabaptists or Papists The Anabaptists a fanatical fantastical sect vtterly mislike all gouernment and subjection among Christians It is not without cause that S. Iude calleth such kind of people Dreamers for so indeed they are and their dreame is this that Sin is the cause of Subjection and although it were ordained and allowed to the Iewes because they were but infants yet fits it not vs Christians that are in the state of perfection Shall I dispute against this dotage and shew that even among those blessed spirits that are free frō sinne still persist in the truth there are Thrones Dominations Powers Principalities Angels and Arch-angels That if man had continued in his integritie yet government should haue beene inasmuch as man naturally is sociable and disciplinable the morall law commands to honour father and mother the end of gouernment is Peace with Pietie and Honestie and one man euen then should haue stood in need of another That finally there is now as great a necessity thereof as was among the Iews and that the new Testament would neuer haue commanded Subjection or to pray for Magistrates if it were a sin for a Christian to be a Magistrate But I will not vouchsafe them the honour to dispute with them let it suffice in this honourable auditory barely to affirme first that a Christian safely may be a Magistrate secondly that none is fitter then he because no man better knowes the dutie of a Magistrate then he Lastly that no man can so compleatly and perfectly performe the office of a Magistrate but hee because no man vnderstands the true religion which he is to maintaine and by which he is to gouerne but he As for Papists although they doe not thus reject all government yet doe they many waies both in doctrine and practise avile and abase it For first they giue vnto the Pope a supremacie ouer Princes euen vnto Deposition and depresse
then a lot and wise men refuse to commit matters of such consequence vnto the hazard thereof As for that you adde What difference betweene the toungue speaking and the hand writing in regard of testimony saving that hand-writing is the better and more excellent I con you hearty thankes for it For if Divine testimony be the ground and reason of Faith and the word written be Divine testimony as well nay better as you say and more excellent then the word spoken by mouth it followeth that the word written may beget Faith and convert a soule as well as the word by mouth preached Whether you would willingly be of this opinion or no I cannot say sure I am you must of force if you will hold to your owne Premisses This by the way N. N. If it were in doubt or a thing in controversie who should haue the mony that I possesse If I should heare a voice in the aire commanding me to dispose of it to such a person I should still doubt and iustly might whose voyce it were whether Gods or Sathans But if it were once put to a Lot and disposed of to such a person I could never doubt afterwards but that it was done by Gods immediat appointment DEFENCE No could Why I pray you For may not Satan as well haue a hand in a Lot as in a voice in the aire What is not sorcery or divination by Lots a Satanicall invention and may not Satan be a worker in his owne art If he may how am I certaine that the Casuall event is rather of Gods appointment then of Satans The maine error is a conceit you haue that in all Casualties God worketh by his immediate speciall Providence which is vtterly vntrue as wee haue already shewed And I am strongly perswaded that this very opinion was the principall roote out of which sorcery sundry other heathnish soothsayings first grew and by which among simple and superstitious Christians they are yet still maintained and continued But to put you from this conceit let mee intreat you seriously to consider the Lot that Haman cast from day to day and from month to month to know what month or day were fittest for the generall massacring of the Iewes The Lot must needs fall on one day or other it fell as it seemes on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month which is Adar What Must wee now needs say that the hand of God yea the immediat hand of God had appointed that day to that end I trow no for the very same day Haman his whole family with many thousands of the enimies of God were destroyed by the Iewes the Iewes themselues were deliuered Doth not Solomon also speake of theeues who share their pillages and robbers amongst themselues by Lot And did not the Romane souldiers agree to cast Lots who should haue our Saviours seamlesse coat Yet by your opinion when the Lot hath disposed to every one his portion neither the theeues nor the souldiers needed afterwards to doubt but that God by his immediat hand assigned it vnto them and testified by his speciall Providence that hee would haue it so A strange and fearfull assertion directly reversing that law of justice which requireth restitution of whatsoever is wrongfully gotten But to what end all this Forsooth to perswade that a Lot declares will of God as well if not better then his owne voice from heaven Wherevnto I answere no more and I can answere no lesse then the Angell did vnto Satan Increpet te Dominus the Lord rebuke thee for what you say is no lesse then flat blasphemy N. N. Againe it is for the resolution of a doubt namely who shall haue these Cards or that Mony Hence I conclude againe that the vse of Cards and Dice as it is now vsed by our Gamesters is a meere Lottery DEFENCE That in Cards and Dice there is intended the resolution of a doubt is already granted neither is it denied that they are Lots but that they are all Meere Lots 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to driue out one naile with another I conclude against your Conclusion that you haue not yet not never will be able to proue that all Games at Cards and Tables and the like are Meere Lottery N. N. But I leaue mens testimony which may erre and will try it by Scriptures that never erre Prov. 16.33 The lot is cast into lap but the whole disposition thereof is of the Lord. Prov. 10.18 The Lot causeth contentions to cease Such a thing is practized by Gamesters There is a Lot cast what else meaneth the shufling of the Cards and the shakeing of the Dice which I heare Gamesters call for so earnestly The whole disposition therefore is of God If I packe the Cards or cogge the Dice not shufle the Cards or shake the Dice like honest dishonest Gamesters thou wouldst refuse my company at play DEFENCE To let passe that both vnsavoury and vncharitable jest of honest dishonest gamesters yet doing you to wit that there are diverse in this land of farre greater learning then your selfe and of singular both piety and gravity who refuse not at times to recreate themselues at Cards after their more serious studies to let passe I say this pure vnpure iest thus I thinke out of these two passages you would conclude That Lot the whole disposition whereof is of God is a meere Lot But Cards and Dice are such Lots the whole disposition whereof is of God Ergo Cards Dice are meere Lots The Maior you take for granted for you goe not about to proue it The Minor you confirme by two sentences of Solomon and the former part that cards and dice are Lots by the latter because they stint controversies the latter that the whole disposition of them is of God by the former because in euery Lot the whole disposition is of the Lord. This as I take it is or should be the right frame of your argument Which I now come to answere The knot of all lies in the right vnderstanding of the former passage wherein some are of opinion that Extraordinary Lots only or to vse their owne words Singular Miraculous Divine not Civill Lots are meant And then the Assumption is false for all Lots and among the rest cards and dice are not such Lots Others stand precisely vpon these words in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But every iudgement of it is of Cod and comparing it with the like places affirme that it importeth no more but this that in all things yea even the most vnlikely such as are Casuall Euents and Lots there is a Divine Providence and hand of God Which exposition no way confirmeth your Maior For every Lot wherein God hath a hand is not presently a Meere lot But to answere yet more plainely and fully it is to be obserued that the wise man saith not God disposeth all immediatly but only thus All the disposition
that receaue it The body of Christ not many Bodies but one Body Whence I argue as wee by receauing the Sacrament are made Christs Body so is the Bread But wee are not made his Body corporally by way of Transubstantiation Ergo neither is the Bread nay much lesse is the Bread But Saint Chrysostome saith Not by faith only but in very deed True Yet not as if he that is ioyned to Christ by Faith were not indeed ioyned for as Saint Augustine saith The Apostle deceiueth vs not who saith that Christ dwelleth in our harts by faith He is in thee because faith is in thee Nor as if he would exclude Faith and that a man might be vnited vnto Christ by some other meanes without Faith How then His meaning plainly is this that wee are ioyned vnto Christ by Faith and by charity and that this coniunction is not only imaginary as some may foolishly conceiue by the apprehension of the mind and phantasy or by participation of the spirituall gifts and graces of Christ but true and Reall by communication of his very Flesh vnto vs. Of which more in the next testimony Saint Cyril saith that wee are conioyned vnto Christ corporally by communication of his flesh and againe that in the Sacrament wee corporally and substantially receiue the Sonne of God Wherevnto I answere that Saint Cyril disputeth against a certaine Heretike who held that wee are one with Christ by Faith in his Deity and not by coniuction with his Flesh and to this purpose wrested that saying of our Saviour wherein he calleth himselfe a Vine vs the branches and his Father the Husbandman To refute this he endeavoureth to shew that wee are ioyned vnto him not only by that Faith whereby wee beleeue him to be the Sonne of God and that Charity whereby wee loue him and spiritually embrace him but also in our Flesh to his very Flesh and that therefore Christ not only in regard of Deity is the Vine and wee his Branches but also in respect of his Body May it not saith hee conveniently be said that his humanity is the vine and wee the Branches by reason of the identity of nature And to proue this he drawes his argument from this Sacrament for that by it not only the gifts and graces of his Deity but also his true reall Body is after an inscrutable and vnspeakable manner communicated vnto vs. True it is he vseth the word corporally but he saith also by the participation of the same flesh Whereby he insinuateth that hee intendeth not by that word to expresse the Manner how we are vnited but the Thing wherevnto wee are vnited after a Bodily manner but vnto the Body Else this absurdity will follow that wee by the Sacrament are after a Bodily manner in Christ as well as Christ is in vs for Saint Cyril affirmeth both that wee are corporally in Christ and Christ corporally in vs. Whereas therefore Cyril saith not only by Faith and charity but also corporally he doth not exclude the one but admitteth both as appeareth by that he saith both spiritually and corporally are wee the Branches and Christ the Vine And the plaine meaning is that not only in regard of the Spirit or Deity of Christ and our faith charity but also in respect of his very Flesh are wee truly ioyned vnto him More briefly wee are vnited not to his Divinity or Humanity alone but vnto both N. N. Wherevnto for more explication addeth Theophilact When Christ said this is my Body hee shewed that it was his very Body indeede and not any Figure correspondent therevnto for he said not This is the figure of my body but this is my body By which words the bread is transformed by an vnspeakable operation though to vs it seeme still bread And againe in another place Behold that the Bread which is eaten by vs in the mysteries is not only a figuration of Christs flesh but the very flesh indeed for that the Bread is transformed by secret words into the flesh And another Father more ancient then he aboue twelue hundred yeares past handled these words of Christ This is my Body saith It is not the figure of Christs Body and Blood as some blockish minds haue trifled but it is truly the Body and Blood of our Saviour indeed I. D. The testimonies of Theophilact I might safely if I would passe over in silence for that hee liued some nine hundred yeares after Christ and therefore is too young to be reckoned among the ancient Fathers Neverthelesse let vs heare what he brings Christ saith not This is the figure of my body but this is my body True neither was it fit to speake otherwise For in the institution of a Sacrament what forme can be more fit then that which is proper to a Sacrament That forme is to giue vnto the signe the name of that whereof it is a signe Hence is circumcision called the covenant and the Lamb the Passeover and Baptisme our Death and Buriall with Christ. The reason because of the resemblance that is betweene the Sacraments and those things whereof they are Sacraments as Saint Augustine saith As also to raise our thoughts from setling on that which is earthly and elementall in them to the contemplation of that heauenly grace which is signified and exhibited by them as Theodoret saith But of this what doth he collect That it is his very body indeed and not any figure thereof Not any Figure Those that are both his ancestors and betters say otherwise Tertullian The bread that was taken and given to the Disciples Christ made his body saying This is my body that is the Figure of my body Augustine The Lord did not sticke to say This is my body when hee gaue the signe of his body And againe The Lord at his supper commended and deliuered to his Disciples the figure of his body and blood Amhrose The new Testament is confirmed by blood in a Figure of which blood wee receiue the mysticall cup. Hierom Iesus tooke bread and giuing thankes brake it transfiguring his body into the bread Finally for it would be infinite to alledge all what more frequent in the writings of the Fathers then Signes Sacraments Figures Symbols Types Anti-types Mysteries Samplars Images Similitudes Remembrances and the like Against all whose yea Theophilacts Nay is not worth a straw Yet for all this if you will giue him leaue to interpret himselfe I see not but his Nay may easily bee reconciled to their Yea. For in the next passage by you vouched he faith It is not only a Figuration as if hee should say A figure it is but it is not only so not a bare and naked Figure but a Figure endued from on high with the efficacy of the Spirit according to that of St Cyprian The truth is present to the signe and the spirit to the Sacrament As
the worthy receauer Neither are the Fathers alwaies literally to be vnderstood when they vse the names of the Body and Bloud of Christ. For it is the common practise of them all writing of the Sacraments specially of the Lords Supper to call the signe by the name of the thing signified following therein the custome of Scripture and the example of our Saviour who as Theodoret saith changed the names and called the signe by the name of his Body So that when they say the Body is on the altar the Bloud is in the Chalice and so of the rest the meaning by this rule is the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud is there or the Body and Bloud is there Sacramentally But in vouching Irenaeus what is the reason you curtal one place and adde vnto another Meant you to play the Giant Procrustes and to shorten the one because it was too long for your bed and to stretch out the other because it was too short For whereas to those words the Eucharist of the Bloud and Body of Christ is made Irenaeus addeth immediatly by which the substance of our flesh is augmented and consisteth this you thought good to omit because it maketh directly against you For it is not the naturall Flesh and Bloud of Christ whereby our Bodies are nourished and increased Yet in the Sacrament by his Body Bloud they waxe and grow Ergo by his Symbolicall Body and Bloud the Bread and Wine still remaining Againe whereas Irenaeus saith The Eucharist consisteth of two things one earthly another heavenly you adde the earthly thing is the old forme of bread the heauenly is the body of Christ newly made vnder that forme But this is your owne Glosse and no part of the Text and such a Glosse as corrupteth the Text. For Irenaeus neuer dreamt of your Formes and Accidents without substance and his plaine meaning is that whereas before Consecration there was but one thing and that earthly namely Bread now it is made the Eucharist consisting of two things the one Earthly namely Bread the other Heauenly to wit the Body of Christ. N. N. For we doe not take these as common Bread Wine but like as Iesus Christ our Saviour incarnated by the word of God had Flesh and Bloud for our salvation eveÌ„ so we be taught that the food wherewith our Flesh and Bloud be nourished by alteration when it is consecrated by the prayer of his word to bee the Flesh and Bloud of the same Iesus Christ incarnated I. D. It is not common bread saith Iustin. What of that For hee that denies it to be common bread doth not deny it to be bread nay he confesseth it to be so though not only so by vertue of the addition of Grace vnto it If every thing that ceaseth to be common loose its nature and cease to be what it was then whosoever comes to Rome must not beleeue his eyes but thinke he is in Fairy land where things are not what they seeme to bee For there doubtlesse all things are hallowed nothing Common Iustin saith farther As the word became flesh so is bread made the body What after the same manner Then farewell Transubstantiation For the Word became Flesh by vniting it vnto himselfe hypostatically not by Transubstantiating himselfe into it In like manner therefore is bread made Body not by a substantiall change of Bread into body but by a Sacramentall vnion of the body with bread Nay saith hee but the same powerfull Word that wrought the one worketh also the other Yet this enforceth no Transubstantiation For no power is able to make a Sacrament by earthly creatures to convay vnto vs heavenly Graces saue only that which is Divine But would you see a prety tricke of legerdemaine and how your author juggles with you The words of Iustin runne not in the same order as they are set downe but thus Even so are wee taught that the food blessed by the prayer of the word of God whereby our flesh by conversion is changed c. Then which nothing maketh more against that which you intend For the consecrated Food as Iustin saies nourisheth our Flesh and Blood But the Body of Christ nourisheth them not neither to that end is converted into our substance Wherefore of necessity it must bee Bread and if bread after Consecration what is become of your new found Transubstantiation N. N. Neither hath Moyses giuen vs the true Bread but our Lord Iesus Christ himselfe the Feaster and the Feast himselfe the Eater and hee that is eaten I. D. Christ indeede is the Feast and is eaten but eaten as he is the Feast not of the Body but the Soule eaten therefore is he by the mouth of the Soule not of the body For a Spirituall meat must spiritually be receiued And more then this Saint Hierom vnderstands not For as for that he saith Manna was not the true bread it cannot be denied For our Saviour affirmeth it and in it selfe it was no more then the food of the belly Yet was it made a Sacrament both Significatiue and Exhibitiue of Christ though generally to the Iewes it was fruitlesse because they considered it carnally and vnderstood not the mystery thereof So all the Fathers Heare one Augusâ—â—â— for them all The ancients saith he while as yet the true sacrifice which the faithfull know was foreshewed in Figures did celebrate the figures of the thing figured some of them with knowledge but more ignorantly And againe Your Fathers did eat Manna in the Wildernesse and are dead for they vnderstood not that which they did eat Therefore not vnderstanding they receiued nothing else but corporall meat And yet againe The same meat the same drinke but to them that vnderstand and beleeue but to those that vnderstand not only Manna only water Neither can wee conceiue of this otherwise vnlesse wee will leaue Christ and Saint Paul at variance the one denying that Moyses giuing Manna gaue the true bread the other affirmâ—â—g that they all ate the same spirituall meat Which being so it seemes strange to mee how you can hammer your Reall Presence from hence For to reason thus is very ridiculous Moyses gaue not the body of Christ Ergo bread in the Eucharist is transubstantiated into Christs body Yet this is all I can see and vntill you shew mee better reason farther answere you may not looke from mee N. N. If you aske how it is made it is enough for thee to heare that it is made by the Holy Ghost even as our Lord made for himselfe a Body out of the Virgin mother of God and wee know no more but that the word of God is true strengthfull and almighty And againe Not as the Body of Christ came downe from heaven but because the Bread and Wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. I. D. This Damascen lived vpward of seauen hundred years after Christ and hath not yeares
beleeue and aske not How as if wee doubted of the truth of them Nay wee constantly adhere vnto them though we thinke it impossible to know the manner How But your words vnlesse you demonstrate them wee are not bound to beleeue and wee may without offence as I thinke demand How that may be which you affirme yea reiect it too if wee find it repugnant to the rule of Faith or of right reason N. N. I forgot to set downe this place of Saint Paul in his due place which is a cleare confirmation of S. Paul who for resoluing doubts as it seemed had conference with Christ himselfe after his ascension for before he could not being no Christian when Christ ascended the matter will bee more evident His words are these to the Corinthians For I haue receiued from our Lord himselfe that which I haue deliuered vnto you about the Sacrament And doe you note the word For importing a reason why he ought specially to be beleeued in this affaire for asmuch as hee had receiued resolution of the doubt from Christ himselfe and then he setteth downe the very same words againe of the institution of this Sacrament that were vsed by Christ before his Passion without alteration or new exposition which is morally most certaine that hee would haue added for clearing all doubts if there had beene any other sense to haue beene gathered of them then the plaine words themselues doe beare I. D. Omitting your amplifications of Pauls conference with Christ of his learning thereby to resolue all doubts of rendring it as a reason why he is to be beleeued in this matter of the Sacrament although I for my part know of no such conference as you speake of but only of an immediat inspiration into him by the Spirit of Christ of all truths wherein hee was to informe the Church which why you should call a Conference I cannot guesse Omitting I say all these Circumstances and by talks the substance of your argument is this If the words had had any other sense then the plaine words themselues doe beare then certainly S. Paul would haue cleared it But this hee endeavoureth not for he doth but repeat the words of institution and that without alteration or exposition Ergo the words haue no other sense then the plaine words themselues doe beare I answere the plaine words are This namely This bread is my body Which Proposition taken precisely and according to the letter cannot possibly be true The best of your owne side as hath already and shall againe bee shewed confesse so much Why therefore did not S. Paul more plainely expound it Hee needed not for it was a Sacramentall speech And whosoeuer knewe the nature of a Sacrament could not but vnderstand it Sacrameâ—â—ally thus This is the Sacrament of my Body But where you say St Paul added nothing for clearing of doubts you are much deceaued For the sixth seuenth and eight and twenty verses are added to that end In which among other things three times he calleth that Bread which wee eat in the Lords Supper And if that which wee eat then that which is consecrated And if that which is consecrated then Bread remaines after consecration which vtterly overthroweth your Transubstantiation And it is farther to be noted that Saint Paul comming after our Saviour Christ it is to be presumed that he meant rather to cleare and enlighten his words then to obscure darken them Yet he darkens them if that which we eat â—ee truely and properly Christs Body and not Bread Yeâ— hee entiâ—eth people into errour and diggeth a pit for them to fall into For it appearing Bread vnto the Sense and man naturally yeelding credit to the report thereofâ— hee should rather haue called it as it is Flesh if it be Flesh and not feed vs in errour by calling it so often Bread But to this you reply as followeth N. N. I was the more willing to set downe those words of S. Paul although not in their due place because M. Downe iâ— his writing seemeth to take so much â—old of S. Pauls words in calling it Bread in divers placâ—s wherein S. Paul meanâ— no other Bread then that Christ declared it to bee 〈◊〉 his lâ—st Supper and as one of the Fathers before cited calleth it the heavenly Bread the Bread of life I. D. What hold soeuer M. Downe tooke of S. Pauls words this answer is not able to remoue it By Bread say you the Body of Christ is meant If so then haue wee found that which hetherto you could not endure to heare of a Figuratiue speech in the Sacrament for Christs body properly is not Bread But why doth hee call it Bread Because before consecration it was Bread as some say Noâ— so for it was never Bread Or because it seemeth to bee Bread as others say Noâ— so for Christs body nor is nor seemeth Bread Why then because in Scripture all nourishment is called Bread Nor so for in that sense vnder Bread Drinke is comprehended whereas our Apostle distinguishes them as divers things Let him eat saith hee of that Bread and drinke of that Cup. Is it lastly because Christs body lies hid vnder the shewes of bread Absurd for by the same reason you may call the Casket by the name of a Diamond because it containes it The truth is S. Paul vnderstands by bread not Christs body but that which in proper speech is so For Christs true body cannot be broke but this bread even after consecration is broken For so he saith The bread which we breake is it not the Communion of the body of Christ N. N. All which laid together and the vniforme consent of expositions throughout the whole Christian world concurring in the selfe-same sense and meaning of all these Scriptures about the Real Presence of Christs true Body in the Sacrament you may imagine what motiue it is end ought to be to a Catholike man who desireth to beleeue and not to striue contend Besides this Protestants haue not one authority nor can produce any one at this day that expresly saith that Christs Reall Body is not in the Sacrament 〈…〉 only a Figure Signe or token thereof though divers impertinent peeces of some Fathers speeches they will now and then pretend to alleage So on the contrary side the Catholikes doe behold for their comfort the whole â—â—nke of ancient Fathers throughout every age standing with them in this vndoubted truth I. D. Indeed if you haue the Vniforme consent of expositions throughout the whole Christian world concurring with you and the whole ranke of Fathers throughout every age standing with you in this as you suppose vndoubted truth I must needs confesse it both is and ought to be a sufficient Motiue vnto you to perswade assent vnto the truth thereof But if vpon due examination you finde that not one of them all doth so expound as you doe and that your Author hath presented you with a list
one and the very same according to his humane substance absent from heauen when he was in earth and forsaking the earth when he ascended to heauen And a little after how could he ascend but as a locall and true man evidently employing that he cannot be a true man who is not Locall and circumscribed in one place And indeed if the Body of Christ be aboue in Heauen and in many places here on earth at one time as at London Paris Rome else-where and not in the severall spaces betweene either it will follow that there are as many distinct bodies of Christ as there are places wherein it is or that his Body is many hundred miles off and separated from it selfe either of which is most vnreasonable and absurd For as Saint Paul saith there is but one Lord and heauen and earth are many miles asunder Besides it would follow that the Body of Christ is out of that which containeth it consequently that that which containeth it containeth it not which is a meere contradiction Nay if that Mathematicall principle be true as vndoubtedly it is that those bodies which touch the same point doe also touch one the other it will necessarily follow that the Priests fingers which touch the Body of Christ in London must needs at the same time touch his fingers who holdeth the same in Rome And so shall not only the Body of Christ be in divers places at once but by vertue thereof those things also that are many hundred leagues a sunder shall actually touch one the other Vnto these and the like absurdities for the saluing of them you haue nothing to oppose saue only the Omnipotence of God to whom nothing is impossible But withall you forget that this hath beene the ordinary refuge of the heretiks who as Tertullian saith faine what they list of God as if he had done it because hee could doe it whereas we should not because hee can doe all things therefore beleeue he hath done it but rather search whether he haue done it or no. True it is God is omnipotent but by doing what he will as Augustine saith not by suffering what he will not Whence also some things he therefore cannot doe because he is omnipotent He cannot deny himselfe saith Saint Paul and it is impossible that he should lye And This impossibility saith Ambrose is not of infirmity but of maiesty because his truth admitteth not a lye nor his power the note of inconstancie So that whatsoever is repugnant to the Nature and Truth of God because he is Almighty he cannot doe And such are all contradictions both the parts whereof cannot possibly be true at once but if the one be true the other must needs be false Hence it is held for an vndoubted Maxime in Schooles that God cannot doe those things that imply contradiction the reason because so he should be false himselfe Now this Doctrine of yours implies in it innumerable contradictions as by and by shall be demonstrated among the rest this that the same Body at the same time shall in heauen haue shape quantity distinction of parts circumscription and all other essentiall properties of a Body and yet in the Sacrament shall be destitute of them all Both of which if vpon presumption of Gods Omnipotence you will needs still beleeue I must plainely tell you that to build on his Power with impeachment of his Truth is not Faith but Infidelity Thirdly it destroyeth the Nature of a Sacrament For proofe whereof I will vse no other grounds then those which your owne men and Bellarmine in particular haue laid for me To the constitution of a Sacrament of the new Testament three things among sundry other saith he are necessarily required First there must be a Signe that is as Saint Augustine defineth it a thing which besides that shape or kinde that it offereth unto our sences of it selfe causeth some other thing to come into our minde Whence it followeth both that the Signe is something knowne and that it is a thing differing from that which it signifieth or whereof it is a signe Secondly that this signe must be sensible or visible For a Sacrament is intrinsecally and essentially a ceremony of Religion and a Ceremony is an externall act Wherefore the Fathers every-where teach that Sacraments are certaine Footsteps or Manuductions vnto things spirituall Invisible Thirdly that the signe must hold due analogie and proportion with the thing signified according to that of S. Augustin If Sacraments had not a certaine similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they were altogether no Sacraments And hence is it that the Fathers call them Anti-types that is things of like Forme and liuely expressing that which they present These things being thus granted out of them I frame this argument That which destroyeth the signe in the sacrament by confounding it with the thing signified making it invisible and insensible and holding no analogie or proportion with that whereof it is a signe destroyeth the nature of a Sacrament But your doctrine of the Reall Presence by Transubstantiation doth all this Ergo it also destroyeth the nature of the Sacrament The Major or first Proposition is by you as wee haue now shewed yeelded vnto vs and cannot bee denied The Minor or second Proposition I thus proue in every particular And first that it destroyeth the signe For if any remaine either it is bread or the Accidents of bread or the body of Christ for there is not a fourth But bread it cannot bee for the Element is not a signe vntill it be consecrated and bread is no sooner consecrated but forthwith it ceaseth to be And if it be not then neither is it a signe for of that which is not nothing can be affirmed Againe the Accidents of bread as Colour Savours measure and the like are not it For besides that it is impossible that Accidents should haue any subsistence without their subiect the Being of an Accident being to be in its subiect it is very strange and vnconceauable if they could how the meere Accidents of bread should represent and signifie the body of Christ. The rather because the signe was ordained by Christ to bee a helpe vnto our Faith and to lead vs as it were by the hand vnto the thing signified Whereas the Accidents of bread without the substance thereof are rather lets and hinderances vnto vs and with no more reason can bee called signes of Christs body then a darke cloud that keepeth off the light of the Sunne from our eyes may bee called a signe or Representation of the Sunne Adde herevnto that such a signe is required as is materiall and elementall according to that of S. Augustin The word being added to the element it is made a Sacrament So Hugh so Bellarmin so the rest Now to call Accidents by name of Elements is a new straine of Philologie vncouth
called his bloud What words can bee more plaine And yet againe the Bloud of Christ cannot seeme to be in the cup when wine is wanting to the cup whereby the bloud of Christ is declared Athanasius He distinguished the spirit from the flesh that wee might learne that the things hee spake are not carnall but Spirituall For how many men would his Body haue sufficed that it might be the food of the whole world But therefore hee made mention of his ascension into heaven that hee might draw them from corporall vnderstanding and then might vnderstand his flesh whereof he spake to be meate from aboue the Heavenly and spirituall food which he would giue Here expresly he reiecteth the Corporall eating of Christs Body and acknowledgeth none other but that which is spirituall Eusebius Bishop of Cesaâ—ia Our Saviour and Lord first and then all the Priests that haue followed in all nations celebrating the spirituall divine service according to the ordinances of the Church signifie vnto vs by the Bread and Wine the mysteries of his body and bloud If they signify them they are not the same Macarius They knew not that in the Church Bread and Wine was to be offered as the anti-type of his flesh and bloud and that those who partake of the visible bread spiritually eat the flesh of the Lord. A knot of arguments Bread Wine are offered they are Anti-types of Christs Flesh and Bloud they are receiued of vs and the eating of Christs flesh is spirituall Your Cyril of Hierusalem As the Bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Ghost is no more common bread but the body of Christ so this holy ointment is no more bare and common ointment after it is consecrated but the gift of Christ. Not common bread saith hee yet bread and the body as the Ointment is the Grace of Christ. But Grace it is not by conversion into it for it remaineth ointment still but by accession of Grace vnto it Ambrose speaking of the miracles of the Prophets who changed the Nature of things and comparing therewith that which is done in the Sacrament as being nothing lesse at length concludeth It is no lesse to giue new natures vnto things then to change their natures plainely intimating that in the Sacrament Nature is not changed but some thing is added aboue Neture Wherefore else where hee saith in expresse tearmes If there bee so great force in the word of the Lord that they should beginne to bee what they were not how much more operatiue are they that they bee what they were and yet be changed into another thing Lo bread and Wine are changed yet remaine what they were changed therefore not in substance but in vse and signification Saint Basil in his Liturgy for him you make the author thereof He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of thy Maiesty on high who shall also come to render vnto every one according to his workes But hee hath left these Memorialls or monuments of his healthfull passion which wee set forth according to his commandement Hee is gone and hath left vs Memorialls of himselfe Ergo himselfe is not here For remembrance is of things past not present Gregory Nazianzen Now we shall bee partakers of the Passeouer but as yet in a figure though more cleare then in the old Law for the passeouer of the Law I will not be a fraid to say it was but a more obscure figure of a figure The Passeouer therefore in proper speech is not a figure of the Lords Supper but both of them are Figures of the death of Christ. Gregory Nyssen declaring the change of Water in Baptisme expresseth it by three similitudes of an Altar which being dedicated vnto Gods Worship of a common stone is made a holy table of Bread in the Eucharist which by Consecration is no longer common bread but the Body of Christ and of a Priest who of a vulgar and ordinary man is by the blessing made a teacher Prelate of divine mysteries Bread therefore is no more transubstantiated then Water in Baptisme the stone of the Altar or the Priest Cyril of Alexandria Doest thou say that our Sacrament is the eating of a man and doest thou Vrge our minde vnto the grosse thoughts that beleeued so and doest thou attempt with humane thoughts to handle those things which cannot bee receiued but only with a pure and exquisite faith The Flesh of Christ therefore is not eaten with the mouth for that were to eate a man but only with a pure Faith Epiphanius After he had given thankes he said This of mee is that and wee see that it is not equall nor like neither to the incarnate image nor the invisible Deity nor to the lineaments of his members For this is oblong or of roule fashion senselesse as concerning power If it bee vnequall to Christ and void of Sence then is it not Christ. Saint Chrysostome before consecration wee call it bread but Divine grace through the ministry of the Priest sanctifying it it is freed from the name of bread and counted worthy of the appellation of the Lords body although the nature of bread continue in it Behold the nature of bread remaineth after Consecration and yet it is called the Body of Christ. And againe If therefore it be dangerous to convert vnto private vses these sanctified vessels in which the true body of Christ is not but the mystery of Christs body is contained how much more the vessels of our body which God hath prepared to be an habitation for himselfe ought wee not to giue way vnto the Divell to doe in theÌ„ what he pleaseth Not the Body but the mysteries are contained in the vessels if so what becomes of your Reall presence Hierom The wicked nor eate the flesh of Iesus nor drinke his bloud But they eat and drinke the Eucharist Ergo it is not the Flesh and Bloud of Christ. Againe Wee may eate of that Sacrifice which is wonderfully made in commemoration of Christ but of that which Christ offered vpon the Altar of the Crosse no man may eate The Sacrifice then of the Sacrament is not that of the Crosse and the Body offered on the Crosse is not eaten in the Sacrament Saint Augustine The Apostles ate the Bread the Lord Iudas the bread of the Lord against the Lord. Againe He that disagreeth from Christ neither eateth the Flesh of Christ nor drinketh his Bloud although he daily receiue the Sacrament of so great a thing to iudgement Obserue the Bread of the Lord not that which is the Lord and the Sacrament of Christs Flesh and Bloud not his Flesh and Bloud So againe you shall not eate this body which you see nor drinke that bloud which my crucifiers shall shed I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament which spiritually vnderstood shall quicken you And yet againe
later shorter and taller broader and narrower thicker and thinner greater and lesser then himselfe and such like of the same garbe But I study to be briefe it is high time to remoue my hand as they say from the Table Onely I must forewarne you that if being vnable to vntie these knots you shall attempt to cut them asunder with the sword of Gods Omnipotence you shall but loose your labour For if they be contradictions as vndoubtedly they are your Angelicall Doctor can tell you that they fall not within the compasse of Divine Power So that of force you must either demonstrate that these things are not contradictorie which I am sure you can neuer doe or as becommeth Christian ingenuity you must for ever bid farewell to Transubstantiation and yeeld vnto the truth discouered vnto you And thus at length by Gods assistance haue I finished the taske you haue laid vpon me fully answered whatsoeuer here you haue alleaged in maintenance of your Reall Presence My desire now is that laying aside all prejudice you will but with indifference read what I haue replied therevnto Which if you shall vouchsafe to doe I perswade my selfe it will make you to remit much of that confidence you had in this cause when first you sent this Schedule vnto me Especially if withall you consider that the wittiest and subtlest heads amongst you could never finde it so clearely and strongly grounded either vpon Scripture or Fathers as you pretend Scotus sirnamed the subtle Doctor affirmeth that there is extant in Scripture no place so expresse as without declaration of the Church can evidently constraine a man to admit of Transubstantiation And this saith Bellarmine is not altogether vnprobable For although the scripture may seeme vnto vs so clear as it may constraine a man that is not froward yet it may iustly be doubted whether it be so seeing most learned and witty men such as Scotus specially was haue thought the contâ—ary The same Scot farther saith that were it not for the authority determination of the Roman Church the words of Christ and of the Fathers might more simply plainely truly be vnderstood and expounded Nay hee yet farther addeth and your Cardinal Bellarmine confesseth it that before the Lateran Councell Transubstantiation was not a doctrine of Faith and he wondreth that being no principle article and such as exposeth the Christian Faith to contempt it could be receaued and beleeued The Cardinall of Cambray also doubteth not to avouch that that manner which supposeth the substance of Bread still to remaine is possible neither is it contrary to reason or the authority of scripture Nay it is easier to conceaue and more reasonable then that which saith the substance doth leaue the accidents And of this opinion no inconvenience doth seeme to ensue if it could be accorded with the Churches determination And he addeth that the opinion which holdeth the substance of Bread not to remaine doth not evidently follow of the Scripture nor to his seeming of the Churches determination Cardinall Cajetan is as peremptory that there appeareth nothing in the Gospell that can force a man properly to vnderstand these words This is my body and that were it not for the interpretation of the Roman Church they might very well admit another sense as that of the Apostle the Rocke was Christ. To these Cardinals may wee ioyne another Cardinall though happily he neuer ware the Cap I mean Fisher Bishop of Rochester who expresly averreth that in that place of Mathew where the institution of the Sacrament is recorded there is never a word whereby it may bee proued that there is made in the Masse the true presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ. Gabriel Biel also The Scriptures may be salved and expounded after a more easie vnderstanding And Occam This doctrine that the substance of bread remaineth is subiect to lesser inconveniences and is not so repugnant to reason the Scriptures And Durand It is great rashnesse to say that the body of Christ cannot by divine power be in the Sacrament but by converting bread into it Howbeit if that way which supposeth bread to remaine were indeed true many doubts which meet vs holding it not to remaine were dissolued The Master of the Sentences also freely confesseth that if it be demanded what that conversion is whether formall or substantiall or of another kinde he is not sufficient to define From these your Iesuits swarue not very much Gregory de Valentia saith that the Fathers spake of Transubstantiation somewhat obscurely simply as thinking they could not be vnderstood of Catholikes but Catholikely and least they should haue exposed the mystery to be laughed at of Infidels if in their popular Sermons they should haue vnfolded their minds Your Secular Priests affirme that it was concluded among the Fathers of the Societie and what Catholike would not beleeue them that the Fathers haue not so much as touched the point of Transubstantiation Finally not to muster vp any more it is well knowne that divers of your Priests being demanded if after sentence of death pronounced vpon them that very morning when they were to be executed they might haue leaue to say Masse to the intent they might be certaine of their owne intention to consecrate and not doubtfully depend vpon anothers whether after consecration for the confirmation of our Faith in the point of Transubstantiation they durst to say thus vnto the multitude Vnlesse that which is now in this Chalice whose Accidents you see be the very selfe same bloud which issued out of the side of Christ hanging on the crosse let mee haue no part either in the bloud of Christ or in Christ himselfe for ever and so with these last words bid farewel vnto the world being I say demanded whether they durst adventure to doe so they all with one voice denied it And Father Garnet in a conference with the Deanes of the Chappell Pauls and Westminster being in particular asked the like answered very perplexedly not daring to hazard his saluation therevpon All these testimonies duly pondered and considered you must needs acknowledge vnlesse you see better then these quick-sighted Eagles that you haue not so strong hold either in Scripture or Fathers or right reason as you imagined and that not only the name but the Doctrine also of Transubstantiation hath beene but of late created an article of your Faith It remaineth that I entreat you these things vndoubtedly being thus that you suffer not your selfe any longer to be beguilded with novelties vnder pretence of antiquitie but rather that you open your eyes and stretch forth your armes to embrace the truth now that she offereth her selfe so manifestly vnto you And this I intreat the more earnestly because of the great danger that followeth vpon this errour For if Christ bee not present in the Sacrament in such sort as you hold there
the present Roman Church is still in some sort a part of the Visible Church of God but no otherwise then other Societies of Hereticks are in that it retaineth the profession of some parts of Heauenly truth and ministreth the true Sacrament of Baptisme to the salvation of the soules of many thousand infants that dye after they are baptized before shee haue poysoned them with her errours Thus he Wherevnto I adde that of St Hilary God in the Churches of the Arrians called many by the word and Sacraments to the knowledge of the truth whose eares were more pure then were the mouthes of their teachers The issue of all is this You are a Church but neither the Catholike Church nor a sound member thereof What then An Hereticaâ— and impure Church And if Salvation may be had therein it is only by those truths you haue common with vs and not the Papacie wherein notwithstanding there can bee no more security had thereof then of life in a pesthouse of which though there may be a possibility yet the danger is such that a thousand to one if a man escape the infection And what folly is it to leaue that Church wherein there is security and to cleaâ—e vnto that wherein there is no hope but only of a poore possibility Willet remaines for whom what better advocate then himselfe That many Kings and Queenes of this land are Saints in Heaven is not by any protestant denyed For they might be carried away with some errours of the time then not revealed yet holding the foundation through Gods mercy they might be saved It is a divers case when a man sinneth of infirmity or simplicity and when hee offendeth willingly and of obstinacy To stumble in the darke craueth pitty to grope at noone-daies is great folly I say therefore in this case as our Saviour to the Pharisees If yee were blind yee should not haue sin but now ye say we see therefore your sinne remaineth And as St Paul the time of ignorance God regarded not God therefore might shew mercy to them that erred of Simplicity which is no warrant for them that should now be seduced willingly And such are you Recusants to whom wee can promise nothing but fearfull things though of our fore-fathers wee hope all good That which your Author farther addes of himselfe let the same Willet answer Though divers saith hee of those ancient Kings became Monks yet neither was the Monasticall life so farre out of square as now it is they made it not a cloke of idlenesse and filthy liuing a nursery of idolatry and grosse supertitions but they desired that life as fittest for contemplation and free from the encumbrances of the world Neither doth this one opinion of the excellency of Monasticall life shew them to be resolute Papists for it followeth not because they were Monks that consequently they held Transubstantiation worship of images and the more grosse points of the Romish Catechisme Will you haue any more In few words thus Anciently Monks some of them were lay-men some were married they bound themselues with no vowes they made no distinction of meats they laboured with their hands and liued not in Citties but remote places By all which you may see Polydor Virgill had reason to say It is incredible how much nowadaies they are degenerated N. N. Your fourth and last reason the quarrells and bitter speeches of Luther Melancthon Zuniglius Beza Carolus Molniaeus Amsdorfius Hosiander Protestants of Zurich of England c. I. D. This reason differeth not in substance but only in quotations from the second Which quotations whether they be true or false neither will I spend time to search neither is it any whit materiall And therefore neither will I vouchsafe it any farther answer then that which already I haue given to the second The best Churches haue seldome beene without their quarrels and vsually are menaged with two much passion The malice of Satan is the cause of the one and humane infirmity of the other Which infirmity seeing wee cannot altogether put off while we liue here in the flesh Christian charity would rather pitie it then vpbraid it Neverthelesse that which is amisse may not be defended neither meane I to goe about it Only I perswade my selfe that if wee vnderstood one the other better our quarrells would never be so vehement For what was it that set Luther and Zuinglius so farre asunder but misprision And what caused such hard censures to passe vpon Hosiander but his owne inconvenient speeches and other mens mistakings These are the two principall quarrells here mentioned by you giue me leaue therefore to shew so much in them but briefly The quarrell betweene Luther and Zuinglius was about Christs presence in the Sacrament which as you hold to be by way of Transubstantiation so did Luther by way of Consubstantiation Which how it could be vnlesse the body of Christ were every where Zuinglius others could not conceiue and being pressed therewith he and his followers not being able to avoid it maintained that also But how by reason of the Hypostaticall vnion and coniunction thereof with the word For the Word being every where and the Humane Nature being no where feuered from it how can it be say they but every where And hence the distraction and therevpon all those passionate speeches Now saith Zanchy if they meane that the body of Christ is present according to his personall being they say true contradict not those who speake of his Naturall being or being of Essence D. Field thus expresseth it The humane Nature of Christ hath two kinds of being the one naturall the other personall the first limited finite the second infinite incoÌ„prehensible For seeing the nature of man is a created nature and essence it cannot be but finite and seeing it hath no Personall subsistence of it owne but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it which is infinite and without limitation it cannot be denied to haue an infinite Subsistence to subsist in an incomprehensible and illimited sort and consequently every where Thus then the body of Christ according to his Naturall being is contained in one place but according to his Personall being may rightly be said to be every where So Field whereby you may easily perceiue that the warres betwixt hony-bees are not such but the casting vp of a little dust will soone stint them For if this distinction had well beene conceiued this Vbiquitary strife had quickly beene ended If any notwithstanding haue beene so grosse as to maintaine an Vbiquity according to Essence or Naturall being which I can hardly beleeue I must professe I know no excuse for them The second quarrell is against Hosiander who seemeth to define Iustification by a transfusion of the Essentiall righteousnesse of Christ into vs and a confusion as it were and mixture of it together with vs. And against this divers haue written very
warrant it By Scripture You haue barred your selfe from all hope of succour thence For it is obscure equivocall ambiguous every way vncertaine By Naturall Reason The Articles of Faith are aboue Reason and the Naturall Man is not capable of them By the Spirit then That is the thing you so much jest at in others And if by your doctrine you cannot assure your selfe that you are in the present state of Grace neither can you know whether you haue the spirit of God or no. What then may be your last refuge The testimony of the Church touching her selfe Ridiculous for no mans testimony may be admitted in his owne cause And what a reasoning is this You beleeue the Articles of Faith Why Because the Church biddeth you doe so How followeth this Because shee cannot erre And how proue you that Because she saith shee cannot erre If this bee not to expose the Christian Faith vnto the laughter of Atheists and prophane men I know not what it is Will you nill you when you haue said all you can say either you must haue no certaine ground at all for your Faith or you must rest vpon the Scriptures as the finall resolution thereof Returne therefore I beseech in the feare of God returne vnto the sure anchor-hold of your salvation Abandon those frothie generalities of your seducing authors which at the best are but coniecturall and labour to stablish your Conscience vpon the testimony of him that will not that cannot deceiue you Pray vnto him fervently and proceed in a syncere loue of the truth and you shall surely finde that if you be not defectiue to your selfe God will never faile you For my part I haue done what belongs to mee I haue planted I haue watered it is God that must giue the increase And to his mercy in Christ Iesus I commend you An advertisement to the Reader Vnto the Section of Pag. 27. I there freely confessed I could not certainly answere for want of Doctor Mortons booke Since that time I haue met with it and thereby I perceaue that though I answered only by conâ—ecture yet I coniectured not amisse Yet now farther be pleased to vnderstand first that the Doctor citeth not Bibliander as my adversary vntruly chargeth him but only answereth a passage quoted by his adversary Breerly out of him And he answereth in effect as I doe saue that he bringeth in Bellarmine confessing that which to my good man seemeth so strange namely that all Protestants acknowledge in the Eucharist a Sacrifice Eucharisticall or of thanksgiuing Secondly touching those Rabbins R. Cahana R. Iudas and R. Simeon hee belyeth the Doctor it is Breerly that cites them not hee Neither doth he Positiuely say that their testimonies make directly for Transubstantiation But conditionally if they were such Now that they are not such hee proueth For consulting with D. Smith D. Layfield and M. Bedwell very learned Hebricians about this matter they after their painfull and industrious search into the cited places returned vnder their hands this answere R. Cahana in that booke on the 49 of Gen. is not cited nor hath hee there any thing to that purpose R. Iudas in that booke on the 25 of Exod. hath no such thing nor in the whole Parasha Terumah R. Simeon wrote no booke carrying the title of Revelatio Secretorum And thus you see while simple Papists will beleeue nothing but what their guides tell them what pretty tales of Robin Hood they devise for them O that God would be pleased to soften the seared consciences of the one and to open the blindfolded eyes of the other Farewell IOHN DOWNE FINIS A Testimony taken from M. Perkins on Heb. 11. v. 7. to be added to those annexed to the first Sermon But how doth God worke this faith By his word For as God is the author and worker of Faith so God hath appointed a meanes whereby he workes it and that is his word which word of God is the only ordinary outward meanes to worke faith And that word of God is two wayes to be considered either as revealed by God himselfe as to Noah here or else being written by God is either preached by his Ministers or read by a mans selfe in want of preaching and these are all one and are all meanes ordained of God to worke faith and that not only to beginne it where it is wanting but to augment it where it is begunne END So much doth the originall word beare and therefore our last translators haue set it in the Margent M. Smith Preacher at Barstaple Ezech. 14.14 and 28 3. Ver. 1. V. 2. Ioh. 5.28.29 1 Chron. 28.9 ver 13. V. 14. V. 15. V. 16. V. 17. V. 18. 1. Tim. 4 16. Phil. 2.15 psal 34.5 Prov. 4.18 Math. 13.43 43.20 148 36. 2. Cor. 4.17 1. Pet. 5.4 1. Cor. 9.25 Act. 15.5 vers â— vers 4.6 vers 7. c. vers 13.14.15 vers 19.20 Num. 25.1 c Lev. 17.10 In Preachers plea. In Baron â—1 16. n. 23. Duplic cont Stapl. l. 1. c. 6. Act. 13.27 Deut 33.10.11 2 King 23.2 Nâ—h 8.3 Elias Levita Ben. Maimon Apol. against T.C. Eccles. Polit. l. 5. Hom. 1. p. 1. Marâ— 16.15 2. Cor. 2.16 2. Tim. 4.1.2 Defens eccles author l. 3. c. 7. Trois verites l. 3. c. 4. par 3. Confront ibid Canon 4. Can 11. In ans to the Abstract Esa. 29.12 Id. 61.1.2 Paraen ad Gentes l. 17. Strom. l. 1. p. 1. Doct. Christ. Prol. Cont. Bellar. contro 1. Confront l. 3. c. 4. In Rhem. Test Ro. 1. 15. Cont. Bellar. con 1. q. 6. c. 9. De Idol Eccl. Ro. ep ded Advers Cost de Script De S. script Against peril of idol p. 1. Preface to the Reader Rom. 15.4 Preface to the Reader Deut. 13.11 17.1 6.6 Ioh. 5.39 Col. 4.16 1 Thes. 5.27 Act. â— 27.15.21 Mat. 24.15 Eph. 3.4 Confes. l. 8. c. 12. Cont. Lindâ—n In vita sua Acts Mon. Preach plea. Def. of AdmoÌ„ Preach plea. Act. 2.41 Iob. 33.23.24 Contra Char. l. 3. c. 4. Prov. 29.18 Esaiah 1.1 1. Cor. 1.21 Duplic cont Stapl l. 2. c. 10 De S. Script Rom. 10 13.14 Ps. 19.1.2.3 Rom. 1.20 Deut. 17.11 2. Thes. 2.8 Act. 13.27 Rom. 10.8 Ioh. 19.37 Rom. 3.19 Heb. 12.5 Rom. 9.27 Ioh. 5.39 Heb. 4.12 Luc. 16.29 Gal. 4.21.22 Confront l. 3. c. 4. Ibid. De verb. scrip In Rhem. Test. Rom. 1.15 Dupl contr Stapl. l. 2. c 10. De script q. 5. c. 8. arg 2. Cont. A.D. c. 9 1. King 17.6 Ioh. 19.6 Act. 2.4 Act 9.3 c. Gal. 1.12 Dupl cont Stap. l. 2. c. 6. In the way to the true Ch. In Ps. 26. Ep. 3. Dial. cum Try phon L. 7. in Iulian Hom. 1. in Ioh De Script q. 2. c. 14. arg 5. De verb. scrip â—ut 28. Cor. 2.4 Dupl contr Stapl. l. 1. c. 9. 2. Pet. 1.15 Deut. 31.11.12 Ier. 36.2 c. V. 19. V. 5. Ioh. 20.31 Cap. 18. Comment in Psal. initio Ser. 35. Iohn 6.63