this salvation And herewith agree the Fathers of the Primitive Churches Origen who writ about two hundred yeers after Christ upon the text of Matth. 15. The Word was made flesh and very meat which whoso eateth shall live for ever says that no evil man can eat thereof for it is onely eaten by faith And herewith agrees S. Cyprian in Serm. de Coena Dominic saying Our eating and drinking is a certain hunger and desire to dwell in him and that none do eat of this Lamb but such as be true Israelites which hunger is termed of the soul as David was an hungry Psal 41. My soul hath thirsted after God which is the well of life For the soul feeling nothing but the horrour of death and the terrour of Gods justice sin by the Laws impeachment having drawn that direful sentence upon her in her pensive meditations of her just demerits betakes her self to this spiritual refreshment of comfort and solace being hereunto invited with the sweet appellation of blessed if she hunger and thirst after righteousness and a cheerful promise of comforts that she shall be satisfied Matth. 5. Which spiritual hunger and thirst as it is not perceived of a carnal man but onely of such as inwardly desire this refreshment and ease from the deep throws of their sad condition so is it not given to any but such as spiritually long and seek after it God feedeth the hungry but the rich those that stand upon their own integrity he sends empty away It is no carnal banquet that flesh and blood can thirst after Have ye no houses to eat and drink in 1 Cor. 11. It is not eating an ordinary Supper to satisfie the greedy appetite of a natural man but as Christ said to his disciples Joh. 4.32 I have other meat to eat which ye know not The disciples themselves as carnal men knew not of this spiritual food and therefore Christ minding to draw them from their gross fleshly principles and to convince them that there is spiritual food as well as that which the mouth and throat take and swallow plainly says unto them Is any dry let him come to me Joh. 7. for he is meat he is drink which whosoever by faith spiritually eat and drink live for ever Athanasius de peccat in Spir. sanct says Christ made mention of his ascension to pluck men from corporal fancie and thereby to perswade them that his flesh was spiritual food the things which he spake were spirit and life It must needs therefore be understood of spiritual eating and spiritual drinking his flesh and blood which hereticks unbelievers could not do as S. Hierome upon Hos 8. witnesses And S. Ambrose de benedict Patr. cap. 9. says Jesus is the bread which is the meat of the Saints and he that taketh this bread dieth not a sinners death for this bread is remission of sins And S. Austin in his 26 Tract upon John Bread and wine which nourisheth the body a man may eat and drink and nevertheless die but the very body and blood no man eateth but hath everlasting life And in another place in sententiis ex Prosp decerpt cap. 339. He that agreeth not with Christ doth neither eat his flesh nor drink his blood although to the condemnation of himself for his presumption he every day receive the Sacrament of so high a nature Judas did eat the bread saith he in his 59 Tract but not the bread that was the Lord. Christ is onely spiritually in the bread and wine to such as by a lively faith receive him As for the wicked they receive but the meer bread and wine abusing the Ordinance From these Authorities may clearly be evinced that the Church of England doth maintain in this point as the ancient Fathers taught concerning this Sacrament Nor can any otherwise understand of this holy mystery for if Christ be corporally in the bread and wine then the wicked receiving him receive his body and not his Spirit for Rom. 8. as he that hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his so he that hath Christ in him believeth because he is justified And if his Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead dwell in you he that raised Christ from death shall give life to your mortal bodies for his Spirits sake that dwelleth in you So that no wicked man hath the Spirit of Christ in him and to maintain that he hath him corporally and not spiritually is to divide his Humanity from his Divinity which blasphemy the Catholike Church abhors Now the Church of England doth not thus divide the Natures but holds that both his Body and Spirit is by faith received but not that the body is corporally in the bread the bread and wine being but the elementary parts signifying the spiritual substance and that God worketh this faith inwardly in our hearts 3. The bread and wine are but figures of the body and blood by his holy Spirit and outwardly confirmeth the same to our ears by the Word and to our senses by the eating and drinking the Sacramental bread and wine in his holy Supper Which eating and drinking is a spiritual feeding requiring no real presence of Christ but onely in Spirit grace and effectual operation And that when Christ said Hoc est corpus meum it was but figuratively spoken it being bread which he brake and gave as a type for a remembrance how his body was crucified for us And let none wonder at this her tenent to say that Christ spake in figures when he did institute this Sacrament for it is the nature of a Sacrament to be figures and types signifying mystical grace thereby received Hence it was that the Philistims when the Ark came into the army of the Israelites said that God was come into the army 1 King 4. And God himself at that time by the mouth of his Prophets said that from that time that he had brought the children of Israel out of Egypt he dwelled not in houses but that he was carried about in tents and tabernacles 1 King 7. which was a figurative speech he speaking that thing of himself which was to be understood of the Ark. Which phrase of speaking Christ himself often used as in Mat. 13.11 17. The field is the world The enemy the devil c. Joh. 16. I am the vine you are the branches Joh. 4. I have meat to eat which you know not And Joh. 10. I am the door Matth. 12. He that doth my Fathers will is my brother and sister c. These and many more Christ spake in Parables Tropes and Figures but chiefly when he said Hoc est corpus a figurative speech This cup is the new Testament in my blood the word my taken for the thing in the cup. Neither is the cup nor the wine Christs Testament but a signe and figure of his Testament And admit that by the word cup neither the cup nor wine is meant but the blood yet it
is a figure of the Testament of Christ which was to be sealed with his blood For his blood is not the Testament but the thing that confirms the new Testament This is so evident a place to disprove the tenents of Romes Church in this particular that her champions are forced to their last refuge of abusing Scripture and therefore they render that text thus This blood is a new Testament in my blood which translation I submit to the judicious Reader whether it be not more strange then any figurative speech Christ saith we must be baptized with the holy Ghost this is a figurative speech So likewise Except a man be born again c. that was a figurative speech intending thereby spiritual regeneration S. Paul saith that in Baptism we cloathe us with Christ and be buried with him Rom. 6. which are figurative speeches of our newness of life and mortification of sin The Paschal Lamb without spot signified Christ the effusion of that blood signified Christ's passion and the sprinkling of the posts with blood whereby the first-born escaped death is a type of those which at the last day shall be saved being sprinkled with the blood of Jesus As in the Old Testament Exod. 12. God said This is the Lords passeover which was not the Lords Passeover but a figure representing the Lords passing by so Christ in the New Testament says of the bread and wine This is my body This is my blood which is not so in substance but in signification A figure hath the name of a thing that is signified thereby as we say a mans image is called a man the figure of a tree a tree or the like So we say Let us go to S. Peter of Millain to S. James in Compestella c. not meaning thereby the things themselves but understanding by the things representive the things represented Even so the bread and wine though Christ call them his body and blood yet they are not verily so but the elementary parts and outward signes of the invisible grace his flesh and blood thereby signified Nor is this a strange interpretation but according to Christs own figurative speech saying Luk. 22. I have much desired to eat this passeover with you Which words none can deny to be figurative God himself used that figurative speech and Jesus the onely Son of that Father to ssure us of his unity with the Godhead breathes out the same Spirit to his Apostles This is my passeover This is my body This is my blood As the shedding of that Lamb's blood was a token of the shedding of Christs blood then to come and forasmuch as the Sacraments of the Old Testament ceased and ended in Christ lest we should through corrupâ—ion and depravity forget the accomplishment of those Types and not take heed to print in our memories the benefits we receive by Christ Therefore Christ at his last Supper when he took leave of his disciples being shortly to depart out of the world according to the will of the Father did make a new Will He did make a new Will and Testament wherein he bequeathed clear remission of sins which he sealed next day with his blood and instituted this holy Sacrament in remembrance thereof and ordained the same in bread and wine saying This is my body This cup is my blood which is shed for remission of sins Do this in remembrance of me And Saint Paul says 1 Cor. 11. As often as we eat this bread and drink this cup we shew the Lords death till he come Therefore when we come to be made partakers of this heavenly food we should seriously call to minde the wonderful sufferings great goodness and marvelous kindness of Christ he offering himself for our redemption and by a lively faith apply the merits of his Passion to our souls and so we verily receive Christ he to be in us and we in him The Scriptures do sufficiently set forth this truth That when Christ said Hoc est corpus it was a figurative speech and the Church of England holds forth this truth against all adversaries and opposers thereof And that in this she may not seem arrogant to assume a self-interpretation of the Scriptures to maintain this her assertion I will bring in some ancient Fathers to bear witness for her Saint Augustine How to interpret Scrip ure de doctrina Christiana lib. 3. advising us how to interpret Scripture bids us beware how we take literally any thing that is spoken figuratively and figuratively any thing that is spoken literally And he therefore gives this Rule in way of caution If the thing saith he that is spoken be to the furtherance of Charity then it is a proper speech and no figure as when it commands any good or forbids any evil act then it is no figure but if it command any evil thing or forbid that that is good then it is a figurative speech Now this saying of Christ Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood ye have no life in you seems to enjoyn a hainous and vicked thing and therefore upon S. Austin's rule it is a figurative speech But I will not onely conclude it upon that general rule to be so But I will likewise for better clearing this truth â—t down the express opinions of the Fathers in this point The ancient Fathers agree that it was a figurative speech Irenaeus contr Valent. lib. 4. c. 32. â—aith Christ confessed bread which is creature to be his body and the cup to be his blood And in cap. 57. he â—â—ith that Christ taking bread of the â—ame sort that ours is of confessed that â—t was his body It was saith he maâ—erial bread and therefore a figurative â—peech Cyprian ad Magn. lib. 1. Epist 6. Christ called bread made of many corns and wine pressed out of many grapes his body and blood Cyril in Johan lib. 4. cap. 14. Christ gave to his disciples pieces of bread saying Take eat this is my body And herewith agree Austin de Trinit lib. 3. cap. 4. Theodoret. dialog 1. all concurring that when Christ took bread and wine and spake these words This is my body This is my blood that it was bread and wine which he gave and not any other substance And Origen in Levit. Hom. 7. declareth the eating and drinking of Christs flesh and blood to be figurative therefore saith he understand them as spiritual not as carnal men Tertul. contra Marcion lib. 1. calls bread broken by Christ a figure of his body and wine his blood because saith he in the Old Testament bread and wine were figures of his body and blood And Chrysostome upon Psal 22. saith that Christ ordained the Table of his holy Supper for this purpose that in that Sacrament he should shew unto us bread and wine for a similitude of his body and blood So that all agree it is a figurative speech S. Ambrose upon 1 Cor. 11. saith that in eating and drinking the bread and
wine we do signifie the flesh and blood which he offered for us And the Old Testament saith he was instituted in blood because that blood was a witness of Gods benefits in signification and figure whereof we take the mystical cup of his blood for the tuition of our body and soul he and many more concurring in judgement in this point that the Sacramental bread and wine are not corporally and really the natural substance of the flesh and blood of Christ but that they are similitudes significations figures and sâ—gnes of his body and blood and therefore be called and have the name of his flesh and blood and were but indeed tokens thereof and meant of a spiritual grace as Christ witnesses The words which he spake were spirit and life Joh. 6. It was bread which he took it was wine which he gave saying I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine till I drink it with you in my Fathers kingdom They were the elementary parts of the Sacrament signifying the spiritual substance of his body and blood And when he took the bread and the cup and said This is my body this is my blood it is manifest by what I have already spoken that that saying was a figurative speech To maintain that it was very flesh and very blood Christ gave to his disciples Bread and wide are the outward elements of the invisible grace doth utterly destroy the nature of a Sacrament both according to the Tenents of the Church of Rome and all other Churches concerning the nature of a Sacrament The Church of England holds that the bread and wine are but the outward visible signes of the inward spiritual grace And herewith agrees S. Austin in his definition of a Sacrament lib. 2. de doctr Christian Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum sensibile sanctificans nos S. Tho. part 3. quaest 60. art 3. says Tria significantur primuÌ„ causa effectiva nostrae sanctificationis scilicet Passionem Christi Hoc facite in mei commemorationem 1 Cor. 11. secundum causam formalem nostrae sanctificationis scil gratiam tertium cansam finalem quae est gloria Whereupon the Church hath this heavenly Song Oh sacred banquet in which Christ is received and the memory of his Passion recollected by which our mindes are filled with grace receiving a blessed pledge of future glory Hugo de Sancta Victoria part 1. cap. 1. Sacramentum è materiale elementum foris sensibus praepositum ex similitudine representans ex institutione significans ex sanctificatione continens aliquam invisibilem spiritualem gratiam And herewith agreeth S. Austin saying Sacramentum signum est quod praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus facit quicquid in cognitionem venire The Councel of Florens treating upon the Sacrament of Confirmation have resolved that all Sacraments must consist of matter and form there must be an outward signe to signifie the inward grace Wherefore I wonder that the Papists can for shame deny that the matter of bread and wine should remain in the Eucharist for by this means they deny it to be a Sacrament destroying the end of Christs holy institution which was That it should be had in remembrance of him And they generally gainsay the publike profession of their Church by the contradictory practices in private and particular Masses and Altar-Sacrifices And they likewise go against Christ who says This bread is my body He did not say This is no bread but my body And certainly if Christ would have had us to think the substance of the elements were changed he would not have called them bread and the fruit of the vine Nay he would not when he explained the words of giving his flesh to eat and his blood to drink have said his words were spirit and life And S. Paul therefore to witness this truth with the Church of England says The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ He thereby explaining Christs saying Hoc est corpus meum to be meant of a spiritual eating and of a communion of his body we being hereby made one with Christ he dwelling in us and we in him Besides when Christ bade them drink all of the Cup it was wine he bade them drink for the words of consecration follow And therefore if the Apostles drank any thing else they did not fulfil the precept or else Christ commanded them to drink that that was not there which were impious to imagine And as for the bread it is called bread after consecration for S. Paul calls bread the communion of Christs body which must needs be understood of bread consecrate otherwise it is not the communion of his body So that it is evident that the elements of bread and wine remain in the Sacrament and are not materially changed And this the Monks which administred to King John of England and to Henry the seventh the Emperour knew well enough which Princes the better to further the holy designes of the Pope were dispatched hence out of this world by the poysoned elements of the Eucharist which elements Christ ordained Sacramentally to be received for our nourishment thereby signifying our communion with Christ by the bread and wine made of many ears and many grapes and our growing up by faith in Jesus even as those elements turn into our flesh and blood by natural digestion so Christ is spiritually conveyed unto our souls which are fed by his flesh and blood which every faithful and worthy receiver is by the receiving of this Sacrament made partaker of The Doctor would perswade us fol. 327. that if by denying the bodily presence we mean onely not with accidents of his body as quantity figure and the like and that Christ is â—ot so bodily in the Sacrament but spiritually Then we agree with the Catholikes But then in the same leaf â—e would again perswade us that Christ cannot be really there unless his body be there and that it must be as well corporally as spiritually there or else we deny Christs being there To which I answer The errour of Transubstantiation We by maintaining a spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood do not divide the spirit from the body as the Church of Rome doth by maintaining a bodily presence because according to their doctrine the wicked receive the body and not the Spirit as I have already proved we by taking the bread and wine which tend to the nourishment of our outward bodies the thing signified by them to wit Christ Jesus is hereby conveyed unto us to be the food of our souls and becomes spirit and life to us he living in us and we in him and this is onely to the worthy receiver who by faith feeds upon him and lays hold of the benefits of his Passion The ungodly they onely receive the bread wine not discerning the Lords body And if the Church of Rome mean that his body is
in it one earthly another heavenly by the heavenly understanding the sanctification which cometh by the invocation of the name of God and by the earthly the substance of bread which doth nourish our bodies Shortly after Irenaeus was Origen about 200 yeers after Christ who affirms in Matth. cap. 15. that the material bread remains whose matter availeth nothing but goeth down into the belly and is voided downward but the Word spoke upon the bread is it that availeth Eusebius Emissaenus who wrote about 300 yeers after Christ de consecrat dist 2. says that outwardly was nothing changed all the change was inwardly As man made new in Baptism doth visibly remain in the same measure receiving a new inward without making any change in the outward man not seen not felt but believed so likewise when thou dost go up to the altar to receive the spiritual meat in thy faith look upon the body and blood of Christ and feed upon him with thy inward man By which it is plain that it is onely a spiritual change by faith not an outward and corporal change Epiphanius contra Haereses lib. 3. tom 2. The bread saith he is meat but the vertue that is in it giveth life Chrysostome who wrote about 420 yeers after Christ ad Caesarium Monachum The bread saith he before it is consecrate is called bread but after it is consecrate it is delivered from the name of bread and exalted to the name of the Lords body although the nature of the bread doth still remain S. Austin who lived about the same time in Sermone ad Infantes That which you see on the Altar is the bread and the cup which your eyes shew you is the wine but faith sheweth you that that bread is the body and that cup the blood of Christ Gelasius Bishop of Rome contra Eutichem Nestorium proving the Godhead and Humanity of Christ he enforceth it with two reasons the one drawn from the example of Man who being but one is made of two parts and hath two natures the Body and the Soul the other drawn from the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ which saith he is a godly thing and yet the nature of the bread and wine do not cease to be there still This was the opinion of the Fathers of those days and thus Transubstantiation is a new doctrine and no otherwise held the Church of Rome for a thousand yeers after Christ there being never so much as question made about this point for a thousand yeers compleat the time of Satans being let at large Apoc. 20. at which time by reason of some pretended miracles this doctrine was by the private opinion of some men set abroach which being once published it being the nature of evil weeds to spread and grow fast if once they get rooting in any garden it presently got abettors and champions to justifie it against all opposers some out of curiosity of Wit striving to blinde Truth with subtil reasons others out of dulness of apprehension God having withdrawn his Spirit from them were given up to this delusion so that in 60 yeers this new bantling wanted not foster-fathers to nourish it up to a greater and fuller growth A mongst the rest one Paschasius was one that first publikely maintained it and after him the Popes enclined to this opinion insomuch that Berengarius a French-man and Arch-deacon of Anjou opposing this Heresie was himself censured of that he urged against the then Pope of Rome and was the first that ever was questioned for maintaining against this doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Pope adhering to the adverse party which was for Transubstantiation Berengarius was forced to recant the Councel of Vorcellense held 1051. swaying against him which opinion of his he again resumed and did recognize the Truth again after that the then-Pope was dead which when Pope Nicolas 2. heard of he sent his busie agent and Cardinal-Chaplain Hildebrand into France to bring Berengerius under coram nobis who being sore troubled and molested and seeing by the faction of the Pope and Hildebrand that the current was against him through the treachery of a base timorous nature he suffered his noble parts his intellects to be clouded with the mists of the times errour and tamely did recant his former tenents and did therefore take an Oath never to oppose that doctrine of his Holiliness in this point of Transubstantiation And thus this doctrine began And although Pope Nicolas did avouch this doctrine in a Councel at Laterane held anno 1059. Ante chap. 14. and there framed the term of Transubstantiation yet notwithstanding this pretty Papal babe of Heresie was Christned and put forth to nurse yet nevertheless it grew not to be free and to bear rule till 1215. when Pope Innocent the third manumitted the stripling and by another Lateran-Councel did decree this doctrine as a point of Catholike Faith enjoyning all to the obedience thereof upon pain of Hetesie Johannes Scotus who was called Duns lib. 4. writing of this matter saith that the words of the Scripture might be expounded more easily and plainly without Transubstantiation but it pleased the Church to chuse this sense which is more hard being moved thereunto most chiefly because that of the Sacraments men ought to hold as the holy Church of Rome doth hold Which kinde of blinde obedience Blinde obedience makes the Popish Religion in no better condition then the State of Athens was whilst it was governed by the arbitrary power of a standing Legislative Councel which daily gave new Laws unto the people so that the people could not by any known Rule say their clothes were their own all the Law by which they derived any property being under an arbitrary power insomuch that as they were not secure by walking after any known Law so neither was it safe for them to rely upon such new Laws as the Councel it self proposed the Councel altering every day her own Laws as time administred occasion for self-advantage so that Athens was in a miserable condition during this slavery of her Legislative power not dissolvable by any Authority the people not having liberty to dissolve it and to call as occasion shall require a Councel to redress grievances and not otherwise to continue but to be dissolved that so in the intervals they might know what Law stood good and unalterable amongst them Even so stands the Religion of the Papists Now that the Pope is declared above Councels and that he may continually prescribe Rules of Faith by vertue thereof their Religion is a meer nose of wax alterable at his will and pleasure who has a faithful tribe of Ignations which will blandish his new doctrines and make the people believe they are but growings in faith whenas they are diametrically opposite to the Catholike Faith of the Primitive Church but if it stand for conveniency or advantage to the Pope and his creatures it must be believed
and therefore I have adventured to lay open the Eâ—ors of his choyce which if he please to consider seriously I may win him again to his proper Sheepfold from whence he is gone astray how ever I hope I shall by the blessing of God hinder others from wandering after him and shall be a means to make up that gap which the Doctor hath made in the pale of our Church which whilest it lay open administred occasion for some to escape into the Wilderness Wherefore I will not hold the Reader longer in suspence with a dilatory Introduction but will briefly shew that the Doctor is not gone to the Catholique Church which is the main thing he perswades though it be obscurely wrapt in general terms in his first Chapter but that he has forsaken the faith once given to the Saints he has gone away from the puâ—e Fountain of Verity to the puddle of Error he has forsaken the living water and chosen the Romish cisterns digged by mens hands which hold no water CHAP. II. That the Roman Church is not the Catholique Church either in respect of the Vniversality of her Doctrine or any Jurisdiction she can claim from Peter or by the consent of the Primitive Churches and that the Pope is not the governing Head of the Catholique Church THe Church is called Catholique in several respects 1. In respect of places as being spread universally through the whole world and is not tyed to any place or Kingdom 2. In respect of Times because but one Church of all Times it having ever been from the beginning of the World and shall continue on Earth till the end thereof Isai 59.21 and Matth. 28. the Church of both Testaments being one and the same 3. In respect of the Collective Body thereof the Catholique Church being gathered of men of both Testaments and the Communion of Saints being the union and coherence of all the Saints in Christ their Head according to that of Paul Ephes 1.10 That he might gather together in one all things both which are in Heaven and which are in Earth even into Christ who is and ever shall be King and Head thereof And generally when we speak of the Catholique Church this Collective Church is to be understood which appellation Catholique was used by the Apostles before ever Rome was a Church So that neither in respect of Place Time or Catholiqueness may Rome justly challenge the onely Title of Catholique she being but a particular part or member of this Catholique Church we the Saints being the Body and Members for our part Eph. 1.22 But for the better illustration of this Point I will examine the Doctors Arguments in particular concerning Romes Catholiqueship and I shall in so doing more plainly disprove her Title thereunto The word Catholique as it is defined by the Doctor is not a word of Belief onely but of Communion also So that that Church which holds the same Belief with the ancient Church and yet doth not communicate with her may not rightly be called Catholique I shall retort this Argument which he intended against the Protestants and prove it to be their Justification and the Church of Romes own Condemnation Catholique as I said in a general sence comprehendeth all the Elect and is the full Body of Christ that filleth all things in all things Eph. 4. And when we in our Creed say We beleeve in the Holy Catholique Church it is understood of all the Elect of God which have been are or shall be of which the Church-Militant on Earth is but part But because I suppose the Doctor means onely of a Church upon Earth I will therefore insist upon his own definition and treat of the Church upon Earth which as it is universally spred over the Earth by the Apostles who had equal commission to teach all Nations no one particular Church can or ought to claim to be the Catholique or Universal Church upon Earth As for the Distinction which the Doctor makes betwixt Doctrine and Discipline thereby to excuse the unproper stile of Roman Catholique That is says he Catholique in respect of Doctrine Roman in respect of Discipline That will no ways strengthen her claim or clear her incongruous Title He doth but thereby shew the World how distinct her Discipline is from her Doctrine and thereby give occasion to the world to suspect both And upon this score may the Presbyterian Church of Geneva be called the Geneva Catholique Church that is Geneva for Discipline Catholique for Doctrine she professing the Catholique Faith of the holy and blessed Trinity and yet the Church of Rome I perswade my self would think much that such a glorious appellation should be given to such an upstart Youngling that wind-egg of a Tumult Geneva Church which being braddened under a Toad of France is become a staring Cockatrice and thinks to center the World within the compass of his contagious Den darting poyson upon whom he first espies as experience tells us how he glancing upon the poor Scot has given him such a deadly wound that he will scarce ever recover it teaching those that have escaped that plague with the Wesel each morning to bite on Rue which says Avicen secures her against the toxicating of that venomous Basilisk I say if the Church of Rome think much that the Geneva Church should arrogate such a glorious stile let her never stand upon her own Title which is equally weak to challenge the same The Doctor proceeds further upon Romes Tiâ—le to her Catholiqueship and gives a further explication of the same Catholique says the Doctor imports both the vast extention of Doctrine to Persons and Places and the union of all these places in communion It cannot be denyed but that there were other Churches of ancienter and more reverend setlement then the Church of Rome as the Churches in the East as Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus c. and in after-times the Gospel was to be carryed before Kings and to the Gentiles by S. Paul being by Jesus ordained a Minister and an Apostle of the Gentiles amongst whom Rome was then a chief City which as she received the Faith by S. Paul or S. Peter cannot properly be called a Mother Church but as a babe and suckling received the sincere milk of the Word She was one of the places to which the Doctrine of the Catholique Church of Christ was extended but no extender of that Doctrine So that by the Doctors own definition she cannot properly be called the Catholique Church she being in her Institution but a private particular Member of the Catholique Church as Englands or any other Church planted by the Embassadors of Christ And if since by the indulgent favors of her nursing Fathers the Christian Princes she has grown to that maturity that she has many Daughter Churches of her own plantation in the dark corners of the old known and the new discovered parts of the World yet she cannot by reason thereof assume to her self any
or if the Popes genius cannot see far enough to advance the Papal Throne they will in his name and by his authority make Scriptures Infra 12 Chap. Councils and Fathers noses of wax make the dead Fathers speak things they never thought or uttered and put new faces upon the old Fathers and Councils As for example S. Fathers Councils a bused by the Popes Parasites Austin de civitate Dei lib. 15. cap. 23. speaking of Canonical Scripture says Those Scriptures are to be taken for Canonical which the most part of the Christian churches so take amongst which those Churches be that deserve to have Apostolike Sees and to receive Epistles from the Apostles the word Sees is turned into See as I have already alleadged Ante Ch. 2 The sixth canon of the first Council of Nice which made Rome equal with Alexandria is corrupted and fifty false canons are added to the twenty canons of the same Council and the Jesuites would hereby perswade the world that his Holiness supremacie which was shortened by the Fathers of the Nicene Council being alive is enlarged by his Holiness they being dead and contrary that Council his Holiness gives leave to Abbots to consecrate Bishops which Abbots are not quatenus Abbots infra sacros ordines and contrary to the fifth canon he absolveth those that are excommunicated by other Bishops Contrary to the sixth canon he invades the Diocesses of other Patriarchs which Eutiches condemned in the Council of Chalcedon He believeth that Christ hath a body neither solid nor palpable nor like to ours for such is that transubstantiated body he maintains to be in the Sacrament He has further abused the Fathers of the Chalcedon Council who being alive said Let the See of Constantinople be as well advanced as the See of Rome being the next unto it which words are filthily corrupted by a negative added to the last words Let her not be advanced in matters Ecclesiastical as she let her be the next unto it So in like manner he hath abused the eight and twentieth canon of the Council of Carthage speaking how the Churches of Africa should not appeal beyond seas he has added this clause Vnless it be to the See of Rome I might instance a thousand more of the like nature but these particulars may serve to give a light unto their dark proceedings Hercules is known by his foot and by this brief epitome of the Church of Rome's tricks and juglings for note Reader where thorowout the Book I name the Pope I thereby generally understand the Church of Rome with Fathers and Councils you may ghess what multitudes of errours and wrongs she daily commits not making conscience to abuse the dead Fathers which were they alive could not think much at it because the dictates of the holy Ghost the Scripture it self is not free from his abuses in points that contradict his new profitable tenents and to make the Rules of Councels stand upon new pantables which his Holiness has shod them with to make them tread Papal measures in To this pass are general Councels come those of old speak new language those of later times teach things contrary to the old nor are these modern Councels free in their Constitutions every member thereof must be engaged by Oath to maintain the Pope in his new-usurped priviledges and should they freely debate and decree any thing yet it is to no purpose being subject to alteration controlment or denial of his Holiness and therefore since they are brought to this pass who will give ear to their Edicts or honour them as a Representative of several Churches united in that body sith thus by the practice of the Church of Rome general Councels are brought into this servile condition and made subordito the Pope it behoves Provincials to reform themselves and to call Provincial councils to that purpose and no longer to expect the decision of Controversies from a General Council which is thus made servile to the Pope to decree to please the people but in no ways to displease the Pope Sith then General Councils are brought to this pass I say it behoves Provincials as they tender the purity of doctrine delivered by Christ and the dictates of the holy Ghost by the mouth of the Apostles to be preserved in the several Churches of Christ without being perverted to please the humours of men To cast off these wicked designers of the Churches slavery and introducers of errour and innovation and to desire the assistance of the holy Spirit of God to direct them in their own respective Provincial Councils which they may by the example of the Primitive Churches and by authority of the first Councils lawfully convene without any Rule or Order from the See of Rome for their so doing and no longer unless those things may be amended and that they have sufficient assurance thereof from the See of Rome to appeal to any General Councels called by the Pope CHAP. XI That there may be Provincial Councils called without the Popes approbation which councils have power to reform Schisms and Heresies and may enjoyn Rules of Faith which the people by the consent of the civil Magistrate are bound to obey and especially that the church of England hath this power THat the Metropolitanes of distinct Provinces have power to call Councils for reformation of any Schisms or decision of any Questions or Doubts in Religion it was the practice of the Primitive Churches and if the Pope of Rome have any preeminence of Jurisdiction in order to Councils it was but derived from the power of Councels as I have proved before and therefore the same power giving authority to other Provincials to call Councils they are not debarred of this priviledge by any Order or Decree of the Church of Rome they not being under her jurisdiction or power especially those Provincials which were not by Suffragans represented in the late Laterane and Trent-Councils which gave this supremacy over Councils to the Pope And that this was granted to all Metropolitanes of distinct Provinces may appear by these ensuing presidents and warrants so to do By the General Councils of Chalcedon the 19 Canon it is decreed Quod oporteat per Provinciales bis in anno Concilia celebrare and this is likewise agreed by the Council of Antioch can 20. and by the first Council of Nice and by the the 18 Canon of the Council of Antioch that one Bishop should not meddle in the Diocess of another and herewith agrees the first Council of Constantinople Can. 2. Provincial Councils and several Provincials to meet in one with out the Popes approbation By the Council of Carthage Can. 19. if any difference arose it was to be referred to the Metropolitan of the Province who should call the Bishops of his Province together and if they could not resolve the doubt it was to be transmitted to a General Council and if any party thought himself agrieved at
the Fathers and the example of former ages we shall persist to affirm That the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation That those points necessary are plain and easie and That the Laytie may read the Scriptures And for any blemishes which the Doctor would in this particular have thrown upon our Church I hope it is but dust thrown against the winde and is flown back into his own eyes I wish the Scriptures received no more injury by the Church of Rome then it doth from our Church but that is manifest to the contrary as may appear by that which here next follows The Doctor in his Book fol. 229. Scriptures abused by the Church of Rome reckons up a great number of corruptions and errours crept into our Translations but named not any onely cites one Broughton for his author I must confess it was wisely put off for should he have named them they would have appeared to have been different from the Rhemish Translation but not dissonant from the ancient Copies and so he would in stead of faulting ours have censured their own Translations Yet he craftily imagining that those 848 corrupted places should be believed to be so if he could instance any he names four in his 22 Chapter 1. Answer to the mistranslations we are taxwith He brings in Beza and Luthers Translations adding the word onely in Rom. 3.28 And this he would have to be an errour of our Church He might as well tax Rome as England for this fault for the Church of England doth not adde that word in her Bibles which are printed by authority and by direction of the Church enjoyned to be read nor is the word to be found in Fulk and Rhemes those two quarrellers each with other Wherefore I must needs wonder that the Doctor should be so injurious to us to bring false accusations against us 2. The second place which the Doctor alleadges to be a mis-translation in our Bibles is 2 Pet. 1.10 Giving diligence by good works to make your calling and election sure He charges us with corruption for leaving out these words by good works This I must confess is different from the Rhemish Translation but I rather suspect that that Translation is to be faulted not ours for Rome to maintain her doctrine of Merits by which she cozens poor silly souls and to enrich her Clergie cheats them of what they have has added these words And I am the rather induced hereunto for that I have seen an ancienter Bible then the days of Luther and it has them not in and Erasmus his Translation has them not in So that as the Negro's blame all that 's white in others because nothing to them is more comely then their own tawny black so the Doctor quarrels against our Translation because of its innocency it is not besmeared with Romes new adulterate alterations and therefore not in fashion or to be approved and upon this score I may say the Doctor was modest that taxed us with no more then four For he might as well have named the 848. if all must be censured for corruptions wherein we differ from the Rhemish translations But let the Church of Rome remember Saint Pauls rule to the Corinthians 2 Epist 13.5 Prove your selves whether ye be in the faith Saint Paul 1 Cor. 9.27 beat down his body and put it subjection lest while he preached to others he himself might be reproved Wherefore let Rome examine the ancient Copies and try if she find those words there and till then let her forbear to tax us of error who in this follow antiquity and so upon the old rule Id verum est quod prius id adulterum quod posterius Tertul. adversus prax in prim part 3. The third errour he taxes us with is In putting and for or in the 1 Cor. 11.27 which he himself to excuse Rome of perverting the Scripture she being taxed in this very particular in another place she putting or for and and thereby to prove communion in one kind affirms that et is often rendred or and if so it may as well be taken so out of the English as out of any other tongue But I referr the reader to a fuller answer of this objection in the sixteenth Chapter 4. His fourth objection is the 15 verse of the 2 of Saint Peter 1. I will do my diligence you to have often in remembrance after my decease The English translation reads it thus I will endeavor that you may be able after my decease to have these things in remembrance For this we likewise appeal to any translation which was before the second councel of Nice and many of their own translators long after that councel did render it post exitum non post obitum Peter being to go to his See at Antioch in Syria writes to the Saints that dwell in Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia that after his departure they should strive to have in memory to make their calling and Election sure of which in the 12 verse he says He would not be negligent to put them in remembrance Now how can this be interpreted that after his decease he should put them in remembrance unless he should come againe unto them it must therefore be interpreted of his departing from amongst them to Antioch and that he would send to them to put them in mind knowing that his end drew neer when he could not and therfore says the text he would use all diligence to put them in mind Now how he should put them in mind after his decease is to expect that Peter shall not rest from his labors as if he were not dead in the Lord which is unchristian to think wherefore I submit this to the learned in the Hebrew tongue to illustrate this further to weaker capacities if there be any occasion of scruple in our translation which for my part I conceive that taking that verse with the sense of the former our translation is more genuine and carries more of integrity then that of Rhemes The Bishops of Rome having by the politick practices of their predecessors and by the unworthy complottings of the Cardinals who being in hopes to ascend the Papal Throne themselves care not what dominion and Lordship they ascribe unto the Pontifical seat gained a superiority over Kings and Councels controlling the one and ordering the other as they please did daily consult not only how to preserve what they have though their possession be utterly unjust but likewise continually study to enlarge if possible this their pomp and dignity For their ambitious minds not satisfied with these large acquisitions thinking them but an earthly soveraignty too narrow for their large souls to strut in they would perswade the world that the Pope is an angel or more and hath Commission from heaven and is sent from thence to possess the chaire and tanquam à Tripode to deliver new oracles upon earth Thus wisely casting with themselves
his One and twentieth Chapter fol. 323. calls the Protestants startling at the Romish doctrine concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Supper a Prodigie of Opinions And he musters up several Tenents concerning the same which being various in themselves and contradictory each to other I wonder he should offer them against any particular Church especially the Church of England against whom I suppose his darts are by this intended for that elsewhere fol. 259. he speaking of Protestants offers grounds of converting to them again which must needs be intended to the Church of England from whence he is gone which he in this particular goes about to tax her of Error Wherefore I made bold to recapitulate these ensuing Truths professed by her and which she assumes to maintain against the Errours and Innovations of Rome touching this Sacrament wherein my desire is rather to clear her from all malicious dirt by Satans instruments thrown upon her then that I should by this means lay open the failings of the Doctor or his ingratitude to his Mother-Church The Church of England doth maintain That Christs body is given received and eaten after an heavenly and spiritual not after a carnal and corporal manner and doth utterly disallow of the new doctrine of Romes Transubstantiation not condemning it as new in respect of the Word but as it is a doctrine and practice in it self varying from what Christ his Apostles or the Primitive Churches taught and contrary to what the Church of Rome has formerly maintained for that it is a meer novelty through the corruption of later times and by covetous and ambitious Popes for self-interest obtruded upon the people making them believe a real transubstantiated presence by the Priests consecration and by him offered up for the sins of the people that so the people giving money to the Clergie they may buy Masses and Sacrifices for their sins and for the sins of others as well quick as dead Against which impious practice and vain assertions I will for the satisfying of some doubting and others deluded in opinion offer these professions of the English Church to their serious consideration The Church of England teacheth 1. Christ is spiritually eaten That Christ is not in the bread and wine but onely to such as worthily eat drink them That as Christ is a spiritual meat so he is spiritually eaten and digested with the spiritual part of us by faith And for this her doctrine she has warrant from Christ himself who speaking of the bread of life which came down from heaven and the bread which he would give them which was his flesh Joh. 6.51 the Jews and many of his disciples were offended saying How can he give us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink Christ perceiving their murmuring that they should not remain in ignorance explains it to them saying What if you see the Son of man ascend up where he was before It is the Spirit that giveth life and flesh availeth nothing The words which I speak unto you are spirit and life Which is a manifest clearing how the flesh is to be eaten and how the blood to be drunk that is after a spiritual manner and so Abraham and many others did eat him many yeers before he was born of the Virgin according as S. Paul witnesses 1 Cor. 10. They did eat the same spiritual meat and drank the same spiritual drink that is to say Christ For to eat that meat and drink that drink is to have Christ dwelling in us The wicked do not eat the body and we in Christ which must needs be understood of worthy receivers and not of the ungodly in whom Christ cannot be said to dwell it must needs be understood of one that truly believing feeds upon Christ in his heart and the wicked unbelieving sinner he receiveth onely the bread and wine not discerning the Lords body Saint Paul witnesseth this truth 1 Cor. 11. He that eateth of this bread and drinketh of this cup unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ He saith not He that eateth and drinketh the body and blood for none but a worthy receiver doth that Nor doth this doctrine deny any to receive unworthily as the Doctor fol. 328. would perswade us because saith he such onely receive bread and wine and not the Lords body But it rather serveth to condemn their errours who would perswade that the wicked receive very Christ and so none should be guilty because whoso verily eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood hath everlasting life Therefore the Church of England is careful to avoid this error and maintains according to Christ his explanation that Christ is onely spiritually given received and eaten and that those onely that believe in Christ eat him and live by him and that every one eating that bread according to Christs institution and Ordinance is assured by Christs own promise and testament that he is a member of his body and receives the benefit of his passion and likewise be that drinks of that cup according to Christs institution is certified that he is made partaker of Christ his legacie his blood which was shed for remission of sins Whereas the unworthy receiver coming to this divine Ordinance without due reverence and a lively faith eateth and drinketh his own damnation for that he receiveth that bread and that wine unworthily which ought with faith to have been received believing that as that bread and wine nourish the outward man so Christ is thereby conveyed to the nourishment of the inner man and so Christ is in him and he in Christ And by thus receiving is the saying of Christ in Joh. 6. My flesh is very meat and my blood is very drink to be understood for none but the faithful are partakers of this heavenly banquet Christ is the bread of life he that eateth that bread shall live for ever which must be by faith in the Son of God Gal. 2. It must needs be understood of a mystical and not a real eating that even as the bread and wine which we receive is turned into our flesh and blood and is so joyned and mixed together with our flesh and blood that they be made one body together so be all faithful Christians spiritually turned into the body of Christ and be so joyned unto Christ and also together amongst themselves that they do but make one mystical body of Christ as S. Paul 1 Cor. 10. We be one bread and one body as many as be partakers of one bread and one cup. The wicked are not partakers of this banquet but onely the members of Christ therefore none verily eat the flesh and drink the blood but the believers It is not like the eating of Manna both good and bad ate that saith our Saviour Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness and are dead but he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever which must be by faith and in heart believing unto
Commandment is drawn from the example of Christs precept who himself gave the Cup as well as the Bread and bade them drink as well as eat the one being the outward element to signifie his flesh the other his blood and Christ having said Vnless ye eat the flesh and drink the blood ye have no life in you it follows of necessity and in obedience to the precept that both be given that both be received Wherefore the Doctor might well have spared his twit against the Protestants who do not by that place of John â—â—derstand bare faith as he saith without the outward elements fol. 340. but they do thereby understand the holy Sacrament of Christs body and blood which by the receiving of those outward elements according to Christs institution and the operation of faith is conveyed to the spiritual nourishment of the soul Such weak objections as these against the Protestants gives occasion to the world to suspect the Doctor did not understand the Protestant Religion and that his going to the Romish Church proceeded of ignorance and if so he is less to be blamed for chusing Rome for his Mother Church for unless she reform he may according to such humour be shaddowed under her wing and spend the rest of his dayes in blind obedience and make his own ignorance mother of his devotion The Doctor would perswade that these words import no precept because in respect Christ intended to injoyn no more but the substance to wit really to receive his body and blood which sayes he fol. 341. may be done under one kind 'T is a strange presumption to argue this against the express words of Christ and Saint Paul Do this drink of this Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood c Which certainly they would never have practised according to these words had it been needless to receive the Cup as well as the Bread whenas they are thereby made all to drink into one Spirit 1 Cor. 12.13 Plutarch reports that Pericles had such skill in wrastling that though he received a fall he would perswade the standers by and the wrastler that cast him that he himself was the Conqueror and such art doth the Doctor use in denying this to be a precept and yet beside the overthrows that Christ and Saint Paul have given him he has crossed legs with himself and given himself the fall So fol. 338. he sayes the Priests receive in both kinds because they offer a sacrifice upon the Cross which sayes he is not perfect without that and if that be not a perfect sacrifice of Christ that suffered without the Cup I desire to know how it came to pass to be a perfect Transubstantion of perfect Christ in the Cake onely to the people and not to the Priest unless he will confess the people receive nor the same body the Priest doth offer I for my part know not how this should be and desire to be better informed herein otherwise to persist to maintain the Cup to be necessarily given to the people We do not when we receive his flesh by the Bread and his blood by the Wine receive dead Christ as the Doctor would infer fol. 342. because we separate the blood from the flesh for this were to tax Christ of giving and the Apostles of receiving dead Christ which is gross and impious Besides he himself has answered himself as to that objection fol. 338. for saith he the Priest receiving under both doth not receive two Sacraments because the Sacrament is essentially and entirely contained under either kind and being received both at once they make but one refection signifying one thing and producing one effect no more saith he then 6 or 7 dishes of meat make but one dinner Now as the Priest doth not divide the flesh and blood and receive two Sacraments no more do we and if the Doctor would have advisedly considered with himself when he taxed us in this he might easily have perceived that he did through our sides wound Christ and his Apostles nay the Church of Rome it self for that she administred and her people received in both kinds and after the same manner and unless he can shew stronger reasons then these for her change the Church of England desires her not to censure too severely of her for not conforming with her for that she is not easily induced to forsake the practice of Christ and his Apostles and for that the Sacrament is to be administred in remembrance of Christ she conceives we ought not to forget the manner of Christs institution were there no precept for it but especially sith we are enjoyned so to do we desire to drink the blood and to eat the flesh that we may have eternal life thereby We must drink his blood Eating and drinking as well as eat his flesh and although as the Doctor affirms admitting Transubstantiation we may be said to drink that that is drinkable and eat that that is eatable yet we are to remember the end for which we are commanded to drink that blood which is in remembrance that Christs blood was shed This Cup is my blood in the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins Matth. 26.28 And Saint Paul witnessing that it was Christs will it should be drunk in remembrance thereof 1 Cor. 11. which cannot be properly signified in the Cake there being no outward Element to represent the shedding of Christr blood and precious price of our redemption and for which end this Sacrament was ordained Besides Christ calls himself the Vine as well as the Bread and we hereby become Branches lively growing and budding upon our ever-living Root Christ Jesus whose holy institution whilst we follow and reject any other rule of humane institution we may truly say We bear not the Root but the Root beareth us Rom. 11.18 The Doctor 3. And taken for or by the Doctors construction to avoid the precept of Christ in relation to the Cup takes upon him to construe and for or Joh. 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood he reads it or drink the blood ye have no life in you And this he would have done for avoiding of contradiction because that in the same Chapter eternal life is promised to them that eat onely To which I answer The Bread is not Sacramentally so often in Scripture mentioned alone as it is with the Cup joyntly wherefore if avoiding contradiction be the reason then must we not admit or for and in that of John and 1 Cor. 11.27 For if so then we contradict 1 Cor. 10. Our Fathers did eat the same spiritual meat and drink the same spiritual drink Saint Cyprian lib. 2. Epist 3. sayes this was prefigured by the bread and wine which Melchizedek gave to Abraham Gen. 14. and likewise that text of the 1 Cor. 11.28 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat and drink c. And we further do hereby contradict all