and the day on which God began the creation of euerie thing The first obiection We christians obseruing the first day after the sabboth which we call sunday are charged odiously with superstition by the wicked Anabaptists and they proue it by S. Paul who forbiddeth the difference of dayes in the Christian Church vppon which prohibition it followeth that it is as vnlawfull to keepe the first day as the seauenth The answere I answere that the Apostle exclaimeth not against euerie difference of dayes simply but against that sole and onely difference which is obserued with opinion of necessitie or worship After which manner our christian sabboth or sunday is not obserued For first in the old testament the old sabboth was a figure of things to be accomplished by Christ yet in the new testament the new sabboth hath not that signification but is onely obserued for decencie and comely order sake without which the ministerie of the word either cannot be at all or at least not so conueniently Secondly the Iewes obserued their sabboth of the seauenth day as a part of Gods diuine worship neither was it lawfull for them to change and alter the same but we christians who abhorre Iudaisme indeede keepe our sabboth day not as a part of Gods worship but for ciuill order sake not with opinion of necessitie but with such christian freedome as we confesse it may be changed into another day And because this libertie granted to the Christian church is not sufficiently vnderstood of many whereof some be otherwise well learned I purpose in God to proue the same effectually First by the holy scriptures secondly by the iudgement of antiquitie thirdly by the latter writers Touching the scriptures my first reason shall be affirmatiue my second shall bee negatiue the affirmatiue is this whatsoeuer is abolished doth not binde vs christians but the lawe of Moses is abolished therefore it doth not bind vs. The argument is in forme The proposition is euident because an obligation cancelled is not of force And the assumption wherein resteth the difficultie if there be any at all is proued by S. Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews where he auoucheth expressely y t the law must perforce be changed with the priesthood Neither wil it help to say that we keepe a day different from the Iewes marke well my words gentl reader bicause if we keep our day with necessitie of the day so as it may not be altered into another day then such our obseruation of dayes is reproued to the Colossians and is become a flat ceremony of the Iewish law For this strict point tempori obligari to be tied to determined time is that only circumstance or ceremonie wherein the Iewish sabbaoth differeth from ours Which point I hope wil shortly be more euident My negatiue reson is this No text of holy scripture either in the olde or new testament can be alledged which commandeth to keep our christian sabbaoth eyther vpon the first day or vpon any other determinate day therfore it remaineth in the libertie of the church to change that day as the circumstances of times places persons shal require The consequence is good and so the consequent ought not to be denied for whatsoeuer is not commanded by the holy scriptures but appointed by the law of man all that may be altered euen by the law of man The antecedent I prooue sundry wayes first because the places of scripture cited for this purpose neyther do nor can prooue any such thing For the Apostle to the Corinthians willes only that collections be made for the poore when the congregation is assembled on some sabboth day But he neither commandeth christians to obserue the first day after the sabbaoth neyther yet doth he affirme that christians then kept their assemblies vpon that day Yea the learned and zealous writer maister Caluin denieth flatly that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth either signifie the first day of the sabaoths or the sunday He opposeth himselfe against the patrones of that opinion and saith flatly that the apostles did at that time keepe the Iewish sabbaoth And that of the Reuelation prooueth nothing else but that S. Iohn had his reuelation vpon the day of our Lords resurrection But saint Iohn neither saith that christians must obserue that day for their sabbaoth neyther yet that the Apostles kept the same Which thing both Petrus Martir and Erasmus doe willingly grant Yea Erasmus auoucheth that the christian Penticost was not yet ordayned And therefore doeth he by Penticost in that place vnderstand saint Paules abode at Ephesus to be 50 dayes Caluine and Martir vnderstand the Iewish penticost properly bicause the christian penticost was not yet appointed I proue it secondly bicause if the determination of the christian sabaoth had bin set downe in the scripturs and appointed by the apostles then would there not haue beene such controuersie about that matter as was in the est and west Churches long after the Apostles time which thing I haue shewed at large in my booke of Motiues Thirdly if it were granted which can neuer be proued that the Apostles then kept the sabboth vpon the first day yet would it not follow that christians must of necessitie this day obserue the same which I will make good by sundry important reasons First because our sauiour Christ in the verie institution of the sacrament of his body and bloud did minister the same after supper and yet are not wee tied to that practise but do it before dinner Now since the practise of Christ himselfe doth not make a law to be kept of necessity much lesse can the practise of his disciples impose such a law vppon vs. Therefore if it be graunted that the Apostles kept their sabboth vpon the first of the weeke as this day wee obserue and that very laudably yet may wee for our christian liberty alter the day and keep it vpon another Secondly because Christ celebrated the holy communion of his body and bloud in sweete and vnleauened bread and yet notwithstanding that practise the Greeke church did euer and wee our selues in these dayes vse leauened bread euen so may we keepe our sabaoth vpon Tuesday or vpon some other day if it so seeme good to the church albeit the Apostles kept it vpon the munday Thirdly because the Apostles and the whole church in their time decreed to absteine from eating of bloud and yet doe we this day without scruple of conscience eate the same If answere be made that this decree was not a perpetuall law I replie directly that much lesse doeth their practise binde the church for euer to a strict ceremonie of the Iewes Fourthly because wee may iustly bee accused of that superstition wherewith the Apostle charged the Colossians and Galatians and so the Anabaptists shall haue their intended purpose My second proofe is this Socrates a famous writer who liued aboue 1150. yeares sithence hath
like worthie for that communion not as it was in the olde lawe where the priest ate one part and the people another neither coulde the people be permitted to take part of that that the priest ate For nowe it is not so but to all is proposed one bodie and one cuppe Out of these golden words I note first that the difference in communion is a Iudaicall ceremonie from which Christs death deliuered vs. I note secondly that in the christian communion the common people ought to be as free as the minister I note thirdly that it was so in Saint Chrysostomes time when the people receiued vnder both kinds I note fourthly that the pope hath brought vs into greater bondage then euer were the Iewes S. Ignatius hath these wordes Vna est caro domini Iesu vnus eius sanguis qui pro nobis effusus est vnus etiam panis pro omnibus confractus vnus calix totius ecclesiae There is one flesh of our Lord Iesus one blood which was shed for vs one bread also broken for all and one cuppe of the whole church Saint Iustine hath these wordes Praesidens vero postquam gratiarum actionem perfecit populus vniuersus apprecatione laeta eum comprobauit qui apud nos vocantur diaconi atquo ministri distribuunt vnicuique praesentium vt participet eum in quo gratiae actae sunt panem vinum aquam After the chiefe pastour hath finished the giuing of thankes and all the people haue with ioyfull prayer approoued the same they that we cal Deacons and Ministers do distribute to euery one that is present the sanctified bread wine and water to be partaker thereof Yea the said Iustinus a little after addeth these important wordes Nam apostoli in commentarijs à se scriptis quae euangelia vocantur ita tradiderunt praecepisse sibi Iesum For the apostles in their commentaries that is in the gospelles haue taught vs that Iesus so commaunded them to minister the holie communion Where note by the way that Christ did not onelie ordaine both kindes but he also gaue commaundement to retaine the same in the church For which cause saint Paul teaching the Corinthians to communicate vnder both kinds said that he receiued that form maner from the Lord. S. Austen hath these words Cum Dom. dicat nisi manducaueritis carnem meam biberitis meum sanguinem non habebitis vitam in vobis quid sibi vult quod à sanguine sacrificiorum quae pro peccatis offerebantur tantopere populus prohibetur si illis sacrificijs vnum hoc sacrificium significabatur in quo vera sit remissio peccatorum à cuius tamen sacrificij sanguine in alimentum sumendo noÌ„ solum nemo prohibetur sed ad bibendum potius omnes exhortaÌ„tur qui volunt habere vitam When our Lord saith vnles ye shal eate my flesh and drinke my blood ye shal haue no life in you what meaneth it that the people is so greatly forbidden the blood of sacrifices which was offered for sins if in those sacrifices this onely sacrifice was signified in which there is true remission of sins From y e blood of which sacrifice for al that to be takeÌ„ for nourishment not only none is prohibited but al rather are exhorted to drinke it that desire to haue life S. Ambrose at such time as the emperour Theodosius after his great slaughter of men at Thessalonica desired to enter into the church at Millan and there to be partaker of the holie eucharist spoke these words vnto him Quî quaeso manus iniusta caede sanguine respersas extendere audes eisdem sacrosanctum corpus domini accipere aut quomodo venerandum eius sanguinem ori admouebis qui furore irae iubente tantum sanguinis tam iniquè effudisti How I pray thee darest thou stretch out thy hands sprinckled with vniust slaughter and blood and to take the holie bodie of our Lord in the same Or how wilt thou touch thy mouth with his venerable blood who to satisfy thy fury hast shed so much bloud so vnworthily Gregorius magnus their owne bishop of Rome confirmeth this veritie in these words Eius quippe ibi corpus sumitur eius caro in populi salutem partitur eius sanguis non iam in manus infidelium sed in ora fidelium funditur For his bodie is there receiued his flesh is diuided for the saluation of the people his bloud is now powred not into the handes of infidels but into the mouthes of the faithfull What need many words Their owne Gelasius in their owne canon law condemneth their fact as flat sacrilege These be his words Aut integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceaÌ„tur quia diuisio vnius eiusdeÌ„que mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest peruenire Either let them participate the whole sacraments or els let them abstain from the whole bicause the diuision of one and the same sacrament cannot be done without great sacrilege The first obiection The commaundement to receiue in both kinds was onelie giuen to the twelue apostles and in them to all priestes for they onely were present when Christ spâ—ke these wordes Drinke ye all of this The answer I say first that if the commaundement pertained onelie to the apostles then are priests aswell as clarkes free from the same I say secondly that the commandement was giuen of both kindes in one and the selfe same maner and therefore the lay people are as free from the one as the from the other I say thirdly that by the common opinion of the papists they were lay people that receiued the communion at Christs handes in his supper For the apostles were vnpriested vntil after his resurrection when hee saide Receiue ye the holy ghost I say fourthly with S. Bernard that the participation of both kinds was commaunded by Christ in the first institution thereof for thus doth he write Nam de sacramento quidem corporis sanguinis sui nemo est qui nesciat hanc quoque tantam tam singularem alimoniam eâ primùm die exhibitam eâ die commendatam mandatam deinceps frequentari For concerning the sacrament of his body and bloud euery one knoweth that this such and so singular nourishment was exhibited that day the first that day commended and commaunded afterward to be frequented This commandement S. Cyprian and saint Iustine vrge for both kindes their words already are set downe I say fiftly that S. Paul who knew Christs minde aswell as any papist did communicate the vnpriested Corinthians vnder both kinds and told them that Christ had so appointed The replie S. Paul only recited Christs institution saith our Iesuite Bellarmine but gaue no commaundement for both kindes but left it as he found it indifferent and in the free choise of the Corinthians to communicate in both or in one only kind The answere I say
first that howsoeuer sundry of you admire your Iesuites whom I willingly confesse to be learned wishing they would vse their learning to Gods glorie yet cannot wise men be carried away with ipse dixit as if they were become disciples of Pythagoras I say secoÌ„dly that S. Pauls own words confute your Iesuite sufficiently For first he saith that he deliuered euen that which he receiued Againe he reciteth the precept aswel after the cup as after the bread which must bee wel obserued For hereupon doth it follow that both kinds be of like force the one not more commanded then y e other Thirdly he applieth aswel the drinking of the cup as the eating of y e bread to al the faithful in generall Fourthly he applieth the examination to euery one of the faithful Fiftly he willeth the examination to be made aswel in drinking of the cup as in eating of the bread Sixtly he wrote spake aswel to the lay people as to the priests as the beginning of the epistle declareth And in this sense doth their owne Haymo so reputed expound S. Paul for these are his words Ego nâ— accepi à domino quod et tradidi vobis .i. mysterâ—uÌ„ corporis sanguinis Dom. quomodo debeatis sumere Sicut mihi reuelauit ita tradidi vobis For I haue receiued of the Lord that which I deliuered to you that is the mysterie of our Lords body and bloud in what manner ye ought to receiue it Euen as he reuealed it to me so haue I deliuered it to you The reply S. Marke maketh it plaine that it was onely spoken to the apostles Drinke ye all of it For he addeth And they all dranke of it For it is cleare that al they dranke thereof who were commaunded to drinke The answere I say first that it was spoken to al the faithfull aswell as to the apostles For Paul exhorted the whole church at Corinth to vse both the kinds saying that God had so appointed As if he had said not I but the Lord coÌ„mandeth you thus to do for he reuealed to me euen as I haue deliuered vnto you Therefore if ye do it not you transgresse his holy commaundement Yea S. Paul declared expressely in the very beginning of his epistle that commandement of receiuing the holy Eucharist in both kindes concerned all the faithfull in the world as well to come as theÌ„ liuing For these words Ye shal shew the Lords death till he come doe euidently prooue that the forme prescribed by the apostle must continue after the death of the Corinthians euen till the day of doome I say secondly that since Christ himselfe instituted both kinds since the apostle deliuered both kinds euen to the lay people since the church communicated to the faithful laycall people in both kinds euerie where for many hundred yeres together as the papists themselues cannot denie since they confesse that both kinds may lawfully be vsed since no scripture teacheth vs that one kind is sufficient since no father did euer exhort to vse one only kind since no councell till the late synode of Constance did euer commaund one only kind in fine since the church for more then a thousand yeeres together did euer vse both kinds how impudent howe vnchristian nay how tyrannicall and bloud-thirstie is the Pope of Rome and his Iesuits that incense and excite him thereunto who labor this day with fire and fagot to enforce the faithful to the contrary I say thirdly that this obiection maketh against the papists for in that they al dranke therof it cannot folow that none else may drinke thereof otherwise the practise of the church hitherto should haue beene wicked and the apostles themselues haue sinned grieuously but that all present ought to drinke thereof For which cause their owne canon-law commaundeth all to bee putte out of the church that will not communicate when the consecration is ended Yea their own Pope Iulius doth condemne their grosse illation as who vnderstoode Christes wordes of all the faithfull Thus doth he write Illud vero quod pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt eucharistiam populis nec hoc prolatum ex euangelio testimonium receperunt vbi apostolis corpus suum commendauit sanguinem seorsum enim panis seorsum calicit coÌ„mendatio memoratur Nam intinctum panem alijs ChristuÌ„ praebuisse non legimus excepto illo discipulo tantuÌ„ queÌ„ intincta buccella magistri proditorem ostenderet But where they giue y e dipped eucharist to the people for the complement of the communion they found not this witnessed in the gospel where Christ coÌ„mended his bodie and blood to his disciples For the bread is commended apart and the cuppe also apart For we reade not that Christ gaue dipped bread to any others saue onelie to the disciple whom the dipped morsell declared to be the betrayer of his maister The replie The councill of Constance commaunded no new thing but onelie made a law for the continual performance of that which the church had practised long before The answer I say first that thogh it were so practised before in some places yet was that practise neither generall nor approued by anie setled lawe vntil the late councill of Constance I say secondly that the great pillar of the popish church Thomas Aquinas honestly confesseth so much in this behalf as is enough for the euerlasting confusion of all Romish hypocrites And because I couet to deale faithfully in this point as in al other I will alleage the expresse wordes of Aquinas as himselfe hath deliuered them thus doth he write Ex parte quidem ipsius sacramenti conuenit quòd vtrumque sumatur scilicet corpus sanguis quia in vtroque consistit perfectio sacramenti Et ideo quia ad sacerdotem pertinet hoc sacramentum consecrare perficere nullo modo debet corpus Christi sumere sine sanguine ex parte autem sumentium requiritur summa reuerentia cautela ne aliquid accidat quod vergat ad iniuriam tanti mysterij quod praecipuè posset accidere in sanguinis sumptione qui quidem si incautè sumeretur de facili posset effundi Et quia creuit multitudo populi christiani in quâ continentur senes iuuenes paruuli quorum quidâ—m non sunt tantae discretionis vt cautelam debitam circa vsum huius sacramenti adhibeant ideo prouidè in quibusdam ecclesiis obseruatur vt populo sanguis sumendus non detur sed solûm à sacerdote sumatur In the behalfe of the sacrament it is meete that both be receiued to wit both the bodie and the blood bicause in both consisteth the perfection of the sacrament and therefore because it belongeth to the priest to consecrate and to perfite this sacrament he may in no case receiue the bodie of Christ without the blood In the behalfe of the receiuers great reuerence and circumspection is required left any thing
chance that may tend to the iniurie of so worthie a misterie which might chance especially in the receiuing of the bloud which if it were vnwarily receiued might easily be shed And because the multitude of christian people is increased wherin are conteined old men yong men and litle ones whereof some are not of so great discretion to vse due warines about the vse of this sacrament therefore there is a good prouiso made in some churches that the lay people shall not receiue the bloud but onely the priest Out of these words of Aquinas I note first that he liued a thousand two hundred seuentie and fiue yeers after Christ. I note secondly that the perfection of the sacrament consisteth in both kinds and consequently that the communion of the lay people is this day vnperfect in the church of Rome I note thirdly that both kinds were vsually giuen to the lay people in Aquinas his time that the contrarie was practised onely in some few odde churches apart I note fourthly that in his time yong childreÌ„ receiued the holy communion To this I adde fiftly that the papists can neuer shew any other alteration betweene the dayes of Aquinas and their late synode of Constance The second obiection Christ ministred the holy Eucharist in one onely kinde to his two disciples in Emaus for saint Luke maketh mention of bread onely and not of wine The answere I say first that your own Iansenius granteth that this place is not meant of the eucharist but was onely a figure thereof he proueth his opinion out of saint Austen S. Bede Theophilacte I say secondly that it is the vsuall phrase of the hebrew tongue to tearme all kinde of meate by the name of bread and so howsoeuer the place be vnderstood drinke can no way be excluded I say thirdly that if this place be vnderstood of the holy communion yet wil it not confirme the popish practise by any meanes For a singular act of Christ who was aboue his law and not bound thereunto cannot discharge vs from his holy institution which he commanded vs to obserue The third obiection S. Luke saith that the faithful continued in the apostles doctrine and felowship and breaking of bread and prayers where by the breaking of bread must needes be vnderstood the blessed eucharist and yet is there no mention made of wine The answere I say first that as it is true that these Textes are to bee vnderstoode of the holy sacrament of Christes body and bloud so is it true also that both kindes were ministred therein I prooue it because otherwise the Apostles shoulde haue ministred the sacrament in one onely kinde which yet no learned paipst will auouch I say secondly that the whole sacrament is figuratiuely signified by the breaking of bread by the figure Synecdoche which is frequent in the holy scripture wheÌ„ a part is named for the whole Whosoeuer reiects this glosse must charge the apostle with flat sacriledge Yea it is common with the fathers to vnderstand both the kinds whensoeuer they speake of the holy eucharist although they make but expresse mention of the one Therefore Saint Iustine after hee had made expresse mention of both the kinds addeth these words Alimentum hoc apud nos appellatur eucharistia This foode or nourishmeÌ„t we cal the eucharist S. Irenaeus hath these words Quando mixtus calix fractus panis percipit verbum Dei fit eucharistia corporis sanguinis Christi When the cuppe mingled and the bread broken receiueth the worde of God it is made the eucharist of the body and bloud of Christ. So S. Cyprian naming the cup onely calleth it the eucharist Which cup being giueÌ„ to an infant proueth euidently that in the primitiue church both kinds were thought most necessarie The fourth obiection It was the vse in the primitiue church to beare the eucharist in one kind to the sicke because there was great danger in carrying the consecrated wine A sufficient testimonie hereof is the storie of Serapion The answere I say first that most ancient approued antiquity beareth witnesse of both kindes sent and carried to the sicke and to such as were absent S. Iustine the martyr hath these words Diaconi distribuunt vnicuique praesentium vt participet eum in quo gratiae actae sunt panem vinum aquam ad absentes perferunt The deacons distribute to euerie one that is present a portion of the consecrated bread wine and water and they also carrie thereof to those that be absent Againe he writeth thus Distributio communicatióque fit eorum in quibus gratiae actae sunt cuique praesenti absentibus autem per diaconos mittitur A distribution and communication is made of those things that are blessed to euerie one that is present and the same is carried by the deacons to those that be absent Saint Hierome greatly commendeth saint Exuperius for his singular zeale in this behalfe these are his words Sanctus Exuperius Tolosae episcopus viduae Sarepâ—ensis imitator esuriens pascit alios ore pallente â—eiunijs fame torquetur alienâ omnémque substantiaÌ„ Christi visceribus erogauit Nihil illo ditius qui corpus domini canistro viminâ—o sanguinem portat in vitro Saint Exuperius the bishoppe of Tolose imitating the widow of Sarepta feedeth others euen when himselfe is hungrie his own mouth is pale with fasting yet it grieueth him to behold others famine al his substaÌ„ce he bestoweth on Christs members None more rich then he he carrieth our Lords body in a wicker basket and his blood in a glasse I say secondly that Serapion receiued both kinds though in some thing different from Christs institution For the bread was first infused into the consecrated wine and so receiued which manner of receiuing was a little corruption though farre different from the popish practise which altogether abandoneth the perfection of the holy sacrament This their owne Durand telleth them and if they will not heare mee yet must I request them to hearken to his words Thus doth he write Etsi in hostiâ consecratâ Christi sanguis sit non tamen est ibi sacramentaliter eò quòd panis corpus non sanguinem vinum sanguinem significat non corpus Quia ergo sub alterá taÌ„tum specie non est completum sacramentum quâ— ad sacramentum vel signum debet hoc sacramentum compleri prius quâm presbiter eo vtatur Although in the consecrate host there bee the blood of Christ yet is it not there sacramentally because the bread doth signifie the bodie not the blood and the wine doth signifie the blood not the body Therfore because the sacrament is not complete vnder one only kind in respect of the sacrament or signe this sacrament must bee first complete before the priest vse it Thus saith our popish Durand Out of whose wordes I note to the
great comfort of good christians that the aduersaries vnwittingly are beaten with their owne swords For though their doctour Durand onely intend to make good the priests receiuing yet is his reason generall forcible christian insoluble vtterly ouerthroweth al communicating vnder one kind Which hee proueth vnwittingly and vnwillingly such is the force of truth by three reasons first because the bloud is not in the consecrate host sacramentally secondly because the bread caÌ„not signifie the blood thirdly because the sacrament is not perfit vnder one kind Now that to vse dipped bread in stead of the blessed wine is a corruption I haue already proued by pope Iulius who telleth vs that none receiued dipped bread but only Iudas the traitor The fift obiection In the primitiue church the faithfull vsed to carie the bread home with them that they might receiue it when they thought good which is an euident signe that then they receiued it in one kind at home The answere I say first that the custome the obiection speaketh of was as well of the wine as of the bread For S. Gregorie Nazianzene writeth of his sister Gorgonia that shee reserued for deuotion sake some part of the signes of the bodie bloud of our Lord which she brought home from the church Tertullian writing to his wife of this vse maketh mention of the wine as well as the bread And Saint Exuperius as yee haue heard alreadie carried both the kinds about with him to releeue the sicke and absent which he would neuer haue done if the laie people had not receiued in both kinds I say secondly that this custome was not generall but onely vsed in some places of some persons rather of zeale then discretion and therfore iustly abrogated by sundrie holy councils Toletain and Cesaraugustain These are the expresse words of these holy councels Si quis acceptam à sacerdote eucharistiam noÌ„ consumpserit velut sacrilegus propellatur anathema sit If any shall not eate vp all the eucharist which hee receiueth of the priest let him be excoÌ„municated let him be accursed Out of which words I gather that the lay people receiued both kinds in the church but of a certaine zeale reserued some part thereof which they carried home to eate in time conuenient as they thought Which vse these graue synodes vtterly disliking condemned as sacrilegious The sixt obiection Many councels make mention of the laicall communion by which the lay people were distinguished from the clerkes Which distinction coulde neuer haue bene if both had receiued vnder both kindes The answere I answere briefely that both sorts receiued the holy eucharist in both kinds but the difference was this the priest receued before the altar the clerks in the chauncell the lay people without so that the meaning of the councels is this and no other to 〈◊〉 that when the laicall communion was inioyned to the clergie for penance then they were to receiue in both kinds as before but after the other clergie and in a lower place with the vulgar and lay people This my solution is grounded in these words of the Toletain councel Sacerdotes Leuitae ante altare communicent in choro clericus extra chorum populus Let the priests and the deacons communicate before the altar the clerkes in the chancell the people without the chancell In which words is insinuated the distinction of communions by the locall distinction where the communion was receiued The second conclusion The priuate communicating in the popish masse where the priest deuoureth vp all alone is wicked prophane and execrable as which is repugnant to Christs sacred institution controlled by apostolicall tradition and vnknowen to the ancient church following I prooue it briefely First because Christ instituted both kinds commanded al to receiue both kinds and withall because all present accomplished his precept For as Saint Marke saith they all dranke thereof Secondly because S. Paul deliuered to al the Corinthians as wel the lay sort as the clergie not only the forme of bread but of wine also protesting that he had so receiued the same froÌ„ the Lord and consequently that they ought in like maner to frequent that holy sacrament And that all without exception vsed thus to do is most euident by the course of holy scripture For Luke writeth The faithful continued in the apostles doctrine fellowship breaking of bread praiers yea it is so euideÌ„t in the very canoÌ„s of the apostles so highly magnified of the papists that priuat masse was reputed an execrable thing in their time as none liuing perusing their canoÌ„s seriously caÌ„ without the note of impudencie denie the same These are the expresse words of the tenth canon Omnes fideles qui conueniunt in solennibus sacris ad ecclesiam scripturas apostolorum euangelium audiant Qui auteÌ„ non perseuerauerint in oratione vsque dum missa peragitur nec sanctam communionem percipiuÌ„t velut inquietudines ecclesiae moueÌ„tes conuenit communione priuari Let all the faithfull that come to the church in time of the holy mysteries heare the scriptures of the apostles and the gospel And if any shal not continue in prayer til y e masse be done or shal not receiue the holy communion let them be excommunicate as those that disquiet the congregation Thus did the apostles decree In whose constitution we see plainly that the apostles are so farre from approuing the priuat masse of the papists as they would not permit any to be in the church but such as did communicate with the priest This is confirmed euen by the popes canon law Thirdly because all the fathers of approued antiquitie doe teach vs the same doctrine S. Chrysostome hath these words Ista videlicet nunc ad omnes nos dicit qui impudenter hic improbè adstamus Quisquis enim mysteriorum consors non est impudens imprâ—bus adstat These things verily he now saith to vs all which stand by impudently and wickedly For whosoeuer standeth by and doth not communicate he is impudent wicked Oh what would this holy father say if he were this day in Rome and should see many hundreds standing by gazing and the priest onely deuouring al he would doubtlesse terme them most impudent and vngratious people Saint Clement whose Epistles the papistes haue in great reuerence writeth in these words Certè tanta in altario holocausta offerantur quanta populo sufficere debeant Quòdsi remanserint in crastinum non reseruentur Let so many breades be offered at the altar as may suffice the people not only the ministers And if any thing shall remaine let it not bee reserued till the morrow S. Ambrose is consonant and confirmeth Saint Clements assertion in these wordes Munus enim oblatum totius populi fit quia in vno pane omnes significantur Per id enim quod vnum sumus de vno pane
hath offered a most perfect sacrifice on the crosse And indeede as all priests were types of Christ the eternall priest in whom they were accomplished so al sacrifices were figures of the sacrifice of the crosse and exactly accomplished in the same consequently wherein soeuer the sacrifice of Melchisedech did coÌ„sist it was accoÌ„plished in the sacrifice on the crosse The first replie Moses after hee had saide that Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine added forthwith these words Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi for hee was the priest of God most high In which words he yeeldeth the reason of his sacrifice because as Saint Paul saith euerie Priest must offer sacrifice Wherfore he that denieth Melchisedech to haue offered bread wine must tell vs of some other oblation that hee made for in the scriptures we find none else The answere I say first that your latin vulgata editio doth afford you some pleasure now then as by meanes wherof ye make some shew of truth but the fountain the original Hebrew text is otherwise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he was the priest And the reason aleaged in your latin translation is void of al reason for if Melchisedech must therefore offer bread and wine because he is a priest then must it folow perforce that euery priest shal do the same which yet no scripture doth auouch Neither can any papist proue the same of Abraham Cain Esau and others who al were priests as themselues confesse I say secondly that wee grant him to haue offered sacrifice because Moses saith he was a priest But hereupon doth it not folow that we can disclose his sacrifice in precise maner For though the scripture containe euery thing necessary to our saluation yet concealeth it many truthes as nothing needeful for vs. I say thirdly that if it be granted that Melchisedech offered bread wine yet wil it not follow that Christ must do the same For if Christ should offer bread and wine indeed we should stil continue in figures remain without the verity But because the thing figured is more excellent then the figure as the papists in this present controuersy truly do obiect Christ who was to accomplish al tipes al figures al prophesies concerning his most sacred aduent presented to God his father omnipotent a most pure holy sufficient independent absolute sacrifice vpon the crosse and then truly said consummatum est I haue fulfilled euery thing that was written of me in the law the prophets and this hee did after the order of Melchisedech while he did y e night before sacramentally signifie the same at his last supper in bread wine This my solutioÌ„ if it be well marked is doubtles firmely grounded in these words of S. Cyprian Nam quis magis sacerdos dei summi quà m Dâ—noster Iesus Christus qui sacrificium deo patri obtulit obtulit hoc ideÌ„ quod Melchisedech obtulerat i panem vinuÌ„ suum scilicet corpus sanguinem For who is more the priest of god most high then our Lord Iesus Christ who offered sacrifice to God the father offered the self same thing that Melchisedech had offered that is bread and wine to wit his body and bloud Thus saith the ancient holy learned father S. CypriaÌ„ whose words the papists euer alleage for their purpose and yet do I thinke to confound the papists euen by the selfe same words I therfore beseech thee gentle reader to marke attentiuely what I say I note first out of S. Cyprians words y â— as Melchisedech was the priest of god most hie so was Christ also I note secoÌ„dly that Christ offered sacrifice to god the father I note thirdly that Christ offered the selfsame thing that Melchisedech offred I note fourthly that that which Christ offered was both bread wine and also his own body bloud Now out of these obseruations I infer first that the accidents and external forms of bread and wine which onely the papists wil haue to remaine in their eucharist are not the selfe same thing that Melchisedech offred For that which he offred as al papists grant euident reason enforceth them was really substantially bread and wine I inferre secondly that that which Christ offered was his reall body bloud sacrificed really on the crosse and in the eucharist sacramentally the selfesame that Melchisedech offered For the naturall bread and wine in the eucharist is a mystery sacrament of Christs body bloud offered on the crosse Thus is euery thing consonant that S. Cyprian writeth and no otherwise can all that he sayth be verified And in this sense do other Fathers speake of this theame who affirme bread and wine in the eucharist to be the mysterie of Christs body and bloud offered on the crosse but not to be the reall and propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead Arnobius hath these words hic qui per mysterium panis ac vini sacerdos factus est in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech qui panem vinum solus obtulit in sacerdotibus dum Abraham victor reuerteretur de pâ—aelio He that by the mystery of bread and wine was made a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech who only among priests offered bread wine while Abraham returned from the battaile with vâ—ctorie Theodoretus hath these words offert verò ecclesia corporis eius sanguinis symbola omne fermeÌ„tum per primitias sanctificans But the Church offereth the signes of his body bloud sanctifying all leauen by the first fruits Marke this testimonie O Papist and yeeld vnto the truth Eusebius Caesaâ—iensis hath these words quemadmodum ille qui sacerdos gentium erat nusquam videtur sacrificijs corporalibus functus sed vino solo pane dum ipsi Abraham benedicit ita sanè primus ipse saluator ac dominus noster deinde qui ab ipso profecti sunt sacerdotes in omnibus gentibus spirituale secuÌ„dum ecclesiasticas sanctiones sacerdotij munus obeuntes vino ac pane corporis illius salutaris sanguinis mysteria repraesentant Quae sanè mysteria Melchisedech tanto antè spiritu diuino cognouerat rerum futurarum imaginibus vsus fuerat As he y t was the priest of the Gentiles seemeth no where to haue vsed corporall sacrifices but only wine bread while he blessed Abraham euen so our Lord and Sauior Christ then the priests that came from him executing the spirituall function of priesthood among all nations according to the decrees of the Church do represent the mysteries of his body and bloud in bread wine which mysteries truely Melchisedech knew long before by Gods inspiratioÌ„ vsed y e figures of things to come Thus we see by the testimonies of these auncient Fathers that the oblation of Melchisedech was accomplished in the sacrifice of the crosse which Christ
and then vttered the wordes of drinking the fruit of the vine For the papists would gladly haue Saint Luke to tell the storie out of order and that Christ spoke these wordes before the deliuerie of the sacrament that is before the consecration of the cuppe which Saint Crysostome and other fathers doe denie Saint Cyprian hath these words Dico vobis non bibam amodò ex ista creatura vitis vsque in diem illum quo vobiscum bibam nouum vinum in regno patris mei Qua in parte inuenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit I say to you I will not drinke henceforth of this creature of the vine vntill that day in which I wil drinke new wine with you in the kingdome of my father Wherein we find that the cup was mingled with our Lord offered and that it was wine which he called his body Out of these words I note first that Saint Luke spoke of the consecrate cup when hee tearmed it the fruit of the vine as is proued already out of Saint Clement and S. Chrysostome I note secondly that the consecrate cup contained naturall wine and not Christs corporall bloud indeed This testimonie doth conuince and so effectually confuteth transubstantiation and the popish reall presence as if S. Cyprian were this day liuing and knew the blasphemous doctrine of the papists yet coulde hee not decide more plainely the controuersie betweene them and vs. Yea this testimonie of saint Cyprian may bee a generall rule for vs as well to expounde himselfe in other places as also the rest of the holy fathers For when they tearme the holy communion or Eucharist Christs bodie and blood the bloud that issued out of his side the body that was nayled on the crosse the flesh that was borne of the virgin the price of our redemption all this is truely saide in their godly meaning that is to say all this is truely verified sacramentally mystically spiritually but not corporally as the Papistes teach For all the Fathers admitte this doctrine of Saint Cyprian that euen after consecration remayneth still the true nature of bread and wine Sixtly Tertullian being consonant to the other fathers hath these wordes Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non potest Hee made that bread which hee tooke and gaue to his disciples to bee his bodie saying this is my body that is to say the figure of my bodie and there shoulde not haue beene a figure vnlesse there had been a true body indeed for a vain thing which is but a falâ—â— imagination cannot receiue a figure Out of these wordes I note first that y â— which Christ gaue to his disciples was bread I note secondly that it was the figure of his body I note thirdly that to be Christes body as Christ himselfe and the fathers speake is nothing els but to be the figure or signe of his body For so doth this learned father declare the very phrase I note fourthly that the thing figured is much different from the figure and consequently that Christes body cannot be the figure of it selfe Seuenthly S. Theodoret hath these words Neque enim signa mystica post sanctificationeÌ„ recedunt à sua natura Manent enim in priore substantia figura forma videri tangi possunt sicut prius The mysticall signes after the sanctification depart not froÌ„ their nature but they abide in their former substance and figure and forme and may be seen and touched euen as before Out of these most golden wordes of this auncient and learned father I note first that hee writeth against certaine heretickes who held that Christes body was chaunged into his deitie after his ascension And they prooued it because as the bread and wine after consecration were changed into the body and bloud of Christ euen so was his body changed into his deitie after his ascension This note is plainly set downe in the wordes aforegoing I note secondly that S. Theodoret confuteth the heretickes euen by their own reason For the mysticall signes saith hee remaine still in their former substance and nature euen after the sanctification therof As if he had said ye lay not a good foundation your supposall is false ye take that as graunted which is flatly denied For although the creatures of bread and wine be sanctified by Gods word and accidentally changed into the mysticall signes of his body and bloud yet doe they still retaine their former nature and substance yet doe they still remaine truely bread and truely wine I note thirdly that though the bread and wine haue gotten by sanctification a new diuine qualitie yet haue they lost nothing that they had before for they haue the same nature the same substance the same figure the same forme they may be seene tasted and touched euen as they might before All the papistes in Europe cannot answere this reason For Theodoret prooueth against the heretickes that as bread and wine are as truly bread and truely wine after consecration as they were before consecration euen so is Christes body as truely a body now after his ascension as it was afore heere on earth So as the papistes cannot now say that the bread and wine haue lost their true natures in y e eucharist vnlesse they wil also say y t Christ hath lost y e nature of a true body now in heaueÌ„ Eightly S. Austen a worthy pillar of Christes Church as the papistes themselues doe graunt hath these wordes Nisi manducaueritis inquit carnem filij hominis sanguinem biberitis non habebitis vitam in vobis Facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere Figura est ergo praecipiens passioni domini esse communicandum suauiter atque vtiliter recondendum in memoria quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa vulnerata sit Vnlesse saith Christ ye shall eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye shall haue no life in you Hee seemeth by these wordes to commaund to doe an heinous offence It is therefore a figure commanding vs to be partakers of Christes passion and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in our mindes that his flesh was crucified and wounded for our sakes In another place hee hath these words Cum videritis filium hominis ascendentem vbi erat prius certe vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum certe vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus When yee shall see the sonne of man ascending thither where hee was before then doubtlesse shall ye see that hee giueth not his body in such sorte as ye imagine then
shall ye truely vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with the bit of the mouth Againe thus In principio cauendum est ne figuratam locutionem ad literam accipias Et ad hoc enim pertinet quod ait apostolus litera occidit spiritus autem viuificat Cum enim figuratè dictum sic accipitur tanquam propriè dictum sit carnaliter sapitur Sequitur ea demum est miserabilis animae seruitus signa pro rebus accipere supra creaturam corpoream oculum mentis ad hauriendum aeternum lumen leuare non posse Before all thinges thou must take heede least thou vnderstand that literally which is spoken by a figure For to this end is that which the apostle saith The letter killeth but the spirite quickeneth For our wisedome is then carnall when we vnderstand that properly which is spoken figuratiuely To conclude that is a miserable bondage of the soule to take signes for the things signified and not to lift vp the eye of our minde aboue the corporall creature so to behold eternall light Againe thus Possum etiam interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum Non enim dominus dubitauit dicere hoc est corpus meum cum signum daret corporis sui I may also interprete this precept to be figuratiue For our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the signe or figure of his body Againe thus Cum adhibuit ad conuiuium in quo corporis sanguinis sui figuram discipulis coÌ„mendauit tradidit When he admitted Iudas to the banquet in which hee commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his bodie and his bloud Againe thus Illi manducabant panem dominum ille panem domini contra dominum They ate the bread that was our Lord he ate not our Lord but the bread of our Lord against the Lord. Againe thus Quomodo in coelum manum mittam vt ibi sedentem tenâ—am fidem mitte tenuisti parentes tui tenuerunt carne tu tene corde quoniam Christus absâ—ns etiam praesens est nisi praesens esset à nobis teneri non posset sed quoniaÌ„ veruÌ„ est quod ait Ecce ego vobiscum sum vsque ad consummationem seculi abijt hic est redijt nos non deseruit Corpus enim suum intulit coelo maiestatem non abstulit mundo Howe shall I reache vp my hand to heauen that I may take holde on him sitting there Reache thither thy faith and thou hast hold on him Thy fathers held him in the flesh holde thou him in thine heart because Christ being absent is also present for if hee were not present hee coulde not be holden of vs but because it is true that hee saith Behold I am with you till the end of the world both he is gone and he is here he is returned and hath not forsaken vs. For hee carried his body vp into heauen yet hee tooke not his maiestie out of the worlde Againe in another place thus Secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum secundum praesentiaÌ„ carnis rectè dictum est discipulis me autem non semper habebitis Habuit enim illum ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modo fide tenet oculis non videt According to the presence of his maiestie wee haue Christ alway but according to the presence of the flesh it was rightly saide to his Disciples but ye shall not haue me alway For the Churche had him in the flesh a few daies but now she holdeth him by faith she doth not see him with her eyes Againe thus Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christâ— corpus Christi est sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ita sacramentum fidei fides est As therefore in a certaine sorte the Sacrament of Christes bodie is Christes body the sacrament of Christes bloud is the bloud of Christ euen so the sacrament of faith is faith In these manifold testimonies Saint Austen prooueth aboundantly that the popishe carnall imagined presence in the Eucharist is blasphemous and most execrable For first he telleth vs that these words of Christ This is my bodie This is my bloud must needes be vnderstood figuratiuely That is to say that the bread and wine are but the sacraments or figures and signes of Christes body and bloud Secondly hee telleth vs that Christ is ascended and that therfore his bodie cannot be eaten with the bit of mouth as the papistes teach blasphemously Thirdly he saith that the soule is neuer in greater bondage then when shee grossely and carnally taketh the figures and signes for the thinges signified by the same Fourthly he telleth vs that since the signes of thinges be vsually termed by the names of the things signified our Lord doubted not to say This is my bodie when hee gaue but the signe of his bodie Fiftly hee saith that the bread which the other Disciples receiued was our Lord yet that which Iudas receiued was but the bread of the Lord. Which assertion is wonderfull if it bee well noted For if our Lord and maker bee present carnally in fleshe bloud and bone vnder the accidentes of bread and that so long as the same accidentes remayne vncorrupte as the Popishe detestable Faith auoucheth Then doubtlesse Iudas shoulde haue receiued his Redeemer Then perforce Iudas shoulde also haue receiued Panem Dominum Then Iudas coulde not by any possibilitie haue barely receiued panem Domini which yet S. Augustine affirmeth most constantly For first if it were true that after consecration the substance of bread were transubstantiated into Christes naturall bodie as it consisteth of flesh bloud and bone and againe if it were also true that the selfe same bodie remained vnder the forme of bread vntill it were corrupted then let all the papistes in England or els where in Europe tel me how Iudas could receiue panem Domini but not panem Dominum as S. Austen saith that is how Iudas coulde receiue the forme of bread with the fleshe bloud and bones of Christes organicall and naturall body hâ—dden vnder the same and for all that not receiue Christ himselfe and panem Dominum as the other apostles did Let them I I say tell me this and I promise to subscribe If they wil not this doe because they cannot for if they can doe it all the worlde must thinke they will doe it then if the feare of God be before their eies they will acknowledge the trueth that I now defend which God graunt they may doe Amen Sixtly he telleth vs that albeit wee cannot reache with our handes to Christes body which is nowe in heauen yet may we by faith take hold vpon the same Which is the flat doctrine that the church of England this day teacheth of the eucharist For we teach that the eucharist is Christes true body spiritually and sacramentally
and that it is truely receiued by faith and spirite according to this doctrine of our maister Christ. The wordes that I spake vnto you are spirite and life Seuenthly he telleth vs that as Christ is on earth still according to his deitie so is he in heauen til the daie of doome according to his humanitie And that as he is present in his god-head till that time so is hee absent in his manhood For saith S. Austen touching the presence of his fleshe hee was but a fewe daies on earth Yea say the papistes S. Austen lieth and when he thus wrote he was a sleepe and so were the rest of the fathers that hold as he doth We affirme without scriptures fathers rime and reason that hee is carnally present at the priestes appointment in ten thousand pixes at once More absurdly then this we say that a mouse can catch Christes carnall body carry it away into an hole and there deuoure it with her teeth Of which blasphemous doctrine the great papist Petrus Lombard surnamed their master of sentences knoweth not what to say or thinke but being at his wits end what answere to make thus answereth the question without answere for his answere is answerelesse in these wordes Quid ergo sumit mus vel quid manducat Deus nouit hoc What therefore doth a mouse take when shee catcheth the reserued hoast or what doth she eate God knoweth this Lo is not this a graue answere of the grauest father amongst our popish doctors He is tearmed the master of sentences and his bookes are publikely read in their schooles of diuinitie and so of the next authoritie to the holy scriptures And for al this so doubtfull and vncertaine is their faith that when a mouse catcheth their accidents without subiects he knoweth not in the world what is become of their carnall reall presence Eeightly he telleth vs that the sacrament of Christs body is not his body properly but after a sort and that sort he affirmeth to be this to wit as the sacrament of faith is faith Now euerie childe knoweth that baptisme or the sacrament of faith is not faith properly but improperly figuratiuely and by way of signification onely Ninthly Saint Ambrose whom â—he papists thinke to make wholy for their side hath these expresse words Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini Iesu vt inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est vt sint quae erant in aliud commutentur If there be so great power in the word of our Lord Iesus that things beganne to be which were not how much more is it workefull that things bee which were and bee changed into another thing In these words Saint Ambrose declareth the creatures of bread and wine to remaine still in their proper nature and substaunce and withall to bee changed into another thing that is to say into the sacraments of Christs true body and bloud To this our Iesuite Bellarmine answereth in these words Non dixit vt sint id quod erant tunc enim panis manere deberet sed vt sint quae erant id est nâ—n annihilentur sed maneant quamuis mutata Hee saide not that they may bee that which they were for then the bread ought to remaine indeede but that they may stil be which were before that is that they bee not annihilated but abide still though changed To this answere of our Iesuite I say first that Saint Ambrose meaneth no other thing then did Saint Austâ—n when he called baptisme the sacrament of faith For the omnipotencie of Christs word is required of them both in both sacraments And as the water is changed into another thing that is to be a sacrament and â—eaâ—e of Gods fauor which before was but common water euen so bread is chaunged into another thing that is to be the sacrament of Christs body which was before but common bread I say secondly that as a married man is by matrimonie chaâ—ged into another thing and yet keepeth still the nature of a man and as a Bishop by orders is altered into another thing and yet keepeth still his former substance euen so the bread in the Eucharist is changed mystically and still remaineth true bread This is a good argument against the papists who defend matrimonie and orders to be two holy sacraments I say thirdly that if aliud must needes signifie an essentiall change as master Harding our Iesuite and the rest will haue it to doe then either married men haue gotten nothing by their matrimoniall contractes nor Bishoppes by their consecrations or at least all married men and Bishops haue lost the natures of men and are changed into another substance But as the Logicians tel vs these three transcendents ens res aliquid may bee affirmed of whatsoeuer is and for the order of Bishops the papists tell vs that it imprinteth an indeleble character touching matrimonie Christ himselfe telleth vs that it is an indissoluble band Touching the persons themselues experience telleth vs that they are still as truâ—ly men as they were before and consequently the word aliud may as well signifie an accidentall alteration as an essentiall transmutation I say fourthly that euerie thing is truely denominate of it essentiall forme and therefore if the substance and essentiall partes of bread and wine bee cleane gone and the externall accidents thereof onely remaine as Bellarmine woulde gladly glosse Saint Ambrose then doubtlesse may wee truely say that they are gone which were before not that they still remaine vnlesse perhappes the papists will say that the horse remaineth when nothing is left but his skin and that a man liueth after he be dead For in both more remaineth then of their wine and bread I say fiftly that by Bellarmines answere if himselfe were changed into the essentiall nature of an asse and kept still the externall figure of a man yet shoulde hee still be as truely Bellarmine as he was before and so Iesuits may be both Asses and men at once a priuiledge granted to all others of their crew The first obiection S. Austen alluding to the facts and wordes of Dauid by which Christ was prefigured writeth in this maner Manibus aliorum potest portarâ— homo manibus suis nemo portatur quomodo intelligatur in ipso Dauid secundum literam non inuenimus in Christo autem inuenimus Ferebatur enim Christus in manibâ—suâ—s quando coÌ„mendans ipsum corpus suum ait Hoc est corpus meum Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis ipsa est humilitas Dom. nostri Iesu Christi A man may bee carried in the hands of others but no man is carried in his own hands How this may be vnderstoode in Dauid literally we doe not finde but in Christ wee doe it finde For Christ was borne in his owne hands when he commended his owne bodie and saide This is my body For he helde
end Againe because they represent y ◠things done which by the olde were but prefigured to be done Thirdly because they are more manifest and so doe excite our faith the more Fourthly because they pertaine to all nations whereas the other belonged to the people of the Iewes onely I say secondly that the Papists falsely accuse vs when they say that we make the holy eucharist a bare signe of Christs body and bloud For we grant and teach that together with the sacramentall bread and wine wee receiue Christs reall body and blood in a spirituall manner that is to say when wee receiue these sacraments by faith then Christs spirit dwelleth in vs and we are vnited to his body as members to the head and branches to the vine from which head wee continually draw nourishment spirit and life For then as the Apostle writeth Christ doth dwell in our hearts by faith which effect can neuer be had by popish doctrine because by it their accidents void of subiects are no sooner deuoured but Christs body forthwith departeth out of their mouths And if thou aske whither they answer they cannot tell The seauenth obiection Hee that eateth Christs body vnworthily saith S. Paul is made guiltie of Christs body which punishment doubtlesse should neuer be imposed for eating a peece of bakers bread The answere I say first that it far surmounteth bakers bread as is more then once concluded sufficiently I say secondly that it is no absurdity to grant a man to be guilty of that euē by eating wherof he eateth not at all at least wereof he eateth not in such maner as hee is gultie by his eating For first Adam was guiltie of disobeying Gods diuine maiestie and that by reason of eating Neuerthelesse hee ate not Gods maiestie but an apple Secondly euery glutton is guilty of irreuerence against God and that by reason of his eating and for all that he eateth not Gods substance but his creatures The like may be saide of euerie drunkard and many other malefactors I say thirdly that the wicked eate Christs body sacramentally which is as sufficient a cause of condemnation as the eating of an apple The replie Adam was condemned not simply for eating but for eating with disobedience Ergo the case is not like The answere I answer that euen so are not the wicked condemned for eating the sacrament simply but for eating it with disobedience For the apostle commandeth euery one to examine him self before he eate and in another place he commandeth vs to referre all our acts to Gods glorie The seauenth obiection It is not impossible for two bodyes to be in one place at once Ergo neither is it impossible for Christs bodie to bee in many places at once I proue it because there is the same difficulty in both The answere I grant that one body may as well bee in many places at once as diuers bodyes in the same place at once But withall I affirme them both to be impossible The first replie The holy Scripture telleth vs that all things are possible to God it also hath discouered the possibilitie of this particular case by many fold examples For first Christs owne glorified bodie was at once in the same place with the doores Secondly Christs body and the stone of the sepulcher were both in the same place at one time Thirdly God can bring a camel through a needles eie euen continuing in his naturall figure quantitie stil. For as Christ himselfe saith God can do both this and al other things Fourthly Christ came out of his mothers wombe the clausure being whole and not stirred for so saith Saint Austen The answere I say first that god can do much more then mans reason can conceiue because the dulnesse of mans vnderstanding is not able to penetrate the bottomelesse deepenesse of his heauenly wisedome power diuine I say secondly that it is one thing to speake of things which God can do another thing to speake of those things that he wil do For we are assured by his reuealed will that as God can do al things which he wil so are there many things which he cānot do or rather which he wil not do because they cannot indeed be done And these things are of 2. sorts the one sort containeth imperfection the other implieth cōtradiction In respect of y e former he cannot do these things First he cannot make another God secondly he cannot make himself corruptible thirdly he cannot sin In respect of the latter he cānot do these things First god cānot make time past not to be past secōdly God cannot make a blind mā remaining blind to haue his sight thirdly God can not make a dead man remaining dead to haue his life Neuerthelesse most true it is that the want of doing these and the like things doth not argue any defect in god who is omnipotent but imperfection or contradiction in the things that should be done I say thirdly that Christs body was not in the same place with the wood which thing is proued at large in the chaper of Christs resurrection peruse mine answere there and all obscuritie will surcease I say fourthly that the stone gaue place to Christs body and that done returned againe to the former place like as Peters chaines fel off from his hands as the red sea gaue place to the Israelites and as the iron gate opened by it owne accord I say fiftly that touching the passage of the Camel many things may be said First that by the word Camel is vnderstoode a cable rope and not a beast because the Greeke word is indifferent to them both Secondly that it is but a prouerbe or phrase of speech signifing how hardly rich men enter into heauen Thirdly that God can dilate the eie of a needle so as a Camel may passe through the same and that without preiudice to the naturall quantitie of his body See the third Paragraph in the end I say sixtly that Christs body came not out of his mothers wombe the clausure being whole not stirred For first Christ was presented to the Lorde according to the lawe as the holy gospel doth record yet the law required such presentation only of them which opened their mothers wombe Secondly Tertull. testifieth this opening of the blessed virgins wombe These are his wordes Haec vulua est propter quam de alijs scriptum est Omne masculinum adaperiens vuluam sanctū vocabitur domino Quis vere sanctus quam Dei filius Quis proprie vuluam adaperuit quam quiclausam patefecit Caeterū omnibus nuptiae patefaciunt Itaque magis patefacta est quia magis erat clausa Sequitur cum apostolus non ex virgine sed ex muliere editum filium Dei pronuntiauit agnouit adapertae vuluae nuptialem passionem Thi◠is the wombe for which it is written of others euery manchild that openeth
in the age of the worlde 2083. from hence must we reckon the foure hundred yeeres Gene. 15.13 Acts 7. verse 6. Galat. 3. verse 17. for the promised seede beganne in Isaac Genesis 21. verse 12. Abraham was appointed by God to sacrifice his only sonne Isaac in whome the promise was made Genesis 22. ver 2. whose faith was so strong that hee neither disobeyed Gods commandement neither distrusted his promise ver 9 10. The doubt How could Isaac bee his onely sonne since Ismael was borne before him and euen then liuing I answere that after Ismael was by Gods appointment put out of Abrahams familie he became as dead and had no place amongst Abrahams children Genesis 21. ver 12. An obseruation Although circumcision be called Gods couenant Gene. 17. vers 10. yet was it not the couenant indeede but a signe or feale of Gods couenant made to Abraham and to his seede after him Gen. 17. ver 7. It was called the couenant because it signified the couenant and had the promise of grace annexed to it as all sacraments haue And as circumcision was called Gods couenant and yet but a signe or sacrament thereof euen so in the Lords supper the bread is called his bodie albeit it be but a signe and sacrament of the same For which purpose S. Austen in his epistle to Bonifacius hath a very fine saying well worthie to be ingrauen in golden letters His expresse words be these For if sacraments had not a certaine resemblance of those things whereof they be sacraments they could be no sacraments at all By reason of the similitude or signification they oftentimes take the names of the thinges themselues as therfore in a certain maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is Christs body and the sacrament of the blood of Christ is Christs blood euen so the sacrament of faith is also faith The seuenth Section of Iacob Iacob was 130. yeeres olde when he went into Egypt and came before king Pharaoh Genesis 47. verse 7 9. Iacob and his sonnes in the time of famine came from Canaan to soiourne in Egypt and they dwelt by Pharaohs grant in Ramesis a citie in the countrey of Goshen Genes 47. verse 4 11. Iacob died in Egypt Gen. 49. verse 33. he was buried honorably in his owne countrey Gen. 50. he liued 17. yeares in Egypt Gen. 47. verse 28. The children of Israel the posteritie of Iacob went into Egypt together Genes 46. verse 6. they were all 70. in number Genes 46. verse 27. Deuter. 10 verse 22. The first doubt In Genesis and Deuteronomie the kinred of Iacob surpasseth not 70. persons yet saint Lukes computation is 75. I answer that as saint Austen saith lib. 16. ciu cap. 40. Saint Luke speaketh not precisely of the time when Iacob went into Egypt but of the whole time during Iosephs abode there in which time Ioseph had children to supply the number The second doubt The persons that came into Egypt if they be reckoned particularly are onely 66 which descended of Iacob Genes 46. I prooue it because Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan and so could not come with Iacob into Egypt No more could the two sonnes of Ioseph Manasses and Ephraim who were borne in Egypt and there continued I answere that the two children of Ioseph must be in the computation as I haue shewed out of saint Austen to whom we must adde Dina and the patriarke Iacob himselfe and so the number of 70. is accomplished The third doubt The children of Israel were but 70. persons when they went into Egypt and yet they came out of Egypt about sixe hundred thousand men of foote besides children and women which multiplication is not possible by the course of nature I answer that the multiplication is possible euen by the course of nature First because they were in Egypt about 215. yeares Secondly because perhaps the men had many wiues as which was in those dayes an vsuall thing Thirdly because one woman might haue many children at once for women in Egypt as writeth Trogus haue seauen children at one birth Plin. lib. 7. cap. 3. Fourthly because God promised to multiplie the seede of Abraham Gene. 17. The fourth doubt The Israelites were 400. yeares in Egypt as we reade in Genesis and in other places of the scripture therefore it is false to say that they were there but 215. yeeres I answer that those 400. yeeres must be reckoned from the birth of Isaac or from the expulsion of Ismael because euen then that seede beganne to be afflicted See the eight chapter in the fift section where this difficultie is handled at large The fift doubt God is not the author of sinne neither tempteth he any man Iames 1. ver 13. but to spoile our neighbours of their owne goods is a great sinne and flat theft which thing for all that God commaunded the Israelites to do Exodus 12. verse 35. Exod. 3. verse 22. I say first that as the schooles truly teach the law negatiue bindeth alway and at euery instant so that whatsoeuer is prohibited by a precept negatiue can at no instant be lawfully done although that which is commanded to be done by the law affirmatiue may at some instant be omitted without sinne I say secondly that sinne hath no positiue cause but onely a cause deficient and consequently God being voide of all imperfections and defects as who is not onlie good but the high goodnesse it selfe can not be the authour of sinne I say thirdly that theft as all learned diuines graunt with vniforme consent is the taking or detaining of an other mans goodes against the will of the owner Whereuppon it followeth that since God almightie is the chiefe lorde and owner of all riches goods lands and possessions God commanded not the Israelites to take frō the Egyptians their goods but that which was his owne and by best right due vnto him Yea as a most iust iudge he appointed them so to doe in recompence of their labours The eight section of Moses Moses was sonne to Amram the Leuite his mothers name was Iochebed the daughter of Leui. Aaron was his brother Miria his sister Numer 26. verse 59. Exod. 2. verse 1. The king of Egypt commanded the midwiues of the Hebrew women that when they did the office of a midwife then they shuld kill all sonnes but suffer daughters to liue This notwithstanding the midwiues feared God and therefore preserued aliue the men children Exod. 1. verse 15 16 17. A great doubt God rewarded the midwiues for telling a lie to the king therefore to lie is no sinne I say first that to lie is neuer lawfull neither for one respect nor other I say secondly that as God rewarded the midwiues Shiphrah and Puah so did hee Rahab but he rewarded them not for the telling of a leasing I say thirdly with Austen that God rewarded them because they loued and feared him which are the true
worship them And in Mathew Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely thou shalt serue For which cause S. Iohn could not be permitted to adore the Angel but was bidden to worship God For which cause Moses cast the Tables out of his hands brake them in peeces beneath the mountaine burned the calfe in the fire and grounded it vnto pouder For which cause the holy ghost commendeth Ezechias for breaking in peeces the brasen serpent For which cause Marcellina was condemned as an hereticke who worshipped as S. Augustine recordeth the Images of Iesus of Paul of Homere of Pythagoras For which cause S. Epiphanius seeing the image of a saint hanging in the Church tare the same in sunder and aduised the wardens to bury some poore body with the vaile and that no more any such vailes should be hanged vp in the Church Yea the same Epiphanius will not haue the blessed virgine Mary to be adored much lesse her image And if her image must be excluded what image I pray you can be approued for which cause the councill of Elibertine decreed grauely that nothing should be painted on the church walles which is adored of the people For which cause Lactantius pronounced freely that where images are there is no religion Neither will it help the papists to answer after their woonted manner that Lactantius speaketh of such images as are adored for gods For Lactantius maketh the selfe same obiection in the person of the Gentiles and inueyeth against it bitterly as a vaine friuolous and ridiculous thing And because I wil proceed sincerely in this point as in all other matters I thinke it conuenient heere to alleadge his expresse words which are these Non ipsa inquiunt timemus sed eos ad quorum imaginem ficta quorum nominibus consecrata sunt nempe ideo timetis quod eos in caelo esse arbitramini neque enim si dij sunt aliter fieri potest curigitur oculos in caelum non tollitis â—â—ur ad parietes ligna lapides potissimum quam illò spectatis vbi eos esse creditis We feare not say they the pictures or pourtraies but them after whose images they be made to whose names they are consecrated Doubtlesse ye therefore feare them because ye thinke they are in heauen For if they be gods it cannot otherwise come to passe Why therfore do ye not lift vp your eyes to heauen why doe ye rather looke vpon the walles vpon stockes and stonâ—s then thither where ye think they are In which words I note first that the Gentiles did not adore the images but the persons represented by the same for of fearing and adoring Lactan. speaketh indifferently throughout the whole chapter yet are they sharply reproued for their fact I note secondly that we must not adhere and fix our minds vpon stocks stones and the images of saints but lift vp our hearts to heauen where the saints now are Worthily therefore doe we condemne the Papists who do not only make images but also adore the same and that with the selfe same worship which is due and proper to God alone for so much auoucheth their owne deare doctor and canonized saint Aquinas of the image of our Sauiour Christ. For which respect Gregorie surnamed the Great who himself was a bishop of Rome sharply reproued the adoration worship of images albeit he admitted wel liked y e ciuil vse therof The second Booke of Christs birth baptisme preaching passion resurrection and ascension into Heauen with other things coincident CHAP. I. Of Christs birth ABout the time that Elias the Cabbalist foretolde in the age of the worlde 3969. the eight calends of Ianuary in the third yeere of the 194. Olympiade the 32. yeere of king Herode and the 42. yere of Augustus Cesar was our Lorde and Sauiour Christ Iesus borne into this world For albeit the 4000. yeres were not complete fully ended yet was his prediction true as some report it because he added that God would shorten the time for his elect Our Lord and Sauiour was conceiued by the holighost taking flesh blood bone of the blessed virgin Mary made like vnto vs in all things sinne onely excepted true man and true God hauing two perfect natures subsisting in one diuine person by reason of which hypostaticall vnion his holie mother was truely called deipara and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well the mother of God as of man Christ assuming the perfect nature of man lost no part of his nature diuine and consequently he must haue two willes diuine and humane of God and of man Christ assuming the perfect nature of man must needs haue euery thing pertaining to the perfection thereof among which the sensitiue appetite is one which wee call sensualitie yet in Christ Iesus there was no motion of sensualitie which was not ordered by reason and wholy obedient to the same For the sensitiue appetite to be moued according to the course of it owne nature was nothing repugnant to the diuine and reasonable humane wil of Christ. The blessed virgin being 14 yeres of age conceiued Christ her son by the power of the holie ghost the 25. day of March He was before all worlds and by him al things were made yet was he incarnat in the end of the world borne after a new and miraculous maner of the virgin Marie who was Saint Iosephs lawfull wife Christ the sonne of the euerliuing God tooke vpon him the forme of a seruant was poorely borne in a stall and made him selfe of no reputation and all this he did for the loue of man to teach man humilitie and to abase himselfe as Christ his Lorde and master gaue him ensample In those dayes Cyrenius being gouernour of Syria Augustus Cesar sent out an edict to taxe all that were subiect to the Roman empire Then Ioseph being of the house and linage of Dauid went vp from Galile to be taxed in Bethlehem with Mary his wife being then big with childe where she brought forth Christ and wrapping him in swadling clothes laide him in a cratch bicause there was no roome for them in the Inne So soone as Christ was borne the angels of God nothing regarding the pride of mightie men declared to the poore shepheards the godhead and office of the childe lying in the cribbe how that he was borne to be the sauiour of the world After the departure of the angels the shepheards went to Bethlehem where they found Marie Ioseph and the sweete babe lying in the cribbe at their returne they published abroad that which was tolde them of that childe CHAP. II. Of the infancie of our Sauiour Christ. WHen Christ Iesus was but eight dayes olde he was circumcised euen then beginning to spend his blood for the loue of man for albeit he was the head of the church yet was he subiect to the law to
eate grapes they thinke that hearbes trees and plants haue life in such manner as they feele great paine when one cutteth or plucketh them vppe by the rootes or otherwise for this respect they deeme it an heynous offence to purge the field from thornes and thistles and so they condemne husbandrie the most innocent art of all as guiltie of many murders yet they thinke husbandrie or tillage of the grounde to bee pardonable in their auditors because by that their labor they bring foode to their elect in whose bellies the substance is purged and the offence taken away And consequently although themselues do no murders actually as they preteÌ„d yet do they liue of manifest murders practised by others really Where note by the way that the church of the Manichees consisted of two sortes of people their elect and their auditors They held this fantasticall opinion that whosoeuer did eate flesh should be made the same thing which he did eate As for example if a man did eate an hogge he should be made a hog if a bull he should become a bull if a bird he should be a bird if a fish a fish and so in the rest The Manichees held also that if any man marry a wife that same man so soone as he passeth out of this life is changed into another bodie and becommeth a woman Yea they say further that if a man kil a man an asse or other liuing thing that man straight after his death is changed into that liuing thing which he killed be it a mouse serpent or whatsoeuer else The Manichees vse to blesse their meates in this manner O bread neither did I reape thee neither did I grinde thee neither did I make thee neither did I bake thee but an other did al these things and brought thee to me my selfe therefore do eate thee without offence These and other like monstrous assertions did this heresie bring forth This is the grace that they vse CHAP. XII Of the Pelagians taken out of Saint Augustine PElagius sometime a monke and a Brytan borne extolled free-will so much that hee ascribed little or nothing vnto grace He affirmed that man may keepe all Gods holy commaundements without his diuine grace and being reprooued saith saint Austen for derogating so much from the grace of God he answered with vnchristian subtiltie that grace was therefore giuen to man that hee might keepe Gods lawes with more facilitie That grace saith Pelagius without which wee can doe nothing that good is is onely in our free-will which free-will God ingraffed in our nature without any our deserts so that God helpeth vs by his law and doctrine to this end onely saith Pelagius that wee may learne what to hope for and what to do but not to do what we know ought to be done The Pelagians hold saith S. Austin that infants in their carnall natiuitie are so pure and free from originall sinne that they neede not the second and spirituall regeneration of water and the holie ghost Now if any man would aske the Pelagians to what end infants are baptized They will answere forsooth saieth saint Austen that by this externall regeneration they may haue accesse into heauen and not thereby to be absolued from the guilt of sinne For if they die without Baptisme yet do they promise them eternall life but without the kingdome of heauen This is the heresie of Pelagius which I haue sincerely recited out of saint Augustine that excellent writer and immoueable pillar of Christs church because many talke thereof who seem not throughly to vnderstand the same With which heresie how the papists agree and how they dissent from the same shall God willing bee shewed when I come to the next Booke in the chapter of mans Iustification CHAP. XIII Of the Arrian heresie ARrius the heretike was the reader of diuinity in Alexandria a man of great learning and eloquence but withall prowd and ambitious He denied the diuinitie and godhead of Iesus Christ affirming him to be pure man and a meere creature Which his blasphemous doctrine was dispersed throughout Egypt Lybia Alexandria Thebais and many other prouinces Alexander a godly bishop laboured by all meanes possible to dissuade Arrius from his pestiferous and execrable heresie but all his trauell was in vaine because many other bishops and cleargie men embraced the opinion of Arrius and obstinately defended the same The most christian emperour Constantinus worthily surnamed the Great deepely lamenting the church of God to be diuided with schisme and dissention sent Hosius the Bishop of Corduba in Spaine to Alexander and Arrius with his owne hand-writing earnestly exhorting them to set all dissention aside and to agree in vnitie peace and trueth But when the blessed Emperour could not preuaile in his holy purpose hee commaunded al christian bishops to resort at a certaine day designed to Nice a citie in Bithynia where this great controuersie was decided before Constantine himselfe and Arrius with his complices driuen into exile The Emperour Constantinus sent for Arrius into his pallace so meaning fully to make trial of his opinion who when he asked Arrius if he were of the same opinion with the councill of Nice Arrius without all deliberation and stay subscribed in the presence of the Emperour to the decrees of the saide councill Then the emperour greatly admiring that fact willed Arrius to confirme his subscription with an othe to which Arrius yeelded deceitfully as he had done before insomuch that the Emperour being perâ—waded that Arrius was an orthodox and good christian charged Alexander the bishop of Alexandria seuerely to receiue Arrius againe into his woonted place and dignitie Yet Alexander knowing Arrius to be an enemy to God and his holy religion and suspecting his dissimulation with the Emperour his soueraigne fearing God on the one side and reuerencing his soueraigne on the other gaue himselfe to deuout and earnest prayer so commending the whole cause vnto God While Alexander was thus deuoutly occupied behold news came vnto him that as Arrius came from the emperours pallace the worme of conscience did wonderfully trouble him and solubilitie of body did so vehemently assault him that hee was inforced sodainely to withdraw himselfe to a common place where while he sought to haue the ordinary course of nature blood gushed but all his inwards fell from him and so he perished most miserably The secret subtiltie wherwith Arrius fought to deceiue the godly and most christian Emperor was this Arrius wrote his execrable opinion of Christ in a peece of paper kept closely vnder his arme holes that 〈◊〉 hee subscribed in the presence of the Emperour then the Emperour maruelling that he would so doe vrged him to confirme the same with an oath Arrius roundly tooke an oath that he thought as he had written meaning indeede of his first writing which hee kept secretly vnder his arme-hole Where euerie one may see how grieuous a sinne it is to dissemble with God
holy angels And Lodouicus Viues vpon the same place of S. Austen hath these wordes Et istos quoque supplicijs liberabat Origenes sicut ex sanctis angelis praecedente tempore diabolos faciebat quae illius erant vicissitudines These also did Origen deliuer from punishment as in processe of time he made of angels diuelles such was his changeable course of dealing Roffensis our late popish bishoppe of Rochester confesseth a trueth in this matter to wit that the Greekes did neuer beleeue there was a purgatorie Againe that purgatorie was not receiued in all places at once neither yet generally for many hundred yeeres His wordes I haue alleadged in the first booke of my Motiues in the seuenth preamble The first obiection I haue loosed thy prisoners out of the pit wherein there is no water Ergo saith our Iesuite Bellarmine there is a purgatorie for out of hell none can be loosed The answer I answer that the prophet means nothing els but that God will deliuer his church out of all dangers howe great soeuer they seeme Againe this text may fitly be expounded of hell as Saint Hierome taketh it His wordes are these In sanguine passionis tuae eos qui vincti in carcere tenebantur inferni in quo non est vlla misericordia tua clementia liberasti Thou hast deliuered in the bloud of thy testament of thy free mercie those that were bound in the prison of hell where there is no mercy And indeed the merite of Christes bloud preserued vs from hell which otherwise was prepared for vs. This text may also be vnderstood of the captiuitie of Babylon from whence the church was deliuered The second obiection We went through fire and water and thou hast brought vs to a place of comfort or refreshing By this place it is cleere that there is a purgatorie The answere I say first that before hell had no water in it but now there is found both fire and water such is the constancie of popishe diuinitie I say secondly that by fire and water the prophet here vnderstandeth the victories which martyrs haue had in their manifold passions That is to say martyrs after all their crosses miseries and afflictions are brought to Christ their head and true comfort Thus doth S. Hierome expound this place whose expresse wordes are these Martyrum hic ostendit victorias quas in diuersis passionibus meruerunt ad vnum eos dicit refrigerium id est Christum Dominum per laqueos per cruces per verbera per ignes aestusq alia diuersa supplicia per quae holocaustum acceptum effecti sunt peruenisse Hee sheweth the victories of martyrs which they were worthie of in their manifold passions and hee saith they came to a place of refreshing that is to Christ our Lord through snares through crosses through beatinges through fire and heate and diuers other tortures through which they became an acceptable sacrifice S. Austen expoundeth it in the selfe same maner The third obiection They cried to the Lord in their trouble and hee deliuered them from their distresse Hee brought them out of darkenes and out of the shadowe of death and brake their bandes asunder Ergo there is a purgatory The answere I answere that the whole Psalme containeth in effect nothing els but thankes giuing to the Lord for his great mercie in that he hath deliuered them not onely from hell iustly deserued for their sinnes but also from the manifold dangers of this life So writeth S. Austen vpon this Psalme and S. Hierome is of the same opinion For these are his expresse wordes Vinctum enim erat genus humanum catenis criminum carceri diaboli mancipatum For mankinde was bound with the chaines of sinne and kept in prison as a slaue by the diuell The 4. obiection He shall fine the sonnes of Leui and purifie them as gold and siluer that they may bring offeringes vnto the Lord in righteousnesse Which fining say our papistes cannot be vnderstood but of purgatorie The answere I answere that the prophet Malachie speaketh flatly of the first aduent of our Sauiour Iesus Christ who by his bitter and sacred passion will purge his church from all her sinnes and then shall the faithfull offer vp the sacrifice of land and thankesgiuing Thus doth S. Hierome expound this text neither can any other glosse be consonant to the discourse of the prophet The 5. obiection S. Mathew saith that the sinne of the holy ghost shalbe forgiuen neither in this worlde neither in the worlde to come By which wordes he giueth vs to vnderstand that some sinnes are forgiuen in the world to come Ergo there is a purgatorie The answere I answere that Gods spirite knoweth best how to interpret the scripture and consequently that S. Mathew meaneth nothing els by these wordes neither in this world neither in the world to come but that the sinne against the holy ghost shall neuer be forgiuen For so doth S. Marke another Euangelist interprete this selfe same text These are the wordes hee that blasphemeth against the holy ghost shall neuer haue forgiuenesse but is culpable of eternal damnation Yea which is a confusion to the papists S. Mathew himself so expoundeth himselfe in the next verse aforegoing And so doth S. Chrysostome expound this place The 6. obiection Thou shalt not depart thence till thou hast paied the vttermost farthing Ergo after satisfaction made or the popes pardon graunted thou maiest come out of purgatory The answere I answere with S. Augustine that the prison whereof S. Mathew speaketh is hell from whence there is no departure in deed For hee that is once committed thither for non payment must tarry there world without end because hee can neuer answere this infinite debt The replie When he saith vntill thou hast paied hee giueth vs to vnderstand that after a certaine time we shall come out I aunswere that the word vntill doth not connotate the end of imprisonment but the continuation thereof because so is the vsual acception of that terme in the holy scriptures For when S. Mathew saith he knew her not vntil she had brought forth her first borne sonne it followeth not that he afterward knew the blessed virgine So when it is said that Michol had no child to the day of her death it followeth not y t she had children after her death Thirdly when our Sauiour promised to be with his disciples till the worldes end it doth not import that he wil after forsake them Fourthly when the prophet saith as the eyes of a maiden looke vnto y e hands of her mistres so our eyes wait vpon the Lord our God vntill hee haue mercy vpon vs he meaneth not that our eies shal not afterward wait vpon the Lord. No God forbid Fiftly when God saith sit thou at my right hand vntil I make thine enemies
Surplesse and the stole about his necke sang a collect of martyrs so after his maner canonising a rebellious subiect for a saint Such is the seditious impudencie of newly hatched Romish Iesuites And least any other Iesuite or papist shall denie that they ascribe their saluation to saintes for they vse to say that they make them but mediatours of intercession and not of saluation and redemption I will prooue it flatly out of their owne bookes and church seruice which I wish the reader to marke attentiuely In the praier which the church of Rome readeth publickly vpon Thomas Beckets day sometime the Bishop of Canturburie I finde these wordes Deus pro cuius ecclesia gloriosus poÌ„tifex Thomas gladiis impiorum occubuit praesia quaesumus vt omnes qui eius implorant auxilium petitionis suae salutarem consequantur effectum O God for whose church the glorious bishop Thomas was put to death by the swordes of the wicked graunt wee beseech thee that all which desire his helpe may attaine the effect of their petition to saluation Out of these wordes I note first that Thomas Becket is pronounced a glorious martyr albeit the disobedience of his lawfull prince was the cause of his death I note secondly that the Romish church seeketh for saluation euen through his merites I note thirdly that the papistes make him a Sauiour yea such a Sauiour as is equall with Christ and consequently that they make him another Christ. For as S. Paule truely recordeth Christ redeemed the church with his owne bloud And yet doth the Romish church teache as yee see that Thomas Becket shed his bloud for the church of God Since therefore the proper and onely badge of Christes mediatorship is giuen to Thomas Becket what remaineth for him to be if not another Christ And least we should not fully vnderstand how our redemption is wrought in the bloud of Thomas they deliuer this mysterie more cleerely in another place in these wordes Tuper Tho. sanguineÌ„ queÌ„ pro te impendit fac nos Christe scandere quò Thomas ascendit Thou O Christ cause vs to come thither where Thomas is euen by the bloud which hee shedde for thy sake Loe Thomas Becket died for vs and shed his bloud to bring vs to heaueÌ„ as the papists teach vs therfore by their doctrine hee is our redeemer and mediatour not only of intercession but also of redemption In their praier bookes deliuered to the vulgar people which God wote they vnderstoode not they teache the people thus to inuocate their proper Aungels Angele Dei quicustos es mei pietate superna me tibi commissum salua defende guberna O Aungell of God who art my keeper by supernall pietie defend mee gouerne mee and saue my soule To S. Paule they teache vs to pray in this maner O beate Paule apostole te deprecor vt ab angelo Sathanae me eripias à ventura ira liberes in coelum introducas O blessed Apostle Paul I pray thee that thou wilt take me from the angel of Satan and deliuer me from wrathe to come and bring me into heauen To Saint Iames in this maner O foelix Apostole magne martyr Iacobe te colentes adiuua peregrinos vndique tuos clemens protege ducens ad coelestia O happy Apostle and mightie martyr Iames helpe thy worshippers defend courteously thy pilgrimes on euery side and bring them to heauenly ioyes To Saint Martin thus Caecis das viam mutisque loquelam tu nos adiuua mundans immunda qui fugas daemâ—nia nos hic libera O Martin thou causest the blinde to see and the dumbe to speake Helpe vs and purge the vncleane thou that castest out diuels deliuer vs here But for breuitis sake I wil wittingly and willingly superseade many particular praiers made to meaner saintes and come to the blessed Virgine The Papistes teache vs to inuocate the holy virgine Mary thus O Maria gloriosa in delitiis delitiosa praepara nobis gloriam O Mary glorious in dainties delicious prepare thou glory for vs. Againe in another place thus Maria mater Domini aeterni patris filij fer opem nobis omnibus ad teconfugientibus O Mary the mother of our Lord the sonne of the eternall God helpe vs all that flie for helpe vnto thee Againe in another place thus Maria mater gratiae mater misericordiae tu nos ab hoste protege hora mortis suscipe O Mary the mother of grace the mother of mercie defend thou vs from our ghostly enemie and receiue vs at the houre of death Againe in another place thus Solue vincla reis profer lumen caecis mala nostra pelle bona cunctae posce Monstra te esse matrem sumat per te preces qui pro nobis natus tulit esse tuus Loose the bandes of the guiltie bring light to the blinde driue away our euils require all good thinges for vs shew thy selfe to be a mother let him receiue thy praiers that was borne for vs and suffered to be thine Againe in another place thus Veni regina gentium dele flammas reatuum dele quod cunque deuium da vitam innocentium Come O Queene of the Gentiles extinguishe the firie heate of our sinnes blot out whatsoeuer is amisse and cause vs to leade an innocent life Againe in their olde Latine primers the people are thus taught to pray In extremis diebus meis esto mihi auxiliatrix saluatrix animam meam animam patris mei matris meae fratrum sororum parentum amicorum benefactorum meorum omnium fidelium defunctorum ac viuorum ab aeterna mortis caligine libera ipso auxiliante quem portasti Domino nostro Iesu Christo filio tuo O glorious Virgine Mary bee thou my helper and Sauiour in my last dayes and deliuer from the mist of eternall death both mine owne soule and my fathers soule and the soules of my mother brethren sisters parents friends benefactors and of all the faithfull liuing and dead by his help whom thou didst beare our Lord Iesus Christ thy sonne Againe after two or three leaues in this maner Vt in tuo sancto tremendo ac terribili iudicio in conspectu vnigeniti filii tui cui pater dedit omne iudicium me liberes protegas a paenis inferni participem me facias coelestium gaudiorum I beseech thee most mercifull and chaste virgine Mary that in thine holy fearefull and terrible iudgement in the sight of thine only sonne thou wilt deliuer and defend me from the paines of hell and make me partaker of heauenly ioyes These praiers if they be well marked will prooue my conclusion effectually as which conteine euery iote of power right maiestie glorie and soueraignty whatsoeuer is or ought to be yeelded vnto our Lord Iesus Christ. Yea these two last praiers make the virgine Mary not onely equall with Christ but farre
The cause without which the latter shall not haue effect For as vocation iustification regeneration and glorification are the effectes of predestination euen so by Gods holy ordinance being predestinate wee are called by the hearing of his word vnto â—aith which faith is the cause of our iustification by apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ Iesus after wee be iustified of our iustification proceedes regeneration as who hauing remission of our sinnes and being ingraffed in Christ by faith are indued with more aboundant grace of his holy spirite thorough which we are dayly more and more regenerate and made new creatures after we be regenerate out of our regeneration spring good workes aswel internall as externall as who being made good trees begin to bring forth good fruits and so continuing are brought at the length of Gods free mercie to the possession of eternall life For as y e apostle saith we are created vnto good workes which God hath ordained that wee shoulde walke in them and continuing in them we shall at the dreadful day of doome heare this ioyfull sentence pronounced to our vnspeakable comfort Come yee blessed of my father take the inheritance of the kingdome prepared for you from the foundation of the world For I was an hungred and ye gaue me meate I was thirsty and ye gaue me drink I was a stranger and ye took me in vnto you I was naked and ye clothed me I I was sicke and ye visited me I was in prison and ye came to me And with this it is true yet y t the apostle saith Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we had done but according to his mercie he saued vs by the washing of the new birth and by renuing of the holy Ghost which hee shed on vs aboundantly through Iesus Christ our sauiour that wee being iustified by his grace should be made heires according to the hope of eternall life This is a true saying and these thinges I will thou shouldest affirme that they which haue beleeued God might be carefull to shew forth good workes These things are good and profitable vnto men Thus saith S. Paule and therefore I thinke this a profitable conclusion By it rightly vnderstood many places of holy Scripture may easily be answered which seeme to ascribe iustification or glorification to good workes The 10. conclusion This popish assertion that workes doe iustifie and merite eternall life de condigno was for the space of a thousand and eightie yeares vnknowne to the church of God About which time Petrus Lombardus and his fellowes began their scholasticall theologie and disputed such matters doubtfully About the yeare of our Lord 1545. the late councell of Trent defined the same for an article of christian beliefe solemnely accursing al such as hold the contrary opinion This is the originall and antiquitie of this impudently defended heresie It is sufficiently confuted throughout the whole chapter CHAP. X. Of the popish idololatricall masse The 1. conclusion TO withhold from the vulgar and laycall sort of people the one part of the holy communion is a diabolical hereticall and sacrilegious fact I prooue it sundry waies First because it is flatly against the expresse scripture and Christes holy institution For Christ himselfe instituted and ministred the Sacrament in both kindes saying drinke yee all of it as Saint Mathew recordeth and they all dranke of it as witnesseth Saint Marke Saint Paule also taught all the Corinthians to communicate in both kindes protesting that hee deliuered the forme and maner of the holy communion euen as he had in spirite receiued it from the Lord. Secondly because the auncient fathers shew euidently that in their time it was the generall practise of the church to deliuer the holy communion to the lay people vnder both kindes Neither was the cup taken from the vulgar sort by any setled law vntill the late councell of Constance which was in the yere of our Lord God 1414. Origen hath these words Quis est iste populus qui in vsu habet sanguinem bibere haec erant quae in euangelio audientes ij qui ex Iudaeis dominum sequebantur scandalizati sunt dixerunt Quis potest manducare carnem sanguinem bibere sed populus Christianus populus fidelis audit haec amplectitur sequitur eum qui dicit nisi manducaueritis carnem meam biberitis sanguinem meum non habebitis vitam in vobis ipsis quia caro mea verè est cibus sanguis meus verè potus est Who is that people that hath in custome to drinke bloud these were the thinges which the Iewes that followed Christ heard in the gospel and were scandalized and said Who can eate flesh and drinke bloud but the christian people the faithfull people heare these thinges and embrace them and follow him that sayth vnlesse ye shall eate my flesh drink my bloud ye shall haue no life in your selues because my fleshe is meate indeed and my bloud drinke indeed S. Hierome hath these words Sacerdotes quoque qui eucharistiae seruiunt sanguinem domini populis eius diuidunt impiè agunt in legem Christi The Priestes also that administer the eucharist and diuide the Lordes bloud to his people transgresse the law of Christ heynously Saint Cyprian with fourtie learned bishops in their ioynt Epistle to Cornelius write in this expresse maner Quo modo docemus aut prouocamus eos in confessione nominis sanguinem suum fundere si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus aut quo modo ad martyrij poculum idoâ—â—os facimus si non eis priùs ad bibendum in ecclesia poculum domini iure communicationis admittimus Howe doe we teache 〈◊〉 them to shed their bloud for the name of Christ if wee denie them the bloud of Christ when they go to warre or how doe we make them fit for the cuppe of martyrdome if wee doe not first admit them to drinke the Lordes cuppe in the Churche and that by the right of communion where I wishe the reader to note well that the lay people haue right to both kindes and consequently that the Romish church is become the whore of Babylon in that shee robbeth vs of our christian right which wee haue de iure diuino Saint Chrysostome hath these wordes Est vbi nihil differt sacerdos à subdito vt quando fruendum est honorandis mysteriis Similiter enim omnes vt illa percipiamus digni habemur Non sicut in veteri lege partem quidem sacerdos comedebat partem autem populus non licebat populo participem esse eorum quorum particeps erat sacerdos Sed nunc non sic verum omnibus vnum corpus proponitur poculum vnum There is a place where there is no difference betweene the priest the lay person as when we are to communicate in the holy mysteries for we are all in
omnes sumere oportet For the oblation offered belongeth to the whole people because all are signified in one bread For in that we are all one we must al receiue of one bread Durand though he fauour the papistes all that hee may yet could he finde no place for priuate masse Thus doth he write In primitiuâ ecclesiâ omnes qui celebrationi missarum intererāt singulis diebus communicare solebant eò quòd apostoli omnes de calice biberunt Dom dicente bibite ex hoc omnes In the primitiue church all that were present at the masse did euery day receiue the communion because all the apostles drank of the cup according to our Lordes commandement Out of whose words I note first that in the primitiue Church none could be permitted to be at masse but such as woulde receiue the communion I note secondly that Christes commandement tied all the people thereunto A plainer testimonie doubtlesse cannot be giuen Their angelical doctor Aquinas hath these expresse wordes Nam in primitiuâ ecclesiâ quando magna vigebat deuotio fidei Christianae statutum fuit vt quotidie fideles communicarent Vnde Anacletus papa dicit peractâ consecratione omnes cōmunicent qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus sic enim apostoli statuerunt sancta Rom. tenet ecclesia In the primitiue church when the faithfull were feruent in deuotion it was decreed that the people should receiue the communion daily Wherupon the pope Anacletus saith when the consecration is ended let all communicate that will not be driuen out of the church doores for so both the apostles ordained and the holy Romaine Church obserueth Out of these wordes I note first that all were driuen out of the church that would not receiue I note secondly that it was the ordinaunce of the Apostles so to doe I note thirdly that as the same Aquinas saith a little after want of charitie and aboundance of iniquitie made this holy ordinance to cease Whereby it appeareth euidently that christian zeale is decaied in the Romish church The 3. conclusion The popishe oblation of Christes naturall bodie in their masse by which they ascribe remission of sins to the quicke and the dead is blasphemous and iniurious to Christes holy passion I prooue it first because the apostle saith that we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Iesus Christ once For if it be true that S. Paule saith that it is but once offered it must needes bee false that the papistes say that it is offered in their masses ten thousand times in one houre I proue it secondly because the apostle saith that Christ hath with one oblatiō made perfect for euer them that are sanctified For doubtlesse where one oblation doth make vs perfite and consummate there need neither mo oblations nor often iteration of the same Therefore the popish oblation of Christ to his father in their masse is blasphemous against Christ as which maketh his oblation vpon the crosse vnperfect and insuffcicient for our sinnes I prooue it thirdly because the apostle prooueth Christes priesthood to excell the priesthood of the old lawe for that Christ did take away sinnes by one onely oblation which the priestes of the law could not doe with many But doubtles this reason of S. Paul is friuolous and to no purpose if Christ must stil be offered in the masse to put away sinne I prooue it fourthly because the apostle saith that as it is appointed to men that they shall once die and after that commeth the iudgement euen so Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many and vnto them that looke for him shall he appeare the second time without sinne vnto saluation Loe Christ is no more offered before his second aduent then men die before the iudgment and yet euery child knoweth that men die but once by ordinary course I prooue it fiftly because S. Paul saith that if he should often offer himselfe as the high priest entred into the holy place euery yeare then must hee haue often suffered since the foundation of the world as if he had said hee can but suffer once and therefore he is but once onely offred Note this reason well for doubtlesse it doth conuince I proue it sixtly because there is nowe no other thing in the holy Eucharist then that which Christ gaue to his apostles at his last supper Marke well my words gentle Reader and thou shalt with facilitie espie the blasphemous trecherie of the papists For if that which Christ gaue to his apostles in his supper were his natural body sacrificed for the sinnes of mankind then was mans redemption twise accomplished then was Christ sacrificed before he died then was mans redemption really done before it really began then was hee dead before his passion then was his body in one place and his bloud in another then was hee both liuing and dead at once then was his death in vaine for al these absurdities do follow perforce vpon the forged propitiatorie sacrifice in the popish masse I proue it seauenthly because Christ himself said of his holy and bitter passion that it was the consummation of euery thing needefull for mans saluation But doubtlesse where one oblation once made maketh mans saluation perfit and consummate there not only moe oblations but also the iteration of the same oblation is meere frustrate and needelesse I prooue it eightly because the Apostle saieth flattely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is not henceforth any oblatiō for sin For if Saint Paul say truely that there is no oblation for sinne after Christs death on the crosse then doubtlesse the papists must needs say falsely that they haue a daily propitiatorie sacrifice in their masse I proue it ninthly because if the sacrifice of the masse were the self same sacrifice of the crosse but vnbloudy as the papists dreame then shoulde their masse sacrifice be of infinite valure which yet no papist dareth auouch This reason doth confound the papists therfore I wil proue effectually euerie part therof First that it is the same sacrifice which Christ offered on the crosse all papists grant being enforced with S. Paules words when he saith With one oblation he made perfit for euer those that are sanctified Secondly that it is not of infinite valure our Iesuite graunteth in these wordes Valor sacrificii missae finitus est The valure of the sacrifice of the masse is finite Now I prooue the consequution of my proposition which is the third thing remaining wherein resteth all the difficultie if there be any at all First therefore the sacrifice supposed to be in the masse is the naturall body and bloud of the son of God For otherwise it could not be the same that was offered vpon the crosse Againe he that is supposed to offer the sacrifice daily in the masse is Christ himselfe the sonne of God Who as the papistes teach blasphemously held
in his hands at his last supper that selfe same body that was borne of the virgine Mary and suffered the next day after And yet if the valure of the sacrifice of the mâ—sse be finite then doubtlesse that sacrifice can not be the sonne of God for he is of infinite power of infinite glorie of infinite maiestie of infinite valure Yea whosoeuer denieth Christes body bloud subsisting in the person of God by hypostaticall vnion to be of infinite valure hee is become a flat Arrian beleeuing Christ to bee pure man and not God And consequently howsoeuer the papistes thinke or speake of their masse yet in making it a sacrifice they are blasphemous and that must needs followe though it were freelie graunted them that Christes body were present really in the Sacrament I prooue it tenthly because our Iesuite cannot denie but that a reall destruction is necessarily required in euery true reall sacrifice Wherefore since Christ dieth not in the popish masse it cannot be that he is truly sacrificed in the same For as Bellarmine truely saith Abraham did not truely sacrifice his sonne Isaac because he was not really slain Now that this discourse may be made more manifest I will propound the strongest obiecâ—ions for the aduerse part and adde briefe solutions to the same The first obiection S. Paul saith that Christ is a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech and Melchisedech offered bread and wine as he was Gods priest saith holy Moses To which we must adde that the thing figured is more excellent then the figure that Christ truely offered sacrifice in bread and wine otherwise hee shuld not haue exactly fulfilled y e figure of Melchisedech For al the fathers graunt that he was a true figure of Christ euen as he was a priest The answere I say first that Melchisedech did not sacrifice bread wine but as the Hebrew text saith brought forth bread wine that is sufficient victuals for the refection of Abraham and his souldiers after their returne from the slaughter of Chedor-laomer and the other kings For the whole course of y e scripture telleth vs that bread by Synecdoche signifieth meate So Moses saith that the Egyptians might not eate bread with the Hebrewes that is meate In Esay 7. women say we will eate our owne bread that is our owne meat King Dauid promised Mephibosheth that he should eate bread alwaies at his own table which had been a very small reward of a king if by bread were not signified all kinde of meat King Iehoiachim ate bread at the table of Euil-merodach the king of Babel that is al delicate fare So it is called bread that Iobs friendes ate in his house when it is certaine that they had right sumptuous cheere The like examples are in S. Mathew sundry other places of scripture This I note against the papistes who fondly vse to answere that bread was a slender refection for all Abrahams companie I say secondly that Christes priesthood is after the order of Melchisedech not in any sacrifice of bread and wine which Melchisedech can neuer be prooued to haue offered but in y t as man he was without father wonderfully coÌ„ceiued as God without beginning without ending without mother woonderfully begotten for which cause the prophet demaundeth who shall declare his generation in these points Christes priesthood differeth not from Melchisedech who as S. Paule saith was without father without mother without kinred without beginning of his daies without end of his life likened to the son of God and a priest for euer Yet in the oblation of bread and wine the priesthood of Melchisedech was not perfitly distinguished from the priesthood of Aaron as the scripture witnesseth S. Paul therfore describeth the priesthood of Melchisedech without the mention of bread and wine in such sort as it is perfitly distinguished from the priesthood of Aaron So Eusebius Caesariensis comparing the priesthoode of Christ with the priesthood of Melchisedech doth not say that it consisteth in the sacrifice of bread and wine but in the vnction the diuine similitude the eternitie and want of succession These are his expresse words Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech Hic auteÌ„ Melchisedech in diuinis voluminib sacerdos fuisse Dei summi refertur sed qui non oleo communi perunctus sit neque qui ex successione generis suscepit sacerdotium sicut apud Hebraeos fieri mos erat ideo secundum ordinem ipsius sacerdos futurus dicitur Christus qui non olei liquore sed virtute coelestis spiritus consecretur Thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech And this Melchisedech is called in the holy scriptures the priest of God most high but one which was not annointed with common oyle neither yet receiued his priesthood by the succession of kinred as the manner was among the Hebrews and therfore Christ is called a priest after his order who is consecrate not with the liquor of oyle but with the vertue of the holy ghost I say thirdly that Melchisedech in his action towards Abraham shewed himself both to be a priest and a king a priest in that he blessed Abraham a king in that he releeued Abraham and his souldiers with bread wine that is with al competent corporall sustenance I say fourthly that if there had bin any force in the oblation of Melchisedech touching Christs priesthoode S. Paul who handled euery least thing exactly in that comparison would neuer haue omitted his sacrifice in bread and wine and yet he passed it ouer as a thing of no importance I say fiftly that Christ offering himselfe vpon the crosse for the sinnes of the world was not a priest after the order of Aaron but properly and truely after the order of Melchisedech I proue the former part First because perfection could not come by the priesthood of the Leuites as the apostle beareth witnes Againe because our Lord Iesus was of the tribe of Iuda of which tribe Moses spake nothing at al touching the priesthood Thirdly because the sacrifice of the crosse was the most perfit sacrifice of all other as which did coÌ„summate them that are sanctified for euer I proue the latter part first because it must be after some order but not after the order of Aaron as is proued ergo after the order of Melchisedech Secondly because the apostle doth in expresse terms cal Christ a priest euen after the order of Melchisedech These are his words And being consummate was made the cause of eternall life to all them that obey him and is called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedech Lo Saint Paule ioyneth the order of Melchisedech with the sacrifice of the crosse offered for mans redemption as if he had said Christ is therefore called a priest after the order of Melchisedech because he
body and bloud either the Lords supper or the Eucharist or the coÌ„munion or the liturgie or the blessed sacrament or the masse if we vnderstand rightly the thing signified by the same For all these words I know are rightly vsed by the ancient holy learned fathers Where I note this by the way that whether the word Masse be latin or hebrew or what it doth properly signifie the papists cannot yet agree among themselues I say secondly that the fathers indeede doe often call the Eucharist Christs body and bloud the sacrifice of the mediator the vnbloudy sacrifice and whatsoeuer else is due to the sacrifice of the crosse neuerthelesse they haue alwaies a godly sense and meaning in such kind of appollations that is to say they ascribe such names to the Eucharist not because it is properly the selfe same thing that the word importeth but for that it is y e sacrament the signe the memorial thereof or else bicause it is spiritually the sacrifice of laude and thanksgiuing for the proofe hereof it were enough to call to minde that sacraments in the scripture haue the names of those things whereof they â—e the sacraments For Moses saith of the paschal lamb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is the Lords passeouer yet most certain it is by the very text it selfe that the lambe was not the passeouer it selfe but only the signe and signification thereof like as al sacraments be signes of the things which they do represent but not the things which are signified by the same And this I hope to make so plaine euen by the expresse testimonies of the holy fathers wherein the papists vse to glory beyond al mesure as no papist in y t the christian world shal euer be able to answer me therein S Austen hath these expresse words Sacrificium ergo visibile inuisibilis sacrificij sacramentum i sacrum signum est Therfore the visible sacrifice is the sacrament of the inuisible sacrifice that is an holy signe And a little after hee addeth these words Illud quod ab hominibus appellatur sacrificium signum est veri sacrificij that which men cal a sacrifice is the signe of y e true sacrifice In another place he hath these words with many other to the like effect Cuius rei sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit ecclesiae sacrificium Wherof he would haue the sacrifice of the church to be a daily sacrament In another place he hath these words huius sacrificij caro et sanguis ante aduentuÌ„ Christi per victimas similitudinuÌ„ prrmittebatur in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur post ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur Before the comming of Christ the flesh and bloud of this sacrifice was promised by the sacrifices of similitudes in the passion of Christ it was restored by the verity after the ascension of Christ it is celebrated by the sacrament of memorie In all these places S. Austen saith expressely that though the Eucharist be called a sacrifice yet is it not a sacrifice properly and indeede but onely a sacrament signe and representation of Christs sacrifice vpon the crosse For first he saith it is a signe of the true sacrifice as if he hadde said it is not the true sacrifice but a representation therof Secondly he saith it is a daily sacrament of the true sacrifice as if he had said it is not y e thing but a signe of the thing Thirdly he saith it is the sacrament of memory as if hee had saide it is but a commemoration of the true sacrifice indeede Fourthly he saith that that which men call a sacrifice is nothing els but a signe of the true sacrifice as if he had said though many vse to tearme the Eucharist a sacrifice yet is it but the signe of the true sacrifice indeede Greg. Nazianz. who was Hieromes schoolmaister for his singular knowledge in y e holy scriptures surnamed Theologus expresseth this matter very liuely in these brief pithy words Quo tandeÌ„ modo externuÌ„ illud sacrificiuÌ„ illud magnoruÌ„ mysteri oruÌ„ exeÌ„plar praefidenti animo ipsi offerrem How shuld I offer to him with a confident mind that externall sacrifice which is the example or signe of the great mystery Lo so soone as hee hath tearmed it a sacrifice by and by he interpreteth himselfe calleth it the signe and representation of the sacrifice as if hee had said we vse to tearme it by the name of sacrifice because it is the image signe sacrament and representation of the true and onely sacrifice S. Dionysius Areopagita S. Pauls disciple in his ecclesiastical Hierarchy which worke the Papists wil needs haue to be his hath these words Ad eorundem sacrificium quod signis continetur venit atque id quod à deo proditum sit facit The B. commeth to the sacrifice of those things which is contained in signes doth that which God hath appointed to be done Lo he calleth the eucharist a sacrifice as the other fathers do and yet for a plaine testimony of his right meaning he addeth that it only consisteth in signes As if he had said it is nothing else but a significatiue or commemoratiue sacrifice Saint Chrysostome hath these words Offerimus quidem sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius Sequitur hoc autem quod facimus in commemorationem quidem fit eius quod factum est Hoc enim facite inquit in meam commemorationem NoÌ„ aliud sacrificiuÌ„ sicut pontifex sed idipsum semper facimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur Wee offer I grant but we do it for the remembrance of Christs death And that which wee doe we doe it for the commemoration of that which is already done For hee saieth Doe yee this in the remembrance of me There is not another sacrifice as there is an other Bishop but we doe alwaies the same thing yea rather we worke the remembrance of the sacrifice Out of these wordes I note first that the Eucharist or christian masse if any list so to call it is nothing else but a commemoration of Christes death vppon the crosse I note secondly and it is a point of importance that the sacrifice is euer the same thogh the priest or bishoppe bee changed I note thirdly that where the priest is changed there can not bee that reall sacrifice which was offered vppon the crosse the reason is euident because wheresoeuer that sacrifice is there the priest is not chaunged but is one and the same euen with the sacrifice it selfe S. Basil hath these expresse wordes Fac nos idoneos vt tibi offeramus sacrificium laudis tu es enim operans omnia in omnibus Make vs meete to offer to thee the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiuing thou that workest all in all To these and the like testimonies the Papistes can not possibly frame any true answer The reply True it
is that the sacrifice of the holy masse is a signe and commemoration of the sacrifice of the crosse but withall wee tel you that as it is the signe so is it the thing signified also Neither is that with vs anie absurditie as ye grossely fondly imagine For Christ is the figure of his fathers substance as the apostle witnesseth and yet if ye deny him to be the same substance with his father yee prooue your selfe an Arrian so a loafe of bread in the bakers window is both a signe of bread to be sold and also the bread it selfe But your dull heades cannot conceiue these scholasticall distinctions The answer I say first that how dull soeuer our wits bee yet doe wee well perceiue your opinatiue diuinitie I say secondly which is a receiued maxime in the schooles that nullum simile est idem no similitude is the selfe same thing whereof it is a similitude For to be a relatiue and the correlatiue of the same at the same time and in the same respect is flat contradiction I say thirdly that though Christ be the same substance with his father as he is God yet is he termed the figure of his substance as he is man because the diuinitie is hid in the humanitie as vnder a figure or vaile So saieth the apostle in another place For in him dwelleth the fulnesse of the godhead corporally And the same answere serueth to your loafe For it is neither idem numero with the other loaues as you imagine and affirme of your putatiue sacrifice neither doeth the loafe of it selfe so signifie but the people by the modification of the loafe are brought into the notice of the sale of bread I say fourthly and this confoundeth you all your sottish imagination that y e veritie is more excellent then y e figure the bodie then the shadow the thing signified then the signe For your owne selues labour by this means to prooue the sacrifice of your idolatrous masse These are the wordes of your Iesuite Bellarmine Figurae necessariò inferiores esse debent rebus figuratis Figures of necessitie must be of lesse value then the thinges that are figured by the same The 4. conclusion The Eucharist or holy communion which the papists terme the sacrament of the altar is a commemoration representation signe or sacrament of Christes body bloud offered and shed vpon the crosse for mans redemption but not the reall substantiall and naturall bodie of Christ Iesus which was crucified for our sinnes This conclusion that it may be exactly vnderstood of the vulgar sort and euerie popishe conceite therein plainly discouered and effectually confuted shalbe prooued by way of certaine briefe paragraffes The first paragraffe of the forme of consecration The papistes defending the bread to be made Christes naturall body by vertue of consecration are at variance among themselues and cannot tell in the world which are the precise words of that their putatiue consecratien For the common opion among the papists to which their practise agreeth holdeth the consecration to consist in these words This is my body But their learned pope Innocentius telleth them another tale to wit that Christ consecrated by the power of excellencie which is not tied to the Sacramentes and consequently that hee first consecrated it and afterward pronounced the words which the other papistes will haue to be essentiall to the consecration Iosephus Angles telleth vs very grauely that this opinion of Innocentius is not hereticall although it cannot be defended without great temeritie But by our friers good fauour if the wordes of the consecration be as they defend then must the bread perforce be broken before it be Christes body then did Christ breake bread and not his body then did Christ deliuer bread and not his bodie For Christ first blessed the bread then brake it then gaue it to his apostles and after said This is my body So that against their willes they graunt vnwittingly that that which Christ gaue to his disciples was substantially bread and not his body This point is handled more at large in the 12. preamble in the booke of my Motiues The 2. Paragraffe Of the validitie of consecration The papistes teache that these wordes this is my body doe change and transelementate the substance of bread into the substance of Christes reall substantial and naturall body and that the bare formes of bread and wine doe after consecration existe without any subiect But this doctrine doth confute it selfe For first if the wordes of supposed consecration doe worke transubstantiation then must euery worde haue his due operation in that kinde of worke For otherwise some of the wordes should be frustrate and needlesse as which could haue no proper effect And yet dareth no papist assigne any effect to euery worde because it would follow thereupon that Christes body should be made by diuisible partes Secondly if the fourth word meum concurre essentially to the consecration then is Christes body either made by successiue operation which Aquinas and all learned papistes denie or the whole effect proceedeth totally of the fourth word without the actiuitie of the other three The sequele is euident because the prolation of the words is with succession and not in an instant Thirdly if the wordes of consecration be of such force as the papistes teach then must both Christes body and bread be vnder the forme of bread at once or els the forme of bread must for a certaine time be aswell without the substance of bread as without the body of Christ. I prooue it because as Christes body is made present vnder the forme of bread in an instant so doth the substance of bread cease to be in instant and consequently since two instantes cannot be immediate they must both either be togither in the same instant or both absent for the time mediate Fourthly the popish supposed transubstantiation is very ridiculous and absurd I prooue it because when the priest saith this my bo hee then either holdeth in his handes substantially bread or corporally Christes body if substantially bread then are their wordes of consecration not of force if corporally Christes bodie these three absurdities doe insue First Christes body is made by succession Secondly the sillable bo which by it selfe signifieth nothing is made significant Thirdly the last sillable die which is commonly deemed to accomplish their consecration is become officiperda redundant and superfluous Fiftly if the wordes of consecration be operatiue as the papistes holde then if the priest chaunce to die in the midst of the prolation Christes body shalbe left mangled and vnperfect for otherwise halfe of the consecratory wordes shall stand for cyphers and haue no effect at all The 3. Paragraph Of the impossibilitie of transubstantiation When two vnequall dimensiue quantities are placed togither it is vnpossible for the conteined to bee bigger then the conteiner but Christes body in the eucharist reteineth
that by writing which he doth approue at least so farre forth as mans iudgement can haue place The fyft Paragraph That the holy Eucharist is a figure and signe of Christes body and bloud not the thing it selfe that is thereby signified corporally but in a diuine and spirituall sort FOr the perspicuous explication of this Paragraph I will vse certaine effectuall and distinct proofes and that done I will succinctly aunswere to such obiections as may be made against the same My first proofe is grounded in the analogie of our christian faith for first Christ tooke our nature vpon him and that so really and truly as it was like vnto ours in euery thing sinne only excepted The former part saint Paul prooueth in these wordes who being in the forme of God thought it no robberie to be equall with God but he made himselfe of no reputation and tooke on him the forme of a seruant and was made like vnto men and was found in shape as a man The latter part S. Peter proueth in these words for Christ suffered for you leauing you an ensample that ye should follow his steps who did no sinne neither was there guile found in his mouth And S. Paule sayth for he hath made him to be sinne for vs who knew no sinne that we should be made the righteousnes of God in him Now our bodies are such as they can not with one act be made to be in two places at one time ergo the priests words can not make Christs body in a thousand places at once for if he could so do Christs body should be of an other nature then ours contrary to the holy scripture Secondly Christ sayth Ye worship that which ye know not God is a spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth Thus doth our faith tel vs but the Papists say that we must worship God in a round cake that we must worship for God that which neither we nor they know to be God for if the priest either want intention to consecrate which often chaunceth by reason of wandring imaginations or of purpose meaneth not to consecrate or of negligence omitteth any one word of consecration then by popish religion the thing adored is but pure bread and yet do they worship it for the euerliuing God It is therefore truely said to them that they worship they know not what Thirdly Christ must so be eaten of vs as he abideth in vs for to that end do we eate him that he may dwell in vs and yet is it certaine that he dwelleth not in vs corporally but spiritualy by faith The former part is not only euident in it selfe but verified by Christ himselfe in these words he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him the latter part S. Paule proueth in these words that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith Fourthly Christ ascended vp visibly into heauen and there must remaine til the day of generall doome as our faith telleth vs therefore we must feede on him in heauen by faith and not on earth with our teeth For which cause the auncient Church exhorted y e people before the communion to lift vp their hearts vnto the Lord as if it had beene said ye must not affixe your mindes to these visible creatures but meditate on heauenly things which are promised by y e reuereÌ„t faithfull vse thereof Fiftly S. Paul saith plainly that the faithfull in the old testament did all eate drinke Christs body bloud which they could not do but by faith because Christ was not then incarnate and euen so do we eate Christ spiritually by faith not corporally with our teeth To which effect grauely said S. Austen vt quid paras ventrem dentem crede manducasti Credere enim in eum hoc est panem vinum manducare qui credit in eum manducat eum Wherefore preparest thou a belly and a tooth beleeue thou hast eaten for to beleeue in him is to eate bread wine he that beleeueth in him eateth him Thus saith S Austen euen as their owne Gratian hath alledged him Sixtly S. Paule saith that so often as we eate and drinke of Christs cup so often do we shew his death till he come but doubtles if he be corporally present vnder the accidents of bread and wine then is he already come nay more truely is it said that he was neuer gone For as S. Austen saith donec seculum finiatur sursum est dominus sed tamen etiam hic nobiscuÌ„ est veritas domini corpus enim in quo resurrexit in vno loco esse oportet veritas autem eius vbique diffâ—sa est Our Lord is aboue vntill the worlds end but yet his truth is with vs heere for the body of our Lord wherein he rose againe must needes be in one place but his truth is diffused euery where Againe the same S. Austen writing against Faustus the Manichee hath these expresse words Secundum praesentiam quippe spiritualem nullo modo illa pati posset secundum praesentiam vero corporalem simul in sole in luna in cruce esse non posset For his flesh could no way suffer according to his spirituall presence and according to his corporall presence it was not possible for him to be both in the sunne and in the moone and on the crosse at one and the same time Againe he saith in another place after this manner Videte ascendentem credite in absentem sperate venientem sed tamen per misericordiam occultam etiam sentite praesentem Ille enim qui ascendit in coelum vt tolleretur ab oculis vestris promisit vobis dicens ecce ego vovestris promisit vobis dicens ecce ego vobiscum sum vsque in consummationem seculi Beholde Christ ascending beleeue in him absent trust in him that is comming and for all that feele him also present by his secret mercie Thus ye see the flat opinion of this graue writer of this ancient father of this holy learned doctour his resolution is so euident and so free from all obscuritie as none can pretend ignorance that once read his words For first he telleth vs that Christs naturall body must needes be in one onely place at one time Secondly hee telleth vs that Christs naturall body can not bee at one and the same time both in the Sunne and in the Moone and on the crosse Thirdly he maketh the same assertion plain by comparing his corporall presence with his spirituall For he saith that the one may be in many places but the other cannot as if he had saide Christs body may be spiritually in the sacrament but corporally it cannot be there Fourthly he proueth Christs corporal absence by the veritie of his ascension exhorting vs to beleeue in him that is corporally absent and withal to feele
his vertue as he is spiritually present How can he tel vs more plainely that Christs body is spiritually in the Eucharist but not corporally It is not possible for any man to yeelde a more sensible declaration which if the gentle reader wil obserue attentiuely it will minister to him a great light for the perfect vnderstanding of the whole mysterie My second proofe is grounded in the figures of the old testament for first circumcision was called Gods couenant and yet was it not the couenant indeede but a signe and signification thereof For it is common to all sacraments to haue the name of the thing that they signifie That it was called the couenant it is cleere in these wordes This is my couenant which yee shall keepe betweene me and you and thy seede after thee Let euerie man child among you bee circumcised And neuerthelesse that it was not the couenant but the signe of the couenant it is euident by these words Ye shal circumcise the foreskinne of your flesh and it shal be a signe of the couenant betweene mee and you The couenant indeede was this To be Abrahams God and the God of his seede after him so saith the text Secondly the Lambe was called the Lords passeouer and yet was it not the passeouer indeede but the signe and representation thereof That it was called the passeouer it is cleare by these words of Moses For it is the Lords passeouer And also by these words of the Euangelist Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eate the passeouer that is the Lambe which was the signe of the passeouer Againe in these wordes I wil keep y e passeouer at thine house Again in these words And they made readie the passeouer In all which places the scripture speaketh onely of the signe that is of the lambe and giueth it the name of the thing that is of the passing ouer Now that it was not the passeouer indeede but the signe or figure thereof it is euident by these words of holy Writ And the bloud shal bee a token for you vpon the houses where yee are so when I see the blood I will passe ouer you and the plague shal not be vppon you to destruction when I smite the land of Egypt Lo the lambe was but a token and signe of y e angels passing ouer them And this lambe was a figure of our passeouer Iesus Christ as he was really sacrificed vpon the crosse so saith the holy apostle For Christ our passeouer is sacrificed for vs. This S. Iohn confirmed when hee willed the Pharisees to behold the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world And in the Reuelation this lambe is saide to be slaine from the beginning of the world Since therefore the scripture telleth vs so plainly that the paschall Lamb was the type and figure of the true Messias who was sacrificed to his father for the sins of the world it shall not bee vnprofitable to the Reader to consider the allegorie of the rites which God appointed to be obserued therein The Type Exod. 12 Â The thing signified 1 The lambe was a memoriall of the deliuerance out of Egypt That is to say 1 Christ deliuered vs from hell sin death and satan Gal. 3.13 2 The lambe was a sacrifice distinguishing the Israelites from other nations 2 Christ is the eternall sacrifice who being eaten spiritually by faith distinguâ—sheth gods faith full people from infidels Ioh. 6.56 3 The lambe was a true lambe of the flocke 3 Christ was a true man borne of the blessed virgin Ioh. 1.14 4 The lambe was truely slaine 4 Christ was truely crucified 1. Corinth 5.7 Iohn 19.30 5 The lambe was not boyled in water but rosted drie 5 Christs body was inclosed in a new tombe that had no water in it Matth. 27.60 6 The lambe was killed at euen 6 Christ was killed in the ende of the world Hebr. 1.2 7 The Angell beholding the doores sprinckled with the lambes bloud passed ouer the Israelites 7 God beholding our soules sprinckeled with the bloud of Christ doeth not impute our sinnes to vs Rom. 3.34 8 The lambs bloud saued the Israelites from common death 8 The bloud of Christ deliuered vs from eternal death He. 2.9 9 All the Israelites did eate of the lambe 9 All the faithfull shall eate of Christ spiritually Iohn 6. 10 Euery part of the lambe was eaten 10 Euery mysterie of Christes incarnation must be beleeued 2. Timoth. 3. 11 The lambe was eaten without leauen 11 Christ is eaten by faith with out hypocrisie 1. Corint 5.8 12 The lambe was eaten wyth sowre hearbes 12 We must eate Christ in bearing his crosse Matth. 10.38 13 The lambe was appointed to be eaten with speede 13 Wee must embrace Christes Gospell with all expedition Matth. 6.33 14 The lambe was eaten of the circumcised onely 14 Christ is onely eaten by faith of the regenerat 1. Cor. 11.29 15 The lambe was without blemish 15 Christ was free from sinne 1. Pet. 2.22 THis passeouer of the olde law with other sacrifices and figures which were but shadows of y e Messias to come are al wholy abolished by Christs sacred aduent For Christ now readie to die and to offer vp himselfe as the true passeouer and veritie of all figures made an end of the olde passeouer with a solemne banket and instituting the Eucharist in stead therof commanded the faithfull to obserue the same for a memorie of his death and passion vntil his second aduent which shall be in maiestie and glorie My third proofe is grounded in the phrases of the new testament For Christ himselfe saide that he would not henceforth drinke of the fruit of the vine vntill he rose againe S. Paul in like manner calleth it bread verie often euen after the consecration But if it had beene Christs natural bloud and his naturall body neither would he haue called it the fruit of the vine nor Saint Paul haue tearmed it bread Which Saint Paule maketh plaine in another place where hee hath these words The bread which we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ for we that are many are one bread and one body because we all are partakers of one bread Out of which words I note first that Saint Paule tearmeth it bread after the consecration or Christs blessing or after the wordes of Christes institution which is all one in a right and godly sense I note secondly that he calleth it not Christs body but the participation of his body I note thirdly that the bread he speaketh of is broken I note fourthly that wee are all one bread and one body which annotations beeing ioyned together I inferre first that the bread is Christs body spiritually and by faith but not corporally as the papists say For Christs naturall body cannot be broken as their own learned Canus granteth and as verie
reason teacheth I inferre secondly that we are no otherwise partakers of Christs bodie then we are all one bodie and one bread And yet is it certaine yea no Papist can denie it that we are but one bodye and one bread mystically and sacramentally Ergo wee are no otherwise partakers of Christes bodie then mystically and sacramentally that is to say while we eate the sacrament of Christes body wee are vnited spiritually to Christ by faith and mystically one to another My fourth proofe is grounded in the vniforme consent of the ancient doctours of the church For first S. Clemens Alexandrinus hath these words Nam ipse quoque homo vinum benedixit cum dixit accipite bibite hoc est sanguis meus sanguis vitis verbum quod pro multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum sanctum laetitiae fluentum allegorice significat Sequitur quod autem vinum esset quod benedictum est ostendit rursus dicens discipulis non bibam ex fructu vitis huius donec bibero ipsum vobiscum in regno patris mei For our Lord being also man blessed wine when he saide Take drinke this is my blood the blood of the vine the word which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes doth signifie allegorically the holie riuer of gladnesse And that it was wine which is blessed he sheweth againe when he saith thus to his disciples I wil not drinke of the fruit of this vine vntil I drinke it with you in the kingdome of my father Out of these words of this holy and ancient father who liued aboue one thousand three hundred and eightie yeeres ago I note first that that which Christ called his bloud at his supper was naturally wine though his bloud sacramentally for it was sanguis vitis such bloud as the vine doth affoord I note secondly that these words which is shed for many are allegoricall that is they sound one thing in bare wordes and signifie another thing indeede as if hee had saide The wine or liquor in the cup is not shed indeede for many but is a sacrament or figure of Christs naturall bloud which is indeede shed for our sinnes I note thirdly that these words of Christ I wil not drinke of the fruite of the vine were spoken after the consecration of the wine and are to be vnderstoode litterally and consequently that that which the Apostles dranke was naturall wine not naturall bloud Although I admit willingly that it was bloud in a sacrament and mysterie or to vse S. Clements phrase allegorically which I wish the reader euer to obserue as a generall rule Secondly S. Hilarie writeth thus Nos verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus per hoc vnuÌ„ erimus quia pater in eo est ille in nobis We truely receiue the flesh of Christs body in a mysterie and by it we shall be one because the Father is in him and he in vs. Out of these words I note first that to receiue Christs body in a sacrament or mysterie is to receiue it truely which I wish the reader to obserue carefully for we do not terme the holy Eucharist or Lords Supper bare bakers bread as the Papists slaunder vs but we affirme it to be sanctified bread to be sacramentall bread to be diuine bread yea to be Christs true body in deede but sacramentally but spiritually but mystically as S. Hilarie truely sayth And this answere will solue a thousand captious cauilles which the Papists vse to make I note secondly that such as is our vnion by eating this bread such is the eating thereof And consequently since euery child knoweth that we are but mystically vnited as we are the mysticall members of one body it followeth that we do but mystically eate Christs bodie And S. Hilaries reason maketh it plaine when hee addeth because the father is in him and he in vs for neither doth the father dwell in him corporally who is corpslesse neither corporally in vs. Thirdly S. Irenaeus hath these words Qui est è terra panis percipiâ—ns vocationem Dei iam non communis panis est sed eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti The bread which is of the earth after it hath receiued gods blessing is no longer common bread but the eucharist And it consisteth of two things the one earthly the other heauenly Out of which words I note first that our communion bread is still bread after consecration though it be not common bread but sacramentall and heauenly bread for otherwise he would haue saide it is not bread but the eucharist He would I say haue reiected the name of bread and not haue kept it still I note secondly that Christ is not present corporally in the Eucharist because his naturall bodie is but one thing which yet should be the whole eucharist if it were present as the Papists grossely dreame Besides this his bodie hencefoorth is not terrestriall but celestiall glorious immortall spirituall yet withall it still reteineth all essentiall properties of a true body euen as our bodies shall do after the resurrection It is still circumscriptible sensible visible tangible quantitatiue dimensiue locall none of which can possibly be found in popish carnall reall presence Fourthly Saint Chrysostome hath these words Nam quando dicunt vnde patet immolatum Christum fuisse alia multa mysteria haec afferentes ora ipsorum consuimus Si enim mortuus Iesus non est cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est Infra ita per sacratissimam istam mensam saluat docet hoc enim caput bonorum omnium est quare hoc Paulus voluit ac repetit sed tradito iam mysterio non bibam ait de hoc genimine vitis vsque in illam diem cum illud bibam nouum vobiscum in regno patris mei Sequitur ex genimine autem ait vitis quae certe vinum non aquam producit For when they say how do we know that Christ suffered and many other mysteries wee bringing these things â—owe vp their mouthes For if Iesus were not dead of whome is this sacrifice a marke and signe So hee both saueth and teacheth by this most sacred table for this is the head of al good things wherefore Saint Paul meant this and hee repeateth it But after hee had deliuered the mysterie I will not drinke saith hee of this fruite of the vine vntill that day when I shall drinke it newe with you in the kingdome of my father And hee saith of the fruit of the vine which doubtlesse bringeth forth wine and not water Out of these words I note first that the Eucharist is but a symbole signe or figure of Christs body I note secondly that that which Christ gaue to his disciples and which he called his bloud was true wine the naturall fruit of the vine I note thirdly that Christ first had deliuered the mysterie
that body in his handes such is the humilitie of our Lord Iesus Christ. Thus saith Saint Austen By whose words it is euident that that which Christ at his last supper gaue to his disciples was his true reall naturall body euen that which was borne of the virgin Mary For first he telleth vs that Christ did that which Dauid could not do to wit that he did beare himselfe in his own hands Secondly he saith that this was done literally euen as the words do sound Thirdly he coÌ„mendeth Christs great humility in that fact Now it is cleare y t if this could be vnderstood figuratiuely it might be well verified in Dauid for Dauid might haue born the picture figure or image of his owne body in his hands yea this he might haue done literally haue shewed no humilitie therin But Christ did so beare himselfe in his owne hands saith saint Austen as no man can do the like This reason is inuincible all protestants in the world cannot answere the same The answere I say first that this reason seemeth indeede to be inuincible and so my selfe haue sometime thought I say secondly that if S. Austen should so meane as you gather of these words he should contradict himself in many other places as is already proued and consequently his authoritie should be of no force in this behalfe I say thirdly that Saint Austen doth a little after expound his owne meaning in these expresse words Et ferebatur in manibus suis. Quomodo ferebatur in manibus suis quia cum commendaret ipsum corpus suum sanguinem suum accepit in manus suas quod 〈◊〉 fideles ipse se portabat quodammodo cùm diceret hoc est corpus meuÌ„ And he was borne in his hands How was he borne in his hands because when he commended his owne body and his blood hee tooke into his hands that the faithful know and he bare himselfe after a sort when he saide This is my body Where I wish the Reader to marke well the worde quadammodo after a sorte for Christ had his true reall and natural bodie in his handes after a sort that is sacramentally when he said This is my body He had his 〈◊〉 body in his hands but it was after a sort not simplie but sacramentally not naturally but mystically not carnally I say fourthly that neither Dauid nor any other creature coulde haue borne himselfe after this sort in his owne hands For as Aquinas Victoria Antoninus Couarruuias Bellarminus and all learned papists grant no mortall man can institute any sacrament and so no mortal man being pure man could sacramentally beare himselfe in his owne hands I say fiftly that greater humilitie coulde not be then that the Lord of glorie should offer himselfe on the crosse so to appease Gods wrath and to make attonement for our sins and withall shoulde giue vs the sacrament of his body bloud as a seale of our reconciliation and of his beneuolence towards vs. All this discourse S. Austen confirmeth in another place where he hath these words Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum sanguinem quem effusuri sunt qui me â—rucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendaui spiritualiter intellectum viuificat vos Yee shall not eate this body that ye see and drinke that blood which they shal shed that will crucifie me I haue commended a sacrament to you which being vnderstood spiritually doth quicken you The second obiectâ—on S. Cyprian doth prooue this veritie in most plaine and manifest tearmes Thus doeth he write Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro The bread which our Lord did reach to his disciples being chaÌ„ged not in shape but in nature became flesh by the omnipotencie of the word Lo bread was changed not in shape or figure which our sense telleth vs to be so but in nature or substance as the catholike church teacheth vs. And how is it changed euen into flesh and yet wil not you haue Christ to be present in flesh bloud and bone But if it were otherwise the omnipotent power of Gods word shoulde be needelesse which yet Saint Cyprian saieth is it that worketh this mightie change If yee yeeld not to this testimonie ye shew your selfe to be obstinate The answere I say first that the grosse and carnal sense of these words did wonderfully seduce my selfe when the time was I say secondly that if Saint Cyprian meant as you woulde haue him hee should bee contrarie to himselfe For hee affirmeth it to be true wine which Christ gaue to his Apostles I haue already alleaged his expresse words peruse them and marke them well I say thirdly that S. Cyprian can neuer bee more truely expounded then when his owne meaning in one place is gathered out of his owne words in another place That therefore all his words may be consonant one to another we must ioine antecedent to consequent former to latter and one place to another This done wee shal finde with facilitie that hee speaketh onely of sacramentall alteration and that by the word nature hee meaneth natural properties Yea euen so do the papists interprete the same word in their Gelasius concerning this question nowe in hand Thus doeth Saint Cyprian say immediately after the other wordes Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat diuinitas ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infudit essentia Infrà Nostra vero ipsius coniunctio nec miscet personas nec vnit substantias sed affectus consociat confoederat voluntates Iterum sicut panis communis quem quotidie edimus vita est corporis ita panis iste supersubstantialis vita est animae sanitas mentis Panem Angelorum sub sacramento manducamus in tâ—rris eundem sine sacramento manifestiùs edemus in coelis non ministerio corporali And as the humanitie was seene in the person of Christ and the diuinitie hidden euen so hath the diuine essence powred out it selfe vnspeakeably in the visible sacrament For both ours and his coniunction neither mingleth persons nor yet vniteth substances but procureth fellowship in affection and agreement in willes And as the common bread which wee eate daily is the life of the body so is this supersubstantiall bread the life of the soule and the health of the minde We eate here on earth Angel-foode vnder the sacrament but wee shall eate the same more clearely without the sacrament in heauen and that without help of the body Out of these wordes I note first that Christs diuinitie is after an vnspeakeable manner in the sacrament but so is noâ— his bodie or humanitie and consequently that Christ is not there in inuisible carnall presence I note secondly that this sacramentall vnion doth not vnite substances but affections and willes and yet should our bodies be
vnited if we receiued Christ corpoâ—â—lly into our bellies But as the same Cyprian saith a 〈…〉 Recipitur non includitur He is receiued but not shut vp in the sacrament I note thirdly that this bread is spirituall not corporall the bread of the soule not of the bodie I note fourthly that we eate Angell-foode here on earth in the sacrament and that we shall eate the verie same in heauen without the sacrament Which assertion vttered by holy Cyprian sheweth his catholique christian meaning so plainly as all Papistes may be ashamed hencefoorth to alleadge him for their late inuented carnall presence In heauen there is neither accident without subiect nor sacrament administred nor yet any corporall eating and drinking there vsed Angels foode is spirituall not carnall celestiall not terrestriall eternall not corporall Angels neither eate by dint of tooth nor by morsels in the mouth Their nature is not capable of anie such actions Since therefore our sacramentall meate is the same that Angels now eate and the same that our selues shall eate in heauen where all corporall carnall and fleshy eating ceaseth it foloweth of necessitie that it is meere spirituall not corporall fleshy or carnall The reply He saith that the bread is made flesh by the omnipotencie of Gods word to shew the vnspeakeable transmutation Therefore so soone as Gods worde is spoken by the priest it is no more bread but flesh indeede The answere I say first as I said not long before that it passeth the force of any power vpon earth to make common bread a sacrament I say secondly that the alteration is vnspeakeable when the diuine power of Christ doth infuse it selfe into the hearts of the faithful by the visible sacrament as by his ordinarie organ and instrument and then and there worketh the diuine effectes signified by the sacrament I say thirdly that whosoeuer wil peruse the whole treatise of Saint Cyprian De coena Domini and doe it seriously with iudgement and christian zeale that man shal doubtlesse finde his meaning to bee as I haue saide For in an other place thereof he hath these words Ideò ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adiuta infirmitas sensibili argumento edocta est visibilibus sacramentis inesse vitae aternae effectum non tam corporali quà m spirituali transitione Christo nos vniri Therefore the infirmitie of our faith being holpen by the accustomed effect of things is caught by a sensible argument that the effect of eternal life is in the visible sacraments and that we are vnited to Christ not so by corporal as by spiritual transmutation And in the very ende of the tract he concludeth in this manner Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide sincerâ panem sanctum frangimus partimur dum quod diuinum quod humanum est distinguimus separamus itémque simul separata iungentes vnum deum hominem fatemur Sed nos ipsi corpus eius effecti sacramento re sacramenti capiti nostro connectimur vnimur singuli alter alterius membra ministerium dilectionis pro inuicem exhibentes communicamus charitate participamus sollicitudine eundem cibum manducantes eundem potum bibentes qui depetra spiritali profluit emanat qui cibus potus est dominus noster Iesus Christus So often as we doe these things we doe not whet our teeth to eate but we breake and diuide the sanctified bread with a sincere faith while wee distinguish and separate what is diuine and what humane and also ioyning the same things separated together confesse one God and man Our selues also being made his body are knit to our head by the sacrament and vertue thereof and are vnited particularly one an others members exhibiting the ministerie of loue one for another we communicate in charitie we participate in solicitude we eate the same meate and drinke the same drinke which floweth and runneth out of the spiritual rocke which meate and drinke is our Lord Iesus Christ. Out of these wordes I note first that Christ is truely present in the eucharist but yet after a spiritual sort and not corporall I note secondly that we are vnited to Christ spiritually by meanes of the sacrament but not corporally For as wee receiue Christ in the sacrament so are wee vnited to Christ iâ— the same as by an ordinary instrument vnder him I note thirdly that after sanctification it is bread still as before and is broken and deuided none of which can agree indeede with Christs corporall presence I note fourthly that we eate not Christ with mouth and tooth but with a true christian faith I note fiftly that the true and sincere faith by which we must eate the Eucharist is to distinguish in Christ the humanitie from the diuinitie and to ioyne the same againe confessing one Christ to be true God and true man I note sixtly that as we eate Christ in the Sacrament so are we made one anothers members which can not be otherwise vnderstoode then in a mysticall maner I note seuenthly that our sacramentall meate and drinke is spirituall which floweth out from the spirituall rocke Christ Iesus For if the rocke be spirituall whereof we drinke then doubtles the drinke it selfe can not be corporall because as all Philosophers graunt and as right reason prescribeth qualis causa talis effectus the effect is of like condition with the cause neither can a corporall cause bring foorth a spirituall effect nor a spirituall cause a corporall effect whereupon ariseth a great question among the Schoolemen how hell fire can be materiall since a body can haue no action into a spirit The 3. obiection Saint Chrysostome hath these wordes Quod est in calice id est quod à latere fluxit illius sumus participes That which is in the cuppe is the same that flowed out of his side and wee are partakers thereof But doubtlesse no christian can or will denie that to be Christs true bloud indeede which issued out of his side vppon the crosse therefore the same must be granted to be vnder the forme of wine in the masse The answer I say first that I graunt Christes true body and his true bloud to be in the eucharist but not vnder accidents without subiects nor corporally and carnally but in a diuine spirituall and mysticall sort Neither doth saint Chrysostome S. Cyprian saint Austen or anie other ancient father speake one word of your carnall reall presence or once name your accidents without subiects No they teach no other doctrine then that which I willingly imbrace Now that Saint Chrysostome speaketh of a mysticall presence his owne wordes following within a few lines shall witnesse the same with me Thus he saith Et propter te frangi sustinet vt omnes satiet And he suffereth to be broken for thee that he may satiate all Thus saith this holy father By whose words it is
For first the cup doth figuratiuely signifie the liquour in the cup. Again the cup is called the testament and yet it is but the figure or signe of the testament I say secondly that y e figure Metonymie is very frequent in the holy scripture aswell in the old as in the new testament In the old testament we haue these examples this is the passeouer That is this doth signifie the passeouer Againe this is my couenant that is to say this doth signifie my couenant or this is a signe of my couenant Againe the 7. good kine are 7. yeares and the seuen good eares are seuen yeares Againe the the seuen thinne and euill fauoured kine are seuen yeares Againe the seuen emptie eares blasted with the East-wind are seuen yeares of famine In all which places the figure Metonymia is vsed For neither the kine nor the eares were the seeuen yeares as euery childe knoweth but they did signifie the yeares to come they were a signe and figure thereof In the newe testament we haue these examples I am the vine Againe I am a doore Againe My father is an husbandman Againe The seed is the word of God Againe We that are manie are one bread Againe The rocke was Christ. Againe The lyon which is of the tribe of Iuda the root of Dauid hath obteined to open the booke In which places Christ neither was the vine nor the rocke nor the lyon neither was the seed the word of God neither was God the father an husbandman neither are the fathfull one bread but al these things are figuratiuely spoken by the vsuall custome of the holy Scripture I say thirdly that not only the ancient fathers but euen the papistes also haue acknowledged this figure their words and testimonies are alreadie cited I say fourthly that the verie wordes of institution are figuratiue which thing is so plaine as euerie child may perceiue the same For thus saith S. Luke This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud which is shed for you Where I am well assured euerie papist small and great will confesse with me that the cup by the figure metonymia is taken for the liquour in the cup. And so against their will they are enforced to acknowledge a figure euen there where they so obstinately denie a figure The fift obiection The Prophet Malachie hath such a plaine testimonie for the reall presence and sacrifice of the altar as it can neuer be aunswered till the worldes end These are the wordes In euery place incense shall be offered to my name and a pure offering These wordes of the Prophet being effectually applied will confound the respondent whatsoeuer hee shall answere For first the prophet speaketh of the oblatiō of the new testament as your selues cannot deny Secondly the prophet saith that this oblation must be in euery place and so it cannot be vnderstoode of Christs bodie offered vpon the crosse for that oblation was but in one place euen without the walles of Ierusalem Thirdly it cannot be vnderstood of the sacrifice of praise thanksgiuing bicause whatsoeuer proceedeth from vs is impure polluted Yea as an other prophet saith Al our righteousnes is as filthie clouts and so no oblation that is ours can be pure Therefore he speaketh of Christs body offered in the masse which is a pure oblation indeede The answere I answere to this insoluble so supposed argument that the prophet speaketh of the sacrifice of prayer and thankesgiuing And I prooue it by the flat testimonies of the holy Fathers Saint Irenaeus hath these wordes In omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo sacrificium purum Incensa autem Ioannes in Apocalypsi orationes esse ait sanctorum Incense is offered to my name in euery place and a pure sacrifice and Saint Iohn in the Reuelation saith that this incense is the prayers of the Saints Saint Theodoretus doeth expound this place after the same maner in his Commentaries vpon the same text Saint Hierome hath these wordes Sed thymiama hoc est sanctorum orationes Domino offerendas non in vna orbis prouincia Iudaeâ nec in vna Iudaeae vrbe Hierusalem sed in omni loco offerri oblationem But incense that is the prayers of saints must be offered to the Lord and that not in Iudea one onely prouince of the world neither in Ierusalem one onlie citie thereof but in euery place must an oblation be made Now where it is said that al our actions be impure and polluted I answere that that is true indeed when our actions be examined in rigour of iustice But not so when we are clad with the righteousnesse of Christ Iesus and haue washed our sins in his bloud for whose sake God doth not impute our pollutitions and filth vnto vs. Not so when God dealeth with vs according to mercie Not so when God accepteth our sinfull and imperfect acts as pure iust and innocent For our owne vnworthienesse the Prophet desired God not to enter into iudgement with his seruants but for Christs righteousnesse the Apostle pronounceth vs free from condemnation For though our sinnes be red as scarlet yet so soone as they be washed in the bloud of the immaculate Lambe they become by acceptation as white as snow This whole discourse Saint Augustine handleth finely in these golden wordes Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum si remota misericordia discutias eam Woe euen to the laudable life of men if thou examine it thy mercie set a part And in this sense the obiection taketh place Neuertheles god of his great mercie doth accept our works as iust and pure through faith in Christ Iesus our sweet redeemer for whose sake he doth not impute our sins to vs. So saith the Apostle not by the workes of righteousnesse which wee haue done but according to his mercie hath he saued vs by the washing of the new birth the renewing of the holy Ghost So saith S. Iohn These are they which came out of great tribulation and haue washed their long robes haue made them white in the bloud of the lamb through the merits of which lambe our prayers and works are reputed pure Therefore saith Saint Paul I will therefore that the men pray euery where lifting vp pure hands without wrath or doubting The 6. obiection If the words of consecration be trophicall and figuratiue so as there is but a bare signe of Christs body and bloud then shall our sacraments of the newe Testament bee no better then the sacraments of the old The reason is euident because they did signifie Christs death and passion euen as ours do and yet is it cleare by the scriptures that we haue the verity wherof they had but the figure onely The answere I say first that our sacraments excell the olde sundry waies first because they are immutable and shall not bee altered till the worlds