amends for all telling vs that when they take away from the people one kinde of the Sacrament they do them no hinderance thereby because they giue them both the body and bloud of Christ together vnder one kinde But who hath taught them so to doe or that so they can doe and if both may bee giuen vnder one why did Christ by his institution ordaine seuerally a Sacrament of both Let him satisfie vs in this behalfe if the whole intention of the Sacrament be atteined in one kinde why our Sauiour Christ would do a needlesse worke to institute both and if it be needfull for the Priest to drinke of the Lords cup why is it needlesse for the people or if it be sufficiently auaileable for the people that the Priest drinke thereof why is it not also sufficient that the Priest onely doe eate for all Hee telleth vs that the body and bloud of Christ bee so vnited that they cannot be separated and we grant so much of the bodie and bloud of Christ as now they are but he should remember that by this Sacrament g 1. Cor. 11.26 wee shew foorth the death of the Lord and in the death of the Lord his bodie was broken and his bloud was shed for vs accordingly as it is said h 1. Cor. 11.24 This is my body which is broken for you l Mat. 26.28 this is my bloud which is shed for you and therefore that the sacrament must represent and offer vnto vs the bloud of Christ as separated from the body Which because it cannot do being vsed in one kinde therefore it followeth that the Popish vsage thereof in that sort excludeth the intention of the sacrament and robbeth vs of the comfort of Christs bloud shed for the forgiuenesse of our sins And surely if the effect of the sacrament be wholly attained by receiuing onely in one kinde there was no cause why Gelasius Bishop of Rome hearing of some k De consecrat dist 2. Comperimus quosdam qui sumpta sacri corporis portione à calice sacrati cruoris abstineant qui quia nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi aut integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integru arceantur quia diuisio vnius einsdemque mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest prouenire who receiuing the portion of Christs sacred body did forbeare the cuppe of his sacred bloud should decree as he did that either they should receiue the whole sacrament or else be excluded from the whole adding a reason thereof which cleerely cutteth off all Popish exceptions because the diuiding of one and the same mysterie cannot come without great sacriledge Why should Gelasius vrge a matter so needlesse if it be true which now is taught in Poperie or if Gelasius then saw it to be sacriledge to diuide this mysterie of Christ how commeth it about that it is not so now In the time of Iulius the first long before Gelasius another abuse was creeping into the Church of dipping the Sacrament of Christs body into the cup as thereby to saue a labour and so vnder one to deliuer both It appeareth heereby that Christian people were not then taught as they are now in the Romane church that the one part of the Sacrament is by concomitancy as their Schoolemen haue deuised both the bodie and the bloud of Christ neither did Iulius vpon that ground condemne that dipping as superfluous and causelesse which both hee and they should in that respect haue conceiued so to bee if that fancie were true But they by Christs institution conceiued a necessitie to receiue both and therefore in this sort by dipping the Eucharist in the cup prouided so to doe in which sort notwithstanding to receiue both Iulius approoued it as a thing vnlawfull l Dist 2. cap. Cum omne Quod pro complemento câ—mmunionis ineinctam tradunt Eu haristiam populis nec hoc prolatum ex Euangelio testimoniuÌ„ receperunt vbi Apostolu corpus suum commendauit sanguinem seorsum enim panu scorsum calicis commendatio memoratur because there is no testimony heereof in the Gospell where Christ commended to his Apostles his body and bloud for there is recorded seuerally the deliuery of the bread and seuerally of the cup. Now if Christ to the end he might commend to vs both his body and bloud would seuerally commend the one and seuerally the other surely the church of Rome in debarring the people from the cup confoundeth the institution of Christ and commendeth the one onely without the other And sith Iulius did hold that for direction in this behalfe the Church is to haue recourse to the example of Christ in the Gospell to doe as Christ there is recorded to haue done wee must needs conceiue that the Church of Rome now is not of the same mind that Iulius was which so manifestly crosseth that which is described in the gospell And not Iulius only but the whole Church of Christ held it selfe tied to that example and practised accordingly neither was there any Church in the world which held it sufficient or lawfull to administer the sacrament to the people in one kind Hierome saith that m Hieron in 1. Cor. 11. Dominica coena omnibus debet esse communis quia ille omnibus distipulu suis qui aderant aequaliter tradidit sacramenta the Lords supper ought to be common to all because the Lord Iesus equally deliuered the sacraments to all his disciples that were present So Chrysostome saith n Chrysost in 2. Cor. hom 18. Est vbi nihil differt sacerdos a subdito vt quando fruendum est sacris mysterijs similiter enin omnes vt 〈◊〉 participemus digri habemus that in the receiuing of the holy mysteries there is no difference betwixt the Priest and the people for we all saith he are vouchsafed to receiue them alike o Theophylact. in 1. Cor. c. 11. praesertim cum tremendus hic calix pari cunctis conditione sit traditus This dreadfull cup saith Theophylact was in like or equall condition deliuered to all In a word when Cyprian saith that p Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 2. Quomodo ad martyrij poculum idoneos facimus si non eos ad bibendum prius in ecclesia poculum domini iure communicationis admittimus by right of communion we admit the people to drinke in the Church of the Lords cup what doth hee but plainly declare that the Church of Rome doth apparant wrong to the people of God in that it bereaueth them of this right We may therefore iustlie thinke them very impudently obstinate whom neither the authority of Christ nor the consent of fathers nor the practise of Christian Churches vniuersally through the world nor the very reason of the Sacrament it selfe can mooue to reform this maiming of the sacrament of Christ but doe make choise rather to continue still in error than to acknowledge that they haue erred But M.
bee the figure of Christs body Yea but Christ saith he saith not that it is the figure of his body but his body And euen so S. Paul saith not that the rocke was a figure of Christ but h 1. Cor. 10.4 The rocke was Christ i August in Leuit. q. 57. Quod vtique non erat per substantiam sed per significationem which yet saith Austin was not Christ in substance but in signification If S. Paul might say that the rocke was Christ though in substance it were not so then might Christ say of bread this is my body though it bee not so in substance but in signification and power onely euen as hath beene k Sect. 48. before said that Sacraments commonly beare the names of those things whereof they are sacraments and that because though they be signes and figures yet they are such signes as doe by the ordinance of God truely and effectually exhibite and yeeld to the faith of the beleeuer the heauenly and spirituall grace that is signified thereby Now when we say that the Sacrament is thus the figure of Christs body how doe wee meane it but of his bodie which was giuen for our redemption vpon the crosse and therefore that addition set downe by M. Bishop is impertinent and maketh nothing at all for him 60. W. BISHOP Fiftly 1. Cor. 10.16 S. Paul demandeth thus the Chalice of benediction which we doe blesse is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ and the bread that we breake is it not the participation of the body of our Lord if then wee doe in receiuing the blessed Sacrament participate Christs body and communicate his bloud they surely are there really present R. ABBOT We doe in receiuing the blessed Sacrament participate Christs body and communicate his bloud and yet they are not there really present because wee participate Christs body by faith in spirit and soule not in body by the mouth and belly as hath beene before shewed S. Austin supposing Christ to be absent in body yet teacheth vs how wee receiue him when he saith a Aug. in Ioan. tract 50. Quomodo tenebo absentem quomodo in coelum manum mitâ—am vt ibi sedentem teneam fidem mitte tenuisti How shall I lay hold of him being absent how shall I put vp my hand to heauen to lay hold of him sitting there send vp thy faith saith he and thou hast taken hold of him There needeth then no reall presence for the receiuing of Christs body but by faith we lay hold thereof sitting at the right hand of God the father 61. W. BISHOP Againe S. Paul saith He that eateth and drinketh vnwoorthely 1. Cor. 11.28 eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe not discerning the body of our Lord and before is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ ergo the body and bloud of Christ are there present or else why should a man incurre that guilt but by his vnwoorthy receiuing of it and by not discerning Christs body to be there present R. ABBOT M. Bishop thinketh that we doe indignitie to the Saints when wee pull downe their images which they worship and yet hee will not say that those images are the Saints themselues and can he not conceiue that in the dishonor of the sacrament is the dishonour of Christ though the sacrament be not verily Christ himselfe but the representatâ—on and signe of his body and bloud the despight and villaine that is done to the Princes picture or seale is construed to be an indignitie to the Prince and so will the Apostle haue vs to conceiue of the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ It is by Gods ordinance to vs and in our vse as it were the body and bloud of Christ and therefore iustly is he said not to discerne the Lords body and to be guiltie of the body and bloud of Christ who vnreuerently and with contempt presumeth to offer himselfe to these mysteries of Christ though Christ himselfe be not really present in the vsage thereof 62. W. BISHOP Besides all these plaine texts of holy Scripture in confirmation of the reall presence the very circumstances of it doe much fortifie our faith therein In S. Luke we haue Luc. 22.15 that our Sauiour maruellously desired desiderio desideraui to eat that this last banquet with his Diâ—ciples S. Iohn addeth that whereas he loued his that were in the world vnto the end he loued them and knowing that the Father gaue all things into his hands and that he came from God and goeth to God c. What coherence I say with this exceeding loue and infiâ—â—te power of Christ to bee shewed in his last supper if he hath left onely bread and wine to bee taken in remembrance of him any meane man might easily haue done as much and Helias departing from his Disciple Heliseus did much more for hee left a more noble remembrance of himselfe behinde him to wit his cloake and double spirit But Christ bequeathing vs his true naturall body to bee the foode of our soules and comfort of our hearts as wee beleeue and teach he then indeed shewed his iâ—finite power and loue towards vs and that he came from God and as God bestowed an inestimable gift vpon vs such a one as neuer any other did or could possibly doe R. ABBOT It is truly said by Tertullian that a Tertul. de Baptism Nihil adeò est quod obiurat mentes hominum quà m simplicitas diuinorum operum quae in actu videntur magnificentia quae in effectu repromittitur c. nothing so much offendeth mens mindes in the Sacraments as the simplicitie of Gods works as they seeme in act and the magnificence which is promised in effect M. Bishop looking to the outward signes in the Lords supper taketh the same to be a simple token of Christs exceeding loue towards vs a matter that any man might doe and not so much as that that Elias left to his scholar Elizeus Thus in his blinde fancie hee amplifieth the matter as if wee taught that Christ in his last supper had recommended nothing to vs but bread and wine But let him vnderstand that we see and teach in this sacrament the exceeding great loue of Christ not in those simple creatures which we see in act but in the magnificence of grace which is promised in effect If wee consider these creatures in act they are but bread and wine but consider them in vse and effect and then this bread is heauenly bread the bread of life the food of immortalitie there is in it the spirit of Christ euen the power of the word of God not onely feeding but also sanctifying and clensing the soule I will expresse it by M. Bishops owne words that Christ hath bequeathed and heereby giueth vnto vs his true naturall body to be the food of our soules of our soules I say not of our bodies which if he did rightly meane
cannot bring so much as one man within the compasse of eleuen hundred yeeres after Christ that euer reduced the Sacraments to that number And shall not we well deserue to bee written vpon the backe-side of the booke of Wisedome if we shal take that for a principle of Christian religion which came first out of their schoole for the space of more then a 1000. yeres was neuer so knoweÌ„ in the church of Christ The Apostle m 1. Cor. 10.1.2 c. when he wil shew the Church of the Israelites to haue beene equall to vs in grace of Sacraments instanceth the same only in our two sacraments because he knew no more And no more did the ancient Fathers know who vniuersally holding the same mysterie of the creation of the woman out of the side of Adam being asleepe namely that n Aug. in Psal 56. Dormienti Christo in cruce facta est coniux de latere percussum est enim latus pendent is de lancea et prâ—fluxerunt Ecclesiae Sacramenta in Ioan. tract 15. thereby was figured the framing of the Church by Sacraments out of the side of Christ being dead when being pearced there issued out of it o Ioh. 19.34 1. Ioh. 5.6 water and bloud doe name those Sacraments as we doe p Aug. de symbol ad CatechuÌ„ lib. 2. c. 6. Sanguis aqua quae sunt Ecclesiae gemina sacramenta Chrysost in Ioan. hom 84. Theophy in Ioan. 19. Cyprian de passione Christi Of the effects of the Sacraments two onely and no more Whereas he saith that we extinguish the vertue and efficacy of those two sacraments it is only his blinde conceit We deny not but that the Sacraments are instruments of grace and of remission of sinnes and yet we deny them to bee so in that sort as is affirmed by the church of Rome namely as to giue grace ex opere operato for the very worke wrought as the Schoolemen speake It is worthily obserued by Saint Austin that q Aug. in Ioan. tract 80. Aâ—cedat verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum etiam ipsum tanquam visibile verbuÌ„ a Sacrament is as it were a visible word because by it in way of signification God as it were speaketh the same to the eie other senses which by the word he soundeth to the eare Yea hee affirmeth that the outward element of it selfe is nothing but it is by the word that it hath whatsoeuer power it hath r Ibid. Quare non ait Nunc mundi estis propter baptismum quo loti estis sed ait propter verbum quod locutus sum vobis nisi quia in aqua verbum mundat Detrahe verbum quid est aqua nisi aqua moxâ— Vnde ista tanta virtus aquae vt corpus tangat cor abluat nifi saciente verbo Non quia dicitur sed quia creditur Why doth not Christ say Now are yee cleane by the baptisme wherewith yea are washed but by the word which I haue speken to you but because in the water it is the word that clenseth Take away the word and what is water but water Whence is it that the water hath so great power to touch the body and to wash the heart but that the word doth it and that not because it is spoken but because it is beleeued Now if the Sacrament haue all his vertue and efficacy from the word and the word haue his power not for that it is spoken but for that it is beleeued we must conceiue the same of the Sacrament also that the effect thereof standeth not in being applied by the hand of the minister but in being beleeued by the faith of the receiuer God both by the one and by the other ministring and increasing faith and the holy Ghost accompanying both the one and the other to doe that that is beleeued Thus is baptisme a signe of representation to the vnderstanding and seale of confirmation to faith effectuallie deliuering to the beleeuer through the holy Ghost the grace of God and the remission of all his sinnes And why doth it trouble M. Bishop that wee make baptisme in this sort onely a signe and a seale when as though signes and seales be not the things themselues yet by signes and seales men are woont to be entitled and inuested to the things signified and sealed And hath not the Apostle himselfe taught vs thus to speake Gregory Bishop of Rome saith that Å¿ Greg. Moral lib. 4. c. 3. Quod apud nos vales aqua Baptismatis hoc egit apud veteres vel pro paruulis sola fides vel pro maioribus virtus Sacrificij vel pro his qui ex stirpe Abrahae prodierant mysterium circumcisionis what the water of baptisme doth with vs the same did the mystery of circumcision with the seed of Abraham But of circumcision the Apostle saith thus * Rom. 4.11 The reall eating of Christ a grosse fancie Abraham receiued the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnes of faith Baptisme therefore must be to vs the signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith Their doctrine of reall eating the body of Christ importeth no matter of comfort and dignitie but a carnall rude and profane fancy t Cyril ad Euopt cont reprehens Theodor anath 11. Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoâ— sacramentuÌ„ pronuntias irreligiose ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum qui crediderunt mentem attentas humanis cogitationibus tractare quae sola pura inexquisita fide accipiuntur Doest thou saith Cyril pronounce our Sacrament to be the eating of a man and irreligiously vrge the minds of them that beleeue to grosse imaginations and assay to handle by humane conceits those things which are to bee receiued by only pure and vndoubted faith Christ indeed is not the foode of the belly but of the minde and therefore u Cyprian de caena dom Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide syncerae panem sanctum frangim us partimur we doe not whet our teeth to bite but with syncere faith we breake and diuide the sacred bread saith Cyprian because x August in Ioan. tract 26. Credere in Christum hoc est menducare paenem viuum to beleeue in Christ saith Austin that is to eate the bread of life and y Iohn 6.54.56 he that thus eateth the flesh of Christ and eternall life and Christ shall raise him vp at the last day And because we thus teach that spritually and by faith we eate the very body of Christ and drinke his blood as alwaies so specially in that speciall helpe of faith which God hath ministred vnto vs in the supper of the Lord and that thereby we grow more and more into communion and fellowship with him to become partakers of the riches of his grace to immortality and euerlasting life therefore we doe not take
if we see it not how should we remember any thing by it seeing signes of remembrance must be things seen Such was Goliaths sword such was the husbands blood kept by the wines as much pertinent to this purpose as a goose quill to a woodcocks taile The reall presence therfore in this behalfe is altogether idle neither is there any fruit or effect of it because there is nothing thereby to be seen Albeit Christ did not say see this in remembrance of me but do this in remembrance ofme And what he bid vs doe S. Paul telleth vs namely b 1. Cor. 11.26 to eat of this bread and drinke of this cup. And how shall wee eat of this bread in remembrance of him if it be true which they say that in the sacrament there is no bread If he will say that by the forme of bread we may be remembred though the body be not seen we can also say that by the bread we may be remembred though there bee no reall presence of the body and therfore the reall presence because it is needlesse is iustly affirmed to be none at all 54. W. BISHOP Eightly If the reall presence be granted Per. 8. then the body and blood of Christ are either seuered or ioined together if seuered then Christ is still crucified if ioyned together then the bread is both the body and blood of Christ wheras the institution saith the bread is the body and the wine is the blood Answ The body and blood of Christ are by force of Christs words consecrated apart so that if they could be naturally separated they should bee also seuered in that Sacrament as they might haue been at Christs death when all the blood was poured foorth of his body but euer sithence Christs resurrection they are so ioined together that they can bee no more seuered so that we grant vnder one kind of the Sacrament to be both Christs body and blood which is not wrought by the words of the institution but by the necessary and inseparable coniunction of Christs body with his blood euer since his glorious resurrection R. ABBOT To this it shall be needlesse to say any thing here because it commeth more fitly to be spoken of in the next section 55. W. BISHOP Finally M. Perkins condemneth the administration of the Sacrament vnder one onely kind for the commandement of Christ is drinke ye all of this Mat. 26. vers 27. and this commandement is rehersed to the Church of Corinth in these words doe this as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me vers 25. and no power can reuerse this commandement because it was established by the soueraigne head of the Church Answ He began to set downe the institution of the Sacrament out of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. heere he leapeth backe to S. Mathew because he fitteth him better in this point to whom I answer that Christ there spake only vnto his twelue Apostles who were afterward to administer that holy Sacrament to others and so something ther-about is spoken to them which may not bee extended vnto lay-men but vnto Priests onely who were to succeed the Apostles in that ministery All men do confesse these words hoc facite doe yee this that is administer yee this Sacrament to be spoken onely to the Apostles and in them to all of the Clergie alone euen so drinke yee all of this was in like maner spoken vnto them onely as Clergie men and therfore it is a commandement onely to Priests so to do and as for others they may either drinke of it or not drinke of it as it shall bee thought most expedient by their supreame Pastors and this may be gathered out of those very words drinke ye all of this For why should the Apostles haue a speciall charge more to drinke of that cuppe then to eat of that food vnlesse it were to signifie that whereas all men should be bound to receiue Christs body they should bee further bound to receiue that holy cuppe also from which bond other men should stand free But to come to the purpose when they quarrell with vs for taking away from the people one kind of the Sacrament we answer that we doe them no hinderance thereby because we giue them both the blessed body and sacred bloud of Christ together vnder one kinde yea whole Christ both God and man because they be so vnited that they cannot be separated But what can they answer when we complaine vpon them for that they haue defrauded the poore people of both body and bloud of Christ and in lieu of that most pretious banquet doe giue them a cold breake-fast of a morsell of bread and a suppe of wine this is a most miserable and lamentable exchange indeed our blessed Lord giue them grace to see it and deliuer them speedily from it Heere is the place to shew how the Protestants doe not onely bereaue their vnfortunate followers of this most heauenly food of Christs body but that they also depriue them of the manifold and great graces of God deriued vnto vs in siue other Sacraments but because I haue touched it in the Preface I will omit it heere and make an end with M. PER. assoone as I haue requited him by propounding briefly some arguments for the real presence as hee hath done against it R. ABBOT Whether it bee S. Mathew or S. Paul they serue both for the confirming of one truth and doe both condemne the Antichristian and damnable sacriledge of the Church of Rome in maiming the Sacrament of Christ contrary to the institution of Christ himselfe to the very intention and purpose of the Sacrament to the example and practise of all ancient churches Our Sauiour Christ saith a Matt. 26.27 Drinke yee all of this But the Church of Rome saith Not so for there are iust and reasonable causes why it is not fit that all drinke therof but it is sufficient that the Priest alone drinke for all M. Bishop to make this good telleth vs that Christ there spake to his Apostles onely and that some thing thereabout is spoken to them which may not bee extended vnto lay-men but vnto Priests onely But how will hee make it appeare that Christ in the one part of the Sacrament spake to the Apostles onely and not in the other also There were none there present but the Apostles and what direction haue we in the words of Christ to restraine the vse of the cup as peculiar to the Priests and to make the other common to the people And if Christ did so intend how falleth it out that the Apostle S. Paul in the recitall of Christs institution professing b 1. Cor. 11.23 to deliuer precisely what he had receiued of the Lord maketh no mention of this restraint and what presumption was it in the whole primitiue Church contrary to that intendment to make that common to the laitie which Christ had made the prerogatiue of the Priests onely He saith
calum vtique integrum Cum vid eritis filium hominis c. certè vel tunc videbitis quia noÌ„ eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum certè vel tunc videbitis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus They thought saith Austin that he would impart to them his very body but he telleth them that he will goe vp to heauen euen whole When ye shall see the sonne of man ascend where he was before surely then ye shall see that he doth not impart his body in that maner as you thinke ye shall then vnderstand that his grace is not deuoured by morsells Now if the ascending of Christ into heauen were an argument for the reforming of their fancy and correcting of their error then it must needs be a misconstruction of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ whereby the same is said to be done by his being really present vpon the earth And that it might not be so vnderstood he further saith k vers 63. The words which I speake vnto you are spirit and life it is the spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing thereby aduertising them as S. Austin giueth to vnderstand that l Aug ibi Quomodo quidem edatur quisnam sit manducandi modus ignoratis they knew not in what sort his flesh was eaten or what the maner thereof is and that they should spiritually conceiue the doing of it in such maner as was before expressed out of Austin And hereof Origen saith m Ori. in Leuit. hom 7. Est in nouo testameÌ„to litera quae occidit eum qui non spiritualiter aduertit Nam si secunduÌ„ literamsequaris id quod dictum est Nisi manducaueritis carnem c. litera illa occidit There is in the new Testament a letter which killeth him that doth not spiritually listen to it for if thou folow according to the letter that which is written Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood that letter killeth Therefore S. Austin deliuering certaine rules whereby figuratiue speeches are to be knowen doth by his rule find that this speech of Christ is not properly or literally to be vnderstood but by a figure n Aug. de doct Christ l. 3. c. 16. si flagitium aut facinus videtur iubere aut vtilitatem beneficentiaÌ„ vitare figurata est Nisi manducaâ—eritis carnem filij hominis c. facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere figura ergò est praecipiens passioni domini esse coÌ„municandum suauitèr atque vtiliter recondendum in memoria quod carâ— eius pro nobis crucifixa vulnerata sit If any speeche seem to command a hainous or wicked act or to forbid well doing or any profitable thing it is a figuratiue speech Where Christ saith Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood c. he seemeth to command a hainous thing It is therefore a figure instructing that we are to communicate of the passion of the Lord and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in minde that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. In which sort S. Bernard also expoundeth that o Bernar de verb. Habac. super custodiaÌ„ c. sub edendi corporis sus mysterio discipulos ad communâ—â— andum passionibus suis aumonens vnder the mystery of eating his body Christ admonisheth his disciples to communicate of his passions Here is therefore no other but a spirituall action of the heart and soule which requireth no reall presence because the spirit of man by faith climbeth vp to heauen and looketh backe vnto the crosse of Christ and there receiueth nourishment and strength of him to liue by him for euer 58. W. BISHOP Thirdly Christ said in most cleere tearmes this is my body this is my blood What could be more certaine or more perspicuous R. ABBOT The words as wee expound them out of the circumstance of the text and the consent of ancient fathers are indeed perspicuous and cleere yeelding this meaning This bread is my body this wine is my blood that is the signe the sacrament the participation of my body and blood But M. Bishop for his life cannot make any certaine and definite meaning of them whereby their transubstantiation and reall presence may be made good If the words be so perspicuous and cleere for them how commeth it about that they haue so tossed and tumbled them and yet there is no certaine meaning thereof concluded amongst them till this day I need not stand hereupon hauing before said what is sufficient for this purpose in the eight and fortieth section 59. W. BISHOP Fourthly These words of the institution are recorded by three Euangelists and by S. Paul and they all vniformely deliuer it to be not the figure of Christs body but his body and that his body which should be giuen for our redemption on the crosse ergo it was that his true reall body which was nailed to the crosse for vs. R. ABBOT Euen so three Euangelists and S. Paul doe vniformely deliuer that the cup is the bloud of Christ or the new testament in his bloud as hath been a Sect. 50. before said and yet M. Bishop will not say I hope that the cup is really the bloud or testament of Christ That the Sacrament is the figure of Christs body is no new speech S. Austin saith that b Aug in Psal 3. Conuinium in quo corporu sanguinis sui figuram discipuâ—usuis coâ—mendauit tradidit Christ commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his bodie and bloud Tertullian expoundeth thus c Tertul. cont Marcion â—â— 4. Acâ—eptum panem corpus suum fecit dicâ—â—do hoc est corsus meum id est figura corporis mei This is my body that is to say a figure of my body Gelasius the Bishop of Rome saith that d Gelas cont Eutych Nest. Et certo imago similitudo corporis sanguinis domini in actione mysteriorum celebratur an image and semblance of the body and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the administration of the Sacraments Chrysostome saith that e Chrysost Opimperf in Mat. hom 11. In quibus non verum corpus Christi sed mystâ—rium corporu eius continetur in the sacred vessels not the true body of Christ but the mysterie of his body is conteined The ancient Liturgies doe vsually call the Sacraments f Constit Clem. l. 7. c. 26. Antitypa corporis c. Iacobâ— Liturg Typus corporis sanguinis Christi tui the signes of the body and bloud of Christ and so g Carol. Magn. epist. ad A cuin Panem fregit calicâ—m paâ—iter dedit eis in figuram corporis sanguinis sui Charles the great stileth them in his epistle to Alcuinus It should not therefore seeme strange to M. Bishop that wee also should expound the sacrament to
as he rightly speaketh he would not vnderstand it to be receiued by the body And thus Christ sealing vnto vs in the Lords supper all the fruits of his passion and giuing himselfe vnto vs spiritually to become one with vs and to make vs one with him hee hath without reall presence bestowed as M. Bishop saith an inestimable gift vpon vs such a one as neuer any other did or possibly could doe 63. W. BISHOP Moreouer the institution of a religious rite and ceremonie to be vsed in the whole Church vnto the worlds end and to be receiued of all Christian people of age and discretion did necessarily require that it should bee done in most certaine and cleare tearmes otherwise there might arise great strife and contention about it and be the ruine of thousands And specially great perspicuitie is required in this holy Sacrament where the mistaking of it must needs breeed either idolatrie if wee worship for Christ that which is not Christ or impietie if on the other side we should not giue to it being Christ God and man diuine honour Wherefore no good Christian may thinke but that our prouident Sauiour Christ Iesus who verie well foresaw all these inconueniences did deliuer it in such tearmes as he would haue to be taken properly and not be construed at mens pleasures figuratiuely Adde that hee spake those words to the twelue Apostles onely whom hee was accustomed to instruct plainly and not in parable darkely and who were woont also to aske for the interpretation of obscure speeches who here made no question about this high mysterie because they were sufficiently forewarned that they should eat Christs flesh Ioh. 6. and that his body was truly meat and therefore beleeued Christs words without further question R. ABBOT The institution of a religious rite and ceremonie for the vse of the Christian Church required such termes as had beene formerly accustomed in the institution of such religious rites wherein as hath beene a Sect 48. before noted out of Austin Sacraments commonly beare the names of those things whereof they are Sacraments So is circumcision called b Gen. 17.13 the couenant of the Lord being but the signe and seale of his couenant So is the lambe called c Exod. 12.11 the Lords Passeouer though it were but a signification and remembrance thereof So were the sacrifices of the law called d Leuit. 1.4 4.20 c. attonements or reconciliations for sinne which yet they were not in themselues because e Heb. 10.4 it was vnpossible that the bloud of calues and goats should take away sins but were onely signes and figures of the attonement that should be made by the bloud of Iesus Christ And thus Cyprian saith expresly of the Lords supper that therein f Cyprian de Vnct. Chrismat significantia significata eis dem nomenibus censentur the signes and the things signified are reckoned by the same names being both termed the body bloud of Christ And herein is no occasion of contention but to them only that are contentious will prefer their own absurd fancies before the light and truth of the word of God Who as they do peruersly and wilfully mistake so doe wilfully by mistaking runne into idolatrie g Rom. 1.25 worshiping the creature insteed of the creatour giuing to the signe or sacrament that diuine honour which belongeth properly to Christ himselfe And if it be idolatrie as heere he telleth vs to worship for Christ that which is not Christ then hee hath told vs amisse before that men doe not commit idolatrie though they worship the Host when the Priest hath had no intention of consecration In a word our Sauiour Christ though he spake by a figure yet spake so as that not at mens pleasures but according to the course of Gods word he might easely be vnderstood And as for the Apostles we cannot doubt but that they were so well instructed in those other signes and sacraments wherewith they had beene before acquainted as that they could not make any scruple or question what his meaning was in the institution of this Therefore no cause was there for them to be troubled or to aske interpretation heere as of some darke and obscure matter but there had beene cause for them to haue questioned many things in the words of Christ according to that interpretation which the Church of Rome hath made thereof For though Christ spake to them before of the eating of his flesh and that his flesh was truely meate yet had hee said nothing vnto them that they should eate a whole body in the likenesse of a peece of bread Yea though hee spake to them of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud yet withall he spake enough wherby to giue them instruction how that should bee vnderstood as h Sect. 49. 57. before hath been declared 64. W. BISHOP Finally this holy Sacrament is a principall part of the new Testament and one of the chiefest legacies by Christ bequeathed vnto vs Christians Now what law or conscience will permit that any legacie should be interpreted figuratiuely to wit that for a house goods or lands bequeathed and giuen by last will and testament you should vnderstand a figure of a house to be giuen or the signification and representation of some goods or lands If this be most absurd and ridiculous in the testament of any ordinary man about temporall goods how much more pernicious and intollerable is it to suffer this in the eternall Testament of the Sonne of God and that in his diuine and inestimable treasures And thus at length by the grace of God I come to the end of this booke wherein good Christian Reader if thou finde any thing that may confirme thee in the true Catholike faith or further thy knowledge therein giue God the Father of lights from whom all good gifts descend the whole praise If any thing be amisse impute it partly to my slender skill ouersight or negligence and partly to the want of a conuenient resting-place commoditie of bookes and conference all which these times of persecution doe depriue vs of R. ABBOT He that maketh his last will and testament and giueth thereby great legacies of lands and goods and putteth to his seale for confirmation of the legacies that he hath giuen shall he be said in giuing his seale to bequeath only a peece of waxe or a figure and representation of landes and goods The seale indeed is but wax it is but a signe and token of somewhat but yet it serueth to giue assurance of the legacies for confirmation whereof it is appointed The new testament of Christ is the couenant and promise of forgiuenesse of sinnes purchased by his bloud This hath he published by the Gospell to all that repent and beleeue in him For confirmation heereof he hath put to his Sacrament as a seale thereby to deliuer after a sort and to put into our hands the thing which
the dignity and worthinesse of our workes And if he say that this is all of God doth he any more than the Pharisie did who said y Luk. 18.11 I thanke thee O God that I am not as other men are c. z Hieron adu Pelag. lib. 3. Ille agit gratias deo quia illius misericordia non sit sicut caeteri homines Hee thanketh God saith Hierome that by his mercy hee is not like other men hee acknowledgeth his righteousnesse to bee the gift of God but yet hee is reiected whilest with M. Bishop hee flattereth himselfe in opinion of the value and estimation the dignitie and worthinesse of his workes Now the Protestants indeed are not of that Pharisaicall humor thus to plead the reputation of their owne workes and doe take M. Bishop therein to be a foolish vaine man and yet they doe not therfore debase and vilifie the vertue of the grace of God as hee obiecteth as not allowing it to be sufficient to help the best minded man in the world to doe any worke that doth not mortally offend God but doe confesse and teach that the faithfull by the grace of God do many good workes very highly pleasing vnto God whilest a Psal 103.13 as a father pitieth his children so the Lord is mercifull to them that feare him remembring whereof we be made and considering that we are but dust and being ready when he seeth our willing indeuours to pardon the obliquities the defects and deformities of our doings the same being perfumed by faith with the sweet incense of the obedience of Iesus Christ So then according to rigour of iudgement the Protestants say b Esay 64.6 All our righteousnesse is as a defiled cloth c Dan. 9.7 To thee O Lord belongeth righteousnesse but to vs shame and confusion of face They subscribe that which Gregory saith d Greg. Moral l. 8. c. 9. Iustise peritaeros absque ambiguitate praesciunt firemota pietate iudicentur quia hoc ipsum quò iustè videmur viuere culpa est fi vitam nostram cù iudicat hanc apud se diuina misericordia non excusat The iust know that without all doubt they shall perish if they bee iudged without mercy because euen our iust life as it seemeth is but sinne if Gods mercy doe not excuse it when he shall giue iudgement of it But yet the Protestants know also that by the mediation of Iesus Christ e Rom. 12.1 the giuing vp of our bodies to be a liuing and 〈◊〉 sacrifice is accepble vnto God and that f 1. Pet. 2.5 we are made aspirituall house and holy Priesthood to offer vp spirituall sacrifices which are acceptable to God by Iesus Christ In a word the Protestants know that the Saints of God g Apoc. 4.10 cast their crownes down before the throne of God as arrogating no part thereof to themselues but ascribing all to God and therefore cannot but condemne M. Bishop and the Papists though not of Atheisme yet of Pelagianisme and heresie for that they teach men to keepe their crownes in part vpon their owne heads and to take some part of glory to themselues to the derogation of the glory of God 2. W. BISHOP First he argueth thus He that hath not the Sonne hath not the Father and he that hath neither Father nor Sonne denies God now the present Roman religion hath not the Sonne that is Iesus Christ God and man For they in effect abolish his man-hood by teaching of him to haue two kindes of existing one naturall in heauen whereby he is visible touchable and circumscribed the other against nature whereby he is substantially according to his flesh in the hands of euery Priest inuisible and vncircumscribed Answer M. PER. and all Protestants know right well that we beleeue Iesus Christ to be perfect God and perfect man and therefore wee haue both the Sonne and the Father and his reason against it is not woorth arush for we do not destroy the nature of man by teaching it to haue two diuers maners of existing or being in a place When Christ was transfigured before his Apostles hee had another maner of outward forme and appearance than hee had before yet was not the nature of man in him thereby destroyed and after his resurrection hee was when it pleased him visible to his Apostles and at other times inuisible and yet was not his manhood thereby abolished as M. PER. would make vs beleeue no more is it when his body is in many places at once or in one place circumscribed and in the other vncir cumscribed For these externall relations of bodies vnto their places doe no whit at all destroy their inward and naturall substances as all Philosophie testifieth wherefore hence to gather that we denie both the Father and the Sonne to be God doth sauour I will not say of a silly wit but of a froward will peeuishly bent to cauill and calumniate R. ABBOT As touching the existing of the body of Christ we beleeue what the holy Scripture hath taught vs The body of Christ locally circumscribed and therein we rest as the ancient godly fathers did neither will we listen to the franticke dreames of new deuising heads who for the maintenance of one absurdity not sparing to vndergoe another haue broached a maner of the being of the body of Christ according to the fancies of Marcion Manicheus Apollinaris Eutyches and such other like Heretikes who howsoeuer they admitted the name of a body yet denied the truth thereof What other is it but a fantasticall body which they affirme to be in their consecrated host where there is the sauour and tast of bread the colour and appearance of bread to sense and feeling no other but bread and yet there is no bread but a body of flesh and blood as they tell vs or rather a body which hath neither flesh nor blood M. Bishop coloureth the matter by telling vs of a diuers maner of existing or being in a place but why doe neither Scriptures nor Fathers tell vs of this diuers maner of existing or being I know that to make some shew of antiquity they alleage a few sentences of the Fathers farre enough from the purpose but this matter could not haue so passed with a by-sentence or two when there were so many and so great occasions fully to declare it and to insist vpon it if it had beene beleeued then as it is taught now They cleerely and plainely taught that a Aug. in Ioan. tract 50. secundum carnem quam verbum assumpsit ascendit in coe um non est hic Christ according to his body is ascended into heauen and is not heere and against the Manichees that b Idem cont faust Mauich l. 20. c. 11. sacundum praesentiam corporalem simul in sole in luna in cruce esse non posset Christ according to bodily presence could not at once be in the
we admit them all to be true doth conuince vs to haue disgraded Christ of his offices which are these to appease Gods wrath towards vs to pay the ransome for our sinnes to conquer the Diuell to open the Kingdome of heauen to bee supreme head of both men and Angels and such like He may without any derogation vnto these his soueraigne prerogatiues giue vnto his seruants first power to make lawes to binde in conscience as he hath done to all Princes which the Protestants themselues dare not denie then to determine vnfallibly of the true sense of holy Scripture which the Apostles could doe as all men confesse and yet do not make them Christs fellowes but his humble seruants to whom also hee gaue power properly to pardon sinnes Luc. 24. Ioan. 20. Mar. 16. Matt. 28. Whose sinnes you pardon on earth shall be pardoned in heauen and finally to them he also gaue authoritie ouer the whole earth goe into the vniuersall world Ouer part of hell no Pope hath authoritie and when he doeth good to any soule in Purgatory it is per modum suffragij as a suppliant and entreater not as a commander Whether hee hath any authoritie ouer Princes and their subiects in temporall affaires it is questioned by some yet no man not wilfully blinde can doubt but that Christ might haue giuen him that authority without disgrading himselfe of it as he hath imparted to him and to others also faculties of greater authoritie and vertue reseruing neuerthelesse the same vnto himselfe in a much more excellent maner As a King by substituting a Viceroy or some such like deputie to whom he giues most large commission doth not thereby disgrade himselfe of his Kingly authority as all the world knowes no more did our Sauiour Christ Iesus bereaue himselfe of his power or dignitie when hee bestowed some part thereof vpon his substitutes He goes on multiplying a number of idle words to small purpose as that we for one Christ the onely reall Priest of the new Testament ioyne many secondary Priests vnto him which offer Christ daily in the Masse Wee indeed hold the Apostles to haue beene made by Christ not imputatiue or phantasticall but reall and true Priests And by Christ his owne order and commandement to haue offered his body and bloud daily in the sacrifice of the Masse what of that see that question Furthermore he saith for one Iesus the all-sufficient mediatour of intercession they haue added many fellowes to him to make request for vs namely as many Saints as be in the Popes Kalendar yea and many more too For we hold that any of the faithfull yet liuing may bee also requested to pray for vs neither shall hee in haste bee able to prooue that Christ onely maketh intercession for vs though he be the onely mediatour that hath redeemed vs. R. ABBOT Christ by his office is our Prophet our Priest and our King Christ degraded by the Pope As a Prophet he hath declared fully and finally the whole counsell and way of God for the attainment of eternall life As a Priest he hath offered a sacrifice for our redemption and by vertue of that sacrifice is our Mediatour to intreat mercy for vs. As a King he prescribeth lawes whereby to gouerne vs and hauing a Matt. 28.18 All power giuen to him both in heauen and earth exerciseth the same to safegard and defend vs. In all these offices of which M. Bishop speaketh as if he vnderstood not what they meane the Church of Rome offereth most high indignity to the Son of God To take the points spoken of in order as they are first they are iniurious to the kingdome of Christ in that they giue the Pope authority to make lawes to bind in conscience which Christ only hath authority to doe b See hereof part 2. pag. 17.18 To bind in conscience is to tie the conscience and inward man to an opinion of holinesse and spirituall deuotion in the thing which is done so as to account the same a worship of religion whereby God is truly serued and honoured yea and further according to Romish fancies the means of remission of sinnes and the merit of eternall life This whosoeuer doth sheweth himselfe a deceiuer and an Antichrist and the Pope in so doing is found to be he of whom the Apostle prophecied c 2. Thess 2.4 that he should sit as God in the temple of God domineering in the hearts and consciences of them of whom it is said d 2. Cor. 6.16 Ye are the temple of the liuing God If Princes attempt to make lawes in this sort they are therein vniust and presumptuous against God Otherwise to speake of Princes lawes God himselfe bindeth the conscience to yeeld the outward man in subiection to the Prince when notwithstanding the conscience it selfe remaineth free as touching the thing which the Prince commandeth I know that in outward things it is true which the Apostle saith e 1. Cor. 6.12 10.23 All things are lawfull for mee I may doe all things God hath giuen mee no restraint To eat or not to eat to weare such a garment or not to weare it to doe thus or thus it is all one with God I am no whit the better the one way nor the worse the other way Neuerthelesse if my Prince command mee either way God requireth mee to abbridge my selfe of the outward vse of that liberty which he otherwise hath giuen mee and to performe obedience to my Prince yet still retaining inwardly the same opinion and persuasion of the thing in it selfe that I had before and therefore content to tie my selfe outwardly to do thus because I know inwardly that it is indifferent to God either to doe thus or thus The second presumption of the Pope against Christ is in taking vpon him infallibly to determine the sense of holy Scripture By which pretense he most impudently carieth himselfe bringing all abhominations into the Church and corrupting all religion and seruice of God and yet affirming that he doth nothing contrary to the Scripture because whatsoeuer the words of Scripture are yet the sense must be no other but what he list But well might we be thought to be without sense if so senseles a tale should preuaile with vs a thing which in the ancient Church for so many hundreds of yeeres amidst so many questions and controuersies was neuer dreamed of What needed the fathers so much to busie themselues and out of their owne exercise and experience prescribe rules to others for finding out the true sense of Scripture when as a Pope with a wet finger could haue helped them to the certaine and infallible truth thereof Yea why haue we so many Commentatours of the Church of Rome so various and diuers in their expositions and interpretations of Scripture and why doth not the Pope rather by one commentary of his illuminated vnderstanding reconcile all differences dispatch all doubts and resolue at once
trust in our Lady for the sweetnesse of the mercy of her name Because I haue trusted in thy grace thou hast taken away from me euerlasting reproch O our Lady thou art our refuge in all our necessity O Lady saue mee by thy name And whereas M. Bishop saith that our beleeuing in God is the giuing of our whole heart vnto him they yeeld the same to our Lady also saying I confesse vnto thee Å¿ Ibid. Psal 9. Confitebor tibi Domina in toto corde meo Psal 102. Omnia praecordia mea glorificate nomen eius O Lady with my whole heart let all my hartstrings glorifiy her name By these and infinite other such speeches it appeareth that by their beleeuing in Saints they commit idolatry and doe giue that honour to the Saints which belongeth to God onely 4. W. BISHOP He chargeth vs first with the breach of the third article Conceiued by the holy Ghost Which saith he is ouerturned by the transubstantiation of bread and wine in the Masse into the body and blood of Christ for heere wee are taught to confesse the true and perpetuall incarnation of Christ beginning in his conception and neuer ending afterward Answ Heere is a strange exposition of the Creed Is Christs incarnation perpetuall and not yet ended then it is true to say that Christ is not yet incarnate as we may say truely that a man is not borne vntill his birth be accomplished and ended But to the present purpose because Christs incarnation began at his conception cannot bread be turned afterward into his body how hangeth this together Belike he meanes that Christs body was but once conceiued and that was by the holy Ghost in his mothers wombe therefore it cannot afterward be made of any other thing This to be his meaning he declares in the question of the Sacrament but it is too too simple and childish For we hold him not to be so conceiued by bread as he was by the holy Ghost who was the efficient cause of his conception but that the same body that was conceiued by the holy Ghost is made really present in the Sacrament by transubstantiation of bread into it which hath no opposition at all with this article as I haue more largely prooued in the for said question And whereas he saith farther cleane besides the purpose of this article that Christs body hath the essentiall properties of a true body standing of flesh and bone we grant the same but when he addeth that locall circumscription cannot be seuered from a body he is deceiued for the greatest body of all others which is the highest heauen is not circumscribed by any place because there is no other body without it whose extremities might compasse in and circumscribe that body of the highest heauen And when he saith that to be circumscribed in place is an essential property of euery quantity and that quantity is the common essence of euery body he makes himselfe but a common mocking-stocke vnto euery simple Legician who knoweth that no accident such as euery quantity is can be of the essence and nature of a substance such as Christs body is Neither would any man say that cared what he said that to be circumscribed in a place is essential to euery quantity when all numbers that be quantities haue no relation vnto any place neither is it of the essence of any quantity to be actually circumscribed by a place but it is a property flowing out of the essence of one only kinde of quantitie to be apt and fit to be circumscribed and compassed about with a place And naturally all bodies except the highest heauen haue one place out of which they passe as Saint Austin said when they come into another but by the omnipotent power of God any body may be separated from his place or be in as many places at once as it shall please God to seate it because to be circumscribed with a place actually is a meere accident vnto a substantiall body and without the nature of quantity and God may not without blasphemy be disabled to separate a substance from an accident R. ABBOT M. Bishop saue that he was disposed to cauill knew well enough what M. PERKINS meant by the perpetuall incarnation of Christ The truth of Christs body destroied by Popish transubstantiation that whereby he tooke flesh once for all and to continue man for euâ—r Now it is true that because Christ hath but one only body and that body was perfect by that incarnation therefore bread which hath his being after cannot be said to be turned into the body which was before For when one thing is turned into another the latter is not till it be produced of the former neither hath the one beginning but by the ending of the other Aarons rod was turned into a serpent but the serpent was not till of the rod there became a serpent Our Sauiour Christ turned water into wine but the wine was not till of water there became wine And absurd it is that one and the same thing being fully and perfectly made already should yet be said to be made of any other thing As for M. Bishops exception it is childish and impertinent because we doe not charge them to hold that the body of Christ is so conceiued by bread as it was conceiued by the holy Ghost who was the efficient cause of his conception but we say that sith the body of Christ by the power of the holy Ghost was conceiued and made of the substance of the Virgin Mary and thereby became a consummate and perfect body it is therefore absurd to affirme that the same body is now to be made of any other thing But this is not the thing that M. PER. aimed at it is the condition and nature of a true body whereof he argueth which we professe to beleeue that Christ tooke in his conception and incarnation but is ouerthrowen by Popish transubstantiation He saith that Christs body hath all things in it which by order of creation belong to a body which hee namely specifieth in local circumscription which he saith can no way be seuered from a body it remaining a body implying that the Papists affirming the body of Christ without locall circumscription doe thereby destroâ— the truth of his body M. Bishop answereth that M. PER. heerein is deceiued For saith he the greatest body of all other which is the highest heauen is not circumscribed by any place because there is no body without it to circumscribe it Well but yet it hath dimension and position and distance of parts and motion accordingly and therefore quantum inse it is locally circumscribed the only defect is that it hath not a body without it to be circumscribed thereby Yea we may truely say that it hath a kinde of locall circumscription by the superficiall clausure and determination of it owne substance In as much therefore as in it selfe it hath euery way the condition of
expresse tearmes teacheth O miracle O goodnesse of God! he that sitteth aboue with his Father at the very same instant is touched with the handes of all men Real presence denied by our beleefe of Christs ascension and giueth himselfe to them that will receiue and embrace him See more of this in the question of the blessed Sacrament where M. PER. citeth the very same authorities which he heere repeateth see my answer to to them there R. ABBOT It is a true argument and very consequent Christ is ascended into heauen and there sitteth at the right hand of God the father therefore hee is not really and locally in the sacrament The connexion is Saint Austins a August in Ioan tract 50. Conuersatus est secundum corporis praesentiam quadraginta diebus cum discipulis suis eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo ascend it in caeluÌ„ non est hîc He is ascended into heauen and is not heere as touching the presence of his body Saint Austin saith that because he is ascended therefore as touching his body he is not heere M. Bishop saith that notwithstanding his ascension he is still heere according to his body Whether now may we thinke is more likely of these two to bee beleeued But M. Bishop to saue himselfe will set Chrysostome and Austin together by the eares Forsooth Chrysostome reporteth it as a miracle that he who sitteth aboue with his father at the very same instant is touched with the hands of all men and giueth himselfe to them that will receiue and embrace him What Chrysostomes minde was in this behalfe appeareth by that which otherwhere he saith that b Chrysost op imperf hom 11. In vasis sanctifacatis non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis eius continetur in the holy vessels not the true body of Christ but the mystery of his body is contained And by this mystery of his body Saint Austin saith that e August epist 23. Secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est after a certaine maner it is the body of Christ and Cyprian saith that d Cyprian de resurrect Christi Quod videtur nonane virtute Christs corpus censetur in name and power it is accounted the body of Christ. As therefore Saint Austin saith that e August in Psal 33. conc 2. Ipse se portabat quodammodo cum diceret Hoc est corpus meum Christ did in some sort beare himselfe in his owne hands when he said This is my body in some sort he saith or after a sort not verily and indeed so Chrysostome intendeth that he who sitteth at the right hand of God is after a sort touched in the Sacrament with the hands of all the partakers thereof not as touching the reality but as touching the mysterie of his body yet so wherein consisteth the miracle which Chrysostome mentioneth as that he indeed giueth himselfe spiritually and by faith to all them that are truely willing to receiue him And in what meaning Chrysostme spake those words we may easily conceiue by other words which he vseth in the very same place f Chrysost de sacerd lib. 3. Dum conspicis dominum immolatum Sacerdotem sacrificio incumbentem ac preces fundentem tum verò turbam circumfusam pretioso illo sanguine intingi ac rubefieri etiamnè te inter mortales versari atque in terra confistere censes annon potiùs evestigiò ad caelum transferris annon omnem ca niâ—câ—gitationem abijcreâ—s mente â—ura circumspieâ—â—quae in ceâ—â— sunt O miraiu um O dâ—â— bemgintatem qâ—â— cum patre sursum sedet in illo ipsotemporis articulo on nium manibus pertractatur aâ— sâ—â—pâ—â— tradit wâ—â—tibus ipsum excipere accâ—mâ—lecti fit autem id nullis praestigijs sed apertis acâ—â—reumspâ—tientibus circumsistentium omnium occutis When thou seest the Lord offered the Priest leaning to the Sacrifice and powring foorth praier and the people round about died and made red with that pretious blood doest thou thinke that thou art amongst mortall men or standing vpon the earth Art thou not foorthwith lift vp to heauen Doest thou not cast away all carnall cogitation and with pure minde behold those things which are in heauen aboue Then vsing the words which M. Bishop hath alleaged he addeth And this is done not by collusion but so as that the standers by with open eies behold all that is done Let M. Bishop now tell vs doe the standers by with open eies see Christ offered Are they made red with the bloud of Christ Must they thinke that they are indeed carried vp to heauen and are not vpon the earth If he cannot deny but that these words are vsed by excesse and vehemencie of speech to drawe the mindes of his hearers to diuine and heauenly meditation of the mysteries then in hand can hee deny but that wee haue iust cause to vnderstand the other words in the very same sort The other testimonies cited by M. PER. out of Vigilius Fulgentius Austin doe make the same good because they shew that Christ according to his manhood is not really vpon the earth M. Bishop biddeth vs see his answeres to those authorities but as yet we doe not see them and if euer we do see them we shall see him as wise or rather as wilfull in them as he hath beene in all the rest 6. W. BISHOP Thirdly he reasoneth thus The Church as it is beleeued is not seene In that we beleeue the Catholike Church it followeth that it is inuisible because things seene are not beleeued We answer that the persons in the Catholike Church are and euer were visible euen to Iewes and Heathens who persecuted them but the inward indowments of those persons that is their faith hope and charity their assistance by Gods spirit and such like Christian qualities are inuisible to be beleeued And euen as a man is truely said to be visible though he consist aswell of an inuisible soule as of a visible body so the Church is visible for the vsible persons visible teaching and administring of Sacraments in it albeit the inward qualities of it be not visible R. ABBOT a Origen in Cant. hom 1. Ecclesiam coetum omnium aduerte sanctoâ—um Et hom 2. Ecclesia ante constitutionem mundi sic enim dicit Paulus sicut elegit nos in Christo c. The holy Chatholike church is the company of Gods saints whom he hath elected in Christ before the foundations of the world and b Gregor in Cantic cap. 3. Secundum praescientiae suae gratiam Christus sanctam ecclesiam de in aeternum permansurissanctis construxit whom he hath by the grace of his foreknowledge appointed to continue with him for euer It is c Ephe. 1.23 the body and d Reuel 21 9. Spouse of Christ e Reuel 5 9. redeemed and f 1. Pet. 1.2 sprinkled with his bloud g
dum esset in inferno fuisse in loco pâ—â—â—ae sed sine poena the soule of Christ when it was in hell was in a place of punishment but yet without punishment It should seeme then by these that there is not so great agreement amongst them concerning this article as that M. Bishop should haue any great heart to obiect disagreement amongst vs. As for the expositions which he citeth on our part setting aside the fourth they all containe truth according to the Scripture though happily they doe not fitly expresse the meaning of this article yea they all are anouched by some of his owne side That Christ endured the agonies and anguishes of soule that belong to our damnation in hell Caluin affirmeth to bee the meaning of this article The thing it selfe is affirmed for a truth by their owne Cardinall Cusanus that h Nicol. Causan Excitat lib. 10. ex sermone in iliud Qui per sp sanctum se metipsum obtulit Passio Christi qua maior nulla potest esse suit vt damnatorum qui â—agis damnari nequeunt scilicet vsque ad poenam infernalem Etibid Illam poenam sensus confâ—rnem daemnatis in inferno pati voluit in gloriam der patris sui the passion and suffering of Christ than which none can be greater was the like as of the damned which cannot be more condemned euen vnto the paines of hell and that Christ would suffer that paine of sense and feeling correspondent to the damned in hell to the glory of his father The like in effect doth their Friar i Ferus in Math. 27. Poenam meritum peccatorum quae sunt Frigus calor efuries sitis timor trâ—pidatio horror mortis horor inferni desperatio mors infernus ipse in se transferens Ferus discourse at large writing vpon those words of Christ vpon the crosse My God my God why hast thou forsaken me That this taken in no other meaning than they speake it is a truth I haue before shewed in k Sect. 13.14 answer to the Preface but that it must necessarily be taken to be the meaning of this article I will not contend because it may be conteined in the other article of the crosse and suffering of Christ So neither will I say that it is the intent of this article that Christ was buried in the graue albeit that he was so is a truth of Scripture and they that affirme that there is nothing else meant by his descending into hell may so much the more be confirmed therein for that Andradius one of their owne greatest Scholars and a chosen defender of the Councell of Trent resolueth that in l Andrad Defens fidei Trident lib. 2. Animaduerta mus infernum hoc loco solutis doloribus inferni Act. 2 pro morte atque sepulchro Hebraeorum dicendi more vsurpari vt Psa 15. is quem mox Petrus citat Quoniam non dereâ—â—quisti an man in inferno c. some of the chiefe places whereby Christs descent to hell is prooued there is nothing meant by hell but death and the graue onely The third exposition addeth nothing to the second but only a circumstance of continuance and abiding in the state of death and of the graue which in like sort is true though we may well refuse it as touching the meaning of this article The fourth exposition which he alleageth out of Luther Smideline and others whether truely or not I cannot tell namely that Christ after death went to hell in soule there to be punished for our sinnes swarueth indeed from the truth but yet Suarez the Iesuit out of Medina confesseth that m Suarez in Thom. Aqui. p. 3. q. 52. art 8. disp 43. §. 1. Me lina dicit a iquos Catholicos sensisse ChrifluÌ„passuÌ„ esse aliquas extrinsecas poenas daÌ„naâ—â—â—â— in inferno some Catholikes as hee calleth them haue thought the same namely that Christ suffered some extrinsecall paines of the damned in hell and how neerely Thomas Aquinas commeth thereto we haue seene before The last construction which aboue all other he nameth ridiculous is their very owne he leaudly belieth the Protestants in that hee attributeth it to the most of them namely that Christs going to Paradise is meant by his descending into hell They say that the soule of Christ went immediatly to Abrahams bosome as being a part of hell there to continue till his resurrection But yet he saith to the theefe n Luk. 23.43 This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise It must needs bee therefore by their opinion that Abrahams bosome must be Paradise and so that Christs descending into hell importeth that hee went to Paradise which if it be to expound a thing by the flat contrary of it let him thanke his owne for the folly of it as for vs we haue nothing to doe with it There remaineth after all these the common receiued opinion of our church that the soule of Christ being departed from the body as the letter of the text importeth went to hell as a King into the prison not to be holden in it but to declare his power and command ouer it to bid Satan defiance in his owne kingdome and vpon his owne ground and in himselfe to carry away by way of spoile all them whose person and cause he had vndertaken and whom he had by the grace of his foreknowledge and election made members of himselfe 10. W. BISHOP 6. Concerning Christs resurrection they doe also erre For whereas a resurrection is the rising vp of the very same body that died with all his naturall parts they denie Christ to haue taken againe the same bloud which he shed in his passion Cal. in 27. Math. Perkins pag. 194. In. ca. 24. Lucae and yet is the bloud one notable part of the body Caluin also affirmeth it to be an old wiues dreame to thinke that in Christs hands and feete there remaine the print of nailes and the wound in his side notwithstanding that Christ shewed them to his Disciples and offered them to bee touched of Saint Thomas 7. About Christs ascension into heauen they doe somewhat dissent from the truth For some of them say that Christs body did not pearce through the heauens by vertue of a glorious body lest they should thereby be compelled to grant that two naturall bodies may be together in one place and therefore as well one true body in two places at once but that broad gappes were made in the lower heauens to make him way to the highest which is very ridiculous and more against true Philosophy they say also 1 Cor. 15. vers 21. Coll. 1.18 Beza inc 2. Actorum L. 1. ar 25. de concor Caluinist that he was not the first man that entred into the possession of heauen which is flat against the Scriptures that call Christ the first fruits and first begotten of the dead Thirdly they locke Christ so closely vp in heauen that they
needs confesse themselues to be farre from it which hold that to be impossible and with the principall part of true religion which consisteth in offering a true reall and externall sacrifice vnto God as in that question hath beene prooued they are at vtter defiance R. ABBOT You haue shewed your owne folly M. Bishop and dishonestly The Protestants teach faith hope and charitie aright but for the peruerting of any articles of faith on our side you haue shewed nothing We teach faith hope and charitie as God hath taught them not as your schoole hath newly framed them We teach faith wherby a 1. Io. 5.10.11 to beleeue the record that God witnesseth of his Sonne that God hath giuen vnto vs eternall life and this life is in his Sonne We teach hope whereby b Rom. 8.25 to wait with patience for the reueilling of that which God hath giuen vs. Wee teach charitie whereby to performe c Eph. 2.10 those good works which God hath prepared for vs as the way wherein to walke to the receiuing of it True reall and externall sacrifice for propitiation of sin we teach none but the sacrifice of the passion of Christ because by d Heb. 9.28 10.14 being once offered he hath taken away our sinnes and made perfect for euer them that are sanctified Therefore the sacrifice which he intendeth is no other but sacriledge and idolatrie and because God hath condemned it therefore are we iustly at defiance with it I may not omit how he heere bobbeth his Reader with as in that question hath beene prooued whereas of that question hee hath said iust neuer a word 25. W. BISHOP 2 Touching the second Commandement after our account as God is honoured by swearing in iustice iudgement and truth so he is also by vowes made vnto him of godly and religious duties which the Prophet Dauid signifieth when he saith vow yee Psal 75.13 and render your vowes vnto the Lord your God Heereupon many Catholikes haue and doe continually vow perpetuall pouertie chastirie and obedience the more fully and freely to serue God which holy vowes the Protestants disallow wholly neither doe they allow of any other vowes for ought I haue heard they doe therefore diminish the seruice of God and pare away a part of that which is reduced to the second Commandement R. ABBOT We diminish not the seruice of God because we teach al that the word of God hath taught and with mens deuises God will not be serued Spirituall vowes admitted Popish vowes reiected The true spirituall vowes whereby we consecrate our selues to God we duly approoue but Popish vowes we reiect and detest not onely as superstitious but also as they teach them with opinion of merit and purchase of remission of sinnes for themselues and others most wicked and damnable There needeth heereof nothing more to be said then hath beene before deliuered in the handling of that question 26. W. BISHOP 3. And whereas in the third wee are commanded to keepe holy the Sabaoth day which is principally performed by hearing attentiuely and deuoutly that diuine seruice which was instituted by Christ and deliuered by his Apostles which is the holy Masse they may not abide it but serue God after the inuention of their owne braines with a mingle-mangle of some old some new odly patched together R. ABBOT What Christ instituted appeareth in the Gospell what the Apostles practised and deliuered appeareth by S. Paul holding himselfe entirely to that a 1. Cor. 11.23 which he had receiued of the Lord. What doe wee finde there that doth in any sort resemble the ougly monster of the Popish Masse Gregory Bishop of Rome saith that b Greg. ep l. 7 Indict 2. ep 63. Mos Apostolorum fuit vt ad ipsam solummodo orationem dominicam oblationis hostiam consecrarent the Apostles were woont with the Lords praier only to consecrate the sacred host and shall we then thinke the Apostles to haue been the authours of those gew-gawes and fooleries those turnings and windings and crossings blessings and murmurations and eleuations that are vsed in the Masse Iulius Bishop of Rome the first condemned the dipping of the Sacrament of Christs body in the cup of the bloud of Christ c De cons dist 2. Cum omne Quòd pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt Eucharistiam populis nec hoc prolatum ex Euangelio testimonium receperunt c. because no witnesse heereof is brought out of the Gospell If nothing be to be done in the celebration of the Sacrament but whereof there is witnesse in the Gospel and d Cyp. l. 2. ep 3. In sacrificio quod Christus est nonnisi Christu sequendus est none as Cyprian saith be to be followed therein but only Christ we haue iust cause to reiect the Masse which hath so little of that that Christ did and so much that he did not The Masse therefore is no sanctifying but a prophaning of the Lords Sabaoth but the true sanctifying of the Sabaoth is in our diuine seruice wherein Gods word is read and taught praier is made to God in the name of Iesus Christ and the Sacraments are administred accordingly as Christ himselfe hath left the same vnto vs. Wherein we haue reteined whatsoeuer the abomination of desolation had left remaining of the ancient seruice of the Church and whatsoeuer was wanting we haue supplied agreeably thereto and to the word of God and no man will account it odly patched together but such odde fellowes as M. Bishop is who are so farre in loue with the Romish harlot as that they like to eat no bread but what is moulded with her vncleane and filthie hands 27. W. BISHOP In the fourth we are commanded to obey our Princes as well as our parents and all other our Gouernours in all lawfull matters yet the Protestants hold that our Princes lawes doe not binde vs in conscience R. ABBOT What Is Saul also amongst the Prophets Princes lawes how they binde in conscience Is M. Bishop now come to speake of obedience to Princes by the problemes of whose religion no Prince shall be obeied if the Pope list by any pretense of religion to picke a quarrell against him nor any matters shall be lawfull for him to command but what must stand with the Popes law Doth he speake of obedience to Princes who because his Prince liketh not to follow his course hath before threatned him a Epist to the king sect 34. God knoweth what that forcible weapon of necessitie will driue men vnto at length When the Fox preacheth beware the Geese To the point I answer him briefely we teach that Princes lawes in things subiect to their command do binde the conscience to externall obedience though not to any spirituall opinion of the things wherein we doe obey And that we doe not denie this he himselfe b Preface to the Reader sect 3. before hath testified for
expected or hoped for nor they cannot according to their owne rules from their heart make the said petitions being out of all hope to obtaine them R. ABBOT There is a notable picture of the regenerate man in the holy woman Rebecca when a Gen. 25 22.23 the children stroue within her and the Lord said vnto her Two nations are in thy wombe and two maner of people shall be diuided out of thy bowels and the one people shall be mightier than the other and the elder shall serue the yonger For so are there in the faithfull the old and the new man the flesh and the spirit somewhat whereby they are the children of God and somewhat wherby they are still the children of this world The originall leprosie still cleaueth vnto vs but it is begun to be clensed and the strength of it is abated already Sinne still possesseth and dwelleth in our members but we do not say as M. Bishop falsly pretendeth that it hath the commanding of them b Aug. de peecat mer. remiss l. 2. c. 7. Nunc ei similes esse tam coepimus per primitias spiritus adhuc dissimiles sumus per reliquias vetustatis proinde in quantū similes in tantum regenerante spiritu filij dei in quātum autem dissimiles in tantum si ij carnis seculi Illinc ergò peccare non possumus hinc verò si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus nosi so◠decipimus c. We are now like vnto God saith S. Austin by hauing the first fruits of the spirit and we are still vnlike vnto him by the remnants of our old state So far therefore as we are like him so far are we by the spirit of regeneration the sonnes of God and so far as we are vnlike him so far are we the children of the flesh and of the world On the one side therefore we cannot sinne but on the other side if we say that we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and there is no truth in vs. Now then semblably wee answer M. Bishop that according to that we are renued and by the spirit of God are become the sonnes of God the name of God is sanctified in vs his kingdome is begun in vs and we doe his will in earth with ready will as it is done in heauen But by the remainder of the corruption of flesh and of the old man there is a let that Gods name is not perfectly sanctified in vs his kingdome taketh not full place in vs neither doe we his will in such measure as we ought to doe Yet we pray that the old man the body of sinne may more and more be destroied that the worke of Gods kingdome may more and more be fulfilled in vs that we may more and more keep his commandements and do his will not only with ready will but without all let and hinderance fully and perfectly as they in heauen doe Herein we pray that we may increase from day to day and we beleeue that God heareth vs and granteth our request and will goe forward with his good worke till he bring vs in heauen to the perfection of it so far are the Protestants from being out of hope of the obtaining of these three first petitions as M. Bishop fondly dreameth 44. W. BISHOP In the fourth we aske aswell to be made partakers of Christs blessed body in the Sacrament which is the food of our souls as for our daily corporall sustenance For so do the ancient fathers expound that petition as namely S. Cyprian in oratione Dominica S. Hiero. in 6. Matt. S. Amb. li. 5. de Sacra c. 4. where he hath these memorable words of the blessed Sacrament that before the words of Christ it was bread but after it is the body of Christ Why then saith hee is it called heere bread he answereth that it is called bread not simply but supersubstantiall bread For so doth the Greeke word Epióusion signifie as well as daily it is saith he not such bread as passeth into our body but it is the bread of eternall life that vpholdeth the substance of our soules Now you may be well assured that Protestants who will not beleeue any such bodily presence doe not pray to God to giue it them R. ABBOT Wee wot well that sundry of the ancient Fathers haue expounded this petition Reall presence fondly collected out of the Lords praier not onely literally of corporall foode but also mystically of the participation of the blessed Sacrament wherin Christ is spiritually offered and giuen vnto vs to be vnto vs the bread of euerlasting life Of this we will not contend with the fathers onely we would know of M. Bishop if this daily bread bee vnderstood of the Sacrament how is it that the people with them are not called and vrged to the daily participation of the Sacrament that daily they may be partakers of this bread accordingly as they are taught to pray Or if without the receiuing of the Sacrament a man may be partaker of the spirituall food of the body and bloud of Christ as by their construction of this petition compared with their practise it may seem they do confesse then they must acknowledge that there is no necessitie of their reall presence to make vs partakers of the body and bloud of Christ Which although I do not see how M. Bishop should well and hansomly auoid yet he thought good here to put in one place for the same reall presence of Christs bodie his choise notwithstanding being so smal as that he hath brought vs one that saieth nothing for him yea in very truth saith altogether against him The words of Ambrose are these a Ambr. de Sacram l. 5. cap. 4. Ante verba Christi quod offertur panis est vbi Christi verba deprompta suerint iam non panis dicitur sed corpus appellatur Before the words of Christ that which is offered is bread but when the words of Christ are vttered it is not now termed bread but it is called the body M. Bishop falsifieth the words but taking them as they are what doth hee finde in them for assertion of the reall presence Is it anie proofe of reall presence to say that the Sacrament is called the body of Christ Now as it is called the body of Christ so is it also called supersubstantiall bread not for that that it is really to the mouth belly but for that that it signifieth and presenteth to our faith And this doth Ambrose himselfe immediately declare when hee addeth b Ibid. Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus sed ille panis vitae eternae qui anima nostrae substantiam fulcit for it is not this bread which passeth into the body but that bread of eternall life that vpholdeth the substance of our soule Where when he deuideth the bread of eternall life from that which goeth into the bodie hee plainly sheweth that
answer and yet in this booke there is no such chapter where his answer should be found But touching the reall presence M. Perkins argueth out of the words of Christ to this effect that Christ brake that which he tooke and that which hee tooke was bread and not his body and therefore that it was bread and not really his body which hee brake it being absurd that Christ should bee said to breake himselfe and therefore remaining that that which hee brake was the Sacrament only and not himselfe To answer this M. Bishop wee see is somewhat hardly bestead and forceth the words of Christ to another order than the Euangelists and S. Paul haue obserued in the deliuering of them Yea hee crosseth the Canon of the Masse of rather setteth the Canon of the Masse at variance with the institution of Christ In a word hee saith hee knoweth not what and and cannot tell what to say The Euangelists and the Apostle constantly and with one consent put blessing before breaking but he saith that Christ first brake and then blessed He saith that it was bread which Christ brake but if it were bread which Christ brake then what is it which the Priest breaketh If it be bread then there is no transubstantiation If it be not bread then he swarueth from Christs institution Hee maketh Christ to breake the host before consecration but the Masse-priest breaketh it not till after consecration How then shall the Masse-book and the Gospell be thought to agree together All this it seemeth he runneth into because he cannot tell how it should be said that Christ did breake himselfe which was the thing that M. Perkins vrged But let him reconcile these differences and then send vs a more perfect answer otherwise we must hold him for a simple man that could not auoid such a simple ouerthrow 48. W. BISHOP Againe M. Per. 2. Christ said not vnder the forme of bread or in bread but this that is bread is my body Answ It is false to say that this word Hoc This doth demonstrate bread for it is of a different gender from it both in Latin and Greeke and if he had said that that bread had been his body his word was so omnipotent that it had beene of force to make it his body so that M. Perkins maketh a false constraction which nothing helpeth his error R. ABBOT His exception as touching the different gender is excepted against I will not say by his Grammar rules for I will not shame him so much as to send him to his Grammar but by their glosse of the Canon law which telleth him that a Extravag de schismat c. dudum in glossa Neutrum adiectiuum de omni genere praedicatur the adiectiue in the neuter gender is spoken of euery gender Though therefore the particle demonstratiue This be in the neuter gender in the Greeke and Latin tongue yet that hindereth not but that bread being of the masculine gender may bee demonstrated thereby And so the ancient fathers vnderstood it that b Tertul. cont Marcionem l 4. Panem corpus suum appellans Christ called bread his body euen c Cyprian l. 1. epist 6. Corpus suum panem vocat de multorum granoruÌ„ adunatione congestum bread made of many cornes he calleth his body that d Theodoret. Dialog 1. symbola signa quae videntur appellatione corporis sanguinis honorauit he honoured the visible signes with the name of his body and blood that e Orig. de rectae in deum fide Corporu sanguinis signa imagines â— anem poculum ministrauit he ministred bread and wine for signes and tokens of his body and bloud that f Cyprian de vnct Chris In mensa in quae vitimum cum Apostoâ—is participauit conuiuiuÌ„ proprijs manibus tradidit panem vinum he gaue to his Apostles at his last supper bread and wine and in a word that g Aug. ser ad Infant Quod autem fides postulat instruenda panis est corpus Christi bread is the body of Christ. Now if there be no bread then it cannot bee said that bread is the body or that it is called the body of Christ If bread be called the body of Christ then is it necessarily imported that there is bread which is so called Which because it cannot be before consecration therfore after consecration there must be bread to be and to be called the body of Christ And beyond this the omnipotent force of the word of Christ doth not extend it selfe Hee thereby maketh the bread his body not as h Iohn 2.9 of water hee made wine so as to be no longer water but as i Iohn 1.14 the word was made flesh and yet still continued to be the word k Theodoret. vt supra Non naturam mutans sed naturae gratiam adijciens not changing nature as Theodoret expresseth it but adding grace vnto nature Albeit to dispute here what the word of Christ had been of force to doe is fantasticall and idle what hee did intend to doe is manifest and plaine vnto vs. He purposed to institute a Sacrament and l Aug. epi. 23. si sacramenta similitudinem quandam non haberent earum reruÌ„ quarum sunt sacramenta omninò sacramenta non essent Ex hac autem similitudine plerunque reruÌ„ ipsaruÌ„ nomina acciâ—iunt sacraments haue a resemblance of the things whereof they are sacraments and by reason of that resemblance they commonly take the names of the things themselues Christ therefore according to this accustomed maner calleth the Sacrament of his body and bloud by the name of his bodie and bloud and saith of bread This is my body and of the Cuppe This is my bloud and not in name enely but m Cyprian de resurrect Christi Quod videtur nomine virtute Christi corpus censetur in power and effect they are to the faithfull receiuer the same that they are called Heerein the force of Christs word is seene that to so weake and simple creatures he addeth so rich and vnspeakable grace and by so slender meanes worketh so great effects whereby he maketh vs poore creatures of the earth to become one with himselfe in heauen But if M. Bishop will deny the meaning to be This bread is my body we desire him to declare a better meaning and to tell vs certainly whereto to refer This which if he can define we will hold him for a wiser man than any hitherto hath been amongst them After much tossing this matter to and fro needlesse here to be stood vpon their great Master Bellarmine commeth to strike the matter dead and telleth vs that the meaning is n Bellar. de sacram Eucharist l. 1. c. 11. Hoc id est substantia sub his spectebus contenta This that is the substance contained vnder these formes But his wisedome might haue seene that the question
heere continueth still the same what the substance is that is conteined vnder the formes The body of Christ they say is not there till o Tho. Aquin. summ p. 3. q. 75. art 7. ad 2 vltimuminstans prolationis verborum est primum instans in quo est in sacramento corpus Christs in toto autem tempore praecedente est ihi substantia panis the last instant of the words of consecration and till then the substance of bread is there The sustance then demonstrated by This must necessarilie be granted to be bread as wee expoundit because as yet there is no other Much adoe they make about this matter and can resolue nothing and whilest they will not submit themselues to the truth they are so intangled in their owne errour that they know not which way to quit themselues 49. W. BISHOP Thirdly Per. 3. Bread was not giuen for vs but onely the bodie of Christ and in the first institution the body of Christ was not then really giuen to death Ans This maketh nothing at all against the reall presence but doth greatly fortifie it For Christ gaue vs in the Sacrament that which should be put to death for vs this is my body that shall be giuen for you Now not bread but Christs true body was giuen to death for vs ergo Christ gaue vs to eate not bread but his true reall body R. ABBOT If M. Bishops argument be good against vs we will returne it to himselfe againe Christ gaue vs in the Sacrament that which should be put to death for vs but not the forme of bread but Christs true body was giuen to death for vs therefore Christ gaue vs to eate not the forme of bread but his true reall body And doth M. Bishop beleeue so If he doe not then let him answer his owne argument and wee shall thereby finde a way to answer him It is true that Christ in the Sacrament giueth his body but he giueth not onely his body but also the Sacrament of his body He giueth the Sacrament of his body externally and corporally to be receiued by the mouth hee giueth-his true bodie internally and spiritually to be receiued by faith He giueth vs then that bodie that was giuen to death for vs but hee doth not giue it to the swallowing of the throat but to the meditation of the heart And this S. Austin notably declareth when for exposition of the words of Christ Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud c. he saith or rather maketh Christ to say a August in Psal 98. spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent sacramencum aliquod comn endani vohiâ— spiritualitèr intellectum viuificabit vâ—s Vnderstand spiritually that which I haue said Yee shall not eat this bodie which yee see nor drinke that bloud which they shall shead that crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament which vnderstand spiritually and it shall giue you life Where vnderstanding eating and drinking properly with the mouth hee denieth the very body and bloud of Christ to this eating and drinking and leaueth onely the Sacrament to be appertaining thereto Now in this meane while M. Bishop hath slipped M. Perkins argument and let it goe without answer that the Sacrament is not simplâ—e the body of Christ but onely as it is giuen to death for vs and because the body of Christ neither was in the first institution nor now is in the Sacrament really giuen to death for vs therefore the Sacrament is not really the body of Christ 50. W. BISHOP Fourthly Per. 4. The cup is the new Testament by a figure why not then the bread the body of Christ by a figure Answ A goodly reason if there bee one figure there must needs be two How followeth this if those words of S. Paul be obscure why did he not rather cleare them by conferring them with S. Matthew and S. Marke who deliuer it plainely thus this is my bloud of the new Testament that shall be shedde c But hee that delighteth in cauilling must seeke darknesse R. ABBOT M. Bishop anone a Sect. 63. after telleth vs that no good Christian may thinke but that our Sauiour Christ Iesus very well foreseeing all such inconueniences as he hath there expressed did deliuer the Sacrament in such termes as he would haue to bee taken properly and not bee construed at mens pleasures figuratiuely If this be true how doth hee heere thinke of himselfe that doth admit that Christ in the deliuering of the Sacrament namely of the cup did speake figurariuely Or if he be a good Christian notwithstanding that contrary to his owne rule he admit a figure in Christs deliuering of the Sacrament must we be no good ChristiaÌ„s if we admit two Surely there is the same reason of the one part of the Sacrament as there is of the other and sich there is a necessity to vnderstand a figure in the one either hee must giue vs sound reason to the contrary or else he must leaue vs to our own reasons to conceiue the like of the other also Though it be not a goodly reason to say if there be one figure there must needs be two yet it is a good reasoÌ„ to say if there may be one figure nothing hindreth but there may be two If Christ might say by a figure a Luk. 22.20 1. Cor. 11.25 This cup is the new Testament in my bloud as S. Luke and S. Paul haue set downe then hee might say also by a figure This is my bodie this bread is my body But saith he if those words of S. Paul bee obscure why did he not rather cleere them by conferring them with S. Mathew and S. Marke So then there may be here somewhat obscure but it must bee onely what pleaseth them who notwithstanding of that that is most cleere as we haue seene in the former section saue one doe by their exposition make a matter most intricate and darke But what cleering doth S. Paul receiue from S. Mathew and S. Marke Forsooth they deliuer it plainly thus This is my bloud of the new testament that shall be shed c. Hee setteth downe the words but what cleering it is that he meaneth he sheweth not And indeed the words on both sides are alike S. Luke and S. Paul speake by a figure and so doe also S. Mathew and S. Mark S. Mathew saith b Mat. 26.28 This is my bloud of the new testament but what meaneth he by This Surely This hath heere the nature of a relatiue and must be referred to his antecedent before set downe And what is the antecedent but the cup Iesus tooke the cup and gaue it to them saying Drinke yee all of this of what but of this cup for this that is this cup is my bloud
of the new testament c. The words of c Mark 24.23.24 S. Marke doe beare also the same sense which as it is the very Grammaticall construction of the words so it is also fully confirmed in that S. Luke and S. Paul doe expresly deliuer it in that sort So then by all three Euangelists and S. Paul there is a figure in one part of the Sacrament let vs then aske M. Bishop againe why may there not be so in the other also But hee doth not loue to be troubled with too many questions He cannot tell as yet what answer to giue vs and therefore we must be content to giue him further time till he may better bethinke himselfe 51. W. BISHOP Fiftly Christ did eat that supper but not himselfe Per. 5. Answ A Protestant cannot say that Christ did eat of that Sacrament as M. PERK doth because hee hath no warrant for it in the written word yet we doe grant that he did so and hold him most worthy to taste of that heauenly food R. ABBOT If the written word doe not warrant that Christ did eat of the Sacrament I maruell why M. Bishop citeth to that purpose out of S. Luke those words which a Sect 62. ex Luc 22.15 anon he doth that he maruellously desired to eat this last banquet with his disciples Whether hee cite it truely or falsly let himselfe looke to that but either hee must confesse that hee hath cited amisse there or else that he hath spoken rashly here But if Christ did eat of the Sacrament will M. Bishop haue vs to beleeue that he did eat himselfe or dranke the bloud of his owne bodie May we be perswaded that one and the same Christ at one and the same time was both wholly within himselfe and wholly also without himselfe that hee sate visible by his Apostles and yet was then wholly conteined within the compasse of his owne bowels or that in his owne bowels hee at that time caried his owne bloud or that moreouer hee was then by the Sacrament in the bellies of all the Apostles euen of the traitour Iudas Surely what Christ did eat the same Iudas did eat also But of Iudas S. Austin teacheth that b Aug. in Ioan. tract 59. Non est ex eis iste c. Illi manducabant panem dominum ille panem domini contra dominuÌ„ hee did eat of the Lords bread but not of the bread which is the Lord. Therefore although Christ did eat the Sacrament yet may wee not imagine that hee did eat himselfe These are horrible and vnchristian fancies but out of the schoole of Transubstantiation they come and they that maintaine the one must necessarily maintaine the other also 52. W. BISHOP Sixtly We are bid to doe it till he come Christ then is not bodily present Answ Wee are bid by S. Paul to shew the death of our Lord till he come to iudgement which we may very well doe 1. Cor. 11. v. 26. his body being present as certaine noble Matrons preserued of their husbands blood to represent more freshly vnto their children the slaughter of their fathers R. ABBOT It is true that his comming shall bee to iudgement but what shall he need to come if he be here already It was not questioned whereto he should come nor whether we may shew the death of the Lord his body being present if it were present but why the Apostle should say till he come if he be intended to be here already present His body being present saith he as though he meant that Christ were not wholly present whereas they tell vs that whole Christ is in the Sacrament both God and man soule and body flesh blood and bone as hee was borne of the virgin and nailed afterwards to the Crosse And if Christ be wholly present what reason had the Apostle to say till he come He telleth vs a ridiculous and impertinent tale of certaine noble Matrones who preserued of their husbands blood to represent more freshly to their children the slaughter of their fathers But what is this to the matter here in hand If those noble matrones had had their husbands with them and in the presence of their children then let him tell vs whether it had not been a witlesse thing to bid them expect their fathers till they come But hee stealeth away from the point and though he doe but gull his Reader with an idle iest yet he would haue it thought that hee hath giuen a worthy answer As touching the truth of this matter our Sauiour informeth vs when he telleth his disciples a Iohn 12.8 The poore ye shall haue alwaies with you but me ye shall not haue alwaies S. Austin giueth a reason of those word b August in Ioan tract 50. Quoniam conuersatus est secundum corporis praesentiam quadraginta diel us cum discipulis suis eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo a scondit in caeiuâ— non est hic because according to the presence of his body he was conuersant forty daies with his disciples and then they bringing him on the way by seeing but not by following he ascended into heauen and is not here Christ then according to the presence of his body is not here yea c Acts 3.21 the heauen must containe him saith S. Peter vntill the time that all things be restored and therefore d Phil. 3.20 from heauen wee looke for him saith S. Paul euen as in our Creed we professe to beleeue that from thence hee shall come to iudge both the quicke and the dead Now because we beleeue according to the scripture that Christ as touching his body is in heauen and not here and that from heauen we are to looke for him at the last day we are able to giue a iust reason why the Apostle should say vntill he come which M. Bishop out of his learning cannot doe 53. W. BISHOP Seuenthly Christ bid vs to doe it in remembrance of him but signes of remembrance are of things absent Answ We see one thing and remember another By Christs body really present we remember the same to haue been nailed on the Crosse for our redemption as Goliaths sword was kept in the tabernacle in remembrance of the cutting-off of Goliaths head with the same sword and the women before rehearsed kept their husbands blood might much easier haue prescrued their bodies embalmed to keepe the better their deaths in fresh memory R. ABBOT We see one thing saith M. Bishop and remember another But a Aug. serm ad infantes apud Bedam in 1. Cor. 10 Quod videtis panis est calix quod vobis esiam oculi renuntiâ—nt that which you see saith S. Austin is bread as your very eies tell you If then our remembrance be by our sight it is by bread that we remember the body of Christ M. Bishop I hope will not say that we see the body of Christ really present and
Bishop here pretendeth that they haue more cause to complaine of vs than we of them for he saith that wee haue defrauded the poore people of both body and blood of Christ and in lieu of that most pretious banquet doe giue them a cold breakefast of a morsell of bread and a sup of wine Which words hee vseth rather of malice then for that he knoweth not that wee affirme in the due participation of this Sacrament a heauenly riches of grace and of the communion of the body and blood of Christ Tell vs M. Bishop when Gelasius saith that q Gelas cont Eutych Nestor Certè sacramenta quae sumimus corporis sanguinâ—â— domini diuina resest per illa diumae consortes â—fficimur naturae tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini the Sacraments which we receiue of the body and blood of Christ are a diuine thing and we are thereby made partakers of the diuine nature yet there ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine did hee make the Sacrament to be no more but a morsell of bread and a sup of wine If wee respect the nature of the outward and visible elements it is true that we receiue in the Sacrament a morsell of bread and a sup of wine for these creatures r Theodoret. dialog 2. Manent in priore substantia figura forma c. remaine still as Theodoret saith in their former substance but if we respect them in their vse and effect this bread is heauenly bread and this cup is the cup of saluation and life eternall And as he is a mad man who hauing a rich gift confirmed vnto him by his Princes seale will vilifie the seale and say it is but a peece of wax euen so is he as mad who of the Sacrament of Christ which is Å¿ Rom. 4.11 the seale of the righteousnesse of faith the pledge of the remission of sinnes the meanes whereby grace and life through faith are deriued vnto vs will say either in baptisme that it is but a handfull of water or in the Lords supper that it is but a morsell of bread and a sup of wine But of this and of his fiue other sacraments as he hath spoken before so I haue answered him t Preface to the Reader sect 20. before and I refer the reader to that that is there said where he shall easily see that he hath no cause to account himselfe vnfortunate for following vs but rather to hold them for vnfortunate fooles that yeeld themselues to bee guided by such fancies 56. W. BISHOP Let this be the first The state of the new Testament which is more perfect then the old requireth accordingly Sacraments of greater grace and perfection than the old had they had Manna which for substance and taste far passed our bread and in signification was equall to it Wherefore either we must grant our Sacrament of bread and wine to be inferior to theirs of the old Testament or else acknowledge and confesse it to be the true body and bloud of Christ which doth surpasse theirs exceedingly as the body doth the shadow This argument is confirmed by our Sauiour himselfe who in expresse termes doth preferre the meat that he was to giue to his disciples before that of Manna Ioh. 6.48.49 which their Fathers had eaten in the wildernesse R. ABBOT If this argument be good it prooueth reall presence in Baptisme as well as it doth in the Lords supper If in Baptisme without any reall presence there be greater grace perfection as in a Sacrament of the new testament then there was in the Sacraments of the old then nothing hindreth but that in the Lords supper the like also may bee neither can M. Bishop alleage any reason to prooue it necessary in the one that shall not prooue it in the other also The preeminence of the state of the new testament aboue the old standeth in cleerenesse of light not in difference of faith in the performance of promises not in any diuerse effect of them a 2. Cor. 4.13 Wee haue the same spirit of faith and a little to turne the Apostles words b Act. 15.11 they hoped to bee saued by the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ euen as wee doe c Aug de nat grat cap 44. Ea fides iustos sanauit antiquos quae sanat nos id est mediatoris dei et hominum hominis Iesu Christi fides sanguinis eius fides crucis eius fides mortis resurrectionis eius The same faith saith S. Austin saued the iust of old time that saueth vs euen the faith of the Mediatour betwixt God and man the man Iesus Christ the faith of his bloud the faith of his crosse the faith of his death and resurrection To them he was to come to vs hee is already come he hath stood as it were in the middest betwixt vs they looked vpon him forward we looke vpon him backward but both receiue from him the same grace Accordingly therefore the Sacraments of the old and new testament though in outward forme and administration they differ much yet in inward power and effect they are the same d Aug. ep 118. Leus iugo suo nos subdidit sarcinae leui vnde sacramentis numero paucissimis obseruatione facillimis significatione praestantissimis societatem noui populi colligauit Christ as S. Austin noteth hath laid vpon vs an easie yoke by Sacraments in number very few in obseruation most easie and in signification most excellent they were forced to attend to many types and figures and encumbred with infinite operositie of manifold obseruations and ceremonies Our state therefore is better than theirs for that wee with more ease are partakers of the same effects of grace which with greater labour and difficultie God so disposing they did atteine vnto but otherwise what benefit we receiue by our Sacraments towards eternall life they also receiued by theirs For why doth the Apostle say that the Israelites e 1. Cor 10.2 were baptised in the cloud and in the sea but to signifie that in these types and figures they were made partakers of the same spirituall blessing and grace that in baptisme is ministred vnto vs. And why doth he say that they did eat the same spirituall meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke but to giue to vnderstand that they also did f Ioh. 6.54 eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud that they might liue thereby for if wee respect the outward signes they did not eat the same or drinke the same that we do It must needs therefore bee as touching the spirituall and inward meate and drinke which is the body and bloud of Christ And so the Apostle saith that they dranke of the spirituall rocke which followed them and the rocke was Christ g Amb. de Sp. Sanct lib. 1. in
Prolog Quod vtique non ad diuinitatem eius sed ad carnem relatum est quae sitientium corda populorum perenni riuo sui sanguinis inundauit Which saith Ambrose is not referred to the godhead of Christ but to the flesh which did water and refresh the hearts of the thirsty people with the euerflowing streame or riuer of his bloud And thus S. Austin saith of Manna that it signified h Aug. in Ioan. tract 16. Hunc panem significauit Manna hunc panem significauit Altare dei Sacramenta ill fuerunt in signis diuersa sunt in re quae significatur pariasunt the same bread euen the body of Christ that is signified in the table of the Lord they are both Sacraments saith he in signes they are diuers but in the thing signified they are equall and alike Now if without any reall presence the faithfull in Manna did eat the flesh of Christ and in the water of the rocke did drinke the bloud of Christ then it followeth that there is no necessitie of the reall presence to our eating the flesh of Christ and our drinking of his bloud But I would yet further aske him how the reall presence maketh our Sacrament of greater grace and perfection then the old seeing the body of Christ is thereby made subiect to bee eaten of wicked and vngodly men who receiue no grace by it yea of swine and dogs and mice as they affirme which are not capable of any grace For if the very receiuing of Christs body into our bodies doe worke effect of grace then should grace bee wrought in these also But if the effect of grace be to be attributed vnto faith then the reall presence is needlesse because faith touching the Sacrament but as the hemme of Christs garment vpon earth receiueth vertue from the body of Christ in heauen to heale to feed and strengthen vs vnto eternall life That which hee bringeth for confirmation of his argument belongeth nothing therto Christ saith he preferreth the meat that he was to giue to his disciples before that of Manna which their fathers had eaten in the wildernesse And who doubteth thereof when as our Sauiour saith i Ioh. 6.48.51 I am the bread of life The bread which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world for who doubteth but that Christ or the flesh of Christ is to be preferred before Manna but that this flesh of Christ is to be eaten in the Sacrament really with the mouth and into the belly this place prooueth not Christ there compareth not their sacrament with ours but he compareth their sacrament as the signe with himselfe as the thing that was signified thereby k Augu. cont Faust. Manich. li. 12 c. 29. veterem figuram carnalitèr accipâ—entes mortui sunt Which signe or figure they who vnderstood no otherwise but carnally died and perished but they who vnderstood the same aright vnderstood Christ therein they did eat the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud as before was said and obteine life by his name l Aug. in Ioan. tract 26. Visibilem cibum spiritualiter intellexerunt spiritualiter esurierunt spiritualiter gustauerunt vt spiritualitèr satiarentur The visible food saith Austin they vnderstood spiritually they spiritually hungred after it they spiritually tasted it that spiritually they might be satisfied So do we in our Sacrament and without any reall presence it is life to vs euen as it was to them 57. W. BISHOP Secondly Christ promised to giue to his Disciples his flesh to eat and his bloud to drinke and when they marueiled how that could be hee assured them Ioh. 6.55 that vnlesse they did eat his flesh they should not haue life in them and further certified them that his flesh was truely meat and his bloud truely drinke whence it is most plainely deduced that he who neuer faileth of his promise gaue them his true flesh to eate R. ABBOT We grant his conclusion that Christ gaue to his disciples and further giueth vnto vs his true flesh to eat but the question still is how or in what sort we eat it Christ indeed hath taught vs that a Iohn 6.55 his flesh is meat indeed and his blood is drinke indeed but will M. Bishop say that they are meat and drinke to the body that the body is nourished and fed with the body and blood of Christ and that the same is turned by digestion into the substance of our bodies If not then it cannot be said that with the body wee eat the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood but this must necessarily be vnderstood to be an action of the minde Therefore Cyprian saith that for the doing hereof b Cyprian de caena domini Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acu imus sed fide syncera panem sanctum frangimus we doe not sharpen our teeth to bite but with sincere faith we breake the sacred bread and Austin questioneth c Aug. Cur paras dentes ventrem crede manducasti why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly beleeue and thou hast eaten and defineth it d Idem in Ioan. tract 26. Qui manducat intus non foris qui manducat corde non qui premit dente to be eating within not without to be eating with the heart not crushing with the teeth And otherwise to vnderstand it of eating the very flesh of Christ with the mouth what is it but the grosse error of the Capernaits literally vnderstanding the words of Christ because they were no other but carnall men e Tertul. de resurr carnis Durum intolerabilem existimauerunt sermonem eius quasi verè carneÌ„ suam illis edendam determinassâ—t They thought his speech to be hard intollerable saith Tertullian as though he had determined that they should verily eat his flesh But if they had been intelligent hearers and men spiritually minded they would haue discerned by the other words of Christ the true meaning of this speech For when he attributeth the same to beleeuing in him that he doth to the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood that f Iohn 6.47 whoso beleeueth in him hath euerlasting life he plainly giueth to vnderstand that the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood is to be expounded by beleeuing And so doth S. Austin construe it when hee saith g August in Ioan tract 26. Credere in Christum hoc est manducare panem viuum qui credit manducat To beleeue in Christ that is to eat the bread of life he that beleeueth eateth Againe when he perceiued their repining at his words he saith vnto them h ver 61.62 Doth this offend you What then if ye shall see the sonne of man ascend where he was before i Aug. vt supra ille putabant eum erogaturuÌ„ corpus suum ille autem dixit se ascensuruÌ„ in
led by them who thus grosly abuse you and noteth in the margent Doct. Abbot against Doct. Bishop part 2. in fine These words I vsed to withdraw M. Bishop from the Romish religion and yet M. Higgons thought that without offense he might take my words to serue him for an answer why he had now embraced the same presuming it to be the custome of all writers to take words euen out of the aduersaries mouth and to retort them vpon himselfe how ill he hath done it I will not heere say Now therefore in like sort though Saint Bernard had beene mine aduersary professedly writing against me yea though the words had beene M. Bishop words yet nothing could let but that thereby I might thus expresse the benefit of answering their bookes that to vse M. Bishops words though the heretike arise not from his filth yet the Church may be confirmed in the faith But the words as they are deliuered by Saint Bernard doe serue fully and directly to that purpose whereto I applied them He handleth that which is said in the Canticles l Cant. 2.15 Take vs the Foxes where by m Bernard in Cant. Ser. 64. Vulpes haereses vel potius haereticos ipsos intelligamus Capiantur non armis sed argumentis quibus refellantur errores corum ipsi verò si fieri potest reconcilientur Catholicae reuocentur ad veram fidem c. Homo de ecclesia exercitatus doctus si cum haeretico homine disputare aggreditur ille intentionem suam dirigere debet quatenus ita errantem conuincat vt conuertat c. Nec propterea sanè nihil se egisse putet qui haereticum vicit conuicit haereses confutauit verisimilia a vero clarè aperteque distinxit c. nam etsi haereticus non surrexit de faece tamen ecclesia confirmatur in fide Foxes hee vnderstandeth generally all heretikes which annoy and trouble the Church of God whom he will haue to be taken not with weapons but with arguments whereby to refute their errours that so they may be reconciled to the Catholike Church and recalled to true faith He saith that he that disputeth with an heretike should propound to himselfe to conuince his errour that so he may conuert him and thereupon to take away all obiection of losing his labour therein he addeth that though he will not be conuerted yet hee that hath conquered and conuicted him is not to thinke he hath done no good for though the heretike saith he arise not from his filth yet the Church is confirmed in the faith which is fully answerable to the drift of my speech where I vsed the same words What will he tell vs that he is not the heretike and therefore the words are misapplied But then I will deride his folly that chargeth me with misapplication onely vpon his owne conceit of the point in question He saith I am the heretike I say that he is so He saith it only but prooueth it not but he himselfe standeth by me conuicted of many hereticall positions and doctrines deliuered in his epistle and otherwise in his booke so as that he cannot finde how to trauerse the euidence thereof Yea but S. Bernard in that very place describeth those heretikes to be such as denied Purgatory and praier for the dead c. But M. Bishop therein saith vntruly for Bernard in that place speaketh of heretikes in general as I haue shewed and therfore leaueth his words to be applied to M. Bishop who doth patronise and defend so many wicked and damnable heresies True it is that in the two sermons following he speaketh particularly of some heretikes in his time and noteth them for some points by M. Bishop set down as namely Purgatory and praier for the dead but those matters he bringeth in a great way after in the end of the second Sermon and we doubt whether for those onely without greater cause he would haue noted them for heretikes in as much as Petrus Cluniacensis Bernards equall doth testifie as the Centurists haue obserued n Magdeburg Centur. 12. cap. 5. pag. 839. Petrus Cluniacensis ter in ea ipsa epistola fatetur Catholicos quosdam de sacrificijs orationibus pro defunctis dubitare that some Catholikes did then doubt of sacrifices and praiers for the dead and consequently of Purgatory which dependeth thereon He noteth them for other points wherein they are more like to the Papists than to vs as namely first that o Bernard in Cantic ser 65. Firmauerunt sibi sermonem nequam Iura periura secretum prodere noli c. Quod immobili iure sancitū est non peierandum scilicet hoc tanquam indifferens pro sua voluntate dispensant they dispensed with themselues to sweare and forsweare for the concealing of their owne secrets as now the Iesuites and Priests by their equiuocation and mentall reseruation teach their pupils to do They p Ibid. Contubernio faeminarū nemo inter eos qui careat c. Vxornè tua Non inquit nam voto meo istud non conuenit ser 66. In operimentum turpitudinis cōtinentiae se insigniere voto porrò turpitudinem in solis existimant vxoribus reputandam vowed continency but yet would not be without the company of women yea their vow of continency was but for the couering of their filthines thereby forbearing marriage as vncleane but in the meane time committing fornication as Popish Priests and Votaries are accustomed to doe q Ibid. Quidam dissentientes ab alijs inter solos virgines matrimonium contrahi posse fatentur Some of them permitted the first marriage but the second marriage they held vnlawfull and the Church of Rome now denieth to it their sacramentall benediction They also condemned the eating of flesh as a thing vncleane as the Maniches did they thought they might euery day at their owne tables consecrate for themselues the body and bloud of Christ they derided the baptising of infants which things with other like were such as might iustly moue S. Bernard to inueigh against them And these things hee spake as he was aduertised concerning them of whom hee spake but whether hee were truely aduertised it may bee doubted because he himselfe saith that not onely r Ser. 66. in fine Non solum laici principes sed quidam vt dicitur de Clero necno◠de ordine Episcoporum eos sustinent Princes of the laity but some also of the Clergy and of the Bishops were fauourers of them which it is not likely they would haue beene if they had beene men so ill conditioned as he reporteth them howsoeuer he vpon an vnlikely rale impute it to their taking bribes of them As for those matters which M. Bishop nameth it is no wonder that Bernard liuing in a time of so great corruption and declination of Christian faith were somewhat intangled in the superstitions of that time wonder it is rather that in the
doth cease But yet hee saith that Gelasius in that place signifieth so much in that he affirmeth that by the operation of the holy Ghost the bread and wine doe passe into a diuine substance And it is true indeed that Gelasius so saith But M. Bishop did your eies serue you to looke no further n Gelas vt supra Indiuiuam transennt sancto spiritu perficiente substantiam permanent tamen in suae proprietate naturae They passe saith he into a diuine substance but yet they remaine in the propriety of their owne nature euen as to the same purpose Theodoret saith o Theodoret. dial 1. Symbola signa quae videntur appellatione corporis sanguinis honorauit non naturam quidem mutans sed naturae gratiam adijciens Christ honoured the visible signes with the name of his body and bloud not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature Now if they still continue in their owne nature as before then they doe not so passe into a diuine substance but that there is still the substance of bread and wine The thing whereto Gelasius driueth that speech is to shew against Eutyches that as in the Sacrament the bread and wine become vnto vs the body and bloud of Christ and yet retaine the same nature and substance as before so the manhood of Christ being ioined into one person with the Godhead is not thereby drowned or swallowed vp but continueth in substance the same that it was from the beginning This he imagined to be very direct against the heresy of Eutyches but by M. Bishps transubstantiation it proueth wholly to the aduantage thereof for that it may bee said that as in the Sacrament the substance of bread and wine are extinguished though there remaine the shew and likenes and taste therof so in the vnion of the man-hood with the god-head there coÌ„tinued the semblance and likenes and outward appearance of a man but the substance thereof was swallowed vp and continued not And this M. Bishop helpeth to strengthen by expounding nature to be vnderstood of naturall qualities whereas Gelasius as he speaketh of the bread and wine there ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine so saith of Christ p Gelas ibid. Dicimus proprietatem vniuscuiusque substantiae vel naturae in Christo manere perpetuam We say that the propriety of ech substance or nature abideth continually in Christ vnderstanding still by nature the same that he doth by substance as hee hath said before q Ibi. Substantia nulla est quae non natura dicatur There is no substance but it is called nature euen as Austin saith r August cont Iulian. li. 1. ca. 3. Natura est ipsa substantia cont serm Arianor c. 36. Vnius eiusdemque substantiae vel vt expressiùs dicamus essentiae quod plantùs dicitur vnius eiusdemque naturae The nature is the very substance and Of one and the same substance or essence is more plainly said of one and the same nature which made the Euty chians that they could not endure to name Å¿ Gelas ibid. Quis ferat eos dedignari vocabula promere naturarum two natures in Christ because thereby should be imported two entire and perfect substances And albeit it be true that sometimes the name of nature is vsed to signifie some intrinsecall properties issuing immediately from the essence of the thing yet he that shall say that the nature of bread and wine is the forme and taste and sauor thereof may be thought to speake like a naturall rather than like a learned man His exception that this Gelasius was not Bishop of Rome is vaine It hath beene still and is printed by themselues vnder his name The conclusion doth giue token that it was his t Ibid. in fine Hanc regulam Catholicae fidei c. cùm sedem Apostolicam vestram dilectio vnanimitèr teneat coÌ„staÌ„tèr praedicet sapieÌ„ tèrque defendat seeing you beloued doe with one minde hold fast the Apostolike sea therefore constantly preach and wisely defend this rule of the Catholike faith yea and that very fragment which wee now haue is cited by u Bibliot sanct Patr. edit 2. Iom 4. pa. 557. Iohn the first his successour soone after to the same very purpose whereto he wrot it which alone is sufficient for approbation thereof Againe I cited x Pag. 35.35 Theodoret making mention that the Councell of Laodicea did forbid to pray to Angels or to worship them and I alleaged Austin noting them for heretikes that did so To S. Austin M. Bishop answereth nothing at all with whom as I cited they are recorded for heretikes and termed y August ad Quod vultd haer 39 Angeliciin Angelorum cultu inclinati Angelici who were bowed downe in the worship of Angels How trimly he answereth to Theodoret and the Councell of Laodicea shall be the better discerned if I first set downe the words of Theodoret himselfe Who handling the words of the Apostle z Col 2.18 Let no man at his pleasure be are rule ouer you by humblenes of minde and worshipping of Angels saith thus r Theodoret. in Col. 2. Qui leâ— gâ—m defendebant eos etiam ad angelos â—olendos inducebant dicentes fuisse legem per eos datam MaÌ„sit autem diu hoc vitium in Phrygia Pisidia Quocircae Synodus quoque quae conuenit Laodiceae quae est Phrygiae metropolis lege prohibuit ne precaerentur Angelos Et in hodiernuÌ„ vsque diem licet videre apud illos eorum finitimos oratoria sancti Michaelis Illi ergò hos consulebant humilitate vtentes diceÌ„tes vniuersorum deum nec cerni nec comprehendâ— nec perueniri ad eum posse oportere per Angelos diuinam sibi heneuolentiam conciliare Hoc antem dixit Apostolus In humilitate cultu Angelorum They who defended the law did induce them the Colossians to worship Angels saying that the Law was giuen by them And this corruption continued long in Phrygia and Pisidia Wherefore the Councell of Laodicea the chiefe City of Phrygia did by decree forbid to pray to Angels And euen to this day we may see amongst them and others neere to them Chapels of S. Michael And this they perswaded pretending humility saying that the Lord of all might not be seene nor comprehended nor come vnto and that by the Angels we must procure or obtaine the good will or fauour of God And this saith he the Apostle meant by humility and worship of Angels And what doth M. Bishop now say to this The Councell forsooth meant it Å¿ Reproofe pag. 238. of leauing our Sauiour Iesus Christ to commit idolatry to the Angels preferring the Angels before him But Theoderet knew well the meaning of the Councell Theodoret knew the occasion of that decree namely a superstition brought in by the false Apostles to worship Angels and to pray to them
and Espenceus confesse that p LindaÌ„ de opt gen interpret scrip l. 3. ca. p 3. Espenc Digres in 1. epist. ad Timoth. lib. 1. cap. 11. apud Rainold Thess 5. there are many Apocryphall things thrust thereinto out of the Gopell of Nicodemus and other toies that there is a false beginning shamefully and ignorantly set before the lecture of the Gospell that the canon of the Masse and the secrets are beraied with most foule faults that there are the festiuals of some saints whose names happily are scantly well warranted And what doe they now condemne the diuine seruice which they haue commended to the people haue set foorth for holy good for so many former ages Of their Bibles we haue heard before and shall I now say to them to whom he spake before If these Popes and Popish Bishops and doctours had once deceiued you in a mony matter you wold beware how you trusted them againe and will you beleeue them still they hauing by their owne confession so long deceiued you both in your Church-seruice and in your Bible commending the one to you as diuine seruice and the other as Gods pure word and since condemning them both If he will thinke vs fooles to argue in this sort let him put his hand to his owne nose and returne the imputation of this folly to himselfe remembring that it is an ill bird that beraieth his owne nest and that hee should first haue looked at home before hee had made this wise reason against vs. This only by the way as being impertinent to this place but by that that hath beene said of translations we may beforehand perceiue how faint and spiritlesse M. Bishops voice will be when the time shall come which so manfully he threatneth that he shall exclaime against vs as corruptours and deprauers of Gods sacred word At the most it will be but as the crie of a gander amongst the geese which thrusteth out the necke and hisseth and happily shaketh a man by the gowne and backe againe he runneth with a great noise and is applauded by all the flocke as if he had done some valiant worthy act It will then appeare further that it is rather for forme than for matter that hee thus bableth of peruersly mangling the Scriptures Of expounding Scriptures and resoluing doubts and of our owne pew-fellowes crying out shame vpon vs. Of resoluing doubts and difficulties I haue answered him the section last saue one I will not say as there onely of the ancient church but setting aside the foolish and idle dreame of a priuiledge resting in the Pope which is no other but an ambitious vsurpation and a meere Antichristian tyrannie subiecting the whole faith of the church to the will and fancy of one wicked man what meanes hath the Church of Rome for resoluing of doubts but that we haue in any respect as good as they Yea there are not so many difficulties or doubts in very materiall points vnresolued amongst vs as at this day remaine questioned vndecided in the Church of Rome As for ancient Fathers and Councels they are more truely regarded with vs than they are with them With vs they are made to yeeld onely to God and to his word but with them they must giue place to all their sacrilegious and abominable deuices Let the Fathers and Councels say what they will yet q Bellar. de Sacram li 2. c. 25. Omnium conciliorum veterum omnium dogmatum firmitas ab authoritate praesentis ecclesiae dependet the authority of them all and the certainty of all Doctrines must depend vpon the authority of their church As touching that which he saith that we beare our followers in hand that euery faithfull man by himselfe examining the circumstances of the text and comparing other like places shal find out the right meaning of al obscure sentences how impudeÌ„t a lie it is hereby appeareth for that we do not attribute so much to the industry or learning of any mortal man We say with Aust that r Aug lâ—b 83. quaest 69 solet circumstantia scripturae illuminare sententiam the circumstance of the scripture is woont to giue light of the meaning of it with Hilary that Å¿ Hilar. de Trinit li. 9. Dictorum intelligentia aut ex praepositis aut ex consequentibus expectatur the vnderstaÌ„ding of the sayings of Scripture is to be expected either from that that is gon before or that that followeth after We say with Origen that t Origen cont Cels l 4. Ex ipsius Scripturae locis inter se collatis verum sensum elicimus by comparing places of Scripture together we gather the right sense But yet neither doe we make these the onely necessarie meanes for vnderstanding of Scripture neither doe attribute to euery faithfull man the abilitie of doing these things neither doe we affirme of any man whatsoeuer that by these or any other meanes hee can attaine to the vnderstanding of all obscure sentences And yet we say that a vulgar faithful man hauing by plaine and euident texts learned the substance of true faith exercising himselfe in the reading of the Scriptures and being assisted by the ministery of the word may by comparing of places and examining of circumstances much further himselfe for the increase of his knowledge to his comfort and soules health Many are there of that great number of which M. Bishop speaketh who by such exercise of Scripture are able to stoppe his mouth and to giue him good instruction in the mysterie of true faith u Ps 119.105 The word of God is indeed the lanterne to their feete and the light to their steps and so farre are they from stumbling and falling thereby as that they x vers 104. gaine by it vnderstanding to hate and abhorre all wicked waies 20. W. BISHOP Now to make vp an euen reckoning with M. PER. Atheism I must come vnto their diuine seruice and worship of God the third point that I promised to handle because he spared not to speake his pleasure of ours First then whereas a true reall and externall sacrifice is among all externall works the most excellent seruice that can be done to the diuine Maiestie as shall bee prooued in the question of the sacrifice which also hath euer since the beginning of the world beene by the best men practised to acknowledge and testifie aswell the soueraigne dominion that God hath ouer vs as our dutifull subiection vnto his almightie goodnesse the Protestants to make knowne vnto the wiser sort that they are not Gods true loy all people will not vouchsafe to performe to him any such speciall seruice as to sacrifice in his honour nay they are fallen so farre out with this principall part of Gods true worship that they do in despight of it powre out most vile reproches against the daily sacrifice of the Catholike Church which conteineth the blessed body and most pretious
bloud of our redeemer IESVS Christ Secondly of seauen Sacraments instituted by our Sauiour both to exhibite honour to God and to sanctifie our soules they doe flatly reiect fiue of them And do further as much as in them lieth extinguish the vertue and efficacy of the other two For they hold Baptisme not to be the true instrument all cause of remission of our sinnes and of the infusion of grace in our soules but only to bee the signe and seale thereof And in steade of Christs sacred body really giuen to all Catholikes in the Sacrament of the Altar to their exceeding comfort and dignity the Protestants must be content to take vp with a bitte of bread and with a sup of wine a most pittifull exchange for so heauenly a banquet They doe daily feele and I would to God they had grace to vnderstand what a want they haue of the Sacrament of Confession which is the most soueraigne salue of the world to cure all the deadly and dangerous woundes of the soule Ah how carelesly doe they daily heape sinne vpon sin and suffer them to lie festring in their breasts euen till death for lacke of launcing them inseason by true and due confession Besides at the point of death when the Diuell is most busie to assault vs labouring then to make vs his owne for euer there is amongst them no anointing of the sicke with holy oile in the name of our Lord as S. Cap. 5. vers 14. Iames prescribeth joyned with the Priests praier which should saue the sicke and by meanes whereof his sinnes should be forgiuen and he lifted vp by our Lord and inwardly both greatly comforted and strengthned these heauenly helpes I say many others which our Catholike religion affords vnto all persons and by which rightly administred God is highly magnified are quite banished out of the Protestant territories and consequently their religion for want of them is mightily maymed They haue yet remaining some poore short praiers to be said twise a weeke for fearing belike to make their Ministers surfet of ouer much praying they will not tie them to any daily praiers Mattins Euensong and other set houres they leaue to the Priests sauing that on the Sabboath they solemnely meet together at the Church to say their seruice which is a certain mingle-mangle translated out of the old portaise and Masse booke patched vp together with some few of their owne inuention And though it be but short yet it is the Lord he knowes performed by most of them so slightly that an indifferent beholder would rather iudge them to come thither to gaze one vpon another or to common of worldly businesse than reuerently there to serue God Now as concerning the place where their diuine seruice is said if goodly stately Churches had not beene by men of our religion built to their handes in what simple cotes trow you would their key-cold deuotion haue beene content to serue their Lord if one Church or great steeple by any mishap fall into vtter ruine a collection throughout all England for many yeeres together will not serue to build it vp againe which maketh men of iudgement to perceiue that their religion is exceeding cold in the setting forward of good workes and that it rather tendeth to destruction than to edification Againe whereas our Churches are furnished with many goodly Altars trimmed vp decently and garnished with sundry faire and religious pictures to strike into the beholders a reuerent respect of that place and to draw them to heauenly meditations theirs haue ordinarily bare wals hanged with cob-webs except some of the better sort which are daubed like Ale-houses which some broken sentences of Scripture Besides the ancient custom of Christās being to pray with their faces toward the Sunne-rising to shew the hope they haue of a good resurrection and that by tradition receiued euen from the Apostles as witnesseth Saint Basil their Ministers in their highest mysteries De Spiritu sancto 27. looke ouer their Communiontable into the South to signifie perhaps that their spirituall estate is now at the highest and that in their religion there is no hope of rising towards heauen but assurance of declining R. ABBOT Our Diuine seruice and worship of God is not such as the Church of Rome and the followers thereof would haue it but it is sufficient for vs that it is such as God himselfe hath commanded Of true reall and externall sacrifice I haue answered him before both in the confutation of his a Sect. 27. Epistle more at large and briefly heere in the b Sect. 3. answer of this Preface Here I answer him againe in a word with the words of Iustin Martyr that c Iustin Mart. Dialog cum Tryph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prayers and thanksgiuings are the onely perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God and that Christians haue learned to doe these onely euen in the memoriall of their dry and moist foode the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of the Eucharist as hee hath before called it in which is the remembrance of the passion which God by God himselfe suffered for vs. So then we doe not denie all sacrifice but we say as we haue beene taught by the Apostle S. Peter according to the ancient doctrine of the Church of Rome d 1. Pet. 2 5. We are made a spirituall house a holy priesthood to offer vp spirituall sacrifices the sacrifice e Psal 4.5 of righteousnesse the sacrifice f Ps 50.14.23 Heb. 13.15 of praise and thankesgiuing the sacrifice g Psal 51.17 of a broken and contrite heart the sacrifice h Phil. 4.18 of almes the sacrifice i Rom. 12.1 of our own bodies acceptable to God by Iesus Christ By these sacrifices we doe all loialtie and seruice to God and we doe not doubt but that we please God therein If we please not that wiser sort of which M. Bishop speaketh the reason is because they take vpon them to bee wiser than God For that propitiatory sacrifice which he driueth at is beyond Gods deuice God neuer taught it Christ neuer ordeined it the Primitiue Church neuer intended it there is no reason at al for it because the bloud of Christ once shed for vs is a sufficient propitiation and attonement for all our sinnes And because by k Heb. 1.3 10.14 once offering of himselfe hee hath purged our sinnes and made vs perfect for euer therefore it is no despight to Gods true worship but a iust assertion thereof to hold that the pretence of any further sacrifice for sinne is an impious and blasphemous derogation to the crosse of Christ As for his seuen Sacraments Seuen Sacraments a late deuice if he can prooue them to bee as he saith instituted by our Sauiour we are very readie to acknowledge the same But it is worthy to be noted that l Bellarm. de effect sacram cap. 25. Bellarmine standing vpon the proofe thereof