the Sacrament before consecration Therefore some late Popes the new Church of Rome with the colledge of Cardinals new created Iesuits Semynaries and all the Romane Priests now in Ireland be lyers deprauers of the trueth and deceiuers of the people The maior or first proposition is your owne doctrine for you teach that before Hoc est corpus meum be pronounced there is no consecration The assumption or later proposition is as cleere for you perswade the simple people to beleeue that these texts out of the sixth of Iohn prooue a carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament a yeare before Hoc est corpus meum was by Christ pronounced or the Sacrament by Christ instituted Therefore the conclusion that you be lyers and deceiuers of the people is ineuitable Thus the Catholiques of this kingdome by the rules of your owne religion you haue deceiued in teaching Christes carnall presence in the Sacrament a yeare before either Sacrament or consecration in the Sacrament were instituted And this your leaden diuinitie without care or conscience you thrust vpon the simple people as sound doctrine But if there were no other errour or heresie held and taught by you but this one point it were sufficient to make all the Catholicks in this kingdome nay in Christendome to forsake your opinion considering your ignorance or malice presuming to iustifie that which holie Scriptures auncient Fathers Gods Church yea the perticuler Church of Rome with their Bishops Archbishops and Popes for a thousand yeares after Christs ascention neuer spake or heard of and therefore it is no olde faith taught by them but a new heresie invented by you But now to the rest of your proofe Of M. Riders Arguments and their sufficiencie And how the 6. chapter of S. Ihon doth belong to the B. Sacrament notwithstanding it was before the Consecration Fitzimon 47. AS paynters that by skill could not make difference betwixt a cat a horse and a dogg were wonte to tell by woords vnder their pictures this is a catt this is a horse and this is a dogg euen so M. Rider when he maketh an argument in his owne opinion substantialy yet least you should not so conceaue therof he addeth befor or behynde or in the margent this is an vnaunswerable argument Wherof you haue an instance befor the 38. numbre and in this place Yet I vndertake to aunswear this argument breefly and sufficiently and only by saying as befor in the 41. nuÌ„bre by consent of Catholicks and protestants that we teache Christs real presence in the Sacrament but after and not befor consecration yet that such gift was promised and specified for the future tyme according to the woords of Christ the bread which I will not that I doe giue c. in the 6. chapter of S. Ihon not that by such promise it was giuen at that tyme but after as the woords importe What parcell againe of this argument is now vnaunswared ether according to Catholicks or protestants Yea or according to M. Riders deduction saying that eating of Christ after the institution of the Sacrament is proued out of the 56. verse of the sixt of Ihon in such maner as it were damnable to doubt therof How is it thence proued vnlesse such verse and chapter belong to the eating of Christ Therfor by him selfe The 22. vntruth is made aunswerable this vnaunswerable argument and therby the 22. vntrueth acknowledged Luther tom sept defens verb. â—ene fol. 397. Against whom and his brethren in this opinion Luther whom they intitule Father of trueth thus discribeth the argumeÌ„ts which they call vnaunswerable Their greedines to defend their credit maketh them madd that whatsoeuer they take hould of though it be but a straw yet they imagin it to be a swoord or speare and that at euery stroake they kill thowsands Agayne They thinke to haue sayd passing well Luther ibidem fol. 394. 405. 381. 382. and much to the purpose although they touche not one argument And againe In their books there is noe pithe or substance but only friuolous cracking By whom could euer this be more verified then by my good frend M. Rider whose dealing in euery point being so seely and defectiue towards Gods woord Fathers Decretals and his owne brethren yet how he supposeth that riding lyke a second Perseus vpon Pegasus he hath transformed all his aduersaries into pillers by taking all power of aunswering from them O coÌ„fident Champion But let vs accompagnie him forwards obserue how litle his discourse amendeth Math. 26.26 Christ tooke bread did blesse it and brake it Catholique Priests and gaue it to his Disciples and said take and eate this is my bodie This is my bloud of the new Testament which shal bee shed for manie for remission of sinnes 48 GEntlemen this is your proofe out of Christs owne words Rider and this was deliuered by Christs owne mouth at the time of the institution of the Supper and the night before his blessed passion and either this must helpe you or else you are helplesse but Christ willing I will plainlie shew this your proofe to be your reproofe and I pray God for Christ his sake that the eies of your vnderstanding may be opened to see the truth and your hearts toucht to receiue and confesse the truth and renounce your errors and so cease to deceiue Gods people and the Queenes subiects least a worse thing come vnto you All the doubt and controuersie of this question betwixt vs dependes on this Text which you say must bee taken properlie and litterallie wee say Sacramentallie improperlie figuratiuelie and misticallie And our opinion God willing shall be proued by Scriptures auncient Fathers and Popes and the olde Church of Rome The third part of the Catholicks first proofe by Scriptures 48. THe Psillians a people in Afric neere the Garamants Fitzimon Sabel l. 4. c. 9. Herod l. 4. Goll l. 6. c. 11. being molested with Southern wynds to which their contry lay open in most simple maner armed them selues to a conflict with them Such would be my follye yf I would arme my writings to incountre a bagg-pype or sack of wynde only especialy it being not of the sweettest But let him conioyne any mater true or false and I will attend theron to auowche or auoyde it Rider 49. But this is straunge that men of your great learning as the Catholiques 〈◊〉 you to be wil deale so childishlie and weaklie in so weightie a matter Bee not offended that I say you handle this childishlie for in Schooles he that alleadgeth for the probation of a proposition the proposition it selfe for the probation of a text the text it selfe is counted childish and it is a childish point of Sophistrie and a falacie to be vsed among young schollers not to be practised among simple Catholiques The Catholiques demand of you how you prooue Christs carnal presence in the Sacrament and you bring in Hoc est
bloud of our Christ and Sauiour it is no charitie Nay saith Augustine it is plaine impietie and a wicked and a most damnable fact And so to prooue the action lawfull Augustine would haue you Catholicks but you wil hee Caphernaiâ—â— Canibals the kingdome of charitie hath euer taken these and the like propositions to bee figuratiue and the sence to be spirituall Therefore if you will bee loyall subiects of charities kingdome shewe your subiection to her charitable and Catholicke exposition otherwise you will stand indited of spirituall and vncharitable rebellion That protestants by their owne principles can not affirme Christ our Saluiour not to be spiritualy it selfe in the Sacrament Also that S. Augustin disproueth them 54. HIs late saying that he hath my hand Fitzimon to the great errours which most safely he keepeth with him I graunt to be true yet not to but against the errours which to his perdition most safely as he saythe he keepeth with him which as a candle by fingers snuffed leaueth blacknes and burning to the snuffers hands remayning by their detraction more cleere and in it selfe mor delytsome As in all our processe by Gods grace it hath and shall more and more appeare It is first the 32. vntrueth The 32. vntruth that yf these woords of Christ be figuratiue and Sacramental This is my bodye this is my blood of the new testament they will plainly disproue our transubstantiation For it hath bene oft professed that we allow but not only as you doe spiritual and figuratiue sence of these woords not excluding real substantial and literal It appeareth in the numbers 14. 15. 31. 34. 40. 42. 46. 49. c. You haue bownd your selfe in your first position for which you replye as it is ingrossed by your selfe to stand vpon a spiritual presence only to the faythfull beleeuers Therfor no testimonie or allegation will auayle you wher in only spiritual or only figuratiue is not coÌ„prised Nay yf it coÌ„tayne the woord spiritual it must be also impertineÌ„t to your purpose vnlesse you recant your agreemeÌ„t with the protestaÌ„t martyrs who sealed with their blood as Fox deliuereth Fox Acts Monum pag. 1529. that the difference of doctrin betweene the faithfull and papists coÌ„cerning the Sacrament is that the Papists say that Christ is corporaly vnder or in the forme of bread and wyne but the faythfull say that Christ is not there nether corporaly nor spiritualy Behould how you are ingaged that nether can you hould corporal or the so much spoken of spiritual Caueat in aunswer to our allegation of Tindal c. 1 vnlesse you degenerat from your protomartyrs primatiue protestantcie to whom and which you haue bound your selfe in expresse woords to agree in vnitie and veritie of doctrine Now to our mater and S. Augustins woords First he doth not say that they be figuratiue only coÌ„sequently are not against vs as appeareth in the numbers lately specified nor for yow Secondly he disputeth not against our beleefe but against the Capharnaits August tom 9. trac 27. in Ioan. of whom he saith Sicut illi intellexerunt carnem non sic egâ— do ad manducandum carnem meam as they vnderstood fleash not so do I giue my fleash to eate But how saith he did they vnderstand fleash Quomodo incadauere laniatur aut in macello venditur As it is torne from a carcas or sould in a shambles In such sense only and to such conceits would S. Augustin haue Christs woords to be esteemed figuratiue to witt in regard of them who as S. Cyrill l. 4. in Ioan. c. 22. saith Ad immanes ferarum mores vocari se à Christo arbitrabantur incitarique vt vellent crudas hominum carnes manducare sanguinem bibere They surmised that they were prouoked after the sauage maners of beasts to eate mans raw fleash and drinke his gore bloud Wheras Christ did farr otherwyse intend it as that he would be eaten in the lykenes of bread and wyne which were figures of his operations in our soules But to say that for the seeming of Christs woords to be horrible or to be taken figuratiuely his substantial and real presence should be excluded August tom 6. con aduer leg prophet l. 2. c. 9. is most remote from S. Augustins inteÌ„tion and all his writings Behould here but one yet infallible and palpable proofe therof Mediatorem Dei hominum hominem Christum Iesum carnem suam nobis manducandum bibendumque sanguinem dantem fideli corde ore suscipimus quamuis horribilius videatur humanam carnem manducare quam perimere humanum sanguinem potare quam fundere VVe receaue with faythfull hart and mowthe Iesus Christ man Mediatour betwixt God and man giuing his fleash to eate and his blood to drincke although it seemeth more horrible to eate the fleash of man then to kill and to drincke the blood of man then to shedd it Doth is seeme horrible to eate Christs fleash according to S. Augustin and to drincke his blood yea more horrible then to kill yet he assureth vs that not withstanding such seeming we should eate and drinke not his figure but his fleash and blood not in faithfull hart only but also by mowthe Alas let S. Augustin alone in lyfe a Catholick Frier or Monke in his books a Catholick doctor in bothe an enemye and triumpher against hereticks Hitherto you haue neuer brought S. Augustins testimonies â— Reg. 11. but as Vrias tooke infortunat leters to his owne distruction Aug. l. 3. de Ciu. c. 16. Further S. Augustin would haue these figuratiue speeches so long to be accompted figuratiue till charitie consist with their meaning Out of which you inferr that Christ can not be eaten corporalye it being say you farr against charitie But this consequence is farr against Charitie Ex Serm. de verbis Euan. Citatur a Beda 1. Cor. 10. and veritie Witnes the same S. Augustin saying Quis inuitauit quos inuitauit Et quid preparauit Inuitauit Dominuâ— seruos preparauit eis cibum seipsum Quis audeat manducare Dominum suum tamen ait qui manducat me viuit propter me Quando Christus manducatur vita manducatur Nec occiditur vt manducetur sed mortuos viuificat Quando manducatur reficit sed non deficit VVho hathe inuited whom hathe he inuited and what hath he prepared our Lord hath inuited his seruants and prepared him selfe meat to them VVho dareth deuoure his Lord yet neuer the lesse he sayth who eateth me liueth because of me VVher Christ is eaten lyfe is eaten Nether is he killed that he should be eaten but he quickneth the dead VVhen he is eaten he feedeth but is not impaired Loe whether S. Augustin thinketh it inconuenient or against charitie for any to eate his Lorde himselfe being the inuiter himselfe the preparer himselfe the foode Loe whether the eating of Christ be a tearing digesting or consuming of Christ Tom.
2. epist 50. ad Bonifac. in fine Tom. 5. de Ciu. l. 2. c. 25. But would you know what is to be against charities kingdome S. Augustin aunswereth Non est autem particeps diuinae charitatis qui hostis est vnitatis he is not partaker of diuine charitie who is an enemie of vnitie No catholick saythe he no fruitfull communion Therfor good M. Rider Aug. To. 10. de verb. Apo. ser 22. circa fineÌ„ let this goulden exhortation of S. Augustin take place after so many mis-informations of his perswasion VVould God saith he they would not feare them to whom long time they haue sould erroure for they respect them they are ashamed toward humane infirmitie and not toward inuincible veritie And they feare to be expostulated with all in this maner VVhy therfor haue you deceaued vs why haue you seduced vs why haue you affirmed so much ill and falshood They should aunswer yf they feared God it was humane to erre but diabolical through animositie to remayne in erroure And a litle after Let them say to their beleeuers we haue fayled together let vs retire from errour together VVe haue bene guydes to you and you followed to your fall will you not follow vs when we conduct you to the Church I pray God this exhortation may take effect according to the intention and worthe therof In the meane tyme it is the 33. vntrueth that we ouer-rule Scripturs and Fathers The 33. 34. 35. 35. 37. vntruth The 34. that we confesse to be figuratiue that is as you vnderstand only figuratiue these woords of Christ this is my blood of the new testament The 35. that Augustin reasoneth against Capharnaits who would not beleeue the woords of Christ no more them protestants in these tymes The 36. that by our literal exposition we forsake Augustins rule charities kingdome Apostolical and Catholick exposition The 37. that we be Caphernaits and Canibals I wil not requite his Theons style and bad demeanure knowing that it is for want of mater because Eccli 21. non est sensus vbi est amaritudo ther is no sense wher there is bitternes Yf vaunting were victorie reproaches reproofe dispising disconfiting M. Rider had bene as victorious as Cesar or Alexander as subtile and solid a disprouer as a second prophet Daniel as great a vanquisher as the faire king Arthure Rider Amb. lib. 4. de Sacrament to cap. 5. 55. Ambrose is of the same opinion with vs against you saying Fac nobis inquit oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi make vnto vs saith the Priest this oblation that it may bee allowable reasonable and acceptable which is a figure of the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ And Ambrose presentlie after saith the new Testament is confirmed by bloud in a figure of which bloud wee receiue the misticall bloud By these words the Reader may see that Ambrose and the Church in his dayes tooke it not for the naturall bodie of Christ but for a figure of his bodie and therefore cease to bragge heere to the simple of Ambrose and Augustine for they are not of your opinion Innocent Papae lib. tertius ca. 12. Fol. 148. and there shal you see the foolish and phantastical reasons the Pope giues for those said crosses And in the Canon of the Masse you haue these words of Ambrose in that part which begins Quam oblationem but you deale deceitfully with Gods people for you leaue out these words quod est forma corporis and there dash in fiue red crosses and still teach the people it is Catholicke doctrine and the old religion but these iuglings with the Fathers must be left or else good men that follow those Fathers will doubt that Gods spirit hath left you How dishonestly S. Ambrose is treated by M. Rider Fitzimon Ambros. l. 4. de Sacram c. 5. 55. S. Ambrose is as fowly or rather worse vsed then S. Augustin Compare M. Riders woords and these together in the very same chapter In sanctis manibus suis accepit panem Antequam consecretur panis est vbi autem verba Christi accesserint corpus est Christi Deinde audi dicentem accipite edite ex eo omnes hoc est enim corpus meum Et ante verba Christi Calix est vini aquae plenus Vbi verba Christi operata fuerint ibi sanguis efficitur qui plebem redemit Paulo post Ipse Dominus Iesus testificatur nobis quod corpus suum accipiamus sanguinem Numquid debemus de eius fide testificatione dubitare In his sacred hands sayth S. Ambrose he tooke bread Befor it be consecrated it is bread but when the words of Christ come it is the body of Christ then heare him saying take and eate of this all for this is my bodie And befor the woords of Christ the chalice is full of water und wyne VVhen the woords of Christ haue operated the blood is made which redeemed the people A litle after Our Lord Iesus him selfe testifieth vnto vs that we receaue his body and blood should we doubt of his trueth and testimonie Could you M. Rider Ambros. l. 4. de Sacram c. 5. in ether godly or honest disposition conceaue S. Ambrose thus speaking to thinke that in the sacrament was not the natural body of Christ but only a figure therof because he mentioned as we professe a figure to be therin Could you mistake without deepe hypochrisie these woords of his but when the woords of Christ come it which befor consecration was but bread is the body of Christ the blood is made which hathe redeemed the people Is not this a shamelesse resolution in making denials affirmations an act of such a carelesse man as is mentioned in Horace who had forfetted his credit abroad among all men freends and foes yet fayned to them of his priuat howshould that all went well and nothing against him saying Horacius lib. 1. Satyra 1. Populus me sibilat at mihi plaudo ipse domi The world doth hiss at me but yet I applaud to my selfe at home For opposition of S. Ambrose to protestantcy Causeus sayd he was bewitched by the deuil And truly in this point as after in treating of him in particular shal God willing be notifyed none was euer more opposit to them then he How lowde therfor The 38. vntruth hath M. Rider made his 38. vntrueth that Ambrose and the churche in his dayes thowght with him against vs But a mercenary minde to please man selleth it selfe rather then it would seeme disproueable S. Aug. late exhortation I feare will not benifit one of this humor 56. And Augustine else where saith Rider Aug. in â—narratione Psal 3. pag. 7. col 1. Printed at Paris anno 1566. August tom 6. contra Adimant cap. 12. Christ commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his body and bloud
And Origin saith Not the matter of bread but the words recited ouer it doth profit the worthy receiuer this I speake saith he of the typicall and figuratiue bodie which is in deede the Sacramentall bread Vpon the 15. of Mathew Augustine confuting Adimantus the Hereticke that held that the bloud in man was the onely soule of man aunswered it was so figuratiuely not otherwise and to prooue it he vseth this proposition of Christ Hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie saying Possum etiam interpretari illud praeceptum in signo positum esse non enim dubitauit Dominus dicere hoc est corpus meum cùm signum daret corporis sui I maye saith Augustine expound the precept of Christ figuratiuelie for the Lord doubted not to say this is my bodie when he gaue the figure of his bodie Augustine saith Hoc est corpus meum is a phrase figuratiue you say no but it is litterall Now let the Catholicks take this Friendlie Caueat to heart for they haue no reason to follow you that forsake the Fathers and heere may you see that our exposition is auncient Catholicke and Apostolicall yours new priuate and hereticall Tertullian an ancient Father saith Acceptum panem distributum discipulis Tertull. lib. 4. contra Marcion pag. 133. line 26. c. The bread which was taken and giuen to his disciples Christ made his bodie by saying this is my bodie that is the figure of my bodie what could be more spoken of them for vs against you Hierome super 26. Math. Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. And Hierome calls it a representation of the truth of Christs bodie and bloud and not the body and bloud And Ambrose seconds his former sayings in these words In edendo c. In eating and drinking the bread and wine we doe signifie the flesh and bloud which was offered for vs so that they doe but signifie the flesh and bloud they are not the flesh and bloud And Chrisostome saith Chris in hom 17 in Hebr. super 1. Cor. 11. Offerimus quidem sed ad recordationem and afterward Hoc autem sacrificium exemplar est illius c. We offer indeed but in rememberance of his death this sacrifice is a token or figure of that sacrifice the thing that we do is done in remēberance of the thing that was done by Christ before c. Here is a manifest place against you Chrisost in hom 11. Math. which you shall neuer aunswere And elsewhere he saith in the same sanctified vessels there is not the bodie of Christ indeed but a misterie of the bodie is contained Clemens Alex. in padago lib. 1. cap. 6. pag. 18. line vlt. pag. 19. line 1. And Clemens Alexandrinus who liued 1300. yeares agoe saith Comedite carnes meas bibite sanguinem meum c. Eate yee my flesh and drincke my bloud meaning heereby vnder an allegorie or figure the meat drincke that is of faith of promise And the same reuerend Father in his second booke and second chapter of his Padagogi and 5. pag. and line 21 22 23. hath these words Ipse quoque vino vsus est nam ipse quoque homo vinum benedixit cùm dixit accipite bibite hoc est sanguis meus sanguis vitis c. For our Lord Christ vsed wine and blessed wine when he said take drincke this my bloud the bloud of the vine the word which is shed for manie for the remissiō of sinnes doth signifie allegorically the holy riuer of gladnesse Out of which I note First it is sanguis vitis the bloud of the grape properlie and that is wine It is called Christs bloud Sacramentallie and by way of signification Secōdlie it appeares to be figuratiue in this word shed for the bloud of the grape which is wine was not shed for manie but the bloud of Christ But you wil saye it is true before consecration but after consecration it is Christs verie naturall bloud No saith Clement immediatlie following Quod autem vinum esset quod benedictum est c. And that it was wine which was blessed hee sheweth againe when he saith to his disciples I will not drincke of the fruit of the vine c. Out of which premisses I note three things Read Clement follow Clem. First that that which you call cōsecration this learned Father calls it benediction Secondlie that after consecration the nature of wine remaineth still and it is not changed as you imagine Thirdly that the phrase is figuratiue and not proper Beda in Luc. 22. page 476. And venerable Beda our countrieman tells you that in England in his time the text was taken figuratiuely The solemnities of the old Passouer saith he being ended Christ commeth to the newe which the Church is desirous to continue in remembrance of her redemption that in stead of the flesh and bloud of a LAMBE hee substituting the Sacrament of his flesh and bloud in the figure of bread and wine might shew himselfe to be the same to whom the Lord sware and will not repent c. Beda called it not the naturall bodie of Christ that worketh out redemption but a remembrance of our redemption and a figure of it Thus the indifferent Reader may see that Augustine Ambrose Origin Tertullian Hierome Clemens Alexandrinus Beda and manie others which I omit for breuities sake all of them being auncient approoued writers and all of them of your owne Prints doe hold with vs against you that your propositions be not proper but Sacramentall improper significatiue representatiue allegoricall figuratiue which greatlie wounds the bodie of your cause and will weaken your credits with the Catholickes How the Fathers graunting a figure yet deny à figure as it is taken by protestants 56. I Graunt with S. Augustin the B. Sacrament to be a figure of Christ but requyre that you shew him to approue it Fitzimon a figure only I graunt with Origen it is Christs typical body grant you the rest of his opiniō in his owne woords deliuered The law of God sayth he now not in figurs or images as befor but in the very forme of trueth is acknowledged Origen hom 7. in lib. Num. And what befor were in an obscuritie shaddowed are now acclomplished in their forme and trueth It followeth Befor was baptisme in a figure in the clowd and in the sea but now regeneration is in forme in water and the holy Ghost Then was Manna in a figure meat now in forme is the fleash of the woord of God true meat according as he sayd my fleash is meat truely and my blood is drinke truely I craue no more then Tertullian affoordeth Tertull. l. 4. con Marcion as appeareth in the numbers cited in the 54. That Christ made the bread which was giuen to his disciples his body by saying this is my body that is the figure of his body in owtward apparence as in the forsayd numbers is
absurdly confesse that not onelie the wine is transubstantiated changed into Christs last Testament but that the challice or cup is transubstantiated into his last testament is his testament substantiallie properlie and realie the accidents of the challice onlie remaining that is to say the height depth weight colours c. Of his cruel threat against the Masse Fitzsimon 88. I Trust M. Rider you will not be so ill as your woord Will you shew in all the masse from the first woord to the last ther is nothing but magical superstition heresie and idolatrie Is the Psalme of Dauid Iudica me Deus the song of the Angels glory be to God on high all the Epistles and Gospells being parcels of scripture the creed of the first Concil of Nice the institution of Christ our Lords prayer which are all included betwixt the first and last woords of the masse but ether superstition or heresie or idolatrie What sparke of Christianitie could be in his brest what hands could wryt that Dauid the Angels the Euangelists and our deere Lord and Saluiour Iesus Christ had committed superstition or heresie or idolatrie For it is impossible to proue all from Introibâ— to Ite missa est to be such vnlesse also this other sauage blasphemie against Prophets Angels And the Lord of all Saincts be infallibly proued But soft M. Rider your tyme is not yet come to abolishe iuge sacrificium Dan. 8. v. 12. c. 12. v. 11. S. Iren. con her l. 4. c 32. S. Chrysost ho. 49. in Math S. Hippolyt orat de consum saeculi Isa 16.6 the dayly sacrifice which is reserued as the Scripturs and Fathers affirme to Antichrist and yet not to abolish it but that the frequent vse therof shal cease in his tyme. Of M. Rider and euery other petty aduersarie of the Masse may be applyed the saying of the Prophet Isaie Superbia eius arrogantia eius indignatio eius plus quam fortitudo eius his pryde his arrogancie and his indignation is more against this inuincible sacrifice then his strengthe For hell gates can not preuayle against the faith whose principal act and obligation is this sacrifice of the Masse I trust in Gods mercie befor I dye to iustifie the least sillable and parcel therof against the sayd gates and all therto belonging which is a contradiction of what M. Rider threatneth Rider 89. Now if you cannot denie a figure in the challice how dare you for the like or worse inconuenience denie it in the bread This you thought to omit hoping thereby to couer this your error But it was ill done to deceiue the Catholicks who so liberallie relieue you and so dearely haue loued you And wheras you translate challice for cup telling the people that the challice consecrated by you is holier then other vsual cups and that Christ vsed in the institution a challice and no vsuall drinking cup. 89. Here is an argument that ther is a figure concerning the cupp Fitzsimon ergo also concerning the bread I aunswer owt of S. Augustin S. August c. 31. Super Genes ad lit l. 11. For the translation of one woord the whole sentence owght not to be taken figuratiuely As for example of the new disciples going to Emaus is sayd their eyes were opened which is to be vnderstood figuratiuely for they were nether blynd wynking nor a sleepe befor but the residue Luc. 24. that they knew Christ c. is to be vnderstood properly and literaly In this point of M. Rider Besa in c. 26. Mat. v. 26. because the cupp standeth for what is in the cupp as Beza confesseth vulgata trita omnibus linguis consuetudine loquendi in the common meaning of all tongs litle or nothing differing from a propre speeche Math. 26. Mar. 14. as also because by two Euangelists Mathew and Marke it is specified expresly in a literal and propre sence by thes woords This is my blood of the new testament no such mater being obserued of bread but all circumstances precedent concomitant subsequent manifesting the literal and propre signification therof ther is no sequel or censequence in the world in the forsayd argument For the liberalitie of Catholicks toward vs it being sayd of exorbitant enuie I leaue to the prophet Ezechiel in his 24. chap. 18. and 19. verse to replye vnto it 90. I say in saying thus you shew your self ignorant in the Greek tongue Rider wherin Christ spake it the Euangelists writ it Poterâ—on for they all so hath Paul but one vsuall word which signifieth a vsual drinking cup and no charmed Challice as you ydlie vainly informe the Catholickes And now to your 27. verse which you would couple to your 24. verse which thus you recite very corruptlie who so doth eate vnworthelie c. shall be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord but if you had meant plainlie and trulie you should haue recited all the Apostles words in this manner whosoeuer shall eate this bread and drinke this cup of the Lord vnworthelie shall be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. VVhether Chalices were aunciently consecrated and of what matter they were made 90. I Tould you often Fitzsimon you would carry your emptie cruse so oft to the greeke streame that it would come home broken What did Christ euer speake greeke In what greeking will all scholers thinke your head to haue bene that will reade this Certainly Christ Sonne of the B. Virgin borne in Bethelem liuing in Palestim or Iewrie suffring by Hierusalem was neuer yet sayd by any of reading or reason or wanting reading and reason to haue spoken greeke Without further hissing at it so many other no lesse The 82. vntuth yea farr greater occasions presented to do the lyke let it stand for the 82. vntrueth and so remayne Yet this appeale to the greke is not so to be dismissed First our aduantages in the greke are specified and assuredly proued in the preff of the Remish testament So that they are superfluous to be repeated by him who followeth greatest breuitie and escheweth borrowed ornaments Secondly who are not the Adders mentioned in the psalmist may vnderstand that nether greke nor latin but willfull corruption is the cause of sectarists excepting against the sacred Scripture now in this laÌ„guage now in that As for exaÌ„ple in their Bibles of the yeares 1579. 1580. nether greke nor latin obtayned of them to putt S. Pauls name befor the Epistle to the Hebrues Some time againste Greeke and Latin they demaund to what purpose should the holy Ghost or Luke add this Some time against Greeke and Latin Beza Act. 8. v. 26. they confesse wilfull deprauation as Beza Mat. 10. v. 2. anno 1556. against the primacie of S. Peter And Luke 22 v. 20. Calu. l. 4. Instit c. 14. n. 26. l. c 3. n. 10. in Ps 58. against the real presence as also Acts 3.21 and
it is his orthographie so to wryte is called the couenant c. graced by the holy Ghost sayth he with the names of things they represent confirme Yf it be the vsual maner of the holy Ghost to grace the visible signe with the names of things they represent how is it not M. Rider your 83. The 83. vntruth vntruth by your owne disproofe of your selfe that the B. Sacrament contayneth nothing but bread because for representing bread it is called bread As stale and friuolous is this other reiterated shift to say you should haue recited this and that you would couer and conceal this and that you cutt off deceitfully this and that c. For what belldam or bedlam conceit but might doe as much to witt to followe headlong a naked refuge which nether couereth not defendeth them but maketh their want and miserie more notoriouse More of this you may fynd in the 43. number 92. Out of which I note first that you keepe this back Rider hopinge thereby to establish your halfe communion vnder one kinde Concomitancie some what yonger theÌ„ your Transubstantiation both forged by your selues neuer knowne in Christs Church for a 1000. yeares at leaste that the Catholickes might thinke that the receuinge of bread were sufficient because you say Christs bodie muste needes euen by the ncessitie of concommitancie haue blood in it and therfore it is no neede to receiue the cup which if it be true but I am sure it is most false then Christ was deceiued in his wisedome and the Apostles and primitiue Church in their practise which I hope you dare not say for sinne and shame And therefor giue ouer these irreligious practises of Additions Subtractions Interpositions and vaine expositions with new Inkhorne-termes of concomitancie and confesse Christ his ancient and Apostolicall trueth trulie 92. It appearing in the precedent number that my leauings out Fitzsimon cuttings by the wast dismembrings c. proceedeth by my auerring the one only point in question of Christs real presence and auoyding all diuagations impertinent to that point for breuitie playne dealing it must follow that all these reprehensions are but parerga or digressions to dazell the Readers eyes that vnder such mist he may clinche and sneake away from the mater without being perceaued Of the Communion vnder bothe kynds he tendreth after occasion to aunswere it among the parlament 6. articles Therfor because frustra fit per plura quod potest eque bene fieri per pauciora in vayne should we aunswer twyse when one aunswer may suffice it shal be remitted thether That Christs body should by concomitancie haue his blood conioyned with it he saying it is most false must infallibly make vp the 84. vntruth The 84. vntruth For concomitancie being by natural signification only a conioyned fellowshipp our Saluiour Christ hauing a true natural body to which blood naturaly is conioyned in fellowshipp it must consequently follow that it hath blood by concomitancie especialy at all other tymes then during his passion and death But this sheweth that M. Rider is perswaded with the residue in the 14. number of the examination that Christs blood is putrifyed on earthe and was neuer resumpted by Christ at his resurrection I know M. Rider for the most parte as sone as your words are vttered from whom they are and vpon whom they are builded In this among the rest I am not ignorant that Caluin is your teacher In him you fownd in cap. 26. Math. v. 27. affirmed they are furiously madd who affirme any blood to be longer conioyned with Christs fleash You ther upon being fearfull to be furiously madd denyed the concomitancie or coniunction of Christs bloud with his fleash But as the Scripture fortowld Prouer. 1. God doth laugh yow to scorne since that which you feared is fallen vpon you For by denying this concomitancie or coniunction of Christs blood with his fleash you are indeed knowen furiously madde to al them who doe not beeleeue the price of our redemption to haue beene corruptible or to haue perrished and neuer bene resumpted againe Such are al worthie to be called Christians Therfore beware of being bounde and left by concomitancie among the Bedlamits Of his argument if ther be concomitancie then Christ was deceaued c. As he leaueth it vnproued so I wil leaue it vnfollowed Rider And therfore they are to new to be Catholick and to strang to be true 93. Thus much to giue the Catholickes a taste of the wrongs you offer them it lulling them asleepe in the cradle of ignorance and superstition whereas they would be most willing and readie to obey the auncient (a) Reuel 14.6 Rom. 1.16.2 Thess 1.8 The Text is the Lord not Christ the writer mistooke it the Author I blame not powerfull and euerlasting Gospell of Iesus Christ if you did not mislead them by your wilfull errors and keepe backe from them the reading of the Scriptures which holds them and hardeneth them in Recusancie But take heed least you by this ignorance in which you keepe them and the disobedience to the Gospell in which you fetter them you with them and for them hazard not that dolefull taste and torment prepared for wilfull ignorant Recusants of Christ his Gospell where it is said Rendring vengeance in flaming fire to them that know not God nor obey not the gospell of Iesus Christ Now Gentlemen if you be authors of their sinnes you must be partakers of their punishments which both the Lord is mercie preuent Now followeth another part of your proofe drawen out of a part of the 37. verse in these words Shal be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of Christ Out of these words some late writers since your transubstansiation was inuented would prooue two vaine questions that are in controuersie betwixt you and vs. 1. The first is your carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament The second that the wicked doe eate the bodie and drinke the bloud of Christ In handling and aunswering these I shall hardlie seuer the one from the other bâ—â— as you inferre that the graunting of the one confirmes the other So must I in confuting the one destroy the other and so one aunswere will serue to confute both Fitzsimon 1. 2. Elench 5. 39. There is in sophistrie a caption called Captio eius quod simpliciter dicitur et secundum quid whereby deceitfully one woulde reason as in this maner Yf yow be a theefe you are to be executed but you may be a theefe therfor you are to be executed He proueth one who may be and may be not a theefe should absolutly be executed as yf it were out of controuersie that he were a theefe This falacie is most incident with M. Rider against vs as in the 91. in this and the next numbers abundantly appeareth For example Yf bread remayne after consecration then there is no carnal presence but bread remayneth after consecration therfor
of both we agree â—ith late Reformers For althowgh they inculcat a faythfull â—â—ceauing a faythfull coniunction a faythfull vnion c. betwixt â—eir sowles and Christ Yet is there noe participation betwixt â—e maner of fayth by vs intended and by them We instruct in â—e woords of S. Chrysostom Cum fide enim accedere S. Chrysost ho. 24. in 1. Cor. non est vt propoâ—um Corpus tantummodo recipias verum multo magis vt mundo corde tangas 〈◊〉 sic adeas quemadmodum ipsum Christum To approache by fayth is not â—t thow showldest only receaue the body propownded but muche more that â—w shouldest touch him with a pure hart and so approache as to Christ him â—fe Also in the woords of S. Augustin S. Aug. Ser. 2. de verb. Apost 17.26 27. in Ioan. Corpus sanguis Christi erit â—ta cuicunque si quod visibiter accipitur in Sacramento spiritualiter comedaâ—r in veritate ipsa The body and blood of Christ wil be lyfe to euery one yf what is visibly taken in the Sacrament be spiritualy eaten in the true veritie So that according our approaching by fayth we come with a clensed hart as to Christ him selfe according to veritie and not as to a figure appellation or representation All this is taught after by M. Rider himselfe They teache the contrarie that the Sacrament only serueth as an external signe that Christ feedeth at that tyme their sowls as bread feedeth their bodies Christ operating no effect by the Sacrament in their sowls and being no neerer vnto them then in heauen nor the Sacrament effecting any thing in their bodyes because it is a Sacrament say they only during the vse and the vse consisting only in the similitude of his feeding the sowle as the bread feedeth the body Yet at that tyme of receauing they hould that bread as yet nourisheth not the body which is to none vnknowen for foode must abyde many alterations yea and mutations in substance before it nourishe so that I can not conceaue nor any other that euer I could incounter how at the tyme of receauing there can be any such signification of duble nourishing in body and sowle there being none possible at that tyme in body the bread not deing digested and consequently how there can be any Sacrament in tyme of receauing which wanteth the lyfe of the Sacrament which is say they only signification Zuingl to 2. resp ad Luth. Confession fol. 477. For this is the office of euery Sacrament sayth Zuinglius that it signifie only Yf they them selues conceaue better therof I do not maligne them Concerning our former doctrin by means of the same obiections often reiterated it must be often also expressed num 34. 39. 46. 94. VVhether any ancient wryter alloweth or mentioneth Corporal receauing 15. Although this belongeth to our second proofe for the real presence by suffrages of Councels and Fathers yet this fowle fift vntruth Thâ— 5. vntruth is breefly to be disproued in this place Because I am after in the 120. number by Gods grace to deliuer a verdict of Luthers that they are hereticks who denye God ore carnali with the fleashly mouth to be receaued I here omitt it First therfore S. Augustin sayth S. August l. con Aduers legâ— Proph. Tertull. l. de resurrect Carnis S. Châ—â—â—â—t l. om 45. in Câ—p. 6. Ioan. Fideli corde atque ore suscipimus VVe receaue with faythfull hart and mouthe Secondly Tertullian Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur The fleash is sedd with the body and blood of Christ Thirdly S. Chrysostom Permittens se tangi maÌ„ducari dentes carni suo infigi Permitting him selfe to be tutched and eaten and teeth to be printed in his fleashe â—f in the mouth of two or three witneses euery woord be to staÌ„d â—en here is it made vndoubtfull that the denial of any ancient â—riter to haue beleeued the corporal receauing is the fift vntruth â—â—r the receauing by mouth the feeding the fleashe the touching 〈◊〉 teeth are euidentlly corporal receauing and consequently this 〈◊〉 truth is inexcusable But I will in forme and propre tearmes â—â—d not by construction only shew the falshod of M. Riders negaâ—on in this point Cyrill l. 10. in c. 13. Ioan. per communionem corporis Christi habitat in nobis Christus csrporaliter By the communion of the bodie of â—hrist Christ dwellesh in vs corporaly Looke M. Rider the very woord 〈◊〉 self Corporaly Blush and beleue contradict no more the apâ—areÌ„t truth An aunswer to this place is in Fox pag. 1325. but such 〈◊〉 one as should shame all Foxian brethren that there could no other be giuen For he coÌ„fesseth that corporaly is to be taken heere â—n the same sense that S. Paul sayth the fullnes of Diuinitie to dwell corporaly in Christ that is not lighly nor accideÌ„taly but perfectly and substantialy Then which aunswer what might we requyre more to condemne M. Rider 16. But you will say it is shame for me to belie the holie Sea The third booke cap. 3. de interpretandis scripturis pag. 102. Colen print 1588. Then it seemeth some grosse falts remain stil whose doctrine is Apostolicall and their life Angelicall My prooffes shall be your owne friends Lindanus speaketh of an ancient complaint of Agobertus Bishop of Lions who said Antiphonarium magna ex parte correximus amputatis quae superflua leuia falsa blasphema phantastica multa videbantur We haue the most part corrected the Antiphonarie cutting off those which seemed superfluous light false blasphemous and manie phantasticall things Behold now the puritie of the doctrine of the Church of Rome who dare venture his soule vpon such sandie superstition nay wicked and damnable heresie and irreligion And for the life of your Cleargy in Rome heare some of your own friends speak their knowledge Read Concilium delectorum Cardinalium Concil Tom 3. pag. 823. there thus you shall find it speaking of Rome In hac etiam vrbe meretrices vt matronae inceduÌ„t per Vrbem seu mula vehuntur quas affectantur de media die nobiles CardinaliuÌ„ familiares Clericique Nulla in vrbe vidimus hanc corruptionem praeterquam in hac omnium exemplari That is to say in this cittie of Rome the curtisans or common whoores passe through the streets or ride on their mules like honest matrones And in the middest of the day the Noblemen the Cardinals deare friends and Priestes attend vppon those whoores We never saw such corruption but onelie in this cittie of Rome which is an example to all other cities The Popes owne Cardinals beeing appointed by Pope Paul the third anno Dom. 1538. to visit the cleargie and the stewes returne this shamefull commission But perchance you will tell the Queenes subiects that these whoores dwel in some blind Alley but the Popes court pallace are a most holie sanctuarie of saints No saith Luitprandus your own
contrariewyse they who defended by woorks and writings the same doctrin and profession of late Catholicks and therfor are by them honoured and inuoked as saincts should be fauourers and furtheres of Protestantcy and disprouers and enemies of Papistrie Can any sodring or hammering conioyne or cupple these vnsutable doctrins together Mat. 9.16 Mar. 2.22 Therfor M. Rider it can not be denyed but your new patch hath torne your owld cloake and your new wyne hath burst your owld vessels And to all iudgements not willfully peruers is reuealed that neuer cowld any professioÌ„ by the defenders be more betrayed then protestantcy by M. Rider challengeing to be a Catholick and appealing for trial to Vincent Lyrinensis most opposit therto impugning supremacie of the Pope appealing to S. Bernard so cheefe a maintayner therof and clayming to be of the first ancieÌ„t Church and haue it so repugnant to him leauing in the meane tyme his faith and profession discouered by this means to be base bastard and counterfet Yea leauing by occasion of his vnaduised assertioÌ„ open to all mens eyes that owld and new testament Apostles and doctors are disagreeing from protestantcie and that all papistical doctrin euen in particular was sustayned by them and altogether condemned by them Wherfor truly sayd S. Augustin Improbatie haereticorum facit eminere quid ecclesia tua sentiat quid habet sana doctrina Aug. l. 7. Confess c. 19. The impugning of hereticks doth make manifest what thy Church with continual conformitie and correspondence to it selfe houldeth and true doctrin teacheth 35. But first heere you wrong your selfe much your cause more Rider but the simple â—â—ple most of all in altering the state of the question for our controuersie is of 〈◊〉 manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament The Catholicque Priests subtilly alter the state of the question whether he be there corporallie 〈◊〉 â—pirituallie And you no doubt in your conscience knowing it impossible to â—â—oue your carnall presence alter the question verie deceitfully from the manâ—â— to the matter That Christ is really in the blessed SacrameÌ„t A thing neuer denied â—s nor euer in question betwixt Protestant and Papist for both you and we â—d Christs reall presence in the Sacrament but you carnallie and locallie we miâ—â—allie and spiritually you by Transubstantiation we in the commanded and â—full administration But here you forget your grounds of diuinitie rules of Logicke in making 〈◊〉 opposition betwixt spirituall receiuing and reall receiuing opposing them as â—â—â—traries whereas the opposition is not betwixt spirituall and reall but betwixt â—â—â—porall and spiritualll for spirituall receiuing by faith is reall receiuing and â—â—â—porall receiuing by the mouth is also reall receiuing So that the Scriptures and â—â—â—ers that here you alleadge bee altogither impertinent to prooue your carnall â—â—â—ence of Christ and his new conception of bread not of the blessed Virgin by â—â—â—fulll Priest not by the holy Ghost For Christ willing I will make it plaine â—o you that you haue shewed little diuinitie and concealed much learning in 〈◊〉 onely hudled vp a number of texts of Scriptures and Testimonies of Fathers 〈◊〉 of Eckius Common-places and otherlike Enchiridions and neuer read the â—â—â—ers themselues which at first was requested And thus trusting other mens â—â—orts and not your owne eyes you haue wrongd your self weakned your cause 〈◊〉 abused the simple For if you had diligently read and throughly weighed these â—â—iptures and Fathers you might haue seene and knowne that these confute your â—â—onious opinons and confirme them not But this you should haue here prooued for the Catholicques satisfaction in â—â—ich you haue altogither failed That after the Priest hath spoken ouer and to the â—â—ead and Wine Hoc est corpus meum and vsed powrefull words ouer it and them Rhem test 1. Cor. 11. Sect. 9. â—â—ich you call your consecratioÌ„ that presentlie the substances of Bread and Wine â—e gone not one crumme or drop remaining but wholly transubstantiated tranâ—â—â—tured and chaunged into the verie reall naturall Rhe. Test. math 26. Sect. 4. and substantiall bodie and â—â—oud of Christ which was borne of the Virgin Marie and nailed on the crosse â—â—d is now in heauen and yet in the Sacrament whole aliue and immortall and â—â—at this bodie of Christ must bee receiued with our corporall mouth and locally â—â—scend into our corporall stomackes Which bodie so made by the Priest is ofâ—â—ed by the Priest to God the father as a propitiatorie merciful and redeeming â—â—â—rifice by which the Priest applieth as hee saith the generall vertues of Christs â—â—ssion to euery perticuler mans necessitie either quicke or dead for matters temâ—â—rall or graces spirituall for whom and when he listeth and for what hee pleaseth â—ur carnall presence shall bee first handled The second point which is your proâ—atorie sacrifice shall bee handled in the title of the Masse This is your Romane 〈◊〉 learning which you should haue prooued but how your owne proofes being â—â—â—ly examined disprooue you let the learned iudge But now to your first proofe 〈◊〉 of the sixt of Iohn to prooue your opinion touching the first position 〈◊〉 6. â—ers 51. The bread which I will giue is my flesh c. Catholicque Priests 〈◊〉 6. â—ers 51. Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shal haue no life in you 〈◊〉 6. â—ers 55. My flesh is meat truly and my bloud is c. VVhether we haue changed the state of the Question or not And whether the real presence was euer denyed by Protestants whether Protestants doe not falsely clayme the tearme Spiritual And whether all the tearmes of their supper be not redeemed from them Fitzimon 35. COncerning the first demand I hauing conceaued according to Philosophie and reason that corporal and real were not different otherwyse then by only conceit I also supposed it was all one to affirme Christ to be realy present and corporaly according as is supposed by all other wryters of what profession soeuer they be This by M. Rider is called à wrong and deceit Next he saith The real presence was neuer denyed by protestants nor in controuersie betwixt Protestant and Papist What thinke you Gentlemen whether was the name of Catholicks by verdict of Vincentius disproofe of supremacie by verdict of the primatiue Fathers the forged consent of the ancient church fiue hundred yeares after Christ to Protestantcie or this resolut affirmation that the real presence was neuer denyed or in controuersie more full of shamelesnes and inconsideration I need not to lingre in making this 9. The 9. 10. vntrueth and 10. vntrueth euen to ProtestaÌ„ts them selues notoriouse yea and odiouse Fox Acts and Monuments pag. 1687 First Ihon Fox saith of one of his martyrs Ihon Lomas not to haue beleeued realitie because he fownd it not written And D. Perne Fox page 1257. sayd I deny not his presence but his real and corporal presence Shewing
corporaly and into a corporal body And the damned spirits being spiritual creaturs yet they are tormented not with a spiritual but with a corporal fyer 1. Corinth 6. Lastly S. Paul saith You are bowght with a great price glorify and beare God in your bodyes So that God him selfe which is the most spiritual of all spirits may be borne in our bodyes and not only in our sowls And when is he to be sayd borne in our bodyes so much as when we receue the B. Sacrament of his fleash and blood to which he is vnited by his diuinitie personaly Caueat in the preface Now saith he the meat is spiritual and therfor the mowth owght also to be spiritual as befor is heard and handled that we may haue satisfaction vnlesse we may be malecontents Good Iesus what expectation might this man haue that his owne fauourers would euer tolerat such dissimulation In the place wher vnto he referreth vs for this satisfaction this is all the proofe out of holy Scripture Fathers and Canons that is ther found Augustin shewing the maner how Christ is to be eaten in the Sacramēt sower tymes together saith spiritualiter spiritualie spiritualie One woord more ther is not ether of Scripture Father or Canon to proue that the mowth to receaue euery spiritual gift ought only to be spiritual First hereby how dothe he ouerthrow his former speeches that we teach the communicants not to receaue with their faith spiritualy and that we put opposition betwixt real and spiritual as contraries For yf our owne canons teache spiritual receauing as here is euidently affirmed how would he be beleeued that we do not teache it Are not these discourses resembling bucketts in wells of which the drawing vp of the one is a letting downe of the other Secondly I haue shewed and not slenderly yf resolutions of protestant martyrs be not slender that the profession of reformers can not brooke the woord Spiritual Thirdly I haue very lately shewed that Scripturs reason and diuinitie do demonstrat many spiritual gifts to be receaued corporaly and many corporal gifts to be receaued spiritualy Fowerthly I haue and do resolue that Christs presence is not only spiritual nor only receaued spiritualy but also corporal and to be receaued corporaly In the 12. and 14. number plentifully may be found to that effect S. August c. 9. contra aduersarium legis prophet Whervnto I add owt of S. Augustin that we should receaue fideli corde ore with faithfull hart and mowthe Behould in playne and literal maner declared that as to the hart so to the mowth doth belong to receaue Christ. Secondly owt of S. Leo Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur this is receaued by mowth S. Leo Sermone 6. de Ieiunio Tertull. l. de resurrectione Carnis which is beleeued by hart Thirdly by Tertullian Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt anima de Deo saginetur the fleash is fedd by the body and blood of Christ that the sowle might be fatned by God Is not here declared without requirie that we exclud not spiritual receauing by affirming corporal receauing Are not bothe affirmed requisit and nether to be omitted Good M. Rider spare your owne reputation so much ingaged in this discourse that vnlesse the residue supply defects and enormities here escaped it is not possible but the State will thinke it belonging to their wysdoms to testifie that they dislyke your defense of their opinion Defence wherin so many strange doctrins are affirmed to be in S. Ihons gospel which neuer any had yet perceaued Defense wherin M. Rider is made euery foote to disproue and refell him selfe Defense wherin wonderfull promises are made of confuting vs when in trueth it confirmeth all our doctrin For you shall not lykely mistake any one earnest point of his replye but when you fynd him vehemently seeming to ouerthrow vs then you shall discouer him to be as a Senacharib 4. Reg. 19. Iudith 6. 2. Machab. 8. Holosernes and Nicanor promising to ruyne vs and inuiting peoples considerations to buye our doctrin at the rate of nynty for one talent when we are most safe from inconuenience and he neerest to his distruction as Nicanor inuited merchants to buy Israelits by nyntie for one talent when they were most secure from his sale and rather to recouer their mony who intended to buye them and he by them spedely to be discumfited and confounded How many such promises doth he make saying I will shew and discouer that you haue forsaken the veritie of Christs gospel the reader shall easely perceaue befor the ende of this treatise that this your opinion was neuer tawght by Christ I will shew that you wrong your selues forgett your grounds of learning that your proofe is your disproofe that you neuer read but Enchiridions and neuer read the Fathers them selues that here you change that there you dismember c. When God knoweth he sheweth nothing but the turpitude and confusion of his profession Genes 9.21 as Noe when he was dronken shewed the dishonestie of his bodye wherby one of his owne children although wickedly derided him How aptly doth S. Augustin admonishe such a promiser saying Ostende promissa S. Augustin l. 3. con Max. c. 26. quid pergis in vacuo quid deludis expectationem nostram nec exhibes pollicitationem tuam multiplicas verba non necessaria vt necessaria occupes spatia Shew your promises why proceed you in vacuitie why delude you our expectation why effect you not your protestation you multiply needlesse woordes to wast needfull time Rider Ioh. 6.56.35 38. Whosoeuer dwels in Christ and Christ in them onelye eates Christs flesh drinkes Christs bloud But the true beleeuers onelie dwel in Christ and Christ in them therefore the true beleuers onelie eate Christs flesh and drinke Christs bloud Ioh. 6.56 Ephe. 3.17 The proposition is Christs owne words of which it were damnable to doubt The assumption is Pauls Let Christ dwell in your hearts by faith therefore the conclusion cannot be denied And so to the fourth VVhether M. Riders vnanswerable argument be not answerable euen by a childe to M. Riders infamie Fitzimon 38. TO manifest that this argument is easie to produce M. Riders infamie I denye your maior as being the 16. vntrueth The 16. vntruth Ioan. 6.56 Ioan. 14.11 by expresse addition and alteration of the text the woords are He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood remayneth in me and I in him Why then haue you added the woord only why had you noe terrour by the woords of the Apocalips Apoc. vlt. so to violat Gods sacred trueth and that to auowche a palpable and manifest erroure For Christ saith Do not you beleeue that I am in my Father and my Father is in me And who is so erroneous as to say that God the Father doth eate the fleash and drinke the blood of Christ and
his wonte towards the greatest mysteries of his passion ascension comming of the holy Ghost c. and not by institution It being cleere among Catholicks I will auerr it by protestaÌ„ts Martyr in defens Eucha Con. Gardin par 3. pag. 644. 547. Bucer in c. 6. Ioan. in cap 26. Math. Ecpenceus in Apolog. That saith Peter Martyr which Christ promised in the sixt of Ihon that he performed in the last supper Martin Bucer vpon the very sixt of Ihon and else where craueth pardon of God that euer he had bewitched any with your opinion that Christ handled not his true real and corporal being by way of premonition in this Chapter Lyke repentance had also Peter Martyr for some tyme being of your imagination As also had Oecolampadius by his ovvne testimonie Oecolamp ad Land Hess 1529. Feuard in pref com in Ruth Vide in examine symboli n. 7. Calu. con Heshusium Beza in Creophagia Tygurenses con test Brency Micomius in S. Marc. pag. 150. Cureus in Spongia Daneus con Selneccerum Cautier pag. 186. c. Caueat a litle befor saying Vtinam priâ—ceps illustrissime abscissa fuisset mihi haec dextera cùm primum inciperem de negotio Coenae Dominicae quicquam scribere I would most excellent prince that this right hand of myne had bene chopped off when I began first to wryte owght of the Lords supper Feuardent reporteth that Caluin misbeleeued S. Ihon to haue bene authour of this sixt chapter because it was to cleere against his imagination Yet Caluin him selfe in his booke against Heshusius approueth it to treat of the Sacrament So dothe Beza The ministers of Zurick Miconius Cureus Daneus Cautier c. So lastly doth most cleerly M. Rider not long befor against him selfe saying who soeuer dwel in Christ and Christ in them only eate Christs fleash and drinck Christs blood Which saith he being Christs woords in the sixt of Ihon verse 56. it were damnable to doubt of them Then suerly it can not be but damnable to doubt of Christs mentioning the Sacrament in the sixt of Ihon wherby he is eaten of vs dwelleth in vs and we in him I trust you will not deny now to haue bene aunswered to your full expectation and smal consolation For both S. August and Lyra contradicteth your information your brethren confute it and your selfe disproue it then which what fowler disgrace could happen to a wryter But I will make it yet fowler by ingadgeing your pretious Iuels credit Iwels replie against Harding art 5. Diuisione 3. pag. 323. whether Christ did not meÌ„tion the eating of his flesh in the 6. of S. Ihon or not he coÌ„fidently saying That Christ in the sixt of S. Ihon speaketh of the spiritual eating by fayth by which his very fleash and very blood indeed and verily is eaten and drunken Notwithstanding we say that Christ afterward in his last supper vnto the same spiritual eating added also an owtward sacrament or figure Behould his assuraÌ„ce that Christ did here treat of eating Christ and that his speache here belongeth to that he after ordayned Rider You are not onely taxed by Aug. to bee ignorant in the circuÌ„stance of the text but also in the sence of the text which is a grose thing in diuines 42. Now you shall heare Augustine tell you that this sixt of Iohn is to be taken figuratiuelie and allegoricallie and therefore spirituallie meaning that the speeches and phrases which Christ vsed be borrowed and translated from the bodie to the mind from eating and drinking to beleeving from chamming with the teeth to the beleeuing with the heart So that what eating and drinking is to the bodie that beleeuing is to the soule And as bread and flesh be meat corporall for the bodie so Christ our bread is made spirituall for the soule And as corporall meats are taken with the corporall mouth so are spirituall meates Christ crucified with all his benefits receiued with faith the mouth of the soule And therefore to teach all posterities how to expound these words of Christ hee giues a generall rule perpetually to be obserued in GODS church Saying (a) De doct Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16. Si praeceptiua locutio est c. If the Scriptures seeme to commaund an horrible or vile fact the speech is figuratiue The secoÌ„d proofe out of the sixt of Iohn and then alleadgeth your second proofe that you bring out of the sixt of Iohn for example Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud yee shall haue no life in you Facinus flagitium videtur iubere Christ in this place seemes to commaund a wicked and horrible act Figura est ergo It is therefore a figuratiue speech commaunding vs to keepe in mind that his flesh was crucified tormented for vs. Now examine Augustines exposition To eate corporallie reallie and substantiallie Christs flesh with our material mouths and to drinke his precious substantiall reall bloud with our bodilie lips is a horrible thing Therefore Christs words bee figuratiue So that by Augustines owne words your litterall sence carnall presence is wicked and horrible howsoeuer you cloake it with fained titles to blinde the eies and deceiue the hearts of simple Catholiques And if you would but read the fifth chapter of the foresaid booke you should see his Christian caueat he giues to Gods Church touching this point In principio cauenduÌ„ est ne figurataÌ„ locutioneÌ„ ad litteraÌ„ accipias c. First of all you must beware that you take not a figuratiue speech according to the letter his reason followes for the letter that is the litterall sence killeth But the spirit that is the spirituall sence giueth life For when we take the figuratiue speech for a proper speech we make the sence carnall neither is there anie thing more fitlie calld the death of the soule Thus you see Aug. teacheth if you would learne that if the speech be proper the sence must bee litterall and carnall but if it be figuratiue it must bee misticall and spirituall and alleadgeth this your own text for the same So I would wish you either follow Augustines doctrine or else cease to vse Augustines and the rest of the Fathers names for in vsurping their names and peruerting their doctrine you abuse the Fathers and deceiue the Catholiques Your Bernard also in later times condemnes your absurd vnchristianlike exposition of this your owne text Ber. Serm. 33. inps Qui habitat Fol. 68. Col. 2. Vnlesse you eate the flesh of Christ c. He asketh the question Quid auteÌ„ est manducare eius carnem bibere sanguinem nisi communicare passionibus eius eam conuersationem imitari quam gessit in carne What is to eate Christs flesh and drinke his bloud but to communicate with his passions and to imitate his holie conuersation in the flesh And then followeth Vnde hoc designat illibatum illud Altaris Sacramentum vbi
some perticuler persons quick or dead as the Priest pleaseth VVhether Christs woords teach Christs fleash to haue bene only giuen on the Crosse Fitzimon 44. THis argument auerreth effectualy the precedent attestations as being out of all the 19. moods and three figures allowed in philosophie For by haueing the medium or meane twyse in the predicato or later part of the propositions it should be in the second figure and being deformed in that figure it is excluded out of all the rest The deformation appeareth that the second proposition should haue bene and is not in this maner but the fleash of Christ in the Sacrament was not only giuen on the Crosse from which it varyeth by omitting all the former parte and exchangeing the being giuen on the Crosse into the being of a material Crosse The conclusion also is misshapen as which ought only to haue bene therfor the fleash of Christ in the Sacrament was not promised in the sixt of Ihon. Because I am Rom. 1.14 Debitor factus sapientibus insipientibus made a debtour to the learned and vnlearned I haue borrowed licence of the vnskillfull in Philosophie to haue in a start followed this mater in his kinde Now to the capacitie of all I aunswer to the first proposition The 19. vntruth that it is euidently the 19. vntrueth and against Christs expresse promise in the 6. of S. Ihon promising that besyd his giuing his flesh to be crucifyed he would also giue him selfe to be eateÌ„ of vs saying vnlesse you eate c. I aunswear to the next that it is true that Christs fleash in the Sacrament was not only giuen on the Crosse as being also giuen to be eaten in the Sacrament The conclusion is contayned in the premisses and so denyed or affirmed as the premisses All the residue is ether specified and reuersed in the 40. or 43. numbres or els being voyd speeches at randome need noe further resolution Behould beloued reader Ioan. 6. v. 51.53.55 to these woords of Christ this bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the worlde no woord of worthe or witt is replied but time Ioan. 14.6 cap. 7.17 and wynde wasted in most idle diuagations Is Christ the trueth are his woords as the Euangelist affirmeth the veritie why then the bread he gaue was his fleash not his figure then his fleash was not only crucified but also eaten then his fleash is meat truely and not figuratiuely To aunsweare therfor to these pregnant and infallible woords of Christ him selfe only that we mistake not shewing how the Fathers denye when and what they affirme apparently that Christs woords are spiritual and therfor not litteral and for other aunswer to digresse into reproaches to multiply woords to beat the wynde not shewing any defense or warrant of Scripture or Father for your figure only without veritie appellation only without substance representation only without commoditie such aunswearing I say is breefly Psal 4. v. 3. Diligere vanitatem querere mendacium to loue vanitie and to seeke lyes The third proofe of the Catholique Priests out of the sixth of Iohn to prooue Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament Catholicque Priests Vers 55. My flesh is meate truelie and my bloud is drinke trulie Rider 45. YF you should aske your boy in his Grammer rules a question if he aunswered not in the same case or by the same tense of a verbe that theâ— question is asked by you will count him a silie Grammatist But if you aske your Sophister a question in quid and hee aunswere in quale you will taâ—â— him for an improper and impertinent aunswere But most of all if a great Diuine be asked a question to prooue the manner of a thing and he neglecting or omitting that as too hard or impossible for him prooues the matter that was neuer demaunded or doubted of what will the Reader thinke of this matter this man and this proofe Surelie he must say either he vnderstandeth not the state of the question or else he is not able to prooue the question and so vseth this shameful shift iâ— steed of a sufficient proofe All the Catholiques in this kingdome expected to be satisfied by your aunswer touching the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament whether it be carnal or spirituall and whether he must be eaten by faith spirituallie or the teeth carnally And your aunswere is as improper and impertinent as either Grammatist or Sophister for you leaue the maner of Christs presence which you should prooue and bring the matter of his presence which was neuer in question saying My flesh is meat truly c. How this your aunswere doeth relish of learning let the learned iudge When aâ— the Catholiques in the kingdome hang their soules on your saying Are these you contentments you giue them If they aske you how they must eate Christs fleâ— drinke Christs bloud then you tell them my flesh is meate in deed and my bloud 〈◊〉 drinke in deed Doe you aunswere their question or satisfie their conscience or resolue their doubts alasse no. Thus you haue dealt dallied and deceiued a long time Christs people with these your improper impertineÌ„t vnprofitable nay vntrue aunsweres and yet you will be called Fathers Doctours and what not But I pray you tell me why you added not the next words of Christ you thought they were against you But if you had dealt as men hauing Gods feaâ— before your eies you would not haue staied there for the next verse plainely discouers your bad dealing with the simple people for that aunswereth their question and that would satisfie all good Catholiques in this point For if you aske there the holy Ghost this question how must Gods children eate Christes flesh and drinke Christs bloud he will aunswere you that whosoeuer dwels in Christ and Christ in him eates Christs flesh and drinkes Christs bloude but the faithfull onely dwell in Christ and Christ in them therefore the faithfull onely eate Christs flesh and drinke Christs bloud whether it be in hearing the word in baptisme or in the Lords Supper as you haue heard before If you had added this verse it hâ—â— ouerthrown your carnall presence in the Sacrament and your orall eating of Chrisâ— with your mouth teeth c. But as you wrong the Catholiques with an impertitiâ—â— answere and as you abuse them by keeping backe the next words of Christ which expounds his owne meaning So heere you abuse your holie Father the Pope and your deare mother the Church of Rome in expounding this text contrarie to the Romane sence The second parte of the Catholicks first proofe by Scriptures 45. HEere in the woords of Christ is assured Fitzimon for the matter that it is fleashe and consequently not his appellation only for the manner that it is truely and consequently not figuratiuely only yet doth this proctor of the protestant profession only to cauill tell that the mater was
corpus meum which is the proposition whereupon all this disputation and contention dependeth After the same manner a man may prooue the blessed virgin Marie to be Iohn the Euangelists mother Ihon 19.27 and say still notwitstanding any text brought against him as Christ said Ecce mater tua Bâ—hold thy mother say what yee will the words be Christs words therefore they must be true they need no interpretation Christ is not a lyer And if a man aske a confirmation and say how prooue you this proposition of Christ to be true literallie in deed as Christ spake it This is a loose kinde of Logique You bring in for confirmation of the proposition the proposition it selfe and say Ecce mater tua Behold thy mother Thâ—â— when the Catholiques demaund of you to prooue your proposition of Hoc est câ—â—pus meum whether it must be taken corporallie or spirituallie grammaticallie oâ— misticallie In Schools it is called Petitio principij then you bring the proposition it selfe and say Hoc est corpus meum to prooue Hoc est corpus meum and so you would prooue idem per idem which is verie childish and a begging of that as graunted which is yet in question betwixt vs and vndetermined VVhether the woords Behould thy mother had one or lyke sence with the woords This is my bodye Fitzimon 49. WE approue our sacrament to be the true body and blood of Christ because he being the Trueth and whose saying as the prophet saith is effected Ioan. 14.6 Dixit facta sunt mandauit creata sunt he spoke and it was done Psal 32.9 he commaunded and they were created because he I say 1. Cor. 11.24 Matt. 26.28 him selfe did affirme it to be his body which was to be deliuered and his blood which was to be shedd and consequently his true body and his true blood which truely and not only figuratiuely were deliuered and shedd These powerfull woords of Christ which your great Melancthon saith Melanct. l. 3. epist Zuing. Oecolamp fol. 132. Mat. 24.35 wil be one day thunder to the misbeleeuers and which woords when heauen and earthe will fayle will remayne are our foundation Yf the blessed Virgin Marie be sayd to be the mother and S. Ihon the sonne it is sayd in such maner as only to giue to vnderstand that he should honoure and cherishe hir as his mother and no otherwyse and so the scripture sheweth he conceaued it as being without any circumstance conioyned to conceaue otherwyse But in the B. Sacrament Christ a whole yeare befor in the sixt of S. Ihon haueing forwarned Ioan. 6.55 c. that he would giue to be eaten his true fleash which should be their meat truely and his true blood which should be their drincke truely at the last supper making his new testament all being very attentiue in solemne maner he tooke blessed and broak bread saying this is my body c. So that it is not an idle proofe or idem per idem to proue it to be Christ corporaly when we shew Christ our omnipotent Lord to haue affirmed it with the former circumstances more to this effect shall follow God willing in our 62. number 50. But you should haue prooued by other places of Scriptures Rider that Hoc est corâ—us meum changeth the nature and substance of bread and wine and you should haue proued by the Scriptures Esay 7.10 that the Prophets foreshewed this strange conâ—eption of Christ to be conceaued of bread as well as they did foreshew his conâ—eption of the virgin And you should haue prooued by the Scriptures that it is â—ot onelie a Sacrament but a sacrifice not onely Eucharisticall but as well proâ—itiatorie and not onelie profitable to the quicke but also to the dead nay not â—nelie for plagues among men but murren and diseases also among beasts Cum â—ultis alijs quae nunc c. Now shew by the Scriptures that Hoc est corpus meum hath such a sence that the simple people may repose themselues more securely vpon your opinion and proofes But till you prooue it which you can neuer doe they must know you haue and doe deceiue them with false expositions against veritie antiquitie auâ—horitie yea consent of the old Church of Rome VVhether Christs woords doe testifie a change of nature And whether it was prophecied 50. THe nature of bread and wyne must be changed Fitzimon when they are turned into the body and blood of Christ one proofe serueth to proue the one and the other What proueth Eua to be a woman Gen. 2. Exod. 43. Exod. 7.17 Ioan. 2.8 proueth hir not to â—e a bone wherof she was made What proueth Moises rodd turned to a serpent and after into a rodd the riuers of Egipt turned into blood water turned into wyne and all other such alterations proueth theÌ„ not to haue bene what thy were befor The prophets did shew this not conception but transubstantiation when they fortould that Christ should be a preest according to the ordre of Melchisedech who sacrificed in bread and wyne wherby was signified Psal 109.4 Hebr. 5.6.20 c. 11.17 Iuel in his reply art 1. saith Iuel the sacrifice of the holy communion I say who sacrificed by confession of VVhitaker as also did Christ according to his being a preest of that ordre and that can not be conceaued of ether of bothe but in bread and wyne For the other cruental sacrifice of his passion was done not actiuely by Christ but only passiuely and that rather according to the ordre of Aaron then of Melchisedech Malach. 1. The prophets did shew this transubstantiation when they fortould that among the Gentiles from east to west there should be a cleane oblation offred to Gods name in euery place c. Which can not be vnderstood of any thanksgiuing or prayses as you imagin such being not peculiar to the Gentils Chrysostom hom in ps 95. but frequent among the Iewes Vpon which woords saith S. Chrysostom Behould how cleerly and playnly he hath interpreted the mystical table which is the vnbloodie Host Yea besyds all other proofs by Scripturs and Fathers which by the mercie of God shal be afforded in our treating of the Masse take this also from your Beza Beza in cap. 22. Luc. u. 20. Regius in 2. par operum resp ad 2. libros Eâ—ky de missa c. 7. Bibl. l. 1. de paschate Israelit pag. 25. 26. Vrbanus Regius Tremelius and Bibliander That befor the coming of Christ the ancient Israelits were commanded to celebrat a figuratiue communion in bread and wyne in token that the Messias would institute no figuratiue but true and substantial communion in the same By which is proued to the full contentment euen of the least indifferent that for whom soeuer Christ offred it may be proffitable be they quick or dead such sacrifice contayning truely and substantialy the same
he againe and all other Fathers noe Sacrament is thought duely ministred Saint Hierom telleth you how thronges of people flocked to haue S. Epiphanius and Hilarions blessing to them and their children And writing to Rustic bishop of Narbon he blameth him for disalowing a simple secular priest to blesse the people saying Benedicere populo non debet qui Christum etiam meruit consecrare Should not he blesse the people who deserueth to consecrat Christ S. Augustin relateth him selfe and others to haue vsed lyke deuotion Beda telleth how in England the godly Christians would trudge befor in highe wayes and crosse passages to obtayne preests blessing by mowthe or hand For the one doth not exclude the other So that it is tyme M. Rider to leaue this forme of argument by one trueth to exclude the other when both may consist together I grant you spent this trauayle against the Crosse when you were a puritan now perhapps you dare not Christen a child without it In the mean tyme by your great wysdome you haue made to Catholicks and protestants many good points God be praysed knowen which had bene more to your behoofe vnreuealed To conclude the vanitie of his long digression manifowldly appearing otherwise it is not also obscure in this that whether blessing and thanksgiuing had bene all one as is demōstrated not haue to bene yet it had imported nothing in the world to our cōtrouersie For the blessing being accidental not essential to the mater and forme of consecration the vse of it did only shew a greater solemnitie followed by Christ in the institution of the Sacrament and no necessitie That we are often bidd by M. Rider to read these and those in greeke gentle Reader he biddeth vs to doe for ostentation what he can not doe him selfe For in my particular knowledge and experience a blynd man hath as much sight in his eyes as he hathe good greeke in his head And yf we had found in greeke what he pretendeth you now vnderstand how litle it had bene to his proffit or our hinderance The 24. 25. 26 27 vntruth Vntruethes are heaped in this last discourse plentifully The 24. notoriouse vntrueth is that we teache our spiritual children they be pardoned from synns and preserued from dangers and spirits yf we crosse them with two fingers and a thumb The 25. that the pope and not God commandeth our blessing with the Crosse The 26. that we vse mumbling woords and charming Crosses We leaue charmings and coniurings for hereticks Nota sunt commercia haereticorum cum magis Tertul. de prescrip c. 43. Vide num 100. Ezech. 9.4 the intermedling of hereticks and magitians saith Tertullian are notorious Our crossing is no charming vnles God his angels were charmers of which see after in the 100. number The 27. that we teache a certayne power to be in our breath and fingers Such maters as these would seeme to deserue our allegations wher we teach these points But it is sufficient that vnles they be beleeued vpon puritan faith troth and honestie ther is no other proofe to auerr them Now I will in this conuict M. Rider both to be a puritan although the puritants respect him not and also to mis-informe our doctrin and that by the protestants euen of England and that befor his Maiestie in the conference sett foorth by Barlow anno 1605. pag. 73.74 as his royal Maiestie doubted not to acknowledge saying I am giuen to vnderstand by the bishops and I fynd it true that the papists them selues did neuer ascribe any power or spiritual grace to the signe of the Crosse Such a testimonie is a lawfull defense I trow against M. Rider both that he degenerateth from the doctrin of the bishops of England and falsifyeth our doctrin which is now lawfully warranted to thinke so of the Crosse as the best protestants do approue it The 28. vntruth The 28. that our blessing agreeth with Gods preists blessing no more then superstition with religion For I haue shewed it to haue proceeded from God by his Angel to haue bene practised by his Apostles and receaued by all the Fathers and primatiue Church The 29. 30. 31. vntruth The 29. 30. and 31. at least are included from the parcell your Apish toyes childishe tricks c. to the ende so perspicuously as no auditour most fauorable would take in his accompts and discharge him more sparingly Now let vs giue place M. Rider is at leyngthe to tumble into his mater in controuersie after his long peregrination to crossings charmings greeke and reprehensions Rider 54. But now to the rest of the bodie of the text and controuersie Wherein first let vs examine whether your two propositions this is my bodie and this is my bloud of the new Testament c. be proper or figuratiue litterall or Sacramentall For if they be improper borrowed figuratiue and Sacramental they prooue neither your Transubstantiation nor your carnall reall presence but euen plainlie disprooue them Augustin de doctr christiana lib. 3 cap. 16. pag. 23. Parisijs 1586. Saint Augustines rule before recited if you would be ruled by it but neither Scriptures nor Fathers can rule you but you will ouer rule them would presentlie satisfie you that these two propositions must be figuratiue the latter you confesse but the former as yet you wil not His words againe for the Readers good I wil repeat and they be these If the scripture seem to command any vile or ill fact the speech is figuratiue as Except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you Facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere Christ seemeth to commaund a wicked act that is carnallie and grosly to eate Christs flesh Ether confute S. Aug. or confesse your error the firste is impossible the second were commendable Read it it containes but 6. or 7. lines The marginall note there condemes your litterall fence c. it is therefore a figuratiue speech So that Augustine thus reasons against you To eate Christs flesh and drinke Christs bloud corporallie is a hainous thing therefore Christes wordes be figuratiue so that if to eate Christes flesh with our mouths and teare his flesh with our teeth as also actually drinking of his bloud bee hainous and wicked why doe you so eagerly presse the litterall fence of these your two propositions against trueth against faith and the auncient Fathers Augustine in that short 15. chap. of the same booke immediatly going before wisheth alwayes the interpretation of these and all other figuratiue speeches to be brought ad regnum charitatis to the kingdome of charitie to haue their true exposition Now if you expounde this litterallie and properlie you forsake Augustines rule charities kingdome and the Apostolicall and Catholike exposition It is but small charitie to deuoure the food of a friend but to eate and deuoure corporallie and gutturallie the precious bodie and
auowched Tertullian l. de resurrect Carnis Graunt you also with Tertullian that Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt anima de Deo saginetur the fleash not only the sowle is fedd with the body and blood of Christ that the sowle may be fatt in God Hieron ad Damasum de prodigo filio Wit hs Hierom I consent that the Sacrament is a representation do not you also impugne him saying Ipse Saluator est cuius quotidie carne vescimur cruore potamur It is our Saluiour him selfe Ambros. l. 4. de Sacram c. 14. with whose fleash we are dayly feed whose blood we drinke I subscribe to S. Ambros that it is a signification do you no lesse that after consecration it is the fleash of Christ I allow with S. Chrysostom it is a remembrance Chrysost hom 60. ad pop Antioch and exemplar of Christs sacrifice vpon the Crosse for of that he speaketh do you no lesse when he saythe that in the Sacrament Christ is with vs non fide tantum sed ipsa re not in faythe only Clemens Alexandrin loco citato a Ridero but in very realitie I professe with Clement Alexandrinus to receaue Christ as he speaketh which is nothing to M. Riders intention and all other wayes it may be interpreted vnder an allegorie or figure as meat of faith c I coÌ„fesse also Ipsum Saluatorem intra pectus suscipi that our Saluiour him selfe is receaued into the breast I graunt all Beda in Luc. 22. that you alleage owt of Beda do you also not contradict your owne pretended witnesses but professe in the figure of bread and wyne is the Sacrament of Christs fleashe and blood Behould M. Rider you haue purchased that all which you haue here produced excepting vntruethes is freely and liberaly permitted but farr from your purpose or proffit Is it because a figure or allegorie is witnesed and that not only or without contradicting the substance that you and your only figure should seeme benefited I say with Gods woord and marke it well that Christ is a figure Sap. 7. 2. Cor. 4. Hebr. 1. Coloss 1. Ephes. 5. Luc. c. 12 c. 22. and image of his Fathers substance will you inferr that therfor he is not the selfe same substance with the Father I say Christ is spiritualy and figuratiuely the head of his Churche will you inferr that therfor he hathe not a material head I say that his baptisme and Crosse are taken some tyme spiritualy or figuratiuely will you inferr that therfor his material baptisme and sensible suffring should be excluded I say that he was habitu inuentus vt homo Philip 2. in shape found as a man wil you say that therfor he was no man It is no lesse against Scriptures and Fathers to doe the one then the other to exclude substance in the Sacrament for being together a figure and to doe it in the instances alleaged Therfor as I graunt and shew figure and veritie spirit and letter shaddow and substance by euery autheure by your selfe produced so reciprocally do not misinforme any longer but say although they affirme figure spirit and shaddow so they do not contradict veritie letter and substance Otherwyse euery Reader will condemne your honestie woords and learning as but a figure without veritie a spirit without letter and shaddow without substance Isichius in leuit l. 6. c. 22. So certifyeth saying He receaueth by ignoraÌ„ce who knoweth not this to be the body and bloud according to the trueth Which is as much to say as who by faythles fayth receaueth a figure without trueth of the thing figured he hath receaued according to ignorance and infidelitie But to your 4. Notes 1. grownded vpon Christs blood called wyne 2. consecration called benediction 3. wyne not changed because still called wyne 4. figuratiue phrase therfor not propre I aunsweare to the first and third that it is a custome in Gods woord and not only in holy Fathers to call thinges altered by their former names or according to the outward lyknes they represent Exod. c. 7. Toâ— 2. Gen. 18. As for example Aarons rodd deuowred their rodds wheras they were now no rodds but Serpents Raphael is called a yong man three angels three yong men according to their only outward resemblance I aunswer to the second and last that the name benediction doth rather approue the consecration then disanull it and the name figure not exclude propietie as aforsayd The premisses considered no man will deny the 39. vntrueth The 39. vntruth to be that his exposition is ancient Catholick and Apostolical ours new priuat and heretical Pardon him being of their fellow shipp whose spirit consisteth as Vincent Lirinensis cap. 26. sayth in contrarietie vt ignorantia scientiae caligo serenitatis tenebrae luminis appellatione fucentur that ignorance with them masketh vnder the name of knowledge clowds of cleernes and darkenes of light So that as Luther him selfe confesseth the dayes are come in quibus omnia libentissime docemus audimus praeter ea que sunt anâ—iquae solidae veritatis Luth. l. cont Catharin VVherin he and his compagnie do most willingly heare and teach all things els besyd things that are of ancient and solide veritie Therfor as I sayd pardon him in following his trade and their trayne which is now described when he claymeth his profession to be owld and ours new Let vs only be his Referendaries for escapes or vntruethes not to be omitted in his confession when God of his infinit clemencie will grawnt him grace for which I pray perhapp as much as him selfe to repent The 40. The 40. 41 42. vntruthe vntrueth that we might neuer aunswer his obiection owt of Chrisostom as also that in the 11. hom vpon Mathew he hath any woord of what is by M. Rider alleadged The 41. that Beda telleth in England in his tyme the text was taken figuratiuely The 42. That these Fathers do howld against vs wheras we professe in euery place as much as from them can lawfully be challenged Let fouer or fiue small vntruethes passe among the rest that it be knowen I keepe the bulke as small as is possible 57. But you will say these testimonies of these Fathers Rider though of your owne Prints yet they prooue nothing against you vnlesse the Church of Rome should receiue and allow that exposition of the Fathers to be Catholicke If you should so replie surely it were a weake replication and subiect to manie exceptions and you would wring I cannot say wrong the church of Rome that she should hold a doctrine against all the old Doctors But if you will thus replie to bleare the eies of the simple yet will I frustrate your expectation for now I will shew you that the auncient Popes and the auncient Church of Rome held as these Fathers did that the proposition Hoc est corpus meum to be significatiue and improper
bread and wyne which in Cambridge by the Bishop D. Ridley was denyed So that M. Rider hath giuen doctor Ridley a knock for denial of a change I thinke you would now know how this change is wrought Attend the means and maner VVe looke saith he vpon the dredfull and reuerend mysteries of Christ crucified not as vpon bare naked elements but as sanctifyed foode I aske you first 1. Pet. 3. in confidence that you are readie alwayes to satisfie euery one that asketh you a reason of that hope that is in you according as S. Peter aduiseth since when these mysteries in your religion haue bene allowed to be called dreadfull and reuerend In the forsayd 39. number the meanest sermon of a Puritan minister is made more auaylable then they They are then declared superfluous but among forgetfull persons no better then bare beggerlie ordonances no more to be regarded then any other common bread c. Yet here they are made very terrible and venerable as in the last woords is contayned I can not among other obseruations conceal that by imputing lesse to the sacraments then to a Puritan sermon you preferre Puritan sermons befor any euer made by Christ or his Apostles How soe For they preached oft yet made not all hearers to ether receaue our Saluiour into hart or harborow no not in Bethsaida or Corozain wher he him self preached most vsualy nor much lesse at his preaching did make them to be true beleeuers Yf therfor none can receaue the sacraments but by faith as you say and yet that by a Puritan sermon ther is more good and proffit attayned then by the sacraments to my slender capacitie Puritan sermons are implyed to make all hearers faithfull considering that sacraments of lesse worth by your surmises then such sermons make all receauers to be faithfull as being receaued by no others Yet that the sermons of S. Paul were not comparable in operation to our sacrament in controuersie S. Aug. l. 3. de Trin. c. 4. is sayd by S. Augustin Nether the tong of Paul nor his paper nor inke nor woords nor wrytings de we esteeme as the bodie or blood of Christ so farr was he from thinking that any Puritan sermon was so effectual as this sacrament Secondly I craue how your supper is sanctified For the Crosse or blessing you will not allow and of prayer and the woord of true Scripture in this discourse you make no mention and other sanctification you can not iustifie Thirdly how by only looking you make the foode to be sanctified Haue you any Gorgonical vertue in your looking that all that you looke on is sanctified as all that looked on Gorgons head were sayd trāsformed Fowerthly how for all this dreadfull and reuerend change ther is any alteration from a bare figure considering that the Iewes ceremonies were as much sanctified and looked at as your supper and also by all protestāts of your sorte equaled therto Fiftly how hath your looking changed the vse of bread which is only to nourish you confessing the vse therof in the sacrament to be no other then to represent Christs feeding and conforting our soules as bread doth feed and confort our bodies The vse therfor therof seemeth to me not to be changed Because I know these demāds insoluble by your whole professiō and that I see your extremitie and perplexitie by your figures and darke woords neuer at an ende or staye but that by means of your figures and signes you can not tell whether to vse great or smal tearmes or deuotion toward them nor do not constantly determine what conceils may be had or held of them but some tyme kneeling therto is requisit and some tyme sitting therat will suffice and some tyme as Barlow in the summe of the conference befor the K. Maiestie pag. 98. saith it must be receaued in ambling therto wherof the indecencie is ther sayd to haue bene very offensiue I will conclude in the woords of S. Epiphanius S. Epiphan l. 2. c. 12 cont Cerdon Vide num 36. Veritati non credentes in mendacio autem volutantes perdiderunt panem verae vitae in profundum vmbrae iacentes similes Aesopi cani qui panem reliquit in vmbram autem eius impetum fecit perdidit escam Not beleeuing trueth and wallowing in falshood they haue lost the bread of true lyfe tumbling in the bottom of a shaddow lyke Esops dogg who left the bread and snatching the shaddow lost his bayt Then which sentence neuer was ther any more pertinent against our figurists For their glosing the sacrament with dreadfull and reuerend woords hauing euacuated the fruict therof and making it but a shaddow when shaddowes are changed into substance and trueth how could any thing more aptly be applyed vnto them then by saying they had left the bread snatched the shaddow and lost the bayte 64. But first I must tell you the word is new Rider neither vsed by Christ or his Apostles in the institution of the sacrament nor heard of in any ancient Father for manie hundred yeares after Christ Again neuer read in anie author sacred or prophane that consecration should signifie to change one substance into another for the nature of the word wil not beare it Now seeing by Christ or his Apostle Paul it was not vsed nor ancient Father euer tooke it in this sence Again the nature of the word hath no such signification I see not but you deserue much blame in binding the Catholickes consciences to beleeue that which is against diuinitie antiquitie and comon sence Now Gentlemen pardon me to demand of you but this question what words be they that consecrat that is which turn the substances of bread and wine into the naturall and substantial bodie and bloud of Christ Me thinkes I heare you Iesuits and Priests calling me a foole for demaunding such a question Such fathers as liued next to Christs time shold know best the practise of the primitiue church these fathers you refuse and chose others a thousād years yonger therefore they be of lesse credit considering as yee pretend that the Church of Rome and ther learned men haue euer from Christs time held with one consent one manner of consecration with a certaine set number of words without addition or alteration and therefore my question is friuolous and needlesse and no doubt you make your Catholickes beleeue so but alasse you deceiue them it is not so for I will shew you manie seueral opinions amongst your learned men yea Popes themselues one contrarie to another I praye you let me and the Catholickes of this kingdome therefore be certified and satisfied by Gods word and the practise of the Primitiue Church for the first six hundred years which be the words of consecration that worketh this miraculous alteration of substances which if you cannot prooue as I am sure you cannot then the Catholickes haue good cause to looke to their consciences and to
follow you no further then you follow Christ according to his word For if anie man nay all men nay if an Angell nay all Angels should come from heauen and preach otherwise then Christ and his Apostles haue taught let him be accursed If Angels nay all Angels from heauen must not be beleeued bringing contrarie doctrine to Christ and his Apostles Gal. 1.9 will you then binde the Catholickes of this kingdome to beleeue you onely comming from Rome and Rhemes whence you bring new doctrine not onelie contrarie to Gods truth but to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church And to beginne with Guido in his Manipulo curatorum VVhether Consecration be a new tearme Fitzimon 64. ALas is consecration a new tearme First your principal Doctor Beza telleth you are greuously deceaued Beza in 1. Cor. 10. v. 16. S. Ambros. l. 4. c. 14. de Sacram. informing you that by the woord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is signified the same in S. Paul as consecrare sanctificare to consecrat and sanctifie So then by this testimonie it is as ould as S. Pauls so teaching You tould vs a litle befor that Ambrose did not vse the woord of Consecration Yf you may and please I craue how would you interpret this his saying Vbi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi Should it not be thus or can it be otherwyse VVhen consecration cometh of bread is made the fleash of Christ. I thinke also S. August de consecr d. 2. c. nos autem all Scholers would thus translate these woords of S. Augustin Fideliter fateamur ante consecrationem panem esse vinum c. post consecrationem verò Carnem Christi sanguinem Before consecration let vs confesse faythfully to be bread and wyne c. but after consecration to be the fleash and blood of Christ Remembre also what woords of his are to the same effect in the next precedent number Now as our maner is we must make M. Rider him self accompt vpon him selfe the 55. The 55. vntruth vntrueth in aunswering beneath our allegation out of S. Ambrose The bread is bread befor the consecration but when it is consecrated of bread is made the fleashe of Christ All this saith M. Rider we graunt to be true Assuredly you must then graunt to be vntrue these woords of yours The woord consecration was not heard of in any ancient Father such he accōpteth S. Ambrose nu ibid for many hondred yeares after Christ it being confessed by you to be truely vttred by S. Ambrose And that so often beside as you haue made an obseruatiō against it as but lately frequented so often you haue informed idely and vntruely It is an ould prouerb Bis interimitur qui suis armis perit He is twyse defeated who perisheth by his owne weapon which is here and not seldome before breefly and apparantly verifyed against my Copes-mate 65. And to beginne with Guido in his Manipulo curatorum Rider Guido cap 4. pag. 23. 24. 45. But more you may see in the cautels or sleights of your masse cōcerning the necessitie of the crosses words of the canō of the masse the priests intētion Who saith there be foure seueral opinions amongst the learned Rabbins of Rome touching the words of Consecration The first sort saieth hee will haue besides the words of the. 3. Euangelists and Paule the intention of the Preiste (a) In the cautels printed at Venice 1464. and so saith your Masse booke and the precepts of the Church to bee dulie obserued jumping with your said Masse booke that vnlesse the Priests intention bee to consecrate there is no consecration though he vse all Christs words and Pauls And if the priest omit precepta ecclesiae that is the commaundements of the Church of Rome in his consecration mortalissime peccaret he sinnes most deadlie and is to be punished most grieuously But Abbot Panormitane de celebratione missarum page 220 is of another minde saying Etiamsi sacerdos celebret vt Deus perdat aliquem tamen bene consecrat Not witstandinge the priest saie Maste with intention that God would destroy some man yet doth hee consecrate wel What Christian heart doth not loath this diuelish intention and hellish religion Heere let all Catholicks marke As the people are not sure of the priests intētion so they are not sure of Christs carnal presence so commit idolatrie in worshipping bread being not consecrated that this first opinion holds that Christes institution is not sufficient without the priests intention For if his head be otherwise occupied he consecrates not and the due obseruation of the precepts of the Church which partlie consist in wordes partlie in gestures c. so that by this opinion those that simplie and plainlie for the first eight hundred or a thousand yeares next after Christ vsed the forme of Christs institution onelie neuer consecrated rightlie no not Christ himselfe nor Paul and so till of late daies there was no Consecration Transubstantiation or carnall presence So that this opinion prooueth your owne transubstantiation carnal presence not to be either Apostolicall or Catholicke but new inuented and phantasticall The second opinion is of maister Doctor Subtilis for so he calls him and he flatlie contradicteth the former opinion and saith If you say Christs institution were sufficiēt then your canon of your masse is superfluous if you say it is not sufficient without your masse canon then Christs institution were imperfect VVhich to thinke is blasphemy that all the words from qui pridie to simili modo in the Canon of your masse booke are necessarilie required to consecration and therefore the former Doctors shot short But Gentlemen you know that the Canon of the masse was not made by one Pope nor by tenne Popes but in manie hundred years it was in patching togither I hope you will not saie that those Saints and Marrirs of God from Christs time to the making of that Idolatrous Canon of the masse beeing manie hundred yeares had not the right consecration when they practized Christs institution Alij dixerunt there is a third opinion of diuers Doctors which held contrarie to both the former but because it is but fabulous and not woorth reading therefore I will scilence it as not worth the writing VVhether there can possiblye be any discord among Catholicks in points of beleefe SVddenly as I remarked M. Rider intermedling among scholasticks my thoughts exclaimed Fitzimon Num Saul inter prophetas what is Saul among the prophets Considering in quam alienum chorum pedem posuisset in to what vnsutable assemblye he had inchroached But his meaning was to make sporte to his aduersaries Forward then in the name of God First he saithe that we among our selues haue great dissension in our opinion of Consecration I will not calculat vp an vntrueth 1. Cor. 11.16 but will say Nos talem consuetudinem non habemus neque ecclesia Dei
second which he semeth to iustifie in the chapter following Magister Sent. lib. 4. dist 8. fol. 56 which are alleadged out of Ambrose But Magister Sententiarum commeth neerer the matter and asketh a question to make the matter plaine Consecratio quibus verbis fit attendite quae sunt verba accipite comedite accipite bibite c. with what words is consecration made giue attention these be the words Take ye and eate yee all of this this is my bodie take yee drinke yee this is my bloud drincke yee all of this Heere you see that this maister checkes Pope and Prelate for none of all these twentie and odde opinions euer put in these wordes Take yee eate yee take yee drinke yee as the words of Christ but as the words of your Canon And that these words be not necessarie parts of Christs institution but onelie shew the vse of the institution but that is neither Canonicall nor Catholicke And if you list at your leisure to read Cardinall Fr. Constantius Sarnanus his worcke Printed at Roanne 1592. pag. 144. 145. 146. intituled Summe Theologica dedicated to this Pope Clement the eight now liuing yow shall see that he repeats other seuerall iarres that are now among your Romane Prelates touching consecration as contrarie as these and therefore as absurd as the former Now Gentlemen how can you salue this sore and reconcile these iarres Doctors Schoolemen Canonists Text and Glosse Popes and great Prelates dissenting most shamefullie about consecration none of them relying vpon Christs plaine institution and therefore beholde their deserued confusion Now blame not vs for discouering your discords and for forsaking your errors but blame your Doctours Schoolmen Friers Monkes Legendaries Canonists your Popes Canons and your owne Masse book these are come to our hands we haue read their workes and discouered some hundreds of their heresies and sent them to the view of the Catholickes But howsoeuer you blame vs. God and the world will blame you in keeping the people from reading Gods booke and good writers which would instruct and confirme them in true religion and reuoke them from your grosse superstition Thus much concerning the vncertaintie absurditie and blasphemie of your consecration Now the true Apostolicall consecration is this when the elements of bread and wine are set apart from their common vse and applied to a holie vse according to Gods word Fitzimon 67. The Fox that by all attempts could not attayne grapes placed in a height began after to dispraise them as sowre and seemed â—o despise them So M. Rider who befor had assured him selfe of â—he decretals num 46 finding his conceit frustrated in great choler â—ayleth rebuketh and in his opinion refuteth them in this place What he sayth was intended by the first Pope such is his skill to thinke S. Augustin had bene Pope for they are his woords I assure him he may fynde in all Missals to be prescribed generaly and to be practised in all Masses at all places which sheweth in all places an vniuersal consent and vniformitie The next Popes offense he should haue sayd yf he knew what he sayd Eusebius Emissenus but the name Pope is suche a sting in his hart that of the abundance of greefe wrought therby the mouth euer speaketh was to haue mentioned an inuisible Priest A man that truely and not faynedly had bene familiar in the Fathers Chrysost hom de prodit Iudae August 4. de tr c. 7. 14. l. 10. de Ciu. c. 20. Cypr. ep 63. Ambros. super psa 38. Theoph. ad Hebr. 5. Anselm ibid. 10. c. Conc. Trid. sess 22. c. 1. 2. would neuer haue excepted against suche speeche as at a noueltie S. Chrisostom saithe Cùm videris sacerdotem offerentem ne ipsum consideres hoc facientem sed Christi manum inuisibiliter extensam when you behould the Preest offering do not considre him working this but Christs hand inuisibly extended S. Augustin saith ipse offerens ipse oblatio it is he Christ which offreth he is the oblation The same is affirmed by S. Cyprian Ambrose Theophilact Anselme the Councils of Lateran of Florence and of Trent All these witneses declare the speeche of Eusebius to be vsual and sound Eusebius him selfe testifieth it to be ancient for he liued anno 350. The third Pope must not be differeÌ„t in this point yf it were he that hacthed it For yf he hold in this other then we hould he could not be authour of this that we hould Marry Innocentius in dede telleth ther are three general sentences in this mater to witt of some that would haue consecration begon at the word Blessed of others that after of diuers that Christ consecrated by diuine vertue left a forme to consecrat for posteritie Of these the two first differr not otherwyse in the point of coÌ„secration but that one telleth it was begon in the first woords the other that such woords were rather a preparation then consummation of it I should thinke these two not to differr so muche as yf one would say you M. Rider came from your father the other that you came from your grandfather For all difference alleaged is of lesse diuersitie as being of what is beleeued to be the same substance wheras you are of distinct substance yea state as you came from your grandfather and father Your schoole point being the first and last sauoring any smack in logick for only two grammarian sentences cum multis alijs à tribus ad centum were hetherto heard of it also bewrayeth the authoure by being not apliable to an argument of authoritie but only of Maxims or grounds to be voyd of skill The arguments or schoole points to supporte any authoritie according to Aristotle are only Arist 2. Top. two 1. In vsu verborum sequenda est vulgi consuetudo 2. In sententia de rebus ferenda iudicium sapientium In vse of woords the custome is to be followed In sense of things the iudgement of the wyse is to be imbraced Your additions to the second opinion are more remote from sinceritie then your former schoole point from subtilitie The text of Innocent hath thus Nec etiam est credibile quod prius dederit quà m consecerit Nether also is it credibile that he gaue first befor he had accomplished Which being a palpable negation in playnest tearmes as euery halfe peny scholer may conceaue M. Rider ether for want of skill or for want of fidelitie maketh it an affirmation Verilye this ignorance or iugling deserueth at least to haue your hoode in the schole lane pull'd ouer your head I know not what should torment his mynde in the third sentence vnlesse it be that diuine vertue is asscribed to Christ or that he had left vs a forme to consecrat which two in Gods woord and godly mynds are vndoubted although in protestancie Christ is sayd to haue had no more diuine vertue then Socrates or
the third chapter of the Acts of the Apostles of purpose saith â—he to keep Christs presence from the altar wherat Caluin Illiricus and other protestants greatly murmured For the same cause Cal. in c. 26. Mat. v. 27. Colloq Monpelgartenseâ— in actis Vide Feuard in c. 1. Pet. l. 5. c. 16. Theomachâ—a Cal. Cureus in Spongiaâ— fol. 239. Erastus pag. 29. Aulakius 45. pag. Osiander con Morlinum Bauar con Selneccerum least thou shouldest haue any beleefe to receaue Christs blood Caluin telleth that they are furiously madd who affirme any blood to be longer conioyned with his fleash Wherby his scholers Aulakius Bauarus Cureus Erastus Osiander and the Antilutherans of Witberg affirmed that such blood is long since putrified and lost in earthe no longer in nature and is fruictles toward our saluation Wherat the Compt or Earle Mont-Belial sayd that his whole body trembled and the conference was presently debarred for suche fowle blasphemies by the Duke of Witemberg Notwith standing all this of M. Riders owne and his brethrens hate against the woords of Christs institution of so many mysteries of religion and testimonies of scripture so impiously distrusted disdayned abiured two things may seeme incomprehensible First how ministres can braue and face out with sugred and assured woords their hypochrisie Secondly how they can obtrud any longer their filthy fancies now so plainly discouered to their owne consciences and to all others who may so easely and by only natural sight behowld their abhomination In the mean tyme I end pronouncing my text since M. Rider to all mens view omitteth Christ institution Oh damnable heresie c. 69. So transubstansiation was neuer found in the new nor olde No Rider I do not remember that in al my Grammatical trauels studies that euer I read it Yet we contend with you not for names and words but for points articles of faith I can shew you Dictionaries many Grammers moe of diuers prints and in diuerse ages printed in seuerall Vniuersities of Christendome but none of them makes mention of this word transubstantiare much lesse of the sence which is to chaunge substances of seuerall kinds one substance into another VVhether Transubstantiation had bene anciently knowen And whether new names may consist with ould doctrine 69. IT may seeme the more strange that M. Rider Fitzimon who made such a Dictionarie wherin beyond Thomas Thomasius his pyke-deuant and all other lyke woords formerly vnknowen in dictionaries M. Rider found out turlererehiskum and diuers others as good ornaments to his sayd Dictionarie could yet not fynde the woord Transubstantiation But it is the lesse admirable that he that sought it had a vayle vpon his hart toward the effect of transubstantiation and a mist vpon his eyes toward the woord In all your brethrens writings against it by expresse name might you not haue found it Broualdt hath it saying in his Aphorisms Pag. 2. 26. that one named Lanfrancus Italian longe befor Innocent the third brought it in to the Church and after in the yeare 1051. it was established by Leon the ninthe in the Concil of Versel Might you not haue found it in Peter Martyr in Caluin and in the whole crue saying it not to haue bene befor Innocent the third which also your selfe often do professe And yet you say you neuer remembre to haue read it A better mynde will bring a better memorie In the meane tyme be recorder of your oune 67. vntruth 67. vntrueth But what meane you to thinke it strange not to fynd especialy in grammarian trauels and studies for ould beleefe but new names As for exemple in your owne profession you vse the name Ministre of the woord of which vse you haue not one instance in Scripture But rather where it is taken in a badd sense Mat. 26.58 Mar. 14.56.65 Ioan. c. 18.12.18.22 cap. 19.6 2. Cor. 11.15 Secondly none more often speake as of all other woords of doubtfull signification of the name In his sermons pag. 4. 12. VVestphal in apol pag. 5. Muscul in locis com pag. 292. Clebitius in victo argum 12. Sacrament yet Robert Bruce telleth that it is not vsed in Scripture nor to be vsed by Christians So doth Carolostadius Musculus Clebitius c. But at other tymes saith VVestphalus the Caluinists because they fynd the woord apt for them to shift and lurke vnder do greedely imbrace it I requyre remembrance be taken of this admonition when M. Rider will stand vpon the name Sacrament as vpon a brasen wall as Caluin tearmeth it So lykewyse of all tymes in our profession to signifie an ould beleefe with more efficacie a new tearme is imposed as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify Consubstantial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie the mother of God Transubstantiatio for the conuersion of bread and wyne into the fleash and blood of Christ In con Nic. In con Ephes. Conc. Trid. sess 13. c. 4. August epist. 174. Cic. l. 2. ad Heren c. which woords are to be measured according to the proprietie of them and the authoritie whence they proceed rather then according the antiquitie of them But because S. Augustin saith it is a most contentious part to contend about the name when the thing is knowen and as Cicero saith Calumniatorum proprium est verba consectari it is the proprietie of Cauillers to pursue woords by the definition of Transubstantiation we wil be instructed how sound and ancient it is 70. But brieflie Rider as the word cannot be found in Gods booke nor auncient Doctor so the sence hath neither warrant from holie Scriptures nor Catholicke writers For this is your opinion that after consecration which yet you know not what it is the substance of bread and wine should be conuerted into the naturall bodie and bloud of Christ the accidents of bread and wine as whitnesse roundnesse breadth weight sauor and taste of them onely remaining You may assoone and to as good a purpose prooue a transaccidentation as a transubstantiation But as there is no change of the former so not of the latter but a meere Fâ—iers fable and therefore friuolous And whereas the Fathers vse these words change conuersion mutation transelementation they alwaies expound themselues in their seuerall workes that it is a changing of the vse not of the substance neither can you shew anie one Father that euer ment such a change of one substance into another for euerie change of one thing into another carrieth not with it at all transubstantiation of one substance into another for there may be a change without conuersion of substances but conuersion of substances cannot bee without a change for there is as much difference betwixt change and transubstantiation as betwixt the generall the speciall for change is the generall and containes vnder it transubstansiation but not contrariwise And as there is a change of substances so there is a change of accidents to
wit of qualities of times of places of habits and such other like things according to their natures and to the predicaments vnder the which they are compreheÌ„ded These Logicall rudiments I hope you haue not forgotten Our regeneration is a change not substantiall but accidentall that is VVe confes a change of name of vse but onelie during the actioÌ„ not after to be a sacrament no more then water in the font after that baptisme is finished by the minister it is not a change of the substance of our bodies and soules into anie other substance but the change is in qualitie which is from vice to vertue from sinne to righteousnesse c. and this our change now in question is sacramentall not substantiall of the vse of the creatures not of the substance But if you will needes haue a change of substances speake like schollers and tell me for my learning in what predicament I shall seeke it and yet I thinke I shall neuer finde it But I will not bee tedious in transubstantiation seeing the great Rabbynes of Rome can no more agree vpon this then they could about consecration as also because we haue confuted it in such places where we prooue bread to remaine after consecration for so manie Fathers as prooue bread to remaine after consecration confute transubstantiation I will onelie giue the best minded Catholickes a taste of the rest of your late School-doctors by alleadging one Grand captain instead of the rest Whose words be these Magister Sent. lib. 4. diâ—t 11. pag. 58. Si tandem queritur qualis sit illa conuersio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis diffinire non sufficio But if it be asked mee saith this your great Moderator what kinde of change is made in the Sacrament whether it be formall or substantiall or of anie other kinde I am not able to define it vnto you Will you heare your owne friend Cuthb Tounstall Bishop of Dirrhum deliuer his opinion de modo De Eucharistia lib. 1. pag. 46. quomodo id fieret fortasse satius erat curâ—osum quemque suae relinquere coniecturae sicut liberum fuit ante concilium Lateranum Of the maner of this change or conuersion how it might be done perhaps it had been better to leaue euery man that would be curious to his own opinion or coniecture as iâ— was before the Councell of Laterane left at libertie Is this your antiquitie vniuersalitie and consent you see it is a jarring noueltie voide of veritie Why then will you take vpon you to teach that which you neuer learned and perswade the Catholickes to beleeue that which the chiefest on youâ— side maketh a doubt of nay all of your side cannot prooue nay which is in deed but a fable without trueth Absurdities follow the granting of Transubstantiation for one thousand two hundred yeares after Christ neuer heard of And therefore seeing it is neither Apostolicall nor Catholicke no mans consience is bounde to beleeue it Now I will onelie showe some grosse absurdities that followe the graunting of it and so proceed to the rest VVhat the sense is of Transubstantiation and how ould it is Fitzimon 70. TRansubstantiation in our purpose is a conuersion of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord Conc. Trid. loc cit and of the whole substance of wyne into the substance of his blood So that yf the Fathers euer taught the whole bread in substantial mater and forme to be conuerted in to the fleash of Christ and the wyne into his blood without any substantial part or parcel of them remayning they can not be denyed to haue taught Transubstantiation Vide Zuar 3. par q. 75. dâ—sp 50. sect 1. The name creation is added owt of S. Augustin de conseca d. 2. c. vtrum sub figura wherby is only intended what here in other woords others haue For the euidence wherof first let vs learne what names they vsed to expresse this conuersion For breuities sake I will only relate such as in the proofs of their opinions in Zuares are specifyed to witt A transmutation a making a creation a mutation a conuersion a translation a transelementation transformation a transmigration transfusion of bread and wyne into the body and blood of Christ. Euery one vsing the most forcible woord he bethought to testifie the same which the Concil of Trent doth say conueniently and properly to be called Transubstantiation Secondly note these few proofs of the primatiue Fathers and other Doctors perswasions Cyprian de caena Domini Firste S. Cyprian Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro The bread which Christ deliuered his disciples not in resemblance but in substance and nature changed by the omnipotencie of the woord is made fleash O confortable and Catholick testimonie of fourtene hondred yeares antiquitie Cyril Hierosolimit anus catechist 4. mystagogua S. Cyrill of Ierusalem Hoc sciens ac procertissimo habens panem hunc non esse panem qui videtur etiamsi gustâ—â— panem esse sentiat This knowing and howlding for most certayne this bread not to be bread which seemeth Ambros. de sacram l. 4. c 14. lib. 6. c. 1. althowgh the tast do the iudge it bread S. Ambros Panis iste panis est ante verba sacramentorum Vbi accesserit consecratio de pane 〈◊〉 caro Christi This bread is bread befor consecration but when it is consecraâ—â—d of bread it is made the fleash of Christ S. Augustin August dist 2. cap. hoc est de Consecr Caro eius est quam â—â—ma panis opertam in sacramento accipimus sanguis eius quem sub vini â—ecie sapore potamus It is his fleash which vnder the lyknes of bread couered â—e receaue in the Sacrament and his blood which vnder the shew and tast of â—yne we drinke S. Cyrill of Alexandria Cyril Alex. in Ioan. l. 4. c. 13. Qui videtur panis non est panis â—â—iamsi gustu ita appareat sed corpus Christi That which seemeth bread is not â—read although in tast it so appeare but the body of Christ Beda Beda lib. de mysterio mâ—sse Remigius in psal 21. Ibi sorma â—anis videtur vbi substantia panis non est There the forme of bread appeareth â—here the substance of bread is not S. Remigius Panis vinum à Chriâ—â—iana veritate dicuntur non quod naturam panis vini post consecrationem â—etineant sed quod nutriant Bread and wyne are sayd in Christian veritie â—ot that they retayne the nature of bread and wyne after consecration but that â—hey nourish S. Bernard Hostia quam vides iam non est panis Bernard de caena Domini sed caro â—â—ea similiter liquor iste quem vides iam non vinum sed sanguis meus Quemâ—dmodum
the administration of the Cupp didst not thow command thy collegue or compartner that in the face of the congregation he showld take the cupp from me by force And for that cause did not I howld it fast and with bothe my hands I know that others will lawgh at this disordre but I had rather haue them lament that in all this dissolut or disioynted glosse M. Rider the woords of Christs institution Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur c. this is my body which shal be deliuered for you c. can not be perceaued but in lieu therof our Lord and Saluiour is made to tripp from mater to mater without any one sillable to our purpose in question Wher is here shewed that bread after consecration remayneth still bread Wher is the satisfaction by the Euangelists and S. Paul that we must relye vnto in spyte of Pope and poperie What marrow or substance is in thes woords for any other then for a single Sintaxian to know that dedit and Fregit be actiue verbs and Datur and Frangitur be passiue c. For breuities sake I will not repeat the dismal hate of thes reformers against the woords of Christs institution which I haue alredy amply prosecuted in the 68. numbre yet will I not omitt Luthers verdict against his brethren saying they feare Luther tom 7. defen verb. caena fol. 383. least they should stumble and breake their necks at euery sillable which Christ pronownced And this maketh them range abowt through all the parts of learning and not to come to any issue in the mayne point of his sacred institution truely fullfilling the saying of the royal Prophet Psal 11. impij in circuitu ambulant the wicked wander in a circuit and lyke serpents troden on the heads or henns whose neckes are newly crackt they wreath and wrest vp and downe in manifould skippings spending wasting their small tyme to liue which by being quiet might some what longer continue Rider 78. Thus you see how distinctlie Christ disioynes them sundring them with their seuerall properties Bread and wine remain after consecration by Christ his testimony therefore transubstansiation is a forged and false fable inuēted by new Rome to support your new heresies of Christs carnall presence the signe from the thing signified not confounding them as you vntrulie teach yea after that Christ vttered hoc est corpus meum which you call your consecration Now let vs compare the phrase and words that the holie Ghost vseth in both the new Testament the old and then you will say they are so like that they are rather borrowed of the old testament then instituted in the new and of necessitie seeing they are both Sacraments of like words ordained by one Author to one end they must needs haue one sence so that the one will best expound the other the one being Sacramentall and relatiue the other cannot be Grammaticall and proper As it is said in the old (a) Gen. 17.10 Testament of the sacrament of circumcition hoc est pactum meū this is my couenant So it is said in the new (b) Math. 26.26 Testament by the same spirit hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie but as by those words like to these in sillables sound and sence there was no transubstansiation of the peece of flesh of the foreskin that was cut off into Gods couenant made with his Church so there is no naturall nor miraculous chaunge made of anie part of the bread or wine into Christs bodie and bloud Exod. 12. 1. Cor. 11.24 Exod. 24 8. And as it was said of the Paschall Lambe hoc erit vobis in memoriam this shall be to you a rememberance so it is said of the Lords Supper Doe this in rememberance of me And as it was said in the olde Testament hic est sanguis faederis This is the bloud of the couenant yet was not the couenant but à signe of the couenant Luc. 22.20 So is it said by Christ himselfe This cup is the new Testament in my bloud yet the cup was neither the Testament nor the bloud but a signe representation and rememberance of Christs bloud And the new Testament is an obligation or bond wherein God for his part binds himselfe with most sure couenaunts and seales it with word oath and Sacraments that hee will receiue into his protection and fauor the beleeuer and penitent And the beleeuer repentant of their parts binde themselues by like indented couenants to performe vnto his sacred Maiestie Rom. 1.5 a liuelie steadfaste faith with holy obedience Now the cup or the wine in the cup is a representation or commemoration vnto vs of this couenant of grace made in the newe Testament as the Paschall Lambe and the bloud of beasts were signes of Gods couenaunt in the old Testament This may suffice for the plaine and true vnderstanding of these words this is my bodie and this is my bloud beeing expounded according to the holie scriptures Now to your first proofe out of saint Paul Fitzsimon 78. It is an easie mater vpon all the premisses to tell vs You see you see when nothing is giuen to be seene but gross impietie futilitie I admonished you deere Readers that Reformers conceaued a Vatinian hatred against Christs institution Wil you now behowld a liuely demonstration therof First he saythe that the phrase and woords vsed therin is no new institution but borrowed owt of the owld testament Secondly that the Sacraments of the owld testament and new are so lyke as they must haue one ende and sence and the one not to be literal more then the other It is to be remembred which is mentioned in the 36. and 63. numbers that by Reformers opinion ther is noe more benifit by Christs Sacrament of the Altar then by the Iewish ceremonies which according to their translation Sainct Paul saith to haue bene only bare Galat. 4.9 and beggerly ordonances I request all curteouse readers to spare me the payne to relate the substance of such numbers in this place and that they will not proceed further vntill they haue perused what ther is fownd First then I aunswer that yf by similitud of speeche vsed in the figure and the thing figured should be gathered that they bothe were of equal sence ende and literalitie it would followe that all figurs of Christ in the owld testament were equal with Christ himselfe that the owld testament is as behooful as the new Note because they haue one authour one sence one ende one phrase and one literalitie accordinge to M. Rider Wherefore since Ioseph in the owld testament was called Saluator mundi the Saluioure of the world Genes 41.45 Ioan. 4.42 and Christ in the same Phrase by S. Ihon is called Saluator mundi they must haue on ende one sence one literalitie And therfor as Ioseph was noe
the 25. and 26 verses which all that you left out and cut off doth first deliuer Christs institutiō secondly expounds his owne meaning in euerie particuler point that is in controuersie betwixt vs and thirdlie ouerthrowes your opinions Now what mooued you thus to mangle cut off disioynt and dismember this place of Paul as you did with the text before let the Reader after my examination of your errors iudge But first I must deliuer you this generall rule obserued of allsound Diuines that al the Euangelists and Aposteles doctrine being pend by one spirit doe agree in the matter of the Sacrament one expounding another as partlie you heard a little before So that the three Euangelists must not be expounded to contradict Paul not Paul expounded to contradict them but all dulie and trulie in the spirit of humilitie being examined according to the Canon and rule of the word of God you shall finde neither darknesse in speech nor difficultie in sence but that the simplest may know Christs meaning Fitzsimon 80. What I haue aunswered in the 43. number against his accusations of any curtayling cutting by the wast and subtracting may abundantly serue for the lyke of my māgling cutting off disioynting dismembring this place All are but practises of the lapwing to crye a farr of most noysomly that you may thinke the nest of hir yongons to be ther wher it is least Which as it is there manifested so here it wil be approued Remember only his saying in this place that what I omitted expowndeth Christs meaning in euery particular point that is in controwersie betwixt vs and ouerthroweth our opinions And that for playn dealing I should haue begon at the 23. verse and so to the ende of the 29. verse Yf you aske him wherfor is he not contented with what I haue produced considering that he had the lesse to confute and was not bownd to aunswer to what was omitted he can aunswer nothing els but talk of omissions cuttings and curtaylings that others might not discerne but that he had aunswered pertinently Rider 81. You should haue begunne at the 23. verse and so to the end of the 20 verse and that had been plaine dealing Christs institution penned by Paul deliuers vs foure obseruations First Christ his action Secōndlie Christes precept Thirdlie Christs promise Fourthlie Christes caution 1. Christes action He gaue thankes brake bread tooke the cup c. 1. Take yee eate yee 2. Christes precept 2. This do as often as yee drinke it and both in rememberance of me 3. The minister must shewe and preach the Lords death till he come 3. Christes promise 1. This is my body which is broken for you 2. This is the new Testament in my bloud 4. Christes caution or caueat VVhosoeuor shall eate this bread or drinke this cup vnworthelie shall bee guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. Thus you see plainlie without anie dismembring or curtalling Christs action precept promise and caution deliuered out of the text Out of which place I obserue for the Catholickes better instruction and your confutation two things against you in this your skipping and curtalling of the text First the comforts you conceale from them by this mangling of the text A Discouerie of more puritantcie in M. Rider And of Puritan protestations how they are performed 81. FIrst he is conuicted by his owne woords Fitzsimon that he dealeth not playnly considering he nether begynneth at the 23. verse nor endeth at the 29. But will yow vnderstand the reason therof because S. Paul sayeth that him selfe had learned this institution from our Lord to witt by tradition and not in Scripture and that he had deliuered it formerly to the Corinthians by tradition and not by Scripture For I haue receaued of our Lord saith he which also I haue deliuered vnto you that our Lord in the night he was betrayed tooke bread and giuing thanks brake and sayd This is the 23. 1. Cor. 11. v. 23. verse Next M. Rider addeth to the woord brake the woord bread which is not in the text Thirdly by his diuision into an action a precept a promise a caution nothing toward any edification or proffit or learning is affoorded but a pranke discouered vnder the coulour of method to distract the mynd while he doth seperat the circumstances asondre which confirme Christs institution of the Sacrament to certifye his true body being present Fowerthly 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. this being the 24. verse take yee and eate yee this is my body which shal be deliuered for yow do this in my remembrance M. Rider vseth these sleights toward it First when he repeateth Christs precept he omitteth cleane do this in remembrance of me toward the bread and as was sayd in the 77. number of their care of the liquoure conioyned it to the drinke Fifthly he maketh Christs woords this is my body to be but a promise let euery vnderstanding determine whether not vnreasonably and vnlearnedly The 25. verse is lykewyse and the chalice after he had supped saying 1. Cor. 11. v. 25. this chalice is the new testament in my blood do this as often as yow shall drinke in my remembrance Of this verse he hathe wholy omitted the first halfe as also of the next halfe the name of chalice After drinke he addeth the sillable it Which being once doone by me in the 51. number thus he controwled my addition this sillable it altereth the sence and peruerteth Christs meaning c. Then he placeth according his former skill such woords among promises The 26. verse is For as often as yee shall eate this bread and drinke this chalice you shall annownce the death of our Lord till he come 2. Cor. 11. v. 26. All this verse is intierly ouer-slipped as nether action precept promise nor caueat So that his deuision is ether defectiue as not comprehending all parts or his dissimulation notorious in omitting what might be comprehended as well vnder the precept as any thing els and better vnder the caution or caueat then what is by him contayned Marie I fynde the speeche of a Minister his preaching substituted in place of the forsayd verse which vpon my credit is nether in greeke or latin text nor euer dreamed of by Apostle Euangelist Concil Doctor Father But it is only the pure Puritancie of Thomas Cartwright l. 1. pag. 158. to affirme it a necessarie and essential part of the Communion yet therof thus sayth the aunswer of Oxford to the Puritans Petition pag. 11. But that it should be ministred with a sermon is absurd and hath bred in many a vayne and false opinion as yf not the woord of Christs institution but rather the woord of a Ministers exposition were a necessarie and essential part of Communion O how impossible it is for M. Rider but to be knowen a puritan Now let him take what he can get therby The 27. verse Therfor whosoeuer shll eate this
Luke 1.6 against iustification c. So that Greeke againste Latin is a bare pretense and corruption only is by them intended For the blessinge consecratinge fie vpon this prophane tearme of charminge of Chalices S. August l 3. con Cresen c. 29. in Psal 113. S. August who by Caluins testimonie is fidelissimus atque optimus testis antiquitatis the most faithful principal witnesse of antiquitie corypheus theologoruÌ„ the ring-leader of Diuines as they can not denie thus writeth Sed et nos pleraque instrumenta vasa ex auro et argento habemus in vsum celebrandoruÌ„ Sacramentorum quae ipso ministerio consecrata sancta dicuntur But we haue the most part of our instrumeÌ„tes and vessels belonging to the administringe of the Sacraments of gould and siluer which by theire verye application are caled holye They were so rich in time of grace and charitie Theodoret l. 3. cap. 11. Vidâ— Prudent de S. Lauren. as that pagan Emperours and theire Secritaries in admiration cryed out Ecce quam sumptuosis vasis filio Mariae ministratur Behould in what sumptuous vessels they honour the sonne of Marie But one woorde more of this matter out of Theophilact Theophil in cap 14. Marci saying Qui igitur abstulerit discum pretiosum et cogit vt corpus Christi in vili ponatur pretexens scilicet pauperes intelligat cuius partis sit He that wil take away the pretious plate and force that the body of Christ be placed on a more abiect pretending forsooth the poore let him knowe of whose faction he is namelye of Iudas as he sayeth who found fault with coste bestowed for lyke pretense on Christ But are the sanctified iustified and elected reformers culpable in this poynt Let one of them selues and he of the cheefest informe the trueth Clebitius in sua victoria veritatu ruma papatus saxonici argum 14. Clebitius therfor cheefe Zuinglian minister of Heidelberg writeth this of Heshusius VVhen the siluer pixes were moulten and made away he caused others to be made of woodd and reserued his eucharistical bread in a wodden one and the same so sluttish as was not good inowgh for a cowheard to putt his butter in it For the antiquitie of pixes Calu. l. 4. Instit. c. 17. n. 39. Caluin assureth first Church and first Christianitie to haue allowed and beloued them Behould how contrarious to all christianitie yet how couragious is M. Rider how coÌ„formable in him selfe and his brethren to Iudas his pretenses yet how aduenturous to seeme a reformer of abuses 91. Out of which I obserue that you would couer Rider Bread remaines after Consecration and therefore no carnall presence likewise the Cup therefore noe Transubstantiation in either and conceale that which ouerthrowes your carnall presence for if bread remaine after consecration then there is no carnal presence but breade remaineth after consecration therfore ther is no carnal presence And because this verse shweth to the worlde that there is bread after consecration therfore you cutt off that part of the verse which is verie deceitfully donne And leaue this woorde breade out after consecration to blinde the eyes of the simple And also you cut off the next wordes to couer other two errors the wordes be these Or drinke the Chalice of the Lorde vnvvorthely 91. When I make a Puritan treatise Fitzsimon representing as I sayd in the 76. number the frogg-galyard rebownding vp and downe from one point to another without euer following ether one tune or tenoure I will not cowche or comprise that which is precisely pertinent but followe and alleage testimonies of all coulours But being of other determination and hauing a particular controuersie to examin as now only of the real and substantial presence of Christs body and not of communion vnder both forms or the lyke I thought good as men when they make a nosegay doe not collect all hearbes therin but such as are sufficient for sent and varietie to that present vse to dwell in my text and only to cumble or gather what belonged properly to that one point in question without rangeing prolixitie or tergiuersation Is this a fault Yf it be there was neuer allowable writer but both omitted it and commended it Well what stuffe is now obiected against vs. Mary S. Paul speaking of the Sacrament nameth it still bread therfor it is not Christs natural body I am fully perswaded this obiection to be so aunswered in the 56. number and in the 62. that the repetition of Riders obiection in this place Vide num 118. is rather to blott paper to fill emptie place to cauil and delude then for any difficultie remayning therin For there I shewed by seueral Scripturs things to beare the name of what they are representations Tob. 2. Exod. 7. Gen. 19. Ioan. 2. Gen. 2. or from what they were changed as Raphael is called a yong man a Serpent is called a rodde a piller of salt is called Lotts wyfe wyne is called water Eua is called a bone of Adam and fleash of his fleash So here Christs body is called bread both for the representation and for being made of bread or succeeding the substance of bread yet cleerly in this place is it expressed not with standing such name to be the body of Christ by saying 1. Cor. 11. that by eating this bread and drinking this cupp vnworthely they are guiltie of the body and blood of Christ himselfe because they did not discerne the body of our Lord his body which was to be deliuered to death c. All which significations vttered by S. Paul in the same place to certifie the name of bread not to specifie bread but Christs body this obiection may be thought out of date and as a crackt grot not lawfull or currant any longer Because not to any desert of M. Riders trauails but to Iesus Christ I deuote my tyme imployed in this aunswer I will now beyond sufficiencie in this cause tender these woords of S. Cyrill of Hierusalem in Catechesi mystagogica 4. Non sic attendas haec velim tanquam sint nudi simplex panis nudum simplex vinum corpus enim sunt sanguis Christi Nam etsi sensus aliud tibi renuntiat fides tamen te confirmet I would not haue you conceaue that it is bare and simple bread bare and simple wyne for although thy sense conceaue otherwyse yet let thy fayth confirme thee So that how soeuer bread be named or appeare bread to the sences yet the thing so called is assured to be Christs sacred bodie But it is expedient to haue M. Rider him selfe brought to disable his owne obiection He then in the 62. number thus speaketh It is the vsual maner of the holy Ghost in all Sacraments both of the ould testament Caâ—eat numb 62. and new to tearme the visible signe by the name of the thing signifyed as Circumscision
committeth high treason against Christ though in deed in substance they receiue but bred and wine And as a man may be guiltie of treason in renting defacing or clipping the kings picture seale or coine though the king be not locallie in place so the wicked in the Sacraments which are Christ seales which being abused by them they are guiltie of Gods iudgements though Christ be not inclosed locallie in the bread and wine And what Chrysostome speaketh here of the Lords Supper the same hee doth of Baptisme and saith a man may be as well guiltie of the Lords bodie and bloud in cōtemning Baptisme which is but a seale of his washing in the bloud of Christ though hee neuer washed but in water and alleadgeth Paul Heb. 10 29 saing Of how much sorer punishment suppose yee shal be be worthy which treadeth vnder foot the sonne of God counteth the bloud of the testament as an vnholie thing c. These Fathers haue aunswered you and I hope will satisfie fullie the indifferent Reader Now three sorts of men are guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. The first are plaine Atheists that are without God or godlinesse in this present world and such eate this bread vnworthelie and therefore are guiltie of Christes bodie and bloud 2. The second sort haue a historicall faith and a generall knowledge Thre sorts of mē guilty of the Lords bodie and beleeue that whatsoeuer is taught in Gods booke is true but they lacke apprehension and application to make a particular and holy vse of the same and therefore if such come and eate of this bread they are guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. 3. The third sort haue a liuelie apprehending and applying faith yet in their life they slippe and fall yea sometimes verie grieuouslie yet they awake and weep with Peter and repent for the same All these are said to eate vnworthelie but the first two sorts vnto their condemnation The third sort for their faults frailties negligences and vndue preparation are in this life of the Lord corrected least with the world they should be damned The two first sorts eateth onelie the outward elemēts the last sort eateth the bodie of Christ and drinketh the bloud of Christ And now to your second proofe out of Saint Paul VVhether it be treason to breake Images Fitzsimon 96. YF as he in this place affirmeth a man may be guiltie of treason in renting defaceing or clipping the kings picture seale or coyne though the king be not localy in place then consequently and necessarilie they must be guiltie of treason toward God who rent deface or clipp his pictures seales or coyne The necessitie of such sequel or inference is apparent considering that any abuse or contempt in the resemblance of a prince is not more iniurious to a prince then the lyke in a representation of God is to God Nether was there other cause why God did punish Oza 2. Reg. 6. 13. but prophaning resemblances of him contayned in the arke and all others that sacrilegiously misbehaued them selues not only toward his figures yea shadowes but also toward vesselles and ornaments belonging to them Now then tell plainly M. Rider will you stand to your words or recant them what say you Neuer thinke sayth S. Cyprian ep 73. because you haue once fayled that you should therfor blush to reuoke What say you shall his discourse be starling or noe Me thinke I behould you frowning fretting at me for seeming to thinke that you would euer reclayme Your conclusion therfor is that treason is cōmitted by iniurie to the pictures persons alyke Then woe and well away to all your brethren image-breakers Then woe and well away to VValer the murtherer vnder-minister of Swoords who hanged on a gibbet the picture of Christ crucifyed anno 1603. Then woe and well away to M. Rider who only to haue stones to build an ouen to bake bread to impouerish bakers of the citie not hauing idely or without price seuenten hondred barrells of corne yearly as he hath pull'd downe the fayre crosse in S. Patricks which all others his predecessors of that profession had permitted vnuiolated and to the same vse to haue fyer pull'd downe all the trees therin This sentence of his giuen against him selfe brethren made his owne sonn mense Maio 1604. when he attempted to pull downe ane image to be by Gods iudgment precipitated from a height and altogether crushed and at the same tyme his seruant to be stricken with the plague c. This sheweth that it is noe greater treason against a king to abuse and despise his picture then against Christ to prophane and distroye his images What needed this moth to intermedle with the candle of learning wherby his wyngs are so often scortched What needed him to implie that abusers of the communion according to his surmise being but a bare representation of Christ shal be punished with equal torments with such as nayled him on the Crosse Where then will the final Rende vous of Protestants be who haue abused other his representations images appellations as well expressing his death as the Protestant Sacrament I can not choose but say with the Poet. Ingratum genus vestrum quicunque forenses Admiramini plausus Euripides Hecuba ex versione Gasparis Stiblini vtinam non essetis mihi cogniti Qui nihil pensi habetis amicos laedere Modo dicatis grata multitudini O hatefull race of Mercenarie mates Searching applauds ô that I knew you not Not waying how you harme your frends throwgh hates So you the peoples itching eares befott But by the waye what meaneth this often tearming of Sacraments to be but seals and especialy by them who by their profession are bound to beleeue that they nether seale the body nor soule that they nether bring fayth nor confirme it that they are nether fruictfull nor needfull Yf otherwyse we be myndfull of Christ Ochinus apud Andream Iurgiewicium in bello quinti Euangelij pag. 102. Ochinus resolueth Spiritu Dei non Sacramentis fidem confirmari By the spirit of God and not by Sacraments fayth to be confirmed Yf seales be accepted in stidd of Sacrament because this woord is not in Scripture as your brethren before determine tell vs so playnly and we will not inforce you to grawnt that your Supper of the Lord which your great Doctor P. Martyr sayth in respect of the tyme it is receaued P. Martyr in 1. Cor. c. 11. pag 293. 294. and of your emptie stomacks should with greater reason be called a breakfast or dyner is a Sacrament Now as I tould you befor such hate is conceaued alredy among the Reformers against this woord Sacrament as it is conuenient you abstayne from it For they say Bruces sermons pag. 4. 126. VVestphal in apol pag. 5. Pag. 126. about the ambiguitie of this word are rysen many tragedies which will not cease whyle the world lasts that
and the Catholickes but these necessarie question drawne out of this your owne opinion 1. First by what scripture do you prooue that you are Apostles 2. Secondlie by what scripture doe you prooue that you are Priests 3. Thirdlie by what scripture doe you prooue your commission to consecrate Challices 4. Fourthly by what scripture doe you prooue that the holie bloud of Christ is an effect of your benediction of the cup. 5. Lastlie by what scripture prooue you that this blessing or thanksgiuing is referred to the Challice and not to God Apostles ye are not Gall 1. 1. Cor. 9.1 2. Acts. 9.15 Rom. 1.2 Vnlesse you prooue these points by canonicall scriptures to be true which you shall neuer doe they bind no mans conscience to beleeue them or you Against the first I thus obiect that you are no Apostles thus I prooue it A true Apostle must be called by Christ immediatlie and that you are not He must see the Lord Iesus in the flesh which you haue not He must haue his immediat commission from Christ to preach euerie where which neither Priest Semynarie Iesuit Cardinall not Pope can haue Gall. 2. Ephes. 8. as your owne consciences full well doth know and therefore you are not Christs Apostles The true Apostles were equall in authoritie you disdaine it nay more you haue made against this a new article of the Popes supremacie and whole volumes of Cardinals Primacies Iesuits Excellencies and Priests Soueraignties Tertulian contra Marcion But I will say to you as Tertullian saide to Marcion the hereticke If you bee Prophets foretel vs some things to come if that you be Apostles preach euery where and agree with the Apostles in doctrine For whosoeuer preach not the same doctrin the Apostles did haue not the same commission the Apostles had But you late Priests and Iesuits preach not the same doctrine the Apostles did Iesuits and Priests be no Apostles Priests ye are not First Because yee will not offer the flesh of beasts therefore you haue not the same commission the Apostles had The maior hath not difficultie the minor is so plaine it needs no proofe the conclusion is ineuitable We read of foure kinds of Priests in Gods Booke three of them in the old Testament and one in the new The first after the order of Aaron and one other after the order of Melchisedech and the third after the order of Baall After Aarons order you wil not be And after Melchisedechs you can not be And concerning the third order I would you were as free from the ydolatrie of that false order as you would be free of the imputation of their heresies The last parte of the Catholicks proofe by scripturs for the real Presence Fitzsimon 97. A Serpent that is crushed in the head wresteth and wryeth him selfe vp and downe infoulding his whole body into many vaine circles and turnings withall his strugling purchasing nothing els but that others may coÌ„ceaue the extremitie of his payns M. Rider being wholy suppressed with this powerfull testimonie of Scripture S. Chrysost hom 24. in 1. Cor. that the chalice of benediction as S. Chrysostom also calleth it is the coÌ„munion of the blood of Christ and the bread a participation of his fleashe with manyfowld wreathings tumbleth vp and downe to talke of all by-maters wishing vs to proue that we are Apostles that we are preists that chalices may be consecrated that the holy blood of Christ is an effect of our benediction c. But especialy he is trubled that a woord by vs was miswritten blesse for breake exclayming at it as at the most wicked infidelitie in the world This is he who sayd in the 51. number that he was sorie that he must tell vs our fault and yet here so carpeth at a fault of no importance This is he who in telling it committeth tenne tymes a greater errour then it For first euen in this point and all his printed bookes where he should haue sayd the communication of the blood of Christ he deliuereth the communication not of the blood but of the body of Christ and next the very woord blesse which he was now to reprehend he deliuereth as yf he were thinking vpon some sister in the Lord of that name Besse I say nothing els therto but that your Fidd for so I thinke you are wont to name Fideworth your wyfe might inioye your mynde alone from all Besses and busines that your bonds and bragnes can not brooke and consequently contayne your homelines in homely maters without ingageing them in schole points wherin euen by your phisnomie you are denyed to haue any interest Such as is this confusion he sustayned abowt the sillable it as appeareth in the 51. and 76. number by aggrauating small and harmlesse tripps of the penne and in that selfe same reprehension through Gods prouidence toward dissemblers he not only tripping but stumbling and tumbling into greuous inconueniencies him selfe Concerning the perfection of the latin translation and the excellencie therof aboue any greeke now extant to much is sayd for any satisfaction due to M. Rider as also for the woord Blesse and blessing of creaturs and consecration of chalices n. 90. in which mater S. Cyprian speaketh cleerly saying Calix solemni benedictione sacratus S. Cyprian de cana Domini Vide n. 101. the chalice consecrated by solemne benediction and other extrauagant controuersies both sufficiently and abundantly is already propounded both for resolution concerning them and for manifesting that as weake and bedred people neuer consist quyet but turne from syde to syde seeking repose so M. Rider diuerteth from matter to matter to depestre and quyet his diseased or crased cause and conscience neuer remayning on the point incontrouersie I would confute his saying in the margent that only Christ was a preist according Melchisedeches Ordre yf any one proofe were brought to make it seeme probable Against his bare saying let it now suffice that as long as ether Sacrifice or Sacrament of bread and wyne remayne by vertu of Christs woords do this in remembrance of me so long must others besyd Christ be preists accordinge the ordre of Melchisedech Rider Secondly none after Mâ—lchisedechs order but Christ onely 98. Now (a) 1. Pet 29. Exod. 19.6 Saint Peter in the new Testament setteth downe a fourth order of Priests which is a kinglie or royall Priesthood but that is spirituall not carnall inward not outward common to all beleeuers not proper as you imagine to anie naturall order or ecclesiasticall function For this is sound diuinitie which you shall neuer disprooue that the office of sacrificets and sacrificing is either singular to Christ in respect of his sacrifice propitiatorie onelie vppon the crosse or else common to all true Christians in respect of their spirituall sacrifices of praise and thanksgiuing neither shall you euer finde this word Sacerdos euer applied in the new Testament to any Ecclesiasticall order and function
cupps that we are maintayned in glorie and therby many Catholicks beggered that Christs blood is an effect of our consecration that our diuinitie is hellishe and damnable and fitt to be taught in hell that we can not proue the benediction to belong to the cupp that the first Fathers neuer heard of such our doctrin To all which I can say no lesse The 93. vntruth then that all these being most vntrue may by liberal allowance stand vp for the 93. vntrueth Verilie neuer did I reade before to my knowledge so many disioynted maters shuffled together without method or measure but some one of them at least would haue relation to the subiect in discourse Now let all men ad women iudge what haue all these related points to doe with our controuersie of wyne to be the communication of the blood of Christ and bread to be the participation of his fleashe Or how do all these tergiuersations auoyd impugne or reproue that which is in controuersie 101. Chrisostome vpon this place calleth it the cuppe of blessing Rider because when we haue it in our hands with admiration and a certain horror of that vnspeakable gift Chry. super 1. Cor. 10. we praise and blesse him because he hath shed his bloud that we should not remaine in error and hath not onelie shed it but made vs all partakers of it In like sort did Photius and Occumenius expounde this word which wee blesse Photius Oecumenius which hauing in our handes blesse him which hath graciously giuen vs his bloud that is we giue him thanks or which we prepare when we blesse or giue thankes Now the Catholickes may see by the auncient fathers whom your selues doe brag of that they condemne your cup blessed exposition And the Catholickes may see aâ— in a glasse that wee ioine with the scriptures fathers in the true sence of these words The cup which we blesse and that your exposition is erronious and superstitious and therefore to be recanted by you and shunned by the Catholickes and my reasons be drawne out of the foresaid fathers not made on my owne fingers Fitzsimon 101. S. Chrysostom aduertiseth to all the world that you here deliuer the 94. â—he 94. vntruth S. Chrysost in c. 5. Math. hom 11. vntruth both because he hath no such matter as you inferr as also because els where he hath expresly the contrarie Saying Si enim vasa sanctificata ad priuatos vsus transferre peccatum est periculâ—m sicut docet nos Balthazar qui bibens in calicibus sacratis de regno depositus est de vita Si ergo haec vasa sanctificata ad priuatos vsus transferre sic periculosum est in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis eius continetur quanto magis vasa corporis Christi c. If then it be synne and danger to transferre sanctifyed note well M. Rider for euery clause of this speeche will wounde your profession vessells as Balthazar teacheth vs who drinking in sanctifyed chalices was deposed from kingdome and lyfe yf then to transferre these sanctifyed vessels to priuat vses be so dangerous in which not the true body of Christ but the mysterie of his body was contayned how much more the vessells of the body of Christ c. Here you haue sanctification of vessels such not to be prophaned Christ to be otherwyse with vs then with the Israelits and our vessels to haue his true bodye How lyke you all these toward your imaginations Photius you produce against your selfe by his saying that Christ gratiously giueth vs his blood Why then he giueth not only a figure of his blood Oecumenius hath noe such mater as neuer expounding any woord beyond the 9. chapter of S. Pauls epistle to the Corinthians ether of the second or the first And so is discouered the 95. The 95. vntruth vntruth Where are the promised citations of books and chapters leaues and lynes Whether you or I will or noe our dealings wil be iudged when we deale vnsincerly and impiouslie For other exclamations of such citations and discourses I can not thinke them conuenient when your dealings are so notorious only I will intreat the glorious S. Augustin S. Aug. l. 2. de Ciu. c. 1. â— 5. c. 27. to giue you your aunswer and let you be gone Quorum dicta contraria si toties velimus refellere quoties obnixa frome statuerint non curare quid dicant dum quocumque modo nostris disputationibus contradicant quam sit infinitum erumnosum infructuosum vides Facile est cuiquam videri respondisse que tacere noluerit Aut quid est loquacius vanitate Quae non ideo potest quod veritas quia si noluerit tacere etiam plus potest clamare quam veritas VVhose contrarie sayings yf we sayth S. Augustin would refell as oft as they with an impudent forhead neglect what they affirme so that any way they contradict our disputations how infinit toylsome and how fruictles it is you behould It is easie for euery one to see to aunswer what he cowld not conceale And what is more talkeatiue then vanitie Yet therfor it can not compare with trueth because yf it will not be silent it can exclame more then truth 102. First he saith that benediction blessing or thanksgiuing Rider is referred to him that shed his bloud for vs I hope you will not say the cup shed anie bloud for vs. 2. Secondlie this father saith that blessing God and praising God is all one and therefore when we say the cup of thanksgiuing we follow Christ Paul the Greek text and the olde fathers And when you translate it The challice of benediction it is flat contraire to Christ Paul veritie and antiquitie And there is as great difference betwixt your opinion and the old fathers faith as betwixt praising with mouth and crossing with fingers nay as much as betwixt your superstitious challice and our soulesauing Christ for so if you marke the fathers words the difference stands The text it selfe offers vs three things in a comfortable distinction and you would confound them with your new imagined transubstantiation 1. The first is Christs bodie crucified and his bloud shed with all his purchased benefits 2. Secondlie our communion fellow ship which all beleeuers haue in that crucified Christ and those soulesauing merits 3. Thirdly the outward seals of those benefits which are called The cup which we blesse and the bread which we breake to witnesse to the world and to confirme to our selues the fruition and possession of all those benefits Now if I should say that the bread cup being outward seals were our coÌ„munion with Christ the wicked would laugh at my folly though the godly would pittie my ignorance in the trueth or my malice against the trueth and the reason is this because the seals be things outward and the communion of Christs bodie and
haue bene a notable and famous Concil Cartwr l. 1. pag. 93. And in the same place taxeth it for errours in discipline This aduertisement sheweth in general this Concil to haue displeased them Now to the particular application to our coutrouersie We say this testimonie sheweth on our syde First that priests offer a sacrifice which deacons could not and consequently that it could not be only a thanksgiuing bothe because such Sacrifice of thanksgiuing belonged to all alyke as soone to a Deacon as a priest as also because it could not be exhibited into the mouthe of another Secondly that this Sacrifice is the very body of Christ But all this saith M. Rider is nothing because the Concil maketh mention of a Sacrament and Eucharistial Euery twiggs shaddow is a gratefull shelter to a Ionas in extremitie But this small consolation wythereth by these woords of S. Gregorie recorded in the decretals Ob id Sacramenta dicuntur quia sub tegmento corporalium rerum diuina virtus secretius salutem eorundem sacramentorum operatur Vnde à secretis virtutibus Decret 1. pars causa 1. quest 1. c. Multi Secularium vel sacris Sacramenta dicuntur Quae ideo fructuosè penes Ecclesiam fiunt quia sanctus in ea manens Spiritus eorundem Sacramentorum latemer operatur effectum Cuius panis calicis Sacramentum graecè Eucharistia dicitur Latinè bona gratia interpretatur Et quid melius Corpore Sanguine Christi For that are they tearmed Sacraments because vnder the couerture of corporal things diuine veritie more secreatly doth operat the health of the sayd Sacraments VVhich therfor are fruictfully made in the Church because the holy Ghost their remayneing doth woorke the effect secretly of the sayd Sacraments of which the Sacrament of bread and the chalice is in greeke called the Eucharist which in latin is interpreted good grace And what is better then the Body and Blood of Christ By which sweete and sownde testimonie M. Rider as a conye is ferreted out of all his euasions For the being Eucharistial and the being a Sacrament and the names of bread and wyne are fownde to consist with the body and blood of Christ and rather to atestifie it then to exclude it because Sacraments haue their names from sacred and secret good included vnder the couerture of corporal things Which is verefyed in our Sacrament included vnder the forme or couerture of bread and wyne S. Chrysostom 1. Cor. ho. 24. both elder then S. Gregorie and also a naturall Grecian signifyeth the sence of Eucharistical to be all one and hallowed or blessed saying Cum benedictionem dico Eucharistiam dico VVhen I say benediction I say the Eucharist Your Supper indureth no benediction therfor it can not be signifyed by the word Eucharist nor the word Eucharist belong therto so that by degrees all words belonging to this Sacrament as Sacrament it selfe signe spiritual Eucharistical mystical are as ernestly abandowing your profession as by it the substance of Sacraments is abandoned In the meane tyme the forsayd testimonie confirmeth also that thanksgiuing in this Sacrament is rather to be taken for benediction then benediction for thanksgiuing Concilium Ephesinum in Epist. ad Nestorium Catholick Priests And this had 20◠Fathers VVe approach to the misticall benedictions and we are sanctified being partakers of the holie bodie and precious bloud of Christ 104. THis your proofe is trulie quoted pag. 535. the Epistle beginneth thus Rider Religioso Deo amabili consacerdoti Nestorio Cyrillus c. The Councell calleth it a mistical benediction no miraculous transubstantiation And this neither prooues your opinon nor disprooues ours for you say yee are made partakers of the holie bodie and precious bloud of Christ and so say we but you say with the late church of Rome that you are made partakers of that holie bodie and precious bloud by your mouth teeth throat and stomacke And we sey with Scriptures Fathers and the old Church of Rome that we are made partakers of Christs bodie and bloud by the hand mouth and stomack of our soules which is a liuelie faith in Christ crucified as you haue heard before And thus you referre that to the visible parts of the bodie as your mouth teeth and stomacke which the scriptures and fathers meant of the inuisible powers of the soule as our liuelie faith being the spirituall hand mouth and stomacke thereof And heere is your errour of the second kinde And so your two testimonies out of these two Councels are proofes neither proper nor pertinent brought onelie to dazell the eies of the simple and to amase the minds of the weake But I referre the badnesse of your cause and the weaknesse of your proofes nay your disproofes to the censure of the indifferent Reader Onelie giuing the Reader this note by the way that these Councels were called by the Emperour not by the Pope nay the Pope was not president in these Councels but other Bishops chosen by the Emperour And in the Councell of Nice the Popes Legat had but the fourth roome no better account was made of him For in deed he then was no Pope but an Archbishop Thus the Reader may see that these Councels be against you And now to your testimonies out of the fathers The second parte of the second proofe of the Concil Ephesin 104. THe force of this testimonie appertayning to proue Fitzsimon that by the mystical benedictions we are made partakers of the very holy body blood of Christ and consequently that there should be benedictions vsed in this mysterie and that we should not thinke what is here sanctifyed Isa 3. c. v. 3. contayneth only a bare figure and only a bare appellation of such body and blood All this he auoydeth without any difficultie because forsooth the woord mystical is founde together with the residue Certainly it is a rare exception as yf one would say in the third chapter of Esaias third verse there is mention Eloquij mystici of mystical speeche therfor in such chapter and verse there is noe literal veritie For what hindrance to our controuersie is the woord mystical I finde in the last euidence of S. Gregorie that the Eucharist by whom soeuer good or badd it be dispensed yet is a Sacrament quia Spiritus sanctus mysticè illud viuificat because the holy Ghost doth quicken it mysticaly By which is demonstrated that the woord mystical doth rather helpe then hinder our pourpose and rather hinder then helpe their imaginatiō who denye any thinge to be mysticaly quickned by the holy Ghost in this mysterie What other string hath M. Rider to his bowe to trott forsoothe to the Popes supremacie and to fayle as filthelye in that as in the rest Of which supremacie there followeth a peculiar article wherin it is to be amply discussed First who tould you M. Rider that the Popes legat had but the fowerth seat in the Concil of Nice Where
bloud of the Lord. But of this we haue sufficientlie spoken before And thus now the Reader may be sufficientlie satisfied that the change is not naturall but misticall not of substance but of accidents and qualities And so bread remaineth in substance but is changed in misterie And so is bread made the flesh of Christ not by your miraculous transubstantiation but by mistical Apostolicall benediction or sanctification not in changing the nature of it but adding grace to it as beforesaid And thus Ambrose hath aunswered Ambrose And if you would read him without partiall affection hee would withdraw you from this your imagined opinion But now to that which followeth The 8. parte of the second proofe of S. Ambrose 112. FIrst he affirmeth that all we produce out of S. Ambrose is true yet that we want in woords our purpose of Transubstantiation He might be ashamed to disable the right honorable Deputie and Concile to whom he dedicated his booke in exhibiting before their eyes the most manifest the most palpable and the most forcible allegation that could be imagined for transubstantiation and such one as possibly can not be true but transubstantiation must be acknowleged yet to dazel their eyes and delude their iudgements as yf he would perswade them they did noe wyse see in those woords what all iudgements must needs conceaue vnlesse they were bewitched For what is transubstantiation but a conuersion of one substance into another noe thing of the former substance remayning And in these woords of S. Ambrose is not it sayd that bread was before consecration and not remayning after it but contrarywyse that it is made the fleash of Christ and consequently transubstantiated Are not the woords following selected out of S. Ambrose to testifie by example a conuersion of one substance into another therby to perswade our beleefe of such conuersion of bread into Christs body This is to vse the L. Deputie and Concil as the Iewes vsed Christ in buffeting their profession with mayne stroakes in the meane tyme as yf they had bene buffmen blynde demanding them that they should tell what had smitten them or bene against them Or rather inforceing them to beleeue by such stroakes they had not bene harmed but rather greatly pleasured and much aduantaged For S. Ambrose the easier to proue such conuersion of bread and wyne he exemplifyeth by many other conuersions of Moises rodde into a Serpent the riuers of Egipt into blood of the read sees into that firme soliditie that they stood of them selues diuided of Iordan returning against nature backward c. after which he bringeth the creation of heauen and earthe made of nothing by the puissant woords of God Wherupon he inferreth If Gods woord could make things to be which were not how much more can he make of things that were things to be And by consequent how vnchristian is it to thinke but his woords this is my body this is my blood do not conuert bread and wyne into his body and into his blood And then he concludeth Ergo tibi vt respondeam non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem S. Ambros l. 4. de sacram c. 4 5. lib. 6. c. 1. sed post consecrationem dico tibi quod iam Corpus est Christi Therfor that I may resolue the it was not the body of Christ before consecration but after consecration I say vnto thee that now it is the body of Christ. 2. Cor. 6.15 What societie is there betwixt light and darknes what agreement betwixt Christ and Belial what participation betwixt the faythfull and the Infidel that is betwixt S. Ambrose and M. Rider S. Ambros telling by so many proofes and examples a true conuersion in so significant woords of bread into Christs body by consecration M. Rider denying such conuersion and such consecration Nay beleeue him and Ambrose hath not a woord against him but yf he were redd saythe he without partial affection he would withdraw vs from our opinion and make vs thinke no otherwyse then as good Protestants With what affection then did Causeus and the Centuriasts Causeus dial 8. 11. centur 3. c. 4. pag. 54. 81. Calu. in libello de caena de vera reformat Zuingl to 1. Epichir de Canone missae fol. 183. Cartwr l. 2. pag. 513. lib. 1. pag. 94. S. Hilar. l. 1. de Trinit read him when they sayd he was be witched by the deuil With what affection did Caluin and Zuinglius read him when they professed he stood for Papists in establishing this incruental Sacrifice With what affection did Cartwright read him when he sayd the bringing in of his authoritie was a mouing and sommouing of Hell and that he held diuers things corruptly But because all may know who is a good reader without partial affection I will defyne him in the woords of S. Hilarie Optimus ille lector est qui non cogit illud dictis contineri quod ante lectionem praesumserit ad intelligendum sed qui doctorum intelligentiam expectat He is the best reader who doth not wreast that to be contayned in euidences which he before presumed to be vnderstood but he who expecteth the exposition of Doctours Now S. Ambrose by Catholick and Protestant Doctours is allotted and assigned to me against Protestantcie whether then of vs haue read him without partial affection This saying therfore against such authoritie maketh the 115. vntruth The 116. The 115. vntruth The 116. vntruth The 117. vntruth S. Ambros lib 4. c 4. 5. lib 6. de Sacram c. 1. The 118. vntruth The 119. vntruth that we haue not shewed whether Christs fleash be made of bread The 117. that the instances of such conuersions mentioned by S. Ambrose should be dislyked by vs. The 118. that he bringeth our spiritual change from an ould creature to a new to impugne the corporall change of bread into Christ The 119. that S. Ambros proueth the change in this mater to be only in qualitie For in the same place he saith that wyne Sanguis efficitur qui plebem redemit The 120. vntruth is made the blood which deliuered the people The 120. that after consecration Christs body being signified present 〈◊〉 12â— vntruth should therfore not be present The 121. that because there is a figure mentioned therfore there is not a substaÌ„ce as appeareth in 31. 39. 42. 46. nuÌ„bers â—he 122. vntruth The 122. that it may be collected that bread still remaineth it being expresly said by S. Ambros Vbi accesserit consecratio Loco citato de pane fit caro Christi VVhen consecration is pronounced of bread is made the fleash of Christ And in hauing by such assignation obtayned S. Ambrose giue eare to know how great a treasure I haue purchased and that by an ould and great reformer euen Pelagius him selfe S. Aug. li 4. de Nupt. concup c. 3. Pelagius sic laudat Ambrosium vt
his third Tom. pag 142. Rider There was a learned and godlie woman proposed twelue questions of diuinitie to Hierome wherin of which she desired resolution For in those daies it was lawfull for women and all men to aske doubts touching religion and for their further instruction consolation might read Gods word freelie conferre touching matters that concerned their saluation And this greatly blemisheth your Roman doctrine that will haue neither men nor women to read diuinitie the reason is this least they should see your errors and forsake your profession For this is your strongest tenure Marke this yee Catholickes to keepe them in blindnesse with ydle ceremonies dumb shewes Latten seruice But I trust in Christ shortlie to see most of their eies opened that wil discouer your priuie plots discourage your haughtie stomacks and generallie forsake your new religion being in deed but mans inuention This is the second question of the twelfth but you omit some words cut off some which obscures the matter But if a little charitable chiding would make you more painfull in your bookes and lesse carefull to please mens humors I could finde in my heart to bestow it vpon you but praemoniti praemuniti you are now forewarned I hope you will bee here after better armed or better minded which I wish with all my soule as to my selfe But your proofe is thus in Latten Si ergo panis qui de caelo descendit corpus est Domini vinum quod discipulis dedit sanguis illius est noui Testamenti qui pro multis effusus est in remissionem peccatorum Iudaicas fabulas repellamus c. If therefore the bread that descended from heauen bee the bodie of the Lord and the wine which he gaue his disciples be his bloud of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes then let vs cast away all Iewish fables Here you omit Si ergo and noui Testamenti qui pro multis effusus est in remissionem peccatorum If therefore and of the new Testament which is shed for manie for the remission of sinnes All this you haue left out which was ill done What now can you gather out of this to prooue that Christes bodie is made of bread and his bloud of wine no substance of either creature remaining but onelie Christs carnall presence as he was on the crosse Surelie here is not one word silable or letter to prooue it but the contrarie You wronged the father so to mangle him yet as you deliuer him it proueth nothing of the manner of Christs presence that is in question but the matter neuer in controuersie for saith shee to this learned â—â—ther if therefore the bread which came downe from heauen bee the bodie of Christ so she speakes of Christs diuinitie that came downe from heauen for his humanitie did not and our question is of his humanitie by transubstansiation in the Sacrament so that this proofe nothing sorteth your purpose And the bloud here spoken of is his bloud of the new Testament shed on the crosse not in the Sacrament once for all not for anie that pleased the Priest And therefore as she said Iudaicas fabulas repellamus let vs cast away Iewish fables So in Gods name for the loue of Gods trueth and of the peoples saluation cast yee from you all Munkish fables and forged legends that haue misled the people into this blinde superstition and ioyne with vs to teach Christs precious flocke the old Apostolicall and Catholicke religion commaunded in Gods word practised in the primitiue Church that you with vs and we wiâ—h you and all in the Lord may now in this plentifull vintage so labour in the Lords vinyard his Church according to our talents receiued that euery one of vs may deliuer his talent with aduantage of manie soules and then we shall be patakers of that sweet saying Wel done thâ—u good and faithfull seruant enter into thy maisters ioy Which God graunt to vs both And so to the next as followeth The 11. parte of the Second proofe concerning S. Hierome VVherein is discussed whom and how we allowe and disalowe to reade Scriptures and heretical bookes and whether Protestants or we doe most Symbolize with Iewishnes Fitzsimon Cart. lib. 1 pag. 103. lib. 2. pag. 303. 502. lib. 3. pag. 89. 90. Caus â—ial 8. 11. Fulk against D. Bristow pag. 15. 54. 115. CArtwright saith there is not such synceritie to be looked for at Hieroms hand as from others that went befor him That he is a cownterfeit that he often strayneth the text and for milke some tyme draweth blood Causeus saith that he is no lesse damned then Lucifer Fulke that he was but a rayler Sainct Hierome in this allegation teacheth the wyne giuen to the Disciples to haue bene Christs blood In the selfe same resolution to Hedibia he saith the bread quem fregit Dominus deditque discipulis esse corpus Domini Saluatoris which our Lord broke and gaue to his disciples to be the body of our Saluiour Els where he saith ipse Saluator est S. Hieron ad Damas de Filio prodigo cuius quotidie carne vescimur cruore potamur it is our very Saluiour whose fleash we are fedd withall and whose blood we drinke Come foorthe M. Rider and play your wonted parte Come tell vs what you oppose against this First you ronne halfe way in your tale befor you stumble at this block in one only woord At leinthe hemm and speake out your mynde suerly say you here is not one woord sillable or leter to proue that Christs body is made of bread and his blood of wyne Not one woord leter or sillable man Let other mens witts and eyes be iudge how couragiously the 134. vntruth The 134. vntruth is deliuered But suerly the baker and the pillorie once againe must not be suffred to parte so sleightly but that we may examine his cause by parcels and yet not in prolixe or tedious maner That women might aske doubts touching religion is as lawfull now as in those dayes That they might vulgarly read Gods woord or the Scripture seemeth an vntruth at least it is not proued but only affirmed by M. Riders woord the valew whereof is knowen That is was not thought conuenient S. Hieron 103. I gesse by these woords of S. Hierome of whom now we treate Only the arte of Scripture saith he is that which euery one challengeth This the chatting ould wyfe this the doting ould man this the babling Sophister this on euery hand men presume to teache before they learne it Nay more anciently sayd Tertullian Tertul. de praescripe Omnes tument omnes scientiam pollicentur Ipsae mulieres haereticae quam procaces quae audeant docere contendere c. All are puffd vpp all do professe knowledg The very hereticall women how malapert how audacious to teach to dispute c. of which
is open to bring in all Poperie This is one great stepp to attayne S. Augustin to our syde â— Augst ser 2. de verbis Apost tr 26. 27. in Ioan. Idem de coÌ„sen EuaÌ„g l. 3. c. 1. tem 4. Idem in psal 33. Idem in cap. Vtrum sub de consecr dist 2. S. Aug. in ps 98. Idem ser de verb. euang citatur à Beda 1. Cor. 10. Idem l. 3. de Trin. c. 4. Idem cap. Nes autem de Consecr dist 2. Idem ibidem cap. Hoc est What need any longer delay in this mater when neuer any child of the Catholick Romain Church cryed more loudly then S. Augustin to Pope and poperie in the woords of the prophet VVe thy people and the flock of thy pasture-grounds will confesse our selues thine euerlastingly In the First 14. number he is found teaching to receaue the true bodye of Christ not only spiritualy 〈◊〉 in a visible Sacrament in veritate ipsa in truth it selfe In the 38. numb he is found teaching that Christ in the 6. chap. of S. Ihon amply treated of the B. Sacrament contrary to M. Riders denial therof In the 32. 〈◊〉 he is found teaching that Christ according to the letter was in diuers places at once In the 46. number he is found teaching that the body of Christ is not only a figure but also the veritie and that the same body which was borne of the B. Virgin Marie is giuen to be eaten In the 54. number he is found teaching that we eate our Lord yet in such maner as we harme him 〈…〉 our eating but rather arme and helpe our soules by such diuine participation In the 63. number he is found teaching that to preache Christ and to eate him are very different contrary to M. Rider affirming both to be all one In the 64. number he is found teaching that we should confesse faithfully what was before consecration but bread and wyne after consecration is the fleâ—â— and blood of Christ In the 70. number he is found teaching that it 〈◊〉 Christs fleash and blood which is receaued vnder the forme or lyknes of bread and wyne What more might be sayd or more effectualy and more oppositely to Protestantcy by any Pope or Papist in the world Now let vs giue eare to M. Rider First he fetcheth a long carrier of halfe his chapter before he euer stoupeth at this allegation out of S. Augustin Next leauing what I haue sayd he telleth what I should haue sayd When I play the puritan as I sayd before his direction would be more conuenient to leaue the mater and to dallye rownd about vp and downe off and on Thirdly that it is a similitud therfor no sillogisme I tould you before in the 43. number what logitian he is Aâ—â—ust 1. Topic. 14. Read Aristotle good sir and he will tell you that similituds may well be arguments Nay read the new testament and finde Christs arguments to haue bene vsualy but similituds At last he affirmeth playnly that Augustin telleth we should eate Christ with faythfull hart and mouth Why I aske no more but that it be graunted not only by harte but also by mouth Christ may be eaten But like a badd cow he stryketh downe with his heele all this milke euen in the very next woord which maketh the 135. vntruth that S. Augustin is contrary to vs. The 135. vntruth But I pray you what is the reason Forsooth saith he because he vttred thes woords as a similitude to another intention Yet againe let it be graunted him to haue vttred the woords and for the intention whatsoeuer it was it is knowen that he would not and could not lawfully for any purpose ratifie or insert false doctrin So that yf the woords be founde his mynde is notoriously expressed When no footing could be founded on these seely yf euer hetherto any reasons haue bene seely shifts and no answer framed or forged to this forcible allegation then bursteth out the 136. vntruth The 136. vntruth that we had alleaged many places vnfitly and vntruely yet shewed in none of them lesse learning and true meaning then in this But I â—ay as often before that I take no greater assurance of your being â—rampled by these allegations then by your pretending that I shewed small learning and not good meaning in them For what â—edlam beldame but might in impudent resolution saye as much â—f she had no other euasion And who behouldeth not but in this â—aying and in such maner is the very depth of infamie detected The 137. vntruth followeth close by The 137. vntruth that we had neuer read the â—lace in S. Augustin but snatcht it out of some ignorant Monkish Enchiridion What may be sayd to this facer of a bould cownteâ—ance in a cold cauterized conscience Nothing fitter and shorter â—hen out of the Poet Non tibi plus cordis sed minus oris adest No couradge new but lesse thy shame is fownd Yea the very derision of the name of Moncks is not only a demonâ—tration of his being abandoned by S. Augustin but a testimonie of â—is combination with ould hereticks S. Aug. tom 8. in psal 132. against whom S. Augustin manifouldly defendeth the profession of Moncks yea and suche â—heir very name wherof let these few proofs be witnesses Merito Elis displicet nomen Monachorum quia illi nolunt habitare in vnum cum fratribus VVorthely doth the name of Moncks displease them because they will not dwell in â—onsent with theire brethren Deinde perrexit Petilianus ore maledico in viâ—uperationem monasteriorum monachorum arguens etiam me quod hoc genus â—itae fuerit a me institutum Then Petilianus proceeded with a malitious mouth â—o disprayse monasteries and moncks reprouing me also that I had instituted that â—ynde of lyfe All his whole woorks are replenished with mention Idem tom 6. Cont. lit petil lib. 3. c. 40. commendation direction and defence of such profession All was one for my Caualiero he had a resolution to trample all truth vnâ—â—â— foote Vide Remiâ—d Rufum in duplicatione con Patronum Molinai fol. 76. Such was a lyke protestant not long since who being adâ—â—nished of his vnmeasurable lyes he answered Quam diu potero 〈◊〉 adferam Latebunt quam diupoterunt Valebunt apud vulgus ista mendacia 〈◊〉 long as I can I will indomadge let it remayne hidd as long as it may These lyes will auayle among the people O wofull yet generall o true yea shamefull Protestant intention What other could be his intention that saith by the 138. The 138. vntruth vntruth S. Augustin to affirme it which was sayd of our Sacrament to be figuratiuely spoken he only so saying of S. Pauls woords of mariage they shal be two in one fleash or where S. Augustin calleth in the woords of the Apostle mariage magâ—â—â— Sacramentum in Christo Ecclesia Ephes 5. The 139. vntruth a great sacrament
you change the singular number for the plurall sacrament for sacraments 6 Sixtlie you quite leaue out two wordes of great consequence communis and 〈◊〉 7 Seuenthlie you adde this word Blessed which is not in the Author 8 Eighthlie you point it not right considering the Authour spake it onelie by way of interrogation Which premisses are faultes great and grosse which sheweth plainlie that you neâ—â—â— reade the Author himself but borrowed them forth of some other mans papers therfore you sin grieuously in perswading mens consciences to take there things at your hands for truth faith when indeed you tender them nothing but things â—â—â—sled from all faith and trueth Now Gentlemen doe you deale plainlie with the world in bringing this plaâ—â— against vs did euer anie of vs denie that Christ was borne of the virgin Marie and conceiued by the holie Ghost you cannot charge vs with it Did euer anie of 〈◊〉 teach that Christs bodie was phantasticall neither did you euer heare it Then in this as in the rest you wrong vs deceiue the Catholickes and abuse Leo sometime Pope But I will shew you plainlie that this Bishoppe of Rome and this your proofe confutes and confounds your owne opinion and confirmes ours Reade page 7. 8. in the same Epist where he bringes in the Sacraments of Redemption of Regeneration First Leo saith the truth of Christs bodie and bloud is in both the two sacrament as well in Baptisme as in the Lords Supper and as he is reallie in the other and what presence of Christ is in the one sacrament there is the like presence in the other as hath been prooued before But least this would maâ—â— the fashion of your transubstantiasion and carnall presence therefore you transâ—â—â— it sacramentum in the singuler number not sacramenta in the plurall Secondlie you haue left out two words communis fidei of common faith becâ—â—â—â— no man should see it was then as Catholick opinion to beleeue that the truth of Chriâ—â— bodie and bloud was as reallie in Baptisme as in the Lord Supper yet in both spirituallie in neither corporallie But you will say I abuse the Reader because Leo neuer spake of this word spiritual or spirituallie and therfore I wrong both the Author and Reader I answere as 〈◊〉 the prophet answered Achab the king when he told Eliah that he troubled Israel 〈◊〉 saith the Prophet it is thou and thy Fathers house that haue troubled Israell in that you haue forsaken the commandement of the Lord 1. Kâ—nge 18.17.18 and followed Balaam So Gentlemen it is not I that wrong the Author that is dead or the people that yet liue but it is you and your confederates that followe Balaam of Rome God keep you free from folowing Balack of Spaine and that the Reader shall see I will prooue that Leo ioyneth with vs and we with him and both of vs with Christs truth against your trash I will make him speake in his owne defence and vtter that which you concealed It followeth immediatlie after your profe in the next immediat words after this maner In the same page quia in illa mystica distributione spiritualis alimoniae hoc impartitur vt accipientes caelestis tibi in carnem ipsius qui caro nostra factus est transcamus Because that in the mysticall distribution of that spirituall food this is giuen and receiued that we which receiue the vertue of the heauenlie meat wee passe into his flesh which was made our flesh Gentlemen this you should haue added to your former for the Authour ioyned them togither the one to accompanie the other in Gods seruice and in deed the latter to expresse the former But now let vs out of this but compare the old doctrine of the old Bishoppes of Rome and the doctrine of the moderne Popes and his Chaplens 1 The old Bishops of Rome said the food in the sacrament was spirituall and heauenlie the late Popes Iesuits and Priests say that it is carnall and materiall 2. The old Popes said the distribution of that spirituall food was misticall you say presbiteriall 4 They said in ould times that the worthie receiuers of this spirituall meat were transformed into Christ his flesh The late Popes and you his Ecchoes say no But the sacramentall bread and wine are transsubstantiated and transnatured into Christs flesh and bloud The Bishop of Rome brought in this to prooue Christs humanitie conceiued by the holie Ghost and borne of the virgin Marie against heretickes who taught the Christs bodie wa phantasticall And you alleadge the same place to prooue Christs humanitie to be made by a sinfull ignorant Priest that of bread and so contrarie to Scripture and Creed will recreate Christ of a new matter which is as blasphemous and hereticall The olde Bishoppes and Church of Rome held So Tertull. contrâ— Marcion lib. 4. that the Sacraments could not be true signes of Christs bodie vnlesse he had a true bodie and because thy were true signes therfore Christ had a true bodie And the late Popes and Popelings teach that Christs bodie is made a new of the signes and so confoundeth the signes with Christs bodie and in deed maintaineth heresie as grosse as the Manicheans For they held that either he had no bodie or a phantasticall bodie And you hold that there be no signes in the Sacraments but that they are transubstantiated into Christs bodie and bloud And so Christs bodie is dailie made of a peece of bread Iohn 6. which must needs be a bodie phantasticall not a true bodie as our Creed witnesseth And as in the manner of eating Christs bodie you disagree not much from the Capernaits so in the case you differ not much from the Manicheis Now will I say as the painfull owner of the vineyard said Isaie 5. 3â— Now therefore oh you inhabitants of Ierusalem and men of Iudah iudge I pray you between me and my vineyard So oh you Inhabitants of this worshipfull Cittie of Dublin and you loyall subiects of Ireland and all the learned and well minded of both England and Ireland iudge I pray you charitablie yet trulie betwixt me and these my aduersaries And if you refuse to censure vs and this our conference according to the truth then I say as Dauid said to Saul The Lord bee iudge between thee and me 1. Sam. 24.13 so the Lord be iudge betwixt vs whether of vs haue more trulie and with greater sinceritie of truth and conscience behaued our selues in this matter for his glorie discharge of our owne consciences instruction and saluation of the Catholickes The last parte of the Second proofe Concerning S. Leo. Fiâ—zsimon 117. MAister Rider as the hare is wonte befor he seate him selfe in his forme had a great desyre to strayne him selfe to greater leaps and girds toward the ende Yet all will not serue As farr as my remembrance serueth me Sidneis Arcadia I reade in Sr. Phillip Sidneis
Besyd which els where he sayth They wil say any thing boast of any thing confidently affirme any thing but proue nothing vnlesse it be by friuolous bragging of the most cleere trueth in which Finem modum nullum faciunt they obserue no meane or ende Nemo eorum obtestationibus iactationibus quicquam credat Nam eos mentiri dupliciter mentiri certissimum est Let noe man sayth he beleeue their protestations and braggs for it is certaine that they lye and lye againe Secondly for answer I say the being of Luther a monck long before not to be a lawfull pretext among protestants to auoyde all opinions of his nor his request to haue pittie toward his quondam being a monck to be transferred from what particular point he in that place applyed it vnto for otherwyse nothing he sayd should be approued by any protestants Martyn Taburnus contra profuges Vitembergicos Caluinistes Luth tom 7. VVittemb fol. 502. tom 8. Ienâ— Germanico fol. 174. Confess Tygur trac 3. fol. 108. It therfor that by noe studye conioyning therto ardent inuocation of God as him to haue done Martin Taburnus s ayth nor by any other means although he carefully inquyred all occasions to harme the Pope therby could otherwyse seeme to him but an heresie euen then when he had as he sayth him selfe one foote in his graue how can the dislyking of this opinion be imputed to his some tyme being a Monck I sayth he wil carye this testimonie and this glorie to the tribunal seat of Christ my saluioure that I haue with all ernestnes condemned these fanatical men and enemyes of the Sacrament in what place soeuer they be vnder the sunne c. And agayne Luth. in epist. ad Iacob ecclesiae Bremen Doctorem an 1546. Mihi omnium infelicissimo satis est vna ista beatitudo Beatus vir qui non abijt in confilio Sacramentariorum To me the most vnhappie that the blessednes is sufficient Blessed is he that hath not gone in the Consil of the Sacramentarians And agayne Idem libel con Sacramentarios Hereticos serio censemus alienos ab Ecclesia Dei esse Zuinglianos Sacramentarios omnes qui negant Christi corpus sanguinem ore carnali sumi in venerando Eucharistiae Sacramento we accompt in great earnestnes hereticks and strangers to the Church of God all Zuinglians and Sacramentarians who denye Christs body and blood in the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist to be receaued with a corporal mowthe This he affirmeth whom all the learned Protestants that euer were so much extolled yea his very aduersaries To Caluin Calu. de libro arbitr con Pighâ—um l. 1. pag. 192. Beza in Iconibus Illyricus in c. 14. Apoc Amsdorf in 1. Tom. Luth. in prefat Alber. con Carolostad l. 7. B. D. 8. Cyriacus con Steph. Agric. fol. 6. A Iuel def Apol. par 4. c. 4. n. 2. Fox in calendario VVhitak con Campian pag. 191. The 151. vntruth he is an Elias out of whose mowth God thundred his trueth which Alberus in lyke woords confirmeth To Beza He is the principal instrument of Christianitie in Germanie To Illyricus he is the Angel fleeing through the midst of heauen and hauing the eternall gospell of whom is mention in Apoc. the 14. To Mathesius he is the supreame father of the Church To Amisdorfe he who neuer had his lyke in the Christian world To Alberus a very Paul To him and Illyricus againe A second Elias and one sufficient alone to appease Gods wrathe To Iuel Melancthon Ionas Pomeran Whytaker and Fox he is the light of the world a Sainct the Father of trueth Quicquid agit mundus Luther vult esse secundus VVhat euer shift be fownd Luther wil be secounde and much more reported in our first 20. number What is M. Rider compared with all these nay with the meanest of these The next aunswer to Luther is that he entred into another errour of companation which by the 151. vntrueth he sayth Luther had sucked out of the Popes owne breast For first there is noe such Chapter as he citeth for proofe in al the decretals Secondly had there bene any errour mentioned in the decretals to haue bene by the Popes condemned and not by any Pope or Papist defended is it not a Riderian and ridiculous sequel that such had bene the Popes Doctrin and sucked out of the Pops owne breast because the Pope mentioneth it by way of abhominable doctrin by him condemned As for Luthers other errors let his disciples make apologies for them against M. Rider And for his being against vs we howld it a great honor But what is that to yow whose ringleader he was Yf he did not perseuer in errour as yow say how can it be but his last and lowdest condemnation of your doctrin doth not make such doctrin to be confessed an errour and not erroneusly condemned by Luther Luther by your confession remayning in no error and condemning and detesting it as both erreneous and heretical How our opinion the Sacramentarian opinion and Luthers opinion are reported Fitzsimon The 152. vntruth 121. IN the very first relation of our doctrin issueth out the 152. vntrueth Doe we say besyd bread and wyne Christ to be in the B. Sacrament Or rather without bread and wyne you beare vs witnes your selfe befor your replye to the 6. of S. Ihon that we teache all bread and wyne to be transubstantiated therby you register now against your selfe this sayd vntrueth In the same first aunswer The 153. vntruth you adioyne the 153. vntrueth that you teache the body and blood of Christ to be in the supper Witnes your owne woords at the 103. number the Sacrament and Christs body to differr as much as the lamb and the passouer c. which had no more vnion then the wyne that is sould and the iuye garland that is a signe of the sale therof Ioyne also these two I pray you together that Christ is not giuen but in his outward signe and yet that the body and blood in the supper is geuen not only by signe but as you say realy and truely Giuen and not giuen only in signe and not only in signe but also in substance Is not this fast and loose passe and repasse off and on pro and contra with and against Is not this a pretie ridle In your third answer to the second question bursteth foorth the 153. vntrueth For you do not say nor can say Spiritualy vnlesse you depart from your first martyrs to whom you haue obliged your selfe to consent and from Musculus As appeareth in the 108. number Also our aunswer is not intierly deliuered For we affirme not only corporaly but also spiritualy In your third question and third aunswer is contayned first the 154. vntrueth The 154. 155. 156. vntruth that Scripturs and Fathers say with you Secondly the 155. vntrueth that Christ in this institution made any
the lawfull preest hath vsualy pronounced the sacred woords ouer the bread that vnder the forme of bread is the true body of Christ. Thirdly Ihon Hufs professeth that Christus verbi sui ineffabili virtute panem vinum transubstantiat in propriam carnem sanguinem Christ by the vnspeakable vertue of his woord dothe transubstantiat bread and wyne into his fleash and bloode What a learned Reader and Dictionarie maker we haue of M. Rider that in this piller of Reformation omitted to fynd the woord of transubstantiation is to be obserued Fowerthly Hierome Prage sayth Ante consecrationem panem in consecratione postea Prag apud Pognium epist ad Leon. Aretinum verum Christi Corpus Befor Consecration bread in consecration and after the true body of Christ. Of these three the first Wickleph is by Fox acknowledged a chosen man raysed by God to lighten the world The other two Fox Acts and Mon. pag. 390. seq Oecolampadius in conscione de presentia Corporis Christs in eucharistia are Capital Calendarie Saincts with Fox Fiftly Oecolampad saythe Simpliciter absque hesitatione credamus adesse contineri sub hoc pane verum corpus sub vino autem sanguinem Non dicofiguram tantum absit id blasphemiae c. Simply and without stamering let vs beleeue to be present and to be contayned vnder this bread the true bodye and vnder the wyne the bloode I do not say a figure only fye vpon that blasphemie Agayne Vtinam princeps illustrissime abscissa mihi fuisset haec dextera cum primum inciperem de negotio Cenae Dominicae Idem epist. ad Lantgrau Hess an 1529. quicquam scribere I would most renowmed Prince this right hande of myne had bene chopped of when I began to wryte of the affayre of the supper Sixtly Bucer saythe Ex actis Concil Luther VVittemberg in adibus Lutheri Cum pane vino verè substantialiter adest exhibetur sumitur Corpus Châ—â—â— Sanguis VVith bread and wyne is the body and blood of Christ prefer and is receaued truely and substantialy He also wryting vpon Sainct Ihon Bucer in cap 6. Ioan cap. 26. Math. Calu. in haerm evaÌ„g l. 4. Instit c. 17. n. 11. de cena Domini inter opuscula craueth pardon of God that euer he bewitched any with the contrary opinion of the Sacramentarians Seuently Caluin saythe In vayne would God command his to eate bread and affirming it to be his body vnlesse the effect did accoÌ„pagnie the figure Therfor not only in signe is he shewed but in substance c. This was Caluins opinion during Luthers lyfe to be by him fauoured And when after his death he had changed it as now it is by Caluinians professed yet was he soe doubtfull and distrustfull of his propre opinion as to haue it depending vpon on mans good or badd lyking Calu. Defens 2. con VVesâ—phal Si Philippus verbulo declaret me a sua mente deslectere protinus desistam Yf Philipp Melancthon declare in the least woord that I swarue from his iudgement I will suddenly surcease Is not this a pitifull counterpoint to M. Riders opinion yet will he shake all off as lightly as a breath of wynde Nothing of all this wil be against him nothing of all this wil be for our purpose all wil be sayd to be impertinent fictions and wreasted mangled dismembred and corrupted allegations Other answer nether will he nether can he giue for there is no lyfe nor doubt remayning in the mater I confort my selfe with the saying of Cicero Cicero Latere nullus nugator potest diu No iugler especialy in this industrius age cany remayne long vnknowen And against his slanders and reproaches which are the sacred ancre and greatest confidence of his cause I haue this defense out of Sainct Bernard S. Bernard super Cantica Sufficit aduersum os loquentium iniqua opinio bonorum cum testimonio Conscientiae The opinion or knowledge the good haue of me together with the testimonie of my conscience is sufficient against the mouth of them that speake wickednes The second parte of the third proofe How English Protestant Martyrs confessed the real presence Fitzsimon Tacitus li. 19. 123. COnsidering how M. Rider is imployed in this answer I must with Tacitus accompt him Acerrimum militem in extrema obstinatum A most eager sowldiour and obstinat against all extremities First he trotteth to his ould wandring declaration of the occasion of such allegations as yf any occasion could make any affirme false doctrin or yf true doctrin deliuered by indirect occasions should therfore be accounted vntrue But that the good man mistaketh the occasion and altogether mis-informeth his reader in this mater may be gathered by these short demonstrations following The first is that yf as he sayth they had intended not to medle with the mater of the presence why would they condemne the opinion of them who did not beleeue such real presence An sint facienda mala vt inde eueniant bona could ill be done that good as that lyfe or liuings might be preserued therby might come therof The Apostle flatly teacheth the contrary Nether is the authoritie of Beza or Cartwright who granted as is declared such allowance to cownterfet for helping the woord Christian or religious Now the principal Protestants renounced the figuratiue imaginarie presence as heretical and professed to beleeue the real and substantial presence For as much sayd Sr. Ihon Ould Castle as I am falsely accused of a misbeleefe in the Sacrament of the altar I signifie here to all men that this is my fayth concerning that I beleeue in that Sacrament to be contayned very Christs body and blood vnder the similituds of wyne and bread yea the same body that was conceaued of the holy Ghost borne of the Virgin Marie Ouer this confession is by Fox written the Christian beleefe of the Lord Cobham If it was Christian Fox Acts and Mon. pag. 512. how is not the contrary therto vnchristian Yf it was vnlawfull how was it professed at tyme of deathe Can all the witt of man excogitat any quircke or chincke to declyne this contradiction but that in a tearmed Christian confession of a Protestant principal Martyre the puritan profession against the B. Sacrament was condemned Such and in lyke tearmes euen by Foxes owne relation was the Protestation of the L. Cromwell That he dyed in the Catholick fayth of the whole Church not doubting of any Sacrament therof Wherunto also Fox giueth the lyke tytle of a true confession of the L. Cromwell And for Rob. Barnes he was a most resolute Lutheran and therfore must haue bene as opposit as his master to the sacramental supposition Yet I come neerer and omitting Ridley Hooper Rogers Latimer the Duke of Northumberland and others great Saincts with Fox I craue in curtesie of M. Rider to giue satisfaction yf Crammer was
as it were vpon a stage the three Euangelists Mathew Mark and Luke deliuering the doctrine of the Sacrament Aug. Tomo quart de consensu Euangelistarum lib. 3. Cap. 1. Math. 26. Mark 14. Luk. 22. Ioh. 6. These three Euang. handled as it were the bodie of Christ Iohn the soule and diuinitie of Christ Lyra in psal 110. but when he came to Iohn he saith Iohannes autem de corpore sanguine Domini hoc in loco nihil dixit Iohn in the 6. of his gospel spake nothing of the Lords body bloud I wonder with what face you can brag to follow the fathers and no men nor sect more opposit to their faith and facts then you There Aug. hath cract your credit salue it how you can And your own Doctour Lyra condemnes your erronious opinion which will applie these as spoken of the Sacrament his words be these Nihil directe pertinet ad Sacramentalem vel corporalem manducationem hoc verbum Nisi manducaueritis c. Nam hoc verbum fuit dictum diu antequam Sacramentum Eucharistiae fuerit institutum This saying of Christ vnlesse you eat the flesh of the sonne of man drinke his bloud doth nothing directly appertaine to the Sacramentall or corporall eating of Christ in the Sacrament For Christ spake this long before he ordained this Sacrament Therefore no sound argument saith he can be grounded vpon that litteral exposition of the Sacramentall communion and he giues a reason vnaunswereable Nam primo debet existere in rerum natura For first the Sacrament must be ordained before it can be a Sacrament But you here would haue Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament before it bee a Sacrament And then Lyra concludes De Eucharistia Sacramentali quâ— nondum fuit tam alta sententia proferri non potuit quae dicitur Nisi manducaueritis c. Therefore of this place there can bee made no good sufficient argument touching the sacramentall communion vnlesse saith he some curious Hereticquâ—â— wil take these words spoken by Christ to be spoken propheticallie Quod nondum est noÌ„ datur priuilegium Now saith your owne Doctour if you take this chapter of the sixt of Iohn litterallie as you do then it is impossible and absurd because you wil haue a carnall presence in the Sacrament before there be a Sacrament if prophetically then your owne champion calls you curious Heretiques Lyra. eodem loco Luc. 23.41 And to prooue your litterall exposition grosse false and absurd he produceth against you two famous examples the first of the Theefe on the crosse who by his liuely faith performed the tenor of this text yet neuer communicated Sacramentallie And Iudas who communicated vnder both kinds and yet failed in the meaning of this precept Lib. 4. dist 9. And then shuts vp the mouths of all Litteralists and Heretiques that hold this spoken of the Sacrament alleadging Thomas Aquinas his draught out of Augustine Non manducans manducat manducans non manducat Hee that eateth not Sacramentally may yet eate Christ spiritually by faith and so did the Theefe on the Crosse and was saued Some eate the Sacramentall bread but not Christ which is the inward grace of the Sacrament as Iudas did and was damned Manie moe Fathers shall you haue to secod these against you if these satisfie you not Thus you are condemned by two learned Fathers that you ignorantlie or maliciously or both mistake and misapplie the sixth of Iohn to speake of the Sacrament before the Sacrament was instituted VVhether Christ treated of the Eucharist in the 6. chap. of S. Ihon. Fitzimon In his Rescript 41. I Am threatned by M. Rider that vnlesse I answeare this mater well I am ouerthrowen horse and foote I wil therfor begynn thus saying that S. Augustin and Lyra are vntruely alleaged Indeede S. Augustin speaking of the time immediatly before Christs passion August tom 4. de Consen Euan. l. 3. c. 1. sayth Ioannes autem de corpore sanguine Domini hoc loco nihil dixit But Ihon in this place sayth nothing of the body and blood of our Lord. These woords added by M. Rider sixt of his gospell are the text of a cunning misreporter not of S. Augustin He giueth a reason why S. Ihon treated not of the body and blood of our Lord in this place because saith he amply he treated therof before Is this Augustin to deny or affirme that S. Ihon treated of the body and blood of Christ in the sixt chapter For vnless he treated in the sixt chapter only S. Augustins woords that he had treated therof amply befor in no other place they being specified can not be verifyed Now to Lyra. Tell posteritie I request you in your next wryting that you had mistaken Lyra for one Mathias Dornick who carpeth by replyes at the additioÌ„s of Paul Burgensis annected to Lyra. Your owne cited booke will informe you therof befor the prologue to the psalmes and els wheare The swoord of Goliath agayne shal cutt his owne head I meane that the authors by you alleaged shall testifie against you Lyra then saith euen vpon the 6. of S. Ihon Postquam egit de pane spirituali qui est verbum Lyra in Cap. 6. Ioan. hic consequenter agit de pane spirituali qui est sacramentum After that he had discoursed of the spiritual bread which is the woord here he handleth the spiritual bread which is the Sacrament Againe Ne crederent quod caro eius contineretur in sacramento Eucharistiae sicut in signo ideo hoc remouet dicens caro mea vere est cibus c. Least they should beleeue that his fleash were conteined in the Eucharist as in a signe therfor he preuenteth that saying my fleash is meat indeede Againe quia hic sumitur realiter non figuratiue here it is taken realy sayth he and not figuratiuely After he telleth you that they are hereticks who affirme it to be tantummodo sicut in signo only as in a signe Let this suffise to know to whom might by another be sayd De mendacio ineruditionis tuae confundere Eccli 7. be ashamed at the falshood of your ignorance For forgerie is opprobrium nequam in homine a badd reproache to any man but is incident principaly to the vnlearned Eccli 34. in ore indisciplinatorum assidue erit As here it is manifest three great vntruths are heaped together First by vnlearned mistaking S. Augustins woords being of what was deliuered belonging only to the immediat action of Christ befor his passion Secondly by addition of woords to S. Augustins speeche Thirdly by vnlearned mistaking Lyra for another Notwithstanding I will score vp but the 17. vntrueth which was by badd intention and only to misinforme inserted For the point all catholicks and most principal protestants acknowledg that Christ in S. Ihon chapter 6. treated of the Sacrament But by way of premonition anticipation or instruction as was
DominicuÌ„ corpus accipimus vt sicut videtur illa panis forma in nos intrare sic nouerimus eam quam in terris habuit conuersationem ipsum intrare in nos ad habitandum per fidem in cordibus nostris Whence also this text signifieth that pure Sacrament of the Altar where we receiue the bodie of Christ that as the forme of bread is seen to enter into vs so we shal know Christ entreth into vs to dwell in our hearts by faith by that holie godlie conuersation that he had being in earth Now examine Bernard your owne Abbot though liuing in the palpablest time of the grosest superstition yet he vtterly coÌ„demnes your exposition of this place sheweth you that it doth not signifie Christs carnall presence in the SacrameÌ„t But as the SacrameÌ„t consisteth of an outward signe inward grace so bread the outward signe entreth into the mouth Christ which is the inward grace entreth into our hearts by faith So that your owne Author tells you it is bread that entreth the mouth it is Christ that entereth the heart that by faith not by teeth by beleeuing not by chamming or swallowing So that this your Bernard teacheth you that this your text must be taken for the diuiner part of the Sacrament which is Christ with all his merits to the soules hearts of the beleeuers not to or in the blasphemous mouthes and stinking stomackes of Infidells wicked men dogges cats or other beastes as your owne bookes most wickedly recorde VVhether euery spiritual sentence or mention be a denial of Corporal and Real Fitzimon 42. THey are in extreamitie and want of wolle who wandre among brambles to gather flocks Such is the proceeding of our aduersaries seeking with all ernest attentiuenes fragments from the Fathers in which they commend spiritual receauing spiritual being of Christ in the sacrament a quick and liuely faithe toward Christ and the sacrament and by these sentences they certifie theire brethren that the Fathers stand for their opinion as yf they were excluding true and real receuing That which is so often taught them should once be conceaued that the Fathers toward the Sacrament commend spiritualitie conioyned with realitie and substantialitie and allow figures conioyned with veritie not haueing any purpose or place in their writings by the one to exclude the other Our doctrin that spiritual and corporal were not incompatible but agreable together Chrysost hom 60. ad popul Antioch Idem hom 61. was vttered long since by S. Chrysostom saying of Christs being in the Sacrament that he is medled with vs Non fide tantum sed ipsa re not in faithe only but also in very substance Againe not by charitie only but by very substance is he made our foode Also by S. Cyril Alexandrin Cyrill l. 10. in Ioa. c. 13. Theophylac in cap. 14. Mar. 17. Mat. Greg. hom paschali in conformable woords not by charitie only but by natural partaking is Christ in vs. Also by Theophilact this my body which you receaue is not only a figure or exemplar of our Lords bodie but the body of Christ. Also by S. Gregorie Christ is both the veritie and figure the veritie by his body being made of bread Ansel l. de Diu. offic apud Claud. rep 3. c. 4. and the figure by what outwardly appeareth Also by S. Anselme By the benediction of Christ the bread is made the bodie not significatiuely only but substantialy For nether from this sacrament do we exclude a figure nether do we admitt it alone It is the thing truely for it is Christs body It is a figure because that is sacrificed which is knowen incorruptible Doe not these Fathers affirme both spiritual and substantial both figure and trueth both spirit and letter Why then are they wrested by them who professe only spiritual without substantial only figure without trueth Aug. trac 27. in Ioan. in Psal 98. De verbis Apo toli Ser. 2. Item Cypr. acâ—ana only spirit without letter What meane they to bring S. Augustin disputing against the Capharnaical conceit of receaueing Christ as in cadauere dilaniatum aut in macello venditum in his carcas bowtchered or sould in the shambles as he him selfe expresseth often and in respect of them to call the Sacrament a figure Doth he say only a figure Or his and S. Bernards commending the spiritual sense of scriptures and spiritual receauing of the Sacrament an argument as yf they had or would exclude therby the literal sense or substantial receauing Are you in doubt of their myndes in this controuersie They then resolue you First S. Augustin August in Ps 33. that Christ by saying this is my body was twyse at the table once sitting once houlding himselfe in his owne hands S. Bernard de coena Domini that secundum literam according to the leter Next S. Bernard saying Hostia quam vides iam non est panis sed caro mea c. The host which thow behouldest is not now bread but my fleashe Euen so the lyquor which now you see is not wyne but my blood Euen as the formes are there seene whose substance are not beleeued to be there so the thing truely and substantialy is beleeued whose forme is not seene Here our transubstantiation here our haueing Christs body in diuers places here our literal doctrin here our whole papistrie is assured to haue bene in these Fathers as much as in vs. S. Paul saith Si est corpus animale est spirituale 1. Cor. 15.45 Yf there be a natural body ther is also a spiritual body Therfor the one doth not exclude the other Therfor Christs spiritual body should not be Capharnaicaly supposed to be bitten rent or maÌ„gled by his real substaÌ„tial and corporal being in the Sacrament You would thinke him iniurious who would inferr that because you haue a corporal head corporal body and are a corporal man that therfor you haue no spiritual witt in your head no sense in your body and are no spiritual man Can both consist in you and not a figure and substance spirit and corporal trueth and literal in sacraments and scriptures O protestantcy seely are thy shifts and they discouered fowle and apparent thy falshod and it made manifest yet there are that persist to follow thee fullfilling therin the scripture saying Prou. 29. Verbis non emendabitur seruus durus si enim intellexerit non obedient By woords will not the hardned seruant be amended for althowgh he should vnderstand yet will he not obey I haue bene slack to numbre the 18. vntrueth The 18. vntruth which at least is here produced in playne termes that our owne authour telleth vs it is bread that entreth the mowthe wheras he only saithe panis forma which M. Rider him selfe translateth the forme of bread and not bread it selfe adding that we should know Per eam ipsum intrare in nos Dominicum
holinesse it selfe the holier by your crossing but I hope you will not take blessing in this sence but ioyne with the Disciples and vs that blessing of GOD signifieth praising of GOD or praying to GOD for one man to blesse another is nothing else but to praye for them and to beseech God that he would blesse them that is defend them protect them and be mercifull vnto them So Isaack blessed Iacob and Iacob the sonnes of Ioseph And so the LORD commaunded Moises to speake to Aaron and to his Sonnes saying Thus shall yee blesse the children of Israel and say vnto them The Lord blesse thee and keepe thee the Lord make his face to shine vpon thee and be mercifull vnto thee c. A Christian patterne not onelie for Priests but also for Pastours and Parents dailie to practise the one for his flocke the other for his familie yet both in the Lord from the Lord. Which blessings are deriued from Gods mercies hang not on the ends of Priests fingers Again you see blessing is praying with the mouth not crossing with the fingers as you vainlie foolishlie make your Ghostlie childrē beleeue that if you crosse them with your two fingers and a thumbe they are pardoned for their sinnes past and preserued that day from future daungers and euil spirits Which fingered blessing of yours is as powerfull to pardon sinne and feare away spirits as three sups of the Challice is to cure the chinne-cough This blessing was commaunded by God to be practised by Aaron the High-Priest and the rest of the Priests vpon Gods children but how far your blessing differs from this the simplest may iudge For first God commaunded this blessing the Pope your blessings This was by mouth onely yours with some mumbling wordes and charming crosses with your fingers This blessing was a prayer to desire God to blesse and you teach that in your breath and fingers there is a power a certain working or impression of some blessing vpon them by meanes of your said mumbling and crossing But your Priests agree with Gods Priests and your blessing with fingers with Gods Priests blessings with prayer of the heart and mouth euen as well as trueth and falsehood light and darknesse superstition and religion Christ and Belial And if the Catholiques will but diligently read this commandement of GOD giuen to the High-Priest and Priests in this place touching the manner how they should blesse Gods people I am resolued that few Catholiques in this kingdome heereafter will kneele at your feet or beg at your hand any finger benediction or crossing because is hath no warrant from Gods word and therefore ten thousand of them not worth a farthing How the Priests blesse the Sacrament You crosse the cup or Challice with a set number of crosses and gestures sometimes blowing ouer the Chalice sometimes crossing it sometimes hiding it that none must see it then ioyning and disioyning of your thumbe and two fingers with manie moe such Apish toies childish trickes and charming prankes which haue neither foundation nor relation to Christs actions and institution How the Preachers of the gospell blesse the bread the cup. But we in administring this holy Sacrament confesse the greatnesse and grieuousnesse of our sinnes that can no otherwise bee pardoned but in Christes bloudie and bitter passion and wee giue thankes to God for Christs blessed obedience to the shamefull death of the cursed crosse by which he hath satisfied Gods wrath and wrought our reconciliation in the bloud of the same and continue this Sacrament as he instituted and commaunded in reuerence and rememberance thereof without addition alteration or subtraction And pray that our vnworthinesse and want of faith hinder not our spirituall vnion reall presence with Christ which is offered in the word of institution and sealed in the right receiuing of the Sacrament This is the force and effect of this word Blesse the true vse wherof Christ by his practize deliuered the Primitiue Church Fathers and we imitate Now whether your blessing in the Sacrament and your blessing by crossing the people or ours come neerer to Gods word and Christs practize let the best minded to Gods truth iudge and then with GODS trueth ioyne Thus much for your Addition misunderstanding and misapplication Now to your Omission or Subtraction of a whole verse Omission or Subtraction You bring for proofe of your carnall presence the 26. verse and the 28. verse Caluin procedeth further Caluin 1. Cor. 10.16 Iewell cō Hard. art 1. diuis 9. pa. 23. confuting Erasmus and all others who indeuoure to confound as all one blessing and giuing thanks Iewell telleth that the meaning of Christs woords Hoc facite is take ye bread blesse it breake it and giue it in my remembrance Now to my thinking reason would haue aduised our aduersaries to haue made a clean contrary inference that yf the greeke vsual woord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to giue thanks be some time and especialy in our controuersie taken to blesse that the propre woord to blesse especialy to so solemne a ceremonie ought not to be taken only to giue thancks Somewhat also must be said of the blessing by making Crosses least M. Rider applaud to him selfe for not haueing disaduantage in any thing he hath propounded First then euen by Scripturs is it manifest that when the angels were commanded to marke Gods especial elected Ezech. 9.4 Niceph. l. 2. c. 42. Basil l. de Spiritu sancto c. 27. Tertull. l. de corona militis Athanas l. de incarnat verbi Hieron ep ad Demetriadē epist 128. August tra 18. in Ioan. Cyrill 4. Catech. Illuminat Chrysost hom 21. 27. 36. ad pop Antioch Ambros. Serm. 45. August serm 19. de Sanctis Idem trac 118. in Ioā vide Gretserū de Cruce l. 3. c. 6. Hieron ad Pam. ad Rustic in vita Hilarion Antonij August epist. 59. lib. 22. de ciu c. 8. Beda in hist Augl l. 3. c. 26. the marke or character to haue bene the leter thau or our leter T. in their forheads which is a perfect Crosse to all mens eyes Also by relation of Nicephorus of S. Ihon Euangelist Vbi se signo crucis muniuisset in monumentum descendit When he had fortified him selfe with the signe of the Crosse he discended into the monument S. Basil and Tertullian affirme to make the signe of the Crosse to be an Apostolical tradition Tertullian Athanase Hierome Augustin Cyrill of Hierusalem Chrysostom Ambrose and all Fathers without exception doe exhort and aduise all Christians at rising appareilling washing sitting eating at euery action and tyme to arme them selues with the signe of the Crosse as propre to Christians Wherof saith S. Augustin Hoc ad victoriam prouehit hoc veneficia destruit omnia daemonum machinamenta ad nihilum redigit this aduaunceth our victorie this distroyeth witchcraft and frustrateth all attempts of the deuil Without which saithe
therefore figuratiue against your opinion You shall heare the Church of Rome deliuer her owne minde with her owne mouth which you cannot denie her wordes be these Ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio dicitur non rei veritate sed significante misterio That offering of the flesh which is done by the hand of the Priest is called the passion death Dist. 2. de consecratione canon Hoc est pag 434 You cannot denâ—â— but this Popâ— was a Protestant and if this canon be Catholicke then is your carnall presence antichristian and crucifying of Christ but not in exactnesse of trueth but in misterie of that which was signified and the glosse there maketh most plaine against you Dicitur corpus Christi sed improprie vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat corpus Christi It is called the bodie of Christ but improperly that is figuratiuely that this be the sence it is called the bodie of Christ that is it signifieth the bodie of Christ Fitzimon 57. How M. Rider abused the decretals and how by them he receaued vtter destruction to his cause is demonstrated in the 46. number Yet now agayne he kicketh against the prick wel then doth the text and glosse say that the immolation of the preist is called improprely the passion and death of Christ Truly and so will all Catholicks say the same For who euer heard the masse of the preist to be proprely the cruental acte of the Iewes against Christ or called the cruental sacrifice on the Crosse This is as much against vs as when we graunt it to be true we loose no more therby then a candle doth in giuing light to another candle reseruing as much light in it selfe as if it had lighted none So although we affirme all that is now produced M. Riders sute is graunted and our light nothing deminished Rider 58. I will alleadge in this case other Popes and the faith of the Church of Rome in another age whereby the Reader may plainelie see that the auncient Popes and auncient Rome had the true succession in doctrine which we stand now on not that false succession of the place and a rotten worme-eaten chaire that you brag of De consecratione dist 2 Panis est in altare Glossa ibid. page 435. the glosse speaketh thus against your litteral sence of Hoc est corpus meum Hoc tamen est impossibile quod panis sit corpus Christi yet this is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ Not possible by their owne confession that bread should bee the bodie of Christ. Now gentle Reader see the wrong the late Popes and Priests offer to the Catholicks of this kingdome they would haue them imbrace that for faith which the old Church of Rome held for heresie that for possibilitie which she saith is impossible Why would you haue vs to beleeue that which you your selues say is impossible This all the Iesuits and Priests in Christendome cannot aunswere If you say these two Popes and the Church of Rome then taught the truth why doe you now dissent from the olde Romane faith If you saye the Popes and Church of Rome then erred you will be counted an hereticke and therefore in Gods feare confesse the trueth with vs and the olde Church of Rome and deceiue the Catholickes of this kingdome no more with this litteral sence of Hoc est corpus meum which you borrow from the late Popes and late Church of Rome and is a new error dissenting from the old Catholicke faith Fitzimon 58. Here is great want of integritie In the glosse alleaged is affirmed that the saying it is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ should be takeÌ„ according to a sound maner to witt during the being therof bread For the saying that of bread is made the body of Christ Ita vt post consecrationem non sit iam ibi panis sed verum corpus Christi So that after consecration bread is ther no longer but the true body of Christ is towld to be the sound maner and meaning intended in the very same text and glosse Whether then can he seeme to any men Catholicks or others which had the face and conscience to misreport this glosse and to informe the decretals thus distroying protestantcie to stand for protestantcie woorthy to be houlden a lawfull Preacher or a faithfull witnes or conscionable informer or as being a godly spiritual honest preacher when so many others his betters are in great extremitie to haue yearly aboue 1500. raziers or cowmbs of corne besyds other commodities in such a choise deanry I know not how many vntruethes besyd all other faultines any other would skore vp in these woords which I calculat but for the 43 vntrueth only The 43. vntruth Let others imagin what discontentment and tediousnes any religious mynde might conceaue to incountre so contrarious a spirit or such a spirit of contradiction against knowen trueth 59. And I will adde one other Popes Canon Rider Corpus Christi quod sumitur de Altari figura est dum panis vinum videntur extra Dist 2. can Corpus Christi pag. 438. col 4. You cannot denie this Pope to be a protestant in this point veritas autem dum corpus sanguis Christi in veritate interius creditur The bodie of Christ which is taken from the Altar is a figure so long as the bread and wine are seene vnreceiued but the truth of the figure is seene when the bodie and bloud are receiued trulie inwardly and by faith into the heart Now the glosse in that place expoundeth the text and saith Corpus Christi est sacrificium corporis Christi alias falsum est quod dicit The bodie of Christ in the text signifieth the sacrifice of the bodie of Christ otherwise it is false Out of which I note the Church of Rome cals the outward Elements Christs bodie that is a figure of his bodie being not receiued though consecrated Secondly that the bodie of Christ wherof the Sacrament must be a figure The Popes glosse against the Popes text must be receiued by faith into the soule not by the mouth into the stomacke Now the glosse saieth the text is false vnlesse c. But I leaue the iarre to be reconciled by you who be the Popes friends yet this I say And Gelasius another Pope more auncient then those against Eut. is of this opinion Maledicta glossa quae corrumpit textum These three Popes and the Church of Rome in those dayes it was before the birth of your Transubstantiation and your carnall presence jumpt with all the old Fathers and the Primitiue Church that liued the first sixe hundred yeares after Christ and say it is called the bodie of Christ the flesh of Christ the passion and death of Christ but not rei veritate not indeed and
trueth but mistically significatiuelie improperly figuratiuely and by way of representation and that it is impossible otherwise to bee the bodie of Christ Yet when we speake of figures in the Sacrament you mocke vs. When we say the phrase is figuratiue therefore the sence must be spirituall You deride vs as mis-interpreters of Scriptures and Fathers But if your leisure and learning would affoord you but fauour to read with a holie deuotion the canonicall Scriptures the ancient doctors of Christs Primitiue Church that left vs these lessons for our learning you should see that we learne what they taught and doe what they said you follow not what they commanded because you knowe not what they haue recorded Fitzimon 59. As he goeth forward according to the Apostles saying Proficit in peius he increaseth in ill This same text is cited in the 46. number according to the expresse sense therof and title prefixed to this chapter to signifie our beleeuing Christs body bothe substantialy and also figuratiuely in the Sacrament Yf any learned man conferr this sayd text and as it is interpreted by M. Rider I request him not to spyte or spitt at his memorie but to pittie it For to haue thus construed it is a figure as bread and wyne are scene extra owtwardly he translateth as they are seene vnreceaued Secondly for what he should interprett but it is the veritie as the body and blood of Christ in trueth is beleeued inwardly he inserteth a parenthesis making the trueth to be of the veritie of the figure and not of the body of Christ I protest befor God and his Angels that greefe and shame of his misdemeanure do auert my mynde from being imployed to vnfould and refute him and procure me to ouerslipp much filthe deseruing to be sharply and in the most heynouse maner reproued But I pray you considre notwithstanding these faults apparent to all eyes in these woords of his in the text and margent This all the Iesuits priests in Christendom can not aunswer you can not deny this pope to be a protestant in this point confesse the trueth with vs and the owld Church of Rome He that tould you befor him selfe that S. Bernard liuing in the yeare 1190 was in the palpeblest tyme of grossest supersttion meaning therby papistrie here forgetting him selfe informeth that the decretals and popes therin alleaged collected by Gratian at the same tyme of S. Bernard by his saying most superstitiouse doe stand for protestantcy He that would not be tryed but by the Fathers of the first fiue hondred yeares professing the world soone after to haue apostated into papistrie is now come to clayme the decretals compyled after a thowsand yeares He that in clayming the same Fathers as appeareth in the 46. number the number precedent and in this present number is beyond all cōtrouersie vtterly foyled and forsaken of them and therfore iustly doth multiply the 44. and 45. vntrueth that the least be spoaken in the forsayd bowld assured and reiterated protestation The 44 45. vntruth Lactant. l. 5. c. 3. Anaxagoras is generaly reprehended by all men that contrary to sense and vnderstanding only to be singular he would cōfidetly shamlesly and contentiously affirme snow to be as black as inke Haue we not found an heyer to him who can face out black to be whyte that is reproofs to be approbations denials affirmations owld to be yong falshod to be trueth darknes to be light substance to be figurs preaching to be communion the owld testament to be as fruictfull as the new the primatiue Church and Fathers to haue bene late sectaries Catholick to be heretical c. I bequeath then as in my testament to ensuing posteritie that hereafter when men desyer to specifie any readers of such resolution as had Anaxagoras and his forsayd successour they bestow on them for a perpetual memorial of such ancestours not that they are impudent contentiouse frantick deprauers desperat falsifiers corrupters against all pregnant and palpable trueth but only without all iniurie that they ryde or are Ryders As for his annotations that the church calleth the outward elemēts according to their apparence a figure and that the body of Christ must be receaued into the soule vnlesse he doted he would not thinke any preiudice therby to our cause For we graunt both to be true but without being only a figure or foode of the only soule His opposing the glosse and text as contrarie they being euidently most cōcordant and the glosse only telling the text to be intended of Christs bodie not in extensiue maner but as it is a sacrifice also his addition that because it entreth the soule it can not not entre the body what stupiditie doth it not contayne 60. Rider Now briefly I will acquaint the Reader onely with the times when these Doctors liued and the places where they taught this doctrine and then wee shall see whether this your litterall exposition of Hoc est corpus meum be Catholicke or not Clemens Alexandrinus was diuinitie Reader in the famous cittie of Alexandria in Egypt In the yeare of our Lord. If you will read aduisedly these Fathers you shal see plainlie your owne errors 107 Origen was his scholler and succeeded Lectures in the same place 204 Tertullian Diuinitie Reader in Carthage in Affrick 206 Ambrose Bishop of Millaine in Italie 370 Hierome Diuinitie Reader in Stridona in Hungaria and sometime in Slauonia 387 Chrisostome Bishop of Constantinople in Gracia 406 Augustine Bishop of Hippo in Affricke 426 Venerable Beda a famous learned man in England 570 And thus you may see that neither Alexandria Carthage Milano Stridona Constantinople Hippo nor Rome which are famous Citties Nay which is more neither Egypt Italie Hungaria and Slauonia nor England which are famous kingdomes Nay which is most of all the three parts of the world Asia Affricke and Europe neuer heard or had such a litteral exposition of Hoc est corpus meum for at least eight hundred yeares after Christ and yet your Iesuits and priestes will haue their doctrine to be Catholicke Vincentius aduersus Hereticos That is truly catholicke saith he Quod semper vbique ab omnibus est creditum which cannot be vnlesse it were at all times and in all places and of all persons receiued for so your Vincentius defineth Catholicke doctrine And heere you see that for the three parts of the world and for many hundred yeares after Christ it was not knowne And therfore it is neither Apostolicall nor Catholicke Fitzimon 60. One that fayleth to be a physition might perchaunce not be an ignorant musition or not being a gardener might yet be a hors-corser So in degrees of learning he that can not wryte well might yet perhapp indyte wel he that is no rethorician might yet be a grammarian he that is no poet migt yet be a linguist he that is noe diuyne might yet be an antiquarist or chronicler But to
would be spoken of and for a short tyme might escape vncontrowled Vpon my conscience and honestie yf I could I would not follow him but by only mildest method and modestest maner but his inueterated and reiterated falsifications and blasphemies by no Christian mynde might be lesse rigorouslie pursued then is done by me Who could in any pietie or peacable disposition say or do lesse to his blasphemie against the B. Sacrament among so innumerable others tearming it a carnal kingdome of a breaden God then to applye the woords of S. Cyrill S. Cyrill l. 10. con Iulia. Nihil facilius est scurrae quà m mentiri temerè vituperare ther is nothing more easie to a scoffer then to forge and disprayse Such scurrilitie against the B. Sacrament Pagans as after in the 147. number appeareth frequented and commended to their successours in impietie I can not debarr them from following Pagans in this behalfe S. Bern. ser 66. super cantica VVho as S. Bernard saith nec rationibus conuincuntur quia non intelligunt nec authoritatibus corriguntur quia non recipiunt nec flectuntur suasionibus quia subuersi sunt Probatum est mori magis eligunt quà m conuerti Horum finis interitus horum nouissima incendium est By reasons are not conuicted because they vnderstand not by authorities are not corrected because they allow them not by perswasions are not inclined because they are peruerse It is approued they had rather die then be reclaimed The ende of such is destruction their conclusion is fyer The only thing that I entreat of the honester sorte of Reformers is this request of S. Augustin S. Aug. l. 1. de morih Cathol Eccl. cap. 18. Audite Doctos Ecclesae Catholicae viros tanta pace animi eo voto quo vos ego audiui nihil opus erit 20. annis quibus me ludificastis longè omnino longè breuiore tempore quid intersit inter veritatem vanitatemque cognoscetis Heare the learned of the Catholick Church with lyke peace of mynde and desyer as I heard you There wil be no neede of 20. yeares in which you beguiled me in farr lesse farr lesse tyme you will perceaue what manifest difference there is betwixt veritie and vanitie And in the same booke in the 34. chapter he saith Tum videbitis quid inter ostentationem sinceritatem inter viam rectam errorem inter fidem fallaciam c. intersit Then will you behould what is betwixt vaunting and veritie right and straying sayth and fraud c. Which otherwyse vnles you help your selues that God may help you you will not discouer but still remayne deceaued Rider 62. But yet you perchaunce will demaund the reason why Christ called it his bodie if it be not his body Let me first aske you another question and then I wil resolue you this Gen. 17.10.11 Rom. 4.11 Exod. 12.11 Why did God cal circumcision the couenant when in deed it was not the couenant but as God himself saith a signe of the couenant Why did God cal the Paschall lambe the Passouer when it was but a signe of the Angels passing ouer the houses where the bloud of the lambe was sprinkled one aunswere wil resolue both our questions It is the vsuall maner of the holy Ghost in all Sacraments both of the old Testament and new VVheresoeuer the holie Ghost speakes of Sacramets the phrase is tropicall mitonymimicall and figuratiue attributing the name of the thing signified to the signe signifying as in these examples the phrase addeth a dignitie to the sacrament but changeth not the nature of the sacrament to terme the visible signe by the name of the thing signified as circumcision is called the couenaunt the Lambe is called the Passouer so Baptisme is called the fountaine of regeneration and bread Christs bodie and yet in deed they are but outward signes and to the faithfull onely seales graced by the holie Ghost with the names of the things they represent and confirme the more to mooue and stirre vp our affections and to edge our zeale with a religious preparation to receiue the same and to lift vp our hearts soules by faith to behold consider and feed vpon Christ crucified the thing signified Yet for your further satisfaction I will intreat Augustine to aunswere your doubt who saith (a) Aug. epistol 23. ad Bonifacium Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent omnino sacramenta non essent ex hac autem similitudine plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sicut ergo secundùm quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ita sacramentum fidei fides est In English thus If the Sacrament had not some certaine similitude and likenesse of the things whereof they be Sacraments they should be no Sacraments at all And of this similitude manie times they haue the names of those things themselues as the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ is after a certaine manner the bodie of Christ and the sacrament of his bloud is after a certaine maner his bloud So the Sacrament of faith or Baptisme is faith Out of which wee may note first they are but Sacraments or similitudes of the thing signified not the things themselues secondlie that bread wine are the bodie bloud of Christ but secundum quendam modum after a certaine maner and shewes how by an example as the Sacrament of faith is faith so the Sacrament of Christs body is Christs bodie but the Sacrament of faith is not faith naturallie substantiallie by a chaunge of substance but by chaunge of qualitie or vse therefore the Sacrament of Christs bodie is not chaunged into the substance of Christs bodie Theodoret dialog 2. cap. 24. pag. 113. dialog 1. cap. 8. pag. 54. read them I pray you but onely in qualitie and vse as Theodoret saith in his first dialogue not changing nature but adding grace vnto nature And the same Father in his second dialogue explaines this more plainly saying the misticall signes after sanctification Non recedunt a sua natura manent enim in priore substantia figura c. they depart not from their nature but remaine in their former substance and figure may be seene touched as before Out of which auncient learned Father I obserue three necessarie points for the Catholickes instruction Consecratiō vnknown to Theodor therefore it is a new terme The change is in the name honour and vse not in the nature and your confutation First he saith Post sanctificationem after sanctification then your new coined terme of consecration was not known in the Church of God but sanctification and benediction Secondly I note out of this Father that though the Sacraments haue gotten a new diuine qualitie yet they haue not lost their nature they had before as you
his Father should not be one with his Father He being sayd to be in shape found as man should not be man By the secōd note he inferreth that because S. Augustin sayth bread wyne are the bodie and blood of Christ after a certaine maner meaning in resemblance of feeding therfor they should not be such truely Which yf it also were true when Christ was inuisiblie among the Iewes he might be sayd not to haue bene truely among them because he was only in a certayne maner among them Lykewyse yf Tertullian say truely lib. de praescrip c. 51. Non possunt dici penitus ipsa quae sunt in aliqua sui parte vitiata they can not altogether be sayd to be the same that are blemished in any part it would follow that any that is blinded or mayned would not be him selfe being but in a certayn maner the same In the same note is inferred that faith is called a Sacrament yet not by any change therfor the Sacrament of Christs bodie is not changed but only in qualitie By as wyse a therfore might it be inferred Gods woord which is more powerfull then S. Augustins woords tearmeth Christ a Lion the Apostls salt and light therfor because by such calling they were not changed in substance nether-was ther any other thing wyne riuers rodds or any thing els changed by Gods woord in substance and so Scriptures would be denyed creation distrusted and all beleefe peruerted It is also no merueil that Thodoret or Gelase whom all others cupple in this obiection affirme the mystical signes after sanctification not to depart from their nature figure or substance to witt by outward apparence and sensible imaginations and effects wheras the gospell doth signifie the water substantialy turned into wyne to haue bene water saying VVhen the master of the feast or ceremonies had tasted water turned into wyne it being then no more water but wyne Also M. Rider a litle befor sayd the outward signes by the holy Ghost to be graced with the names of the things they represent And consequently bread appearing in outward signe may be called bread in substance by M. Riders rule against him selfe But a more worthye though not a more weightie aduersarie shal impugne him S. Lanfrancus Bishop of Canterburie who liued long befor Innocent the thirds tyme the hatcher and patcher yf M. Rider forge not of all our opinions S. Lanfrancus in suo lib. con Berengar Corpus Christi vocatur panis vel quia ex pane conficitur vel quia intuentium oculis cùm caro sit panis videtur The bodie of Christ is called bread ether because it is made of bread or because it being fleash appeareth to mens eyes to be but bread Whether consecration be a new name in the 64. number will apareare By the waye in a woord M. Rider Doth S. Chrysostom say that the nature of bread doth continue still You bidd preists and Iesuits in the margent to marke which is the common phrase of Faulconers They marke and behould you to be the Faulconer Prouerb 10. of whom the scripture saith Qui nititur mendacijs hic pascit ventos idem autem ipse sequitur aues volantes He that groundeth on vntruethes he leadeth wyndes to pasture and he the very same followeth birds flying They may marcke you often at such your game and your wynds and birds skipping and straying from your reach but no such mater as in the 113. number wil be manifested was euer dreamed by S. Chrysostom that any yet could euer marke This then the 53. The 53. vntruth vntrueth Rider 63. But you here will obtrude your oulde slanderous obiection that we accept of the Sacraments no better then bare figures No we acknowledge a change and an alteration but not of the substance but of the vse Is not this a maruelous change wrought by the holy Ghost in the due administration of the Lords supper according to Christs institution that of commen bread wine such as daily we feede our bodies with is made the dreadefull and reuerend misteries of Christ crucified where by we neither looke vppon the bare naked elements as common creatures but as sanctified food And in such sort that euen as the bread doth nourish our bodies and the wine doth comfort our spirits so trulie reallie and vnfainedlie doth the heauenlie food of his bodie crucified and his bloud shed for our sinnes by faith in the time of the holie Supper feede and nourish our soules into euerlasting life and so is made and sealed our reall coniunction with Christ not by his bodilie and locall discention into our stomackes but by our spirituall ascention to him by faith This is our doctrine touching these figuratiue propositions warranted by Scriptures and witnessed by the auncientest Fathers Clem. Alex Theod August with many moe neuer heard of cōsecration but of santification benediction Hitherto hath beene plainly and directlie prooued that your two propositions bee figuratiue not proper Secondlie that the substances of bread and wine remain after consecration and therfore there can be no such carnall presence of Christ by Transubstantiation vnder the formes of bread and wine as you deeme Now I am come to your two maine pillers that support and vnderprop your carnall presence which if they faile you then your foundation is sandie and your buylding will not be able to abide the least blast of Christs breath The first is consecration the second transubstantiation for vnles there be consecration there can be no transubstantiation and then no carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament And then neither your masse nor matiens worth two pence And so the soules then in your imagined purgatorie may crie and yell for lacke of a dirge and a masse of Requiem How M. Rider doth auoyd our obiection that they accept of the Sacraments no better then of bare figures 63. WHat I haue sayd in the 39. number doth testifie Fitzimon whether they can thinke any better of Sacraments then as bare figures Vide nu 78. Listen to heare it a litle befor lowdly affirmed by M. Rider him selfe So Baptisme is called the fountain of regeneration and bread Christs bodie and yet in dede they are but outward Signes In this place he saith it is a slanderous obiection But by your leaue you are made to obiect so slanderously to your face as slanderous shame followeth Do not you affirme them to be outward signes and figures are they not all one in this article Why then do you not confesse that you are your owne slanderer But we part not so Then he saith No we acknowledge a change and alteratiō but not of the substāce but of the vse First of this chāge I pray you obserue this annotatiō of Fox saying Here is to be noted that Peter Martyr in his aunswer at Oxford Fox Acts and Men. pag. 1255. did graunt a change in the substance and not only in the vse of
Qui pridie be the wordes of the Priest so that Christs words without the Priests words worke nothing or are nothing worth And the same Frier deliuers the opinion of Doctour Soto touching the intention of the Priest in consecration of the cup but checks his Doctor ship in his immediat conclusion verie sharplie I will not say shamefullie saying Magister Soto hoc in loco sibi repugnat Maister Soto in this place disagreeth with himselfe olde Cato tells vs that he that disagreeth with himselfe cannot agree with anie (a) pag. 113. Read the place But in the next pages he setteth down six seuerall opinioÌ„s touching the forme of consecration one contrarie to another and all of them held and maintained verie stiflie for the truth whereof fiue of them must needs be false But I assure you there is none of them of Christs institution and therefore neither true Apostolical nor Catholique If they were not fabulous and friuolous I would pen them down verbatim But if you list to see their errrors I haue trulie quoted their places you may see them without paine and I trust you will not read them without dâ—slike Now let me intreate you to heare some other of your friends speake that liued in another age that the Catholickes may see your vncertaintie in this point that none of you all knowe what to say nor what to beleeue and the reason is because you haue denied and refused the cleere waters of Gods truth therefore drinke of the puddels of mens inuentions which are nothing else but fables and lies without certaintie or veritie Gabriel Biel. lect 36. Mark this you Priests and Iesuits Gabriel a learned man on your side saith Christus potuit sine verbo tanquam verus Deus substantiam panis vini consecrare vel potius verba quaedam secreto proferre per illa consecrare vol per haec verba hoc est corpus meum consecrare potuit vel potuit prius consecrare postea distribuere vel primum distribuere postea consecrare Behould I pray you the vncerteinty of your consecration therefore ceasse to deceaue Petrus de Aliaco in 4 lib. sent Q 5. Quid autem horum fecerit ex sacris scripturis non constat Christ as being verie God might consecrate the bread and wine without anie word Or else he might speake certaine words in secret and by them consecrate or else might consecrate by these words This is my bodie or he might first consecrat and after deliuer or else first deliuer and then consecrate but which of all these he did by the holie scriptures it appeareth not But Petrus de Alliaco crosseth them all and saith that Christ consecrated before these words of Hoc est corpus meum Marke this good Reader for saith hee Quia nisi ante fuisset corpus Christi Christus non vere dixisset hoc est corpus meum If it had not bene Christs bodie before Christ could not haue said trulie This is my bodie This now toucheth your free-hold for hee saith plainlie vnlesse consecration goe before these words This is my bodie both Christ and priest should lye This tramples your consecration in the durt And your Antididagma printed at Collen How blasphemous this is let the learned in Christ iudge Bonauentura in 4. lib. Sententiarum dist 8. q. 2. with the approbation of all the learned Doctors in that age saith preciselie that the bare words of Christs institution without the words of the Canon of the Masse are not sufficient to worke consecration And Bonauentura is not ashamed to say that if wee will rightlie consecrate wee must not seeke to the Gospell of Christ but to the Canon of the Masse Now Scotus though he be maister Doctour Subtilis is put to his dumpes what to do in this doubtfull case of consecration when there be twentie seuerall opinions one contrarie to another and all contrarie to Christs trueth in the end this is his resolution Quod ergo est consilium Dico quod sacerdos intendens facere quod facit ecclesia legens distinctè verba canonis à principio vsque ad finem verè conficit nec est tutum alicui reputare se valdè peritum in scieÌ„tia sua dicere volo vti praecisè istis verbis pro consecratione The matter being so doubtfull what then is your aduise I say that the priest intending to doe whatsoeuer the Church doth and reading the words of the Canon distinctlie and plainly from the beginning to the end doth verelie consecrate neither is it wisedome for a man to account himselfe verie skillful in his knowledge and to say I will vse without all doubt these or these words to worke consecration Here your champion Scotus cares not a point for your three Euangelists nor the Apostle Paul for reading of the Canon distinctly is sufficient Oh damnable heresie that renounceth Christs institution and followeth mans inuentions And the wordes of your Masse-booke are distinctè secretè attentè And also it must be pronounced vno spiritu nulla pausatione interposita If the foresaid cautions be not performed by the priest your consecration and appliccation is marred and not worth a pin Now Gentlemen these be your Doctors this is your doctrine here betwentie seuerall opinions of consecration in seuerall ages none tells the trueth Haue you vsed Gods people the Queenes subiects Christianlie in perswading them that all Churches and all Fathers in all ages with one consent haue embraced this your opinion touching consecration for Catholicke without discord or dissention I tell you no for in this you haue crackt their conscience do hazard their soules to maintaine your superstition But perchance you will perswade the Catholickes False witnesses examined a sunder must needs be taken tripping founde liars for how should you agree in that yee knowe not nay in that which is not that though these Doctors grosly erred yet the Church of Rome euer held one manner of consecration but that is as vntrue as the rest For I will shew you plainlie that your late Popes and Church of Rome since three hundred or three hundred and seuentie yeares last past knewe not what to hold nor what to affirme touching the fourme of consecration And therefore in this your new doctrine there is neither vnitie antiquitie vniuersalitie nor veritie with which termes you so long haue deceued the people 66. Fitzimon Wheras the doctrin of the Catholick Churche is manifoudly expressed that consecration is essentialy wrought by the very and only woords of Christ Hoc est corpus meum hic est sanguis meus This is my bodie this is my blood lett all indifferent readers maruayle at M. Rider for affirming Guido and Angles teaching by his owne declaration the very selfe same doctrin in euident tearmes to be repugnant one to another or with Gods Churche And yf these all did assuredly determine that Christ ether in more words or
in fewer did consecrat are they not confessed therby to haue beleeued a consecration to haue bene instituted by Christ Is not M. Rider therfor a sage Scholastick or sobre scholer producing them to confesse what he hath reported they did not beleeue As for Innocentius yf he supposed consecration to haue bene accomplished in the blessing of the bread and wyne may he be sayd in any learning or wysdome to differ from the residue in beleefe of the trueth of Consecration Then are browght in Thomas and Scotus as he sayth differing one from another But it is so palpable a delusion as one may view in their wrytings by me alleaged for my good frend omitteth citations when they are most needfull as is aboue declared as it sheweth he had a forhead of brasse to auerr any thing that auerreth it The opinion of Soto is confessed belonging to another mater and therfor cannot be opposit to the former as being not of the same for opposition must be concerning the same Then six repugnant opinions are related in a dumb shew not one of them ether defending or impugning another but in M. Riders assurance He is not ashamed here to affirme that he hath truely quoted the citations of these six opinions Therof let your very eyes be iudges Gabriel insueth telling that Christ by thought might haue consecrated without any woords Truly any would thinke this to be most assured who beleeued Christ as powerfull in thought as in woord Which vnles M. Rider approue he must be of opinion that Christ neuer made heauen Note and earth befor he had a mouth to speake And Gabriel saith also truely that the Scripture doth not declare by what precise woords or sole means Christ had consecrated Who would inferr these deductions as inconuenient but especialy as repugnant besyd my mate Then succedeth Petrus de Alliaco saying that Christ consecrated befor the woords of consecration And this sentence also to whom is it opposit of the rest vnlesse any of them had sayd that thoughts are not precedent to woords For in his iudgement Christs intention in a thought of tyme had effected consecration befor the woords were fully related In the Antididagmate ther is noe suche mater but the contrary that they consecrat not well who omitt the forsayd forme contenting them selues with the sole woords of S. Paul to the Corinthians Lastly Scotus for his aduising euery priest about to consecrat to read the canon distinctly and intierly M. Rider falleth into this Apostrophe Oh damnable heresie that renounceth Christs institution and followeth mans inuention Why good Sir is the Canon of the masse any other then Christs and his Apostles institution contayning only all which in the Scripture is reported to be done by him concerning the Sacrament Is it because they are conioyned and to be read distinctly and intierly that therfor they contayne a damnable heresie and mans inuention Now Iesus in what tyme of the day did M. Rider vttre these sobre illations The principal vntruethes in this mater shal be calculated together 67. The Pope and Church of Rome as this Canon testifieth was of opinion Distinct. 2. de Consecratione sub figura in fine that the Priest must recite verba Euangelistarum beginning at qui pridie c. in hoc ergo creatur illud corpus The Priest must recite the wholle words of the three Euāgelists beginning at the day before he suffered Out of which we may see that this Pope will haue the words of the three Euangelists which containe the causes and effects of the whole institution and not hoc est enim corpus meum onelie c. Againe there is vsed a most shame full and blasphemous word Creatur vnlesse you will haue Christ to become a creature and the Priest to become a creator your maister the Pope was too forgetfull that this had not been dashed into his Index expurgatorius But I must alleadge another Pope to contradict this Popes opinion De Conse distinct 2. Canon quiae corpus page 432. In another age there was a Pope who with the Church of Rome held that there was an inuisible Priest that consecrated and changed those visible creatures into the bodie and bloud of Christ not by vertue of those knowne wordes hoc est enim corpus meum nor by all the words of the three Euangelists as the other Pope did but secreta potestate by a secreet and hidden power which you visible Priestes knowe not This Pope will haue an inuisible bodie and bloud of Christ What is more contrarie and absurd then this This Pope hath brained your hoc est enim corpus meum being your ordinarie consecration and records all other Popes and you Iesuits and Priests for hereticks in holding that hoc est corpus meum doth consecrate But yet I will bee so bolde to aske this Pope this question If this discorde of Popes you had not shrowded in an vnknowne tounge the Catholicks had forsaken Pope Preiste Rome long since De sacra Altaris mysterio lib. 4. cap. 6. page 105. 166. Who is that inusible Priest where is that Priest what is his secret power doth it consist in speaking or crossing or both or in neither or in some other dumbe shewes The holie Scriptures teach no such Priest speake of no such secret power and so this is a fable as is the rest and no sure foundation for the Catholickes to sticke too therefore I wish that the well minded Catholickes of this kingdome would not beleeue this vncertaine vanitie but sticke to Christs written veritie I will adde one Pope more whose opinion I know you will not gainsay for if you should I must come vpon you with an old schoole point Contra negantem principia non est disputādum This is Pope Innocentius the third of famous memorie vnder the warmth of whose wings your transubstantiation in the Synode of Laterane was hatched at least one thousand and two hundred yeares after Christs ascension This Pope records three seuerall opinions touching consecration and one contrarie to another The first hold it is made at Benedixit The second sort teach that after benediction when either is by the Priest made some print on the bread as it were by crossing some woord spoken ouer and to the bread then hoc est enim corpus meum consecrats whosoeuer saith nay And this sort holds that it is credibile credible that Christ first deliuered the bread and then consecrated the bread which things make your fingring and blowing vpon or ouer the bread more palpable because one must hold the Elements while you enchaunte them rather then consecrate them The third opinion crosseth both the other which is that Christ consecrated virtute diuina by his diuine vertue and afterward laid downe for posterities a forme after which they should blesse or consecrate Thus there were three seuerall opinions that this Pope spake of yet it seemeth he liked but one of them which was the
illic speciâ—s cernuntur quarum res vel substantia ibi non esse creduntur â—ic res veraciter substantialiter creditur cuius species non cernitur The host â—hat thou dost behould is not now bread but my fleash lykewyse the liquoure â—hich thou viewest is not wyne but my blood Euen as the lyknes are seene â—hose things or substances are beleeued not to be there so the thing is truly and â—ubstantialy beleeued whose shape is not perceaued Will all theses testimonies wherof euery one alone had bene â—ufficient to the most partial or least indifferent protestant being â—o pregnant so precise to the mater so godly and from so godly as euery one of them hath bene accompted at least these 400. Bullinger decad 5. de caena fol. 370. yeares a Sainct reclayme our aduersaries Bullinger a great protestant aunswereth negatiuely saying Zuinglianos non posse credere Christum esse in coena praesentem vero suo corpore licet omnia mundi concilia omnes angeli diui id iubeant credere The Zuinglians not to be able to beleeue Christ to be present in the supper in his true bodie although all the Councils of the worlde all Angels and Saincts did command it to be beleeued Yet I trust in the mercie of God that diuers reading this manifestation of errour and iustification of trueth will instantly open their harts to let shaddowes and figurs departe and to imbrace Christ and veritie Let me dye a badd death yf I would otherwyse then to purchase that good to deceaued soules spend only to incountre M. Rider such pretious time in displaying or disprouing that infidelitie which is incident to him for his profession which of it selfe is notorious and euery day vanishing and consuming without our laboure And for your learning M. Rider you may peruse Zuares in tertiam partem tomo tertio quaestione 75. disputatione 47. sectione 2 and be instructed by him particularly in what Predicament is Transubstantiation and so haue resolution in conceit so impossible I am truly wearie in summing vp vntruethes they are so manifould Only I will certifie some especial The 68. that we know not what Transubstantiation is The 69. that we might to as good purpose proue transaccidentation The 70. that Transubstantiation is a Friers fable The 71. that the Fathers neuer intended a substantial Change The 68 69. 70. 71. 72. 72 73. 74. vntruth The 72. and 73. that the master of the sentences or Tonstal doubt of the conuersion of bread into the fleash of Christ they only disputing how it is wrought which is noe more to deny the mather in question then yf one should confesse you to haue the riche deanrie of S. Patricks and muse by what means whether by assured Simonie or vnknowen desert or blind choise you came therto The 74. that we see Transubstantiation to be a iarring noueltie and a fable without trueth These are but glossing imputations of M. Rider to dazel the mynds of his Readers that they doe not conceaue when trueth is represented to their eyes by vs or when falshood is inculcated by him denials without shame affirmations with remorce and torture of conscience exprobrations without regard of fidelitie protestations repugnant to all trueth and sinceritie Rider 71. This fable of transubstansiation ouerthroweth sundrie articles of our faith and therefore it is abhominable It teacheth a new conception of Christ to bee made of bread by a sinfull priest and euery day in euery place where it pleaseth the priest contrarie to the Article of our faith which is that Christ was conceaued by the holie Ghost and borne of the blessed virgin and but once for such Christ as you tender to the poore ignorant Catholickes is not a true Christ neither can be for manie respects whiche are before in the beginning alleadged Secondlie if Christ be in the Sacrament he is not then ascended and so there is another article of our faith destroyed by this damnable fable And thirdlie if hee be couchant or dormant in the pixe then the Scriptures deceiue vs in telling vs hee shall come from heauen to iudge boâ—h quicke and dead and so another article of our faith is ouerthrowne And if your doctrine were true Christ should haue eaten himselfe corporally but you confesse he did eat himselfe (a) Iosephus Angles pag. c. 110. 4 conclusione secunda spiritually If your doctrine of transubstantiation were true then the Lords supper were no Sacrament and the reason is this for euery Sacrament consisteth of the outward signe and the inward thing signified and they must both still remaine during the outward action of the Sacrament Now if bread which is the visible outward part of the Sacrament be changed into Christs bodie then there is no Sacrament because there remaines but one part of the Sacrament which is the thing signified and then you vtterlie deceiue the people which tell them it is the Sacrament of the Altar when it is no Sacrament at all Againe another absurditie followes vppon it for if the substance of bread be changed then there is no proportion or analogie betwixt the signe and the thing signified because accidents cannot nourish For the likenesse or resemblance betwixt bread and Christ consisteth chieflie in this that as bread nourisheth the bodie so Christs body crucified nourisheth the soule but if the substance of bread be changed into another substance then the proportion and propertie is so changed that it must cease to be the thing for which it was first ordained and so the best you would make of the Sacrament is but a shaddow without a substance Another vnreasonable absurditie will follow that Christ hath two bodies one of bread made by the Priest another of the blessed virgin conceiued by the holie Ghost Againe if his owne bodie shall be in manie places at once that is contrarie to a naturall bodie and is as voyd of learning as the other of religion and by this your new thirtheenth Article of your new faith you would maintaine the being of qualities without a subiect and the being of quantities without a substance which both are impossible But Because the opinion is false and forged without Scripture or testimonie of auncient Father I will alleadge no more absurdities at this time till I be vrged VVhether the article of Christs Ascension be not rather a proofe then disproofe of the Real presence 71. SAint Augustin euer according to his wonte Fitzimon August 22. de ciu c. 11. pertinently aunswereth sectarists now in these woords aunswereth to M. Rider Ecce qualibus argumentis omnipotentia Dei humana contradicit infirmitas quam possidet vanitas Behould with what arguments humain infirmitie possessed by vanitie contradicteth Gods omnipotencie Now to the first It teacheth no new conception of Christ according to S. Ambros being Non alia planè caro S. Ambros. loc infra cit quam quae nata est de Maria passa in cruce
resurrexit de sepulchro Noe other fleash playnly then was borne of Mary suffred on the Crosse and rose out of the sepulchre To the second his being ascended aboue the ordre and proprietie of a natural body doth rather auerre and assure his being in the Sacrament beyond the bare nature of a natural body And to that ende Ioan. ◠Christ him selfe in his instructing the Iewes that his body was truely meat to haue them beleeue his woords forwarned them that they should see his body mount and ascend By the one being beyond nature confirming the other to be possible notwithstanding nature To wrest then his Ascension against his being in the Sacrament is Maledicta glossa quae corrumpit textum a wicked glosse corrupting the text That made Luther to confesse that we are bound to beleeue Christs real presence in the Sacrament Luth. tom 7. defens verb. coena fol. 394. for that both the Scripture and articles of our fayth asure vs therof most constantly Is it not therfor a strange assertion to saye the articles of faith are impugned when they are conioyntly with Scriptures consonant in this controuersie To the third I aunswer out of the Psalmist Neque dormit neque dormitabit qui custodit Israel He sleepeth not nor noddeth who preserueth Israel His being in the pix hindreth not his coming from heauen no more then his being in heauen sitting at the right hand of God the Father Psal 109. vntill his enemyes be made his foote-stoole hindred his being viewed in earth by his Apostle S. Paul Act. 9.17 c. 22. c. 26. 1. Cor. 15. in the highe way to Damasco and that after his Ascension which is an insupportable ad ineuitable thunderboult against them that affirme Christs body nether to haue bene nor possibly able to be in many places at once especialy being confessed by M. Rider after that a true Apostle must see the Lord Iesus in the fleash Wherfor S. Paul being assuredly a true Apostle did behould Christ in fleash at his first election to be such Apostle which was in the high way to Damaso And consequently Christ then and still being at the right hand of his Father was in fleash in two places at once in heauen and in the way to Damasco To the fouerth we confesse both spiritualy and corporaly as hath often bene declared and not only spiritual or only corporal To the fift it is rather against you saying ther is only an external signe and no inward grace We for the external signe shew the forme of bread and wyne for the internal grace Christs pretious body and blood To the sixt accidents strengthned by Christs support may and do nourishe Ambros. de cōsecr dist 1. c. omnia quecunque To the 7. although it be all one with the first S. Ambrose againe informeth you saying Corpus illud vere illud sane quod sumptum est de virgine quod passum est sepultum quod surrexit in coelum ascendit sedet ad dexteram Dei patris quod est venturum iudicare viuos mortuos The same body truely the same body certainly which was taken from the Virgin which suffred and was buried and rise and ascended and sitteth at the right hand of God his Father and will come to iudge the quick and the dead To the eight it is not contrary to a natural body but beyond it and is testified by Scripture to haue infallibly hapned And good M. Rider yf it be impossible that qualities can be without a subiect how did God make light Gen. 1. without a subiect for nether firmament sonne moone or starrs were yet made and other subiect is not mentioned It is strange that you dare affirme that impossible which the Scripture assureth posible Besyd the argument to the contrary that nothing beyond the condition of a natural body is possible implyeth there wil be no resurrection of the dead there was no birthe walking on the sea entrāce among the enclosed disciples resurrection and ascension of Christ as being beyond nature Glorie be to Gods diuine Maiestie for so grounding vs on truth as that we can not be impugned but Gods Omnipotencie the Scriptures and cheefe mysteries of Religion must first be denyed My turne is next to examin my aduersaries in these articles of beleefe and the rest to practise them no lesse to defend then offend that by their resolution to heauie and vrgent imputations their strengthe or weaknes appeare Wherby I do not intend so much to greeue or grauel their mynds as to instruct them not by my documents but by their owne in what they are occasioned to considre better of their estate For it shal now be made notorious that we may be tainted for being contrary to the articles of beleefe but they and not we touched and stayned with that infidelitie Arguments full of falshod and futilitie haue bene obiected against vs But now againste them pregnant and pressing proofs without strange and farr sowght inferences shal be tendred and produced to conuict them faultie and faythles against all and euery article of Beleefe AN EXAMINATION OF PROtestancie concerning the 12. articles of Beleefe in general IT hathe euer bene among sectarists Athanas. de Synodis Socrates l. 2. c. 7. Sozom. l. 3. c. 5. Cassian l. 6. de inca Epiph. her 73. a principal difficultie prouidently to collect and resolutly to imbrace any forme of beleefe wherunto they would remayne tyed and inuariable The Arrians by testimonie of the Fathers fower tymes in few monethes changed and reuoked their Creede To abrupt other inductions When late Reformers presented their confession intituled of Augusta to which they generaly subscribed bynding them selues therto by solemne protestation whervpon they were named protestants and to this day they only among the learned are so called who auouch the forsayd Augustan confession although they had as prouidently and politickly compyled it as they might not be ashamed vpon future deliberation to iustifie it yet neuer did Chameleon alter his colours more often then it Chlebitius in sua victoria ruma Papatus saxonici And therfor a famous Lutheran one VVilliam Chlebitius was constrained to say Non expedit coram plebe recensere quoties quomodo confessio Augustana sit emendata It is not expedient befor the people to numbre how often in what maner the confession of Augusta hath bene amended Another exclaimeth that it hath bene Versa peruersa conuersa Hosius in Antibrentio mutata deprauata mutilata turned peruerted conuerted changed depraued maymed Then which kinde of lamentations nothing is more frequent in Lutheran wryters Osiander apud Hosium ibid. Behould I pray you the confession collected as studiously and iudiciously as might be possible to the maintenance wherof all masters of Arte by oathe were obliged euen as to the fouer Euangelists and all opposit therto as was also determined Cassimiriani Matheologi in sua admonitione cap. 4.
They haue their faythe so inspyred as they will iudge therby all angels and men and be iudged by none And euery one of them is in the right althowgh by their owne confessions they be all fownd in Fide sua miserabiliter rotari sine fine modoque variare confessiones suas in their faythe most miserably to be rowled Colloq Altemburg fol. 462. Centuriatores Centur 9. in prefatione and without end or measur to varie their professions Iam veram doctrinam probantes mox eandem damnantes iam appellantes heresim quod antea pro veritate inuicta praedicabant now approuing for sownd doctrin and suddenly condemning the same now calling it heresie whiche befor was preached for inuincible trueth Nether is there any so meanely a conceited artificer that dyneth or suppeth withowt discoursing on this discord of the holy Reformed crue Let therfor our disputations alone and salue your owne vnreconciliable vprors whiche hitherto all your Cowncils or Synods as is shewed in the 19. numb cowld not so muche as mitigat Take owt this beame owt of your owne eye leauing to accuse vs among whom discords are as impossible as concords among yow And it being irrefragably discouered in all other points of the mater in hand take now this decretal demonstration therof and ineuitable assurance to Protestants whiche your Father of trueth your Elias and besyd what is sayd in the 17. Fox Acts and Mon. pag. 404. edit an 1563. Luther in Confess breui to 2. Germ. fol. 357. number alter Phaebus clarissimè fulgens your second Sonn most brightly shyning deliuereth saying Carolostad wresteth miserably the pronowne this Zuinglius maketh leane the verbe is Oecolampad tormenteth this woord body others do butcher the whole text and some do crucifie but halfe therof c. So manifestly doth the deuil howld yow by the noses Let me therfor replye in M. Riders woords against him selfe Orthodox confess Tygur fol. 105. 106. 107. VVill yow follow a foolishe Fryer ane ignorant Abbot a late vpstart Pope of Saxonie as the Tygurins intuled Luther or Preist as Zuinglius Carolostad Oecolampad c. that writ and wreasted within thes sower hondred nay one hondred yeares and forsake Scripturs and the ancient Doctors of the Churche Now let the indifferent mynded Catholicks be iudges yea and Protestants also whether yow or we haue antiquitie consent and veritie on our syds And who differr from Scripturs and Fathers from and among them selues not only in one point of religion but also in euery point and particle of Doctrin Behowld how good frends M. Rider and I are become bothe agreeing vpon one tale meeting in the same forme of woords Whiche speach of his I accompt so fauorable on my syde as for it I will omitt to calculat any vntrueth in all this discourse how many soeuer whiche suer are aboue 20. haue bene offoorded least I showld seeme offended with any parcell of the residue wherwith so true so vndowbted and sincer declaration is annected for all men to know the protestants to follow Luther a foolish Fryer and as M. Rider sayth an heretical Moncke who vsurped the power of Pope and liued within one hondred yeares forsaking for his sake Scripture and Fathers and cleauing to a ragged rablement of dissentious teachers Is not this to condemne to hell it selfe his owne doctrin so assuredly knowen and confessed to be from Luther a Frier from ignorant and Apostat priests who writt within a hondred yeares and is so pugnant and repugnant so madd and mutable that by them selues it is not denyed saying Non sunt vtique parua certamina inter nos neque minutis rebus sed de sublimibus articulis christianae doctrinae de lege euangelio de iustificatione bonis operibus de Sacramentis ceremoniarum vs◠quae nullo pacto componi vel reticeri aut dissimulari possunt Sunt enim merae contradictiones quae concordiam non ferunt Nicolaus Gallus sup◠intendens Ratisbonae in thesibus ac hypothesibus Certainly they are not small cōtentions that are amōg vs nor of trifles but of the highest articles of christian religion of the law gospell of iustification good woorks of Sacraments vse of ceremonies which by no means can be appeased hidden or dissembled For they are playne contradictions whiche may not be accorded Is not this by open and playne confession without racking or torturing to haue theeues fall owt and true men to come by their goods to haue falshood vnhooded and trueth reuealed to haue disagreement conuicted and the kingdome therby knowen Sathanical 75. Now to conclude this matter I will shew plainlie by scriptures that hoc est corpus meum can haue no such sence as you teach Rider Hoc est corpus meum expounded by scripture which is that bread is not by this or anie other words transubstantiated or chaunged into Christs bodie and bloud but that bread remaineth after sanctification or as you say consecration and that the scriptures speaking of Christs bodie and of the bread speake distinctlie not confusedlie that is they doe diuide them not confound them giuing to either of them their seuerall nature and propertie yea after consecration And whereas we haue now heard too much of the jarres of your late Popes and writers voide of vnitie and veritie Now let vs heare the holie scriptures expound hoc est corpus meum plainlie and truelie by the Euangelists and Paul who knew best Christs meaning vpon whose exposition all Christians may and must onelie rest satisfied in spite of Pope and poperie 75. The first promise here made is that he will shew playnly by Scripturs that bread is not transubstantiated Fitzsimon but that after consecration it retayneth still his nature The second promise is that he will bring suche exposition from the euangelists and Paul that in spyte of Pope and poperie we may and must rest satisfyed therby Rider Dedit Math. 26.26 Datur Luc. 22.19 Fregit Luc. 21.19 Frāgitur 1. Cor. 11.24 Eis Marke 14.22 76. ANd first we will prooue it from the difference of the signe and the thing signified The scriptures whē they speak of bread they speak actiuely He gaue But when they speake of Christs naturall bodie they speake passiuelie Is giuen When they speake of bread they speake actiuelie He brake it But when they speake of Christs body they speake passiuelie VVhich is broken When they speake of bread they say To you But when they speake of Christs naturall bodie they say For you Pro vobis 1. Cor. 11.24 Dedit Marke 14.23 Effunditur Luc. 22.20 Eis Math. 26.27 Pro multis pro vobis Luc. 22. ac Math. 26.26 Lykewise when they speake of wine they speake actiuely He gaue But when they speake of Christ his bloud they speake passiuelie Is shed When they speake of the wine they say To them But when they speake of Christs bloud they speake For you or for
true Saluioure of our sowls so also was not Christ And as Saul is called by Dauid Christus Domini the anoynted of our Lord 1. Reg. 24.7 Luc. 2.26 euen as our Saluiour is tearmed by S. Luke they must haue one ende one sence one literalitie and by M. Riders consequence th' one be no better the th' other But you may craue what meaneth this late coequaling the owld testament and new That I may rightly awnswer to this demand I must first breefly shew that it is the drift of late reformations to bring in this equalitie as appeareth by thes woords of Ochinus Ochin lib. 2 dial 21. Pag. 154 155. 156. 157. 288. 289. Cum sit vna Ecclesia vna fides proinde non debemus plura credere quam crediderunt sancti federis antiqui Perfectam quoque eandem suisse Ecclesiam vt Christi ita Moisis c. wheras ther is but one Church one faythe therfor we owght not to beleeue more then the Saincts of the owld testament beleeued as perfect and the same is the Church of Christ and of Moises This being the fundation Zuinglius frameth this pyle thervpon Yf in the owld testament Zuingl to 2. vbi de baptismo fol. 59. sayth he the carnal and external Sacraments cowld not bring any puritie or cleanes to sinfull and defyled consciences how much less can such Sacraments do vs any profit in Christ in the new testament wher only the Spirit giueth lyfe What frame dothe Ochinus him selfe build vpon his owne fundation Ochin loc cit pag. 157. Illos autem non credidisse Trinitatem non personas coequales consubstantiales aeternas c but they of the owld testament did not beleeue the trinitie coequalitie of persons consubstantialitie eternitie c. Ergo by the first inference adieu all Sacraments of Christ for any profit and bringing any puritie to sinfull persons By the second inference we are not bownd to beleeue any substance of the new testament of Christs birthe his miracles his and the holie Ghosts diuinitie Trinitie c. because forsooth Ochin loc cit pag. 154. 155. 156. 157. alioqui essemus deteriori quam ipsi conditione qui ad plura quam illi credenda obstringeremur we should be of inferior condition to them of the owld testament being bownd to beleeue more then they Here is the scope here is the centre declared of thes instructions to equal bothe testaments and after to condemne the new by the inutilitie of the owld and that by many testimonies of Scripture as when S. Paul sayth Hebr. 7. the former commandement to be reprobated propter infirmitatem eius inutilitatem for the infirmitie therof and inutilitie Now say they the new commandement is no better the Sacraments therof noe more proffitable the sence ende and literalitie of bothe is from one authoure and of equal estimation therfor let vs renownce Christianitie and all owld and new testament and become Atheists and Mahumetists Galat. 4. the owld law being but infirma egena elementa weake and as they translat beggerly ordonances consequently the new which is equal therto no better I lament some tymes to behowld great and iudiciouse witts imployed now confuting one point of sectarie impietie now another wheras yf they had principaly saue other mens iudgment reuealed the drift of thes reformations to be a stidiouse imployment to deforme by degrees all vertue and religion ther would many more reclamations although they be dayly reuoked in commendable numbers insue Now as S. Ireneus Iren. l. 1. c. 35. Hieron ep ad Cresiphontem and S. Hierome learnedly obserued Aduersus eos victoria est sententiae eorum manifestatio sententias eorum prodidisse superasse est Patet prima fronte blasphemia c. Victorie against them is the manifestation of their professions to produce their sentences is to confute them Blasphemie is discouered at first view Their sentences euen against the roote and piller of religion and Christianitie being detected ther will many noble witts and mynds of our contry I dowbt not disdaine longer all consociation with such blasphemers Lastly was it not a ricidulouse comparison of Christs woords in this institution with the woords of circumcision circumcision not being so much as a figure of this Sacrament Gen. 17. v. 11. but only of baptisme the next woords euidently and expressly declaring Vide num 78. Ioan. 6. 1. Cor. 11. vt sit in signum faederis inter me vos that it be a signe of the couenant betwixt me and you wheras contrary wyse the woords of this institution befor after do auerr it not to be any signe but the fleashe to be meat indeed the body to be that which was to be deliuered for mankyng Was it not as ridiculouse to meruaile ther was no transubstantiation of the forskynn into Gods couenant God declaring it as I sayd to be only a signe and a couenant not being a substance into which any thing cowld be transubstantiated was it not as ridiculous to leape from circumcision to the paschal lambe succeding many hondred yeares after and from thence to halfe the blood of twelue calues wherwith Moyses sprinckled the Israelits and hauing cluttred them together as one mater for their bare consonance or resemblance in sownd with the woords of Christs institution to make them equiualent in sence ende and proprietie with this B. Sacrament But as I haue shewed in the 68. 77. 78. numbers this debasing and disgraceing therof prooceedeth from their hate of Christs express woords this is my bodie which as their owne brethren obserue Ioan. Schut l. 50. causarum cap. 13. they do so hate that they can not abyde ether to see or heare them at least according their true signification Wherto belongeth thes speeches of Luther willing to haue impugâ—â—â—d the sayd puissant woords Luther tom 7. VVittem fol. 502. which sayth he in examining and deâ—â—â—ing I tooke merueylous payns and strayned euery vayne of body and sowle to haue auoyded For probe perspiciebam hac repapatui cum primis me valde incommodare posse I did well obserue therby I cowld notably haue interested Papacie But I fynde my selfe taken fast and that ther is no way to escape For textus euangelij nimium apertus est potens the text of the gospel is too to cleere and violent By this is demonstrated that good will wanted not in Luther to haue conceaued with the Sacramentaries but sayth he thes woords this is my body cannot easely be shaken much lesse ouerthrowen by woords and glosses deuysed by giddy brayns Luther ibid. I suppose this gall and confusion to be such to M. Rider that I will not here also collect any vntruethes further to netle him althowgh euery one may iudge by the premisses whether ther be not plenty affoorded It sufficeth in general and particular to haue discouered that the sence ende and literalitie or dignitie of
bread or drinke this chalice of our Lord vnworthely 1. Cor. 11. v. 27. shal be guiltie of the body and blood of our Lord. All this verse he maketh to be a caution or caueat I should thinke it rather to be a threatning prediction Secondly he would not call it the cupp of our Lord but only the bare cupp What is the reason thinke you because it cowld not be called the cupp of our Lord vnles it be allowed to contayne the blood of our Lord or for haueing bene sanctifyed to our Lord. The 28. verse But let a man proue him selfe and so let him eate of that bread and drinke of that chalice 1. Cor. 11. v. 28. This verse in his conceit belonged not to the institution of Christ which S. Paul had penned because it is not inserted nether as action nor precept nor promise nor caution which according to his skill are all the membres comprehended in Christs institutioÌ„ The 29. verse For he that eateth or drinketh vnworthely doth eate to him selfe iudgement 1. Cor. 11. v. 29. not decerning the body of our Lord. These verses so omitted so transposed so corrupted by him yet giue audience to his woords as if he had so cunningly deceaued all readers that they did not behould his industrie thus you see plainly without any dismembring or curtayling c. First I inquyer in all these verses what is contrary or repugnant to my profession Secondly what part or sillable of them do the fauoure his perswasion or the only figuratiue presence of Christ Thirdly how he blushed not to attaynt me with fraudulent omission cutting wasting c. I professing only to deliuer my choise proofs of Scripture for the real presence without binding my selfe to take more or lesse then I deemed sufficient whether they were consequent together or in seueral places and he vndertaking to vse playne dealing and to haue deliuered Christs whole institution as it is penned by S. Paul yet to misdemeane him selfe in this maner I vse not accusations of deprauations of falsifications and other lyke that it maâ— better by all be vnderstood trueth to be against him and noe tryfling 82. Secondlie the errours you still hold them in Rider in concealing the most part of the text first by following your Latten translation and neglecting the holie tongue the Greke wherein the holie Ghost pend this institution You translate Which shall be deliuered for you for which is broken for you Out of which I note first you change the tense that is in the Greeke that is the present tense for so wee haue it and you follow the Lâ—tten translation which is the future tense and therefore not so comfortable Christ vseth a sweete figure of the time present for the time to come Enallage to assure our soules and consciences that whatsoeuer Christ promiseth is as surelie to bee performed in his appointed time â—s if it were alreadie done And this tense Christ vsed to take all doubts from his disciples who in respect of their vnworthinesse might iustlie haue doubted that Christ would not haue died shed his pretious bloud for them they being such vnprofitable seruants and miserable sinners But to take away that doubt from them and the Church now hee assures both that whatsoeuer is promised by him is as sure to be done as if it were alreadie done And this staied Christs Church and euerie perticular member of the same from distrusts doubts grudgings c. in and vnder their seuerall crosses because they know there is a ioyfull Iâ—bile and freedome for them purchased and prepared and shall as surelie be accomplished as if now it were performed Now your altring of this particle is depriveth vs of all this comfort Againe you following still your corrupt Latten translation say delâ—uered for you wheras you should say as the Greeke is and as Christ saith Broken for you for this word broken is more Emphatical and piercing then deliuered for it is one thing for a man to be deliuered for to be betraied for me another thing to be broken in peeces for me Out of this I obserue first the greatnesse of my sinne secondlie the kindnes and exceeding loue of my Sauiour VVhether the vulgar Latin translation of the Bible be to be preferred to all other translations Fitzsimon 82. I Haue three causes not to iustifie our latin translation compared with the greeke against M. Rider One because I am priuie that he hath no more good greeke as I sayd befor then a blynd man hath sight Secondly because I fynde that woorke so learnedly and sufficiently performed by M. Gregorie Martyn in his discouerie and by the preface and annotations of the Rhemish testament that nether can I nor will I add or deminishe any thing therin Beza in pref noui test 1556. Molin pa. 30. Erasm c. 6. Math. Humfr. de rat interpretandi p. 74. Lastly because by their most learned pillers Beza Molin Erasme Laur Humfred c. the latin is confessed farr more pure then the greeke VVe haue obserued sayth Beza that the reading of the Latin text of the owld interpreter thowgh it agree not some tyme with our greeke copies yet is it much more conuenient for that it seemeth some truer and better copie This one testimonie of such an one so great as D. VVhytaker saith VVhytak pag. 12. con Martin he is able to close vp all our learned men in a sack and to ding out their brayns shall suffise to controwle and correct M. Riders ignorant medling in these maters ther being not a more naked linguist in a contry or more vnfitt proctor for the greeke tong as shall be shortly testified It was his chance during my being in prison in the presence of Alderman Iians the Constable and others to haue presented a trial of his skill in greeke abowt the words of the angel to our B. Ladie I confesse that my studie was much more in other maters then in the greeke tong yet as they aboue named are witneses I fownd M. Rider not only tripping in greeke but mute from euer after mentioning greeke in my presence Of the woord broken and the being therof in the present tence I haue so infallibly assured it to confirme vs and to infirme him in the 76. number that to repeat it agayne here would nether be expedient nor conformable to my breuitie carefully followed by me as much as the mater will allow And this man standing vpon the forsayd woord rather then vpon deliuered forgetteth him selfe a litle befor saying that the Euangelists and S. Paul must not be expownded to contradict one another consequently the Euangelist saying deliuered and S. Paul saying broken ther is no diuersitie whether be vsed especialy the Scripture vsing them as hauing but one signification breake thy bread to the hongrie Isa 58.7 Thren 4.4 Exod. 12. Num. 9. litle ones haue craued bread ther was none to breake to them which breaking is all one
as deliuer bread to the hongry or to litle ones and the literal signification of deliuering is verifyed in Christs passion but not of breaking For he was deliuered for our synnes but I being able to say that he was also broken for vs in the B. Sacrifice of his body vnder the forme of bread and M. Rider denying such his sacrifice and not being able possibly to shew any other his breaking do you thinke that leauing to talke of deliuerie for breaking he knoweth what is with him or against him The amplifying of Christs promise in the present tence there being no promise in these woords this is my body which is broken for you sheweth such mates when they can gett a woord to wander against the trueth for Christ vsed then a present tence to testifye the efficacie of his institution of the B. Sacrament in which his body was presently deliuered inuisibly which was the next day to be deliuered visiblye therevpon they amplifie and descant at full wheras vpon the true and literal institution of Christ arcording the propre signification therof they walke so nicely Luth. tom 7. defen verb. caenae fol 383. as yf they were treading vpon egges Fearing sayth Luther to stumble and breake their necks at euery woord which Christ pronownced 83. In the first that Christs Rider birth and life though both innocent was not sufficient to cleanse my sinne In the second Christ would vndergoe shamefull buffets on the face pricking of thornes vpon his head piercing nailes into his hands and feete a bloudie speare into his blessed side before mans sinne could bee satisfied Gods wrath appeased Sathan death and hell conquered this our liuing Christ would haue his bodie broken for vs he would not leaue one sighein his soule for our sakes nor one drop of bloud in his bodie vnshed for our sinnes These comforts are expressed by this word broken which are not nor can be gathered by this word deliuered 83. In my Examination of the Creed in the 14. numbre Pitzsimon I haue shewed that euery meritt of Christ being of infinit valew had bene sufficient to redeeme a thowsand worlds and that his death and passion were suffred vpon his excessiue abundance of loue which was not content with what had bene sufficient but also powred owt it selfe beyond all respect and measure to the last drop of blood in his bodye for greater manifestation of his bountifull charitie toward mankinde How cometh my Warr-man and sayth that Christs death it selfe was not only not of superabundant affection but that beyond his death the very pearcing of his syde with a speare was necessary to clense his synne Which is blasphemie against all Scripture and Christianitie referring always our redemption to Christs holye passion I knowe not whence it coulde come to him but only to fulfill the saying of S. Nazianzen Inter se certant perinde atque non id metuant ne impijs erroribus sese constringant sed ne in hac re leuius tolerabiliusque peccent quà m alij They stryue among them selues as yf they had no feare to intangle them selues in impious errours but that euery of them be not behinde his compagnions in lesse offendinge Other aunswer is in the forsayd 14. number Rider 84. Another comfort is concealed from the Catholickes in omitting the 25. verse in these words Math. 25.40 Heb. 2.12.13.17 Ioh. 10.27 The newe Testament in my bloud Out of which euerie man may gather these comforts to himselfe by particular application First that I am not a straunger to Christ but one of his younger brethren and not onelie well knowne vnto him but also as well beloued of him which appeareth in this that hee did not onelie remember me in his last will but also most freelie and liberallie bequeathed vnto my soule and bodie most precious Legacies where wee may finde them registred most safelie kept in Gods booke and daylie pronounced in our Creed as remission of sinnes of both guilt punishment peace of conscience in this life at the latter day rising of my bodie from death and dust af erwards life eternall both to soule and bodie These Legacies be bequeathed and contained in this Testament which be hath not onely sealed outwardlie with Sacraments but also inwardlie with his bloud by faith to assure vs of the performance of his promise and therefore he addeth in my bloud so that all other Testaments Wils Buls or Pardons which are not sealed with Christs bloud but with lead or war are but counterfeit labels stitcht to Christs testament by some false forgeries of periured Notaries wherin they doe falselie promise remission of sinnes and the kingdome of heauen Fitzsimon 84. M. Rider shall pull off with his owne hands his maske of consolation by these woords the new testament in my blood and acknowledge to all Readers his contentment to be but forged and his cause and coÌ„science to be full of desolation by means of them First then he sayd in his 78 number that thes woords of Christ ordayned by one authoure haue one sense one sounde one ende with these woords of the ould testament this is the blood of the Couenant Exod. 24.8 But the sense of thes woords of Moises is that the ould testament was ratified by true and real blood substantialy sprinkled vpon the Israelits therfor the sense of Christs woords must lykewyse be yf as he saith they haue one sense that his new testament was made at his last supper and his true and real blood was substantialy powred into the mowthes of his Apostles which blood deliuered them after as S. Luke saith Lâ—c. 22.20 was to be shedd for them Now Sir what consolation haue you about yourt hart Are not you made your selfe to disguise your fayned countenance That Christ made his testament at his last supper it is first the confession of Musculus saying In the same supper being then nighe his death he made his testament How did Musculus ground his opinion because saith he Musculus in locis coÌ„ Cap. de cana n. 2. pag. 332. that a testament be made auaylably is requyred first that the maker therof be at his owne libertie for a slaue a seruant a sonn in his Fathers gouernement can make no testament This libertie had Christ at his supper and not at his death Also he must make executours so did Christ make his Apostles by this institution appointing them to dispense the grace of this testameÌ„t c. wheras ther was no such mater at his death I add that lawfull testaments are made by men befor their death when they are in good memorie and not at the instant of their death Which according to good protestantcie had great occasion in Christ our Saluiour whom at the tyme of his death they affirme to haue bene in desperation in torments of conscience c. as is assured in the 14. and 15. numbers of the Examination Is not this a good
brotherly helpe to M. Riders consolation by thes woords of Christ the new testament in my blood Math. 25.40 For a testament is not a testament till the partie dye And Christ at his supper dyed not otherwyse but mysticaly as in sacrifice therfor yf ther was a testament made such sacrifice is to be confessed Will you haue Christ him selfe manifest his making the new testament at his supper Why then at it he sayd mandatum nouum do vobis Ioan. 13.34 a new law I giue you Marke this sequel vpon this planted foundation Christ by confession of greatest protestants made his testament at his last supper and M. Rider accordeth therto confessing him in this present place and numbre to haue made his last will bequeathed legacies c. Well then I inferr both that he shedd or deliuered his blood at this table and also that he sacrificed him selfe which in effect is all one For by M. Riders confession among his legacies Ad Hebr. 9.22 at his supper one principal is the remission of our synnes But S. Paul saith Sine fanguinis effusione non fit remissio withowt shedding of blood ther is no remission Ergo or therfor Christ in his supper shed his blood by which he bequeathed such legacie of remission of synns Now yf Christ as M. Rider sayd in the precedent number could not clense his synn without death and yet that at his supper he bequeathed vnto him by his last wil remission of synns of both guilt and punishment as is saith he pronounced in the Creed wherof others may be iudges whether he vnderstand his Creede or noe considering that to this day all mortal men do feele the punishment at least of Adams guilt to be vnforgiuen as to one not only well knowen by him but also well beloued of him as his yonger brother they are his owne woords It must followe that Christ was sacrificed I mean incruentally to his heuenly Father at his last supper Ad Hebr. 9.16 both for his making then his testament vbi enim testamentum est mors necesse est intercedat authoris for wher a testament is it is necessarie the deathe of the testator happen as also for shedding his blood and fullfilling all figuratiue sacrifices of the owld law in which the blood was not only shedd but also the things sacrificed were first putt to deathe yet this shedding of blood is not to be vnderstood in any other then in a mysticall and impossible maner No body hathe ingaged M. Rider to confesse this trueth but him selfe Wherfor yf his pew-fellowes exclaime at him and say that he hath confessed the true shedding of Christs blood substantialy although not in propre forme but only vnder the forme of wyne vnderstanding by shedding only the powring therof into the mouthe of the Apostles at his Supper and also the Sacrifice of Christ therby which is the Masse without which his blood could not then be shedd nor his testament had bene auaylable for nondum valet dum viuit qui testatus est Ad Hebr. 9.17 it is not of force while the testator without all death mystical or corporal liueth and therby ratifyed all papistry and confownded all protestantcy and which might seeme most absurd allowed a duble death of Christ one at his Supper another vpon the cross S. August tom 8. in Psal 61. Let him aunswer first for the residue out of S Augustin Occultari potest ad tempus veritas vinci non potest Florere potest ad tempus iniquitas permanere non potest Veritie for a tyme may be hydd but it can not be vanquished Iniquitie may florishe for a space but can not continue And to that heynouse doctrin of Christs duble death let him denye it hardely and say that at his Supper was only anticipated in an incruental and incomprehensible maner and mysticaly not in his propre forme but of bread and wine and without violence the same death which succeeded in a cruental violent maner as it was one the same lambe of God sacrificed in bothe maners first incruentaly after cruentaly In teaching this doctrin first he hathe it assured to him by the connection of Scripturs here produced Secondly by Musculus an arche Protestant Calu. in libell de caena de vera Eccles refor Zuing. to 1. de canone misse fol 183 â—iblia de Trinit l. 2. pag. 89. Thirdly by the ancient Fathers vniuersaly whom Caluin and Zuinglius testifye to establishe this incruental sacrifice And Bibliander certifyeth it was the vndowbted beleefe of the ancient Israelits that Christ would institute such a sacrifice in bread and wyne Therfor Gentle M. Rider reioyce at those sugred woords of Christ this is my blood in the new testament not faynedly or by dissembling those remote causes alleaged but for the riche treasure left perpetualy to Gods Church of so pretious a sacrifice wherby force is giuen to all bulls and pardons necessarie for remission of our synns In truth I had forgotten to calculate incident vntruthes in a long tyme yet now am constrayned to score vp at least the 81. grosse vntruth The 81. vntruth that we teache other remission of synns then by Christs testament My good Sir affoord vs some citation of such our doctrin according to your promise to alleadge booke leafe c. or elss we will thinke that we may lawfully say yow ryde c. 85. These deceiuers must be told as Peter told Ananias Rider why hath Sathan fild thy heart that thou shouldest lie not onelie vnto men but also vnto the holie Gost Acts. 5.3 In Ananias heart there was a wicked conceit in his practises a wicked deceit and for his reward a suddaine death You Chaplens of the Pope doe tell the poore people many waies to haue remission of their sinnes besides Christes Testament Christes blood which I will deliuer particularlie if I be vrged but you are deceiued and so you deceiue them and because you would keepe them still blinde that they should neither see your deceit nor theyr owne daunger therefore you kept this comfortable clause from them The new Testament in my bloud whithout which there is neither remission of sinns nor sauing of soules Another comfort you conceale from the deuout meditation of euerie good Christian which is In rememberance of me We read in histories after Iulius Caesar was slaine Suetonius Plutarch Marcus Anthonius made an Oration to the people of Rome in which he shewed Caesars loue and painted out verie Rhetoricallie Caesars bountie to them while he liued but in the heat of his speech he made a pause shewed them Caesars robes sprinkled with his princelie bloud shed by the bloudie hand of his cruell and malicious enemies which when the Cittizens sawe remembring his loue presentlie they ranne vpon the murtherers and slew them Did the Cittizens of Rome being Pagans reuenge Caesars death vppon his enemies onelie remembring his loue and liberalitie Then
there is no carnal presence Here is an absolute conclusion vpon a conditional proposition yf bread remayne c. which yet in Luthers opinion of companation would be false The other proposition is deceytfully supposed true beyond all controuersie that bread remayneth c. A second Yf you be autheurs of their synns you must be partakers of their punishment but as he deceytfully supposeth or rather as I thinke in my conscience dissembleth to suppose we are autheurs of their synns which being in controuersie one only proofe had bene requisit in forme of argument but that at his hands were to seeke woolle at the goats howse therfor c. Yf Mennon Darius lieutenant against Alexander were among such compagnions how often should he be occasioned to cudgell or bastonad them as he did one of his sowldiours reuiling and reprehending the Macedonians saying I keepe thee to fight and not to scould For yf Memnon lyke you bereaue them of their rayling reasoning that you keepe people in ignorance that you will tast as recusants of Christs gospell vengeance in flaming fyre other such fanatical naked reproaches Other fighting of their learning you nede as litle feare as hurt from a serpent whose sting and teeth are taken away 94. Thus you record to the worlds wonder Rider Rhem Test 1. Cor. 11. Sect. 16. Rome Rhemes shame against God Christ Scriptures and Fathers that ill liuers and Infidels eate the bodie and drinke the bloud of Christ in the Sacrament and your reason there followeth that they could not bee guiltie of that they receiued not and that it could not bee so hainous an offence for anie man to receiue a peece of bread or a cup of wine though they were a true Sacrament First old father Origen shall answere you who saith Est verus cibus quem nemo malus potest edere Origen super Math. 15. page 27. It is true meat which no wicked man can eate Heere Origen condemneth the Rhemists Romanists and all late Priests and Iesuites for holding this opinion iniurious to Christs death and all true Catholikes faith But you may obiect against Origen and say the Rhemists laid downe their opinion and gaue reasons to confirme it But where is Origens reason by which he prooues this former position that no wicked man can eate Christs bodie Super Math. 26. forsooth it is in his Comentarie vpon your text brought forth of mathew in these words Panis quem filius Dei corpus suum esse dicis verbum est nutritorium animarum the bread which the Sonn of God said to be his bodie is the nourishing word of our soules Out of which this we gather that seeing this bread or meate is the nourishment of our soules not of our bodies he spake of the heauenlie part of the sacrament For we know in common sence that bread and wine cannot nourish the soule but the bodie I haue proued by scriptures and Fathers before that the hand and mouth of the soule is a liuelie iustifying faith which you all your side cannot denie but the wicked want Now if the wicked haue no mouth nor stomacke to receiue this spirituall food and digest it as the foresaid Fathers haue affirmed why doe you say that the wicked and Infidels can eate the bodie of Christ wanting both hands mouth and stomacke And the scriptures call wicked men dead men Now you know dead men cannot eate meate corporall Chrysost Hom. 60. ad pop Antioch no more can the wicked which are dead spirituallie eate meat celestial And Chrysostome sayth Let no Iudas stand to no couetous person if anie be a disciple let him be present for this Table receiues no such as Iudas or Magus for Christ saith I keepe my Passouer with my disciples And to conclude with Augustine Tract 26. super Ioh. pag. 175. Qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus proâ—ul dubio c. Hee that abides not in Christ and in whom Christ abides not out of doubt eateth not spirituallie his flesh nor drinketh his bloud although carnallie and visiblie he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ but rather eateth and drinketh the Sacrament of so great a thing to his iudgement and the reason followeth Quia immundus c. because hee is vncleane in heart and presumes to come to the Sacrament of Christ which no man can worthilie receiue vnlesse he be pure and cleane in heart as Christ saith Mat. 5. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God Out of Augustine I obserue against both your opinions these thinges First hee makes a difference of Christes flesh and the Sacrament of Christes flesh for they bee two things and to be distinguished with their seueral substances and properties and not to bee confounded or transubstantiated one into the other and so the nature of bread perish as you vntruelie imagine and teach Secondly that the wicked receiue and grinde with their teeth and swallow with throat the outward Sacrament that is the outward visible creatures of bread and wine Acts. 15.9 to their iudgement or condemnation because they presume to come without a cleane heart and conscience purified by faith But the godly eat the heauenlie part of the Sacrament which is Christ with his benefits because they dwel in Christ by faith and Christ in them by his spirit as hath been plainlie handled before Part. 3. distinct 2. cap. 65. And now I will be bolde to vrge your owne Popes decrees against you Qui discordat à Christo c. whosoeuer dissenteth from Christ doeth neither eate his flesh nor drinke his bloud but the wicked dissent from Christ therfore they neither eat Christs flesh nor drinke his bloud And cap. 69. following quicunque panem c. Whosoeuer eateth this bread the Lord shall liue foreuer but the wicked liue not for euer therfor the wicked eate not this bread the Lord. Now Gentlemen I would faine see how you can dissprooue these Fathers and old Popes and satisfie the Catholicks in this case but I shall haue a fit place to speak of the vnreasonablenesse of this opinion in the title of the Masse where I must shewe to the Catholickes the Popes Priests and Iesuits shamefull opinions that you thinke it no incouenience not onelie for the wicked but also for all such bruit beasts as cats or dogs rats or mice hogs or swine to eate the blessed bodie and drinke the precious bloud of Iesus Christ VVhether the wicked may receaue Christ or noe Fitzsimon The 85. vntruth 94. WHat a ful-mouthe worde worlds wonder is the 85. vntruth thrust out withal that the wicked receaue not the body of Christ Could euer honest or other countenance a true complaint better then Putifars wife or the false harlot before Salomon or the wicked Iudges their false accusations Blame me if M. Rider be not here and euery wher found
it is a name proceeding from meere folly of man that Carolostad vtterly reiected it and that you must be satisfyed with the woord of seale which sayth Bruce God and Christ haue giuen to his Apostle c. Only yf this had bene sayd befor not couertly but playnly and sensiblye we had neuer inueyed against your figuratiue SacrameÌ„t Muscul in loc con c. de canan 2. pag. 327. but against your figuratiue seale And then according to Musculus had we bene neuer the nerer For seale is not fownd so conuenient to specifye your doctrin as appeareth by him in these woords the bread is the body of Christ nether naturaly nor personaly nor realy marke good M. Rider nor corporaly nor yet spiritualy agayne marke I pray you for in the 62. number you are shewed to be a falconer and therfor may obserue your game in your owne phrase nor figuratiuely good Sir attend nor significatiuely you will loose all your opinion yf you take not heede restat post haec omnia Westphal loc cit Clebitius in victoria veritatis ruina Papaâ—us Saxonici argum 12. vt dicamus panemesse corpus Domini sacramentaliter it remayneth after all these that we say the bread is the body of Christ sacramentaly So that this woord Sacrament is nethet allowed nor the woord seale retayned but Sacrament sayth Westphalus then only obserued when Caluinists may shift and lurk vnder it as in this case tearming it a brasen wall being at all other tymes disclaymed as noteth Clebitius Notwithstanding this foisting in of the new fangled woord Seal and enimitie against the woord Sacrament as else where against the woords Christ Churche Catholick traditions preests merit good woorks Romain real Trinitie consubstantial Crosse blesse c. Yet you shall behould our Reformer so Catonicaly to censure this lightnes as yf it had not bene his and his brethrens but our fault Sic curios simulant bacchanalia viuunt Yet mistake me not that I seeme to dissalowe the worde Seale in his naturall signification knowinge that it is founde applyed to Circumcision Gen. 17.10 Rom. 4.11 but what I indeuour is only to taxe this translation of wordes out of the owlde testament into the newe without al authoritie and occasion to prepare a way to exclude al Sacraments of the new testament by proouing them of no greater force then the ceremonies of the ould lawe with whom they agree in appellation P. Martyr 1. Cor. 11. His diuision of three sortes of faithe is borrowed out of Peter Martyr nothing belonginge to any matter in question S. Chrysost hom 45. in Ioan. nothing true and containing nothing needful to be refuted Lastly al his former discourse out of S. Chrisostom of treason by the violence toward the picture as much as toward the Prince in person although it ouerthroweth euery way image-breakers c. yet how it ouerthroweth the point in question is breefly to be declared Yf sayth S. Chrysostom the defylers of the kings robe be noe lesse then the tearers therof punishable what meruayle yf vncleane consciences receauing the body of Christ be as damnable as the crucifiers of him Wherby obserue how this maketh against Protestancie that the vncleane receaue the very body of Christ that it is more treason against Christ to abuse this Sacrament then against a kinge teare to a kings robe it is no lesse then to crucifie him 1. Cor. 10.16 The challice of benediction which wee blesse is it not the communication of the bodie of Christ And the bread which wee blesse is it not the participation of his flesh 97. GEntlemen yee wrong the Apostles text first in your abuse of words Rider Verse 21. secondlie in mistaking the sence Your words be these The challice of benediction Pauls words in Greeke that must be iudge betwixt vs and which wee doe follow if we will follow Christ are these The cup of thanksgiuing And the holie Ghost so expounds his owne meaning after calling it poculum Domini the cup of the Lord. But you are much to be blamed of all good men because you had rather follow some late corrupt translation vse some superstitious inkhorne termes latelie deuised and so forsake the olde Apostolical phrase which the holie Ghost vseth in that holie tongue and in which it is still recorded for our instruction either confesse your ignorance in the Greeke or your malice against the trueth that the Catholickes bee no longer seduced by you that long trusted in you and to your doctrine Againe you say The bread which we blesse we say as Paul said and the holie Ghost pend The bread which we breake Alasse alasse what sinne doe you commit in thus seducing Christs flocke and the Queens subiects who hitherto haue builded their faith vppon your bare words Is this plaine dealing with Gods heritage are you Catholicke Priestes I pray you certifie the Catholikes what tongue or traÌ„slation hath it thus as you pen it The bread which wee blesse I tell you plainelie yet in charitie that you doe belie the Texte falsifie the tongue and seeke to keepe the people in blinde ignorance and superstitious palpable darknes to their euerlasting condemnation vnlesse the Lord recal them and they repent them Paules wordes ar these in Greeke and so your owne Hieroms translation hath them The bread which we break But you are so besotted with the crossing of your fingers which you tel the people is the true Catholick blessing that you forget and forgoe the true blessinge of the cup which is the Apostolical thanksgeuing to God for our redemption purchased in Christs blood whereof the cup is the true signe Againe we say as the holy Ghoste indited it and Paule writte it The communion of the body of Christ you say as no learned man of the Greeke text euer saide Error in the sence of the Texte Rhem. Testament 1. Cor. 10. sect 4. the participation of his fleash Thus much I haue shewed how vntruly you deale First in abusing the wordes of the Apostle Secondly in seducing and deceauing the Catholickes Let here the charitable Catholickes iudge how you wil abuse theire eares with fables that dare thus falsifie the plaine text Now come to shew how you mistake the sence of the words in the text seeking by indirect wresting to make the text prooue your errour which it denieth in flat termes and truth For I assure the Catholickes that nor one word fillable letter or title of this text once sounds of your carnall presence You follow the Rhemish who in this place thus expounds the words of the Apostle The cup which we blesse that is to say the challice of consecration which we Apostles and priests by Christs commission do consecrate c. and afterwards it followeth the Apostle expresly referreth the benediction to the Challice and not to God making the holie bodie and the communicating thereof the effect of the benediction Now let me intreate you to aunswere me
word which was made flesh which is Christ Deuorandus est auditu ruminandus intellectu fide dagerandus This word Christ must be swallowed whole by hearing must be meditated vpon or remembred by vnderstinding digested by faith Now you see Tertullian of your owne Paris print aunweres you expounds himselfe And seeing no man can better expound Tertullian his meaning then Tertullian himselfe therefore haue I brought him from your owne Catholicke Presse of Paris to condemne all Iesuits and Priests that shall set a litterall sence vppon an allegoricall phrase onelie to deceiue the simple plaine Catholicks and to abuse the godlie learned Fathers by an ignorant and sottish construction And now to the rest of your profes that follow The third parte of the second proofe Of Tertullian Fitzsimon 105. THe 104. vntruth that we frame any argument vpon Tertullians woord The 104. vntruth and especialy such one But since we are inuited by example thus we argue The Maior shal be your owne woords The faythe of the first fiue hondred yeares is the ancient true and Catholick faythe but that the fleashe and not only the soule was fedd with the body and blood of Christ was the fayth of the first fiue hondred yea two hondred within which Tertullian attayned the tyme of Christ yeares Ergo that not only the sowle but the fleash was fedd with the body and blood of Christ is the true and Catholick faythe The minor are the woords of Tertullian which herein are so playne that wofull and vayne is M. Riders witt and payne to strugle against them He telleth of an ould distinction that the Sacrament is one thing and the mater of the Sacrament is another Be it true or false are not the woords cleere that the very fleashe is fedd by the body of Christ and such distinction nothing pertinent to affirme or denye them Secondly yf the body outwardly eate the Sacrament and that as after in him followeth the body and soule are fedde by the same meat in the Sacrament and that he graunt the soule is fedd by the pretious body and blood of Christ How can it possibly be denyed but that the bodye also eateth the body and blood of Christ To affirme that we hould the soule to feede carnaly on Christ is in maner declared to ryde that is to forge and shamlesly to slaundre For we only teach that the soule feedeth on Christs corporal body not carnaly but realy and truely and yet spiritualy but not only spiritualy So that without any wrong it is to be accompted the 105. vntruth to say that we teach otherwyse The 105. vntruth Should not such an imputatiō haue two or three or at least one quotation of some one ould or yong noble or obscure sacred or prophane of our writers it being so oft promised so oft threatned But M. Rider will performe these promises in his printed books when he performeth other promises the frustration wherof in London was otherwyse incountred then in Dublin in Merchands written books When these be made Catholick that is not puritanicaly canceled without a benediction but Christianly marked with a fayre crosse then all other promises will also be more christian lyke accomplished and many a merchand reioyced and many a long expectation satisfyed But sayth he Christ recording to Tertullian is to be heard to be meditated remembred and beleeued and so Tertullian fayth he hath aunswered him selfe and his former saying that the fleash is fedde by the body of Christ All this he quoteth yet I doubt not very faythfully For I finde Tertullian printed at Paris to haue the booke of resurrection out of which my testimonie is brought so farr beyond the 47. yea and 407. page euen in follio that I can not make vnto my selfe any conceit how these last woords are sayd to be in the same booke following and yet but in the 47. page At this I stand not Only I craue all curteous witts and wysedoms to obserue how and whether at all Tertullian is made to aunswer him selfe and vs by this late allegation vnlesse he would suppose that euery thing aunswereth euery thing For yf what may be heard meditated remembred beleued could not be receaued corporaly then the Messias Christ our Saluiour could neuer be receaued in the blessed virgins womb nor into the howse or habitation of any other Yet our beleefe assureth the contrary and consequently the saying of Tertullian that our fleash is fedd by the body of Christ remayneth in his full vigor although those other words be true Nay rather they are more therby verifyed For yf Christ be heard or beleued his saying the bread to be his body should not be distrusted Could you be content to heare the former testimonyes auoyded by euery by and impertinent woord that they were mystical Sacraments Eucharistical and therefore not true and can you not accept lyke maner of aunswering in this place I referre you to Luthers opinion of lyke their wonted answering mentioned in the 47. number Although the former woords of Tertullian are insupportable to M. Riders clayme and that he strugleth in vayne against them yet I will second them with this conclusion out of the sayd Tertullian Acceptum panem distributum discipulis Corpus suum illum secit Hoc est Corpus meum dicendo Tertull orat de Antichristo The bread taken and distributed to his disciples he made it his body saying This is my body I would fayne behould M. Riders skill in wreasting these woords from our purpose with any shew of probabilitie His wonted maner of wreasting without probabilitie which posteritie will I suppose by his remembrance name ryding is as I thinke loathsome to his most louing frends to fynde in him and lewed to be followed by him Catholicke Priestes God hath left vs his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke that we might be nourished by that Cyprian de Duplici Mart floruit 249. by which we haue been redeemed Rider 106. A Blinde man may see that you neuer read this in Cyprian your selfe or else that you vnderstand them not For Cyprian saith not God hath left vs his flesh but Reliquit nobis edendam carnem suam reliquit bibendum sanguinem c. he hath left vs his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke I pray you pardon me to aske you which is the nominatiue case to the verbe is Deus no but if you had begunne seuen lines sooner as you ought in deed to haue done at Nemo maiorem charitatem habet c. you shold haue found the right nominatiue case that there might haue been not onelie a gramaticall concord but also a Theologicall harmonie and then the sence had bene plaine For it was hee that died for his enemies that left vs his flesh c. And that was Christ not God the father But you begunne after your accustomed manner in the middest of a sentence mistaking the nominatiue case to
the verbe and so lay downe heresie for diuinitie for God the Father hath neither flesh nor blould But if I should helpe you with a charitable construction by attributing that to Christes Deitie which is proper to his humanitie yet you still haue wrested the father and abused the Reader But thus Cyprian is to be read Christ hath left vs his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke so we confesse it we beleeue it and we teach it but to be eaten and drunke spirituallie by faith not corporallie not gutturallie as you imagine For this is the inward inuisible Grace of the Sacramente that you propound Now how this flesh and bloud of Christ is to be eaten or how Christs flesh and bloud are naturallie substantiallie reallie vnder the formes of bread and wine which is our question you cannot prooue by Cyprian and so still you propound the matter to vs when you should prooue the maner to vs and here is your error in the third kinde if not in moe before specified And heere you bring a testimonie out of Cyprian CypriaÌ„ de Caena Domini nu 9. where he speaketh not properlie of the sacrament but of the threefold Martyrdome which hee gathered out of the death of Christ and therefore you shew a great weaknesse in running to that Tractate whereas you might haue spedde better if you had list neerer home For if you had reade or woulde reade that Father vpon his Treatise of the Lords Supper hee would haue either changed your minde or hardned your heart but howsoeuer discouerd your errors And that the eating of Christs flesh and drinking of Christs bloud is not a grosse corporall swallowing of his blessed flesh and precious bloud as you deeme but that Esus carnis Christi est quaedam auiditas quoddam desiderium manendi in ipso c. What it is to eate Christes flesh and drinke Christs bloud The eating of Christs flesh is a certaine egernesse and a certaine desire to abide in Christ c. And three lines before this he saith Our abiding in him is our eating of him and the drinke is a certaine incorporation into him And in the latter end of the Treatise you shall finde that Father touch the point in question betwixt vs haec quotiens agimus non dentes ad mordendum acâ—â—mus How Christ must bee eaten sed fide syncera panem sanctum frangimus partimus c. As often as we receiue these holie mysteries we whet not our teeth to bite or chew but breake and diuide this holie bread by a sincere faith c. And foure lines before that saith he Edulium carnis Christi defaecatis animis c. The food of Christs flesh must be eaten with purified minds saith not with washed mouthes And a litle before that hee saith Impij nec se iudicant nec sacramenta diiudicant Ibid. nu 13. the wicked lambunt petram c. licke the rocke but neither sucke honic nor oyle c. that is to say they eate the Sacrament but not the inward grace of the Sacrament Thus I hope the indifferent Reader is satisfied that your proofe is not pertinent to the matter in question and therefore sheweth the weaknesse of your cause and the wilfulnesse of your mindes that will seeke so stiflie to maintaine fables with wresting Fathers Transubstantiation is but in deede a fable for Cyprians place that you bring handleth the visible grace of the Sacrament And in this place which I bring he toucheth the manner how that grace is to be receiued that is with fayth as we say not teeth as you teach c. And so Cyprian agrees with himselfe and we with Cyprian ioyne against your carnall opinion And thus hauing aunswered Cyprian with Cyprian and shewed you your ouersight and mistaking of Cyprian I will come to the examination of your next proofe The fowerth parte of the second proofe of S. Cyprian 106. FIrst I am blamed that when I should haue sayd Christ Fitzsimon I sayd God Wherby euery one may conceaue that I am not of their opinion who deny the godhead of Christ related in our examinatioÌ„ of the Creed I thanke Christ my God and Lord that I am reprehended but for sucht faults as consist with trueth and pietie Christ then hath left vs his fleash to eate and his blood to drinke saith S. Cyprian which M. Rider saith he confesseth he beleeueth he teacheth Then to the next clause that are should be nourished by that by which we haue bene redeemed To which M. Rider is mute or dumb and consequently offending in one he is made guiltie of all So that to beleeue part and not the whole is vnproffitable In the meane tyme S. Cyprians testimonie can not be auoyded For yf by Christs body we were redeemed then by Christs body saith S. Cyprian we must be nourished A figure a representatioÌ„ an appellatioÌ„ redeemed vs not therfor a figure appellatioÌ„ representation in this sacrament nourished vs not Not only through faithe and the stomack of the soule were our soules redeemed but our bodyes also to resurrection and glorie by the true suffring of Christs real and corporal bodye therfore not only in faith or only according to the stomack of the soule are we nourished but by the true participation of Christs real and natural bodye into our bodyes to nourish them and to sanctifie together the soule Yet saith he Cyprian telleth that the eating of Christ is a greedy desyre to remayne with him that with our teethe we teare him not but with a sincere faythe we kreake and diuyde him which we euer before and now professe and auerr For who thinketh Christs true and real receauing to exclude his spiritual and incorruptible receauing Let our 34. 40. 42. 46. 54. numbers beare recorde that we teach not otherwyse then as S. Cyprian here doth to witt the corporal receauing not to be a Capharnaical tearing renting or byting of Christ but a true real participation of his body into ours vnder the forms of bread and wyne to the sanctification therby of our soules Yf any requyre what is a Capharnaical tearing by the Capharnaits conceaued and by Sectarists imagined S. Cyril l. 4. c. 22. in Ioan. certifieth saying Ad immanes serarum mores vocari se à Christo arbitrabantur incitarique vt vellent crudas hominum carnes manducare sanguinem bibere They supposed Christ to induce them to the sauage maners of wild beasts and to haue incited them to eate the raw fleash of men and to drinke their bloud Yf you would kill sectarists you can not weane nor winne them from lyke grosse and carnal constructions of Christs words But to the former purpose that I may not play a protestants parts saying you see this taught and that taught this here and that there when it is nether soe nor soe I will alleage S. Cyprians woords breefe but playne S. Cypr. de cana Domiâ—i
euer idolatrie abolished but by the defenders of such worshipp Haue euer protestants conuerted any contries from idolatrie how are they named What histories recompt then Tertullians saying of them is dayly verified de prescrip cap. 42. Hoc esse negotium illis non Ethnicos conuertendi sed nostros euertendi hanc captare gloriam si stantibus ruinam non si iacentibus eleuationem operentur This to be their imployment not to conuert pagans but to peruert beleuers and to make it their glorie yf they can cast downe them that stand and not to lift vp them that are fallen The fouerth reason is the booke was esteemed to be of Athanasius by credit and reporte of Peter bishop of Nicomed therfor it was not of Athanasius by open coÌ„fession A fitt therfor for such a scholer The bishop of Nicomed did commend it as the booke of Athanasius therfor by open confession he sayd it was not the booke of Athanasius How did he then commend it to be the booke of Athanasius That it is sayd this bishop to haue bene the popes stipeÌ„diarie maketh the 110. vntrueth That it is confessed therfor The 110. vntruth The 111. vntruth not to be S. Athanasius his worke because it was sayd to be his woorke maketh the 111. vntrueth The 112. vntruth The 113. vntruth That it is reported by our owne histories to haue hapned vnder CoÌ„stantyne the fift makeeh the 112. vntruth The 113. vntruth is that there is scarcely a lyne in the 7. Chapters of such booke of S. Athanasius but contayneth a lye I remembre one Mistris Kirie an English woman who dwelled in S. Thomas streat in Dublin anno 1580. to haue bene replyed vnto by a poore begging woman who had craued hir almes for the sake of god and our Ladie when the sayd Mistris Kirie sayd she would giue nothing for out ladie because she was better then she hir selfe Mischefe sayd the begger take the worst of you both The same might well be sayd of the most lying lynes in your booke or this here specified Notwithstanding this assured discouerie of his reasons to be most friuolous and ridiculous or rather lamentable yet I thinke of the mater according to the annotations of Baronius vpon the 9. of Nouember that it was not S. Athanasius of AlexaÌ„dria that was autheur therof but some other yet very ancient of that name And all may thinke that this M. Riders exception against the autheur is no more to the mater then yf one would say nothing to be true whose autheur is vnknowen Catholick Priests Damascen lib. 4. de fide orthod â—ap 14. floruit 391. Let vs approach in ardent faith laying our hands in manner of a crosse and let vs receiue the bodie of him that was crucified Rider 111. YOu leaue out ei for it is in the father Accedamus ei let vs come and approach to him which is in heauen not on your Altar or in your miraculous accidents and then sheweth the manner how in ardent faith not with mouth teeth and stomake Damascen flatlie sheweth the impossibilitie of your carnall presence So this father is against your selfe for the manner of receiuing of Christ which is spirituall not corporall And in the same chapter the same father saith Corpus Christi c. that Christs bodie being vnited to the godhead descended not from heauen to the earth and therefore cannot be in your sacrament corporally and carnallie And as fire and heat be in a burning coale so and more neerelie are Christs humanitie and diuinitie ioyned together so that he which shall touch the coale should taste of heat and hee that should eate Christs humanitie must also eate Christs diuinitie which is damnable to thinke for a man to eate and deuoure his God But because this your impertinent proofe is your apparant disproofe I will proceed to the next The seuenth parte of the second proofe of S. Damascen 111. I Haue seene many nimble Riders gambole ouer stooles and stocks in Dublin on shrouetuesdaye but such stooles and stocks as Damascen obiecteth against M. Rider in the place by me alleaged so lightly vaunted ouer I neuer could hetherto obserue I might seeme to Catholicks faultie that of so much as Damascen tendreth I affoorded so litle and but one testimonie only wheras euery lyne of half the chapter might testifie the greatest opposition that might be against M. Rider But my affection to breuitie and the sufficiencie of what was brought to any man not willfully obstinat inforced me therto Now at least attend what Damascen deliuereth First discoursing by many arguments and examples of the powerfull woords of Christ he demandeth S. Damascen lib. 4. de fide Orthod cap. 14. Quid tandem offerri potest quin ex pane Corpus suum ex vino aqua fanguinem suum efficere queat VVhat possiblye may be obiected but that he may make of bread his body of wyne and water his blood Secondly discoursing how some might requyre to vnderstand the maner of such conuersion of bread and wyne into Christs body and blood he sayth Tibi item respondeo spiritus sanctus superuenit eaque efficit quae orationis facultatem mentis intelligentiam excedunt I answer thee also that the holy Ghost intermedleth Ibidem and woorketh those things which surpasse the vttrance of speeche and conceit of vnderstanding Thirdly discoursing whether Christ localy discendeth from heauen to be in the Sacrament he sayth Non quod assumptum illud corpus è caelo descenderit Ibideus sed quia panis ipse ac vinum in corpus sanguinem Dei immutantur Not that his body assumpted discendeth from heauen but because the very bread and wyne without such discension is changed into the body and blood of God Wherof he addeth that modus eiusmodi est Ibidem vt nulla ratione indagari queat the maner is such as by noe reache of reason it can be conceaued Fowerthly discoursing whether good and badd do receaue such mysterie he answereth they doe thee good Ibidem in peccatorum remissionem in vitam aeternam to the remission of their Synns and euerlasting lyfe the badd in poenam supplicium to their payne and punishement Fiftly discoursing as yf he were a prophet to preuent hereticall opinions whether the bread and wyne be only a figure or signe of Christs body and blood he answereth Ibidem Nec verò panis vinum Corporis Christi figurae sunt absit enim hoc verum ipsummet Domini Corpus diuinitate affectum In no maner bread and wyne ar a figure of the body of Christ fye vpon that but the very body of our Lord conioyned with his diuinitie Whervnto he addeth that Christ sayd not Corporis Sanguinis signum sed Corpus Sanguinem the signe of his body and blood but his body and blood Sixtly discoursing of the maner to approach he prescribeth the humble and
oportuit si quid arduum videbatur ab eo humiliter petere quam veluti temulentos clamare quomodo potest hic nobis suam carnem dare All the dictionary Doctors in his parish can not more faythfully translate these woords then as our allegation beareth Let all excusations of mans reache be conioyned and it will not salue this denial but ether it must be from profound ignorance or bottomles impudencie I a litle before aduertised n. 113. that M. Rider resembled the preacher in Paris called seeke here seeke there where nothing mentioned could be founde whether now also it be not notoriouslie belonging to his dealings I resigne to euery ones examination Yf before I had incountred any short chapters as now I do one not very long I would haue translated them or part of them some one tyme or other to testifie his friuolous assignations and vayne florishes in his extremities Once for all acknowledge by the forsayd alleadged chapter of S. Cyrill faythfully translated whether the feare of God and regard of all examiners of his fidelitie hath not abandoned him The 13. Chapt. of the 4. booke of S. Cyrill vpon S. Ihon faythfully translated to testifie the fidelitie of Protestant citations THe Iewes therefore did contend among them selues saying how can this man giue vs his fleash to eate Christ therfore sayd vnto them All things are playne and right to them who as it is written haue fownd knowledge but to fooles the most easie things seeme obscure But the honest Prou. 8. hearer and wyse what he hath vnderstood he commendeth to the treasure of his mynde not being letted by any conceit and yf any thing they be hard by much and often seeking and demanding at leinthe he obtayneth imitating hunting hownds which here and there seeke their game Esa 12. The propheticall woords note the wyse man to be inquisitiue saying searching seeke and dwell with me For we are alwayes so to inquyre that we may dwell with him and not be borne to strange opinions But thus the malignant mynde doth not For what soeuer it vnderstandeth not streight throwgh arrogance it reiecteth as friuolous and false yealding to nothing nor thinking any thing aboue it selfe suche as we shall fynde the Iewes to haue bene For it behoued them who had perceaued the diuine vertue and power of our saluiour by miraculous signes willingly to imbrace his speeche and yf in any thing there seemed difficulties to seeke their solution They did alltogether the contrarie And how can this man giue vs his fleashe Of God not withowt great impietie they crye together and it came not into their mynds that there was nothing imposible to God 1. Cor. 2. For wheras they were carnal as Paul saith they could not vnderstand spiritual things But folly to it selfe seemeth so great a mysterie But I pray you let vs make great proffit by other mens synns and yeelding strong faythe to mysteries neuer in so highe things let vs once thinke or vtter that How for this is a Iewish woord and cause of extreame punishment Therfor Nicodemus also when he sayd How can these things be he heard worthely art thow a master in Israel and art ignorant of these Therfor by other mens offense we being instructed when God woorketh let vs not demand How but leaue the knowledge and waye of his woorke to him alone For as no man knoweth what God is according to nature yet is iustifyed by fayth by beleeuing that he will reward him that seeketh him so being ignorant of the reason of his woorks wheras by fayth he doubteth not that he can do all things he shall obtayne no dispiseable rewards for this good disposition And truely so God exhorteth vs to be disposed by his prophet Isaie my cownseils are not as your cownseils nor as your wayes Isa 53. are my wayes sayth our lord but as heauen surpasseth the earth so are my wayes aboue your wayes and my thoughts aboue your thoughts So he who in knowledge and vertue from God is so excellent how may he not woorke so miraculously that the reason of his woorks surpasse the conceit of our mynds Dost not thou behould what is done by men of handy craft they seeme to tell vs some tymes incredible things but because we experieÌ„ce them to haue fullfilled lyke things we lightly beleeue they may do them How then are they not worthye of greatest torments that contemne God maker of all things as to say How in his woorks whom they know to be the giuer of wysedome whom the scripture hath tawght vs to be almightie Math. 19. Yf therfore thow o Iew will yet crye how such thy ignorance I imitating willingly will craue how wenst thow owt of Egipt how was Moises rodd conuerted into a serpent how was the leaprie hand suddenly restoared to former state how were waters changed into the nature of blood how went the Fathers drye throwgh the sease how by woodd did the bitternes of waters change to sweetnes how did waters issue owt of the rock How did Iordan stand How did inuincible Hierico fall by a crye only Innumerable are the things in which yf you requyre How you must necessarily ouerthrow the whole Scripture contemning the doctrin of the prophets and the writings of Moises himself VVherfor you ought rather to beleeue in Christ and yf any thing was hard humbly to learne of him then lyke dronken sotts to crye out how can this man giue vs his fleash Dost not thou see when yow say these things that together with that voice great arrogance is discouered Behowld Christians this is the chapter which sayth he being read through would testifie that we are deceaued This is the chapter which as he saith contayning nothing but our spiritual vnion with Christ bringeth in for example the coniunction of vyne and branches head and members c. This is the chapter which he wondreth that we would alleadge for our proofe This is the chapter which is nothing pertinent to the mater in hand You perceaue your selues The 130. 131. 132. 133. vntruth the 130. 131. 132. 133 vntruthes most malapertly auouched to abuse your patiences and to deceaue your soules you perceaue his confident appeale to autheurs posting to seeke here and there where he and his cause are vtterly destitute I would to God I could sett befor the eyes of all men the goulden chapters and instructions of primatiue Fathers in maner as this of S. Cyrill that all might perceaue how by reformers they are betrayed by false pretenses of reformations forsoothe according the doctrin of the primatiue Fathers when and whilst they are a seducing to deformations of all primatiue godlines and religion which by the primatiue Fathers were most commended The bread which descended from heauen is the bodie of our Lord Catho Priests HieroÌ„ ad Hedib Q. 2. floruit Anno 4â—4 and the wine he gaue his disciples is his bloud 115. THis place in deed is in
The 142. 143. 144. 145. 146 vntruth The 142. vntruth is that he will shew this allegation of Leo to be against vs. The 143. vntruth that we deale falsely with Gods woord and woorks of men The 144. that we haue deminished the authoritie of Popes and Fathers The 145. that the errour of Manichees had infected all Christendome For neuer was any heresie so vniuersal much lesse it of the Manichees The 146. vntruth that S. Leo saith the truth of Christs body and bloud to be as well in Baptisme as in the Eucharist For first this man that often blameth me yf I alleadge not woords next before or after my purpose although they had not bene pertinent he himself ouerskipped aboue a hondred lynes to fynde out some seely shroude remayning neuer the lesse as naked as the wood cock whose only beak is couered The woordes are Ecclesia quae de sponsi carne prodijt S. Leo loc citat quando ex latere crucifixi manante sanguine aqua Sacramentum redemptionis regenerationis accepit The Church which issued out of the fleash of hir spouse when out of the syde of him crucifyed flowing out blood and water she receaued the Sacrament of redemption and regeneration In which woords there is nether Baptisme nor Eucharist signifyed but only declared that the passion of Christ by similitude of effect called a Sacrament hath bene a redemption and regeneration to the Church What affinitie hath such woords with them by M. Rider lately related What a decretal and obstinat proceeding is this against perspicuous truth and in desperate deprauations to falsifie Fathers so wittingly to depraue euidences so contrariously It is Faedum mansisse diu vacuumue redijsse Filthye to haue sought so farre and departed so destitute The vsual artifice of such Doctors is when they are pressed and suppressed with any authoritie to search most carefully some woord in the place alleaged wherby they may in some shew euacuat the brunt of such authoritie being So infatuated with loathsomnes and hatred against Christs institution that therby being as Luther himselfe saith become madd and gyddye Luth. tom 7. fol. 397. what soeuer they take hould of although it be but a strawe yet they imagin it to be a speare and that at euery stroke they kill thowsandes Neuer could a Father expresse better the qualites of his children The 147. vntruth is The 147. vntruth that S. Leo by mentioning the woord Spiritual doth exclude all our doctrine This vntruth is at least a dozen tymes detected and therfor needeth no further refutation It is cleere that S. Leo here saith the Veritie of the body and blood of Christ and consequently not a figure only to be one of the Sacraments of our faith not vnknowen to children Which also S Augustin confirmeth And S. Leo to putt it out of doubt that he had rather indure any martyrdome then thinke otherwise he aduiseth Christians generaly sic sacrae mensae communicare debere vt nihil prorsus de veritate corporis sanguinis ambigant So to communicat at the sacred table S. Leo Serm. 6. de iâ—iunio 71. mensis as by no means to doubt of the Veritie of the body and blood Yf you requyre the cause of his knowledge he answereth Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur For that is receaued by mouth which is beleeued by harte These woords M. Rider are peremptorie No glossing no racking no quircks can auoyd them but that they leaue you a spectacle to God Angels and men full of shame and confusion for your vnaduised clayme and canterized conscience The 148. vntruth The 148. blasphemous vntruth is that the body of Christ made of bread is a phantastical bodye for in the 46. number M. Rider is made to conuict himselfe of such vntruth by fynding according S. Augustin to be no other body then was borne of the Virgin Marie Tertul. l. de resur carnis Such beastly accusations do well informe what you are because Spurciloquium decet haereticos ac Ethnicos as Tertullian saith For your Apostrophe to the Citie of Dublin and imprecation to God to iudge betwixt you and me For the first Dublin knoweth you too well and few of your sorte better not only for your former hindrance of the bakers therin but also for your transferring their trade of Merchandise into your house and liberties among your sonns in law they being forreners and very fleash worms in Dublin Such as nether beare sesse nor presse watch nor auarde towle nor custome and in the meane tyme suck the iuice of the Citie into their priuat purses vnder the warmth of your wyngs to vse your phrase and in the protection of your liberties So then Dublin should be very seaseles not to know you familiarly and particularly For the next be not headlong in such importunat prouocations against your soule God often permitteth sentence of hipocritical imprecations to take effect Let your brother in the Lord Schlusselburg lib. 2. fol. 68. Schlusselburg against your owne brother in the Lord Iohn Amand euen in our purpose and mater informe you saying The sayd Iohn Amand to haue cryed in publick sermon pray brethren and hearers that God instantly cause me to dye an ill death that I further seduce none yf I be faultie teaching this errour And thervpon he was stricken with a cruell cholick and breathed out his miserable sowle Polid. Virg. l. 8. hist Anglic. I referr you for breuities sake to the ruthfull example of Earle Godwyne related by Polidore virgil wherby you may be reclaymed from such execrations against your selfe To our purpose one of Dublin regarding your strange dealing and disputing pertinently declared it in a borrowed verse out of F. Cottons treatise of the Sacrifice Prisca tonas ridet noua das spernit ardua nescit Imperplexa fugit testificata furit Do you bring ould he scorns or new he fretts Or hard you fynd him dull Or playne he shrinks or past all doubt He storms and stands willfull Thus much for the fathers as a skantling or taste Catho Priests leauing the surplus to the curious Reader I might haue recited Martiall Epist ad Burdegalenses cap. 3. Anaclet Epist generall Dionisius Areop cap. 3. page 3. who liued within the compasse of the first hundred yeares but I obserue (a) I praie you obserue veritie I thinke your meaning was 500. years otherwise it cannot be true breuitie as by the next proofe shall appeare 118. 119. GEntlemen Martiiall neither in this place nor in the tenne chapters following saith anie thing against vs but for vs Rider and as I thinke altogither against you For Martiall reproueth those that honoured such Priests as â—acrificed mutuis surdis statuis to dumbe and deaffe images which neerlie toucheth your freeholde and diswaded them from it saying Martiall Nunc autem multo magis sacerdotes Dei omnipotentis qui vitaÌ„ vobis tribuunt in calice
olim a famous and principal Protestant imputeth his Conuersion to be a Catholick to no other booke so much as to the same Thus then sayth the sayd Vincentius Audies etenim quosdam ipsorum dicere Vincent Lyrin de prophan her nou Cap. 26. Venite o insipientes miseri qui vulgo Catholici vocitamini discite fidem veram quam praeter nos nullus intelligit quae multis ante seculis latuit nuper verò reuelata ostensa est You shal perceaue some of them to saye Come o yee fooles and miserable people who commonly are called Catholicks and learne the true faythe which none vnderstand but we which hath bene long hidd but is now of late reuealed and shewed What could any Catholick or right beleeuer speake more confidently toward his true beleefe Will yow giue eare to M. Riders woords of lyke mowlde and honestie Yow and your late Rhomish Catholicks do quite dissent from Christs trueth and owld Romishe religion And therfore remember whence yow are fallen and returne to the ancient trueth By which woords he nether goeth beyond nor astray from these former hereticks as truely pronouncing them as they It is impossible at this discouerie of his dealing but his mynde sayth out of Plautus Plautus in Cap. Nec mendacijs subdolis mihi vsquam mantellum est meis To my guilfull frawds there is no shrowd remaining What then was his intention in publishing his Caueat wherby was to insue such infamie and confusion as he could not be ignorant might haue succeeded I answer the same which is related in the 116. number of one of his brethren in the Lord. Who being challenged of his exorbitant lying answered Quam diu potero clades adferam Remund Rufus in duplicatione Con. Patrona Molinei Fol. 76. latebunt quam diu poterunt Valebunt apud vulgus ista mendacia As long as I can I will indomadge it shalt remayne secreat as long as it maye among the people these lyes wil be currant Such was Stratocles the Athenian who in all post hast returning home from the battayle wherin the Athenians were ouerthrowen certifyed the contrarie that they had vaÌ„quished their enemyes wherupon triumphes of ioye were appointed and great feastings and gratulations vsed within two dayes after the trueth being reuealed and euery one offended with Stratocles for his lying he answered I had more care to content yow two whole dayes then respect to haue towld one lye So is it with my Cauailero he esteemed more the ioye for a moment by being thowght a learned Doctor great confuter or gladsoome relator of false victories by vntruthes how great soeuer then the disgrace which might insue which he thought he would auoyd as long as he might and when he cowld no longer to defende his dissimulation by example of Beza Cartwright allowing in such cases to be lawfull to neglect all trueth and fidelitie as appeareth in the 99. number The third proofe That the chiefe Protestants did beleeue the reall presence Catho Priests and alleadged all the Fathers for the maintenance thereof 120. 121. 122. 123. THis trulie is worthie admiration that none of the fathers Luther Tom. 7. Defens verb. coenae fol. 391. whereof there is an infinite number but did speake cleane contrarie to Sacramentaries And though the fathers all with one mouth affirme yet the Sacramentaries harden themselues to denie them And they would neuer vtter this that Christ his bodie is not in the blessed Sacrament if they had anie regard of the Scripture and were not their hearts full of infidelitie Idem fol. 390. I trulie would giue the franticke Srcramentaries this aduise Idem Ibid. fol. 411. that seing they will needes bee mad they should play their parts rather whollie then in part therefore let them make short worke and rase out of the scripture these words This is my bodie which is giuen for you For touching their faith it is all one if thus they kepe it Christ tooke bread and gaue thankes brake it and gaue it to his Disciples sayng take eate doe this in rememberance of mee For this proueth sufficientlie that bread is to be eaten in rememberance of Christ. This is the whole and entire Supper of the Sacramentaries In vaine doe the Sacramentaries beleeue in God the Father God the Sonne Luther Tom. 2. fol. 263. and God the holie Ghost seeing they denie this one article as false of the reall presence whereas Christ doth say This is my bodie The whole opinion of the sacrament the Sacramentaries began with lies Luther in Ep. ad Ioh. HaruagiuÌ„ Typograh Argent Rider De Cons dist 2 canon prim in glossa tertia tenet page 429. and with lies they defend the same GEntlemen you knowe Luther was a Munke and though he recanted Poperie and vtterlie condemned your Transubstantiation as a fable hauing neither Scripture nor Father to warrant it yet he stuck fast in another error fitlie named (a) Luthers heresie was in Rome befor Luther was borne Consubstantiation which errour hee also suckt from the Popes owne btest as you may see in his distinctions For you in your Transubstantiation teach that of the substance of bread and wine is made by the Priest the verie naturall bodie and bloud of Christ no substance of either remaining but onelie the outward formes Luther by his Consubstansiation saith that Christs bodie and bloud bee receiued togither in the bread vnder or with the bread both substance and accidents of bread and wine remaining Now I pray you how fitteth this your purpose you will say in this that Luther held a reall presence True but Luther denied your reall presence as a fable And yet his opinion was farre wide from the trueth Wee regard not Luthers censure against vs for Christ his spirituall presence no more then you doe for his comdemning of your Transubstansiation And Luther is more to be commended then all the Popes Cardinals Priests and Iesuits in Christendome who with Augustine though he did erre yet would not perseuer in errors as you and they doe Ad Lectorem Tom. 1. page 1. least he should be an hereticke and therefore in his Epistle to the Christian Reader saith in this manner Ante omnia oro pium lectorem oro propter Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum vt ista legat cum iudicio imo cum multa miseratione sciat me fuisse aliquando Monachâ—â— Before all things Quid aequius peti potuit or first of all I beseech the godlie Reader and I beseech him for our Lord Iesus Christ his sake that he will read these my workes iudiciallie with great compassion and pittie and let him knowe and vnderstand that I was sometimes a Monke As if he should say if I haue erred or doe erre impute that to my Monkerie Poperie which in deed is but a forge of bles and a legend of lies The Priests thinke euerie real presence to
be their TransubstaÌ„tiated reall presence But because you say Luther helde a reall presence therefore you conclude against vs with his testimonie because you call him a chiefe Protestant perswading the Catholikes that either some chiefe Protestants be of your opinion touching your real presence or else that there is a iarre amongst our selues touching the same And because few of you haue read Luther as appeareth by your omissions transpositions and your imperfect translation and therefore in this point know not exactlie the difference betwixt your selues Luther and vs I will plainlie and trulie set downe the three seuerall opinions touching this question that the Reader may see wherin the difference one from another or agreement one with another consisteth The manner Christ willing shall bee by question and aunswere as followeth 1. Questi 1. Question VVHat is giuen in the Lords Supper besides bread and wine 1. Aunsw 1. Aunswere First you say the bodie and bloud of Christ Secondlie Luther saith the bodie and bloud of Christ Thirdlie we say the bodie and bloud giuen in the sacrament 2. Quest 2 Quest How is Christs bodie and bloud giuen in the sacrament 2. Aunsw 2 Auns You say corporallie Luther saith corporallie We say with scriptures and fathers spirituallie 3. Questi 3 Quest In what thing is Christs bodie and bloud giuen 3. Aunsw 3 Aunsw You say vnder the formes or accidents of bread the substance being quite chaunged the accidents onelie remainning Luther saith in with or vnder the bread neither substance nor accidents changed but both remaining We with scriptures and fathers say Christs bodie and bloud are giuen in his merciful promise which tendereth whole Christ with all his benefites vnto the soule of man sealed and assured vnto vs in the worthie receiuing of the sacraments 4. Questi 4 Quest. How must Christs bodie and Bloud bee receiued 4. Aunsw 4 Auns You say with the mouth Luther saith with the mouth and faith Wee say according to the holie scriptures that Christ must be receiued by faith and there lodge and dwell in our hearts for whatsoeuer Christ giues by promise mâ—st of man be receiued by faith 5. Questi 5. Quest. To what part of man is Christes bodie and bloud giuen 5. Aunsw 5. Auns You say to your bodies which is absurd Luther saith both to bodie and soule which is impossible We say to our soules for the promise is spiritual the things promised spirituall the names to receiue them spirituall so the place into which it must bee receiued must needs be spirituall not corporall not that the substance of Christs bodie is vained to our spirits but that those precious benefits purchased for vs in the crucified bodie of Christ must be vnited to our spirits by faith This doctrine is Apostolicall souÌ„d Catholick vppon which wee boldlie may venture our soules and saluations â— Quest To whom is Christs bodie and bloud giuen 6. Questi â— Auns You say to the godlie or godlesse beleeuers infidels as hath ben aboue said 6. Aunsw Luther saith both to the godlye and godlesse We say onelie to the godlie beleeuers as heeretofore hath been prooued â— Quest What doe the wicked eate in the Lords supper â— Auns You say accidents of bread and Christs bodie 7. Questi Luther saith the wicked eat bread both substance and accidents 7. Aunsw and the bodie of Christ also We say the wicked eate nothing in the Lords supper but bare bread and drinke nothing but meere wine being the outward elements of the sacrament As for the inward grace of the Sacrament which is Christ crucified with all his merits they eate not they receiue not because they haue neither a liuelie faith to receiue him nor a purified heart by faith to intertaine him And therefore they onelie eate as Iudas did and as Augustine said Illi manducabaÌ„t panem Dominum Tract 59. super Iohn page 205. illi panem Domini coÌ„tra Dominum The godlie eate bread the Lord the wicked onelie the Lord against bread of the the Lord. 8 Quest What is it to eate Christs bodie 8. Questi 8. Auns You say carnallie to eate Christs flesh with your bodilie mouth c. 8. Aunsw Luther saith carnallie to eate Christs flesh and spirituallie to beleeue in him Wee say with the Scriptures that to beleeue that all Christs merits are ours and purchased for vs in his passion This is to eate Christs bodie as hath been alreadie prooued 9 Quest. What is it to drinke Christs bloud 9. Questi 9 Auns You say carnallie to drinke his bloud 9. Aunsw Luther saith carnallie and spirituallie We say with the scriptures it is to beleeue that Christs bloud was shed on the crosse for our sinnes 10 Quest. How is bread made Christs bodie 10. Questi 10 Auns You say by Transubstantiation 10. Aunsw Luther saith by Consubstansiation We say by appellation signification or representation as aforesaid 11 Quest Where is Christs bodie 11. Questi 11 Auns You say euerie where Both of you erre 11. Aunsw for then Christ should not haue a true bodie Luther saith euery where Both of you erre for then Christ should not haue a true bodie We say according to Scripture and Creed onelie in heauen 12 Quest How is Christ euery where 12. Questi 12 Auns You say according to both natures 12. Aunsw But both of you speak Monkerie Poperie Luther saith according to both natures But both of you speak Monkerie Poperie We say with Scriptures and Fathers as hath been proued onely according to his Godhead Now gentle Reader you see the agrement difference that is betwixt the Papists Lutherans and Protestants And how impertinentlie I will not say vnschollerlike this is brought against vs which neither helpeth their carnall presence nor hurteth our faith touching Christs spirituall presence And now to the rest that followeth The third Proofe That the cheefe protestants did beleeue the real presence and alleaged all the Fathers for the maintenance therof Fitzsimon 120. THIS proofe being soe important by how much it is greueous and extraordinarie to be ouerthrowen by his owne brotherhood it lay M. Rider vpon to strayne all his senses and imploy all his power to frustrat so many assaults and especialy when his owne domesticals or rather his patriarcks had conspired against him First therfor he saythe that Luther was a Monck therfor by Luthers request all errours and among the rest this of the real presence ought to be imputed to his being a Monck And so all is thought well defended To which for answer I reuoke first into memorie what is deliuered out of Luther in the 117. number of the maner of answering of these people how euery thing to them seemeth a full and bastant resolution to all obiections Luth. Defens verb. cenae fol. 381. 382. 394. 405. 406.
not against his opinion how did he pronounce sentence against Ihon Lambert and Anne Askew principally for being of his opinion Fox confesseth the cheefe condemners of them to haue bene Crammer and Cromwell Perhaps he will thinke to escape with a turne of a Fox saying that to haue bene compassed by the pestiferous and crafty counsell and stratagems of Bishop Gardener that by the gospellers them selues the gospellers should be condemned Good ghospellers they must haue bene in the meane time But I am now so vpon the chase as I can not so lightly loose my game Why then in King Edwards dayes the forsaid Bishop as he sayth being cast into the tower did the sayd Cranmer condemne Ioan of Kent What Fox or woolfe can auoyd that but that Cranmer was therby knowen no frend euen then to any of the forsayd Anne Askews disciples I will not in vayne haue bene some tyme of your profession and hauing touched it and bene defyled with the pitch therof for which offense I dayly and most humbly craue pardon of my deere and soueraigne Lord and Saluioure but that of the same pitch I will light a toarche to them that are in darknes and in the shaddowe of death to direct their feete into the way of peace Let vs therfor pursue more of this kynde to haue the true portraicture of M. Rider placed befor all mens eyes Catho Priest Magdeburg in Epi. ad Eliz. Angliae Reg. Amongst factions of opinions some latelie take away the bodie and bloud of Christ touching his reall presence contrarie to the most plaine most euident and puissant words of Christ. Rider 124. GEntlemen this concerneth not vs it may fitter be inuerted vpon your selues for we denie not Christs spirituall presence taught in the Scriptures and receiued in Christs Primitiue Church but we denie your imagined carnall presence neuer recorded in Gods booke nor beleeued of auncient father nor euer knowne to Christs spouse the Primitiue Church as you haue hearde trulie prooued But this is your great fault vsuallie practised that whether in Scriptures or Fathers you heare of Christs bodie and bloud and his presence or reall presence you imagine presently without further examination that it is your carnall presence which thing is growne vp with you from a priuate errour to a publike heresie Catho Priest Fox in Martirol Kemnitius in Exā Conc. Trid. cenira tan de Eucharistia Tyndall Frith Banes Cranmer left it as a thing indifferent to beleeue the reall presence So that the adoration saith Frith be taken away because there then remaineth no poison whereof anie ought to be afraid of Yet Kemnitius vpon the assurance of the reall presence approoueth the custome of the Church in adoring Christ in the Sacrament by the authoritie of Saint Augustine and S. Ambrose in Psal 98. Eusebius Emissenus c. Saint Gregorie Nazianzen saith it is impietie to doe the contrarie So that the brood being of such agreement we haue the lesse occasion to embusie our braines to confute them GEntlemen by peeces you repeat some of their words not knowing at it seemeth the occasion and so you vtterlie mistake the sence which was this These godlie Martirs perceiuing the flame of persecution to burne so fast and mount so high as it was neither bounded in measure nor mercie and onelie for a new vpstart opinion hauing no warrant from Gods word They in a Christian brotherlie discretion exhorted the learned bretheren onelie to preach that necessarie Article of our free iustification by faith in the personall merits of Christ And touching the Lords Supper to teach to the people the right vse of the same yet not to meddle with the manner of the presence for feare of daunger if not death but leaue it as a thing indifferent till the matter in a time of peace might be reasoned at large on both parties by the learned Prouided euer that poisonfull adoration be taken away The premisses considered what can yee now gather that prooueth with you or disprooueth vs. Nay here is nothing but against you altogither For if you had dealt trulie with the dead Martirs or the liuing Catholickes these collections and not yours you should from hence haue gathered 1 First these Martirs taught with their breath and sealed with their bloud that your carnall presence and transubstantiated Christ was neither commandement giuen by God nor Article of our faith euer taught in the primitiue Church but a late inuented opinion deuised by man 2 Secondlie they wished the bretheren considering it was but mans inuention and neuer recorded in gods booke that therefore they should not hazard the losse of their liues which would tend so much to the preiudice of Christs Church 3 Thirdlie they wished it to be taken for a season as a thing indifferent yet not absolutelie but with these cautions 1 First that adoration or worshipping of the creatures were quite taken away which neuer was done by you and therefore they held it not absolutely indifferent 2 Secondlie till the Church of Christ had peace and rest from your bloudie and butcherly slaughters wherein the matter might be decided not with faggots but scriptures which was not graunted in their daies and therefore you greatlie wrong the dead when you make them speake that thing absolutelie which was limitted by them with conditions Now I appeall to the indifferent Reader whether you desserue not a sharpe reproofe thus to dazell the eies and amaze the minds of the simple Catholickes by violent wresting the writings of the martirs perswading the ignorant they should either dissent in this opinion amongst themselues consent with you or varie from vs. Whereas both they and we now and then consent with Scriptures Fathers and Primitiue Church in vnitie and veritie of doctrine against your dissentions pestiferous errours and open blasphemies Of M. Riders bynding him selfe to Consent with the first protestant Martyrs And of how many and monstruous beleefes he maketh him selfe therby 124. THey and he then and now sayth he consent with Scripturs Fitzsimon Fathers and Primatiue Church in vnitie and veritie of Doctrin against our dissentions pestiferous errours and open blasphemies Perhaps before I part I will make him beshrew the fingers of him that printed this protestation although I know Stow in Chron. anno 1549. it was not the printers fault Omitting woords let vs repayre to woorks The last named Ioan Knell of Kent shal be first confronted with M. Rider Fox Acts. pag. 398. 571. to see yf he will stand to this woord This Ioan as also did Peter the Germain an other his martyr denyed Christ to haue taken fleash of the B. Virgin M. Riders woords are that he consenteth with protestant Martyrs in vnitie and veritie of all doctrin It must then follow that he denyeth the same Since that I deale against a puritan I will alleadge one of the same sorte William Cowbridge Fox pag. 570. because he affirmed as Fox confesseth no
bishops to haue any more authoritie then preests as also because as other puritans can not tolerat any honour to the name of Iesus so could not he to the name of Christ but sayde that it was a filthye name Alan Copus dial 6. c. 17. and all that did beleeue in the name of Christ were damned Also that Christ was not redeemer of the world but deceauer therof Which with many other lyke articles he professed at his deathe as is not only affirmed but also proued by Alanus Copus alias Nicholas Harpsfeld against Fox All which M. Rider hath bound himselfe to beleeue Fox loc proxime cit Fox pag. 1151. Tom. 1. Luth. in disp de baptism Art 3. Gagninus l 6. hist Fran. Item Gerson tr 3. in Mat. Paul Aemil. l. 6. hist. Gal. Genebr in Chron. an 1280. by his former woords Thirdly Ihon Wesell denyed the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Sonne Yet he a Foxian Martyr Fowerthely Haux denyed baptisme of Children to be necessarie to saluation yet he a Foxian Martyr Yet Melancthon and he a Foxian Confessor pronounceth Furor est affirmare quod paruuli sine Sacramentis salâ— fiant it is furie to affirme that children may be saued without Baptisme Fiftly Almaricus as Gagnin relateth denyed resurrection heauen hell Christ in the Sacrament more then in a stone that God spake more in S. Augustin then in Ouid Yet he was a Foxian Martyr and by him made a great bishop which others could neuer haue knowen So he made Sr. Ihon Ould castle L. Cobham by his owne absolute authoritie as well allowed to make Lords and Knights as Martyrs and Confessours Fox pag 942. 943. 944 Sixtly Frith the learned and excellent Martyr of Fox affirmed the real presence no article of beleefe affirmatiue or negatiue although the expresse scripture record it and offred sayth Fox to Sr. Thomas More to beleeue the real presence without the adoration Ihon Clerke Fox in his Caleddar 12. 13 14. Nouemb. Iuly 3. Item Acts pag. 111. col 2. num 26. and Alice Potkins defended ther was no other Sacrament then Christ hanging on the crosse Antonie Person Testwod other assured the woords of Christ this is my body which is broken for you only to meane the breaking of Gods woord among the people All this by his former woords my Caualiero is bound to beleeue for these are Foxian Martyrs with whom he sayth he is consenting in vnitie and veritie of Doctrin So is againe William Cowbridge Alan Cop. dial pag. 6. 633. Fox pag 738. saying that nether the Apostles nor Euangelists nor sower Doctors of the Church haue hitherto reuealed how synners might be truely saued So Also is Richard Hunne saying that poore men and idiots haue the truth of the Scripturs more then a thousand Prelats and clercks of the schooles What say you M. Rider will you affirme the same according to your woord and bonde There is no remedie your obligation is to do it But I would know whether you now hould with the idiots rather then the Scholers Truly in any consequence you can not both for such promise and for being non proficiens accompagnie Scholers Yet yf you disdayne to be an idiot which your bond hath made you and perforce inuita Minerua will intrude your selfe among clercks listen how your Martyr in vnitie and veritie of doctrin Fox pag. 738. cometh ouer you he damned sayd Fox the vniuersitie of Oxford with all degrees and faculties in it So that vnlesse you take to be an idiot your Martyr condemneth you To be breefe in this ruthful obligation printed against your selfe to stand to such confederats besyd your making you selfe idiot c. you must auerr with Ihon Teuxburie Ibid. pag. 935. that it is impossible to consent to Gods law that all things are equaly belonging to all that the Iewes of good zeale putt Christ to death c. Of all othets mentioned in the examinatio of the Creed being all for the most parts saints of the same stamp add Calendarie you haue bound your selfe fast to ratifie their damnable blasphemies and to consent with them in vnitie and of doctrin You are to iustifie all that they haue affirmed or els your printed protestation will bewray your puritanical faythlesnes in performance of your promises 125. And next you bring in another learned Protestant Cheminitius Rider who you say alleadgeth Augustine Ambrose and Gregorie Naziazen to approoue your adoration in your sacrament Intimating to the world that we should either allow that in you which publikely we preach against or else that we should be at a discord amongst our selues touching this your opinion But the matter being exactlie examined out of these Fathers themselues and not by your Enchiridions or heresay the Catholickes shall see you wrong vs and abuse them And first it seemeth verie plaine you neuer saw or at least neuer read Chemnitius and my reasons bee these First you know not so much as his right name much lesse his precise opinion Chem pars 2. Canon 6. page 434. for you misspel his name Kemnitius for Chemnitius which had been a small fault if you had rightlie alleadged him touching the matter For your Tridentine Canon commandeth an externall or outward worship of Christ in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine And Chemnitius hee condemneth your outward worshippe for ydolatrous and teacheth onelie an inward spirituall worship And to prooue what I say I will trulie alleadge your Cannon then Chemnitius his examination of it and then let the Catholickes but iudge indifferentlie whether of vs deal more trulie and syncerelie in this case This is your Canon Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae sacramento Christum vnigenitum Dei Filium non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum solemniter circumgestandum c. Anathema sit That is if anie man shall say that in the blessed sacrament of thanksgiuing that Christ the onelie begotten Sonne of God is not to bee worshipped with that outward and diuine worship which is proper and due onelie to God as well when the Sacrament is carried about in procession as in the lawfull vse of the same Page 435. 436. 437. let him be accursed Martyn Chemnitius examining this your Canon first condemneth your fained Transubstansiation and sheweth the reason for saith he vnlesse the Church of Rome had deuised this Transubstansiation you should haue been palpable ydolaters worshipping the creatures for Christ And therefore she imagined that the substance of bread wine were quite chaunged into Christs bodie and bloud no substance of them remaining lest the simplest should spie their ydolatrie Secondlie he expreslie condemneth your outward worship as ydolatrous and sheweth there that Christ must be receiued by faith and worshipped in spirit and truth Page 444. lines 2. 3. 4. And afterwards hee saith comprehenditur autem vera interior spirituali veneratio adoratio
haue better informed since he would needs digresse to that purpose yf he had sayd Sainct Ambrose to haue written his Commentaries not consequently to the 71. Psalme but vpon the first and then vpon the 35. 36. 37. 39. 40. 43. 45. 47. 48. 61. and 118. Let others iudge what his skill was in S. Ambrose by hauing so as he sheweth to the world conceaued of his writings Rider Hieron de scripto Eccles 〈◊〉 in Eusebio Emeseno Tom. 1. page 296. 127. But now let vs see how fitlie you alleadge Eusebius to prooue your externall worship of Christ in the sacrament Saint Hierome maketh mention of Eusebius Emesenus Bishop of Emesa in Syria who writ in Greeke verie learnedlie and liued about the time of Constantius about the yeare of our Lord 342. and was buried in Antioche yet some verie craftilie haue stitched certaine Latten Homilies vpon this Greeke fathers sleeue and worke vpon him a straunge wonder in making him speake Latten at least fiue hundred yeares after his death that was ignorant of the language during his life But here I will not take vpon me to discusse whether this was Eusebius Emesenus the Syrian or Eusebius Emissenus that Canisius saith was a Frenchman hoc forte tempore claruit Canisij cron in Anno 500. Dist. 2. de consecr canon quia corpus page 432. in fine Your first decrees printed at a râ—s your last at Louaine something differ in words periods and peraduenture and peraduenture not florished at that time or whether it were Gratians Eusebius But this is most sure that Gratian doth grace his Canon with his name but which of them anie or noone of them it shall neither helpe nor hurt because wee wâ—l examine the matter not the man The canon is this cum reuerendum Altare cibis spiritualibus ascendis satiandus sacrum Dei tui corpus sanguinem fide rispice honora maxime totum haustu interioris hominis assume That is and when thou commest to the reuerend Altar to be fed with spirituall meates looke vpon and consider with thy faith the bodie and bloud of thy God honour it with great reuerence and receiue the whole bodie with the swallow of the inward man 127. Lyke dealing is vsed toward Eusebius Emissenus Fitzsimon both in omitting parcell of his woords recorded in the decretal alleaged and putting maximè for mirare but especialy for inferring by a Riderian sequel that because Eusebius persuadeth to vse fayth admiration and internal receauing of Christ he should therfor ouerthrow our doctrin that there can be any real corporal or substantial receauing of him and that the real presence is by him disproued Yet Eusebius him selfe in the same place amply teacheth that Christ inuisibly conuerteth the visible signes into the substance not only into the figure of his body blood by the secreat power of his woord Which words to any hart not veyled to any vnderstanding not depraued to any behoulder not reprobated might suffice but not to reforming illuminated Doctors Another pranck was to omitt these woords contayning the adoration toward such mysterie vt coleretur iugiter per mysterium quod semel offerebatur in praetium that the body should be euer honoured in the mysterie which was once offred for redemption and to propound the very ende of the Chapter to a cleene contray intention that no such body should be honored in the mysterie which had bene offred for redemption Was this sinceritie was this promised fidelitie to bring a clause in the ende of a chapter to ouerthrow the conclusion and whole scope of the chapter 128. Now examine Chemnitius his doctrine and your opinion Rider he brings in this Canon to approue the spirituall eating or worship of Christ in the Sacrament And you alleadge it to make good your external Tridentine adoration of your breaden God Behold euerie word of this your owne Canon is a witnesse against you for the meat is spirituall the man is spirituall the manner is spirituall the sight is spirituall and the worship or honour is spirituall Here is nothing corporall or outward as you say but all inward and spirituall as we teach VVhether Kemnitius allowed external adoration VVhen Pixes began Of the triumphe of Corpus Christi feast Fitzsimon 128. TO amend former dealings he aduiseth to examine Kemnitius his dealing and our opinion and that we shall fynde him to commend only spiritual adoration This facing out of the 179. The 179. vntruth vntruth shal be discouered to the detestation of all such writers The very woords of Kemnitius are Kemnitius in exam Conc. Trid. par 2. c. Ad veram confessionem pertinet vt fidem deuotionem celebrationem publicè quoque testemur voce alijs externis significationibus quibus ostendamus quid de huius Caenae substantia fructu sentiamus qua animi reuerentia deuotione accedamus qualem ibi cibum nos credamus accipere Tali externa confessione seiungimus nos a Sacramentarijs Epicureis horum mysteriorum contemptoribus excitamus alios ad Reuerentiam ne qua detur occasio vel simplicibus ad profanas cogitationes vel porcis ad conculcenda haec mysteria Externa enim irreuerentia signum est prophanae mentis non diiudicantis Corpus domini It pertayneth to true confession that we should publickly professe our fayth deuotion and hallowing both by voice and other external significations wherby we declare what we conceaue of the fruict and substance of the Supper with what reuerence of mynde and deuotion we approache what food we beleeue there to receaue By such external confession we sequestre our selues from the Sacramentarians and Epicures the contemners of these mysteries VVe do excite some to reuerence that no occasion be giuen ether to the simple of prophane cogitations or to Hoggs of treading these mysteries The external irreuerence is a signe of a prophane mynde and not discerning the body of our Lord. Vide num 59. Now appeareth the conscience and fidelitie of my Anaxagoras affirming euery thing contrariously Kemnitius professeth they are Epicures hoggs and prophane contemners and not discerners of the body of Christ who are aduersaries to the external adoration of the B. Sacrament M. Rider in saying he consenteth with him and that it is vntrue there is any iarring betwixt them must in lyke maner by such titles call all the impugners of such external adoration Let the whole state of England Irland and Scotland take notice of this his secreat reproaching them Yf also he will say that Kemnitius disproued the external adoration Vide num 59. because he approueth the internal I report my self whether that be not to Ryde or Anaxagorize to the last profession of Kemnitius In the meane tyme smyle not and I will shew you a pleasant inference of M. Rider that the adoration can not be but spiritual because the man coming to receaue the communioÌ„ is spiritual One would
vntruth Witnes to the contrarie S. Gregorie in the same narration yea and M. Rider against him selfe that with hir repentant teares she bedewed not what he sayth she adored in heauen but what she had purloyned from the altar Which was not a figure only but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which succeeded all types and figures Vide Suarez disp 46. sec 4. in 3. p. q. 75. a. 1. of the ould law or if you would haue it to be a figure let it be also the thing figured according as is so often forshewed that bothe may consist together For by noe circumstances or woords of figures would S. Gregorie haue the body of Christ to be excluded admonishing vs without doubt and shame to eate the body and drinke the blood S. Greg. Nazian orat 2. de Paschas quae est 42. yf we haue any desyre of Saluation and for noe woords of fleash to refrayne our beleefe and not to be offended by them which are of Christs passion As yf he had sayd let not them hinder thee who tell it is a fowle fact to eate the fleash of Christ nor be not moued yf thou be sayd to teare or torment Christ as in his passion or yf thou dost not thinke that Christ is eaten by thee in any corruptible or passiue maner be not troubled for the residue Thus farr haue we bene conducted by occcasion of Kemnitius whom I only sayd to haue bene aduersarie to such as denye Christ to be adored in the B. Sacrament and for his perswasion therin to haue alleaged these forsayd Fathers Yf he had mis-alleaged them the fault had bene his But to thwart and impugne the contrary opinion they them selues can fynde sufficiently out of the Fathers without mis-allegation wheras to contradict our opinion they can not fynde a woord O immortal and omnipotent Lord the Saluioure Iesus Christ thy name and bountie be euermore extolled that of thy infinit clemencie toward my sinfull sowle it pleased thee to deliuer me from all heresie in general particularly against my adoring thee in the B. Sacrament Glorious adoration so apparent and reasonable as euen to Sectarists them selues being otherwyse wilfully blinde so shyneth as victoriously to ouercome their malice and lead of them Kemnitius Bucer Brentius Oecolampadius Peter Martyr Kemnitius in 2. parte exam s ss 13. c. 5. Bucer in Actis colloq Ratispon Brent in Apol. pro conf VVittemberg pericope 2. Oecolamp in lib. de verbis Domini Martyn in disp Oxenij dictata pag. 173. and many more Captiue that when they would as Sathans Balaamitical hyrelings curse thee God and trueth wresteth them by acknowledging such adoration necessarie to blesse thee and curse them that impugne thee Glorious solemnitie of Corpus Christi by which Christs deere chast and vnspotted Spowse the Catholick Church triumpheth ouer all their heresies who denye the real presence or who beleeue it yet not otherwyse then during the present vse therof or who mis-beleue the plenarie perfection therof in one only kynde or who exclaime and barke at the religious cost and deuout honor toward Christ in that sacred mysterie or who denye transubstantiation or who affirme any bread to remayne together with the B. body of Christ or by any other impietie do hould any error against the Catholick doctrin concerning Christs realitie and reuerence appertaining to this mysterie All which heresyes by that solemnitie adoration and conseruation of the heaueniy hoste without the vse of the chalice are discomfited trampled ouerthrowen Glorious and thrise glorious mysterie so cleere so true so generaly acknowledged so powerfull as can not be darkened but by sleight clouds presently vanishing by the perspicuous and manifest attestations of Gods woord as can not be falsifyed by any deceits deprauations or corruptions of giddy brayns as can not be but acknowledged by all sorts of hereticks how much soeuer giuen vp to a reprobate sense as that hell gates can not preuayle against thee but that thou dost amaze euery horse and stryke euery his Rider as the prophet fortould into follye Zachar. 12. Fox page 586. Acts and monuments The sixe Articles established by act of Parliament Anno 1540. at the planting of the Protestants faith Catho Priest Rider 1. That there is the reall presence of Christs naturall bodie and bloud in the Sacramēt vnder the formes of bread and wine 2. That the communion vnder both kinds is not necessarie 3. That Priests by the law of God may not marrie 4. That vowes of chastitie ought to be obserued 5. That Masses are agreable to Gods law and most fruitfull 6. That confession is necessarie The foresaid Parliament and euerie one saying publishing preaching teaching disputing or holding opinion against the first of these Articles is adiudged a manifest (a) was burnt loste his Lands and goods as in case of highe Treason hereticke and missbleeuers in the (b) They but loste life goods as in case of Felonie which was then a fauour rest rigorouslie punished 130. GEntlemen I expected that your proofes should haue ascended to the first fiue hundred yeares after Christs ascention and now they descend so low that there is small hope either of your recall or recouerie I might iustlie take exceptions against this your Parliament proofe because it is manie hundred yeares too young to prooue our matter in question yet in respect it is an Act done by all the Nobles and learned of the land and least the Catholickes should thinke it vnaunswerable I am content to admit it yet still keeping my ordinarie course in examination of the proofes by Scriptures Fathers and the auncient Bishops and Church of Rome 1. Article 1. The first Article is sufficientlie confuted in the premisses alreadie handled 2. Article 2. The second Article crosseth Christs blessed institution and therefore is abhominable And your Parliament saith it is not necessarie to saluation to minister or receiue in both kinds as Christ and his Apostles did Reuel 22.19 Dist 2. de cosec canō Cōperimus fol. 430. But you know there is a wofull curse pronounced by Gods spirit against such as adde or detract to or from Christs Testament And your owne Pope Gelasius laith flat sacriledge to their your charge for this your halfe communion contrarie to Christs institution saying Aut integra sacramenta percipeant aut ab integris arceantur quia diuisio vnius eiusdemque mysterij fine grandi sacrilegio non potest peruenire Either let them receiue the whole sacraments or else let them bee kept backe from the whole because the parting of one and the same misterie cannot be done without great sacriledge The beginning of your Canon calleth this halfe communion superstition and the later part calleth it sacriledge Yet saieth your parliament proofe the receiuing in both kinds is not necessarie to saluation Then I say if it be not necessarie why did Christ vse it if we should not practise it why
did he commanded it Now if either Christs commandement Hoc facite Doe this or the Popes law can preuaile with you follow Christ his institution If you care for neither Christ nor Pope then the Catholicks may see that you are Antichrists and Antipopes and denie Christ written trueth and the primitiue practise of the Church of Rome and the best that you can make of your selues is not ancient Romane Catholickes but new vpstart Romish heretickes And so to your third Article How M. Rider behaueth him selfe toward Acts of parlament And of his impugning Communion vnder one Kynde Acts of parlament since protestantrie command to beleeue the real presence 130. YET more Puritantrye Fitzsimon to witt to confesse these Acts proceeding from all the nobles learned of the lande and yet not to let them passe without his examination naye without his condemnation of them all to be heretical The first article that in the B. Sacrament is the real presence of Christs natural body is saythe he sufficiently confuted This to be the 182. vntrueth he him selfe against him selfe shall contestat The 182. vntruth saying numb 28 that Christ is realy in the blessed Sacrament a thing neuer denyed by vs nor euer in question betwixt Protestant and Papist Yf it was neuer denyed or in question how could it be sufficiently confuted All the glue in Christendome will neuer make these two to stick together Atleast then the one of them must be vntrue I take vpon my reputation yf this last be true or vntrue the first that he hath confuted it sufficiently or insufficiently is in the eyes of all men and of all professions most vntrue To the second although it be as is sayd an act of parliament of al the nobles and learned in the Lande yet in the examination of our Puritan it is abhominable He proueth it first by our owne Pope one of the decrees that the formes should be receaued both wholy or refrayned both wholy I answer the decree to be fulfilled by priests as only to them the speech was intended in receauing both formes wholy For more instruction in this mater why hereticks do communicat not in one but in both kynds Luth. tom 3. Germ. Ien. fol. 274. de formula Missa attend Reader their impulsion therto Yf sayth Luther the Concil of Trent had allowed communion vnder both kinds he would in spyte of the Concil of Trent maintayne the contrary Yf the Catholick Church had permitted the clergie to marrye he would mantaine such to be more in Gods fauoure who would retayne two or three whoores then who would conforme them selues to the Church Yea he would command vnder payne of damnation that none by permission of the Concil should marrye Tom. 2. Germ. fol. 225. Idem in art 500. ser 4. post inuocauit Also that he would approue transubstantiation but because he would not consent with the Church yet that he would rather accept therof then consent with the Sacramentaries Yf the Pope commande thee not to eate fleash on fryday and in the Lent keepe thy libertye in no case obey him but say in spyte of thee I will eate therof Follow this in all things according to my example c. Breefly this contradiction of the Popes profession and opposition against him Zuingl tom 2. sol 296. is by Zuinglius sayd to be fundamentum bona pars religionis the foundation and cheefe party of reforming religion The same motiue to haue giuen the first entrance of their gospell into England Fox Acts. pag. 977. the very Apostle therof as they esteeme him Tindal witneseth in these woords of a leter to his scholer Ihon Frith He smelled a certaine counsell taken against Papists But that Frith must vnderstand that it was not for God but for reuenge and to inioye the spoyle of the Church Thus much out of the very roote of Protestantrie may acquaint vs by what instinct they impugned our doctrin as well in general as in the forsayd articles in particular Now listen why single Communion is vsed Wheras it euer hath bene beleeued in Gods holy Catholick-Church that Christ wholy is contayned in ether of both the formes of bread and wyne for after his passion Vide Suarez tom 3. in 3. par quest 80. disp 71. sec 1. 2. 3. nether his blood is separated from his body nor the body deuoyed of blood but where the one is there is the other the practise of primatiue Christians was indifferently to communicat ether vnder one forme or vnder both according to the diuers commodities presented knowing they had as much benefit by th' one as by the other For all is one and the selfe same Christ S. Aug l. 5. con Faustum c. 6. S. Leo â— serm 4. de quadrages Not long after first Christianitie sprong vp the heresie of the Manicheans who condemned the vse of wyne saying it neuer came from God by means of the manifould abuses insueing therby which was the ould heresie of Seuerus according S. August her 24. and S. Epiphan her 45. and is now a turkish error as appeareth in the Alcoran Azoara 3. For disprouing thwarting of which errour the Church frequented communion vnder both formes generaly to auow the forme of wyne to be good In succession of tyme that heresie being vanished there budded another errour that Christ was not intierly in ether forme but in both together as yf his body were now separated from his blood Against which errour the Church Concil Constantien sess 13. Concil Trid. sess 21. c. 1. Concil Basil sess 30. to testifie that ether of bothe was perfect Christ and as fruictfull in one forme as both swayed to the contrary syde by first practising then determining that only the priests should receaue vnder both forms and the laye people but vnder one of bread For the forme of wyne it seemed not so conuenient both for the danger of shedding in the giuing therof as also for the danger of sowring yf it should be kept long in any vessell for the vse of the people especialy of the sicke The power of the church in this decree is warranted by the woords of S. Paul saying Let a man so esteeme vs as the seruants of Christ 1. Cor. 4. and dispensers of the mysteries of God Being then such dispensers and hauing such impulsions the Prelats of the Church fulfilled and followed such decrees and practises For the confirmation of all that I haue sayd first is presented that Christ some tyme ministred vnder one forme and some tyme vnder both this at his supper that to his disciples at Emaus who in the breaking of bread which was the B. Sacrament by most principal Fathers Doctours perswasion being knowen of them suddenly vanished away Secondly the Apostles continued in prayer and breaking of bread that is Act. 2. in communicating the B. Sacrament yet without any mention of the vse of wyne The same appeareth
wyne to what plundge would he be driuen You might heare him say it were vnpossible and contrary to the woord of God and fayth of the primatiue Fathers but for other proofe you should as soone wrest it out of a block And yf it could be proued that in them God had changed both substances and formes as it can neuer why should a general conclusion contrary to his late confession in the 144. number that learning did not allow such reasoning be drawen out of particulars When Christ resuscitated three dead he changed their substances making them of carcases to be liuing creatures Mat. 9. Mar. 5. Luc. 8. yet he changed not their formes So when he made bread to become his bodye he changed the substance of bread but not the external forme Contrarywyse when he was borne when he walked on the Sea when he became inuisible both at their seeking to throw him downe a rock and to make him king when he issued the sepulchre when he entred among his shutt vp disciples when he ascended he altered the natural formes or qualities of his body but not the substance therof Wherby appeareth that according to his pleasure and omnipotencie he may alter the one without th' other and as much and as litle as it pleaseth him As also that it is the 200. and it a blasphemous vntrueth The 200. vntruth that such change was or is impossible to his diuine maiestie Wherof peruse what is sayd in the examination of the Creede vpon the woord Almightie Wheras he sayth S. Augustin vrgeth this mater very euangelicaly by his former sentence it testifyeth very euangelicaly that M. Rider is very prodigious among Christians in not beleeuing according to the beleefe of the whole world or which is all one in the Catholick beleefe So that he might fill his papers he cared not how litle important or how much impertinent how litle to his benifit or how much to his discredit and confusion would be his sayings According to which his vayne of vayne writing he addeth that S. Augustin telleth flatlie that in the Sacrament of the Lords supper there is no miracle The 201. vntruth S. August in Psal 33. O what a flatt lie for the 201. vntrueth is vsed toward S. Augustin He that amplye and professedly testifyeth Christ to haue borne him selfe in his owne hands not metaphoricaly but according the leter deliuereth all other documents recorded in the 116. number how is he made to doubt of a miracle in the miracle of miracles Yet of S. Augustins opinion concerning miracles I would wishe Bellarmine to be reade c. 14. de notis Ecclesiae And yf S. Augustin had euer otherwyse surmised yet the same had bene an opinion repugnant to Protestantry Caluin lib. de coena Anno 1552. Idem l. de optima ineund concor rat fol. 97. Cal. l. 4. Instit cap. 17. n. 32. Ibid. num 24. n. 10. 11. Vide Eezam Creoph fol. 66. 67. For Caluin him selfe acknowledgeth hoc mysterium tam esse sublime vt nequeat ingenio aut cogitatione comprehendi this mysterie to be so supernal or sublime that it can not by witt or conceit be comprehended Agayne I am not sayth he ashamed to confesse this mysterie to be higher then that I can ether comprehend it with my witt or declare it with my tong A litle before he sayth it is a slandre of the aduersarie that he did measure this mysterie with the squyre of humain reason concluding to his difciple M. Rider in these woorde Christ truly with the substance of his fleash and blood doth giue lyfe to our sowls In these few woords who so perceaueth not many miracles to be conteyned plus quam stupidus est is more then a dolt I would be loath to haue bene such Godfather to M. Rider as his owne father in God maketh him selfe by giuing him such an vncurteous name for his denying miracles in this mysterie The Zuinglians professe no lesse Hoc mysterium tam esse sublime In sua Cōfessione Gal licana pag. 35. vt nostros sensus omnes totum naturae ordinem superet This mysterie to be soe highe that it surmownteth all our senses and all the course of nature What needeth greater confusion or disproofe then when his owne ghostly fathers pillers of his profefsion namely Caluin and Zuinglius contradict his assertions To the residue there needeth no aunswer If any other had M. Rider at such aduantages how much might he exaggerat his ouerweening him selfe in thinking his reach naturaly to haue attayned that comprehension of this Sacrament wherin others fynde such sublimitie as to acknowledge it most miraculous Eusebius recounted that in the persecution vnder Seuere Catho Priests lib. 5. cap. 1. that it was a great accusasion against Christians that they did eate mans flesh because they beleeued that they did receiue the bodie of Christ. 147. GEntlemen in that booke are fiue and twentie chapters Rider and not one word of this matter in anie of those and againe you mistake the time for Seuerus then gouerned not If it were vnder Seuerus it should then be in the sixth booke where you shal finde fortie fiue chapters yet there also is not one word of this Yet if you marke this that you bring against vs if it were to be found in Eusebius it maketh nothing against vs for though the Pagans were as grosse in the matter of the Sacrament as Nicodemus was in the matter of regeneration it is neither miracle nor wonder but a thing too common now and then And for true Christians to eate Christes flesh spirituallie by faith is or ought to be no miracle in the Church but the practise of the Church VVhether M. Rider vnderstandeth any hard Latin Fitzsimon 147. OF M. Riders skill in Greeke wherby he affirmed Christ to haue spoken greeke who neuer spoke other language during his abode in this mortal lyfe then Hebrue as not conuersing with Ethnicks or Gentils such as then the Grecians were as yf greeke and hebrue had bene all one as his knowledge in them both is all one we haue already treated His skill also in Scripturs Cowncils ancient Fathers Scholasticks Histories grammer ortographie is not obscurly notifyed At least he that glorifyeth of his grammarian trauailes he that made the latine dictionarie wherunto he added nothing formerly vnuulgar but ridiculous woords is he ignorant of the latin tong Let it appeare by his saying that Euseb hath not one woord in the place by vs alleaged how Christians were accused for eating mans fleash In the same place by vs cited thus relateth Euseb the forsayd accusation vsed by Infidels against Christians Thiesteas coenas incaestus Oedipodis falso commenti sunt they forged falslye against Christians to haue Thiestes refectiōs or suppers c. By which metaphor is insinuated their eating of childrens fleash because Atreas had compelled Thiestes for a heynous offense to eate this owne children Which figuratiue
what they teache and pretend That Ministers may excommunicate the greatest Prince pag. 113. That he that is excoÌ„municated is not woorthie to enioy life vpon earth ibid. That it were good that rewardes were appointed by the people for such as kill Tyrants as commonly there are for such as haue killed VVolues or Beares ibid. Doctor VVhitegift saith of them that they seeke to transfer the authoritie of Pope Prince and Bishop to thâ—m selues and to bringe Prince and Nobilitie into a verie seruitude pag. 159. That Puritans seeke by degrees to be ridd of all lawes of all authoritie and to haue all thinges subiect to their Consistorian Discipline pag. 200. The definition of a Puritan by one Butler of Cambridge pag. 221. A notable Description of the deepe Dissimulations and Hipocriticall proceedinges first practized by Puritans to gett them selues into the fauour and good liking of the people pag. 221. 222. How Puritans dispense with them selues to dissemble cheate and counterfett to take all Ecclesiasticall degrees and to practize all Ceremonies of Cappe Tippet c. to remayne in their offices and places of promotion pag. 231. Of the Puritans hiperbolicall commendations and setting foorth of their Discipline pag. 223. Reneâ—her saieth that the polliticall Empyre is but a lower and inferior benche to the Consistorian Discipline ibid. The Puritans appeache Kinge Iames of periurie because he dissaloweth their Discipline pag. 224. Puritans Caueat thâ—t no names be vsed which sounde ether of Paganisme or Papistrie pag. 228. The holie Consistorian Discipline of Puritans borrowed from a Iew named Cornelius Bertram pag. 272. Caluin teacheth that as soone as a man is illuminated with the knowledge of the truth instantly he is freed from all obligations of obeyinge ether Church or Prince Replye pag. 112. PVRITANS What the Kinges Maiestie doth censure of Puritans and what sundrie of the Reformers them selues doe say of them Barrowes saith thâ—y are pernicious Impostors presumptuous Pastors Iewish Rabbins Balaam t s dissembling Hipocrits Smel-feastes Apostats and souldiers of Antechrist pag. 161. Others thâ—y are pernicious Dreamers glosing Hipocrits with God fasting Pharisaicall preachers counterfett Prophets pestilent Seducers sworne waged and marked Disciples of Antechrist c. pag. 222. And againe they are perfidious and Apostat Reformers precise Dissemblers giddie and presumptuous Intermedlers in all matters publique and priuat watchmen ouer all actions pag. 222. The Kinges Maiestie speaking of them saith that the Puritanicall spirit is periured treacherous inhuman c. Replye pag. 16. 17. They are very pestes in the Church and commonwelth Reply pag. 70. No deserts can oblige them no oathes or promises binde them c. ibid. Againe saith he Yee shall neuer finde in no border theeues greater ingratitude and more lyes and vild periuries then with these frantick spirits Replye pag. 170. And Knox him selfe saith that nether can oath nor promise binde any such people subiect to the Euangile to obey and maintaine Tyrants ibid. pag. 70. 71. REALL Proofes for the Reall Presence both by Catholiques by Heretiques them selues Corporall and Spirituall presence not opposite pag. 37. 38. The remorce of Bucer Peter Martyr and Oecolampadius for hauing euer writen or bewitched any with the Protestants opinion against the Reall presence pag. 53. 54. Christ receiued with the fleshly mouth according to Luther pag. 10. VVith hart and mouth according to S. Aug. ibid. Our flesh is fed with the bodie and blood of Christ according to Tertul. ibid. He permitteth our teeth to be printed in his fleshe accrrding to S. Chrisost ibid. He dwelleth in vs corporallie according to Cyrillus pag. 11. By naturall partaking according to Ciril Alexandrinus pag. 9. The bodie and blood which the Apostles did behould and the Iewes did shed according to S. Aug. pag. 9. Reallie not Figuratiuelie according to Lyra. pag. 53. VVe receiue not only a Figure but the bodie of Christ according to Theophilact pag. 53. Not significatiuelie but substantially according to S. Anselme ibid. The true bodie taken from the Virgin and which hunge on the Crosse according to Innocentius pag. 66. The flesh assumpted for the life of the world according to the holie Caenons pag. 67. That which was crucified and which was buried ibid. That which tooke flesh of Marie according to S. Aug. ibid. That although it seeme horible to eate the flesh of man c. Yet that notwithstanding such seeming we both eate drinke the flesh and blood of Christ. S. Aug. pag. 84. That it is a fearfull thing for a man to deuoure his Lorde which neuertheles we doe in receiuing S. Aug. pag. 85. In forme is the fleshe of the woord of God true meate saieth Origen pag. 89. Him selfe is receiued into the breast saith Clemens Alex. ibid. The same is proued by Caietan pag. 100. By Lanfrancus pag. 106. By S. Ambrose pag. 131. By Bucer pag. 132. By S. Chrisost pag. 174. By S. Cyril pag. 136. By S. Leo. pag. 286. By S. Martial pag. 289. By Anacletus pag. 289. The Reall presence fortified and confirmed by the Confessions of all chiefe Protestants and those the most approued of all the worlde pag. 303. By Berengarius ibid. By VVickliffe ibid. By Iohn Husse ibid. By Hierom of Prage ibid. By Oecolampadius ibid. By Bucer pag. 304. By Caluin ibid. By Sir Iohn olde Castle pag. 305. REBELLION Of the Insurrections Rebellions of Puritans against their Princes of the infinit deale of blood which hath beene shed thorough this occasion Muntzer taken and executed and aboue a hundred thousand of his followers slaine in Rebellion against their Princes pag. 218. In ciuil warres in France in the space of three yeares not so few as a hundred thousand men weere ouerthrowne pag. 218. Of Puritans incensing the people against the ciuil Magistrate and of the answere of two Puritan Preachers in Stamford to the L. Superintendent of Lincolne opposing him selfe against their publique Puritanicall fast pag. 223. The Rebellious intentions of Puritans openly certified by suÌ„drie of their owne bookes intituled Martin Mar-plelat Mar-Martin VVoork for the Cooper The Counter-cuffe An epistle to Huffe Ruffe and Snuffe Hay any woorke Myles Monop c. pag. 224. A Description of the bloodie spirit of Lutheran and Caluinian Ministers Sturmius sayeth they condemne banishe and nayle to the Crosse whom they please Replye pag. 81. That if the Magistrate would but for three dayes lend them the swoord would ensue c. ibid. Lanoy incensed the men of Rochell to iterate their Rebellion against the Kinge Replye pag. 112. RESVRRECTION Luther saith of Caluinists that it is certaine they tend to manifest Apostacie concerning this Article pag. 16. Villagaignon of the Caluinists the hope of life not to belonge to the bodies but to the soules ibid. Almaricus one of Foxes Martyrs held that there was no Resurrection of bodies pag. 161. Others that no soule doth remaine after death pag. 162. At Geneua to destroie Purgatorie they would haue decreed the soule
right qualitie of forging Impostors to chawnt vpon woords and to adulterat them from their signification Fiftly they resolue that I haue alleadged noe Concil Father or Antiquitie prouing transubstantiation In this agayne they depraue the question committed to their arbitrement in two maners First the peruerting dissembling denying of the Authors mynds in our seueral causes was by them to be iudged and not what I proued or not proued Secondly by intimating that I intended to proue the name and not the mater of transubstantion For the position of M. Rider was that transubstantiation or the corporal presence of Christs bodie and bloud in the sacrament was neuer tawght by the ancient Fathers By which euen he whom you defending haue destroyed your selues sheweth that he consisted noâ— in the woord but in the signification newly explicating it with the disiunction Or Take that fling as a reward of M. Riders Mule Nay you shal not by your leaue be quitt of him soe S. Ambr. l. 4. de Sacr. c. 4. We alleadging S. Ambrose saying The bread is bread befor the consecration but when it is consecrated of bread it is made the fleash of Christ sayth M. Rider therupon all this we graunt to be true but you come not to the point whether Christs fleash be made of bread by way of transubstantiation that is by the changing of one nature into another by hoc est corpus meâ—m This is our question So that not the woord of transubstantiation but the changing of one nature into another by hoc est corpus meum is maintayned to be the question and consequently the former infidelitie of the Collegists is euidently euen by M. Rider contestated Yet againe they shal haue from their beloued brother 2. reg 20. Iudic. 14. 1. Machab. 13. a Ioabs kisse to Amassa a Dalilaes teares to Samson a Triphons feast to Ionathas in this his awnswer to the forsayd woords of S. Ambrose He graunteth all to be true but requyreth a conuersion of one nature into another by the forsayd woords In such graunt of trueth he giueth perspicuously the lye to both him selfe and his supportors For yf it be true that by consecration the bread is made the fleash of Christ then must the nature of bread be conuerted into the fleash of Christ and so one nature transubstantiated or conuerted into another Which also S. Ambrose in all that chapter intendeth to proue S. Ambr. loc cit saying Moises his rodde was changed into a serpent and agayne into a rodd Note the riuers of Aegipt into bloude and agayne into riuers c. And can not then the woords of Christ transforme bread and wyne The heauens the earth and sea were not nor any creature and by a woord they were made he commanded and they were created yf then of nothing his powerfull woord could make things to be how much more can he alter one thing into another The changing then of one nature into a nother or transubstantiation according to M. Riders mynde and myne being true I say that disproofe is giuen by M. Rider against him selfe in pretending that the ancient Fathers within the first fiue hondred yeares had noe such mater and against the Iudgment of the Collegists in his fauor containing that I had proued noe such mater Besyd which sufficient confutation of their arbitrement euen by M. Rider let all the rest of my proofs in sifting M. Riders Caueat without recapitulation of them in this place declare these Puritans to be the schismatical Collegians or vncircumcised gymnasists in Hierusalem of whom the Scripture sayth 1. Mach. 1.16 Recesserunt a testamento sancto iuncti sunt nationibus venundati sunt vt facerent malum they haue departed from the holy testament and are ioyned to the Gentiles and are sowld to doe euil not at this tyme for any price but to dispawne M. Riders credit Lastly they affirme that allegations are brought by M. Rider in the same tyme that euidently conuince the contrary to witt that no transubstantiation was acknowledged for 500. hondred yeares after Christ But first the late aunswer of M. Rider him selfe to the place of S. Ambrose who liued within 400. yeares after Christ confessing it to be true wherin the change or transubstantiation of one nature into another is playnly veryfied such his aunswer I say doth refelle this fauorable sentence as false Next I craue of these Puritans not how some tyme they durst controwle the contrary sentence of the state for that demande would implye an ignorance of their general inclination which is by me els where detected how at least they durst condemne in such couert contradiaction so malepertly the wysdome of the state as ether to be ignorant of such M. Riders sufficient proofs or knowing them of not confronting vs together to so manifest aduantage therby of the publick cause by my being conuicted by them And in particular how iniurious they haue made sir Iames Fullerton to the whole profession that not only he did not commend M. Riders proofs in their maner but that in greatest vehemencie he did condemne them to be guiltie of all defectiuenes To these demands yf they refuse to aunswer by woords yet they will neuer escape the infamie ingendred in the mynds of all that will looke on them by not daring to iustifie their noe lesse punical censure toward me then their desperat presumption against the bodie of the Concil in so thwarting their act and discretion Valer. max. l. 6. c. 3. Helinand l. 15. hist. This iudgment had it bene vnder king Cambyses how he would punish it appeareth by his memorable iustice against a corrupt Iudge whose skinne he caused to be flaed of and to be nayled on the chaire of Iudgment Then electing the very sonne of the sayd Iudge and installing him in his Fathers office and seate he willed him now to learne how to iudge by such his fathers example Yf as I sayd a Cambises had the collegists in hand for this iudgment by them selues by him whom falsely they defended by the state by all learned of the world detected to be treacherous filthie and vnchristian how would he vncase and dismember them But I leaue them as they are Rider I dealt not so vvith him in printing his booke vvith mine not one vvord of his I omitted 6. But to my last leter this is his last shift and as he thinkes a sufficient excuse That vnlesse he may print alone I shal haue no Copie but this was nauer spoken of at first neither is fitting to bee yeelded vnto by me at last Now you may see plainly that Maister Fitzsimon is afraid of being called to Repetitions he would passe the Presse with an ipse dixit If any man must see his labors before they be printed then they shal not passe indeed his last was so sifted that nothing was left but dust and if this be well boulted I doubt not but prooue it Branne He
my power manifested that it is the greatest fauor of Christ the prerogatiue of his Beniamins the title to sitt at his syde the liuerie of his fauorits and the narrow pathe through which hath entred in to heauen him selfe and all his saincts Are not these consolations to the most desolat and dastard mynde what calamitie soeuer it doth indure A second impulsion is the ardent zele in other maner of tribulation of our predecessors the primatiue Christians In respect of whom I may vse the woords of S. Paul Hebr. 12.3.4 Be not wearied fainting in your mynds For you haue not yet resisted vnto bloud Such was their feruor and forwardnes that each of them learned of the same B. Apostle to say Afflicted Catholicks 11. They haue lately as it seemeth fallen in dislyke with their oath of Supremacie for which soe much bloud was shed and so many Catholikes impouerished and imprisoned and now they haue made a new oath full of vehement and dredfull wordes as I do from my hart abhorre detest and abiure c. and that oath also is suddenly exchanged into a nother in dede of more temperat stile but we know not yf of different substance These oathes they vrge vs to sweare our loialtie and subiection being neuer violated and we intending neuer to violat them and hauing besyd occasion not to sweare any of their oathes considering that the very correction of them in so short space doth argue a condemnation of the former by the later and consequently of them that had sworne the former as also may shortly happen toward them that will sweare the later The Author IT is their maner vniuersaly to be euery day changeable as new aduantage appeareth or shew of inconuenience ariseth Of Eberus and Maior thus wryteth Gaspar Peucer sonne in law to Melancthon Vno momento mutati Contra Paul Creâ—iuÌ„ in Artic. Torgensibus anno 1574. repudiato eo quod pro verò certo habuerunt amplexi sunt contrarium In one moment variable that which now they held true and assured being reiected they imbraced the contrarie Of other Brethren Eberus informeth Religionem flectere fingere as refingere ad nutum vel cupiditates Dominorum vel caetuum Them to â—rest Eberus praef in CoÌ„ment Philippie in ep ad Cor. turne and returne their religion to the will and wantones of their lords and Congregations Domestical witneses are most desyrable and pertinent such as in this point D. Doue can not be denyed to be D. Doue persvvasion pag. 31. whose wordes to this effect are carefully to be considered When the Masse sayth he was first put downe K. Henry had his English lyturgie and that was iudged absolute without exception But when K. Edward came to the crowne that was condemned and another in the place which Peter Martyr and Bucer did approue as very consonant to Gods word When Q. Elizabeth began hir raigne the former was iudged to be full of imperfections and a new was deuised and allowed by consent of the clergie But about the midle of hir raigne we grew wearie of that booke and great meanes haue bene wrowght to abandon that and establish another which although it was not obtained yet do we at the least at euery change of Prince change our booke of common prayers we be so wanton that we know not what we would haue This as much as D. Doue might in wysdome affirme and as litle as in truth and playne dealing might be affirmed I will auerre his testimonie but with one suffrage out of the late suruey of the booke of common prayer wherby the booke of Communion aforsayd now lastly in his Maiesties raigne yea after the conference at Hampton Ian. 14. 1603. corrected Suruey of the Booke of common prayer Pag. 159. 160. is demonstrated to be most deficient and faultie which confirmeth the speech of D. Doue befor alleadged in that suruey I say is sayd The late Archbishope of Canturburie as is credibly reported tooke such a griefe when the Communion Booke should be altered discouered by these or lyke wordes Good lord When shall we know what to trust vnto Desperat perplexitie of the protestants that he presently fell into his palsey was carried from the Court and died shortly after Let D. Doue call this mutabilitie Wantones in not knowing what they would haue let the Puritan Suruey impute it to desperat perplexitie in not yet knowing what they shall trust to how soeuer it be acknowledged it is too apparent in their bookes and oathes as impudencie it selfe can not denie it that in their whole profession noe stabilitie or stidfastnes can be obserued As for the oath of supremacie you haue well noted it to haue bene a bloudie and ruinous oath to Catholikes and should haue bene so still yf diuers of their owne profession had not as after shall appeare bene intangled within the compasse of denying it Manifould acts of Parlament making it high treason to denie the sayd supremacie euen to a woman Parlam An. 1. Eliz. c. 1. An. 5. Eliz. c. 1. An. 13. Eliz. c. 1. c. Holinshed An. 1. Eliz pag. 1802. 1569. c. Stous pag. 1192. c. manifould relations of their owne approued Chronicles and manifould inditments of Catholikes executed in most butcher lyke maner for such denial to the knowledge and memorie of millions yet liuing are so many disprouing Daniels to the impious Iudges that deny any Catholikes to haue bene executed or trubled for mater of conscience or otherwyse then for treasons But I omitt to vnfould more concerning this oath of supremacie it being now suppressed that I may more amply discusse the other oathes by you mentioned they being in prime First therfor you may vnderstand that his holines hath by two Breues vtterly condemned the sayd oathes Paul 5. 1. Octob. 1606. 1. Septemb. 1607. as being grieuously wrongfull to Gods honor opposit to the Catholike fayth and hurtfull to the saluation of our sowles Against two which Breues and a leter of Bellarmin to the same effect ther is published in London by publick authoritie an Apologie An. 1607. intituled Triplici nodo triplex cuneus which is to say a threefowld wedge to a threefowld knott in which the Apologist indeuoureth to iustifie the sayd oathes and to refute the Pope and Bellarmin This booke I receaued after hauing otherwyse answered this point of your leter not knowing whither this present answer may in tyme come to the remote printer so that such incertaintie and the haste therto annected and my other imployments will procure this discussion to want some perfection and exactnes which otherwyse the subiect and my goodwill would requyre Holinshed in Rich. 1. 2. pag. 476. pag. 1005. Secondly vnderstand that euery K. of England as in lyke maner all other Christian kings from about the tyme of S. Gregorie the great at his coronation doth sweare in particular to maintayne the Catholike fayth and to
manie 76. Here is a discourse pertaining to the single Accidence in Grammar not contayning any witt or woorth not so much as to suche as would know what is a verb actiue and what passiue in the woords of Christ Now for our Lords sake let vs examin it The scripturs saith he speake actiuely of bread Yea Sir it that is taken broaken and according your wysdom eaten by record of scripture is it actiue or passiue Since therfore it is too to euident to be rather passiue as it concerneth bread it maketh the 79. vntrueth Secondly saith he The 79. vntruth the woords is giuen belong not to bread but to Christs body By which is implyed that what Christ gaue it was not giuen what was giuen by him he did not giue Yf it was bread whiche he gaue and not bread which was giuen Yf our late Queene industrious in giuing names tearmed a daunce abruptly iumping from point to point by the name of a Frogg-galliard how would she haue named this treatise reboūding vnreasonably frō point to point whē Christ said he did giue what was to be giuen he is interpreted to giue that which was not to be giuen This is the 80. vntrueth The 80. vntruth Schlusselburb l. 2. art 13. Tigurini in praef Apologetica Orthodoxi consensus Iezlerus de diuturnitate belli Euchar. pag. 77. deseruing to be called a blasphemie by which Christ is made vntrue Wherfor worthely do the Lutherans exclaime against yow saying quaenam quaeso per Deum immortalem potest iniriconcordia cum Caluinistis qui ipsum filium Dei mendacij arguunt c. VVhat concord I pray yow in Gods name may be taken with Caluinists giueing the lye to the Sonn of god But let vs discusse the rest Fregit he interpreteth he brake it I grawnt such interpretation to be true in sence althowgh the woord Fregit precisely signifieth he brake withowt the sillable it In the 51. number But when I had vsed the same interpretation in the 51. number he thus reprehendeth this sillable it altereth the sence and peruerteth Christs meaning and is added by yow to maintayne that which the texte otherwyse cowld not haue any shew to beare Tell me gentle Readers whether this writer be not extraordinarie who is made euery foote to disproue him selfe shewed to offend in that whiche he wowld seeme most ernestly to amend Further the Scripturs when they speake of Christs bodye sayth he they speake passiuely Frangitur which is broken You haue seely sir broken your cause by your good glosing For by saying Christs body was broken you say truely but so as it must be vnderstood only in the forme of bread For Christs body was not els wher or other wyse broken but pearced And it was fortowld by the prophet they should not breake his body S. Chrysost in 1. Cor. hom 24. nor no one bone of him on the Crosse Wherevpon sayth S. Chrysostom Christum in Sacramento pati fractione quam in Cruce pati noluit Christ in the Sacrament to indure breaking which he would not indure on the Crosse So also is the same assured by Frangitur is broken in the present tence declaring in the oblation at supper tyme his true body to haue bene then presently broken or giuen to the disciples and not to haue specifyed it as in his passion it was to be giuen in a cruental maner or otherwyse it had not bene sayd in the present tence and that of the greeke text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Frangitur is broken So also yf it had not bene the same body which then was giuen in an vnbloody maner with it which was to be giuen the next day in a cruental or bloody maner by other euangelists it had not bene interpreted or sayd tradetur shal be deliuered in the future tence so that vnfortunatly is this actiue and passiue glosse produced by M. Rider against him selfe clayming to haue him by all Protestants carefull of their honour sued to be a Deponent For by saying Christs body was broken in the present tence it can no otherwyse be vnderstood by all the wreasting of mans witt then by the being truely therof vnder the forme of bread considering as it was on the Crosse it nether was broken and that being at that tyme it was spoken to come it could not be specifyed in the present tence Also as I sayd other euangelists mentioning the same body in the future tence tradetur shal be deliuered they ascertayne vs what Christ gaue and brake the same was deliuered and consequently no figure only or only appellation but his true real substantial corporal bodye Yet let vs examin further Eis he interpreteth to you A half penny scholer would neuer haue so construed but say Eis to signifye to them so also it is construed by him selfe in few woords after Other riff raff in all cōfused maner is intermedled iuggled together to insinuat that Christ gaue not that which he gaue but something els that in his woords he played at pass-pass howlding bread breaking bread blessing bread giuing bread and all as Oecolampadius saythe to no other purpose then to tell them Vide Zuingl to 2. in ep ad Math. Rutlin de cana fol. 155. that to be his body which was sitting at the table which should be giuen the next day as he gaue them bread How much is the patience of Readers and Writers abused by such futilitie 77. When they speak of the cup they speak In rememberance of me In meam commemorationem 8. Cor. 11.14 In remissionem peccatorū Mat. 26.28 But when they speake of Christs naturall bloud they speake For the remission of sinns So when Christ speaketh actiuelie as he gaue hee brake it is alwaies spoken of the sacrament But when he speaketh passiuelie which is giuen which is broken which is shed and for you not to you then he speakes of his naturall bodie giuen and broken on the crosse And this rule is à plaine and sure rule to direct vs in and to the true vnderstanding of hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie In which plaine pathes of the holie Scriptures if you would walke you might be preserued from wandring 77. VVhen the Scripturs speake of the Cupp saith he they speake in remembrance of me Not only of the cupp good M. Rider but also of the bread For so telleth S. Paul yf you wil allow him S. Luke c. 22. v. 19. in the next verse befor And S. Luke conioyned suche clause for remembrance to the bread only omitting to conioyne it to the chalice Thes good compagnions accept willingly all remembrāce of their lyquour and cupp Clebitius in victoria veritatis c. parte 4. argum 5. and some tymes in the Church they stryue abowt it Clebitius one of the principal of them selues shal be my witnes thus expostulating with Heshusius VVhen as in the congregation I would not willingly permitt to thee
bloud be things inward the one sensible the other spiritual and intellectuall as much difference is betwixt them as there is betwixt outward and inward sensible and intellectuall so much difference there is betwixt the outward seales of Christs body and bloud his bodie and bloud And if the seales cannot be changed into the communion of Christs bodie bloud but remaine still in their seuerall natures and substances euerie one performing his seuerall distnct office much lesse can they be reallie and substantiallie changed into Christs bodie and bloud which are things more remote but most impossible And if you had added the next verse the Apostle had made it plaine in shewing you a double communion sealed in this Sacrament The first our communion with Christ and his benefits The second our communion amongst our selues 1. Soli. 2. Omni. 3. Sâ—per which both are proper onely to gods church to euery one of gods church and allwaies to gods Church Now let the learned iudge whether you or we misconster scripture wrest fathers deceaue Christs flocke and the Queenes subiects peruert the true meaning of this Text. And now to the next 102. Is not this a worthy proctor for protestancie Fitzsimon He bringeth an allegation of three Fathers and therupon he inferreth saying First he sayth Which he of the three can you conceaue by these woords His meaning is of S. Chrysostom But he hath no such mater but cleane contrary as appeareth in his affirming in the precedent number that vessells are sanctifyed and separated from prophane or common vses which sanctification is that we call blessing Secondly he telleth the text among other conforts offereth vs Christs body crucified and Christs blood shedd Which he will neuer be able to expounde but by saying as we say that it is giuen vs by the breaking of bread and the benediction of the chalice or wyne contayned in the chalice Of his talking of seales he hath nether writt nor scale for it toward this or any other sacrament of Christ in all the new testament For the communion betwixt him and his brethren I haue spoken in the examination of the creed To say that Chrysostom affirmeth benediction in this place to be referred to him that shed his bloud for vs that this text offereth Christs bodie and bloud with all his purchased merits that the bread and cupp vz. it in the cupp are not our communication with Christ c. these I say are beyond vntruethes and in propre name Riderian discourses S. Cyril sayth The mystical benediction maketh Christ corporaly to dwel in vs by communication of his fleash Li. 10. in Ioan. c. 13. Such coÌ„munication M. Rider not only vnderstandeth not but also denyeth May not then the wicked laugh at his follie and the godlypitie his ignorance The second Proofe by Councills and Fathers Catholicke Priests This councell consists of 318. Fathers Concilium Nicen cap 14. Anno 363. No rule or custome doth permitte thâ— they which haue not the authority to offer the sacrifice should giue it to then that offer the bodie of Christ. Rider 103. GEntelmen you are posessed with a threfold error which is the cause wheâ— you read the scriptures Councells fathers you misunderstand them Your first error is when you vnderstand that spoken of the outward Elements which a meant of the inward inuisible grace Your second error is when you referre that to the visible partes of the bodie which they intended to the inuisible powers of the minde and soule VVith these three Sephâ—ticall points you peruert all the fathâ— you bring for this purâ—ose deceaue the Catholickes Thirdlie your former two errors beget a third error which is your mistaking the state of our question And so wheras you should proue the maner of Christs presence in the Sacraments You offer to proue the matter but of that we haue spoken before Thus if you will reade the scripturs fathers and Councells with these 3. cautions or derections you shall easily see how farre thus longe you are gone from the truth and misled the Queenes subiects Now with Gods permission wee will proceed to the due examination of your proofe as it is alledged out of your owne Colen print Ex officina Iohannis Quintell Typographi Anno Domini 1561. which you cannot denie it is in the first Tome and the fourteenth Chapter and the two hundreth fiftie fiue page of the first edition and the Chapter beginneth thus Peruenit ad sanctum Concilium quod in locis quibusdâ—m ciuitatibus presbyteris Sacramenta Diaconi porrigant Then followes your fraction verie abruptlie in the midst of a sentence Hoc neque regula neque confuetudo c. The sacred Councell is aduertized that in certaine places and Citties the Deacons doe reach and giue the sacrameÌ„ts to the Priest al this you leaue out and then followes your weake warrant Noe rule or custome doth permite c. I praie you what one word of this prooues your Carnall presence Let me knowe it for my learning and the Catholickes better Instruction if you would gather out of this word Sacrifice then you are deceued for that Councell in another place calles it Sacrificium Eucharisticum a Sacrifice of praise thanksgiuing not propitiatorie And if out of these wordes The bodie of Christ the councell expounds their meaning in that which you omitte and purposely conceale when they call that Sacrifice and the bodie of Christ by the name of Sacraments giuen by the Deacons to the priests for the Deacons deliuered them after Consecration to priestes ad still were SacrameÌ„ta Sacraments not the bodie or bloud of Christ made of bread wine by the Priest for the Sacrament and Christs bodie differ as much as the lambe the Passouer circumcision the couenant the washing of new birth and regeneration for the one is the outward seal the other the inward grace and here is another error of yours of the second and third kinde in referring that to the mouth which is proper to our faith and still mistaking the matter for the manner The second proofe of Catholicks for the real presence By Councils and Fathers The first parte of the second proofe Of the Concil of Nice 103. I Craue remembrance be retayned Fitzsimon how Protestants accompted this first general Concil of the world contayning 318. most famous Fathers Beza epist thecl 81. but a congregation of Sophisters as before is declared in our examination of the Creed Cartwright so famous a Puritan as none of that crew but reuerence his remembraÌ„ce as may appeare in the Suruay of pretended discipline wherin one calleth him the most reuerent another made a sermon Cap. 29. pag. 379. and sang psalmes for his releasment another saith the gouernement by him set downe is commanded by God another thanked God to haue seene him another expected to trauaile 50. myles to see him by way of derision saith such concil to
in the Oriental Churche and of late Sectarists seeking their fauoure 142. I Request all Readers desyrous of the trueth Fitzsimon to obserue diligently this short declaration following As it hapned euer befor when new Sects budded in any contryes so for euery one prouince reuolting from Gods Church for euery contry infected fot euery diminution of religious authoritie God almightie in his admirable prouidence multiplyed hundreds for one and augmented the dignitie iurisdiction of his churche at the same tyme with reparation of the losse aboue all comparison Sathan might obtayne of God to impouerish first a Iob but could not after hinder that God should redouble all his substance First Constantins gifts and decrees in fauoure of religious authoritie being by diuers of his successours reuoked and infringed especialy by Honorius and Valentinianus God called to fayth and religion Anno. 495. France with their King Clodoueus submitting his dominiōs to Hormisdas Pope About the same tyme the Arians infected small parcells in the East and about the same tyme all our contryes came to Christian religion in the West Secondly Iustinian by Theodora his wyfs impulsion Anno. 732. banished Pope Siluerius the Grecians began to apostat from religion or at least to fall to sondry erroneous perswasions At or about the same tyme when Leo Isaurus also and others impugned Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction Charlemaigne Pipin and others were excited by God to most religious courses the Occidental Empire was separated from the former tyrants the authoritie of the Churche more then euer befor amplifyed and all Germanie and the North part of the world was lightned with Christianitie Breefly after the last Concil of Florence the Grecians falling to hatefull heresies and emulations and making vp a schismatical Church or rather Synagog repugnant to the Romain Catholick Church God sent them first the scourge of the Turcks who subdued them and to this day farre beyond all beleefe most cruely oppresseth them So when Luther Anno. 1500. and his brotherhood conspired into lyke insurrection and that betwixt the Grecians and them part of Greece and Germanie Sleidā in his historie of Charles the fift was as silent as a fishe of the conuersion of the Indies reuolted from Gods Churche then God of his wonted goodnes in abundant recompense bestowed vpon these parts where religion was professed most exactly namly vpon Spaine the infinit regions rather then realms of the world wherof America only neuer befor knowen surpasseth not only in wealthe but also in amplitude the residue of the earth which all our predecessours had euer befor knowen And vpon his Church he bestowed all these contryes in subiection of religion and loialtie as by their late legation from the most remote parts of the world to euery eye and eare was notorious when three Princes of Iaponia in the name of all the rest rendred their homage to Sixtus quintus Pope in Rome hauing imployed three yeares trauailing to come therto anno 1585. Now the premisses forwarned when Protestantrie considered the obstinat Schisme of the Grecians against the Romain Churche on one syde and their owne nakednes the particularitie of their faction on th' other side they sought as people in extremitie respect not by whom or how they are countenanced to be graced with the approbation of the Greeke Churche But they were as spurij adespoti vnknowen illegitimats by them most disdainfully reiected Behould what succeded vpon this their indeuoure God almightie Vide Bredenbach lib. 7 c. 18. awaked as out of a drowsie sleepe two cheefe parts of the sayd Grecian Church to witt the whole Patriarchal portion of Alexandrie the Southeast and the Ruthenian the Northeast part of the Grecian Churche to prostrat them selues before the last Pope Clement in al deuout submission Which being publickly and with incredible solemnitie performed in Rome Tom. 6. 7. circa finem the theatre of the world as is amply specifyed by the worthy Baronius and knowen to all Christendome I need not dwell longer in the relation therof Only let all Catholicks magnifie the mightie bountie of God toward their profession that when aduersaries reuolted from it for euery one subuerted thousand infidels haue bene conuerted and no fewer schismaticks reconciled Vide Bredenbach lib. 7. c. 18. Iustus Calu. in Apologia pag. 12. The censure of the greeke Church giuen against Protestantrye how desyrously the Protestants indeuour to conceale it and how much they are greaued and graueled therby I leaue to Bredenbachius and Iustus Caluinus to demonstrat For conclusion a part of the Schisme of the Greeke Church against the Romain Church consisted in their admitting marryed men to receaue holy ordres Vide Bellarm. to 1 par 3. l. 1. c. 19. after receauing them to retayne their wiues Prouyded alwayes that yf they came chast to holy ordres or that their wiues dyed they could neuer after marry This their lecherous impietie being contrary to all primatiue Christianitie as appeareth they so desperatly imbraced as through it for it notwithstanding all the calamities they sustayne by Turkes all the refutations of their errours by Catholicks all the means that can be wrought hetherto they haue not bene nor might be reclaymed Yet Gods heauie hand ouer them the continual sting of their consciences behoulding their offense their disdayne toward late heresies as fearing to straye more and other sondry manifestations are sufficient proofs that their Schisme is their owne infamie and rather the glorie of the Romain Church then otherwyse that when other Churches lyke chaffe are borne away against it by heresies it as sownd corne remayneth to furnish the heauenly banquet when other houses builded vpon sands are by rayne falling wynds blowing and seas surgeing ouerthrowen it in state and sowndnes not only against the despyte and furie of men but euen against hell gates as Christ had promised remayneth inuiolable Nether as now appeareth Mat. 16. do the Grecians euen in the forsayd disordre concurr with Protestant marriages of Preists who as Luther sayth not only befor ordres but after and not only for one wyfe but for two three fower fiue and six Luth. in proposit de digamia are allowed to entre into matrimonie contrary to the former beleefe and practise of Grecians how leacherous soeuer And not only for this point but also as great or rather greater cōdemnation afforded they of their heresie against the blessed Sacrament saying Ecclesia Orientalis in censura doctrinae Lutheranae c. 10. Ecclesiae Sanctae iudicium est Panem Vinum in Corpus Sāguinem Christi virtute Sancti Spiritus transire ac immutari non quod Christus discendat de caelo vt in Eucharistia presens adsit sed quod per transmutationem transitionem panis in ipsum corpus fiat presens It is the iudgement of the holy Church bread and wyne by vertue of the holy Ghost to passe and be changed into the body and
blood of Christ not that Christ discendeth from heauen that he might be present in the eucharist but that by the passing and changeing of bread into his body he is made present A heauie sentence as bringing cōtempt where contentment was expected in stidd of consolation a condemnation and a testimonie of hatred against Protestantrie to be vniuersaly in all the world The fourth proofe Denyers of the Reall presence condemned as heretickes Catho Priests 143. IGnatius ad Smyrnenses and Theodoret dialog 3. circa medium do make mention of certain denyers of the Reall presence but so as they had none to accord vnto them Also Iconomachi as may appeare out of the 7 Councell did affirme that the Sacrament was but an image of Christ and they also had no followers onelie Berengarius in the time of Leo the ninth about fiue hundred yeares past who thrice recanted such opinion as eronious mantained the onelie spirituall presence And hee in three Councels was condemned in Conc. Turon sub Victor 2. in Conc. Rom. sub Nich. 2. in Concil Rom. sub Gregorio nono The Councell of Trent remaineth for the rest that haue insued Rider GEntlemen you should haue brought Theodoret before Ignatius because Theodoret onelie reporteth some such thing out of Ignatius but Ignatius himselfe hath not one word of it and it seemeth still you neuer read Theodoret because you say circa medium not knowing in which of the three and thirtie chapters it was To be briefe that which you thinke maketh for you is in the ninteenth chapter which is but a sacramentall Metonymie as the rest of the fathers vse and you would wrest it to your litterall and proper sence which is still your error spoken of and confuted before But read Theodoret dialog 1. cap. 8. and he will expound himself and confute you And for Ignat. I haue read his twelue Epistles vppon this occasion twice ouer and from his first Epistle ad Martam Cassoboliten to his last ad Romanos there is no such thing in that reuerend Archbishop and Martyr but the contrarie which maketh me to wonder with what conscience you can belie so godlie a Martyr and abuse the Catholicks your louing friends And as for your Iconomachi they are verie impertinentlie brought in this place your title of Images were more proper for them Yet that you may see they fit not this purpose I referre you for satisfaction to the Popes owne Synode Decree Ex Synode 2. Act. 5. pag. 549. beginning at Cum diem extremum impiorum Arabum Tyrannus quem Soliman nominabant clausisset c. and after followeth the Popes decree Petrus deuotisimus presbyter c. Read this Act and Decree and they will giue you satisfaction of your impertinent allegations and if the Pope cannot content his Chaplens then you are male content in deed VVhether ancient denyers of the Real presence were condemned as hereticks Fitzsimon 143. MY obiection against M. Rider consisteth in two important accusations The one that the denyers of the real presence as soone as they tooke vp such opinion were condemned as hereticks Th' other that when they tooke it vp they had none to accord vnto them So that only Ignatius and Theodoret could fynde but a glawnce of such opinion which vanished for want of followers in such maner as Ireneus Tertullian Philaster Epiphan Augustin Damascen c. in their calculation of heresies could fynde none so vnfaythfull as to distrust the trueth of Christs real presence To this vrgent accusation M. Rider only answereth first that we should haue brought Theodoret before Ignatius In deed as I haue sayd befor when I am a Puritan wryter I will follow their preposterous proceeding and place Ignatius that was three hondred yeeres befor Theodoret yet both were within the first fiue hundred yeares behinde him Theodoret that alleageth anothers monuments I will place before the monument wryter as yf he were a prophet to fortell what should be written Secondly he answereth that Ignatius him selfe hath not one woord therof Wherunto I reply that the greater our losse by not hauing so much of his wrytings as were found by Theodoret. Thirdly he answereth that it seemeth we neuer read Theodoret because we say about the middest of his third dialogue not knowing in which of the 33. chapters it was I replye that the later chapters being more long then the former I had not strayed in specifying the middest in the 19. chapter Also it is but a Riderian sequel you know not the chapter therfor you neuer read the mater In our 135. number I demonstrat that you mistake the number of S. Ignatius epistle will you therfor be confounded by your owne sequel that you neuer read the woords Thirdly he answereth that the point of the obiection is but a Sacramental Metonimie To which I reply that this answer is M. Riders ignominie to vse obscure woords vnexpownded nothing to the mater What Sacramental is I haue often befor declared For Metonymie it is thus defyned by Festus Metonymia est tropus quum quod continet significatur per id quod continetur c. Metonymie is a figure when it that contayneth is signifyed for it that is contayned as yf you would say drinke of this cuppe meaning the liquoure in the cupp This denomination of the cupp for the liquoure is a Metonymie Now hauing vnmasked M. Riders woords I may be licensed to examin how they serue his defense against the accusation out of S. Ignatius For he thought as Agar abandoned hir child vnder a bushe Gen. 21. remayning remot till it had dyed to leaue the obiection without any other consolation then that in placing it in an obscure shaddow and retyred farr from it lamenting his owne extremitie But I will supplye to him the office performed by the Angel to Agar and say Gen. 21. take vp the Child meaning the forsayd obiection by him forlorned contayned in these woords of Ignatius Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem seruatoris nostri Iesu Christi They allow not Eucharists and oblations because they do not confesse the eucharist to be the fleash of our Keeper Iesus Christ. Compare M. Riders tropical answer to this accusation and tell after that it is out of the compasse of both the tropicks limiting the Zodiac So that the sonn of playne dealing can not reach to be directly ouer it Here is then Agars child Ismael reuyued to the Puritan opinion against the real presence Ferus homo manus eius contra omnes a fierce fellow his hands impugning them all Gen. 16. as the Scripture telleth Ismael to haue bene So that M. Riders expectation that it should haue dyed by being placed in a darke thicket of remote words is frustrated and it now a fierce and cruel aduersarie to them that denye the Eucharist and Sacrifices as prouing them in their first originals to haue bene apparent hereticks