disguise your sacriledge of the Cup taken from the people as if our Saviour Christ were not sparing enough in ordainiâ—g as few outward Ceremonies as might wel be but that he must doe that by two which might have beene compassed by one or as if he would have the Ministers receive his body and bloud superfluously that is to say both in the Bread and in the Cup too which was sufficiently received in either of them Againe though the devout Communicant receiving Christ spiritually by Faith is thereby possessed of whole Christ crucified in the inward act of the soule yet we deny that the whole is received Sacramentally in this outwad act under one onely part of this Sacrament so that if Concomitance were granted yet Communion in one kinde is not justifiable for although it deprive not people of Christs bloud as it is a bodily part conteined in the veines yet it depriveth them of the bloud of Christ as it was shed powred out and offered in sacrifice for them neither can suâ—h manner of receiving shew foorth the Lords death which is one chiefe end of the celebration of this Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.28 The breaking of Bread repesenteth in no wise the effusion of bloud this is lively represented by the powring out of the consecrated Wine and dâ—inking of the Cup there being a perfecter signification in both kinds then in one Lastly though the people might receive the blood together wiâ—h the host â—et he that so receives the blood cannot properly bee said to drinke now Christ saith expresly Vnlesse you drinke his blood you shall not have life in you Iohn 6.53 which place your Papists themselves understand of the Eucharist Concerning the number of Sacraments the Trent-Councell accurseth all such as shall say that the number of Sacraments is either more or lesse then seaven but our Church holds that of the Sacraments of the Newe Testament there bee two ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospell that is to say Baptisme and the Lords Supper and those five which by the Church of Rome are called Sacraments to wit Confirmation Penance Orders Matrimony and Extreame Vnction are not to be accounted Sacraments of the Gospell Now that there are and ought to be two Sacraments onely in the New Testament appeareth hereby in that there is no promise made unto us of life everlasting in Iesus Christ which is not sufficiently witnessed and assured unto us by these two Sacraments For the summe of all the promises of God in Christ is reduced unto these two heads that for his sake we are received into the favour and houshold care of God and that being once received we shall be continued in the saâ—e for ever the former whereof is sealed unto us by Baptisme for our entrance and admission into the Covenant and the later by the Lords Supper for our continuance growth and confirmation therein These two were instituted by Christ Hoc facite Doe this in remembrance of mee is our warrant for the one and goe teach and baptise for the other x there is deepe silence in the rest Of the Eucharist The Trent Councel holds that there is a conversion of the whole substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christs body and blood wrought by the words of consecration and that there onely remaine the semblances and shewes the outward shapeâ— formes or accidents of bread and wine yea the Councel accurseth such as affirme bread wine to remaine in this Sacrament after consecration And yet S. Paul tells us that after consecration it is bread which is broken and eaten it is no lesse than fivetimes so called after the pretended change Neither is it called Bread because it was bread but because it is bread not in name onely but in nature and properties for after consecration the bread and wine they nourish the body and comfort the heart as before but the bare formes of bread and wine as the roundnesse of the Hoste or colour of the Wine such as they say onely remaine the substance thereof being abolished cannot nourish without corporall substance Now our Church holds that the change of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ commonly called Transubstantiation cannot be prooved by holy Writ but is repugnant to plaine testimonies of holy Scripture PA. How doth it appeare that Christs bodie and bloud are not corporally given and taken in the Sacrament PRO. By these reasons First wee receive the body and blood of Châ—ist in the Sacrament as the Discâ—ples of Christ did in the first Iâ—stitution of it Now the body and blood of Chriâ—t were not corporally received by them but onely spiritually Secondly Christ his body is ascended and taken up into heaven and the heavens must containe him till the end of the world Thirdly Christ hath but one body and that a true body and such as cannot be in many places at once and it filleth a place wheresoever it is and may bee both seene and felt This was also the judgement of otherâ— whom you much reverence Dionysius Areopagita held not Transubstantiationâ— For he distinguisheth bâ—tweene the substantiall Signâ—s and Christ signâ—fied by them saying that By those reveâ—end Signes and Symboles Christ is signified and the faithfull made partakers of him He calleth not tâ—e ministration of the holy mysteries the sacrificing of Christ unto his Father as the Papists doe but a Typicall or Symbolicall Sacrifice that is a figuâ—e or signe of that great sacrifice and the same Denys as Bellarmine confesseth calleth the Sacrament an Anâ—iâ—ype and that after consecration so that according to Saint Denys the Elements of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament are Types Antitype and Symbols that is Figures and Signes of the body and bloud of Châ—ist and yet not onely bare naked and Signes significative but reâ—lly exâ—ibiting Christ for that is Denys his word to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the faithfull thereby partake Christ Iesus PA. The Scripture is plaine for us where Christ saith This is my Body Math. 26.26 PRO. Although Christ say This is my Body yet hee saith not as you doe this is made or shall be changed into my Body he saiâ—h not that his body and bloud is conteined under the shapes or formes of Bâ—ead and Wine Againe you that stand so for the Letter take not Christs Words litterally for it is an improper speech to say This is my Body that is the thing conteined under these formes is by conversion and substantiall transmutation my Body but your Papists mainteining Transubstantiation expound Christs words in this or the like manner therefore in the point of Transubstantiation you depart from the Letter and consequently make it figurative You indeed alleage the Words and Letter but not the true meaning we beleeve Christs words in their right sence now the shew makes for you the sence and substance
say the word of Christ is most efficacious to alter the propertie of naturall water and to give regenerating force and vertue to it Saint Ambrose saith that in Baptisme man is changed and made a new creature Learne saith he how the word of Christ is accustomed to change every creature and when he will he altereth the course of nature Saint Cyril saith the waters are changed into a divine nature And Gregorie Nazianzene saith that by Baptisme we put on Christ by Baptisme we are changed or transmuted into Christ. Now from hence we cannot infeâ—re that eiâ—her the water of Baptisme or regenerate persons are changed by Transubstantiation the change is not corporall in either of the Sacraments but mysticall in use and signification In the Church saith Macarius Scholler to Saint Anthonie bread and wine is offered the type of his flesh and bloud and they which are partakers of the visible bread doe Spiritually eate the flesh of the Lord. Now according to this Father bread and wine are taken bread and wine are offered and these be the types or tokens of the body and bloud and that they be so called after Consecration is likewise acknowledged by Bellarmine And we may farther observe that the words of Macarius are so cleere for the spirituall and not corporall receiving as that some were faigne to set a Marginall glosse upon Macarius his text Of Image-worship The Councel of Elliberis in Granado in Spayne decreed That no Pictures should or ought to be in the Church lest that which is worshipped or adored should be painted on walls Now it will not serve to say that the Councel onely forbad the painting of Images on Church-walls where in time of persecution or otherwise they might be defaced as if they might be set or hung in tables for the Councels decree runs generally saying It is our mind that Pictures ought not to be in the Church Now if it forbad the very being of them in Churches then surely it utterly condemned their adoration Melchior Canus chargeth this ancient Councel with impietie for making such a decree de tollendis Imaginibus Saint Ambrose saith God would not have himselfe worshipped in stones the Church knoweth no vaine Idaea's and divers figures of Images but knoweth the true substance of the Trinity The fact of Epiphanius which himselfe records in his Epistle to Iohn Bishop of Hierusalem translated by Saint Hierome out of Greek into Latine is very famous in this case namely how himselfe found a Picture in the Church of the village of Anablatha which though it were out of his owne Diocesse yet in an hoâ—y zeale he tore it and wrote to the Bishop of the place beseeching him that no such Pictures might bee hanged up as being contrary to Religion The words of Epiphanius are these I found there a vayle hanging at the doore of the Church dyed and painted and having the Image as it were of Christ or some Saint for I doe not well remember whose Image it was when therefore I saw this that contrary to the authority of the Scriptures the Image of a man was hanged up in the Church of Christ I cut it and gave counsel to the keepers of the place that they should rather wrap and burie some poore dead man in it and afterward hee intreateth the Bishop of Hierusalem under whose governement this Church was to give charge hereafter that such vayles as those which are repugnant to our Religion should not be hanged up in the Church of Christ. I know indeed that Iesuit Fisher would shuffle off this evidence by saying that it was the picture of some prophane Pagan bâ—t Epiphanius himselfe saith it had imaginem quasi Christi vel Sancti cujusdam the image as it were of Christ or of some Saint surely therefore the Image went for Christs or for some noted Saints neither doâ—h he finde fault with the irresemblance but with the Image as such Baronius saith they are rather the forged words of some Image-breakers than of Epiphanius Bellarmine would disproove them by sundry conjectures which Master Rivet rejects and defeâ—dâ— the foresayd Epistle of Epiphanius clearing it from all the Cardinal 's cavills aâ—d surely if we observe Epiphanius his practice about the foresayd Image and his Doctrine of Mariam nemo adoret we may well thinke these two had both one Father PA. The Idolatry forbidden in Scripture and disliked by the Fathers is such as was used by Iewes and Pagans and this wee Christians practise not PRO. Indeed the Apostle when hee disswadeth Christians from Idolatry propounds the Iewes fall saying Neither be yee Idolaters as some of them were 1 Cor. 10. 7 8. The like also hee addeth touching another sinne Neither let us commit fornication as some of them did as well then might one pleade that Iewish or Heathenish fornication were onely reprehended as Iewish or Heathenish Idolatry it being a foule sinne whether it bee committed by Iewe Pagan or Christian and more haynous in the Christian who professeth Christ to practise that which Gods word condemneth in the Iewes and Pagans for Idolatry PA. The Heathen held the Images themselves to be Gods which is farre from our thought PRO. Admit some of the simpler sort of the Heathen did so what shall wee say of the Iewish Idolaters who erected the Golden calfe in the wildernesse can wee thinke that they were all so sencelesse as to imagine that the calfe which they knew was not at all in rerum naturâ and had no being at that time when they came out of Aegypt should yet be that God which brought them out of Aegypt Exod. 32.4 And for the Heathen people though they haply thought some divine Majestie and power was seated in the Images yet they were scarcely so rude as to thinke the Images which they adored to be very God for thus we find them usually to answer in the writings of the Fathers Wee worship the Gods by the Images and I neither worship the Image nor a Spirit in it but by the bodily portraiture I doe behold the signe of that thing which I ought to worship PAP Though the Heathen did not account the Image it selfe to be God yet were those Images set up to represent either things that had no being or Devils or false-Gods and in that respect were Idols whereas we erect Images onely to the honour of the true God and of his servants the Saints and Angels PRO. Suppose that many of the Idolatrous Iewes and Heathens Images were such as you say they were yet they were not all of them such howsoever Idolatry is committed by yielding adoration to an Image of the true God himselfe as appeareth by the first Chapter of the Epistle to the Romanes where the Apostle having said that God shewed unto them that which might bee knowne of him and that the Invisible things of him that is his
and Wine in the Sacrament of the Supper are made flesh and the bloud of Iesus in that same manner that the eternall Word of God was made flesh but so it is that the substance of the Divine nature neither evanished nor yet was changed into the substance of flesh and in like manner the Bread is made the Body of Christ neither by evanishing of the substance thereof nor yet by changing the substance thereof into another substance Iustine Martyr telleth us that the Bread and the Wine even that sanctified food wherewith our bloud and flesh by conversion are nourished is that which we are taught to be the flesh and bloud of Iesus incarnate Our Lord saith Clemens of Alexandria did blesse Wine when he said take drinke this is my bloud the bloud of the Vine Irenaeus saith that our Lord taking Bread of that condition which is usuall among us confessed it to be his Body and the Cup likewise containing that creature which is usuall among us his bloud so that in their construction it was Bread and Wine which Christ called his Body it was Bread in substance mateâ—iall Bread and the Body of the Lord in signification and Sacramentall relation The Lord called Bread his body now since Bread could not be his body substantially it must needs be it was onely his body Sacramentally Of Images and Prayer to Saints Concerning the use of Images we find that in these best ancient times Christians were so far from bringing them into their Churches that some of them would not so much as admit the Art it selfe of making them so jealous were they of the danger and carefull for the prevention of deceipt whereby the simple might any way be drawn on to the adoring of them we are plainly foâ—bidden saith Clemens Alexandrinus to exercise that deceitfull Art for the Prophet saith Thou shalt not make the likenesse of any thing either in the Heaven or in the Earth beneath Moses commandeth men to make no Image that should represent God by Art for in truth an Image is a dead matter formed by the hand of an artificer but we have no sensible Image made of any sensible matter but such an Image as is to be conceived with the understanding yea but thine Images are of Gold be it so now I pray thee what is Gold or Silver Iron Brasse Ivorie the Adamant Diamond or Precious Stones Are they not terra et ex terrâ are they ought but Earth and made of the Earth now being nothing else but a piecâ— of more refined Earth I have learned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 terram calcare non colere to walke on the Earth and not to worship it to set my foote on it not to bow my knee to it And thus farre Clement of Alexandria holding it a monstrous thing to bow downe to a stock or a stone Irenaeus reckons it among the abuses of the Gnostikes that they had certaine painted Images and others made of other stuffe saying that it was the Picture of Christ made by Pilate When the Emperour Adrian in favour of the Christians had commanded that in every City Churches should be built without Images which at this day are called Adrians Temples because they have no Gods in them which they said he made for that end to wit to pleasure the Christians it was presently conceived that he prepared those Temples for Christ as Aelius Lampridius noteh in the life of Alexander Severus which is an evident Argument that it was not the use of Christians in those dayes to have any Images in their Churches Learned Master Casaâ—bone in his notes upon this place of Lampridius thinketh that this story is rather to be referred to Tiberius the Emperour â—han to Hadrian and that Adrian causd Temples to be dedicated to his owne name and thâ—se Temples Adrian being prevented by death remained unfinished and without any Images at all whence it came to passe that many wâ—n thought that Adrian built those Temples not to himselfe but unto Christ and with these agreeth Lampridiusâ— as one who knew that which none could then be ignorant of that both the Iewes in the Temple at Hierusalem did worship God without Images and Pictures as both Strabo and Dio write and that in their dayes the Christian Churches were such as afterwards Saint Austine reports them to have beene in his dayes Saint Austin upon the hundred and thirteenth Psalme expounding those words of David that Idols have a mouth and speake not makes this objection that the Church hath also divers instruments and vessels made of gold and silver for the use of celebrating the Sacraments but he answers have these instruments mouths and speake not eyes and see not doe we addresse our prayers to them now surely he could not have spoken thus if he had Images in Churches or if Images had bin a part of the Churches Vtensils and moveables in his dayes Concerning Prayer to Saints Iustine Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian have reported the publike formes of Christian service and Religious excercises of the Primitive Christians and yet make no mention of Prayer to Saints or Angels but onely of Prayer directed to God in the name and mediation of Christ alone Irenaeus tels us that in his dayes the Church per universum mundum Irenaeusâ—aith â—aith not as Fevardentius and the Papists now a dayes would teach him that the Heretikes called upon false and imaginary Saints and Angels and the Church upon the true Saints and holy Angels but this he saith that the Church called upon God in Christ Iesus Eusebius in his Storie setteth downe Verbatim a long Prayer used by Polycarp the Martyr at the time of his suffering wherin if Invocation of Saints had beene reputed any part of Christian devotion in those dayes he would undoubtedly in so great perill and at his deaâ—h have recommended himselfe to God by the Prayers and Merits of Saints but his forme of Praier is Protestant-like tendered to God himselfe only by the mediation of Christ concluding his Prayer in this manner therefore in all things I Praise thee I blesse thee I Glorifie thee through the eternall Priest of our profession Iesus Christ thy beloved Sonne to whom with thee O Father and the Holy Ghost be all Glory now and for ever Amen When the people of the Church of Smyrna desired to have the body or bones of their Martyredâ— Bishop Polycarp to buriall the Iewes perswaded the Governour not to grant it for that then the Christians would leave Christ and worship the body of Polycarp to which surmise they reâ—urne this answer we can never be induced either to forsake Christ which hath suffered for all that are saved in the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to worship any other for him being the Sonne of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wee adore him but the Martyrs as the
Christ gave unto his Disciples a Figure of his Body Therefore Christ had a true Body Tertullians words are these Christ taking the Bread and distributing it to his Disciples made it his Body saying This is my Body that is to say this is a figure of my Body but a figure it could not be unlesse there were a Body of a truth and in deed for a void thing as is a fantasie can receive no figure Here Tertullian affirmeth expressely of Bread which he received into his hand and distributed to his Disciples that it it is a figure of Christs Body The Rhemists answer that when some Fathers call the Bread a figure or signe they meane the outward formes of Bread and Wine but Tertullian proving the truth of Christs humanitie by the Sacrament of the Supper interprets these words This is my Body that is to say the figure of my Body where if by the figure of Christs Body there were nothing else to be understood but the formes and outward shapes the Hereâ—ike upon this construction might have concluded for himselfe that the figure of his Body is nothing but a bare forme and shape of a thing therefore he himselfe was nothing else but a â—hew of a Body no true Body Others expound Tertullians words in this sort The figure of my Body is my Body or this Bread which under the Law was a figure of my Body is now my Body But Tertullian both here and in divers other places makes Bread the Subject of the proposition this is my Body now the Accidents and shape of Bread are not Bread In a word Tertullian sheweth that Christ called Bread his Body in saying this is my Body as the Prophet Ieremie called the body bread in saying Let us put wood upon his bread meaning his Body shewing them both to be spoken equally in a figurative sense For although Tertullian say that the Bread of the Old Testament was a figure of Christs body yet he denyeth not thereby that it is so in the new The truth is Tertullians exposition is so full for us that Gregorie Valence rejects it Cyprian in the third Epistle of his second booke saith Wee find that the Cup which the Lord offered was mixed and that that which he called bloud was wine So that if we aske Cyprian what consecrated thing it was which Christ had in his hands and gave to his Disciples he answereth it was bread and wine and not absolutely that which hee gave up to be crucified on the Crosse by Souldiers namely his body and bloud if againe we demand of Cyprian why Christ called the bread which he had in his hand his body he readily answereth saying the things signifying or signes are called by the same names whereby the things signified are termed Objection Cyprian saith that this bread is changed not in shape but in nature naturâ mutatus and by the omnipotencie of God is made flesh now omnipotencie is not required to make a thing to be a signe significant Answer Bellarmine saith Cyprian was not the Author of the booke De Coenâ Domini and he saith well for these Sermons are extant in All-Soules Colledge Library in Oxford in an ancient Manuscript under the name of Arnoldus Bonavillacensis and Dedicated not to Pope Cornelius as these are pretended but to Adrian the fourth about the yeare 1150 the same time that Saint Bernard lived and wrote an Epistle to this Arnoldus But to let it passe for Cyprians it followes not the bread is changed in nature therefore it is Transubstantiated for every change of nature is not a change of substance nature implies qualities and properties as well as substances an evill man changeth his nature when he becomes a good man yet is he not Transubstantiated bread is châ—nged when of common it becomes consecrated to an holy use and office and omnipotencie is required to make the dead and corruptible elements a bit of bread and a draught of wine not onely significative but truly exhibitive seales of the body and bloud of Christ and to elevate them so high as to bee chanels and effectuall instruments of Grace Besides the Author by the words naturâ mutatus changed in naâ—ure understood not a coporall change for in the same sentence he declareth himselfe by the example of Christs humanitie which being personally united to the Deitie is changed but not so as that it looseth his naturall forme and substance Origen against Christs Body going into the Draught To proceed Origen saith that meat which is Sanctified by Gods Word and Prayer as touching the materiall part thereof goeth into the belly and is voyded into the draught but as touching the Prayer which is added according to the portion of Faith it is made profitable neither is it the matter of bread but the word spoken over it which profits him that doth not unworthily eate thereof and these things I speake of the Typicall and Symbolicall bodie Here wee see Origen distingâ—isheth betweene the Spirituall bread which is the reall body of Christ and the bread Sacramentall saying that not that body but this bread goeth into the draught or seege which no sanctified heart can conceive of Christs body Now whereas Bellarmine saith that the Accidents onely are called by Origen the materiall part wee answer that it was never heard that meere Accidents were called which are Origens words in this place either meates or materialls The truth is this place of Origens touching the typical and symbolical body is so cleere for us that Sixtus Senensis growes jealous of it to speake my mind freely saith he I suspect this place to bee corrupted by Heretikes Of Images and Prayer to Saints Concerning Images Origen replieth thus to Celsus the Philosopher that it is not a thing possible that one should know God and Pray to Images and that Christians did not esteeme these to be Divine Images who used not to describe any figure of God who was invisible and without all bodily shape nor could endure to worship God with any such kinde of service as this was In like manner when the Gentiles demanded of the ancient Christians why they had no knowne Images Minutius Felix returnes them for answer againe What Image shall I make to God when man himselfe if thou rightly judge is Gods Image and againe we neither worship nor wish for Crosses these holy Images which vaine men serve want all sense because they are earth Now who is there that understandeth not that it is unâ—it for an upright creature to be bowed downe that he may worship the earth which for this cause is put under our feete that it may be troden upon not worshipped by us wherefore there is no doubt that there is no Religion wheresoever there is an Image thus farre Lactantius Tertullian stood not onely against adoration of Images but alâ—o against the very making
of the trueth of Christs flesh and bloud there is no place left for doubting Answer Neither doe we doubt of the truth of Christs body and bloud but firmely believe the doctrine of the true Incaâ—nation of Christ. Objection Hilarie saith in nobis carnalibus manentem per carnem Christum habemus we men consisting of flesh and bloud have Christ remayning in us by his flâ—sh Answer So wee have by reason of our mysticall union with Christs flesh and not by any corporall transubstantiation of our flesh into Christ. The same Hilarie saith nos in eo naturaliter inessemus ipso in nobis naturaliter permanente Christ is naturally in us and wee in him but wee are not in him naturally or carnally by any transubstantiation therefore neither is he so in us these termes then of Hilaâ—ies permanentâ—m in nobis carnaliter silium the sonne remayning in us carnally note onely a greater and more reall union than barely by consent or concord of will such as the Arrians acknowledged onely betwixt the Father and the Sonne denying an unitie of nature purposely to avoid that text I and the Father are oneâ— Hilary speaking of this neere union calleth it the mysterie of a true and naturall union mysterium verae ac naturalis unitatis and so indeed it is in respect of Christs inseparable union which hee hath with us by his incarnation by which he is become flesh of our â—lesh and bone of our bone and in respect of our mysticall union with him and his body whereby wee become members of Christs body and quickned by his spirit Object Saint Cyril in his fourth Catechisme saith He that in the marriage of Cana changed water into wine by his onely will is not hee worthy that wee beleeve him that he hath changed wine into his blood Answer S. Cyrils place maintaineth not Popish transubstantiation for in this the shapes and accidents remaine and the materiall substance is corrupted but in our Saviours miracle in the second of Saint Iohn the shapes accidents and forme were changed and the common materiall substance remained Iohn 2.9 Object Cyril saith it is not simple bread and wine it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. Answer Hee sheweth his meaning to be this namely that the consecrated bread is not common ordinary and meere naturall bread but sanctified elevated and changed to supernaturall use and operation And so I proceed The Elements called Antitypes after Consecration The Fathers of this age treating of the Sacramentall Signes call them Similitudes correspondent types or figures of the body and blood of Christ the figure of the body and blood of the Lord Iesus saith Ambrose and Nazianzene speakes as wee have heard of his sisters laying up some portion of the types or tokens of Christs precious body and blood and againe how durst I offer unto him the type of so great a mysterie in lâ—ke sort Cyril of Hierusâ—lem cals them types and antitypes and they call the Symboles after Consecration Antitypes Now that which is a figure similitude and representation of a thing is not properly the same PA. It followeth not the Eucharist is termed the figure of Christs naturall body therefore it is not substantially and properly his body The figure of a thing may be the same with the thing figured Christ Iesus is a figure of his Fathers substance Hebr. 1.3 and yet is the same substantially with the Father Iohn 10.30 PRO. There is such opposition of Relatives as that the signe and the thing signified cannot bee the same in that very respect and point wherein they are opposite for the instance brought it followeth thus the sonne is the chaâ—acter of his Fathers substance ergo the Son is not the Father though of the same substance nor is the Father the Sonne so must the opposition of necessity hold the Sacrament is the figure signe and representation of Christs body ergo it is not the body of Christ but sacramentally and figuratively In a word you say that Christ is a Character and figure of his Father and yet of the same substance but to have spoken home to the matter in question you should have said that Christ a figure of the Fathers person is yet the same person that the Father which is utterly false To procâ—ed Saint Ambrose saith if thâ—re bee such vâ—rtue in the words of our Lord to make those things that were not to begin to bee how much more powerfull is his word that they remaine the same they were and yet bee changed into another thing hee holdeth the bread and wine in the Lords Supper to remaine to bee the same thaâ— they were therefore they are not changed in substance for then they should not be the same they were yet hee saith they are changed into other to wit not in substance but in qualitie use and signification for so hee saith before the blessing of the heavenly words another kind is named after the Consecration the body of Christ is signified Now if by the consecrated bread in the Eucharist the body bee signified then is not bread essentially the body PA. Saint Ambrose in the ninth chapter of such as are newly instructed in the mysteries saith Moses his word changed the water of Aegypt into blood if so great was the benediction of man what may wee thinke of divine Consecration where the very words of our Saviour worke hee saith also that by benediction or consecration the nature of the Elements in the Lords Supper is changed PRO. Among the six or seaven examples broâ—ght by Saint Ambrose only two are substantiall and the rest accidental for in the place alledged he addeth also these examples that Moses divided the Red Sea that Iordan turned his couâ—se that the bitter waters of Mara were made sweet in all which workes of God there was no Transubstantiation for the waters and the Red Sea were the same in nature and substance as they were before so that by these examples it appeareth that notwithstanding Saint Ambrose say the nature is changed yet he meant a change in qualitie onely and not in substance And such a change there is in the Eucharist the Elements are changed when of common and naturall creatures they are made sacred and become Channels and Instruments of saving grace and such a change Ambrose meant for comparing these miracles of the Prophets wherein God changed the nature of things with the change that is wrought in the Sacrament he saith that it is no lesse to adde some new things unto things than to change the nature of things averring plainly thereby that the bread had received some new thing without loosing the nature of bread and such a change is not strange for thus a piece of waxe becomming the Kings Seale changeth it's nature without Transubstantiation Besides the Fathers use the like Tenour of speech of the Sacrament of Baptisme and yet doe not hence inferre any Transubstantiation they
nothing remaines but the outward formes and accidents of bread Reply Bellarmin saith that this Epistle is not extant amongst Saint Chrysostome's Workes and when Peter Martyr objected this place to Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester the Bishop replyed That it was none of Chrysostomes but another Iohns of Constantinople Rejoynder What though it were not then extant diverse parcells of Chrysostome have beene lately found out and annexed to his other Workes Besides the same Bishop Gardiner reports that Peter Martyr saith that this Treatise of Chrysostome was extant in a Manuscript and found in the Library at Florence and that a Copie thereof remained in the Archbishop of Canterburies hands Againe they that would father tâ—is â—reaâ—â—se on another theâ— must bring us anothâ—r Iohn of Constantinople besides Chrysostome and tell us what time hee lived it is usuall with the Church-storie and Sâ—int Austine and Ierome to call Chrysostome Iohn of Constaâ—tinople or Priest of Antioch Lastly this Authour saith nothing but what Saint Ambrose Gelasius and Theodoret have vouched For whereas the Hâ—retike Eâ—tyches taught that Christ his body was changed into the substance of his Divinity after the resurrection and that the substance of his body remayned no more the same Pope Gelasius confuteth him by a similituâ—e and comparisâ—n drawne from the Sacrament to wit Tâ—at as the substance of Bread remayneth after consecration so Christ his bodily substance remained after the resurrection His words are these The Sacraments which wee receive of the body and â—loud of Christ are a divine thing by meanes whâ—râ—of wee are made partakers of the divine nature and yet the substance or nature of Bread and Wine doth not cease to be The Papists they tell us that after consecration the substance of bread and wine is abolished and the shaâ—eâ— accidents quantity therof only remaine but this is contrary to these Fathers assertion who say there ceaseth not to be the very substance of bread and wine Neither will it serve to say that Gelasius by substance meant accidents for if Gelasius had not taken the word substance properly in both places he had not concluded against the Hereticke Reply Pope Gelasius was not the Author of this Treatise but some other of that name Rejoynder There be divers Authors that entitle Pope Gelasius to it but were it Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea as Bellarmine seemes to incline or a more ancient Gelasius Gelasius Citizenus as Baronius would have it the record is still good against our adversaries for it is confessed on all sides that he was an Orthodoxe Father and very ancient Theodoret brings in Eranistes in the person of an Eutyclâ—ian Heretike who confounded the two natures in Christ and falsely held that The body of Christ after his Ascension being Glorified was swallowed up of the Deitie and continued no more the same humane and bodily essence as before his resurrection it had been and for defence of this his Heresie he takes his comparison from the Eucharist and argues in this sort Even as the symbols or signes of the Lords body and bloud afâ—er the words of Invocation or Consecration are not the same but are changed into the Body of Christ even so after his Ascension was his body changed into a divine substance To this Objection of the Hâ—retikes the Orthodoxe or Catholike which was Theodoret himselfe replies and retorts his owne instance upon him thus You are caught saith he in your owne net for as the mysticall signes in the Eucharist after sanctification or Consecration doe not goe out of their proper nature but continue in their former figure and substance and may be seene and felt as before so the body of Christ after the Resurrection remaineth in it's former figure forme circumscription and in a word the same substance which it had before although after the Resurrection it be immortall and free from corruption In which passage we see the Heretike held that Bread is changed after consecration into the substance of Christ's body and so do our adversaries the Orthodoxe or Catholike taught that Bread after consecration remaineth in substance the same and so doe we teach Theodoret indeed and so doe we acknowledged that Christ's body after his Ascension was changed from a corruptible to an immortall and glorious body but yet not changed in substance it still remained the same in substance even as the Elements in the Sacrament remaine the same in substance that they Were before consecration and may be seene and fealt though they be changed in use from common to consecrated bread and wine Now if the Elements of Bread and Wine according to this Orthodoxe Father remaine in their former substance shape and species then is not the whole substance of bread and wine changed into the whole substance of the body and bloud of Christ and where is then your Transubstantiation Answer Bâ—llarmine answereth this place by distinguishing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 substantia saying When Theodoret saith â—hat the substance of the Elements remaynes and is not changed hee speaketh not of substance as it is opposed to accidents but of the â—ssence and nature of accidents which hee alwayes understandeth by Symbols Reply Theodoret in this very Dialogue exactly distinguisheth betweene Substance and Accidents and sheweth that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee meanes not Accidents but Substance properly so taken saying Therefore wee call a body substance and health and sicknesse an accident by which passage it is evident against Bellarmine that Theodoret takes not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the esâ—ence specially of accidents but for substance propeâ—ly so called as it is opposed to Accidents Besides if Theodoret had thought as the Papists hold that the substance of bread and wine ceaseth and is changed into the very body and bloud of Chirst and that the accidents thereof onely remaine as namely the whitenesse roundnesse taste or the like then could not this Father have drawne or râ—torted an Argument from the Sacrament to proâ—ve that the substance of Christ's body remayned after his ascension for then as the learned on ouâ— side have well observed the Hereticke upon the doctrine of Transubstantiation might have inferred this erronious opinion about the humane nature of Christ to wit that as in the Eucharist there is onely the outward shape and forme of bread and not the reall substance even so in Christ there was the shape and forme of flesh but not the very nature The same Theodoret saith that our Saviour honoured the visible symbols with the name of his body and bloud not changing the nature but adding grace to nature The same Thâ—odoret saith that our Saviour gave the signe the name of his body What can a man say more expresse then that in thâ—se words This is my hody our Saviour hath given to the signe that is to say to the bread the name of his body Answer You stand
with Haymo as indeed his Commentaries on Saint Pauls Epistles are in a manner all taken out of Haymo as Doctor Rivet hath observed It is the report of our Ancestors saith Walafridus Strabo that in the Primitive times they were wont according to Christs Institution to Communicate and partake of the Body and Bloud of our Lord even as many as were prepared and thought fit Regino describeth the manner of Pope Adrians delivering the Communion to King Lotharius and his followers in both kindes The King saith hee takes the Body and Bloud of our Lord at the hands of the Pope and so did the Kings Fallowers Paschasius saith These bee the Sacramentâ— of Christ in the Church Baptisme and Chrysme and the Body and Bloud of Christ and Rabanus hath the selfe same words Now with Baptisme they joyne Chrysme because they used to annoint such as were baptized for otherwise Rabanus speakes precisely of two saying What doe these two Sacraments effect and then hee answers That by the one we are borne anew in Christ and by the other Christ abides in us Of the Eucharist Rabanus saith Bread because it strengthneth the body is therefore called the Body and Wine because it maketh bloud is therefore referred to Christs bloud Haymo saith the same with Rabanus Rabanus farther saith That the Sacrament in one thing and the power thereof another the Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of the body by the vertue of the Sacrament we attaine â—ternall life Hee saith the Sacrament which is the Bread is turned into our bodily nourishment nâ—w spâ—cies shewes and accidents can not nourish but these latter words of Rabanus are razâ—d â—ut whereas the Monke of Malmesbury witnesses that Rabanus wrote accordingly as is alleaged and this razure is observed by the publisher of Mathew of Westminsters Historie Haymo calls the Eucharist A Memoriall of that Gift or Legacie which Christ dimised unto us at his Death Rabanus saith that Christ at first instituted the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud with blessing and thanksgiving and delivered it to his Apostles and they to their Successors to doe accordingly and that now the whole Church throughout the world observes this manner Christianus Druthmarus reporting our Saviours Act at his last Supper sayth Christ changed the bread into his body and the wine into his bloud Spiritually he speaks not of any change of substances Walafridus Strabo saith That Châ—ist delivered to his Disciples the Sacraments of his body and bloud in panis vini substantiâ in the substance â—f bread and Wine When Carolus Calvus the Emperour desired to compose some diffeâ—ences about the Sacrament then on â—oot he râ—quired Bertram a learned man of that Age tâ— deliver hâ—s jâ—dgement in that poynt Whether the body and bloud of Christ which in the Church is received by the mouth oâ— tâ—â— faithful be celebrated in a mystery or in the truth anâ— whether it be the same body which was borne of Mary Whereunto hâ— returnes this answer That the bread and the wine aâ—e tâ—â— body and bloud of Christ figuratively that This body is tâ—e pledge and the â—igure the other the very naturall bodie That for the substance of the Creatures that which they were before consecration the same are they also afterward That they are called the Lords body and bloud because they take the name of that thing of which thâ—y are a Sacrament That there is a great difference betwixt the mystery of the bloud and body of Christ which is taken now by the faithfull in the Church and that which was borne of the Virgin Mary All which he proves at large by Scriptures and Fathers Your wisedome most excellent Prince may perceive saith he that I have proved by the testimonies of holy Scriptures and Fathers that the bread which is called Christs body and the Cup that is called his bloud is a figure because it is a mysterie PA. I except against Bertram his booke is forbid to be read but by such as are licenced or purpose to conâ—ute him PRO. Bertram wrote of the body and bloud of Chrâ—st as Trithemius saith and by your Belgicke or Lâ—w Countrey Index Bertram is stiled Catholicke Now this Index was published by the King of Spaines commandment the Duke of Alva and first printed at Antwerp in the yeare 1571 and often since reprinted Now so it is howsoever he be accounted a Catholicke Priest and much commended by Trithemius yet are this Catholicks writings forbid to be read as appeares by severall Indices the one set forth by the Deputies of the Trent Councel and another printed at Parts under Clement the eight Now these Inquisitors dealt too roughly and therefore the divines of Doway perceiving that the â—orbidding of the booke kept not men from reading it but rather oâ—casioned them to seeke after it thought iâ— better policie that Bertram should be suffered to goe abroad but with his keeper to wit some popish glosse to wait on him Seeing therefore say they we beare with many errours in other old Catholicke writers and extenuate them excuse them by inventing some device oftentimes deny them and â—aine some commodious sense for them when they are objected in disputation with our adversaries we doe not see why Bertram may not deserve the same equitie and diligent revisall lesâ— the Herâ—ticks cry out that we burne and forbid such antiquity as maketh for them and accordingly they have dealt wiâ—h Bertram for by their Recognition We must reade Invisibiliter in stead of Visibiliter and these words The Substance of the Creatures must be expounded to signifie outward shewes or Accidents But this will not serve the turne for Bertram speaking of the consecâ—ated bâ—ead and wine saith that for the substance of the creatures they remaine the same after consecration that they were before Now if they doe so then is not the substance of bâ—ead and wine changed into the substance of the flesh and bloud of Christ as the Trent Councel would have it Nor will it serve to say that by the substance of the Creatures is meant the outward accidents as the whitenesse of the bread the colour of the wine or the like for Bertram speakes properly that the consecrated bread and wine remaine the same in substance And it were an improper speech to attribute the word Substance to Accidents as to say the substance of the colour or rednesse of the wine or the like PA. Master Brerely suspects that this booke was lately set forth by Oâ—colampadius under Bertrams name PRO. This suspicion is cleered by the antient Manuscript copies of Bertram extant before Occolampadius was borne one whereof that great Scholler Causabon saw in the Librarie of Master Iames Gilot a Burgesse of Paris as he witnessed to the Reverend and learned Primate Doctor Vsher. And yet besides these Mâ—nuscripts Bertram
that stone then from which the water ranne bodyly Christ but it signifyed Christ. The same Abbot saith Men have often searched and doe yet often search so that it seemes that this was then in question and so before Berengarius time how bread that is gathered of Corne may be turned to Christs body or how wine that is pressâ—d out of many grapes is turned through one blessing to the Lords Bloud and the resolution returned is this Now say wee to such mâ—n that some things bee spoken of Christ by signification some thing by thing certaine true thing and certaine is that Christ was borne of a Maid Hee is said Bread by signification and a Lambe and a Lyon Hee is called Bread because hee is our life hee is said to bee a Lambe for his Innocencie But Christ is not so notwithstanding after true nature neither Bread nor a Lambe Why is then the holy Housell called Christs Body or his Bloud if it be not truely that it is called Without they be seene bread and wine both in figure and taste and they â—ee truly after their hallowing Christs body and blood through Ghostly mysterie And againe Much is betwixt the body Christ suffered in and the body that is hallowed to Housel the body truely that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of Mary with bloud and with bone and his Ghostly body which wee call the Housel is gathered of many Cornes without bloud and bone and therefore nothing is to bee understood therein bodily but all is Ghostly to bee understood Here wee see the body of Christ borne of the blessed Virgin the body of flâ—sh is plainly distinguished from the consecrated substance of bread or the Body Sacramentall which the Homilist cals Ghostly And againe This Mysterie iâ— a pledge and a figure Christs body is truth it selfe the pledge we doe keepe Mistically untill wee bee come to the truth it selfe and then is this pledge ended Truely it is Christs body and bloud not Bodily but Ghostly and ye should not search how it is done but hold it in your beliefe that it is so done The like matter also was delivered to the Clergie by the Bishops at their Synods out of two other writings of the same Aelfricke in the one whereof directed to Wulfsine Bishop of Shyâ—burne we reade thus That holy Housel is Christs body not Bodily but Ghostly not the body which he suffered in and so forth In the other witten to Wulfâ—tane Archbishop of York thus That lively bread is not bodily so nor the selfe-same body that Christ suffered in nor that holy wine is the Saviours bloud which was shed for us in bodily thing but in Ghostly understanding both be truely the bread his body and the wine also his bloud as was the heavenly bread which wee call Manna which words are to be seene mangled and razed in a Manuscript in Bennets Colledge in Cambridge as our learned Antiquarie of Oxford hath well observed And we may conceive it to be done by some Papist for that it plainely confutes the doctrine of Transubstantiation the best is the evidence is restored out of another Copie PA. Here is much a doe with an old Record which your selves will not haply justifie in every poynt PRO. The Record is both ancient and authenticke but to be free from errour is the priviledge of holy writ your selves stand not to all which the Fathers even of the first Age wrote Why then shâ—uld we make good all that was delivered in this later and ignorant Age so much cumbred with Monkery There are indeed in this Homily some suspicious wordes as where it speakes of the Masse to be profitable to the quicke and dead of the mixture of water with wine and a report of two vaine miracles which notwithstanding seeme to have beene infarced for that they stand in their plâ—ce unaptly and withoâ—t purpose and the matter withoâ—t thâ—m both before and afâ—er doth hang in it selfe togâ—thâ—r most ordeâ—ly besides these mistakes they are but touched by the way and aâ—e different from thâ— whole scope of the Authour Thus was Priest and people taught to believe in the Chuâ—ch of England above sixe hundâ—ed yeares agoe for this Sermon was written in the old Saxon tongue befoâ—e the Conquâ—st and appointed in the reigne of the Saxons to be spoken to the people at Easter before they should recâ—ive the Communion Neither was Aelfricke the first Authour of this Homily but the Translatour theâ—eof out of Latine into the old English or Saxon tongue the Homily it selfe was exâ—ant before his time and the resolution thereof is the same with that of Berâ—â—am and in many places directly translated out of him so that the doctrine is both ancient and Orthodoxe whereas that of Transubstantiation was not publickly taught in the Church of England till Lanfranck and others a thousand yeares after Christ came with an Italian tricke and expounded Species and forma panis for the qualities and accidents of bread without subject or substance But from the bâ—ginning it was not so Of Images and Prayer to Saints Concerning Images Churchesâ—an â—an a middle couâ—se neither rudely breaking them nor supeâ—sâ—itiously adoring them and this opinion they stoutly maintained and for some ages after continued most constant therein as Câ—ssâ—â—der sâ—ith and hee saith true as appeares by the prâ—ctise of the French in the ninth and the Almaines in the twâ—lfth Age. The Abbat Smaragdus saith that Christ onely makes Inteâ—cesâ—ion in heaven for us performing that with the Father which he pâ—titioned of the Father being both our Mediator to preferre our Petitions and our Creator to grant our râ—quâ—sts In liâ—e sort Radulphus Flaviacensis calls the Angell of the covenant Christ Iesus The Master of Requests to preferre our suits in the court of Heaven and to mediate betwixt God and men Now if he by his Fathers Patent be Master of Requests surely wee may not without Commission and warrantie out of Gods word constitute others either Saints or Angels Mediators of our Prayers Of Faith and Workes It is of necessitie that belâ—evers should bee saved onely by the faith of Christ saith Smaragdus the Abbot Who is it that can doe all that God hath commanded wee are not come to that blessednesse or merit to yeeld him obedience in all things saith Flaviacensis For as he saith One may doe bonum and not benè one without grace may doe a Morall act as give Almes the act Morally good ex genere objecto but not good ex fine circumstantijs in case it be given out of vaine glory or â—he like PA. You taxed this Age for imposing single life on the Clergie this was no Innovation PRO. In this Age there arose great contention about Priests marriage At length about the yeare 975. the matter was referred to the Roode of Grace which as the Annalists and Legendaries say returned this
Timothie was it holds in others also for if the Scripture be so profitable for such and such uâ—eâ— that thereby it perfects a Divine much more an ordinary Christian that which can peâ—fit the teacher is sufficient for the learner PA. Doe you disclaime all Traditions PRO. We acknowledge Traditions concerning Discipline and the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church but not concerning the doctrine or matter of faith Religion You equalize unwritten traditions to holy Scripture receiving them saith your Trent Councell with equall reverence and religious affection as you receive the holy Scriptures themselves we daâ—e not doe so but such traditions as we râ—ceive we hold and esteeme farre inferiour Concerning the Scriptuâ—e Canon the Trent Councell accurseth such as receive not the Bookes of Machabees Ecclesiasticus â—oby Iudith Baruch Wisdome for Canonical Scriptuâ—e Now wee retaine the same Canon which Christ and his Apostles held and received from the Iewes unto whom were committed the Oracles of God being as Saint Augustine speakes The Christians Library-keepers Now the Iewes never received these Bookes which wee terme Apocryphall into their Canon yea Christ himselfe divided the Canon into three severall rankes iâ—to the Law the Prophets and the Psalmes now the Apocryphal come not within this reckoning Indeed as S. Hierome saith The Church reades these Bookes for example of life and instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to stablish any Doctrine Of Comunion under both kindes and the number of Sacraments If any shall say The Church was not induced for just causes to communâ—caâ—e the â—ay people under one kinde vâ—z of bread onely and shall say they â—rred in so doing let him bee accursed saith the Trent Councell Now our Chuâ—ch holds That both the parts of the Lords Sacrament ought to bâ—e ministred to all Gods people so thaâ— according to us In the publâ—kâ— celebraâ—ion of â—he Eâ—chaâ—ist Communion in boâ—h kinds ouâ—ht to bee given to all sorts of Câ—riâ—â—ians righâ—ly disposed and prepared and this oâ—â— Tenet is agâ—eâ—able to Christes Institution and Precept who saith exprâ—sly and liâ—erally Drink yee all of this It agrees aâ—so with Saint Pauls precept and with the practice of the holy Apostleâ— and the priâ—ative Church Dionysius Arcopagita who as you say was Saint Pauls Scholler and Disciple relates the practice of the Church in his time on this manner After the Priest hath prayed that hee may hoâ—â—ly distribute and that all they that are to partake of the Sacrament may receiue it worthyly he breakes the Bread into many pieces and divides one Cup among all Ignatius who was Scholler to Saint Iohn the Evangelist saith That one Bread is broken unto all and one Cup destributed unto all PA. Bellarmine saith the words of Ignatius are not as you alleage them There is one Cup distributed unto all but there is one Cup of the whole Church and though the Greeke Copies reade as you doe yet he saith That much credit is not to be given to them PROT. Shall we give more credit to a Translâ—tion then to the Originall If the Well-head and Spring bee corâ—upted how shall the Brooke or Streame runne cleare It may be indeed that divers errors are crept both into the Greeke Latine Copies but for the place alleagâ—d there is no colour of corruption in asmuch as the same that Ignatius spake of the Bread the same are repeated of the Cup according to Christs Institution and howsoever Bellarmine may produce some Latine Copie that translateth the words of Ignatius as Bellarmine sets them downe Vnus Calix totius Ecclesiae yet as D. Featly observes in the Grand Sacriledge of the Romish Church Vitlemius and divers other Latin Copies following the originall verbatim render them thus Vnus Calix omnibus distributus that is One Cup distributed unto all and not as Bellarmine and Baronius ad Ann. 109 sect 25. would have it as if Ignatius had said that one Cup was distributed not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnibus but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro omnibus not to all but for all that is for the behoofe and benefit of all Howsoever they wrest it Ignatius tels us of one Cup and this not the Priests Cup but the Churches Cup and this Cup was distributed But now adaies in the Masse there is no distribution of the Cup. PA. Christ spake these words Drinke yee all of this only to the Apostles as they were Priests and not to the Laitie PRO. By this meanes you might take away the Bread as well as the Cup from the Lay-people for when Christ administred the Sacrament none were present for ought we know but onely the Apostles Besides the Apostles were not yet fully ordained Priests though they had beene once sent to Preach Christ after his Resurrection breathed on them the holy Ghost and fully endued them with Priestly power Iohn 20.22 Againe the Apostles at this Supper were Communicants not Ministers of the Sacrament Christ was then the onely Minister in that Action Now Christ delivered them the Cup as well as the Bread saying to the same persons at the same time and in the same respect Drinke yee all of this to whom hee had said before Take and Eate giving both alike in charge so that you must either barre the people from both or admit them to both now if neither precept of eating or drinking belong to the Laitie the Laitie are not at all bound to receive the Sacrament PA. Although it be said of Drinking the Cup Doe this in remembrance of me Yet the Words Doe this are spoken Absolutely of the Bread and but Conditionally of the Cup namely as often as yee shall drinke it 1 Cor. 11.25 So that these Words Doe this in remembrance of me inferre not any Commandement of receiving in both kindes PRO. According to your Tenet our Saviour saith not Doe this as often as you Lay men communicate but whensoever you receive the Cup and drinke then doe it in remembrance of me as much as to say as often as you Lay people drinke which needeth never be done by you according to Romish Divinitie Doe this nothing in remembrance of mee Besides as there is a Quotiescunque as often set before the Cup As oft as you drinke so there is a Quotiescunque set before the Bread As often as you shall eate this Bread vers 26. so that quotiâ—scunque biberitis as often as you Drinke cannot make the Precept Conditionall in respect of the Cup more than of the Bread it being alike referred to the Bread and to the Cup. PA. We wrong not the Laitie ministring unto them under one kinde onely they receiving the same benefit by one that they should doe by both Christs body and bloud being whole in each so that the people receive the bloud together with the Host by a Concomitancy PRO. In vaine have you devised Concomitance to
cruel Foe our soules defend And them receive when life shall end The Crosse is likewise devouâ—ly saluted in this manner O Crux ave spes unica Hoc passionis tempore Auge pijs justitiam Reâ—sque dona veniam All haile O Crosse our onely hope In this time of the passion Increase thou justice to the godly And give to sinners pardon PA. You have alleadged divers Fathers against praying to Saints give me now leave to produce such testimonies as Bellarmine brings in for invocation of Saints PRO. The learned Bishopâ— on our side Bishop Andrewes and Bishop Montague have particularly examined the severall testimonies alleadged by Bellarmine and found that hee hath utterly failed in his proofes PA. Let us heare the Fathers themselves speake for their testimonies seeme to be cleere for us for instance sake Nazianzâ—n repâ—rts that Cypâ—ian whiles hee was a Pagan and a Conjurer he fell in love with Iustina a Christian virgine at Antioch whom when as by wooing and ordinary meanes hee could not winne to his will hee went about to intice and prevaile with by Magicall spells and conjurations which the Damosell perceiving besought the Virgin Mary to succour her being a distressed virgin PRO. This goes under his name but haply is none of his for it is not likely that Nazianzene one of so great learning judgement and memory could as Billius spâ—akes be so grossely mistaken to ascribe that unto Saint Cyprian Bishop of Carthage in Africke that if it were at all was done by one Cyprian the Deacon of Antioch in Asia But yet say it were Nazianzen's owne report it being but a private act out of the devout affection in a Mayd it cannot bee drawne to a rule of Faith neither is it proposed as an example to bee followed but onely by way of bare narration what shee did the relater passeth not his owne censure upon it yea but hee taxeth it not though hee did not yet others and by name Epiphanius in the same age taxed such of that sexe as offered Cakes and the like presents and oblations to the blessed Virgin Lastly the story saith that despayring of all other remedies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shee flyeth to God and then assumeth for her Patron and Protectour Christ Iesus her Spouse and after this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shee besought the Virgin Mary to succour her being a distressed virgin First she flyeth to God secondly shee maketh Christ her Patron thirdly she requesteth the Virgin Mary in zeale rather than upon knowledge And although Nazianzen speaking onely by hearesay reporteth that shee supplicated not by any Collect or set forme of devotion but by a short ejaculation to the Virgin Mary yet this was done by her in the last place and after shee had first sought to God and Christ Whereas in their Romish devotions our Lady hath their orizons first addressed to her and our Lord hath them but as it were at second hand the reveâ—sion of thâ—m PA. Gregory Nyssen cals to Theodore the Martyr saying gather together the troopes of thy brother Martyrs and thou with them joyntly beseech God to stay the invasion of the Barbarous Gothes PRO. Nyssen spake this in a Panegyricall oration as an Oratour not as a Divine in a popular sermon of Commemoration not in doctrinall determination In like sort Bellarmine objects Nazianzen in his orations calling unto Cyprian Basil and Athanasius with a tu autem è supernis nos respice doe thou favourably looke upon us from an high Whereas this is no direct invocation but rather a vote wish and desire that Basil and Athanasius might doe so and so for it is not respice nos but o si or Vtinam nos respicias and so hee speakes of Basil and now Basil is in the heavens offering as I thinke sacrifices for us and praying for the people hee comes with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I take it as I am perswaded it was but his opinion and conjecture being indeed nothing but a Rhetoricâ—ll flourish The like answer may serve to that of Hierome who concluding his Funerall Oration upon Paula desireth her in heaven to assist him with her prayers the â—peech hâ—e useth is no more but a Rhetoricall Apostrophe or conversion to her Besides it is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wish and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a direct prayer unto her In the like manner â—or proofe of prayer to Saints Bellarmine alleadgeth two Poets Paulinus and Prudentius now wee answer him in his owne words who when Prudentiâ—s was alleadged against him in the point of Purgatory hee puts it off saying Prudentius played the Poet so say wee that they spoke it in a poeticall vaine as others in a straine of Rhetorike Now in Poetrie men take more libertie besides their words serve them not at will as they doe in prose but they must often take such to make up their verse as were otherwise inconvenient to bee used moreover the heate of their invention carrieth them further oftentimes then in a temperate speech they would be carried PA. Saint Ambrose exhorts widowes to pray to the Angels and Martyrs whom hee calleth beholders of our lives and actions PRO. Saint Ambrose was chosen from a secular Iudge to bee Bishop of Millaine and was faine to bee christned before hee could bee consecrated Now this booke de Viduis of widowes was written about the beginning of his christianitie and divinitie both and therefore it is not strange if in his beginning and novice ship hee said some things for which hee afterwardâ— corrected himselfe of this sort is that which he hath in the booke alleadged which shewes hee was a novice in divinitie when hee wrote that booke de Viduis for there hee doubts whether the Martyrs had any sinnes or nâ— and then saith That the sinnes they had they did themsâ—lves wash away with their owne blood Whereas the holy Scripture gives us no other Lâ—ver for our sinnes than the blood of Iesus Christ Who hath loved us and washed us from our sinnes in his owne blood And againe The Saints have washed their robes in the blood of the Lambe Now the blood of Martyrs is not the blood of Christ and therefore that speech was neither so safely nor properly set downe Besides the words reaâ—h not home it is onely his opinion that the Saints and Angâ—ls are our Patrons Videmur Wee seeme to have their paâ—ronage and yet it is but Patrocinium quoddam a certaine kind of gardian ship But what Saint Ambrose's opinion was touching this point no man can better tell than himselfe who elsewhere saith That to procure Gods favour wee need no spokesman but a devout mind and againe Thou onely O Lord oughtest to bee invocated and prayed unto Objection Saint Cyril of Hierusalem saith That wee make mention of those that sleepe in the Lord before us that by their Intercession
who set forth Eusebius Now Eusebius hath no such thing as is pretended his words in his owne language are these It is our custome to come to the Tombes and Monuments of the Martyrs and to make our prayers at or befâ—re those Shrines or Tombes and to honour those blessed soules Plâ—â—saith they used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to present themseâ—ves at the Martyrs Tombes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to make their prayers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those Toâ—bes and Monuments he saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to these Martyrs as Bellarmine would have it It is onething to pray ad memorias Martyrum before or neere the Sepulchers of â—he Martyrs as ancieÌ„tly they were wont to doe another thing to say as our adversariâ—s doe that these Prayeâ—s were made unto the Martyrs themselves the truth is they were made unto God to pâ—aise him for the assistaâ—ce given unto the Martyrs and to crave of God the like Gâ—ace 4. Fâ—urthly and lastly Eusebius in the same treatise doth fully expreâ—se himselfe touching this matter saying We are taught to worship God onely and to honour those blessed Powers that are about him with such honour as is fit and agreeable to their â—state and condition and againe To God onely will we give the worship due unâ—o his name and him onely doe we religiouslie worship and adore Object Saint Ephraim the Syrian saith Wee pray you O yeâ— blâ—ssed Spirits vouchsafe to make intercession to God for us miserable sinners Answer The learned take exceptions at this Ephraim as being a counterfeit lately brought to light and not set forth in his native language but taught to speake in the Roman tongue â—ut bee it that it is the true Saint Ephraem yet hee saith nothing directly for praying to Saints for it is but an Apostrophe in generall which infeâ—reth no coâ—â—lusion aâ— all noâ— is it directed to any one peculiar Saint bâ—t â—o the Saints iâ— geneâ—all Now it is conâ—essed that they pray to God Pro nobis miseris peccatoribus and this their bâ—other-like affâ—ction and Saint-like performance is an â—speciall paâ—t of the Communion of Saints Besides Ephraem take him as hee commâ—th to our hands delivereth that which overthroweâ—h Saintly Invocatioâ— for hee prayeth to God onely without mentioâ—ing any Saint at all yea hee saith expresly That hee knoweth no other save God to whom hee should present his prayers and yet more fully saying Tibi soli redemptori supplico To thee only my Saviour and Redeemer I make my prayer and supplication And thus speakes Ephraem when once he is out of his pâ—osopopeiaes and Rhetoricall compellations his paâ—egyâ—icks and commendatorie orations of the Saints Of Iustification by Faith onely Concerning Iustification by Faith onely Saint Ambrose or some of the same standing with Ambrose is cleare and plentifull throughout his Commentaries on Saint Pauls Epistles They are justified by faith alone by the gift of God yea hee farther saith No worke of the Law but onely faith is to bee given in Christ's cause Saint Hilarie saith That which the Law could not unloose is remitted by Christ for faith alone justifieth Saint Basil saith That it is true and perfect rejoycing in the Lord when a man is not puffed up with his owne righteousnesse but acknowledgeth his want thereof yet râ—joyceth that hee is justified by faith alone in Christ. By this that hath beene said it appeareth that when wee say Faith onely justifieth wee have not departed from the doctrine of the ancient Fathers in this point of Iustification Of Merit Concerning Merit Saint Ambrose saith Whence should I have so great merit seeing mercy is my crowne and againe What can wee doe worthy of the heavenly rewards the sâ—ffâ—ringâ— of this time are uâ—worthy for the glory tâ—â—t is to come therefore the forme of heavâ—nly Decrees doth proceed with men not according to our meâ—its but according to Gods mercy Basil saith Everlasting rest is layd up for them that strive lawfully in this life not to bee rendred according to the dâ—bt of workes but exhibited by the grace of the bountifull God to them that trust in him Macarius the Aegyptian Hermite touching the gift which Christians shall inherit averreth That this a man may rightly say that if any one from the time wherein Adam was created unto the very end of the world did fight against Satan and undergoe afflictions hee should doe no great matter in respect of the glory that hee shall inherit for heâ— shall reigne together with Christ world without end PA. You produced Saint Cyril of Hierusalem as if he should witnesse for you whereas hee is ours and your Mr. Cooke tellâ—th us that Bellarmine often alleadgeth him on our behalfe PRO. The learned make question whether Cyril or Iohn B. of Hierusalem were the Author of those Catechismes and surely in some part thereof there bee divers things unworthy of that ancient and learned Cyril who is the more to be beloved of the Orthodoxe as he was greatly hated of the Aâ—rians yet even in these Catechismes take them as they come to our hands Master Rivet a learned and judicious Divine finds many testimonies that make for us and against the Papists For instance sake Cyril in his Catechisme having numbred all the bookes of the old Testament omitteth all those that are controverted and saith Peruse the two and twenty bookes but meddle not with the Apocrypha meditate diligently upon those Scriptures which the Church doth confidently read and use no other Hee saith That the safetie and preservation of faith consists not in the eloquence of words but in the proofe of divine Scripture The same Cyril saith Receive the body of Christ with a hallow hand saying Amen and after the partaking of the body of Christ come also to the cup of the Lord. The same Cyril saith that the words my Body were Spoken of the bread Christ thus avoucheth and saith of the Bread this is my Body He resembleth the consecrated oyle wherewith their foreheads were annoynted to the consecrated bread in the Eucharist Looke saith he Thou doe not thinke it to be onely bare and simple oyle for even as the consecrated bread after prayer and invocation is no more common bread but Christs body so the holy oyle is no more bare and simple oyle or common but Charisma the gift of Grace whence as Master Rivet saith wee may thus argue as is the change in the oyle such there is in the Eucharist but in the oyle there is no change in substance but use and sanctification by grace and therefore there is no substantiall change or conversion in the Elements of bread and wine when they become the body and blood of Christ. Objection Saint Cyril saith Know you for a surety that the bread which is seene of us is not bread though the taste
find it to bee bread but the body of Christ insomuch as Bellarmine upon this testimonie saith Quid clariùs dici potest What can be said more plainely Answer Cyril saith The bread which is seene of us is not bread and the same Cyril saith of the Water in Baptisme it is not simple water let the one satisfie the other Cyril saith of the bread as hee doth of the oyle that it is no bare simple or common oyle but Charisma the type and symboll of a spirituall gift and so hee meant of the bread the Consecrated bread that it is no ordinary or common bread but of different use and servâ—ce and yet theâ—ein not any change of substance at all Neither doth Cyril say as Bellarmine corrupâ—ly traâ—slateth it or at leâ—st mâ—kes use of a corrupt trâ—nslation That the body of Câ—rist is given Sub spâ—cie panâ—s Vnder the forme of bread but as it â—s in the Greeke Vnder the type of bread even as hee saith afterwards Thinke not tâ—at you taste bread but tâ—e Antitype of Christs body so that hee calleth the consâ—crated bread and wine â—ypes and Antitypes that is signes of the body and blooâ— of Christ. Now whereâ—s Cyril would not have us judge of thâ—s Sacrament by our taste or sense it iâ— true that as the Bread and Wine are â—ound and whiâ—e aâ—d sweet in taste our bodily senses mâ—y indeed perceive thâ—m but as they are types and Aâ—titypes that is signâ—s Of the body and blood â—f Christ so â—hey aâ—e spiâ—itually to bee discernâ—d with our understanding onely as the Reverend and learned Dâ—ctor Morton Lo. Bishop of Coventry and Lichfiâ—ld and now Lord Bishop of Durâ—sme hath observed Lastly the same Cyril saith That wee have râ—pentance and remission of sinnes confined onely to the terme of thâ—s prâ—sâ—nt life More might be alleadged out of the same â—yâ—il but these may suâ—fice to shew what hee in his Caâ—echismes taught his schollers touching the Scripturâ—s sâ—fficâ—encie aâ—d Caâ—on Communion in both kinds the Euchaâ—ist and Purgatory Before I cloâ—e up this Centurie I must needs speake of Constantinâ— the Great and the two generall Councelâ— held in this Age. In â—his age flourished the honour of our nation that Christian Pâ—ince Constantine the Great borne of our coâ—nâ—rey woman Hâ—lâ—na both of them Britaines by biâ—thâ— Royâ—ll by descent Saints by estiâ—ation and true Catholikes by profession PA. Doâ—tor 〈◊〉 and Master Brerely show them to have bâ—â—nâ— o◠〈…〉 PRO. Our reverend and learned Doctor Doctor Abbot late Bishâ—p of Salisbury hath sufficiently confuted your Bishop and acquitted them from being Papists since they held not the grounds of Popery as at this day they are maintayned PA. If constantine were no Papist of what faith tâ—en was hee PRO. Hee was of the true ancient Christian Faith as may appeare by these instances following Hee held the Scriptures sufficient for deciding matteâ—s of Faith and accordingly prescribed this rule to the Nicene Councell saying Because the Apostles Bookes doe plainely instruct us in divine matters therefore we ought to make our Determinations upon Questions from words which are so divinely inspired he saith not that the Scriptures plainely teach us what to thinke of the nature and substance of God as Bellarmine would wrest it but also of the holy Law and things concerning Religion for so doe the words sound in the originall and herein saith Theodoret the greater part of the Councell obeyed the voyce of Constantine Constantine held it not the Popâ—s peculiar to summon generall Counâ—â—lls for hee called the Councell of Nice himselfe and therein sate as President and mâ—deratour receiving every mans opinion helping sometimes one part sometimes another reconciling them when they were at ods untill hee brought them to an agreement in the Faith The same Eâ—perour by his royâ—ll Letters Prescribed to the Bishops such things as belonged to thâ— good of Gods Church yea hee held himselfe to bee a Iuâ—ge and supreme Governour in Causes Ecclesiasticall for hee professeth speaking generally of all soâ—tâ— of men if any shall rashly or undadvisedly maintaine these pestilent assertions meaning the Arrians His saucinesse shall beâ— instantly curbed by the Emperours exâ—cution who is Gods Ministers Moreover Constantine never sought to the Pope for pardon hee never worshipped an Image never served Saint nor Shrine never knew the Masse Transubstantiation nor the halfe Communion hee prayed not for his Fathers soule at the performance of his Funeralls used no Requiems nor Diriges at his Exequies he wished not any prayers to bee made after his death for his owne soule but having received Baptisme newly before his death professed a stedfast hope that needed no such after-prayers saying Now I know indeed that I am a blessed man that God hath accounted mee worthy of immortall life and that I am now made partaker of the light of God And when they that stood about him wished him longer life hee answeâ—ed That hee had now attayned the true life and that none but himselfe did understand of what happinesse he was made partaker and that he therfore hastned his going to his God Thus Constantine dyed outright a Protestanâ— hee craved no after-prayers for his soule hee dreaded no Purgatory but dyed in full assurance of going immediately to his God Was this Prince now a Trent papist Now to proceed the fiâ—st Generall Councell in Christianitie after the Synod of the Apostles was that famous fiâ—st Councell of Nice consistiâ—g of 318. Bishops the greatest lights that the Christian world then had it was called about 325 yeares after Christ against Arrius that denyed Christ to bee veâ—y God from this Councell wee had oâ—r Nicen Creed it was summoned not by the thâ—n Bishop of Rome but by the Emperour Constantine Gathering thâ—m together out of divers Cities and Provinces as themsâ—lves have lâ—fâ—â—ccorded Wee produce the sixth Canon of this Councell against the Popes monarchicall Iurisdiction the â—enour thereof is this Let ancient customes hold that the Bishops of Alexandria should have the government over Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis because also the Bishop of Rome hath the same custome as also let Antioch and other Provinces hold their ancient priviledges Now these words of the Canon thus limiting and distinguishing the severall Provinces and grounding on the custome of the Bishop of Rome that as hee had preheminence of all the Bishops about him so Alexandria and Antioch should have alL about them as likewise every Metropolitane within his owne Province these words I say doe cleerely shâ—w that before the Nicene Councell the Pope neither had preheminence of all through the world as now hee claymeth to bee an universall Bishop nor ought to have greater preheminence by their judgement than he had before time this being the effect of the Canon to wit That the Bishop of Alexandria shall have authority over his Diocesses as the Bishop of Rome
and Austine in this point are ours Of Communion under both kinds Saint Chrysostome saiâ—h that whereas Vnder the Law there was a difference betweene Priests and Laicks in communicating of victimâ—s In the nâ—w it is otherwise for one body and one Cup is ministred to all Hierom saith that the Pastors administred the Eucharist and distributed the bloud of our Lord to his people the same Hierome reportâ—th how Exuperius Bishop of Tholouse in France was wont to carry the CoÌ„munion to persoâ—s absent There was no man saith he richer than Exuperius who carried the Lords body in a Wicker basket and his bloud in a Glasse It is true indeed that the Bishop sold the Churchâ—Plate for the reliefe of the poore so that he was driven to use Osier baskets and Glasse-cups but withall the story saith he carried the consecrated bread and wine severally and apart and not by way of Concomitancie Besides that the wine might be carried abroad in a viall to sicke persons without any such danger of spilling as the Iesuit dreames on Saint Austine saith All that would have life are exhâ—â—ted to drinke of the bloud and that The whole Church having received the Cup answereth Amen Pope Lâ—o râ—proveth such as in his time refused the Cup which is a token that the Cup was then in use among the Laietie his words are these Whereas some to hide their infidelitie come sometimes to Catholike Churches and are present at the celebration of sacred mysteries they so temper the matter that with unworthy mouthes they receive the Lords body but decline to drinke the bloud of our Redemption I would â—herefore have your holinesse take notice that by these signes they may be discovered and their Sacrilegious dissembling may be found out and descried that being thus discovered they may by Priestly authoritie he cast out of the societie of the Saints In like sort Gelasius enjoyned Communion in both kinds We have found saith he That certaiâ—e having received a poâ—tion of the sacred body onely abstaine from the Cup of the most holy blâ—ud which men because they are said to be intangled with I know not what superstition either let them receive the whole Sacrament or else let them be wholly â—xcluded from receiving because there can be no dividing of one and the same mysterie without grievous Sacriledge Reply Gelasius hap'ly speaketh of some Priests who consecrated the elements but themselves received not in both kinds Answer The words hee useth are Recipiant and Arceantur which doe evidently prove that he speakes of the people who doe not themselves receive the Sacrament but from the Ministers hand as also the word Arceantur that is Let them not be received though they offer themselves Besides the ancient histories speake not of any Priest that ever made scruple of drinking of the Chalice which himselfe had consecrated Reply The Manichees had an opinion that Wine was not created by God but by some evill spirit and that Christ did not shed his bloud on the Crosse and hereupon they abstained from the Chalice therefore the Church in detestation of this errour for a time commanded Communion under both kinds upon this occasion Gelasius made the Decree recorded by Gratian. Râ—joynder This was not done upon occasion of the Manichee's errour for before ever they appeared in any number Communion in both kinds was practised as appeareth by the Apostles Ignatius Iustin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian and Saint Cyprian Now Cyprian the youngest of these flourished about the yeere two hundred and fiftie and the Manichees rose not till about the yeere two hundred seventy three Againe although Leo speake of the Manichee's yet Iesuit Vasques sayth that He commanded not the use of the Cup because of them but required that those which feigned themselves Catholikes and came to the holy Communion receiving the bread and taking the Cup into their hands pretending that they dranke the wine and yet did not should carefully be observed Now among a multitude of Communicants some few might hold the Cup to their mouth and make shew of drinking and yet receive no wine The Cup then was not for a time only allowed to the Laicks by Leo and Gelasius thereby to discover who were Manichees but in these Popes dayes the Cup was usually and ordinarily given to the Laicks and upon the refusing of the Cup then in use among the Catholikes the Manichees were discovered otherwisâ— how could the Pope have reproved their practice How could the Manichees have beâ—ne espyed and kâ—owne if they and the Catholikes had received in one kind both alike For this is the token that Leo would have them knowne by for that Thâ—y refuse to drinke the bloud of our Redemption by which words it is cleere that the Cup was offâ—red orderly unto them as unto others but thâ—y refused it Now touching the place of Gâ—lasius the same Vasquâ—z sayth that Whereas some of his part apply the same to the Manichees Canonâ— for therein he teacheth That the mysterie of the Eucharist is of that natuâ—e in regard of it selfe that without griâ—vous sacriledge it cannot bee dâ—vided and severed the one part from the other to wit because of the institution and signification Admit then that the Manichees occasioned this Decree yet this Decree is backed with a generall â—eason which forbids all to communicate in one kind onely under the perill of Sacriledge so that the Popes Canon reacheth not onely to the Manichee but to all such as halve the Communion be they Manichees oâ— Papists or whatsoever they be Of the number of Sacraments Saint Austine with others tell us That the Sacraments of the nâ—w Law flowed out of Christ's side now none issued thence but the Sacrament of water which is Baptisme and the Sacrament of bloud in the Supper The same Austine sayth Our Lord and his Apostles have dâ—livâ—red unto us a few Sacraments in stead of many and the same in doing most easie in signification most excellent in obsâ—rvation most revâ—rend as is the Sacrament of Baptisme and the celebration of the body and bloud of our Lord. And the same Father speaking of the same Sacraments whiâ—h he calleth for number the fewest for observation easiest for signification excellentest withall indeed addeth a si quid aliud if any such other Sacrament bee to bee found in Scripture but himselfe could not find any other for he concludeth them within the number of two saying These be the two Sacraments of the Church Of the Eucharist Saint Chrysostome saith that Before the Bread be sanctifyed we call it Bread but when Gods grace after consecration hath sanctifyed it by the meanes of the Priest it is freed from the name of Bread and is accounted worthy of the name of the Body of Christ although the nature of the Bread remaine still in it Châ—ysostome sayth the nature of bread remayneth after consecration they say
joyne in the worthy participation of Christs body and bloud Omnes all the people as well as the Priests Isidore saith These be thâ— Sacraments to wit Baptisme and Chrysme and the body and bloud of Christ. Now with Baptisme he joynes Chrysme because their manner was to annoint those who were baptized Of the Eucharist Isidore saith Bread because it strengtheneth the body is therefore called Christs body and wine because it worketh bloud in the flesh it hath therefore relation to the bloud of Christ but these two being sanctified by the Holy Ghost are changed into a Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ. He saith Christ called bread his body to wit Sacramentally a signe a Sacrament of his body and not Substantially he saith Bread is changed into a Sacrament of Christs body which notes a Sacramentall Conversion and not Substantiall he saith Bread strengthens mans body bread Substantially and not Accidentallie so that it is not the roundnesse or figure of bread that strengthens mans body nor the colour of wine that is turned into bloud Hesychius saith We eate this food by receiving the memorie of his Passion not of his Glory but of his Passion the same Author saith Our mysterie is both bread and flâ—sh to wit bread in substance and indeed and Christs body not in substance but in a mystery Of Images and Prayer to Saints Gregorie allowed onely an Historicall use of Images otherwise he speakes positively that The worshipping of Images is by all meanes to bee avoided and though hee misliked the breaking of them yet he commended those that forbad the adoration of them yea he commands the people to Kneele and bow downe to the omnipotent Trinitie onely and therefore not too or before an Image And Cassander saith that Gregorie therein declared the judgement of the Romane Church to wit that Images are kept not to be adored and worshipped but that the ignorant by beholding those Pictures might as by written records be put in mind of what hath beene formerly done and be thereupon stirred up to Pietie Concerning Prayer as wee finde in Gregorie very rarely any prayer to Saints so unto the Virgine Mary not any one Which we may conceive he would not have omitted if he had believed as divers Papists maintaine That she is a Savioresse a Mediatresse That as Assuerus offered halfe of his kingdome to Queene Esther so Christ reserving the kingdome of Iustice to himselfe hath granted the other moitie the kingdome of mercie to his mother PA. Was not Invocation of Saints used in the Church-service in Saint Gregories dayes PRO. Be it so that some such devotions were used in his time yet in the ancient Missals there is no such forme to be found In them indeed the Saints names in their Anniversarie solemnities and Holydayes were remembred and put into their Memento but they were not praied unto men praied only to God that he would give them grace to follow their examples and make them partakers of that happinesse which those blessed ones already enjoyed and at that time when this alteration began and that the Gregorian forme tooke place the Invocation was not brought into the Liturgie and publike prayers of the Church in Direct forme but men prayed still unto God onely though desiring him the rather to respect them for that not onely their brethren on earth but they also that are in heaven cease not to pray for them neither is there any other forme of prayer found in the missall but in the Sequences and Litanies onely saith Learned Doctor Field Gregorie indeeed added some things to the Canon the Alle-lujah the Kyrie Eleâ—son Lord have mercie upon us the Orizon Diâ—sque nostros in pace disponas Give peace in our times O Lord together with other Collects But I doe not find either in Cassander or Pamelius their Liturgies that Gregorie brought in any direct forme of Prayer to Saints Afterwardâ— Nocherus the Abbot who lived about the yeaâ—e eight hundred and fifty composed the Sequences and so when the ancient Missalls were abandoned it is no marvaile if Invocation of Saints stept up in their place Lastly the forme and manner of Saintly Invocation used about the yeare 600 in Saint Gregories dayes differeth extreamely from that which was used by Papals in later times as may appeare by these instances following The Hymne of Thomas Becket runnes thus in the Salisbury Primer Tu per Thomae sanguinem Quem pro te impendit Fac nos Christe scandere Quò Thomas ascendit By the bloud of Thomas Which for thee he did spend Make us thither O Christ to climbe Whither Thomas did ascend To the blessed Virgin they pray Maria mater gratiae Mater misericordiae Tu nos ab hoste protege Et horâ mortis suscipe Mary mother of heavens grace Mother where mercie hath chiefe place From cruel Foe our soules defend And them receive when life shall end The Crosse is likewise devoutly saluted in this manner O Crux ave spes unica Hoc passionis tempore Auge pijs justitiam Reisque dona veniam All Haile O Crosse our onely hope In this time of the passion Encrease thou justice to the godly And give to sinners pardon Of Faith and Merits Hesychius saith The grace of God is given onely of mercie and favour and is embraced and received by onely Faith Gregorie held not justification by inherent righteousnesse for speaking even of the second justification hee teacheth that we are justified before God freely by grace Our just advocate saith he will in judgement defend us for just if so bee wee know and accuse our selves to bee unrighteous and unjust He confesseth That all our righteousnesse is manifestly proved to be unrighteousnesse if once it bee strictly examined according to justice Hee accounts a mans best actions imperfect and unable to abide the Iudges triall unlesse hee weigh them by the scale of his mercie Isidore saith it was noted a propertie in the Catherists or ancient Puritans to glorie of their merits Gregorie held not Merit of Condignitie but appealed to the court of Mâ—cie saying I grow on to eternall life not by the merit of my works but by the pardon of my sinnes presuming to obtaine that by the onely mercie of God which I dare not hope for by my owne deserts and hereof as also of the imperfâ—ction of our works he gives a good reason saying that the evill that is in us is simply evill but the good that we thinke we have it is not absolutely pure and simply good So that how much soever we travaile in good works we never attaine to true puritie but onely imitate it And this may suffice to shew what religion Saint Gregorie professed other testimonies may be seene in Master Panks Collectanea out of Saint Gregorie and Saint Bernard shewing that in most fundamentall poynts they are ours PA.
Image-worship yet in some other things he was Orthodoxe and in those we comply with him Now also was held a famous Councel at Constantinople in the East and another at Frankford in the West both of them opposing the second Nicen Synod Now also lived Adelbert of France Samson of Scotland and Claudius Clemens of the same nation Bishop of Auxerâ—e in France Thâ—se with others opposâ—d Boniface the Popes factour whiles he sought to stablish Papall Supremacie adoration of Reliques and Images Pargatorie prayer for â—he dead and to impose single life on the Clâ—rgie and for â—his they were persecuted under Pope Zacharie with bonds and imprisonment Aventinâ— saiâ—h â—haâ— Albertus Gallus and other Bishops and Priestâ— of his sect so calls he the way after which they worshipâ—â—od did mightily withstand this Boniface or Winifrid an Engâ—iâ—â—â—an bishop of Meâ—tz Toward the laâ—er end of this Age there lived though they flourished in the ninth Age Claudius Clemens Scotus as also Ioannes Mailrosius Scotus called Madrosius haply for that he lived in the Monastery of Mailros planted by bishop Aidan and his followers in Northumberland where also Saint Cuthbert had his education PA. I claime Saint Bede for one of ours PRO. You will lose your claime for though he were tainted with superstition and slipt into the corruptions of the Times wherin he lived Beleeving and reporting divers Fabulous Miracles and incredible Stories as some of your owne men haue censured him neither doe we defend all hee wrot yet in divers maine grounds of Religion he was an Adversarie to your Trent Faith Bede was a Priest he lived in the Monasterie of Saint Peter and Saint Paul at Weere-mouth neere Durham A great Clerke and writer of the English Story Alcwin or Alwin was a Yorke-shiere man as appeares by his name Alwin which in these parts continues to this day He was Keeper of the Library at Yorke erected by Archbishop Egberâ— He was also Schoole-master to Rabanus and in great favour with his Pupill Carolus Magnus whom hee perswaded to found the Vniversitie of Paris He wrot three bookes of the Trinitie and Dedicated them to Charles The Papists charge Calvin to have made these bookes and to have set them forth in Alcuinus name Alcuin and Calvin being all one name by changing the Letters but this is untrue since both the note of the beginning and ending of this booke is to be seene in an ancâ—ent Manuscript in Lincolne Colledge and the very Copie it selfe written as it may be conjectured above five hundred yeeres agoe is to be seene in the Princes Library at Saint Iames. Besides that my selfe have seene Alcwin's booke of the Trinitie Printed in the yeare 1525. whereas Calvin by Bellarmines account shewed not himselfe untill the yeere 1538. Of the Scriptures Sufficiencie and Canon Damascen saith Whatsoever is delivered unto us in the Law and the Prophets by the Apostles and Evangelists that wee receive acknowledge and reverence and besidâ—s these wee require nothing else The same Damascen numbers all those bookes and those onely as Canonicall that we doe and addeth That the Bookes of Wisdome and Iesus the Sonne of Syrach are good Bookes and containe good Lessons but that they are not numbred in this account neither were layd up in the Arke And our Alcuinus Abbot of Saint Martins at Tours in France writing against Elipantus bishop of Toledo tels him that he urged authoriâ—ies out of the booke of Iesus the sonne of Syrach but saith he Saint Hierome and Isidore doe testiâ—ie that without question it was to be reputed amongst the Apocryphall and doubtfull Bookes Of Communion under both kinds and the number of Sacraments Charles the Great saith The mystery of the body and bloud of Christ is daily received by the faithfull in the Sacrament of his â—lesh and bloud in â—anis ac vini figurâ in the figure oâ— bread and wine And that â—he Sacrament is in it owne naâ—ure brâ—ad and wine but the body and bloud of Christ by Mysticall and Sacrameâ—tall relation hee shewes in the same termes as Isidore did before him and Rabanus after him Becausâ— bread saith Bede confirmes the bâ—dy and wine doth worke bloud in the flesh therefore the one is mystically refâ—rred to the body of Christ the other to his bloud But to leave particular men we have the suffrage of a whole Councel held at Constantinople in the yeare 754 wherein it was maintained that Christ chose no other shape or type under heaven to represent his Incarnation by but the Sacrament which he delivered to his Ministers for a type and a most effectuall commemoration thereof Commanding the substance of bread to bee offered and this bread they affirme to be a true Image of his naturall flesh And these assertions of theirs they are to be found in the third tome of the sixth Action of the second Councel of Nice Of Images and Prayer to Saints Concerning Images venerable Bede as we find him cited by Gerson the Chancellour of Paris saith That Images are not simply forbidden to bee made but they are utterly forbidden to bee made to this end to bee worshipped and adored Charles the Great as Cassander saith hath pithily and wittily stated this question of Images that it is no prejudice to want tâ—em nor priviledge to have them that such as utterly reject them may be taxed with â—icklenesse and they that worship them branded with folly In this Age there arose great contention in the Church touching the matter of Images the Greeke Empâ—rouâ—s Leo Isaurus Constantine Nicâ—phorus Stauratius Leo Armenus Michael Balbus Theophilus and others their â—ucâ—essours opposiâ—g them in the East and on the other side Gregorie the second and third Paul the first Stephen the fourth Adrian the first and other Popes of Rome as stiffly upholding them in the West In a Councel of 338 Bishops held at Constantinople Anno 754 they were solemnly condemned for they banished all other Images and determined That there was one onely Image appointed by Christ to wit the blessed bread and wine in the Eucharist which represent to us the body and bloud of Christ there was decreed under Constantine nicknamed Câ—pronymus That none should privately in houses or publikely in Churches procure keepe or worship any Image uâ—on paine of deposition Zonaras saith That in the hearing of all the people they openly forbad the worship of Images calling all such as adored thâ—m Idolaters and speaking of the Emperour Leo Armenus hee saith He was mightily bent against them insomuch as he decreed utterly to abandon them Thus did those Ezekiah's of Greece being strongly opposed by the Papall foâ—ces Now so it was afterwards in another Coâ—nâ—el of 350 bishop held at Nice in the yeare 787. Images were set on foote againe and this Councel was calâ—ed and swayed under that Doctresse Irene the Empresse
resiant at Constantinople and part of the countrey that rebelled was Conquered by the King of Lumbardie and Rome and the Romane Dukedome fell unto the Pope now was the Emperour driven out of Italie and every one caâ—cht what he could the Lumbards were the strongâ—st partie and with them the Pope falls at oddes about the dividing of the spoyle and finding them too hard for him as before he had used the strength of the Lumbards to suppresse the Emperour so now he cals in Pipin Marshall of the Palace or Constable of France and â—â—aâ—les his son surnamed the Great and by their power he suppressed the Lumbards this service did Pipin and his sonne to the See of Rome in requitall whereof Chilpâ—ricke being a weake Prince was deposed Pipin and the Barons and the people of France are absolved from their Oath of Allegeance and by Pope Zacharies favour Pipin sonne to Carolus Martellus is crowned King of the Fâ—aâ—ks and Charles the Great sonne to Pipin is crowned Emperour of the West by Pope Leo the third who sâ—cceeded Adrian Then came the Pope and Charlemaigne to the partage of the Empire leaving a poore pitâ—ance for the Emperour of Greece And this was the issue of the fierce contentions about Images The Popes pulling downe Emperours and setting up Images and indeed these babies and puppits served the Popes to stalke withâ—ll but other fowle was shot at to wit Iurisdiction and a temporall Monarchie and indeed about this time the Pope grew great so that it was Gods gracious dealing with his Church that he found such opposition as he did the Easterne Emperour not daring and the Westerne in regard of late courtesies received from the Pope being haply not willing openly to affront him And thus much of Images come we now to speake a word or two of Prayer to Saints Concerning Prayer Bede in his Commentarie on the Proverbes rightly ascribed to Bede and not to Saint Hierome saith We ought to invocate that is by prayer to call into us none but God Antonius in his Melissa or mellifluous Sermon saith that Wee are taught to worship and adore that nature onely which is uncreated but the Spanish Inquisitors have clipt off a piece of his tongue Commanding the word Onely to be blotted out of his writings now the word Onely is the onely principall word that shewes us the Authors drift and the word which Gregorie Nyssen from whom he borrwed this speech used in the Originall Of Faith and Merits Bede held that we are justified by the merits of Christ imputed to us Christs condemnation is our Iustification his death is our life Hee disclaimed Iustification by inherent Righteousnesse for speaking of a regenerate man he saith That no man shall bee saved by the righteousnesse of workes but onely by the righteousnesse of Faith and therefore No man should beleeve that either his freedome of will or his merits are sufficient to bring him unto blisse but understand that he can be saved by the grace of God onely And elsewhere he saith That in the life to come we shall be well rewarded and that not by merits but by grace onely and he hath a sweet prayer that the Lord would take compassion of him and that after the worth and condignitie of his mercies and not after the condignitie of wrath which himselfe had deserved His Scholler Alcuinus maintained the same truth as appeares by these passages following I could saith Alcuinus defile my selfe with sinne but I cannot clense my selfe it is my Saviours bloud that must purge me and againe Whiles I looke on my selfe I find nothing in mee but sinne thy righteousnesse must deliver mee it is thy mercy not my merits that saves mee And elsewhere he saith very sweetly He onely can free me from sinne who came without sinne and was made a sacrifice for sinne And thus by Gods prouidence was the weightie point of Iustification preserved found in these latter and declining times THE NINTH CENTVRIE From the yeare of Grace 800. to 900. PAPIST WHat say you of this ninth Age PROTESTANT The seeds of Knowledge which our worthy Coâ—ntrey-men Bede and Alâ—win planted in Gods Field shewed themselues in their Schollers such as were Claudius Scotus Scholler to Saint Bede Rabbanus Maurus Abbot of Fulden one who as Trithemius saith for his learning had not his match in Italy or Germanie Haymo bishop of Halberstat and our Countrie-man Ioannes Scotus Erigena all three Schollers to Alcuinus Now also lived Christianus Druthmarus the Monke and the Abbot Walafridus Strabo who collected the ordinary Glosse on the Bible Agobardus bishop of Liâ—ns Claudius bishop of Thurin in Piemont Bertram a Pâ—iest and Monke of Corbey Abbey wherâ—of Paschaâ—ius was sometimes Abbot and about the yeare Eight huâ—dred and â—inetie according to Bellarmine lived the Monke Ambrosius Ausbertus About the yeare 880â— lived Remigius borne at Auxâ—rre in Fraâ—ce and sometimes called Rhemensis haply because he taught at Rhemes there was another Remigius Archbishop of Rhemes who liued in the sixth Age and converted King Clovis of France to the Christian Faith but this Saint Remigius for ought wee know wrot nothing Claudius Scotus already mentioned was one of the Irish Nation by birth a famous Divine and accounted one of the Founders of the Vniversitie of Paris this Claudius Clemens Presbiter was of latter standing and inferiour in place to that other Claudius Scotus bishop of Auxerâ—e a great opposite to Boniface Archbishop of Meâ—ts This latter Claudius wrote on the Gospels and Epistles and is often alleaged by the Reverend and learned Lord Primate Doctor Vsher. Of the Scriptures sufficiencie and Canon Claudius Scotus saith That men therefore erre because they know not the Scriptures and because they are ignorant thereof they consequently know not Christ who is the power and wisdome of God Hee also bringeth in that knowne Canon of Saint Herome This because it hath not authoritie from the Scriptures is with the same facilitie contemned wherewith it is avowed Nicephorus Patriarke of Constantinople gives us to understand That the Bookes of the old Testament were twenty and two And treating of the Apocriphall Bookes he mentioneth in particular the Bookes of Maccabees Wisdome Ester Iudith Susanna Tobie Of Communion under both kindes and number of Sacraments Paschasius upon our Saviours words Drinke yee all of this saith Drinke yee all of this as well Ministers as the rest of the Faithfull Rabanus saith That the Lord would have the Sacrament of his Body and bloâ—d to be received by the mouth of the Faithfull Haymo saith The Cup is called the Communion because all communicate of it and doe take part of the bloud of the Lord which it containeth in it Hee saith all did communicate so that the People as well as the Priests were admitted to the Cup. And Rhemigius hath the very same words
7 makes this inference In this doe wee give glory to him when we doe confesse that by no precedent merits of our good deeds but by his mercie onely wee have attained unto so great a dignitie And Rabanus in his commentaries upon the Lamentations of Ieremie least they should say our Fathers were accepted for their Merit and therefore they obtained such great things at the hands of the Lord he adjoyneth that it was not given to their Merits but because it so pleased God whose free gift is whatsoever he bestoweth I will close up this Age onely with producing an Evidence drawne about the yeare 860 namely a learned Epistle which Huldericke Bishop of Ausburg in Germanie wrote to Pope Nicolas in defence of Priests Marriage From this holy discretion saith he thou hast no a little swarved when as thou woâ—ldst have those Cleargy-men whom thou oughtest only to advise to abstinence from mariage compelled unto it by a certaine imperious violence for is not this justly in the judgement of all Wise men to be accounted violence when as against the Evangelicall institution and the charge of the Holy Ghost any man is constrained to the execution of private Decrees The Lord in the old Law appointed marriage to his Priest which he is never read afterwards to have forbidden PA. Master Brerely saith that this Epistle is forged under the name of Ulrick Bishop of Augusta PRO. Your Spanish Inquisitors have suppressed this Tesâ—imonie and strucke it dead with a Deleatur Let that whole Epistle be blotted out but our learned bishop Doctor Hall prooves that this Huldericke wrote such a Treatise and about the time assigned and also that this Record is Authenticke that it is extant as Illyricus saith in the Libraries of Germanie that ouâ— Archbishop Parker bishop Iewell Iohn Foxe had Copies of it in Parchment of great Antiquitie Besides your owne man Aeneas Sylvius afterwards Pope Pius the second almost two hundred yeares agoe mentions it and reports the Argument of it for speaking of Ausburg he saith Saint Vdalricus huic praesidet qui papam arguit de Concubinis Vdalricke is the Saint of that City who reproved the Pope concerning Concubines THE TENTH CENTVRIE From the yeare of Grace 900. to 1000. PAPIST WE are now drawing on to the thousandth yeare what say you to this tenth Age PROTESTANT By the fall of the Romane Empiâ—e Learning was now decayed and the publike Service no longer to be understood by reason of the change of the vulgar Tongues Wernerus a Carthusian Monke saith of this Age That holinesse had left the Popes and fled to the Emperours Bellarmine saith There was no Age so unlearned so unluckie And Baronius complaines saying What was then the face of the Roman Church when potent and base Whores bare all the sway at Rome at whose lust Sees were changed Bishoprickes bestowed and their Lovers thrust into Saint Peters Chaire Insomuch as Baronius is glad to prepare his Reader with a Preface before he would have him venter upon the Annals of this Age Lest a weake man seeing in the Story of those times the abomination of Desolation sitting in the Temple should bee offended and not rather wonder that there followed not immediatly the Desolation of the Temple And he had reason to Preface as much considering the corruption that grew in this Thousandth yeare wherein Satan was let loose For at thiâ— time they of Rome forbad others to marâ—y and in the meane whiles themselves slept in an unlawfull bed They also devised a carnall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament so that as the noble Morney saith The lesse that they beleeved God in hâ—aven the more carefull were they to affirme him to bee in the Bread in the Priests hands in his words in his nods and that by these meanes when it pleased them they could make him appeare upon earth Thus dishonesty accompanied infidelitie and no marvell since as Ockam saith A lewd life oftentimes blindâ—th the understanding But leâ— us see whether in this Monkish Age during this mist in Aegypt wee can discover any light in the Land of Goshen In this Age lived the Monke Radulphus Flaviaceâ—sis Stephanus Edvensis Bishop Smaragdus Abbot of Saint Michaels in Germany and Aelfricke Abbot of Malmesburie about the yeare 975. Of the Scriptures sufâ—iciencie and Canon Flaviacensis compares the Scripture to a well-furnished Table or Ordinarie It is saith hee our spirituall refection and Cordiall given to us against the heart-qualmes of our enemies The same Author speaking of Bookes pertainning to sacred Historie saith The Bookes of Tobit Iudith and of the Machabees though they bee read â—or the Churches instruction yet they have not any perfect Authoritie In like sort Aelfricke Abbot of Malmesburie in his Saxon Treatie of the old Testament tell us There are two Bookes more placed with Salomons workes as if he had made them which for likenesse of Stile and profitable vse have gone for his but Iesus the sonne of Syrach composed them one is called Liber Sapientiae the Booke of Wisdome and the other Ecclesiasticus very large Bookes and read in the Church of long custome for much good instruction amongst these Bookes the Church hath accustomed to place two other tending to the glory of God and intituled Maccabaeorum I have turned them into English and so reade them you may if you please for your owne instruction Now by this Saxon Treatise written by Aelfricus Abbas about the time of King Edgar seven hundred yeares agoe it appeares what was the Canon of holy Scripture here then received and that the Church of England had it so long agoe in her Mother tongue Of Communion under both and number of Sacraments Stephanus Edvensis saith These gifâ—s or benefits â—re dayly performed unto us when the Body and Bloud of Christ is taken at the Altar Aelfricke mentions but two Sacraments of Baptisme aâ—d the Lords Supper the same which Gods people had under the Law who though they had many Rites and Ceremonies yet in proper sense but two Sacraments his words are these The Apostle Paul saith 1 Cor. chap. 10. vers 1 2 3 4. That the Israelites did eate the same ghostly meate and drinke the same ghostly drinke because that heavenly meate that fed them fortie yeares and that water which from the Stone did flow had signification of Christs Body and his Bloud that now bee offered dayly in Gods Church So that as a good Author saith This Age acknowledged onely two Sacraments Of the Eucharist Our English Abbot Aelfricke in his Saxon Homily which was appointed publikely to be read to the people in England on Easter day before they received the Communion hath these wordes All our Forâ—fathers they did eate the same Ghostly meate and dranke the same Ghostly drinke they dranke truely of the stone that followed them and that stone was Christ neither was
examining them The like may be sayd of Bede Gregorie and others that holding Christ the foundation a right and groaning under the weight of mens Traditions humane satisfactions and the like popish trash they by unfained repentaÌ„ce for their errours lapses knowne and unknowne and by an assured faith in their Saviour did finde favour with the Lord these and the like we hold to be Gods servants and propter meliorem saniorem partem by reason of their better and sounder part to be with us lively members of the true Church though in some things they were mistaken and that they may be termed professours of our faith inasmuch as the denomination is to be taken from the better part and not alwayes from the greater For example sake there is much water and little wine mixed in a glasse yet it is called a glasse of wine so say we of professors S. Bernard and such like there is in them some bad parts some superstition and Poperie and some good in that they hold Christ Iesus the foundation aright in this case they may in respect of their better part be termed and denominated true professors and therefore you must give us againe Saint Bernard with others to whoÌ„ you have no right or claime unlesse it be to their errours which they suckt in from the corrupt breasts of some of your side and so I proceed to the severall points in question Of the Scriptures Sufficiencie and Canon Saint Bernard as wee heard approveth such a Councell wherein the Traditions of men are not obstinately defended but the revealed will of God enquired after for that this is all in all Claudius Seyssel Archbishop of Turin in Piedmont one that was Neighbour to the Waldenses and laboured to enforme himselfe touching their positions and also to confute them saith that they admitted onely the text of the old and new Testaments so that they denyed unwritten traditions to be the Rule of Faith Petrus Cluniacensis after he had reckoned up the canonicall bookes saith There are besides the authenticall bookes sixe other not to be rejected as namely Iudith Tobias Wisedome Ecclesiasticus and the two bookes of Macchabees which though they attaine not to the high dignitie of the former yet they are received of the Church as containing necessary and profitable doctrine Hugo de Sancto victore saith All the Canonicall bookes of the old Testament are twentie two there are other bookes also as namely the Wisedome of Salomon the booke of Iesus the sonne of Syrach the bookes of Iudith Tobias and the Machabees which are read but not written in the Canon The Bible was translated into English some hundred yeares as it is probably conjectured before Wickliffs translation came forth a coppie of which auncient translation my selfe have seene in our Queenes Colledge Librarie in Oxford in the praeface whereof it may be seene that the translatour held the controverted bookes for Apocrypha for thus he saith what ever booke of the Old Testament is out of these he maketh the same â—anon with us twentie five before sayd shall be set among Apocrypha that is without authoritie of beleefe Therefore the booke of Wisedome Ecclesiasticus Iudith and Tobie bee not of beleefe Hierome saith all this sentence in the prologue on the first booke of Kings now if at that time the above sayd bookes had beene accounted Authenticall by the Church and of beleefe he would have sayd but this opinion of Hieromes is not approved by the Church as Doctor Iames hath well observed Of Communion under both kinds and number of Sacraments HVgo de Sancto victore giveth a reason of the entire communicating in both kinds Therefore saith he the Sacrament is taken in both kindes that thereby a double effect might be signified For it hath force as S. Ambrose saith to preserve both body and soule Gratian rehearseth many ancient Canons and constitutions for communicating in both kinds Saint Bernard in his third Sermon on Palme Sunday maketh the Sacrament of Christs body and blood the Christians foode Touching the Sacrament of Christs body and blood saith he there is no man who knoweth not that this so singular a food was on that day first exhibited on that day coÌ„mended and coÌ„manded to be frequently received Saint Bernards words have reference to the Institution of Christ now at our Saviours last Supper there was Wine as well as Bread and Bernard treating thereof saith it was commanded to be frequently received now if the whole Church were enjoyned so to doe then also is every particular beleever who is of age fitted thereunto enjoyned to receive it accordingly The precise number of seaven Sacraments was not held for catholike doctrine no not in the Church of Rome untill more than a thousand yeares after Christ this is ingenuously confessed by Cassander Vntill the dayes of Peter Lombard who lived about the yeere 1145 you shall scarce finde any authour saith their Cassander who set downe any certaine and definite number of Sacraments neither did all the schoolemen call all those sâ—ven proper Sacraments but this is without all controversie saith the same Cassander that there are two chiefe Sacraments of our Salvation that is to say Baptisme and the Lords Supper and so speake Rupertus and Hugo de Sancto victore and he saith true for Rupertus putteth the question and asketh Which be the chiefe sacraments of our salvation and hee answereth Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord. Of the Eucharist IN this age â—ratian the Monke affoordeth us a notable testimony against transubstaÌ„tiatioÌ„ his coÌ„parison is thus drawne This holy bread is after its manner called the body of Christ as the offering thereof by the hands of the Priest is called Christs passion now the Priests oblation is not properly and literally in strict termes and sence the passion of Christ but as the Glosse hath it the Sacrament representing the body of Christ is therefore called Christ's flesh not in verity of the thing but in a mystery namely as the representation of Christ therein is called his Passion Gratians words are these As the heavenly bread which is Christ's flesh after a sort is called Christ's body whereas indeed it is the Sacrament of his body and the sacrificing of the flesh of Christ which is done by the Priest's hands is sayd to be his passion not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mistery Iâ—annes Semeca who was the first that glossed upon Gratians decrees telleth us how this comparison is to be meant This Sacrament saith the Glosse because it doth represent the flesh of Christ is called the Body of Christ but improperly not in the truth of the thing but in the mysticall sence to wit it is called the Body of â—hrist that is it signifieth his Body From these premisses we inferre that after consecration the Sacrament is not in truth Christ's Body but onely in a
of weake abilities and also for that they had made a booke which they called the everlasting Gospell whereunto they said Christs Gospell was not to be compared Pope Alexander the fourth was content upon complaint made unto him that the Friers booke should be burned provided that it were done covertly and secretly and so as the Friers should not be discredited thereby and as for William of Saint Amour hee dealt sharply with him commanding his booke to be burnt as also he suspended from their benefices and promotions all such as either by word or writing had opposed the Friers untill such time as they should revoke and recant all such speeches and writings at Paris or other places appointed so tender was his holines over the Friers credit and reputation knowing belike what service might be done to him and his successours by these newly errected orders of â—riers I call them newly erected for in the time of Pope Innocent the third about the yeare 1198 the Iacobites an order of preaching Friers were instituted by Saint Dominicke and about the beginning of this age the order of Franciscans preaching Friers Minors was instituted by Saint Francis borne at Assise a towne in Italy Of the Scriptures sufficiencie and Canon SCoâ—us saith that supernaturall knowledge as much as is necessarie for a wayfaring man is sufficiently delivered in sacred Sâ—ripture Thomas Aquinas in his commentary upon that place of Saint Paul the Scriptures are able to make one wise unto salvation that the man of God may be perfect 2 Timoth. 3.15.17 saith that the Scriptures doe not qualifie a man aâ—ter an ordinarie sort but they perfit him so that nothing is wanting to make him happy And accordingly Bonaventure saith The beneâ—it of sâ—ripture is not ordinarie but such as is able to make a man fully blessed and happy Hugo Cardinalis speaking of the bookes rejected by us saith These bookes are not received by the Church for proofe of doctrine but for information of manners Of Communion under both kindes and nâ—mber of Sacraments ALexander Hales howsoever he some way incline to that opinion that it is sufficient to receive the Sacrament in one kind yet he confesseth that there is more merit and devotion and compleatnesse and efficacie in receiving in both Againe hee saith Whole Christ is not sacramentally conteined under each forme because the bread signifieth the body and not the blood the wine signifieth the blood and not the body Concerning the Churches practise wee doe not finde that the lay people were as yet barred of the cup in the holy Sacrament for our Countrey-man Alexander Hales who flourished about the yeare of Grace 1240. saith that we may receive the body of Christ under the forme of bread onely sicut fere ubique fit à Laicis in ecclesiâ as it is almost every where done of the Laiety in the Church it was almost done every where but it was not done every where Concerning the Sacraments the Schoolemen of this age can hardly agree amongst themselves that there be seaven Sacraments properly so called Alexander of Hales saith that there are onely â—oure which are in any sort properly to be sayd Sacraments of the new Law that the other three supposed Sacraments had their being before but received some addition by Christ manifested in the flesh that amongst them which began with the new Covenant onely Baptisme and the Eucharist were instituted immediately by Christ received their formes from him and flowed out of his wounded side Touching Confirmation the same Alexander of Hales saith the Sacrament of Confirmation as it is a Sacrament was not ordained either by Christ or by the Apostles but afterwards was ordained by the Councell of Meldain France Touching extreame unction Suarez saith that both Hugo of Saint Victor in Paris and Peter Lombard and Bonaventure and Alexander of Hales and Altissidorus the cheefe schoolemen of their time denyed this Sacrament to be instituted by Christ and by plaine consequence saith he it was no true Sacrament though they were of opinion that a Sacrament might be instituted by the Apostles and therefore admitted not of this consequence Of the Eucharist COncerning the Eucharist Scotus saith that it was not in the beginning so manifestly beleeved as concerning this coversion But principally this seemeth to move us to hold Transubstantiation because concerning the Saraments we are to hold as the Church of Rome doth And hee addeth wee must say the Church in the Creed of the Lateran councell under Innocent the third which begins with these words Firmiter credimus declared this sence concerning Transubstantiation to belong to the veritie of our faith And if you demaund why would the Church make choice of so difficult a sence of this Article when the words of the Scripture This is my Body might be upholden after an easie sence and in appearance more true I say the Scriptures were expounded by the same spirit that made them and so it is to be supposed that the catholike Church expounded them by the same spirit whereby the faith was delivered us namely being taught by the spirit of truth and therefore it chose this sence because it was true thus farre Scotus Let us now see what Bellarmie saith Scotus tells us saith he that before the Councell of Lateran which was held in the yeare one thousand two hundred and fifteene transubstantiation was not beleeved as a point of faith this is confessed by Bellarmine to be the opinion of Scotus onely he would avoyd his testimonie with a minime probandum est Scotus indeed saith so but I cannot allow of it and then hee taxeth Scotus with want of reading as if this learned and subtile Doctor had not seene as many Councels and read as many Fathers for his time as Bellarmine The same Bellarmine saith that Scotus held that there was no one place of scripture so expresse which without the declaration of the Church would evidently compell a man to admit of Transubstantiation and this saith the Cardinall is not altogether improbable It is not altogether improbable that there is no expresse place of Scripture to proove Transubstantiation without the declaration of the Church as Scotus sayd for although the Scriptures seeme to us so plaine that they may compell any but a refractary man to beleeve them yet it may justly be doubted whether the Text be cleare enough to enforce it seeing the most acute and learned men such as Scotus was have thought the contrary thus farre Bellarmine unto whom I will adde the testimonie of Cuthbert Tonstall the learned Bishop of Durham His words are these Of the manner and meanes of the Reall presence either by Transubstantiation or otherwise perhaps it had beene better to leave every man that would be curious to his owne conjecture as before the councell of Lateran it was left and Master Bernard Gilpin a man most holy and
and driven out as an Hereticke Gerson howsoever he thought that the Church might lawfully prescribe the communicating in one kind alone wherein we cannot excuse him yet hee acknowledgeth That the Communion in both kinds was anciently used The Councel of Basil permitted the Bohemians to continue the use of the Communion in both kinds upon condition That they should not find fault with the contrary use nor sever themselves from the Catholicke Church Iacobellus Misvensis a Preacher of Prague being admonished by Petrus Dresdensis after he had searched into the writings of the ancient Doctors and by name Dionysius and Saint Cyprian and finding in them the communicating of the Cup to the Laity commanded hee thenceforth exhorted the people by no meanes to neglect or omit the receiving the Communion of the Cup. Cardinal Bessarion Bishop of Tusculum professeth in expresse termes Wee reade onely of two Sacraments which were plainely delivered in the Gospel Of the Eucharist Waldensis saith That some supposed the Conversion that is in the Sacrament to be in that the bread and wine are assumed into the unitie of Christs person some thought it to be by way of Impanation and some by way of Figurative and Tropical appellation The first and second of those opinions found the better entertainement in some mens mindes because they grant the essentiall preseâ—ce of Christs body and yet deny not the presence of the bread still remaining to sustaine the appearing Accidents These opinions he reports to have beene very acceptable to many not without sighes wishing the Church had Decreed That men should follow one of them Whereupon Iohn Paris writeth That this way of Impanation so pleased Guido the Carmelite sometime Reader of the Holy Palace that he professed if hee had beene Pope he would have prescribed and commanded the embracing of it Petrus de Alliaco the Cardinal professâ—th that for ought he can see the substantiall Conversion of the Sacramental elements into the body and bloud of Christ cannot be proved either out of scripture or any determination of the universal Church maketh it but a matter of opinion inclining rather to the other opinion of Consubstantiation His words are these That manner or meaning which supposeth the substance of bread to remaine still is possible neither is it contrary to reason or to the authoritie of the Scriptures nay it is more easie and more reasonaâ—ble to conceive than that which sayes the Substance doth leave the Accidents And of this opinion no inconvenience doth seeme to ensue if it could accord with the Churches determination And hee addes That the opinion which holdeth the substance of bread to remaine doth not â—vidently follow of the Scripture nor in his seeming of the Churches determination Biel saith It is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible how the body of Christ is in the Sacrament and hereof anciently there have beene divers opinions Cajetaâ— saith that secluding the Churches authoritie there is no written word of God sufficient to enforce a Christian to receive this doctrine of Transubstantiation Saurez the Iesuit ingeniously professeth that Cardinal Cajetan in his Commentâ—rie upon this Article did aâ—â—irme that those words of Christ. This is my Body doe not of themselves sufficiently prove Transubstantiation without the Churches authoritie and therefore by the Commandment of Pius Quintus that part of his Commentarie is left out in the Roman Edition By this it appeares that their learned Councel of Schoolemen who lived in this Age were not fully agreed upon the poynt Of Images and Prayer to Saints Abulensis was so farre from allowing the worship of Images as that he held it a thing unlawfull in it selfe Deut. 4.16 secluding Adoration to make any visible Image or representation of God according to his deâ—ty for hence saith hee these two inconveniences will follow First The Perill of Idolaâ—rie in case the Image it selfe should come to be adored and Secondly Errour and Heresie whiles one shall asâ—ribe to God such bodily shapes and formes as the Trinity â—s usually pictured withall Now that Abulensis with othâ—rs held it unlawfull to picture or represâ—nt the Trinâ—tie is acknowledged by Bellarmine saying It is Calvins opinion in the first booke of his Institutions cap 11. that it is an abhominable sinne to make a â—â—sible and bodâ—ly Image of the invisible and incorporeall God and this opinion of Calvins is also the opinion of some Catholicke Doctors as Abulensiâ— upon 4. Deut. quest 5. and Durand upon 3. dist 9. qu. 2. and Peresius in his booke of â—raditions Gerson condemned all mâ—king of an Image or portraiture appointed or accommodaâ—ed to worship and aadorationâ— saying Thou shalt â—ot adore thâ—m nor worship them which are thus to bâ— distinguished Thou shalt not adore them that is With any bodily reverence or bowing or kneeling to them Thou shalt not worship them with any devotion of mind Images therefore are prohibited to bee either adored or Worshipped The same Gerson disliked the varietie of pictures and Images in Churches occasioning Idolatry in the simple If Christians were in no peâ—ill of Idolatry by worshipping Images why doth Gerson complaineâ— that Superstition had infected Christian Religion anâ— that people like Iewesâ— did onely sâ—eke after Signes and yeeld Divine honour to Images Cassander writeth in this manner The opinion of Thomas Aquinas who holdeth that Images are to be woâ—shipped as their Samplers is disliked by soundâ—r Scâ—oolemen amongst whom is Durand Holcot and Gabriel â—iel Biel reporteth the opinion of them which say that an Image neither as it is considered in it selfe materâ—ally nor yâ—t according to the nature of a Signe or Image is to bee worshipped And he saith well that this opinion of Thomas was disliked of others for besides those already mentioned this was one of the Problems which Picus Mirandula proposed to be maintained by him at Rome namely that Neither the Crosse nor any other Image was to be worshipped with Latria or Divine worship no not in that sense as Thomas would have it And when otheâ—s carped at this and other his Assertions touching â—he Sacrament of the Eucharist himselfe made his owne Apologie and defence Touching Invocation of Saints though Gerson did not absolutely condemne it yet hee reprehendeth the abuses and sâ—persâ—iâ—ious observations then prevailing in the worshiâ—ping of Sâ—ints veâ—y bitterly For in his Consolatoâ—y tract of Rectifying the Heart amongst many oâ—her considâ—rations he complaineth That â—hâ—re is incollerable â—uperstitioÌ„ in the worshipping of Saints innumerable observations without all ground of reason vaine credulitie in beleeving things concerning the Saints reported in the uncertaine Legends of their lives superstitious opinions of obtaining Pardon and remission of sinnes by saying so many Pater nosters in such a Church before such an Image as if in the Scriptures and Authenticall writings of holy men there were not sufficient direction for all
Sir Iohn Old Castlâ— Lord Cobham and Sir Roger Acton knight burnt for Religion in the raign of king Henry the fift and in Queen Maries daies there were five Bishops one and twentie Divines and eight Gentlemen who suffered for the truth Lastly what though some of them were simple people Ruffinus makes mentioÌ„ of a heathen philosopher at Nice who through his great skill in the art of Logick wound himselfe Adder-like out of the bishops arguments that they were not able to put him to silence until there rose up in the Councel a simple man who knew nothing but Christ and him crucified who with some blunt Interrogatories so amazed the Philosopher that not onely as a dumb man he had not a word to reply but yeelded himselfe to the truth which the plaine man had uttered Yea but they were married priests whom we produce for martyrs what then Gregory Nazianzen brings in his Father who was Bp. of the same See speaking thus of him Nondum tot annisunt tui quotjam in sacris mihi sunt peracti victimis that is the yeares of thine age are not so many as of my Priesthood Whereby it is cleere that Gregorie Nazianzen was born to his father afâ—er the time of his holy Orders And least any man should suspâ—ct that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this nondum or not aâ— yet might reach onâ—ly to the biâ—th not to the begetting of Gregorie Nazianzen so as perhaps hee might be born after his fathers oâ—dâ—rsâ— and begotten before thâ—m it is further shown which makes all sure and plaine that Gorgonia and Caesarius the sister and brother of this Gregory were by the same father begotteÌ„ afâ—erwards as is evideâ—t both by that verse of Nazianzen who speaking of his mother as thâ—n childles wheÌ„ shâ— begged him of God layes Cupiebat illa masculum soetum domi Spectare magna ut pars cupit mortalium And the cleare testimony of Elias Cretensis saying Although if you regard his birth he was not the onely child of his Parents forasmuch as after him both Gorgonia and Caesarius were borne Now if this Bishop after holy Orders conversed conjugally with his wife and that without the Churches scandall then is it not any disparagement to some of our Martyrs that they were married Priests PA. Fox nameth some for Martyrs who afterwards were living PRO. There might be some that received the sentence of death and martyrdom and yet the same parties upon occasion and mediation might come to be reprieved or released and this not come to Mr. Foxe his knowledge This caÌ„not discredit the whole story taken for the most part out of your owne registers and other credible witnesses PA. You have put some into your Catalogue who were excommunicate persons and condemned to bee burnt for Heretikes as namely Husse and Wickliffe whose body was digged up forty yeares after his buriall and burnt by the Popes command PRO. Indeed they were Heretikes in such manner as Christ was called and condemned for a Blasphemer or as Saint Paul saith After the way which they call heresie so worship we the God of our Fathers beleeving all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets Indeed if this be heresie to acknowledge no other foundation then that which God himselfe hath laid no other Mediatour then Christ Iesus nor any expiation but by his blood nor any propitiatory sacrifice but his death nor any satisfaction to Gods justice but his obedience nor any rule to guide us infallibly to salvation but his word contained in the holy Scriptures if this I say be heresie then may they and we bee so reputed Now to discover who be Heretikes indeed let the Reader looke to the voice of the Church before these odds grew and see which way the Church inclined For though in the Primitive Ages thereof the writers could not speake so expresly and punctually against heresies untill they sprang up yet even then they delivered such grounds as might serve to over-throw the errours and superstition which afterwards arose Yea but our Professors have beene excommunicated and condemned so was the blind man in the Gospell whom our Saviour cured he was cast out of the Synagogue and yet Christ tooke him into his protection for the good profession he made It might be that in those papall censures the keyes were mistaken or the wards of the locke changed and then Errante clave Ecclesia their censures did not bind The Ephesine Latrocinie for so it was called Synodus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adjudged and condemned Flavianus an holy and Catholike Bâ—shop for an Heretike under that censure Flavianâ—â— died nay was martyred by them the holy Councell at Chalcedâ—â— after the death of Flavâ—anus loosed that band wherewith the Latrocinous Conspirators at Ephesus thought they had fast tyed him but because their Key did erre they did not in truth they honoured and proclaimed Flavianus for a Saint and Martyr whom the faction of Dioscurus had murdered for an heretike By which example and warrantie of that holy Councell our Church of latter time restored to their Prâ—stine dignity and honour to Flaviani in their age Bucer and Fâ—gius after their death what time that papall conspirâ—cie had not only with an erring Key bound but digged up their bodies out of their graves and burned them to ashes The papall faction hath beene but too peremptory in their censures â—hey were farre from the moderation of the Curat in Paris who being to publish an Excommunication what time there was great difference between the Emperouâ— Fredericke the second and Pope Innocent the fourth he thus acquitted himselfe Give eare saith he to his Parishioners I have received commandement to pronounce the solemne sentence of Excommunication against the Emperour Frederick candles put out and bels ringing Now I know not the cause that deserves this and yet I am not ignorant of the great odds that is betweene them I know also that one of them doth wrong the other but which it is I know not so farre forth then as my power doth extend I excommunicaâ—e and pronounce excommunicated one of the two namely him that doth the injury to the other and absolve him that suffereth the wrong which is so hurtfull unto all Christendome Thus farre he Now the thing which wee require on the behalfe of out professors so injuriously dealt withall as that their sworne enemies bâ—came both their witnesses and their Iudges which even common reason it selfe forbids that I say which we crave is this that since neither themselves have confessed the crimes laid to their charge nor others have as yet justly convicted them thereof that they may have the benefit of the Law and accordingly be restored according to an ordinary Canon provided in that case PA. Your Waldenses Wicklifists and Hussites and such as you account Confessors and Martyrs they errea in divers points they varied amongst themselves
and differed from you so that they cannot belong to the same Church PRO. Concerning Wickliffâ— Husse and the rest if they have any of them borne record to the truth and resisted any innovation of corrupt Teachers in their times even to blood they are justly to be termed Martyrs yea albeit they saw not all corruptions but in some were themselves carried away with the streame of error Else if because they erred in some things they be no Martyrs or because we dissent from them in some things we are not of the same Church both you and we must quit all claime to Saint Cyprian Iustin Martyr and many more whom we count our ancients and predecessors and bereave them also of the honour of martyrdome which so long they have enjoyed Irenaus and Iustin Martyr held the error of the Millenaries Cyprian many others held Rebaptization necessary for such as were baptized by heretikes S Austin and the greatest part of the Church for sixe hundred yeares held a necessitie of the Eucharist to Infants and in other things differed one from another and from the Church in the aftertimes correcting their errors yet because they all entirely and stedfâ—stly held all the necessary fundamentall principles which these errors did not infringe neither held they these errors obstinatly but only for want of better information they were of the same Church and Religion whereof we are S. Austin saith There be some things in which the most Learned and best Defenders of the Catholike Rule the bond of faith preserved do sometimes not agree among themselves and one in some one thing saith righter than anoher Now if the different opinions of the Fathers in some points hindred not their union in substance of the faith and their being members all of the same Church why should the like or lesser differences now among the Protestants hinder their union in substance of the same faith and their being members all of the same Chuch both among themselves and with the Fathers yea but Wickliffe and Husse with others mentioned in our Catalogue they erred in point of faith it is true but yet their error was not joyned with pertinacy they errâ—d not incorrigibly buâ— for want of better information they erred in that doctrine of faith wherein the truth was not fully scanned declared and confirmed by a Plenary Councell as S. Austin speaketh had it beene we may well thinke the very same of all those holy men which Austin most charitably saith of Saint Cyprian Without doubt they would have yeelded to the truth being manifested unto them by the authority of the whole Church Object We are at vnity but your Protestants are at ods and namely your Lutherans and Calvinists in the point of the Sacrament the one holding Consubstantiation and the other opposing it Answer The Protestants especially we of the Church of England are at unity as appeares by the Harmony of our confessions as also by our joynt subscriptions to the Articles of Râ—ligion established And for the point mentioned the difference is nothing so great as you would have it thought for as the moâ—t learned and judicious Zanchius observeth and our Doctor Field out of him In all necessary points both the parties agree and dissent in one unnecessary which by right understanding one another might easily be compounded Both sides saith Zanchius doe agree that the elements of bread and wine are not abolished in their substance but onely changed in their use which is not onely to signifie but also to exhibit and communicate unto us the very body and blood of Christ with all the gracious working and fruits thereof Both parties agree that the very body and blood of Christ are truely present in the Sacrament and by the faithfull truely and really received Thus farre all parties agree that is in the whole necessary and sufficient substance of the doctrine of this Sacrament for the other matter wherein they differ de modo of the manner how Christ is present in the Sacrament seeing it is not expressed in the Scriptures in the judgement of Zanchius it might well be omitted and they themselves confesse when they have gone as farre as they can to determine it still it is ineffable and not possible to be fully understood It is enough for us saith the same Zanchius to beleeve the body and blood are there though how and in what manner wee cannot define So then in this maine controversie betweene them about Consubstantiation which as Zanchius saith did afterwards occasion that other of ubiquity in both these controversies the main truth on both sides is out of controversie that Christ is really truly exhibited to each faithfull Communicant and that in his whole person he is every where the doubt is onely in the manner how he is in the Symbols and how in heaven and earth Now for other ods amongst us they be but in Ceremonies or at worst in points of no absolute consequence whereas the differences amongst Papists concerne the life of Religion They differ concerning the Supreame authoritie of the Church whether it be in the Pope or in the Generall Councel The Councels of Constance and Basil determined that a Generall Councel was above the Pope the Councel of Florence decreed the Pope to be above a Generall Councel They differ concerning the manner of the conception of the Virgin Mary The Dominican Friers following the Thomists hold that she was conceived in Originall sinne the Franciscans hold the contrary The moderne Popes disâ—gree with the ancient concerning the dignitie of universall Bishop adoration of Images Transubstantiation Communion in both kinds and the Merit of good workes as is already showne in the fifth and seaventh Centurie of this treatise So cleere is it that some doctrines of the later Roman Church were opposed by the ancient Roman Bishops thâ—mselves to wit adoration of Images as also the dignity and title of universal Bishop by Gregorie the Great coÌ„munion in one kind â— as also the merit of good works by Leo the first TransubstantiatioÌ„ by Gelasius the first Besides the Iesuits and Dominicans differ at this day concerning the weighty point of Free-will and Grace The truth is the Popish Faith varieth not onely with their persons but according to time and place so that they can exchange their tenets upon occasion advance or cry downe their opinions at their pleasure as may best serve for their advantage For as Azorius the Iesuit saith It falls out often that that which was not the common opinion a few yeares since now is And that which is the common opinion of Divines in one Country is not so in another As in Spaine and Italy it is the common opinion that Latreia or divine worship is due to the Crosse which in France and Germaâ—y is not so but some inferior kind of worship due thereunto And Navarrus the Casuist sayes
may grow in respect of farther Explanations but it cannot increase in Substantiall points even as a child as Vicentius Lirinensis â—aith though he grow in stature yet hath he no more limbs when he becommeth a man than he had when he was a child so the Church hath no more parts or Articles of Faith in her riper age than she had in her infancie and by this rule new Rome is a Monster if she have more â—word oâ— liâ—bs of Faith now in her declining age than ancient Rome had in her flourishing age And herein we challenge our adversaries to shew the body of their Religion peâ—fited in this first and purest age what time the Church was in her vigour and the Scripture Canon finished and consigned but they dare not be tried by the booke of Scripture Now for us we willingly put our cause to bee tried by that honourable and unpartiall Iury of Christ and his twelve Apostles and the Evidence that shall be given by the testimonie and vivâ voce of holy Scripture but they turne their backs and fly from this triall But I proceed and come to Ioseph of Arimathea whom I named for one of our Ilands speciall Benefactors it was this Ioseph as our best Antiquaries say that together with twelve other Disciples his Assistants came out of France into Britaine and preached the Christian Faith in the Western part of this Iland now called Glastenbury which place in ancient Charters was termed the Grave of the Saints the Mother Church the Disciples foundation whereby it is very likely that our land was first converted by Ioseph of Arimathea being sent hither by S. Phillip not from S. Peter and that not from Rome but from Arimathea which was not farre from Hierusalem so that Hierusalem is the Mother of us all as both Hierome and Theodoret say And this is the rather probable because that upon Austin the Monks comming into England the British Bishops observed their Easter and other points of difference according to the Greâ—ke or Easterne Church and not after the Romane Westerne Church which makes it probable that our first conversion came from the Christian converted Iewes or Grecians and not from the Romanes but howsoever it were or whence-soever they came wee blesse God for the great worke of our conversion THE SECOND CENTVRIE From the yeare of Grace 100. to 200. PAPIST WHom doe you name in this Age PROTESTANT In this Age lived Hegesippus of the Iewish Nation afterwards converted to Christianitie Melito Bishop of Sardis Iustine Martyr who of a Philosopher became both a Christian and a Martyr Now also lived Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in France sometimes Scholler to Polycarp and both of them Martyred foâ— the name of Christ of this Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna it is recorded that being urged by the Romane Deputie to deny Christ he stoutly replied on this manner I have served him these foure-score and six yeares and he hath not hurt me and shall I now deny him Now also lived Clemens Alexandrinus who was Scholler to one Pantenus these two seeme to be the Authors of Vniversities and Colledges for they taught the Grounds of Religion not by Sermons and Homilies to the people but by Catecheticall doctrine to the Learned in the Schooles Now that in point of doctrine we consent with the Worthies of this Age it may appeaâ—e by the testimonie of Irenâ—us a Disciple of those that heard Saint Iohn the Apostle for he layeth downe no other Articles of Faith and Grounds of Religion then our ordinarie Catechisme teacheth besides he sheweth that in the unitie of that Faith the Churches of Germany Spain France the East Aegypt Libya and all the World were founded and therein sweetly accorded as if they had al dwelt in one house all had had but one soule and one heart and one mouth The like doth his contemporary Tertullian he gives the fundamentall points of Religion gathered out of the Scriptures and delivered by the Churches the same which our Church delivereth and no other for the Rule of Faith Of the Scriptures Sufficiencie and Canon Irenaeus saith The Scriptures are perfect as spoken from the Word of God and his Spirit and Erasmus observes that Irenaeus fought against the troupes of Heretikes onely by the forces and strength of Scripture indeed he sometimes chargeth them with the Churches tradition wounding them with their owne weapon but this was with such undoubted tradition as were in his time thought to bee Apostolike which he might easily discerne living so neere the Aposâ—les dayes Melito Bishop of Sardis being desired by Onesimus to send him a Catalogue of the Bookes of the Old Testament makes no mention of Iudith Tobit Ecclesiasticus nor the Maccabees and yet he profesâ—eth that he made very diligent search to set downe a perfect Cannon thereof And this is likewise confessed by Bellarmine many ancients saith he as namely Melitoâ— did follow the Hebrew Canon of the Iewes Of Communion under both kinds and number of Sacraments Iustin Martyr saith they which are called Deacons among us give to every one that is present of the consecrated Bread Wineâ— adding withal as Christ coÌ„manded them now these words which mention Christs Commandement Bellarmine would haue to belong to the Consecration only not to the Communion whereas Iâ—stin extends Christs precept to both both being injoyned in that precept doe this in remembrance of me so that we have both Christs precept and this Ages practice for our Communion in both Clemens Alexandrinus wrote a booke against the Gentiles which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as ye would say woven after the manner of coverings mixed with the testimonies of Scriptures Poets Philosophers and Histories and therein he hath these words When they distribute the Holy Eucharist as the custome is they permit every one of the people to take a part or portion thereof and what he meaneth by Eucharist himselfe explaineth saying the mingling of the drinke and of the Water and the Word is that which we call the Eucharist so that according to him not Bread onely but Bread and Wine is the Eucharist and of this every one of the people participated in his time and therefore all dranke of the Cup. Iustine Martyr in his Apologie for the Christians specifies no other Sacraments than Baptisme and the Lords Supper and yet in that treatise of his he was justly occasioned to mention the Sacraments of the Church and there he relates the manner of their Church-service Liturgies and Commnuion so that there had beene a fit place for him to have named those other five if the Church had then knowne them Of the Eucharist That the substance of Bread and Wine remaineth in the Sacrament after the words of Consecration albeit the use of the elements bee changed is cleere by the Fathers of this Age. Iustine Martyr saith that the elements of Bread