as he rightly speaketh he would not vnderstand it to be receiued by the body And thus Christ sealing vnto vs in the Lords supper all the fruits of his passion and giuing himselfe vnto vs spiritually to become one with vs and to make vs one with him hee hath without reall presence bestowed as M. Bishop saith an inestimable gift vpon vs such a one as neuer any other did or possibly could doe 63. W. BISHOP Moreouer the institution of a religious rite and ceremonie to be vsed in the whole Church vnto the worlds end and to be receiued of all Christian people of age and discretion did necessarily require that it should bee done in most certaine and cleare tearmes otherwise there might arise great strife and contention about it and be the ruine of thousands And specially great perspicuitie is required in this holy Sacrament where the mistaking of it must needs breeed either idolatrie if wee worship for Christ that which is not Christ or impietie if on the other side we should not giue to it being Christ God and man diuine honour Wherefore no good Christian may thinke but that our prouident Sauiour Christ Iesus who verie well foresaw all these inconueniences did deliuer it in such tearmes as he would haue to be taken properly and not be construed at mens pleasures figuratiuely Adde that hee spake those words to the twelue Apostles onely whom hee was accustomed to instruct plainly and not in parable darkely and who were woont also to aske for the interpretation of obscure speeches who here made no question about this high mysterie because they were sufficiently forewarned that they should eat Christs flesh Ioh. 6. and that his body was truly meat and therefore beleeued Christs words without further question R. ABBOT The institution of a religious rite and ceremonie for the vse of the Christian Church required such termes as had beene formerly accustomed in the institution of such religious rites wherein as hath beene a Sect 48. before noted out of Austin Sacraments commonly beare the names of those things whereof they are Sacraments So is circumcision called b Gen. 17.13 the couenant of the Lord being but the signe and seale of his couenant So is the lambe called c Exod. 12.11 the Lords Passeouer though it were but a signification and remembrance thereof So were the sacrifices of the law called d Leuit. 1.4 4.20 c. attonements or reconciliations for sinne which yet they were not in themselues because e Heb. 10.4 it was vnpossible that the bloud of calues and goats should take away sins but were onely signes and figures of the attonement that should be made by the bloud of Iesus Christ And thus Cyprian saith expresly of the Lords supper that therein f Cyprian de Vnct. Chrismat significantia significata eis dem nomenibus censentur the signes and the things signified are reckoned by the same names being both termed the body bloud of Christ And herein is no occasion of contention but to them only that are contentious will prefer their own absurd fancies before the light and truth of the word of God Who as they do peruersly and wilfully mistake so doe wilfully by mistaking runne into idolatrie g Rom. 1.25 worshiping the creature insteed of the creatour giuing to the signe or sacrament that diuine honour which belongeth properly to Christ himselfe And if it be idolatrie as heere he telleth vs to worship for Christ that which is not Christ then hee hath told vs amisse before that men doe not commit idolatrie though they worship the Host when the Priest hath had no intention of consecration In a word our Sauiour Christ though he spake by a figure yet spake so as that not at mens pleasures but according to the course of Gods word he might easely be vnderstood And as for the Apostles we cannot doubt but that they were so well instructed in those other signes and sacraments wherewith they had beene before acquainted as that they could not make any scruple or question what his meaning was in the institution of this Therefore no cause was there for them to be troubled or to aske interpretation heere as of some darke and obscure matter but there had beene cause for them to haue questioned many things in the words of Christ according to that interpretation which the Church of Rome hath made thereof For though Christ spake to them before of the eating of his flesh and that his flesh was truely meate yet had hee said nothing vnto them that they should eate a whole body in the likenesse of a peece of bread Yea though hee spake to them of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud yet withall he spake enough wherby to giue them instruction how that should bee vnderstood as h Sect. 49. 57. before hath been declared 64. W. BISHOP Finally this holy Sacrament is a principall part of the new Testament and one of the chiefest legacies by Christ bequeathed vnto vs Christians Now what law or conscience will permit that any legacie should be interpreted figuratiuely to wit that for a house goods or lands bequeathed and giuen by last will and testament you should vnderstand a figure of a house to be giuen or the signification and representation of some goods or lands If this be most absurd and ridiculous in the testament of any ordinary man about temporall goods how much more pernicious and intollerable is it to suffer this in the eternall Testament of the Sonne of God and that in his diuine and inestimable treasures And thus at length by the grace of God I come to the end of this booke wherein good Christian Reader if thou finde any thing that may confirme thee in the true Catholike faith or further thy knowledge therein giue God the Father of lights from whom all good gifts descend the whole praise If any thing be amisse impute it partly to my slender skill ouersight or negligence and partly to the want of a conuenient resting-place commoditie of bookes and conference all which these times of persecution doe depriue vs of R. ABBOT He that maketh his last will and testament and giueth thereby great legacies of lands and goods and putteth to his seale for confirmation of the legacies that he hath giuen shall he be said in giuing his seale to bequeath only a peece of waxe or a figure and representation of landes and goods The seale indeed is but wax it is but a signe and token of somewhat but yet it serueth to giue assurance of the legacies for confirmation whereof it is appointed The new testament of Christ is the couenant and promise of forgiuenesse of sinnes purchased by his bloud This hath he published by the Gospell to all that repent and beleeue in him For confirmation heereof he hath put to his Sacrament as a seale thereby to deliuer after a sort and to put into our hands the thing which
cannot bring so much as one man within the compasse of eleuen hundred yeeres after Christ that euer reduced the Sacraments to that number And shall not we well deserue to bee written vpon the backe-side of the booke of Wisedome if we shal take that for a principle of Christian religion which came first out of their schoole for the space of more then a 1000. yeres was neuer so knoweÌ„ in the church of Christ The Apostle m 1. Cor. 10.1.2 c. when he wil shew the Church of the Israelites to haue beene equall to vs in grace of Sacraments instanceth the same only in our two sacraments because he knew no more And no more did the ancient Fathers know who vniuersally holding the same mysterie of the creation of the woman out of the side of Adam being asleepe namely that n Aug. in Psal 56. Dormienti Christo in cruce facta est coniux de latere percussum est enim latus pendent is de lancea et prâ—fluxerunt Ecclesiae Sacramenta in Ioan. tract 15. thereby was figured the framing of the Church by Sacraments out of the side of Christ being dead when being pearced there issued out of it o Ioh. 19.34 1. Ioh. 5.6 water and bloud doe name those Sacraments as we doe p Aug. de symbol ad CatechuÌ„ lib. 2. c. 6. Sanguis aqua quae sunt Ecclesiae gemina sacramenta Chrysost in Ioan. hom 84. Theophy in Ioan. 19. Cyprian de passione Christi Of the effects of the Sacraments two onely and no more Whereas he saith that we extinguish the vertue and efficacy of those two sacraments it is only his blinde conceit We deny not but that the Sacraments are instruments of grace and of remission of sinnes and yet we deny them to bee so in that sort as is affirmed by the church of Rome namely as to giue grace ex opere operato for the very worke wrought as the Schoolemen speake It is worthily obserued by Saint Austin that q Aug. in Ioan. tract 80. Aâ—cedat verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum etiam ipsum tanquam visibile verbuÌ„ a Sacrament is as it were a visible word because by it in way of signification God as it were speaketh the same to the eie other senses which by the word he soundeth to the eare Yea hee affirmeth that the outward element of it selfe is nothing but it is by the word that it hath whatsoeuer power it hath r Ibid. Quare non ait Nunc mundi estis propter baptismum quo loti estis sed ait propter verbum quod locutus sum vobis nisi quia in aqua verbum mundat Detrahe verbum quid est aqua nisi aqua moxâ— Vnde ista tanta virtus aquae vt corpus tangat cor abluat nifi saciente verbo Non quia dicitur sed quia creditur Why doth not Christ say Now are yee cleane by the baptisme wherewith yea are washed but by the word which I haue speken to you but because in the water it is the word that clenseth Take away the word and what is water but water Whence is it that the water hath so great power to touch the body and to wash the heart but that the word doth it and that not because it is spoken but because it is beleeued Now if the Sacrament haue all his vertue and efficacy from the word and the word haue his power not for that it is spoken but for that it is beleeued we must conceiue the same of the Sacrament also that the effect thereof standeth not in being applied by the hand of the minister but in being beleeued by the faith of the receiuer God both by the one and by the other ministring and increasing faith and the holy Ghost accompanying both the one and the other to doe that that is beleeued Thus is baptisme a signe of representation to the vnderstanding and seale of confirmation to faith effectuallie deliuering to the beleeuer through the holy Ghost the grace of God and the remission of all his sinnes And why doth it trouble M. Bishop that wee make baptisme in this sort onely a signe and a seale when as though signes and seales be not the things themselues yet by signes and seales men are woont to be entitled and inuested to the things signified and sealed And hath not the Apostle himselfe taught vs thus to speake Gregory Bishop of Rome saith that Å¿ Greg. Moral lib. 4. c. 3. Quod apud nos vales aqua Baptismatis hoc egit apud veteres vel pro paruulis sola fides vel pro maioribus virtus Sacrificij vel pro his qui ex stirpe Abrahae prodierant mysterium circumcisionis what the water of baptisme doth with vs the same did the mystery of circumcision with the seed of Abraham But of circumcision the Apostle saith thus * Rom. 4.11 The reall eating of Christ a grosse fancie Abraham receiued the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnes of faith Baptisme therefore must be to vs the signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith Their doctrine of reall eating the body of Christ importeth no matter of comfort and dignitie but a carnall rude and profane fancy t Cyril ad Euopt cont reprehens Theodor anath 11. Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoâ— sacramentuÌ„ pronuntias irreligiose ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum qui crediderunt mentem attentas humanis cogitationibus tractare quae sola pura inexquisita fide accipiuntur Doest thou saith Cyril pronounce our Sacrament to be the eating of a man and irreligiously vrge the minds of them that beleeue to grosse imaginations and assay to handle by humane conceits those things which are to bee receiued by only pure and vndoubted faith Christ indeed is not the foode of the belly but of the minde and therefore u Cyprian de caena dom Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide syncerae panem sanctum frangim us partimur we doe not whet our teeth to bite but with syncere faith we breake and diuide the sacred bread saith Cyprian because x August in Ioan. tract 26. Credere in Christum hoc est menducare paenem viuum to beleeue in Christ saith Austin that is to eate the bread of life and y Iohn 6.54.56 he that thus eateth the flesh of Christ and eternall life and Christ shall raise him vp at the last day And because we thus teach that spritually and by faith we eate the very body of Christ and drinke his blood as alwaies so specially in that speciall helpe of faith which God hath ministred vnto vs in the supper of the Lord and that thereby we grow more and more into communion and fellowship with him to become partakers of the riches of his grace to immortality and euerlasting life therefore we doe not take
answer and yet in this booke there is no such chapter where his answer should be found But touching the reall presence M. Perkins argueth out of the words of Christ to this effect that Christ brake that which he tooke and that which hee tooke was bread and not his body and therefore that it was bread and not really his body which hee brake it being absurd that Christ should bee said to breake himselfe and therefore remaining that that which hee brake was the Sacrament only and not himselfe To answer this M. Bishop wee see is somewhat hardly bestead and forceth the words of Christ to another order than the Euangelists and S. Paul haue obserued in the deliuering of them Yea hee crosseth the Canon of the Masse of rather setteth the Canon of the Masse at variance with the institution of Christ In a word hee saith hee knoweth not what and and cannot tell what to say The Euangelists and the Apostle constantly and with one consent put blessing before breaking but he saith that Christ first brake and then blessed He saith that it was bread which Christ brake but if it were bread which Christ brake then what is it which the Priest breaketh If it be bread then there is no transubstantiation If it be not bread then he swarueth from Christs institution Hee maketh Christ to breake the host before consecration but the Masse-priest breaketh it not till after consecration How then shall the Masse-book and the Gospell be thought to agree together All this it seemeth he runneth into because he cannot tell how it should be said that Christ did breake himselfe which was the thing that M. Perkins vrged But let him reconcile these differences and then send vs a more perfect answer otherwise we must hold him for a simple man that could not auoid such a simple ouerthrow 48. W. BISHOP Againe M. Per. 2. Christ said not vnder the forme of bread or in bread but this that is bread is my body Answ It is false to say that this word Hoc This doth demonstrate bread for it is of a different gender from it both in Latin and Greeke and if he had said that that bread had been his body his word was so omnipotent that it had beene of force to make it his body so that M. Perkins maketh a false constraction which nothing helpeth his error R. ABBOT His exception as touching the different gender is excepted against I will not say by his Grammar rules for I will not shame him so much as to send him to his Grammar but by their glosse of the Canon law which telleth him that a Extravag de schismat c. dudum in glossa Neutrum adiectiuum de omni genere praedicatur the adiectiue in the neuter gender is spoken of euery gender Though therefore the particle demonstratiue This be in the neuter gender in the Greeke and Latin tongue yet that hindereth not but that bread being of the masculine gender may bee demonstrated thereby And so the ancient fathers vnderstood it that b Tertul. cont Marcionem l 4. Panem corpus suum appellans Christ called bread his body euen c Cyprian l. 1. epist 6. Corpus suum panem vocat de multorum granoruÌ„ adunatione congestum bread made of many cornes he calleth his body that d Theodoret. Dialog 1. symbola signa quae videntur appellatione corporis sanguinis honorauit he honoured the visible signes with the name of his body and blood that e Orig. de rectae in deum fide Corporu sanguinis signa imagines â— anem poculum ministrauit he ministred bread and wine for signes and tokens of his body and bloud that f Cyprian de vnct Chris In mensa in quae vitimum cum Apostoâ—is participauit conuiuiuÌ„ proprijs manibus tradidit panem vinum he gaue to his Apostles at his last supper bread and wine and in a word that g Aug. ser ad Infant Quod autem fides postulat instruenda panis est corpus Christi bread is the body of Christ. Now if there be no bread then it cannot bee said that bread is the body or that it is called the body of Christ If bread be called the body of Christ then is it necessarily imported that there is bread which is so called Which because it cannot be before consecration therfore after consecration there must be bread to be and to be called the body of Christ And beyond this the omnipotent force of the word of Christ doth not extend it selfe Hee thereby maketh the bread his body not as h Iohn 2.9 of water hee made wine so as to be no longer water but as i Iohn 1.14 the word was made flesh and yet still continued to be the word k Theodoret. vt supra Non naturam mutans sed naturae gratiam adijciens not changing nature as Theodoret expresseth it but adding grace vnto nature Albeit to dispute here what the word of Christ had been of force to doe is fantasticall and idle what hee did intend to doe is manifest and plaine vnto vs. He purposed to institute a Sacrament and l Aug. epi. 23. si sacramenta similitudinem quandam non haberent earum reruÌ„ quarum sunt sacramenta omninò sacramenta non essent Ex hac autem similitudine plerunque reruÌ„ ipsaruÌ„ nomina acciâ—iunt sacraments haue a resemblance of the things whereof they are sacraments and by reason of that resemblance they commonly take the names of the things themselues Christ therefore according to this accustomed maner calleth the Sacrament of his body and bloud by the name of his bodie and bloud and saith of bread This is my body and of the Cuppe This is my bloud and not in name enely but m Cyprian de resurrect Christi Quod videtur nomine virtute Christi corpus censetur in power and effect they are to the faithfull receiuer the same that they are called Heerein the force of Christs word is seene that to so weake and simple creatures he addeth so rich and vnspeakable grace and by so slender meanes worketh so great effects whereby he maketh vs poore creatures of the earth to become one with himselfe in heauen But if M. Bishop will deny the meaning to be This bread is my body we desire him to declare a better meaning and to tell vs certainly whereto to refer This which if he can define we will hold him for a wiser man than any hitherto hath been amongst them After much tossing this matter to and fro needlesse here to be stood vpon their great Master Bellarmine commeth to strike the matter dead and telleth vs that the meaning is n Bellar. de sacram Eucharist l. 1. c. 11. Hoc id est substantia sub his spectebus contenta This that is the substance contained vnder these formes But his wisedome might haue seene that the question
if we see it not how should we remember any thing by it seeing signes of remembrance must be things seen Such was Goliaths sword such was the husbands blood kept by the wines as much pertinent to this purpose as a goose quill to a woodcocks taile The reall presence therfore in this behalfe is altogether idle neither is there any fruit or effect of it because there is nothing thereby to be seen Albeit Christ did not say see this in remembrance of me but do this in remembrance ofme And what he bid vs doe S. Paul telleth vs namely b 1. Cor. 11.26 to eat of this bread and drinke of this cup. And how shall wee eat of this bread in remembrance of him if it be true which they say that in the sacrament there is no bread If he will say that by the forme of bread we may be remembred though the body be not seen we can also say that by the bread we may be remembred though there bee no reall presence of the body and therfore the reall presence because it is needlesse is iustly affirmed to be none at all 54. W. BISHOP Eightly If the reall presence be granted Per. 8. then the body and blood of Christ are either seuered or ioined together if seuered then Christ is still crucified if ioyned together then the bread is both the body and blood of Christ wheras the institution saith the bread is the body and the wine is the blood Answ The body and blood of Christ are by force of Christs words consecrated apart so that if they could be naturally separated they should bee also seuered in that Sacrament as they might haue been at Christs death when all the blood was poured foorth of his body but euer sithence Christs resurrection they are so ioined together that they can bee no more seuered so that we grant vnder one kind of the Sacrament to be both Christs body and blood which is not wrought by the words of the institution but by the necessary and inseparable coniunction of Christs body with his blood euer since his glorious resurrection R. ABBOT To this it shall be needlesse to say any thing here because it commeth more fitly to be spoken of in the next section 55. W. BISHOP Finally M. Perkins condemneth the administration of the Sacrament vnder one onely kind for the commandement of Christ is drinke ye all of this Mat. 26. vers 27. and this commandement is rehersed to the Church of Corinth in these words doe this as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me vers 25. and no power can reuerse this commandement because it was established by the soueraigne head of the Church Answ He began to set downe the institution of the Sacrament out of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. heere he leapeth backe to S. Mathew because he fitteth him better in this point to whom I answer that Christ there spake only vnto his twelue Apostles who were afterward to administer that holy Sacrament to others and so something ther-about is spoken to them which may not bee extended vnto lay-men but vnto Priests onely who were to succeed the Apostles in that ministery All men do confesse these words hoc facite doe yee this that is administer yee this Sacrament to be spoken onely to the Apostles and in them to all of the Clergie alone euen so drinke yee all of this was in like maner spoken vnto them onely as Clergie men and therfore it is a commandement onely to Priests so to do and as for others they may either drinke of it or not drinke of it as it shall bee thought most expedient by their supreame Pastors and this may be gathered out of those very words drinke ye all of this For why should the Apostles haue a speciall charge more to drinke of that cuppe then to eat of that food vnlesse it were to signifie that whereas all men should be bound to receiue Christs body they should bee further bound to receiue that holy cuppe also from which bond other men should stand free But to come to the purpose when they quarrell with vs for taking away from the people one kind of the Sacrament we answer that we doe them no hinderance thereby because we giue them both the blessed body and sacred bloud of Christ together vnder one kinde yea whole Christ both God and man because they be so vnited that they cannot be separated But what can they answer when we complaine vpon them for that they haue defrauded the poore people of both body and bloud of Christ and in lieu of that most pretious banquet doe giue them a cold breake-fast of a morsell of bread and a suppe of wine this is a most miserable and lamentable exchange indeed our blessed Lord giue them grace to see it and deliuer them speedily from it Heere is the place to shew how the Protestants doe not onely bereaue their vnfortunate followers of this most heauenly food of Christs body but that they also depriue them of the manifold and great graces of God deriued vnto vs in siue other Sacraments but because I haue touched it in the Preface I will omit it heere and make an end with M. PER. assoone as I haue requited him by propounding briefly some arguments for the real presence as hee hath done against it R. ABBOT Whether it bee S. Mathew or S. Paul they serue both for the confirming of one truth and doe both condemne the Antichristian and damnable sacriledge of the Church of Rome in maiming the Sacrament of Christ contrary to the institution of Christ himselfe to the very intention and purpose of the Sacrament to the example and practise of all ancient churches Our Sauiour Christ saith a Matt. 26.27 Drinke yee all of this But the Church of Rome saith Not so for there are iust and reasonable causes why it is not fit that all drinke therof but it is sufficient that the Priest alone drinke for all M. Bishop to make this good telleth vs that Christ there spake to his Apostles onely and that some thing thereabout is spoken to them which may not bee extended vnto lay-men but vnto Priests onely But how will hee make it appeare that Christ in the one part of the Sacrament spake to the Apostles onely and not in the other also There were none there present but the Apostles and what direction haue we in the words of Christ to restraine the vse of the cup as peculiar to the Priests and to make the other common to the people And if Christ did so intend how falleth it out that the Apostle S. Paul in the recitall of Christs institution professing b 1. Cor. 11.23 to deliuer precisely what he had receiued of the Lord maketh no mention of this restraint and what presumption was it in the whole primitiue Church contrary to that intendment to make that common to the laitie which Christ had made the prerogatiue of the Priests onely He saith
Bishop here pretendeth that they haue more cause to complaine of vs than we of them for he saith that wee haue defrauded the poore people of both body and blood of Christ and in lieu of that most pretious banquet doe giue them a cold breakefast of a morsell of bread and a sup of wine Which words hee vseth rather of malice then for that he knoweth not that wee affirme in the due participation of this Sacrament a heauenly riches of grace and of the communion of the body and blood of Christ Tell vs M. Bishop when Gelasius saith that q Gelas cont Eutych Nestor Certè sacramenta quae sumimus corporis sanguinâ—â— domini diuina resest per illa diumae consortes â—fficimur naturae tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini the Sacraments which we receiue of the body and blood of Christ are a diuine thing and we are thereby made partakers of the diuine nature yet there ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine did hee make the Sacrament to be no more but a morsell of bread and a sup of wine If wee respect the nature of the outward and visible elements it is true that we receiue in the Sacrament a morsell of bread and a sup of wine for these creatures r Theodoret. dialog 2. Manent in priore substantia figura forma c. remaine still as Theodoret saith in their former substance but if we respect them in their vse and effect this bread is heauenly bread and this cup is the cup of saluation and life eternall And as he is a mad man who hauing a rich gift confirmed vnto him by his Princes seale will vilifie the seale and say it is but a peece of wax euen so is he as mad who of the Sacrament of Christ which is Å¿ Rom. 4.11 the seale of the righteousnesse of faith the pledge of the remission of sinnes the meanes whereby grace and life through faith are deriued vnto vs will say either in baptisme that it is but a handfull of water or in the Lords supper that it is but a morsell of bread and a sup of wine But of this and of his fiue other sacraments as he hath spoken before so I haue answered him t Preface to the Reader sect 20. before and I refer the reader to that that is there said where he shall easily see that he hath no cause to account himselfe vnfortunate for following vs but rather to hold them for vnfortunate fooles that yeeld themselues to bee guided by such fancies 56. W. BISHOP Let this be the first The state of the new Testament which is more perfect then the old requireth accordingly Sacraments of greater grace and perfection than the old had they had Manna which for substance and taste far passed our bread and in signification was equall to it Wherefore either we must grant our Sacrament of bread and wine to be inferior to theirs of the old Testament or else acknowledge and confesse it to be the true body and bloud of Christ which doth surpasse theirs exceedingly as the body doth the shadow This argument is confirmed by our Sauiour himselfe who in expresse termes doth preferre the meat that he was to giue to his disciples before that of Manna Ioh. 6.48.49 which their Fathers had eaten in the wildernesse R. ABBOT If this argument be good it prooueth reall presence in Baptisme as well as it doth in the Lords supper If in Baptisme without any reall presence there be greater grace perfection as in a Sacrament of the new testament then there was in the Sacraments of the old then nothing hindreth but that in the Lords supper the like also may bee neither can M. Bishop alleage any reason to prooue it necessary in the one that shall not prooue it in the other also The preeminence of the state of the new testament aboue the old standeth in cleerenesse of light not in difference of faith in the performance of promises not in any diuerse effect of them a 2. Cor. 4.13 Wee haue the same spirit of faith and a little to turne the Apostles words b Act. 15.11 they hoped to bee saued by the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ euen as wee doe c Aug de nat grat cap 44. Ea fides iustos sanauit antiquos quae sanat nos id est mediatoris dei et hominum hominis Iesu Christi fides sanguinis eius fides crucis eius fides mortis resurrectionis eius The same faith saith S. Austin saued the iust of old time that saueth vs euen the faith of the Mediatour betwixt God and man the man Iesus Christ the faith of his bloud the faith of his crosse the faith of his death and resurrection To them he was to come to vs hee is already come he hath stood as it were in the middest betwixt vs they looked vpon him forward we looke vpon him backward but both receiue from him the same grace Accordingly therefore the Sacraments of the old and new testament though in outward forme and administration they differ much yet in inward power and effect they are the same d Aug. ep 118. Leus iugo suo nos subdidit sarcinae leui vnde sacramentis numero paucissimis obseruatione facillimis significatione praestantissimis societatem noui populi colligauit Christ as S. Austin noteth hath laid vpon vs an easie yoke by Sacraments in number very few in obseruation most easie and in signification most excellent they were forced to attend to many types and figures and encumbred with infinite operositie of manifold obseruations and ceremonies Our state therefore is better than theirs for that wee with more ease are partakers of the same effects of grace which with greater labour and difficultie God so disposing they did atteine vnto but otherwise what benefit we receiue by our Sacraments towards eternall life they also receiued by theirs For why doth the Apostle say that the Israelites e 1. Cor 10.2 were baptised in the cloud and in the sea but to signifie that in these types and figures they were made partakers of the same spirituall blessing and grace that in baptisme is ministred vnto vs. And why doth he say that they did eat the same spirituall meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke but to giue to vnderstand that they also did f Ioh. 6.54 eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud that they might liue thereby for if wee respect the outward signes they did not eat the same or drinke the same that we do It must needs therefore bee as touching the spirituall and inward meate and drinke which is the body and bloud of Christ And so the Apostle saith that they dranke of the spirituall rocke which followed them and the rocke was Christ g Amb. de Sp. Sanct lib. 1. in
Prolog Quod vtique non ad diuinitatem eius sed ad carnem relatum est quae sitientium corda populorum perenni riuo sui sanguinis inundauit Which saith Ambrose is not referred to the godhead of Christ but to the flesh which did water and refresh the hearts of the thirsty people with the euerflowing streame or riuer of his bloud And thus S. Austin saith of Manna that it signified h Aug. in Ioan. tract 16. Hunc panem significauit Manna hunc panem significauit Altare dei Sacramenta ill fuerunt in signis diuersa sunt in re quae significatur pariasunt the same bread euen the body of Christ that is signified in the table of the Lord they are both Sacraments saith he in signes they are diuers but in the thing signified they are equall and alike Now if without any reall presence the faithfull in Manna did eat the flesh of Christ and in the water of the rocke did drinke the bloud of Christ then it followeth that there is no necessitie of the reall presence to our eating the flesh of Christ and our drinking of his bloud But I would yet further aske him how the reall presence maketh our Sacrament of greater grace and perfection then the old seeing the body of Christ is thereby made subiect to bee eaten of wicked and vngodly men who receiue no grace by it yea of swine and dogs and mice as they affirme which are not capable of any grace For if the very receiuing of Christs body into our bodies doe worke effect of grace then should grace bee wrought in these also But if the effect of grace be to be attributed vnto faith then the reall presence is needlesse because faith touching the Sacrament but as the hemme of Christs garment vpon earth receiueth vertue from the body of Christ in heauen to heale to feed and strengthen vs vnto eternall life That which hee bringeth for confirmation of his argument belongeth nothing therto Christ saith he preferreth the meat that he was to giue to his disciples before that of Manna which their fathers had eaten in the wildernesse And who doubteth thereof when as our Sauiour saith i Ioh. 6.48.51 I am the bread of life The bread which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world for who doubteth but that Christ or the flesh of Christ is to be preferred before Manna but that this flesh of Christ is to be eaten in the Sacrament really with the mouth and into the belly this place prooueth not Christ there compareth not their sacrament with ours but he compareth their sacrament as the signe with himselfe as the thing that was signified thereby k Augu. cont Faust. Manich. li. 12 c. 29. veterem figuram carnalitèr accipâ—entes mortui sunt Which signe or figure they who vnderstood no otherwise but carnally died and perished but they who vnderstood the same aright vnderstood Christ therein they did eat the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud as before was said and obteine life by his name l Aug. in Ioan. tract 26. Visibilem cibum spiritualiter intellexerunt spiritualiter esurierunt spiritualiter gustauerunt vt spiritualitèr satiarentur The visible food saith Austin they vnderstood spiritually they spiritually hungred after it they spiritually tasted it that spiritually they might be satisfied So do we in our Sacrament and without any reall presence it is life to vs euen as it was to them 57. W. BISHOP Secondly Christ promised to giue to his Disciples his flesh to eat and his bloud to drinke and when they marueiled how that could be hee assured them Ioh. 6.55 that vnlesse they did eat his flesh they should not haue life in them and further certified them that his flesh was truely meat and his bloud truely drinke whence it is most plainely deduced that he who neuer faileth of his promise gaue them his true flesh to eate R. ABBOT We grant his conclusion that Christ gaue to his disciples and further giueth vnto vs his true flesh to eat but the question still is how or in what sort we eat it Christ indeed hath taught vs that a Iohn 6.55 his flesh is meat indeed and his blood is drinke indeed but will M. Bishop say that they are meat and drinke to the body that the body is nourished and fed with the body and blood of Christ and that the same is turned by digestion into the substance of our bodies If not then it cannot be said that with the body wee eat the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood but this must necessarily be vnderstood to be an action of the minde Therefore Cyprian saith that for the doing hereof b Cyprian de caena domini Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acu imus sed fide syncera panem sanctum frangimus we doe not sharpen our teeth to bite but with sincere faith we breake the sacred bread and Austin questioneth c Aug. Cur paras dentes ventrem crede manducasti why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly beleeue and thou hast eaten and defineth it d Idem in Ioan. tract 26. Qui manducat intus non foris qui manducat corde non qui premit dente to be eating within not without to be eating with the heart not crushing with the teeth And otherwise to vnderstand it of eating the very flesh of Christ with the mouth what is it but the grosse error of the Capernaits literally vnderstanding the words of Christ because they were no other but carnall men e Tertul. de resurr carnis Durum intolerabilem existimauerunt sermonem eius quasi verè carneÌ„ suam illis edendam determinassâ—t They thought his speech to be hard intollerable saith Tertullian as though he had determined that they should verily eat his flesh But if they had been intelligent hearers and men spiritually minded they would haue discerned by the other words of Christ the true meaning of this speech For when he attributeth the same to beleeuing in him that he doth to the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood that f Iohn 6.47 whoso beleeueth in him hath euerlasting life he plainly giueth to vnderstand that the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood is to be expounded by beleeuing And so doth S. Austin construe it when hee saith g August in Ioan tract 26. Credere in Christum hoc est manducare panem viuum qui credit manducat To beleeue in Christ that is to eat the bread of life he that beleeueth eateth Againe when he perceiued their repining at his words he saith vnto them h ver 61.62 Doth this offend you What then if ye shall see the sonne of man ascend where he was before i Aug. vt supra ille putabant eum erogaturuÌ„ corpus suum ille autem dixit se ascensuruÌ„ in
calum vtique integrum Cum vid eritis filium hominis c. certè vel tunc videbitis quia noÌ„ eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum certè vel tunc videbitis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus They thought saith Austin that he would impart to them his very body but he telleth them that he will goe vp to heauen euen whole When ye shall see the sonne of man ascend where he was before surely then ye shall see that he doth not impart his body in that maner as you thinke ye shall then vnderstand that his grace is not deuoured by morsells Now if the ascending of Christ into heauen were an argument for the reforming of their fancy and correcting of their error then it must needs be a misconstruction of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ whereby the same is said to be done by his being really present vpon the earth And that it might not be so vnderstood he further saith k vers 63. The words which I speake vnto you are spirit and life it is the spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing thereby aduertising them as S. Austin giueth to vnderstand that l Aug ibi Quomodo quidem edatur quisnam sit manducandi modus ignoratis they knew not in what sort his flesh was eaten or what the maner thereof is and that they should spiritually conceiue the doing of it in such maner as was before expressed out of Austin And hereof Origen saith m Ori. in Leuit. hom 7. Est in nouo testameÌ„to litera quae occidit eum qui non spiritualiter aduertit Nam si secunduÌ„ literamsequaris id quod dictum est Nisi manducaueritis carnem c. litera illa occidit There is in the new Testament a letter which killeth him that doth not spiritually listen to it for if thou folow according to the letter that which is written Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood that letter killeth Therefore S. Austin deliuering certaine rules whereby figuratiue speeches are to be knowen doth by his rule find that this speech of Christ is not properly or literally to be vnderstood but by a figure n Aug. de doct Christ l. 3. c. 16. si flagitium aut facinus videtur iubere aut vtilitatem beneficentiaÌ„ vitare figurata est Nisi manducaâ—eritis carnem filij hominis c. facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere figura ergò est praecipiens passioni domini esse coÌ„municandum suauitèr atque vtiliter recondendum in memoria quod carâ— eius pro nobis crucifixa vulnerata sit If any speeche seem to command a hainous or wicked act or to forbid well doing or any profitable thing it is a figuratiue speech Where Christ saith Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood c. he seemeth to command a hainous thing It is therefore a figure instructing that we are to communicate of the passion of the Lord and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in minde that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. In which sort S. Bernard also expoundeth that o Bernar de verb. Habac. super custodiaÌ„ c. sub edendi corporis sus mysterio discipulos ad communâ—â— andum passionibus suis aumonens vnder the mystery of eating his body Christ admonisheth his disciples to communicate of his passions Here is therefore no other but a spirituall action of the heart and soule which requireth no reall presence because the spirit of man by faith climbeth vp to heauen and looketh backe vnto the crosse of Christ and there receiueth nourishment and strength of him to liue by him for euer 58. W. BISHOP Thirdly Christ said in most cleere tearmes this is my body this is my blood What could be more certaine or more perspicuous R. ABBOT The words as wee expound them out of the circumstance of the text and the consent of ancient fathers are indeed perspicuous and cleere yeelding this meaning This bread is my body this wine is my blood that is the signe the sacrament the participation of my body and blood But M. Bishop for his life cannot make any certaine and definite meaning of them whereby their transubstantiation and reall presence may be made good If the words be so perspicuous and cleere for them how commeth it about that they haue so tossed and tumbled them and yet there is no certaine meaning thereof concluded amongst them till this day I need not stand hereupon hauing before said what is sufficient for this purpose in the eight and fortieth section 59. W. BISHOP Fourthly These words of the institution are recorded by three Euangelists and by S. Paul and they all vniformely deliuer it to be not the figure of Christs body but his body and that his body which should be giuen for our redemption on the crosse ergo it was that his true reall body which was nailed to the crosse for vs. R. ABBOT Euen so three Euangelists and S. Paul doe vniformely deliuer that the cup is the bloud of Christ or the new testament in his bloud as hath been a Sect. 50. before said and yet M. Bishop will not say I hope that the cup is really the bloud or testament of Christ That the Sacrament is the figure of Christs body is no new speech S. Austin saith that b Aug in Psal 3. Conuinium in quo corporu sanguinis sui figuram discipuâ—usuis coâ—mendauit tradidit Christ commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his bodie and bloud Tertullian expoundeth thus c Tertul. cont Marcion â—â— 4. Acâ—eptum panem corpus suum fecit dicâ—â—do hoc est corsus meum id est figura corporis mei This is my body that is to say a figure of my body Gelasius the Bishop of Rome saith that d Gelas cont Eutych Nest. Et certo imago similitudo corporis sanguinis domini in actione mysteriorum celebratur an image and semblance of the body and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the administration of the Sacraments Chrysostome saith that e Chrysost Opimperf in Mat. hom 11. In quibus non verum corpus Christi sed mystâ—rium corporu eius continetur in the sacred vessels not the true body of Christ but the mysterie of his body is conteined The ancient Liturgies doe vsually call the Sacraments f Constit Clem. l. 7. c. 26. Antitypa corporis c. Iacobâ— Liturg Typus corporis sanguinis Christi tui the signes of the body and bloud of Christ and so g Carol. Magn. epist. ad A cuin Panem fregit calicâ—m paâ—iter dedit eis in figuram corporis sanguinis sui Charles the great stileth them in his epistle to Alcuinus It should not therefore seeme strange to M. Bishop that wee also should expound the sacrament to
the dignity and worthinesse of our workes And if he say that this is all of God doth he any more than the Pharisie did who said y Luk. 18.11 I thanke thee O God that I am not as other men are c. z Hieron adu Pelag. lib. 3. Ille agit gratias deo quia illius misericordia non sit sicut caeteri homines Hee thanketh God saith Hierome that by his mercy hee is not like other men hee acknowledgeth his righteousnesse to bee the gift of God but yet hee is reiected whilest with M. Bishop hee flattereth himselfe in opinion of the value and estimation the dignitie and worthinesse of his workes Now the Protestants indeed are not of that Pharisaicall humor thus to plead the reputation of their owne workes and doe take M. Bishop therein to be a foolish vaine man and yet they doe not therfore debase and vilifie the vertue of the grace of God as hee obiecteth as not allowing it to be sufficient to help the best minded man in the world to doe any worke that doth not mortally offend God but doe confesse and teach that the faithfull by the grace of God do many good workes very highly pleasing vnto God whilest a Psal 103.13 as a father pitieth his children so the Lord is mercifull to them that feare him remembring whereof we be made and considering that we are but dust and being ready when he seeth our willing indeuours to pardon the obliquities the defects and deformities of our doings the same being perfumed by faith with the sweet incense of the obedience of Iesus Christ So then according to rigour of iudgement the Protestants say b Esay 64.6 All our righteousnesse is as a defiled cloth c Dan. 9.7 To thee O Lord belongeth righteousnesse but to vs shame and confusion of face They subscribe that which Gregory saith d Greg. Moral l. 8. c. 9. Iustise peritaeros absque ambiguitate praesciunt firemota pietate iudicentur quia hoc ipsum quò iustè videmur viuere culpa est fi vitam nostram cù iudicat hanc apud se diuina misericordia non excusat The iust know that without all doubt they shall perish if they bee iudged without mercy because euen our iust life as it seemeth is but sinne if Gods mercy doe not excuse it when he shall giue iudgement of it But yet the Protestants know also that by the mediation of Iesus Christ e Rom. 12.1 the giuing vp of our bodies to be a liuing and 〈◊〉 sacrifice is accepble vnto God and that f 1. Pet. 2.5 we are made aspirituall house and holy Priesthood to offer vp spirituall sacrifices which are acceptable to God by Iesus Christ In a word the Protestants know that the Saints of God g Apoc. 4.10 cast their crownes down before the throne of God as arrogating no part thereof to themselues but ascribing all to God and therefore cannot but condemne M. Bishop and the Papists though not of Atheisme yet of Pelagianisme and heresie for that they teach men to keepe their crownes in part vpon their owne heads and to take some part of glory to themselues to the derogation of the glory of God 2. W. BISHOP First he argueth thus He that hath not the Sonne hath not the Father and he that hath neither Father nor Sonne denies God now the present Roman religion hath not the Sonne that is Iesus Christ God and man For they in effect abolish his man-hood by teaching of him to haue two kindes of existing one naturall in heauen whereby he is visible touchable and circumscribed the other against nature whereby he is substantially according to his flesh in the hands of euery Priest inuisible and vncircumscribed Answer M. PER. and all Protestants know right well that we beleeue Iesus Christ to be perfect God and perfect man and therefore wee haue both the Sonne and the Father and his reason against it is not woorth arush for we do not destroy the nature of man by teaching it to haue two diuers maners of existing or being in a place When Christ was transfigured before his Apostles hee had another maner of outward forme and appearance than hee had before yet was not the nature of man in him thereby destroyed and after his resurrection hee was when it pleased him visible to his Apostles and at other times inuisible and yet was not his manhood thereby abolished as M. PER. would make vs beleeue no more is it when his body is in many places at once or in one place circumscribed and in the other vncir cumscribed For these externall relations of bodies vnto their places doe no whit at all destroy their inward and naturall substances as all Philosophie testifieth wherefore hence to gather that we denie both the Father and the Sonne to be God doth sauour I will not say of a silly wit but of a froward will peeuishly bent to cauill and calumniate R. ABBOT As touching the existing of the body of Christ we beleeue what the holy Scripture hath taught vs The body of Christ locally circumscribed and therein we rest as the ancient godly fathers did neither will we listen to the franticke dreames of new deuising heads who for the maintenance of one absurdity not sparing to vndergoe another haue broached a maner of the being of the body of Christ according to the fancies of Marcion Manicheus Apollinaris Eutyches and such other like Heretikes who howsoeuer they admitted the name of a body yet denied the truth thereof What other is it but a fantasticall body which they affirme to be in their consecrated host where there is the sauour and tast of bread the colour and appearance of bread to sense and feeling no other but bread and yet there is no bread but a body of flesh and blood as they tell vs or rather a body which hath neither flesh nor blood M. Bishop coloureth the matter by telling vs of a diuers maner of existing or being in a place but why doe neither Scriptures nor Fathers tell vs of this diuers maner of existing or being I know that to make some shew of antiquity they alleage a few sentences of the Fathers farre enough from the purpose but this matter could not haue so passed with a by-sentence or two when there were so many and so great occasions fully to declare it and to insist vpon it if it had beene beleeued then as it is taught now They cleerely and plainely taught that a Aug. in Ioan. tract 50. secundum carnem quam verbum assumpsit ascendit in coe um non est hic Christ according to his body is ascended into heauen and is not heere and against the Manichees that b Idem cont faust Mauich l. 20. c. 11. sacundum praesentiam corporalem simul in sole in luna in cruce esse non posset Christ according to bodily presence could not at once be in the
mercy of God if Christs merites did in iustice deserue our saluation it is to be noted that both be true if they be duely considered For we are saued by Christs merits in rigor of iustice he satisfying of God as far-forth fully as we offended him and yet we be saued freely by the mercy of God too both because he hath of his meere mercy without any desert of ours giuen vs Christ his Sonne to be our Sauiour and also for that he hath out of the same his mercy freely applied vnto euery one in particular that is saued the merits of Christ through which he is saued R. ABBOT The value of our redemption is not to be rated by the wilfull conceits of men Christs other sufferings not sufficiēt vvithout his finall suffering and death but by the estimation and ordinance of God himselfe who doth nothing superfluously nothing idlely and without cause and therefore would not haue decreed the death of Christ but that a Luk. 24.46 it behooued Christ to suffer death and to rise againe from the dead the third day that repentance and remission of sins might be preached in his name As the Apostle saith b Gal. 2.21 If righteousnesse be by the law then Christ died in vaine so may we also conclude If the least thing that Christ suffered in his life were sufficient to redeeme vs as M. Bishop dreameth surely then Christ died in vaine It is not for man to take vpon him to be wiser then God nor for vs to say that this or that had beene sufficient to redeeme vs when we see what God hath decreed and done in that behalfe It is true in deed that the dignity of Christs person gaue worth to his sufferings but we are to learne of the wisedome of God what it was conuenient those sufferings should be to which the dignity of his person should giue that woorth so that not the dignity of his person howsoeuer but the dignity of his person in such and such sufferings certainely before determined of God was to be the merit and purchase of our redemption and saluation So then necessary it was that Christ should die for our redemption though his death had beene no sufficient price therefore but by the infinitenesse of his person Molineus therefore might very iustly and truely say not that the incarnation and birth of Christ profited vs nothing or could doe nothing but that without the death of Christ they had profited vs nothing or could haue done nothing for vs because it was by his death that God had appointed to redeem vs euen as M. Bishop against himslfe confesseth though his eies were not open to see it that an hundred places of expresse scripture doe assigne our redemption to the bloudshedding and passion of Christ The Papisticall Doctoures then their Monkes and Priests are to be condemned who vrge Christs incarnation and birth onely as a sufficient price for vs or doe stint the same as did Campian that c Campian Rot. 8. Cutus cruoris vna quaeuis guttula propter dignitatem bostiae mille mundos redimere potuisset Christ suffered for vs in soule also one drop of his bloud had sufficed to redeeme a thousand worlds not but that his incarnation and birth were profitable to vs but because whatsoeuer Christ did or suffered otherwise all concurred in his death as being preparations thereunto and in his death the fruit and effect thereof doth redound vnto vs not that we deny the value of any drop of the blood of Christ but because we hold no lesse needfull to redeeme vs then God deemed needfull that he should shead for vs. The words of Caluin which he translateth at randon are these d Caluin Instit l. 2. c. 16. se 10. Nihil actum erat si corporea tantúm morte defunctus fuisset Christus sed operae simul pretium erat vt diuinae vltionis seueritatem sentiret quo irae ipsius intercederet satisfaceret iusto iudicio It had beene to no effect if Christ had died onely a corporall or bodily death but it was withall needfull that he should feele the scuerity of Gods reuenge that so he might appease his wrath and satisfie his iust iudgement For disproofe of which assertion he vseth the words a little before mentioned that an hundred places of expresse Scripture doe assigne our redemption to the passion of Christ Full wisely I warrant you as if the scripture when it assigneth our redemption to the passion of Christ did not assigne it to those spirituall sufferings which Caluin there intendeth when as it describeth those sufferings to be a part of the same passion and the same are by Caluin so vnderstood to be If he will say that his meaning is that the scripture assigneth our redemption to the death of Christ let him vnderstand death in his true nature as he ought to doe with the complements and furniture thereof that is the wrath and curse of God and sorrowes of death as hath beene before said and then we answer as the truth is that the Scripture in assigning our redemption to the death of Christ doth consequently assigne the same to those spirituall anguishes and sufferings because those spirituall agonies are also a part of the same death Now seeing the Father sent his Sonne e Esay 53.10 to giue his soule an offering for sinne as the Prophet teacheth vs and is before declared surely Caluin rightly concludeth that if he had died onely a bodilie death he had done nothing for vs because he had not done that that the father had required nay he had not done that which the worke of redemption did require for f Athanas de incarnat Christi Neque potuit aliud pro alio in redemptionem praestari sed corpus pro corpore anima pro anima integriū aliquid pro integro homine c. one thing saith Aathanasius might not for redemption bee paied for another but the body was to be giuen for the bodie and the soule for the soule and the whole for the whole man From hence he proceedeth and telleth vs of one of Foxes martyrs as he tearmeth them Who held that Christ with all his workes could not merit heauen for vs. Thus like a madde dogge he runneth vp and downe snapping at one and biting at another and seeking in this man and that man to fasten his venemous tooth of slander and reproach Who this was he nameth no tand whereas he citeth Acts and monuments pag. 487. I finde not in the edition that I haue which is the last any matter tending to that purpose Wheresoeuer it is that he meaneth I doubt not but hee hath plaied his part in it with like fidelity as he is wont to doe As for the Martyrs and the Martyr-monger of whom he speaketh let him not doubt but the Prophets words are verified in them g Esay 57.2 peace shall come they shall rest in their beds euery
and assembling of the persons for the performance of that seruice The Church may be visible the former way when it is not visible the latter because it may be seene and knownen that there are many persons of such deuotion though they be not seene in any assembly for the practise of their deuotion In this sort there haue beene alwaies some either few or moe either one where or other who to the world though with perill and losse of their liues haue giuen testimony of the truth of God If we will vnderstand visible the latter way we must consider that the church it selfe may be spoken of diuersely either as touching the title of outward vocation and calling or as touching the sinceritie and truth of profession and faith There may be a church as touching outward calling visible to the world which yet doth not preserue that integrity truth of faith whereby it first became a church There may be a people tied by couenant vnto God and by Sacraments professing in their assemblies to serue him who yet vnfaithfully peruert the seruice of God and depart from that way of religion which he hath taught them In this outward state and condition of the Church it is to be remembred which our Sauiour Christ saith k Math. 22.14 Many are called but few are chosen the multitude generally taking vpon them to be called the people of God when few of them are so indeed in so much that the Prophet Esay cried out concerning the Church of Israel l Esay 10.21 Rom. 9.27 Though the number of the children of Israel were as the sand of the sea yet but a remnant shall be saued For euen in the profession of true religion and where the word of God hath publicke maintenance and state yet how few are there commonly who care to bring foorth the fruits thereof in holy conuersation Albeit it falleth out further also many times that this outward face of the church is beraied with the filth of manifold superstitions and idolatries that true doctrine is reiected and in place thereof humane traditions and inuentions are set vp and magnified whilest men neglect and forget the couenant of God and will needes vse their owne wits for seruing him Yea so far they proceed in the admiration and liking of their owne doings as that they hate the truth and become persecutours of them who continue constant therein and refuse to ioine with them to be partakers of their sinne Thus it came to passe in Israel by the sinne of Ieroboam and much more by the sinne of Ahab and in Iudah by the Apostasie of Manasses who brought abhomination into the temple of God and set vp idols there to be worshipped instead of God At which time the case so stood as that Israel and Iudah hauing both cast off the yoake of the law of God broken the bounds that he appointed them there was no publike state of true religion throughout the whole world The publike state and gouernement of the same church of the Iewes the onely visible church refused the preaching of Christ preferred their owne traditions before Gods commandement and pronunced sentence of death against the Sonne of God They onely were the people of God the Church of God but perfidiously they rebelled against God and refused to be guided by his word But yet amidst all this Apostasie and defection of the church the calling of God did not become vaine neither was his couenant of circumcision without effect but still he had a remnant in whom he was glorified m 1. King 19.18 seuen thousand in Israel though vnknowen to Elias who had not bowed their knee vnto Baal in Iudah many who continued stedfast in the testimony of God in the pursute of whom Manasses is said n 2. King 21.16 to haue shed innocent blood exceeding much and to haue replenished Ierusalem therewith from corner to corner In a word at the comming of Christ amongst a huge heape of chaffe there were some graines of wheat some few faithfull that o Luk 2.38 23.51 waited for redemption and for the kingdome of God Now then where the church importeth them only that are professours of Gods true religion there the church is sometimes visible and somtimes inuisible visible one where another where inuisible For true religion sometimes hath publike state maintenance and the assemblies and congregations for exercise thereof are apparant to all mens eies that whosoeuer will may resort vnto them But sometimes hypocrisie getteth the vpper hand and vnder the name of the Church challengeth to it selfe the places of publike assemblie driuing out from thence synceritie and truth and suffering nothing to be done there but for it owne behoofe Heere then the professours of truth are faine p 1. King 18.4 Heb. 11.37.38 to hide their heads and to keepe themselues in corners and by stealth onely to assemble and meete together It falleth out heere many times that they are forced with Elias q 1. Kin. 19.3 to flie for their liues and because they are watched and waited for to be drawen to death therefore doe betake themselues to places where so neere as may be they may saue each to other neither be knowne nor seene In this case therefore the church that is the professours of the true faith and religion of the Church are said to be inuisible not for that they are meerely to mens eyes inuisible as is the Church in the first sense before named but because it is not to bee seene in publike state and assembly in free open profession as in times of peace and liberty it is woont to be For that otherwise they are visible appeareth plainly in that they liue continually subiect to the malignity of their aduersaries to indignity and reproch to bonds and imprisonment to cruell massacrees tortures and death all which they should auoid if they were wholly out of sight But this inuisibility of the church is not to be considered onely in the church persecuting the church the worse part thereof the better r August de doct Christ l. 3. cap. 32. Corpus domini verum atque simulatum the counterfeit body of Christ as Saint Austin calleth it the true but also when by foreiners and strangers attempt is made against the whole church For so it is sometimes that the whole name of the church of God is impugned and the aduersary vseth all his might vtterly to extinguish the memoriall thereof God by this meanes making triall of his and exercising their faith and patience and bringing iust reuenge vpon hypocrites who abuse his calling and grace to the doing of their owne will Heere then God giuing way to the enemy the outward state of the church is wholy ouerthrowen the publike exercise of religion is altogether interrupted and broken off and the members of the church though they be seene and knownen as such a people yet are not seene in the condition of the
as he is a priuate man may erre but as Pope and in his consistory and iudiciall sentence hee cannot erre But what is the church now become an asse to carry a priuiledge for the Pope onely To returne vpon himselfe the skiruie terme that he hath vsed in the former section Is not heere a huge great mill-post fairely thwited into a poore pudding pricke that whereas we are told that it was the effect of the inestimable price of Christs bloud to purchase a church free from all errours in matter of faith The word of God the rule and square of Christian religion we haue this great prerogatiue of the Church resolued finally into a drunken dreame concerning the Pope that it is he onely that cannot erre This is the vpshot of all and to this issue the matter commeth that the church may erre the general councell may erre be the persons neuer so learned neuer so faithfull neuer so holy onely the Pope though hee bee an ignorant beast a very he hound and incarnate diuell yet sitting downe in his chaire of Pestilence to decree a sentence receiueth presently like the Prophets of Apollo some Enthusiasticall impression whereby he pronounceth infallibly a truth howsoeuer he himselfe in his owne priuate opinion bee perswaded otherwise Which being a ridiculous presumption a meere nouelty most impudently deuised by sycophants and parasites a matter which hath no shadow of defense from the beliefe or practise of the ancient church deserueth rather to be reiected with scorne than to haue any question made of it As for that other matter which he adioineth concerning the word of God and interpretation thereof he saith rightlie that we hold for so we doe the holy word of God to be the onely rule and square of Christian religion u Iren adu haeres lib 3. cap. 1. Euangelium per dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum For it was the will of God that the Apostles should commit the Gospell to writing To be the pillar and foundation of our faith and x Aug. in epist. Ioan. tract 3. contra insidiosos errores ponere voluit deus firmamentum in Scripturis sanctis in the scriptures to appoint vs a fortresse against deceitfull errours so as that y Chrysost op imperfect hom 49. Christiani qui sunt in Christianitate volentes accipere firmitatem fidei ad nullam rem aliam fugiant nisi tantummodo ad scripturas Christians being desirous to receiue assurance of their faith are no whither else to flie but onely to the Scriptures But wheras he affirmeth that we say that Christ hath left his holy word to be vnderstood of euery man as his own knowledge and spirit shall direct him and that in doubtfull questions arising he hath taken no order for the deciding of them but that euery one may be his own Iudge they are but silly deuices of obiection against vs to colour the nouelties absurdities which we in the same behalfe iustly condemne in them Wee euery man vnderstand the Scriptures as his owne knowledge and spirit doth direct him and why Because we reiect that course of vnderstanding the Scripture which they factiously and partiallie haue of late deuised for the seruing of their owne turne z Hosius de expresso dei verbe Siquis habeat interpretatisnem ecclesiae Romanae de loco aliquo scripturae etiamsi nec sciat nec intelligat an quomodo cum scripturae verbis conueniat tamen habet ipsissimum verbum dei If a man forsooth haue the interpretation of the church of Rome concerning any place of Scripture albeit he seeth not how it accordeth with the words yet he hath the very word of God We leaue euery man in doubtfull questions to be his owne Iudge but why Because we refuse the triall of a Iudge presumptuously aduanced and authorised by them Forsooth the Pope being accused of hainous abominations and sacriledge against God must sit as Iudge whether he be guiltie or not and whether they doe iustly that haue accused him But what Scripture what Councell what Father or storie or practise of the Church hath tied the interpretation of the Scriptures to the church of Rome or the deciding of controuersies to the Bishop of Rome And whereas their course in this behalfe hath no maner of iustification from the ancient Church I challenge him on the other side to alleage any course entertained by the same Church for the interpretation of Scriptures and iudgement of controuersies which is not approued and practised by vs. Which because he cannot do he doth but waste his wit by trifling in this sort and renuing idle cauils which a Of Traditions sect 21.22 before haue beene troden vnder foote being not able to relieue them with any further defense or strength 18. W. BISHOP To fold vp this part let me entreate thee courteous reader to be an vpright Iudge betweene the Protestants doctrine and ours in this most weighty matter of Christs dignity vertues and mediation and if thou see most euidently that ours doth more aduance them why shouldest thou not giue sentence on our side They make Christ ignorant many yeares of his life we hold him from the first instant of his conception to haue beene replenished with most perfect knowledge They that he spake and taught now and then as other men did and was subiect to disordinate passions We that he was most free from all such and that he taught alwaies most diuinely They make his very death not sufficient to redeeme vs we hold that the least thing that euer he suffered in his life deserued the redemption of many worlds They that he died onely for the elect we that he died for all though many through their owne fault doe not receiue any benefit by his death They that thereby we are not purged from our sinnes but by imputation we that all are by the vertue thereof inwardly cleansed They that Christ purchased a Church consisting of few not to continue long and subiect to many errours we that he established a Church that should be spread ouer all the world and that should continue to the end of the world visibly and alwaies free from any errour in any matter of faith Finally they hold that Christ left his holy word to the disputation of men not taking any certaine order for the ending of controuersies that should arise about it we teach that he hath established a most assured meanes to decide all doubts in religion and to hold all obedient Christians inperfect vniformity of both faith and manners And because I am entred into these comparisons giue mee leaue to persist yet a little longer in them Consider also I pray you who goe neerer to Atheisme either we that thinke and speake of the most sacred Trinity as the blessed Fathers in the first Councell of Nice taught or they who directly crosse them and by the nouelty
trust in our Lady for the sweetnesse of the mercy of her name Because I haue trusted in thy grace thou hast taken away from me euerlasting reproch O our Lady thou art our refuge in all our necessity O Lady saue mee by thy name And whereas M. Bishop saith that our beleeuing in God is the giuing of our whole heart vnto him they yeeld the same to our Lady also saying I confesse vnto thee Å¿ Ibid. Psal 9. Confitebor tibi Domina in toto corde meo Psal 102. Omnia praecordia mea glorificate nomen eius O Lady with my whole heart let all my hartstrings glorifiy her name By these and infinite other such speeches it appeareth that by their beleeuing in Saints they commit idolatry and doe giue that honour to the Saints which belongeth to God onely 4. W. BISHOP He chargeth vs first with the breach of the third article Conceiued by the holy Ghost Which saith he is ouerturned by the transubstantiation of bread and wine in the Masse into the body and blood of Christ for heere wee are taught to confesse the true and perpetuall incarnation of Christ beginning in his conception and neuer ending afterward Answ Heere is a strange exposition of the Creed Is Christs incarnation perpetuall and not yet ended then it is true to say that Christ is not yet incarnate as we may say truely that a man is not borne vntill his birth be accomplished and ended But to the present purpose because Christs incarnation began at his conception cannot bread be turned afterward into his body how hangeth this together Belike he meanes that Christs body was but once conceiued and that was by the holy Ghost in his mothers wombe therefore it cannot afterward be made of any other thing This to be his meaning he declares in the question of the Sacrament but it is too too simple and childish For we hold him not to be so conceiued by bread as he was by the holy Ghost who was the efficient cause of his conception but that the same body that was conceiued by the holy Ghost is made really present in the Sacrament by transubstantiation of bread into it which hath no opposition at all with this article as I haue more largely prooued in the for said question And whereas he saith farther cleane besides the purpose of this article that Christs body hath the essentiall properties of a true body standing of flesh and bone we grant the same but when he addeth that locall circumscription cannot be seuered from a body he is deceiued for the greatest body of all others which is the highest heauen is not circumscribed by any place because there is no other body without it whose extremities might compasse in and circumscribe that body of the highest heauen And when he saith that to be circumscribed in place is an essential property of euery quantity and that quantity is the common essence of euery body he makes himselfe but a common mocking-stocke vnto euery simple Legician who knoweth that no accident such as euery quantity is can be of the essence and nature of a substance such as Christs body is Neither would any man say that cared what he said that to be circumscribed in a place is essential to euery quantity when all numbers that be quantities haue no relation vnto any place neither is it of the essence of any quantity to be actually circumscribed by a place but it is a property flowing out of the essence of one only kinde of quantitie to be apt and fit to be circumscribed and compassed about with a place And naturally all bodies except the highest heauen haue one place out of which they passe as Saint Austin said when they come into another but by the omnipotent power of God any body may be separated from his place or be in as many places at once as it shall please God to seate it because to be circumscribed with a place actually is a meere accident vnto a substantiall body and without the nature of quantity and God may not without blasphemy be disabled to separate a substance from an accident R. ABBOT M. Bishop saue that he was disposed to cauill knew well enough what M. PERKINS meant by the perpetuall incarnation of Christ The truth of Christs body destroied by Popish transubstantiation that whereby he tooke flesh once for all and to continue man for euâ—r Now it is true that because Christ hath but one only body and that body was perfect by that incarnation therefore bread which hath his being after cannot be said to be turned into the body which was before For when one thing is turned into another the latter is not till it be produced of the former neither hath the one beginning but by the ending of the other Aarons rod was turned into a serpent but the serpent was not till of the rod there became a serpent Our Sauiour Christ turned water into wine but the wine was not till of water there became wine And absurd it is that one and the same thing being fully and perfectly made already should yet be said to be made of any other thing As for M. Bishops exception it is childish and impertinent because we doe not charge them to hold that the body of Christ is so conceiued by bread as it was conceiued by the holy Ghost who was the efficient cause of his conception but we say that sith the body of Christ by the power of the holy Ghost was conceiued and made of the substance of the Virgin Mary and thereby became a consummate and perfect body it is therefore absurd to affirme that the same body is now to be made of any other thing But this is not the thing that M. PER. aimed at it is the condition and nature of a true body whereof he argueth which we professe to beleeue that Christ tooke in his conception and incarnation but is ouerthrowen by Popish transubstantiation He saith that Christs body hath all things in it which by order of creation belong to a body which hee namely specifieth in local circumscription which he saith can no way be seuered from a body it remaining a body implying that the Papists affirming the body of Christ without locall circumscription doe thereby destroâ— the truth of his body M. Bishop answereth that M. PER. heerein is deceiued For saith he the greatest body of all other which is the highest heauen is not circumscribed by any place because there is no body without it to circumscribe it Well but yet it hath dimension and position and distance of parts and motion accordingly and therefore quantum inse it is locally circumscribed the only defect is that it hath not a body without it to be circumscribed thereby Yea we may truely say that it hath a kinde of locall circumscription by the superficiall clausure and determination of it owne substance In as much therefore as in it selfe it hath euery way the condition of
expresse tearmes teacheth O miracle O goodnesse of God! he that sitteth aboue with his Father at the very same instant is touched with the handes of all men Real presence denied by our beleefe of Christs ascension and giueth himselfe to them that will receiue and embrace him See more of this in the question of the blessed Sacrament where M. PER. citeth the very same authorities which he heere repeateth see my answer to to them there R. ABBOT It is a true argument and very consequent Christ is ascended into heauen and there sitteth at the right hand of God the father therefore hee is not really and locally in the sacrament The connexion is Saint Austins a August in Ioan tract 50. Conuersatus est secundum corporis praesentiam quadraginta diebus cum discipulis suis eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo ascend it in caeluÌ„ non est hîc He is ascended into heauen and is not heere as touching the presence of his body Saint Austin saith that because he is ascended therefore as touching his body he is not heere M. Bishop saith that notwithstanding his ascension he is still heere according to his body Whether now may we thinke is more likely of these two to bee beleeued But M. Bishop to saue himselfe will set Chrysostome and Austin together by the eares Forsooth Chrysostome reporteth it as a miracle that he who sitteth aboue with his father at the very same instant is touched with the hands of all men and giueth himselfe to them that will receiue and embrace him What Chrysostomes minde was in this behalfe appeareth by that which otherwhere he saith that b Chrysost op imperf hom 11. In vasis sanctifacatis non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis eius continetur in the holy vessels not the true body of Christ but the mystery of his body is contained And by this mystery of his body Saint Austin saith that e August epist 23. Secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est after a certaine maner it is the body of Christ and Cyprian saith that d Cyprian de resurrect Christi Quod videtur nonane virtute Christs corpus censetur in name and power it is accounted the body of Christ. As therefore Saint Austin saith that e August in Psal 33. conc 2. Ipse se portabat quodammodo cum diceret Hoc est corpus meum Christ did in some sort beare himselfe in his owne hands when he said This is my body in some sort he saith or after a sort not verily and indeed so Chrysostome intendeth that he who sitteth at the right hand of God is after a sort touched in the Sacrament with the hands of all the partakers thereof not as touching the reality but as touching the mysterie of his body yet so wherein consisteth the miracle which Chrysostome mentioneth as that he indeed giueth himselfe spiritually and by faith to all them that are truely willing to receiue him And in what meaning Chrysostme spake those words we may easily conceiue by other words which he vseth in the very same place f Chrysost de sacerd lib. 3. Dum conspicis dominum immolatum Sacerdotem sacrificio incumbentem ac preces fundentem tum verò turbam circumfusam pretioso illo sanguine intingi ac rubefieri etiamnè te inter mortales versari atque in terra confistere censes annon potiùs evestigiò ad caelum transferris annon omnem ca niâ—câ—gitationem abijcreâ—s mente â—ura circumspieâ—â—quae in ceâ—â— sunt O miraiu um O dâ—â— bemgintatem qâ—â— cum patre sursum sedet in illo ipsotemporis articulo on nium manibus pertractatur aâ— sâ—â—pâ—â— tradit wâ—â—tibus ipsum excipere accâ—mâ—lecti fit autem id nullis praestigijs sed apertis acâ—â—reumspâ—tientibus circumsistentium omnium occutis When thou seest the Lord offered the Priest leaning to the Sacrifice and powring foorth praier and the people round about died and made red with that pretious blood doest thou thinke that thou art amongst mortall men or standing vpon the earth Art thou not foorthwith lift vp to heauen Doest thou not cast away all carnall cogitation and with pure minde behold those things which are in heauen aboue Then vsing the words which M. Bishop hath alleaged he addeth And this is done not by collusion but so as that the standers by with open eies behold all that is done Let M. Bishop now tell vs doe the standers by with open eies see Christ offered Are they made red with the bloud of Christ Must they thinke that they are indeed carried vp to heauen and are not vpon the earth If he cannot deny but that these words are vsed by excesse and vehemencie of speech to drawe the mindes of his hearers to diuine and heauenly meditation of the mysteries then in hand can hee deny but that wee haue iust cause to vnderstand the other words in the very same sort The other testimonies cited by M. PER. out of Vigilius Fulgentius Austin doe make the same good because they shew that Christ according to his manhood is not really vpon the earth M. Bishop biddeth vs see his answeres to those authorities but as yet we doe not see them and if euer we do see them we shall see him as wise or rather as wilfull in them as he hath beene in all the rest 6. W. BISHOP Thirdly he reasoneth thus The Church as it is beleeued is not seene In that we beleeue the Catholike Church it followeth that it is inuisible because things seene are not beleeued We answer that the persons in the Catholike Church are and euer were visible euen to Iewes and Heathens who persecuted them but the inward indowments of those persons that is their faith hope and charity their assistance by Gods spirit and such like Christian qualities are inuisible to be beleeued And euen as a man is truely said to be visible though he consist aswell of an inuisible soule as of a visible body so the Church is visible for the vsible persons visible teaching and administring of Sacraments in it albeit the inward qualities of it be not visible R. ABBOT a Origen in Cant. hom 1. Ecclesiam coetum omnium aduerte sanctoâ—um Et hom 2. Ecclesia ante constitutionem mundi sic enim dicit Paulus sicut elegit nos in Christo c. The holy Chatholike church is the company of Gods saints whom he hath elected in Christ before the foundations of the world and b Gregor in Cantic cap. 3. Secundum praescientiae suae gratiam Christus sanctam ecclesiam de in aeternum permansurissanctis construxit whom he hath by the grace of his foreknowledge appointed to continue with him for euer It is c Ephe. 1.23 the body and d Reuel 21 9. Spouse of Christ e Reuel 5 9. redeemed and f 1. Pet. 1.2 sprinkled with his bloud g
therefore we may not doubt but that the fellowship of the grace of God as God himselfe hath ordeined is to be imparted vnto them We know that many things by the law were called holy which yet were not capable of inward and spirituall holinesse and therefore albeit wee say by the Apostles phrase that the children of the faithful are holy vnto God euen from their mothers wombe yet is there no necessitie to vnderstand this holinesse of any grace of inward regeneration as they wilfully vnderstand it it being sufficient both to the Apostles words and to our meaning that they be reckoned as belonging to Gods houshold partakers of his vocation and calling designed to his vse and in case to be made partakers of his holinesse That the remainder of originall sin is properly sinne in the regenerate and that it infecteth and staineth all our good works so as that it should preuaile against vs to condemnation saue onely that God imputeth not the same vnto vs it hath beene at large before declared and M. Bishop for shame should no more gainesay it till he haue made good that that there he hath said against it As for his Sacrament of penance we know it not Repentance Christ hath taught vs but Sacrament of penance he hath taught none and therefore iustly may wee leaue it to them that haue beene the deuisers of it For remission of sinnes which wee commit after baptisme wee looke backe alwaies in our repentance to baptisme it selfe where it was sealed vnto vs not for the present onely but for euer that h 1. Ioh. 2.2 if any man sinne we haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the propitiation for our sinnes 14. W. BISHOP 11 The resurrection of the bodies Whether Farel the first Apostle of the Geneuian Gospel doubted thereof or no let his successor Caluin tell you who answereth Farels letter thus Epist ad Farellum That the resurrection of this our flesh doth seeme to thee incredible no maruell c. Againe many of them teach that Christ tooke not his bloud againe which he shed vpon the crosse yea some of them are so gracelesse as to say that his pretious bloud wherewith wee were redeemed Vide Conradum lib. 1. art 20. rotted away on the earth 1600. yeeres agoe If then it bee not necessarie to a true resurrection to rise againe with the same bloud why is it necessarie to rise againe with the same bones and flesh the one being as perfect a part of a mans body as the other R. ABBOT The epistle wherein are the words mentioned by M. Bishop importing a doubt of the resurrection of the bodie was not written to Farel as he falsely quoteth but to one a Caluin epist. 103. Quòd res tibi incredibilis videtur huius carnis resurrectio nihil mirū Lelius Zozimus an Italian who seemeth to haue beene but meanely perswaded of some other points of Christian doctrine After two epistles to this Zozinus in the former whereof these words are there follow two epistles to Farell But what drowsie fit was M. Bishop in to take Farels name from an epistle that followed after and by forgery to adde it to the epistle that went before But this is one of the Romish holy fraudes whether true or false it skilleth not so that it be fit to serue the turne What wee thinke of Christs resuming his bloud againe I haue b Sect. 10. before shewed As for Conrades reports of the opinions of some of our men concerning the same they little mooue vs without better testimonie because wee know what the guise of Romish Sycophants in that case is wont to be 15. W. BISHOP 12 Life euerlasting First Captaine Caluin holdeth it for very certaine that no soule doth enter into the ioyes of heauen wherin consisteth life euerlasting vntill the day of doome These be his words 3. Institu 25. sess 6. The soules of the godly hauing ended the labour of this war-fare doe goe into a blessed rest where they expect the enioying of the promised glorie And that all things are holden in suspence vntill Christ the redeemer appeare Whose opinion is yet better than was his predecessor Luthers For he teacheth in many places Enarra in Gen. cap. 26. In Ecclesi c. 9. v. 10. that the soules of the godly departing from their bodies haue no sense at all but doe lie fast asleepe vntill the latter day Take this one for a taste Another place to prooue that the dead feele or vnderstand nothing wherefore Salomon thought the dead to be wholy asleepe and to perceiue nothing at all And again The sleepe of the soule in the life to come is more profound than in this life And Luther with this one position of his as that famous historiographer Iohn Sleidan recordeth ouerthrew two points of Popery to wit Lib. 9. hist. praying to Saints for they are so fast asleepe that they cannot heare vs and praying for the dead For they in Purgatorie slept also so soundly that they felt no paines A meet foundation surely to build such false doctrine vpon In 20. Luc. hom 35. But Brentius is most plaine in this matter who ingeniously confesseth that albeit there were not many among them that did professe publikely the soules to die with the bodie yet the most vncleane life which the greatest part of their followers did lead doth clearely shew that in their hearts they thinke no life to be after this yea that many such speeches doe sometimes proceed from them Finally it is a grosse errour of theirs to thinke that euery meane godly man shall be then made equall in glory with the Apostles which Luther teacheth whereas cleane contrary S. Paul declareth In 1. c. Petri 1. 1. Cor. 15.42 that as one starre differeth from another in glory so also shall be the resurrection of the dead I omit heere many other particularities that I be not ouer tedious For these their bickerings against the very principles of our Christian faith not leauing any one article of our Creed vnskirmished with all will serue any indifferent man for a warning to beware of their prophane doctrine that leadeth the high way to Infidelitie They vse to crie out much against the Antichrist of Rome for corrupting the puritie of the Gospell as the wicked Elders did against the adulterie of Susanna but the iudicious Christian may easily espie them themselues to be the true fore-runners of Antichrist indeed by their so generall hacking and hewing at euery point of the ancient Christian faith Thus much concerning the Creede now let vs passe to the Commandements R. ABBOT Note well The soules of the faithfull affirmed by Caluin and Luther to be in heauen gentle Reader the wilfull impudencie and malice of this man He saith that Caluin denieth to soules departed the ioyes of heauen vntill the day of doome and yet in the words by him cited hee seeth that hee
vs so that we shall see that hee had need of one to remember him that a liar must beare a braine See further what hath beene said heereof to the first section of his answer to M. Perkins his Dedicatorie Epistle 28. W. BISHOP 5. The fift Commandement teacheth that no man be killed by priuate authoritie yet Protestantes hold it lawfull to take armes euen against their lawfull Princes for the aduancement of their Gospell and haueâ—n thâ—â— quarrell killed and caused to be killed millions in Gerâ—anie â—rance Flanders and Scotland R. ABBOT This is a meere slander leudly deuised bâ— some Papists to take from themselues the enuie and iust reproch of that sauage and barbarous crueltie which they haue practised in Germany Popish barbaritie coloured by slandering the Protestants France Flanders in shedding the bloud of so many thousands of innocent persons without respect of time place sex age or degree They haue beene in their Churches togither to pray to God and to heare his word suspecting no harm when these Tygers and Wooles haue come armed vpon them and there slaine them without any difference both man woman and childe It were too long to set foorth the tragedie of those but cheries that haue beene committed in such like sort by the meanes of the Guises in France of the duke of Alba and others in Flanders and in Germany by the impetuous headlong tyrannie of Charles the fift The Protestants armes in this case haue beene onely defensiue when as contrary to publike edicts and proclamations contrarie to lawes rights and priuiledges and without legall course of proceeding they haue beene thus barbarously destroied Neither haue they then taken armes by priuate authoritie but by law and by the publicke direction of them to whom the maintenance and defence of those rights and liberties did belong Now that Papists for the aduancement of their idolatries and superstitions doe hold it lawfull and by their Confessours haue beene resolued that it is lawfull not onely to take armes against their Princes but by secret practise to murther them and by gun-powder to blow vp a whole Parliament house to the vtter confusion and subuersion of a whole state our experience from time to time hath sufficiently made knowen to vs. But a See heereof The difference betwixt Christian subiection and vnchristian rebellion part 3. by D. Bilson then Warden of Winche and now Bishop there that Protestants hold it lawfull as he obiecteth to take armes against their lawfull Princes for the aduancement of the Gospell it is a lie and contrary to the doctrine and profession of al our Churches 29. W. BISHOP 6 The sixt forbiddeth adulterie which is allowed of by Protestants in some case For they permit one party after dinorcement to marrie againe the other yet liuing whereas our Sauiour saith Whosoeuer dimisseth his wife and marrieth another committeth adulterie vpon her And if the wife dimisse her husband and marrie another she commiteth adulterie Moreouer incest is also forbidden in this Commandement now by the Canons of the Catholike Church and the authoritie of the ancient Fathers it is incest for one Cosen germaine to marry with another yet is it not seldome practised yea it is generally allowed of in the church of EnglaÌ„d R. ABBOT Protestants allow neither adultery nor incest Papists doe both The limitation of diuorce which our Sauiour Christ hath set down a Mat. 5.32 19.9 except it be for fornication maketh it lawfull for the party innocent to marry againe the delinquent being left to the censure of the Church vntill satisfaction shall be giuen of true repentance for so hainous sinne The Church of England notwithstanding for the preuenting of some mischiefes that by the wickednesse of men doe arise by abusing the liberty of mariage vpon diuorce vseth a restraint of that liberty that the parties diuorced shall put in caution not to marry againe so long as they both liue But the Church of Rome doth openly admit adultery in this behalfe making it free to the Pope to pronounce of a solemne mariage a nullity and to giue liberty to the husband to marry againe the former wife being neither deceased nor diuorced As for incest so determined by the law of God the Pope hath giuen allowance to it in giuing dispensation to the king of Spaine last deceased to marry his own sisters daughter as also to King Henry the eight of England to marry his own brothers wife But that whereof M. Bishop speaketh for one cousin germain to marry with another is no incest by Gods law nor there determined to be vnlawfull Yet thereof we commend that conceit which of old was had of it as S. Austen noteth b August de ciu dâ—i l. 15. c. 16 â—actum etiamâ—â—â—â—um propter vicinitatem horrebatur illiciti that that which was lawfull to be done yet was abhorred for that it is so neere to that that is vnlawfull Therefore albeit by law we prescribe no other bounds than God hath set yet we disswade such mariages rather than approoue them lest men by taking the vttermost of that that is lawfull should thereby the rather presume to that that is altogether vnlawfull As for the Canons of the Church of Rome we little respect them because we know they make no conscience to permit or prohibit as they themselues list who haue brought in a new deuise of spirituall kindred vnknown to ancient times whereby it is vnlawfull for them to marry ech to other who haue been godfathers and god mothers togâ—ther at the baptisme of a child Let them make Canons for themselues but for vs by the grace of God they shall make none 30. W. BISHOP 7. The seuenth Commandement condemneth with theft vsury and all withholding of our neighbours goods which was gotten vnlawfully yet Protestants commonly make no conscience to take ten in the hundreth which is plaine vsury and as for restitution of euill gotten goods it is cleane out of fashion among them R. ABBOT Hypocrite Our lawes allow no vsury at all as though it were not common amongst Papists also to take ten in the hundred Yet our law alloweth not this but punisheth it if it be informed with the losse of the increase If M. Bishop will say that because there is no execution of this punishment therefore it must be taken to be permitted I answer him that it is permitted as Moses permitted the bill of diuorce only a Mat. 19.8 for the hardnesse of mens hearts who cannot be induced to lend to supply the occasions and necessities of their brethren vnlesse they may be suffered to make benefit of their lending As for restitution of euill gotten goods we say that the wanting thereof wittingly is a token of the want of true repentance without which there is no saluation And albeit I doubt not but that I may say hereof that it is more sincerely practised with vs than it is with them yet I will not
expected or hoped for nor they cannot according to their owne rules from their heart make the said petitions being out of all hope to obtaine them R. ABBOT There is a notable picture of the regenerate man in the holy woman Rebecca when a Gen. 25 22.23 the children stroue within her and the Lord said vnto her Two nations are in thy wombe and two maner of people shall be diuided out of thy bowels and the one people shall be mightier than the other and the elder shall serue the yonger For so are there in the faithfull the old and the new man the flesh and the spirit somewhat whereby they are the children of God and somewhat wherby they are still the children of this world The originall leprosie still cleaueth vnto vs but it is begun to be clensed and the strength of it is abated already Sinne still possesseth and dwelleth in our members but we do not say as M. Bishop falsly pretendeth that it hath the commanding of them b Aug. de peecat mer. remiss l. 2. c. 7. Nunc ei similes esse tam coepimus per primitias spiritus adhuc dissimiles sumus per reliquias vetustatis proinde in quantū similes in tantum regenerante spiritu filij dei in quātum autem dissimiles in tantum si ij carnis seculi Illinc ergò peccare non possumus hinc verò si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus nosi so◠decipimus c. We are now like vnto God saith S. Austin by hauing the first fruits of the spirit and we are still vnlike vnto him by the remnants of our old state So far therefore as we are like him so far are we by the spirit of regeneration the sonnes of God and so far as we are vnlike him so far are we the children of the flesh and of the world On the one side therefore we cannot sinne but on the other side if we say that we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and there is no truth in vs. Now then semblably wee answer M. Bishop that according to that we are renued and by the spirit of God are become the sonnes of God the name of God is sanctified in vs his kingdome is begun in vs and we doe his will in earth with ready will as it is done in heauen But by the remainder of the corruption of flesh and of the old man there is a let that Gods name is not perfectly sanctified in vs his kingdome taketh not full place in vs neither doe we his will in such measure as we ought to doe Yet we pray that the old man the body of sinne may more and more be destroied that the worke of Gods kingdome may more and more be fulfilled in vs that we may more and more keep his commandements and do his will not only with ready will but without all let and hinderance fully and perfectly as they in heauen doe Herein we pray that we may increase from day to day and we beleeue that God heareth vs and granteth our request and will goe forward with his good worke till he bring vs in heauen to the perfection of it so far are the Protestants from being out of hope of the obtaining of these three first petitions as M. Bishop fondly dreameth 44. W. BISHOP In the fourth we aske aswell to be made partakers of Christs blessed body in the Sacrament which is the food of our souls as for our daily corporall sustenance For so do the ancient fathers expound that petition as namely S. Cyprian in oratione Dominica S. Hiero. in 6. Matt. S. Amb. li. 5. de Sacra c. 4. where he hath these memorable words of the blessed Sacrament that before the words of Christ it was bread but after it is the body of Christ Why then saith hee is it called heere bread he answereth that it is called bread not simply but supersubstantiall bread For so doth the Greeke word Epióusion signifie as well as daily it is saith he not such bread as passeth into our body but it is the bread of eternall life that vpholdeth the substance of our soules Now you may be well assured that Protestants who will not beleeue any such bodily presence doe not pray to God to giue it them R. ABBOT Wee wot well that sundry of the ancient Fathers haue expounded this petition Reall presence fondly collected out of the Lords praier not onely literally of corporall foode but also mystically of the participation of the blessed Sacrament wherin Christ is spiritually offered and giuen vnto vs to be vnto vs the bread of euerlasting life Of this we will not contend with the fathers onely we would know of M. Bishop if this daily bread bee vnderstood of the Sacrament how is it that the people with them are not called and vrged to the daily participation of the Sacrament that daily they may be partakers of this bread accordingly as they are taught to pray Or if without the receiuing of the Sacrament a man may be partaker of the spirituall food of the body and bloud of Christ as by their construction of this petition compared with their practise it may seem they do confesse then they must acknowledge that there is no necessitie of their reall presence to make vs partakers of the body and bloud of Christ Which although I do not see how M. Bishop should well and hansomly auoid yet he thought good here to put in one place for the same reall presence of Christs bodie his choise notwithstanding being so smal as that he hath brought vs one that saieth nothing for him yea in very truth saith altogether against him The words of Ambrose are these a Ambr. de Sacram l. 5. cap. 4. Ante verba Christi quod offertur panis est vbi Christi verba deprompta suerint iam non panis dicitur sed corpus appellatur Before the words of Christ that which is offered is bread but when the words of Christ are vttered it is not now termed bread but it is called the body M. Bishop falsifieth the words but taking them as they are what doth hee finde in them for assertion of the reall presence Is it anie proofe of reall presence to say that the Sacrament is called the body of Christ Now as it is called the body of Christ so is it also called supersubstantiall bread not for that that it is really to the mouth belly but for that that it signifieth and presenteth to our faith And this doth Ambrose himselfe immediately declare when hee addeth b Ibid. Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus sed ille panis vitae eternae qui anima nostrae substantiam fulcit for it is not this bread which passeth into the body but that bread of eternall life that vpholdeth the substance of our soule Where when he deuideth the bread of eternall life from that which goeth into the bodie hee plainly sheweth that
heere continueth still the same what the substance is that is conteined vnder the formes The body of Christ they say is not there till o Tho. Aquin. summ p. 3. q. 75. art 7. ad 2 vltimuminstans prolationis verborum est primum instans in quo est in sacramento corpus Christs in toto autem tempore praecedente est ihi substantia panis the last instant of the words of consecration and till then the substance of bread is there The sustance then demonstrated by This must necessarilie be granted to be bread as wee expoundit because as yet there is no other Much adoe they make about this matter and can resolue nothing and whilest they will not submit themselues to the truth they are so intangled in their owne errour that they know not which way to quit themselues 49. W. BISHOP Thirdly Per. 3. Bread was not giuen for vs but onely the bodie of Christ and in the first institution the body of Christ was not then really giuen to death Ans This maketh nothing at all against the reall presence but doth greatly fortifie it For Christ gaue vs in the Sacrament that which should be put to death for vs this is my body that shall be giuen for you Now not bread but Christs true body was giuen to death for vs ergo Christ gaue vs to eate not bread but his true reall body R. ABBOT If M. Bishops argument be good against vs we will returne it to himselfe againe Christ gaue vs in the Sacrament that which should be put to death for vs but not the forme of bread but Christs true body was giuen to death for vs therefore Christ gaue vs to eate not the forme of bread but his true reall body And doth M. Bishop beleeue so If he doe not then let him answer his owne argument and wee shall thereby finde a way to answer him It is true that Christ in the Sacrament giueth his body but he giueth not onely his body but also the Sacrament of his body He giueth the Sacrament of his body externally and corporally to be receiued by the mouth hee giueth-his true bodie internally and spiritually to be receiued by faith He giueth vs then that bodie that was giuen to death for vs but hee doth not giue it to the swallowing of the throat but to the meditation of the heart And this S. Austin notably declareth when for exposition of the words of Christ Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud c. he saith or rather maketh Christ to say a August in Psal 98. spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent sacramencum aliquod comn endani vohiâ— spiritualitèr intellectum viuificabit vâ—s Vnderstand spiritually that which I haue said Yee shall not eat this bodie which yee see nor drinke that bloud which they shall shead that crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament which vnderstand spiritually and it shall giue you life Where vnderstanding eating and drinking properly with the mouth hee denieth the very body and bloud of Christ to this eating and drinking and leaueth onely the Sacrament to be appertaining thereto Now in this meane while M. Bishop hath slipped M. Perkins argument and let it goe without answer that the Sacrament is not simplâ—e the body of Christ but onely as it is giuen to death for vs and because the body of Christ neither was in the first institution nor now is in the Sacrament really giuen to death for vs therefore the Sacrament is not really the body of Christ 50. W. BISHOP Fourthly Per. 4. The cup is the new Testament by a figure why not then the bread the body of Christ by a figure Answ A goodly reason if there bee one figure there must needs be two How followeth this if those words of S. Paul be obscure why did he not rather cleare them by conferring them with S. Matthew and S. Marke who deliuer it plainely thus this is my bloud of the new Testament that shall be shedde c But hee that delighteth in cauilling must seeke darknesse R. ABBOT M. Bishop anone a Sect. 63. after telleth vs that no good Christian may thinke but that our Sauiour Christ Iesus very well foreseeing all such inconueniences as he hath there expressed did deliuer the Sacrament in such termes as he would haue to bee taken properly and not bee construed at mens pleasures figuratiuely If this be true how doth hee heere thinke of himselfe that doth admit that Christ in the deliuering of the Sacrament namely of the cup did speake figurariuely Or if he be a good Christian notwithstanding that contrary to his owne rule he admit a figure in Christs deliuering of the Sacrament must we be no good ChristiaÌ„s if we admit two Surely there is the same reason of the one part of the Sacrament as there is of the other and sich there is a necessity to vnderstand a figure in the one either hee must giue vs sound reason to the contrary or else he must leaue vs to our own reasons to conceiue the like of the other also Though it be not a goodly reason to say if there be one figure there must needs be two yet it is a good reasoÌ„ to say if there may be one figure nothing hindreth but there may be two If Christ might say by a figure a Luk. 22.20 1. Cor. 11.25 This cup is the new Testament in my bloud as S. Luke and S. Paul haue set downe then hee might say also by a figure This is my bodie this bread is my body But saith he if those words of S. Paul bee obscure why did he not rather cleere them by conferring them with S. Mathew and S. Marke So then there may be here somewhat obscure but it must bee onely what pleaseth them who notwithstanding of that that is most cleere as we haue seene in the former section saue one doe by their exposition make a matter most intricate and darke But what cleering doth S. Paul receiue from S. Mathew and S. Marke Forsooth they deliuer it plainly thus This is my bloud of the new testament that shall be shed c. Hee setteth downe the words but what cleering it is that he meaneth he sheweth not And indeed the words on both sides are alike S. Luke and S. Paul speake by a figure and so doe also S. Mathew and S. Mark S. Mathew saith b Mat. 26.28 This is my bloud of the new testament but what meaneth he by This Surely This hath heere the nature of a relatiue and must be referred to his antecedent before set downe And what is the antecedent but the cup Iesus tooke the cup and gaue it to them saying Drinke yee all of this of what but of this cup for this that is this cup is my bloud
that others may drinke of it or not drinke of it as it shall be thought most expedient by the Pope whom hee falsly nameth the supreme Pastour But how may it appeere that there is any such authoritie left to the Pope Surely if Christ spake only to the Priests it should not seeme likely that the Pope should haue liberty to extend this fauour to the people and if the Pope may giue libertie heereof to the people then it is certaine that Christ did not speake only to the Priests But there is a speciall secret heere which I would gladly haue M. Bishop to vnfold for if the words of Christ Drinke yee all of this were spoken onely to Priests and doe belong to them how is it that c Concil Trid. ses 5. can 2. Ecclesia iustu causis rationibus adducta vt laicos atque etiam Clericos non conficientes sub panis tantum modo specie communicaret c. Priests also in the church of Rome he only excepted that ministreth are excluded from being partakers of the cuppe Christ saith by their owne confession Drinke all yee Priests how impudently then doe they transgresse the commandement of Christ who barre all Priests from the Cup but him only that saith Masse Here their wicked and damnable hypocrisie most plainly appeareth and the knots wherewith they are tied are such as that they know not which way to vntie them The Priests that minister not are with them in that behalfe as in the case of lay-men and therefore are forbidden to be partakers of the cup. But in that case also the Apostles were at the institution of the Sacrament for Christ only ministred and not any of them And yet to the Apostles being thus as in the state and condition of lay men because they ministred not our Sauiour Christ saith Drinke ye all of this What now followeth hereof but that to lay men and of lay men as well as of Priests our Sauiour Christ said Drink ye all of this euen you all that haue eaten of this bread drinke ye also of this cup But all men confesse saith M. Bishop that these words hoc facite doe ye this were spoken only to the Apostles and in them to the Clergy alone And it may be that all his men confesse so or all the men that he had in his head when he wrote this but otherwise all men will not so confesse because to confesse so should be to confesse an vntruth For those words haue reference to the whol celebration of this mystery requiring the same to be performed in remembrance of him by whom it was first ordained Yea and that they haue their respect to the receiuers appeareth plainly by the very coherence and consequence thereof d Mat. 26.26 Luke 22.19 Take eat doe this namely that I haue bidden you doe to take and eat in remembrance of me And this is as cleere in the Apostles description of the institution of the Cup e 1. Cor. 11.25 He tooke the cup saying This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you this doe as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me Which later words sound plainly to this effect Drinke ye all of this and as oft as ye do so doe it in the remembrance of me But yet we will deale curteously with M. Bishop and grant him his desire that Christ here speaketh of the ministration of the sacrament which appertaineth to the Clergy alone and will he hereof conclude that when hee saith Drinke ye all of this his meaning was that the Clergy only should drinke thereof Verily the contrary rather most plainly followeth For when he saith Doe this what else doth he say but what ye see me doe the same doe ye I say to you all here present Take and eat I deliuer the cup to you all that you may all drinke thereof doe you administer to others in the same sort what I haue done to you the same doe you to them in remembrance of me And this rule Cyprian most vehemently presseth and vrgeth it to Cecilius again and again f Cyprian lib. 2. ep 3. In commemorationem dominâ— hoc faciamus quod secit dominus c. Ab Euangeiiâ—iâ— praeceptis omninò recedendum non esse eadem quae magister docuit fecit discipulos quoque obseruare facere debere c. Vtique ille sacerdos vice Christi verè fungitur qurid quod Christus fecit imitatur c. Nihil aliud quà m quod ille fecit facere debemus c. Quotiescunque calicem in commemorationem domint passionis eius offerâ—musâ—â— quod consiaâ— dominum fecisse faciamus c. that in remembrance of the Lord we are to do the same that the Lord did that we are not in any sort to depart from the precepts of the Gospell and the disciples are to obserue the same things which their master hath taught and done that that Priest doth truely supply the roome of Christ who imitateth that which Christ hath done that we ought to doe nothing but what he hath done that so often as we offer the cup in remembrance of the Lord and of his passion wee are to doe the same which we are assured Christ did Now if the minister bee to doe the same that Christ did then is he to administer both parts of the sacrament alike to all that are present because we find that Christ did so Yea but why should the Apostles saith M. Bishop haue a speciall charge more to drinke of that cup then to eat of that food vnlesse it were to signifie that wheras all men should be bound to receiue Christs body they namely the Apostles should be further bound to receiue that holy cup also from which bond other men should stand free Thus he falsifieth the institution of Christ that from an imagined ground of his owne he may infer a conclusion answerable thereto For had not the Apostles as speciall charge to eat of that food as to drinke of that cup did not Christ aswell say to all his Apostles Take eat this is my body doe this in remembrance of me as he said Drinke ye all of this If hee did so and thereby all men are bound to eat of that food doth it not follow that by the other all men are bound also to drinke of that cup Christ commandeth all his Apostles to take eat He commandeth al his Apostles to take the cup drinke On the one side he saith Do this On the other side he saith Doe this What reason can M. Bishop giue why al Christians should be concluded on the one side and all saue the Priests should be excluded on the other yea and all the Priests also that are present saue he onely that administreth for the time What will hee wilfully blinde himselfe Will he stoppe his owne eies that he may not see that which hee cannot choose but see Well he will yet make
amends for all telling vs that when they take away from the people one kinde of the Sacrament they do them no hinderance thereby because they giue them both the body and bloud of Christ together vnder one kinde But who hath taught them so to doe or that so they can doe and if both may bee giuen vnder one why did Christ by his institution ordaine seuerally a Sacrament of both Let him satisfie vs in this behalfe if the whole intention of the Sacrament be atteined in one kinde why our Sauiour Christ would do a needlesse worke to institute both and if it be needfull for the Priest to drinke of the Lords cup why is it needlesse for the people or if it be sufficiently auaileable for the people that the Priest drinke thereof why is it not also sufficient that the Priest onely doe eate for all Hee telleth vs that the body and bloud of Christ bee so vnited that they cannot be separated and we grant so much of the bodie and bloud of Christ as now they are but he should remember that by this Sacrament g 1. Cor. 11.26 wee shew foorth the death of the Lord and in the death of the Lord his bodie was broken and his bloud was shed for vs accordingly as it is said h 1. Cor. 11.24 This is my body which is broken for you l Mat. 26.28 this is my bloud which is shed for you and therefore that the sacrament must represent and offer vnto vs the bloud of Christ as separated from the body Which because it cannot do being vsed in one kinde therefore it followeth that the Popish vsage thereof in that sort excludeth the intention of the sacrament and robbeth vs of the comfort of Christs bloud shed for the forgiuenesse of our sins And surely if the effect of the sacrament be wholly attained by receiuing onely in one kinde there was no cause why Gelasius Bishop of Rome hearing of some k De consecrat dist 2. Comperimus quosdam qui sumpta sacri corporis portione à calice sacrati cruoris abstineant qui quia nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi aut integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integru arceantur quia diuisio vnius einsdemque mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest prouenire who receiuing the portion of Christs sacred body did forbeare the cuppe of his sacred bloud should decree as he did that either they should receiue the whole sacrament or else be excluded from the whole adding a reason thereof which cleerely cutteth off all Popish exceptions because the diuiding of one and the same mysterie cannot come without great sacriledge Why should Gelasius vrge a matter so needlesse if it be true which now is taught in Poperie or if Gelasius then saw it to be sacriledge to diuide this mysterie of Christ how commeth it about that it is not so now In the time of Iulius the first long before Gelasius another abuse was creeping into the Church of dipping the Sacrament of Christs body into the cup as thereby to saue a labour and so vnder one to deliuer both It appeareth heereby that Christian people were not then taught as they are now in the Romane church that the one part of the Sacrament is by concomitancy as their Schoolemen haue deuised both the bodie and the bloud of Christ neither did Iulius vpon that ground condemne that dipping as superfluous and causelesse which both hee and they should in that respect haue conceiued so to bee if that fancie were true But they by Christs institution conceiued a necessitie to receiue both and therefore in this sort by dipping the Eucharist in the cup prouided so to doe in which sort notwithstanding to receiue both Iulius approoued it as a thing vnlawfull l Dist 2. cap. Cum omne Quod pro complemento câ—mmunionis ineinctam tradunt Eu haristiam populis nec hoc prolatum ex Euangelio testimoniuÌ„ receperunt vbi Apostolu corpus suum commendauit sanguinem seorsum enim panu scorsum calicis commendatio memoratur because there is no testimony heereof in the Gospell where Christ commended to his Apostles his body and bloud for there is recorded seuerally the deliuery of the bread and seuerally of the cup. Now if Christ to the end he might commend to vs both his body and bloud would seuerally commend the one and seuerally the other surely the church of Rome in debarring the people from the cup confoundeth the institution of Christ and commendeth the one onely without the other And sith Iulius did hold that for direction in this behalfe the Church is to haue recourse to the example of Christ in the Gospell to doe as Christ there is recorded to haue done wee must needs conceiue that the Church of Rome now is not of the same mind that Iulius was which so manifestly crosseth that which is described in the gospell And not Iulius only but the whole Church of Christ held it selfe tied to that example and practised accordingly neither was there any Church in the world which held it sufficient or lawfull to administer the sacrament to the people in one kind Hierome saith that m Hieron in 1. Cor. 11. Dominica coena omnibus debet esse communis quia ille omnibus distipulu suis qui aderant aequaliter tradidit sacramenta the Lords supper ought to be common to all because the Lord Iesus equally deliuered the sacraments to all his disciples that were present So Chrysostome saith n Chrysost in 2. Cor. hom 18. Est vbi nihil differt sacerdos a subdito vt quando fruendum est sacris mysterijs similiter enin omnes vt 〈◊〉 participemus digri habemus that in the receiuing of the holy mysteries there is no difference betwixt the Priest and the people for we all saith he are vouchsafed to receiue them alike o Theophylact. in 1. Cor. c. 11. praesertim cum tremendus hic calix pari cunctis conditione sit traditus This dreadfull cup saith Theophylact was in like or equall condition deliuered to all In a word when Cyprian saith that p Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 2. Quomodo ad martyrij poculum idoneos facimus si non eos ad bibendum prius in ecclesia poculum domini iure communicationis admittimus by right of communion we admit the people to drinke in the Church of the Lords cup what doth hee but plainly declare that the Church of Rome doth apparant wrong to the people of God in that it bereaueth them of this right We may therefore iustlie thinke them very impudently obstinate whom neither the authority of Christ nor the consent of fathers nor the practise of Christian Churches vniuersally through the world nor the very reason of the Sacrament it selfe can mooue to reform this maiming of the sacrament of Christ but doe make choise rather to continue still in error than to acknowledge that they haue erred But M.
bee the figure of Christs body Yea but Christ saith he saith not that it is the figure of his body but his body And euen so S. Paul saith not that the rocke was a figure of Christ but h 1. Cor. 10.4 The rocke was Christ i August in Leuit. q. 57. Quod vtique non erat per substantiam sed per significationem which yet saith Austin was not Christ in substance but in signification If S. Paul might say that the rocke was Christ though in substance it were not so then might Christ say of bread this is my body though it bee not so in substance but in signification and power onely euen as hath beene k Sect. 48. before said that Sacraments commonly beare the names of those things whereof they are sacraments and that because though they be signes and figures yet they are such signes as doe by the ordinance of God truely and effectually exhibite and yeeld to the faith of the beleeuer the heauenly and spirituall grace that is signified thereby Now when we say that the Sacrament is thus the figure of Christs body how doe wee meane it but of his bodie which was giuen for our redemption vpon the crosse and therefore that addition set downe by M. Bishop is impertinent and maketh nothing at all for him 60. W. BISHOP Fiftly 1. Cor. 10.16 S. Paul demandeth thus the Chalice of benediction which we doe blesse is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ and the bread that we breake is it not the participation of the body of our Lord if then wee doe in receiuing the blessed Sacrament participate Christs body and communicate his bloud they surely are there really present R. ABBOT We doe in receiuing the blessed Sacrament participate Christs body and communicate his bloud and yet they are not there really present because wee participate Christs body by faith in spirit and soule not in body by the mouth and belly as hath beene before shewed S. Austin supposing Christ to be absent in body yet teacheth vs how wee receiue him when he saith a Aug. in Ioan. tract 50. Quomodo tenebo absentem quomodo in coelum manum mitâ—am vt ibi sedentem teneam fidem mitte tenuisti How shall I lay hold of him being absent how shall I put vp my hand to heauen to lay hold of him sitting there send vp thy faith saith he and thou hast taken hold of him There needeth then no reall presence for the receiuing of Christs body but by faith we lay hold thereof sitting at the right hand of God the father 61. W. BISHOP Againe S. Paul saith He that eateth and drinketh vnwoorthely 1. Cor. 11.28 eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe not discerning the body of our Lord and before is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ ergo the body and bloud of Christ are there present or else why should a man incurre that guilt but by his vnwoorthy receiuing of it and by not discerning Christs body to be there present R. ABBOT M. Bishop thinketh that we doe indignitie to the Saints when wee pull downe their images which they worship and yet hee will not say that those images are the Saints themselues and can he not conceiue that in the dishonor of the sacrament is the dishonour of Christ though the sacrament be not verily Christ himselfe but the representatâ—on and signe of his body and bloud the despight and villaine that is done to the Princes picture or seale is construed to be an indignitie to the Prince and so will the Apostle haue vs to conceiue of the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ It is by Gods ordinance to vs and in our vse as it were the body and bloud of Christ and therefore iustly is he said not to discerne the Lords body and to be guiltie of the body and bloud of Christ who vnreuerently and with contempt presumeth to offer himselfe to these mysteries of Christ though Christ himselfe be not really present in the vsage thereof 62. W. BISHOP Besides all these plaine texts of holy Scripture in confirmation of the reall presence the very circumstances of it doe much fortifie our faith therein In S. Luke we haue Luc. 22.15 that our Sauiour maruellously desired desiderio desideraui to eat that this last banquet with his Diâ—ciples S. Iohn addeth that whereas he loued his that were in the world vnto the end he loued them and knowing that the Father gaue all things into his hands and that he came from God and goeth to God c. What coherence I say with this exceeding loue and infiâ—â—te power of Christ to bee shewed in his last supper if he hath left onely bread and wine to bee taken in remembrance of him any meane man might easily haue done as much and Helias departing from his Disciple Heliseus did much more for hee left a more noble remembrance of himselfe behinde him to wit his cloake and double spirit But Christ bequeathing vs his true naturall body to bee the foode of our soules and comfort of our hearts as wee beleeue and teach he then indeed shewed his iâ—finite power and loue towards vs and that he came from God and as God bestowed an inestimable gift vpon vs such a one as neuer any other did or could possibly doe R. ABBOT It is truly said by Tertullian that a Tertul. de Baptism Nihil adeò est quod obiurat mentes hominum quà m simplicitas diuinorum operum quae in actu videntur magnificentia quae in effectu repromittitur c. nothing so much offendeth mens mindes in the Sacraments as the simplicitie of Gods works as they seeme in act and the magnificence which is promised in effect M. Bishop looking to the outward signes in the Lords supper taketh the same to be a simple token of Christs exceeding loue towards vs a matter that any man might doe and not so much as that that Elias left to his scholar Elizeus Thus in his blinde fancie hee amplifieth the matter as if wee taught that Christ in his last supper had recommended nothing to vs but bread and wine But let him vnderstand that we see and teach in this sacrament the exceeding great loue of Christ not in those simple creatures which we see in act but in the magnificence of grace which is promised in effect If wee consider these creatures in act they are but bread and wine but consider them in vse and effect and then this bread is heauenly bread the bread of life the food of immortalitie there is in it the spirit of Christ euen the power of the word of God not onely feeding but also sanctifying and clensing the soule I will expresse it by M. Bishops owne words that Christ hath bequeathed and heereby giueth vnto vs his true naturall body to be the food of our soules of our soules I say not of our bodies which if he did rightly meane
Ben Beirdh the chiefest of the wisemen which seeme in all likely hood to tax Austin as a procurer of that slaughter For although he mention the said Taliessin as hauing beene a writer in the yeare 540. yet because there can be imagined no occasion of those words before Austins comming in I conceiue that either there is some errour in the notation of the time or that liuing perhaps to great yeeres as in those daies was no rare thing he wrot the Ode whence those verses are taken in his last time I will define nothing heereof but leaue it to the iudgement of the Reader to conceiue as he seeth cause The verses then he first setteth downe in the Welch tongue as they were written by him that made them a History of Wales by Doct. Powel Gwae'r offeriad byd Nys angreifftia gwyd Ac ny phregetha Gwae ny cheidw ye gail Ac efyn vigail Ac nys areilia Gwaeny theidw ei dheuaid Rhae bleidhi Rhufeniaid A'iffon gnwppa These he repeateth in English thus Wo be to that Priest yborne That will not cleanly weede his corne And preach his charge among Wo be to that shepheard I say That will not watch his fold alway As to his office doth belong Wo be to him that doth not keepe From Romish woolues his sheepe With staffe and weapon strong Where when he nameth Romishwolues we cannot doubt but that he alludeth to some cruelty caused or practised by some that came from Rome which because it can haue no application in those times but only to the slaughter of the Monkes aforesaid therefore I doubt not but that it hath reference to Austin the Monke who came then from Rome as the cause of that slaughter Now because we are in hand with falsifications and misconstructions I hold it not amisse to reduce hither two other taxations of his of the same nature as most properly belonging to this place The first by order of my booke is a place of Mathew Paris by whom I say it appeareth that a Answer to the epistle sect 3. pag. 20. for the space of twelue hundred yeeres after Christ the Popes authoritie could gaine no acknowledgement in Scotland for that in the time of King Henry the third the one and twentith of his raigne when the Popes Legate would haue entred into Scotland to visit the Churches there the King of Scots Alexander the second forbad him so to do alleaging that none of his predecessours had admitted any such neither would hee suffer it and therefore willed him at his owne perill to forbeare Concerning this allegation M. Bishop setteth downe a postscript in the end of his booke when all the rest was finished in this curteous maner Curteous Reader I must needs acquaint thee with a notable legerdemaine which by perusing the authour I found out after the rest was printed Now gentle Reader I know thou lookest for some speciall great matter which he was thus carefull to adde after all the rest was printed but what is it I pray M. Abbot saith he to prooue that the Pope had no authoritie in Scotland twelue hundred yeeres after Christ auerreth that Alexander the second vtterly forbad the Popes Legate to enter within his kingdome which is not true No is Surely then M. Abbot dealt very vndutifully with his Prince to delude him with a false tale But I pray you M. Bishop tell vs what the truth is For his authour Mathew Paris declareth saith hee that the King indeed did at the first oppose himselfe against that visitation of his kingdome to be made by the said Legate not for that he did not acknowledge the Popes supreme authoritie in those ecclesiasticall causes but because it was needlesse the matters of the Church being as he said in good order and for feare of ouer-great charges And is this all M. Bishop that you could finde perusing the authour so diligently as you haue done But I pray you put on your spectacles once more and turne ouer your booke againe Thou shalt vnderstand gentle Reader that the impression of Mathew Paris which I follow is that b Tiguri in officina Froschoviana 1589. at Tigure in officina Froschouiana anno 1589. There in the one and twentieth yeere of Henrie the third being the yeere of our Lord 1237. pag. 431. which in the edition cited by M. Bishop I take by some notes of mine to be pag. 597. thou shalt finde Mathew Paris set downe this matter in these words c Math. Paris in Henrico 3. anno 1237. pa. 431. Volenti autem domino Legato intrare reguum Scotiae vt ibi de negotijs ecclesiasticis tractaret sicut in Anglia respondit rex Scotiae Non me memini Legatum in terra mea vidisse nec opus esse aliquē esse vocandum deo gratias nec adhuc opus est omnia benè se habent Nec etiā tempore patris mei vel alicuius antecessorū meorum visus est aliquis Legatus introitū habuisse nec ego dum mei compos fuero tolerabo Veruntamen quia fama te sanctum virum praedicat moneo te vt si fortè terram meam ingrediaris cau tè progrediaris nequid sinistri tibi contingat c. The Lord Legate being desirous to enter into the kingdome of Scotland there to deale in Ecclesiasticall matters as he had done in England the King of Scotland answered him I remember not that I haue seene any Legate in my countrey nor that there hath beene any need thanks be to God that any should be called neither is there yet any need all things are well No nor in the time of my Father or of any of my predecessours hath any Legate beene seene to haue had any entrance there neither wil I suffer any so long as I am in my right wits Notwithstāding because by report you are a holy man I warne you that if yee doe goe into my countrey yee goe warily lest any thing befall amisse to you For vnruly and sauage men are there dwelling which thirst after mens bloud whom I my selfe cannot tame nor hold them backe from me if they fall vpon you These are the words of Mathew Paris now aske M. Bishop I pray thee wherein standeth that notable legerdemaine which he would acquaint thee with Aske him what it is wherein I haue varied from my authour I said that the king forbad the Legate to enter so saieth the storie I said that the King alleaged that neuer any Legate in the time of any of his predecessours had beene admitted there the storie saith the same I said that this was twelue hundred yeeres after the time of Christ the story noteth it to haue beene in the yeere 1237. Wish him now to tell thee where the legerdemaine is or whether it be rather some policie of his thus to talke of legerdemaine But this place he would not see yet the latter place he saw he quoteth the page 667. iustly agreeing with the
doth cease But yet hee saith that Gelasius in that place signifieth so much in that he affirmeth that by the operation of the holy Ghost the bread and wine doe passe into a diuine substance And it is true indeed that Gelasius so saith But M. Bishop did your eies serue you to looke no further n Gelas vt supra Indiuiuam transennt sancto spiritu perficiente substantiam permanent tamen in suae proprietate naturae They passe saith he into a diuine substance but yet they remaine in the propriety of their owne nature euen as to the same purpose Theodoret saith o Theodoret. dial 1. Symbola signa quae videntur appellatione corporis sanguinis honorauit non naturam quidem mutans sed naturae gratiam adijciens Christ honoured the visible signes with the name of his body and bloud not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature Now if they still continue in their owne nature as before then they doe not so passe into a diuine substance but that there is still the substance of bread and wine The thing whereto Gelasius driueth that speech is to shew against Eutyches that as in the Sacrament the bread and wine become vnto vs the body and bloud of Christ and yet retaine the same nature and substance as before so the manhood of Christ being ioined into one person with the Godhead is not thereby drowned or swallowed vp but continueth in substance the same that it was from the beginning This he imagined to be very direct against the heresy of Eutyches but by M. Bishps transubstantiation it proueth wholly to the aduantage thereof for that it may bee said that as in the Sacrament the substance of bread and wine are extinguished though there remaine the shew and likenes and taste therof so in the vnion of the man-hood with the god-head there coÌ„tinued the semblance and likenes and outward appearance of a man but the substance thereof was swallowed vp and continued not And this M. Bishop helpeth to strengthen by expounding nature to be vnderstood of naturall qualities whereas Gelasius as he speaketh of the bread and wine there ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine so saith of Christ p Gelas ibid. Dicimus proprietatem vniuscuiusque substantiae vel naturae in Christo manere perpetuam We say that the propriety of ech substance or nature abideth continually in Christ vnderstanding still by nature the same that he doth by substance as hee hath said before q Ibi. Substantia nulla est quae non natura dicatur There is no substance but it is called nature euen as Austin saith r August cont Iulian. li. 1. ca. 3. Natura est ipsa substantia cont serm Arianor c. 36. Vnius eiusdemque substantiae vel vt expressiùs dicamus essentiae quod plantùs dicitur vnius eiusdemque naturae The nature is the very substance and Of one and the same substance or essence is more plainly said of one and the same nature which made the Euty chians that they could not endure to name Å¿ Gelas ibid. Quis ferat eos dedignari vocabula promere naturarum two natures in Christ because thereby should be imported two entire and perfect substances And albeit it be true that sometimes the name of nature is vsed to signifie some intrinsecall properties issuing immediately from the essence of the thing yet he that shall say that the nature of bread and wine is the forme and taste and sauor thereof may be thought to speake like a naturall rather than like a learned man His exception that this Gelasius was not Bishop of Rome is vaine It hath beene still and is printed by themselues vnder his name The conclusion doth giue token that it was his t Ibid. in fine Hanc regulam Catholicae fidei c. cùm sedem Apostolicam vestram dilectio vnanimitèr teneat coÌ„staÌ„tèr praedicet sapieÌ„ tèrque defendat seeing you beloued doe with one minde hold fast the Apostolike sea therefore constantly preach and wisely defend this rule of the Catholike faith yea and that very fragment which wee now haue is cited by u Bibliot sanct Patr. edit 2. Iom 4. pa. 557. Iohn the first his successour soone after to the same very purpose whereto he wrot it which alone is sufficient for approbation thereof Againe I cited x Pag. 35.35 Theodoret making mention that the Councell of Laodicea did forbid to pray to Angels or to worship them and I alleaged Austin noting them for heretikes that did so To S. Austin M. Bishop answereth nothing at all with whom as I cited they are recorded for heretikes and termed y August ad Quod vultd haer 39 Angeliciin Angelorum cultu inclinati Angelici who were bowed downe in the worship of Angels How trimly he answereth to Theodoret and the Councell of Laodicea shall be the better discerned if I first set downe the words of Theodoret himselfe Who handling the words of the Apostle z Col 2.18 Let no man at his pleasure be are rule ouer you by humblenes of minde and worshipping of Angels saith thus r Theodoret. in Col. 2. Qui leâ— gâ—m defendebant eos etiam ad angelos â—olendos inducebant dicentes fuisse legem per eos datam MaÌ„sit autem diu hoc vitium in Phrygia Pisidia Quocircae Synodus quoque quae conuenit Laodiceae quae est Phrygiae metropolis lege prohibuit ne precaerentur Angelos Et in hodiernuÌ„ vsque diem licet videre apud illos eorum finitimos oratoria sancti Michaelis Illi ergò hos consulebant humilitate vtentes diceÌ„tes vniuersorum deum nec cerni nec comprehendâ— nec perueniri ad eum posse oportere per Angelos diuinam sibi heneuolentiam conciliare Hoc antem dixit Apostolus In humilitate cultu Angelorum They who defended the law did induce them the Colossians to worship Angels saying that the Law was giuen by them And this corruption continued long in Phrygia and Pisidia Wherefore the Councell of Laodicea the chiefe City of Phrygia did by decree forbid to pray to Angels And euen to this day we may see amongst them and others neere to them Chapels of S. Michael And this they perswaded pretending humility saying that the Lord of all might not be seene nor comprehended nor come vnto and that by the Angels we must procure or obtaine the good will or fauour of God And this saith he the Apostle meant by humility and worship of Angels And what doth M. Bishop now say to this The Councell forsooth meant it Å¿ Reproofe pag. 238. of leauing our Sauiour Iesus Christ to commit idolatry to the Angels preferring the Angels before him But Theoderet knew well the meaning of the Councell Theodoret knew the occasion of that decree namely a superstition brought in by the false Apostles to worship Angels and to pray to them
of the new testament c. The words of c Mark 24.23.24 S. Marke doe beare also the same sense which as it is the very Grammaticall construction of the words so it is also fully confirmed in that S. Luke and S. Paul doe expresly deliuer it in that sort So then by all three Euangelists and S. Paul there is a figure in one part of the Sacrament let vs then aske M. Bishop againe why may there not be so in the other also But hee doth not loue to be troubled with too many questions He cannot tell as yet what answer to giue vs and therefore we must be content to giue him further time till he may better bethinke himselfe 51. W. BISHOP Fiftly Christ did eat that supper but not himselfe Per. 5. Answ A Protestant cannot say that Christ did eat of that Sacrament as M. PERK doth because hee hath no warrant for it in the written word yet we doe grant that he did so and hold him most worthy to taste of that heauenly food R. ABBOT If the written word doe not warrant that Christ did eat of the Sacrament I maruell why M. Bishop citeth to that purpose out of S. Luke those words which a Sect 62. ex Luc 22.15 anon he doth that he maruellously desired to eat this last banquet with his disciples Whether hee cite it truely or falsly let himselfe looke to that but either hee must confesse that hee hath cited amisse there or else that he hath spoken rashly here But if Christ did eat of the Sacrament will M. Bishop haue vs to beleeue that he did eat himselfe or dranke the bloud of his owne bodie May we be perswaded that one and the same Christ at one and the same time was both wholly within himselfe and wholly also without himselfe that hee sate visible by his Apostles and yet was then wholly conteined within the compasse of his owne bowels or that in his owne bowels hee at that time caried his owne bloud or that moreouer hee was then by the Sacrament in the bellies of all the Apostles euen of the traitour Iudas Surely what Christ did eat the same Iudas did eat also But of Iudas S. Austin teacheth that b Aug. in Ioan. tract 59. Non est ex eis iste c. Illi manducabant panem dominum ille panem domini contra dominuÌ„ hee did eat of the Lords bread but not of the bread which is the Lord. Therefore although Christ did eat the Sacrament yet may wee not imagine that hee did eat himselfe These are horrible and vnchristian fancies but out of the schoole of Transubstantiation they come and they that maintaine the one must necessarily maintaine the other also 52. W. BISHOP Sixtly We are bid to doe it till he come Christ then is not bodily present Answ Wee are bid by S. Paul to shew the death of our Lord till he come to iudgement which we may very well doe 1. Cor. 11. v. 26. his body being present as certaine noble Matrons preserued of their husbands blood to represent more freshly vnto their children the slaughter of their fathers R. ABBOT It is true that his comming shall bee to iudgement but what shall he need to come if he be here already It was not questioned whereto he should come nor whether we may shew the death of the Lord his body being present if it were present but why the Apostle should say till he come if he be intended to be here already present His body being present saith he as though he meant that Christ were not wholly present whereas they tell vs that whole Christ is in the Sacrament both God and man soule and body flesh blood and bone as hee was borne of the virgin and nailed afterwards to the Crosse And if Christ be wholly present what reason had the Apostle to say till he come He telleth vs a ridiculous and impertinent tale of certaine noble Matrones who preserued of their husbands blood to represent more freshly to their children the slaughter of their fathers But what is this to the matter here in hand If those noble matrones had had their husbands with them and in the presence of their children then let him tell vs whether it had not been a witlesse thing to bid them expect their fathers till they come But hee stealeth away from the point and though he doe but gull his Reader with an idle iest yet he would haue it thought that hee hath giuen a worthy answer As touching the truth of this matter our Sauiour informeth vs when he telleth his disciples a Iohn 12.8 The poore ye shall haue alwaies with you but me ye shall not haue alwaies S. Austin giueth a reason of those word b August in Ioan tract 50. Quoniam conuersatus est secundum corporis praesentiam quadraginta diel us cum discipulis suis eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo a scondit in caeiuâ— non est hic because according to the presence of his body he was conuersant forty daies with his disciples and then they bringing him on the way by seeing but not by following he ascended into heauen and is not here Christ then according to the presence of his body is not here yea c Acts 3.21 the heauen must containe him saith S. Peter vntill the time that all things be restored and therefore d Phil. 3.20 from heauen wee looke for him saith S. Paul euen as in our Creed we professe to beleeue that from thence hee shall come to iudge both the quicke and the dead Now because we beleeue according to the scripture that Christ as touching his body is in heauen and not here and that from heauen we are to looke for him at the last day we are able to giue a iust reason why the Apostle should say vntill he come which M. Bishop out of his learning cannot doe 53. W. BISHOP Seuenthly Christ bid vs to doe it in remembrance of him but signes of remembrance are of things absent Answ We see one thing and remember another By Christs body really present we remember the same to haue been nailed on the Crosse for our redemption as Goliaths sword was kept in the tabernacle in remembrance of the cutting-off of Goliaths head with the same sword and the women before rehearsed kept their husbands blood might much easier haue prescrued their bodies embalmed to keepe the better their deaths in fresh memory R. ABBOT We see one thing saith M. Bishop and remember another But a Aug. serm ad infantes apud Bedam in 1. Cor. 10 Quod videtis panis est calix quod vobis esiam oculi renuntiâ—nt that which you see saith S. Austin is bread as your very eies tell you If then our remembrance be by our sight it is by bread that we remember the body of Christ M. Bishop I hope will not say that we see the body of Christ really present and