Christs owne words to prooue that your round Wafer-cakes vpon your supposed hallâ— wed Altars are not that true bread Christs flesh which Christ heere speakes of 1. OccasioÌ„ The question vvas mooued by some Bellie-gods that tasted of Christs banquet bountie in feeding fiue thousand men vvith fiue loaues and tvvo fishes vvhether Moses or Christ vvere the more excellent and liberall in feeding men 1 FIrst they commend Moses from the greatnesse of hâ— place and person being Gods Lieutenant to conduct Israel out of Egypt 2 Secondly they commend their Manna from the place whence it came which was the heavens as they supposed 3 Thirdly they commend the bread from the vertue of it which was it fed their Fathers in the drie sandie and barren wildernesse and saved them from famine therfore they thoght that no man was greater theÌ„ Moses no bread to be compared with Manna Now Christ by way of opposition and comparison confutes them opposing God to Moses and himselfe to Manna 1 First denieth that Moses was the given of that Manna but that God was the authour Moses onely the Minister 2 Secondlie that it came not from the eternall kiâ—gdome of God which is properlie called heaven but from the visible clouds improperly called heaven 3 Thirdlie Christ denieth Manna to bee the true bread because it onelie preserved life temporall but could not giue it but this bread Christ doeth not onelie giue life corporall but also l fe spiritual in the kingdome of grace life eternall in the kingdome of glorie 4 Fourthlie this bread Manna ceased when they came into Canaan and 〈◊〉 no more bee found but this bread Christ doth feed vs â—eere in this earthlie wildernesse Iosua 5.12 and raignes for ever with his triumphant Church in our everlasting glorious Canaan the kingdome of heaven 5 This bread Manna so all corporall meates when they haue fed the bodie they haue performed their office they perish without yeelding profit to the sâ—â—e but this bread of life Christ is the true bread Ioh. 6.54 which once beeing received into the soule doth not onelie assure and giue vnto it eternall life but also 〈◊〉 the bodie like assurance of resurection salvation so that the soule must first feed on Christ before the body can haue any benefit by Christ contrarie to your doctrine which is that the bodie must first feed on Christ carnally then the soule shal be thereby fed spiritual ie And because they were so addicted in Moses time to Manna in Christs time to his miraculous loaues respecting the feeding of their bodies not the feeding of their soules Th refore Christ deborted them from food corporall to food spirituall Ioh. 6.27 Labor not saith he for the meat that perisheth but for the meat that endureth to euerlasting life which the sonne of man shall giue vnto you c. And thus much touching the occasion why Christ is saide to bee the true bread of life which as farre excelled Manna as the soule the bodie life death eternitie time and heaven earth 3 Point NOw let vs see according to which of Christ natures hâ— is called out living Bread whether according to his manhood or godhead or bâ—th Christ calls this b ead his flesh and Christ his flâ—sh are al one therefore Christ his flesh are all onâ— the same breâ—â— as our bodies are fed with material brâ—â—d so are our soules fed with the flesh of Christ this flesh hee will giâ—e for the life of the world wâ—â—ch flesh is not Christ bodie separated from his sonâ—e as some of you imagine and vntruelie teach not Christs bodie and soule separated from his divinitie but even his quickning flesh which being personally vnited to his eternall sâ—irit was by the same given for the life of the world not corporaâ—lie and really in the Sacrament as you vntruly teach But in the sacrifice of his bodie and bloud once oâ— the crosse as the Scriptures â—ccord for the flesh of Christ profiteth not but as it is made quickning by the spirit Neither do we participate the life of his spirit but as it is communicated vnto vs by his flesh by which we are made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone as hath bâ—n shewed before Which holie misterie is represented vnto vs in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and the trueth thereof assured and sealed in the due administration and receiving of the same So this true bread spoken of in the sixt of Iohn which hath this spirituall quickning and nourishing power iâ— compleate Christ God man with all his soule â—â—ving merits And neither Manna in the wildernesse nor your â—oâ—â—d Wafer-cakes vppon your supposed hallowed Altars Manna it could not be for it ceaâ—â—d manie hundred years before Your imagined and transnatured bread it could not bee because the Sacrament was not then instituted And 〈◊〉 to the third point The manner how this true bread Christ must be eaten THe meat is spirituall 3 Point and therefore the manner of eating must not bee corporall for such as is the meat such most be the mouth but the meat is spirituall therefore the mouth must be spirituall as before you haue heard Fide non dâ—nte In the epâ—stle to tâ— Reader c. which thing being there handled before out of holy Scr p ureâ— Fathers and your Popes Canons I will onelie referre you thither where you may vnlesse you bee maleconteâ—ts tâ— be fully satisfied touching the true manner of eating Christ where you may find proued out of Gods booke that comming to Christ beleeving in Christ abiding in Christ dwelling in Christ and to be clad with Christ and to eate Christ are all one so that out of everie one you might frame this or the like vnaunswerable argument Whosoever dwels in Christ and Christ in them Ioh. 6.5 35. onelie eates Christs flesh and drinkes Christs bloud B t the true bel evers onelie dwell in Christ and Christ in them therefore the true beleevers oneliâ— we Christs flesh and drinke Christs bloud The proposit on is Christs owne words Ioh. 6 56. Ephâ— 3.17 of which it were damnable to doubt The assumption is Pauls Let Christ dvvell in your hearts by faith therefore the conclusion cannot be denied And so to the fourth The fruit and profit that redoundes to the true eaters of this bread of life vvhich is Christ MAnie rich benefits we haue by eating Christ in the manner aforesaid that is 4 Point by apprehending applying and appropriating vnto vs whole Christ with his benefits I will onelie name one or two and referre you for the rest to the sixth of Iohn Ioh. 6 41.54.50.51 He that eateth this bread I will raise him vp at the last day to life concerning hiâ— bodiâ— and hee shall neuer die but liue for euer concerning his soule But an opposition being made betwixt this true bread Christ and this Sacramentall bread
Christs minde and bewray your errours Let me but reason with you out of the first part of the verse from the propertie of this bread heere spoken of by Christ First it is living bread giues eternall life to the receivers yours doth not This came from heaven yours did not Who so eates of this cannot be damned but manie eat of yours and die eternally and therefore the very properties of this bread shew plainely that it cannot be meant of your singing-cakes as hath beene prooved before vnto you Because they haue no life in themselues and therefore can neither giue life nor preserue life vnto others The later part of the verse concerneth Christs flesh which is this true bread And thus out of Christs words I prooue that the flesh of CHRIST spoken of in this place cannot bee the flesh of CHRIST which you would haue given in the Sacrament Christs flesh promised in the sixth of Iohn was onely given on the crosse but the Sacrament was not the crosse Therfore in the Sacrament the flesh of Christ was not given So that these arguments grounded vpon Christs owne words which you concealed confute you your carnall presence in the Sacrament For your sacramental bread neither came form heaven not your imagined flesh of Christ made by the Priest cannot be this flesh here spoken of For it was offered once not often as you teach and that by himselfe not by the Priests vpon the crosse not in your Masse and that for the plenarie remission of the sinnes of all beleevers no for the temporall benefit of some perticuler person quick or dead as the Priest pleaseth The third proofe of the Catholique Priests out of the sixâ—h of Iohn to prooue Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament Catho Priests Vers 55. My flesh is meate truelie and my bloud is drinke trulie Rider IF you should aske your boy in his Grammer rules a question if he aunswered not in the same case or by the same sense of a verbe that the question iâ— asked by you will count him a filte Grammatist But if you aske your Sophister a question in quid and hee aunswere in quale you wil taxe hâ—â— for an improper and impertinent aunswere But most of all if a great Divine be asked a question to prooue the manner of a thing and he neglecting or ommiting that as tâ—o hard or impossible for him prooues the matter that was never demaunded or doubted of what wil the Reader thinke of this matter this man this proofe surelie he must say either hee vnderstandeth not the state of the question or else he is not able to prooue the question and so vseth this shamefull shâ—ft in steed of a sufficient proofe All the Catholiques in this kingdome expected to be satisfied by your aâ—nswere touching the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament whether it be carnall or spirituall and whether he must be eaten by faith spirituallie or the teeth carnally And your aunswere is as improper and impertinent as tither Grammatist or Sophister for you leaue the maner of Christs presence which you should prooue and bring the matter of his presence which was never in question saying My flesh is meat truly c. How this your aunswere doeth relish of learning let the learned iudge When all the Catholiques in the kingdome hang their soules on your saying Are these your contentments you giue them If they aske you how they must eate Christs flesh drinke Christs bloud then you tell them my flesh is meate in deed and my bloud is drinke in deed Doe you aunswere their question or satisfie their conscience or resolue their doubts alasse no. Thus you haue dealt dallied and deceived a long time Christs people with these your improper impertinent vnprofitable nay vntrue aunsweres and yet you will be called Fathers Doctours and what not But I pray you tell me why you added not the next words of Christ you thought they were against you But if you had dealt as men having Gods feare before your eies you would not haue staied there for the next verse plainely discovers your bad dealing with the simple people for that aunswereth their question that would satisfie all good Catholiques in this point For if you aske there the holy Ghost this question how must Gods children eate Christes flesh and drinke Christs bloud he will aunswere you that whosoever dwels in Christ and Christ in him eates Christs flesh and drinkes Christs bloud but the faithfull onely dwell in Christ and Christ in them therefore the faithfull onely eat Christs flesh drinke Christs bloud whether it be in hearing the word in baptisme or in the Lords Supper as you haue heard before Jf you had added this verse it had overthrown your carnall presence in the Sacrament your orall eating of Christ with your mouth teeth c But as you wrong the Catholiques with an impertinent answere and as you abuse them by keeping backe the next words of Christ which expounds his owne meaning So heere you abuse your holie Father the Pope and your deare mother the Church of Rome 〈◊〉 expounding this text contrarie to the Romane sence for you take this flesh of Christ which is our tree meat to be the flesh which was borne of the virgâ—â— and suffered on the crosse but the Popes church of Rome say contrarie for these be the wordes of the Canon Dist. 2. de consec pag 4â—4 canon dupliciter Col. 4. Read the glosse and you may see your errour at in a glasse Dupliciter intelligitur caro sanguis Christi vel spiritualis illa atque diuina de qua ipse ait Caro mea vere est cibus sanguis meus vere est potuâ—â— nisi meam caâ—nem c. Vel caro mea ea quae crucifiâ—a est c. The flesh and bloud of Christ saith your own Church of Rome must be considered two manner of waies either for the spirituall and divine flesh spoken of by Christ my flesh is meat in deed c. and except you drinke his bloud c. or else for that his flesh which was crucified and that his bloud shed by the sharp launce of a cruell souldiour so that heere you forsake your Romane Catholique faith and become Apostates from the Church of Rome Thus you abuse the Catholiques in making them beleeue you teach as the Pope teacheth and you doe not therefore either the Pope or you must erre grosly teaching contraries But that all men may see that not onely this Pope Jnnocenti â—â—â—tertiuâ— lib 4. cap 14. de â—aâ—â—amento Altars page 179. but also other Popes haue held the contrarie opinion to your new broched heresie I will allâ—â—dge him that you dare not contradict that is Innocentiuâ— tâ—rtius that first begat your abortiue Transubstanâ—â—tion De spirituali commestione Doâ—â—nus aâ—â— Nâ—â—i mâ—nducatveritis c. The Lord Christ when hee sâ—â—ke of the spirituall â—aring said Except yee eat the
Readers good I wil repeat they be these If the scripture seem to coÌ„mand any vile or ill fact the speech is figuratiue as Except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you Facinus vel flagitium videtur tubere â—â—ther can use S. â—â—â—â—d or confess your erroâ— the â—â—â—st â—â—possâ—le the second were commendable Christ seemeth to commaund a wicked act that is carnallie and grosly to eate Christs flesh c. it is therefore a figuratiue speech So that Augustine thus reasons against you To eate Christs flesh and drinke Christs bloud corporallie is a hainous thing therefore Christs wordes be figuratiue so that if to eate Christes flesh with our mouths and teare his flesh with our teeth as also actually drinking of his bloud bee hainous and wicked why doe you so eagerly presse the litterall sence of theâ—e your two propositions against trueth against faith and the auncient Father â—ead it it coâ—taines but 6. or 7 lineâ— The marginall note there coâ—demes your litterall sence Agustine in that short 19. chap. of the same booke immediatly going before wisheth alwaies the interpretation of these and all other figuratiue speeches to be brought ad regnum charitatie to the kingdome of charitie to haue their true exposition Now if you expounde this litterallie and properlie you forsake Agustines rule charities kingdome and the Apostolicall and Catholike exposition It is but small charitie to devoure the food of a friend but to eate and devoure corporallie and gutâ—urallie the precious bodie and bloud of our Christ and Saviour Augustine would haue you catholicks but you wil bee Capernatis and Canibals it is no charitie Nay saith Augustine it is plaine impietie and a wicked and a most damnable fact And so to prooue the action lawfull the kingdome of charitie hath ever taken these and the like propositions to bee figuratiue and the sence to be spirituall Therefore if you will bee loyall subiects of charities kingdome shewe your subiection to her charitable and Catholicke exposition otherwise you will stand indited of spirituall and vncharitable rebellion Ambr. lib. 4 de Sacramentis cap. 5. Ambrose is of the same opinion with vs against you saying Fac nobit inquit oblationem ascriptam nationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura corporis sangaâ—â—is Domine nostri Iesu Christi make vnto vs saith the Priest this oblation that it may bee allowable reasonable and acceptable which is a figure of the bodie bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ And Ambrose presentlie after saith the new Testament is confirmed by bloud in a figure of which bloud wee receiue the misticall bloud By these words the Reader may see that Ambrose and the Church in his daies tooke it not for the naturall bodie of Christ but for a figure of his bodie and therefore cease to bragge heereafter to the simple of Ambrose and Augustine set they are not of your opinion (a) â—â—noâ— Papae lib. tartius cap 12. Fol 148 there shal you see the foolish and phantasticall reasons the Pope giues for those said crosses Aug. in enarratione Psal â— pag. 7. col 1. Printed at Paris anno 1586 And in the Canon of the Masse you haue these â—â—â—ds of Ambrose in that part which begins Quam oblationem but you deale deceitfully with Gods people for you leaue out these words quod est figura corporis and there dash in fine red crosses and still teach the people it is Catholicke doctrine and the old religion but these iuglings with the Fathers must be left or else good men that follow those Fathers will doubt that Gods spirit hath left you And Augustine elsewhere saith Christ commended â—â—d delivered to his disciples the figure of his body â—â—d bloud And Origin saith not the matter of bread but the words recited over it doth profit the worthy receiver this I speake saith he of the typicall figuratiue bodie which is in deede the Sacramentall bread Vpon the 15. of mathew Augustine confuting Adimautus the Hereticke that hold that the bloud in man was the onelie soule of man aunswered it was so figuratiuely August tom 6 contra Adâ—â— cap. 12. not otherwise and to prooue it he vseth this proposition of Christ Hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie saying Possum etiam interpretari illud praeceptum in signo posiâ—â—â— esse non enim dubitauit Dominus dicere hoc est corpuâ— meum cum singnum daret corporis sui I maye 〈◊〉 Augustine expound the precept of Christ figuratiuelie â—or the Lord doubted not to say this is my â—oâ—â—e when he gaâ—e the figure of his bodie Augustine saith Hoâ—â—â—st corpus meum is a phrase figuratiue you say no but it is litterall Now let the Catholicks take this Friendlie Caueat to heâ—â—â— for they haue no reason to follow you that forsake the Fathers and heâ—re may you see that our expositiâ—n is auncient Catholicke and Apostolicall yours new private and 〈◊〉 all Tertaâ—â— lib 4. contraâ— Mâ—recon pag. â—23 line 26. Tertullâ—â— an ancient Father saith Acceptum panem dâ—stributum discipâ—lis c. The bread which was taken and given to his disciples Christ made his bodie by saying this is my bodie that is the figure of my bodie what could be more spoken of them for vs against you And Hierome calls it a representation of the truth of Christs bodie bloud Hierome super 26. math Ambrose on Cor. 11. not the body and bloud And Ambrose seconds his former sayings in these words In edâ—â—do c. in eating drinking the bread wine we doe signifie the flesh bloud which was offered for vs so that they doe but signifie the flesh and bloud they are not the flesh and bloud And Chrisostome saith Chrisâ— in hâ—â—a vpâ—n Hebr. sâ—per Cor. 11. Offermus quidâ—â— sed ad recerdaâ—â—â—nem and afterwards Hoc autem sacrificium exemplâ—â— est ellius c. We offer in deed but in rememberance of his death this sacrifice is a token or figure of that sacrifice the thing that we do is done in ten emberance of the thing that was done by Christ before c. Here is a manifest â—â—ace against you which you shall never aunswere Chris in hâ—n 11 â—â—rk â—â—â—ent Alâ—â— on paâ—â—go lib. 1. cap. 6 pag 18. line vlt. pag 19. lâ—ne 1. And elsewhere be saith in the soâ—e sanctified vessels there is not the bodie of Christ in deed bâ—â— a masterie of the bodie is contained And Clemens Alexandrinus who lived 1300. yeares agoe saith Comedite cornes meas bibite sanguinem â—eum c. Eâ—t ye my flesh and drinke my bloud meaning hereby vnder an allegorie or figure the meat drinke that is of faith and promise And the same reverend Father in his second booke and second chapter of his Pedagogs and 51. pag and line 21 22 23. hath these words Ipse quoque vine vsus
Priestes that we might he nourished by that by vvhich vve haue been redâ—emed A Blinde man may see that you never read this in Cyprian your selfe Cyprian de Duplici Marts floruit 249. Rider or else that you vnderstand them not For Cyprian saith not God hath left in his flesh but Reliquit nobis edendam carnem suam â—ubquis bibendum sanguinem c. he hath left vs his flesh meate and his bloud to drinke I pray you pardon me to aske you which is the nominatiue case to the tube is Deus no but if you had begunne seven lines sooner as you ought in deed to haue done at Nemo maâ—em charitatem habet c. you should haue found the right nominatiue case that there might haue been not onelie a grammatticall concord but also a Theologicall harmonie and then the sence had bene plaine For it was hee that died for his enemies that left vs his flesh c. And that was Christ not God the father But you begunne after your accustomed manner in the middest of a sentence mistaking the nominatiue case to the verbe and so lay downe heresie for divinities for God the father hath neither flesh nor blould But if I should helpe you with a charitable construction by attributing that to Christes Deitie which is proper to his humanitie yet you still haue wrested the father and abused the Reader But thus Cyprian is to be readâ— Christ truth left vs his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke so we confesse it we beleeue is and we teach it but to be eaten and drunke spirituallie by saith not corporallie nor â—â—turallie as you imagine For this is the inward invisible Grace of the Sacramente that you propound Now how this flesh and bloud of Christ is to be eâ—ten or how Christs flesh and bloud are naturalliâ— substantiallie reallie vnder the formes of bread anâ— wine which is our question you cannot prooue bâ— Cyprian and so still you propound the matter to vâ— when you should prooue the maner to vs and here 〈◊〉 your error in the third kinde if not in moe beforâ— specified Cyprian de Cana Domini nu 9. And heere you bring a testimonie out of Cyprian where hee speaketh not properlie of the sacrament but of the threefold Martyrdome which hee gathereâ— out of the death of Christ and therefore you shew 〈◊〉 great weaknesse in running to that Tractate whereaâ— you might haue spedde better if you had list neereâ— home For if you had reade or woulde reade thaâ— Father vpon his Treatise of the Lords Supper hee would haue either changed your minde or hardned your heart but howsoever discoverd your errors And that the eating of Christs flesh and drinking of Christs bloud is not a grosse corporall swallowing of his blessed flesh and precious bloud What it is to eate Christes flesh and drinke Christs bloud as you deeme but that Esus carnis Christs est quaedam aeuiditas quoddam desyderium manendi in ipso c. The eating of Christs flesh is a certaine egernesse and a certaine desire to abide in Christ c. And three lines before this he saith Our abiding in him is our cating of him and the drinke is a certaine incorporation into him And in the latter end of the Treatise you shall finde that Father touch the point in question betwix vs Hovv Christ must bee eaten haec quotiens agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fidâ— synâ—ora panem sanctum frangimus partimus c. As often as we receiue these holie mysteries we whet not our teeth to bite or chew but breake and divide this holie bread by a sincere faith c. And foure lines before that saith he Edulium carnis Christs de facatis animis c. The food of Christs flesh must be eaten with purified minds saith not with washed mouthes Impij nec se iudicant nec sacramenta diiudicant ibid. n. 13. And â—ttle before that hee saith the wicked lambunt peâ—â— c. licke the rocke but neither sucke honie nor â—â—e c. that is to say they eate the Sacrament but 〈◊〉 the inward grace of the Sacrament Thus I hope â—e indifferent Reader is satisfied that your proofe is 〈◊〉 pertinent to the matter in question and therefore â—â—eweth the weaknesse of your cause Transubstansiation is but in deede a fable and the wilfulâ—esse of your mindes that will seeke so stiflie to mainâ—â—ine fables with wresting fathers for Cyprians place â—â—at you bring handleth the invisible grace of the Saâ—rament And in this place which I bring he toucheth 〈◊〉 manner how that grace is to be received that is â—ith faith as we say not â—eeth as you teach c. And 〈◊〉 Cyprian agrees with himselfe and we with Cyprian â—â—yne against your carnall opinion And thus having â—â—nswered Cyprian with Cyprian and shewed you your â—â—â—e sight and mistaking of Cyprian I will come to â—â—e examination of your next proofe There is no doubt left of the veritie of the flesh and bloud of Christ for novv by the assurance of our Lord Caththoâ— Priests and certaintie of our faith Hyllarius de Trinitate lib 4. 8. floruit 370. it is his true flesh and his true bloud GEntlemen now we must needs commend you for you giue testimonie with the truth and vs against the late church of Rome your selues â—ow you come neere the quicke in deed Rider and therefore â—peake both the trueth and trulie This is the manner â—w Christ must be eaten by faith but you should 〈◊〉 added the next line following Et haec accepta atâ—â— exhausta id efficiunt c. and these that is sanctiâ—â—â—d bread and veine being thus by faith taken thus â—â—ple bring this to passe that Christ is in vs and we â— Christ so now you say with Hyllarie that Christ dwelleth in all them that receiue him by faith Your owne proofe is one our side Anâ— so by this your owne warrant you witnesse to the world that there is no place for the corporall receiving of Christ by the wicked as Rome teacheth it because Christ dwelleth not in them nor they in him And so because this your proofe prooues our part of the matter in question against your selues that Christ iâ— to bee eaten or received by our faith not by our mouth or teeth I will addresse my selfe to the examination of your next proofe Catholicks Priestes Nothing remaineth in the vvorld of the bodie and bloud of Christ Athan lib. de Passione Imaginis Christs cap. 7. florniâ— 375. but that vvhich daylie is made by the Priest on the Altar GEntlemen I perceiue you are soone wearie of well doing in your last proofe you confessed a trueth with vs even against your selues But now you leaue fathers and bring fables and so produce one fable to prooue another fable Rider that is you produce one fable of the crucifying of the image of Christ
est nam ipse quoque homo vinum benedixit cum dixit accipite bibite hoc est sanguis meus sanguis viâ—â—s c. For our Lord Christ red wine blessed wine when he said take drinke that my bloud the bloud of the vine the word which is â—â—ed for manie for the remission of sinnes doth signifie allegorie allie the holy river of gladnesse Out of which I note First it is sarguis vitis the bloud of the grope properlie and that is wine It is called Christs bloud â—acromontallie and by way of signification Secondlie it appeares to be figuraâ—ne in this word shed for the bloud of the grape which is â—â—â—e was not shed for manie but the bloud of Ch i st But you will save it is true before conseceâ—tion but after consecration it is Christs verie naturall bloud No saith Clement immediatlie following Qued autem vâ—num esset quod benedictum est c. And that it was wine which was blessed hee sheweth againe when he saith to his disciples I will not drinke of the fruit of the vine c. Read Clem nt follow Clem. Out of which premisâ—es I note three things First that that which you call consecration this learned Father calls it benediction Second he that after consecration the nature of wine remaineth still and it is not changed as you imagine Thirdly that the phrase is figuratiue and not proper Peda â—u Inc. 22. page 476 And veâ—â—rable Beda one countrie man tells you that in England in his time the text was taken figuratiuely The solemnities of the old Passover saith he being ended Christ commeth to the newe which the Church is desâ—ous to continue in remembrance of her redemption that in stead of the flesh and bloud of a LAMBE hee substituting the Sacrament of his flesh and bloud in the figure of bread and wine might shew himselfe to bee the same to whom the Lord sware and will not repent c. Beds calleth it not the naturall bodie of Christ that worketh our redemption but a rememberance of our redemption a figure of it Thus the indifferent Reader may see that Augustine Ambrose Origin Tertullian Hiorome Clemens Alexandrinus Beda and manie others which I omit for brevities sake all of them being auncient approoved wâ—iters and all of them of your owne Prints doe hold with vs against you that your propositions be not proper but Sacramentall improper significatiue representatiue allegoricall figuratiue which greatlie wounds the bodie of your cause and will weaken your credits with the Catholickes But you will say these testimonies of these Fathers though of your owne Prints yet they prooue nothing against you vnlesse the Church of Rome should receiue and allow that exposition of the fathers to be Catholicke If you should so replie surely it were a weake replication and subiect to manie exceptions and you would wring I cannot say wrong the church of Rome that she should hold a doctrine against all the old Doctors But if you will thus replie to bleate the eies of the simple yet will I frustrate your expectation for now I will shew you that the auncient Popes and the auncient Church of Rome held at these Fathers did that the proposition Hoc est corpus meum to be significatiue and improper and therefore figuratiue against your opinion You shall heare the Church of Rome deliver her owne minde with her owne mouth Dist 2. do consecratione canon which you cannot denie her wordes be these Ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Châ—â—â—ti pâ—ssio more crucifixio dicitur non rei veritate sed significante misterio That offering of the f esh which is done by the hand of the Priest Hecost pag. 434. You cannot denie but this Pope was a Protestant And if this canon be Catholicke then it your carnall presence antichristian is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ but not in exactnesse of truth but in misterie of that which was s gnified and the glosse there maketh most plaine against you Dicitur corpus Christi sed improprie vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat corpus Christi It is called the bodie of Christ but improperly that is figuratiuely that this be the â—enceâ—t is called the bodie of Christ that is it signifieth the bodie of Christ J will alleadge in this case other Popes and the saith of the Church of Rome in another age whereby the Reader may plainelie see that the auncient Pâ—pes and auncient Rome had the true succession in doctrine which we stand now on not that false succession of the place and a rotten worme-eaten chaire that you brag of the glosse speaketh thus against your litterall sence of Hec est corpus meum De consecratione dist â— Panis est in altare Glossa ibid page 43â— Not possible by their owne confession that bread should bee the bodie of Christ. Hoc taâ—â—â— est impossible quod panis sit corpus Christi yet this is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ Now gentle Reader see the wrong the late Popes and Priests offer to the Catholicks of this kingdome they would haue them imbrace that fot faith which the old Church of Rome held for heresie that for poss b litie which she saith is impossible Why would you haue vs to beleeue that which you your selues say is impossible This all the Iesuits and Priests in Christendome cannot aunswere If you say these two Popes and the Church of Rome then taught the truth why doe you now dissent from the olde Romane faith If you saye the Popes and Church of Rome then cited you will be counted an hereticke and therefore in Gods feare confesse the trueth with vs and the olde Church of Rome and deceiue the Catholickes of this kingdome no more with this litterall sence of Hoc est corpus meum which you borrow from the late Popes and late Church of Rome and is a new error dissenting from the old Catholicke faith dist 2. can Corpus Christi pag. 4. 8. col 4. You cannot dâ—nie this Pope to be a protestanâ— in 〈◊〉 point And I will adde one other Popes Canon Corpus Christi quod fuexitur de Altari figura est dum panis â—inum videntur extra veritas autem dum corpus saâ—guâ—s Christi in veritate interins creditur The bodie of Christ which is taken from the Altar is a figure so long as the bread and wine are seene vnreceived but the truâ—â—â— of the figure is seene when the bodie and bloud are received trulâ—â— inwardly and by faith into the heart Now the glosse in that place expondeth the teâ—t and saith Corpus Christs est sacrificium corporis Christi alias falsum est quod dicit the bodie of Christ in the text signifieth the sacrifice of the bodie of Christ otherwise it is false Out of which I note that the Church of Rome calls the outward Elements
Mat. 26.28 But when they speake of Christs naturall bloud they speake For the remissione of sinnâ— So when Christ speaketh actiuelie as he gaue hee brake it is alwaies spoken of the sacrament But when be speaketh passiulie vvhich is given vvhich is broken vvhich it shed and for you not to you then he spâ—akes of his naturall bodie given and broken on the crosse And this rule is a plaine and sure rule to direct vâ—in and to the true vnderstanding of hoc est corpus meum This is my bodie In which plaine pathes of the holie Scriptures if you would walke Bread and vvine remain afer consecration by Câ—riâ—t his testimony therefore traÌ„substanstâ—â—tion is a fâ—rged and false fable invented by nevv Rome to support your new heresies of Christs carnall presence you might be preserved from wandring Thus you see how distinctlie Christ disioynes them sundring them with their severall properties the s gne from the thing signified not confounding them as you vntrulie teach yea and after that Christ vttered hâ—c est corpus meum which you call your coâ—â—ecration Now let vs compare the phrase and words that the holie Ghost vseth in both the new Testament the old and then you will say they are so like that they are rather borrowed of the old testament then instituted in the new and so of necessitie seeing they are beâ—â— Sacraments and of like words and ordained by one Author and to one end they wâ—st needs haue one sence so that the one will best expound the other and the one being Sacramentall and relatiue the other cannot be Grammaticall and proper As it is said in the old (a) Gen. 17 10. Testament of the sacrameÌ„t of circumsition hic est pactum meum this is my covenant So it is said in the new (b) math 26.26 testameÌ„t by the same spirit hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie but as by those words like to these in sâ—llables sound and sence there was no transubstansiation of the peece of flesh of the foreskin that was cut off into Gods covenant made with his Church so there is no naturall nor miraculous chaunge made of anie part of the bread or wine into Christs bodie and bloud Exod. 12 And as it was said of the Paschall Lambe hâ—c erit vobis in memoriam this shall be to you a rememberance so it is said of the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 11.24 Exod. 24.8 Doe this in rememberance of me And as it was said in the olde Testament hic est sanguis faederis This is the bloud of the covenant yet was not the couenant but a signe of the covenant So is it said by Christ himselfe Luc. 22.20 This cup is the new Testament in my bloud yet the cup was neither the Testament nor the bloud but a signe representation 〈◊〉 rememberance of Christs bloud And the new Testament is an obligation or bond therein God for his part binds himselfe with most see covenaunts and seales it with word oath and sacraments that hee will receiue into his protection and favour the beleever and penitent And the beleever and repentant of their parts binde themselues 〈◊〉 like indented covenants to performe vnto his saued Maiestie Rom. 1.5 a liuelie and steadfaste faith with holy obedience Now the cup or the wine in the cup is a representation or commemoration vnto vs of this coveâ—â—nt of grace made in the newe Testament as the Paschall Lambe and the bloud of beasts were signes of Gods covenant in the old Testament This may sâ—â—fice for the plaine and true vnderstanding of these words this is my bodie and this is my bloud beeing â—â— pounded according to the holie scriptures Now to your first proofe out of saint Paul 1. Cor. 11. This is my bodie vvhich shall bee delivered for you whoso doth eate vnworthelie Catho Priests c. shall be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of Christ A Most learned writer in the like case Rider Athenaus Dâ—pnâ—sophist lib. 12. brings in an Athenian historie of Thrasilaus a frâ—ntick man amongst the Greekes who whensoever â—e saw anie ships arriue in the harbor thought them all his own tooke an Inventorie of their wares bad theÌ„ welcome home verie ioyfully as if they had bin his own servants ships After the same maner pardon the coÌ„parison you deal in the proofe of this question for wheresoever you finde in scriptures or fathers hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie or this is my bloud or my flesh is meat trulie c. or except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud c. or the bread vvhich I will giue is my flesh or the like tropical or sacramentall phrase which ever carrieth with it a spirituall sence presentlie you clap hands lift vp Stentorian voices and crie to the Catholickes against vs poore heretickes that all these texts of Scriptures and testimonies of Fathers are on your side and prooue your carnall presence and condeme our opinion as hereticall and damnable and then you register in your note-books as in an Inventorie all these proofes for your owne proper evidence when as God knowes you are neither Owners Marchants nor faithfull Factors And it shall be directlie prooved that these texts of Scriptures and testimonies of Fathers belong no more to the proofe of your carnall presence then the Merchants ships and goods of Athens belonged to franticke Thrasylaus But now to prooue that I speak that the Catholickes may see yea and let maister Henry Eytsimon trulie censure wee speake nothing without proofe I will beginne to examine your slips and slâ—ights in this place of the 1. Cor. 11. First you bring a peece of a verse so much as you thinke by the sound of your eare will fit your purpose then you cut off the beginning and ending of the same verse which would expound the Apostles meaning and overthrow your opinion Then you ioyne a peece of the 17 verse with the 24. verse and overskip the 25 and 26 verses whi h all that you left out and cut off doth first deliver Christs institution secondly expounds his owne meaning in everie particuler point that is in controversie betwixt vs and thirdlie overthrowes your opinions Now what mooved you thus to mangle cut off disioynt and dismember this place of Paul as you did with the text before let the Reader after my examination of your errors iudge But first I must deliver you this generall rule observed of all sound Divines that all the Evangelists and Apostles doctrine being pend by one spirit doe agree in the matter of the Sacrament one expounding another as partlie you heard a little before So that the three Evangelists must not be expounded to contradict Paul nor Paul expounded to contradict them but all duke and trulie in the spirit of humilitie being examined according to the Canon and rule of the word of God you shall finde neither darknesse in
in them by his spirit as hath been plainelâ— handled before And now I will be bolde to vrge your owne Pope â— decrees against you Part 3. distinct 2. cap. 65. Qui discordus a Christo c whosoever dissenteth from Christ doeth neither eate his flesh nor drinke his bloud but the wicked distent from Christ therfore they neither eat Christs flesh noâ— drâ—â— his bloud And cap. 69. following quie unque panem c. Whosoever eateth this bread the Lord shall live for ever but the wicked liue nor for ever therefore the wicked eate not this bread the Lord. Now Gentlemen I would faine see how you can disprooue these Fathers and old Popes and satisfie the Catholicks in this case but I shall haue a fâ—t place to speak of the vnreasonablenesse of this opinion in the title of the Masse where I must shewe to the Catholickes the Popes Priests and Iesuits shamefull opinions that you thinke it no inconvenience not onelie for the wicked but also for all such bruit beasts as cats or dogs rats or mice hogs or swine to eate the blessed bodie and drinke the precious bloud of Iesus Christ This you blush not to print but I protest my hand shakes and my heart quakes to write it because it is so monstâ—ous and beast â—e a blasphemie to that blessed bodie that precious bloud that suffered and was shed for my salvation Now for this second part of your Rhemish note vppon this place Chrysost Tom. 3. Hom. 60. 61. de lumâ—nâ—â—buâ— iudigne divina sancto mysteria praecipuâ— de caena Dominâ— de baptismate which is Hovv can a man bee guiltie of Christs bodie if he touch not Christs bodie I had rather Chrisostome vpon this text in one of his workes should aunswe e you then I his words be these Nam si Regâ—am contamiâ—antes purpuram similiter puniuntur sicut c. For if he that hath disteined violated or polluted the â—â—gs robes whether it bee of purple or some other â—â—ter shall be as severelie in iustice punished as if he had rent theÌ„ Even so it shall be with such as receiue â—he Lords bodie unpura mente with an vnprepared and â—â—lean mind they shall be punished with equall torments with such as nailed him to the crosse Out of which I obserue first that Chrysostome condemneth your carnall presence and corporall eating in â—â—ing you they must be eaten with the mind not with the mouth but of this we haue sufficientlie spoken of before Secondlie by comparison he sheweth you how you may bee guiltie of treason against the kings person though he neither touch nor hurt his person in offering disgrace but to his garments his person being abseâ—t And as he that contuineliously receiveth the princes seale though of waxe is guiltie of the Maiestie of the Prince not which he receiueth but which hee despiseth so he that eateth this bread and drinketh this cap of the Lord without due preparation as aforesaid considering they are seales of Christs promised benefits purchased in his bitter and blessed passion committeth high treason against Christ though in deed in substance they receiue but bread and wine And as a man may be guiltie of treason in renting defacing or â—â—pping the kings picture seale or coine though the king be not locallie in place so the wicked in the Sacraments which are Christs seales which being abused by them they are guiltie of Gods iudgements though Christ be not inclosed locallie in the bread wine And what Chrysostome speaketh heare of the Lords Supper the same hee doth of Baptisme and saith a man may be as well guiltie of the Lords bodie and bloud in contemning Baptisme which is but a seale of 〈◊〉 washing in the bloud of Christ though hee never washed but in water and alleadgeth Paul Heb. 10 1â— saying Of how much sorer punishment suppose yeâ— shal he be worthy which treadeth vnder foot the lonne of God counteth the bloud of the testameÌ„t as an vnholie thing c. These Fathers haue aunswered you and I hope will satisfie fullie the indifferent Reader Now three sorts of men are guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. The first are plaine Atheists that are without God or godlinesse in this present world and such eate this bread vnworthelie and therefore are guiltie of Christes bodie and bloud Three sorts of men guilty of the Lo â—die 2 The second sort haue a historicall faith and a generall knowledge and beleeue that whatsoever is taught in Gods booke is true but they lacke apprehension and application to make a particular and holy vse of the same and therefore if such come and eate of this bread they are guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. 3 The third sort haue a liuelie apprehending applying faith yet in their life they slippe and fall yea sometimes verie grievouslie yet they awake weep with Peter and repent for the same All these are said to eate vnworthelie but the first two sorts vnto their condemnation The third sort for their faults frailties negligences and vndue preparation are in this life of the Lord corrected least with the world they should be damned The two first sorts eateth onelie the outwardelements the last sort eateth the bodie of Christ and drinketh the bloud of Christ And now to your second proofe out of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 10.16 The challice of benediction vvhich vvâ—â— blesse Catho Priestes is it not the communication of the bodie of Christ And the bread vvhich wee besse is it not the participation of his flesh GEntlemen yee wrong the Apostles text Rider first in your abuse of words Verse 21. secondlie in mistaking the sence Your words be these The challice of benediction Pauls words in Greeke that must be iudge betwixâ— vs and which wee doe follow if we will follow Christ are these The cup of thansgiving And the holie Ghost so expounds his owne meaning after calling it peculum Domini the cup of the Lord. But you are much to be blamed of all good men because you had rather follow some late corrupt translation vse some superstitious Inkhome-termes latelie devised and so forsake the olde Apostolical phrase which the holie Ghost vseth in that holie tongue and in which it is still recorded for our instructionâ— either confesse your ignorance in the Greeke or your malice against the trueth that the Catholickes bee no longer seduced by you that long trusted in you and to your doctrine Againe you say The bread vvhich vve blesse we say to Paul said and the holie Ghost pend The bread which vve breake Alasse alasse what sinne doe you commit in thus seducing Christs flocke and the Queens subiects who hitherto haue builded their saith vâ—pon your baâ—e words Is this plaine dealing with Gods heritage are you Catholicke Priestes I pray you certifie the Catholickes what tongue or translation hath it thus as you pen it The bread which vvee blesse
pleaseth the Priest And therefore as she said Iudaicas fabelas repellamus let vs cast away Jewish fables So in Gods name for the loue of Gods trueth and of the peoples salvation cast yee from you all Munkish fables and forged legends that haue misled the people into this blinde superstition and ioyne with vs to teach Christs precious flocke the old Apostolicall and Catholicke religion commaunded in Gods word practised in the primitiue Church that you with vs and we with you and all in the Lord may now in this plentifull vintage so labour in the Lords vinyard his Church according to our talents received that every one of vs may deliver his talent with advantage of manie soules and then we shall be partakers of that sweet saying Well done then good and faithfull servant enter into thy maisters ioy Which God graunt to vs both And so to the next as followeth Catholicke Priests The mediator betvvixt God and man Iesus Christ vvith faithfull heart and mouth vve receiue August contra Aduersar legis prophetarum cap. 9. floruit 430. giving vs his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke Although it seeme more horrible to eate the flesh of man then to kill and to drinke the bloud of man then to shee l it AVgustine writing against that pestilent adversarie of the Law and Prophets who obiected that because Abraham by adulterie with Agar brake the Law therefore either the Law was not good Rider or else the vniversall promise made to God by Abraham was of none effect Paris print page 264. confuting him by scriptures and reasons telleth him that the promise was made in Isaack not in Ismaeli and disprooveth him for disliking such figures similitudes and comparisons as it hath pleased the holie Ghost to vse for the plaine expressing of the neere vnion and coniunction that is betwixt Christ and his Church And saith what wilâ— this pestilent adversarie say when hee heareth Pauâ— speake they shall be two in one flesh he will scorne and deride it Ephe. 5. But it is a great misterie spoken of Christ and his Church For saith Augustine we vnderstand by the two sonnes of Abraham and the two mothers two Testaments though in respect of times and ceremonies divers but in respect of the substance all one and the same And also by the neere vnion and coniunction betwixt man and wife we vnderstand our naturall vnion with Christ and that without anie obscenitie or absurditie mangre the beards of the adversarie Then followes your proofe even in the middest of a sentence verie vntowardlie I will not say negligentlie And yet you omit one word Sicut which though it be small in shew yet it is in this place of great consequence For as you alleadge Augustine it is nothing material to confute the adversarie of Gods grace Thus Augustine speaketh and so you should haue said Sicut mediatorem Dei hominum as the mediator betwixt God and man c. And thus after your wonted manner you leaue out the point materiall begin in the middle of a sentence leaving out beginning and ending neither respecting what went before whereof wherefore he spake the thing nor what followeth after to prooue disprooue the thing so spoken of And this your neglecting the coherence makes you faile in the sence and inâ—erence For this word Sicut which you leaue out sheweth plainlie that it is a similitude and I hope you know that similitue be no Sillogismes And as there was no oâ—â—â—eritie or absurditie in the similitude of mâ—â—â—â—â—â— they tâ—â—â—â— shall be one flesh so in liâ—â— case heâ—â— iâ— no absurditie or inhumaine Caniballisme in this similitude of the Sacrament vsed to expresse our vnion with Christ for though it seem more horrible to eate the flesh of man then to kill man and to drinke his bloud then to shed it yet we without horror or absurditie eat the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Mediator betwixt God man Iesus Christ And if the adversarie in Augustines time or you Romanists now would know how this may bee so done without slaughter of Christ sinne to our soules or offence to the world Augustine tells you in that place fideli cordi ore with a faithfull heart and mouth So that now you see Agustines scope and your drift cleane contrarie the one to the other for Augustine brings it as a similitude to expresse our spirituall vnion with Christ by faith you wrest it as spoken of the corporall and gutturall eating and drinking of Christs bodie and bloud in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine with our mouths and stomackes Manie places you haue vnfitlie in deed vntrulie alleadged yet shewed in none of them lesse learning and true meaning then in this For this is your great fault that wheresoever you see or heare in Scripture Father Councell or historie Corpus sanguinem Domini or such like words or phrases presentlie you inferre and so perswade the Catholicks that there is Christs carnal presence in the Sacrament never examining the circumstance of the place or the end wherefore they bee alleadged And thus you erre not knowing or wilfullie contemning the state of the question the sence of the holie writ and iudgement of the auncient Fathers I am sure you never read this place of Augustine your selfe but snatcht it out of some late ignorant and foolish ydle Munkish or Franciscan Euchiridien And my reason why I thinke so of you is drawen out of Augustine himselfe For a few lines before this your proofe he calleth the Sacraments Sacra signa holie signes not the things themselues as you doe and so distinguisheth that which you confound And within three lines after your proofe if you would haue read him you should haue heard him record to your great discredit in this case that this your proofe is as other former examples are figurare dictum secundum sacrae fides regulam that it is spoken figuratiuelie according to the rule of sound faith and religion August in his place as in the places formerly alledged is against you still Now let the Reader iudge betwixt you and mee whether of vs is in the right Augustine saith the Sacraments be sacra signa holie signes and so say wee But you Iesuiets and Priests say no they be the things themselues Augustine saith it is spoken figuratiuelie and so say we you say no but properlie Augustine saith that this opinion is squâ—red out for patterne to Christs Church by the straight rule of sound faith and so say we and as you alleadge your prrofe you say no make a flat opposition betwixt Augustines saith and your faith And yet you will brag of Fathers and that they all speake on your side and you all follow their sayings when they neither speake for you nor you imitate them And so though we follow scripture fathers primitiue Church yet you call vs hereticks And you that
altereth the Catholickes question and is farre from our first meaning For we hold with Christs trueth Ioh. 20.31 that vnlesse the written word of God first warrant it we are not bound in conscience to beleeue it though all the Doctors and Prelates in the world should sweare it And this was demaunded of you not as the demaunders doubted that the canonicall Scriptures were insufficient to prooue any article of faith but onelie that all men might see and so be resolved whether the Protestants or the now Romane Catholicques ioyne neerest to Christs trueth and the faith of the first primitiue Fathers For that faith which can bee prooved to bee taught in Christs time and so receiued and continued in the primitiue Church for the first fiue hundred yeares after Christs ascention must needs be the true auncient Apostolicall and Catholicque faith And that other faith that cannot be so proved is but base bastardly and counterfeit and I trust in Christ that the Reader easily shall perceiue before the ende of this small Treatise that this your opinion touching Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament and so in the rest of the other Positions was never taught by Christ nor once dreamed on by the auncient Fathers but invented and deviled a thousand yeares after Christ by the late Church of Rome grounding their proofes onelie of an emptie sound of syllables without Apostolicall or Catholicque sence enforcing both Scriptures and Fathers to speake what they and you pleased not what the holie Ghost and the Fathers purposed But first heere you wrong your selfe much your cause more but the simple people most of all in altering the state of the question for our controversie is of the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament whether he be there corporallie or spirituallie The Catholicque Priests subtilly alter the state of the question And you no doubt in your conscience knowing it vnpossible to prooue your carnall presence alter the question verie deceiptfully from the manner to the matter That Christ is really in the blessed Sacrament A thing never denied by vs nor ever in question betwixt Protestant and Papist for both you and we hold Christs reall presence in the Sacrament but you carnallie and locallie we misticallie and spiritually you by Transubstantiation we in the commanded and lawfull administration But here you forget your grounds of divinitie and rules of Logicke in making an opposition betwixt spirituall receiving and reall receiving opposing them as contraries whereas the opposition is not betwixt spirituall and reall but betwixt corporall and spirituall for spirituall receiving by faith is reall receiving and corporall receiving by the mouth is also reall receiving So that the Scriptures and Fathers that here you alleadge bee altogither impertinent to prooue your carnall presence of Christ and his new conception of bread not of the blessed Virgin by a sinfull Priest not by the holy Ghost For Christ willing I will make it plaine vnto you that you haue shewed little divinitie and concealed much learning in this onely hudled vp a number of texts of Scriptures and Testimonies of Fathers out of Eckius Common-places and other like Enchiridions and neuer read the fathers themselues which at first was requested And thus trusting other mens reports and not your owne eyes you haue wrongd your self weakned your cause and abused the simple For if you had diligently read throughly weighed these Scriptures and Fathers you might haue seene and knowne that these confute your erronious opinions and confirme them not But this you should haue here prooved for the Catholicques satisfaction in which you haue altogither failed That after the Priest hath spoken over and to the Bread and Wine Rhem. test 1. Cor. 11. Sect. 9. Hoc est corpus meum and vsed powrefull words over it and theÌ„ which you call your consecration that presentlie the substances of Bread and Wine are gon not one crumme or drop remaining but wholly transubstantiated transnatured and chaunged into the verie reall naturall and substantiall bodie and bloud of Christ which was borne of the Virgin Marie Rhe. Test â—â—th 26. Sect. 4. and nailed on the crosse is now in heaven and yet in the Sacrament whole aliue and immortall and that this bodie of Christ must bee received with our corporall mouth and locally descend into our corporall stomackes Which bodie so made by the Priest is offered by the Priest to God the father as a propitiatorie mercifull and redeeming sacrifice by which the Priest applieth as hee saith the generall vertues of Christs passion to every particular mans necessitie either quicke or dead for mâ—tters temporall or graces spirituall for whom and when he listeth and for what hee pleaseth Your carnall presence shall bee first handled The second point which is your propitiatorie sacrifice shall bee handled in the title of the Masse This is your Romane â—â—e learning which you should haue prooved but how your owne proofes being duely examined disprooue you let the learned iudge But now to your first proofe out of the sixth of Iohn to prooue your opinion touching the first position Ioh. 6. vers 51. The bread vvhich I vvill giue is my flesh c. Catho Priests Ioh. 6. vers 53. Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his bloud you shal haue no life in you Ioh. 6. vers 55. My flesh is meat truly my bloudes c. GEntlemeÌ„ you mistake vtterly Christs meaning Rider wresting Christs wordes from the spirituall sence in which he spake to the litterall sence which he never meant ancient Fathers never taught Primitiue Church of Christ for one thousand yeares at least after Christs ascentioÌ„ never knew or received For the words and phrases be figuratiue and allegorical therefore the sence must be spirituall not carnal For this is a generall rule in Gods booke ancient Fathers yea and in your Popes Canons and glosses that everie figuratiue speech or phrase of Scripture must be expounded spirituallie not carnally or litterallie as anone more plainlie you shall heare But that the simple be no longer seduced by your Romane doctrine expounding this 6. of Iohn grammaticallie and carnally contrarie to Christs meaning constraining these places to prooue your carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament when there was no Sacrament then ordained J will set downe GOD willing Christs meaning truelie and plainlie which you shall nor be able either by Scriptures or auncient Fathers to contradict 1 First I will plainelie deliver the occasion why Christ vsed the Metaphor of Bread calling himselfe Bread 2 Secondlie according to which of Christs nature he is our living bread whether as hee is man onely or God onely or as he is compleate God and man 3 Thirdly how this bread must be taken and eaten whether by the mouth of the bodie or the mouth of the soule 4 Fourthly the fruit that comes to the true eaters thereof 5 Lastly the reasons shall bee alleadged out of
as was betwâ—xt Christ and Manna it will bee cleere nay vnpossible that your consecrated bread should bee the bread of life which is spoken of in the sixth of Iohn 1 Your consecrated bread never came from the heaven of heavens therefore it is not the true bread of life spoken of in this place 2 All that eat of this true bread Christ are saved but manie that eate of your Sacramentall bread are damned therefore it is not that bread spoken of in the sixth of Iohn 3 Your bread onelie enters the bodilie mouth and is received into the stomacke of the bodie and so passeth the way of all excrements and therefore is not the true bread 4 Your bread cannot for ever preserue temporall life much lesse giue it but not at all life eternal and therefore it is not the true bread of life spoken of in this sixth of Iohn Ioh. 6.54.50 Now seeing that Christ had not all this time when he made this sermon in the sixth of Iohn ordained his last Supper and therefore not the bread in the Supper And seeing this bread can neither assure the bodie of the receivers of resurrection nor their soules of salvation it cannot be that this bread in the Sacrament was the same that Christ spake of in Iohn And therefore your proofes brought to prooue your carnall presence of Christ by these texts be impertinent savouring by your leaue of smaal reading in the Fathers and lesse vnderstanding in the Scriptures But that all men that read this may see your errours so beware of your new daungerous doctrine J will bring Augustine other Fathers to disprooue you in plaine termes for misalleadging these texts Agustine bringeth forth as it were vpon a staâ—e the three Evangelists mathew Mark Aug. Tomo quarâ— de consensu EvangelistaruÌ„ lib. Câ—p. 1. math 26 mark 14. Luk. 22. Ioh. 6. These three Evang. â—andled as it were the bodie of Christ Iohn the soule and divinitie of Christ Lyra in psal 110. and Luke delivering the doctrine of the Sacrament but wheÌ„ he came to Iohn he saith Iohannes autem de corpore sanguine Domini hoc in loco nihil dixit Iohn in the 6. of his gospel spake nothing of the Lords body and bloud I woÌ„der with what face you can brag to follow the fathers no meÌ„ nor sect more opposit to their faith facts then you There Aug. hath tract your credit salâ—e it how you can And your own Doctour Lyra condemnes your erronious opinion which will applie these as spoken of the Sacrament his words be these Nihil directe pertinet ad Sacramentalem vel corporalem manducationem hoc verbum Nisi manducaueritis c. Nam hoc veâ—bii fuit dictum diu antequam Sacramentum Eucharistia suerit institutum Th s saying of Christ vnlesse you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud doth nothing directly appertaine to the Sacramentall or corporall eating of Christ in the Sacrament For Christ spake this long before he ordained this Sacrament Therefore no sound argument saith he can be grounded vpon that litterall exposition of the Sacramentall communion and â—e giues a reason vnaunswereable Nam primo debet â—â—istere in rerum natura For first the Sacrament must â—e ordained before it can be a Sacrament But you here would haue Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament before it bee a Sacrament And then Lyra concludes De Eucharistia Sacramentali quae noâ—dum suit tam alia sententia pâ—oferri non potuit quae dicitur Nisi manducaueritis c. Therefore of this place there can bee made no good sufficient argument touc ing the sacramentall communion vnlesse saith he some curious Heriticquet will take these words spoken by Christ to be spoken propheticallie Quod noÌ„dumed non datur priuilegâ—â— Lyra. eodem loco Now sâ—â—eth your owne Doctour if you take this chapter of the â—â—xt of Iohn litterallie as you d then it is impossible and absurd because you wil haâ—e a carnall presence in the Sacrament before there be a Sacrament if prophetically then your owne champion calls you curious He etiques And to prooue your litterall exposition grosse false and absurd He produceth ag inst you two famous examples the fast of the Theefe on th crosse Luk 13.41 who by his liuely faith performed the tenor of this text yet never communicated Sacramentallie And Iudas who communicated vnder both kinds and yet failed in the meaâ—ing of this precept Lib. 4 dist 9. And then shuts vp the m uths of all Latteralists and Heretiques that bold th s spoken of the Sacrament alleadging Thomas Aquinas his draught out of Augustine Non manducans manducat manducans non manducat Hee that eateth not Sacramentally may yet eate Christ spiritually by faith and so did the Theefe on the crosse and was saved Some eate the Sacramentall bread but not Christ which is the inward grace of the Sacrament as Iudas did and was damned manie moe Fathers shall you haue to second these agai st y u if these satisfie you not Thus you are condemned by two learned Fathers that you ignorantlie or malicio sly or both mistake and misapplie the sixth of Iohn to speake of the Sacrament before the Sacrament was instituted Now you shall heare Augustine tell you that thâ—s sixt of Iohn is to be taken figuratiuelie and allegoricallie and therfore spirituallie meaning that the speeches and phrases which Christ vsed be borrowed and translated from the bodie to the mind you are not onely taxed by Aug. to bee ignorant in the circuÌ„stance of the text but also in the sence of the text which is a grose thing in diuines from eating and drinking to beleeving from chamming with the teeth to the beleeving with the heart So that what eating and drinking is to the bodie that beleeving is to the sâ—ule And as bread and flesh be meat corporall for the bodie so Christ our bread is made spirituall for the soule And as corporall meats are tak n with the corporall mouth so are spirituall meate Christ crucified with all his benefits received with faith the mouth of the soule And therefore to teach all postâ—rities low to expound these words of Christ hee giues a generall rule perpetually to be observed in GODS church Saying (a) Dedoct Christ lib. 3. cap. 16. The second proofe out of the sixt of Iohn Si praeceptiua locutio est c. if the Sciptures seeme to commaund an horrible or vile fact the speech is figuratiue and then alleadgeth your second proofe that you bring out of the sixt of Iâ—hn for example Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye shall haue no life in you Facâ—â—us flagitiâ—m videtur iubere Christ in this place seemes to commaund a wicked and horrible act Figura est ergo It is therefore a figuratiue speech commaunding vs to keepe in mind that his flesh was crucified and
tormented for vs. Now examine Augustines exposition To eate corporallie reallie and substantiallie Christs flesh with our material mouths and to drinke his precious substantiall reall bloud with our bodilie lips is a horrible thing Therefore Christs words bee figuratiue So that by Augustines owne words your litterall sence and carnall presence is wicked and horrible howsoever you cloake it with fained titles to blinde the eies deceaue the hearts of simple Catholiques And if you would but read the fifth chapter of the foresaid booke you should see his Christian caveat he giues to Gods Church touching this point In principio cauendum est ne figuratam locutionem ad litteram accipiaâ— c. First of all you must beware that you take not a figuratiue speech according to the letter his reason followes for the lâ—tter that is the litterall sence killeth But the spirit that is the spirituall sence giveth life For vvhen one take the figuratiue speech for a proper speech vve make the sence carnall neither is there anie tâ—â—ng more fitlie calld the death of the soule Thus you see Aug. teacheth 〈◊〉 you would learne that if the speech be proper the sence must bee litteralâ— and carnall but if it be figuratiue it must bee misticall and spirituall and alleadgeth this your own text for the same So I would wish you either follow Augustines doctrine or else cease to vse Augustines and the rest of the fathers names for to vsurping their names and perverting their doctrine you abuse the Fathers Ber. Serm 3. in ps Qui habitat Fol 63 Col. 2. and deceiue the Catholiques Your Bernard also in later times condemnes your absurd vnchristianlike exposition of this your owne text Vnlesse you eate the flesh of Christ c. He asketh the question Quid autem est mandâ—â—are euâ—â— câ—â—nem bibere sanguinem nisi communicare passionibus eius caâ— conversationem imitari quam gessit in carne What is to eate Christs flesh and drinke his bloud but to communicate with his passions and to imitate his holie conversation in the flesh And then followeth Vnde hoc disignat illibâ—tum illud Altaris Sacramentum vbi Dominacum corpus accipimus vt ficut viditur â—lâ—a panâ—s foâ—ma in noâ— intrare sic noverimus peâ— eam quam in tâ—rris habuit conversation in ipsum intrare in not ad habitandum per fidem in cordibus nostris Whence also this text signifieth that pure Sacrament of the Altar where we receiue the bodie of Christ that as the foâ—me of bread is seen to enter into vs so we shâ—l know Christ entreth into vs to dwell in our hearts by faith by that holie and godlie conversation that he had being in earth Now examine Bernard your owne Abbot though livâ—ng in the palpablest time of the groâ—est superstition yet he vtterly condemnes your exposition of this place and showeth you that it doth not signifie Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament But as the Sacrament consâ—steth of an outward signe and inward grace so bread the outward signe entreth into the mouth and Christ which is the inward grace entreth into our hearts by faith So that your owne Author tells you it is bread that entreth the mouth it is Christ that entereth the heart and that by faith not by teeth by beleeving not by chamming or swallowing So that this your Bernard teacheth you that this your text must be taken for the diviner part of the Sacrament which is Christ with all his mercies to the soules and hearts of the beleevers not to or in the blasphemous mouthes and stinking stomackes of Jnfidells wicked men dogges cats or other beastes as your owne bookes most wickedly record And if your litterall exposition were true Grose absurdities follow the Priests expositions theÌ„ none could bee saved but such as eate your consecrated Christ made of bread then infants that die and communicate not should be damned Captiues that from their cradle â—â—â—e vnder Tyrant those that before Christ in Christes time and in the first thousand years after Christ before your new consecration was stamped are damned And contrariwise all that eate of your consecrated Oste be saved bee they never so blasphemous to God traiterous to their Prince and iniurious to their brethren But that both these extreames that spring from your litterall eâ—â—osâ—tion contrarie to scriptures and fathers be false horrible to christian ears no godlie man may doubt vnlesse he will denie Christ and his word the auncient Fathers and the Primitiue church and you shall never giue the Catholiques that haue hanged their precious soules vpon your bare sayings due satisfaction in this without publike and penitent recantation of this You follow neither scriptures not Fathers If with the Fathers you would but obserue duelie the circumstances of the fifth and sixth of Iohn you might see it cannot be meant of the Sacrament and therefore you are deceived in the Scriptures because the Sacrament was not then ordained Againe by the iudgement of Augustine the speech is figuratiue and therefore the sence spirituall And so Agustine stands with vs against you Olde Lyra saith that the sixth of Iohn Nihil directe pertinent c. speaketh not one word directlie pertinentlie of the Sacrament The Father saith nihil nothing directs directly yet you against Scriptures and Fathers will wrest theâ—e texts indirectlie and impertinentlie to speake of the Sacrament before it was a Sacrament If we should commit such palpable errours against Scriptures Fathers and common sence you would call vs common sots without learning or sence plaine murtherers and soule slayers from which sin the Lord deliver vs both Now I will aske your conscience this question how durst you cut off Christs words by the waste Verse 51. meant you plainly in that surely no for if you had recited the whole verse it had marred your market you onely set downe the middle of the sentence concealing the beginning of it and curtalling the end of it and so thinking that to serue your turne and blinde the eies of the simple But God willing I will discover the trueth which you seeke to cover and let the simple people see how farre and how long you haue deceived and misledde them to the great perill of their soules with wresting the scriptures and wronging the Fathers Christs whole sentence was this I am the living bread which came dovvne from heauen if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer and this you cut off Then followes your proofe Iohn 6.50 The bread that I vvill giue is my flesh then you curt all the rest vvhich I vvill giue for the life of the vvorld If you had dealt plainly and delivered Christs words to Gods people without substraction as Christ delivered them vnto you then the people even the simplest of them would not haue so long beene deceaved by you For the former part of the verse and the later concealed by you expound
I tell you plainelie yet in charitie that you doe belie the Texte falsifie the tongue and seeke to keepe the people in blinde ignorance and superstitious palpable darkenes to their everlasting condemnation vnlesse the Lord recall them and they repent them Paule wordes are these in Greeke and so your owne Ieromes translation hath them The bread which vve breake But you are so besotted with the crossing of your fingers which you tell the simple people is the true Catholicke blessing that you forget and forgoe the true blessing of the cup which is the Apostolicall thanksgiving to God for ouâ— redemption purchased in Christs bloud whereof the cup iâ— the true signe Againe we say as the holy Ghost indited it and Paul writ it The communion of the bodie of Christ you say as no learned man or the Greeke text ever said the participation of his flesh Thus much I haue shewed how vntrulie you deale First in abusing the words of the Apostle secondlie in seducing and deceiving the Catholickes Let heere the charitable Catholickes iudge how you will abuse their eares with fables that dare thus falsifie the plaine text Error in the sence of the Texte Now I come to shâ—w how you mistake the sence of the words in the text seeking by indirect wresting to make the text prooue your errour which it denieth in flat termes and trueth For I assure the Catholickes that not one word silâ—able letter or title of this text once souâ—dâ— of your carnall presence Rhem. Testament 1. cor 10. sect 4. You follow the Rhemist who in this place thus expounds the words of the Apostle The cup which vviâ— blâ—sse that is to say the challice of consecration vvhich we Apostleâ— priest by Christs commisâ—ion do consecrate c. and afterwards it followeth the Apostle expresly referreth hâ— benediction to the Challice and not to God making the holie bodie and the communicating thereof the effect of the benediction Now let mee intreate you to aunswere â—e and the Catholickes but these necessarie qvestions drawne out of this your owne opiâ—ion 1. First by what scripture do you prooue that you â—ee Apostles 2 Secondlie by whaâ— scripture doe you prooue that you are Priests 3 Thirdlie by what scripture doe you prooue your commission to consecrate Challices 4 Fou thly by what scripture doe you prooue that the holie bloud of Christ is an effect of your benediction of the cup 5 Last ie by what scripture prooue you that this blessing or thanksgiving is reâ—eâ—â—ed to the Challice and not to God Vâ—l sse you prooue these points by canonicall scriptures to be true Apostles ye are not Gall 1.1 1. Cor. 9.1 2. Acts 9.15 Rom. 1.1 which you shall never doe they bind no â—anâ— conscience to beleeue them or you Against the fi st I thus obiect that you are no Apostles thus I prooue it A true Apostle mvst be called by Christ immediatlie and that you are not He must see the Lord Iesus in the flesh wh ch you haue not Hee must haue his immediat commission from Christ to preach everie where which neither Priest Semynarie Iesuit Cardinall noâ— Pope can haue as your owne consciences full well doth know Gall 2. Ephes. â— and therefore you are not Christs Apostles The true Apostles were equall in authorit e you disdaine iâ— nay more you have made against this a new article of the Popes supremacie and whole volâ—â—es of Cardinals Primacies Iesuits Excellencies Priests Soveraignties But I will say to you Ter tuiaâ— contra Marcion as Tertullian saide to Marcion the hereticke If you bee Prophets foretell vs some things to come if that you be Apostles preach every where and agree with the Apostles in doctrine For whosoever preach not the same doctrine the Apâ—stles did haue not the same commission the Apostles had But you late Priests and Iesuits preach not the saâ—â— doctrine the Apostles did Iesuits Priests be no Apostles therefore you haue not the same commission the Apostles had The maior hath no difficultie the minor is so plaine it needs no proofe the conclusion is inevitable Priests ye are not We read of foure kinds of Priests in Gods Bookeâ— three of them in the old Testament and one in thâ— new First Because yee will not offer the flesh of beasts The first after the order of Aaron and one other after the order of Melchisedechs and the third afâ—ther the order of Baall After Aaroaâ— order you wil noâ— be And after Melchised ch you cannot be And concerning the third order I would you were as freâ— from the ydolatrie of that salte order as you would be free of the imputation of their heresies Secondly none after Melchisedechs order but Christ onely Now (a) 1. Pet. 2 9. Exod. 19.6 Saint Peter in the new Testament seueth downe a fourth order of Priests which is a kinglie oâ— royall Priesthood but that is spirituall not carnalâ— inward not outward common to all beleevers noâ— proper as you imagine to anie naturall order or ecclesiasticall function For this is sound divinitie whiâ—â— you shall never disprooue that the office of â—acuâ—cers and sacrificing is either singular to Christ in respect of his sacrifice propitiatorie onelie vppon thâ— crosse or else common to all true Christianâ— in respect of their spirituall sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving The name office of Priests abused by Priests neither shall you ever finde this word Sacerdoâ— ever applied in the new Testament to any Ecclesiasticall order and function of men And therefore you deceiue the people by this name of Priest which is no more proper to you then to everie beleâ—ving Christian But it is likely you will giue me occasion to speake of this in the controversie oâ— your M ssâ— and therefore J will heere be the briefe in this place Thirdlie in what place of scripture did Christ groâ— you commission to consecrate challices or to maâ—â— â—â—ie challice more holie by your charmed consecratiâ—n then Christs cup was in his blessed institution which did none of your consecration for this the Catholicks must know by the premisses formerly haÌ„dled that your consecration is not like to Christs consecration for either Christs blessing or thanksgiving with the whole action of Christ in the institution was sufficient to consecrate or insufficient if you will affoord Christ that favor that it was sufficient then yours is frivolous And whereas we vse the same sanctification Christ did how dare you say ours is defectiue without blasphemie to Christes institution But this your vsurped title of sanctitie which yee attribute to your selues in making the people beleeue that you can make one cup water sâ—lte or season more holie then an other by your fingred blessing is vntrue and a pharisaicall brag This maintaineth your Priesthoode in glorie pompe and worldlie estimation but hath brought many of sâ—elie Catholickes to beggerie ignorance and grosse superstition Fourthlie by what scripture
and the miraculous aboundant gushing of water and bloud out of the image his side Like opinion like proofe that cured all diseases in all parts and places of the world to prooue your carnall presence of the Sacrament by your fained transubstansiation When fathers helpe not you bringe fables For aunswere to which first I say that you should fitter haue placed this proofe in the ranke of your fained miracles following or in your question of ymages hereafter But to cover the fooletie and forgerie thereof you couch it amongst the auncient Doctors and Fathers of the Church thereby hoping 〈◊〉 haue him passe with more credit But I will shew first that you haue not dealt well nor trulie with the Author of this fable not with the Catholickes of this kingdome because you haue left out such worâ—es as would wound both your credit in this case and spoile 〈◊〉 cause besides your Translation is nothing â—â—nd You leaue out in your two lines these foure words â—oc si per manus and spiritualiter you left out quaâ—â— because belike it was but an Adverb of likenesse and 〈◊〉 because omne simile is not idem you thought it â—ere better to leaue it behinde then to bring it to your hurt Secondlie you leaue out per manus for your â—â—bout saith per manus sacerdotum by the handes of the Priestes and you leaue them both out and say per sacerdotem least the people should thinke and say if onelie the Priest made it then it can neither haue flesh nor bloud and so the miracle were â—â—â—red And therfore it were better to leaue out per eâ—aâ—◠〈◊〉 to say per sacerdotem by the Priest for then might be vnderstood not onelie all the members of his bodie to intentions of his minde but also all the gesturâ—s and motions of both required to the conception of sâ—ch a woddâ—n Saviour And lastlie you leaue out spiritualiter sâ—iritualle hee saith not caâ—nallie and therefore this prâ—ofe is verie vnschollerlike alleadged when our question is of a presence carnall you produce a presence spirituall this word makes for vs but that wee sâ—orne and knowe it sinfull to bring in such forgerie for proofe in a question of divinitie For this you shoulde haue brought in thus vvhich is dailie made by the Priest spirituallie Now how this proofe fitteth you let others censure shame makes mee scilent This fable containeth seven chapters of the crucifying of the image of CHRIST done by the Iewes for envie to CHRIST who no sooner pierced the Image his side but Continue exiuiâ— sanguis aqua The word is Hydria which you may ses Iohn 2. verse 6. containes two or three measures or firkines a peece which shewes it to be a notable loudlie lewd legend forthwith gushed out both water and bloud in such aboundance that they filled manie vesseles with the same and this bloud was carried into all the parts of the world through Asia Affricke Europe and cured all manner of diseases Vpon sight of which miracle the cruell Iewes repented were baptised and presentlie there was a holie (a) Quinto Iduâ— Nouemb day made in rememberance thereof which was kept with no lesse solemnitie then the feast of Easter and the Nativitie of our Lord as the Author saith Then in the seventh and last chapter comes in your proofe which concludeth a peace amongst the Chargie touching the trueth of Christs bloud for now saith the Author there can no other flesh nor bloud of Christ be found in the vvorld then that vvhich is daylie made by the hands of the Priests spirituallie vpon the Altar But this your proofe is not trulie translated according to the Latten but because it is a loude lie I will neither reprooue you for your defectiue translation nor correct it for anie mans direction for I see no reason to bestow a true translation vpon a false miracle or forged fable Other circumstances as where this image was saide to bee kept and brought foorth (b) Like Translation like truth c. I referre the curious Reader to the foolish forged Author Bâ—t that all the Catholicks of this kingdome may see the reasons that mooue me to think it to be a fable be these all of them gathered out of Reason 1 the bodie of this fable falselie fathered vpon Athanasius So seuerall places persons falsly chaleâ—g to themselues that euery oâ—e hath a proper peece of Christs crosse Athanasius printed at Paris 1581. pag. 534 c. So our Iesuits and Priests novv vvould persvvade the Catho The first reason is the occasion for no small error sprung vp in those daies touching the bloud that issued saith of Christs side on the crosse one sort of Priests said that they had the right bloud and another sort of Priests in other citties said that they had Christs verie bloud that assured forth of his side and so the content on among the Priestâ— grew to bee verie hote as it is this day betwixt you Iesuits and Priestes about other matters wherevpon the whole Cleargie met togither 〈◊〉 Cesaria in Cappadotia for the appeasing of this dangerous broile The reverend Fathers were no sooner â—et but vpstart Don Petrus Bishop of Nicomedia said â—everend Fathers I haue a little booke heere of Athanasius which I greatlie desire to present to your fatherhoods view and consideration Sancta Synodus responâ—e place bene vt legatur optamus The holy Synode unswered wee are verie well pleased and desire it may be read Thus concerning the occasion which 〈◊〉 a solemne Synode to appease a foolish supersticion contention amongst the lying covetous Priests of that age when everie hedge-priest would perswade the simple people that he had in his viall the very bloud of Christ which was of force to pardon their sinnes The stile of this agreeth not with the booke which Reason 2 〈◊〉 knowne to bee Athanasius worke contra Idola a meane Grammarian may see it and discerne it and therefore it cannot be his worke Athanasius writ a most sharp tractate against Idolatrie Reason 3 when he was living and now they would father his fable vpon him after his death and therefore it â—â—not bee his worke for so wee should wickedlie â—arge that godlie father either with recantation of trueth contradiction in and with himselfe or open maintenance of palpable Idolatrie It was taken to be Athanasius worke onelie vpon Reason 4 he credit of the Popes Stipendarie chaplen Petrus â—ishop of Nicomedia as you may see in the title page â—34 and therefore is not his worke by open confession The time bewraies the forgerie for this thing should Reason 5 â—e done by report of your owne stories seven hundred and threescore yeares after Christ Sigebert in anno 755. vnder Constantine he fift yet coloured with Athanasius name as writâ—â— by him that was dead foure hundred yeares before this matter hapned and therefore plaine and palpable forgerie Reason 6 It was imagined