time but at all times there is no question for in all things hee was obedient to his father euen to the most curssed and shamefull death of the Crosse neither was it necessarie that he should make transubstantiation so often as he gaue thankes in worde and deede Neither are those our ancestors which denied the sacrament of Eucharistie or thankesgiuing of whom IgnaÌ„tius spake for wee both receiue it and beleeue it to bee the fleshe and bloud of Christe in such sense as hee meant it and as Ignatius tooke his meaning The twelfth circumstance of breaking First Sander findeth fault with the order of wordes vsed by all the Euangelistes in placing breaking before the wordes of consecration because Saint Paul sayeth the breade which we breake is the communion of the bodie of Christ which is no good argument for Saint Paul thereby sheweth that the bread is not altered from his substance although it be vsed for a Sacrament of our spirituall communication of Christ with vs and of vs one with another 1. Cor. 10. But he will salue the matter by saying the Euangelistes first ioyne all the deeds of Christ together and then expresse his wordes The deeds he saith are taking bread blessing thanksgiuing deliuering mark that here he maketh blessing thaÌ„ks giuing to be only deeds which imediatly before he affirmed to be by saying This is my body But howsoeuer our aduersaries are pleased with all saith he let it go for a truth that Christ did breake and giue after the words of consecration Thus when he hath nothing to prooue it a starke lye must goe for a truth contrary to the order obserued by all the Euangelistes because that order is contrary to Popery and the Popishe custome which first consecrateth and then breaketh But taking it for a truth the breaking of that which appeared bread doth shew Christ to be wholy conteined in euery piece thereof whereas Christ eaten onely by faith is receiued according to the measure of euery mans faith which is more or lesse contrary to the figure of Manna I answer whole Christ is receiued by euery one that receiueth the bread and wine in what quantitie soeuer although Christ bestowe not his graces equally For Christ doeth dwell in our hearts by faith ergo he is wholy present by faith Eph. 3. And this meaneth Hieronyme in the place by Sander cited aduers. Iouin li. 2. after he had spoken of Manna Et not c. And wee also take the bodie of Christe equally There is one sanctification in the mysteries of the master and seruant c. although according to the merites of the recâ—iuers that is made diuers which is one By merites Hierom meaneth not workes but worthines of faith by which the grace of God is effectuall vnto good workes in some more than in other Neither hath Eusebius Emissenus aniething contrarie to this meaning Homil. 5. in Pasch. Hoc corpus c. This bodie when the prieste ministreth is as greate in the small peece as in the whole loafe Of this bread when part is taken euery man hath no lesse then altogether one hath all twaine hath all moe haue all without diminishing These words saith Sander cannot be vnderstanded of materiall bread nor of inward grace neither of which are equally receiued But yet Christ and a seale of this redemption is equally receiued without change of the bread into Christ. For Eusebius speaketh of breade and a whole loaf as Sander himselfe translateth bread is not the name of accidentes neither was there euer heard of a loafe of accidentes of bread nor of breaking of accidentes of bread before the Laterane Councell But what saith Germanus Archb. of Constantinople Post eleuationem c. after the eleuation by by a partition of the diuine lody of is made But truly although he be diuided into partes yet he is acknowledged and found vndiuided vncutt and whole in euery parte of the thinges that are cutt Where he saith the diuine body is parted he meaneth the bread which is called his body for the Greekes to this day doe not acknowledg transubstantiation Although the authoritye of Germanus bee not worth the standing vpon beeing but a late writer of a corrupt time But what speake I of fathers saieth Sander The breade which wee breake is it not the communicating of our Lordes body Because wee being many are one bread one body For so much as wee all partake of the one breade If the breade bee broken saith he how partake wee all of one breade that which is broken is not one in number No sir but it was one in number before it was broken whereof when euery one receiued a parte wee vnderstand that wee all pertaine to one whole But the Corinthians saith he haue more then one loafe broken among them How prooue you that sir the wordes of Paul seeme otherwise and if they had twentie loaues yet was it al one bread in kind wherof the Apostle saide wee all partake of one breade which if it be not materiall breade how is it broken for the body of Christ is not broken And Saint Paul saying wee partake all of one bread which is broken meaneth not that the visible Sacrament is nothing els but many accidentes and no breade at all The thirteenth circumstance of giuing Sander will haue the words of consecration to goe before the deliuerie of the bread contrary to the order of all the Euangelistes for else Christ should not giue a sacrament and he promised to giue his flesh c. I answere he gaue a Sacrament and his flesh at his supper although the Sacrament were not perfect in euerie singular action that belonged to it but in the whole Where he sayeth the meate of Christes supper came from his hands and that it is horrible blasphemie to say it came another way because he onely sayeth it it shall suffice plainly to denie it He gaue bread and wine from his handes but he gaue his flesh and bloud from his eternall spirite which giueth life vnto his fleshe and the working of the holy ghost the thirde person in Trinitie maketh it to be effectuall which God the father by his sonne Iesus Christe giueth vs in his supper Nowe hee alleageth Saint Mathewe Saint Marke Saint Luke and Saint Paul which saye he did giue with his handes and seeing in Saint Iohn he had promised to giue his flesh to be eaten what other perfourmance of his promise is there then this gift by his hande and here he asketh what other Gospell wee can bring forth wherein Christ fulfilled at any time his promise there made and here he craueth pardon to crye out vppon false preachers Ye cruell murtherers of Christian soules where is that meate giuen but at Christes table c Thou false hypocrite and errant traytor murtherer both of Christian bodies and soules we haue no Gospell but the Gospell of Christ written by his Apostles and Euangelists But
haue no more to say but it seemeth as though he would haue me â—harge the man or the time with more thaÌ„ I can manifestly proue But seing I quote no place for it he dare say I haue it not in the workes of Iustinus himselfe and counsels mee not to trust the Magdeburgian Centuries As for the Centuries I dare say I neuer redde fiue leaues of them together or in partes But I dare shew to any man that doubteth of my reading of the most auncient writers my book of notes writteÌ„ with mine owne hande more then 15. yeares past The place of Iustinus out of which such a matter seemeth is Apologia secunda ad Antoninum Pium c. where he hath these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As they that by mans lawe enter into seconde marriages are sinners by our maisters iudgement I knowe the wordes are otherwise interpreted by some and the sinne not referred to seconde marriages but to wanton beholding of women And therefore I doe not precisely charge Iustinus And yet againe I say it seemeth that the Church in his time was in some error because Athenagoras a Christian philosopher that liued in a manner in the same time doth expresly call the seconde marriage speciosum adulterium a faire kinde of adultery Qui namque repudiauerit inquit c. For hee that shall forsake his wife saith Christ and marry another doth commit adulterie suffering a man neither by diuorcement to put her away whose flower of virginitie he hath defiled nor to goe vnto seconde marriages For he that depriueth him selfe of his former wife although after she is deade a diuorcement is made is a secrete and couered adulterer transgressing the hand that is the creature or workemanshippe of God Because in the beginning hee made one man and one woman and dissoluing fleshe from flesh the vnion of commixtion instituted for the participation of kinde and sexe c. And this seemeth to be the common error of his time because he writeth this in that Apologie which he made in defence of all Christians which it is not like he woulde present to the Emperor in the name of them all except he had written that which was the common receiued opinion of the Christians doctrine in his time Concerning Hieronyme Bristowe is angrie also that I say hee was almost falne into Tertullians error when it is manifest hee was fayne to purge himselfe not onelye against malicious enuiers but also towardes Godly Bishoppes and Christians Apol. ad Pammachium Where as I laye vnto Hierom two other perilous Assertions whereof the one tendeth to destroye the humanitie of Christ the other to giue diuinity to the martyrs where hee saith The soules of the martyrs follow the Lambe whether so euer hee goeth and thereof concludeth If the Lambe be euery where those also that are with the Lambe must bee beleeued to bee euerie where Bristowe aunswereth that the sainctes are not euerie â—here in personall presence How then But of such power 〈…〉 ey be that they heare their suters in all places at once and 〈…〉 n be personally present to heale helpe whom they will Euen 〈…〉 s the lambe that is Christ according to his humanitie hea 〈…〉 eth his suters in all places and in personall presence assi 〈…〉 ed Saint Stephen and whomsoeuer else hee will I say according also to his humanitie c. But what say you according to his humanitie is hee euerie where that is the question and not of his power in hearing suters or helping them If you will defende the vbiquitie of Christ according to his humanitie speake plainely and ioyne with Hieronyme if you dare If you interprete euerie where for all power how can you giue all power to the soules of Martyrs which they ascribe onely to GOD and the Lambe Apoc. 7. And whereas you attribute vnto the soules of Saintes such power that they heare the suters in all places at once c Let the reader see howe much you ascribe to Christe that make the sute of euerie saincte equal with him in infinite power of hearing vnderstanding and helping For to heare vnderstande and helpe all suters at once is a diuine priuiledge not communicable to any creature that is not GOD. The argument therefore of inuocation of sainctes whiche you acompte to bee so stronge without horrible blasphemie against the diuine nature can neuer bee defended The Sainctes followe the Lambe not to bee of diuine nature or equall power with him but to bee partakers of his glorie according to his grace and the measure and capacitie of nature created Touching praying to the Sonne and to the holy Ghoste Being vrged by the Popishe Articles to shewe the error of the Church in any thinge I shewe Pag. 89. of that aunswere That the Councell of Carthage the 3. cap. 23. confirmed by a generall councell which is with the Papistes the Church representatiue decreed that the prayers at the altar shoulde bee directed alwayes to the father which is no small error seeing that hereof it followeth that none ought to be directed either to the sonne or to the holy Ghost or to the blessed Trinitie What moued those fathers thus to decree I know not but certayne it is the decree is erronius and offensiue Bristowe cauelleth at my collections as vnnecessarie that no prayers may bee directed but to the father whereas my wordes haue relation to such prayers as the councel speaketh off Also that the verie prayers at the altar may not be directed to the Sonne or to the holy Ghost because for orders sake they are appointed to be directed to the father I say sauing the authoritie of the councell which appointeth them to be directed to the father alwaies they may not otherwise I doubt not but they may And therefore Bristowe laboreth in vayne to proue out of Fulgentius Ad Monimum Petrum diaconum that the prayers although they bee directed to the father yet are made to the holy Trinitie especially because of the conclusion which hath in it the name of the sonne and the holy Ghost And whereas hee sendeth me to the Canon of his Masse for proofe of the same I must put him in remembraunce that in Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi O lambe of GOD which takest away the sinnes of the worlde c which is also sayde in his Masse both the prayers is directed to God the sonne yet no conclusion there is naming the father and the holy Ghost Let Bristow therefore choose whether hee will defende the error of the councell of Carthage or else acknowledge that the Romishe Church doth erre in directing the prayer at the altar to the Sonne without any conclusion including the father and the holy Ghost 5 Of minisiring the blessed Sacramentes to infantes I charge all the Churches in S. Augustines time Inâ—ocentius him selfe Bishoppe of Rome with this error 〈…〉 at they did
vnanswered GOD BE PRAYSED The cauils of Nicholas Sander D. in Diuinitie about the Supper of our Lord and the Apologie of the Church of England touching the doctrine thereof confuted by W. Fulke Doctor in Diuinitie MAN HV what is this The figure Exod. 16. This is the breade which our Lorde hath giuen c. The prophecie Prouerb 9. Come eate my breade and drinke the wine which I haue mixed for you The promise Iohn 6. The breade which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the world The performance Matth. 26. Luke 22. He gaue saying take eate this is my bodie which is giuen for you The doctrine of the Apostles 1. Cor. 10. The breade which we breake is the communicating of the Lordes bodie The beliefe of the Church Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit Both our Lord hath professed and we beleeue it to be flesh in deede The custome of Heretikes Tertul. de resur car The contrarie part raiseth vp trouble by pretence of figures THese notes and sentences D. S. hath set before his booke as the pith and martowe of all his treatise In which as he pleaseth him self not a litle so he sheweth nothing but his ignorance vanitie and falshood His ignorance in the interpretation of the Hebrue wordes Man Hu which doe signifie This is a readie meate prepared without mans labor as euen the author of the booke of Wisedome expoūdeth it Which Sāder readeth interrogatiuely folowing the errour of some olde writers which could put no difference betweene the Hebrue and the Chaldee tongs For Man in Hebrewe signifieth not what neither doth the Chaldee Paraphrase expound it so but Manna hu that is This is Manna that is to say a ready meate Againe he sheweth him selfe ignorant in the Apostles doctrine when he maketh Manna a figure of the sacrament which the Apostle plainely affirmeth to haue bene the same spirituall meate which the sacrament is to vs. 1. Cor. 10. His vanitie appeareth that when he can racke neuer a saying of the Prophetes to his purpose he dreameth of a prophecie in the Prouerbes of Salomon which booke was neuer accounted of wise men for propheticall but doctrinall and this pretended prophecie is an allegorical exhortation of wisdome to imbrace her doctrine and not a prophecie of Christ instituting his sacrament an inuiting of men in Salomons time and all times to studie wisedome and not a foreshewing of a supper to be ordained by Christ in time to come In the words which he alledgeth for the promise of the sacrament is discouered a manifest falsification of the text of Scripture to peruert the meaning of Christe which is of his passion vnto the institution of the sacrament thereof For the wordes of our Sauiour Christ Ioh. 6. 51. are these And the breade which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world These last words which I will giue Sander hath fraudulently omitted that this promise might seeme to be referred not vnto the passion of Christ in which he gaue his flesh for the life of the world but vnto the giuing of the sacrament of his flesh in his last supper In the title of performance he omitteth to shewe what Christ gaue when he saide This is my body that he might seeme to haue giuen nothing but his body whereas the Euangelistes teach that he brake and gaue the breade which he tooke affirming it to be his body The doctrine of the Apostles Sander doth not holde because he neither breaketh breade which he denieth to be in the sacrament nor acknowledgeth a communicating or participation of the Lordes body which he alloweth to be receiued of the reprobate which haue no communicating or partaking with Christ. So that he denieth the sacrament or outward signe to all men and giueth the heauenly matter or thing signified by the sacrament euen vnto wicked men The beleefe of the Church which Hilarie professeth Sander maintaineth not for Hilarie saith that we do truely eat the flesh of the body of Christ sub mysterio vnder a mysterie per hoc vnum erimus and by this we shal be one with him and the father which can not be vnderstoode of the Popish corporall receiuing Last of all he followeth the custome of heretikes which is to draw mens sayings inio a wrong meaning for Tertullian in the place by him alledged speaketh not of such heretikes as pretended a figure in the sacrament where none should be acknowledged but he him selfe by that the breade is a figure of the body of Christ proueth against Marcion the heretike that Christ had a true body ad Marc. lib. 4. To the body and blood of our Sauiour Iesus Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine all honor praise and thankes be giuen for euer I Can not tell whether I should complaine more of the vanitie or blasphemy of this dedicatorie Epistle the forme whereof being so newe and strange that the like was neuer heard of in the Church of Christ euery word almost containeth a great and grosse heresie For not content to make the sacrament the very naturall body and blood of Christ he maketh it the very essentiall deity it selfe For vnto whom is all honor and glory dewe but vnto God himselfe Againe seeing he ioineth not the persons of God the Father and of God the holy Ghost in participation of the praise by this forme of greeting he doth either exclude them or if he will comprehend them for that inseparable vnity which they haue with the godhead of Christ he bringeth forth an horrible monster of heresie that God the father and God the holy Ghost is with the body and bloud of Christ vnder the formes of breade and wine Much like the Sabellians and Patripassians which affirmed that God the father was borne of the virgine Marie and was crucified as well as God the Sonne Euen so Sander by this blasphemous and heretical epistle if he denie not honor glorie power and presence euery where vnto the Father and the holie Ghost yet comprehendeth them with GOD the Sonne and God the Sonne with his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine For thus he writeth I adore thee my God and Lord really present vnder the formes of breade and wine To which also he saith And to whom should I referre the praise and thankes for it but vnto thee alone Or of whome should I craue the protection thereof but of thee seeing thou onely art a meete patron for the defence of any booke which only art alwaies present wheresoeuer and whensoeuer it shall be examined To the honour therefore of thy body and bloud I offer this poore mite c. By these wordes you see that Sander acknowledgeth no GOD nor Lorde but him that is really present vnder the formes of breade and wine except hee acknowledge more Gods and Lordes than one And consequently that either he acknowledgeth not God the Father and God
will giue to you and not only for you But his death was giuen more properly for vs then to vs. For it was paied to God for our debtes but was not properly giuen to vs for then a sacrifice should be made of Christ to vs and consequently God the father robbed of his glorie What say you Sander Can nothing be said properly to be giuen vs but that which is sacrificed vnto vs So God loued the world that he gaue his onely begotten sonne that euery one which beleeueth in him should not perish but haue life euerlasting Iohn 3. And Esai saith The sonne is giuen to vs. The spirit of God is giuen to vs c. is there no gift but by way of sacrifice are you not ashamed of such senseles shiftes Christ in his death was giuen in sacrifice to his father for vs and his father being reconciled to vs by that sacrifice giueth him to vs and Christ also giueth himselfe for vs because all the fruite of his death and sacrifice is referred to our saluation The fourth reason is that Christ naming breade meate foode Manna c. promiseth an eatable thing which is his flesh in a banket the Iewes vnderstoode his flesh really not erring in vnderstanding but in faith for Christ coÌ„firmeth their vnderstanding with an oth sayth verily verily except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man c. ergo their sense which reterre the gift onely to his death is not sufficient but it must be meant also of the last supper This argument followeth not for although the names of bread food flesh c. proue that Christes flesh is eatable yet it proueth not that it is eatable only in the supper Secondly that the Iewes erred only in faith it is false for they erred also in vnderstanding taking the eating of Christes flesh to be perfourmed carnally which he ment only spiritually His oth confirmeth not their vnderstaÌ„ding but his owne promise of giuing his flesh for the life of the world which except they did eat spiritually they could haue no life in them But whereas it is obiected that Christ speaketh of that gift which was common to the whole world euen to the Patriarkes Prophets therefore it is a spirituall gift for else Dauid AbrahaÌ„ could not haue partaken it he answereth that Christ doth not pro mise any one meat vnto the whole world but his flesh to be eaten which is giuen for the whole world I reply the words are plaine the bread which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world not only for the Iewes Neither doth Christ in his supper giue a far better meat than he gaue to Moyses Elias for he gaue euen to theÌ„ his flesh bloud to be their spiritual food vnto eternal life witnesse the Apostle to the 1. Cor. 10. that all our fathers did eat drink the same spiritual meat that we do and that their meat drinke was Christ. Concerning that dayly we may eat that bread which Christ promiseth he answereth the Sacrament is left to be our daily supersubstantial bread either because we may receiue it daily if we wil or because it tarieth alwayes with vs by some spirituall effect To this I answere that all men cannot receiue it daily and some men not at all which yet must haue spirituall foode to feede them vnto euerlasting life therefore this breade may be eaten without the Sacrament The last argument that he woulde seeme to answere is this Christ in S. Iohn speaketh of that eating which maketh vs tarie in him him in vs therefore not of Sacramental eating for Christ tarieth not in all that eate him in the Sacrament He answereth the fault is not in the Sacrament but in them that abuse the gift of God to their own hurt As though our Sauiour Christ did speak only of the power of his flesh being eaten not of the effect The flesh of Christ being eaten maketh vs one with him him But Augustine is cited contr Crescon gram lib. 1. Cap. 〈◊〉 Quid de ipso corpore what say we concerning the very body and bloud of our Lorde the only sacrifice for our saluation Although our Lord himselfe saith Except a man doe eate my flesh and drinke my bloud he shall not haue life in him doth not the Apostle teach that the selfe same thing is made hurtfull to them that vse it euill For he saith whosoeuer shall eate the bread and drinke the cuppe of the Lord vnworthily he shall be guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. But it followeth immediatly in Augustine Eâ—ce quemadmodum obsint diuina sanctamatè vtentibus Cur non eodem modo baptismus See how diuine and holy thinges doe hurte them that vse them amisse Why not baptisme after the same manner These last wordes declare that Augustine saying that the body and bloud of Christ may be hurtfull speaketh of the Sacrament and not of the thing or matter of the Sacrament as in baptisme As he teacheth in exposition of the doctrine of Christ in Saint Iohn The Sacrament of this thing saith he is receiued of som to life of some to destruction but the thing it selfe or matter of the Sacrament which is the body and bloud of Christ is of none receiued to destruction but of all vnto life as many as receiue it By whose whole discourse it is manifest that Augustine vnderstandeth Christ speaking of spirituall eating which may be without the Sacrament and maketh a difference betwene the meat there spoken of which presently was offered to be eaten the Sacrament therof which afterward was instituted Therfore whatsoeuer Sander doth glory of all authority vpon earth concurring to his position there is no authority from heauen to prooue that Christ in the 6. of S. Iohn spake of his supper at all or that his supper may be vnderstood therin otherwise then the Sacrament and seale of that spirituall and heauenly eating drinking of Christes flesh and bloud which of the fathers and of all the faithfull hath bene eaten and drunken vnto eternall life not only in this Sacrament but in other Sacramentes of Gods ordeining and without all Sacramentes by faith and power of Gods spirite CAP. VI. The meate tarying to euerlasting life which Christ promiseth â—o giue is meant of his reall flesh and bloud to be giuen at his last supper Sander by conference of this verse Operamini cibuÌ„ c. labour for the meate or as he translateth iâ— worke the meate that perisheth not c. with that which foloweth where he saith the bread which I will giue c. prooueth that Christe speaketh of his flesh and bloud to be eaten and drunken But that the same is to be giuen only at his last supper which is the onely matter in controuersie he is not able to prooue His first reason is that because Christ saieth his flesh is meate in
vtterly deny the office of Christ the foundation of our saluation therefore wee iustly deny you to be of the true church of Christ. Neither is your excuse to be admitted that you erre by authoritie of them who if the trueth had bene as plainly reuealed vnto them out of the scriptures as it is to you would neuer haue so obstinatly defended their errors but as they alwayes professed yelded to the trueth against custome prescription of time authoritie of councels or any practise whatsoeuer CAP. IIII. That he chargeth the sayde primitiue true church with sundry errors wherewith he neither doeth nor will nor can charge vs. I affirme that diuerse godly fathers of the primitiue church held sundry errors which the Papists holde not at this daye Also that the auncient church erred in som points and practise wherewith I will not charge the popish church except they charge them selues But that I should confesse as Bristowe sayeth That there may be a company which erreth not onely some principall members but also the whole body of it and which erreth obstinatly and moreouer which erreth the grossest errors that can be them 〈◊〉 no small number and yet the same company may be the truâ— church This is vtterly false I neuer made such confession neither can Bristow bring any wordes of mine that sound to the same effecte and therefore I here charge him before God and the worlde for a shamelesse lyer and an vngodly slaunderer As for the errors wherewith I charge either the auncient writers or the auncient church of Rome do followe afterward discussed in the sixth Chapter CAP. V. What reason he rendreth why they in those auncient timeâ— had the true church notwithstanding these their errors First repeating my confessions That the true church may erre that it hath erred in some articles wherein we erre in many other wherein we do not erre wherof it followeth plainly qd Bristowe that neither our erring nor these our errors no nor any other our errors are alone sufficient for him to depriue vs of the true church Marke this consequens of Bristowe some errors which the Papistes hold common with the olde church cannot depriue them of the true church ergo none other errors that they hold contrary to the auncient church are alone sufficient to depriue them This is popish logike And yet I will in this argument charge his conscience rather then his science for common sense abhorreth such reasoning from the particular to the vniuersall But let vs see if such reason as alloweth the fathers to haue had the true church notwithstanding their errors may serue the Papistes to proue them the true church their errors notwithstanding The reason I alledge that the fathers had the true church is because they held the onely foundation Iesus Christ and the article of iustification by the onely mercie of God Now sayth Bristowe who knoweth not that we beleeue in the onely sonne of God and in the onely mercy of God and that therefore wee looke not to be saued by our owne works that is which we did without him in Paganisme Iudaisme or Caluinisme in heresie or deadly sinne c. but onely by his workes that is by his sacraments and the good deedes that of his great mercy he hath created in vs in Christ Iesus c. therefore the same reason serueth vs notwithstanding our errors I answere your minor is false you beleue not in the onely begotten sonne of God because you beleue not in God Cyprian de duplici Martyrio sayeth Non credit in Deum qui non in eo solo collocat totius foelicitatis suae fiduciam He beleueth not in God which placeth not in him alone the trust of all his felicitie You place not your trust in God alone for you trust in your merites yea in the merites of others both liuing and dead and in an hundreth things beside God alone Secondly where you say you beleeue in the onely mercy of God it is false for you beleeue no iustification by the only mercy and grace of God which excludeth all workes and merites as the Apostle sayeth Rom. 11. Thirdly you says you beleue to be saued by his sacraments which in deede after a sort are sayde to saue vs namely not as principal â—fficient causes but as instruments and meanes that god â—seth to confirme his promises which proceede of his onely grace and mercy Fourthly you saye you beleeue to be saued by those good deeds that God of his mercy hath created in vs which plainly declareth that you looke not to be saued by the onely grace mercy of God purchased by the redemption of Christ but by such good workes as proceede from your selues although you ascribe vnto the grace of God that you be able to do them as both the Pharisee did which iustified him selfe by his owne workes and yet acknowledged God to be the author of them in him Luk. 18. And the Pelagians also affirmed generally that by Gods grace we are saued because God of his grace hath giuen such a lawe by keeping whereof wee might attaine to saluation But you cite S. Paul Tit. 3. to shewe that his mercie sacrament may stande together which no man denyeth yet can you not shewe that his mercie is so tyed to his sacrament that he saueth not without it For Abraham was iustified by faith before he was circumcised and receiued circumcision as a seale of the faith he had being vncircumcised Rom. 4. And where the Apostle speaketh of workes generally excluding them from being cause of our saluation you restreine theÌ„ only to works done before baptisme for this cursed glose you make vpon the text Not for any workes of * righteousness which we did before baptisme say you but for his mercie hee hath saued vs by baptisme But that S. Paul excludeth al maner of works done by vs from iustification the sentence following declareth That being iustified by his grace we might be made heires according to the hope of eternall life For grace and workes can neuer stande as a ioynt efficient cause Rom. 11. but the one of necessitie excludeth the other As for the receiuing of the Sacramentes is no worke of ours as you truely say but an accepting of the grace which God giueth The place Ephes. 2. which you â—ite to proue that we are saued by good workes done after baptisme is cleane against you if you had rehetsed the whole text You are saued saith S. Paul by grace through faith and this not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes least any man shoulde boast For we are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which God hath prepared that we should walke in them The argument of S. Paul is taken out of the effect Good workes are the effect and aide of our iustification ergo not the efficient cause thereof And marke againe that hee saith we are saued by grace and not of
to be beleeued on euen as God And where the Apostle saith that God hath made Christ a propitiation through faith in his blood he meaneth not that we must beleue in the blood of Christ as it is a creature but that the death and blood-shedding of Christ is the meane of our reconciliation vnto God But the Nicene Creede Hieronyme contra Lucif vse the phrase of Credere in Ecclesiam to beleeue in the Church I answere they meane no more thereby then they which vse the distinction Credere in Deum Credere Deo Credere Deum which Bristowe saith hath deceiued me Augustine as Bristowe confesseth maketh it proper to God that we beleeue in him We beleeue not in Peter we beleeue not in Paule In Iohn 129. Neither saith the Nicene Creede or Hieronyme contrary thereto that we should put our whole trust and confidence in the Church but in God only Therfore although they speak otherwise then Augustine they meane not otherwise then he Ruffinus also in his exposition of the Creede writeth both plainly and effectually Sequitur namque post c. For it followeth after this saying The holy Catholique Church the remission of sinnes the resurrection of the bodie he saith not in the holy Catholique Church in the remission of sinnes in the resurrection of the fleshe For if he had added the preposition In the sense should haue bene made one and the same with the former articles But euen in those termes truly where faith is ordered of the diuinitie it is saide in God the father and in Christ his sonne and in the holy Ghost But in the rest where the speach is not of the Godhead but of creatures and the mysteries the preposition In is not added that it should be said we must beleeue in the holy Church but the holy Church not as God but as the Church gathered into God And that men should beleue that there is remission of sinnes not in the remission of sinnes that they should beleeue the resurrection of the body not in the resurrection of the body Therefore by this syllable of the Preposition the Creator is distinguished from the creatures and things diuine are separated from things humane Neuerthelesse Bristowe saith they beleue both in God in Christ and in his Saints and inuocate them all though not all alyke but then let him heare what Cyprian saith De duplici Martyrio Non credit in Deum qui non in eo solo collocat totius faelicitatis suae fiduciam He beleueth not in God which placeth not in him alone the hope of his whole felicity Whervpon it followeth that they which beleeue in saints place some part of their hope of felicite in thē not in God alone by his iudgment by the iudgment of the Apostle also beleeue not in God Where I said if Saints also are to be inuocated then God alone knoweth not the heartes of all men and God onely is not to be worshipped and serued and Christ is not our onely Mediatour and Aduocate Bristowe calleth it iangling without allegations I supposed these principles had bene sufficiently knowen to euerie learned Papist without allegations but seeing Bristowe will not take knowledge of them because he knoweth not how to shift his handes of them For the first my allegation shall be 1. Reg. 8. Salomon in his prayer sayth vnto God What prayers or supplications shal be made of any man or of all thy people Israel when euerie one shal knowe the plague in his own hart and stretche foorth his handes in this house Heare thou then in heauen in thy dwelling place and be merciful and doe and giue euery man according to all his wayes as thou knowest his heart for thou onely knowest the harts of al the children of men For the second that God only is to be worshiped and serued it is the saying of our sauiour Christ Math. 4. Luk 4. Thou shalt worship the Lorde thy God and him only shalt thou serue That Christe onely is our Mediator and Aduocate Saint Paule testifieth 1. Timoth. 2. there is but one God and one mediatour of God and men the man Iesus Christ in which place he speaketh of Prayer supplications intercessions c. to be made for all men And Saint Iohn 1. Ioh. 2. If any man sinne we haue an aduocate with the father Iesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sins But saith Brist as I say to Ambrose others whom I confesse to be of the true Church so must I saie it to Saint Iohn Apoc. 1. for inuocating the holy Angells But I finde not that Iohn did inuocate the holy Angels in that place although the seuen spirites from whom he wisheth grace should not be the holy Ghost but Angels the ministers of the holy Ghost For he that prayeth that God will sende raine from heauen doth not inuocate heauen But I must saie the same to God him self for making an Angell to be worshiped as Apoc. 3. as he hath told me in the. 6. Chapiter where I haue told him mine answere likewise to the Angell Apoc. 8. Which made a perfume with the prayers of Saintes and to the 24. Seniors which had sweete odours that is prayers in bowles c. But there is no such neede the Angell Apoc. 8. representeth Christe the onely high priest that hath authoritie to stande at the altar in heauen and offer incense and to present the prayers of the Churche that they may be acceptable to God Heb. 13. The Elders are the Churche of God in the whole world whose prayers and supplications only our sauiour Christ maketh acceptable But it maketh nothing against our Mediatour to God saith Bristowe though we are and haue neuer so many Mediatours so that all make suite to God by him Then it maketh no matter howe many petie Gods we haue so one be principal as Plato taught Againe he saith it is nothing against God alone to be worshipped so that we worshippe none but for him If this were true it were lawfull to worship the Diuel because hee is Gods minister and hath great power vnder him yea our Sauiour Christ had not aunswered his temptation when he required to be worshipped as one that had all the glorie of the world committed by God to him to bestowe at his pleasure in saying it is written Thou shalt worship the Lorde thy God and him only shalt thou serue Last of all he saith it is nothing against God aboue to know our harts so that all others knowe them by him But Salomon reasoneth that God onely is to be called vpon because he onely knoweth the heartes of all men And where findeth Bristowe that all others or any one by God knoweth the heartes of all men To conclude the worde onely excludeth no more with Bristowe then he list to admitte by his blinde distinctions which if they may be permitted against the plaine sense and wordes of the Scriptures nothing shal be
appeale out of Africa shoulde not be receiued into communioÌ„ of any in Africa What the Pope of seruile feare is constrained at this day to yeald least he shoulde be vtterly forsaken of all as hee is of most it is nothing to the purpose But I am moste ridiculous in Bristowes iudgement where I alledge Socrates the Nouatian speaking against Pope Celestinus for taking away the Nouatians Churches in Rome and counting it a point of forren Lordshippe not of Priesthoode Thus the Papistes defame such as write plainely against them Eusebius they make an Arrian Socrates a Nouatian euen as he diffamed Saint Paule in the last Chapter with much pricking of bodily lust But what cause hath hee to charge Socrates with the heresie of Nouatus He alledgeth none at al neither is he able euer to proue the crime In deed Socrates liuing at such time as the Nouatians ioyning in faith of the holy Trinitie with the Catholikes against the Arrians Macedonians and such other heretikes were not so odious speaketh lesse sharply of them then of other heresies Yet alwayes he accounteth them among heretikes As Lib. 5. Cap. 19. Ab eo tempore quo Nouatiani c. Euer since the time that the Nouatians departed from the Church Is it like that Socrates was a Nouatian when he confesseth that they were departed from the Church Likewise hauing spoken of the diuisions that were in the Catholike Churche he commeth to speake of the schismes that were among heretikes and nameth the Arrians Nouatians Macedonians and Eunomians Supr Trip. Hist. lib. 9. cap. 36. Thus much for the credite of Socrates nowe to the matter where Bristowe saith he counted it a point of forren Lordship to expell the Nouatians c it is false But he sheweth the cause why Celestinus coulde not preuaile to doe any good with them his wordes are Verumillos invidia corripuit Romano episcopaiâ— iam olim perinde atque Alexandrino vltra Sacerdotii limites ad externum dominaiâ—m progresso But enuie tooke hold of them because the Bishoprik of Rome long before euen as the Bishoprike of Alexandria was proceeded beyond the bandes of Priesthoode into forren Lordship Finally that Socrates blameth the immoderate authoritie of S. Chrysostom he doth it not alone but other writers as much as he Socrates reporteth more of his seuerity toward his own cleargie theÌ„ toward the NouatiaÌ„s of whoÌ„ he was counted too much a fauourer therfore Socrates writeth that some iudged that he was iustly deposed Eo quòd multas Ecclesias Novatianorum QuartodecimanoruÌ„ aliorum tulisset haereticorum Because he had borne with many Churches of the Nouatians Quartodecimanes and other heretikes Trip. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 20. Last of all whereas I alledged againste the Popes supremacie the decree of the Aphrican councell Cap. 6. that no Bishoppe of the first see should be called highest Priest or Prince of Priests but onely Bishop of the first see Bristowe saith it perteyneth onely to the Primates of Affrica and concerneth not the titles much lesse the primacie of the Bishop of Rome But the trueth is that it was made specially to represse the ambition of the Romane Prelates and therfore in the end of the Canon as it is conteined in the decrees Dist. 99. cap. Primae it is added Vniversalis autem nec etiam Romanus pontifex appâ—lletur and let none no not the Bishop of Rome be called vniuersall By which it is manifest that his titles and authoritie also are commanded to be kept within their owne bounds and not to be acknowledged to haue any thing to doe in the Churches of Affrica by commandement or authoritie such as then was claymed But the Affricanes saith Bristowe as appeareth in Saint Augustines workes neuer called him Bishop of the first see but Bishop of the Apostolike see Although Saint Augustines workes can not bee witnesse howe the Affricanes called him alwayes yet what gayneth the Pope or Bristowe for him by this What if they neuer called him primate or Bishop of the first see for other inferior Bishoppes were called Bishoppes of the second see The councel forbadde them to giue any other titles of authoritie beside this Bishop of the first see it did not binde them that they should of necessitie call them by that title For it was sufficient to cal them the Bishops of Carthage of Alexandria of Rome of Antioche c. And that they called the Romane Prelate Bishop of the Apostolike see of Rome they gaue him no more authoritie ouer the Churches of Affrica then when they called the Bishop of Hierusalem Antioch Ephesus Corinth or of any other Churches founded by the Apostles Bishoppe of the see Apostolike Thus my Doctours for any thing Bristowe can bring remaine constant witnesses of my side against the vsurped and Antichristian authoritie of the Bishop of Rome 2 About onely faith I quoted Ambrose Origen and Cyprian for iustification by faith only To this Bristowe answereth first generally that hath satisfied these Doctors Cap. 8. Par. 4. that they meane a man may be iustified by faith although before he was a Christian Catholike he did no good works But he cannot so escape for they speake not only of the first conuersion of a man but of iustification vnto saluation of euerie faithfull man according to the example of Abraham and Dauid who both had good workes yet were not iustified by them before God but by theyr faith only And Saint Paule expressely saith of himselfe and all other Christians that were in his time that shal be in all times that the example of Abrahams iustification is the example of his and their iustification Rom. 4. Therefore his faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse and it is not written for him onely that it is imputed to him but also for vs vnto whoÌ„ it shal be imputed which beleeue in him that raised vp Iesus from the dead who was deliuered for our sinnes and raysed againe for our iustification I wish that Bristow in the next conference that he maketh after the reading hereof would marke this text with the circumstances of the persons of whom it is spoken of the temps in which the holy Ghost speaketh that faith shal be imputed for righteousnes In the meane time I must proue that these fathers speake generally of all Christians and the only way of iustification and not of newe conuerts only and of the instinct of their baptisme or newe conuersion onely but that they are iustified by faith vnto eternall saluation First Origen after he had brought the example of the theefe iustified by faith only bringeth in the example of the sinnfull woman Luk. 7. Ex nullo legis opere sed pro sola fide ait ad eam remit 〈…〉 ur tibi peccata tua iteruÌ„ fides tua saluam te fecit c. For no worke of the lawe but for faith only he saith vnto her Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee And againe thy faith hath
councels which to this time haue bene holden being sixe in number So expressely saith Bristowe they auouch the authoritie of councels and you alledge them for only Scriptures I crie you mercie sir Doe they alledge the authoritie of Councels as though the preaching of the Gospell and the institutions of the Apostles in their writings were not sufficient when they saide before if men would haue bene content with them there needed no councels But you adde that in their wordes there is no mention at all of Scripture but onely of preaching and teaching What I pray you is the Gospel which they should preach no scripture are not the constitutions of the Apostles conteined in their writinges I know you will answer they are not all contained in their writinges At leastwise what sworde did these warriers vse against Satan styrring vpp his squires doth not the councell say expresly the sworde of the spirit which is the worde of God contained in the Scriptures for what other worde doth Saint Paule commend to the Eph. 6. but the holy Scripture which is profitable to reproue all heresies into perfection 2. Tim. 3. Against Basil maintaining vnwritten tradition I opposed his owne auctority De Ver. Fid. in Proem Morall We knowe that we must now and alwaies auoyde euery worde and opinion that is differing from the doctrine of our Lorde But all is not differing saith Bristowe that is not expressed in the Scripture Neither doe I say so but all is differing that can not be proued by Scripture And so saith Basil in his short definition to the first interrogation Whether it be lawfull or profitable for a man to doe or saie any thing which he thinketh to be good without testimony of the holy Scriptures He answereth For as much as our sauiour Christ saith that the holy Ghost shall not speake of himselfe what madnes is it that any man should beleeue any thing without the auctority of Gods worde Here you see he extendeth the worde of God no farther then the holy Scriptures Yet Bristowe saith If I sawe the place my malice passeth For the wordes are these Who can be so madde that he dare so much as to thinke any thing of him selfe And it followeth But because of those things words that are in vse amongest vs some are plainly taught in the holy Scripture some are omitted Concerning them that are omitted saith Bristowe We haue this rule to be subiect to other men for Gods commandement renouncing quite our owne wills In very deede I abridged the place and gaue the true sense because it is large But if Bristowe vnderstand Basills language his wordes are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Seeing our Lorde Iesus Christ saith of the holy Ghost for he shall not speake of himselfe but what things so euer he shall heare the same shall he speake and of him selfe the sonne can doe nothing of himselfe And againe I haue not spoken of my selfe but the father which hath sent me he himselfe hath giuen me a commandement what I shall saie and speake And I knowe that his commandement is life eternall Therefore the things which I speake euen as the father hath said vnto me so I speake Who is come into so greate madnes that he dare of him selfe take vpon him any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen vnto knowledge which hath neede of the holy and good spirite as a guide that he may de directed into the waie of truth both in minde and speache and deede but walketh blinde and in darknes without the sonne of righteousnes yea our Lorde Iesus Christ him which giueth light with his commandements as it were with beames For the commandement of the Lorde saith he is bright lightning the eies Seeing then that of such things as we haue in vse some are vnder the com mandement of God prescribed in the holy Scripture some are not spoken of concerning those that are written no liberty at all is giuen to any man neither to do any thing of those that are forbidden nor to omit ought of those things which are prescribed Seeing the Lorde hath once charged and saide thou shalt keepe the worde which I command thee this daie thou shalt not adde vnto it neither shalt thou take from it For there is a terrible expectation of iudgment and zeale of fyer which shall deuoure all those which shal be bolde to do any such thing And concerning those things which are not spoken of the Apostle Paule hath set vs a rule saying all things are lawfull for me but all things are not expedient All things are lawfull for me but all things do not edify Let no man seek his own profit but euery one an other mans So that in euery matter it is necessary to be subiect to God according to his commandement For it is written be ye subiect one to an other in the feare of Christ. And our Lord saith he that will among you be great let him be least of all and seruant of all that is to say estraunged from his owne will according to the imitation of our Lorde himselfe which saith I came downe from heauen not that I should doe mine owne will but the will of my father which hath sent me Where hath Bristowe that we should be subiect to other men in such thinges as are omitted by Scripture therefore not my malice but his ignorance passeth and that willful also although he follow the old barbarous translation of Basil when he may haue a better An other place of Basil I cited in his Moral defin 26. Euery word or deed must be confirmed by the testimony of holy Scripture for the persuasion of good men the confusion of wicked men Bristow saith he admonisheth his monkes being students in diuinity to be so perfect in the Scriptures that they may haue a text redy at euery need as when we bidde them cast all away that is not written they haue this text ready where Saint Paule biddeth vs the contrary To holde the traditions which we haue learned whether it be by his Scripture or by his worde of mouth 2. Thess. 2. And doth Paule bidde them holde such doctrine as was not to be proued out of the Scriptures did hee preach any such doctrine among the Thessalonians when those to whom he preached daily searched the Scriptures tosee if those thinges were euen so Act. 17. And where I pray you did you heare any tradition by worde of Saint Paules mouth that you may obiect it to vs we doubt not but whatsoeuer he preached was as true as that he did put in writing if you can assure vs of it but seeing that is impossible and it is certaine he preached no doctrine but such as he committed to writing Basills rule must still stande in force that euery worde and deede must haue confirmation of holy scripture or else it is not good for all good workes are taught in the Scripture and all true doctrine may be
found in them 1. Tim. 3. Now commeth Bristowe to answere such things as I obiect out of Augustine against vnwritten traditions which he digesteth into three sorts The first are quotations of 11. or 12. places in which he preferreth the autority of the canonicall Scripture before all writinges of Catholike Doctours of Bishops of Councels before all customes and traditions But this Bristow denieth to be the question but whether nothing but Scripture be of authoritie I aunswere those places proue that nothing is of infallible veritie but the scriptures therfore they proue that they only are of irrefragable authoritie The second sorte of places are about this question who hath the true Church Of which question I affirme that S. Augustine would haue the Church sought only in the Scriptures And heâ—e he biddeth me reade his first demande likewise I wil send him to mine answer vnto the same At length he confesseth that Augustine is content in that question to set aside all other authorities to trie it by the Scriptures But that nothing els is good authoritie in that question that he neuer sayeth Neither doe we say it or refuse any authoritie that is agreeable to the Scriptures And as that one question which was betweene S. Augustine and the Donatistes was determinable by the onely authorititie of Scriptures so are all questions that are betweene the Church of all times and all heretikes The Donatistes helde that the Church was perished out of all partes of the world except Affrica as the Papistes holde that it is perished out of all partes except a peece of Europa Saint Augustine by the Scripture proueth the continuance in the Churche dispersed ouer all the worlde and that we holde against the Romishe synagogue of Popish Donatistes who haue separated them selues from the Catholike Church into the function of an Italian Priest as the other did of an Affrican But Bristowe sayeth I am as blinde as a beetle in saying that the Papistes did separate themselues from our Church seeing it is certain that Luther did separate him selfe from the Popish Church The like might be said to all them that forsoke the fellowship of any heretikes to come vnto the Churche of God But Bristow is as madde as a marche Hare that bragging so much of the title of the church he is driuen to trie it only by the Scriptures as Augustine calleth vpon the Donatists The other places which I aledge out of Aug saith Bristowe are about al questions with heretikes whatsoeuer As that he would oppresse the Arrian Maximinus with the authoritie of the Nicene councel Lib. 3. Cap. 14. Bristowe asketh whether he might not presse them with the authoritie thereof as he doth the Donatistes But aske Augustine him selfe who saith he ought not in that case that he charged the Donatistes which it was by their own concession because they allowed it But he saith in the same place the Fathers of the Nicene councell ratified Homousion that is equalitie of the sonne with the father Veritatis autoritate autoritatis veritate by authoritie of trueth and by trueth of authoritie This truth of authoritie Bristowe will haue to be the authoritie of the Nicene councell as though the councel could not erre but then what needed the authoritie of trueth In deede where the councel decreeth with the trueth it is the trueth of authoritie for other authoritie a Councell hath not but of trueth to declare trueth and not to make trueth for if it declare errour as the councell of Arimine did it hath no trueth of authoritie because it hath no authoritie of trueth Moreouer Bristow saith I translate falsely these wordes Nec ego huius autoritate nec tuillius detineris Neither am I bounden to the authoritie of the one nor thou of the other Whereas it should be Neither doth the authoritie of the one hold me nor of the other holde thee There is greate difference betweene beeing holden and beeing bound To the bare authoritie of the councell of Nice Maximinus was no more bounden then Augustine to the bare authoritie of Ariminum It was the trueth of Nice that the Arrian was bounde vnto and the falshod of Ariminum that Augustine was not holden with vs. But after the example of Augustine saith Bristowe we will not alledge the councell of Trent as our proper witnesses to our side but the authoritie of Scriptures common to both Witnesse hereof Bristowes motiues where he would ouerthrowe vs by the bare name of Catholike and heretike c. Againe he saith that we make challenge of 600. yeares also And what then Witnesses of trueth we take wheresoeuer they be but authoritie of trueth onely out of the Scriptures Where I said that Augustine setting all other persuasions aside prouoketh onely to the Scriptures to trie the faith and doctrine of the Churche Bristowe answereth Howe true that is appeareth in the same booke De Vnitate Eccle. which you cite For when he hath proued against the Donatistes the Church to be his he saith expressely that to be inough also for all other questions Sufficit nobis It is inough for vs that we haue that Church which is pointed too by most manifest testimonies of the holy and Canonicall Scriptures De Vnit Eccle. Cap. 19. Doth he say expressely it is inough for all other questions I must needes say expressely you lie For the onely question being how the Donatistes should be receiued if they would come to the Catholike Church as though they were the true Church because baptisme giuen among them was not repeated in the Catholike Church Augustine after much concertation saith Quapropter cum dicatur haereticis c. Wherfore seeing it is said to the heretiks Rightousnes is wanting to you which without charitie and the bonde of peace no man can haue seeing they theÌ„selues confesse that many haue baptisme which haue not righteousnesse and if they would not confesse it the holy Scripture conuinceth them I maruell howe they thinke when we wil not baptise them again hauing not their own but the baptisme of Christ that we do so as though we iudged nothing to be now wanting to theÌ„ that because baptisme is not giuen to them in the Catholike Church which they are founde to haue already they thinke they receiue nothing there where they receiue that without which that which they haue auaileth them to their destruction and not to their saluation Which if they wil not vnderstand it is sufficient for vs that we holde that Church which is shewed forth by most manifest testimonies of the holy and canonical Scriptures Where he speaketh not of the authortie of the Church to determine questions but sheweth it is sufficieÌ„t to haue proued by the Scriptures that they are the true Church although the Heretikes will not vnderstand how baptisme being ministred out of the Church hath not effect but in the true Church for if it be manifest by the Scriptures that Augustine holdeth the true Church that last question
altar alludeth to the sacrifices of thankesgiuing in the lawe because he vseth also the name of Leuites by which he calleth Gods ministers Let Bristowe nowe goe and say that Leuites also offered sacrifice propitiatoriâ— in the lawe The second flower of mine ignorance is where to deface the sacrifice of Iudas Macha 〈…〉 aeus I say that both the high Priest at that time was a wicked and vngodly man to wit either Iason Menelaus or Alcimus and namely Menelaus the worst of them all three and also that the other Priestes of that time were giuen to the practises of the Gentiles 2. Machab. 4. In so much that it is like that Iudas Machabaeus if hee deuised not the sacrifice of his owne heade yet tooke by imitation of the Gentiles Frst hee maruelleth howe I could thinke that Machabaeus had any commnion with the Gentilizers against whom all his fighting was seeing it is written first of Macab 4 that he chose priestes without spot hauing their heart in the lawe of God I aunswere being such as they were described 2. Machab. 4. hee had hard choise to finde a sufficient number of vnspotted priestes But although he were an enimy of gentility in that corrupt time and state he might be drawen into imitation of the gentiles in some point that had a shewe of pietie although it were not agreeable to the lawe of God His next accusation is that I call them high priestes which were but antipontifices and vsurpers I aunswere I iustifie not their title more then their maners and religion but whereas by his greekelatine word he supposeth that there were other true high priestes in their time he bewraieth his owne grosse ignorance For whereas he saith that the succession of the true high priestes for that time was this Onias Mathathias Iudas Ionathas Simon The truth is that Mathathias and Iudas were neuer high priestes neither doth the Story 1. Macc. 2. or 1. Macc. 3 which he quoteth shewe any thing to proue that they were It sayeth that Mathathias was a priest but not that he was the high priest And Iosephus who did write an history of the Maccabees testifieth plainly that from Iacimus to Ionathan for 7. yeares there was no high priest which Ionathan was made high priest in the yeare 160. Ioseph Antiqu. Lib. 20. Cap. 8. 1. Maccab. Cap. 10. verse 21. which was many yeares after Iudas his brother was slaine Therefore at such time as Iudas should send the offering to Hierusalem there was no such good Bishop as Allen saith but euen Onias cognomento Menelaus as Iosephus calleth him which was depriued both of his life and of his high priesthood at Berytus or as the corrupt story of the Machabes saith at Berea 2. Macc. 13. called in the first of the Machabees Bethzetha But whereas Bristow maketh Ionathas or Simon chiefe priestes in the absence of Iudas and not Menelaus he forgetteth that in those expeditions which Iudas made from Hierusalem for which he quoteth 1. Macc. 4. 5. it is plaine in the same chapter that Simon was sent with an hoast into Galilee and Ionathan went with his brother Iudas ouer Iordane into Gilead which story how he wil reconcile with the 2. Mac 12. either for time or persons I haue great meruaile But that Menelaus as he was then in office of the high priest though vnworthy so that he was at Hierusalem it appeareth by this record of the time The Temple was purged as Bristowe confesseth and it is written 1. Macc. 4. Anno 148. in the 25. of the Moneth Cislewe and in the same yeare Antiochus Eupator by letters sent to Lysias commandeth that the Temple should be restored to the Iewes whereof Lysias writeth to the Iewes the 24. of the moneth of Iupiter Corinthus and king Antiochus himselfe with letters bearing date the 15. of the moneth Panticus sendeth Menelaus to comfort the Iewes 5. Mac. 11. And the next yeare after Anno 149. Antiochus came into Iewrie and did execution vpon Menelaus and made warre vpon Iudas c. 2. Macc. 13. and ordained Iacimus high priest which continued in that place 3. yeares Iosep. Antiqu. Lib. 20. cap. 8. If that this account of the second booke of Maccabees agree not with the story of the first booke as in deede it doth not let Bristowe looke â—â—to it that defendeth these bookes to be Canonicall it is sufficient for me to iustifie that I cited out of this latter booke by the report of the same booke and by Iosephus who knewe the succession of the high Priestes of his nation better than Bristowe whose arrogant ignorance is so much the more odious that hee would charge me with ouersight in that hee is most ignorant him selfe and that against his Maister Allen who supposeth some other to be high Priest or Bishop and not Iudas him selfe The third chapter of my grosse or rather malicious ignorance is saide to be about Antichrist As that the Church of Christ should prepare his way or worke his mysterie But this is a fable of Bristowe neuer affirmed by me As for the other assertions of the time of his reuelation of the Churches fleeing into the wildernesse of the time of Antichristes reigne c. because they are condemned by the onely authoritie of Bristowe without any argument or testimonie of Scripture or Fathers I will referre the reader to such places where I affirme any of them to consider my reasons and to iudge indifferently The fourth point is that the body of Christ is not offered to him selfe but thankesgiuing is offered to him for the offering of his body for vs. Pur. 316. Against this his reasons are these Why sir did not he vpon the crosse offer his owne body as a Man and a Priest to him selfe as to God Sir the Scripture telleth me that Christ being an high Priest by his eternall spirite offered him selfe vnreproueable to GOD Hebr. 9. verse 14. Ergo you will say to him selfe as God because the persons of the godhead are vndiuided Yet I trust you will distinguish the humanitie from the deitie so Christ offered not his body to him selfe that is neither to his humanitie nor to the person of the mediatour which is God and man For though God was made man yet God the Father was not made man nor God the holy Ghost but God the Sonne onely And although it were graunted that Christ offering him selfe to God was offered to him selfe yet it followeth not that men of whome I spake can offer the body of Christ yea whole Christ to him selfe then the which nothing is more absurd An other reason Bristow bringeth that I noted others for saying it is not lawful to pray to God the sonne As though it were al one to pray to Christ to offer his body to Christ him self to him self The fift That I call it a vaine amplification and fond suppositioÌ„ to extend the force of Christes death beyond the limits of his will My words are of
kept 350. yeres past was no generall Councell of all that professe Christianity but only of the Papistes no more was any that followed at Constance Basil Trent nor yet that of Florence in which although there were some Grecians yet the councell of Basil was against it and many Orientall Churches that were neuer called to it neither was there any thing for transubstantiatioÌ„ or adoration therein agreed by the Grecians that were there For in the last session it is thus recorded Quibus quidem quatuor quaestionibus dissolutis summus pontifex petiit vt de diuina panis transmutatione quae quidem quarta quaestis fuiâ— in Synodo ageretur At Graeci dixerunt se sine totius orientalis Ecclesiae â—auctoritate quaestionem aliam tractare non posse cùm pro illa tantâ—m de spiritus sancti processione Synodus conuocata fuerit Which foure questions beeing dissolued the Pope desired that of the diuine transmutation of the bread which was the fourth matter in controuersie it might bee treated in the synode But the Grecians sayed that they without the authoritie of the whole Oriental Church coulde handle none other question seeing the synode was called together for that only question of the proceeding of the holy Ghost Fourthly although Berengarius was condemned by three Popish councels and by many learned preachers of his time thought to be an heretike yet seeing his doctrine is agreeable to the Scriptures and the iudgement of all the auncient Church for sixe hundred yeares and more after Christ and was also receiued by diuers learned preachers in his time the same being nowe taught in England is true doctrine and no heresie Wherefore none of the foure certeinties are certeine and true on Sanders side But he will examine vs what Gospell what Church what councels we haue First he saith we can bring no Gospel where it is writen This is the figure of my body Neither doe we affirme that it is onely a figure of his body nor denye that it is his body after a certeine manner as Augustine sayth And Sander will not deny but that it is a figure which were not true except it were proued out of the Gospell which speaking of the Cuppe sayth This is the newe Testament in my bloud And what Gospell doeth Sander bring saying This bread is turned into my body To the seconde demaunde I answere The primitiue Churche for sixe hundred yeares did beleeue of the presence of Christ in the sacrament as wee doe during which time as there was no controuersie so there needed no generall Councell to be gathered for confirming of that doctrine As there are many other articles agreed on both partes which were neuer decreed in generall Councels because there neuer was question about them But when the question did arise it was in the time of the prophecyed defection from Christ vnto Antichrist and the true Church was miserably oppressed and dispersed so that no generall Councell could bee gathered about it neither yet can by meanes of the ciuill dissention betweene Princes that professe Christ and the tyrannie of heathen Princes which holde many partes of the Church in miserable captiuitie and slauerie But the first sixe hundred yeares saith Sander make not for the Sacraments which is declared inuincibly by three meanes First diuerse fathers require vs instantly to beleeue these wordes This is my body c. although they seeme to bee against naturall reason and sense And yet no wise man will require vs to beleeue figuratiue wordes O shamelesse and senselesse heretike will not euery wise man require vs to beleeue all the figuratiue wordes of holy Scripture Are not these wordes true although they be contrarie to naturall reason sense The rocke was Christ I am the true vine I am the doore c and if these wordes are true are they not to be beleeued of vs in their true meaning euen so these wordes This is my body are true in their meaning and therefore credite is worthily required to be giuen vnto them The seconde reason is that the same fathers teache expressely that adoration of the body and blood in the mysteries which is a lowd lye vnderstanding it of popish adoration The third reason is because the fathers teache that we are made naturally and corporally one flesh with the flesh of Christ in the worthie receiuing of the blessed sacrament But this is false for they teach that the sacrament is an argument as a signe of our naturall and corporall coniunction with Christ which is by his incarnation for our coniunction by the sacrament is neither naturall nor corporall but spirituall vnto the body and bloud of Christ crucified for vs. Wherefore these reasons notwithstanding the sixe hundred yeres make still for vs. Yet can wee not assure our selues of the first sixe hundred yeres sayeth Sander by the writings of the fathers of those times because none of them goeth about to prooue that the body of Christ is not vnder that which the Priest blesseth c. or warned the people to beware of idolatrie or haue vsed such wordes as the Sacramentaries do now vse If Sander had not in him more impudencie then learning hee woulde not reason from authoritie negatiuely although his negatiues are not all true For some of the olde writers deny in expresse wordes the sacrament to be the very body of Christ Aug. in Psa. 98. Chrysost. in Math. That they warned not men to beware of idolatrie in worshipping the sacrament it argueth that none in their time did worship it seeing you Papistes confesse that idolatrie may bee committed in worshipping the Masse cake if it be not consecrated and therefore teach men to worship it with this condition when they see it if it be consecrated Such wordes as the fathers vsed in explication of the mysterie weâ— vse when we teache that it is a figure a token a representation a signification a similitude a symbole a type of the body and bloud of Christ and what wordes soeuer wee vse wee vtter none contrary to their meaning and teaching of the holy sacrament But saith Sander that they call the sacrament a figure or holy signe it hindereth not the reall presence because signes instituted by Christ haue reall trueth in euery sacrament Neither doe wee say the contrarie but that the reall trueth of Christes body is giuen vnto vs in the sacrament of the supper euen as the holy Ghost is giuen vs in the sacrament of baptisme and yet we deny the breade which is the signe to bee turned into the naturall bodye of Christ euen as we deny the water which is likewise the signe to be conuerted into the substance of the holy Ghost But the fathers saith Sander are not against the doctrine of the Papistes because no Papist findeth fault with them By the same reason he might proue that none of the Iurie which haue found a theefe guiltie did goe against him because the theefe challenged none of them And yet
propterea mortem ab eis diuertisse pernicies námque id est carnis huius mors aduersus genus humanum propter primi hominis transgressionem surebat Terra enim â—s in terram reuerteris propter peccatum â—udiuimus Verùm quoniam per carnem suam Christus atrocem hunc euersurus erat tyrannum propterea id mysterium apud priscos obumbrabatur oâ—inis carnibus atque sanguine sanctificati Deo ita volente perniciem essugiebant Quid igitur O Iudaee turbaris praefiguratam veritatem iam videns our inquam turbaris si Christus dicit Nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis biberitis sanguinem eius non habebitis vitam in vobis cùm oporteret Mosaicis te legibus institutum priscis vmbris ad credendum perdoctum ad intelligenda haec mysteria paratissimum esse Neither let the Iewe of the dulnes of his minde thinke that we haue inuented such mysteries as were neuer heard of for hee shall see if he will search more attentiuely that the same thing hath beene alwaies done by figure since the time of Moses For what hath deliuered their auncestors from the plague of the Aegyptians when death raged against the first borne of the Aegyptians Is it not manifest that they being taught by the institution of God did eate the flesh of a Lambe and annoynted the postes and vpper dore postes with bloude and therefore death departed from them For destruction that is the death of this flesh did rage against mankinde for the transgression of the first man For because of sinne we heard Earth thou art and into earth thou shalt returne But because Christ by his flesh was to ouerthrow this cruel tyrant therefore that mysterie was shadowed to the old fathers and being sanctified with the flesh and bloud of the sheepe God so willing they escaped destruction Why therfore ô Iewe art thou troubled seeing the trueth alreadie prefigured Wherfore I say art thou troubled if Christ say Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of Man drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in your selues whereas it behoued thee being instructed in the Lawe of Moses taught to beleeuing by the old shadows to be most readie to vnderstande these mysteries This place of Cyrill sheweth at large that he meaneth not by tast and touching or meate which is of alliance with vs the naturall bodie of Christ but the outward part of the sacrament namely the bread and wine for of the bodie of Christ there is neither taste nor touching bodily in the sacrament But euen as by eating of the Lambes flesh and anoynting of the bloude which prefigured the flesh and bloude of Christ and was a meate of kindred or alliance with them with whose taste and touching they were acquainted the Iewes were assured of their deliuerance so we by eating and drinking these outwarde signes of Christes bodie and bloude are assured of eternall life For you must note that he saith hoc ipsum the selfe same thing was alwayes done by figure from the time of Moses What was that namely that not onely our soules by the holy Ghost but also our bodies by externall sacramentes were brought to immortalitie But the same thing could not be done according to the Popish meaning before Christs incarnation therefore Cyrill is nothing lesse then of the Popish meaning The last witnesse is Tertullian de resur Carnis The flesh is washed that the soule may be clensed The flesh is oynted that the soule may be consecrated The flesh is signed that the soule may be defenced The flesh is shadowed by imposition of hande that the soule also may be illuminated The flesh is fedde with the bodie bloud of Christ that the soule also may be made fat of God They cannot therfore be parted in reward whom worke ioynesh We agree to that which Tertullian saith that our flesh is fed with that body bloud of Christ but not after a carnall or natural maner by receiuing the body and bloud at our mouthes c but after a spiritual manner as he himselfe sheweth in the same booke Nam quia durum intollerabilem existimauerunt sermonem eius quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinasse vt in spiritum disponeret statum salutis promisit spiritus est qui viâ—ificat For because they thought his saying hard and intollerable as though he had determined that his flesh was to be eateÌ„ of theÌ„ verily that he might dispose the state of saluation into the spirit he saide before It is the spirit that quickeneth In these words Tertullian counteth it the error of the Capernaites to thinke that Christ determined that his flesh should be eaten verily meaning that his fleshe was not to be eaten after a grosse and naturall manner with the mouth and teeth but with faith and heart Againe the argument of the resurrection of our bodies which he draweth of eating the bodie bloud of Christ cannot stande but with a spirituall eating thereof For what hope should all the fathers before the incarnation of Christ and so many thousand Christians as since that time haue neuer receiued the sacrament haue of the resurrection of their bodies if the vertue thereof were included in the popish imagined manner of eating Therfore Tertullian meaneth plainely that the externall sacraments which are receiued with the body beare the name oftentimes of the thinges whereof they are sacraments are arguments and assurances that saluation perteineth both to the bodie and to the soule and not that the bodie eateth and drinketh really the substance of Christs body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine any more then the body receiueth the holy ghost vnder the forme of water or imposition of hands c. What the supper of Christ is according to the doctrine of the Protestantes and Sacramentaries with a confutation thereof He affirmeth that we say Christ giueth to the bodie breade and wine but to the soule he giueth himselfe by saith spirit and vnderstanding This he maketh to be all the banket of the newe brethren Against this he inueyeth in a long chapter But either he is ignorant what we teach or rather he is not willing to shewe it that by rehersing it imperfectly he might haue more aduantage to dispute against it We beleeue that Christ giuing vnto vs bread and wine as visible seales of his inuisible grace giueth to the whole man his body and blood to be receiued of him by faith after a spiritual and wonderful maner passing al vnderstanding of man wherby we are assured that we are spiritually fed vnto eternal life eueÌ„ as by the seale of baptisme we are assured that we are spiritually and wonderfully washed from our sins born anew to be the sonnes of God We say not therefore the god giueth himselfe by faith spirit vnderstanding to our soules onely but he giueth himself vnto vs to be receiued by faith spirituallie But
be the worthier of the two but also the chiefe of many Sacramentes The authority of Dionysius which he voucheth as though it were without controuersie of antiquitie hath often bene disproued to be without the compase of the sixe hundreth yeares seing neither Eusebius nor Hierom nor Germadius in their seueral times did euer heare of any such bookes of Dionysius the Arâ—opagite S. Paules disciple But where the Apologie confesseth the Lordes supper to be a Sacrament a signe and an euident token of the bodie of Christ Sander saith it is constrained to beleeue many vnwriten verities and will not beleeue that only which is written in the scripture of this supper that it is the body and bloud of Christ. Beholde the vanitie of this fonde quareller because these truethes are not expressed in so many Latine or English words in the scripture therefore they be vnwritten verities The froward man himselfe in the Chapter last before confessed that mysterium in the Greeke was the same that is called Sacramentum in Latine If therefore the Lordes supper be called in Greeke mysterium we may find it in the scripture to be called a Sacrament For where S. Paul saith let a man thus esteeme vs as the ministers of Christ and as the dispensers of the mysteries of God who doubteth but vnder the name of mysteries the Lordes supper and baptisme is comprehended although the name of mystery be larger in Greke then we vse the name of Sacrament in Englishe yet in spight of the diuell the name of mysterie and Sacrament is truly verified out of the scripture of the Lordes supper and baptisme Likewise the name of signe being giuen by the holy ghost vsually to other Sacramentes by analogie must likewise apperteine to this SacrameÌ„t Ge. 17. Circumcision is called the signe of the couenant betweene God and the people Likwise Exo. 12. the bloud of the Paschal Lambe is called a signe and S. Paul Ro. 4. calleth the signe of circumcision a seale of iustification Last of all hauing found in the scriptures the Lords supper to be a Sacrament signe or seale the argument of relatiues leadeth vs by the hand to cal it an euident signe or token of the body bloud of Christ giuen for vs for that is the thing signified which is proued by these words This is my body which is giuen for you c. Euen as the Lambe is called the passeouer which was the Sacrament signe or euident token of the Passingouer and not the Passeouer it self But Sander vrgeth vs to answer whether the signe of the body and the body it self may stande together or no I answere him plainly except he destroye the nature of things opposite the signe and the thing signified cannot stande together at one time and in one respect as it is vnpossible that Abraham can be the father of Isaac and the sonne of Isaac also But in diuerse respectes they may stande together as Abraham is the father of Isaac and the sonne of Therah So the bread and wine cannot be both the signe of Christes naturall bodie and bloud giuen for vs and the verie same naturall bodie it selfe But as it is a diuine mysterie and heauenly seale it is truely called that whereof it maketh assurance namely the bodye and bloud of Christe euen as the cuppe is called the newe testament whereof it is a seale and assurance and as baptisme is called regeneration beeing a seale and assurance therof vnto the children of God CHAP. X. That the supper of our Lorde is both the signe of Christes bodie and also his true bodie euen as it is a sacrament He requireth diligent eare as though he had founde out a great argument for his cause when in deede it ouerthroweth himselfe altogether For he will shewe that such a signe as belongeth to Christes institution must needes haue the same trueth present whereof it is the sacrament Which being graunted it prooueth no more the trueth present in the one sacrament then in the other seeing they belong both to the institution of Christ. But God and Christ sayth he cannot institute a false signe or token I say so also and withall I say that seeing God instituted all the Sacramentes of the olde Testament which were signes and tokens of Christ Christ was truely present in them euen as truely as in our Sacramentes and therefore Saint Paul teacheth that Our fathers did drinke of the same spirituall drinke that wee doe for they dranke of the spirituall rocke which rocke was Christ. If Sander coulde content himselfe with such trueth and presence of Christ as he doeth exhibit in baptisme and did exhibit in all the Sacraments of the olde testament which were of his institution we might soone be agreed But in the meane time you see him ouerthrowen in his owne argument Other matters not incident to the present controuersie I omitt as that the holy ghost in baptisme at the same instant doeth wash the soule from sinne as though the effect of baptisme extended no farther then to the time of washing with water Likewise that the outward pronouncing of the wordes ouer the breade and wine is the Sacrament Whereby it followeth that when the sound of the wordes is once past it is no longer a Sacrament and consequently the Papistes must not call that which they worship the Sacrament of the altar c. CAP. XI What signe must chiefely be respected in the Sacrament of Christes supper and what a Sacrament is There be if we beleeue Sander foure kinde of signes in the Sacrament of the altar The first be tokens making consecrating the Eucharist which are the words of coÌ„secratioÌ„ the second be signes of it made which are the accidents of bread wine The third a signification of the Church And the fourth eating is a signe of a meruailous banket in the life to come Of these foure the first must be chiefly respected which is an outward tokeÌ„ of an inward trueth the outward token is called the Sacrament the inward trueth is called the thing of the sacrament wherupon the diffinition of a sacrament alleaged by Gratian out of S. Augustine is this A Sacrament is the visible forme of inuisible grace Out of this diffinition which imployeth two partes of a Sacrament he wil proue the trueth of the reall presence for if the bodie be not present saith he the words make a false tokeÌ„ I denie the consequence for the wordes make a true token and yet the body is not present after his grosse imagination of bodily manner of presence His exemplification of the order of priesthood giuen to the Apostles by these words Hoc facite doe and make this is to make a proofe of one controuersie by another For we denie the power of making which he pretendeth there to be giuen affirming that it is a commandement to continue that sacrament of his institution and shewing the vse thereof His second argument is that Christ spake not
his life for lacke of good argumentes if he escape hanging drawing and quartering for treason Except he thinke there be any children among vs brought vp in their Catechisme that bee so ignorant to thinke the wordes of Christ intending to worke a particular miracle be signes Sacraments in the same nature that bread wine is being apointed by him to be an ordinary pledg assurance of his grace vnto his whole church Againe we deny that the wordes of Christ are the Sacrament but wee say with Augustine Accedat verbum ad elementum Let the worde come to the element and then it is made a Sacrament Last of all concerning the trueth of Christes wordes This is my bodie This cuppe is the Newe testament c. wee nothing doubt but that grace in Gods elect worketh that which the wordes soundeth according to the true meaning of them But if Sander could haue made his matter good hee should haue reasoned of the water of baptism which is a signe of regeneration and if he could proue that the water in baptisme is not water but regeneration in deede because it is a token of regeneration he should haue reasoned somewhat like for his life But that which he saith of doing or making he would not haue it wrested to the meere doctrine of Christ which he spake doing or making nothing for therein he vsed parables but Christ saith he did rather then taught in his supper and therefore his wordes must be vnderstood euen as they sound If this rule be true Christ dranke and gaue wine at his supper which is the fruite of the vine according to the sounde of the wordes and therefore no transubstantiation in the cuppe But where he saith that Christ did rather then taught at his supper he would haue vs thinke belike that Christ did celebrate his supper like the Popish Masse in which is much adoe no teaching at all But beside that all the three Euangelists do set forth vnto vs the summe of his doctrine S. Iohn doeth in foure Chapters from the 13. to the 18. describe at large that he was occupied in teaching rather then doing You haue heard how Sander would dispute for his life CAP. XIII The wordes of Christes supper are not figuratiue nor his token a common kinde of tokens The first part of this title that the wordes of Christes supper arenot figuratiue hee prooueth not by any one word as for the other part that Christes token is not a cōmon kind of tokē which he proueth somwhat at large he needed not to haue proued at al. For it is confessed of vs that the sacrament is a more excellent token then can be ordeined by any man And where he saith that none of the fathers teacheth that these words This is my body c. be words figuratiue it shal suffice to oppose Augustine who in plaine termes saith these words Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man c. are a figuratiue speach Which wordes notwithstanding among the Papistes haue the same sense that these wordes This is my bo De Doct. Chri. Lib. 3. Cap. 16. the wordes are cited Cap. 11. And what other thing doth Augustine meane when he sayeth Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ita sacramentum fideifides est Therefore as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the sacrament of the bloud of Christe is the bloud of Christe so the sacrament of faith meaning baptisme is faith Epist. 23. Bonisacio Is it not manifest that he meaneth the one is a figuratiue speech as well as the other Fie vpon this impudent boasting of the Papistes which care not what lyes they make so they giue not place to the trueth As for the sayings of Cyprian Chrysostome Basil c. or any of the auncient Catholike fathers concerning the wonderfull manner of the presence of Christ in the sacrament doe all proue a spirituall and diuine manner of eating and drinking the bodie of Christ as in their proper places shal be seuerally declared CAP. XIIII That the supper of our Lorde is no sacrament at all if these wordes of Christ This is my bodie and this is my bloude be figuratiue Two leaues and an halfe of this Chapiter are spent to shewe the difference betweene figures of Rhetorike and sacramentall figures and that wordes must be ioyned to the elements to make sacramentes all which is needeles for it is commonly knowne and confessed on both parts sauing that he would make ignorant Papistes beleeue that Oecolampadius Caluine or Peter Martyr whē they read in Tertulliā in Augustine these words of Christ This is my body to be so expounded that is to say a figure or signe of my body they shoulde vnderstande a figure of Rhetorike as Metonymia or Synecdoche and not a sacramentall token No master Sander they were not so young Grammarians or Rhetoricians as you woulde beare fooles in hand but they could vnderstand the difference of a rhetoricall and a sacramentall figure although they coulde tell that a rhetoricall figure is vsed when a sacramentall token is spoken off as in so manie examples of the scripture they haue shewed But nowe let vs see what maine argument you haue to prooue that the supper is no sacrament if the wordes This is my body c. be figuratiue The words saie you doe not signifie a figure of his bodie therfore either they worke his bodie or they make nothing at al. I answere with Tertull. August The words do signifie a figure of his body For so do they expound the words This is my body that is to say a figure or signe of my body which their expositiō were false except those wordes This is my body doe signifie a figure or signe of his bodie Therefore Master Sander you may teach boies that bodie signifieth a substance and not a figure Tertullian and Augustine will not not be so aunswered at your handes They tell you that the interpretation of Christes wordes is such as proueth his speach to be figuratiue in spight of your heart And that euery boye that readeth this chapter may laugh at your arrogant impudence I set downe once againe these words of Christ This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud which if they be not confessed of you to bee figuratiue you will not confesse that fire is hote nor water moyst If they be figuratiue what Sacrament will be made with them Where you tell vs that the bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine is a figure of the same bodie walking on earth suffering on the crosse or sitting in heauen you doe as much as if you woulde teach vs that Abraham sitting close in his tent so that no man coulde see him was father of the same Abraham him selfe as he was the sonne Therah
came with him out of Vr of the Chaldees and as hee begate Isaac in the lande of Canaan and as hee is nowe at rest with God in heauen When you can perswade vs I saye that one man can be father and sonne of himselfe then wil we beleeue you that a figure and the thing figured be all one CAP. XV. The reall preseÌ„ce of Christs bodie is that which setteth his death and life before vs. The eating of common breade saith Sander in answere to the Apologie and drinking of common wine is but a homely manner of setting the death and resurrection and life of Christ before our eyes But if the breade and wine be turned into the same bodie and bloude of Christ which dyed rose againe and wrought all the myracles in the worlde then is the death resurrection and conuersation of Christ in deede set before the eyes of our faith Is not this an absolute answere to tell vs of the eating and drinking of common breade and wine when the Apologie speaketh of the Eucharistie which as Iustinus saith wee haue learned to bee common breade and wine but the bodie and bloude of Christ that was incarnated for vs. Confessing thus much what neede hath our faith of transubstantiation of breade and wine into his bodie and bloude more then of water into the holy ghost in baptisme Tush saith Sander all other wayes of setting the death resurrection and conuersation of Christ before our eyes without the reall presence is painting and shadowing in comparing of this liuely representation If this be true preaching of the death of Christ by which he is euen crucified among vs as S. Paul saith Gal. 3. is painting and shadowing the ministration of baptisme by which we are ingaffed into the death buriall and resurrection of Christ Rom. 6. is but painting and shadowing with Sander and no liuely representation But what affinitie saith he hath breade and wine with the death and resurrection of Christ I will aske him like wise what affinitie hath water with the death buriall and resurrection of Christ which is not nakedly represented but so as we are ingraffed into them by baptisme Rom. 6. By this prophane question you may see what faith he meaneth when he speaketh of setting the death and life of Christ before our eyes namely an hystoricall faith which because it is common to true Christians with diuels is not the faith that we come to feede vpon in these diuine mysteries But such a faith as applyeth to our owne comfort the effecte and fruite of the death resurrection and conuersation of Christ with the which the eating and drinking of bread and wine hath as great affinitie as things corporal can haue with thinges spiritual teaching that the most necessarie and onely sufficient nourishment of our soules is receiued by faith euen as the outward signes therof are taken with the bodie Yet Chrysostome saieth Hom. 83. in Math. Ipsum igitur vides ipsum tangis ipsum comedis Thou seest himselfe thou touchest himself thou eatest himself See saith Sander whether the Apologie do more truely teach that the signe or token wtout the real presence or the body it selfe present doth set forth the death and life of Christ. Then heare Chrysostome in the same homely speaking of the Eucharistye Si mortuuâ— Iesus non est Cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est Vides quantum ei studium fuerit vt semper memoria teneamus prâ— nobis ipsum mortuum fuisse If the Iesus hath not dyed as some heretikes affirme whose token and signe is this sacrifice Thou seest how great desire he had that we should alwayes keepe in remeÌ„brance that he hath died for vs. But I know he wil presse the former words thou seest himself c. therfore not a signe without the reall presence But seeing the reall presence whereof he speaketh by his owne iudgement and confession cannot stand without transubstantiatioÌ„ if transubstantiatioÌ„ be not that real presence which he holdeth is not And that there was no transubstantiation in the supper of Christ Chrysostome telleth vs plainly Quando hoc mysteriuÌ„ tradidit vinum tradidit when he delyuered this mysterie or sacrament he deliuered wine And this saith Chrysostome against theÌ„ that vsed to celebrate with water But to helpe out transuâ—stantiation he bringeth in Damascen a writer out of the compasse of the challeng which saith De ortho fid lib. 4 cap. 14. Non quòd corpus illud 〈◊〉 coelo descendat sed quia panis vinum in Christi corpus sanguinem transmutatur Not as though the bodie of Christ camâ— downe from heauen but because the breade and wine is chaunged into the bodie and bloude of Christ. Damascene helpeth not so much with the worde of chaunging as he hindreth you with denying the comming down of the bodie of Christ except you say it is euerie where And therefore aduise your self what presence and maner of change Damascene speaketh of when the bodie of Christ commeth not out of heauen into the priestes hands But Cyrillus saith he teacheth That we touch the bodie of Christ when wee come to the holy communion euen as Saint Thomas touched the side of Christ when he cryed out My Lorde and my God So wee touch that flesh when we touch the forme of breade as saint Thomas did touch the Godhead when hee touched the fleshe of Christ. For in each place we touch not either the Godhead or the fleshe visiblie These are high poyntes of Metaphysike Master Sander to touch the godhead which is insensible and to touch visiblie or inuisiblie except you meane by touching not visibly to touch that which wee see not as we may handle a thing in the darke which wee see not But howsoeuer you would cloake the matter by leauing out the wordes of Cyril hee saith that Christ in the sacrament appeareth visiblie Where is then your distinction of visible and inuisible presence nay where is your carnall presence become which you grounde vppon touching when he is none otherwise present to be touched then he is present to be seene and so saieth Chrysostome also in the place by you cited Thou seest himselfe thou touchest himselfe thou â—atest himselft If Christ be none otherwise eaten then hee is seene and is not seene but by faith it will follow that he is not eaten but by faith And nowe let vs heare Cyrillus beginning one sentence before SaÌ„d was disposed to heare him speak I n Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 58 Iâ— reigitur sanctae congregationes die octaâ—o in ecclesâ—â—s fiunt foribus sublimiore modo clausis visibiliter simul atque inuisibiliter Christus omnibus apparet inuisibiliter quidem vt Deus visibiliter autem in corpore Prâ—bet enim nobis carneÌ„ suaÌ„ tangendam vâ— firmiter credamus quia templum verè suum suscitauit Quòd autem mysticae benedictionis Communio resurrectionis Christi quaedam confessio est verbis ipsius probatur
deede the word verè declareth not only a metaphorical worke by faith but a true worke of the body and soule the one in beleeuing the other in eating As though Christ is not meat truly when he is eaten by faith in the soule or as though a metaphorical meat can not be called a meate truly or in deede when Christ speaking metaphorically saith he is a true vine But Tertullian saieth the flesh feedeth of the body and bloud of Christ as before wee haue often heard where he speaketh of externall Sacramentes and outwarde signes as of baptisme oynting imposition of hands c. What Theophylact a late writer saith we esteem not worth the weighing But Cyrillus he alleageth for his purpose who referreth the gift plainly to the incarnation of Christ and not to his supper In Ioan. lib. 3. Cap. 28. Diuina humanis c. He hath ioyned the thinges of man to the thinges of God and touched the whole mystery of his incarnation c. Last of all he citeth Ignatius in Ep. ad Romanos who expoundeth the bread and flesh and bloud spiritually and not of the Sacrament Non mihi placet c. The perishing meate and pleasures of this life please me not I will haue the bread of God the heauenly breade the breade of life which is the flesh of Christ the sonne of God and I will haue the cupp of his bloud which is incorruptible loue and life euerlasting If the cuppe of Christes bloud be incorruptible charity and life euerlasting then is it the effect of Christes bloud that Ignatius speaketh of and not his naturall bloud which is the cause thereof Other prooues then these Sander hath not in this Chapter for his purpose which prooue it nothing at all CAP. VII The equality of substance with his father which Christ alleageth for his gift prooueth the reall presence of his body and bloud in the Sacrament of the altar euen as God the father gau◠him reall flesh and bloud at his incarnation This argument is thus framed The sonne of man i◠equall with God his father God the father hath giuen his sonne to the world and made him true man the true bread of life therefore God the sonne being equall with his father will giue vs the same true flesh of the sonne of man as meate that shall tary with vs to euerlasting life But his father gaue him to the world not only in faith and spirite but in reall and substantiall flesh Therfore God the sonne by drift of his talke doth signifie that he will giue in his supper wherof he speaketh not in spirite and faith only but in truth of nature and substance the selfe same reall and substantiall flesh O what sporte would such an argumente make among the Sophisters in Cambridge and Oxford In which be so many tearmes and neuer a meane so many false propositions so many petitions of principles so much more in the conclusion then was in the premisses finally so many words and so litle to the purpose But I will make answere briefely and plainly The equally of Christ with his father prooueth in deed that he is able to doe whatsoeuer it pleaseth him and to performe whatsoeuer he promiseth But he no where in his Chapter promiseth to giue his reall substantiall flesh to be eaten bodily therefore his almighty power prooueth nothing of that purpose But he promiseth to giue vs the same true flesh which he receiued of his father to be meate tarying vnto eternal life This promise he perfourmeth daiely vnto the electe making his bodye and bloud which was crucified and shedde for vs to be food of euerlasting continuance Yea saith Sander but God gaue him to the world not only in faith and spirite but in trueth of nature and substance therefore Christ will giue vs his reall flesh in substance not in faith and spirite onely A strange argument God gaue Christ to the world in the true nature and substance of fleshe not in spirite and faith only What mean you by this God gaue him not in spirite and faith onely For any thing that I vnderstande of your meaning God gaue him not in faith spirite at all For when you speak of Christs incarnation and of God sending him in the flesh what sense is it to say he sent him in faith or in spirit But God gaue him naturall flesh and God gaue him to the world manifested in the flesh But howe doth the worlde receiue him being giuen in reall and substantiall flesh How did all the Patriarkes Prophetes and elect before the time of his incarnation receiue him who being giuen to the world must needes be giuen to them also Verily no otherwise then in spirite and by faith Euen so Christ promising to giue his flesh and his bloud to be meate drinke vnto vs meaneth not that it should otherwise be receiued then in spirite and by faith either in his supper or in baptisme or without any of the Sacraments And heerevnto the diuine power of Christ serueth to assure our faith that he can giue vs his very naturall and diuine flesh to be receiued spiritually and faithfully to feede and nourish vs vnto life euerlasting assuredly CAP. VIII Seeing Christ is the bread of life to vs by the gift of his flesh the eating of that flesh by our faith and spirite sufficeth not but it selfe also must be really eaten It is marueile why it should not suffice vs to eate hi◠flesh which is the breade of life as all the children of God did eate it before his incarnation and as many thousandes since which haue beene partakers of eternall life and yet neuer were admitted to the Lordes supper But Sander sayeth it is expressely against the worde of God that by the incarnation of Christ wee haue not the breade of life giuen vs by any other way then wee had it before The reason belike is this That the bread of life is nowe first promised by the gift of Christ as who came into the worlde to bring vs this euerlasting meate Marke this Popish diuinitie which restraineth the vertue of Christes incarnation to the instant time in which he tooke flesh and thereby denyeth eternall life to all the Patriarches and Prophets who by his reason neuer tasted of the bread of life He talketh much and to litle or no purpose of the controuersie that the godhead is life properly which that it might be communicated to vs it assumpted flesh and this flesh is made meate for vs but what is the conclusion It is giuen at Christes supper vnder the forme of breade no other meane of giuing will serue Doeth he not by this conclusion exclude all them from eternall life which haue not beene admitted to the Sacrament and yet like a folish hypocrite he cryeth out of our crueltie which depriuing men of the true flesh of Christ depriue them of the godhead and of eternall life Whereas he slandereth vs altogether
and not the verie image of things applying the shadowe to the Lawe the image to the gospel and the things themselues to the life to come In which application he seeth not howe he graunteth to the Gospel but an image of things and not the thinges themselues and thereby in deede denieth the verie flesh of Christ to be giuen vs but an image thereof For his glosse will not stande with the Apostles wordes that we haue the verie flesh of Christ vnder the image o◠forme of bread the Apostle saying we haue the image of things which image if it be none other but the accidents of breade wee haue no great prerogatiue aboue the Law In deede the Apostle meaneth that the same things which were but rudely shadowed as it wer with a cole to the fathers in the Law are in a liuely image described and set forth vnto vs in the Gospel For the Gospel hath not those good thinges which are to come but possesseth them by faith Therefore how foolish is that conclusion of Sander vppon this text Christ gaue vs his real flesh vnder the forme of breade or else he gaue not the thing it selfe and if hee gaue it without figure out state were not an image of the things themselues Wheras the Apostle speaketh not of these things which are giuen but of the clearenes of the doctrine of those things which are promised and therefore he calleth them good things to come and Christ an high Priest of good things to come As madde yea and more frantike is that conclusion that Christ cannot be a mediator betweene the two Testaments except he gaue his flesh vnder the forme and figure of breade By which drunken conclusion it should follow that Christs mediation depended vpon the institution of the Sacrament which the Apostle in expresse words doth affirme to haue bene made complet in his death which was effectuall vnto all ages alike Heb. 9. Also that Christ in Baptisme hath not shewed himselfe to be a mediator greater then Moses because he hath not therein giuen vs his naturall flesh which is in heauen And last of all that Christ is not a mediator vnto the fathers that liued before the institution of his supper but onely to them that are partakers of his flesh in the supper Againe as vntrue it is that because Christ came to fulfill the Law therfore it was necessarie that he should giue his flesh vnder a figure which flesh was not giuen to them that liued vnder the Lawe as though there were one meane of saluation for them and another for vs. The scripture doth often distinguish the Law and the Gospel shewing what is peculiar to either of them but it neuer affirmeth that the persons liuing in the time of the strength of Moses Lawe were saued otherwise then by the Gospel that is by remission of sinnes through faith in the mercie of God reconciled to vs by Iesus Christ. Therefore it is more then blockish to wrest the distinction of the Testamēts to make a difference of the saluation of the persons Seing the new Testament was not first ordeined as Sander seemeth to say when Christ did institute his supper which hee called the new Testament but euen from the beginning of the world but yet to take effect vertue and strength by the death of Christ of which Testament the supper is a sacrament bearing the name of the thing whereof it is a Sacrament as well when it is called the newe Testament as when it is called the bodie and bloude of Christ. And therefore the example of the precept of not killing expounded by Christ to extend to anger proueth not any newe trueth to be added by the Gospel but the ancient right meaning of the cōmandement deliuered from the glosse of the Pharisees which expounded the precept onely of murthering with the hand For who will say that such anger as Christ forbiddeth was lawfull before the time he made that exposition or that to commit adulterie in heart by lusting after a woman was not sinne before Christ did so interpret that commaundement If it were sinne then it was a breach of the Law if it were a breach of the Lawe it was of the Lawe that was giuen therefore the Lawe was alwayes spirituall and had that true meaning and was so taken of all good men before Christ reprooued the corruption of the Pharisaical glosses That all legall instruction and propheticall figures are transferred into the sacraments of Christ as Leo saith we agre We denie not that which Dionyse saieth although wee may not acknowledge him to haue beene S. Pauls scholler that our holy gouernement partaketh of heauen spirituall contemplation and of the Lawe sensible signes Neither of both these autorities proue the matter in question As for the distinction of gifts whervnto Sand. tumbleth againe in the end of this chapter we make not voyd by our figuratiue doctrine But such distinction as was in deede betweene that which Moses gaue and God gaue we vpholde by our figuratiue doctrine which sheweth y◠right difference betweene the auctor and the minister the signe the thing signified But that distinction betwene the gift which the Father gaue alwayes and that which the sonne promiseth to giue to be diuerse whē Sander cā proue we may be brought to acknowledge it In the meane time that promise of continuance of that gift in the Future temps which Christ hath alwayes giuen is a slender argument to proue the distinction of gifts imagined by Sander Finally in substance of the foode of eternal life as we differ not in the life eternall it selfe we are not preferred before the lewes They did all eat the same spiritual meate c Our prefermente is more cleere sight and vnderstanding euen such difference as is between the knowledge obteined by a description of a bodie shadowed and liuely set foorth in colours which is the shadow and verie image that the Apostle speaketh of Heb. 10. CAP. XI The bread that Christ promiseth to giue which is his flesh must needs be meant of the substance of his flesh There is no doubt but Christ did giue the substance of his flesh which being crucified for vs is made the bread of life and spirituall meate and drinke to be receiued of vs not after any corporall manner of eating but by faith in spirit not onely in the Sacrament of his supper but in baptisme also and without any sacrament But that it must stand for a trueth vniuersally receiued that Christ saying The breade which I will giue is my flesh meant the bread which I wil giue you at my last supper that I say I denie What Sander vaunteth he hath proued thereof in the 5. and 6. chapters of this booke let it bee examined with mine answere But admit he had spoken principally of his supper yet doeth it not followe which Sander doth inferre that he promised to giue his flesh to Iudas because he was one of the
twelue which taryed with him at Capernaum for his promise in offer was as large to all that departed and to the world for the life whereof he promised to giue his flesh therefore it cannot be concluded that it was not onely a spirituall gift that was promised but an externall gift deliuered by hand which Iudas might receiue For Christ promiseth such a gift as if it be receiued worketh eternall life in the receiuers Finally it cannot be prooued that Iudas was prseÌ„t at the supper who departed about his treason before the institution of the sacrament as appeareth by saint Iohn immediatly after the soppe receiued wherevnto some of the ancient writers also do consent Furthermore that the gift of Christ doth differ from the gift of his father in person and time and therfore cannot be giuen by faith only it is no good consequent For God gaue his sonne for the worlde and Christ gaue himselfe for vs yet but one gift The difference of time I haue often answered As for the obiection that he faineth the Sacramentaries must say that that flesh heere staÌ„deth for the signe or figure of his flesh is of his owne making for as I said before we vnderstand the flesh of Christ giuen for the life of the world his naturall body crucified for vs and not the sacrament of his body giuen in his last supper CAP. XII A further declaration of the reall presence of Christes body and bloud taken out of the discourse of his owne wordes concerning the different eating of him by faith and the receiuing of his flesh and bloud in the Sacrament of the Altar First he repeteth his three gifts God gaue by Moses naked figures as Manna God giueth presently the flesh of Christ to our eyes and heartes and Christ will giue hereafter the same flesh vnder the forme of breade Of these giftes he maketh three diuerse workes the first by teeth and belly the seconde by faith and spirite and the thirde by both The gift of Christ differing from Manna is expressed in the Chapter But any difference of the gift of the father and of the sonne there is not expressed nor to be gathered by any note of distinction or dissentanie argument Yet Sander hath founde out a great number of differences to prooue that although the Father and the Sonne giue one thing that is the flesh of Christ yet not one way to be receiued the Father giueth it to bee receiued by faith onely the Sonne to be receiued corporally The first difference is of the time The Father doeth giue in the Present tense the Sonne will giue in the Future tense This I haue often answered to be no differeÌ„te for Christ saith in the preseÌ„t temps except ye do eat the flesh c. ergo he did presently giue it Againe he that doth eat often is ofteÌ„ times repeted in the present time and my flesh is meate in deede all which prooue that Christs gift was present when he spake to be receiued therefore it differeth not from the Fathers gift and way of receiuing the same The second difference the Father giueth Christ in the forme of man by the manner of the Fathers gift the faithfull may see that sonne of Man vpon whom they beleeue as it is saide This is the will of my Father which sent me that euery one who seeth the Sonne and beleeueth in him may haue euerlasting life And againe yee haue seene me and haue not beleeued Of the Sonnes gift it is not saide that his flesh shal be seene but rather insinuated that it shal be vnder the couering of another kinde of foode I answere that Christ in neither of both these sayings speaketh of the corporall sight of his body But in the one which is first placed in S. Iohn Yee 〈◊〉 au seene me and not beleeued he exprobrateth to the Iewes their wilfull blindnesse which had acknowledged him before to be the Messias when he fed their bellyes now refuse to beleeue him when hee offereth to feede their soules In the other place he sheweth that obedieÌ„ce of faith ioyned to a manifest acknowledging of Christ by the wil of God is the way to eternal life For if seing should be taken for bodily seeing of Christes flesh it could not extende to vs which cannot bodilie behold him Againe this difference ouerthroweth Sanders supposed way of the fathers giuing which is by faith and spirit onely not sensibly to the eye of the bodie Last of all it is a weake argument it is not saide in this or that text ergo it is not meant or it is not true at all The 3. difference The Fathers gifte is called the true bread from heauen The Sonnes gift is called not onely true breade but also truely breade and meate in deede Some true meate may chaunce not to bee truely meat becâ—â—se it is not eaten but nothing is meate in deede and truelye meate except it bee in deede eaten If this difference bee woorth a strawe then your consecrated hostes bee not the Sonnes gift before they bee eaten and except they bee eaten as some time yee woâ—â— well they are burned they bee not his gifte at all if not his gift then not flesh and bloude The difference of a true Vine and a Vine truelie is sufficiently discussed in the later ende of the fourth booke answered by master Nowel Sander cannot or will not consider the difference of the opposition betweene truely and falsely and truely and properly The fourth difference The Iewes and disciples went not away from Christe for any thing that was spoken about the Fathers gifte thinking that a gifte of eating by faith might stande with the custome of Gods people but in the Sonnes gift they sawe more apparant absurdity not lacking vnderstanding but faith and therefore departed I answere they lacked vnderstanding as much as faith and therefore Augustinâ— saith Sed qui aderant plures non intelligendo sâ—andaliazti sunt non erum cogitabant haec audiendo nisi carnem quod ipsi erant But manie of them that were present were offended for lacke of vnderstanding For heating these thinges they thought on nothing but fleshe which they themselues were It is a simple difference that is gathered of the Iewes ignorance and incredulitie The 5. difference The gift of the father is called by such names only as belong to the persoÌ„ of Christ or to his diuine nature to say the bread of life the liuely bread the true bread for God onely is absolutelie the true bread of life or by the Pronoune I The gift of Christ is called also by the names of his humane nature to wit the flesh and bloud of the sonne of men If this differeÌ„ce proue any thing it prooueth not the diuerse wayes of giuing the same thing but that the same thing is not giuen by the Father and the Sonne Where as Sander saide before that the Father giueth Christ in humane nature to the worlde If the humane
nature of Christ bee giuen of the father the names thereof may well agree to the Fathers gift The 6 difference That Christ endeth his talke of eche gifâ— with repeting the old figure Manna betokening by both the shadowe of Manna to be fulfilled But Manna was more perfectly fulfilled in outward doings by the sonnes gift This is an agreement rather then a difference except in the last illation which is a meere begging of the matter in question But there is a great difference in that it is said of the one If any man eate ex hoc pane of this breade in the other he that eateth hunc panem this breade and heere is made a great difference betweene eating of Christ and eating Christ himselfe the one is onely by faith the other in the Sacrament of the Altar the one is to bee partaker of the vertue and grace of Christ the other to receiue the substance of Christ. c. But our sauiour Christ in S. Iohn confoundeth this difference vsing the Accusatiue case and the Ablatiue with the preposition for all one I am the liuing bread which came downe from heauen if any man shall eate of this bread he shall liue for euer Here is the Ablatiue with a preposition but what is this bread of which he that eateth shal liue he answereth The bread which I wil giue is my flesh whereof he saith afterward Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c where he vseth the Accusatiue by which it is plaine that with Christ to eat this breade to eat of this bread is all one Saint Paul also ouerthroweth this difference shewing that the Israelites did drink of the spiritual Rock which was Christ vnworthily where as none can receiue the effect of Christes death vnworthily So he saith wee are al partakers of one bread But Sand not satisfied asketh if this be the end of our long disputatioÌ„ that Christ came into the world to giue a lesse token then God had giuen before vnder Moses c as though Christ came into the world for no end but to giue the sacrament As for so many differences as he dreameth of his fathers gift and his we finde not any one but that they may all agree in one gift which was not his supper but himselfe to death for the life of the world wherof euery one of his elect is made partaker as of spiritual foode by faith his holy spirit But this difference is learned saith he out of Chrysostome vpon Iohn Ho. 45. c. where he noteth first the diuersitie of persons saying Se non patrem that he not his father dare to giue saith Sander but he falsifieth Chrysostome which saith dedisse to haue giuen which proueth that it is not giuen onely in the Sacrament which then was not instituted 2 That hee saith Hom. 44. that Christ speaketh first of his diuinitie and about the ende of his bodie prooueth not that he speaketh onely of the Sacrament For Hom. 45. he saith plainely as Sander confesseth that the bread signifieth either the doctrine of Christ and saluation and faith in him or else his body Wherin hee dissenteth altogether from Sanders interpretation who will not haue the bodie of Christ promised before flesh be named But Chrysostome saith vpon these wordes my flesh is meat in deed c. that he so saide to the end they should not thinke him to speake in parables but by fleshe to meane the signe of flesh or by eating to meane be leeuing is to speake in parables I answere that wee say neither of both but that Christ is verily eaten by faith and by the spirite of God yet Sander omitteth the other cause which Chrysostome rendreth of his so saying Aâ—â— quòd is est verus cibus c. either that hee is the true meate which saueth the soule or else c. But he saueth not the soule onely by eating the Sacrament therefore this meate is not eaten onely in the sacrament Finally that which is noted out of Hom. 83. in Matth. that Christ is ioyned vnto vs not by faith and loue onely but in verie deede Wee confesse but so is hee ioyned to infants that neuer receiued the supper and so was hee ioyned to all the faithfull before his incarnation in as much as they all were members of his bodie And so confesseth Chrysostome in Ioan. Homil. 46. that Abraham by eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ shall bee partaker of the resurrection and therefore Christ saide He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life eternall and I will raise him vp in the last day The testimonies of Theophilact and Euthynius which are but late writers in comparison I will not stande vpon CAP. XIII The like precept made to men of lawfull age for eating Chrisâ—â— flesh as was made generally for baptisme sheweth his flesh to be as really present in his supper as water is in baptisme Neither the one precept of regeneration is principally of baptisme neither the other of the Lordes supper And the necessitie of eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ is not â—aide onely vpon men of lawfull age because they were of lawfull age to whome Christe spake any more then the necessitie of regeneration vppon all men seeing Nicodemus to whome Christe saide Except a man be borne c. was of lawful age For spiritual food which is nothing else but the body bloud of Christ is as necessarie for al ages as for perfect age But that the flesh of Christ is as necessarie in the supper to feede vs as water in Baptisme to wash vs it is a froward and foolish comparisoÌ„ for water washeth not our soules nor regenerateth vs but the holy ghost whereof water is a signe so the flesh of Christ is as necessarie in the supper to feede vs as the holy ghost to wash vs and regenerate vs which seeing it doth without transubstantiation of the water into the spirite likewise doth the flesh and bloud of Christ nourish vs without transubstantiation of the outward signes into them The right Analogie is betweene water and breade and wine and betweene the spirite of God and the flesh and bloud of Christ not betweene outward water spirituall flesh of Christ which is as preposterous a comparison is if you would compare the holy ghost in baptisme with the breade and wine in the sacrament But of the error of Cyprian Innocentius and Augustine he will prooue the necessitie of the presence of Christs flesh in the supper because they gaue the communion to infantes that coulde not receiue it with faith vnderstanding therfore they thought the very body blod of Christ to be really coÌ„tained in the sacrameÌ„t I answere it was not because they thought so but because they thought the one sacrament as necessarie as the other which might and may in deede be ministred to infants that haue not faith nor vnderstanding actually Therfore that
all out ouer it The verbe is in the words of Christ The bread which I will giue is my flesh although it respect the naturall flesh of Christ yet it prooueth not that the verbe is in the supper must be referred to the sonne more then the same verbe in Saint Paul the Rocke was Christ yet because you may see what a foolish conference Sander maketh of wordes I will reason with him in his owne sense and ouerthrowe him in his owne conference I say not saith Sander that the bread shal be but the bread is my flesh If the bread is his flesh then his flesh is the bread and if the worde bread signifie an eatable thing as we haue bene often told then the flesh of Christ is an eatable thing when he so saith and consequently the flesh of Christ which he said he would giue for the life of the world might be eaten before the institution of the Sacrament The word coÌ„municating is the next matter of conference which being vsed of S. Paul doeth interprete the verbe Is to signifie a substantiall and not an accidentall being for communicating doeth shewe that all thing is common betweene it and Christes flesh no diuision no separation no distinction commeth betweene these two but a barâ— signe of bread can make no such communicating because it is cleane of another kinde c. That Sanders argument may be the stronger he disputeth against that often times which wee vtterly denie For we neuer saide that naturall bread or a bare signe can make vs to haue communion with Christ but the verie bodie bloud of Christ yet not corporally but spiritually ioyned vnto vs of which communicating the bread and wine are effectuall seales sacraments As for Sanders assertion of communicating to signifie all thing common betwene Christ and vs not only without diuision but euen with out distinction is horrible heresie and detestable blasphemie Saint Iohn Ep. 1. Cap. 1. vseth the same worde often saying that wee haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicating with God the father and his sonne Iesus Christ haue wee then all thing common with God the father so that ther is no distinction betweene vs and him O intollerable blasphemie The same Apostle saith wee haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicating one with another by which he not only sheweth that the worde of communicating signifieth not all that which Sander saith it doeth but also teacheth that our communicating with Christ and with the members of Christ is spirituall whereof S. Paul speaketh 1. Cor. 10. We being manie are one bodie c. And last of all that wee haue this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or communicating by other meanes then by receiuing the Sacrament That wee haue seene and heard saieth Saint Iohn wee preach vnto you that you also may haue communicating with vs that our communicating may be with the father and with his sonne Iesus Christ. Againe if we walke in the light as he is light we haue communicating one with another and the bloud of Iesus Christ his sonne doeth purge vs from all sinne The last wordes of conference are bodie and bloud for which he heapeth vp so many texts as they are named in and more then either they are named meant in to proue that bodie and bloud stand not for signe or figure of bodie and bloud and in the ende concludeth that because these wordes are taken properly therefore to defend the wordes of Christes supper to be figuratiue is ignorance in Grammar and Logike blindnesse in diuinitie malice inexcusable in the day of iudgement But so long as it is but Sanders sophisticall conclusion it is little to be regarded what Logike diuinitie or conscience he hath that reasoneth thus let all the Logicians diuines and men of good conscience consider vntill Christ come and iudge all things The worde bodie in this saying This is my bodie is not figuratiue therefore the whole saying is not figuratiue This signifieth a generall thing and not that thing in his hand Is declareth that to be presently which is not vntill all the wordes be said bodie is taken properly Therefore the sense of this whole saying vttered together cannot be figuratiue But nowe we shall see conference of other places of scripture It is euident he saith that Iohn is not Elias and vseth many arguments to proue it yet will he admitte no arguments out of the present words This is my bodie to prooue that the saying is figuratiue as well as This is Elias And yet there is more oddes betweene the bodie of Christ and naturall bread then hee saith is manifest betweene Iohn and Elias Secondly The rocke was Christ must needes be figuratiue because it speaketh of two diuerse natures as though bread and the body of Christ were not two diuerse natures But there is no conuersion of any rocke into Christ for Christ did neither say of the rocke This is my body nor coÌ„mand vs so to say Seeing the holy ghost saieth the rocke was Christ who doubteth but that it was so by the word of Christ although not expressed by Moses And seing the Apostle speaketh so in the time past who will denie but that Moses or any man by the authority of Gods wordes at such time as the Israelites did drinke of it might haue said of the rocke This is Christ The other places which proue the absence of Christ in his humane nature froÌ„ the world as the poore ye shall haue alwaies but me you shall not haue alwaies He is risen he is ascended into heauen he sitteth at the right hand of God c. Sander saith they denie not his inuisible presence in the Sacrament nether is any thing impossible to God and Christ sitting in heauen is almighty c. But Christ doth not only tell his Apostles that they shal see him no more after his ascension saying I goe to my father and you shal see mee no more Iohn 16. ver 10. but also he telleth them plainely and without any parable as they confesse that he leaueth the world and goeth to his father Io. 16. ver 20. whereas if he had saied I departe out of the worlde when he onely departed out of sight and purposed still to be present inuisibly he had not spoken plainely but very darkely Whereas Chrysostom de sacerd lib. 3. saith it is a great miracle that he which sitteth with his father in heauen at the same instant is touched with the handes of all men and deliuereth him selfe to those that will touch and embrace him It is manifest he speaketh of the heauenly mystery figuratiuely For immediatly before he saith when thou seest turbam circumfusam pretioso illo sanguine intingi ac rubâ—fieri c. the people standing about to be dipped and made redde with that precious bloud doest thou thinke thou art still among mortall men and standest vpon the earth Art thou not rather immediatly remoued into the heauens Doest thou not casting away all cogitation
did signifie and exhibit euen as the sacrament of his supper doth vnto vs. I say marke Master Doctor Sander you that are so great a Grammarian and consider whether Ista commemoratio in the last sentence be not the same that it is in the first And marke whether ille and iste That and this can be referred to one and the same commemoration But Augustine or Fulgentius de fide ad Petrum declareth how the sacrament is a remembrance of Christâ— in rehearsall of which saying Sander playeth the same part that hee did before that is hee omitteth the one halfe of the discourse which maketh altogether against transubstantiation Firmissimè â—ene c. Most stedfastly beleeue thou and nothing doubt that the onely begotten sonne God the worde being made fleshe hath offred himselfe for vs to bee a sacrifice and oblation of sweete sauour vnto GOD to whome with the father and the holy ghost by the Patriarches Prophetes priests in time of the old testament beasts were sacrificed and to whom now that is in time of the new testament with the father and the holy Ghost with whom he hath one diuinitie the holy Catholike Church thoroughout the whole worlde ceaseth not to offer the sacrifice of breade and wine in faith and charitie For in those carnall sacrifices there was a figuring of the fleshe of Christe which hee himselfe beeing without sinne should offer for our sinnes and of his bloude which hee should shedde for the remission of our sinnes now beginneth Sander But in this sacrifice there is thaÌ„ksâ—iuing and a coÌ„memoration of the flesh of Christ which â—e offered for vs and of his bloude which the same God â—id shedde for vs. Therefore in those sacrifices it was fiâ—uratiuely signified what should be giuen vs But in this â—acrifice it is euidently shewed what hath nowe beene â—iuen vs in these sacrifices it was before hande shewed â—hat the sonne of God shoulde bee afterwarde killed for â—icked men but in this he is alreadie shewed to haue â—eene alreadie killed for wicked men That Sander oâ—itteth a sentence which is not materiall I will not â—uarrell with him But nowe we must marke saith he the â—ordes of Fulgentius of the olde sacrifices figuratè signiâ—â—cabatur it was figuratiuely signified by the newe sacriâ—ice euidenter ostenditur it is euidently shewed If wee had â—ot Christes bodie present the old shadows would shew â—is death better theÌ„ bread wine flesh would shew flesh â—nd bloud would shew bloud and killing would shew â—illing In deede it is good to marke the writers wordes Shall we then skippe ouer the authors wordes which calleth this newe sacrifice whereof he speaketh so much sacrificium panis vini the sacrifice of breade and wine Therefore when he saith In this sacrifice I aske what sacrifice he telleth me in the sacrifice of bread and wine is euidently shewed what is alreadie giuen vs You see Fulgentius meaneth euident shewing otherwise then Sander doth which thinketh it cannot be by breade and wine And as to Sanders reason that flesh sheweth flesh more euidently then breade I answere that Fulgentius compareth not so much the euidence of the signes as the difference of the times which then was to come nowe is past concerning the passion of Christ. Although that which is shewed to be perfourmed already is more euidentlie shewed then that which is darkely promised to be perfourmed hereafter And the doctrine of the Gospell in preaching Christes death is a more cleere and euident demonstration of his benefites then the doctrine of the sacrifices was But Sander compareth the flesh of the olde sacrifices and the breade of the Lordes supper as though it were none otherwise shewed to bee the remembrance of Christes death in the Church of Christ then it is in their popish masse whereas Fulgentius speaketh not of the bare ceremonie of the Sacrament but of the Sacrament with the doctrine there vnto belonging which is tence times a more euident shewing of Christes death then the olde sacrifices were Otherwise he might say that circumcision was a more euident shewing of mortification and regeneration then baptisme because that which was done in the member naturally made for generation did more euidently shewe those mysteries then dipping or sprinkling of water But as their ceremonies were more sensible demonstrations so the doctrine of our sacraments is wonderfully more cleere and euident Finally seeing this writer entendeth to teach Peter the Deacon most plainely why doth he call the sacrameâ—â— the sacrifice of breade and wine if there be no breade and wine in that holy office or seruice for so hee taketh the worde Sacrifice and not properly as his whole exposition doeth shewe For if he had meant a popish reall presence why doth hee not once name any thing sounding there to if hee had meant a propitiatorie sacrifice why doth he so manifestly distinguish it from the sacrifice of Christ and place it onely in thankesgiuing and remembrance of Christ crucified Verily this place whether it was written by Augustine or Fulgentius it is vtter enimie to transubstantiation and the propitiatorie sacrifice of the popish masse But what neede I bring the fathers one by one saith Sander sith the whole seconde Councell of Nice doubted not to say A worshipfull Councell of vnlearned Idolaters And what say they Nemo sanctorum c. None of the holy Apostles which are the trumpet of the holy Ghost either of our glorious fathers hath said our vnbloudy sacrifice which is made in the remembrance of Christ our Lord and God his passion and of his whole conuersation to be an image of that bodie If this Councell say true that none of the Apostles haue so said then Sander is condemned by this Councell for falsifying the Scripture Heb. 10. when vnder colour of the Apostles wordes he affirmeth the sacrament not to be a shadowe of thinges to come but to be the image of the thing it selfe Lib. 3. Cap. 10. But that all these fathers do lie when they say none of our fathers haue said the sacrifice to be an image of his bodie it might be proued by diuerse ancient witnesses among which I will name Ambrose Offici lib. 1. ca. 1. who speaking of the sacrament which he calleth the sacrifice wherein Christ is offered saieth Hîc in imagine ibi in veritate heere in an image there hee is offered in trueth where as an aduocate hee maketh intercession with the father for vs. In this saying what is the image but the sacrament and whereof is it an Image of his bodie where the image is also perfectly distinguished from the truth Also Theodoret Dialog calleth the sacrament an image oporâ—es imaginis esse exemplar archeâ—ypum The chiefe paterne must bee an example of the image meaning by the paterne Christ by the image the sacrament of his supper Finally to the authoritie of this seconde Nicen councell I oppose the Ephesine Councell which determined against images and affirmed the Sacrament of
is not to be adored Whosoeuer receiueth any of Christs disciples receiueth Christ but hee shal be an Idolater if he giue diuine honour to him which is due onely to the person of Christ. The like answere I make to that Ambrose saith de ijs qui myst cap. 9. that Christ is in the Sacrament To Ignatius Ep. ad Rom. calling the Sacrament the breade of God the heauenly breade the breade of life To Euseb. lib. 10. cap. 10. calling it a Sacrifice full of God and the dreadfull Sacrifices of Christes table To Cyrillus lib. 3. in Ioan cap. 37. saying that by the mysteries wee are made partakers of the diuine nature Neither doe the sayings of Cyrillus nor Hilarius lib. 4. cap. 18. prooue a personall vnion of Christ with the Sacrament when they say it maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporally and by a naturall participation for they say not so simplie but vnder a Sacrament vnder a mysterie c. that is the Sacrament doth assure vs that wee are truely made partakers of the bodie and bloude of Christe after an heauenly and diuine manner and not onely are ioyned to him in loue and faith and will but are made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone by his incarnation and holy spirite vniting vs vnto him in a mystical bodie not in a personal vnion for if any thing which is truely the bodie of Christ must be adored with diuine honour the Church of God should bee so adored which is the bodie of Christ and so called in the Scripture Finally Hesychius calling the Sacrament the breade of life and the mysticall loaues which quicken vs c. gaue no diuine honour vnto it as personally vnited vnto Christ but as to an holy mysterie and seale of our spirituall feeding and coniunction with Christ. For Hesychius affirmeth that mysterie to bee both breade and flesh in Leuit. lib. 2. chap. 8. But Sander vppon these sayings buildeth that the Fathers affirmed that which was on the table to bee the diuine substance yea the substance and nature of God which is to be adored and cannot be eaten corporally but in the Sacrament And yet no one father that hee hath cited saieth any such thing If Cyrill say we are by the mysteries made partakers of the diuine nature Saint Peter saith by Gods promises we are made partakers of the diuine nature 2. Pet. 1. Yet not of the diuine substance And to saye the Godheade can be corporally eaten in the Sacrament it is monstrous heresie When Cyrillus saith Christ dwelleth in vs corporally hee saith not by eating the Sacrament wee eate GOD or Christ corporally but the power of the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporallie by participation of the fleshe of Christ. But let vs yet heare a more full witnesse which is Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. the place although it be fully answered by mee against Heskins lib. 2. cap. 45. yet because Sander maketh so manie obseruations vpon it I will set it downe againe Hoc corpus c. The wise men reuerenced this body in the manger and being men without good religion and barbarous they worshipped it with feare and much trembling after a long iourney taken Let vs therefore who are the citizens of heauen at lest follow those barbarous men For when they sawe the manger and cottage and not any of those thinges which thou nowe seest they came with most great reuerence and quaking But thou seest that thing not in the Manger but in the Altar not a woman which might hold it in her armes but the Priest present and the holy ghost copiously spredde vpon the sacrifice which is set foorth Neither lookest thou barely vpon the bodie as they did but thou knowest the power of it and al the order of dispensing thinges And thou art ignorant of none of these thinges which were done by him and thou hast beene diligently instructed in all things Let vs be stirred vp therefore let vs quake and let vs professe openly a greater deuotion then those barbarous men lest if we come barely and coldly we ieoparde our head into a more vehement fire Out of this place Sander would haue the reall presence and adoration of the sacrament prooued But this place prooueth neither of both For he speaketh figuratiuely of seeing the bodie of Christ of seeing the holy ghost spredde vpon the Sacrifice c. which cannot bee referred to the eyes of the bodie but must needes haue a spirituall vnderstanding The bodie of Christ is so present as it may be seene but it cannot bee seene but spiritually therefore it is not present but spiritually This is sufficient to shewe that Chrysostome spake not of the popish reall presence therefore not of their manner of adoration Nowe let vs see what wise arguments Sander can picke out of this place First we must note these comparisons The Altar the Manger the Virgin the Priest the Wisemen the Christians the adoration of the one and the other but this last comparison is forged for Chrysostome requireth our imitation of the wise men in comming to the Sacrament with reuerence and trembling with earnest desire and affection not in giuing honour to the outwarde creatures but to him that is seene by faith Further Sander chargeth him to say it is the same bodie in both places which Chrysost. saith not although it be the same body which is receiued spiritually in the Sacrament with that which the wise men did worship yet it followeth not that the same real body is present vpon the altar before it be receiued to bee there worshipped Sander vrgeth Chrysostomes words vides in altari thou seest it on the altar Lo it is vpon the altar and not onely comprehended by faith but by the meane of the forme of bread it is seen What say you Sander is the body of Christ seene then is hee present visibly It is a madde kinde of corporall sight of his bodye which is through the forme of bread You were wont to tell vs that a substance is said to be seen where the proper accidents thereof are seene And are the accidents of bread the signes now of the body of Christ O newe Philosophy and Theology but I pray you sir if the body of Christ be not only comprehended by faith but also seen by meane of the forme of bread by what meane is the holy ghost seen whom Chrysostome likewise affirmeth to be seen as the body of Christ is Will you neuer be ashamed of those impudent shiftes in wresting the holy scriptures and sayinges of the ancient fathers As for the foure reasons that Christian men should rather worship the Sacrament then the wise men did Christ in the cottage be in vaine For Chrysostom draweth no example of their worshipping to worshippe that which is visibly seene in the Sacrament or the elementes thereof but of comming with reuerence vnto the bodye of Christ which is really in heauen whereof we are made partakers
things that were set foorth and to make that bread the bodie of Christ and that wine the bloud of Christ. Then it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For whatsoeuer the holy Ghost hath touched or embraced that must needes be sanctified and changed You see Cyrillus meaneth no change of substance but such as is in all thinges that the holy Ghost commeth vnto Where it is saide in the Actes the Apostles returned adorantes worshipping wee may safely vnderstande that they returned worshipping of Christe as well as of the Father and the holye Ghost but here is no like assurance that the Sacrament is to be worshipped therefore adorantes is not of necessitie or congruitie to be referred vnto it CAP. VII Thereall presence of Christes bodie bloud vnder the forms of bread and wine is proued by the testimonies of the auncient The sayings of the doctors because he hath alreadie alleaged in euery article Chapter he professeth nowe briefely to shewe by what generall Chapters a man may be vndoubtedly assured of their beliefe doctrin And first because diuerse of them alleage the almightie power of God to defende the veritie of those wordes and deedes I answere that allegation prooueth no real presence For the almightie power of God is more considered in feeding vs with the bodie and bloud of Christ which is in heauen then in Popish transubstantiation Yet Sander misunderstandeth Irenaeus li. 4. ca. 34. as hee misquoteth lib. 5. for lib. 4. How can they be sure the breade wheron thankes are giuen to be the bodie of their Lord the cup of his bloud if they say not him to be the sonne of the maker of the world In these wordes Irenaeus reasoneth not of the diuine power of Christ which the heretikes granted but they denied him to be the sonne of that God which made the world therfore by the institutioÌ„ of the Sacrament in bread wine which are creatures of the world Irenaeus proueth that the father of our Lord Iesus Christ was the maker of the world not another iust God as the heretikes affirmed Cyprian in deede in serm de coen Dom. allegeth the omnipotencie of God for that wonderful conuersion of the nature of common bread to be made the flesh of Christ but he meaneth not transubstantiation but an alteration of the vse of the creature to bee a meane to feede spiritually with the flesh of Christ as by the whole discourse of that Sermon it may appeare Hilarie li. 8. de Trin. alleageth the diuinitie of Christ to proue the Sacrament to be truely flesh and bloud which wee grant as he affirmeth vnder a mysterie and after a spirituall manner Finally Basil in Reg. bre q. 172. Ambros. de ijs qui init Cap 9. c. Chrysost. de sacerdot lib. 3. Emissenus hom 5. in Pasc. Cyrillus in Ioan. li. 4. cap. 13. 14 places often cited answered do all vse the argument of omnipotencie but not to proue the Popishe carnall or reall maner of presence but to proué that Christ doth aboue the reach of mans vnderstanding feede vs truely with his flesh bloud and as Damascene saith by an inscrutable meane for he had not learned transubstantiatioÌ„ though otherwise he were a corrupt writer in diuerse things as he doth regenerate vs in baptisme The second general Chapter is that no man requireth credit to be giuen to a figuratiue speach but the fathers require credit to be giuen vnto it therfore it is not figuratiue I denie the major for he that requireth not all the figuratiue speaches in the scripture to be credited in their true meaning is an heretike If these wordes had beene figuratiue saith Sander we should haue bene warned by the watch men of God to beware of them Nay to beware of misunderstanding them so wee are directly by Augustine De dâ—ct Christ. lib. 3. Cap. 16. by others And who is so madde to denye these wordes of the cup to be figuratiue This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud Againe there is neither Basil Epiphanius Cyrillus Ambrosius Chrysostome Eusebius or any other that requireth these words to be credited but they also shewe that they are spiritually and mystically to be vnderstanded The thirde generall Chapter is that the fathers affirme the trueth of Christes flesh and his flesh to be eaâ—en truely in the Sacrament therefore his substance is really present in the Sacrament I denye the argument for it is the true flâ—sh of Christ whereof wee are truely made partakers yet it followeth not that the same should be bodily present but wee are fedd therewith vnited thereto after a spirituall manner the bodie of Christ remaining locally in heauen and no where else aâ— both the Scripture our creede and the ancient fathers do teaâ—h vs. The fourth Chapter general is that they which name the 〈◊〉 of Christ a figure a Sacrament or remeÌ„brance a â—â—â—ne symbole token image type for so many terms thâ—y haue although Sander list to rehearâ—e but the three first do not exclude the substance of Christs flesh but shewe that it is present vnder the signe of another thing after a mysâ—icall secrete manner I answere although they exclude not â—he substance of Christes flesh from his supper yet shewing the bread and wine to be signes tokens remembrantes they exclude the Popish reall presence vnder the accidents of bread and wine For signes and the things signified must needs be diuerse yea opposite as relatiues As when Cyprian saith the diuine substance hath vnspeakably infused it selfe in the visible Sacrament hee meaneth not the substance of Christes fleshe nor of his godhead but the grace of God giuen to the visible Sacrament Dâ— Coen Dom. And when Hilarie saith Wee take the flesh of his bodie vnder a mysterie he meaneth not that the accidents of bread is a mysterie but the whole dispensation of the Sacrament Likewise when Cyril of Ierusalem saith vnder the figure of bread the bodie is giuen hee meaneth that breade is so a figure of the bodie that as the figure is giuen outwardly so the bodie is receiued inwardly Augustine de verb. Apost serm 2. The bodie and bloude of Christ shall then be life to euery man if that thing which in the Sacrament is visibly receiued be in the truth it selfe eaten spiritually c. Behold saith Sander there is a thing in the sacrament so really it is there that it is visibly receiued What a miracle Sander hath founde but what thing is that which is visibly receiued breade and wine or the bodie of Christ It must needes be the body of Christ saith he vnder the forme of breade for nothing els is to be eaten spiritually And is the body of Christe present inuisibly as all Papistes affirme and yet receiued visibly This is strange Logike But why may not the breade and wine be eaten and drunken spiritually when they are by faith vnderstoode to be the sacrament of the
supper Bertrame whome Sander affirmeth to be but suspected in his booke De corpore sanguine Domini which is extant for euery man to reade plainly determineth against the Popish reall presence and transubstantiation And whereas Sander offereth a large scope as he saith that we should name one bishop in the whole earth who before the time of Berengarius reprooued the teachers of the reall presence as heretikes I can name none so conueniently as Aelfricke sometime Archbishop of Canterburie with al the Saxon bishops in his time who set foorth an Homily to be read on Easter day vnto the people and allowed certeine Epistles of the saide Aelfricke in which is conteined a plaine and manifest denyall of that bodily presence for which wee striue and an approbation of the onely spirituall manner of presence which wee teache If Sander will cauill that although they so taught they reproued not the teachers of the reall presence as heretikes I referre it to the iudgement of all indifferent men how they would haue accused any man that obstinately should haue maintained a doctrine contrarie to their common beliefe and consent Howe the fathers of the primitiue Church beleeued concerning the blessed Sacrament namely S. August whom Sander half suspecteth and yet saith he is not against them because his communion is not forsaken it hath ben plentifully and often shewed is not here to be repeted But Hilarie saith it is the profession of our Lorde the faith of the Church that the Sacrament is truely the flesh and bloud of Christ therefore there is no place left of doubting Certeinly we doubt not but to the worthy receiuer the Sacrament is the same which Christ affirmeth it to be after a spirituall manner but wee are out of doubt that our Sauiour Christ reteining the nature of his bodie would not make the same insensible impalpable incircumscriptible c. It is not therefore the presence nor the reall presence rightly vnderstood but the bodily presence which we denye and no man affirmed for sixe hundred yeres after Christ except perhaps Marcus the heretike that changed the colour of the wine by inchantment that it might bee thought that Christe had dropped his bloud into his chalice as Irenaeus testifieth lib. 1. Cap. 9. Likewise we aunswere to Epiphanius we belieue the wordes of Christ to be true which by grace hath giuen vs bread and wine to bee his bodie and bloud spiritually euen as the water of baptisme to be regeneration which similitude Epiphanius vseth euen as he doth this of the supper to shewe that wee are truely made according to the image of God not by nature but by grace Epiph. Anch. But Sander hath a pleasant similitude to shewe that the Papistes are not gone from the Apostles and auncient fathers because a man liuing in these dayes should be vniustly charged with treason for disobeying of William the Conquerour or being the sonne of him that disobeyed William the Conquerour when he answereth that he liued not vnder that king and al his ancestours in their dayes were obedient to such kings vnder whome they liued A worshipfull similitude But if William the Conquerour made a lawe that whosoeuer committeth these things or these things shal be deemed a traitour and it is prooued that thou hast committed some of them what will the former answere auaile thee it is the doctrine and not the persons of the Apostles and auncient fathers from which you are accused to haue departed But which of the successours of the Apostles saith Sander sent Berengarius to preach that doctrine whereof they helde the contrary I aunswere so long as Berengarius taught that doctrine which the Apostles themselues commaunded to bee taught he needed no speciall commission from them that were departed from the Apostles doctrine to reprooue them for he was sent of God who opened his eyes to see the trueth and their errours that sitting in the chaires of the Apostles taught a doctrine contrarie to the faith of the Apostles But Sander will at once prooue that all citizens of the house of God through the world witnessed with one voice and in one worde that they beleeued the bodily presence For the olde custome was at the wordes of consecration and at the time of the receiuing the Sacrament which was saide to be the bodie and bloud of Christ to say Amen that is to affirme it was so And this Sander prooueth by manie witnesses which is needelesse for wee knowe it as well as he But this prooueth no carnall nor bodily manner of presence except Sander can proue that it was tolde them this to bee the body and bloud of Christ without any figure really corporally present vnder the onely shapes of bread and wine as they teache nowe Yes saith Sander a figuratiue speach soundeth otherwise then we must thinke whereto Amen must not be answered What shall wee then answere to these wordes of Christ This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloud are not these the wordes of consecration also But what was meant by Amen and what the Sacrament is S. Augustine teacheth serm ad infantes Si ergo vos estis corpus Christi membra mysterium vestrum in mens a positum est Mysterium Domini accipitis ad quod estis Amen respondâ—tis respondendo subscribitis Audis ergo corpus Christi respondes Amen Esto membrum corporis Christi vt verum sit Amen tuuâ— c. Therefore if you be the bodie receiue the Lordes mysteries whereunto you are You answere Amen and by so aunswering you subscribe Be thou a member of the bodie of Christ that thy Amen may be true These wordes declare that not the reall presence was aduouched by the worde Amen but the spirituall participation of the mysticall body of Christ by the faithfull But Leo Ser. 6. de Ieiu 7. mensis saith Sic sacrae c you ought so to communicate of the holy table that ye dout nothing at all of the trueth of the body and bloode of Christ for that thing is taken in the mouth which is beleeued in faith And Amen is in vaine answered of them who dispute against that which is receiued In these sayings Sander vrgeth that it is receaued with the mouth as though Leo did meane that whatsoeuer was beleeued in faith was receaued in the mouth yet the worde is are sumitur it is receaued by the mouth which is not all one with in the mouth For the bodie of Christ may be receaued by the mouth as by an instrument that receaueth the visible sacrament thereof and yet the body is not receaued into the mouth But Leo speaketh manifestly against the Manichees which denied that Christ had a true bodie exhorting Christians not to doubte thereof for except they beleeued faithfully that Christ had a true bodie they coulde not with their mouth receaue a sacrament of that body which they beleeued not to bee nor truely answere Amen when they disputed against the
presence if any sacrament bee made at al Fisher whether any man had autoritie to make anie Sacrament at all or no. When you can finde Hardings if or condition you shal be answered to Fishers whether or question Thirdly Harding spake of Christs words Fisher of our doings If the scripture be not Christs words Fisher spake onely of our doings 4 Fisher doubted not but the wordes made the presence but he asketh the heretikes howe they can proue it by the holy scriptures Nay syr he affirmeth precisely that it cannot be proued by the scripture These are the foure great enormous fault I trust after this tast no man is desirous to examine the rest of Sanders vntruthes falsely fathered vpon Master Iewel Wherefore I wil goe from henceforth onely to the matter in controuersie Hitherto you heare not Master Iewels article disproued Videlicet that the people were not taught c. as in the beginning of the Chapter The question being not of the wordes but of the meaning saith Iewel Christ meant not this to bee his bodie really Hereto Sander alleageth a place of Hilarie lib. 8. de Trin. to proue that Christ lacked neither wisedome nor vtterance to speak plainely of his Sacraments and mysteries which is verie true for hee spake plainely syncerely and truely although he spake figuratiuely Neither did hee speake otherwise then he meant seeing it is his bodie after a certaine manner as Augustine saith But seeing heere are three or foure persons speaking M. Iewel M. Harding M. Sander and my selfe it shall not be amisse to bring their seuerall speaches in forme of a Dialogue for briefenesse as Sander giueth me example Iewel Christ was the Rocke but yet not really Sand. S. Paule spake not these wordes with intent to make any sacrament or any other thing Fulke S. Paul spake these wordes of a Sacrament made by God in the wildernes Sand. Two diuerse natures in those words are named which can not be one substance But this is my body nameth one substance Fulke One substance is demonstrated and another named Moses might haue said truely shewing the rock to the people This is Christe or els S. Paul could not haue said truly the rock was Christ. Sand. It was not anie one certaine rocke whereof S. Paul spake for the water flowed out of two Rocks Either of which did signifie Christ and they both are onely one Rocke in meaning and in substance figured therefore Saint Paul meant onely of the spirituall Rocke which is Christ. Fulke Manna which was the spirituall meat they did eate rayned euerie day yet was it but one Christ in signification therefore S. Paul meant onely of the spiritual Manna which is Christ and not of the corporall Manna which was a sacrament of Christ if this reason hold not of the spirituall meate howe can it holde of the spiritual drinke Iewel Christ gaue his disciples as S. Augustine saith the figure of his bodie and bloud Sand. He did so but he gaue such a figure as is also the substance of his bodie as himselfe being a figure of his fathers substance is also the selfesame substance with his father Fulke As he gaue a figure he gaue not the substance Christ is the figure of his fathers substance as he is a person distinct by himselfe and not his father Neither doth Augustine meane of such an vnitie in essence as is betweene God the father the sonne when he doth plainly deuide sacramentum rem sacramenti the Sacrament and the thing or matter of the sacrament that is the figure and the thing figured Sand. He gaue a true and not a false signe lib. 2. ca. 12. A miraculous not a common figure lib. 2. cap. 13. A mystical not an artificiall figure lib. 5. cap. 16. A diuine not a rhetoricall figure lib. 2. cap 14. Fulke These are answered in their proper places aboue cited Sand. He gaue a figure of the new testament which hath truth not which betokeneth a thing absent from it which August declareth in Psa. 39. The old fathers did celebrate the figures of the thing to come c. Fulke Augustine in this place and in many other maketh this difference betweene the sacrament of the old Testament and of the new that theirs were of Christ to come once of Christ exhibited and alreadie come but of the reall presence he speaketh no word Ablata sunt signa promittentia c. The promising signes are taken away because the truth that was promised is exhibited In this bodie we are of this bodie we are partakers Speaking of the bodie of Christ which was sacrificed once for all in which wee are after a mysticall manner included and are also partakers thereof after a mysticall manner and so were all that euer pleased GOD not after a corporall manner such as the Papistes imagine wherefore Augustine saith vpon the same Psalme alluding to the celebration of the Sacrament Sursum corda habcamus Siresurrexistis cum Christo dicit fidelibus corpus sanguinem domini accipientibus dicit c. Let vs haue our hearts aboue If yee bee risen againe with Christ hee speaketh to the faithfull hee speaketh to them which receiue the bodie and bloude of our Lorde if you bee risen againe with Christ sauour of these things that are aboue where Christ is sitting at the right hande of God c. Behold Augustine teacheth howe to receiue Christ truely and not as he saith else-where Sacramento tenus as farre as the sacrament or outward signe onely Sand. He gaue a figure but he spake not a figure Fulke Augustine affirmeth both prooued li. 2. cap. 14. Sand. The names of bodie and bloud do vsually signifie a visible corruptible mortal nature which Augustine knowing was a fraide lest children would think that Christ had walked on the earth none otherwise then in the shape of breade for that respect hee alwayes teacheth that the bodie of Christ in the sacrament is the signe and figure of Christs visible bodie Fulke Augustine feared no such matter de Trin. lib. 3. cap. 10. but onely by way of a similitude sheweth that if children should neuer learne more of Christ then that the Sacrament shoulde be shewed them and tolde them that it is the bodie of Christ and also if they should neuer see the shape of bread but onely in the celebration of the sacrament they woulde imagine that Christ had appeared onely in that shape but this is impossible therfore Augustine coulde not feare it And seeing hee had no such feare he had no such respect as Sander dreameth as well concerning his feare as concerning his respect Iew. Tertullian saith This is my body that is to say the figure of my bodie Sand. Hee meaneth so as I saide before of S. Augustine and speaketh against the Marcionites which denied the trueth of Christes body Fulk Tertullian proueth that Christ had a true bodie because the sacrament was a figure thereof for a phātasme or a vaine thing can
is naturally in none but such as receiue that sacrament and that none liue naturally according to the fleshe by Christ but they that receiue the communion which is false Therefore he meaneth that Christs flesh is truely vnited to vs by vertue of his spirit which is testified in the sacrament and not that the sacrament receiued is the onelie meane but the seale of our faith which apprehēdeth the working of Gods spirit in this merueilous coniunction aboue the reach of mans reason Sand. But Hilarie saith By the Sacrament of fleshe and bloud the proprietie of natural communiō is granted Fulke We say and beleeue the same but not onely by the sacrament of the supper but without it also Sand. And againe by the same tarying carnally to wit in truth of flesh in vs. Fulke But yet after a spiritual manner according to which 〈◊〉 being once entred into vs hee neuer departeth from vs as in the popish sense he doth when the shapes of bread and wine are corrupted Sand. Laste of all the mysterie of true and naturall vnitie is to be preached in eo nobis corporaliter inseparabiliter vnitis We being vnited in him corporally and inseparably Fulke This cannot be restrained to the supper seeing he is corporally and inseparablie vnited to all his members of which manie neuer receiued the communion And that which you teach men to receiue in the communion is not vnseparablie vnited to them for it departeth as soone as the breade and wine by heat of the stomake are putrified according to all your schoolemens opinions Wherefore there is no cause why Maister Iewell shoulde dissemble this point which maketh wholy against your vnderstanding of Christ present naturally corpo 〈…〉 lly really c. Iew. Those wordes that Christ corporally earnally and naturally is within vs in their owne rigor seeme verie hard Sand. They must needes seeme hard to him that beleeueth not Fulk Master Iewel beleeueth them in such sense as they were spoken ment by Hilarie not as you wrest them Iew. Hilarius said we are one with God the father the sonne not only by adoption or consent of mind but also by nature which according to the letter cannot be true Sand. It is a most impudent lie forged vpon S. Hilarie that we are one with God the father by nature or with God the sonne in his diuine nature Fulk You are mad through malice no man chargeth S. Hilarie but with the phrase of speech by which it is manifest he tooke the wordes nature naturally otherwise then you as appeareth euen by that his generall rule Qui per eandem c. Those that by the same thing are one they are one by nature and not by will onely Iew. The fathers haue bene faine to expound and to mollifie such violent and excessiue kindes of speach Sand. Now you shew your self in your colors you think the fathers do not speake wel for violent speaches bee no good speaches excessiue speaches be not literally true Fulk Sometime the fathers speake neither well nor truely But these violent and excessiue speaches are well inough and good speaches if they bee well and rightly vnderstood And what if hyperbolicall speaches bee not literally true are they therefore false in the right meaning of the speakers Metaphors be not literally true wil you therfore say that whatsoeuer is spoken by a Metaphor is spoken vntruely This paltrie is but to mocke selye vnlearned Papistes of whom you haue exhibition for such as knowe what figures of Rhetorike meane woulde thinke you worthie to weare a cockescombe thus to dispute of true and false out of Rhetoricall figures more then of manna literally Sand. Master Iewel is mad he is blinde full of extreme malice Fulk Railing in steede of wordes proouing that Nyssen speaketh of the sacrament or of Christs naturall dwelling in vs. Iew. The purpose of Gregorie Nyssen was onelie to speake of Christes birth Sand. His purpose was to speak of manna which did both signifie the birth of Christ and the sacrament of the altar Fulk What word haue you to prooue that he spake of it as it doth signifie the sacrament of the altar Iew. In like manner of speach Saint Hierome saith The wheat whereof the heauenly bread is made is that of which our Lorde saide my fleshe is meat in deede Sand. The speach of S. Hierome is of the sacrament therefore the speach of Nyssenus which you confesse to be like Fulk It is not like in scope and purpose but in the phrase speaking of wheate Iew. And to this purpose saith Amphilochius vnlesse Christ had bene borne carnally thou haddest not beene borne spiritually Sand. I knowe not to what purpose hee speaketh it but that Christes birth is necessarie to our saluation and because if that birth had not gone before we could not haue eaten that bodie in the sacrament Fulk You might haue inferred eating spiritually a◠well as borne spiritually Iew. As Nyssen saith Christ is made our bread so he saith he becommeth strong meat vnto the perfecte herbes vnto the weake c. Sand. He may be bread herbes and milke in the sacrament and without it but he is bread hearbs and milke to vs in our mouthes as manna was to the Iewes onely in the sacrament Fulk Where haue you in Nyssen your But he is c. in our mouth Is he any of this bodily Iewell Gregorie Nyssen holdeth that wee receiue Christes bodie otherwise then in the Sacrament for hee saith whoso hath aboundantly drunke of the Apostles springs hath alreadie receiued whole Christ. Sander You misse of your proofe you should proue that he receiueth Christs bodie you proue that he receiueth Christ. Gregorie spake of his diuine nature which may be receiued in our heart yet not his body in our bodie Fulke I pray you sir is not whole Christ both the diuinitie the humanitie Sander If the eating of Christ proue his birth it wil follow that as he is borne really so much more hee is eaten really if hee were only eaten by faith thence we could conclude no more but a birth by faith Fulke You may as well conclude if he be eaten only vnder the forme of breade he was borne onely vnder the form of bread such strength is an D. Hardings argumēt CAP. XXIIII Sander That M. Iewel hath not well answered the places of S. Cyrillus Harding Cyrillus saith when the mystical blessing is become to be in vs doth it not cause Christ to dwell in vs corporally by receiuing of Christs body in the communion The same thing he saith in diuerse other places Iewel Cyrillus expoundeth himself natural vnion is nothing else but a true vnion Wee are by nature the children of anger that is in deede truely Sander He saith not it is nothing else but ss naturalē If wee call it a naturall vnion wee shall call it a true vnion Fulke M. Iewel saith not generally that naturall is nothing but