gappe be shutt from any heresie to 〈…〉 a st it selfe of the tradition of the Apostles as the Va 〈…〉 tinians and other heretikes haue done and all he 〈…〉 ikes may do But tradition of the Apostles is as good as their wri 〈…〉 gs To this obiection I aunswere that their writings 〈◊〉 the onlye true testimonie of their tradition to vs. 〈…〉 stowe replyeth So were they not to the Thessalonians 〈◊〉 they had of S. Paul traditions partly by worde of mouth 〈…〉 tly by writing I reioyne that wee haue no traditions 〈◊〉 the Apostes but by their writing wee neuer hearde 〈◊〉 deliuer any thing by word of mouth but we know 〈…〉 ir writings contein the summe of their preachings Concerning the doubtfulnesse and contradiction that 〈…〉 yde was in the fathers them selues about those mat 〈…〉 s that are not conteined in the Scriptures Bristowe 〈…〉 nswereth first their doubts are not of the traditions 〈…〉 t of circumstances of persons and other matters con 〈…〉 ning the traditions which is as much as I shewed by 〈…〉 amples and testimonies out of their writings Purg. 〈…〉 7. Ar. 39. Pur. 317. The contradiction supposed to be in Chrysostome where he sayeth first that small helpe can be procured for the dead afterwarde he sayeth the Apostles knewe that much commoditie came to the dead by praying â—or them Bristowe aunswereth is none at all For in 〈…〉 e first place he speaketh of riche men which did not pro 〈…〉 e any comfort to their soules by their riches that their friends 〈…〉 n procure but little in respect of that they might haue procured 〈…〉 em selues because a mans owne workes are also meritorious 〈◊〉 euerlasting rewarde so are not his friends workes meritori 〈…〉 vnto him at all no nor so satisfactorious of temporall paine 〈…〉 his owne nothing like But how a man 's owne workes 〈…〉 his friendes workes may be either meritorious or satisfactorious any thing at all he bringeth no proofe 〈◊〉 all And that he sayeth of Chrysostome is vtterly false for if istos be referred in the former sentence defleam 〈…〉 istos vnto those riche men so dying onely what reasoâ— is there why orantes pro istis should not be referred vnto them also But seeing the memory which he saiâ—â— was decreede of the Apostles was generall for all theâ— that departed in faith why should not that much profite comming thereby pertaine to them of whoâ—â— he sayde before that small helpe they could haue Likewise that I added further of the Cathecumeni whâ—â— Chrysostome iudged of helping them Bristowe pas 〈…〉 ouer and sayeth neuer a worde vnto it 3 Against the Churches authoritie I saye plainly the practise and authoritie of the church without the worde of God reuealed in the scriptureâ— is no rule of trueth Where I commende Tertull 〈…〉 for confessing that prayers and oblations for the dead are not taken out of the Scriptures Bristowe sayeth I am hastie to take that which Tertullian doth not giue as he hath shewed in the thirde chapter but seeing in the thirde Chapter he referreth mee to the 9. Chapter thither also will I referre him for answere Where Allen alledgeth a rule of S. Augustine Quòd legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi that the order of the châ—â—ches prayer saith Bristowe is euen a plaine prescription to all the faithfull what to beleeue because Fulke could not make his florish with that ende forwarde he turneth the staffe as though S. Augustine D. Allen had sayed that the lawe of beleeuing should make a lawe of praying And here he cryeth out of falsification by changing So sayeth S. Augustine saith Bristowe in that sense speaketh S. Augustine often against the Pelagians sayeth Allen but in what booke or chapter neither of both doeth shewe among so many treatises as Augustine hath written against the Pelagians Wherefore if I haue altered the forme of wordes yet without falsification especially seing it is a more probable sense and agreeable to the scriptures 〈…〉 t faith should teach vs to praye rather then prayer 〈…〉 che 〈◊〉 to beleeue For howe shall they call vppon 〈◊〉 sayeth the Apostle in whome they haue not belee 〈…〉 d Rom. 10. But seeing there is a mutuall relation 〈…〉 weene the cause and the effectes the one argueth 〈…〉 oueth the other For as faith teacheth men first to 〈…〉 ye so the prayer is an argument of the faith accor 〈…〉 g to which it is conceiued But true faith com 〈…〉 th onely by hearing the worde of God therefore 〈…〉 e prayer commeth onely by hearing the worde of 〈…〉 d and is not acceptable to God except it be framed 〈…〉 ording to the worde of God After this he sayeth I 〈◊〉 as bolde to except against the practise commen 〈…〉 d euen in the canonicall scripture because I allowe 〈…〉 t the practise of Iudas Machabaeus conteined in the 〈…〉 phane and lying booke of the Machabees I sayde Ar. 86. There is neuer heresie but there is as 〈…〉 at doubt of the church as of the matter in question 〈…〉 erefore only the Scripture is the staye of a mans con 〈…〉 nce Hereof Bristowe gathereth this great absurdi 〈◊〉 Because heretikes make doubt of the Church this heretike 〈◊〉 that no Christian leane vnto it Yes verily I will haue 〈◊〉 men that know the Church leane to the Church de 〈…〉 ding truth against heresies but for them that doubt 〈◊〉 the trueth and of the Church I saye only scripture i◠〈◊〉 staye of their conscience to trye the trueth and the Church both seing both heretikes Catholikes make as great challenge to the Church as to the trueth But some heretikes make doubt of the Scriptures sayeth he either all or some peece as you doe of the â—achabees I aunswere if any denye all Scriptures 〈…〉 ey are more like Paganes and Atheists then heretiks 〈…〉 th whome wee are not to reason by authoritie of 〈…〉 riptures but by other inducements such as were 〈…〉 d to the Paganes Against those heretikes that re 〈…〉 iue some part of the Scriptures wee are to dispute 〈…〉 t of those Scriptures which they receiue as our saui 〈…〉 r Christ confuted the Saducees out of the bookes of 〈…〉 oses because they receiued none other Scripture For the book of Macha bees we doubt not but are certaine it is a prophane booke as I haue shewed by many arguments neuer receiued in the primitiue Church fâ—â— 400. yeares after Christ. Where I say we submitted our selues to al Churcheâ— but so that they allow no consent or submission but 〈◊〉 the trueth which must be tryed onely by gods wordâ— Bristow saith with that but so we wil consent the trueâ—â— to Iacke strawe Verily to consent vnto Iacke straâ—â— in truth I take it to be none absurditie but I speake not onely of consent but also of submission which we are not readie to yeeld to any but such whose authoritie 〈◊〉 reuerence As for the 4.
supper wherin Christ being receiued by faith dwelleth in vs by his spirit we are fed vnto the saluation both of body and soule Last of all howe can it be called the supper of Christ which euery man may make at home without coÌ„ming to the table of Christ For euery man may eate bread and drinke wine at his owne house with his wife and children and remember that Christ died for them neither will Christ leaue his good deuotion vnrewarded wherein the supper that you assigne to Christ consisteth and is fulfilled Beside the shamelesse slander that our supper is fulfilled in such a priuate presumptuous acte marke how he alloweth the sacrilegious arrogance of him ' that should vsurp if any were so madde to doe as he is to imagine such a ridiculous counterfeting and mocking of Christes institution hee doth assure him that Christ will not leaue his good deuotion vnrewarded But this is but a cold assurance Like as it is but a cold preparation which is made by transubstantiation whereby after so greate broiling rosting and saucing to compasse such cookery as Sander taught vs in the first booke Cap. 4. such a presence is wrought as maketh the body of Christ none otherwise present to a faithfull man then to an infidel than to a dog a cat or a rat Alas that is a cold presence a cold body that is wtout efficay of spirit and life in them which receiue it But certeinly the flesh and bloud of Christ is of another nature where it is receiued by faith which is able to warme the stomake of a penitent sinner whose hart was cold for feare of Gods iustice and punishment dew for his sinnes And when Sander hath prated neuer so whotly and reasoned neuer so coldly it will be but a cold comfort that he can minister with his surmised bodily presence except he borrowe the chafingdish of faith and spirituall eating to warme it which though he confesse that wee acknowledge yet he affirmeth it maketh but a sleight and a colde supper whereas by his owne confession there is no heate in his fantasied presence without faith and spirituall feeding and faith and spirituall eating is a good warme recreation euen without the Sacrament CAP. XXI By eating we touch the bodie of Christ as it may be touched vnder the forme of breade That is sayeth Sander as wee are truely sayd to kisse the Kinges knee when wee kisse his hose vnder which the knee is conteined But that is not properly to kisse the Kinges knee which is to kisse his hose for kisse and not kisse as I take it be contradictories But who can deuise an eating of meate in a supper which shal bee without touching the meate with teeth and mouth saith Sander Christ sayeth my meate is to do the will of my father that sent me Iohn 4. And he promiseth his Apostles that they shall eate and drinke at his table in his kingdome Luc. 22. This eating and drinking is without teeth or mouth And Saint Augustine speaking of eating the body of Christ sayeth Vt quid par as dentes ventrem Crede manducasti Why doest thou prepare thy teethe and thy belly Beleeue and thou hast eate it In Ioan. Cap. 6. Tr. 25. Againe Panis quippe iste interioris hominis quaerit esuriem For this bread seeketh the hunger of the inner man Tr. 26. And vpon these wordes If any man shall eate of it he shall not die Sed qui pertinet ad virtuteÌ„ sacramenti non qui pertinet ad visibile sacramentuÌ„ Qui manducat intus non foris qui manducat in corde non qui premit dente But he which perteineth to the vertu of the sacrameÌ„t not he which perteineth to yâ— visible SacrameÌ„t He which eateth within not without which eateth in his heart not hee which presseth with his teeth Likewise Cyprian de Coen Dom. Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide syâ—â—â—ra panem sanctum frangimus partimur As often as wee doe these things we do not whet our teeth to bite but with syncere faith we breake and diuide that holy breade Thus you may see howe we may eate that which wee touche not with teeth and mouth And whereas Chrysostome and Cyrill as we heard before saide that Christ giueth his flesh to be touched they speake improperly and meane a touching by the mouth of faith like as they affirme also that he giueth himselfe to be seene which is not but with the eye of faith And it is strange that Sander dare not as well say We see him as we may see him vnder the forme of breade as that wee touche him vnder the forme of bread but the matter is that then he shoulde destroy his doubtie distinction of the bodily presence visible and inuisible Although Cyrillus as is shewed before affirmeth that Christ is visibly present in the sacrament of his body Touching by beliefe Sander will not deny at length although in the beginning he marueiled how touching could be without the mouth teeth but that touching by beliefe he sayeth is furthered by touching that visibly wherein we beleeue the flesh of Christ to be inuisibly A sorie furthering by touching a bare accident of that which is not there nor is the proper accident of that which is said to be there But howe much more furtherance is it to our feeding by faith to eate substantially that which is Gods seale and assurance of that foode which nourisheth both bodies and soules vnto euerlasting life It is an olde custome of heretikes he saith by assertion of one trueth to imbarre and stoppe another truth but so do not we for we barre not any trueth that is admitted by the Scriptures but it is a custome of the diuell to be enimie to all trueth whome the Papistes followe in this their heresie of transubstantiation denying the breade and wine to be in the Sacrament whereas they be in deede and affirming the naturall body of Christ to be substantially conteined vnder the accideÌ„ts of bread and wine euen in the mouth of wicked men of brute beastes which is both false and blasphemous CAP. XXII The Sacramentaries haue neither vnderstanding nor saith nor spirit nor deuotion to receiue Christ withall We haue no vnderstanding he saith because we say This is my body doth not meane this is my body Yes sir Sophister we say the wordes to meane his body after a certeine manner as Augustine saith although not after your grosse manner And howe do you vnderstande these wordes spoken of the other part of the Sacrament This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud Will you not say in some sense it is not the new testament Secondly ye haue no faith that beleeue not the working and effectuall wordes of Christ which were spoken with blessing Yes forsooth sir wee beleeue they wrought and brought to effect whatsoeuer it pleased him to doe by them Thirdly we
in the tables and at the celebration of the Lordes supper before canonization was thought to pertaine onely to the Pope As for our abrogating of Saintes dayes doth not disproue our Communion with the Saintes which is in consent of their faith not in celebrating of their feastes Concerning the canonization of King Henrie the sixt Bristowe requireth mine authour for a dilatorie plea because he can not otherwise defend the Popish corruption Mine authour is Edward Hall in his Chronicles of Henrie the seuenth where I said we acknowledge those to be Saintes whose names are written in the booke of life Bristowe like a blacke dogge scoffeth at it and saith we might doe well to set out that booke in print that they might correct their Calender by it Or else the Churches declaration is the most certaine way to knowe who are written in it If none should be written but such as the Pope doth canonize for that is your Churches declaration innumerable Papistes should haue no place therein and not onely Papistes but the true Saintes of God of whome not one among tenne thousand hath bene canonized Where I say the Popish Church doth iniurie to the Saintes of God that she doth not so account them while they liue Bristowe saith I would be called Saint Fulke by mine owne industrie and that out of hande Thus hath he nothing but Heathenish scornes to delude the textes of Scripture which I cited to proue that the Church of GOD counteth all true Christians Saintes euen in this life not by their owne industrie and merites but by the sanctification of the bloud of Christ. He is angrie that I compare the Popes canonizations with the Heathen Senates canonizing of their Goddes saying wee doe the like in canonizing our selues because wee account our selues Saintes and true Christians which is all one and because I shewe the emulation of the Bohemians in solemnizing the memories of Iohn Hus and Hierome of Prage which differeth as much from Popish canonization as their faith and religion differeth from Poperie In the 47. Demand of cōmunion of Saints he boasteth of increase of Papists in England affirming that beside thē which are Catholike in heart and of their communion there be innumerable of them reconciled which he saith to prepare the minds of his friendes vnto their intended massacre and rebellion I suppose in deede there are too many of those dissembling and professed traitors but yet not so many but they may be numbred But howe many so euer they are I doubt not but there are Christians of such number and power in England as are able to giue all the Papistes both on this side the sea and beyond it as blacke a day as the Popes armie found in Ireland if euer they attempt to put in practise their long intended and certainly purposed treasonable deuises In the 48. Demaund where I shewe the fruites of the Gospell being vrged thereto by Allen Pur. 241. to appeare notably in the liberall prouision for the poore of all sorts in England and namely in the citie of London Bristowe calleth it beastly impudencie yet is he not able to name any Popish citie that maketh such prouision but falleth into open railing vpon the corrupt manners of all the citie as though for the fault of many which yet Gods name be praised are not the most the whole citie were not inferior to Sodome and Gomorrhe in wickednesse In which place as being very populous there are many offenders so are they punished if their offences may be knowne But who so knewe London in the time of Poperie and nowe also considereth the manners of the multitude must be a very vnequall iudge if he acknowledge not great reformation in a great number though he can not see it all As for the citie of Rome which Bristowe compareth with Solomon whose Priestes were more excellēt than the report that went of him as by the storie and relation of them which knewe it before this time so by report of some which euen in this time haue visited the same we haue sufficient vnderstanding that without great reformation it still continueth the mother of all abhominations of the earth and reaching forth the cup of poisoned wine vnto such as seeke her whorish familiaritie maketh them therewith so drunke that there is no cause why Bristowe should maruell why nothing confirmeth more our countrimen in Poperie nor alienateth them from the Protestants than to goe and see Rome The eleuenth Chapter What grosse contradictions Fulke is driuen to vtter against him self while he struggleth against Gods Church and the doctrine thereof As in his whole replie he hath drawen almost all the arguments and authorities which I vsed in those two treatises vnto other endes and purposes than for which I brought them so to make a shewe of Contradiction he rendeth a number of my sayings from their proper places compareth them together to make such as know not what a Contradiction meaneth to thinke that I affirme and denie meere repugnancies without any possibilitie to reconcile them But when they are considered according to the circumstance of the place in which they are written I hope there are not many of so meane iudgement but they will acknowledge they are rather the cauils of Bristowe than the contradictions of Fulke The first Contradiction he noteth that I say Art 96. You are neuer able to aunswere the arguments that Peter was neuer at Rome And thē where is the Apostolike see c. And thē on the conirarie side the Church of Rome was founded by the Apostles it was an Apostolike Church For this he quoteth Purg. 361. 363. 374. To this I aunswere In the first part he falsifieth my wordes which are these You are neuer able to answere the arguments that are brought to proue that Peter was neuer Bishop at Rome and then where is all your bragges of Apostolike see and succession c. The Church of Rome might bee an Apostolike see though Peter was neuer there but all your bragges of Apostolike see and succession are vaine if Peter was neuer Bishop of Rome The second Those auncient Fathers did appeale to the iudgement of the Church of Rome against all heresies and among the Catholike Churches especially named the Church of Rome because it continued in the doctrine of the Apostles Pur. 373. 374. Contrat And by the way note here the bragge of the Romane faith Pur. 405. The former proposition is not mine but patched by him yet if I graunt the sense and wordes to be as he hath forged them they are not contradictorie to the latter proposition For heretikes may bragge of that which Catholikes vse to doe and yet not be Catholikes The thirde It had by succession speaking of the Church of R 〈…〉 retained euen vntill their dayes that faith which it did first receiue of the Apostles Pur. 374. Contra She the Church of Rome hath had no orderly succession of Bishoppes except so many schismes
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
now let vs see what fault he findeth with our saying we say the truth saith he but not all the trueth For this had bene somewhat worth before the incarnation of Christ wheÌ„ Christ was eaten only by faith but since his incarnation he giueth vs an other kind of truth theÌ„ euer he gaue to theÌ„ So faith M. S. But S. Paul saith our fathers did al eate the same spiritual meate that we do and drink the same spiritual cuppe that we do for they dranke of the rocke which rocke was Christ as substantially as the bread and wine are his body bloud vnto vs. 1. Cor. 10. But S. saith our eating lacketh some truth because the whol maÌ„ is not fed I answere that is no cause for we hold that the whole man is fed with Christ to be saued both body soule For wher he â—â—ith that faith seedeth but the soule it is false for God by faith feedeth both bodie and soule vnto eternal life But this is Sanders error that he thinketh Christ cannot feede our bodies by faith except he thrust his body in at our mouthes He might likewise say that in baptisme we are but halfe regenerated in soule onely because the holy ghost is not powred ouer our bodies yet we beleue that we are washed regenerated wholy both in body and soule so that our bodies by baptisme are engraffed into the death burial resurrection of Christ. Rom. 6 and so we beleeue that by eating of this bread drinking of this cuppe of the Lord worthily our whole man is fed after a spirituall manner with the quickning flesh and bloude of our sauiour Christ vnto euerlasting life And wheras Leo saith That is taken by the mouth which is beleeued by faith he meaneth none othewise then when the scripture saith that baptisme is the lauer of regeneration and when we confesse that the body of Christ is eaten when we meane the sacrameÌ„t therof is eaten bodily In which sense the same Leo writeth Epistel 10. ad Plaui against the heresie of Eutyches Videat que 〈◊〉 transixa dauis pependerit in crucis ligno aperto per militis lanceam latere crucifixi intelligat vnde saÌ„gnis aqua esfluxerint ut ceclesia Dei lauacro rigaretur poculo Let him see what nature being striken through with nayles hath hanged on the woode of the crosse and when the side of him that was crucified was opened let him vnderstand from whence that blood water flowed that the church of god might be moistened both by a lauer by a cupp By these words he sheweth that the bloud in the cuppe is none otherwise the bloud of Christ theÌ„ the water of baptisme is the water that issued out of his side which is far from the popish vnderstanding As for the often eating drinking recorded in the scriptures in the sacrifices Manna the rocke water the Paschal lambe the shewbread c which SaÌ„der wold haue to be but figures of the bodily eating of Christs flesh I answere they were sacraments of the spiritual norishmeÌ„t of the faithful appointed for that time as this supper is appropriated to our time and not because the bodily eating of the forbidden fruit could not otherwise be purged from vs but by bodily eating of Christs flesh as he assurmeth The sinne of Adam was not in eating but in eating disobediently so that eating of it selfe was no fault nor any poyson was in the nature of the fruite that was eaten as Sander dreameth but disobedience was the sin of Adam which by the obedience of Christ is done awaye as S. Paul teacheth Rom. 5. ver 19. As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so by the obedience of one man many shall be made righteous Neither doth Cyprian saye otherwise although he allude to the tasting of the forbidden fruite De Coen Dom. Bibimus c We drinke of the bloud of Christ himselfe commanding being partakers of eternall life with him and by him abhorring the sinnes of naturall lust as vnpure bloud granting our selues by tast of sinne to haue ben depriued from blessednes and condemned except the mercy of Christ had brought vs againe vnto fellowship of eternal life by his bloud Although Cyprian here allude vnto the acte in which disobedience was committed yet in the end he sheweth that by the obedience of Christe shedding his bloud for vs we are restored into the fauor of God and not by actuall drinking of the naturall bloud of Christ into our bodyes Neither doth Prosper Aquitanicus thinke otherwise Cont. Collat Liberum ergo arbitrium c. Free will therfore that is the voluntary appetite of the thing that pleased it selfe after it had lothed the vse of the good thinges which it had receiued and the aydes of his owne happines waxing of such account with it bent his impotent greedines vnto the experience of disobedience dranke the poyson of all vices and drouned the whole nature of man with the dronkennes of his intemperance Thence it commeth that before the eating of the same flesh of the sonne of man and drinking his bloud he digest that deadly surset he fayleth in memory erreth in iudgment wauereth in going neither is he by any meanes meet to chuse and desire that good thing wherof he depryued himself of his owne accord This eating and drinking cannot be vnderstood of eating and drinking the Sacrament for the will of man must be prepared both to chuse and desire that good from which man is fallen before euer he be admitted to the Lordes table as euery Papist will confesse What impudencie then is it vpon shadowe of some allusion to drawe the ancient Doctors sayings so contrary to their meaning But Sander seeing the shamefull absurditie that followeth of this his imagined reall eatinge of Christes fleshe to satisfie for the reall eating of Adams aple for so he calleth it saith it is no more needfull that euery maÌ„ should eate the body of Christ in his own person then that euerye one should eate of the aple to make them guilty but it is absolutely needful saith he that some â—r other eate it as really as euer the apple was eaten that all the rest who by baptisme enter into the same body may be one perfectly with Christ whiles they are one mystically with theÌ„ who really eate the substance of Christes flesh being the substance of our true sacrifice truly rosted vpon the crosse This shift of descant then will not serue the fathers of the old testament which were not baptised verily as the Papistes holde but in figure only Secondly if any such real eating were necessary it were not to be fulfilled by any but by our sauiour Christ for what soeuer the transgression of Adam was who being but one made al guilty of damnation that was to be satisfied by the iustification of one man which was Christ sufficient for all men vnto iustification of life Rom. 5. ver 18. Last
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
thou contrarie to the order of all the foure witnesses which thou namest thou I saye defendest the giuing to be after the saying And whereas they all saye he gaue that hee tooke and hee tooke the substance of breade thou denyest that hee gaue the substance of bread Thirdly where Christ sayeth The bread which hee will giue is his flesh which he wil giue for the life of the world which was on the crosse thou affirmest that hee giueth it only at his supper And last of al wheras he gaue presently which then presently was eaten when he said he that eateth me c. thou restrainest his gift onely to his supper wherin although he gaue that before he promised yet he gaue it not only there nor first there nor there with his hands but with his spirite ioyning with his handes that gaue the externall signes For of giuing by hands onely without his spirit it may be truely said The flesh profiteth nothing Ioh. 6. And therfore the Apostle speaking of the oblation of Christes bodie on the crosse saith he offered himselfe by his eternall spirite Heb. 9. The fourteenth circumstance of saying Wordes are vsed for profite and for necessitie therefore the wordes of God are greatly to be regarded and especially the wordes concerning the sacrament which is an hidden mysterie and therefore hath neede to be declared by wordes but the Sacramentaries looking to Christes deedes as taking bread c. trust not his words saying This is my bodie testified by foure of his disciples Yes master Sander those whome you call Sacramentaries trust them better more certeinly beleeue them to be true in that sense which Christe did speake them than you popish transubstaÌ„tiators do in your popish error which to make your selues godmakers of arrogancie and couetousnes you defend among the ignorant But deedes except they be expounded by words saith he may haue many interpretations And the deedes of the last supper seeme to him to be vndoubted parables which the words expounde and therefore be no parables for meere figuratiue words expound nothing Who is so madd to grant to Sanders seeâ—ings that the deeds of Christ in taking bread blessing thankesgiuing breaking giuing are parables but adâ—itte they were parables why may not meere figuratiue wordes expound parables Christ himselfe expoundeth the parable of the tares Matth. 13. altogether by wordeâ— as meere figuratiue as these of the supper He that soweth good seede is the sonne of man the feeld is yâ— world The good seede are the children of the kingdome the tares are the children of the wicked The enimie is the diuell The haruest is the ende of the worlde The â—â—â—pers are the Angels And yet it is so strange a matter to Sander that a meere figuratiue speech should expound a parable who thinketh and saith that this reason alone ought to persuade any man But he will bring a greater reason the wordes of the supper giue substance to the deedes for no Sacrament can be made without wordes ordeined of God If I should vrge this rule against fiue of your Sacramentes I might easily prooue them to be no Sacraments because they haue not wordes ordeined of God to giue substance of Sacraments to the externall deedes Well the worde of Sacrament saith hee must be common and knowen therefore not figuratiue I haue shewed often before that Circumcision and the Paschall Lambe were instituted by such figuratiue speeches as these wordes This is my body This is my couenant This is the Passeouer baptisme is regeneration c. The fifteenth circumstance of take Christ bad all the twelue take ergo saith he he had Iudas to take that which he called his body which was either bare bread a figure of Christ or his body vnder the formes of bread For an â—ffâ—ctuall signe no man corporally tooke because Iudas rocke that the rest tooke and a bare signe Christ was not sent to giue nâ—r onely spirituall gifts which were giuen to the olde pâ—triarkeâ— who tooke his manhood to leaue vs corporall meanes and 〈◊〉 of grace which might worke vppon our soules c. I haue proued before that Iudas was not present â—t the supper but 〈…〉 bâ—â—n pâ—esâ—â—â— as somtiâ—â— there are as 〈◊〉 as he yet â—othing is gained by t 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Christ gaue bread aâ—◠〈…〉 of his bodie and bloud crucified and shedde for remission of our sinnes And what inconuenience is it if one as ill as Iudas receiue this effectuall signe which hath none effect in him because he reiecteth and contemneth it Is not the Queenes broad â—eale an effectuall signe of her pleasure which a traitour may receiue into his handes contemptuously and breake in pieces maliciously But Augustine sayeth Ep. 162. Our Lorde suffereth Iudas to receiue among the innocent disciples that which the faithfull knowe our price Against Augustine who sayeth he was present I oppose Hilarius which sayeth he was absent in Math. Can 30. Against Sanders exposition of these wordes our price to be nothing else but the bodie of Christ and not onely a Sacrament thereof I oppose Augustine himselfe to expounde his owne meaning who sayeth of the rest of the Apostles and of Iudas Illi manducabunt panem Dominum ille panem Domini contra Dominum In Fuan Ioan. Tract 59. They did eate the breade which was our Lorde he did eate the breade of our Lorde against our Lorde The sixteenth circumstance of eating Christ sayeth eate ye once onely meaning that they should eat bodily that he gaue them and eat it also spiritually This I allowe for vnder the signe of bodily eating â—e willed them to be assured of spirituall participation of his flesh and bloud and all benefites of his passion But this will not satisfie Sander but seeing hee sayth eate ye but once hee would haue them to eate bodily the same substance which they should eate spiritually which is no good argument And therefore hee is shamefully graueled when he saith the verbe eate by this meane standeth not vnproperly for hee can abide no figures because eating belongeth naturally both to the soule the bodie which would make any Philosopher blush to heare but the reason more because the cause of eating principally belongeth to the soule and the meane principally to the body which hath instrumentes to eate for a dead body can not eate nor a soule without a body can eate properly What say you Sander is the soule the principall cause of eating and the body the instrumentall cause By this meanes the soule goeth rideth lieth speaketh leapeth daunceth and all whatsoeuer a dead man can not do Well grant then this speculation what then what other spirituall eating can be meant by this word eate ye then by any other eating for euery man eateth whatsoeuer he eateth by this reason spiritually and bodily Wherefore in spight of your nosâ— if Christ commanded his Apostles to eat spiritually as Christians vse to speake and not according to your
great Cathedral Church as bigge as Paules Church in London was diuerse times in one day filled with communicants Leo Ep. 79. I meruaile what vessell of wine was consecrated to serue them all if it be necessarie to haue it in one cuppe when it is consecrated as Sander seemeth to affirme or else howe manie cuppes they had standing on the table that could suffice so great a multitude that all must drinke of the bloud of Christ though there be diuers chalices which hold it when the people are manie as Sander saith I doubt not vnderstanding the bloude of Christ sacramentally but I meruaile with what face he can reprooue our ministration with prophane wine if we did minister so as he slandreth vs when hee and his fellowes doe altogether rob the people of the sacrament of Christes bloude and giue them nothing but prophane wine The 23. circumstance of these wordes this is my bloude Because it is in the common vulgar translation Hic est sanguis meus Sander maketh not a litle adoe that hic can agree with none but sanguis but when the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc of the newter gender it may well be translated this thing and so the relation must be to the wine like as the other Euangelist render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this cup that is the wine in this cuppe for bloude it cannot be before the words of consecration if they will holde their owne principles And therefore the best interpreters to take away cauilling turne it Hoc est sanguis meus This thing is my bloud as this thing is my body where est may still stand for significat And yet I denie not but hic est sanguis and haec est caro may well be vsed as Cyprian doth in the same sense for a relatiue betweene two antecedents or an adiectiue betweene two substantiues of diuerse genders may agree with either of them without any change of the sense as in Genesis Cap. 2. Adam saith of the woman Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis caro de carne mea haec vocabitur virago This is nowe bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh she shal be called woman Here the Pronoune is of both the genders and yet there was conuersion of a bone into a woman Likewise God speaking of the Rainebowe which is there the Masculine gender Gen. 9. saith hoc est signum foederis where hoc agreeth with signum yet the sense is hic arcus est signum this bowe is the signe Absolom Sam. 2. Cap. 18. erected a piller called in the vulgar translation tiâ—â—lum which is of the masculine gender and thereof saith Hoc erit monimentum nominis this shal be the moniment of my name meaning this pillar and yet hoc agreeth not in gender with it I might multiply examples infinitely if these were not sufficient to shewe the vanitie of Sander which of the gender of the pronowne would prooue the speach not to be figuratiue Where hee saith we builde a roofe without walls or foundation as Hierom saith of heretikes that neglecting the literal sense builded al their fantasies vpon allegories I answere we doe not so but rather the Papists which builde a sacrament without an element denying breade and wine to remaine in the supper as for the literall sense of scripture we beleeue to be the onely true sense although the words many times bee vnproper and figuratiue euen as Sander himselfe both in his rotten Rocke and in this booke taketh this to be the literall sense of these words I will giue thee the Keyes of the kingdome of heauen meaning authoritie What the new testament is whereof the holy scripture speaketh A testameÌ„t he saith is a solemn ordeining of a thing by words confirmed by death of the testator dedicated with a sacrifice offered to God bloudily The newe Testament is a couenant or truse made by Christ with vs to haue forgiuenesse of sinnes if we keepe his lawe The bloude of the old Testament was put in a basen the bloude of the newe Testament in a Chalice I omit that hee saith the promise of the old Testament was but of a temporall inheritance for keeping the lawe But to returne to the newe Testament which he so handleth that there is neither rime nor reason in his argument Three things saith hee are required in a solemne Testament the couenant bloudshedding and application of the bloude When Christ saieth This is my bloude of the newe testament either all these or one of these may bee called the newe testament But when saint Luke and saint Paul reporte Christ to haue saide This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloud they seeme saith hee to take the worde Testament for the substance of the thing which doth confirme the new testament not properly for the newe truse or promise thereof What say you Sander is there any vnproper speech in the words of consecration is a substance expressed by the name of an accident where be the nownes pronownes verbs paticiples where be the relatiues antecedents cases and genders that fight for the proper sense of hoc est corpus meum why serue they not heere But heare a little more This that is in the Chalice saith he is not the promise of remitting sinnes but it is the new testament in Christes bloud That is to say it is the thing that confirmeth the newe lawe Why sir euen now you told vs that it might be called a new testament as it is a law couenant or promise Will you make vs beleeue that the Euangelistes reporting one saying of Christ which can haue but one sense in the one of them the newe testament is taken for a promise in the other it is not taken for a promise But let it bee the thing that confirmeth the promise what thing is that I pray you His bloud you will say Why then the sense of these words the newe testament in my bloude is my bloude in my bloude This cuppe is my bloude in my bloude What sense is this But Sedulius I trow helpeth you much in 1. Co. 11. Ideo colix c. Therfore the Chalice is called the testament because it did beare witnesse that the passion should bee soone after now it testifieth that it is done although you are faine to alter the common reading to put in testamentum for testamenti How prooue you by these wordes that Sedulius was of your minde Alas he hath nothing to say but being taken with a figuratiue speach he slinketh away like a Dogge that is whipped with his taile betweene his legges For these wordes of Christ This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude if all the Grammarians in the worlde haue them in hande to construe cannot haue a Grammaticall sense but must needes bee taken figuratiuely and being so taken chaseth transubstantiation out of the doores for the true sense of them can be none other but this
Sander S. Augustine spake these wordes to the faithlesse Iewes of Capernaum and not to Catholikes Fulke If Iewes become faithfull what differ they from Catholikes why should they haue another maner of eating Christ then other Catholikes Sander S. Augustine confesseth vs to receiue Christ by mouth also Hominem Iesum Christum c. We doe receiue with a faithfull heart and mouth the man Iesus Christ giuing his flesh vnto vs to be eaten and his bloud to be drunke although it may seeme more horrible to eate mans flesh then to kil it and to drinke mans bloud then to shedde it Therefore his meaning is not to remoue vtterly the naturall office of the body as Master Iewel most impudently saith Fulk He remoueth not the natural office of the body from eating the Sacrament but from eating the natural body of Christ. And most horrible is the impudence of Master Sander which dissembleth that S. Augustine in the place by him cited speaketh of figuratiue sayings contra aduers. leg proph lib. 2. Cap. 9. Immediatly before the words by him rehearsed comparing our eating of Christes fleshe with Christ beeing one flesh with his Church and immediatly after the wordes aforesaied concluding that figuratiue sayinges must not bee contemned Sicut duos c. Euen as wee doe knowe Christ and his Church to be two in one flesh without any obscenity against the will of these men Euen as we receiue with faithfull hart and mouth the mediator of God and man the man Iesus Christ c. Atque in omnibus And in all the holy scriptures if any thing which is spoken or done figuratiuely bee expounded according to the rule of sound faith of any matters or wordes which are conteined in the holy scriptures let not that exposition bee taken contemptuously Sander Said he not for the honour of so great a Sacrament it pleased the holy ghost that our Lordes body should enter into the mouth of a Christian before other meates and yet is the office of the body remoued and that vtterly remoued Fulke Said he not before it was a figuratiue speach to eate the flesh of Christ and to drinke his bloud and is it then a great merueile if the Sacrament be called by the name of the thing whereof it is a Sacrament For the question is not in that Ep. 118. Whether the bodye of Christ should be preferred before other things but whether the SacrameÌ„t shuld be receiued fasting or after meat The rest of your chat concerning the councell of 8. Cardinals compared with the conference Wittenberg I passe ouer as conteining no argument touching the matters in question CAP. XVI Sander Whether Christes body dwell really in our 〈◊〉 by his na 〈…〉 itie Iewell Foure speciall meanes there be by euery of which Christes body dwelleth in our bodies not by imagination but really substantially naturally fleshly and in deede Sander You had ben better to haue subscribed foure times than to haue made an assertion so vaine as this Fulke The assertion is of the phrase or manner o speaking against which you cauilâ— most vainely Iewell Christes body by his natiuity whereby hee embraceth vs dwelleth in our bodies really substantially c. Sander If you had said by his incarnation he dwelleth naturaly in vs or we in him that saying might haue a true sense but to say that his body dwelleth in our bodies not onely naturally but also really c. it seemeth to me very hard Fulke His natiuity importeth his incarnation And what meane you by naturally but in the trueth and real substance of his body after a naturall manner Sander Christ tooke not the common general substance of all mankind but onely the whole particular nature of man Fulke Sander fighteth against his owne shadowe for heere is no man that saith against him and so through the whole Chapiter Wheras Master Iewel defendeth the phrase of speaking Christes body dwelleth really c. in our bodies which in som sense is true Sander answereth it is not true in euery sense And he dwelleth not onely by his birth wheras Master Iewel affirmeth three other waies by which Christ may be said so to dwell in vs. Sander One thing I must put you in mind of You defend that Christes naturall body may not be in many places at once but you say now that his body by his natiuity dwelleth really c. in our bodies which dwel in mani places therfore you are against your own doctrin Fulke So long as there be no greater contrarietie in Master Iewels doctrine it is safe inough This is miserable sophistry more worthy to be hissed at among boys â—hen to be answered of learned men I thinke there is no cobler in Cambridge or Oxforde but he could winde himselfe out of this fallacia To dwell in all men by participation of common nature is one thing and one whole bodie to be whole in tenne thousand places is another thing CAP. XVII Sander Whether Christes bodie dwell in our bodies by faith really or no. Fulke The question should be whether this manner of speach in some sense may not be iustified Sander Master Iewels phrase defendeth Ioan of Kents heresie Fulke If he had saide the virgine Mary conceiued Christ by faith in her heart more happily then carnally in her wombe In affirming the one he had not denied the other and yet he had said nothing but the trueth Did not whole Christ dwell in the godly by faith before his incarnation Did they not eate and drinke the bodie bloud of Christ by faith before his bodie was conceiued in the virgins wombe If these sayings be true the other phrase according to this sense may be defended CAP. XVIII Sander The contradiction of M. Iewel concerning Christ really dwelling in vs by faith and not really dwelling in vs by faith Fulke If the worde really may be taken in diuerse senses what contradiction is there when he saith Christ dwelleth in vs really by faith the word really is made opposite to imaginatiuely figuredly or phantastically and signifieth Christ in deede is communicated vnto vs by the effectes of his incarnation death passion resurrection c. Where he saith Christ is not really and fleshly placed in our hearts by faith the word really is opposite to faith which is a substance of things to be hoped foâ— which are not actually present signifieth that the naturall substance of Christs flesh lyeth not locally in the substance of our heartes According to these two significations what contradiction is there but that you are disposed to cauil CAP. XIX Sander Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by baptisme or no. Fulke This saying may be iustified in the affirmatiue as wel as that he dwelleth really in our bodies by the Sacrament of his supper The diuerse vnderstanding of the word really maketh al the controuersie in this matter M. Iewel taketh it in one sense M. Sander in another Not ignorantly mistaking but wilfully maliciously
and the loue of God Concerning these interpretations Bristow saith that they are not the interpretations of the councell whose interpretation they are not bounde to defende but onely their definitions but they are the interpretations of particular persons To this I answere they are contained in the synodal book sent into the Westerne Churches to stirre them vp to idolatrie which booke was aunswered by Carolus Magnus or by Alcuinus at his commaundement and in his name therefore they are approued by the councell yea some of them are contained also in that report of the councell which is set downe in the bookes of councels The text of lighting a candell and putting it vnder a bushel is affirmed of Bristowe to be well applyed in the Epistle of Constantinus his mother to the synod But he is deceiued For there is no argument of setting of images vpon the altar drawne out of that text which is so abused in the Synodal aboue rehearsed confirmed by Carolus or Alcuinus The seconde text God made man according to his image therefore we must haue images in the Church Bristowe confesseth to bee contained in the Epistle of pope Adrian to the Emperour But the same is approued in the councell and is the popes Epistle whose credit is greater with you than the councels But he doth not conclude you say that therfore we must haue images in the Church What then forsooth that a◠Adam being the image of God is to be honoured so euery image is holy that i◠made in the name of God be it an image of Angels prophets Apostles martyrs or iust persons This conclusion conteineth more thē I vrged namely the worshiping of images not the making of thē only And because you are so impudēt to say it is not the coūcel but pope Adrianus that so saith c I wil let the reader vnderstand that in the seconde action there were two Epistles of Pope Adrian reade in the synode one to the Emperours the other to Tharasius the patriarche of Constantinople Afterward Peter and Peters liuetenants of the Pope required Tharasius to declare whether he cōsented to the Popes letters or no. Tharasius answered that concerning the worshiping of images he did allow the Popes letters Thē said the Synod Vniuersa sancta Synodus c. The whole holy synod doth so beleeue and teach Peter and Peters Legates of the sea Aposto like saide Let the holy synode tell vs whether it receiue the letters of the most holy Pope of the elder Rome or no. The holy synode aunswered we follow them we receiue them and allowe them The 3. text As we haue heard so we haue seene in the citie of our God ps 48. to proue that God must not be knowne by onely hearing of his word but also by sight of images Bristowe affirmeth that it is not the councell that citeth it but a Deacon called Epiphanius which readeth it to the councell out of a booke of his owne I answere hee readeth it with approbation and good liking of the councell which in effect is al one But he citeth it not saith Bristowe to shew how God must be knowne but about the storie of Christs manhoode nor to proue immediately that the said story must be painted c. as though God can be knowne but by Christ for knowledge of whom by imagery he cyteth this text of the Canticle also Can. 2. shew me thy face let me heare thy voyce And whether it be immediately or mediately certain it is that he citeth this text Pal. 48. to proue that the pictures of saincts are rightly deliuered in the Church none otherwise then the reading of the holy gospel The 4. text falsely interpreted in sense falsified in words is Ioan. 10. ver 29. My father which gaue them vnto me speaking of his sheep is greater then al. Which text in the Councell of Lateran holden vnder Pope Innocent the thirde is falsified in words after this manner Pater quod dedit mihi maius est omnibus That whiche the father hath giuen me is greater then all and interpreted to proue the eternall begetting of Christ of the substance of his father To this Bristow aunswereth her◠is no false interpretation in D. Allens sense What sense Allen hath of false interpretation I knowe not sure I am that a text cannot be truely interpreted in sense when it is corrupted in wordes which make the sense Secondly he saith that of my two crimes I must strike out one for supposing the text to be as the councell alledgeth it the interpretation is not vnapt But I reply supposing the text to be as it is in deede Such falsifying or corrupting of the words must needes drawe with it not onely an vnapt but also a wrong interpretation But what couler of reason haue you saith he that the councell hath falsified the words of that text Is it not in the vulgar Latine translation verbatim as the councell alledgeth it yes verily And so is the councell cleared of that crime also Not so soone as you weene for if any falsifying or corrupting of the words of the scripture haue crept into your translation it had beene the councels dutie not to haue winked at it if it could haue seene it much lesse to haue confirmed it so farre forth as of so many texts which cleerely proue Christ to bee consubstantiall with his father it coulde finde none but take this corrupted and falsified text But the most auncient Latine writers saint Augustine saint Ambrose and saint Hilarie doe reade iumpe as we doe saith Bristowe That doth not amende the matter one whit but sheweth the errour of the Latine Church to haue the longer continued which in the councell of Lateran if it could haue espied it ought rather to haue bene reformed then confirmed But will you chaunge your copie saith Bristowe and frame your accusation anewe against the translation as differing from the Originall that is from the Greeke Sir I neede not chaunge my copie for my accusation is alreadie framed that this text is falsified and corrupted contrarie to the originall trueth yet Bristowe goeth on But afore you doe so take my counsaile with you and bee sure first that the Greeke is so as you say For some Greeke copies of auncient also had euen as we haue as namely the copie which saint Cyrill being a Greeke Doctor expoundeth Cyr. lib. 7. in Ioan. cap. 10. In deede it were not amisse to take the councell of such a learned Grecian as Bristowe is that I might bee sure howe the Greeke text is For hee can tell me of auncient Greeke copies yea namely of that which saint Cyrill a Greeke doctor did followe and expounde which agreeth with the vulgar translation in this text Verely the sight of such a copie woulde doe mee great pleasure But vntill I may see it I will suspende my iudgement and in the meane time I woulde borrowe a worde or two with Thomas Stapleton the peruser and allower
of this booke of Bristowe I praye you sir Haue you perused and allowed thi◠booke What els doe you not see it printed in the first leafe Perused and allowed by mee Thomas Stapleton And are you so good a peruser and allower of bookes Maister Stapleton that you cannot espie in them Chalk taken for Cheese Doe you not see your scholer Bristowe alledge saint Cyrill a Greeke doctor to proue the truth of the greeke text lib. 7. in Ioan cap. 10. and when all commeth to all there is no such booke of Cyrill the auncient Greeke doctor extant but it is poore Iodocus Clicthouius a late Latine writer that hath supplyed those 4. bookes of Cyrill that are lost Wherefore to returne to you M. Bristow except your councel be better and sauour more of good learning and knowledge you may keepe it for your friendes As for your assertion without doubt that the copie which your authenticall translator followed had euen as hee translated helpeth you little or nothing which if it were graunted howe can you proue that hee translated it as you nowe reade it Seeing it is certainly knowne to them that haue conferred his translation with the originall that beside that in diuerse places he giueth not the true sense of the Greeke in many texts also he is corrupted where he had translated right Wherefore how fully I am aunswered on euery side cōcerning this text as you boast in the end let the readers iudge In the last place you set down my words Ar. 7. in which I accuse the Church of Rome for thrusting vpon vs that corrupt Latine translation which all learned men doe know to be corrupt in such texts as are the most coulerable places for the defence of popish doctrine of which I giue one example for all They allege the text 1. Cor. 10. Qui stat videat ne cadat he that standeth let him take heed◠he fall not against the certaintie of faith where as the Greeke hath not hee that standeth but hee that thinketh he standeth c. Bristowe biddeth mee looke better in the text their translation is not as I charge it but euen as I say the Greeke to be Qui se existimat stare c And therefore in the margent he biddeth stand out of his light that the childe may see Might not I say shore vp your eyes syr Richarde and see that I doe not say the text is so translated but so alledged They alledge the text Qui stat videat ne cadat And if you require mine author who allegeth it so looke in Haymo vpon the verie place and you shall finde these verie wordes Qui stat in fide operibus videat ne cadat He that standeth in faith and workes let him see that he fal not And if you woulde haue a later writer that so alledgeth it looke in Gregory Martin one of your broode who in his booke of schisme alleageth it in so many wordes Qui stat videat ne cadat in the first chapter of his booke And what hath brought them to this vnderstanding but your corrupt translation Qui se existimat star◠hee that iudgeth or is perswaded that he standeth For existimare signifieth properly to iudge or esteeme vppon good groundes to thinke certeinely and not like putare which worde Ambrose vseth in the interpretation of this text and signifieth to thinke vainly And so is existimare vsed by your translator in other places Rom. 6. Ita vos existimate c. So you esteeme or iudge your selues to be deade vnto sinne c. And againe 1. Cor. 6 Sic nos existimet homo vt ministros Christi c. Let a man thus esteeme or iudge of vs as of the ministers of Christ. Againe Iac. 1. Omne gaudium existimate c. My brethren count it all ioy when you fall into diuerse temptations In all which places existimare signifieth to thinke certeinely not vainely as in this text 1. Cor. 10. It should be qui se putat stare he that vainely thinketh that he standeth let him take heede that he falleth not I confesse I might haue brought an hundreth places of scripture in which the corruption is more cleere vnto euery simple mans vnderstanding but this I tooke to be sufficient seing to proue the corruption of the translation was not the principall matter of the demaunde which I aunswered but to yeelde a reason why the popishe Church did not as wel corrupt the text of the Testament as the true doctrine conteined in the same CAP. VII That he hath no other shift against our manifolde Euidences so cleere they be but the name of only Scripture as well about ech controuersie as also about the meaning of the scripture it self And howe timerous he maketh vs and how bolde he beareth him selfe heereupon First he chargeth me with shamefull confessions that I haue been faine to make against mine owne side and for their side which what they are you haue heard alreadie and what shame I haue gotten by them and what aduantage their side hath of them Next he promiseth to shew the same more cleerly by running ouer those common euidences of Christian trueth out of which he framed his Motiues and demands which I confesse to be al against me because I take exception against them say that onely scripture is good euidence in such suits c. But what I confesse or deny of those euidences may best be seene in my Retentiue against his motiues and demaundes The first part Howe he excepteth by onely scripture against all other euidences in the controuersies that are betwene vs and first against the rule to knowe heresie c. Hee rehearseth many sentences of mine mangled interrupted with his owne glosses in which I professe that No opinion is heresie which is not contrary to the holy scriptures although it be accompted heresie of the worlde where hee slaundereth me to terme them the worlde which before I confessed to be the true Church The places Art 44. where I speak of them which preaching in these later times against poperie haue beene of the Romishe Church condemned for heretikes as Waldo Wickelief Hus c. In the processe following where I sayd that if Aerius had not bene an Arrian the opinion he held against prayer for the dead coulde not haue made him an heretike Bristow compting my saying to be blasphemie belike against the Popes kitchē addeth that it seemeth I knewe not the purpose of Augustine in his book de Haer. which he saith was the purpose of Epiphanius also not to confute but only to report of heresies that had benbefore his time Seeing it is inough to know that the catholik Churches iudgement is against thē And that it helpeth much the faithfull hearte onely to know what must not be belieued although he be not able to confute it by disputing And why seeme I ignorant of this purpose except it be because I said that neither Epiphanus
so farre forth as they teache the way of sal 〈…〉 ation otherwise it is no discomfort vnto them alâ—â—ough they vnderstande not euerie harde place of the â—criptures After this he gathereth that I place all in a mans owne 〈…〉 iligence to trust no man nor men but to reade the scriptures 〈…〉 onferre the places and so gather the meaning by him selfe So that with him it is nothing that saint Augustine saith 〈◊〉 Doct. Christ. libr. Chapter 6. where I receiued my 〈…〉 ule Magnificè igitur salubriter c. Magnificallye â—herefore and wholesomely the holy Ghost hath so 〈…〉 empered the holy scriptures that with open places hee â—ight satisfie hunger with darke places he might wype â—ff lothsomnesse for nothing in a manner is brought â—ut of those obscurities which may not bee founde in â—ome other place most plainely spoken It is nothing â—hat I require the holy ghost the author of the scripâ—ures by earnest prayer to bee obtained of the interpretors But if diligence may doe so much hee telâ—â—th vs of the greate diligence vsed in the Popes semiâ—arie for Englande vnder the gouernement of Doctor Allen which prooueth it selfe to bee a semiâ—arie of treason in much reading and conferring of the scriptures with all other helpes and meanes whereby they must bee more certaine of trueth then wee by mine owne rule No Bristowe not they that reade the scriptures with such minde as you doe without the extraordinarie grace of God shall neuer come to the knowledge of the trueth which they seeke not in them but the confirmation of their preiudicated erronious and hereticall opinions There is a fragment of Clemens cited in the decrees Dist. 37. Chapter Relatum which sheweth the lette of your vnderstanding and in the ende concludeth Non enim sensi 〈…〉 c. you ought not to seeke a forrain and straunge sense without the scriptures that you may by any meanes confirme the same by the authoritie of the scriptures but you ought to take the sense of truth out of the scriptures themselues Concerning the bragge of Hebrewe and Greeke texts to be proued against vs wheÌ„ we see the booke wee will shewe you our iudgement In the meane time if the authour shewe not more witte in suppressing his labour then you in vaunting of it before it come forth I assure you he will shewe himself to the world to haue neither learning wisdome nor honestic The 3. part What he meaneth by his onely scripture and that thereby he excepteth also against scripture I meane by onely scripture what soeuer is taught in plaine wordes or may be gathered by necessarie conclusion which is as good as expresse wordes For all trueth needefull for vs to knowe say I may be prooued by scripture either in plaine words or by necessarie conclusion which is all one Where I vrge Allen to shewe some sentence of scripture to maintaine prayer and sacrifice for the deade Bristow saith I confessed that I haue hearde of him diuerse sentences in the third chapter of his reply pag. 19. but reade that page who will and thèy shall finde neuer a worde of such confession The scripture it self that I except against by calling for Canonicall scripture is the booke of Machabees which he promiseth to proue to be canonicall in the 11. Chapter where his arguments shall receiue aunsweres The 4. part What great promises he maketh to bring most euident scriptures against vs and also by scripture to proue his sense of the scripture Triumphing also before the victorie and saying that 〈…〉 dare not be tried by scripture but reiect the Scriptures where 〈…〉 n a fourefold offer is made vnto him Before he rehearse my words of promise he repeteth 〈…〉 w precise he hath shewed me first to admitte no eui 〈…〉 nce that they alledge but scripture onely both in all 〈…〉 ntrouersies and also in the exposition of scripture 〈…〉 at euidence I admit and howe farre hath beene shew 〈…〉 before more at large in my answere to his motiues 〈…〉 d demaunds Secondly he saith I admitte no scripture 〈…〉 ich maketh so plainly with them that I cannot auoid but by denying it to be canonicall though I graunt 〈…〉 o haue the confirmation of the same true Church which 〈…〉 oueth me as the holy ghost to receiue the other scrip 〈…〉 res for canonical This he speaketh for the Machabees 〈…〉 oke which although I denie to bee canonicall yet I 〈…〉 uer graunted to haue the confirmation of the true 〈…〉 urch neither yet euer had it againe where he saith 〈…〉 e true Church moueth me as the holy ghost to re 〈…〉 ue the other scriptures for canonicall hee doth mee 〈…〉 onge for the Church moueth not me as the holy ghost 〈…〉 t in a much inferior degree of mouing the holye Ghost 〈◊〉 the author moueth mee the true Church as a wit 〈…〉 sse Thirdly hee saith I admit no scripture which I con 〈…〉 sse to be canonicall vnlesse it make so expressely so plainely so manifestly so necessarily with them that it cannot by any subtiltie be auoyded This proposition being in the copulatiue is false for I admit arguments taken either out of the expresse and plaine words of scripture or of collection necessarily concluding Let him make a newe logike if hee will haue me admitte argumentes that doe not conclude necessarily Howe I obserue that law that I so rigorously exact 〈…〉 e will examine in the next Chapter Then folâ—oweth a large rehersall of sentences wherein I affirme â—hat by the grace of God I am able to proue euery arti 〈…〉 e of faith that wee holde against the papistes by ne 〈…〉 essarie argu 〈…〉 ents out of the scriptures Bristowe saith in the next chapter I shall haue ynowe yet if 〈◊〉 will one article shall be this That Antichrist is not one certaine person That I shall easily proue thus One certaine person is not many Antichrists there haâ—â— beene manie therefore Antichriste is not one certaine person The minor is saint Iohn Epist. 1. Cap. 2. vers 18. Againe Antichrist is hee whosoeuer denyeth that Iesus is Christ One certaine person onely denyeth not that Iesus is Christ Therefore Antich rist is not one certaine person onely 1. Iohan. 2. vers 22. Againe Euery spirite that confesseth not Iesus Christ to bee come in the fleshe is the spirite of Antichrist but this is not the spirite of one certaine person ergo Antichrist is not one certaine person The beast described Apocalips 13. and expounded Apocalips 17. is Antichrist but manie kinges are the partes of that beaste therefore Antichrist is no one certaine person The whoore of Babylon whiche is expounded Apoc. 17. to be the citie of Rome is borne by the beast beforesaide which is Antichrist but the citie of Rome is not borne by one certayne person therefore Antichrist is no one certaine person An other article that hee requireth me to proue is That the Churches flying
into the wildernesse at the comming of Antichrist is to become inuisible to the worlde Although this article bee not a matter of faith in controuersie betweene vs neither yet so affirmed of mee as though to bee in the wildernesse were nothing else but to bee inuisible to the worlde yet I will proue so much as I affirmed that the Church being in the wildernesse is inuisible to the worlde The Church being where the multitude of wicked men are not is to them inuisible But the multitude of wicked men are not in the wildernesse Therefore the Church being in the wildernesse is to the multitude of wicked men which is the world inuisible Thirdly hee requireth mee to proue that the beginning of that comming and flying shoulde bee so soone after Christes passion Before I proue this it were reason you should tell how sone you meane or I said such 〈…〉 mming and fleeing shoulde bee And the like I say 〈…〉 the continuance of so many ages and the ende so 〈…〉 g before Christes seconde comming The holy 〈…〉 ost declareth Apoc. 12. ver 5. that immediately after 〈…〉 rist was taken vp to God and his throne the woman 〈…〉 hich is the Church being persecuted by the dragon 〈…〉 d into the wildernesse The time of continuance is 〈…〉 uratiuely obscurely described by dayes monethes 〈…〉 d yeares and generally by a time times and halfe a 〈…〉 e which I neuer tooke vppon me to define howe 〈…〉 ng they should be in account of our yeres nor when 〈…〉 comming of Christ should be After this hee saith I triumph in lying when I af 〈…〉 me the Papistes dare not abyde the tryall of onely 〈…〉 ipture whereas he laboreth nothing so much in all 〈…〉 is Chapter as to prooue that the tryall of true do 〈…〉 ine ought not to bee onely by scripture And 〈…〉 terwarde hee sayth playnely they refuse the tryall 〈…〉 onely scriptures but not by scriptures no more 〈…〉 eu they refuse faith because they refuse onely faith 〈…〉 here hee noteth mee for foysting in the worde one 〈…〉 in the minor of this argument The spouse of 〈…〉 hrist heareth the voyce of Christ and is ruled there 〈…〉 y But the Romishe Church will in no wise bee 〈…〉 led onely by the voyce of Christ therefore shee is 〈…〉 ot of the spouse of Christ. I thought euerie reasona 〈…〉 le man woulde haue vnderstoode onely in the maior 〈…〉 so seeing she is no honest spouse that will bee ruled 〈…〉 y the voyce of an other man then her husbande or 〈…〉 hat will bee ruled by her selfe or take vppon 〈…〉 er to ouerrule her husbande I added also in the 〈…〉 inor which Bristow omitteth that the Romish church 〈…〉 goeth a whoring after her owne inuentions and com 〈…〉 mitteth grosse idolatrie Ar. 99. Where I charge the Popishe Church with blas 〈…〉 mie for submitting Gods word to her owne iudgemeÌ„t 〈…〉 he answereth it is al one as if I shold say the Apostles did blasphemously submit the scripture to the own will bâ— cause they tooke vppon them to iudge of the true s 〈…〉 and because S. Peter sayde the vnlearned being hiâ— selfe a fisherman and vnstable did misconster S. Pauâ— epistles c. to their owne damnation which is all 〈◊〉 as if Bristowe coulde make vs beleeue that the Apâ— stles tooke vppon them without the spirit of God 〈◊〉 contrarie to the scriptures in other places to iudge 〈◊〉 sense of any scripture as the Popish Church doeth 〈◊〉 that Saint Peter being an Apostle indued with so mâ— ny graces was vnlearned because hee had beene a 〈◊〉 sherman Agayne where I sayde the Popishe Church ma 〈…〉 festly reiecteth the whole autoritie of all the Cano 〈…〉 call scriptures when shee affirmeth that no booke 〈◊〉 holy scripture is Canonicall but so far foorth as sh 〈…〉 will allowe it This sayth Bristowe is as though 〈◊〉 Apostles and the Church after them manifestly reiâ—cted the whole c because they made a Canon or Câ—nons whereof the sayde scriptures were and are call 〈…〉 Canonicall wherevppon him selfe also counteth th 〈…〉 as confirmed by the holy Ghost That the scriptu 〈…〉 are called Canonicall of such a Canon it is not yet proued for they may bee called the Canon and Canonicall because they are the certayne rule to directe 〈◊〉 matters of religion But admitte the Apostles or 〈◊〉 Church immediately after them in hauing the spir 〈…〉 of discretion made such a Canon to discerne true aâ—d diuine bookes from false and conterfeite books or writen by the spirite of man what is this like to that bl 〈…〉 phemous authoritie which the Popishe Church chalengeth that shee gaue authoritie to the scriptures and might as well haue receiued the Gospell of Bartholomewe as of Mathew of Thomas as of Iohn c whereby it followeth that by the like power shee may now reiect the Gospells of Mathewe and Iohn and receiue the Gospels of Bartholomew and Thomas Where I sayde the popish Bishoppes durst not abyde the conference at Westminster first he quarelleth 〈…〉 my phrase because I saide it was before the whole 〈…〉 rlde as one that care not what I say In deede I 〈…〉 de accompt of the iudgement of reasonable rea 〈…〉 s which woulde not take my wordes as though I 〈…〉 nt that all the whole worlde was gathered into 〈…〉 estminster Church but that the conference and dis 〈…〉 tation was so open and so notorious that all the world 〈…〉 ght haue knowledge of it Secondly hee calleth it a mocke conference in com 〈…〉 rison of the councell of Trent yet was there no or 〈…〉 r taken but such as was well liked of by the Papistes 〈…〉 m selues vntill they sawe their cause coulde carie no 〈…〉 dite Hee chargeth vs for refusing to come to the councell 〈◊〉 Trent being so solemnly honorably inuited with 〈…〉 h safeconductes c. To your safeconductes I aun 〈…〉 ere briefly the councel of Constance hath discredited 〈…〉 m for euer on your behalfes And to your disputati 〈…〉 there offered I say it was to no purpose in such a 〈…〉 cke councell where the Pope which is the princi 〈…〉 ll partie that is accused of heresie shall be the onely 〈…〉 dge and disposer of all thinges passed therein against 〈◊〉 good examples lawes equitie and reason Where you make Allen such a great exhibitioner 〈◊〉 our whole countrie I will not quarell at your phrase 〈…〉 t I maruell what great reuenewes hee hath in Flaun 〈…〉 rs that hee receyueth no exhibition as you say from any bodie But nowe to the fourefolde offer wherein first you say that the councell of Trent compted vs subiectes 〈◊〉 much as we compte you the subiectes of Englande â—e compt you as you shew your selues to bee errant â—aytors to Englande and the most godly prince of the 〈…〉 me our soueraigne Lady Queene Elizabeth as for 〈…〉 e conuenticle of Trent we owe no more subiection 〈…〉
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
meere Bristowisme For Caluin neuer helde any such matter as he imagineth He asketh whether this be to say that all men are iustified before they come to the sacrament as though Caluin said they were Whereas a great number are iustified neither before nor after the receipt of them But this is to say that as Abraham was iustified by faith without respect of the sacrament so are all they that are iustified iustified by faith without respect of the sacrament Secondly he asketh whether all sacraments be seales of such a matter Yea verely or else saint Paul proueth the iustification of the Gentiles by faith very feebly after the example of Abraham Thirdly hee asketh whether all Iewes were iustified before they came to circumcision which I neuer hearde any man to affirme but that as many Iewes as were iustified were iustified by faith as Abraham was circumcision no more regarded in their iustification then it was in the iustification of Abraham Last of all he asketh whether circumcision were to the Iewes a seale of such a matter still he calleth it such a matter because he dare not name iustification by faith O the stinge of a wicked conscience But to the question I aunswere that to the Iewes which were iustified by faith circumcision was a seale of the righteousnesse of faith which is imputed to them as it was to Abraham without merite or respect of their circumcision Other pointes of mine ignorance he saith are about the holy spirite of promise whereof Saint Paul speaketh Ephe. 1. which I say is the meane to make vs partakers of the fruites of Christes passion Item the meane to graffe vs into his bodie Item that it worketh in vs faith In the conclusion he noteth the ignorance of the Protestantes where they holde this spirite promised to be nothing else but the gifte of tongues that is to say Christs greatest gifte to be his least gifte Out vpon the shamelesse lyer which of the Protestantes canst thou name that so holdeth We all holde that the holy spirite of promise Ephes. 1. is the spirite of adoption by which we are assured of eternall life Rom. 8. And as for the spirite prophecyed by Ioel and Iohn Baptist promised by Christ to be sent after his ascension we holde not to be specially of the spirit of adoption which the Apostles al the faithfull had before Christes death and much lesse of that spirit which your Bishops giue by imposition of hands in their counterfeit confirmation which is the spirit of vanitie whose fruites appeare not in any of the receiuers But we holde that promised gifte of Gods spirit to be that wonderful reuelation of knowledge and vnderstanding vtterāce in all states degrees of true Christians generally beside a great number of particular giftes not perpetuall bestowed vpon the Church in diuerse speciall members for the certifying thereof in the first publishing of the gospel As for your conference of scriptures whereof you prate so much is a meere confusion of matters of diuerse senses According to which manner of conference not weighing the sense of euery place by the proper circumstances thereof but following onely a sounde and similitude of some wordes euerie heretike might colour his heresie were it neuer so absurde as the Valentinians of whom Irenaeus testifieth that they patched diuerse sentences together to make a shewe as though their heresie were contained in holy write which was nothing else but as if a man breaking a goodly image of a king in peeces shoulde of the peece after his owne manner ioyned together make the image of a dogge or a foxe or other foule beaste Iren. lib. 1. Chapt. 1. such is your conference of the spirite of promise wherewith the faithfull are sealed Ephes. 1. with the spirite of tongues and prophecie which came vppon the twelue on whom saint Paul layed his hands Acts 19. The last errour of faith hee chargeth mee to bee the onely meane which hee saith is no meane but a disposition hee thinketh it sufficiently discouered before wherevnto I also thinke that I haue made answere sufficiently About the sacramentes in speciall The necessitie and effecte of baptisme Concerning baptisme I say it is necessary for al christians to receiue that are not by necessity excluded from it 1. Pet. 3. Bristow saith it is necessarie for all men but when it cannot be actually had the effectuall desire of it supplyeth the want which desire infantes haue not and therfore onely the actuall hauing of baptisme doth quicken them in Christ being dead in Adam Touching the saluation of infants of the faithful dying without baptisme I said nothing but by implication that there is no such necessitie of Baptisme that the want of the outwarde sacrament shoulde condemne the seede of the faithful perteining to gods election couenant where there is no default either of contempt or neglect of it Ro. 9. Ge. 17. And seeing Bristow alloweth the effectuall desire in men of yeares to supply the want which yet the wordes of his text Iam. 3. of which he taketh colour and authoritie of his doctors that condemne all vnbaptised infants wil not beare what reason is it why he should not extende his supply vnto the effectuall desire of those infants parents and friends whose faith he acknoledgeth to supplie the want of actuall faith in the infants that are baptised Beside this hee saith that he did mark wel ynough where I said that the sacramēts giue grace according to the election of God As though all infants baptised so dying be not of Gods electe or that some be not saued although they be baptised asketh what scripture I haue for this geere But in deede he bow leth at the wrong marke for in saying that the sacramentes tooke effect according to the faith of the receiuer and according to gods election I ment that God in baptisme giueth grace to infāts which haue no actual faith of their owne according to his eternal electiō in mercy But whether al infants baptised so dying be of the nūber of gods elect as I do not know so I wil not contend But this I know that if they were not elected of God before the foundations of the world were laide the receiuing of baptisme cannot make them Gods elect Ephe. 1. Where Bristowe vrgeth the saying of saint Peter 1. Pet. 3. baptisme saueth vs now it is a weake argument to proue the baptisme of infants either to saue them all that receiue it or to condemne all that receiueth it not For explicating him selfe of what baptisme hee speaketh he addeth not the putting away of the filth of the flesh as you woulde say outwarde washing which is the externall sacrament but the interrogation of a good conscience towardes God which is the thing signified by outwarde washing and yet not founde in infantes but in them that haue knowledge among whom whosoeuer hath it not hee shall no more bee saued then any was preserued
And which of the olde writers except Chrysostome once goeth about to alledge Scripture for prayer for the dead Wherefore I made no vaine bragge in saying most of the olde writers that defende such prayers confessed they had them not of the Scriptures Of certaine particular textes I saide that Saint Augustine is cleare that the text 1. Cor. 3. of him that shal be saued through fire proueth not Purgatorie affirming that it is meant of the fire of tribulation in this life Bristowe cauilling that he affirmeth not but speaketh doubtfully c. saith that he onely sheweth it ought not to be expounded after the heresie of the Origenistes of hell fire But Augustines wordes are plaine Ignis enim de quolocutus est eo loco Apoâ—tolus talis debet intelligi vt ambo per eum transeant c. For the fire whereof the Apostle in that place speaketh ought to be vnderstoode such that both may passe thorough it that is both he that buildeth vpon this foundation Golde Siluer pretious stones and he also which buildeth Woode Strawe Stubble For when he had saide this he added The fire shal trie euerie mans work such as it is if any mans worke remaine that which he hath builded vpon he shall receiue rewarde But if any mans worke be burned he shall suffer losse but he himselfe shal be saued yet so as it were through fire The fire truely is the tentation of tribulation of which it is manifestly written in an other place The fornace proueth the potters vessels and tentation of tribulation iust men This fire in this present life worketh that which the Apostle saith c. By this you see that fire interpreted of tribulation in this life denied to be spoken of Purgatorie fire thorough whiche by their owne consent all men do not passe Againe he speaketh not at all against the Origenistes opinion of hell fire that it shall haue an end but against such as in his time did holde That they which forsake not the name of Christ and are baptised with his lauer in the Church and are not cut off from it by any schisme or heresie although they liue in neuer so great wickednes which they neither wash away by repenting nor redeemed with almes but continue most stubburnely in them vnto the end of this life shal be saued through fire although they be punished according to the greatenesse of their sinnes and wickednesse with long but yet not eternal fire But they which beleeue this yet are catholikes seeme to me to be deceiued by a certeine humane beneuolence For the holy scripture being consulted answereth another thing c. Enc. ad Laurentium C. 67. Thus his reasons are against a temporal purging fire through which some should passe not all therfore against the popishe purgatorie although he denye not but such a thing may be yet it cannot be proued by this place nor by any other place of scripture as hereafter we shall see more at large in the 3. diuision of this chapter where Bristowe promiseth I wot not what to shewe of Augustines iudgement for Purgatorie I answered Allen apposing vs where we had that new meaning of our sauiours wordes that he which is cast into prison for neglecting of reconciliation while he is in the way is cast into hell from whence he shal neuer come I alledged for that sense Chrysostome Augustine Hierom Chromatius This is passing childish saith Bristow For D. Allen demaundeth no such thing But this in deede is passing impudence for Allens words in the same diuision after he hath posed Caluin Flaccus Luther Iewel about their interpretation of scriptures are these But I will not make a reckoning of their vnseemely gloses I would their followers would only but aske them in all matters from whence they had such newe meanings which they falsely father on Gods word Nowe the whole discourse of that Chapter as appeareth by the title is of that place Math. 5. Pur. 132. Yet saith Bristow it is not true that all those doctors haue that sense which I affirme them to haue But he only saith it let their wordes be read Pur. 145. Where Allen alloweth all interpretations of the place 1. Cor. 3. so long as they affirme no error I sayde he may by the same reason allowe contradictories to be true As in that saying Matth. 5. of him that shall not come out vntill he haue payde the vttermost farthing some haue expounded that he shall alwayes be punished some that hee shall not be alwayes punished Howe is it possible that both these interpretations can be true Mary sayth Bristow with as fine Rhetorike as strong Logike Thus it is true those he and he are not one he but he that shal be alwayes punished is he that to the end of the way that is this life agreeth not with his aduersarie whome he hath deadly iniuryed as saying to him fatue and thereby incurring the guylt of Gehennae ignis which iâ— the prison of the damned He that shal not be alwayes punished is he whose iniury was but veniall as Racha And so both interpretations agree well not onely together but also with the text it selfe In deede this is a fine distinction of he and he but that hee which agreeth not with his aduersarie in the way shal be cast into prison from whence he shall neuer come whatsoeuer the matter were betwixt them there is but one prison from whence there is no deliuerance vntil the last farthing be payde which by those doctors exposition is neuer payde Whether the iniurie be greater or lesser the punishment is eternall without reconciliation or as Saint Luke sayeth diligence to be reconciled If thou being readie to offer thy gifte at the altar doest remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee goe and reconcile thy selfe sayeth Christe and agree quickly with him while thou art in the waye Marke that hee speaketh of all iniurie euen offered by anger or saying Racha and not onely of saying Fatue But as for that he which agreeth with his aduersary while he is in the way what trespasse soeuer hee hath done him he is not at all committed to prison were his iniurie great or small So that which He soeuer commeth into prison there is no waye of escape vntill hee haue payde the vttermost farthing which debt is alwayes in paying and neuer discharged Secondly whether the doctors giue any other kinde of testimonie against vs. First about the booke of Machabees Where I sayde that Allen pretendeth to proue the booke of Machabees by authoritie of the church when hee cannot by consent that it hath with the scriptures of GOD Bristowe replyeth as though all bookes are canonicall which haue consent with the Scriptures Fulk reioyneth that hee vnderstandeth not his argument so but that which hath not consent with other canonicall bookes is not canonicall Where I take exception to the Councel of Carthage which numbreth this booke among
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
the wordes in such order as they shoulde giue no manifest occasion of heresie by disordering them The fift corruption is in saint Luke 22. and Saint Paul 1. Corinth 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc facite the truest English were make this thing The fullest doe and make this thing The common Bible readeth in Saint Luke this doe In saint Paul This doe yee And that which is most abhominable of all in the homily of the sacrament it is translated doe ye thus This great abhomination if in any booke it bee so founde is but the Printers faulte although in sense there bee no great difference But seeing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and facere signifieth to doe as well as to make what corruption or falsification can there be when it is translated To do As for Sanders fullest translation by doing and making is most absurde For when a word hath two significations no wise translator will render them both but onely that which is most proper for the place and doing is here more proper then making For though it sounde not absurdly in Sanders blasphemous eares when hee saieth doe this is all one as if he had said make this my body yet that the body of Christ should be properly said to be made by meÌ„ which was once made in the wombe of the virgin by the holy ghost in all godly mens minds it is both absurde and blasphemous And that the word facite is to be translated by doing and not by making it is euident by this that S. Paule referreth it to the whole action of the supper 1. Cor. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This doe as often as you shall drinke it in my remembrance c So doth S. Cypryan manifestly lib. 2. Ep. 3. Caecilio Quòd si à domino praecipitur ab apostolo eius hoc idem coÌ„firmatur traditur vt quotiesâ—unque biberimus in commemorationeÌ„ domini hoc faciamus quod facit dominus inuenimur non obseruari à nobiâ— quod mandatum est nisi eadem quae dominus fecit nos quoque faciamus Et calicem pari ratione miscentes à diuino magisterio non recedamus If then it be commanded by the Lord the same thing is confirmed and deliuered by his Apostle that so often as we drinke we should doe this thing in remembrance of our Lord which our Lord himself did we are found that we do not obserue that which is commanded except we also doe the same thinges which our Lord did And ministring the cuppe after the same manner we depart not from his diuine teaching Last of all Heskins the papist and other likewise before this Momus translate it as we do Hesk. lib. 2. ca. 42 Where he cauileth that our translation omitteth the word Thing it is without all shadowe of reason for by This what can be vnderstood but this thinge And seing our English Pronown This doth aptly answere the Greeke pronowne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what neede is it to adde the worde Thing which is not expressed either in the Greeke or in the Latine The sixt falsification is affirmed to be in S. Luke and Saint Paul Luke 22. 1. Corinth 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In meam commemorationem The true English were For the remembrance of me or To the end I may be remembred The common bible turneth in the remembrance of me A strange quarell if a man could vnderstande it A thing sayth he may be donne best in the remembrance of a man when the man is first remembred and afterward the thing is done in the remembrance of him And may not a man be firste remembred and afterward a thing don for the remembrance of him Or would Sander that Christ should not be thought vpon before he see the Masse cake lifted vp which he saith is made for the remembrance of him For thus he fantasieth that Christ should say When my body is made by the preist and lifted vp to be adored and all the people taught to bow downe to the body of Christ and to come with pure conscience to receiue it then Christ is remembred by reason of his body made and so the scripture is fulfilled which sayth do and make this thing for the remembrance of me If this be the fulfilling of the scripture then was it not fulfilled for more then a thousand yeares after Christ vntill eleuation and adoration of the sacrament were decreed And then is it not fulfilled in any priuate Masse where none of the people receiue nor yet be taught to receiue it Where he saith that Christ can not be remembred by eating of bread drinking of wine as the Sacramentaries would haue it so effectually and with such contrition confession and satisfaction as he requireth but by folowing of his crosse and death by penance by humilitie by confessing our finnes to his ministers and taking absolution of them I answere the Protestants require not only eating and drinking but preaching of the Lords death repentance fayth loue and reuerence in the receiuers as for the rest of popish trumpery when he can shewe that Christ required or the Apostels vsed we will gladly admit it In the meane time let the readers iudge how this later kind of remembrance can be learned out of the former which I haue set downe in his owne wordes of making lyfting adoring c. Beside these great corruptions there are other two small faults in S. Paul The first 1. Cor. 10. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is turned the partaking where it should be the communicating of the body bloud of Christ. This he counteth a lesser fault because the Catholike Latine translation in one place calleth it participatio a partaking which is saith he when parte of a thing is taken and not the whole I thinke the translatour vsed the word of partaking because it is better knowen to English meÌ„ then the terme of communicating Especially seing the Apostle vseth both termes indifferently as one For in the next verse he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The vulgar Latine is Omnes qui de vno pane participamus All wee which do partake of one breade And speaking of them which did eate the Sacrifices of Israelites of which euery one did not eate the whole he saide they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicators of the altar And them that take part of the sacrifice of the Gentiles he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicators with diuels And returning to the Christians he sayeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You cannot partake of the table of the Lorde and of the table of diuels Wherefore in that translation there is neither falsification nor corruption great or small The last fault is 1. Cor. 10. in the place by mee cited wee all partake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should de Englished of the one bread For such strength hath the Greeke article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometime the coÌ„mon bible turneth the Greeke article
Christ we are nourished to immortalitie Hereupon Sander inferreth that nourishmeÌ„r is meat really present ergo the bodie and bloud of Christ is really present This shal be graunted that the bodie bloud of Christ is really present with them whom it norisheth vnderstanding really for truly and indeede and vnfainedly But Christ saith Sander gaue with his handes that which nourisheth In proper forme of speech this is false for he had not his natural bodie and bloud in his hands but a sacrament thereof which was a seale and certaine perswasion vnto the faithfull of the performance of his promise which was the communicating of his body and bloude which was performed after an heauenly and spirituall manner CAP. VI. The vnion which is made by eating Christes reall flesh must needes be a naturall vnion before it be a mysticall For this naturall vnion he bringeth no proofe but promiseth the proofe in other places following therfore vnto those places I deferre the answere In the meane time it is a monstrous absurditie that seeing the mysticall vnion with Christ is of all the elect that euer were he affirmeth that it cannot be without a naturall vnion by eating Christs flesh and bloud in the sacrament CAP. VII That the Apologie speaking of the Lordes supper goeth cleane from the word of God The wordes of the Apologie are these We doe acknowledge the Eucharist or the Lordes supper to be a sacrament that is to say an euident token of the body and bloud of Christ. This is to bring men from the word of God saith he to the traditions of men For where haue you in all the scripture that the Lordes supper is a signe or token of the body and bloud of Christ that is a sacrament And because these wordes are not found in the scriptures from the beginning of the Genesis vnto the end of the Apocalipse writen in so many letters he fometh and fretteth like a mad dogg against the authors of the Apologie for going from the worde of God to the authority of men Augustine and Ambrose c. Then the which quarels nothing can be inuented more foolish or further from all witt learning and honesty For when we appeale to the authority of the scriptures in all thinges we neuer meant or saide that all other wordes should be forsaken which are not expressed in the bible but that no doctrine is to be credited by what terme so euer it be vttered except the same be grounded vpon the manifest sense and meaning of the holy scripture either expressed in plaine wordes or els gathered by necessary consequence Therefore seing the meaning of the names of sacrament signe or token may necessarily bee proued out of the holy scriptures and for that cause haue ben taken vp and vsed by the ancient fathers in the primitiue Church wee vse them as freely as they did and as we vse other names likewise the meaning of which is plaine to be found in the scriptures although the termes them selues be not as Trinity persons consubstantiall c. If Sander durst deny the names of sacrament signe or token to be agreable to the scriptures I would take paines to prooue them but seing he confesseth that they are good and lawfull to be vsed of the supper of Christ it were superfluous la bour to trauell in a needlesse question Among the names that are giuen to the Lordes supper in the scripture That the cupp is called The new testament in the bloud of Christ and that of S. Paul the supper is called spirituall meate and spirituall drinke which last name Sander heaping vp the rest omitteth it doth proue the names of sacrament signe and token soe inuincibly that we are no more afraide to vse them then any of the other expressed in plaine wordes of the scripture The name of sacrifice which he enterlaceth by the way because it is afterward more at large discussed I omit to write of at this time CAP. VIII That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught moe then two sacramentes It had bene meet that a sacrament had bene first defined and then this trifling should not haue arisen of the word Sander himselfe vnderstandeth mysterium in S. Ambrose for a mystery or sacrament And in deed the Greekes call that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Latines call Sacramentum But if euery mystery shall be a Sacrament in that sense that baptisme and the Lordes supper are so called there shall not be onely seuen Sacraments as he would haue but more then seuentie The name therefore of Sacrament or mystery is somtims generally taken for euery secret thing that hath an hidden vnderstanding so is matrimony of S. Paul called a mystery and of Augustine the Sacrament of matrimonie and ordination is vsed De bon Con. Cap. 24. so is oyle and imposition of hands cont Donat. lib. 5. Cap. 20. reckoned among the mysteries and Sacramentes But that which Sander doth alleage out of Ambrose is inforced for speaking of the power which priestes haue to remitt sinnes by repentance or by baptisme he saith Vnum in vtroque mysterium Sed dices quia in â—auacro operatur mysterioruÌ„ gratia Quid in poenitentia nonne dei nomen operatur There is one mystery in both But thou wilt say because in baptisme the grace of the mysteries doth worke What in repentance doth not the name of God worke in these wordes although he call them both mysteries Yet he putteth a manifest difference for in baptisme he acknowledgeth the grace of the mysteries to worke with that visible seale in the other the name of god onely wtout a visible seale which Sander perceiuing and not being able to answere these places of Augustine and Ambrose which are cited by the authors of the Apologie for the number of the Sacramentes flieth to the authority of the late councell of Florence not regarding what Ambrose or Augustine hath written who he saith had not the charge to reckon vp how many Sacramentes there are And I say that the seuen Sacramentes were not named in any session of that councel but only in a decree of Eugenius the fourth vpon the surâ—ised reconciliation of the Armenians which is of small credit the same Eugenius for his notable wickednes being long before deposed by the councell of Basil and an other Pope being chosen in his place CAP. IX That the supper of our Lord is the chiefe Sacrament of all but not acknowledged of the Apologie according to the word of God Seing the holy scripture preferreth not the one Sacrament aboue the other and they are both a like effectual seales of the mercy of God to the saluation of his elect there is no cause why the Apologie shoulde acknoweledge such excellency of the one aboue the other as Sander would imagine But it is a matter of greate importance with Sander that Dionysius calleth it the Sacrament of Sacramentes whereby it is not onely proued to
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
to coâ—er the saide flesh because our eyes are not able to see that glorious and mysticall kinde of presence Beware Sander what you say lest you proue a Sacramentarie Was the presence of Christ in the Sacrament another manner of presence then that presence which the Apostles behelde with their eyes sitting before them Yea it was a glorious and mysticall presence If you coulde holde you there wee shoulde soone bee agreed The eight is to confesse the reall presence and to denye adoration let them answere that defende such presence The ninth howe grosse is it to denye it to be a propitiatorie sacrifice siâ—h it is his bodye who is the propitiation for the world Nay howe grosse is this consequence seeing he was but once offered in sacrifice and by that one oblation found eternall redemption Heb. 9. 10. The â—enth grosse imagination is of him who teacheth that the wordes that are spoken of a gift presently made and deliuered be wordes of promise and of preaching Nay rather it is a grosse imagination of him which teacheth a gift to be made deliuered and receiued when he which receiueth it is neuer the better for it Finally whatsoeuer the Papistes teach of the Sacrament it is grosse falshood and meere humane inuention contrarie to the holy Scriptures the sense of which and not the sounde of wordes grossely vnderstoode is the worde of God CAP. XXVI What the first Councell of Nice hath taught concerning Christs supper The Apologie toucheth briefely that the Councell of Nice as it is cited in Greeke of some doth expressely forbidde vs that wee shoulde not basely occupie ouâ— mindes about the breade and wine set before vs Sander taketh paines to set downe the wordes at large and gathereth great matters out of them Iterum etiam hîc in diuina mensa c. Againe here also in the holy table let vs not basely attende the breade and cuppe set before vs but lifting vp our minde let vs vnderstand by faith That Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the worlde to be set on that holy table to be vnbloudily sacrificed of the priestes and that we truely taking his owne preciouâ— bodie and bloud doe beleeue these to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption For this cause wee taâ—e not much but litle that we may knowe we take not to fill vs but for holines Out of these wordes ten argumentes he hath to prooue or to helpe to prooue the reall presence of Christes body vnder the formes of bread and wine The first is that bread and wine are set on the table not to be basely considered ergo they are changed into the body and bloud of Christ. This is a poore and a forlorne helpe and a miserable argument For the contrary doth followe the bread must not be basely considered ergo it is breade although it be highly considered and regarded as the water in baptisme The second argument is that seeing the wordes of consecration be past in respect of which the Councell sayeth the breade and wine must not be basely considered the wordes did not onely make them a Sacrament as in baptisme c. but also did worke some reall thing vnder the formes of bread and wine which remaineth still as long as the saide formes and signes remaine Nay rather the Councell signifieth that the celebration of the Sacrament and consecration thereof is not perfite before the vse and receite of it whereof it speaketh soone after and therefore is not to be basely considered as common breade and wine but sanctified to a special vse of an holy Sacrament and pledge of our redemption as for the formes and signes and colours of breade and wine the Councell speaketh not one worde of them but of bread and the cuppe which be substances and not accidental formes The thirde We must vnderstand saith hee not by seeing but by lifting vp our mindes to heauen by faith In deede that is the onely waye to vnderstande the mysticall presence of Christes body bloud in the Sacrament The fourth We must beleeue that to be the Lambe of God which is on the holy table whereon standeth that which seemeth breade and wine But the Councell speaketh not of that which seemeth but of that which is breade and wine and that by lifting vp of our mindes into heauen by faith Wee beleeue it to be the bodie and bloud of Christ. The fifth The Lambe is there so that he is put laide and situate there as a thing may be situate which is vnder the formes of another thing But if a man should aske you howe that may bee I marueile by what thing you woulde exemplifie it and yet your wordes import a fimilitude Therefore seeing it is without example your position is after an imagined manner Whereas the Councell neuer thought of anye such quiditie but that lifting vp our mindes into heauen by faith wee vnderstande that Christ is dispensed vnto vs by his holye mysteries as wee are incorporated to him by baptisme not that one thing is situated as another thing which is no where neither any such thing can bee shewed and therefore is nothing but an ydle toye of an euill occupyed brayne The sixt The Lambe is so truely made present that hee is outwardly offered of the Priestes vnbloudily Where haue you the worde outwardly or what argument haue you of an outwarde oblation except you thinke Priestes cannot offer but outwardly Naye rather in that the Councel sayth the Lamb is offered vnbloudily it signifieth that it is not offered for a propitiatorie sacrifice to take away sinnes for without shedding of bloud there is no sacrifice for sinnes Hebr. 9. but that a remembrance of that onely insacrificable sacrifice of Christe is celebrated in that holy action The seuenth After the sacrifice made the people doe partake with the altar which could not bee except a permanent substance were made by consecration The Councell speaketh not of partaking with the altar but of receiuing the body and bloud of Christ in the mysticall tokens of our redemption which ouerthroweth priuate Masse Communion in one kinde and transubstantiation and sheweth the Sacrament not to be perfite before it be receiued The eight Truely taking of the precious body and bloud of Christ is to take it really and bodily The Councell speaketh of no bodily taking but of taking by faith when wee beleeue the breade and wine to bee the mysticall tokens of our redemption wee truely take the precious bodye and bloude of Christ. The ninth taking of that which standeth before vs on the table is by the instrument of our bodies therefore it is deliuered by the corporall ministerie of the priestes so that all is truely and externally done by the iudgement of the Councell A shamelesse collection of a false argument For that which standeth on the table the Councell calleth breade and the cuppe which is taken and deliuered externally and by corporall instruments the rest must be vnderstoode by
might be◠conuerted yet hee speaketh in an homily or Sermon to the faithfull for their instruction at which neuer a Iewe was present And where as Sander argueth that because no infidell was admitted to bee present in time of masse therefore Augustine might not lawfully talke to a Iewe of the mysticall presence of Christ in the Sacrament hee sheweth double follye for why might hee not expounde euen to the Iewes that which our Sauiour Christe him selfe spake to the vnbeleeuing Iewes of the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud and secondly when hee preached publikely of that mysticall presence or writ of it in bookes which hee set abroade to bee redde of all men howe coulde hee prohibit infidels to heare the one or reade the other And yet I knowe the ancient Fathers had such regarde to speak of the mysteries of our religion before infidels that they shoulde not take an occasion to scorne them or deride them Neuerthelesse they were not so daungerous as Sander imagineth Iustinus Martyr in his Apologie to the heathen emperors and Senate of Rome and in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Iewe feareth not plainely to expresse what the faith of the Christians was concerning these holy mysteries wherefore Augustine although in these wordes he spake not of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament yet in other words of the same homilie as you haue seene hee speaketh of the presence of Christ euen in his sacraments The third Booke In the Preface of the third Booke he promiseth to proue First that Christ in the sixt of S. Iohn spake of the gifte he made afterwarde in his parting banket Secondly that the real presēce of his flesh and bloud is euidently prooued by such words of promise as he there vttered Afterwarde he excuseth himselfe that he is driuen to handle deepe obscure matters being a poore scholler of Oxford and yet inferior to 200 that were in the late Tridētine councel So that if any Parliament man brought vp in hawking and hunting think he writeth too profound ly for his vnderstanding he must thinke that he is lesse able to be a iudge of this whole controuersie and of all questions in religion As though it were necessarie for euerie member of the Parliament that shall entreate of cases of religion to be trained vp in schoole points of Popish diuinitie which the farther they be from the vnderstāding of that cōmō people y◠further they are from faith Christiā religiō which ought to be cōmonly know◠euē to the simplest women and children And albeit that euerie parliament man is not able of himselfe to iudge of al controuersies of religion yet they altogether by the instruction of so many godly learned men as are among them may decree what lawes are necessarie to bee made for the aduancement of Gods glorie in religion as well as for the furtherance of the common wealth in quiet tranquillitie To conclude his foolish preface hath neuer done craking of hard and difficult matters as though he were a man of such ripe iudgement in them that whatsoeuer he did write were the Oracles of Apollo where as in deede euerie meane wise man shall easily perceiue that when he would seeme to winde himself out of a difficult and intricate matter hee sheweth more boldnesse in aduouching then soundnes in his approuing CAP. I. The argument of the sixt chapter of saint Iohn is declared First he affirmeth that Christ may bee receiued three wayes by faith and spirit onely without the Sacrament in the Sacrament of the Altar onely without faith and grace or in both together Of the laste kind of receiuing he affirmeth that Christ speaketh toward the later end of the Chap. In the beginning vpon occasion of the miracle of multiplying bread and fishes he exhorteth the Iewes to worke the meate that perisheth not which the sonne of man will giue them This gift saith hee is plainelie meant of his last supper and so saith Theophilact a late writer But because they could not come to the working of this gift without faith vpon him therefore hee teacheth for a preparation that he is the breade of life c After which preparation made he returneth saith he to expounde his owne gifte shewing most expressely that which he will giue in his last supper And the breade which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the worlde But the gift of spirituall eating was not to come when Christ spake vnto his disciples but Christ saieth his peculiar gifte was to come This onely reason he vseth in this Chapter Wherein you must note first that heere of a falsifying minde hee citeth the wordes of Christ otherwise then Saint Iohn did write them For his wordes are these And the breade that I will giue is my fleshe which I will giue for the life of the worlde In which wordes the gifte is manifestly referred vnto his passion and not vnto his supper Wherefore although spirituall eating of his fleshe was from the beginning of the worlde yet that singular act by which the flesh of Christ had vertue to feede vnto eternall life and was giuen for meate was not then performed but was soone after accomplished in his death and passion For all benefites of Christe haue like streames flowed alwayes from the bloud of his crosse and our redemption and reconciliation thereby If Sander will excuse him selfe of falsifying the scripture because the vulgar translation in the later ende of the sentence leaueth out these words which I will giue which it is certaine by the Greeke text of saint Iohn that our sauiour Christ did speake hee cannot so escape for the Latine texte without his preiudicate opinion brought vnto it although it want the wordes yet may well reteine the sense But Sander wilfully leauing out these wordes which he knoweth both to haue beene vsed by Christ and which giue a cleere and cleane contrarie sense to that whiche hee affirmeth and that in so weightie a matter as is the passion of Christe wittingly incurreth the horrible cursse of GOD pronounced against all them that adde or take any thing from his holie worde CAP. II. It is prooued by circumstances and by the conference of holie Scriptures that Christe speaketh in saint Iohn of his laste supper The circumstances are 6. the conferences 17. and yet neither any one nor altogether prooue that Christ speaketh of his supper otherwise then as it is a seale of the do ctrine which he teacheth in that Chapter The first circumstance is the time which he supposeth to be Easter tweluemonth before his supper instituted to argue that he speaketh of his supper is a vaine argument both because the time is vncertaine and also because the time of Easter if it were certaine hath better relation to his passion then to his supper The 2. circumstance is the myracle made in breade A ridiculous matter as though it were not made also in flesh But in deede the
they ministred the communioÌ„ to infants it shewed their error proceeding of ignorance as all error doth but it sheweth not that they thought the one sacrament to be other wise then the other a seale or assurance of iustification wtout any dreame of transubstantiatioÌ„ That Sand would excuse their custom to haue bin vsed more for a security then for necessitie is to no purpose It is manifest that they thought erroniously that the eternall signe or seale was necessary in both as Aug. Innocent B. of Rome hath defined denying eternall life to infants that dyed without the communion and baptisme as though the grace of God had bene necessarily tyed to the outward elements CAP. XIIII That S. Augustine did not teach thâ—se words Except ye eaâ— the flesh c To betoken the eating of Christonely by faith and spirit nor yet the eating of materiall bread with faithfull remembrance of him but the eating of his flesh to the end we may be the better ioyned to the spirit of God There is no better way to be ioyned to the spirit of god theÌ„ by eating the flesh of Christ spiritually which Aug. doth teach not the carnall manner of eating which Sander doth defend S. Aug. de doct Christ lib. 3. ca 16. as Sander doth confesse affirmeth that this speech of Christ Except yee eat that flesh c containeth a figure And what the meaning of this figure is August telleth vs It is a figure saith he commanding that we should communicate with the passion of our Lord and that we should sweetely and profitably remeÌ„ber that his flesh was crucisied and wounded for vs. But Sander replyeth first against the Lutherans that August calling this speach a figure meaneth not to deny that it appertaineth to the last supper And which of the Lutherans I pray you denyed that it appertaineth to the last supper although they deny that it is singularly spoken of the last supper Secondly he fathereth vpon the Zwinglians an vntruth that they graunt the place to be vnderstoode of Christs last supper to prooue the necessitie of both kinds which is a fable for they graunt none otherwise then I haue often shewed yet a good argument for necessitie of both kinds may be taken out of that place because Christ giueth vs a perfect nourishmeÌ„t of meat and drinke or as Iustine saith of dâ—ie and moyst nourishment vnto which spirituall trueth the externall seale must be made consormable But nowe will Sander teach vs to vnderstande what S. Augustine meaneth by a figuratiue speach which is al one as if he would teach vs to go to supper as it is in the Greeke prouerbe First a siguratiue speach must not denie any word in the speach to be vsed vnproperly but is measured by faith and good manners Whereas Augustine telleth vs that if in any sentence of the scripture the words sound against faith good manners the words must not be taken in their proper sense but they are a figure and signifie some other thing then the words in their proper taking do sound as diuerse examples which he bringeth in the same place beside his plaine wordes do declare This saying hee affirmeth to be a figuratiue speache Thou shalt heape burning coales on his head which he doeth thus interprete Vt intelligas carbones ignis esse vrentes poenitentiae gemitus quibus superbia sanatur eius qui dolet se inimicum fuisse hominis a quo eius miseriae subvenitur That thou mâ—ist vnderstand coales of fire to be the burning groanings of repentance by which his pride is healed which sorroweth that he hath beene enimie of such a man by whome his miserie is helped Beholde euen as coales of fire in this text are not taken in their proper sense for a bodily substance of woodde incensed so is not eating and drinking in the other sentence taken in the proper sense for receiuing at our mouth chawing and swallowing But as Augustine interpreteth for communicating with the flesh of Christ by faith and spirite c. either in the Sacrament or without it And it is a foolish cauil of Sander to say that charitie is not broken when we eate Christ whole vnder the forme of breade without hurting of him c. For Augustine counteth it slagitium an heynous offence to eate the fleshe of man in proper sense of eating that is corporally Yea faith Sander to eate it in peeces as it is solde in tho shambles As though to eate an whole man after that maner were not more monstrous then to eate a piece of him But Sander to shewe his synceritie rehearseth a large place out of Augustine in Psal. 98. which howe cunningly he can wrest for his purpose you shall see Durum illis visum est c. It seemed an hard thing to the Iewes except a man eate my flesh he shall not haue life euerlasting They tooke it foolishly they thought of it carnally and supposed that our Lord minded to cutte of certeine small peeces of his body and to giue them This is an hard talk say they They were harde not the talke For if they were not hard but gentle they would say to them selues He speaketh not this thing rashly but because ther lieth priuie som sacrament being gentle not hard they wold tati with him shal learn of him that thing which after their departure those learned who taried For when the twelue had taried with him the other beeing departed they as who were sory for the others departing warned Christ that they were offended with his word so were departed But Christ instructed them and saied it is the spirite that quickneth the flesh profiteth not the wordes which I haue spoken to you are spirite and life Vnderstand that which I haue spokeÌ„spiritually Ye shal not eate this body which you see wee shall not drinke that bloud which they shall shedde who will crucifie me I haue commended to you a certeine Sacrament which being spiritually vnderstoode shall make you liue And although that Sacrament must needes be visiblye celebrated yet it must be inuisibly vnderstanded Three thinges Sander noteth out of this sayinge First against the Lutherans that Augustine vnderstandeth the precept of eating Christes flesh of the Sacrament I answere that Augustine in other places and namely in his purposed commentary of that place vnderstandeth it not to be singularly spoken of the eating in the Sacrament but otherwise also which is all that wee affirme and denie of referring this place to the Sacrament Secondly he no teth against the Zwinglians that the figuratiue speach which Augustine saieth to be in these wordes is to be meant of the manner of eating in the natural vnderstanding of câ—râ—all men by cutting tearing chawing c. not denying the substance of his flesh whole sound and quicke to be eaten vnder the forme of breade I answere the naturall vnderstanding of carnall men is by eating to receiue in at the mouth that which
otherwise be brought to incorruption and life vnlesse the body of the naturall life were ioyned vnto it This is true but the manner of the coniunction is all the matter we stand vpoÌ„ which we affirme must be such as may ioyne euery body of Gods elect that hath bene shall be to the body of the naturall life which cannot be the SacrameÌ„tal coniunctioÌ„ or corporal receiuing of Christs naturall body into our bodies which was denied to al the fathers before Christes incarnation And yet except euery one of their bodies had bene ioyned to the body of Christ which is the body of naturall life they could not be partakers of incorruptioÌ„ life as Cyril saith Therefore the manner of our coniunction is not the receiuing of Christes body in at our mouthes but an heauenlie diuine manner wrought by the spirit of God apprehended by faith in all that haue heard the word of God â—â—d are partakers of it CAP. XVIII The eating of Christes flesh was so true that it was 〈…〉 ght with the losse of many disciples If Christ had not meant to giue his flesh in deed saith Sander he would not haue cast a stumbling blocke in his disciples way nor hindered their faith by wordes more hard then needed I answere he ment to giue them his flesh in deede to be eaten not only in his supper but euen then presently if they had bene faithfull to haue receiued it And therefore he saith to them he that eateth me shall liue for me or by me my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede Sander must remember what he hath taught vs before that Christes fleshe cannot bee meate in deede except it bee eaten but Christ saith it is meat in deede before it was to be eaten in the Sacrament therefore it was presently eaten by faith and spirite and he speaketh not there of Sacramentall eating onely Neither doth Cyrill say that only in the Sacrament Christes flesh is eaten although he shew that Christ instructed his Apostles when he gaue them fragmenta panis pecces of bread how his flesh might be eaten in Ioan lib. 4. Cap. 14. namely spiritually and not corporally CAP. XIX The right vnderstanding of these wordes It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing Basil Chrysostome and Augustine saith Sander expounde the name flesh for carnall and fleshlye vnderstanding of the Iewes which Caluine of Luciferian pride reprocueth And yet Augustine and Cy 〈…〉 l doe chiefely followe another vnderstanding which also Cal 〈…〉 e followeth that Christes flesh should not profit any thing but that by the spirite of his Godhead it is made able to giue euerlasting life See the ranâ—or of Sander which condemneth Caluine of diuellish pride for refusing one interpretation of some fathers taking the exposition of others and that which one of the same fathers doth cheefely followe as Sander doth confesse But now saith he what neede more adoe If this saying apperteine not to the last supper it maketh nothing against our beleefe If it doe apperteine they are wordes propheticall fulfilled in the supper I haue often shewed how all this doctrine of eating the flesh of Christ perteineth to the supper and howe it perteineth not And this I prooue out of this saying against your Popish opinion wherein you holde that wicked men eate Christes flesh Our sauiour Christe shewing whence his fleshe hath power to giue life namely not of it selfe but of the spirite doth also shewe the necessary effect of his spirit which is neuer separated from his flesh The spirit saith he quickneth or giueth life seeing therefore that no man can receiue the fleshe of Christe separated from his spirite no man can receiue his flesh but he that receiueth it quickning or giuing life But where Sander saith that when Christ gaue his body he gaue it after a spirituall sorte and noâ— after a fleshly manner It might seeme that he fully agreed with vs in minde as he doth in wordes but when he coÌ„meth to expounde spiritually and fleshly he declareth that he meaneth not to exclude all fleshly manners but only one maner of eating his body by pieces as though the eating of it whole according to their imagination into their bodies were not also a fleshly manner but when he coÌ„meth to spirituall sort he expoundeth it only by inuisible sort as though he which giueth a piece of golde closed in a paper so that it could not be seene did giue it after a spirituall manner As for the conuersion of bread and wine into his body and bloud his presence at the table and in their mouthes and in heauen c. shew not a spirituall manner of giuing his body but a monstrous alteration of bodily thinges which are affirmed to be so really and corporally and yet contrary to the nature of all thinges and bodies spoken of I omitt his ridiculous interpretations of Ieremies saying Let vs put wood into his bread which he applyeth to the crucifying of Christs flesh where yet wodde was not put into his flesh but his flesh put vpon wodde But the Prophet rehearseth the saying of his aduersaries which threatened to giue him wood in steede of bread that is to famish him in the stockes Likewise of Abacuks saying Hornes are in his hands which he meanein of the almightie power of God often called figuratiue hornes Sander referreth it to the corners of the crosse which yet were not in the hands of Christ but his hands stretched out toward them CAP. XX. The words of Christ being spirite and life shewe that his 〈◊〉 flesh is made present in his last supper aboue all course of 〈…〉 reason Sander as his manner is can rest in no certeine 〈…〉 sition but wil haue euery interpretation to 〈…〉 sense of the place if it affirme any thing that 〈…〉 first because the flesh of Christ is vnprofitable 〈…〉 the spirite which giueth it power of quickening 〈…〉 haue this saying all one in effecte with the wo 〈…〉 ing before it is the spirite that quickeneth 〈…〉 vpon occasion of a phraâ—e vsed by Cyrillus 〈◊〉 〈…〉 wordes are of the spirite he wil haue the meaning to â—e that the wordes of Christ haue in them some of his spirite diuine power therfore the naming of flesh bloud before was not figuratiue but proper I graunt the conclusion but I denie the argument for he vttered other words before which weâ— figuratiue vnproper as I am the bread that came c. yet were these wordes spirite life and so are all the words of the Gospel that is giue hâ—â— if they be spiritually vnderstood I say not alwayes figuratiuely but always beleued to be true in that sense they are vttered ment by him whether they be figuratiue or proper as concerning the prhase Thirdly the wordes of Christ are spirite and life because they make the spiritual bodie of Christ which is a spirituall food as
and the same breade and wine must againe signifie the flesh and bloud of Christ although wee say that bread and wine in the sacrament are a seale and confirmation of that doctrine which Christe teacheth in this Chapter concerning the eating and drinking of his very true and naturall flesh and bloud which hath power to seede vnto eternall life them that eat and drinke it spiritually as there is none other way of eating and drinking thereof but by faith through the almightie working of Gods holy spirite The fourth Booke The preface of the fourth Book declareth that he purposeth in the same to shew that the words of the institution of the supper are proper and not figuratiue and so haue beene taken aboue 1500. And that they are proper he wili prooue by circumstances of the supper by conference of scriptures out of the olde and newe Testament by the commandement giuen to the Apostles to continue the sacrament vntil the second comming of Christ. Last of all he craueth pardon if he chaunce to say somewhat that was touched before affirming that his purporse is not so to doe although by affinitie of the argument desire to haue the thing remembred or by his owne forgetfulnesse he may be caused to fall into that default CAP. I. That no reason ought to be hearde why the wordes of Christes supper should nowe be expounded vnproperly or figâ—ratiuely And that the Sacramentarics can neuer be sure thereof Christ saith he in his last supper was both a testator and a lawe maker a testator in giuing his bodie and 〈…〉 oude and a lawemaker in commanding his Apostels 〈…〉 d their successours to continue the making of this 〈…〉 acrament This testament and law was soone after writ 〈…〉 n and published At which time and euer since the Church hath taken these wordes This is my bodie not 〈…〉 guratiuely but properly This last saying is vtterly 〈…〉 alse neither can it bee prooued by Ambrose Chryso 〈…〉 tome Augustine Theodoret whom hee nameth or any before or after their time for 600 yeares that euer the visible Sacrament was adored as the very bodie of Christ. If he haue any thing to shewe we shall haue it hereafter But it is a follie he saith vpon allegation of a thing so farre beyonde the memorie of man as the primitiue Church is to leaue the custome of the present Church which Christ no lesse redeemed gouerneth and loueth then he did the faithfull of the first sixe hundreth yeares I answere shortly that is not the Church of Christ but of antichrist which of late yeares hath taught the worshiping of the sacrament as God and man And whereas Sander replieth that then we shall haue no quietnes or end of controuersies if heretikes may appeale to the primitiue Church as the Trinitaries in Poolande and the Circumciders in Lithuania for these appeale to the primitiue Church and denie writings of Fathers and scriptures as the Protestant I answere the Protestants receiue all the canonicall scriptures by which all heresie may be condemned the autoritie or practise of the primitiue Church they alledge but as a witnesse of trueth which is sufficient prooued out of the worde of God Whereas he saith there was but one vniuersall chaunge to bee looked for in religion which was to be made by Christ I affirme the trueth of Christs religion to be vnchangeable but there was an vniuersall chaunge to be looked for from Christes religion to Antichrist which saint Paul calleth an Apostasie saint Iohn in the Reuelation the cuppe of fornication whereof all nations should drinke c. Yet was not this chaunge so vniuersal but that the seruants of God though in small number and credit with the world were preserued out of that generall apostasie and called out of Babylon as wee see it nowe come to passe by the preaching of the eternall Gospel then also foreshewed Apocal. 14. 17. 18. c. Another reason why we shoulde giue none eare to them that say the words are figuratiue is for that then wee shoulde doubt of our former faith and in doubting become men that lacke faith And why should you not onely doubt but refuse a false opinion beleeued contrarie to the worde of God But wee must tell Sander whether hee that gaue eare first to Berengarius and Zwinglius may giue eare to an other that shoulde say the Apostels had no authoritie to write holie Scriptures No forsooth for hee that gaue eare to Berengarius and Zwinglius did heare them because they brought the authoritie of scriptures which is the onely certaine rule of truth against which no question or doubt may be mooued As for the opinion of carnall presence if it had beene as generally receiued before Berengarius as Sander falsely affirmeth yet it was lawfull to bring it to the triall of holy Scriptures as we doe all the articles of our faith which are true not so much because they are generally receiued as for that they are manifestly approued by the authoritie of the holy scriptures But Sander will yet enter farther into the bowels of the cause before he heare what reasons caÌ„ be brought against the popish faith he saith the Sacramentaries cannot possiblie haue any grounde of their doctrine that the wordes of Christ in the supper are figuratiue either in respect of the worde written or the faith of all Christians or the glorie of God or the loue of Christ toward vs or the profite of his Church Yes verilie all these fiue respects moue vs to take the wordes of Christ at his supper to be figuratiue And First the word written by saint Luke and saint Paul This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloude which wordes being manifestly figuratiue haue the same sense that the other rehearsed by Saint Matthewe and Saint Marke This is my bloude and that these wordes haue This is my bodie which are vsed by all fower Therefore by the written worde they are all figuratiue and signifie the deliuerie of a Sacrament or seale of the newe couenant established in the death and bloudshedding of the sonne of God Secondly the faith of all Christians for sixe hundred yeares and more after Christe hath beene sufficiently prooued to haue vnderstoode the wordes figuratiuely for a figure signe token pledge of the bodie and bloude of Christe and not for the verie substance contained in formes of breade and wine Insomuch that the verie glosse vppon the Canon Lawe De cons. dist 2. Cap. Hoc est hath these wordes Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly Sacrament which truely representeth the fleshe of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but improperly Whereof it is saide to bee after a peculyar manner but not in trueth of the thing but in
a signifying mysterie So that the sense is it is called the bodie of Christe that is to saye it signifieth it The author of this glosse durst not haue written thus if it had not beene an opinion generally receiued that the wordes of Christ were not proper but figuratiue Thirdely it is against the glorie of GOD that the bodie of Christ shoulde be so made present as it should enter not onely into the mouth of wicked persons as a deade bodie working no life but also into the bellyes of brute beastes which is euen horrible to name Fourthly it is not agreeable to the loue of Christ toward vs in his second comming that his bodie by such a presence shoulde bee thought to haue lost all naturall conditions of a substantiall bodie seeing the scripture putteth vs in hope that our vile bodies shall be made confirmable at his comming to his glorious body Philip. 3. Wherefore that heresie of carnall presence is contrarie to our faith of the resurrection of our bodies Fiftly it is against the profite of Christes Church which by his ascension is drawen vpward into heauen from the earth but by this imagined presence is mooued to looke downe vnto Christ vpon the earth Col. 3. Therfore in all these respects the exposition of the wordes must be figuratiue Another reason Sander hath that seeing all figures were inuented either for lacke of words or for pleasantnesse of speaking and Christ neither lacked wordes nor can be prooued to haue spoken figuratiuely onely for his pleasure therefore he spake not figuratiuely If there be no more causes of figuratiue speach then these two noted by Sander then Christ neuer vsed any figuratiue speaches for hee neuer wanted wordes to haue spoken properly that other men could speake properly neither can he be prooued to haue spoken figuratiuely only for his pleasure and least of all he affected the praise of Eloquence But if it be out of question Sander also coÌ„fesseth that in other places Christ spake figuratiuely then is it out of question that this argument of Sander is not worth the paring of his nayles For there are other causes of figuratiue speaches then these two by him alledged and especially the profite of the hearers who are more moued and better vnderstande often times by figuratiue then by proper speaches And for this cause yâ— holy ghost speaking of Sacraments doth vsually call theÌ„ figuratiuely by the names of that they signifie seale vnto vs as the Lamb is called the Passeouer baptisme regeneration the bread his bodie the cuppe the newe Testament The profite that wee take by these kinde of speaches is great for they admonishâ—s to be as sure of the things as we are of the signes when the signes beare the name of the things signified and promised by them Of Saint Augustines rule of figuratiue speaches Sander that loueth no repetitions hath written a whole Chapter before lib. 3. Cap. 14. and therefore I will say no more of it here onely I note that by quoting the place hee abuseth Augustines rule against his owne example which he bringeth of eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christ to proue that Christes wordes are not figuratiue when Augustine saith expresly those wordes are figuratiue which Christe spake of eating and drinking his flesh and bloud The rocke was Christ he sayeth must needes be a figuratiue speach because it can not be proper And for the same cause say we These wordes This is my body are figuratiue for that they can not be proper But Sander replieth that if he had saide this breade is my body it might haue beene so thought for breade cannot bee his body no more then the rocke be Christ. yet S. Paul doubteth not to say this bread of that of which before he had said this is my bodie 1. Cor. 11. And I aske Sander what was that which Christ had in his hand and whereof he said this It coulde not be his bodie before the words of consecration spokeÌ„ as all Catholike papists affirme then it was bread then the word following Is will not suffer the sense to be this shal be my body wherefore in effect it is all one to say hauing bread in his hand This is my body and to say This bread is my body the one is impossible by Sanders confession ergo by necessitie of argument the other CAP. II. That at all other so the wordes of Christes supper ought to bee taken properlie vntill the contrarie doeth euidently appeare By autoritie of Tertullian and Marcellus the Lawyer he laboureth to proue that all words must be taken in their proper signification except the contrarie be manifestly showen Likewise Epiphanius affirmeth that all wordes in the Scripture neede not to be taken figuratiuelie and that to know which is figuratiue and which is not diligent consideration and ancient tradition helpeth much All this I confesse but withall I affirme that these wordes This is my bodie both by diligent consideration and ancient tradition are found to bee figuratiue Neither hath Sander any thing to the contrarie Yes I wis the Pronowne This saith he pointeth not to a thing absent No verilie for it pointeth to the breade that was in his hande Neither the Verbe Is can bee saide of that which presently hath no true being ergo it cannot bee saide of the bodie of Christe which by your owne diuinitie hath no being in the Sacrament before the last syllable of Hoc est corpâ—â— meum bee pronounced then it is necessarie to bee saide of the breade in his hande whiche had a true being And then by your owne rule in the Chapter before these wordes being as much as This breade is my bodie must needes bee figuratiue because they cannot bee proper for breade and Christes bodie bee two seuerall-natures that cannot stande together CAP. III. The proper signification of these wordes This is my bodie and This is my bloude is that the substance of Christs bodie and bloude is contained vnder the visible formes of bread and wine If the speech were proper and not figuratiue yet the substance of breade being shewed and the substance of the cuppe and of that which is in the cuppe being shewed it woulde not followe the bodie and bloude to bee vnder these accidentes of breade and wine but either with the substance of breade and wine or rather that his bodie and bloude were breade and wine For Sanders similitude hath nothing like to this matter this is an Elephant that is the substance of an Elephant is contained vnder this visible forme But let him bring example of any thing which bearing visible forme of one substance is called by the name of another substance Might not Moses haue said truly to the Israelites in the wildernes in the behalfe of God pointing to the Rocke This is Christ or the bodie of Christ as well as Saint Paule saith that Rocke was Christ Therefore looke what woulde be the sense of
those wordes the same will bee the sense of these wordes taking the speaches either as proper or figuratiue But Christ saith he hath forced vs to seeke out this interpretation in causing Saint Luke and S. Paul to write This Chalice is the newe Testament in my bloud For of necessitie wee must interpret these wordes This Chalice that is to say the thing contained in this Chalice is my bloud I pray you sir what necessitie except the speach be figuratiue You will say it is figuratiuely onely for the cuppe to signifie that which is contained therein If you so say then tell mee once againe whether these wordes The newe Testament in my bloude bee all one in proper speach with these wordes my bloude If the newe Testament in my bloude bee all one in sense with these wordes my bloude they are figuratiue for no man properlie vseth so to speake that hee nameth the newe Testament in his bloude when hee nameth nothing but his bloude naturally If these wordes bee figuratiue not onelie in the name of cuppe but in the wordes following whiche are is the newe Testament in my bloude then the wordes of the supper are founde to bee figuratiue and all the babling about This and Is and bodie and bloude and mine c. are vaine and foolish for This and Is are in this figuratiue speech and that in one manner of speaking is called My bloude in an other is called the newe Testament in my bloude and by necessarie analogie that whiche in one manner of speech is vttered by these wordes My bodie may and ought truely to bee vnderstoode and vttered in these wordes The new Testament in my bodie crucified That the Pronowne hoc is the Neuter gender and hic the Masculine gender it prooueth not the alteration of substance for the genders followe the names and note no substantiall propertie where the thinges differ not in the sexe But where you saide first the Pronowne pointeth to the visible formes nowe you say it pertaineth rather to the Substantiue bodie where it endeth then to the formes you are not onely contrarie to your selfe but also to the schoolemen which say it pointeth to neither of both but vnto indiuiduum vagum a singular vncertaine or wandering thing But point it as you will it can haue no true literall sense if you will holde your owne principles for if the bodie bee not present before the wordes of consecration vttered as all papists I thinke except Sander will affirme That which hee had in his hande was breade at that instant when hee saide This. And Sander himselfe saith This which appeared to them breade to bee in substance at the ending of the wordes His owne bodie Ergo it was not so before the wordes ended and howe can is a Verbe of the present tense signifie that which shall bee after although it bee neuer so soone after But of the Pronowne This wee shall haue occasion to speake in three Chapters following and diuerse times it is repeted in this booke although hee protest in the Preface that he delighted not to speake one thing twise CAP. IIII. That the pronowne this in Christes wordes can point neither to bread nor to wine I haue prooued before that if it can point to nothing else if it point to anie thing that was there present but vnto breade and wine because bodie and bloude by your owne principle was not there present before the last syllable of the sentence vttered But Sander saith this signifieth a substance because Christ saith not This is in my body but this is my bodie which is a blockish reason for Christ saith This is the new Testament which is an Accident in my bloud as well as This is my bloude Well the Protestants opinion is saith he that This pointeth to the bread and the wine which signifie his bodie bloud But that cannot be because this cannot agree with breade and wine neither in Greeke nor Latine and then telleth vs the genders of the nownes c. But good Sir the pronowne This is the newter gender put absolutely comprehending in signification that thing which was shewed which needed not to bee called breade and wine because it was so to bee iudged by the bodilie senses But then saith Sander you correct the wordes of Christ as though he had said This which is breade is my bodie and then euerie substance of bread shoulde signifie his bodie He that giueth the true meaning of Christes wordes doeth not correct them neither doe wee referre the Pronowne This to the generall substance of breade but affirme that it demonstrateth that breade onely which he at that time tooke for to make thereof a Sacrament And whereas it is translated in Latine Hic est sanguis the Greeke retaineth the Newter gender And an Adiectiue betweene two Substantiues of diuerse genders maie agree with either of them but that the Pronowne This is to bee referred to the wine the other Euangelistes doe shewe which vtter it thus this cuppe that is the wine in this cuppe And whereas Cyprian sayeth haec est caro mea hee might aswell haue said pointing to bread hoc est caro mea or hic panis est caro mea and yet his words as he vttereth them haue none other meaning euen as Moses speaking of the rainbowe in the person of GOD saith Hoc est signum foederis c. This is the signe of the couenaunt where hoc agreeing in gender with signum doeth yet demonstrate the rainebowe which is there a Nowne of the Masculine gender Moses speaking to the Israelites of Manna Exodus 16. saieth Iste est panis quem dominus c. This is the breade whiche the Lorde hath giuen you to eate In the Latine the pronowne This agreeth with panis which is the Masculine gender yet doth it demonstrate Man which is the Newter Therefore this grammaticall discourse of genders of nownes Adiectiues and their Substantiues serueth to no purpose to prooue that bread and wine were not poynted in the wordes of Christ by the Pronowne This. CAP. V. That the Pronowne This cannot point to any certaine acts which is a doing about the breade and wine The Pronowne saieth hee is of the singular number and therefore it cannot signifie many thinges done about the breade as taking breaking blessing c. and seeing it can point but one thing it can point no one acte certainely To this ridiculous argument I answere that the Pronowne this doeth demonstrate that breade with all actions and accidents belonging to it so that the sense is This breade thus taken blessed broken giuen eaten is my bodie that is as Tertullian and Augustine saye a figure or signe of my bodie euen as the Lambe is saide to bee the Passeouer but not a Lambe nakedly considered but with all circumstances and actions to it belonging such a Lambe so taken killed the bloude so sprinckled the bodie â—osted eaten standing with staues in their
handes c this is the Passeouer that is a Sacrament of the Passeouer You see that the Pronowne being the singular number may demonstrate a singular substance but with all actions belonging to it CAP. VI. That the Pronowne This pointeth finallie to the body bâ—â—â—d and particularly signifieth inChristes supper one certeine kinde of foode He taketh for proued that which is proued to be vntrue that the Pronowne This pointeth not the bread wine and thereof concludeth that it pointeth onely the bodie and bloud but the first is false ergo the later But if you be so hastie saieth Sander that you will not tarie the speaking of foure wordes to know what particular and finall substance the Pronown This doth point vnto then this doeth meane this eatable thing Sir our haste is not so great but we can stay a much longer time to knowe our masters meaning But seeing you beare vs in hande that one substance is made of another by these wordes spoken which aske a time in speaking and you your selues determine at what instant the change is soudenly made al at once and would proue the same by the Pronowne This and euery other of the wordes you must giue vs leaue to consider euery moment of time in which they are spoken For then euery worde is true when the things whereof the wordes are signes agree with the worde in that time in which they are vttered for this proposition euery man is dead cannot be true because euery man shall die before euery man be dead And to that you saye This meaneth this eatable thing I affirme you are neuer the neere for if there bee not bread what thing is there eatable before it be the bodyâ— and the bodie it is not before the wordes are all vttered If by an eatable thing you meane Duns his indiuiduum vagum then you renounce your former position so often aduouched that the Pronowne This pointeth to a certaine substance and so you are rapped on the scoâ—se on both sides and with your owne staues CAP. VII The naming of the chaliâ—e prooueth not the rest of Christes wordes to be figuratiue He were a madde man that would reason so that because one word is figuratiue all the rest must be figuratiue but this is a good argument one word is figuratiue ergo more may be and figuratiue speeches are net inconuenient to be vsed in the institutioÌ„ of a Sacrament Therefore Sander might haue spared his seuen reasons which he bringeth to prooue that the naming of the chalis prooueth not all the rest of the wordes to be figuratiue But the naming of the chalis the new Testament in his bloud doth inuincibly prooue al the other speeches to be figuratiue For the same sense is of these wordes This is my bloud and of these This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud but the sense of these latter words is figuratiue not only in respect of the word chalis but of the new Testament in his bloud ergo the sense of the former wordes is figuratiue And whereas Sander saieth the Apostles could not coniecture that est was put for significat which fewe but great doctors can discerne token of thinges to be somtime called by the names of thinges themselues I say he doth the Apostles wrong who beeing brought vp in the daiely exercise of the Sacramentes of the lawe could not be ignorant that the Lambe was called the Passeouer whereof it was a token and circumcision the couenant of God whereof it was a seale and so of many other but these two were their principall Sacramentes vnto which with vs baptisme and the Lordes supper doth answere CAP. VIII That the wordes of Christes supper be proper though many other be figuratiue and vnproper Why these wordes of our sauiour This is my body be not like other of his sayings in which he is said to be the dore the way the true vine Iohn Bapt. to be Elias or the rocke to be Christ he promiseth to declare in the last Chapiter which is specially intituled against Master Nowels chalenge and by him throughly confuted The vniuersall consent that he boasteth of in discerning of figuratiue speeches can neuer be prooued to haue receiued the wordes of Christ for proper Two reasons yet he alleageth why none of those propositions doth so much as seeme to sound like the wordes of the supper One for that they name two seuerall natures as Iohn baptist and Elias That is false for not naming Iohn Baptist Christ saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is Helias The other they speake not of any certeine thing or else they point not to it as to a thing present This is likwise false for Helias was a certeine thing and hee that was pointed vnto by the Pronâ—une This was present Last of all where he chalengeth vs to shewe where that Proposition is figuratiue which first instituteth and maketh any thing I haue shewed before that the propositions which God vseth instituting and making the sacraments of circumcision and the Paschal are figuratiue For speaking of circumcsion of the flesh he saieth to Abraham this is my couenant Gen. 17. And of the Lambe to bee slaine and vsed as he appointeth he saith you shall eate it in haste for it is the Passeouer of the Lorde These are words of institution yet are they figuratiue for circumcision was not the couenant nor the Lambe the Passeouer but figuratiuely seales signes and tokens of them CAP. IX It is shewed by 27 circumstances of Christes supper that hee made his reall flesh and bloud present vnder the formes of bread and wine and consequently that his words are proper The first circumstance of Christs last supper is to consider who made it Howe necessarie the consideration of the circumstances of euery place of Scripture is for the true vnderstanding thereof euerie wise man will acknowledge but no circumstance alone nor all the circumstances together do prooue these wordes of Christ to be proper and not figuratiue As first we acknowledge the maker of the supper to be almighty to do whatsoeuer it pleased him but although he were sent in the flesh to men that were flesh promiseth his flesh and giueth his flesh all which we constantly beleeue yet it followeth not that he purposed to giue his flesh in the Sacrament after his incarnation otherwise then he gaue it to the Patriaâ—kes before his incarnation Acknowledging also the prouidence wisdome trueth and goodnesse of the speaker we affirme that he speaketh heere most wisely prouidently truely and well but yet figuratiuely without that he doth blind his spouse with figuratiue wordes as Sander saith which he doth no more then God blinded his spowse the Church of Israel with figuratiue wordes when he spake figuratiuely in the institution of the Sacramentes of circumcision and of the Paschall lambe The second circumstance may be to consider the time when the supper was made The
physicall argument either he commanded it by an other worde or els this worde is vnproper For to eate by faith is to eate vnproperly and not to eate physically as all other meats are eaten The seuenteenth circumstance of these wordes This is my body He will speake of these wordes but as of a circumstance if the â—â—â—be Is import no more but a bare signe Christ is greatly promoted to giue thankes for leauing a bare signe I answere Christ gaue not a bare signe but his body to be spiritually receiued with a seale and an effectâ—â—ll signe but euery figure and token saith he which d 〈…〉 th in substance from his trueth is alwayes bare and naked in respect of the trueth it representeth M 〈…〉 â—â—we the dâ—gge barketh against the dignity of baptisme and all the Sacrament of the old time and caâ—â—lleth foolishly by disioyning of thinges to be conioy 〈…〉 d. But Chriâ—â— saith he hauing a body presented not bread and wiâ—e as figurâ—s of his body and bloud in 〈…〉 e to 〈◊〉 â—â—ther and gaue thankes for them This is a pâ—lting 〈…〉 ion of that in question for we denie the Sacrifice pretended yet Christ at other times gaue thankes for bodily meate much more nowe for spirituall food of the soule as the Sacrament is beeing worthily receiued As for Melchisedek his Sacrifice in breade and wine we finde none that he offered to God but a refreshing to Abraham whome in deede he blessed as the Priest of God and so hath Christ blessed vs with eternall happines Therefore all this babling of Sander that Christ offered bread and wine to his father which were all one as if a man should offer to a Prince a fatte Oxe and giue him in a paper writen this is a fat Oxe c. is not worth one Goates heare Christ offered but one Sacrifice propitiatorie and that but once shedding his bloud the great mystery of which redemption he deliuered to his Apostles in the outwarde creatures of breade and wine But let vs see howe he prooueth that these wordes are not figuratiue First Ambrose saith In the diuine consecration the selfe wordes of our Lorde and Sauiour doe worke and Chrysostome saith that by this word This is my body the thinges set forth are consecrated but figuratiue wordes worke nothing therefore they are not figuratiue This minor is a starke lye often times confuted These wordes in the very institution of the supper are figuratiue This is the new Testament in my bloud and yet worke as much as these This is my body Likewise the wordes of Christ are spirite and life therefore not figuratiue is a beastly argument vnworthy answering which wold denie al figuratiue speches to be the words of Christ. As blockish and brockish it is that in these 4. words Hoc est corpus meum we leaue neuer a one in his own signification plucking them from their gender and case when we expound it thus This doth signifie my body which is a toy to mocke with an Ape For who can expound a sentence in other wordes to keepe the same case and gender and kinde of wordes alwaies But it is a weighty matter that Sander hath obserued in Saint Paules order of wordes placing the Pronowne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 next to the Pronowne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vttering the wordes after this manner This of me is the bodie whereas the other Euangelistes say This is the bodie of me Verily there is not here so much oddes as betweene a milhorse and an horsemill But what is the great mysterie that lyeth in this obseruation forsooth it giueth coniecture such as in the order of words may be had that the Pronowne This onely resteth and endeth his signification in the substantine Bodie and cannot be referred vnto Bread For it were an hard speech to say this bread of me is the signe of bodie But if I say this bread doeth signifie of me the bodie what other sense hath it then if I saye this bread doeth signifie the bodie of mee I blame not Sander for scanning narrowly whatsoeuer is vttered in the scripture but in vrging the composition of the Greeke speech which is not like the English tongue where there is no difference in sense seeing the Latine composition wâ—l wel admitt that which soundeth hardly in the English speeche Hic panis mei signum est corporis The eighteenth circumstance of these wordes which is giuen for you Sander playeth the foole out of measure to vrge the accidents of grammar in a figuratiue speech Saint Luke sayeth Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur If you take corpus figuratiuely saith he then the sense must be Haec est figura corporis mei quae pro vobis datur This is the figure of my bodie which figure is giuen for you and so not his true bodie but a figure thereof was giuen for vs. Sander thinketh he hath to do with young laddes that learne their accidentes of grammar which may perhaps wonder at his learned collections But what if wee expound it thus Hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis mei as Tertullian doeth and reteining the gender of the Relatiue say quod pro vobis datur This is a figure of my bodie which bodie is giuen for you Sander hath his answere readie that the relatiue must repete his whole antecedent which cannot haue at once both a proper and vnproper meaning What coulde Priscian or Aristarchus haue vttered more learnedlie But when God saith in Gene. 17. Hoc est pactum meum quod obseruabitis inter me vos c. This is my couenant which you shall obserue betweene me and you c. If pactum be taken for signum or sigillum pacti the signe or seale of the couenant as it must needes be for circumcision whereof he speaketh was not the couenant how doth the relatiue repete the whole antecedent howe hath one word a proper and vnproper vnderstanding Againe Exodus 12 Haec est religio phase Omnis alienigena non comedet ex eo This is the religion of the Passeouer No straunger shal eate of it Heere co is a relatiue agreeing in the newter gender with phase his antecedent and yet phase the passeouer signifieth a Lambe which was the signe of the passeouer Againe when it is saide Hoc est postrâ—mum pascha quod comedit Iesus cum discipulis This is the last passeouer that Iesus did eate with his disciples hath not quod the same relation which it hath in these wordes quod pro vobis datur But to cut off all these nice questions of Grammar what if the figure bee laide in the verbe est after this manner Hoc est id est significat corpus â—â—um quod pro uobis datur this signifieth my bodie which is giuen for you Where is then our Aristarchus become with his antecedents and relatiues But hee hath founde another mystery in the Greeke worde 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must needes be reserred to corpus and cannot be referred to figura corporis And heere hee obtesteth that he may be instructed wherein he doth misconstrue the wordes I haue already satisfied his requeste and further I say he doth without all Grammar Rhetorike Logike Philosophie and Diuinitie referre hoc to corpus which is to bee referred to that thing which hee had in his hande which by their owne Popishe diuinitie could bee nothing but breade before hee had spoken out the wordes of consecration As for him that will lay the figure in the Verbe 〈◊〉 to take it for significat Sander counteth him an ignorant man because it must bee resolued by est significant and then the reason of signifying shall be founde in the nowne bodie rather then in the verbe Is for which cause Occolampadius admitted either the one or the other that is est for significat or copus for signum corporis In deede the matter is not great for the sense but when you call vs to construing the words by Grammar But taking the proposition thus Hoc est significans corpus meum I saye the reason of signifying consisteth not in the worde Bodie but in the subiect of the proposition which is the signe of the bodie although significans followe the Verbe est For the action of signifying pertaineth to the bread the passion signified pertayneth to the bodie Where Sander challengeth all the Grammarians in Christendome to finde another construction I appeale to all the Grammarians in the worlde whether these wordes Hoc est corpus meum quod provobis datur may not be construed grammatically as wel as these other examples out of Genesis Exodus and a thousand more of like that might be added The 19. circumstance of the Verbe facere to doe or make or to offer sacrifice The Verbe facere which signifieth most generally making and doing he will haue now to signifie offring sacrifice because that is the most excellent deede that can bee made which is a madde reason if Christ which doth alwayes the best thinges shoulde be saide to offer sacrifice so often as he saide facere For euerie thing that he did was the best in all respects that he did it But to prooue that facere signifieth sometime to offer sacrifice he quoteth two places of Scripture but reherseth neither of both for shame the first 3 Reg. 18. Where Elias saith to the Baalites ego faciam bouem alterum Where facere signifieth not to offer sacrifice but to prepare or dresse or make ready an oxe or at the least is taken for interficere to kill an oxe which afterwarde is laide on the woâ—de and offered by inuocation The other place Leu. 15. is of two turtle Doues faciet vnum pro peccato alterum in holocauslum he shall prepare the one for a sinne offering and the other to be a burnt offering where facere signifieth as before to make readie by killing drawing washing and dressing as the Lawe prescribed The same Hebrewe verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whiche is vsed in both places beeing spoken of the Calfe that Abraham made readie for his guestes the olde interpreter turneth by the verbe coquo which signifieth to dresse as a cooke dresseth Genesis 18. Wherefore we haue not yet founde facere in the scripture for sacrificare to offer sacrifice But Sander saying it skâ—leth not whether it be ioyned with another worde in the accusatiue or ablatiue case or stande alone doth insinuate that although in scripture it cannot bee prooued to haue that signification yet in some other writer it is vsed for sacrificare ioyned with a nowne of the ablatiue case namely in Virgil Cùm faciam vitula pro frugibus ipse venito where yet a good Grammarian will not construe facere absolutely to sacrifice but vnderstand oblationen or rem diâ—â—nam or some such like worde But in our texte the circumstance of deedes and words saith he do make it so to signifie First because the 14. day at euening hee began the blessed sacrifice of his passion Secondly hee hath offered the olde Paschal Lambe the chiefe sacrifice of the Lawe These two circumstances shew it was time to go about his only sacrifice on the crosse they proue not that he offered another sacrifice at the table Thirdly hetoke breade and wine into his handes part of the sacrifice of Melchisedek I answere the scripture telleth vs not of any such sacrifice of Melchisedek Fourthly he blessed and gaue thankes wherein he consecrateth his owne bodie the onely sacrifice of mankinde I answere his owne bodie had no neede of consecration hee consecrated breade to bee a sacrament of his bodie which was not the onely sacrifice for mankind which was but once and no more offered or to be offered Not that he should oftentimes offer vp himselfe saith the Apostle Heb. 9. ver 25. wherefore his commaundement hoc facite doe this is not to make a sacrifice of Christs bodie which hee made not But Cyptian saith Sander taketh the verbe facere so lib. 2. Ep. 3. Iesus Christus c. Iesus Christ our Lord and God himself is the hiest priest of God the father and first hath offered sacrifice vnto God the father Et hoc fieri 〈◊〉 sui commemorationem praecepit and hath commaunded this thing to be done in his remembrance That fieri signifieth heere not offerri but generally hath relation to all that Christ did not onely the whole argument of the Epistle which was against ministring with water onely but also the verie wordes following which Sander hath fraudulently cut off declare sufficiently vtique ille saccrdos vice Christi verè fungitur qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur c Verily that Priest doth truely supply the roome of Christ which imitateth that which Christ hath done and then he offereth a true and full sacrifice to God the father in the Church if he so begin to offer according as he may see Christ himselfe to haue offered Nay that Cyprian meaneth not that Christ in his supper did offer his owne bodie in sacrifice to his father for redemption of he worlde but onely a sacrifice of thankesgiuing and commaunded the same to bee kept in remembrance of his passion Cyprian himselfe testifieth in the same Epistle Et quia passionis eius mentionem in sacrificijs omnibus facimus passio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerimus nihil aliud quà m quod ille fecit facere debemus And because wee make mention of his passion in all sacrifices for the sacrifice which wee offer is the passion of our Lorde wee ought to doe nothing but that which hee himselfe did Note heere the sacrifice which Cyprian offered was the passion of Christ as well as the bodie of Christ but it was not the passion of Christ properly therefore it was not the bodie of Christ properly I might alleage other places out of that Epistle to refell the impudencie of Sander
This cuppe is a seale of the newe testament established in my bloude which is shed for the remission of sinnes and the like vnderstanding must needes be of these words This is my bodie The 24. circumstance of the bloude of the new testament The bloud of the newe testament is the bloude thâ—t confirmeth the newe testament but that is reall bloude therefore this is reall bloude saith Sander I answere the argument is naught because in one proposition the speach is figuratiue in the other proper But he replieth that the olde testament had none other thing to signifie the bloude thereof but the bloude of Calues therefore the newe testament hath nothing but the bloude of Christ. I answere the bloude of Calues and Goates was it selfe a figure of the bloude of Christe by which the newe testament is confirmed and therefore there was no figure of that bloude to bee made Heb. 9. But S. Luke and S. Paul by reciting the words otherwise doe so euidently name bloud in the proper signification that no reasonable man will say that the name of bloude standeth figuratiuely for the signe of bloude saying this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude In deede I confesse in this sentence the worde bloud signifieth properly the bloude of Christ shedde vpon the crosse which is that bloude which answereth the bloud of the olde Testament and not that which is in the Chalice But then the former wordes This cup is the newe testament are figuratiue for in proper manner of speaking the cuppe was not â—e is not the new testament but a sacrament or signe thereof which newe testament was confirmed by the bloude of Christe powred forth in sacrifice vpon the crosse This one sworde is sufficient to cut the throate of transubstantiation carnall presence for as much as Saint Luke and Saint Paul giue the true sense of these wordes This is my bloude which is shedde for you which in effect is thus much to say this is the sacrament or seale of the newe testament established by shedding of my bloude on the crosse But Sander can see nothing in Saint Luke and Saint Paul but bloude taken properly whereby he woulde prooue that in the speech reported by the other Euangelists bloud should not be taken figuratiuely which is as good an argument as this Bloud in the exposition of a figuratiue speech is taken properly therefore in figuratiue speech it selfe it is not taken figuratiuely The 25. circumstance of these wordes This â—â—ppe or Chalicâ— The cuppe saith he is named to shewe the manner of fulfilling the olde figures in which the bloud was put in a cuppe as Chrysostome and Oecumenius affirmed and presently sprinkled I deny not that the cup might shewe the manner of fulfilling the old figures of sprinkling of bloude in the sacrifices but that was referred to the passion of Christ and not to the sacrament for those bloudie sacrifices were figures of Christs bloudie sacrifice in which was fulfilled whatsoeuer they did signifie and not in the supper The supper as Augustine sayeth of all our Sacraments is diuerse in signe but equall in signification with those auncient Sacraments in Ioan. Tra. 26. The putting of bloud in the baâ—en did not shew the powring of wine into the cuppe as Sander trifleth but they both did signifie the powring foorth of the bloud of Christ vppon the crosse But Oecumenius saith that in steede of the bloud of beastes our Lorde giueth his owne bloud and that well in a cuppe that hee might shewe the olde Testament to haue shadowed this thing before I answere that Occumenius a late writer to whose authoritie I am not bound of the Sacrament speaketh sacramentally ascribing to the signe that which is proper to the thing signified Otherwise there is nothing in his writing to warrant transubstantiation The 26. circumstance of the verbe est left out in S. Lukes words Saint Luke leaueth out the verbe â—s according to the phrase of the Hebrewe tongue what verbe will you bring in his place saith he the verbe significat you cannot because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Nominatiue case then must you needes haue the verbe est but as soone as it is in his place shal it immediatly be cast out and changed into the verbe significat c And here he amplifieth the matter with such eloquence as Rhetorike wil aford him But when you haue spoken your pleasure of taking in and casting out of compulsion enforcements of verbs substantiue and adiectiue c. I pray you what great piaculum is it if being compelled to take in the verbe substantiue to make perfect the grammaticall sense we be also enforced to vnderstand est for significat to make good the logical sense And how in Gods name doe you vnderstande the verbe substantiue est in these wordes of Saint Luke This cup is the newe Testament in your 23. circumstance when you expound it so that you say that which is in the cup is not the newe Testament which is the newe truce or couenant of remitting sinnes but the thing which witnesseth it to be confirmed You will say the figure is in the words newe Testament and not in the verbe esâ— Then must I sett vpon you with your owne weapons which you fight with all in the 18. circumstance I would faine see the brasen face of Sander with what countenance he would defend this shamlesse stuffe The 27. circumstance of these wordes which is shedde for you This cuppe is the new Testament in my bloud which is shedd for you saieth S. Luke Here saith Sander the relatiue which is referred to the Nowne Cuppe and not to the Nowne Bloud because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the nominatiue case and can not agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the datiue case wherefore the sense must be the cuppe that is that which is in the cuppe was shedd for vs. but the onely reall bloud of Christ was shedde for the remission of our sinnes therefore the onely reall bloud of Christ was conteined in the cuppe And heere he asketh what answere can be framed to this argument if hell were lett loose To the graÌ„maticall construction I haue answered sufficiently in confutation of his rotten rocke of the Romish Church vnto the g. his 9. marke of an Antichristian That if he wil neither admit the coniecture of Beza that those wordes might by error of the writers be taken into the text nor that S. Luke vseth the figure of Soloecophanes in that place as in diuerse other yet at the lest that the article prepositiue standeth for the relatiue 〈◊〉 as often it doth and that the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here vnderstoode being left out as in the former part of the sentence For howsoeuer it be it can not be translated nor vnderstood thus This cuppe that is to say this bloud which is shedde for you is the newe Testament in my bloude
For what sense can these wordes haue This bloud is the newe Testament and this bloud is in my bloud And nowe to the argument in which seing he vnderstandeth the speech to be proper I denie the maior or proposition This liquor in the cuppe of Christes banket was shedde for vs and I prooue it to be false euen by the wordes of Christ vttered by S. Luke and S. Matthew The fruite of the viâ—e was not shedd for vs the liquor in the cuppe of Christs banket was the fruite of the vine therefore the liquor in the cuppe of Christes banket was not shed for vs. That Euthymius a late gatherer referreth these wordes of shedding for vs to the cuppe I force not and yet hee meaneth the cuppe to be his bloud not really but Sacramentally euen as his bloud is not there shedde really except the Papistes will now giue ouer their old distinction of vnbloudy Sacrifice to saye that the bloud of Christ is shedd forth in the Sacrament as Sander saieth it was presently shedde in a mysterie and the next daye shedde naturally What misty speech is this The naturall bloud of Christ is shedde in a mystery if we speake after that manner the reall body and bloud of Christ is present in a mysterye eaten and drunken in a mysterye c. he crieth out that we build a roofe without a foundation of the naturall maner of presence and receiuing But he must be admonished that the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying which is shedd forth and simply shedd and therfore the word hath relation to the bloud which in his passion was shedde forth of his bodie which shedding forth of his bodye if Sander will confesse to be in his Masse he must vtterly renownce the vnbloudy Sacrifice so much prated of among the Papistes for what els is a bloudy Sacrifice but that whereof the bloud is powred out or shedde forth The last circumstance of the hymne saide at Christes supper We neuer read of any hymne saide or song after any feast but this and yet Christ gaue himselfe by faith and spirite at the supper time to some of his disciples before that night as to S. Marie at Bethanie Ioan. 12. therfore the hymne externally song or saide was dewe to this externall worke of God wherein with his owne handes he gaue his owne body and bloud c. Because Sander confesseth that this circumstance aboue doth not prooue the reall presence I will take his confession It may not be denied but that Christ song or saied the hymne at other times although it be expressed but this once And if it were certeine that this was the first and last that he song with them yet there might be greate and sufficient cause of his ioyfull thankesgiuing at this time wherein hee made an ende of the old ceremonie and hauing instituted a newe sacrament of thankesgiuing was euen the same night to beginne his passion which was the principall caufe of his coÌ„ming into the world for the redemption of mankinde As for these circumstances which hee confesseth doe not euerie one by them selfe prooue the reall presence when hee can make an argument of them altogether able to proue it I wil take in hand to answer it In the meane time as he hath set them down seuerally I haue answered that neuer a one of them hath ani force of argument to proue that he entendeth by them CAP. X. The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud and the proper meaning of his words is proued by the coÌ„fereÌ„ce of holie scriptures taken out of the newe testament and speaking of our Lords supper The places that he will conferre are three first Iohn 6. The breade which I will giue is my fleshe and my fleshe is meate indeede The second Math. 26. Take eate this is my bodie and this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude The thirde 1. Cor. 10. The chalice of blessing which wee blesse is it not the communicating of Christs bloud And the breade which wee breake is it not the communicating of the bodie of our Lord Of these sentences Sander will conferre euerie word together which is not the right order of conference of scripture to conferre the wordes whereof some are proper some are figuratiue but to conferre the Logicall sense of diuers places together which either are both manifest in their seueral senses or else may be made open by the circumstances of the places But to folowe Sanders conference In the first sentence he saith The bread which I will giue is described in the supper by these wordes Take eate this and in S. Paul is called The breade which wee breake But I vtterly denie that the wordes of Christ in Saint Iohn are all one with those of the supper And therefore the referring of this to an eateable thing or foode c is not shewed by that conference But S. Paul and Christ. Matth. 26. speake in deede both of one matter namely by the sacrament Christ in S. Iohn speaketh of that meate which tarrieth to life euerlasting but the sacramentall meate doth not so for according to the earthly parte of it as Origen affirmeth it goeth the same way that all other meates doe Ille cibus qui sanctificatur c. That meate which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer according to that which it hath material goeth into the bellie and is cast out into the dunghill Origen in Matth cap. 15. And according to the heauenly part which is the body of Christ by the Papists confession it tarieth not in the wicked nor in the godly in substance but in effect as Sander tolde before therefore Christ in S. Iohn speaketh not of the sacramentall meate Secondly the breaking of the bread which is done before the wordes which the Papistes account the onely wordes of consecration can shewe the pronowne this to signifie no materiall substance but breade although Sander affirme the breaking to be after because it is so vsed in the popish Masse Againe when the Apostle saith the bread which we break he speaketh plainly of a thing that is broken actually but so is not the body of Christ as for Sanders shift of that foode and that eatable thing which we breake is but a cloake of words for if that foode be the natural bodie of Christ and that foode is naturally broken then the naturall bodie of Christ is naturally and really broken Last of all the conference of this and this cuppe to prooue that this meaneth generally the substance vnder this is not worth a chippe for these wordes this cuppe do not meane a generall metaphysicall substance but the wine in this cuppe which is also called the fruit of the vine and therfore This in the other saying signifieth that substance only which was in his hand which was bread and by their owne doctrine could be no other substance but bread before hoc est corpus meum were saide
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
prayer he citeth out of Cyrillus of Ierusalem That the holy ghost woulde make the breade the bodie of Christ and the wine the bloud of Christ in Cate. myst 5. But this is merueilous that Sander saith hee is desired so to doe of the priest who were not otherwise able to make so great a mysterie if Christ had not commaunded him to make this thing But I replie if Christ had commaunded the priest to make his bodie what neede he desire another to make it And in that the holy ghost must make it it is certaine that Christ commaunded not the priest to make it Out of Dionysius the counterfeit Areopagite hee vrgeth the wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie a making or working of holie thinges which may well stande with making and working of the sacrament although there bee no making of Christes hodie commaunded To lustinus we answered before in the 〈◊〉 circumstance But Irenaeus hath these wordes Quando mixtus calix c. when the Chalice mixed with water and the breade being broken taketh the worde of God then the Euâ—harist of the bodie and bloude of Christ is made It is made saieth Sander Yea verily but it is one thing to say the Sacrament of Christes bodie and bloude is made another thing to say his naturall bodie is made But what is the Eucharist with you Papistes the verie bodie and bloude of Christ. Then the sense of Irenaeus wordes must be thiâ— the verie bodie and bloude of Christ of the verie body and bloud of Christ is made which were more then ridiculous Tertullian against Marcion saith lib. 4. Acceptum panem c. The breade which he had taken and distributed to his disciples hee made it his owne bodie Loe saith Sander he made the breade his bodie Yea sir but within six wordes following he sheweth howe breade was called his bodie namely because it was a figure of his bodie Ambrose de iis qui mysteriis init saith Cap. 9. Sacramentum c. This sacrament which thou receiuest is made by the worde of Christ. And hoc quod conficimus corpus ex virgine est This thing which we make is the bodie taken of the virgine But let Ambrose expounde himselfe in the words following soone after vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est verè ergo Carnis illius sacramentum est c. It was the true flesh of Christ which was crucified which was buried wherefore it is truely a Sacrament of that flesh Our Lorde Iesus himselfe ciâ—eth out This is my bodie before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is called another kinde after consecration the bodie of Christ is signified He himselfe calleth it his bloude before consecratino it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloude Likewise when Hierom in Ep. ad Hel. saith that Priestes doe make the bodie of Christ with their holy mouth hee meaneth the sacrament of his bodie as he saith immediately after â—hat we are become Christians by them meaning by the â—acrament of baptisme ministred by them Against Iouinian lib. 2. hee saith that Christ offered wine in typo sanguinis sui in token of his bloude and the whole sacrament he calleth mysterium quod in typo suae passiâ—nis expressit the mysterie which he expressed in the token of hâ—â— passion Out of Chrysostome are cited diuerse places al which are rather against Sanders making then for it as these The priestes make the oblation which Christ gaue to his disciples in 2. Tim. 2. He meaneth the sacrament vnproperly called of the old writers an oblation or sacrifice Againe The sacraments are begun and made perfect by the priest de sacer lib. 3. Againe Non homo est qui corpus c. It is not a man which maketh the bodie and bloude of Christ but the same Christ which was crucified for vs c. Yet Sander saith Christ saying Hoc facite commaunded men to make his bodie Aug. Cont. Faust Manich. lib. 20. cap. 3. saith that our breade chalice is made mysticall vnto vs not borne made I say Therefore hoc facite signifieth make this thing I deny the argument especially vnderstanding this thing for the naturall bodie of Christ. The same Augustine contra Adimantum saith Our Lorde doubted not to say This is my bodie when hee gaue a signe of his bodie Wherefore if hoc facite be make that thing which Christ gaue it is make a signe of his bodie The rest of the authorities of Theophilact Damascene Euthymius Anselmus c. I will not stande to rehearse because they being late writers speake often more neere vnto the Popish heresies And some of them were ranke papists yet in this matter for the signification of hoc facite make this thing not one of them speaketh directly as Sander defendeth But that the olde writers vse often the worde of making the bodie of Christ the sacrament c. It proueth not that they vnderstoode facere in Christs wordes to make one substance of another although by doing as Christ commaunded such a bodie as he spake of and such a sacrament was made CAP. XIIII What these wordes doe signifie For the remembrance of me and that they much helpe to prooue Christes reall presence vnder the formes of breade and wine To the obiection that the remembrance of a man differeth from the man himself Sander answereth that Christ said not onely do this but also make this thing because facere signifieth both to doe and to make and the remeÌ„brance of Christ is the shewing of his death as S. Paul teacheth by facte and by making Christs bodie vnder diuerse kinds to shew the separation of the bodie from the soule the breaking and eating of it in signe sheweth the breaking of it on the crosse c. To this I reply that facere can haue but one signification at one time and seeing facere in commemorationem is expounded by S. Paul as Sand also confesseth to shew the Lords death which is by doing not by making except you meane the making of the sacrament hoc facite is still do this thing In deede the verie ministratioÌ„ of the sacrament according to Christs in stitutioÌ„ is a preaching of the Lords death but it followeth not therof that the Lord is present whom the Apostle by implication saith to be absent for he addeth vntill he come which were not properly saide if in person he were present but rather vntill he be seene which is there present inuisible To come is to remoue from one place to another place where the remouer was not before he came But Sander saith the presence of the benefactor is the best meane to make his good deede remembred as the scarre in a mans face being seene is the best remembraÌ„ce of his fighting for his friends defence I haue often shewed the vanitie of this kinde of reasoning by which it shoulde followe that
the bodie and bloude of Christ to be the onely image of his passion that is left for Christian men to imbrace The last Chapter of this booke being entituled by name against that reuerende father Master Nowels challenge is so plentifully and substantially confuted by himselfe against whom it was written that I neede not once to meddle with it Onely I note that Sander vrging Master Nowel to replie promiseth a speedie reioynder yet Master Nowels booke hauing beene so manie yeares abroade Sanders reioynder is not yet come to light The fift Booke To the Preface IN this fift Booke he laboureth to peruert what soeuer saint Paul hath written of the sacrament to drawe it to his reall presence And that he might be more bolde without all shame to reiect the scripture he would haue it to be considered that Augustine affirmeth Sainct Paule to dispute according to the apostolike manner more plainelie and rather to speake properly then figuratiuely In deede Augustine affirmeth as Sander saieth that the Apostle in these wordes He that will not labour let him not eate speaketh rather properly then figuratiuely but that all his wordes of the sacrament be proper and none figuratiue he neither saide not thought And yet he saith that manie thinges and almost al things in the Aposto like writings are after that manner de Oper. Monac cap. 2. But Sander of meere fraude to deceiue the ignorant left out those wordes because he woulde haue men thinke that Augustine speaketh either peculiarly of the sacrament or generally of euerie worde that is in the Apostles writing Wherefore although the Apostle vse more commonly to speake properly then figuratiuely yet it followeth not that speaking of the sacrament which is afigure in his owne nature he shoulde not speake rather figuratiuely then properly and yet God be thanked he hath spoken so plainely that all the transubstantiators in the world shall not be able to cleere themselues from his authoritie CAP. I. The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud is proued by the blessing and communicating of Christs bloude whereof saint P 〈…〉 speaketh The cup is blessed that it might be the bloud of Christ vnto all the worthy receiuers of it vnto whom only it is yâ— coÌ„municating of the bloud of Christ. But this prooueth no real prefence Yes saith Sander a blessing made by words worketh that which the words do signifie and therefore bring mee no more saith he those paltrie examples I am a 〈…〉 ore I am a vine the rocke was Christ c. for none of these were spoken by the way of blessing Heare you not howe this Turkish dog blasphemeth the words of holy scriptures and calleth them paltrie examples but let that goe When blessing words are ioyned saith he we are certified that those words are not figuratiue nor only tokens bare signes but working making that which is said c. This is the maine poste of Sanders building which if it be prooued rotten then his house standeth vpon a false ground In Genesis 49. blessing and wordes are ioyned together and yet moste parte of the wordes are figuratiue Iacob in the name of God and by his holy spirite blessing his sonne Iuda saith Iuda is a lyons whelpe Likewise Isachar is a strong asse Nephtali is an hynde let goeâ— Ioseph is a fruitfull branche Beniamin is a rauening wolfe The like figuratiue speaches are in the blessinges of Moses the man of God Deut. Cap. 33. Therefore blessing or consecrating prooueth no reall presence nor excludeth figuratiue speaches As for only tokens bare signes we neuer acknowledge the Sacraments to be such but effectuall and working signes in them that receiue them worthily But Ambrose is cited to proue that the blessing of God in the Sacrament is able to change the nature of things which we confesse but Ambrose speaketh not of transubstantiation for in the same place Dâ— ijs qui myst Cap. 9. hee declareth his meaning Iufficiently Vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepuâ—ia est Verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clamaâ— Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus meum c. It was the true fleshe of Christe that was crucified that was buried therefore this is truely a Sacrament of that flesh Our Lorde Iesus himselfe crieth out This is my body before the blessing of the heauenly words it is called one kinde after consecration the body of Christ is signified He himselfe calleth it his bloud before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud But now concerning the worde of communicating Sander saith that it sheweth both the effect wrought by blessing which is the presence of the bloud of Christ and the finall cause why it is made verily to communicate vnto vs the merites of Christes death where the said bloud was shedde for the remission of sinnes If the chalis after blessing had no bloud in it how did it communicate to vs the bloud of Christ This is Sanders deepe diuinity As though the bloud of Christ is not communicated to vs in baptisme for the remission of sinnes by the merites of Christes death where yet the bloude of Christ is not really present But seing the Apostle saith that the cuppe of blessing which wee blesse is the communicating of the bloud of Christ it followeth that the wicked which haue no fellowship with Christ receiue nor the bloud of Christ in the cuppe and consequently that the bloud of Christ is not really present Yet Chrysostome giuing the literall sense saith Sander of those wordes writeth thus Eorum autem huiusmodi est sententia quod est in calice id est quod a latere fluxit illius sumus parâ—icipeâ— Of these wordes this is the meaning The same which is in the chalice is that which flowed from the side and thereof we are partakers I answere Chrysostom doth so giue the literal sense that he meaneth the bloud of Christ to be no otherwise then sacramentally in the chalice for in the same Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. he affirmeth that Christ suffereth himselfe to be broken in the Sacrament which he suffered not on the crosse That wee are the selfesame body that we receiue Finally to shew where we are partakers of Christes body he saieth that by this Sacrament we are made eagles and flye vp to heauen or rather aboue heauen for where the dead body is thither will the eagles be gathered CAP. II. The reall presence is prooued by the name of breaking and communicating He brabbleth much of breaking forgetting that it is bread which Saint Paul saith to be broken but common bread saith he cannot haue such vertue that Christ might be knowne thereby as he was of the two disciples in the breaking of the bread which S. Augustine thinketh to be the communion I answere the Sacrament although it be very bread yet is it not common bread but consecrated to be a seale
past 〈…〉 a bare shadowe I answere he instituted it before his death and therefore not so much to shewe the historie of his death to come or past as to shewe the vertue of his death by which his bodie was broken and his bloud shed that it might be meate and drinke vnto vs. And when the Apostle saith wee shewe the Lordes death he meaneth not onely the bare storie thereof but the fruit and effect thereof wherefore Sander playeth the foole egregiously to bable so much of Christs death past in deede or in shadowes to come For the olde Sacraments did not only prophecie of an action to bee done but also did confirme the faith of the godly in the fruits effects of the passiō of Christ. Finally Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 24. speaketh figuratiuely where he saith when thou feest this bodie set before thee say with thy selfe This bodie nailed and beaten was not ouercome of death This bodie the sunne seeing crucified turned away his beames c. but he expoundeth himselfe sufficiently in the same Homily where he saith we must be Eagles flie into heauen where the bodie of Christ that died for vs remaineth In the same sense that it is called the bodie of Christ he applyeth to the Sacrament such things as were proper to the bodie of Christ. But as for transubstantiation which the Papists woulde gather out of this place in many places he sheweth that he acknowledgeth not and ad Caesarium monachum he doth expressely denie it CAP. VIII The reall presence is proued by the illation which S. Paul maketh concerning the vnworthie eating dr 〈…〉 ing of euill men The illation proueth no real pr 〈…〉 ce by any consequence in the worlde Hee that dispitefully abuseth or negligently cōtemneth the princes seale offered vnto him offendeth against the maiestie person of the prince yet the maiestie and person of the prince is not really present vnder the formes of parchement and waxe But Sander saith the vnworthie shewing of Christs death is the vnworthie eating Who will graunt him that shewing of Christes death is nothing but eating of the Sacrament Neither doth S. Paul confesse as Sander impudently affirmeth that euil men may haue the bodie bloud of Christ in their mouthes He saith who so eateth this bread drinketh this cup of the Lord vnworthily for so much as the same is honoured with the names of the bodie bloud of Christ is guiltie of the bodie bloud of Christ which he despiseth in these mysteries But it is not bread wine whereof S. Paul speaketh because he doeth name it This bread saith Sander For seeing the Pronown This doth shewe a thing present to some sense or other S. Paul being absent could not shew◠any thing by any corporall action then it remaineth that the thing whereunto This doeth point is the bodie of Christ whereof he spake before This Grammaticall Logike is meete for Papisticall diuinity I thinke there was neuer man that set his penne to the paper that wrot more impudently What say you Master doctor Sander Doth the Pronowne This alway shewe a thing present to some sense or other To what sense is the body of Christ present in that thing whereof it is saide This is my body And doth the absence of Saint Paule hinder him to speake of breade in saying This bread and further him to speake of Christes naturall body in saying this is my body This learning Master Sander passeth my vnderstanding What saied I this learning I knowe not how to speake seing the pronowne This doth shew a thing present to some sense or other but the learning shewed in this Tush I must say in such kind of reasoning is an higher matter then can be conceiued by any sense witt reason or vnderstanding Neither is his sharpnes lesse in answering obiections then in making of argumentes For if you obiect that Christ meant the signe of his body he answereth that seing Saint Paule named no signe as This can not point to that which was not named so it must point onely to the thing named before which was the body of Christ broken for vs therefore this bread meaneth that body of Christ and none other substance I blame not Master Sander if he will not haue This to point to a signe which was not named seeing he will not haue it point to bread which with the Pronown This is named but to the body of Christ which in another sentence was named So that by this bread he doth not mean this bread but that body But seing he can allowe but one substance present and that body in the same truth is named this bread what reason is there that the thing which the word of God calleth bread and al reason and euery sense confirmeth to be bread should not be naturall breade but taken figuratiuely and that which is by the word of God onely called the body of Christ all sense and reason reclaiming that it should be his naturall body must neuerthelesse be his naturall body and by no meanes must be thought to be taken figuratiuely CAP. IX The reall presence is prooued because vnworthy receiuers are guilty of Christes body and bloud A man is guilty saith Sander either for doing an euill deede or leauing a good deede vndone or doing a good deede after an euill manner and after the last manner is he guilty that receiueth vnworthily I will not deale with his diuision nor inquire whether euery one that receiueth vnworthily doth a good deede after an euill manner But to the purpose of the reall presence his deede saith Sander is eating which thing he so really doth that S. Paule affirmeth him to eate and drinke damnation to him selfe Why so Sander is that which he eateth and drinketh really damnation if it be then surely he eateth nor drinketh really the body and bloud of Christ which are in an other predicament then damnation But if to eate and drinke damnation be spoken figuratiuely where the sense is by eating to deserue damnation why may not eating and drinking of the bodie and bloud of Christ be spoken figuratiuely where the sense is by eating and drinking to be assured of saluation wrought by the body and bloud of Christ But no man is guilty saith Sander for doing more then he actually doth therefore the vnworthye receiuer actually doth eate the bodye and bloud of Christ whereof he is guilty I deny the argument which is a balde petition of the principle for the vnworthye receiuer is guilty of the bodye and bloud of Christ not for eating and drinking it but for eatig this bread vnworthily so contemning the body of Christ or not discerning the Lordes body as the Apostle saith The antecedent is also false for a man is guilty especially in the sight of God for his euill mind purpose affection which often are more then actually he doth As in the similitude of abusing the Princes seale which
I vsed in the Chapter last before But Sander exclaimeth against the shamelesse interpretation of heretikes which imagine that S. Paul said he that eating by mouth materiall bread at Christs â—â—â—per refuseth to eate by faith the bodie of Christ sitting in heauen 〈◊〉 guiltie of not eating Christs bodie Who euer heard of such a 〈◊〉 Nay rather who euer heard of such a lie For which of yâ— Sacramentaries as you call them doeth so interprete S. Paul Although we say that he is guiltie of Christs bodie which contemneth the same in his Sacrament and either receiueth it negligently or els refuseth to receiue it contumeliously For not only the reprobates receiue vnworthily but sometimes also the elect of whome the Apostle especially speaketh disswading them from receiuing vnworthily wherby as by other sinnes they pro uoke God to punish them deserue eternal damnation if god should deale with them according to their deserts But to condemne a man for eating the bodie of Christ who did eat only the figure of it semeth great vniustice to Sander And yet the scripture neuer saith that any maÌ„ is condemned for eating the bodie of Christ but for eating the Sacrament vnworthily he is guiltie of the bodie bloud of Christ wherof that is a Sacrament Tush saith Sander if it were so meant the talk of Saint Paul would no more hang together then if it were said he that toucheth vnworthily the kinges garment is guiltie of murthering his person I answer first the Sacrament of the bodie bloud of Christ is a thing that more neere coÌ„cerneth Christ then the kings garment doth concerne the king therfore the similitude is nought but yet he that with contempt toucheth the kings garment is guilty of coÌ„tempt of the kings person And he that of malice thrusteth his weapon through the kinges garment might iustly be guiltie of murthering his person euen so and much rather as the neglect or contempt of the Lords sa crament is lesse or more so much is the guiltines against the Lords person although his bodie bloud be no more touched by the contemners then the kings person by the abusers of his garment image crown scepter seal or instrument Sander after this professeth that he is loath to heap vp in this place the manifold witnesses of the auncient fathers coÌ„cerning that euil men eat Christs body whose words he hath partly touched before li. 2. Cap 3. And I am as loth to repete that I haue so often answered vn â—o him others therfore I wil only note the places wher 〈◊〉 fathers cited by Sander are both rehersed more at larg fully answered Namely Theodoret in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. â—llud autem c. In mine answer to D. Hesk li. 3 Ca. 52. Priâ—osius li. 3. Ca. 50 Sedulius 〈◊〉 Ca 49. S. Hierom in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. â—i 3. Ca. 54 Chrysost in Math. Hom. 83. li. 3 Cap. 46. Augustin de baptismo cont Donatist li. 5 ca. 8. li 3. ca 48. As for Haymo Theophylact late writers I wil noâ— staâ—d vpon their authorities There remaineth only Cy 〈…〉 l in Ioan. li. 9. Ca. 19. vpon these wordâ— Exiuit conti 〈…〉 Iudas went out by by after the supper c. which Sander citeth thus Timet diabolus benedictioris virtutem nâ— sâ—intillam in animo cius accenderit The aâ—uell feareth the vertue of the consecration or blessing lest perhaps it might haue kindled a sparke of grace or of repentance in his minde But the words of Cyrill howsoeuer it bath pleased M. Sander to mangle them are thus Timet vt credo diabolus ne morando locus poenitentiae detur quasi a temulentia mentem suam rectius cogitans homo cripiat hac de causa festinat impellit Nam etiam Iudam cùm post panem omnino se parauerit tum moram tum benedictionis virtutem timens ne scintillam in animo eius accenderit ac inde illuminauerit ad meliora retraxerit magna praecipitem agit ecleritate The diuel as I think feareth lest by tarying place might be giuen to repentance the man thinking better might deliuer his minde as it were from dronkennes For this cause he maketh haste driueth forward For with great celeritie he driueth euen Iudas hedlong when after the bread he had altogither prepared himself fearing both the delaie and the vertue of the blessing least it hath kindled a sparke in his minde and thereof hath lightened him and drawen him to better thinges This saying of Cyrillus doth no lesse differ in sense and vnderstanding from Sanders slanderous report of him then it doth in forme context of wordes from that which Sander affirmeth to be his saying For Cyrill plainly caleth it bread which Iudas had receiued Again it was the vertue of the blessing and not the presence of the body of Christ which the diuel feared What is this for the reall presence ACP. X. The reall presence is prooued by the kinde of discerning 〈◊〉 Lordes body First he laboureth to proue that the fault of the Corinthians was not malicious contempt of Christ but such contempt as riseth of negligence and lack of discretion TheÌ„ he reasoneth thus because S. Paul chargeth them to be guiltie not onely of Christes worship and name but also of his owne bodie and bloude with which fault he neuer burthened any other then the vnworthy receiuers or the Iewes that laide iniurious hands vpoÌ„ Christ at his death it must needes be that such a communicant receiueth Christs naturall bodie I answere not onely they are guiltie of Christes bodie and bloude which receiue the communion vnworthily and which laide violent handes on Christes person but euen they also that crucifie the sonne of GOD againe of whom the Apostle speaketh Heb. 6. verse 6. and corrupt the bloud of his Testament by which they are sanctified wholy Heb. 10. vers 29. Neither are they burthened with a greater fault then they committe which vnworthily receiuing the pledge of Christes presence are saide to offend against Christ himselfe But Sander vrgeth the argument of discerning further because the Apostle biddeth them put a difference betweene Christes bodie and all other meates or creatures in the world it is euident that none other meaâ—e or creature is present besides the bodie of Christ. I deny the argument which followeth as this He that despiseth circumcision hath broken the couenant of God as God saith Gen. 17 ergo circumcision is nothing but the couenant of God and not an outward seale and signe thereof He that despiseth Baptisme despiseth the bloude of Christ and the spirit of God by which baptisme is sanctified therefore the water of baptisme is the bloud of Christ or the holy Ghost really Wherefore he that discerneth not the Sacrament which is called and to the worthy receiuer is in 〈…〉 ede the body and bloud of Christ after a certaine ma 〈…〉 r from common meate is guiltie of the bodie and
eating and drinking are more proper for breade and wine then for the bodie and bloude of Christ of which they cannot be saide but figuratiuely especiallie seeing you hold that the bloud of Christ in the cuppe is not really separated from his bodie howe can you properly say that the bloude of Christ is drunke when onely the bodie with the bloude in it is swallowed downe the throate Saint Paul calleth the Sacrament breade at the least sixe times after consecration As for the often repetition of flesh and bloude in the 6. of saint Iohn pertaineth nothing to the Lords supper But let vs see master Sanders autorities for this argument of repetition First Euthymius borrowing the saying out of Chrysostome saith Hoc dixit This he saide confirming that he spake not obscurely or parabolically Yea sir but Euthymius saith otherwise if it had pleased you to cite his saying whole Caro mea verè est cibus Verus est cibus siue aptissimus vtpote animam quâ— propriissima hominis pars est nutriens Et similiter de sanguine Aut hoc dixit confirmans quod noÌ„ aenigmaticè neque parabolicè loqueretur My flesh is meate in deede it is true meate or most apt meate as which nourisheth the soule which is the most proper part of man And likewise of the bloud Or else he saide this confirming that hee spake not obscurely or in parable Chrysostome in Ioan. Hom. 46. Quid autem significat caro mea verè est cibus sanguis meus verè est potus Aut quod is est verus cibus qui saluat animam aut ut eos in praedictis confirmet ne obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur What meaneth this my flesh is meate in deede and my bloude is drinke in deede Either that he is the true meat that saueth the soule or else that hee might confirme them in that was saide before lest they shoulde thinke that hee had spoken darkely in parables By both these places which are disiunctiue sentences it is plaine that the flesh and bloude of Christ is meate to feede the soule which must needes be spiritually because the soule cannot eate carnally and then you see howe plaine and without parable the speach of Christ is to be taken Next these are cited Oecumenius in 1. Cor. 11. Per hoc quod frequenter ait corporis sanguinis domini manifestat quod non sit nudus homo qui immolatur sed ipse dominus factor omnium vt videlicet per haec ipsos exterreat By this that he often saith of the bodie and bloud of our Lord he sheweth that he which is offered is not a bare man but the Lord himselfe and maker of all thinges to the ende verilie that he might put them in a terrour by these thinges This writer affirmeth nothing but that the breade and cuppe is not the sacrameÌ„t of a bare man but of him that is both God and man therefore not the bare substance of breade saith Sander I confesse but a Sacrament of the flesh and bloude of the sonne God Thirdly he citeth Saint Basil de Baptism lib. 2. cap. 3. Vehementius simulque horribilius c. The Apostle setteth forth and declareth more vehemently and more fearefully the condemnation by repetition What is this to the reall presence But Augustine de opere Monachorum cap. 13. saith Neque enim c. For it is not said in one place or shortlie so that it may be drawen or peruerted into another meaning by the ouerthwarting of neuer so subtil a Sophist But what I pray you that meÌ„ ought to work with their hands Doth not this make much for the reall presence confirmed by oft repeating of the names of bodie and bloud when bread and cuppe c. be as often repeated But to conclude Cyrill in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 11. writeth in the same sense saieth Sander Non obdurescamus c. By Master Sanders leaue I will repeate the wordes of Cyrillus a little more at large that wee may see in what sense he writeth Quapropter saluator varia oratione moâ—â— aenigmaticè atque obscurè modò dilucidè atque apertè candemrem Iudaeis proposuit â—vt excusari nequeant si resilierint sed mali malè perdentur tanquam manu propria in animam suam gladium immittentes Iterum igitur planè clamat Ego sum panis qui de coelo descendi Illa figura imago vmbráque solùm fuit Audiatis hoc dilucidè dictum Ego sum panis viuus si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane viuet in aeternum Non obdurese vâ—â—â— igitur toties veritatem a Christo audientes Non est enin ambigendum quin summa supplicia subiucri sint qui saepius haec à Christo iterata non capiunt Wherefore our sauiour by diuerse kinds of speach sometimes enigmatically and obscurely sometimes cleerely and plainely hath set forth the same thing vnto the Iewes so that they cannot bee excused if they start backe but being euill men might be destroyed euilly as they that with their owne hande thrust a sworde into their owne soule Therefore he cryeth out againe plainely I am the breade which came downe from heauen That was a figure image and shadowe onely Heare you this which is clearely spoken I am the liuing breade if any man shall eate of this breade hee shall liue for euer Therefore let vs not harden our selues hearing the trueth so ofte of Christ. For it is not to be doubted but they shall suffer most extreme paines who receiue not these things so often repeated of Christ. Out of this place first I note that sometimes Christ spake in this Chapiter obscurely and figuratiuely contrarie to that which Sander before woulde seeme to affirme out of Euthymius and Chrysostome Secondly that Cyrillus speaketh not of the wordes whose repetition Sander vrgeth but of the matter of our spirituall feeding by Christ onely often repeated in the sixte of Iohn Thirdely that Cyrillus vnderstandeth the matter of this Chapiter to bee all one contrarie to that which Sander before hath stoutly defended that Christ speaketh not of the Sacrament vntill hee come to that saying And the breade which I will giue is my flesh Fourthly that Cyrill affirmeth Christ to haue beene the breade of life which was receiued of the godly Fathers vnder the figure of Manna And last of all that the wordes following And the breade which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the worlde Cyrill vnderstandeth of the death of Christ and not of the sacrament for which Sander straue so much in the thirde Booke The saying of Cyrillus vpon the wordes of Christ And the breade which I will giue is my fleshe c. is in the 12. Chapiter of the same Booke Morior inquit pro omnibus vt per me ipsum omnes viuificem caro mea omnium redemptio fiat morietur enim mors morte mea simul mecum natura hominum resurget I dye
answered partly because Sander bringeth no newe matter in this replie but either such as he hath brought in the sixe bookes before and partly because his chiefe and most generall answere is nothing but a begging of the whole matter in controuersie with an affirming and denying grounded vpon his owne authoritie By meanes whereof in this one article he hath noted iump 218 vntruethes howe well and iustely let the readers of his booke and Master Iewels replie be iudges As for mee I will not examine them all but onely so manie as touch the controuersie with any shewe of argument sauing that in a fewe of the first I will giue the reader a taste that hee may iudge of the rest And whereas hee chargeth the Bishoppe for setting one trueth against another for falsifying of autorities for misconstruing of their meaning c as the matters shall occurre I wil not faile to consider them CAP. I. Master Iewell hath not answered Doctor Harding well touching the wordes of Christes supper in this article Fol. 316. The people was not taught in the first sixe hundreth yeares to beleeue that Christs bodie is really substantially corporally carnally or naturally in the Sacrament To giue a tast as I promised of Sanders collection of vntrueths I will examine a fewe The first vntruth is noted to be this Master Iewell said Whether Christes body be corporally in the Sacrament Harding answereth not one worde Harding had saide The termes really substantially c. are sounde in the doctors treating of the true being of Christs bodie in the Sacrament Ergo saith Sander Master Iewell saide not truely for hee prooueth afterwarde Christes bodie to bee in the Sacrament Heere the reason of this vntrueth is the whole matter in controuersie whether Harding haue proued in deed that which he intended The 2. vntruth Iewell saith in this matter hee is able to alledge nothing for direct proofe Harding had saide Christian people haue euer beene so taught of that kind of preseÌ„ce which is founded vpon Christs plaine words Ergo saith Sander hee was able to alleage somewhat But what I pray you That Christian people were euer so taught which is false that this doctrine is grounded vpon Christs words which is false also For what one doctor affirmeth the presence according to the article Harding saith the three Euangelists and Saint Paul Ergo saith Sander there is the thirde vntrueth for M. Iewel hath words plainely written c. But if these words prooue the presence according to the article the controuersie should be at an ende The 4. vntruth is that M. Iewell saith Harding vpon the wordes of the institution foundeth his carnall presence in such grosse sort really and fleshly in the Sacrament Sander replieth it is lesse carnall grosse and fleshly to haue the substance of Christs corporall flesh in a spirituall manner really present vnder the forme of breade then to bee in his mothers wombe as Marcion and Apelles counted it or to make a lye when he saide take eate this c As though the graunting of Christes humanitie prooued the Popish presence which is contrarie to the truth of his humanitie or that Christ might not say truely the Sacrament to be his bodie except it were after that manner his bodie His presence in spirituall manner we graunt but we vnderstande spirituall manner to bee otherwise then inuisiblie for manie thinges may be so present that they are not seene and yet be not spiritually but corporally present The fift vntrueth is that M. Iewell saith Christ vseth no leading to that carnall presence Sander answereth The word This leadeth the Apostles to that vnderstanding as if I say this is a Lyon it will followe vnder this visible forme that I shewe a Lyon is substantially contained c. As right as a rammes horne If I shew a king or a strong man I may say truely in some sense This is a Lyon For if I shew one substance and affirme another of it the speach must needes be either false or figuratiue The sixt vntruth and a forged lye is that Master Iewell saith D. Fisher saith this sense cannot in any wise be gathered of the bare words of Christ. Fishers words as Sander reherseth them are these No man shall proue by the bare words of the Gospel that any priest in these dayes doth consecrate the true bodie and bloud of Christ. Againe No worde is put whereby it may be prooued that in our masse the verie presence of Christs bodie and bloude is made Iudge indifferentlie of the words what lye Iewell hath forged Although Fisher meant that by the interpretation of the fathers and practise of the Church the vnderstanding of the Gospell is more certainely obtained then by the bare words of the Gospell But Fisher hath other wordes Non potest igitur per illam scripturam probari quòd aut laicus aut sacerdos quoties id negotij tentauerit pari modo conficiet ex pane vinóque Christi corpus sanguinem atque Christus ipse conficit cùm nec isâ—ud in scripturis contineatur which M. Iewel beginneth to english thus It cannot therefore be prooued by any scripture Here Sander playeth the schoolemaster and apposeth him What cannot be proued M. Iewel giue me the nominatiue case to the verbe non potest it cannot saith Sander What cannot Wherevpon is grounded the 7. vntrueth when Iewel saith Doct. Fisher saith the carnall presence cannot be proued neither by these words this is my bodie nor by any other But I put case Master Iewell woulde answere your deepe demaunde in saying that potest in this place is a verbe impersonall and therefore he can giue it no nominatiue case at all but must english it thus non potest it cannot If you will aske him why he saith then the carnall presence cannot bee prooued as though presence were the nominatiue case he will answere you he doth not so construe or translate the Latine but he inferreth that conclusion vpon Fishers wordes No worde is put whereby it may be prooued that in our Masse the verie presence of Christes bodie and bloude is made But your learning wil haue the whole speach following to bee the nominatiue I say let it so bee if you will needes haue it so yet Master Iewels conclusion is true That Fisher affirmeth the carnall presence cannot bee prooued to bee made either by laye man or Priest ergo it cannot bee prooued at all Yet saith Sander Howe manie enormous faults haue you committed heere master Iewell First Harding affirmed these wordes This is my bodie to teach a reall presence Fisher spake of these words Make this thing and not of these wordes This is my bodie This were an enormous fault if Fisher had not saide Non potest per vllam scripturam probari it cannot be prooued by any scripture but seeing he saide so this is an enormous slanderous impudent and foolish lye and cauill of Sander Secondly Harding spake of the reall
the first is alreadie done that is predestination the second third is both done is a doing shal be done the is calling iustification but the fourth is now in hope shal be in deede that is glorification The Sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the body bloud of Christ in some places daily in some places by certeine distance of dayes is prepared in the Lords table to some vnto life to some vnto destruction But the thing it self wherof also it is a Sacrament is to euery man vnto life to no man vnto destruction whosoeuer shal be partaker of it You haue therefore gained thus much by your cauilling that neither the flesh and bloud of Christ promised in the sixt of Iohn nor the thing of the Sacrament is the bodie of Christ which sitteth in heauen but the participation of his mysticall bodie and the fellowship or communion of his bodie and the members therof which is the assurance of eternall life But where you saye the Sacrament is that naturall body of Christ which sitteth in heauen you saye beside your booke for neither Augustine nor any ancient father did euer say that the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ was the body of Christ otherwise then after a certeine manner of speaking as Augustine saith Sander The materiall bread was prepared by the Baker ergo the Sacrament prepared in the table is the bodie of Christ. Fulke I denie the argument The Baker prepareth not the Sacrament although he prepare some parte of the earthly matter that is required vnto it more then the sexton prepareth the sacrament of baptisme by powring of water into the font CAP VII Sander Master Iewell hath not disputed well touching the omnipotencie of Christ in promising the gift of 〈◊〉 flesh Harding Christ by shewing his diuine power wherby he will ascend into heauen confoundeth the vnbeliefe of the Capernaites touching the promised substance of his bodie Iewell When ye see Christ ascend whole ye shall see that he giueth not his bodie in such sort as you imagine His grace is not wasted by morsels saith S. Augustine vsâ—â—g Christs ascension to proue that there is no suâ—â— grosse presence in the Sacrament Sander He is not present to be wasted but yet he is really eaten Fulke S. Augustines place sheweth that Christe reasoned not of his omnipotencie or diuine power but of the absence of his humanitie by his ascension and that the thing which he promiseth to be eaten is not his naturall flesh to be bitten in their mouthes but his grace to be receiued by faith in their hearts Iewell This table is the table for Eagles not for Iayes saith Chrysostome Sander I haue answered your iangling of Iayes in my 2. booke Cap. 27. Fulke And I haue confuted your babling of Eagles in the same place Iewell Saint Hierome saith Let vs goe vp with the Lorde into heauen into that great parlour and receiue of him aboue the cuppe of the newe testament Sander He saith not into heauen but into the great parlour which is the kingdome of the Church Fulke But by the greate parlour into which Christ is ascended he meaneth heauen where the kingdome of the Church is and not the earth where the Church is a stranger the worde heauen is added in Master Iewel for explication and not as parte of Ieromes wordes Sander Chrysostome interpreteth the parlour for the Church in Matth. Hom. 38. Fulke Chrysostome was no interpreter of Ierome In allegories euery man hath his owne inuention Sander Christ giueth his bodie and bloude hee is the feastmaker and the feast he gaue that Moses coulde not giue Fulke All is perfourmed in the great parlour which is heauen Wee must receiue of him aboue the cuppe of the new testament Iewell Cyrillus saith Our Sacrament auoucheth not the eating of a man leauing the mindes of the faithfull in vngodly manner to grosse or fleshly cogitations Sander Cyrillus against Nestorius denyeth the Sacrament to be the eating of a bare man not assumpted into God I haue spoken more lib. 2. Cap. 25. Fulke Cyrillus denieth the Sacrament to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the eating of a man and not onely the eating of such a man as Nestorius blasphemed Christ to be See lib. 2. Cap. 25. Sander Cyril saith that Christ setteth before vs the assumpted flesh of the sonne man Fulke Yea but not in the Sacrament only but as it was eaten of the fathers Ad Theod. de rect fide Sander He saith moreouer the worde is not able to be eaten What M. Iewel not by faith yes verily but not by mouth but according to the dispeÌ„satioÌ„ of the vnioÌ„ Fulke God the word is not able to be eaten by faith but in respect of the dispensatiue vnion Cyril speaketh not of eating by mouth for the properties of both natures remaine to be seen of vs by innumerable reasons as it followeth immediatly Graunt eating of his fleshe by mouth and the propertie of the humane nature is cleane ouerthrowen Your charging of master Iewel with the blasphemies of Nestorius deserueth none aunswere Iewell The olde fathers Chrysostome Augustine Leo acknowledge Gods omnipotencie in baptisme yet is not Christ really there Therfore it was vaine labour to alleage his omnipotencie for the reall presence Sander Baptisme hath no promise to be the flesh of Christ therfore you haue lost your labour Fulke Baptisme hath promise to wash vs in the bloud of Christ to incorporate vs into Christ to make vs partakers of his death buriall resurrection Rom. 6. and yet no reall presence required no not of the holy ghost otherwise than by effectuall grace working our regeneration and newe birth Yea Christ doth wash vs in baptisme Ep. 5. CAP. VIII Sander Whether the Catholikes or Sacramentaries expound more vnproperly or inconueniently the wordes belonging to Christes supper Harding Because these places report that Christ gaue at his supper his verie bodie the fathers saye it is really in the Sacrament Iewell A thing is taken to make proofe which is doubtfll and the antecedent is vnproued Sander Said not Christ take eate this is my bodie Fulke This prooueth not that he gaue it in your sense But where do the fathers say it is really present in the Sacrament Iewell The fathers call the Sacrament a figure a token a signe an image c. Therefore Christes wordes may be taken with a metaphor trope or figure Sander It standeth wel togither to be a signe the trueth As Christ is the image of God yet God also Fulke It is impossible to be a signe the thing signified Neither is Christ God the Father of whome hee is the image although he be God Iewell Euen Duns sawe that following the bare letter we must needs say that the bread it self is Christs bodie Sander The place is not quoted therfore it is doubtful for no man beleeueth you Fulke Looke in the fourth booke vpon the sentences The same
where also wee must feede on Christ by faith Fulke Because it is the proper sacrament of our spirituall feeding like as baptisme is of our regeneration and yet the bloode of Christ doeth clense our sinnes in the supper as we eate the body of Christ in baptisme Sand. 37 Seeing a figure may be the trueth it selfe whereof it is a figure why shoulde you rather detracte this honor from Christs sacrament then giue the same vnto it Fulk A figure can neuer be that which it figureth in the same respect As Christ is the figure of his father so is he not his father as he is the figure of his fathers substance so is he not his fathers substance but consubstantiall with his father for though hee be the same essence yet hee is an other person beside that we may not say the sacramentes are all that they may bee but that which God will haue them to be You may demaunde the like reason of Baptisme why the water is not the blood of Christ but a figure of it Sand. 38 Christ being equall with his father made promise of the same fleshe which his father had giuen Why deny you the gift of Christ to be as reall as his father gaue him reall flesh Fulk We deny not but he hath giuen the same real fleshe although not to be present really in the Sacrament Sand. 39 How teach you the wordes of Christ which are spirite and life to be notwithstanding figuratiue consequentlie deade and voide of all life and strength Fulk Howe dare you affirme any of Christes words of which many are figuratiue to be deade and voyde of life and strength Are not those figuratiue wordes I am the bread that came downe from heauen This cup is the newe testament Sand. 40 Because the worde of God would be meate of man in respect of the body hee tooke fleshe and said Take eate c yet you make him stil to be the meate of the minde whereby we are excluded from hauing God corporally in vs through the flesh of Christ. Fulk The worde became not fleshe either onely or principally to be giuen in the sacrament but he could not haue beene meat vnto man except hee had taken fleshe which fleshe he communicateth vnto vs through his spirit by faith to feedboth body and minde yet not to be receiued into the body as bodily meats but being receiued of the minde to nourishe the whole man Sand. 41 To conclude whereas ye finde flesh body bloode ioyned with eating drinking taking partaking giuing breaking distributing communicating dijudicating ye expounde al these words figuratiuely As though God by so often repeting had not strengthened the common and proper signification of them Fulk You say vntruely of all these wordes wheras you finde bread cup the fruit of the vine so often repeted you vnderstand all figuratinely to maintaine your grosse vnderstanding or rather your gainefull idolatrie for which you care not to erre against grammar rhetorike Logike Philosophie diuinitie faith trueth nature sense knowledge and conscience Iew. If in these wordes Except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man ye followe the letter it killeth Origen Hom. 7. in Leuit. Sand. He that taketh them as Christ by his fact did expound them doeth followe the spirite and not the letter Fulk Yee assume for granted that which is all the controuersie It is not onely the letter to vnderstande the words of eating by peece meale but of eating his fleshe by mouth carnally as other meates are eaten although couered from the eyes and tast as men eate pils wrapped in a wafer cake CAP. IX Sand. A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by master Iewel Iew. Saint Augustine saith the sacrament of Christs body after a certaine phrase or maner or trope or figure of speaking is the body of Christ. Sand. Secundum quēdam modum is not meant after a certaine manner of tropicall or figuratiue speach but in the sacrament in the thing it self in the substance thereof wherin the likenes is and not in the forme Fulk Saint Augustines words being set downe more at large then Sander citeth them who leaueth out the foremost part let the reader iudge whether he meane of a manner of speach which is figuratiue and tropicall or of a manner of being which is significatiue Ep. 23. Bonifacio Nempe saepè ita loquimur c. Verily oftentimes wee SPEAKE so that wee SAIE Easter drawing neere to morowe or the next day is the passion of our Lorde whereas he hath suffered so many yeeres past and that passion was promised but once in all Verily on the sonday it selfe we SAIE this day our Lorde arose againe notwithstanding there are so many yeres since he arose Why is no man so foolish to reproue vs so SPEAKING as if wee had lyed but because wee CALL these dayes according to the similitude of the dayes in which those thinges were done that it is SAIDE the day it selfe which is not the day it selfe but in reuolution of time like it that it is SAIDE to be done on that daye because of the celebration of the sacrament or mysterie which was not done that day but long before Was not Christ once offered in himselfe and yet in a sacrament not onely at euerie solemnitie of Easter but euerie day he is offered for the people Neither surely doth he lie who being demanded shall answere that he is offered For if the sacraments had not a certayne likenes of those thinges whereof they are sacraments they were not at all sacramentes Out of this likenes also for the most part they take their names Therefore as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the bodie of Christ the sacrament of the bloode of Christ is the bloode of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith The whole discourse being of phrases and manners of speech that are figuratiue and this example of the Lordes supper being brought as one of them iudge whether S. Augustine 〈◊〉 corrupted by master Iewel Euen the Canon law writen as it should seeme before the heresie of carnal presence preuailed doth so vnderstande this place of Augustine de Con. Dist. 2. ca. Hoc est Sicut ergo coelestis panis c. Therfore as the heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ that is saith the glosse the heauenly sacrament which truely representeth the flesh of Christ after his maner is called the bodie of Christ the sense is saith the glosse it is called that is it fignifieth the bodie of Christ whereas indeed it is the sacrament of the body of Christ namely of that body which being visible which being palpable was put on the crosse and the verie immolation of his flesh which is done by the handes of the priest is called the passion death crucifying of Christ not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie so the sacrament of faith which is vnderstod to be baptisme is faith Let this
figuratiue words Iewel That M. Harding calleth the catholike faith is in deede a catholike error Sand. No error can be catholike because Christ said Hell gates shal not preuaile against the Church and it is a citie built vpon an hill Fulke And yet all nations are made drunke with the furie of the wine of the whore of Babylons fornication Wherefore an error may bee catholike although not simply yet in comparison of the small number that at sometime doe embrace the trueth CAP. XII Sand. Of Christs glorified bodie and the place of S. Hierome expounded Hard. The bodie which was before the death therof thrall and fraile is now spirituall Iewel To what ende alleageth Master Harding the spirituall state of Christes bodie Enriches saide it was chaunged into the verie substance of God which heresie is like Master Hardings if it be not the same Sand. The defence of the reall presence is directly against that heresie Fulke To graunt the flesh of Christ in worde and to denie the essentiall properties thereof is to come as neere to that heresie as can be Sand. The ancient fathers proued that as the Sacrament of the altar consisted of two thinges the signe or forme of breade and of the bodie of Christ so Christ cōsisteth of two natures the one diuine the other humane Wherefore you denying the presence agree with the Arrians Valentinians c. Fulke The ancient fathers neuer made the forme or accidents of breade but bread it selfe to be the signe or one part of the sacrament representing the bodie of Christ and the thing signified they made like to the godheade whereby they vnderstoode not the naturall bodie of Christ but the effect of his death Hard. S. Hierome shewing two wayes of vnderstanding Christs flesh one spirituall as it is verily meate an other as it was crucified declareth the manner of eating it onely to differ from the manner of it being crucified the substance being all one Iewel He speaketh neither of the Sacrament nor of any reall presence Sand. He meaneth both Fulk He can meane neither of both seeing he distinguisheth that diuine and spirituall flesh which is meat in deede vnto eternall life from that flesh which was crucified which if it were meate in the same sense that it was crucified that is in the naturall substance S. Hieroms distinction should not be of that flesh which c. and that flesh which c. but of the effects and affects of the same flesh Wherefore when he saith the flesh of Christ is two waies to be vnderstanded he meaneth of this word The flesh of Christ and not of the diuerse manners of presence therof in the sacrament and on the crosse Iewel S. Hierom saith of this oblatiō which is merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ it is lawful to eate but of that oblatiō which Christ offered vpon the altar of the crosse according to it selfe it is lawful for no man to eate that is to say in grosse and fleshly manner These words shewe a difference betweene the sacrifice made in the remēbrāce of Christ and the very sacrifice in deede c. Sand. The difference is so great that the thing offered is all one and that which is crucified and eaten is the same in substance but not in manner of presence Fulke The difference is so great as must needs bee betweene a sacrifice once offered and neuer to be repeted and the memoriall of the same The same substance that was crucified is eaten but not by meanes of any bodily presence but by a spirituall kinde or manner of eating by faith Sand. What marueilous making can you finde in the bread and wine except they be made the bodie and bloud of Christ Fulke It is a merueilous thing that the elements of bread and wine are made to the worthy receiuer in earth the communication of the bodie and bloud of Christ sitting in heauen Iewell If a man take it fleshly saith Chrysostome in Ioan. Hom. 47 he gaineth nothing Sand. It followeth immediatly What say we then is not flesh flesh He vnderstandeth fleshly that deuiseth a grosse and fleshly manner of eating but not he that saith the flesh must be eaten if the manner be diuine and spirituall as in our sacrament Fulke The manner you teach is grosse and carnall for spiritual eating we confesse which is not onely in the sacrament Iewell It is a figure or forme of speach saith S. Augustine willing vs to be partakers of Christs passion Sand. You are taken M. Iewel For seeing you say we eate Christ in the supper only by faith and we must bee partakers of the passion Christ by faith at lest how saith S. Hierome we may not eate that oblation which Christ offered on the crosse according to it selfe may we not be leeue in him c. Fulke In the sacrament wee eate bread which is the oblation merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ we eate not that which was sacrificed on the crosse in the reall substance thereof but by faith applying vnto vs the fruites and effects of his passion Iewell S. Hierome calleth the eating of the diuine spiritual flesh of Christ the remēbring that hee died for vs. Sander Then the oblation it self is eaten of vs which he offered on the crosse according to it selfe Fulke What mad man would saye the oblation it selfe the remembrance therof to be all one Iewel Clemens Alexandrinus saith there is a fleshly bloud wherwith we are redeemed a spiritual wherwith we are annointed And this is to drinke the bloude of Christ to be partaker of his immortalitie As Christs bloud is not really present to annoint vs so it is not really present to nourish vs. Sander Clemens speaketh of the effect of Christes bloud Hierom of the carnall bloud it selfe Fulke A monstrous shift when Hierom distinguisheth in expresse wordes the spirituall and diuine bloude by which wee are nourished from the carnall bloud that was shed with the speare by which wee are redeemed Wherefore he speaketh of the effect fruite as well as Clemens Sander That S. Hierom speaketh of the Sacrament it is proued because he citeth such words out of S. Iohn as all the fathers reasons scriptures prooue to appertaine by way of promise to the supper as I haue prooued in twentie Chapiters togither of my thirde booke Fulke His citing of wordes out of the sixt of Saint Iohn prooue no more then drinking of the bloude of Christ c. in Clemens that hee speaketh of the Sacrament Your twentie Chapters are answered in as many by mee Iewel Saint Augustine saith Iudas betrayed Christ carnall thou hast betrayed Christ spirituall For in thy furie thou betrayest the holy gospell to be burned with wicked fire These wordes of Clement and Augustine agreeing so neere in sense and phrase with the wordes of Hierom may stand for sufficient exposition to the same Sander Augustine taketh Christ spirituall another way cleane diuerse from Clement or Saint Hierome
deprauing M. Iewels meaning which is that Christ in deede not phantastically or imaginatiuely but truely after a wonderful manner hath ioyned vs both body soule vnto himselfe by baptisme CAP. XX. Sander Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by the Sacrament of the altar or no. Fulke Euen as really as he dwelleth by baptisme none otherwise Sander He promiseth to declare that Christ dwelleth foure wayes in our body really when he commeth to the fourth way he spendeth all his strength to declare that Christs bodie is not really dwelling in our bodies Fulke I pitie your beggerly sophistrie grounded vpon the diuerse taking of the worde really CAP. XXI Sander That Christes bodie is proued to be really in the Sacrament by S. Chrysostomes wordes Harding By this Sacrament saith Chrysostom Christ reduceth vs as it were into one lump with himself and that not by faith only but he maketh vs his own bodie in deede Re ipsa which is no other to say then really Iewell This place would haue stand M. Harding in better steede if Chrysostome had said Christ mingleth his bodie with the Sacrament and driueth himselfe it into one lumpe Sander M. Iewel marketh not that Sacrament to be of it selfe the reall bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread wine therfore to say Christ is mingled with the sacrament were to say Christ is mingled with himselfe Fulke Sanders best argument is the whole matter in question alas poore wretched begger Iewell Neither wil M. Harding say that Christ mingleth himself with vs simply without figure whereof it followeth that much lesse it is so in the Sacrament Sander He meaneth that Christes own bodie is ioyned to ours simply without any figure of Rhetorike or Grammar but not without a mysticall figure Fulke If he meane that he mingleth himselfe with 〈◊〉 into one lump wtout al figure of Rhetorik then without all figure simply we are one lump with him as a lumpe of dough is one As for our wonderfull coniunction with him it is not that which is the figure but the mingling into one lumpe which are the words of Chrysostome Iewel It is a hot kind of speach such as Chrysostom was much delighted with It is a speach farre passing the common sense course of trueth Sander I thought you would bring it to a figure of speach but he taught it for a truth as we shal see anone Fulke As though an hyperbolical speach may not be true in any sense because it is not true in the common sense Iewell Himself thought it necessarie to correct and qualifie the rigor of the same speach by these words vt ita dicam which is as it were or if I may be bold so to say Sander In other places he vseth the terme of mingling without correction Fulke But in the same sense that he vseth it nowe with correction Sander The correction must be referred to the similitude or metaphor of a lump of dough wherunto he alludeth Fulke You are welcome home to a figuratiue speache Sander What if he vse no such correction or qualifying for as the edition of Parise doth witnesse his Greek wordes are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seipsum miscet nobis he mingleth himselfe with vs. Fulke If no other edition witnesse for the Latine translation let the translator answere for himself But his words being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are most aptly translated in Latine subigit seipsum nobiscum he kneadeth himselfe with vs which if it be not a figuratiue speach I report me to you Iewell In such phrase Anacletus saith the power of the holy ghost is mingled with the oyle Sander Pope Anacletus whose Epistle you esteeme as much as your shooe sole nameth not olcum oyle but holy chrisme Fulke And is not your chrisme oyle Although the Epistle be counterfeite and not worth a shooe latchet yet the phrase is vsed in it by him whosoeuer fained it and by you allowed in another sense then by transubstantiation Iewel Alexander saith the passion of Christ must be mingled with the oblations of the Sacraments Sander The worlde goeth hard with his note booke when he flieth to these decretall Epistles for the proofe of any thing especially for Latine phrases Fulke And why may not your owne suborned witnesses be examined to see if they can depose any thing against your owne selues that haue set vp such knightes of the post as those decretall Epistles are whome you your selfe flout for their Latine phrases which in deede can scarse keepe themselues within the bondes of congruitie Master Iewel hath plentifully displayed their forgerie so that he feareth not any mention of Masse or chrisme to be founde in them Iewell Nyssenus sayeth Saint Stephen was mingled with the grace of the holy ghoste Sander That saying prooueth that the grace of the holy ghost was really in S. Stephen as Christes body i◠really mingled with our bodies Fulke It might likewise prooue that S. Stephen was really in the gifts of the holy ghost for if you take grace for the fauor of God it was not really in Stephen but in the holy ghost himself If the one be absured so is the other except it be taken figuratiuely Iewel Chrysostom meant that we should consider that wonderfull coniunction which is betweene Christ and vs euen in one person Sander He confesseth more then we aske for we are not one person with Christ. Fulke Not as he is one of the three persons in trinity nor as his humanity assumpted into the deitie maketh one person with his death but as he is our head and the Church his body which is the fullnesse of him that filleth all in all things Where Sander confesseth the matter it is folly to striue for the phrase Iewell Leo saith the body of him that is regenerat is made the flesh of him that was crucified Sander Pope Leo speaketh of his mysticall flesh Fulke B. Leo speaketh of his naturall flesh but by a spirituall and mysticall kinde of making such as our regeneration is Iewell S. Augustine saith we are made Christ c. and both he and we are one whole man Sander He saith not one whole man but the whole man Fulke What number is man Master Doctor the singular or the plurall Sander Hee speaketh of a mysticall body of diuerse members made vp and perfected into a whole collegiat body But Chrysostom speaketh of Christes ioyning himselfe to euery faithfull man Fulke Sander vnderstandeth not the mysticall body of Christ which compareth it to a collegiat bodye or ciuill corporation with which it hath small similitude The scripture compareth it to a naturall body receiuing life and sense from the head Christes ioyning of himselfe to euery one of vs maketh vs all one body in him Iew. As we are by baptisme made Christes fleshe Christ in the same sense Chrysostome saith wee are made one lumpe with Christ and Christ hath tempered and mingled himselfe with vs. Sand.
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