opinion no errour from which Bellarmine rids him by this distinctioÌ„ In which positioÌ„ if ther be either Arrianisme as Genebrard wil haue it or Puritanism as this mate scornes it or Mahumetisme as Duraeus will inferre it or Manicheisme to which Canisius referres it then euen Genebrard himselfe is that way guiltie who oft so distinguisheth then was Pope Innocentius a Puritane who definitiuely concludeth for Lombard against Ioachimus the Abbat with authoritie and consent of the Councell of Lateran wee belieue and confesse that there is vna quaedam res one certaine thing incomprehensible and ineffable which truely is the Father Sonne and holy Ghost and euerie of these three persons is illa res that thing viz. the substance essence and nature diuine and illa res that thing is neither generans nec genita neque procedens neither ingendreth nor is begotten nor doth proceed but it is the Father which begetteth the Sonne is begotten the holy Ghost proceedeth that so distinctio sit in personis vnitas in natura there may be a distinction of the persons but an vnitie in essence theÌ„ is Bellarmine a Puritan for he alleadging Simlerus his confession non negamus filium habere essentiam à Deo patre sed essentiam genitam negamus wee denie not the sonne to haue his essence of the Father but we deny that the essence is begotten the very opinion for which the Puritans are challenged seeth no reason cur haec sententia catholica dicenda non sit why this position should not bee catholike and orthodoxall Then is Epiphanius a Catharist who calleth Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfect of himselfe God of himselfe and Origen also who calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 life of himselfe which is all one for idem est Deo esse viuere say the schoolemen it is all one in God to be to liue Briefly the mystery is intricate in quo humanum laborat ingenium saith S. Augustine intangling the wit exceeding the speech of any man this obiection no controuersie but a slaunder long since vnaunswearably rebutted by vs into their teeth sauing that with the poet their malice so either delighteth or deceiueth them that they had rather continue a cauill vainely contumeliously Quà m sapere ringâ— And now from heauen like Lncifer hee glides to hell 5 Finally they denie the dâ—scention of Christ into hell and desperately defend that he suffered the paines of hell vpon the crosse whereby they blaspheme most horribly that sacred humanitie as if Christ had despaired of his saluation as if God had hated him and hee had hated God as if he had beene afflicted and tormented with anguish of mind for his offences for which hee was depriued of the sight of God and eternally to bee depriued all which horrible punishmentes are included in the paines of hell and whosoeuer ascribeth them to Christ blasphemeth more horribly then Arrius who denyed him to bee God for lesse absurditie were it to deny him to bee God then to make God the enemy of God Aunsweare What Puritans denie or affirme the Church of England whome this libell principally attainteth meaneth not to defend which to cut off all factions in opinions about religion hath ioyntly concluded the whole summe of her profession within the compasse of forty articles the third whereof is this As Christ died for vs was buried so withall it is to be beleeued that he went downe into hell which it inioyneth vs to beleeue not so much beecause it is an article in the Apostles Symbole so called for it is notorious that this article was not admitted into the Creede 300 yeares after Christ neither by the East nor West churches omitted also in the Nicene Creede nor any where extant as Aquinas confesseth in Symbolo patrum in the articles which the auncient fathers doe recompt but as being grounded vpon manifest scripture Psal. 16. and Act. 2. The exposition thereof not onely in moderne times but euen presently after the admitting thereof diuers and different euery part of the proposition hauing a diuerse acceptation in the scriptures For the proposition beeing this Christ descended into hell the subiect Christ is sometimes put for his person sometimes for the efficacy of his death his person somwhere for his Diuine elswhere for his humane nature his humanitie in some places for his body onely in other for his soule alone and sometimes for both his person and his office The copula descended signifieth either a locall motion from a higher to a lower place or some more speciall preâ—ence and effectuall power shewed more in one place then another as God saying in Genesis that he wil go downe and the holy Ghost descending in the Baptisme of Christ Math. 3. The praedicate Inferos Hell either the graue or the place of the damned or the miserablest state which may befall a man either by immineÌ„t perils pursuing him which was Dauids Hell Psal. 18. or anxietie of mind tormenting him which was Annaes Heâ—l 1. Sam. 2. 6. or both ioyned together which was Ionas Hell in his bodie distressed being deuouted of a whale in the deepe sea in his mind feeling Gods high displeasure vppon him for his disobedience Ion. 2. From which varietie of sence there issue fiue seuerall interpretations of this article none of them exorbitant from the scriptures tracke or erring from the analogy of faith 1 That Christ his bodie was laid in the graue 2 His soule separate from the bodie went to the place where were the soules departed 3 His Deitie exhibited it selfe as it were present in the lowest pit to the terrour of the deuils and further despaire of the reprobate 4 That the efficacie and power of his death did euen thether stretch it selfe 5 That Christ suffered those extreme anguishes and torments which for our sakes by his father appointed he was to endure There is also a sixth which passeth most rife among thâ— Fathers who taking Inferi for Abrahams bosome expound it that Christ weÌ„t thether ad liber andum liberandos to conuay the Fathers deceased before his resurrection into the place where nowe they are but not returning as the grosse Papistes expresse him like another Hercules Thoseus with a flagge and a crosse Saint Austen confesseth he could not satisfie himselfe with any exposition thereof especially of that place of Saint Peter which seemes most to confirme it Cyprian or Ruffinus approue the first that hee lay in his graue The schoolmen mightilie trouble their heades 1. into what place of hell hee went Thomas includes all the parts of hell as they haue diuided it that as an haruenger he scowred Limbus patrum and rid all from thence as a conqueror he presented himselfe in Tartarus for the terror of the damned as a visitor he surueyed Purgatory promising them remission 2. Howe
hee descended and was there Caietan standes to it that hee was there secundum effectum powerfully not personally Durande that his soule was in Paradise secundum essentiam substantially but in Hell ad effectum Their Apollo Aquinas that hee was in Limbo patrum in the first manner in the other partes of hell onely in power and effect 3. Whether he endured the paines of hell or were in loco paenae sine paena as Bonauenture wil or in paine torment as Caietan collecteth out of Psal. 16 4. What fruit and profite his descention wrought whether he conferred any essentiall blessednes on the saints which makes against Augustine or increase thereof onely by hope of euasion from Purgatorie in time 5. Whether the soules in Abrahams bosome only or other besides them were manumitted and among the rest yea one legend will haue it before the rest Plato his soule had the preheminence hauing the grace first to receiue the faith These curious quaerees and fabulous eliminations of hels secrets which S. Iohn properly calleth the deepnes of Sathan haue made men of zeale and iudgement to recourse to the scriptures if there they may find a more full certain Theologicall sence of that article Nowe then if the Puritanes as this scorner tearmes them among these Hydraheaded expositions one suppullulating after another admit of the last viz. his extreme agonie and feare in the garden and on the crosse induced thereunto respectiuely considering 1. the basenesse of that nature wherein hee was vilified despicatissimi vernaculi imó vermiculi saith S. Bernard 2. The cause he vndertooke our sinnes 3. The punishment for them an accursed death Besides the phrases in scripture expressing those anguished of mind in the ingresse of this abissus his soule heauie euen vnto the death Mat. 26 with that strong crie and teares to bee deliuered Hebr. 5 in the progresse therin those grumi sanguinis clots of bloud breking from him Luc. 22 in recessu intimo when he was deepest in that dreadful clamor expressing a most horrible passion My God my God why hast thou forsaken mee Math. 27 with-all his triumphes ouer the powers of hell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 admitt which you please either the first referring it to his crosse as Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vpoÌ„ the tree where he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traduce them openly videlicet those spoiles which by conquest hee had recouered from the strong man Math. 12. or the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in himselfe which must be referred to bodie and soule both together which could not be in hell locally his bodie neuer desceÌ„ding thether therefore to bee referred to his suffering which for that cause Bernard calleth actio passiua passio actiua if vpon these inducements hauing as they thinke more pregnant proofe in scripture then any the rest they sticke to this put case the exposition be not the most proper yet are they not to be accused of denying the article for misse-interpretation is no deniall perhaps to expresse more liuely and impresse in our thoughtes more deepely that direfull conflict which for vs wretches it pleased him to endure they haue vsed woordes somewhat hyperbolicall as despairing and forsaken yet if first we consider our Sauiour in his meere humane nature the deity as it were sequestring it selfe for a time to lay him more open to this dreadfull combate secondly that both some of the Fathers and also their owne writers haue vsed almost the very same woordes of extremitie S. Ierome that he did trepidanter renuere with treÌ„bling refuse Damascene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was truely and vnfainedly affrighted citing Athanasius for his authoritie Rabanus that his humane nature was derelicta forâ—orne forsaken and therefore câ—ied out as we do in extreame daungers and agonies qui deseri nos putamus thinking and saying with Dauid wee are cast out of the sight of Gods eyes and Canus that being derelictus à deo omnique penitùs solatio destitutus forsaken of God left void of all coÌ„fort froÌ„ him he culd not but sorrow surely theÌ„ this accusatioÌ„ of denying this article of blasphemous Arrianisme allightes vpoÌ„ these fathers themselues as vpoÌ„ the Puritans But whoÌ„soeuer this imputation toucheth it no way concerneth as at first said our English professors who establish that article inioyning it to be accepted as an article of faith the exposition whereof as it is generally receiued in England that right reuerende Father the B. of Winchester hath set downe And so at last wee haue found an end of this long article consisting of so maâ—y branches Whereof wee may say with the Greeke Philosopher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it hath had many lies as many contumelies The Fifth Article The Protestantes haue no meane to determine controuersies and abolish heresies As the Protestantes neither know what they beleeue nor why they beleeue so haue they no means in their church to settle them in vnitie of beleefe noâ— to determine controuersies nor to abolish heresies as hath the Catholike church Aunsweare THis is like the Sophister who hauing spent all his argumentes beefore his houre cries out repetamus omnia breuiter rotundè let vs goe ouer them againe briefly and roundly hee wanted matter to fill vp his odde nomber of fiâ—ue therfore he botcheth it vp with the second third and fourth articles bringing vs backe to his why what making vs worse then emperikes and quackesaluers for they know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that such a salue is good for such a wound but not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reason thereof as for vs we know neither why nor what we beleue The great Philosopher thought that orators which would demonstrate their coniectures Geometricians which would perswade their principles were very foolish because neither thinges probable could be ratified by demonstrations nor thinges necessary are to be induced by perswasion The grounds of our faith are supernaturall and diuine the cause spirituall and inward and therefore not to be examined nor aunsweared by why and what that is humane reason yet we say as before that the what the matter of our faith is the holy scripture written that we might beleeue saith Iohn which without doubting we must beleeue saith Austen The why that is the meanes why wee beleeue ex auditu Rom. 10 by the word preached that is oleum effusum in S. Bernard The cause why ex motu the inward operation of the spirite that is oleuÌ„ infusum For magisteria are adiutoria saith Augustine the ministerie of the word is a coadiutor with the spirite but cathedram in coelo habet qui corda docet he that informeth the heart is the doctor of the chaire not of Moses in the Synagogues schooles of Ierusalem
vnsauery sayth Iob and malice without arte is vnarmed bitternesse and a distempered folly and therefore as those iangling rudesbies titular Doctors in S. Paules time knew not what they spake nor whereof they affirmed so saith IeroÌ„ Heretikes cum disputare nesciant tamen litigare non desinunt though they cannot reason yet they will wrangle and for want of Logicke they will chop Logicke His syllogismes are wasted now hee comes to profound diuisions of why and what and the Protestantes ignorance in both which he inforceth by a double reuiew That they know not why they beleeue I haue shewed before For that the ground of their belefe iâ— not the authoritie of the Scâ—ipture of Councels of Doctours nor of the Church but their owne fancie Aunsweare Both these reuiewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are returned with a remaund semblable the first where he hath shewed it I haue aunsweared and there let him search it the second with Nazian that Tautology is no meanes of breuitie which hee so affectes in pretence and request But what diuinitie is this to call a Christians beliefe to a why vidâ—licet to calculate the mysteries of faith by proofe of reason a thing countercheckt by all the Fathers especially Clement Alex. in generall and particularly by Eusebius in the Antemonistes who weighed all the articles of Faâ—th by Logicall Syllogismes For some which haue faith saith S. Augustine haue not copiam defendendi fidem not the skill to apologize their faith or render reason thereof and hee which hath this skill doctior est non fidelior is the greater clerke not the â—ounder Christian therfore his rule elsewher is not to discusse the diuine mysteries but to beleeue them non rationem requirere sed fidem simpliciter exhibere And the Apostle S. Peter when he wils vs to be ready to satisfie euery man poscenti rationem desâ—e that asketh a reason of our hope meaneth that neither we should be ashamed of our faith in our publike confession nor to shame it by a depraued conuersation For to giue a reason of matters of faith is not possible they beeing supernaturall and mans reason in that knowledge but a beast saith Ieremy neyther were it so is it a faculty generall but sapientum tantum saith Aquinas And they which desire by questioÌ„s to be resolued in the deepe mysteries of faith doe it not as Anâ—elme speaketh vt per rationem ad fidem accedaâ—t that by reasons or resolutions they might be induced to beleeue sed vt â—orum quâ— credunt ontemplatione delectentur For articles of faith are the obiectes of admiâ—ing contemplation not of Logicall demonstration saith Basil. yet to follow this fellow his absurde methode wee can shew him a tâ—iple why three reasons of our beliefe the cause why the meanes why and the ende why the procatarcticall or first moouing cause the grace and power of the spirite inclining our hartes to beleeue the demiurgical or instrumentall meanes the word of God read or preached the teleioticall or finall cause eternall life which wee by faith expect the first for this purpose called spiritus fidei 2. Cor. 4. 13. the second verbum fidei 1. Tim. 4. 6. the last finis fidei 1. Pet. 1. 9. so then the Protestants why is that which the Schoolemen call sufficiens inductiâ—um not onely doctrina diuina the holy scripture sed quod plus est saith Aquinas interior instinctus dei inuitantis the inward inspiration motioÌ„ of the spirite Let the case be in that article of our belefe the incarnatioÌ„ of Christ demand of a ChristiaÌ„ why he belieues this his answere wil be because the Scripture recordes it but reply vpon him why he beleeues the Scripture his reason exceedes a why it is the finger of God opening his hart els when S. Peter handeled those great mysteries in his sermon Act. 2. why had some of them compunctionem spiritus vers â—7 the pricking of the spirite whereby their hartes were moued to beleeue but others of them spiritum compunctionis Rom. 11. their hartes pricking against the spirite resisting it partly by doubting vers 12. partly by scoffinge vers 13. the same Scripture opened to theÌ„ all but the same spirite not working alike in all If any aske a why of this beliefe S. Paule will crie out not aunsweare O altitudo Rom. 11. non est disputationis sed stuporis saith Ambrose it is a matter of amazemeÌ„t not of argument And therfore the scholemen define credere to be an acte of the vnderstanding assenting to the diuine trueth ex imperio voluntat is a deo motae per gratiam at the commaund of the will so mooued by the grace and spirite of God a resemblance familiar will make this euident There are in euery man three parts 1. Thes. 5. 23. flesh soule and spirite or rather three men in one man 1. Cor. 2. the carnall naturall the spirituall man and each of these hath his seuerall eye that Chrystalline humor for the body the reason for the soule and faith for the spirite Now then as the eie of the body thogh it be the caÌ„dle of the body Math. 622. yet the apple in the eie is the eie of that eie saith Philo and as the eie of the minde is reason Eccles. 2. 14. yet the eie of that eie is the vnderstandinge sayth Aquinas so the eie of the part regenerate is faith but the eie of that eie is the spirite of God for in his lighte doe wee see light Psal. 36. 9. therefore as in the bodily sight shine the Sunne neuer so glorious be the aire neuer so cleere and the medium neuer so transparent yet if the apple in the eie be vnsound the sight will faile and deceiue for he that lookes through a miste saith Basil seeth a misse so be the media of our beliefe optimé disposita the Scripture perspicuous the church testimonie euideÌ„t the torrent of Fathers euery way concurrent the decrees of Councels vnalterably constant yet if the spirite of God qui sensum dat assensum mouet saith Bernar. worke not vpon the wil forcing the assent thereto all the other are in vaine Wherefore if wee bee asked why we beleeue our aunsweare is that we ascribe the cause to Gods inspiration and the meanes to the words ministration As for this Cuckow-like Palinodie of Councels Doctours and Church beeing the fa-burden of euery article hetherto it argueth the barrennesse of his conceite and the badnesse of his cause but deserues no other aunsweare then hee hath receiued before And now wee must come to his second profunditie of what we beleeue And that they knowe not what they beleeue is manifest beecause they haue no rule wherby to know what is matter of faith and what is not Some will limit their beleefe
Libeller being his owne Whosoeuer beleueth a particular church to be the Catholike denyeth that article But the Papistes avow and beleeue Rome to be the Church ergò The Papistes denie that article But that I promised at his request to aunswere seriously I might play with him about his wheate tree and aske him where he was borne and how corne growes I haue read in S. Basil that coales readie burnt haue growne vpon trees but that corne hath bulkt into a stemme and branched out into armes non me pudet fateri nescire quod nesciam I neuer heard or read but let his folly passe we will follow him to the second article denied as hee saith by vs. 2 The second article is the Communion of Saintes the which they deny many waies First by not beleeuing that Christ hath instituted seuen Sacraments wherein the Saintes of his church communicate Aunsweare The Protestantes denie that Christ instituted seauen Sacraments ergó They denie the Communion of Saintes The argument is denied as beeing arena sine calce an inâ—erence without any coherence there beeing no semblable relation betweene fiue of those Sacramentes and this article of the Câ—eede Yet the Anabaptistes reason more properly who beecause we detest their Platonicall communitie as accompting Meum Tuum to be more consonant to Gods law and all Christian policie do thereby inferre that wee deny the Communion of Saintes But to this purpose for the article we beleue and confesse that among the saintes on earth though distant in place or different in condition or aliens by nation there is an vnitie in religion an vnanimitie in affection a sympathie in affliction a mutuall charitie for reliefe each of other either comforting the mind if vexed or supplying the wantes if distressed or supporting the weakenesse if vnsetled or reforming the ignorance if blinded or praying for deliueraunce if oppressed falsifying that Heathenish and vncharitable prouerbe Amici qui degunt procul non sunt amici This is our faith without breach whereof notwithstanding we denie seauen sacramentes to bee Christes ordinaunce If he meane of them which denie al the seanen he should say somewhat but not touch vs who acknowledge two which ratifie this article most Baptisme an initiation or entraÌ„ce into this Communion and the Lordes Supper which by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and speciall priuiledge is intituled by S. Paule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the communion But if the force of this argument lie in the septenarie nomber as it seemeth by the Tridenrine anathema it must then all the auncient fathers some of their owne doctors are as obnoxious to this imputation of denying this article as we The obiections by our men out of Iustine Tertullian and Augustine in diuers places are triuiall and stale but especially out of Ambrose who of purpose writing a treatise of the Sacramentes â—eckons but two Isidore and Gregory excede not three As for the Sacrament of Matrimonie grounded vpon an ignorant translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes. 5. Canus citeth the infinite differences and digladiations of the schoole doctors there about Lombard the first hammerer of this seuen folde shield by a close consequent denieth it to be a sacrament because it conferreth not grace as all Sacraments must doe by their diuinitie Erasmus constantly affirmeth that in S. Ieromes time it was accompted no sacrament Durandus minceth it with an vnivocé and stricté saying that it is a sacrament after the larger size not properly But Alexander Alensis the ancientst schole man of credite concludeth that Christ instituted but two sacramentes which hee proueth both by Christs side pierced out of which issued water and bloud and also by that triple testimonie agreeing in one the spirit water and bloud reliqua per ministros Ecclesiae ordinata the rest were the inuentions or additions of church gouernours And Petrus a Soto coÌ„fesseth that the elementes woordes and effectes of foure sacramentes cannot be proued by the scripture Compendium Theologiae is forced to say that the element which in all sacraments is an externall substance and materiall is the action and humiliation of the partie penitent and the woord adioyned to make it a full Sacramente is the Priestes absolution S. Bernard puts in the Maundie of Christ for a Sacrament and so makes eight others and aboue the rest Dionys. Areopag leaues out matrimonie and so finds but sixe But will you see two foxes tied by the tailes and their heades turned counter this hood winckt libeller saith wee denie seauen but Duraeus the Schottish champion for Campian findes that Caluin Beza and Melancthon agree vpon the full nomber of seauen both alike true for we denie but fiue hauing the authoritie and precedent of 500. yeares but for two onely and none of ours euer allowed of the whole seauen And therefore I conclude this point first that if our denial of iust seauen bee a blot to that article wee are not the first the Fathers after the Scriptures directing vs and â—ounder schoole-men of their owne agreeing with vs. Secondly when he shall bring for those fiue pseudo-sacramentes either the institution of Christ to authorize them or any commaundement to vse them or any promise of remission annexed to them or any element by God appointed for them we will with reuerence embrace them but their greatest clarkes hauing failed heerein wee may not expect it at the hands of this sneaking atomite And seeme they neuer so zealous in defence of their sacramentes Saintes communion how basely they esteeme of them one case in their Cannon law will demonstrate which I singled as concerning this purpose fitly It happeneth that one in iusting and torneament is cast his horse falling vpon him bruiseth him mortally it is permitted vnto him to communicate of the Eucharist to be annointed with oile and to doe pennaunce there are three sacramentes and yet after all this hee must bee denied Christian buriall First note the absurditie to preferre buriall aboue the chiefest sacrament then the vncharitablenesse to forbid his bodie to sleepe among Christians who died in their sight a Christian which is a kind of deniall of this article Christian buriall bein some respect a communion of Saintes And specially the true and reall presence of our Sauiour Christ in the Eucharist by which all the faithfull members participating of one and the selfe-same body are made one bodie as all the partes of a mans bodie are made one liuing thing by participating of one soule Aunsweare To discourse of this double controuersy de modo essendi edendi of the manner of Christes beeing and our eating him in the sacramente consideringe how their schoolemen leauing the simple trueth of Gods word haue verified that prouerbe Mendacij multiplex est diuortium and are at daggers drawing among theÌ„selues would aske more time then I
vouchsafe to spend in aunsweare of so base a pamphlet as this the soundest and acutest of them hauing descanted whether he be there as quantum or quantitas or if so whether locally or if so whether circumscriptiuely in the ende are driuen to say that he is there secundum quendam modum huic sacramento proprium qui est sacramentalis Indeede if Christes naturall bloud were as properly ours as euery mans owne bloud is his own some shew there were of this reall and carnall communion of which he speakes but sithence his bloud saith Canus is no otherwise ours but as the light of the sunne is by participation as of those beams so of his graces that as the 〈◊〉 keeping his certaine tabernacle in the heauens Psal. 19. doth nourish and cherrish with his heate brightnesse these inferiour sublunary bodies so Christ sitting there as hee must doe till his comming in maiestie Act. 3. 21. without locall motion or carnall application communicateth with his saintes in that holy sacrament the forcible power of his bodie bloud which worketh so mightily in faithfull hartes that both it settleth the kingdome of God within theÌ„ Luc. 17. lifteth them into heauenly places Eph. 2 faith being that Eagles eie which spying the pray a farre off as Iob speaketh maketh the saintes resort thether where the carcasse is Math. 24. And for the second great difference there is perchance not obserued by many betweene our eating of Christ and our vniting with him Wee are vnited vnto him vt viuenti as our liuing head nos viuificanti and making vs his liuelie members We eate him as our Passeouer 2. Cor. 5 that as the Israelites eate the one mortuum assum deade and roasted Exod. 12 so wee him crucifixum passum dead and slaine and so that speech of Austen is true that we haue him here in pabu lo as he was in patibulo torne and rent as himselfe ordained the sacraâ—ent in 〈◊〉 fracto not integro the bread broken not the whole loafe therby signifying yea saying that in doing it wee must remember him not as liuing among vs but as dying for vs vt in cruce non in caelo as hee was crucified not as hee is glorified whereby wee conclude first for his presence that his body is so farre foorth there quatenus editur as it is eaten but his bodie is eaten as dead and slaine so himselfe appointed it This is my bodie and stayeth not there but addes withall which is giuen for you and his bloud is droncke not as remayning in his vaines but as shed so himselfe speaketh This is my bloud of the new testament shed for many Now his bodie bruised his bloud poured out can no otherwise be present in the Eucharist but by a representation therof in the bread broken in the wine effused of the one side and on the communicantes part by a grateful recordation of the benefites a reuerent valuation of the sacrifice a faithfull application of his merites in his whole passion and therfore his presence must be sacramentall and our eating spirituall for non quod videtur séd quod creditur pascit saith S. Augustin Secondly for the vnion It is true which Christ saith that hee which eateth my flesh abideth in me and I in him Ioh. 6. 56. not that this vnion is first begun in the participation of that holy supper for none can truely eate the bodie of Christ vnlesse hee bee first vnited with him and ingrafted into him nec veré edit corpus Christi qui non est de corpore Christi saith S. August because prima vnio saith Aquinas the first vnion betweene God and man is begunne in Baptisme by one spirite into one bodie as the Apostle speaketh 1. Cor 12. continued by faith hope and charitie all these the operation of the spirite But if we truely eate the bodie and drinke the bloud of Christ then by the power of the holy Ghost and faith cooperating this vnion is strengthened the vigour and effectes whereof after a true participation we shall feele in our selues more forcible and liuely An vnion more stronge and neere then that which he 〈◊〉 speakes of the bodie and soule for the soule may be separated from the bodie but the elect meÌ„bers of Christ caÌ„ neuer be disiointed from him and therefore the whole bodie of his church is sometimes called by his owne name not as the Antiochians Christians but Christ so Ambrose reades that place Gal. 5. Qui sunt Christi They which are Christs in the nominatiue plurall not in the genitiue singular Briefly for both I aske is not Christ as present in Baptisme as in the Eucharist for in them both wee communicate with him bredd a new in the one fed a new in the other and yet Christes reall presence is not challenged for Baptisme if they say no beecause of the Eucharist it was said This is my bodie and bloud not so of Baptisme I aunsweare as much if not more was spokeÌ„ by the Apostle They which are baptized haue put on Christ put him on we cannot vnlesse hee bee present and the putting him on is euen the very same which he els where calleth Christs dwelling in vs. Eph. 3 namely that in Baptisme we are so transformed as now not wee but Christ alone doth liue within vs Gal. 2. as neere an vnitie as may And in trueth S. Augustin is out of doubt that in Baptisme the true member of Christ corporis sanguinis Domini particeps fit is partaker of the bodie and bloud of the Lord and therfore no reason withstandes but that he should be really present in both or in neither Againe is it wee or they which denie the communion of Saintes in this sacrament we keeping Christes institution and commaÌ„dement participating it to all which by S. Paule his rule haue first tried and examined themselues and in both kindes the bread the cup or they which by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle speaketh their priuate masse as they terme it haue turned coenam in scenam the supper into a spectacle and this blessed sacrament into an heaue offering feeding the peoples eyes with the priestes eleuation and sole mastucation or if once in a yeare they vouchsafe them the communion they defalke on halfe denying them the cup which by Lombards collection out of S. Ambrose is to denie the redemption of the soule for the bodie saith hee was broken for the freedome of our bodies and the bloud was shed for the redeming of the soule as it was prefigured in Moses law Thus they makiâ—g their laiâ—ie but Easter Saintes suffering them no other time to communicate with them and theÌ„ also denying them that coÌ„munion which assures them to bee saintes in bereauing them of the cuppe to which that blessiâ—g was added which was not