A FRIENDLY CAVEAT TO IRELANDS CATOLICQVES, CONCERNING THE DAVNGEROVS Dreame of Christs corporall presence in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: grounded vpon a letter sent from the Catholicques, &c.
To the reuerend Fathers, the holy Iesuits, Seminaries, and all other Priests that fauour the holy Romane religion within the kingdome of Ireland.
HVmbly praieth your Fatherly charities,Rider. F. W. and P. D. with many other professed Catholicques of the holie Romane religion: that whereas of late they haue heard some Protestant Preachers confidently affirme, and (as it seemes vnto our shallow capacities) plainly do prooue, that these positions here vnder written cannot be proued by anie of you, to be ether Apostolicall or Catholicque by canonical Scripture, or the auncient Fathers of the Church which liued and writ within the compasse of the first fiue hundred yeares after Christs ascension: which assertion of theirs, hath bred in [...]our suppliāts great doubts touching the trueth of the same: vnlesse your fatherly [...]ccustomed charities be extended presently to satisfie our consciences in the same, [...]y the holy written word of God, & such Fathers of the Church as aforesaid, which being so directly and plainely proued by you (as aforesaid) may be a speedie meanes to conuert many Protestants to our profession. Otherwise, if these points [...]annot be so proued by you, vpon whose learned resolution we greatly relie, then [...]ot onely we, but many thousands more in this kingdome of Ireland, can hold [...]hese points to be neither Apostolicall or Catholicque. And thus hauing shewed [...]me of our doubts, we desire your fatherly resolutions, as you tender the credit [...]f our religion, the conuincing of the Protestants, and the satisfying of our poore [...]onsciences. And thus crauing your spedie learned and fatherly answeres in writing, at or before the first of Februarie next, with a perfect quotation of both [...]cripture and Fathers themselues, not recited or repeated by others for our better [...]struction: and the aduersaries spedier & stronger confutation, we cōmend your [...]ersons and studies to Gods blessed direction and protection.
Positions.
That Transubstantiation, or the corporall presence of Christs bodie and bloud in the Sacrament, was neuer taught by the auncient fathers that euer writ in the first fiue hundred years after Christs ascention, but a spirituall presence onely to the faithfull beleuers.
[Page 24] 2 That the Church of God had not their seruice in an vnknowne tongue, but in su [...] language as euery perticuler Church vnderstood.
3 Thirdly, that Purgatorie and prayers for the dead were not then knowne in God Church.
4 Fourthly, that images & praying to Saints were then neither taught by the [...] Fathers, nor receiued of the Catholicque Church.
5 Fiftly, that the Masse which now the Church of Rome vseth, was not then known to the Church.
6 Sixtly, that there ought not to bee one supreame Bishop ouer all the world, and the Bishop to be the Pope of Rome: and that the said Pope hath not vniuersall iurisdiction ouer all Princes, and their subiects, in all causes Temporall and Ecclesiasticall.
The Protestant Preachers affirme, vnles you prooue the premisses by canonical Scripture they cannot be Apostolicall: & there fore bind not the conscience of anie And if they cannot bee proued by the said Fathers, then they be neither auncien [...] nor Catholike: And therefore to be reiected as mens inuentions.
Gatho. Priests.PRouoked to prooue either by Scriptures, or Fathers, which liued within the com [...] of fiue hundred yeares after Christs ascention, that the Primitiue Church and Catholicques of this time are of consent touching these Articles.
- 1 That Christ is really in the blessed Sacrament.
- 2 That scriptures should not be perused by the vulgar.
- 3 That praier for the dead and Purgatorie was beleeued.
- 4 That images were worshipped, and praiers made to Saints.
- 5 That Masse was allowed.
- 6 That the supremacie of the Pope was acknowledged.
Rider. Maister W. N. GEntlemen: the cause of this your prouokement was a quiet and milde conference vpon these positions, with an honorable Gentleman (and a speciall good friend of yours concerning religion) wherein he confidently affirmed, that the Iesuits ond Romane Priests of this kingdome, were able to prooue by Scriptures and Fathers, these Positions to be Apostolicall & Catholicque. And that the Church of Rome add the Romane Catholicques in Ireland now hold nothing touching the same, but what the holy Scriptures and primitiue Fathers held within the first fiue hundred yeares after Christs ascention. Now yf you in this conference for your part, haue made such proofe by the holy canonicall Scriptures, and such Doctors of the Church as aforesaid, I haue promised to become a Romane Catholicque: if you haue failed in your proofe (which I am assured you haue done,) he likewise before worshipfull witnesses hath giuen his hand, to renounce this your new doctrine of the church of Rome, and become a professor of the gospel of Christ.
This was the occasion and maner of your prouokement, which I hope the best minded will not mistake, nor you misconter, being onelie prouoked by your friend, 1. Pet. 3.15. yea and faith (if you refuse not Saint Peters counsell) to be readie alwais to giue an answere to anie man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.
The preface, in effect, which was concealed by M. Rider.
PRouoked to proue ether by Scripturs, or Fathers, which liued within the compasse of the first fiue hundred yeares after Christs ascention, that the pri [...]atiue Church and Catholicks of this tyme, are of consent [...]uching these Articles:
- 1. That Christ is realy in the B. Sacrament.
- 2. That Scripturs should not be perused by the vulgar.
- 3. That prayer for the dead, and purgatorie, was beleued.
- 4. That Images were worshiped, and prayers made to Saincts.
- 5. That masse was allowed.
- 6. That the supremacie of the Pope was aknowledged.
AT this only entrance, the whole residue was brought to a demurr, or adiurned to another tearme, or as M. Rider [...]armeth it, to a writt or rescript. Which adiurne, or rescript, as [...]et depriuing the world of the sayd preface, I thought cōueniēt to [...]eliuer the purport therof in few words. Prouoked (sayd I) to [...]roue by Scripturs, or Fathers, the forsayd articles: I perceaued [...]y challengers to haue pervsed the prouocations of Iuel, as famous or calling these maters into question, as Herostratus for burning [...]he temple of Diana; remembred only by infamie. For Laurence [...]umphrey the great Doctor of Oxford,Humphred in vita Iuelli pag. 212. writing the lyfe and com [...]endation of Iuel, omitted not to reprehend and reproue him, for [...]ch vaine and vnaduised appeale to the Fathers in these contro [...]ersies: Saying: Quid enim rei nobis cum Patribus? VVhat haue we to do [...]ith the Fathers? He could not be ignorant that in all the volums of [...]e Fathers nothing is treated, but what we professe; nothing [...]mmended or condemned but what we commend or condemne. [...]nd who could haue any distrust therof, but such as could not [...]ehould light in the sunne, or water in the sea?
[...]. This made Luther in defiance of the Fathers to exclame: I [...]re not yf a thousand Austins, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand Churches stood [...]gainst me. Hierom, doth cheefly angre me. Quia tantum de ieiunio, de de [...]ctu ciborum, & de virginitate scripsit: Si hoc saeculo viueret, nos planè damna [...]t. For he wryteth only of fasting, and choise of meats, and virginitie: Yf he [...]ued in this age, he would playnly condemne vs. Which is a playne confession [Page 26] and the cause therof not concealed:Luth. to. 2. pag. 340. Colloq. conuiual. c. de patribus. Colloq. Ger. de Schol. Theol. Fol. 499. Gregorie was deceaued by the deuil. Origenem iam olim excommunicaui. Chrysostomum nullo loco habeo, nihil est enim nisi loquaculus. Basilius planè nihil valet, totus est monachus. I haue long since excommunicated Origen. I disdayne Chrysostom, for he is nothing els but a babler. Basil is altogether of no accompt, he is wholy a monck. Cal. l. 3. Instit. c. 5. n. 10. Beza [...]p. 8. theolog. & 81. & in tract. de trip. episco. genere, ad Scotos circa an, 1579. Zuing. tom. 1. in explan. art. 64. Fol. 107. P. Mart. de votis pag. 50. 477. 490 476. Baleus in pref. Act. Rom. Po [...]tif. Muscul. in loc. con. de Scrip. sacr. pag. 164. 165. Secondly, Caluin saith of the Fathers generaly: Abrepti fateor in errorem suerunt; They were borne away in errour. Thirdly Beza saith: They followed Paganisme for a rule. The Fathers in the Concil of Nice vnderlayd the seat of the harlot that sitteth vpon seue [...] mowntayns. Fowrthly Zuinglius, The Fathers, yea forsooth the Fathers haue so professed: but I alleage to the no fathers or mothers, but the woord of God. Fiftly, Peter Martyr (whom they of Zurick sent to plante protestancie in England; which by hauing him, saith: Bale, was happie, and by wanting him was vnhappie) confesseth: As long as we remayne in Concils and Fathers, we will abyde euer in the same errours. Sixtly Musculus: Planè stolidissimus est, vel studiosè malignus in ecclesian Dei, quisquis Patrum calculis conscientias fidelium obstringendas censet; He is playnly most foolish, or wittingly malitious against the Church of God, who would bynde the consciences of the faythfull according the resolutions of the Fathers.
Cartur. l. 1. pag. 513. pag. 154. lib. 2. p. 507. 508. lib. 1. pag. 88. lib. 2. p. 502. 303. lib. 1. p 94. p. 103. p. 98. lib. 2. p. 622.Seuenthly, Cartwright; Seeking in the Fathers wrytings, is, a raking in ditches, a mouing and sommoning of hell, a measuring of trueth by the crooked yard of tyme. The Fathers imagined fondly; they deall lyke ignorant men; they were mastered by their passions; they had many errours. Clement, Anaclet, and Anicet are discharged for rogues, and men burnd in the forheads; Damasus spoke in the dragons mowth; Ambrose houldeth many things corruptly, and many errours, and violently inforceth the text; there is no sinceritie to be looked for at Hieroms hands; Augustins sentence is approued vnaduisedly, and therby a window is open to bring in all poperie; Ignatius was a counterfet and vayne man, &c. Causeus dial. 5. 8. 11. 8. Causeus, Dionisius was but a doting foolish, pernicious dreamer; Clement a spreader of drosse and dreggs; Ignatius, an idle trifler; Disp. Albe Iulie. in Actis 8. diti. de Hi rō Vide Bazam in A [...]t [...] Ap. c. 23. 2. ad Thes. 2. annot. 3. 2. ad Timoth. 3. annot. 8. 1. Cor. 7. annot. 1. & 9. & 28. Ireneus, a fanatical wryter; Cyprian, blockish and reprobat; Nazianzen, a babler; Ambrose, bewitched by the deuil; Hierom, no lesse damned then Lucifer, &c. Lastly, Alba Iulia Disputation: Nobis cum illis nihil est commune; VVe haue no participation with the Fathers.
31. These are the cheefe Reformers I could fynde in the world, and of all sorts the very principal: of Lutherās, Caluinians, Zuinglians, Puritās, Adiaphorists, Polimorphians, &c. Had not M. Rider occasion to cōceal this preface, wherin al aforsayd Reformers giue verdict against him, that he is (let no man thinke these reproaches [Page 27] to be myne) bound by his clayme to haue the Fathers his fauourers, [...] abyde still in errour: that he is playnly moost foolish and wittingly mali [...]use against the Church of God, &c. Who can blame him to affirme [...] is preface to be bitter and byting? And who can disblame him, [...]r imputing the bitternes therof from the wolues to the lambs, [...]om the kytes to the chicken, that is from them selues to vs? Yf [...]y vntruely would defeat vs of our right, the least we can be [...]lowed to doe, is to produce our euidences to disproue them. No [...]ore is now done by vs. Yf the Fathers be for Protestancy or [...]gainst it, lett all the world now freely determyne. I make but [...] is dilemma or two edged argument; yf the Fathers, by all pro [...]stāts, be cōfessed their aduersaries; how are they their approuers? [...]r yf they were approuers, how are they so vnreuerently, and [...]sdainfully mistermed: vnles you thinke, according trueth, that [...] your consociats deserue no other treatment?
[...]. In your first line you chaunge a woord, (and, for or, Rider.) which greatly altereth [...]e Catholickes question, and is farrefrom our first meaning. For we hold with [...]hrists trueth, that vnlesse the written word of God first warrant it, we are not [...]ound in conscience to beleeue it, though all the Doctors and Prelates in the [...]orld should sweare it.
VVhether it be not all one to say, Scripturs or Fathers. to be for any opinion, as to say, the Scriptures and Fathers to be for the same?
[...]2. I Confesse, that M. Rider came to me the 2. Octob. 1602.Fitzimon. to reclaime his resignation of these controuersies to Scripturs or Fathers seueraly; resoluing not to accept the Fathers for arbitrers, vnlesse they had the scripturs [...]onioyntly concurring with them. A poore retraict; First because [...]y promise, and all his printed books, he had appealed to them [...]ot conioyntly, but seueraly: Secondly, because it is a seelye [...]magination to thinke they may be seperated.S. Aug. con. Pelag. l. 2. c. 10. For S. Augustin [...]weetly, according to his maner, instructeth all Christians to [...]now concerning the Fathers; Quod inuenerunt in Ecclesia, tenuerunt: [...]uod didicerunt, docuerunt: quod à Patribus acceperunt, hoc filijs tradiderunt. That which they fownd in the Church, they retayned: that which they learned, [...]hey tawght: that which they receaued of their fathers, that they deliuered to [...]heir children. And consequently, what the Apostles recaued of Christ, they deliuered to their successours; their successours, to [Page 28] their scholers; their scholers, to their disciples, &c. Which as it is conformable to the Apostle S. Paul, Ephes. 4.12. so is it perfectly confirmed by him, saying; God to haue giuen Apostles, Euangelists, Pastours, and Doctors, to the cōsummation of the holy, vntill we all meete in vnitie of faith, and knowledge of the Sonne of God; that is, that he had giuen such instructers, as by true, and lawfull discent, and succession, should informe the ages succeeding one another, in one faith, and knowledge of one God; vntill the first, midle, and last, be gathered into the flock of Christ. And as the later should receaue from the former Baptisme, and other Sacraments; so also should they receaue all other truth: which would be infallible vnto thē, yf they would not leaue their forefathers to follow their owne braynsick nouelties.
D. VVhitg. lib. 2. pag. 353. 507. 508.Therfor VVhitgift worthely exclaimed at the Puritans, excepting against the Fathers as being wresters, and sorcers, of the text, the Scripturs not hauing any other searchers, defenders, conseruers but them. Therfor also Caluin worthely taxeth their presumption,Cal. in trac. Theol. p. 471. who vnreuerently insinuated the Fathers did disagree from scripturs, they hauing from hand to hand of their predecessours receaued the vnderstanding of them: they hauing by infinit labours expownded them they hauing by vertue of them planted Christianitie, excluded idolatrie, Beza epist. 81. pag. 384. surmoūted heresie. Therfor Beza worthely imputeth it, to ignorance, impudence and impietie, to diuorce or sequester Scripturs and Fathers, or to affirme where the Scripturs are, or Fathers, there they can be seueraly or otherwyse then only conioyntly. So that from first to last, who haue Fathers, they must haue Scripturs, and contrarywyse. And consequently, M. Rider first, and, last remayneth alyke ingaged.
But to make it euident to the most repining, and sparing conceit toward my allegations, that I neuer changed or, for and; and that all this is a friuolous & fals cauill, & pretext: who doth not know, that the ground and fundation of M. Riders clayme, was but a repetition and borowing of the owld impudent protestation of Iuel? In which not and, but or, is contayned in all the articles; it being sayd, ether by Scripture, or by the example of the primatiue Churche, or by the owld Doctors, or by the ancient Generall Concils. And yf any be able to proue any of these articles by any one cleare, or playne clause of ether Scripturs, or of the ould Doctors, or of any ould general Concils, or by any example of the primitiue Church within 600. yeares after Christ I promise to giue ouer and subscribe. So that I disproue hereby M. Rider, not only by his owne printed booke, but by his original copie: whence as he tooke the same clayme, so he ought to haue taken the same conditions. And therfor whether he wil or nill, he must stand, [Page 29] that not, but him selfe, and his Iuel, haue vndone him, by or, [...]d not and.
[...]. And this was demanded of you, not as the demanders doubted that the [...]nonicall Scriptures were insufficient to prooue any article of faith; but onelie, [...]at all men might see and so be resolued, whether the Protestants, or the now Ro [...]ane Catholiques ioyne neerest to Christs trueth, and the faith of the first primitiue [...]thers.
VVhether all beleefe be contayned in the written woord of God?
[...]3. ALl the proofe brought by M. Rider, Ioan. 10.31. so to perswade vs, is only in these woords; But these things are written, that you may beleeue that Iesus is the Sonn of God: and that beleeuing you may haue lyfe in his name. Good Lord! [...]hat inference is this:Hebr. 11. the things written serue to beleeue in Christ: therfor all beleefe is written? By S. Pauls declaration, [...]bel, Enoch, Noê, Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, &c. had vndoubtedly Faith: [...]et they had nothing of Scripture written. Secondly all the primitiue Church, had noe parcel of the new Testament, at least ten [...]earesafter Christ: wil you say they had no faith, or were not [...]ound to beleeue! Thirdly, the Creed of the Apostles,Vide P. Cottō, de sacrif. contre Caille predicāt. Gallice pag. 122. 126. 127. the consubstantialitie of the Trinitie, the procession of the holy Ghost, [...]he perpetual virginitie of our Ladie, the baptising of children, [...]he not rebaptizing of them by hereticks baptised, the breaking of [...]he sabaoth, and keeping of sunday, the obseruation of Easter in [...]he Christian and not in the Iewish maner, the receauing of the Sacrament fasting, the eating of blood, and strangled meat prohibited in the Acts, the not marrying of the sister in law, after the [...]rothers death, without heyres; and especialy I would know of [...]ur protestants allouing women to sing psalms in the Church, vnless they build it vpon some tradition true or false; how tremble [...]hey not to contradict the prohibition therof by the Apostle?1. Corinth. 14. 1. Timoth. 2. Wher fynde you these points of beleefe, which are beleeued in the whole Church, and some of them contrary to Scripturs, nor in any [...]cripture contayned?
Therfor, that the Scripturs alone are sufficient to proue euery [...]rticle of beleefe, to concurr with you once in a grammarian sentence, is qui nil dubitat, nil capit inde boni; he that thinketh so, vpon better consideration, may now thinke and say otherwyse. [Page 30] Are not these people easily perswaded to haue good proofs fo [...] their professiō when they cā cōfute vs about the name of Catholick by Vincentius Lyrinensis, about the Popes supremacie, by S. Bernard, and now about traditions by this text here alleaged? Doth M. Ride [...] thinke that he is Perseus on his wynged horse Pegasus, trāsforming al [...] his aduersaries into stones, that they can not discerne these prooft, to be no proofs,Cal. in 7. mat. et in 9. 12 16, 18. Ia c. 6. mac. v. 16.17.18. in c. 26. mat. In c. 2. Luc. 16. In Ioan. 1. Castal. in pref. Bibl. ad Edw 6. D. Whitg. a pag. 31. ad 51. Stow chron. pag. 1022. 1189. 1283. 1551. Melan. in loc. con. An. 1539. Fol. 8. & 10. An. 1545. fol. 53. An. 1558. loco de filio. Sebast. Fran. apud Bezam ep. 6. Cartwr. in 2. replie. pag. 191. Ioan. 10.31. but of stupiditie in them alleaging them? To ha [...]e the forsayd woords wel applyed in dede, let them first procure that Caluinians, leaue to doubt of the diuinitie of Christ. Let them be opposed to Castalio, mistrusting the Messias to be yet come. Let them be opposed to Atheists, abounding euery where, since reformation began. Let them debarr, that there be no successours to Francis Kett master of Art, to George Paris, and Ihon Lewes lately executed in England, for denial of Christs diuinitie. Let them confound Melancthon, allowing but a parcel of diuinie nature to our Saluiour. Let them cōfound Sebastia [...] Franck, accompting Christ no more God then Socrates, or Trismegistus. Let them confound Cartwright saying, the Iewes had bene fooles to accompt him their liuing God, whom they did behould a seely aend miserable man. These things are written, that such should beleeue Iesus is the Sonne of God: and that beleeuing they might haue life in his name. To proue any thing against vs, there can not possibly be any wyse application of them.
Rider.34. For that faith which can bee prooued to bee taught in Christs tyme, and so receiued and continued in the primitiue Church for the first fiue hundred yeares after Christs ascention, must needs be the true, auncient, Apostolicall, and Catholicque faith. And that other faith that cannot be so proued, is but base, bastardly, and counterfeit; and I trust in Christ, that the Reader easily shall perceiue before the ende of this small Treatise, that this your opinion touching Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament, (and so in the rest of the other Positions) was neuer taught by Christ, nor once dreamed on by the auncient Fathers, but inuented and deuised a thousand yeares after Christ, by the late Church of Rome: grounding their proofes onelie of an emptie sound of syllables, without Apostolical or Catholicque sence: enforcing both Scriptures and Fathers to speake what they and you pleased, not what the holie Ghost and the Fathers purposed.
VVhether M. Rider hath condemned his Church to be base, bastard, and cownterfet.
Fitzimon. All this app [...]areth in our 20. number, or 30. number.34. YF any thing by him was vnaduisedly affirmed, by this his verdict against his owne Church, he hath especialy disconfited his profession. For first therby he hath condemned Luther, and Caluin, and their adherents, affirming them to haue bene first preachers of Christ, [Page 31] and greatest doctours of trueth, not only aboue the primatiue [...]thers, but aboue all that euer were, or euer wilbe, whether they [...] Apostles, or noe. Yf then the religion of the first fiue hundred [...]res be only true, and all other but base, bastard, and counterfet: [...]w can this new religion,Haddon in the end of his epistle. Bale. cent. 1. pag. 66. 72 cent. 8. pag. 678. Epistle to the Confer. betwixt Latimer and Ridley-Harborough in the last oration. (which Haddon professed to haue bene [...]t thirtie yeares knowen; of which, all English late writters [...]compt Latimer to be the Apostle; and saying Luther to haue bene not [...]ly the reformer of abuses, but the very Father of trueth) but therby [...] condemned? Nay how are not the two most glorifyed Foxian [...]artyrs, Ridley, and Cranmer, therby cōdemned, saying: they would [...]oue all the doctrin sett foorth by K. Edward, to be more pure then [...]y other vsed in England a 1000. yeares befor? Is it not therby, [...]oth professed vnknowen till that time, as also not to be the do [...]rin of Christ? For had it bene knowen, and his promise true of [...]e inuincibilitie therof, 16. Matth. it could neuer haue had a 1000. [...]ares interruption. And what may be sayd of the Prince of Condees [...]scription in his coyne of Golde: Lud. XIII. Dei gratia Francorum Rex, [...]imus Christianus?
Secondly, all the disputations and monuments of all principall [...]otestāts, professing the primatiue Fathers of the first, secōd, third, [...]nd fowerth hundred yeares, repugnant to protestantcie, as appea [...]eth in the 30. nūber, by induction are therby cōdemned.Awnswer to Sawnders Rock. pag. 248. 278. Beza conf Geneu. c. 7. & 12. Et in c. 2. ad Thes. Thirdly [...]ll the learnedest protestants condemning the Church of the Apo [...]les tyme, and saying, Antichrist to haue then begunne, and condemning [...]l, and euery of the Apostles them selues, & Euangelists, and their [...]nmediat disciples; all these I say, are therby condemned. For yf [...]ese were fauorable to protestantcye,Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. col. 558. 559. 560. Cal. in 1. Cor. c. 4. v. 4. c. 7. v. 9. Rom. c. 9. v. [...]. Quintin. apud Resciā in pref. nimistromachie Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. Vide Calu. loc. cit. Bullinger. com. in 19. & 22. Apoc. Quintin. loc. cit. Calu. apud Feuard, pref. in Ruth. Beza de hist. adultere. Luth. tom. 5. fol. 439 440. vitus Theod. pag. vlt. in nou. test. there had bene no occasion [...] despise, or disprayse them in such maner, as to affirme such de [...]cts in S. Peter, as by the Centuriasts (who curiously and not only [...]refully haue calculated 15. synnes of his) by Beza, by Illyricus, are [...] disparage him, carefully, and plentifully registred. To affirme of [...] Paul, with Caluin; that he was full of colde, and heat, of presumption, te [...]eritie, confusion, and precipitation. And with Quintinus; that he was not a [...]osē vessel, but a brokē vessel. & with the Cēturiasts; that he was impatiēt, [...] in desperation, during his afflictiōs, in Asia; dissentiōs toward Barnabas, & hypo [...]tical toward Iames, & others. To affirme of S. Ihon, with Bullinger; that [...]his prōptnes to adore the angel he had synned in apostasie. With Quintinus; to [...]arme him: Iuuenē stolidulū; a foolish youth. With Caluin, to distrust his 6. Cap. [...]nd with Beza; his 8. Cap. for vntrue. To affirme of S. Iames, that he was a [...]ruerter of S. Pauls doctrin, his epistle bastard, coūterfet, wicked, & vnapostolical. [Page 32] To affirme with Luther; Luth. pref. ad nou. test, & in ep. Petri tom. 3. Wittemb. Calu. in c. 2. Mat. v. 15. c. 4. v. 13. c. 8. v. 17. c. 21. v. 9. c. 27. v. 9. Idem Act. 15. v. 40. Tower disp. 4. dayes Conference. Calu. in c. 21. Act. v. 23. the three first Euangelists to be apochriphal. To affirme in particular with Caluin; that S. Mathew, abused, distorted, and alleadged, vnaptly, diuers citations; That S. Marke was an Apostat, and disloial, not to be excused. To affirme with Luther; that S. Luke was excessiue in commending good woorcks; And with the Tower disputation; That hi [...] gospel is dowbtfull; And lastly of all Apostles with Caluin, to affirme; that they were ouer superstitiouse, and subiect to vice. Yf, I say, these had not bene repugnant to protestancye: why should they be thus disabled and disgraced.
Nether will I be contented, to haue their dislyke manifested in particular against these Apostles, and Euangelists, as repugnant to their profession; therby apparently testifying them selues not to haue bene aggreable to the Apostolical Church, and consequently by M. Riders owne verdict to be base, bastard, and counterfett: but I will also discouer, their abiuration of the owld and new Testament together, for being also vtterly against them: so that, they must be inforced to depend only vpon their Father of trueth, their Prophet, Apostle, Angel, Elias, and third person of heauen (as they tearme him num. 2.) their incomparable Luther, who neuer had not will haue his lyke,Luther. in epist. ad Argentin. An. 1525. certifying, and assuring him selfe, to haue bene first of that ranck, saying; Christum à nobis primo vulgatum audem [...] gloriari; VVe dare boste, Christ by vs first to haue bene published. To which purpose, I might haue no small furtherance by the disputation of the Tower,Tower disputation. 4. dayes Conference. disauthentising owt of the owld Testament Tobias, Iudith, Hester, Baruch, VVisdome, Ecclesiasticus, 2. books of Machabees, to which others adioyne the prayer of Manasses, 2. Paralipomenon, the Song of the Three children, the story of Bel; And owt of the new, S. Lukes gospel, Hebrues, Iames, 2. Peter, 2. and 3. of Ihon, Iude, Apocalips, &c. But hauing them altogether, by the resolution of protestant ring-leaders, need the lesse to linger about parcels. This then is Luthers decree concerning the owld testament.Luth. to. 3. Ienen. 1 par. Vide Iacob. Carion. in Chroncl. An. 1556. pag. 151. Basilea. Ne ingeretur nobis Moises. Nos in nouo testamento, Moisem nec videre nec audire volumus. Let not Moises be thrust vpon vs, we in the new testament will not abyde to see or heare Moises. That he had rather neuer preache, then propownd owt of Moises. That he that doth alleage any thing of his, Luther. serm. de Moise. doth depriue Christ owt of the harts of men. That Moises belongeth nothing to vs. That by receauing him all Iewish ceremonies must insue, &c. By Moises euery one vnderstandeth the owld Testament; which Luther saith belongeth not to protestants; and that they should not abyde to heare, or see it.
Now concerning the new Testament, thus speaketh Zuinglius: [Page 33] Quotiescun (que) siue Christus, siue Apostoli ad Scripturam relegant auditores, Zuingl. tom. 2. [...]lench. Con. Anabap. fol. 10. in [...]ligunt non suos Apostolos, aut euangelium, &c. As often as Christ or the [...]ostles remitt any to Scripturs, Ochinus lib. 2. dialog. pag. 154. 155. 156. 157. they do not vnderstand their epistles or the [...]spell, but the owld testament. Ochinus proceedeth more to the mater, [...]ying; Non debemus plura credere, quam crediderunt sancti faederis antiqui; [...]e should not beleeue more then the holy Saincts of the owld Testament. [...]herby he inferreth, that we should not be bound to beleeue the [...]rinitie, consubstantialitie, &c. Because they are in the new testa [...]ent only, and not in the owld. By all which most vnchristian [...]fidelitie, is testifyed, in the sight of God, and man, that these Re [...]rmers, were nothing agreable to Moises, the Prophets, Apostles, [...]d Euangelists, nor contrarywyse they to them.
But did the second hundred yeares Doctors cōtent them better?Contur. 2. cap. 4. pag. 55. 65. edit. Basil. par Ioan. Operin. Centur. 3. c. 4. p. 79. [...]o, say the Centuriasts: Multae enim monstrosae & incommodae opiniones [...]ssim à Doctoribus sparsè reperiuntur; Many monstruous and incommodous [...]nions are found dispersed by the doctours. What of the third? they answer: Doctores huius aetatis à vera doctrina Christi & Apostolorum de bonis [...]eribus declinarunt: the doctours of this age declined from the doctrin of Christ [...]d his Apostles, (as protestancie would haue it) for good woorks. Beza loc. cit in num. 30. & epist. 81. What [...]et of the fowerh? then was papistrie vnderlayd by the concile of Nice, say [...]hey, that congregation of Sophisters, then was the creed made of Sathanasius [...] Athanasius. The histories of their liues so testifie. What further might be sayd of the being of the [...]rincipal primitiue Fathers Heremits, Moncks, or Fryers: as for [...]xample; of Effrem, Climachus, Nazianzen, Basil, Hierom, Augustin, Da [...]ascen, Gregorie, &c.? Could these erecters of cloisters, and Abbaies, [...]e fauourers of the subuerters of them? Could these cōmenders [...]f lyturgies, or Masses, of Fasting, of care for the dead,Centuriae Magdeburgicae, Centuria 2. 3. 4. in Singularum capite 4. of Chastitie [...]f Inuocation of Saincts, of Good woorks, of Confession, of Tra [...]itions, of Preesthod, of the Supremacie, of ecclesiastical Cere [...]onies, and of all papistrie, being so acknowledged by your selues, [...]nd tearmed in the 30. number precedent; doting, foolish, per [...]tious, idle, fanatical, reprobat, bewitched by the deuil, no lesse damned then [...]ucifer, &c. Could I say these men, such commenders and so by [...]rotestants abused; be fauourers of Protestantcie? or the first fiue [...]undred yeares, wherin such men were Popes, Bishops, Prelats, [...]onfessours, Martyrs, and Saincts, and honored by all the Church [...]f that tyme; be fauourerers of the reprehenders of Masses, [...]asting, care for the dead, Chastitie, Inuocations of saincts, Good woorks, Confession, Traditions, &c.?
To conclude, could the condemners of them to be hereticks [Page 34] who denyed the real presence, [...]et. dial. 3. c. 19. [...]ertull. de prescrip. & in Sarpiaco. Iren. l. 3. Epiphan. heres by Basil de Spirit. S. c. 27. August. l. cō. Max. &c. Epiph. her. 53. Hieron. l. 1. con. Iouin. Marcel. de error. Montani. Clem. l. 5. recog. August. her. 11. & 49. Con. Faust. l. 22. c. 30.74.76.77. her. 51.53. Greg. l. 4. dial. c. 4. &c. Clem. l. 5. recog. August. her. 54. as Theodoret condēned some; or who denyed or disalowed Traditiōs as; Tertullian, Ireneus, Basil, Augustin, Epiphan, condemned therfor the Gnosticks, Marcion, Cerdon, Arius, Eunomi [...], Aerius, Nestorius; or the despisers of Lent, and fasting dayes, such as besyd the former were the Eustathians, and Iouinians, condemned therfor by Tertullian, Epiphan, and Hierom; or of Montanus, Manicheans, Circumcellions, Donatists, Aerians, and Armenians, for denial of Cōfession, of Freewill, of the lawfulnes of Moncks, and religiouse, and Church riches, of purgatorie, and prayer for the dead, condemned therfor by Marcelin, Hierom, Clement, Augustin, Gregorie &c.; or of Aeti [...], Eunomius, Simon Magus, affirming Solifidian Iustification; condemned therfor by Clement and Augustin: could, I say, by all the witt of man, or āgels, any accord be made betwixt al these as one Church? They who condemned late protestant opinions in ancient hereticks, and therfor by late protestants are in maner aforsaid condemned; and contrariewyse they who defended by woorks and writings the same doctrin, and profession, of late Catholicks, and therfor are by them honoured and inuoked, as saincts; should be fauourers and furtheres of Protestantcy, and disprouers, and enemies of Papistrie! Can any sodring, or hammering, conioyne, or cupple, these vnsutable doctrins together?
Mat. 9.16. Mar. 2.22.Therfor M. Rider, it can not be denyed, but your new patch, hath torne your owld cloake, and your new wyne hath burst your owld vessels. And to all iudgements, not willfully peruers, is reuealed, that neuer cowld any professiō by the defenders be more betrayed, then protestantcy by M. Rider: challengeing to be a Catholick, and appealing for trial to Vincent. Lyrinensis, most opposit therto; impugning supremacie of the Pope, & appealing to S. Bernard so cheefe a maintayner therof; and clayming to be of the first anciēt Church, and haue it so repugnant to him: leauing in the meane tyme his faith, and profession, discouered by this means, to be base, bastard, and counterfet. Yea leauing by occasion of his vnaduised assertiō, open to all mens eyes, that owld and new testament, Apostles and doctors, are disagreeing from protestantcie: and that all papistical doctrin euen in particular, was sustayned by them, and altogether condemned by them. Wherfor truly sayd S. Augustin: Improbatie haereticorum facit eminere, quid ecclesia tua sentiat, & quid habet sana doctrina. Aug. l. 7. Confess. c. 19. The impugning of hereticks, doth make manifest what thy Church (with continual conformitie and correspondence to it selfe) houldeth, and true doctrin teacheth.
[Page 35]35. But first, heere you wrong your selfe much, your cause more,Rider. but the simple [...]ple most of all, in altering the state of the question; for our controuersie is of [...] manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament:The Catholicque Priests subtilly alter the state of the question. whether he be there corporallie [...] [...]pirituallie. And you (no doubt in your conscience knowing it impossible to [...]oue your carnall presence) alter the question (verie deceitfully) from the man [...] to the matter: That Christ is really in the blessed Sacramēt: A thing neuer denied [...]s, nor euer in question betwixt Protestant and Papist; for both you and we [...]d Christs reall presence in the Sacrament, but you carnallie and locallie: we mi [...]allie and spiritually; you by Transubstantiation: we in the commanded and [...]full administration.
But here you forget your grounds of diuinitie, & rules of Logicke, in making [...] opposition betwixt spirituall receiuing and reall receiuing, opposing them as [...]traries, whereas the opposition is not betwixt spirituall and reall, but betwixt [...]porall and spiritualll: for spirituall receiuing by faith is reall receiuing, and [...]porall receiuing by the mouth, is also reall receiuing: So that the Scriptures and [...]ers that here you alleadge, bee altogither impertinent to prooue your carnall [...]ence of Christ and his new conception, of bread; not of the blessed Virgin; by [...]fulll Priest, not by the holy Ghost. For Christ willing I will make it plaine [...]o you, that you haue shewed little diuinitie, and concealed much learning in [...]: onely hudled vp a number of texts of Scriptures and Testimonies of Fathers [...] of Eckius Common-places, and otherlike Enchiridions, and neuer read the [...]ers themselues, which at first was requested.) And thus trusting other mens [...]orts, and not your owne eyes: you haue wrongd your self, weakned your cause, [...] abused the simple. For if you had diligently read and throughly weighed these [...]iptures and Fathers, you might haue seene and knowne that these confute your [...]onious opinons, and confirme them not.
But this you should haue here prooued for the Catholicques satisfaction, (in [...]ich you haue altogither failed) That after the Priest hath spoken ouer and to the [...]ead and Wine, Hoc est corpus meum, and vsed powrefull words ouer it and them,Rhem test. 1. Cor. 11. Sect. 9. [...]ich you call your consecratiō: that presentlie the substances of Bread and Wine [...]e gone, not one crumme or drop remaining, but wholly transubstantiated, tran [...]tured, and chaunged into the verie reall, naturall,Rhe. Test. math. 26. Sect. 4. and substantiall bodie and [...]oud of Christ, which was borne of the Virgin Marie, and nailed on the crosse, [...]d is now in heauen: and yet in the Sacrament, whole, aliue, and immortall; and [...]at this bodie of Christ must bee receiued with our corporall mouth, and locally [...]scend into our corporall stomackes. Which bodie so made by the Priest, is of [...]ed by the Priest to God the father, as a propitiatorie, merciful, and redeeming [...]rifice, by which the Priest applieth (as hee saith) the generall vertues of Christs [...]ssion to euery perticuler mans necessitie, either quicke or dead, for matters tem [...]rall, or graces spirituall, for whom and when he listeth and for what hee pleaseth. [...]ur carnall presence shall bee first handled. The second point, which is your pro [...]atorie sacrifice, shall bee handled in the title of the Masse. This is your Romane [...] learning which you should haue prooued: but how, your owne proofes (being [...]ly examined) disprooue you, let the learned iudge. But now to your first proofe [...] of the sixt of Iohn, to prooue your opinion touching the first position.
[...]. 6. [...]ers. 51. The bread which I will giue is my flesh. &c.Catholicque Priests.
[...]. 6. [...]ers. 51. Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud, you shal haue no life in you.
[...]. 6. [...]ers. 55. My flesh is meat truly, and my bloud is, &c.
VVhether we haue changed the state of the Question, or not? And whether the real presence was euer denyed by Protestants? whether Protestants doe not falsely clayme the tearme Spiritual? And whether all the tearmes of their supper be not redeemed from them?
Fitzimon.35. COncerning the first demand I hauing conceaued, according to Philosophie, and reason, that corporal and real, were not different, otherwyse, then by only conceit; I also supposed, it was all one to affirme, Christ to be realy present, and corporaly, according as is supposed by all other wryters, of what profession soeuer they be. This, by M. Rider, is called à wrong, and deceit. Next he saith; The real presence was neuer denyed by protestants, nor in controuersie betwixt Protestant, and Papist. What thinke you, Gentlemen? whether was the name of Catholicks, by verdict of Vincentius; disproofe of supremacie, by verdict of the primatiue Fathers; the forged consent of the ancient church, fiue hundred yeares after Christ to Protestantcie; or this resolut affirmation that the real presence, was neuer denyed or in controuersie, more full of shamelesnes, and inconsideration? I need not to lingre in making this 9.The 9. & 10. vntrueth. and 10. vntrueth, euen to Protestāts them selues, notoriouse, yea and odiouse.
Fox Acts and Monuments. pag. 1687First, Ihon Fox saith, of one of his martyrs, Ihon Lomas; not to haue A beleeued realitie, because he fownd it not written: And D. Perne, (Fox page 1257.) sayd: I deny not his presence, but his real and corporal presence. Shewing, as any other not owt of his witt, that wher ther is real presence, ther also is corporal. Secondly Oecolampadius saith; Absurdum est si dicamus Christi corpus realiter in coena adesse; Oecolamp. libello de verbis Domini, &c It is absurd yf we say the body of Christ to be realy in the supper. Fowerthly M. Rider him selfe, aunswering the first, of the six articles by act of parlament established,Caueat before the fowerth proofe, that ther is Christs real presence; saith: this article is sufficiently confuted. Yf real presence was neuer in controuersie, or denyed: how could Lomas, and Perne, but beleeue it? How could it be, with Oecolampadius, sayd to be absurd, to affirme it? How could M. Rider say that he denieth it not, and yet that he had confuted it? Let any frend of M. Riders but read Fox, of Ihon Lambert, Frith, Tindal, [Page 37] Barne, Anne Askew, and all the rest of Foxes principal martyrs, to informe M. Rider of this fowle vntrueth: and yf he being warned therof by them, yet will not reforme it, chyde him in my behalfe. Secondly, in the other vntrueth, that I had changed the question: why is he not more agreable, in suche accusation? Sometyme he maketh the state of the question to be betwixt corporal, and spiritual; sometyme, betwixt real, and figuratiue; sometyme, betwixt real, and spiritual. All is one with him spiritual and figuratiue: but not with S. Paul, Hebr. 10.1. 1. Cor. 15.46. 1. Cor. 10.11. graunting the Iewes had figurs and shadd owes in the owld testament, but the only new testament to haue thinges spiritual. Euery thing with M. Rider that is corporal, is suddenly denyed to be spiritual: but not with S. Paul, saying: Yf there be a corporal or natural body, ther is also a spiritual.
B Breefly, I resolue him in two things; First that the question is not altered by me, for I inquyre whether Christ be corporaly in the B. Sacrament, and not only figuratiuely; truely, and not only by imagination; him selfe, and not only his representation, figure, or appellation. Secondly, that affirming corporal, and spiritual receauing, not only to consist, but to be requisit together, (as in all the progresse to be our intention and opinion shall God willing be manifested, and is befor certifyed, in the 12. nūber) I am playnly opposit to protestants in this question, who exclude not only the corporal, but also the very spiritual being of our Saluiour in this Sacrament. Yf you admire that I appeach you to vse the woord, spiritual, vniustly, and deceitfully; chafe not, but listen; and you shal discerne, that I proue what I affirme, and also defeat your opinion of all the mystie tearmes by you purloined to make your Lords supper vaynely seeme mystical.
C I confesse my selfe to be sometyme offended, with our learned Cōtrouertists because they suffre the aduersaries with out all right to chawnt, or harp vpon euery mention of spiritual, spiritual, being of Christ in the B. Sacrament, as being fauourable to them, wheras indeed their doctrin is carnal, not only by grosse and pharisaical conceauing of the woord Corporal, but also by not induring the woord, Spiritual, to be belonging to that diuine mysterie: which hetherto few seeme to haue duely obserued. I dowbt not, by the grace of God, but to make it euident, euen to the most slumbring eyes, that they haue no title or interest in ether the corporal, or spiritual, or faythfull, or figuratiue, or Sacramental being in this mysterie. Wherof now let these two proofes serue for a tast. [Page] [...] difference (sayd the protestant martyrs) betweene the faythfull and papists concerning the sacrament is, that the papists say, that Christ is corporaly vnder, or in the forms of bread and wyne: but the faythfull say, that Christ is not there, nether corporaly nor spiritualy. Next saith Musculus: the bread is the body of Christ nether naturaly, nor personaly, nor realy, nor corporaly, nor yet spiritualy, Vide n. 96.108. nor figuratiuely, nor significatiuely: it remayneth after all these, that we say the bread is the body of Christ, sacramentaly.
As for Sacramentaly, it also shalbe recouered from them. What occasion had I then to alter the question, as yf Christ could not be sayd to be corporally in the Sacrament, but therby should be denyed that he were spiritualy? or yf he were founde to be spiritualy, therby the protestāt opiniō should be fauored, or my opinion disaduantaged?S. August. l. 3. de doctrina Christiana c. 10. Truely sayd S. Augustin: when the mynde is preoccupated by any errour, what soeuer the scripture hathe so the contrary, they take it to be spoken Figuratiuely. Which is verifyed in our aduersaries, who being preoccupated by errour, do strayne, and wrest, all woords owt of their natural signification, by some figuratiue collusion, to serue their turns; especialy in affecting such, as haue dowbtfull and ambiguous significations, whether thy belong to them or no, therby to lurke vnknowen in darknes. As in our controuersie, yf any as I sayd inferr Christ to be Corporaly, and realy, present: they except against it, yf they can finde, that any spiritual woord or vnderstanding, be implied together therwith: as yf forsooth Corporal & Spiritual cowld not in any wise to consist together; but they, to whom nether of both belong, must not be ouerthrowē therby, or by any of the rest that refuteth them. Yf any suffrage of the Fathers testifie the same, yf they finde the least mention of figure, Sacrament, or signe, conioyned ther withall; they seeme to be well defensed by such a target, inferring thervpon that no veritie cowld be together, both trueth and figure, substance, and sacrament, body, and signe, (although hundreds of assurances perswade the contrary, and that the same as I sayd, is made a safegard to their figure only, only signification only representation. Such reasoning may some tyme breed tediousnes, but litle trauayle in refelling it: wherof yf wisdome ouercome the tediousnes, discretion shal moderat the trauayle. Now at least appeareth how destitute their opinion is of spiritualitie, and how pretending it hetherto in shew was to take a Iosephs cloak, to a deceitfull cloaking of a synnfull dishonestie.
[Page 39]36. GEntlemen: you mistake vtterly Christs meaning,Turne back to the 3 [...]. pag. and place the four last lines, begining The bread which I &c. as title to this 36. paragraph of M. Rider, and then read as here followeth. Gentlemen: you mistake. &c. wresting Christs wordes from the spirituall sence in which he spake, to the litterall sence which he neuer meant, ancient Fathers neuer taught, Primitiue Church of Christ for one thousand yeares at least after Christs ascention neuer knew or receiued. For the words and phrases be figuratiue and allegorical, therefore the sence must be spirituall, not carnal.
For this is a generall rule in Gods booke, ancient Fathers, yea and in your Popes Canons and glosses, that euerie figuratiue speech or phrase of Scripture must be expounded spirituallie, not carnally or litterallie, as anone more plainlie you shall heare.
But that the simple be no longer seduced by your Romane doctrine, expounding this 6. of Iohn grammaticallie, and carnally, contrarie to Christs meaning, constraining these places to prooue your carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament, when there was no Sacrament then ordained. I will set downe (GOD willing) Christs meaning truelie and plainlie which you shall not be able either by Scriptures or auncient Fathers to contradict.
1 First I will plainelie deliuer the occasion why Christ vsed the Metaphor of Bread, calling himselfe Bread.
2 Secondlie, according to which of Christs natures he is our liuing bread, whether as hee is man onelye; or God onely; or as he is compleat God and man.
3 Thirdly, how this bread must be taken and eaten, whether by the mouth of the bodie or the mouth of the soule.
4 Fourthly, the fruit that comes to the true eaters thereof.
5 Lastly, the reasons shall bee alleadged out of Christs owne words, to prooue that your round Wafer-cakes vpon your supposed hallowed Altars, are not that true bread (Christs flesh) which Christ heere speakes of.
The first proofe of Catholicks for the Real presence, owt of the 6. of S. Ihon.
36. THe 11. the 12. and 13. vntrueth,Fitzimon. The 11. 12. and 13. vntruth. are here suddenly obtruded to all mens eyes; That Christ neuer ment the literal sense: that Christs Church for a 1000. yeeres neuer tawght it; That euery figuratiue speeche must be expounded not litteraly. I might haue added, his saying that the phrases in this mysterie be figuratiue, and allegorical; That we are not able to contradict his expositions; That he will expound such things as he promiseth. But, that the bulke be not to great, I promise to dissemble the greatest part of his vntruethes. Nether will I proceed, but by good proofs, against the former few vntruethes calculated. The first, that Christ intended not the literal sense: is contradicted by Christ him selfe, saying, (when he did giue at his last supper, what here he promised) that it was his body which was to be deliuered, Mat. 26.1. Cor. 11.24. Mar. 14.24. and [Page] [...] [...]lood which was to be shedd: therfor, as not a figure, nor any body figuratiuely, but literaly, and naturaly, was giuen for our sinns; so no figuratiue sense, but literal must haue bene intended by Christ. The second, is to be testifyed, in all our controuersie. The third is very absurd.Galat. 4.22.23. Genes. 16.15.21. For S. Paul certifyed, that Abraham had two sonns: one by the handmayd, and one by the free woman: but he by the handmayd was borne according to the fleash, and he by the free wooman by repromission. Which saith he, are figuratiuely spoken.
Now yf M. Riders words were not vntrue; these woords being A spoken figuratiuely, could not be true literaly. Which is knowen to be contrary to Genesis, wherin the literal historie is related. Lykewyse wheras he saith, that what soeuer Christ promised, is to be receaued by faithe; and wheras S. Paul here affirmeth the sonne of the free woman, to haue bene by repromission: it should acording to his wysdom follow, that such a sonn, was neuer borne but only by faith. Yea, yf to his former saying, you conioyne his saying à litle befor, that receauing by faith is real receauing, and make one saying of bothe, that Christs promises are receaued by faithe, and being so receaued are really receaued: it must ensue; first that Abraham had his sonne Isaak really, yea and all his posteritie really, as soone as he beleued faithfully the promises of our Lord; secondly, that our bodyes already haue immortalitie really, and heauenly glorie, and all that we may expect at Gods hands, (yf we haue faith therof) as I sayd, already really. Yea, the punishments of hell being promised to the wicked; by M. Riders saying, must be receaued by faith: and consequently, contrary to all protestantcy, but not trueth, the wicked may haue faith; and contrary to protestantcie,Esa. 29.13. Mat. 15.8. Mar. 7.6. and also trueth, the damned them selues must haue faith lykewyse; seing they receaue the punishments promised to them by Christ. Is not this learned doctrin? would any ould woman knowing hir prayers but in latin transgresse so much against faith and religion?
1. Occasion. The question was mooued by some Belli-gods that tasted of Christs banquet, & bountie (in feeding fiue thousand men with fiue loaues & two fishes) whether Moises or Christ were the more excellent and liberall in feeding men,
Rider.37. FIrst, they commend Moises from the greatnesse of his place and person, being Gods Lieutenant to conduct Israel out of Egypt.
2. Secondly, they commend their Manna from the place whence it came, which was the heauens as they supposed.
3 Thirdly, they commend the bread from the Vertue of it; which was, it fed their Fathers in the drie sandie and barren wildernesse, and saued them from famine, and [Page 41] therfore they thought that no man was greater then Moises, no bread to be cōpared with Manna:
Now Christ by way of opposition and comparison, confutes them: opposing God to Moises, and himselfe to Manna:
1. First, denieth that Moises was the giuer of that Manna; but that God was the authour, Moises onely the Minister.
2 Secondlie, that it came not from the eternall kingdome of God, which is properlie called heauen, but from the visible clouds improperly called heauen.
3 Thirdlie, Christ denieth Manna to bee the true bread, because it onelie preserued life temporall, but could not giue it: but this bread (Christ) doeth not onelie giue life corporall, but also life spirituall in the kingdome of grace, and life eternall in the kingdome of glorie.
4 Fourthlie, this bread Manna ceased when they came into Canaan, and could no more bee found:Iosua 5.12. but this bread (Christ) doth feed vs heere in this earthlie wildernesse, and raignes for euer with his triumphant Church in our euerlasting and glorious Canaan the kingdome of heauen.
5 This bread Manna, and so all corporall meates when they haue fed the bodie, they haue performed their office, they perish without yeelding profit to the soule:Ioh. 6.54. but this bread of life (Christ) is the true btead, which once beeing receiued into the soule, doth not onelie assure and giue vnto it eternall life, but also to the bodie like assurance of resurrection and saluation, so that the soule must first feed on Christ, before the body can haue any benefit by Christ: contrarie to your doctrine, which is, that the bodie must first feed on Christ carnally, then the soule shal be thereby fed spiritually.
And because they were so addicted in Moises time to Manna: in Christs time to his miraculous loaues, respecting the feeding of their bodies, not the feeding of their soules: Therefore Christ dehorted them from food corporall to food spirituall: Labor not (saith he) for the meat that perisheth, Ioh. 6.27. but for the meat that endureth to euerlasting life, which the sonne of man shall giue vnto you, &c. And thus much touching the occasion, why Christ is saide to bee the true bread of life, which as farre excelled Manna, as the soule the bodie: life death: eternitie time: and heauen earth.
NOw let vs see according to which of Christs natures,3. Point. he is called our liuing Bread, whether according to his manhood or godhead, or both. Christ calls this bread his flesh, and Christ and his flesh are al one, and therefore Christ and his flesh are all one and the same bread; and as our bodies are fed with materiel bread, so are our soules fed with the flesh of Christ, and this flesh hee will giue for the life of the world, which flesh is not Christs bodie separated from his soule (as some of you imagine and vntruelie teach) nor Christs bodie and soule separated from his diuinitie but euen his quickninge flesh, which being personally vnited to his eternall spirit, was by the same giuen for the life of the world, not corporallie and really in the Sacrament as you vntruly teach: But in the sacrifice of his bodie and bloud once on the crosse, as the Scriptures record: for the flesh of Christ profiteth not, but as it is made quickning by the spirit. Neither do we participate the life of his spirit, but as it is communicated vnto vs by his flesh, by which we are made flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone: as hath bin shewed before. Which holie misterie is represented vnto vs in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and the trueth thereof assured, and sealed in the due administration and receiuing of the same.
[Page 42]So this true bread (spoken of in the sixt of Iohn) which hath this spirituall quickning and nour [...]shing power, is compleate Christ, God and man, with all his soule sauing merits. And neither Manna in the wildernesse: nor your round Wafer cakes vppon your supposed hallowed Altars. Manna it could not be, for it ceased manie hundred years before. Your imagined and transnatured bread it could not bee, because the Sacrament was not then instituted. And so to the third point.
The manner how this true bread (Christ) must be eaten.
3. Point.THe meat is spirituall, and therefore the manner of eating must not bee corporall; for such as is the meat, such must be the mouth: but the meat is spirituall, therefore the mouth must be spirituall, as before you haue heard, Fide non dente, In the epistle to the Reader. &c. which thing being there handled befor out of holy Scripture, Fathers, and your Popes Canons, I wille onelie referre you thither, where you may (vnlesse you bee malecontents) be fully satisfied toucheing the true manner of eating Christ: where you may find proued out of Gods booke, that comming to Christ, beleeuing in Christ, abiding in Christ, dwelling in Christ, and to be clad with Christ, and to eate Christ, are all one, so that out of everie one you might frame this or the like vnaunswerable argument.
How sacred Scriptures are exorbitantly depraued?
Fitzimon.37. ALas! what miserie, and impietie, is euery lyne fraught with all, in this his exposition? Considre, but how many falsifications of the text, are here vsed. First that some belly-gods had moued question, whether Moises, or Christ, were more liberal in feeding men. Ther is no such mater. Nether also their commending of Moises greatnes. For only, Christ lightly mentioned him, the residue not thinking of him, by owght appearing in Scripture. Nether do they cōmend the bread from the vertue of it, but only tell, that their Forfathers had eaten thereof, without any further relation. Nether doth Christ deny Manna, to be true bread, for ther is no such woord. The fowrtenth vntrueth,The 14. vntruth. (besyd others wincked at) shalbe registred by M. Rider against him selfe. Here he saith, that our doctrine is, that the body must first feed on Christ corporaly (so it should be, to approach to trueth) then the sowle shalbe therby fedd spiritualy. How is this saying sutable to these words in his preface: You teache the communicants to receaue Christ with their mowthes corporaly not with their faith spiritualy? You make your selfe ridiculous by such palpable contradiction: that we teache, and that we do not teache, Christ to be receaued spiritualy: that we teache only corporaly, and yet that we [Page 43] teache first corporaly, & after spiritualy. Would not any other display all the figurs of rhetorick, against this figure of a learned man?
A He telleth after, that Christ and his fleash are all one; and all one bread: yet will he tell you presently, that nether of bothe are any bread at al. Next, that some of vs teache Christs fleash, to be Christs body separated from his sowle. A fowle vntrueth: and the fowler, that vntestifyed, after so many promises, to haue all our dealings published by our owne prints, books, leaues, lynes &c. Then that the fleash of Christ proffiteth nowght, but as it is quickned by the Spirit. This he him selfe shall testifye to be the fifteenth vntrueth, in these woords:The 15. vntruth. Christ would receaue a bloody speare into his syde, before mans synne could be satisfyed. This speare to haue pearced Christ, after his death, and not when his fleash was quickned by his Spirit, is testifyed by S. Ihon, saying: that he had then deliuered vp his Spirit: Ioan. 19. a v. 31. ad 35. the Iewes had informed Pilat of his death: the Sowldiours, Vt viderunt eum iam mortuum, non fregerunt eius crura. Sed vnus militum lancea latus eius aperuit; when they beheld him dead they did not breake his thighes. But one of the Sowldiours with a lance opened his syde. Now make vp these two together: that Christs fleash withowt his Spirit proffiteth nothing: and yet that mans synne cowld not be satisfyed, but after Christs fleashe was separated from his Spirit, and then pearced. I neuer in my lyfe, nor I thinke any other, noted such implications before in any booke hitherto printed.
B But yet ther followeth more; That we do not cōmunicat the life of Christs Spirit but by his flesh. Is not this to cōtradict all benifit fullfilled to the Patriarches by Christs discension of Spirit, without his fleashe. Then saith he, what is spiritual can not be receaued by a corporal maner. Was ther euer any thing more contrarie to Diuinitie, philosophie, or reason? First, faith is spiritual: yet it is by hearing; Rom. 10.17. which is a corporal maner. Regeneration is spiritual: yet it is by maner of a corporal washing. Yea God is a most spiritual Spirit; yet the Apostle cōmandeth vs to beare him in our bodyes.1. Cor. 6. Contrarywyse, Christs birth, his body made inuisible, his issueing out of his sepulchre, his entring among his shut disciples, walking on the sea, his ascension, were verlye corporal; yet the maner was not corporal, but spiritual. So that nether spiritual gifts are continualy conioyned with spiritual maners, but often with corporal; and corporal gifts, often conioiyned with spiritual maners. [Page 44] The sowle of man is a spiritual forme and not material: and yet it is receaued corporaly, and into a corporal body. And the damned spirits being spiritual creaturs, yet they are tormented, not with a spiritual but with a corporal fyer.1. Corinth. 6. Lastly S. Paul saith: You are bowght with a great price, glorify and beare God in your bodyes. So that God him selfe, which is the most spiritual of all spirits, may be borne in our bodyes and not only in our sowls. And when is he to be sayd, borne in our bodyes, so much as when we receue the B. Sacrament of his fleash and blood, to which he is vnited by his diuinitie personaly?Caueat in the preface. Now saith he, the meat is spiritual, and therfor the mowth owght also to be spiritual, as befor is heard and handled; that we may haue satisfaction, vnlesse we may be malecontents. Good Iesus, what expectation might this man haue, that his owne fauourers would euer tolerat such dissimulation? In the place wher vnto he referreth vs, for this satisfaction; this is all the proofe out of holy Scripture, Fathers, and Canons, that is ther found: Augustin shewing the maner how Christ is to be eaten in the Sacramēt, sower tymes together saith spiritualiter, spiritualie, spiritualie. One woord more, ther is not ether of Scripture, Father, or Canon, to proue, that the mowth to receaue euery spiritual gift, ought only to be spiritual.
First, hereby, how dothe he ouerthrow his former speeches,C that we teach the communicants not to receaue with their faith spiritualy: and that we put opposition betwixt real and spiritual, as contraries? For yf our owne canons teache spiritual receauing, as here is euidently affirmed: how would he be beleeued that we do not teache it? Are not these discourses resembling bucketts in wells: of which the drawing vp of the one, is a letting downe of the other? Secondly, I haue shewed, and not slenderly (yf resolutions of protestant martyrs be not slender) that the profession of reformers, can not brooke the woord Spiritual. Thirdly, I haue very lately shewed, that Scripturs, reason, and diuinitie, do demonstrat many spiritual gifts to be receaued corporaly, and many corporal gifts to be receaued spiritualy. Fowerthly, I haue, and do resolue, that Christs presence is not only spiritual, nor only receaued spiritualy, but also corporal, and to be receaued corporaly. In the 12. and 14. number, plentifully may be found to that effect.S. August. c. 9. contra aduersarium legis & prophet. Whervnto I add owt of S. Augustin, that we should receaue, fideli corde, & ore; with faithfull hart and mowthe. Behould in playne and literal maner, declared, that as to the hart, so to the mowth, doth belong to receaue Christ. Secondly owt of S. Leo: [Page 45] Hoc enim ore sumitur, quod fide creditur; this is receaued by mowth, S. Leo Sermone. 6. de Ieiunio. Tertull. l. de resurrectione Carnis. which is beleeued by hart. Thirdly by Tertullian, Caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, vt anima de Deo saginetur, the fleash is fedd by the body and blood of Christ, that the sowle might be fatned by God. Is not here declared without requirie, that we exclud not spiritual receauing, by affirming corporal receauing? Are not bothe affirmed requisit, and nether to be omitted?
Good M. Rider spare your owne reputation, so much ingaged in this discourse, that vnlesse the residue supply defects, and enormities here escaped, it is not possible but the State will thinke it belonging to their wysdoms, to testifie that they dislyke your defense of their opinion. Defence, wherin so many strange doctrins are affirmed to be in S. Ihons gospel, which neuer any had yet perceaued. Defense, wherin M. Rider is made euery foote to disproue, and refell him selfe. Defense, wherin wonderfull promises are made of confuting vs, when in trueth, it confirmeth all our doctrin. For you shall not lykely mistake any one earnest point of his replye, but when you fynd him vehemently seeming to ouerthrow vs, then you shall discouer him to be as a Senacharib, 4. Reg. 19. Iudith. 6. 2. Machab. 8. Holosernes, and Nicanor, promising to ruyne vs, and inuiting peoples considerations to buye our doctrin at the rate of nynty for one talent, when we are most safe from inconuenience, and he neerest to his distruction: as Nicanor inuited merchants to buy Israelits by nyntie for one talent, when they were most secure from his sale, and rather to recouer their mony who intended to buye them; and he by them spedely to be discumfited, and confounded. How many such promises doth he make, saying: I will shew and discouer that you haue forsaken the veritie of Christs gospel: the reader shall easely perceaue befor the ende of this treatise that this your opinion was neuer tawght by Christ: I will shew that you wrong your selues, forgett your grounds of learning, that your proofe is your disproofe, that you neuer read but Enchiridions and neuer read the Fathers them selues, that here you change, that there you dismember, &c.? When God knoweth he sheweth nothing, but the turpitude, and confusion of his profession:Genes. 9.21. as Noe when he was dronken shewed the dishonestie of his bodye, wherby one of his owne children, although wickedly, derided him. How aptly doth S. Augustin admonishe such a promiser, saying: Ostende promissa: S. Augustin l. 3. con. Max. c. 26. quid pergis in vacuo? quid deludis expectationem nostram? nec exhibes pollicitationem tuam? multiplicas verba non necessaria, vt necessaria occupes spatia. Shew your promises why proceed you in vacuitie? why delude you our expectation? [Page 46] why effect you not your protestation? you multiply needlesse woordes, to wast needfull time?
Rider. Ioh. 6.56.35.38. Whosoeuer dwels in Christ and Christ in them, onelye eates Christs flesh & drinkes Christs bloud. But the true beleeuers onelie dwel in Christ and Christ in them: therefore the true beleuers onelie eate Christs flesh and drinke Christs bloud.
Ioh. 6.56. Ephe. 3.17.The proposition is Christs owne words, of which it were damnable to doubt. The assumption is Pauls. Let Christ dwell in your hearts by faith: therefore the conclusion cannot be denied. And so to the fourth.
VVhether M. Riders vnanswerable argument, be not answerable euen by a childe, to M. Riders infamie.
Fitzimon.38. TO manifest that this argument is easie to produce M. Riders infamie, I denye your maior; as being the 16. vntrueth,The 16. vntruth. Ioan. 6.56. Ioan. 14.11. by expresse addition, and alteration of the text. the woords are; He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood remayneth in me, and I in him. Why then haue you added the woord, only? why had you noe terrour by the woords of the Apocalips,Apoc. vlt. so to violat Gods sacred trueth: and that, to auowche a palpable and manifest erroure? For Christ saith; Do not you beleeue that I am in my Father, and my Father is in me? And who is so erroneous, as to say, that God the Father doth eate the fleash, and drinke the blood of Christ? and that only? will you affirme, that any can more dwell in Christ, then his Father, yet dare you not mantayne, that his Father communicateth the body and blood of Christ. Recant therfor, and that with shame, and say, that they that dwell in Christ and Christ in them, do not only eate his fleash, and drinke his blood. The minor also is false; that the true beleeuers only dwell in Christ,Wh takerus in controuer. de Sacra Scriptura. pag. 666. 1. Cor. 13.12. and Christ in them. For in heauen, euen by the confession of VVhitaker, beleefe entreth not but, all are blissed by seeing face to face: Christ dwelleth in all, and all in him; and also God the Father, and holy Ghost do dwell in him; who may not be sayd to haue beleefe in him.
The conclusion is lykewyse false, by haueing a fowerth tearme,A Only; which should not haue bene in the premisses. I leaue to thy equitable censure, indifferent protestant, whether I might not lawfully lawnche into all rhethorical tropes against such vnanswerable arguments of such a disputer. Truely, my deuotion would serue me, not to spare, at least such impietie toward Gods [Page 47] woord: but I refrayne, that by moderat style, the trueth may shyne to thy mynde the brighter: as the sonne doth more playnly appeare in calme then troubled water. Besyd all that is produced, consider how in the opinion of M. Rider, the sixt chapter of S. Ihon, not treating of the B. Sacrament; his maior proposition should by him selfe, be acknowledged impertinēt. But what careth (or knoweth) he, what is pertinent or not?
The fruit and profit that redoundes to the true eaters of this bread of life, which is Christ.
39. MAnie rich benefits we haue by eating Christ in the manner aforesaid:Rider. that is, by apprehending, applying,4. Point. Ioh. 6.44.54.50.51. and appropriating vnto vs whole Christ with his benefits, I will onelie name one or two, and referre you for the rest to sixth of Ihon. He that eateth this bread, I will raise him vp at the last day to life (concerning his bodie,) and hee shall neuer die but liue for euer, (concerning his soule.)
VVhat the benefits are of the protestant communion. And how they frustrat all Sacraments.
39. ALl benefits to be receaued by protestant communion,Fitzimon. are here drawen to two; The first, resurrection of the body; the second, euerlasting lyfe of the soule. He nether telleth you, whether this shall happen by vertue of your receauing, or not by vertue therof; or only by gratefull gift and reward of God. Concerning the resurrection of the body, I craue delay to reueale what Protestants professe and beleeue therof, till I treate in the examination of the Creede, the article of the resurrection of the dead, in the 20. number, of the forsayd examination. But here let al Christians Catholicks and Protestāts note, that when by pretence of reformations, fiue sacraments were abolished, & two only of Communion, and Baptisme retayned; the next degree to haue bene, to deny any fruict belonging to ether of these two. So that they allow them only to be bare external signes, in them selues, without any power to sanctifie. Of many proofs, I will produce but these apparent. It was, (sayth Zuinglius, the author of Englands perswasion,Zuingl. tom. 2. de bapt. fol. 70.) a great errour of the owld Doctors, that they supposed the external water of Baptisme to he of any valew toward the purgeing of synne. And Luther [Page 48] affirmeth it to be,Luth. de Capti. Babil. Calu. l. 4. Instit. c. 4. n. 17. 23. Beza 1. Cor. c. 10. n. 3. Calu. & Beza in 1 Cor. 10. v. 2.3. Musscul. in locis. c. 373. Calu. Instit. l. 4. c. 18. n. 12. Zuing. to. 2. fol. 563. 564. Sloidan. lib. 10. fol. 152. Buchan. hist. Scot. l. 15. pag. 523. Benedict. Aretius 2. part. problem. fol. 319. Bernard. Lutzenburg. in Catal. her. l. 1. c. 29. Fox. Act. pag. 70. Zuing. tom. 2. resp. ad Luth. conf. fol. 477. Idem fol. 43. Calu. l. 4. Instit. c. 14, n. 14. In Ioa. 6. v. 54. Beza epist. Theol. 65. fol. 285. Mart. in defens. cōtra Gardin. par. 2. reg. 5. pag. 618. par. 3. pag. 683. but an external signe to make vs remembre Gods promises Caluin, and Beza, consent to the same. And the Anabaptists, ipso facto, do omitt Baptisme toward children, as vnproffitable.
Lykewyse for Communion, they agree commonly that it is no more esteemable, then the Manna of the Iewes, and should be receaued without any reuerēce, sitting at a table, in good fellowship: which is practised not only by Zuinglians and Anabaptists, but imitated in Scotland, as Buchananus relateth. And in other places, they stand without all regarde or reuerence, to receaue their communion; As to testifie, they should not adore that, which they acknowledg to be but an image, figure, or representation, least they should breake the commaundement, forbidding to adore (as they translate) images. And Barlowe in the summe of the conference befor the K. Maiestie, pag. 95. confesseth, the vicar of Ratisdal to haue dealt the bread owt of a basket, euery man putting in his hand, and taking owt a peece, &c. vide num. 68. This disabling of this sacrament, began first from Almaricus, whom Fox calleth a worthy learned man: who saith, that the body of Christ is no otherwyse in the sacrament, then in any other bread. Zuinglius saith it, to be only, as the Emperour is in his banner. He againe, Caluin, Beza, P. Martyr, Iewell, and now most protestants of their followers affirme it, to be no otherwyse in the sacrament then in a sermon, saying; Nihilo magis habetur ex sacramentis, quàm verbis, It is no more had by sacraments, then by woords. Neque vereor dicere multo etiam &c. I feare not, sayth P. Martyr, to affirme, that we come to the receauing of Christs body much more by woords, then by sacraments. Calu. in 1. Cor. c. 11. v. 24. So that, sayth Caluin, yf otherwyse we were myndfull of Christs death, this healp were superfluous. And this is common to all sacraments, for they are healpes of our infirmitie.
What Protestants hearing their preachers magnifie in woords B the benifits of these two Sacraments, especialy of communion (and saying that therby, with the teethe and mowthe of the sowle, and armes of fayth, and imbracement of hart, we eate, deuoure, & inioy Christ with all his sowle-sauing merits, with all benifits of his passion, sealing all his promises vnto vs, and giuing vs interest, title, and right, by an effectual, and infallible calling, to eternal blisse, and such other seducing benedictions frequented in sermons) that would euer imagin by such dilusions, he were a leading, to esteeme as basely of this Sacrament, as of the voyd ceremonies of Iewes; as of any other bread; as of a needles memorial; of a bare representation, as of a sermon &c. or that it should be as fruictles, as the sacraments of the owld testament,Galat. 4.9. which S. Paul tearmeth; [Page 49] Infirma & egena elementa, weake and poore elements. Or as the English bibles translate, weake and beggerly ordonances? Against which disordre and deformation of Reformers,Hebr. 10.28. the sayd Apostle worthely disputeth, saying; A man making frustrat the law of Moises, is therfor adiudged to death by the verdict of 2. or 3. witnesses. How much more deserueth he more extreame punishments, which thus treadeth the Sonne of God vnder foote.
C To conclude, Christian reader, thow perceauest by these confessions, that in their owne opinion ther is no more benifit contayned in their sacramēt, then by remembring Christ by any other means, ether of sermons, or representations, in the owld or new testament.Vide Petr. Mart. in 1. Cor. c. 10. u. 1 2. What then should hinder me to graunt all this to be true of their sacrament? considering that I finde the Manna of the Iewes, much more liuely expressing and representing Christ, by raining downe from heauen, in a miraculous maner, so as it was wondred at by the Iewes, which had all sweetnes of delitesomnes, was very whyte; wheras the communion bread retayning stil his nature, came from the earth, without all miraculous maner to be wondred at, hath only the tast of bread, sometymes also mowldie, and is not of the whytest; and consequently not so conuenient to represent, the descending of the Messias our Saluioure among mankinde, his wonderfull incarnation and lyfe, his delytesome feeding our sowles, his innocencie, as the former representation Manna; yea I reporte me to all indifferent wysdomes, whether it be not rather farr inferiour, in way of signification (which by protestants is called the cheefe lyfe of Sacraments) therunto. Now then, do not meruayle, good reader, that M. Rider dilated not vnto thee, how by communion thow art to haue resurrection of the fleash, and euerlasting lyfe of the sowle: for it is sufficient in his mynde to giue the great promises, paynted woords, sweet benedictions, to captiuat thy sowle; and in effect to bestow only on thee a peece of bread, extolled against truthe to make thee leaue the true bread of lyfe, & dispraysed as a sacrament instituted by Christ, to euacuat the new testament; praysed as a bigg shaddow, to make thee forsake and misbeleeue the substance of Christs body, and dispraysed as a substantial healpe, to frustrat thy saluation. Whervpon I remitt you to the 63. number, to haue a pertinent relation of S. Epiphanius.
[Page 50] Rider.40. But an opposition being made betwixt this true bread Christ and this Sacramentall bread, (as was betwixt Christ and Manna,) it will bee cleere, (nay impossible) that your consecrated bread should bee the bread of life which is spoken of in the sixth of Ihon:
1 Your consecrated bread neuer came from the heauen of heauens: therefore it is not the true bread of life spoken of in this place.
2 All that eate of this true bread (Christ) are saued, but manie that eate of your Sacramentall bread are damned: therefore it is not that bread spoken of in the sixth of Iohn.
3 Your bread onelie enters the bodilie mouth, and is receiued into the stomacke of the bodie, and so passeth the way of all excrements: and therefore is not the true bread.
4 Your bread cannot for euer preserue temporall life, much lesse giue it, but not at all life eternal: and therefore it is not the true bread of life spoken of in this sixth of Iohn.
VVhether there be any opposition betwixt our Sacrament, and Christ. And whether by entring our stomaches, Christ be payned, or hurt.
40. OVr consecrated bread, after consecration, is Christ: and therfor is the true bread spoken of in this place.Fitzimon. And saluation is gotten only by him, whom we eate, and by no other deuotion so much as by eating him. Wherby it is sayd, they that eate him, shall haue lyfe euerlasting, viz. as by a most principal meane to come therto. Yet diuers eate him vnworthely to their damnation; other after eating depriue them selues from the benifit of him by new wickednes: to whom may be sayd;Ozec 13.9. their saluation is by him, their damnation by them selues. I pray let vs as well examin these sayd oppositions, and your holy supper. Came your supper from heauen? Are all that eate of it saued? Are all receauers therof immortal. I pray you good Sir, tell vs of one only, that is assuredly saued of your sorte, or immortal, by your Lords supper. Nay, how can you affirme conformably to your sayings in the next precedent number, that any haue help or benifit therby, vnles they were forgetfull of their fayth? But you will say, neuer thelesse where is any answear to that obiection: your bread entreth the mouthe, passeth the stomack, departeth with other excrements, and therfor not Christ? I answere therto, that it is not very Christian, to thinke that Christ after his resurrection hath a mortal body; and that it is a conceit altogether Capharnaical, to suppose he is eaten in so [Page 51] grosse a maner as by you is specified. Our Sacrament therfor, which is Christ, remayneth realy in vs during the remayning of the forme of bread intierly, which formes by the heate of our stomacks, being digested, Christ after powring his grace into our soule, ceaseth realy to be in vs. And this aunswear may suffice any Christian mynde.
I will here also wynke at seueral vntruethes, for breuites sake, and axamin further. Nether let any one maruayle that I am very succinct in treating the forsayd point,Origen. hom. 9. & 13. in Leuitic. Hebr. cap. 5. S. August. serm. 46. de verbis. De Ciu l. 10. c. 6. In Ps. 39, lib. 50. hom. 42. Tra. 11. in Ioan. how long Christ remayneth in the receauers; because I imitate the primatiue Fathers saying: Non immoremur in his, quae scientibus nota sunt, & ignorantibus patere non possunt; Let vs not be prolix in such things, as are knowen to the beleeuers, and can be notifyed to the ignorāt. This made S. Paul, mentioning the sacrifice of Melchisedech, to haue streight abrupted it, as not to be diuulgated to faithles conceyts. This made S. Augustin sildome to name otherwyse, this mysterie, then the Sacrament knowen to the faithfull.
41.Rider. Ioh. 6.54.50. Now seeing that Christ had not all this time when he made this sermon in the sixth of Iohn, ordained his last Super; and therefore not the bread in the Supper: And seeing this bread can neither assure the bodie of the receiuers of resurrection, nor their soules of saluation, it cannot be that this bread in the Sacrament was the same that Christ spake of in Iohn. And therefore your proofes brought to prooue your carnall presence of Christ by these texts, be impertinent, sauouring (by your leaue) of smale reading in the Fathers, and lesse vnderstanding in the Scriptures.
But that all men that read this, may see your errours, and so beware of your new daungerous doctrine, I will bring Augustine and other Fathers, to disprooue you in plaine termes for misalleadging these texts.
Augustine bringeth forth (as it were vpon a stage) the three Euangelists Mathew, Mark, and Luke, deliuering the doctrine of the Sacrament:Aug. Tomo quart. de consensu Euangelistarum: lib. 3. Cap. 1. Math. 26. Mark 14. Luk. 22. Ioh. 6. These three Euang. handled (as it were) the bodie of Christ. Iohn the soule and diuinitie of Christ. Lyra in psal. 110. but when he came to Iohn he saith: Iohannes autem de corpore & sanguine Domini hoc in loco nihil dixit: Iohn in the 6. of his gospel spake nothing of the Lords body & bloud. I wonder with what face you can brag to follow the fathers, and no men nor sect more opposit to their faith and facts then you. There Aug. hath cract your credit, salue it how you can. And your own Doctour Lyra condemnes your erronious opinion which will applie these as spoken of the Sacrament: his words be these; Nihil directe pertinet ad Sacramentalem vel corporalem manducationem, hoc verbum: Nisi manducaueritis, &c. Nam hoc verbum fuit dictum diu antequam Sacramentum Eucharistiae fuerit institutum. This saying of Christ (vnlesse you eat the flesh of the sonne of man & drinke his bloud) doth nothing directly appertaine to the Sacramentall or corporall eating of Christ in the Sacrament. For Christ spake this long before he ordained this Sacrament. Therefore no sound argument, (saith he) can be grounded vpon that litteral exposition of the Sacramentall communion, and he giues a reason vnaunswereable. Nam primo debet existere in rerum natura. For first the Sacrament must be ordained, before it can be a Sacrament. But you here would haue Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament before [Page 52] it bee a Sacrament. And then Lyra concludes. De Eucharistia Sacramentali qu [...] nondum fuit tam alta sententia proferri non potuit, quae dicitur. Nisi manducaueritis, &c.
Therefore of this place, there can bee made no good sufficient argument, touching the sacramentall communion, vnlesse (saith he) some curious Hereticqu [...] wil take these words spoken by Christ to be spoken propheticallie.
Quod nondum est, nō datur priuilegium.Now saith your owne Doctour, if you take this chapter of the sixt of Iohn litterallie (as you do) then it is impossible and absurd, because you wil haue a carnall presence in the Sacrament, before there be a Sacrament; if prophetically, then your owne champion calls you curious Heretiques. Lyra. eodem loco. Luc. 23.41. And to prooue your litterall exposition, grosse, false, and absurd, he produceth against you two famous examples: the first of the Theefe on the crosse, who by his liuely faith performed the tenor of this text, yet neuer communicated Sacramentallie; And Iudas, who communicated vnder both kinds, and yet failed in the meaning of this precept.Lib. 4. dist. 9. And then shuts vp the mouths of all Litteralists and Heretiques that hold this spoken of the Sacrament, alleadging Thomas Aquinas his draught out of Augustine, Non manducans manducat, & manducans non manducat. Hee that eateth not Sacramentally, may yet eate Christ spiritually by faith, and so did the Theefe on the Crosse, and was saued. Some eate the Sacramentall bread but not Christ, (which is the inward grace of the Sacrament:) as Iudas did and was damned.
Manie moe Fathers shall you haue to secod these against you if these satisfie you not.Thus you are condemned by two learned Fathers, that you ignorantlie, or maliciously, or both, mistake and misapplie the sixth of Iohn, to speake of the Sacrament before the Sacrament was instituted.
VVhether Christ treated of the Eucharist in the 6. chap. of S. Ihon.
Fitzimon. In his Rescript.41. I Am threatned by M. Rider, that vnlesse I answeare this mater well, I am ouerthrowen horse and foote. I wil therfor begynn thus, saying, that S. Augustin, and Lyra, are vntruely alleaged. Indeede, S. Augustin speaking of the time immediatly before Christs passion,August. tom. 4. de Consen. Euan. l. 3. c. 1. sayth; Ioannes autem de corpore & sanguine Domini, hoc loco nihil dixit: But Ihon in this place sayth nothing of the body and blood of our Lord. These woords added by M. Rider, [sixt of his gospell] are the text of a cunning misreporter, not of S. Augustin. He giueth a reason, why S. Ihon treated not of the body and blood of our Lord, in this place; because, saith he, amply he treated therof before. Is this, Augustin to deny, or affirme, that S. Ihon treated of the body and blood of Christ in the sixt chapter? For vnless he treated in the sixt chapter only, S. Augustins woords that he had treated therof amply befor (in no other place they being specified) can not be verifyed.
Now, to Lyra. Tell posteritie, I request you, in your next A [Page 53] wryting, that you had mistaken Lyra for one Mathias Dornick, who carpeth by replyes at the additiōs of Paul Burgensis annected to Lyra. Your owne cited booke will informe you therof befor the prologue to the psalmes, and els wheare. The swoord of Goliath agayne, shal cutt his owne head: I meane, that the authors by you alleaged, shall testifie against you. Lyra then saith, euen vpon the 6. of S. Ihon; Postquam egit de pane spirituali qui est verbum, Lyra in Cap. 6. Ioan. hic consequenter agit de pane spirituali qui est sacramentum. After that he had discoursed of the spiritual bread, which is the woord; here he handleth the spiritual bread which is the Sacrament. Againe: Ne crederent, quod caro eius contineretur in sacramento Eucharistiae sicut in signo, ideo hoc remouet dicens, caro mea vere est cibus, &c. Least they should beleeue, that his fleash were conteined in the Eucharist, as in a signe, therfor he preuenteth that, saying, my fleash is meat indeede. Againe: quia hic sumitur realiter non figuratiue; here it is taken realy, sayth he, and not figuratiuely. After he telleth you, that they are hereticks who affirme, it to be, tantummodo sicut in signo, only as in a signe. Let this suffise to know, to whom might by another be sayd; De mendacio ineruditionis tuae confundere; Eccli. 7. be ashamed at the falshood of your ignorance. For forgerie is, opprobrium nequam in homine, a badd reproache to any man; but is incident principaly to the vnlearned,Eccli. 34. in ore indisciplinatorum assidue erit.
As here it is manifest, three great vntruths are heaped together; First by vnlearned mistaking S. Augustins woords being of what was deliuered, belonging only to the immediat action of Christ befor his passion: Secondly, by addition of woords to S. Augustins speeche: Thirdly by vnlearned mistaking Lyra for another. Notwithstanding I will score vp but the 17. vntrueth, which was by badd intention, and only to misinforme, inserted. For the point, all catholicks, and most principal protestants acknowledg, that Christ in S. Ihon chapter 6. treated of the Sacrament: But, by way of premonition, anticipation, or instruction, (as was his wonte, towards the greatest mysteries, of his passion, ascension, comming of the holy Ghost, &c.) and not by institution. It being cleere among Catholicks, I will auerr it by protestāts.Martyr. in defens. Eucha. Con. Gardin. par. 3. pag. 644. 547. Bucer. in c. 6. Ioan. & in cap 26. Math. Ecpenceus in Apolog. That (saith Peter Martyr) which Christ promised in the sixt of Ihon, that he performed in the last supper. Martin Bucer, vpon the very sixt of Ihon, and else where, craueth pardon of God, that euer he had bewitched any with your opinion, that Christ handled not his true, real, and corporal being, (by way of premonition) in this Chapter. Lyke repentance had also Peter Martyr, for some tyme being of your imagination. As [Page 54] also had Oecolampadius by his ovvne testimonie,Oecolamp. ad Land. Hess. 1529. Feuard. in pref. com. in Ruth. Vide in examine symboli. n. 7. Calu. con. Heshusium. Beza in Creophagia. Tygurenses con. test. Brency. Micomius in S. Marc. pag. 150. Cureus in Spongia. Daneus con. Selneccerum. Cautier pag. 186. &c. Caueat a litle befor. saying: Vtinam pri [...] ceps illustrissime, abscissa fuisset mihi haec dextera, cùm primum inciperem de negotio Coenae Dominicae quicquam scribere: I would, most excellent prince, that this right hand of myne had bene chopped off, when I began first to wryte owght of the Lords supper. Feuardent reporteth, that Caluin misbeleeued S. Ihon to haue bene authour of this sixt chapter, because it was to cleere against his imagination. Yet Caluin him selfe in his booke against Heshusius approueth it to treat of the Sacrament▪ So dothe Beza; The ministers of Zurick, Miconius, Cureus, Daneus, Cautier, &c. So lastly doth most cleerly M. Rider not long befor, against him selfe, saying: who soeuer dwel in Christ, and Christ in them, only eate Christs fleash, and drinck Christs blood. Which saith he, (being Christs woords in the sixt of Ihon, verse 56.) it were damnable to doubt of them. Then suerly it can not be but damnable to doubt of Christs mentioning the Sacrament in the sixt of Ihon, wherby he is eaten of vs, dwelleth in vs, and we in him.
I trust, you will not deny now, to haue bene aunswered, to your full expectation, and smal consolation. For both S. August. and Lyra contradicteth your information, your brethren confute it, and your selfe disproue it: then which what fowler disgrace could happen to a wryter? But I will make it yet fowler, by ingadgeing your pretious Iuels credit,Iwels replie against Harding art. 5. Diuisione 3. pag. 323. whether Christ did not mētion the eating of his flesh in the 6. of S. Ihon or not; he cōfidently saying: That Christ in the sixt of S. Ihon speaketh of the spiritual eating by fayth, by which his very fleash and very blood indeed, and verily is eaten and drunken. Notwithstanding we say that Christ afterward in his last supper vnto the same spiritual eating, added also an owtward sacrament, or figure. Behould his assurāce that Christ did here treat of eating Christ, and that his speache here belongeth, to that he after ordayned.
Rider. You are not onely taxed by Aug. to bee ignorant in the circū stance of the text, but also in the sence of the text which is a grose thing in diuines.42. Now you shall heare Augustine tell you, that this sixt of Iohn is to be taken figuratiuelie, and allegoricallie and therefore spirituallie, meaning that the speeches and phrases which Christ vsed be borrowed and translated from the bodie to the mind, from eating and drinking to beleeving, from chamming with the teeth, to the beleeuing with the heart. So that what eating and drinking is to the bodie, that beleeuing is to the soule. And as bread and flesh be meat corporall for the bodie; so Christ our bread is made spirituall for the soule. And as corporall meats are taken with the corporall mouth, so are spirituall meates (Christ crucified with all his benefits) receiued with faith, the mouth of the soule. And therefore to teach all posterities how to expound these words of Christ, hee giues a generall rule perpetually to be obserued in GODS church: Saying:De doct. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16. Si praeceptiua locutio [Page 55] est, &c. If the Scriptures seeme to commaund an horrible or vile fact, the speech is figuratiue:The secōd proofe out of the sixt of Iohn. and then alleadgeth your second proofe that you bring out of the sixt of Iohn, for example. Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud, yee shall haue no life in you. Facinus & flagitium videtur iubere, Christ (in this place) seemes to commaund a wicked and horrible act. Figura est ergo, It is therefore a figuratiue speech, commaunding vs to keepe in mind that his flesh was crucified & tormented for vs. Now examine Augustines exposition. To eate corporallie, reallie, and substantiallie Christs flesh with our material mouths, and to drinke his precious, substantiall, reall bloud with our bodilie lips, is a horrible thing. Therefore Christs words bee figuratiue. So that by Augustines owne words your litterall sence & carnall presence is wicked and horrible, howsoeuer you cloake it with fained titles, to blinde the eies and deceiue the hearts of simple Catholiques.
And if you would but read the fifth chapter of the foresaid booke; you should see his Christian caueat he giues to Gods Church touching this point. In principio cauendū est ne figuratā locutionē ad litterā accipias, &c. First of all, you must beware that you take not a figuratiue speech according to the letter: his reason followes, for the letter, (that is, the litterall sence) killeth. But the spirit, that is, the spirituall sence) giueth life. For when we take the figuratiue speech for a proper speech, we make the sence carnall, neither is there anie thing more fitlie calld the death of the soule.
Thus you see Aug. teacheth (if you would learne) that if the speech be proper; the sence must bee litterall and carnall: but if it be figuratiue, it must bee misticall and spirituall: and alleadgeth this your own text for the same. So I would wish you either follow Augustines doctrine, or else cease to vse Augustines and the rest of the Fathers names: for in vsurping their names, and peruerting their doctrine, you abuse the Fathers, and deceiue the Catholiques. Your Bernard also in later times condemnes your absurd & vnchristianlike exposition of this your owne text,Ber. Serm. 33. inps. Qui habitat. Fol. 68. Col. 2. Vnlesse you eate the flesh of Christ, &c. He asketh the question. Quid autē est manducare eius carnem, & bibere sanguinem? nisi communicare passionibus eius, & eam conuersationem imitari quam gessit in carne: What is to eate Christs flesh and drinke his bloud? but to communicate with his passions, and to imitate his holie conuersation in the flesh. And then followeth: Vnde & hoc designat illibatum illud Altaris Sacramentum. vbi Dominicū corpus accipimus: vt sicut videtur illa panis forma in nos intrare: sic nouerimus eam quam in terris habuit conuersationem, ipsum intrare in nos, ad habitandum per fidem in cordibus nostris. Whence also this (text) signifieth that pure Sacrament of the Altar, where we receiue the bodie of Christ: that as the forme of bread is seen to enter into vs, so we shal know, Christ entreth into vs to dwell in our hearts by faith, by that holie & godlie conuersation that he had being in earth.
Now examine Bernard your owne Abbot though liuing in the palpablest time of the grosest superstition: yet he vtterly cōdemnes your exposition of this place, & sheweth you that it doth not signifie Christs carnall presence in the Sacramēt. But as the Sacramēt consisteth of an outward signe & inward grace: so bread the outward signe entreth into the mouth, & Christ which is the inward grace, entreth into our hearts by faith. So that your owne Author tells you, it is bread that entreth the mouth, it is Christ that entereth the heart, & that by faith, not by teeth: by beleeuing, not by chamming or swallowing. So that this your Bernard teacheth you, that this your text must be taken for the diuiner part of the Sacrament, which is Christ with all his merits, to the soules & hearts of the beleeuers, not to, or in the blasphemous mouthes, and stinking stomackes of Infidells, wicked men, dogges, cats, or other beastes, as your owne bookes most wickedly recorde.
VVhether euery spiritual sentence, or mention, be a denial of Corporal, and Real?
Fitzimon.42. THey are in extreamitie, and want of wolle, who wandre among brambles to gather flocks. Such is the proceeding of our aduersaries, seeking with all ernest attentiuenes, fragments, from the Fathers, in which they commend spiritual receauing, spiritual being of Christ in the sacrament, a quick and liuely faithe toward Christ, and the sacrament; and by these sentences, they certifie theire brethren, that the Fathers stand for their opinion, as yf they were excluding true and real receuing. That which is so often taught them, should once be conceaued; that the Fathers toward the Sacrament commend spiritualitie, conioyned with realitie and substantialitie, and allow figures conioyned with veritie, not haueing any purpose or place in their writings, by the one to exclude the other Our doctrin, that spiritual and corporal were not incompatible, but agreable together,Chrysost. hom. 60. ad popul. Antioch. Idem. hom. 61. was vttered long since by S. Chrysostom, saying of Christs being in the Sacrament, that he is medled with vs; Non fide tantum, sed & ipsa re; not in faithe only, but also in very substance. Againe; not by charitie only, but by very substance, is he made our foode. Also by S. Cyril Alexandrin, Cyrill. l. 10. in Ioa. c. 13. Theophylac. in cap. 14. Mar. & 17. Mat. Greg. hom. paschali. in conformable woords: not by charitie only, but by natural partaking, is Christ in vs. Also by Theophilact: this, my body, which you receaue, is not only a figure or exemplar of our Lords bodie, but the body of Christ. Also by S. Gregorie: Christ is both the veritie and figure; the veritie by his body being made of bread, Ansel. l. de Diu. offic. apud Claud. rep. 3. c. 4. and the figure by what outwardly appeareth. Also by S. Anselme: By the benediction of Christ the bread is made the bodie, not significatiuely only, but substantialy. For nether from this sacrament do we exclude a figure, nether do we admitt it alone. It is the thing truely, for it is Christs body. It is a figure, because that is sacrificed, which is knowen incorruptible.
Doe not these Fathers affirme both spiritual and substantial, both figure and trueth, both spirit and letter? Why then are they wrested by them, who professe only spiritual without substantial, only figure without trueth,Aug. trac. 27. in Ioan. in Psal. 98. De verbis Apo toli. Ser. 2. Item Cypr. ac [...]ana. only spirit without letter? What meane they, to bring S. Augustin disputing against the Capharnaical conceit of receaueing Christ (as, in cadauere dilaniatum, aut in macello venditum, in his carcas bowtchered, or sould in the shambles, as he him selfe expresseth often) and in respect of them, to call the Sacrament a figure? Doth [Page 57] he say only a figure? Or his, and S. Bernards commending the spiritual sense of scriptures, and spiritual receauing of the Sacrament an argument, as yf they had, or would exclude therby the literal sense, or substantial receauing? Are you in doubt of their myndes in this controuersie? They then resolue you. First S. Augustin, August. in Ps. 33. that Christ by saying, this is my body, was twyse at the table, once sitting, & once houlding himselfe in his owne hands;S. Bernard. de coena Domini. & that secundum literam, according to the leter. Next S. Bernard, saying: Hostia quam vides iam non est panis, sed caro mea &c. The host which thow behouldest is not now bread, but my fleashe. Euen so the lyquor which now you see is not wyne but my blood. Euen as the formes are there seene, whose substance are not beleeued to be there: so the thing truely, and substantialy is beleeued, whose forme is not seene. Here our transubstantiation, here our haueing Christs body in diuers places, here our literal doctrin, here our whole papistrie, is assured to haue bene in these Fathers as much as in vs.
S. Paul saith; Si est corpus animale, est & spirituale; 1. Cor. 15.45. Yf there be a natural body, ther is also a spiritual body. Therfor, the one doth not exclude the other. Therfor Christs spiritual body should not be Capharnaicaly supposed to be bitten, rent, or māgled, by his real, substātial, and corporal being in the Sacrament. You would thinke him iniurious, who would inferr, that because you haue a corporal head, corporal body, and are a corporal man, that therfor you haue no spiritual witt in your head, no sense in your body, and are no spiritual man. Can both consist in you? and not a figure and substance, spirit and corporal, trueth and literal, in sacraments, and scriptures? O protestantcy! seely are thy shifts, and they discouered; fowle and apparent thy falshod, and it made manifest: yet there are that persist to follow thee, fullfilling therin the scripture, saying;Prou. 29. Verbis non emendabitur seruus durus: si enim & intellexerit non obedient: By woords will not the hardned seruant be amended: for althowgh he should vnderstand, yet will he not obey. I haue bene slack to numbre the 18. vntrueth,The 18. vntruth. which at least is here produced in playne termes, that our owne authour telleth vs, it is bread that entreth the mowthe; wheras he only saithe, panis forma, which M. Rider, him selfe translateth, the forme of bread, and not bread it selfe: adding that we should know; Per eam, ipsum intrare in nos Dominicum corpus; through it, our Lords very body to enter into vs, to dwell in our harts by faithe. Suerly yf M. Rider may receaue his guest into his howse and hart, to his meat and mynde, as he often professeth: so should he imagin that [Page 58] we may and should in like maner receaue Christ in the Sacrament.
What he saith of doggs and catts, Christian shame would haue C spared. Can the sonne shyne vpon a donghill, and neuer be defyled? or the three children abyde in the fyer and neuer be burned? or Gods diuinitie be in euery thing and euery wher,D. Tho. 1. par. q. 8. art. 3. quo ad potentiam, essentiam, praesentiam, not only by power, but by substance, and essence, equaly in heauen, and in earth, yea and in hell, and vnder waters, & not be blemished, tormēted, or disgraced? why then is it thought an absurditie, that Christ true God, and man, being now immortal, and impassible, should be any where, or in any person how vyle soeuer, without al bleamish, hurt, or disgrace? This Ethnical reproaching the heuenly mysteries, posteritie will detest; by the very testimonie,Calu. in prefat. Catecheseos. Luth. ser. Conuiual fol. 158. & in pref. tom. 1. if not Baalamitical prophecie, of Caluin, saying; Posteritatem tandem fraudas nouatorum sensuram, & antiquis vijs instituram; Posteritie will discouer the frauds of Reformers, and returne to the ould wayes: when (as Luther also fortould) horum temporum curiositas saturata fuerit; the curiositie of these tymes wilbe satiated. Which are two strange predictions of two Protoplasts of the fift apostolical gospell; wherby al their enterprises, are insinuated to be fraudulent innouations, and desperat doctrines founded only on the curiositie of these tymes.
Rider. Grosse absurdities follow the Priests positions.43. And if your litterall exposition were true, then none could bee saued but such as eate your consecrated Christ made of bread: then infants that die and communicate not, should be damned. Captiues that from their cradle liue vnder Tyrants, and those that before Christ: in Christes time: and in the first thousand years after Christ, before your new consecration was stamped, are damned. And contrariwise, all that eate of your consecrated Hoste be saued, bee they neuer so blasphemous to God, traiterous to their Prince, and iniurious to their brethren.
But that both these extreames that spring from your litterall exposition contrarie to Scriptures and fathers, be false and horrible to Christian eares: no godlie man may doubt, vnlesse he will denie Christ and his word: the auncient Fathers, and the Primitiue church, and you shall neuer giue the Catholiques that haue hanged their precious soules vpon your bare sayings, due satisfaction in this, without publike and penitent recantation of this.
You follow nether Scriptures nor Fathers.If with the Fathers you would but obserue duelie the circumstances of the 5. and 6. of Iohn, you might see, it cannot be meant of the Sacrament, and therefore you are deceiued in the Scriptures, because the Sacrament was not then ordained. Againe, by the iudgement of Augustine the speech is figuratiue, and therefore the sence spirituall. And so Augustine stands with vs against you.
Olde Lyra saith, that the sixth of Iohn, Nihil directe pertinet, &c. speaketh not one word directly and pertinentlie of the Sacrament. The Father saith, nihil, nothing, directe directly, yet you against Scriptures and Fathers will wrest these texts indirectlie, and impertinentlie, to speake of the Sacrament before it was a Sacrament.
[Page 59]If we should commit such palpable errours against Scriptures, Fathers, and common sence, you would call vs common sots without learning or sence, plaine murtherers and soule slayers, from which sinne the Lord deliuer vs both.
Now I will aske your conscience this question, how durst you cut off Christs words by the waste? meant you plainly in that? surely no: for if you had recited the whole verse, it had marred your market: you onely set downe the middle of the sentence, concealing the beginning of it, and curtalling the end of it, and so thinking that to serue your turne, and blinde the eies of the simple. But God willing I wille discouer the trueth, which you seeke to couer, and let the simple people see how farre and how long you haue deceiued and misledde them, to the great perill of their soules, with wresting the Scriptures, and wronging the Fathers.
Christs whole sentence was this.Verse. 51. I am the liuing bread which came downe from [...]eauen, if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer. and this you cut off. Then followes your proofe. The bread that I will giue is my flesh: Iohn. 6.50. then you curtall [...]he rest: which I will giue for the life of the world. If you had dealt plainly, and [...]eliuered Christs words to Gods people without substraction, as Christ deliuered [...]hem vnto you, then the people euen the simplest of them, would not haue so [...]ong beene deceaued by you. For the former part of the verse, and the later con [...]ealed by you, expound Christs minde, and bewray your errours.
Let me but reason with you out of the first part of the verse, from the propertie of this bread heere spoken of by Christ. First it is liuing bread, and giues eternall [...]ife to the receiuers: yours doth not. This came from heauen, yours did not. Who so eates of this cannot be damned: but manie eate of yours, and die eter [...]ally: and therefore the very properties of this bread shew plainely, that it cannot [...]e meant of your singing-cakes, as hath beene prooued before vnto you. Because they haue no life in themselues, and therefore can neither giue life, nor preserue [...]ife vnto others. The later part of the verse concerneth Christs flesh, which is this true bread. And thus out of Christs words I prooue that the flesh of CHRIST spoken of in this place, cannot bee the flesh of CHRIST which you would haue giuen in the Sacrament.
How, and when M. Rider reiterateth strange Deductions, Arguments, and Reprehensions.
43. DOe not meruayle at these deductions of M. Rider to be often applyed, and replyed. For in 20.Fitzimon. monethes space they being collected, he might eftsoons forgett what he had formerly ingrossed, and so forgetting him selfe, and what he had sayd befor, he might insert the self same things often: Or not fynding in so long studie, any thing to his purpose, but rather whersoeuer he turned his eyes, and conuerted his mynde, to be wholy against his cause, and condemning him and it; he thought good to make many messes of smal cheare, and to furnish the table with one only prouision, by art of cookerie [Page 60] diuersely prepared; otherwyse it were hard, that in one sheete of paper, they should be so often inculcated. Yet then I aunswer [...] before in the 40. numbre, that the saluioure of mankind IESVS Christ our Lord, is our foode in the Sacrament. Whosoeuer, of discretion, eateth him not, or by contempt (after denuntiation of his pleasure, and merciful gift of him selfe) shal neuer be saued. Whe [...] by impossibilitie or impediment any is debarred from eating him, they may be saued, by haueing intention to discharge their duty therto at conuenient opportunitie. All that eate of the consecrated hoast worthely (for if vnworthely, it is their damnation) they shal be saued, vnlesse by their owne wickednes they depriue themselues of the benifit therof. This was aunsweared before, and to the same ould friuolous obiections, the same resolution may suffise. But in vayne of a Coocow, is any new, and variable song expected. Verily, if I did thinke that all readers of his booke, did not plainly obserue his obiections, and maters, to be handled in a method worthy of all deploration; & by him to be hudled, shuffled, and iugled, miserably, disordredly, intricatly, & erroneusly; I would display it palpably. But let vs not long interrupt him. I am here challenged to haue cutt by the wast, and curtayled Christs woords
Indeed I confesse, when I intended to select breefe proofs out of scripture, that my meaning was not, to alleage whole books o [...] chapters, of scripture, as they are intierly each of them by their wryters deliuered. Wherfor to affirme that I produced no [...] whole scriptures in that maner, I confesse it willingly: as also, that by example of all wryters, sacred and prophane, I brought but such as seemed to me sufficient against my aduersaries. In that sense I yeeld to haue cutt by the wast, and curtailled scriptures; But, that I haue not competently for my mater deliuered testimonies of scripture; or that I deceytfully concealed any disproofe therof to my cause; or that any sillable of scripture contradicteth me, which any other hath, or may alleadge, with modesty, I may confidently denie. What then if this reproache be found but a pretext to auoyde the brunt of the mater, and vnder the shaddow therof not to haue weacknes discouered?Front. l. 2. c. 13. For so P. Claudius, surmounted by his enemies, yet putting vpp his flaggs of victorie, came cunningly off, and escaped his wondring foes. And diuers expert Captains when they haue most will to retyre from imminent dangers, they rayse fyers and smokes, not wher they are, but wher they are not, purloyning theire forces in the meane time, by darknes, into their [Page 61] houlds; yet neuer did any of them practise this skill more oft then my aduersarie. He blameth me (like as Goliath blamed Dauid, 7. Reg. 17.43. that he had but few and weake weapons) for bringing too litle against him, that by the maske of such a challenge, he may slylie remoue, from what tormenteth his mynde, and quite ouerthroweth his profession. It appeareth by that insueth.
I had to proue that Christ gaue his body corporaly in the Sacrament, and therto alleaged these woords of Christ; the Bread that I will giue is my fleashe. M. Rider finding that he could neuer deflect these woords to his figures, and representations, raised vp a mist, or maske, in reprehēding me for cutting by the wast, curtailling, & subtracting pertinent scriptures: which, saithe he, being brought, the simplest, had not bene deceaued. I would fayne know, of any [...]ne in his perfect senses, doth not what he hath supplied (which I [...]ad omitted) rather confirme, then infirme my beleefe? I beleeue [...]hat the B. Sacrament, is Christ that discended from heauen, and the sacred fleash which he was to giue for the life of the world: the woords of Christ by him alleadged do confirme the same, for [...]e promised it should be his fleash, which he would giue for the [...]yfe of the world, when he would giue them the bread here mentioned. Are not therfor all Readers, by M. Rider accompted no better then dunses, when he persuadeth them that these woords are against our beleefe, which of all others confirme it most? for yf the bread which he would giue by him self, in expresse tearmes, be declared to be the selfe same fleash which he would deliuer in his passion for the lyfe of the world: how is it not beleeued? how is it sayd to be only a figure? how is this sayd to be against vs? But, by this time, it is knowen, that there is no slandre in his tong, nor any regard due to his talke, as being one whom it satisfieth to haue sayd any thing, it importeth not how litle to the purpose. But Reader, attend nether his words, nor myne, but beleeue thy owne eyes, when thow mayest behould, whether of vs telleth the trueth; for I neuer said it to be only a figure, appellation, or representation. I concurr in the same woords by Christ assured, and vttered; and follovv no imaginations, or constructions of dreaming brayns, misledd euen by their ovvne confessions, by vncertain spirits, as M. Rider doth: Whether of vs then, do these vvoords impugne? A tubb is neuer so full of sound as vvhen it is emptiest: so is not M. Rider more ful of noyize, then vvhen he is destitut of all other mater: for then florisheth he in his exceptions, [Page 62] exclamations, apostrophes, &c. as a meere circulator, or tooth, drawing phisitian, vnder a baner of rotten teeth, and impostumes, when his stomach, and purse, are most emptie, then he pleadeth, and prateth, most endlesly.
This also is the third time of replying these same obiections, as appeareth in the 40. numbre. He that hath no change may be allowed to turne, and returne his coate. One M. Sabinus Chamber, on Christimas eaue last past, 1604. gaue me vnder his hand, that M. Rider defending vnder him for bachelershipp of arte in Oxford, anno 1581. although he tooke in New Parke great paynes with him (at the request of two of his owne awnts, by whom M. Rider was releaued) yet that he could neuer make entrance for M. Riders head into philosophie, nor for philosophie into his head. This forsayd gentleman is at this hower in place, and accompt, of great trust: who to be better beleeued, added this secret token, that M. Rider contrary to the lawes of the vniuersitie, proceeded master in the selfe same yeare of his bachelershipp, not without periurie in his witnesses. Meruayle not therfor, that he wanteth varietie of arguments, and knowledge, especialy in the higher science of diuinitie, when he could not enter in at the inferioure gate of philosophie, which only leadeth to knowledge. To the mater last rehearsed, further aunswear is also giuen at the num. 37. and 40.
Rider.44. Christs flesh promised in the sixt of Ihon, was onely giuen on the Crosse: but the Sacrament was not the Crosse. Therfore in the Sacrament the flesh of Christ was not giuen: So that these arguments grounded vpon Christs owne words, which you concealed, confute you & your carnall presence in the Sacrament For your Sacramental bread neither came from heauen, nor your imagined flesh of Christ made by the Priest cannot be this flesh here spoken of. For it was offered once, not often as you teach, and that by himselfe, not by the Priests: vpon the Crosse, not in your Masse: and that for the plenarie remission of the sinnes of all beleeuers, not for the temporal benefit of some perticuler persons, quick, or dead, as the Priest pleaseth.
VVhether Christs woords teach Christs fleash to haue bene only giuen on the Crosse.
Fitzimon.44. THis argument, auerreth effectualy the precedent attestations: as being out of all the 19. moods, and three figures, allowed in philosophie. For by haueing the medium, or meane twyse in the predicato, or later part of the propositions; it should be in the second figure: and being [Page 63] deformed in that figure, it is excluded out of all the rest. The deformation appeareth, that the second proposition should haue bene, and is not, in this maner [but the fleash of Christ in the Sacrament, was not only giuen on the Crosse] from which it varyeth, by omitting all the former parte, and exchangeing the being giuen on the Crosse, into the being of a material Crosse. The conclusion also is misshapen, as which ought only to haue bene: [therfor the fleash of Christ in the Sacrament was not promised in the sixt of Ihon. Because I am,Rom. 1.14. Debitor factus sapientibus & insipientibus; made a debtour to the learned and vnlearned, I haue borrowed licence of the vnskillfull in Philosophie, to haue in a start, followed this mater in his kinde.
Now, to the capacitie of all; I aunswer to the first proposition,The 19. vntruth. that it is euidently the 19. vntrueth, and against Christs expresse promise in the 6. of S. Ihon, promising, that besyd his giuing his flesh to be crucifyed, he would also giue him selfe to be eatē of vs: saying, vnlesse you eate &c. I aunswear to the next, that it is true, that Christs fleash in the Sacrament was not only, giuen on the Crosse, as being also giuen to be eaten in the Sacrament. The conclusion is contayned in the premisses, and so denyed, or affirmed, as the premisses. All the residue, is ether specified, and reuersed, in the 40. or. 43. numbres, or els being voyd speeches at randome, need noe further resolution. Behould, beloued reader,Ioan. 6. v. 51.53.55. to these woords of Christ (this bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the worlde) no woord of worthe, or witt, is replied, but time,Ioan. 14.6. cap. 7.17. and wynde, wasted, in most idle diuagations. Is Christ the trueth? are his woords, as the Euangelist affirmeth, the veritie? why then, the bread he gaue was his fleash, not his figure: then his fleash was not only crucified, but also eaten: then his fleash, is meat, truely, and not figuratiuely. To aunsweare therfor to these pregnant and infallible woords of Christ him selfe, only that we mistake not shewing how, the Fathers denye, when, and what they affirme, apparently that Christs woords are spiritual, and therfor not litteral: and for other aunswer to digresse into reproaches, to multiply woords, to beat the wynde, not shewing any defense, or warrant of Scripture, or Father, for your figure only without veritie, appellation only without substance, representation only without commoditie: such aunswearing I say, is breefly,Psal. 4. v. 3. Diligere vanitatem & querere mendacium; to loue vanitie and to seeke lyes.
The third proofe of the Catholique Priests out of the sixth of Iohn, to prooue Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament.Catholicque Priests. Vers. 55. My flesh is meate truelie, and my bloud is drinke trulie:
Rider.45. YF you should aske your boy in his Grammer rules a question if he aunswered not in the same case, or by the same tense of a verbe that the [...] question is asked by, you will count him a silie Grammatist. But if you aske your Sophister a question in quid, and hee aunswere in quale, you will ta [...] him for an improper and impertinent aunswere. But most of all, if a great Diuine be asked a question, to prooue the manner of a thing, and he neglecting or omitting that, as too hard or impossible for him, prooues the matter that was neuer demaunded or doubted of, what will the Reader thinke of this matter, this man, and this proofe? Surelie he must say either he vnderstandeth not the state of the question, or else he is not able to prooue the question: and so vseth this shameful shift i [...] steed, of a sufficient proofe.
All the Catholiques in this kingdome expected to be satisfied by your aunswer touching the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament, whether it be carnal or spirituall: and whether he must be eaten by faith spirituallie, or the teeth carnally. And your aunswere is as improper and impertinent, as either Grammatist or Sophister, for you leaue the maner of Christs presence which you should prooue, and bring the matter of his presence which was neuer in question, saying; My flesh is meat truly, &c.
How this your aunswere doeth relish of learning let the learned iudge. When a [...] the Catholiques in the kingdome hang their soules on your saying: Are these you contentments you giue them? If they aske you how they must eate Christs fle [...] & drinke Christs bloud, then you tell them: my flesh is meate in deed, and my bloud [...] drinke in deed. Doe you aunswere their question or satisfie their conscience, or resolue their doubts? alasse no. Thus you haue dealt, dallied, and deceiued a long time Christs people with these your improper, impertinēt, vnprofitable, nay vntrue aunsweres, and yet you will be called Fathers, Doctours, and what not.
But I pray you tell me why you added not the next words of Christ? you thought they were against you. But if you had dealt as men hauing Gods fea [...] before your eies, you would not haue staied there: for the next verse plainely discouers your bad dealing with the simple people, for that aunswereth their question, and that would satisfie all good Catholiques in this point. For if you aske there the holy Ghost this question: how must Gods children eate Christes flesh and drinke Christs bloud: he will aunswere you: that whosoeuer dwels in Christ and Christ in him, eates Christs flesh and drinkes Christs bloude: but the faithfull onely dwell in Christ and Christ in them, therefore the faithfull onely eate Christs flesh and drinke Christs bloud: whether it be in hearing the word, in baptisme, or in the Lords Supper, as you haue heard before. If you had added this verse, it h [...] ouerthrown your carnall presence in the Sacrament, and your orall eating of Chris [...] with your mouth, teeth &c. But as you wrong the Catholiques with an impertiti [...] answere, and as you abuse them by keeping backe the next words of Christ which expounds his owne meaning: So heere you abuse your holie Father the Pope, and your deare mother the Church of Rome, in expounding this text contrarie to the Romane sence.
The second parte, of the Catholicks first proofe, by Scriptures.
45. HEere, in the woords of Christ is assured:Fitzimon. for the matter, that it is fleashe and consequently not his appellation only: for the manner, that it is truely, and consequently not figuratiuely only; yet doth this proctor of the protestant profession, only to cauill, tell that the mater was neuer in question and that the maner is not proued. I say then, the boy in Grammer, or the Sophist, that would not conceaue the state of the question propounded, and expounded vnto him, by Christ him selfe, not obscurely, or doubtfully, but euidently; yet affirmeth, that instruction hath not bene giuen him; is to haue many strypes according to Gods woord.Prouerb. 10. v. 10. Ose. 4.14. Populus non intelligens vapulabit; the not vnderstanding people shalbe beaten, &c. Of the rest, whether the faythfull only dwel in Christ, and only dwellers in him eate him, and that it is all one to heare the woord and to communicat, as here is affirmed, appeareth, in the 33. 34. 35. and 43. numbres.
46. For you take this flesh of Christ which is our true meat,Rider. to be the flesh which was borne of the virgin and suffered on the Crosse, but the Popes & Church of Rome say contrarie: for these be the wordes of the Canon:Dist. 2. de consec. pag. 434. canon dupliciter. Col. 4. Read the glosse and you may see your errour as in a glasse. Dupliciter intelligitur caro & sanguis Christi, vel spiritualis illa atque diuina: de qua ipse ait, Caro mea vere est cibus & sanguis meus vere est potus: & nisi meam carnem &c. Vel caro mea ea quae crucifixa est, &c. The flesh and bloud of Christ (saith your owne Church of Rome) must be considered two manner of waies, either for the spirituall and diuine flesh spoken of by Christ, my flesh is meat in deed, &c. and except you drinke his bloud, &c. or else for that his flesh which was crucified, and that his bloud shed by the sharp launce of a cruell souldiour: so that heere you forsake your Romane Catholique faith, and become Apostates from the Church of Rome. Thus you abuse the Catholiques, in making them beleeue you teach as the Pope teacheth, and you doe not: therefore either the Pope or you must erre grosly, teaching contraries. But that all men may see, that not onely this Pope, but also other Popes haue held the contrarie opinion to your new broched heresie, I will alleadge him that you dare not contradict,Innocentius tertius: lib. 4. cap. 14. de Sacramento Altaris. pag. 179. that is Innocentius tertius that first begat your abortiue Transubstantiation. De spirituali commestione Dominus ait, Nisi manducaueritis, &c. The Lord Christ when hee spake of the spirituall eating, said: Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man, &c. Loe, heere is another Pope against you. For you late Iesuites, Semynaries, Rhemists, and Priests, take this as spoken of Christs flesh in the sacrament, and they take it for that spirituall and diuine flesh of Christ, [Page 66] whereon all the faithfull fed by faith, as well before Christs incarnation, as since his ascention.
The Pope your Father, & Rome your mother witnesse against you Priestes and the rest of their degenerat children.I would bring more witnesses against your vntrue expositions and allegations, but that I thinke it sufficient that the Parentes Testimonie is the strongest euidence against their degenerat children. And after, the Pope alleadgeth Augustine and the Canon. Quid paras dentem & ventrem, crede & manducasti, and then concludes against your carnall eating of Christes flesh most strongly: Qui credit in Deum, comedit ipsum. Caro Christi nisi spiritualiter comedatur non ad salutem sed ad iudicium manducatur.
Why (saieth your Pope) preparest thou thy teeth to eate and thy bellie to be filled? beleeue and thou hast eaten, hee that beleeues eates. For the flesh of Christ is not eaten to saluation, but to destruction, vnlesse it be eaten spirituallie. And there in the next chapter,Pap. 180. the Pope giues this marginall note: Christus est spiritualis Eucharistia; Christ is our spiritual Eucharist not our carnall food in the Sacrament. And in the same page he saith, Cibus est non corporis, sed animae: this is not meat for the bodie, but for the soule. And if it bee meate for the soule, then it must bee receiued by faith, not the mouth, spirituallie, not carnallie.
You see now the Scriptures, Fathers, Popes olde and new, the Text and glosse of your deare mother the Church of Rome against you. And least you should cauil, I haue alleadged the Bookes, Chapters, Distinctions and Pages. And if you will still tell the Catholiques that these places by mee alleadged be not true, then I tell you, all your owne Authors and print be false: for I alleadge Father, Pope, and Canons of your owne print; and if you doubt, looke vnto your owne bookes and prints,Printed Anno. 1599. Impensis Lazari Zetzneri. and you shall find them so verbatim, vnlesse your late Ind [...] expurgatorius hath blotted out the trueth, as in manie things it hath.
VVhether the Popes, and Church of Rome doe in their Decretals denye Christ in the Sacrament to be the same that was borne of the Virgin Marie.
Fitzimon.46. THe Decretal, and glosse, telling only, that Christ may be considered ether Spiritually as he is in the Sacrament, or as he was on the Crosse, with his sensible quantitie; and Innocentius instructing, that we may receaue, verum corpus quod traxit de Virgine & in cruce pependit; his true body, receaued from the virgin, and which hanged on the Crosse, sacramentaly that is, saythe he, vnder the forme, or Spiritualy by faythe only: such testimonies, confirming apparently our doctrin, and being opposit to our aduersaries, without reason, or ryme, our Spiritual M. Rider, for the only mention made of Spiritualitie, certifyeth, to make for his purpose: thinking he hath as good right to all testimonies contayning Spiritualitie, although otherwyse they be most repugnant to him, as to all tyethes, and fruicts, of [Page 67] his Deanry bequeathed for vses altogether opposit to his wonted offices of spiritualitie, as yf he fullfilled them.
In the meane tyme, by seueral titles, is here made vp the 20. vntrueth; that our Canons teache contrary to vs ether generaly,The 20. vntruth. or particularly, in this point. For do we say that Christ is present realy, corporaly, and substantialy? so do they:Dist. 2. de consecr. cap. Christus panis est. secundum carnem assumptam pro mundi vita; according to his fleashe assumpted for the lyfe of the world. Do we say, that it is the same body which was borne of the virgin, and crucified. So do they;Dist. 2. de consecr. cap. Reuera mirabile. hoc quod conficimus corpus ex virgine est: verè vtique caro Christi, que crucifixa est, que sepulta est. This which is by vs doone, is the body taken from the virgin: For it is truely the fleash of Christ, which was crucifyed, which was buryed. Do we say, that good, and badd, do receaue Christ corporaly; the good to their saluation, the badd to their damnation? so do they:Ibidem. cap. sieut Iudas. Corpus enim & sanguis Domini mini nihilo minus in illis erat &c. The body and blood of Christ was no lesse in them of whom the Apostle said, he that eateth vnworthely dothe eate iudgement to him selfe. Do we say, that it is not only a figure, but also the trueth? so do they: Corpus Christi & veritas & figura est: Ibid. cap. vtrum sub figura. veritas dum Corpus Christi & sanguis virtute Spiritus sancti in virtute ipsius ex panis & vini substantia efficitur. Figura vero est id quod exterius sentitur. The body of Christ is both the veritie and the figure: the veritie when the body and blood of Christ is made by the vertue of the holy Ghost, of the substance of bread and wyne, in the vertue of him. That is the figure, which is externaly perceaued.
Now yf you aske me, why in so cleere concourse with our opinion, M. Rider, so resolutely assureth these Decretals, and Popes to be against vs: I answear, only because he loued,Ioan. 12. gloriam hominum magis quam gloriam Dei; the glorie of men more then the glorie of God. And to conuice him palpablye of a seared, or cauterised conscience, not so much by another, as by himselfe; cōsidre his words in this place; Yow take the fleashe of Christ which is the true meate, to be the fleashe which was borne of the virgin and suffred on the Crosse: but the popes of Rome say contrarie. Else wher before, and after he saith, that the primatiue church, and ancient Fathers, supposed the contrarie to our opinion so specified a whole thowsand yeares after Christ. But this, by him selfe, shalbe wholy ouerthrowen against him selfe, in his debating Kemnitius his opinion. S. Augustins woords (saith he) be these: Qui de carne Mariae carnem accepit: August. in Psal. 9 [...]. & quia in ipsa carne hic ambulauit &c. ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit, &c. VVhich tooke fleashe of Marie, and because in that fleashe he walked here vpon earthe, he gaue to vs that fleashe to eate to our saluation, &c. So that M. Rider confesseth in [Page 68] expresse tearmes, that by the woords of S. Augustin, the same Christ which tooke fleashe of the virgin MARIE, and who walked here on earthe, gaue vs that fleashe to eate to our saluation: therfor what befor he sayd in our opinion to be contrarie to Popes of Rome, and the Fathers, here he vnsayeth, in declaring such to haue bene the opinion of S. Augustin, as he confesseth we do hould.
The 21. vntruth.Hath not he then made a large rowme to seate here his owne 21. fowle vntruth? hath not he assured, that as often as he hath, or shal denye the Fathers to be of our opinions, (which hath hapned in most of his discourses, sermons, and all his books) that so often he hath bene and wilbe to him selfe such a disprouer,Dan. c. 13. as Dauid was to the discordant Iudges? Leauing him therfor, as the Apostle Iude saith;Iude versic. 13. Despumantem suam confusionem; Vomiting his owne confusion; I aduertise him for a shutinge vp of this point, not to speake so prophanly of Christ woords, and presence in his sacrament, as perpetualy to tearme them carnal, and carnaly vnderstood. For although, we sometimes vnderstand Carnal, and Corporal, or Substantial to be al one; yet in the mysteries of religion we reiect such phrase, as bearing often in common speach a badd and odious construction of sensualitie, and voluptuousnes. It is in deed vsed by protestāts, to make our doctrin more odious, to the eares of simple people: yet is it more to their owne reproache, professing them selues Christians (to taxe, & reprehend Christs doctrin, & the mysteries of religion, for carnal) then to ours: we disalowing no lesse the tearme then such interpretation therof, and meaning: for as we say, Christ was borne of the B. Virgin, entred among his disciples, rose, ascended, truely, substantialy, corporaly, and yet not carnaly: so vse we the same forme of speeche, of his being in the sacrament, and eschue the other, yf not for heretical yet for Capharnaical. They otherwyse which would first exclude corporal, and also spiritual, (as appeareth in the 26. numbre) contented with only figuratiue; their final scope is, to exclude also Christs corporal, and true conception,Castal. in praefat. Bibl. ad Eduard. 6. natiuitie, and whole lyfe and death, and with Castali [...] to say; the more they pondre, and peruse, the woord of the Lord, the lesse they fynde the Messias to be yet come.
For yf Beza, one of the principal of them, be beleeued, as commonly vpon his woords Protestāts in our contryes, or at least Puritans, do depende: then Christ had bestowed no other bodye vpon Christians in the Sacrament, ether on them that beleeue only figuratiue receauing, or on them that beleeue both corporal and [Page 69] spiritual, then he did vpon the Iewes from the begyning: saying;Beza lib. con. Heshus. fol. 284. Colloq. Mompel. fol. 77. Epist. theol. 65. pag. 283, In Diallact. that they had his true body not only by efficacie, but also by essence and nature euen in the tyme of Abraham. To which woords, M. Rider among the rest, subscribeth in this place, saying of Christs presence in the sacrament, wheron all the faythfull feed by fayth, as well befor Christs incarnation, as since his ascension. Such men, by degrees, as I sayd, practise to abolishe all beleefe in the true body of Christ, truely borne, truely worshipped by the kings, truly conuersant with vs, and truly dead, and buried for vs; wheras they say, that after his birthe, whom we esteeme to haue bene Christ our Lord, we had no other body of Christ ether in essence or nature then the Iewes had in Abrahams tyme; so long befor the very mother of Christ or Christ him selfe had taken any body. Yf then they follow the phrase Carnal, and Carnaly, to tell only that we beleeue contrary to them, that since Christs birthe, by his institution of the Sacrament, we haue a more true, corporal, and substantial body, then had the Iewes in Abrahams time; we will accept such phrases gratefully: otherwyse, in maner aforsayd, we disclayme them. See in the 34. numbre.
47.Rider. But I will of these your former improper and impertinent testimonies out of the sixth of Iohn conclude, and vrge no further but this one argument against you and them, and then let the indifferent Reader iudge whether you haue not deceiued Gods people by mis-understanding the holie Scriptures or no:
Whosoeuer teacheth that there is a carnall reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament before consecration, is a lyer, a deprauer of the truth, and a deceiuer of the people. But some late Popes, the new church of Rome,This is vnaunswerable. with the colledge of Cardinals, new created Iesuits, Semynaries, and all the Romish Priests now in Ireland teach, that there is a carnall reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament before consecration.
Therefore some late Popes, the new Church of Rome, with the colledge of Cardinals, new created Iesuits, Semynaries, and all the Romane Priests now in Ireland be lyers deprauers of the trueth, and deceiuers of the people. The maior or first proposition is your owne doctrine: for you teach that before Hoc est corpus meum be pronounced, there is no consecration. The assumption or later proposition is as cleere, for you perswade the simple people to beleeue that these texts out of the sixth of Iohn prooue a carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament, a yeare before Hoc est corpus meum was by Christ pronounced, or the Sacrament by Christ instituted. Therefore the conclusion, that you be lyers and deceiuers of the people, is ineuitable.
Thus the Catholiques of this kingdome by the rules of your owne religion you haue deceiued, in teaching Christes carnall presence in the Sacrament, a yeare before either Sacrament or consecration in the Sacrament, were instituted. And this your leaden diuinitie without care or conscience you thrust vpon the simple people as sound doctrine. But if there were no other errour or heresie held and [Page 70] taught by you, but this one point, it were sufficient to make all the Catholicks in this kingdome, nay in Christendome, to forsake your opinion, considering your ignorance or malice presuming to iustifie that which holie Scriptures, auncient Fathers, Gods Church, (yea & the perticuler Church of Rome, with their Bishops, Archbishops, and Popes) for a thousand yeares after Christs ascention neuer spake or heard of, and therefore it is no olde faith taught by them: but a new heresie invented by you. But now to the rest of your proofe.
Of M. Riders Arguments, and their sufficiencie. And how the 6. chapter of S. Ihon doth belong to the B. Sacrament, notwithstanding it was before the Consecration.
Fitzimon.47. AS paynters that by skill could not make difference betwixt a cat, a horse, and a dogg, were wonte to tell by woords vnder their pictures, this is a catt, this is a horse, and this is a dogg: euen so M. Rider when he maketh an argument, in his owne opinion substantialy, yet least you should not so conceaue, therof he addeth befor, or behynde, or in the margent, this is an vnaunswerable argument. Wherof you haue an instance befor the 38. numbre, and in this place. Yet I vndertake to aunswear this argument breefly, and sufficiently, and only by saying, as befor in the 41. nūbre, by consent of Catholicks and protestants: that we teache Christs real presence in the Sacrament, but after, and not befor consecration; yet, that such gift was promised, and specified, for the future tyme, according to the woords of Christ, the bread which I will (not that I doe) giue &c. in the 6. chapter of S. Ihon, not that by such promise it was giuen at that tyme, but after; as the woords importe. What parcell againe of this argument, is now vnaunswared, ether according to Catholicks, or protestants? Yea, or according to M. Riders deduction, saying, that eating of Christ, after the institution of the Sacrament, is proued out of the 56. verse of the sixt of Ihon, in such maner, as it were damnable to doubt therof. How is it thence proued, vnlesse such verse, and chapter, belong to the eating of Christ? Therfor by him selfe,The 22. vntruth. is made aunswerable this vnaunswerable argument, and therby the 22. vntrueth acknowledged.
Luther. tom. sept. defens. verb. [...]ene. fol. 397.Against whom, and his brethren in this opinion, Luther (whom they intitule Father of trueth) thus discribeth the argumēts which they call vnaunswerable. Their greedines to defend their credit, maketh [Page 71] them madd, that whatsoeuer they take hould of, though it be but a straw, yet they imagin it to be a swoord or speare, and that at euery stroake they kill thowsands. Agayne: They thinke to haue sayd passing well, Luther ibidem fol. 394. 405. 381. 382. and much to the purpose, although they touche not one argument. And againe: In their books, there is noe pithe or substance, but only friuolous cracking. By whom could euer this be more verified, then by my good frend M. Rider? whose dealing in euery point, being so seely, and defectiue, towards Gods woord, Fathers, Decretals, and his owne brethren; yet how he supposeth, that riding lyke a second Perseus, vpon Pegasus, he hath transformed all his aduersaries into pillers, by taking all power of aunswering from them. O cōfident Champion! But let vs accompagnie him forwards, & obserue how litle his discourse amendeth.
Math. 26.26. Christ tooke bread, did blesse it, and brake it,Catholique Priests. and gaue it to his Disciples, and said: take and eate, this is my bodie, This is my bloud of the new Testament which shal bee shed for manie for remission of sinnes.
48, GEntlemen: this is your proofe out of Christs owne words,Rider. and this was deliuered by Christs owne mouth at the time of the institution of the Supper, and the night before his blessed passion, and either this must helpe you, or else you are helplesse: but Christ willing I will plainlie shew this your proofe to be your reproofe, and I pray God for Christ his sake, that the eies of your vnderstanding may be opened to see the truth: and your hearts toucht to receiue and confesse the truth; and renounce your errors, and so cease to deceiue Gods people and the Queenes subiects, least a worse thing come vnto you.
All the doubt and controuersie of this question betwixt vs, dependes on this Text which you say must bee taken properlie and litterallie: wee say, Sacramentallie, improperlie, figuratiuelie, and misticallie. And our opinion (God willing) shall be proued by Scriptures, auncient Fathers, and Popes, and the olde Church of Rome,
The third part of the Catholicks, first proofe by Scriptures.
48. THe Psillians a people in Afric, neere the Garamants, Fitzimon. Sabel. l. 4. c. 9. Herod. l. 4. & Goll. l. 6. c. 11. being molested with Southern wynds (to which their contry lay open) in most simple maner armed them selues to a conflict with them. Such would be my follye, yf I would arme my writings to incountre a bagg-pype; or sack of wynde only, especialy it being not of the sweettest. But let him conioyne any mater true or false, and I will attend theron to auowche, or auoyde it.
[Page 72] Rider.49. But this is straunge, that men of your great learning, (as the Catholiques [...] you to be) wil deale so childishlie and weaklie in so weightie a matter. Bee not offended that I say you handle this childishlie: for in Schooles he that alleadgeth for the probation of a proposition, the proposition it selfe: for the probation of a text, the text it selfe:, is counted childish, and it is a childish point of Sophistrie, and a falacie to be vsed among young schollers, not to be practised among simple Catholiques.
The Catholiques demand of you how you prooue Christs carnal presence in the Sacrament: and you bring in Hoc est corpus meum, which is the proposition whereupon all this disputation and contention dependeth. After the same manner a man may prooue the blessed virgin Marie to be Iohn the Euangelists mother,Ihon 19.27. and say still notwitstanding any text brought against him, as Christ said, Ecce mater tua, B [...]hold thy mother, say what yee will, the words be Christs words, therefore they must be true, they need no interpretation, Christ is not a lyer. And if a man aske a confirmation, and say how prooue you this proposition of Christ to be true literallie & in deed as Christ spake it?This is a loose kinde of Logique. You bring in for confirmation of the proposition, the proposition it selfe, and say, Ecce mater tua: Behold thy mother. Th [...] when the Catholiques demaund of you, to prooue your proposition of Hoc est c [...] pus meum, whether it must be taken corporallie or spirituallie, grammaticallie o [...] misticallie,In Schools it is called Petitio principij. then you bring the proposition it selfe, and say, Hoc est corpus meum to prooue Hoc est corpus meum: and so you would prooue idem per idem, which is verie childish, and a begging of that as graunted which is yet in question betwixt vs and vndetermined.
VVhether the woords; Behould thy mother, had one, or lyke sence, with the woords, This is my bodye.
Fitzimon.49. WE approue our sacrament to be the true body and blood of Christ, because he being the Trueth, and whose saying (as the prophet saith) is effected,Ioan. 14.6. Dixit & facta sunt, mandauit & creata sunt; he spoke and it was done, Psal. 32.9. he commaunded, and they were created; because he, I say,1. Cor. 11.24. Matt. 26.28. him selfe, did affirme it to be his body which was to be deliuered, and his blood which was to be shedd: and consequently, his true body, and his true blood; which truely, and not only figuratiuely were deliuered and shedd. These powerfull woords of Christ (which your great Melancthon saith,Melanct. l. 3. epist. Zuing. & Oecolamp. fol. 132. Mat. 24.35. wilbe one day thunder to the misbeleeuers) and which woords when heauen and earthe will fayle, will remayne; are our foundation. Yf the blessed Virgin Marie, be sayd to be the mother, and S. Ihon the sonne; it is sayd in such maner, as only to giue to vnderstand, that he should honoure and cherishe hir as his mother, and no otherwyse, and so the scripture sheweth he conceaued it: as being without any circumstance conioyned, to conceaue otherwyse. But in the B. Sacrament, Christ a whole [Page 73] yeare befor, in the sixt of S. Ihon, haueing forwarned,Ioan. 6.55. &c. that he would giue to be eaten his true fleash, which should be their meat truely, and his true blood, which should be their drincke truely, at the last supper, making his new testament, all being very attentiue, in solemne maner he tooke, blessed, and broak bread, saying, this is my body &c. So that it is not an idle proofe, or idem per idem, to proue it to be Christ corporaly, when we shew Christ our omnipotent Lord, to haue affirmed it, with the former circumstances: more to this effect shall follow God willing in our 62. number.
50. But you should haue prooued by other places of Scriptures,Rider. that Hoc est cor [...]us meum changeth the nature and substance of bread and wine: and you should haue proued by the Scriptures,Esay. 7.10. that the Prophets foreshewed this strange con [...]eption of Christ to be conceaued of bread, as well as they did foreshew his con [...]eption of the virgin. And you should haue prooued by the Scriptures that it is [...]ot onelie a Sacrament, but a sacrifice, not onely Eucharisticall, but as well pro [...]itiatorie: and not onelie profitable to the quicke, but also to the dead: nay, not [...]nelie for plagues among men, but murren and diseases also among beasts. Cum [...]ultis alijs quae nunc, &c.
Now shew by the Scriptures that Hoc est corpus meum hath such a sence, that the simple people may repose themselues more securely vpon your opinion and proofes. But till you prooue it (which you can neuer doe) they must know, you haue and doe deceiue them with false expositions against veritie, antiquitie, au [...]horitie, yea & consent of the old Church of Rome.
VVhether Christs woords doe testifie a change of nature; And whether it was prophecied.
50. THe nature of bread and wyne must be changed,Fitzimon. when they are turned into the body and blood of Christ, & one proofe serueth to proue the one and the other. What proueth Eua to be a woman,Gen. 2. Exod. 43. Exod. 7.17. Ioan. 2.8. proueth hir not to [...]e a bone wherof she was made. What proueth Moises rodd turned to a serpent, and after into a rodd; the riuers of Egipt turned into blood; water turned into wyne; and all other such alterations, proueth thē not to haue bene what thy were befor. The prophets did shew this, not conception, but transubstantiation, when they fortould that Christ should be a preest according to the ordre of Melchisedech, who sacrificed in bread and wyne: wherby was signified,Psal. 109.4. Hebr. 5.6.20. c. 11.17. Iuel. in his reply, art. 1. saith Iuel, the sacrifice of the holy communion. I say, who sacrificed by confession of VVhitaker, as also did Christ according to his being a preest of that ordre: and that can not be conceaued of ether of bothe, but in bread and wyne. For the other cruental [Page 74] sacrifice of his passion, was done not actiuely by Christ but only passiuely, and that rather according to the ordre of Aaron, then of Melchisedech. Malach. 1.
The prophets did shew this transubstantiation, when they fortould that among the Gentiles, from east to west, there should be a cleane oblation offred to Gods name in euery place &c. Which can not be vnderstood of any thanksgiuing, or prayses as you imagin; such being not peculiar to the Gentils,Chrysostom. hom. in ps. 95. but frequent among the Iewes. Vpon which woords saith S. Chrysostom; Behould how cleerly and playnly he hath interpreted the mystical table, which is the vnbloodie Host. Yea besyds all other proofs by Scripturs, and Fathers, which by the mercie of God shalbe afforded in our treating of the Masse, take this also from your Beza, Beza in cap. 22. Luc. u. 20. Regius in 2. par. operum. resp. ad 2. libros E [...]ky de missa. c. 7. Bibl. l. 1. de paschate Israelit. pag. 25. 26. Vrbanus Regius, Tremelius, and Bibliander; That befor the coming of Christ, the ancient Israelits were commanded to celebrat a figuratiue communion in bread and wyne, in token that the Messias would institute no figuratiue, but true and substantial communion in the same. By which is proued to the full contentment, euen of the least indifferent, that for whom soeuer Christ offred, it may be proffitable, be they quick or dead, such sacrifice, contayning truely, and substantialy, the same Christ, wil be also in the same maner profitable. Wherof see afterwards, in treating of the Masse. As also it is palpably demonstrated, that the sacred body of Christ, supplying the place of bread, by his saying that bread was his bodie, the substance of bread was no lōger extāt: for being bread, it could not be his body personaly vnited to his deitie; vnles he had bene impanated, as he was incarnated.
Rider.51, And heere I am sorie I must tell you so plainelie; that you wrong greatly and grieuously Gods truth, and the Queenes subiects, in thus misalleadging this text.
- 1 First, by Addition of a word.
- 2 Secondly, by misunderstanding and misapplication of another word.
- 3 Thirdly, by omission, nay plaine subtraction of a whole verse.
Addition.For the first, which is: Addition, you adde this particle (it) which is neither in the Greeke, nor in your Romane Lattine Bible, no nor in your Rhemish Testament, nor euer seen in anie Doctor of antiquitie, and this fillable altereth the sence and peruerteth Christs meaning, and is added by you to maintaine that which the Text otherwise could not haue anie shew to beare.
Fitzimon.51. This sorrow of yours is as true, as the rest. For your toyle-some wreasting your brayns to aggrauat euery least shaddow of a fault, and to runne after your simple imagination as a catt ronneth after hir owne tayle, as if you had espyed a fault; dothe shew you would be inwardly gladd to obserue any true fault. But, [Page 75] from my wil, I assure you, right, and synceritie shall only proceed: I trust also my skill, in this mater, will not be behynde. Concerning the addition of [it] that it should alter the sence, and peruert Christs meaning, it maketh vp apparently the 23. vntrueth.The 23. vntruth. For what Christ tooke, it he did blesse, it he did breake, it he did giue. No more, nor no lesse, is signified with it, then without it. And for my part, that it be omitted, so it be conceaued, I leaue to your choyse. That it should be conceaued, appeareth to all capacities. Nether in so small a slipp will I want the defense and example of M. Rider him selfe, in his actiue and passiue discourse following, vpon the woord fregit: which he construeth, he brake it; wheras (but for the sense,) it should be said only, he brake: yf you may add, it, for better vnderstanding, lawfully; why would you reprehend me, and that so heynously, to haue inserted it?
52. Secondlie, you misunderstand and misapplie this word (Blesse): Rider. Misapplication. Rhe. Test. 1. Cor. 11. Sect. 9. for we say it signifieth to giue thanks with the mouth, and you say to make crosses with the fingers: wee say it was spoken by Christ to his Father, you say it was spoken to, ouer, or vpon the bread and challice, and that hee vsed power and actiue words vpon them: we contrarie will shew out of the word it selfe, that it hath no such signification.
VVhen M. Rider citeth, or omitteth our Authors?
52. YOu in your Dedicatory epistle,Fitzimon. and els where did vaunt, that you would confound vs by our owne Fathers, quoting our owne books, our owne print &c. This indeed is performed only, when what is affirmed, being truely vnderstood, maketh nothing for you: or against vs. But we complayne on you, to your selfe, that in true accusations, which would make heynously against vs, you cite no authour, no bookes, no points, but as I sayd befor, vpon your owne bare woord hauing misinformed, you pursue your owne relation, therby (as it was behoofull for your cause) eschueing your controuersie. For examples sake, who of vs tould you, that Christs fleash giuen for the lyfe of the world, is Christs only body seperated, as you affirme, from his soule? Which of our books record, that Christ with all his merits is receaued by infidels, dogs, catts, and other beasts, as you informe in the 43. numbre? When did any of vs teache a carnal real presence of Christ in the sacrament, before consecration, as you affirme in the 47. numbre? And when, or were did any of vs certifie you, (as you here, and a litle after reporte) that to blesse is not to giue [Page 76] thanks, or to pray, but only (as we vaynly and foolishly teache, say you) to Crosse with two fingers and a thumbe, with mumbling woords and charming Crosses, wherby we forgiue synns past, and preserue that day from future dangers? Why in these, and the lyke, are not our authours, books, pages, and prints, alleaged? The true aunswear is; qui enim mal [...] agit odit lucem; Ioan. 3. n. 19. for he that doth wickedly hateth light, that his woorks may not be reprehended. But, good Lord, yf you had intended, as you lately pretended, that you would proue your opinion true, that Christ is not properly and litteraly, but only sacramentaly, improperly, figuratiuely, and misticaly, in the sacrament; why would you seeke digressios and by-maters of blessings, charmings, and mumblings, and gallopp after them in so long discourse? But, since we must haue patience, perforce, without reason, or remedie, let vs wayte vpon our wandring knight; who may aboue all writers of him selfe affirme, out of Ouid:
Ouid. Nunc huc, nunc illuc, & vtròque, sine ordine, curro.
Now here, now there, and both, vnorderly, I runne.
Rider.53. One part of the originall woord (in Greeke) signifieth in English (Speech) vttered with the mouth, not a magicall crossing of, or with fingers. And the other Greeke word which must be iudge betwixt vs, doth signifie to laude, to praise, and to blesse: and blessing, praising, and thanksgiuing are all one, as anone you shall heare Christ himselfe so to expound it, and all the Euangelists, and Paul agree in one congruence touching this matter against you.How blesse & blessing are vsed in Scriptures. But first I will shew the simple how diuersly this word (Blesse) is vsed in the Scriptures.
To blesse God is to praise him, and giue him thankes for all his mercies, as you haue in Luke: Luke 24.53. and the disciples continued in the Temple lauding and blessing God: I hope you will not say they crost God with their fingers or consecrated him to make him more holie, but praised him with their mouths. For if you take blessing of God in that fingered sence, then see the absurdities you fall into.
Ioh. 1.18. Ioh 4.24. Anthropomorphitae.First, against Scriptures, you must hold that God the Father it not a Spirit, but hath a bodielie shape that may bee touched and crost with our corporall fingers: if this you hold, ioyne with those auncient Heretickes of Egypt, who held that God had a bodie and members as man had.
What it is for one mā to blesse another. Gen. 27. Gen 48 Nū. 6.23. Let your High priests of Rome, and you low Priestes of Ireland, learne of Aaron Gods High Priest, how to blesse Gods people: & so cease to deceiue them anie more.And the second absurditie (nay blasphemie) is this, that you should make, GOD (who is holinesse it selfe) the holier by your crossing: but I hope you will not take blessing in this sence, but ioyne with the Disciples and vs, that blessing of GOD signifieth praising of GOD, or praying to GOD: for one man to blesse another, is nothing else but to praye for them, and to beseech God that he would blesse them, that is, defend them, protect them, and be mercifull vnto them: So Isaack blessed Iacob, and Iacob the sonnes of Ioseph. And so the LORD commaunded Moises to speake to Aaron, and to his Sonnes, saying: Thus shall yee blesse the children of Israel, and say vnto them: The Lord blesse thee and keepe thee, the Lord make his face to shine vpon thee, and be mercifull vnto thee, &c.
[Page 77]A Christian patterne not onelie for Priests, but also for Pastours and Parents dailie to practise, the one for his flocke, the other for his familie: yet both in the Lord, & from the Lord. Which blessings are deriued from Gods mercies, & hang not on the ends of Priests fingers. Again, you see blessing is praying with the mouth. not crossing with the fingers, as you vainlie & foolishlie make your Ghostlie childrē beleeue, that if you crosse them with your two fingers and a thumbe, they are pardoned for their sinnes past, and preserued that day from future daungers and euil spirits. Which fingered blessing of yours is as powerfull to pardon sinne, and feare away spirits, as three sups of the Challice is to cure the chinne-cough. This blessing was commaunded by God to be practised by Aaron the High-Priest, and the rest of the Priests vpon Gods children, but how far your blessing differs from this the simplest may iudge.
For first, God commaunded this blessing: the Pope your blessings. This was by mouth onely, yours with some mumbling wordes and charming crosses with your fingers. This blessing was a prayer to desire God to blesse: and you teach, that in your breath and fingers there is a power & a certain working or impression of some blessing vpon them by meanes of your said mumbling and crossing. But your Priests agree with Gods Priests, and your blessing with fingers, with Gods Priests blessings with prayer of the heart and mouth, euen as well as trueth and falsehood, light and darknesse, superstition and religion, Christ and Belial. And if the Catholiques will but diligently read this commandement of GOD, giuen to the High-Priest and Priests in this place; touching the manner how they should blesse Gods people. I am resolued that few Catholiques, in this kingdome heereafter will kneele at your feet, or beg at your hand any finger benediction or crossing, because is hath no warrant from Gods word, and therefore ten thousand of them not worth a farthing.How the Priests blesse the Sacrament. You crosse the cup or Challice with a set number of crosses and gestures: sometimes blowing ouer the Chalice, sometimes crossing it, sometimes hiding it that none must see it: then ioyning and disioyning of your thumbe and two fingers, with manie moe such Apish toies, childish trickes, and charming prankes, which haue neither foundation nor relation to Christs actions and institution.How the Preachers of the gospell blesse the bread & the cup.
But we in administring this holy Sacrament, confesse the greatnesse and grieuousnesse of our sinnes, that can no otherwise bee pardoned but in Christes bloudie and bitter passion: and wee giue thankes to God for Christs blessed obedience to the shamefull death of the cursed crosse, by which he hath, satisfied Gods wrath, and wrought our reconciliation in the bloud of the same, and continue this Sacrament as he instituted and commaunded in reuerence and rememberance thereof, without addition, alteration, or subtraction. And pray that our vnworthinesse and want of faith hinder not our spirituall vnion & reall presence with Christ, which is offered in the word of institution, and sealed in the right receiuing of the Sacrament. This is the force and effect of this word (Blesse): the true vse wherof Christ by his practize deliuered, the Primitiue Church, Fathers, and we imitate. Now whether your blessing in the Sacrament, and your blessing by crossing the people, or ours come neerer to Gods word and Christs practize, let the best minded to Gods truth iudge, and then with GODS trueth ioyne. Thus much for your Addition, misunderstanding, and misapplication. Now to your Omission or Subtraction of a whole verse.Omission or Subtraction.
You bring for proofe of your carnall presence, the 26. verse and the 28. verse [...] [Page 80] Caluin procedeth further,Caluin. 1. Cor. 10.16. Iewell. cō. Hard. art. 1. diuis. 9. pa. 23. confuting Erasmus, and all others who indeuoure to confound as all one, blessing, and giuing thanks. Iewell telleth, that the meaning of Christs woords, Hoc facite, is, take ye bread, blesse it, breake it, and giue it in my remembrance. Now, to my thinking, reason would haue aduised our aduersaries, to haue made a clean contrary inference: that yf the greeke vsual woord [...] to giue thanks, be some time, and especialy in our controuersie taken to blesse; that the propre woord to blesse, especialy to so solemne a ceremonie, ought not to be taken only to giue thancks.
Somewhat also must be said of the blessing by making Crosses,A least M. Rider applaud to him selfe, for not haueing disaduantage in any thing he hath propounded. First then euen by Scripturs is it manifest, that when the angels were commanded to marke Gods especial elected,Ezech. 9.4. Niceph. l. 2. c. 42. Basil. l. de Spiritu sancto c. 27. Tertull. l. de corona militis. Athanas. l. de incarnat. verbi. Hieron. ep. ad Demetriadē. & epist. 128. August. tra. 18. in Ioan. Cyrill. 4. Catech. Illuminat. Chrysost. hom. 21. 27. 36. ad pop. Antioch. Ambros. Serm. 45. August. serm. 19. de Sanctis. Idem. trac. 118. in Ioā. vide Gretserū. de Cruce l. 3. c. 6. Hieron. ad Pam. ad Rustic. & in vita Hilarion. & Antonij. August. epist. 59. lib. 22. de ciu. c. 8. Beda in hist. Augl. l. 3. c. 26. the marke or character to haue bene the leter thau, or our leter T. in their forheads: which is a perfect Crosse, to all mens eyes. Also by relation of Nicephorus of S. Ihon Euangelist; Vbi se signo crucis muniuisset, in monumentum descendit. When he had fortified him selfe with the signe of the Crosse, he discended into the monument. S. Basil and Tertullian affirme, to make the signe of the Crosse, to be an Apostolical tradition. Tertullian, Athanase, Hierome, Augustin, Cyrill of Hierusalem, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and all Fathers without exception, doe exhort and aduise all Christians, at rising, appareilling, washing, sitting, eating, at euery action, and tyme, to arme them selues with the signe of the Crosse, as propre to Christians. Wherof saith S. Augustin; Hoc ad victoriam prouehit, hoc veneficia destruit, & omnia daemonum machinamenta ad nihilum redigit: this aduaunceth our victorie, this distroyeth witchcraft, and frustrateth all attempts of the deuil. Without which saithe he againe, and all other Fathers, noe Sacrament is thought duely ministred. Saint Hierom telleth you how thronges of people flocked to haue S. Epiphanius and Hilarions blessing to them and their children. And writing to Rustic bishop of Narbon, he blameth him for disalowing a simple secular priest, to blesse the people, saying; Benedicere populo non debet, qui Christum etiam meruit consecrare? Should not he blesse the people, who deserueth to consecrat Christ? S. Augustin relateth, him selfe, and others to haue vsed lyke deuotion. Beda telleth, how in England, the godly Christians would trudge befor in highe wayes, and crosse passages, to obtayne preests blessing, by mowthe or hand. For the one doth not exclude the other. So that it is tyme M. Rider, to leaue this forme of argument, [Page 81] by one trueth to exclude the other, when both may consist together. I grant you spent this trauayle against the Crosse, when you were a puritan, now perhapps you dare not Christen a child without it. In the mean tyme, by your great wysdome, you haue made to Catholicks, and protestants, many good points God be praysed knowen, which had bene more to your behoofe vnreuealed.
B To conclude, the vanitie of his long digression manifowldly appearing otherwise, it is not also obscure in this, that whether blessing, and thanksgiuing, had bene all one, (as is demōstrated not haue to bene) yet it had imported nothing in the world to our cō trouersie. For the blessing being accidental & not essential, to the mater and forme of consecration, the vse of it did only shew a greater solemnitie followed by Christ in the institution of the Sacrament, and no necessitie. That we are often bidd by M. Rider to read these, and those, in greeke; gentle Reader, he biddeth vs to doe for ostentation what he can not doe him selfe. For in my particular knowledge, and experience, a blynd man hath as much sight in his eyes, as he hathe good greeke in his head. And yf we had found in greeke what he pretendeth; you now vnderstand, how litle it had bene to his proffit, or our hinderance.The 24. 25. 26 27, vntruth.
C Vntruethes are heaped in this last discourse plentifully. The 24. notoriouse vntrueth is, that we teache our spiritual children, they be pardoned from synns, and preserued from dangers and spirits, yf we crosse them with two fingers and a thumb. The 25. that the pope, and not God commandeth our blessing with the Crosse. The 26. that we vse mumbling woords and charming Crosses. We leaue charmings and coniurings for hereticks. Nota sunt commercia haereticorum cum magis; Tertul. de prescrip. c. 43. Vide num. 100. Ezech. 9.4. the intermedling of hereticks and magitians, saith Tertullian, are notorious. Our crossing is no charming, vnles God, & his angels, were charmers: of which see after in the 100. number. The 27. that we teache a certayne power to be in our breath, and fingers. Such maters as these would seeme to deserue our allegations, wher we teach these points. But it is sufficient, that vnles they be beleeued vpon puritan faith, troth, and honestie, ther is no other proofe to auerr them. Now, I will in this conuict M. Rider, both to be a puritan, (although the puritants respect him not) and also to mis-informe our doctrin, and that by the protestants, euen of England, and that befor his Maiestie, in the conference sett foorth by Barlow, anno 1605. pag. 73.74. as his royal Maiestie doubted not to acknowledge, saying: [Page 82] I am giuen to vnderstand by the bishops, and I fynd it true, that the papists them selues did neuer ascribe any power, or spiritual grace, to the signe of the Crosse. Such a testimonie is a lawfull defense, I trow, against M. Rider, both that he degenerateth from the doctrin of the bishops of England; and falsifyeth our doctrin; which is now lawfully warranted to thinke so of the Crosse, as the best protestants do approue it.The 28. vntruth. The 28. that our blessing agreeth with Gods preists blessing, no more then superstition with religion. For I haue shewed it, to haue proceeded from God, by his Angel; to haue bene practised by his Apostles; and receaued by all the Fathers, and primatiue Church.The 29. 30. 31. vntruth. The 29. 30. and 31. (at least) are included from the parcell, your Apish toyes, childishe tricks, &c. to the ende; so perspicuously, as no auditour most fauorable, would take in his accompts, and discharge him more sparingly. Now let vs giue place; M. Rider is at leyngthe to tumble into his mater in controuersie, after his long peregrination to crossings, charmings, greeke, and reprehensions.
Rider.54. But now to the rest of the bodie of the text and controuersie.
Wherein first let vs examine whether your two propositions, this is my bodie, and this is my bloud of the new Testament, &c. be proper or figuratiue: litterall, or Sacramentall. For if they be improper, borrowed, figuratiue and Sacramental, they prooue neither your Transubstantiation: nor your carnall reall presence, but euen plainlie disprooue them.Augustin de doctr. christiana, lib. 3, cap. 16. pag. 23. Parisijs. 1586. Saint Augustines rule before recited, if you would be ruled by it (but neither Scriptures nor Fathers can rule you, but you will ouer rule them) would presentlie satisfie you, that these two propositions must be figuratiue: the latter you confesse, but the former as yet you wil not. His words againe for the Readers good I wil repeat: and they be these: If the scripture seem to command any vile or ill fact, the speech is figuratiue; as, Except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, you shall haue no life in you: Facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere, Christ seemeth to commaund a wicked act, (that is, carnallie and grosly to eate Christs flesh,Ether confute S. Aug. or confesse your error: the firste is impossible, the second were commendable. Read it: it containes but 6. or 7. lines. The marginall note there, condemes your litterall fence &c. it is therefore a figuratiue speech. So that Augustine thus reasons against you. To eate Christs flesh and drinke Christs bloud corporallie, is a hainous thing, therefore Christes wordes be figuratiue: so that if to eate Christes flesh with our mouths, and teare his flesh with our teeth, as also actually drinking of his bloud bee hainous and wicked: why doe you so eagerly presse the litterall fence of these your two propositions, against trueth, against faith, and the auncient Fathers,
Augustine in that short 15. chap. of the same booke immediatly going before, wisheth alwayes the interpretation of these and all other figuratiue speeches, to be brought ad regnum charitatis, to the kingdome of charitie, to haue their true exposition. Now if you expounde this litterallie and properlie, you forsake Augustines rule, charities kingdome, and the Apostolicall and Catholike exposition. It is but small charitie to deuoure the food of a friend, but to eate and deuoure corporallie and gutturallie the precious bodie and bloud of our Christ and Sauiour, it is no charitie. Nay (saith Augustine) it is plaine impietie, and a wicked and a most [Page 83] damnable fact. And so to prooue the action lawfull,Augustine would haue you Catholicks, but you wil hee Caphernai [...] & Canibals. the kingdome of charitie hath euer taken these and the like propositions to bee figuratiue, and the sence to be spirituall. Therefore if you will bee loyall subiects of charities kingdome, shewe your subiection to her charitable and Catholicke exposition, otherwise you will stand indited of spirituall and vncharitable rebellion.
That protestants by their owne principles, can not affirme Christ our Saluiour, not to be spiritualy it selfe in the Sacrament. Also that S. Augustin disproueth them.
54. HIs late saying, that he hath my hand,Fitzimon. to the great errours (which most safely he keepeth with him) I graunt to be true, yet not to, but against the errours which to his perdition most safely (as he saythe) he keepeth with him: which as a candle by fingers snuffed, leaueth blacknes, and burning, to the snuffers hands, remayning by their detraction, more cleere, and in it selfe mor delytsome. As in all our processe by Gods grace it hath, and shall, more and more appeare. It is first the 32. vntrueth,The 32. vntruth. that yf these woords of Christ be figuratiue, and Sacramental. This is my bodye, this is my blood of the new testament; they will plainly disproue our transubstantiation. For it hath bene oft professed, that we allow (but not only as you doe) spiritual, and figuratiue sence of these woords, not excluding real substantial, and literal. It appeareth in the numbers 14. 15. 31. 34. 40. 42. 46. 49. &c. You haue bownd your selfe in your first position, for which you replye, as it is ingrossed by your selfe, to stand vpon a spiritual presence only, to the faythfull beleeuers. Therfor no testimonie or allegation will auayle you, wher in, only spiritual, or only figuratiue is not cōprised. Nay, yf it cōtayne the woord spiritual, it must be also impertinēt to your purpose, vnlesse you recant your agreemēt with the protestāt martyrs: who sealed with their blood, as Fox deliuereth,Fox. Acts & Monum. pag. 1529. that the difference of doctrin betweene the faithfull and papists cōcerning the Sacrament is, that the Papists say that Christ is corporaly vnder, or in, the forme of bread and wyne, but the faythfull say, that Christ is not there, nether corporaly, nor spiritualy. Behould how you are ingaged, that nether can you hould corporal, or the so much spoken of spiritual,Caueat in aunswer to our allegation of Tindal c. 1, vnlesse you degenerat from your protomartyrs, & primatiue protestantcie, to whom, and which, you haue bound your selfe in expresse woords to agree in vnitie and veritie of doctrine.
A Now to our mater, and S. Augustins woords; First, he doth not say, that they be figuratiue, only; & cōsequently are not against vs, (as appeareth in the numbers lately specified) nor for yow. [Page 84] Secondly, he disputeth not against our beleefe, but against the Capharnaits:August. tom. 9. trac. 27. in Ioan. of whom he saith; Sicut illi intellexerunt carnem, non sic eg [...] do ad manducandum carnem meam; as they vnderstood fleash, not so do I giue my fleash to eate. But how, saith he, did they vnderstand fleash? Quomodo incadauere laniatur aut in macello venditur; As it is torne from a carcas, or sould in a shambles. In such sense only, and to such conceits, would S. Augustin haue Christs woords to be esteemed figuratiue; to witt in regard of them who as S. Cyrill (l. 4. in Ioan. c. 22.) saith; Ad immanes ferarum mores vocari se à Christo arbitrabantur, incitari (que) vt vellent crudas hominum carnes manducare & sanguinem bibere; They surmised that they were prouoked after the sauage maners of beasts, to eate mans raw fleash, and drinke his gore bloud. Wheras Christ did farr otherwyse intend it, as that he would be eaten in the lykenes of bread and wyne, which were figures of his operations in our soules. But to say, that for the seeming of Christs woords to be horrible, or to be taken figuratiuely, his substantial, and real presence should be excluded;August. tom. 6. con. aduer. leg. & prophet. l. 2. c. 9. is most remote from S. Augustins intētion, and all his writings. Behould here but one, yet infallible and palpable, proofe therof. Mediatorem Dei & hominum hominem Christum Iesum, carnem suam nobis manducandum, bibendum (que) sanguinem dantem fideli corde, & ore suscipimus: quamuis horribilius videatur humanam carnem manducare, quam perimere, & humanum sanguinem potare, quam fundere; VVe receaue with faythfull hart and mowthe, Iesus Christ man, Mediatour betwixt God and man, giuing his fleash to eate, and his blood to drincke: although it seemeth more horrible to eate the fleash of man, then to kill, and to drincke the blood of man, then to shedd it. Doth is seeme horrible to eate Christs fleash, according to S. Augustin, and to drincke his blood? yea more horrible then to kill? yet he assureth vs, that not withstanding such seeming, we should eate and drinke, not his figure, but his fleash and blood; not in faithfull hart only, but also by mowthe. Alas let S. Augustin alone, in lyfe a Catholick Frier, or Monke; in his books, a Catholick doctor; in bothe, an enemye, and triumpher, against hereticks. Hitherto you haue neuer brought S. Augustins testimonies, [...]. Reg. 11. but as Vrias tooke infortunat leters, to his owne distruction.
Aug. l. 3. de. Ciu. c. 16.Further S. Augustin would haue these figuratiue speeches so long B to be accompted figuratiue, till charitie consist with their meaning. Out of which you inferr, that Christ can not be eaten corporalye, it being, say you farr against charitie. But this consequence, is farr against Charitie,Ex Serm. de verbis Euan. Citatur a Beda 1. Cor. 10. and veritie. Witnes, the same S. Augustin, saying: Quis inuitauit? quos inuitauit? Et quid preparauit? Inuitauit Dominu [...] [Page 85] seruos, & preparauit eis cibum seipsum. Quis audeat manducare Dominum suum? & tamen ait: qui manducat me viuit propter me. Quando Christus manducatur, vita manducatur. Nec occiditur vt manducetur sed mortuos viuificat. Quando manducatur reficit, sed non deficit. VVho hathe inuited? whom hathe he inuited? and what hath he prepared? our Lord hath inuited his seruants, and prepared him selfe meat to them, VVho dareth deuoure his Lord? yet neuer the lesse he sayth: who eateth me, liueth because of me. VVher Christ is eaten, lyfe is eaten. Nether is he killed, that he should be eaten, but he quickneth the dead. VVhen he is eaten, he feedeth, but is not impaired. Loe, whether S. Augustin thinketh it inconuenient, or against charitie, for any to eate his Lorde, himselfe being the inuiter, himselfe the preparer, himselfe the foode! Loe, whether the eating of Christ, be a tearing, digesting, or consuming of Christ!Tom. 2. epist. 50. ad Bonifac. in fine Tom. 5. de Ciu. l. 2. c. 25. But would you know what is to be against charities kingdome? S. Augustin aunswereth: Non est autem particeps diuinae charitatis, qui hostis est vnitatis: he is not partaker of diuine charitie, who is an enemie of vnitie. No catholick saythe he no fruitfull communion.
C Therfor, good M. Rider, Aug. To. 10. de verb. Apo. ser. 22. circa finē. let this goulden exhortation of S. Augustin take place, after so many mis-informations of his perswasion. VVould God, saith he; they would not feare them to whom long time they haue sould erroure, for they respect them: they are ashamed toward humane infirmitie, and not toward inuincible veritie. And they feare to be expostulated with all in this maner. VVhy therfor haue you deceaued vs? why haue you seduced vs? why haue you affirmed so much ill, and falshood? They should aunswer, yf they feared God: it was humane to erre, but diabolical through animositie to remayne in erroure. And a litle after: Let them say to their beleeuers we haue fayled together: let vs retire from errour together. VVe haue bene guydes to you, and you followed to your fall: will you not follow vs when we conduct you to the Church? I pray God this exhortation may take effect, according to the intention, and worthe therof. In the meane tyme, it is the 33. vntrueth, that we ouer-rule Scripturs, and Fathers.The 33. 34. 35. 35. 37. vntruth. The 34. that we confesse to be figuratiue (that is as you vnderstand, only figuratiue) these woords of Christ: this is my blood of the new testament. The 35. that Augustin reasoneth against Capharnaits, who would not beleeue the woords of Christ, no more them protestants in these tymes. The 36. that by our literal exposition, we forsake Augustins rule, charities kingdome, Apostolical and Catholick exposition. The 37. that we be Caphernaits and Canibals. I wil not requite his Theons style, and bad demeanure; knowing, that it is for want of mater, because;Eccli. 21. non est sensus vbi est [Page 86] amaritudo; ther is no sense, wher there is bitternes. Yf vaunting were victorie, reproaches reproofe, dispising disconfiting; M. Rider had bene as victorious as Cesar, or Alexander; as subtile, and solid a disprouer, as a second prophet Daniel; as great a vanquisher, as the faire king Arthure.
Rider. Amb. lib. 4. de Sacrament to. cap. 5.55. Ambrose is of the same opinion with vs against you, saying, Fac nobis (inquit) oblationem ascriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod est figura corporis & sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi: make vnto vs (saith the Priest) this oblation, that it may bee allowable, reasonable, and acceptable, which is a figure of the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. And Ambrose presentlie after, saith, the new Testament is confirmed by bloud, in a figure of which bloud, wee receiue the misticall bloud: By these words the Reader may see, that Ambrose and the Church in his dayes, tooke it not for the naturall bodie of Christ, but for a figure of his bodie, and therefore cease to bragge heere to the simple, of Ambrose, and Augustine, for they are not of your opinion.
Innocent. Papae lib. tertius ca. 12. Fol. 148. and there shal you see the foolish and phantastical reasons the Pope giues for those said crosses.And in the Canon of the Masse, you haue these words of Ambrose in that part which begins (Quam oblationem) but you deale deceitfully with Gods people: for you leaue out these words, quod est forma corporis, and there dash in fiue red crosses, and still teach the people, it is Catholicke doctrine and the old religion, but these iuglings with the Fathers must be left, or else good men that follow those Fathers, will doubt that Gods spirit hath left you.
How dishonestly S. Ambrose is treated by M. Rider.
Fitzimon. Ambros. l. 4. de Sacram. c. 5.55. S. Ambrose is as fowly, or rather worse vsed then S. Augustin. Compare M. Riders woords and these together, in the very same chapter. In sanctis manibus suis accepit panem. Antequam consecretur, panis est: vbi autem verba Christi accesserint corpus est Christi. Deinde audi dicentem: accipite & edite ex eo omnes, hoc est enim corpus meum. Et ante verba Christi, Calix est vini & aquae plenus. Vbi verba Christi operata fuerint, ibi sanguis efficitur qui plebem redemit. Paulo post: Ipse Dominus Iesus testificatur nobis quod corpus suum accipiamus & sanguinem. Numquid debemus de eius fide & testificatione dubitare? In his sacred hands (sayth S. Ambrose) he tooke bread. Befor it be consecrated it is bread: but when the words of Christ come, it is the body of Christ; then heare him saying, take and eate of this all: for this is my bodie. And befor the woords of Christ, the chalice is full of water und wyne, VVhen the woords of Christ haue operated, the blood is made which redeemed the people. A litle after: Our Lord Iesus him selfe testifieth vnto vs that we receaue his body and blood: should we doubt of his trueth and testimonie? Could you M. Rider, Ambros. l. 4. de Sacram. c. 5. in ether godly, or honest disposition, conceaue S. Ambrose thus speaking to thinke that in the sacrament was not the natural [Page 87] body of Christ, but only a figure therof, because he mentioned (as we professe) a figure to be therin? Could you mistake without deepe hypochrisie these woords of his: but when the woords of Christ come, it (which befor consecration was but bread) is the body of Christ: the blood is made, which hathe redeemed the people? Is not this a shamelesse resolution in making denials, affirmations, an act of such a carelesse man as is mentioned in Horace, who had forfetted his credit abroad among all men, freends, and foes, yet fayned to them of his priuat howshould, that all went well, and nothing against him? saying:
Horacius lib. 1. Satyra. 1. Populus me sibilat at mihi plaudo ipse domi. The world doth hiss at me, but yet I applaud to my selfe at home.
For opposition, of S. Ambrose, to protestantcy, Causeus sayd, he was bewitched by the deuil. And truly in this point, as after in treating of him in particular shal God willing be notifyed, none was euer more opposit to them, then he. How lowde, therfor,The 38. vntruth. hath M. Rider made his 38. vntrueth, that Ambrose, and the churche in his dayes, thowght with him against vs? But a mercenary minde to please man selleth it selfe, rather then it would seeme disproueable. S. Aug. late exhortation (I feare) will not benifit one of this humor.
56. And Augustine else where saith,Rider. Aug. in [...]narratione Psal. 3. pag. 7. col. 1. Printed at Paris. anno 1566. August. tom. 6. contra Adimant. cap. 12. Christ commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his body and bloud. And Origin saith. Not the matter of bread but the words recited ouer it doth profit the worthy receiuer, this I speake (saith he) of the typicall and figuratiue bodie, which is in deede the Sacramentall bread: Vpon the 15. of Mathew.
Augustine confuting Adimantus the Hereticke, that held that the bloud in man was the onely soule of man: aunswered, it was so figuratiuely, not otherwise: and to prooue it he vseth this proposition of Christ, Hoc est corpus meum, this is my bodie saying, Possum etiam interpretari illud praeceptum in signo positum esse: non enim dubitauit Dominus dicere hoc est corpus meum, cùm signum daret corporis sui. I maye (saith Augustine) expound the precept of Christ figuratiuelie: for the Lord doubted not to say this is my bodie, when he gaue the figure of his bodie. Augustine saith, Hoc est corpus meum, is a phrase figuratiue, you say no, but it is litterall. Now let the Catholicks take this Friendlie Caueat to heart, for they haue no reason to follow you, that forsake the Fathers: and heere may you see that our exposition is auncient, Catholicke, and Apostolicall, yours new, priuate, and hereticall.
Tertullian an ancient Father saith, Acceptum panem & distributum discipulis, Tertull. lib. 4. contra Marcion. pag. 133. line 26. &c. The bread which was taken and giuen to his disciples Christ made his bodie, by saying, this is my bodie, that is, the figure of my bodie, what could be more [Page 88] spoken of them for vs against you.Hierome super 26. Math. Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. And Hierome calls it a representation of the truth of Christs bodie and bloud, and not the body and bloud. And Ambrose seconds his former sayings in these words: In edendo, &c. In eating and drinking the bread and wine, we doe signifie the flesh and bloud which was offered for vs: so that they doe, but signifie the flesh and bloud, they are not the flesh and bloud. And Chrisostome saith,Chris. in hom. 17, in Hebr. & super 1. Cor. 11. Offerimus quidem sed ad recordationem; and afterward. Hoc autem sacrificium exemplar est illius, &c. We offer indeed but in rememberance of his death, this sacrifice is a token or figure of that sacrifice, the thing that we do is done in remēberance of the thing that was done by Christ before, &c. Here is a manifest place against you,Chrisost. in hom. 11. Math. which you shall neuer aunswere. And elsewhere he saith, in the same sanctified vessels there is not the bodie of Christ indeed, but a misterie of the bodie is contained.
Clemens Alex. in padago. lib. 1. cap. 6. pag. 18. line vlt. & pag. 19. line 1.And Clemens Alexandrinus who liued 1300. yeares agoe saith, Comedite carnes meas & bibite sanguinem meum, &c. Eate yee my flesh and drincke my bloud, meaning heereby vnder an allegorie or figure, the meat & drincke that is of faith, of promise. And the same reuerend Father in his second booke and second chapter of his Padagogi, and 5. pag. and line 21, 22, 23. hath these words: Ipse quoque vino vsus est, nam ipse quoque homo, & vinum benedixit, cùm dixit accipite, bibite, hoc est sanguis meus, sanguis vitis, &c. For our Lord Christ vsed wine, and blessed wine, when he said, take drincke, this my bloud, the bloud of the vine, (the word) which is shed for manie for the remissiō of sinnes, doth signifie allegorically the holy riuer of gladnesse.
Out of which I note: First, it is sanguis vitis, the bloud of the grape properlie, and that is wine. It is called Christs bloud Sacramentallie, and by way of signification. Secōdlie, it appeares to be figuratiue in this word (shed) for the bloud of the grape (which is wine) was not shed for manie, but the bloud of Christ. But you wil saye it is true, before consecration but after consecration it is Christs verie naturall bloud. No saith Clement immediatlie following, Quod autem vinum esset quod benedictum est, &c. And that it was wine which was blessed, hee sheweth againe, when he saith to his disciples, I will not drincke of the fruit of the vine, &c. Out of which premisses I note three things:Read Clement. follow Clem. First, that that which you call cōsecration, this learned Father calls it benediction. Secondlie, that after consecration the nature of wine remaineth still, and it is not changed as you imagine. Thirdly, that the phrase is figuratiue and not proper.Beda in Luc. 22. page. 476. And venerable Beda our countrieman tells you, that in England in his time, the text was taken figuratiuely. The solemnities of the old Passouer (saith he) being ended, Christ commeth to the newe, which the Church is desirous to continue in remembrance of her redemption, that in stead of the flesh and bloud of a LAMBE, hee substituting the Sacrament of his flesh and bloud in the figure of bread and wine, might shew himselfe to be the same to whom the Lord sware and will not repent, &c. Beda called it not the naturall bodie of Christ that worketh out redemption, but a remembrance of our redemption and a figure of it.
Thus the indifferent Reader may see that Augustine, Ambrose, Origin. Tertullian, Hierome, & Clemens Alexandrinus, Beda, and manie others, which I omit for breuities sake, all of them being auncient approoued writers, and all of them of your owne Prints, doe hold with vs against you, that your propositions be not proper but Sacramentall, improper, significatiue, representatiue, allegoricall, & figuratiue, which greatlie wounds the bodie of your cause; and will weaken your credits with the Catholickes.
How the Fathers graunting a figure, yet deny à figure as it is taken by protestants.
56. I Graunt with S. Augustin the B. Sacrament to be a figure of Christ, but requyre that you shew him to approue it,Fitzimon. a figure, only. I graunt with Origen, it is Christs typical body: grant you the rest of his opiniō in his owne woords deliuered. The law of God (sayth he) now, not in figurs or images as befor, but in the very forme of trueth is acknowledged. Origen. hom 7. in lib. Num. And what befor were in an obscuritie shaddowed, are now acclomplished in their forme, and trueth. It followeth: Befor was baptisme in a figure in the clowd and in the sea; but now regeneration is in forme in water and the holy Ghost. Then was Manna in a figure meat: now in forme is the fleash of the woord of God true meat; according as he sayd, my fleash is meat truely, and my blood is drinke truely. I craue no more then Tertullian affoordeth,Tertull. l. 4. con. Marcion. (as appeareth in the numbers cited in the 54.) That Christ made the bread which was giuen to his disciples his body, by saying this is my body; that is the figure of his body; in owtward apparence, as in the forsayd numbers is auowched:Tertullian. l. de resurrect. Carnis. Graunt you also, with Tertullian, that Caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur vt anima de Deo saginetur; the fleash (& not only the sowle) is fedd with the body and blood of Christ that the sowle may be fatt in God. Hieron. ad Damasum de prodigo filio. Withs Hierom I consent, that the Sacrament is a representation: do not you also impugne him, saying; Ipse Saluator est, cuius quotidie carne vescimur, cruore potamur; It is our Saluiour him selfe, Ambros. l. 4. de Sacram. c. 14. with whose fleash we are dayly feed, whose blood we drinke. I subscribe to S. Ambros, that it is a signification: do you no lesse, that after consecration it is the fleash of Christ. I allow with S. Chrysostom, it is a remembrance,Chrysost. hom. 60. ad pop. Antioch. and exemplar of Christs sacrifice vpon the Crosse, (for of that he speaketh:) do you no lesse when he saythe, that in the Sacrament Christ is with vs; non fide tantum, sed & ipsa re; not in faythe only, Clemens Alexandrin. loco citato a Ridero. but in very realitie. I professe with Clement Alexandrinus, to receaue Christ (as he speaketh, (which is nothing to M. Riders intention) and all other wayes it may be interpreted) vnder an allegorie, or figure, as meat of faith &c: I cōfesse also; Ipsum Saluatorem intra pectus suscipi; that our Saluiour him selfe is receaued into the breast. I graunt all,Beda in Luc. 22. that you alleage owt of Beda: do you also, not contradict your owne pretended witnesses, but professe in the figure of bread and wyne, is the Sacrament of Christs fleashe and blood.
A Behould M. Rider you haue purchased, that all which you haue [Page 90] here produced (excepting vntruethes) is freely and liberaly permitted: but farr from your purpose, or proffit. Is it because a figure, or allegorie is witnesed and that not only, or without contradicting the substance, that you and your only figure should seeme benefited? I say with Gods woord, and marke it well; that Christ is a figure, Sap. 7. 2. Cor. 4. Hebr. 1. Coloss. 1. Ephes. 5. Luc. c. 12 c. 22. and image of his Fathers substance: will you inferr, that therfor he is not the selfe same substance, with the Father? I say Christ is spiritualy and figuratiuely the head of his Churche: will you inferr, that therfor he hathe not a material head? I say that his baptisme, and Crosse, are taken some tyme spiritualy, or figuratiuely: will you inferr, that therfor his material baptisme, and sensible suffring, should be excluded? I say that he was habitu inuentus vt homo; Philip. 2. in shape found as a man: wil you say that therfor he was no man? It is no lesse against Scriptures, and Fathers, to doe the one, then the other; to exclude substance in the Sacrament for being together a figure, and to doe it in the instances alleaged. Therfor as I graunt, and shew, figure and veritie, spirit and letter, shaddow and substance, by euery autheure by your selfe produced; so reciprocally do not misinforme any longer, but say, although they affirme figure, spirit, and shaddow, so they do not contradict, veritie, letter, and substance. Otherwyse euery Reader will condemne your honestie, woords, and learning, as but a figure without veritie, a spirit without letter, and shaddow without substance. Isichius, in leuit. l. 6. c. 22. So certifyeth, saying. He receaueth by ignorāce, who knoweth not this to be the body and bloud according to the trueth. Which is as much to say; as who by faythles fayth receaueth a figure, without trueth of the thing figured; he hath receaued according to ignorance, and infidelitie.
But to your 4. Notes, 1. grownded vpon Christs blood called B wyne; 2. consecration called benediction; 3. wyne not changed because still called wyne; 4. figuratiue phrase, therfor not propre: I aunsweare to the first, and third, that it is a custome in Gods woord, and not only in holy Fathers, to call thinges altered, by their former names, or according to the outward lyknes they represent.Exod. c. 7. To [...]. 2. Gen. 18. As for example: Aarons rodd deuowred their rodds: wheras they were now no rodds but Serpents. Raphael is called a yong man; three angels three yong men, according to their only outward resemblance. I aunswer to the second, and last, that the name benediction doth rather approue the consecration, then disanull it, and the name figure not exclude propietie as aforsayd.
[Page 91] C The premisses considered, no man will deny the 39. vntrueth,The 39. vntruth. to be, that his exposition is ancient, Catholick, and Apostolical, ours new, priuat, and heretical. Pardon him, being of their fellow shipp, whose spirit consisteth, as Vincent. Lirinensis cap. 26. sayth, in contrarietie; vt ignorantia scientiae, caligo serenitatis, & tenebrae luminis appellatione fucentur, that ignorance with them masketh vnder the name of knowledge, clowds, of cleernes, and darkenes, of light. So that as Luther him selfe confesseth, the dayes are come; in quibus omnia libentissime docemus & audimus praeter ea que sunt an [...]iquae & solidae veritatis. Luth. l. cont. Catharin. VVherin he and his compagnie, do most willingly heare, and teach all things els, besyd things that are of ancient and solide veritie. Therfor as I sayd pardon him, in following his trade, and their trayne which is now described, when he claymeth his profession to be owld, and ours new. Let vs only be his Referendaries for escapes, or vntruethes not to be omitted in his confession, when God of his infinit clemencie will grawnt him grace (for which I pray, perhapp as much as him selfe) to repent. The 40.The 40. 41, 42. vntruthe. vntrueth that we might neuer aunswer his obiection owt of Chrisostom: as also that in the 11. hom. vpon Mathew he hath any woord of what is by M. Rider alleadged. The 41. that Beda telleth, in England in his tyme, the text was taken figuratiuely. The 42. That these Fathers do howld against vs; wheras we professe in euery place, as much as from them can lawfully be challenged. Let fouer or fiue small vntruethes passe among the rest, that it be knowen I keepe the bulke as small as is possible.
57. But you will say these testimonies of these Fathers,Rider. though of your owne Prints, yet they prooue nothing against you, vnlesse the Church of Rome should receiue and allow that exposition of the Fathers to be Catholicke. If you should so replie, surely it were a weake replication, and subiect to manie exceptions, and you would wring (I cannot say wrong) the church of Rome, that she should hold a doctrine against all the old Doctors. But if you will thus replie to bleare the eies of the simple, yet will I frustrate your expectation: for now I will shew you that the auncient Popes and the auncient Church of Rome held as these Fathers did: that the proposition (Hoc est corpus meum) to be significatiue and improper, & therefore figuratiue against your opinion. You shall heare the Church of Rome deliuer her owne minde with her owne mouth, which you cannot denie, her wordes be these: Ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio mors crucifixio dicitur, non rei veritate sed significante misterio: That offering of the flesh which is done by the hand of the Priest, is called the passion, death,Dist. 2. de consecratione canon: Hoc est: pag 434 You cannot den [...] but this Pop [...] was a Protestant, and if this canon be Catholicke, then is your carnall presence antichristian. and crucifying of Christ, but not in exactnesse of trueth, but in misterie of that which was signified: and the glosse there maketh most plaine against you. Dicitur corpus Christi sed improprie, vt sit sensus, vocatur corpus Christi id est significat corpus [Page 92] Christi: It is called the bodie of Christ but improperly (that is figuratiuely) that this be the sence: it is called the bodie of Christ, that is, it signifieth the bodie of Christ.
Fitzimon.57. How M. Rider abused the decretals, and how by them he receaued vtter destruction to his cause is demonstrated in the 46. number. Yet now agayne he kicketh against the prick: wel then, doth the text, and glosse say, that the immolation of the preist is called improprely the passion and death of Christ? Truly, and so will all Catholicks say the same. For who euer heard the masse of the preist to be proprely the cruental acte of the Iewes against Christ, or called the cruental sacrifice on the Crosse? This is as much against vs; as when we graunt it to be true, we loose no more therby, then a candle doth in giuing light to another candle, reseruing as much light in it selfe, as if it had lighted none. So although we affirme all that is now produced, M. Riders sute is graunted, and our light nothing deminished.
Rider.58. I will alleadge in this case other Popes, and the faith of the Church of Rome in another age, whereby the Reader may plainelie see, that the auncient Popes and auncient Rome had the true succession in doctrine which we stand now on, not that false succession of the place, and a rotten worme-eaten chaire that you brag of:De consecratione dist. 2, Panis est in altare, Glossa ibid. page. 435. the glosse speaketh thus against your litteral sence of Hoc est corpus meum: Hoc tamen est impossibile, quod panis sit corpus Christi: yet this is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ.
Not possible by their owne confession that bread should bee the bodie of Christ.Now gentle Reader see the wrong the late Popes and Priests offer to the Catholicks of this kingdome: they would haue them imbrace that for faith, which the old Church of Rome held for heresie: that for possibilitie, which she saith is impossible. Why, would you haue vs to beleeue that which you your selues say is impossible. This all the Iesuits and Priests in Christendome cannot aunswere.
If you say these two Popes and the Church of Rome then taught the truth, why doe you now dissent from the olde Romane faith? If you saye the Popes and Church of Rome then erred, you will be counted an hereticke: and therefore in Gods feare confesse the trueth with vs and the olde Church of Rome, and deceiue the Catholickes of this kingdome no more, with this litteral sence of Hoc est corpus meum, which you borrow from the late Popes and late Church of Rome, and is a new error dissenting from the old Catholicke faith.
Fitzimon.58. Here is great want of integritie. In the glosse alleaged, is affirmed, that the saying, it is impossible, that bread should be the body of Christ, should be takē, according to a sound maner: to witt, during the being therof, bread. For, the saying, that of bread is made the body of Christ; Ita vt post consecrationem, non sit iam ibi panis, sed verum corpus Christi; So that after consecration, bread is ther no longer, but [Page 93] the true body of Christ; is towld to be the sound maner, and meaning intended in the very same text, and glosse. Whether then, can he seeme to any men, Catholicks or others (which had the face and conscience to misreport this glosse, and to informe the decretals, thus distroying protestantcie to stand for protestantcie) woorthy to be houlden a lawfull Preacher, or a faithfull witnes, or conscionable informer, or as being a godly, spiritual, honest preacher, (when so many others his betters are in great extremitie) to haue yearly aboue 1500. raziers or cowmbs of corne, besyds other commodities, in such a choise deanry? I know not how many vntruethes (besyd all other faultines) any other would skore vp in these woords, which I calculat but for the 43 vntrueth only.The 43. vntruth. Let others imagin, what discontentment and tediousnes, any religious mynde might conceaue, to incountre so contrarious a spirit, or such a spirit of contradiction, against knowen trueth.
59. And I will adde one other Popes Canon,Rider. Corpus Christi quod sumitur de Altari, figura est, dum panis & vinum videntur extra: Dist. 2. can. Corpus Christi pag. 438. col. 4. You cannot denie this Pope to be a protestant in this point. veritas autem dum corpus & sanguis Christi in veritate interius creditur. The bodie of Christ which is taken from the Altar, is a figure so long as the bread and wine are seene vnreceiued, but the truth (of the figure) is seene when the bodie and bloud are receiued trulie, inwardly and by faith into the heart.
Now the glosse in that place expoundeth the text and saith. Corpus Christi est sacrificium corporis Christi, alias falsum est quod dicit. The bodie of Christ in the text signifieth the sacrifice of the bodie of Christ, otherwise it is false.
Out of which I note, the Church of Rome cals the outward Elements Christs bodie, that is, a figure of his bodie, being not receiued though consecrated.
Secondly, that the bodie of Christ, wherof the Sacrament must be a figure,The Popes glosse against the Popes text. must be receiued by faith into the soule, not by the mouth into the stomacke: Now the glosse saieth, the text is false, vnlesse, &c. But I leaue the iarre to be reconciled by you, who be the Popes friends, yet this I say,And Gelasius another Pope more auncient then those against Eut. is of this opinion. Maledicta glossa quae corrumpit textum.
These three Popes and the Church of Rome in those dayes (it was before the birth of your Transubstantiation and your carnall presence) jumpt with all the old Fathers, and the Primitiue Church that liued the first sixe hundred yeares after Christ, and say it is called the bodie of Christ, the flesh of Christ, the passion and death of Christ, but not rei veritate, not indeed and trueth, but mistically, significatiuelie, improperly, figuratiuely, and by way of representation, and that it is impossible otherwise to bee the bodie of Christ.
Yet when we speake of figures in the Sacrament you mocke vs. When we say the phrase is figuratiue, therefore the sence must be spirituall. You deride vs, as misinterpreters of Scriptures and Fathers. But if your leisure and learning would affoord you but fauour to read with a holie deuotion, the canonicall Scriptures, & the ancient doctors of Christs Primitiue Church, that left vs these lessons for our learning, you should see that we learne what they taught, and doe what they said, [Page 94] & you follow not what they commanded, because you knowe not what they haue recorded.
Fitzimon.59. As he goeth forward, according to the Apostles saying; Proficit in peius; he increaseth in ill. This same text, is cited in the 46. number, according to the expresse sense therof, and title prefixed to this chapter: to signifie our beleeuing Christs body bothe substantialy and also figuratiuely, in the Sacrament. Yf any learned man conferr this sayd text, and as it is interpreted by M. Rider; I request him not to spyte or spitt at his memorie, but to pittie it. For, to haue thus construed, it is a figure as bread and wyne are scene extra owtwardly; he translateth, as they are seene vnreceaued. Secondly, for what he should interprett; but it is the veritie, as the body and blood of Christ in trueth is beleeued inwardly; he inserteth a parenthesis, making the trueth to be of the veritie of the figure, and not of the body of Christ. I protest befor God and his Angels, that greefe, and shame of his misdemeanure, do auert my mynde from being imployed to vnfould, and refute him, and procure me to ouerslipp much filthe, deseruing to be sharply, and in the most heynouse maner reproued. But I pray you, considre notwithstanding these faults apparent to all eyes, in these woords of his in the text, and margent: This all the Iesuits & priests in Christendom can not aunswer: you can not deny this pope to be a protestant in this point: confesse the trueth with vs, and the owld Church of Rome. He that tould you befor him selfe, that S. Bernard liuing in the yeare 1190, was in the palpeblest tyme of grossest supersttion meaning therby papistrie, here forgetting him selfe, informeth, that the decretals, and popes therin alleaged, collected by Gratian at the same tyme of S. Bernard, (by his saying most superstitiouse) doe stand for protestantcy. He that would not be tryed but by the Fathers of the first fiue hondred yeares, professing the world soone after to haue apostated into papistrie) is now come to clayme the decretals compyled after a thowsand yeares. He that in clayming the same Fathers, as appeareth in the 46. number, the number precedent, and in this present number, is beyond all cōtrouersie, vtterly foyled and forsaken of them; and therfore iustly doth multiply the 44. and 45. vntrueth, (that the least be spoaken) in the forsayd bowld, assured, and reiterated protestation.
The 44 45. vntruth. Lactant. l. 5. c. 3. Anaxagoras is generaly A reprehended by all men, that contrary to sense and vnderstanding, only to be singular, he would cōfidetly, shamlesly, and contentiously affirme, snow to be as black as inke. [Page 95] Haue we not found an heyer to him, who can face out black to be whyte, that is reproofs to be approbations, denials affirmations, owld to be yong, falshod to be trueth, darknes to be light, substance to be figurs, preaching to be communion, the owld testament to be as fruictfull as the new, the primatiue Church and Fathers to haue bene late sectaries, Catholick to be heretical, &c. I bequeath then, as in my testament, to ensuing posteritie, that hereafter, when men desyer to specifie any readers of such resolution as had Anaxagoras, and his forsayd successour; they bestow on them, for a perpetual memorial, of such ancestours, not that they are impudent, contentiouse, frantick, deprauers, desperat, falsifiers, corrupters, against all pregnant and palpable trueth, but only without all iniurie, that they ryde, or are Ryders. As for his annotations that the church calleth the outward elemēts according to their apparence, a figure; and that the body of Christ must be receaued into the soule; vnlesse he doted, he would not thinke any preiudice therby to our cause. For we graunt both to be true: but without being only a figure; or foode of the only soule. His opposing the glosse, and text, as contrarie, they being euidently most cōcordant, and the glosse only telling the text to be intended of Christs bodie not in extensiue maner, but as it is a sacrifice; also his addition that because it entreth the soule, it can not not entre the body; what stupiditie doth it not contayne?
60.Rider. Now briefly I will acquaint the Reader onely with the times when these Doctors liued, and the places where they taught this doctrine: and then wee shall see whether this your litterall exposition, of Hoc est corpus meum, be Catholicke or not.
And thus you may see, that neither Alexandria, Carthage, Milano, Stridona, Constantinople, Hippo, nor Rome which are famous Citties. Nay, which is more: neither Egypt, Italie, Hungaria and Slauonia, nor England, which are famous kingdomes, Nay which is most of all, the three parts of the world, Asia, Affricke, and Europe, neuer heard, or had such a litteral exposition, of Hoc est corpus meum, [Page 96] for at least eight hundred yeares after Christ, and yet your Iesuits and priestes will haue their doctrine to be Catholicke,Vincentius aduersus Hereticos. That is, truly catholicke saith he. Quod semper vbique & ab omnibus est creditum. which cannot be, vnlesse it were at all times, and in all places, and of all persons receiued; for so your Vincentius defineth Catholicke doctrine. And heere you see that for the three parts of the world, and for many hundred yeares after Christ it was not knowne. And therfore it is neither Apostolicall nor Catholicke.
Fitzimon.60. One that fayleth to be a physition, might perchaunce not be an ignorant musition; or not being a gardener, might yet be a hors-corser. So in degrees of learning, he that can not wryte well, might yet perhapp indyte wel; he that is no rethorician, might yet be a grammarian; he that is no poet, migt yet be a linguist; he that is noe diuyne, might yet be an antiquarist or chronicler. But to fayle in all degrees, and sciences, without knowing any one facultie soundly, and yet to professe a general skill vniuersaly, and to possesse such a deanrie intierly, sheweth the Muses to be stepmothers to his constitution, him selfe to haue lost great tyme in following some other more conuenient profession, and that Churche liuings are ronne cleene out of their wonted chanel, as soone to a Dunse, as a Doctor.
Sarcerius in postilla domin. 10.A reforming brother, by name Sarcerius, maketh this playne A confession: Iam ferè in prouerbium abijt, satius, & tutius esse, in rebus ciuilibus cum Mercatore Papista agere, quam cum eo qui se euangelicum iactat. It is now almost gone into a prouerb, to be more expedient, and safe, to deale in ciuil maters (for the point of beleefe, and true protestations) with a Papist Marchant, then one that boasteth him selfe a preacher of the gospell. Experience in all times, and places, hath, and doth discouer these good gospellers to deserue to be thus mistrusted by their approued legertimain in their informations, and protestations; wherin they sell, or exchange their conscience and credit, for a short applaud of ignorant popularitie. For it is not only their profession, saith S. Ireneus, S. Iron. l. c. c. 15. S. Greg. Naz. ora. 2. de pace. and S. Nazianzen, but their perfection, by false sleights to disguise falshoods, for truethes; that euery of them is so much preferred to his compagnions, by how much he doth excell him, in impudent forgeries. Do not you behould, how contries, cities, and places are now towld to haue bene formerly Protestant; and so towld, as the particular tymes, situations, and many other particulars, are numbred for greater persuasion, by one of them, who in the 21. number denye all antiquitie, desclaime all Fathers, and in the 34. number confessed a late begyning, and light, neuer befor knowen in other places? Do not you consider, how both parts of this contradiction, are as vehemently, [Page 97] and contentiously affirmed to be true, by preachers of the Gospell, as is possible, although it be impossible that both could be true? Coniecture then, whether these former foule imputations be not by them deserued. But let vs examin point, by point.
B You haue, or might haue perceaued, from the 54. to the 57. number, how vntowardly M. Rider by mangled euidences, stowtly auowched Clement Alexandrinus, Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose, Hierom, Chrysostom, Augustin, and Beda, to stand for him, and to impugne our opinions. In which numbers, all that he alleageth out of them for the most part, being graunted to him; yet is it shewed, that he is as naked for any fauour from them receaued, as Adam (after his rich reckening to haue bene as God) remained, when he had eaten the prohibited aple. Neuerthelesse, he knitteth vp his accompts with a total sume of all Doctors, for these forsayd eight; all cities wherin they dwelled, by way of consent to their verdicts; all contryes, wherin such cities were, by conformitie in one and the same beleefe; and consequently, Asia, Africk, Europ, are inferred, to concurr in their perswasions. I graunt also, this collection, or summing of accompts, to be allowable amōg Catholicks: although among reformers, it hath no maner of sequel. For, yf Cartwright in succession of tyme be alleaged, to affirme, or denie any mater: will it be supposed that VVhitgift consenteth (thinke you) therto? The same I might by induction delate of the residue: as after is testified, vpon the article in the Creede,In the 21. numb. of the Communion of Saincts. Wheras therfor, by testimonie of all principal Protestāts of all sects, in the world, the forsayd Fathers to whose beleefe Asia, Africk, and Europe are by M. Rider linked, do belong to vs; and also, wheras in the forsayd numbers, and in all this booke, they them selues do confirme the same: can M. Rider escape, from condemning his owne profession, to haue wanted approbation in all Asia, Affrick, and Europe, yf there be any worth, or witt, in such his deduction?
C Moreouer, that you may conceaue his skill in Chronologie of tymes, (which is the most sensible part of learning, to all sensible capacities;) I will not disclose it in forrein authors, but in his owne Contry man, Beda, whom he should know best. Although he might fynd in his owne relation, that he liued, in the yeare 731. and also longer, vntil the yeare 776. neuer thelesse M. Rider placeth his lyfe, anno 570. Which yf it be not confessed erroneus, and false, he maketh Beda to haue bene 206. yeares owld: then which, [Page 98] what could more absurdly be affirmed?The 46. vntruth. Beda l. 5. c. vlt. in fine. Et in ep. de Equinoctio iuxta Anatolium. ad Frat. VVicrhedam. Vide Baron. de etate Beda. I should therfor do him great wrong, not to calculat in this grosse miscompting, the 46. vntrueth. And that Beda peculiarly doth ratifie all points of our religion (as well for the real presence, as for all other, of Masses, Matins, Purgatorie, Crosses, Reliques, Religious professiōs, Vowes, Pilgrimages, Miracles, &c,) is distinctly, and vndoubtedly appearing, in his ecclesiastical English historie, translated by D. Stapleton, and conioyned to the Fortresse of Fayth.
As for his puritanical tearming, Clement Alexandrinus, and others,D for Bishops, but readers of Diuinitie; let him escape therwith, vnperceaued; but his being a Puritan is therby plainly proued: nor could all such his trippings be specified, without much losse of tyme, and tediousnes. Yf any other would demand of him, why hauing numbred only, to 570. yeares after Christs incarnation; he inferreth thervpon, that at least 800. yeares after Christ, no literal sense, of Hoc est corpus meum, was once heard of; adding 230. yeares of his owne allowāce: yf he obtayne of him any resolution, hauing any litteral sense; I will thinke it worthye to be chronicled, for a monstruous miracle. Marke well, I do not say, that he can giue no arithmetical sense, by him practised; but literal sense. For it is his profession, how ignorāt arithmetick so euer he vseth in a point of learning; yet to vse in a point of leasing a skillfull Arithmatick, to make euery 570, to stretch at least to 800; or els to fayle of his purpose. And in this knowledge, he accommodateth him selfe to their maners, who are by his brethren puritans, touched to the quick, in the acts of parlament anno 13. Elizab. c. 10. & cap. 17, although in doctrine he detesteth them, as after shalbe testified. I might giue some other, a lyke question, to propound him: for from what person, or Citie, or Contrie, hath he inferred Asia, to be against vs, or for him? I fynde none specified, belonging to Asia. I imagin, he also will haue a aunswer, without all literal sense, or none at all. Yes suerly, his truest aunswer wilbe, that Asia followed his forsaid inductiōs, as wel as other his deductiōs, his cōtrouersie.
Questio. 4. de existentia corporis Christi in Eucharistia pag. 154.61. And a late Frier and friend of yours, olde Father Iosephus Angles, brings in Cardinall Caietans opinion writing vppon saint Thomas Aquinas in this manner. Per Euangelium non possunt catholici hereticos conuincere ad intelligenda verba haec (hoc est corpus meum) proprie: sed tenendum hoc esse solum ex authoritate ecclesia, quae ita verba consecrationis declarat. That is, the Catholickes cannot conuince or inforce the Heretickes by the Gospell to vnderstand these wordes, (hoc est corpus meum, this is my bodie) properlie, but this exposition must bee fetched and held [Page 99] from the authoritie of the Church,So this your religion is none of Christs because it is not warrantted by the gospell of Christ, which so expoundeth the words of consecration. See I pray you, what one of your leardnest Friers reports out of one of your skarlet Cardinals of Rome: that you cannot prooue by Christs Gospell these words, (this is my bodie) to haue a proper and litterall signification. So that CHRISTS Gospell condemnes your litterall and proper exposition: and so your carnall presence of Christ must be maintained, from, and by, the authoritie of the church of Rome, though Christ and his Gospell say no.
Alasse, with what conscience dare you teach the Catholicks this heresie,Super quaest. 75. Art. primo. Fol. 236. Printed at Venice. 1593. which by your owne confession hath no warrant from Christs Gospell? And Cardinall Ca [...]etane himselfe writing vpon your saint Thomas Aquinas speaketh to the same purpose, that the Scriptures speake nothing (expresse) expresly of Christ his carnall presence in the Sacrament, but onely in these words (hoc est corpus meum) which words (saith he) are two waies expounded: first, properlie: secondlie, metaphoricallie. But (saith hee) the maister of the sentences is to be taxed,Lib. 4. dist. 10. who held too much with the figuratiue interpretation. And there you shall see that he blusheth not to say, that your litterall sence, is not from the Gospell, but from the church of Rome.
And if your Romane Church may be both partie, witnesse, and iudge, there is no doubt but the verdict must sound on your side. And there the Cardinall handles Duas nouitates valde mirabiles, which being dulie examined parturiunt montes, &c. with manie other forgeries and fooleries to maintaine your carnal kingdome of your Breaden-god. Thus much concerning your two consecratorie propositions, which by the testimonie of Scriptures and Fathers be figuratiuelie to be expounded as we say, not properlie and litterallie as you vntrulie teach.
How Caietan, and the Master of Sentences, are by him falsifyed.
61. I Confesse that a late Frier, might be owld in age.Fitzimon. But I would fayne be instructed, what proofe is affoorded, that concerning Angles, by him declared late and owld, is not shewed litle pithe, or method, in such medlie: Angles then affirmeth, (saith he) that hereticks can not be cōuicted by the gospell, to vnderstand, This is my bodie, properly. Why, can any doubt therof, that hath any common sense? Do we not behould, that hereticks notwith standing the gospell, do denye it? Do we not behould, that M. Rider among the rest, immediatly befor affirmed, that it was vnheard of, in 800. yeares after Christ; and therby is made an heretick, by his owne alleadged late, and ould, Angles? Should we not remember the open protestation of a Protestant:Bullinger decad. 5. de caena apud Schluss. lib. 2. art 16. Zuinglianos non posse credere Christum esse in coena praesentem, vero suo corpore, licet omnia in mundo Concilia, omnes Angeli, & Diui id iubeant credere; The Zuinglians not to be able to beleeue Christ to be in the supper according his true bodie, although all the Concils of the world, all Angels, and Saincts did command [Page 100] to beleeue it? To inferr, also that what can not be proued out of the gospel, is condemned by the gospell; is a blasphemous Riderian sequel. For nether the holy Trinitie, nor manifould principal parcels of our beleefe, mentioned in the 33. number, can be proued by the gospell: yet are not condemned nether by the gospell, nor by condemned enemyes of the gospell.
And could impudence it selfe informe, and inferr, in the woords following, that Caietan professed Christ, and the Gospell, not to stand for the true, propre, and litteral sense of these woords, Hoc est corpus meum? Caiet. in 3. part. D. Th. q. 75. a. 1. O desperat deprauations! Thus Caietan discoursed. Habemus igitur ex veritate verborum Domini, in sensu proprio, corpus Christi veraciter esse in Eucharistia; & hoc est primum quod ex euangelio habemus circa hoc sacramentum. VVe haue therfor owt of the veritie of the woords of our Lord, in their propre sense, the bodie of Christ to be verilye in the Eucharist: and this is the first that we haue owt of the gospell belonging to this Sacrament. Behould now the forhead of M. Rider, and thinke in equitie, whether impudence inioyed euer a more ordinarie tabernacle, to seat, and plant it selfe, then therin. Caietan, (saith M. Rider) affirmeth that the Scriptures speake nothing expresselye of Christs carnal presence. I leaue the woord Carnal, to the Carnal interpreter) in the sacrament. Contrary to which, saith Caietan him selfe: the woords of our Lord, in their propre sense, teach the veritie of Christ verilye being, in the Eucharist. Againe: He blusheth not (saith M. Rider) to say, that your litteral sense is not from the gospell. Contrary to which (worthye to wreast blushing out of a flint) saith Caietan, and that in the same place cited: this we haue out of the gospell, belonging to this Sacrament.
Is it not therfor, the 47. vntrueth, that we are sayd, not to be able, by the gospell to proue the real presence, because we are sayd to say, that hereticks can not be conuicted by the gospell? The sacred Scripture saith:Prou. 29. Verbis non emendabitur seruus durus: Si enim intellexerit, non obediet; By woords (ether of God, or man) will not the stiffe seruant be amended: for although he vnderstand, he will not obey. Is it not the 48.The 47 48 49. 50. 51. vntruth. vntrueth, vpon such premisses, that Christs gospell condemneth vs? The 49. that by our owne confessions, we haue no warrant, from the gospell? The 50. that Caietan relateth proofs against vs? As lowd, and lewed, is the 51. vntruth, Caietan to reprehend the Master of Sentences, for houlding to much with the figuratiue interpretation; he only reporting of him, that he pursueth their error, who esteemed such woords should be taken metaphoricalie.
[Page 101] C Gentle Readers, to you I say in the woords of S. Augustin: S. August. l. 2. con. Petil. VVe are constrayned, to heare, debat, and refute these tryfles, only because the seelie by them be not entangled. For otherwyse what greefe could be greater, then to spend tyme, and payne, in incountring him, whose protection is to peruert disproofs into proofs, affirmations into negations, falshods into truethes, foes into frends, and not to weye synn, or shame, because he would be spoken of, and for a short tyme might escape vncontrowled? Vpon my conscience, and honestie, yf I could, I would not follow him, but by only mildest method, and modestest maner: but his inueterated, and reiterated falsifications, and blasphemies, by no Christian mynde might be lesse rigorouslie pursued, then is done by me. Who could in any pietie, or peacable disposition, say, or do lesse to his blasphemie against the B. Sacrament, among so innumerable others, tearming it a carnal kingdome of a breaden God; then to applye the woords of S. Cyrill, S. Cyrill. l. 10. con. Iulia. Nihil facilius est scurrae, quàm mentiri, & temerè vituperare; ther is nothing more easie to a scoffer, then to forge, and disprayse? Such scurrilitie against the B. Sacrament, Pagans (as after in the 147. number appeareth) frequented, and commended to their successours in impietie,
I can not debarr them, from following Pagans in this behalfe;S. Bern. ser. 66. super cantica. VVho, as S. Bernard saith; nec rationibus conuincuntur, quia non intelligunt: nec authoritatibus corriguntur, quia non recipiunt: nec flectuntur suasionibus, quia subuersi sunt. Probatum est, mori magis eligunt, quàm conuerti. Horum finis interitus: horum nouissima incendium est; By reasons are not conuicted, because they vnderstand not: by authorities are not corrected, because they allow them not; by perswasions are not inclined, because they are peruerse. It is approued, they had rather die, then be reclaimed. The ende of such is destruction: their conclusion is fyer. The only thing that I entreat of the honester sorte of Reformers, is this request of S. Augustin: S. Aug. l. 1. de morih. Cathol. Eccl. cap. 18. Audite Doctos Ecclesae Catholicae viros tanta pace animi, & eo voto, quo vos ego audiui: nihil opus erit 20. annis quibus me ludificastis: longè omnino, longè breuiore tempore quid intersit inter veritatem vanitatem (que) cognoscetis. Heare the learned of the Catholick Church, with lyke peace of mynde and desyer as I heard you. There wilbe no neede of 20. yeares, in which you beguiled me: in farr lesse, farr lesse tyme, you will perceaue what manifest difference there is betwixt veritie, and vanitie. And in the same booke in the 34. chapter he saith; Tum videbitis quid inter ostentationem & sinceritatem, inter viam rectam & errorem, inter fidem & fallaciam (&c.) intersit; Then will you behould what is betwixt vaunting and veritie, right and straying, sayth and fraud, &c. Which otherwyse vnles you help your selues that God may help you, you will [Page 102] not discouer, but still remayne deceaued.
Rider.62. But yet you perchaunce will demaund the reason why Christ called it his bodie, if it be not his body: Let me first aske you another question, and then I wil resolue you this:Gen. 17.10.11. Rom. 4.11. Exod. 12.11. Why did God cal circumcision the couenant, when in deed it was not the couenant, but (as God himself saith) a signe of the couenant. Why did God cal, the Paschall lambe the Passouer, when it was but a signe of the Angels passing ouer the houses where the bloud of the lambe was sprinkled? one aunswere wil resolue both our questions. It is the vsuall maner of the holy Ghost in all Sacraments both of the old Testament and new,VVheresoeuer the holie Ghost speakes of Sacramets the phrase is tropicall, mitonymimicall and figuratiue, attributing the name of the thing signified to the signe signifying, as in these examples the phrase addeth a dignitie to the sacrament, but changeth not the nature of the sacrament to terme the visible signe by the name of the thing signified, as circumcision is called the couenaunt, the Lambe is called the Passouer, so Baptisme is called the fountaine of regeneration, and bread Christs bodie, and yet in deed they are but outward signes, and to the faithfull onely seales graced by the holie Ghost, with the names of the things they represent and confirme, the more to mooue and stirre vp our affections, and to edge our zeale with a religious preparation to receiue the same, and to lift vp our hearts & soules by faith, to behold, consider, and feed vpon (Christ crucified) the thing signified. Yet for your further satisfaction, I will intreat Augustine to aunswere your doubt, who saith:Aug. epistol. 23. ad Bonifacium: Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent, ex hac autem similitudine plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo secundùm quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi, corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei fides est: In English thus. If the Sacrament had not some certaine similitude and likenesse of the things whereof they be Sacraments, they should be no Sacraments at all. And of this similitude manie times they haue the names of those things themselues, as the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ is after a certaine manner the bodie of Christ, and the sacrament of his bloud is after a certaine maner his bloud. So the Sacrament of faith (or Baptisme) is faith. Out of which wee may note: first: they are but Sacraments, or similitudes of the thing signified not the things themselues: secondlie, that bread & wine are the bodie & bloud of Christ but secundum quendam modum, after a certaine maner and shewes, how by an example, as the Sacrament of faith is faith, so the Sacrament of Christs body is Christs bodie, but the Sacrament of faith is not faith naturallie, substantiallie by a chaunge of substance, but by chaunge of qualitie or vse, therefore the Sacrament of Christs bodie, is not chaunged into the substance of Christs bodie,Theodoret dialog. 2. cap. 24. pag. 113. & dialog. 1. cap. 8. pag. 54. read them I pray you. but onely in qualitie and vse, as Theodoret saith in his first dialogue: not changing nature, but adding grace vnto nature. And the same Father in his second dialogue explaines this more plainly, saying, the misticall signes after sanctification, Non recedunt a sua natura manent enim in priore substantia & figura &c. they depart not from their nature, but remaine in their former substance, and figure, & may be seene & touched as before: Out of which auncient learned Father I obserue three necessarie points for the Catholickes instruction,Consecratiō vnknown to Theodor, therefore it is a new terme. The change is in the name honour and vse, not in the nature. and your confutation: First, he saith, Post sanctificationem, after sanctification, then your new coined terme of consecration was not known in the Church of God, but sanctification and benediction. Secondly, I note out of this Father, that though the Sacraments haue gotten a new diuine qualitie, yet they haue not lost their nature they had before, as you vntrulie teach. Thirdlie, I obserue that he confuted by the example of bread and wine in the Sacrament, certaine Heretickes who held that [Page 103] Christs bodie was changed into his deitie after his ascention: for this is the Fathers proofe against those heretickes.Either aunswere this fully or confesse the truth. That as bread and wine are trulie bread and wine after sanctification, as they were before sanctification, euen so is Christs bodie as trulie a bodie now after his ascention, as it was before his ascention. So now the Priests of new Rome cannot say that the bread and wine haue lost their true natures and properties in the Lords supper after sanctification, vnlesse they will also say with the Heretickes, that Christ hath lost the nature of a true bodie now after his ascention. And Chrysostome seconds Theodoret saying:Chrisost. ad Caesariū Monach. Marck this well yee Pre [...]sts & Iesuits. Ante sanctificationem, &c. Before it be sanctified we cal it bread but the deuine grace once sanctifying it by the ministrie of the Priest it is deliuered from the name of bread, and counted worthy to be called the Lords body, though the nature of bread continue there still. Out of which I note first the father calles it sanctification, not consecration. Secondly it is called bread before sanctification & is bread in nature after sanctification. And thirdly after sanctification it is called the Lords body yet it is not the Lords body in deede because the nature of bread remaines.VVhat can you saye to these pregnāte proofes to satisfie the doubtfull Catholiques? And therefore in that it is called the Lords body, it must be so Sacramentally, figuratiuely & improperly. And Gelasius your owne Pope whom you dare not contradict saith plainely; Non desinit esse substantia panis vel natura vini. There seaceth not to be the substance of bread and the nature of wine.
Of the Circumcisions being called the Couenant; And the Paschal Lambs being called the Passouer; as yf the B. Sacrament no otherwyse is to be called the bodie of Christ.
62. FIrst in this discours, M. Rider dealeth frendly with me,Fitzimon. and fraudulently with others. Frendly; in obiecting against my profession a stale obiection, that Circumcision is called the Couenant; and in affoording to me an aunswer to auoyd it, that in the same place it is called, a signe of the Couenant. So that I need not trouble my selfe for other aunswer, such exposition being conioyned with the obiection; and no such in the Sacrament against which it is brought; but rather many contrary clauses testifying it not to be only a signe. Fraudulently; in affirming that one aunswer will resolue both questions: in heaping diuers dissonant maters, as consonant: in wreasting and peruerting Scriptures. For the first, one aunswer can not resolue both; Circumcision being called a Couenant, and the exposition being conioyned to such tearming therof, only as being a signe. Wheras in the B. Sacrament nether is ther any such exposition conioyned; nether can the woords adioyned be vnderstood of a signe, that it is the bodie which was to be deliuered, and [Page 104] the blood which was to be shedde. For what infidelitie were it to affirme, a signe of Christs bodie to be deliuered for our redemption, and a signe of his blood to be shedd for the remission of our synns?
A heaping of dissonant maters is perceaued; when it is affirmed; A that the Paschal Lamb was a signe of the Passeouer, as Circumcision of the Couenant. For nether scripture, reason, not resemblance, doth accompt the Lamb a signe of the passeouer. Yf it had bene sayd, to haue bene a solemnitie in memorial of the benifit, or protection shewed toward the Iewes, it might haue passed; but to affirme it to be a tropical signe therof, is a fowle wreasting of Scriptures. Now it also, hath a clause conioyned therwith, importing that it was; Victima transitus Domini; the sacrifice of the passing of our Lord; and therfor is distinguished from being the very passing it selfe: which is otherwyse obserued, as I sayd, in the B. Sacrament. These obiections being then to no purpose, in our purpose; they also are odious by their first authour, to such their application. Zuinglius him selfe, confesseth the authour, in these woords: That he haueing preached, how the woord [is] in this is my bodie, Zuingl. tom. 2. in subsid. de Eucharistia fol. 249. stood for it signifieth; The Notarie in the Senat of two hondred, excepted, that howsoeuer such glosse might stand in parables, it could not stand in Sacraments. He troubled with such a replye, went to bed; At midnight an Aduiser, whom he knew not whether he was black, or whyte (his language, and discourse, will easelie disguise what angel he was) sayd: VVhy thow Dunse, aunswer out of Exod, 12. v. 11. Est enim phase, id est, transitus Domini; it is the paschal, that is the passing of the Lord. The conclusion now is, that yf this were a good angel; Zuinglius must be confessed a Dunse. Yf a badd angel; I would wish all honest Protestants, to be no longer disciples to his doctrin. Howsoeuer, good, or badd, nether ought he to be able to seduce vs from the doctrin we haue receaued: nor is ther any material force in his obiection against vs vnaunswered.
But at the woords following, Christians, stopp your cares; That B Baptisme is not the fountayne of regeneration, Tit. 3. but only an outward Signe therof, and that to the faythfull. O pestiferous puritantcie! Could not S. Paul bridle you, from ryding against his expresse testimonie, that we are saued by the lauer of regeneration? Could not the maiestie of Gods sacred woord,Mat. 3.11. Mar. 1.8. Luc. 3.16. Ioa 1 32 Acts. 2.38. Mar. 16. euery where extant, hinder you from euacuating also that Sacrament? It which bringeth the holy Ghost? It which giueth remission of synns? it which besyd beleefe, is necessarie for remission of [Page 105] synns, and eternal lyfe? It by which, and the woord of lyfe, we are clensed, Acts. 2.37 38. c. 22.17. 1. Pet. 3.21. from, synn, and saued, as truly as Noe, and his familie, was saued by the arke and water supporting it? But of this God willing, in the 122. number, and els wher,Vide num. 36. when I proue M. Rider a profund puritan. Wherof also not a litle is forspoken, in the 39. number; wher is demonstrated these very two sacraments only left, to be esteemed forcelesse. At least, this counterpoint to Gods woord, in making Baptisme no regeneration, but a naked signe therof, is the 52. vntrueth.The 52 vntruth.
C The testimonie of S. Augustin, is Ridericaly also interpreted. By the first note, he maketh sacraments for hauing similitude with that they signifie, (such as Christs bodie, and bread, by nourrishing; and Christs Passion, and Baptisme, haue by clensing) to be nothing els but similituds only, and not the things them selues. Which yf it were true; Christ being sayd in Scripture,Sap. 1.2. Cor. 4. Hebr. 1. Coloss. 1. to be the image or lykenes of his Father, should not be one with his Father; He being sayd to be in shape found as man; should not be man. By the secōd note he inferreth; that because S. Augustin sayth, bread, & wyne, are the bodie, and blood of Christ, after a certaine maner; (meaning in resemblance of feeding) therfor they should not be such truely. Which yf it also were true; when Christ was inuisiblie among the Iewes, he might be sayd not to haue bene truely among them, because he was only in a certayne maner among them. Lykewyse yf Tertullian say truely, lib. de praescrip. c. 51. Non possunt dici penitus ipsa, quae sunt in aliqua sui parte vitiata; they can not altogether be sayd to be the same, that are blemished in any part: it would follow, that any that is blinded or mayned would not be him selfe, being but in a certayn maner the same.
In the same note, is inferred, that faith is called a Sacrament, yet not by any change: therfor the Sacrament of Christs bodie is not changed, but only in qualitie. By as wyse a therfore, might it be inferred; Gods woord (which is more powerfull then S. Augustins woords) tearmeth Christ a Lion, the Apostls salt, and light: therfor because by such calling they were not changed in substance, nether-was ther any other thing, wyne, riuers, rodds or any thing els, changed by Gods woord in substance: and so Scriptures would be denyed, creation distrusted, and all beleefe peruerted. It is also no merueil, that Thodoret, or Gelase, (whom all others cupple in this obiection) affirme, the mystical signes after sanctification not to depart from their nature, figure, or substance (to witt by [Page 106] outward apparence, and sensible imaginations, and effects;) wheras the gospell doth signifie the water substantialy turned into wyne, to haue bene water, saying: VVhen the master of the feast (or ceremonies) had tasted water turned into wyne; it being then no more water, but wyne. Also M. Rider a litle befor, sayd, the outward signes by the holy Ghost to be graced with the names of the things they represent. And consequently, bread appearing in outward signe, may be called bread in substance, by M. Riders rule against him selfe. But a more worthye (though not a more weightie) aduersarie shal impugne him; S. Lanfrancus, Bishop of Canterburie, who liued long befor Innocent the thirds tyme, the hatcher, and patcher, (yf M. Rider forge not) of all our opinions.
S. Lanfrancus in suo lib. con. Berengar. Corpus Christi vocatur panis, vel quia ex pane conficitur, vel quia intuentium B oculis cùm caro sit, panis videtur. The bodie of Christ is called bread, ether because it is made of bread, or because it being fleash, appeareth to mens eyes to be but bread. Whether consecration be a new name, in the 64. number will apareare. By the waye, in a woord, M. Rider; Doth S. Chrysostom say, that the nature of bread doth continue still? You bidd preists, and Iesuits, in the margent to marke: which is the common phrase, of Faulconers. They marke, and behould, you to be the Faulconer,Prouerb. 10. of whom the scripture saith: Qui nititur mendacijs hic pascit ventos, idem autem ipse sequitur aues volantes. He that groundeth on vntruethes, he leadeth wyndes, to pasture, and he the very same, followeth birds flying. They may marcke you often at such your game, and your wynds, and birds, skipping, and straying from your reach; but no such mater (as in the 113. number wilbe manifested) was euer dreamed by S. Chrysostom, that any yet could euer marke. This then the 53.The 53. vntruth. vntrueth.
Rider.63. But you here will obtrude your oulde slanderous obiection, that we accept of the Sacraments no better then bare figures. No, we acknowledge a change and an alteration, but not of the substance but of the vse. Is not this a maruelous change wrought by the holy Ghost in the due administration of the Lords supper according to Christs institution that of commen bread & wine such as daily we feede our bodies with, is made the dreadefull and reuerend misteries of Christ crucified: where by we neither looke vppon the bare naked elements as common creatures, but as sanctified food: And in such sort that euen as the bread doth nourish our bodies, and the wine doth comfort our spirits: so trulie, reallie, and vnfainedlie doth the heauenlie food of his bodie crucified, and his bloud shed for our sinnes, by faith in the time of the holie Supper, feede and nourish our soules into euerlasting life: and so is made and sealed our reall coniunction with Christ, not by his bodilie and locall discention into our stomackes, but by our spirituall ascention to [Page 107] him by faith. This is our doctrine touching these figuratiue propositions, warranted by Scriptures, and witnessed by the auncientest Fathers.Clem. Alex: Theod: August. with many moe neuer heard of cōsecration but of santification & benediction. Hitherto hath beene plainly and directlie prooued, that your two propositions bee figuratiue, not proper. Secondlie, that the substances of bread and wine remain after consecration, and therfore there can be no such carnall presence of Christ by Transubstantiation vnder the formes of bread and wine as you deeme. Now I am come to your two maine pillers that support and vnderprop your carnall presence, which if they faile you, then your foundation is sandie, and your buylding will not be able to abide the least blast of Christs breath. The first is consecration: the second transubstantiation: for vnles there be consecration, there can be no transubstantiation, and then no carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament. And then neither your masse nor matiens worth two pence. And so the soules then in your imagined purgatorie may crie, and yell for lacke of a dirge and a masse of Requiem.
How M. Rider doth auoyd our obiection, that they accept of the Sacraments, no better then of bare figures.
63. WHat I haue sayd in the 39. number, doth testifie,Fitzimon. whether they can thinke any better of Sacraments then as bare figures.Vide nu. 78. Listen to heare it a litle befor lowdly affirmed by M. Rider him selfe. So Baptisme is called the fountain of regeneration, and bread Christs bodie, and yet in dede they are but outward Signes. In this place, he saith, it is a slanderous obiection. But by your leaue, you are made to obiect so slanderously to your face, as slanderous shame followeth. Do not you affirme them to be outward signes, and figures, are they not all one in this article? Why then do you not confesse, that you are your owne slanderer? But we part not so. Then he saith: No, we acknowledge a change and alteratiō, but not of the substāce but of the vse. First of this chāge I pray you obserue this annotatiō of Fox, saying: Here is to be noted that Peter Martyr in his aunswer at Oxford, Fox. Acts and Men. pag. 1255. did graunt a change in the substance (and not only in the vse) of bread and wyne, which in Cambridge by the Bishop D. Ridley was denyed. So that M. Rider hath giuen doctor Ridley a knock, for denial of a change. I thinke you would now know, how this change is wrought, Attend the means, and maner. VVe looke (saith he) vpon the dredfull and reuerend mysteries of Christ crucified, not as vpon bare naked elements, but as sanctifyed foode. I aske you first,1. Pet. 3. (in confidence that you are readie alwayes to satisfie euery one that asketh you a reason of that hope that is in you; according as S. Peter aduiseth) since when these mysteries, in your religion, haue bene allowed to be called dreadfull, and reuerend? In the forsayd 39. number, the meanest sermon of a Puritan minister, [Page 108] is made more auaylable then they. They are then declared superfluous, but among forgetfull persons: no better, then bare beggerlie ordonances: no more to be regarded, then any other common bread, &c. Yet here they are made very terrible and venerable, as in the last woords is contayned.
I can not among other obseruations conceal, that by imputing lesse to the sacraments then to a Puritan sermon, you preferre Puritan sermons, befor any euer made, by Christ, or his Apostles. How soe? For they preached oft, yet made not all hearers to ether receaue our Saluiour into hart, or harborow, no not in Bethsaida, or Corozain, wher he him self preached most vsualy; nor much lesse at his preaching did make them to be true beleeuers. Yf therfor none can receaue the sacraments but by faith, as you say; and yet that by a Puritan sermon ther is more good, and proffit attayned, then by the sacraments; to my slender capacitie, Puritan sermons are implyed to make all hearers faithfull; considering that sacraments, of lesse worth, (by your surmises) then such sermons make all receauers to be faithfull; as being receaued by no others. Yet that the sermons of S. Paul, were not comparable in operation to our sacrament in controuersie,S. Aug. l. 3. de Trin. c. 4. is sayd by S. Augustin: Nether the tong of Paul, nor his paper, nor inke, nor woords, nor wrytings, de we esteeme as the bodie, or blood of Christ: so farr was he from thinking that any Puritan sermon was so effectual as this sacrament. Secondly, I craue, how your supper is sanctified? For the Crosse, or blessing, you will not allow: and of prayer, and the woord of true Scripture, in this discourse you make no mention: and other sanctification you can not iustifie. Thirdly, how by only looking, you make the foode, to be sanctified? Haue you any Gorgonical vertue in your looking, that all that you looke on, is sanctified; as all that looked on Gorgons head, were sayd trāsformed? Fowerthly, how for all this dreadfull, and reuerend change, ther is any alteration from a bare figure, considering, that the Iewes ceremonies, were as much sanctified, and looked at, as your supper; and also by all protestāts of your sorte, equaled therto? Fiftly, how hath your looking changed the vse of bread, which is only to nourish; you confessing the vse therof in the sacrament to be no other, then to represent Christs feeding, and conforting our soules, as bread doth feed, and confort our bodies? The vse therfor therof, seemeth to me not to be changed.
Because I know these demāds insoluble by your whole professiō,B [Page 109] and that I see your extremitie, and perplexitie, by your figures, and darke woords, neuer at an ende, or staye; but that by means of your figures and signes, you can not tell whether to vse great or smal tearmes, or deuotion toward them; nor do not constantly determine what conceils may be had, or held, of them; but some tyme kneeling therto is requisit, and some tyme sitting therat will suffice, and some tyme (as Barlow in the summe of the conference befor the K. Maiestie, pag. 98. saith) it must be receaued in ambling therto, wherof the indecencie is ther sayd to haue bene very offensiue. I will conclude in the woords of S. Epiphanius: S. Epiphan. l. 2. c. 12 cont. Cerdon. Vide num. 36. Veritati non credentes, in mendacio autem volutantes perdiderunt panem verae vitae in profundum vmbrae iacentes: similes Aesopi cani qui panem reliquit, in vmbram autem eius impetum fecit & perdidit escam. Not beleeuing trueth and wallowing in falshood, they haue lost the bread of true lyfe, tumbling in the bottom of a shaddow: lyke Esops dogg, who left the bread, and snatching the shaddow, lost his bayt. Then which sentence, neuer was ther any more pertinent against our figurists. For, their glosing the sacrament with dreadfull and reuerend woords, hauing euacuated the fruict therof; and making it but a shaddow, when shaddowes are changed into substance and trueth; how could any thing more aptly be applyed vnto them, then by saying, they had left the bread, snatched the shaddow, and lost the bayte?
64. But first I must tell you, the word is new,Rider. neither vsed by Christ or his Apostles in the institution of the sacrament, nor heard of in any ancient Father, for manie hundred yeares after Christ. Again, neuer read in anie author, sacred or prophane, that consecration should signifie to change one substance into another, for the nature of the word wil not beare it. Now seeing by Christ or his Apostle Paul, it was not vsed, nor ancient Father euer tooke it in this sence: Again, the nature of the word hath no such signification: I see not but you deserue much blame in binding the Catholickes consciences to beleeue that which is against diuinitie, antiquitie, and comon sence. Now Gentlemen pardon me, to demand of you but this question, what words be they that consecrat? that is: which turn the substances of bread and wine into the naturall and substantial bodie and bloud of Christ?
Me thinkes I heare you Iesuits and Priests calling me a foole for demaunding such a question,Such fathers as liued next to Christs time, shold know best the practise of the primitiue church, & these fathers you refuse and chose others a thousād years yonger, & therefore they be of lesse credit. considering (as yee pretend) that the Church of Rome and ther learned men haue euer from Christs time held with one consent one manner of consecration, with a certaine set number of words without addition or alteration, and therefore my question is friuolous and needlesse: and no doubt you make your Catholickes beleeue so, but alasse you deceiue them, it is not so: for I will shew you manie seueral opinions amongst your learned men, yea Popes themselues one contrarie to another. I praye you let me and the Catholickes of this kingdome therefore be certified and satisfied by Gods word and the practise of the [Page 110] Primitiue Church for the first six hundred years, which be the words of consecration that worketh this miraculous alteration of substances, which if you cannot prooue (as I am sure you cannot) then the Catholickes haue good cause to looke to their consciences, and to follow you no further then you follow Christ according to his word. For if anie man, nay all men, nay if an Angell, nay all Angels, should come from heauen and preach otherwise then Christ and his Apostles haue taught, let him be accursed. If Angels, nay all Angels from heauen, must not be beleeued bringing contrarie doctrine to Christ and his Apostles,Gal. 1.9. will you then binde the Catholickes of this kingdome to beleeue you, onely comming from Rome and Rhemes, whence you bring new doctrine not onelie contrarie to Gods truth, but to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church And to beginne with Guido in his Manipulo curatorum.
VVhether Consecration be a new tearme.
Fitzimon.64. ALas! is consecration a new tearme? First your principal Doctor Beza telleth, you are greuously deceaued,Beza in 1. Cor. 10. v. 16. S. Ambros. l. 4. c. 14. de Sacram. informing you that by the woord [...] is signified the same in S. Paul, as consecrare, & sanctificare, to consecrat and sanctifie. So then by this testimonie it is as ould as S. Pauls so teaching. You tould vs a litle befor, that Ambrose did not vse the woord of Consecration. Yf you may, and please, I craue how would you interpret this his saying; Vbi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. Should it not be thus, or can it be otherwyse? VVhen consecration cometh, of bread is made the fleash of Christ. I thinke also,S. August. de consecr. d. 2. c. nos autem. all Scholers would thus translate these woords of S. Augustin: Fideliter fateamur ante consecrationem panem esse & vinum &c. post consecrationem verò Carnem Christi & sanguinem; Before consecration let vs confesse faythfully to be bread and wyne, &c. but after consecration to be the fleash and blood of Christ. Remembre also what woords of his, are to the same effect in the next precedent number.
Now as our maner is, we must make M. Rider him self accompt vpon him selfe the 55.The 55. vntruth. vntrueth, in aunswering beneath, our allegation out of S. Ambrose, The bread is bread befor the consecration: but when it is consecrated of bread is made the fleashe of Christ. All this (saith M. Rider) we graunt to be true. Assuredly you must then graunt to be vntrue, these woords of yours (The woord consecration was not heard of in any ancient Father (such he accōpteth S. Ambrose nu. ibid) for many hondred yeares after Christ) it being confessed by you to be truely vttred by S. Ambrose; And, that so often beside as you haue made an obseruatiō against it, as but lately frequented, so often you haue informed idely, and vntruely. It is an ould prouerb; Bis interimitur qui suis armis perit; He is twyse defeated, who perisheth by his owne weapon: [Page 111] which is here, and not seldome before, breefly and apparantly verifyed against my Copes-mate.
65. And to beginne with Guido in his Manipulo curatorum. Rider. Guido cap, 4. pag. 23. 24. 45. But more you may see in the cautels or sleights of your masse cōcerning the necessitie of the crosses, words of the canō of the masse, & the priests intētion.
Who saith there be foure seueral opinions amongst the learned Rabbins of Rome, touching the words of Consecration.
The first sort (saieth hee) will haue besides the words of the. 3. Euangelists and Paule, the intention of the Preiste (In the cautels printed at Venice. 1464. and so saith your Masse booke) and the precepts of the Church to bee dulie obserued, jumping with your said Masse booke: that vnlesse the Priests intention bee to consecrate, there is no consecration, though he vse all Christs words, and Pauls. And if the priest omit precepta ecclesiae, that is, the commaundements of the Church of Rome in his consecration, mortalissime peccaret, he sinnes most deadlie, and is to be punished most grieuously. But Abbot Panormitane, de celebratione missarum, page. 220 is of another minde saying Etiamsi sacerdos celebret vt Deus perdat aliquem, tamen bene consecrat. Not witstandinge the priest saie Maste with intention that God would destroy some man, yet doth hee consecrate wel. What Christian heart doth not loath this diuelish intention, and hellish religion?
Heere let all Catholicks marke,As the people are not sure of the priests intē tion, so they are not sure of Christs carnal presence, & so commit idolatrie in worshipping bread being not consecrated. that this first opinion holds that Christes institution is not sufficient without the priests intention. (For if his head be otherwise occupied, he consecrates not) and the due obseruation of the precepts of the Church, which partlie consist in wordes, partlie in gestures, &c. so that by this opinion, those that simplie and plainlie (for the first eight hundred or a thousand yeares next after Christ) vsed the forme of Christs institution onelie, neuer consecrated rightlie: no not Christ himselfe nor Paul, and so till of late daies there was no Consecration, Transubstantiation, or carnall presence.
So that this opinion prooueth your owne transubstantiation & carnal presence, not to be either Apostolicall or Catholicke but new, inuented, and phantasticall The second opinion is of maister Doctor Subtilis (for so he calls him) and he flatlie contradicteth the former opinion and saith,If you say Christs institution were sufficiēt, then your canon of your masse is superfluous: if you say it is not sufficient without your masse canon then. Christs institution were imperfect VVhich to thinke is blasphemy. that all the words from qui pridie to simili modo in the Canon of your masse booke are necessarilie required to consecration, and therefore the former Doctors shot short. But Gentlemen, you know that the Canon of the masse was not made by one Pope, nor by tenne Popes, but in manie hundred years it was in patching togither, I hope you will not saie that those Saints and Marrirs of God from Christs time, to the making of that Idolatrous Canon of the masse, beeing manie hundred yeares, had not the right consecration, when they practized Christs institution.
Alij dixerunt, there is a third opinion of diuers Doctors which held contrarie to both the former, but because it is but fabulous and not woorth reading, therefore I will scilence it, as not worth the writing.
VVhether there can possiblye be any discord among Catholicks in points of beleefe.
SVddenly as I remarked M. Rider intermedling among scholasticks, my thoughts exclaimed;Fitzimon. Num & Saul inter prophetas? what is Saul among the prophets? Considering in [Page 112] quam alienum chorum pedem posuisset; in to what vnsutable assemblye he had inchroached. But his meaning was to make sporte to his aduersaries. Forward then in the name of God. First he saithe, that we among our selues haue great dissension in our opinion of Consecration. I will not calculat vp an vntrueth:1. Cor. 11.16. but will say; Nos talem consuetudinem non habemus, neque ecclesia Dei; VVe haue no such custome, nor the Churche of God. For yf any be of a contrary beleefe among vs, obstinatly, we discarde him presently in to the ranke of hereticks, by commission of Christ;Math. cap. 18. Thom. waldens. doctrinalis fidei. l. 2. c. 21.23. Si Ecclesiam non audierit sit tibi tanquam Ethnicus, & Publicanus; Yf he do not heare the Churche let him be vnto thee as an Ethnick and Publican. Because; Ecclesiae iudicium sequi debet lector Christianus, sub poena perfidiae, si ad fidem res pertineat; sub poena contumaciae, si non pertineat; A Christian reader must follow the iudgement of the Churche vnder the payne of disbeleefe yf it belong to beleefe; or vnder the payne of obstinacie, yf it doth not belong. Wherby all Catholicks are warranted, that neuer dissension can possibly haue place in their profession yf it be obstinat: In the disputations of Doctors, when the Churche authoritie or iudgement is not as yet pronounced,August. con. Faust. l. 11. c. 5. Et epist. 48. ad Vincent. according to S. Augustin; Liberum habet lector indicium; The reader hath a free choise to iudge, to take, or leaue. Yea concerning his owne wrytings he licenseth the same most religiously saying: Quae vera esse perspexeris, tene, & Ecclesiae Catholicae tribue. Ibidem. Quae falsa respue, & mihi qui homo sum tribue, &c. VVhat soeuer thow fynde true, imbrace, and impute it to the Catholick Churche. what soeuer thow fynde false, reiect, and impute it to me which am a man: Quia totum hoc genus literarum, Ibidem. non cum credendi necessitate; sed cum iudicandi libertate legendum; because all this kynde of learning is not to be read with necessitie to beleeue, but with libertie to iudge. Euery Catholick, and I among the rest, do thus offre our whole vnderstanding, and all our wrytings at the feete of Gods holy Churche, to say, and vnsay, according therto. So that yf you could fynde no other diuersities among vs, then seueral disputations, being altogether knitt in one submission to Gods Churche, you haue laboured as wysely as one that would contend, that many musitians disagree in consort, or simphonie, because they were not in one vnisone, but in seueral tunes. Which grosse misconceit is excellently refelled by S. August. l. 2. de baptism. con. Donatist. c. 3. saying; the differences betwixt Catholick wryters, to be; Sine vllo typho sacrilegae superbiae, sine vlla inflata ceruice arrogantiae, sine contentione liuidae inuidiae, cum sancta humilitate, cum pace catholica, cum charitate Christiana, donec plenario totius Orbis concilio quod saluberrime sentiebatur, etiam remotis dubitationibus firmaretur; To be [Page 113] without any whirlwynd of sacrilegiouse pryd, any puffed arrogant neck, any comention of maliciouse enuie, with holy humilitie, with vniuersal peace, with Christian charitie, vntill by a full Concill of all the world, what was soundly supposed, should be vndoubtedly confirmed. Now in particular to these 20. diuers opinions among vs.
A The first requireth saith he, the intention of the priest, that the consecration be vayleable. Why Sir, would you haue madd men, or any without intention, to minister Sacraments? For none but ought to suppose, that a man without intention doing good, or ill, is not worthy of reward, or punishment? The second opinion of Panormitan is all one with the former; differing only, that it saith: to consecrat in a badd intention, euen to kill, doth not hinder consecration. I aunswer that a swords making,Note. is not hindred by the purpose to abuse it: no more, is celebration, by the intent to misaply it. Note then curteous Protestant, his great wysdome in so simple a conceit against this opinion, as for it, to name our religion, hellish. Note secōdly, how this deepe learned, & Christian doctor, affirmeth, that Christ himselfe, the Apostles, & whole Church wā ted intention in the institution, and ministration of the B. Sacrament. I surmised, (by the want of method) the second opinion to haue bene of Panormitan, Scotus in 4. d. 8. q. 2. a. 2. but here I fynde it most confusedly ascribed to Scotus. Truely Scotus requireth to the essential forme of consecratiō, no more, nor lesse, then according the doctrin of the Churche: to the greater explication of all circumstances, he requyreth (as also the Church doth) the whole Canon; Which Canon (for the essential part) was euer vnuariable from the begyning: but for more ample declaration, it hathe in succession of tyme receaued new additions but alwayes, out of traditions, Scripturs and Concils. Vnles that after in particular I did intend to vnfould the antiquitie of all parcels of the Canon, and shew the signification, original, and allowance of the least sillable, to be aboue a thousand yeares ratified; I would in this place prosecute it. The third opinion by him selfe he silenceth, as not woorthy the wryting. Truly nether are the residue produced, woorthy relation; especialy to testifie our pretended disagreement: considering, that neuer sobre man can hitherto collect any discord in these two opinions, ether among them selues, or with the Catholick established doctrine.
[Page 114] Rider.66. But Guido his opinion is flat contrarie to them all, and saith precis [...]ly, that hoc est enim corpus meum doth consecrate without anie more helpe. So Guido is contrarie in opinion to the former three opinions, and euerie of them all contrarie one to another. Heere now the Catholickes may see the consent and vnitie of the late Church of Rome touching consecration: Yet I will bring you a learned Frier which hath tossed this question like a tennis-ball.Iosephus Angles in lib. 4. sententiarum. Printed by king Philips priuiledge. 1572. pag. 108. &. 109. de essentialibus Euch. This Frier saith in his conclusion: Christus Iesus his verbis, hoc est enim corpus meum Eucharistiam confecit, &c. Christ Iesus in these words, for this is my bodie, did consecrate the Euchariste, and so hath continued still by the custome of the Church, &c. But presentlie in his Appendix hee checkes that opinion & saith, yet it is to be beleeued that Christ consecrated with other words then these that he vsed in the institution, and there be manie of this latter opinion saith he, as Innocentius, &c. so that it is a palpable discord amongst them touching the verie words of consecration.
Two other contrarie opinions.And in the same page he deliuereth two other opinions, one of Thomas Aquinas, the other of Scotus, the one contrarie to the other, which (if you want opinions the booke) I will shew you.
Pag. 109. Soto saith, if Qu [...] pridie being the Priests words, be not vsed as well as Christs. Tūc incertum est, &c. Then it is vncertain whether there be anie Transubstantiation at all. VVhat wise catholicks wil beleeue this your vncertaine doctrine?And in the same page he sheweth, that hoc est enim corpus meum be the words of Christ, & that Qui pridie be the wordes of the Priest, so that Christs words without the Priests words worke nothing or are nothing worth. And the same Frier deliuers the opinion of Doctour Soto touching the intention of the Priest in consecration of the cup, but checks his Doctor ship in his immediat conclusion verie sharplie (I will not say shamefullie) saying Magister Soto hoc in loco sibi repugnat: Maister Soto in this place disagreeth with himselfe: & olde Cato tells vs, that he that disagreeth with himselfe, cannot agree with anie.
pag. 113. Read the place.But in the next pages he setteth down six seuerall opiniōs touching the forme of consecration, one contrarie to another, and all of them held and maintained verie stiflie for the truth, whereof fiue of them must needs be false. But I assure you there is none of them of Christs institution, and therefore neither true Apostolical nor Catholique. If they were not fabulous and friuolous, I would pen them down verbatim. But if you list to see their errrors, I haue trulie quoted their places, you may see them without paine, and I trust you will not read them without d [...]slike.
Now let me intreate you to heare some other of your friends speake, that liued in another age, that the Catholickes may see your vncertaintie in this point, that none of you all knowe what to say, nor what to beleeue, and the reason is, because you haue denied and refused the cleere waters of Gods truth, & therefore drinke of the puddels of mens inuentions, which are nothing else but fables and lies, without certaintie or veritie.
Gabriel Biel. lect. 36. Mark this you Priests and Iesuits. Gabriel a learned man on your side, saith. Christus potuit sine verbo tanquam verus Deus substantiam panis, & vini consecrare, vel potius verba quaedam secreto proferre, & per illa consecrare: vol per haec verba, hoc est corpus meum, consecrare potuit, vel potuit prius consecrare, & postea distribuere: vel primum distribuere & postea consecrare: Behould I pray you the vncerteinty of your consecration & therefore ceasse to deceaue. Petrus de Aliaco: in 4 lib. sent. Q 5. Quid autem horum fecerit ex sacris scripturis non constat: Christ as being verie God, might consecrate the bread and wine without anie word: Or else he might speake certaine words in secret, and by them consecrate: or else might consecrate by these words. This is my bodie: or he might first consecrat, and after deliuer: or else first deliuer, and then consecrate: but which of all these he did, by the holie scriptures it appeareth not. But Petrus de Alliaco crosseth them all, and [Page 115] saith, that Christ, consecrated before these words of Hoc est corpus meum, Marke this good Reader. for (saith hee:) Quia nisi ante fuisset corpus Christi, Christus non vere dixisset hoc est corpus meum. If it had not bene Christs bodie before. Christ could not haue said trulie, This is my bodie. This now toucheth your free-hold, for hee saith plainlie, vnlesse consecration goe before these words, This is my bodie, both Christ and priest should lye. This tramples your consecration in the durt.
And your Antididagma printed at Collen, How blasphemous this is, let the learned in Christ iudge. Bonauentura in 4. lib. Sententiarum dist. 8. q. 2. with the approbation of all the learned Doctors in that age, saith preciselie, that the bare words of Christs institution without the words of the Canon of the Masse, are not sufficient to worke consecration. And Bonauentura is not ashamed to say, that if wee will rightlie consecrate, wee must not seeke to the Gospell of Christ, but to the Canon of the Masse. Now Scotus (though he be maister Doctour Subtilis) is put to his dumpes what to do, in this doubtfull case of consecration, when there be twentie seuerall opinions one contrarie to another, and all contrarie to Christs trueth, in the end this is his resolution. Quod ergo est consilium? Dico quod sacerdos intendens facere quod facit ecclesia, legens distinctè verba canonis à principio vsque ad finem, verè conficit, nec est tutum alicui reputare se valdè, peritum in sciētia sua, & dicere volo vti praecisè istis verbis pro consecratione. The matter being so doubtfull, what then is your aduise? I say, that the priest intending to doe whatsoeuer the Church doth, and reading the words of the Canon distinctlie and plainly from the beginning to the end, doth verelie consecrate: neither is it wisedome for a man to account himselfe verie skillful in his knowledge, and to say I will vse (without all doubt) these, or these words to worke consecration. Here your champion Scotus cares not a point for your three Euangelists, nor the Apostle Paul: for reading of the Canon distinctly is sufficient: Oh damnable heresie, that renounceth Christs institution, and followeth mans inuentions. And the wordes of your Masse-booke are distinctè, secretè, & attentè. And also it must be pronounced vno spiritu, nulla pausatione interposita. If the foresaid cautions be not performed by the priest, your consecration and appliccation is marred, and not worth a pin. Now Gentlemen: these be your Doctors, & this is your doctrine: here betwentie seuerall opinions of consecration in seuerall ages, & none tells the trueth. Haue you vsed Gods people & the Queenes subiects Christianlie, in perswading them that all Churches, and all Fathers, in all ages, with one consent, haue embraced this your opinion touching consecration, for Catholicke without discord or dissention? I tell you no, for in this you haue crackt their conscience, & do hazard their soules to maintaine your superstition. But perchance you will perswade the Catholickes,False witnesses examined a sunder must needs be taken tripping & founde liars, for how should you agree in that yee knowe not, nay in that which is not. that though these Doctors grosly erred, yet the Church of Rome euer held one manner of consecration, but that is as vntrue as the rest. For I will shew you plainlie, that your late Popes and Church of Rome since three hundred, or three hundred and seuentie yeares last past, knewe not what to hold, nor what to affirme touching the fourme of consecration. And therefore in this your new doctrine there is neither vnitie, antiquitie, vniuersalitie (nor veritie) with which termes you so long haue deceued the people.
66.Fitzimon. Wheras the doctrin of the Catholick Churche is manifoudly expressed, that consecration is essentialy wrought by the very, and only woords of Christ; Hoc est corpus meum, hic est sanguis meus; This is my bodie, this is my blood: lett all indifferent readers maruayle at [Page 116] M. Rider, for affirming Guido, and Angles teaching by his owne declaration the very selfe same doctrin, in euident tearmes, to be repugnant one to another, or with Gods Churche. And yf these all did assuredly determine, that Christ ether in more words or in fewer, did consecrat: are they not confessed therby to haue beleeued a consecration, to haue bene instituted by Christ? Is not M. Rider therfor, a sage Scholastick, or sobre scholer, producing them to confesse, what he hath reported they did not beleeue? As for Innocentius, yf he supposed consecration to haue bene accomplished in the blessing of the bread, and wyne: may he be sayd in any learning, or wysdome, to differ from the residue, in beleefe of the trueth of Consecration? Then are browght in Thomas, and Scotus; as he sayth, differing one from another: But it is so palpable a delusion, as one may view in their wrytings, by me alleaged, (for my good frend omitteth citations when they are most needfull as is aboue declared) as it sheweth, he had a forhead of brasse to auerr any thing that auerreth it. The opinion of Soto, is confessed belonging to another mater, and therfor cannot be opposit to the former, as being not of the same: for, opposition must be concerning the same. Then six repugnant opinions are related in a dumb shew, not one of them ether defending or impugning another, but in M. Riders assurance. He is not ashamed here to affirme, that he hath truely quoted the citations of these six opinions. Therof let your very eyes be iudges.
Gabriel insueth, telling that Christ by thought might haue consecrated without any woords. Truly, any would thinke, this to be most assured, who beleeued Christ as powerfull in thought, as in woord: Which vnles M. Rider approue, he must be of opinion, that Christ neuer made heauen,Note. and earth, befor he had a mouth to speake. And Gabriel saith also truely, that the Scripture doth not declare, by what precise woords, or sole means, Christ had consecrated. Who would inferr these deductions, as inconuenient but especialy as repugnant, besyd my mate? Then succedeth Petrus de Alliaco, saying, that Christ consecrated befor the woords of consecration. And this sentence also, to whom is it opposit of the rest, vnlesse any of them had sayd, that thoughts are not precedent to woords? For in his iudgement, Christs intention, in a thought of tyme, had effected consecration, befor the woords were fully related. In the Antididagmate, ther is noe suche mater; but the contrary: that they consecrat not well, who omitt the forsayd [Page 117] forme, contenting them selues, with the sole woords of S. Paul to the Corinthians. Lastly Scotus, for his aduising euery priest about to consecrat, to read the canon distinctly, and intierly; M. Rider falleth into this Apostrophe: Oh damnable heresie that renounceth Christs institution, and followeth mans inuention! Why good Sir, is the Canon of the masse any other then Christs, and his Apostles institution, contayning only all which in the Scripture is reported to be done by him concerning the Sacrament? Is it because they are conioyned, and to be read distinctly, and intierly, that therfor they contayne a damnable heresie, and mans inuention? Now Iesus! in what tyme of the day did M. Rider vttre these sobre illations? The principal vntruethes in this mater shalbe calculated together.
67. The Pope and Church of Rome (as this Canon testifieth) was of opinion,Distinct. 2. de Consecratione sub figura in fine. that the Priest must recite verba Euangelistarum, beginning at qui pridie, &c. in hoc ergo creatur illud corpus. The Priest must recite the wholle words of the three Euāgelists, beginning at the day before he suffered.
Out of which we may see that this Pope will haue the words of the three Euangelists, which containe the causes and effects of the whole institution, and not hoc est enim corpus meum onelie, &c.
Againe, there is vsed a most shame full and blasphemous word, Creatur, vnlesse you will haue Christ to become a creature, and the Priest to become a creator: your maister the Pope was too forgetfull that this had not been dashed into his Index expurgatorius.
But I must alleadge another Pope to contradict this Popes opinion.De Conse. distinct. 2. Canon quiae corpus. page 432. In another age there was a Pope, who with the Church of Rome, held that there was an inuisible Priest that consecrated and changed those visible creatures into the bodie and bloud of Christ, not by vertue of those knowne wordes, hoc est enim corpus meum, nor by all the words of the three Euangelists, as the other Pope did, but secreta potestate, by a secreet and hidden power, which you visible Priestes knowe not. This Pope will haue an inuisible bodie and bloud of Christ. What is more contrarie and absurd then this? This Pope hath brained your hoc est enim corpus meum, being your ordinarie consecration, and records all other Popes and you Iesuits and Priests for hereticks, in holding that hoc est corpus meum doth consecrate.
But yet I will bee so bolde to aske this Pope this question.If this discorde of Popes you had not shrowded in an vnknowne tounge, the Catholicks had forsaken Pope, Preiste, & Rome, long since. De sacra. Altaris mysterio lib. 4. cap. 6. page. 105. 166. Who is that inusible Priest? where is that Priest? what is his secret power? doth it consist in speaking, or crossing, or both, or in neither, or in some other dumbe shewes. The holie Scriptures teach no such Priest, speake of no such secret power, and so this is a fable as is the rest, and no sure foundation for the Catholickes to sticke too, therefore I wish that the well minded Catholickes of this kingdome would not beleeue this vncertaine vanitie, but sticke to Christs written veritie.
I will adde one Pope more, whose opinion I know you will not gainsay, for if you should, I must come vpon you with an old schoole point. Contra negantem principia non est disputādum. This is Pope Innocentius the third of famous memorie, [Page 118] vnder the warmth of whose wings, your transubstantiation in the Synode of Laterane was hatched, at least one thousand and two hundred yeares after Christs ascension: This Pope records three seuerall opinions touching consecration, and one contrarie to another. The first hold, it is made at Benedixit: The second sort teach, that after benediction, when either is by the Priest made some print on the bread, as it were by crossing & some woord spoken ouer and to the bread, then hoc est enim corpus meum consecrats whosoeuer saith nay. And this sort holds that it is (credibile) credible, that Christ first deliuered the bread, and then consecrated the bread, which things make your fingring and blowing vpon or ouer the bread more palpable, because one must hold the Elements while you enchaunte them, rather then consecrate them. The third opinion crosseth both the other, which is, that Christ consecrated virtute diuina by his diuine vertue, and afterward laid downe for posterities a forme, after which they should blesse or consecrate.
Thus there were three seuerall opinions that this Pope spake of, yet it seemeth he liked but one of them, which was the second, which he semeth to iustifie in the chapter following.
Magister Sent. lib. 4. dist. 8. fol. 56: which are alleadged out of Ambrose.But Magister Sententiarum commeth neerer the matter and asketh a question to make the matter plaine; Consecratio quibus verbis fit? attendite quae sunt verba, accipite & comedite, accipite bibite, &c. with what words is consecration made? giue attention, these be the words. Take ye, and eate yee all of this, this is my bodie, take yee & drinke yee, this is my bloud drincke yee all of this.
Heere you see that this maister checkes Pope and Prelate, for none of all these twentie and odde opinions euer put in these wordes, Take yee, eate yee, take yee, drinke yee, as the words of Christ, but as the words of your Canon. And that these words be not necessarie parts of Christs institution, but onelie shew the vse of the institution, but that is neither Canonicall nor Catholicke. And if you list at your leisure to read Cardinall Fr. Constantius Sarnanus his worcke,Printed at Roanne. 1592. pag. 144. 145. 146. intituled Summe Theologica, dedicated to this Pope Clement the eight now liuing yow shall see that he repeats other seuerall iarres that are now among your Romane Prelates touching consecration as contrarie as these, and therefore as absurd as the former.
Now Gentlemen, how can you salue this sore, and reconcile these iarres, Doctors, Schoolemen, Canonists, Text and Glosse, Popes, and great Prelates dissenting most shamefullie about consecration, none of them relying vpon Christs plaine institution, and therefore beholde their deserued confusion.
Now blame not vs for discouering your discords, and for forsaking your errors, but blame your Doctours, Schoolmen, Friers, Monkes, Legendaries, Canonists, your Popes Canons and your owne Masse book, these are come to our hands, we haue read their workes, and discouered some hundreds of their heresies, and sent them to the view of the Catholickes. But howsoeuer you blame vs. God and the world will blame you, in keeping the people from reading Gods booke, and good writers, which would instruct and confirme them in true religion, and reuoke them from your grosse superstition. Thus much concerning the vncertaintie, absurditie, and blasphemie of your consecration. Now the true Apostolicall consecration is this, when the elements of bread and wine are set apart from their common vse, and applied to a holie vse, according to Gods word.
Fitzimon.67. The Fox, that by all attempts could not attayne grapes placed in a height, began after to dispraise them as sowre; and seemed [Page 119] [...]o despise them: So M. Rider, who befor had assured him selfe of [...]he decretals num. 46; finding his conceit frustrated, in great choler [...]ayleth, rebuketh, and in his opinion refuteth them in this place. What he sayth, was intended by the first Pope, (such is his skill, to thinke S. Augustin had bene Pope: for they are his woords) I assure him he may fynde in all Missals, to be prescribed generaly, and to be practised in all Masses, at all places: which sheweth in all places an vniuersal consent, and vniformitie. The next Popes offense (he should haue sayd, yf he knew what he sayd, Eusebius Emissenus, but the name Pope is suche a sting in his hart, that of the abundance of greefe wrought therby, the mouth euer speaketh) was to haue mentioned an inuisible Priest. A man that truely, and not faynedly had bene familiar in the Fathers,Chrysost. hom. de prodit. Iudae. August. 4. de tr. c. 7. & 14. l. 10. de Ciu. c. 20. Cypr. ep. 63. Ambros. super psa. 38. Theoph. ad Hebr. 5. Anselm. ibid. 10. &c. Conc. Trid. sess. 22. c. 1. 2. would neuer haue excepted against suche speeche, as at a noueltie. S. Chrisostom saithe, Cùm videris sacerdotem offerentem, ne ipsum consideres hoc facientem, sed Christi manum inuisibiliter extensam: when you behould the Preest offering, do not considre him working this, but Christs hand inuisibly extended. S. Augustin saith, ipse offerens, ipse oblatio; it is he (Christ) which offreth, he is the oblation. The same is affirmed by S. Cyprian, Ambrose, Theophilact, Anselme, the Councils of Lateran, of Florence, and of Trent. All these witneses declare the speeche of Eusebius, to be vsual, and sound: Eusebius him selfe testifieth it to be ancient, for he liued anno 350.
The third Pope must not be differēt in this point, yf it were he that hacthed it. For yf he hold in this, other then we hould, he could not be authour of this that we hould. Marry Innocentius in dede telleth ther are three general sentences in this mater: to witt of some, that would haue consecration begon at the word Blessed; of others, that after; of diuers, that Christ consecrated by diuine vertue, & left a forme to consecrat for posteritie. Of these the two first differr not otherwyse in the point of cōsecration, but that one telleth it was begon in the first woords; the other that such woords were rather a preparation, then consummation, of it. I should thinke these two not to differr so muche, as yf one would say: you M. Rider came from your father; & the other: that you came from your grandfather. For all difference alleaged is of lesse diuersitie, as being of what is beleeued to be the same substance, wheras you are of distinct substance, yea & state, as you came from your grandfather, and father. Your schoole point, being the first and last sauoring any smack in logick, (for only two grammarian sentences, cum multis alijs: à tribus ad centum, were hetherto heard of) it also [Page 120] bewrayeth the authoure (by being not apliable to an argument of authoritie, but only of Maxims, or grounds) to be voyd of skill.
The arguments or schoole points to supporte any authoritie,B according to Aristotle are only,Arist. 2. Top. two: 1. In vsu verborum, sequenda est vulgi consuetudo: 2. In sententia de rebus ferenda, iudicium sapientium. In vse of woords, the custome is to be followed. In sense of things, the iudgement of the wyse, is to be imbraced. Your additions to the second opinion are more remote from sinceritie, then your former schoole point, from subtilitie. The text of Innocent hath thus. Nec etiam est credibile, quod prius dederit quàm consecerit; Nether also is it credibile that he gaue first befor he had accomplished: Which being a palpable negation, in playnest tearmes as euery halfe peny scholer may conceaue; M. Rider ether for want of skill, or for want of fidelitie, maketh it an affirmation. Verilye, this ignorance or iugling deserueth at least to haue your hoode (in the schole lane) pull'd ouer your head. I know not what should torment his mynde in the third sentence, vnlesse it be, that diuine vertue is asscribed to Christ: or, that he had left vs a forme to consecrat: which two in Gods woord, and godly mynds, are vndoubted; although in protestancie, Christ is sayd to haue had no more diuine vertue, then Socrates, or Trismegistus. see in our 24. numbre. As litle do I know, what he may cauill at, in the next opinion, of the master of Sentences; (reporting it truely without his owne commixtions) as but only telling, for compleat, and prefect consecration, (not only for the essential, but also for the ceremonial, and historical part,) all that is prescribed by the Church, to be obserued. By all which accusations examined, they being so idle, so confused, and intricat, as wanting, all method, and mater, and so remote from disproueing cōsecration, as they all are confessed (being disputations, not whether ther be any consecration, but such presupposed to be vndoubtfull, in what sorte ther is any) to approue it, and withal so vntruely reported; all men, frends, and foes, to our profession, may perceaue, that nether late, or owld, true, or false, setled beleefe, or opiniatiue disputations, do contradict our persuasion: and, that diuersitie, can not, or hath not bene among vs, in any other sorte, then by their impudent reporte, who with squinted eyes, and dazeled brayns behould vs; therby thinking, like gogle-eyed dronkards, euery candle to be twentie.
Now must we out of the whole heape, intimat only some C choise vntruethes. The 56. is, that he would shew many opinions [Page 121] of popes contrary one to another. The 57.The 56 57. 58 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64 65. 66. vntruth. that Guido numbreth fower diuers opinions: that he, or M. Rider, haue quoted any of the six opinions by him sayd to be repugnant one, to another: that we know the Canon of the masse to be in patching many hondred yeares: that any fabulouse opinion is related, or mentioned, by Guido: that Guido is of different opinion to any other, by him related, in allowing consecration: that our religion is hellish. The 58. that Christ, and his Churche, for the first eight hondred yeares wanted intention, in institution and vse, of the B. Sacrament. The 59. that ther is any suche mater, in the antididagmate, as he informeth. The 60. that Bonauentur so iudged. The 61. that S. Augustin, or S. Eusebius were popes. The 62. that transubstantiation was founded by Innocentius the third. The 63. 64. 65. false allegations, additions, and alterations of negatiues to affirmatiues, in repetition of Innocents. discourse. The 66. that M. Rider hathe discouered hondreds of heresies in our wryters &c. Vpon my creditt, I liberaly ouerpasse, for breuities sake, ten tymes as many more impious vntruethes, (easie to be viewed, by euery Christian obseruer) only because I loath to reueale a sinke out of which vamped so odiouse a stench. The best rule toward such a reporter, is to haue all that he saith in suspition, vntil his allegations be viewed: which to him, and he to them, are euer found contrary.
68.Rider. And when the lawful minister hath taught the prepared communicants the grieuousnes of their sinnes: the greatnes of Gods wrath:VVhat true consecration is which the Gospellers teach. the sufficiencie of Christs merits fully to appease the same: the nature of the Sacrament, which is a commemoration of that passion, the office of faith to apprehend and applie Christs merits promissed in the word, and tendred in the due administration of the Sacraments, then is there I say, aright consecration of the Sacrament. Now whether this consecration of yours, is warranted by Christ his words, let the indifferent Reader iudge, and with the truest & auncient opinion ioyne. Thus much concerning your imagined & newstamped consecration. Now to your second piller, which is, transsubstansiation. First, I must tel you in this,Transubstantiation. as in the former, that the terme is new, lately inuented & compounded by your selues. And as your consecration was neuer found in the new Testament.
VVhat the true consecration is which the gospellers teache: and whether it be according to Christs institution.
68. I Had thought to haue kept back my selfe at this point,Fitzimon. of the protestāt cōsecration, by occasion of the wordes lately spoken by M. Rider in the 66. number, to witt: Oh damnable heresie, that renounceth Christs institutiō, and followeth mās inuētion. [Page 122] But this clause of his now is my text: wherupon I intēd to reuye (as the phrase of players is, or replie, yf it dislyke any) haueing hitherto sene al his layes, & exceptions. First in this his discourse (borrowed out of Iuels; reply against Harding, art. 1. diuis. 8. pag. 19. to which Bullinger decad. 5. ser. 6. Caluin, Instit. l. 4. c. 17. n. 15. and others of that sort, accorde.) I can not perceaue Christs woords of institution of the Sacrament, nether contayned, nor mentioned, ether as it is vsed by vs, or propounded in the Communion booke. What more puritantrie? Is not this, Christs institution to be renounced, and mans inuention followed? The sequel therupon is in my forsaid text, by conceit for breuitie sake, here reiterated. But we wil not so departe. The substance of bread and wyne when it is (saith he) sett a part from the common vse, and applyed to a holy vse according to Gods woord. The commmon vse of bread, and wyne, is to nourishe. I aske how you separat them from nourishing? especialy when you often sayd befor, that as they nourish the body, so Christ the soule, not by his discending, but by your ascending in faithe. Yf then the substance of bread, and wyne, be sett a part from their common vse, which is to nourishe; what relation haue they to Christs feeding our soules?1. Timo. 4. I pray you for our vnderstandings sake; make this playne. 2. In deed I fynd, in S. Paul, all meat is lawfull, that is sanctified by the woord and by prayer. So hath Musculus in locis com. cap. de caena pag. 336. Bullinger decad. 5. ser. 6. Do you therfor intend by application to a holy vse, that such sanctification of meat, had operated any mutation in your bread, and wyne? Fye, say you, noe. For blessings, charms, or woords of sanctification and operation we abhorre. Then I requyre, both how you interpret your intricat conceits, and also what warrant for this whole discourse is any wher els in scripture? Yf you bring none, (as I ame sure ther is none, yet knowen to your purpose) remembre my text, being your owne woords, how vnfortunatly it tumbleth vpon you.
According breefly to my promise in the begynning I wil not A ouercrow ouer him so abiectly prostrat in superfluous discourses. I let you therfor vnderstand, that the Current of protestantcie, declineth, as from a serpent, from the woords of Christs institution, and clowds and shaddowes of words, mists and obscuritie of sentences sauoring fained pietie, being made by them his institution and not his owne woords.Decad. 5. ser. 6. Witnes Bullinger, pronowncing in playne tearmes, ther is noe vertue at all in rehearsing the woords of the Lord in the Supper. Zuingl. to. 2. resp. ad confess. Luth. sol. 431. And he confirmeth it by authoritie of Plinie, a pagan. Witnes Zuinglius, Saying: that none can euer giue any sound reason, [Page 123] or authoritie, Ioan. Schut. l. 50. causarum. cap. 13. Fox acts and Mō. pag. 666. 667. Buchanan hist. Scotic. l. 15. pag. 523. Suingl. to. 2. expos. fid. Christ. fol. 563. 564. Bulling. in ep. ad Hebr. c. 10. that commandeth the woords of Christs institution to be redd in ministring the supper. Witnes Iohn Scut; that the Caluinists do so hate the woords of Christs institution, that they cannot abyde ether to see, or to heare them. Witnes Ihon Lassels, one of Foxes martyrs, that Christs woords should not be spoken in the institution, considering that S. Paul durst not mention them. Witnes one George Sephocard, a Scotish protestant martyr, ministring the communion without Christs woords of institution. Witnes the protestants in Switzerland, wher, by declaration and approbation of Zuinglius, and Bullinger, the people sitt all a long in ordre vpon formes, and giue eare to one reading the 13. chapter of S. Ihon, without Christs institution. In the mean season is bread caryed about in paniers, and wyne in glasses one giuing bread & wyne to another, and so endeth, say they, the communion. Witnes others of England also practising the same prophane indecencie toward their supper: of whom we haue treated numb. 39. Witnes Beza, aduising to ministre the communion, Beza epist. Theol. 2. pag. 27. when ther is no bread or wyne at hand, in any other food: contrary to Christs institution, and Christendoms practise: Witnes the Scotishe communion booke,In the administration of the L. supper. Luth. 10.7. de. ens. verb. caene. fol. 383. where the woords of Christs institution, are carefully auoyded. Witnes lastly Luther, saying of this sorte of people: They feare least they should stumble and breake their necks at euery sillable, which Christ pronounced. Yf I were a good preacher, I should not so long haue omitted my text: Oh damnable heresie that renounceth Christs institution, and followeth mans inuention. I might haue more amplie witnesed their hatred against Christs woords, yf I had intended to florish in abundance, and prolixitie. Only to conclude, let vs not be ignorant, that Swenkfeld flowteth Christs words by testimonie of Schlusselburg. Schlusselb. l. 2. theol. Cal. art. 32. Dialog. Comment. in lib. Reg. Vide her. apud Feuardent in entromāgerit. Peter vermil (otherwyse called Peter martyr) first tearmeth hoc est enim corpus meum, for this is my body, but a fiue woorded proofe, next he trembled not to say; non tam verbum diuinum, quam etiam verba naturae sequenda esse in theologia; The diuine woords owght not to be followed so muche in Diuinitie as the woords of Nature. victorius no lesse blasphemously saythe: Sinistro oculo respiciendum est ad verba Christi, dexrro vero ad naturas, &c. we must looke with the left eye at the woords of Christ, but with the right, at naturs of things.
This disdayne towards Christs institution reuealed, let vs next examin the causes therof. I finde them seueral. Some thinke, that Christ had not power to giue vs his body, and together to be in heauen. I finde it in Caluin, in Robert Bruce, in Beza, in Sureau, Calu. l. 4. Instit. c. 17. n. 29. Instit. l. 3. c. 23. n. 2. Cōmēt. in cap. 23. Isa. l. de eterna prodest. Admonit. vult. L'Espine, yea & Caluin, thryse to my owne knowledge, denyeth God to be almightie absolutly. And Beza sayth; that the Angels speeche to our [Page 124] Lady, Beza l. 2. con. Heshus. Disputatio Parisiēsis. Rob. Bruce in his sermons pag. 158. how nothing is impossible to God, owght to be beleeued vniuersaly. The residue affirme, that God could nether vnderstand, nor will, not woorcke, that the body of his sonne Iesus Christ could be together in many places, nor any other thing contrary to the course of nature once by him (as Bruce sayth) established. Goe, and tell these men, that Christs body can as well exceed nature in being in many places together, as be borne of a virgin, walke on the sea, be inuisible, issue out of a sepulchre, enter among his closed disciples, penetrat the heauens,Articles of the familie of Loue printed in London an. 1578. art. 43. &c. They will aunswer cōfidently. For the first of Christs merueylous birthe, (I meane them of the familie of loue) that he was borne of the virgin Marie, no otherwyse then he is borne of their fleash For the second. of his walking on the sea, I remembre not to haue heard them disproue it; nor for his inuisibilitie. For the third of his resurrection,Colloq. Malbrun. Act. 6. Marlor. in nou. test. fol. 167. & in 20. Ioan. Thalmā. in c. 28. mat. Calu in Ioan. c 20. 19. Et lib. 4. Instit, c. 17. n. 29. Et in harm. Luc. 24.36. Pet. Mart. in dialog. de loco Corporis Christi fol. 94. 95. Vtenhouius pag. 185. 186. Feuard. Entremangeries. pag. 263. they tell, that the angel had made passage, & that ther was noe miracle perceaued therin. For which opinion of Vermil, Gautier, Sureau, L'Espin, & Beza, diuers of them selues haue repyned: as appeareth in the conference of Malbrown, in Marlorat, in Benedict Thalman, &c. For the fouerth of entring among his inclosed disciples, I can hardly relate their variable shifts to escape it in few woords. yet I will attempt to comprise succinctly their diuersities abowt it. Caluin sayth First, that he fownd the doores shutt, but knocked, & obtayned entrie. Secondly, that by his diuine vertu he secreatly had opened them. Bullinger sayth, that an Angel had opened them. Aretius; that they opened of their owne grace. Peter Martyr; that he entred by the windoe. Simonius, that he entred by the chinkes of the doore. Thalman, that his body diminished it selfe lyke a threed and so passed therat. Others, that he entred at the tonnel of the chimnie. &c. And yf you tell them the Scripturs declare a miracle, wherby the Apostles were affraid; &c. they will awnswer, as to the woords of Christs institution aforsayd, you must looke wih you left eye at Scripture. &c. For the last, they affirme (contrary to Scripture) that by many weightie reasons they are perswaded,Pag. 57. the heauens not to be hard, but easely passable: and consequently, that Christ might haue entred, or passed, throwgh them, not only without miracle, but also without resistance. So speaketh Ihon Brouant, in his Aphorisms, and replications.
Note.All this outrage proceedeth against Christs institution of the B. Sacrament, because yf it be true; these miraculous mysteries of Christs natiuitie, resurrection, ascension, &c. may stand. Yf it be not allowed, in the literal sense; these other mysteries, testifying [Page 125] Christs true substantial body to haue surpassed the bonds of natu [...]re, as much, as yf it should be in many places at once, must lykewyse [...]n this protestant guise specifyed, be contradicted. Abissus abissum [...]nuocat; One bottomless miserie and absurditie trayleth with it another. For this same cause, Beza professeth to haue trāslated falsly the 21.Beza in cap. Act. 3. v. 21. verse of the third chapter of the Acts of the Apostles; of purpose saith [...]he, to keep Christs presence from the altar; wherat Caluin, Illiricus, and other protestants greatly murmured. For the same cause,Cal. in c. 26. Mat. v. 27. Colloq. Monpelgartense [...] in actis. Vide Feuard. in c. 1. Pet. & l. 5. c. 16. Theomach [...]a. Cal. Cureus in Spongia [...] fol. 239. Erastus pag. 29. Aulakius 45. pag. Osiander con. Morlinum. Bauar. con. Selneccerum. least thou shouldest haue any beleefe to receaue Christs blood, Caluin telleth, that they are furiously madd, who affirme any blood to be longer conioyned with his fleash. Wherby his scholers, Aulakius, Bauarus, Cureus, Erastus, Osiander, and the Antilutherans of Witberg, affirmed, that such blood is long since putrified, and lost, in earthe; no longer in nature, and is fruictles toward our saluation. Wherat the Compt or Earle Mont-Belial, sayd that his whole body trembled; and the conference was presently debarred (for suche fowle blasphemies) by the Duke of Witemberg. Notwith standing all this, of M. Riders owne and his brethrens hate against the woords of Christs institution, of so many mysteries of religion, and testimonies of scripture, so impiously distrusted, disdayned, & abiured; two things may seeme incomprehensible: First, how ministres can braue, and face out, with sugred and assured woords, their hypochrisie. Secondly, how they can obtrud any longer their filthy fancies, now so plainly discouered to their owne consciences, and to all others, who may so easely, and by only natural sight behowld their abhomination. In the mean tyme, I end, pronouncing my text, since M. Rider to all mens view, omitteth Christ institution. Oh damnable heresie, &c.
69. So transubstansiation was neuer found in the new nor olde. No,Rider. I do not remember that in al my Grammatical trauels & studies, that euer I read it.Yet we contend with you not for names and words, but for points & articles of faith, I can shew you Dictionaries many, & Grammers moe, of diuers prints, and in diuerse ages, printed in seuerall Vniuersities of Christendome, but none of them makes mention of this word transubstantiare, much lesse of the sence, which is to chaunge substances of seuerall kinds, one substance into another.
VVhether Transubstantiation had bene anciently knowen. And whether new names may consist with ould doctrine.
69. IT may seeme the more strange, that M. Rider, Fitzimon. who made such a Dictionarie, (wherin, beyond Thomas, Thomasius his [Page 126] pyke-deuant, and all other lyke woords formerly vnknowen in dictionaries, M. Rider found out, turlererehiskum, and diuers others as good ornaments to his sayd Dictionarie (could yet not fynde the woord Transubstantiation. But it is the lesse admirable, that he that sought it, had a vayle vpon his hart toward the effect of transubstantiation, and a mist vpon his eyes toward the woord. In all your brethrens writings against it by expresse name, might you not haue found it? Broualdt hath it, saying in his Aphorisms;Pag. 2. & 26. that one named Lanfrancus Italian (longe befor Innocent the third) brought it in to the Church: and after in the yeare 1051. it was established by Leon the ninthe in the Concil of Versel. Might you not haue found it in Peter Martyr, in Caluin, and in the whole crue, saying it not to haue bene befor Innocent the third; which also your selfe often do professe? And yet you say, you neuer remembre to haue read it. A better mynde, will bring a better memorie; In the meane tyme be recorder of your oune 67.vntruth 67. vntrueth.
But what meane you to thinke it strange not to fynd (especialy A in grammarian trauels and studies, for ould beleefe, but new names? As for exemple, in your owne profession, you vse the name Ministre of the woord: of which vse you haue not one instance in Scripture. But rather where it is taken in a badd sense: Mat. 26.58. Mar. 14.56.65. Ioan. c. 18.12.18.22. cap. 19.6. 2. Cor. 11.15. Secondly none more often speake (as of all other woords of doubtfull signification) of the name,In his sermons. pag. 4. 12. VVestphal. in apol. pag. 5. Muscul. in locis com. pag. 292. Clebitius in victo. argum. 12. Sacrament: yet Robert Bruce telleth, that it is not vsed in Scripture, nor to be vsed by Christians: So doth Carolostadius, Musculus, Clebitius, &c. But at other tymes, saith VVestphalus; the Caluinists because they fynd the woord apt for them to shift and lurke vnder, do greedely imbrace it. I requyre remembrance be taken of this admonition, when M. Rider will stand vpon the name Sacrament, as vpon a brasen wall, as Caluin tearmeth it. So lykewyse of all tymes in our profession, to signifie an ould beleefe with more efficacie, a new tearme is imposed: as [...], to signify Consubstantial, [...] to signifie the mother of God, Transubstantiatio for the conuersion of bread and wyne into the fleash and blood of Christ, In con. Nic. In con. Ephes. Conc. Trid. sess 13. c. 4. August. epist. 174. Cic. l. 2. ad Heren. &c. which woords are to be measured according to the proprietie of them, and the authoritie whence they proceed, rather then according the antiquitie of them. But, because S. Augustin saith; it is a most contentious part, to contend about the name, when the thing is knowen; and as Cicero saith; Calumniatorum proprium est verba consectari; it is the proprietie of Cauillers to pursue woords, by the [Page 127] definition of Transubstantiation, we wilbe instructed, how sound, and ancient it is.
70. But brieflie,Rider. as the word cannot be found in Gods booke nor auncient Doctor: so the sence hath neither warrant from holie Scriptures, nor Catholicke writers.
For this is your opinion, that after consecration (which yet you know not what it is) the substance of bread and wine should be conuerted into the naturall bodie and bloud of Christ, the accidents of bread and wine, as whitnesse, roundnesse, breadth, weight, sauor and taste of them onely remaining.
You may assoone and to as good a purpose, prooue a transaccidentation as a transubstantiation. But as there is no change of the former, so not of the latter, but a meere F [...]iers fable, and therefore friuolous. And whereas the Fathers vse these words, change, conuersion, mutation, transelementation, they alwaies expound themselues in their seuerall workes, that it is a changing of the vse, not of the substance: neither can you shew anie one Father that euer ment such a change, of one substance into another: for euerie change of one thing into another, carrieth not with it at all transubstantiation of one substance into another: for there may be a change without conuersion of substances, but conuersion of substances cannot bee without a change: for there is as much difference betwixt change and transubstantiation, as betwixt the generall & the speciall: for change is the generall, and containes vnder it transubstansiation: but not contrariwise.
And as there is a change of substances, so there is a change of accidents, to wit, of qualities, of times, of places, of habits, and such other like things, according to their natures, and to the predicaments vnder the which they are comprehēded,
These Logicall rudiments I hope you haue not forgotten.
Our regeneration is a change, not substantiall, but accidentall that is:VVe confes a change of name, & of vse, but onelie during the actiō not after to be a sacrament, no more then water in the font after that baptisme is finished by the minister. it is not a change of the substance of our bodies and soules into anie other substance, but the change is in qualitie: which is, from vice to vertue, from sinne to righteousnesse, &c. and this our change now in question is sacramentall, not substantiall, of the vse of the creatures, not of the substance.
But if you will needes haue a change of substances, speake like schollers, and tell me for my learning in what predicament I shall seeke it, and yet I thinke I shall neuer finde it. But I will not bee tedious in transubstantiation, seeing the great Rabbynes of Rome can no more agree vpon this, then they could about consecration, as also because we haue confuted it in such places, where we prooue bread to remaine after consecration: for so manie Fathers as prooue bread to remaine after consecration: confute transubstantiation. I will onelie giue the best minded Catholickes a taste of the rest of your late School-doctors, by alleadging one Grand captain instead of the rest. Whose words be these.Magister Sent. lib. 4. di [...]t. 11. pag. 58. Si tandem queritur qualis sit illa conuersio, an formalis. an substantialis, vel alterius generis, diffinire non sufficio: But if it be asked mee (saith this your great Moderator) what kinde of change is made in the Sacrament, whether it be formall, or substantiall, or of anie other kinde, I am not able to define it vnto you.
Will you heare your owne friend Cuthb. Tounstall Bishop of Dirrhum deliuer his opinion, de modo, De Eucharistia lib. 1. pag. 46. quomodo id fieret fortasse satius erat cur [...]osum quemque suae relinquere coniecturae, sicut liberum fuit ante concilium Lateranum. Of the maner of this change or conuersion how it might be done, perhaps it had been better to [Page 128] leaue euery man that would be curious to his own opinion or coniecture, as i [...] was before the Councell of Laterane left at libertie.
Is this your antiquitie, vniuersalitie, and consent? you see it is a jarring noueltie, voide of veritie. Why then will you take vpon you to teach that which you neuer learned, and perswade the Catholickes to beleeue that which the chiefest on you [...] side maketh a doubt of? nay all of your side cannot prooue: nay which is in deed but a fable without trueth,Absurdities follow the granting of Transubstantiation. for one thousand & two hundred yeares after Christ neuer heard of: And therefore seeing it is neither Apostolicall nor Catholicke, no mans consience is bounde to beleeue it. Now I will onelie showe some grosse absurdities that followe the graunting of it, and so proceed to the rest.
VVhat the sense is of Transubstantiation, and how ould it is.
Fitzimon.70. TRansubstantiation (in our purpose) is a conuersion of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord,Conc. Trid. loc. cit. and of the whole substance of wyne into the substance of his blood. So that yf the Fathers euer taught the whole bread in substantial mater and forme to be conuerted in to the fleash of Christ, and the wyne into his blood, without any substantial part or parcel of them remayning; they can not be denyed to haue taught Transubstantiation.Vide Zuar. 3. par. q. 75. d [...]sp 50. sect, 1. The name creation is added owt of S. Augustin. de conseca. d. 2. c. vtrum sub figura. wherby is only intended what here in other woords others haue. For the euidence wherof; first, let vs learne what names they vsed to expresse this conuersion. For breuities sake, I will only relate such as in the proofs of their opinions in Zuares are specifyed: to witt, A transmutation, a making, a creation, a mutation, a conuersion, a translation, a transelementation, transformation, a transmigration, transfusion of bread, and wyne, into the body and blood of Christ. Euery one vsing the most forcible woord he bethought, to testifie the same, which the Concil of Trent doth say, conueniently, and properly, to be called Transubstantiation.
Secondly note, these few proofs of the primatiue Fathers, and other Doctors perswasions.Cyprian. de caena Domini. Firste S. Cyprian; Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat, non effigie sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia verbi factus est caro; The bread which Christ deliuered his disciples, not in resemblance, but in substance and nature changed, by the omnipotencie of the woord is made fleash. O confortable and Catholick testimonie, of fourtene hondred yeares antiquitie!Cyril. Hierosolimit anus catechist. 4. mystagogua. S. Cyrill of Ierusalem; Hoc sciens; ac procertissimo habens, panem hunc non esse panem, qui videtur, etiamsi gust [...] panem esse sentiat; This knowing, and howlding for most certayne, this bread not to be bread which seemeth, Ambros. de sacram. l. 4. c 14. lib. 6. c. 1. althowgh the tast do the iudge it bread. S. Ambros; Panis iste panis est ante verba sacramentorum: Vbi accesserit consecratio, de pane [Page 129] [...] caro Christi; This bread is bread befor consecration, but when it is consecra [...]d, of bread it is made the fleash of Christ. S. Augustin;August. dist. 2. cap. hoc est de Consecr. Caro eius est quam [...]ma panis opertam in sacramento accipimus: & sanguis eius quem sub vini [...]ecie & sapore potamus; It is his fleash which vnder the lyknes of bread couered, [...]e receaue in the Sacrament; and his blood which vnder the shew and tast of [...]yne we drinke. S. Cyrill of Alexandria;Cyril. Alex. in Ioan. l. 4. c. 13. Qui videtur panis non est panis [...]iamsi gustu ita appareat, sed corpus Christi; That which seemeth bread is not [...]read, although in tast it so appeare, but the body of Christ. Beda;Beda lib. de mysterio m [...]sse. Remigius in psal. 21. Ibi sorma [...]anis videtur, vbi substantia panis non est; There the forme of bread appeareth [...]here the substance of bread is not. S. Remigius; Panis & vinum à Chri [...]iana veritate dicuntur, non quod naturam panis & vini post consecrationem [...]etineant, sed quod nutriant; Bread and wyne are sayd in Christian veritie, [...]ot that they retayne the nature of bread and wyne after consecration, but that [...]hey nourish. S. Bernard; Hostia quam vides, iam non est panis, Bernard de caena Domini. sed caro [...]ea: similiter liquor iste quem vides iam non vinum, sed sanguis meus. Quem [...]dmodum illic speci [...]s cernuntur quarum res vel substantia ibi non esse creduntur: [...]ic res veraciter & substantialiter creditur, cuius species non cernitur; The host [...]hat thou dost behould, is not now bread, but my fleash: lykewyse the liquoure [...]hich thou viewest, is not wyne, but my blood. Euen as the lyknes are seene, [...]hose things or substances are beleeued not to be there: so the thing is truly and [...]ubstantialy beleeued, whose shape is not perceaued.
Will all theses testimonies, wherof euery one alone had bene [...]ufficient to the most partial or least indifferent protestant, being [...]o pregnant, so precise to the mater, so godly, and from so godly (as euery one of them hath bene accompted at least these 400.Bullinger decad. 5. de caena fol. 370. yeares a Sainct) reclayme our aduersaries? Bullinger a great protestant aunswereth negatiuely, saying: Zuinglianos non posse credere Christum esse in coena praesentem, vero suo corpore, licet omnia mundi concilia, omnes angeli & diui id iubeant credere; The Zuinglians not to be able to beleeue, Christ to be present in the supper, in his true bodie, although all the Councils of the worlde, all Angels, and Saincts did command it to be beleeued. Yet I trust in the mercie of God, that diuers reading this manifestation of errour, and iustification of trueth, will instantly open their harts to let shaddowes and figurs departe, and to imbrace Christ, and veritie. Let me dye a badd death, yf I would, otherwyse then to purchase that good to deceaued soules, spend only to incountre M. Rider such pretious time in displaying or disprouing that infidelitie, which is incident to him for his profession, which of it selfe is notorious and euery day vanishing, and consuming without our laboure. And for your learning M. Rider, you may peruse Zuares, [Page 130] in tertiam partem, tomo tertio, quaestione. 75. disputatione 47. sectione 2, and be instructed by him particularly, in what Predicament is Transubstantiation; and so haue resolution, in conceit so impossible.
I am truly wearie in summing vp vntruethes, they are so manifould.C Only I will certifie some especial. The 68. that we know not what Transubstantiation is. The 69. that we might to as good purpose proue transaccidentation. The 70. that Transubstantiation is a Friers fable. The 71. that the Fathers neuer intended a substantial Change.The 68 69. 70. 71. 72. 72, 73. 74. vntruth. The 72. and 73. that the master of the sentences, or Tonstal, doubt of the conuersion of bread into the fleash of Christ, they only disputing how it is wrought: which is noe more to deny the mather in question, then yf one should confesse you to haue the riche deanrie of S. Patricks, and muse by what means, whether by assured Simonie, or vnknowen desert, or blind choise, you came therto. The 74. that we see Transubstantiation to be a iarring noueltie, and a fable without trueth. These are but glossing imputations of M. Rider to dazel the mynds of his Readers, that they doe not conceaue when trueth is represented to their eyes by vs, or when falshood is inculcated by him; denials without shame; affirmations with remorce, and torture of conscience; exprobrations without regard of fidelitie; protestations repugnant to all trueth, and sinceritie.
Rider.71. This fable of transubstansiation ouerthroweth sundrie articles of our faith, and therefore it is abhominable. It teacheth a new conception of Christ to bee made of bread by a sinfull priest, and euery day, & in euery place where it pleaseth the priest, contrarie to the Article of our faith: which is, that Christ was conceaued by the holie Ghost, and borne of the blessed virgin, and but once: for such Christ as you tender to the poore ignorant Catholickes is not a true Christ, neither can be, for manie respects, whiche are before in the beginning alleadged. Secondlie if Christ be in the Sacrament, he is not then ascended, and so there is another article of our faith destroyed by this damnable fable. And thirdlie, if hee be couchant or dormant in the pixe, then the Scriptures deceiue vs, in telling vs hee shall come from heauen to iudge bo [...]h quicke and dead, and so another article of our faith is ouerthrowne. And if your doctrine were true, Christ should haue eaten himselfe corporally, but you confesse he did eat himselfeIosephus Angles pag. c. 110. 4 conclusione secunda. spiritually. If your doctrine of transubstantiation were true, then the Lords supper were no Sacrament, and the reason is this, for euery Sacrament consisteth of the outward signe and the inward thing signified, and they must both still remaine during the outward action of the Sacrament. Now if bread which is the visible outward part of the Sacrament be changed into Christs bodie, then there is no Sacrament, because there remaines but one part of the Sacrament, which is the thing signified, and then you vtterlie [Page 131] deceiue the people, which tell them it is the Sacrament of the Altar, when it is no Sacrament at all. Againe, another absurditie followes vppon it: for if the substance of bread be changed, then there is no proportion or analogie betwixt the signe and the thing signified, because accidents cannot nourish. For the likenesse or resemblance betwixt bread and Christ, consisteth chieflie in this, that as bread nourisheth the bodie, so Christs body crucified nourisheth the soule: but if the substance of bread be changed into another substance, then the proportion and propertie, is so changed, that it must cease to be the thing for which it was first ordained and so the best you would make of the Sacrament is but a shaddow without a substance.
Another vnreasonable absurditie will follow, that Christ hath two bodies, one of bread made by the Priest, another of the blessed virgin conceiued by the holie Ghost.
Againe, if his owne bodie shall be in manie places at once, that is contrarie to a naturall bodie, and is as voyd of learning, as the other of religion: and by this your new thirtheenth Article of your new faith, you would maintaine the being of qualities without a subiect, and the being of quantities without a substance, which both are impossible. But Because the opinion is false and forged, without Scripture or testimonie of auncient Father, I will alleadge no more absurdities at this time till I be vrged.
VVhether the article of Christs Ascension, be not rather a proofe, then disproofe of the Real presence.
71. SAint Augustin euer according to his wonte,Fitzimon. August. 22. de ciu. c. 11. pertinently aunswereth sectarists, & now in these woords aunswereth to M. Rider; Ecce qualibus argumentis omnipotentia Dei, humana contradicit infirmitas quam possidet vanitas; Behould with what arguments, humain infirmitie possessed by vanitie, contradicteth Gods omnipotencie. Now to the first: It teacheth no new conception of Christ, according to S. Ambros; being; Non alia planè caro, S. Ambros. loc. infra cit. quam quae nata est de Maria, & passa in cruce, & resurrexit de sepulchro; Noe other fleash playnly, then was borne of Mary, suffred on the Crosse, and rose out of the sepulchre. To the second; his being ascended, aboue the ordre and proprietie of a natural body, doth rather auerre, and assure his being in the Sacrament beyond the bare nature of a natural body. And to that ende,Ioan. [...]. Christ him selfe in his instructing the Iewes that his body was truely meat, to haue them beleeue his woords, forwarned them that they should see his body mount and ascend. By the one, being beyond nature, confirming the other to be possible notwithstanding nature. To wrest then his Ascension against his being in the Sacrament, is; Maledicta glossa quae corrumpit textum; a wicked glosse corrupting the text. That made Luther to confesse, that [Page 132] we are bound to beleeue Christs real presence in the Sacrament: Luth. tom. 7. defens. verb. coena. fol. 394. for that both the Scripture, and articles of our fayth, asure vs therof most constantly. Is it not therfor a strange assertion to saye the articles of faith are impugned, when they are conioyntly with Scriptures consonant in this controuersie? To the third, I aunswer out of the Psalmist; Neque dormit, neque dormitabit qui custodit Israel; He sleepeth not, nor noddeth, who preserueth Israel. His being in the pix hindreth not his coming from heauen, no more then his being in heauen sitting at the right hand of God the Father,Psal. 109. vntill his enemyes be made his foote-stoole, hindred his being viewed in earth by his Apostle S. Paul, Act. 9.17. c. 22. c. 26. 1. Cor. 15. in the highe way to Damasco, and that after his Ascension: which is an insupportable ad ineuitable thunderboult against them that affirme Christs body nether to haue bene, nor possibly able to be, in many places at once: especialy being confessed by M. Rider after, that a true Apostle must see the Lord Iesus in the fleash. Wherfor S. Paul being assuredly a true Apostle, did behould Christ in fleash, at his first election to be such Apostle:: which was in the high way to Damaso. And consequently, Christ then, and still, being at the right hand of his Father, was in fleash, in two places at once, in heauen, and in the way to Damasco. To the fouerth, we confesse both spiritualy, and corporaly (as hath often bene declared) and not only spiritual, or only corporal. To the fift, it is rather against you, saying ther is only an external signe and no inward grace. We for the external signe shew the forme of bread and wyne; for the internal grace, Christs pretious body and blood. To the sixt, accidents (strengthned by Christs support) may, and do nourishe.Ambros. de cōsecr. dist. 1. c. omnia quecunque. To the 7. although it be all one with the first; S. Ambrose againe informeth you, saying: Corpus illud vere, illud sane, quod sumptum est de virgine, quod passum est, & sepultum, quod surrexit, & in coelum ascendit, & sedet ad dexteram Dei patris, & quod est venturum iudicare viuos & mortuos. The same body truely, the same body certainly, which was taken from the Virgin, which suffred, and was buried, and rise, and ascended, and sitteth at the right hand of God his Father, and will come to iudge the quick and the dead. To the eight, it is not contrary to a natural body, but beyond it: and is testified by Scripture to haue infallibly hapned. And good M. Rider, yf it be impossible that qualities can be without a subiect, how did God make light, Gen. 1. without a subiect? for nether firmament sonne, moone, or starrs, were yet made; and other subiect is not mentioned. It is strange that you dare affirme that impossible, which the Scripture assureth posible. Besyd [Page 133] the argument to the contrary, that nothing beyond the condition of a natural body is possible, implyeth there wilbe no resurrection of the, dead there was no birthe, walking on the sea, entrāce among the enclosed disciples, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, as being beyond nature. Glorie be to Gods diuine Maiestie for so grounding vs on truth, as that we can not be impugned, but Gods Omnipotencie, the Scriptures, and cheefe mysteries of Religion must first be denyed.
B My turne is next to examin my aduersaries in these articles of beleefe, and the rest; to practise them no lesse to defend, then offend: that by their resolution, to heauie, and vrgent imputations, their strengthe, or weaknes, appeare. Wherby I do not intend so much to greeue, or grauel their mynds, as to instruct them, not by my documents, but by their owne, in what they are occasioned to considre better of their estate. For it shal now be made notorious, that we may be tainted, for being contrary to the articles of beleefe; but they, and not we, touched, and stayned, with that infidelitie. Arguments full of falshod, and futilitie haue bene obiected against vs; But now againste them, pregnant, and pressing proofs, without strange, and farr sowght inferences, shalbe tendred, and produced, to conuict them faultie and faythles, against all, and euery article, of Beleefe.
AN EXAMINATION OF PROtestancie concerning the 12. articles of Beleefe, in general.
IT hathe euer bene among sectarists,Athanas. de Synodis. Socrates l. 2. c. 7. Sozom. l. 3. c. 5. Cassian. l. 6. de inca. Epiph. her. 73. a principal difficultie, prouidently to collect, and resolutly to imbrace, any forme of beleefe, wherunto they would remayne tyed, and inuariable. The Arrians by testimonie of the Fathers, fower tymes in few monethes changed, and reuoked their Creede. To abrupt other inductions; When late Reformers presented their confession, intituled of Augusta, to which they generaly subscribed, bynding them selues therto by solemne protestation, (whervpon they were named protestants; and to this day they only among the learned are so called, who auouch the [Page 134] forsayd Augustan confession) although they had as prouidently, and politickly compyled it, as they might not be ashamed vpon future deliberation to iustifie it: yet neuer did Chameleon alter his colours more often then it.Chlebitius in sua victoria & ruma Papatus saxonici. And therfor a famous Lutheran one VVilliam Chlebitius, was constrained to say; Non expedit coram plebe recensere, quoties & quomodo confessio Augustana sit emendata; It is not expedient befor the people to numbre, how often, & in what maner, the confession of Augusta hath bene amended. Another exclaimeth, that it hath bene; Versa, peruersa, conuersa, Hosius in Antibrentio. mutata, deprauata, mutilata; turned, peruerted, conuerted, changed, depraued, maymed. Then which kinde of lamentations, nothing is more frequent in Lutheran wryters.
Osiander apud Hosium ibid.Behould I pray you; the confession, collected as studiously, and iudiciously, as might be possible, to the maintenance wherof all masters of Arte by oathe were obliged, euen as to the fouer Euangelists (and all opposit therto) as was also determined;Cassimiriani Matheologi in sua admonitione cap. 4. A veritate & verbo Dei aberrant, & tanquam alieni à vera Dei Ecclesia iustissimè condemnantur, vitantur, & velut Lupi a Christi ouilibus arcentur; Do stray from trueth and the woord of God, and as seperated from the Church of God, are most iustly condemned, eschued, and as wolues from Christs sheepsowlds repulsed; Behould I say, how miserably it hath bene, lyke a cock of hey in summer tyme, tossed, toyled, and tormented; changed, fashioned, reformed, and deformed; as yf it contended with courtiars of late tymes, to be in as many new fashions as they. I wil not vnfould any thing of the English communion books diuersitie;A suruey of the pretended holy discipl. Lōd per Ioā. woolfe. Anno 1593. pag. 3. 13. 77. because puritans shall not be offended with me, for intermedling in their charge. Their milenarie suffrages against it, their exceptions against 150. articles therof, their saying, that the gouernment of the Churche of England, is Antichristian, and Diabolical, and that none but betrayers of God doe defended it, is more then sufficient, to be sayd to my purpose.
2. Where as ther are three formes of Creed, one from the tyme of the Apostles; Another of the first general Concil of Nice (which after for further explication added in the Concil of Constantinople, beareth commonly the name of the Constantinopolitan Crede: wherof godw lling I will treate in the explication of the Masse.) The third of S. Athanasius, which to this day is readd in the Sonday office, eu [...]n among protestants: although these three according to their ordre more or lesse, haue bene in all Christēdome hitherto irrefragable, yet now, the second displeaseth for the woord Luther con. Iac. Latom. homoousion: and all founders therof, are tearmed, but a congregations [Page 135] of Beza in epist. theol. 81. Sophisters. Also the third, for standing to much vpon and for the blessed Trinitie, is mis-named, for the creed of S. Athanasius, the creed of Georgio Nigro, Stanislao, Sarnicio, Blandrata, Lismāni [...], &c. apud Stanchar. l 6. 7. & in pref. de mediatore. Sathanasius. Against the first, of the Apostles, diuers exceptions are made; First by Caluin Calu. apud Lindan. pa op. pag. 112. that he doubteth whether it should be of authoritie, not being contayned in scripture. Secondly by Brentius Brēt. in sua catechesi. inclining not so much to doubt therof, as to be assured it should be distrusted. Thirdly, by Anabaptists, denying it in general, and particular. To these may be reduced profane and impiouse Erasmus, (or rather all they to him) affirming; (praef. paraphrasis suae in Matth.) Nescire se num symbolum illud ab Apostolis manauerit; whether this forme of beleefe euer came from the Apostles. O vnworthie and vnchristian distrust! Worthely is it sayd vulgarly: Erasmus innuit, Luthers irruit: Erasmus parit oua, Lutherus excludit pullos: Erasmus dubitat, Lutherus abnegat. But, by that which followeth may best appeare, that protestants are in great dislike toward it.Lauath. in hist. sacramentali. Amisfort. in pura doctr. euang. Gallus in Thesib. Sur. ad an. 1557. Lauatherus a Zuinglian, Amissortius and Gallus Lutherans, and Surius a Catholick, doe conformably recount, how the Dieta of Ratisbon, anno 1557. Septemb. 4. inioyned 12. choise protestants to establish a forme of beleefe, not after at any tyme by any to be contradicted. They mett, and eftsoons deliberated, without any conclusion. Then three dayes farther consultation for better aduise, were had; and those also being expired, seuen other dayes requested, and graunted; yet nothing was determined. They were so farr from consenting to ether the Apostles beleefe, or any other; that seuen of them excommunicated the other fiue, as being the only impediment of agreement: yet nether could these seuen, ether then, or euer since, deliuer any forme of beleefe, to which they, or others, would stande or abide irreuocably.
3. As S. Augustin sayth, they that beleeue of scripture what they list, S. August. con. Faust. l. 16. c. 3. and what they list not, do not beleeue, they beleeue not the scripturs but them selues. So is it in the beleeuers of the creed. Therfor he that offendeth in one, is made guiltie of all. Or as S. Chrysostom sayth;S. Chrysost. in epistolā ad Galat. S. Ambros. ad Demetriadem virginem. Symbol. S. Athanaesij. vers. quam nisi quis (que) integrè &c. Ephes. 4.5. Hebr. 11.6. he corrupteth the whole doctrin, who ouerthroweth the least particle therof. Or as S. Ambrose sayth; He is reiected from the numbre of the faythfull, and lott of the holy, which in any one point dissenteth from the Catholick veritie. So that yf protestantcy be found opposit to any one article, although it professe the residue, yet may it not be sayd auaylable or a true beleefe. Nether can ther be other then one faythe, as ther can be but one only God. And without this true and only faythe, it is impossible to please God, how honestly soeuer misbeleeuers liue in the world. Wherfor all [Page 136] sectaries must be repugnant to this true and only faythe, and farr from saluation, who haue no other euidence of their faythe th'one aboue th'other, but bare challenges of scripture, common to all late and ancient hereticks.
In particular let them assure them selues, that the true faythe A hathe publickly preuayled bothe for continuance, and puritie, against the gates of hell;Math. 16.18. to witt, against the power of Pagans, and malice of hereticks: such being Christs infallible assurance to the only fayth of his Church. Next let them as carefully prouide that the fayth by them esteemed true, be not lately reuealed: for therby, both is it knowen to haue bene preuayled against, yf it were at any tyme extinguished; and also we are admonished by Gods woord,1. Ioan. 2. Rom. 16. Galat. 1. that it remayne in vs, and we in it, which we had heard from the begynning. and, yf any preache otherwyse then we had alredy receaued, to hould him accursed. Wherof some what is disputed befor. Thirdly, let them noe lesse eschue,Hebr. 13. that it be not mutable: as being forwarned by S. Paul, not to be misledd by variable, and strange doctrins. So that yf these obseruations tendred by the holy Ghost in sacred Scripture, be opposit to their beliefe; it is a manifest demonstration, they should suspect, and reiect it.
Rom. 10.17. 2. Cor. 11.14.4. True faythe is by hearing the woord of God, reuealed to vs by his holy Spirit, whether in wryting, or by tradition. Wheras thetfor Sathan may transforme him selfe into an angel of light, we are forwarned not to beleeue euery spirit, but to depend vpon the faythe of Gods Church the piller of trueth, 1. Io [...]. 4. 1. Tim. 3. gouerned by the holy Ghost; which yf we do not obserue,14. Ioan. Mat. 18. Ex ipso Galu. l. 4. Instit. c. 1. n. 17. 22 4. we are no neerer saluation, then Ethnicks and Publicans. This is the faithe contained in the creed of the Apostles to be now examined. Therfor it could not be lesse then a rashe precipitation in late founders of pretended Reformation,Guliel. Bibliothecar. l. 3. Vincēt Beluac. in spec. Erasm. Alberus de Carolostad. Luther. tom. 7. p. 228. per Thom. Kelug. Zuinglius subsid. Euchar. fol 249. tom. 2. Staphil. in resp. con. Iacob. schmidelin. pag. 404. to depart from their first beleefe, at the sensible suggestion of Sathan, and by delusion of dreams; as by their owne confession, and no otherwyse it hapened. Of Berengarius, that he was directed, and assisted visibly; by Sathan, all sorts of Authours, Catholicks, and Protestants do recorde. Luther and Zuinglius testifie the same bothe of them selues, and of Oecolampadius and Carolostadius. Caluin acknowledgeth, that he was not so much guided, per ingenium, vt genium, by his owne disposition, as by his gobblins.
Other successours of Luther, confesse that he was, Somniator, quod B nocturnas visiones in ebrio capite natas pro puro puto verbo Dei venditaret; A dreamer because his night imaginations conceaued in his dronken head, he [Page 137] vttered for the pure expresse woord of God. Also other disciples of Caluin, Lindan. dial. 3. c. 1. Dubitan. do certifie, of Geneua preachers;Ioa. Spangeberg. in veraci narratione beneficiorum &c. Ochin. dial. con. sectam terrenorum Deorum. Schlusselburg. proem. lib. de theol. Caluin. Quod noctu somniarunt id cartis mandant, excudiue curant, suaue scripta & verba, pro oraculis haberi volunt; That which they dreamed by night, that they ingrosse in papers, and cause to be printed, and striue to haue their wrytings and woords to stand for oracles. Another sayth of them; Clarum est Caluinistas Somnijs à nigro Demone instillatis testamentum filij Dei labefactare & euertere; It is cleere that the Caluinists by dreames suggested from the black deuil, indeuoure to destroy the testament of the Sonn of God. I omitt for breuities sake, how Fox martyr-maker,Acts and Monumēts pag. 90. confesseth a spirit to haue instructed him during his musing in bedd, to count the 42. moneths mentioned in the Apocalips by sabboths: which spirit to haue bene false, appeareth by the expresse woord of God, saying the sayd 42. monethes to be 1260. dayes, or three yeares and a halfe, and not as Fox calculated 294. yeares. This is abundantly sufficient to manifest, that he that departed from his former beleefe, vpon such guids, gouerned by suche spirits and dreams, is in wysdome to entre deeply in to this exammation following.
5. For better information in this point,Acts and Monumēts pag. 402. the definition of protestant faythe is to be propownded. Fox defyneth it thus. Faythe in Christ is that euery one should beleeue particularly that his synns are forgiuen him wherevpon, saythe he, he is iustifyed. And this tutchstone of trueth and doctrin, was reuealed first to Luther, by an owld man, saith M. Fox wherby the ice was broaken to all that followed. Caluin, Calu. l. 3. Instit. c. n. 7. 15. 16. and protestants vniuersaly subscrib to this suer, and certain knowledge, in particular, that by beleeuing Christs promises of saluation, none can perishe, as being perfectly iustifyed, made an elect, and predestinated; Cal. Instit. l. 3. c. 2. n. 38. 39. 40. Cap. 24. n. 6. 7. 8. Brent. in Apol. Conf. Wittem. par. 3. p. 703. Luther. tom. 2. wittem. fol. 405. an. 1551. Confess. Geneu. Beza, c. 4. n. 20. so assuredly as nothing can seperat him from God. For this fayth (say they) being once had, may neuer be lost. And Luther instructed herein, by the owld man, confesseth that he was angry, that the Apostle had not sufficiently extolled this faythe: and therfor, that he thought good by addition of a woord [only] to make the text affirme, that only faythe iustifieth. Wherupon by good consequence, he sustayned, that only infidelitie deserueth damnation; that Gods commandements belong not to Christians▪ that sacraments are superfluous; as is befor declared.
A Bucer, Brentius, Maior, Lutherans, professe, that he is not a kinde Christian, Disput. Ratisbon. pag. 463. vide Sleidan. l. 16. pag. 263. Zuingl. tom. 1. fol. 268. who beleeueth not with the same assurance that him selfe in particular is elect, as that Christ is the sonn of God; nay more, quoth Zuinglius, that yow can not be damned vnlesse Christ be damned, nor he saued vnlesse yow be saued, you [Page 138] haueing as great right to heauen as he. Acts and Monumēts pag. 1335. 1338 1339 [...] cap. 2.20 21. 2. Cor. 7.15. Philip. 2.12. Vide Modzenium l. 2. de Eccl. c. 2. And yf you laboure to make this your iustifying faythe assured by good woorks, you shame (say the English protestant Martyrs) the blood of Christ. Go tell these men, that S. Iames is of a contrary mynde that faith alone iustifieth not; that the Apostles, and Euangelists, were especial fauours of good woorks as being necessarie to saluation, that they in feare and trembling wrought their saluation; that being guiltles in their consciences, yet they reputed not them selues iustified, &c. it wilbe aunsweredPomeran. ad Rō. 8. they wrote wickedly; Luth. in serm. de pha [...]is. & public. Beza in Luc. cap. 22. Vide nū. 26. pos [...] med. Caluin. l. 4. Instit. c. 8. n. 4. they are noe true euangelists; and in like maner according as is specified in our 26. numbre: and also; Si Apostoli sint ne garriant quicquid collibitum fuerit; yf they be Apostles, let them not bable all that they list, &c.
6. This Symbole and creed of the Apostles is of such ancient reputation,Concil. Bracharen. 2. c. 1. Conc. Leodicen, c. 46. Conc. Rom. Sub Martino 1. De consecr. d. 4. c. non licet. c. ante viginti. c. Baptisandis. August. l. 8. Confess. c. 2. Oēs DD 2. 2. q. 2. a. 8. in the Churche of God, as all primatiue Christians must necessarily haue knowen the contents therof in particular, at least according to the substance yf not according the woords, or ordre of articles, vnder danger of damnation. Yea none were permitted to come to Baptisme, being of yeares, who knew it not at least twenty dayes befor their baptising, as wittness the Fathers. And all Diuines to this day conformably do affirme, that it is an assured cause of damnation, to be ignorant in the substance of the contents therof, in maner a forsayd: as also that it is a most vrgent obligation vnder greuous synne, to god-fathers and god-mothers, to prouyde (yf parents be negligent or otherwyse defectiue) that their spiritual Children be not ignorant therof. Omitting all other prefaces, (because any prolixitie, S. August de tem. ser. 115. Ruffin. in pref. expos. symbol. Apostolorum. S. August. loc. cit. is longum proëmium audiendi cupido; à long prologe to a greedy attendant.) I only aduertise, that the Apostles by testimonie of ancient Fathers, befor their separation, to haue conformitie in all christendome, euery one in ordre deliuered an article, amounting consequently to twelue. Which as they were spoken, being specified by S. Augustin very particularly, I intend not to change their ordre, but to examin succinctly, whether Protestātcy & they agree, or noe: supposing, that not only in general, but also in particular, it indeuoreth ether to infringe euery one of them; or at least that it is in some measure erroneous concerning euery of them. Other ordre I might haue followed for the diuision of articles acc [...]rding to the Catechisme of the Concil of Trēt, had I not to deale with them,Calu. l. 4. Instit. c. 14. n. 25. who reiect the Concil of Trent, admitting S. Augustin whom I follow, to be fidelissimum testem antiquitatis; the most trusty witnes of antiquitie.
AN EXAMINATION OF PROTESTANTCYE CONCERNING THE twelue Articles of beleefe in particular.
1. Article of S. Peter. I beleeue in God the Father almighty. I beleeue.
7. FIrst it is necessary, that beleefe should be resolute,Luther. ser. Conniual. fol. 158. & in pref. tom. 1. Vide tom. 2. Ien. fol. 9. in pref. lib. de abusu Missae. Item in Serm. conniual. fol. 10. 158. 273. and not any wayes doubtfull. Such first was not Luthers beleefe, when he sayd; Sperare se, vbi horum temporum curiositas saturata fuerit, breui monumenta sua interitura; That he hoped as soone as the curiositie of these tymes should be satiated, his monuments would decaye. And againe; Istas cogitationes nonquam ex animo demitto, quin optem hanc me causam nonquam incepisse; I neuer dismisse these cogitations, but that I wishe I had neuer begon this course. Such distrust, and remorse, had secondly Zuinglius, when he sayd; Nihil tamen definimus, Zuingl. epist. ad Alberum. Bolsec. in V. Cal. c. 22. Vide num. 38. & conclusionem huius defensionis. sed nostra in medium proferrimus; Yet we defyne nothing, but only deliuer our opinons. Such thirdly had Caluin, Beza, Oecolampadius, Melancthon, &c. as by them selues in places quoted appeareth. Secondly, it is necessarie, that he bynde not his beleefe to the reache of reason. Such was not Vermils beleefe, when he sayd (as is in the 68. numbre) Gods woord ought not so much to be followed in diuinitie, as the woords of nature; Nor Victorius, when he affirmed: we should looke with the left eye at the woord of Christ, but with the right, at naturs of things. Caluin (in Ioan. c. 6. &c. 7.) declareth of his bretheren, that by means of their carnal conceipt of Chrsst, they cannot attayne to perceaue him, worthely; and that by corrupt interpretations, they are come to a contempt of the euangile: for when the reason of any thing appeareth not vnto them, they suddenly despise it. See more in the forsayd 41. numbre. Thirdly beleefe in this cause, requyreth to beleeue besyde scripturs, holy traditions: for this beleefe, is not knowen by scripture, but by tradition; and who are enemyes to traditions be enimies to it. Such Protestants are knowen general to be.
In God.
8. They beleeue not in God, who are Atheists: such as by D. VVhitgifts (who was pastor, and primat, of protestants, and had best cause to knowe them) confession,Whitg. a pag. 31. ad 51. the congregation of England is repleanished with all. For by signification of the woord Atheist they renounce and disclaime all loue, or beleeue of God. Secondly nether [Page 140] they who beleeue in God authoure of euil,Luth. tom. 2. de seru. arbitr. fol. 461. do beleeue in God, whom the Apostle saith, doth tempt none to euil; of whom only this forme of Creed, treateth. Such mystake God, and as Caluin, confesseth,Vide Caluin Turcism. pag. 691. ad 701. Zuingl. de prouidentia Dei tom. 1. fol. 365. transforme him into the deuil. Which notwithstanding is the doctrin, of Caluin, Peter martyr, Zuinglîus, Beza, &c. Of whom Zuinglius saithe; Quando facimus adulterium, aut homicidium, Dei opus est motoris, authoris, atque impulsoris. Latro Deo impulsore occidit, & saepenumero cogitur ad peccandum; VVhen we cōmit adultrye, or murther, it is Gods woorke, as the mouer, Vide Caluino Turcis, loc. cit. authour, and inforcer. The theefe by Gods impulsion doth kill, and is often constrayned to offend. Behould, welbeloued, to what God these men conduct their followers. I confesse to deale sincerly; most other Protestants, do inueigh, and argue against this doctrin; but in deede for no other intention, then to haue credit, during their meditatiōs how to bring their hearers by other degrees from all beleefe in God. Thirdly, they beleeue not in God, who accompt questions concerning him to be but trifles, and things indifferent,Beza de hereticis à Ciuili magistratu puniendis. and not necessarie to iustification. Such is Beza, who affirmeth, such to be the questions of Christ and his office; of his consubstantialitie with the Father; of the Trinitie; of predestination; of Freewill; of God; of Angels, &c. For in true beleefe the reputation of God, and questiōs therto belonging, is of greater importance, then all other things in heauen, and earthe.
The Father.
Caluin. l. 1. Instit. c 13. n. [...]. Lib. ad Valētin. Gētil. Epist. 2. ad Polō. Och [...]m. Dialog. l 2. toto dial. 19 & 20. Ed. Rogers cont. familiam [...]ōdinis an. 1579. art. 24 25. 26. Luth. in Enchirid precum 1543. Cont Iacob. [...]atom, Beza ep. 81. Symler. an. 1560 in vita Bullingers [...]ol 33. Bredembach. l. 7. c. 19.9. They misbeleeue the Father, who acknowledge noe Trinitie Such is Caluin, saying, he would the name of Trinitie were buryed; and the prayer, holy Trinitie one God haue mercie vpon vs, to be barbarouse and impropre; reiecting out of his prayer books, the clause, glory be to the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost. Suche was Ochin now a Turke, but befor one of the Apostles of England in K. Edwards dayes; saying, the name of Trinitie to be a Sathanical name. Suche is the familie of loue, reiecting the Trinitie, and diuinitie of Christ, as papistical fictions. Such was Luther, disclayming the forsayd prayer holy Trinitie &c. and saying, that his soule did detest the woord, homoousson, or consubstantial betwixt the persons in the holy Trinitie. Such were the Seruetians tearming the B. Trinitie a three headed Cerberus, or hell hound. Such the solemne legation of all Caluinists in Polonia, to Zurick and Geneua, to haue the mysterie of the Trinitie abolished. Such was the Caluinian Synod. at Vilna, anno 1589. May 11. by publick decree forbidding ministers in sermons, to mention the name of Trinitie. [Page 141] Secondly they misbeleeue the Father,Caluin. l. 1. Instit. c. 13. n. vlt. Ibid. n. 13. 23. 24. Melanct. loc. com. an. 1539 fol 8. & 10. 1545. fol. 53. 1558. loco de Filio. Symb. Athanas. who with Caluin affirme it foolishnes to thinke that God the Father doth continualy begett his Sonn. Wheras by his continual vnderstanding he must euer produce a woord, which is the wysdome of the Father and his Sonn. Thirdly all they misbeleeue the Father, who exclude the Sonn, & holy Ghost, from infinit diuinitie, and coequalitie with the Father, as doth Melancthon, Caluin, Beza, &c. For suche as is the Father suche is the Sonn, suche is the holy Ghost. Yf he infinit, they also must be infinit, & è contrà. Wherof after at the holy Ghost.
Almightie.
10. Of this parcell, I haue in the 68.Vide num. 68. numbre manifested manyfould principal Protestants, resolutly denying the omnipotencie of God. Besyd citations out of Caluin in the sayd number, seel. 2. Instit. c. 7. n. 5. & 24. lib. 4. c. 17. n. 24. & in ps. 37. v. 4. Therfor for auoyding superfluitie I referr the reader therto. And for more abundant proofe, yf Caluin be also perused in the citations of this margent, you shal finde him flouting at our doctrin that God is almightie, and tearming it blasphemous. Here is a pittifull spectacle exhibited toward the first, and principal article of our beleefe, and euery woord therof. Farr hath it bene from my intention, or wonte (in which protestation I refuse not my greatest enemyes verdict) to falsifie or peruert any testimonies alleaged. Let it therfor be euery carefull Christians resolution, not to slumber in the mayne chaunces of religions purloyning (by fayre benedictions) out of his hart; considering these authours so much offended with this beleefe, are the principal founders of protestantcy. And consequently, that they fayling in the very foundation, must lykewyse haue litle soundnes in the rest, and deserue wholy to be suspected.
2. Article of S. Ihon. Maker of heauen and earthe.
11. First it is necessarie for the right beleefe of this Article, to confesse, that the Sonne, and holy Ghost, created as much as God the Father, they not being distinguished one from another, as they are God; and consequently their doings are, and must be, all one in external operations: such as is the creation of the world.Calu. con. Valentin. Gentil. & l. 2. Instit. c. 14. n. 3. Contrary to this Article, is Caluin: first in saying, the name of God, peculiarly to belong only to God the Father, Secondly, in saying, that Christ, considered according to his person, may not be called creator of heauen and earthe. Which impiouse paradox being allowed to be true, besyd all other absurdities, Christ according to his person should not be God; or at [Page 142] least-their should not equalitie or God head be beleeued. Thirdly, in saying: (in c. r 4. Genes. v. 18. Et in c. 6. Ioan. v. 57.) Christ our Lord to be but a second king next to God, and a second cause of lyfe. Yf he had any regard to S. Paul affirming (Philip. 2.) Christ not to haue thought it any robberie to be equal to God; would he haue aduentured to disinherit him in this maner, of his coequal Godhead? But why should he haue regarded S. Paul, when the very deitie of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, could not retaine him, from this abhominable blasphemie? Fourthly, in saying that God in heauen is not dutyfully, and sincerly serued without synne, euen by the angels them selues. Calu. in cap. 1. Colos. v. 20. Wherby is insinuated contrary to Scripture. Apoc. 21. that in the heauenly citie ther is some thing defyled. When therfor, all belonging to power and gouernement, to the Father; of wysdom, knowledge, and doctrin, to the Sonne; of benignity, liberality, plentie, and sanctification, to the holy Ghost, is imputed, and appropriated; the meaning is only to ascribe all good among the three persons, & not to exclude any, good from any one of them, as being all three equaly God, and consequently not vnequaly fountains of all good, as well in particular, as in general. But more touching this article will follow in treating of Christs ascension to heauen.
3. Article of S. Iames. And in Iesus Christ his only Sonne our Lord.
Vide num. 24.12. Most Protestants to be against this article, appeareth (besyd what is sayd in the precedēt article) in our 24. n. For some affirme, that Christ is not the Messias; some, that the name of Christ is a filthy name; some that he was a deceauer of the world; some, that he was not God; some, that he had but a meane measure of Godhead; Edward Rogers against the sect of the familie of loue, London. 1579. some, that he was ignorant, his discourses absurd, & him selfe no more God, then Socrates, & Trismegistus, &c. The same blasphemies are extant in the first and second article of the Famile of loue. The same also, are implyed by the Proto-Puritan Cartwright, saying, that he could not be perswaded, the Israelits to be so madde, Cartwr. 2. replic. pag. 191. as to beleeue him to be the liuing God, whom with their eyes they did behould to be a miserable, and simple man. These, I say, demonstrat, that Christ for taking our infirmites, is distrusted by these compagnions, to be the liueing God, and our Lord. Secondly those are against this Article, who equal them selues in Gods fauoure and right to heauen, vnto Iesus Christ, Gods only first begotten, consubstantial [Page 143] sonne our Lord. Wherof in this examin, in the 5. numbre and after, somewhat is to be found. Thirdly they beleeue not in Iesus Christ our Lord, who distrust any part of his doctrin, whether it be of the B. Sacrament, or otherwyse, because they can not conceaue it in their vnderstanding.Caluin in cap. 6. & cap. 7. Ioannis. Caluinists generaly to be such, is confessed by Caluin saying; VVhen the reason of any thing doth not appeare vnto vs, such is our great pryde that we esteeme it nothing. Fowerthly contrary to this Article is Caluin, saying;Vide num. 9. pr [...]ce [...]. It is foolishnes to thinke that God the Father doth continualy begett his sonne. For therby God the Father is made sometyme not to vnderstand, which is his begetting; and the Sonne is abolished, who is not otherwyse actualy Sonne of the Father, but by determinating actualy the relation of the Father to him selfe. Besyd all other demonstrations of their blasphemies (that euery one may know that I charge them not vndeseruedly) and hatred against Iesus Christ the Sonne of God, mentioned in the forsayd 24. number, harden your harts to heare Luther saying; Nihil mirum, si Arius, Iudaeus, Mahumetes, Luther. disp. de [...]e [...] thes. 18. Tom. 2. Wittemb. latin [...]. & totus Mundus negent Christum esse Deum. It is no merueil, yf Arius, yf a Iew, yf Mahumet and all the world denye Christ to be the Sonn of God. It is no meruell in deed that besyd. Arius, Iewes, and Turkes, the Lutherans be so perswaded, considering Luther thus teaching among them is so principal an Euangelist.
4. Article of S. Andrew. VVho was conceaued of the holy Ghost, borne of the Virgin Mary.
13. First they are contrary to this Article,Vide Maldonat. in cap. 1. Math. who blasphemously affirmed, the holy Ghost to haue bene Father to Christ, in maner of other Fathers toward their children: as appeareth in Maldonat. Vide Caluino Turc. pag 530 531. Greg. à Valentia de virginitate S. M. Secondly all they, who beleeue Christ to haue bene only conceaued, but not borne of a virgin. such are Beza, Maytyr, Bru [...]aut, Molineus, Bucer, Fortunatus, and all Anabaptists, and Familists. To whom also anneereth Caluin saing most impiously; that the B. Virgin had in maner of other women bene weakned in trauayle vpon Christ. M. Rid. in his cau [...]a. And although M. Rider honorably termeth our lady a blessed Virgin; yet, by his owne woords, that he beleeueth nothing but that which the written woord of God warranteth, although all doctors and prelats should sweare it, he doth bynde him to the same misbeleefe with the rest in this article, & toward the residue:Archibald Hamilton. Ca [...]u. confus demonst. l. 2. c. 3. fol. 151. because both the creed in general, and this article in particular, is not extant in Scripture, but only a tradition. Thirdly they are [Page 144] contrary to this Article,Calu. consus. demōstr. ob. 2. cap. 3. fol. 151. who commonly equal or preferr them selues to our Lady, as diuers in Scotland by Hamilton, and in England by experience are knowen to doe. For in this creed and Gods Churches faith, she had the prerogatiue to be blessed aboue all women, and to conceaue and beare a child, and he the God of heauen and earthe; which no other woman euer had, or did. Fowerthly; They who make Christs body as much in Abrahams tyme,Beza. l. con. Heshusiū fol. 284. & Colloq. Mompel. fol. 77. as when it was conceaued, and borne, by the B. Virgin Mary, not only in efficacie, but also in essence, and nature, as Beza did; As also they, who in more expresse tearms, with the Conference of Mompelgart say; That Christs owne body, etiam temp [...]re Abrahae extitit; VVas extant, euen in the tyme of Abraham. Wherby is implyed, that Christ was true man in essence, and existence, before this Conception & birth here mentioned; that consequently the Angel sayd not true to the sheepherds, natus est vobis, hodie, Saluator; this day, is borne to you a sauioure;Auctor diallactici vide bellum 5. Euangel. pag. 98. Colon. 1595. Symlerus in pref. l. de aeterno Dei Filio. That the B. Virgin Mary was not his mother, &c. Fiftly, they also who make Christ to haue two bodyes, one deliuered in the supper, another borne of the B. Virgin Marie: because thereby they forge another Christ, then was hir sonne. Sixtly, they who affirme that Christ was not eternaly, but began only at the tyme of his birthe; do denye our Sauioure IESVS, sonne of the most sacred Virgin MARIE, who was according the same person eternal.
5. Article of S. Philipp. suffred vnder Pontius Pilat, was crucified, dead, and burged.
Thes are alleadged in our 68. numbre toward the ende.14. Many principal Caluinists, as Cureus, Arastus, Aulachius, the Geneuians, &c. are first repugnant to this Article by euacuating the passion of Christ. First, by saying, his blood is putryfied in earthe. Wherby must follow, that by it we were not redeemed; as also confesseth Faustus, 1. Pet. 1. Socinus, &c. For according to the Apostle; we were not reedeemed by any corruptible price. See befor in the 39. numbre. Secondly,Molin. in harm. euāg. they euacuat the passion of Christ, according all other parts, who with Molineus, of all other his merits say; Nihil proderant nobis, nihil poterant, sed sola mors Christi; they proffited vs nothing, they were of noe force, Iac. 5.20. Ione. 3. Numer. 22.7. Math. 19.26. Mar. 10. Euc. 18. &c. but only the death of Christ. His preaching is made agayne leesse auaylable, then of other men, who by preaching do cancel multitudinem peccatorum; the multitude of synns; his fasting and prayers lesse then of the Niniuits, who therby eschued the wrathe of God, and lesse then of Moises who purchased to the Israelits Gods [Page 145] fauoure; his voluntary pouertie, his innocent lyfe, his circumcision, his woorks of mercie, are made of noe benifit, wheras in any other, all, and euery of these had bene a sufficient price for heauen, and can not be denyed to be of infinit price in Christ, and consequently of sufficiencie, all & euery of them, to redeeme thowsands of woorlds, vnlesse Christ be denyed to be of infinit dignitie. Wherfor all Christian Diuins, to this tyme of Reformers,Omnes theologi in 3. parte, vbi de Christe meritis, & in 1. 2. q. 114. tota. were of setled beleefe, that Christs death was a demonstration of excesse A of loue, because he so loued his, as of the ende and consummation of all loue he left them abundant proofs; and not that his other merits had not eache of them sufficiencie to reconcil infinit worlds to his heauenly Father, yf Christ would haue bene contented with what was sufficient, omitting what was abundant.Vide n. 83. To the former opinion consenteth M. Rider, saying after; Christs birthe and lyfe (thowgh both innocent) were not sufficient to clense my synn. Yea contrary to this former opinion of Christs death is his cruel saying, that a bloody speare went into his blessed syde, befor mans synne could be satisfied, Gods wrathe appeased &c. For this, being done after Christs death, his very death is therby declared not to haue bene a sufficient satisfaction for synn, or an appeasment of Gods wrathe &c. and consequently, nether his lyfe nor death, are allowed to be meritorious, or fitt, to redeeme vs. But tolerat this; ther insueth more. Thirdly, they euacuat Christs death, who make Christ vnuoluntarily to haue suffred for vs. For, as omne peccatum est voluntarium, euery synn is voluntary, so is euery merit. Caluin saith,Calu. in c. 26. Math. v. 39. Calu. Instit l. 2. c. 16. n. 10.11.12. that Mediatoris officio defungi renuit; he refused to discharge the office of a mediator. Fowerthly they euacuat Christs death, who with Caluin repute Christ at the tyme of his passion, to haue had noe sufficiencie aboue other men, and that in his praying, did not appeare placida moderatio; B a temperat moderation: That; torquebatur conscientiae anxietate; he was tormented with dowbtfulnes of his conscience; That, diuinae maledictionis horrore perculso, metu (que) abyssi horribilis exitij duriter cruciato, elapsa est desperationis vox; astonished with the horrour of Gods malediction, and tormented with the feare of the bottomles pitt of horrible destruction, he burst out into a voice or crye of desperation; That, desperatione obrutus ab inuocando Deo destiterit, &c. being ouerwhelmed in desperattion, he ceased to pray longe to God. Which doctrin also Beza, Marlorat, Beza in c. 27. Math. Marlorat. en Ps. 22. Heshus. apud Clebiti [...] in Victoria par. 2. garum. 6. and all principal Caluinists do conformably confirme. Fiftly, they euacuat the passion of Christ, who affirme him with Heshusius a Caluinist, to haue bene our deliuerer only, and not our redeemer: as also they, who reiect the [Page 146] name of merit, and with Caluin affirme, yf any, Christum opponere velit iudicio Dei, Calu. l. 2. Instit. c. 17. n. 1. non sore merito locum, quia non reperietur in homine dignitas quae possit Deum promereri; would oppose Christ to the iudgement of God, there would noe place remayne to any Merit, because there is not in man that dignitie, to deserue any thing of God. Holinshead in the yeare 1579. pap. 1195 Behould, and be amazed, that Christs merit euen of death, is impugned, and he affirmed to be only man, and not God. Sixtly they euacuat the passion of Christ, who in playne and expresse tearms say;For Acts. pag. 468. 487. 1335. Stows in Elizabeth. pag. 1195. Calu. con. Heshu [...]. pag. 39. Beza in colloq. Mompel. 1. p. 522. Bucer. super Ioan. pag. 34. Muscul. in loc. theol. fol. 363. 367. Zanchius in Miscellan. p. 3. 200. 206. Aret. apud Schlusselb. l. 1. a. 6. 25. 26. & l. 2. fol. 42. theol. Cal. Eius sanguinem, mortem, & passionem, nihil contulisse ad redemptionem generis humani; His blood, death, and passion to haue nothing auayled to the redemption of mankinde; Christus omnibus suis operibus caelum non est promeritus; Christ by all his works deserued not heauen. Suche were some of Foxes most famous martyrs; such are Familists; and many English ministers, by confession of your Chroniclers. Lastly they euacuat Christs passion, who affirme his death and passion proffitable only for the predestinat, so that other might haue noe benifit therby. Such is Caluin, Beza, Bucer, Musculus, Zanchius, Aretius. Wherby followeth, that he is not redeemer of all, or mediator for all offenders, not intending their saluation.
Sixt Article of S. Thomas He descended into hell, the third day he rose againe from the dead.
25. First this article is impugned in saying with Carlile, it to be a pernitiouse heresie, that Christ descended: & by Beza, saying; per oscitantiam irrepsisse, Carlile in his booke, that Christ discended not into hell. printed at Lond. 1582. Beza. Apol. 2. ad Zantes. pag. 385. Vide Caluino Turc. p. 567. Zuingl. tom. 2. fol. 458. Luthapse De Couc. & PP. p. 276. it to haue entred into the creed by inaduertismēt. Secondly, by making his descension, only to haue bene his pangs vpon the cross, wher not only his humanitie, but (ô execrable blasphemie) his diuinitie indured payns; yea death. So saith Luther; Christum suum saluatorem se nolle agnoscere, si sola humanitas ipsius passa suisset; Did cleerly, and manifestly professe, that he would not acknowledge Christ to be his Sauioure, yf only his humanitie had suffred. And Caluin, secondeth faythfully all such impietie of Luther, saying; Hie est eius ad inferos descensus, quod eam mortem pertulit, quae sceleratis ab irato Deo instigitur; This is his descēsion to hell, that he suffred that death, which God in his angre inflicteth vpon the wicked. Omnes (inquit) in anima luisse paenas, Caelu. in catheches. c. de fide. Calu. l 2. Instit. c. 16. n. 10. & in cap. 26.27. Mat. Item ibid. Beza. quae Deo vindice a damnatis in inferno expetuntur; He suffred all the payns in his soule, which by God in reuengement are exacted of the damned. Agayne. Nihil actum erat, si corporea tantum morte fuisset defunctus; It had bene of no accompt, yf he had dyed only a corporal deathe. In which doctrin is contayned besyd Christs death of body, a death of his soule, yea of his diuinitie; and after enduring [Page 147] such death, him to haue suffred all punishments of the damned. Thirdly, this article is impugned by making this descension nothing els but Christs burial in his sepulchre. Vide Feuardent. in sua Entremanger. c. 27. So Zuinglius Oecolampadius, Bucer, Caluin, Musculus, Tremel, Marot, Beza, Carlile, &c. affirme: because the common name for hell in hebrue doth signifie some tyme a graue or fosse. But elswher Caluin confesseth,Vide Caluino Turc. pag. 567. that the sayd name, more vsualy and proprely, doth signifye hell, Act. In cap. 32. Deut. &c. 16. num. Calu. in Annot. in cap. 2. In 1. Reg. c. 2. In num. c. 16. In Deut. c. 32. In Psal. 6. In Iob. 2.26. In Amos. c. 9. the place and estate of the damned. And diuers or the residue as Bucer, Oecolampadius, and other principal protestants, as Peter Vermil, otherwyse misnamed Martyr, Paul Fage, Sebastian Munster, Castalio, and Flaccus Illyricus, do oppose them selues against Beza, being most ernest in the former opiniō, shewingby manifould texts of scripture, the hebrue woord Scheol, the greeke woord [...], the latin woord infernus, to signifie an infernal propre place of damned, (or at least of included) by their right vsual and natural signification, as much as panis, Beza in c. 2. act. in c. 11. Math. in c 10. & 16. Luc. In Apoc. c. 20. in latin, signifyeth bread. Yea Beza him selfe confesseth, that the greeke, and latin woord contayne no lesse, but the hebreu woord some tyme signifyeth graue. And therfor to auoyd Christs discending to hell, therby to maintayne former blasphemies of his suffring the payns of damned, on the crosse, and to euacuat the deliuerance of the Fathers out of their Limbo, (wherby also is implyed the doctrin of purgatorie, yf it once be graunted, ther euer had bene a third place of inclusion for sowls) to auoyd I say, these blocks in his way, he translateth by his owne confession, as aforsayd, contrary to greeke, Beza in c. 2. Act. and latin interpreters, and Fathers. And in his confession of the faythe printed anno 1564. to frustrat all disputation about the mater, he thought cōuenient to omitt wholy this part of this Article. And although he be driuen consequently to translat Christi anima, not Christs sowle, but his carcas, not his victorie, ouer hell, but his victorie ouer the graue (which the Englishe bibles of an. 1562. 1577. eschued, but it an. 1579. approued) and many other such deprauations, cōtrary to sacred scripture, yet would he not desist,Beza in c. 16. Luc. vntill he had occasion to refute Brencius supposing there is no hell, or infernal tormēts but only metaphoricaly. And then forgetting him selfe, proueth by scripturs and fathers, vpon the 16. of Luc. that Christ descended into the earth, into the receptacle of those who were long restrayned.
A For euidence of whiche third place of souls, besyd heauen, and eternal hell,In their 2. reply against D. Whitg. pag. 7. and in ther. 2. admonition to the parlament. pag. 43. (out of whiche ther is no redemption) the Puritans ernestly reprehended the creed of the Apostles made in english meeter among the psalms, (wherin is sayd: his spirit did after this descend, into the lower parts, to them that long in darknes were, the true loue [Page 148] of ther harts) and also egerly inueyed against one of their cheefe martyrs, for professing the same beleefe. And so forwardly pressed into their angre against this article, that in all late bibles, as Carlile him selfe confesseth,Carlile in his booke against Christ discension fol. 144. 116. Humfrye l. 2. de rat. interpret. pag. 219. 220 they haue corrupted and depraued the sense, obscured the trueth, deceaued the ignorant, and supplanted the simple, following darknes more then light, and falshod more then trueth. To which accordeth D. Humfrey of Oxford (behould the verdict of bothe your vniuersities) saying, the forsayd hebrue woord, should not be translated, graue, but hell, yf the authoritie of the holy ghost be obserued: and consequently,A late Englishe translations in this point fall and fayle from the holy ghost, by doing the contrary. But most ernestly I craue the curteouse reader,Beza in Act. c. 10.46. edit. an 1556. Iuuenal satyra 2. to peruse what Beza him selfe wryteth against such late translators, as follow new fangled and doubtfull interpretations in Scripturs, refusing familiar and accustomed woords, yf he will obserue a Verres condemning others of theft, a Clodius dispraysing others for leacherie, a Catelin disprouing others for prodigalitie, a Gracchus reprehending others for sedition. Fowerthly, this article is impugned by Bullinger saying,Bullinger in 1. Pet. c. 4. that Christ discended noe otherwyse to hell, then as he dayly discended to vs, Spiritu & virtute; only by spirit and vertu, interim vt nemo putet corpus vel animam eius discendisse, in suche sorte as none surmise his body or soule to haue discended▪ To whiche anneareth Brentius, Beza ad alteram partem libri Brientij. Aug. lib. 3. de Doctr. c. 10. affirming ther is no other but a figuratiue, imaginatiue, and spirituall hell, without other torments then metaphorical. How deseruedly did S. Augustin fortell, when the mynds of any are preoccupated by erroure, all that scripture hathe to the contrary, they affirme to be but figuratiue? Iosias Simlerus in vita Bullingeri. fol. 35. Vide Alan. Cop. dial. 5. c. 18. They began first to make sacraments but figurs, they followed next to affirme all promises by Christ, made for good woorks, to be but hyperbolical; diuers mysteryes of his lyfe to be B ineffectual; all in his passion fullfilled to be but figuratiue and histrionical; and lastly heauen, and hell to be only tropical, or fantastical. Pause Christian considerations, at this, yf patience will permitt. Fiftly, this article is impugned for th'other parte of Christs resurrection,Calu. in sua harm. in c. 24. Luca v. 38. Beza in 1. Cor. c. 15.23. Hollinshead an. 1579. pag. 1195. by Caluin, saying that Christ wanted some perfection of a glorious resurrection; and by diuers reformers affirming as Beza confesseth; Christum nunquam resurrexisse, sed adhuc iacere mortuum; Christ neuer to haue risen, but yet to remayne dead. By others also (yf laufull inferences be admitted) who affirmed befor, besyd his bodily death, a death of his soule and diuinitie. By others who ernestly except against the feast of easter in remembrance of such resurrection; especialy as it is a Christian solemnitie, desyring [Page 149] it be abolished, or restored according to the Iewes ceremonies. Luth. l. de concilijs. Bale l. 3. c. 25. de Scrip. Zuingl. to. 2. respon. ad Lutheri librum de sacram. fol. 465. Such are Luther, Bale, & the Puritans, as appeareth in D. VVhitgift. Sixtly, this article is impugned by Zuinglius saying, Crassus Lutheri Praetor, rubris indutus caligis, eo modo quo Christus monumento exiuit, egredi potuerit; the gross Pretor of Luther, appareiled in his read hose, in lyke maner as Christ went owt of his sepulchre, might also haue issued. Which is most impiously blaphemed, wheras Christ after his death issued by his owne force, as all Doctors, and Fathers affirme, without remouing the stone placed vpon the monument. To which accordeth against the forsayd blasphemie, the late Protestant conference at Malbrun, alleaging many scripturs and Fathers in approbation of such miraculous resurrection. The same is also fulfilled by Marlorat, Thalman, and at lengthe, vpon better aduise, by Caluin, and Beza.
The seuenth Article of S. Bartholome: He ascended into heauen, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father almightie.
16. This article is first contradicted by Lutherans affirming,Vide admonitionem Caluinist. ad librum Cōcordiae, & Daneum con Osiandrum. Calu. l. 2. Instit. c. 14. n. 8. Beza in cap. 3. Act. v. 21. Cal. Instit. l. 2. c. 14. n. 3. Vide Intermangerie pag. 157. Vide Neuerium in bello 5. euang pag. 72. Apud Iosiam Symlerū in vita Bullingeri fol. 35. 55. Apud (que). Luther. to. 7. Witteb. fol. 408. 409. heauen to be below in the bowels of the earthe, and hell in the highest parts of the world. Next by Caluin saying that Christs sitting at the right hand of God will continue no longer then till the day of iudgement. Thirdly by those who affirme his being at the right hand of his Father, to hinder his true being in the Sacrament: as is befor declared number 68. Fowerthly by them who deny that by his power he could surpass the qualities of a natural body, and consequently not ascend: as also is ther manifested. Fiftly by those who affirme his being at the the right hand to argue an inferioritie or inequalitie with God the Father: or that God the Father had a spiritual kinde of bodye, haueing hands, &c. Sixtly by Caluin saying, that it is not to be imagined ther is any place in heauen whervnto is ascended, or accepted the humanitie of Christ. Seuenthly by many principal protestāts, as Brentius, Illyricus, Musculus, &c. Christs ascension is made nothing but a disapeering, without any motion vpward wher he was before.
The eight article of S. Mathew. From thence shall he come to iudge the quick and the dead.
17. This article is impugned,Generaly all protestants. first by suche as by graunting one iudgement in general, at the daye of dome affirme Christ neuer iudgeth [Page 150] euery one in particular. Luther. vt suprá. Secondly by them who affirme only infidelitie to be subiect to iudgement; wheras Christ doth promise to call into accompt euery idle woord, and omission of charitie. Thirdly by such as say God will iudge vniustly, as Luther saying: that as, illic gratiam & misericordiam spargit in indignos, Luther to. 2. fol. 461. de serue arbitrio. hic iram & seuetitatem spargit in immeritos; ther (in this lyffe) he pou [...]red grace and mercie vpon the vnwoorthy so here in iudgement he powreth angre and seueritie vpon the vndeserued. Whiche Gods iniustice in iudgement and condemnation of the wicked, is implyed by the common doctrin that God is the authour of euil, not only by prouocation, but by impulsion, and inforcement. For being sayd to be the inforcer to euil, how can he punish iustly them, that obey him. And such doctrin is vniuersal, as is demōstrated, among the greatest protestants, Luther, Caluin, Zuinglius, and Beza: as appeareth in the first article. Lastly they misbeleeue this Article, who affirme that Christ who should come to iudge, is dead according both to humanitie and diuinitie. Such was Ihon Islebeus, and especialy Musculus, Gzecanouius saith:Siluester Czecanouius de corruptis moribus. [...]rius (que) partis a. 3. Musculus non veritus suit palam dicere (profiteri ac spargere) diuinam Christi naturam quae Deus est, vna cum humana mortuam suisse in Cruce; Musculus doubted not to mantaine publickly (to profess and to spread) etc. Yf he remaine dead, he is not risen and ascended, or from heauen to come to iudge the quick and the dead.
The 9. Article of S. Iames of Alpheus. I beleeue in the holy ghost, the holy Catholick Church.
Beza con. Heshustum. fol. 284 & colloq. Mompelg. fol. 77. Zanchius l. de 3. elo [...]im. Siml [...]rus [...]n praef. l. de aterno Dei. filio.18. First, they beleeue not in the holy ghost, who affirme it to be blasphemous and idolatrouse to consels Christ to be god, or to haue euer bene according any deitie befor his birthe of the B. Virgin Marie: for therby the holy Ghost proceeding from the sonn, no less then from the Father, is also denyed. Secōdly, all they who impugne the holy Trinitie, do it more to reiect the holy ghost, then for any thing els: of whom looke in the first article. To the disgraceing wherof considre how roundly Caluin discourseth, saying: Vnus Deus id est, Galu. epist. ad Polon. pag. 946. Trinitas: Creditis in Deum, id est Trinitatem. Vt cognoscant te vnum Deum, id est, Trinitatem. Hoc non modo tanquam insipidum, sed prophanum quoque repudiamus: One god, as much to say, the Trinitie. You beleeue in god, Vide Conrad. Schluss [...]lbur. in Th [...]ol. Cal. l. 2. fol. 2. 8. 14. 20. 26. as much to say, the Trinitie. That they should know the one god, as much to say, the Trinitie. This, as not only vnsauery, but also as prophan, I do despise. Nether did other protestants dissemble at this blasphemouse derision, but rebuked him for it in superlatiue tearms [Page 151] of scoulding. Hence among his disciples,Prateolus in heresibus lib. 10. c. 10. as euery one was more learned, so irrisit spiritum sanctum asserens nihil in scripturis sacris veteris aut noui testamenti, de illius diuinitate haberi; he flowted at the holy ghost, affirming nothing in holy scripture of the ould or new testament to be had of his diuinitie. Heerevpon a great protestāt exclameth; Caue Christiane lector, Stancharus in epist. con. Caluin. n. 4 5. & maximé vos ministri omnes verbi Dei, a libris Caluini cauete, & presertim in articulo de trinitate &c. Beware Christian Lector or Reader and especialy you ministres A of the woord of God, Beware of the books of Caluin, Ioan. Schutz in l. 50. Causarum causa 48. Adam Newser apud Schluss. loc. cit. fol. 9. & in catal. haeres. l. 1. p. 4. and especially in the article of the Trinitie, &c. Another saythe he openeth a window and gate to Arianisme, and Mahumetisme. Another: Arianismus, Mahumetismus, & Caluinismus, tres fratres & sorores, tres caligae eiusdem panni; Arianisme Mahumetisme, and Caluinisme are three brethren and sisters, and three breeches of one cloathe. Another: qui timet sibi ne incidat in Arianismum, caueat Caluinismum; who feareth to fall to Arianisme, let him beware of Caluinisme. Some print bookes with inscriptions,Printed in Iene an. 1586. that Caluinists are not Christians, that they do Iudaize, that heed is to be taken of their leauen.
But none are more forward blasphemers against the holy Ghost, then Englishe puritans, and Familists.Ioan. Matth. de cauendo Caluinistarū Fermento. And all this is confessed by Protestants: whose euidences only I imploye in this informations. Thirdly, they impugne this article, who make their fanatical imaginations, the very inspirations of the holy Ghost, and all ther bad, and impious inclinations his motions.Zuingl. tom. 2. in Actis Tiguri. fol. 609. Simi [...]ia prorsus apud [...]uth. tō. 5. ad Galat. c. 1. fol. 290. So Zuinglius hauing his doctrin from suche spirit as aforsayd, yet sayth he, certò noui doctrinam meam non esse aliud quam sacrosanctum verum (que) euangelium: — huius doctrinae testimonio iudicabo omnes & homines & angelos; I know for certayne my doctrin to be no other, then the most sacred and true gospell: — by the testimonye of this doctrin, I will iudge all both men, and angels. So Luther:Luth. tom. 2. apud certus enim sum, Christum ipsum me euangelistam nominare, & pro ecclesiaste habere; I am assured, Christ him selfe to name meane euangelist, and to approue me his preacher. So Caluin: Caluin. de vera Eccles. reformandae ratione 463 Calu. de lib. arbitr. con. Pighium l. 1. pag. 192. res ipsa clamat non Martinum Lutherum initio loquutum sed Deum per os eius fulminasse, neque nos hodie loqui, sed Deum ex celo virtutem B suam exerere: the mater it selfe assureth, not Martin Luther in the begyning to haue spoken, but God to haue thundred out of his mouth, and not we to speake now, but God to vtter his power. Behould, yf eache one of thes most repugnant among themselues, be not as secure of their owne perswasions, to be from the holy Ghost, as they are doubtfull of Christs, of his Apostles, and of his Churches doctrin, to be sound, apt, literal, and authentical.
Fowerthly they impugne this Article, who derogat from sacred scripture, the authoritie due therto by being by inspiration of the [Page 152] holy ghost.Zuing. tom. 2. Elench. con. Anabaptist. fol. 10. Vide Iacob. Curio [...]em in Chronolog. An. 1556. pag. 151. Basilea. Ochinus l. 2. dialog. pag. 154. 155. 156. 157. This is done by Zuinglius, saying: quasi vero Paulus epistolis suis iam tum tribuerit, vt quicquid in ijs contineretur sacrosanctum esset: quod est Apostolis imputare immoderatam arrogantiam: as though Paul did arrogat so muche to his epistles, as to thinke all in them contayned to be authentical: whiche is to impute to the Apostles immoderat arrogancie. Doth this man, thinke you, remember what he immediatly befor sayd of him selfe? Ochinus proceedeth further: non debemus plura credere quam crediderunt sancti federis A antiqui; we ought to beleeue no more then the saincts of the ould testament. So that hereby, all the new testament is together abolished. Luther was more curteouse in only excluding three euangelists,Vide numerum 34. Mathew, Marke, and Luke, S. Iames, and some few others; and the rest of Reformers in only excepting against Toby, Iudith, Hester, VVisdome, Ecclesiasticus, the two books of Machabees, S. Luke, To the Hebrues, Iames, 2. of Peter, 2. and 3. of Ihon, Iude, Apocalips; to whiche others add the prayer of Manasses, the song of the three Children, the historie of Bel canticum Canticorum; & lastly, Caluin addeth the sixt, & Beza the eight of Ihons gospell.Luther in sermone de Moise. You shall also behould by Luther the ancient testamēt as resolutly excluded all together, as was the neweby Ochinus. Ne ingeratur nobis Moises: nos in nouo testamento Moisem, nec videre nec audire volumus: let not Moises be thrust vpon vs: we in the new testament will not ether regard, or hear him. tom. 3. Ienen. in 1. parte. The same was done be others against Moises as testifyeth Iac. Curio loc. cit. That he had rather neuer preache, then propound any thing out of Moises. That he that dothe alleage any thing of his, doth depriue Christ of the harts of men. That Moises belongeth nothing to vs. That he receaueth him not: for otherwyse he should also receaue all Iewish ceremonies. That his gouernement is fayled, and him selfe dead. That Moises belongeth only to Iewes, and not to Christians.
Sander de Schism: Anglic. lib. 2. pag. 272. Persons examē par [...]. 3. pag. 332.To the same, concerning the new testament. Bucer: yf all be true, whiche the euangelists do sett downe, Christ must be truly, & realy in the Sacrament. But whether we be bound to beleeue absolutly euery thing sett downe by them, to be true, or noe, he would not be iudge. By which appeareth that what thes men list to beleeue, being but of their owne imaginations, they make it to be inspired by the holy ghost, to be the most sacred scripture, them selues to be euangelists, their testimonyes B to be bastant to iudge angels and men; what also displeaseth their stomacks, be it in new, or ould testament, they raze, cancel, reiect and abiure it as apochriphal; not haueing any more reason or authoritie for any parcels exclusion or condemnation, then ther fellowes for many whole volums, and both ould and new testament together.
[Page 153]Neither in this are they yet satisfyed, but certifie that the holy ghost him selfe, suggereret tantum quaecunque Christus ante ore docuerat, & hanc restrictionem attente esse notandam, could suggest or teache nothing but what Christ befor deliuered by mouthe, and suche restraint and limitation to be, sayth, Calu. l. 4. Instit. c. 8. n. 8. Caluin, heedfully noted. Yet Christ him selfe telling in his gospell that he had many things wherof as then they were not capable, which the holy ghost should in tyme reueale, as also teache them all trueth; neuer the less they would not hold or stopp in suche their so desperat abhominations. How Contrary to them is S. Chrysostom? saying: ideo spiritui seruata est maior doctrinae portio, ne putarent illum minorem. Hom. 1. in Acta. Therfor &c.Ioan. 16.13. What is sayd of impugning the holy Ghost for scriptures, belongeth also to traditions, such as few of them but consent to parte of them, although they be not extant in Scripture: as to the blessed Trinitie, and consubstantialitie of persons, the perpetual virginitie of our Ladie, the obseruation of Sonday not of the Sabbaoth, the baptising of infants, the communion, receauing, fasting, the feasts of easter, &c. which traditions as all other acknowledged by the Churche,Ioan. 16.13. haue issued from the holy Ghost, according Christs promise that he should not only teache (vz by word) but also suggest (by inspiration) all trueth. Yf I affected not breuitie, what Fathers monuments for traditions, what fowle dealing of Sectarists against them, mentioned in Martins discouerie cap. 2. could I alleage?
Fowerthly,S. August. in quaest. ex vtro (que) test. q. 102. (according to S. Augustin) they impugne the holy Ghost, who impute euident miracles frequent in Gods Churche gouerned by the holy Ghost, to the deuil. Vpō which occasiō, of the Pharisees, saying that in Beelzebub Christ cast out deuils, Christ our Saluiour, entred to discourse of the synn against the holy Ghost; shewing therby to pertayne to the holy Ghost all miraculouse operations. But of miracles, which are lawfull, and how to be knowen we are after to dispute. For to conclude, what ther B beleefe is against the holy Ghost, is testified when the first reforming Apostle of Morauia; Irrisit Spiritum sanctum, se (que) diceret volle potius redire in coenobium, quàm credere in Spiritum sanctum; Did flowt at the holy Ghost, saying he would returne sooner to the cloistre then beleeue in him. Prateolus l. 10. c. 10.
Fiftly, they impugne the other parte of the Catholick Churche (which in deede should be a distinct article) who can not abyde the name of Catholick, as appeareth before, nor the name of Churche in their principal Bible of the yeare 1562. but excluded [Page 154] it wholy without redemption, placing for the name Churche the name of congregation. And wheras they weare confounded at such profane & odious interpretation, (considering it shewed a hatred against the chaste spouse of Christ; a distrust to be tryed by the churche; whom who heareth not is as far from saluation, as any publican or Ethnick; and argued a publick reuolt, or rebellion from Christ him selfe head of the Churche) they amended it A in their later translations,Math 16.18. with worlds shame; yet so nicely, as in one cheef place of Scripture wher Christ sayd to S. Peter, vpon this rock I will build my Churche, the bible of the yeare 1577. retayned still in liew of Church the name of congregation; which properly belongeth only to beasts, and by application is transferred to men.
Sixtly, they impugne this second parte, who affirme the Mother Churche may err in any point of beleefe, considering Christs promises,Math. 16. Luc. 22. Ioan. 14. Act. 2. Luc. 22. that the gates of hell (nether by errour, nor by violence) should neuer preuayle against it, the faythe therof should neuer fayle; the holy Ghost teacher of all trueth should perpetually remayne with it: that it is a spotles spouse, without all wrinckle; that it being conuerted should confirme all others &c. Fox Acts. pag. 1359. Iewel. repl. con. Hard. art. 4. diu. 14. & 21. pag. 249. 268. Calu. l. 4. Instit. c. 2. n. 2. 3. &c. Vide Camp [...]ani ration [...]m vlt. De Luther. Vide num. 17. Calu. Instruc. con- Libertin. c. 13. Such mother Church, to be it only of Rome all Fathers, and most sectarists them selues profess. Nether can it be denyed considering it only hathe vniuersalitie, consent, and antiquitie, as appeareth n. 4. Considering also that no other peofession hath holynes in lyfe or doctrin, which accompanie on another as the good and bad fruict the good and bad tree. Witnes first for doctrin, all hithertho (in this examination) alleadged, and secondly Luther saying: the commandements of God not to belong to Christians. Witnes next Caluin saying in other mens name but in his owne doctrin: Concupiuit quis vxorem proximi sui? ea potiatur si potest: certò enim scit se nihil alienum à voluntate Dei facere. Audacter eripiat vel vi, vel fraude, fortunas proximorum: nihil enim suscipiet nisi Deo volente vel probante: hathe any coueted his neighbours wyfe? let him inioye hir yf he can: for he knoweth assuredly he doth nothing contrary to the will of God. Let him bouldly snathe by force, or fraud, his neighbours substance: for B he will take nothing vnles god will, Zuingl. tom. 1. in actis disp. Tigurinae fol. 628. and approue. Witnes thirdly Zuinglius: Deus obligauit, & astrinxit se, caelum tribuere; non est opus vt pro eo assequendo laboremus: God hath bound him selfe to giue vs heauen, we need not trauayle to attayne it.
Luther tom. 1. in c. 8. Math.For the fruits insuing such doctrin, witnes again Luther: De euangelio sic loquuntur quasi sint angeli, sed si opera spectes sunt mere diaboli. [Page 155] Iterū: Credunt sicut sues, & sicut sues moriuntur: they speake so of the gospell, Idem narrat. in 1. Cor. 15. fol. 161. 162. Calu. de Scandalis pag. 118 127. 128. Ibidem. as yf they weare angels: but yf you regard their woorkes, they are mere deuils. Agayne: they beleeue like hoggs and as hoggs they dye. Witnes agayne Caluin: Pastores, ipsi inquam pastores qui suggestum conscendunt &c. turpissima sunt vel nequitiae, vel malorum aliorum exempla.—Et tales scilicet in contemptu se esse apud plebem, aut etiam ludibrij causa digito monstrari conqueruntur. Ego autem potius vulgi miror patientiam, quòd non eos luto & stercoribus mulicres & pueri A opperiunt: Our preachers, our very preachers I say, who entre into the pulpit, &c. are ether of wickednes or other euils moer filthye examples. — And such for soothe repyne, to be contemned by the people, and to be poynted at in derision. But I more admyre the patience of the people, that women and children do not load them with myre and dyrt. Witnes thirdly Zuinglius:Zuingl. tom. 1. fol. 115. Aestum carnis in nobis feruere, negare non possumus, cùm huius opera nos coram ecclesijs infames reddiderint: VVe can not denye the heat of the fleash to be ardent in vs, wheras the workes therof haue made vs infamous to the Churches. To discend from the three principal pillers of protestantcie, witnes Lewes Hetzer, by Luthers relation, defyler of fower and twenty marryed women, Luth. in Colloq. mensal. fol. 415. Calu. con. Libertin. pag. 654. Erasm epist. ad Frēs infer. Germ. 1. pag. 82. besyde mayds. Witnes Quintinus, by the same reporter, neying after women, as stood horses after mares. Witnes an apostata frier, who as Erasmus recordeth marryed three wyues together. But of this pudle, sufficient is found in our first 17. number; and litle obscuritie is ther in the mater.
Considering againe, that besyd this Romain Churche, no other profession, hath any stabilitie, or cōstancie, in their whole doctrin; in their sacraments; of their scripturs. Witnes (besyde what is sayd toward the beginning of this examination 7. number of most principal protestants repentance and doubtfulnes of their courses) Luther by Zuinglius his declaration, appealing:Zuingl. de Luthero. tom. 2. resp. ad Luth. in prefat. Ad eos duntaxat libros quos intra quatuor aut quinque annos conscripserat; to thes only of his owne books which he had written fower or fiue yeares before, and no others. Witnes of Zuinglius against him selfe, saying:Zuingl. to. 2. com. de vera & salsa relig. c. de Eucharistia fol. 202. Retractanius igitur hic quae illic diximus, tali lege, vt quae damus anno aetatis nostrae 42. propendeant eis quae 40. anno dederamus: VVe do therfor recant here what we sayd there, by B this condition, that what we deliuer the 42. yeare of our age, take place of what was giuen in the 40. yeare. Witnes Beza: Beza in Colloq. Mō pel. pag. 150. 268. 388. Fateor me multa scripsisse quae velem à me scripta non esse. Vtinam memoria omnium earum aboleretur communi consensu; I confess to haue written many things, which I wishe had not bene written. I would to god the memorie of them all weare abolished. Witnes lastly all their translations, their confessions, their communion books, their whole writings, (althoughe they [Page 156] weare assured as befor, that they had all by true reuelation) neuer twyse appearing in one lyknes. And truely it is ane important point to be considered, that thes men, of all others the very cheefe leaders to this dance of reformations, could not dwell constantly in their entreprise, wheras the simple sort who lightly imbraced their doctrin, aduentured to abyd fyer, and swoord, rather then to forsake it; being according the prouerb (who so bould as blind bayard,) not only more resolut therin then their preachers (of whom few or none but fledd) but also, as euery one was most simple, weauer, glouer, cobler, and principaly women, so were they A therto most forward. Sr. Ihon ould Castle, Cromwell, the Duke of Northumberland, and others of the wyser sorte, made by Fox martyrs,For Acts & Mon. of thes his Martyrs. yet according to their wysdome, whē they could liue no lōger in the libertie of the gospell, they cryed, peccaui, and recanted their licentiouse beleefe: but as I sayd obstineat idiots, and willfull women, dyed in their infidelitie.
Seuenthly they impugne this article of beleefe, who after reuolting from such Churche as aforsayd, had no other refuge to maintayne them selues from blame of noueltie, particularitie, and lightnes, but to appeale to an inuisible Churche, remoued from all senses, lyke a Platonical Idea, separated from all knowledge, not extant in any country, not mentioned in any historie, in which noe voyce of epistle or gospell hath bene heard, no sacraments ministred, no men or women knowen; and all this, because their consciences informed them the true, visible, knowen, ancient, and vniuersal Churche (wherin Christian name, the scripturs and sacraments were preserued) stood with vs against them. Against which ther Fanatical,Melanc in loc com. c. de Ecclesia an. 1561. Cal. 4. Instit c. 2. n. 2. Oecol. n. c. 2. Isa. Illyric. in 1 Matth. Bren. in. c. 17. Luc. Luth. in. c. 9. c. 52.53. Isa. tom. 4. Buillng. in Apoc. conc. 62. 87. and poëtical imagination, of a Churche inuisible, all learned protestāts ernestly wrote; Melancthon tearming it a monstruouse speeche; Caluin, Oecolampad, Illyricus, Luther, Brentius, Lutherus, Bullinger, and all others refuting, and rebuking, it, as a desperat opinion, proceeding from profound infidelitie. Consider B for gods loue, this heauie, and vrgent extreamitie, by the way. They who distrusted Christ words of his true, and substantial being, in the sacrament, and many other mysteries of religion, because a natural body, say they, could not be but in a visible, and particular place, and god him selfe not to be of power to dispose otherwyse of suche natural body; they I say as more powerfull then god,Martyr. defens. con. Gard. par. 1. obiect. 147. obiect 7. dispose of all former Christians (notwithstanding their natural bodyes) in a congregation inuisible, and out of all naturalitie, and natural circumscribed places; [Page 157] because, they could name no visible citie, prouince, or Kingdome, professing Christianitie, but was of our religion.Prou. 18. Impius cum in profundum venerit, contemnet; the impiouse man when he cometh to the depth (of impietie) he contemneth, what trueth he contradicteth; what falshod he mantayneth; saying (as befor I sayd) in his mynde: Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo ipse domi, all men shout at me, Horace l. 1. Sat. 1. yet I applaud to my felfe in my home, in my priuat conceit, in my self pleasing A fancies.
Eightly they impugne this article, who (in th'other extremitie, to haue a visible Churche) remass & collect all sorts of Sectarists, into one consenting congregation. Such is Crispin Hamsted, and Fox. In whos monuments, especialy of Ihon Fox, how all sorts of malefactors are raked, and assembled, together, and as discordant sectarists as euer weare Catts and doggs, intermedled, appeareth abundantly in the late learned books of the three conuersions of England, of the hunting of the Fox, &c. by N. D. authoure of the Ward-word. What communion they had, shall also appeare in the next Article. For conclusion; sweet, and true is that sentence,S. August. tra. 33. in Ioan. of S. Augustin: Credamus fratres, quantum quisque amat ecclesiam, tantum habet & Spiritum sanctum; as muche as euery one loueth the Churche, so muche he hathe of the holy Ghost. By which appeareth, that these articles are not impertinently vnited, by some, in one.
The 10. Article, of S. Symon. The communion of Saincts, the forgiuenes of synnes.
19. Wheras by this article ther should be a comunication and vnitie betwixt the ould and new, and the liuing and dead Christians, in faythe, hope, and charitie, in Sacraments, in ceremonies; in succours, in all concourse; they impugne this article first, who denye all correspondence betwixt the saincts in heauen and men in earthe; as also they impugne scripturs (to be produced in our controuersie of the inuocation of Saincts) conformable to this B sayd Article. Secondly, they are disproued by this Article, who are in deepest and most irreconcilable discords among them selues in the specifyed points. Such to be all late pretended reformers, one against another, is now to be demonstrated, in general, and in particular. Lutherani (inquit Sturmius) libris publicè editis, Sturnius de ratione contradict. incundae. pag. 24. Ecclesias Anglicanas, Gallicas, Belgicas, Scoticas, Helueticas, tanquam haereticas condemnant, eorum matyres, martyres Diaboli vocant, &c. The Lutherans, [Page 158] (quoth Sturmius) in their published boooks do condemne the Churches of England, Epitome colloq. Maulbrune. an. 1564. pag. 82. Fraunce, Flandres, Scotland, Zuittzerland, they call their martyrs martyrs of the Deuil, &c. Agayne: quòd scribunt Zuingliani se à nobis pro fratribus agnitos, id tam impudenter, tanta (que) vanitate ab illis confictum est, vt illorum impudentiam mirari satis nequeamus. Nos verò vt in ecclesia locum illis nullum concedimus, ita etiam pro fratribus minimè agnoscimus, quos spiritu mendacij agitari deprehendimus, & in filium hominis contumeliosos esse: what the Zuinglians wryte that they by vs are accompted brethren, that is so impudently and vaynly forged by them, that we can not sufficiently admire ther impudencie. For we, as we accompt them not in the Churche, so also do we as litle repute A them our brethren, whom we fynde transported by the spirit of falshod, and to be contumelious against the sonn of God. The Caluinists weare not slack in requyting Lutherans,Schlusselburg. Theol. Cal. l. 3. a [...]t. 6. Ioan. Iezlet. Zuinglio Caluinista. l de diu tur bel. 1 Eucharistici pag 25. 80. as is euident by Schlusselburg, saying: Quod Caluinistae nos Lutheranos volunt habere pro fratribus, quos tamen vt haereticos damnant; The Caluinists would accompt vs Lutherans as their brethren, whom notwithstanding they condemne as haereticks. And so betwixt them, saith Iohn Iezler: Litigandi, scribendi, declamandi disputandi, condemnandi, excommunicandi, inter Lutheranos & Caluinistas nullus est finis; Ther is no ende of chyding, wryting, accusing, disputing, condemning, excommunicating betwixt Lutherans and Caluinists. Idem. ibid. pag. 79. In the yeare 1555. quoth Iezler, the K. of Denmarke, the stats of Hamburg, and Maritimal cities, vnder great penaltie forbad any lodging to be permitted to the Sacramentarians.
For breefe resolution in this matter, cōsider according the narration of Vtenhouius being him selfe one among 175. Flemishe, Frenche, English, Scotish, and Polonian fugitiues in Queen Maryes dayes, vnder the conduct of Lascus superintendent ouer the congregation of strangers in England; how first after long tossing on sea, and other incommodities of nauigation, they came at lengthe to Coldinga in Denmarche. Wher haeing exhibited a most lamentable supplication to the King being Lutheran; First they could not obtayne any allowance to vse their religion: secondly, haueing receaued a gift of a 100. crowns, and their charges defrayed, they could obtayne no aboad, for B ould or yōg, sick or hole, but must haue suddenly in the depth of winter departed; yea although some women expected howerly ther tyme of trauayle. Ariued at Hassne, Ioan. Vtenhouius, in sua simplici narratione de instituta, ac demum dissipata Belgarum, altorum (que) peregrinorum in Anglia Ecclesia. ther also Palladius superintendent, informed of their profession, notwithstanding their pittifull inplorations of compassion, and declarations of the tempestuous weather, the sharpnes of could, the seas and lands couered with yee, the cryes of women in trauayle, Childrens whynings, and ould mens weaknes; yet noe respit, nether of a moneth, or weeke, but only of three dayes would be afoorded to dwell euen without the gates. Exclamations, and thundring threats [Page 159] of Gods angre against suche hardnes of hart would not auayle, but that the master of the shipp was commanded vnder payne of death, by noe means, or contrarietie of wynds, to stay any longer then eight a clock on the third day, and neuer after to returne. Altogether lyke intertaynment had they at Rostoc by George Riken, at VVismar by Henning & Lubec, by Peter Briccius; at Hamburg by VVestphalus, being hunted out of their Inns, spitted at in streats, repulsed with all disdaynfulnes: not without as detestable crueltie in the Lutherans, as publick and manifest detestation of their profession who were soe hatefully eschued.
The most apparent demonstration of their eternal discords is, that partly to auoyd this heynouse imputation of being thus deuided, partly by authoritie of princes the kings of Denmarke, Sweuland, Norwey; the Duks of Saxonie, Lunebourg, Pruss, Brunswick, Vide Bellum 5. Euangelij, cum Ministromachia, Intremangerie, librum nullus & nemo, Vlenbergij causas. &c. VVitemberge, Deuxponts; the Marquis of Brandenbourg, Lansgraue Hessen; the Earls of Palatinat, Mansfeld, A [...]halt, &c. Being desirouse to see some setled forme of beleefe mutualy agreed vpon: they cōmanded sondry and diuers tyms, these reformers to assemble into a Synod or Cōgregation, and by all means possible to ioyne in a fraternal attonement. So then they mett, at Souabach, Smalcald, Ratisbon, VVitberg, Constance, VVorms, Spyre, Basil, Zuric, Arouer, Hidelberg, Malbrun, Altenbourg, Baden, Monpelial, Frankental; but with suche iarrs, stryfe, malice, that in the conclusion the cheefe protestants confess;Schlusselburg. l. 2. art. 15. Clarissimum esse non expectandam esse Synodorum aut generalium, aut particularium definitionem; to be most cleere, noe definition of ether general, or particular Concils to be expected; because all composition is impossible,Idem ibid. in proem. nisi magnus Domini dies interuenerit, litem (que) hanc diremerit; vnles the great day of the Lord hasten, and shutt vp this variance. Truely sayd the prophet Esaias; Non est pax impijs; ther is no peace among the wicked. Isa. 48.
To shutt vp this part, giue me leaue, (althowgh by all means I spare our protestants, as being of a more calme, and temperat disposition, that they may with lesse alteration of mynde pondre these proceedings) to tell in a woord, what by Barrowists is alleaged against the puritans, those precise pretenders,D. VVhitg. trac. 18. pag. 685. trac. 11. pag. 559. 560. who as D. VVhitgift sayth, seeke to transferr the authoritie of pope, prince, bishopp, to them selues, and to bring Prince and nobilitie into a very seruitude. They are, (say the Brounists, or rather Barroists) pernitious impostors, presumptuouse Pastors, Iewish Rabyns, Balaamits, dissembling hypocrits, smell-feasts, Barrowes Discouery pag. 16. 19. 39. 98. 145. 174. 192. Prouerb. 13. Apostats, sowldiours of Antichrist &c. Fullfilling thereby, the prouerb; Inter superbos semper sunt iurgia; among the prowd ther are alwayes iarrs. Is this not a sweet communion of thes saincts? Is not this a gratiouse [Page 160] brotherhood. Thirdly they are repugnant to this article, who affirme it blasphemie to giue titles to Saincts in heauen whiche them selues giue to synners in earthe. Witnes, Aschams epigrame to our late Queene, on whom he bestoweth liberaly as much as any Catholick attributeth to our B. ladie, the mother of Christ.
Salue Diua tuae patriae decus, Optima salue
Princeps Elizabetha, tuis Dea Magna Britannis.
Pande tuis iam fausta noui noua tempora saecli
Ciuibus, imperium placidum tempus (que) benignum;
Laeta (que) temporibus nostris da tempora Diua.
Ascham. inter epist. fol. 255.
Tu Brittonum tu sola
[...]lus, tu sola Columna. &c.
The same in English.
Hayle Englands fame Diuine, Hayle Princes bright
Elizabeth, the Brittons Goddesse great.
Giue vs new tyms new blisse, by rulyng right,
Appease this world from furies hatefull heat.
Graunt ioyfull tymes, for ioye we humbly pray,
Thow Britons only Blisse, and only staye.
In lyke maner Caluin, Vita Caluini cap. 12. not induring any honoure towards Saincts,A or Images; yet cowld not only permit his owne picture to be borne abowt the necks of them in Geneua, but also when some esteeming such insolent arrogance reprehensible, admonished him therof, that the Citisens vsed his resemblance for an alexicacon, or remedy against all mischawnces; he awnswered; greeue at it till yow burst, and after hang your selues. Fowerthly they are repugnant to this article, who are at difference abowt the cheefe principles of religion, as abowt Scripturs, Sacraments, Vertues, Synns, &c. Suche are late reformers,Gallus in the sibus ac hypothesibus. as relateth Gallus. Non sunt parua certamina inter nos nec de minutis rebus, sed de sublimibus articulis doctrinae Christiana; they are not slender contentions whiche are among vs, nor of small maters, but of the principal articles of Christian doctrin. Noe noe, it is not my intention to discourse in this treatise of debats for capp or rotchet, organs or bells, &c. I shew by your owne brethren, your kingdome is diuided, and consequently tending to ruyne.
Fowerthly for the other parte of forgiuens of synns, all protestantcy B is repugnant therto, partly by affirming that fayth only iustifyeth; and consequently being once in the protestant faythe, (whiche say they once inioyed can neuer be lost) they can neuer after be synners:Luth. de seru. arbitr. partly by making God the authour of all euil, and them selues [Page 161] but bare instruments; and consequently not them selues, but God to haue need of the remission of synns: Thirdle, by saying that man hathe not freewill, and consequently can not synn. For euery synn, is voluntary: Lastly,Ioan. 20. by saying that synns can not be forgiuen in the Churche, contrary to Christs expresse doctrin. Yet in their first beleefe, they cleerly graunted, that the minister might absolue the sick from his synn, in this forme: By his authoritie committed to me, The Communion booke in the visitation of the sicke. I absolue thee from all thy synns, in the name of the Father, the Sonn, and the holy Ghost. Amen. But this treatise is dashed and casheered owt of the communion booke. Let it of baptisme stand suer agaynst many puritan assaults: whiche yf it doe, as great power in it is grawnted to man, as by pennance to absolue synns; the one being a washing, of one spotted, the other a loosing of one bownd.
The 11. Article, of S. Iude. The resurrection of the dead.
20.Luth. tem. 7. Witt [...] ber. defen. verb. cana fol 390. First Luther saythe of Caluinists concerning the resurrection of the dead: Certum est eos spectare ad manifestam in hoc articulo apostasiam; it is certayne they tend to a manifest apostasie concerning this article. It is also confirmed by Villagaignon, that in his owne hearing,Villag. epist. ad Geneuēses & in praefat. lib. 1. de Eucharisti [...]. and after notice was signifyed to be taken, yet the Caluinists preached, repeated, and iustifyed, that spes vitae non est corporum sed animarum; the hope of lyfe not to belong to the bodyes, but to the sowls. Caesar. lib. dial. d. 5. Calu. in epist. ad Farellum. fol. 194. Almaricus one of Foxes martyrs, as Cesarius affirmeth, held that ther is noe resurrection of bodyes. Caluins resolution is perspicuouse in thes woords: Quod tibi res incredibilis videtur huius carnis resurrectio; nihil mirum; that the resurrection of this fleashe seeme incredible to thee, it is nothing admirable.Zuingl. tō 2. Elench. cō. Anabaptist. fol. 39. As for the libertyns, they deryde the resurrection openly. The next impugning this article, is to denye mens sowls to be immortal. Wherunto Luther inclined saying; Ex hoc loco patet, Luth. tō. 4. in. Eccles. c. 9. v. 5.10. In cap. 25. Genes. in cap. 49. v. 22. Calu. in prof. Psichrmachiae, & in prof. Gallasij. mortuos sic dormire vt nihil prorsussciant. —Hic alius locus est, quod mortui nihil sentiunt: owt of this place appeareth, the dead feele nothing. To whiche Caluin also anneareth in thes woords: Se scire nonnullos viros bonos quibusista de animarum soneno placuit opinio; that he knew certayn good men to whow this opinion of the sowls sleepe, seemed sownd. Him selfe to haue bene one of those goodmen, appeareth, by his saying the sowls to be but dead shaddowes; (in ps. 130.) them of the wicked to be adnihilated (so that they are not in hell) Instit l. 3. c. 25. n, 12. and the residue to be shaddowes, imaginations, fantasies, idols, dead.
[Page 162]Also from others, (who would not subscrib their names) was A published anno 1568. certain theses, or positions, wherof this was the tenthe: Negamus aliquam animam post mortem manere; we denye any sowle to remayne after death. To be breefe, at Geneua, in a solemne disputation, when they had long consulted how to auoyd purgatorie; they determined; dicamus animam cum corpore extingui, & statim sublatum erit purgatorium; let vs affirme the sowle to be extinguished together with the body, and so purgatorie wilbe spedely abolished. This doctrin of purgatory seemeth to thes reformers so vrgent, that they are perswaded it can not be well denyed, vntill the resurrection of the dead, and immortalitie of the sowle also be denyed. And certainly Vrbanus Regius, (whom most learned Protestants intitule, Ducatus Luneburgensis Euangelestam, & Episcopum primarium; the Euangelist and principal Bishop of the Dutchie of Luneburg) Saythe that,Vrban. Regius prima parte operum: in formula cauta loquendi. fol. 86. nemo pias preces pro defunctis reijcit nisi Epicurei & Saducei; none reiecteth deuowt prayers for the sowles departed (and restrayned in purgatorie) but Epicures, and Saduceit not beleeuing the immortalitie of the sowle. But why is purgatorie so annected to this article, that thes reformers are driuen to this extremitie? because they obserued, that God oft forgiueth offences, yet reserueth a chastisement for satisfaction: as in Adam, in Moises, in Dauid, &c. whose offences being forgiuen yet Adams remayned subiect to death, and all other miseries indured; Moyses neuer entred the land of promise; Dauids Child begotten in synn, must haue dyed. So lykewyse, because God is euer one, and like him selfe, suche as repent late, or slackly, might be forgiuen at their death, yet for satisfaction remayne in purgatory: therfor, the most expedient way seemed to make short woorke, and to denye this article, to be able to deny the other.
The 12. Article of S. Mathias The lyfe euerlasting.
21. Contrary to this article are all those who denye God, who deny heauen, who deny resurrection of the dead, immortalitie of the sowle, our redemption by Christ, &c. of whom sufficiently is spoken in the former articles, to discouer them to be our late reformers; qui in caecitate quam tolerant, quasi in claritate hominus exultant; who in the blindnes and night of darknes wherin they are wrapped, do (as S. Gregorie sayth) vawnt, S. Greg. l. 1. mor. cap. 26. and glorifie, as in the clearnes of light. Wherof, ther neuer was a more perspicuouse demonstration, then [Page 163] in these woords of Beza (whose blasphemies are among the most exorbitant) saying of him selfe: This my exposition, yf a man compare with suche things as not only Origines, but also sondrie other of the anciēt fathers, albeit for godlines and learning most famouse, haue written vpon this place: Beza ad Rom. c. 4. v. 11. he shall dowbtles fynd what great abundant light of trueth, the Lord in this tyme hath powred owt vpon vs. Light in dede of the transforming angel, light of owles, light of pirats to trayne to shipp wrack, light extinguishing all Christianitie and beleefe in the Sonn of God, as amply appeareth.
The conclusion.
22. Haue not I had a flinty, and brasen, harte thinke yow, to goe throwgh this examination, without faynting, or sownding, at euery so detestable blasphemie; in euery article so often reiterated? Certainly I neuer hitherto experienced a greater torment or corrasiue, then to haue so muche indured in this discourse; whiche for the importance cowld not be shorter, and for the heynousnes, seemed most prolix. Twenty times my mynd loathed, my hand trembled, my intentions relented, to proceed in vnfowlding them; and often for many dayes I refrayned the sight and thoughts of them: yet at last, for thy benefit Christian, I haue powred, and shutt them away to thy consideration, rather then by due amplifications and aggrauations (or the heft and hate they imported) deliuered them;Euseb. l. 7. c. 6. citat. Dion. 3. c [...]. de baptismate, ad Philem. Presb. Romanum. Let it be licenced to applye to me in this case, what Eusebius related of S. Dionysius, of Alexandria, that diuers did admonish him how by reading heretical bookes, his mynde would be greatly tormented, and also probablie defyled; and that he did acknowledge him self, they wrought no lesse in him: yet, for a voice incouradging him forward, and saying; haec causa erat cur abinitio ad fidem Christi vocatus fueris; this was the cause, why from the begining thow wast called to the fayth of Christ; he willingly yelded to the paines incident to such studie. Such, in veritie, was my often adminition, and cheefe impulsion. It is to Iesus Christ the Sonn of God, that I offre and present the tyme imployed in this replication: whos image I acknowledg, and honor, in the sowls bowght by his sacred blood, by heresies beguiled. For to tell the trueth, it is not the scope of my trauailes to awnswer my aduersarie, who hath no other wysedome then of the spirit of contradiction, and no other regard then to delud by most disdainfull imposturs, the simple Christians vnderstanding (according as is [Page 164] after sayd, in the numbers 116. 119. &c.) and to wynn tyme of falling into discredit and infamie.S. August. l. 6. de tiu. To whom seemeth spoken what S. Augustin sayth; Ea putatur gloria vanitatis, nullis cedere viribus veritatis, it is the glorie of vanitie not to yeeld to any power of veritie. So that, I accompt Quintinians graue sentence pertinently belonging to me against him: persequi quos quisque vnquam contemptissimorum hominum dixerit, aut nimiae miseriae, aut inanis iactantiae est, & detinet atque obruit ingenia melius alijs vacatura; to examin all that euery most contemptible fellow sayth, Quintil. l. 1. c. 13. were (quoth Quintilian) a great miserie, and needles search of glorie, which wowld hinder, and cloye vnderstandings, that might be better imployed. Truely few cowld be better imployed, then I: few lesse desyrous to be fruictlesly imployed then I.
What parte or parcell of beleefe to repeat in grosse, sleightly, & A abruptly of diuyne, or humain, of owld, or new testament, of faythe,Sanderus l. 1 de schis. Anglicano. Caluino Turcis. l. 3. p. 480. hope, or charitie, but is distrusted, abiured, blasphemed, by these Reformers, & that by their principal pillers? Many autheurs recompt of a consultation in Irland, when S. Thomas of Canterburie was by sentence of K. Henry the eight degraded,The owld Iustice Plunkett of Donsoghlye, was present at this consultation. and forbidd to be honoured as a Sainct; how the inhabitants, (neere a chappell, which had bene formerly dedicated to the sayd S. Thomas) being at the kings appointment, to elect another Patron; when one coueted to choose S. Peter, another S. Paul, &c. At leingth, by aduise of one of best iudgement, they elected the B. Trinitie for theire Patron; saying: Yf the king for other respects, wowld also degrade, or depose S. Peter, and Paul, yet yf any would maintayne their state against him, none cowld more forcibly, then the B. Trinitie.
In the 9. number of this examination.But alas! how in this examination, in diuers articles, is the B very sayd diuine Trinitie, deryded, blasphemed, and detested? In Christ Iesus, is not his birthe, and sacred Mother, his merits, his wysdome, his dutie to his Father, his whole passion, his promises, his miracles,In the first 24. nūbre in the 8 9. 10 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16 17 18 of this [...]amination. Of the holy ghost exam. n. 18. his resurrection, ascension, his diuinitie, his sowle his body, his lyfe, his deathe, no lesse then apparently contemned, and altogether drawen into distrust? Of the holy Ghost, for his deuinitie, eternitie, coequalitie, of his operation in inspyring the holy Apostles, in conseruing and preseruing the Churche, in sanctification by Sacraments; of his being good, and not the autheur of euil;In the 16. and 20. numb. of this examination. of his authoritie beyond the written woord, and the lyke: how cowld he more abhominably be misbeleeued, then by thes Mates? Of heauen, and hell, of the sowls immortalitie, of any trueth hitherto in Christian beleefe, what more disdaynfull [Page 165] dowbts, exceptions, or falsifications, then are produced by their palpable speeches, cowld euen by sathan him selfe be vomited? And (whiche is worthye of principal deploration) they who haue thus transformed God into a deuil, making him authoure of all euil; they who haue defyed, and denied Christs dignitie, lyfe, death, and all his merits; they who haue thus impugned the holy Ghost; they who from one God, and three persons, haue to their power, wreasted all omnipotencie, wysdome, and veritie;Exam. numb. 10. Vide in principio an. 21. seq. Exa. 18. & 19 numb. Exam. numb. 1. 4. 7. 18. and befor n. 38. they who haue misdoubted Churche, ane Saincts, heauen, and earthe, lyfe of bodyes and sowls, these men, I say, confessing their perswasions receaued by dreams, and deuils; professing the infidelitie, and impyetie, insueing therby; acknowledging their shame, and repentance, of their owne doctrin; lyuing, and dying, detestably, by their owne open declarations; yet, that they haue had, and as yet haue, so many, so otherwyse, plausible in their natural dispositions, so desperatly and lamentably remayning in the pernitiouse courses by such begun. For my part,Calu. in 1. Cor. cap. 4. v. 19. I committ their amendment to Gods great mercie, perclosing this examination to Caluin, and all late reformers, in Caluins owne woords. Your gospell of whiche yow vawnt so excessiuely, wher consisteth it, for the most parte, but in the tong? Calu. in c. 14. Ioan. VVher is the renouation of lyfe? wher is effectual spiritualitie? Experience doth teache, that yow are altogether departed from God, infected, and repleanished with his hate: and that yow obscure the light by your peruers inuentions, Calu. in cap. 21. Ioan. whiche yow haue forged in your owne propre fantasies.
23.Our first 71. numb. What articles of the Creed my Aduersarye affirmed were ouer-throwen by our opinion, are n. 71. testifyed rather to be muche confirmed therby. And yf we were not assured therof, we wowld perhapps haue excepted against, or suppressed the symbole of the Apostles as Sectaries haue done, ether generaly by disalowing all vnwritten traditions, suche as is the creed, or paricularly, by disproueing many articles therof, according their example, of Christs discension into hell, of the Catholick Churche, of the communion of Saincts, forgiuing of Synns, &c, but our auerring the whole creed, and their excepting against it, doth shew vs, and not them, to be of consenting faythe with the autheurs of this beleefe.
72. See now the fruits of your fained transubstansiation, not full foure hundred yeares olde, and yet forsooth you teach it is Apostoliall and Catholike, whereas it lackes one thousand and two hundred yeares of that age.
But he that list to see the shifts and wranglings of your Schoolmen to vpholdLib. 4. sent. fol. 257. [Page 166] this rotten Romish heresie,Innocētius 3. de sacro Altaris mysterio lib. cap. 20. per totum. Distinct. de cōsecr. distinct. 2. canon. 1. pag. 429. let him read Guillermus & Innocentius the third, a Pope, parent, and patrone of this fable, the first Canon of the second distinction, where you shall finde in the Glosse there, variae sunt opiniones.
VVhether Transubstantiation be but 400. yeares owld.
Fitzsimon. The 75. vntruth S. Anselm. in ep. de Corpore Domini.73. THe numbring vp of the 75. grosse vntrueth, at our first recowntre, S. Anselme, & he a Sainct, an Archbishop, and an English man, against his contry man, challengeth to him selfe, saying: Panis substantiam post Dominici corporis consecrationem in altari superesse semper abhorruit pietas Christiana, nuperue damnauit in Berengario Turonensi eiusue sequacibus: The substance of bread to remayne on the altar after the consecration of our Lords body, Christian pietie hathe euer abhorred, and lately condemned in Berengarius of Tours, and his followers. Here is transubstantion, and no bread remayning, aboue fiue hondred yeares acknowledged. Here is assured that Christian pietie not only then, but before, and euer, did abhorr to beleeue the contrary. Here is certifyed, that Berengarius and his Complices, for otherwyse surmising, were condemned the yeare 1070. after Christ. Therfor it must, by thes woords, be vnchristian impietie ether to howld your opinion, or to affirme Innocent the third (liuing aboue a 150. yeares after) to haue bene first autheure of our opoinion.A
Lanfranc. con. Berengar. de Sacramento Corporis & Sanguinis Domini.O how much might I alleadge owt of holy Lanfrancus another Archbishop of Canterburie, and one of the first and cheefest writers against Berengarius, yf I affected prolixitie, and declined not tediousnes. One only sentence of his I will ingrosse, in liew of all others. Reliquum est, fidem sanctae Ecclesiae compendiose exponamus. Credimus terrenas substantias quae in mensa Dominica per sacerdotale ministerium diuinitus sanctificantur, ineffabiliter, incomprehensibiliter, mirabiliter operante superna potentia, cōuertiin essentiam corporis Dominici reseruatis impariū rerum speciebus, & quibusdam alijs qualitatibus: ne percipientes cruda, & cruenta horrerent: Et vt credentes fidei preimia ampliora perciperent. Hanc fidem tenuit à priscis temporibus, & nunc tenet ecclesia, quae totum disusaper orbem Catholica nominatur. It resteth that we expound in briefe the faith of holy Church VVe beleeue the earthly substances, which in our Lordes table by the Priests ministerie are diuinly sanctified, vnspeakablie, incomprehensibily, heauenly power wonderfully working, to be changed into the substance of our Lordes body, the species of vnlike thinges preserued and some other qualities: lest the receiuers should abhorre rawe and bloodie thinges; and that beleeuing they should receiue greater rewards of their faith. This faithe Church, which dispersed [Page 167] through out the world, is called Catholike, helde from oulde time, & now holdeth. Yow behowld him of sett purpose to deliuer the ancient fayth: to affirme the change into the essence of Christs bodie: the accidents to remayne: the causes of not seeming what is contayned, playnly expressed: the same to haue euer befor, and then, bene the beleefe of the Catholik Church, as is now by vs beleeued. What thinke yow, two such holy archbishops of Canterburie, are they not more worthy of credit, then M. Rider? Alas! it is a shamefull demaund to be had in controuersie: since therfor he is not worthy, to be their chaplins equal, wil he not blush, yf his forhead be not of brasse, to tell hencfoorth, our doctrin not to haue bene euer the same in the Catholick Church?
73. That in the Popes Court and in his Consistorie,Rider. there bee diuers opinions touching transubstansiation, yet the deniall of it, or the contradicting of the Popes opinion, wasDeniall of Transubstantiation. in Rome was no death. no death, though in those mercilesse daies of Spanish Philip, and Romish Marie, it was made the thirteenth Article of our faith, and it had been lesse daunger to haue denied those twelue old articles of our old faith, then this one of your new faith: for the one was dispensed with for monie, but the deniall of the other was punished with death without mercie. But you will replie and say, not withstanding the dissentions aforesaid, yet Christs words be true, he cannot lie, he hath said, hoc est corpus meum, this is my bodie, therefor it is his bodie.
73. I report me to all considerations,Fitzsimon. whether they euer obserued a style lesse steeled, as I sayd befor, or more friuolouse. What might I imagin to awnswer to suche pregnant vntruethes? In the Popes court and consistorie in this point, ther is dissention of opinions: Vnder spanish Philipp and Romish Marie, transubstantiatoin was made a thirteenth article of beleefe (he immediatly telling it was made vnder Innocent the third, who liued 300. yeares befor Philipp & Marie). Then dispensation to haue bene grawnted for mony concerning all other articles of beleefe &c. The least that I can do, is to score vp, of so many, the 76. vntrueth.The 76. vntruth.
74. We confesse these words to be Christs words, and therefore true,Rider. but the litterall sence is yours, and therfore false. But, that I, will not bee tedious vnto you, I could shew you as manie seuerall opinions dissenting about the meaning of hoc: est: and corpus, as I haue done in the premisses: but that the Catholickes shall know there is no such vnitie not veritie in your doctrine, as you confidentlie (but vntrulie) haue taught them; therefore I will giue them but a taste till some other time, onelie pointing you and them to their Authors and places, and then read aduisedlie, and iudge without partiall affection.
This Frier you heard latelie recited your seuerall jarres touching consecration:Iosephus Angles do Essentialibus Euch. pag. 114. 115. 116. now heare him with your patience to deliuer his & other seuerall opinions touching [Page 166] [...] [Page 167] [...] [Page 168] the exposition of these three words seuerallie, hoc, est, corpus.
The first opinion is, that this demonstratiue pronoune hoc, must bee referred not to the bread,1. Iosephus but to the bodie of Christ, that this should be the sence, hoc est, &c. id est corpus: est corpus meum. That is, this my bodie, is my bodie: but how absurd this is let the young Sophisters in the schooles giue their censures.
2. Bonauentura. 3. Occham in lib. 4. 1. S. Thom. 2. Ricar. 3. Scotus. Nec panem nec corpus sub ratione corporis, sed corpus Christi sub ratione entis vel Indiuidui, &c. lib. 4. pag. 182 de sacro Altaris mysterio, cap. 17.But the second opinion is of Bonauentura, who saith, this pronoune, hoc, must be referred to the bread that must be conuerted into Christs bodie, but not to Christs bodie.
The third opinion is Occhams, and he is of opinion with the first.
There followeth three other learned mens opinions contrarie to all the former, and say flatlie that this demonstratiue hoc, must not be referred to note either the bread or the bodie of Christ, but that this might be the sence, hoc ens vel hac substantia, quae continetur sub speciebus, &c. This thing or this substance which is contained vnder the accidents of bread, is my bodie: but how well these opinions with their straunge Logicall manner of reasoning will content the learned Priests & Iesuits, I would faine knowe? for this I am sure, they sound not either of diuinitie or learning. But this Frier for a farewell concludes, pag. 118. pronomen hoc, nihil. This pronoune hoc signifieth nothing, till the last sillable vm, be pronounced.
Hoc, nihil demōstrat. In the same pag.Pope Innocentius the third saith, that hoc signifieth neither bread, nor Christs bodie, because the whole words of consecration were not spoken: vnlesse saith he, you will say the Priest consecrates at this word Benedixit, he blessed. But the Pope saith, hoc signifieth nothing, and his reason is, that the Priest sheweth or noteth nothing, because he vseth hoc est, &c. not by way of demonstration, but by way of cursorie repetion:Marke this you Iesuits and priests. so then, this Pope will haue this sence, hoc est corpus meum, that is, nothing is my bodie. But in the three of the last lines of that chapter, his wisedome changed his minde and said, this is my bodie, that is, what soeuer is vnder the formes of bread is my bodie. Is not this thinke you deepe diuinitie for a Pope? You may see hereein how the Pope vseth shamefull shifts to couer his sensible errors, and to deceiue Christs littell flocke.
In his Marc. Anton. Con. Stephen Gardner liuing but latelie, seeing euery mans opinion expounding what hoc should be, hee disliketh them all, and faith, it signifieth indiuiduum vagum, as if Christ had said, This (but what it is I cannot tell, but it must of necessitie be some what) is my bodie.
De consec. dist. 2. can. Timorem. Glossa ibidem.But I will conclude with your owne Popes Canon and Glosse, which you hold for Canonicall, though in deed hereticall, solet quaeri quid demonstratur per pronomen hoc. It is a common question what is meant by this pronoune this, whether bread, or the bodie of Christ? not bread, for that is not the bodie of Christ, nor yet the bodie of Christ, for it appereath not that there is anie transubstansiation, till the words bee all pronounced, yea the last fillable vm. To this question this must be aunswered: That by the word this, nothing is meant, but it is there put materially without anie signification at all. See now whither you are brought, or rather whither haue you brought Gods people, from trueth to false hood: if hoc signifieth nothing, where then is your transubstantiation. For if in that word which should first worke in the change, there bee no mention of bread, how can that which is no way comprised in them, be changed by them, and so you speake against your selues. Againe, as you are rent in sundrie opinions touching hoc, so also are you touching est: for when you saw that est would not serue in his proper Euangelicall and Apostolicall signification, then you gaue him a new exposition. For Bonauenture seeing that est (as [Page 169] Christ and Paul meant it) would not fit their purpose,VVhat est signifieth, there is great variā ce amōgst the Romish Prelats. Est i. Fit, Est, est verbum anuntiatiuum non constitutium. Est i. erit Iosephus Angles in loco praedicto pag. 115. then hee of purpose expounded it by Fit, vt sit sensus panis fit corpus meum, that it might be thus in sence. The bread is made my bodie. Yet Occham hee likes not Bonauentures Fit, because hee thinkes it is too grosse and too false: and therefore he will expound est by erit, that it may carrie with it this sence: this shall be my bodie, but (saith he) it is a verie rash and brainsicke opinion, and alleadgeth as brainsicke a reason, as there you may see.
Yet Caietanus the Cardinall de Eucharistia cap. 7. pag. 104. col. 2. C. D. denieth est to haue anie such signification, vnlesse it be in metaphors and parables. But least that I shuld be too offensiue vnto you, I could deliuer so many seueral opinions of yours, touching the praedicat corpus: one saith it must bee meant of Christes bodie glorified, no saith another, that is false: but it must be vnderstood of his bodie, as it was before his passion. And a third opinion obiects certaine doubts against both the former.
Magister Sententiarum lib. 4. dinstinct. 12. page. 60. deliuers foure seuerall opinions, de fractione & partibus.
Now Gentlemen, I appeale to your consciences (if they be not cauteriated) whether you haue dealt well with the ignorant Catholickes of this land, in perswading them that in all your doctrine there is consent without jarres, antiquitie without innouation, and vniuersalitie without limittation, whereas there is nothing but jarres, discords and dissentions, in your consecration, in your transubstantiation, and in euery word almost, nay perticle, as hoc, and est, be so wrested by your construction, that you haue brought both their proper significations to plaine destruction.
Is this exposition Catholicke? what auncient father euer expounded it so? let the Catholickes know, or else they with vs, will iudge, neither you nor your doctrine Catholicke. Will you follow a foolish Frier, an ignorant Abbot, a late vpstart Pope or Priest that writ (and wrested) within these foure hundred yeares, and forsake Scriptures and the auncient Doctours of the Church? Now let the indifferent minded Catholikes be iudges whether you or wee haue antiquitie consent and veritie on our sides. And who differs from Scriptures, and fathers: from, and amongst themselues, not onelie in one point of religion, but almost in euerie point & particle of doctrine Thus much concerning your discords amongst your selues, & all against the auncien [...] Apostolicall and Catholick truth.
74. Spectatum admissi risum teneatis, amici? Fitzsimon. being admitted to behowld this courser, I would say discourser, can yow good frends refrayne from smyling? He telleth yow the third opinion is all one with the first; and yet that it is the third, and not all one, but a seueral opinion. This must needs make vp the 77. vntrueth.The 77. vntruth. Next that the fowerth, fift, and sixt opinions, are all contrary to the former; and yet that being different,The 78. vntruth. they are not different among thēselues but that they all agree. This is the 78. Then he maketh a ragged argument, yf nothing be conuerted by the first worde, all our dealing is vndone. Alas, yf he would be capable, he might thinke, that this conuersion is done by Gods infinit vertue in an instant, not by parts seueraly according to the woords Hoc est corpus meum, as yf to euery woord a sondry part were correspondent; but that to all the forme [Page 170] conioyntly all the conuersion is to be referred, so that ther be conceaued a diuers substance present, whiche was not befor; not euery woord but the whole forme being pronownced. Is not this a frantick kynde of cofuting, to say only: this is sayd. I am suer it is false: how absurd this is let young sophisters iudge: I am suer they sound not of Diuinitie or learning: is not this deepe diuinitie for a pope? and no suche matter sayd, but forged by him selfe; his assurance childishe; the absurditie only in his conceits; the diuinitie and learning impugned so inexpugnable, as nether in his brayne is ther any reason, and by his mowth but Riderian blasts, to contradict it.
Therfor to bring disputations of Doctors, therby to testifie a disagreement betwixt them in their beleefe of the substance of transubstantiation, they being only of the tyme therof, is as wysely done (especialy by one more frequent and seasoned with experience in law cowrts, then learned colledges) as yf he wowld assure that laweyers disagree in allowing the law, because they plead seueraly for their Clyents, of the construction, or tyme of constitution, or number of sillables of the law: Or yf he wowld say, that philosophers doubt whether ther be wynde, rayne, & riuers, because they diuersly imagin how, when and whence they haue their original. Remembre what was informed in the 65. numbre, that it is impossible we can haue any dissentiōs among vs, according to the saying of the Apostle: Si quis autem videtur contentiosus esse, 1. Cor. 11.16. nos talem consuetudinem non habemus, neque Ecclesia Dei: Yf any seeme contentiouse, we haue noe suche custome, nor the Churche of God. Because a Christian wryter among vs, must follow, as Waldensis saythe,Tho. Wald. l. 2. doctrinalis fidei cap. 21.23. the iudgement of the Churche; vnder the payne of misbeleefe, yf it be a point of faythe; or vnder the payne of contumacie, yf it be not. And all Catholick students among vs doe read the disputations of Doctors vndecided by the Churche, cum iudicandi libertate, with libertie to censure: (according to S. Augustins woords,S. Augustin. cō. Faustum lib. 11. c. 5. Et epist. 48. ad Vincent. and his instructiō toward himselfe, and all others) imbraceing whatsoeuer they fynde true, and imputing it to the Catholick Churche; and reiecting what they fynde false, imputing it to deceaueable man.
This is a priuilege of Catholicks, to be free from dissentions, and neuer but to concurr in one Faythe.Luther. Zuinglius. Cal. n. 19. examinis. Not so the wicked, not soe: as appeareth in the 19. number of the precedent examination. They haue their faythe so inspyred, as they will iudge therby all angels and men, and be iudged by none. And euery one of them is in the right, althowgh by their owne confessions they be all fownd, in Fide sua miserabiliter rotari; & sine fine modo (que) variare confessiones suas; in their [Page 171] faythe most miserably to be rowled, Colloq. Altemburg fol. 462. Centuriatores Centur. 9. in prefatione. and without end or measur to varie their professions. Iam veram doctrinam probantes, mox eandem damnantes; iam appellantes heresim, quod antea pro veritate inuicta praedicabant; now approuing for sownd doctrin, and suddenly condemning the same; now calling it heresie, whiche befor was preached for inuincible trueth. Nether is there any so meanely a conceited artificer, that dyneth or suppeth withowt discoursing on this discord of the holy Reformed crue. Let therfor our disputations alone, and salue your owne vnreconciliable vprors, whiche hitherto all your Cowncils or Synods, as is shewed in the 19. numb. cowld not so muche as mitigat. Take owt this beame owt of your owne eye leauing to accuse vs; among whom discords are as impossible as concords among yow. And it being irrefragably discouered in all other points, of the mater in hand, take now this decretal demonstration therof, and ineuitable assurance to Protestants, whiche your Father of trueth, your Elias, and (besyd what is sayd in the 17.Fox Acts and Mon. pag. 404. edit. an. 1563. Luther. in Confess. breui. to, 2. Germ. fol. 357. number) alter Phaebus clarissimè fulgens, your second Sonn, most brightly shyning, deliuereth, saying. Carolostad wresteth miserably the pronowne [this]. Zuinglius maketh leane the verbe [is] Oecolampad tormenteth this woord [body] others do butcher the whole text, and some do crucifie but halfe therof, &c. So manifestly doth the deuil howld yow by the noses.
C Let me therfor replye in M. Riders woords against him selfe.Orthodox confess. Tygur fol. 105. 106. 107. VVill yow follow a foolishe Fryer, ane ignorant Abbot, a late vpstart Pope (of Saxonie; as the Tygurins intuled Luther) or Preist (as Zuinglius, Carolostad, Oecolampad. &c.) that writ (and wreasted) within thes sower hondred (nay one hondred) yeares: and forsake Scripturs, and the ancient Doctors of the Churche? Now let the indifferent mynded Catholicks be iudges (yea and Protestants also) whether yow or we haue antiquitie, consent, and veritie on our syds. And who differr from Scripturs and Fathers: from, and among them selues, not only in one point of religion, but also in euery point and particle of Doctrin. Behowld, how good frends, M. Rider and I are become; bothe agreeing vpon one tale, & meeting in the same forme of woords. Whiche speach of his, I accompt so fauorable on my syde, as for it, I will omitt to calculat any vntrueth in all this discourse, how many soeuer (whiche suer are aboue 20.) haue bene offoorded, least I showld seeme offended with any parcell of the residue, wherwith so true, so vndowbted, and sincer declaration is annected, for all men to know the protestants to follow Luther, a foolish Fryer, (and as M. Rider sayth an heretical Moncke) who vsurped the power of Pope, and liued within one hondred yeares; forsaking for his sake Scripture, and Fathers, and cleauing to a ragged rablement of dissentious teachers?
[Page 172]Is not this to condemne to hell it selfe his owne doctrin so assuredly knowen and confessed to be from Luther a Frier, from ignorant and Apostat priests, who writt within a hondred yeares, and is so pugnant, and repugnant, so madd, and mutable, that by them selues it is not denyed, saying: Non sunt vtique parua certamina inter nos, neque minutis rebus, sed de sublimibus articulis christianae doctrinae; de lege & euangelio de iustificatione & bonis operibus, de Sacramentis & ceremoniarum vs [...]; quae nullo pacto componi, vel reticeri aut dissimulari possunt. Sunt enim merae contradictiones quae concordiam non ferunt. Nicolaus Gallus sup [...] intendens Ratisbonae in thesibus ac hypothesibus. Certainly they are not small cōtentions that are amōg vs, nor of trifles, but of the highest articles of christian religion, of the law & gospell, of iustification & good woorks, of Sacraments & vse of ceremonies: which by no means can be appeased, hidden or dissembled. For they are playne contradictions whiche may not be accorded. Is not this by open and playne confession, without racking, or torturing, to haue theeues fall owt, and true men to come by their goods? to haue falshood vnhooded, and trueth reuealed? to haue disagreement conuicted; and the kingdome therby knowen Sathanical?
75. Now to conclude this matter, I will shew plainlie by scriptures, that hoc est corpus meum can haue no such sence as you teach,Rider. Hoc est corpus meum expounded by scripture. which is: that bread is not by this or anie other words transubstantiated or chaunged into Christs bodie and bloud, but that bread remaineth after sanctification, or (as you say) consecration, and that the scriptures speaking of Christs bodie and of the bread, speake distinctlie, not confusedlie, that is, they doe diuide them, not confound them giuing to either of them their seuerall nature and propertie, yea after consecration. And whereas we haue now heard too much of the jarres of your late Popes and writers voide of vnitie and veritie: Now let vs heare the holie scriptures expound hoc est corpus meum, plainlie and truelie by the Euangelists and Paul, who knew best Christs meaning, vpon whose exposition all Christians may and must onelie rest satisfied in spite of Pope and poperie.
75. The first promise here made, is, that he will shew playnly by Scripturs that bread is not transubstantiated,Fitzsimon. but that after consecration it retayneth still his nature. The second promise is, that he will bring suche exposition, from the euangelists, and Paul, that in spyte of Pope, and poperie, we may, and must rest satisfyed therby.
Rider. Dedit. Math. 26.26. Datur Luc. 22.19. Fregit Luc. 21.19. Frāgitur. 1. Cor. 11.24 Eis Marke. 14.22.76. ANd first we will prooue it from the difference of the signe and the thing signified, The scriptures whē they speak of bread they speak actiuely, He gaue.
76. Here is a discourse pertaining to the single Accidence in Grammar, not contayning any witt, or woorth, not so much as to suche as would know what is a verb actiue, and what passiue, in the woords of Christ. Now for our Lords sake, let vs examin it. The scripturs, saith he, speake actiuely of bread. Yea Sir! it, that is taken, broaken, and according your wysdom, eaten, by record of scripture; is it actiue or passiue? Since therfore it is too to euident to be rather passiue, as it concerneth bread; it maketh the 79. vntrueth. Secondly, saith he,The 79. vntruth. the woords [is giuen] belong not to bread but to Christs body. By which is implyed, that what Christ gaue, it was not giuen; & what was giuen by him, he did not giue. Yf it was bread whiche he gaue, and not bread which was giuen. Yf our late Queene industrious in giuing names, tearmed a daunce, abruptly iumping from point to point, by the name of a Frogg-galliard: how would she haue named this treatise reboūding vnreasonably frō point to point? whē Christ said he did giue what was to be giuen, he is interpreted to giue that which was not to be giuen. This is the 80. vntrueth,The 80. vntruth. Schlusselburb. l. 2. art. 13. Tigurini in praef. Apologetica Orthodoxi consensus. Iezlerus de diuturnitate belli Euchar. pag. 77. deseruing to be called a blasphemie, by which Christ is made vntrue. Wherfor worthely do the Lutherans exclaime against yow saying: quaenam quaeso, per Deum immortalem, potest iniriconcordia cum Caluinistis qui ipsum filium Dei mendacij arguunt? &c. VVhat concord, I pray yow, in Gods name may be taken with Caluinists giueing the lye to the Sonn of god?
But let vs discusse the rest. Fregit, he interpreteth [he brake it]. I grawnt such interpretation to be true in sence, althowgh the woord Fregit, precisely signifieth he brake, withowt the sillable, it.In the 51. number. But when I had vsed the same interpretation, in the 51. number, he thus reprehendeth: this sillable [it] altereth the sence and peruerteth Christs meaning, and is added by yow to maintayne that which the texte otherwyse cowld not haue any shew to beare. Tell me, gentle Readers, whether this writer be not extraordinarie, who is made euery foote to disproue him selfe? & shewed to offend in that whiche he wowld seeme most ernestly to amend? Further the Scripturs when they speake of Christs bodye, sayth he, they speake passiuely. Frangitur which is broken. You haue seely sir, broken your cause, by your good glosing. For by [Page 174] saying Christs body was broken, you say truely, but so, as it must be vnderstood only in the forme of bread. For Christs body was not els wher, or other wyse broken, but pearced. And it was fortowld by the prophet they should not breake his body,S. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. hom. 24. nor no one bone of him on the Crosse. Wherevpon sayth S. Chrysostom: Christum in Sacramento pati fractione quam in Cruce pati noluit; Christ in the Sacrament to indure breaking, which he would not indure on the Crosse.
So also is the same assured by [Frangitur, is broken] in the present B tence, declaring in the oblation at supper tyme, his true body to haue bene then presently broken or giuen to the disciples, and not to haue specifyed it, as in his passion it was to be giuen in a cruental maner, or otherwyse it had not bene sayd in the present tence, and that of the greeke text, [...], Frangitur is broken. So also yf it had not bene the same body which then was giuen, in an vnbloody maner, with it which was to be giuen the next day in a cruental or bloody maner, by other euangelists it had not bene interpreted, or sayd, [tradetur, shalbe deliuered] in the future tence, so that vnfortunatly is this actiue and passiue glosse produced by M. Rider against him selfe, clayming to haue him (by all Protestants carefull of their honour) sued to be a Deponent. For by saying Christs body was broken in the present tence; it can no otherwyse be vnderstood by all the wreasting of mans witt, then by the being truely therof vnder the forme of bread: considering as it was on the Crosse, it nether was broken, and that being at that tyme it was spoken, to come, it could not be specifyed in the present tence. Also, as I sayd, other euangelists mentioning the same body in the future tence, [tradetur, shalbe deliuered] they ascertayne vs, what Christ gaue, and brake, the same was deliuered; and consequently no figure only, or only appellation but his true, real, substantial, corporal bodye, Yet let vs examin further.
Eis, he interpreteth, to you. A half penny scholer would neuer haue C so construed, but say, [Eis] to signifye, [to them]: & so also it is construed by him selfe in few woords after. Other riff raff in all cōfused maner is intermedled & iuggled together; to insinuat that Christ gaue not that which he gaue, but something els, & that in his woords he played at pass-pass, howlding bread, breaking bread, blessing bread, giuing bread, and all as Oecolampadius saythe, to no other purpose, then to tell them, Vide Zuingl. to. 2. in ep. ad Math. Rutlin. de cana fol. 155. that to be his body which was sitting at the table, which should be giuen the next day, as he gaue them bread How much is the patience of Readers and Writers, abused by such futilitie.
[Page 175]77. When they speak of the cup, they speak, In rememberance of me. In meam commemorationem 8. Cor. 11.14. In remissionem peccatorū. Mat. 26.28.
But when they speake of Christs naturall bloud, they speake, For the remission of sinns.
So when Christ speaketh actiuelie, as, he gaue, hee brake, it is alwaies spoken of the sacrament. But when he speaketh passiuelie, which is giuen, which is broken, which is shed, and for you, not to you, then he speakes of his naturall bodie giuen and broken on the crosse. And this rule is à plaine and sure rule to direct vs in and to the true vnderstanding of hoc est corpus meum, this is my bodie, In which plaine pathes of the holie Scriptures, if you would walke, you might be preserued from wandring.
77. VVhen the Scripturs speake of the Cupp, saith he, they speake in remembrance of me. Not only of the cupp, good M. Rider, but also of the bread. For so telleth S. Paul, yf you wil allow him,S. Luke. c. 22. v. 19. in the next verse befor. And S. Luke conioyned suche clause for remembrance, to the bread only, omitting to conioyne it to the chalice. Thes good compagnions accept willingly all remembrāce of their lyquour, and cupp;Clebitius in victoria veritatis &c. parte 4. argum. 5. and some tymes in the Church they stryue abowt it. Clebitius, one of the principal of them selues, shalbe my witnes, thus expostulating with Heshusius: VVhen as in the congregation, I would not willingly permitt to thee the administration of the Cupp, didst not thow command thy collegue (or compartner) that in the face of the congregation he showld take the cupp from me by force? And for that cause, did not I howld it fast, and with bothe my hands? I know that others will lawgh at this disordre: but I had rather haue them lament, that in all this dissolut, or disioynted glosse, M. Rider, the woords of Christs institution, (Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur, &c. this is my body which shalbe deliuered for you, &c.) can not be perceaued; but in lieu therof, our Lord and Saluiour is made to tripp from mater to mater, without any one sillable to our purpose in question. Wher is here shewed, that bread after consecration, remayneth still bread? Wher is the satisfaction by the Euangelists, and S. Paul, that we must relye vnto, in spyte of Pope, and poperie? What marrow or substance is in thes woords for any other, then for a single Sintaxian, to know, that dedit, and Fregit, be actiue verbs, and Datur, and Frangitur be passiue? &c.
D For breuities sake, I will not repeat the dismal hate of thes reformers against the woords of Christs institution, which I haue alredy amply prosecuted in the 68. numbre: yet will I not omitt Luthers verdict against his brethren, saying; they feare, Luther. tom. 7. defen. verb. caena. fol. 383. least they should stumble and breake their necks at euery sillable which Christ pronownced. And this maketh them range abowt, through all the parts of learning, and not to come to any issue in the mayne point of his sacred institution; [Page 176] truely fullfilling the saying of the royal Prophet;Psal. 11. impij in circuitu ambulant; the wicked wander in a circuit; and lyke serpents troden on the heads, or henns whose neckes are newly crackt, they wreath, and wrest, vp and downe, in manifould skippings, spending & wasting their small tyme to liue, which by being quiet might some what longer continue.
Rider.78. Thus you see how distinctlie Christ disioynes them, sundring them with their seuerall properties,Bread and wine remain after consecration by Christ his testimony, therefore transubstansiation is a forged and false fable, inuēted by new Rome to support your new heresies of Christs carnall presence. the signe from the thing signified, not confounding them as you vntrulie teach, yea & after that Christ vttered hoc est corpus meum, which you call your consecration. Now let vs compare the phrase and words that the holie Ghost vseth in both the new Testament & the old, and then you will say they are so like, that they are rather borrowed of the old testament, then instituted in the new, and of necessitie seeing they are both Sacraments, & of like words, & ordained by one Author, & to one end, they must needs haue one sence, so that the one will best expound the other, & the one being Sacramentall and relatiue, the other cannot be Grammaticall and proper. As it is said in the oldGen. 17.10. Testament of the sacrament of circumcition, hoc est pactum meū, this is my couenant. So it is said in the newMath. 26.26. Testament by the same spirit, hoc est corpus meum, this is my bodie, but as by those words like to these in sillables, sound, and sence, there was no transubstansiation of the peece of flesh of the foreskin that was cut off, into Gods couenant made with his Church, so there is no naturall nor miraculous chaunge made of anie part of the bread or wine into Christs bodie and bloud.
Exod. 12. 1. Cor. 11.24. Exod. 24 8.And as it was said of the Paschall Lambe, hoc erit vobis in memoriam, this shall be to you a rememberance, so it is said of the Lords Supper, Doe this in rememberance of me
And as it was said in the olde Testament, hic est sanguis faederis, This is the bloud of the couenant, yet was not the couenant but à signe of the couenant.
Luc. 22.20.So is it said by Christ himselfe, This cup is the new Testament in my bloud, yet the cup was neither the Testament, nor the bloud, but a signe, representation, and rememberance of Christs bloud.
And the new Testament is an obligation or bond wherein God for his part binds himselfe with most sure couenaunts: and seales it with word, oath and Sacraments, that hee will receiue into his protection and fauor the beleeuer and penitent. And the beleeuer & repentant of their parts, binde themselues by like indented couenants, to performe vnto his sacred Maiestie,Rom. 1.5. a liuelie & steadfaste faith with holy obedience.
Now the cup or the wine in the cup, is a representation or commemoration vnto vs of this couenant of grace made in the newe Testament, as the Paschall Lambe and the bloud of beasts were signes of Gods couenaunt in the old Testament. This may suffice for the plaine and true vnderstanding of these words, this is my bodie, and this is my bloud, beeing expounded according to the holie scriptures. Now to your first proofe out of saint Paul.
Fitzsimon.78. It is an easie mater vpon all the premisses to tell vs, You see, you see; when nothing is giuen to be seene but gross impietie, & futilitie. I admonished you (deere Readers) that Reformers conceaued a Vatinian hatred, against Christs institution. Wil you now behowld a [Page 177] liuely demonstration therof? First, he saythe, that the phrase, and woords, vsed therin, is no new institution, but borrowed owt of the owld testament. Secondly, that the Sacraments of the owld testament, and new, are so lyke, as they must haue one ende, and sence; and the one not to be literal, more then the other. It is to be remembred which is mentioned in the 36. and 63. numbers, that by Reformers opinion, ther is noe more benifit by Christs Sacrament of the Altar, then by the Iewish ceremonies; which, according to their translation, Sainct Paul saith, to haue bene only bare, Galat. 4.9. and beggerly ordonances. I request all curteouse readers to spare me the payne to relate the substance of such numbers in this place, and that they will not proceed further vntill they haue perused what ther is fownd.
E First then I aunswer, that yf by similitud of speeche vsed in the figure and the thing figured, should be gathered that they bothe were of equal sence, ende, and literalitie, it would followe, that all figurs of Christ in the owld testament, were equal with Christ himselfe: that the owld testament is as behooful as the new;Note. because they haue one authour, one sence, one ende, one phrase, and one literalitie accordinge to M. Rider. Wherefore, since Ioseph in the owld testament was called, Saluator mundi; the Saluioure of the world, Genes. 41.45. Ioan. 4.42. and Christ in the same Phrase by S. Ihon is called Saluator mundi; they must haue on ende, one sence, one literalitie. And therfor, as Ioseph was noe true Saluioure of our sowls, so also was not Christ. And as Saul is called by Dauid, Christus Domini, the anoynted of our Lord, 1. Reg. 24.7. Luc. 2.26. euen as our Saluiour is tearmed by S. Luke; they must haue one ende, one sence, one literalitie; and by M. Riders consequence, th'one be no better, the th'other.
F But you may craue, what meaneth this late coequaling the owld testament, and new? That I may rightly awnswer to this demand, I must first breefly shew, that it is the drift of late reformations, to bring in this equalitie, as appeareth by thes woords of Ochinus: Ochin. lib. 2 dial. 21. Pag. 154 155. 156. 157. 288. 289. Cum sit vna Ecclesia & vna fides, proinde non debemus plura credere, quam crediderunt sancti federis antiqui. —Perfectam quoque & eandem suisse Ecclesiam vt Christi, ita & Moisis &c. wheras ther is but one Church, & one faythe, therfor we owght not to beleeue more then the Saincts of the owld testament beleeued. — as perfect and the same is the Church of Christ, and of Moises. This being the fundation, Zuinglius frameth this pyle thervpon. Yf in the owld testament, Zuingl. to. 2. vbi de baptismo fol. 59. sayth he, the carnal and external Sacraments cowld not bring any puritie or cleanes to sinfull, and defyled consciences: how much less can such Sacraments, do vs any profit in Christ, in the new testament, wher only the Spirit giueth lyfe? [Page 178] What frame dothe Ochinus him selfe build vpon his owne fundation?Ochin. loc. cit. pag. 157. Illos autem non credidisse Trinitatem, non personas coequales, consubstantiales, aeternas &c, but they (of the owld testament) did not beleeue the trinitie, coequalitie of persons, consubstantialitie, eternitie &c. Ergo: by the first inference, adieu all Sacraments of Christ, for any profit, and bringing any puritie to sinfull persons. By the second inference, we are not bownd to beleeue any substance of the new testament, of Christs birthe, his miracles, his, and the holie Ghosts, diuinitie, Trinitie, &c. because forsooth,Ochin. loc. cit. pag. 154. 155. 156. 157. alioqui essemus deteriori quam ipsi conditione qui ad plura quam illi credenda obstringeremur; we should be of inferior condition to them of the owld testament being bownd to beleeue more then they.
Here is the scope, here is the centre declared of thes instructions, to equal bothe testaments, and after to condemne the new by the inutilitie of the owld; and that by many testimonies of Scripture: as when S. Paul sayth,Hebr. 7. the former commandement to be reprobated, propter infirmitatem eius & inutilitatem; for the infirmitie therof and inutilitie. Now say they, the new commandement is no better, the Sacraments therof noe more proffitable, the sence, ende, and literalitie of bothe is from one authoure, and of equal estimation: therfor let vs renownce Christianitie, and all owld and new testament, and become Atheists and Mahumetists;Galat. 4. the owld law being but infirma & egena elementa, weake, and (as they translat) beggerly ordonances, & consequently the new which is equal therto no better. I lament some tymes to behowld great, and iudiciouse witts, imployed now confuting one point of sectarie impietie, now another; wheras yf they had principaly (saue other mens iudgment) reuealed the drift of thes reformations, to be a stidiouse imployment to deforme by degrees, all vertue and religion, ther would many more reclamations (although they be dayly reuoked in commendable numbers) insue. Now as S. Ireneus, Iren. l. 1. c. 35. Hieron. ep. ad Cresiphontem. and S. Hierome learnedly obserued; Aduersus eos, victoria est sententiae eorum manifestatio: sententias eorum prodidisse, superasse est. Patet prima fronte blasphemia &c. Victorie against them is the manifestation of their professions: to produce their sentences, is to confute them. Blasphemie is discouered at first view. Their sentences euen against the roote and piller of religion and Christianitie being detected, ther will many noble witts, and mynds of our contry, I dowbt not disdaine longer, all consociation with such blasphemers.
Lastly, was it not a ricidulouse comparison, of Christs woords H in this institution, with the woords of circumcision, circumcision not being so much as a figure of this Sacrament,Gen. 17. v. 11. but only of baptisme; [Page 179] the next woords euidently and expressly declaring;Vide num. 78. Ioan. 6. 1. Cor. 11. vt sit in signum faederis inter me & vos; that it be a signe of the couenant betwixt me and you; wheras contrary wyse the woords of this institution befor, & after, do auerr it not to be any signe, but the fleashe to be meat indeed, the body to be that, which was to be deliuered for mankyng? Was it not as ridiculouse to meruaile ther was no transubstantiation of the forskynn into Gods couenant, God declaring it (as I sayd) to be only a signe; and a couenant not being a substance, into which any thing cowld be transubstantiated? was it not as ridiculous to leape from circumcision, to the paschal lambe, succeding many hondred yeares after, and from thence to halfe the blood of twelue calues wherwith Moyses sprinckled the Israelits, and hauing cluttred them together as one mater, for their bare consonance, or resemblance in sownd with the woords of Christs institution, to make them equiualent in sence, ende, and proprietie with this B. Sacrament?
I But as I haue shewed in the 68. 77. 78. numbers; this debasing and disgraceing therof, prooceedeth from their hate of Christs express woords [this is my bodie] which as their owne brethren obserue,Ioan. Schut. l. 50. causarum. cap. 13. they do so hate, that they can not abyde ether to see, or heare them; at least according their true signification. Wherto belongeth thes speeches of Luther willing to haue impug [...]d the sayd puissant woords;Luther. tom. 7. VVittem. fol. 502. which sayth he, in examining, and de [...]ing I tooke merueylous payns, and strayned euery vayne, of body, and sowle, to haue auoyded. For, probe perspiciebam hac repapatui cum primis me valde incommodare posse. I did well obserue, therby I cowld notably haue interested Papacie. But I fynde my selfe taken fast, and that ther is no way to escape. For, textus euangelij nimium apertus est, & potens; the text of the gospel is too to cleere, and violent. By this is demonstrated, that good will wanted not in Luther, to haue conceaued with the Sacramentaries, but sayth he, thes woords [this is my body] cannot easely be shaken, much lesse ouerthrowen, by woords, and glosses deuysed by giddy brayns. Luther. ibid.
K I suppose this gall and confusion to be such to M. Rider, that I will not here also collect any vntruethes further to netle him: althowgh euery one may iudge by the premisses whether ther be not plenty affoorded. It sufficeth in general, and particular, to haue discouered, that the sence, ende, and literalitie, or dignitie of the owld and new testament, are different and vnequal, and noe part of M. Riders discours vnsuspitiouse to tende to the abolishing of all Christian religion. Therfor, let heauen, and earth consent to thes woords of one of the reforming coniuration, or of their owne holy brotherhod. They indeuoure by darcknes, and mists of woords, to obscure the cleare veritie, & [Page 180] inforce them selues to establish a sentence cleane opposit to the woords of the Sonn of God. Tilman. Hesnusius. lib. de presentia Corporis Christi. They blaspheme with an impudent and vnreuerend mowth the fleash of Christ. — They blaspheme barbarouslie, and are culpable of the blood of Iesus-Christ, and murtherers of him. They shutt obstinatly their eyes against the cleere light: and by detraction, and malice, affirme that to be obscure, which they will not behowld. S. August. de vnit. Ecclesiae. c. 16. To which declaration S. Augustin subscribeth, saying: audiunt tam lucida & manifesta testimonia quae illam toto orbe demonstrant: & malunt clausis occulis offendere in montem, quam, in illum ascendere. They heare so cleere and manifest proofs which demonstrat the trueth: and they had rather stumble, their eyes being shutt, against the mowunt (of Gods Church) then mownt to it.
Catho. Priests.
1. Cor. 11. This is my bodie which shall bee deliuered for you: whoso doth eate vnworthelie, &c. shall be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of Christ.
Rider.79. A Most learned writer in the like case, brings in an Athenian historie of Pharasylaus (a frantick man amongst the Greekes) who whensoeuer he saw anie ships arriue in the harbor thought them all his own,Athenaeus Dipno. sophist. lib. 12. & tooke an Inuentorie of their wares, & bad them welcome home verie ioyfully, as if they had bin his own seruants & ships. After the same maner (pardon the comparison) you deal in the proofe of this question. for wheresoeuer you finde in scriptures or fathers, hoc est corpus meū, this is my bodie, or, this is my bloud, or, my flesh is meat trulie, &c. or, except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud. &c. or, the bread which I will giue is my flesh, or the like tropical or sacramentall phrase, which euer carrieth with it a spirituall sence, presentlie you clap hands, lift vp Stentorian voices, and crie to the Catholikes against vs poore heretickes, that all these texts of Scriptures and testimonies of Fathers are on your side, and prooue your carnall presence: and condemne our opinion as hereticall and damnable, and then you register in your note-books (as in an Inuentorie) all these proofes for your owne proper euidence, when as God knowes, you are neither Owners, Marchants, nor faithfull Factores. And it shall be directlie prooued, that these texts of Scriptures and testimonies of Fathers, belong no more to the proofe of your carnall presence, then the Merchants ships & goods of Athens belonged to franticke Thrasylaus. But now to prooue that I speak, that the Catholickes may see, (yea and let maister Henry Fytzsimon trulie censure) wee speake nothing without proofe, I will beginne to examine your slips and sleights in this place of the 1. Cor. 11.
The fowerth parte of the Catholicks proofe by Scriptures, for the real presence.
Fitzsimon. Alan. Cop. dial. 6. c. 27. pag. 914. Vide Ihon VValshe against M. Gilbert Browne.79. THis historie, of Thrasylaus, (the application wherof against Protestants, yow may fynde in Alanus Copus) is euery bodyes hackney; of one that in his owne only imagination, and not otherwyse, had goods, in shipps of [Page 181] others, but in trueth had none. Veryly any would thinke this example lesse pertinent to vs then to our aduersaryes: as well because we follow not selfe frantick imaginations (which they doe, according Luthers last testimonie of their woords and glosses deuised by giddy brayns) as also, because all other clayms in Christs woords besyde ours,Luth. tō. 7. VVittemb. fol. 502. are fownd suggestions of Sathan Father of lyes, by the confession of the competitours them selues; & their shame in practising to defeat vs in our right,Buter in cap. 6. Ioan. & in cap. 26. Math. hath made thē crye (as being deceaued lyke so many Trasilaus) peccauimus. Martin Bucer craueth pardon of God, that euer he had witnesed against vs, & bewitched any with your opinion. So did Oecolāpad saye,Oecolampad. ad Landgra. Hess. anno 1529. I would most excellent Prince, that this right hand of myne had bene chopped off when I began to wryt first of the Lords supper against the Catholick sence: see more hereof in our 41. number, in the examination n. 7. n. 18. wher is demonstrated, that euery cheefe protestant, (as yf he had rann to a wrong opinion, as Trasilaus rann to wrong shipps) reuoked his imaginations, and challenges, to the commendation of trueth, and infamie of his former follye.
L Therfor when the meaner sorte of Protestants yet persist to challenge trueth to their opinion, as oft as they fynde any by-woord, of spiritual, Sacramental, figuratiue &c. in Fathers, or Scripturs, althowgh ther be with all contayned charter partyes, proofs, and assurances, that those goods be none of theirs, they are not only, Thrasilaus vaynly clayming, but frantickly withstāding sentence giuen against them by God, and man, ancient, and late, frend, and foe. Wherof (that in maner of Thrasilaus, they refuse all sentence giuen against their claymes, and frantickly withstand all Concils, yea and Angels, and Saincts, that denownce them destitut of all trueth and title in the institution of Christs Sacrament) let this short testimonie of one of your owne brethren, be arbitrer:Bullingerus Decad. S. de Cana. fol. 370. Zuinglianos non posse credere Christum esse in caena presentem, vero suo Corpore, licet omnia in mundo Concilia, omnes Angeli, & Diui id iubeant credere: the Zuinglians not to be able to beleeue Christ to be present in the Supper, with his true body, althowgh all the Cowncils in the world, all Angels, and Saincts command it showld be beleeued. Thus much to restore Thrasilaus Frantick in his imaginations, deluded in his suppositions, and reproued in his claymes, among his compagnions; who can not beleeue other mens goods to be impertinent to them, but are clayming what all the world, Concils, Angels, and Saincts, do sentence to be none of theirs, therby implying them to haue no other wealth then naked beggerly signes, fruictles figures, and fantastical and fanatical Thrasilean suppositions, by which (as S. Epiphan: [Page 182] testimonie in the 63. number specifyeth) they leaue the substance, and lyke Aesops dogg, snatch the shaddowe.
Rider.80. First, you bring a peece of a verse, so much as you thinke by the sound of your eare will fit your purpose: then you cut off the beginning and ending of the same verse, which would expound the Apostles meaning, and ouerthrow your opinion. Then you ioyne a peece of the 17. verse with the 24. verse, and ouerskip the 25. and 26: verses, which (all that you left out, and cut off) doth first deliuer Christs institutiō: secondly, expounds his owne meaning in euerie particuler point that is in controuersie betwixt vs: and thirdlie, ouerthrowes your opinions. Now, what mooued you thus to mangle, cut off, disioynt, and dismember this place of Paul (as you did with the text before) let the Reader after my examination of your errors, iudge.
But first I must deliuer you this generall rule obserued of allsound Diuines, that al the Euangelists and Aposteles doctrine, being pend by one spirit, doe agree in the matter of the Sacrament, one expounding another, as partlie you heard a little before. So that the three Euangelists must not be expounded to contradict Paul, not Paul expounded to contradict them, but all dulie and trulie in the spirit of humilitie, being examined according to the Canon and rule of the word of God, you shall finde neither darknesse in speech. nor difficultie in sence, but that the simplest may know Christs meaning.
Fitzsimon.80. What I haue aunswered in the 43. number, against his accusations of any curtayling, cutting by the wast, and subtracting; may abundantly serue for the lyke of my māgling, cutting off, disioynting, dismembring this place. All are but practises of the lapwing to crye a farr of, most noysomly, that you may thinke the nest of hir yongons to be ther wher it is least. Which as it is there manifested, so here it wilbe approued. Remember only his saying in this place, that what I omitted, expowndeth Christs meaning in euery particular point that is in controwersie betwixt vs, and ouerthroweth our opinions. And that for playn dealing, I should haue begon at the 23. verse, and so to the ende of the 29. verse. Yf you aske him wherfor is he not contented with what I haue produced, considering that he had the lesse to confute, and was not bownd to aunswer to what was omitted: he can aunswer nothing els, but talk of omissions, cuttings, and curtaylings, that others might not discerne, but that he had aunswered pertinently.
Rider.81. You should haue begunne at the 23. verse, and so to the end of the 20, verse, and that had been plaine dealing. Christs institution penned by Paul, deliuers vs foure obseruations. First, Christ his action. Secōndlie Christes precept. Thirdlie, Christs promise. Fourthlie, Christes caution.
- 1. Christes action,
- He gaue thankes, brake bread, & tooke the cup, &c.
- 1. Take yee, eate yee.
- [Page 183]2. Christes precept.
- 2. This do as often as yee drinke it, and both, in rememberance of me.
- 3. The minister must shewe and preach the Lords death till he come.
- 3. Christes promise.
- 1. This is my body which is broken for you.
- 2. This is the new Testament in my bloud.
- 4. Christes caution or caueat. VVhosoeuor shall eate this bread, or drinke this cup vnworthelie, shall bee guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord.
Thus you see plainlie without anie dismembring or curtalling, Christs action, precept, promise, and caution deliuered out of the text,
Out of which place I obserue for the Catholickes better instruction and your confutation, two things against you in this your skipping and curtalling of the text. First, the comforts you conceale from them by this mangling of the text.
A Discouerie of more puritantcie in M. Rider; And of Puritan protestations, how they are performed.
81. FIrst, he is conuicted by his owne woords,Fitzsimon. that he dealeth not playnly, considering, he nether begynneth at the 23. verse, nor endeth at the 29. But will yow vnderstand the reason therof? because S. Paul sayeth, that him selfe had learned this institution from our Lord, to witt, by tradition and not in Scripture; and that he had deliuered it formerly to the Corinthians by tradition, and not by Scripture. For I haue receaued of our Lord (saith he) which also I haue deliuered vnto you, that our Lord in the night he was betrayed: tooke bread, and giuing thanks, brake, and sayd. This is the 23.1. Cor. 11. v. 23. verse. Next M. Rider addeth to the woord [brake] the woord [bread] which is not in the text. Thirdly, by his diuision into an action, a precept, a promise, a caution; nothing, toward any edification, or proffit, or learning is affoorded, but a pranke discouered vnder the coulour of method, to distract the mynd, while he doth seperat the circumstances asondre, which confirme Christs institution of the Sacrament, to certifye his true body being present. Fowerthly,1. Cor. 11. v. 24. this being the 24. verse, take yee, and eate yee, this is my body which shalbe deliuered, for yow: do this in my remembrance. M. Rider vseth these sleights toward it. First; when he repeateth Christs precept, he omitteth cleane, do this in remembrance of me, toward the bread, and (as was sayd in the 77. number of their care of the liquoure) conioyned it to the drinke. Fifthly, he maketh Christs woords, this is my body, to be but a promise: let euery vnderstanding determine, whether not vnreasonably, and vnlearnedly.
The 25. verse is: lykewyse and the chalice, after he had supped, saying: 1. Cor. 11. v. 25. this chalice is the new testament in my blood, do this as often as yow shall drinke in [Page 184] my remembrance. Of this verse, he hathe wholy omitted the first halfe; as also, of the next halfe, the name of chalice. After drinke, he addeth the sillable [it]. Which being once doone by me, in the 51. number: thus he controwled my addition. this sillable it, altereth the sence, and peruerteth Christs meaning, &c. Then he placeth according his former skill, such woords among promises. The 26. verse is; For as often as yee shall eate this bread, and drinke this chalice, you shall annownce the death of our Lord till he come. 2. Cor. 11. v. 26. All this verse is intierly ouer-slipped, as nether action, precept, promise, nor caueat. So that his deuision is ether defectiue, as not comprehending all parts; or his dissimulation notorious, in omitting what might be comprehended, as well vnder the precept, as any thing els, and better vnder the caution, or caueat, then what is by him contayned. Marie, I fynde the speeche of a Minister, & his preaching, substituted in place of the forsayd verse, which vpon my credit is nether in greeke, or latin text, nor euer dreamed of by Apostle, Euangelist, Concil, Doctor, Father. But it is only the pure Puritancie of Thomas Cartwright, l. 1. pag. 158. to affirme it a necessarie and essential part of the Communion. yet therof thus sayth the aunswer of Oxford to the Puritans Petition, pag. 11. But that it should be ministred with a sermon is absurd, and hath bred in many a vayne and false opinion: as yf, not the woord of Christs institution, but rather the woord of a Ministers exposition, were a necessarie and essential part of Communion. O how impossible it is for M. Rider, but to be knowen a puritan? Now let him take what he can get therby. The 27. verse: Therfor whosoeuer shll eate this bread or drinke this chalice of our Lord vnworthely, 1. Cor. 11. v. 27. shalbe guiltie of the body and blood of our Lord. All this verse he maketh to be a caution, or caueat: I should thinke it rather to be a threatning prediction. Secondly he would not call it, the cupp of our Lord, but only the bare cupp. What is the reason, thinke you? because it cowld not be called the cupp of our Lord, vnles it be allowed to contayne the blood of our Lord; or for haueing bene sanctifyed to our Lord.
The 28. verse. But let a man proue him selfe, and so let him eate of that N bread and drinke of that chalice. 1. Cor. 11. v. 28. This verse in his conceit, belonged not to the institution of Christ, which S. Paul had penned: because it is not inserted, nether as action, nor precept, nor promise, nor caution: which according to his skill, are all the membres comprehended in Christs institutiō. The 29. verse: For he that eateth or drinketh vnworthely, doth eate to him selfe iudgement, 1. Cor. 11. v. 29. not decerning the body of our Lord. These verses so omitted, so transposed, so corrupted by him, yet giue [Page 185] audience to his woords, as if he had so cunningly deceaued all readers, that they did not behould his industrie: thus you see plainly, without any dismembring or curtayling &c. First I inquyer, in all these verses, what is contrary or repugnant to my profession? Secondly what part or sillable of them, do the fauoure his perswasion, or the only figuratiue presence of Christ? Thirdly, how he blushed not to attaynt me, with fraudulent omission, cutting, wasting, &c. I professing only to deliuer my choise proofs of Scripture for the real presence, without binding my selfe to take more or lesse, then I deemed sufficient, whether they were consequent together, or in seueral places; and he, vndertaking to vse playne dealing, and to haue deliuered Christs whole institution as it is penned by S. Paul, yet to misdemeane him selfe in this maner? I vse not accusations of deprauations, of falsifications, and other lyke, that it ma [...] better by all be vnderstood, trueth to be against him, and noe tryfling.
82. Secondlie, the errours you still hold them in,Rider, in concealing the most part of the text, first by following your Latten translation, and neglecting the holie tongue (the Greke) wherein the holie Ghost pend this institution. You translate, Which shall be deliuered for you, for, which is broken for you. Out of which I note, first you change the tense, that is in the Greeke, that is, the present tense, for so wee haue it, and you follow the L [...]tten translation, which is the future tense, and therefore not so comfortable. Christ vseth a sweete figure of the time present for the time to come,Enallage. to assure our soules and consciences that whatsoeuer Christ promiseth, is as surelie to bee performed (in his appointed time) [...]s if it were alreadie done. And this tense Christ vsed to take all doubts from his disciples, who in respect of their vnworthinesse might iustlie haue doubted, that Christ would not haue died & shed his pretious bloud for them, they being such vnprofitable seruants, and miserable sinners. But to take away that doubt from them and the Church, now hee assures both, that whatsoeuer is promised by him, is as sure to be done, as if it were alreadie done. And this staied Christs Church and euerie perticular member of the same from distrusts, doubts, grudgings, &c. in and vnder their seuerall crosses, because they know there is a ioyfull I [...]bile, and freedome for them purchased and prepared, and shall as surelie be accomplished, as if now it were performed
Now your altring of this particle, (is,) depriveth vs of all this comfort. Againe, you following still your corrupt Latten translation, say, del [...]uered for you, wheras you should say as the Greeke is, and as Christ saith, Broken for you, for this word broken, is more Emphatical and piercing then deliuered, for it is one thing for a man to be deliuered for to be betraied for me, another thing to be broken in peeces for me. Out of this I obserue, first the greatnesse of my sinne: secondlie, the kindnes and exceeding loue of my Sauiour.
VVhether the vulgar Latin translation of the Bible, be to be preferred to all other translations.
Fitzsimon.82. I Haue three causes, not to iustifie our latin translation compared with the greeke, against M. Rider. One, because I am priuie, that he hath no more good greeke, as I sayd befor, then a blynd man hath sight. Secondly, because I fynde that woorke so learnedly and sufficiently performed by M. Gregorie Martyn in his discouerie, and by the preface and annotations of the Rhemish testament, that nether can I, nor will I add, or deminishe any thing therin.Beza in pref. noui test. 1556. Molin. pa. 30. Erasm. c. 6. Math. Humfr. de rat. interpretandi p. 74. Lastly, because by their most learned pillers, Beza, Molin, Erasme, Laur, Humfred, &c. the latin is confessed farr more pure then the greeke. VVe haue obserued, sayth Beza, that the reading of the Latin text of the owld interpreter, thowgh it agree not some tyme with our greeke copies, yet is it much more conuenient, for that it seemeth, some truer and better copie. This one testimonie of such an one, (so great, as D. VVhytaker saith,VVhytak. pag. 12. con. Martin. he is able to close vp all our learned men in a sack, and to ding out their brayns) shall suffise to controwle and correct M. Riders ignorant medling in these maters, ther being not a more naked linguist in a contry, or more vnfitt proctor for the greeke tong, as shall be shortly testified. It was his chance during my being in prison, in the presence of Alderman Iians, the Constable, and others, to haue presented a trial of his skill in greeke abowt the words of the angel to our B. Ladie. I confesse that my studie was much more in other maters then in the greeke tong, yet, as they aboue named are witneses I fownd M. Rider, not only tripping in greeke, but mute from euer after mentioning greeke in my presence.
Of the woord, broken, and the being therof in the present tence,O I haue so infallibly assured it to confirme vs, and to infirme him, in the 76. number, that to repeat it agayne here, would nether be expedient, nor conformable to my breuitie, carefully followed by me as much as the mater will allow. And this man standing vpon the forsayd woord, rather then vpon [deliuered] forgetteth him selfe a litle befor saying, that the Euangelists and S. Paul must not be expownded to contradict one another; & consequently the Euangelist saying deliuered, and S. Paul saying broken, ther is no diuersitie whether be vsed: especialy the Scripture vsing them as hauing but one signification [breake thy bread to the hongrie; Isa. 58.7. Thren. 4.4. Exod. 12. Num. 9. litle ones haue craued bread & ther was none to breake to them: which breaking is all one as deliuer bread to the [Page 187] hongry, or to litle ones] and the literal signification of deliuering is verifyed in Christs passion, but not of breaking. For he was deliuered for our synnes: but I being able to say that he was also broken for vs in the B. Sacrifice of his body vnder the forme of bread; and M. Rider denying such his sacrifice, and not being able possibly to shew any other his breaking: do you thinke, that leauing to talke of deliuerie, for breaking; he knoweth what is with him, or against him?
P The amplifying of Christs promise in the present tence, (there being no promise in these woords, this is my body, which is broken for you) sheweth such mates when they can gett a woord to wander against the trueth (for Christ vsed then a present tence, to testifye the efficacie of his institution of the B. Sacrament, in which his body was presently deliuered inuisibly, which was the next day to be deliuered visiblye) therevpon they amplifie, and descant at full: wheras vpon the true, and literal institution of Christ, arcording the propre signification therof, they walke so nicely,Luth. tom. 7. defen. verb. caenae. fol 383. as yf they were treading vpon egges; Fearing, sayth Luther, to stumble and breake their necks at euery woord which Christ pronownced.
83. In the first, that Christs,Rider, birth and life (though both innocent) was not sufficient to cleanse my sinne. In the second, Christ would vndergoe shamefull buffets on the face, pricking of thornes vpon his head, piercing nailes into his hands and feete, a bloudie speare into his blessed side, before mans sinne could bee satisfied, Gods wrath appeased, Sathan, death and hell conquered: this our liuing Christ would haue his bodie broken for vs, he would not leaue one sighein his soule for our sakes, nor one drop of bloud in his bodie vnshed for our sinnes. These comforts are expressed by this word broken, which are not, nor can be gathered by this word deliuered.
83. In my Examination of the Creed, in the 14. numbre,Pitzsimon. I haue shewed that euery meritt of Christ being of infinit valew, had bene sufficient to redeeme a thowsand worlds; and that his death and passion were suffred vpon his excessiue abundance of loue, which was not content with what had bene sufficient, but also powred owt it selfe beyond all respect, and measure, to the last drop of blood in his bodye, for greater manifestation of his bountifull charitie toward mankinde. How cometh my Warr-man, and sayth, that Christs death it selfe was not only not of superabundant affection, but that beyond his death the very pearcing of his syde with a speare, was necessary to clense his synne? Which is blasphemie, against all Scripture, and Christianitie, referring always our redemption to [Page 188] Christs holye passion, I knowe not whence it coulde come to him, but only to fulfill the saying of S. Nazianzen: Inter se certant, perinde at (que) non id metuant, ne impijs erroribus sese constringant, sed ne in hac re leuius tolerabilius (que) peccent quàm alij. They stryue among them selues, as yf they had no feare to intangle them selues in impious errours, but that euery of them be not behinde his compagnions in lesse offendinge. Other aunswer is in the forsayd 14. number.
Rider.84. Another comfort is concealed from the Catholickes in omitting the 25. verse, in these words.Math. 25.40. Heb. 2.12.13.17. Ioh. 10.27. The newe Testament in my bloud. Out of which euerie man may gather these comforts to himselfe by particular application. First, that I am not a straunger to Christ, but one of his younger brethren, and not onelie well knowne vnto him: but also as well beloued of him: which appeareth in this, that hee did not onelie remember me in his last will, but also most freelie, and liberallie bequeathed vnto my soule and bodie most precious Legacies, where wee may finde them registred & most safelie kept in Gods booke, and daylie pronounced in our Creed, as remission of sinnes of both guilt & punishment: peace of conscience in this life: at the latter day rising of my bodie from death and dust: & af erwards life eternall both to soule and bodie. These Legacies be bequeathed and contained in this Testament, which be hath not onely sealed outwardlie with Sacraments, but also inwardlie with his bloud by faith, to assure vs of the performance of his promise, and therefore he addeth in my bloud: so that all other Testaments, Wils, Buls or Pardons, which are not sealed with Christs bloud, but with lead or war, are but counterfeit labels stitcht to Christs testament, by some false forgeries of periured Notaries, wherin they doe falselie promise remission of sinnes and the kingdome of heauen.
Fitzsimon.84. M. Rider shall pull off with his owne hands his maske of consolation by these woords [the new testament in my blood] and acknowledge to all Readers his contentment to be but forged, and his cause, and cōscience, to be full of desolation by means of them. First then, he sayd in his 78 number, that thes woords of Christ, ordayned by one authoure, haue one sense, one sounde, one ende, with these woords of the ould testament [this is the blood of the Couenant. Exod. 24.8.] But the sense of thes woords of Moises, is, that the ould testament was ratified by true and real blood substantialy sprinkled vpon the Israelits: therfor the sense of Christs woords must lykewyse be, (yf as he saith they haue one sense) that his new testament was made at his last supper, and his true, and real blood was substantialy powred into the mowthes of his Apostles: which blood deliuered them after, as S. Luke saith,L [...]c. 22.20. was to be shedd for them.
Now Sir, what consolation haue you about yourt hart? Are not Q you made your selfe to disguise your fayned countenance? That Christ made his testament at his last supper, it is first the confession [Page 189] of Musculus, saying: In the same supper being then nighe his death, he made his testament. How did Musculus ground his opinion? because saith he,Musculus in locis cō. Cap. de cana. n. 2. pag. 332. that a testament be made auaylably, is requyred first, that the maker therof be at his owne libertie: for a slaue, a seruant, a sonn in his Fathers gouernement, can make no testament. This libertie had Christ at his supper, and not at his death. Also he must make executours: so did Christ make his Apostles by this institution, appointing them to dispense the grace of this testamēt, &c. wheras ther was no such mater at his death. I add, that lawfull testaments are made by men befor their death when they are in good memorie, and not at the instant of their death. Which according to good protestantcie had great occasion in Christ our Saluiour, whom at the tyme of his death they affirme to haue bene in desperation, in torments of conscience, &c. as is assured in the 14. and 15. numbers of the Examination. Is not this a good brotherly helpe to M. Riders consolation by thes woords of Christ, [the new testament in my blood? Math. 25.40.] For a testament is not a testament till the partie dye. And Christ at his supper dyed not otherwyse but mysticaly as in sacrifice, therfor yf ther was a testament made, such sacrifice is to be confessed.
R Will you haue Christ him selfe manifest his making the new testament at his supper? Why then, at it he sayd, mandatum nouum do vobis; Ioan. 13.34. a new law I giue you. Marke this sequel vpon this planted foundation: Christ by confession of greatest protestants made his testament at his last supper; and M. Rider accordeth therto, confessing him in this present place, and numbre, to haue made his last will; bequeathed legacies, &c. Well then, I inferr, both that he shedd or deliuered his blood at this table, and also that he sacrificed him selfe, which in effect is all one. For by M. Riders confession, among his legacies,Ad Hebr. 9.22. at his supper one principal is, the remission of our synnes. But S. Paul saith; Sine fanguinis effusione non fit remissio; withowt shedding of blood ther is no remission. Ergo, or therfor, Christ in his supper shed his blood, by which he bequeathed such legacie of remission of synns. Now yf Christ, as M. Rider sayd in the precedent number, could not clense his synn without death; and yet that at his supper he bequeathed vnto him by his last wil remission of synns (of both guilt and punishment, as is saith he, pronounced in the Creed: wherof others may be iudges, whether he vnderstand his Creede, or noe; considering that to this day, all mortal men do feele the punishment at least of Adams guilt to be vnforgiuen) as to one not only well knowen by him, but also well beloued of him, as his yonger brother (they are his owne woords) It must followe, that Christ was sacrificed, I mean incruentally to his heuenly Father, [Page 190] at his last supper;Ad Hebr. 9.16. both for his making then his testament (vbi enim testamentum est, mors necesse est intercedat authoris; for wher a testament is, it is necessarie the deathe of the testator happen) as also for shedding his blood, and fullfilling all figuratiue sacrifices of the owld law, in which the blood was not only shedd, but also the things sacrificed were first putt to deathe; yet this shedding of blood is not to be vnderstood in any other, then in a mysticall and impossible maner.
No body hathe ingaged M. Rider to confesse this trueth, but him S selfe. Wherfor yf his pew-fellowes exclaime at him, and say that he hath confessed the true shedding of Christs blood substantialy, (although not in propre forme, but only vnder the forme of wyne, vnderstanding by shedding only, the powring therof into the mouthe of the Apostles) at his Supper, and also the Sacrifice of Christ therby (which is the Masse) without which his blood could not then be shedd, nor his testament had bene auaylable (for, nondum valet dum viuit qui testatus est; Ad Hebr. 9.17. it is not of force, while the testator (without all death, mystical, or corporal) liueth, and therby ratifyed all papistry, and confownded all protestantcy; and (which might seeme most absurd) allowed a duble death of Christ, one at his Supper, another vpon the cross.S. August. tom. 8. in. Psal. 61. Let him aunswer first for the residue out of S, Augustin: Occultari potest ad tempus veritas, vinci non potest. Florere potest ad tempus iniquitas, permanere non potest: Veritie for a tyme may be hydd, but it can not be vanquished: Iniquitie may florishe for a space, but can not continue. And to that heynouse doctrin of Christs duble death, let him denye it hardely, and say that at his Supper was only anticipated in an incruental and incomprehensible maner, and mysticaly, not in his propre forme, but of bread and wine and without violence, the same death which succeeded in a cruental & violent maner: as it was one & the same lambe of God sacrificed in bothe maners, first incruentaly, after cruentaly.
In teaching this doctrin, first he hathe it assured to him by the T connection of Scripturs here produced. Secondly by Musculus, an arche Protestant.Calu. in libell. de caena & de vera Eccles. refor. Zuing. to. 1. de canone misse fol 183. [...]iblia. de Trinit. l. 2. pag. 89. Thirdly by the ancient Fathers vniuersaly, whom Caluin and Zuinglius testifye to establishe this incruental sacrifice. And Bibliander certifyeth, it was the vndowbted beleefe of the ancient Israelits, that Christ would institute such a sacrifice in bread and wyne. Therfor, Gentle M. Rider, reioyce at those sugred woords of Christ [this is my blood in the new testament] not faynedly, or by dissembling those remote causes alleaged; but for the riche treasure left perpetualy to Gods Church of so pretious a sacrifice, wherby force is giuen to all bulls and pardons, necessarie for remission of our synns. In truth I had forgotten to [Page 191] calculate incident vntruthes in a long tyme, yet now am constrayned to score vp at least the 81. grosse vntruth:The 81. vntruth. that we teache other remission of synns then by Christs testament. My good Sir, affoord vs some citation of such our doctrin, according to your promise, to alleadge, booke, leafe &c. or elss we will thinke that we may lawfully say, yow ryde. &c.
85. These deceiuers must be told, as Peter told Ananias: Rider. why hath Sathan fild thy heart that thou shouldest lie, not onelie vnto men, but also vnto the holie Gost? Acts. 5.3. In Ananias heart there was a wicked conceit, in his practises a wicked deceit, and for his reward a suddaine death. You Chaplens of the Pope, doe tell the poore people many waies to haue remission of their sinnes besides Christes Testament, & Christes blood, (which I will deliuer particularlie if I be vrged) but you are deceiued, and so you deceiue them, and because you would keepe them still blinde, that they should neither see your deceit, nor theyr owne daunger, therefore you kept this comfortable clause from them, The new Testament in my bloud, whithout which there is neither remission of sinns, nor sauing of soules. Another comfort you conceale from the deuout meditation of euerie good Christian, which is, In rememberance of me
We read in histories after Iulius Caesar was slaine,Suetonius Plutarch. Marcus Anthonius made an Oration to the people of Rome, in which he shewed Caesars loue and painted out verie Rhetoricallie Caesars bountie to them while he liued, but in the heat of his speech he made a pause, & shewed them Caesars robes sprinkled with his princelie bloud, shed by the bloudie hand of his cruell and malicious enemies: which when the Cittizens sawe, (remembring his loue) presentlie they ranne vpon the murtherers and slew them. Did the Cittizens of Rome (being Pagans) reuenge Caesars death vppon his enemies, onelie remembring his loue and liberalitie? Then with what Christian courage and spirituall manhood, ought we that professe to bee Christians, reuenge our Christs death vpon his cruell, bloudie, and malicious enemies, which so mercilessy put him to death?Rom. 4. the last verse. & these enemies be our sinnes, for he died for our sinnes: which, let vs mortifie, nay murther them: let vs kill surfetting, by abstinence, adulterie by continencie, cruelitie by mercie, hatred by loue, couetousnesse by almes, superstition by religion, &c. These and the like consorts of sinne put our Caesar (Christ) to death. Therefore when we heare not Marcus Anthonius, but anie man of God out of the booke of God, preach vnto vs Christs bloudie passion that died in our quarrell,1. Cor. 11.22. and shed his bloud for our sinnes: let the remembrance of his precious death and mercifull deliuerance, put vs in minde to reuenge his death, by killing our sinnes which slew our Sauiour, and endeuour to serue him with all thankfulnesse in a life spirituall, who hath deliuered vs freelie from death eternall. Now see what comfort the Catholickes loose for the lacke of this Apostolicall rememberance of me, ad this commeth by your omitting of that you should not passe without expressing the true tenour of it, as you receiued it of the Lord, for the profit of his Church. Thus much touching the spirituall comforts concealed from the people by your skipping of Scriptures: now let vs see what errours purposelie you seeke to couer by this course.
85. By this sermon,Fitzsimon, you see what M. Rider could doe yf he were vrged (for yf he be vrgerd, he often promiseth wonders) to delate [Page 192] vpon Christs passion. Two things I say vnto him: One, that he mistaketh Christs woords, do this in remembrance of me; supposing it to be fullfilled by preaching: For Christ at that tyme, by M. Riders confession, was not preaching but in action. Secondly, that to such glosing verbal, and idle talkers (thes are Caluins woords:) Our gospel of which we vawnt so much, Cal. in cap. 1. ad Rom. wher is it otherwyse for the most parte then on the toung? wher is the newnes of lyfe? wher is the spiritual efficacie? Note in thes last woords, what others euer yet, sacred, and prophane, called good woorks, here in a puritanical phrase to be called spiritual efficacie. Note next, that M. Rider to the Scripture here misaplyed, owt of the Acts of Apostles, foisteth in a clause of his owne, to witt [not only vnto men] wherof ther is no sillable in the new testament. So great an itching vexeth him to corrupt, and depraue, that be it Canon, or testimonie of Father, or Scripture it selfe, it must not passe without his falsification. Thus much being sayd to this sermon, I behowld nothing els worthy consideration therin. For they are but friuolous woords, hauing some speciem pietatis, shew of pietie, but denying the effect therof. I am also in great dowbt, whether this relation of the Romans reuenge against them that slew Cesar, be not for the most part, forged. For as I remembre, they fled, and were not together slayne. So that I admyre this mans mistaking all points of learning, of Diuinitie, of Philosophie, of Geographie, of Arithmatick, of Histories as well sacred, as prophan, of Greeke, of Latin, of English, of French, of Orthographie, of all and singular sciences, and yet to take so much vpon him, as some tyme to say; I will lay downe what you are to beleeue, in spyte of Pope and poperie; some tyme to taxe others ignorance; and at all tymes to talke Doctoraly.
Rider.86. First, if you had put downe these words, In rememberance of me, and, till I come, these two had ouerthrowne your carnall presence, Errors. for if the bread & wine must bee receiued in rememberance of Christ, then bread and wine are not Christ substantiallie, corporallie,Mat. 28.6. and by way of transubstantiation. And if Christ be risen, as the Angell said, and as wee in our Creed confesse, and that we must receiue this Sacrament in his rememberance till he come, then Christ being not come, but to come, is not, nor cannot be carnallie and bodilie vnder the formes of bread and wine, as you fondlie imagine.
Fitzsimon.86, At the margent of this number, a notorious marke of [errours] is placed: so that it is lyke ther should be some stuff contayned. That these woords [Do this in remembrance of me] distroyeth all our persuasion; it is so iust, as cuius contrarium verum est, for ther is not any clause, [Page 193] wherby it is much more established. First, that he biddeth vs doe, and not speake, doth palpably subuert your late surmise, of performance therof by a ministers sermon. Secondly, to bidd vs facere, to doe, in Scripture is not seldome but very often all one, and to bidd vs to sacrifice: as faciet vnum pro peccato; he shall sacrifice, or doe one for synne; Leuit. 15. Luc. 2. and in the new testament, vt sisterent eum Domino, & facerent secundum consuetudinem legis pro eo; that they might present him to our Lord, and sacrifice or doe, for him according to the custome of the law. Leuit. 12. Which commanded a lambe, and pigeon; or two pigeons, or two turtles, to be offred at such presentation, as appeareth amply in Gods holy woord. Conformably therto saith S. Cyprian: Oportet nos obaudire, S. Cyprian. epist. 63. & facere quod Christus fecit; we must be attentiue, and to doe what Christ did: who as is shewed the number next befor, did sacrifice. Martin pope subscribeth, saying:Martin Papa. epist. ad Burdegal. c. 3. hoc eum ipse Dominus iussit nos agere in sui commemorationem: For this our Saluiour commanded vs to doe or sacrifice in his remembrance; in ara sanctificata; vpon a sanctifyed altar.
A Now to the argument of M. Rider, Christ teacheth this to be done in remembrance of him: therfor he is not substantialy present. I aunswer, that it is done in remembrance of his visible passion, on the crosse: which visible passion is noe longer present:1. Cor. 11.26. such to be the sence, appeareth by S. Paul saying: as oft as you shall eate this bread and drinke this cupp, you shall anownce his (visible) death till he come. Wherby appeareth, this remembrance not to be ane impediment against the reiteration of his inuisible presence in the masse, but only against it on the crosse. Secondly I aunswer that the remembrance ther mentioned is to be referred not so much to Christs person absolutly, as to his operation and institution at that tyme. For such to be the sence appeareth not only by Catholicks thervpon fownding their preisthood, but also by Protestants thervpon grounding their authoritie to dispense the supper, as they call it, of the Lord. For no other warrant haue they in Scripture so to do, but this only. Lastly, I aunswer, to gather, that one must be absent because he must be remembred, is some what absurde, Gods woord aduyseth vs, not to forgett the law: Prou. 3.1. Galat. 2.10. therfor the law can not be among vs. S. Paul was admonished not to forgett the poore: therfor the poore must haue bene absent from him. Are thes consequences? Are thes our ouerthrowes? Yes truly, the greatest that can be giuen vs.
87. And these words (doe this in rememberance of mee) condemneth all your Masses,Rider. that be said in rememberance of He-Saints and Shee-Saints, and no Saints, M [...]ssale. Printed at Venice. 1404. as your Popes, Bishoppes, and in rememberance of Pilgrims, Marriners, women in trauaill, [Page 194] and murren of beasts. So that all the foresaid Masses said or sung in rememberance of Saints, persons, or diseases, be abhominable, vnlesse you will say (which were damnable to thinke) that those Saintes, Popes, Bishopes, Pilgrims, &c. died for you. But I will cease to speake of those abhominable abuses, vntill I come to the controuersie of the Masse, and yet then nothing but what shall be found in your owne bookes, whose chapters, leaues, pages, if not lines, shall be quoted trulie without fraud or affection. Another errour you would couer in leaping ouer the 26. verse, in these wordes, you doe shew the Lords death till he come: Chrisostome Tom. 4. Hom. 27. vpon these words: Facietis commemorationem salutis vestra & beneficij mei. This shewing of the Lords death consiste h in preaching and expounding some scripture, wherein the communicants must be instructed of the horrour of their sinne, the greatnesse of Gods loue, the price of the precious merits of Christs blessed passion, which is the remission of sinnes, and our reconciliation to Gods fauoure, through his bitter and bloudie passion.
VVhether Masses be sayd to Saincts; And whether it be dangerous, now a dayes, to honor Saincts.
Fitzsimon.87. DId not you often tell vs, that you had your Doctrin from the primatiue Fathers? Yf it be so that you euer knew what S. Augustin sayd in this mater,S. August. 20. con. Faust. c. 21. how might you thinke thes your arguments vnchildish? these are his woords. Sacrificamus non martyribus, sed Deo martyrum, illo dumtaxat ritu quo sibi sacrificari noui testamenti manifestatione praecepit. VVe sacrifice not to martyrs, but to the God of martyrs, in that only ceremonie, which he commanded to sacrifice to himselfe, in the manifestation of the new tstament. I can not blame you to haue wincked at these woords as being litle fauorable to your imaginations, and contayning all that I sayd befor, of Christs instituting a sacrifice, authorising preists to do the same, ordaining the new testament at his Supper, &c. By our especial prayers to Saincts, conioyned with this sacrifice, we may not be sayd to offre the sacrifice it selfe to them. When Caluin had abolished to his power other images of Christ and his Saincts, he allowed his owne, and to some repyning therat, he aunswered; Si quis hoc spectaculo offendatur, Vita Caluini cap. 12. vt ne deinceps aspiciat, oculos sibi eruat, vel abeat cito & suspendat se; Yf any be offended with this sight, that he may noe more behould it, let him put owt his eyes, or goe spediely and hang him selfe. This man also, when he had obserued diuers Protestants (Hamsted, Fox, &c.) to canonize the fownders of protestantcie, putting them in Calendars, in redd leters, &c. he thought it tyme to mollifye his hatred against inuocation of Saincts (intending that his, and his fellowes glorie, might not be finished by their death) saying: Etsi solus Deus inuocandus sit, licet tamen [Page 195] homines ad opem nobis ferendam implorare; Although God be only to be inuoked, Calu. in. Cateches. cap. de oratione. Luther. lib. 2. colloq. fol. 129. yet is it lawful to implore that men would also send vs helpe. Luther thinking, that where [...]ch Saincts were honoured, Sathan also might be comprised in the same Calendar, and Lytanies, he deuoutly inuoketh him, saying; Sancte Sathan ora pro nobis: minime tamen contra te peccauimus Clememissime Diabole; holy Sathan pray for vs: For in noe wyse haue we, offended thee, most clement deuil, &c. Verily for my owne parte I intend not to exchange my deuotion from the ould Saincts toward thes new, nor thinke it fitt to be done by others. But by the premisses appeareth, it is not so heynouse a mater to pray to Saincts, as in the begyning A of reformation was conceaued. When you begyn M. Rider, to speake of our abhominable abuses, as you say, and will alleage our books chapters, leaues, pages, yf not lynes, (which hetherto was neuer performed as oft as any inconueniencie was imputed to vs; as is often shewed) let it be done with greater fidelitie, then S. Chrysostome is produced in this place. For vpon my credit, nether hathe he any such Homilie vpon such woords, nor any such doctrin in all his woorks, as you adioyne to this citation. Will the other threatned citations be in this sorte? Tyme will discouer. I proceed. It had bene conuenient M. Rider, that yow did shew some authoritie for your saying, the shewing of the Lords death to consist in preaching and expownding some Scripture: For Christ, and his Apostles, and the primatiue church, practised the administration of this Sacrament befor any of the new testament was written. And yf, as you say, Abraham communicated; the ould testament also then wanted. So that ether your Scripture here mentioned, must not be any parte of the bible: or els you ouerthrow your saying in the 46. number, that Abraham (in whos tyme ther was no Scripture) communicated by fayth, as also all other faythfull: and that Christ, his Apostles, and primatiue Church were not of your persuasion, in whose tyme nothing of the new testament was vulgarly exstant.
88.Riders. And this condemneth your shewing of Christ his death by such ydle gestures and dumbe shewes, without anie glorification of GODS name, or edification of Christ his people, that I dare boldlie say, and so God willing will plainlie prooue that from your first Introibo ad Altare Dei, which is the beginning of your Masse, vntill you come to the last line, Ite missa est, there is nothing but magicall superstition, heresie & idolatrie, without veritie or antiquitie. Now let the Catholickes iudge what wrong is done them, when in stead of a confortable declaration of the Lords death, they haue a histrionicall dumbe shew, without true signification or sence warranted from Christs trueth. And wheras you exclaime against vs, for allowing tropes and Sacramentall phrases in the handling of this controuersie: if you had not concealed [Page 196] this phrase, This cup is the new Testament in my bloud, the Catholiks might haue seene your error, and that we in so doing, onelie immitate Christ, whom you should rather follow then the precepts & doctrine of men, whose precepts are no warrants for you nor me to build our faith vpon: nor for the Catholikes to imitate. And you with vs must either say that Christ vsed a double figure, or else most absurdly confesse, that not onelie the wine is transubstantiated & changed into Christs last Testament: but that the challice or cup is transubstantiated into his last testament, & is his testament substantiallie, properlie, and realie, the accidents of the challice onlie remaining: that is to say, the height, depth, weight, colours, &c.
Of his cruel threat against the Masse.
Fitzsimon.88. I Trust M. Rider, you will not be so ill as your woord. Will you shew in all the masse, from the first woord to the last, ther is nothing but magical superstition, heresie, and idolatrie? Is the Psalme of Dauid, Iudica me Deus; the song of the Angels, glory be to God on high; all the Epistles, and Gospells, being parcels of scripture; the creed of the first Concil of Nice; the institution of Christ, our Lords prayer (which are all included betwixt the first and last woords of the masse) but ether superstition, or heresie, or idolatrie? What sparke of Christianitie could be in his brest, what hands could wryt, that Dauid, the Angels, the Euangelists, and our deere Lord and Saluiour Iesus Christ, had committed superstition, or heresie, or idolatrie? For it is impossible to proue all from Introib [...], to Ite missa est, to be such; vnlesse also this other sauage blasphemie against Prophets, Angels, And the Lord of all Saincts, be infallibly proued. But soft M. Rider, your tyme is not yet come to abolishe, iuge sacrificium, Dan. 8. v. 12. c. 12. v. 11. S. Iren. con. her. l. 4. c 32. S. Chrysost. ho. 49. in Math S. Hippolyt. orat. de consum. saeculi. Isa. 16.6. the dayly sacrifice, which is reserued (as the Scripturs and Fathers affirme) to Antichrist; and yet not to abolish it, but that the frequent vse therof shal cease in his tyme. Of M. Rider, and euery other petty aduersarie of the Masse, may be applyed the saying of the Prophet Isaie: Superbia eius, & arrogantia eius & indignatio eius, plus quam fortitudo eius: his pryde his arrogancie, and his indignation, is more (against this inuincible sacrifice) then his strengthe. For hell gates can not preuayle against the faith, whose principal act, and obligation is this sacrifice of the Masse. I trust in Gods mercie befor I dye, to iustifie the least sillable, and parcel therof, against the sayd gates, and all therto belonging; which is a contradiction of what M. Rider threatneth.
Rider.89. Now if you cannot denie a figure in the challice, how dare you for the like or worse inconuenience denie it in the bread. This you thought to omit, hoping thereby to couer this your error. But it was ill done to deceiue the Catholicks, who so [Page 197] liberallie relieue you, and so dearely haue loued you. And wheras you translate, challice for cup, telling the people that the challice consecrated by you, is holier then other vsual cups, and that Christ vsed in the institution a challice, and no vsuall drinking cup.
89. Here is an argument; that ther is a figure concerning the cupp:Fitzsimon. ergo also concerning the bread. I aunswer owt of S. Augustin, S. August. c. 31. Super Genes. ad. lit. l. 11. For the translation of one woord, the whole sentence owght not to be taken figuratiuely. As for example of the new disciples going to Emaus, is sayd their eyes were opened; which is to be vnderstood figuratiuely, for they were nether blynd, wynking, nor a sleepe befor: but the residue,Luc. 24. that they knew Christ &c. is to be vnderstood properly, and literaly. In this point of M. Rider, Besa in c. 26. Mat. v. 26. because the cupp standeth for what is in the cupp (as Beza confesseth; vulgata & trita omnibus linguis consuetudine loquendi; in the common meaning of all tongs litle or nothing differing from a propre speeche; Math. 26. Mar. 14. as also because by two Euangelists Mathew and Marke, it is specified expresly in a literal and propre sence, by thes woords, This is my blood of the new testament; no such mater being obserued of bread, but all circumstances, precedent, concomitant, subsequent, manifesting the literal and propre signification therof) ther is no sequel or censequence in the world in the forsayd argument. For the liberalitie of Catholicks toward vs, it being sayd of exorbitant enuie, I leaue to the prophet Ezechiel, in his 24. chap. 18. and 19. verse, to replye vnto it.
90. I say in saying thus, you shew your self ignorant in the Greek tongue,Rider. wherin Christ spake it, & the Euangelists writ it:Poter [...]on. for they all, & so hath Paul but one vsuall word which signifieth a vsual drinking cup, and no charmed Challice, as you ydlie & vainly informe the Catholickes.
And now to your 27. verse, which you would couple to your 24. verse, which thus you recite very corruptlie, who so doth eate vnworthelie, &c. shall be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord, but if you had meant plainlie and trulie, you should haue recited all the Apostles words in this manner: whosoeuer shall eate this bread and drinke this cup of the Lord, vnworthelie, shall be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord.
VVhether Chalices were aunciently consecrated, and of what matter they were made.
90. I Tould you often,Fitzsimon. you would carry your emptie cruse so oft to the greeke streame, that it would come home broken. What, did Christ euer speake greeke? In what greeking will all scholers thinke your head to haue bene, that will reade [Page 198] this? Certainly, Christ, Sonne of the B. Virgin, borne in Bethelem, liuing in Palestim or Iewrie, suffring by Hierusalem, was neuer yet sayd by any of reading, or reason, or wanting reading and reason, to haue spoken greeke. Without further hissing at it, (so many other no lesse,The 82. vntuth. yea farr greater occasions presented to do the lyke) let it stand for the 82. vntrueth, and so remayne. Yet this appeale to the greke, is not so to be dismissed. First our aduantages in the greke are specified and assuredly proued in the preff. of the Remish testament. So that they are superfluous to be repeated by him who followeth greatest breuitie, and escheweth borrowed ornaments. Secondly, who are not the Adders mentioned in the psalmist, may vnderstand, that nether greke nor latin, but willfull corruption, is the cause of sectarists, excepting against the sacred Scripture now in this lāguage, now in that. As for exāple in their Bibles of the yeares 1579. 1580. nether greke nor latin obtayned of them, to putt S. Pauls name befor the Epistle to the Hebrues. Some time againste Greeke and Latin, they demaund: to what purpose should the holy Ghost, or Luke, add this? Some time against Greeke and Latin,Beza. Act. 8. v. 26. they confesse wilfull deprauation, as Beza Mat. 10. v. 2. anno 1556. against the primacie of S. Peter: And Luke 22 v. 20.Calu. l. 4. Instit. c. 14. n. 26. l. c 3. n. 10. in Ps. 58. against the real presence: as also Acts 3.21. and Luke 1.6. against iustification: &c. So that Greeke againste Latin, is a bare pretense, and corruption only is by them intended.
For the blessinge & consecratinge (fie vpon this prophane tearme A of charminge) of Chalices,S. August. l 3. con. Cresen. c. 29. & in Psal. 113. S. August. who by Caluins testimonie, is, fidelissimus, atque optimus testis antiquitatis; the most faithful & principal witnesse of antiquitie (corypheus theologorū; the ring-leader of Diuines, as they can not denie) thus writeth; Sed et nos plera (que) instrumenta & vasa, ex auro et argento habemus in vsum celebrandorū Sacramentorum, quae ipso ministerio consecrata, sancta dicuntur, But we haue the most part of our instrumētes, and vessels, belonging to the administringe of the Sacraments, of gould and siluer, which by theire verye application, are caled holye. They were so rich in time of grace and charitie,Theodoret l. 3. cap. 11. Vid [...] Prudent, de S. Lauren. as that pagan Emperours, and theire Secritaries, in admiration cryed out; Ecce quam sumptuosis vasis filio Mariae ministratur? Behould in what sumptuous vessels, they honour the sonne of Marie? But one woorde more of this matter, out of Theophilact,Theophil. in cap 14. Marci. saying. Qui igitur abstulerit discum pretiosum, et cogit vt corpus Christi in vili ponatur, pretexens scilicet pauperes, intelligat cuius partis sit. He that wil take away the pretious plate, and force that the body of Christ, be placed on a more abiect, pretending forsooth the poore: let him knowe of whose faction he is: namelye of Iudas, as he sayeth, [Page 199] who found fault with coste bestowed, for lyke pretense, on Christ. But are the sanctified, iustified, and elected reformers, culpable in this poynt? Let one of them selues, and he of the cheefest informe the trueth.Clebitius in sua victoria veritatu, & ruma papatus saxonici argum. 14. Clebitius therfor cheefe Zuinglian minister of Heidelberg, writeth this of Heshusius: VVhen the siluer pixes were moulten and made away, he caused others to be made of woodd, and reserued his eucharistical bread in a wodden one, and the same so sluttish, as was not good inowgh for a cowheard to putt his butter in it. For the antiquitie of pixes,Calu. l. 4. Instit. c. 17. n. 39. Caluin assureth, first Church, and first Christianitie to haue allowed, and beloued them. Behould, how contrarious to all christianitie, yet how couragious is M. Rider? how cōformable in him selfe, and his brethren to Iudas his pretenses, yet how aduenturous to seeme a reformer of abuses?
91. Out of which I obserue, that you would couer,Rider. Bread remaines after Consecration and therefore no carnall presence. & likewise the Cup & therefore noe Transubstantiation in either. and conceale that which ouerthrowes your carnall presence: for if bread remaine after consecration, then there is no carnal presence, but breade remaineth after consecration, therfore ther is no carnal presence And because this verse shweth to the worlde that there is bread after consecration, therfore you cutt off that part of the verse, which is verie deceitfully donne. And leaue this woorde breade out after consecration, to blinde the eyes of the simple And also you cut off the next wordes, to couer other two errors, the wordes be these Or drinke the Chalice of the Lorde vnvvorthely.
91. When I make a Puritan treatise,Fitzsimon, representing (as I sayd in the 76. number) the frogg-galyard; rebownding vp and downe from one point to another, without euer following, ether one tune, or tenoure; I will not cowche, or comprise that which is precisely pertinent, but followe and alleage testimonies of all coulours. But being of other determination and hauing a particular controuersie to examin; as now only of the real, and substantial presence, of Christs body, and not of communion vnder both forms, or the lyke; I thought good, (as men when they make a nosegay, doe not collect all hearbes therin, but such as are sufficient for sent, and varietie, to that present vse) to dwell in my text, and only to cumble, or gather, what belonged properly to that one point in question, without rangeing, prolixitie, or tergiuersation. Is this a fault? Yf it be; there was neuer allowable writer, but both omitted it, and commended it. Well, what stuffe is now obiected against vs. Mary S. Paul speaking of the Sacrament, nameth it still bread: therfor it is not Christs natural body. I am fully perswaded, this obiection to be so aunswered in the 56. number, and in the 62. that the repetition of [Page 200] Riders obiection in this place,Vide num. 118. is rather to blott paper, to fill emptie place, to cauil, and delude, then for any difficultie remayning therin. For there I shewed by seueral Scripturs, things to beare the name of what they are representations,Tob. 2. Exod. 7. Gen. 19. Ioan. 2. Gen. 2. or from what they were changed: as Raphael is called a yong man; a Serpent is called a rodde, a piller of salt is called Lotts wyfe; wyne is called water; Eua is called a bone of Adam, and fleash of his fleash. So here Christs body is called bread, both for the representation, and for being made of bread, or succeeding the substance of bread: yet cleerly in this place, is it expressed (not with standing such name) to be the body of Christ, by saying,1. Cor. 11. that, by eating this bread, and drinking this cupp vnworthely, they are guiltie of the body and blood of Christ himselfe; because they did not discerne the body of our Lord: his body which was to be deliuered to death, &c. All which significations vttered by S. Paul, in the same place to certifie the name of bread, not to specifie bread, but Christs body: this obiection may be thought out of date, and as a crackt grot not lawfull, or currant any longer. Because not to any desert of M. Riders trauails, but to Iesus Christ, I deuote my tyme imployed in this aunswer, I will now beyond sufficiencie in this cause, tender these woords of S. Cyrill of Hierusalem, in Catechesi, mystagogica 4. Non sic attendas haec velim tanquam sint nudi, & simplex panis, nudum & simplex vinum: corpus enim sunt & sanguis Christi. Nam etsi sensus aliud tibi renuntiat, fides tamen te confirmet. I would not haue you conceaue that it is bare and simple bread, bare and simple wyne: for although thy sense conceaue otherwyse, yet let thy fayth confirme thee. So that how soeuer bread be named, or appeare bread to the sences, yet the thing so called is assured to be Christs sacred bodie,
But it is expedient to haue M. Rider him selfe brought to disable his owne obiection. He then in the 62. number thus speaketh. It is the vsual maner of the holy Ghost in all Sacraments both of the ould testament, Ca [...]eat. numb. 62. and new, to tearme the visible signe by the name of the thing signifyed, as Circumscision (it is his, orthographie so to wryte) is called the couenant &c. graced by the holy Ghost, (sayth he) with the names of things they represent, & confirme. Yf it be the vsual maner of the holy Ghost to grace the visible signe, with the names of things they represent, how is it not M. Rider your 83.The 83. vntruth. vntruth, by your owne disproofe of your selfe, that the B. Sacrament contayneth nothing but bread, because for representing bread, it is called bread. As stale, and friuolous, is this other reiterated shift, to say; you should haue recited this, and that; you would couer, and conceal, this, and that; you cutt off deceitfully this, and that, &c. For what belldam, or [Page 201] bedlam conceit, but might doe as much? to witt, to followe headlong a naked refuge, which nether couereth, not defendeth them, but maketh their want, and miserie more notoriouse? More of this you may fynd in the 43. number.
92. Out of which I note, first, that you keepe this back,Rider. hopinge thereby to establish your halfe communion vnder one kinde,Concomitancie some what yonger thē your Transubstantiation both forged by your selues neuer knowne in Christs Church for a 1000. yeares at leaste. that the Catholickes might thinke that the receuinge of bread were sufficient, because (you say) Christs bodie muste needes, euen by the ncessitie of concommitancie, haue blood in it, and therfore it is no neede to receiue the cup: which if it be true, (but I am sure it is most false) then Christ was deceiued in his wisedome and the Apostles and primitiue Church in their practise, which I hope you dare not say for sinne and shame. And therefor giue ouer these irreligious practises of Additions, Subtractions, Interpositions, and vaine expositions, with new Inkhorne-termes of concomitancie, and confesse Christ his ancient and Apostolicall trueth trulie.
92. It appearing in the precedent number, that my leauings out,Fitzsimon. cuttings by the wast, dismembrings &c. proceedeth by my auerring, the one only point in question, of Christs real presence, and auoyding all diuagations, impertinent to that point, for breuitie & playne dealing: it must follow, that all these reprehensions, are but parerga, or digressions to dazell the Readers eyes, that vnder such mist he may clinche, and sneake away, from the mater, without being perceaued. Of the Communion vnder bothe kynds; he tendreth after occasion to aunswere it among the parlament 6. articles. Therfor, because, frustra fit per plura, quod potest eque bene fieri per pauciora; in vayne should we aunswer twyse, when one aunswer may suffice: it shalbe remitted thether. That Christs body should by concomitancie haue his blood conioyned with it; he saying, it is most false, must infallibly make vp the 84. vntruth.The 84. vntruth. For concomitancie being by natural signification, only a conioyned fellowshipp; our Saluiour Christ hauing a true natural body, to which blood naturaly is conioyned in fellowshipp; it must consequently follow, that it hath blood by concomitancie, especialy at all other tymes, then during his passion and death. But this sheweth, that M. Rider is perswaded with the residue in the 14. number of the examination, that Christs blood is putrifyed on earthe, and was neuer resumpted by Christ at his resurrection. I know M. Rider for the most parte as sone as your words are vttered, from whom they are, and vpon whom they are builded. In this among the rest, I am not ignorant, that Caluin is your teacher. In him you fownd (in cap. 26. Math. v. 27.) affirmed: they are furiously madd, who affirme any blood to be longer conioyned with Christs fleash. You ther [Page 202] upon being fearfull to be furiously madd, denyed the concomitancie or coniunction of Christs bloud with his fleash. But as the Scripture fortowld, Prouer. 1. God doth laugh yow to scorne since that which you feared is fallen vpon you; For by denying this concomitancie, or coniunction, of Christs blood, with his fleash, you are indeed knowen furiously madde, to al them who doe not beeleeue the price of our redemption, to haue beene corruptible; or to haue perrished, and neuer bene resumpted againe. Such are al worthie to be called Christians. Therfore beware of being bounde, and left by concomitancie, among the Bedlamits. Of his argument, if ther be concomitancie, then Christ was deceaued &c. As he leaueth it vnproued, so I wil leaue it vnfollowed.
Rider. And therfore they are to new to be Catholick and to strang to be true.93. Thus much to giue the Catholickes a taste of the wrongs you offer them, it lulling them asleepe in the cradle of ignorance and superstition, whereas they would be most willing and readie to obey the auncient,Reuel. 14.6. Rom. 1.16.2. Thess. 1.8. The Text is the Lord, not Christ, the writer mistooke it, the Author I blame not. powerfull, and euerlasting Gospell of Iesus Christ, if you did not mislead them by your wilfull errors, and keepe backe from them the reading of the Scriptures, which holds them and hardeneth them in Recusancie. But take heed, least you by this ignorance in which you keepe them, and the disobedience to the Gospell in which you fetter them, you with them and for them, hazard not that dolefull taste and torment prepared for wilfull ignorant Recusants of Christ his Gospell, where it is said: Rendring vengeance in flaming fire to them that know not God, nor obey not the gospell of Iesus Christ. Now Gentlemen, if you be authors of their sinnes, you must be partakers of their punishments: which both the Lord is mercie preuent. Now followeth another part of your proofe drawen out of a part of the 37. verse, in these words: Shal be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of Christ:
Out of these words some late writers since your transubstansiation was inuented would prooue two vaine questions that are in controuersie betwixt you and vs.
1. The first, is your carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament.
The second, that the wicked doe eate the bodie and drinke the bloud of Christ.
In handling and aunswering these. I shall hardlie seuer the one from the other, b [...] as you inferre, that the graunting of the one confirmes the other: So must I in confuting the one destroy the other, and so one aunswere will serue to confute both.
Fitzsimon. 1. & 2. Elench. 5.39. There is in sophistrie a caption, called, Captio eius quod simpliciter dicitur, et secundum quid; whereby deceitfully one woulde reason, as in this maner: Yf yow be a theefe, you are to be executed: but you may be a theefe: therfor you are to be executed. He proueth, one, who may be, and may be not a theefe, should absolutly be executed, as yf it were out of controuersie that he were a theefe. This falacie, is most incident with M. Rider against vs, as in the 91. in this, and the next numbers, abundantly appeareth. For example. Yf bread remayne after consecration, then there is no carnal presence: but [Page 203] bread remayneth after consecration: therfor there is no carnal presence. Here is an absolute conclusion vpon a conditional proposition, yf bread remayne &c. which yet in Luthers opinion of companation, would be false. The other proposition, is deceytfully supposed true, beyond all controuersie, that bread remayneth &c. A second: Yf you be autheurs of their synns, you must be partakers of their punishment: but (as he deceytfully supposeth, or rather, as I thinke in my conscience, dissembleth to suppose) we are autheurs of their synns, which being in controuersie, one only proofe had bene requisit in forme of argument: but that at his hands were to seeke woolle at the goats howse) therfor &c. Yf Mennon Darius lieutenant against Alexander, were among such compagnions; how often should he be occasioned to cudgell or bastonad them, as he did one of his sowldiours, reuiling, and reprehending the Macedonians; saying. I keepe thee to fight, and not to scould. For yf Memnon lyke you bereaue them of their rayling reasoning; that you keepe people in ignorance; that you will tast, as recusants of Christs gospell, vengeance in flaming fyre; & other such fanatical naked reproaches; Other fighting of their learning, you nede as litle feare, as hurt from a serpent, whose sting, and teeth, are taken away.
94. Thus you record to the worlds wonder,Rider. Rhem: Test. 1. Cor. 11. Sect. 16. (& Rome & Rhemes shame) against God, Christ Scriptures, and Fathers, that ill liuers and Infidels, eate the bodie and drinke the bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, and your reason there followeth: that they could not bee guiltie of that they receiued not, and that it could not bee so hainous an offence, for anie man to receiue a peece of bread or a cup of wine though they were a true Sacrament. First, old father Origen shall answere you, who saith, Est verus cibus quem nemo malus potest edere: Origen super Math. 15. page. 27. It is true meat which no wicked man can eate. Heere Origen condemneth the Rhemists, Romanists, and all late Priests and Iesuites, for holding this opinion iniurious to Christs death, and all true Catholikes faith.
But you may obiect against Origen, and say, the Rhemists laid downe their opinion, and gaue reasons to confirme it: But where is Origens reason by which he prooues this former position, that no wicked man can eate Christs bodie?Super Math. 26. forsooth it is in his Comentarie vpon your text, brought forth of mathew in these words: Panis quem filius Dei corpus suum esse dicis, verbum est nutritorium animarum: the bread which the Sonn of God said to be his bodie, is the nourishing word of our soules.
Out of which this we gather, that seeing this bread or meate is the nourishment of our soules, & not of our bodies, he spake of the heauenlie part of the sacrament. For we know in common sence, that bread and wine cannot nourish the soule, but the bodie, & I haue proued by scriptures and Fathers before, that the hand and mouth of the soule, is a liuelie & iustifying faith, which you & all your side cannot denie but the wicked want. Now if the wicked haue no mouth nor stomacke to receiue this spirituall food, and digest it, as the foresaid Fathers haue affirmed, why doe you say, that [Page 204] the wicked and Infidels can eate the bodie of Christ, wanting both hands, mouth, and stomacke?
And the scriptures call wicked men dead men: Now you know dead men cannot eate meate corporall,Chrysost. Hom. 60. ad pop. Antioch. no more can the wicked which are dead spirituallie, eate meat celestial. And Chrysostome sayth, Let no Iudas stand to, no couetous person, if anie be a disciple, let him be present, for this Table receiues no such as Iudas, or Magus, for Christ saith, I keepe my Passouer with my disciples.
And to conclude with Augustine, Tract. 26. super Ioh. pag. 175. Qui non manet in Christo & in quo non manet Christus pro [...]ul dubio, &c. Hee that abides not in Christ, and in whom Christ abides not, out of doubt eateth not spirituallie his flesh, nor drinketh his bloud, although carnallie and visiblie he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ, but rather eateth and drinketh the Sacrament of so great a thing to his iudgement, and the reason followeth, Quia immundus. &c. because hee is vncleane in heart, and presumes to come to the Sacrament of Christ, which no man can worthilie receiue, vnlesse he be pure and cleane in heart: as Christ saith,Mat. 5. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.
Out of Augustine I obserue against both your opinions these thinges.
First, hee makes a difference of Christes flesh and the Sacrament of Christes flesh, for they bee two things, and to be distinguished with their seueral substances and properties, and not to bee confounded or transubstantiated one into the other, and so the nature of bread perish, as you vntruelie imagine and teach.
Secondly, that the wicked receiue and grinde with their teeth, and swallow with throat the outward Sacrament, that is, the outward visible creatures of bread and wine,Acts. 15.9. to their iudgement or condemnation, because they presume to come without a cleane heart and conscience purified by faith. But the godly eat the heauenlie part of the Sacrament: which is Christ with his benefits, because they dwel in Christ (by faith) and Christ in them (by his spirit) as hath been plainlie handled before.
Part. 3. distinct. 2. cap. 65.And now I will be bolde to vrge your owne Popes decrees against you: Qui discordat à Christo &c. whosoeuer dissenteth from Christ, doeth neither eate his flesh nor drinke his bloud, but the wicked dissent from Christ, therfore they neither eat Christs flesh nor drinke his bloud. And cap. 69. following: quicunque panem, &c. Whosoeuer eateth this bread the Lord, shall liue foreuer, but the wicked liue not for euer, therfor the wicked eate not this bread the Lord.
Now Gentlemen, I would faine see how you can dissprooue these Fathers and old Popes, and satisfie the Catholicks in this case: but I shall haue a fit place to speak of the vnreasonablenesse of this opinion in the title of the Masse, where I must shewe to the Catholickes, the Popes, Priests, and Iesuits shamefull opinions, that you thinke it no incouenience not onelie for the wicked, but also for all such bruit beasts, as cats or dogs, rats or mice, hogs or swine, to eate the blessed bodie, and drinke the precious bloud of Iesus Christ.
VVhether the wicked may receaue Christ or noe.
Fitzsimon. The 85. vntruth.94. WHat a ful-mouthe worde [worlds wonder] is the 85. vntruth thrust out withal, that the wicked receaue not the body of Christ? Could euer honest, or other, countenance a true complaint better, then [Page 205] Putifars wife, or the false harlot before Salomon, or the wicked Iudges, their false accusations? Blame me, if M. Rider be not here, and euery wher, found accessorie in like eloquence; to witt, in moste deceitful vehemencie, iustifyinge a falshoode, which is by him selfe, and al others, for such accompted. For to be truly acquainted with the truth herein, whether the wicked receaue the whole Sacrament; vnderstand the doctrin of Gods Church, to be expressed in this controuersie, aboue a thousand yeares paste (although M. Rider immediatelye before saith,S. Gregorius. S. August. l. cō. Fulg. Donat. c. 6. Idem. l. 2 con. Lit. Petil. c. 40. In Psal. 10. Theodoret. 1. Cor. c. 11. S. Chrysost. ho. 8. in Math. in. cap. 11. 1. Cor. Ser. 3. in c. 1. ad Ephes. &c. S. Hieron. in Psal. 54. that it is an inuention of late writers) by S. Gregorie, saing. Est quidem in peccatoribus, et indignè sumentibus, vera Christi caro, & verus sanguis; sed essentia, non salubri efficientia; The true fleash of Christ, and true blood, is certainely in sinners, and vnworthy receauers; but in essence, and not in healthful efficacie. S. Augustine more ancient, said. Iudas the traitoure receaued the bodye of Christ, and Simon Magus, the good Baptisme: but because they vsed not wel the good, by vsing it ill, they perished. The same doctrine he els where manifouldly inculcateth. Theodoret Bishope, about the same time, said. Iesus Christ did not only giue his pretious body and blood to eleauen Apostles, but also to Iudas the traitour. By S. Chrisostom is said; The traitour was made partaker of diuine presents. He also of this matter, hath written certaine expresse homilies, plentifully containing, Iudas to haue receaued the B. Sacrament. By S. Hierom; Cibus dulcis est corpus Christi, quod ipse accipit indignus; Sweete meate is the body of Christ, which he (Iudas) receaued vnworthely.
What need I any witnesse to conuict the 86.The 86. vntruth. vntruth in this matter, then M. Rider againste him selfe? Who so often is made to ouerthrow him selfe, that he confirmeth the saying of Gods holy word.Micheae l. 7.6. Math. 10.25. Inimici hominis domestici eius. The enimyes of a man are his owne domesticalles. He then repeating soone after, S. Augustins woordes; that the wicked presse with their teeth, the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, thereby eateing them to their iudgment, because they are vncleane in hart. What doe wee craue more, then that the wicked eate the Sacrament of Christs bodie and blood (and consequently not of his figure only) to their iudgment? What heapes of Doctors and Fathers, might I produce to auerre this doctrin,1. Cor. 11. if in this so cleere a case (S. Paul so manifestlye auouching, those to be guiltie of the bodye and bloode of our Lorde, and to eate their owne iudgment (not who did not beleeue in Christ, or who did abuse a figure of Christ (but they who did eate and drinke his bodye and blood vnworthely, not discerning the body of Christ) the few testimonies here alleaged, and M. Riders owne interpretation of S. Augustin, did not commaunde me to forbeare superfluitie. Origen produced by M. Rider, Origen. in Psal. 37. [Page 206] telleth the 87,The 87. vntruth. Origen. in Psal. 37. vntruth to be, that he denieth the wicked to cōmunicate the B. Sacrament, he saying to the wicked; Doste thou not feare to communicate the body of Christ, approaching to the Eucharist, as if thou werst pure and cleane, and as if there were nothing in the vnworthy? &c. Doste thou thinke that in all this, thou wilt auoyde the indignation of God? Doste thou not remember what is written, that for this cause many are become sick and feeble, yea and stroken to death? Continually you behoulde, that M. Riders sayinges, are true like dreames, rather by being true contrariously, then as they were by him related.
The 88. vntruth.S. Chrisostom also, craueth to haue numbered, the 88. vntruth, that he denieth the wicked, in that homilie, to communicate Christs true body; he only exhorting, that they who should receaue, would omitt to be wicked; and to that end heaping most goulden sentences to perswade them thereto. Is shame and fidelitie vanished out of the worlde? Can such Fathers, by any honest hart, be wreasted to denye when they affirme; to affirme, when they denye? Aurifaber a Protestant,Aurifaber apud Ministro machi [...] pag. 7. affirmeth; that Luther on a time complained, that; Post reuelatum euangelium, virtus est occisa, iustitia oppressa, temperantia ligata, verita [...]a canibus lacerata, fides clauda, nequitia quotidiana, deuotio pulsa, heresis relicta; After the gospel (of pretended reformation) reuealed, vertu is slaine, iustice oppressed, temperance tyed, truth torne by dogges, faith lame, wickednesse continuall, deuotion fled, heresie remaining. If Luther had knowne M. Riders dealing among the rest; thinke you, would he not applaud to him selfe, that he was become a prophet? S. Augustin (whom he by ignorance maketh a Pope) claymeth to haue the 89.The 89. vntruth. vntruth marked; because, in saying, he that dissenteth from Christ eateth him to his perdition (for as the glosse contayneth; mali accipiunt corpus de virgine natum; the wicked receaue the body borne of a virgin) he is made by M. Rider absolutly to affirm,In cap. citatum à Ridero. that the wicked doth nether eathe his fleashe nor drinke his blood. The 90.The 90. vntruth. vntruth is, that in the third chapter following, any such mater, as he informeth, is ether contayned, or mentioned. I leaue, and report all arbitrement, of such proceeding not only to all others, but euen to my good Reformer him selfe; especialy, yf he be not in his furious, but in his merry moode; wherin diuers tymes he acknowledgeth many trueths, wherof otherwyse, he had not bene so liberal.
But I must confesse by the way, that he affoordeth once a varietie,C yet not in true learning, but deceytfull sophistry: saying; That the wicked haue not a liuely and iustifying faythe, as nether we, nor all our syde can denye. This caption or fallacie, is called; Captio plurimum interrogationum [Page 207] vt vnius; of sundrie demandes, as beinge all one; As if one woulde require:1. Elench. 4. Note wel. is Peter a man, and a woman? If you answere affirmatiuely, the Sophist therupon inferreth, that Peter is a woman: & if you answere negatiuely; he inferreth, that Peter is not a man. So M. Rider knoweth, that we will not say, that the wicked haue a liuely iustifying faythe (for how can they be iustifyed yf they be wicked?) and he is not ignorant, but we would, and should say, that wicked, people may haue fayth; or that they become not infidels, or hereticks, by euery act of wickednes: and therupon (as yf these two were all one) he inferreth, that we, and all our syde, can not deny, but that they are without faythe, and dead men, & not able to eate spiritual meat &c. How they are able to eate such meat, namely not to their benefit, but to their perdition, is often towld, and contayned in S. Gregories woords before alleaged.
This sophistrie of his beinge discouered, lett me I praye you with your licence, trye whether by good diuinitie, and Protestant suppositions, I be not able to inferre against him, that the wicked may eate the Sacrament. The first of my Protestant suppositions, is;Zuinglius in epist. ad Eissingenses. That to eate Christ, is to beleeue in Christ. Zuinglius saith; Nos ex Dei verbo asserimus, Christum edere, idem esse, quod in Christum credere. vve by the worde of God doe professe, to eate Christ, to be alone and to beleeue in Christ. Calu. c. 6. v. 47. & l. 4. Instit. c. 17. n. 5. Calu. Catechism. dominica 51. Caluin saith. We confesse, that wee eate Christ no other waye, then by beleeuinge. Againe; In beleeuinge that Christ is deade for our redemption, and is risen for our iustification, our soule eateth the bodie of Christ spiritually. Robert Bruce saith in his sermons. By faith, and a constant perswasion, is the only waye to eate the body and drinke the blood of Christ inwardly. Peter Martyr saith the same;Bruce sermōs pag. 74. P. Mart. parte 3. pag. 644. 647. and M. Rider, and al the holy reformed Caluinian, and Zuinglian church. The second Protestant supposition, is, that faith once had, can neuer be lost. Bruce saith in person of the rest; Faith once giuen by God, Pag. 279. Calu. l. 3. Instit. c. 2. n. 9. 10. 12. 12. 13. can not be reuoked againe: wherof see manifould authors, alleadged in our examination of Protestantry toward the Creed, the 5. number. The third Protestant supposition, is this; That Christ is as muche receaued by hearing the word preached, as by communion; nay more, saith Peter Martyr: Neque vereor dicere, multo etiam magis &c. I feare not to say, Martyr. con. Gardinerum parte 2. reg. 5. pag 61. parte 3. pag. 547. 644. 683. rather much more by wordes, then by Sacraments. Of whiche I haue amplye treated number. 39.
Vpon these three fundations, or suppositions, I thus inferr. VVho soeuer beleeueth the death and resurrection of Christ, do eate Christ: wicked people do beleeue the death and resurrection of Christ: therfor wicked people do eate Christ. The first proposition, or point, is owt of the first supposition. [Page 206] [...] [Page 207] [...] [Page 208] The second is out of S. Paul,1. Cor. 13. that wicked men may haue, not only faith historical, but all faith (saith he) and therby transferr mountayns (which is a degree beyond all protestant faith) and deliuer their bodyes to be burned, 1. Cor. 13.4. &c. Yet that they are so farr from being iustifyed, that they are nothing,In prima hgura, modo 3. that their fayth is in vayne; nihil prodest; it proffiteth him that hath it nothing. The former conclusion, infallibly followeth the premisses as being in true forme of argument. Secondly; VVho soeuer may heare a sermon vpon the passion, may eate Christ: the wicked (as adulterers, theefs, murderers, dronkards, &c.) may heare a sermon vpon the passion: therfor they may eate Christ. The first proposition is the very woords deliuered in the third supposition.In cad. figura, & modo. The second is knowen to all experience, and vnderstanding; the third infaillibly followeth the premisses. Thirdly, whosoeuer (hauing fayth which can not be lost (as they saye) after it is receaued) beleeueth; doth eate Christ: the wicked man, during the act of his wickednes, (as fornication &c.) beleeueth; for he can not loose his faythe, as is supposed: therfor the wicked, during the act of his wickednes, doth eate Christ. Vnlesse these be pregnant, and forcible deductions, neuer were there any, in all learning hither to affoorded as hauing the mater from them selues, and the forme from Logicke. Let all humain protestants now beware, to follow such fayth: whereby the eatinge of Christs body in this B. Sacrament, is so disgraced, as to be compared with euery Ministers preaching, and to be worthelye receaued, by euery heynous offender, so that he doe but beleeue in Christ, and that, not only after his wickednes, but duringe the very acte it selfe.
Rider.95. This you blush not to print, but I protest, my hand shakes and my heart quakes to write it, because it is so monstrous and beastlie a blasphemie to that blessed bodie and that precious bloud, that suffered and was shed for my saluation.
Fitzsimon.95. This tender harted Gentleman (such he is now lately, by gods permission and good S. Patrick) is shakinge, and quakinge, to deliuer doctrine, by vs, as he saith, printed; but indeede, only by him selfe forged. If he hath hitherto bene found to misreport, Scriptures, Fathers, Doctors, and al monuments by him produced when he had quoted theire euidences; who wil credit him, when he quoteth nothing (which he fulfilleth perpetually, as oft as any absurditie is imputed to vs) he hauing saide, repeated, and surrepeated, that he would not omit in al matters, to alleadg our authours, bookes, chapters, leaues, pages, if not lines? The ommission of al which together in this place,The 91. vntruth. amounteth, at least, to the 91. vntruth. I wil not forsake [Page 209] this my woord of greater curtesie, to follow the letter, in saing that for leaues, and lynes, we haue nothinge but leasings, or lyes. To tearme this an vntruth, is more curteous, and expresseth sufficiently the matter.
96. Now for this second part of your Remish note vppon this place, which is,Rider. How can a man bee guiltie of Christs bodie, if he touch not Christs bodie? Chrisost. Tom, 3. Hom. 60. & 61. de fumentibus indignae diuina & sancta mysteria pracipus de caena Domini & de baptismate. I had rather Chrisostome vpon this text in one of his workes should aunswere you then I, his words be these: Nam si regiam contaminantes purpuram, similiter puniuntur, sicut, &c. For if he that hath disteined, violated, or polluted the kings robes, whether it bee of purple or some other matter, shall be as seuerelie in iustice punished, as if he had rent them: Euen so it shall be with such as receiue the Lords bodie im pura mente, with an vnprepared and vnclean mind, they shall be punished with equall torments wich such as nailed him to the crosse.
Out of which I obserue, first, that Chrysostome condemneth your carnall presence and corporall eating, in telling you they must be eaten with the mind, not with the mouth: but of this we haue sufficientlie spoken of before.
Secondlie, by comparrison, he sheweth you how you may bee guiltie of treason against the kings person (though he neither touch nor hurt his person) in offering disgrace but to his garments, his person being absent. And as he that contumeliously receiueth the princes seale (though of ware) is guiltie of the Maiestie of the Prince, not which he receiueth, but which hee despiseth: so he that eateth this bread, and drinketh this cup of the Lord without due preparation (as aforesaid) considering they are seales of Christs promised benefits, purchased in his bitter and blessed passion, committeth high treason against Christ: though in deed in substance they receiue but bred and wine. And as a man may be guiltie of treason in renting, defacing, or clipping the kings picture, seale, or coine, though the king be not locallie in place: so the wicked in the Sacraments which are Christ seales, which being abused by them, they are guiltie of Gods iudgements, though Christ be not inclosed locallie in the bread and wine.
And what Chrysostome speaketh here of the Lords Supper, the same hee doth of Baptisme, and saith, a man may be as well guiltie of the Lords bodie and bloud in cōtemning Baptisme, which is but a seale of his washing in the bloud of Christ, though hee neuer washed but in water, and alleadgeth Paul, Heb. 10 29, saing, Of how much sorer punishment suppose yee shalbe be worthy which treadeth vnder foot the sonne of God, & counteth the bloud of the testament as an vnholie thing, &c. These Fathers haue aunswered you, and I hope will satisfie fullie the indifferent Reader.
Now three sorts of men are guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. The first are plaine Atheists, that are without God or godlinesse in this present world, and such eate this bread vnworthelie, and therefore are guiltie of Christes bodie and bloud.
2. The second sort haue a historicall faith, and a generall knowledge,Thre sorts of mē guilty of the Lords bodie. and beleeue that whatsoeuer is taught in Gods booke is true, but they lacke apprehension and application to make a particular and holy vse of the same, and therefore if such come and eate of this bread, they are guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord.
3. The third sort haue a liuelie apprehending and applying faith, yet in their life they slippe and fall, yea sometimes verie grieuouslie, yet they awake and weep with Peter, and repent for the same. All these are said to eate vnworthelie, but the first two sorts vnto their condemnation.
[Page 210]The third sort for their faults, frailties, negligences, and vndue preparation, are in this life of the Lord corrected, least with the world they should be damned. The two first sorts eateth onelie the outward elemēts: the last sort eateth the bodie of Christ, and drinketh the bloud of Christ. And now to your second proofe out of Saint Paul.
VVhether it be treason to breake Images.
Fitzsimon.96. YF (as he in this place affirmeth) a man may be guiltie of treason in renting, defaceing, or clipping the kings picture, seale, or coyne, though the king be not localy in place: then consequently and necessarilie they must be guiltie of treason toward God, who rent, deface, or clipp his pictures, seales, or coyne. The necessitie of such sequel, or inference, is apparent, considering that any abuse, or contempt in the resemblance of a prince, is not more iniurious to a prince, then the lyke in a representation of God, is to God. Nether was there other cause why God did punish Oza, 2. Reg. 6. & 13. but prophaning resemblances of him contayned in the arke, and all others that sacrilegiously misbehaued them selues not only toward his figures, yea shadowes, but also toward vesselles, and ornaments, belonging to them. Now then tell plainly, M. Rider, will you stand to your words, or recant them? what say you? Neuer thinke, sayth S. Cyprian ep. 73. because you haue once fayled that you should therfor blush to reuoke. What say you, shall his discourse be starling, or noe?
Me thinke I behould you frowning, & fretting at me for seeming to A thinke that you would euer reclayme: Your conclusion therfor is that treason is cōmitted by iniurie to the pictures & persons alyke. Then woe, and well away, to all your brethren, image-breakers. Then woe, and well away, to VValer the murtherer, vnder-minister of Swoords, who hanged on a gibbet the picture of Christ crucifyed, anno 1603. Then woe, and well away, to M. Rider, who only to haue stones to build an ouen, to bake bread, (to impouerish bakers of the citie, not hauing idely or without price, seuenten hondred barrells of corne yearly as he hath,) pull'd downe the fayre crosse in S. Patricks, which all others his predecessors of that profession had permitted vnuiolated, and to the same vse to haue fyer, pull'd downe all the trees therin. This sentence of his giuen against him selfe, & brethren, made his owne sonn, mense Maio, 1604. when he attempted to pull downe ane image, to be by Gods iudgment, precipitated from a height, and altogether crushed: and at the same tyme his seruant to be stricken with the plague, &c. This sheweth that it [Page 211] is noe greater treason against a king to abuse and despise his picture, then against Christ to prophane and distroye his images? What needed this moth, to intermedle with the candle of learning, wherby his wyngs are so often scortched? What needed him to implie, that abusers of the communion (according to his surmise, being but a bare representation of Christ) shalbe punished with equal torments, with such as nayled him on the Crosse? Where then will the final Rende vous of Protestants be, who haue abused other his representations, images, appellations, as well expressing his death, as the Protestant Sacrament? I can not choose but say with the Poet.
Ingratum genus vestrum quicunque forenses
Admiramini plausus,
Euripides Hecuba ex versione Gasparis Stiblini.
(vtinam non essetis mihi cogniti)
Qui nihil pensi habetis amicos laedere
Modo dicatis grata multitudini.
O hatefull race of Mercenarie mates!
Searching applauds (ô that I knew you not)
Not waying how you harme your frends throwgh hates;
So you the peoples itching eares befott.
B But by the waye; what meaneth this often tearming of Sacraments, to be but seals? and especialy by them who by their profession are bound to beleeue, that they nether seale the body, nor soule: that they nether bring fayth, nor confirme it: that they are nether fruictfull, nor needfull; Yf otherwyse we be myndfull of Christ? Ochinus apud Andream Iurgiewicium in bello quinti Euangelij pag. 102. Ochinus resolueth; Spiritu Dei, non Sacramentis, fidem confirmari; By the spirit of God and not by Sacraments, fayth to be confirmed. Yf seales be accepted in stidd of Sacrament, because this woord is not in Scripture, as your brethren before determine: tell vs so playnly, and we will not inforce you to grawnt that your Supper of the Lord, (which your great Doctor P. Martyr sayth, in respect of the tyme it is receaued, P. Martyr. in 1. Cor. c. 11. pag 293. 294. and of your emptie stomacks, should with greater reason be called a breakfast or dyner) is a Sacrament. Now as I tould you befor, such hate is conceaued alredy among the Reformers against this woord Sacrament, as it is conuenient you abstayne from it. For they say;Bruces sermons pag. 4. 126. VVestphal in apol. pag. 5. Pag. 126. about the ambiguitie of this word are rysen many tragedies, which will not cease, whyle the world lasts: that it is a name proceeding from meere folly of man: that Carolostad vtterly reiected it: and that you must be satisfyed with the woord of seale; which sayth Bruce, God, and Christ haue giuen to his Apostle, &c. Only yf this had bene sayd befor, not couertly, but playnly, and sensiblye, we had neuer [Page 212] inueyed against your figuratiue Sacramēt,Muscul. in loc. con. c. de canan. 2. pag. 327. but against your figuratiue seale. And then according to Musculus, had we bene neuer the nerer. For seale is not fownd so conuenient to specifye your doctrin: as appeareth by him in these woords: the bread is the body of Christ nether naturaly, nor personaly, nor realy, (marke good M. Rider) nor corporaly, nor, yet spiritualy (agayne marke, I pray you for in the 62. number you are shewed to be a falconer and therfor may obserue your game in your owne phrase) nor figuratiuely (good Sir attend) nor significatiuely (you will loose all your opinion yf you take not heede) restat post haec omnia, Westphal. loc. cit. Clebitius in victoria veritatis & ruina Papa [...]us Saxonici argum. 12. vt dicamus panemesse corpus Domini sacramentaliter: it remayneth after all these, that we say the bread is the body of Christ sacramentaly. So that this woord Sacrament is nethet allowed, nor the woord seale, retayned, but Sacrament sayth Westphalus, then only obserued, when Caluinists may shift and lurk vnder it, as in this case tearming it a brasen wall: being at all other tymes disclaymed, as noteth Clebitius.
Notwithstanding this foisting in of the new fangled woord [Seal] C and enimitie against the woord [Sacrament] (as else where against the woords Christ, Churche, Catholick) traditions, preests, merit, good woorks, Romain, real, Trinitie, consubstantial, Crosse, blesse, &c. Yet you shall behould our Reformer, so Catonicaly to censure this lightnes, as yf it had not bene his, and his brethrens, but our fault. Sic curios simulant, & bacchanalia viuunt. Yet mistake me not, that I seeme to dissalowe the worde Seale in his naturall signification knowinge that it is founde applyed to Circumcision:Gen. 17.10. Rom. 4.11. but what I indeuour, is only, to taxe this translation, of wordes out of the owlde testament into the newe, without al authoritie and occasion, to prepare a way to exclude al Sacraments of the new testament, by proouing them of no greater force, then the ceremonies of the ould lawe, with whom they agree in appellation.P. Martyr 1. Cor. 11. His diuision of three sortes of faithe, is borrowed out of Peter Martyr, nothing belonginge to any matter in question,S. Chrysost. hom. 45. in Ioan. nothing true, and containing nothing needful to be refuted. Lastly al his former discourse out of S. Chrisostom of treason, by the violence toward the picture, as much as toward the Prince in person; although it ouerthroweth euery way, image-breakers, &c. yet how it ouerthroweth the point in question, is breefly to be declared. Yf sayth. S. Chrysostom, the defylers of the kings robe be noe lesse then the tearers therof punishable: what meruayle, yf vncleane consciences receauing the body of Christ, be as damnable as the crucifiers of him? Wherby obserue, how this maketh against Protestancie: that the vncleane receaue the very body of Christ: that it is more treason against Christ [Page 213] to abuse this Sacrament, then against a kinge teare to a kings robe: it is no lesse then to crucifie him, ‘1. Cor. 10.16. The challice of benediction which wee blesse, is it not the communication of the bodie of Christ: And the bread which wee blesse, is it not the participation of his flesh.’
97. GEntlemen, yee wrong the Apostles text: first in your abuse of words,Rider. Verse. 21. secondlie in mistaking the sence. Your words be these, The challice of benediction: Pauls words in Greeke that must be iudge betwixt vs, and which wee doe follow (if we will follow Christ) are these. The cup of thanksgiuing. And the holie Ghost so expounds his owne meaning after, calling it poculum Domini, the cup of the Lord. But you are much to be blamed of all good men, because you had rather follow some late corrupt translation, & vse some superstitious inkhorne termes latelie deuised, and so forsake the olde Apostolical phrase which the holie Ghost vseth in that holie tongue, and in which it is still recorded for our instruction: either confesse your ignorance in the Greeke, or your malice against the trueth, that the Catholickes bee no longer seduced by you, that long trusted in you and to your doctrine.
Againe, you say, The bread which we blesse, we say as Paul said, and the holie Ghost pend, The bread which we breake: Alasse, alasse, what sinne doe you commit in thus seducing Christs flocke, and the Queens subiects, who hitherto haue builded their faith vppon your bare words.
Is this plaine dealing with Gods heritage? are you Catholicke Priestes? I pray you certifie the Catholikes what tongue or trāslation hath it thus as you pen it, The bread which wee blesse: I tell you plainelie, (yet in charitie) that you doe belie the Texte, falsifie the tongue, and seeke to keepe the people in blinde ignorance, and superstitious palpable darknes, to their euerlasting condemnation, vnlesse the Lord recal them, and they repent them. Paules wordes ar these in Greeke, and so your owne Hieroms translation hath them; The bread which we break. But you are so besotted with the crossing of your fingers, which you tel the people is the true Catholick blessing, that you forget and forgoe the true blessinge of the cup which is the Apostolical thanksgeuing to God for our redemption purchased in Christs blood, whereof the cup is the true signe.
Againe, we say as the holy Ghoste indited it, and Paule writte it, The communion of the body of Christ: you say as no learned man of the Greeke text euer saide,Error in the sence of the Texte Rhem. Testament. 1. Cor. 10. sect. 4. the participation of his fleash. Thus much I haue shewed how vntruly you deale: First, in abusing the wordes of the Apostle: Secondly, in seducing and deceauing the Catholickes, Let here the charitable Catholickes iudge how you wil abuse theire eares with fables that dare thus falsifie the plaine text.
Now come to shew how you mistake the sence of the words in the text, seeking by indirect wresting to make the text prooue your errour, which it denieth in flat termes and truth. For I assure the Catholickes, that nor one word, fillable, letter or title of this text once sounds of your carnall presence.
You follow the Rhemish, who in this place thus expounds the words of the Apostle. The cup which we blesse, that is to say, the challice of consecration which we Apostles and priests by Christs commission do consecrate, &c. and afterwards it followeth, [Page 214] the Apostle expresly referreth the benediction to the Challice, and not to God, making the holie bodie and the communicating thereof, the effect of the benediction. Now let me intreate you to aunswere me and the Catholickes, but these necessarie question drawne out of this your owne opinion.
1. First, by what scripture do you prooue that you are Apostles?
2. Secondlie, by what scripture doe you prooue that you are Priests?
3. Thirdlie, by what scripture doe you prooue your commission to consecrate Challices?
4. Fourthly, by what scripture doe you prooue, that the holie bloud of Christ is an effect of your benediction of the cup.
5. Lastlie, by what scripture prooue you that this blessing or thanksgiuing is referred to the Challice and not to God?
Apostles ye are not. Gall 1. 1. Cor. 9.1. 2. Acts. 9.15. Rom. 1.2.Vnlesse you prooue these points by canonicall scriptures to be true, (which you shall neuer doe) they bind no mans conscience to beleeue them or you. Against the first I thus obiect, that you are no Apostles, & thus I prooue it. A true Apostle must be called by Christ immediatlie, and that you are not. He must see the Lord Iesus in the flesh, which you haue not. He must haue his immediat commission from Christ to preach euerie where, which neither Priest, Semynarie, Iesuit, Cardinall, not Pope can haue,Gall. 2. Ephes. 8. as your owne consciences full well doth know, and therefore you are not Christs Apostles. The true Apostles were equall in authoritie, you disdaine it, nay more, you haue made against this, a new article of the Popes supremacie, and whole volumes of Cardinals Primacies, Iesuits Excellencies, and Priests Soueraignties.
Tertulian. contra Marcion.But I will say to you, as Tertullian saide to Marcion the hereticke: If you bee Prophets, foretel vs some things to come: if that you be Apostles, preach euery where, and agree with the Apostles in doctrine. For whosoeuer preach not the same doctrin the Apostles did, haue not the same commission the Apostles had. But you late Priests and Iesuits preach not the same doctrine the Apostles did:Iesuits and Priests be no Apostles. Priests ye are not. First, Because yee will not offer the flesh of beasts. therefore you haue not the same commission the Apostles had. The maior hath not difficultie: the minor is so plaine it needs no proofe: the conclusion is ineuitable.
We read of foure kinds of Priests in Gods Booke: three of them in the old Testament, and one in the new. The first after the order of Aaron: and one other after the order of Melchisedech: and the third after the order of Baall. After Aarons order you wil not be: And after Melchisedechs you can not be: And concerning the third order, I would you were as free from the ydolatrie of that false order, as you would be free of the imputation of their heresies.
The last parte of the Catholicks proofe by scripturs for the real Presence.
Fitzsimon.97. A Serpent that is crushed in the head, wresteth, and wryeth him selfe vp, and downe, infoulding his whole body into many vaine circles and turnings; withall his strugling purchasing nothing els, but that others may cōceaue the extremitie of his payns. M. Rider being wholy suppressed with this powerfull testimonie [Page 215] of Scripture,S. Chrysost. hom. 24. in 1. Cor. (that the chalice of benediction (as S. Chrysostom also calleth it) is, the cōmunion of the blood of Christ, and the bread a participation of his fleashe;) with manyfowld wreathings tumbleth vp, and downe, to talke of all by-maters, wishing vs to proue that we are Apostles, that we are preists, that chalices may be consecrated, that the holy blood of Christ is an effect of our benediction, &c. But especialy he is trubled, that a woord by vs was miswritten [blesse, for breake] exclayming at it, as at the most wicked infidelitie in the world. This is he who sayd in the 51. number, that he was sorie that he must tell vs our fault and yet here so carpeth at a fault of no importance. This is he, who in telling it, committeth tenne tymes a greater errour then it. For first, euen in this point and all his printed bookes, where he should haue sayd, the communication of the blood of Christ; he deliuereth the communication, not of the blood but, of the body of Christ: and next the very woord blesse, which he was now to reprehend; he deliuereth (as yf he were thinking vpon some sister in the Lord of that name) Besse. I say nothing els therto, but that your Fidd (for so I thinke you are wont to name Fideworth your wyfe) might inioye your mynde alone, from all Besses and busines, that your bonds, and bragnes, can not brooke; and consequently contayne your homelines in homely maters, without ingageing them in schole points, wherin euen by your phisnomie you are denyed to haue any interest. Such as is this confusion, he sustayned abowt the sillable [it] as appeareth in the 51. and 76. number: by aggrauating small and harmlesse tripps of the penne, and in that selfe same reprehension, through Gods prouidence toward dissemblers, he, not only tripping, but stumbling, and tumbling into greuous inconueniencies him selfe.
Concerning the perfection of the latin translation, and the excellencie therof aboue any greeke now extant, to much is sayd for any satisfaction due to M. Rider: as also for the woord Blesse, and blessing of creaturs, and consecration of chalices n. 90. (in which mater S. Cyprian speaketh cleerly, saying; Calix solemni benedictione sacratus; S. Cyprian de cana Domini. Vide n. 101. the chalice consecrated by solemne benediction) and other extrauagant controuersies, both sufficiently, and abundantly is already propounded both for resolution concerning them, and for manifesting, that as weake, and bedred people, neuer consist quyet, but turne from syde to syde seeking repose; so M. Rider diuerteth from matter, to matter, to depestre and quyet his diseased, or crased cause and conscience, neuer remayning on the point incontrouersie. I would confute his saying [Page 216] in the margent, that only Christ was a preist according Melchisedeches Ordre, yf any one proofe were brought to make it seeme probable. Against his bare saying, let it now suffice; that as long as ether Sacrifice, or Sacrament of bread and wyne, remayne by vertu of Christs woords, do this in remembrance of me, so long must others besyd Christ, be preists accordinge the ordre of Melchisedech.
Rider. Secondly none after M [...]lchisedechs order but Christ onely.98. Now1. Pet 29. Exod. 19.6. Saint Peter in the new Testament setteth downe a fourth order of Priests which is a kinglie or royall Priesthood, but that is spirituall, not carnall, inward, not outward, common to all beleeuers, not proper (as you imagine) to anie naturall order, or ecclesiasticall function, For this is sound diuinitie, which you shall neuer disprooue: that the office of sacrificets and sacrificing, is either singular to Christ, in respect of his sacrifice propitiatorie onelie vppon the crosse: or else common to all true Christians, in respect of their spirituall sacrifices of praise and thanksgiuing: neither shall you euer finde this word Sacerdos, euer applied in the new Testament to any Ecclesiasticall order and function of men.
Fitzsimon.98. Take notice, Right Honorable, of the Concil, of this soule puritantcie of equalitie or parisitie here vttred against all former, and later iniunctions, of our soueraigne Princes, and all parlament statuts. Take notice also, Right honorable L. Chancelour, (yf there be any) and the rest of that sort, that M. Rider here assureth his ecclesiastical authoritie to be equal to yours. Take lastly notice, all fauourers and frends of Protestantcie, that Luther, Zuinglius, Caluin, Latimer, &c. are here disauowed, and disclaymed, to be ether your Apostles, or to haue had lawfull commission, as nether seeing Christ in fleash, nor haueing immediate commission from him. Here also is S. Paul denyed to be an Apostle,Act. 3.21. vnlesse he did see Christ in fleashe: yf he did see him, here is condemned that doctrin of Protestants, that heauen must contayne Christ, so as, he could be no where else till the day of iudgement. Which doctrin Beza, (whom the English bibles especialy of the yeares 1579. 1580. do most carefully follow) confesseth wittingly to haue affirmed contrarie to the Scripture in all greeke and latin copies, only to frustrat therby (yf he could) the real presence. For yf S. Paul did see Christ in heauen, (the neerest part of the lower heauens being at lest 1700. myles off) it had bene a great miracle, and as great to behould him in fleash. Nether is such M. Riders meaning, but only them to be lawfull Apostles, who had seene him corporaly, and bene conuersant in fleash with him. In which sence S. Paul so often assureth this to be the 92.The 92. vntruth. vntruth, as he auerreth himselfe to be an Apostle; as also all [Page 217] others doing the same: althoughe in that sence of M. Rider, he neuer sawe Christ in the fleash.
A NECESSARIE DIGRESSION CONTAYNING A declaration, what Puritants are, what they teache, and pretende.
1.Viret. dial. 3. alborit Daemonum. IT was general in all late Reformers in their first reuolt, for incuring the peoples beneuolence, to discommend the tyranie they were kept vnder by their bishops: informing them, that such vsurped authoritie being shaken off, as being repugnant to the liberty purchased by Christ in his gospell, they showld be free bothe from all terrours of eccleciastical cowrts and censures, recaue into their handes, the Church liuinges, Cōfessed by Zuickius to Caluin, in Caluins epistles. Epist. 33. whereby they and al poore and needy poople, at their discretion, might be releeued, yea and enriched. This plausible motion, buzzed from eare to eare, the light people (inclined to sedition vpon all motions of greater libertie,By Caluin him selfe epist. 66. 108. Beza in tract. de tribus Episcoporum generibus. Viret. dial. 3. alborū demonum. (especialy supported by pretext of reformations, and loue toward the woorde) consented by hart, and hande, to aduaunce such zelous Reformers, by whose direction, they might so be exempted from superiours. These Compagnions, fynding the tyme, and tyde, fauorable, spread their sayles, discoursing & exaggerating among the people; the pryde, the superfluities, the tyrany, the wickednes, the ignorance, & other corruptions of prelats: not sparing any informations, true or false, publick or secret, honest or dishonest, to make them more odious.
2. These instigations, preuayled first about Spyre in Germanie,Surius in an. 1502. where the multitude made a watch-woord among them selues, contayning, they could, not be blessed by reason of the clergie. But those wanting expert and resolut guids, Thomas Munzer, a quondam priest,Surius in Commentarijs. Luth. tom. 7. in serm. fol. 270. an. 1553. and Luthers disciple, excited his auditors by woord, and example, to second him, and his fellow Phifer an apostat Moncke: who condiscending to these perswaders not vnwillingly, they presently entred into armes and destroyed in one yeare two hondred Abbayes, and Castles in Franconia alone. And although, by the princes armed against them, aboue a hondred thousand of them were slayne, [Page 218] and Munzer taken, and executed; yet this contagious furie (vpon the same perswasion of libertie to be purchased) tooke such rooting in France, Germanie, Denmarke, and Scotland, that in France, in ciuile warrs therupon vndertaken,Lauat. hist. Fran. l. 9. fol. 208. an. 1568. Luth. l. de captiuitate Babil. c. de sacr. ord. Calu l. 4. Instit. c. 20. Beza ep. 41. Zuingl. l. 4. ep. f. 186. & li. 1. ar. 42. in the space of three yeares, are confessed by principal Protestants, not so few as a hundred thousand (iudge therby of the residue in all other places) ouerthrowen. The reformers animated them saying: it is a villanous thing, vnworthy, & wicked, that a Christian man, who is free, should be subiect to other lawes then heauenly, and diuine &c. Agayne, Princes are to be deposed, and the gouernment to be mere Aristocratical, that the people be only rulers of them selues. And to inflame the people to aspyre to this dominion, were dispersed in heapes seditious libells, and pamphlets; Iunius de potestate principum & populi, Vindiciae cont. tyran, Alitia, Toc-sayn, Fureur des François, Reueil matin, Concil sacré. De iure reg. apud Scotos, De iure magistratus in subd. Hotto Francog. &c. Wherupon,Vide Buchā. l. 16. pag. 590. hist. Scot. Magistrats were reiected; Emperours contemned, Kings deposed, restrained, and slaine; Queens expulsed; Contries, Cities, places fell to rebellion and reuolted, denying other then puritan tribute, to witt stroakes, and Canon shott: and that hurleburlie euery where was excited, as vpsyde was downe, lawes were abolished, slaues were Lords, as in the eyes, and monuments of France, Scotland, Denmarke, Flawndres, &c. is abundantly to all lamentation perspicuous. Wherin, how sparing I am to aggrauat at full against Reformers, by whom all such perturbations hapned, I leaue to such indyfferent vnderstandings, who are not ignorant of my acquaintance with autheurs treating hereof, & other circumstances, yet not informing but what I doe of them.
3. Among these commotions, the people in diuers Contryes, and places recouering the forsayd libertie, some retayned it in their owne hands: others resigned it willingly or vnwillingly to their clergie: supposing they would vse themselues with all desyrable & religious moderation. In places where the magistrate reserued it, and Ministers aduentured to incroache into the publick administration against their wills, they were by the Magistrate, violently extruded out of their charge, and Citties, as Heshusius, Wigandus, Illyricus, Index, Faber &c. Of Heshusius is sayd, by Beza.
Beza con. Heshusium.
Quaeritur Heshusius, cur sexta pulsus ab vrbe est.
In promptu causa est, seditiosus erat.
From Cities six exil'd, wayleth Heshus:
The cause is knowen he was seditious.
[Page 219] A And for the Magistrats defense, is alleaged,A Gantois, of t [...] consistories in Hollande. that they do suspect the (pretended good) forme of ecclesiastical gouernement; First, because they feare, least it wil degenerat into a worse tyrannie, then the spanishe inquisition; secondly, because they see a censuring of maners without lawes and lawfull forme of Iustice. §. In noe place they were so much ouertaken in theire wisdome, as in Geneua, by the politicke reache of Caluin; who beinge admitted anno 1536. by onlye title of their preacher and teacher, he moste deceitfully insinuated him selfe ouer their gouerment: and for being therein too insolent and imperious, he was banished within nine months,Caluin epist. 6. together with his chefe consorts, Farrel, and Viret, with this allegation; Tiranni esse voluerunt in liberam ciuitatem, voluerunt nouum pontificatum reuocare. They woulde haue bin tyrants ouer a free cittie, they would haue reuoked a new papacie. This Caluin him self confesseth, tearming the Senat of two hundred, by whō he was so exiled; tumultuosam perditorum hominum sactionem; Ibidem. a tumultuous faction of damned companions. Yet, according to the depth of his capacity he purchased such fauorable commendatorie letters, of al reformed places: he wrote so againste Catholicke religion; he dissembled such temperate moderation; that within litle more then two yeares after, he was reuoked to his former chardg of teaching in Geneua.
4. His fiirst fauoure was, to be licensed, to frame betwixt him selfe and other Ministers, a forme of ecclesiastical discipline: yet so, as to remitte it to the consideration of the Senate, to be allowed or no. This forme contaynd, that twelue cheefe townes men, should be conioyned with six Ministers: those to be changed yearly, these to be during lyfe. Their Iurisdiction should extend only to ecclesiastical causes. This forme they intituled a consistorie discipline. It was no sooner viewed, and lightly approued, but the maner of it and proceeding examined, in the Senat house, great dislyke was as soone conceaued against it. In so much, as Caluin confesseth, in labouring to support it,Calu. epist. 54. Calu. epist. 73. 82. 165. he was almost oppressed. Also he complaineth of impediments, saying: we haue to many of a hard and vntamed neck, by all occasions aspyring to shake of the yoake, &c. But not withstanding all possible imployments, in pulpits, publick and priuat conferences, suborning of suffrages: yet the Magistrat suspended the execution of this discipline, vntill they had consulted with other reformed Churches. Wherin also Caluin beyond all comparison, ouermatched them. For he preuented their informations, inueigled the states to whom they appealed, beutifyed in such good colours, his forsayd Consistorial disciplyne, implored the solicitation of the ministers there resident, disgraced so all [Page 220] repugners,epist. 164 165. and so, to be breefe, frustrated all hindrances, that what by woorking abroad, what by slye compassing at home, he purchased forraine resolutions, and the Senats approbations, to his contentment. All this narration is contayned in his owne Epistles: wherin is manifested, that neuer could any attempt be more impugned, and yet by slightnes of his witt established, then this discipline. This ecclesiastical authoritie, disalowed the name of Bishops, Priests, and Canon law, exchanging them into teachers, Deacons, Elders, Consistorian discipline, &c.
5. The cause of this repugnance against it, was first, by reason they perceaued, how all others besyds Caluin, serued only for a shew. Secondly, because vnder the coloure of conscience, by degrees, all law,Read hereof the ordre of Excommunication in Scotland. Ae 2. all authoritie, all controuersies were subiected to this consistorian discipline. Thirdly, because all small maters, were aggrauated and punished, more tyranicaly, then deseruedly. One instāce I thinke good to inculcat, out of Caluins owne information. In one widdow Baltasars howse, daunced diuers of the best of the Citie. Among whom was one of the fower, that yeare in cheefe office: as also a minister, Perrin the Captaine of the towne, &c. Caluin not being inuited to the sporte him selfe, sommoned them all. Caluin. Farello epist. 71. They, for more seare, flatly denyed the mater. Whervpon saith Caluin, impudenter nobis, & Deo, mentiti sunt; they impudently lyed to vs, and to God. Behould by the way, how he preferreth him selfe to God. He then adiured them to confesse their fault: but all in vayne. After he tendred a corporal oathe: which they refused. The conclusion was; Omnes in carcerem coniecti; all were committed to prison; except the forsayd Captain, who trusting tyme would pacifie this angrie Prince, retyred. But, sayd he, quicquid agat, paenam non effugiet; VVhatsoeuer he did, he should not escape. Ibidem. He being then returned, tasted of the same sower cupp. The issue was, sayth Caluin him selfe, that the people perceaued, nullam esse spem impunitatis, cum primarijs non parcatur; there was noe escape, when the principal were not spared.
I might here insert, how by the same holy consistorial discipline,A Valentin Gentil, Budneus in annot. Nou. test. [...]on. Bezam. and Michael Seruet, great Reformed preachers, and by Budneus called godly searchers of the truth; for displeasing Caluin, and Beza, were put to deathe. Fowerthly, what with it selfe, what with the abuses following, not only ciuil Magistrats, but also Reforming preachers,Bullinger. ad quendam Episcop. Angliae. 10. Mar. 1574. otherwyse Caluins frends, signifyed their great discontentment against the forsayd discipline. Bullinger wryteth thus therof. They imitate in my opinion those seditious Tribuns of Rome, who by vertue of the Agrarian law, bestowed the publick goods, that they might inrich them selues: that [Page 221] is, that bishops being ouerthrowen, they myght inioye their places, &c. Gualter ad Episc. London. Ieem in epist. ad Episcop. [...]lien. 26. Augusts 1574. Idē in ep. ad Episcop Tands. Barlow in his book of the summe of the Conferēce befor the kings Maiestie edit. an. 1605. pag 37. Gualter saith; I greatly seare least they bring vs, first into the gouernement of the multitude; which will shortly be conuerted in to the rule of a few; and lastly ende in a new Papacie. Agayne; I behould nothing to be more ambitious, nothing more insolent, nothing more vntoward, then these men &c. Agayne: many do repent that euer they admitted these mens Councell.
6. Omitting the scanning of an apt definition of a Puritan, giuen by one Butler in Cambridge, that he is, a Protestant frayd owt of his wits; I say vpon the premisses that the Puritans now called in our cōtryes, are such, (as repyning at all other ordōnances, and iniunctions of highe parlaments, and of their soueraigne princes) indeuoure by hooke, and crooke, to bring in this forme of presbiterie, and of Geneua Cōsistorian discipline, into England; with exclusion of all other authoritie, Temporal, and Spiritual: as I am breefly to manifest, by theire owne expresse protestations. But first I certifie; The begynners, not so peremptorily to haue impugned such authoritie, as the successours. For the first malcontented reformers with the state, seemed conducted therto, only by emulation: as Hooper and Rogers, who aspiring to be equal with Cranmer, and Ridley disliked the communion booke, published by them;Fox acts and monuments Pag. 1355. and sett foorth another of them selues: wherof, Fox is to be perused. These were Puritans of the meaner sorte, standing only vpon tippett, cappe, rotchet, and the oathe of supremacie. The next I fynde to haue succeeded, was one Samson, not he against whom Cardinal Pole wrote,Sander. l. 7. de visib. Monarch. in anno 1563. Pag. 711. but another who refused a thowsand pound yearly, rather then he would be conformable to the iniunctions of late parlaments. The mayne pillers of Englishe Puritans, were, and are, Cartwright, Charke, Reynolds, Trauers, Egerton, Gardiner, Barber, Field, Gellibrand, Gilbie, Sparks, Knewstubs, and Chaderton; &c. which three last; together with Reinolds, were the Agents and Embassadors, for the Millenarie malcontented faction, who became petitioners to his Maiestie. But of these forsayd, diuers recanted for ther liuings sake: that now, God be praysed, few, or none professe them selues of that coniuration, because they sayled against the wynde. Some others I could enumerate out of our Dublinians: but because the title is become so infamous, I will not recompt what Promotheans we haue in Dublin.
Wheras therfore I promised by their owne expresse protestations, to conuict them, to maligne all other authoritie, besyde their owne, I am now to iustifie my sayd promise, yf first, I only acquaint their first maner, to come into the good lyking of the people. In their gate, they [Page 222] affected a grauitie. Their eyes downward, vnlesse by way of compassion, as at some abuse, they lifted vp the whyts of their eyes. Their appareil neat, and of precise quantitie, and qualitie. Their ruffs small. Their countenances sadd. Their woords choise, and of exquisit and rare noueltie. You shall heare of nothing, but sanctifyed, deifyed, angelical, super-celestial, thoughts, woords, and deeds. Many sighes, and groans, burst from them. Their reprehensions intermedled with many sugred Apostrophes: Their exclamations cheefly against pluralitie of benifices, mariage of the clergie, their ignorance, superfluities, &c. All their conferences, to commend frugalitie, parilitie, modestie, and sobrietie. Yet yf Barrowes, and Greenwood, Barrowes discouerie Greenwood against Giffor. their owne brethren, be true; they are pernicious deceauers; (In all this description of them by their owne brethren, I will keepe my hands cleane) glosing hypocrits with God; fasting pharisaical preachers, cownterfeit prophets; pestilent seducers; sworne, waged, and marked disciples of Antichrist; deluders, suborners, transformers of good consciences; of whom Christ is to be vnderstood, saying; Yee are they, who iustifie your selues befor men, Luc. 16. but God knoweth your harts: They are perfidious, and Apostat reformists; precise dissemblers; Giddie, and presumptuous intermedlers, in all maters, publick and priuat; Stoical, and Cynical, watchmen ouer all actions &c.
7. To come now to my promise, to shew their aspyring ouer all authoritie, and that by their owne confessions; (although I might bring, a royal, and real demonstration therof, out of the summe of Conference befor mentioned, pag. 80. 81. 82. yet I thinke more dutyfully of the partie then to grace Puritans, who become insolent at the memorie of their rebellious violence by hauing had power to depose, and dispose of such potentats, with the least breath of his mouth) First this complaint is confessed by Viret, one of the very fownders (as appeareth in seueral epistles of Caluin) of the consistorian discipline.Viret. dial. 3. alborum damonum. The Ministers (sayth he) that haue renownced the Church of Rome, in seeking to gett the Magistrats, and peoples fauoure (I craue good attendance to these woords, auerring my first declaration in this treatise) against the Pope, Preists, and Moncks, disgraced so the state of preesthod and clergie, and contrarywyse, exalted so the state of the Magistrat, that now they finde the smarte therof. — They ouerthrew a spiritual Pope, and erected a temporal Pope. But I pray you giue eare to a strange confession. VVho so vseth (sayth he) such means to reforme the sault of the Pope, dothe not reforme, but deforme the Church. Cartwright, the proto-puritan, in estimation, of England, presumed, and trembled not, to saye; As pastors can not be officers of the common wealthe, no more can the Magistrat, be called properly a Church officer. [Page 223] Els wher he sayth: the prince submitts his scepter vnto the scepter of Christ, Cartwright Cōf. cap. art. 23. lib. 2. pag. 420. Vide l. 1. pag. 180. and lyckes the dust of the Churches feet. Which is more then euer was done to Pope. This is rownd puritancie; one way, by shewing an insolent pryde; and strange Puritancie another way, by speaking moste mildly, when they intend most ambitiously.Trauers in discourse of Ecclesiast. disciplin pag. 148. 174. Knox in his exhortat. to England. pag. 91. Vide Archibold Hamilton. in l. de confusione Caluinistica. Rennecherius in psal. 2. pag. 72. Trauers his scholer subscribeth saying; Heathen Princes being conuerted to the fayth, receaue no further increase of their power, wherby they may deale in causes ecclesiastical, then they had before. Knox of Scotland, is most resolute in this deposition of princes, saying; That all Princes ought to submit them selues vnder the yoake of discipline. That what Prince, King, or Emperoure shall disanull the same, he is to be reputed Gods enemie, and to be held vnworthy to raigne aboue his people. Yet, listen to more rownde and playne dealing in this point. Rennecher sayth; The political empyre is but a subalterne regiment; & quasi inferius quoddam subsellium; A lower and inferioure benche, to the consistorial discipline. By saying, it is but a subalterne gouernement, they intend,Erast. in farrag p. 36. that Kings and Princes shall only be, honorable executioners (as Erastus acknowledgeth) of their appointments. Against all princes, and their statuts, concludeth Martyn Mar-prelat; Martyn. sen. B. 4. C. 1. That such lawes as maintayne Bishops, are no more estimable, then they which mayntayne stewes &c.
8. Their indeuoure, to come to this supreame authoritie, is sometyme by incensing the people against the Magistrats statuts, sometime by hyperbolical commendations of their discipline, as it, and no other, is to be thought the expresse prescript, of Christ and true religion, all other discipline disproued. Sometyme by seditious Pamphlets, tending to make the state established, and lawes, odious, and ridiculous, as both tyranical, and replenished,Two puritan preachers in Stamford. with all superstitious defectiuenes. The Lord superintendent of Lincolne (as all other commanders) opposed him selfe against the publick puritanical fast: as appeareth by a leter dated to the Aldermen of Stamford 5. of September in the same yeare. Suddenly vp started two puritan preachers, the first, sayd openly; That without the warrant of fleashe and blood (vnderstanding therby the magistrat) and of acts of parlament, they might proceed in their purpose. The second; That he was of noe spirit who would respect any edicts of Queene, Counsell, or Bishops: & that their proceeding was not hindred, but by prophane and carnal wretches. Concerning their commending this discipline to the people vnderstand these speeches follouing.Gilbie p. 211. The wicked take parte with our aduersaries: but the Godly ioyne with vs. This ecclesiastical discipline is the ouerseer and custos of the ciuil gouernement, Rennecherus p. 74. that the magistrat doth not command his subiects any thing, ether contrary to the Scripture, or against nature, and good maners. It would make men to increase in [Page 224] wealth. [...]ions to the par [...]ent pag. 75. 74. 8. 79. — It would cutt off contentions, and sutes in law. The people should fynde out the trueth, and perfection of iustice. It would bring strengthe & victorie. Are not these powerfull prouocations to sedition? Are not these dangerous dealings? Are not these compagnions, to be obserued? I would be more prolixe in this point (if the chronicles of Scotland, the two supplications to the parlament, Cartwrights humble petition to hir Maiestie. His exhortation to the gouernoure and people of VVales, The late supplication of a thowsand subscribed puritan Ministers to his sacred Maiestie now regnant, The censure of Oxford therupon, Their proceeding befor his sayd Maiestie deliuered out by Barlow; theire Martyn Mar-prelat, Mar-Martin; the woorke for the Cooper; the cowntercuffe to Martin Iunior; the howles almanach; the pap with hatchet, or contry cuffe; the epistle to Huffe, Ruffe, and Snuffe; Hay-any woorke; Miles Monop, and now their late Suruey of the booke of Common prayer, Printed anno 1606. without mention of the place. &c.) were not extant, to certifie the world of their rebellious intentions, and treacherous practises: wherby alredy they restrayned and indangered euen our forsayd soueraigne King Iames, and for their so doing published a Iustificacation,It was printed an. 1582. vnder the title of, A declaration of the iust &c. professing the cause to haue bene only, because (say they) the discipline of the Kirke wa [...] openly impugned, when as the King by the perswasion of the enemyes of the kirke, was induced to make him selfe, and his priuie Cowncil, Iudges in the cognition of maters meere ecclesiastical &c. Out of which their hate against him, in their forsayd Suruey, they appeach him of periurie to make him odious forsooth because he disaloweth their disciplin, which by oath there expressed, he vowed to mantayne. And what they did against our forsayd sacred King, the same they did against other kings and princes, wherof one of them boasting wryteth to such effect as followeth. A prince of blood royal, ouerthrowen as Dauid was by sathan into synne, Trauers in his defence of Ecclesiastical Discipline. pag. 127. indured to be rebuked by the seruant of God, and lamented his offense openly before the publick assemblie &c. — VVhose example bothe a crowned King, and his sonne, haue followed &c. How truely sayd the sacred Scripture; there is nothing more insupportable, then the insolencie of a slaue gotten vp in the neck of his master. Alas, how farr otherwyse are princes respected by Catholicks, who are by these men (because it behoueth to sclawnder with their owne connatural proprietie, their aduersaries, to preuent and anticipat a due and euer deserued accusation) tearmed enemyes to princely authoritie? I referr the reader desyrous to know our loialtie, and resolutions toward our princes, to these our assertions.
First; Debere Reges curare etiam ea quae ad religionem pertinent; idque A [Page 225] excellentiori modo quam caeteri fideles possunt: nempe leges ferendo pro veritate, Stapleton. de subiecte potestatu Ecclesiasticae cap. 20 Contr. 2. l. 5. pag. 196. H [...]ding against the Apologie. pag. 303. 306. 307. In his reioynder fol. 379. Sander de visib. Monarc. lib. 7. in an. 1447. & coercendo hostes veritatis; Kings ought to intermedle also with those things which belong to religion; and that in a more excellent degree then other christians may: to witt, by making lawes for truth, and punishing enemyes of truth. Secondly; Good Kings may bridle the riot and arrogancie of Bishops. Thirdly Reddite quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, vt pote censum, tributum, subiectionem: Omnis homo existens sub alio, subditus sit per obedientiam promptam, ac humilem constitutis à Deo principibus saecularibus: Render to Caesar what is Caesars, to witt rents, tribut, subiection. — Let euery one remayning vnder another, be subiect to secular princes, being constituted by God, through ready and humble obedience. This is our doctrin, as also that it is a bonde of conscience (which protestants denye, saying it to be only a ciuil obligation) to subiect them selues to their kings and princes.Ioan. 7. & 10. & 20 Luc. 23. Christ was slandred but wrongfully, to be, a seducer, to be an enemye to Caesar, to hinder the paying, of his tribute, to aspire to be a king. S. Paul was also accused,Act. 14 17.21.24.25. Tertull. in Apol. Iustin. in Apol. 2. ad Antonin. Euseb. l. 5. c. 1. & 4. Hist. trip. l. 6. c. 27. Paul Diac. l. 16. S. Greg. Nazian, in laudem Caesarij Fratris. as a stirrer to sedition but wrongfully. In the persecutiōs of Nero, Dioclesian, Antonius, &c. Christians were wrongfully accused, yea and punished, as burners of Rome, sacrificers of Children, eaters of mans fleashe &c. S. Athanase was wrongfully abused for a fornicator, witche, and traytour. S. Siluerius, for inducing the Gothes to inuade the Romain Empyre. To be breefe, It was Iulian the Apostats principal indeuoure to haue the people perswaded, the suffrings of Christians to haue euer bene for criminal enormities & treacheries, and not for religion. So we may be accused and censured, in lyke maner, but wrongfully. Farr otherwyse did my soueraigne King Iames, towards my selfe, when it pleased him to exchange my fiue yeares imprisonment, into a banishement to any other choise dominion then his owne; by affoording not withstanding this publick testimonie of my innocencie.
Directed to the L. Deputie and Cowncel of Irland.
After our very harty commendations to your Lordship, and the rest. VVheras one Henry Fitzsimon a Iesuit hath these fiue yeares past remayned prisoner in the castle of Dublin, His Maiesties fauorable testimonie of my innocencie, notwithstanding my banishment. on whose behalfe humble sute hath bene made to the Kings Maiestie for his inlargement out of prison: And his Maiestie hath bene informed, that he hath made so good demonstration of his loialtie and dutyfull affection to his Maiestie, and the state, as deserueth that he should be vsed, with as great fauoure as a man of his sorte and qualitie may be capable of. You shall therfore vnderstand, that it is the Kings Maiesties pleasure, that you shall release the sayd Henry Fitzsimon out of prison, taking sufficient bonde of him, with good suretyes for his auoyding out of the realme within some conuenient tyme to be by your Lor. limited vnto him for his [Page 226] departure; And that he shall not at tyme hereafter returne into any of his Maiesties dominions, without license first obteyned by him in that behalfe. And so we bidd your Lordship, and the rest very hartely farewell. From the Cowrt at VVhythall the 12. of Marche 1603.
Your Lordships very louing Frends.
- L. Chancellor.
- L. Treasorer.
- L. Chamberlain.
- E. Shrewsburie
- E. Deuonshyre.
- E. of Mat.
- L. Cecyll.
- L. Knollis
- L. of Kinless.
For conclusion, others of vs, yf not I, (how dutyfull, loyal, and subiect soeuer) may be banished, and yet taynted with remote and repyning minds toward secular authoritie, as our innocent predecessours haue bene in maner aforesayd: but in our behalfe, most true and pertinent are Tertullians woords;Tertullian. ad Schup. cap. 2. In Apol. cap. 31. Circa maiestatem Imperatoris infamamur: tamen nunquam Albiniani, nec Nigriani, nec Cassiniani inuen [...] potuerunt Christiani; VVe are infamed concerning the Emperours Maiestie: but we Christians could neuer be fownde Albininians, Nigrians, Cassinians (who were hereticks of those tymes, subiect to the incident proprietie of their puritan brethren): as yf he had sayd for these tymes; we could neuer be fownde, Lutherans, Caluinians, Zuinglians, but especialy Puritans, whose peculiar spirit it is.
Qui mare, qui terras, & sua regna quatit.
Ouid. in Hermione.
VVhich seas and lands, and propre Kingdoms trubleth.
The Printer, to the Reader.
After this verse of Ouid, let the gentle Reader turne, to the Replie to M. Riders Rescript, page 65. paragraphe 3, begining at these wordes. But if I would abrupt. &c. and continuinge to page 71. and ending at paragraphe 2. at these wordes. Nam id hominum geuus &c. VVhich omission and error hapned, partly by receauing the copie in sundrie peeces; partly also by misvnderstandinge the authors direction, and so taking the same verse of Ouid, in the aforesaid 65. page of the Rescript, paragraphe 1. for this in the Confutation, page 230. paragraphe 2.
10. To know whether I haue impertinently digressed, or wādred all this whyle from the mater betwixt M. Rider and me; as you behould him to denye inequalitie betwixt Apostles; preesthood in the [Page 227] new testament; all preestly function, but what belongeth equaly to all Christians, men, and women; his hate of the name of IESVS; also of Crosses, and blessing; which Protestants (as appeareth in the Censure of Oxford and Cambridge against Puritans, pag. 11.) confesse to be most auncient, iustifiable, and conuenient ceremonies; his affirming a ministers sermon to be necessarie in tyme of communion;Number 81. and all other points of puritancie in all points of his wrytings: so you are to vnderstād this last speach against preists to be the substance of puritancie, which befor I demonstrat in particular, I will conclude this discourse with a pleasant information. On S. Mathies eaue 1602. according to the Englishe computation, I taking the ayer in prison on the northweast to wer, M. Rider repayring to visit M. Browne, I requested him to ascend; After a few woords, he besowght me to informe him in a mater, made doubtfull to him by a great stats man: whether I was a Iesuit, or a preest, or both? I aunswered, that I was vnworthely, both. Hee replyed: would you preferr your selfe befor a single secular preest? I aunswered, I neuer had yet controuersie about preheminencie with any. He now being at a demurr; I craued lyke fauoure, in resoluing a not vnlyke doubt of myne: Whether him selfe was a bare minister, a deane, or both? He affirmed he was a minister only, and no Deane, as being a papistical titel. I replyed, then you are a Puritan, in as much as you refuse the name of Deane: but as you hould the deanrie, you are a Protestant. At that tyme he hartely smyled at the conceit of that discourse and so departed. Not long after his Maiestie came to the crowne of England; and lyke a burnd child, fearing the feruent ambition of Puritans, obiected himselfe against them. The name of puritans suddenly became odious therupon. Many well-benificed puritans, would at that tyme exclaime against their Consorts, as seditious Schismaticks. I informed some of the crew, of M. Riders former conference: who acquainted him therwithall▪ who in great impatience (according to his ordinarie maner, and giuing me the lie, calling me ttaytour, &c.) challenged me therof; denying that euer he dislyked the name of Deane, or euer was fauourer of any point of Puritantcie. For iustifying my selfe, I will now deliuer his owne woords contayning, as euident concourse with them, as his witt was able to specifie: and consequently, I will desyre the greater credit to my former relation. What other faults soeuer I haue, all my acquaintance will iustifie me, that I euer from a child abhorred theft, swearing, and lying.
[Page 228] Rider. The name & office of Priests, abused by Priests.99. And therefore you deceiue the people by this name of Priest, which is no more proper to you, then to euerie beleeuing Christian. But it is likely you will giue mee occasion to speake of this in the controuersie of your Masse, and therefore I will heere be the briefer in this place.
VVhether M. Rider be a Puritan. Of this point much appeareth number 122.
Fitzsimon. Articulus Disciplinae Consistorialis.99. IT is ordayned and obserued among the Consistorians, that no names be vsed, quae paganismum, vel papatum recipiunt; which agree with paganisme or Papistrie. By this fundation they eschue the names of Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Preests &c. Hereby sayth Cartwright;Cartwright. lib. 1. p. 112. Idem in his replye pag. 159. vide Waitg. defence pag. 772. Caluin would haue shaken at the name of an Archbishop, and haue trembled at the name of a Bishope. He also for the name of a Preest sayth; that translatours should be most carefull, that the people should not once heare the name of a Preest. Whom then (which all this whyle you haue not vnderstood) must be our Church officers, according to pure consistorian discipline? Cartwright in his theses sett out vnder the name of Martin, and his children, certifyeth, saying;Thes Mart. 12. The Church is now to the worlds ende, to haue no other offices in it, but of Pastors, Doctors, Elders, and Deacons. Here againe are preists excluded. And in all late translations of the Bible, for the name of Preist, you shall fynde but the name of Elder; except they would mention preests of Iewes or Gentles: and then, you may be suer, (as also yf ther be any reprehension annected therto) neuer to fayle of the name of preest.1. Tim. 4. Only I fynde in the Bible of the yeare 1562. (the woords of S. Paul to Timothie: Neglect not the grace giuen thee, with the imposition of hands by the authoritie of preesthod) their penn to haue dribled out the woord of preesthood,Bible an. 1562. I know not by what chance. I will not denye them their right commendation, when they deserue any.
But what hath M. Rider to doe with all this puritantrie; Forsoothe A he would needs be as deepe as the best. First by saying, the Apostles were equals, meaning therby the same should be among the clergie, and consequently noe Archebishops, Bishops &c. to be allowed. Secōdly by saying, there are noe preests in the new testamēt, hauing any ecclesiastical functiō: of which godwilling I will treat in the aunswer to his rescript. Thirdly by saying any preesthod in the new testament is common to all beleeuers:Vide num. 115. Wherby also women are made preests as much as men. Nether is this allowance to women, only from [Page 229] M. Rider. For Luther expreslie permitteth,Luth. tō. 2. lib. de ministris Eccl. fol. 362. 369 372 3 [...]3. P. Mart. 1. Cor. c. 11. v. 5. Zuingl. to. 1. in explanat. artic. 17. fol. 27. Harborough anno 1559 H 2. Beza annot in 12 Rō. & Cont. Erastum. Cartwr. l. 1. pag. 190. Fēners Defence pag. 135. and iustifieth that they may preache, baptize, and consecrate. And among many other things, he disputeth against S, Paul (who commendeth silence in women in the Church) in these woords; Otherwyse how should Paul alone withstand the holy Ghost, who sayth, Ioel 2. your daughters shall prophecie: and Acts 21. Philip. had four daughters that prophecied. The same doctrin is plentifull in Peter Martyr, Zuinglius, & in Hornes (called Bishop of Winchesters) Harborough, &c. But thinke you, among the rest so teaching that our holy puritan Iacks, will want their holy puritan [...]ills in their cō sistorian discipline? No I warrant you, they must haue their vessells of case, when the spirit moueth them. Yea they must haue Diaconisces, or widdowes, to be accompted among Church Commanders and officers, as Beza, Cartwright, and others first determined: for vpon better deliberation, they are now accompted not commāders, but Church seruants, such as Iunius saythe,Iunius Eccle. l. 2. c. 4. are more fitt then men to be about sick persons, and to healpe them. I must now conuict, all these, he, and shee preests, of M. Rider, in shewing owt of their owne flatt, and pregnant euidences, that in the new testament there is an ordre of preesthood, to which is cōioyned a spiritual function, not allowable equaly to all christians.
Fulke therfor shalbe my first witnes, saying; VVe refuse not the name of preest, as it cometh of Presbyter &c. it is odious to some that know not the true etimologie therof. Confut. of the Rhem. pag. 46. Defence of the English trans. pag. 163. 185. Colloq. Worm. & Ratish. artic. protest. de vnit. Eccl. Bucer de reg. Christi pag. 67. Haerbrand. loc. Com. pag. 699. Calu. l. 4. Instit. c. 4. n. 2. 4. Osiand. loc. com. cap. 10. Hemingius Inst. de gubernat. Eccl. Hunius in com. ep. ad Tit. Gerlach. in hyperas. Dan. p. 30. Iud. Num. 16. This testimonie from such a Doctor giueth a great track to M. Riders credit. A farr greater discredit is in the Oxford aunswer to the puritans petition, pag. 12. the tearme of preists to be iustified, and that by the notes of Geneua vpon Isa. 66.21. For the name of a Bishope, and his preheminence aboue ordinarie Ministers, thus speaketh the whole assembly of Protestants? A Bishope should be chosen owt of many preests, who should rule the Church. Bucer sayth, the name of Bishope was peculiarlye attributed vnto those cheefe rulers of Churches. Haerbrand sayth. It were a most proffitable ordre for the wellfare of the Church, if euery particular prouince had Bishops, and Bishops their Archbishop. Caluin him selfe saythe, Bishops to haue bene chosen; Ne exaequalitate vt fieri solet, dissidia nascerentur. — id ad disciplinae conseruationem pertinebat &c. that by equalitie as it often chanceth dissentions should aryse — and that to belong to the conseruation of discipline. Omitting Osiander, Henning, Hemberg, Hunius, & especialy Gerlachius (who calleth them hypochrits, and Anabaptists, hauing a vayne perswasion of knowledge, and foolish arrogancie, and reprehenders of S. Paul, who maligne the name, and different degrees in ecclesiastical function) and many other principal Protestants, [Page 230] I conclude with Melancthon, of whom Caluin had such opinion as he sayd of his owne beleefe in any point (note therby how firme and well founded it was) Si Philippus declaret verbulo, Calu. defen. 2. con. VVestph. me à su [...] mente deflectere, protenus desistam. Yf Philip declare in any woord, that I am not of his mynde, Apol. Cōfess. August. per Pap. pag. 305. I will streight recant. I would to God, (saythe Phillip Melancthon) I would to God, it laye in me to restore the gouernement of Bishops. For I see what a maner of Church we shall haue, such ecclesiastical pollicie being dissolued. Video postea, multo intoler abilem futuram tyrannidem quam antea vnquam fuit: I perceaue that hereafter, wilbe a farr more intolerable tyrannie, then euer was before. A woefull remorse Melancthon, that by thee, and thy partners means, it lay no longer in thy power to restore it. Such was Caluins remorse when in a lyke cause he sayd:Calu epist. ad Farel. 6. God doth let vs no [...] see &c. quantum praecipi [...]i iudicio vehementia (que) inconsulta, abijciendi ita Pontificis, nocuerimus. VVhat hurte we haue done, that by headlong inconsideration, and rashe vehemencie, we had so cast of the Pope. O! that the feare of God, and not other impulsions, had wreasted these wretched bond slaues of Sathan, to confesse the trueth, and amend the abuse, as much as in them remayned, that they had not bene (yf Gods iudgements would so permitt) eternaly condemned.
By these euidences (among which the censure of Oxford by the vicechancelor, the Doctors, Proctors, and heads of Howses, confirmed by the suffrage of Cambridge; betwixt which two vniuersities, is there sayd, pag. 31. more learned men to be fownd, then among all the Ministers of religion in France, Flanders, Germanie, Poleland, Denmarke, Geneua, Scotland; this censure I say ought most to mate, and dismay M. Riders mynde, for being contrary to all the sort) may be conceaued, how false and condemned is M. Riders, and other Puritans doctrin, against Preists and Bishops vocation, and function, as they say not distinguished from euery ordinarye beleeuing man, or woman: as also, whether it was probable that he vttered such puritanical woords as I haue imputed to him. For yf he be now fownd concurring with their doctrin, he is the lyker to haue then, (befor it was counted odious) consented with their speeches. But I meane for perclose, or conclusion to propownd him an interrogation. Yf (as Cartwright sayth) imposition of hands be an ordonance of God, Cartw. l 3 pag. 232. Demonstr. c. 7. &. 9 Trauer. discipl. Eccl. f. 52. Iun. loc. cit. which c [...] not be taken away; and as your Demonstrator, and Trauers teache, no imposition, no minister: how can you maintayne, all beleeuers, who neuer had such imposition, to be equal with them in function, who had it? Will you say with Iunius; that imposition of hands, was but a shaking the elected into the assemblye, by his right hande? Or will you say with [Page 231] the Church of Scotland, that albeit the Apostles did vse imposition of hands, Vide nec essario num 122. Historie of the Church of Scotland pag. 557. yet seeing the miracle fayleth, you iudge the ceremonie not necessarie? Yf you depart from Cartwright and Trauers, from Gods acknowledged ordonance; from the Apostles custome, then I bidd all Englishe puritans, to discarde you (as an illegittimat English Puritan) into Scotland. But why do I so aduise, as yf by dispensation you can not be licensed to be of all fashions, and to say with English now, and by and by, with Scots, and backward, & forward. I pray you all, not to be ignorant, that they can dispense one with another, to dissemble, as to take degrees with all ceremonies most odious to their doctrin: so as they can remayne in their offices; yea & weare capp, tippett &c. and yet be neuer the more reformed to protestantcie.
I will giue two infallible instances therof, one of Thomas Cartwright, the other of Beza, two pillers of puritancie. I had, D. Cartwright lib. 2. in the Epistle. sayth Cartwright, the aduise of more then a dozen learned Ministers (all were puritans) who considering yf I had the office of a Doctor in the vniuersitie, were of opinion (for the good might be done therby) I might swallow the fond and idle ceremonies which accompanie it. To which I yeelded. Snape in his Letter to Barbon. To which agreeth Snape, after his examination befor the commissioners an. 1590. saying: I heare some whispering allready (yet among them who fauoure the cause) that T. Cartwright hath counseled the brethren, rather to vse those corruptions, then to leaue their charges. Beza,Feuardent con. Brouault. en ses entremangeries cap. 14. pag. 327. Colloq. Montpel. p. 150. 268. 388. when he induced the Duke of witeberg to inuade France; to prouoke him the rather, he publickly made profession of the Lutheran beleefe; wherof the forsayd Duke was a member and fauourer. And in departing without effecting his pretense, he sayd; that he had singularly deceaued, Ein Tronkens Bolts, the dronken nobles of Almaine. Of which dissimulation being challenged by them of Zurick; he aunswered them, that it was lawfull so to cogge, lye, dissemble, and deceaue, to establishe their religion. So that the protestants, as I sayd, haue noe cause to applaude to them selues, when any Puritans become conformable to their iniunctions: for by these presidents, they are allowed to counterfet, delude, cheat and dissemble as they list, and therfor not to stand in danger by being of any fashion, or cutt of puritantrie (Englishe, Scotish, or wholye Anabaptistical) to shift their roomes, or rancks, so that only they temporize, and applaud in countenance, to the predominant humor then in prime, and preeminence. Yet you shal neuer fynde any more bitterly inueyghe then these dispensers against the Popes dispensations: which nether can be nor euer were, graunted to do any thing vnlawfull. Wherby we alwayes accompt all our dissembling hypocritical Catholicks, as remote from [Page 232] God, and godlines, (how soeuer we be belyed to dispense with them) when they conforme them selues to protestants, for their temporal commodities, as euer were any hereticks, or infidels. To conclude; their former hatred against the name of preist, hath made them denye, euen that Christ him selfe was euer a preist in this world.Socinus in lib. de Christi natura con. Volan. pag. 81. Christus sacerdos planè inauguratus non fuit, nisi post mortem suam, imo post suum in coelum ascensum: Christ playnly was not install'd a preist, till after his death, yea after his ascension. Wherby, that euer he offred sacrifice for vs, that euer he was our redeemer, that the scriptures manifoldly auerring his preisthood are true, is blasphemously denyed.
Rider.100. Thirdlie, in what place of scripture did Christ giue you commission to consecrate challices, or to make anie challice more holie by your charmed consecration, then Christs cup was in his blessed institution, which had none of your consecration, for this the Catholicks must know by the premisses formerly handled, that your consecration is not like to Christs cōsecration: for either Christs blessing or thanksgiuing, with the whole action of Christ in the institution, was sufficient to consecrate, or insufficiēt: if you will affoord Christ that fauor that it was sufficient, then yours is friuolous.
And whereas we vse the same sanctification Christ did, how dare you say ours i [...] defectiue, without blasphemie to Christes institution; But this your vsurped title of sanctitie which yee attribute to your selues, in making the people beleeue that you can make one cup (water salte or season) more holie then an other, by your fingred blessing, is vntrue and a pharisaicall brag. This maintaineth your Priesthoode in glorie, pompe, & worldlie estimation, but hath brought many of seelie Catholickes to beggerie, ignorance, and grosse superstition.
Fourthlie, by what scripture can you prooue that Christs holie bloud is but an effect of your consecration, or benediction, of the cup? If Christs bloud be an effect of your cup benediction, then your cup benedicton is the cause of Christs holie bloud. O helli [...] and damnable diuinitie: as if a sinfull ignorant Priest could by his magicall consecration, make the holie bloud of Christ my Sauiour, which was shed on the crosse for my sinnes. Now Catholicks looke to your selues, I mean to your soules: for this is the doctrine of Rome and Rhemes, fitter to be taught in hell by fiendes then maintained in earth by Priests.You can not prooue it either by scripture or Fathers. Fifthlie and lastlie, by what scripture do you prooue; (nay by what auncient Father) that this blessing or thanksgiuing is referred to the cup or challice, and not vnto God: scriptures you haue none, and fathers of the first sixe hundred yeares neuer heard of it. And that the Catholickes mey see the antiquitie and veritie of this our doctrine, and the noueltie and heresie of yours. I will onelie produce but two learned Fathers with vs against you, & forbeare to alleadge the re [...] till you giue mee further occasion.
Fitzsimon.100. We are noe protestants, to vse charmings, or other such Sathanical vnlawfulnes. Yf we had bene first informed in our beleefe by the Deuil (as all chefe protestants are declared to haue bene, nūb. 4. exam.) Yf we bought and sould deuils, as Conrad Riss (otherwyse [Page 233] Zuinglius; as appeareth by Schlusselburg. lib. 2. de theol. Caluin. a. 7.Conrad. Riss lib. German. contra Ioem. Hessum de caena B. 2. where, as is discouered this counterfet Conrad, so is shewed a huge rablement of Reformers vsing vnder false names to publish venemous pamphlets) telleth how Luther bought a familiar Deuil of Carolostad, for a Florin: Arch. Hamilton. Cal. confus. lib. 2. c. 48. pag. 308. Yf we had bene, as the Scotishe Ministers are by Hamelton sayd to be, wholy addicted to Nigrommancie: (an ould proprietie of hereticks sayth Tertullian, in the 53. numb.) then these charming phrases might haue some hould against vs: Wheras now they are reflected to the ineuitable disgrace of your cause. Further aunswer for our consecratcd chalices is to be inquired in the 90. number. And other mater I fynde not in all this discourse, requyring ether resolution, or regarde. In deed I fynde him say, he vseth the same sanctification vsed by Christ; that we vsurpe sanctitie to our selues, and our consecrated cupps; that we are maintayned in glorie, and therby many Catholicks beggered; that Christs blood is an effect of our consecration; that our diuinitie is hellishe and damnable, and fitt to be taught in hell; that we can not proue the benediction to belong to the cupp; that the first Fathers neuer heard of such our doctrin; To all which, I can say no lesse,The 93. vntruth. then that all these being most vntrue, may, by liberal allowance, stand vp for the 93. vntrueth. Verilie neuer did I reade before, to my knowledge, so many disioynted maters shuffled together, without method, or measure, but some one of them at least, would haue relation to the subiect in discourse. Now let all men ad women iudge, what haue all these related points to doe with our controuersie, of wyne to be the communication of the blood of Christ, and bread to be the participation of his fleashe? Or how do all these tergiuersations, auoyd, impugne, or reproue, that which is in controuersie?
101. Chrisostome vpon this place, calleth it the cuppe of blessing,Rider. because when we haue it in our hands, with admiration and a certain horror of that vnspeakable gift,Chry. super. 1. Cor. 10. we praise and blesse him, because he hath shed his bloud, that we should not remaine in error: and hath not onelie shed it, but made vs all partakers of it. In like sort did Photius and Occumenius expounde this word, which wee blesse, Photius & Oecumenius. which hauing in our handes, blesse him, which hath graciously giuen vs his bloud: that is, we giue him thanks, or which we prepare when we blesse or giue thankes.
Now the Catholickes may see by the auncient fathers (whom your selues doe brag of) that they condemne your cup blessed exposition. And the Catholickes may see a [...] in a glasse, that wee ioine with the scriptures & fathers in the true sence of these words: The cup which we blesse: and that your exposition is erronious and superstitious, and therefore to be recanted by you, and shunned by the Catholickes, and my reasons be drawne out of the foresaid fathers, not made on my owne fingers.
[Page 234] Fitzsimon.101. S. Chrysostom aduertiseth to all the world, that you here deliuer the 94. [...]he 94. vntruth, S. Chrysost. in c. 5. Math. hom. 11. vntruth: both because he hath no such matter as you inferr; as also because els where he hath expresly the contrarie. Saying; Si enim vasa sanctificata ad priuatos vsus transferre peccatum est & pericul [...]m, sicut docet nos Balthazar qui bibens in calicibus sacratis, de regno depositus est, & de vita; Si ergo haec vasa sanctificata ad priuatos vsus transferre sic periculosum est, in quibus non est verum corpus Christi, sed mysterium corporis eius continetur: quanto magis vasa corporis Christi? &c. If then it be synne and danger to transferre sanctifyed (note well M. Rider: for euery clause of this speeche will wounde your profession) vessells, as Balthazar teacheth vs, who drinking in sanctifyed chalices, was deposed from kingdome and lyfe; yf then to transferre these sanctifyed vessels, to priuat vses, be so dangerous, in which not the true body of Christ, but the mysterie of his body, was contayned: how much more the vessells of the body of Christ &c. Here you haue sanctification of vessels; such not to be prophaned; Christ to be otherwyse with vs, then with the Israelits; and our vessels to haue his true bodye. How lyke you all these, toward your imaginations?
Photius you produce against your selfe, by his saying that Christ gratiously giueth vs his blood. Why then he giueth not only a figure of his blood. Oecumenius hath noe such mater, as neuer expounding any woord beyond the 9. chapter of S. Pauls epistle to the Corinthians, ether of the second, or the first. And so is discouered the 95.The 95. vntruth. vntruth. Where are the promised citations of books, and chapters, leaues, and lynes? Whether you, or I will or noe, our dealings wilbe iudged, when we deale vnsincerly, and impiouslie. For other exclamations of such citations, and discourses, I can not thinke them conuenient, when your dealings are so notorious, only I will intreat the glorious S. Augustin,S. Aug. l. 2. de Ciu. c. 1. [...]. 5. c. 27. to giue you your aunswer, and let you be gone. Quorum dicta contraria si toties velimus refellere, quoties obnixa frome statuerint non curare quid dicant, dum quocumque modo nostris disputationibus contradicant, quam sit infinitum, & erumnosum, & infructuosum vides. — Facile est, cuiquam videri respondisse, que tacere noluerit. Aut quid est loquacius vanitate? Quae non ideo potest, quod veritas, quia si noluerit tacere, etiam plus potest clamare quam veritas. VVhose contrarie sayings yf we (sayth S. Augustin) would refell as oft, as they with an impudent forhead neglect what they affirme, so that any way they contradict our disputations; how infinit, toylsome, and how fruictles it is, you behould. — It is easie for euery one to see to aunswer, what he cowld not conceale. And what is more talkeatiue then vanitie? Yet therfor it can not compare with trueth, because yf it will not be silent, it can exclame more then truth.
[Page 235]102. First, he saith that benediction, blessing or thanksgiuing,Rider. is referred to him that shed his bloud for vs: I hope you will not say the cup shed anie bloud for vs.
2. Secondlie, this father saith, that blessing God and praising God is all one: and therefore when we say, the cup of thanksgiuing, we follow Christ, Paul, the Greek text, and the olde fathers. And when you translate it, The challice of benediction, it is flat contraire to Christ, Paul, veritie, and antiquitie. And there is as great difference betwixt your opinion and the old fathers faith, as betwixt praising with mouth, and crossing with fingers: nay, as much as betwixt your superstitious challice and our soulesauing Christ: for so, if you marke the fathers words, the difference stands.
The text it selfe offers vs three things in a comfortable distinction, and you would confound them with your new imagined transubstantiation.
1. The first is Christs bodie crucified, and his bloud shed, with all his purchased benefits,
2. Secondlie, our communion & fellow ship, which all beleeuers haue in that crucified Christ, and those soulesauing merits.
3. Thirdly, the outward seals of those benefits which are called, The cup which we blesse, and the bread which we breake, to witnesse to the world, and to confirme to our selues, the fruition and possession of all those benefits,
Now if I should say, that the bread & cup being outward seals, were our cōmunion with Christ: the wicked would laugh at my folly, though the godly would pittie my ignorance in the trueth, or my malice against the trueth: and the reason is this, because the seals be things outward, and the communion of Christs bodie and bloud, be things inward: the one sensible, the other spiritual and intellectuall: & as much difference is betwixt them, as there is betwixt outward and inward: sensible, and intellectuall: so much difference there is betwixt the outward seales of Christs body and bloud, & his bodie and bloud.
And if the seales cannot be changed into the communion of Christs bodie & bloud but remaine still in their seuerall natures and substances, euerie one performing his seuerall distnct office, much lesse can they be reallie and substantiallie changed into Christs bodie and bloud, which are things more remote, but most impossible. And if you had added the next verse the Apostle had made it plaine in shewing you a double communion sealed in this Sacrament. The first, our communion with Christ and his benefits. The second, our communion amongst our selues,1. Soli. 2. Omni. 3. S [...] per. which both are proper onely to gods church, & to euery one of gods church, and allwaies to gods Church.
Now let the learned iudge whether you or we, misconster scripture, wrest fathers, deceaue Christs flocke and the Queenes subiects, & peruert the true meaning of this Text. And now to the next.
102. Is not this a worthy proctor for protestancie?Fitzsimon. He bringeth an allegation of three Fathers, and therupon he inferreth saying. [First he sayth] Which he of the three, can you conceaue, by these woords? His meaning is of S. Chrysostom. But he hath no such mater, but cleane contrary, as appeareth, in his affirming in the precedent number that vessells are sanctifyed, and separated from prophane, or common vses: which sanctification is that we call blessing. Secondly he telleth, the text among other conforts, offereth [Page 236] vs Christs body crucified, and Christs blood shedd. Which he will neuer be able to expounde but by saying as we say, that it is giuen vs by the breaking of bread, and the benediction of the chalice, or wyne contayned in the chalice. Of his talking of seales, he hath nether writt, nor scale for it, toward this, or any other sacrament of Christ, in all the new testament. For the communion betwixt him, and his brethren, I haue spoken in the examination of the creed. To say that Chrysostom affirmeth, benediction in this place to be referred to him that shed his bloud for vs: that this text offereth Christs bodie, and bloud, with all his purchased merits: that the bread, and cupp, vz. it in the cupp, are not our communication with Christ, &c. these I say, are beyond vntruethes, and in propre name, Riderian discourses. S. Cyril sayth; The mystical benediction maketh Christ corporaly to dwel in vs by communication of his fleash. Li. 10. in Ioan. c. 13. Such cōmunication, M. Rider not only vnderstandeth not, but also denyeth. May not then the wicked laugh at his follie, and the godlypitie his ignorance?
The second Proofe by Councills and Fathers.
Catholicke Priests. This councell consists of 318. Fathers.
Concilium Nicen: cap:
14. Anno:
363. No rule or custome doth permitte, th
[...] they which haue not the authority to offer the sacrifice, should giue it to then that offer the bodie of Christ.
Rider.103. GEntelmen you are posessed with a threfold error which is the cause whe [...] you read the scriptures Councells, & fathers, you misunderstand them. Your first error is, when you vnderstand that spoken of the outward Elements, which a meant of the inward inuisible grace. Your second error is when you referre that to the visible partes of the bodie, which they intended to the inuisible powers of the minde and soule.VVith these three Seph [...]ticall points you peruert all the fath [...], you bring for this pur [...]ose & deceaue the Catholickes. Thirdlie, your former two errors beget a third error which is, your mistaking the state of our question; And so wheras you should proue the maner of Christs presence in the Sacraments: You offer to proue the matter but of that we haue spoken before.
Thus if you will reade the scripturs fathers and Councells with these 3. cautions or derections, you shall easily see how farre thus longe you are gone from the truth and misled the Queenes subiects.
Now with Gods permission wee will proceed to the due examination of your proofe, as it is alledged out of your owne Colen print, Ex officina Iohannis Quintell Typographi, Anno Domini, 1561. which you cannot denie, it is in the first Tome and the fourteenth Chapter, and the two hundreth fiftie fiue page of the first edition, and the Chapter beginneth thus: Peruenit ad sanctum Concilium quod in locis quibusd [...]m & ciuitatibus presbyteris Sacramenta Diaconi porrigant. Then followes your fraction (verie abruptlie) in the midst of a sentence: Hoc neque regula, neque confuetudo, &c.
The sacred Councell is aduertized, that in certaine places and Citties the Deacons doe reach and giue the sacramēts to the Priest (al this you leaue out, and then followes [Page 237] your weake warrant) Noe rule or custome doth permite &c.
I praie you what one word of this prooues your Carnall presence? Let me knowe it for my learning and the Catholickes better Instruction: if you would gather out of this word Sacrifice: then you are deceued, for that Councell in another place calles it Sacrificium Eucharisticum, a Sacrifice of praise & thanksgiuing, not propitiatorie.
And if out of these wordes The bodie of Christ: the councell expounds their meaning in that which you omitte, and purposely conceale, when they call that Sacrifice, and the bodie of Christ by the name of Sacraments giuen by the Deacons to the priests: for the Deacons deliuered them after Consecration to priestes ad still were Sacramēta, Sacraments, not the bodie or bloud of Christ made of bread & wine by the Priest: for the Sacrament and Christs bodie differ as much, as the lambe & the Passouer, circumcision & the couenant, the washing of new birth and regeneration, for the one is the outward seal, the other the inward grace, and here is another error of yours of the second and third kinde, in referring that to the mouth which is proper to our faith: and still mistaking the matter for the manner.
The second proofe of Catholicks for the real presence; By Councils and Fathers.
The first parte of the second proofe. Of the Concil of Nice.
103. I Craue remembrance be retayned,Fitzsimon. how Protestants accompted this first general Concil of the world, contayning 318. most famous Fathers,Beza epist. thecl. 81. but a congregation of Sophisters: as before is declared, in our examination of the Creed. Cartwright so famous a Puritan, as none of that crew but reuerence his remembrāce, (as may appeare in the Suruay of pretended discipline, wherin one calleth him, the most reuerent; another, made a sermon, Cap. 29. pag. 379. and sang psalmes for his releasment; another saith, the gouernement by him set downe, is commanded by God; another, thanked God to haue seene him; another expected, to trauaile 50. myles to see him) by way of derision saith, such concil to haue bene a notable and famous Concil, Cartwr. l. 1. pag. 93. And in the same place taxeth it for errours in discipline. This aduertisement sheweth in general, this Concil to haue displeased them; Now to the particular application to our coutrouersie. We say, this testimonie sheweth on our syde; First, that priests offer a sacrifice which deacons could not: and consequently that it could not be only a thanksgiuing: bothe because such Sacrifice of thanksgiuing, belonged to all alyke, as soone to a Deacon as a priest; as also because it could not be exhibited into the mouthe of another. Secondly, that this Sacrifice is the very body of Christ. But all this, saith M. Rider, is nothing; because the Concil [Page 237] maketh mention of a Sacrament, and Eucharistial. Euery twiggs shaddow is a gratefull shelter to a Ionas in extremitie. But this small consolation, wythereth by these woords of S. Gregorie, recorded in the decretals; Ob id Sacramenta dicuntur quia sub tegmento corporalium rerum diuina virtus secretius salutem eorundem sacramentorum operatur. Vnde à secretis virtutibus, Decret. 1. pars. causa 1. quest. 1. c. Multi Secularium. vel sacris, Sacramenta dicuntur. Quae ideo fructuosè penes Ecclesiam fiunt, quia sanctus in ea manens Spiritus, eorundem Sacramentorum latemer operatur effectum. Cuius panis & calicis Sacramentum graecè Eucharistia dicitur: Latinè bona gratia interpretatur. Et quid melius Corpore & Sanguine Christi? For that are they tearmed Sacraments, because vnder the couerture of corporal things, diuine veritie more secreatly doth operat the health of the sayd Sacraments. VVhich therfor are fruictfully made in the Church, because the holy Ghost their remayneing, doth woorke the effect secretly of the sayd Sacraments: of which, the Sacrament of bread and the chalice, is in greeke called the Eucharist: which in latin is interpreted good grace. And what is better then the Body and Blood of Christ? By which sweete, and sownde testimonie, M. Rider as a conye is ferreted out of all his euasions. For, the being Eucharistial, and the being a Sacrament, and the names of bread, and wyne, are fownde to consist with the body and blood of Christ, and rather to atestifie it, then to exclude it: because Sacraments haue their names from sacred and secret good, included vnder the couerture of corporal things. Which is verefyed in our Sacrament included vnder the forme, or couerture of bread and wyne. S. Chrysostom. 1. Cor. ho. 24. both elder then S. Gregorie, and also a naturall Grecian, signifyeth the sence of Eucharistical, to be all one and hallowed, or blessed, saying; Cum benedictionem dico, Eucharistiam dico; VVhen I say benediction, I say the Eucharist. Your Supper indureth no benediction: therfor it can not be signifyed by the word Eucharist, nor the word Eucharist belong therto; so that by degrees, all words belonging to this Sacrament, as Sacrament it selfe, signe, spiritual, Eucharistical, mystical, are as ernestly abandowing your profession, as by it the substance of Sacraments is abandoned. In the meane tyme the forsayd testimonie confirmeth also, that thanksgiuing in this Sacrament, is rather to be taken for benediction, then benediction for thanksgiuing.
Concilium Ephesinum in Epist. ad Nestorium:
Catholick Priests. And this had 20 [...] Fathers.
VVe approach to the misticall benedictions, and we are sanctified, being partakers of the holie bodie and precious bloud of Christ.
104. THis your proofe is trulie quoted, pag. 535. & the Epistle beginneth thus,Rider. Religioso & Deo amabili consacerdoti Nestorio, Cyrillus, &c. The Councell calleth it a mistical benediction, no miraculous transubstantiation. And this neither prooues your opinon, nor disprooues ours: for you say, yee are made partakers of the holie bodie and precious bloud of Christ, and so say we: but you say with the late church of Rome, that you are made partakers of that holie bodie and precious bloud by your mouth, teeth, throat, and stomacke; And we sey with Scriptures, Fathers, and the old Church of Rome, that we are made partakers of Christs bodie and bloud, by the hand, mouth, and stomack of our soules, which is a liuelie faith in Christ crucified: as you haue heard before. And thus you referre that to the visible parts of the bodie (as your mouth, teeth, and stomacke) which the scriptures and fathers meant of the inuisible powers of the soule, as our liuelie faith, being the spirituall hand, mouth, and stomacke thereof. And heere is your errour of the second kinde. And so your two testimonies out of these two Councels, are proofes neither proper nor pertinent, brought onelie to dazell the eies of the simple, and to amase the minds of the weake. But I referre the badnesse of your cause and the weaknesse of your proofes, (nay your disproofes) to the censure of the indifferent Reader. Onelie giuing the Reader this note by the way, that these Councels were called by the Emperour, not by the Pope, nay the Pope was not president in these Councels, but other Bishops chosen by the Emperour. And in the Councell of Nice the Popes Legat had but the fourth roome, no better account was made of him. For in deed he then was no Pope but an Archbishop. Thus the Reader may see that these Councels be against you. And now to your testimonies out of the fathers.
The second parte of the second proofe of the Concil Ephesin.
104. THe force of this testimonie appertayning to proue,Fitzsimon. that by the mystical benedictions we are made partakers of the very holy body & blood of Christ, and consequently that there should be benedictions vsed in this mysterie, and that we should not thinke what is here sanctifyed,Isa. 3. c. v. 3. contayneth only a bare figure, and only a bare appellation of such body and blood: All this he auoydeth without any difficultie, because forsooth the woord mystical is founde together with the residue. Certainly it is a rare exception: as yf one would say, in the third chapter of Esaias & third verse, there is mention, Eloquij mystici, of mystical speeche, therfor in such chapter, and verse, there is noe literal veritie. For what hindrance to our controuersie is the woord mystical? I finde in the last euidence of S. Gregorie, that the Eucharist [Page 240] by whom soeuer, good or badd, it be dispensed, yet is a Sacrament, quia Spiritus sanctus mysticè illud viuificat; because the holy Ghost doth quicken it mysticaly. By which is demonstrated, that the woord mystical doth rather helpe then hinder our pourpose, and rather hinder then helpe their imaginatiō, who denye any thinge to be mysticaly quickned by the holy Ghost in this mysterie.
What other string hath M. Rider to his bowe? to trott forsoothe to the Popes supremacie; and to fayle as filthelye in that, as in the rest. Of which supremacie there followeth a peculiar article, wherin it is to be amply discussed. First, who tould you M. Rider, that the Popes legat had but the fowerth seat in the Concil of Nice? Where are your oft promised citations, of autheurs, books, chapters, leaues, lynes? Will you neuer ryde otherwyse then lyke your selfe? Could the Church of Rome called by S. Cyprian (no very partial frend to the Popes supremacie);S. Cyprian. epist. ad Cornel. 45. epist. 55. Ecclesia matrix & radix Ecclesiae Catholicae; Cathedra Petri; Ecclesia principalis; the mother Church and roote of the Catholick Church, the cheyre of Peter; the principall Church, Could Anaclet before S. Cyprian, and both long before the Nicen concil,Magdeburg. centur. 2. c. 7. col 139. Ibid. col. 781. 782. attribut to the Romain Church primacie and excellencie of power ouer all Churches, and the whole flock of Christ, euen by testimonie of Protestants? Could it sommon general Concils, beare preheminencie in them, confirme, or desanull them? could the Nicen Concil seeme to Beza,Beza in trac. triplicis Episcoporum generis. ad Scotos, circa annū 1579. to make a way for the horrible papacie of Rome, slyding on, and vnderlay the seat of the harlot (an ould marke of an heretick, to speake thus of the Romain sea, as appeareth in our first number) that sitteth vpon seuen hills: and yet possesse but the fouerth place in dignitie, in the Nicen Concil? Saye, and wryte what you list M. Rider, you neede no longer a visour, your face is of proofe.
For gathering vntruths I may be thought forgetfull: but in truth although I would fayne forgett them, as I do often dissemble them, yet I can not remoue them out, of ether my mynde, or eyes, as long as I reade his booke so exorbitantly repleanished with them. In the precedet number,Regula in 6. Decretalium. he attaynteth vs with a threefould errour, wherof we being free (for vnusquisque praesumitur esse bonus dones probetur malus; euery one is to be accounted in the right, vntill he be proued in the wrong; Which is not done against vs) that may well stande for the 96.The 96. vntruth. vntruth. Soone after he informeth (as yf it were also proued) that the B. Sacrament, and Christs body, do differr as much as outward seale, and inwarde grace:The 97. and 98. vntruth. which maketh the 97. vntruth. The 98. is in this number, wherin he sayth, the Concill calleth the B. Sacrament, a mystical benediction, no miraculous transubstantiation; For it expresly [Page 241] affirmeth such Sacrament to be, Carnem viuificatricem, & ipsius verbi propriam factam: to be made a liuely fleashe and the very propre fleashe of the VVorde. What is a miraculous transubstantiation yf this be not? The 99. that the Scriptures and ancient Fathers,The 99 vntruth. and ould Church of Rome, do specifie the receauing of the B. Sacrament, to be only by the hands, mouth, and stomack of the sowle, and not of the body. The 100. that these two euidences are our owne disproofs.The 100. vntruth. The 101. that the Pope was not president in general concils,The 101. vntruth. ether by him selfe, or his legate, but other Bishops chosen by the Emperoure. The 102. that the Popes legat,The 102. vntruth. had but the fouerth seat in the Nicen Concil. The 103. that then the Pope of Rome was not Pope,The 103. vntruth. but only Archcbishop: of which we are to dispute in the testimonye of S. Leo following not long after. These strange, exorbitant absurd treatises, considered; may not I worthely say,Tom. 2. operum S. Athan. fol. 262. as he in S. Athanasius Qui contentionis studio feruntur, eorum insanum furorem nulla, credo, potest oratio cohibere; sed vt mille quis, eaue inuicta argumenta proferat, veritatem quidem ille demonstrauerit: at operarijs mendacij de ea minime persuaserit. I beleeue noe eloquence, can restrain there madde furie, who are caried away by errour; But although you alleadge a thowsand, and those inuincible proofs, you shall in deed demonstrat trueth; but you will not reclayme the forgers of falshood. Is not this verifyed in M. Rider? What wonderfull exceptions supposeth he betwixt him and the cleere light, striuing against him, most forcible? What arguments and proofs doth he struggle against, and by what delusions, and deceits? One sayd truely (Ioan. Maxen. resp. ep. ad possess.) Quamuis verò semper inuicta manet veritas, nunquam tamen aduersus eam se attollere desinit falsitas; Although trueth alwayes remayneth vnuanquished, [...]et falshood neuer leaueth to assault it.
The flesh is fed by the bodie and bloud of Christ,
Catholick Priests. Tertullian de resurrectione carnis, floruit 200.
that the soule might be sat in God.
105 OVt of this, thus you frame an argument (as sometimes & old Romane friend of yours did,) to maintaine your carnall presence.Rider. The soule is fed by that which the bodie eateth, but the soule is fed by the flesh of Christ, therefore the bodie eateth the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament.
I might as fitlie inuert this argument vpon you, as a learned man of our side once inuerted it, saying, As the soule feeds vpon Christ, so doth the bodie: but the soule is fed by faith, therefore the bodie is fed by faith, which is verie absurd and improper, yet as partinent and as proper as yours.
And heere you should remember the olde distinction of the fathers spoken of before. The Sacrament is one thing, and the matter of the sacrament is another thing. Outwardlie the bodie eateth the Sacrament, and inwardly the soule by faith feeds on the [Page 242] body of Christ. As in Baptisme the flesh is washed by water (as that old father saith in that place) that the soule may be purged spirituallie: so our bodies eate the outward Sacrament, that the soule may be fed of God. Againe, it is not generallie true, that whatsoeuer the bodie eateth, the soule is fed by the same. And if you would propound but particularlie this, instance of eating onelie in the Sacrament, then the argument proueth nothing standing vpon meere perticulers.
Moreouer, the bodie and soule are fed by the same meat in the sacrament, but not after the same manner: For the bodie is nourished by the naturall properties of the Elements which they haue to nourish: But the soule by the sacramentall and supernaturall power, as they are signes and feales of heauenlie graces. And we graunt that the soule is fed by the precious bodie & bloud of Christ, but not after a carnall maner, as you say, but spirituallie by faith.
Againe, a mean Scholler in Gods booke, may see this phrase is figuratiue, and therefore the sence spirituall. For how can a soule be fat in God? will yee say it is a corporall fatnesse, such as is proper to bodies? I thinke yee will not, I know you should not, then this place is impertinentlie brought, neither sauoring of sence, nor suteable to that you alleadge it. For if you would haue read the same Father in the same booke following,page. 47. printed at Paris: 1580. he would haue told you so, for (saith he) the word which was made flesh (which is Christ) Deuorandus est auditu, ruminandus intellectu, & fide dagerandus. This word Christ must be swallowed whole by hearing, must be meditated vpon or remembred by vnderstinding, & digested by faith. Now you see Tertullian of your owne Paris print aunweres you, & expounds himselfe. And seeing no man can better expound Tertullian his meaning then Tertullian himselfe, therefore haue I brought him from your owne Catholicke Presse of Paris, to condemne all Iesuits and Priests that shall set a litterall sence vppon an allegoricall phrase, onelie to deceiue the simple plaine Catholicks, and to abuse the godlie learned Fathers, by an ignorant and sottish construction. And now to the rest of your profes that follow.
The third parte of the second proofe. Of Tertullian.
Fitzsimon.105. THe 104. vntruth that we frame any argument vpon Tertullians woord,The 104. vntruth. and especialy such one. But, since we are inuited by example; thus we argue. The Maior shalbe your owne woords. The faythe of the first fiue hondred yeares, is the ancient, true, and Catholick faythe: but that the fleashe and not only the soule, was fedd with the body and blood of Christ, was the fayth of the first fiue hondred (yea two hondred, within which Tertullian attayned the tyme of Christ) yeares: Ergo, that not only the sowle, but the fleash was fedd with the body and blood of Christ, is the true and Catholick faythe. The minor are the woords of Tertullian which herein are so playne, that wofull and vayne is M. Riders witt and payne to strugle against them. He telleth of an ould distinction, that the Sacrament is one thing, and the mater of the Sacrament is another. Be it true, or false; are [Page 243] not the woords cleere that the very fleashe is fedd by the body of Christ, and such distinction nothing pertinent, to affirme or denye them? Secondly, yf the body outwardly eate the Sacrament, and that (as after in him followeth) the body and soule are fedde by the same meat in the Sacrament and that he graunt the soule is fedd by the pretious body and blood of Christ: How can it possibly be denyed, but that the bodye also eateth the body and blood of Christ? To affirme that we hould, the soule to feede carnaly on Christ, is in maner declared to ryde; that is, to forge, and shamlesly to slaundre. For we only teach that the soule feedeth on Christs corporal body not carnaly, but realy, and truely, and yet spiritualy, but not only spiritualy. So that without any wrong, it is to be accompted the 105. vntruth, to say that we teach otherwyse.The 105. vntruth. Should not such an imputatiō haue two or three, or at least one quotation, of some one, ould, or yong, noble, or obscure, sacred, or prophane, of our writers? it being so oft promised, so oft threatned? But M. Rider will performe these promises in his printed books, when he performeth other promises (the frustration wherof in London was otherwyse incountred, then in Dublin) in Merchands written books. When these be made Catholick, (that is not puritanicaly canceled, without a benediction; but Christianly marked, with a fayre crosse) then all other promises will also be more christian lyke accomplished, and many a merchand reioyced, and many a long expectation satisfyed.
But (sayth he) Christ recording to Tertullian is to be heard, to be meditated, remembred, and beleeued, and so Tertullian fayth he, hath aunswered him selfe, and his former saying, that the fleash is fedde by the body of Christ. All this he quoteth: yet I doubt, not very faythfully. For I finde Tertullian printed at Paris, to haue the booke of resurrection (out of which my testimonie is brought) so farr beyond the 47. yea and 407. page, euen in follio, that I can not make vnto my selfe any conceit, how these last woords are sayd to be in the same booke following, and yet but in the 47. page. At this I stand not. Only I craue all curteous witts and wysedoms, to obserue how and whether at all, Tertullian is made to aunswer him selfe, and vs, by this late allegation, vnlesse he would suppose that euery thing aunswereth euery thing. For yf what may be heard, meditated, remembred, beleued, could not be receaued corporaly; then the Messias Christ our Saluiour, could neuer be receaued in the blessed virgins womb nor into the howse or habitation of any other. Yet our beleefe assureth the contrary: and consequently [Page 244] the saying of Tertullian that our fleash is fedd by the body of Christ, remayneth in his full vigor, although those other words be true. Nay rather they are more therby verifyed. For yf Christ be heard or beleued, his saying the bread to be his body should not be distrusted. Could you be content to heare the former testimonyes auoyded, by euery by, and impertinent woord, that they were mystical; Sacraments, Eucharistical, and therefore not true: and can you not accept lyke maner of aunswering in this place? I referre you to Luthers opinion of lyke their wonted answering mentioned in the 47. number. Although the former woords of Tertullian are insupportable to M. Riders clayme, and that he strugleth in vayne against them, yet I will second them, with this conclusion out of the sayd Tertullian. Acceptum panem & distributum discipulis, Corpus suum illum secit, Hoc est Corpus meum dicendo; Tertull orat. de Antichristo. The bread taken and distributed to his disciples, he made it his body, saying, This is my body. I would fayne behould M. Riders skill, in wreasting these woords from our purpose; with any shew of probabilitie. His wonted maner of wreasting without probabilitie, (which posteritie will I suppose by his remembrance name ryding) is as I thinke loathsome to his most louing frends to fynde in him, and lewed to be followed by him.
Catholicke Priestes
God hath left vs his flesh to eate, and his bloud to drinke, that we might be nourished by that,
Cyprian de Duplici Mart: floruit: 249.
by which we haue been redeemed
Rider.106. A Blinde man may see that you neuer read this in Cyprian your selfe, or else that you vnderstand them not. For Cyprian saith not God hath left vs his flesh: but Reliquit nobis edendam carnem suam, reliquit bibendum sanguinem, &c. he hath left vs his flesh to eate, and his bloud to drinke. I pray you pardon me to aske you which is the nominatiue case to the verbe, is Deus? no, but if you had begunne seuen lines sooner, as you ought in deed to haue done, at Nemo maiorem charitatem habet, &c. you shold haue found the right nominatiue case, that there might haue been not onelie a gramaticall concord, but also a Theologicall harmonie, and then the sence had bene plaine. For it was hee that died for his enemies, that left vs his flesh, &c. And that was Christ, not God the father. But you begunne (after your accustomed manner) in the middest of a sentence, mistaking the nominatiue case to the verbe; and so lay downe heresie for diuinitie: for God the Father hath neither flesh nor blould. But if I should helpe you with a charitable construction, by attributing that to Christes Deitie, which is proper to his humanitie, yet you still haue wrested the father and abused the Reader.
But thus Cyprian is to be read: Christ hath left vs his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke: so we confesse it, we beleeue it, and we teach it: but to be eaten and drunke spirituallie by faith, not corporallie, not gutturallie, as you imagine. For this is the inward inuisible Grace of the Sacramente that you propound.
[Page 245]Now how this flesh and bloud of Christ is to be eaten, or how Christs flesh and bloud are naturallie, substantiallie, & reallie vnder the formes of bread and wine, which is our question, you cannot prooue by Cyprian: and so still you propound the matter to vs, when you should prooue the maner to vs: and here is your error in the third kinde, (if not in moe) before specified.
And heere you bring a testimonie out of Cyprian, Cypriā de Caena Domini nu. 9. where he speaketh not properlie of the sacrament, but of the threefold Martyrdome, which hee gathered out of the death of Christ: and therefore you shew a great weaknesse in running to that Tractate, whereas you might haue spedde better (if you had list) neerer home. For if you had reade or woulde reade that Father vpon his Treatise of the Lords Supper, hee would haue either changed your minde, or hardned your heart, but howsoeuer, discouerd your errors.
And that the eating of Christs flesh and drinking of Christs bloud, is not a grosse corporall swallowing of his blessed flesh and precious bloud, as you deeme: but that Esus carnis Christi, est quaedam auiditas, & quoddam desiderium manendi in ipso, &c. What it is to eate Christes flesh and drinke Christs bloud. The eating of Christs flesh is a certaine egernesse, and a certaine desire to abide in Christ, &c. And three lines before this he saith, Our abiding in him is our eating of him: and the drinke is a certaine incorporation into him.
And in the latter end of the Treatise, you shall finde that Father touch the point in question betwixt vs: haec quotiens agimus, non dentes ad mordendum ac [...]mus, How Christ must bee eaten. sed fide syncera panem sanctum frangimus & partimus, &c. As often as we receiue these holie mysteries, we whet not our teeth to bite or chew, but breake and diuide this holie bread by a sincere faith, &c. And foure lines before that (saith he) Edulium carnis Christi defaecatis animis, &c. The food of Christs flesh must be eaten with purified minds, saith not with washed mouthes. And a litle before that, hee saith,Impij nec se iudicant nec sacramenta diiudicant. Ibid. nu. 13. the wicked lambunt petram, &c. licke the rocke, but neither sucke honic nor oyle, &c. that is to say, they eate the Sacrament, but not the inward grace of the Sacrament. Thus I hope the indifferent Reader is satisfied that your proofe is not pertinent to the matter in question, and therefore sheweth the weaknesse of your cause, and the wilfulnesse of your mindes, that will seeke so stiflie to maintaine fables with wresting Fathers:Transubstantiation is but in deede a fable. for Cyprians place that you bring, handleth the visible grace of the Sacrament. And in this place which I bring, he toucheth the manner how that grace is to be receiued, that is, with fayth as we say, not teeth as you teach, &c. And so Cyprian agrees with himselfe, and we with Cyprian ioyne against your carnall opinion. And thus hauing aunswered Cyprian with Cyprian, and shewed you your ouersight and mistaking of Cyprian, I will come to the examination of your next proofe.
The fowerth parte of the second proofe. of S. Cyprian.
106. FIrst I am blamed, that when I should haue sayd Christ,Fitzsimon. I sayd God. Wherby euery one may conceaue, that I am not of their opinion who deny the godhead of Christ, related in our examinatiō of the Creed. I thanke Christ my God and Lord, that I am reprehended but for sucht faults [Page 246] as consist with trueth, and pietie. Christ then, hath left vs his fleash to eate, and his blood to drinke, saith S. Cyprian: which M. Rider saith, he confesseth, he beleeueth, he teacheth. Then to the next clause: that are should be nourished by that, by which we haue bene redeemed. To which M. Rider is mute, or dumb, and consequently offending in one, he is made guiltie of all. So that to beleeue part, and not the whole, is vnproffitable. In the meane tyme S. Cyprians testimonie can not be auoyded. For yf by Christs body we were redeemed: then by Christs body saith S. Cyprian we must be nourished. A figure, a representatiō, an appellatiō, redeemed vs not: therfor a figure, appellatiō, representation in this sacrament nourished vs not. Not only through faithe, and the stomack of the soule were our soules redeemed, but our bodyes also to resurrection and glorie, by the true suffring of Christs real and corporal bodye: therfore, not only in faith, or only according to the stomack of the soule, are we nourished, but by the true participation of Christs real and natural bodye, into our bodyes to nourish them, and to sanctifie together the soule. Yet (saith he) Cyprian telleth, that the eating of Christ, is a greedy desyre to remayne with him; & that with our teethe we teare him not, but with a sincere faythe we kreake and diuyde him which we euer before and now, professe, and auerr. For who thinketh Christs true and real receauing to exclude his spiritual and incorruptible receauing? Let our 34. 40. 42. 46. 54. numbers beare recorde, that we teach not otherwyse then as S. Cyprian here doth, to witt, the corporal receauing, not to be a Capharnaical tearing renting, or byting of Christ, but a true real participation of his body into ours, vnder the forms of bread, and wyne, to the sanctification therby of our soules. Yf any requyre, what is a Capharnaical tearing, by the Capharnaits conceaued, and by Sectarists imagined; S. Cyril l. 4. c. 22. in Ioan. certifieth saying; Ad immanes serarum mores, vocari se à Christo, arbitrabantur, incitari (que) vt vellent crudas hominum carnes manducare & sanguinem bibere. They supposed Christ to induce them to the sauage maners of wild beasts, and to haue incited them to eate the raw fleash of men, and to drinke their bloud. Yf you would kill sectarists, you can not weane, nor winne them, from lyke grosse, and carnal constructions of Christs words.
But to the former purpose that I may not play a protestants parts, saying, you see this taught, and that taught; this here, and that there; when it is nether soe, nor soe: I will alleage S. Cyprians woords, breefe but playne,S. Cypr. de cana Domi [...]i. faithfully, to iustifie my speeche, in the most sparing interpretation which any aduersarie might affoorde. Panis iste que [...] [Page 247] Dominus discipulis porrigebat, non effigie, sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro; The bread (saith S. Cyprian) which our Lord gaue to his disciples, not in apparence, but in nature or substance changed, by the omnipotencie of the woord, was made fleash. You M. Rider saye, there is noe proofe in Cyprian, that the natural, substantial, and real body of Christ, is vnder the forme of breade.The 105. vntruth. That now by S. Cyprian is assured the 105. vntruth, he in expresse tearms saying, the bread, remayning only in apparence bread, and by Christs omnipotent woord, in nature changed, was made his fleashe. The 106.The 106. vntruth. vntruth is also by S. Cyprian almost in euery sillable of the forsayd allegation certifyed, when you affirme that he with you, and you with him, agree in this point. For there could not be greater opposition against you,The 107. vntruth. contayned in fewer woords. The 107. is by S. Cyprian certifyed, when you informe that according his opinion, the wicked eate not the body of Christ: he manifestly saying, that;S. Cypr. ser. 5. de lapsis. exhalantibus etiam scelus suum [...]aucibus Domini Corpus inuadūt; with gaping iawes & breathing their wickednes, they inuade the body of Christ. And this to haue hapned, because; ante exomologesin factam criminis, ante purgatam conscientiam sacrificio, & manu sa [...]erdotis; &c. befor fullfilling pennance for their fault, befor purgeing their consciences by the sacrifice, and hands of the Preests, &c. they aduentured to approache. This tymes papistrie, and it of those times are found, will yee, nil yee, cōformable. This made Causeus to tearme Cyprian blockish, Causeus dial. 8. & 11. and reprobate. He is in dede a block in their way, and a reprouer of their impietie, therby so grauelling their cause, that their greauing, and groning myndes must haue vamped out such reproaches.
There is no doubt left of the veritie of the flesh and bloud of Christ,
Catholicke Priestes.
for now by the assurance of our Lord, and certaintie of our
faith, Hyllarius de Trinitate lib. 4. & 8. floruit, 370.
it is his true flesh and his true bloud.
107. GEntlemen: now we must needs commend you,Rider. for you giue testimonie with the truth and vs, against the late church of Rome & your selues, now you come neere the quicke in deed, and therefore speake both the trueth, and trulie. This is the manner how Christ must be eaten, by faith, but you should haue added the next line following, Et haec accepta atque exhausta id efficiunt, &c. and these, (that is, sanctified bread and wine) being thus by faith taken and thus drunke, bring this to passe, that Christ is in vs, and we in Christ: so now you say with Hyllarie, that Christ dwelleth in all them that receiue him by faith.Your owne proofe is one our side. And so by this your owne warrant you witnesse to the world, that there is no place for the corporall receiuing of Christ by the wicked, (as Rome teacheth it) because Christ dwelleth not in them, nor they in him. And so because this your proofe prooues one part of the matter in question against your selues, that Christ is to bee eaten or receiued by our faith, not [Page 248] by our mouth or teeth, I will addresse my selfe to the examination of your next proofe.
The fift parte of the second proofe: of S. Hilarie.
Fitzsimon.107. WHen I perceaued some saying of myne to haue contented M. Rider, Laert. l. 6. I mistrusted as Antisthenes, that I had vttered some foolishnes; considering that, obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit; flattrie and falshood doth content, and gratifie the multitude, and truth breedeth rather their dislyke. But all is well; For it is but à fayned pretext of contentment. Let vs in the name of God ioyne issue, vpon S. Hilaries suffrage. All that M. Rider hath therin to applaude vnto him selfe, is, that there is mention of faithe therin. That such faithe, assureth, the veritie of Christs true fleash, and his true blood, to be in the sacrament, was no impediment for M. Rider to haue sayd all to be for his purpose, and so to gallopp gallantly away from examining the matter any longer. But, as the prouerb is, the baker (you may know him to haue imitated Melancton, by leauing his preaching, and applying his baking, and publickly selling bread, to the exceeding detriment of the free bakers a whole yeare together in Dublin) must not so parte from the pillorie. For S. Hilarie nayleth his eares fast, in saying; Verè Verbum carnem, cibo Dominico sumimus; Verily, we receaue the VVoord made fleash, in our Lords foode; quomodo non naturaliter in nobis manere existiman [...] est? how is he not to be thought naturaly, to remayne in vs? si vere homo ille qui ex Maria natus est Christus: S. Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinitate. nos vere sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumin [...], yf he who was borne of Marie be truely Christ: then we vnder this mysterie [...] truely receaue the fleash of his bodye. Yf M. Rider can pull out these nayles, without tearing his eares, (that we truely) (and therfor not only figuratiuely) receaue the fleash of his bodie, yf he be Christ; and that [...]e naturaly remayneth in vs, and therfor not only by conceit; (especialy S. Hilarie saying;Ibidem. Non per concordiam voluntatis, non vnitatem voluntatis intelligi voluit; Christ would not it should be vnderstood by concord of our affectione, or vnitie of our wills, but, naturaliter, naturaly; which he repeateth fouer, [...] fiue tymes; and, per naturalem proprietatem, by natural proprietie.) Yf I say, M. Rider can declyne, or remoue from these tormenting nayles: then (to incountre him in one of his owne Lilian sentences, for others he knew none) magnus mihi erit Apollo; he shalbe our wysest Deane, whose euery woord shalbe a Delphian oracle. I had rather S. Hilarie confute him thus alone, then by other amplificatiōs to confound [Page 249] him. The 108. vntrueth appeareth, saying;The 108. vntruth. that we witnes to the world that there is noe place for the corporal receauing of Christ by the wicked. As yf forsooth, none can be wicked that haue faith, nor any able to receaue Christ, but by faith. Wherby first all protestants are made free from wickednes; and it is next giuen for a Riderian sound sequel, S. Hilarie saith, that by our Lords testimonie and assurance of our faith, Christs true fleash and blood are receaued: therfor who soeuer is not faithfull doth not receaue Christs true fleash and blood. Which sequel yf it be currant, why also not this: by faith and hospitalitie Marie Magdalen, and Martha, receaued Christ into their house: therfor Anna, Cayphas, Pilat, could not receaue him otherwyse then by faith and hospitalitie? The 109.The 109. vntruth. that this proofe of S. Hilarie proueth, we should not receaue Christ by our mouth.
Nothing remaineth in the world of the bodie and bloud of Christ,
Catholick Priests.
but that which daylie is made by the Priest on the Altar.
108. GEntlemen: I perceiue you are soone wearie of well doing:Athan. lib. de Passione Imaginis Christi cap. 7. floruit 375. in your last proofe you confessed a truth with vs,109. euen against your selues: But now you leaue Fathers and bring fables,110. Rider. and so produce one fable to prooue another fable: that is, you produce one fable of the crucifying of the image of Christ,Like opinion like proofe. and the miraculous aboundant gushing of water and bloud out of the image his side, that cured all diseases in all parts and places of the world to prooue your carnall presence of the Sacrament, by your fained transubstantiation.
For aunswere to which, first I say,VVhen fathers helpe not, you bringe fables. that you should fitter haue placed this proofe in the ranke of your fained miracles following, or in your question of images hereafter. But to couer the foolerie and forgerie thereof, you couch it amongest the auncient Doctors and Fathers of the Church, thereby hoping to haue him passe with more credit. But I will shew first, that you haue not dealt well nor trulie with the Author of this fable, nor with the Catholickes of this kingdome, because you haue left out such wordes as would wound both your credit in this case, and spoile your cause: besides, your Translation is nothing found.
You leaue out in two lines these foure words, Quasi per manus, and spiritualiter: you left out quasi because belike it was but an Aduerb of likenesse, and so because omne simile is not idem. you thought it were better to leaue it behinde, then to bring it to your hurt. Secondlie, you leaue out per manus, for your Authour saith, per manus sacerdotum, by the handes of the Priestes, and you leaue them both out, and say, per sacerdotem, least the people should thinke and say, if onelie the Priest made it, then it, can neither haue flesh nor bloud, and so the miracle were marred.
And therfore it were better to leaue out per manus, and to say per sacerdotem, by the Priest, for then might be vnderstood not onelie all the members of his bodie, and intentions of his minde, but also the gestures and motions of both, required to the conception of such a wodden Sauiour.
And lastlie, you leaue out spiritualiter, spirituallie, hee saith not carnallie, and [Page 250] therefore this proofe is verie vnschollerlike alleadged: when our question is of a presence carnall, you produce a presence spirituall: this word makes for vs, but that wee scorne (and knowe it sinfull) to bring in such forgerie (for proofe) in a question of diuinitie. For this you shoulde haue brought in thus, which is dailie made by the Priest spirituallie, Now how this proofe fitteth you, let others censure: shame makes mee scilent.
This fable containeth seuen chapters of the crucifying of the images of CHRIST done by the Iewes for enuie to CHRIST: who no sooner pierced the Image his side, but Continuò exiuit sanguis & aqua, The word is Hydria, which you may see Iohn. 2. verse. 6. containes two or three measures or firk nes a piece, which shewes it to be a notable loudlie, & lewd legend. forthwith gushed out both water and bloud in such aboundance, that they filled manie vesseles with the same, and this bloud was carried into all the parts of the world, through Asia, Affricke, & Europe, and cured all manner of diseases. Vpon sight of which miracle the cruell Iewes repented, & were baptised: and presentlie there was a holieQuinto Idus Nouemb. day made in rememberance thereof, which was kept with no lesse solemnitie then the feast of Easter, and the Natiuitie of our Lord, as the Author saith. Then in the seuenth and last chapter comes in your proofe, which cōcludeth a peace amongst the Cleargie, touching the trueth of Christs bloud: for now saith the Author, there can no other flesh nor bloud of Christ be found in the world, then that which is daylie made by the hands of the Priests spirituallie vpon the Altar. But this your profe is not trulie translated according to the Latten, but because it is a loudelie, I will neither reprooue you for your defectiue translation, nor correct it for anie mans direction:Like Translation like truth. for I see no reason to bestow a true trāslation, vpon a false miracle or forged fable. Other circumstances, as, where this image was saide to bee kept and brought soorth, &c. I referre the curious Reader, to the foolish [...] forged Author. But that all the Catholicks of this kingdome may see the reasons that mooue me to think it to be a fable, be these: all of them gathered out of the bodie of this fable, falselie fathered vpon Athanasius.
Reason. 1 The first reason, is the occasion: for no small error sprung vp in those daies touching the bloud that issued sorth of Christs side on the crosse:So seuerall places & persons falsly chaleng to them selus that euery one hath a proper piece of Christs crosse. Athanasius printed at Paris, 1581. pag. 534, &c. So our Iesuits and Priests now, would perswade the Catho. one sort of Priests said, that they had the right bloud, and another sort of Priests in other citties said, that they had Christs verie bloud that issued forth of his side: and so the contention among the Priests grew to bee verie hote (as it is this day betwixt you Iesuits and Priestes about other matters) wherevpon the whole Cleargie met togither at Caesaria in Cappe [...] cia, for the appeasing of this dangerous broile. The reuerend Fathers were no sooner set, but vpstart Don Petrus Bishop of Nicomedia, & said: Reuerend Fathers, I haue a little booke heere of Athanasius, which I greatlie desire to present to your fatherhoode view and consideration: Sancta Synodus respondit: placet bene, & vt legatur opta [...] The holy Synode aunswered; wee are verie well pleased, and desire it may be read. Thus concerning the occasion: which was a solemne Synode, to appease a foolish superstitious contention amongst the lying couetous Priests of that age: when euerie hedge-priest would perswade the simple people, that he had in his viall the very bloud of Christ, which was of force to pardon their sinnes.
Reason. 2 The stile of this agreeth not with the booke which is knowne to bee Athanasius worke contra Idola; a meane Grammarian may see it and discerne it: and therefore it cannot be his worke.
Reason. 3 Athanasius writ a most sharp tractate against Idolatrie, when he was liuing, and now they would father this fable vpon him after his death: and therefore it cannot bee his worke: for so wee should wickedlie charge that godlie father either with recantation of trueth: contradiction in and with himselfe, or open maintenance of palpable Idolatrie.
[Page 251]It was taken to be Athanasius worke, onelie vpon the credit of the Popes Stipendarie Reason. 4 chaplen Petrus Bishop of Nicomedia, as you may see in the title page, 554. and therefore is not his worke by open confession.
The time bewraies the forgerie; for this thing should be done by report of your Reason. 5 owne stories, seuen hundred and threescore yeares after Christ,Sigebert in ann. 755 vnder Constantine the fift, yet coloured with Athanasius name, as written by him, that was dead foure hundred yeares before this matter hapned, and therefore plaine and palpable forgerie.
It was imagined to be done some twentie yeares or thereabouts, before the second Reason. 6 Counceil of Nicene, as a preparatiue for the planting of images in Churches,Actione quarta, synodi 2. Nicenae. tom. 3. in which Councell it was accordinglie performed, and this fable registred in the same, as a sure foundation for such a building, and a fit proofe for such a proposition.
Now let the indifferent Reader peruse at his leisure, but the seuen chapters of this Treatise, and hee shall scarce read one line without a lie. Yet superstition blusht not to in sert this fable into this fathers worke. But if we should tender such proofes, and preach such fabulous stuffe for sound diuinitie to the people, you would call vs sots and souleslaiers. But for Christes sake and the peoples saluation, confesse your errours and forsake them, with these lying fables: it is no shame to forsake sinne, but it is daungerous when sinne forsakes you. And so to your next proofe.
The sixt parte of the 2. proofe. Of S. Athanasius.
108.Fitzsimon. YOw haue often perceaued a fordwarnes in M. Rider to reprehend leauings out, and puttings in; begyning and ending, at this place, and not at that. Here also the same, and with lyke infortunat successe, is obserued. First he blameth that we leaue out, [quasi, as yf] I should thinke, that noe wysdome or learning would thinke that a fault; there being no maner of vse of it, to any purpose; or against it. Secondly that I omitted, per manus, by the hands. This omission also should not offend him, both because it sheweth against him, that not only by the fayth, but also by the hands of the priest, Christ is vpon the altar. Secondly, because he omitteth it him selfe immediatly, in these woords: which is dayly made by the preest spiritualy. Thirdly, he blameth the omission of, spiritualiter, spiritualie: which being contained, had well consisted with our doctrin; as well because we beleeue that spiritual, and corporal, may consist together, which is manifouldly shewen: as also, because we teache his being on the altar, not to be a sensible, corruptible, and Capharnaical being, but a true, substantial, real, yet inuisible, being. Wheras contrarywyse, he is bounde to affirme, that in his sacrament Christ is nether corporaly, nor spiritualy: and consequently, spiritual was omitted by me to my owne hinderance, and yet not to his aduantage. For Foxes Martyrs (to whom M. Rider hath bound himselfe to consent) do thus instruct; The difference of Doctrin, betweene [Page 252] the faithfull and Papists, concerning the sacrament, is, that the Papists say, that Christ is corporaly vnder, Fox Acts and Monum. pag. 1529. or in the forme of bread and wyne; But the faithfull say that Christ is not there, nether corporaly, nor spiritualy. The same is the opinion of Musculus, as appeareth in the 96. number, saying; The bread is the body of Christ, Muscul. in loc. com. c. de cana n. 2. pag. 327. nether naturaly, nor personaly, nor realy, nor corporaly, nor yet spiritualy, nor figuratiuely, nor significatiuely: it remayneth after all these that we say, the bread is the body of Christ sacramentaly. We must keepe these men at a baye, & at one resolution, & not suffre them to wander now to the woord spiritual, then to the word mystical, after to the woord figuratiue: for this is the most soueraigne remedie to helpe, and hurte them; that you keepe their noses to the gryndestone of one setled profession. Otherwyse you shal euer fynde them; In nequitia & astutia circumuentionem erroris operantes; Ephes. 4. in wickednes and fraud woorking the circumuention of errour, as the Apostle saith: that is runing into all digressions, and variable doctrins, according to the prophet; impij in circuitu ambulant; Psalm. 11. the wicked walke in circuit. For the woord, Sacramental, which was their last refuge, I report to the 103. number, to manifest whether it hath not also abandoned them, and left them forlorne.
The 2. parcel of the 6. parte.
109. M. Rider confessing the general beleefe of all Christians toward this historie out of which our last testimonie is produced, in so much as there was a solemne holy day made in remembrance thereof: leauing to confute or examine the woords, wherby in it is declared; that the body and blood of Christ, is made on the altar, he betaketh him selfe to an impertinent disputation, whether S. Athanasius was the autheure therof. As yf the mater approued by 350. Fathers in the second concil of Nice, had no other authoritie, but by being written or not written by S. Athanasius.
The third parcel of the sixt parte of the second proofe.
110. FOr a man of M. Riders qualitie, it should seeme strange, yf he would oppose him selfe against such venerable authoritie, without vrgēt & vndoubted proofs. His first motiue not to beleeue it, is, that there was errours sprong concerning the blood issueing from that image; for reforming wherof, a [Page 253] Concil was assembled. Is this a reason to deny a mater what mysterie of religion is there, but errours haue sprong touching it? And why should concils be collected, but to reforme errours? How wyse the first exception is, let God and Man iudge. The second reason of his, to distrust it, is; that the style is not the same, which Athanasius obserued els where. But this might proceed from the interpreter. And the lyke argument might be made, that S. Paul was not autheur of the epistle to the Hebrues; nor S. Ihon of the Apocalips; because their style is altered. Yet few sobre protestants, but would blush to misdoubt them to be the autheurs. The third reason: Athanasius wrote against idolatrie, therfor he wrote not this idolatrous historie. To this I aunswer, that worshiping of images was not counted idolatrie during S. Athanasius his lyfe.Nicephorus lib. 6. c. 27. Witnes Nicephorus glorious testimonie to that effect, saying: Zenaias iste primus (an. 493.) ô audacem animum, & os impudens! vocem illam euomuit) Christi, & eorum qui illi placuere imagines, venerandas non esse. That Zenaias first, anno 493. O desper at mynde, and impudent mouth! vomited out that voyce: the images of Christ, and them that pleased him, not to be reuerenced. Wherfore the wryting against idolatrie befor Zenaias, your opinions patriarck, might proceed from à commender of worshiping images. For, by whom was euer idolatrie abolished, but by the defenders of such worshipp? Haue euer protestants conuerted any contries from idolatrie? how are they named? What histories recompt then? Tertullians saying of them is dayly verified, de prescrip. cap. 42. Hoc esse negotium illis, non Ethnicos conuertendi, sed nostros euertendi, & hanc captare gloriam, si stantibus ruinam, non si iacentibus eleuationem operentur. This to be their imployment, not to conuert pagans, but to peruert beleuers: and to make it their glorie, yf they can cast downe them that stand, and not to lift vp them that are fallen. The fouerth reason is, the booke was esteemed to be of Athanasius, by credit, and reporte of Peter bishop of Nicomed. therfor it was not of Athanasius by open cōfession. A fitt [therfor] for such a scholer. The bishop of Nicomed. did commend it as the booke of Athanasius, therfor by open confession, he sayd, it was not the booke of Athanasius; How did he then commend it to be the booke of Athanasius? That it is sayd, this bishop to haue bene the popes stipēdiarie, maketh the 110. vntrueth. That it is confessed therfor,The 110. vntruth. The 111. vntruth. not to be S. Athanasius his worke because it was sayd to be his woorke, maketh the 111. vntrueth.The 112. vntruth. The 113. vntruth. That it is reported by our owne histories to haue hapned vnder Cōstantyne the fift, makeeh the 112. vntruth. The 113. vntruth is, that there is scarcely a lyne in the 7. Chapters of such booke of [Page 254] S. Athanasius but contayneth a lye. I remembre one Mistris Kirie, an English woman, who dwelled in S. Thomas streat in Dublin, anno 1580. to haue bene replyed vnto by a poore begging woman who had craued hir almes for the sake of god, and our Ladie; when the sayd Mistris Kirie sayd she would giue nothing for out ladie, because she was better then she, hir selfe. Mischefe sayd the begger, take the worst of you both. The same might well be sayd of the most lying lynes in your booke, or this here specified. Notwithstanding this assured discouerie of his reasons to be most friuolous and ridiculous, or rather lamentable, yet I thinke of the mater according to the annotations of Baronius vpon the 9. of Nouember: that it was not S. Athanasius of Alexādria that was autheur therof, but some other, (yet very ancient) of that name. And all may thinke, that this M. Riders exception against the autheur, is no more to the mater, then yf one would say, nothing to be true whose autheur is vnknowen.
Catholick Priests. Damascen. lib. 4. de fide orthod. [...]ap. 14. floruit 391.
Let vs approach in ardent faith, laying our hands in manner of a crosse, and let vs receiue the bodie of him that was crucified.
Rider.111. YOu leaue out ei: for it is in the father, Accedamus ei, let vs come and approach to him, which is in heauen not on your Altar, or in your miraculous accidents, and then sheweth the manner how; in ardent faith; not with mouth, teeth, and stomake.Damascen flatlie sheweth the impossibilitie of your carnall presence. So this father is against your selfe, for the manner of receiuing of Christ, which is spirituall, not corporall. And in the same chapter, the same father saith, Corpus Christi, &c. that Christs bodie being vnited to the godhead, descended not from heauen to the earth, and therefore cannot be in your sacrament corporally and carnallie. And as fire and heat be in a burning coale, so, (and more) neerelie are Christs humanitie and diuinitie ioyned together, so that he which shall touch the coale should taste of heat, and hee that should eate Christs humanitie, must also eate Christs diuinitie: which is damnable to thinke, for a man to eate and deuoure his God. But because this your impertinent proofe is your apparant disproofe, I will proceed to the next.
The seuenth parte of the second proofe, of S. Damascen.
111. I Haue seene many nimble Riders, gambole ouer stooles and stocks, in Dublin, on shrouetuesdaye: but such stooles, and stocks, as Damascen obiecteth against M. Rider in the place by me alleaged, so lightly vaunted ouer, I neuer could hetherto obserue. I might seeme to Catholicks faultie, that of so much as Damascen tendreth, I affoorded so litle, and but one testimonie only, [Page 255] wheras euery lyne of half the chapter, might testifie the greatest opposition that might be against M. Rider. But my affection to breuitie, and the sufficiencie of what was brought to any man not willfully obstinat, inforced me therto. Now at least, attend what Damascen deliuereth. First, discoursing by many arguments and examples of the powerfull woords of Christ, he demandeth;S. Damascen. lib. 4. de fide Orthod. cap. 14. Quid tandem offerri potest, quin ex pane Corpus suum, ex vino & aqua fanguinem suum efficere queat? VVhat possiblye may be obiected, but that he may make of bread his body, of wyne and water, his blood? Secondly, discoursing how some might requyre, to vnderstand the maner of such conuersion of bread and wyne into Christs body and blood; he sayth; Tibi item respondeo, spiritus sanctus superuenit, ea (que) efficit quae orationis facultatem, & mentis intelligentiam excedunt; I answer thee also, that the holy Ghost intermedleth, Ibidem. and woorketh those things, which surpasse the vttrance of speeche, and conceit of vnderstanding. Thirdly, discoursing, whether Christ localy discendeth from heauen to be in the Sacrament; he sayth; Non quod assumptum illud corpus è caelo descenderit: Ibideus. sed quia panis ipse ac vinum in corpus & sanguinem Dei immutantur; Not that his body assumpted discendeth from heauen; but because the very bread and wyne (without such discension) is changed into the body and blood of God. Wherof he addeth, that; modus eiusmodi est, Ibidem. vt nulla ratione indagari queat; the maner is such, as by noe reache of reason it can be conceaued. Fowerthly, discoursing whether good and badd do receaue such mysterie: he answereth, they doe, thee good,Ibidem. in peccatorum remissionem & in vitam aeternam; to the remission of their Synns and euerlasting lyfe; the badd, in poenam & supplicium, to their payne and punishement. Fiftly, discoursing (as yf he were a prophet, to preuent hereticall opinions) whether the bread and wyne be only a figure or signe of Christs body and blood; he answereth;Ibidem. Nec verò panis & vinum Corporis Christi figurae sunt (absit enim hoc) verum ipsummet Domini Corpus diuinitate affectum; In no maner bread and wyne ar a figure of the body of Christ (fye vpon that) but the very body of our Lord conioyned with his diuinitie. Whervnto he addeth that Christ sayd not; Corporis & Sanguinis signum, sed Corpus & Sanguinem; the signe of his body and blood, but his body and blood. Sixtly, discoursing of the maner to approach, he prescribeth the humble and deuout maner, contayned in the testimonie or allegation which I first propounded. These letts, nay these montayns interposed in M. Riders way, by Damascen. yet his flying Pegasus, or hors (namely his deceitfulnes) found no difficultie to transporte him beyond all, and to cause him to affirme that the passage was playne and fauourable. But many dreame they are farr voyaged, when they are found farr deceaued.
[Page 256]In the meane tyme, as you a little befor haue obserued his great simpathie, and vnion with Puritans: so now I craue your attendance to perceaue lyke concourse with infidels, and such hereticks, as make Christs diuinitie to haue suffred.Luther tom. 7. serm. de Eucharist. fol. 335. Auerroes, that wicked Infidel (sayth Luther) loaden with synne, accuseth vs Christians, as the most wicked of the world, for eating, and deuouring of our Cod. What say you is not the same reproached to vs, by M. Rider? Is not this a perfect agreement with impious infidels? But I would fayne haue his resolution: yf (as he sayd befor n. 96.) it is lyke treason to offende against the picture of the Prince, as it is against his person: Why it is a greauouser imputation, to eate Christ him selfe, then to eate him (according to the Protestant imagination) in his representation figure, or picture? Let him escape the brunt of this obiection; without fayling in what he sayd befor, or what he sayth here, and his wysdome shalbe accompted greater then accustomed. For thus I make it in forme of argument. He that receaueth Christs seales vnworthily (sayth M. Rider n. 96.) committeth high treason against Christ: therfore it is as greuous an offense to deuoure his seales vnworthilie as to deuoure his bodye. Because, sayth he, it is lyke offense, to disgrace his garments, as his person. And consequently in eating their supper as the seale of Christ, they offend (according his discourse) no lesse then in eating Christ. Also yf they may eate the seales without offense, so, as lawfully may they eate his fleash, he assuring them, that vnles they would eate not his seale but his fleash, they should haue no lyfe in them. Secondly, yf as he saith, what is done to Christs humanitie, the same must be done to his diuinitie: How can he auoyde, wheras that Christ according to his humanitie was whipped,Vide num. 37. pearced, & put to death, but the same must be thought fullfilled against his diuinitie? O glorious, and godly frend of Christs diuinitie! How we and our doctrin determine that Christ both according humanitie, and diuinitie, is eaten, and receaued without detriment and corruption, already is so often related, as it needeth not to be here repeated. The residue of such blasphemies against the death of Christs Diuinitie, as is here inferred against the woords of Christ, & his institution that we should eate him, (that is religiously receaue him into our stomacks) may be found plentifully in the examinatiō of Protestantcie,The 114. vntruth. toward the Articles of our creed. The 114. vntruth can not be denyed, in saying; Damascen is against vs.
This bread is bread before the consecration: but when it is consecrated,
Catholicke Priestes Ambr. de sacramēti [...] lib. 4. cap. 4. floruit. 400.
of bread it is made the flesh of Christ.
112. AL this we graunt to be true, but you come not to the point,Rider. whether Christs flesh be made of bread by way of transubstantiation, that is, by the changing of one nature or substance into another, by hoc est corpus meum; this is our question, but you dare not touch it because you cannot prooue it, But seeing you recite fathers by peeces and patches, taking that you thinke will fit your purpose, and leauing that which would crosse your course or weaken your cause; I will for the trueth sake, and the Catholikes good adde that out of Ambrose, which I am sure some of you would wish out of Ambrose. If you had read a few lines moe, you should haue heard him tell you another tale, and haue expounded himselfe in this place:In the same chapter. his words be these; Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini Iesu, vt inciperent esse qua non erant quanto magis operatorius est vt sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur? If there be such a force in the word of the Lord Iesus that the things which were not, began to bee, how much more can it worke this, that they shall be the same they were, and yet bee changed into another thing? And then bringeth in an example, how a thing may be that that it was, and yet be chaunged. Tu ipse eras, sed eras vetus creatura, &c. Thou thy selfe waste: but thou wast an olde creature: after, when thou wast baptised, thou begannest to be a new creature: wilt thou know how, a new creature? every one saith the Apostle, that is in Christ, is a new creature. Learne then how the word of God is accustomed to change euerie creature: and when he will he altereth the course of nature. If you had read or knowne this, you would neuer haue alleadged the other, for his example is this: as he that is baptised suffereth no materiall substancial or corporall change, rhough he be borne a new spirituallie, and put on Christ.Vide dist. 2. de cōsecr. cap. quia corpus page 432. But he his changed not loosing or altring the bodie or soule which hee had: but in attaining the grace which hee had not. And so the change is accidentall, not substantiall, as from vice to vertue. So in substance the bread and wine are the same they were before, but in accident or qualitie, they are turned into another thing, of common bread, made a Sacrament.
So Chrisostome amplifying the change of bread in the Euchariste,Chrisost. in Matth. hom. 83. he addeth immediatlie withall: Sic etiam in baptismo: euen so there is the like change of water in baptisme, as of bread in the Lords Supper: but that is not of substance, but in qualitie, respect, or vse, and so in this.
And this change is not in casting away the substance of bread or wine,Dialog. 1. cap. 6. but in casting grace vnto them: As Theodoret saith, Non naturam ipsam transmutans, sed naturae adijciens gratiam not changing nature, but adding grace to nature.Ambrose de ijs qui initiantur cap. 9. But who can better expound Ambrose his meaning then Ambrose himselfe? who saith, Ante benedictionem &c. before the blessing of the heauenlie words, it is called another kind: after the words of consecration the bodie of Christ is signified: doth not say, is the bodie of Christ, but signifieth the bodie of Christ. And else where.Ambr. 1. Cor. 11. In comedendo & potando, &c. In eating & drinking we signifie the bodie & bloud that were offered for vs. And againe he saith, Quod est figura, Ambr. de Sacramētis lib. 4. cap. 4. &c. which is a figure of the bodie & bloud of the Lord. But of this we haue sufficientlie spoken before.
And thus now the Reader may be sufficientlie satisfied that the change is not naturall, but misticall, not of substance, but of accidents and qualities. And so bread remaineth in substance, but is changed in misterie. And so is bread made the [Page 258] flesh of Christ, not by your miraculous transubstantiation, but by mistical & Apostolicall benediction or sanctification, not in changing the nature of it, but adding grace to it, as beforesaid. And thus Ambrose hath aunswered Ambrose. And if you would read him without partiall affection, hee would withdraw you from this your imagined opinion. But now to that which followeth.
The 8. parte of the second proofe of S. Ambrose.
112. FIrst he affirmeth, that all we produce out of S. Ambrose is true: yet that we want in woords our purpose of Transubstantiation. He might be ashamed, to disable the right honorable Deputie and Concile, to whom he dedicated his booke, in exhibiting before their eyes the most manifest, the most palpable, and the most forcible allegation that could be imagined for transubstantiation; and such one as possibly can not be true, but transubstantiation must be acknowleged; yet to dazel their eyes, and delude their iudgements, as yf he would perswade them, they did noe wyse see in those woords what all iudgements must needs conceaue, vnlesse they were bewitched. For what is transubstantiation, but a conuersion of one substance into another, noe thing of the former substance remayning? And in these woords of S. Ambrose, is not it sayd, that bread was before consecration: and not remayning after it; but contrarywyse that it is made the fleash of Christ and consequently transubstantiated? Are not the woords following, selected out of S. Ambrose to testifie by example, a conuersion of one substance into another, therby to perswade our beleefe of such conuersion of bread, into Christs body? This is to vse the L. Deputie, and Concil, as the Iewes vsed Christ in buffeting their profession, with mayne stroakes, in the meane tyme as yf they had bene buffmen blynde, demanding them that they should tell, what had smitten them or bene against them: Or rather inforceing them to beleeue by such stroakes they had not bene harmed, but rather greatly pleasured, and much aduantaged For, S. Ambrose the easier to proue such conuersion of bread and wyne, he exemplifyeth by many other conuersions of Moises rodde into a Serpent; the riuers of Egipt into blood; of the read sees into that firme soliditie, that they stood of them selues diuided; of Iordan returning against nature backward; &c. after which he bringeth the creation of heauen, and earthe made of nothing by the puissant woords of God. Wherupon he inferreth; If Gods woord could make things to be, which were not; how much more can he make of things that were, [Page 259] things to be? And by consequent; how vnchristian is it to thinke, but his woords this is my body, this is my blood, do not conuert bread and wyne into his body, and into his blood? And then he concludeth; Ergo tibi vt respondeam, non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem, S. Ambros. l. 4. de sacram. c. 4 & 5. & lib. 6. c. 1. sed post consecrationem dico tibi, quod iam Corpus est Christi; Therfor that I may resolue the, it was not the body of Christ before consecration, but after consecration, I say vnto thee, that now it is the body of Christ. 2. Cor. 6.15. What societie is there betwixt light and darknes? what agreement betwixt Christ and Belial? what participation betwixt the faythfull and the Infidel? that is betwixt S. Ambrose, and M. Rider? S. Ambros, telling by so many proofes, and examples, a true conuersion (in so significant woords) of bread into Christs body, by consecration: M. Rider denying such conuersion, and such consecration. Nay beleeue him, and Ambrose hath not a woord against him: but yf he were redd saythe he without partial affection, he would withdraw vs from our opinion, and make vs thinke no otherwyse then as good Protestants. With what affection then did Causeus, and the Centuriasts,Causeus dial. 8. & 11. centur. 3. c. 4. pag. 54. & 81. Calu. in libello de caena, & de vera reformat. Zuingl. to 1. Epichir. de Canone missae fol. 183. Cartwr. l. 2. pag. 513. & lib. 1. pag. 94. S. Hilar. l. 1. de Trinit. read him, when they sayd, he was be witched by the deuil? With what affection did Caluin, and Zuinglius read him, when they professed he stood for Papists, in establishing this incruental Sacrifice? With what affection did Cartwright read him; when he sayd, the bringing in of his authoritie was a mouing and sommouing of Hell: and that he held diuers things corruptly? But because all may know who is a good reader without partial affection, I will defyne him, in the woords of S. Hilarie. Optimus ille lector est qui non cogit illud dictis contineri, quod ante lectionem praesumserit ad intelligendum, sed qui doctorum intelligentiam expectat; He is the best reader, who doth not wreast that to be contayned in euidences, which he before presumed, to be vnderstood, but he who expecteth the exposition of Doctours.
Now S. Ambrose by Catholick and Protestant Doctours, is allotted and assigned to me against Protestantcie: whether then of vs, haue read him without partial affection? This saying therfore, against such authoritie, maketh the 115. vntruth. The 116.The 115. vntruth. The 116. vntruth. The 117. vntruth. S. Ambros. lib 4. c 4. & 5. & lib 6. de Sacram. c. 1. The 118. vntruth. The 119. vntruth. that we haue not shewed whether Christs fleash be made of bread. The 117. that the instances of such conuersions mentioned by S. Ambrose, should be dislyked by vs. The 118. that he bringeth our spiritual change, from an ould creature to a new, to impugne the corporall change of bread into Christ. The 119. that S. Ambros proueth the change in this mater, to be only in qualitie. For in the same place he saith, that wyne, Sanguis efficitur qui plebem redemit; The 120. vntruth. is made the blood which deliuered the people. The 120. that after consecration Christs body [Page 260] being signified present, [...] 12 [...]. vntruth. should therfore not be present. The 121. that because there is a figure mentioned therfore there is not a substāce: as appeareth in 31. 39. 42. 46. nūbers. [...]he 122. vntruth. The 122. that it may be collected, that bread still remaineth: it being expresly said by S. Ambros; Vbi accesserit consecratio, Loco citato. de pane fit caro Christi; VVhen consecration is pronounced, of bread is made the fleash of Christ. And in hauing by such assignation obtayned S. Ambrose, giue eare to know how great a treasure I haue purchased, and that by an ould and great reformer, euen Pelagius him selfe.S. Aug. li 4. de Nupt. & concup. c. 3. Pelagius sic laudat Ambrosium vt dicat: B. Ambrosius episcopus, in cuius praecipuè libris Romana fulget fides, qui scriptorum inter latinos flos quidam specios [...] enituit, cuius fidem & purissimum in scripturis sensum, nec inuidus quidem aus [...] est reprehendere. Pelagius so prayseth Ambrose as he saith: B. Ambros Bishop, in whose books principally the Roman faith reshyneth, who among the Latins as a bewtifull flower florished, whose fidelitie, and pure sense in the scripturs, the very malignant durst not reprehend.
Catholick Priests. Chrisost hom. 51. in cap. 4. Math. floruit 410.
Not onelie the Sacrament, but the bodie of Christ is propounded vnto vs, not that we should touch it onely, but that we should eate it.
Rider.113. GEntlemen; it is in the 51. Hom, of the 14. chapter of Mathew, not in the fourth: though it cost me great labour to finde the place, yet I blame not you, it might be the writer, not the Author: and if it were the Author, it is but the slip of his penne, and therefore in discretion pardonable.
Still you runne from the maner to the matter.But you alleadge it verie impertinentlie and improperlie: stil prouing the matter neuer denied: and skipping the manner which I vrged, and you should aunswere. But if you had read a few lines more, Chrysostome would haue told you the manner how Christ is to be receiued, not by your mouth, teeth, throate or stomacke; but Magna cum fide, mundo cum corde, with great faith and a clean heart. You stopt before your full period,This father is wholy with vs, & therefore vnaduisedly brought in by you. which is in you stil a great fault: & will keepe still the Catholickes by this your means in great blindnesse and doubts: who beleues when they heare you alleadge one sentence of a Father, that all his workes are suteable to that, iudging him to speake on your side by the sound of the eare, not by the touch of knowledge: whereas if you would read a Father your selues from the beginning of a controuersie to the end, though it were painfull vnto you, yet it were profitable vnto you and the Catholicks, then you should see the thing plainlie by the father expounded, which is by you often and too much wrested.
Read this father vpon the seuenteeth Homilie vpon the tenth of the Hebrewes, and 1. Cor. 11. Hom. 27. and you shall finde him there condemning your carnall presence, masse, with your sacrifice, wherby you may perceiue in this point your opinion new and doubtfull: and our religion old and certaine.
But though this place be impertinent to proue the maine, which is our question, yet it proueth with vs against you, that Christ must be eaten by faith spirituallie, not by the mouth carnallie, and that ouerthroweth one of your chiefe pillers. And so to your next proofe.
The 9. parte of the second proofe of S. Chrysostome.
113. COnsider I request you Christian Readers,Fitzsimon. a desperat dealing in my gentle frend M. Rider. You may well remember, how Fox and Musculus, nu. 108. n. 96.Vide fusèn. 96. 108. reiected all other maner of Christs being in the Sacrament, beside a Sacramental maner: which Caluin nu. 96. saith, is the brasen wall against all incounters of aduersaries to his opinion. You also may wel remember, how M. Rider relyeth to the phrase sacramental, thinking (n. 103. &c.) as oft as it is mentioned, so oft to stand for his purpose.S. Chrisost. Hom. 51. in cap 14. Math. now here in this testimonie S. Chrysostom (as he seemeth) wreasteth from them this woord sacramental: denying Christ to be only as a Sacrament, and affirming that besyd the sacrament, we both eate and touche the very bodie of Christ. What then was M Riders, as I said, desperat dealing? to leaue the mater and bidd vs read els where, here and there, and we should finde wonders. There was a certaine preacher in Paris,A preacher in Paris. wo for pointing his audience to autheurs by him named, him selfe not producing any allegation out of them, but saying seeke here in suche a one, and there in such another, and you shall finde stoare. Wherby he was named by all generaly, the poster ouer to seeke, where nothing could be found. Iudge you, whether my Caualiero, was not his scholer. Could such a mayne assault, and by that goulden mouthed Chrysostome as M. Rider worthely tearmeth him, haue noe better resolution? Now in deed (that I may alwayes deale vprightly) S. Chrysostom, toward any other then such mates, doth not in the place cited, say, not only the Sacramēt, but not only the garmēt. Wheras therfor with them, the sacrament is made no better then a garment, or bare representatiō of Christ, and that S. Chrysostome instructeth;S. Chrysost. loco cit. that not only any such outward garment is in the Sacrament exhibited vnto vs, but corpus ipsius; non vt tangamus solummodo, sed vt comedamus & saturemur; his owne body, not only that we might touche it, but also eate it, and be satiated: it seemed all one sense against such (as I sayd) compagnions, to haue translated sacrament, or garment. For they compare the sacrament to Helias cloake, and informe that it is not more conioyned with Christs body, Witaker against M. Martin. pag. 11. then such cloake with Elias, he being translated, and the cloake remayning with Elizeus. Wherby, as I imagin, M. Rider knowing what I could replye, if he had made any difference betwixt Sacrament and garment, left such translation vncontrowled. But thinke you, that M. Rider to the passage of Chrisostom alleaged, hath said nothing? you are deceaued. For he answereth, that we ronne from the maner, to the mater. Marye [Page 262] he telleth you not how: but, because those two woords, had some consonance in sound; hauing only cuppled them together, as hunters do hounds of lyke coloure and proportion, he taketh his leaue, and is galloped away. I haue some tyme noted the same refuge, & euasion to the same woords, in Latimere, of whom Fox pag. 1325. col. 1. num. 27. deliuereth his aunswer, saying; It is true as touching the mater; but not as tuching the maner of the thing. The same is repeated in the 70. number following, in a playne contradiction of it selfe in this former place. So that it serueth as a common place, or answer, to all obiections, and as a harborow against all fowle weather, as well for frends, as foes. For be it to the purpose, or against it, yet they that know not what mater, and what maner is, may surmise some answer giuen. But I pray you (gentle Readers) to conceaue (the matter of the B. Sacrament being Christs body; & the maner, to be substantialy, realy, truely, present therin, and therwith) whether haue I declined, ether the one, or the other, alleaging S. Chrisostom as befor.
Secondly he answereth, that the receauing should be (according to S. Chrysostom) with a great faythe, and a pure hart. To which I replye, porte of those words there in deed to be mentioned; to witt, with a great faithe: the residue to be a patche in that place, of M. Riders making and foisting to the rest. Next I replye, the woords immediatly following,S. Chrysost hom. 5. in cap. 14. Math. to expound S. Chrysostom, and all other Fathers cōmending a faithfull receauing; to be cleane opposit to Protestantrie. The woords are; Cum fide autem accedere, non est vt tantummodo propositum corpus recipias, verum etiam multo magis vt mundo corde tangas, & sic adeas quemadmodum ipsum Christum; for to approache by sayth is not, that th [...] shouldst only receaue the body propounded, but also much more that th [...] shouldst [...]uch with a cleane harte, and so repayre as to Christ him selfe. Protestants, imagining that no body of Christ is propounded to be receaued, and that repayring should not be as to Christ him selfe, but as to his bare appellation, figure, resemblance: what right haue they any more, to talke of receauing by faith, expounded thus by the Fathers? Do they not knowe S. Chrysostoms mynde, (& consequently of the rest) that the faithfull receauing,Ch ysostom. hom. 60. ad pop. is to include Christ substantialy, and not to exclude him? Witnes these woords; Semetipsum nobis commiscet, non side tantum, sed & ipsa re; not by faith alone, but in very substance. What haue Protestants to clayme in S. Chrysostom? he saying: that Christ alloweth his fleashe, Idem hom. 45. in cap. 6 Ioan. Idē lib. 3. de sacerdot. tangi, & dentibus infigi; to be touched, and chewed with teethe. He saying: that, Christ sitting with his Father, (wherat he exclameth, ô miraculum! ô Dei benignitatem! ô miracle! ô bountie of God) & in the [Page 263] ipso temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur, in the very same instant of tyme, is handled by all mens hands. What could the Pope him self; or greatest papist, say more repugnant to the hart, and fundation, of protestantcie, in this controuersie?
Therfor the 123. vntruth can not be denyed,The 123. vntruth. in saying in the margent, that Chrysostom is wholy with protestants. Alas, M. Rider, are you ignorāt how cōtrary such saying is to Cartwright,Cart. lib 2. pag 524. 525. 526. Item pag. 107. lib. 3. pag. 89. 90. affirming, it is dangerous to allowe Chrisostomes proceedings? Alas, are you ignorant or a despiser of the prophets words; quid apponatur ad linguam dolosam? sagittae potentis acutae. VVhat shalbe reserued for a deceitfull tong? sharpe arrowes of the powerfull; cum carbonibus desolatorijs; with coales of desolation. Truely as the wyseman saith, or rather the holy Ghost;Prouerb. [...]. Deus non indiget vestro mendacio, vt pro illo loquamini dolos. God needeth not your vntrueth, that for him you should vtter deceits, or, which is all one, to affirme to haue them fauourers, who as instantly, and ernestly as they may, disproue, and condemne your persuasions, as the cheefe of your owne fraternitie acknowledge toward S. Chrysostom. The 124. vntrueth is,The 124. vntruth. that it cost you great paines to finde our allegation as we had quoted it. For, althowgh the fowerth number being put for the fowerteenth, might haue driuen you to payns; yet the 51. homilie being specified vpon S. Mathew, it had bene sufficient to ease you of other payne, then what the fynding thereof ingenered in your guiltie mynde. The 125. vntrueth is,The 125. vntruth. that the allegation is impertinent; and that we runne from the maner to the mater. This is often propounded but neuer expounded. In all your booke, to my remembrance you tell but once, and that by glancing, that the matter of the sacrament is Christ and all his merits. n. 121. such mater S. Chrysostom in our allegations certyfieth to be in our Sacrament, denying his being only sacramentaly, or by faith only, and affirming to be Christ himselfe, he that sitteth, at the right hand of God; and that in maner aforesayd. It is tyme now for varietie sake, to inuent two other woords of one consonancie: or to tell in particular, where we omitt, ether mater, or maner, deceitfully. For your bare affirmations haue crackt their credit. The 126.The 126. vntruth. The 127. vntruth. that Chrysostom after a few lynes would haue tould vs not to receaue Christ by mouth, or teethe of stomack. The 127. that I stopt befor my full period; For the suffrage alleaged ended at a full point: and what M. Rider adioyneth, is not in any one point, in all that homilie. The 128.The 128. vntruth. that this Father els where condemneth our doctrin. Meruayle not to fynde vntruths more [Page 264] plentifull in this his distorting the Fathers from vs. For as it was a lowde vntruth, dislyked (as appeareth) by all learned protestants in the world, to clayme the Fathers as frends or approuers of protestantcie, and aduersaries to the Catholick Romain truth: so can it not be supported, but by infinit vntruthes in discussing the particulars. How often this is verifyed in all this treatise, toward S. Chrysostom in particular, appeareth manifouldly.
Catho. Priests. Cirill in Ioh. lib. 4. cap. 13 floruit. Anno 423.
VVe ought rather to beleeue in Christ, & humbly to learne of him; then like drunke
[...] sots to crie out, how can he giue vs his flesh?
Rider.114 GEntlemen: I wonder you bring in this for your proofe: alasse: this is nothing pertinent to our matter in hand, we crie not how can he giue vs his flesh? For we know that hee gaue his flesh for vs substantiallie on the crosse: misticallie in the Sacrament: & spirituallie in his word. And therefore this might haue beene rather well spared, then ill applied: nay by your leaue, there is no such sentence in that place, as you preciselie alleadge: some such sound of words he hath, but no such carnall sence. But read the chapter through, and these marginall quotations,Cirill lib. 4. cap. 14. 21. 22. 24. lib. 11. cap. 26. & you shal planly see how you are deceiued. For what soeuer hee speaketh in all those places, is nothing else but to confirme and explaine our spirituall vnion with Christ our head: and for that purpose brings in for example, the neere and naturall vnion & coniunction of the vine and the branches, head and members, & so of Christ and all beleeuers. So this being lesse pertinent then the rest, shal haue a more short (yet a sufficient) answere then the rest.
The 10. parte of the second proofe, concerning S. Cyrill Alexandrinus.
Fitzsimon.114. ANy other aduersarie, haueing M. Rider as I haue him now ouer the hipp, how would he canuase him? First by the 129. vntruth,The 129. vntruth. he denyeth such woords to be found in S. Cyrill in that place. Let his frends therat blush for him,S. Cyrill. in Ioan. l. 4. c. 13. because him selfe can not. In the name of God, how could these woords of S. Cyrill be otherwyse interpreted? Quart credidisse Christo potius vos oportuit, & si quid arduum videbatur, ab eo humiliter petere, quam veluti temulentos clamare, quomodo potest hic nobis suam carnem dare. All the dictionary Doctors in his parish, can not more faythfully translate these woords, then as our allegation beareth. Let all excusations of mans reache, be conioyned, and it will not salue this denial, but ether it must be from profound ignorance, or bottomles impudencie. I a litle before aduertised n. 113. that [Page 265] M. Rider resembled the preacher in Paris, called seeke here, seeke there, where nothing mentioned could be founde, whether now also it be not notoriouslie belonging to his dealings I resigne to euery ones examination. Yf before I had incountred any short chapters as now I do one not very long; I would haue translated them or part of them, some one tyme or other, to testifie his friuolous assignations, and vayne florishes in his extremities. Once for all, acknowledge by the forsayd alleadged chapter of S. Cyrill faythfully translated, whether the feare of God, and regard of all examiners of his fidelitie, hath not abandoned him.
The 13. Chapt. of the 4. booke of S. Cyrill vpon S. Ihon, faythfully translated, to testifie the fidelitie of Protestant citations.
THe Iewes therefore did contend among them selues, saying; how can this man giue vs his fleash to eate? Christ therfore sayd vnto them. All things are playne and right to them, who (as it is written) haue fownd knowledge, but to fooles the most easie things seeme obscure. But the honest, Prou. 8. hearer and wyse, what he hath vnderstood, he commendeth to the treasure of his mynde, not being letted by any conceit: and yf any thing they be hard; by much, and often seeking, and demanding, at leinthe he obtayneth: imitating hunting hownds, which here, and there seeke their game. Esa. 12. The propheticall woords note the wyse man to be inquisitiue, saying: searching seeke, and dwell with me. For we are alwayes so to inquyre, that we may dwell with him, and not be borne to strange opinions. But thus the malignant mynde doth not. For what soeuer it vnderstandeth not, streight throwgh arrogance it reiecteth as friuolous and false, yealding to nothing, nor thinking any thing aboue it selfe: suche as we shall fynde the Iewes to haue bene. For it behoued them who had perceaued the diuine vertue and power of our saluiour, by miraculous signes, willingly to imbrace his speeche, and yf in any thing there seemed difficulties, to seeke their solution. They did alltogether the contrarie. And how can this man giue vs his fleashe? Of God not withowt great impietie they crye together, and it came not into their mynds that there was nothing imposible to God. 1. Cor. 2. For wheras they were carnal (as Paul saith) they could not vnderstand spiritual things. But folly to it selfe seemeth so great a mysterie. But I pray you, let vs make great proffit by other mens synns, and yeelding strong faythe to mysteries, neuer in so highe things, let vs once thinke, or vtter, that How? for this is a Iewish woord, and cause of extreame punishment. [Page 266] Therfor Nicodemus also when he sayd, How can these things be? he heard worthely: art thow a master in Israel, and art ignorant of these? Therfor by other mens offense we being instructed, when God woorketh, let vs not demand, How! but leaue the knowledge, and waye of his woorke, to him alone. For as no man knoweth what God is according to nature, yet is iustifyed by fayth by beleeuing that he will reward him that seeketh him: so being ignorant of the reason of his woorks wheras by fayth he doubteth not that he can do all things, he shall obtayne no dispiseable rewards for this good disposition. And truely, so God exhorteth vs to be disposed by his prophet Isaie, my cownseils are not as your cownseils, nor as your wayes, Isa. 53. are my wayes, sayth our lord: but as heauen surpasseth the earth, so are my wayes aboue your wayes, and my thoughts aboue your thoughts. So he who in knowledge and vertue from God is so excellent, how may he not woorke so miraculously, that the reason of his woorks surpasse the conceit of our mynds. Dost not thou behould what is done by men of handy craft? they seeme to tell vs some tymes incredible things: but because we experiēce them to haue fullfilled lyke things, we lightly beleeue they may do them. How then are they not worthye of greatest torments, that contemne God maker of all things, as to say [How] in his woorks? whom they know to be the giuer of wysedome: whom the scripture hath tawght vs to be almightie. Math. 19. Yf therfore thow o Iew, will yet crye, how: such thy ignorance I imitating, willingly will craue, how wenst thow owt of Egipt? how was Moises rodd conuerted into a serpent? how was the leaprie hand suddenly restoared to former state? how were waters changed into the nature of blood? how went the Fathers drye throwgh the sease? how by woodd did the bitternes of waters change to sweetnes? how did waters issue owt of the rock? How did Iordan stand? How did inuincible Hierico fall by a crye only? Innumerable are the things, in which yf you requyre How, you must necessarily ouerthrow the whole Scripture, contemning the doctrin of the prophets, and the writings of Moises himself. VVherfor you ought rather to beleeue in Christ, and yf any thing was hard, humbly to learne of him, then lyke dronken sotts, to crye out how can this man giue vs his fleash. Dost not thou see, when yow say these things, that together with that voice, great arrogance is discouered?
Behowld Christians: this is the chapter, which (sayth he) being, read through, would testifie that we are deceaued. This is the chapter, which as he saith, contayning nothing but our spiritual vnion with Christ, bringeth in for example the coniunction of vyne and branches, head and members &c. This is the chapter, which he wondreth that we would alleadge for our proofe. This is the chapter, which is nothing pertinent to the mater in hand. You perceaue your selues,The 130. 131. 132. 133. vntruth. the 130. 131. 132. 133, vntruthes, most malapertly auouched, to abuse your patiences, and to deceaue your [Page 267] soules, you perceaue his confident appeale to autheurs, posting to seeke here and there, where he and his cause are vtterly destitute. I would to God I could sett befor the eyes of all men, the goulden chapters and instructions of primatiue Fathers in maner as this of S. Cyrill: that all might perceaue how by reformers they are betrayed by false pretenses of reformations, forsoothe according the doctrin of the primatiue Fathers, when and whilst they are a seducing, to deformations, of all primatiue godlines, and religion, which by the primatiue Fathers were most commended.
The bread which descended from heauen is the bodie of our Lord,
Catho. Priests. Hierō. ad Hedib. Q. 2. floruit Anno 4 [...]4.
and the wine he gaue his disciples is his bloud.
115. THis place in deed is in his third Tom. pag 142.Rider. There was a learned and godlie woman proposed twelue questions of diuinitie to Hierome: wherin, & of which she desired resolution: For in those daies, it was lawfull for women and all men to aske doubts touching religion; and for their further instruction & consolation might read Gods word, & freelie conferre touching matters that concerned their saluation. And this greatly blemisheth your Roman doctrine, that will haue neither men nor women to read diuinitie, & the reason is this, least they should see your errors, and forsake your profession. For this is your strongest tenure,Marke this yee Catholickes. to keepe them in blindnesse with ydle ceremonies, dumb shewes, & Latten seruice. But I trust in Christ shortlie to see most of their eies opened, that wil discouer your priuie plots, & discourage your haughtie stomacks, and generallie forsake your new religion, being in deed but mans inuention.
This is the second question of the twelfth, but you omit some words, & cut off some, which obscures the matter. But if a little charitable chiding would make you more painfull in your bookes, and lesse carefull to please mens humors, I could finde in my heart to bestow it vpon you, but praemoniti, praemuniti: you are now forewarned, I hope you will bee here after better armed, or better, minded: which I wish with all my soule as to my selfe. But your proofe is thus in Latten. Si ergo panis qui de caelo descendit, corpus est Domini, & vinum quod discipulis dedit, sanguis illius est noui Testamenti, qui pro multis effusus est in remissionem peccatorum, Iudaicas fabulas repellamus, &c. If therefore the bread that descended from heauen bee the bodie of the Lord, and the wine which he gaue his disciples, be his bloud of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes, then let vs cast away all Iewish fables.
Here you omit Si ergo, and noui Testamenti qui pro multis effusus est in remissionem peccatorum. If therefore: and of the new Testament which is shed for manie for the remission of sinnes: All this you haue left out, which was ill done.
What now can you gather out of this, to prooue that Christes bodie is made of bread, and his bloud of wine, no substance of either creature remaining, but onelie Christs carnall presence as he was on the crosse? Surelie here is not one word, silable, or letter to prooue it, but the contrarie. You wronged the father so to mangle him: yet as you deliuer him, it proueth nothing of the manner of Christs presence that is [Page 268] in question, but the matter neuer in controuersie: for saith shee to this learned [...] ther, if therefore the bread which came downe from heauen bee the bodie of Christ so she speakes of Christs diuinitie, that came downe from heauen: (for his humanitie did not) and our question is of his humanitie by transubstansiation in the Sacrament: so that this proofe nothing sorteth your purpose. And the bloud here spoken of, is his bloud of the new Testament shed on the crosse, not in the Sacrament: once for all, not for anie that pleased the Priest. And therefore as she said, Iudaicas fabulas repellamus, let vs cast away Iewish fables: So in Gods name for the loue of Gods trueth, and of the peoples saluation, cast yee from you all Munkish fables, and forged legends, that haue misled the people into this blinde superstition, and ioyne with vs to teach Christs precious flocke, the old Apostolicall and Catholicke religion, commaunded in Gods word, & practised in the primitiue Church: that you with vs, and we wi [...]h you, and all in the Lord, may now in this plentifull vintage so labour in the Lords vinyard (his Church) according to our talents receiued, that euery one of vs may deliuer his talent with aduantage of manie soules: and then we shall be patakers of that sweet saying: Wel done, th [...]u good and faithfull seruant, enter into thy maisters ioy. Which God graunt to vs both. And so to the next, as followeth.
The 11. parte of the Second proofe concerning S. Hierome. VVherein is discussed, whom, and how, we allowe and disalowe, to reade Scriptures, and heretical bookes; and whether Protestants, or we, doe most Symbolize with Iewishnes.
Fitzsimon. Cart. lib. 1 pag. 103. lib. 2. pag. 303. 502. lib. 3. pag. 89. 90. Caus. [...]ial 8. & 11. Fulk. against. D. Bristow. pag. 15. 54.115. CArtwright saith; there is not such synceritie to be looked for at Hieroms hand, as from others that went befor him: That he is a cownterfeit: that he often strayneth the text, and for milke some tyme draweth blood, Causeus saith, that he is no lesse damned then Lucifer. Fulke; that he was but a rayler. Sainct Hierome in this allegation, teacheth; the wyne giuen to the Disciples to haue bene Christs blood. In the selfe same resolution to Hedibia, he saith; the bread, quem fregit Dominus, dedit (que) discipulis, esse corpus Domini Saluatoris, which our Lord broke, and gaue to his disciples, to be the body of our Saluiour. Els where he saith; ipse Saluator est, S. Hieron. ad Damas. de Filio prodigo. cuius quotidie carne vescimur, cruore potamur; it is our very Saluiour, whose fleash we are fedd withall, and whose blood we drinke. Come foorthe M. Rider, and play your wonted parte; Come tell vs what you oppose against this? First, you ronne halfe way in your tale, befor you stumble at this block, in one only woord. At leinthe, hemm, and speake out your mynde; suerly (say you) here is not one woord, sillable, or leter, to proue that Christs body is made of bread, and his blood of [Page 269] wyne. Not one woord, leter, or sillable, man? Let other mens witts, and eyes, be iudge, how couragiously the 134. vntruth,The 134. vntruth. is deliuered. But suerly, the baker, and the pillorie, once againe must not be suffred to parte so sleightly, but that we may examine his cause by parcels, and yet not in prolixe, or tedious maner. That women might aske doubts touching religion, is as lawfull now, as in those dayes. That they might vulgarly read Gods woord, or the Scripture, seemeth an vntruth: at least it is not proued, but only affirmed by M. Riders woord; the valew whereof is knowen. That is was not thought conuenient,S. Hieron. 103. I gesse by these woords of S. Hierome, of whom now we treate. Only the arte of Scripture, saith he, is that which euery one challengeth. This the chatting ould wyfe, this the doting ould man, this the babling Sophister, this on euery hand men presume to teache before they learne it. Nay, more anciently sayd Tertullian:Tertul. de praescripe, Omnes tument, omnes scientiam pollicentur. Ipsae mulieres haereticae, quam procaces, quae audeant docere, contendere, &c. All are puffd vpp, all do professe knowledg. The very hereticall women, how malapert, how audacious, to teach, to dispute, &c. of which in our 99. number. How lyke you M. Rider this dislyke towards your womens scripturing? But plead well for them, & make much of them, for in my owne knowledge yow haue neede to seeke credit among them, considering that few or none of them, how base soeuer, but disdayne the mariage with the ministers of the woord, and accept of them only for want of others. They might (you say) freely conferre touching maters of saluation. Yf you meane in the Church, S. Paul crosseth your saying; forbidding women to speake in the Church, it not being (saith he) allowed vnto them.
The 135. vntruth is, that our Romain religion would haue no men, nor women, read Diuinitie. God blesse vs:The 135. vntruth. How wysely this man discourseth, yf this be affirmed in good ernestnes. But, because godly diuinitie of woomen or sound doctrin tending to Saluation, may be knowen allowed by vs; let these following assurances, to this present purpose in controuersie, (for all lawful circuiting, should haue a referencie alwayes to the centre) testifie. Saint Agnes, euen by testimonie of S. Ambrose, tould hir audience, this document of diuinitie, that, corpus Christi, corpori ipsius consociatum esset; S. Ambros. Ser. [...]0. Paulus Neapoludiaconus de S. Maria Aegiptiaca. the body of Christ was consociated to hir bodye. Maria Egiptiaca, requested befor hir departure; diuini corporis, & viuifici sanguinis portionem, in vase sacro; parte of the diuine body, and lyfe giuing blood, in a sacred vessell. Other you may fynde of the femal sex in Garetio,Garetius in 3. classe. attayning such diuinitie toward this mysterie, that great protestant Doctours neuer could reache [Page 270] vnto. The keeping away of certaine bookes, you say, to be our strongest tenure. First I aunswer, the phrase of tenure, in that sense wherin at seemeth intended, is new, and impropre. How soeuer, it bringeth me in the memorie, how you reprehending minister Hicoxe, for keeping a Trull, and he you, for you know what: you called him base, and he called you counter. Wherunto, if you conioyne your woord, tenure; it may be forgotten, how close the counter in London, and you marryed together: and diuers will or may thinke by such coniunction therof with tenure, that his meaning was only, that you song a counter in London, and in Dublin reached to a tenure; and your meaning only, that he song a base, and neuer could reache higher: withowt any other mysterie, contayned in your woords. For my parte I leaue you in your sweet consort, and will aunswer further to such strongest tenure,The 136. vntruth. that it maketh the 136. vntruth. Nether shal you escape in this place from receauing a foyle at venerable Beda his hands, saying: (in cap. 7. Prouerb. refert Iuo, p. 4. cap. 84.) Soli ei conceditur haereticorum libros legere, qui adeò solidatus est in fide Catholica, vt verborum dulcedine vel astutia nequeat ab ea segregari: He is only permitted to read hereticks books, who is so founded in the catholick faith, that he can not by craft, or delyte of their woords be peruerted. Also as I obserue among your selues, you debarr diuers books of ours from reading, as is knowen to euerie meane conceit, ryfeling mens houses for them, and forfetting all them you finde, as Lords ouer all mens goods. And the Lutherans do as carefully debarr your bookes, in all their dominions. Schlusselburg. l. 3. art. 4. de Th. Caluin. sheweth that Caluinians debarr Lutheran books; and Lutherans, their bookes, and bodies. And the same to be done by other reformers against reformers appeareth in Gretser Praefat. de iure, & modo, prohib. lib. haeret. Wherby is testified, that, we might (as well as you, or Lutherans) debarr such bookes as are by vs knowen, to be hurtfull, if not against the wyse, yet against the simple. You know that I abstayne from discouering inconueniencies succeding in our contryes by vulgars intermedling in Scripture. Whether cheefe protestants finde it very commendable,Calu. in praesat. nou. test. Gallici an. 1567. or conuenient, I appeale to these woords first of Caluin, that he confessed; Sathan hath gayned more by these new interpretours, then he did before by keeping the woord from the people. Secondly by Luther, (whose later experience, is more to be accompted, then first vnseasoned persuasions) saying;Luther. l. 1. cō. Zuing. & Oecolamp. [...] Yf the world continue any longer, it wilbe agayne necessarie, for the diuers interpretations of Scriptures now vsed, that for the conseruation of the vnitie of fayth, we receaue the decrees of Concils and flye vnto them. By this [Page 271] [...]ppeareth all tenure, and cawtion, vsed by vs concerning the vse, [...]r refusing, of bookes among vulgar, to haue bene deserued. For the [...]ther point, that we would haue no men to read Diuinitie: you mistake vs, for Richard Hunn, Puritan (of whom in the 124. num [...]er.) who damned, saith Fox, vniuersities with all degrees and faculties. You [...]aue bound your selfe to the same verdict, by making such the foremenn of your quest. We, create doctors of Diuinitie. We, found [...]choles, and lessons, to attayne it. All the vniuersities of the world, [...]re fruicts of our faith. How then are we sayd to dislyke that men [...]hould read Diuinitie? wher is Diuinitie, but among Catholicks? Erasmus ep. ad Fratres inf. Germ, testifieth Luther and Melancton, to [...]aue condemned all sciences as sinfull, and erroneus. Smidelin in [...]rat. qua candidatis, licentiam concessit, affirmeth the same hatred against degrees of Diuinitie, among the Zuinglians. Wicleph had a distinct [...]rticle, that vniuersities, studies, colleges, degrees, are Ethnical, superstitions, and diabolical. Luther serm. Sympos. tit. de studijs, saith, that, [...]udere, hath stultum, in the supin. Whether these reformers, or we, [...]e hindrers of men to read Diuinitie, by these euidences may be assuredly gathered, ignorance M. Rider was affected not by vs, but [...]y such repyners against scholes, and learning.
That you would fayne bestowe a litle charitable chiding vpon vs, to make vs more diligent; should by vs be accompted a fauour. For hetherto it hath had litle shew of charitie, which you haue vsed against vs; saying our religion is sandy superstition, wicked and damnable he [...]esie and irreligion; our consecration full of vncertaintie, absurditie, blasphemie; our whole doctrin hellishe and damnable, and fitter for to be taught in hell by fends, then in earthe by Preists; our selues but lyers, deceauers, hereticks, idolatrers; charmers, and magitians &c. Therfor we might be gladd to haue charitable mitigations of these greuous reproaches. Yet, I repeale my woord: rather choosing for this cause, your hate then your honours, your cō tumelies then your compassion. Your often, and vayne frequentation of another cupple of woords, Praemoniti, praemuniti, only for their consonancie, without all occasion; doth argue, there is litle stoare, where such estimation is had of such friuolous repetition. How often in speeche, in letters, in printed books, haue I heard praemoniti, praemuniti; forwarned, forfortified. I will allowe your reflecting the mention of Iewish fables against our profession, if you can finde any [...]ust cause to applye it to vs, as I haue to you. I intend to make you seeme a viper; by making your owne brood, and conceits, not to haue issued, but by tearing your bowells. Remember, how I haue proued [Page 272] in the 36. number, and often besyde, not only your profession, but your person, to indeuour to equal the Sacraments of Christ with Iewish ceremonies: making Christ to haue bene as effectualy receaued in Abrahams time, as since his institution of the B. Sacrament. How can this be but a Iewish affection? Remembre, how by cheefe protestants mentioned in the 18. number of my examination, and after in the 78. num, I haue declared their hate against the new testament, and their inuitation to depende only vpon the ould? How can this be but a Iewish affection? Remember how in the sayd 18. number of my examination, I haue shewed other Protestants to conuict the Puritans Patriarck Caluin, to Iudaize, and thervpon diuers books are lately extant,Printed at Iene in Saxonie an. 1586. with these and lyke titles: Caluinus Iudaizans, Caluin tending to Iewishnes: Admonitio ex verbo Dei quod Caluinistae non sunt Christian [...], sed tantum Iudaei; An Admonition out of the woord of God, that Caluinists are not Christians, but only Iewes, &c. How can this be but a Iewish affection [...] Now, (for varities sake) learne in another phrase touching the same, how most principal Caluinists haue renounced Christianitie, and are fallen to Iewish circumcision;Vide Conrad. Schlusselburg Theol. Cal. & in Catal. Heretic. As Alemannus, Ochinus, Alciatus, V [...]la [...], Seruetus, Gentilis, Gribaldus, Adam Newser, Gregorius Paulus, &c. Many more, (who would not vndertake the paynes to be circumcised) were by relation of Protestants as much enemyes of the Deitie of Christ our Saluiour, as any Iewes. How can this be but a Iewishe affection?
Vide Papirium Massonum de episcop. vrbis. lib. 4. in Nicol. 2.Secondly learne, how Protestantrie had original from a Iew, named Iosephus Albo, familiar with Berengarius, first publick founder of your opinions against the B. Sacrament: Whereof, their arguments altogether agreable against our doctrin, may be a sufficient euidence,Cornel. Bertram. de politia Iudaica. Geneuae anno. 1580. The Turkishe Alcoran printed in Germanie, by the direction of Protestāts. Cal. harm. in Math. c. 26. v. 26. Beza in 22. Luc. 20. Bibliand. l. 1. de paschate Israel pag. 25. 26. 30. Vrbā. in 2. parte operum. resp. ad 2. lib. Ecle [...]. c 7. Tremel. apud Bezam. & Biblian. loc. [...]it. that they were altogether consenting in framing them. Thirdly learne, that a great parte, of the holy Puritan Consistorial discipline, was borrowed from a Iew, named Cornelius Bertram, who dedicated his booke of the Iewish policie to Beza, and printed it in Geneua: as appeareth by the sayd booke. Fowerthly learne, that the carefull printing of the Turkish Alcoran by Melancton, and Bibliander, could lykely haue noe other intention, then to induce Christian people to imbrace Iewish circumcision, requyred in that booke. Fiftly learne, that Caluin, Beza, Bibliander, Vrbanus Regius, & Emanuel Tremelius a Iew, do affirme that Christs institutiō of the B. Sacrament, differeth nothing from an ould Iewishe ceremonie practised from befor the time of Esdras; which ceremonie the forsayd Tremelius translateth out of the Iewishe Talmud. Vnto which altogether, in forme and fashion, by sitting at a table, by omitting Christs woords [Page 273] [...]f institution, by other concourse mentioned in the 68. number, our [...]rotestants by all means possible, striue to conforme them selues. Lastly learne, that Puritants peculiarly demonstrat a Iewish affection, [...]y naming their children according to a Iewish practise: in so much [...]s a certaine late Protestant noteth these Puritan nice names:Suruey of the pretended holy &c. cap. 11. pag. 156. The [...]ord is neere: More triall: Reformations: Discipline: Ioye agayne: Sufficient: [...]rom aboue: Free gift: More fruict: Dust. To which if I would ioyne the [...]ames of Cherubals, and Hollibals in my owne parish; you would [...]ndoubtedly smyle. But I can not trace these mens phrenesies, without hindrance in other more proffitable imployments. Also by [...]heir translations, so ernestly concurring with the Iewes, that diuers [...]rotestants haue bene occasioned, to reprehend them in that behalfe: [...]s Laurence Humfrey, Castalio, &c.
Without further Apostrophes M. Rider, vpon great and vrgent,Humfred. lib. 1. de rat. interpret. pag 178. lib. 2. pag. 219. Castal. defens. sua translat. pag. 227. [...]nd euidently approued occasions, by means of such inclination of Protestancye toward the Iewes, I will vse your owne woords: [...]udaicas fabulas repellamus; let vs cast away Iewish fables, and ioyne with vs to [...]eache Christs flock, the ould Apostolical and Catholick religion, commanded in Gods woord, and practised in the primatiue Church. What agreement can you requyre in me more, then to iumpe, and concurr with you in one forme of speaking? Yet perhapps you had rather then the price of [...]he prebendarie (wherwith you would haue corrupted me) to concurre in one forme of speech with you, that I did not in this maner concurr, by making your owne woord, lyke yonge vipers, teare, ad rippe your owne intrailes. Yet haue I no desire to greaue you, but only to grauel the errours that captiuat your vnderstanding. I deserue thankes, if you could conceaue good offices. I can not hate the person of one sometime deluded considering my owne misfortune to haue bene miscaried. I was defiled, I confesse, with the same, or like, errours, which now I discouer, and prosecute: but ignorance of childhood, and blind education, deceaued me. M. Huetson tearmed me therfor an Apostata; and discommended me for leauing the gospel, to be subiect to Antichrist, the whoore of Babilon, the Pope. His aunswer is in the end of the 61. number. Yet I say agayne to him, in S. Augustins woords: Quid magnum facis? S. August. Psal. 36. Conc. 3. Seuerior sum ego in malo meo, quàm tu. Quod tu vituperasti, ego damnaui. Vtinam velles imitari, vt error tuus fieret aliquando praeteritus. VVhat great sturre keepest thou? I am more seuere against my harme then thou. VVhat thou dost discommend, I condemne. I would thou wouldest imitat, that at leinth thy errour might be ouerpassed. Why do I spend thinke you that read this calming confort [Page 274] against a cauilling caueat, so pretious tyme, so much payns? Only, to confound my errours, and to do some satisfaction to truth, and religion, which I impugned.
Catho. Priests. August. contra Aduersar. legis & prophetarum: cap. 9. floru [...]t 430.
The mediator betwixt God and man Iesus Christ, with faithfull heart and mouth we receiue, giuing vs his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke. Although it seeme more horrible to eate the flesh of men then to kill; and to drinke the bloud of men then to sheed it.
Rider. Paris print. pag. 264.116. AVgustine writing against that pestilent aduersarie of the law and Prophets, who obiected, that because Abraham by adulterie with Agar brake the Law, therefore either the Law was not good, or else the vniuersal promise made to God by Abraham was of none effect: confuting him by scriptures and reasons, telleth him that the promise was made in Isaack, not in Ismaell, and disprooueth him for disliking such figures, similitudes, and comparisons, as it hath pleased the holie Ghost to vse for the plaine expressing of the neere vnion and coniunction that is betwixt Christ and his Church. And saith, what will this pestilent aduersarie say, when hee heareth Paul speake? they shall be two in one flesh, he will scorne and deride it.Ephes. 5. But it is a great misterie spoken of Christ and his Church. For saith Augustine, we vnderstand by the two sonnes of Abraham, and the two mothers, two Testaments, though in respect of times and ceremonies, diuers, but in respect of the substance all one and the same. And also by the neere vnion and coniunction betwixt man and wife, we vnderstand our naturall vnion with Christ, and that without anie obscenitie or absurditie, maugre the beards of the aduersarie. Then followes you proofe, euen in the middest of a sentence verie vntowardlie, I will not say negligentlie: And yet you omit one word (Sicut) which though it be small in shew, yet it is in this place of great consequence.
For as you alleadge Augustine it is nothing material to confute the aduersarie of Gods grace. Thus Augustine speaketh, and so you should haue said, Sicut mediatorem Dei & hominum: as the mediator betwixt God and man, &c. And thus after your wonted manner, you leaue out the point materiall, & begin in the middle of a sentence, leauing out beginning and ending, neither respecting what went before, whereof, & wherefore he spake the thing: nor what followeth after to prooue & disprooue the thing so spoken of. And this your neglecting the coherence, makes you faile in the sence and inference. For this word (Sicut) which you leaue out, sheweth plainlie that it is a similitude, and I hope you knowe that similitudes be no Sillogismes. And as there was no obscenitie or absurditie in the similitude of marriage (they trulie shall be one flesh): so in like case, here is no absurditie or inhumaine Caniballisme, in this similitude of the Sacrament, vsed to expresse our vnion with Christ: for though it seem more horrible to eate rhe flesh of man, then to kill man, and to drinke his bloud then to shed it: yet we without horror or absurditie, eat the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Mediator betwixt God & man Iesus Christ. And if the aduersarie in Augustines time, or you Romanists now, would know how this may bee so done without slaughter of Christ, sinne to our soules, or offence to the world, Augustine tells you in that place, fideli corde & ore, with a faithfull heart and mouth.
So that now you see Augustines scope, and your drift, cleane contrarie the one to [Page 275] the other: for Augustine brings it as a similitude to expresse our spirituall vnion with Christ by faith: you wrest it as spoken of the corporall and gutturall eating and drinking of Christs bodie and bloud in the Sacrament, vnder the formes of bread and wine with our mouths and stomackes. Manie places you haue vnfitlie, & in deed vntrulie alleadged: yet shewed in none of them lesse learning and true meaning, then in this. For this is your great fault, that wheresoeuer you see or heare in Scripture, Father, Councell, or historie: Corpus & sanguinem Domini, or such like words or phrases, presentlie you inferre (and so persuade the Catholicks) that there is Christs carnal presence in the Sacrament, neuer examining the circumstance of the place, or the end wherefore they be alleadged.
And thus you erre not knowing (or wilfullie contemning) the state of the question, the sence of the holie writ, and iudgement of the auncient Fathers.
I am sure you neuer read this place of Augustine your selfe, but snatcht it out of some late ignorant and foolish ydle Munkish or Franciscan Enchiridion.
And my reason why I thinke so of you, is drawen out of Augustine himselfe. For a few lines before this your proofe, he calleth the Sacraments Sacra signa, holie signes (not the things themselues as you doe) and so distinguisheth that which you confounde. And within three lines after your proofe, if you would haue read him, you should haue heard him record to your great discredit in this case, that this your proofe is (as other former examples are) figurate dictum secundum sacra fidei regulam: that it is spoken figuratiuelie, according to the rule of sound faith and religion.
Now let the Reader iudge betwixt you and mee, whether of vs is in the right.August. in this place as in the places formerly alledged, is against you still. Augustine saith, the Sacraments be sacra signa, holie signes, and so say wee: But you Iesuiets and Priests say no, they be the things themselues. Augustine saith it is spoken figuratiuelie, and so say we: you say no, but properlie. Augustine saith, that this opinion is squared out for patterne to Christs Church, by the straight rule of sound faith, and so say we: and as you alleadge your proofe, you say no: & make a flat opposition betwixt Augustines faith and your faith. And yet you will brag of Fathers, and that they all speake on your side, and you all follow their sayings: when they neither speake, for you, nor you imitate them. And so though we follow scripture, fathers, & primitiue Church, yet you cal vs heretiks. And you that wrest scriptures, falsifie fathers, that haue neither with you, consent, antiquitie, nor veritie, yet will be Catholickes.
And thus if a man should haue hired you to haue brought a place out of Augustine against your selues, you could no better haue fitted your selfe, or your setter on, then in this: who verie plainlie deliuereth the manner how Christs bodie and bloud is to bee eaten and drunke: that is, with a faithfull heart and mouth, not with our materiall mouth, teeth, and stomacke, as you vntrulie teach. And thus hoping the Catholicks will lesse trust you in the rest, that haue so groslie deceiued them in this, I will proceed by Christes asistance to the examination of your next proofe.
The 12. parte of the second proofe concerning S. Augustin.
116. FIrst it is allowed by Caluin, that S. Augustin, is; Fitzsimon. Calu. lib. 3. Instit. c. 3. n. 10. l. 4. Instat. c. 14. n. 25. 26. & in psal, 58 v. 2. Beza in c. 3. Rom. v. 12. Fidelissimus testis antiquitatis; the most faithfull witnes of antiquitie. Omnium veterum theologorum tum Graecorum, tum Latinorum Princeps; the Prince (saith Beza) of all ancient Diuines no lesse of Greeks, then Latins. So that it is an importan point, to knowe, whose, [Page 276] part S. Augustin taketh. [...]artw. lib. 1 pag 98. lib. 2. pag. 513. Psal. 78. v. 13. Secondly, the Arch piller of Puritan Cartwright, saith, that; Augustins sentence, is approued vnaduisedly: for the [...] a window is open to bring in all Poperie. This is one great stepp, to attayne S. Augustin to our syde. [...]. Augst. ser. 2. de verbis Apost. & tr. 26. 27. in Ioan. Idem de cōsen. Euāg. l. 3. c. 1. tem 4. Idem in psal. 33. Idem in cap. Vtrum sub. de consecr. dist. 2. S. Aug. in ps. 98. Idem ser. de verb. euang. citatur à Beda 1. Cor. 10. Idem l. 3. de Trin. c. 4. Idem cap. Nes autem de Consecr. dist. 2. Idem ibidem cap. Hoc est. What need any longer delay in this mater, when neuer any child of the Catholick Romain Church cryed more loudly then S. Augustin, to Pope, and poperie, in the woords of the prophet; VVe thy people, and the flock of thy pasture-grounds, will confesse our selues thine euerlastingly? In the First 14. number, he is found teaching, to receaue the true bodye of Christ, not only spiritualy, [...] in a visible Sacrament; in veritate ipsa, in truth it selfe. In the 38. numb. he is found teaching; that Christ in the 6. chap. of S. Ihon amply treated of the B. Sacrament: contrary to M. Riders denial therof. In the 32. [...] he is found teaching; that Christ according to the letter, was in diuers places at once. In the 46. number, he is found teaching, that the body of Christ is not only a figure, but also the veritie: and that the same body which was borne of the B. Virgin Marie, is giuen to be eaten. In the 54. number he is found teaching, that we eate our Lord, yet in such maner, as we harme him [...] our eating, but rather arme, and helpe our soules by such diuine participation. In the 63. number he is found teaching; that to preache Christ, and to eate him are very different: contrary to M. Rider, affirming both to be all one. In the 64. number, he is found teaching, that we should confesse faithfully, what was before consecration but bread and wyne, after consecration is the fle [...] and blood of Christ. In the 70. number he is found teaching; that it [...] Christs fleash, and blood, which is receaued vnder the forme, or lyknes of bread and wyne. What more might be sayd, or more effectualy, and more oppositely to Protestantcy, by any Pope, or Papist, in the world?
Now let vs giue eare to M. Rider. First he fetcheth a long carrier, of halfe his chapter, before he euer stoupeth at this allegation out of S. Augustin. Next, leauing what I haue sayd; he telleth what I should haue sayd. When I play the puritan, as I sayd before, his direction would be more conuenient, to leaue the mater, and to dallye rownd about, vp and downe, off and on. Thirdly, that it is a similitud, & therfor no sillogisme: I tould you before in the 43. number, what logitian he is.A [...]ust. 1. Topic. 14. Read Aristotle, good sir, and he will tell you, that similituds may well be arguments. Nay read the new testament, and finde Christs arguments to haue bene vsualy but similituds. At last, he affirmeth playnly, that Augustin telleth, we should eate Christ, with faythfull hart, and mouth. Why I aske no more, but that it be graunted, not only by harte, but also by mouth, Christ may be eaten. But like a badd cow he stryketh downe with [Page 277] his heele, all this milke euen in the very next woord (which maketh the 135. vntruth) that S. Augustin is contrary to vs.The 135. vntruth. But I pray you, what is the reason? Forsooth saith he; because he vttred thes woords as a similitude, to another intention. Yet againe; let it be graunted him to haue vttred the woords: and for the intention, whatsoeuer it was, it is knowen that he would not, and could not lawfully for any purpose, ratifie or insert false doctrin. So that yf the woords be founde, his mynde is notoriously expressed.
When no footing could be founded on these seely (yf euer hetherto any reasons haue bene seely) shifts, and no answer framed, or forged, to this forcible allegation; then bursteth out the 136. vntruth,The 136. vntruth. that we had alleaged many places vnfitly, and vntruely: yet shewed in none of them lesse learning, and true meaning, then in this. But I [...]ay, as often before, that I take no greater assurance of your being [...]rampled by these allegations, then by your pretending that I shewed small learning, and not good meaning in them. For what [...]edlam beldame but might, in impudent resolution, saye as much, [...]f she had no other euasion? And who behouldeth not, but in this [...]aying, and in such maner, is the very depth of infamie detected? The 137. vntruth followeth close by,The 137. vntruth. that we had neuer read the [...]lace in S. Augustin, but snatcht it out of some ignorant Monkish Enchiridion. What may be sayd to this facer of a bould cownte [...]ance, in a cold cauterized conscience? Nothing fitter, and shorter [...]hen out of the Poet:
Non tibi plus cordis, sed minus oris adest.
No couradge new, but lesse thy shame is fownd.
Yea the very derision of the name of Moncks, is not only a demon [...]tration of his being abandoned by S. Augustin, but a testimonie of [...]is combination with ould hereticks:S. Aug. tom. 8. in psal. 132. against whom S. Augustin manifouldly defendeth the profession of Moncks; yea and suche [...]heir very name. wherof let these few proofs be witnesses. Merito Elis displicet nomen Monachorum, quia illi nolunt habitare in vnum cum fratribus; VVorthely doth the name of Moncks displease them, because they will not dwell in [...]onsent, with theire brethren. Deinde perrexit (Petilianus) ore maledico in vi [...]uperationem monasteriorum, & monachorum, arguens etiam me quod hoc genus [...]itae fuerit a me institutum. Then (Petilianus) proceeded with a malitious mouth, [...]o disprayse monasteries and moncks, reprouing me also, that I had instituted that [...]ynde of lyfe. All his whole woorks are replenished with mention,Idem tom. 6. Cont. lit. petil. lib. 3. c. 40. commendation, direction, and defence of such profession. All was [Page 278] one for my Caualiero he had a resolution to trample all truth vn [...] foote.Vide Remi [...]d. Rufum. in duplicatione con. Patronum Molinai fol. 76. Such was a lyke protestant not long since, who being ad [...] nished of his vnmeasurable lyes; he answered; Quam diu potero [...] adferam: Latebunt quam diupoterunt. Valebunt apud vulgus ista mendacia. [...] long as I can, I will indomadge: let it remayne hidd, as long as it may. These lyes will auayle among the people. O wofull, yet generall; o true, yea shamefull Protestant intention! What other could be his intention that saith by the 138.The 138. vntruth. vntruth S. Augustin to affirme, it which was sayd of our Sacrament, to be figuratiuely spoken; he only so saying of S. Pauls woords of mariage; they shalbe two in one fleash? or, where S. Augustin calleth, in the woords of the Apostle, mariage; mag [...] Sacramentum in Christo & Ecclesia; Ephes. 5. The 139. vntruth. a great sacrament in Christ and his Church [...] to interpret it is but a great mysterie? Or, by the 139. vntruth, to referr the woords, sacra signa, holy signes, to this our Sacrament, which S. Augustine referreth to the former Sacrament of Mariage? Or, by th [...] 140.The 149. vntruth. vntruth, to auouch, that notwithstanding all these palpable euidences, for our syde, and against our aduersaries; yet that S. Augustine is opposit to vs, and we could neuer, yf we had bene hyred, haue brought a more repugnant testimonie? I can not conceaue but euery one, Catholick, and protestant, doth perceaue such a [...] aforsayd to haue bene his intention, videlicet to indomage, to remayne hidd, as long as might be, (and to that ende to haue debarre [...] me three whole yeares all vse of printing, although he had warra [...] to the contrarie) and in this mercenarie maner of popularitie, [...] seeke to content for the present tyme. It being more brightly cleere, then the sonn at myddaye, I proceed, full of hast, and loathsomnes to wryte against men of such intentions. Quorum lingua tam prodi [...] infrenisue est, Gellius lib. 1. vt fluat semper verborum colluuione taeterrima; whos [...] lauishe and vnbridled, that it floweth only with a most odious pudle or streame [...] woords. Wherin none should contend with them, the conquest being against the conquerour, and the victorie his that is ouercome. I fynd it by experience most assured that Nazianzen related of ould Reformers, to be as reall among new Reformers. Inter se certant, peri [...] atque non id metuant, Nazianz. erat. 2. de pace. ne impijs erroribus sese constringant, sed ne in hac re [...] tolerabiliusue caeteri peccent. Among them the stryfe is, not as yf they [...] erre impiously, but that they contend to surpasse on another in this [...] This approued saying, yf I should as often replye as occasion doth requyre, at euery leafe of this booke, it might be repeated.
[...]n what darknesse of ignorance, in what sluggish carelesnesse, haue they been?
Catho. Priests.
Leo epist. 22. ad Clerum & plebem Constantino politanae vrbis floruit Anno. 366.
Rider.
This Leo was the 13 Archb. of Rome: & twētie more succeeded him b fore any vsurped the name of Pope. Nomb. 23.8.
as not to haue heard by hearesay, nor by reading to haue found, which in the Church of God is so plaine, as that the mouthes of children do tell, the bodie and bloud of Christ to be trulie in the blessed Sacrament.
117. GEntlemen, you mistake the Epistle: it is in the 23. Epistle, pag. 74. beginning in the 12 line, printed at Louaine, 1575. and seeing it is both your [...]wne proofe, and your owne print, if vpon due examination it make against you, you must thinke God dealeth with you, as he did with Balaam, who when he made acco [...]nt for gaine to haue cursed Gods people, then God put into his heart, and vttered by [...]is mouth a blessing to his people. You made account to haue here ouerthrowne the trueth, establ [...]shed errour, and strengthned your credit: and God hath put into your heart, and you haue subscribed with your hand to confirme the trueth, confute your owne error, and discredit your selues: and more to the worlds wonder, and the foile of your Romane faith, euen by a bishop of Rome: against whom you can take no [...]xceptions. So that now the Catholicks shall see that your carnall presence was not known to the first bishops of Rome, for the first fiue hundred yeares, and therefore it [...]s not Catholicke. And you shall see how vntrulie you not onelie quote him but alle [...]dge him, nay wrest & inforce him to speake that after his death, which he neuer meant [...]uring his life. So that from the first to the last, you deale neither trulie with the booke of God: nor the works of men. And as Christ saide to the Scribes and Phareses;Mathew. 15.6. You [...]aue made the commaundement of God of no Authoritie by your Tradition, So you [...]esuits and Priests haue made neither Scripture, Auncient father, Councell, nor Pope of [...]nie Authoritie, by your new and false constructions, addicions, and subtractions, &c. But now to the examination of your proofe.
But I will first showe to the Catholicks the occasion, why Leo writt this: and there [...]hey shall see how greatly you are deceaued in mistaking Leo: and much abuse their simplicitie and the credite they repose in you.
The occasion whie Leo writte this Epistle was this: That whereas the errour of the Manichees had greatlie infected the Church of God throughout all Christendome:They denied Christs manhood & taught that his bodie was not a true bodie but a phantasticall bodie. he [...]n a charitable manner sent Epiphanius and Dionisius, two publicke Notaries of the Church of Rome, to the Cleargie and people of Constantinople: requesting them, that [...]uch as professed these damnable heresies, might not onelie bee excommunicated from [...]ermons & sacraments, but also be banished from their Citties for feare of further in [...]ection. For (saith hee) such as beleeue not that Christ hath taken our nature and flesh [...]pon him, beleeue neither the veritie, nor vertue of Christs passion and resurrection, And then commeth in your proofe, which properlie must be applied to such hereticks, [...] denie Christ his manhood to bee borne of the blessed virgin: and hold that his bodie is not a true bodie, but a phantasticall bodie, and not to vs that beleeue both. Againe, you haue not trulie translated this place for thus it stands in the Authour. In quibus isti ignorantiae tenebris in quo hactenus desidiae torpore tacuere, vt nec auditu discerent and after wards, Vt nec ab infantium linguis veritas corporis & sanguinis Christi inter communis sacramenta fidei teneatur? In what darknes of ignorance, in what slugg [...]sh carelessnes, haue they remained, as not to haue learned by hearesay (not heard by hearesay as you translate) that the trueth of the bodie and bloud of Christ amōg the sacramēts of our commō faith, is not kept backe euen of the tōgues of infants?
[Page 280]It seemeth you had this out of some mans notebooke by hearesay not by your proper and diligent reading of the Authour hmiselfe: and my reasons why I thinke so be these: because you mistake so much, and translate so vntrue. Yet will not I take exceptions to euerie particular fault.
1 First, you say it is in the twentieth Epistle: it is not so, but in the th [...] and twentieth, and therefore I thinke you neuer read the Author.
2 Secondlie, you say, heard by hearesay, the Author saith, Learned by hearesay.
3 Thirdly, you translate linguis for mouths: it should be tongues, Yet if the re [...] had been true, I would not haue excepted against this.
4 Fourthlie, you chaunge a Nowne into an Aduerb, vere for veritas, trulie for trueth: and transpose it also out of that proper place to alter the sence of Leo the Bishop of Rome, which is great wrong to the dead Author, and liuing Reader.
5 Fif [...]he, you change the singular number for the plurall, sacrament for sacraments.
6 Sixtlie, you quite leaue out two wordes of great consequence, communis and [...].
7 Seuenthlie, you adde this word (Blessed) which is not in the Author.
8 Eighthlie, you point it not right, considering the Authour spake it onelie by way of interrogation.
Which premisses are faultes great and grosse, which sheweth plainlie that you ne [...] reade the Author himself, but borrowed them forth of some other mans papers, & therfore you sin grieuously in perswading mens consciences to take there things at your hands for truth, & faith, when indeed you tender them nothing, but things [...] sled from all faith and trueth,
Now Gentlemen, doe you deale plainlie with the world in bringing this pla [...] against vs? did euer anie of vs denie that Christ was borne of the virgin Marie, and conceiued by the holie Ghost: you cannot charge vs with it. Did euer anie of [...] teach that Christs bodie was phantasticall, neither did you euer heare it. Then in this as in the rest you wrong vs, deceiue the Catholickes, and abuse Leo sometime Pope.
But I will shew you plainlie, that this Bishoppe of Rome and this your proofe. confutes and confounds your owne opinion, and confirmes ours.
Reade page, 7. 8. in the same Epist. where he bringes in the Sacraments of Redemption & of Regeneration.First Leo saith, the truth of Christs bodie and bloud is in both the two sacrament, as well in Baptisme as in the Lords Supper; and as he is reallie in the other: and what presence of Christ is in the one sacrament, there is the like presence in the other, as hath been prooued before. But least this would ma [...] the fashion of your transubstantiasion. and carnall presence, therefore you trans [...] it sacramentum, in the singuler number, not sacramenta in the plurall.
Secondlie, you haue left out two words, communis fidei of common faith: bec [...] no man should see it was then as Catholick opinion, to beleeue that the truth of Chri [...] bodie and bloud, was as reallie in Baptisme, as in the Lord Supper, yet in both spirituallie, in neither corporallie.
But you will say I abuse the Reader, because Leo neuer spake of this word spiritual, or spirituallie, and therfore I wrong both the Author and Reader, I answere as [...] the prophet answered Achab the king, when he told Eliah that he troubled Israel [...] (saith the Prophet) it is thou and thy Fathers house that haue troubled Israell, in that you haue forsaken the commandement of the Lord, 1. K [...]nge, 18.17.18. and followed Balaam. So Gentlemen, it is not I that wrong the Author that is dead, or the people that yet liue: but it is you and your confederates that followe Balaam of Rome (God keep you free from folowing Balack of Spaine) and that the Reader shall see I will prooue that Leo ioyneth with vs, and we with him, and both of vs with Christs truth against your trash, I [Page 281] will make him speake in his owne defence, and vtter that which you concealed. It followeth immediatlie after your profe, in the next immediat words after this maner:In the same page. quia in illa mystica distributione spiritualis alimoniae hoc impartitur, vt accipientes caelestis tibi, in carnem ipsius, qui caro nostra factus est, transcamus. Because that in the mysticall distribution of that spirituall food, this is giuen and receiued, that we which receiue the vertue of the heauenlie meat, wee passe into his flesh, which was made our flesh.
Gentlemen, this you should haue added to your former, for the Authour ioyned them togither, the one to accompanie the other in Gods seruice, and in deed the latter to expresse the former. But now let vs out of this, but compare the old doctrine of the old Bishoppes of Rome, and the doctrine of the moderne Popes and his Chaplens.
1 The old Bishops of Rome said, the food in the sacrament was spirituall and heauenlie: the late Popes, Iesuits, and Priests say, that it is carnall and materiall.
2. The old Popes said, the distribution of that spirituall food was misticall: you say presbiteriall.
4 They said in ould times, that the worthie receiuers of this spirituall meat were transformed into Christ his flesh. The late Popes and you his Ecchoes say no: But the sacramentall bread and wine are transsubstantiated and transnatured into Christs flesh and bloud.
The Bishop of Rome brought in this, to prooue Christs humanitie conceiued by the holie Ghost, and borne of the virgin Marie, against heretickes, who taught the Christs bodie wa phantasticall. And you alleadge the same place to prooue Christs humanitie, to be made by a sinfull ignorant Priest, & that of bread: and so contrarie to Scripture and Creed, will recreate Christ of a new matter, which is as blasphemous and hereticall.
The olde Bishoppes and Church of Rome held,So Tertull. contr [...] Marcion lib. 4. that the Sacraments could not be true signes of Christs bodie, vnlesse he had a true bodie, and because thy were true signes, therfore Christ had a true bodie. And the late Popes and Popelings teach, that Christs bodie is made a new of the signes, and so confoundeth the signes with Christs bodie, and in deed maintaineth heresie as grosse, as the Manicheans. For they held that either he had no bodie, or a phantasticall bodie. And you hold that there be no signes in the Sacraments, but that they are transubstantiated into Christs bodie and bloud. And so Christs bodie is dailie made of a peece of bread,Iohn. 6. which must needs be a bodie phantasticall: not a true bodie as our Creed witnesseth. And as in the manner of eating Christs bodie, you disagree not much from the Capernaits: so in the case you differ not much from the Manicheis.
Now will I say as the painfull owner of the vineyard said:Isaie 5. 3 [...] Now therefore oh you inhabitants of Ierusalem, and men of Iudah, iudge I pray you, between me and my vineyard. So, oh you Inhabitants of this worshipfull Cittie of Dublin, and you loyall subiects of Ireland, and all the learned and well minded of both England and Ireland, iudge I pray you charitablie (yet trulie) betwixt me, and these my aduersaries. And if you refuse to censure vs, and this our conference according to the truth, then I say as Dauid said to Saul: The Lord bee iudge between thee and me: 1. Sam. 24.13. so the Lord be iudge betwixt vs, whether of vs haue more trulie, and with greater sinceritie of truth, and conscience, behaued our selues (in this matter) for his glorie, discharge of our owne consciences, instruction and saluation of the Catholickes,
The last parte of the Second proofe Concerning S. Leo.
Fi [...]zsimon.117. MAister Rider (as the hare is wonte, befor he seate him selfe in his forme) had a great desyre to strayne him selfe to greater leaps, and girds, toward the ende. Yet all will not serue. As farr as my remembrance serueth me,Sidneis Arcadia. I reade in Sr. Phillip Sidneis Arcadia, a pleasant fiction of one Dameta who had ernestly prouoked one Clinias to combat thinking that he would not accept the challenge. But Clinias being with much wooking animated to answer him; Dameta excepted against the promised performance of Clinias that it was not in such tyme, place, and maner, as it deserued by him now to be allowed. Let my Dameta. proue me a Clinias yf, and when he can: For I am suer I can now discouer him a Dametas in relenting in the mayne prouocation and excepting at trifles, most timorously; and impertinently.Plutarchus in moralibus. As Plutarck declareth, that; Malus orator nihil ad argumenta respondens, vocem aut codicillas indiligenter scriptos, calumniatur; A badd orator answering nothing to the argument, carpeth at the voice, or papers negligently written. So in most perfect resemblance, M. Rider omitting the answering to my arguments, carpeth, and wrangleth at some impertinent points about the writing of them; as before, now, and after appeareth:Cic. lib. 2. ad Heren. such dealing is propre to Calumniers, saith Cicero; Calumniatorum proprium est verba consectari, to leaue the mater and stryue about wandring woords. Concerning Leo, how fauorable the learneder Protestants doe accompt him to their profession, let this testimonie of Beza intimate.Beza in Confess. Geneu. cap. 7. cap. 12. It is manifest (saith he) that Leo in [...] Epistles, doth clearely breath foorth arrogancie of the Antichristian Romain Sea. &c. Farr, of another opinion was Amos Patriarch of Hierusalem, when he sayd; Nam inueni scriptum, quia beatissimus & equalis angelis Papa Leo, qui Romanae Ecclesiae praefuit. &c. Ioan Moscus in prato c. 149. For I haue found it written that the most blessed, and equal to angels, Pope Leo, that gouerned the Church of Rome, &c, The Protestants accompt him comparable to deuils, and we to Angels: which is difference sufficient to know who accompted him a frend, and who a foe. Therfor approach we to learne how frendly M. Rider hath found him, whom so learned, and principal of his sorte accompted [...] aduersarie.
First he saith, we had put the 22. For the 23. I accompt not my wrytings so absolute beyond all other mens, but the such a small [Page 283] slippe might escape my examination, when I ouer-redd the booke after the ingrossing therof by one, from whom a farr greater fault in discretion had bene supportable. But suer in my owne extract, the quotation; was vnfaultie. You shall perceaue, besyd all former grosse corruptions in my reprehender, sufficiently in this very parcell, to counterpoise farr greater defectiuenes, then a misfiguring of 22. for 23. After which reprehension he runneth headlong during fiftye lynes of his discourse, into his wonted wondring digressions, of our shame yf our owne allegation be found against vs; of the occasions of such woords of S. Leo; of our falshood toward God and man; &c. Next, he telleth, how and against whom our allegation should haue bene applyed; and how by great lykely-hood we had neuer read it, but purchased it by hearsay. Wherof he yealdeth eight reasons to any indifferent iudgement, not vnworthy to haue him capped with a hoode of eight colours. For who besyd him, would except against a translation, wherin the pithe, and substance, is faithfully obserued, whether the rynde, or circumstance, be more or lesse? wher are ether sacred, or profane translations but take vnto them selues that libertie? And is it not most detestable to chaunt on such fanatical exceptions; and at the same tyme, in the same correction, to fayle most filthelye? It is often, and at euery such reprehension, before declared: here also it is conspicious. For out of the Latin, he omitteth this whole lyne [which in the Church of God is so consonant, in the mouthes of all] when that he tooke vpon him to translate the sentence most exactly according as S. Leo deliuered it. Their hatred against the name of Church (wherby in the Bible of the yeare 1562. it was intierly excluded) and their want of vniuersal consent, blinded him not to behould this lyne; or inforced him, to dissemble it. Truely I resigne from the bottom of my hart, my first answer wholy to Gods sacred prouidence, being his gratiouse gift that it had that perfection as not to be subiect to any other cauills: and that in their seeking to carp, and calumniat, when they could not, did euer redound to their infamie, and vtter confusion: as amply appeareth in the 51. 76. 97. numbers, Now yf we had misfigured 22. for 23. what inference is it, that therfor we neuer read the authour? After he demandeth; did euer any of them, denye, that Christ was borne of the Virgin Marie? I answer; that to appeare, in the examination of that article of beleefe. Then, a second Question is propounded: whether euer any of them did teache Christ to haue a phantastical body? To which ly [...]wyse I [Page 284] answer, that diuers of them haue so taught, by making his body deuoyde of all bloode: by affirming his body as much in Abrahams tyme, as after, to haue bene receaued in communion: by granting his body to be conioyned with vs realy, yet not corporaly, &c, which are infallible assertions that he had a phantastical body. And consequently, by granting such allegation auaylable to disproue the teachers of a phantastical body; M. Rider as often befor, so now, by teaching the same, giueth sentence against him selfe. By attainting his ineuitable vntruths; the residue concerning S. Leo shalbe vnderstood.
The 141. vntruth.The 141. vntruth is, that after Leo, twenty Archbishopps of Rome succeeded, before ether he, or they, vsurped the name of Pope. Witnes this to be a cleere vntruth. First M. Rider against him selfe, saying, about the midst of this chapter, that we abuse Leo some tyme a Pope. Here Leo is a Pope, and here, the same Leo, and twenty his successours were no Popes. Secondly witnes the whole Concil of Chalcedon,Concil. Chalcedon. Act. 3.4.6. in these woords; Paschasius episcopus vice Domini mei Beatissima atque Apostolici, vniuersalis Ecclesiae, Papae vrbis Romae, Leonis, synodo praesidens, statui, consensi, subscripsi. Paschasius Bishopp, in place of my Lorde most blessed, and Apostolical Leo, of the Vniuersal Church, Pope of the citie of Rome, I being President in this synod, haue appointed, consented, and subscribed. Is not euery woord of this testimonie thinke you, a terrour and a torment to M. Riders opinion? First, to view and vnderstand his former vntruth of pope, by the subscription of 630. Fathers (who were in that Concil) by whom that Leo was pope, is mantayned against him. Secondly by perceauing the Pope of the Citie of Rome, intituled Apostolical Lord of the vniuersal Church. Thirdly, by obseruing such Romain Popes Legat, although but a Bishopp, to haue bene President of the whole general Concil &c. This testimonie was long before the tyme by M. Rider determined of Phocas Emperour, First bestower of supremacie vpon Romain Popes, yf Reformers do not lye.
The 142. 143. 144. 145. 146 vntruth.The 142. vntruth is, that he will shew this allegation of Leo, to be against vs. The 143. vntruth, that we deale falsely with Gods woord, and woorks of men. The 144. that we haue deminished the authoritie of Popes, and Fathers. The 145. that the errour of Manichees had infected all Christendome: For neuer was any heresie so vniuersal; much lesse it of the Manichees. The 146. vntruth, that S. Leo saith, the truth of Christs body and bloud to be as well in Baptisme, as in the Eucharist; For, first this man, that often [Page 285] blameth me, yf I alleadge not woords next before or after, my purpose, although they had not bene pertinent; he himself ouerskipped aboue a hondred lynes, to fynde out some seely shroude, remayning neuer the lesse as naked, as the wood cock, whose only beak is couered, The woordes are; Ecclesia quae de sponsi carne prodijt, S. Leo loc. citat. quando ex latere crucifixi manante sanguine & aqua, Sacramentum redemptionis & regenerationis accepit; The Church which issued out of the fleash of hir spouse, when out of the syde of him crucifyed, flowing out blood and water, she receaued the Sacrament of redemption, and regeneration. In which woords, there is nether Baptisme nor Eucharist signifyed; but only declared, that the passion of Christ, by similitude of effect called a Sacrament, hath bene a redemption, and regeneration to the Church. What affinitie hath such woords, with them by M. Rider, lately related? What a decretal, and obstinat proceeding is this, against perspicuous truth, and in desperate deprauations? to falsifie Fathers so wittingly? to depraue euidences so contrariously? It is; Faedum mansisse diu, vacuumue redijsse; Filthye to haue sought so farre, and departed so destitute. The vsual artifice of such Doctors, is, when they are pressed, and suppressed with any authoritie, to search most carefully some woord in the place alleaged, wherby they may in some shew euacuat the brunt of such authoritie; being So infatuated with loathsomnes, and hatred against Christs institution, that therby being (as Luther himselfe saith) become madd, and gyddye, Luth. tom. 7. fol. 397. what soeuer they take hould of, although it be but a strawe, yet they imagin it to be a speare, and that at euery stroke they kill thowsandes. Neuer could a Father expresse better the qualites of his children.
The 147. vntruth is,The 147. vntruth. that S. Leo by mentioning the woord Spiritual, doth exclude all our doctrine. This vntruth is at least a dozen tymes detected, and therfor needeth no further refutation. It is cleere that S. Leo here saith; the Veritie of the body and blood of Christ, (and consequently not a figure only) to be one of the Sacraments of our faith not vnknowen to children: Which also S, Augustin confirmeth. And S. Leo to putt it out of doubt, that he had rather indure any martyrdome, then thinke otherwise; he aduiseth Christians generaly; sic sacrae mensae communicare debere vt nihil prorsus de veritate corporis & sanguinis ambigant; So to communicat at the sacred table, S. Leo Serm. 6. de i [...] iunio 71. mensis. as by no means to doubt of the Veritie of the body and blood. Yf you requyre the cause of his knowledge; he answereth; Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur; For that is receaued by mouth, which is beleeued by harte. These woords M. Rider, are peremptorie. No glossing, no racking, no quircks, can auoyd them: but that they leaue you a spectacle, to God, Angels, and men, [Page 286] full of shame, and confusion, for your vnaduised clayme, and canterized conscience.The 148. vntruth. The 148. blasphemous vntruth is, that the body of Christ made of bread, is a phantastical bodye: for in the 46. number, M. Rider is made to conuict himselfe of such vntruth; by fynding, according S. Augustin, to be no other body, then was borne of the Virgin Marie. Tertul. l. de resur. carnis. Such beastly accusations do well informe what you are because, Spurciloquium decet haereticos ac Ethnicos, as Tertullian saith.
For your Apostrophe to the Citie of Dublin, and imprecation to God, to iudge betwixt you and me: For the first; Dublin knoweth you too well, and few of your sorte better: not only for your former hindrance of the bakers therin; but also for your transferring their trade of Merchandise into your house, and liberties, among your sonns in law, they being forreners, and very fleash worms in Dublin. Such as nether beare sesse, nor presse, watch, nor auarde, towle nor custome, and in the meane tyme suck the iuice of the Citie into their priuat purses vnder the warmth of your wyngs, (to vse your phrase) and in the protection of your liberties. So then Dublin should be very seaseles not to know you familiarly, and particularly. For the next, be not headlong in such importunat prouocations against your soule. God often permitteth sentence of hipocritical imprecations to take effect. Let your brother in the Lord,Schlusselburg. lib. 2. fol. 68. Schlusselburg, against your owne brother in the Lord Iohn Amand, euen in our purpose, and mater, informe you, saying; The sayd Iohn Amand to haue cryed in publick sermon, pray brethren and hearers, that God instantly cause me to dye an ill death, that I further seduce none, yf I be faultie teaching this errour. And thervpon he was stricken with a cruell cholick, and breathed out his miserable sowle. Polid. Virg. l. 8. hist. Anglic. I referr you for breuities sake, to the ruthfull example of Earle Godwyne, related by Polidore virgil: wherby you may be reclaymed from such execrations against your selfe. To our purpose one of Dublin regarding your strange dealing and disputing pertinently, declared it in a borrowed verse out of F. Cottons treatise of the Sacrifice.
Prisca tonas? ridet. noua das? spernit. ardua? nescit.
Imperplexa? fugit. testificata? furit.
Do you bring ould? he scorns. or new? he fretts.
Or hard? you fynd him dull.
Or playne? he shrinks. or past all doubt?
He storms, and stands willfull.
Thus much for the fathers, as a skantling or taste,Catho. Priests. leauing the surplus to the curious Reader. I might haue recited Martiall Epist. ad Burdegalenses, cap. 3. Anaclet. Epist. generall: Dionisius Areop. cap. 3. page. 3. who liued within the compasse of the first hundred yeares: but I obserueI praie you obserue veritie. I thinke your meaning was 500. years, otherwise it cannot be true. breuitie, as by the next proofe shall appeare.
118. 119. GEntlemen: Martiiall neither in this place, nor in the tenne chapters following, saith anie thing against vs, but for vs,Rider. and as I thinke altogither against you. For Martiall reproueth those that honoured such Priests, as [...]acrificed mutuis & surdis statuis, to dumbe and deaffe images (which neerlie toucheth your freeholde) and diswaded them from it, saying;Martiall. Nunc autem multo magis sacerdotes Dei omnipotentis qui vitā vobis tribuunt in calice & pane honorare debetis: For now you ought much rather to honour the Priests of Almightie God, which giue you life [...]n the cup and bread. This is that which you thinke knocks vs in the head. But first [...]et it be examined, and then censured.
1 First, you must prooue that you are Priests of Almightie God: which you shal neuer do; as hath been plainlie prooued.
2 Secondlie, you must prooue that you giue life to the communicants, in the cuppe and bread, which is impossible. And vnlesse you prooue the premisses, the allegation [...]s impertinent.
3 Thirdlie and lastlie, if the Priest could giue life in the cup, wine or bread, then it were cleare that the substance of bread & wine remained. And that would knocke but the braines of your miraculous transubstans [...]ation. Now maisters, in alleadging Martiall you are brought into a labyrinth, get out as you can. For if you euer had read Martiall, you would neuer haue alleadged him in this case: for in the end of the same chapter, hee sheweth to Sigebert, and to other newly conuerted from ydolatrie, ad synceram fidem, to true religion, that Christ is sacrificed three maner of waies.
First, by himselfe on the crosse once for all.
Secondlie, by the cruell Iewes, who cried, Crucifie him, Crucifie him.
Thirdlie, per nos in sui commemorationem; by vs in rememberance of him. Thus Martiall telleth you, that in rememberance of Christ, is not Christ. Now if you will needs sacrifice Christ after Martials opinion, you must chuse one of these three: after the first if you would you cannot: after the second, I am sure yee will not: and after the third you ought, but do not. Thus your proofes mend, as sower Ale doth in sommer, woorse and woorse, euen like a conie in a net: or a bird amongst limetwigs, the more they stirre, the faster they sticke. But you cannot helpe it; seeing the cause is bad, how can your proofes bee good? But in Gods name leaue wresting of Fathers, deceiuing of Catholickes, and come to the confession of your faults, and recantation of your errors: and you shall glorifie God, edifie his people, and saue your soules, which God graunt for Christs sake.
For Anaclete, I haue not seen him, and therfore cannot censure him:Anaclete. but if he be auncient, he will speake with vs: if he be a late writer, hee is a weake witnesse: and at first excepted against: and vnlesse he liued within the first fiue hundred yeares after Christ, he must neither helpe you, nor hurt vs.
And for Dionysius Areop. because he speaketh not one word for you,Dionisius Areop [...]. therfore I haue no reason to speake one word against him. And wheras you say, these fathers [Page 288] you haue brought as a scantling or taste: I tell you plainlie, scant a taste of anie trick. And the fathers you haue not brought with you, but left them behind you, because yee know they would witnesse what they should, not what you would. Then you say, you will leaue the Surplus to the curious Reader: by your leaue, it is better to be curious then carelesse. For if the Reader had not been more carefull then you were,Ouid. Metam. lib. 1. pag. 1. it had been informe Chaos, and as Ouid once said, Rudis indigestaque moles, [...] quicquam nisi pondus iners. But now to the rest.
A confirmation of all our former doctrine, by disciples of the Apostles: particularly by Martial, Anaclet, Dionise &c.
Fitzsimon.118. FIrst M. Rider requesteth vs, as we obserue breuitie, so to obserue veritie. I promise in the mercie of God, that I will not fayle therin, nor for a thousand worlds would falsifie, or depraue any point of trueth, wittingly. God is my witnes, and my conscience, that I seeke not, nor ayme at worldly applauds, or preferments. My cause needeth noe sinister defense. The gats of hell could not, can not, and may not hereafter preuayle against it. When I abiure Christ and religion, then will I (Puritan-like) diligere vanitatem & querere mendacium; Psal. 4.3. Esa. 28.15. 1. Tim. 4.2. in mendacio ponere spem mea [...]; & loqui mendacium in hypocrisi; Loue vanitie, and seeke for a lye, plant my hope in a lye; and speake falshood in hypocrhysie. This request from him (who as yf he hated veritie, eschueth it; and yet here requyreth it, as yf he affected it, and had wanted it in our dealings) is a duble offense: because as S. Augustin saith;S. Aug. super psal. 63. Simulata aequitas non est aequitas, sed duplex iniquitas, quia iniquitas est & simulatio; Dissembled equitie is not equitie, but doble iniquitie: The 149. vntruth. for it is both iniquitie and dissimulation. Secondly, in the 149. vntruth he saith, that vnlesse we vnderstand by the first hondred yeares, fiue hondred yeares, it is vntrue. But contrarie; I say agayne, by testimonie of S. Ignatius,S. Ignatius epist. 5. that Dionysius was disciple to S. Paul, Anaclet to S. Peter, who both suffred in the yeare 69. Martial by most wryters accompted one of the 72. disciples of Christ. And consequently, they all three were within the first hondred yeares after Christ; and so our saying true. So that M. Rider can medle with no kynde of doctrin, but in correcting, he is found lamentably vnskillfull.
The 150. vntruth.Thirdly, in the 150. vntruth is sayd, that Martial speaketh nothing against, but for protestantrie. I inferre thervpon, that then you haue recanted protestantrie: For in the 99. number, as being then a [Page 289] protestant, you denyed preisthood in the new testament. Now, as no protestant, you consent with Martial, that ther is a preisthood, & preists by whom lyfe is giuen in the chalice and bread. As a protestant before you haue euer denyed, Christ to be the same in the Eu [...]harist who was crucified: now as noe protestant (for you haue pro [...]essed to consent with Martial) you professe;S. Martial epist. ad Burdegal. c. 3. Quod Iudaei per inuidiam [...]mmolauerunt putantes se nomen eius a terra abolere, nos causa salutis nostrae in [...]ra sanctificata proponimus; what the Iewes by enuie did sacrifice, thinking to can [...]ell his name from vpon earth, that same we do propound vpon a sanctified Altar. Therfor hauing wysely recanted, beware of being a relapse to your former vomit, and neuer to deny any part of all this hereafter. Fowerthly, he that hath here professed him selfe conformable to S. Martial, he that hath before tould that the ould, and new testament,Vide nu. 56. 62. 9 [...]. giueth the names of one thing to another for resemblance sake; behould how here he knocketh owt (as his swagring phrase is) the braynes of our transubstantiation, because forsooth the body and blood of Christ is called bread, and wyne. Why are you so forgetfull? [...]id not your owne mouth, in your pretended exposition of the 6. [...]hap. of S. Ihon, saye: This bread of lyfe Christ, is the true bread: Christ and his fleash are all one and the same bread: &c. And why might not S. Martial call Christ bread, as well as you? I neuer found one being so forgetfull and contrarious to him selfe, better described, then in F. Cottons Epigramme, befor his treatise of the Sacrifice.
Colligis? haud meminit. stringis? crepat? inijcis? odit.
Iámné negata? probat. iámné probata? negat.
Summe you his woords? he forgetts. pinche you? he fumes▪ cite you? he hateth.
VVere they now denyed? he affirms. yf but now affirm'd? he rebateth.
For the point of commemoration or remembrance; it is in the 81. and 86. numbers abundantly discussed. For discomending our proofes, and affirming that we are taken as in a nett: it displeaseth me not. For neuer thinke I any proofe so strong, as what by your lyke is pretended weake; nor my doctrin and profession more at libertie, and out of danger, then when by such it is disabled. In not knowing Anaclet, yow testifie what your skil is in the primatiue Popes:S. Anaclet. epist. 2. ad Episcopos Ital. among whom, he was of the first, in tyme, and dignitie. By him yow might learne that preists are; Corporis Christi tractatores; handlers of Christs bodye. You haue noe reason, you say, to speake against Dionisius, because he [Page 290] speaketh not one word for vs. Yes M. Rider: it is for vs greatly, that the preest must,S. Dion. Hierarchie Ecclesiast. cap. 2. & 3. first make his confession, after hauing placed the signes vpon a holy altar; by which signes Christ him selfe, signatur & sumitur, is not only signifyed, but receaued. Then that the venerable prelat cometh to the altar, and sacrificeth. Then that after eleuation of the sacred hoste, he communicateth him selfe, and distributeth part to the assemblie. Which is in one woord to say Masse. Yf by your owne confession, you haue not reason to speake against all this: then you will also be destitute of reason, in impugning vs any longer, for our confessions, for our sanctifyed altars, for our preists, for our masses, for our eleuations, & in one worde, for all our papistrie. As I answered a little before, so now I answere, againe: that I haue neuer better opinion of my answere, that it is nether carelesse nor defectiue, but exact, and insuportable, then I haue, by your reprehension of it. For that is your last refuge, to make vanting your victorie, reproaching your reprouing, which is as Cicero sayd; Exhibere fugam pompae similem; to retyre, and flye, dissembling a triumphe: and when you are confounded, to pretende you had confuted: imitating certayne being wounded in their bowels, whom Aristotle relateth,Aristoteles lib. 3. de partibus Animal. in and by lawghing, to perishe. So you, notwithstanding owtward applaudings, God knoweth, and euery reasonable man, haue as fowly fayled, and as forciblie bene foyled, as euer needed any enemye of God, and godlines.
Nether wanted I in the next woords of Ouid, a more pertinent replye, then wherwith I am in the last lynes attaynted: But I will aspyre to greater victorie ouer him, then by Ouids helpe. For I forgiue his accusation, without any feeling therof. S. Chrysostome hath long since armed me against such reprehensions.S. Chrysost. hom. 2. ad Antiochen. Aliquis iniuriam intulit? non sensisti, nec doluisti, non es iniuriam passus? magis percussisti quàm percussus es. Hath any one sayth S. Chrysostome iniuried thee? and thou not feele it, nor lament it, nor indure any hurt therby? thou didst rather strike, then wast struken. Yet yf he had any sparck of modestie or wysdome, he would haue sayd to him selfe, out of Horace;Horat. 1. epist. 18. Ter. in Adelph. Nec tua laudabis studia, nec aliena contemnes: thy owne skill commend not, nor it of others condemne. But Terence sayd true: homine imperito nihil quicquam iniustius, qui, nisi quod ipse fecit, nihil rectum putat.
A conclusion of these two principal proofes, out of Scriptures, and Fathers.
119. DOe not meruayle, Christian Readers,Fitzsimon. that M. Rider so confidently claymed the Fathers as his fauorers, who is so found to haue no interest or title in them. Remember the dishonest womans most impudent and peremptorie clayme, of another womans childe, befor Salomon. Remember this our purytans predecessours lyke clayme, to the primatiue Fathers, so perfectly deliuered by Dioscorus as yow may say, not one spirit only, but also one mouthe, to haue vttred the woords related by him, and repeated by M. Rider, they are of such agreable sownde, and sutable sense. Ego cum patribus eijcior: Concil. Chalcedon. Actione prima, immediate ante actionem secundam Concilij Constantinop. Ego defendo patrum dogmata: non transgredior in aliquo: Et horum testimonia non simpliciter neque transitoriè, sed in libris habeo: I am abandoned together with the Fathers: I defend the doctrin of the Fathers: I departe not a iote: and I haue their testimonies, not simplye nor sleightly, but in their owne books. Yet this protestation of Dioscorus was perfidious, and most impiously dissembled. For, as a principal heretick, he had departed from both Fathers, and Christian fayth, and was condemned a reprobat Eutychian heretick;Theod. lib. 4. Fab. Conc. Chalced. S. Vigil. l. 4. Con. Eutych. S. Basil. in orat: que habetur in 7. Synodo. such as affirmed Christs diuinitie, to haue bene crucifyed and buryed; and traditions to be of no estimation: Wherin also our sectarists (as appeareth in the examination of the creed) voluntarilie conforme their imaginations. Now, what part of M. Riders Caueat, is there but the former woords of Dioscorus, are therin verbatim in a maner ingrossed? The whole consent of all sort of protestants,Lauatherus in epistola de sua visitatione. Genebrard. chr. l. 4. initio pag. 526. dicit excremiss [...], supra 200. sectos. Spongia pro Societate pag. 100. dicit & 250. Eodinus in methodo, dicit esse innumerabiles. Statius. lib. 11. whiche amownt to aboue two hondred sects (for the very Lutherans, euen by the reporte of La [...]atherus their Visitor, did in his tyme, alone, attayne to a hondred and fower score) disclayming the Fathers; The Fathers them selues disclayming all parts of protestant doctrin; The knowledge of the graue and learned protestants to the contrary; The testimonie of his owne conscience, could not retayne him, but as Statius sayd: it preceps sonipes strictè contemptor habenae: on ronneth the head long horse, neglecting restrayning raynes; and reneweth both Dioscorus clayme and impudencie, in affirming, yea and (that I may vse to him a Lancashyre phrase) in threaping and bearing, in hand that it was blyndnes, and ignorance, to contradict him, that the primatiue Fathers stood not assuredly for him. Neither contented therwith, but to be knowen euery way to concurr with ancient hereticks, he manifouldly repeateth these [Page 292] woords following of theirs, mentioned a thousand yeares past, by Vincent Lyrinensis: Whose goulden booke, he also commended to vs to reade, as wherby to know him to be in the right; wheras no other booke, so much discouereth him to be in the wrong. And Iustus Caluinus, olim a famous and principal Protestant, imputeth his Conuersion to be a Catholick, to no other booke so much, as to the same. Thus then sayth the sayd Vincentius; Audies etenim quosdam ipsorum dicere: Vincent. Lyrin. de prophan. her. nou. Cap. 26. Venite o insipientes & miseri, qui vulgo Catholici vocitamini, & discite fidem veram, quam praeter nos nullus intelligit, quae multis ante seculis latuit, nuper verò reuelata & ostensa est. You shal perceaue some of them to saye: Come o yee fooles, and miserable people, who commonly are called Catholicks, and learne the true faythe, which none vnderstand but we, which hath bene long hidd, but is now of late reuealed and shewed. What could any Catholick, or right beleeuer, speake more confidently toward his true beleefe? Will yow giue eare to M. Riders woords of lyke mowlde, and honestie? Yow and your late Rhomish Catholicks, do quite dissent from Christs trueth, and owld Romishe religion. And therfore remember whence yow are fallen and returne to the ancient trueth. By which woords he nether goeth beyond, nor astray, from these former hereticks, as truely pronouncing them as they. It is impossible at this discouerie of his dealing, but his mynde sayth, out of Plautus;Plautus in Cap. Nec mendacijs subdolis mihi vsquam mantellum est meis; To my guilfull frawds there is no shrowd remaining. What then was his intention in publishing his Caueat, wherby was to insue, such infamie and confusion as he could not be ignorant might haue succeeded? I answer, the same, which is related in the 116. number of one of his brethren, in the Lord. Who being challenged of his exorbitant lying, answered: Quam diu potero clades adferam: Remund. Rufus in duplicatione Con. Patrona Molinei. Fol. 76. latebunt quam diu poterunt: Valebunt apud vulgus ista mendacia. As long as I can I will indomadge: it shalt remayne secreat as long as it maye: among the people these lyes wilbe currant. Such was Stratocles the Athenian, who in all post hast returning home from the battayle, wherin the Athenians were ouerthrowen, certifyed the contrarie, that they had vāquished their enemyes, wherupon triumphes of ioye were appointed, and great feastings, and gratulations vsed: within two dayes after the trueth being reuealed, and euery one offended with Stratocles for his lying, he answered: I had more care to content yow two whole dayes, then respect to haue towld one lye. So is it with my Cauailero: he esteemed more the ioye for a moment by being thowght a learned Doctor, & great confuter, or gladsoome relator of false victories, by vntruthes how great soeuer, then the disgrace, which might insue; which he thought he would auoyd, as [Page 293] long as he might, and when he cowld no longer, to defende his dissimulation by example of Beza, & Cartwright, allowing in such cases to be lawfull to neglect all trueth, and fidelitie: as appeareth in the 99. number.
The third proofe. That the chiefe Protestants did beleeue the reall presence,Catho. Priests. and alleadged all the Fathers for the maintenance thereof.
120. 121. 122. 123. THis trulie is worthie admiration, that none of the fathers, Luther Tom. 7. Defens. verb. coenae fol. 391. whereof there is an infinite number, but did speake cleane contrarie to Sacramentaries. And though the fathers all with one mouth affirme: yet the Sacramentaries harden themselues to denie them.
And they would neuer vtter this (that Christ his bodie is not in the blessed Sacrament) if they had anie regard of the Scripture: and were not their hearts full of infidelitie. Idem fol. 390.
I trulie would giue the franticke Srcramentaries this aduise, Idem Ibid. fol. 411. that seing they will needes bee mad, they should play their parts rather whollie then in part: therefore let them make short worke, and rase out of the scripture these words, This is my bodie which is giuen for you. For touching their faith it is all one, if thus they kepe it. Christ tooke bread and gaue thankes, brake it, and gaue it to his Disciples sayng, take, eate, doe this in rememberance of mee. For this proueth sufficientlie, that bread is to be eaten in rememberance of Christ. This is the whole and entire Supper of the Sacramentaries.
In vaine doe the Sacramentaries beleeue in God the Father, God the Sonne, Luther Tom. 2. fol. 263. and God the holie Ghost: seeing they denie this one article as false, of the reall presence, whereas Christ doth say. This is my bodie.
The whole opinion of the sacrament, the Sacramentaries began with lies, Luther in Ep. ad Ioh. Haruagiū Typograh. Argent. Rider. De Cons. dist. 2 canon. prim. in glossa, tertia tenet page 429. and with lies they defend the same.
GEntlemen: you knowe Luther was a Munke, and though he recanted Poperie, and vtterlie condemned your Transubstantiation as a fable, hauing neither Scripture nor Father to warrant it: yet he stuck fast in another error, fitlie namedLuthers heresie was in Rome befor Luther was borne. Consubstantiation, which errour hee also suckt from the Popes owne btest, as you may see in his distinctions. For you in your Transubstantiation teach, that of the substance of bread and wine is made by the Priest the verie naturall bodie and bloud of Christ: no substance of either remaining, but onelie the outward formes.
Luther by his Consubstansiation saith, that Christs bodie and bloud bee receiued togither in the bread, vnder or with the bread; both substance and accidents of bread and wine remaining.
Now I pray you, how fitteth this your purpose? you will say in this, that Luther held a reall presence. True, but Luther denied your reall presence as a fable. And yet his opinion was farre wide from the trueth. Wee regard not Luthers censure against vs, for Christ his spirituall presence, no more then you doe for his comdemning of your Transubstansiation. And Luther is more to be commended, then all the Popes, Cardinals, Priests, and Iesuits in Christendome: who with Augustine, though he did erre yet would not perseuer in errors, as you and they doe,Ad Lectorem Tom. 1. page 1. least he should be an hereticke, and therefore in his Epistle to the Christian Reader, saith in this manner: Ante omnia oro pium lectorem, & oro propter Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum, vt ista legat [Page 294] cum iudicio, imo & cum multa miseratione, & sciat me fuisse aliquando Monach [...]. Before all things,Quid aequius peti potuit? or first of all, I beseech the godlie Reader, and I beseech him for our Lord Iesus Christ his sake, that he will read these my workes iudiciallie, & with great compassion and pittie; and let him knowe and vnderstand that I was sometimes a Monke. As if he should say: if I haue erred, or doe erre, impute that to my Monkerie & Poperie, which in deed is but a forge of bles, and a legend of lies.
The Priests thinke euerie real presence to be their Transubstā tiated reall presence.But because you say Luther helde a reall presence: therefore you conclude against vs with his testimonie, because you call him a chiefe Protestant, perswading the Catholikes, that either some chiefe Protestants be of your opinion touching your real presence: or else that there is a iarre amongst our selues touching the same. And because few of you haue read Luther (as appeareth by your omissions, transpositions, and your imperfect translation) and therefore in this point, know not exactlie the difference betwixt your selues, Luther, and vs; I will plainlie and trulie set downe the three seuerall opinions touching this question; that the Reader may see wherin the difference one from another, or agreement one with another consisteth. The manner (Christ willing) shall bee by question and aunswere, as followeth.
1. Questi.1. Question.
VVHat is giuen in the Lords Supper besides bread and wine?
1. Aunsw.1. Aunswere.
First, you say, the bodie and bloud of Christ.
Secondlie, Luther saith, the bodie and bloud of Christ.
Thirdlie, we say, the bodie and bloud giuen in the sacrament?
2. Quest.2 Quest. How is Christs bodie and bloud giuen in the sacrament?
2. Aunsw.2 Auns. You say corporallie.
Luther saith, corporallie.
We say with scriptures and fathers, spirituallie.
3. Questi.3 Quest, In what thing is Christs bodie and bloud giuen?
3. Aunsw.3 Aunsw. You say, vnder the formes or accidents of bread, the substance being quite chaunged, the accidents onelie remainning.
Luther saith, in, with or vnder the bread, neither substance nor accidents changed, but both remaining.
We with scriptures and fathers say, Christs bodie and bloud are giuen in his merciful promise, which tendereth whole Christ with all his benefites vnto the soule of man, sealed and assured vnto vs in the worthie receiuing of the sacraments.
4. Questi.4 Quest. How must Christs bodie and Bloud bee receiued?
4. Aunsw.4 Auns. You say, with the mouth.
Luther saith, with the mouth and faith.
Wee say according to the holie scriptures, that Christ must be receiued by faith: and there lodge and dwell in our hearts: for whatsoeuer Christ giues by promise m [...]st of man be receiued by faith.
5. Questi.5. Quest. To what part of man is Christes bodie and bloud giuen?
5. Aunsw.5. Auns. You say, to your bodies, which is absurd.
Luther saith, both to bodie and soule, which is impossible.
We say, to our soules: for the promise is spiritual; the things promised, spirituall; the names to receiue them, spirituall: so the place into which it must bee receiued, must needs be spirituall, not corporall: not that the substance of Christs bodie is vained to our spirits: but that those precious benefits purchased for vs in the crucified bodie of Christ, must be vnited to our spirits by faith. This doctrine is Apostolicall, soūd, & [Page 295] Catholick, vppon which wee boldlie may venture our soules and saluations.
[...] Quest. To whom is Christs bodie and bloud giuen?6. Questi.
[...] Auns. You say, to the godlie or godlesse, beleeuers & infidels, as hath ben aboue said.6. Aunsw.
Luther saith, both to the godlye and godlesse.
We say, onelie to the godlie beleeuers, as heeretofore hath been prooued.
[...] Quest. What doe the wicked eate in the Lords supper?
[...] Auns. You say, accidents of bread, and Christs bodie.7. Questi.
Luther, saith, the wicked eat bread, both substance and accidents,7. Aunsw. and the bodie of Christ also.
We say, the wicked eate nothing in the Lords supper, but bare bread, and drinke nothing but meere wine, being the outward elements of the sacrament. As for the inward grace of the Sacrament, which is Christ crucified with all his merits, they eate not, they receiue not: because they haue neither a liuelie faith to receiue him, nor a purified heart by faith to intertaine, him. And therefore they onelie eate as Iudas did: and as Augustine said: Illi manducabāt panem Dominum, Tract. 59. super Iohn page. 205. illi panem Domini cōtra Dominum. The godlie eate bread the Lord: the wicked onelie the Lord against bread of the the Lord.
8 Quest. What is it to eate Christs bodie?8. Questi.
8. Auns. You say, carnallie to eate Christs flesh with your bodilie mouth, &c.8. Aunsw.
Luther saith, carnallie to eate Christs flesh, and spirituallie to beleeue in him.
Wee say, with the Scriptures, that to beleeue that all Christs merits are ours, and purchased for vs in his passion. This is to eate Christs bodie, as hath been alreadie prooued.
9 Quest. What is it to drinke Christs bloud?9. Questi.
9 Auns. You say, carnallie to drinke his bloud.9. Aunsw.
Luther saith, carnallie and spirituallie.
We say with the scriptures: it is to beleeue that Christs bloud was shed on the crosse for our sinnes.
10 Quest. How is bread made Christs bodie?10. Questi.
10 Auns. You say, by Transubstantiation.10. Aunsw.
Luther saith, by Consubstansiation.
We say, by appellation: signification: or representation, as aforesaid.
11 Quest. Where is Christs bodie?11. Questi.
11 Auns. You say euerie where. Both of you erre,11. Aunsw. for then Christ should not haue a true bodie.
Luther saith, euery where. Both of you erre, for then Christ should not haue a true bodie.
We say, according to Scripture and Creed, onelie in heauen.
12 Quest. How is Christ euery where?12. Questi.
12 Auns. You say, according to both natures,12. Aunsw. But both of you speak Monkerie & Poperie.
Luther saith, according to both natures. But both of you speak Monkerie & Poperie.
We say with Scriptures and Fathers, as hath been proued, onely according to his Godhead.
Now gentle Reader, you see the agrement & difference that is betwixt the Papists, Lutherans, and Protestants. And how impertinentlie (I will not say vnschollerlike) this is brought against vs, which neither helpeth their carnall presence, nor hurteth our faith touching Christs spirituall presence. And now to the rest that followeth.
The third Proofe; That the cheefe protestants did beleeue, the real presence; and alleaged all the Fathers for the maintenance therof.
Fitzsimon.120. THIS proofe being soe important, by how much it is greueous, and extraordinarie, to be ouerthrowen by his owne brotherhood, it lay M. Rider vpon, to strayne all his senses and imploy all his power, to frustrat so many assaults: and especialy, when his owne domesticals, or rather his patriarcks, had conspired against him. First therfor, he saythe, that Luther was a Monck: & therfor by Luthers request, all errours, (and among the rest this of the real presence) ought to be imputed to his being a Monck. And so all is thought well defended. To which, for answer, I reuoke first into memorie, what is deliuered out of Luther, in the 117. number, of the maner of answering, of these people: how euery thing, to them, seemeth a full, and bastant, resolution, to all obiections.Luth. Defens. verb. cenae fol. 381. 382. 394. 405. 406. Besyd which, els where he sayth. They wil say any thing, boast of any thing, confidently affirme any thing, but proue nothing: vnlesse it be by friuolous bragging of the most cleere trueth; in which; Finem, & modum nullum, faciunt; they obserue no meane, or ende. Nemo eorum obtestationibus, & iactationibus, quicquam credat; Nam eos mentiri, & dupliciter mentiri, certissimum est. Let noe man (sayth he) beleeue their protestations, and braggs: for it is certaine that they lye, and lye againe.
Secondly for answer, I say; the being of Luther a monck, long A before, not to be a lawfull pretext among protestants, to auoyde all opinions of his: nor his request to haue pittie toward his quondam being a monck, to be transferred, from what particular point, he in that place applyed it vnto: for otherwyse nothing he sayd, should be approued by any protestants.Martyn. Taburnus contra profuges Vitembergicos Caluinistes. Luth tom. 7. VVittemb. fol. 502. & tom. 8. Ien [...] Germanico fol. 174. Confess Tygur. trac. 3. fol. 108. It therfor, that by noe studye (conioyning therto ardent inuocation of God (as him to haue done, Martin Taburnus s;ayth) nor by any other means, although he carefully inquyred all occasions to harme the Pope therby) could otherwyse seeme to him, but an heresie; euen then, when he had (as he sayth him selfe) one foote in his graue: how can the dislyking of this opinion, be imputed to his some tyme being a Monck? I, sayth he, wil carye this testimonie, and this glorie, to the tribunal seat of Christ, my saluioure, that I haue with all ernestnes condemned these fanatical men, and enemyes of the [Page 297] Sacrament, in what place soeuer they be vnder the sunne &c. And agayne.Luth. in epist. ad Iacob, ecclesiae Bremen. Doctorem. an. 1546. Mihi omnium infelicissimo satis est vna ista beatitudo; Beatus vir qui non abijt in confilio Sacramentariorum. To me the most vnhappie, that the blessednes is sufficient; Blessed is he that hath not gone in the Consil of the Sacramentarians. And agayne:Idem. libel. con. Sacramentarios. Hereticos serio censemus, & alienos ab Ecclesia Dei esse Zuinglianos, & Sacramentarios omnes, qui negant Christi corpus & sanguinem ore carnali sumi, in venerando Eucharistiae Sacramento: we accompt in great earnestnes, hereticks and strangers to the Church of God, all Zuinglians, and Sacramentarians, who denye Christs body and blood, in the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist, to be receaued with a corporal mowthe.
This he affirmeth, whom all the learned Protestants that euer were, so much extolled; yea his very aduersaries. To Caluin,Calu. de libro arbitr. con. Pigh [...]um l. 1. pag. 192. Beza in Iconibus. Illyricus in c. 14. Apoc. Amsdorf. in 1. Tom. Luth. in prefat. Alber. con. Carolostad. l. 7. B. D. 8. Cyriacus con. Steph. Agric. fol. 6. A Iuel. def. Apol. par. 4. c. 4. n. 2. Fox in calendario. VVhitak. con. Campian. pag. 191. The 151. vntruth. he is an Elias, out of whose mowth God thundred his trueth: which Alberus in lyke woords confirmeth. To Beza; He is the principal instrument of Christianitie in Germanie. To Illyricus, he is the Angel fleeing through the midst of heauen, and hauing the eternall gospell: of whom is mention in Apoc. the 14. To Mathesius, he is the supreame father of the Church. To Amisdorfe, he who neuer had his lyke in the Christian world. To Alberus, a very Paul. To him, and Illyricus againe. A second Elias, and one sufficient alone to appease Gods wrathe. To Iuel, Melancthon, Ionas Pomeran, Whytaker, and Fox, he is the light of the world, a Sainct, the Father of trueth. Quicquid agit mundus, Luther vult esse secundus. VVhat euer shift be fownd, Luther wilbe secounde: and much more, reported in our first 20. number. What is M. Rider compared with all these; nay with the meanest of these?
The next aunswer to Luther, is, that he entred into another errour of companation: which by the 151. vntrueth, he sayth Luther had sucked out of the Popes owne breast. For first, there is noe such Chapter as he citeth for proofe in al the decretals. Secondly, had there bene any errour mentioned in the decretals, to haue bene by the Popes condemned, and not by any Pope or Papist defended: is it not a Riderian, and ridiculous sequel, that such had bene, the Popes Doctrin, and sucked out of the Pops owne breast, because the Pope mentioneth it by way of abhominable doctrin by him condemned? As for Luthers other errors, let his disciples make apologies for them against M. Rider. And for his being against vs, we howld it a great honor. But what is that to yow, whose ringleader he was? Yf he did not perseuer in errour, as yow say: how can it be, but his last, and lowdest condemnation, of your doctrin, doth not make such doctrin, to be confessed an errour, and not erroneusly condemned by Luther? Luther by your confession, remayning in no error, and condemning, and detesting [Page 298] it, as both erreneous, and heretical?
How our opinion; the Sacramentarian opinion; and Luthers opinion, are reported.
Fitzsimon. The 152. vntruth.121. IN the very first relation of our doctrin, issueth out the 152. vntrueth. Doe we say, besyd bread, and wyne, Christ to be in the B. Sacrament? Or rather, without bread, and wyne? you beare vs witnes your selfe, befor your replye to the 6. of S. Ihon, that we teache all bread, and wyne to be transubstantiated: & therby you register now against your selfe this sayd vntrueth. In the same first aunswer,The 153. vntruth. you adioyne the 153. vntrueth, that you teache, the body, and blood, of Christ, to be in the supper. Witnes your owne woords, at the 103. number, the Sacrament and Christs body to differr as much as the lamb and the passouer, &c. which had no more vnion, then the wyne that is sould, and the iuye garland that is a signe of the sale therof. Ioyne also these two I pray you together: that, Christ is not giuen but in his outward signe; and yet, that the body and blood in the supper is geuen not only by signe, but as you say, realy, and truely. Giuen, and not giuen; only in signe; and not only in signe; but also in substance. Is not this fast, and loose; passe, and repasse; off, and on; pro, and contra, with, and against; Is not this a pretie ridle? In your third answer to the second question, bursteth foorth the 153. vntrueth. For you do not say, nor can say Spiritualy, vnlesse you depart from your first martyrs, (to whom you haue obliged your selfe to consent) and from Musculus: As appeareth in the 108. number. Also, our aunswer is not intierly deliuered: For, we affirme not, only corporaly, but also, spiritualy.
In your third question, and third aunswer, is contayned, first, the A 154. vntrueth,The 154. 155. & 156. vntruth. that Scripturs and Fathers, say with you. Secondly, the 155. vntrueth, that Christ in this institution, made any promise. Thirdly, the 156. vntrueth: that Christ by any promise assureth all his benifits to the worthy receauer: for there is noe such mater. In the 4. question,The 157. 158. vntruth. and first aunswer, is the 157. vntrueth, that we say, Christ to be receaued alone with the mowth, as manifowldly is testifyed. In the 4. aunswer, is the 158. vntrueth: that whatsoeuer Christ giueth by promise, must be receaued by faythe. For he giueth damnation to the wicked infidels, which he had often promised: yet they haue no faythe. He giueth resurrection to our bodyes, in his [Page 299] promises: yet bodyes haue no faythe. He giueth health, foode, attyre, by many promises to his seruants: which can not be receaued, or vsed, but only by their bodyes. He giueth baptisme and grace to children: yet they haue no actual fayth: he giueth by promise foode to the fowles of the ayre, to the fish of the sea, and to the beasts of the earth: can these be sayd to haue fayth? yet, I confesse, they may haue as much as puritans, & haue none at all. O rich Deanry of S. Patricks, how wouldest thou groane, if thou couldst feele the heft of the diuinitie of thy deane, wherin such falshood standeth for infallible principles, and such impietie is tearmed the woord of the Lord? How many vntruethes therfor are implyed in these woords, none of meanest capacitie, but must perceaue.
In the fift question and first aunswer, is the 159. vntrueth:The 159. vntruth. that it is absurd, by our bodyes to receaue Christ: as also, that we exclude the receauing by our sowles. In the third aunswer to the 5. question, is the 160. vntrueth,The 160. vntruth. that ether such institution as I sayd was a promise, or a thing spiritual alone, and not also corporal. The residue is disproued in the premisses. And consequently,The 161. vntruth. that it is the 161. vntrueth, that any may venture their sowles vpon such doctrin. Toward the next question, let it be vnderstood what we say, to be sayd, according the saluation of the godly, and damnation of the vngodly; or els it wilbe a further vntrueth. That it hath bene proued by you, that the only godly beleeuers receaue Christ, is the 162. vntrueth.The 162. & 163. vntruth. To the 7. question, and third answer, it is the 163. vntrueth; that Christ crucifyed is the inward grace of the Sacrament: both because, Christ truely gaue his disciples his body vncrucifyed: as also because Christ being a substance, can not be grace; which is an accident. Although he is, and well may be called, the giuer of grace. And fayne would I know, two things, mentioned in this aunswer of yours to the 7. question; First, why you say Christ crucifyed, with all his merits, to be the mater, or inward grace of the Sacrament; considering Christ ordained it befor his being crucifyed. Secondly, why you allowe any other his merits besyd his passion, considering, that in the 83. number & 14. examen, you affirme only his passion, or rather the wownd of his syde, to haue bene fruictfull for your redemption?
To the 8. question, and first aunswer: it is the 164. vntrueth.The 164. vntruth. For we say no such mater of carnal eating, but of corporal, true, real, and substantial eating: and that, not only by mowth, but also by charitie, and faythe. The 165. vntrueth is,The 165. vntruth. that you say with scriptures in so saying: bothe because, there is no such scripture in owld or new testament: [Page 300] as also because, it is false that all Christs merits are yours; or that all were purchased only by his Passion: For many, yea infinit,The 166. 167. 168. 169. and 170. vntruth. were purchased befor his passion. In the 9. question, is the 166. vntrueth, that we say, carnally: and the 167. vntrueth that you say with scriptures: In the 11. question, is the 168. vntrueth, that we say Christs body is euery where: and the 169. that Scriptures, or Creed, say he is only in heauen. In the 12. question, is the 170. vntrueth: that we say Christ according to bothe natures, to be euery where. The summe of this aunswer to Luthers authoritie is, that Luther hath fayled lyke a monck, & that the Father of protestant trueth, as them selues tearme him, is but a Father of error. A good verdict. For the name of Protestants here taken from the Lutherans, we will examine how rightly it is done.
VVho are in deede Protestants? and wherfor so called?
Fitzsimon. Luc. 8.122. ARe you gott in, from puritans among protestants? you haue not obserued the conseile of our Saluioure, when you are inuited to a mariadge, to keepe the lower place. I must therfor dismount you, into your rancke. First, the name of Protestant, sprong vpon this following occasion. When the Reforming profession had purchased many followers, (as it is no more meruaile to behould numbers to follow a doctrin of libertie, then waters to fall from a height, when a gappe is opened) and the Emperoure Charles the fift would fayne vnderstād the grownds of their perswasions:Sleidan. lib. 6. fol. 101. 102. 109. Lauather. in sua historia pag. 19. they ioyned their heads together, and made a collection of opinions, to which they protested to stand to. Which booke being deliuered to the Emperoure at Augusta, otherwyse called Auspurg, anno 1530. some thirteene yeeres after Luther had apostated; and the greater parte by manifowld protestants (wherby the name begon) promising to auow the said booke: the booke to this day, is called the Confession of Augusta; and the only defenders therof, are called protestants. Nether do the Zuinglians in Heluetia, clayme this name, but are knowen by the title of Sacramentarians; nether the Geneuians, or French reformers, but are knowen by the title of Hugenots; nor the Flemish rebells, but are knowen by the title of Ghewes. Secondly, concerning this name of protestants, they to whom it doth belong, haue duble cause to applawd greatly to them selues: Such only, (as I forshewed) are the Lutherans, and they only that are consenting to the forsayd confession of Augusta. [Page 301] The first cause is, that the Zuinglians, the Englishe, the Frenche, &c. haue sought, Brentius in appendice. and that (as by their owne report is testifyed) with teares to be admitted into theire concord: yet that they neuer would admitt, or tolerat them: as appeareth vpon the Article of the creed, in the communion of Saints. And when, they blazed abroad, that they had the good lyking of them; the protestants tooke it most iniuriously, and (as a great slaundre) sharply refuted it. Exam. nu. 19.
The second cause is, that their very name of Protestants, is so much affected, euen by them, who are opposit vnto their profession (as appeareth in England) as that they couet it, and striue for it In deed the cause why that name had first accesse into England, was, because the first reformers who resorted therto, Tindal, Frith, Barns, Cranmer, &c. were of the Lutheran stampe, with a peculiar small diuersitie. Now, M. Rider are you a Protestant? Yf you consent with the Augustan confession, and so be a protestant (for otherwyse you can not) then you must recant all your opinion against the real presence, and consent with Luther. But you perhapps will distinguish English Protestants, with Thomas Digges your brother Puritan,Thomas Digges in his humble motiues anno 1601. from all others, by calling them state Protestants: and so intrude, & incroache, among them. But you can not; For you haue impugned the blessing of the Crosse, as a magical charminge, which they allowe.Numb. 53. Nūb. 62. You haue impugned Baptisme to be a true lauer of regeneration, making it only an externall signe or seale, & that only to the faithfull; which they disproue, as they may, the scripture instructing thē therto, & saying;Mat. 3.11. Mar. 1.8.16.16. Luc. 3.16. Ioan. 1.32. Acts 2.37.38. &c. 22.17. Tit. 3.5. 1. Pet. 3.21. to be cōtayned therin the holy Ghost, remission of sinns, eternal lyfe, it being the holy Ghosts lauer, or font of regeneration, and renouation, wherby, and by the woord of lyfe, we are clensed from synne, and saued, &c. To which, the doctrin of the communion booke, accordeth, in these woords: This infant, The communion booke printed at London by Tho. Vawtroller, anno 1574. in the tra. of priuat baptisme. Com. booke in [...]he forme of publick baptisme. who being borne in originall synne, and in the wrathe of God, now by the lauer of regeneration in baptisme, is ascribed into the number of Gods children, and made heyre of eternall lyfe. Againe: that by that sacrament, Children be regenerated, and graffed into the body of Christs congregation, and made partakers of the death of our Saluiour. So then baptisme is more then an external signe (and not only of the elect) among true state Protestants; from whom M. Rider hauing sequestred him selfe; in no maner or way, the name of Protestant is belonging to him.
Also he hath impugned out of ministring the Communion,Number 68. the woords of Christs institution; which by state Protestants, are allowed, and vsed, in all their communion books. Fowerthly, he impugneth inequalitie among the clergie; Fiftly, the name of prieste; [Page 302] Sixtly, that in the new testament, by imposition of hands, or otherwyse, there is any function more belonging to some, then others whether they be men,Numb. 98.99. or women: which is altogether ranck puritancie, and the very quintessence of the holy reforming consistorial discipline. And yet this man, so playne a puritan, will take to him selfe the name of a protestant: imitating the nature of Polypus, a fishe: which borroweth, the coloure of whatsoeuer it sticketh vnto; wherby not being mistrusted, it deceaueth and receaueth all preye passing by. So my Puritan being, omnium horarum homo, a man for all tymes, and professions, will loose nothing within his reache, although he should change his shape and name from Puritan into a state Protestant,Vide Paulo ante num. 100. and back agayne. Wherunto he hath his warrant & dispensation, as I sayd, from Beza, and Cartwright. Now, as I beleeue, M. Rider is fallen into deepe confusion (of him who haueing mounted at the mariadge; afterward cum rubore, Luc. 14. nouissimum locum tenuit, with shame was contented with the lowest place) for separating him selfe from Catholicks, and intruding among Protestants, from whom he is (as the new phrase of souldiours beareth) reformed among puritans; by whom I thinke in my conscience (but that they care more for number, then participation in their compagnie) he showld be cast off.
123. Is not thinke you this a great alchimie, to change, and conuert euery thing,Fitzsimon. to his purpose? Let vs bring Scriptures, Fathers, and all testimonies to warrant our doctrin: they are sayd, not to be for our purpose, but against it. Let vs bring, Scriptures, Fathers, and his owne brethren, disprouing his imaginations: they are sayd not to be against them, but for him. But that it may be knowen,The 171. vntruth. this to be the 171. vntrueth; First here is declared, that by factions of opinions, the real presence is denyed: a thing (saith M. Rider in the 28. number) neuer denyed by vs, nor euer in question betwixt Protestant, and Papist. Now at least, these protestants here alleaged, writing to the late Queene of England, in this allegation, shew two vntruethes contayned in M. Riders denial: One, that it was neuer denyed; th'other, that it was neuer in question. Yea in the same place, they request hir maiestie, to beware of the Pharisaical leauen of them so denying it, as by them the woords of Christ most playne, most euident, most puissant, be ouerthrowen. If I were at leasure, I would worthely persecute such denials according to their desert. But in trueth, I am not at leasure, being often imployed from morning to twelue of the clock, in hearing confessions, in exhorting [Page 303] and catechising, in performing, offices of charitie, in not omitting the domestical employments incident to one in his third yeare of probation. In so much, as when I affoord any paynes to resolue M. Riders articles, it is only at vacant, and vnperceaued tyme, by others.
This proofe, that protestants approue the real presence, shall be duely fortifyed, by all cheefe Protestants, and most approued, of all contryes in the world. First, Berengarius the master author of the contrary opinion, sayth: Ego Berengarius corde credo, & ore confiteor, Floruit an. 1579. De consecrat. dist. 2. cap. Ego Beren. Fox Acts. pag. 146. panem & vinum, que ponuntur in altari, per mysterium sacrae orationis, & verba nostri Redemptoris, substantialiter conuerti in veram propriam & viuisicatricem carnem & sanguinem Domini nostri Iesu Christi: non tantum per signum, & virtutem Sacramenti, sed etiam in proprietate naturae. I Berengarius in hart do beleeue, and confesse by mouthe, the bread and wyne which are placed vpon the altar, Theuet. vies des hommes illustres lib. 3. fol. 128. Gal Malmsbur. lib. 3. de gestis Anglorum. Papyrius Masson. in Anal. Francorum. lib. 3. in Philip. [...]ege. Gerson. con. Romant. Vixit an. 1369. VVicklephus epist. ad Ioan. episcopum Lincoln. Huss apud Ioan Pezibranium lib. de non remanētia panis con. VVicklephistas. by the mysterie of sacred prayer, and woords of our Redemptor, to be substantialy conuerted into the true, propre, and liuely fleash and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ Not only by signe and vertu of a Sacrament, but also in the proprietie of nature. And in this beleefe he dyed, as diuers relate. So that here is the head of M. Riders opinion fallen from him. Secondly, Wickleph thus sayth, aga [...]nst them who slandred him to be of a contrary opinion: At ego credo, & vsque ad mortem meam volo desendere, quod postquam legitimus Sacerdos rite protulit sacra verba super panem, quod sub forma panis sit verum corpus Christi: but I beleeue, and will desend to my deathe, that after the lawfull preest hath vsualy pronounced the sacred woords ouer the bread, that vnder the forme of bread is the true body of Christ. Thirdly, Ihon Hufs professeth, that; Christus verbi sui ineffabili virtute, panem & vinum transubstantiat in propriam carnem, & sanguinem; Christ by the vnspeakable vertue of his woord, dothe transubstantiat bread and wyne into his fleash and bloode. What a learned Reader, and Dictionarie maker, we haue of M. Rider, that (in this piller of Reformation) omitted to fynd the woord of transubstantiation; is to be obserued. Fowerthly Hierome Prage, sayth; Ante consecrationem, panem; in consecratione, & postea, Prag. apud Pognium epist. ad Leon. Aretinum. verum Christi Corpus; Befor Consecration, bread; in consecration, and after, the true body of Christ. Of these three, the first, Wickleph, is by Fox acknowledged; a chosen man raysed by God to lighten the world. The other two,Fox Acts and Mon. pag. 390. & seq. Oecolampadius in conscione de presentia Corporis Christs in eucharistia. are Capital, & Calendarie Saincts, with Fox. Fiftly Oecolampad saythe, Simpliciter, & absque hesitatione, credamus, adesse, & contineri, sub hoc pane, verum corpus, sub vino autem, sanguinem. Non dicofiguram tantum absit id blasphemiae &c. Simply and without stamering let vs beleeue to be present, and to be contayned vnder this bread, the true bodye; and vnder the wyne, the bloode. I do not say a figure only, fye vpon that blasphemie. Agayne; Vtinam princeps illustrissime abscissa mihi fuisset haec dextera cum primum inciperem de negotio Cenae Dominicae Idem epist. ad Lantgrau. Hess. an. 1529. [Page 304] quicquam scribere; I would most renowmed Prince this right hande of myne had bene chopped of, when I began to wryte of the affayre of the supper. Sixtly Bucer saythe;Ex actis Concil. Luther VVittemberg in adibus Lutheri. Cum pane, & vino, verè, & substantialiter, adest, exhibetur, & sumitur Corpus Ch [...], & Sanguis; VVith bread and wyne, is the body and blood of Christ prefer, and is receaued truely, and substantialy. He also wryting vpon Sainct Ihon;Bucer in cap 6. Ioan & cap. 26. Math. Calu. in haerm. evāg. & l. 4. Instit. c. 17. n. 11. & de cena Domini inter opuscula. craueth pardon of God, that euer he bewitched any, with the contrary opinion of the Sacramentarians. Seuently Caluin saythe; In vayne would God command his to eate bread, and affirming it to be his body, vnlesse the effect did accōpagnie the figure. Therfor not only in signe is he shewed, but in substance. &c.
This was Caluins opinion during Luthers lyfe; to be by him fauoured. And when after his death he had changed it, as now it is by Caluinians professed; yet was he soe doubtfull, and distrustfull of his propre opinion, as to haue it depending vpon on mans good or badd lyking.Calu. Defens. 2. con. VVes [...]phal. Si Philippus verbulo declaret me a sua mente deslectere, protinus desistam: Yf Philipp (Melancthon) declare in the least woord, that I swarue from his iudgement, I will suddenly surcease. Is not this a pitifull counterpoint to M. Riders opinion? yet will he shake all off as lightly, as a breath of wynde. Nothing of all this wilbe against him: nothing of all this wilbe for our purpose: all wilbe sayd to be impertinent fictions, and wreasted, mangled, dismembred, and corrupted allegations. Other answer, nether will he, nether can he giue: for there is no lyfe, nor doubt, remayning in the mater. I confort my selfe with the saying of Cicero;Cicero. Latere nullus nugator potest diu; No iugler (especialy in this industrius age) cany remayne long vnknowen. And against his slanders, and reproaches, (which are the sacred ancre, and greatest confidence of his cause) I haue this defense out of Sainct Bernard;S. Bernard. super Cantica. Sufficit aduersum os loquentium iniqua, opinio bonorum, cum testimonio Conscientiae; The opinion, or knowledge, the good haue of me, together with the testimonie of my conscience, is sufficient against the mouth of them that speake wickednes.
The second parte of the third proofe. How English Protestant Martyrs confessed the real presence.
Fitzsimon. Tacitus. li. 19.123. COnsidering how M. Rider is imployed in this answer; I must with Tacitus accompt him; Acerrimum militem, & in extrema obstinatum; A most eager sowldiour, and obstinat against all extremities. First he trotteth to his ould wandring declaration, of the occasion of such allegations: as yf any occasion could make any affirme false doctrin; or yf true doctrin deliuered by indirect [Page 305] occasions, should therfore be accounted vntrue. But that the good man mistaketh the occasion, and altogether mis-informeth his reader in this mater; may be gathered by these short demonstrations following. The first is: that yf as he sayth, they had intended not to medle with the mater of the presence, why would they condemne the opinion of them, who did not beleeue such real presence? An sint facienda mala vt inde eueniant bona? could ill be done, that good (as that lyfe, or liuings might be preserued therby) might come therof? The Apostle flatly teacheth the contrary: Nether is the authoritie of Beza, or Cartwright, who granted (as is declared) such allowance, (to cownterfet for helping the woord) Christian or religious. Now the principal Protestants renounced the figuratiue imaginarie presence, as heretical, and professed to beleeue the real and substantial presence. For as much (sayd Sr. Ihon Ould Castle) as I am falsely accused of a misbeleefe in the Sacrament of the altar; I signifie here to all men, that this is my fayth concerning that. I beleeue in that Sacrament, to be contayned very Christs body and blood, vnder the similituds of wyne and bread; yea the same body that was conceaued of the holy Ghost, borne of the Virgin Marie. Ouer this confession, is by Fox written: the Christian beleefe of the Lord Cobham. If it was Christian:Fox Acts and Mon. pag. 512. how is not the contrary therto, vnchristian? Yf it was vnlawfull: how was it professed at tyme of deathe? Can all the witt of man excogitat any quircke, or chincke, to declyne this contradiction; but that in a tearmed Christian confession, of a Protestant principal Martyre, the puritan profession against the B. Sacrament was condemned?
Such, and in lyke tearmes, euen by Foxes owne relation, was the Protestation of the L. Cromwell; That he dyed in the Catholick fayth of the whole Church, not doubting of any Sacrament therof. Wherunto also Fox giueth the lyke tytle; of a true confession of the L. Cromwell. And for Rob. Barnes, he was a most resolute Lutheran: and therfore must haue bene as opposit, as his master, to the sacramental supposition. Yet I come neerer, and omitting Ridley, Hooper, Rogers, Latimer, the Duke of Northumberland, and others, great Saincts, with Fox: I craue in curtesie of M. Rider to giue satisfaction, yf Crammer was not against his opinion, how did he pronounce sentence against Ihon Lambert, and Anne Askew, principally for being of his opinion? Fox confesseth the cheefe condemners of them to haue bene Crammer, and Cromwell. Perhaps he will thinke to escape with a turne of a Fox, saying: that, to haue bene compassed by the pestiferous, and crafty counsell, and stratagems, of Bishop Gardener: that by the gospellers them selues, the gospellers [Page 306] should be condemned. Good ghospellers they must haue bene in the meane time. But I am now so vpon the chase, as I can not so lightly loose my game. Why then in King Edwards dayes, (the forsaid Bishop as he sayth, being cast into the tower) did the sayd Cranmer, condemne Ioan of Kent? What Fox, or woolfe, can auoyd that, but that Cranmer, was therby knowen no frend, euen then to any of the forsayd Anne Askews disciples? I will not in vayne haue bene some tyme of your profession, and hauing touched it, and bene defyled with the pitch therof, (for which offense I dayly, and most humbly craue pardon, of my deere and soueraigne Lord, and Saluioure) but that of the same pitch, I will light a toarche, to them that are in darknes, and in the shaddowe of death, to direct their feete into the way of peace. Let vs therfor pursue more of this kynde, to haue the true portraicture of M. Rider, placed befor all mens eyes.
Catho. Priest. Magdeburg, in Epi. ad Eliz. Angliae Reg.
Amongst factions of opinions, some latelie take away the bodie and bloud of Christ, touching his reall presence, contrarie to the most plaine, most euident, and puissant words of Christ.
Rider.124. GEntlemen, this concerneth not vs: it may fitter be inuerted vpon your selues, for we denie not Christs spirituall presence taught in the Scriptures, and receiued in Christs Primitiue Church; but we denie your imagined carnall presence, neuer recorded in Gods booke, nor beleeued of auncient father, nor euer knowne to Christs spouse the Primitiue Church: as you haue hearde trulie prooued. But this is your great fault vsuallie practised, that whether in Scriptures or Fathers you heare of Christs bodie and bloud, and his presence, or reall presence: you imagine presently without further examination, that it is your carnall presence, which thing is growne vp with you from a priuate errour to a publike heresie.
Catho. Priest. Fox in Martirol. Kemnitius in Exā. Conc. Trid. cenira tan, de Eucharistia.
Tyndall, Frith. Banes, Cranmer, left it as a thing indifferent to beleeue the reall presence. So that the adoration (saith Frith) be taken away, because there then remaineth no poison, whereof anie ought to be afraid of. Yet Kemnitius vpon the assurance of the reall presence, approoueth the custome of the Church, in adoring Christ in the Sacrament by the authoritie of Saint Augustine, and S. Ambrose, in Psal.
98. Eusebius Emissenus, &c. Saint Gregorie Nazianzen: & saith it is impietie to doe the contrarie. So that the brood being of such agreement we haue the lesse occasion to embusie our braines to confute them.
GEntlemen: by peeces you repeat some of their words, not knowing (at it seemeth) the occasion; and so you vtterlie mistake the sence, which was this. These godlie Martirs perceiuing the flame of persecution to burne so fast, and mount, so high, as it was neither bounded in measure nor mercie: and onelie for a new vpstart opinion hauing no warrant from Gods word. They in a Christian & brotherlie discretion, [Page 307] exhorted the learned bretheren, onelie to preach that necessarie Article of our free iustification by faith in the personall merits of Christ. And touching the Lords Supper, to teach to the people the right vse of the same; yet not to meddle with the manner of the presence, for feare of daunger, if not death: but leaue it as a thing indifferent, till the matter in a time of peace might be reasoned at large on both parties by the learned. Prouided euer, that poisonfull adoration be taken away. The premisses considered, what can yee now gather, that prooueth with you, or disprooueth vs. Nay, here is nothing but against you altogither. For if you had dealt trulie with the dead Martirs, or the liuing Catholickes, these collections (and not yours) you should from hence haue gathered.
1 First, these Martirs taught with their breath, and sealed with their bloud, that your carnall presence and transubstantiated Christ, was neither commandement giuen by God, nor Article of our faith euer taught in the primitiue Church, but a late inuented opinion deuised by man.
2 Secondlie, they wished the bretheren (considering it was but mans inuention, and neuer recorded in gods booke) that therefore they should not hazard the losse of their liues, which would tend so much to the preiudice of Christs Church.
3 Thirdlie, they wished it to be taken for a season as a thing indifferent, yet not absolutelie, but with these cautions.
1 First, that adoration or worshipping of the creatures were quite taken away, which neuer was done by you: and therefore they held it not absolutely indifferent.
2 Secondlie, till the Church of Christ had peace and rest from your bloudie and butcherly slaughters, wherein the matter might be decided, not with faggots, but scriptures, which was not graunted in their daies: and therefore you greatlie wrong the dead, when you make them speake that thing absolutelie, which was limitted by them with conditions.
Now I appeall to the indifferent Reader, whether you desserue not a sharpe reproofe thus to dazell the eies and amaze the minds of the simple Catholickes, by violent wresting the writings of the martirs, perswading the ignorant, they should either dissent in this opinion amongst themselues, consent with you, or varie from vs. Whereas both they and we, now and then consent with Scriptures, Fathers, and Primitiue Church, in vnitie and veritie of doctrine, against your dissentions, pestiferous errours, and open blasphemies.
Of M. Riders bynding him selfe to Consent with the first protestant Martyrs; And of how many, and monstruous beleefes, he maketh him selfe therby.
124. THey and he, then and now, (sayth he) consent, with Scripturs, Fitzsimon. Fathers and Primatiue Church, in vnitie, and veritie of Doctrin, against our dissentions, pestiferous errours, and open blasphemies. Perhaps before I part, I will make him beshrew the fingers of him that printed this protestation, although I know,Stow in Chron. anno 1549. it was not the printers fault. Omitting woords, let vs repayre to woorks. The last named Ioan Knell of Kent, shalbe first confronted [Page 308] with M. Rider, Fox Acts. pag. 398. 571. to see yf he will stand to this woord. This Ioan (as also did Peter the Germain an other his martyr) denyed Christ to haue taken fleash of the B. Virgin. M. Riders woords are; that he consenteth with protestant Martyrs, in vnitie, and veritie, of all doctrin. It must then follow, that he denyeth the same. Since that I deale against a puritan, I will alleadge one of the same sorte, William Cowbridge,Fox pag. 570. because he affirmed (as Fox confesseth) no bishops to haue any more authoritie then preests, as also because, as other puritans can not tolerat any honour to the name of Iesus, so could not he to the name of Christ; but sayde, that it was a filthye name; Alan. Copus dial. 6. c. 17. and all that did beleeue in the name of Christ, were damned Also that Christ was not redeemer of the world but deceauer therof. Which with many other lyke articles, he professed at his deathe, as is not only affirmed, but also proued, by Alanus Copus, alias Nicholas Harpsfeld, against Fox. All which M. Rider hath bound himselfe to beleeue,Fox loc. proxime cit. Fox pag. 1151. Tom. 1. Luth. in disp. de baptism. Art. 3. Gagninus l 6. hist. Fran. Item Gerson. tr. 3. in Mat. Paul. Aemil. l. 6. hist. Gal. Genebr. in Chron. an. 1280. by his former woords. Thirdly Ihon Wesell, denyed the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Sonne. Yet he a Foxian Martyr Fowerthely, Haux denyed, baptisme of Children to be necessarie to saluation yet he a Foxian Martyr. Yet Melancthon (and he a Foxian Confessor) pronounceth: Furor est affirmare, quod paruuli sine Sacramentis sal [...] fiant; it is furie to affirme that children may be saued without Baptisme. Fiftly, Almaricus, (as Gagnin relateth) denyed resurrection, heauen, hell, Christ in the Sacrament more then in a stone, & that God spake more in S. Augustin, then in Ouid: Yet he was a Foxian Martyr, and by him made a great bishop; which others could neuer haue knowen. So he made Sr. Ihon Ould castle, L. Cobham, by his owne absolute authoritie; as well allowed to make Lords and Knights, as Martyrs and Confessours.Fox. pag 942. 943. 944, Sixtly, Frith the learned, and excellent Martyr of Fox, affirmed the real presence no article of beleefe, affirmatiue or negatiue; although the expresse scripture record it; and offred, sayth Fox, to Sr. Thomas More, to beleeue the real presence, without the adoration. Ihon Clerke,Fox in his Caleddar, 12. 13 14. Nouemb. Iuly 3. Item Acts pag. 111. col. 2. num. 26. and Alice Potkins, defended; ther was no other Sacrament then Christ hanging on the crosse. Antonie Person, Testwod, & other assured, the woords of Christ, this is my body which is broken for you, only to meane the breaking of Gods woord among the people. All this by his former woords, my Caualiero is bound to beleeue: for these are Foxian Martyrs, with whom he sayth, he is consenting in vnitie and veritie of Doctrin. So is againe William Cowbridge;Alan Cop. dial. pag. 6. 633. Fox. pag 738. saying; that nether the Apostles nor Euangelists nor sower Doctors of the Church, haue hitherto reuealed, how synners might be truely saued. So Also is Richard Hunne, saying; that poore men and idiots haue the truth of the Scripturs more then a thousand Prelats, and clercks of the [Page 309] schooles. What say you M. Rider, will you affirme the same, according to your woord, and bonde? There is no remedie, your obligation is to do it. But I would know, whether you now hould with the idiots, rather then the Scholers? Truly in any consequence you can not, both for such promise, and for being, non proficiens, accompagnie Scholers. Yet, yf you disdayne to be an idiot; which your bond hath made you; and perforce (inuita Minerua) will intrude your selfe among clercks; listen, how your Martyr, in vnitie and veritie of doctrin, Fox pag. 738. cometh ouer you: he damned (sayd Fox) the vniuersitie of Oxford, with all degrees and faculties, in it. So that vnlesse you take to be an idiot, your Martyr condemneth you. To be breefe, in this ruthful obligation printed against your selfe, to stand to such confederats, besyd your making you selfe idiot &c. you must auerr, with Ihon Teuxburie;Ibid. pag. 935. that it is impossible to consent to Gods law, that all things are equaly belonging to all: that the Iewes of good zeale putt Christ to death &c. Of all othets mentioned in the examinatio of the Creed, being all for the most parts saints of the same stamp add Calendarie, you haue bound your selfe fast, to ratifie their damnable blasphemies, and to consent with them in vnitie and of doctrin. You are to iustifie all that they haue affirmed, or els your printed protestation will bewray your puritanical faythlesnes in performance of your promises.
125. And next, you bring in another learned Protestant Cheminitius, Rider. who (you say) alleadgeth Augustine, Ambrose, and Gregorie Naziazen, to approoue your adoration in your sacrament: Intimating to the world, that we should either allow that in you which publikely we preach against; or else, that we should be at a discord amongst our selues touching this your opinion. But the matter being exactlie examined out of these Fathers themselues, and not by your Enchiridions or heresay, the Catholickes shall see you wrong vs, and abuse them. And first, it seemeth verie plaine, you neuer saw or at least neuer read Chemnitius, and my reasons bee these.
First, you know not so much as his right name, much lesse his precise opinion,Chem pars. 2. Canon. 6. page 434. for you misspel his name, Kemnitius for Chemnitius, which had been a small fault if you had rightlie alleadged him touching the matter. For your Tridentine Canon commandeth an externall or outward worship of Christ in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine. And Chemnitius hee condemneth your outward worshippe for ydolatrous, and teacheth onelie an inward spirituall worship. And to prooue what I say, I will trulie alleadge your Cannon: then Chemnitius his examination of it, and then let the Catholickes but iudge indifferentlie whether of vs deal more trulie and syncerelie in this case. This is your Canon: Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae sacramento Christum vnigenitum Dei Filium, non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum & solemniter circumgestandum, &c. Anathema sit: That is, if anie man shall say that in the blessed sacrament of thanksgiuing, that Christ the onelie begotten Sonne of God, is not to bee worshipped with that outward and diuine worship which is proper and due onelie to God, as well when the Sacrament is carried about in procession, [Page 310] as in the lawfull vse of the same,Page 435. 436. 437. let him be accursed. Martyn Chemnitius examining this your Canon, first condemneth your fained Transubstansiation, and sheweth the reason: for saith he, vnlesse the Church of Rome had deuised this Transubstansiation, you should haue been palpable ydolaters, worshipping the creatures for Christ. And therefore she imagined that the substance of bread & wine were quite chaunged into Christs bodie and bloud, no substance of them remaining, lest the simplest should spie their ydolatrie.
Secondlie, he expreslie condemneth your outward worship as ydolatrous, and sheweth there that Christ must be receiued by faith, and worshipped in spirit and truth.Page 444. lines 2. 3. 4. And afterwards hee saith, comprehenditur autem vera interior, & spirituali veneratio & adoratio Christi in illis verbis institutionis, hoc facite, &c. for the true inward and spirituall worship of Christ, is comprehended in the words of Christs institution, Doe this in rememberance of me. Now let the best minded Catholicks see your vniust dealing with both quick and dead, pretending that either Chemnitius (as you say) allowed your outward worship in your Sacrament, or that wee iarre amongst our selues touching the same: which both bee vntrue. For you hold the worship to bee outward, hee and we inward: you carnall, he and we spirituall: and brieflie, if you will yet read him diligentlie, you shall find he vtterlie condemned your carnall presence, and your externall worship, approuing the one to bee a fable, the other blasphemie. And thus much for your ignorance touching Martyn Chemnitius, whom it semeth you neuer saw, but onely tooke him by the eares, as Water-beares do their Tankerds. Againe, you say that Chemnitius vpon the assurance of the real presence, approueth the custome of the church in adoring Christ in the Sacrament, by the authoritie of Saint Augustine. Ambrose in Psal. 98. by Eusebius Emissenus, & Saint Gregorie Naziazen charging as manie as doe the contrarie with impietie: to euerie of which thus I aunswere.
This Psal. according to the Hebrew is the 99. Psal and vpon this place S. Augustine writ,Aug. in psal. 98. as I will alleadge him of your Paris print: his words be these. Quid de carne Mariae, carnem accepit: & quia in ipsa carne hic ambulauit. &c. ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit: Nemo autem illam carnem manducat nisi prius adorauerit: which tooke flesh of the flesh of Marie, and because in that flesh he walked here vpon the earth, he gaue to vs that flesh to eat to our saluation, for no man eateth that flesh vnlesse first he worship it. Now let vs examine this place, and see how that fitteth your purpose. First, the flesh of Christ that Augustine will haue worshipped, must be thus conditioned.
1 First, it must be borne of the virgin Marie: but yours was made of bread, and therefore not that true flesh of Christ which Augustine speaketh of, and so not to be worshipped without ydolatrie.
2 Secondlie, that flesh of Christ which Augustine will haue vs worship, walked visiblie with his Church here vpon earth before Christs ascention. And vntill you can approoue vnto vs by canonicall warrant, such a Christ in your Sacraments as walked vpon the earth, and died on the crosse, Augustine will not haue him worshipped: which you shall neuer be able to doe during the world.
3 Thirdlie, that flesh of Christ which Augustine will haue vs to worship, was giuen to vs for our saluation, which I hope you will say (if you say trulie) was actuallie, reallie, and in deed vpon the crosse. And in the Sacrament misticallie, or by representation, as hath been proued out of your owne bookes.
Thus you wrest that which Augustine spake of the blessed flesh of Christ, to your [Page 311] fabulous supposed flesh made by a priest: whereby you wickedlie abuse the learned father, and deceiue the simple Reader. For this flesh of Christ which was conceiued by the holie Ghost, and borne of the blessed virgin, must be eaten with the spirit, & adored with the spirit, as Augustine there speaketh: and neither adored with your externall apish worship, nor eaten with your corporall mouth. But to speake according to Scriptures and Fathers, the verie eating of Christ, is the true adoring or worshipping of Christ: because as he is eaten, so he is adored, but he is eaten spirituallie by faith. For faith is the chiefest braunch of Gods honour. Your next Author is Ambrose vpon the 98. Psal. which you imagiue proueth your externall worship of Christ in the Sacrament.
125. I ame glad that Kemnitius is auowed to be a protestant,Fitzsimon. to M. Riders lyking: for therby we may perhaps haue some desyred sporte. The reprehension of our Spelling Kemnitius, for Chemnitius, for Crantzius (as a litle after appeareth) might haue bene spared: Yf M. Rider by Gods good prouidence, had not bene reprobated to confusion in all maters, and sciences, wherof he hath made any mention. Of his ignorance in Scripture, in Fathers, in Histories, in Orthographie, in Greeke, in Frenche, in Latin, in English, & now in Spelling, against my will, he would needs conuict him selfe ignorant. First then I answer, that K. in greeke, is all one and C. in Latin: and therfor might indifferently be taken. Secondly, that German names, such as are Kemnitius, and Crantzius, are written indifferently by ether C. or K. & that these two forsayd names, euen by the authours them selues, are more written in our maner, then according to M. Riders conceit; which also is obserued in Bellarmine, Stapleton, and all other famous Controuertists. Let him repayre but to the Colledge, and inquyre for the Metropole of Crantzius; and finding it as I had written, after in all his lyfe, let him abstayne from such fanatical exceptions. For yf they were auayleable, that who misspelled, were ignorant in the mater: how cowld M. Rider know, how, and when, to be silent, not knowing to wryte silence, but scilence? how could he professe him selfe a scholer, wryting the name amisse, scholler? How could he tell what circumcision was, he wryting it circumscision? which neuer scholer would haue done, that after would obiect lesse misspelling, to another. In what wysdome, or learning, or latin did he learne to wryte lattin, for latin, intollerable for intolerable, subtilly, for subtilie? &c. But of his palpable ignorance in latin after.
Well, now to accompagnie him forward. Of Kemnitius he sayth, it is vntrue, that he iarreth with M. Rider; or contrary wyse. Which yf it be not reuoked speedely; M. Rider must recant & affirme with Kemnitius, that the opinion against the real presence, is; Blasphema, impia, [Page 312] damnata; Kemnitius in sua epistola. ad Ioan. Georgium Marchion. Brandeburg. 24. Ioā. 1584. Extat in Incendio Caluinistico. Kemnit. 2. par. exam. Conc. Trid. sess. 13. c. 5. blasphemous, impious, condemned. Secondly Kemnitius sayth; Nullam esse qui dubitet an Christi corpus in coena sit adorandum, nisi qui cum Sacramentarijs aut neget aut dubitet in Cena verè Christum esse presentem; Ther is none that doubteth the body of Christ to be adored in the supper, but he who with the Sacramentarians (to whom Kemnitius is diametricaly opposit) denyeth, or distrusteth that Christ is in the Sacrament. Wherunto, what thinke you may M. Rider replye? Forsooth, that Kemnitius alloweth only the internal adoration. Which is an vntrue and a seely excuse. For is not the adulterie of the mynde as vnlawfull, as it of the woorke? Yes truely, yf Christ be true, or the common doctrin of Diuins, and Philosophers, that the external act addeth nothing to the malice of the internal act; although by other circumstances, it may be conioyned with more offenses, in being external, then yf it were only internal. Wherfor, it had bene madnes in Kemnitius, to haue allowed internal adoration, and not external. It being also, as shortly after appeareth, forged vntruely,The 172. vntruth. maketh vp the 172. vntrueth, But sayth he, Kemnitius is against vs. I answer: that is our glorie. Non estenim speciosa la [...] in ore peccatoris; It were noe commendation for vs, such wicked sectarists should commend vs, but a great benefit that they impugne vs. Now wil you behould the promised sporte, by M. Riders accompting Kemnitius his good frend? It appeareth, by his impugning with tooth and nayle the allegations, which by Kemnitius are produced in proofe of adoration. Will you M. Rider be so vncurteous toward your frend? will you make vs behould a iarr, where you sayd there was none? will you be a continual registrer against your selfe, of vntruethes? He acknowledgeth (yf you obserue him well;) that Kemnitius chargeth them with impietie that denye the real presence, or adoration of Christ therin. Wherunto he promiseth distinctly to answer. First, that point of the real presence, and of suche impietie, he gamboleth ouer nimbly, without stumbling therat. This then is the 173.The 173. vntruth. vntrueth: that he fulfilleth not that parte of his promise. Secondly he translateth, and denounceth, out of S. Augustin, what so often before he denyed was euer sayd, or thought, by S. Augustin, or other, in six hondred yeares after S. Augustin; that Christ gaue that very fleash to vs to eate, which was borne of Marie, and wherin he walked here in earthe: Adding therto, that none eateth that fleash, but he that first adoreth it. The 174. vntruth. Yet by the 174. vntrueth sayth M. Rider, that wickedly we abuse S. Augustin. How could we abuse him, whom not we, but Kemnitius, alleaged, to proue Christ in the B. Sacrament, should be adored? How do we abuse him, whom not we, but M. Rider, translateth so as Kemnitius had informed, and as we had euer confirmed? [Page 313] What after he wisheth vs to proue, that in the B. Sacrament is Christ, who was borne of the Virgin Marie, and visibly walked, and was giuen to our saluation; he may fynde it (besyd this euident proofe by him selfe translated) proued in the numbers 37. 40. 43. 46. 71. The 175. vntrueth is,The 175. vntruth. that Fayth is the cheefest branche of Gods honour. First Sainct Paul expressly sayth; That Charitie is greater. Secondly, yf it were not vntrue, the cheefest branche of Gods honour, would be, not in God him selfe, nor in Christ his Sonne, nor in all heauen: for fayth is not in them, or in heauen: but that which fol [...]oweth faythe, to witt, not to see God any longer in enigmate, sed sacie ad faciem: in a darke resemblance, but face to face. Thirdly, consider how [...]mpertinent such vnfaythfull infidelitie, toward S. Paul, toward Gods honour, and toward trueth and reason, is intermedled in this place. Our Saluioure to be called, a breaden God, fabulous fleashe, and our adoration of him, but external apishe worshipp; were points fitly conioyned with such disdayne toward Gods sacred woords, & honoure, wherby contrary to all beleefe, God is sayd not to haue in him selfe, but out of him selfe, his cheefe honour; yet philosophie teacheth, honor non est in honorante sed in honorato; honour is not in him that honoureth, but in him who is honoured. Yf any would vnderstand more of S. Augustins mynde toward the adoration of Christ in the B. Sacrament; let him peruse the Augustinian confession collected by Hierome Torrens,Confess. August. c. 6. l. 3. §. 5. to haue it manifested abundantly. Let it now suffice that he teacheth; Saluberrimum Corporis Christi Sacramentum certatim honorandum; De consecra. dist. 2. c. nos autem. the most healthsom Sacrament of the body of Christ, to be honoured importunatly.
126. But Gētlemen, why deale you so vntrulie with Gods heritage, in a matter of this importance? did Ambrose euer write vpon this place, I tell you no,Rider. Ambrose in deed writ vpon the Psalmes, till the end of the seuentie one Psal. and there brake off, and recontinued at the 118. Psal. but neuer writ of the 98. or 99. Psal. as you vntrulie deliuer. For Chemnitius saieth thus. Ita Ambrosius, in eundem Psalmi versum inquit. Thus speaketh Ambrose vpon the same fifth verse of the Psalme, adorate scabellum, Tomo. 2. lib. de spiritusancto cap. 12. page. 157. worship yee his footestole: but he saith not that Ambrose writ vpon that Psalme, but vpon a verse of the Pfalme, and not in that Tome, but in another, and yet not of a worship externall, as you teach, but of a spirituall worship, such as Christ teacheth in the fourth of Iohn. For if you had read Ambrose you should haue heard him speak thus; Hoc in loco de spirituali Christi adoratione, &c. In this place we will speake onlie of the spirituall worship of Christ. So Ambrose vtterlie (if you had vnderstood him rightlie) condemneth your externall worship of Christ. But because August. writing vpon this Psal. expoundeth Ambrose his opinion vpon that one verse, adorate scabellum, worship yee his footstoole, &c. and both against your externall worship, I will only desire you to read your own Augustine or your owne print, both thoroughlie and deliberatelie, and then I doubt not but you will see your errour, and reforme your [...]udgement.
Of Kemnitius his citation out of S. Ambrose, and Eusebius Emissenus.
Fitzsimon.126. HERE is good stuff; Sainct Ambrose did not wryte vpon the 98. Psalme, because he did wryte but vpon a part therof. Yf therfor one buffeted M. Rider vpon the eare, he could not be sayd to haue strucken M. Rider, because he struck but parte of him.The 176. 177. 178. vntruth. The 176. 177. and 178. vntruethes are: First that we deale vntruely with Ambrose, we only telling him that Kemnitius so alleaged him. Secondly that Ambrose is ill alleaged to proue Christ should be externaly adored; for he sayth expressly; Caro Christi quam hodie quoque in mysterijs adoramus; the fleashe of Christ which this day we adore in the mysteryes; and that was the same, quam Apostoli in Domino Iesu adoranerunt, whiche the Apostles in our Lord Iesu adored. Agayne. Qui dignè hoc mysterium accipit, iudicare debet, quod ipse est Dominus, cuius sanguinem mysterio bibit: he who receaueth worthely this mysterie (which I haue added out of S. Ambrose, to depriue M. Rider of all cauillation about the woord Mysterie) ought to iudge, that he is our very Lord, whose blood in the mysterie he drinketh. Also he falsely informeth, that S. Ambrose in that place professeth to speake only of the spiritual worshipp of Christ. And yf he had so spoken, it had bene for our purpose, that the adoration of Christ in such mysterie which is eaten and dronken, is not only external, but also spiritual. For toward such mysterie (as appeereth) he alloweth such external adoration. And for auoyding of other small vntruethes, M. Rider might haue better informed (since he would needs digresse to that purpose) yf he had sayd Sainct Ambrose to haue written his Commentaries not consequently to the 71. Psalme, but vpon the first, and then vpon the 35. 36. 37. 39. 40. 43. 45. 47. 48. 61. and 118. Let others iudge what his skill was in S. Ambrose, by hauing so, as he sheweth to the world, conceaued of his writings.
Rider. Hieron. de scripto. Eccles. [...] in Eusebio Emeseno Tom. 1. page. 296.127. But now let vs see how fitlie you alleadge Eusebius to prooue your externall worship of Christ in the sacrament.
Saint Hierome maketh mention of Eusebius Emesenus Bishop of Emesa in Syria, who writ in Greeke verie learnedlie, and liued about the time of Constantius, about the yeare of our Lord 342. and was buried in Antioche: yet some verie craftilie haue stitched certaine Latten Homilies vpon this Greeke fathers sleeue, and worke vpon him a straunge wonder, in making him speake Latten, at least fiue hundred yeares after his death, that was ignorant of the language during his life, But here I will not take vpon me to discusse whether this was Eusebius Emesenus the Syrian, or Eusebius Emissenus [Page 315] that Canisius saith was a Frenchman, & hoc forte tempore claruit, Canisij cron. in Anno 500. Dist. 2. de consecr. canon quia corpus page 432. in fine. Your first decrees printed at a r [...]s & your last at Louaine something differ in words & periods. and peraduenture (and peraduenture not) florished at that time: or whether it were Gratians Eusebius. But this is most sure, that Gratian doth grace his Canon with his name, but which of them, anie, or noone of them, it shall neither helpe nor hurt, because wee w [...]l examine the matter, not the man. The canon is this: & cum reuerendum Altare cibis spiritualibus ascendis satiandus, sacrum Dei tui corpus & sanguinem fide rispice, honora maxime, totum haustu interioris hominis assume. That is: and when thou commest to the reuerend Altar to be fed with spirituall meates: looke vpon and consider with thy faith, the bodie and bloud of thy God, honour it with great reuerence, and receiue the whole bodie with the swallow of the inward man.
127. Lyke dealing is vsed toward Eusebius Emissenus, Fitzsimon. both in omitting parcell of his woords, recorded in the decretal alleaged; and putting maximè, for mirare, but especialy, for inferring by a Riderian sequel, that because Eusebius persuadeth to vse fayth, admiration, and internal receauing of Christ, he should therfor ouerthrow our doctrin that there can be any real, corporal, or substantial receauing of him; and that the real presence is by him disproued. Yet Eusebius him selfe in the same place amply teacheth, that Christ inuisibly conuerteth the visible signes into the substance (& not only into the figure) of his body & blood, by the secreat power of his woord. Which words to any hart not veyled, to any vnderstanding not depraued, to any behoulder not reprobated, might suffice: but not to reforming illuminated Doctors. Another pranck was, to omitt these woords contayning the adoration toward such mysterie (vt coleretur iugiter per mysterium, quod semel offerebatur in praetium; that the body should be euer honoured in the mysterie, which was once offred for redemption) and to propound the very ende of the Chapter, to a cleene contray intention; that no such body should be honored in the mysterie, which had bene offred for redemption. Was this sinceritie? was this promised fidelitie, to bring a clause in the ende of a chapter, to ouerthrow the conclusion, and whole scope of the chapter?
128. Now examine Chemnitius his doctrine and your opinion:Rider. he brings in this Canon to approue the spirituall eating or worship of Christ in the Sacrament. And you alleadge it to make good your external Tridentine adoration of your breaden God. Behold, euerie word of this your owne Canon is a witnesse against you, for the meat is spirituall, the man is spirituall, the manner is spirituall, the sight is spirituall, and the worship or honour is spirituall. Here is nothing corporall or outward, as you say, but all inward and spirituall, as we teach.
VVhether Kemnitius allowed external adoration. VVhen Pixes began. Of the triumphe of Corpus Christi feast.
Fitzsimon.128. TO amend former dealings, he aduiseth to examine Kemnitius his dealing and our opinion: and that we shall fynde him to commend only spiritual adoration. This facing out of the 179.The 179. vntruth. vntruth, shalbe discouered, to the detestation of all such writers. The very woords of Kemnitius are;Kemnitius in exam. Conc. Trid. par. 2. &c. Ad veram confessionem pertinet, vt fidem, deuotionem, celebrationem publicè quoque testemur, & voce, & alijs externis significationibus, quibus ostendamus quid de huius Caenae substantia & fructu sentiamus: qua animi reuerentia & deuotione accedamus, qualem ibi cibum nos credamus accipere. Tali externa confessione seiungimus nos a Sacramentarijs, & Epicureis, horum mysteriorum contemptoribus: excitamus alios ad Reuerentiam, ne qua detur occasio, vel simplicibus ad profanas cogitationes, vel porcis ad conculcenda haec mysteria. Externa enim irreuerentia signum est prophanae mentis & non diiudicantis Corpus domini. It pertayneth to true confession, that we should publickly professe our fayth, deuotion, and hallowing, both by voice, and other external significations, wherby we declare what we conceaue of the fruict, and substance, of the Supper: with what reuerence of mynde, and deuotion, we approache, what food we beleeue there to receaue. By such external confession, we sequestre our selues from the Sacramentarians; and Epicures, the contemners of these mysteries. VVe do excite some to reuerence, that no occasion be giuen, ether to the simple of prophane cogitations, or to Hoggs of treading these mysteries. The external irreuerence is a signe of a prophane mynde, and not discerning the body of our Lord. Vide num. 59. Now appeareth the conscience, and fidelitie, of my Anaxagoras, affirming euery thing contrariously. Kemnitius professeth, they are Epicures, hoggs: and prophane contemners, and not discerners of the body of Christ, who are aduersaries to the external adoration of the B. Sacrament. M. Rider in saying he consenteth with him, and that it is vntrue there is any iarring betwixt them, must in lyke maner by such titles, call all the impugners of such external adoration. Let the whole state of England, Irland, and Scotland, take notice of this his secreat reproaching them. Yf also he will say, that Kemnitius disproued the external adoration,Vide num. 59. because he approueth the internal: I report my self (whether that be not to Ryde, or Anaxagorize) to the last profession of Kemnitius. In the meane tyme, smyle not, and I will shew you a pleasant inference of M. Rider: that the adoration can not be but spiritual, because the man coming to receaue the communiō is spiritual. [Page 317] One would thinke that the man to receaue, is not only spiritual, but also corporall, and therfor that the adoration might be, not only spiritual, but also corporal. Also yf such sequel were forcible, no protestants hereafter should bow their corporal knees to the supper, or to God him selfe, nor putt off their corporall hatts, nor hould vp their corporall hands, because the adoration can (by his saying) not be corporal, to any spiritual things adored. O Riderian reasons, how pleasant you are.
129. And so to the next witnesse, which is Gregorie Naziazen: his woords bee these,Rider. In Epitaphio Gorgoniae sororis suae. Inuocabat Christum, &c. she called vpon Christ, that is worshipped on the Altar where the misteries are celebrated. I pray you what can you gather out of this to prooue your externall worship of Christ in the Sacrament, with cap, thumpe, and knee. Gregorie saieth, shee worshipped Christ, therfore you will conclude, it was your breaden Christ: too hastie a conclusion to be true. Or doe you thinke she worshipped Christ as inclosed in those misteries? Surelie no, For Gregorie saith, it was in the darke night since approached to the Altar.The Pixe was inuented by Innocētius 3. 1214 & Gregorie Naz. writt Anno 567. Ioh. 4.20. Exod. 3.12. At which time there was neither prieste standinge by the Altar, misteries vpon the Altar, nor the pixe hanging ouer the Altar, and therefore she worshipped Christ that was called vpon at the Altar, in the celebration of the misteries: not that hee was inclosed vnder the formes of those misteries, no more then the mountaine wherein the fathers worshipped, was either God substantiallie, or that God was inclosed in that mountaine vnder the formes and shapes of the mountaine. But the mountaine was the place where God was worshipped. And so the Altar was the place where Christ was called vppon and worshipped, not that Christ was there locallie by a corporall descention, but that he was worshipped there being called vpon and serued with a spirituall ascention.
And if you had read Gregorie Nazianzen a litle after, you should haue read that Gorgonia his sister caried about her still some peeces of the figure of the sacred bodie and bloud of Christ, as it was the custome of that age: and with her repentant teares shee bedewed the same, not that she externallie honoured the same.
Here Gregorie calleth the Sacrament but a figure of the sacred bodie and bloud of Christ, therefore it had been ydolatrie to haue worshipped it.Esaie 42.8. Yet notwithstanding your missaleadging and misunderstanding of the premisses, as also your dissenting from Scripture, Fathers, and auncient Popes, & irreligious dangerous iarres amonge your selues, you easily disburden your braines from further answere, thinking you haue confuted the protestants, & satisfied the Catholicks, and so strike vp your victorious plaudite in this maner: So that the brood beeing of such agreement, wee haue the lesse occasion to embusie our braines to confute them.
Here Gentlemen you call vs a brood: we will take it in the best sence, for we confesse wee are Christ his brood hatcht vnder the warmth of his mercifull wings, comming vnto him like hungrie chickens at the heauenlie clocke and all of his preaching ministerie, to receiue that promised meat which indureth vnto euerlasting life.Math. 23.37. Ioh. 6.27. And as for your pleasant Rhetoricall conceit expressed vnder this woord agreement, it sheweth that in a merrie mood you haue not forgot all your verball tropes and figures. Antiphrasis. But when you can shew plainlie wherein the Protestants iarre amongst themselues, or dissent from the Scriptures and primitiue Church in matter of faith; then bestow vpon [Page 318] them these biting figures. In the mean time, (your iarres amongst your selues: nay your reuolt from scriptures and all primitiue practise being made now so manifest to the Catholicks) it stands you vpon for the discharge of a good conscience, to confesse and recant them, for cure them you cannot. And thus much concerning your vnfortunate successe in alleadging some of our chiefe Protestants, as you terme them; And now to that which followeth.
Fitzsimon.129. He proueth that Gorgonia adored Christ vpon the altar, because it was darke night. As very a Riderian reason is this to euery ones vnderstanding as the former. For why might not any adore as well by night as by day? otherwyse yf in darknes God could not be adored, how did Tobias, or any blynd men, euer adore God? And might not the lamps ther present, haue supplyed all wante of day tyme?S. August. ser. 215. de tempore, & 155. Sainct Augustin exhorted; that oyle, and waxe should be offred by the people to the vse of the Church: and signifyed the vse of burning therof to importe, that Christ might voutchsafe to lighten and nourish the fyer of charitie in vs. S. Isidorus lib. 7. etimologiarum. c. de clericus. Sainct Isidor telleth, that the lights & lamps burning in the day tyme in the Churches, are, to testifie our gladnes, that Christ vouchsafed to be, our lux vera quae illuminat omnem hominem, true light which illuminateth euery man. Ioan. 1. Eusebius, and Nicephorus recompt, when in the Church (not the Temple,Euseb. l. 6. c. 7. & Niceph. lib. 5 c. 9. which long before was destroyed) of Hierusalem, ther wanted oyle to the lamps, Narcissus Bishopp therof demawnding water, blessed it, (consider this ould Papistrie) and suddenly, natura aquae in olei pinguedinem versa, splendorem luminum etiam solito reddit clariorem; the nature of water (sayth Eusebius, about the 340. yeare after Christ) was turned into the fatnes of oyle, yealding a greater cleernes of the lights, then accustomed. What other proofs to this effect I could bring (yf I knewe noe more then are in Durantus of the ceremonies of the Church) may be coniectured.Durant. de ritibus Eccl lib. 1. c. 8. Yet for all this, M. Rider shortly after will tell you, that Eusebius denyed all miracles, after Christs accension. So then, although it had bene night, adoration might haue hapened. Yf not otherwyse, at least when light was present.
The 180. vntruth.But let vs goe forward to the 180. vntrueth: that the Pix was inuented A by Innocent the third, ano. 1214. Witnes against this vntrueth the woords of S. Cyprian, who was neere a thousand yeares elder then those tymes.S. Cyprian lib. de lap [...] c. 5. Cum quedam arcam suam, in qua Domini Sanctū fuit, manibus indignis tentasset aperire, igne inde surgente deterrita est ne auderet attingere; VVhen a certayne woman attempted to open hir coffin (or pix) in which the holy of our Lord was, by fyer bursting out therat, she was terrifyed not to touch it. Calu. l. 4. Instit. c. 17. n. 35. Durant. l [...]c. cit. c. 16. Caluin confesseth, and Durantus demonstrateth, the vse of such pixes, frō the tyme of the Apostles. The 181. vntruth is that Gorgonia [Page 319] found noe mysteries vpon the altar.The 181. vntruth. Witnes to the contrarie S. Gregorie in the same narration: yea, and M. Rider against him selfe, that with hir repentant teares she bedewed, not what he sayth she adored in heauen, but what she had purloyned from the altar. Which was not a figure only, but [...], which succeeded all types, and figures,Vide Suarez. disp 46. sec. 4. in 3. p. q. 75. a. 1. of the ould law: or if you would haue it to be a figure, let it be also the thing figured, according as is so often forshewed, that bothe may consist together. For by noe circumstances or woords of figures, would S. Gregorie haue the body of Christ to be excluded; admonishing vs, without doubt, and shame to eate the body, and drinke the blood, S. Greg. Nazian. orat. 2. de Paschas. quae est 42. yf we haue any desyre of Saluation; and for noe woords of fleash, to refrayne our beleefe, and not to be offended by them which are of Christs passion.As yf he had sayd: let not them hinder thee, who tell it is a fowle fact to eate the fleash of Christ; nor be not moued yf thou be sayd to teare, or torment Christ, as in his passion; or yf thou dost not thinke that Christ is eaten by thee, in any corruptible, or passiue maner, be not troubled for the residue.
Thus farr haue we bene conducted by occcasion of Kemnitius, whom I only sayd to haue bene aduersarie to such as denye Christ to be adored in the B. Sacrament, and for his perswasion therin, to haue alleaged these forsayd Fathers. Yf he had mis-alleaged them, the fault had bene his. But to thwart, and impugne, the contrary opinion, they them selues can fynde sufficiently out of the Fathers, without mis-allegation: wheras to contradict our opinion, they can not fynde a woord. O immortal, and omnipotent Lord, the Saluioure Iesus Christ, thy name, and bountie, be euermore extolled, that of thy infinit clemencie toward my sinfull sowle, it pleased thee, to deliuer me from all heresie in general, & particularly against my adoring thee in the B. Sacrament! Glorious adoration, so apparent, and reasonable, as euen to Sectarists them selues (being otherwyse wilfully blinde) so shyneth, as victoriously to ouercome their malice, and lead of them, Kemnitius Bucer, Brentius Oecolampadius, Peter Martyr,Kemnitius in 2. parte exam. s ss. 13. c. 5. Bucer in Actis colloq. Ratispon. Brent. in Apol. pro conf. VVittemberg. pericope 2. Oecolamp. in lib. de verbis Domini. Martyn in disp. Oxenij dictata pag. 173. and many more Captiue; that when they would, as Sathans Balaamitical hyrelings curse thee, God and trueth, wresteth them (by acknowledging such adoration necessarie) to blesse thee, and curse them that impugne thee! Glorious solemnitie of Corpus Christi, by which Christs deere, chast, and vnspotted Spowse, the Catholick Church, triumpheth ouer all their heresies, who denye the real presence, or who beleeue it, yet not otherwyse then during the present vse therof: or who mis-beleue the plenarie perfection therof, in one [Page 320] only kynde: or who exclaime, and barke, at the religious cost, and deuout honor toward Christ in that sacred mysterie: or who denye transubstantiation: or who affirme any bread to remayne together with the B. body of Christ: or by any other impietie do hould any error against the Catholick doctrin concerning Christs realitie, and reuerence, appertaining to this mysterie! All which, heresyes by that solemnitie, adoration, and conseruation of the heaueniy hoste (without the vse of the chalice) are discomfited trampled, & ouerthrowen. Glorious, and thrise glorious mysterie, so cleere, so true, so generaly acknowledged, & so powerfull, as can not be darkened but by sleight clouds presently vanishing, by the perspicuous, and manifest attestations of Gods woord; as can not be falsifyed by any deceits, deprauations, or corruptions of giddy brayns; as can not be but acknowledged by all sorts of hereticks how much soeuer giuen vp to a reprobate sense; as that hell gates can not preuayle against thee, but that thou dost amaze euery horse, and stryke euery his Rider (as the prophet fortould) into follye! Zachar. 12.
Fox page. 586. Acts and monuments.
The sixe Articles established by act of Parliament. Anno
1540. at the planting of the Protestants faith.
Catho. Priest. Rider.
1. That there is the reall presence of Christs naturall bodie and bloud in the Sacramēt, vnder the formes of bread and wine.- 2. That the communion vnder both kinds is not necessarie.
- 3. That Priests by the law of God may not marrie.
- 4. That vowes of chastitie ought to be obserued.
- 5. That Masses are agreable to Gods law, and most fruitfull.
- 6. That confession is necessarie.
The foresaid Parliament, and euerie one saying, publishing, preaching, teaching, disputing, or holding opinion against the first of these Articles, is adiudged a manifestwas burnt & loste his Lands and goods as in case of highe Treason. hereticke: and missbleeuers in theThey but loste life & goods as in case of Felonie, which was then a fauour. rest rigorouslie punished.
130. GEntlemen, I expected that your proofes should haue ascended to the first fiue hundred yeares after Christs ascention, and now they descend so low, that there is small hope either of your recall or recouerie. I might iustlie take exceptions against this your Parliament proofe, because it is manie hundred yeares too young to prooue our matter in question: yet in respect it is an Act done by all the Nobles and learned of the land, and least the Catholickes should thinke it vnaunswerable, I am content to admit it, yet still keeping my ordinarie course, in examination of the proofes by Scriptures, Fathers, and the auncient Bishops, and Church of Rome.
1. Article.1. The first Article is sufficientlie confuted in the premisses alreadie handled.
2. Article.2. The second Article crosseth Christs blessed institution, and therefore is abhominable. And your Parliament saith, it is not necessarie to saluation to minister or receiue [Page 321] in both kinds, as Christ and his Apostles did.Reuel. 22.19. Dist. 2. de cosec. canō. Cōperimus fol. 430. But you know there is a wofull curse pronounced by Gods spirit, against such as adde or detract to or from Christs Testament. And your owne Pope Gelasius laith flat sacriledge to their & your charge, for this your halfe communion, contrarie to Christs institution, saying: Aut integra sacramenta percipeant aut ab integris arceantur, quia diuisio vnius eiusdem (que) mysterij fine grandi sacrilegio non potest peruenire. Either let them receiue the whole sacraments, or else let them bee kept backe from the whole, because the parting of one and the same misterie, cannot be done without great sacriledge. The beginning of your Canon calleth this halfe communion superstition, and the later part calleth it sacriledge. Yet saieth your parliament proofe, the receiuing in both kinds is not necessarie to saluation. Then I say, if it be not necessarie, why did Christ vse it? if we should not practise it, why did he commanded it?
Now if either Christs commandement, Hoc facite, Doe this, or the Popes law can preuaile with you, follow Christ his institution: If you care for neither Christ nor Pope, then the Catholicks may see that you are Antichrists and Antipopes, and denie Christ written trueth, and the primitiue practise of the Church of Rome, and the best that you can make of your selues, is not ancient Romane Catholickes, but new vpstart Romish heretickes. And so to your third Article.
How M. Rider behaueth him selfe toward Acts of parlament. And of his impugning Communion vnder one Kynde. Acts of parlament, since protestantrie, command to beleeue the real presence.
130. YET more Puritantrye?Fitzsimon. to witt to confesse these Acts proceeding from all the nobles, & learned of the lande; and yet not to let them passe without his examination; naye, without his condemnation of them all, to be heretical. The first article, that in the B. Sacrament is the real presence of Christs natural body, is (saythe he) sufficiently confuted. This to be the 182. vntrueth, he him selfe against him selfe shall contestat,The 182. vntruth. saying: (numb. 28) that Christ is realy in the blessed Sacrament, a thing neuer denyed by vs, nor euer in question betwixt, Protestant, and Papist. Yf it was neuer denyed, or in question; how could it be sufficiently confuted? All the glue in Christendome, will neuer make these two, to stick together. Atleast then, the one of them must be vntrue. I take vpon my reputation, yf this last be true, or vntrue; the first, that he hath confuted it, sufficiently, or insufficiently, is in the eyes of all men, and of all professions, most vntrue. To the second, although it be as is sayd, an act of parliament, of al the nobles and learned in the Lande, yet in the examination of our Puritan, it is abhominable. He proueth [Page 322] it, first by our owne Pope, & one of the decrees, that the formes should be receaued both wholy, or refrayned both wholy. I answer, the decree to be fulfilled by priests, (as only to them the speech was intended) in receauing both formes wholy. For more instruction in this mater, why hereticks do communicat, not in one, but in both kynds;Luth. tom. 3. Germ. Ien. fol. 274. de formula Missa. attend Reader their impulsion therto. Yf, sayth Luther, the Concil of Trent had allowed communion vnder both kinds, he would in spyte of the Concil of Trent, maintayne the contrary. Yf the Catholick Church had permitted the clergie to marrye; he would mantaine such to be more in Gods fauoure who would retayne two or three whoores, then who would conforme them selues to the Church. Yea he would command vnder payne of damnation, that none by permission of the Concil should marrye. Tom. 2. Germ. fol. 225. Idem in art. 500. ser. 4. post inuocauit. Also, that he would approue transubstantiation, but because he would not consent with the Church: yet that he would rather accept therof, then consent with the Sacramentaries. Yf the Pope commande thee, not to eate fleash on fryday, and in the Lent, keepe thy libertye, in no case obey him, but say: in spyte of thee I will eate therof. Follow this in all things according to my example. &c. Breefly this contradiction of the Popes profession, and opposition against him,Zuingl. tom. 2. sol. 296. is by Zuinglius sayd, to be, fundamentum, & bona pars religionis; the foundation, and cheefe party of reforming religion. The same motiue to haue giuen the first entrance, of their gospell into England,Fox Acts. pag. 977. the very Apostle therof, as they esteeme him, Tindal, witneseth in these woords of a leter to his scholer Ihon Frith; He smelled a certaine counsell taken against Papists. But that Frith must vnderstand, that it was not for God, but for reuenge, and to inioye the spoyle of the Church. Thus much out of the very roote of Protestantrie, may acquaint vs, by what instinct they impugned our doctrin, as well in general, as in the forsayd articles in particular: Now listen, why single Communion is vsed.
Wheras it euer hath bene beleeued in Gods holy Catholick-Church,A that Christ wholy is contayned in ether of both the formes of bread and wyne (for after his passion,Vide Suarez. tom. 3. in 3. par. quest. 80. disp. 71. sec. 1. 2. & 3. nether his blood is separated from his body, nor the body deuoyed of blood, but where the one is, there is the other) the practise of primatiue Christians was, indifferently to communicat, ether vnder one forme, or vnder both, according to the diuers commodities presented; knowing, they had as much benefit by th'one, as by the other. For all is one, and the selfe same Christ.S. Aug l. 5. con. Faustum c. 6. S. Leo [...]. serm. 4. de quadrages. Not long after first Christianitie, sprong vp the heresie of the Manicheans, who condemned the vse of wyne saying, it neuer came from God, by means of the manifould abuses insueing therby: which was the ould heresie of Seuerus, according S. August. her. 24. [Page 323] and S. Epiphan. her. 45. and is now a turkish error, as appeareth in the Alcoran Azoara. 3. For disprouing & thwarting of which errour, the Church frequented communion vnder both formes, generaly to auow the forme of wyne to be good. In succession of tyme, that heresie being vanished, there budded another errour, that Christ was not intierly in ether forme, but in both together: as yf his body were now separated from his blood. Against which errour the Church,Concil. Constantien sess. 13. Concil. Trid. sess. 21. c. 1. Concil. Basil. sess. 30. to testifie that ether of bothe was perfect Christ, and as fruictfull in one forme, as both, swayed to the contrary syde, by first practising, then determining, that only the priests should receaue vnder both forms, and the laye people, but vnder one of bread. For the forme of wyne, it seemed not so conuenient, both for the danger of shedding in the giuing therof, as also for the danger of sowring, yf it should be kept long in any vessell, for the vse of the people, especialy of the sicke. B The power of the church in this decree, is warranted by the woords of S. Paul, saying; Let a man so esteeme vs, as the seruants of Christ, 1. Cor. 4. and dispensers of the mysteries of God. Being then such dispensers, and hauing such impulsions, the Prelats of the Church fulfilled and followed such decrees, and practises. For the confirmation of all that I haue sayd, first is presented, that Christ some tyme ministred vnder one forme, and some tyme vnder both: this at his supper; that to his disciples, at Emaus; who in the breaking of bread (which was the B. Sacrament by most principal Fathers & Doctours perswasion) being knowen of them, suddenly vanished away. Secondly, the Apostles continued in prayer and breaking of bread; that is,Act. 2. in communicating the B. Sacrament: yet without any mention of the vse of wyne. The same appeareth to haue bene the general practise of all Christians; so to be contented with the B. Sacrament vnder the forme of bread, as not to haue coueted the vse of it vnder the forme of wyne. This appeareth by Serapion, who being neere his departure,Euseb. l. 6. hist. c. 36. and crauing the B. Communion, the Priest, as Eusebius sayth, sent him only a part of the Eucharist, without any consecrated blood.
C Secondly by the vse of Christians in first tymes, when they had litle commoditie of Priests or Churches, they tooke home to their houses, the B. Sacrament vnder the forme of bread, without the other forme: as appeareth by Tertullian, Cyprian, Hierom, and Augustin.In Suarez loc. cit. Thirdly, by the vse of Pixes, as I lately sayd, proued and confessed from the Apostles tymes, made for the conseruation of the B. Sacrament vnder the forme of bread,Vide Durant. lib. 1. c. 16. ther being no such for the forme of wyne. Yet, (as I forwarned) the vse of the chalice was indifferently [Page 324] allowed to lay people (as partly appeareth by the request of Maria Aegiptiaca, numb. 115.) according to the seueral commodities of places; vntil by reason of danger, as I fortould, of sowring, and shedding, and of errours increasing, the Church restrayned it from the lay people. Also, because the Preest doth offre a sacrifice in remembrance of the death & Passion of our Saluioure Iesus Christ (whose blood at that tyme of his passion was shedd, and separated, from his body) he ought to consecrat and receaue vnder both formes; for the better explicatiō of such effusion of Christs blood, which is not needfull by the people, rcceauing it rather as a Sacrament then Sacrifice. This doctrin so godly, and religious, is impugned by hereticks, as appeereth,Brent. in cōfess. VVittemberg. art. de euchar. Kemnitius in fine disputationis de vtra (que) specie. only to thwart the Pope. Brentius, and Kemnitius, accord to that part therof, that Christ is wholy vnder ether of both formes. Wherby I take no confirmation, but to shew they haue no conformation in their being against vs. Also in K. Edwards tymes, when Protestantrie was most free from the dreggs of Puritantrie, the communion vnder both kynds, or formes, was not thought so absolutly requisit,Statut. An. 1. Edward. 6. cap. 1. Luth. ser. de Eucharistia. Vide conc. Constant. sess. 13. Rodolph. Ab. de S. Communione. but yf necessitie did otherwyse requyre, it might (sayth K. Edwards statute) be allowed in one kinde. Also Luther, in his sobre mood, could teache; Satis esse populo alteram desiderare & sumere speciem; quantum ordinat & dat Catholica Ecclesia; To be sufficient to the people to desyre and receaue one kinde, as much as the Catholick Church ordaineth and giueth. To be breefe, such to haue bene the receaued custome of Gods church, these verses of Rodolph Abbot of S. Trudon, 450. yeares past, do confirme.
Hic, & ibi cautela fuit, ne presbyter egris,
aut sanis tribuat laicis de sanguine Christi.
Nam fundi posset leuiter, simplex (que) putaret
Quod non sub specie sit Iesus totus vtraue.
Be it a Caueat, that Preists, to sicke, or sownd.
Of laye folke, giue not Christs most sacred blood:
For it might shed: and seely thoughts would simply grownd,
In ether forme a lyke, Christ not t'haue stood.
3. Article.3 The third, That priests by the law of God may not marrie.
Rider.131. 132. I May not here make anie stay, onelie touch a point or two and so away. This Article is contrarie to holie Scriptures, auncient Fathers, the practise of the primitiue Church, and the Canons of the Popes. In the old Testament the marriage of the Priests is recorded and commended.
Ierem. 1.1. Exod. 18.The holie Prophet Ieremie was the sonne of a priest. Zippora was the priest of Midians daughter, & married to Moises the Lords Maiestrate.
Luke. 1.8.9.Againe, in the new Testament Iohn Baptist was the sonne of Zacharie a priest. And the Scriptures touching marriage, giue rules without exception or limitation. To [Page 325] auoide fornication, let euerie man haue his wife, and euerie woman her husband. 1. Cor. 7.2. And to the Hebrews hee saith, Marriage is honourable amongst all men, and the bed vndefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will iudge.
VVhether Continencie of the Clergie was anciently cōmanded.
131. THe too the that M. Rider, Fitzsimon. as a Puritan hath against acts of Parlament, transporteth him from all patience, and purpose, which should be betwixt vs. For I only alleaged the forsayd acts, to testifie, that the real presence was euen since Protestantrie, commanded to be beleeued: which being the first article of the six, and the residue being sutable, and conformable therto, against suche late Protestants as are degenerated from first planters of Protestantrie; I recorded them together, only by their conformitie to ratifie the article in question, without any intent, or expectation, that I should be occasioned to defend acts of Protestant Parlaments, by me obiected against Protestants: But as I was before by him inforced to defend Kemnitius my aduersarie, so now I am to defend opposit parlaments. Well then in the name of Christ let vs not forsake him in all his vagaries, he being now not farr from home. First, he confesseth the sayd articles, an act inacted by all the nobles, and learned of the Lande: Yet that, the first is refuted; the second is abhominable; the third is contrary to holy Scriptures, ancient Fathers, the practise of the primatiue Church, and the canons of the Popes: and the other three as repugnant to Christs trueth, as the rest. Secondly he telleth, he will make no stay, but touch a point or two, and so away: wherof, and of the next; that in the ould testament, the mariadge of preests is commended, there being no such mater therin, amounteth the 183.The 183. vntruth. vntrueth. In deed in the ould testamēt as being not so perfect a state, as the new, preests wrere marryed. Yet, although they were imployed only about figurs and shaddowes of the substance and trueth deliuered in the new testament, they were neuerthelesse bownd to continencie during such their imployment, and not only they, but also the people when they would partake of such figuratiue mysteries. As for example, Achimelech refused to giue Dauid the proposition bread, vnlesse he had vnderstood that they were,1. Reg. 21. mundi pueri maximè a mulieribus; vndefyled people especialy from women. And when the preests of the ould testament were occupyed about their function,1. Paralip. 24. Luc. 1. Caluin. l. 4. Instit. c. 12. n. 25. they were remote from habitation, and wiues. At which consideration Caluin could confesse the preests of the ould law, iussos fuisse vltra humanum morem [Page 326] se purificare; to haue bene commanded to purifie them selues beyond the custome of men. Yet can he not fynde it allowable in the preests of the new law. Notwithstanding any would thinke S. Pauls woords more belonging therto, saying; nemo militans Deo, implicet se negotijs secularibus; no man seruing God, imployeth him selfe in secular affayres: but of S. Pauls mynde, afterwards. Although S. Ihon Baptist was the sonne of a preest; yet is it not true, that if so hapned in the new testament; or that he was sonne of a preest of the new testament: for the new testament, was made only at the last supper befor Christs passion: before which, both Zacharie, and S. Ihon Baptist, both dyed. Now let vs attend to his obiections out of Scripture, against the continencie of the Clergie, and not exact at his hands any exact knowlege in maters of new or ould testament.
Fitzsimon.132. To auoyde fornication I graunt euery man may hate his wyfe; yf he entred no other bonds contrary to hauing a wyfe: or yf being free from such bonds, he can not otherwyse auoyd fornication. For otherwyse the very next lyne befor, doth assure, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.1. Cor. 7.1. Secondly, not long after, he aduiseth, euen the marryed them selues, when they would be vacant to prayer to obserue continencie. Thirdly, followed, for such as are not marryed and widdowes, it is good they would soe remayne, as S. Paul did him selfe. Fowerthly, that we being deerly bought, should not make our selues subiects of men, but he without worldly cares: wheras yf any be marryed, he is carefull of the world, and how he may please his wyfe, and is diuided; as also the woman toward hir husband. This, and much more, hath S. Paul in the very chapter whence the forsayd obiection was borrowed. Wherby the continencie of the Clergie is ratifyed, and testifyed to be necessarie, yf we couet to haue the Clergie be vacant to prayer, to follow that which is good, to be without worldly cares, to thinke of things which are of our Lord, how they may please God. To the other obiection, I graunt lykewyse that mariage is honorable among all men: for none ought to dishonour it, but to accompt it a great Sacrament, in Christ and his Church.Hebr. 13.4. Also, it is honorably contracted by all, who haue not otherwyse deuoted them selues to a higher state of perfection, or by lawes of God, and his Church, are prohibited to marrye within certain degrees. As for example, although the Scripture speaketh without exception, or limitation; yet you are not so farr gone M. Rider, as to allow marriage to be honorable betwixt mother and sonn, sister and [Page 327] brother, the grand-father and grand-dowghter. And yf you be forward in such Puritantrie, as to allow such marriages, to be honorable;Calu. l. 4. Instit. c. 19. n. 37. you forsake Caluin the founder of your holy consistorial discipline, accompting them very dishonorable. Hitherto nothing appeareth against the not marrying of Preests, yf they haue deuoted them selues to a higher state then it of marriage; and especialy yf they haue B plighted their promise, or vowe, to liue chast; therby to be more vacant to prayer, carefull of the things of our Lord, how they may please God, and be more free from the cares of the world. For, of such as had so obliged them selues to greater perfection,Mat. 19. S. August. l. de Sācta Virginitate. c. 23. qui se castrauerunt propter regnum caelorum; and had gelded them selues, (that is sayth S. Augustin; qui pro proposito ab vxore ducenda se continuerunt; such as by a godly purpose abstayned from taking a Spowse) for the kingdome of heauen, and had entred obligation of vow, yf after they would marrye, S. Paul sayth;1. Tim. 5. damnationem habent, quia primam fidem irritam fecerunt; they haue damnation, because they haue infringed their first fayth. Yf therfor it could not be honorable to forsake attentiue prayers to God, and being carefull of pleasing him, and fulfilling the first fayth plighted; it could not be honorable also for such to marrye, who had betaken them selues to such state of lyfe, and vndertaken such obligations. For what honor can there be in purchasing damnation? Hereby appeareth, that the Scripture, ether hath not, or to M. Riders skill affoorded not, any aduise, or commendation of such mens marriage.
133. And the same Apostle pointeth out to all posterities,Rider. that the Authors and vpholders of this Article bee liers and hippocrits,Heb. 13.4. 1. Tim. 4.1.2.3. and the forbidding of meates and marriage, to bee the doctrine of Diuels. And this is onelie proper to the Church and Chaplens of Rome, as now they stand in the view of God, Angles, and men.
VVhether we forbidd Marriage, or Meats.
133. BY a testimonie of S. Paul, he indeuoureth to proue,Fitzsimon. 1. Tim. 4.1.2.3. that the vphoulders of this Article against Preests marriage, are lyers, and hypocrits. Let such, as he confesseth to haue bene all the nobles and learned in the land, giue him thancks for this curtesie. We graunt, the forbidding of marriage, and meats, to be a doctrin of deuils, yf they be forbidden absolutly, or as things abhominable;i but not yf they be forbidden for greater proffit of spirit, and glorie to God. That we doe not forbidd them absolutly, is knowen, when we accompt none fitt for Gods seruice, as [Page 328] Churchmen, but such as are begotten in lawfull marriage; and when we eate such meates out of fasting dayes, as we eschued in fasting dayes. This argumēt a secundū quid ad simpliciter, that who forbidd marriage and meat in certayne persons, and tymes, they absolutly forbidd them; you shall behould how ridiculous it is, by these few weake inferences.Leuit. 18.7. &c. Gods woord, and his Churches lawes, and also Princes decrees, do forbidd, as is to euery one knowen, marriage betwixt father and dowghter, mother & sonne, &c. By your rules taken without limitation, that marriage is honorable among all, and forbidding marriage is a doctrin of deuils; do not you blaspheme against God, and his Church, and iniurie your Prince, for their forbidding such marriages? Next, the Apostles forbidd the eating of blood,Acts 15.20.29. c. 21.25. and strangled meat, (for which in presence of the Constable, & a Puritan Sadler, whose name I can not remembre, and others, your deuout Doctor Ihon Laney, Cutler, maintayned in May last 164. that it was vnlawfull to eate puddings, or henns, whose necks were crackt) the lawes of Princes forbidd to eate fleash in lent, and certayne dayes of the weeke; and Phisitians forbidd diuers meats. By your general rule, that the forbidding of meats' is a doctrin of deuils, do not you make the Apostles, Princes, and Phisitions, diuilish doctors? Because I intend God willing in my replye vpon these points, to dwell some what longer, let Gods woord, the Churches lawes, Decrees of Princes, the Apostles,The 184. vntruth. and Phisitions, testifie, that it is the 184. vntrueth, to be only propre to the Church of Rome, to forbidd marriage, and meats, as aforesayd.
Rider.134. Did not Tertullian write two bookes to his wife, in the first hee gaue direction vnto her touching his goods and possessions, if hee should die. In the second booke, directeth her in her Widdowhood, either to liue solelie seruing the Lord, or else to marrie in the Lord. But in no case to marrie (as some did, for honour or ambition) with the Gentils. Who I praie you euer checkt or controlled him for so doing?
VVhether Tertullian did wryte to his wyfe. And whether he was, for, or against Preists marriages.
Fitzsimon.134. YEs truely, Tertullian wrote to his wyfe; and by writing, testifyed, that to iustifie marriage of the Clergie, M. Rider vnfortunatly as often before, hath fished for a Serpent to his cause, in steed of an eale. First because, Tertullian,Tertulliā. ad vxorem lib. 1. hauing seperated him selfe from his wyfe by mutual consent, [Page 329] to become a Preest, perswadeth hir, that by no persecution after his death, she should marry agayne; he erroneously thinking, second mariages betwixt Christians to be vnlawfull. Secondly, by informing hir, that to be Gods seruants, it is necessarie to be free from marriage; alleadging examples of Christians, and Ethnicks, admitting only Chast, and Virgins, to their principal seruices of Deuotion. Thirdly, by being to vehement in dehorting from second marriage as appeareth in seueral books. Could then in wysdome this man,Tertull. lib. de exhort. ad Castitatem. De pudicitia de Monogamia. who not only by doctrin, but by example, eschued, and abandoned his wyfe, to be a Preist, and affirming it to be necessarie for seruing God more perfectly; be witnesed to ratifie, that he that is a Preist, may marry? Whether I admonish or noe, this wysdome wilbe considered. Also good M. Rider, reuiew the first book againe, and fynd other contents therin then you here specifie: for what you produce, is ether not at all there found; or no part of the occasion or purport of wryting that booke.Tertull. de prescript. I do not peruayle that Tertullian of these men sayth; Hoc illis esse negotium non Ethnicos conuertendi sed nostros euertendi. Hanc magis gloriam captant sistantibus ruinam, non si iacentibus eleuationem operentur: This is to be their imployment, not to conuert Ethnicks, but to peruert ours. They seeke greater glorie yf they procure them that stand to fall, then them that are fallen to ryse. For who do not behould, how by most contrarious deprauations, or ruine, and fall, is by them followed?
135. Ignatius the Martyr commendeth the Apostles and other ministers,Rider. Ad philodelphenses Epist. 5. page. 34. Qui operam dederunt nuptijs, who euer blamed him for it? Nay, your owne Popes and Canons condemneth you and your parliament proofe. For thus they record to your disgrace: Cum ergo & sacerdotibus nati in summos pontifices supra legantur esse premoti, Dist. 56. Canon. Canomanensem fol. 67. Col. 4. & 68. col. 1. non sunt intelligendi de fornicatione, sed de legitimis coniugijs nati, &c. When therefore wee read that priests sonnes bee promoted to the Popedome, you must not thinke that they be bastards, borne in fornication, but sonnes borne in lawfull marriage: which marriage was lawfull for priests, before the late prohibition, and this day is lawefull still in the East Church,
Heere your owne Popes record that priests were married, and that their marriage was lawfull, and that Popes haue beene priestes sonnes borne in lawfull marriage. And that there was a prohibition to the contrarie, made by man. But no scripture or warrant from God.
VVhether S. Ignatius did fauour Preists marriages; And whether the Apostles were marryed.
[Page 330] Fitzsimon.135. FIRST you mistake the number: for it is the sixt epistle. Secondly, you mistake the woord, non Vituperans, not dispraising, by interpreting clean contrarilye to commend. For S.S. Ignatius epist. 6. Ignatius aduiseth Virgins, so to follow the best, as therfor not to condemne marriage as being execrable; and affecteth so to him selfe the Sanctitie of Helias, Iesu Naue, Melchisedech, Heliseus, Hieremie, Ihon Baptist, and of his beloued disciples, of Timothie, Tite, Euod, Clement, who dyed in chastitie; as not dispraysing them who, nuptijs dederunt operam, had bene marryed. Thirdly you mistake the tyme of the Apostles marriage imployments;Mat. 19. For when Christ had called them, they forsooke all, sayth S. Peter in the name of the rest; and Christ auerring they had among the things forsaken, quitt their mariage conuersation, replyed therto, pertinently, saying: eueryone that forsaketh house, or parents, or brethren; or wyfe, S. Clemens Alex. l. 3. Strom. S. Hierom l. 1. in Iouin. &c. &c. shall receaue a hondred sould, and possesse lyfe euerlasting. Besyd which insinuation of our Saluiour him selfe, that the Apostles who had wiues had forsaken them for his seruice sake, it is also generaly testifyed by the Fathers, that after their vocation; they neuer conuersed matrimonialy with their wiues. Yf then their hauing of wiues, by their vocation to Apostleshipp, was turned into a diuorcement; any might thinke that none after such vocation, could hereby be allowed to marry: but rather otherwyse, and consequently, that by his owne allegations, his cause continualy is ouerthrowen.
Next in interpreting our canon, much disordre is followed; For A when it is only a dispensation that a preists sonn, indued with other vertues, and gifts, as fift suffrages to haue him aduanced, should be once patiently tolerated, not therby to make it a rule; and is affirmed that others begottē of Preists had bene highest bishops (whom truth informed M. Rider to interpret to be Popes) but not that it should be conceaued of their sonns gotten in fornication, but only in lawfull marriage, he telleth and translateth [you must not thinke Preists sonns be bastards, borne in fornication, (God be praysed that he maketh Preists to haue no bastards) but in lawfull marriage. Yet this glosse is not only contrary to this text, but also contrary to the glosse extant in the booke,Dist. 56. gloss. in §. Osius. saying: all these examples, to be vnderstood of such as their parents in laye state, or in the mineur ordres had begotten, when it was lawfull for them to accompagnie their wiues. The further part of the text, that lawfull marriages were allowable in euery place before the prohibitiō (to which woord M. Rider by good sinceritie, conioyned, Late) and in the oriental Church to this day are proued to them to be lawfull, shalbe shortly after, God willing, discussed.
[Page 331]136. Againe, there bee two other Canons of the Popes,Rider. Dist. 28. siquis fol. 32. that will batter downe your papered rampiers of humane constitution: the first beginneth thus, Si quis docuerit sacerdotem sub obtentis religionis propriam vxorem contemnere, Anathema sit: If anie man teach that a Priest may contemne his wife vnder colour of religion, let him be accursed. And the second canon immediatlie followeth, which doth second this. Si quis discernit presbyterum coniugatum tanquam occasione nuptiarum, quod offerre non debet, & ab eius oblatione ideo abstinet, Anathema sit. If anie man iudge that a married Priest ought not to offer, (or to do his office) by reason of his marriage, and therefore abstaine from his oblation, let him be accursed.
VVhether all that may not contemne their wiues, may conuerse with them carnaly; And, whether some tyme married men, may not be Preists?
136. FIrst,Fitzsimon. yf any learned man would but peruse this distinction, and the precedent, and considre, how vpward of twenty seueral texts forbidding Bishops, deacons, Preists, Religious, Subdeacons, to marrye; and such men as are marryed not to be assumpted to Preesthood, and Preests doing otherwyse to be deposed: although he were neuer so much an affectionat frend of M. Rider, yet will he, and can not but censure him, not to seeke to informe trueth of maters, but to obscure it as much as he may. Secondly, he knoweth not how to countenance his allegation, but when it is a canon of the Apostles, he nameth it a Popes canon. For so it which he now citeth, is deliuered,Melancthon in Confess. August. art. 23, & in apol. eiusdem articuli. Conc. Trullan. can. 48. 2. Conc. Turon. can. 8. Vide dist. 31. cap. omnino. euen by Philipp Melancthon, a great Protestant; and in the canon law, befor the title of the forsayd text, is contayned, that it is taken from among the canons of the Apostles. I grant, that a Preest should not contemne his wyfe, but according his obligation expressed in seueral Concils, be carefull of hir, prouid for hir, and content hir; but as is there signifyed; absque vlla suspicione carnalis commercij: without any suspition of carnal compagnie. Now marke this Riderian sequel: a preest may not, by pretext of religion wherby he is bound to be continent, dispise his wyfe, from whom he is departed (for so, by testimonies of the forsayd Concils, it is to be vnderstood) therfor a Preest may marry; or hauing bene marryed may carnaly conuerse with his wyfe. Who would not pittie his fathers losse, yf he had bene at any charges (as he was not able) for his sonns bringing vpp? For although a sonne can not despise his mother, yet followeth it not, that he may marry hir. Thirdly, the [Page 332] next Canon concurreth in the same exposition, that one being marryed befor, is not therby disabled from being preest. Ther is nothing in euery contry more vsual. And Dublin is well acquainted that M. Hall of good memorie, and M. G. B. of rare vertue, had bene marryed, yet both exemplar priests. And at this instant of my writing this, a Gentleman called Mr. Anselmus Crucius, of exceeding abilitie, being marryed, and his wyfe lyuing, and newly entred into a cloyster of Nunns, after hauing liued 30. yeares with his forsayd wyfe in inuioleble continencie, only for more exact deuotion toward God, she as I sayd entring into religion, he also is become preist, and Iesuit, with whom I am dayly familiar, to my great delyte, and edification, he being as great a mirour of pietie, as miracle by his forsayd voluntarie diuorce, to all these contryes, in which he is knowen.
Rider. Dist. 31. Nicana synodus fol. 34.137. Paphnutius, also beeing but one man, confounded a whole Synode of your Bishops & learned men, as your Popes Records witnesse, and by Scriptures inforced them to subscribe that Priests marriage was lawfull. Heere you see magna est veritas & preualet, Trueth is great (though in one against manie) and preuailleth.
VVhether Paphnutius perswaded the Concil of Nice, to allowe preests to Marry.
Fitzsimon. The 185. vntruth.137. THat trueth, as you affirme, may be great, and preuayle; let it be presently confessed, that it is the 185. vntruth, that Paphnutius is confessed by records of Popes, to haue confounded a whole synod of our Bishops. Wher are such records? how do they confesse any such mater. Will fittons fill all leaues, yf not most lynes, of your booke? Secondly, let it be confessed, that you haue graunted the first Concil of Nice to haue bene a synod of our Bishops, and learned men. Magna est veritas & preualet! 1. Esdr. 4.41. Conc. 1. Nic. can. 3. truth is great and preuayleth! Thirdly, let it be confessed, that the Concil of Nice in the third Canon, forbiddeth preests, to haue any woman in their howse, besyd their mother, sister, or aunt. How then was it confounded, or gouerned by Paphnutius, to the contrary? Magna est veritas, & preualet! Fowerthly, wheras none of the 20. Canons of the Concil of Nice, nor Eusebius,Socrat. lib. 1. c. 8. Sozomen. lib. 1. c. 22. nor Ruffinus, (more ancient then Socrates, and Sozomen out of whom Gratian borrowed his tale of Paphnutius) nor any others, report any such mater;S. Epiphan. her. 59. & in epit. and wheras S. Epiphan assureth that the Church and ancient Canons hath alwayes auoyded from preisthod [Page 333] any begetter of Children,S. Hieron. ep. 50. con. Iouin. & lib. cō. vigil. Luther lib. Conciliorum parte 1. S. Basil. epist. 17.1. Esdr. 4.41. and S. Hierome testifyeth in the Oriental Church, and Aegipt, not to haue bene lawfull for preists, or deacons, to vse their former wiues; Nay wheras Luther acknowledgeth, that the forsayd Concil would not follow the aduise of Paphnutius; and lastly wheras S. Basil would not permitt, by reason of the former third Canon of this Concil, a preist 70. yeares ould to dwell with a woman: how can it be denyed, or auoyded, to be the 186. vntruth,The 186. vntruth. that they had subscribed, that priests Marriage was lawfull? Magna est veritas & preualet! trueth is great and preuayleth!
A I omitt that the authours of this inuented historie. Socrates,Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 21. Bellarm. l. 1. de Clericis cap. 20. S. Greg. l. 6. epist. 31. Socrat. & Sozom. loc. cit. and Sozomen, being found often tymes tripping, as in Socrates appeareth thryse in one chapter, and first against this sacred Synod; (as incomparable Bellarmin learnedly according to his wont demōstrateth) and of Sozomen is testifyed by S. Gregorie: yet not withstanding, that they are farr from reporting any confort to the protestant cause. For they both recompt, that Paphnutius affirmed that it seemed to him conuenient, it should be decreed, that the clergie after theire ordination, should not be permitted in any case to marry, according the ancient Conons; and only craued, that others marryed before, might vse their wiues. This allegation therfor seemeth to fauour protestancie, as the tendring of a peece of bread in one hand, with a cudgell reddy to stryke in the other hand, is a fauour to a dogge. Magna est veritas & praeualet! truth is great and preuayleth▪ 1. Esdr. 4.41.
138. And to come neere home vnto you with domesticall presidents:Rider. Esdras 1. cap. 4.41. Bern. in vita Malachiae fol. 2. col. 4. about the yeares of our Lord 1130. were not eight learned men, all of them immediat Archbishops of Armachan in this land, and all of them married? who vtterlie refused this tyrannicall and dyabolicall Romish yoke of forced single life. Nay in those daies the Nobilitie and Gentilitie of that Prouince defended that true religion with their swordes against the Pope, and they refused to receiue Orders, Bishoprickes, or Decrees from Rome. Where vpon you may see that Bernard then in the Popes quarrell, calleth the Nobilitie and Gentility of that Prouince, generationem malam & adulteram, a wicked & adulterous generation, and saith it was, Diabolica ambitio potentum, a diuelish ambition of the Peeres and mightie men. And execranda successio, a cursed succession,8 Immediat Lord Archbishops of Armachan maried. Marke this ye Noble men & Gentlemen of Ireland. Imitate your Auncestors in true honour. that eight Bishops successiuelie all married (yet they all learned, and preached the Gospell and ministred the sacraments) and yet neither they, the Nobilitie, nor Gentilitie, cared two pence for the Popes blessing or curssing. O quantum mutantur ab illis? O Lord, how farre is the Nobilitie and Gentilitie of Vlster, and that prouince, nay the most part of the kingdome chaunged from that olde Apostolicall religion, and become slaues and ideots in superstitious seruice to that late Italian priest the Pope, Gods enemie and the Queens butcher. Then they drew their swords against the Pope to defend the trueth: now too manie of late drew their swordes for the Pope against the truth. The Lord open their eies to see the truth, and giue them hearts to renounce this new heresie, & [Page 334] cleaue to the Apostolical Romane veritie. Then will all of them be as readie to fight the Lords battell against the Pope, as many of late fought the Queenes battell most honorably against the Spaniard.
Of M. Riders graunt of the Concil of Nice to be ours; And his clayme of predecessours in Vlster.
Fitzsimon.138. IN saying Paphnutius had confounded a whole synod of our Bishops and learned men; the Concil of Nice, wherof speeche is made; is therby bestowed vpō vs. None dowbted therof before,Anno 1. Elizab. that it was due vnto vs, vntill in the first parlament of our late Queene, it was claymed to Protestantry. Also by M. Riders appeale to the Fathers of the first fiue hondred yeares, (of whom the Concil of Nice was euer yet accompted the principal parte) it might seeme to any that would beleeue him, that we had no interest therin. Now of his liberalitie, as appeareth, he bestoweth the sayd Concil vpon vs, and therby vpon him selfe a most infamous confutation of his wofull clayme of the primatiue Fathers. A smal, mater with him to be contrarie to himselfe. But, is it so great a gifte as to be so thankfull for it?VVhitak. Pag. 12. con. Campian. Beza Epist. theol. 81. Yes sayth Beza, (the Polyphemus among Diuines, by M. Whitakers opinion) as, quo nihil vnquam sanctius, nihil augustius ab Apostolorum excessu sol vnquam aspexit; then which, the sonne neuer beheld any thing more holy, or more excellent, since the Apostles departure. Now for recompense of this incomperable threasor, contayned in this A gift,Genes. 25. Hebr. 12. will you see a prophan Esau exchange a riche inheritance, for a messe of pottage? He will needs haue ancestours in our Northen Vlster: such (as S. Bernard sayth) by sathanical ambition reserued the Archbishoprick of Armach among their familie. VVhich execrable succession (sayth S. Bernard) had continued, S. Bernardus in vita S. Malachia. in fifteen generations. And when they had not any of the clergie in their linadge, the wicked and adulterous generation (they are the woords of S. Bernard) by iniquitie woorthy of all death, wanted not (to witt in name and vsurping Church reuennues) Bishops. Of which sort without orders, but not without learning, eight marryed, had bene befor Celsus. VVherby (I obserue the ordre and woords of S. Bernard, but breefly) insued the dissolution of Ecclesiastical disciplin, and ouerthrow of religion, and Christianitie. For reformation wherof, Sainct Malachias, by a vision from heauen was chosen, and accepted by the King, other Bishops, and the faythfull of the people, to his charge. But the Concil of Malignant, and children of Belial repugned, and purposed to kill both the King and him. At lengthe the cheefe of them struken by thunder, with three others, and the rest dispersed, Malachias entred his [Page 335] Bishoprick, and hauing by singular and powerfull means, appeased his enemyes, he reformed abuses. The successours, and recompense sought by M. Rider, Al this confusion by Vlsters relation. B [...]le in his centuries perswaded M. Rider to accept vpon his credit: For all is taken out of him. are the forsayd intruders into Church dignities. O quantum mutantur ab illis? How farr are these diuers, from them of the Concil of Nice? Certainly I would not scarcely haue consociated my enemyes to such. For yf the being only rebellious to ecclesiastical disciplin, and vsurpers of Church fruicts, and intrusion into Church offices, and prophaning sacred places, yf the doers therof were marryed, can satisfye you for ancestours: you may enter into your list, or catalogue, all sects & sorts of ould Hereticks, all Turcks, and Iewes, and armyes of malefactours as being such. O quantum mutantur ab illis! o how much are these, inferiour to the three hondred and eighteen Fathers of the Concil of Nice? For my part I wil not refuse your demand nor depriue yon of such confederats. Yet yf I could, I would exempt you from their ruthfull lott. Now, to answer the circumstances tendred by you, and to the formest, whether the forsayd eight learned men were not all successiuely Archbishops. I say first, chat the historie doth not contayne they had bene any such successiuely: vnles you would haue them Puritanical Bishops. For in the text of S. Bernard they are sayd to haue bene; abs (que) ordinibus; without Ordres. Therfor, they could be nether Catholick, nor Protestant Bishops: as appeareth n. 99. I could the sooner thynke them to haue bene Puritan Bishops, the rather for being without ordres; as well because they do not allow any distinct ordre of cleargie, as also because they are enemyes, to all ordres, and the disordred disturbers of all well ordered common wealthes, and breaders of confusion. Qua non immanior vlla pestis, & ira Deum stygio sese extulit Orco. Secondly, that they were (named by S. Bernard) no Bishops, but in figure, representation, and appellation, as you say Christ to be in the B. Sacrament. For yf you may say Christ not to be otherwyse in the B. Sacrament,1. Cor. 11. notwithstanding his woords of being truely present, the same who was deliuered in his passion: I may say, being bowlstered by the lawes of Gods Church, and such proofs as I haue produced n. 99. of imposition of hands, that they could not otherwyse, then as aforsayd, be Archbishops. Next I let passe your sweet reuyling, of the tyrannical, and diabolical Romain yoake. Thirdly the nobilities repugning against the Pope is added to the text, by a 186. vntrueth. For nether Pope,The 186. vntruth. nor Papist assaulted them: how could they then defend them selues with their swoords against the Pope; especialy not hate of papistrie, but loue of sacrilege, being their impulsion to suche vprore? The 187. vntrueth is,The 187. vntruth. that [Page 336] they refused to receaue Orders, Bishopricks, or decrees from Rome. For nether is any profre, nor any such refuse, recorded. Yf Bernard so sharply reprehended them in the Popes quarell, for not being subiect to the Popes orders, or decrees: in the name of Iesus, why did you in your Preface informe your readers, that S. Bernard tould the Pope to his face, that his supremacie was vnlawfull? O quantum mutantur ab illis? O how farr are these woords repugnant to those? That those eight preached the gospell, and ministred the Sacraments; is an addition of your making: As also, that the nobilitie, and gentilitie, cared not two pence for Papal blessings, or curssings. Whether they came to such infidelitie, or noe, there is great want of fidelitie in your deprauation of the historie as S. Bernard affoordeth it. That they changed their ould Apostolical religion; yf you meane according as your authour informeth them to haue changed (as you should be tyed to your autheurs relation, and the sense therof, vnlesse you would be accompted a falsifier, rather then interpreter) what you call owld Apostolical religiō, according to your conceit, is according to trueth, and your authour S. Bernard, deuilish ambition, dissolution of ecclesiastical disciplin, ouerthrow of religion, and Christianitie, &c. O quantum mutantur ab illis? O how farr are these woords of the authour, dissenting from these woords of the interpreter? That they are become slaues to the late Italian Preist the Pope, Gods enemye, and the Queens butcher; I know not how wyse a speeche it may seeme to any: this I am suer, yf they be slaues by being only Catholicks (for other slauerie I thinke the Pope expecteth not at their hands) it should not repent them: for, seruire Deo regnare est; to serue God is to raigne. And I could wishe, that as they affect to be accompted such; so they would better effect the dutie belonging to such. Yf the Pope be no truer Gods enemie, then he is late,The 188. vntruth. or the Queens, butcher, the 188. vntrueth may to all mens seeming, be calculated. That then they drew then swoords against the Pope to defend trueth; the informer of the mater, the punishmēt sent from heauen, the former Protestant resolutions related in our answer to your Preface, that trueth was vnbegotten, till Luthers tyme,The 189. vntruth. do conioyntly register for the 189. vntrueth Wheras you prouoke the Noble men and Gentlemen of Irland, to imitat such ancestours in their true honor; you flatly perswad them to insurrection, and rebellion. For yf they imitat them, they will indeuour to kill their King, and such Bishop as he would establish: they will enter into diuelish ambition, &c. For so did they (by information of S. Bernard) to whom you would induce these to conforme them selues. From [Page 337] the profoundest bottom of my hart, I beseeche the omnipotent Saluiour of the world, long to preserue his sacred Maiestie now regnant, against such Puritanical sequels, and other their disloial and desperat dissignes, long since not vnknowen to his wysdome, nor vnfelt to his person, nor parents.
139. And that golden mouthed father Chrisost. Vpon this place of Paul. Rider. Chrysost. hom. 2. vpon first of Titus. That a Bishop must be the husband of one wife asked this question, what mooued Paul thus to write to Timothie? he aunswereth himselfe saying, obstrure prorsus intendit haereticorum ora qui nuptias damnant, ostendens. &c. The Apostle intendeth to stoppe the mouthes of all hereticks that condemneth marriage, shewing that the thing in it selfe is faultlesse, and a thing so precious, vt cum ipsa etiam possit quispiam ad sanctum Episcopatus solium subuehi: that a man beeing married, may bee promoted to the holie function of a bishoppe. And your Pope Gregorie saieth plainlie, writing ad Theotistam Patricium, that if marriage must be dissolued because of religion: Sciendum est inquit, yet saith he, you must vnderstand, quia etsi hoc lex humana concessit, lex tamen diuina prohibuit, that if mans law graunt that, yet Gods law forbideth that.
VVhether S. Chrysostom and S Gregorie allowed Preists Mariadges.
139. I graunt, as before is sayd in the 133. number,Fitzsimon. that to forbidd marriage, as damnable, is vnlawfull, and heretical, and diuelish: which is not done by vs, as there appeareth, but in ould tyme was done by Tatian, Marcion, and Manichee; and lately by such, of whom afterward. Secondly S. Chrysostom telleth you, that the cause why the husband of one wyfe, may be Bishop, and not of more then one, is; That he who had more then one cna neuer be good instructer or master of the Church, who might not perseuer in loue toward his wyfe she being dead. So that it is supposed the wyfe should be dead, from affection toward whom, kept, or violated, the one might be elected Bishop, and not the other; he to be Bishop, who conserued such affection, and not he who had reiected it. Also in the 136. number, other answer is found, that a marryed man liuing, abs (que) vlla suspicione carnalis commercij; without any suspition of carnal compagnie, may not only be Bishop after his wyfes death, but also during hir lyfe. Thirdly S. Chrysostom him selfe answereth in forme, to your argument, saying: Dixit vnius vxoris virum, non ea ratione vt id nunc in Ecclesia obseruetur: S. Chrysost, hom. 2. de patientia Iob. oportet enim omni castitate Sacerdotem ornatum esse; He sayd the husband of one wyfe, not so, as that now should be obserued in the Church: for a preest must be adorned with all chastitie. Certainly, I do not beleeue, that a man might [Page 338] be more often discomfited by his owne conforts, then it hapeneth to my Antisophist. For here the gowlden mouthed S. Chrysostom brought to auouch marriage of Preests, is found most repugnant therto: as euer befor also the lyke was done toward S. Chrysostom, and all others.
Let vs inquyre whether he thriueth better in the confort out of A S. Gregorie. First, to my thinking he should not: because I remembre to haue redd in S. Gregorie;S. Greg. l. 6. c. 1. in lib. reg. Errare eos qui propter verbum Pauli: vnusquis (que) vxorem suam habeat, putant licere Ecclesiasticis vxores habere; Them to erre who for the speeche of S. Paul: Let euery on haue his wyfe, thinke it lawfull for Church men to haue wiues. Secondly to my thinking, in saying S. Gregorie to be ours, and that he mantayneth marriages not to be dissolued according to Gods law; is to confesse, that he him selfe had not sayd truely befor, in saying the ould Fathers to be his frends, or that our doctrin condemneth marriage. For yf one of ours mantayne this point of controuersie, how is euery one of vs, sayd to be against it? For the honor of God, M. Rider, leaue collusions, and imposturs, in abusing your fraternitie with such iuggling doctrin, being fast and loose, off and on, vp and downe, without ryme, or reason. Thirdly, S. Gregorie sayth not, that yf marriage must be dissolued, but, si enim dicunt religionis causa coniugia &c. Yf any say that marriage for religions sake may be dissolued, although lawe of men accord therto, yet the lawe of God doth forbidd it: to witt (as he there expoundeth) that without mutual consent they should diuorce them selues, for any pretext to enter into religion. And nether is this against vs, not allowing the contrary; nor for him,B to approue marriage of Preists: because it speaketh only of the continuance of marriage inuiolably, (vnlesse mutual consent be graunted) befor any man attayne to preesthod, or religion. So that it is farr more for our purpose, that he that can not gett his wyfs consent to be deuorced can not be Preest; and none Preest, but (yf he were marryed) which hath such consent to remayne diuorced. Fowerthly, the Latin or Syntax of S. Gregorie, is misreported. For he could not vse the masculin gendre to Theotista, a woman by calling hir Patricium, but the feminine according to good congruitie, by calling hir Patrician. All was one to M. Rider, who is loath to haue to great knowledge in that Papistical latin tong,Luther. de abrogāda missa priuata P [...]mer. lib. de coiugio episcoporum. Magdeburg. en vnaqui [...] (que) cētur [...]a, cap. 7. & cent. 11. c. 7. as shall after appeare. Fiftly, yf any couet to haue a patterne of M. Riders choosing of proofs, yf he be learned and a Protestant, he may peruse Luther, Pomeran, the Centurians, Beza, Martyr, Melancthon, Caluin, Brentius, Kemnitius, Iuel, Fox, Du Plessis, &c. in treating of Preests marriage; Yf he be [Page 339] a Catholick,Beza & Martyr. 1. Cor. 7. Melāc. Conf. Augustana. art. 23. Ca [...]uin, 4. Instit. c. 12. n. 23. Brent. in Conf. VVittemberg. c. de coniugio. Kemnit. 3. par. exam. Iuel con. Harding. Fox acts. &c. Plessis l. con. Eucham. pag. 307. Michael Medina libris 5. de continentia hominum sacrorum Espenceus in lib, eiusdem argumenti. Clictoueus de celibatis Sacerd. Hosius dial. de eod. Didac. Payua lib. vlt. Cochleus con. Calu. de votis. Alphon. a Castro l. 13. de her. ver. Sacerdotium. heres. 4. Alb. Pighius controuersia, 15. Vide Cētur. 6. c. 7. col. 388. & cap. 10. col. 686. vide Fox. Act. and Mon. pag. 386. and would fynde the obiections of Protestants answered, I report him to Bellarmins third part of the first tome, lib. 1. chap. 19. & seq. and chap. 22. & seq. of the booke following to Hardings reioynder fol. 170. and to other Catholicks refutations mentioned in the margent against such heresies.
C Lastly, to acquaint the vnlearned with his choise in this mater, (for yf I would delate it in euery occasion, I should augment to much this volume) let him compare the seelie obiection brought by him out of S. Gregorie of whom we treat, and the huge accusation brought by others against preests continencie: because forsooth as they say, it was so subiect to abuses, as S. Gregorie abrogated it by a contrary law; as S. Vdalricus is sayd to testifie: especially for that in seeking fishe in his ponde, instidd of fishe, there were found six thousand heads of preests children, smuthered to conceale their parents leacherie.
D This obiection had carryed some weight with it, and is found in Fox, and euery other, of that sort not only Foxes, but asses wryting of this mater. Only M. Rider ouer rydeth all substancial stuff, stopping and stouping to snatch euery bayte, whether it be to his behoofe, or to his bane. Yf he had omitted it because he had found it confuted in Bellarmine &c. it might be excused. But the not finding of all the residue of is guggling stuff, confuted in Bellarmin, &c. sheweth that he was to good a Rider, to be, so good a reader as to haue euer perused him. Now then to answer this forgerie so vehemently aggrauated by his brethren; I say to it as to lyke vntruethes, that one part therof supplanteth another. For the forged autheur therof, liued not a hondred yeares neere the tyme of him, to whom he is sayd to haue written: as appeareth in Bellarmine. Secondly no such law, or memorial, or mention is extant in S. Gregorie,Vide Staphilum resp. ad fictas dissensiones obiectas ab Illiryco. Vide Alan. Cop. dial. 1. cap. 23. S. Greg. l. 1. epist. 42. or in any autheure treating of his lyfe, as Iohanes Diaconus, Beda, Sigebertus, Ado, Treculphus, &c. Thirdly S. Gregorie confuteth it him selfe, confirming the Catholick doctrin in this behalfe, by commanding; Non ordinari Subdiaconos, nisi prius vouerint continentiam; Subdeacons them selues not to be receaued to holy ordres, vnles they would vow continencie. Fowerthly some tyme those heads are sayd to be found in Sicile, some tyme in Rome. &c. Other stuffe, (besydes rayling at the parlament proofs, by him confessed, to be the act of all the nobles and learned in the land, saying them, to be vnlawfull and horrible doctrin of Deuils, repugnant to Christs trueth, and the Pope to be a bloodie murthering Italian Preest, and Foxes Saincts to be innocent lambs crying for reuenge against their murtherers (wherby you perceaue agayne, [Page 340] that he accompteth them of a good beleefe) and the lyke, not worth the taking vp by any sincke-sweeper) I can not fynde, or perceaue, wherunto I might replye, therfor to discharge my promise, I will acquaint the truth of this point of Coelibat, or vnmarrying of Preests, in the East and West Churches.
Rider.140 Now yee see Scriptures, Fathers, Popes, practise of the primitiue Church, and presidents of godlie Bishops and priests witnesse with vs against you, that the marriage of priests is lawfull and honorable, and your parliament stuffe vnlawfull and horrible: the one hath the warrant from Christ, the other is the doctrine of Diuels, from which recall your selues, your confederates and nouices, least in abstaining from lawfull matrimonie, yee fall into damnable adulterie; which the Lord preuent for Christs sake; And thus much for the first three Articles.
Catholick doctrin of the not Marrying of Priests.
Fitzsimon.140. FIrst it is to be vnderstood, that the determination of the Church, is authorised from God, as yf it were his owne act. He that heareth you, heareth me. VVhen you receaued the woord of obedience of God, by vs, you receaued it not as the woord of men, Luc. 10. 1. Thess. 2. 1. Ioan. 4. but as it is truely, the woord of God. He that knoweth God, heareth vs; He that is not of God, he doth not heare vs. In this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of errour &c. Secondly it is to be knowen that the Church from the Apostles tymes, hath eschued Marriage in the Clergie, and followed Coelibat,Ver. 35. 1. Cor. 1. Ver. 33. S August. lib. 5. cap. 26. cōtra Donatistas. or Continencie, that according to S. Paul; Facultatem prabeat sine impedimento Dominum obseruandi; It might inable them without impediment, to serue our Lord. For he that is marryed is carefull of the things which are of the world, how he may please his wyfe: and he is diuided. Thirdly sayth S. Augustin, and it is a godly and goulden saying; De eo quod tota per orbem frequentat ecclesia, disputare; an ita faciendum sit, insolentissimae insaniae est; To dispute of that which the whole Church doth obserue, whether it should be obserued or not, Conc. 2. Carthag. can. 2. An. 396. fuit probatum 2 Leone 4. d. c. de libellis. is most insolent madnes. Fourthly, that it proceeded from the Apostles tymes; of innumerable proofs, extant to that effect, I will only tendar these few. 1. Out of the 2. Concil of Carthage. Placet vt Episcopi, Presbyteri, Diaconi, vel qui Sacramenta contrectant, pudicitiae custodes, etiam ab vxoribus se abstineant. Vt quod Apostoli docuerunt, & ipsa seruauit antiquitas, nos quoque custodiamus. It pleaseth that Bishops, Preests, and Deacons, or they who administer the Sacraments, euen from their wiues should abstayne, and keepe integritie. That what the Apostles taught, and antiquitie obserued, we also should continue. In which woords, all that we sayd, of the being of Coelibat the Apostles doctrin, and practised [Page 341] in the Church, and commanded to posteritie, is contayned.Conc. Neocaesar. Anno 312. probatū à Leone 4. d. 20. 2. Conc, Neocaesar. Presbyter si vxorem duxerit, ordine suo moueatur; Yf a Preest marry a wife, let him be deposed from his ordre. This Concil was more ancient then the former, and testifyeth how heynous a punishment it had bene that a Preest should marry. 3. Concil.Concil. Elibertinum Anno 325. Elibertinum in Hispania; Placuit, in totum prohibere Episcopis, Presbyteris, Diaconis, ac Subdiaconis abstinere se à coniugibus, & non generare filios; It pleaseth, altogether to forbidd Bishops, Preests, Deacons and Subdeacons, to abstayne from wiues, Conc. Aquisgran an. 816. cap. 6. Maguntin. an. 888. cap. 10. Wormatiense anno 868. cap. 9. S. Clem. can. 27. Apostolorum. S. Calixtus 1. apud Gratian. d. 27. c. Presbyteri. Siricius ep. ad Himericum. Vide Bellarm. Baron. Valentiam. De caelibatu. S. August. de baptismo con. Donatistas lib. 2. c. 7. & 23. & epist. 118. and not to ingender Children. This concil was in the West, the other two in the East, and Southe; yet concurrng in one doctrin. And for the North, the Concils of Aquisgran, of Worms, and Mayence in Germanie, not only followed the same doctrin, but also the same woords. And these concils being partly before Siricius, and cettayne of them also before, the Concil of Nice; in vayne doth Flessis VVillet, and such others, drawe the original of Coelibat from Siricius and the sayd Concil. For S. Clement in the canons of the Apostles, Calixtus the first, Siricius, &c. being neere the tyme of the Apostles them selues, do certifie (yf that might serue our veneral ministers distrust) the antiquitie therof long before. Therfor by the rule of S. Augustin; Quae non inueniuntur in literis Apostolorum, neque in Concilijs posteriorum, & per vniuersam custodiuntur Ecclesiam, non nisi ab ipsis tradita & commendata creduntur; VVhat are not found in the epistles of Apostles, nor Concils of their successours, yet are kept through the vniuersal Church, are beleeued not to haue bene deliuered and commended but by them. By this rule, I say, Coelibat finding still one more ancient then another, testifying the obligation therof, can be no other then an Apostolical tradition.
A Fiftly omitting all other proofs of Fathers, who by life and writings were conformable to such will of the Apostles, (as among the whole troope, how much euery one was more singular otherwyse, so was he also in chast lyfe, as appeareth by induction:) I wil be now contented with S. Epiphanius and S. Hieroms only suffrages.S. Epiphan. ad finem operiscontra haereses, Item her. 59. Epiphanius; Sanctum Sacerdotium, ex virginibas vt plurimum, aut ex solitarijs, aut si hi ad ministerium non suffecerint, de his qui se à proprijs vxoribus continent, et si quis ab initio continens viduus fuerit, habere potest locum Episcopi, Presbyteri, Diaconi, Hypodiaconi: Holy preesthood for the most part is of Virgins, or solitarie persons, or yf these be not sufficient toward the charge, of them who liue continent from their propre wyues, and yf any from the begyning had bene a continent widdow, he may haue place of a Bishop, Preest, Deacon, Subdeacon. Hieronimus; Quid facient Orientis Ecclesiae? quid Aegipti, & sedis Apostolicae, quae aut virgines clericos accipiunt, aut continentes, aut si vxores habuerint, mariti esse desistunt? [Page 342] VVhat shall the Churches of the East doe? S. Hieron. circa initium libri contra Vigilantium. Idem in fiue Apologiae contra Iouinianum. what of Aegypt, and the seat Apostolical? which ether receaue Virgins into the Clergie, or Continent, or yf they had wiues, they leaue to be husbands. Long befor sayd Origen hom. 23. in lib. Num. Illus solius offerre sacrificium indesinens qui perpetuae se deuouet castitati; It is his parte alone to offre the continual Sacrifice, who hath deuoted him selfe to continual or perpetual chastitie. Nay the pagan and most lasciuous Poet could say,B discedat ab aris; Tibulus 2.1. queis tulit histerna gaudia nate venus. Casta placent superis. By these testimonies, dearly beloued Reader, vnlesse thou be peruerse, & vnsatiable, thou hast, that Celibat being cōmanded by the Church, is therby also commanded by God him selfe: that the Apostles taught it to be obserued: that Concils of East, West, South, and North, concurred in the obseruation therof: that the disciples of the Apostles testifie the necessitie therof: that other vnspitious assurance auerre the same. Thou perceauest also, that the obiections against it, are as light in them selues, as they and their liues are light from whom they come: who being licentious and fleashly Libertins, do only seeke for cloaks to their shame. Women (as of Samson, Dauid, Salomon, and the Children of Israel, so peculiarly of the forsayd mates) were the stone of offense or scandal, and of Apostasie, according to the saying of Gods woord;Ecclesiastici. 19.2. Vinum & mulieres apostare faciunt sapientes; VVyne and women do make wyse men (in their owne Conceits) to fall from beleefe. Besyd all which thou hast lately out of Luther before, that he would haue taught celibat,Vide num. 130. but to be opposit to the Pope: and yf the Pope had allowed it, he would mantayne whoordome to be more lawfull.
4. Article.4 That vowes of Chastitie ought to be obserued,
5. Article.5 That Masses are agreable to Gods law.
6. Article.6 That Confession is fruitfull.
Rider.141. 142. THese three Articles are as repugnant to Christes truth, as the rest. The fift Article (Christ willing) to my next Treatise shall be handled, the fourth and sixth Article, as you hereafter giue occasion. Now let the Catholikes consider how vnmercifullie and vnmeasurablie, the bloudie Bishop of that Italian murthering Priest shed the innocent bloud of so manie Saints, because they would not say and subscribe that these sixe Articles (beeing in deed hereticall) were Apostolicall and Catholicke. Was this the planting of the Protestantes faith? no, this parliament was established for no other end, but to supplant them. And therefore these sixe Articles were fitlie termed,VVhipe with fiue strings. the whip with sixe strings, wher with your forefathers whipt to death these innocent lambes (for neither conspiracie nor treason) but onelie for the word of God, and for the testimonie which they maintained. But they cease not to crie still for vengeance against those murtherers, saying: How long Lord holie and true doest not thou iudge & auenge our bloud on them that dwell on the earth? Reuel. 6.9.10. But thankes be to God those chanels of innocent bloud shed then in England by the [Page 343] Popes direction, haue quite for euer banisht out of England the Pope and his superstition. And as the mother that would before Salomon haue the childe diuided, was not the true mother, for the Church of Rome that delighteth so much in bloud,1. Kings. 3.17. &c. cannot be the true Church. Time will not permit to write the damnable fruite that this filthie Munkish chastitie yeeldeth: but of that when opportunitie is offered: yet stil nothing but what your owne friends record.
VVhether late Sectarists, or Catholicks, be greater discommenders of Matrimonie.
141. IF Catholicks be discommenders or condemners of matrimonie, it appeareth by the premises.Fitzsimon. Whether Sectarists be or noe, let it now be conceaued. First they can not abyde that matrimonie should be a Sacrament: for they allowe but fower Sacraments in their first confession of Augusta, tendred to Charles the fift anno 1530. Namely Baptisme the Supper,Augustana Confessio de numero Sacramē torum. anno. 1530. Idem habet Lossius in Cathecismo anni. 1557. Luth. Serm. de Matr. Melanct. in loc. Com. an. 1536. 1552. 1558. Sleidan. l. 20. Absolution, and Order. In deede after, they foisted in Matrimonie; and lastly Confirmation, and Vnction. Wherin they are gone before them in our Contryes; who allowed first, but three, & soone after but two: and now they abrogat these two (by making them no better then base and beggerly ordonances as is ofte aboue declared) not esteeming them any thing necessary to saluation, nor much behoofull, but as bare external signes. So that matrimonie by being none of their Sacramēts, is according to their cōceit, not so much as a base & beggerly ordonance, or a bare fruictless, external signe; peruse but the numbers quoted, and you shall fynde them to thinke no otherwyse. For truely A I esteeme it a point of religion, in Gods cause and religions,Hall in Chron. an. regni Henrici 8.28. fol. 228. to belye the deuil him selfe. I may hitherto therfor conioyne, a pleasant alteration of religion, saying; Now yow see frends, that four Sacraments of seuen are taken from vs, and shortly you shall leese the other three also, except you looke about you. For now they are all made no better, then taken away. Secondly, for the marriages of Preests, neuer could the state of our Contryes, by all vehement, and importunat sute that might be made, obtayne the children of Preests to be legitimated. The most that euer I was able to learne they had obtayned, was in K. Edwards dayes, only to be exempted from temporal punishment incident to their sacrilege in marrying. And in the same act of Parlament,Statut. anno. 2. Edou. 6. cap. 21. anno Domini 1548. I fynde it affirmed, to be better, and most to be wished, that Preests would abstayne from marriage. Which truely, is a secreat condemnation of [Page 344] their marriages to be vnlawfull; as also that their children could not be legitimated, so many statuts, of former lawes, and parlaments condemning them for illegitimat. As great a condemnation was it in the later dayes of Q. Elizabeth, to haue bene vpon the point to haue all Preests, yea and ministers marriages vtterly forbidden, as euery one knoweth. Which, as I take insued for the most part by promoting Puritants, telling of their fellowes that, they do lease out Church benefices lands, 2. Admonition to the Parlament. pag. 23. and houses, for brauerie and brybs to be bestowed vpon their wiues, or children, or officers, or seruants, &c, and therby alien at Church liuings from Churche vses, and their successours. How much could I, yf I had not compassion toward some, certifie in this mater? What could I say of them, that stoutly preached against marriage of the ministerie, against pluralitie of benifices. &c. Who now are inuironed abundantly with stock and store of th'one sort and th'other? God be praysed.
To our subiect of discourse, belongeth that marriage, thirdly, is greatly disparaged, by late Sectaries, allowing so many breaches therof, as yf it imported no great bonde. For you may fynde in Luther,Luther. tom. 5. in 1. Cor. 7. fol. 111. 112. 122. 123, Et in proposit. de digamia. Serm. de Matrimonio l. de vita coniugali. Corpus Doctr. Christ. Germ. in repet. de cō iugio pag. 280. Vrbā. Reg. in loc. com. de Matr. Canones Ge [...]euen. anno 1560. Martyr. in 1. Cor. 7. Bucer. in c. 19. Math. Luth. Serm. de Matrimonio. Ochin. dial. l. 2. dial. 21. Pag. 200. 204. 205. Exod. 20. Deute. 5. Math. 14. Mar. 6. 1. Cor. 6. 1. Tim. 1. Ephes. 5. Galat. 2.4. Bucer, and the Geneuian resolutions, (to which P. Martyr, Ochinus, and others accord) these causes of Diuorcement, and of new marriage, during the liues of both partyes. First, to haue mistaken one another to haue bene Virgins. 2. Any vnkind forsaking, betwixt bothe partes. 3. Any long absence of ether. 4. Any great forwardnes of ether. 5. Dislyke of parents towards the marriage. 6. If ether refuse, or may not fulfill the acte of marriage. 7. If the husband can not begett children, that the wyfe may vse anothers help; Misceatur alteri vel fratri mariti, occulto tamen matrimonio, & proles imputetur putatiuo (vt dicunt) Patri; Let hir lye with another, or the brother of hir husband, (sayth Luther) and let the child be fathered vpon the father (as he is called) in conceit. 8. By allowing saecular people to haue many wiues. Paulus Episcopis & Sacerdotibus plures vxores interdicit, ceteris tacite concedit; Paul, sayth Ochin, (whom Bale sayth, England when it had him was happie, when it wanted him was vnhappie) forbidd Bishops and Preests, to haue many wiues, but permitted them secretly to the residue. Go tell these men, that God forbiddeth adulterie and fornication; that it is not lawfull for these Herods to haue their neighbours wiues, they being liuing; that such as are diuorced must remayne vnmarryed, during the lyfe of their former spouses; and other such assurances of Gods will and woord; they will clappe this text in your teethe; False brethren, that haue stollen in, to spye our libertie, which we haue in Christ Iesus. And by this libertie (for which all this hurlie burblie is followed) the very ministers them selues, are not contented with one wyfe, as confesseth Silu. Czecanouius, [Page 345] saying; Deus bone! quam incredibilia vidi &c? Czecanouius de corruptis moribus. O good God what incredible things haue I seene &c? And among many other enormities of adulteries, and murthers, he sayth; Vnus eorum (is toxico vxorem suam interfecerat, vt alijs mulieribus vteretur) rogatus, cur tantum admisisset scelus, respondit, coniugium in Lutheranis Sacerdotibus non restinguere vagas libidines; One of them (he had killed his wife with poison to vse other women) being demanded, why he had committed so great a cryme, he answered, marriage in Lutheran Preests, not to extinguish wandring lusts. This made the Anabaptistan minister George, Dauid; to fower wyues whom he had first, Hortensius Mowntfort de tumultibus Anabap. Hamilton. in Calu. C [...]rfus l. 2. c. 35 fol. 236. Nichol. Burne. Scot. disp. &c. c. 29. fol. 143. to haue added tenn more: and most of the people, to haue had by his example, fiue, six, seuen, eight.
This made Knox the Puritan Apostle of Scotland (who had bene some tyme a gally slaue) first to haue abused his owne mother in law. Secondly being thervpon banished into England, to haue wallowed in all leacherie; and hearing of seditions in Scotland, to haue returned (as to such carren such crowes repayre) accompagnyed with three women sisters. Thirdly not as yet contented, to haue committed a rape vpon a yong gyrle, and after by a tricke of witch craft (familiar among the brethren) to haue made hir his holy fourth vessell of ease. This libertie against the bond of marriage, made Luther confesse;Luth. in Colloq. mensal. fol. 400. 526. tom. 2. Idem ibid. fol. 125. Propter libidinis vehementiam & amorem mulierum se ad insaniam propè redactum fuisse; By the vehemencie of lust, and loue of women (besyd his Catharin) that he was almost become madd: and sayth he, who soeuer is importunated by Sathanical thoughts, for to repell them; de aliqua puella cogitet suadeo; I counseil him, to thinke vpon some yong mayd. I will not specifie any disordre of the disciples, nor as much by the tenth part of the doctors them selues, as I might culle out of Luthers banquetting conferences,Colloq. in mensal. Bolsec in vita Cal. Zuing. to. 1. fol. 115. published by him selfe. I will leaue Caluin to be knowen by Bolsec, Zuinglius to intimat his owne, and his fellowes incontinencie. And for conclusion I will only deliuer at this tyme, the abhominable declaration of Beza (whom Trauers the Puritan tearmeth the best interpreter of the new testament) of his vncertaintie,Trauers in his defence of Ecclesiastical discip. pag. 86. whether more he should followe leacherie, or Sodomie; and his final resolution in preferring Sodomie; as he hath published him selfe. Let none excuse it, as yf it had bene done during his Papistrie: for in his Creofagie,Beza in sua Creof. pag. 58. In Pref. de sua confess. Schlusselb. theol. Cal. fol. 93. long tyme after his reading in Lausana, he auoweth, and confirmeth the same: in his translation of the fifteth Psalme, he conformeth his style to the same: and Schlusselburg assureth, that; totam aetatem explendis suis libidinibus & cupiditatibus, & describendis suis amoribus, & vlciscendis suis riualibus exercuit; he spent all his tyme, in fullfilling his lusts, describing his loues, reuengeing his corriuals, as applying nothing but the same.
The impious elegie of Theodore Beza his doubtfull deliberation, whether he should follow more, adulterie with his Claud, wyfe to one in Paris, in the streat de la Calend, ensigne du Banc, or Zodomie with German Andebert, a boy of Orleance. And how he preferred Zodomie. Elegia. 3. & 4.
ABest Candida, Beza quid moraris?
Andebertꝰ abest, quid hic moraris?
Tenent Parisij tuos amores.
Habent Aurelij tuos lepores,
Et tu Vezelijs manere pergis,
Procul Candidula (que) amoribus (que)
Et leporibus, Andebertulo (que)?
Immo Vezelij procul valete,
Et vale pater, & valete fratres.
Nam (que) Vezelijs carere possum,
Et carere parente, & his & illis,
At non Candidula, Andebertulo (que).
Sed vtrum rogo, preferam duorum?
Vtrum inuisere me docet priorem?
An quemquā tibi Candida anteponam?
An quemquā anteferā tibi Andiberte?
Quid si me geminas secem ipse partes,
Harum vt altera Candidam reuisat,
Currat altera versus Andebertum?
At est Candida sic auara, noui,
Vt totum cupiat tenere Bezam:
Sic Beza est cupidus sui Andebertus,
Beza vt gestat integro potiri,
Amplector quo (que) sic & hunc & illam,
Vt totus cupiam videre vtrum (que)
Integris (que) frui integer duobus.
Praeferre attamen alterum necesse est.
O duram nimium necessitatem!
Sed postquam tamē alterum necesse est,
Priores tibi defero Andeberte.
Quod si Candida forte Conqueratar.
Quid tam? Basiolo tacebat vno.
Candida is absent, why dost thou Beza s [...]aye?
Andebert is absent, why dost thou here delaye?
Paris doth retayne thy loues sweetest treasures.
Orleance doth keep thy most deli [...]som pleasures.
How dost thou then lingring in Vazelay towne indure,
thy litle sweet Cādida far frō thy power,
and litle Andebert thy pleasures sweetest flower?
No, adiew Vezelay, I list noe more in thee dwell.
Also father and brethren, I bidd you farewell.
For I can want Vezelay, and yet not be hindred,
My father and brethren and all my kyndred.
But not my deerest Candida, and Andebert.
But whether, I pray you, shall I soonest preferre?
Or to whether soonest my selfe transferre?
Shall any before Cādida obtayne such grace?
Shal not rather Andebert haue first fauors place?
How then shold I my self into two parts diuide?
wherof, th'one forthwith to Cādida might slide.
And th'other to Andebert might spedely ryde?
But I know so greedie to be my Cādida,
As fayne she would wholy inioye hir owne Beza.
So willing of his owne Beza, is Andebert,
That Beza, be his only owne by good desert.
But I so in my mynd imbrace, both him and hir,
As wholy of both, I wish to visit ether
And wholy them both to inioye together.
But one I must preferre, by great necessitie.
O ouer hard case, and great extremitie!
But since there remayneth therof noe remedie:
Andebert I graunt cheefe fauour first to thee.
And yf Candida of such vnkindnes complayne,
VVhat then? One sweet imbracement will ease all hir payne.
Of Preists Marriages in the Oriental Churche, and of late Sectarists seeking their fauoure.
142. I Request all Readers desyrous of the trueth,Fitzsimon. to obserue diligently this short declaration following. As it hapned euer befor, when new Sects budded in any contryes: so for euery one prouince reuolting from Gods Church, for euery contry infected, fot euery diminution of religious authoritie, God almightie in his admirable prouidence, multiplyed hundreds for one, and augmented the dignitie & iurisdiction of his churche at the same tyme, with reparation of the losse, aboue all comparison. Sathan might obtayne of God, to impouerish first a Iob, but could not after hinder that God should redouble all his substance. First, Constantins gifts, and decrees in fauoure of religious authoritie, being by diuers of his successours reuoked, and infringed, especialy by Honorius, and Valentinianus; God called to fayth and religion,Anno. 495. France with their King Clodoueus, submitting his dominiōs to Hormisdas Pope. About the same tyme the Arians infected small parcells in the East: and about the same tyme all our contryes came to Christian religion in the A West. Secondly Iustinian by Theodora his wyfs impulsion,Anno. 732. banished Pope Siluerius, & the Grecians began to apostat from religion, or at least to fall to sondry erroneous perswasions. At or about the same tyme, (when Leo Isaurus also, and others impugned Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction) Charlemaigne, Pipin, and others were excited by God to most religious courses & the Occidental Empire was separated from the former tyrants, the authoritie of the Churche more then euer befor amplifyed, and all Germanie, and the North part of the world, was lightned with Christianitie. Breefly after the last Concil of Florence, the Grecians falling to hatefull heresies, and emulations, and making vp a schismatical Church or rather Synagog, repugnant to the Romain Catholick Church; God sent them first the scourge of the Turcks who subdued them, and to this day farre beyond all beleefe most cruely oppresseth them: So, when Luther,Anno. 1500. and his brotherhood conspired into lyke insurrection, and that betwixt the Grecians and them, part of Greece, and Germanie,Sleidā in his historie of Charles the fift, was as silent as a fishe of the conuersion of the Indies. reuolted from Gods Churche; then God of his wonted goodnes, in abundant recompense bestowed vpon these parts, where religion was professed most exactly, namly vpon Spaine, the infinit regions rather then realms of the [Page 348] world: wherof America only, neuer befor knowen, surpasseth not only in wealthe, but also in amplitude, the residue of the earth, which all our predecessours had euer befor knowen: And vpon his Church, he bestowed all these contryes, in subiection of religion, and loialtie: as by their late legation from the most remote parts of the world, to euery eye, and eare, was notorious, when three Princes of Iaponia in the name of all the rest, rendred their homage to Sixtus quintus Pope in Rome, hauing imployed three yeares trauailing to come therto, anno. 1585. Now (the premisses forwarned) when Protestantrie considered the obstinat Schisme of the Grecians against the Romain Churche on one syde, and their owne nakednes, & the particularitie of their faction, on th'other side; they sought (as people in extremitie respect not by whom, or how, they are countenanced) to be graced with the approbation of the Greeke Churche. But they were, as, spurij adespoti, vnknowen illegitimats, by them most disdainfully reiected. Behould what succeded vpon this their indeuoure. God almightie,Vide Bredenbach. lib. 7, c. 18. awaked as out of a drowsie sleepe, two cheefe parts of the sayd Grecian Church, to witt the whole Patriarchal portion of Alexandrie the Southeast, and the Ruthenian the Northeast part of the Grecian Churche, to prostrat them selues before the last Pope Clement, in al deuout submission. Which being publickly, and with incredible solemnitie performed in Rome,Tom. 6. & 7. circa finem. the theatre of the world, as is amply specifyed by the worthy Baronius; and knowen to all Christendome; I need not dwell longer in the relation therof. Only let all Catholicks, magnifie the mightie bountie of God toward their profession, that when aduersaries reuolted from it, for euery one subuerted, thousand infidels haue bene conuerted, and no fewer schismaticks reconciled.Vide Bredenbach. lib. 7. c. 18. Iustus Calu. in Apologia pag. 12. The censure of the greeke Church giuen against Protestantrye how desyrously the Protestants indeuour to conceale it, and how much they are greaued, and graueled therby, I leaue to Bredenbachius, and Iustus Caluinus, to demonstrat.
For conclusion; a part of the Schisme of the Greeke Church against the Romain Church, consisted in their admitting marryed men to receaue holy ordres,Vide Bellarm. to. 1, par. 3. l. 1. c. 19. & after receauing them, to retayne their wiues: Prouyded alwayes, that yf they came chast to holy ordres, or that their wiues dyed, they could neuer after marry. This their lecherous impietie, being contrary to all primatiue Christianitie as appeareth they so desperatly imbraced, as through it, & for it, notwithstanding all the calamities they sustayne by Turkes, all the refutations of their errours by Catholicks all the means that can be wrought [Page 349] hetherto, they haue not bene nor might be reclaymed. Yet Gods heauie hand ouer them, the continual sting of their consciences behoulding their offense, their disdayne toward late heresies as fearing to straye more, and other sondry manifestations, are sufficient proofs, that their Schisme is their owne infamie, and rather the glorie of the Romain Church then otherwyse: that when other Churches lyke chaffe are borne away against it by heresies; it as sownd corne remayneth, to furnish the heauenly banquet: when other houses builded vpon sands, are by rayne falling, wynds blowing, and seas surgeing, ouerthrowen; it in state and sowndnes, not only against the despyte and furie of men, but euen against hell gates (as Christ had promised) remayneth inuiolable. Nether, as now appeareth,Mat. 16. do the Grecians euen in the forsayd disordre, concurr with Protestant marriages of Preists: who, as Luther sayth, not only befor ordres, but after, and not only for one wyfe, but for two, three, fower, fiue, and six, Luth. in proposit. de digamia. are allowed to entre into matrimonie; contrary to the former beleefe, and practise of Grecians, how leacherous soeuer. And not only for this point, but also as great, or rather greater cōdemnation afforded they of their heresie against the blessed Sacrament, saying;Ecclesia Orientalis in censura doctrinae Lutheranae c. 10. Ecclesiae Sanctae iudicium est, Panem & Vinum in Corpus & Sāguinem Christi virtute Sancti Spiritus transire ac immutari: non quod Christus discendat de caelo, vt in Eucharistia presens adsit, sed quod per transmutationem & transitionem panis in ipsum corpus fiat presens. It is the iudgement of the holy Church, bread and wyne by vertue of the holy Ghost to passe and be changed into the body and blood of Christ: not that Christ discendeth from heauen, that he might be present in the eucharist, but that by the passing and changeing of bread into his body, he is made present. A heauie sentence, as bringing cōtempt where contentment was expected; in stidd of consolation a condemnation; and a testimonie of hatred against Protestantrie, to be vniuersaly in all the world.
The fourth proofe. Denyers of the Reall presence condemned as heretickes.Catho. Priests,
143. IGnatius ad Smyrnenses, and Theodoret dialog. 3. circa medium, do make mention of certain denyers of the Reall presence: but so, as they had none to accord vnto them. Also Iconomachi (as may appeare out of the 7 Councell) did affirme that the Sacrament was but an image of Christ: and they also had no followers: onelie Berengarius in the time of Leo the ninth, about fiue hundred yeares past, who thrice recanted such opinion as eronious, mantained the onelie spirituall presence. And hee in three Councels was condemned: in Conc. Turon. [Page 350] sub Victor. 2. in Conc. Rom. sub. Nich. 2. in Concil. Rom. sub Gregorio nono. The Councell of Trent remaineth for the rest that haue insued.
Rider.GEntlemen, you should haue brought Theodoret before Ignatius▪ because Theodoret onelie reporteth some such thing out of Ignatius (but Ignatius himselfe hath not one word of it) and it seemeth still you neuer read Theodoret, because you say circa medium, not knowing in which of the three and thirtie chapters it was. To be briefe, that which you thinke maketh for you, is in the ninteenth chapter, which is but a sacramentall Metonymie, as the rest of the fathers vse: and you would wrest it to your litterall and proper sence; which is still your error spoken of and confuted before. But read Theodoret dialog. 1. cap. 8. and he will expound himself and confute you. And for Ignat. I haue read his twelue Epistles vppon this occasion twice ouer, and from his first Epistle ad Martam Cassoboliten to his last ad Romanos., there is no such thing in that reuerend Archbishop and Martyr, but the contrarie: which maketh me to wonder with what conscience you can belie so godlie a Martyr, and abuse the Catholicks your louing friends. And as for your Iconomachi, they are verie impertinentlie brought in this place, your title of Images were more proper for them. Yet that you may see they fit not this purpose, I referre you for satisfaction to the Popes owne Synode & Decree,Ex Synode 2. Act. 5. pag. 549. beginning at Cum diem extremum impiorum Arabum Tyrannus quem Soliman nominabant, clausisset, &c. and after followeth the Popes decree. Petrus deuotisimus presbyter, &c. Read this Act and Decree, and they will giue you satisfaction of your impertinent allegations: and if the Pope cannot content his Chaplens, then you are male content in deed.
VVhether ancient denyers of the Real presence, were condemned as hereticks.
Fitzsimon.143. MY obiection against M. Rider consisteth in two important accusations; The one, that the denyers of the real presence, as soone as they tooke vp such opinion, were condemned as hereticks. Th'other, that when they tooke it vp, they had none to accord vnto them. So that only Ignatius and Theodoret could fynde but a glawnce of such opinion: which vanished for want of followers in such maner, as Ireneus, Tertullian, Philaster, Epiphan, Augustin, Damascen, &c. in their calculation of heresies, could fynde none so vnfaythfull as to distrust the trueth of Christs real presence. To this vrgent accusation, M. Rider only answereth, first that we should haue brought Theodoret before Ignatius. In deed, as I haue sayd befor, when I am a Puritan wryter, I will follow their preposterous proceeding, and place Ignatius that was three hondred yeeres befor Theodoret, (yet both were within the first fiue hundred yeares) behinde him; & Theodoret that [Page 351] alleageth anothers monuments, I will place before the monument wryter, as yf he were a prophet to fortell what should be written. Secondly he answereth, that Ignatius him selfe hath not one woord therof. Wherunto I reply, that the greater our losse, by not hauing so much of his wrytings as were found by Theodoret. Thirdly he answereth, that it seemeth we neuer read Theodoret, because we say about the middest of his third dialogue; not knowing in which of the 33. chapters it was. I replye: that the later chapters being more long then the former, I had not strayed, in specifying the middest in the 19. chapter. Also it is but a Riderian sequel, you know not the chapter: therfor you neuer read the mater. In our 135. number, I demonstrat, that you mistake the number of S. Ignatius epistle: will you therfor be confounded by your owne sequel, that you neuer read the woords? Thirdly he answereth, that the point of the obiection, is but a Sacramental Metonimie. To which I reply, that this answer is M. Riders ignominie; to vse obscure woords vnexpownded, & nothing to the mater. What Sacramental is, I haue often befor declared. For Metonymie, it is thus defyned by Festus: Metonymia est tropus, quum quod continet significatur per id quod continetur. &c. Metonymie is a figure, when it that contayneth is signifyed, for it that is contayned, as yf you would say, drinke of this cuppe, meaning the liquoure in the cupp. This denomination of the cupp for the liquoure, is a Metonymie.
Now hauing vnmasked M. Riders woords, I may be licensed to examin how they serue his defense against the accusation out of S. Ignatius. For he thought as Agar abandoned hir child vnder a bushe,Gen. 21. remayning remot till it had dyed, to leaue the obiection without any other consolation then that in placing it in an obscure shaddow; and retyred farr from it, lamenting his owne extremitie. But I will supplye to him the office performed by the Angel to Agar, and say:Gen. 21. take vp the Child: meaning the forsayd obiection by him forlorned, contayned in these woords, of Ignatius. Eucharistias & oblationes non admittunt, quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem seruatoris nostri Iesu Christi; They allow not Eucharists, and oblations, because they do not confesse the eucharist to be the fleash of our Keeper Iesus Christ. Compare M. Riders tropical answer to this accusation; and tell after, that it is out of the compasse of both the tropicks limiting the Zodiac; So that the sonn of playne dealing can not reach to be directly ouer it. Here is then Agars child Ismael reuyued to the Puritan opinion against the real presence; Ferus homo, manus eius contra omnes; a fierce fellow, his hands impugning them all: Gen. 16. as the [Page 352] Scripture telleth Ismael to haue bene. So that M. Riders expectation, that it should haue dyed by being placed in a darke thicket of remote words is frustrated, and it now a fierce and cruel aduersarie to them that denye the Eucharist, and Sacrifices; as prouing them in their first originals to haue bene apparent hereticks. The forsayd denyers of the Eucharist to be the fleshe of Christ, being the first of that opinion (yet in deed, they were perswaded rather that the Eucharist was not Christs fleash, because they thought he had not fleash, then yf he had any, that his woords so pregnant to testifie suche trueth, had not made the Eucharist to be his fleash: and by consequent, the heresies of these tymes were condemned in them, not otherwyse but by anticipation; to witt, for denying the Eucharist to be Christs fleash, and yet confessing that Christ had fleashe) and for it disproued as hereticks. To come agayne to his affected obscuritie; what vse, or effect, do the woords of M. Rider importe, [that the speeche was but a Srcramental Metonomye] to defend them, & their imaginations therby? Ether the Metonomie is to be referred to the persons, or to the perswasion, or to the condemnation of the persons, and perswasion, or to the condemners, of their condemnation. In any way in the world that it can B be imagined, it is no more to any purpose proffit, or defense, then a single netwoorke or loome apron, to couer a naked frozen bodye. But why should the dealing be defensiue or playne, in such a meaning? why should he discouer intelligibly, that which discouereth his cause most pertinently, and infallibly; and not rather, as he did, fall to a puritanical euasion in pretending to say much, when he had sayd nothing at all but a Metonomie; that is, a naked figure without all substantial contents? Fowerthly he answereth, that elswher Theodoret will expownd him selfe, and confute vs. To whiche, I replye; that this is at least the 191. vntrueth: for nether th'one, nor th'other, is in all Theodoret.The 191. vntruth. Nether could he confute vs, but by first confuting him selfe. Also yf he did so expownd him selfe, and confute vs; M. Rider hauing any regard of his credit, should haue brought suche confutation, and omitted his voyde, and blynd mist of a Sacramental Metonomie in place therof. Fiftly he answereth, that we belye Ignatius. To which I reply, that I attended (according my experience of many greater discurtesies indured at his hands,Calu. de vera particip. Corporis Christi in coena pag. 1171. as befor is shewed) this abuse; considering in the same case I found it vsed by Caluin, against Heshusius. But M. Rider for recompense and satisfaction, will take this 192. vntrueth,The 192. vntruth. in his owne mouth, confessing Theodoret to haue in his 19. chapter, what we had alleaged. In whom then, is the lye? [Page 353] He dareth not to say that it is in Theodoret, being a most venerable Father within the first fiue hondred yeares. And he can not say, it is in me, who haue only certifyed (and that truely, as he confesseth) what Theodoret alleaged out of S. Ignatius. There remayneth therfor, that he can bestow it no where so well as in his owne lipps: wher, it is, rex in regno, res in fine, loco (que) locatum, in a propre free howld, and habitation of inheritance. Ther it is, as in the most imprenable scons, out of which veritie is banished, and hath lost all iurisdiction; of which sconce, the teethe are the walls, the lipps the rampars, and the beard the trenches; ther it is, as a cocke crowing on his owne dunghill, whom as the lion King of beasts can not terrifie, so is falshood in that mouth, teethe, lipps, beard, and dunghill, not surmowntable by veritie. Therfor we must let it, there, and in that maner remayne, without controwlment. For yf you chase it out of such seat, it will fall into the throat, and neuer be expelled.
C To the next as greuous obiection, that Iconomachi, infamous hereticks, (who in deed are the ancientest forefathers of the Protestant perswasion; among such as confesse our Saluioure Christ to haue had a true body) affirming, the Sacramēt was but an image of Christ, had none to credit them; he answereth, first, that they are impertinently brought into this place. To which I reply, that the proofe bearing title, whether ancient denyers of the real presence were condemned for hereticks, and it being shewed that Ichonomachi were such denyers, and so condemned; it can not possibly be auoyded; But M. Rider knoweth not (as is ineuitably apparent in his whole booke) what, or when is any thing pertinent, or noe. His second answer shall make my imputation in the sight of the world, assured: by his aduising me to reade the Popes owne synod and decree, to giue me satisfaction of my impertinent allegation. Marke Readers, I instantly request you, to what act, and satisfaction, he sendeth me: namely to it, wherin nothing is contayned but such execrations of his doctrin as follow; Qui torquent sententias scripturae de idolis in venerandas imagines, anathema. Qui venerandas imagines idola vocant, anathema. Qui clamant, Ex Synodo 2. Act. 5. Christianos imagines vt Deos adorare, anathema. &c. They that peruert sentences of Scriptures belonging to idols, against images; execration; they that tearme images, idols, execration; they that crye Christians woorshipp images, or Gods, execration. Here is the Popes owne Synod, and decree, that telleth me, by M. Riders opinion, that I had not alleaged well my allegations against the Iconoclasts, because forsooth, they were condemned for deprauing the scriptures against venerable images, and because they [Page 354] sayd that Christians do worshipp images as Gods, and that images and idols are all one. Do not these canons and condemnations rather battre late reforming heresies, then any way in the world, directly, or indirectly, concerne any answer to my euidences? What! are all impertinent awnswers, (although new condemnations of Reformers) due satisfaction to all obiections against Reformers? Are all friuolous obiections of Reformers, insupportable thunder claps against all lawfull oppositions? Will it be euer your condition (as Luther him selfe your father of trueth declareth to haue bene of your brethren) to thinke euery straw a speare, and that at euery stroake you ding downe armies? But of such pay masters, vnles you accept such payment, there can no other be had. In the meane tyme antiquitie is fownd to haue condemned such for hereticks, who affirmed the Sacrament to be but an image of Christ. &c. His making Lirinensis to be against Catholicks, Bernard against the Supremacie, the Fathers against the Real Presence, this Concil condemning the Iconoclasts or image breakers as hatefull hereticks to God, to be as a satisfaction for him against vs: what is it other, then gallantly, and Ridericaly to ryde, in maner fortould: affirming lyke Anaxagoras whiet snow to be black incke, and euery thing cleane contrariously? Yf his meaning be that the Iconoclasts because they were impious against images; could not also be impious against Sacraments, or against any other mysteries; and therby but belonging to one allegation; he sheweth him selfe to be so simple, as not to know that one impietie disposeth to another: which euery other how foolish soeuer, is not ignorant of. Alas! pore Puritan profession, what Proctour hast thou chosen, who directeth thy aduersaries to fynde thee condemned, and maketh thy condemnation for impugning their doctrin, to be to them, a hurtfull satisfaction?
Rider. Berengarius.144. Lastlie, you bring in poore Berengarius vppon the stage, to beare his faggot and recant his error, of the spirituall presence of Christ in the Sacrament, which we haue sufficiently proued before to be (by scriptures, fathers, and Popes,) the true presence. And now you bring in siliee Berengarius his recantation, too bee our confutation. I pray you let me aske you but one question: can a reason drawne from a perticular conclude generallie. If it should, I would reason thus with you: Bonner, Standish, wih others, preached stoutlie against the Popes supremacie in king Edward his daies: therefore the Popes Supremacie is nor lawfull. Would you admit this kinde of reasoning,These Iurers be too young to g [...]ue euidence, and too partial to be trusted with the triall of this Issue. I thinke no: no more doe we the other. For shall one mans weaknesse, inconstancie, and fall from the trueth, conclude generallie against the trueth; God forbid. But you will obiect and say, it is not one man but three seuerall Synods. But I pray you remember that subornation of witnesses, and paching of Iuries done in [Page 355] Westminister Hall, is most seuerelie punished in that most honorable Starrechamber: and shall not the Fope and his followers be called to an account one day before the great Iudge Iesus, for the suborning of witnesses and packing of corrupt Iuries to deface Christes trueth, and to maintaine their owne forgeries? The Catholickes demand a proofe out of Scriptures and fathers for the proouing of your Romane opinion touching Christs reall and corporall presence in the Sacrament, and you bring in the Popes Stipendarie Chaplens gathered by the Popes sūmons to vphold the Popes rotten declining kingdome, and euerie one of them at least 1100. years after Christ [...] ascention, and one of them within this sixtie yeares to prooue a thing done a thousand years before. Now I giue Irelands Catholicks this friendlie caueat, not to cleaue to the Popes Romish religion, but to Paules Romane religion: and not to rest concontented wi [...]h the name of Catholicks, vntill they haue the doctrine that is Apostolicall and Catholicke. And now to your fift proofe, being your last refuge and least helpe.
Berengarius his recantations, and condemnations.
144. FOr his first answer,Fitzsimon. to this recantation of the first late head of his opinion (who could neuer fashion any monstruous body therto of adherents) he sayth; a particular doth not conclud a general. Which being true, what miserable conclusions hath he made in his whole booke? When yf a figure was to be graunted in one woord, therby was concluded that all the sētence was but figuratiue. Yf there were lyke forme of speech and sownd of leters in the ould and new testament; therby was concluded, there was noe more liberalitie, or substance, in the new, then in the ould; yf spiritual sense was affirmed, in any one sentence, of Scriptures, or Fathers; therby was concluded nothing was literal. Yf any one Prelat, and any one booke, yea the very Antiphonarie, was worthy to be reformed; the liues of all Catholicks, was therby concluded to be lewed, and all their doctrin deuilishe. Yf any sentence, yea impertinently, were alleaged out of any Father; the towne, the prouince, the Kingdome, that region of the world, Europe, Africk, Asia, were inferred to hould the same; although, nether person, nor place, nor prouince, of such Region, (as appeareth in our 60. number, when Asie is made to hould an opinion, without any of all Asie specifyed for being author therof) is numbred. What say you M. Rider? can reasons drawen from a particular, conclud generaly? you insinuating that according to learning they can not. Spitt out man, & let trueth haue once a cleane seat in your mouth, & confesse in plaine deed that they can not: and consequently confesse, that your inferences hitherto haue bene at least friuolous, and vnlearned. Secondly [Page 356] I reply, that this recantation, and condemnation of Berengarius was not particular: the condemnation being by three whole Concils; and the recantation being,Calu. in vltima. admonit. ad Ioachim. VVestphalum. as Caluin confesseth, by the parent of the Sacramentarian opinion, in his owne behalfe, and of his children: in so much, as thervpon, to the tymes of the Albigenses, and Ihon Wickliff, few or none could be found taynted with that errour. Secondly, he accuseth Bonner, and Standish, to haue dissembled in their beleefe. I thinke in my conscience the accusation is vntrue; and the rather, because ther is nether witnes, nor authour, besyd his owne crackt credit to auerr it. But let vs suppose it to be true: all that followeth therby is, that they borrowed Puritanical dispēsations to them selues mentioned in the 99. number, to do contrary to their consciences. Deale playnly in Gods cause, & tell the world whether the late thousand subscribing Puritans, haue not all of them drawen in their horns, and swayed with the tyme. How many tymes did Latymer and Crammer, recant, vp, and downe? So then, such did Puritanize. Thirdly he answereth, that subornation of witneses, and packing of Iuries done in Westminister Hall, is punished in the starr chamber: therby implying that the Pops subornation of his stipendarie (this is A conceaued a good woord, that it is so often repeated) Chaplins, shalbe punished for condemnation of Berengarius. To which I reply, first out of S. Augustin, to be an ould wont of Sectarists; Quicquid ex eorum codicibus aduersus eos sonuerit, S. Aug. 22. contra Faustum. immissum esse a falsatoribus ore impudenti, & sacrilego, non dubitant dicere; VVhat soeuer against them selues, out of their owne books (or of their doctours deeds, and recantations) is alleaged, that they doubt not to affirme out of an impudent and sacrilegious mouth, that it is foisted in by deprauers. I do not therby intimat that M. Rider is such, vnlesse he be guiltie. Secondly I would be instructed willingly in the cause of his knowledge, how all the Bishops of the three concils wherby Berengarius was condemned, are found to haue bene the Popes stipendarie chaplins. Peter of Nicomedie is made the Popes pensioner, as also S. Bernard, and all that can be alleaged against Protestants. But why? [...], ipse dixit M. Rider sayth so. Therfor it can not be otherwyse. Yf you distrust him, or his sayings, you are inferred to be trayterous, superstitious, &c. Thirdly, how fyndeth he among his Spiritual reuelations, that the Popes rotten kingdome declineth? For as I shewed not long befor, it hath to our seeming neuer in three ages formerly, bene so farr extended, as in this last, and more, and more foloweth on the same tenor. Fourthly, in what Chronologie findeth he, that euery one of the sayd stipendarie chaplins, liued at least 1100. [Page 357] yeares after Christs ascension? The concil sub Victore 2. was in the yeare 1055. The Concil sub Nicolao 2. was anno 1059. and the Concil vnder Gregorie the 7. was anno 1073. not after Christs ascension, but after his birthe. If therfor the 34. yeares of Christs lyfe befor his ascension, be deducted from the first of these Concils, which was in the yeare after his ascension 1021. and after his Natiuitie 1055: it must follow, that euery one of the forsayd stipendarie Chaplins, had liued fower score yeares after giuing sentence against Berengarius: because euery one of them is by him affirmed to haue liued at least 1100. after Christs ascension; and consequently they not being Prelats in Concils befor their age of 20. yeares, at least; all of them are made to surmownt a 100. yeares. Which suerly in so great a number of Prelats, had bene a rare grace, and miracle, and a great lykelyhood that God the giuer therof, would recompense to the sight of the world, their zelous imployment, and approue it as most laudable. But in deed hondreds in M. Riders accompts, are some tyme easier found a stray, then in a pinners shopp, at hand. Notwithstanding all this shall stand but for the 193. vntrueth.The 193. vntruth.
Now I come neerer, to fynde all small vntruethes tending to one Capital vntrueth ouer whelming his whole discours, and conuerting all his allegations into a mayne sea of one falshood. You haue (as I B trust) considered often, his assurance, and faythfull informations; that vnder the warmth (they are his woords) of Innocentius the third his wyngs, our transubstantiation in the Synod of Lateran was hatched, at least 1200. yeares after Christs ascension: that the Pixe was inuented by Innocentius the third anno 1214. that breefly all our opinion was forged by Innocentius the third. Vide n. 67. Here is his fundation for clayming antiquitie. Here is his corner stone of the whole frame of his trauayles, that Innocent the third (forsoothe) was first broacher of our doctrin. All which Babilonian tower by this deuision in his owne tong, not vnderstanding him selfe is vndermyned, and vtterly subuerted. Some tyme he sayth peremptorily, that Innocentius the third had inuented it; and yet that other Popes had packed iuries, and suborned witneses, to condemne Berengarius for being opposit therto, aboue a hondred and fourtie yeares befor Innocent the third liued: the first condemnation therof being anno 1055. and Innocentius, and the Lateran Concil, but anno 1215. Some tyme that our opinion was neuer knowen nor dreamed of befor Innocent the third; and yet the authoritie of them that professed it, was so great, as to see all prelats in the world to be stipendarie Chaplins, against them that denyed it. These are as coherent discourses, [Page 358] as aduised resolutions, as constant informations, that were they alone, they should not only perswade others, but M. Rider him selfe to be worthye of as great reprehension, and confusion and punishment, as Aristo sustained by the Athenians, for vnworthely, and foolishly, wryting her commendations. But being conioyned to so innumerable of the same sorte, how may he escape not to fall into disperation of being otherwyse accompted then a Rider? You gett not any rethorical apostrophes at my hands, to aggrauat this his confusion, nor yet any help to gett him vp agayne after this his disgracefull stumbling against the head of his owne opinion, during his leaping short at the fownder of our doctrin. But yf you of his profession will assist him to ryse. I doubt not by Gods grace to accompagnie him to this iournyes ende, and so often to occasion you to support him in his slipprines, as affection could requyre; and yet to renownce him in the ende, as past remedie, and recouerie.
The fifte proofe. Of manie miraculous testimonies of the reall presence.Catho. Priests.
Rider.145. GEntlemen, you know in Schooles, an sit, is euer before quid sit: In architecture the foundation is before the building. In Christs diuinity, mans philosophie, and common sence, the cause is euer before the effect. But you, contrarie to diuinitie, reason, and philosophie, will haue a thing to worke wonders supra naturam, aboue nature, which is not in rerum natura, neither hath anie beeing at all: for you would make the simple people beleeue, that your transubstantiated Christ worketh miracles, and yet you haue not, nay you cannnot prooue anie such a Christ, and if there were such a Christ, hee is none of ours: for hee was neuer borne of the blessed virgin, nor shed one drop of bloud for our sinnes, & therefore we renounce him as none of our Sauiour.
Of many miraculous testimonies of the Real presence.
Fitzsimon.145. HE telleth, in the very entrance to this disputation of miracles, that the Real presence is not in rerū natura, not to be found, or of no being. Next that he renownceth Christ transubstantiated. A wofull denial, and wofull abiuration. For the first, he that could face out that Christs real being was neuer in question; that bothe they and we hould, Christs real presence in the Sacrament: how cometh he now to affirme, that it is contrary to diuinitie, reason, and Philosophie, to suppose that the real presence hath any being at all? and to distrust the very first question [Page 359] of the real presence (for the very title of this disputatiō doth bynde him to treat of no other cōtrouersie) whether it be in rerum natura, among things of being, or noe?The 194. vntruth. Let this contradiction be the 194. vntruth, to increase the late mentioned Ocean. His other blasphemous abiuration of Christ transubstantiated, I leaue to his replye, to whom it belongeth. Yf I would admire any point of infidelitie, or any desperat courses of Reformers, (which continual vse, hath made me long since not to wonder at) I would exceedingly remayne astonished at their impious resolutions against the point of miracles. Some tyme they affirme them to be so necessarie, as they who without them would incroached into the offices of Doctours, and preachers, to be, audaces, temerarios, haereticos &c. presumptuous, rash, heretical, imitatours of Chore and Dathan, woorthy for their intolerable and deuilish arrogancie to discend into hell, taking more vpon them then Ihon Baptist, Zuingl. to. 2. Ecclesiastes fol. 52.53.54. more then Peter, Paul, and Christ Iesus him selfe. To which saying of Zuinglius, thus consenteth Brentius: Donum edendorum miraculorum hunc vsum praecipuè habet, quod sit testimonium & confirmatio doctrinae caelitus reuelatae; Brent. in cap. 13. Luc. hom. 6. & hom. 76. de resurr. Christi ibid. Luth. to. 4. in c. 35. Isa. Muscul. in loc. com 41. de nom. Dei pag. 394. Act. 19. v. 14 15.16. Luth. to, 4. in c. 34. Isa. The gift of woorking miracles hath this vse especialy, that it is a testimonie and confirmation of a doctrin reuealed from heauen. To which also Luther, and Musculus, expresly subscribe. Some tyme they are heauielie, and ernestly impugning all them that require such proofe of miracles at their hands professing a new doctrin, vnknowen by their manifould confessions, since the tyme of the Apostles. And wherfor should they not, they being knowen the Sonns of Scena mentioned in the Acts, not able as Luther confesseth to heale a lame horse, or to woork other miracle then to draw after them to their licentious doctrin great multitudes? Aptly to such miracle woorker, sayth S. Hierom: Ne glorieris quod multos habeas discipulos. Quod mali acquiescunt sententiae tuae, S. Hieron. con. Iouin. l. 2. indicium voluptatis est. Non enim tam te loquentem probant, quam suis vicijs fauent. Do not bragg that you haue many disciples. That badd people delyte in your perswasion; it is a shew of licentiousnes. For they do not so much approue your speeche, as they yeeld to theire owne vices. Aelian. l. 13. variar. hist. And conformably therto Socrates answered the harlot Castilla (obiecting against him that with all his eloquence he could not diuert any of hir louers from hir) saying; It was no meruayle that they being peruerse, were more aptly drawen downward to vice, then vpward to vertue.
At our miracles reported vnto them,1. Cent. 6. c. 13. p. 815. 2. pag. 16. 3. pag. 814. 4. pag. 816. 5. pag. 810. what exclamations haue they! nay rather what blasphemies haue they not? O credulos & stupidos homines! O praestigias contra verbum Dei! O tenebras ingentes! O (say the centuriasts) credulous & blockish people! O iuggling contrary to the woord of God! [Page 360] O owgly darknes! Vide Bezam volum. 3. p. 146. l. 61. Danaeum to. 1. resp. 785. to. 2. 1421. Cal. in pref. Instit. Math. 12. S. Aug. l. 10. de ciu. c. 18. S. Ambros. in Ser. de SS. Geruas. & Prothas S. Hier. con. vivigila. S. Victor. l. 2 de persec. VVandal. Ioan. 14. Mat. 10. Mar. 6. Mar. 16. Psal. vlt. Psal. 14. v. 5. & v. 1. &c. So againe they and Caluin say, that our miracles are, ether fayned, or fantastical, or by witch-craft. As much sayd the pharisees of Christs miracles, the pagans, of them of the Christians, the Arians, Eunomians, Vigilantians against the Catholicks; as S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, S. Victor, &c. recompt. These two assurances we haue in defence of miracles to cownterpoise all that Sathan, and his sucklings, can obiect: First Christs promises; that his disciples should do the thinges he had done; and greater then he had; and that they should cure the sicke, rayse the dead, cleanse the leopers, and cast out deuils. Secondly, that all cheefe Fathers are recompters of miracles, and wryters of admirable liues of Saincts, in euery age from Christs tymes; mitating S. Lukes admirable and miraculous relation of the acts of the Apostles. Which Dauid aduiseth, saying; Laudate Dominum in Sanctis eius; praise God in his Saincts. As also animating them to follow such deuotion, because; Qui timentes Dominum glorificat, habitabit in tabernaculo & requiescet in monte sancto Domini; He that glorifyeth them that feare our Lord, he shall dwell in his tabernacle, and rest vpon his holy hill. It is harder to name any of the Fathers who omitteth to treat of miracles, then to specifie them who are reporters of them; Not only the eares, but the eyes of all Catholicks A being full of certaintie in that point, I desyre to answer, M. Riders obiections in particular, without dwelling in confirming light to be in the sunne, or water in the sea. Only let the inconstancie of heresie not be vnknowen also in this point. For Caluin some tyme sayth, that the Apostles; Miracula doctrinae sigilla rectè vocant; Do tearme rightly miracles, the seales of Doctrin. in Hebr. 2.4. & 2. Cor. 11.12. and others; Fidem & scripturam stabiliri fatentur; do confesse that they establish Fayth, and Scriptures. Martyr in locis 38.41.489. Kimedon de verbo Dei. 225. Yf it be so, verily protestants haue great cause to distrust their doctrin, as being vnsealed, and vnestablished: For miracles they vterly are knowen to want: besyd the former, wherof they should litle glorifie.
Rider. Part. 2. decreti aurei auns. 1. Q 1 page 119. Teneamus fratres.146. It is straunge to see the difference of the old Church of Rome, and this last giddiepated Church of Rome. The last Church of Rome, thinketh that Church to be no true Church, vnlesse she worke miracles: but I pray you heare olde Romes censure of new Romes opinion, Praeter vnitatem & qui facit miracula Glossa ibid: nihil ad vitam aeternam. nihil est: in vnitate fuit populus Israel, & non faciebat miracula: praeter vnitatem erant magi Pharaonis & faciebant similia Moysi: He that worketh miracles without the vnitie of the Church doth nothing: the Israelits were in the vnitie of the Church, and did no miracles: the Magicians of Pharao were out of the Church, and yet did like things to Moyses. Therefore true miracles such as Moises wrought, may be done by such as are not members of the true Church, and so consequentlie miracles by olde Romes confession, [Page 361] prooue neither anie such wherein they are workt, to be the true Church, nor the workers true members of the same. And then it followeth: Petrus Apostolus &c. Peter the apostle wrought miracles, and so did Simon Magus manie things: yet there were manie Christians that coulde not worke miracles, as Peter did, or as Simon did, and not withstanding reioyced that their names were written in heauen.
Now for the Catholickes good, let vs examine the faith of old Rome.The old Church of Roome taught vs to be assured of our saluation in this life, The new Church of Roome to doubt of our saluation in this life. The children of Israell wrought no miracles yet the true Church: Pharao his Inchaunters workt miracles, yet were the false church. And that manie of Christs flocke that neither workt miracles as Peter did: yet they reioice for that they were assured that their names are written in the booke of life. And thus much for your owne Pope against your owne miracles.
And doth not your owne Doctor Lyra tell you plainlie, that, & similiter fit aliquando in ecclesia maxima deceptio populi in miraculis fictis, factis a sacerdotibus vel eis ad haerentibus propter lucrum temporale, &c. and so in like manner it commeth to passe,Vpon Dan. cap. 14. page. 222. but Lira printed at Venice hath. that sometimes in the Church the people are often most shamefullie cosoned with fained and false miracles deuised by the priests or their followers, euen for a temporall gaine: which shamefull shifts of cosoning and couetous priests, Lira wisheth to be seuerelie punished by the chiefe Prelats, and to expell it and them out of the Church.
And your owneAlex, de Hales part. 4. quaest. 53. member 4. Irrefragabilis Doctour (for that is one of his titles) recordeth more speciall iugling then this, saying, In sacramento apparet caro, interdum humana procuratione, interdum operatione diabolica. In your very Sacrament of the Altar, there appeareth flesh, sometimes workt by the nimble conueiance of man, sometimes by the working of the diuell: so that if there bee anie flesh in the Sacrament of the Altar, whether visible or inuisible, it is either wrought through the priests legerdemaine, or the diuels cunning and craft. Now Gentlemen, you haue brought your miracles to a faire market, I trust after a while the discrèeet Catholicks will nor giue you a halfepennie for a hundred of them.
Tharasius the President of that ydolatrous Councell demaunded of all the learned in that Synode, why their images then did not worke miracles.Nycen. syn. 1. Act. 4. Aunswere was made out of Gods booke, that miracula non credentibus data sunt: Miracles are onelie giuen to the vnbeleeuers. If you bee too busie with your fained miracles, we will make a whole superstitious Synode yet to brand your Church and her children in the forehead for vnbeleefe.
And that reuerend Chrisostome saith, per signa cognoscebatur qui essent veri Christiani, Chrisost. Hom. 45. in Mat. qui falsi: Nunc autem signorum operatio omnino leuata est: magis autem inuenitur apud eos qui falsi sunt christiani
In old time it was knowne by miracles, who were the true Christians, and who were the false. But now the working of miracles is taken away altogither, and is rather found amongst those that bee false disguised Christians. Note but two things out of Chrysostome: First, miracles are now quite taken away: Next, onely they remaine with false Christians in the false Church: so if your Church will haue miracles, by Chrisostomes censure she is a false Church, and all in that Church be false Christians, But if your miracles were true, as all Gods and Christs miracles are, then the change must be as well of the formes as of the substances. When Moses rod was turned into a serpent, it was a serpent in deed, and no likenesse of a rod remaining.Exod. 4.3. Iho. 2.9.10. These prooue your miracles to be false. And so when Christ turned water into wine, there was neither colour nor taste of water remaining, and so in all true miracles. But you would haue in your Sacrament, a change of the substance of bread, yet the accidents, as whitenesse, roundnesse, thinnesse, [Page 362] taste,August. de ciuitate Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. line. 3. 4. August. de Trinitate lib. 3. cap. 10. and relish, notwithstanding remaining, which is impossible, and not onelie contrarie to the word of God, but also to the faith of those primitiue fathers· And Augustine vrgeth this matter verie Euangelicallie, saying: Quisquis adhuc prodigia, vt credat inquirit, magnum est ipsum prodigium, qui mundo credente non credit. Whosoeuer hee bee that yet requireth wonders and miracles, to bring him to beleeue the truth, is himselfe a wonderfull miracle, that the world beleeuing, yet hee remaineth still in vnbeelefe. And Augustine else where telleth you flatlie, that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper there is no miracle: read him and follow him. And this is not to passe vntoucht, that as your miracles are false in themselues, so they are inuented and done to a most wicked end, which is to confirme your false doctrine of reall presence, Purgatorie, praying to Images, and the like trash, which are cleane contrarie to Christs miracles: for their end was twofold: the first, to confirme our faith in Christs diuinitie: and the other,Ioh. 10.30.31, to assure our soules of saluation through his name. These things are written, that yee might beleeue that Iesus is that Christ the Sonne of God, and that in beleeuing yee might haue life through his name.
VVhat miracles are reproued by Catholick writers.
Fitzsimon.146. YF you haue duely considered the style of M. Rider (as perhapp you might hardly fynd any, more worthy for sowndnes, and method, to be considered) you may fynde among other points, that when our decretals, seeme to fauoure him, then they are ould, and euery parcell of them is a Popes Canon; and when any late Doctours are by him alleaged against vs, of our owne profession, then they are ancient; and contrariwyse when any who liued long before such, are produced by vs they are tearmed late. One only breefe example is to be at this present specifyed. When Lyra, who liued anno 1320. is thought to deny the 6. Chapter of S. Ihon; then is it sayd, Ould Lira sayth, that the 6. of Ihon &c. treateth not of the Sacrament. Contrariwyse, when we had brought three whole Concils condemning Berengarius, they are excepted against, as being late; although according his owne computation they had bene three hondred yeares elder then Lira. He hath the best gift in that, to make ould yong, affirmations negations, disproofs approbations, truethes falsifications, decrees denials, and to affirme all to be for his purpose how assuredly soeuer he is oppressed therby, (lyke Tarleton who affirmed, that his mistres casting a chopping knyfe at his head for some proffred sawcines, had done it for a fauour) that lightly may be found, among any wryters of this tyme. Now then for his first allegation, and all his inferences thervpon, (although it is not to be graunted, that Magitians, or Sectarists, can woorke true miracles) [Page 363] yf in a liberal disposition I accord vnto them; what is he the better? Let the fayth of ould Rome (the phrase is so pleasant as it is reiterated) condemne miracles done out of the vnitie of the Churche: doth not the fayth of late Rome, as ernestly condemne them also? Doth not S. Paul condemne the miracles of transferring mountayns, &c. yf one be not in the vnitie of Charitie?1. Cor. 13, What needed then so friuolous a laboure, to so small a benefit in seeking out impertinent sentences in defect of direct resolutions; of which no sillable belongeth to mend the bringers cause, or to marr it of their impugners. Thus much at least we gratefully receaue from our owne S. Augustin (who was noe Pope but of M. Riders making) not against our miracles, but against them that are not in the vnitie of the Churche; Such as Puritans are, not only in respect of the vniuersal Church, but also in respect of their owne first protestant synagogue: So farr is it, that S. Augustins words are against vs, that they alwayes styng, and destroy them principaly, that distort them against vs. And when you affirme, these woords: thus much from your owne Pope, & from the ould Churche of Rome; how aduised are you, to denye that the Pope of the ould Churche of Rome, is not our owne Pope? I pray you to soder these two together: your owne Pope; not your owne Pope. Concerning the allegation out of Lira, I am perswaded as B much as Lira, that both abuses may happen, and are to be punished, where, and when they happen. What difficultie then is contayned in his allegation against vs? Nether is it other then a Riderian sequel: ther is an ill abuse by miracles: therfor no good vse. Ther is deceit committed in points of deuotion: therfor no deuotion to be followed. For so you might proue, that law, phisick, eating, drinking, weapons, appareil, preaching, &c. were not to be vsed, because they be some tyme abused. In the next citation (which by wante of the booke I could not now examen) of the Sacrament, (according to your translation of the altar) and apparences therin by mans procurement, and deuilish operation; you take a licence to add to the text the woords, of the altar: Vide num. [...]07. Yet you blamed me for adding the woord blessed befor Sacrament, because it is not in the authoure. You inferr next lyke your selfe, vpon this proposition: some tyme by abuse there are apparitions: ergo, yf ther be any fleash in the Sacrament of the altar, whether visible or inuisible, it is wrought through the priests legerdemain, or the deuils cunning, and craft. First, without doubt the sequel is Riderial: that is, farr beyond being ridiculous, and preposterous. For yf it were allowable, would follow as reasonably: some tyme M. Rider [Page 364] hath bene knowen in London to vse legerdemain and all to haue abused diuers by the deceitfull suggestions of the deuil: therfor in all other places, whether he be visible, or inuisible, he is to be accompted not seene, but by legerdemain, and deceit of the deuil. Yf your cursing were no better then your discoursing, you would as badly deserue the name of the one, as you are farr (and for all I could vnderstand, euer was) from obtayning the other. Secondly, do not you start from your word in the 35. number, & in your Rescript, that as we beleeue to receaue Christ realy, so you do also? yet now, you profess that you do not beleeue him to be receaued visibly, or inuisibly in the Sacrament, & that yf he be therin visibly or inuisibly, it is by legerdemayne? Can he be realy, and yet nether visibly, nor inuisiblie?
Not to be vnsutable in your proceeding, you make the next stuff of one liuerie with the precedent, by diuers dishonest dealings. First you say, that Tharasius was President in that Concil: which maketh the 195. vntrueth.The 195. vntruth. For he was nether first, second, nor third therin: as appeareth in the begyning of the first act. Secondly by the 196. vntrueth,The 196. vntruth. you affirme, that it was an idolatrous Concil. It is a puritaninical proprietie to be sawcie, and malapert toward Concils, and Parlaments:The 197. vntruth as is befor testifyed. Thirdly, it is the 197. vntrueth, that Tharasius demanded any such mater, he only propounding it as an obiection by these woords; Sed quispiam dixerit, &c. Some one would say, A &c. and answered it him selfe to him selfe, saying that miracles were graunted to the not beleeuers.The 198. vntruth. By the 198. vntrueth you add, the woord, only. Wherby might follow, yf what was graunted to the not beleeuers, the same was graunted only to them: then M. Rider vnlesse he be an vnbeleeuer hath no eyes, head, armes; no witt, or moral honestie: because all these are graunted to the vnbeleeuers; which by his addition, is all one, and to be graunted only vnto them. And consequently, he hauing all the same, must by his owne woords be an vnbeleeuer, he partaking such things, as by his deduction, only vnbeleeuers haue. But M. Rider, yf it may please you, let Christ him selfe expound the saying of miracles, or signes, to be graunted for the vnbeleeuers, not to exclude them from the beleeuers, (for sayth he; Signa antem eos qui crediderint haec sequentur &c.Mar: 16.17. But such as beleeue, these signes shall follow) and consequently only to import, that they are graunted to vnbeleeuers to conuict them of falshood; Yet remayning with beleeuers not to such intent, but to confirme, and confort them in their religion. To which ende the woords of S. Augustin are appliable, which shortly after you alleadge, and misalleadge. He that yet requyreth [Page 365] prodigious wonders to beleeue therby, M. Rider maketh false latin in S. Augustins allegation. Ipse, not ipsum. is him selfe a great prodigious wonder, who beleeueth not, the whole world beleeuing. We requyre not wonders to beleeue therby, but inioye them by Christs promise; to assure the weake, and confort the feeble in faythe. Good Lord! What benifit can your beleefe receaue, by this sentence of S. Augustin; not only no world, but no contry, nor no citie, nor no house, being now, or euer befor, intierly of your beleefe? Easely might I answer S. Chrysostom, yf any such mater were in that place. But it maketh the 199. vntrueth,The 199. vntruth. that he so saythe.
Lykewyse it is a Riderian sequel: signes are found among those that are false Christians: Ergo she is a false Church, and hath all false Christians, which will haue miracles. First, it is against Christs former woords, that beleeuers should not want signes. Secondly, yf the sequel be allowable, that what Church soeuer will haue miracles, both it, and all therin are false; the Lutheran,Staphil. in respon. Con. Scihmidelin pag. 414. Lindan. dial. 3. c. 1. Dubitantij. Bolsec in vita Caluini cap. 13. & Caluinian Churches are false, and all therin, because Luther coueted to woorke a miracle vpon one possessed, and Caluin by raysing his man Brule from dissembled death; Luther to his owne extremitie, and Caluin to the true death of his man. Then also Foxes Church, and all therof, are false by forgerie of some of his martyrs speaking without tongs, burning without payne, and being martyred and yet aliue long after. As B for example, Ihon Marbeck by Fox in his first editions was made martyr together with Antonie Parson, Robert Testwood, Henry Filmer, and many rare points of his martyrdom related; especialy his pleasantnes in going to the fyer: yet he being fownd aliue long after,Vide Alan Cop. Dial, 6. Pag. 697. Fox had no other excuse, but to confesse him selfe deceaued; and to rayle against them that warned him therof, calling them Carpers, Fox Acts and Mon. pag. 1114. wranglers, exclaimers, deprauers, whisperers, raylers, quarrell-pyckers, Corner-creepers, fault-finders, Spider-catchers. &c. Now as I sayd, by M. Riders being of Foxes Church, according to vnitie and veritie of doctrin, as he sayth him selfe; and Fox seeking false miracles, and martyrdoms, as hereby appeareth, to his Church: it must follow, by M. Riders owne sequel, that suche Churche and all therof, are false. Why should such vnfortunat disputers, euery moment made to confownd them selues, intermedle at all with maters of learning?
He proceedeth in the same vayne, and vanitie of reasoning, saying: All God and Christs miracles (as yf they were not all one, in the point of miracles) do change as well the (accidental) formes, as the substances; as it hapned in Moises rodd, and the water turned into wyne. Yf any would bidd him proue that Moises rodd did not retayne the leinthe it had befor, after it was [Page 366] made a Serpent; or the water in Cana Galileae, the quantitie and moistnes of water when it was turned to wyne; to what plundge would he be driuen? You might heare him say, it were vnpossible, and contrary to the woord of God, and fayth of the primatiue Fathers: but for other proofe, you should as soone wrest it out of a block. And yf it could be proued, that in them God had changed both substances and formes, as it can neuer, why should a general conclusion (contrary to his late confession, in the 144. number, that learning did not allow such reasoning) be drawen out of particulars? When Christ resuscitated three dead, he changed their substances making them of carcases to be liuing creatures:Mat. 9. Mar. 5. Luc. 8. yet he changed not their formes. So when he made bread to become his bodye; he changed the substance of bread, but not the external forme. Contrarywyse when he was borne, when he walked on the Sea, when he became inuisible both at their seeking to throw him downe a rock, and to make him king, when he issued the sepulchre, when he entred among his shutt vp disciples, when he ascended, he altered the natural formes or qualities of his body, but not the substance therof. Wherby appeareth, that according to his pleasure, and omnipotencie, he may alter the one without th'other, and as much, and as litle, as it pleaseth him. As also that it is the 200. and it a blasphemous vntrueth,The 200. vntruth. that such change was, or is impossible, to his diuine maiestie. Wherof peruse what is sayd in the examination of the Creede, vpon the woord Almightie.
Wheras he sayth S. Augustin vrgeth this mater very euangelicaly,A by his former sentence; it testifyeth very euangelicaly, that M. Rider is very prodigious among Christians, in not beleeuing according to the beleefe of the whole world; or which is all one, in the Catholick beleefe. So that he might fill his papers, he cared not how litle important, or how much impertinent, how litle to his benifit, or how much to his discredit, and confusion, would be his sayings. According to which his vayne of vayne writing, he addeth, that S. Augustin telleth flatlie, that in the Sacrament of the Lords supper, there is no miracle.The 201. vntruth. S. August. in Psal. 33. O, what a flatt lie for the 201. vntrueth, is vsed toward S. Augustin? He that amplye, and professedly testifyeth, Christ to haue borne him selfe in his owne hands, not metaphoricaly, but according the leter; & deliuereth all other documents recorded in the 116. number; how is he made to doubt of a miracle, in the miracle of miracles? Yet of S. Augustins opinion concerning miracles, I would wishe Bellarmine to be reade, c. 14. de notis Ecclesiae.
[Page 367]And yf S. Augustin had euer otherwyse surmised; yet the same had bene an opinion repugnant to Protestantry.Caluin lib. de coena. Anno 1552. Idem l. de optima. ineund. concor. rat. fol. 97. Cal. l. 4. Instit. cap. 17. n. 32. Ibid. num. 24. & n. 10. 11. Vide Eezam Creoph. fol. 66. 67. For Caluin him selfe acknowledgeth; hoc mysterium tam esse sublime, vt nequeat ingenio, aut cogitatione comprehendi; this mysterie to be so supernal or sublime, that it can not by witt, or conceit, be comprehended. Agayne: I am not (sayth he) ashamed to confesse this mysterie to be higher, then that I can ether comprehend it with my witt, or declare it with my tong. A litle before he sayth, it is a slandre of the aduersarie, that he did measure this mysterie, with the squyre of humain reason; concluding to his difciple M. Rider in these woorde: Christ truly, with the substance of his fleash, and blood, doth giue lyfe to our sowls. In these few woords, who so perceaueth not many miracles to be conteyned, plus quam stupidus est; is more then a dolt. I would be loath to haue bene such Godfather to M. Rider, as his owne father in God maketh him selfe, by giuing him such an vncurteous name, for his denying miracles in this mysterie. The Zuinglians professe no lesse; Hoc mysterium tam esse sublime, In sua Cōfessione Gal licana pag. 35. vt nostros sensus omnes, & totum naturae ordinem superet; This mysterie to be soe highe, that it surmownteth all our senses, and all the course of nature. What needeth greater confusion, or disproofe, then when his owne ghostly fathers, pillers of his profefsion, namely Caluin, and Zuinglius, contradict his assertions? To the residue there needeth no aunswer. If any other had M. Rider at such aduantages; how much might he exaggerat his ouerweening him selfe, in thinking his reach naturaly to haue attayned that comprehension of this Sacrament, wherin others fynde such sublimitie, as to acknowledge it most miraculous.
Eusebius recounted, that in the persecution vnder Seuere,Catho. Priests. lib. 5. cap. 1. that it was a great accusasion against Christians that they did eate mans flesh, because they beleeued that they did receiue the bodie of Christ.
147. GEntlemen, in that booke are fiue and twentie chapters,Rider. and not one word of this matter in anie of those: and againe, you mistake the time, for Seuerus then gouerned not. If it were vnder Seuerus, it should then be in the sixth booke where you shal finde fortie fiue chapters, yet there also is not one word of this. Yet, if you marke this that you bring against vs, if it were to be found in Eusebius, it maketh nothing against vs: for though the Pagans were as grosse in the matter of the Sacrament, as Nicodemus was in the matter of regeneration, it is neither miracle nor wonder, but a thing too common now and then. And for true Christians to eate Christes flesh spirituallie by faith, is or ought to be no miracle in the Church, but the practise of the Church.
VVhether M. Rider vnderstandeth any hard Latin.
Fitzsimon.147. OF M. Riders skill in Greeke, wherby he affirmed Christ to haue spoken greeke (who neuer spoke other language during his abode in this mortal lyfe then Hebrue, as not conuersing with Ethnicks, or Gentils, such as then the Grecians were) as yf greeke and hebrue had bene all one, as his knowledge in them both is all one, we haue already treated. His skill also in Scripturs, Cowncils, ancient Fathers, Scholasticks, Histories, grammer, ortographie; is not obscurly notifyed. At least, he that glorifyeth of his grammarian trauailes, he that made the latine dictionarie (wherunto he added nothing formerly vnuulgar, but ridiculous woords) is he ignorant of the latin tong? Let it appeare by his saying, that Euseb. hath not one woord in the place by vs alleaged how Christians were accused for eating mans fleash. In the same place by vs cited, thus relateth Euseb. the forsayd accusation vsed by Infidels against Christians; Thiesteas coenas, & incaestus Oedipodis falso commenti sunt; they forged falslye (against Christians) to haue Thiestes refectiōs, or suppers, &c. By which metaphor, is insinuated their eating of childrens fleash: because Atreas had compelled Thiestes, for a heynous offense, to eate this owne children. Which figuratiue locution, being beyond M. Riders capacitie, he denyed Euseb. to haue any such mater. Befor you betake your selfe to new grammarian labours, or dictionarie inuentions, learne to vnderstand a playne metaphorical relation of a mater, that your denials therof, because it is not in playne dunstable tearmes, be not reputed, yf not profowndly impudent, yet profowndly ignorant, or contrarywyse. When you in your first sermon in Dublin, fiue tymes produced or made long Sculptile, which showld haue bene short; and not long after brufed, & broke Priscians heade, in saying templum Ianum, for templum Iani; wherof the L. Chancelor rebuking your audacious temeritie in intermedling with that papistical language, vnacquainted to such capacities, was it not your parte to forbeare from intermedling therwithall? Why would you wade further in so vnfortunat a foorde, wherin you had bene so publickly ouerplunged? Since frendly cownseil would not auayle, but that being by your name a Caualiero, you would also be aduenterous; I will instruct your selfe, and others, (who perhapps wilbe therfor more thankefull) of some few as great slipps, and tripps, of ignorance in latin testifyed in this discourse, as might wreast shame out of impudence it selfe.
[Page 369]Omitting in your very dedicatorie epistle, the saying of Poscolo, to contayne false latin, not by his ignorant composition, but by your bad application, by saying of Princes and men of state, deferant aures eius; wheras, eius, being the singular number, can neuer be in concord, with Princes or men of state being the plural number (which first sentence is answerable to your first sermon). First, where you treat of actiue and passiue doctrin; you affirme, that eis signifyeth, to yow. yet it is against all skill in latin, for it signifyeth, to them; and not eis, but vobis, in all owld grammarian labours, is answerable, to you. Secondly, in your margent vpon Lira his supposed saying, the sixt Chap. of S. Ihon not to concerne the B. Sacrament, you say: quod nondum est non datur priuilegium; wher as you should say, non dat priuilegium. A grosse absurditie in a professour of skill in latin; especialy in him who deliuered a discourse of Christs doctrin rebownding from actiue to passiue, and back againe, as a tenise ball from wall to wall. But it was Gods iudgment, that he should be found stumbling into a passiue for an actiue, that had made Christs discourse impertinently wandring from actiue to passiue. In the 67. number, he interpreteth, neque est credibile; to be it is credible: which is to make a negation an affirmation, it being expressely, it is not credible: In the 69. number is shewed, how he cowld neuer vnderstand the latin of transubstantiation: considering that it being so ryfe in wryters, he confesseth he could neuer fynde it. An other instance is in your Rescript, in these woords: all which I pray you wishe him to mend them, and multis alijs. To mend multis alijs, is latin woorthly to be much mended, as being against all grammarian concord, that emendare should gouerne other then ane accusatiue case. Wherfor it should be, multa alia.
Seueral other incongruities in speaking, and interpreting, are formerly specifyed; and these so farr beyond al excusation of not only vnskillfulnes, but also blindnes in the latin tong, that I may seeme to deale fauorably in not ryding M. Rider more vehemently in this point. Accept therfor kyndly, that omitting other exclamations, I register vp the 203. vntrueth,The 203. vntruth. wherby Euseb. was denyed to report what we had alleaged. So also, wheras it is of a greater antiquitie which Euseb. repeateth in the fift booke of his historie, then in the sixt: what friuolous exception was it, to say the tyme was mistaken, yf not only in Seuerus tyme, but also befor, the accusation of Pagans (that we did eat a childs fleashe because of our eating the B. Sacrament) was vsual? I say, vsual; as befor both Euseb. tyme, and Seuerus, appeareth in S. Iustin, and Tertullian. To which effect, thus flowted in [Page 370] Minutius Felix,Iustin. in Apol. 2. ad Antonin. in fine. Tertull. in Apol. c. 7. Vide Prateol. verbo Machuetes num. 7. Minut. Felix, in Octau. a Pagan, and in his derision a perfect Puritan, saying: An infant, shrowded in a cake of flower, is giuen to them that are made Christians. O, how well doth this Infidels woords, concurr with M. Riders blasphemies, against our breaden God, our Wafre God, &c! what sweet predecessours these men haue of their doctrin, & dealing! But of this we haue treated in the 111. number.
Rider.148. But if you had read Eusebius your selfe diligentlie, you should haue found that in the fifth booke and seuenth chapter, hee would haue tolde you that then miracles ceast,Ex l [...]b. 2. Iraenei. cap. 58. and were not in Gods Church: and he produceth old Father Iraeneus for confirmation of the same. You bring in Eusebius to maintaine miracles, and Eusebius himselfe deni [...]th them. This is your olde fash [...]on, to inforce the fathers to speake not what they would, but what you please: but read that place well, and remember that Eusebius records that Church wherein miracles are wrought, not to be Gods church: and so by his opinion your Church of Rome must bee planted in the suburbs of Babilon, not (in Ciuitate Dei) within the gates of Sion.
VVhether Eusebius affirmeth true Miracles to haue ceased.
Fitzsimon.148. WHo would not thinke this report of Euseb. impertinent in this place, seing our allegation concerned not miracles?The 204. vntruth. First then it is the 204. palpable, and pregnant vntrueth, that Euseb. denyeth Miracles, in that Chapter, or any where els. Therfor, let these woords of the sayd Chapter be witnes, whether M. Rider hath not defyed all trueth. Daemonaes enim alijs solidè ac verè expellunt, ita vt illi ipsi a malis spiritibus repurgati ad fidem peruenerint, & in ecclesiam recepti sint: alij verò futurorum praescientiam, visiones, ac prophetica vaticinia habent, alij morbis laborantes per manuum impositionem curant, & sanitati restitunt. Some doe cast foorth deuils assuredly and trulye, so that them selues purged from bad spirits haue come to beleefe, and bene receaued into the Church: others haue foreknowledge of future things, visions, and Prophetical predictions: others by imposition of hands do heale the sicke. Who do mistearme good euil, and euil good, light darknes and darknes light, why should they not make affirmations to be negations, and disproofs to be approbations? Is it because Euseb. affirmeth, in S. Ireneus tymes there were miracles, therfore he denyeth them after? Speake cleerly, and honestly, M. Rider, did not you feare your conscience, when you wrote this autheur to affirme the Church wherin Miracles are wrought, not to be Gods Church? But since you haue appealed to Euseb; to him you shall goe. I will once agayne exalt the baker to the Pillorie, and make no other then the witnes [Page 371] by him selfe alleaged, to nayle his owne eares.
First, M. Rider sayth, Euseb. to denye miracles in Gods Churche. Euseb. him selfe sayth the contrary, in these woords;Euseb. l. 5. c. 3. Aliae multe miraculosae diuinae Chrismatis operationes quae per varias adhuc Ecclesias perficiebantur, &c. Many other miraculous operations of diuine grace, which in diuers Churches as yet were done. &c.Lib. 6. c. 29. Secondly he telleth how a pigeon discended from heauen vpon Flauian, to haue him chosen Pope. Thirdly he relateth, how Constantin the great and all his armie, did behould a bright crosse aboue the sunne, with this inscription;Lib. 1. de vita Constantini. By this signe thou shalt ouercome. And how Christ him selfe commanded him to haue such a signe borne against his enemyes for a salfegard. I report me to all mynds, and vnderstandings, whether this was not a miracle, and such a one as to the breakers of Crosses should be dreadfull. Wherin, what portion M. Rider deserueth, is befor signifyed. For breuities sake I omitt to shew how Euseb. putteth many other nayles in his eares, being assured that he can not be lightly deliuered from these few, and others before rehearsed.
A Iew present at masse, which Saint Basill did celebrate,Catho Priests. Amphil. & Guitmū dus in vita Basilij. was conuerted by seeing a childe deuided in the blessed Sacrament.
149. I Finde in Basill pag. 171. that he writ thirtie chapters ad sanctum Amphilochium Iconij Episcopum, but your Munkish Amphilocius I neuer saw,Rider. neither doe I care, because he is a forger of false miracles, and thus I prooue it. The fabler saith, the Iew saw a childe deuided in the sacrament: that could not be Christ, for hee was a perfect man before his passion. And if it were anie besides Christ, or if it had been anie in Christ his likenesse, it must be done, as your owne Authour said a little before, either by mans sleight, or the diuels illusion. But to be briefe and yet plaine,A lier hath need of a good memorie. this must needes be a verie shamefull lie:
VVhether Christ being a Man, may notwithstanding appeare in the lykenes of a Childe.
149. IN this discourse,Fitzsimon. Metaphrast de Arsenio. Paulus Diac. de S. Gregorio. Paschas. Abb. de Prasbytero Plegijs. Villanaeus de S. Ludouico. Vincent. lib. 30. spec. c. 24. Guitmundus lib. 3. because there is great sport tendred by M. Rider, I will first breefly satisfie the reader which is desyrous to learne the trueth, that not only these former, but many others recompt, how Christ visibly appeared in the B. Sacrament, and commonly in lykenes of a Child. As Metaphrast in the lyfe of Arsenius; Paulus Diaconus in the lyfe of S. Gregorie; Paschasius abbott treating of the Preest Plegijs; Villaneus in the lyfe of S. [Page 372] Lewes, &c. I ouerronne S. Vincent, & Granado, to auoyd tediousnes. Now let vs attend first how M. Rider proueth Amphilocius a forger. Because, sayth he, Christ was a man, and therfor could not appeare deuyded lyke a child. As good an argument might be made against the Acts of the Apostles, that Christ could not appeare to S. Stephen standing, we beleeuing him to be sitting at the right hand of his Father, vntill he make his enemyes his footstoole. Lykewyse also against S. Paul, that he did not see Christ in the way to Damasco, for the same reason. Alas M. Rider, yf Angels who haue no bodyes can appeare yong: why should Christs body deminish his power, that he can not do the same?
His second proofe that this apparition is a shamefull lie, is because the Masse was a patching and hatching (sayth he) fower or fiue hondred yeares after S. Basils death; and therfor that S. Basil could not say Masse: which had it bene true, wheras S. Basil dyed befor the yeare 400. after Christ, it must follow that the Masse was perfectly hatched and patched befor the yeare 900. after Christ: which was 300. yeares befor Innocent the third, so often by M. Rider protested to be the hatcher therof. So that him selfe almost in euery point is a witnes that, him selfe is vntrue. But that he had great reason to graunt this to be the 205. vntrueth;The 205. vntruth. I will demonstrat from the Apostles tymes, true and perfect Masse, in substance, ceremonies, and name, to haue bene frequented in Gods Church, as farr as befor my coming to the particular treating therof, which insueth, any might lawfully expect at my hands.
Rider.150. For how could Basill that liued about the yeare of our Lord 367. say your masse, that was in hatching vp & patching togither at least foure hundred or fiue hundred yeares after his death?Tom. 6. Biblioth. patrū in lib. Guitmunmundi Archip. de veritate Euch. li. 2. pag. 405. as shall (God willing) bee prooued vnto you out of your owne bookes, in my next Treatise of the masse: and so you feed the Catholickes with these lying legends, in stead of holie scriptures.
(a) As for Guitmundus, he hath neither one word of Saint Basils life, nor of your miracle, yet hee hath some other thing as folish and as vntrue, or else he had not been made Archbishop for his paines, wherein he greatlie seruiced the Pope.
How ancient the Masse is.
Fitzsimon.150. IT is knowen often, and sufficiently, that M. Rider hath bound him selfe to recant, yf I make good by Scripturs, or Fathers of the first fiue hondred yeares, the doctrin we professe in the Controuersies by him obiected;Hesich. in Leuit. l. 4. c. 9. lib. 10. c. 13. among which, the Masse is one of the principal. Hesichius first, of the Apostles [Page 373] in general, teacheth,Idem habet Epiphan. heres. 79. that on VVhitsonday they accomplished what was written in Leuitic. and Deutronomie of the new and voluntarie oblation, when they celebrated the sacred mysteries: which the Acts of the Apostles do auerre in these woords, [...],Acts. 13. they were offring Sacrifice to our Lord. Which also Erasmus cōfesseth to haue bene Masse. And it is proued by the whole Grecian Church, and Fathers, vpon this text, not otherwyse tearming the Masse then a Liturgie. This Hesichius, liued within the first fower hondred yeares. But particulars shall conuict and certifie the same.S. Isidor. in effic. Eccles. l. 1. c. 15. A [...]dias in vita S. Petri. S. Isidor (and he also a Father within the limitation) sayth: Ordo Romanus Missae, primum a S. Petro institutus est; The (Romain) ordre of the Masse, was first ordained by S. Peter. And Abdias confirmeth, that he sayd Masse in Naples, and Antioche. These two witneses, are also within the limitation.Vide authorē de Duplici Martyrio. Vide Garetium. S. Andrew in a certain epistle to the Church of Achia, (which epistle before 100. yeares was mentioned by S. Wolphelmus abbot, S. Bernard, and Algerus) thus testifyeth him selfe to haue sayd Masse;S. Andreas in ep. Ecclesiae Achaiae. Omnipotenti Deo (qui vinus & verus est) ego omni die sacrificio non thuris fumum, nec taurorum mugientium carnes, sed agnum immaculatum quotidie in altari Crucis sacrifico, cuius carnes postquam omnis populus Credentium manducauerit & eius sanguinem biberit, agnus qui sacrificatus est integer perseuerat & viuus: I euery day doe sacrifice to omnipotent God, (who is liuing and true) not the smooke of frankensense, nor the fleashe of looing bulls, but the immaculat lamb in the altar of the crosse: whose fleash after the whole multitude of beleeuers haue eaten, the lamb which is sacrificed remayneth intier and liuing. This testimonie is to cleere to need larger interpretation. Thirdly, S. Iames, by testimonie of S. Chrysostom, and the Concil of Constantinople, was the first that left in wryting the mystical sacrifice. Illyricus lib. Missa Lat. pag. 73. Which his only liturgie the Sirians do vse vpon solemnities. Nether doth this want the very approbation of Flaccus Illyricus, so great a Protestant, confessing both such lyturgie mentioned, and the Syrians hauing therof.Abdias in vita S. Mathaei. S. Mathiew was killed at the altar saying Masse, sayth Abdias, whom Iulius Affricanus interpreted.
What say you M. Rider, are these lawfull proofs or noe? You will perhaps except against them, that the expresse name of the Masse, is not contayned in them. Wherin you would shew your selfe willing to wrangle. For as S. Augustin sayth: VVhat is a more peruerse part, S. August. epist. 174. then to striue about the name, where the thing it selfe is certainly knowen? And you would thinke him to cauill in the close of S. Patricks, who when any thing is well affirmed of M. Deane, would denye it to be vnderstood of you, because forsooth your name Ihon Rider, is not expressed. But because I am willing to graunt all your honest motions, I [Page 374] will condiscend, that you shall haue as ancient euidences for the name of Masse. Yet breefly; because in the peculiar treatise of the Masse, you know,S. Ignat. epist. ad Smirnens. I particularly treat therof. S. Ignatius that glorious Martyr, sayth; Non licet sine Episcopo neque offerre, ne (que) sacrificium immolare, ne (que) Missas celebrare; It is not lawfull without the Bishop to offre, nor to Sacrifice, nor to celebrat Masses. S. Clemens epist. 8. S. Iuo. lib. 2. The same is ordained by S. Clement. S. Higinus Martyr, sayth; Omnes basilicae cum Missa debent semper consecrari; All Churches ought to be consecrated with a Masse. S. Fabianus Martyr, (whom as I shewed you before, Euseb. by your selfe alleadged, testifyeth to haue bene chosen Pope,Vide Garetium. by a doue discending vpon him) sayth; Sacrificium non est accipiendum de manu sacerdotis, qui orationes vel actiones, & reliquas obseruationes in Missa secundum ritum obseruare non potest; The sacrifice is not to be receaued at that Preests hands, who can not accomplish the prayers, actions, and other obseruations in the Masse. Because I affect, and follow, the most succinct discourse possible, I remitt the residue belonging to this point, which alreadie is made more then euident, to the article of the Masse shortly insueing. Now let M. Rider be demanded, whether the Masse was hatched and patched fower or fiue hondred yeares after S. Basil,In his rescript toward the midst. or no? Yes sayth he, in his Rescript. Durandus, Durantus, Guido, were the Masse fownders. O Muses! what stepp-mothers haue you bene to M. Rider? He that consented that it was hatched and patched within fiue hondred yeares after S. Basil, doth therby affirme, and say, that it was fiue hondred yeares befor the founders therof (for Durandus, and Durantus (yf they were diuers) and Guido, were no lesse then a thousand yeares after S. Basil) or els that him selfe fayled in the antiquitie therof no lesse then 500. yeares! Homo homini lupus, a man is a wolfe to a man. That is, M. Rider is continualy made as his owne wolfe, to deuoure him selfe. In the Rescripts 44. number, the lyke disproofe is affoorded by Kemnitius.
Catho Priests. Amb. oratio. 1. de obit. Satyri.Ambrose speaketh of a happie preseruation of one from drowning, for deuotion towards the same.
151. IN deed Ambrose Tom. 5. pag. 720. writeth a treatise of the death of his brother Satyrus, Rider. wherein he sheweth the great mercie of God alwayes towards his Church and children in preseruing them from daunger: and amongst the rest, hee bringeth in an example of a great number of passengers that in a storme suffered shipwracke, amongst whom there was one seeing the daunger, desired of some fellow passenger, to giue him some part of the misticall bread (for in those daies it was a superstitious custome wickedlie tollerated, to carrie some part of the sacramentall bread about them) which peece of bread when hee had inclosed fast in his garment, he leapt ouer boord and did swimme safe a shore. This now is your wonderfull miracle, out [Page 375] of which let vs see what may be gathered. The best note (saith a learned writer) is, that he was a good swimmer. But to ouerthrow your miracle, I will alleadge Ambrose his owne words in that place: First, he calleth it but onlie fidei auxilium, a helpe of his faith. And if hee had thought it had beene Christ, as you vntrulie teach, hee would haue called it the Authour and finisher of his faith, and therefore he tooke your Hoste not to his maker, as you teach, nor his present preseruer, but a strengthening of his faith. And that you may see it is true which I say, afterwards he calleth it Diuinum fidelium sacramentum, the diuine Sacrament of the faithfull; And therefore he thought not as you doe, that Christ was localie in the sacrament.
And againe, there was no miracle in this, because other passengers that had not such misticall bread, escaped safe to shore as well as he: for if the hauing of that Host preserued him, the lacke of the Host should haue drowned the rest.If your hoste cannot doe the lesser much lesse the greater. And it is verie straunge that the Catholicks being so wise men in all other matters, should be so sotted in this, as to thinke that a Wafercake consecrated by a Priest or Pope, should preserue a man from drowning in water, when it cannot preserue anie good followe from being drunke with wine. But to the rest as they follow.
VVhether S. Ambrose esteemed it a miracle by the B. Sacrament, that his brother was not drowned.
151. I Informe you Readers,Fitzsimon. that M. Rider hath formed in this parcel of his discourse, certayne arguments. Which being knowen, I admire, yf you prepare not your attentions as carefully, as to heare a new play; you hauing had so good demonstrations of his talent in arguing. But first according to his custome, he begynneth at a manifest vntrueth, which amownteth to the 206. that he that was by S. Ambrose his testimonie preserued,The 206. vntruth. desyred but of some fellow passenger to giue him some part of the mystical bread, wheras S. Ambrose sayth, that it was a demand made to them, quos initiatos esse cognouerat, whom he had knowen in holy ordres, to giue him, diuinum illud fidelium Sacramentum, that diuine Sacrament of the faythfull, (note M. Riders fidelitie, which translated these woords, to signifie only, some part of the mystical bread) not that he might curiously behowld or view (in which woords S. Ambrose alludeth to the presumption of the Bethsamits, of whom God distroyed 5070. for looking into his arck, which is an assurance that he would not haue his mysteries vulgarly knowen to the people) the hidden secrecies, 1. Reg. 6.19. but that he might obtayne the help of his beleefe. For he caused it to be tyed vp, and bownd it about his neck, and so did cast him selfe into the sea, not seeking a planke of the dissolued shipp by which he might be holpen, because he coueted the sauegard of only faythe. Nether did his confidence fayle him, nor his opinion deceaue him. To conclude, preserued from the waues, and brought to lande, &c.
[Page 376]In this discourse, so distinctly, and religiously penned by S. Ambrose, M. Rider sayth there is no miracle contayned. Yf you couet to know the cause of such his knowledge; he will tell you, because it was only a note of a good swimmer. O subtil conceit! But his text controwleth his glosse, by insinuating that he was, in portum euectus, borne into the hauen, and that first, not mentioning that he did, or could swimme. His second proofe is, that S. Ambrose or his brother did not conceaue, diuinum illud fidelium Sacramentum, that diuine Sacrament of the faythfull, to be Christ. What is his reason? Because forsooth, it is called fidei auxilium, a help of fayth, and not the authour and finisher. of fayth. O gentle and wyse exception! S. Ambrose sayth, that his brother coueted the diuine Sacrament of the faythfull; Vt fidei suae consequeretur auxilium; That he might obtayne a help to his fayth; and M. Rider assureth, (when he had vndertaken to alleadge S. Ambrose his owne woords) that he calleth it but a help of his fayth: leauing out S. Ambrose his owne woords, diuinum illud fidelium Sacramentum, that diuine Sacrament of the faythfull. Marke it well, good Sir; First that S. Ambrose calleth his brothers deliuerer, the diuine Sacrament of the faythfull, truely and realy tyed about his brothers neck, and not only in his B fayth. Secondly, that had he called it so as M. Rider wresteth: what sequel could be more Riderian, or ridiculous, then that Christ might not be the autheur of our fayth, because he is the help of our fayth? Next he sayth: Ambrose calleth it, after, (according to trueth, it should be sayd, befor,) the diuine Sacrament of the faythfull: therfor he thought not as we doe that Christ was localy in the Sacrament. Was there euer such a therfor? But none may gather fyggs of brambles, nor other arguments from Puritan capacities. The answer therto, shalbe only to direct the reader to the 112. number, where we haue shewed S. Ambrose perspicuously testifying his opinion, that Christ is localy in the B. Sacrament, and that therfor it is the diuine Sacrament of the faythfull, because it contayneth his diuine body. A third argument is, that in the former narration there was no miracle, because others were saued as well as S. Ambrose his brother. Good still. I answer first, it was more miraculous in Satyrus the brother of S. Ambrose, because it is recorded that he had saued him self and others, and not others him. Secondly, that others might be more skillfull then he in swimming; and therfor that his deliuerie might haue bene more miraculous then theirs.Minut. Foelix, in Octau. A fourth blasphemous argument is, that the B. Sacrament (he calleth it, as the Pagan in Minutius Foelix n. 147. toward the ende; a wafre cake, consecrated by a Preest) could not saue any from drowning, because [Page 377] it can not saue any from being dronke; For answer I only reuoke to memorie the blasphemous saying of the Iewes, against Christ: he could saue others, but him self he can not saue. So M. Rider fayth Iewishly,Mat. 27.42. that because he doth not saue some from being dronke, therfor he could not saue others from being drowned. Were it not as lawfull to say, Christ saued not him self: therfor he could not saue others. Fye on these Pagan phrases, and Iewish blasphemies.
152. So simple people foolishlie cary about them hollie Bread. Crosses, Crucifixses,Rider. agnus Deis, and such trash.
VVhether Crosses, holy Bread, or agnus Deis be allowable.
152. YF M. Rider doth not continualy tender occasions to confound his cause,Fitzsimon. let this point among the rest beare witnes. In his margent, this he wryteth: So simple people foolishly cary about them holy bread, Crosses, Crucifixes, agnus Deis, and such trashe. Yf his owne argument were good, that mispelling doth demonstrat ignorance of the thing it selfe: it is cleere, that he mispelling holy bread, and agnus Deis, knoweth not what he is writing against. First concerning Crosses, notwithstanding that England in all standards, flaggs, and targetts honoureth them; that Elizabeth late Queene retayned them in hir Chapels; that M. Rider him selfe amply assured them to be traytours no lesse who abuse the picture, robe, stamp, or standard (such as the Crosse is of Christ) then they who assault the very person of the Prince: yet here he sayth, it is simple A foolishnes to beare any regard to crosses or such trash: Let all the state of England, and Irland, take patiently, that they are by these woords declared to be simple people, and to do foolishly, for carying about them their crossed banners. Let them make new puritan deans, and exalt that censorial sect, and after stand assured to haue all wyse obseruations begged to Bedlem for follie, and nothing to be purely wyse but out of the puritan stampe, and of the precise fashion. I also aduertised, it to be a part of his rethorick, when he would perswade any autheurs to defend his cause, to honour them with some glorious title, some tyme without all reason, as to call late Lira, by the name of an ould Father; &c. Some tyme deseruedly, but nothing pertinently to his behoofe, as when he would proue Preests marriages, to call S. Chrysostom, that golden mowthed Father, and els where, that Reuerend Chrysostom.
[Page 378]Omitting all ample treatise in defense of the crosse, (which is affoorded by the woorthie Gretser, in his volume de Sancta Cruce) I will breefly alleadge this gowlden mowthed Father, this Reuerend Chrysostoms woords. Ipsum lignum in quo positum Sanctum Corpus Domini, & Crucifixum, S. Chrysost. orat. quod Christus sit Deus. quare nam habere totus mundus ità contendit, vt qui paruum quid ex illo habent, hoc auro includant tam viri quam mulires, & ceruicibus suis aptent: hinc valde honestati & magnifici, muniti & protecti. The wodd on which the holy body of Christ was placed and Crucified, why do all the world so striue to haue it, as they that can purchase any parcell therof, they inclose it in gould, men and women, and hang it on their necks, being therby thought honoured and riche, defended and protected. What say yow: was that gowlden mouthed Father, and Reuerend Chrysostom, a Papist or a Protestant? was our deuotion, in his opinion, but simple foolishnes, trash, &c? I could long swymme in this plentifull mater of the reuerence and deuotion toward Crosses, from the Apostles tyme vpward, hauing all godly Fathers and doctors to beare vp my chynn yf this one testimonie of S. Chrysostom, by M. Rider commended, did not seeme bastant, and powerfull, to disproue his bare wyse accusation; and had I not to treat agayne therof in the article of Images: but because he is in Irlād, and that it may be knowen of what religion owld Irish men were, I will giue one testimonie beyond my woord out of Coelius Sedulius, by his owne inscription knowen to be Scotus Ibernensis, a Scot of Irland, saying: in Carm. Paschal. Neue quis ignoret speciem Crucis esse colendam. That none mistrust the forme of the Crosse to be adored.
As for Agnus Deis, it is to be considered, that the Gentils or Infidels B vsing to hang at their necks certayne stamps or cownters with filthie & dishonest shapes, to defend them against charms and incantations, as appeareth in Varro him selfe,Varro de lingua latina lib. 6. it seemed good to Gods Church, since that such as were conuerted would not easilie, quyte this forsayd follie; to change superstition into religion: as by lyke occasion was done for candles on candlemass day,Vide Baron. tom. 1. pag. 606. and certain feasts, conuerted to Gods honour, that they might not be retayned against his honour. Therfor in remembrance that we were redeemed by the lamb of God that taketh away the synns of the world, who liued a virginal and innocent lyfe for our example, and by his death sanctifyed our sowles by the spiritual vnction of the holy Ghost,Vide Petrum Maffeū in 7. decretalium. was by Christs sacred Spowse framed in resemblance of all these, an image of a lambe in whyt virgin wax, tempered with holy oyle. Such image, is called an Agnus Dei. Of which sort, when to Charles the great was presented one by Leo the third, he receaued it (as was his dutie) no otherwyse [Page 379] then a pretious treasure. With no lesse pietie, and deuotion also did the Emperor of Constantinople receaue one from Vrbanus the fift, proceeding against it in a Solemne Procession of the Clergie and Laitie, and carying it in a triumphant godly honour into the Citie.
C These Emperours although very ancient were simple foolish Papists, accompting such trashe in Protestant estimation, and such sacred ressemblances in Catholick opinion, worthie of all regard, and reputation. Should God almightie be so changeable, as in the owld testament, notwithstanding his forbidding to honour idols, yet so to allow deuotion toward remembrances of his benefits, as to honour Dauid, for his pietie toward them, and to punish 5070. Bethsamits only for curious viewing of them, & Oza for presumption to touche the case of them; and now may not abyde, remembrances of farr greater benifits performed by his deerly beloued Sonne, but that they should be in his sight simple foolish trashe? He that aduiseth nothing more then to haue vs remembre him, and to place him as a memorial vpon our armes and harts, therby to be euer in our eyes and vnderstandings, he that for all greatest benifits fulfilled toward the Israelites, admonished to erect monuments and holy dayes, to retayne them in the minds of posteritie, is he now lesse louing toward him selfe? hath he now repented his courses, and is become opposit to them, that by external signes retayne his gifts in gratefull representations? how farr against reason hath synn, and heresie, blinded, and transported reasonable men, to suspect God to be changeable in his proceedings, because them selues are inconstantly variable? So they that are borne against the streame, do esteeme them selues stidfast, and both the shore, and townes, and towers, to moue by the mutabilitie of them selues.
D Of holy Bread, S. Paulinus and S. Hierome,S. Paulinus in epist. 8. Hieron. in v. S. Hilar. Osbernus in v. S. Elphegi. Conrad. in in v S. VVolphelmi. Theodoric. in v. S. Hildegard. lib. 3. c. 9. Metaphrast. in Decembri. in v. S. Marcelli. Vide tom. 3. Conc. l. pag. 569. and of later tymes S. Elphegus Archbishop of Canterburie, S. Marcellus Abbot, S. Hildegardis, and many others, haue affoorded so ample testimonie of the vertue and estimation of it, that a thowsand Riders can not impayre, the dignitie therof. Nether can there be any thing more authentical, then the forme of benediction therof, vsed in Concilio Nannetensi Can. 9. in these woords. O Lord our holy Father omnipotent eternal God, vouchsafe to blesse this bread, with thy sacred benediction, that it may be to all, health of body and sowle, and a defense or protection against all diseases of sowle and bodye. I would willingly haue all Catholick to hould it for a principal rule, that were there no other authoritie to iustifie these holy & hallowed [Page 380] things, yet that they should esteeme them very gratefull to God by being impugned by such as M. Rider is. For yf they did not displease and often displace Sathan, he would not be so importunat in his followers, to deride and disgrace them. This rule haue I followed my selfe to my exceeding benifit, to be more deuout toward such deuotions, at which they are most discontented withall.
Catho. Priests. Lib. 8. cap. 5.Sozomen recounteth how a woman not beleeuing that Christ had transformed bread into his bodie, was in danger by transformation of bread into a stone.
Rider.153. SOme such thing there is, but you misse Sozomons words, sentences, and purpose, and applie it still to your Host. The priest told Sozomen, that in giuing the Sacramentall bread to a woman, shee tooke it in her hand, and priuilie gaue it her maide behinde her: which the maid no sooner toucht with her tooth, but it turned into a stone,Beleeue it that list. and the print of the tooth is this day to be seene in Constantinople. I pray you Gentlemen, is this your Oste Christs bodie? if it be as you teach, (but fie, it is a false lie) then were Christs bodie turned into a stone, and to be seene at Constantinople vnder the formes of a stone, as wel as at Rome vnder the formes of bread.
VVhether M. Rider, or I, Doe misreport the relation of Sozomen.
Fitzsimon.153. YOu haue gotten M. Rider the habit, or facilitie, and perfection of falsifying; that now it is ingrafted in you as a second natural inclination. It shal appeare now both toward Sozomen, and the very sacred Scripture it selfe; being both most shamefully corrupted. The historie of Sozomen is thus related.Vide S. Hieron. in Chr [...]. S. Aug. h [...]. 52. Epiph. her. 73. So [...]rat. l. 2. c. 35. The [...]. l. 4 h [...]r. fab. A certane man of the Macedonian heresie (such as denyed the holy Ghost to be consubstantial to the Father and Sonn) had a wyfe of the same sect. The man after he had heard Iohn Chrysostom teaching what should be beleeued of God, praysed his doctrin, and requested his wyfe to beleeue as him selfe did. But wheras she rather conformed hir selfe to the woords of noble women, then to his vsual intreatie, and that he laboured (as commonly women are A more peruerse and obstinate to be conuerted then men) in vayne: vnles, sayth he, thou accommodat thy selfe to me, thou shalt neuer hereafter inioy (Marke this yow marryed folke of medled and different beleefe, among whom such threats are knowen to haue had more force then any fayth, or religion) my conuersation. The woman hearing, this (so contrarywyse, from true beleefe to a false, our women are drawen more by their husband lyke threats, then letted by the displeasure of God and his Church) promised hir consent, and communicated the mater to hir [Page 381] esteemed trustie mayd, and vsed hir helpe to deceaue hir husband. VVherfor about the tyme of the mysteries, Sozomen. lib. 8. cap. 5. (the faythfull know what I meane) she reserued what she had receaued, and as being to pray, inclined hir selfe. Hir mayd behynd hir secretly gaue hir the bread which she had brought (as by eating wherof she should seeme to eate the holy mysteries) in hir hand. This bread when it was putt to hir teethe, hardned into a stone. The woman terrifyed, fearing least she should haue more hurt by that which by Gods iudgment had hapned, ranne to the Bishop, and accusing hir selfe, shewed the stone, hauing the impression of being bytten, and appearing to be of an vnknowen kinde, and hauing an admirable coloure: and together with teares crauing pardon, she promised to consent to hir husband. And yf this seeme incredible to any, the stone it selfe is witnes, which yet remayneth among the reliques of the Church of Constantinople. Thus farr Sozomen recompteth.
B Is it not then the 206. lowde, and palpable vntrueth,The 206. vntruth. that we misse Sozomens woords, sentences, and purpose? Is it not the 207. vntrueth,The 207. vntruth. that she gaue hir mayd the Sacramental bread (which is a false translation of the woord, mysteries) behind hir; and that it was the mayd vnder whose teeth the bread did become a stone? Yf there can be any escape, but that ether infidelitie in dealing, or ignorance in vnderstanding is here pregnantly exhibited; I desyer nether credit, nor reputation during my lyfe. Was it the wyfe, or mayd, which with teares promised to be agreable to hir husband? or was the husband, a husband, to both his wyfe, and his mayd. Now followeth a Riderian sequel, worthie of consideration. The bread which the mayd secretly gaue hir mistres (sayth the autheur) was turned into a stone: therfor sayth M. Rider Christs body is turned into a stone, and to be seene in forme of a stone in Constantinople.
154 O hellish diuinitie: but I say vnto you Priests and Iesuits,Rider. as Paul said to the false Arch-Iesuit Bariesus: O full of all subtilitie and michiefe, children of the diuell, Acts. 13.10. and enemies of all righteousnesse, will yee not cease yet to peruert the straight waies of the Lord, but still like Elimas seeke to turne Christs flocke from Christs faith?
Of his euident depraueing Gods wooord.
154. NO readers: doe not blushe at this last dishonestie,Fitzsimon. but faynt at the next. He will not likely often be found true toward mans relations, who is often found a deprauer of Gods owne sacred woords. You haue considered his exclamatiō against the hellish diuinitie of Sozomen, which [Page 382] in deed was not Sozomens, but M. Riders his owne. Yet yf it had bene hellishe, or noe, he that bound him selfe to be tryed by such witneses, and sutable to their resolutions; could not after repeale, or start from them. That now which I blame is, that he hauing quoted the residue of his chapter as a text of Scripture, and imprinted it for such in a distinct leter, he hath added and altered, peruerted and diuerted the woords, and meaning, aboue all reprehension. Take your Bibles, and peruse your selues his quotation, and his application, and looke how handsomely these fellowes can make Scriptures of their owne braynes,Vide Frischlinum in comedia de varijs heresibus impressa in lazibus Metanastis an. 1592. and (as many Protestants of a calmer condition confesse) deliuer you their fanatical dreames, for the written oracles of God: as appeareth,A in the examination of the Creed, the 4. number, as also in the Replie to M. Riders Rescript. pag. 65. 66. 67. 68. Deerly beloued, and that vnfainedly, thinke in this case with Seneca, non est leuitas a cognito, & damnato errore discedere, Seneca l. 4. de bon. c. 38. that it is no lightnes to depart from a knowen, and damned errour. I may be deceaued: but I thinke your capacities sufficiently informed, how erroneous and damnable this mans dealings are to be accompted: by whose proceedings you may discouer the residue of his sortes, and therfor you may iustly be iustifyed from all leuitie in departing from them.
Catho. Priests. Crantzius lib. 5. c. 9.And a certaine Duke of Saxonie vpon alike occasion did become a Christian.
Rider.155. ALbertus Krantzius Hamburg: (you misspell his name) writes chronica Regnorum, Daniae, Suetiae, and Noruagiae, I haue read diligentlie the ninth chapter of euerie fifth booke of these the histories, and there is no such thing in anie of them: therfore you are to blame, still to abuse learned men to bee the Authours of these fables: and the Catholickes most of all, to beleue these fables.
VVhether Crantzius be belyed by M. Rider, or me.
Fitzsimon.155. HEere also is an ordinarie Riderian argument: he hath redd what Crantzius hath in his chronicles, and found not what I alleaged: therfor, that I still abuse learned men, and the Catholicks most of all. As yf one would say, to an allegation owt of the gospell: I haue redd S. Marke, and haue not found what was alleadged: therfore it is not in the gospell. The whole writings of the autheur alleadged should haue bene perused and examined, before such sequel (and especialy with that woord, still) showld seeme forcible. Breefly, they haue more books in the colledge of Dublin, then M. Rider hath redd. And particularly they haue the [Page 383] Metropol of Crantzius, according as I cited, and spelled: so that you do and shall fynde him nappie, in thinking Crantzius only to haue written his Chronicles: Secondly, in his correction of my Spelling: Thirdly, in his accusation that I haue abused the learned and Catholicks, by my fathering the forsayd mater on Crantzius. And consequently, you may say with the Prophet:Psal. 75. Dormitauerunt qui ascenderunt aequos; Riders, or they which are mounted on horsback, haue nodded. This to be breefe is the relation of Crantzius.Crantzius lib. 1. cap. 9. VVhat therfore sayd the King (he A treateth of Charlemains speeche to Wedekind Duke of Saxonie) hast thou seene which deliteth thee to haue viewed? He, as he was yet ignorant of Christian things, replyed: I haue sene (wherat I meruailed) thee before two dayes, of a heauie countenance, being vncertaine what had hapened that might molest so great a King. It was the remembrance of our Lords Passion that made the King of a sadd countenance. Againe sayth he, I haue seene thee this (Easter) Day, first sadd, and most pensiue about thy imployment (in preparing him selfe, to the B. Sacrament). But when thou didst approache to the midle table of the Church, thou didst appeare to me of so ioyefull countenance, that I was amazed at the miracle of such suddain alteration. For it was wounderfull to behowld, that in the hand of a preest in riche ornaments, euerie one receaued into their mowthe a bewtifull litle childe: VVhom I perceaued to approache to some ioyfully and in hast, to others repyning & with countenance displeased, and yet entring into their mouthes, and not returning. VVhat this should be, I do not yet conceaue. Then sayd the King: Thou hast well proffited. There is some what more shewed to thee, then to all the B Preests and vs all. Then hauing his appareil changed, taking him by the hand, he taught him the great mysterie of pietie of the Sacrament of the Altar: wherby he was conuerted. God grawnt all others formerly ignorant of this mysterie, to receaue lyke benefit by the same, as Wedekind did. Let it not seeme strange that Christ should appeare lyke a yong child after his ascention, it being no more impossible or inconuenient, then that God almightie should appeare lyke an owld man: their proprieties of innocencie and aeternitie, being cause of such their apparitions.
Without inuectiues, or inforced accusations, M. Rider you haue Crantzius testifying amply all that I deliuered succinctly and in a woord. For of my disposition I was neuer prolixe in my writings, but some tyme in a lyne do include as much mater, as my autheur deliuered in a leafe. And the rather in my first answer to you, I followed breuitie, that without toyle yf it could not be without tediousnes, you might ouer ronne disproofs of your protestations. Now also, I will make noe inferrences vpon the premisses, against you, for my owne behalfe, (for a playne text needeth no glosse) but will [Page 384] abruptly examin the next, leauing all Readers behowlding Ciceroes woords in Lucullo, to be true in my defense. Non quaerere me rationes eas, quae ex coniectura pendent, que (que) disputationibus huc & illuc trahuntur, & quae nullam adhibent persuadendi dignitatem. That I follow not such reasons as depend vpon coniectures, and by skill of disputers are wreasted off and on, and contayne C noe force of perswasion. No, I haue another cause then they, who haue but exordium commune, a common exordium, as fitt for the defendant, as the plaintife;Iren. l. 5. c. 27. Vinc. lir. c. 42. Luth. in conuiualibus colloquijs f. 144. Vide n. 19. examinis, & 75. and no other proofes then peremptorie protestations Sacram Scripturam se solos & primum intelligere, & omnes alios ignorasse; that they only, & first, vnderstand the Scriptures, and that all others haue bene deceaued; And you shall fynde all the principal Protestants abundant in this vayne. But I will hould me to my text.
Catho Priests. Optatus lib. 2. contra Donatist.Optatus reporteth a grieueous punishment of abusers of a facred Host.
156. OPtatus in deed speaketh of two professed Donatists, Vrbanus Formensis, and Faelix Iducencis, Rider. who comming into the countrie of Mauritonia, and entring the Churches at the time of the celebration of the holie Communion, commanded (Eucharistiam) the Eucharist to be giuen to their doggs, but the dogges growing mad presentlie, set vpon their owne maisters, and rent their flesh with their teeth. A iust iudgement of God for their vile attempt of holy misteries. But how dare you say that this was your consecrated Host? Optatus saith it was (Eucharistia) the Eucharist, that is to say, the whole misteries of thanksgiuing (and not a part) which was cast vnto dogges: but Optatus saith not that Christ was locallie inclosed in that bread. And you still continue your wonted course, that wheresoeuer you finde this word Ecclesiam, it is your Church: and where you finde this word Eucharistiam, that is your consecrated Hoste.
VVhether Optatus commended or condemned Protestantrie.
Fitzsimon.156. YOu haue confessed sufficiently to ouerthrow you: to witt that God had shewed such seueritie for abuse against the Eucharist, so holy a mysterie. By the name of Eucharist hath bene euer vnderstood our B. Sacrament of the Altar: as appeareth in the 103. number out of S. Gregorie. Out of him, and all others, and the inuiolable trueth, dare we affirme A it was our consecrated host. It is testifyed by Optatus that Christ was localie in those mysteries, wheras he inferred for proofe therof, the punishment which insued. We clayme the woord Church to belong to vs, both by other assurances, and by your hate against it befor demonstrated. The breaking downe of Altars, the violating of vowed Virgins, the prophaning of the holy mysteries, the casting out of sanctifyed [Page 385] Oyle, all these together recorded by Optatus so ancient a Father, do tell that the Donatists were your Predecessours; and such as they persecuted, to haue bene ours. For what had Protestantrie to do with chast professed virgins, altars, holy oyle, &c? When no wreasting, nor wreathing will auayle, it is strange you will trouble your selfe in vayne. When I heare you in manifould places of your booke B vsing the woords of the Donatists, related by S. Augustin, ad Donatist. post collationem cap. 34. & cap. 1. Iudicem a nobis fuisse corruptum, and els where; (de gestis cum Emerito) nos cognitoris emisse sententiam; & eos potius potestate quam veritate fuisse oppressos; when, as I sayd, I heare you, and Donatists, concurr in these words, that we had corrupted the Iudge; that we had feed our stipendarie chaplins to giue sentence against you; that you were suppressed more by authoritie, then veritie: then can I allow, that Donatists, and you, are of consociation; which I could neuer fynde in Optatus, by any signe, figure, or shaddow extant in his wrytings.
157. But a lasse, you deceaue the Catholickes,Rider. for you haue neither the true Church (because yee lacke the sincere preaching of Gods word, and the lawfull vse of his two sacraments, which be the two vnfallible markes of Christs Church) nor yet haue you Christs sacraments as hee left to his Church; but as they are disguised and prophaned by the late Church of Rome, which doth as far differ from the primitiue practise of the auncient Church of Rome, as Christs institution differs from mans inuention.
VVhether the Puritan Church hath the sincere Preaching of Gods woord, and lawfull vse of the two Sacraments; And therby be sufficiently assured to be the true Churche.
157. YF you will to this place repeat what is presented in the nūber 124; You will fynde M. Rider, Fitzsimon. by them to whom he hath tyed him selfe to consent with all, to denye Baptisme of Children, and any other Sacrament to be allowed, besyd Christ hanging on the Crosse. Also repeat, what is deliuered in the first 39. number, you shall fynde him, & his brethren, make the Sacraments of the new testament no better then weake, and beggerly ordonances. Lastly reuiew yf it please you, the 62. and 122. numbers; and you shall fynde him denying all benifit of sanctification by Baptisme, saying it to be only a signe, and that only to the faythfull. So that children hauing no fayth of their owne, and the merits [Page 386] of others not profiting (according to Protestantrie) any besyd them selues; and all iustification being (in their opinion) only by fayth: he can not but mantayne children ether not to receaue Baptisme, or not to haue any proffit therby, it being (sayth he) a bare signe, only to the faythfull: or, them to be iustifyed, without their owne fayth. Let such assurances suffice, that he hath not in his Church the lawfull vse, of the Sacraments which according to their names should make things sacred. Now are we to examin, whether his two markes here affoorded, are cōpetent alone to testifye the true Church. In which point of assigning the true markes of the true Church, I fynde the whole brotherhod at great variance.Luth. tom. 7. trac. de notis eccle. Melancthon. in resp. ad artic. Bauaricae inquisitionis. Calu. Instit. l. 4. r. 1. n. 9. First Luther numbreth 7. markes, as he sayth, requisit. The Magdeburgians requyre but fower. Melancthon exacteth but three. Caluin but two, as M. Rider in this place numbreth them; yet with a diuersitie; that Caluin specifyeth not the Sacraments to be two, or three, or fower, but indeterminatly: as also that he doth not assigne these two markes as vnfallible of the true Church,Loco citato. but only of some Churche, saying; vbicum (que) hae duae notae reperiuntur, ibi aliquam esse Dei ecclesiam; wheresoeuer these two notes are found, thereto be some Church. Will you now behould the soundnes of these two notes?
Calu. Inst. l. 4. c. 1. n. 7.First, by Caluins owne confession, they which are adopted, although A they be not yet borne, or baptised, yet they are, sayth he, members of the true Church. But such haue nether the woord preached, nor vse of the Sacraments. For not being borne, they could not be baptised, nor be capable of a Sermon; vnles as Puritans clayme more power to their owne Sermons then to Christs, n. 39. 63. So now they would also haue in their Sermons the vertu which S. Ihon Baptist experienced in the woords of our Ladie, to witt, that they showld be vnderstood or conceaued by children, before such children were borne. Therfore the true Church in hir members, may be without these two markes. Secondly, how can I be assured that I haue the woords and Sacraments truely, vnlesse I know them by the true Church, and not the true Church by them? Thirdly I fynde the same notes by testimonie of S. Augustin propounded by the Donatists to testifie their Church to be true:S. Aug. epist. 48, & in breuiculo collationum collatione 3. diei. Yet all Christendome professeth, that they were execrable hereticks. I suppose in so perspicuous disproofs, superfluitie to be needles: and therfore will leaue these notes discouered, to be notoriously insufficient. The greatest notes of a true beleefe are,Vide Vincent. Lir. citatum in nostro 3. numero. that it be Vniuersal, Ancient, Consenting. Vniuersal, as well for being cōmanded by Christ to be published through [Page 387] all the world, as for being so specifyed in the creed in the woord Catholick. Ancient, as being therby warrāted to be Christs owne Church, yf the gates of hell may not preuayle against it. For yf it continue still, it is knowen therby as Gamaliel sayd, to be the woorke of God. Consenting, because as S. Paul sayth, the Church of God hath not the custome to be contentious: as also because, as there is but one God, so is there but one law, and one only faythe. Lastly we are knowen manifowldly to be the true Church: as is before manifested. Ad Romanam Ecclesiam perfidia habere non potest accessum; To the Romain Sea (sayd the ancient and glorious Martyr, and Doctor, S. Cyprian) misbeleefe, Cypr. l. 1. ep. 3. B can haue no accesse. Is cum episcopis Catholicis conuenit, qui cum Ecclesia Romana conuenit. He consenteth with Catholick Bishops, (sayth S. Ambrose, orat. de obitu. Satyri) who consenteth with the Romain Church. Yf then most assuredly that be the priuilege of a true Church, not to be able ether to fayle in continuance, or to fall to misbeleefe, and to be consenting with the Romain Church: who doth not behowld, blasphemous to be their audacitie, that tearme such Church the seat of pestilence, the whoore of Babilon; or our Church not to be the true Churche? Could such Romaine Sea not be subiect to misbeleefe, and yet apostated into idolatrous infidelitie? Could it be once, the tuchstone of trueth, and Catholick beleefe, to consent with the Romain Church: and yet be now a tuchstone of a suspitious, and idolatrous beleefe, to consent with the Romain beleefe? Hath Christ bene vntrue, or deceaued, who promised, the gates of hell should not preuayle against his Church builded vpon S. Peter, which all the world acknowledge to be no other then the Romain Church, wherin he, S. Paul, and S. Ihon, had preached, and S. Paul, in one and the selfe same day rendred their sowles to God?
Yf there were nothing els to auerr it, yet the vanitie and friuolousnes C of their claymes that would defeat vs, ought to seeme sufficient. For euery one retayneth by good law his inheritance, yf the proofs of pretenders therto, be fownd voyd, and vnlawfull. We haue now testifyed the two notes or markes here, and by Caluin pretended, to be insufficient. And gentle M. Rider, you that affirme we lack the forsayd notes: what wisdome was it in you, not to iustifie it by some proofe? Nay, what simplicitie is it in me, to expect any, ether Riderian, or other, in impossibilitie of hauing any? For vnlesse we take as a sufficient proofe, your fayth, truth, and honestie, which many marchants would refuse to take for their seeliest wares, vnlesse we beleeue your bare protestations, that your clouds are very apparent, [Page 388] that your night is brightest light, that your dreames are documents of Scripture, that goats are sheepe, that falshood is trueth, our expectation of any other proofe, will neuer be accomplished. At least, you may in patience be contented that I collect the tyeth of your vntruethes and Calculat the 207. belonging to your deprauations,The 207. vntruth. denials, affirmations, accusations, &c. in this place.
Catho. Priests.Read Gregorie Nazianzen in his funerall sermon of father, mother, and sister, and you shall finde miraculous demonstrations of the reall being of Christ.
Rider.158. YOu still abuse the eares of the simple: Gregorie hath no such matter as you speake of wrought by your charmed Hoste: If you meane the spirituall reall being of Christ in your sacrament,This Gregorie was dead 500. yeares before your corporall presence was knowne. that is none of yours: and if you meane of your corporall presence of Christ, alasse, Gregorie neuer knew it. But Gentlemen you are to blame to vrge these fables to prooue a matter of faith: you haue alleadged nothing that will weaken your cause more then this.
VVhether S. Gregorie Nazianzen beleeued the Spiritual, Real, and Corporal Presence.
Fitzsimon.158. MR. Rider in his text, and Margent, warranteth that this S. Gregorie who liued within the first 400. yeares after Christ, was more ancient then our corporal Presence, and dead before the knowledge therof, 500. yeares. So that by this accompt 900. after Christ our Corporal Presence was vnknowen. Yea els where, by saying that Innocent the third was first autheur therof, three hondred yeares mare are added, before it had any acquaintance in Gods Church. All the tenore, and purport of this booke, consisting of proofs by Scriptures, Concils,A Fathers, Histories, Sectarists them selues, do confirme, and conuict, this to be the 208. grosse vntrueth.The 208 vntruth And now S. Gregorie Nazianzen him selfe shall ratifie the same to the world, to signifie that M. Rider hath, in a desperation to be accompted euer faythfull, cast his bridle raynes vpon his horses neck, to licence him to runne into the wildernes of vntruethes,D. Greg. Nazian. orat de S. Pasch. & orat. 1. in Iulian. and deprauations. Abs (que) confusione & dubio comede Corpus & sanguinem bibe, fi saltem vitae desiderio teneris: Neque sermonibus qui de carne habentur fidem deneges. VVithout confusion, and doubt, (sayth he) eate his bodie, and drinke his blood, yf thou hast any desyer of lyfe: and distrust not for the speeches which are of fleashe. Behould carefully, how we are aduised by S. Gregorie to eate his flesh and drinke his blood, and not [Page 389] to be distrustfull that there is mention of fleashe, wherby we might grudge. Wherto after he addeth, that we should not be letted for his passion: as yf he would haue vs thinke, that Christ is not receaued by vs in any passible or hurtfull maner to him selfe. And that we should be constant, firme, and vnmoueable notwithstanding the speeches of Christs aduersaries. To the same effect sayd Theophilact, in cap. 26. Math: quoniam infirmi sumus, & horremus crudas carnes comedere, B maximè hominis carnem, ideo panis quidem apparet, sed caro est. Because we are weake, and do grudge to eate raw fleash, especialy mans fleash, therfore bread in deede appeareth, but it is fleash. All this will M. Rider say to be nothing; all to be impertinent; and will rayle, and stamp at it, as most absurd. But he will not I trow, so steal away the senses of Readers, but that they will perceaue his shifts now to be naked, and nought els but ernest pangs of a desperat decaying doctrin. The Pope in the meane tyme that is now, could say no more for Christs Real, and Corporal Presence, then Nazianzen, and Theophilact.
159. But if you wil haue the world to beleeue your miracles,Rider. you must giue ouer these iugling trickes, and shewe vs what sicke man by your Hoste you haue made sounde: out of whom you haue cast diuels:Acts. 28.5. what Serpents you haue touched (as Paul did) and yet were not stung: which of you haue drunke drinke deadlie poisoned, and were not killed: which of you speake with new tonges, that were neuer by time nor Tutors taught? vnlesse you can doe these miracles,Marke. the Catholicks must esteeme you no better then iuglers: And yet by your leaue, if you could doe all these and more to, vnlesse your doctrine be answerable to Christ his trueth,Galath. 1.9. the Apostle will account you accursed: and we must not beleeue you.
VVhether in wysdome we should by M. Rider be prouoked to Miracles.
159. S. Paul distinguishing the diuers gifts of the holy Ghost,Fitzsimon. teacheth that diuersly, and not conioyntly, they are among Christs disciples, saying;1. Cor. 12. But to one is giuen the speeche of wysedome, to another the spirit of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another fayth in the same Spirit; to another the gift of healing in one Spirit; to another the woorking of miracles, or vertues; to another Prophetie; to another discretion of Spirits; to another the Kinds of tongues. &c. This distribution among all faythfull, sheweth, that of euerie one the speeche of wysdome, or knowledge, or fayth, or the gift of healing, or miracles, or prophecies, or discretion of Spirits, or diuersitie of tongs, [Page 390] is not rigorously to be exacted. Now to our M. Rider, for prophecying, I find in dede, you Puritās would seeme to be expert, by your supplication to his Maiestie, to haue prophecying allowed in rural deanries: as appeareth in the summe of the Conference set foorth by William Barlow, anno 1605. pag. 78. But I would giue three halfe pence, for euery ownce of good proffit any receaued by your Puritan prophecying: vnles they esteeme prophan and vayne speeches proffiting to impietie, to be good proffit: contrary to S. Paul. 2. Tim. 2: or, that which he sayth in the next chapter following, proffiting to the worse, erring, and dryuing into errour, to be gaynfull, & proffitable? And I pray you, my good frend, why should you demand these testimonies of our vocation, vnlesse you be able to fynde them in your owne? Do not thinke but I can shew a diuersitie in our woorking of miracles, beyond your fraternitie. Let me be instructed for my A learning, can you or any for your flock, or heard, in this case say what S. Augustin sayth in our behalfe,S. Augustin. Ser. de tempore. in these woords? Yf you say to any of vs (sayth S. Augustin) thou hast receaued the holy Ghost, why speakest thou not all tongs? He ought to answer, I speake with all tongs, because I am in the body of Christ, in the Church which speaketh with all tongs. The same answer serueth for all other sorts of miracles. For in our Church M. Rider, euerie one doth dayly behould, the blind to receaue their sight, the lame their limmes, the sicke their healthe, yea the dead their lyfe. Yet not by euery one of our church, but by seueral, to whom God according to his good pleasure hath deuided such gifts. Your miracles, both for all and some, are such as your Churche; inuisible: your Church, such as your miracles; false, and ending in confusion. Looke what end the miracles of the sonns of Scena are sayd to haue had, in the Acts of the Apostles:Acts. cap. 19. v. 13.14.15.16. the very selfe same had your two pillers Luther, and Caluin, in their intended miracles. I therfore conclude with you in your owne woords; at which for their importance, you say in the margent lyke a fawkener; Marke: Vnlesse you can do these miracles, the Catholicks must accompt you no better then iuglers, &c.
Catho Priests.I trust this will suffice for auerring the consent of the Catholickes, with the Fathers of the primitiue Church, which is the first Article we were prouoked to prooue.
Rider.190. I Know you are vtterlie deceiued, and I trust, this wil suffice the godlie learned and in different Reader, that you and your late Romish Catholicks quite dissent from Christs truth and old Romes religion: and therfore remember from whence yee are fallen, and returne to the auncient truth, (while God giues you time) which God graunt, &c.
FINIS.
How suteable the last woords of M. Rider are to them of ancient Hereticks.
160. FIrst, you affirme, that we are vtterly deceaued.Fitzsimon. As hetherto we haue through the whole writings of vs both discouered, that we were neuer stronger, then when you assured we were weake; neuer truer, then when you protested we were false; neuer more approued, then when you sayd we were most disproued; neuer more secure, then when you informed we were in greatest danger: so now, we may be certainly perswaded, that we are in the right, the rather for your proof-lesse saying that we are vtterly deceaued. Yf you had not bene such as M. Sabinus Chambers testifyeth before, and after; you would neuer haue brought your Oxford conclusion, ergo falleris, therfore you are deceaued, without some premisses, or proofs. Euery woman, or child, might say as much, when they had no thing els to aunswer. But I leaue your iudicial style, to euery ones consideration, and compassion. To your conclusion, I will confront lyke woords of owld damned hereticks: Come o yee fooles sayd they and miserable men, Vincent. Lir. in libello con. prophan. heres. who are commonly called Catholicks, & learne the true fayth which hath bene hidd many ages heretofore, but is now reuealed and shewed of late, &c. What had we bene, yf we had consented to them? what proofe or vertue is more in your woords, then in theirs? Therfor, because we yeelding to them should haue bene hereticks; and haue but allurements from you, no better then theirs; also because many seducers are gone abroad; we will refrayne you both alyke, and remayne vpon the Rock, to witt (sayth S. Augustin) the Romain Church, S. Aug. de vtilitate credendi cap. 17. against which the prowd gates of hell shall neuer preuayle.
Conclusion.
WHen Luther did behould his wrytings to haue conueyed him into a laberinth of perplexities; some tyme by their being censured by all Christendome for heretical, and therby burned and he made odious; sometyme by binding him selfe to manifould denials, and affirmations, which in processe of tyme he perceaued to be erroneous: then in shamefull greefe, he burst into these woords; Libenter vidissem omnia mea scripta [Page 392] interijsse: Luth. in presat. Germ. sup. r Tomos suos. &c. inter alias causas vna est quod exemplum me terret: Quoniam non video quid vtilitatis Ecclesia coeperit, cum extra & super Biblia sacra plurimi libri colligebantur. I willingly would see all my writings perishe: and among other causes one is, because the example (of all my brethren, whose writings benifit nothing) doth terrifie me. For I do not behould what proffit the Church hath receaued, when out and beyond the holy Bible, very many bookes were collected. Which his saying, together with what followeth doth manifest, that Sathan, and pryde, transferred him captiue to his destruction. For sayth he, tom. 2. Ien. fol. 273. Nunquam maiores grauiores (que) tentationes habui quam ex meis concionibus. Cogitabam enim, ista tu solus incepisti. Ista tentatione s [...]pe ad insernum vsque demersus sum. I neuer had greater and more greuous tentations then by means of my sermons. For I thought, thou only hast begon all this. By this tentation I haue bene often swallowed into hell. O heauie, and dismal remorse and torment of conscience, the greatest butcher, and mangler, of a guiltie mynde, how wast thou not able to reclaime, that hart, which thou wast able so to deuoure. Other greuous lamentations before his death, for his vnhappie wrytings, are testifyed in the examination of the Creed, num. 7.
The lyke remorse had Beza, when he sayd; Vellem omnia scripta euulgata abolita esse quae paci & concordiae obstare, Beza in colloq. Monpelgart. pag. 260. aut veritatem obscurare videntur. I would all wrytings published, which seeme to be against peace concord, or trueth, were abolished. Alas Beza, so would I from the bottom of my hart, that thou hadst thy demand both in such intention, and in such execution, not as was, but as I should haue bene. Such to haue bene the mynd of Melancthon, is testifyed by Wolfangus Agricola, conc. de matrimonio. when he sayd; Nullius se digiti iacturam refugere, si istum reuocare laborem posset. Sed nunc se nimis profundè causae immersum, nullum regressum inuenire. He would not refuse the losse of any fingar, yf he could reuoke his writings. But now being so deeply intangled, he found no retraict. These lamentable, and vnfortunat successes, and terrour of damnation in the ende vpon and after their giddie courses, when so great pillers of the deformed (I would say reformed crue) do acknowledge: how often thinke you in his mynde doth M. Rider couet, that he had neuer putt penne to Paper?Oecolampad. ad Lantgra. Hess. anno. 1529. Vide Seleccerum. parte. 1. comment. in Psal. fol. 215. Oecolampad cryed: Vtinam Princeps illustrissime, abscissa fuisset mihi haec dextera, cum primo inciperem de negotio coenae Dominicae quicquam scribere; I would most excellent Prince this right hand of myne were chopped off, when first I began to wryte any thing of the treatise of the Lords supper. Renew, renew the same crye, M. Rider, who first as is euidently shewed by inconsideration,In Aduertisment n. 9. & n. 130. insinuated (you, you your selfe, I meane, in playne tearmes) all the state, and Lords of the Concil, to be fooles hereticks. &c. [Page 393] Secondly, you directed vs to autheurs most repugnant to your profession, testifying it to be against the Catholick Church, and assuring,Numero 3.4.6.114.143. vs to be therof; and by so testifying, leauing you forlorne and abandoned of all excuse, or shadow of your apostasie, and impietie in being against our beleefe.
3. You haue by necessarie inferrence implyed your owne profession to be wicked, and damnable, late, base, and counterfet.Num. 16.25.34. 4. You haue betrayed your profession,Num. 30.31. by the testimonie of all the cheefe of the same, to a iurie condemning you, and them. 5. You haue violated, corrupted, depraued,Num. 38.81.154. and falsifyed the sacred Scriptures them selues, perspicuously to all mens eyes, & aboue all excusation, or tergiuersation. 6. You haue paragoned, or compared, the mysteries of Christs gospell, with all Sacraments and sanctification therof, to base beggerly ordonances of the ould law.Num. 36.63.78. 7. You haue disdayned the woords of Christs institution of his B. Sacrament, and corrected them with a new institution of your owne.Num. 68. 8. You haue denyed the whole merits of Christs lyfe and death,Exam. n. 14. and imputed your Saluation to it which hapened after Christs death. 9. You haue made Christs institution by your actiue and passiue commentarie,Num. 76.77. to contradict it selfe, and to be absurd, and false. 10. You haue made Prince and people, great and small who euer did breake Images of Christ,Num. 96. to be traytours against Christ. 11. You haue testifyed your selfe manifouldly to be a Puritan; that is a seditious resister,Num. 99.122. by your owne priuat diuersitie of iudgment, to Princes and Parlament ordonances of late reformation, and deadly enemie of Protestantrie which hath bene established. 12. You haue bound your selfe to beleeue,Num. 35.108 123.124 125. and not to beleeue, Christ realy, yet not realy, spiritualy yet not spiritualy, Sacramentaly yet not Sacramentaly, literaly yet not literaly, &c. in the B. Sacrament. 13. You haue concourse, and consociation, with Iewes and Iewishnes, in your selfe, and your Patriarches;Num. 115.119.160. as also with the most heynous hereticks; and also disproued & condemned all and euery one of the most famous Protestants;Num. 122.123. and by them you as generaly are refuted: which also is done against, & by your owne Confessours, and Martyrs.Num. 124. 14. You haue entred bond and obligation, in print, to auerre in vnitie and veritie of Doctrin, all that euer might be blasphemed against God, and Godlines. 15. You haue most puritanicaly censured the acts of Parlament since the suppression, to be heretical, abhominable, repugnant to Christs trueth, to ancient Fathers, and the practise of the primatiue Church.Num. 130.131. 16. You haue contrarie to your clayme, & it of first Protestantrie disauowed [Page 394] the General Concil of Nice from you to vs; and haue allured the nobilitie of Vlster in Irland,Num. 138. to imitat them who intended to kill their King, & rebelled against his constitutions. Breefly, what vntruethes, denials, interpretations, sequels, arguments, contradictions, impudencies, and impieties you haue besyd all the former runne into; they are not so obscurely or seldomly incidēt, but all that fauour your profession, may thinke you were hyred, or of your selfe intended, to disgrace, disable, and condemne your and there cause. Since you can not deny any silable of these imputations, you may worthely crye the crye of Oecolampad. Vtinam &c. You may worthely shunne the light of the sunne, and therby professe playnly & simply that heresie hath no defense, but in a lye, and can but by lyes and darknes be protected and that coming to light, it is suddenly disconfited.
Inuincible, and infallible Spouse of Christ, the Catholick Church: I resigne and deuote my trauayles & wrytings to thy sacred doome. With thee I say and vnsay, commend & condemne, all doctrin by me, or others, professed.
FINIS.
The Author.
1 I should not deserue the reputation of being a member of Christs Church,1. Cor. 12.25. vnles the saying of S. Paul (yf one member suffre any thing, all the members suffre with it) might be verifyed in me. For who of so flintie a nature, and senseles disposition, but must commiserat the so excessiue persecution of a people, to all lawes so subiect, to al offices so forward, in all trials of loialtie so trustie, to all defense of their Prince, and contry, so affectionat, as that their rulers haue often professed, their seruile, and patient subiection, not only to striue with, but also to surmount their commanders iniquitie, and extorsion?
But to euery part of this first clause, we are to haue regard. That first you note exactly the particular tyme, and other circumstances of your affliction, is commendable; and according the desire of S. Clement, and Fabian, primatiue Popes,Ex Martyrologio & Damaso. who ordained to that vse certaine notaries, or clercks, who most diligently should registre, and record all particularities, in the tyme of persecution. Which studious obseruation, I request you still to follow.
Secondly, that your calamities proceeded without all allowance of parlament, or ordinarie course of law, only by bare proclamations; doth argue such to be the godly disposition of your nobilitie, & the whole state of the contrie, as that impietie, and wrongfulnes, could neuer presume to haue their allowance. The lyke in first Christianitie happened in Alexandrie,Vide Euseb. l. 6. c. 34. by testimonie of Dyonise Bishop therof, saying: Befor any edict, or lawfull permission of the Emperour was obtained, a whole yeare, our persecution began &c. Wheras then, you would be loath, that any should suffre beyond you, or testifie more their affection to their Saluiour, and Lord, then you: now that you know in this mentioned wrong, that you are not incomparable, or without corriuals, striue with them to patient with noe lesse commendation then the Alexandrians (of whom after) deserued. Wherto S. Peter doth imbowlden you, in these woords:1. Pet. 3.13. who is he that may hurt you, yf you be emulators of good? that is, yf you striue in all dutie toward God, that noe others surpasse you.
Nether do you want examples of tolerating their surmise of daintines in you, that you feele, and especialie that you complaine [Page 78] of any smart. For when God almightie was to deliuer the children of Israel owt of the seruitude of Aegipt,Exod. 3.7. it was sayth he, for the austeritie of them that were ouer-seers of the woorks. For whē the Israelits would sacrifice to God, it was obiected against them that they were wanton,Exod. 5.17. and vacant: and because they performed not their impossible taske they were also whipped. So A man accused the people of Israel who were in subiection and seruitude vnder king Assuerus, Esther. 3.8. in all submission; that it was not expedient they should be insolent throwgh licentiousnes. Toward these also be you emulators in good, that you repine not at what soeuer any befor you had for their profession indured.
Yf your Pastors or ghostly Fathers, haue abandoned you for terror of any proclamations, by the assurance of Christ, they haue bene meere hirelings. The good Pastor, (sayth our Saluiour) giueth his lyfe for his sheepe. But the hierling, and he that is not the pastor, whose owne the sheepe are not, Ioa. 10.11.12. seeth the wolfe coming, and leaueth the sheepe, and flieth, and the wolfe raueneth, and disperseth the sheepe. And the hireling fleeth because he is a hireling, and he hath noe care of the sheepe.
Yf you also haue eschued your ghostly Fathers for timourousnes, and threats of man; First you haue bene farr inferior to Abdias steward to K. Achab, 3. Reg. 18.4. and Iezabel. For he when by Iezabels sacrilegious impietie, the prophets of God were persecuted; he I say alone preserued, and nourished a hondred of them in fellers vnder grownd. Secondly you had lost the reward belonging to your sayd ghostly. Fathers, or which is all one, the merit of hospitalitie, which you might haue vsed to Christ in person. He that receaueth you (sayth Christ to his disciples whom he sent to fructifie in his Church) receaueth me: Mat. 10.40.41. and he that receaueth me, receaueth him that sent me. He that receaueth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, shall receaue the reward of a Prophet. Thirdly, you haue bene therby in euident peril of greater damnation, then which is due to the very Sodomits and Gomorrheans; which also our Sauioure in the same chapter foretelleth, sayinge. whosoeuer shall not receaue you, Mat. 10.14.15. nor heare your woords: going foorth owt of the howse, or citie, shake of the dust of your feete. Amen I say to you, it shalbe more tolerable for the land of the Sodomits, and Gomorrheans in the day of iudgment, then for that citie.
In these duties the scripture exempteth vs from lawes of men. Commanding (sayd a certain Magistrate) we commanded you, Act. 5.28.29. that you showld not teach in this name: and behowld you haue filled Hierusalem, with your doctrin, &c. But Peter aunswering and the Apostles, sayd God must be obeyed [Page 79] rather then men.
That you haue a setled resolution to tolerat all extremitie, rather then to abiure your profession, deserueth much commendation. In that especialie the woords of S Paul are to be vnderstoode; Patience is necessarie for you, that doing the will of God, you may receaue the promise. Hebr. 20.36. And reason leadeth you therto. For it is a fyxed decree of God that yf we would reigne with Christ, we must suffre for Christ:2. Tim. 2.12. yf we would be crowned we must combat lawfully:2. Time 2.4. yf we would be confessed and auowed by Christ be for God and his angels, we must confesse him befor men.Luc. 12.8.9.
It is knowen, that the cupp or chalice of Christ, is sowre, that his stādard is the crosse, that his crowne is pricking, that his liuerie is read, as of one that had troaden the presse; and that his pathes,Isa. 63.2. and of all his saincts, are the wayes of continual tribulations. Who then to be a Beniamin to Christ would not be contented to haue his cupp found in his sack; or to be on ether of his sydes,Gen. 44.12. would not with the children of Zebede professe him selfe able to drinke of his chalice?Mat. 20.22. Who willing to beare the victorious crosse of Christ, would not with Heraclius Emperor (finding him selfe in his brauerie not to be able to moue it, but in his outward pouertie,Vide Breniariū de exaltatione S. Crucis. with ease to transport it) permitt him selfe to be spoiled of all state, and magnificence?1. Pet. 5.4. ‘Who, hearing in Gods assured woord, promised; that when the Prince of Pastors shall appeare we shall receaue the incorruptible crowne of glorie; and that blessed is the man that suffereth tentation; for when he hath bene proued, he shall receaue the crowne of lyfe; but in the meane tyme would indure thorns of reproaches,Iac. 1.12. crowning daylie his eares?’ ‘Who considering the most aspiring arrogance of Aman,Hoster. 6. [...]. to haue only intended to be adorned with the Kings apparel, to ryde on a horse appointed for the Kings sadle, to haue the Kings diademe vpon his heade; but in all Christian modestie, should be contented, to be of one liuerie with his God, and all his deerest beloued;’ satisfied to be mounted on his Gods fairest horse, which was the crosse, of suffrance and acknowledge him selfe abundantly glorified, to weare his Gods diademe, which in this world did only pearce, and torment? Lastly; who heareing the broad way to lead to perdition,Mat. 7.13.14. Psal. 24.4. and the narrow way to conduct to lyfe, but from his hart will say with the Prophet: thy wayes o Lord, demonstrat to me, and teach me thy pathes?