A Dangerous Plot Discovered, Chapter 14 – Chapter 15

A Dangerous Plot Discovered · Chapter 14 – Chapter 15

p. 82CHAP. XIV. The point of Reall preſence is debated.

THe order obſerued hitherto, muſt be obſerued 1here alſo: Three things are ſought after,

1 Whether his doctrine of reall preſence bee true or not.

2 Whether he conſenteth, in the reall preſence, with the Church of Rome, or not.

3 Whether he diſſenteth, in the point of Reall preſence, with the Church of England, or not.

His conſent with the Church of Rome is plentifully 2witneſſed by himſelfe. Thus he writeth,

There is no difference betweene the Church of Rome, and ours, in the point of Reall preſence. Gagg. p. 253.

The Proteſtant in the Sacrament, is as reall and ſubſtantiall as any Papiſt. Gagg. p. 251.

If the Prieſts and Ieſuits, were not common Barretters of Chriſtendome for priuate ends, this controuerſie on foot, touching the reall preſence, might ceaſe. Gagg. p. 251.

They that in the point of reall preſence, doe make a difference betweene vsus, and the Papiſts, were bred vp by the deuill in a faction, and by him brought vp in a faction, and by him ſent abroad to doe him ſeruice, in maintaining a faction. Gagg. p. 253. and Appeale p. 291.

The onelyonly difference, betweene the Church of Rome, and ours, is about the manner. Appeale p. 83p. 289. viz. How it is made the fleſh of Chriſt. Gagg. p. 256. 255. Namely, whether by tranſubſtantiation or not. 252. 254. The Councell of Lateran decreed Tranſubſtantiation, which wee condemne. Gagg. p. 252.

And in this, viz. how it is made the fleſh of Chriſt, he placeth the whole difference between the Church of Rome, and ours, blaming them for this, p. 252. and for nothing elſe; and reprouing their proofes▪ becauſe they proue not that the ſacrament is the fleſh of Chriſt by tranſubſtantiation. Gagg. p. 252. and 254. Out of which, wee may conclude: M^r Mountagu beleeueth, as the Councell of Trent hath decreed, touching the reall preſence: and the doctrine of it is his doctrine; ſo as, what the Councell ſaith of reſeruing, carying about, and worſhipping of the Sacrament, muſt be accounted the faith of M^r Mountagu; becauſe the firſt doth neceſſarily inferre the ſecond. If Chriſt be really preſent, then the ſacrament, muſt bee ſo reſerued, caryed, worſhipped. And ſo much for the ſecond branch.

If this be true, then M^r Mountagu doth not diſſent 3from the Church of England in the point of reall preſence. To the end hee might perſwade vsus that hee doth not diſſent from the Church of England, he telleth vsus, Appeale p. 289. The point of reall preſence is not Popery in the diuinity of the Church of England▪ That is, the Church of England, agreeth with the Church of Rome, in the point of reall preſence: as he doth explicate himſelfe a few lines after. If that be ſo, then I grant he doth not diſſent from the Church of England.

p. 84But all the doubt will be, how he will proue, that the Church of England doth ioyne in faith, with the Church of Rome in the point of reall preſence. His proofe (ſuch as it is) I find ſet downe, Appeale p. 289. &c. and may be concluded in this forme;

Whatſoeuer is taught by the Biſhops; Bilſon, Andrewes, Morton: by Proteſtants; Fortunatus, Caluin, Beza▪ Sadael, is the doctrine of the Church of England.

But the faith of the Church of Rome, touching the reall preſence, is taught by theſe, &c.

Therefore, the faith of the Church of Rome, in the point of reall preſence, is the doctrine of the Church of England.

This forme of diſputing may not bee excepted againſt, becauſe all his allegations in the place quoted, will be to no purpoſe, if he doth not thus diſpute; for the allegations doe ſerue to proue this aſſumption, or can be of no vſe at this time.

To the propoſition I anſwer two things. Firſt, The doctrine of the Church of England is contained in bookes, authoriſed publikely for that end, and ſubſcribed vntounto as ſuch. But theſe mens writings are not ſuch: For no ſtatute, law, or ordinance, hauehave ratified them: and commanded ſubſcription vntounto them as ſuch. Therefore your propoſition is falſe. Secondly, your owne words are theſe, Appeale. p. 58. and 59.

Whereas you would make the world beleeue that Eccleſia Anglicana Calviniſtat, as if hee were the father and founder of our faith, as if our beleefe were to be pinned vntounto his ſleeue, and abſolutely to bee taught after his inſtitutions: ſhew p. 85me good warrant for it, and I yeeld.

This is impoſſible, therefore your propoſition is falſe, euen by your owne ſentence: his owne pen giueth Iudgement againſt his propoſition as falſe: that being falſe, this reaſon cannot be good, although his aſſumption were neuer ſo true.

The aſſumption is vtterly falſe; and I doe admire, that ſhame did not with-hold him, from alleadging Caluin and Beza as conſenters vntounto the Romiſh faith in the point of reall preſence; ſeeing that Bellarmine in his fi…ſt Booke and firſt Chapter of the Sacrament of the Euchariſt doth make Caluin, and Beza principall oppoſers thereunto: and in the ſecond Chapter he doth apply the Councell of Trent in ſpeciall ſort againſt Caluin, and forgetteth him not, in no one paſſage of his diſputations in this point.

The words of the Biſhops, (euen as he hath alleadged them) are not ſo much as like vntounto the Romiſh faith, as hee that readeth them will preſently iudge. I doe not attempt to apply them to his aſſumption. Two of them are yet liuing, who will (I doubt not) by liuely voyce, diſclaime the decree of the Councell of Trent, and their conſent thereto, touching the reall preſence, and ſo fully refute his aſſumption as falſe.

He inferreth further from hence, on this wiſe;

If this be the Doctrine that the Church of England teacheth and profeſſeth, (as it is indeed) I leaue you to thoſe that muſt looke vntounto you.

I anſwer; this inference preſumes too farre, and comes too late, I may rather inferre contrariwiſe.

If the Romiſh faith of reall preſence bee not the p. 86Doctrine of the Church of England, (as indeed it is not) my anſwer hath ſhewed it in part, (and I will ſhew it to the full hereafter,) then I leaue you as a corrupter of our faith, to be puniſhed as ſuch, according to law in that caſe prouided.

I finde in his Gagge, page 250. he writeth thus,

Our Catechiſme in the Communion Booke ſaith expreſly, the body and blood of Chriſt is taken and eaten in the Lords Supper.

And a few lines after he concludeth in theſe words,

The Proteſtant is as reall and ſubſtantiall, as any Papiſt.

He ſeemeth to inferre the latter ſentence vponupon the former: the meaning whereof is this: Proteſtants acknowledge the reall and ſubſtantiall preſence of Chriſt in the Sacrament, no leſſe then Papiſts.

What his intent was, is beſt knowne to himſelfe. It was needfull for mee to propound it, and let it bee knowne by my anſwer thereto, that no reall preſence is intended by our Church in the words alleadged: which anſwer I will take from Biſhop Iewell, who hath already made it for mee, in his reply vntounto Hardings anſwere, Artic. 5. p. 238. whoſe words be theſe;

Chriſts body and blood, indeed, and verily, is giuen vntounto vsus, that we verily eate it, that wee verily drinke it.

In theſe words there is as much contained, as M^r. Mountagu alleadgeth out of the Catechiſme. But marke now what he denieth, and anſwereth further for the explication thereof.

p. 87Yet we ſay not, that Chriſts body is let downe from heauen, or made really, or fleſhly preſent in the Sacrament: wee lift vp our hearts to heauen, and there feed vponupon the Lambe of God: thus ſpiritually and with the mouth of our faith, wee eate the body of Chriſt, and drinke his blood, euen as verily as his body was verily broken, and his blood verily ſhed vponupon the Croſſe.

This anſwer of Biſhop Iewell is full to the purpoſe, and of no leſſe authority, then the Catechiſme alleadged: which being taken in this ſenſe, we may ſafely conclude, that our Church is no friend to the reall preſence in thoſe words of the Catechiſme.

A third thing alſo is in his Appeale, pag. 291. thus 6ſet downe;

Both wee, and the Papiſts confeſſe, This is my Body; and that is enough; and contend meerely about the manner how it is my Body, (that is) how the Sacrament is made the fleſh of Chriſt, Gagge, page 256. The councell of Lateran decreed tranſubſtantiation, and wee deny the ſame, Gagge, page 252.

Which ſentence, by the courſe of the place where it is, muſt be applyed to the preſent purpoſe, in this forme;

They that agree in this ſentence, This is my Body, there is no cauſe why they ſhould be diſtracted in the point of reall preſence.

But we and the Papiſts agree in this ſentence: This is my Body, and contend meerely about the manner how it is made the fleſh of Chriſt, &c.

Therefore wee and the Papiſts hauehave no cauſe to bee p. 88diſtracted about the point of reall preſence.

That it was his purpoſe thus to diſpute, the place it ſelfe where that ſentence ſtandeth, will ſhew: where hee bringeth the thing here concluded in the firſt place, and then the words alleadged, as a proofe therof: and referred thereunto, by this word, ſeeing, &c.

I will take my anſwer vntounto this, from the ſame Author and place, page 236. from whence I had my former, viz. the reuerend Biſhop, whoſe words bee theſe;

Indeed the queſtion betweene vsus this day, is not of the letters or ſyllables of Chriſts words: (for they are knowne and confeſſed of either partie:) But onelyonly of the ſenſe and …eaning of his words, which is the v…ry pith, and ſubſtance of the Scriptures: and he committeth fraud againſt the lawes, that (ſ…ing the words of the law,) ouerthroweth the m…ning: If it be true, that the onelyonly ſenſe of Chriſts words is, that his Body is really and fleſh… the Sacrament, it is great wonder, that … of the ancient Doctors of the Church could eu…r ſee it.

This anſwer is full to eueryevery point of M^r. Mountagu his argument.

Firſt, he ſaith, they agree in words, touching this ſentence, This is my Body: and ſo farre hee grants the aſſumption.

Secondly, the queſtion is, of the ſenſe of thoſe words: and thereby denies the aſſumption, and propoſition too: as if he ſhould ſay, although they agree in words: yet differing in the ſenſe, there is ſufficient cauſe of diſtraction, and diſſent betweene them. For p. 89the ſenſe is the pith of the Scriptures; and hee that ouerthroweth the meaning, corrupteth the Law. 3 He ſaith they vnderſtand Chriſts words of a real and fleſhly preſence of Chriſts body. Which the Biſhop denyeth, whereby it is euident that he putteth the difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours in this; viz. that They affirme a reall preſence, We deny it. And this doth directly oppoſe the latter part of M^r. Mountagu his reaſon, that placeth the difference betweene them, and vsus, meerly in the manner how the Sacrament is made the fleſh of Chriſt, which they ſay is by tranſubſtantiation. The Biſhop ſaith, we diſſent about the reall preſence. M. Mountagu ſaith no: for (ſaith he) our diſſent is meerly about tranſubſtantiation.

By which it appeareth, M. Mountagu his arguments (in the behalfe of the Church of Rome) were anſwered long before he was borne.

It may be he will reply to this anſwer of the Biſhop, that it is not ſufficient, and giuegive the reaſon for it, which he alleadgeth in the like caſe in his Appeale pag. 291. viz.

The Devill bred him vp in a faction, and ſent him abroad, to doe him ſeruice in maintaining a faction.

And thus hee muſt reply, or blot out of both his bookes that bitter ſentence, which was written againſt all ſuch, as make any difference betweene the Romiſh Church, and ours, in the point of reall preſence. I reioyne to it in the Biſhops words, p. 237.

If he be of God, he knoweth well, he ſhould not thus beſtow his tongue and hand.

Moreouer, if he hath the vnderſtanding of a man, he knoweth it is euidence of truth, not bitterneſſe of p. 90rayling that carieth credit in a diuinitie queſtion: let him firſt take away the Biſhops proofes, and ſhew wherein hee is a lyar, or an ignorant man, and then there may be ſome excuſe for this railing: till then, it will be held a ruled caſe, his will was good, but his cauſe nought. He muſt raile becauſe hee had nothing elſe to ſay. And with this I conclude all the pretences that he hath for his agreement in the point of reall preſence with the Church of England.

I will now deliuer ſome reaſons to proue, that the 9Church of England doth oppoſe the church of Rome in the point of reall preſence, as followeth.

1 Many of our nation hauehave giuen their bodies to the fire for denying it. 2 It hath beene proclaimed againſt, by our Miniſters, without any blame from authoritie, or knowne oppoſition from any of ours. 3 Our Church hath determined what is to bee held, touching the nature, and effects of this Sacrament, and hath not a word of the reall preſence. Our Church hath determined, that the Sacrament is to be eaten, taken, and giuen, only after a ſpirituall manner, and by faith: and denyeth worſhip to it. Arti. 28. That the wicked receiue the ſigne, but are not partakers of Chriſt. Arti. 29. That it ought to be adminiſtred to all men in both kinds, Arti. 30. which it would not hauehave done if it had granted the Popiſh reall preſence. Laſtly, Biſhop Iewell in the name and defence of the Church of England, denyeth it; and maintaineth that that Article of the Popiſh faith is erroneous, firſt in his Apologie beginning at Chapter 12 the 2 Part and ſo forward, and againe in his Reply to Harding, Arti. 5. And this I hope is ſufficient to proue, that the Church of England reiecteth p. 91the popiſh reall preſence.

It remaineth in the third place, that wee examine 10whether the popiſh reall preſence be true or not: but of that I find nothing in him: it was meet for him to hauehave proued it before he had pronounced the oppoſers thereof were bred by the Deuill, as he doth in the words which I hauehave alleaged. That he proued it not in his Gagge it is no meruaile: for there he goes hand in hand, with his Aduerſary. That he did it not in his Appeale, was, becauſe, hee could not: for there hee had good cauſe to ſhew all his ſtrength: OnelyOnly I find in his Gagge pag. 250. theſe words:

Hee gaue ſubſtance, and really ſubſiſting eſſence, who ſaid, This is my body, this is my blood.

Theſe words are little other then a riddle: yet I will make the beſt of them. My anſwer thereunto will explicate the matter, and take away that which might ſeeme to fortifie the popiſh reall preſence: thus it may be framed,

If Chriſt gaue ſubſtance, and an eſsence really ſubſiſting, when he did adminiſter the ſacrament to his Diſciples, and ſaid, This is my body, &c. then the body of Chriſt is really and ſubſtantially preſent in the Sacrament.

But Chriſt gaue ſubſtance, and an eſſence really ſubſiſting, &c.

Therefore the body of Chriſt is really preſent.

I anſwer; The word ſubſtance &c. in this place may be taken for the ſubſtance of Bread and wine: or for the ſubſtance of Chriſts body: That Chriſt gaue the ſubſtance of bread and wine I grant, and ſo the aſſumption is true, and hee muſt grant it likewiſe, or elſe ſay p. 92with the Councell of Trent, Seſs. 13. can. 2. That, it doth not remaine: but is changed, &c. which I preſume he will not doe: But the word ſubſtance being thus vnderſtood, he muſt thus argue, Hee gaue the ſubſtance of bread, therefore the ſubſtance of his body was preſent. Theſe two doe hang together like harpe and Harrow, ſo the conſequence of the propoſition is naught.

If by the word ſubſtance hee meant Chriſts body, then the ſubſtance of his body is affirmed to be giuen, but not explicated how hee gaue it, nor proued yet that he gaue it. This is his old vaine, you muſt go ſeeke his meaning for the ſenſe, and take his word for the truth, or elſe his is no man of this world.

I will beſtow ſome paines to finde out both: To 11giuegive may be after an humane ſort (that is) when I deliuer a thing in my poſſeſſion, into the poſſeſſion of another: I had it then, another hath it now: hee is ſeized, I am diſpoſſeſſed of it. If Chriſt gaue the ſubſtance of his body thus, then the▪ ſubſtance of his body was preſent. But Chriſt did not giuegive the ſubſtance of his body on this manner. If hee will ſay Chriſt gaue the ſubſtance of his body in this ſort, hee muſt proue it by the word of God; for it is impoſſible vntounto naturall vnderſtanding, that Chriſt ſhould deliuer the ſubſtance of his owne body, out of his owne poſſeſſion into the poſſeſſion of his Diſciples.

Furthermore, Giuing may be after an heauenly and ſpirituall manner, that is to ſay, vntounto faith. If he ſay Chriſt gaue the ſubſtance of his body in this ſenſe; Then he ſaith true, and thus he muſt ſay, or diſclaime the faith of the Church of England: for ſo ſaith our p. 93Church, in the 28 Article. But then Chriſt might ſo giuegive, and yet not be really and ſubſtantially preſent in the Sacrament. For we lift vp our hearts to heauen, and there feed vponupon the Lambe of God. Thus ſpiritually, with the mouth of our faith, we eate the body of Chriſt, and drinke his blood, &c. as I hauehave alledged out of Biſhop Iewel in his reply to Harding, p. 238. ſee Defen. Apolog. p. 234. and 264. for this anſwer.

I hope no man will require mee to proue, that, 12Chriſt is not really preſent in the Sacrament: that belongs not to me: but becauſe they affirme that hee is preſent, and tels vsus we muſt beleeue, that God hath reuealed it; therefore it is enough for vsus to call for a ſight of that diuine reuelation, and in the meane time to with-hold our beleefe thereof, euen vponupon that ground which Biſhop Iewel hath laid in the defence of his Apology, part 2. cap. 12. diuiſ. 1. p. 220. namely,

Chriſt nor his Apoſtles neuer taught, nor the Primitiue Church neuer beleeued that reall preſence.

Thus hauehave I ended this argument, and the whole point of reall preſence, and (I hope) hauehave made it appeare, that it is, neither the doctrine of the Church of England, nor a true doctrine.

p. 94-95CHAP. XV. The point of Images.