SECT. VI.

I. That the Errour of the Capernaites Ioh. 6. was an opi∣nion of the Corporall Eating of the flesh of Christ.

MAster Brerely, the Author of the Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse (lately published, and largely applauded by all of your profession) a doth bestow a whole Section in explicating the Errour of the Capernaites, so that it must wholy reflect (forsooth) upon the Protestants. It is not needfull we should deny, that in this Chapter of Saint Iohn Christ doth speake of the Eucharist, which Page  223 if we did, we might be assisted by your owne Bishop b Iansenius, together with divers * others, whom your Iesuite c Maldonate confesseth to have beene Learned, Godly, and Catholique; yet fret∣teth not a little at them, for so resolutely affirming that in this Chapter of Saint Iohn▪ there was no speech of the Eucharist, be∣cause by this their opposition hee was hindred (as the ^c Iesuite him∣selfe saith) That he could not so sharply and vehemently inueigh against Protestants. Let it then be supposed as spoken of Sacramentall ea∣ting with the mouth, as some of the Fathers thought; but yet on∣ly Sacramentally, and not properly, as by them will be found true.

We returne to the Discourse of your Romish Priest. * Christ ha∣ving spoken (saith he) of eating his flesh, and the Capernaites answe∣ring [How can he give us his flesh to eate?] They undorstood eating with the mouth, yet were (a speciall observation) never reproved of Christ for mistaking the meaning of his words, a strong reason that they understood them rightly, but for not believing them: and Christ often repeating the eating of his flesh, and drinking of his Blood, and requiring them to beleeve, and when he saith [The flesh profiteth no∣thing, it is the Spirit that quickeneth] it is not spoken to exclude the Reall Presence, or to qualifie his former sayings, but to admonish them not to iudge things by carnall reason, and yet more euidently in the words following, [There are some of you that beleeve not.] He said not (saith Saint Augustine) there be some among you that understand not: So plainly did hee hereby instruct them not how to understand, but to beleeve; for had he, for their better understanding, intended hereby to have qualified, or corrected his former sayings, as to be meant Eating spiritually by Faith, he would have explained himselfe in plaine tearmes, and so have satisfied the Iewes. Vpon which premi∣ses I doe conclude, that because our Sauiour did reprove his sorupulous hearers not for want of understanding, but for want of beleefe, it doth from thence, and other premises abundantly follow that his fore-said promise was not obscure, and figurative, but plaine and literall for our reciving of him without out our bodily mouthes.

Thus farre your celebrious Priest, namely so, as in almost all other his Collections, not understanding the Truth of the matter. His Inferences stand thus. First, Christ reprehended the Caper∣naites, for not Beleeving his words concerning Eating his Flesh: but not for not for understanding them. Therefore it followeth that they understood his words, of Eating his flesh, right well. Second∣ly, They understood his speech: Therefore Christ, in saying The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spirit, that quickneth, did not thereby qualifie his former speech, to instruct their understanding. Thirdly, They needed no instruction for their understanding; Therefore Christs words of Eating his flesh, were not figurative. Fourthly, these his words were not figurative: Therefore his words of Ea∣ting his flesh teach a Corporall Presence thereof in the Sacrament. Page  224 Each of these Consequences are delivered as ignorantly, as confi∣dently. For common learning teacheth, that there is a double con∣sideration of Truth, in every True speech: the one is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that it is True; the second is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what is the Truth, or true sence thereof. To the apprehending of the first is required Beliefe, whereupon Aristotle gave that Rule to every Scholler, that inten∣deth to learne the principles of any Art (to wit) Oportet discentem credere: A Scholler is bound to beleeve. The other point, touching the Truth, or true sence, what it is, is the obiect of man's under∣standing; so that there is a great difference betweene both These in the case of a Reprehension. As for example; the Master teaching the definition of Logicke, saying, It is an Art of disputing rightly, may iustly reproue his Scholler for his not beleeving it, because his not beleeving is wilfull: so can hee not for his not understanding it, for that hee therefore learneth, because hee doth not understand; ex∣cept it be, that being taught he either through carelesse negligence, or else affected ignorance will not understand.

This agreeth with the Current of Scripture, Ioh. 6. vers. 38. Christ being the Oracle of Truth, which descended from Heaven to reueale the will of his Father, might iustly exact beliefe, that whatsoever he spake to the sonnes of men was most true: as it is written, The will of God is, that whosoever beleeveth in me, &c. Vers. 40. vz. That they must eate his flesh. But his hearers could not understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what was the true sence of these words, which caused them to say, This is an hard saying. Therefore (like Schollers of preposte∣rous wits) would they not beleeve 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, namely That they were True: hence it was that Christ reproued them for not Beleeving only, vers. 64. and not for not understanding. Because it was as lawfull for Christ's Disciples to be ignorant of his darke Sayings and Para∣bles, (which were therefore so spoken, that his Schollers might more earnestly labour to know them) as it was after lawfull for them to seeke of their Master, (whose precept is to * Seeke, and promise to Find) how to understand them. As it is written; * His Disciples said unto him, Declare unto us the Parable of the seed: and Christ answered them, He that soweth, &c.

That admirable Doctour of Gods Church Saint Augustine will shew himselfe herein an understanding Scholler of Christ (See his Testimonie) requiring of all the Disciples of Christ, in the first place, Beliefe of Christ's words, that they are True, before they did understand what was the Truth thereof: confirming his Rule by that Scripture; Except you beleeve you shall not understand. O, but the Capernaites (saith Master Brereley) did understand Christ's wordes right well. And Saint d Augustine contrary to Master Page  225 Brerely, expresly answereth, They did not understand the Truth of Christ his speech, but apprehended it foolishly and literally: nor was there ever any Father, or Authour, no not in your owne Romish Church (wee thinke) before one Master Breerley; that thought o∣therwise.

His second Assertion, touching that speech of Christ, [The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spirit, that quickeneth,] That it was not spoken by Christ to Qualifie his former termes of Eating his flesh, is very like also to be his owne, being flatly contrary to the same Father, whom he avouched; for Saint Augustine saith that Christ, by these wordes, taught the Capernaites to understand his other words of Eating spiritually: a Truth which Master Brerely's owne great Master Cardinall e Bellarmine hath published, alleaging for proofe thereof the Testimonies of other Fathers, saying; Chry∣sostome, Theophylact, Euthemius, and also Origen so expoundeth it. So hee.

Master Breerly his third Inference is, Therefore the words, speaking of Eating his Flesh, are not Figurative; which indeed is the maine Controversie, for never any but an Infidell denied the speech of Christ to be true; nor yet did ever any, but an Orthodoxe, un∣derstand the Truth of the speech, what it was, that's to say, whe∣ther the Truth be according to a Litterall Sence (as Master Brereley would have it) or else in a Figurative: which hath beene our de∣fence and proofe throughout the Second Booke, from all kinde of Evidences of Truth.

Here therefore we are onely to deale with Master Breerly, and with his pretended witnesse Saint Augustine, to whom hee would seeme to adhere. Notwithstanding (that wee may beleeve Master Brereley himselfe) f If wee should attend to the propriety of speech, Christ's blood is not properly drunke. So he: albeit Christ his speech was as expresly for drinking his Blood, as for Eating his Bodie. And every Schoole-boy will tell him, that every speech, which is unproper, is figurative. As for Saint Augustine, hee standeth as a sworne witnesse against the proper and literall sence of Eating Christ's flesh, calling it * Flagitious. Besides, rather than we should want witnesses, to aver this Truth, divers Iesuites will be ready in the following Chapter to tell Master Brereley flatly, that if hee say the words, Eating Christs flesh, are properly spoken, he speaketh false.