again in this mysterie his flesh suffereth for the saluation of the people and Cyprian We sticke to the crosse we sucke the blood and fasten our tongues within the wounds of our redeemer and Chrysostome againe Good Lord the iudge himselfe is led to the iudgement seat the creator is set before the creature he which cannot be seene of the angels is spitted at by a seruant he tasteth gall and vâ—neger he is thrust in with a speare he is put into a graue c. In which maner of speaking S. Hierome saith Happie is he in whose heart Christ is euerie day borne and againe Christ is crucified for vs euerie day and S. Austen Then is Christ slaine vnto Aug. ouaesâ— Euan. li 2. q. 33. euery man when he beleeueth him to haue bene slaine Doe you thinke that these thinges are really done in the Sacrament as the words sound that Christ indeed suffereth dieth is burted that we cleaue to his crosse c S. Austen telleth you The offering of the De cons dist 2. cap. Hoc est flesh which is performed by the hands of the priest is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Séeing then the passion of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer and the passion of Christ is to be vnderstood in the Sacrament not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie it followeth that that sacrifice is likewise â—o to be vnderstood not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysserie and therefore that the sacrifice which you pretend is indéed sacriledge as I haue termed it and a manifest derogation from the sufficiency of Christs sacrifice vpon his crosse As touching the matter of Transubstantiation I alleaged vnto Gâ—las cont â—u yâ—h Nâ—st you the sentence of Geâ—asâ—â—â— Bishop of Rome There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine You answere me first that you suspect it to be corrupted by some of ours There is no cause M. Spence of that suspitioÌ„ but the shamelesse dealing of some leaud varlets of your side is notorious that way and infamous through all the Church of God Your owne clerkes cannot deny the truth of this allegation as they do not of many other sayings of the auncient Fathers as plainly contrary to your positions as this is Albeit Index Expurg in censura Bertrami they practise therein that which they professe in the Index Expurgatorius where they say In the old Catholicke Doctors we beare with many errours and we extenuate them excuse them by some deuised shift do oftentimes deny them and faine a conuenient meaning of them when they are opposed vnto vs in disputations or in contention with our aduersaries Indéed without these pretie shifts your men could finde no matter whereof to compile their answers But being taken for truly alleaged you say yet the whole faith of Christs Church in that point may not by his testimony be reproued against so many witnesses of scriptures and Fathers to the contrarie Whereas you should remember that Gelasius was Bishop of Rome that what he wrote he wrote it by way of iudgement and determination against an hereticke and therfore by your owne defence could not erre And if it had bene against the receiued faith of the Catholicke Church in those daies the heretickes against whom he wrote would haue returned it vpon him to his great reproach But he spake as other auncient Fathers had done before him as Theodor. dial 1. Theodoret He which called himselfe a vine did honour the visible elements and signes with the name of his bodie and blood not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature And againe The Dial. 2. mysticall signes after consecration do not go from their own nature for they continue in their former substance figure and forme c. chrysost ad caesarium Monach August apud â—edam in 1. cor 10. Chrysostome thus Before the bread be consecrated we call it bread but the grace of God sanctifying it by the ministerie of the priest it is freed froÌ„ the name of bread is vouchsafed the name of the Lords bodie although the nature of bread remaine in it Austen thus That which you see is bread and the cup which your eyes also do tell you De consect dist 2 cap. â—oc est But as touching that which your faith requireth for in â—ructioÌ„ bread is the bodie of Christ and the cup is his blood And againe This is it which we say which by all meanes we labour to approue that the sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things the visible forme of the elements and the inuisible flesh and blood of our Lorde Iesus Christ of the Sacrament and the matter of the Sacrament that is the bodie of Christ And that you may not take that visible forme of the elements for your emptie formes and accidentes without substance which and many other things your Censours aboue-named say The latter age of the Church subtilly and truly added by the holie Index Expurgat in censura Bertrami Ghost confessing thereby that these Popish subâ—ilties were not knowne at all to the auncient Fathers take withall that which he addeth Euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man for that Christ is true God true man because euery thing conteineth the nature and truth of those things whereof it is made By which rule you may vnderstand also the saying of Irenee The Eucharist Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. consisteth of two things an earthly and a heauenly namely so as that it conteineth the nature and truth of them both By these places and many other like it is euident that albeit in this Sacrament there is yéelded vnto the faith of the receiuer the bodie and blood of Christ and the whole power and vertue thereof to euerlasting life yet there ceaseth not to be the substance nature and truth of bread and wine Which is the purport of Gelasiuâ— his words By the Sacraments which we receiue of the bodie and blood of Christ we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet there ceaseth not to be the subsance or nature of bread and wine The force of which words and of the wordes of Theodoret you shall perceiue the better if you know how they are directed against Eutyches the hereticke The hereticke in Theodorets Dialogues by a comparison drawen from Dial. â— the sacrament wold shew how the bodie of Christ after his assumption into heauen was swallowed vp as it were of his diuinitie and so Christ ceased to be truly man As said he the bread and wine before the blessing are one thing but after the blessing become another and are changed so the bodie or humanitie of Christ whereby he was truly man before is after-his ascension glorification changed into the substance of God But Theodoret answereth him Thou art
in their former nature because they nourish no lesse then the substance of bread it selfe would haue done if it had remained They remain in the former shape and kind as being things that may be seene touched as they might before Theodoretus then hauing saide thus much for the one part of the Sacrament commeth also to shew the other part thereof For his minde is to declare that as there be two kinds of things in one Eucharist so the two natures of God and man are in one person of Christ Therefore the other nature besides the formes of bread and wine is the reall substance of Christs bodie and blood of which part thus he speaketh Intellâ—guntur autem esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur vâ—pote quae illa sunt quae creduntur the mysticall signes are vnderstanded to be those things which they were made and they are beleeued they are adored as being those things which they are beleeued to be Note that these mystica symbola are vnderstanded to be that they were made but what are they vnderstaÌ„ded to be that b They are truly vnderstood to be that in mystetie and siâ—nificatioÌ„ which in substance and nature they are not which they are not Nay syr that were false vnderstanding which falshood cannot be in the mysteries of Christ they are theÌ„ that indeed which they are vnderstanded to be What is it Theodoretus sheweth a little before that they were after consecration the body blood of Christ Therefore the mysticall signes are vnderstanded to be the bodie and blood not because they be not so but because they are so for that they were made his bodie and blood and so they are beleeued to be and are adored or kneeled and bowed vnto But how percase as bearing the image and signes of the bodie and blood of Christ No syr but as being c Strange diuinitie that mysticall 〈◊〉 should be indeed the bodie and bloud of Christ 〈…〉 mysticall sigâ—â— had bene of the virgine Mary Ioh. 1. Theophy in Ioh. 1. indeed the bodie and blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being those things which they are vnderstanded and beleeued to be They are Adored because they are the bodie and blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being and the word as meaneth in that place a truth of being as if it were vere existentia quae creâ—untur being indeed the things which they are beleeued to be So speaketh S. Iohn Viâ—imus gloriam eius gloriam quasi vnigeniti a patre we saw his glorie a glorie as of the only begotten of the father to wit we saw the glorie of him being indeed the only begotten of his father VpoÌ„ which place Theophylact saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in English as is not a word that betokeneth a similitude or likenesse but that confirmeth and betokeneth an vndoubted determination as when we see a King comming forth with great glory we say that he came forth as a King that is to say he came forth as being indeed a King So that by the iudgement of Theophylact that particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Theodoret vseth doth betoken an vndoubted being and determinate truth of that thing whereof we speake The holie mysteries are adored as being those things indeed which they are beleeued to be This place is such as cannot be reasonably answered vnto For the reason of adoring or giuing d Theodoret intendeth not to giue godly honour to the mystical signs for that were idolatry but only such reuerent vsage as is fit for holy things See the answere godly honour to the Sacrament of the altar is because it is indeed the bodie of Christ as it is beleeued to be But it is beleeued to be the bodie of Christ after consecration therefore it is adored as being the true bodie of Christ For Theodoret before hauing confessed the mysteries after consecration to be called the bodie and blood of Christ when it was demanded farther Doest thou beleeue that thou receiuest the bodie and blood of Christ he answereth to that question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ita credo I do beleeue so Now therefore he affirmeth those mysticall signes to be indeed after consecration the bodie and blood of Christ which they are beleeued to be and so beleeued that they are receiued of vs. Euerie word must be weighed because we haue to do with our aduersaries who must finde shifts or els their deceit will appeare to all the world First therefore let it be marked that after consecration the mysteries are called the bodie and blood Secondly that the mysteries are e They are vnderstood to be at made and beleeued to be mystical signes of the body blood and so are reuerently vsed though in substance they be but bread and wine This is all that Theodoret meaneth as shall appeare vnderstanded to be the bodie and blood of Christ Thirdly that they are made so Fourthly they are beleeued to be so Fiftly they are adored for that they are indeed those things which they are beleeued to be And last of all they are receiued The first saying second and the last ye can beare withall to wit that they are called the bodie and blood and are vnderstanded to be the bodie and blood and that the bodie blood are receiued For you wold haue them called so and not be so thereby making the namer of them a miscaller as one that calleth them by a wrong name Secondly you would haue them vnderstanded to be the bodie blood and yet not be so thereby shewing that you take pleasure in vntrue vnderstanding for no f S. Paul would haue the rock vnderstood to be Christ which indeed was not christ yet he was a good man good man wold haue a thing vnderstanded to be that which indeed it is not Againe you would the bodie and blood to be receiued How trow you In the faith of the man but g VVe receiue the truth of the bodie of Christ not by the mouth of our bodies but by the faith of our soules You haue turned faith into the mouth and the truth of the bodie into the fantasie of a bodie not in the truth of the bodie therby declaring that you diuide faith from truth as men that haue a perswasion of things that indeed be not so But to calling vnderstanding and receiuing Theodoret ioyneth also beleeuing adoring and being And the beliefe which he speaketh of is not referred to heauen but vnto the holie mysteries They are beleeued they are adored as being those things which they are beleeued to be h A peeuish and blind fansie Nothing is more vsual then to call the signe by the name of the thing signified though indeed it be not the same The thing that is called or named Christes bodie and blood is indeed that thing which it is called Christ can h misname nothing at all
for if he should call that which were before aire water or earth by the name of fire stones and bread aire earth and water would sooner cease to be and fire bread and stones would come in their place then God would call any creature by a wrong name He called bread his bodie therfore bread is vnderstanded to be made the body of Christ You saie the vnderstanding of man taketh his beginning of senses which i S. Austen saith that which you sâ—â— iâ— bread as your eyes also tell you He saith it is that which our eies tell vs it is tell me it is bread I saie in the matter belonging to faith my vnderstanding is informed by Gods word which telleth mee it is k In signification and mysterie after the maner of Sacraments but not in substance the bodie of Christ and Theodoret saith it is beleeued to be and it is worshipped for it is so And he giueth the same very word of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Worshipping to the holie mysteries the which in the same sentence he giueth to the immortall bodie of Christ sitting at the right hand of his father And no wonder for seeing it is one bodie whether it be worshipped in heauen or l Vigâ—lius saith that the flesh of Christ now that it is in heauen is not vpoÌ„ the earth Therfore seeing it is in heaueÌ„ it cannot be worshipped vpon the 〈◊〉 vpon the Altar one worship is alwaies due to it Thus it is witnessed by Theodoret that the holy mysteries of Christ are worshipped and adored not as the signes of his bodie and blood but as being indeed his bodie and his blood Therefore worship is not giuen to them as to images which represent a thing absent but as to mysticall signes which really contain the truth represented by them Looke Bellarmine lib. 2. de Sacrament cap. 27. pro horum testimonijs R. Abbot 12. NOw come to be handled the words of Theodoret whom the Answerer vseth in the same honest maner as he hath done Gelasius yet cannot stoppe his mouth but that he still standeth at defiance with Transubstantiation Theodoret in his Dialogues debateth the whole matter of Eutyches his heresie not only as Eutyches himselfe held it as before hath bene shewed but also as some would seeme afterwards to correct it by saying that though Christ reteined the substance of his manhood while he continued on the earth yet after his ascension it was turned into the Godhead as of which there was thenceforth no longer vse Now hauing disputed the matter at large and brought the heretick to this latter shift he taketh an argument from the Sacrament to proue the remaining and being of Christs bodie and blood For signes or samptars are not admitted but of such things as haue being Séeing therefore we receiue the mysticall signes in token of the bodie and blood of Christ it is certaine that the bodie and blood of Christ haue their owne nature and being Now the hereticke taketh occasion of this mention of the sacrament to reason thus a Euen as the signes of the Lords bodie and o Theodor. dial 2. blood before the priests inuocation are other things but after the inuocation are chaunged and made other then before so the Lords bodie after his assumption or taking vp into heauen is changed into the diuine substance Whereby being changed and made other he meaneth not any reall chaunging into the very body and blood of Christ for he denied that Christ had now any substantiall bodie neither doth he vnderstand the loosing of their owne former substance for he expresly yéeldeth the contrary as was shewed before in handling the place of Gelasius but only intendeth that they are other in vse and name being now made signs of the body blood of Christ which he once truly tooke but afterwards did foâ—go This is plaine inough by the circumstance of the place and by that which he had confessed before in the former Dialogue that the bread and wine were signes not of the diuine nature of Christ but of those things whose names they did beare namely the bodie blood But to the obiection Theodoret answereth thus Thou art taken in the net which thy selfe hast made For the mysticall signes do not depart from their owne nature after consecration For they coÌ„tinue in their former substance and figure and forme and may be seene and touched as before But they are vnderstood to be the same which they are made and are beleeued so and adored as being the same that they are beleeued Now therfore conferre the image with the principall and thou shalt see the likenesse For the figure must be like vnto the truth Verily that bodie of Christ hath also the same forme as before the same figure and circumscription and to speake all at once the same substance of a bodie But it is made immortal after his resurrectioÌ„ c. Here it is plainly auouched that the mysticall signes continue not only in figure and shape but also in substance the same that they were before and so as that in them we must take notice how Christ continueth the same in substance of his bodie after his ascension For the mysticall signes are the figure image of Christs bodie and the figure must be correspondent to the truth And therefore if we finde not the true and proper substance remaining in the mysticall signes neither can it be auouched in the truth that is in Christs bodie What construction now then shall we haue of these words Mary this The mysticall signes remaine in their former substance that is to say the formes haue a new subsistence by themselues and the accidents remaine without the substance Bread and wine after consecration remaine in their former substance that is to say there is the colour of bread and wine the taste of bread wine the force and strength of bread and wine the quantitie and qualitie of bread and wine but there is no substance of bread and wine I wonder whether these men be perswaded of the truth of these vnreasonable and senselesse expositions If they be it is fulfilled in them which is written b 2. Thes 2. 11 God shall send vpon them strong delusioÌ„ that they may beleeue lies which beleeued not the truth c. If not then c Esa 5. 20. Wo saith the Prophet to them that call good euill and euill good which put light for darkenesse and darknesse for light The thing is plaine inough The mysticall signes saith Theodoret remaine in their former substance What was their former substance The verie true and proper being or substance of bread wine They continue therfore in the true and proper being and substance of bread and wine But the Answerer goeth from substance which Theodoret nameth to subsistence of his owne forging and yet euen there confoundeth himselfe without recouery For what was their former subsistence Mary they subsisted before in the natures of
bread and wine saith the Answerer And how now They subsist now by the power of God saith he and haue their being by themselues But that cannot be for they must abide in their former subsistence and that was in the natures of bread and wine Therefore there must still be bread and wine wherin these formes and mysticall signes must subsist And yet further if these words of Theodoret do not import the remaining of the very substance of bread wine the hereticke is not at al caught as Theodoret telleth him that he is For he hath to reply would haue replied if Transubstantiation had bene then beléeued As it is in the mysticall signes which are the image so must it be in the truth which is the body of Christ The mysticall signes loose their substance after consecration Therfore the body of Christ looseth his substance after his ascension But indéede the argument standeth firme against the hereticke with Theodoret as it did with Gelasius As it is in the mysticall signes so it must be in yâ— body of Christ The mysticall signes kéepe their substance after consecratioÌ„ Therfore Christs body remaineth the same substance after his ascension And thus the wordes goe currant both against Eutyches his confusion and popish transsubstantiation Now I cannot but maruel how the Answerer making Theodoret to speake so nicely and precisely of those Laterane subtilties of formes subsisting by themselues of naturall properties and figures and shapes remaining without any substance doth imagine that Theodoret being so long before the Laterane definition should be so throughly acquainted with these matters and so perfectly set them downe which yet as it is plainly confessed in the d Index Expurgat in censu Bertra quae subtilissimè verissimè posterior aetas addidit Index Expurgatorius haue bene since added in latter times and indéed were neuer knowne to the auncient Fathers Without doubt Theodoret was some Prophet and had some speciall reuelation to this purpose to know what should be agreed vpon in the Laterane Councell and maruell it is that for this cause he was not sainted in the Roman Calender But a liar they say should beare a braine and the Answ and his fellowes should remember that if these things were added since in later times as they themselues confesse then Theodoret had neuer any intelligence of them as indéed he had not To leaue this and to go forward he now entereth further into the words of Theodoret and openeth that which I concealed weigheth euery word at large and when all is done Parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus Theodoret as he saith hauing set down one part of the Sacrament which he calleth yâ— formes of bread and wine commeth to set downe the other to be the reall bodie and blood of Christ and that in these wordes The mysticall signes are vnderstood to be the same that they are made are so beleeued and adored as being the same that they are beleeued Now hereof he gathereth that they are vnderstood to be the bodie blood of Christ and it may not be a false vnderstanding therfore they are so indéede and so they are beléeued to be and adored not as being signes of the bodie and blood of Christ but as being the same indéed How pretily this man plaieth with a shadow and solaceth himselfe with a large description of his idle fancie Who told him I maruell that this was Theodorets meaning Surely he tooke it out of some of his learned Treatises and beléeued it as an Oracle Ex tripode But let me demaund of him are the formes of bread and wine vnderstood to be to be I say yâ— bodie blood of Christ are they beléeued to be so are they adored as being not signes but verily indeed the bodie and blood of Christ What new stuffe is this that formes of bread and wine be indéed Christs bodie and blood and must be adored with godly honor as the Answ meaneth adoratioÌ„ Is Christs bodie now become formes of bread and must we adore and worship formes of bread That is idolatry euen by the confession of his own side But he will except and tell me that not the formes but the bodie conteined vnder them is adored Yea but he hath told me alreadie and Theodorets words as he expoundeth them import no other that the formes are the bodie of Christ are adored as being so indéed Cleare it is that Theodoret referreth that adoration which he speaketh of to the mysticall signes So that the Answ must either make himselfe an idolater and must turne the bodie and blood of Christ into formes of bread and wine or else he must séeke a new construction of Theodorets words The meaning is plain The mystical signes before consecration are not mystical signes but méerly bread and wine By consecration they are made symbola mystica corporis sanguinis domini mysticall signes of the bodie and blood of Christ And notwithstanding that after consecration they continue in their former substance yet are they vnderstood and beléeued to be not only that which they are in substance but the same that they are made that is signes of the bodie and blood of Christ and are honoured and reuerenced as being translated from common vse to be as they are made mystical signes of Christs body and blood And this to be the plaine meaning of Theodoret it appeareth by that which he addeth immediatly for hauing thus set downe the mysticall signes though in substance bread and wine as they were before yet vnderstood to be the signes of Christs bodie and blood he addeth Confer then the image with the paterne or principall and thou shalt see the likenesse For the figure must be agreeable or answerable to the truth Where we sée that he calleth the mysticall signes which he hath spoken of the image and figure not for that which they are in substance but for that which they are vnderstood to be made and on the other side the bodie of Christ wherof they are the image and figure he calleth the patterne the principal the truth and inferreth hereof that as these signes though they be thus highly honoured to be the images the signes the figures of the bodie blood of Christ yet are in substance and nature the same still so the bodie of Christ thoughâ—t be now become immortall and not subiect to any corruption or weaknesse and be set at the right hand of God and worshipped of all creatures yet is stil a true bodie retaining the same forme figure circumscriptioÌ„ and substance that it had before Thus Theodoret will in no wise yéeld to be made a Patrone either of real presence or of Transubstantiation His iudgement is so cleare in these points that he sheweth but a naughtie and leaud minde whosoeuer shall go about to father any of these matters vpon him In the former Dialogue he saith plainly that Christ in the deliuerie of the mysteries called bread his
bodie that he set vpon the signe the name of his bodie that he honoured the mysticall signes with the name of his bodie and blood not chaunging their nature but adding grace vnto nature that the holie foode is the signe and figure of the body and blood of Christ And in this dialogue againe that the mystical signes of the bodie and blood of Christ are offered to God by the priests of God that the mysticall signes do represent the true bodie that they are the image and figure of Christs bodie and maketh a manifest difference betwixt the bodie it selfe and the mysticall signe which is called the bodie By all which spéeches he declareth that the mysticall signes are truly bread and wine yet by consecration made figures of the bodie and blood of Christ and called by the name of the bodie and blood of Christ as Sacraments are wont to be called by yâ— name of the things whereof they are Sacraments to lift vp our mindes from the beholding of the visible elements to the consideration of the thinges signified by them as Theodoret in the first Dialogue sheweth And therefore the Priest hath not in his hands the reall bodie of Christ to offer vp vnto God but only the mysticall signes which represent the bodie so that both Transubstantiation and reall presence and reall sacrifice are all ouerthrowne by Theodorets iudgement Now whereas the Answ vrgeth that we receiue the bodie and blood of Christ Theodoret indeed saith that he beléeueth that he is made a partaker thereof in receiuing the Sacrament We beleeue the same and it is our singular comfort But this receiuing of Christ is not really by the mouth into the bodie but spiritually by faith into the soule We say with the ancient Fathers that this food is not the food of the belly but of the mind not for the téeth to chew but for the conscience to be refreshed with S. Austen checketh that conceit of bodily eating e Aug in Ioh. â—â— 25. Why preparest thou thy teeth thy belly Beleeue thou hast eaten f ibid. tr 2â— For to beleeue in Christ this is saith he to eate the bread of life And acknowledging no other reall presence of Christ whereby we may receiue him and eate him but only in heauen he maketh one to demand of him g ibid tr 50. How shall I take hold of him being absent how shall I put vp my hand to heauen to take hold of him there Whereto he answereth Send vp thy faith and thou hast laid hold of him plainly confessing that there is no bodily presence of Christ here but that by faith he is to be receiued sitting in heauen That which the Answ further vrgeth of adoration is friuolous vnlesse he could shew it to be meant of diuine or godly honour that is which is proper vnto God Theodoret plainly referreth it to the mysticall signes but to giue diuine honour or adoration to mystical signes or to formes of bread and wine is manifest idolatrie The word of adoration here vsed by Theodoret is verie often vsed by the seuen interpreters in the Gréeke and by the vulgar Latine interpreter also not only for diuine adoration but also for ciuill worship And this diuerse signification h Aug. Quaest in Gen. lib. 1. cap. 61. S. Austen noteth vpon that which is written coÌ„cerning Abraham that i Gen 2â— 7. he adored the Princes of the Hittites as the Latine translation speaketh It is néedlesse to vse many proofes hereof séeing the Answ maisters the k Rhe. â—â—no tat Act. 1â— 25 Rhemists confesse that this word of adoration doth not alwaies note diuine worship but is commonly vsed in the scriptures towards men So the glose of the Canon law maketh a construction of adoration by which we may as it is there said l De conse dist 3. cap. â—â—nâ—rabâ—les Adore any sacred or holie thing or m Thom. Aquin 22. q 8. aâ— â— any excellent creature as Thomas Aquinas saith which adoration they expound by hauing reuerence thereof Therefore Theodoret referring adoration to the mysticall signes must not straightwaies be taken to vnderstand diuine honour and worship but only importeth a religious and holy regard and reuerence to be had thereof as being not now common bread and wine but diuine and heauenly mysteries sanctified by the word and spirit of God to most excellent and singular vse Which reuerence S. Austen ascribeth not only to the Lords Supper but also to the n Aug. de doct Chr lib. 3. ca 9. Sacrament of Baptisme by the Latine word Venerari So that the Answ can gather nothing out of Theodoret to serue his turne Wheras he further saith that Christ calleth nothing by a wrong name c. he sheweth his folly and péeuish ignorance Signes and Sacraments are vsually called by the names of the things whereof they are signes though in substance they be not the same and therefore are wrong named in respect of the substance but rightly and truly named in respect of the signification o 1 Cor. 10 2. The rock was Christ saith S. Paul He saith not saith p Idem quaest sup Leâ—it â—7 S. Austen The rocke signified Christ but speaketh as if it were Christ which yet was not he in substance but in signification Nothing is more vsuall either in sacred or prophane writings then thus to speake without transubstantiating one thing into another Christ saith that he is the vine and his father the husbandman must Christ therefore néeds be turned into a vine and the father into a husbandman He saith that we are his shéepe are we therefore turned into shéepe This must néeds follow if it be true which the Answ fondly speaketh of the misnaming of things But this is taken out of his blinde deuotions and serueth him as a reason wherby to seduce in corners silly and ignorant soules O saith he ye may not thinke that Christ will misname any thing and therefore when he called bread his bodie without doubt he turned it into his bodie Meane knowledge wil teach any man that this is but fond and childish trifling And thus much of Theodoret. Now that which was further added in my former discourse out of Austen Irenaeus for declaring and iustifying that which was spoken by Gelasius and Theodoret the Answ slily passeth ouer as being too manifest for him to cauill at But partly it hath alreadie and partly it will by and by méete with him againe P. Spence Sect. 13. YOur secundum quendam modum out of Saint Augustine ad Bonifacium epist 23. affirmeth the Sacrament of Christs bodie to be his bodie but the maner is the point for he was a S. Austen speaketh not of a maner of reall being but of a maner and forme of speaking and signifying See the Answere visible and passible on the earth in heauen in Maiestie in the Sacrament sacramentally and inuisibly but yet truly As for the examples vsed in
matter but reason and trueth see the answere at large to steale scrappes out of the fathers and not to care for their drift and purposes but onely to patch vp matter for a shew and to the sale The figures be of the old testament in the newe testament Christ fulfilleth them It followeth But it had been no figure except there were a true bodie Surelie an emptie thing as is a phantasie can take no figure The Marcionites said Christ had a phantastical body that saith Tertullian could not haue a figure No can Doe not the phantasticall bodies of spirites exhibite to the eies a certaine figure or shape it is too well knowen to the verie Negromancers and the Apostles feared the like of Christ But he meaneth if Christ had no body at all but a phantasticall body Melchisedech in the old testament had vsed no figure of that in bread wine For of c Vntrueth for he talketh not of it and though hee had yet doth it not stand the Answ in any steed as shall appeare it he talketh so that that is a figure of my bodie must needs be interpreted thus This that is this figure of the old testament of bread and wine vsed by Melchisedech which I now fulfill est corpus meum is nowe become my bodie by my fulfilling in this my new testament in veritie a figure of the olde testament in a mysterie It followeth Or if therefore he made the bread his bodie because he wanted a true bodie then he should haue giuen the bread for vs. This illation of Tertullian can haue no wit nor sense if he meant not Christ to be really in his verie true bodie in the Sacrament It made for the vanitie of Marcion that bread should be crucified If Christ had giuen his Apostles bread onely and not his verie flesh then by Tertullians minde he must haue giuen a bready body or a body of bread to be also crucified so sure he was that the thing he gaue his Disciples was the same that was also afterward crucified What say you to this maister Abbot Marcion said that Christ had in steed of a heart a kind of fruit called a Pepon Why saith Tertullian did he not call a Pepon his bodie as well as the bread or rather after Marcions opinion his reason is because Marcion vnderstood not that bread was an olde figure of the bodie of Christ Lo your id est figura is by Tertullian as much as id est vetus figura an old figure Then by your minde Christ fulfilled not the old figure in veritie although Tertullian saith neuer so plainly he made the bread his bodie But gaue them the old figure therefore to end this testimonie of Tertullian I answere you that the premisses considered you must needes graunt that the same id est is not referred to corpus meum but to hoc That which in the old testament was a figure of my bodie is now being made so by my speaking dicendo omnipotentia verbi by the almightie power of the word as S. Cyprian de caena domini vttereth my bodie Note these points whereby it so appeareth by Tertullian to be meant First the scope of his fourth booke to prooue the figures of the old lawe and the fulfilling of the new Secondly Tertullian hath figura non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus If hee had meant a figure then in the new testament he had not said fuisset sed esset figura Thirdly when hee saith Christ called bread his bodie and not a Pepon as Marcions follie would haue him to haue spoken hee telleth that Marcion vnderstood not that bread was an ancient figure of his bodie so that Tertullian meaneth not the bread to be a new figure of his bodie instituted by Christ in his Supper of the new testament but an auncient figure of the olde testament vsed by Melchisedech Fourthly a little after this place he saith that Christ the reuealer of aniquities did sufficiently dâ—clare what hee would haue the bread to haue signified calling bread his bodie Wherby d Tertullians minde iâ— that the name of bread had bin vsed to import the body of Ch 〈…〉 â—â— prefigurâ—â—â—at bread indeede should be appointed to signifie the â—â—me body This he sayâ—h Ch 〈…〉 ful 〈…〉 〈◊〉 he took bread ind 〈…〉 and called it hiâ— body his mind is that Christ would haue the bread in the old testameÌ„t to haue signified his body to come not now instituting a new figure in bread Fifthly he saith a litle after thou maiest acknowledge the olde figure of bloud in the wine Lo the wine in the old testament was an ancient figure of his bloud What can plainlier vtter or expresse his meaning Lastly it followeth Now saith he it is at his maundy he consecrated his bloud in wine who then that is speaking certain words of Iacob the Patriarche euen by the said Iacob figured wine by bloud he attributeth e A Figure to the name of wine consecration to wine it selfe a figure to wine consecration to his bloud in wine a figure to the old law consecration to the new a figure to the olde lawe fulfilling thereof to the newe what meane you then maister Abbot to charge vs with guilefull concealing clipping and paring of Tertullian who deliuer him vnto you so roundly and so wholly wee play not with you as maister Iewell did who brought out of Opus imperfectum sermo 11. in Chrisostomes name in almost an hundreth places of his booke as putting great trust in the same these wordes against the Sacrament and against Chrisostome for that verie point in a notable Sermon of his made for that purpose In the vessels of the church is not contained the true body and bloud of Christ but a figure of his body and bloud Whereas the f An answere altogether vain and senslesse as the very wordes shew authour meaneth it of the vessels taken out of the temple of Ierusalem by Nabuchodonosor which point he guilefully suppressed For the authours wordes are these For if it be a sinne and dangerous to transferre holy vessels to priuate vses as Balthazar teacheth vs who drinking in the holy cups was therfore deposed from his kingdome and bereaued of his life if then it be thus dangerous to transferre these holie vessels to priuate vses in which is not the true body of Christ but a mysterie of his bodie is conteined c. You may see howe Balthazar was stolne out of the text to make those olde Churches vessels to be the vessels of our Christian temples Vpon those words of Tertullian how crossely you inferre your conclusion vppon your owne supposed sense of id est figura it may I hope appeare vnto you vpon the consideration of that which I haue discoursed concerning his testimonie except you could wage Tertullian to say that he made no comparison betweene a figure of the old testament and the veritie of the new answering the same and that he
of eating and drinking Iob. 6. are not to be vnderstood properly but by a figure sect 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 30. That the Doctours of the Romish church by the defence of Transubstantiation haue bene driuen to most impious and damnable questions and assertions sect 29. That the place of the Gospell Luc. 22. 20. which they so much cauil vpon out of the Greeke maketh nothing at all for Transubstantiation as by diuerse other reasons so by the confession Bellarmine himselfe sect 31. That the assumption of the virgin Mary is a meere fable sect 33. That the Church hath no authoritie after the Apostles to authorize any scriptures and that we seclude no other bookes from the canon of the bible then the old church did sect 34. How wickedly the Papists deale in mangling and martyring the writings of the Fathers sect 35. That our doctrine of iustification before God by faith onely is the verie trueth which both the scriptures and out of them the Fathers haue manifestly taught that it maketh nothing against good workes that the place of S. Iames cap. 2. maketh nothing against it sect 36. May it please thee gentle Reader first of all to take notice of these two places of Chrysostome Gelasius which haue bene the occasion of all this controuersie for thy better satisfaction I haue noted them both in English and Latin though otherwise to auoyd both tediousnesse of writing and vnnecessarie charges of printing I haue thought good to set downe the places alleaged onely translated into English The place of Chrysostome against the vse of water in the cup of the Lords table CVius rei gratia non aquam sed vinum post resurrectionem bibit Chrysost in Math. hom 83. Perniciosam quandam haeresin radicitùs euellere voluit eorum qui aqua in mysterijs vtuntur Ita vt ostenderet quia quando hoc mysteriuÌ„ tradidit vnum tradidit etiam post resurrectionem in nuda mysterij mensae vino vsus est Exgenimine ait vitis quae certè vinum non aquam producit In English thus But why did Christ after his resurrection drinke not Water but Wine He would plucke vp by the rootes a certaine pernicious heresie of them which vse water in the Sacrament So that to shew that when he deliuered this Sacrament he deliuered wine euen after his resurrection also he vsed wine at the bare table of the Sacrament Of the fruite of the vine saith he which surely bringeth foorth wine and not water The place of Gelasius against Transubstantiation CErtè sacramenta quae sumimus corporis sanguinis Christi diuina Gelasius cont Eutych Nestor res est propter quod per eadem diuinae efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non desiuit substantia vel natura panis vini Et certe imago similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur Satis ergò nobis euidenter ostenditur hoc nohis in ipso Christo domino sentiendum quod in eius imagine profitemur celebramus et sumimus vt sicut in haenc scilicet in diuinam transeunt sancto spiritu perficiente substantiam permanent tamen in suae proprietate naturae sic illud ipsum mysterium principale cuius nobis efficientiam virtutemque veracitèr repraesentant ex quibus constat propriè permanentibus vnum Christum quia integrum verumque permaenere demon strant In English thus Verily the Sacraments which we receiue of the bodie and blood of Christ are a diuine thing by reason whereof we also by them are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet there ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine And surely an image or esemblance of the bodie and blood of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries It is therefore euidently inough shewed vnto vs that we must thinke the same in our Lord Iesus Christ which we professe celebrate and receiue in his image that as these namely the bread and wine do by the working of the holie Ghost passe ouer into a diuine substance and yet continue in the proprietie of their owne nature so they shew that that principall mysterie the efficiencie vertue wherof these do represent vnto vs doth abide one Christ because whole and true those natures properly remaining whereof he doth consist M. Spence hauing had my bookes to peruse these places sent me in writing this answere to them SIr I right hartily thanke you for the willing minde you hauâ— towards me Truly I should be verie vnkinde if I knew mâ— selfe vnaffectioned to so much good will I am in prison and pouertie otherwise I should be some way answerable to your friendlinesse In the meane season good will shall be readie for good will Touching the words of S. Chrysostome He would plucke vp by the rootes a certaine pernicious heresie of them which vse water in the Sacrament c. Read the 32. Canon of the sixth Councell holden at Constantinople and there you shall find vpon what occasion this golden mouth did vtter these words and not only that but also mention of S. Iames and S. Basils masse or sacrifice left to the church in writing The words of the Canon begin thus Because we know that in the country of the Armenians wine onely is offered at the holie table c. The heresie therefore against which he wrote was of the a Vntruth For neither doth Chrysostome intimate any thing against the Armenians or such as vse wine only neither was it heresie in theÌ„ that did so Armenians and the Aquarians the first whereof would vse onely wine the other onely water in the holie mysteries Against which vse being so directly against both the scriptures and custome of the primitiue church he wrote the same which he saith of pernicious heresie as before I cannot doubt of your hauing the Councels or some of them Your other booke conteining the words of Gelasius I wil not yet answere being printed at Basil where we suspect many good works to be corrupted abused But if it proue so to be yet the whole faith of Christs church in that point may not be reproued against so many witnesses of scriptures and fathers b Neither scripture not Father auoucheth the contrarie auouching the contrarie Nay what words should Christ haue vsed if he had meant to make his bodie blood of the bread and wine as we say he did other then these This is my bodie which shall be giuen c. And gaine for this is my blood of the new Testament which shal be shead for many for remission of sinnes Marke well the speeches and they be most wonderfull as most true All the world and writings therein c The Gospell it selfe is sufficient to perswade him that will be perswaded â—nforming vs of a true and naturall bodie of Christ and not of a fantasticall bodie in the fashion quantitie of a wafer cake cannot
taken in the nettes which thou thy selfe hast wouen For as the bread and wine albeit in vertue and power they implie the bodie and blood of Christ yet retaine still the substance truth of nature which they had before so the bodie of Christ albeit it be glorified and aduanced to high and excellent dignitie yet remaineth still the same in substance and propertie of nature as it was before Which saint Austen expresseth thus speaking of the bodie of Christ To August ep 57. which indeed he hath giuen immortalitie but hath not taken away the nature thereof If Euâ—yches were now aliue he would surely be a Papist Your new and grosse heresie of Transubstantiation had bene a good neast for him to shroude himselfe in For he might and would haue said that as the bread and wine in the sacrament after consecration do leaue their former substance and are changed into another so the bodie of Christ although it were first a true and naturall bodie yet after his ascension and glorification was chaunged into another nature and substance of the Godhead A meete couer cyp de caena domini for such a cup. You may remember that I shewed you how Cyprian doth exemplifie the matter of the sacrament by the diuinitie humanitie of Christ that as Iesus Christ though truly God yet was not letted thereby to be truly man so the sacrament though it implie sacramentally not only the vertue power but also the truth of the bodie and blood of Christ yet is not therby hindered from hauing in it the substance and nature of bread wine And as Christ was changed in nature not by leauing his former nature of Godhead but by taking to him the nature of man so bread and wine were chaunged in nature not by leauing their former nature substance but by hauing vnited vnto them by the working of the holie Ghost in such maner as I haue said the substance and effect of the bodie and blood of Iesus Christ But you cannot sée how the words of Christ This is my bodie c. can be vnderstood otherwise but of your Transubstantiation There is M. Spence a veile of preiudice lying before your heart which blindeth your eyes that you cannot sée it Otherwise you might know by the very spéeches of the auncient Fathers to whom you referre your selfe that Christ called bread and wine his bodie and blood and that after the same maner of sacramentall speaking which I noted vnto you before out of saint Austen Sacraments because August ep 23. of the resemblance do most commonly take the names of the things themselues which they do resemble Whereof he saith for example in the same place The Sacrament of Christes bodie is after a certaine maner the bodie of Christ But Cyprian telleth you Our Cypr. ll 1. ep 6. Lord called the bread made by the vniting of many cornes his bodie and the wine pressed out of many clusters and grapes hee called his blood And Chrysostome saith of bread in the sacrament The bread chrysost ad caesar Theod. dia. 1. is vouchsafed the name of our Lords bodie And Theodoret as before Christ honored the visible signes with the name of his body blood And S. Austen The bread is the bodie of Christ And Theodoret againe Aug. apâ—d Bâ—dam in 1. cor 10. Our Sauiour chaunged the names and gaue vnto his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his bodie And Cyprian againe Our Lorde gaue at the table with his owne handes bread Theod dial 1. Cypr. de vnct Chrismatis and wine and bread and wine are his flesh and blood The signes and the things signified are counted by one name And if you wold know the cause why Christ did vse this exchaunge of names Theodoret telleth you straightwaies after He would haue those that are partakers of the diuine mysteries not to regard the nature of those things which are seene but because of the changing of the names to beleeue the chaunge which is wrought by grace namely that our mindes may be fixed not vpon the signs but vpon the things signified therby as he that hath any thing assured vnto him by hand and seale respecteth not the paper or the writing or the seale but the things that are confirmed and assured vnto him hereby By these you may vnderstand that it was bread which Christ called his bodie and as Cypr. lib. 2. epâ—st 3. Aug. cont Adâ—m c2 12. Tertul cont Marcionem lib. 4. Cyprian saith That it was wine which he called his blood And let S. Austen tell you the same Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the sign of his body So Tertullian The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his bodie saying this is my body that is to say a figure of my bodie Wherby you may conceiue that bread and wine are not really chaunged into the bodie and blood as you teach but remaining in substance the same they were are in vse and propertie the signes and figures of the bodie and blood of Christ And as Gelasius addeth to the words before alleaged The image and resemblance of the Lords body and blood is celebrated in the exercise of the Sacraments Yet they are not naked and bare signes as you are wont hereupon to cauill but substantiall and effectuall signes or seales rather assuring our faith of the things signified thereby and deliuering as it were into our hands and possession the whole fruite and benefit of the death and passion of Iesus Christ But you will vrge perhaps that Tertullian saith Christ made the bread his bodie which words your men are wont to alleage out of the former part of the sentence guilefully concealing the end of the same Tertullian declareth his owne meaning that he vnderstandeth a figure of the bodie But you may further Ioh. 1. 1â— remember that the Gospell saith The word was made flesh and yet it ceased not to be the word so the bread is made the bodie of Christ and yet it ceaseth not to be the bread S. Austen saith August apud Bedam in 1. cor 10. Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his body blood which also he made vs to be and by his mercy we are that which we do receiue yet we are not transubstantiated into the bodie blood of Christ Vnderstand therefore that the bread is made the bodie of Christ after a certain maner and not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie As touching the bodily and Popish eating drinking of Christs flesh and blood grounded on this point of transubstantiation Christ our Sauiour said to the Iewes as S. Austen expoundeth his words August in Psal 98. Ye shall not eate this bodie which you see nor drinke that blood which they shall shead that shall crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament Being
spiritually vnderstood it shall giue you life Otherwise as Origen saith There is in the new Testament a letter Orig. in Leuit. hom 7. which killeth him that doth not spiritually vnderstand it For if thou follow according to the letter that that is written Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man drinke his blood that letter killeth For saith S. Austen it seemeth to commaund a horrible fact and hainous Aug. de doctr christ lib. 3. c. 16. matter Therfore it is a figure willing vs to communicate of the passiō of Christ and profitably to laie vp in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. Be hold and consider well what these men teach you that the spéeches which are vsed as touching eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ are figuratiue speeches that they are not literally to be vnderstood that we doe not bodily eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood And this is the plaine truth and simplicitie of the Fathers teaching the euidence whereof cannot be auoided but by those shifts which I mentioned before We extenuate them we excuse them by some deuised lie we oft denie them or faine of them some conuenient meaning But you vrge the circumstance of the text Which shal be giuen which shal be shead c. Marke well the speeches say you An argument péeuishly alleaged by Friar Campian and nothing at all to the Camp Rat. ◠purpose For when we say that bread and wine are the Sacraments of the bodie and blood of Christ do we not meane of the bodie which was giuen and the blood that was shead for vs Do we teach the receiuing of the bodie blood of Christ by faith any otherwise then being broken and shead for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes When S. Aushen saith The signe of the bodie Tertullian a figure of the bodie expounding the words This is my bodie do they not vnderstand Which is giuen c. This reason you may verie well spare hereafter The speeches you say are wonderfull as most true Yet the spéeches M. Spence are not so wonderfull as the things themselues that our wretched and sinfull bodies should by these Sacraments through the working of the holie Ghost be really and indéed vnited ioyned vnto the bodie of Iesus Christ being in heauen so as to be his members flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and receiue thereof such vertue and power as that though they be buried in the earth and consumed to dust and ashes yet they should be raised vp againe and made partakers of immortalitie and glorie that God should hereby effectually communicate and impart vnto vs the inestimable riches of his grace and the whole fruite and benefite of whatsoeuer Christ hath done or suffered in his bodie for mankinde forgiuenesse of sinnes iustification sanctification the blessing fauou◠of God and euerlasting life You may know M. Spence what your owne Oration saith Some not without probabilitie expound the truth of the flesh and blood of Christ to be the efficiencie thereof De consecr dist 2. cap. species that is the forgiuenesse of sinnes We adde somewhat to this probabilitie when we teach in the Sacrament a true and effectuall vniting of vs to the bodie of Christ whereby he dwelleth in vs and we in him he is one with vs and we with him whereby as he hath taken vpon him what is ours sinne and death so he yéeldeth vnto vs what is his righteousnesse and euerlasting life Which vnion with Christ is wrought in all those and in those only which do with true and liuely faith receiue these holie mysteries where as that Capernaitish eating and drinking of Christs bodie and blood which your doctrine yéeldeth is common to all gracelesse and prophane persons that I say nothing of those monstrous blasphemous and horrible conceits which some of your captaines haue fallen into by defence thereof But yet further you alleage the vniformenesse of the wordes of Christ in the Euangelists Mat. Mar. Luc. And in S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. all saying This is my bodie wheras the scripture where it meaneth not a thing literally doth vary in the vttering of it Which you speake vppon the warrant of some Allen or Parsons or Seminarie reader telling you so and you haue beléeued it But they haue deceiued you both in the on and in the other For in the like matter you shall find in Moses law by an vniforme and constant spéech that the sacrifices of the law are called expiations propitiations and attonements for sinne which were not so indéed but they were so called sacramentally because they were types and figures seales and assurances of the true attonement which should be wrought by the bloodsheading of our Lord Iesus Again if you had looked in S. Luke and Luc 22. 20. 1. cor 11. 25. S. Paul you should haue found the words This is my blood expressed by such maner of spéech as tendeth directly to the ouerthrow of your transubstantiation For there it is said This cup is the new Testament in my blood c where I hope you will not say that the cup is transubstantiated into the Testament but that the wordes must be figuratiuely vnderstood Then you must say that the cup that is the outward and visible element of wine deliuered in the cup is the seale of the new Testament couenant of grace which is dedicated and established by the bloodsheading of Iesus Christ by which seale we haue assurance offered vnto vs to be partakers through Christ of those benefits which God hath promised vnto the faithfull in the same Testament the summe whereof is set downe by the Prophet Ier 31. 32 c. Now if any man should take it thus Ier. 31. 32. This cup that is this my blood in the cup is the new Testament in my blood your selfe would say he spake foolishly and absurdly Thus therefore your collections from the text are no collections Some of your owne side no meane men haue confessed indéed that transubstantiation cannot be enforced by the words of the text In truth it cannot God open your eyes that you may sée his truth and subdue the affections of your heart that you may yéeld vnto it By that litle spéech which I haue had with you I perceiue you are too too far in loue with that whoore of Rome She flattereth you and maketh shew of goodly names and pretendeth great deuotion as the harlot in the Prouerbes I haue peace offeringes to day haue I paide my Prou. 7. 14. vowes and you beléeue whatsoeuer she saith vnto you I shewed you the expresse testimonies of the Fathers gainsaying her as touching the bookes of Canonicall scriptures but you thinke she may approue them for Canonicall which were not so with the Fathers I declared the impudencie of the Rhemish glosers in auouching the storie of the assumption of the virgin Mary controlled by their owne computation of
his supper But S. Cyprian in his Epistle ad Caecilium so long ago 〈…〉 〈…〉 th it sure that Christ vsed both Let that Epistle for all these points be the stickeler betweene vs who saith e Cyprians words are thus In the sacrifice which is christ none but christ is to be followed Therefore we are not to follow the church of Rome beyond or beside that which Christ did In the sacrifice which is Christ Christ is to be followed euen to this verie purpose vsing those words Against which point to alleage S. Cyprian ad Pompeium is to alleage S. Cyprian against S. Cypriaâ— But let S. Cyprian saie thus much for vs to you If it be commanded in the Gospell or be conteined in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles to vse only wine let this traditioÌ„ then be obserued To make short wine is ex institutâ—one to put thereto water is Ex praecepto Ecclesiae which vpon your warrant being so long and so vniuersally vsed I dare not breake There arose about S. Cyprians time certaine fond innouators verie foolish fellowes who for temperance forsooth vsed no wine but all water only in the sacrifice of the Church These in the Catalogue of Heretickes written by S. Augustine Ad quod vult deum in the like Catalogue of Heretickes written by Philastrius Brixiamus Episcopus are called Aquarij Who saith he in the heauenly Sacraments offer onelie water and not that which the Catholicke and Apostolicke Church is accustomed to do The argument and drift of the afore-named Epistle of Saint Cyprian ad Caecilium lib. 2. Epist 3. is briefly set downe In the sacrifice of the Church neither water without wine nor wine without water ought to be offered The whole Epistle is for that matter notable and no doubt Saint Chrysostome meant of those Aquarij Saint Cyprian calleth it our Lords tradition and a thing ordâ—ined of God he saith our Lord both did it and also taught it The learned Fathers of the sixt Councell called it an order deliuered to the Church by God and say it was the tradition of the Apostles Clemens constitu Apost lib. 8. cap 17 saith likewise mingling of the cup with wine and water and consecrating it c. S. Iames in his Liturgie saith Likewise after he had supped taking the cup and mingling it with wine and water c. S. Basill in his Liturgie saith Likewise also taking the cup of the iuyce of the wine mixing giuing thanks c. S. Chrysostome in his Liturgie in putting wine into the Chalice said And one of the souldiers opened his side and forthwith issued blood and mingling it with water he saith And water and he that saw it hath borne witnesse and his witnesse is true Ioh. 19. S. Proclus a neare successor of his De traditione diuinae Liturgiae saith By these praiers they expected the comming of the holie Ghost that by his diuine presence he should make the bread and the wine mixed with water which were proposed for sacrifice the bodie and blood of our Sauiour Iesus Christ Theodoret Dialog 1. saith f Theodoret saith not he made it but he called it his blood That Christ made that which was mixed in the cup his blood Eusebius Emiss in ser 5. de Paschat saith that Christ himselfe by his example taught that we should consecrate the cup with wine mixed with water Concilium Carthagin 3. cap. 24. In which Austen was present saith thus That in the Sacrament of the bodie and blood of the Lord nothing else should be offered but that which the Lord deliuered that is bread and wine mixed with water Ambrosius lib de Sacramento cap. 4. lib. 5. cap. 10. affirmeth that wine and water must be put in the cup. Irenaeus lib. 5. cap. When saith he the mixed cup and the bread broken receiueth the word of God it is made the Eucharist of the bodie blood of the Lord. August tract 120. in Iohannem Isidore lib. 2. offic cap. 18. Beda in Comment Marci cap. 14. vpon those words This is the cup of my blood Anselmus in 26. Mat. Alexander neare to the Apostle saith let bread only and wine mingled with water be offered in the sacrifice of Masses There ought not to be offered in the cup of our Lord either wine only or water only but both togither mingled because both is read to haue followed out of the side of our Lord in his passion Io. 19. de Consent distinct 2. cap. in Sacramentorum Iustinus Apostol 2. Damascen lib. 4. cap. 14. Grego Nissâ—n for Catechetico as is alleaged by Euthimius in Panoplia lib. 2. titulo 21. Chrysostome homil 84. in Ioannem hom 24. in 1. Corinth Theophâ—â—ct in Iâ—annem cap. 9. See Bellarminus lib. 4. de Sacramento Eucharistiae cap. 1. 11. beside many other testimonies of all ages in both Greeke and Latin Church R. Abbot 2. AS touching this first point of mixture of water with wine in the Sacrament I shewed before that our Churches haue accounted it as a meere indifferent thing where it is vsed with that simplicitie wherwith it was first begun The maner of Countries where their wines are verie strong is to delaie them with water Christians would not neglect that commendable shew of sobrietie in their mysticall banquet whereof Heathen men had regard at their ordinary tables Therefore according to the maner of their countries they mingled water with their wine taking wine to be the institution of Christ but whether méere wine or delaied wine they knew it made no difference Albeit some there were that in regard of this sobrietie and temperancie went too far leauing Christes institution of wine and vsing only water in the Sacrament as a Cypr. lib. 2. epist 3. Cyprian intimateth of some of his predecessours To this mixture was added at length some signification either in Cyprians time or perhaps before As for that of b Epist 1. Concil tomo â— Alexander the first to that purpose that Epistle of his and the rest of them are sufficiently knowne to be counterfeit and bastard stuffe But thus this vsage and custome ranne his course till at length it sell with the rest into the maine Ocean of Popish corruptions and superstitions where the fathers errours were turned into pestilent heresies and those things that arose of the simplicitie of men for c August epist 119. ad exhortationem vitae melioris profitable admonition and exhortation only as they intended them were made matters of true deuotion and of the worship of God Our Churches therefore séeing this mixture abused in the church of Rome and accounted as a necessary mysterie of Christian religion without any warrant of the word of God thought conuenient vtterly to relinquish the same though otherwise occasion requiring it they haue estéemed it an indifferent thing And herein they haue followed the example of our Lorde and maister Iesus Christ who knew well inough that the washing of handes and cuppes
of the church mouth and eyes and spirit of the Church next Gods spirit a verie goodly noble and great part of the church far the best and fairest part of the church but their seuerall opinions are not the whole churches doctrine That question hath so many braunches that in this short discourse I cannot touch all the particularities thereof to our treatises therefore I refer you Was Gelasius Pope of Rome how proue it you if we deny it we maruell why you thinke so If he had bene Pope were all his bookes dogmaticke and definitiue b It skilleth not though he did not For Bellarmine telleth vs that it is most probable that the Pope cannot erre in his priuate iudgement It must be an Oracle therfore what soeuer he writeth whether as Pope or as a priuat man did he if he had bene Pope pronounce them pro tribunal◠Did he send them as responsa and decretall epistles Did neuer Popes write bookes and yet not in all points taken for Oracles Aeneas Siluius after he was Pope wrote much so did others You are wide and go astraie far from the state of that question I say no more but view our questions therein Theodoret Gelasius are answered at large whatsoeuer they thought they were far from your minde Theodoret at that time was so partiall as in the controuersie betweene him and Cyrill it appeareth that he was faine to recant ere he could bee reconciled And in these verie Dialogues we can shew you errors yea foule of his It is not vnlikely that hee followed sometimes the counsell that himselfe in the same Dialogues giueth that is to make a crooked wand straight to bend it as much the other way And now sir to come to Gelasius who in euerie point accordeth with Theodoret against the Eutychian heresie first he writeth thus Sapientia aedificauit sibi domum septiformis spiritus soliditate subnixam c. I will English it for the same cause Thus it is Wisedome that is Christ the wisedome of the father hath builded for it selfe an house grounded or leaning vpon the soundnesse of the seuenth fold spirit which should minister the foode or nourishment of Christs incarnation whereby or by which foode we are made partakers of the diuine nature Verily the Sacraments of the bodie blood of Christ which we receiue are a diuine thing for the which cause by the same also are we made partners of the diuine nature and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not to be or looseth not his being vtterly and is anihilated and becommeth nothing and certes in the action or celebration of the mysteries or Sacraments an image or similitude or resemblance of Christs bodie and blood is celebrated or practised It is therefore euident inough shewed vnto vs that we ought to thinke the same thing to bee in Christ our Lorde himselfe which we professe to be which we celebrate and which we receiue in his image he meaneth in the Sacrament that euen as they the Sacrament of bread and wine by the working of the holie Ghost do passe ouer or be chaunged into a diuine substance remaining neuerthelesse in the propertie of their nature right so do they shew that that verie principall mysterie it selfe by which he meaneth Christ God man now being in two natures one person in heauen whom the hereticke Eutyches would haue in heauen to haue lost his manhood and to be but God alone whose efficiencie or perfect nature and vertue they the sayd Sacraments do truly represent the things whereof it properly consisteth it is the two natures of the diuinitie and humanitie in one person still remaining doth remaine and continue one Christ because he is whole and truly being or consisting in his whole and true natures of God and man in one person This testimony of Gelasius might seeme perhaps to make somewhat for a Lutheran because it seemeth to affirme in the B. Sacrament to be two substances a diuine substance bread and wine but the Caluinist lacketh foure of his fiue wits to vrge it which maketh flat against him not only in the verie words but most chiefly in the drift of the argument against Eutyches which by the consideration c His circumstances serue only to blinde the eies of the reader The troubling of the riuer is for the aduantage of the fisher of the circumstances following shall most euidently appeare for that the verie words force of the reason or argument here made do proue Christs bodie to be really present which he denieth Eutyches the Abbot who was condemned in the Chalcedon Councell at which time Gelasius flourished held that our Sauiour Christ his deitie or diuine nature after his ascension into heauen did d As touching the substance not as touching the properties euen as the Papists say of the bread wine consume and anihilate or bring to nothing his humane nature So that by his heresie Christ now shuld be no more man but God alone The truth of the B. Sacrament that therein Christ was really continued was so commonly and firmely beleeued and professed in the holie church e That because neuer any Father taught it the Answerer is driuen to seeke proofe thereof from the heretickes that there were diuerse heretickes that vsed or rather abused the same for an argument pretensedly to confirme their heresies The Maniches to proue that the ill god such was their blasphemous heresie had imprisoned certaine parcels or peeces of the good God in these worldly creatures earthly things alleaged Christ whom they f Vntruth S. Austen doth not graunt it called the good God to be really in the Sacrament but S. Augustine graunting them Christ to be really therein saith hee is there by consecration not by creation or as it were imprisoned So touching our case of Gelasius the Eutychian against whom he wrote held Christ in heauen his humanitie being gone to be only God in like maner as his diuine nature only is in the Sacrament the bread and wine being anihilated and consumed vnto nothing g A leaud tale wholy deuised of the Answ himselfe Eutyches neuer imagined any such matter as shall appeare nothing therein remaining of the substantiall properties or natures of bread and wine but onely Christs diuine nature So certaine a veritie it was then currant in the whole church and to the verie heretickes that Christ is really in the B. Sacrament Whereupon by a similitude or resemblance taken from the Sacrament he wold haue nothing remaining in heauen of Christs humanitie but the same being vanished into nothing his Deitie only there to remain as the bread is cōsumed in the Sacrament Against this similitude Gelasius replieth not denying Christs bodie diuine nature to be really in the Sacrament which was and euer hath bene a generall currant and confessed truth which otherwise had serued his turne much better to deny and thereby had he more readily and directly reiected
and reprooued the argument framed against him by that similitude But confessing that the Sacraments of bread wine do passe ouer and be turned into a diuine substance thereby granting a reall presence of Christ God and man and in effect transubstantiation only he denieth the bread to be anihilated or become nothing or as he termeth it desinere esse to cease from hauing any being at all Before Berengarius neuer any man held that h Vntruth for all the Fathers held the same as shall appear by many of them in that which followeth Christs bodie was not really in the Sacrament nor that the whole substance of bread and wine vnchaunged were in the Sacrament either without anie other substance as Zwinglius and Caluin holde or ioyned togither with Christs bodie by impanacion as Luther held but that the bread and wine by a conuersion were made Christs bodie blood which conuersion in the church of God in the greatest Councell that euer was held called the Laterane Councell where occasion was offered of the full search of the matter by Berengarius heresie by the instinct i Not of the holie Ghost but of the spirit of Sathan to bring in idolâ—try into the Temple of God of the holie Ghost most agreeable to the greatest number and the best learned of the Fathers defined to be by transubstantiation that is the whole substances of bread wine being turned into the whole substance of Christs body and blood his Godhead being ioyned thereto per concomitantiam Yet did Innocentius vnder whom that Councell was holden thus write that though the substance of the bread and wine were changed into Christ yet there remained not only the accidents or accidentall properties but also the naturall properties namely as he there speaketh panietas breadinesse to driue away hunger and vineitas wininesse to driue away thirst and the force or nature of nourishing So that this turning of the bread and wine into Christs bodie was not anihilation or vtter vanishing of the bread as Gelasius denieth not a naturall change as is wrought in naturall conuersions where the same matter remaining vnder both formes only the first forme is changed into an other forme I meane not forma accidentalis but forma essentialis by which things they haue their being and substance neither change of the matter that is vnder the essentiall forme the said essentiall forme remaining but in this wonderfull sacrifice is a most diuine and miraculous change of both the matter and essentiall forme of bread into the whole substance of Christs bodie And that was so established least by ioyning either the matter or the essentiall forme of bread with Christs bodie they should graunt k A waightie consideration verily and fit for the learning of such graue Fathers impersonation that is any substance sauing Christ to be personally vnited with Christ It was not a matter clearly l Christ and his Apostles neuer cleerly defined that there was any transubstantiation defined before the said Councell what kind of conuersion it was neither heresie not to iumpe in iust termes with transubstantiation before that time so that the reall presence were not denied as after Berengarius did nor the substance of bread wholy were affirmed to remaine as neuer any Father said Onely Gelasius to make a resemblance betweene the Sacrament which he calleth an image of Christs being in heauen and Christs two natures in one person in heauen which he termeth in this comparing of them togither the principall mysterie he saith two things first that the Sacrament is a diuine thing by which we are made partners of the diuine nature And that it is so because the Sacrament by the working of the holie Ghost doth passe ouer into a diuine substance What m He must say more or else it will not serue for transubstantiation See the answere more could he haue said for the reall presence or transubstantiation The second thing which to answere and stop the quarrelling hereticke he addeth is that the substance of bread and wine do not cease to be that is to say doth not vtterly perish into nothing but remaineth vnder the chaunge which word Substance he mollifieth and interpreteth by adding or nature of bread and by and by after he calleth it the propertie of the nature of bread where the heretickes for or which is a word interpreting the former haue foysted in substance and nature of bread So that Gelasius meant not that the whole substance of bread remaineth in the Sacrament but that not only the accidentall properties but also the verie essentiall properties as Innocentius before named also set downe of bread and wine do remaine and that was inough against the hereticke And n It may be that Gelasius did deny tâ—ansubstantiation because the church as then knew it not it may be that he being before the generall definition of the church did not much trouble himselfe with the exact search thereof thinking that the same matter or else the same essentiall forme remained in that blessed conuersion but not the whole substance that is the whole essentiall forme and the whole matter And so many in these daies held without heresie as S. Thomas contragentes declareth which now after the churches generall definitioÌ„ were damnable Otherwise if we would vrge the word Substantia in Gelasius and not admit Gelasius his qualification thereof and exposition of his vel natura proprietas naturâ— which euerie Catholicke admitteth this absurditie were too beastly and blasphemous for Gelasius so holy a Father and old fellow that Christs bodie were vnited personally or become one person with the bread so that Christ were one person of three natures the Godhead the manhood the breadhood which is most peeuish blasphemie And for Gelasius to admit o To admit the same to remaine without the substaâ—ce serued fitly and fully for the heresie of Eutyches See the answere the nature or substantiall properties to remaine as himselfe termeth them was inough to stop the Eutychian heretickes mouth who denied any naturall propertie to remaine at all in the Sacrament And therfore thus much is to be noted that the force of the coÌ„parison between Christs being in heauen in the blessed Sacrament is not in this point that in heauen he is in both substance of manhood and Godhead euen as in the Sacrament are two whole substances Christs body the whole substance of bread and wine But the similitude is herein that as in the diuine Sacrament with the verie true bodie of Christ which Gelasius calleth a diuine substance there are conioyned essentiall substantiall and naturall properties of bread and wine Euen so in heauen Christ in one person hath vnited all the naturall and essentiall properties of his two natures the Godhead and the manhood vnconfounded inuiolable whole and distinct which is as much as out of the heretickes obiection of the Sacrament he needed to reply or vrge against him
inswadling clouts that God was laid in the manger that God suffered and was buried and purchased himselfe a church with his precious bloud According to this truth Gelasius saith k Gelas cont Eutichen The whole man christ is God and Cirill saith that the name of the godhead is giuen vnto christ as man l ciril in â—oh lib. 11 cap. 22. Vigil contra Eutich lib. 4. To which purpose some of the m Concil coÌ„stant 6. act 4. in epla Agathoâ—is act 10. 17. Thom. 〈◊〉 par â— q. 16. art 3. ex Damascen auncient writers say that the flesh or manhood of Christ is deified not by chaunging of the manhood into godhead but by personal vniting of the one to the other wherby the thinges that are proper to the godhead are also dispensed vnto the manhood Now Eutiches whilest he contended against the heresie of Nestorius and would iustifie the spéeches aforesaid went as farre another way into another heresy and as Nestorius by distracting the natures made two persons and n Vigil lib. 2. cont Eutychen two Christes as Vigilius speaketh so he to make one person of Christ taught a confusion of the natures affirming that although Christ were truly incarnate and tooke flesh indéede yet that by the vniting of the fleshe vnto the godhead the flesh was swallowed vp of the godhead and ceased to be any longer flesh euen as a droppe of wine cast into the sea looseth his owne nature and becommeth water o Leo. epis 10. 11. Leo and p Euagr. eccl hist lib 2. ca. 18 Euagrius report the words of Eutiches in the ChalcedoÌ„ councel thus that he confessed that Christ before the vniting of the manhood with the godhead was of two natures but after that vniting there is said he but one nature in Christ And thus is his heresy set downe in q Definitio Cha cedo 1. concil Act. 5. the definition of the Chalcedon Councel Therfore though Christ was in the shape likenesse of man vpon the earth yet he held that he was not indéed man but onely God that it was not the manhood but the Godhead that was crucified So Vigilius testifieth r Vâ—gil cont â—at lib. 2. He affirmed saith he that the Godhead suffered which he wold proue as the same Å¿ Vigil â—bid Vigilius t Gelas cont â—uty Nestor Gelasius also declare out of 1. Cor. 2. If they had knowne they would not haue crucified the Lord of glorie Behold said he not the man Christ but the Lord of glory was crucified Vigilius againe saith that this heresie did u Vigil lib. 1. con Eutych refer to the contumely of the Godhead all things that Christ either spake or did according to the dispensation of the flesh whilest they contended that there was in him but the one only nature of the Godhead and w Idem lib. 4. elsewhere he setteth down by their own words that it was the Godhead that was seene and felt and handled with hands which they wold proue by the words of S. Iohn in the beginning of his first Epistle And in this respect both Vigilius and Gelasius say that this opinion implied the heresies of Apollinaris of the Manichees and Marcionites others which held that Christ had only x Putatiuum corpus an imaginary and no true bodie So Leo also vrgeth them that by their opinioÌ„ y Leo epist 81 Christ did all things counterfeitly and that not an humane bodie indeed but a fantasticall shew of a bodie appeared vnto the eyes of them that beheld therfore he calleth them Phantasmaticos Christianos Thus those things which concerne Christ properly as man Eutyches could not coÌ„ceiue to be rightly attributed vnto Christ by the name of God but by abolishing the nature of man Now there were also of Eutiches his faction who being conuicted of the absurdity of this opinion restrained the vanishing and consuming of the nature of his manhood to the time of his ascension of whom I shall speake afterward But in the meane time let the Answ here thinke whether I said rightly the last time that Eutyches if he were now aliue would surely be a Papist The absurd conceit of TransubstantiatioÌ„ serueth fit for his purpose and if it had bene in his time beléeued he would haue said Do ye not sée that after consecration there remaineth the colour and shewe and appearance of bread wine but yet there is not the substance of them for the substance is quite abolished by consecration Right so after the vniting of the two natures of Christ the substance of the humane nature is quite consumed though there appeare the facion and shape and likenesse yea and the doings and sufferings of a man This he would haue alleaged for colour of that shadow and phantasie of Christs humanitie which he defended here vpon the earth But this stood not with the doctrine of that time Nay whereas Eutyches could not vnderstand that those thinges which were done performed properly in the manhood are rightly said to haue bene done and performed by God by reason of the personall vniting of the manhood vnto the Godhead but would for the iustifying of this speech abolish the manhood and bring in the Godhead into the emptie facion and shape of a man euen as the Papists to make good the spéeches that are vsed oftentimes of the Sacrament to expresse the singular effect thereof do thrust out the substance of bread and wine and bring the very substance of Christs bodie and blood into the emptie formes and shewes of the same Gelasius by a comparison taken from the Sacrament according to the doctrine of his time sheweth him the vanitie of his opinion He setteth downe to that purpose these two grounds first that the Sacrament is an image or resemblance of the body and blood of Christ and therefore secondly that we must beléeue and professe the same of Christ himselfe that we do of his image Which both tend to this conclusion that as the Sacrament is a diuine and heauenly thing of excellent grace and vertue so that by it we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet there ceaseth not to be the substance of bread wine so Christ as touching his manhood is aduanced to most high excellency and maiestie by the vniting thereof vnto the Godhead into one person so that as man he is honoured adored of all creatures and all knées must bow vnto him and whatsoeuer was done or suffered by Christ as man is sayd to haue bene done and suffered by God and yet there ceaseth not to be in him the very true substance and nature of man z Gelas cont Euty chen Nestor Surely saith he the Sacraments which we receiue of the hodie and blood of Christ are a diuine thing by reason whereof we are by them made partakers of the diuine nature yet there ceaseth not to be the substance or
the bread and the winynesse of the wine were gone and Gelasius defended that the breadinesse and winynesse do still remaine though there be neither bread nor wine So his good maisters e Index Expurgat in censura Bertra the authors of the Index Expurgatorius to auoyd the euidence of Bertrams disputation say that he wrote against certaine men which held that there was not so much as the outward formes of bread and wine remaining in the sacrament but that that which was séene was the superficies or outside or skin of the body or flesh of Christ O leaud and vnconscionable men Where were these men or what story euer made mention of any such How dare they of their owne heads so boldly publish such vaine tales How doth that harlot of Rome be witch and enchaunt her louers that for her sake they care not what how foolishly absurdly falsly they speake so that it may serue them for a shift to blind the eyes of the vnlearned But the matter as touching Eutyches is plain by Theodoret that he yéelded and confessed that Christ in the deliuery of the mysteries called f Theodor. dial 1. To these things he answereth Ita nominauâ—t In coâ—â—esso est Hoc verâ— dixisti â—ta dico bread his bodie and wine his blood that he honoured these visible signes with the name of his bodie and blood not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature that these were the signes not of his Deitie but of those things whose names they did beare that is of his body blood which he acknowledged that Christ did truly take but hauing taken them changed them into his diuine nature With what face then doth the Answ say that the hereticke thought that the bread and wine were vtterly annihilated that nothing of their nature remained that the Sacrament was a matter onely of Christs diuine nature It were answere inough vnto him to laie open this his false and vnhonest dealing but yet I go forward In saying that Gelasius vsed these words by way of reply to Eutyches his comparison which he doth to the ende that hauing made of Eutyches his heresie what he list he may hew Gelasius his words to be an answere to that fancie of his he againe dealeth amisse with Gelasius For he of his owne accord vseth them to declare the point whereof he disputed namely that as the bread and wine in the Sacrament become diuine thinges so as that by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet they loose not their former substance so though the manhood of Christ by personall vnion with the Godhead be highly aduanced so that it is truly said that the man Christ is God yet he looseth not the substance and nature of the manhood But supposing that the hereticke had vrged Gelasius with that comparison and had affirmed the presence of Christs diuine nature only in the Sacrament how I maruell doth the Answ imagin that it had serued for a direct answere to haue denied the reall presence Should he haue denied the real presence of the diuine nature That none denieth because g Vigiâ— lib. 1. cont â—uty Plena sunt omnia filio nec est aâ—iquis locus diâ—initatis eius praesentia vacuus it is of the nature of the Godhead to be euery where Should he haue denied the reall presence of the bodie of Christ which is the very question How had that serued his turne against the hereticke which neither vrged him with reall presence of the body nor thought that Christ had any body at all What a wise man is this to write thus he knoweth not what without rime or reason without head or taile Surely for Gelasius to deny the reall presence in this place had bin to talke as the Answ doth beside the purpose foolishly idlely of matters wherof no occasion was giuâ—n to him In the second circumstance he setteth downe his Cuckowes note which he rehearseth again in yâ— fourth fifth sixth to fasten it in the eies memories of his secret readers as being a speciall pillar to vphold his cause He telleth me forsooth yâ— the real presence of yâ— body of Christ was a truth commonly knowne currant generally confessed in the primitiue church wherof notwithstanding neither he nor all his followes for him are able to giue any certaine and apparant proofe out of any of the Fathers writings But because the Fathers faile him he would prooue it by the heretickes who as he saith did reason from it as from a comon receiued truth to prooue their heresies It is a shamâ— we say to bely the Deuil why doth the Answ bely the hereticks to make theÌ„ yâ— witnesses of his real presence Indéed if it had béen a matter theÌ„ receiued it had serued fit for the heresies of Marceon Manes Apollinaris such like who taught that Christ had neuer any true bodie indéede but only a phantasy and shew of a body For they might and would haue said do ye not confesse that Christes body iâ— really in the sacrament yet nothing to be séen but the outward shew of bread and wine It is here it is there it is in euery priestes handes in euery piâ— in euery part of the world at once in the quantity and likenesse of a cake What is this else but a fancy of a body Thus they would haue reasoned if it had béene so beléeued especially when the auncient Fathers themselues gaue them occasioÌ„ therof by proouing that Christ had a true body because that the sacrament is vsed in token of his body and bloud wherein he suffered and was put to death for vs. But they vsed not a word to this purpose because there was no such thing then beléeued The manichées whom the Answ nameth in the third circumstance dreamed as S. Austen h Augst con faust Manich. lib. 20. ca. 11. declareth that Christ was really in the Sunne and Moone and vpon the crosse and hanging at euery bough c. and all at once S. Austen telleth them that Christ i Secundum corporalem praesentiam according to his bodily presence could not be at once in the Sunne and Moone and vpon the crosse and therby crosseth the real presence of the Papists wherby they hold christ corporally to be in heauen and in earth in this mans handes and that mans handes and infinite places and all at once contrary to the nature of a true body wherto S. Austen in those wordes alludeth Now wheras the Answ saith that S. Austen being vrged by the Manichée with the reall presence did graunt the same he lewdly abuseth S. Austen For the hereticke k ibid ca. 1. obiecting that the church vsed the bread and wine in the sacrament with the same superstitious conceipt which they maintained namely that Christ was realy bound in them S. Austen Answereth Å¿ Ibid. ca. 13. that the church did not vse the bread and wine for a sacrament of
religion by reason of any such opinion that Christ was really bound in them or in the eares of corne or branches of the vine because then all bread and all wine should haue béene matter of mystery and religion with them which was not so but it is made mysticall bread and wine by a certaine coÌ„secration namely whilest by the word of God they are dedicated and halowed to be sacrameÌ„ts and mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ The which consecrating halowing the same S. Austen elsewhere declareth thus concerning Baptisme m August â—n Ioha tri 8â— The word commeth to the element and it is mede a sacrament in an other place concerning the Lords supper thus n Idem de trâ—nit lib. 3. cap. 4. We call that the body of Christ which being taken of the fruites of the earth consecrated by mystical praier wee receiue in memory of the passion of our Lord. Now what is all this to the real presence which the Answerer saith S. Austen did graunt Not a word doth S. Austen vse to import it Nay he rather reiecteth it in that he saith that bread and wine are not vsed in sacrament as in respect of Christ really bound in them but are made only mystical by consecration where he denieth that reall presence which they fancied and putteth no other in place therof but only saith that the bread is made mysticall bread by consecration As for Transsubstantiation he is plainely enough against it also in the same place in that he calleth the sacrament the sacrament of bread and of the cuppe wherby we vnderstand that the sacrament is bread and in that he denieth that the church had the same religion concerning bread and wine that the Manichées had because it was not religion but sacriledge with the Manichées to tast wine importing hereby that it was wine which the church tooke tasted in the sacrament But the Papistes reall presence iumpeth with the Manichées imprisoning of Christ for they make Christ so fast bound by consecration to the formes of bread and wine that though ratts or mise or swine eate the same or though it lie in the mire yet it must not be thought but that the body of Christ is there stil euen till the formes be consumed and to thinke otherwise as Thomas Aquinas saith derogateth from the truth of the sacrament as after shal be declared To his sixt circumstance I answere him that the Lateran councell was the assembly of Gog and Magog to set the idoll Mauzim in his place That which they resolued against Berengarius they reselued against all the Fathers who neuer knew reall presence nor transsubstantiation As for Innodentius his breadinesse and wininesse panietas vineitas in the seauenth circumstance the Answ would not haue named it but that swine are delighted with mire and filth The eight circumstaÌ„ce also containeth only new Popish subtilties and deserueth no answere The putting in therof and others as impertinent by way of explication of Gelasius his wordes sheweth the falsehood of the Answ thinking nothing lesse then to deale plainely and seeking by friuolous tales and idle talke to lead the reader away from that which otherwise he cannot but sée The ninth circumstance telleth vs honestly that before the Laterane councell it was no heresy not to iumpe with Transsubstantiation And then belike a man might haue beene a Caluinist in that point as all the Fathers were and yet not to be accounted an hereticke At least he might haue said that the substaÌ„ces of bread wine did remaine in part but not wholly forsooth as perhappes saith the Answ some of the Fathers and namely Gelasius thought a ridiculous and childish fancy When we shew them plainely out of the Fathers that the substances of bread and wine remaine in the sacrament forsooth the Fathers thought that the substances of bread and wine remaine in part but not wholly What conscience may we thinke these men make of their answers Why doth he not bring somewhat out of the Fathers to approoue this fond sophistication vnhandsome dreame But it must be enough for vs that the Answ telleth vs that so it is But it is worth the noting that he telleth vs that it was not clearely defined before the Lateran councell what maner oâ— conuersion is in the sacrament No was Why did not the Apostles clearely know it or knowing it did they not deliuer it to yâ— church Did he which o Act. 20. 27. kept nothing back but declared all the councell of God kéepe backe this or did he deliuer it to the Ephesians and not deliuer it to the Romaines other churches To say the Apostles did not clearely know it is to make himselfe wiser then the Apostles To say they knew it but declared it not is to make them vnfaithful in their charge To say that the church receiued it cléerely deliuered and yet that it was neuer cléerely defined vntill the Lateran councell is a contradiction and impugneth that in the one part which is set downe in the other To say the church and namely the church of Rome receiued it and did afterwardes forgoe it is to make the church of Rome a very bad kéeper of the doctrines of the Apostles especially séeing the sacrament is a matter of continuall and daily vse But indéed we take that which he saith for true that Transsubstantiation was neuer cléerely defined before the Lateran councel But we tell him withall that we are very deinty to admit that for a doctrine of truth which for a thousand yeares and more after Christ was neuer cleerly knowen or defined in the church of God And because it was no heresy all that while not to iumpe with Transsubstantiation we are well assured that it is no heresy to leape from it now Now to returne to Gelasius the Answ findeth an hole or two in his wordes before alleaged whereby he would faine créepe out The wordes are thus There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine He addeth or nature saith the Answ to mollifie and interpret the word substance as importing that the naturall properties of bread and wine remaine though the substaÌ„ce be gone A very naturall answere Belike the substance remaineth or there ceaseth not to be the substance is as much as to say the substance is quite gone and vtterly ceased only the accidents remaine But Gelasius a little before speaketh in the very same sort concerning Christ and sheweth the meaning of his own wordes We say saith he that the propriety of each substance or nature abideth continually in Christ where most plainely by the same phrase of spéech he maketh substance and nature to import one thing And if we will follow the Answ exposition we must say here in the behalfe of Eutyches that not the substances themselues but the naturall properties of each substance abide stil in Christ because he saith substance or nature Againe a little before
that he saith There is no substance but it is called a nature because if the nature of any thing being be remoued or taken away the substaÌ„ce also must needs be taken away By which it is plaine that Gelasius nameth nature no otherwise but to signify the very substance because euery substance is called a nature Otherwise when he nameth as oft he doth propriety of nature the Answerer must expound it to be meaÌ„t propriety of naturall properties which is more absurd then that his face can be bold to face it out It is certaine therfore that Gelasius by nature meaneth the very essentiall being of the thing And so the Answerer cannot but know that in that whole disputation concerning two natures in Christ Gelasius by two natures vnderstandeth two entire perfect substances as al the reâ—t of yâ— Fathers doe Only in this place Gelasius forgot himselfe and fell a sléepe and by nature would vnderstand naturall properties and accidents albeit his very drift was to shew by the abiding of the nature of bread and wine in the sacrament the abiding of the nature that is the true substantiall being of the manhood of Christ But yâ—t saith the Answ Gelasius saith that the bread and wine do passe ouer into a diuine substance We graunt the same For as Gelasius hath said before they are now diuine things because they are sacraments of Christes body bloud and by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature The visible element of the sacrament is no longer to be taken as a common or méere earthly substance but being sanctified by the word of Christ it is a diuine and heauenly thing And therfore doth p de consecr dist 2. ca. hoc est saint Austen call the bread of the sacrament heauenly bread and Cyprian calleth it q Cyprian de orat domin de caena domi the foode of saluation and of immortality and Theodoret calleth it r Theodor. dial 2. the bread of life and Bertram saith of it Å¿ Bertram de corp sang domini There is in it the spirit of Christ euen the power of the word of God not only feeding but also clensing the soule In respect therfore of this excellent grace and vertue it is rightly said that the bread and wine are now become a diuine substance But do they therfore loose their owne proper nature and substance Then we must thinke the like of the manhood of Christ For Gelasius saith that we must think the same in Christ which we professe in his image the sacrament If we thinke not so of the manhood of Christ then we must conceiue that bread and wine passe ouer into a diuine substaÌ„ce not by forgoing their owne substance and nature but t Theodor. dial 1. Non naturam mutans sed naturae graâ—iaÌ„ adâ—ciens by adding grace and spirituall blessing vnto nature as Theodoret rightly teacheth vs. So doth Dionisius whosoeuer he was say that we u Dyonis de eccles Hierar cap. 1. 3. stapulens edi are made God do passe ouer into God not because we chaunge our substance be made substantially Gods but because through our coÌ„munion with Iesus Christ we are by grace renued to the likenesse of God and effectually vnited vnto him So doth Vigilius say that w Vigil lib. 1. cont Eutych the nature of the flesh passed ouer into the person of the word but yet so as that saith he it was not consumed of the word So doth Leo Bishop of Rome say x Leo. epist 22 We receiuing the vertue of the heauenly foode do passe ouer into the flesh of Christ who is made our flesh Which S. Cyprian also saith and noteth the manuer therof y Cypri ser de caena dom We are vnited vnto Christ not by a corporall but by a spirituall passing ouer into him Cyrill speaketh in like sort that we are z Cyril in Ioh. lib. 1â— ca. 26. made one with Christ who by his flesh passed ouer vnto vs. Yet neither Christ by passing ouer vnto vs nor we by passing ouer into him do loose the propriety and truth of our former nature and substance By which it is plaine that the passing ouer into a diuine substance doth not enforce any changing of the substaÌ„ce and nature but only of the condition and vse of the substance And therfore Gelasius saith plainly that notwithstanding this passing ouer into a diuine substance yet the bread and wine continue still in the propriety of their owne nature which is the same which he had said before There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine For wheras the Answ would haue the coÌ„tinuing in the propriety of their owne nature to be vnderstood of the remaining of certaine properties of bread and wine without the substance it is too grosse and palpable shifting For in the whole disputation concerning two natures in our Sauiour Christ that phrase of spéech is continually vsed both by Gelasius Leo Vigilius and others to import the manhood of Christ not only in properties and qualities which Eutyches would haue admitted but also in truth and substance inuiolably being and remayning which he would not graunt Euery kind of thing hath his owne proper and distinct essence and being wherby it is seuered from all other thinges and from whence do issue immediatly certaine properties and qualities which are not incident vnto any other Now this own-nesse as I may call it and distinctnesse of essence being these Fathers expresse by propriety of nature affirming that Christ continueth in the proprietie of both natures namely so as that each nature the Godhead the maÌ„hood reteineth his own proper and distinct substance being Now seing that the abiding of the bread and wine in the propriety of their nature is vsed by Gelasius in the place alleaged to declare that continuance of the manhood of Christ it followeth necessarily that it must be vnderstoode of the remaining not only of the properties but also of the substance of bread and wine vnlesse we will ouer turne all that those Fathers haue disputed against Eutiches plead for him out of their owne wordes that though certaine properties and shewes of the manhood of Christ be remaining yet the substaÌ„ce therof is abolished But the Answ as guilty in his owne conscience of the vntruth vnsufficieÌ„cy of this answere flitteth from it saith as I noted before that it may be that Gelasius thought the somewhat of the substance did remaine and therfore was somewhat of our opinion at least wheras he had said before that whatsoeuer Gelasius thought he was far enough from our mind And yet such is his giddy head that by and by againe he saith that if substaÌ„ce be vnderstood for substance indéede then there should follow this great absurdity that Christ should be personally vnited vnto the bread and so should consist of thrée natures the Godhead the manhood and the
breadhood as it pleaseth his wisedom-hood full vntowardly and vnhansomely to conceiue So that it may be by this dreame of his that Gelasius thought that Christ consisteth of thrée natures the Godhead the manhood and the breadhood because it may be that Gelasius vnderstood substance for substance indéed He hath well deserued for this his learned reason to be personally vnited vnto a cloakbag This idle fancy of his ariseth hereof that he vnderstandeth no other presence but reall and bodily nor other vniting but only personall But of presence Christ himselfe speaketh as touching himselfe a Mat. 18. 20. Wheresoeuer two or three are gathered togither in my name there am I in the midst of them yet we know he is not bodily present vnto all such Nay as touching bodily presence S. Austen saith according to the Gospell b August in Ioh. tract 50. He is ascended into heauen and is not here But according to his diuine maiestie according to his prouidence according to his vnspeakable and inuisible grace it is fulfilled which he said I will be with you alwaies vnto the ende of the world So saith Vigilius c Vigil cont Euty lib. 1. Christ is with vs and he is not with vs. According to the forme of a seruant hee is absent from vs according to the forme of God he is present with vs. Such is the presence of Christ in the sacrament euen d cypr. de caena domini the presence of his diuine power as Cyprian calleth it wherby it commeth to passe that as the Sun abiding bodily in the skie yet by effect and working is here on the earth cherishing and comforting all things according to their kinde so the sonne of righteousnes Iesus Christ though according to his bodily presence remaining only in heauen yet by his heauenly grace and spirite is effectually present vnto vs in his holy sacraments communicating himselfe fully and wholly vnto vs and ioyning vs most néerly vnto himselfe As for that grosse presence which Papists teach besides that it is vnnecessary it repugneth also to that truth of the manhood of Christ abiding in the proprietie of his owne nature which Gelasius defended and maketh for the heresies of Marcion Eutyches and others of whom I spake before Now as the presence of Christ in the sacrament is not carnall and bodily so no more is the vniting of Christ vnto the sacrament any bodily or carnall matter but spirituall and sacramentall whilest by the word of God and the working of the holy Ghost there is made that mutuall relation and respect betwixt the signe the thing signified and such a dependence of the one on the other that the signe spiritually implieth the force and vertue of the thing signified and the holy Ghost togither with the signe dispenseth through faith the fulnesse of that grace blessing which is conteined in the body and blood of Iesus Christ In which sort we beléeue also that Christ without any real presence is vnited to the sacrament of Baptisme whereby we put on Christ and are made members of his body flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones neither is there any more reason to mainteine any real presence in the one sacrament then there is in the other Thus therefore the remaining of the substance of bread doth not enforce any personall vniting of Christ vnto the bread No nor yet that supposed real presence of Christs body with the bread The Vbiquitaries when they teach that Christes body is really present in the sacrament yet thinke not that the same is personally vnited vnto it neither doth it follow of that opinion of theirs The Answ himselfe though in his conceit he receiue into his body yâ— reall body of Christ yet I hope will not thinke the same personally vnited vnto him no nor yet to those formes and naturall properties of bread and wine whereunder he saith the body of Christ lieth inuisibly hidden He saith that perhaps Gelasius and vndoubtedly others thought that some part of the substance of bread wine remained togither with the body of Christ yea and e Ferus â—n Math. cap. â—â— Ferus himselfe though a Papist yet séemeth to doubt whether the substance of bread remaine or not togither with the body and yet he will not gather I hope that they thought though the substance did remaine that the body of Christ was personally vnited vnto the same so that Christ should consâ—st of thrée natures the Godhead the manhood and the breadhood But what should I trouble my selfe with such senslesse and mad toyes seruing only to blot paper and coÌ„teining in them neither learning nor wit As for that which followeth it is but a new shew of the same baggage stuffe that I haue examined already and néedeth no further answere Only let me tell him that he wretchedly peruerteth the comparison made by Gelasius and maketh it fitly and rightly answerable to the heresie of Eutyches For as he saith that in the sacrament there is the very body of Christ hauing conioyned vnto it the naturall properties of bread and wine the substance being vanished so said Eutyches that in the person of Christ there was the Godhead retaining with it the properties of the manhood to be visible passible mortall c. but the substance and distinct nature of the manhood was consumed Again he wittingly and willingly falsifieth the state of the question which Gelasius disputed as though he reasoned to proue the continuing of the properties of the manhood not of the substance whereas the purpose of Gelasius is altogither concerning the substance and nature it selfe which to continue inuiolably notwithstanding the assuming therof vnto the godhead he sheweth by comparison of the sacrament where the substance of bread and wine remaineth notwithstanding they are adnanced to that honour to be the mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ These things are sufficiently bebated before I come to that that followeth P. Spence Sect. 12. NOw let vs conferre the places of Theodoretus by you alleaged with his owne sayings by you concealed Theodoretus disputing with an Eutychian who would Christ now to consist of the only nature of his Deitie and not any more of the humane nature which he tooke of the virgine doth reproue him by the example of the Sacrament of Christes Supper in the which Sacrament two thinges are founde one which is seene and that is the signe of bread and wine the other is not seene but vnderstanded and beleeued and that is the true bodie and blood of Christ That which is seene is said to remaine in his former substance nature figure and kinde In his substance a The mysticall signes remaine in their former substance that is they do not remaine in their former substance because the formes of bread and wine subsist by the power of God and haue their being now by themselues as they had it before in the nature of bread and wine The same formes remaine
the allegation of his passion and resurrection because they were once done and passed the memories of them cannot be the things themselues but a memorie only But his bodie euer remaining the memory of it may be also the very thing it selfe that S. Augustine in so many places affirmeth that you must not so rack this place to ouerthrow the other and to set him at bate with himselfe Ioyne therefore with this testimonie of S. Augustine another place of the same August in Sententijs Prosperi and by that learne to vnderstand his own meaning of his secundum quendam modum The place is thus It is his flesh which in the Sacrament we receiue couered in the forme of bread and it is his bloud which we drink vnder the figure and sauour of wine Namely flesh is a Sacrament of flesh and bloud a Sacrament of bloud By flesh and bloud both inuisible spirituall and to be vnderstoode is signified the visible and palpable body of our Lord Iesus Christ Heere you see by answere not by vs patched and clouted but b Vntrue for it cannot be shewed that these are his wordes and yet they serue not the Answ turne as shall appeare by himselfe set down he explicateth thus much that in both sides is true flesh and true bloud But now to his secundum quendam modum he telleth you that on the one side is flesh couered in the forme of bread in the Sacrament and bloud vnder the forme and sauour of wine inuisible spirituall and to be vnderstoode this for the maner of the one but on the earth and now in heauen a a visible and palpable body Yet remember that flesh is a Sacrament of flesh and bloud of bloud More I might say but infinite haue said it to them I send you R. Abbot 13. FOr the exposition of Christes wordes This is my body I shewed the testimonies of the ancient fathers that Christ called the bread and wine his body bloud taking for the ground of my speech that which S. Austen saith a Aug. Epis◠23. that Sacraments haue a resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments and that because of this resemblance they commonly take vnto them the names of the thinges themselues whereof they are sacramentes Now to this rule the Answerer saith nothing at all as neither he did before when I mentioned it concerning sacrifice whereas hée should haue taken it for his greatest enemie and therefore fought most strongly against it because héereby is discharged the greatest part of that which either he or his fellowes can obiect for their sacrifice reall presence and Transubstantiation But I gather hereby his wilfull and malicious resolution against plaine and euident trueth The wordes which he answereth next follow immediatly after the words alreadie mentioned As therefore saith S. b Ibid. Austen the sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certaine maner the bodie of Christ and the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is after a sort his bloud so the sacrament of faith namely baptisme is faith Whereby S. Austen exemplifieth that which he had said before that sacramēts because of their resemblance take the names of the things whereof they are sacramentes For euen so the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ is after a sorte that is by resemblance the body and bloud of Christ not verily and indeed then but after a sorte and by resemblance and so by resemblance called the bodie and the bloud of Christ for as the sacrament of the body is the bodie so the sacrament of faith is faith The sacrament of faith is not faith indeed but by questions and answeres of faith it betokeneth the faith of Christian men So therefore the sacrament of the body is not indéed the body but betokeneth the body of Christ that was giuen for vs and so because of this resemblance is called the body And this is the maner or sorte of which S. Austen speaketh not a maner of reall being but a maner of speaking and sacramentall betokening As for that which the Answ saith to note that maner that the sacrament is inuisibly but yet truely the body and so a memorie that it is the thing it selfe S. Austen acknowledgeth no such matter nay it is contrary to the whole drift and purpose of S. Austens spéech And beside it is vnreasonable and absurde that the same thing should be the sacrament and the thing it selfe the signe and the thing signified the memoriall and the thing remembred neither hangeth it togither by any better reason then as if a man should be said to be his owne father or a husband to be a husband in respect of himselfe or a Prince to be a Prince vnto himselfe and so to be both Prince and subiect Euery child knoweth that the sacrament of Christes bodie is the visible signe of Christes bodie as all sacraments are visible signes and the visible signe of Christes body is not the body it selfe Therefore the sacrament of Christes body is not the body it selfe Yea S. Austens saying as is before alleaged that the sacrifice of the Church consisteth of c De conse dist 2. cap. Ho◠est two things the sacrament which is the visible element and the matter of the sacrament which is the body of Christ maketh it plain enough y◠he took the sacrament of Christes body and the body it selfe to be two things and not one as the Answ absurdly conceiueth But yet he taketh vpon him to proue this absurditie by S. Austen himselfe and alleageth certaine wordes by which hée would haue me to vnderstand this place which hath béen alreadie spoken of The words are thus d De conse dist 2. cap. Hoc est It is his flesh which we receiue in the sacrament couered in the forme of bread and his bloud which we drinke vnder the forme and sauour of wine Namely flesh is a sacrament of flesh and bloud is a sacrament of bloud By the flesh and bloud both visible spirituall and intelligible is signified the visible and palpable bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ full of the grace of all vertues c. Now of these wordes the Answ as some other of his fellowes doe maketh a monstrous conclusion as if Christ had two kindes of flesh at one and the same time one visible another inuisible one in heauen another in earth e Tho. Aqui. Par. 3. qu. 76. art 3. one hauing the due proportion of a body the other without all proportion and hauing no difference of head or féete or any other parts one the same as it was borne of the virgin Mary the other like to the phantasie of Marcion and the Manichees of the nature of a spirit f Ibid art 4. whole in the whole cake and whole in euerie part of the cake so that though it be broken into a thousand péeces yet euerie one of them hath the whole body of Christ But we beléeue not any such
of bread is called by the name of flesh and the visible forme of wine by the name of blood Now it is called the inuisible and intelligible flesh of Christ because according to that forme flesh is not seene but vnderstoode and so the bloud Therefore the inuisible flesh is said to be a sacrament of the visible flesh because the forme of bread according to which that flesh is not seen is a sacrament of the visible flesh because by the inuisible flesh that that is by the forme according to which the flesh of Christ appeapeareth not flesh is signified the body of Christ which is visible and may be felt where it appeareth in his forme To this he addeth out of the other wordes of Austen that the bread is called the body being indeed the sacrament of the body of Christ not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie and so maketh S. Austen to expound that which before he sayth he had obscurely spoken Thus the Answ owne doctors though otherwise friendes to transubstantiation yet doe iustifie my exposition of this place and make it manifest that though the place be obscure at first sight yet by the common groundes of diuinitie it connot be construed so as that transubstantiation may necessarily be proued thereby Therefore I say still with Austen that the sacrament of the body of Christ is onely after a certaine maner the body of Christ namely not properly not in the trueth of the thing as the Answerer auoucheth but onely in a signifying mysterie betokening the same P. Spence Sect. 14. FOr your place of Chrysostome The bread is vouchsafed the name of the body c. For as for the place of S. Cypr. lib. 2. Epis 6. is such as deserueth no answer a CypriaÌ„ saith that Christ called the bread made of manie grains his body c. It is very bread therfore which is called the bodie only telling you that the bread wherof the sacrament was made was compact of many graines and the wine pressed foorth of many grapes which no baker nor vintner will denie which is smally to this purpose the place I say of Chrysost only flattereth you with these wordes b The wordes which I alleaged are thus The bread is vouchâ—afed the name 〈◊〉 the â—ody oâ— christ The nature of bread remaineth Why sir who denieth that the naturall properties of colour shape tast and feeding remaine no Catholique I am sure so that you see your testimonie out of him maketh not against vs nor auayleth you anie more then the painted fire warmed the old woman But the places of Chrysostome prouing the reall presence are so infinite that infinite madnesse it were M. Abbot and farre surmounting your Athenians madnesse to hazard my soule vpon such a testimonie as saith nothing against me R. Abbot 14. IN the places which I alleaged of Cyprian Chrysostome and Theodoret the Answ heart without doubt failed him For hée sawe it plainly euicted and proued by them and that so as that hee knew there was nothing for him to answere directly to the wordes that it is bread which in the sacrament is called the bodie of Christ and wine which is called his bloud Yet being vowed and sworne to his owne errour he will rather do or say any thing then yéeld vnto the trueth The places of Theodoret hée leaueth out quite who affirmeth that Christ honoured the visible signes with the name of his body and bloud that hée made exchange of names and gaue to his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his body To the places of Cyprian and Chrysostome he writeth somewhat but answereth nothing He taketh that which was not vrged and that which was to the point in question he slippeth by Let him remember what S. Austen saith a Aug. quaest ex yet â—â—st q. 14. He which concealeth the wordes of the matter in question is either an ignorant person or a wrangler studying rather for cauillinges then for doctrine The words of Cyprian are thus b Cypri lib. 1. Epist 6. Our Lord calleth bread made by the vniting of many cornes his body and wine pressed out of manie clusters and grapes he calleth his bloud To this hée saith childishly and vainly that it onely proueth that bread is made of many cornes and wine of many grapes shewing plainly that he made no conscience of his answere but was desirous to credite himselfe by writing somewhat howsoeuer But let Cyprian be further asked what is it that Christ calleth his bodie He saith it is bread What is it that Christ calleth his bloud It is wine Christ calleth the bread his body and the wine his bloud Now if there be neither bread nor wine in the sacrament as the Answ and his fellowes teach then Christ cannot call the bread his body nor the wine his bloud But because Christ calleth the bread his body and the wine his bloud therefore the meaning of these wordes This is my body This is my bloud is thus This bread is my body This wine is my bloud And because in proper spéech that cannot be true for so it c De consecr dist 2 ca. panis est is vnpossible as the glose of yâ— canon law saith that bread should be the body of Christ therefore it must be figuratiuely vnderstood This bread is the signe and sacrament of my body c. To this the words alleaged out of Chrysostome are verie pregnant d Chrysost ad Caesat Monachum The breadis vouchsafed the name of the body of Christ Why doth the Answ smoother vp these wordes and talke impertinently of that which in this place was not mentioned at all I talked not here of the nature remaining I tell him out of Chrysostome that after consecration it is bread which beareth the name of the body of Christ and let his owne conscience tell him whether that be any thing against him or not when as he and his companie say there is no bread remaining after consecration Chrysostome saith The bread is vouchsafed the name of the body of Christ The Papist saith There is no bread but the verie body of Christ it selfe As for his construction of the nature of bread remaining that is the colour shape taste and féeding without any substance of bread it maketh Chrysostome to speake fondly as himselfe vseth to doe namely thus The bread is vouchsafed the name of Christes body although there be no bread His infinite testimonies out of Chrysostome to prooue the reall presence are iust neuer a one He deceiâ—â—eth himselfe for want of the knowledge of that rule which Chrysostome himselfe giueth him vpon these wordes of Christ e chrys in Ioh. hom 46. The flesh profiteth nothing Hee meaneth it not saith he of the flesh it selfe God forbid But of those which carnally and fleshly vnderstand those thinges which are spoken And what is it to vnderstand carnally Marry simply as things are spoken
he hath set vs frée who were otherwise prisoners of hell and bondslaues to the diuell and so according to the wordes of Cyprian he hath turned our captiuitie wherewith we were taken of old by the transgression of our father Adam and hath dispatched from vs the tormentes of hell whereunto wee were enthralled Nowe to what purpose did the Answe alleage these words of Cyprian or what aduantage doth hée dreame he hath in them He would finde his Limbus patrum here but it will not be For Cyprian speaketh expressely of deliuerance from hell torments whereof there are none in Limbo patrum as his maisters e Rhem. An not Luc. 16. 26 of Rhemes doe instruct him Now hauing vsed this péeuish and impertinent talk of thinges making nothing at all for his purpose yet as a man in a dreame he breaketh out into this fond presumption that the fathers are all theirs and that I should heare but that he is not disposed to oppose I haue not to do with maister Spence I perceiue but with a man wel séene in all the fathers But the fathers are his as they were his that said Ego f Dioscorus the hereticke Concil Chalcedo Act. 1. cum patribus eijcior The fathers and I are cast out both togither And that appeareth in the words of Cyprian now to be handled g Cyprian de vnct chris Our Lord saith hée at the table where he kept his last supper with his Apostles gaue with his owne handes bread and wine but vpon the crosse hee yeelded his body to the Souldiours hands to be wounded that syncere trueth and true synceritie being secretly imprinted in his Apostles might declare to the nations how bread and wine are his flesh and bloud and how causes agree to the effects and diuers names or kindes are reduced to one essence or substance and the thinges signifying and the things signified are counted by the same names Where it is plainly auouched that Christ at his last supper gaue bread wine What néedeth any more Yea but did Christ giue bare bread and wine saith the Answ absurdly and frowardly No say I for this bread and wine is the flesh and bloud of Christ as I before alleaged out of Cyprian according to the which S. Paule saith h 1. cor 10. 16. The bread which we breake is the communion of the body of Christ The cup of blessing is the communion of the bloud of Christ Therefore S. Austen calleth this bread i August de consecr dist 2. cap. Hoc est heauenly bread and Theodoret k Theodoret. dial 2. the bread of life and the same Cyprian saith that l Cypria de resurrect chri that which is seene namely the visible element of bread is accounted both in name and vertue the body of Christ namely because it conteineth sacramentally the whole vertue and benefite of the passion and death of our Lord Iesus Christ as before I shewed But let him remember that Cyprian saith it is bread and wine which is the flesh bloud of Christ whereas by his defence there is in the Sacrament neyther bread nor wine But Cyprian saith that diuerse names and kindes are reduced to one substance Doe you heare substance saith the Answ Help that sore if you can with all your cunning surely small cunning will serue to heale a sore where neither flesh nor skinne is broken or brused This is in trueth a verie ignorant and blind opposition The visible elements that are in substance bread and wine are in mysterie and signification the bodie and bloud of Christ and are so called as Cyprian before setteth downâ— When therefore bread being one substance is called not onely according to his substance bread but also by waie of Sacrament and mysterie the body of Christ when the wine being one substance is called not onely as it is Wine but also as it signifieth the bloud of Christ diuerse names or kindes are reduced to one substance And this Cyprian declareth when he addeth The signes and the things signified are called by the same names The bodie of Christ it selfe and the signe héereof which is bread are both called the body The bloud of Christ and the signe hereof which is wine are both called his bloud The body and bloud it selfe are so called indéed and trueth but the signes in their maner not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie yet so one substance is called by diuers names as the wordes before do specifie Nowe the place of Cyprian being as cléere as the sunne-light against transubstantiation as euerie eye may perceiue yet the Answ sendeth me to their learned treatises to sée what is there said of this and other places And what shall I finde there but such wretched and miserable cauils and shiftes as he himselfe hath borrowed from them And héere maister Spence as in your name he excuseth himselfe of his simplenesse and that he is no doctour which accordeth not with his vaunt before that hée could shew me this and that out of the fathers And I maruell that he should make excuse thus of his learning to a minister of our church so meane as I am séeing it is so péeuishly bragged amongst you commonly that there is litle learning to be found amongst the best of vs. Wheresoeuer he be I wish that his conscience and truth towardes God were but euen as much as his learning is P. Spence Sect. 16. THe same Cyprian you say lib. 2. Epistola 3. which is the famous Epistle ad Caecilium so much condemning you in so manie points about the sacrifice of the Church and of mixing of water which he said assuredly Christ did but I maruell you would for shame euer auouch it or point me to it for a A Popish bâ—agge See the aunswer to sect 2. euerie line of it is a knife to cut your throate You say that heere S. Cyprian saith that it was wine which Christ called his bloud Much to your purpose maister Abbot Who doubteth yet but that he tooke wine and not ale beere sydar metheglin or such like matter S. Cyprians meaning is most plaine against the Aquarios that it was b Did Christ call wine his bloud and yet dâ—d he meane that it was not wine wine mingled with water as in this Epistle he prooueth notably and not bare water as those Aquarij would haue it that he called his bloud that is to say he tooke wine and not bare water to make the Sacrament of and what is this to your purpose such testimonies are the fathers scrappes parings and crummes and not their sound testimonies R. Abbot 16. THe famous Epistle of Cyprian to Cecilius saith plainly Wee a Cypr. lib. 2. Epist 3. find that it was wine which Christ called his bloud as he saith twise beside in the same Epistle that by wine is represented the bloud of Christ Yea saith the Answ he meaneth that it was wine at the
would for your sake to helpe you to an argument pull backe his owne confession affirming himselfe to haue spoken de veteri Figura of the olde Figure or except you say his meaning was that Christ made his Supper to be an auncient figure of the old testament R. Abbot 18. HEre the Answerer beginneth with his iest Tertullian saith he killeth the Cowe I aunswere him if Transubstantiation be a Cowe Tertullian killeth the Cowe Hée stronglye gainsaieth it and will not abide it Thus hée speaketh a Tertul. cont Marcion li. 4. The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his bodie in saying This is my bodie that is to say a figure of my bodie But it had not bene a figure vnlesse there were a true bodie For an emptie thing as is a fantasie could receiue no figure Marcion the hereticke against whom he wrote held that Christ had not a true and reall bodie but only a fantasie and appearance and shew of a bodie Tertullian proueth by the Sacrament that Christ had a verie true bodie For the scripture is not wont to set down tokens and figures of things which haue not the truth of the things answerable vnto them Therefore séeing Christ in the Gospell gaue bread as a token and figure of his bodie saying This is my bodie that is to say a figure of my bodie it is certaine that Christ hath a true bodie correspondent to this figure Thus do b chrysost in Mat. hom 83. Theod. dâ—al 2. Iren adu haeres lib. 5. Chrysostome and other of the Fathers reason from the Sacrament to proue the veritie and truth of the passion and of the bodie of Iesus Christ To this place of Tertullian M. Harding confessing that Tertullian made these wordes This is a figure of my bodie the exposition of those words This is my bodie saith that his interpretatioÌ„ is not according to the right sense of Christs words and that in his contention he did not so much regard the exact vse of his words as how he might winne his purpose of his aduersary so maketh Tertullian to write he cared not what Campian being vrged with the same words in the Tower shifted the matter off that those words That is to say a figure of my bodie werâ— the exception of the hereticke and not Tertullians own words The Ans hath found in some other of his learned Treatises namely c Bellar. to 2. de sacram Euchar. lâ—b 2. cap 7. in Bellarmine another deuise for the saluing of this matter Wherby we may sée how these men are carried vp and downe with giddinesse and phrensie and being pressed with euidence of truth cannot finde any answere whereupon to rest themselues and therefore as ashamed each of others doings bestow their wits from day to day to deuise new collusions and shifts to saue themselues The Answ resting vpoÌ„ the credit of father Robert thinketh that there is great wit and reason in that which he hath written so that Tertullian must be an Asse if he meant otherwise then he expoundeth him but indéed getteth himselfe hereby a priuiledge to weare the eares to whomsoeuer it befall to be the Asse For his exposition beside that it is foolish and absurd maketh also expresly against himselfe and admitteth that which I desire and which he himselfe must néeds confesse to be the vndooing of Transubstantiation He maketh two expositions of Tertullians words the one ours and that thus This is my bodie that is to say this is a figure of my bodie and this being indéed the currant and direct passage of Tertullians words he disliketh and condemneth The other is theirs and as he would make vs beléeue the verie intended meaning of the words namely thus This is my bodie This that is to say the figure of my bodie is my bodie Whereby he briefly resolueth out of Tertullian a maruellous doubt wherof his Fathers were neuer able to determine any thing namely whereto the word This is to be applied For if it be sayd This bread which is the very truth then they sawe that Transubstantiation cannot stand Therefore haue they prophaned the sacred words of Christ with their cursed sophistications and haue most wretchedly tossed them too and fro to make a meaning of them that might serue for their purpose yet haue found none But the Answ setteth downe the meaning thus This figure of my bodie is my bodie So that the word This must be referred to the figure of the bodie And what figure The olde figure euen the same saith he that Melchisedech vsed And what was that olde figure Marry it was bread Then we haue the exposition of Christes words as we would haue it This is my bodie that is to say This bread is my bodie And this is manifest to be Tertullians mind by that he saith twise in this place that Christ called bread his bodie and in his booke against the Iewes saith in like sort that he called bread his bodie and in his first booke against Marcion saith againe that Christ represented his bodie by bread Now if Christ in the Sacrament call bread his bodie and by bread do represent his bodie then it followeth that in the Sacrament it is bread which is called the bodie of Christ and is so called because the bodie of Christ is represented thereby Therefore the meaning of Christs words must néeds be thus This bread is the figure of my bodie This were sufficient for the opening of Tertullians minde in this point but yet I will follow the Answ to sift the matter somewhat further I acknowledge first with him that Tertullians purpose in that place is to shewe that Christ fulfilled in the new Testament those things that were foretold and foreshewed in the old But as it was neuer prefigured in the old Testament that there should be a transubstantiation of the bread wine so no more doth Tertullian go about by any old figure to approue the same And if he had named Melchisedech or alluded vnto him any way as we are by this man borne in hand yet could it not haue bene to any other purpose but this that Melchisedech by bringing foorth bread and wine in figure of the Sacrament did signifie that Christ should appoint and institute bread and wine to be the tokens and signes of his bodie and blood and that Christ in the Gospell did fulfil the same So saith S. Hierom d Hieron in Mat. 26. Christ taketh bread goeth to the true SacrameÌ„t of the passeouer that as Melchisedech the priest of the high God in prefiguring of him offering bread and wine had done so he himselfe also might represent the truth of his bodie and blood Therfore though it be graunted that Tertullian speaketh of Melchisedech yet serueth it my purpose and not his that Christ instituted bread and wine to represent thereby the truth of his bodie and blood as Melchisedech had prefigured he should do But the truth is
Tertullian speaketh not of Melchisedech he doth not so much as intimate any thing of him and the Answ for that he read the place could not but know that there was nothing meant as touching Melchisedech and therefore in vpbraiding vs with stealing of scrappes out of the Fathers because we vse this place he giueth me occasion to charge him with voluntary and wilfull falsifying of their words But I leaue that to his owne conscience whether he did purposely séeke by this bad meanes to adde the more likelihood vnto a false tale Tertullian saith nothing here to intimate that the very creatures of bread and wine were vsed in the old Testament as figures of the body and blood of Christ but only expoundeth some places where the names of bread and wine are so vsed as that thereby should be signified the same bodie blood of Christ To this purpose he alleageth the words of Ieremy as the vulgar Latine text readeth them e Ier. 11. 19. Let vs cast the wood vpon his bread that is saith he the crosse vpon his bodie as noting that by the name of bread the Prophet signified the bodie of Christ Therefore he addeth Christ the reuealer of antiquities calling bread his bodie did sufficiently declare what his will was that bread should then signifie Whereby he giueth to vnderstand that as the Prophet did vse the name of bread to signifie the body of Christ so Christ himselfe to iustifie that spéech of the Prophet did institute bread it selfe to be the signe and Sacrament of his bodie and accordingly called it his bodie Another like spéech he reciteth concerning wine out of the words of Iacob the Patriarch f Gen. 49. 11. He shall wash his garment in wine and his cloathing in the blood of the grape Where by the garment and cloathing he vnderstandeth the bodie and flesh of Christ by wine the blood of Christ as if Iacob should foretell in those words that the bodie of Christ should be embrued with the shedding of his blood Hereupon he inferreth He that then figured wine in blood hath now consecrated his blood in wine noting hereby not that blood indéed was vsed for a figure of wine but that the name of the blood of the grape serued to signifie wine as prefiguring that wine it selâ—â— should be appointed to be the signe of the blood of Christ Now this was fulfilled by Christ when he consecrated his blood in wine that is to say made the Sacrament of his blood in wine or appointed wine in truth to be the Sacrament of his blood for signification whereof the name of wine had bene before vsed The old figure the refore of which Tertullian speaketh saying that we may acknowledge an olde figure in wine was in the vse of the names of bread and wine not of bread and wine indéed and that which by this olde figure and maner of speaking was intimated in the olde Testament Christ performed and fulfilled in the new when he consecrated and sanctified his creatures of bread and wine to be Sacraments and figures of his bodie and blood and by name accordingly called them his bodie and blood Which maner of speaking he had not approued but frustrated if in making the Sacrament he had destroyed the substance of bread and wine for then he could not haue called bread his bodie and wine his blood as Tertullian saith he did Now therefore that which the Answ saith that Figures are of the old Testament Christ fulfilleth them in the new maketh nothing against vs nay setting aside the error of the Answ it maketh wholly for vs. For he vainly fancieth Tertullian to say that the very elements of bread wine were vsed in the old Testament for figures of the bodie and blood of Christ and therefore that the same should not be againe appointed to that vse in the new Testament whereas Tertullian saith no more but only that the names or words of bread and wine were sometimes taken to signifie the same Now then let him remember that Turtullian auoucheth the fulfilling of this figure in this that Christ called bread his bodie and wine his blood and let him say with vs according to Tertullians minde that in the Sacrament it is bread and wine which is called the bodie and blood of Christ and that the meaning of Christs words is This bread is my bodie that is to say A Figure of my bodie Now hereby Tertullian proueth that Christ hath a true substantiall bodie For saith he It had bene no Figure except there were a true bodie For an emptie thing as is a fantasie might not haue bene capable of a Figure But here the Answ wold make vs beléeue that vnlesse Tertullian mean this of a Figure in the old Testament his saying is not true And this he proueth by Nigromancy for saith he the phantasticall bodies of spirits do exhibit to the eyes a certaine Figure or shape as the very Nigromancers do know But what motion I maruel came into the mans minde to diuert his spéech from mysticall and sacramentall figures instituted by Iesus Christ wherof Tertullian speaketh to figures and facions and shapes of diuels and spirits He was a blind man if he saw not his owne errour and folly but leaud and wretched if he sawe it and yet against his owne conscience would thus dally with Gods truth And why could he not conceiue that Tertullians wordes if they had concerned any such figures should haue bin false in respect of the old Testament as well as of the new because diuels and spirits had their figures and shapes as wel then as now Was it straunge vnto him that there are sacramentall figures in the new Testament to which the words of Tertullian might be fitly applied Surely S. Austen saith that g August in Psal 3. Christ admitted Iudas to that banquet wherein he commended to his Disciples the Figure of his body and blood So saith the old Father Ephrem that h Ephrem de natura dei noÌ„ scrutanda cap. 4. Christ blessed and brake the bread in figure of his bodie and blessed gaue the cup in Figure of his pretious blood Nay the Answ himselfe hath confessed i Sect. 10. before that the Fathers call the sacrifice which they speak of a figure of the death and passion of Christ Of such a figure Tertullian speaketh and reasoneth thus that there should neuer haue bin appointed in the Gospel a figure to represent the body of Christ except there had bene a true bodie to be represented thereby As for that cauill of his which he hath borrowed from Bellarmine that if Tertullian had not spoken of a figure in the old Testament he shuld not haue said fuisset but esset it is too too foolish and absurd and if he were in the Grammer schoole he should deserue to be laide ouer the forme to make him know that the verbe fuisset is rightly vsed by Tertullian with relation to Christs first
forsooth Gelasius must forget what he hath to proue and must say for you that the Sacrament is nothing but a signe and then howe serueth it for an argument against Eutyches if it be but bare brad in one nature onely whereas if you looke vpon the whole testimonie of Gelasius as I set it downe largely to you you shall see yea with halfe an eye that the meaning of these wordes An image and similitude of the body and bloud of the Lord is performed in the celebration of the mysteries is no other but this that his being in the Sacrament both in a diuine substance as himselfe tolde you and also ioyned with the naturall properties of bread is a figure and resemblance of his two natures remaining in heauen vnconfused Thus you care not howe foolishly you make the authour to speake so he affoord you wordes and sillables to make a shew Looke vpon Gelasius and bethinke your selfe I haue answered him at large Looke a in the end and there you shall find it because it was written before yours came to my hand I was loth to write it againe in his orderly place for that writing is somwhat painfull to my weake head and yeares Wherefore I craue you to beare with me in that matter R. Abbot 19. THe wordes of Gelasius are these An a Gelas cont Euty Nestor image or resemblance of the bodie and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries or sacraments Héereby Gelasius giueth to vnderstand that the sacrament is not the verie bodie of Christ but the image and resemblance of his body It is more plaine by that which he addeth We must therfore think the same of Christ himselfe which we professe in his image that is to say in the Sacrament Marke how he distinguisheth Christ himselfe and the image of Christ The Sacrament therefore which is the image of Christ is not Christ himselfe Thus the wordes themselues doe manifestly giue that for which I alleaged them But the Answ telleth me that I alleage Gelasius héere contrarie to his owne meaning euen by mine own confession How may that be Forsooth I would before haue Gelasius his drift to be that as Christ is in heaueÌ„ in two natures so héere vpon the earth in the sacrament is bread with the body and so both in heauen and héere would haue two seuerall natures but nowe in this place I would haue the Sacrament to be nothing but a signe and bare bread in one nature onely But hée knoweth that he speaketh vntrueth both in the one and in the other Of the former he himselfe hath acquited me before saying b Sect. 9. you would haue the Sacrament a memorie of Christ as though hee were absent Then belike I would not haue the bodie of Christ really present héere vpon the earth in the Sacrament Of the other I acquited my selfe in that very place which he taketh vpon him to answer For I added immediately vpon the alleaging of those words thus Yet are not the Sacraments naked bare signes as you are wont hereupon to cauill but substantiall and effectuall signs or seales rather assuring our faith of the things sealed therby and deliuering as it were into our hands and possession the whole fruite benefit of the death and passion of Iesus Christ To answere him to both in a word thus I say that as the water of Baptisme doth sacramentally imply the blood of Christ though the blood of Christ be in heauen so likewise the bread and wine in the Lordes Supper do sacramentally imply the bodie and blood of Christ though the same bodie and blood be in heauen and not vpon the earth And therefore neither did I before say nor do now that the Sacrament consisteth of two natures really being vpon earth but of bread and wine being on earth and the bodie and blood of Christ being in heauen the one receiued by the hand of the bodie the other only by the hand of the soule which only reacheth vnto heauen Againe as water in Baptisme is not therefore bare water because the blood of Christ is not there really present so no more is the bread of the Lords table bare bread although there be no reall presence of the bodie but it doth most effectually offer and yéelde vnto the beléeuing soule the assurance of the grace of God and of the forgiuenesse of sinnes That which he further addeth as touching the drift and purpose of Gelasius how lewdly it peruerteth his wordes and maketh them to serue fully for the heresie of Eutyches against which Gelasius writeth I haue declared before and so well haue I bethought my selfe héereof as that I doubt I may in that behalfe charge the Answ conscience with voluntarie and wilfull falshood and desperate fighting against God Pet. Spence Sect. 20. YOur terme of Seales applied to the Sacraments is done to an ill purpose to make the Sacramentes no better then the Iewes Sacramentes were To handle that matter would require a greater discourse which willingly I let passe But yet I must tel you that the said opinion is verie derogatorie to the a Vntrueth for the passioÌ„ of christ hath had his effect from the beginning of the world effect of Christes passion of the which the Sacraments of Christes Church take a farre more effectuall vertue then the Iewes Sacraments did Read our treatises of that matter for I list not to runne into that disputation R. Abbot 20. HE disliketh that I call the Sacramentes Seales Yet héere his owne conscience could tell him that we make not the Sacrament bare bread and wine as he and his fellows maliciously cauill Though waxe of it selfe bâ— but waxe yet when â—◠〈◊〉 with the Princes signeâ— it is treason to offer despight vnto it So whatsoeuer the bread and wine be of themselues yet when they are by the word of God as it were stamped and printed to be Sacramentes and seales it is the perill of the soule to abuse them or to come vnreuerently vnto them But why is not the terme of sâ—ales to be approoued in our sacraments Surely S. Austen calleth them visible a August lib. de catechâ—z â—ud ca. 26. hom 50. de v. Tit. poenâ—t Seales and why then is it amisse in vs Forsooth because it maketh our sacraments no better then the sacraments of the Iewes Indéede our Sacramentes are in number sewer for obseruation more easie in vse more cleane in signification more plaine and through the manifest reuelation of the Gospell more méete to excite and stirre vp our faith and in these respects they are better then the sacraments of the Iewes but as touching inward and spirituall grace they are both the same neither is there in that respect any reason to affirme our sacramentes to be better then theirs For they did b 1 Cor. 10. â— eate the same spirituall meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke that we doe The same I say that we
place he putteth me in minde to answere him with a saying of Luther Hoc scio pro certo quod si cum stercore certo Vinco vel vincor semper ego maculor But to the matter The b Timothean August de 〈…〉 e. ad 〈◊〉 in â—ine heretickes as S. Austen reporteth affirmed that the godhead of Christ was really changed into the manhoode This they would prooue by the wordes of the Gospell The word was made flesh which they expounded thus The diuine nature is turned or transubstantiated into the nature of man In like sort the Answ and some other cogging marchants of his part single out the wordes of Tertullian Christ made the bread his body and will needes haue vs to beleeue thereby that the bread is really turned and transubstantiated into the bodie of Christ They both argue alike vpon the word made For answere hereof I shewed how Tertullian expoundeth his owne meaning by these wordes that is to say a figure of his bodie Further I said that that phrase or maner of spéech Christ made the bread his bodie doth not enforce any Transubstantiation Which I shewed by comparing therewith the verie like spéech or phrase before alleaged out of the Gospell c Ioh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh For as it was absurdly gathered by the Timotheans that because the word was made flesh therefore it ceased to be the word so as fondly is it gathered by the Papists of Tertullians words that because the bread is made the bodie of Christ therfore it ceaseth to be bread The one enforceth not for the Timothean any transubstantiation of the word therefore neither doth the other for the Papist any transubstantiation of the bread The spéeches are like The word was made flesh the bread is made the bodie of Christ Now hath he not sent me a worthy answere to this The words of S. Iohn saith he what proue they touching the Sacrament What argument is this The word was made flesh the sense is the word assumpted flesh vnto it And it is not to be taken as the words do sound therefore this text This is my bodie is not to be taken as the words import A verie mightie vpstantiall argument Nay a very pithie sound answere and worthie to be registred in Vaticano I make a comparison betwixt the words of S. Iohn and the words of Tertullian and he answereth me of a comparison betwixt the words of Iohn the words of Christ How many mile to London A poke full of plummes Yet as a childe plaieth with a counter in stéed of a péece of gold so he delighteth himselfe in a rascall shift as if he had made a verie substantiall answere But sée yet further the extreame folly and ignorance of this man It is saith he as if you should reason thus I am the vine is a figuratiue speech therefore I am the light of the world is a figuratiue spéech And what is it not by a figure that Christ is called the light of the world Surely Christ is the light in respect of the darknesse of the world Séeing therefore darknesse is vnderstood figuratiuely in the world a man would thinke that that which is called light as opposite to this darknesse should be so called by a figure Light is properly a sensible qualitie and darkenesse the p 〈…〉 tion therof and both haue relation to the bodily eye They are by a Metaphore applied to the soule and so is Christ called light euen as he is elsewhere called d Mal 4. 2. The sunne of righteousnesse not properly I trow but by a figure vnlesse the Answ be of the Manichees minde who as Theodoret saith would sometimes say that e Theodo haerâ—t faâ—ul lib. â— Christ was the verie sunne Now therefore séeing that Christ is no otherwise called the light of the world then he is called a vine a yoong boy in the Vniuersitie will easily finde a Topicke place in Aristotle to prooue that this argument holdeth very well Christ is called a vine by a figure therefore he is also called the light of the world by a figure Further he saith But I pray you sir is this saying The world was made flesh like to This is my bodie I answere him Truly sir no. But yet these are like The word was made flesh and the bread is made the bodie of Christ as transubstantiation of the word cannot be proued by the one so transubstantiation of the bread cannot be proued by the other Whereas he demandeth whether bread stil remaining do assumpt vnto it Christes bodie into one person his question is idle I haue answered before that the vnion of Christ with the Sacrament is not personall or reall as he vnderstandeth reall but relatiue and sacramentall as in Baptisme also it is But as the word remaineth being personally vnited to the flesh so the bread remaineth being sacramentally vnited vnto Christ That which he saith of Luther is false Luther did not teach that the bodie of Christ was ioyned into one person with the bread But now I wish him to bethinke himselfe who it is that careth not what he say so that he say somewhat Now for further declaration of the words of Tertullian I alleaged a saying of S. Austen Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his bodie and blood which also he hath made vs and by his mercy we are the same that we receiue Wheras the Answ saith that the first part of this sentence serueth very wel for him it is but like the dotage of the melancholy Athenian We say with S. Austen that Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his bodie and blood yet not being on earth to be receiued by the mouth but f August in Ioh. tr â—0 Sitting in heauen to be receiued by faith But as Tertullian said Christ made the bread his bodie so here Austen saith Christ hath made vs his bodie and blood The maner of spéech is here also alike and therefore I inferred hereof that Tertullians words do no more proue yâ— the bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ then S. Austens do proue that there is a transubstantiatioÌ„ of vs into the bodie of Christ That which I excepted as touching those words Yet wee are not transubstantiated into the bodie of Christ the Answ falsifieth and peruerteth thus yet we are not transubstantiated into the Sacrament This is the faithfulnesse that he vseth But what answere maketh he Forsooth it would aske a long discourse to answere me and therefore he hath thought good not to answere me at all For as for that which he saith it serueth directly for me We are become one with Christ saith he let him speake as S. Austen speaketh we are made the bodie of Christ not by being transubstantiated into him but by being ioyned vnto him So say we that the bread is made the bodie of Christ not by being transubstantiated into his bodie but by hauing tied vnto it
them without answere There i Orig. in Leuit hom ◠is saith he in the new testament a letter which killeth him that doth not listen to it spiritually For if thou follow according to the letter that which is written Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud that letter killeth Where he teacheth vs that to vnderstand spiritually is to vnderstand not according to the letter not as the wordes sound not simply as things are vttered as k Chrysostome Chrysost in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 46. speaketh but to gather another meaning imported by the wordes For example he alleageth that those wordes of eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his bloud must not be vnderstood according to the letter and as the wordes import but another spirituall construction must be made of them Which S. Austen verie effectually and to the purpose sheweth in the next place that followeth now to be handled Pet. Spence Sect. 24. YEa but S. August lib. 30. de doctr Christiana striketh vs dead He seemeth saith he to commaund a hainous matter Therefore it is a figure commanding c. This is your great Achilles so much magnified of your side But I beseech you sir did saint Augustine bring in this speech vpon the place This is my body onels vpon the place of saint Iohn Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. You know it was vpon the latter place For when Christ told them they should eate his flesh they might imagine as indeede they did that they should a A butcherly answere fit for the shambles S. Austen taught not the Capernaites but vs to vnderstand eating and drinking not properly but by a figure eat it in gobbets cut slashed and hewed and chopped as flesh to the pot or the broach yea monstrous and like the Cannibals man-hunting and man-eating beastly maner Heere therefore they must needes by saint Augustines rule flee to some other more milder sense and to a more humane meaning which was that he would exhibite himselfe to them in a sacrament in a mysticall sweet spirituall maner But what then ergo not verily Nego argumentum Did saint Augustine say so any where no verily But at his supper when he raught his Apostles the formes of bread and wine and tolde them not beguiling them nor lying to them that it was his body and bloud that he gaue them to eate and drinke where was now that flagitium and facinus What feare was heere of any such Capharnaticall bloudie imagination Nay here he let them see how he before meant to giue them his body when at Caphernaum he said Nisi manducaueritis c. And therfore heare the maner of exhibiting his body verie truely though in a sacrament to be verily eaten but not mangled our worried and torn in peeces giueth neither feare or need or occasion to S. Augustines rule proue that S. August meant it in this place that at his supper he gaue only a figure or els you prooue nothing R. Abbot 24. HEere S. Austens drist is to shewe what spéeches of the holy scripture are to be vnderstood properly and what figuratiuely and to another meaning then the wordes sound Of the latter sort he setteth downe this rule a Aug 〈…〉 6 If it be a speech that seemeth to command any haynous or wicked thing or to forbid the doing of good it is a figuratiue speech Whereof he had giuen this rule before b We must take heede that we take not a figuratiue speech according to the letter For to this belongeth that of the Apostle The letter killeth for when a man taketh a thing spoken by figure as if it were properly spoken hee doth carnally vnderstand it Héereof he giueth for example those wordes Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud c. Of this he saith It seemeth to commaund a hainous and wicked thing Therefore it is a figure that is to say a figuratiue spéech and therefore must not bee vnderstood as the wordes doe import The meaning of this figure he declareth It willeth vs to cōmunicate with the passion of Christ and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in our memorie that his fleshe was crucified and wounded for vs. Then by S. Austens iudgement the meaning of this figuratiue spéech of eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ is to apply vnto our selues the benefite of his passion and comfortably to record that his flesh was wounded and his bloud shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes Whereby it is euident that he neuer dreamed of that monstrous and lothsome eating and drinking which the church of Roome teacheth flesh bloud and bone as he was born of the virgin Mary as some of them Canniball and Capernait-like haue vttered This place the Answ saith is our great Achilles much magnified of our side The greater this Achilles is the more strongly it behooued him to haue fought against it But he saith nothing to it but that that is ridiculous and childish First he commeth in with a bald and impertinent question Did S Austen bring in this spéech vppon the place This is my body He did not so and what then Surely this is but to talke idlely and not to care what he saith so be say some what He bringeth it in for that purpose for which I alleaged it to expoūd the words of Christ in the sixth of Iohn of eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ and telleth vs that it is a figuratiue spéech and therefore must not be vnderstoode according to the proper signification of eating and drinking What saith this good man to it Forsooth the Capernaites when they heard Christ speake of this matter might imagine as indéed they did saith he that they should eat it in gobbets cut slashed and hewed c. Therfore they must néeds by S. Austens rule flee to a milder sense and to a more humane meaning Then belike S. Austen taught the Capernaites howe they should haue vnderstoode the wordes of Christ but hee teacheth not vs. For we are farre from imagining the eating of Christes fleshe in gobbets slashed hewed chopt in péeces as the Answ speaketh with his butcherly and barbarous termes Alas children sée the folly of these answeres S. Austen in that place giueth vs a rule of vnderstanding the scriptures He giueth this place for an example of his rule He teacheth vs that to eat and drink the flesh and bloud of Christ importeth a horrible and hainous thing if we vnderstand eating and drinking properly He talketh not of slashing or hewing but of eating and drinking and therefore telleth vs that wée must vnderstand eating and drinking not properly but by a figure He telleth vs what the meaning of it is as I haue shewed before Not a word to intimate any such Popish construction nay he condemneth it as a hainous and wicked imagination The matter is cléere Euery eye may discerne it
hope and charitie ioyned with the entrance of his blessed bodie into ours so by that diuine touching thereof we are so vnited to him as man and woman by the coniunction of their bodies become one body or one flesh according to S. Paul For we being many are one bread and one body all which are partakers of one bread and one cup. 1. Cor. 10. This same one bread and one cup whereof we participate is Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament receiued which by entring into our bodies and touching vs maketh vs all one b In that maner do we eat Christ as hee maketh vs one amongst our selues one with him This is not done by bodily touching therefore neither do we eate him by bodily feeding amongst our selues and one with him this being a Sacrament of vnitie And it is to be vnderstood of Christ not of verie bread which cannot be one in so manie places of the christian world but c It is one bread in mystery throughout all the world euen as it is one cup. diuers breads We doe therefore participate of one bread in the blessed Sacrament which is Christ R. Abbot 27. HE confesseth those excellent and heauenly effects of the Sacrament which I set downe sauing that I follow Caluins metaphysical imagination as he termeth it that we receiue the same effects in the sacrament by faith Caluins iudgement in that point is indéed more metaphysicall then that a méere naturall should vnderstand it Hée knew well enough that Christians come not to their sacraments as swine to a trough as if they were to receiue the graces of God with their bodily mouthes and therefore that it must be the hand of the soule a Augu. in Ioh. tra 50. which is faith that must receiue the same both in the word and in the sacrament He found by comparing the spéeches of b Ioh. 6. 47. 54 Christ in the sixth of Iohn that by beléeuing in Christ wee eate and drinke the flesh and bloud of Christ and consequently receiue all the vertues and graces that arise from thence to vs. He found that S. Austen did so expound it To c August in Ioh. tra 26. beleeue in Christ saith he that is to eate the bread of life He that beleeueth in him eateth him He knew that the fathers of the old testament receiued the same graces that we doe and that they receiued them by faith and that we haue d cor 4. 13. the same spirite of faith as they had and therefore by faith are made partakers of the same graces as they were He knew that God had appointed both the word and Sacramentes to be meanes both to beginne and also to continue vphold increase our faith that by this faith in the exercise of the same word sacraments we might more more grow into societie and vnity with Christ vntil we attaine to the fulnesse of our perfection Now whereas the Answ obiecteth that if our eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ be onely by faith then we may eate and drinke the same at any time without any sacrament I would haue him know that we take not the same eating and drinking to be any momentany action but the continuall exercise of a liuely faith For although the minde perhaps by reason of the present occasion be most effectually bestowed to this exercise either in the vse of the word or especially of the sacrament and of the sacrament so much the more by how much visible and apparant signes and tokens are more forcible to moue vs then onely words yet we know that neither the word nor the sacraments haue onely a present effect but serue to settle and continue Christ in our consciences in such sort that he may be a continual meat for our soules to féede vpon that by the assured beliefe of his body giuen and his bloud shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes our heartes may be chéered continually and comforted against al the occasions of doubt and distrustfulnesse which from day to day and from houre to houre arise to disquiet our mindes And as Abraham our father though he had faithfully embraced the promise of God and the couenant of his grace yet néeded the sacrament of circumcision for a seale of the same couenant thereby to be vpholden in the continuall assurance thereof so we though we haue once by the word of the Gospel and participation of his sacraments receiued Christ to be the food and sustenance of our soules yet that we loose not Christ again and the comfort of his grace our fayth néedeth to be continually exercised and strengthened by the offering and yéelding of Christ vnto vs in his word and sacraments which else through the want of these meanes would faile decay and dye in vs euen as we sée the body to perish for want of his dayly foode Which I note for the auoiding of that cauil which perhaps the Answ would mooue against that that hath béen said that if we may eate the flesh and bloud of Christ without any sacrament then we need not any sacrament for the doing thereof For although we do by fayth eate and drinke the same when there is no sacrament yet it followeth not thereof that the sacrament is néedlesse because the Sacrament is one of those speciall and most effectuall meanes whereby God offereth and giueth Christ vnto vs with all his benefites to be ours that our faith may lay hold vpon him and receiue him to make him the continuall food and sustenance of our soules And if the aforesaid eating and drinking import not such an action as may be at al times and without the sacrament what shall we say of those that are hindered from euer being partakers of the Sacrament as the théefe that was crucified with Christ but that they are consequently secluded from euelasting life For Christ sayth e Ioh. 6. 53. Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye shall not haue euerlasting life If then the eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ cannot be without the sacrament it followeth that he which receiueth not the sacrament faileth of eternall life But to say so is erronious and damnable doctrine Therefore the eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ signifieth such a thing as may be done at all times and without the sacrament But now that the Answ hath so reiected that maner of receiuing the grace of Christ in the sacrament which Caluin taught let vs sée how he will haue the same to be receiued He saith we haue it by our spirituall receiuing of Christ in faith hope and charitie But this hangeth not well togither with that which he saith afterward of the sacraments yéelding their effect by the very worke wrought and therefore without any of these Let that be reserued to his due place But héere we haue him confessing that fayth is one
himselfe to be chaunged by the water and not by faith Héereby it is plaine that Baptisme hath his force not of the verie worke done but of true and vnfayned faith working in the heart good conscience towards God So as touching the other Sacrament S. Austen referreth the vertue and effect thereof h August in Ioh. tr 26. de ciuit dei li. 21. cap. 25. to our eating inwardly and in the heart and this eating inwardly hée expoundeth to be our beleeuing in Christ and resolueth that hée that by this beleeuing in Christ abideth not in Christ and Christ in him he doth not spiritually eate and drinke the flesh and bloud of Christ though he receiue the sacrament thereof Therefore neither doth this Sacrament auaile by the worke wroughâ— but onely by faith whereby we abide in Christ and Christ in vs. A miserable doctrine it is whereby men are borne in hand that comming without faith voyd of knowledge without repentance or any good motion yet they may receiue the effect of the sacraments whereas the Scripture so plainly affirmeth that i Rom 14. 23. whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne and that k Heb. 11. 6. without faith it is vnpossible to please God and therfore precisely chargeth euery man before he come to the Lords table l 1. cor 11. 28. to examine himselfe m 2 Cor. 13. 5. in that behalf But for disproofe of this assertion it is reason enough that there can be no reason nor probable shew of reason giuen whereby to prooue it Of the difference of the Iewes sacraments and ours I haue spoken before We abase neither but lift both verie high The consent of the Euangelists auaileth with me to make me yéeld to that which can be soundly prooued thereby not to euerie thing that froward and peruerse men will péeuishly fancie thereof P. Spence Sect. 31. YOu tell me a matter out of S. Luke 22. but in good sooth to what purpose I cannot imagine Who euer denied but it was Metonymia when he said this cup is the new testament or rather two tropes in one sentence For the cup is taken for Christes bloud in the cup and to be the new testament is to be the seale establishment promulgation and consecration of the newe testament Who euer denied it but because we say that the true body and bloud of Christ is contained in the sacramentall formes and that Christ saying This is my body spake plainly a Be like wheÌ„ you list there is a figure and when you list there is none You might vnderstand the one by a Figure as well as the other without a figure therefore must we meane so grosly that no where the scripture speaking of this matter vseth a figure Oâ— would you conclude thus in these wordes This cup is the new testament there is a figure ergo in these words This is my body Logick will be good cheape if this may go for currant But good sir let me be bold a little with you to put you in minde of this place of S. Luke that b A popish peeâ—ish brag See the aunswere Qui calix so troubled Beza that he wist not what to say to it but he imagined that either some sorie fellow had foysted it into the text or els that S. Luke spake false greeke so sure he was that the text was awry it made so sore against him For setting it downe by the participle as it is in greeke thus it soundeth hic calix nouum testamentum in sanguine meo pro vobis effusus Which must needes respect Calix for his substantiue and then the cup that is the liquor in the cup was shed for them and vs all which if it were wine let euerie good christian man iudge I hope he shed for our saluation a farre more pretious liquor then wine And doctor Fulke to salue this sore telleth vs that in many places of the greeke text of other Scriptures there is incongruitie Very true I confesse but it is smally to the purpose For where no sense will helpe the syntaxis there we must needs graunt incongrâ—itie But how c There are reasons enough to proue it See the answere prooued doctor Fulke that the sense wherein this place is congrue and according to grammer is not the true sense Or why should he not allow it for congrue being indeede congrue Or why should Beza imagine and he allovv of a sense that is not congrue when the text was congrue enough This point being the state of the question Doctor Fulke stealeth away from and medleth not vvith it because it vvas too plain for vs and against his sacramentarie doctrine As likevvise vvas that place of S. Luke vvhere drinking at his Supper in vvine to his Disciples before hee instituted the Sacrament he told them hee vvould drinke vvine no more till in his kingdome vvhich vvas after his resurrection and yet a litle after he d VVhat did Christ drinke his owne bloud we can not beleue it drank to them in the Sacrament vvhich if it had beene vvine hee had contraried his former speech an absurditie I thinke not to be admitted R. Abbot 31. FOr further answere as touching the conformitie vsed in these wordes This is my body I shewed how S. Luke and S. Paul varie from S. Mathew and S. Marke as touching the other part of the sacrament For whereas these say this is my bloud of the new testament c. The other say This cup is the new testament in my bloud c. And these latter wordes I shewed to â—e the ouerthrow of transubstantiation But the Answ in good sooth telleth me that he cannot sée to what purpose this is alleaged I pray you therefore M. Spence put him in minde of his headlesse reason which he hath vsed before Christ saith he will call nothing by a wrong name If he should call fire water earth by the names of ayre stones or bread they would sooner become ayre stones bread then he would misname any thing He did not lie to his Disciples he did not â—eguile them Therefore when he said This cup is the new Testament without doubt the cup was substantially turned into a Testament Nay not so saith he there is a figure here Yea and may a thing be called by a wrong name by a figure is there now a figure in these words Why then is the man so straight laced that he cannot yéeld a figure in the other words especially séeing the auncient Fathers so expresly expounde them by way of figure and neither he nor his can make any certaine exposition of them but by a figure But it followeth not he saith that because there is a figure in the one spéech therfore there is so also in yâ— other Yet say I if it follow not that because Christ taking the cup said thereof This cup is the new Testament therefore the cup was turned into the testament then it followeth
alreadie and therefore it will not serue the Answerers turn to carry him so farre as he would faine go That which he mentioneth first of false Gréeke is but his péeuishnesse and malice Beza nameth it Solaecophanes which is a figure noting an appearance of incongruitie by departure from the vsuall and ordinary course of Grammar construction The same hee noteth may be excused in this place as being borrowed from an Hebrew manner of speaking And whereas g Discou ca. 1. sect 39. Gregory Martin without regard of his owne credit auouched that not one example could be brought of the like constructtoÌ„ to be resolued as Beza translateth this M. Fulke sheweth him diuerse the very same in all respects as Col. 1. 26. Apoc. 1. 4. 5. and 3. 12. and 8. 9. And therefore a man might haue said to him as Austen saide to Iulian the Pelagian heretike h August coÌ„t Iul. Pelagâ—li 5. cap. 2. I am sory that you should so abuse the ignorance of them which know not the Greeke tongue that you would not feare the iudgement and censure of them that haue knowledge of it As touching the other point Beza indéed vpon some coniecture supposeth that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is shed for you might happily be added from the margin into the text as in other places sundrie haue obserued But yet he fréely and ingenuously confesseth that he found them in all copies generally that he saw and therefore leaueth them in the text entire and whole and translateth them as the words of the holy Ghost No man denieth the words no man maketh question of them but receiueth them for Canonicall scripture Therefore all that the Answ saith in that respect is but vaine cauilling Let vs consider the words of the text which he saith are so against vs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shead for you Here saith he the words which is shead for you must by the order of construction be referred to the cup and so the cup that is to say that in the cup shall be said to be shed for vs which must néeds be vnderstood of the blood of Christ whereof it must follow that that which was in the cup was the blood of Christ I answere him that there is no necessitie by the Gréeke construction to referre those words to the cup as is proued by the examples of the like construction before alleaged And in this point G. Martine was so taken tardie by M. Fulke for his bold asseueration that I doubt it was one matter that killed his heart The Answ by some secret intelligence belike hath learned to vrge the matter otherwise and leaueth Martin to go alone He denieth not therefore but that the like incongruities may be found but demaundeth reason why we should translate it to a sense that admitteth incongruitie of spéech and refuse the sense wherein the text is congrue inough Reasons inough haue bene giuen but they are not yet confuted and therefore it was folly to make any further mention of this matter First there is not found any one of the auncient Fathers either Gréeke or Latin that taketh the words otherwise then as we translate them Secondly i Basil Ascet defin 21. S. Basil expresly readeth the Gréeke according as Beza translateth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In my blood which blood is shed for you Whereby it is apparant that either the text was so read at that time as is likely for that Basil in that booke setteth downe thâ— very words of the scripture or at the least that he being a Bishop so famously learned and most â—loquent in the Gréeke tongue tooke the construction and sense of those words to be no otherwise Thirdly Erasmus in his translation dedicated to Leo the tenth Bishop of Rome and approued by him at which time he was knowne to be no enemy to Transubstantiation yet translated those words as Beza doth being a man I trow as well séene in Gréeke construction as Gregorie Martin was Fourthly what reasonable man will déeme that the Euangelist or Christ himselfe would thus speake This blood which is shedde for you is the newe Teshament in my blood or thus This blood is the newe Testament in my blood which I alleaged to the Answerer to be an absurd tautologie and he speaketh nothing at all whereby to defend it Moreouer it séemeth strange to me that the Euangelist setting downe the proper name of bloud to which shedding must be applied and that betwixt the word cup and the mention of shedding should notwithstanding intend the word shed to be referred rather to the cup which is further of and to say that the cup was shed for vs then to the proper name of bloud which is next vnto it and to which it properly belongeth Againe the bloud of Christ could not be in the cup without being shed and separated from his bodie and to this end did Christ beside the Sacrament of his bodie institute seuerally and distinctly the sacrament of his bloud thereby to betoken the shedding the issuing forth the seuering of the same bloud from his bodie in his passion for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes in respect whereof he saith This is my bloud which is shed for you Nowe his bloud was not shed or seuered from his bodie but in his passion For hee shed not his bloud twise Therefore the wordes of shedding cannot be referred to that in the cup. Seuenthly the bloud of Christ as the k Bellar. tom 2 conâ— â— lib. 1. cap. 11. Papistes themselues confesse is not in the cup till the wordes of consecration be all spoken Therefore when Christ had sayd no more but This cup the bloud was not yet there but onely wine and therefore the words which is shed for you cannot be referred to the cup because it was not wine which was shed for vs. Further also the Answ saith straightwaies after that Christ began to his Disciples of that which was in the cup. But wee cannot beléeue that Christ did eate himselfe or that he dranke the very bloud of his owne body Therefore we beléeue not that that in the cup was the bloud that was shedde for vs or that the Euangelist would intend to say This cup which is shed for you Last of all the Answ fellowes of farre greater worth then himselfe confesse partly that there is not at all partly that it may be iustly doubted whether there be or not any place of Scripture sufficient to prooue Transubstantiation as I haue before shewed Therefore they graunt that this place doth not necessarily require any such construction as whereby Transubstantiation should be concluded Whereby they giue to vnderstand that they themselues do know that all that they say both of this place and others is nothing els but cauilling without any certaine ground or assurance of truth These reasons I take it are sufficient and strong
in the Sacraments of the bodie and blood of Christ d Gelas cont â—uty â—estor There ceaseth not to bee the substance or nature of bread and wine These two latter places haue bene the occasion of all this writing He sent to me within two or three daies after for my bookes to peruse the places that wheras he could not presently answer any thing by speâ—ch he might do somewhat by wâ—â—ting I receiued his answere and replied to the same againe by writing yet not intending because it stood not with my businesse otherwise to goe any further in this course but only for some aduertisement and instruction to him which I sawe hee needed and to giue him occasion of further conference by speech as I moued him in the end This happened neare the beginning of Lent in the yeare 1590. Towards Whitsuntide next following when I thought he had bene quiet and would haue medled no more he sent me an answere againe written at large to my reply But the answere in truth was none of his owne doing as is manifest partly by his owne confession and by that he shewed himselfe a straunger in his owne answeres when afterward in speech he was vpbraided with some of them by my selfe partly by the muttering report of his owne fellowes vaunting that though he were able to say litle yet some had the matter in hand that were able to say inough He himself indeed was not nor is of ablenesse to doe it as all men know that haue any knowledge of him He was neuer of any Vniuersitie and both professed and shewed himself in speech vtterly ignorant of Logicke wherof his deputie Answ pretendeth great skill I omit some other matters that I might mention for proofe hereof But thus I was vnwares drawne from P. Spence to tontrouersie and disputation with some other secret friend of his who for his learning might take vppon him to bee a defender of the Romish falshood I addressed my selfe to a confutation of this answer and thought to haue sent the same to M. Spence in writing but before I had fully perfected it which was in Iuly or August following he was by occasion of some infirmitie as was pretended set free from his imprisonment vpon suerties and so continueth till this time neither could I by such meanes as I vsed bring him foorth to receiue that which I had written Hereupon haue I bene traduced by the faction as a man conquered and ouercome as if I taught openly that which in dealing priuately with an aduersary I am not able to defend For the auoyding of this scandall I was diuerse times motioned to publish the whole matter but for some speciall reasons did forbeare It laie by me almost a whole yeare before I would resolue so to do At the length for the satisfying of such as might bee desirous to bee satisfied in this behalfe and that foolish men might haue no further occasion of their vaine imaginations and speeches I tooke it in hand as my great businesse otherwise would permit to peruse it againe and to adde some things for answere to Bellarmine as touching some points for which the Answ referreth me to him whose workes I had not at the first penning heereof and so I haue presumed Christian Reader to offer it vnto thy consideration I haue termed the whole discourse in respect of the principall purpose and argument of it A Mirror of Popish subtilties as wherein thou maist in part behold the vanitie wretchednesse of those answeres wherein these men account so great subtiltie and acutenesse of wit and learning as if the same being giuen there were nothing more to be saide against them In the publishing heereof I haue thought good to obserue this order First I haue set downe the aboue named places of Chrysostome and Gelasius Secondly M. Spence his Answere to those two places Thirdly my reply to that answere Fourthly the latter answere to my reply with a confutation thereof from point to point and a defense of the allegations and authorities vsed in the said reply Reade all and then iudge of the truth I protest I haue made conscience to write nothing but the truth neither hath any vaine curiositie led me to the publishing hereof but only the regard of iustifying the truth and that namely to those of the Citie and Countie of VVorcester whom my labours do most neerely and properly concerne If thou canst reape any frute or benefit by it I shal be heartily glad thereof and let vs both giue glorie vnto God If any see the truth herein and yet will maliciously kicke against it I passe by him with those words of the Apostle e Apoc. 22 11. He that is filthie let him be filthie still It is our part to propose the truth it is God onely that can giue men hearts to assent vnto it and f Mat. 11. 1 VVisedome shal be iustified of her children The God of all wisedome and knowledge enlighten vs more and more to the vnderstanding of his true religion subdue the pride and rebellion of our hearts that we may vnfainedly yeeld vnto it and giue vs constancie and perseuerance to continue in the same vnto the end that in our ende we may attaine to the endlesse fruition of his kingdome and glorie through Iesus Christ our Lord. Amen Rob. Abbot The speciall matters that are discussed in this Treatise THat the mixture of water in the cup of the Lord is not necessarie neither hath any sufficient warrant Defe sect 2. That the Liturgies which goe vnder the names of Iames Basil and Chrysostomes Masses as now they are extant are not theirs whose names they beare sect 5. That Popish praier for the dead hath no warrant from the ancientest church sec 7. That the sacrifice of the Masse is contradicted by the scriptures and Fathers that Bellarmin himself in seeking to approue it ouerthroweth it that the exceptions that are made against our reasons and proofes are vaine and friuolous sect 4. 9. 10. That Theodoret and Gelasius in disputing against the he esie of Eutyches do verie peremptorily determine against Transubstantiation sect 11. 12. That Tertullian Cyprian Chrysostome Austen do manifestly impugne the same error of Transubstantiation with a declaration of an obscure place alleaged vnder Austens name and a refutation of other exceptions that are made in the behalfe thereof sect 13. 14 15. 16. 17 18. 21. 22. That the expounding of the descending of Christ into hell of the torments anguish of his soule conteineth as touching the doctrine thereof nothing but the truth witnessed both by the scriptures and by the Fathers sest 15. That our sacraments are rightly called seales and in what respect they are preferred before the sacraments of the old Testament sect 20. 30. That the reall eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ is a leaude deuise and iudged by the Fathers to be wicked profane faithlesse and heathenish and that the words of Christ
iustly and well perswade a Christian to beléeue the contrary in my opinion S. Mathew Mark Luke and Paul all writing This is my bodie whereas writing otherwise of one thing one saith If I in the finger of God cast out diuels c. Another If I in the spirit of God c. So that in d Vntrue as appeareth by the coÌ„ference of these places Mat. 5. 29. with Mar. 9. 3. Mar. 5. 39. with Luc. 6. 29. Mat. 20. 23. Mar. 10. 39. Mat. 21. 21. Mar. 11. 23. which are not taken literally and yet difler not in phrase of speech any matter where moe then one speak of the same thing euerie one hath more of the same thing to giue more light then another But in the matter of the Sacrament no whit so but in the verie substantiall point e Vntrue for they varie as touching the cup there is the same reason of the one part of the Sacrament as of the other See the reply Concil constanti 6. can 32 all deliuer the selfe same effectuall words Sir once againe thankes for your good Chrysostome and so I beséech to recall them that erre into the way of truth and euerlasting saluation A reply against the former answere to the places of Chrysostome and Gelasius THe willingnesse I haue to doe you good M. Spence I wish might take such effect with you as that God might be glorified by reuealing vnto you the knowledge of his truth I doubt not but it shall be so if you séeke it as you ought and where you ought Concerning the place of Chrysostome of vsing water in the Sacrament I finde it expounded as you answere me in Concil Constantinopol 6. ca. 32. of them that vsed water onely and no wine Albeit the wordes séeme to me plainly to enforce vpon the Reader another vnderstanding neither find I any reason why the Bishops of Armenia being a thousand vnder one Metropolitane may not be thought as méete iudges of Chrysostomes meaning as the Bishops of this Councell especially séeing it is not certaine either what time or by whom those Canons were made and appeare to be falsly fathered vpon the sixth generall Councell as Surius in his admonition Surius in admoniâ— ad Lector de can 6. synodi concil to 2. concerning those Canons giueth to vnderstand Yea and they are in diuers points reiected by your selues as is plaine also by Surius both in the same Preface and by some notes added to some of the Canons But I contend not of that point and as I condemne not in that respect the Churches which either haue vsed or doe vse that mixture only without opinion of superstition and necessitie so neither do I find reason why those Churches are to be condemned that rather follow as most assured the simplicitie of the institution of Iesus Christ where we finde mention of the fruite of the vine but nothing as touching water If you say as the Canon saith that this is to innouate those things which haue bene deliuered by tradition Cypri epist ad Pompeium I must answer you with Cyprians words Whence is this tradition Whether descending from the authoritie of the Lord and of the Gospell or comming from the Commandements and Epistles of the Apostles for that those things which are written must be done God testifieth c. If therefore either it be commanded in the Gospell or conteined in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles let this tradition be kept as holie Now séeing there is no testimony of the holie scripture to approue the necessitie of water I take your wordes directly contrary to the scriptures to be vnderstood rather of those which vse water only contrarie to the text then wine only according to the expresse mention of the text Your glose of the Canon De consecra dist 2. cap. sicut in glossa law doth tell that Doctors haue said that water is to be mingled in the cup only for honestie or decencie and therefore not of necessitie to the Sacrament And that amoÌ„gst others Thomas Aquinas granteth Polydore Virgil referreth the fist institution thereof to Alexander Plati in Alexander 1. Durand Rati diuin lib. 4. rubri de officio sacerdotis c. Thom. Aquin. pa 3. q. 7â— art 3 the first Bishop of Rome Pâ—atina séemeth to agrée with him So Durand saith Water is mingled in the cup with the wine by the institution of Pope Alexander the first And as touching Christes vsing of water Thomas Aquinas maketh it but a probabilitie and no certaine truth It is probably beleeued that our Lord instituted this Sacrament in wine mingled with water according to the manner of that country Your Councell of Trent saith no more It is supposed that our Lord did so And in a conference betwixt Anselmus a Bishop of Saxome and Nechâ—tes Patriarch of Nicomedia Anno domini Centur. Magdebur cap. 12. 1138. Neâ—hites obiecting that Christ our Sauiour did not vse water in the consecration Anselmus answereth by likelihood that he did so because in Palestina the maner is to mingle water with their wine Now if it were done according to the maner of that country then it was done to abate the strength of the wine and not for any such mysterie as some haue imagined In manie Countries where their wines are verie strong temperate sober men vse to qualifie and delaie the heate thereof by mingling water least it should cause any distemperature to the bodie And this the Gréeke Churches may séeme to haue respected who consecrated with méere wine as appeareth by Nâ—chites his spéech in the conference aboue-named as also by some editions of Chrysostomes Liturgie and afterwardes put in water when it was to be administred to the receiuers The reason which they vsed for not adding water before was this because Christ is not read to haue added water which accordeth with the words of Chrysostome alleaged by me But as I said before I stand not vpon this point Only I pray you to consider an argument of Bertram in his booke de corpo sangui domini ad Carol imperat taking Bertram de corpo sang domini his ground from this mixture Water saith he in the Sacrament beareth the image of the people Therefore if the wine sanctified by the seruice of the Ministers be bodily turned into the blood of Christ then the water also which is mingled withall must needs be bodily or substantially turned into the blood of the beleeuing people For where there is one sanctification there is consequently one working or effect and where there is the like reason there followeth also the like mysterie But we see in the water there is nothing turned bodily Consequently therefore in the wine there is nothing bodily shewed It is taken spiritually whatsoeuer is signified in the water as touching the bodie of the people It must needes therefore be taken spiritually whatsoeuer is signified in the wine concerning the blood of Christ
Dâ—lcitij q. 2. after death how much rather should the soule it selfe procure rest for it selfe by it owne confession of sinnes there made then that an oblation should be procured for the rest thereof by other man A reason not without some weight if it be well considered But in that place afore-named of S. Austen I would not you should be deceiued to thinke yâ— he meaneth the sacrifices of the altar for the offering or sacrificing of the bodie and blood of Christ wheras indéed he meaneth it of the offerings as we also call them which euery particular man offered at the Sacrament which were employed either to the seruice of the Sacrament or to the reliefe of the poore or to other sacred and godly vses Which maner of offering Hierom in 1. Cor. 11. S. Hierome declareth vpon those words of the Apostle When ye come togither c. This he speaketh saith he because when they met in the church they offered their offerings seuerally and after the communion eating a supper in common they spent there in the church whatsoeuer remained vnto them of the sacrifices To which purpose sundrie other like places might be alleaged And this is one reason amongst the rest why sometimes we finde mention of sacrifice offered in the Sacrament But I know M. Spence what sacrifice it is that you meane a sacrifice properly so called of the verie bodie and blood of Christ propitiatory for the sinnes of quicke and dead offered really and indéed euery day by the hands of a wretched and sinfull priest who must intreat God in behalfe of the sacrifice of Christs bodie and blood that he will looke downe mercifully vpon it and accept it c. The verie naming of which things cannot but be loathsome to a true Christian heart which simply beléeueth out of the word of God that Christ hauing purged our sinnes by once offering himselfe vpon his crosse Heb. 1. 3. 9. 26. 28. Cap. â— 27. Cap. 10. 1â— is ascended into heauen neither needeth to be often offered because by that once offring he hath fully perfected the worke of one attonement and forgiuenesse of sinnes and therefore that there is now no other sacrifice or offering propitiatorie for sinne I say not only no other thing offered but no other offering or sacrificing for remission of sin Reade vprightly M. Spence and with féeling of conscience the 7. 9. and 10. to the Hebrewes The sayings are cleare as the sun-light and in vaine do your Rhemists struggle striue to darken the light of them There is none almost that knoweth anie thing as touching religion but can see how their commentarie is controlled by the text CoÌ„sider this argument out of the tenth chapter where there is forgiuenesse of sinnes there is no more offering for sinne By the sacrifice of Christ vpon his crosse there is forgiuenesse of sinnes for his blood was there shead for the forgiuenesse of sinnes Therefore after Christs sacrifice vpon his crosse there is no more offering for sinne The Apostle in that place reiecting the sacrifices of the old law as which could not sanctifie as touching the Hebr. 10. 1. 2. conscience those that came vnto them for if they could they should not haue bene often offered substitateth in place therof the true entier and only sacrifice of Christ vpon his crosse Who hauing a bodie 5. 7. fitted him commeth according to the will of his father into the world to sanctifie vs by the offering of his bodie once And whereas 10. 11. saith he the priests of the old law do daily and oftentimes offer their sacrifices an argument that they tooke not away sinne this man hauing offered one offering for sinne is gone into heauen not to offer vp himselfe often saith he chap. 9. for then he should haue often cap. 9. 25. suffered since the foundation of the world but waiting hencefoorth till his foes be made his footestoole inferring withall that he néedeth cap. 10. 13. 14. not to be often offered because by one offering or oblation of himselfe he hath perfected and that for euer them that are sanctified Now that he hath persected vs and therefore that there néedeth no other sacrifice or offering for sinne he proueth by the words of Ieremy 15. who defineth the new Testament the ground whereof is the bloodsheading of Iesus Christ by the forgiuenesse of sinnes concluding thereupon Now where remission of these is there is no more 18. offering for sinne Collect the Apostles reason thus If after that once offering there be no more offering for sinne then surely by that once offering he perfected vs. But after that once offering there is no more offering for sinne therefore by that once offering he hath perfected vs. The assumption or minor he proueth thus Where forgiuenesse of sinnes is there is no more offering for sinne But by that once offering there is forgiuenesse of sinnes therefore after that once offering there is no more offering for sinne Examine this collection and sée how it goeth hand in hand with the Apostles words Which is so peremptory resolute against the sacriledge of the masse that your Rhemists without any colour or shew of probabilitie by the text do force vpon the word oblation a straunge meaning as if the Apostle had said There is no Rhem. Annot. Hebr. 10. 18. second baptisme wherby we may haue applied vnto vs the full pardon and remission of our sinnes What should I here say I maâ— Campian rat 1 iustly retort vppon them the wordes of Campian What is it so â— there such peruersnesse such presumption and shamelesnesse in men Cicer. epist 12. lib. 5. Lucceio But they practise that which the Heathen Orator saith He whicâ— hath once passed the bounds of modestie and shamefastnesse muâ— needes shew himselfe lustily impudent and shamelesse What hatâ— the Apostle to do with Baptisme in this text Why did they noâ— shew how this sence hangeth vpon the words gone before Whâ— did they forgo the expositions of the Fathers of Chrysostome Hee chrysost Oecumen Theodor c in Hebr. 10. forgaue sinnes when he gaue the Testament and he gaue the Testament by sacrifice If therfore he forgaue sinnes by one oblation or sacrifice there needeth not now any seconde of Oecumenius out of Photius What need is there of many oblations seeing that one which Christ hath yeelded is sufficient to take away sinne Theodoret There is now no offering for sinne For it is superfluous forgiuenesse of sinne beeing giuen alreadie of Theophylact If remission of sinnes be graunted by one oblation what neede we now any second of Primasius for Christ which is our sacrifice is not to be offered againe for sinne For this was once done and needeth not to be done a second time of Ambrose for one offering of the bodie of Christ maketh perfect them that are sanctified as which giueth full and perfect remission of sinnes c. Wherfore it needeth
to you Bishops Priests and Deacons concerning the mysticall seruice Now if this were in this solemne manner agreed vppon shall we thinke that the same saint Iames would of his priuate authoritie without cause publsh another Liturgy to the Church And would not the Church vniuersally accordyng to the sanction and designement of the Apostles haue practised that forme of seruice which it cannot be proued to haue done Or if either of those Liturgies had bene of authority from such an Authour would Basill Chrysostome and others haue giuen forth other formes of Church-seruice not haue cleaued to the receiued and enioyned Apostolicke forme It were wel that these doubts were sufficiently cleared But the testimony of Gregory Bishop of Rome is inough to cracke the credit of these Liturgies who assureth vs t Gregor Mag. in Regist li. 7. cap. 63. that it was the maner of the Apostles to consecrate the sacrifice with saying onely the Lordes praier This giueth vs sufficiently to vnderstand that those pretended Liturgies vnder the name of saint Iames the Apostle where much is sayd beside the Lords prayer either were not at all or at least were not déemed authenticall at that time and therefore are of the same stampe with an 〈◊〉 number of â—ther forgeries and counterfeit writings which haue bene put foâ—th in the name of the Apostles and other famous meâ— Of that Liturgy also which the sixth Councell mentioneth vnder the name of S. Iames Theodorus Balsamon testifieth yâ— in his time so long ago it was u Theodor. Balsa in concil Constant 6. can 32. not founde nor knowne but quite worne out amongst them Whereby we haue iust cause to thinke that these that now are are other counterfeits set forth since that time Basils Liturgy w Chemnie in exam Trident concil de canone missae by the old translation is one by the new translation another and yet it is sayd also that the Syrians haue a third differing from both the former This is iust cause to make a man suspicious of them all Of Chrysostomes Liturgy how often haue they bene told that although it be likely inough that he left some forme of seruice in his Church yet that there is now no certaintie what it was the differenâ—e of copies being such as it is one published by Leo Tuscus another by Erasmus another by Pelargus and yet Pelargus affirmeth that he hath séene another copie at Rome differing from all these In one of these Chrysostome himselfe is prayed vnto and these togither with yâ— other Liturgies are alleaged for inuocation of saints But x Epiphani haeresi 7 5. contra Aeriâ—nos Epiphanius testifieth that the Church in his time did pray for Saints Martyrs Apostles c. To pray for them and to pray to them stand not togither Epiphanius his testimony is true Therefore these Liturgies are certainly false Againe Chrysostome himselfe is prayed for yea Pope Nicholas and the Emperour Alexius are prayed for also who neither of them were borne some hundreds of yeares after S. Chrysostomes time If they will say that these names were put in as the maner is to put in the names of Princes and Bishops to be prayed for while they liue then how commeth it to passe that those names continue there still vnto this day and that the names of those that succéeded were not put in place of them It appeareth vndoubtedly that there was patching and adding not only of names but of prayers and ceremonies also according to the â—ustome of times and places and the will of those hucksters that had these things in handling Now séeing that although Proclus and others do mention such Liturgies of Basill and Chrysostome yet by meanes of such alterations patcheries and forgeries it cannot be certaine vnto vs what Basill and Chrysostome left in their Liturgies what folly is it in the Answ and his fellowes to face vs out with the names of Basill and Chrysostome in such sort as they do That many steps of antiquitie are yet remainyng in them it is not denyed but those are directly contrary to the practise of the Roomish faction in these dayes and therefore yéeld not any allowance to their proceedings And whereas there are diuers particles translated from those auncient Liturgies into their Masse by occasion wherof they vaunt themselues as followers of antiquity surely they deale no otherwise herein then y Irenae lib. â— cap. 1. Irenaeus reproteth the Valentinian heretickes to haue dealt with the holy scriptures Who gathered here and there wordes names out of the scriptures with the which they painted their horrible and accursed heresies yâ— men might beléeue that the scripture spake of those things which they wickedly taught against the scripture As if a man should take a precious and â—ostly image of a prince facioned by a cunnyng workeman and breakyng it in péeces should of the péeces of it make an il-fauoured image of a Foxe say that the same is the goodly image which such a cunnyng workeman made to resemble such a Prince For so haue they taken diuers péeces of the auncient Liturgies and turned them to other vse and meaning then euer was dreamed of by their Authors and as Irenee speaketh From that which is according to nature to that which is against nature and yet forsooth tell vs that their Liturgie hath example and warrant from all those that were vsed in former times The prayers which then were made to God for the accepting of the peoples gifts and offerings for the celebration of the Sacrament these men absurdly apply to the body and blood of Christ and appoint the Priest to entreate God that he will looke downe mercifully thereupon and accept them The old Liturgies vsed an open commemoration of the death passion and resurrection of our Lorde Iesus Christ that the people might be put in minde therof according to his commandement The Popish priest vttereth the words but is enioyned to vtter them in silence so that the people neuer haue the hearing of them The old Liturgies craued of God grace and heauenly benediction in behalfe of the people who togither were partakers of the communion the Masse kéepeth the words but excludeth the people from the communion The like dealing I noted before concerning the mixture of water and the like follâ—weth in the next place concerning the name of the Masse By these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such spéeches and doings borrowe â—or 〈◊〉 rather from the old Church-seruice they go about to daâ—le the eyes of â—en thâ—t they may not sâ—e their fraude and falshood But an ape will be an ape still though he be â—clothed in purple the Masse though it firmeth thus to be decked with â—â—oures of antiquitie shall remaine nothing else but â—â—ish this and abhominable idoll It is but apish 〈…〉 tation truly to keepe the words of the Fathers and so absurdly to vary from the 〈…〉 tise and meaning of the Fathers P. Spence Sect. 6. VVHether
in their bodies also Then all soules are either good or euill Their portions if they be good ioy if they be euill torment when they go out of this world not the torment of Purgatory which is but for a time but the torment of hell because it continueth till the resurrection and then shall be encreased by the receiuing of their bodies to be partakers of the same torment What place leaueth Austen here for Purgatory or for any middle sort of men Surely none at all and therefore consequently excludeth all effect of praier or offering for the dead But I sâ—eke the Answ saith to helpe Dulcitiuâ— his reason and yet conf 〈…〉 d my selfe because both by the question and by the answere it appeareth that to pray or to offer for the dead was the churches practise at that time A great confusion and worthily wrought The Answ must first know that it was his ouersight to call it Dulcitius his reason which was alleaged for S. Austen reporteth it as a reason giuen by many in his time Then let him vnderstand also that I knew it to be the churches practise but question was then moued whether that which the church did were auaileable to the dead Dulcitius vpon that occasion was doubtful herein He sendeth to S. Austen to be resolued S. Austen telleth him that c August de 8. quaest Dulcit q. 2. many indeed said hereof that if any good might be to the dead in obteining ease much rather should the soule by it owne confession of sin finde ease then by oblations procured by other men Whereby it is plaine that though it were the churches practise yet that this practise of the church was disauowed and disliked by many in S. Auâ—â—ens 〈…〉 e and therefore not vniuersally entertained in the church The Answerer knâ—w well inough that thus much was sayd to him before but because he was ouer-pressed by the reason of those many vsed then against the custome of oblations and praiers for the dead he slippeth by and taketh hold of this that hereby the practise of the church in this point is manifest True say I in part not generally because it was gainsaied and disputed against by many of the church euen in those times Now he saith nothing neither of the men nor of their reason And verily Austen himselfe neither reproueth the men nor disproueth their reason nor by any reason approueth that which he himselfe affirmed on the other side but taking this custome as he found it he laboureth rather to shewe whom we may suppose to haue benefit after death by such praiers and offerings if there be any effect thereof then to proue that there is so P. Spence Sect. 8. A Sorie shift you haue to elude all that our side can bring out of the Fathers for the sacrifice a Doct. Allen saith that the name of sacrifices in the plurall number as is this fitteth not to the sacrifice of the Masse The sacrifices of the altar are forsooth by your cauill not offered by the priest but by euerie particular man as his oblations either for the Sacrament say you or for the reliefe of the poore the worst shift of a thousande Theodoret vpon the 8. to the Hebrues asketh why if Christ offered a perfect sacrifice and made all other sacrifices vnnecessarie the priests of the new Testament offer the mysticall sacrifice If the peoples charitable offerings were the meaning of the sacrifices of the altar what need either Theodoret or so many much more auncient Fathers that aske the selfe same question vpon the like obiection so much liked of your side namely Chrysostome vpon the same Chapter to moue any such question or doubt For when Christ abolished all the olde sacrifices of the law you cannot imagine that these Fathers so learned and so wise would euer spend labour or time to moue this b A deale of idle talke I denied not but that the Fathers do vse the name of sacrifice concernâ—ng the Loâ—dâ—s Supper For I gaue the reason thereof at large idle doubt whether he abolished all charitable offerings of the people either for the Sacrament or for the helpe of the poore Besides the question is moued of the sacrifice of the new Testament offered not by the people but by the priests That the people made such oblatioÌ„s we grant but that thereby it is prooued that there was no other oblation or sacrifice offered by the priest we deny and thinke it to be as vnreasonable as if your mad AtheniaÌ„ wold proue that God made no Moone because he made a Sunne One truth neuer shouldereth out another The same Theodoret to answer his owne question goeth further and thus solueth it It is cleare saith he to those that are learned in diuinitie that we the priests of the new Testament of whom the obiection was made not of the people do offer not another sacrifice but do celebrate a memorie of that one healthfull sacrifice for this our Lord did command Do ye this for a remembrance of me R. Abbot 8. VVHereas in the place of Austen before rehearsed I construed the sacrifices of the altar to be meant of the offerings of the people at the Communion the Answerer fondly collecteth thereof that we vse this for a sorie shift to elude put off all the testimonies of the Fathers concerning sacrifice I may iustly call it a fond collection That the name of Sacrifice is vsed of those offerings I shewed him by a Hieron in 1. Cor. 11. S. Hierom. But that in other places both S. Austen and others do applie the name of Sacrifice to the mysticall offering of the bodie and blood of Christ he knew well inough that I made no doubt inasmuch as it was a great part of my spéech following to declare what they ment in so saying Wherefore all that he speaketh of this point ariseth of his owne péeâ—ish and idle fancie and therfore I trouble not my selfe therewith P. Spence Sect. 9. TO your great obiection of S. Paul leauing a great heap of a VVhich because he could not answere he thought good to passe ouer as waste words waste words to say the best of them I answere the sacrifice of the law tooke not away sinnes but made only certaine legall expiations and therefore the chiefe good that they wrought in the soule was ex Adiuncto of a thing added to them by the goodnesse of the receiuers of them which was their godly faith and expectation of remission of sinnes to be wrought by the Messias by which faith they receiued iustification such as their b Their estate â—n the old law had not the same light of reuelation but the grace of iustification and regeneration was the same to them as it is to vs. See the answer to sect 20 estate in the olde lawe was capable of But Christ by his sacrifice which was done by his death for his death only could confirme his new Testament tooke away sinnes
Christ there is no more any offering for sin and therefore there is no true sacrifice in the Masse Nay saye the Rhemistes the texte meaneth that there is no second Baptisme to apply vnto vs a generall pardon or full forgiuenesse of sinnes contrary to the euidence of the text to the light of their owne consciences to the manifest expositions of the auncient Fathers Chrysostome Oecumenius Photius Theodoret Theophylact Primasius Ambrose as before I alleaged who all according to the drift of the text expound it against any further offering or sacrifice for sinne after that once offering vpon the Crosse Yea and it must necessarily be so vnderstood because the Apostle hereby concludeth against the many often offered sacrifices of the Iewes Which conclusion maketh nothing against their offerings or sacrifices vnlesse we vnderstand offering properly For what were it against their sacrificing that the Apostle should say there is no second baptisme to apply vnto vs full forgiuenesse of sins Now séeing this absurd vnreasonable glose of the Rhemists wil not serue turne neither could the Answ for shame write it thogh they were not ashamed to print it what other answer may we looke for at his hands Good sir saith he why dreame you that we thinke or professe to â—ley and crucifie Christ in our Masses His death was once and that once sufficient for euer and he dieth no more and then where is your obiection To whom I say againe Good sir my obiection hath not any sillable to charge you with affirming of Christes dying any more but proueth that after the once dying of Christ there is no more sacrifice for sinne and therefore that your Masse doth lie in taking vpon it to be a true propitiatorie sacrifice and then where is your answere Why did not your courage serue to make a direct answere to that that was opposed and if you could not answere why did not conscience preuaile with you to make you yeeld to the truth I prooue that there is now no more offering for sinne and he returneth me a sléeuelesse tale that they say not that Christ dieth any more and so runneth on to declare vnto me what maner of sacrifice it is which they offer which by the reason alleaged by me is ineuitably proued to be none at all If Christes bodie be really offered for sinne euery day in the Masse then there is yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an offering for sin But the Apostle saith that there is not now an offring for sinne Therefore Christ is not now any longer offered for sinne And therefore although the bodie of Christ be yet really remaining in heauen d Râ—m â— â— being raised from the dead to die no more and the same bodie be sometimes termed in our spéech the sacrifice for sinne yet is it not so called as hauing now the condition of a sacrifice for sin or as if it were now to be offered any more but only in respect that it was sacrificed once and by the vertue of that once sacrificing e Heb â— 2 appeareth in the sight of God for vs. In a word it is no otherwise so called but as Christ in the Reuelation is called the knobe not to be killed but f Apoc. 5. 6. 9. 12. that was killed and as the same bodie of Christ shall be called the sacrifice for sinne after the ende of the world when as the Saints of God shall thankfully record the sacrificing thereof thus g Apoc. 5. 9. Thou wast killed and hast redeemed vs to God by thy bloud out of euerie nation c. The end and vse of offering for sinne is to take away sinne to obtein remission of sinnes to sanctifie those that come vnto it Now when this end of offering for sinne is atchieued there is no further vse of an offering for sinne So that if the sacrifices of the old law h Heb. 10. 1. 2. had sanctified the commers thereunto they should after once offering haue ceased to bee offered as the Apostle telleth vs importing thereby that that sacrifice which doth sanctifie the commers thereunto as doth i cap. 10. 10. the bodie of Christ once offered néedeth not to be offered any more but that once And hereupon it is that he inferreth that séeing remission of sinnes is obteined by the offering of Christs bodie once therefore thenceforth there is no more offering for sinne neither of Christes bodie nor of any other thing because there is no ende or vse therof euen as when k Chrysost in Heb. 10. ho. 17. Ambros in Hebr. 10. a man hath gotten a medicine to heale his hurt it is néedlesse for him to séeke any other either of the same substance or of any other And therefore hereby he resolueth against all whether Heathenish or Iewish or Popish sacrificing for sinne as being to no ende or purpose because the ende of offering for sinne which is remission of sinnes is atteined alreadie by the death and bloodsheading of Iesus Christ And vnlesse we will vnderstand offering for sinne simply and vniuersally without exception and without that determining of it to any one sort of offering which the Answ vseth in tying it vnto Christes suffering and dying we betraie this whole disputation into the hands of the Iewes and Heathens as making nothing against their sacrificing for sin because it only proueth that Christ dieth no more not that there is no more offering for sinne But the Apostle would deny not only Christs dying any more but also all maner of Iewish and Heathenish offering for sinne Therefore the words must be absolutely and vniuersally vnderstood of offering for sinne after the once dying of our Lord Iesus Yet further let me tell him that if he will affirme the often offering of Christ he must say also that Christ often suffereth and is slaine For throughout the whole scripture he cannot alleage one place where the offering or sacrificing of Christ is otherwise vnderstood then of his death and passioÌ„ And this is plainly euicted out of the 9. to the Hebrues where the Apostle saith that Christ l He. 9. 25. 26. is entered into heauen to appeare now in the sight of God for vs not to offer himselfe often for then saith he he should haue often suffered since the foundation of the world Which reason of the Apostle hath no force at all if there be any other offering of Christ but only by suffering and death Which also is manifest out of the law of Moses where there was no offering or sacrifice of propitiation but by slaughter and bloodshead and where there was no sheading of blood there was no forgiuenesse as the m Heb. 9. 22. Apostle witnesseth Now séeing there is no sacrifice of propitiation in the newe Testament which was not prefigured in the lawe which the Apostle saith n Heb. 10. 1. had the shadow of the good things that were to come and the law prefigured none but sacrifice by
will not graunt in any wise Therefore consequently he must forgo his sacrifice The mad Iesuit could not tell what to say to this point and yet was resolued to say somewhat He saw it faulty which his fellowes had set downe and yet neither was hee able to resolue the matter so but that he is ouerthrowne by his owne grounds And therefore he speaketh warely with Arbitror I suppose as fearing least he himselfe should be taken tardy I maruaile that he béeing at Rome so néere the Pope the Oracle of the Church who pronounceth without errour from his consistory chaire could not obtain of him the certaine and vndoubted trueth of this matter but must thus féede men with his owne vaine ghesses and supposals The trueth is neither the Pope himselfe nor both his Seminaries of Rhemes and Rome doe know what to determine of this point and should not we be wise men to beléeue them as touching a sacrifice of which they themselues are not agréed how it is done or wherein it doth consist But the nullity of this fained and counterfait sacrifice I further shewed before by answering the obiection concerning the Fathers often speech of sacrifice For I declared that they themselues plainly expound themselues not to meane any true reall sacrifice properly so called but onely a mystery a sacrament a resemblance a remembrance of a sacrifice as their owne wordes alleaged doe testifie To this he saith that those testimonies doe prooue that there is a commemoration indéede of Christes death and sufferings but not that they doe not in their sacrifice really and indéede offer his body Then he telleth me full wisely what difference there is béetwixt vs and them that we say there is a memory of Christ himselfe as being absent and they say there is a memory of his one onely sacrifice that is of his death Herein he saith lieth the narrow issue to put a difference betwixt Christes death and Christ himself importing hereby that there is a remembrance of Christes death in the Masse and besides that a true and reall offering of Christ himselfe This he telleth me is the state of the question which we alwaies start from and will not sée Where I may say of him as S. Austen said of the Hereticke u August coÌ„r aduer legis prophe lib. 1. cap. 23. Quà m eleganter sibi videtur iste verba discutere atque discernere nesciens quid loquatur How trimly doeth this man seeme to himselfe to sifte and discerne wordes and speeches and knoweth not what he saieth For first where he saith that their sacrifice is onely to commemorate the death of Christ once past hée crosseth his owne assertion For if they onely commemorate the death of Christ then they doe not really offer him If they doe really offer him they doe not only commemorate his death Secondly he saith that there néedeth not now any newe oblation or sacrifice for sinne after Christes death already past because his death is still sufficient and auaileable to take awaye sinne and yet hee addeth that the same death of Christ giueth force and vertue to their sacrifice which they say is a sacrifice propitiatory to take away sinne If there néede no other sacrifice for sinne after Christes death howe doeth his death giue force and vertue to their sacrifice for sinne Belike hee woulde haue vs to vnderstand that their sacrifice is but a méere fansie and no sacrifice in deede Surely it is folly w Vigil cont Eutych lib. 4. as Vigilius saith For a man to goe about to refute that which withall hee is proued not to deny Thirdly where he saith that wee would haue the Sacrament a remembrance of Christ himself whereas they intend it of his death he sheweth himselfe to bee too much delighted with idle talke For if hee haue but common sense he may vnderstand by that that I said vnto him that we vse the Sacrament entirely as a remembraÌ„ce of Christs death and so defend it against their counterfaite and imagined reall sacrifice Fourthly he saith againe we are commanded beside the memory of Christes death to offer the same death in a sacrifice to God and yet after he saith it is onely to be recorded figured and represented But to passe ouer these ouerthwart and crosse fancies of braiâ—sicke and vnstable heads which confound themselues in their owne spéeches and taking vppon them to be x 1. Tim. 1. 7. the only Doctors of the Law yet vnderstand not what they speake nor whereof they affirme Let vs come to the state of the question which hee setteth downe namely whether beside the memory of Christes dâ—ath and passion there be in the Masse a true and reall offering or sacrificing of the body and bloud of Christ In which point we haue dalied maruailously all this while and haue béene greatly too blame for going so wide from the question proposed For the question hath béene whether the body and bloud of Christ be verely and in déede offered or sacrificed in the Masse or not and we haue still very directly proued that the body and bloud of Christ is not verily and indéed offered or sacrificed in the Masse that there is not any sacrifice done for sin in the Masse truely and properly so called that the Masse is an abhominable sacriledge and wicked profaning of the Sacrament of Christ For first if they will defend a sacrifice they must defend it by the institution of Christ But let it bee resolued what a sacrifice is and what is there in the institutioÌ„ of Christ that giueth so much as any shadow of a sacrifice y Bellar. tom 2. de Missa lib. 1. cap. 2. To a true sacrifice saieth Bellarmine and that truely is required that that which is offered to God in sacrifice be verily destroied that is be so changed as that it cease to be not onely in vse but in substance that that it was before But what is there in the action of Christ answerable to this condition of a sacrifice Is there any man so madde as to say that the body of Christ was there verily destroied or is there any shew of any such matter it is more then senselesse to imagine it Nowe it hath beene shewed before what a srurre the Iesuit keepeth to vpholde the sacrifice of the Masse together with this definition and yet all in vaine Moreouer where may we haue it assured vnto vs that Christ did sacrifice himselfe twise The Scripture precisely telleth vs that he offered himselfe but once which was by his death z Heb. 7. 27. He needed not daily to offer vp sacrifice for that did he once when he offered vp himselfe a Cap. 9. 12. By his owne bloud entred he in once into the holy place b Cap. 9. 26. In the end of the world hee hath appeared once to put away sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe c Cap. 9. 27. As it is appointed to men to die once so Christ
was once offered to take away the sins of many d cap. 10. 10. We are sanctified by the offering of Christes body once e cap. 10. 12. This man hauing offered one sacrifice for sinne sitteth for euer at the right hande of God This is all which the Scripture testifieth of the offering of Christ Now if Christ did offer himselfe but once and that once was by death vpon his Crosse then it followeth that he did not offer himselfe at the institution of the Sacrament and therefore commended not vnto vs any sacrifice to be done therein If they will say that he was but once offered in that manner namely with bloudshed but vnbloudly he offered himselfe beside and so is offered still they deale presumptuously against the holy Ghost and vse that sawcinesse with the word of God which no man may bee bold to doe with the lawes of men For if it holde in the lawes of men that f Regula iuris Non est distinguendum vbi non distinguit lex no man may distinguish where the law it selfe doth not warrant his distinction much more ought it to hold in the lawes and words of God Now séeing the holy Ghost by a generall word comprehending all manner of offering hath determined the offering of Christes body onely to once who is he that dare giue checke vnto his word and say It is a lie for he was offered twise once blouddily on the Crosse another time vnblouddily in the Sacrament so remaineth to be offered daily and infinite times in a day vnto the end of the world Especially séeing the Apostle vrgeth this againe and againe for a great and maine difference betwixt the sacrifices of the old Testament and the sacrifice of the new that the Priests there offered often but g Heb. 7. 27. Oecume ibid Heb. 10. 11. 12. Christ offered one onely sacrifice and that but once euen in this respect opposing this once offering not onely to the general sacrifice that was made h cap. 9. 7. once a yeare but also to the particular sacrifices that were offered i cap. 7. 27. 10. 11. euery day giuing to vnderstand that neither generally nor particularly neither in one maner nor other the body of Christ was to be offered any more but onely once He sheweth the greatnes of this sacrifice saith k Ambros in Heb. 7. S. Ambrose which being thus offered sufficeth for euer For this sacrifice was not daily to be offered c. but this man is of such power or worth that being once offered in the sacrifice of his fleshe it should not be needefull for any of the faithfull to offer for him any more It sufficed l Chrysost in Heb. 7. hō 13. saith Chrysostome though it were but one and but once offered Now this difference of the sacrifices of the two Testaments is vtterly taken away if by any distinction of the maner of offering we wil auouch y◠the sacrifice of the new Testament is often offered as were the sacrifices of the old Where I cannot omit to note the drunken spéech of the Rhemists as touching this point set down for safegard of their sacrifice who m Rhem. An◠not Heb. 10. 11 repeate often as they say that the Apostles reason and speaches of many Priestes and often sacrificing concerne the sacrifices of the law onely vnto which hee opposeth Christes sacrifice and Priesthood and speaketh no word of or against the sacrifice of the new Testament which is the sacrifice of Christes own Priesthood and is dayly done vnbloudily by the Priestes meaning hereby their sacrifice of the Masse I tearme it iustly a drunken spéech For séeing they are forced by the euidence of the text to grant that the Apostle in that respect opposeth the sacrifice priesthood of Christ against the old sacrifices priestood of the law which opposition cannot stād but only thus that there were many priests here but one there often offering here but once what doe they but talke like drunken men they know not what when notwithstanding in the very same respect they confound the Priesthood and sacrifice of Christ with the Priesthood and sacrifices of the law so that as there were many priests so here are many priests as there was often offering so is here also He affirmeth indéede there many Priests here but one there often offering here but once and therefore leaueth no place for any bastard distinction of any manner whereby the body of Christ may be saide to be often offered Furthermore against this deuised manner wee are instructed by that which is written n Heb. 9. 22. Without shedding of bloud there is no remission of sinnes For hereof we gather that if the Masse be a propitiation of sinne then there must be shedding of bloud in the Masse If there be shedding of bloud in the Masse it is not an vnblouddy sacrifice and therefore the assertion of an vnblouddy sacrifice in the Masse for the propitiation of sinne is euidently contrary to the word of God Now the bloud of Christ was shed for sinne but only once and that once vpon the Crosse Therefore Christ did offer himselfe for sinne but onely once and that vpon the Crosse and therefore nether did nor doth offer himselfe in the Sacrament Againe when we read that o Heb. 9. 27. 28 as it is appointed vnto men to die once so Christ was once offered to take away sinnes we are giuen to vnderstand that as well it may be saide that men to whō it is appointed to die once may afterwards in another manner die oftentimes as that Christ who is saide in the like sort to be offered for sinne but onely once should yet in another manner be offered for sinne times without number so long as the world standeth It is folly and madnesse to say the one it is madnesse and blasphemy to affyrme the other And so much the more for that it is plainely testified vnto vs that therefore hee néedeth not to be often offered because p Heb. 10. 14. by one oblation he hath for euer made perfect them that are sanctified Which making perfect is declared in the words following to be intended of the forgiuenes of sinnes Now if Christ néede daily to be offered for the forgiuenes of sinnes either generally or particularly or howsoeuer then he did not by one oblation or offering of himselfe make vs perfect in that behalfe If he did perfectly worke remission of sinnes by one offering of himselfe then he néedeth not thenceforth to bee offered for sinne and he that affirmeth the offering of him doth frustrate his death and deny the perfection of his former offering And therefore the Apostle inferreth as hath béene saide before q ver 18. Where remission of sinnes is there is no more offering for sinne As if he should say All sacrifice for sin is vaine after remission of sinnes once obtained which is the end of sacrifice for sinne
Remission of sinnes is perfectly wrought and obtained by the once offering of Christ vpon the Crosse therefore after the once offering of Christ vpon the Crosse all offering or sacrifice for sinne is vaine and therefore it is none at all As for that which the Answ excepteth that remission of sinnes doth come by Baptisme repentance praier c. And yet wée doe not thereby exclude Christes death intending thereby as it séemeth that it followeth not that Christes death is excluded though remission of sinnes be affirmed to be wrought by the sacrifice of the Masse it is a friuolous and vaine shifte For what comparison is there betwixt the sacrifice which it selfe is defended to be a propitiation for sinne and repentance faith praier baptisme which doe not themselues worke forgiuenesse of sinnes but onely serue vs to receiue forgiuenesse of sinnes wrought onely by the death and bloudshedding of Iesus Christ As hunger prouoketh a man to desire meate so repentance stirreth him to séeke forgiuenesse of sinnes As a man craueth meate to relieue his hunger so praier craueth the forgiuenesse of sinnes As in a vessell meate is set before a man and offered vnto him so God in the word and Sacraments though in other sort setteth before vs and offereth vnto vs the effect of the bloud of Christ to the forgiuenesse of sinnes As the hande and mouth receiue the meate to the satisfying of hunger and comfort of the body so faith receiueth the benefite of Christes bloud to the forgiuenesse of sinnes But as neither the desire of meate nor the crauing for meate nor the vessell wherein meate is offered nor the hand and mouth that receiueth the meate haue themselues any vertue to féed the body but the force thereof belongeth onely to the meate so neither repentance nor praier nor the sacraments nor faith haue any vertue themselues of the remission of sinnes but onely are either occasions of séeking or meanes of offering and receiuing the death and passion of Christ to which only and entirely in it selfe is to be attributed the forgiuenesse of our sinnes Neither is it any other but a fantasticall toy which the Answ imagineth that these by an influence as he speaketh of the passion of Christ haue in themselues the efficiency of the forgiuenesse of sins in like maner if at least he will giue me leaue to expresse his minde by a comparison as the aire being warmed by the fire warmeth the body wherunto it is applied A méere deuise of Satan that men whilest they séek for forgiuenesse of sinnes where it is not may faile of it where it is and whilest they follow after a shadow by these deuises of influence from the bloud of Christ may misse of the substance in Iesus Christ himselfe The Scripture hath not taught vs that either our repentance or praiers or faith or sacraments are propitiations for our sinnes and therefore it is but a fonde shifte to gather from hence any maintenance for the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mosse I resolue therefore as before that séeing Christ Iesus by one offering hath perfected vs as touching the propitiation and attonement for our sinnes there is not now remaining any manner of offering whatsoeuer for propitiation of sinne But to goe somewhat further in this matter séeing they will néedes haue vs to beléeue a reall offering of the bodye of Christ what Priest will they appoint vs to offer the same Forsooth vnder pretence that this is r Concil Trident sessi 6. cap. 1. a cleane offering and such as cannot be defiled by the vnworthinesse of him that offereth they will haue vs to beléeue that euery varlet Priest comming blowing from the Alehouse or sweating from the stewes hath Christ at his becke to bring him from Heauen euery morning as ofte as hee list to offer him vp for the forgiuenesse of whose sinnes it pleaseth him But we will not beléeue this because the Scripture nameth vnto vs in this behalfe but one onely Priest which is ſ Heb. 3. 1. the high Priest of our profession one which is t Cap. 7. 26. holy harmelesse vndefiled seperated from sinners made higher then the heauens And séeing it maketh this difference betwixt the Priesthood of the law the Priesthood of Christ u Cap. 7 26. that the law maketh men high Priests that haue infirmity but the worde of the othe maketh the sonne who is consecrated for euer opposing Christ the sonne of God the Priest of the newe Testament to men of infirmity that were Priests by the law either this difference is idle and without ground and men of infirmity are Priests as wel in the Priesthood of Christ as in the priesthood of the lawe or else al men that haue infirmity and therefore all Popishe Priests are vtterly excluded from the priesthood of Christ Therfore as the councell of Ephesus saide so say we w Concil Ephes Epist ad Nestor We assigne not the name and office of priesthood to any other man but to Christ For he is made the mediatour betwixt God and man and the reconciler to peace offering himselfe a sacrifice of a sweet smelling sauour to God for vs. Whereas they say for the better countenancing of this their sacriledge that x Rhem. Annot Heb. 7. 23. marg Christ concurreth with the Priests in this action of offering vp himself they spurn at the text of the Scripture which telleth vs that y Heb. 7. 27. Christ needeth not daily to offer vp sacrifice and that hee z Cap. 9. 25. is gone into Heauen to appeare in the sight of God for vs not that he should offer himselfe often Nay when it saieth a Cap. 1. 31. Hauing by himselfe purged our sinnes he sitteth at the right hand of the maiesty in the highest places and againe b cap. 10. 12. This man after he had offered one sacrifice for sinnes sitteth for euer at the right hand of God expecting thenceforth till his foes be made his footestoole it opposeth Christes offering himselfe for sinne to his sitting at the right hand of God making the one a matter of humiliation the other of exaltation the one of infirmity the other of glory And therefore as humiliation and infirmity standeth not with exaltation and glory so the offering of Christ for sinne standeth not with his sitting at the right hand of God the Father This Chrysostome and Theophylact and out of them Oecumenius haue rightly obserued c Oecumen He. 7. ex chrysost in Heb. ◠hom 13. Theophyl ibid. When thou hearest him called the high Priest doe not thinke that he doeth still sacrifice himselfe for sinne For when he had done so once he ascended to his fathers Throne For it belongeth to the Minister and Priest to stand but this sitting signifyeth that he brought sacrifice once euen his owne body and afterward sate downe to be ministred vnto of the heauenly powers So Theodoret also d Theodor. in Hebr. 8. What
office of Priesthood doth he execute who offered himselfe once and doth not offer sacrifice any more And how can it be that he should both sitte and yet execute the office of a Priest to offer sacrifice As it séemed strange to them that Christ should offer himselfe still in sacrifice yet withall sit at the right hand of God so no lesse strange séemeth it vnto vs and therefore we cannot beléeue the one because the Apostle hath taught vs against that to beléeue the other I wil adde onely one place more of Sainct Ambrose as touching this point of the offering of Christ whereby we may sufficiently vnderstand the meaning of the auncient Writers in the vse of the same wordes e Amb. Officlib 1. cap. 48. Now Christ is offered saith he but as man as receiuing or suffering his passion and he offereth himselfe as a Priest that he may forgiue our sinnes Here in an image or resemblance there in trueth where as an Aduocate he pleadeth for vs with the Father Where he sayeth indéede that Christ is offered and offereth himselfe but yet as suffering his passion which he doth not suffer really and therefore is not really offered in sacrifice but onely in a mystery Therefore he saith he is here offered not verily and in trueth as if his very body were here to be offered but in an image or reseÌ„blance by these signes which betoken his body and bloud For as Oecumenius saith out of Gregory f Oecumen in Heb. 10. The image containeth not the trueth though it be a manifest imitation of the trueth And therefore if the offering of Christ here on the earth be in an image then it is not in the very trueth As for the trueth of his body and bloud he telleth vs that it is not in earth but in Heauen where he offereth himselfe not by reall sacrifice but by presenting coÌ„tinually vnto his father in our behalfe that body wherein he was once sacrificed and thereby as by a continuall sacrifice making intercession to God for vs which he opposeth by pleading for vs as an Aduocate with the Father And therefore doeth Oecumenius expound g Oecumen in Heb. 8. that sacrificing of himselfe in Heauen to be nothing else but his making intercession for vs. For h Heb. 9. 24. his appearing in the sight of God for vs and sitting with the Father clothed with our flesh is as Theophylact noteth i Theophy in Heb. 7. a kinde of intercession to God in our behalfe as if the flesh it selfe did intreate God Therefore our offering of Christ standeth onely in this that by those mysteries of his body and bloud which he hath ordained for commemoration of his death and by our faith and prayers we doe as it were present vnto God the Father his sonne Iesus Christ sitting at the right hand of God in that body wherein hée was crucified for vs crauing for his sake as thus crucified for vs yâ— forgiuenesse of all our sinne So Christes offering of himselfe is nothing else but his continuall presence in the sight of God for vs in that body which he gaue to death for our sinnes by which euen as effectually as by vocall wordes he is saide k Heb. 12. 24. to speak good things for vs and to intreate God that he will be mercifull vnto vs. And this vndoubtedly is the vtermost that the fathers meant in al those spéeches of offering and sacrifice wherewith the Papistes would abuse vs. To be short the euidence of Scripture is against all sacrifice for sinne They bring no euidence of Scripture for it Some places indéede they alleadge but in no other manner then the olde Heretickes were wont to alledge the scriptures for defence of their heresies There is nothing to be séene in the places themselues to that purpose for which they are alleaged but we must rest onely vppon those constructions and collections which it pleaseth them to make thereof Against the euidence of scripture they except with a blinde distinction that hath no grounde from the holie Scripture and that which is there generally denyed they restraine without anye warrant to a particular manner Christ is not to be offered after his once offering as the scripture teacheth True say they not in that maner as he was once offered but in another maner he may We require it out of the scripture Otherwise we may haue all assertions of faith and religion impiously deluded For with as great reason when we say there is but one God it may be answered that in that maner as he is God there is but one but in another maner there are many when we saie there is but one redéemer it may be answered that in that maner as he is redéemer there is but one but in another maner there be many nay when it is sayd that Christ died but once as it is sayd he was offered but once why may it not as wel be said that in that maner as he died once he dieth no more but in another maner he dieth often as that he is offered no more indéed in that maner as he was offered before but in another maner he is offered often Therfore this licentious and presumed distinction is ioyned with impietie against God and serueth to giue a mocke to all the wordes of God and for this cause is to be detested of vs beside that it is as hath bene before shewed manifestly contradicted by the word of God Much more might here be added to shew the villany and abhomination of the sacrifice of the Masse But it shall suffice for my purpose to haue added this to that that I had sayd before where notwithstanding this matter was manifestly inough declared to satisfie the Answ had he bene as carefull to know the truth as he is wilfull to continue in his errour For do not the places which I alleaged before out of the Fathers exclude all reall offering sacrificing of Christ I will once againe set them downe particularly as thornes in the Answ eyes who being in his owne conscience ouercome with them answereth nothing distinctly but séeketh to go away in a mist of general words and because he can say nothing to the purpose thinketh it inough to say that none of these testimonies maketh against their sacrificing of Christ A pretie kind of answering and very agréeable to that that I alleaged before out of the Index But first l Chrysost â— Ambros in Heb. â—0 Chrysostome and Ambrose purposely speaking of the sacrifice of the church say thus We offer not another sacrifice but alwaies the same or rather we worke the remembrance of a sacrifice It is absurd to vse correction of spéech where the truth of yâ— thing is fully answerable already to the proper signification of the words For correction of spéech is a reuersing of that which is alreadie set downe as being hardly or not so fully or fitly spoken and therefore putteth in stéed thereof
that which is more fit and conuenient to be spoken And if these men had thought that in proper spéech it is true that Christ is indéed offered or sacrificed to what purpose should they hauing mentioned the offering of him adioyne thus Or rather we worke the remembrance of a sacrifice as to mollifie that which was before hardly and vnproperly spoken Surely it had behoued the Answ for his honesties sake to shewe some reason why these men not talking of the death of Christ but expresly of the sacrifice which it is sayd the church did offer and hauing mentioned the offering of sacrifice and the offering of Christ should so recall their words and in effect say Nay we offer not a sacrifice indéed but rather performe the remembrance of a sacrifice But what can be more plaine then that of Theophylact m Theophyl in Heb. 10. We offer him the same alwaies or rather we make a remembrance of the offering of him as if he were now offerd or sacrificed Which words as if he were now offred make it as cleer as the sun-light that Christ is not now really and indéed offered in sacrifice For what reasonable man wold euer say as if he were now offered if he were perswaded that Christ is now indéed and verily offered To this purpose the words of Eusebius also are very pregnant n Euseb de demonstr Euan. lib. 1. cap. 10. Christ saith he offered a sacrifice to his father and ordeined that we should offer a remembrance thereof vnto God in steed of a sacrifice Then Christ ordeined not another sacrifice to be offered as Eusebius should haue saide if he had bene a Papist but in steed of a sacrifice in steed I say of a sacrifice he ordeined vnto vs to make a remembrance of his sacrifice Certainly these men if they had beléeued any such sacrifice as the Papists now take vpon them to practise could not haue omitted some plaine declaration thereof being in the places whence I alleaged these words so directly and fully occasioned thereto The same I say much more of Theodoret who so expresly proposeth the question of offering sacrifice o Theodor. in Heb. â— For if saith he the priesthood which is by the law be ended and the priest after the order of Melchisedec haue offered a sacrifice haue made that other sacrifices be not necessary why do the priests of the new Testament worke a mystical Liturgy or sacrifice Where if he would haue answered as a Papist he must haue sayd that they did indéed offer a very true sacrifice properly so called of the verie body and blood of Christ and that this derogateth not from the sacrifice of Christ vpon his Crosse but serueth to apply the same vnto vs and that all the spéeches of the Apostle against sacrificing doe touch onely the sacrifices of the Iewes But he as vnacquainted with these Popish deuises answereth simply plainly It is cleare to them that are instructed in diuine matters that we do not offer another sacrifice but do performe a remembrance of that one and healthfull sacrifice For this commandement the Lord himselfe gaue vs saying Do this in remembrance of me that by beholding the figures we might call to minde the sufferings that he vndertooke for vs c. By which words he plainly sheweth vs that after that one and healthfull sacrifice which Christ offered for vs which he expresseth by the sufferings of Christ the priests of the new Testament doe not now offer another sacrifice but performe onely a remembrance of that former sacrifice by those mysteries which Christ hath left to be celebrated in remembrance thereof Let S. Austen yet make this more plain saying that p August cont faustâ—m Manich. li. 2â— cap. 21. the flesh blood of Christs sacrifice was in his passion giuen in verie truth after his ascension is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance He maketh these diuers each from other to be giuen in verie truth and to be celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance applying the one to his passion the other to the Sacrament Now if to be giuen in verie truth belong to the Sacrament also then S. Austen speaketh vainly and idlely maketh a distinction without any difference But now opposing one to the other in verie truth and by a Sacrament of remembrance he sheweth that in the Sacrament of remembrance Christ is not really and truly sacrificed The Answ thought good to say nothing to that which I vrged concerning this opposition The other place of q August ep 23. Austen to Bonifacius I opened also somewhat vnto him and fully beforehand preuented him of his refuge in putting difference betwixt Christs death and Christ himselfe and yet forsooth all this maketh nothing against him The best kinde of bad answering when there is no good answere to serue the turne But S. Austen in that place noteth the offering of Christ r Semel in seipso singulis diebu in sacramento in himselfe to haue bene once that the offering which is sayd to be euery day is in a Sacrament or mysterie not in himself And to shew the cause why he is said in a Sacrament or mysterie to be offered euery day wheras in himselfe he was but once offered he saith that because Sacraments haue the resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments therefore they commonly take vnto them the names of the same things Euen as good Friday is said to be the day of Christs passion Sunday to be the day of Christes resurrection not because Christ suffereth euery good Friday or riseth againe euery Sunday but because these daies resemble and in course of time are answerable to those daies wherein Christ suffered and rose againe So therefore Christ is said to be offered euery day not because there is any reall sacrificing of him euery day but because his once offering of himselfe is daily in the Sacrament figured and remembred And this I shewed before out of the glose of the Canon law Å¿ De consâ—â—ra dist 2. cap. se mel in glosla Christ is offered that is the offering or sacrificing of Christ is represented and a memorie made of his passion Which words the Answ falsly and deceitfully extenuateth as if they serued no further but only to note a representation of Christs death and passion which he yéeldeth vnto Wheras the wordes serue to expounde what Austen and Prosper meant when they said that Christ is offered or sacrificed in a Sacrament and by the same exposition diminish the credit of the Roomish sacrifice For if these words The offering or sacrificing of Christ is represented and there is a memorie made of his passion be the true meaning of these words Christ is offered or sacrificed as the glose setteth downe what can be more euident to him that hath eyes to sée then that Austen and Prosper the other Fathers when they mention sacrifice as touching the
Lords Supper do not thereby meane that Christ is indéed and verily offered but only that his sacrifice is represented The collection that I made before and euen now noted again out of that place of S. Austen standeth firme sure to this purpose Namely that there is difference with Austen betwixt being offered in himself and being offered in a Sacrament or mysterie and that the name of offering or sacrificing when it is referred to the Sacrament is vsed not ex rebus ipsis for the truth of the thing it selfe but for the resemblance of the thing and therfore importeth not the offering of Christ in himselfe But this the Answ would not sée or take notice of because he should haue had nothing to write of this matter being therby excluded alreadie from all that he hath now said For his shift is â—o put difference betwixt Christes death and Christ himself and to say that Christ although he die no more yet is verily sacrificed in himselfe and my collection was before direct to the contrary that Christ is not now sacrificed in himselfe So that he sheweth himself a stout disputer to let the premisses go and deny the conclusion Now the necke of his sacrifice being thus broken in that it is proued that after the death of Christ there is no more offering for sinne that Christ is not now offered in himselfe but only the sacrificing of his body on the crosse celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance which yet is called by the name of sacrifice because sacraments are vsually called by the names of those things whereof they are Sacraments and we therein call to mind and shew Christs death and offering of himselfe as if he were then presently offered yet he setting a good face vpoÌ„ the matter when nothing else wil help him telleth me that these things touch him no more then the man in the Moone biddeth me to learne the state of the question better not to roue at random but to aime at the marke to put vp in my purse all those testimonies that I did alleage c. An easie and soone-made answere or rather an vnshamefast wretched shift But the yoong Crab must go as the olde Crab doth teach him and he must giue such answeres as other his forefathers haue bin wont to doe P. Spence Sect. 10. VVHerefore all the premisses considered whersoeuer all or any of your alleaged places do sound a remembrance memoriall and representation of a sacrifice and such like words take this for a full answere that they are memories and remembrances representations and if you wil figures too of the sacrifice of Christ But what sacrifice the sacrifice of his death the sacrifice of the Crosse which we do but represent for die any more he now cannot And because we doe not say that in our Masse Christ is crucified and dieth you do vs wrong so to burthen vs which in no Catholickes writing you can shew and therefore in pressing these authories against vs you touch vs no more then the man in the Moone but you wrankle two waies both in interpreting Sacrificium here in these places to be Eucharistia where it is meant of the offering the same in a sacrifice and not of it as it is absolutely a Sacrament only â—s though the Sacrament were but a remembrance figure or representation And also secondly herein you wrangle for that you would beare vs in hand the said authorities to mean the thing represented figured or recorded to be Christs bodie where they only call our sacrifice a remembrance figure and representation of Christes passion and death vpon the Crosse onely once done and now neuer more to be done or reiâ—erated but only to be recorded fygured and represented Learne better hereafter the state of your question and roue not at randome but aime at the marke and remember you fight not herein with vs but you skirmish with your aduersaries in theâ—ire with arguments fained forged and imagined of your selues Put a A patterne how to answer any thing easily and without any study vp therfore in your purse all your places of Chrysostom Ambrose Theâ—phylact Augustine Cyprian Aug. ad Bonaâ—acium the Glose de consecratiâ—â—e Cypriaâ— againe and Prosper Alexander the Pope and againe Chrysostome and Hâ—erome and Gregorie c. For they say nothing for you but what we confesse except you thinke vs so mad to thinke that we vse to crucifie and sley Christ in our Churches sacrifice an imagination fit for your merry gentleman the Athenian We must also tell you that you ouerreach in writing that the death and passion of Christ is the whole as much to say as the only matter substance so you terme it of this mysterie Christs reall bodie is the matter substance and thing offered in our sacrifice really but his passion is with all offered but as in a Commemoration So that our sacrifice hath b Nay it hath many things more then ouer Christ or any of his Apostles taught â—wo things two things Christs bodie really and his passion in a mysterie onely and a memorie Dolosus versaâ—ur in generalibus I wish you to speake more distinctly We graunt with you his passion but that only represented we haue also his bodie and blood and that verily present verily offered Else all that you can infer of the aforesaid authorities we also confesse so far as gladly as you do Sauing that wheras you saâ—e that it is no maâ—â—ell though the Fathers called this mysterie a sacrifice For they meant it was so called but was not so indeede that we yeelde not vnto For we saie the Fathers called it a sacrifice because they meant as they spake and no where denie it and we could shewe if there were any waight in your reasons to presse vs so farre where the Fathers giue reasons why it is a sacrifice because c A Roomish deuise which ther 's neuer knew the bloodie sacrifice of the Crosse and death are offered and sacrificed man vnbloodie sacrifice Châ—â—st himselfe being verily offered his death only recorded with thankesgiuing and by this vnbloodie sacrifice of Christs verie bodie the vertue of that bloodie sacrifice is daily applied to the faithfull And therefore where you aske whether Christ indeed doth d Either he really suffereâ—h and dâ—eth in the Masse or else he is not really offered The Fathers speake of both alike as I shewed really suffer in the Churches sacrifice or sweat water and blood or be condemned or nailed to the Crosse they are idle phantasticall questions But to answere you we do not thinke so Be of good cheare man we do not thinke so we neuer thought said or e Doct. Allen hath written that Christ iâ— verily slaine in the Masse wrote so Yet we thinke and till you come neerer the marke we will still so thinke that vnbloodily but really wee sacrifice and offer the same Christs verie true bodie and blood to the whole Trinitie for
all people that once did suffer and neuer but once all the aforenamed torments But that which you infer for a conclusion is most vaine and false which is this The passioÌ„ is that we offer the passioÌ„ is offered not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Ergo the Churches sacrifice is not verily a sacrifice but in a mysterie for besides the forme being negatiue in the third figure is against art the Maior as I said before is false if you meane the passion only For I told you we haue in our sacrifice his passion in a memorie his bodie really If you meane not passion only then the conclusion the premisses hang togither by verie loose points Briefly Christs passion is offered in a mysterie only his bodie in sacrifice verily The first your authorities prooue and we confesse the latter part no Father euer denied no not the most eldest and auncient primatiue Church and it is so true that Caluin sticked not to condemne all the Fathers sith the Apostles of Iudaisme in that verie point for f An impudent and vnshamefast vntruth See the answere establishing a verie sacrifice of the Church so impudent a thing he tooke it to be to cast a myst vppon the Fathers wordes in that point prooue the latter point the first we confesse R. Abbot 10. HEre we may sée how the poore man maketh hard shift to credit himselfe by séeming to say somewhat when indéed he saith nothing at all For first he telleth me that wheresoeuer I reade of a remembrance memoriall and representation of sacrifice I must takâ— it for a full answere that thereby is meant a remembrance and representation of Christs death Not for a full but for a foolish answer say I. For to what other purpose can he imagine those words alleageâ— by vs but to auouch the remembrance of that one and only true sacrifice of Christs death against their defence of a continuall and oftentimes repeated sacrifice And séeing the Fathers speaking of their offering of Christ do recall and correct those termes as vnproperly spoken and put in place thereof that they rather celebrate the remembrance of his sacrifice as if he were now sacrificed indeed we conclude hereof neither can the Answ aâ—oyd it that they simply deny the true and reall offering of the bodie of Christ as before is the wed Secondly he saith that I wrangle in interpreting Sacrifice here in thâ—se places to be the Eucharist whereas it is meant of the offring of the same in a sacrifice But indéed he saith he knoweth not what For immediately before he expoundeth Sacrifice in these places to be meant of the death of Christ and how commeth it to passe now that it must be vnderstood of offering the Eucharist in a sacrifice But if his pen slipped and he put in these places meaning it of others where I say the Fathers call the Eucharist a sacrifice that which he saith is but Petitio principij and a begging of that to be yéelded for truth which I haue auowed and proued to be false The Eucharist I vnderstande to bee the celebration of the Sacrament with thankeful remembrance of the death of Christ This I say the Fathers doe often call sacrifice because the matter thereof is the sacrifice of Christes death not because Christ is therein verily sacrificed Thirdly I wrangle forsooth againe in bearing him in hand that the authorities alleaged do meane the thing represented to be Christes body whereas they vnderstand it to be Christes passion and death vpon the Crosse Where without doubt eyther the Answ wits or his honesty failed him very much For he would haue it seem that we intend not by the places of the fathers a representing of Christes passion and death but méerely of his body and yet he himselfe iustifieth the contrary straight waies after For within some fewe lines he alleageth my wordes directed to those places of the fathers that the death and passion of Christ is the whole matter and substance of this mystery To which I added also diuers more wordes to that purpose concluding that nothing is here remembred but Christes sacrificing himselfe vppon the Crosse For although we say that we represent the body and bloud of Christ whereof yet there was nothing spoken in this place yet as afterwards I tolde him we represent the body no otherwise but as broken and the bloud no otherwise but as shed for vs. Notwithstanding here though hauing not so much as a sillable whereto he may referre this spéech he telleth me that I wrangle in pretending the thing represented to be the body of Christ wheras it is his death and passion as if I excluded the representation of Christes death and passion which by his own confession I make the whole matter and purport of the Sacrament But this draffe he thought good enough wherewith to féede his corner companions and to perswade them that he had dealt very acutely and wittely in answering that that had béene saide vnto him He telleth me again that I ouer-reach in saying that the death and passion of Christ is the whole substance of this mystery Hée shoulde haue saide that I come short because I say not so much as he would haue me to say For saith he there are two thinges in our sacrifice a mysticall offering of the passion of Christ and a real offering of the body of Christ But neither scripture nor father â—uer commended to our practise any other sacrifice of Christ but only the mysticall offering of his passion Neither doe any of the authorities of the fathers so much tossed and tumbled by the Papists enforce any other as I alleaged the last time and the Answ saieth nothing to disprooue it Surely wonder it is if the matter were so cleare as these men would perswade vs that neuer any one of the fathers speaking so often of the sacrifice would once note this point expressely and distinctly that they had both a mysticall offering of the passion of Christ and a reall offering of his body besides no not when the maine drifte of their spéech pressed them so to doe if they had beléeued any such thing But they knew it not at all and therfore no maruaile that they saied nothing of it For where as the Answ telleth me that the Fathers giue reasons why it is a sacrifice indéede namely because the bloudy sacrifice of the crosse death of Christ is offered and sacrificed in aâ— vnbloudy sacrifice of his body he doth lewdly belie the fathers in fathering vppon them this new and Popish phrase of spéech wherewith the fathers were vtterly vnacquainted For although they sometimes call the Lordes Supper an vnblouddy sacrifice as they doe also the other a Oecumen in Heb. 13. seruice praiers of the Church to put a difference betwixt the Iewish carnal and the christian spirituall sacrifices as also betwixt the sacrifice of Christ vpon his crosse and the sacrifice of the church
b clem Apost consti li. 6. ca. 23. Euseb de vita constant lib. 4. cap. 45. Concil Constanti 6. ca. 32. calling the one blouddy as being properly a sacrifice the other vnblouddy as being so but vnproperly and onely in a mystery as the place of Clemens whosoeuer he was doth plainely shew affirming it to bée celebrated by signes of the body and bloud of Christ not by the body it selfe and that of c Oecumen in Heb. 5. Oecumenius out of Photius that Christ first offered an vnblouddy sacrifice and then afterward hee offered his owne body also manifestly declaring that the vnblouddy sucrifice was not indéede the offering of y◠body of Christ yet to offer the blouddy sacrifice of Christes death in an vnblouddy sacrifice of his body to apply vnto vs the vertue of his bloudy sacrifice is a mishapen monster lately begotten in the time of Antichristian desolation and such as the ancient fathers neuer dreamed of And wisely did he deale to tel me that he could shew much and yet to shew nothing at all Now he telleth me againe here that which for enlarging his answere he hath so often idlely and vainely repeated that they are not of opinion that Christ suffereth or is slaine in their sacrifice which he saieth is an imagination fit for my merry gentleman the Athenian But surely it will fall to Doctor Allen to be that merry gentleman For he in great sadnesse telleth vs concerning Christ in their sacrifice That hee is d Allen. de Eucharist sacrif cap 1◠Verè mactatur verely slaine and offered in sacrifice and I hope the Answ wil take Doct. Allen for a Catholicke though he say that neuer any Catholicke did so write But let that passe as an vnsauery dreame of a drousie Cardinall the Answ will not say so Yet he may as well proue by the sayings of the Fathers ◠that Christ dieth and is crucified again in this mysterie as that he is verily sacrificed séeing that as I shewed him they no lesse plainly affirme the one then they do the other But the letter is not to be forced in the one What reason then so much to force it in the other Nay because they teach vs that the passion death of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer and the passion of Christ is here to be vnderstood not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie as S. Austen speaketh it foloweth that the sacrifice which we offer as touching y◠present act must be vnderstood a sacrifice not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie But here the Answ would saine lift me vp before I am downe telling me first that mine argument is against art because the forme is negatiue in the third figure But the man without doubt hath forgotten his Logicke For what proposition of all these is negatiue I maruell Mary this forsooth The passion of Christ is here to be vnderstood not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie and so the conclusion But if I should say to him that Campian and his fellows were executed not for religion but for treason would he not take it that I spake verie affirmatiuely that they were executed only for treason And why then could he not cōceiue that when I said The passion of Christ is to be vnderstood as touching the Sacrament not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie I affirmed this that the passion of Christ is to be vnderstood only in a signifying mysterie and the conclusion answerable thereto His Logicke rule of the negatiue particle Post copulam would haue taught him to vnderstand both the propositions affirmatiuely as I set them downe and then the forme shal not be negatiue in the third figure But this being made good the Maior or first proposition he saith is false if I meane it as I must that the passion of Christ is the whole sacrifice For there is as he saith beside the memory of the passion of Christ a reall offering also of the body of Christ The Maior is the saying of Cyprian as I alleaged e Cypri lib. 2. Epist 3. The passion of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer Yea but he saith not that it is the whole sacrifice saith the Answerer He saith not so indéed but yet his words import no lesse to any mans vnderstanding that is not froward But if that be not hence assured yet was it otherwise manifestly inough proued by the words of Prosper though the Answ would not see it because it should haue preuented him of his answere f Prosper in Psal 12◠What propitiation is there saith Prosper but sacrifice and what sacrifice but the killing or death of that lambe which hath taken away the sinnes of the world Now if there be no sacrifice of propitiation but only the death of the lamb◠that is the passiō of Christ as Prosper teacheth then the passion of Christ is the whole sacrifice that we offer Let him adde hereunto the words of S. Austen who telleth vs thus g August con aduer leg proph l. 1. c. 18 For the singular and only true sacrifice the blood of Christ was shed for vs. The bloodshedding of Christ then is the only true sacrifice therefore there is no other true sacrifice of Christ himselfe The bloodshedding of Christ is only represented in the Sacrament by a signifying mysterie and not performed in the truth of the thing Therefore the whole sacrifice that we offer is a representation only of a sacrifice by a signifying mysterie not any reall sacrificing in the truth of the thing Let Iustinus Martyr further iustifie this matter who auoucheth plainly h Iushin Martyr dial cum Tryph. That praiers thanksgiuing are the only sacrifices that Christians haue receiued to make that by their drie and moist nourishment that is the Sacrament or elements of bread and wine they may be admonished of those things which God the sonne of God hath suffered for them The Sacrament then of drie and moyst nourishment that is the Lordes supper contemeth no other sacrifices but praiers and thanksgiuings neither haue Christians receiued to vse therein any other sacrifice as Iustinus Martyr expresly defineth Then it followeth that Christians haue not receiued that which Papists teach to make any reall offering of the body of Christ but only an Eucharistical offering of the passiō of Christ in calling to minde by the vse of this holy Sacrament what God the sonne of God hath suffered for them Basil also witnesseth the same writing vpon these words of the prophesie of Esay i Basil in Esay cap. 1. What haue I to do with the multitude of your offerings c. God saith he reiecting multitude of offerings requireth of vs one namely that euery man reconcile and offer himselfe to God yeelding himselfe by reasonable seruice a liuing sacrifice offering to God the sacrifice of praise For the
conteined in the Roomish sacrifice wherby they haue made a mockery of the sonne of God and troden vnder their féete as a vile and base thing the sacred blood of Christ whereby we were redéemed But séeing that the applying of Christs death consisteth not in sacrificing with what reason do these men teach a sacrifice to apply the death of Christ vnto vs Why could they not as well without any new sacrifice make the priestes Memento and his intention a meanes to apply Christes death vnto vs as giue him power to sacrifice Christ againe and to apply that sacrifice to whom he will and by that to apply the other sacrifice of his death And what if the priest neuer so much as thinke vpon Christs death in his Masse but mumble it vp without consideration thereof how shall we thinke that he doth apply the death of Christ Last of all why may they not with as good reason say that Christ must be borne againe to apply vnto vs the benefit of his birth that he must suffer die and rise againe to apply vnto vs the vertue of his passion death and resurrection as that he must be sacrificed againe to apply vnto vs the benefit of his former sacrifice The former are absurd the Answ will say but by no reason which shall not also proue the absurditie of the latter The truth of applying as the verie word sheweth consisteth in offering and giuing of Christ vnto vs and our receiuing of him This is set foorth in the Sacrament by words of application Take ye eate ye and againe Drinke ye all of this where the bodie of Christ crucified and his blood shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes are by the outward elements as by seales and pledges proposed vnto vs and we willed to accept and receiue the same Which we do by true and liuely faith through the working of the holy Ghost and so are made partakers of the benefits of his death and passion to iustification and euerlasting life And this is the only meanes of application which the scripture teacheth briefly set downe by Saint Paul Rom. 3. c Rom. 3. 25. Him hath God set foorth to be an attonement not by continual offring him in sacrifice but by faith in his blood by faith I say apprehending and laying hold on him both in the hearing of the word and receiuing of the Sacraments Herein is our receiuing of Christ as S. Iohn sheweth expounding d Ioh 1. 12. receiuing by beleeuing so many as receiued him that is so many as beleeued in his name Now the papists ouerthwarting the ordinance of Iesus Christ make litle or no regard of Take ye eate ye being the two meanes of application appointed by Christ and practised by the primitiue Church but tell vs of a continuall sacrificing of Christ which doth by the intention of the priest for the very worke wrought obteine grace and apply vnto vs forgiuenesse of sinnes But in this point beside their manifest departing from the ordinance of God they again commit high treason against God in that they aduance so many other their abhominable and hatefull deuises to ride in the same chariot with the sacrifice of the body and blood of Iesus Christ For all the filth and rifraffe of the church of Rome whereby they wickedly teach men to séeke forgiuenesse of sinnes is shadowed and coloured with this conceit of applying vnto vs the death of Christ The sufferings of Saintes and Martyrs are e Rhe. Annot. Col. 1. 24. satisfactions for our sinnes they say But how Marry forsooth they take this vertue and force from Christs death and as a particular medicine apply vnto vs the generall medicine of his passion Their crossings their f Rhe. Annot. Mat. 10. 12. 1. Tim. â—5 Summe of religion taken out of Bristow and the order of confession Bishops blessings their holy water their Popes indulgences pardons their shauen crowns their munkish orders their whippings their shrifts their pilgrimages and offerings to idols their mumbling on their beades their Agnus Deis their kissing the pax and the remnant of this absurd rabble are very helpfull to the forgiuenesse of sinnes because as the Masse doth so do all these apply vnto vs the death of Christ Thus they haue multiplied their deuises as the starres and filled the world with their eâ—chauntments and sorceries of other sacrifices merits and satisfactions of their owne to giue effect and working to the sacrifice merit and satisfaction of Iesus Christ And these bastard and misbegotten trumperies because they are of themselues so apparantly iniurious to the crosse of Christ that the diuel thought they would neuer go for sale-able ware wheÌ„ they should be examined and tried except some deceitfull colour were set vpon them he hath therefore somewhat graced and countenanced with these termes of applying the death of Christ to mollifie and extenuate so much as might be the horrible blasphemy that is conteined therein And yet the blinde and ignorant people were not acquainted with this shift but persuaded themselues to find merit and forgiuenesse of sinnes in the méere exercise of these spirituall fornications and whoredomes whereto they were bewitched of their blinde leaders They might with as good reason haue tolde them that to runne a mans head against a wall to weare a straight paire of shooes vpon his féete to lie naked vpoÌ„ thorns to eat wormewood and gall to wash his hands before meate are meanes merits of the forgiuenesse of sins They will say these things are fond Alasse blind men that cannot sée the like folly and madnesse in those things which they themselues approue But thus they haue iustled the blood of Christ out of place and fulfilled that which S. Peter prophecied of them g 2. Pet. 2. 1. There shall be false teachers which priuily shall bring in damnable heresies euen denying the Lord that hath bought them c. And through couetousnesse with feined wordes shall they make marchandise of you c. Of such feined and whorish counterfeit words the h Rhe. Annot. 2. cor 2. 11. 1. Tim. 4. â— câ—ll 1. 24. paâ—sim writings of Papists are very full not sauouring at all of the holy scriptures but arising méerely of their owne deuise to cloake and couer the monstrous and filthie abhominations of the Roomish harlot P. Spence Sect. 11. VVHere we say as you coÌ„fesse that the testimony of one Gelasius or what other Doctor may not preiudicate the whole faith of them all generally we say so indeed yea we goe further and will yeeld you that Reijcimus singulos probamus omnes all of them togither or the greatest part of them consenting are the a The church of God is built vpoÌ„ the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2. that is vpon the old and new Testament But here both old and new Testament are iustled out of their place and the Doctors are made the mouth eyes and spirite
nature of bread wine The words are plaine that in the Sacrament there remaineth the substance of bread and wine What should a man go about to cast a mist before the Sunne or by shifting and paltering to obscure that which is as cléere as the shining light Why do not the Answ and his fellowes say that Gelasius aboue a thousand yeares ago was a Caluinist and erreâ— in that point But he addeth further And surely in the exercise of the Sacraments there is celebrated an image resemblance of the bodie and blood of Christ Whereupon he inferreth thus against Eutyches It is therefore euidently inough shewed vnto vs that we must thinke the same in our Lord Iesus Christ which we professe celebrate and receiue in his image And what do we professe in his image that is in the Sacrament Forsooth saith the Papist we must professe that the substance of bread and wine is abolished and only certaine properties and shewes of bread and wine remaine Why then so must we thinke also of Christ himselfe that the substance of his manhood is extinguished and that there remain only certaine accidents and shewes thereof in which he liued here as a man was crucified as a man but was not man indéed which is the very thing that Eutyches desired But Gelasius telleth vs far otherwise that as these namely the bread and wine by the working of the holie Ghost do passe ouer into a diuine substance yet continue in the proprietie of their own nature so they shew that that principall mysterie the force and vertue whereof these do 〈◊〉 represent vnto vs doth continue one Christ whole and true those natures properly remaining whereof he doth consist Let the Answ marke well that we must think the same iâ— Christ as we do in the Sacrament his image If consecration then take away the substance of bread and wine as Papists teach then personall vniting of the manhood vnto God taketh away the substance of the manhood as Eutyches affirmed He knoweth I say he knoweth that the comparison vsed by Gelasius enforceth so much if it be applied to the disproofe of Eutyches his heresie rightly truly reported Now as Gelasius draweth his comparison from the Sacrament to Christ so doth S. Austen as Gratian alleageth him from Christ to yâ— Sacrament a De consecra dist 2. cap. Hoc est This is it which we say saith he which by all meanes we labor to approue that the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two things the visible forme of the elements and the inuisible flesh and blood of our Lorde Iesus Christ of the Sacrament and the matter of the Sacrament thâ—â— is the bodie of Christ euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man for that Christ is truly God and truly mâ—â— For euery thing conteineth the nature and truth of those thinges whereof it is made By which words it is most plaine and euâ—dent that as the person of Christ consisteth of the Godhead and manhood veriâ—â— and â—â—â—ly so the Sacrament consisting of the visible element and the â—odiâ— of Christ of an earthly thing a heauenly thing as b Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. Ireneus speaketh conteineth the nature and truth of them both and therefore the nature truth of bread and wine And if the truth then the substance as Gelasius reasoneth concerning Christ c Gelas con Eurych If he be truly man then there is in him the true substance of the nature of man because otherwise he cannot be truly man but abiding substantially trâ—e in the proprietie of his nature So if there be the truth of the outward elements in the Sacrament then there is in them their true substance For otherwise there cannot be the truth of them but as they abide substantially true in the proprietie of their nature This collection togither with the places of Austen and Ireneus I set downe before sufficiently prouing the falshood of Transubstantiation But the Answ thought good to passe it ouer without any mention because he could not finde any answere at all to it which serueth not for the maintenance of Eutyches his heresie as do all those shifts and collusions whereby he goeth about to darken the euidence and clearenesse of Gelasius his words Let vs sée now what good stuffe there is conteined in them In his first and fourth circumstances he bewraieth either his ignorance or else his partialitie and falshood For taking in hand by way of circumstance to set downe the heresie of Eutyches where he should haue done it wholly faithfully he doth it but in part and deceitfully that it may not séem to make so directly against his breadlesse bread For he restraineth it only to yâ— time after Christs ascension as if Eutyches had thought that the humanitie of Christ was not consumed till after the time that he was ascended Whereas Gelasius in the very next words to the place before alleaged giueth plainly to vnderstand that Eutyches meant the abolishing of the substance of the manhood euen while Christ was on the earth though he reteined the shew and aprearance of man yea and continued passible also by reason whereof he sayd his Godhead suffered and was crucified which suffering was the very substantiall propertie of the humane nature For Eutyches held not the annihilating of the properties of the manhood as the Answ imagineth but the conâ—ounding of them with the properties of the Godhead so yâ— the Godhead by those properties did suffered those things which belonged to the manhood And this appeareth plainly in the definition of the Chalcedon Councell where it is thus sayd d Concil chalced Act. 5. in definit They fondly imagine that there is but one nature of the Godhead and the flesh and so by a monstrous confusion of Christ they signifie that the diuine nature or Godhead is passible and subiect to suffering So that Eutyches held the same of Christ on the earth as the Papists do of the bread in the Sacrament that there was the shewe and appearance of man and the properties of the manhood remaining but the substance was consumed euen as these do hold that there is in the Sacrament a shew of bread and the properties of bread remaining but the substance of the bread is vanished How then shuld Gelasius go about to refute the heresie of Eutyches by the Sacrament if his opinion as touching the Sacrament had bene the same that the Papists now is Againe whereas he saith that Eutyches held that the bread was vtterly annihilated nothing remaining therin of the substantiall properties or natures thereof he deserueth the iust reproach of a false vnshame fast person For what a peruerse and wilfull man is he to deuise such a matter of his owne braines for proofe or likelihood wherof there is not so much as any shew to be found in any auncient writer Eutyches forsooth held that panietas viâ—eitas the breaddinesse of
and not to bethinke any thing els For these things must not be iudged of as they seeme but all mysteries are to be considered with the inward eies that is to say spiritually The forging of this lesson maketh the Answ to play the Athenian mad man so that wheresoeuer he heareth of the body of Christ in the sacrament hée dreameth of his reall and carnall presence wheresoeuer he readeth of eating the flesh and drinking the bloud of Christ hée imagineth his carnall and Capernaitish feeding But let him vnderstand Chrisostome by Chrysostomes own rule and he shall finde nothing in him to stand him in any stéed for these grosse conceites P. Spence Sect. 15. YOur place of S. Cyprian Our Lord gaue at his supper bread and wine c. De vnctio Chrismat Besides many other places of S. Cyprian proouing the reall presence marke this place vnmaymed and tell me what you thinke of it and how you a I like it very well for hee saith plainly that Christ at his last supper gaue to his disciples with his own hands bread and wine like it But yet you make me maruell what you make in this Sermon prowling for a testimonie where the Sermon it selfe is wholly against you haue you in your church the vse b VVe neither haue it nor care to haue it because christ hath not taught of Chrisme so much in this sermon commended haue you retained c Dâ—gma tuum â—â—rdet cum te tua cuâ—pa remordet any shadowe of the publique and generall reconciliation of sinners spoken of him in this Sermon done by the Church with musick and common Iubilations and reioycings of the whole multitude in their reconciliation as heere S. Cyprian if you wil admit him for the authour of these Sermons wonderfull gallantly setteth out And withall doe ye like of this thing M. Abbot that he saith that it was done in that time by publique order of the Church when Christ as he vttereth it brought out the prisoners from hell Or as he saith a little before when as descending to hell he turned the olde captiuitie and led it captiue Or doe you like of this point that he left this example to his Church by tradition yet continuing that there should be in the Church absolution of sinners Thinke you Christ descended into hell I doubt you doe not except in that most pitifull damnable sorte to speake no worse of it which d It is horror to the Papist which is the speciall comfort of a true christian maÌ„ with horrour I must remember that hee should suffer hell tormentes himselfe vppon the Crosse What meant you then to put vs in minde of this booke so much condemning your practises and so notoriously testifying the auncient custom of hallowing of the oyle vpon this time of Christes passion to serue for all the yeare after And yet the fathers forsooth are yours against vs. I oppose nothing but wish to be quiet els you might heare whether they speake for vs. Thus then to the place he had shewed before that the Sacramentes one of the which hee maketh vnction by expresse word doe worke our ioyning to Christ for that coniunctions sake he inferreth Our Lord then at the table where he eate his last supper with his Apostles gaue with his owne handes bread and wine but vpon the crosse he yeelded his body to be wounded by the handes of the soulâ—iours But why or how to giue theÌ„ bare bread no But â—hat sincere trueth and true sinceritie being more secretly imprinted in the Apostles should declare vnto the nations What that the Sacramentes were bare e Not so but that being in tâ—en own nature but onely commoÌ„ creatures â—read wine yet by grace and by the worde of God they are to our faith not onely in name but in power the flesh bloud of christ the pledges of the grace of God the assuraÌ„ces of our immortalitie the seales of our redemption and as it were vessels wherin God setteth before vs all his promises of blessings that we may receiue and enioy the same bread and wine a deep high point forsooth in such secret figuratiue sort to be shewed No M. Abbot they should shew the nations How wine and bread are the flesh and bloud and in what sort the causes agree to the effects and diuers names or kindes are reduced or brought to one essence Do you heare essence they be brought to one essence or one substance helpe that sore if you can with all your cunning and the signes and the things signified are reckoned by the same names And he hath told you why they should be called by one name because as he said before with the same breath they were brought to one essence In the next period he termeth the Sacrament f Not because of the substaÌ„ce of iâ— but because of the mysterie and signification the tree of life Read what our side doth tell you vpon this and infinite such places in their bookes which my simplenesse is not worthy to beare or touch and yet you oppose me wil mine answers as though the credite of the cause hanged wholly vppon my small skill and learning or as though I must not beleeue the Catholique religion except I were a doctor in the same R. Abbot 15. THe Answerer being wéeried as it séemeth with the euidence of the testimonies cited against him and therefore desirous to take breath a while maketh an idle vagary in answering this place of a câ—prian de vnct chriâ—matis Cyprian and vrgeth me with other matters conteined and commended in that sermon which hée saith are not vsed or receiued in our Church as Chrisme absolution the descending of Christ into hell But I maruell whether he were well aduised or not when he wrote these thinges or whether hee vnderstood what Cyprian said To answere to them in order First hée demaundeth Haue you in your Church the vse of Chrisme so much in this sermon commended He bringeth no reason whereby to prooue anie necessitie of Chrisme and therefore it may be sufficient to answere him with the like demaund Haue you in your Church of Roome the custome of washing eche others feete vppon maundy thursday so much commended in this sermon and which you are here told that Christ b Hâ—â— soleâ—â—i d 〈…〉 tione omni tempore aâ—endum instituit instituted to be alwaies done with solemne deuotion in the vse wherof Saint c Ambros de sacram lib. 3. cap. 1. Ambrose also thought that his church of Millaine did more rightly then the old church of Roome in not vsing it He wil say the they haue lawfully refused this We say that we haue as lawfully refused the other These were arbitrary and indifferent ceremonies taken vp by the will of men and by the will of men and by the libertie of men to be refused againe d Staâ—ulen in Dâ—oni Aâ—cop Eccle. Hieraâ— Stapulensis vppon Dyonisius noteth many
first which hee tooke to make the Sacrament but in being made the Sacrament it was no longer wine as if Cyprian had said thus Christ tooke wine and made it no wine and though it were now no wine yet he called wine his bloud Cyprians wordes are euident that Christ called wine his bloud and that by wine is represented his bloud which cannot be till it be made a sacrament Therefore in the Sacrament there is wine which representeth and is called the bloud of Christ Such testimonies he saith are the scrappes and parings and crummes of the fathers But let him remember that a crumme is enough to choke a man and so doth this testimonie choke him so that hee staggereth and stammereth out an answere whereof he himself can make no reason if he were enquired of it by word of mouth His other idle talke is answered b Sect. 2. before Pet. Spence Sect. 17. SAint Augustine ad Adimantum maketh so flatly against you that I wonder why you alleage it Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body Why should he doubt to say it was so when he knew it was so when he gaue the signe of his bodie But what signe a bare signe no sir but such a signe as contained in it the thing signified really how prooue you it Euen thus Hee writeth against the Manichees that condemned all the olde testament as being the euill Gods testament such was their vile blasphemie among other places they condemned this place of Leuiticus 17. Sanguis pecoris erit eius aâ—ima This place saith S. Augustine is spoken figuratiuely not that it is the very soule or life of the beast but that in it lieth the soule or life of the beast neither is the bloud a bare signification of the beasts soule but such a signe as containeth in it the very soule of the beast and therefore of the same speech he hath Quaestio 57. in Leuiticum made particular discourse where he hath these wordes We are to seeke out such speeches as by that which containeth do signifie that which is conteined â—â— because the life is holden in the body by the bloud for if the bloud be shed the life or soule departeth therefore by the bloud is most fâ—â—ly signified the soule and the bloud taketh the name thereof euen as the place wherein the Church assembled is called the Church You a I see the Answerer play with his owne fancie altogether stranâ—e from S. Austenâ— meaning as shall be shewed see he maketh in this place the bloud of the beast a signe of the beasts soule but such a signe as contained the soule in it Now in the other place ad Adimantum by you obiected S. Augustine forgat not this point of this place touched but in excusing that place of Leuiticus and interpreting it he exemplifieth it by the wordes of Christ which they admitted all the sorte of them as being the wordes of the good God of the new testament as they termed him saying I may interpret that precept to be set downe by way of signe For our Lord doubted not to say c. So that this place is brought by S. Augustine to shewe that in the B. Sacrament there is a signe containing the thing and therefore called by the name of the thing so in that of Leuiticus Moses called the bloud the soule of the beast because it is such a signe as containeth the soule of the beast really in it This exposition is irrefragable because it is b VVhich S. Austen himselfe neuer dreamed of S. August own exposition who could best expound his own meaning And against the Manichees he could not bring any other meaning possibly of This is my body but that For they confessed Christ to be really in the Sacrament in his bodie because the euill God had tied him or as they foolishly vttered it certaine peeces of him aswel in the Sacramentall bread as in other bread eares of corne stickes hearbes meates and all other creatures and that the elect Manichees by eating those things and after belching them out againe and otherwise auoiding them did let out at libertie the good God Christes body And therefore after these expositions agreeable to their heresie this place did fitly as S. Augustine bringeth it in expound that of Leuiticus As Christ in saying This is my body must meane as you Manichees expound it This is a signe of my body in which signe the partes of my body are bound euen so the bloud of the beast is the life is as much as the bloud of the beast is a signe of his life in which signe his life is contained Thus did S. Augustine excellently quoad homines answere the Manichees with their owne opinion And therefore to conclude S Augustine in calling it signum doth inferre most necessarie that his body is present because it is a signe in which the body is conteined R. Abbot 17. TO shew further that our Sauiour Christ said of verie bread This is my body and therefore that the Sacrament is not really and substantially but onely in signe and mysterie the body of Christ I alleaged the words of S. Austen Our a August cont Adimantum cap. 12. Lord doubted not to say This a is my body when he gaue the signe of his body The wordes are plaine that Christ in a certaine vnderstanding and meaning called that by the name of his body which is indéede but a signe of his bodie Now with this place of Austen the Answ dealeth as b Leu. deca 1. lib. 1. Cacus the théefe dealt with Hercules his Oxen when he drew them backward by the tailes into his caue So doth this man violently pull and draw the wordes of Austen backward into his den of reall presence and streineth them whether they wil or not to serue his turne in that behalfe But the lowing of the Oxen to their fellowes descried the theft of Cacus and the wordes following in S. Austen himselfe doe prooue that the Answ doth but play the théefe M. Harding was content to say that S. Austen in heate of disputation spake that which might be greatest aduantage against the hereticke not most agréeable to the trueth or to his owne meaning but little did he thinke that the place should serue to prooue any thing for his part But the Answ hath learned a tricke to make the wordes speake for reall presence which neuer was in S. Austens minde Forsooth hauing in hand against the Manichees to expound the wordes of Moses law The bloud is the soule or life he telleth them that the meaning thereof is that the bloud is a signe of life in which signe the soule or life is really conteined and to shew this we are tolde that he bringeth the words of Christ This is my body which he spake of the signe of his body but yet such a signe as doth really conteine the body and therefore we must thinke that the bodie of Christ
is really present and conteined in the Sacrament or signe of his bodie Now this though it be a manifest vntrueth yet the Answ thought would carrie some shewe of trueth but yet because he would not haue vs abused by this shew to thinke that S. Austen did héere indéede auouch any reall presence or transubstantiation he telleth vs plainly in the end that S. Austen spakâ— according to the Manichees exposition of Christes words and answered them by their opinion not by his owne So that if S. Austen doe say any thing of reall presence he noteth the Manichees opinion but affirmeth it not himselfe and therefore giueth vs to vnderstand that the Papistes héerein take part with the Manichees rather then with him His answere in trueth is false and absurd and yet I would not that the reader should think it was deuised by him for he hath learned it of c Bellar. tom 2. de sacram Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 24. Bellermine their great Rabbine and from him hath patched two answeres into one But the matter standeth thus The Manichees condemned the olde testament as false and contrarie to the newe testament For in the new testament it is said d Math 10. 28. Feare not them which kill the body but are not able to hurt the soule c. Now in the old sayd they it is written the bloud is the soule and that is false for the bloud may be hurt and spilt as we know but the soule cannot be hurt as wee read in the gospel Againe the new testament saith that flesh e 1. cor 15. 50. and bloud cannot enter into the kingdome of God It is false therefore which the old testament saith that the bloud is the soule for then the soule shoulde not enter into the kingdome of God Therefore they blasphe mousâ—y auouched that the old testament was false and not to be beléeued To this cauillation of theirs S. Austen answereth that these wordes of the olde testament The bloud is the soule or life were spoken of the life of beastes not of the soule of man Of beastes it is said that the life of all flesh is the bloud thereof not that mans soule is his bloud And therefore they reasoned absurdly from that which was spoken of beastes to that that was said of the soule of man Further he answereth thus I may also interpret that commandement of not eating bloud because the bloud is the soule or life to be set downe by way of signe For our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the signe of his bodie signifying héereby that as Christ said in the new testament This is my body when as he gaue not his body indéed but only a signe of his body so Moses said in yâ— old testament The bloud is the life or soule not because it is so indéed but onely because it was appointed for the signe of life which is most euident against Transubstantiation and real presence Nay not so saith the Answ for the bloud is such a signe as doth really conteine the life and so the signe of Christes bodie must really conteine the body that the one signe may be answerable to the other But let me aske him doth the bloud really contein the life when the thing is dead or did either Moses or Austen intend to make the bloud a signe of life as the same bloud is in the body and the thing aliue and whole Was the Answ well in his wittes to send abroad such vntowardly imaginations or rather was not Bellermine a wretched and lewd man to go about with such fictions to dazle the eyes of his readers The precept is concerning those thinges that are taken and killed for meate that the bloud thereof should not be kept and vsed for meate because the bloud is the life saith God that is saith S. Austen it doth betoken life although the thing be now dead so that whether hâ—te or colde whether aliue or dead it was not lawfull for the Iewes to eat any bloud at all But if that spéech had béene vsed as in respect that the bloud doth now really conteine the life they might haue sayd when the thing was dead that now thâ—y might â—ate the bloud for now the bloud is not the life because the life is gone is not really conteined in it God would haue the bloud as touching the eating of it to betoken life and by this ceremoniall commandement of abstinence from bloud hee would giue to vnderstand howe he hateth and detesteth sauagenesse and cruâ—â—ty how hee would haue life to be regarded and fauoured as of other his creatures according to their kind whereof Salomon speaketh thus f Prou. 12. 10. The righteous man regardeth the life of his beast so especially of man whom he created according to his owne image concerning whome hee speaketh in the first giuing of this commandement as it were to shew the meaning and intent therof I g Gen. 9. 5. 6. will require your bloud wherein your liues are Who so sheddeth mans bloud by man shall his bloud be shed for in the image of God created he him Nowe in that other place which the Answ citeth out of the questions vpon Leuiticus S. Austen giueth reason why the life was signified by the bloud rather then by any thing els namely because h Aug. quaest sup Leuit. q. 57 the life is conteined or holden in the body by the bloud so that the bloud being shed the life departeth therefore the life was most fitly signified by the bloud and the bloud did take the name of life Which wordes do not signifie that bloud was a signe of life onely as now really conteined in it as the Answ fondly imagineth but that bloud euen of the things killed and dead was appointed to betoken and signifie life because the life of those things that are aliue is holden in yâ— body especially by thâ— bloud Neither is he helped any whit by that which he alleageth We must seeke for speeches signifying by that which containeth that which is contained as because the life or soule is holden in the body by the bloud therfore the bloud may take the name of life as the place wherin the Church assemble themselues is called also the Church For we know that the place of the assembling of yâ— Church is called the Church though there be nowe no body conteined in it onely because it is appointed to that vse and so the bloud was called the life and appointed to be a signe of the life or soule though the life were now dead and gone because in things that liue the bloud is a most speciall instrument of life whereby it is conteined and holden in the body But to put the matter out of doubt and to shew the Answ his folly S. Austen in yâ— end of the Chapter whence I alleaged the words in question saith thus So i Aug. cont Adimant ca. 12 is the bloud the
life as the rocke was Christ as the Apostle saith They dranke of the spirituall rocke which followed them and the rocke was Christ It is not said The rocke was Christ because the rocke did really conteine Christ No more then was it said The bloud is the life because it did really conteine the life but because it was ordained to be a signe of life though it selfe were altogether dead and cold And this doth S. Austen againe expresly note in another place saying It k August cont aduersa leg proph lib. 2. cap. 6. is said The bloud of al flesh is the life or soule thereof in like maner as it is said The rocke was Christ not because it was so indeed but because Christ was signified heereby The lawe would by the bloud signifie the life or soule a thing inuisible by a thing visible c. because the bloud is visibly as the soule is inuisibly the chiefest and most principall of all things whereof wee consist Héere is then a matter of signification onely not of any reall conteining vnlesse the Answ will be so fond as to say that the rocke did really conteine Christ But now of this maner of speaking The bloud is the life or soule when it is indéede but a signe thereof S. Austen giueth a like example in the words of our Sauiour Christ who saith he doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the signe of his body directly to this meaning that as Christ said This is my body when he gaue it into his Disciples handes not his bodie indéede but onely the signe and sacrament of his body and as the Apostle saith the rock was Christ when it was not Christ indéede but onely a signe of Christ so Moses said The bloud is the life not because it selfe was the life indéede but was onely appointed to be a signe of life And if the sacrament were indéed really the body of Christ what occasion should there be why Christ should doubt to say this is my body But either S. Austen speaketh vainly or els his words import that there might be occasion of doubting to say so And why but because it was not so indéede Yet saith he because it was the mysterie and signe of his body though not his body in substance and indéed therfore hee doubted not according to the maner of the scriptures in like case to say This is my body and so did Moses speake of the bloud Thus most manifestly and plainly I haue shewed that the Answ irrefragable exposition is nothing else but vnhonest and vnconscionable shifting P. Spence Sect. 18. BVt Tertullian killeth the Cow for he saith a figure of the body What if I prooue to you that you be as fowly deceaued or would deceiue in Tertullian as in the last place of S. Augustine This hath Tertullian in lib. 4. contra Marcionem The bread which hee tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his body Lo Tertullian saith Christ made the bread his body so say we and not you how made it he his body by speaking ouer it the wordes of consecration in saying this is my body that is a figure of my body Did Christ say to them This is the figure of my body But if he had yet by speaking those wordes hee had made it his body after Tertullians minde But the very trueth and all the point of the case heerein is in this that Tertullians words may haue two expositions one which you like of This is my body Two expositions of Tertullian that is the figure of my body the other which is our sense and the verie intended meaning of Tertullian is this This is my body This that is to say the figure of my body is my bodie To prooue this vnto you remember it is out of his fourth booke against Marcion which Marcion held the ill God of the old testament to be a deadly enimie to the good God of the new testament Marcion wrote a book called Antithesis or Antilogiae of contradictions and repugnances betweene the two testamentes Against that booke spendeth Tertullian the greatest part of his fourth booke shewing howe Christ the God of the new testament fulfilled and consecrated the old figures of the old testament as a friend and not as an enemie thereof and to that end thus he saith conferring places togither Christ in the daie time taught in the temple of Hierusalem he had foretold by O see In my temple they sâ—ught me and there I will dispute with them Againe he went apart into the mount Elaeon that is to the mount of Oliues Because Zacharie wrote and his feete shall stand in the mount Elaeon Againe they came togither early in the morning agreeable to Esay who saith Hee hath giuen me an eare to heare betimes in the morning If this be saith Tertullian to dissolue the prophesies what is to fulfill them Againe hee chose the passouer for his passion For Moses said before It shall be the passouer of the Lord. Yea saith Tertullian He shewed his affection or desire I haue earnestly desired to eat this passeouer with you c. O destroier of the law which desired also to keepe the passeouer Againe he might haue been betraied of a stranger sauing that the Psalme had before prophesied He which eateth bread with me will lifâ— vp his foote against me Yet further he might haue been betraied without reward saue that that should haue been for another Christ not for him which fulfilled the prophesies For it was written They haue sold the iust Yea the verie price that he was sold for Hieremie foretold They tooke the thirtie siluer peeces the price of him that was valued and gaue them for a potters field Thus farre in this one place among infinite other in the whole booke Tertullian sheweth Christ the God of the new testament to haue fulfilled the figures of the olde as being the one onely God of both Testaments And then by and by he inferreth as another example these wordes Therefore professing that he did greatlie desire to eate the passeouer as his owne for it was vnfit that God should desire anie thing of anothers whereby hee sheweth Christ to be the onely God of both testaments He made the bread which he tooke and distributed to his Disciples his bodie in saying This is my bodie that is the figure of my bodie What figure I beseech you meant he not the figure vsed a He did not meane any figure vsed by Melchisedech neither doth any way allude to it by Melchisedech of bread and wine meant he not a figure of the old Testament taken vsed and fulfilled by Christ in the newe is not that his drift Must Tertullian become an asse to serue your turne and forget his owne drift and purpose here and contrary what he hath so plainly spoken of the Sacrament in other his books This is b It is not foolish vaunting and bragging that must waigh this
doe For they drank of the spirituall rocke which followed them the rock was Christ Christ therefore was their spirituall meate and drinke as well as ours and Iesus c Heb 13. 8. Christ yesterday and to day is the same and for euer The same therefore to them as he is to vs onely in difference of time To come in respect of them and already come in respect of vs. This the apostle further sheweth when he saith that they d 1. Cor. 10. 2. were baptised Which must be vnderstood either of the outward signe or of the inward grace of Baptisme But not of the outward signe therefore of the inward grace Therefore their Sacramentes offered the same inward grace that ours doe This S. Austen also plainly testifieth when he saith that e Aug. in Ioh. tr 26. their Sacramentes though in outward signes diuerse yet in the things signified and as hee speaketh straightwaies after in spirituall vertue were equall vnto ours and againe that f Ibid. tr 45. if a man respect the visible signe they did drinke an other thing but as touching signification and vnderstanding they dranke the same spirituall drinke that we doe which in both those places he prooueth by the same wordes of S. Paule which I haue alleaged and that by way of expounding the same wordes Which is to the shame of the diuines of Rhemes who so peruersly and contrarie to the verie light of the text labour to draw them to another meaning Now therfore whereas the Answ saith that this derogateth from the effect of Christes passion that our sacraments haue thence greater vertue then the Iewes sacramentes had it is but a presumptuous a foolish and vnprobable assertion without any likelihoode of trueth that may be gathered by the word of God We beléeue the vertue of Christes passion to haue béen no lesse to their saluation then it is to ours because we beléeue that Iesus Christ g Apoc. 13. 8. is the lambe slaine from the beginning of the world not onely in type and figure but in power grace also The h August lib. de natu gra cap. 44. same faith saued them saith S. Austen that saueth vs euen the faith of Iesus Christ the mediatour betwixt God and man the faith of his bloud the faith of his crosse the faith of his death and resurrection We beléeue therefore that their sacramentes hauing all relation to Christes passion as ours haue did yéeld no lesse benefite to them in Iesus Christ then ours doe to vs. Héere he referreth me againe to his learned treatises wherewith hee is so besotted himselfe that hee taketh euerie word in them to be an oracle albeit they be indéed as full of follies triflings and impudent falshoodes as his owne pamphlet is I am well enough acquainted with them alreadie But to call Sacramentes seales I learne of S. Paule Rom. 4. The name notably setteth forth the vse of them Seales serue for assurance of promises or couenantes to them to whom they are made Such are sacraments to assure our faith of the promises of God The deliuerie of seales giueth interest and right of the things sealed to them to whom they are deliuered The sacramentes of Iesus Christ doe giue as it were into our handes and possession through faith the whole prerogatiue of the benefite of Christes death and passion which is preached vnto vs in the word of the Gospell Therefore doth i Bernardus Ser. in caena domi Bernard fitly compare our sacraments to a ring by which a man is inuested and entered to the possession of his inheritance and whereof he may say The ring auaileth nothing but it is the inheritance that I sought for And euen so may we say that it is not the sacrament for it selfe but the things sealed and deliuered by the sacrament that we desire P. Spence Sect. 21. 22. THe place of S. Iohn The word was made flesh What prooueth it touching the Sacrament what kinde of argument is this In this saying The word was made flesh the sense is the worde assumpted flesh vnto it not changing his former nature and it is not to be taken as the wordes doe sound Ergo this text This is my body is not to be taken as the words import A verie a Cum insana dicis rides phrenetico c◠similis August cont Iulia. Pelag. lib 4. vpstantiall argument But do you remember that syllogizari non est ex particulari It is like as if I should argue thus I am a vine is a figuratiue speech Ergo I am the light of the world is also a figuratiue speech But I pray you Sir is this saying The word was made flesh like to This is my body doth bread still remaining assumpt vnto it into one person or into one suppositum Christes body Luther said so be you now of that minde This is to speake you wote not nor care not what so you say somewhat S. Augustine as Bede citeth him saith Christ hath commended vnto vs in this sacrament his body and bloud Saith he so me thinketh hee saith verie well for vs as we could wish him We thanke you for such texts heartily But he saith further which also he hath made vs and by his grace we are the same that we receiue What inferre you hereof and forsooth say you wee are not transubstantiated into the Sacrament A most wittie pithie and subtile peece of Logicke nihil supra logicke was good cheape when this stoode for good logicke A long discourse it would aske to answere you fullie and a verie goodly meditation is herein offered to our soules We are become one with Christ not by being transubstantiated into him but by being ioyned by the Sacrament vnto him as members to our head as many peeces of wood make one doore ship house or such like not one turned into an other but ioyned togither that they make one thing and so we become by this Sacrament his mysticall bodie as his members ioyned togither into one Remember for this point how diuinely Hilarius and Cyrillus haue written and leaue your prophane dealing in so waightie a cause especially so besides all reason and common sense R. Abbot 21. 22. IN these two sections the Answ plaieth Hickescorners part and by the way prooueth himselfe a mightie wise man I sée that to be true in him which a worthie man said a Iren lib. 1. cap. 9. Audax impudens res est anima quae inani aere calescit A rude and an impudent thing is the mind of that man that is tickled with vaine presumption and fansie Though he shew himselfe héere both an ignorant Blind-asinus and a peruerse wilfull wrangler yet he taketh vpon him as if no man had either Logicke or wit but onely he and solaceth himselfe with his termes of vpstantiall argument and good cheape logicke and most wittie pithie and subtill peece of Logicke By his naming of Luther in this
by the word of God the promise of that grace and blessing that is yéelded vnto vs by and in the bodie and blood of Iesus Christ Or else let him shew what commission he and his fellowes haue to tell vs that the word Made must import transubstantiation in the place of Tertullian and in S. Austen must import none If they haue no such then let them giue vs leaue to say that as we are made the bodie of Christ not by chaunging our substance but by being vnited and ioyned vnto him so the bread of the sacrament is made the bodie of Christ not by the chaunging of the nature of it as Theodoret saith but g Theodor. diâ—l 1. by adding grace vnto nature not by changing the substance but by altering the condition and vse thereof not by loosing his former being but by hauing the bodie of Christ vnited vnto it in such sort as I haue before declared through the almightie power of the word of God and the vnspeakable working of the holy Ghost So that as S. Ambrose saith h Ambrâ—â— sacra lib. 4 cap. 4. The bread and wine are the same that they were yet are chaunged to other also They are the same in substance that they were before but as touching the vse the vertue power and effect thereof they are chaunged into other As for the meditation that is offered vnto vs by the words of S. Austen it is too diuine heauenly for the Answerers grosse and fleshly conceit who can imagine no other receiuing of Christ but by the mouth nor eating of his flesh but into the belly We become the mysticall bodie of Christ by Baptisme as S. Paul teacheth Eph. 5. 26. There we become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone There also as S. Austen noteth i August ser ad infan â—â—da 1. Cor. 10. We are made partakers of the bodie and blood of Christ so that though one die before he come to the Sacrament of the bread and the cup yet is he not depriued of the participation and benefit of that Sacrament seeing hee hath founde that alreadie which this Sacrament signifieth Into this holie communion and fellowship with Christ we grow more and more through faith in the exercise of the word and of the other sacrament he abiding in vs and we in him he ministring vnto vs and we receiuing of him through the holy Ghost the suck and iuice of his heauenly grace euen as branches from the Vine wherby as his members we are quickened to euerlasting life Hereof Cyril and Hilary haue written indéed very diuinely but they must haue readers that are as diuinely and spiritually minded not such as the Answ is who turneth all to his owne carnall and Capernaitish imagination He should gather from these that such as is our vniting and ioyning vnto Christ such is our eating of his flesh and drinking his blood Our vniting vnto Christ is mysticall and spirituall not carnall and bodily Therfore such also must our eating and drinking be As for that grosse and bodily eating Cyrill maketh a straunge absurd matter of it when k Cyril aduer Theodoret. anathe â—â— he saith to Theodoret Doest thou pronounce our Sacrament to be the eating of a man and prophanely vrge the mindes of them that beleeue to grosse imaginations and assaie to handle by humane conceits those things which are to be receiued by only pure and sincere faith By which wordes he plainly sheweth that the opinion of the Papists of the eating and drinking with the mouth the verie humane flesh and blood of Christ is a grosse and prophane imagination and therfore litle helpe may the Answ hope for to his purpose by any thing that Cyrill saith P. Spence Sect. 23. BVt S. Augustine saith Ye shall not eate this bodie which ye see and drinke that blood which they shall shead which shall crucifie me that is a S. Austen speakâ—â—h simplâ— of eating and dâ—inking â—ith the mouth and denieth the same of câ—tting in gobbets he saith nothing not to cut it in gobbets as the Capharnits imagined and as flesh to be bought in the shambles nor in this visible shape as it were Anthropophagi You must M. Abbot not snatch peeces of S. Augustine to make vp a patched testimony to serue your owne turne For so you may make your Doctor say what you will haue him But you must consider the circumstances of the place and thereafter iudge of the meaning as heere he talketh of the Capharnites butcherly Anthropophagicall imagination and therefore he telleth how we must eate Christs bodie I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament being spiritually vnderstood it shall giue you life c. As who should say b As who should say ye sâ—all not eate him in peeces but ye shall eâ—te him â—hole A miâ—â—rable anâ—were you shall not eate him cut in peeces but entire in a Sacrament in a most diuine sacramentall maner and in a spirituall high mysterie but yet most verily For you imagine c Spiritually importeth that it is a thing done by the spirit not by the bodie and therefore that we eate Christ by the faith of the heart not by the chewing of the teeth spiritually to be applied to the substance wheras it is to be referred to the maner We receiue his verie flesh not fleshly but spiritually We eate his verie bodie but not corporally or after a bodily maner as we eate common meates R. Abbot 23. FOr disproofe of that carnall eating and drinking and consequentlie of Transsubstantiation I alleaged Saint Austens exposition of Christes wordes in the sixth Chapter of saint Iohn concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood Saint Austen writing in Psal 98. falleth into treatie of the offence that many tooke at Christes words and sheweth the reason therof that they a August in Psal 98. tooke them foolishly they vnderstood them carnally and thought that he would cut them peeces of his flesh But if they had not bene hard hearted they would haue thought It is not without some cause that he saith this Surely there is some secret mysterie in it His disciples he instructed saith he and said vnto them It is the spirit that quickeneth c which he expoundeth thus Vnderstand spiritually that which I haue said Ye shall not eate this bodie which ye see nor drinke that blood which they shall shead which shall crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament Being spiritually vnderstoode it shall giue you life This place doth plainly denie that eating and drinking of the very flesh and bloud of Christ which the Capernaits dreamed of and telleth vs that we do not eat Christes verie flesh nor drinke his very bloud namely with the mouth and body but that for our eating and drinking wee haue a sacrament commended vnto vs which being though visibly celebrated yet spiritually vnderstood doth make vs partakers of the flesh and bloud of Christ to euerlasting life
What answere maketh the man to this Forsooth saint Austen meaneth that wée cut not Christes flesh in gobbets nor as it is to be bought in the shambles nor we eate him not in a visible shape c. So then belike saint Austen meant that we eate not Christes body péecemeale but we swallow him whole and so the difference betwixt the Capernaites and vs must be only this that they would eate him in péeces and we eate him whole And this onely difference doth the Answ afterwardes make betwixt 1. Sect. â— 9 the Capernites and them that they eate him in a sacrament whole inuiolable like the paschal lambe without breaking or brusing him whereas the Capernaites imagined that they should eat him in péeces as flesh in the shambles Which mad fancie of eating Christ whole Bellarmine goeth about to approoue by another fancie as mad as it For b Belâ—arm tom 2. conâ— 3. lib. 3. cap. 22. being vrged that it is a horrible vnnaturall thing and therefore not standing with pietie to eate the verie flesh of man he answereth that the horrour heereof is onely in respect of the hurting and mangling of it For otherwise a man would willingly eate or as he more mildly termeth it would receiue into him his friend whom hee tenderly and dearely loueth if he might take him in whole and without hurting him Vndoubtedly Bellarmine is a kind man to his friend that can find in his heart to eate him if he might eate him whole and without doing him any harme But to leaue him in his madnesse we sée héere how faine the Answ would shift himselfe from being a brother to the Capernaites and it will not be The Gospell simply noteth the errour of the Capernaites to haue consisted in this that they thought they should with their very mouthes eate and drinke the very flesh and bloud of Christ The same is the grosse conceite of the Papistes and the Gospell condemneth both alike The fond distinction of the maner maketh no difference in that behalfe As for saint Austen he declareth his meaning plainly in his sermon to the people Hée knoweth none of these maners and péeuish differences but speaking of eating and drinking with the mouth he giueth them to vnderstand that it is but the sacrament which they eate and drinke not the flesh and bloud it selfe Ye shall not eate the body ye shall not drinke the bloud I haue commended to you a Sacrament In another place intreating of the verie same matter hee noteth that Christ signified to his hearers that hee would goe vp into heauen whole that they might vnderstand that he spake not of that eating his very body c Aug. in Ioh. tra 27. They thought that hee would giue them his very body but he told them that he would go vp into heauen euen whole Thus that we may not thinke that either péecemeale or whole wée eate the very body he giueth vs to vnderstand that he is ascended to heauen entire whole To which purpose Athanasius also saith How d Athan serm in illud Chri. Qui dixerit verbum contra filium should it be that all the world should eate of his flesh which would suffice but a few men But therefore our Lord when he spake vnto his Apostles of the eating of his flesh made mention of his ascention vnto heauen that hee might withdraw them from corporall and fleshly vnderstanding And so the Answerer eating of Christ whole is indéed but a fiction and absurd shift Yet let him remember what saint Austen saith againe in another place concerning the eating of Christ in the sacrament Thus he saith When e Aug. ser de ver Euan. Beda 1. cor 10 we eat Christ we make not peeces of him Yet surely in the Sacrament we doe so and the faithfull know how they eate the flesh of Christ Euerie one taketh his peece When the grace is called peeces Christ is eaten peecemeale and yet continueth whole Hee is eaten peece-meale in the Sacrament and abideth entire and whole in heauen Where he heareth saint Austen directly contrary to his assertion saying that the flesh of Christ in the sacrament is eaten péecemeale signifying that it is not indéed the reall and very flesh of Christ and yéelding vs for proofe thereof this argument That flesh of Christ which is eaten with the mouth in the sacrament is eaten péecemeale The true and reall flesh of Christ is not eaten péecemeale Therefore that flesh of Christ which is eaten with the mouth in the sacrament is not the true and reall flesh of Christ and consequently it is so onely sacramentally and in a mysterie A sound answere to this argument without shifting would do very well Whereas he saith againe that they eate Christ in the sacrament without breaking him let him hearken what Chrysostome saith This f Chrysost in 1. cor 10. hom 24. breaking we may see in the Eucharist but not vppon the crosse nay rather the contrarie there for not a bone of him shall be broken saith God But that which he suffered not vpon the crosse hee suffereth in the Sacrifice and permitteth himselfe to be broken for thee Beholde how Chrysostome saith that Christ who was not broken vpoÌ„ the crosse is broken in the sacrament and suffereth that nowe which hee did not suffer then to be done whereof we may gather thus that séeing the sacrament is broken and the true and reall bodie of Christ cannot be broken therefore the sacrament is not the true and reall body of Christ but mystâ—cally sacramentally and so in the breaking of the sacrament the body is mystically and sacramentally broken Whereas saint Austen saith that we must spiritually vnderstand that which Christ saith of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud the Answ telleth me that spiritually must be referred to the maner of the flesh because we eate it not like fleshe or cut in péeces or as we eate common meates But if wee follow this construction of hâ—s it cannot be auoyded but that the wicked and vngodly also do spiritually eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud If spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ consist in this that we eat him â—ot 〈◊〉 flesh hewed or chopt in péeces the wicked by thâ— doctrine of the Church of Roome doe eate him so as well as the godly because they are in that respect alike partakers of the sacrament But S. Austen teacheth expresly out of the g Ioh. 6. 5â— wordes of Christ that h August in Ioh. tract 26. they onely which abide in Christ and Christ in them do spiritually eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud Therefore the Answ exposition as it is a lewd and a cursed glose so it is expresly contrarie to the doctrine of saint Austen Such answeres become him very well But what is meant by vnderstanding spiritually I shewed by the words of Origen which he deceitfully passeth by and leaueth
As for that which he asketh whether Christ doe not giue himselfe verily vnto vs wee say he doth and that wholly with all that is his yet not to be eaten with the mouth as being héere on earth but to be receiued by faith sitting in heauen as I said before out of S. Austen And this is enough for vs to prooue and in proouing wherof we confound that c Supr sect 22. grosse imagination as Cyrill calleth it of eating the fleshe of Christ with the mouth into the belly For that Christ at his supper giueth onely a figure and nothing else we néede not prooue it because it is not our assertion but the Answ cauill and a Popish slaunder As for the meaning of Christes wordes This is my body it is shewed before Christ did not lie to his Disciples nor beguile theÌ„ in so saying His Disciples were no Capernaites they were no Papistes They knew that Christ instituted deliuered a sacrament They knew that sacrameÌ„ts are called by the names of those things which they signifie whereof they had example in the name of the passeouer which they celebrated at the same time calling it the Passeouer which was indéede but a remembronce and signe thereof Therefore they vnderstood the meaning of Christ to be as the ancient Fathers expound it This is a Figure a signe a Sacrament of my bodie They saw the true bodie of Christ before theyr eyes They knewe that Christ had not a bodie at one and the same instant visible and inuisible with forme and without forme sitting at the table and yet inclosed in a little fragment or crust of bread These leaud and vntowardly fancies were not yet bredde They deliuered no such vnto vs and therefore we beléeue no such Let me thus conclude out of these two places this of Austen and that before of Origen He that vnderstandeth a figuratiue spéech according to the letter doth misunderstand it But he that vnderstandeth the eating and drinking of Christs flesh blood concerning the very eating of his flesh and drinking his blood with the mouth vnderstandeth a figuratiue spéech according to the letter Therefore he that so vnderstandeth the eating and drinking of Christs flesh and blood doth misunderstand it But the church of Rome doth so vnderstand it Therefore the Church of Rome doth vnderstand it amisse P. Spence Sect. 25. TO conclude we eate drinke in the blessed Sacrament Christs flesh and blood really truly and indeed but not bodily for so much I will graunt you taking bodily for after a grosse bodily maner but sacramentally figuratiuely and in a diuine mysterie in a figure not a figure of Rhetoricke or of Grammer but in a diuine figure but yet verie truly R. Abbot 25. HEre is now the Answ conclusion set downe without any premisses vpon his bare word namely that in the Sacrament they verily and truly eate and drinke the flesh and blood of Christ But against this presumed conclusion of his I oppose the auncient praier of the Church mentioned by a De corp san do Bertram b De sacr Euch. Lanfrancus and c De conse dist 2. ca. â—pecies Gratian Let thy Sacraments ô Lord worke in vs that which they containe that what we now celebrate in signe or resemblance we may in the truth of the things receiue the same They praied to receiue the truth of the things Of what things Namely of those the signe or resemblance whereof they celebrated in the Sacrament that is of the bodie and blood of Christ Then the Sacrament it selfe is not the truth of the bodie and blood but only the signe the image and resemblance therof For with what reason should they pray to receiue the truth of that which verily and truly they did receiue alreadie But their praier was that whereas they did now receiue but the image and signe of the bodie and blood of Christ they might in the kingdome of heauen enioy the thing it selfe the very bodie and very blood of Christ And hereof d Bertr de corp san dom Bertram in his booke very soundly concludeth that the bodie of Christ is not verily really in the Sacrament whose whole collection to that purpose being very strong the e Index Expuâ—â—n coâ—r Bertr Spanish censurers in their Index aboue named haue treacherously appointed to be left vnprinted as before I shewed of another place Lanfrancus to auoyd the euidence of this auncient praier so plainly contradicting the reall presence betaketh himselfe to an absurd shift whose words to that purpose being Gratian hath taken and put into the decrées in the chapter last before cited That Truth he saith is to be vnderstood of the manifestation and open reuealing of the bodie of Christ and affirmeth that the name of truth is diuerse times vsed in scripture to that meaning but yet alleageth not any one place to prooue it so Further he addeth that the word species doth sometime import the very Truth it selfe and so in that maier he will haue it vnderstood Then the meaning of the praier must be thus that they might receiue in truth that which they did now receiue in truth or that they might receiue in truth that is visibly and manifestly that which they now receiued in truth but inuisibly and vnder another shape But the Church as it is alwaies conuenient vsed their praier plainly and without these sophistications If they had meant so they had words inough to expresse their meaning neither néeded they to vse such doubtfull words to séeme to say one thing and yet to meane another They plainly oppose species and veritas the signe and the truth one against the other They would not put veritas in an vnproper signification as opposit to species and vnderstand it in proper signification included in the word species This were a very straunge and vnwonted kinde of speaking And therfore referring the signe or resemblance to the time present and the truth to the time to come they plainly shewe that there is not now in the Sacrament the very truth but only the resemblance of the bodie of Christ and therfore that we do not in the sacrament really and verily with our mouthes eate the bodie of Christ And this is most plainely affirmed by Hierome as Gratian citeth him in the decrées f â—e conse di 2 cap. de hac Surely saith he Of this sacrifice which is wonderfully made in remembrance of Christ a man may eate but of that which Christ offered vpon the altar of the crosse as touching it selfe no man may eate The hoste or sacrifice which Christ offered vppon the Crosse was his verie body and bloud The sacrament thereof he saith we doe receiue and eate but as touching it selfe no man may eat thereof Therefore no man may eate the very body and drinke the very bloud of Christ but these spéeches must be figuratiuely vnderstood as hath béen noted out of Austen And whereas the Answ saith for
declaration of S. Austens meaning that we eate the flesh of Christ in a figure not in a figure of Rhetoricke or Grammer but in a diuine figure he may haue that iustly returned to him which S. Austen said of a forefather of his g Aug. cont aduer leg proph lib. 2. cap. 9. Imperita peritia de figurarum qualitate tractat He would seeme skilfull but talketh verie vnskilfully of the qualitie of Figures For if he were required a meaning of this his diuine figure no doubt it would prooue to be a verie disfigured and mishapen thing He had a fancie in his head wherein hee thought he had gone beyond al his fellowes he was glad y◠he had gotten occasion héere to vtter it But the Figure of which S. Austen speaketh is figurata locutio a figuratiue speech a Rhetoricke figure called a metaphore which is not to be vnderstood h August de doctr Christ lib. 3. cap. 5. 16. proprie or ad literam properly of according to the letter and as the wordes do barely signifie as before hath béene said because by the said figure the word is translated from his own proper signification to expresse another thing which in some respect is fitly and conueniently resembled thereby As for example because by beléeuing we do as it were lay hold vpon Christ apply him vnto our selues make him ours assure our selues of his body crucified and his bloud shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes to the reliefe comfort of our distressed and afflicted soules euen as in eating we take meate and receiue it into our stomacks and incorporate it into our selues to the cherishing and strengthning of our weake and féeble bodies therefore the word of eating which properly belongeth to the body is vsed to expresse the effect of beléeuing in Christ which appertaineth onely to the soule And thus doth S. Austen meane that there is a figure in these wordes of eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ as appeareth both in the place aboue mentioned as touching this figure and by his exposition of the same words vpon the sixth of Iohn P. Spence Sect. 26. GOdly men haue noted vpon these wordes Tradetur effundetur shal be giuen shal be shed that Christ vsed them by an Energie to signifie that the blessed Sacrament that he gaue to his Apostles was not his phantasticall or imaginatiue bodie but that verie bodie of his that was to be crucified tormented and slaine on the crosse I confesse those wordes not strong enough to compell a repining aduersarie but yet verie well able sweetly to allure a A seely foole that without tryall will beleeue whatsoeuer the church of Roome doth lewdly perswade him an obedient childe of the Catholique Church to beleeue her in this point hauing so many other infinite reasons ioyned thereunto But remember I oppose not neither will I neither may I by the laws but only much against my will I am drawne by you to answere your obiections according to my small talent Otherwise you should heare whether the fathers be ours or not or what wee might say to this effect R. Abbot 26. OF the words of Christ This is my bodie which shal be giuen This is my bloud which shal be shed The Answerer confesseth that that additiē which shal be giuen which shal be shed is not an argument strong enough against a repining aduersarie but yet able to allure an obedient childe of the Church It is vsed in corners indéede to seduce and be guile the ignorant but alas simple soules that suffer themselues to be deceiued with those argumentes which their seducers confesse to be no substantiall proofes I hold you one of those simple ones M. Spence who alleaged it to me for a verie good reason If Campion tooke it not to be so then was it great want of discretion in him a Camp Rat. 2 to alleage it as an argument to vniuersitie men who hee might know would soone take notice of his folly in that be halfe And héere I may not omit to note the peruerse dealing of the Answ godly men forsooth in this matter who when they are in hand with Transubstantiation will prooue it by the words of Christ thus that he said this is my bodie which shal be giuen This is my bloud which shal be shedde as the vulgar Latin readeth Lo say they Christ nameth the verie bodie and bloud that was after to be giuen and shed vpon the crosse therfore the sacrament is the verie body of Christ Thus M. Spence and his godly fellowes reason But when they are in hand with sacrifice they wil haue it thus My body which b Hard. Answ art 17. Di. 4. Rhem. Annot. Luc. 22. 19. is giuen my bloud which is shed in the present tense according to the gréeke and wil prooue héereby that Christ did euen at that present offer a sacrifice of his body and bloud that he gaue his body and shed his bloud because he saith not shal be giuen but is giuen nor shal be shed but is shed Thus they tosse the words of Christ as it were a tennise ball from one wall to another and suffer them not to rest in anie certaine meaning but turne them and winde them as their fickle and vnstable fancies giue them occasion The meaning of the wordes is one and certaine that the sacrament is a figure and signe of the body and bloud of Christ giuen and shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes His infinite other reasons and authorities of the Fathers which he baunteth hee could alleage are all of the same stampe as these are They are but wordes of course that he vseth to that purpose seruing to fright his obedient children but the children of God haue good experience that it is but foolish and idle talke P. Spence Sect. 27. I Confesse all that you say next following of the wonderfull speeches and also of the effectes of the blessed sacrament by our coniunction with Christ wrought thereby also of our resurrection iustification and sanctification sauing that you imagine with Caluine which before him no man imagined that wee receiue these effects and graces by a conduct of faith that sucketh a verie reall vertue flowing out of his verie flesh in heauen which to do needeth a Vntrue for God hath appointed both the one and the other to be meanes whereby our faith should more more lay hold vpon Christ and feed vpō him to eternal life no Sacrament at all but only to preach vnto vs and so Caluin saith himselfe that if our faith were quicke enough we might without the sacramentall signes receiue the Sacrament at all times and minutes of the day An imagination very metaphysicall bred in his own braine and hatched vp only by himselfe tending to the contempt and ouerthrow of the Sacrament But we say that we receiue all the said graces and effects most diuine by our spirituall receiuing of him in faith
a De consâ—â— dist 2. cap. species receiue the truth of the flesh blood of Christ Some saith Gratian not without probabilitie expound the truth of the flesh blood of Christ in this place to be the effect thereof that is the forgiuenesse of sins Whereby it is euident that those some did vnderstand the receiuing of the truth of Christs flesh and blood to be not that corporal eating and drinking which the church of Rome mainteineth but the participation of the effects of his passion that is forgiuenesse of sinnes according to that which was before declared out of S. Austen Now to note that in receiuing the effect and fruite of the flesh and blood of Christ we are said to be partakers of the same flesh and blood I alleaged this exposition in my former Treatise which doth plainly testifie the same But the Ans as a melancholy man imagining himselfe to be made of glasse and fearing euerie wall least he should be crackt in péeces thinketh his reall presence to be here disputed against and telleth me that I do fowly abuse Gratian in making him an aduersary of Transubstantiation reall presence and moreouer that those words do not serue for exposition of the words of Christ What Gratian thought I stand not vpon it may be he was as absurd in his conceits as the Answe is I speake of them whose expositioÌ„ he alleageth who as touching their church praier tell vs that a man in receiuing the effects of Christs flesh and blood is said to receiue the truth of his flesh and blood and this is all for which I alleaged it Albeit it séemeth to me indéed now a strong proofe against reall presence For if they had thought that they had receiued the very truth of the flesh and blood of Christ according to the substance in the sacrament they would haue vsed other words to eâ—presse the effects thereof and not pray againe to receiue the truth that is the effects But it skilleth not whether it be a proofe to this purpose or not There be belleâ— inough to ring against Transubstantiation and reall presence though the clapper of this should be pulled out It is fit inough to shew that for which I brought it and therefore all this answere of his is but a fond cauill P. Spence Sect. 29. YOu charge our doctrine with Caphemitish eating drinking of Christs bodie and of those monstrous blasphemous horrible conceits which some of our captaines haue fallen into As for those conceites I cannot conceiue what they might be on gods name and therefore will conceiue no answere to them till I vnderstand your conceits but referre thâ—se conceits to your owne conceit But you a Vntruth for the Capernaits thought they should eat with their mouthes the flesh of Christ and so do the Papists roaue wide from the marke in calling vs Capharnites for wee are farre inough from thinking to eate Christes bodie peece-meale as flesh in the shaâ—bles We eat him in a Sacrament whole inuiolable like the paschal Lambe without breaking a bone of him yeâ— not hurting of him nor brusing of him nor tearing of him with our teeth as the â—apâ—erâ—its dreamed of Remember what S. Thomas Aquinas a Papist in the office of the Sacrament saith and all the church singeth A sumente non concisus non confractus nec diuisus integer accipitur Which sequences Luther was very farre in loue withall a late Papist of Oxonfâ—rd sing not long sâ—thence in a most sweete tune of that same matter Sumeris sumptus rursuâ—â— sine fine resumi Neâ— tamen absumi diminuiuâ— potes Beware beare not false witnesse against your neighbours R. Abbot 29. I Charge them with the grosse errour of the Capernaits in their doctrine of eating Christs bodie and blood But he answereth me that I roaue wide from the marke in calling them Capernaits And why I pray Marry sir the Capernaits thought they should eate Christes bodie by péeces but they say they eate him whole Surely but that the iudgement of God is great vpon them it were wonder that such vnhaâ—soâ— imaginations should prenaile with reasonable men I haue spoken hereof a Sect. 23. before As for his sequences verses they may haue their coÌ„uenient vnderstanding without that absurd coÌ„struction of eating drinking which he maketh I told him of monstrous blasphemous horrible conceits that some captaines of his part haue râ—nne into by defence of that eating He answereth me very pleasantly that he vnderstandeth not those conceits but referreth those conceites to mine owne conceit But M. Spence you could haue tolde him what they were because you had bene before vrged therewith but could not stumble out any answere to them Let me tell him what they are I referre him first to the glose of the Canon law where he shall finde this conceit that b De conse dist 2. cap. Qui benè It is no great inconuenience to say that a Mouse receiueth the bodie of Christ seeing that most wicked men do also receiue it The maister of the sentences knoweth not what to conceiue hereof c Lib. 4. dist 13 What doth the mouse take or what doth he eate God knoweth saith he As for him he cannot tell Yet he holdeth that d Ibid. It may be foundly said that the bodie of Christ is not eaten of bruite beasts But he is noted for that in the margine Here the Maister is not holden and the e In erroribus condemn Paris Parisians set it downe for one of his errours not commonly receiued that he saith that the bruit croature doth not receiue the very body of Christ Let him looke the conceit of f Pat. 4. qu. 45. Alexander de Hales If a dog or a swine should swallow the whole consecrated host I see no reason why the bodie of Christ should not withall passe into the belly of the dog or swine He commendeth Thomas Aquinas by the name of a Papist and his catholicke church hath set him in his place next the Canonicall scriptures Let him looke the conceits of this Papist g Thom. Aqui. sum par 3. qu. 79. art 3. in res ad 3. Albeit saith he A mouse or a dog do eate the consecrated host yet the substance of the bodie of Christ ceaseth not to be vnder the forme of the breaâ— so long as the same form doth remain c. Aâ— also if it shuld be cast into the mire And again some haue said that straitwaies assoone as the SacrameÌ„t is touched of the mouse or dog there ceaseth to be the bodie of Christ but this saith he derogateth from the truth of the Sacrament And againe h Ibi. in corp arti The bodie of Christ doth so long contiâ—â—e vnder the sacrament all formes receiued by sinfull men as the substance of bread would remaine if it were there which ceaseth not to be by and by but remaineth vntill it be digested by naturall heate These are those
horrible and blasphemous â—onceits which the Answ could not conâ—eiue out of my former words These are yâ— fruits of their Transubstantiation and reall presence that the verie bodie of Christ is receiued into the bellies of dâ—gs and swine and mice that it may be in the dirt in the bellies of vngodly men vntil the forms â—e consumed and digested beside other filthy matters i Antonin summ p. 3. tit 13. cap. 6. q. 3. de defectib Missae of vomiting vp the bodie of Christ and eating it again being vomited and drawing it out of the entrals of the mouse or other beast that hath eaten it c. which are most leathsome to any Christian eares to heare of 〈◊〉 yet very venturously disputed of and resolued vpon by Antoninâ—s no meaner a man then Archbishop of Florence and as I thinke Saincted by the Pope for his great paines Neuer any Capernaite more grosse neuer Manichée more blasphemous then these villainous imaginations which these caiâ—ifes haue published to the world and their reall presence standing they cannot resolue how to shift of these things but stagger as Harding did with it may be this and it may be that and it may be they know not what Therefore let the Ansvv now thinke with himselfe with what reason he bid me beware of bearing false witnesse against my neighbour Let him remember that théeues and malefactours do vsually call true euidence false witnesse but yet their honestie and truth is no whit the more S. Hierom saith that k Hierony in Esa 66. li. 18. they vvhich are louers of pleasures more then louers of God and are not holy both in bodie and spirite do neither eate the flesh of Christ nor drinke his blood whereof he himself speaketh in the sixth of Iohn He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life Where out of the words of Christ himselfe he secludeth not only bruit beasts but also vngodly and vnholy men from eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ Yet it may so be that not only vnholy prophane men but also bruite beasts may eate of the Romish host or Sacrament Therefore the Romish Sacrament is not the very flesh and blood of Christ as the Romish faction would beare vs in hand that it is P. Spence Sect. 30. THe conformitie of the words of the Euangelists and of S. Paul is so great a matter as that of it selfe it offereth good and great cause of noting it without the warning of any Allen Parsons or any other neuer so learned And your similitude of the sacrifices of the old lawe so agreeably vttered and yet by your leaue but by one Moses alone and not by three sundry Euangelistes and one Apostle as it is in this case fitteth not to this For Moses endewed with the spirite of God could not in any wordes imagine to attribute a A meere fansie Their Sacramentes yeelded the same fruite to them that ours do to vs. See sect 20. such a working force ex opere operato to the legall expiations which wrought ex adiuncto fidei and not of themselues as is to be giuen to the Sacramentes of Christ howsoeuer your side abase them as low as the verie Iewish Sacramentes I am glad that the plain consent of the Euangelistes and Saint Paul doth so little like you in this point R. Abbot 30. THere is vrged for the proofe of Transubstantiation the consent of the Euangelistes and S. Paul saying all alike This is my bodie whereas if they meant not to be vnderstood literally the one would haue expounded the other But the conformitie of these thrée Euangelistes and S. Paul is no stronger an argument as I haue tolde him to prooue Transubstantiation then the continuall calling of the old sacrifices of Moses law by the name of expiations and attonementes was to prooue that they were verily and indéed expiations and attonementes for sinne which yet were but types and figures thereof as the Sacrament is a figure and signe of the bodie and bloud of Christ The exception of the Answ that that was spoken but by one Moses this by thrée Euangelistes and one Apostle is vaine The holie Ghost spake in both places by whomsoeuer and if the Answ argument be good must néedes haue altered that spéech in Moses lawe But that the goodnesse of it is distrusted by his owne fellowes also it followeth after to be shewed That which he addeth in this place of the working force in both sacraments the old and the new is impertinent I spake not of the working force of either but of the like phrase of spéech concerning both But yet whereas he saith that the Sacraments of the new testament haue force by the very work wrought I must tel him that he speaketh without scripture without father a thing absurd in itselfe and contrary also to that which he hath said before If wee obtaine the effects of the Sacrament by receiuing Christ in fayth hope and charity togither with the entrance of his body into ours as he sayd before then the sacrament giueth not that grace by the very worke wrought as he sayth héere If it giue grace by the very worke wrought as he saith héere then it is not to be ascribed to fayth hope and charity as he sayth there The councell of Trent hath tolde vs that a man a Concil TrideÌ„t sess 6. ca. 9 may not assure himselfe that hée hath receiued the grace of God But if the sacraments yéeld graâ—â— by the very worke wrought a man may assure himselfe that he hath receiued grace because he may assure himselfe that he is baptised And what reason is there why infants naturals and franticke persons should be excluded from receiuing the Lords supper if the Sacrament haue his force of the verie worke done But S. Austen plainly refuteth this conceit as touching our sacraments b August in Ioh. tra 80. Whence hath the water such force saith he to touch the bodie and clense the heart but that the word worketh it and that not because it is spoken but because it is beleeued Therefore hee calleth it according to the Apostle c Rom. 10. 8. 9 The word of faith because if thou confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and beleeue in thine heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saued To this purpose he alleageth that God is said d Act. 15. 9. to clense the heart by faith and that of S. Peter that e 1. Pet. 3. 21. baptisme saueth vs not the washing away the filth of the flesh that is not for the very worke wrought but the answere of a good conscience towardes God To this effect Tertullian saith f Tertul de resurrect carnis The soule is sanctified not by the washing of water but by the answere of faith And S. Austen againe g August quae vet noui test q. 59. He cannot attaine the heauenly gift which thinketh