these things hang together for my part I cannot see Would to God your selfe had taken the paines to shew it But this is your solemne fault you quote the sayings of the Fathers and leaue mee to gather your Conclusions I may well thinke because you saw no great force or strength in them And whether Gregory did favor Transubstantiation or no let it be tried by these words As the Divinity of the word of God is one which filleth all the world so although that body bee consecrated in many places at innumerable times yet are there not many bodies of Christ nor many cups but one body of Christ and one bloud with that which he tooke in the wombe of the Virgin and which he gaue to the Apostles For the Divinity of the word filleth that which is every where and conioyneth and maketh that as it is one so it bee ioyned to the body of Christ and his body be in truth one Here according to Gregory the body of Christ doth not succeed and fill vp the roome of bread after the substance thereof is abolished but the fulnesse and vertue of the Divinity which filleth the bread maketh it â—o passe into the body of Christ and so to be one body of Christ. Which how it can stand with your Transubstantiation iudge you N. N. These Hereticks admit not the Eucharists and oblations because they will not confesse that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Iesus Christ which hath suffered for our sins which the Father hath raised vp againe by his goodnesse These words alleaged by Theodoret are reported by him to be the words of St. Ignatius the Apostles scholler written in an Epistle ad Smyrnenses and therefore of greater antiquitie I. D. These words are not found in that Epistle ad Smyrnenses which is now extant Whereby you may perceaue it is true that I said the Epistles of Ignatius are not come perfect to our hands Of this Epistle saith Eusebius Ignatius when he wrote to them of Smyrna vsed words I knowe not whence taken And Hierome If you vse not his testimonies for authoritie at least vse them for antiquity And the Abbot of Spanheâ—m reckons it not among the rest of his Epistles as being doubtfull Yet for all this the credit of this Epistle shall not be questioned by mee I answere therefore the Heretikes which Ignatius meanes were Menander and the Disciples of Simon These denied that Christ was come in the Flesh and consequently that hee had Flesh. Wherevpon they reiected the Eucharist also least thereby they should be constrained to confesse that he had true Flesh. For granting the signe of a body you must also grant a true body Figure and Truth being Correlatiues whose Relation is to figure and to be figured And thus they added aloes vnto wormwood one error vnto another first denying the truth of Christs body and then that the Eucharist was the Sacrament of his body or that it was Sacramentally his body More then this cannot bee meant For I presume Theodoret would not alleage this to crosse himselfe who holdeth that Bread and Wine still remaine and argueth from them for the verity of Christs body because they are symbols of his body as is aboue declared N. N. Doth not the Evangelist Iohn say in the Apocalyps If any man shall adde vnto these things God shall adde vnto him the plagues that are written in this booke and if any man shall minish of these words of the booke of this Prophecie God shall take away his part out of the booke of life and out of the holy City and the things which are written in this booke Is this malediction or curse lesse to be feared here that we diminish not or put any thing to the words of him that said This is my body which shall be delivered for you this is my bloud of the New Testament which shall be shed for many in the remission of sinnes For when he saith This is my body wee shall put to an vnderstanding saying a Figuratiue Body or that it is spoken by a similitude when I say he saith this is my Body we shal say this signifieth my Body is it not much that we put to his words or by an evill change take from them and make a sense which so great an author God man in no place hath spoken nor at any time did ascend into his heart This man especially with many of the rest answereth M. Downe and all Protestants fully I. D. In this Authority I cannot but greatly pitty you to see how miserably you are gulled and beguiled by your Author For what was this Rupertus but a man of yesterday one that liued towards twelue hundred after Christ and a very Heretike in this point of the Sacrament For he maintained that the Eucharisticall Bread is hypostatically assumed by the Word iust after the same manner that the humane nature was assumed by the same Word This he expresseth in words as cleare as the noone day For expounding that of our Saviour The Bread which I will giue is my Flesh he saith That the eternall word by incarnation was made man not destroying or changing but personally assuming the humanitie and after the same manner by consecration of the Eucharist the same word is made Bread not destroying or changing but personally assuming Bread This he declareth elsewhere very largely shewing that Bread is made the Body of Christ not by turning it into his Flesh but because it is assumed by the Word Whence it followeth that Bread is the Body of Christ yet not his Humane or Carnall but Bready Body much differing from that which he tooke of the Virgin That yet these two bodies may be said to be One because the Person is but one or Christ is one who assumed them both so that the same Christ aboue that is in heauen is in the Flesh and beneath that is on the Altar is in Bread This grosse errour Algerus who liued in the same time with Rupertus confuâ—ed calling it as it iustly deserued a new and most absurd heresie What say you now to this good sir Is this the man who especially among the rest fully answereth Mrâ— Downe and all Protestants Doth he not as fully answere you Papists who cleane contrary to his Tenet destroy and change the bread to make it Christs body Yea but we adde vnto the Text vnderstanding it to be a Figuratiue body That is a shamelesse slander for wee place no Figure in the word bodie but litterally interpret it of Christs naturall body At least we say bread signifieth his body So wee say indeed and so say the Fathers also And to giue the true sense vnto a Text is not to adde vnto it Neither can I conceaue why it should be counted addition in vs to say This is my body Sacramentally or by way of signification more then in you to say it is so by way of Transubstantiation or
saith Let him deny himselfe Himselfe What meanes he by that There are two sorts of men for as S. Paul distinguisheth there is a Spirituall and there is a Naturall man The Spirituall man is he who is borne a new of water and the holy Ghost by grace is become a new creature a new man transformed into the image of Christ. The naturall man is he that is as yet vnregenerate hath nothing in him but nature the corruption thereof bearing only the image of the old Adam Must the spirituall man deny himselfe No verily so farre forth as he is spirituall for so doing he should disclaime and disesteeme the very grace of God by which hee is whatsoeuer he is It is the Naturall man then that must be denied Now in the Naturall man there is first Nature and then the corruption of nature By Nature I vnderstand the powers faculties of the soule such as are the Vnderstanding and the light of reason whose office is to discerne truth from falsehood and the Will vnder which also I comprehend Passions and Affections whose dutie is to pursue that which is good and to shun that which is evill The corruption of nature is that which in Scripture is called flesh concupiscence and is commonly known in the Church by the name of Originall sinne because it is traduced vnto vs from our parents and wee are polluted therewith in every part both of soule and body from our very conception and birth Now which of these two must be denied I answer both yet not both alike but the corruption of Nature simply and absolutely and Nature it selfe only in some respect First then Nature it selfe must bee denied What simply and absolutely as the corruption of Nature No by no meanes â—oâ— it is the good creature of God without it neither are we capable of blessednesse nor can bee schollers in the schoole of Christ. Nature is not opposite but subordinate vnto Grace and Grace destroyeth not nor abolisheth but healeth and perfecteth Nature Neither is it without cause that God spoiling man of his supernaturals for sinne only wounded him in his naturals and left vnto him both a light in his Vnderstanding and a liberty in his Will By the light of reason the invisible things of God euen his eternall Power and Godhead are clearely scene there is no nation so barbarous but partly by inbred principles partly by the booke of the creatures knowe him By the same light of reason doe we in part also know the will of God for the law morall is written in our hearts by nature and how many excellent precepts of moralitie doe we finde in the writings of meere naturall men Finally even in the matter of the Gospell reason seeth thus farre that it is not vnpossible if God will and vpon this ground Iustin Martyr Tertullian Arnobius Lactantius Athenagoras Augustin anciently and Aquinas Vives Mornay of late haue attempted to proue by reason the truenesse of Christian religion As for the Will it is yeelded of all hands that in matters morally good it hath free liberty and may of it selfe either chuse it or refuse it at pleasure So that hitherto Nature the power thereof is no way to bee denied or disclaimed Wherein then Surely in things meerely supernaturall For that which is aboue reason cannot be comprehended by reason and that which passeth the reach of nature caÌ„not be attained only by the power of nature The naturall man saith S. Paul perceaueth not the things of God nor can knowe them because they are spiritually discerned In these things reason is starke blinde and seeth nothing Search the writings of the subtilest and sharpest Naturalist and ye shall finde in them of Christ and his Gospell nor palme nor footstep Here therefore reason must bee denied and as a woman may not speake in the Church so must reason also be silent in things supernaturall In things not revealed it must be contented not to know docta ignorantia est it is a learned ignorance In things revealed it must beleeue without and aboue reason reason must bee captived vnto the obedience of faith And as where the naturall Philosopher endeth there the Physitian begins so where naturall reason stoppeth divine Faith must come in place Otherwise if reason will needs be prying into Gods arke and search into those mysteries that are aboue the reach thereof it is the corruption of reason and no marvaile if it become vaine and foolish in her imaginations Yea when men in their curiosity thinke themselues most wise then are they most infatuated And as Ixion in the fable embraceing a cloud insteed of Iuno begat Centaures thereon so they entertaining their owne fancies insteed of divine veritie bring forth nothing but monsters of errors and strange opinions What I say of reason must be vnderstood of the will also in spirituall matters the one wanteth light to see and the other strength to doe It is not in him that willeth nor in him that runneth but in God that sheweth mercy for as we haue already demonstrated neither can we will of our selues without preventing grace nor doe when wee haue willed without pursuing grace So that if a man will be no more then the scholler of Nature he cannot be the scholler of Christ. For as nature is vnable both to know the mysteries which Christ teacheth and to doe the duties which he requireth so doth Christ command vs to renounce our naturall abilities to come as infants vnto the kingdome of heauen But if Nature it selfe must be denied much more the Corruption of Nature For as the Scripture saith Corruption cannot inherit vncorruption and without holinesse it is impossible to see God Now the leprosie of Originall Corruption not only infects the inferiour part of the soule as Papists dreame but spreads it selfe to every part even the superiour also For as for the mind it is not only blind and ignorant but Corrupt also and full of vanity it savoureth not the things of God but they seeme vnto it meere folly As for the will it is not only vnable to performe spirituall duties but full of hardnesse also and perversnesse and vntowardensse vnto any thing that is good Finally the inferiour part is but a shop of all turpitude outragiousnesse full of nothing else but tempestuous tumultuous vnruly and sinfull lusts These all as the Scripture saith must be crucified must be mortified must be killed that is must vtterly be renounced and denied if wee will bee the followers of Christ. And reason For the flesh lusteth and fighteth against the spirit by reason whereof the good wee would doe we cannot doe and the evill wee would not doe wee doe They that walke after the flesh saith St Paul are not in Christ but they that walke after the spirit And they that liue after the flesh shall die neither can any man liue vnlesse by the spirit
els would not Calvin haue cavilled at those words Vnlesse a man be borne againe of Water c. Is not the doctrine of the blessed Sacrament necessary Yet how many expositions of this is my Body So is that of Iustification yet twenty expositions of Scripture about the formall cause thereof So also is the doctrine of the Trinity and of Christs Divinity and humanity yet Ebionits Arians Nestorians Eutychians Valentiâ—ians Monothelites and Apollinarists holding heresies against them proue them all to their thinking out of Scripture Ergò Scripture is not so easy as I make it For where all things are plaine there men commonly agree I. D. The truth is being demanded the rule of Faith I named the Scripture and being farther demanded a rule whereby to know the sense of Scripture I answered two things First that all things necessary to salvation are so expresly and plainly set downe that there needs no farther rule secondly that those places which are more obscure are to be expounded by those that are more plaine and that sense which disagreeth is to bee reiected that which agreeth may safely be admitted Safely I say for although haply it may not be the right yet dangerous it cannot be as long as it accords with the Analogy of Faith This I declared somewhat at large in the writing sent to Mr Bayly which I perceaue hath come to your hands also yet satisfies not Otherwise you would not thus dispute against it But know you against whom you dispute Certainly not against me only but the ancient Fathers who affirme the same that I doe For touching the Perspicuity of Scripture in things necessary thus St Augustine In those things which are openly laid downe in Scripture are to be found all things which containe Faith and manners of liuing to wit Hope and Charity And St Chrysostome All things necessary are open and manifest so that there needed not homilies or Sermons were it not through our owne negligence And Cyril of Alexandria To the end they might be knowne to all both small and great he hath delivered them vnto vs in such familiar speech that they exceed no mans capacity So the rest And this is so true that your Gregory of Valentia confesseth it Such verities saith he concerning our faith as are absolutely and necessarily to be knowne and beleeued of all men are plainly taught in the Scriptures themselues So Sixtus Senensis also and others of your side As touching the interpretation of darker places by the plaine thus Saint Basil those things which seeme to bee ambiguous and obscurely spoken in some places of holy writ are enlightned by those which in other places are open and perspicuous And St Augustine There is nothing almost among these obscurities but in other places one may finde it most plainly delivered And St Chrysostome The Scripture every where when it speaketh any thing obscurely interpreteth it selfe againe in another place And this is the common voice of all the rest So that the answere I gaue you being no other then that wich I had learned of the Fathers you cannot reiect it but you must reiect the Fathers with all But let vs heare your reason The Doctrine say you of Baptisme of the Eucharist of Iustification of Christs two natures are necessary yet some texts vpon which they are grounded be litigious Grant it be so yet some againe are clear and evident That Christians are to be baptized what more plaine then that Goe teach all nations Baptizing them That the Eucharist is to be administred and receiued is clear by the institution of our Saviour and the practise of his Apostles That wee are iustified by Faith without the workes of the law wee haue the evident testimony of Saint Paul That Christ is God the very first words of Saint Iohns Gospell testifie In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and that word was God And lastly that hee is Man also what more expresse then those words of Saint Paul There is one God and one Mediator betweene God men the Man Christ Iesus If other places be not so plain they are to be expounded by these or the like But it may be your Doctrine of Baptisme is the absolute necessity thereof vnto salvation If so then certainely that place of S. Iohn is not cleare enough for it For it is not necessary it should be vnderstood of Christian Baptisme which was not yet instituted or it must be meant of those that are Adulti such as Nicodemus was to whom our Saviour spake In like manner if your doctrine of the Eucharist be Transubstantiation neither is that other place plaine enough for it For it is manifest both by the circumstances of the Text and the testimonie of the Fathers that the Relatiue This hath reference to Bread Now Bread in proper speech cannot bee Body as your owne men confesse Then is it so tropically and consequently no Transubstantiation The same doe I say of the errours about Iustification which should particularly haue beene shewed if you had quoted any particular place As for those Hereticks they were such as the Prophet speaketh of who in seeing saw and yet perceaued not hauing closed their eyes that they might not see And therefore it is a foule fault in you to excuse their obstinacy by charging the Scriptures with obscurity That Rule is sufficient which is able to convince the Conscience and satisfie all those who loue the truth and are ready to acknowledge it when it is made known though it stop not the mouths of refractary stubborne Hereticks This perhaps your living judge by vertue of fire and fagot may bee able to effect but the other if evidence of Scripture cannot nor he nor his Church will ever be able to performe More of this see in the Treatise sent to Mr Baylie N. N. If as I write to M. Baylie you may not relye too much on the authority of the Fathers because of their differences in opinions much lesse may you vpon the authority of our men being worse divided For they differ not in essential points we doe They wrote not so bitterly one against another as we doe Lastly they differed in matters as yet vndefined by a generall Councell and so not dangerous but wee haue no Councells nor any other meanes to decide our causes So that you cannot knowe which of vs giueth the true sense of Scripture I. D. That the Fathers are no way a sufficient ground of Faith I haue so strongly proued vnto M. Baylie that me thinkes none of you is in hast to answere it Among the rest of my reasons this I confesse was one that they varied so much in opinion one from another yea and are now made to vary from themselues through your intolerable abusing of them This I declared at large wherevnto for farther evidence I now adde an example or two S. Ambrose or whosoever is author of
the bookes de Sacramentis was wont to say thus If there bee so great force in the speech of our Lord Iesus that the things which were not began to be how much more operatiue is it that things still be what they were and yet bee changed into another things But now because that clause that things still bee what they were make sore against Transubstantiation in the Roman Edition and that of Paris an 1603. that clause is cleane left out and S. Ambrose must no longer say so S. Chrysostom or the Author of the imperfect worke vpoÌ„ Mathew was wont to haue these words If it be so dangerous to transferre vnto private vses those holy vessels in which the true body of Christ is not but the mystery of his body is contained how much more c. But what is become of them now In the edition printed at Antwerp by Ioannes Steelsius anno 1537. at Paris by Ioannes Roigny 1543. and by Audoenus Parvus 1557. not a syllable of those words in which the true body of Christ is not but the mystery of his body is contained appeares Why Because they make so strongly against your Reall Presence So likewise where he vsed in the elder impressions to say the sacrifice of bread and wine now in these latter editions hee is forced to change his language and to say the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ. More examples I might easily produce but these are sufficient to shew that Vincentius Lirinensis had good reason when hee gaue this Caveat But neither alwaies nor all kind of heresies are to bee impugned after this manner but such only as are new and late when they first arise while by straightnesse of time it selfe they be hindred from falsifying the rules of the ancient Faith and before that their poison spreading farther they attempt to corrupt the writings of the Ancient But farre spread and inveterate heresies are not to be set on this way forasmuch as by long continuance of time a long occasion hath layne open vnto them to steale away the truth But returne we againe to the matter from which we haue a little digrest The Fathers say you differed not in points essentiall True Neither doe we as is aboue shewed yet by your leaue their differences were not alwaies in petty matters vnlesse Rebaptization Communicating of infants the Popes vniversall iurisdiction and the like bee of small consequence with you Their differences were not so bitter as ours No were When they proceeded not only to curse one another but to fire bloudshed and banishment also And when casting off the rule of pietie they did nothing but increase strife threats envy and quaâ—rels every man with all tyranny pursuing his ambition whereby as S. Basil saith the Church of God was vnmercifully drawne in sunder and his flock troubled without all care or pittie Lastly say you they differed in matters vndecided by a generall Councell What then No danger No danger Then belike a man may safely beleeue all he lists before a Councell determine it The very high way to Atheisme For so the very Articles of the Creed during the first three hundred yeares after Christ should be but disputable points and not necessary For vntill Constantine the great there were no generall Councels By the same reason your Adoration of Images was no matter of Faith till the second Councel of Nice about 800 yeares after Christ nor Transubstantiation till the Councell of Lateran some 1200 yeares nor Merit nor Iustification by workes nor the most of your Tenents till the Trent Councell aboue foureteene hundred yeares after Christ. If they were I require you to shew what generall Councell had before determined them If you cannot then are you but novellers and hold not the ancient Faith The truth is Councells cannot make that an Article which was not but whether they decree or not decree whatsoever God affirmeth in his word as soone as it commeth to our knowledge is absolutely and vpon paine of damnation to be beleeued And it is horrible sacriledge and impiety to thinke that it is not necessary to beleeue God vnlesse a Councell of the Pope say Amen vnto it Yea but say you we nor haue nor can haue generall Councels No more can you nor any Church in Christendome without the generall consent of Christian Princes Synods of our owne Churches we may haue and haue had by the indulgence of our Princes More then this you cannot haue For you are but a handful of the Christian world and the greatest part thereof neither is nor will bee subject vnto you When you can get the Greek Church and that in Prester Iohns countrey with the Armenians and others to submit themselues vnto the Popes omnipotent and vbiquitaâ—y power then may you peradventure haue hope to call a generall Councell But that I think will be at the Greek Kalends that is in plaine English at Nevermasse Howsoever say you if you may not relie on the Fathers because of their differences neither may you on vs because of ours If this be a sound reason as I confesse it is neither may you rely on the Church of Rome because of theirs But you mistake the matter much if you thinke wee require men to relie on our bare authoritie That privilege belongs vnto Christ only and vnder him to those holy Pen-men of the Bible that wrote by inspiration To vs appertaineth to proue what we say by their authoritie and when wee haue so done to require assent and not before If Scripture and sound deduction from it according to the art of reasoning together with the proofe of the sense thereof by the circumstances of the place and the analogie of Faith will not moue you we can but pittie your wilfulnesse and leaue you vnto God till he turne your heart and haue mercy vpon you For certainely miserable is the case of that man who knowing the Scriptures to be Gods word and hauing the vse of right reason shall refuse triall both by the one and the other preferring therevnto the authoritie of man which may erre it selfe and lead others into errour N. N. Your conclusion is you meane not to forsake the religion taught in that Church which is descended from Christ and his Apostles by succession but with Litinensis to preferre it before all things That you will follow vniversality Antiquitie and consent in your beleefe that faith which hath beene held from time to time in all places in all seasons by all or the most Doctors of Christianity That Church which as S. Augustine saith had her beginning by the entring of nations got authority by miracles was increased by charity and established by continuance and hath had succession from S. Peters chaire to our time That church which is knowne by the name of Catholike both to friends and foes even Heretikes tearming her so calling themselues for distinctions sake Reformers Illuminates Vnspotted brethren In