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
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
A Mirrour of Popish SVBTILTIES Discouering sundry wretched and miserable euasions and shifts which a secret cauilling Papist in the behalfe of one Paul Spence Priest yet liuing and lately prisoner in the Castle of Worcester hath gathered out of Sanders Bellarmine and others for the auoyding and discrediting of sundrie allegations of scriptures and Fathers against the doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning Sacraments the sacrifice of the Masse Transubstantiation Iustification c. Written by Rob. Abbot Minister of the word of God in the Citie of Worcester The contents see in the next Page after the Preface to the Reader Perused and allowed TC VIRESSIT VVLNERE VERITAS LONDON Printed by Thomas Creede for Thomas Woodcocke dwelling in Paules Church-yard 1594. TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD THE L. Archbishop of Canterbury his Grace Primate and Metrapolitane of all England and to the right reuerend Father in God the L. Bishop of Worcester R. A. wisheth all abundance of grace and peace with euerlasting life REuerend Fathers it may seeme perhaps some presumptiō in me to be thus bold to vse your LL. names for the countenancing of this Pamphlet which neither for the matter of it nor for the occasion may seeme worthy of the notice or sight of so graue and learned Fathers Notwithstanding being drawne to the publication hereof partly by the importunity of aduersaries partly by the desire and expectation of friends I thought it very requisite both in respect of the cause it selfe and in respect of mine owne priuate dutie to offer these my simple labours to the protection of your LL. The matter hereof in the beginning was only priuate betwixt my selfe and a Romish Priest one Paul Spence deteined as then in the Castle of Worcester now I know not vpon what occasion liuing at his libertie abroad But when by speech and report it was drawne to occasion of publicke scandall the aduersary bragging in secret of a victory and others doubting what to thinke thereof because they saw not to the contrary I iudged it necessary after long debating deliberating with my selfe to let all men see how litle reason there was of any such insolent tryumph supposing that it might be turned vppon mee for a matter of iust reproofe and blame if my concealing hereof should cause any disaduantage to the truth or any discredite of that Ministery seruice which vnder your LL. I execute in the place where I am Now I must professe that my thus doing is only for the Citie of Worcester and others thereabout for their satisfaction in this cause wherein I know many of them haue desired to be satisfied Your LL. are both by speciall occasion affectioned to the place I know my paines shal be the better accepted with them if it shall be vouchsafed your LL. gracious and fauourable acceptation Moreouer the fauour which I haue receiued of both your LL of the one in commending mee to the place where I am of the other in yeelding me speciall patronage eountenance therein hath bound me to yeeld vnto you these my first frutes though but as a handful of water yet a testimony of my dutifull and thankfull minde And if it shall finde no other cause to be liked of yet in this I doubt not but it shall be approued that it is a iust defense of truth against the vaine cauillations of error The speciall drift of my writing is to approue concerning the matters that are heere in hand our faithful vpright dealing in alleaging the Fathers against the doctrine of the church of Rome Whose proctors for a time vsed the name of the catholick church as a fray-bug to terrifie al mē from speaking against them But when they were perforce vrged to the scriptures they cryed out that wee expounde the scriptures amisse and otherwise then the auncient Fathers did vnderstand them Being further pressed with the testimonies and authorities of the auncient Fathers they stil notwithstanding exclaime that wee abuse them also and alleage them to other purpose then euer they entended A strange matter that the plaine words both of the scriptures and of the Fathers being so expresly for vs yet their meaning and purpose as these men pretend should be altogither against vs. But whilest they endeuour to iustifie this either open exclamation or priuie whispering it is strange to see how strangely and madly they deale a Eccl. 19. 24. There is saith the wise man a subtiltie that is fine but it is vnrighteous and there is that wresteth the open and manifest lawe Verily there is nothing so euident nothing so manifest but these men haue a speciall facultie to turne it out of the way that it would goe and by a distinction of this maner and that maner to set a meaning vppon it which neuer came into the meaning of him that wrote it In which practise and occupation it falleth out with them which Ireneus sayd of the heretickes of his time b Iren lib. ◠cap. 1◠There is none perfect amongst them but such a one as doth not ably cogge and lye Indeed lyes cannot be defended but by lying and false gloses must serue to maintaine false and erroneous assertions Which is not a litle to be seen in this libell or pamphlet which I haue here to refute the Authour whereof taketh vpon him lyke a cunnyng Alcumist to turne euery thing into what he list as if he supposed vs to be men bewitched and transformed into beastes sticketh not to make such constructions of the scriptures and Fathers sayings as no man that hath but the common reason and vnderstanding of a man can but see to bee leaudly and vnreasonably deuised Wherat I should the lesse maruell if they were only this mans deuise I would impute this folly to him onely But now hee hath taken the most of them out of their learned Treatises forsooth to which he oft referreth me as if they were the Oracle of all truth So that the spirit of this phrensie and madnesse goeth through the heades of them all whereby it commeth to passe that they take delight in those things which they cannot but know to be absurd That their maisters know so much it seemeth to vs apparant for that they forbid their scholers and followers to be acquainted with any of our writings wherein theyr absurdities and falshoods are layd open and wheras we in answearing them propose both theirs and ours indifferently to all men to be iudged of they giue their pupils some libertie to read their bookes but it is damnation for them to touch any of ours Such schollers would be suspicious of such maisters but that they are maruellously blinded with preiudice and selfe will Now as many other by other occasions so I the least of all by occasion offered to me haue taken vpon me for this present matter to shew I will not say how vainly fondly but wickedly and vnshamefastly they deale in peruerting they call it answering
herein as one Ioannes Scotus was a familiar friende of his who wrote a booke concerning the Sacrament to the same effect that Bertram did He was accounted no hereticke in his time but two hundreth yeares after when Berengarius pleaded the authoritie of the same booke it was condemned as hereticall in a Councell holden at Vercellae as a Lanfranc de sacram 〈…〉 char Lanfrancus testifieth who was present and an actour in the same matter So Beâ—tram who was Catholicke while he liued is now after so many hundreth yeares brought in suspiâ—ion to be an hereticke But the Answ owne fellowes the Authors of the b Index Expurgat in ceâ—sura Bertra Index Expurgatorius doe cleare Bertram from this suspition acknowledging him by these words that he was A Catholicke priest a Monke of the Abbie of Corbeie beloued and reuerenced of Carolus Caluus the Emperour and this verie same Bertram do they confesse to be the Authour of that booke which the Answerer would faine make vs beléeue to be a counterfeit They fréely confesse they must tollerate some errours in him as well as they do verie many in the auncient Doctors They say they would not wholy suppresse the booke least we should haue cause to say that they make away such antiquitie as serueth for vs. They confesse that it helpeth the historie of the time wherein Bertram liued The booke it selfe indéed doth shew it selfe so euidently to be of antiquitie that no man of any iudgement or conscience can gainsay it Yet saith the Answ learned men are of opinion that this was not Bertrams booke Who are those learned men Forsooth c Bristow in his reply to D. Fulk cap. 10. de 19. Bristow and Sander and some few other of the same marke whose word is inough to proue anie thing to be counterfeit But their authoritie is ouerwaied by the testimony and confession of those other of their owne company to whom these must giue place for commendation of learning It is no maruell that the Answ and those other his honest companions would haue the booke séeme counterfeit being written almost eight hundreth yeares agone so directly and of purpose against Transubstantiation The reason alleaged out of him carrieth with it that force that the Spanish censures in the Index aforesaid thought it not safe to let it continue but haue discharged it from the presse The Answerer full wisely passeth it ouer with How knoweth he and what necessitie is there without affirming any thing himselfe or so much as looking at the ground of that reason which is alleaged I would haue him peruse it once again As for his spéeches of those bookes of Caluin and Bucer falsly intituled I take them to be of the same sort as that the Thames stood stil when Friar Campian was executed for his treason Though any such thing were it is not for a Papist to speake of it seeing that they themselues in counterfeiting and falsifying of bookes haue passed all the impudency of former times P. Spence Sect. 4. YOur Athenian mad man was indeed a peeuish fellow and mee thinke they are not of the wisest that weene we haue no other defence for the Masse but the word Liturgia Where reade you this for an argument The Greekes call it Liturgia ergo it is the Masse Though Erasmus in the Acts of the Apostles translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they were sacrificing yet of his translation or of the word a Vntruth for it is a common argument The Answ is ashamed of his fellowes doings So M. Iewel vseth Doctor Harding no man frameth an argument for the name Missa except he were like your mad Athenian It is no new deuise to father vpon vs such arguments as we neuer thought of to triumph vpon the easie solution thereof R. Abbot 4. HEre the Answ is ashamed of the absurditie of his owne fellowes For he knoweth wel inough that their mouthes run ouer with these termes Basils Masse Chrysostomes Masse c. And that wheresoeuer they finde the Latin word Missa in any auncient writer they triumph thereof as hauing a proofe for their idolatrous Masse You know M. Spence that these are verie currant arguments with your selfe and those titles turne rounde vpon your tongue neither néede you to be ashamed thereof séeing D. Allen hath taught you to estéeme them so who taketh himselfe for a better Clerke then you are You know also when you tooke those words a Act. 13. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they were ministring to be a very good proofe for your Masse when you demanded of me to that purpose what the Gréeke wordes were But all these thinges the Answ is now ashamed of He telleth me that they do not say the Gréeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore it is the Masse No but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by some according to the phrase of their time translated Masse and that name of Masse thus translated some of his companions and namely you M. Spence deceitfully alleage to the simple ignorant as a strong proofe for the Popish Masse And this is that cogging and cosoning argument that I speake of wherewith you your selfe are deceiued as a very silly and ignorant man He telleth me further that though Erasmus translate sacrificantibus illis that is as they were sacrificing Act. 13. wheras the truth of the text is as they were ministring to the Lord yet of his translation or of the word no man frameth an argument for the name Missa No but yet for the Masse it selfe the b Rhem. Aâ—nota Act. 13. 2. Rhemists take an argument from thence and vnshamefastly and contrary to their knowledge and conscience say that the word signifieth they might haue translated saying Masse Wherof follow those absurdities that before I mentioned that the c Rom. 13. â— Magistrate is a Masse priest d Heb. 1. 14. that Angels are massing spirits that e Rom. 15 27. 2. Cor. 9. 12. to giue to the poore is to say Masse because the Apostle vseth the same Gréeke word of all these which they say doth signifie to say Masse But the Iesuit helpeth this lame reason of theirs by putting to it another lame legge He confesseth that the Gréeke worde f Bellarm. tom 2 con â— de Mâ—ssa lib. 1. cap. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth the execution of any publicke function or ministerie whatsoeuer But yet in this place he saith it must néedes be vnderstood of sacrificing because it is not simply said As they were ministring but as they were ministring to the Lord For it may not be vnderstood he saith of preaching the word or ministring the Sacraments because the preaching of the word and ministring the Sacraments is not to the Lord but to men He plaieth herein the part of a craftie Lawier who taking a bad cause in hand will séeke by shifting and faysting to preuaile because he faileth of good sound argument For
be mercifull to the sinnes of all not only liuing but also dead And I wonder with what face you alleage S. Augustine who distinctly b But that which he telleth he learned rather out of the schoole of Plato then out of the schoole of God He elsewhere speaketh far otherwise as shall appeare telleth you of some verie good some verie bad some neither verie good noâ— verie bad but of a middle sort and because hee would not leaue you any thing to helpe your selfe in this ease he telleth you how the Church vseth and in what seuerall sort for all three Where as though S. Augustine were no bodie you would helpe Dulâ—itius reason as well as you could but that verie reason confoundeth you For if the praier of the Church had not bene to craue Gods mercie for the dead but only to giue thanks for them what needed either that question to be made by Dulcitius of that which was not or that answer to be made by S. Augustine when he might haue denied that vse but the question of the one and the answere of the other proueth the Churches c But it proueth not the lawfulnesse of the churches practise practise What need I to answere herein our bookes are infinit to whom I referre you R. Abbot 7. AS touching praier for the dead we take that for a sufficient cause to refuse it which a Epiph. haer 75. Ephiphâ—nius confesseth that it is not taught by the holy scripture but obserued by traditioÌ„ receiued from the Fathers without scripture What men haue said or thought good in this behalfe we take not for Canonicall but examine it by the Canonicall scriptures according to that rule which the Fathers themselues haue prescribed The scripture telleth vs that b Apoc. 14. 13. they which die in the Lord are blessed and rest from their labors and therefore they néede not the helpe of our praiers If they die not in the Lord then no praiers can stand them in stéed So that praier for the dead is a matter of no effect and consequently a vaine vsage of the name of God That which the Fathers say according to this truth of Gods word we willingly embrace as that of Hierom c Cansa 13. q. 2. cap. In praesenti In this present worlde wee know that we may be helped either by the praiers or counsels each of other But when we shall come before the tribunall seate of Christ neither Iob nor Daniel nor Noe can make request for any man but euerie one must beare his owne burthen And that of Austâ—n d August in Ioh. trac 49. The rest which is giuen straightwaies after death euerie man then receiueth when he dieth if he be woorthie thereof Which worthinesse e Bernaâ—d in dedic eccle seâ— 5. Bernard declareth to be dignatione dinina non dignitate nostrae by Gods vouchsafing to accept vs as woorthie not by our worthinesse in our selues For as Chrysostom saith f Chrysost in ep ad colos hom 2. No man sheweth such conuersation of life as that hee may be worthie of the kingdome of heauen but it is wholy the gift of God himselfe To which effect Hierome also saith g Hierony in Esai lib. 6. c. 14. When the day of death or of iudgement shall come all hands shall faile because there shall no worke be found worthie of the iustice of God neither shall any man liuing be found righteous in his sight Now he that is not by Gods acceptation in Christ Iesus holden worthie when he dieth he neuer shall be by S. Austens iudgement For saith he h August epist 80. Such as euerie one dieth in this day such a one shal he be iudged at that day Now then if euerie one that is thought worthie of this rest do receiue it immediatly after death and he that is not thought worthie thereof at his death shall neuer be it followeth that euery one that receiueth the same rest receiueth it immediately after death and therefore néedeth not to be furthered vnto it by the praiers or deuotions of the liuing If contrary to this they haue taught other-where a place of paine where faithfull men are deteined from that rest they 〈…〉 here i◠〈◊〉 as men â— we 〈◊〉 not but they haue found wisedome in Jesus Christ to iouer their errour But the Papists have dealt with them here is as i Gen. 9. 22. Châ—m dâ—â—lt with his father Noe who in stéed of hâ—ding did rather publish and make knowne the nakednesse shame of his father For so haue they not sought to hide but to blaze abroad the imperfections and ouersightes of the auncient Fathers as k Vincent Lyâ—â—n cont haereses Vincent 〈…〉 Lyrinensis telleth the Donatists that they did when in the very like sort 〈◊〉 the Papists they cloaked their errour with the name of Cyprian and sundry other Bishops of former times We may say now of the auncient Fathers and the Papists as the same Vincentius said of Cyprian the Donatists l Ibid. 〈◊〉 chaunge of things The authoâ—rs of the same opinions are iudged Catholiâ—ke but the followers thereof are heretikes the maisters are pardoned but the schollers or learners are condemned the writers of the bookes wherin these opinions are shall without doubt be the children of the kingdome but hell shall be the place for the mainteineâ—s and abettours therof We doubt not indéed but that the auncient Fathers we â—â— Catholicke and godly Bishops and Pastors notwithstanding that as men they erred sometimes in their iudgements But we know the Papists to be wicked Apostates and Heretickes who wilfully and stubburnly maintaine the same errours against the plaine truth laide euidently before them out of the word of God That Aerius was condemned for an hereticke we know but we know withall that there were greater matters of heresie to condemne him for then deniall of praier or offering for the dead not only for two or thrée pretie Puritane points as the Answ speaketh but also for certaine points of Popery concerning mariage and eating of flesh as Philaster recordeth So that the Answ in condemning Aerius for such a knowne and notorious hereticke must pluck himselfe also by the nose m Basil de spir sanc ca. 2. 3. 4. Basil n Epiphan haer 75. Epiphanius and others note him also to haue bene a partaker of the heresie of Arius to haue sought further matter for defence thereof There was therefore sufficient cause for A 〈…〉 sme and Popery to condemne Aerius without any touching of him for gainsaying praier for the dead S. Austen noteth this indéed in the o August de haeres cap. 53. report of his heresie but yet giueth no such censure of those many in his time who auouched in effect the same that Aerius did that the oblations of the liuing were not auaileable for the dead whose words to that purpose I reported out of Austen to Dulcitius in my former
at that time and vpon that occasion Thus much of Gelasius whom you affirme for the Bishop of Rome but you cannot prooue it for this Gelasius was neuer Bishop of Rome R. Abbot 11. THe whole béeing of the sacrifice of the masse resteth vpon this next point of transsubstantiation which béeing ouerthrowen the sacrifice consequently falleth to the grounde Nowe that is plainly ouerthrowen by the testimonies of Gelasius and Theodoret amongst others in my former answere alledged who both expresly affirme the substance of bread and wine after consecration But to vnwind himselfe from the euidence of their words it is straunge to sée what miserable and wretched shiftes the Answerer vseth and all in vaine He taketh exception against this Gelasius that he was not Bishop of Rome Then though he were yet all that he wrote was not of authority because he did not pronounce it from his consistory chaire c. Thirdly whatsoeuer he thought he was farre from our mind Againe Theodoret was not of sound iudgement he had foule errors and to make a crooked wand straight he did bend it too much the other way that is to confound Eutyches his heresie he did plainely and flatly deny popishe transsubstantiation But all these shifts the Answerer in his owne conscience knewe to be vaine and friuolous Gelasius after that he was Bishoppe of Rome wrote fiue bookes against Eutiches and Nestorius The treatise whence I tooke those words that I alleadged goeth vnder his name as a part of one of those bookes Thus I finde it reported and no proofe giuen to disprooue it In the end of this treatise he exhorteth them to whom he writeth that as they did with one mind hold the Apostolike sea so they should constantly auouch that rule of Catholicke faith which he had declared out of the writinges of the Fathers that were before him making their holding with the Apostolicke sea a reason why they should giue héede to that which he had written Which may giue a good coniecture that it was Galasius Bishop of Rome and no other Gelasius that was the author of this booke But it is sufficient though it were not Gelasius Bishop of Rome yet that the booke is confessed to be authenticall so that a Bellarm. tom 2. de sacram 〈◊〉 lib 2. cap. 2â— Bellarmine himselfe taketh it to haue bene written by Gelasius Bishop of Caesaria before the councel of ChalcedoÌ„ which was in the yéere 455. b Gregor â—â— valent de reâ—lâ— praesent â—â— transubst 〈◊〉 â— cap. â— Gregory de Valentia in one place saith that the author of that booke was Gelasius of Caesaria as Bellarmine doth in c Idem de â—dololat lib. 2. cap. 5. another that it was Gennadius of Massilia As for Theodoret he was found no other but a Catholicke Bishop in the said councell of d Concil Calced Act. 8. Calcedon and so approoued by generall applause It séemeth that e Leo Epâ— 61. et conciâ— chalced Act. 8 Leo Bishop of Rome tooke him for no other by his letters written to him and for him That which the Answ saith of his recantatioÌ„ is a lewd and slaunderous tale Some stomacke he tooke against f Praefat. iâ— opeâ—a Theodoreâ— Cirill for his procéeding in the councell of Ephesus before he and his company were come Therupon he wrot against Ciril séeking to draw him into suspicion of heresie withoute cause This doing of his was greatly disliked of many and made him to be euill thought of Yet matters were ordered be twixt them and they reconciled ech to other But that he made any recantation of his opinions or was conuicted in that behalfe it is vnhonestly affirmed These shifts therfore not seruing the turne the Answ sifteth the wordes alleaged against him and to wrest them from their plaine and euident meaning he sticketh not to belie the Fathers to father new opinions vpon the old heretickes to deuise affirme matters of his owne head without any testimony or shew of testimony of antiquitie He telleth me that wheÌ„ it is said There ceaseth not to be the substance the meaning is the accedents remaine He wil haue the body of Christ to be made euery day of bread which we beléeue to haue bene once only made of the substance of the Virgin Mary He maketh as if the Fathers were as fond as he himselfe is to say that there remaineth the colour of bread the tast the strength the shewe of bread but yet there is no bread He maketh Gelasius to write he knew not what because forsooth he was before the generall definition of the church and made no exact search of the matter But why doth he not bring proofe of all these straunge fancies that here he hath set downe Is it enough for him to say what he list May I not say as Austin said to the hereticke g August cont epis sundâ— cap. 5. Thinkest thou I am so foolish to beleeue or not to beleeue as thou woldst haue me without any reason giuen He may be a Pythagoras perhaps to his own pupills but we do looke for more then his bare wordes But alas what do these men meane thus to dally with God and to wound their coÌ„sciences by striuing against apparant and manifest truth A Caluinist the Answ telleth me lacketh foure of his fiue wittes to alleage that place of Gelasius being as he saith both in words and in the drift of the argument against him But I tell him againe that the odde fifth witte of a Caluinist findeth strength enough in this place to quell a Papist and wil be himselfe nothing endamaged thereby As touching his circumstances which he setteth downe to explicate the same wordes of Gelasius they are for the most part grosse and shamelesse forgeries which serue indéede for nothing else but to leade a man a daunce round about from the sight of that which at the first sight is plaine enough It shall appeare that they are nothing else by the consideration of the originall and processe of the matter disputed of by Gelasius Nestorius the hereticke held a separation and disioyning of the two natures of Christ the godhead and the manhood and denied the personall vniting of them into one Christ and therefore condemned these spéeches that the Virgin Mary is the mother of God and that God suffered for our sins Against him the councel of Ephesus resolued out of the word of God that the godhead the manhood are substantially vnited into one person so that as the soule body make one man so God and man are one Christ as h Athan. in Sâ—mbolo Athanasius speaketh By reason of which vnion they defended it to be truly said that the Virgin Mary is the mother of God because she is the mother of him who is not only man but also God And so it is truly sayd that i Luc. 1. 35. Act. 20. 28. 1 cor 2. 8. Leo. epis 10. God was borne that God was wrapped
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
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