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
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
and determination of the truth And therefore in these cases to alleage Cyprian against Cyprian is I hope no more hainous a matter then to appeale from Philip ouercome with sléepe to the same Philip throughly a waked out of sléepe The drift and purpose of that Epistle to Cecilius is to proue the necessitie of wine in the Sacrament against the heresie of those that vsed onely water without wine He referreth them herein to the institution of Christ set downe in the Gospell from which he telleth them they ought not to depart therefore that they ought to vse wine in the Lords cup as it is mentioned in the Gospell that Christ did And to this purpose are all those spéeches which he vseth of our Lords tradition of his doing and teaching Which manifestly appeareth as by the very scope of the whole Epistle so by that place namely where alleaging the words of Christ I will drinke no more of this fruite of the vine c. He inferreth thus Wherby we finde that the cup was mixed which the Lord offered c. Yet we finde not in this place any mixture of the cup we find only the fruite of the vine and this is the marke at which he aimeth in all that he vrgeth of Christes institution Of water he speaketh ioyntly I confesse and supposing I doubt not but it was vsed by Christ But he supposeth it only he proueth it not his suppose is no sufficient warrant Nay although he by the way admit and require the mixture of water in the Lords cuppe yet séeing he there referreth vs to the â—oote and originall of Christs institution in the Gospel and we find not there that Christ either ordeined or vsed any such mixture we hold our selues sufficiently warranted euen by Cyprian himselfe to do that we do in vsing wine only without any water But what meaneth the Answ to vrge Cyprian at all to prooue that Christ mingled water when he himselfe dare not vpon Cyprians word affirme so much For thus he maketh short the matter as he saith Wine is of the institution of Christ water is of the precept of the church If he can iustifie no more as indéed he cannot it is but folly and trifling to alleage any mans words that say any more And therfore all his other testimonies are superfluous They which say that Christ vsed water say more then he or the most of his dare say They which testifie the vse thereof in the primitiue Church proue a thing not denied or condemned where occasion requireth it for such reason and in such maner as hath bene before shewed Albeit they are partly forgeries as those out of Alexander out of Clemens Iames his Liturgie of which shall be spoken after partly vncertaine and doubtfull as those out of Chrysostomes and Basils Liturgies partly such as the Answ himselfe will not stand vpon the validitie thereof as that out of the sixth Councell partly manifest and wilfull falsifications as those out of Chrysostome in Ioh. hom 84. and 1. Cor. hom 24. the former only shewing that by water and blood issuing out of Christs side were imported both the Sacraments of the Church the other that out of Christes side flowed fountaines of water blood that should be healthfull to the whole world And what is that to the matter now in hand He referreth me ouer for further proofe of this matter to Bellarmine But Bellarmine saith nothing that néedeth further answere then I haue alreadie giuen Only let me tell him that I take Bellarmine for a Iesuit that is to say a man of a hard and vncircumcised forehead desperatly bent for the vpholding of the Pope to make shipwracke of his owne conscience Whose impudency appeareth herein that for the better colouring of his mixture of water r Bellarm. tom 2. cont 3. lib. 4. cap. 10. hée saith that it appeareth no more by the Gospell that Christ instituted the Sacrament with wine then with ale or béere or water only And therefore he denieth those words I will drinke no more of the fruite of the vine c. Å¿ Ibid. lib. 1. cap. 11. to be vnderstood of the cup of the Sacrament contrarie to the generall consent of the auncient Fathers t Clemens Alex in paeda lib 2. cap. 2. Clemens Alexandrinus u Cypr. lib. 2. epist 3. Cyprian w Chrysost in Maâ— hom 83. Chrysostome x August de consensu Euang li. 3. ca. 1. Austen y Hilar. in Mat. cano 30. Hilary z Theophyl in Mat. 26. Theophylact and others Yet to cloake the matter the better he would fain make a iarre betwixt the Fathers and saith that Hierome and Theophylact expound it not of the cup of the Lordes table but of the cup of the passeouer whereas in the places by him cited there is not a word tending to that purpose It is plain by the two Euangelists Mathew and Marke that our Sauior spake of the cup of the new Testament The difference that séemeth to be betwixt them and S. Luke was reconciled long ago by S. Austen as followeth after to be declared But hereby we may coniecture the honestie and truth of the Iesuit in other matters P. Spence Sect. 3. COncerning Bertrame there was in Carolus Magnus sonnes daies such a one suspected for one point especially in the Sacrament contra identitatem corporis or de duplici corpore Christi but this booke vnder his name is much worse Great learned men are out of doubt that it is a counterfeit booke wrong fathered and misbegotten not Bertrams but of Oecolampadius coyning So Caluins Catechisme in Greeke in the Preface is made an auncient booke newly founde againe So is a booke foysted in Roffensis name written by Bucer de certitudine salutis diuina misericordia besides many other such forged counterfeits See Bibliothecam Sixti Senensis Besides this counterfeit Bertrams reasoÌ„ is of no force for two causâ—s First how knoweth he for ought he can shew out of the a And how appeareth it â—y the new Testament thâ—t there should be any water vâ—ed at all new TestameÌ„t that the water with the wine is not chaunged in substance Or what necessitie is there for ought he knoweth or sheweth in this his reasonlesse reason that because the wine is chaunged therefore the water to for all his quia admixta est and for all his necesse est But by the way he b A need esse idle proofe proueth if he were not partus Supposititius the mixing of water so long ago as Ludouicus Charles sonne R. Abbot 3. AS touching Bertram whereas the Answ saith that he was suspected coÌ„cerning the Sacrament he doth leaudly vnconscionably slaunder him neither can he iustifie it by any shew of the storie of that time It is not probable that the Emperour would haue sought for his resolution vnlesse he had bene taken for a learned man of sound iudgement But he is dealt with
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
in the Gospell commended by S. Paul to the whole Church of Corinth generally and without exception obserued in the primitiue Church but that he chooseth rather to asswage his thirst by drinking of the miery and filthie puddles of the Church of Rome then of the pure and cleare fountaine of the word of God But all this notwithstanding how may we be assured or perswaded that the aforesaid Liturgies are theirs whose names they beare For beside that Liturgie which commonly goeth vnder the name of saint Iameâ— the Apostle there is also a Clem. Apoâ—t Constit lib 8. cap. 15. c. another set downe in the first volume of the Councels vnder his name And whether of these Liturgies will they require vs to accept of Or séeing they will haue not only that seuerall Liturgie but also the Constitutions vnder Clemens name to be both authenticall and good what pretence haue they to say that S. Iames left two Liturgies in the Church To say the truth they are both bastards The common Liturgie of S. Iames praieth for such as liue b Iacobi Liturgia Latine in Monasteries and I trow the Answ cannot proue that there were any Monasteries for Christians in the Apostles times But here c Hard. Reioind pa. 46. M. Harding excepteth that the Gréeke in that place is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say in exercise which by his exposition importeth monâ—stical and solitary life And although they had not Monasteries of wealthy prouision such as ours in England were yet he auoucheth that they had places celles or houses where they liued solitarily in the exercise of vertue not hauing to do with the world But he abuseth his reader therein neither could he iustifie any such monasticall life to haue bene vsed in 〈◊〉 Iames his time For whereas he alleageth Philo out of d Euâ—eb hist eccles lib. 2. cap. 17. Eusebius to proue it he might haue found if he had looked vpon e Philo. de vita contemplat Philo himselfe that be wrote his booke not of Christian Monkes but of Iewish Essees Whereof he maketh two sorts the one liuing in action the other incontemplation as f Ioseph de bello Iuda lib. 2. cap. 7. Iosephus also séemeth to note that they were not of one sort when he mentioneth that some of them were married and other some professed single life Philo hauing written his booke Quod 〈◊〉 probus f 〈…〉 er of the one sort that liued in action beginneth his other booke whereof Eusebius conceiuâ—d his opinion tâ—us Now that we haue spoken of the Essees that liue in action it followeth that wee also speake of them that liue in contemplation Here it is apparant that they of whom Philo writeth were called Essees as g Andrad Oxthod Expli liâ— 2. Andradius and others confesse But the name of Essees hath not bene found to be attributed to any of Christian profession vntill Eusebius by errour mistooke that booke of Philo and gaue occasion of the same errour to Hierome Epiphanius Sozomen and others Yet Hierome although h Hierony in Catalo Marcus Philo. one where he vnderstandeth that booke of Christians â—oth in one of i Epist ad Eustoch de custod virginit his Epistles manifestly refer it to the same sect of Iewish Monkes of which Iosephus writeth But if this will not stop the Answerers mouth let him take that which M. Harding confesseth and is true that Philo wrote in the time of the Apostles and then let him â—aigh herewith these words of Philo concerning those of whom he writeth k Habent pris corum commentarios qui huius sectae authores c. They haue saith he the Commentaries of their auncestours who being the Authours of this sect left many monuments of such allegories c. Auncestors then and men of elder times then Philo and the Apostles were Authors of yâ— sect of which Philo writeth But I hope there were no Christian Monks before the time of yâ— Apostles Therfore this booke caÌ„not be vnderstood of Christian Monkes but of a sect whose beginning was before the Apostles times such as were the Essees of the Iewes And hereby appeareth the falshood of l Bellarm. tom 1. cont 5. lib. 2. cap. 5. Bellarmine who saith that Philo giueth to vnderstand that he wrote of a sect which begaÌ„ in his time whereby he would haue it séeme likely that he wrote of some of Christian profession whereas Philo expresly affirmeth the contrary as appeareth in the words alleaged To let passe that which Philo writeth of their obseruing the seuenth day which was the Iewish Sabboth and that with intention of speciall mysterie otherwise then may be supposed of mâ—n eâ—tierly deuoted to Christian religion me thinkes it is a thing not to be imagined that the same Philo taking vpon him to set downe exactly the discipline and profession of these men should not so much as in one word intimate that they were Christians if they had â—ene so indéed Straunge it is also that there should appeare no monument of this monasticall life in the Acts of the Apostles or in any of their Epistles neither by way of storie nor of precept nor of gréeting them that vsed it if it had bene in those first times of the Christian Church as also that no other certaine record of times immediatly sucâ—éeding should deliuer any such to our knowledge Now whereas Andradius very presumptuously and without any reason giuen m Andrad Oxthod Expli lib 2. affirmeth that those things which Philo writeth cannot agrée to any other but Christians surely he which shall reade that which n Iosephus Anâ—iq Iuda lib. 18 cap. 2. de bello Iudai lib. 2. ca. 7. Iosephus o Plini lib. 5. cap. â—7 Plinie and p Soâ—â— de reb oâ—b meâ— orab Solinus haue written of those Iewish Essees shall find that there is nothing mentioned by Philo but what may well agree to them also Séeing therefore it cannot be proued that there was any such monasticall life professed by Christians in the Apostles times it followeth that we must néedes take that Liturgie which praieth for some as then professing it to be a méere forgery The other Liturgie vnder the name of saint Iames is reiected by the lyke reason For therein prayer is made for q Clem. constit â—post lib. â— cap 18. Pro sub 〈…〉 conis lect 〈…〉 s Cantoribus Subdeacons Lesson-readers and singing men whereas it is certaine that there were no such officers of the Church in saint Iames his time But as touching this Liturgy set downe by the counterfeit Clement it is to be noted that it is said to haue bene endited by saint Iames in a solemne méeting of the Apostles where they were assembled of purpose to resolue r Ibid cap. 2. of all ecclesiasticall order In the ende whereof this generall approbation is added Å¿ Ibid cap. 23. These things do we Apostles ordeine
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
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