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
religion by reason of any such opinion that Christ was really bound in them or in the eares of corne or branches of the vine because then all bread and all wine should haue béene matter of mystery and religion with them which was not so but it is made mysticall bread and wine by a certaine coÌ„secration namely whilest by the word of God they are dedicated and halowed to be sacrameÌ„ts and mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ The which consecrating halowing the same S. Austen elsewhere declareth thus concerning Baptisme m August â—n Ioha tri 8â— The word commeth to the element and it is mede a sacrament in an other place concerning the Lords supper thus n Idem de trâ—nit lib. 3. cap. 4. We call that the body of Christ which being taken of the fruites of the earth consecrated by mystical praier wee receiue in memory of the passion of our Lord. Now what is all this to the real presence which the Answerer saith S. Austen did graunt Not a word doth S. Austen vse to import it Nay he rather reiecteth it in that he saith that bread and wine are not vsed in sacrament as in respect of Christ really bound in them but are made only mystical by consecration where he denieth that reall presence which they fancied and putteth no other in place therof but only saith that the bread is made mysticall bread by consecration As for Transsubstantiation he is plainely enough against it also in the same place in that he calleth the sacrament the sacrament of bread and of the cuppe wherby we vnderstand that the sacrament is bread and in that he denieth that the church had the same religion concerning bread and wine that the Manichées had because it was not religion but sacriledge with the Manichées to tast wine importing hereby that it was wine which the church tooke tasted in the sacrament But the Papistes reall presence iumpeth with the Manichées imprisoning of Christ for they make Christ so fast bound by consecration to the formes of bread and wine that though ratts or mise or swine eate the same or though it lie in the mire yet it must not be thought but that the body of Christ is there stil euen till the formes be consumed and to thinke otherwise as Thomas Aquinas saith derogateth from the truth of the sacrament as after shal be declared To his sixt circumstance I answere him that the Lateran councell was the assembly of Gog and Magog to set the idoll Mauzim in his place That which they resolued against Berengarius they reselued against all the Fathers who neuer knew reall presence nor transsubstantiation As for Innodentius his breadinesse and wininesse panietas vineitas in the seauenth circumstance the Answ would not haue named it but that swine are delighted with mire and filth The eight circumstaÌ„ce also containeth only new Popish subtilties and deserueth no answere The putting in therof and others as impertinent by way of explication of Gelasius his wordes sheweth the falsehood of the Answ thinking nothing lesse then to deale plainely and seeking by friuolous tales and idle talke to lead the reader away from that which otherwise he cannot but sée The ninth circumstance telleth vs honestly that before the Laterane councell it was no heresy not to iumpe with Transsubstantiation And then belike a man might haue beene a Caluinist in that point as all the Fathers were and yet not to be accounted an hereticke At least he might haue said that the substaÌ„ces of bread wine did remaine in part but not wholly forsooth as perhappes saith the Answ some of the Fathers and namely Gelasius thought a ridiculous and childish fancy When we shew them plainely out of the Fathers that the substances of bread and wine remaine in the sacrament forsooth the Fathers thought that the substances of bread and wine remaine in part but not wholly What conscience may we thinke these men make of their answers Why doth he not bring somewhat out of the Fathers to approoue this fond sophistication vnhandsome dreame But it must be enough for vs that the Answ telleth vs that so it is But it is worth the noting that he telleth vs that it was not clearely defined before the Lateran councell what maner oâ— conuersion is in the sacrament No was Why did not the Apostles clearely know it or knowing it did they not deliuer it to yâ— church Did he which o Act. 20. 27. kept nothing back but declared all the councell of God kéepe backe this or did he deliuer it to the Ephesians and not deliuer it to the Romaines other churches To say the Apostles did not clearely know it is to make himselfe wiser then the Apostles To say they knew it but declared it not is to make them vnfaithful in their charge To say that the church receiued it cléerely deliuered and yet that it was neuer cléerely defined vntill the Lateran councell is a contradiction and impugneth that in the one part which is set downe in the other To say the church and namely the church of Rome receiued it and did afterwardes forgoe it is to make the church of Rome a very bad kéeper of the doctrines of the Apostles especially séeing the sacrament is a matter of continuall and daily vse But indéed we take that which he saith for true that Transsubstantiation was neuer cléerely defined before the Lateran councel But we tell him withall that we are very deinty to admit that for a doctrine of truth which for a thousand yeares and more after Christ was neuer cleerly knowen or defined in the church of God And because it was no heresy all that while not to iumpe with Transsubstantiation we are well assured that it is no heresy to leape from it now Now to returne to Gelasius the Answ findeth an hole or two in his wordes before alleaged whereby he would faine créepe out The wordes are thus There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine He addeth or nature saith the Answ to mollifie and interpret the word substance as importing that the naturall properties of bread and wine remaine though the substaÌ„ce be gone A very naturall answere Belike the substance remaineth or there ceaseth not to be the substance is as much as to say the substance is quite gone and vtterly ceased only the accidents remaine But Gelasius a little before speaketh in the very same sort concerning Christ and sheweth the meaning of his own wordes We say saith he that the propriety of each substance or nature abideth continually in Christ where most plainely by the same phrase of spéech he maketh substance and nature to import one thing And if we will follow the Answ exposition we must say here in the behalfe of Eutyches that not the substances themselues but the naturall properties of each substance abide stil in Christ because he saith substance or nature Againe a little before
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
was an indifferent thing and yet when he saw d Mat. 15. 2. c. the Scribes and Pharisies to put affiance of holinesse puritie in those washings so that they accounted them vncleane which omitted the same he did himselfe neglect and by his example as it séemeth moued his disciples to neglect that tradition of their Elders telling them that in vaine they did worship God teaching for doctrines the precepts of men In leauing the mixture of water we are not contraried by the e Mat 26. 2â— institution of Christ set downe in the Gospell I alleaged before f Anselm sax on Centur. Magdebur 12. cap. 9. that the Gréeke Church consecrated with wine onely and their reason because we reade not that Christ added water I shewed how Chrysostome as one edition of his g Chrysost Liturg per Leonem Tusc 〈…〉 Liturgie intendeth added water after the consecration as being no part of the institution of the Sacrament I noted that h Anselm vt supra Anselmus and i Tho. Aquin. pag. 3. qu 74. art 6. Thomas Aquinas notwithstanding the assertions of diuers auncient writers could make at the most but a probabilitie of Christs vsing water in this Sacrament And why probable because the maner of that Country is so to drinke their wine Wherof it may rightly be gathered yâ— though Christ did vse water as we do not finde that he did yet he did it but after the maner of that Country in drinking wine and not for any mysterie of the Sacrament I alleaged moreouer that k Polyd. Virgâ—l de inuent rerum li. 5. ca. 10. Polydore Virgil and l Platina in Alexan 1. Platina and m DuraÌ„d Ratio diui lib. 4. cap. de officio sacerdotis c. Durand referre this tradition to Alexander the first and so for their parts haue acquited vs from crossing the institution of Christ Also that n De consecra dist 2 caâ— sicut in glossa Doctors haue taught that water is vsed in the cup de honestate tantum namely by way of temperancie and sobrietie only and therefore not of any necessitie to the Sacrament Why would this man take vpon him to answere and yet slily passe ouer all these things with silence so directly pertaining to the point in question But to pardon his silence to take that which he doth say he breaketh out at the first dash and telleth me that if I finde the words of Chrysostome expounded as was answered before out of the Trullan Canons then I did but wrangle in alleaging them to another purpose contrary to the knowne meaning of the Authour But I wrangle not herein Whatsoeuer exposition it pleased those Fathers to make of Chrysostomes wordes thrée hundred yeares after Chrysostomes death the wordes themselues are most plaine to that purpose that I first noted them He demandeth this question o Chrysost in Mat. hom 83. Why did Christ after his resurrection drinke Not Water but VVine Where manifestly he nameth the drinking of wine and denieth water To this he answereth He would plucke vp by the rootes the pernicious heresie of them which vse Water in the Sacrament For to shew that when he deliuered this Sacrament he deliuered wine therefore did he vse wine also after his resurrection at the bare table of the Sacrament Of the fruite of the vine saith he which surely bringeth forth VVine and not VVater It is hard to suppose that Chrysostom wold say that Christ did drinke not water but wine to reproue the heresie of them which vse water in the Sacrament and yet himselfe haue intention of both wine water to be vsed in the Sacrament I cannot sée it to stand with any reason If the answere can let him follow his owne fancie As for the thing it selfe we doubt not but the Churches of God haue vsed their libertie in the practise thereof for that vppon occasion of the heresie of them that vsed onely water they in some places tooke away this ceremony as by the aforesaid place of Chrysostome the practise of the Armenians may be gathered in other places at least altered the maner of it that whereas it was wont to be added before consecration thenceforth it should be added after that it might be knowne that water was no entire part or matter of the Sacrament but vsed for other purpose indifferently as hath bene before saide The ground whereof Chrysostome as we sée maketh to be this that Christ mentioneth only the fruite of the vine which saith he bringeth forth wine and not water Now this adding of water after consecration as it appeareth by the testimonie of p Ex Ansel vt supra Nechites Patriarch of Nicomedia who affirmeth yâ— in their rites they swarued not from the auncient tradition of their Fathers and by one copie of the q Chrysost Liturg vt supra Liturgie that goeth vnder Chrysostomes name so it is further manifest by the testimonie of r Theod. Balsam Annota in concil Constant â— can â—2 Theodorus Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch in his annotations vpon that Canon of the sixth Councell whereof I now speake where he sheweth the same vse and addeth further which the aforesaid Liturgie also giueth to vnderstand that the water which they put in was hote water The reason whereof he affirmeth to haue bene this to signifie that water blood came out of the side of Christ not cold dead but warme quicke and liuely as implying vertue and power to quicken and make vs aliue spiritually to which mysterie the words of the Canon aforesaid séeme to haue relation in making mention of Chrysostomes Liturgie If water had bene taken to be any necessary matter of the Sacrament surely these men would not haue omitted to haue mingled it before consecration that so the Sacrament might be whole and perfect But hereby it is manifest that it was not so taken â— therfore by the iudgement of the auncient Churches we offend not as maiming the Sacrament of Christ in vsing wine only without mixture of water The exception which the Answ vseth against the Bishops of Armenia is false and feined For whatsoeuer he can pretend of some Armenians that did reuolt yet it is apparant that the Bishops of Armenia did approue the condemnation of Eutyches Dioscorus by their Å¿ concil chalced in episto illusttium personarum pro eod concilio Epistles written to Leo the Emperour in approbation of the Chalcedon Councell wherein they were condemned and with reproofe of that heresie for which they were condemned And that it may not be thought yâ— they did it only for that time they are found again in the t concil constant 6. act 17. 18 in subscript sixth Councell to subscribe against and condemne the heresie of Eutyches euen in that Councell which the Answ alleageth for the defence of his cause And therefore it is hereby manifest that they vsed not wine only with any such
What answere maketh the man to this Forsooth saint Austen meaneth that wée cut not Christes flesh in gobbets nor as it is to be bought in the shambles nor we eate him not in a visible shape c. So then belike saint Austen meant that we eate not Christes body péecemeale but we swallow him whole and so the difference betwixt the Capernaites and vs must be only this that they would eate him in péeces and we eate him whole And this onely difference doth the Answ afterwardes make betwixt 1. Sect. â— 9 the Capernites and them that they eate him in a sacrament whole inuiolable like the paschal lambe without breaking or brusing him whereas the Capernaites imagined that they should eat him in péeces as flesh in the shambles Which mad fancie of eating Christ whole Bellarmine goeth about to approoue by another fancie as mad as it For b Belâ—arm tom 2. conâ— 3. lib. 3. cap. 22. being vrged that it is a horrible vnnaturall thing and therefore not standing with pietie to eate the verie flesh of man he answereth that the horrour heereof is onely in respect of the hurting and mangling of it For otherwise a man would willingly eate or as he more mildly termeth it would receiue into him his friend whom hee tenderly and dearely loueth if he might take him in whole and without hurting him Vndoubtedly Bellarmine is a kind man to his friend that can find in his heart to eate him if he might eate him whole and without doing him any harme But to leaue him in his madnesse we sée héere how faine the Answ would shift himselfe from being a brother to the Capernaites and it will not be The Gospell simply noteth the errour of the Capernaites to haue consisted in this that they thought they should with their very mouthes eate and drinke the very flesh and bloud of Christ The same is the grosse conceite of the Papistes and the Gospell condemneth both alike The fond distinction of the maner maketh no difference in that behalfe As for saint Austen he declareth his meaning plainly in his sermon to the people Hée knoweth none of these maners and péeuish differences but speaking of eating and drinking with the mouth he giueth them to vnderstand that it is but the sacrament which they eate and drinke not the flesh and bloud it selfe Ye shall not eate the body ye shall not drinke the bloud I haue commended to you a Sacrament In another place intreating of the verie same matter hee noteth that Christ signified to his hearers that hee would goe vp into heauen whole that they might vnderstand that he spake not of that eating his very body c Aug. in Ioh. tra 27. They thought that hee would giue them his very body but he told them that he would go vp into heauen euen whole Thus that we may not thinke that either péecemeale or whole wée eate the very body he giueth vs to vnderstand that he is ascended to heauen entire whole To which purpose Athanasius also saith How d Athan serm in illud Chri. Qui dixerit verbum contra filium should it be that all the world should eate of his flesh which would suffice but a few men But therefore our Lord when he spake vnto his Apostles of the eating of his flesh made mention of his ascention vnto heauen that hee might withdraw them from corporall and fleshly vnderstanding And so the Answerer eating of Christ whole is indéed but a fiction and absurd shift Yet let him remember what saint Austen saith againe in another place concerning the eating of Christ in the sacrament Thus he saith When e Aug. ser de ver Euan. Beda 1. cor 10 we eat Christ we make not peeces of him Yet surely in the Sacrament we doe so and the faithfull know how they eate the flesh of Christ Euerie one taketh his peece When the grace is called peeces Christ is eaten peecemeale and yet continueth whole Hee is eaten peece-meale in the Sacrament and abideth entire and whole in heauen Where he heareth saint Austen directly contrary to his assertion saying that the flesh of Christ in the sacrament is eaten péecemeale signifying that it is not indéed the reall and very flesh of Christ and yéelding vs for proofe thereof this argument That flesh of Christ which is eaten with the mouth in the sacrament is eaten péecemeale The true and reall flesh of Christ is not eaten péecemeale Therefore that flesh of Christ which is eaten with the mouth in the sacrament is not the true and reall flesh of Christ and consequently it is so onely sacramentally and in a mysterie A sound answere to this argument without shifting would do very well Whereas he saith againe that they eate Christ in the sacrament without breaking him let him hearken what Chrysostome saith This f Chrysost in 1. cor 10. hom 24. breaking we may see in the Eucharist but not vppon the crosse nay rather the contrarie there for not a bone of him shall be broken saith God But that which he suffered not vpon the crosse hee suffereth in the Sacrifice and permitteth himselfe to be broken for thee Beholde how Chrysostome saith that Christ who was not broken vpoÌ„ the crosse is broken in the sacrament and suffereth that nowe which hee did not suffer then to be done whereof we may gather thus that séeing the sacrament is broken and the true and reall bodie of Christ cannot be broken therefore the sacrament is not the true and reall body of Christ but mystâ—cally sacramentally and so in the breaking of the sacrament the body is mystically and sacramentally broken Whereas saint Austen saith that we must spiritually vnderstand that which Christ saith of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud the Answ telleth me that spiritually must be referred to the maner of the flesh because we eate it not like fleshe or cut in péeces or as we eate common meates But if wee follow this construction of hâ—s it cannot be auoyded but that the wicked and vngodly also do spiritually eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud If spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ consist in this that we eat him â—ot 〈◊〉 flesh hewed or chopt in péeces the wicked by thâ— doctrine of the Church of Roome doe eate him so as well as the godly because they are in that respect alike partakers of the sacrament But S. Austen teacheth expresly out of the g Ioh. 6. 5â— wordes of Christ that h August in Ioh. tract 26. they onely which abide in Christ and Christ in them do spiritually eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud Therefore the Answ exposition as it is a lewd and a cursed glose so it is expresly contrarie to the doctrine of saint Austen Such answeres become him very well But what is meant by vnderstanding spiritually I shewed by the words of Origen which he deceitfully passeth by and leaueth
enough against a naked and bare collection from a point of doubtfull construction Which séeing they haue diuers of them béen alleaged by maister Fulke and others directly against the Answrers demaund and yet haue not receiued any tollerable answere it was but a scape of his wit to say that maister Fulke doth steale away from the state of the question and medleth not with it His other cauill out of the wordes of S. Luke that Christ before the sacrament said l Luc. 22. 17. he woulde drinke no more of the fruite of the vine till in his kindome and yet dranke after in the Sacrament whereby he would prooue the sacrament to be no wine was long agoe preuented by S. Austen who affirmeth that S. Luke m August de consen Euangeli lib. 3. ca. 1. according to his maner setteth downe the former mention of the cup by way of anticipation putting that before which is to be referred to somewhat following after and therfore vnderstandeth it of the cup of the new testament by and by after instituted and so reconcileth him to the other two Euangelistes Mathew and Marke But to helpe this argument the Answ is faine to varie from his good maisters of Rhemes For he expoundeth the kingdome of God to be after the resurrection but they vnderstand it n Rhem Annot Luc. 22. 17 of the celebration of the Sacrament of Christes bloud Whereof it followeth that Christ in the Sacrament dranke of the fruite of the vine as both Mathew and Marke set it downe and the auncient fathers doe expound it Let him go and be agréed with his fellowes before he vrge this argument againe P. Spence Sect. 32. IN the end you giue me councell how to behaue my selfe in these controuersies In all Christian charitie I thanke you and loue you for the same for you aduise me no worse then your selfe followe and in good faith I accept of it as proceeding from your great good will towards me and therefore againe and againe I thanke you And I will follow you in genere that is to haue care of my poore soule to feede it with the trueth of Gods word but expounded by his Catholique Church I must tell you plainly and therefore in specie in the particulars of the points of our beliefe I will not followe you You and I endeuour both to come to one resting place at night but in our daies iourney wee goe two sundrie waies I pray God send vs merily to meet in heauen Amen R. Abbot 32. MY councell M. Spence must stand for a witnesse against you at that day if you go on forward still to walke in the counsel of the vngodly In the meane time I againe aduise and counsell both you and your maister to cease to rebell fight against God or to say when he offereth himselfe vnto you we will none of thy waies I councell you indéede as you say to no other thing but that which I follow my selfe and I most humbly thank almightie God who hath giuen me his grace to follow the same and hath preserued me from that daunger wherein I haue béen oft falling away from him You will followe me you say in generall to haue a care to féed your soule with the trueth of Gods word Do so M. Spence doe so that is the foode of life that is the riuer of the water of life the heauenly Manna he that féedeth there shal surely finde life b August de pastor Feede there saith S. Austen that yee may feede safely and securely But you marre and poison this good foode with that which you adde You will feede your soule you say with the word of God but expounded by his Catholicke Church you meane the Church of Roome Which is as much as if you should say you wil not follow the word of God it selfe but that which it pleaseth the Church of Roome to make of the word of God Take héede of M. Spence Assure your selfe that though the Church of Roome doe maintaine c 2. Pet 2. ◠damnable heresies and d 1. Tim. 4. 1. doctrines of deuils contrarie to Gods word yet being wise as she is according to this worlde she will neuer expound the word of God against her selfe if it be in her to make the meaning of it When she expoundeth the Scriptures to make her selfe the Catholike Church and no such thing is to be found in the words of the scripture will you beléeue her in her owne cause It shal then be verified of you which Salomon saith e Prou. 1◠15. The foole will beleeue euerie thing Take the simplicitie of the word of God it self and be directed thereby f Prou. 8 9. The waies of God are plaine to him that will vnderstand God g Hiere in psal 8◠hath not written as Plato did that few should vnderstand but for the vnderstanding of all saith S. Hierome So that although there be depth enough in the word of God for the best learned to bestow his studie and labour in yet as Chrysostome and Austen teach vs h Chrysost in 2. Thess 2. August ep 3. Whatsoeuer things are necessarie they are manifest and i Aug. de doct Christ li. 2. c. 9. in those things which are manifestly set downe in the Scriptures are contained all things that pertaine to faith and conuersation of life Lay before you therefore those things which néed not the exposition of the Church of Roome When the scripture saith There is now no offering for sinne wil you take her exposition to say that there is When the scripture saith no man liuing shal be found iust in the sight of God shal she by her exposition make you beléeue that it is not so When the scripture saith Thou shalt not bow downe to or worship a carued or grauen image will you be perswaded by her expositions that you may I passe ouer the rest Iustly doe they deserue to be giuen ouer to errour and to be deluded with lies and lewd expositions which will not yéeld vnto God when he speaketh vnto them so plainly as néedeth no exposition It were worth the while to set downe héere a Catalogue of Romish expositions but that the conscience of you all that way appeareth sufficiently in this whole discourse You pray that we both going sundry wayes may méete in heauen But maister Spence it will not be in that way wherein you go Either you must say that there is no heauen or els that your way is not the way to heauen because the God of heauen hath gainsaid it God open your eyes that you may sée the right way that so we may ioyfully méete in heauen P. Spence Sect. 33. AS touching the escape of our Rhemistes in the account of our Ladies assumption The matter is verie sleight not tending any way to our saluation I meane to erre in that computation especially when they haue a The more impudēt they that hauing no certaine
some space professors of the faith of Christ the false Apostles had perswaded to ioyne with their beléeuing in Christ the kéeping of the law thereby to be iustified Concerning these men and the like conuerted to the faith of Christ baptised into Christ being Disciples and brethren the Apostle determineth this matter that c Gal. 2. 16. Rom. 3 21. 28. they must be iustified by faith and not by the workes of the law yea without the workes of the law and that not of the ceremoniall law onely but of that law also d Rom. 3. â—0 by which commeth the knovvledge of sinne which saith e Cap. 7. 7. Thou shalt not lust which pronounceth f Gal. 3. 10. Cursed is euerie one that continueth not in all thinges that are vvritten in this lavve which saith g Rom. 1 5. Gaâ— 3. 1â— Hee that doth these things shall liue in them that is to say of the morall law as S. h Augâ—st de spir â— ca. 8. 14. Austen also gathereth by the same places Therfore not onely ceremoniall workes nor onely workes of nature and fréewill but all workes whatsoeuer either before baptisme or after baptisme either before grace or in grace are secluded from iustification and onely faith in Christ is our righteousnesse before God Yea and that so as that the Apostle against that distinction of workes done in the grace of Christ saith expresly i Gal. 5 4. Ye are abolished from Christ yee are fallen from grace whosoeuer are iustified that is doe séeke iustification by the lavv So that hee which being come to the grace of Christ shall thenceforth séeke to be iustified by the works of the law done in the state of the same grace voideth himselfe of Christ and falleth away from the grace of God And therefore Abraham himselfe is set forth vnto vs as a paterne of iustification by faith wthout workes not in his first iustification as the Roomish language hath taught men to speake but k Gen. 12. â— 5. 6. 7. 8. c. after that he had obeied the voyce of God to depart out of his owne countrey had trauailed many countries as God directed him had built many altars vnto the name of the Lord had called vpon him and serued him a long time as appeareth in Genesis from the twelfth chap. to the fiftéenth Euen then was it said l Gen. 15. 6. Abraham beleeued the Lord and he counted that to him for righteousnesse Whence the Apostle thus reasoneth m Rom. 4. 2. If Abraham vvere iustified by vvorkes he had to reioyce but not vvith God For vvhat saith the Scripture Abraham beleeued God and that vvas counted to him for righteousnesse Wherein he inferreth that because the scripture pronounceth of Abraham after his long seruing of God and many good workes done yet that not his workes as n Chrysost in Epist ad Rom. hom 8. Chrysostome rightly gathereth but onely his fayth was counted to him for righteousnesse therefore that howsoeuer he might with men by works yet with God hee was not iustified by workes but onely by faith Abraham was the o Rom. 4. 11. Father of the faithfull and therefore all that are iustified must be iustified according to that patterne which the word of God hath set forth concerning him and therefore not by workes but by faith onely Now that the true iustifying faith is not separated from charitie and good workes we willingly confesse because it p Gal. 3. 14. receiueth the promise of the spirite the effect whereof is noted in the declaration of the promise q Ezec. 36. 27. I vvill put my spirite vvithin you and cause you to vvalke in my statutes and yee shall keepe my iudgementes and do them Yet notwithstanding as the diuers members of the bodie necessarily concurring for the perfecting of the whole haue euery one their seuerall office so these vertues of the soule namely faith and charitie though they alwaies méete in the regenerate man yet in office and function are distinct ech from other The office of iustifying belongeth only vnto faith euen as the office of séeing belongeth onely to the eie the office of hearing onely to the eare c. And therefore the defining of beleeuing in God by the hauing of faith hope and charitie as the Answ setteth downe is a verie preposterous and vnorderly definition and no other then as if a man taking in hand to tell what it is to sée should say it is to haue eies eares and nose Beléefe in God is set forth by the Créede charitie and workes by the ten Commaundements they may not be confounded one with the other Doubtlesse it were verie strange to thinke that when a man saith I beleeue in God the father c. he should meane thereby I haue faith hope and charitie or that Christ when he said to the blinde man in the Gospell r Iohn 9. 3 5. Doest thou beleeue in the sonne of God did intend to aske him whether he had faith hope and charitie Cyprian telleth vs what it is to beléeue in God namely Å¿ Cypria de dup martyr to place the confidence of our whole felicitie in God onely which though it neuer be without the loue of God yet euerie mans vnderstanding may giue him that the act of beléeuing is one the act of louing is another Whereas hee saith that faith without works though it be dead yet it is a true faith he speaketh indéed Roomishly but that is ignorantly and absurdly For that onely is the true faith whereby a man is called truely faithful so that the saints of God in whom it is are by a speciall and proper name termed t Ephes 1. 1. the faithfull and u col 1. 2. faithfull brethren which it selfe is called by the Apostle w Tit. 1. 1. the faith of the elect by which he saith x Gal. 3. 26. we are the children of God which hath this promise y Ioh. 3. 3â— that euerie one that beleeueth in Christ hath eternall life which hath no place in the carnall worldling as our sauiour noteth saying z Ioh. 5. 44. How can ye beleeue which receiue honour one of another and seek not the honour that commeth of God onely whereby a man not onely beléeueth that God is or that God is true in that which he saith but also aplieth vnto himselfe the promises of God assuring himselfe of the benefite thereof to the forgiuenesse of sinnes and eternall life by the mediation of Iesus Christ S. Bernard therefore saith that a man a Berna ser 1. in Annunc Mar. hath but the beginning of faith vntill hee come to this to beleeue that his sinnes are forgiuen him by Iesus Christ and that this is that which the Apostle saith that a man is freely iustified by faith Ferus the preacher of Mentz as he smelled diuerse corruptions in the doctrine of the Church of Roome so hee noted the misconstruing