admonisheth Further he telleth vs why we must say to God Enter not into iudgement with thy seruaunt for in thy sight no man liuing shal be found iust Because saith he in respect of the puritie of God no man nor angell nor heauen is pure Now I thought that it was but a word in iest when he defied the Pelagians before In this very maner and with this very aunswere did they séeke to shift off these wordes in the like case S. Hierome reporteth it thus e Hieroni. in epistola ad Ctesiphon This testimonie the Pelagians delude by a new reason vnder the name or shew of pietie They say that in comparison of God no man is iust or perfect He answereth them As though this were that which the scripture speaketh of surely it saith not No man liuing shal be found righteous but in thy sight no man liuing shal be found righteous When it saith in thy sight it will haue vs vnderstand that euen they which seeme holy vnto men are not holy as touching the notice and knowledge of God and God looking vpon and viewing all things whom the secrets of hearts cannot deceiue no man is iust Let him heare S. Hierome telling him againe that those wordes are not spoken as touching f Idem dial 1. cont Pelagia righteousnesse in comparison of God but as touching that righteousnesse which concerneth the frailtie of man S. Bernard giueth this reason why we are to cry so g Bernard in fest sanct ser 1 because all our righteousnesse euen our verie righteousnesse is found vnrighteousnesse if it be streightly iudged Therefore for this cause are we to pray in this sort because indéede we are not iust if God consider of vs and iudge vs according to that righteousnesse which is by workes The iustified man is ignorant of his state saith he and therefore may not boast thereof But the iustified man of whom the Scripture speaketh is not ignorant of his state for he h Râ—m 5. 1. 2. hath peace towardes God through Iesus Christ our Lord yea and that in such sort as that hee reioyceth vnder the hope of the glorie of God Now a man reioyceth or i Chrysost in ep ad Rom. hom 9. glorieth saith Chrysostome of those thinges which hee hath alreadie in hand But because the hope of things to come is as certaine and sure as of things alreadie giuen vs. Therefore saith S. Paul we doe alike glorie thereof But this glorying hee groundeth not vpon his workes for there he findeth no assurance but vpon confidence of the mercie and goodnesse of God towardes him in Iesus Christ k Bernar. de Euangel 7. pa. num serm 3. I consider the things saith S. Bernard wherin all my hope consisteth the loue of Gods adoption the truth of his promise and his ablenesse of performance Now let mine owne foolish thought murmure as much as it will saying Who art thou and how great is that glorie and by what merites hopest thou to obtaine it And I will boldly answere I know whom I haue beleeued and I am sure because he hath adopted me in exceeding great loue because he is true in his promise and able for the performance therof These three saith he do so confirme and strengthen my heart that no want of merites no consideration of mine owne vilenesse no estimation of the heauenly blisse can cast me downe from the height of my hope wherein I am firmely rooted This is the faith this is the assurance of the iustified man which the scripture teacheth this giueth him comfort in life and death in outward troubles and inward terrors in which there is no comfort if a man must be ignorant and doubtfull of his state The Answ intimateth further that the iustified man vseth those former spéeches by way of humbling himselfe before God l Bernar. de triplici custodia c. Indeed saith S. Bernard by vvay of humilitie but what against trueth Nay m Idem de verb. Esaiae serm 5. with no lesse truth then humilitie as we heard him say before n Aug. epis 89 in Psal 118. con 2. de nat grat cap. 36. not with counterfeit humilitie but with words of trueth as saint Austen saith concerning Daniel and o Idem de peccat merit remis lib. 2. cap 10. knowing in truth that it is so that there is noâ— a man that is iust in the sight of God as hee also speaketh out of Iob. His third iustification we know not by that name God in this life beginneth his good worke of sanctification in vs but it is yet but begunne p Rom. 8. 23. We haue receiued but the first fruites of the spirite saith S. Paul q Aug. de â—eÌ„p Serm 49. In comparison of that which we hope for at the resurrection saith S. Austen it is but dongue which wee haue in this life So that our r Idem de ciuit dei lib. 19. cap 27. righteousnesse in this life as he saith again consisteth rather in forgiuenesse of sinnes then in perfection of vertues But Å¿ 2. Pet. 3. 13. according to the promise of God we looke for newe heauens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousnesse t Rom 8. 23. We waite for the adoption and full redemption of out bodies u 1 Cor. 15. â—3 when this mortall shall put on immortalitie and this corruptible shall put on incorruption when sinne and death shal be no more and w 1. cor 13. 10. that which is perfect being come that which is now in part shal be done away Now because this our sanctification and righteousnesse is yet but vnperfect and in part therefore we resolue that the righteousnesse whereby we stand iust before God is only the righteousnes of Iesus Christ and that by inherent iustice no man liuing shal be found iust in his â—ight The cause why God doth not perfect vs in this life wee take to be this which S. Austen giueth x August de spiri lâ—tera cap 36. that the mouth euen of the righteous may be shut in their owne praise and not be opened but to the praise of God as S. Bernard saith y Bernard in cantie Ser. 50. that we may know at that day that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. The places which your simplicitie M. Spence as I gesse added in the margin to that which your authour had saide néede no great answere The two former are Apocryphall and prooue nothing Yet the one of them is nothing to the purpose z VVised 3. 15 the fruite of good workes is glorious the other is a false translation where in stéede of a Eccle. 16. 12. workes is put in merite of workes The third is of S. Paul b Rom. 2. 6. God will render vnto euery man according to his workes So we preach so wee enforme the people
and therefore needed not to be reiterated Good sir why c The Answ dreame For no man charged him with any such assertion dream you that we think or professe to sley and crucifie Christ in our Masses His death was once and that once sufficient for euer and he dieth no more and then where is your obiection But our sacrifice which is the offering of Christ to his father is only to commemorate his said death once past therby to d If the Masse be but to procure the propitiation earned on the Crosse why is it defended to be a continual sacrifice of propitiation Absurd contradiction procure the said propitiation earned for vs on the Crosse by thanking him and praising him for the said sacrifice of the Crosse and to procure by the said Commemoration the pardon gotten by the great sacrifice of his death e A goodly couer for a cup of poison See the answere Remission of sinnes doth come by Baptisme by repentance or penance and by praier Do we therefore exclude Christes death No but these worke by the vertue of that and only by the vertue thereof are auaileable and need no other death of him to make them profitable and actiue for vs. And therefore all your testimonies go no further but that there needeth not now any f VVhy doth the church of Rome then daily offer for sinne new oblation for sinne but Christs death alreadie past because it is still and euer will remaine and continue most sufficient to take away sinnes and neuer will need any reiteration but is and will be still able strong and auaileable to giue force vertue and strength to all our Sacraments sacrifices and praiers to procure Gods mercy vnto vs for the merit thereof and by the influence only thereof And what haue we euer affirmed more And what geâ— you by this for all your testimonies by you alleaged of Theodoret Oecumenius Chrysostome Ambrose Augustine Primasius we graunt as seruing our turne prouing in our sacrifice a memory and a commemoration but of what of his death and what more of the same commaunded to be offered in a sacrifice to God for so much your owne testimonies doe say But doe they g They dâ— denye it in that they make the sacrifice wherof they sâ—ake no more but a memoriall oâ— his death deny that in this sacrifice we offer his body they doe not They say a memory we say of his death they call it a figure wee say of his sufferings You would haue it a memory of himselfe as though he were absent we say it is a memory a comemoration a representation of his own onely sacrifice that is of his death Here is the point betweene vs here lieth the narrow issue In this narrow difference of h VVhat sacricrifice is there saith Prosper but the â—â—lling of the Lambe of God Therfore as touching sacrifice Christ himself is not to bee coÌ„sidered â—ut only as dying See the answere himselfe and of his death you would snare hamper vs as though the verity of his body cannot stand with the remembring representing and signifying of his death And therefore our own glose as you tearme it telleth you it is a representation and memorial but of what of his oblation and passion That is it all our writers haue told you so oft and so learnedly but you will not heare you dissemble it because the state of the question lieth therein which you starte away from We say his body is offered in Sacrifice in the which a memory is made of his death by the which is applied to vs remission of sinnes purchased by his death onely R. Abbot 9. NOw at length we are come to the capital points of the sacrifice of the Masse and of transubstantiation two fowle monsters of the Church of Rome In the defence whereof the Answ hath shewed himselfe a bird of the same nest with them who very honestly and ingenuously confessed of themselues thus a Index expurgat in censura Bertram In the olde Catholicke Doctors we suffer very many errours and we extenuate them excuse them and by some deuised shifte we oftentimes deny them or faine of them some conuenient meaning whensoeuer they are opposed in disputations or in contention and controuersie with our aduersaries I might not here omit to put him in minde againe of this their pretty maner of answering our allegations disclosed and vttered by their owne confession sufficient to make any man distrustfull of their answers howsoeuer good colours they set vppon them But as touching the present matter he telleth me that he passeth ouer a great heape of my waste wordes and in déede I doe not maruell that hee doth so For in those waste wordes I noted a cursed blasphemy contained in their Masse which I spak of before namely that a greasie headed and filthy harted priest is brought in praying vnto God that he wil looke down with a mercifull countenance vppon his sonne Iesus Christ as though by the prayer of a sinfull and wicked man Christ must be accepted with the Father Secondly those wast words laid open the shame of the diuines of Rhemes as touching their glose vppon the place Heb. 10. b Heb. 10. 18. There is nowe no more offering for sinne An euerlasting testimony of their lewd and vngodly minde desperately bent to the peruerting of all truth The Answ as conuicted in his conscience of their grosse dealing herein slippeth by all and vseth not a worde to defend them or to excuse them but betaketh himselfe to another idle and vaine shifte Where being a man that groundeth himselfe much vppon the infinite treatises of his learned side he might haue thought with himselfe surely these are learned men they haue sifted the matter to the vttermost If any other exposition then that which they haue giuen would better stand they would rather haue vsed it But without doubt they saw that nothing will serue the turne Therefore it is bootelesse for me to séeke any other aunswere Thus I say should haue thought and so for the credit of his Rhemists haue ioyned with them to dubbe that which they so grosly had auouched Now he hath left them naked to the shame of the world and by his silence confesseth that their impudency is greater then hee can tell any way how to excuse But let vs sée how well and wisely he doth shift off all The question is whether there be any prepitiatorie offering or sacrifice for sinne after the sacrifice of Christ vppon his Crosse the Papists say they haue so in their Masse I proue out of the tenth to the Hebrews that there is no such c Heb. 10. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For wher forgiuenes of sinnes is * there is no more any offering or sacrifice for sinne But in the new Testament once confirmed by yâ— death of Christ there is forgiuenesse of sinnes Therefore in the new Testament once confirmed by the death of
will not graunt in any wise Therefore consequently he must forgo his sacrifice The mad Iesuit could not tell what to say to this point and yet was resolued to say somewhat He saw it faulty which his fellowes had set downe and yet neither was hee able to resolue the matter so but that he is ouerthrowne by his owne grounds And therefore he speaketh warely with Arbitror I suppose as fearing least he himselfe should be taken tardy I maruaile that he béeing at Rome so néere the Pope the Oracle of the Church who pronounceth without errour from his consistory chaire could not obtain of him the certaine and vndoubted trueth of this matter but must thus féede men with his owne vaine ghesses and supposals The trueth is neither the Pope himselfe nor both his Seminaries of Rhemes and Rome doe know what to determine of this point and should not we be wise men to beléeue them as touching a sacrifice of which they themselues are not agréed how it is done or wherein it doth consist But the nullity of this fained and counterfait sacrifice I further shewed before by answering the obiection concerning the Fathers often speech of sacrifice For I declared that they themselues plainly expound themselues not to meane any true reall sacrifice properly so called but onely a mystery a sacrament a resemblance a remembrance of a sacrifice as their owne wordes alleaged doe testifie To this he saith that those testimonies doe prooue that there is a commemoration indéede of Christes death and sufferings but not that they doe not in their sacrifice really and indéede offer his body Then he telleth me full wisely what difference there is béetwixt vs and them that we say there is a memory of Christ himselfe as being absent and they say there is a memory of his one onely sacrifice that is of his death Herein he saith lieth the narrow issue to put a difference betwixt Christes death and Christ himself importing hereby that there is a remembrance of Christes death in the Masse and besides that a true and reall offering of Christ himselfe This he telleth me is the state of the question which we alwaies start from and will not sée Where I may say of him as S. Austen said of the Hereticke u August coÌ„r aduer legis prophe lib. 1. cap. 23. Quà m eleganter sibi videtur iste verba discutere atque discernere nesciens quid loquatur How trimly doeth this man seeme to himselfe to sifte and discerne wordes and speeches and knoweth not what he saieth For first where he saith that their sacrifice is onely to commemorate the death of Christ once past hée crosseth his owne assertion For if they onely commemorate the death of Christ then they doe not really offer him If they doe really offer him they doe not only commemorate his death Secondly he saith that there néedeth not now any newe oblation or sacrifice for sinne after Christes death already past because his death is still sufficient and auaileable to take awaye sinne and yet hee addeth that the same death of Christ giueth force and vertue to their sacrifice which they say is a sacrifice propitiatory to take away sinne If there néede no other sacrifice for sinne after Christes death howe doeth his death giue force and vertue to their sacrifice for sinne Belike hee woulde haue vs to vnderstand that their sacrifice is but a méere fansie and no sacrifice in deede Surely it is folly w Vigil cont Eutych lib. 4. as Vigilius saith For a man to goe about to refute that which withall hee is proued not to deny Thirdly where he saith that wee would haue the Sacrament a remembrance of Christ himself whereas they intend it of his death he sheweth himselfe to bee too much delighted with idle talke For if hee haue but common sense he may vnderstand by that that I said vnto him that we vse the Sacrament entirely as a remembraÌ„ce of Christs death and so defend it against their counterfaite and imagined reall sacrifice Fourthly he saith againe we are commanded beside the memory of Christes death to offer the same death in a sacrifice to God and yet after he saith it is onely to be recorded figured and represented But to passe ouer these ouerthwart and crosse fancies of braiâ—sicke and vnstable heads which confound themselues in their owne spéeches and taking vppon them to be x 1. Tim. 1. 7. the only Doctors of the Law yet vnderstand not what they speake nor whereof they affirme Let vs come to the state of the question which hee setteth downe namely whether beside the memory of Christes dâ—ath and passion there be in the Masse a true and reall offering or sacrificing of the body and bloud of Christ In which point we haue dalied maruailously all this while and haue béene greatly too blame for going so wide from the question proposed For the question hath béene whether the body and bloud of Christ be verely and in déede offered or sacrificed in the Masse or not and we haue still very directly proued that the body and bloud of Christ is not verily and indéed offered or sacrificed in the Masse that there is not any sacrifice done for sin in the Masse truely and properly so called that the Masse is an abhominable sacriledge and wicked profaning of the Sacrament of Christ For first if they will defend a sacrifice they must defend it by the institution of Christ But let it bee resolued what a sacrifice is and what is there in the institutioÌ„ of Christ that giueth so much as any shadow of a sacrifice y Bellar. tom 2. de Missa lib. 1. cap. 2. To a true sacrifice saieth Bellarmine and that truely is required that that which is offered to God in sacrifice be verily destroied that is be so changed as that it cease to be not onely in vse but in substance that that it was before But what is there in the action of Christ answerable to this condition of a sacrifice Is there any man so madde as to say that the body of Christ was there verily destroied or is there any shew of any such matter it is more then senselesse to imagine it Nowe it hath beene shewed before what a srurre the Iesuit keepeth to vpholde the sacrifice of the Masse together with this definition and yet all in vaine Moreouer where may we haue it assured vnto vs that Christ did sacrifice himselfe twise The Scripture precisely telleth vs that he offered himselfe but once which was by his death z Heb. 7. 27. He needed not daily to offer vp sacrifice for that did he once when he offered vp himselfe a Cap. 9. 12. By his owne bloud entred he in once into the holy place b Cap. 9. 26. In the end of the world hee hath appeared once to put away sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe c Cap. 9. 27. As it is appointed to men to die once so Christ
Remission of sinnes is perfectly wrought and obtained by the once offering of Christ vpon the Crosse therefore after the once offering of Christ vpon the Crosse all offering or sacrifice for sinne is vaine and therefore it is none at all As for that which the Answ excepteth that remission of sinnes doth come by Baptisme repentance praier c. And yet wée doe not thereby exclude Christes death intending thereby as it séemeth that it followeth not that Christes death is excluded though remission of sinnes be affirmed to be wrought by the sacrifice of the Masse it is a friuolous and vaine shifte For what comparison is there betwixt the sacrifice which it selfe is defended to be a propitiation for sinne and repentance faith praier baptisme which doe not themselues worke forgiuenesse of sinnes but onely serue vs to receiue forgiuenesse of sinnes wrought onely by the death and bloudshedding of Iesus Christ As hunger prouoketh a man to desire meate so repentance stirreth him to séeke forgiuenesse of sinnes As a man craueth meate to relieue his hunger so praier craueth the forgiuenesse of sinnes As in a vessell meate is set before a man and offered vnto him so God in the word and Sacraments though in other sort setteth before vs and offereth vnto vs the effect of the bloud of Christ to the forgiuenesse of sinnes As the hande and mouth receiue the meate to the satisfying of hunger and comfort of the body so faith receiueth the benefite of Christes bloud to the forgiuenesse of sinnes But as neither the desire of meate nor the crauing for meate nor the vessell wherein meate is offered nor the hand and mouth that receiueth the meate haue themselues any vertue to féed the body but the force thereof belongeth onely to the meate so neither repentance nor praier nor the sacraments nor faith haue any vertue themselues of the remission of sinnes but onely are either occasions of séeking or meanes of offering and receiuing the death and passion of Christ to which only and entirely in it selfe is to be attributed the forgiuenesse of our sinnes Neither is it any other but a fantasticall toy which the Answ imagineth that these by an influence as he speaketh of the passion of Christ haue in themselues the efficiency of the forgiuenesse of sins in like maner if at least he will giue me leaue to expresse his minde by a comparison as the aire being warmed by the fire warmeth the body wherunto it is applied A méere deuise of Satan that men whilest they séek for forgiuenesse of sinnes where it is not may faile of it where it is and whilest they follow after a shadow by these deuises of influence from the bloud of Christ may misse of the substance in Iesus Christ himselfe The Scripture hath not taught vs that either our repentance or praiers or faith or sacraments are propitiations for our sinnes and therefore it is but a fonde shifte to gather from hence any maintenance for the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mosse I resolue therefore as before that séeing Christ Iesus by one offering hath perfected vs as touching the propitiation and attonement for our sinnes there is not now remaining any manner of offering whatsoeuer for propitiation of sinne But to goe somewhat further in this matter séeing they will néedes haue vs to beléeue a reall offering of the bodye of Christ what Priest will they appoint vs to offer the same Forsooth vnder pretence that this is r Concil Trident sessi 6. cap. 1. a cleane offering and such as cannot be defiled by the vnworthinesse of him that offereth they will haue vs to beléeue that euery varlet Priest comming blowing from the Alehouse or sweating from the stewes hath Christ at his becke to bring him from Heauen euery morning as ofte as hee list to offer him vp for the forgiuenesse of whose sinnes it pleaseth him But we will not beléeue this because the Scripture nameth vnto vs in this behalfe but one onely Priest which is ſ Heb. 3. 1. the high Priest of our profession one which is t Cap. 7. 26. holy harmelesse vndefiled seperated from sinners made higher then the heauens And séeing it maketh this difference betwixt the Priesthood of the law the Priesthood of Christ u Cap. 7 26. that the law maketh men high Priests that haue infirmity but the worde of the othe maketh the sonne who is consecrated for euer opposing Christ the sonne of God the Priest of the newe Testament to men of infirmity that were Priests by the law either this difference is idle and without ground and men of infirmity are Priests as wel in the Priesthood of Christ as in the priesthood of the lawe or else al men that haue infirmity and therefore all Popishe Priests are vtterly excluded from the priesthood of Christ Therfore as the councell of Ephesus saide so say we w Concil Ephes Epist ad Nestor We assigne not the name and office of priesthood to any other man but to Christ For he is made the mediatour betwixt God and man and the reconciler to peace offering himselfe a sacrifice of a sweet smelling sauour to God for vs. Whereas they say for the better countenancing of this their sacriledge that x Rhem. Annot Heb. 7. 23. marg Christ concurreth with the Priests in this action of offering vp himself they spurn at the text of the Scripture which telleth vs that y Heb. 7. 27. Christ needeth not daily to offer vp sacrifice and that hee z Cap. 9. 25. is gone into Heauen to appeare in the sight of God for vs not that he should offer himselfe often Nay when it saieth a Cap. 1. 31. Hauing by himselfe purged our sinnes he sitteth at the right hand of the maiesty in the highest places and againe b cap. 10. 12. This man after he had offered one sacrifice for sinnes sitteth for euer at the right hand of God expecting thenceforth till his foes be made his footestoole it opposeth Christes offering himselfe for sinne to his sitting at the right hand of God making the one a matter of humiliation the other of exaltation the one of infirmity the other of glory And therefore as humiliation and infirmity standeth not with exaltation and glory so the offering of Christ for sinne standeth not with his sitting at the right hand of God the Father This Chrysostome and Theophylact and out of them Oecumenius haue rightly obserued c Oecumen He. 7. ex chrysost in Heb. ◠hom 13. Theophyl ibid. When thou hearest him called the high Priest doe not thinke that he doeth still sacrifice himselfe for sinne For when he had done so once he ascended to his fathers Throne For it belongeth to the Minister and Priest to stand but this sitting signifyeth that he brought sacrifice once euen his owne body and afterward sate downe to be ministred vnto of the heauenly powers So Theodoret also d Theodor. in Hebr. 8. What
office of Priesthood doth he execute who offered himselfe once and doth not offer sacrifice any more And how can it be that he should both sitte and yet execute the office of a Priest to offer sacrifice As it séemed strange to them that Christ should offer himselfe still in sacrifice yet withall sit at the right hand of God so no lesse strange séemeth it vnto vs and therefore we cannot beléeue the one because the Apostle hath taught vs against that to beléeue the other I wil adde onely one place more of Sainct Ambrose as touching this point of the offering of Christ whereby we may sufficiently vnderstand the meaning of the auncient Writers in the vse of the same wordes e Amb. Officlib 1. cap. 48. Now Christ is offered saith he but as man as receiuing or suffering his passion and he offereth himselfe as a Priest that he may forgiue our sinnes Here in an image or resemblance there in trueth where as an Aduocate he pleadeth for vs with the Father Where he sayeth indéede that Christ is offered and offereth himselfe but yet as suffering his passion which he doth not suffer really and therefore is not really offered in sacrifice but onely in a mystery Therefore he saith he is here offered not verily and in trueth as if his very body were here to be offered but in an image or reseÌ„blance by these signes which betoken his body and bloud For as Oecumenius saith out of Gregory f Oecumen in Heb. 10. The image containeth not the trueth though it be a manifest imitation of the trueth And therefore if the offering of Christ here on the earth be in an image then it is not in the very trueth As for the trueth of his body and bloud he telleth vs that it is not in earth but in Heauen where he offereth himselfe not by reall sacrifice but by presenting coÌ„tinually vnto his father in our behalfe that body wherein he was once sacrificed and thereby as by a continuall sacrifice making intercession to God for vs which he opposeth by pleading for vs as an Aduocate with the Father And therefore doeth Oecumenius expound g Oecumen in Heb. 8. that sacrificing of himselfe in Heauen to be nothing else but his making intercession for vs. For h Heb. 9. 24. his appearing in the sight of God for vs and sitting with the Father clothed with our flesh is as Theophylact noteth i Theophy in Heb. 7. a kinde of intercession to God in our behalfe as if the flesh it selfe did intreate God Therefore our offering of Christ standeth onely in this that by those mysteries of his body and bloud which he hath ordained for commemoration of his death and by our faith and prayers we doe as it were present vnto God the Father his sonne Iesus Christ sitting at the right hand of God in that body wherein hée was crucified for vs crauing for his sake as thus crucified for vs yâ— forgiuenesse of all our sinne So Christes offering of himselfe is nothing else but his continuall presence in the sight of God for vs in that body which he gaue to death for our sinnes by which euen as effectually as by vocall wordes he is saide k Heb. 12. 24. to speak good things for vs and to intreate God that he will be mercifull vnto vs. And this vndoubtedly is the vtermost that the fathers meant in al those spéeches of offering and sacrifice wherewith the Papistes would abuse vs. To be short the euidence of Scripture is against all sacrifice for sinne They bring no euidence of Scripture for it Some places indéede they alleadge but in no other manner then the olde Heretickes were wont to alledge the scriptures for defence of their heresies There is nothing to be séene in the places themselues to that purpose for which they are alleaged but we must rest onely vppon those constructions and collections which it pleaseth them to make thereof Against the euidence of scripture they except with a blinde distinction that hath no grounde from the holie Scripture and that which is there generally denyed they restraine without anye warrant to a particular manner Christ is not to be offered after his once offering as the scripture teacheth True say they not in that maner as he was once offered but in another maner he may We require it out of the scripture Otherwise we may haue all assertions of faith and religion impiously deluded For with as great reason when we say there is but one God it may be answered that in that maner as he is God there is but one but in another maner there are many when we saie there is but one redéemer it may be answered that in that maner as he is redéemer there is but one but in another maner there be many nay when it is sayd that Christ died but once as it is sayd he was offered but once why may it not as wel be said that in that maner as he died once he dieth no more but in another maner he dieth often as that he is offered no more indéed in that maner as he was offered before but in another maner he is offered often Therfore this licentious and presumed distinction is ioyned with impietie against God and serueth to giue a mocke to all the wordes of God and for this cause is to be detested of vs beside that it is as hath bene before shewed manifestly contradicted by the word of God Much more might here be added to shew the villany and abhomination of the sacrifice of the Masse But it shall suffice for my purpose to haue added this to that that I had sayd before where notwithstanding this matter was manifestly inough declared to satisfie the Answ had he bene as carefull to know the truth as he is wilfull to continue in his errour For do not the places which I alleaged before out of the Fathers exclude all reall offering sacrificing of Christ I will once againe set them downe particularly as thornes in the Answ eyes who being in his owne conscience ouercome with them answereth nothing distinctly but séeketh to go away in a mist of general words and because he can say nothing to the purpose thinketh it inough to say that none of these testimonies maketh against their sacrificing of Christ A pretie kind of answering and very agréeable to that that I alleaged before out of the Index But first l Chrysost â— Ambros in Heb. â—0 Chrysostome and Ambrose purposely speaking of the sacrifice of the church say thus We offer not another sacrifice but alwaies the same or rather we worke the remembrance of a sacrifice It is absurd to vse correction of spéech where the truth of yâ— thing is fully answerable already to the proper signification of the words For correction of spéech is a reuersing of that which is alreadie set downe as being hardly or not so fully or fitly spoken and therefore putteth in stéed thereof
Lords Supper do not thereby meane that Christ is indéed and verily offered but only that his sacrifice is represented The collection that I made before and euen now noted again out of that place of S. Austen standeth firme sure to this purpose Namely that there is difference with Austen betwixt being offered in himself and being offered in a Sacrament or mysterie and that the name of offering or sacrificing when it is referred to the Sacrament is vsed not ex rebus ipsis for the truth of the thing it selfe but for the resemblance of the thing and therfore importeth not the offering of Christ in himselfe But this the Answ would not sée or take notice of because he should haue had nothing to write of this matter being therby excluded alreadie from all that he hath now said For his shift is â—o put difference betwixt Christes death and Christ himself and to say that Christ although he die no more yet is verily sacrificed in himselfe and my collection was before direct to the contrary that Christ is not now sacrificed in himselfe So that he sheweth himself a stout disputer to let the premisses go and deny the conclusion Now the necke of his sacrifice being thus broken in that it is proued that after the death of Christ there is no more offering for sinne that Christ is not now offered in himselfe but only the sacrificing of his body on the crosse celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance which yet is called by the name of sacrifice because sacraments are vsually called by the names of those things whereof they are Sacraments and we therein call to mind and shew Christs death and offering of himselfe as if he were then presently offered yet he setting a good face vpoÌ„ the matter when nothing else wil help him telleth me that these things touch him no more then the man in the Moone biddeth me to learne the state of the question better not to roue at random but to aime at the marke to put vp in my purse all those testimonies that I did alleage c. An easie and soone-made answere or rather an vnshamefast wretched shift But the yoong Crab must go as the olde Crab doth teach him and he must giue such answeres as other his forefathers haue bin wont to doe P. Spence Sect. 10. VVHerefore all the premisses considered whersoeuer all or any of your alleaged places do sound a remembrance memoriall and representation of a sacrifice and such like words take this for a full answere that they are memories and remembrances representations and if you wil figures too of the sacrifice of Christ But what sacrifice the sacrifice of his death the sacrifice of the Crosse which we do but represent for die any more he now cannot And because we doe not say that in our Masse Christ is crucified and dieth you do vs wrong so to burthen vs which in no Catholickes writing you can shew and therefore in pressing these authories against vs you touch vs no more then the man in the Moone but you wrankle two waies both in interpreting Sacrificium here in these places to be Eucharistia where it is meant of the offering the same in a sacrifice and not of it as it is absolutely a Sacrament only â—s though the Sacrament were but a remembrance figure or representation And also secondly herein you wrangle for that you would beare vs in hand the said authorities to mean the thing represented figured or recorded to be Christs bodie where they only call our sacrifice a remembrance figure and representation of Christes passion and death vpon the Crosse onely once done and now neuer more to be done or reiâ—erated but only to be recorded fygured and represented Learne better hereafter the state of your question and roue not at randome but aime at the marke and remember you fight not herein with vs but you skirmish with your aduersaries in theâ—ire with arguments fained forged and imagined of your selues Put a A patterne how to answer any thing easily and without any study vp therfore in your purse all your places of Chrysostom Ambrose Theâ—phylact Augustine Cyprian Aug. ad Bonaâ—acium the Glose de consecratiâ—â—e Cypriaâ— againe and Prosper Alexander the Pope and againe Chrysostome and Hâ—erome and Gregorie c. For they say nothing for you but what we confesse except you thinke vs so mad to thinke that we vse to crucifie and sley Christ in our Churches sacrifice an imagination fit for your merry gentleman the Athenian We must also tell you that you ouerreach in writing that the death and passion of Christ is the whole as much to say as the only matter substance so you terme it of this mysterie Christs reall bodie is the matter substance and thing offered in our sacrifice really but his passion is with all offered but as in a Commemoration So that our sacrifice hath b Nay it hath many things more then ouer Christ or any of his Apostles taught â—wo things two things Christs bodie really and his passion in a mysterie onely and a memorie Dolosus versaâ—ur in generalibus I wish you to speake more distinctly We graunt with you his passion but that only represented we haue also his bodie and blood and that verily present verily offered Else all that you can infer of the aforesaid authorities we also confesse so far as gladly as you do Sauing that wheras you saâ—e that it is no maâ—â—ell though the Fathers called this mysterie a sacrifice For they meant it was so called but was not so indeede that we yeelde not vnto For we saie the Fathers called it a sacrifice because they meant as they spake and no where denie it and we could shewe if there were any waight in your reasons to presse vs so farre where the Fathers giue reasons why it is a sacrifice because c A Roomish deuise which ther 's neuer knew the bloodie sacrifice of the Crosse and death are offered and sacrificed man vnbloodie sacrifice Châ—â—st himselfe being verily offered his death only recorded with thankesgiuing and by this vnbloodie sacrifice of Christs verie bodie the vertue of that bloodie sacrifice is daily applied to the faithfull And therefore where you aske whether Christ indeed doth d Either he really suffereâ—h and dâ—eth in the Masse or else he is not really offered The Fathers speake of both alike as I shewed really suffer in the Churches sacrifice or sweat water and blood or be condemned or nailed to the Crosse they are idle phantasticall questions But to answere you we do not thinke so Be of good cheare man we do not thinke so we neuer thought said or e Doct. Allen hath written that Christ iâ— verily slaine in the Masse wrote so Yet we thinke and till you come neerer the marke we will still so thinke that vnbloodily but really wee sacrifice and offer the same Christs verie true bodie and blood to the whole Trinitie for
b clem Apost consti li. 6. ca. 23. Euseb de vita constant lib. 4. cap. 45. Concil Constanti 6. ca. 32. calling the one blouddy as being properly a sacrifice the other vnblouddy as being so but vnproperly and onely in a mystery as the place of Clemens whosoeuer he was doth plainely shew affirming it to bée celebrated by signes of the body and bloud of Christ not by the body it selfe and that of c Oecumen in Heb. 5. Oecumenius out of Photius that Christ first offered an vnblouddy sacrifice and then afterward hee offered his owne body also manifestly declaring that the vnblouddy sucrifice was not indéede the offering of y◠body of Christ yet to offer the blouddy sacrifice of Christes death in an vnblouddy sacrifice of his body to apply vnto vs the vertue of his bloudy sacrifice is a mishapen monster lately begotten in the time of Antichristian desolation and such as the ancient fathers neuer dreamed of And wisely did he deale to tel me that he could shew much and yet to shew nothing at all Now he telleth me againe here that which for enlarging his answere he hath so often idlely and vainely repeated that they are not of opinion that Christ suffereth or is slaine in their sacrifice which he saieth is an imagination fit for my merry gentleman the Athenian But surely it will fall to Doctor Allen to be that merry gentleman For he in great sadnesse telleth vs concerning Christ in their sacrifice That hee is d Allen. de Eucharist sacrif cap 1◠Verè mactatur verely slaine and offered in sacrifice and I hope the Answ wil take Doct. Allen for a Catholicke though he say that neuer any Catholicke did so write But let that passe as an vnsauery dreame of a drousie Cardinall the Answ will not say so Yet he may as well proue by the sayings of the Fathers ◠that Christ dieth and is crucified again in this mysterie as that he is verily sacrificed séeing that as I shewed him they no lesse plainly affirme the one then they do the other But the letter is not to be forced in the one What reason then so much to force it in the other Nay because they teach vs that the passion death of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer and the passion of Christ is here to be vnderstood not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie as S. Austen speaketh it foloweth that the sacrifice which we offer as touching y◠present act must be vnderstood a sacrifice not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie But here the Answ would saine lift me vp before I am downe telling me first that mine argument is against art because the forme is negatiue in the third figure But the man without doubt hath forgotten his Logicke For what proposition of all these is negatiue I maruell Mary this forsooth The passion of Christ is here to be vnderstood not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie and so the conclusion But if I should say to him that Campian and his fellows were executed not for religion but for treason would he not take it that I spake verie affirmatiuely that they were executed only for treason And why then could he not cōceiue that when I said The passion of Christ is to be vnderstood as touching the Sacrament not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie I affirmed this that the passion of Christ is to be vnderstood only in a signifying mysterie and the conclusion answerable thereto His Logicke rule of the negatiue particle Post copulam would haue taught him to vnderstand both the propositions affirmatiuely as I set them downe and then the forme shal not be negatiue in the third figure But this being made good the Maior or first proposition he saith is false if I meane it as I must that the passion of Christ is the whole sacrifice For there is as he saith beside the memory of the passion of Christ a reall offering also of the body of Christ The Maior is the saying of Cyprian as I alleaged e Cypri lib. 2. Epist 3. The passion of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer Yea but he saith not that it is the whole sacrifice saith the Answerer He saith not so indéed but yet his words import no lesse to any mans vnderstanding that is not froward But if that be not hence assured yet was it otherwise manifestly inough proued by the words of Prosper though the Answ would not see it because it should haue preuented him of his answere f Prosper in Psal 12◠What propitiation is there saith Prosper but sacrifice and what sacrifice but the killing or death of that lambe which hath taken away the sinnes of the world Now if there be no sacrifice of propitiation but only the death of the lamb◠that is the passiō of Christ as Prosper teacheth then the passion of Christ is the whole sacrifice that we offer Let him adde hereunto the words of S. Austen who telleth vs thus g August con aduer leg proph l. 1. c. 18 For the singular and only true sacrifice the blood of Christ was shed for vs. The bloodshedding of Christ then is the only true sacrifice therefore there is no other true sacrifice of Christ himselfe The bloodshedding of Christ is only represented in the Sacrament by a signifying mysterie and not performed in the truth of the thing Therefore the whole sacrifice that we offer is a representation only of a sacrifice by a signifying mysterie not any reall sacrificing in the truth of the thing Let Iustinus Martyr further iustifie this matter who auoucheth plainly h Iushin Martyr dial cum Tryph. That praiers thanksgiuing are the only sacrifices that Christians haue receiued to make that by their drie and moist nourishment that is the Sacrament or elements of bread and wine they may be admonished of those things which God the sonne of God hath suffered for them The Sacrament then of drie and moyst nourishment that is the Lordes supper contemeth no other sacrifices but praiers and thanksgiuings neither haue Christians receiued to vse therein any other sacrifice as Iustinus Martyr expresly defineth Then it followeth that Christians haue not receiued that which Papists teach to make any reall offering of the body of Christ but only an Eucharistical offering of the passiō of Christ in calling to minde by the vse of this holy Sacrament what God the sonne of God hath suffered for them Basil also witnesseth the same writing vpon these words of the prophesie of Esay i Basil in Esay cap. 1. What haue I to do with the multitude of your offerings c. God saith he reiecting multitude of offerings requireth of vs one namely that euery man reconcile and offer himselfe to God yeelding himselfe by reasonable seruice a liuing sacrifice offering to God the sacrifice of praise For the
Luc. 2â— 20. for propitiation or for pardon of sinne So Bellarmine saith that Christ at his supper offered a sacrifice Å¿ Bellar. to 2. de Missâ— lib. 2. cap. 2. for the Apostles sinnes and with a mouth of blasphemy auoucheth that the Masse is such a sacrifice as doth purge abolish forgiue sinnes that it doth abolish the sinne of the world doth saue from eternall destruction doth make attonement with God for our sinnes falsifying and misconstruing to this purpose diuers testimonies of the auncient fathers In like sort the councell of Trent determineth it to be such a sacrifice as doth t Concil Trident sess 6. cap. 2. verily worke propitiation for sinne and appease God because it is the same with that vpon the Crosse differing only in the maner of offering and therefore it u can 3. curseth those that deny it to be such Wherby it appeareth that the Answerers fellowes do not thinke that remission of sinnes is purchased only by the death of Christ And therfore when they say as sometimes they do that the death of Christ is w Rhe. Annot. Hâ—b 7. 27. the one full sufficient raunsome for the redemption of all sinnes or as he saith here that remission of sinnes is purchased by the death of Christ only they do but plaie mock-holy day and delude the ignorant reader with deceitfull and double meaning words The death of Christ is a sufficient raunsome they say but we must vnderstand it of a generall raunsome and therefore so as that there is beside that a particular raunsome or redemption in the Masse of the same effect working particularly as the death of Christ is generally And therefore they call their sacrifice of the Masse x Rhe. Annâ—â— Hâ—b 10. 11. a particular redemption and in that sense the euerlasting redemption both of bodie and soule So this man when he saith that remission of sinnes is purchased onely by the death of Christ must be vnderstood belike to meane it of the generall purchase not to deny a particular purchase thereof in the Masse also Or if he meane simply as he speaketh that there is not at all either generally or particularly any purchase of the forgiuenesse of sinnes in the Masse then let him curse the church of Rome that hath cursed him and let him returne into the bosome of the church of Christ to professe with vs that truth which the church of Rome hath impiously condemned But to come to that matter of applying which he saith is the vse of their sacrifice we may note therein the notable fraud and shifting of the diuell wherby he hath practised and prâ—uailed in the church of Rome to defeate the people of the benefit of Christs redemption For whereas Christ had left vnto his church two speciall meanes to offer and apply vnto vs the fruite of his death the liuely preaching of the word and the vse of his holy Sacraments the diuell hath so wrought that y Apoc. 7. 1. the wind of the word of God should not blow vpon the earth that men should not haue so much as any priuate vse of the booke of God that their very church-seruice should be in a language which they did not vnderstand As for the Sacraments he hath miserably corrupted the one and vtterly iâ— a maner abandoned the people from the vse of the other and instéed thereof hath deluded them with a theatricall shew and vaine opinion of a sacrifice whereby to procure to themselues forgiuenesse of sinnes Truely it had bene more méete that these men should haue carefully vsed those meanes of application which Christ appointed to his Church then thus thrust vppon men other meanes of their owne deuising But this deuise of theirs is vnreasonable also and without sense A sacrifice forsooth to apply a sacrifice a propitiatioÌ„ to apply a propitiatioÌ„ a redemptioÌ„ to apply a redemption as if a man would fondly require a medicine to apply a medicine and a plaister to apply a plaister Verily séeing that as Cyprian saith z Cypri de Bapt. Christi manifest Trinit the sacrifice which Christ offered vpon the crosse standeth so acceptable in the good pleasure of God and abideth so in perpetuall force and vertue as that that oblation is no lesse effectuall in the sight of the father at this day then it was that day when as water and blood issued out of his wounded side and the stripes still abiding in his bodie do exact the paiment of mans saluation and the stipend due vnto his obedience it cannot but be vtterly absurd senselesse to say that we must euery day offer Christ a-new in sacrifice to apply vnto vs the benefit of his former sacrifice Moreouer the act of sacrificing importeth not applying vnto vs but offering vnto God and it is one thing to offer sacrifice vnto God another to apply the benefite of a sacrifice vnto man euen as it is one thing to make a plaister for a sore and another thing to laie the plaister to the sore So that they themselues are forced to graunt that yâ— méere sacrificing is not the applying of the sacrifice Wherein then is the application Marry forsooth a Hard Rei oind pa. 5. 6. in the intention praier of the priest For whomsoeuer he doth thinke vpon in his Memento to whomsoeuer he intendeth the benefit of his sacrifice to him is applied the passion and death of Christ and that for the verie worke wrought though there be neither good minde nor good motion in him for whoÌ„ it is done Now the priest most commonly is a seruiceable man and readie for his paie to giue his attendance One commeth to him for himselfe another for his friend another for a soule in purgatorie another for his swine and cattle and he hath Christ at commandement to offer him vp in sacrifice for the good of them all and for so much or so much mony a man shal haue so many or so many Masses as he shall thinke méete to serue the turne either for himself or for his For for the better vtterance of this bad ware they will not haue it thought nay b Prouinâ— Constit Linwood titulo de celebrat Missarum God forbid that any Catholicke should thinke that one Masse deuoutly celebrated doth profit a man as much as a thousand Masses said with like deuotion For though Christ be of infinit vertue yet he dispenseth not himselfe all at once Otherwise it were inough for a man wheÌ„ he is dead to haue one only Masse which in no case is tollerable to thinke Now therefore it is good for a man to haue Masse vpon Masse and neuer leaue massing for his massing he must remember paying and yet when he hath all done he is no whit the néere for after he is dead he must yet haue more massing to helpe his soule to heauen and thereof he must bethinke himselfe when he maketh his will These horrible and cursed doings are
conteined in the Roomish sacrifice wherby they haue made a mockery of the sonne of God and troden vnder their féete as a vile and base thing the sacred blood of Christ whereby we were redéemed But séeing that the applying of Christs death consisteth not in sacrificing with what reason do these men teach a sacrifice to apply the death of Christ vnto vs Why could they not as well without any new sacrifice make the priestes Memento and his intention a meanes to apply Christes death vnto vs as giue him power to sacrifice Christ againe and to apply that sacrifice to whom he will and by that to apply the other sacrifice of his death And what if the priest neuer so much as thinke vpon Christs death in his Masse but mumble it vp without consideration thereof how shall we thinke that he doth apply the death of Christ Last of all why may they not with as good reason say that Christ must be borne againe to apply vnto vs the benefit of his birth that he must suffer die and rise againe to apply vnto vs the vertue of his passion death and resurrection as that he must be sacrificed againe to apply vnto vs the benefit of his former sacrifice The former are absurd the Answ will say but by no reason which shall not also proue the absurditie of the latter The truth of applying as the verie word sheweth consisteth in offering and giuing of Christ vnto vs and our receiuing of him This is set foorth in the Sacrament by words of application Take ye eate ye and againe Drinke ye all of this where the bodie of Christ crucified and his blood shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes are by the outward elements as by seales and pledges proposed vnto vs and we willed to accept and receiue the same Which we do by true and liuely faith through the working of the holy Ghost and so are made partakers of the benefits of his death and passion to iustification and euerlasting life And this is the only meanes of application which the scripture teacheth briefly set downe by Saint Paul Rom. 3. c Rom. 3. 25. Him hath God set foorth to be an attonement not by continual offring him in sacrifice but by faith in his blood by faith I say apprehending and laying hold on him both in the hearing of the word and receiuing of the Sacraments Herein is our receiuing of Christ as S. Iohn sheweth expounding d Ioh 1. 12. receiuing by beleeuing so many as receiued him that is so many as beleeued in his name Now the papists ouerthwarting the ordinance of Iesus Christ make litle or no regard of Take ye eate ye being the two meanes of application appointed by Christ and practised by the primitiue Church but tell vs of a continuall sacrificing of Christ which doth by the intention of the priest for the very worke wrought obteine grace and apply vnto vs forgiuenesse of sinnes But in this point beside their manifest departing from the ordinance of God they again commit high treason against God in that they aduance so many other their abhominable and hatefull deuises to ride in the same chariot with the sacrifice of the body and blood of Iesus Christ For all the filth and rifraffe of the church of Rome whereby they wickedly teach men to séeke forgiuenesse of sinnes is shadowed and coloured with this conceit of applying vnto vs the death of Christ The sufferings of Saintes and Martyrs are e Rhe. Annot. Col. 1. 24. satisfactions for our sinnes they say But how Marry forsooth they take this vertue and force from Christs death and as a particular medicine apply vnto vs the generall medicine of his passion Their crossings their f Rhe. Annot. Mat. 10. 12. 1. Tim. â—5 Summe of religion taken out of Bristow and the order of confession Bishops blessings their holy water their Popes indulgences pardons their shauen crowns their munkish orders their whippings their shrifts their pilgrimages and offerings to idols their mumbling on their beades their Agnus Deis their kissing the pax and the remnant of this absurd rabble are very helpfull to the forgiuenesse of sinnes because as the Masse doth so do all these apply vnto vs the death of Christ Thus they haue multiplied their deuises as the starres and filled the world with their eâ—chauntments and sorceries of other sacrifices merits and satisfactions of their owne to giue effect and working to the sacrifice merit and satisfaction of Iesus Christ And these bastard and misbegotten trumperies because they are of themselues so apparantly iniurious to the crosse of Christ that the diuel thought they would neuer go for sale-able ware wheÌ„ they should be examined and tried except some deceitfull colour were set vpon them he hath therefore somewhat graced and countenanced with these termes of applying the death of Christ to mollifie and extenuate so much as might be the horrible blasphemy that is conteined therein And yet the blinde and ignorant people were not acquainted with this shift but persuaded themselues to find merit and forgiuenesse of sinnes in the méere exercise of these spirituall fornications and whoredomes whereto they were bewitched of their blinde leaders They might with as good reason haue tolde them that to runne a mans head against a wall to weare a straight paire of shooes vpon his féete to lie naked vpoÌ„ thorns to eat wormewood and gall to wash his hands before meate are meanes merits of the forgiuenesse of sins They will say these things are fond Alasse blind men that cannot sée the like folly and madnesse in those things which they themselues approue But thus they haue iustled the blood of Christ out of place and fulfilled that which S. Peter prophecied of them g 2. Pet. 2. 1. There shall be false teachers which priuily shall bring in damnable heresies euen denying the Lord that hath bought them c. And through couetousnesse with feined wordes shall they make marchandise of you c. Of such feined and whorish counterfeit words the h Rhe. Annot. 2. cor 2. 11. 1. Tim. 4. â— câ—ll 1. 24. paâ—sim writings of Papists are very full not sauouring at all of the holy scriptures but arising méerely of their owne deuise to cloake and couer the monstrous and filthie abhominations of the Roomish harlot P. Spence Sect. 11. VVHere we say as you coÌ„fesse that the testimony of one Gelasius or what other Doctor may not preiudicate the whole faith of them all generally we say so indeed yea we goe further and will yeeld you that Reijcimus singulos probamus omnes all of them togither or the greatest part of them consenting are the a The church of God is built vpoÌ„ the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2. that is vpon the old and new Testament But here both old and new Testament are iustled out of their place and the Doctors are made the mouth eyes and spirite
the bread and the winynesse of the wine were gone and Gelasius defended that the breadinesse and winynesse do still remaine though there be neither bread nor wine So his good maisters e Index Expurgat in censura Bertra the authors of the Index Expurgatorius to auoyd the euidence of Bertrams disputation say that he wrote against certaine men which held that there was not so much as the outward formes of bread and wine remaining in the sacrament but that that which was séene was the superficies or outside or skin of the body or flesh of Christ O leaud and vnconscionable men Where were these men or what story euer made mention of any such How dare they of their owne heads so boldly publish such vaine tales How doth that harlot of Rome be witch and enchaunt her louers that for her sake they care not what how foolishly absurdly falsly they speake so that it may serue them for a shift to blind the eyes of the vnlearned But the matter as touching Eutyches is plain by Theodoret that he yéelded and confessed that Christ in the deliuery of the mysteries called f Theodor. dial 1. To these things he answereth Ita nominauâ—t In coâ—â—esso est Hoc verâ— dixisti â—ta dico bread his bodie and wine his blood that he honoured these visible signes with the name of his bodie and blood not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature that these were the signes not of his Deitie but of those things whose names they did beare that is of his body blood which he acknowledged that Christ did truly take but hauing taken them changed them into his diuine nature With what face then doth the Answ say that the hereticke thought that the bread and wine were vtterly annihilated that nothing of their nature remained that the Sacrament was a matter onely of Christs diuine nature It were answere inough vnto him to laie open this his false and vnhonest dealing but yet I go forward In saying that Gelasius vsed these words by way of reply to Eutyches his comparison which he doth to the ende that hauing made of Eutyches his heresie what he list he may hew Gelasius his words to be an answere to that fancie of his he againe dealeth amisse with Gelasius For he of his owne accord vseth them to declare the point whereof he disputed namely that as the bread and wine in the Sacrament become diuine thinges so as that by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet they loose not their former substance so though the manhood of Christ by personall vnion with the Godhead be highly aduanced so that it is truly said that the man Christ is God yet he looseth not the substance and nature of the manhood But supposing that the hereticke had vrged Gelasius with that comparison and had affirmed the presence of Christs diuine nature only in the Sacrament how I maruell doth the Answ imagin that it had serued for a direct answere to haue denied the reall presence Should he haue denied the real presence of the diuine nature That none denieth because g Vigiâ— lib. 1. cont â—uty Plena sunt omnia filio nec est aâ—iquis locus diâ—initatis eius praesentia vacuus it is of the nature of the Godhead to be euery where Should he haue denied the reall presence of the bodie of Christ which is the very question How had that serued his turne against the hereticke which neither vrged him with reall presence of the body nor thought that Christ had any body at all What a wise man is this to write thus he knoweth not what without rime or reason without head or taile Surely for Gelasius to deny the reall presence in this place had bin to talke as the Answ doth beside the purpose foolishly idlely of matters wherof no occasion was giuâ—n to him In the second circumstance he setteth downe his Cuckowes note which he rehearseth again in yâ— fourth fifth sixth to fasten it in the eies memories of his secret readers as being a speciall pillar to vphold his cause He telleth me forsooth yâ— the real presence of yâ— body of Christ was a truth commonly knowne currant generally confessed in the primitiue church wherof notwithstanding neither he nor all his followes for him are able to giue any certaine and apparant proofe out of any of the Fathers writings But because the Fathers faile him he would prooue it by the heretickes who as he saith did reason from it as from a comon receiued truth to prooue their heresies It is a shamâ— we say to bely the Deuil why doth the Answ bely the hereticks to make theÌ„ yâ— witnesses of his real presence Indéed if it had béen a matter theÌ„ receiued it had serued fit for the heresies of Marceon Manes Apollinaris such like who taught that Christ had neuer any true bodie indéede but only a phantasy and shew of a body For they might and would haue said do ye not confesse that Christes body iâ— really in the sacrament yet nothing to be séen but the outward shew of bread and wine It is here it is there it is in euery priestes handes in euery piâ— in euery part of the world at once in the quantity and likenesse of a cake What is this else but a fancy of a body Thus they would haue reasoned if it had béene so beléeued especially when the auncient Fathers themselues gaue them occasioÌ„ therof by proouing that Christ had a true body because that the sacrament is vsed in token of his body and bloud wherein he suffered and was put to death for vs. But they vsed not a word to this purpose because there was no such thing then beléeued The manichées whom the Answ nameth in the third circumstance dreamed as S. Austen h Augst con faust Manich. lib. 20. ca. 11. declareth that Christ was really in the Sunne and Moone and vpon the crosse and hanging at euery bough c. and all at once S. Austen telleth them that Christ i Secundum corporalem praesentiam according to his bodily presence could not be at once in the Sunne and Moone and vpon the crosse and therby crosseth the real presence of the Papists wherby they hold christ corporally to be in heauen and in earth in this mans handes and that mans handes and infinite places and all at once contrary to the nature of a true body wherto S. Austen in those wordes alludeth Now wheras the Answ saith that S. Austen being vrged by the Manichée with the reall presence did graunt the same he lewdly abuseth S. Austen For the hereticke k ibid ca. 1. obiecting that the church vsed the bread and wine in the sacrament with the same superstitious conceipt which they maintained namely that Christ was realy bound in them S. Austen Answereth Å¿ Ibid. ca. 13. that the church did not vse the bread and wine for a sacrament of
elementes not visibly and corporally and to be perceiued with the eye but inuisibly and spiritually and to be conceiued with the vnderstanding Where I make not that conteining or couering or being vnder a physicall or locall matter but I meane it partly in respect of signification in which maner saint Austen saith that a August de catechi rud cap. 4. in the old Testament the new was hidden and that b Ibid epis 89. the incarnation of Christ was couered or hidden in the time of the old Testament the reason of which maner of spéech he elswhere maketh to be this c Ibid. de Baptiâ—mo cont Donat. lib. 1. cap. 15. because it was hiddenly signified So he saith againe that Christ did d â—bid in Ioh. tra 2â— couer grace in those wordes which hee vsed in the sixth of Iohn of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud meaning that he did obscurely signifie the same To this purpose Bertram saith as touching the sacrament that it e Bert. de coâ— sang domi sheweth one thing without in figure but within it doth represent another through the vnderstanding of faith partly in respect of the secret inuisible working of the spirite of God f Cypria de caena domini whose diuine maiestie as Cyprian speaketh doth neuer absent it selfe from the holy mysteries but doth though without appearing to the eie hiddenly worke the effect of that which is signified Thus we may say as touching Baptisme that it is the bloud of Christ couered or hidden in the visible element of water that doth clense vs from our sinnes In which maner the councel of Nice saith g concil Nice In fine ex cut hâ—r Tonstallo To. 1. concil Our Baptisme must be considered not with bodily eyes but with the eyes of the mind Thou seest water but consider the power of God couered or lying hidden in the water Thinke the water to be full of the sanctification of the holy Ghost and of diuine fire And thus doth Chrysostome declare the nature of all Christian mysteries in which saith he h Chrys in 1. cor hom 7. we see not that which we beleeue but we see one thing and beleeue another and therefore the beléeuing man is otherwise affected in them then the infidell For sayth he the infidell hearing of the water of Baptisme thinketh it to be meerely water but I doe not simply see that which I see but I behold it in the cleansing of the soule through the holy Ghost Heereupon hée compareth these mysteries to bookes which an vnlerned man taketh and séeth the letters but vnderstandeth nothing thereof But one that is learned findeth great matter laid vp or couered and hidden in them so the infidell hearing of our mysteries séemeth not to heare them but the expert Christian beholdeth great vertue in the things that are hidden in them Thus things which are signified by our mysteries are said to be couered hidden in theÌ„ because they are not perceiued with the bodily eie but only with the eie of the faithful and beleuing mind The meaning then of the words aboue named according to the doctrine of S. Austen must be thus that in the sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christ it is not meere bread wine that we receiue but it is in vnderstanding and spirituall grace and blessing the flesh and bloud of Christ not appearing so to the sense which discerneth onely bread and wine but yet as in all other mysteries of Christian Religion so in this fayth beholdeth heauenly grace couertly and hiddenly conteined through the holy Ghost and by the visible elementes perceiueth the inward force of the flesh and bloud of Iesus Christ The reason whereof is because the visible signes which beare the name of the flesh and bloud of Christ are Sacramentes and therefore not onely haue the name but conteine the force and power of that true flesh and blood of Christ where in he suffered for our sinnes And so by these visible things which thus inuisibly spiritually and only by way of vnderstanding and mysterie are the flesh and blood of Christ is signified that true body of Christ which is visible palpaple full of grace vertue maiestie and glory No other meaning can the Answ make of these wordes by S. Austen vnlesse he will contrarie those generally receiued groundes which Saint Austen setteth downe and surely hard it is to find in Austen that Christ hath one bodie visible palpable full of grace vertue maiestie and glorie another not so as these words import if they be vnderstood as the Answerer taketh them And if he will haue the word Forme as I knowe his meaning is to import such emptie formes as he maketh without substance S. Austen will deny him that for that he maketh it the generall name of the outward signe in all Sacraments when he defineth a Sacrament thus i De co 〈…〉 〈◊〉 dist â— ca. â—â—r It is a visible forme of inuisible grace But now if I séeme partiall in expounding these words let the same Saint Austen as Gratian citeth him euen in the verie next words iustifie this exposition For thus he saith k Ibid. cap. Hoc est The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is in it maner called the bodie of Christ whereas it is indeed the Sacrament of his bodie euen of that bodie which being visible and palpable was put vpon the Crosse and the offering of the same flesh which is performed by the hands of the priest is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Where S. Austen plainly calleth the heauenly bread of the Sacrament the flesh of Christ yet not as being flesh verily and indéed for then it shoâ—ld truly properly be called the body of Christ But now it is so called but only in it maner whereas it is indéed but a Sacrament of his bodie which manner he declareth in the other point to be not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie And if I be partiall here also let the glose expound it l Ibid in Gloâ— The heauenly bread that is the heauenly Sacrament which doth truly represent the flesh of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but vnproperly WherupoÌ„ it is said in it maner not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie that the meaning may be thus It is called the bodie of Christ that is the bodie of Christ is signified If this wil not serue let him heare also the maister of the sentences whom he may not dislike vnlesse he can say Hic magister non tenetur He hauing set downe the words which the Answ vrgeth saith thus m Sent. lib. 4. dist 10. Marke here diligently that S. Austen here vseth a trope or figure wherby the signs do beare the name of the things signified by them For here the visible forme
Dâ—lcitij q. 2. after death how much rather should the soule it selfe procure rest for it selfe by it owne confession of sinnes there made then that an oblation should be procured for the rest thereof by other man A reason not without some weight if it be well considered But in that place afore-named of S. Austen I would not you should be deceiued to thinke yâ— he meaneth the sacrifices of the altar for the offering or sacrificing of the bodie and blood of Christ wheras indéed he meaneth it of the offerings as we also call them which euery particular man offered at the Sacrament which were employed either to the seruice of the Sacrament or to the reliefe of the poore or to other sacred and godly vses Which maner of offering Hierom in 1. Cor. 11. S. Hierome declareth vpon those words of the Apostle When ye come togither c. This he speaketh saith he because when they met in the church they offered their offerings seuerally and after the communion eating a supper in common they spent there in the church whatsoeuer remained vnto them of the sacrifices To which purpose sundrie other like places might be alleaged And this is one reason amongst the rest why sometimes we finde mention of sacrifice offered in the Sacrament But I know M. Spence what sacrifice it is that you meane a sacrifice properly so called of the verie bodie and blood of Christ propitiatory for the sinnes of quicke and dead offered really and indéed euery day by the hands of a wretched and sinfull priest who must intreat God in behalfe of the sacrifice of Christs bodie and blood that he will looke downe mercifully vpon it and accept it c. The verie naming of which things cannot but be loathsome to a true Christian heart which simply beléeueth out of the word of God that Christ hauing purged our sinnes by once offering himselfe vpon his crosse Heb. 1. 3. 9. 26. 28. Cap. â— 27. Cap. 10. 1â— is ascended into heauen neither needeth to be often offered because by that once offring he hath fully perfected the worke of one attonement and forgiuenesse of sinnes and therefore that there is now no other sacrifice or offering propitiatorie for sinne I say not only no other thing offered but no other offering or sacrificing for remission of sin Reade vprightly M. Spence and with féeling of conscience the 7. 9. and 10. to the Hebrewes The sayings are cleare as the sun-light and in vaine do your Rhemists struggle striue to darken the light of them There is none almost that knoweth anie thing as touching religion but can see how their commentarie is controlled by the text CoÌ„sider this argument out of the tenth chapter where there is forgiuenesse of sinnes there is no more offering for sinne By the sacrifice of Christ vpon his crosse there is forgiuenesse of sinnes for his blood was there shead for the forgiuenesse of sinnes Therefore after Christs sacrifice vpon his crosse there is no more offering for sinne The Apostle in that place reiecting the sacrifices of the old law as which could not sanctifie as touching the Hebr. 10. 1. 2. conscience those that came vnto them for if they could they should not haue bene often offered substitateth in place therof the true entier and only sacrifice of Christ vpon his crosse Who hauing a bodie 5. 7. fitted him commeth according to the will of his father into the world to sanctifie vs by the offering of his bodie once And whereas 10. 11. saith he the priests of the old law do daily and oftentimes offer their sacrifices an argument that they tooke not away sinne this man hauing offered one offering for sinne is gone into heauen not to offer vp himselfe often saith he chap. 9. for then he should haue often cap. 9. 25. suffered since the foundation of the world but waiting hencefoorth till his foes be made his footestoole inferring withall that he néedeth cap. 10. 13. 14. not to be often offered because by one offering or oblation of himselfe he hath perfected and that for euer them that are sanctified Now that he hath persected vs and therefore that there néedeth no other sacrifice or offering for sinne he proueth by the words of Ieremy 15. who defineth the new Testament the ground whereof is the bloodsheading of Iesus Christ by the forgiuenesse of sinnes concluding thereupon Now where remission of these is there is no more 18. offering for sinne Collect the Apostles reason thus If after that once offering there be no more offering for sinne then surely by that once offering he perfected vs. But after that once offering there is no more offering for sinne therefore by that once offering he hath perfected vs. The assumption or minor he proueth thus Where forgiuenesse of sinnes is there is no more offering for sinne But by that once offering there is forgiuenesse of sinnes therefore after that once offering there is no more offering for sinne Examine this collection and sée how it goeth hand in hand with the Apostles words Which is so peremptory resolute against the sacriledge of the masse that your Rhemists without any colour or shew of probabilitie by the text do force vpon the word oblation a straunge meaning as if the Apostle had said There is no Rhem. Annot. Hebr. 10. 18. second baptisme wherby we may haue applied vnto vs the full pardon and remission of our sinnes What should I here say I maâ— Campian rat 1 iustly retort vppon them the wordes of Campian What is it so â— there such peruersnesse such presumption and shamelesnesse in men Cicer. epist 12. lib. 5. Lucceio But they practise that which the Heathen Orator saith He whicâ— hath once passed the bounds of modestie and shamefastnesse muâ— needes shew himselfe lustily impudent and shamelesse What hatâ— the Apostle to do with Baptisme in this text Why did they noâ— shew how this sence hangeth vpon the words gone before Whâ— did they forgo the expositions of the Fathers of Chrysostome Hee chrysost Oecumen Theodor c in Hebr. 10. forgaue sinnes when he gaue the Testament and he gaue the Testament by sacrifice If therfore he forgaue sinnes by one oblation or sacrifice there needeth not now any seconde of Oecumenius out of Photius What need is there of many oblations seeing that one which Christ hath yeelded is sufficient to take away sinne Theodoret There is now no offering for sinne For it is superfluous forgiuenesse of sinne beeing giuen alreadie of Theophylact If remission of sinnes be graunted by one oblation what neede we now any second of Primasius for Christ which is our sacrifice is not to be offered againe for sinne For this was once done and needeth not to be done a second time of Ambrose for one offering of the bodie of Christ maketh perfect them that are sanctified as which giueth full and perfect remission of sinnes c. Wherfore it needeth
not that we should daily purge with daily sacrifices as they did in the old law Did they sée none of these expositions yes without doubt they saw them and shut their eyes against them The Lord will require it in his due time But hereby we vnderstand the meaning of their words in their Preface to the Epistles that if in the scriptures there sound any thing to vs coÌ„trary to their doctrine we must assure our selues that we faile of the right sense So that be the words neuer so plain yet if they sound either to the auncient Fathers or to vs contrarie to the Romish doctrine we must thinke that neither the auncient Fathers nor we attaine to the right vnderstanding of the wordes But we are not so madde vpon the warrant of any Philosopher to say that snow is blacke so long as our eyes assure vs that snow is white I know here what you are readie to obiect namely that the Fathers in speaking of the Eucharist vse verie commonly a mention of sacrifice and cal the same by the name of sacrifice and all this you referre to the sacriledge of the Masse But you should not conceiue so of the Fathers as to thinke that they meant any thing contrarie to so expresse and manifest scripture so long as they do so plainly tel you what they meant in vsing the name of sacrifice You should remember the corrections which Chrysostome Ambrose do vse when Chrysost Ambros in Hebr. 10. naming their offering of sacrifice they adde Or rather wee worke the remembrance of a sacrifice You should take notice of the exposition of Theophylact Wee offer him the same alwaies or rather wee Theophy ibid. make a remembrance of the offering of him as if he were offered or sacrificed at this time and of the words of Eusebius After all hauing Euseb de demonstrat Euang lib. 1. cap. 10. Theodor. in Hebr. 8. wrought a wonderfull and excellent sacrifice vnto his father he offered for the saluation of vs all and ordained that wee should offer the remembrance therof vnto God in steed of a sacrifice and of Theodoret Why do the priests of the new Testament vse a mysticall Liturgie or sacrifice It is cleare to them that are instructed in diuine matters that we do not offer another sacrifice but do performe a remembrance of that one and sauing sacrifice For this commandement the Lord himselfe gaue Do this saith hee in the remembrance of me that by beholding the figures we might call to minde the sufferings which he vndertooke in our behalfe And of S. Austen The flesh August con faust Manich. lib. 20. ca. 2â— blood of this sacrifice was promised before the comming of Christ by sacrifices of resemblance in the passion of Christ it was giuen in verie truth after the ascension of Christ it is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance Learne by this place to put difference betwixt in verie truth and by a Sacrament of remembrance and learne by all these places that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice properly so called wherein Christ is really and properly and in verie truth sacrificed but a Sacrament a commomoration and remembrance of a sacrifice Adde hereunto if you will the words of saint Austen Was not Christ once offered in himselfe and yet in a mysterie or Sacrament August ep 23. he is euerie day offered for the people For if Sacraments had not a kinde of resemblance of those thinges whereof they are Sacraments they should not be Sacraments at all Now by reason of this resemblance they doe most commonly take the names of the things themselues Note in these words the difference betwixt being offered in himselfe and being offered in a Sacrament or mysterie learn that this spéech of being offered or sacrificed when it respecteth the Sacrament hath his vse and meaning not of the things themselues but of the resemblance of the things and therefore is not indéed to be offered in himselfe And therfore your owne glose of the Canon law expoundeth it Christ is sacrificed that is the sacrificing of him is represented De consec dist 2. cap. semel and there is a remembrance made of his passion The sacrifice of the death and passion of Jesus Christ is the whole matter and substance of this mysterie it is there proposed the remembrance thereof renued as if it were now done the thing resembled by outward signes of breaking the bread and powring the wine the hearts of men stirred vp as if they saw Christ nailed to yâ— crosse the sacrifice of this passion is presented by the faith praiers of the church vnto God thereby to haue forgiuenesse of sinnes nothing here remembred but Christes sacrificing himselfe vpon the crosse What maruell then though the Fathers called this mysterie a sacrifice though neuer imagining your sacrifice of the Masse What maruell though they will vs to behold in this Sacrament the sacrifice of our price the sacrifice of sacrifices the vnbloudie seruice of the sacrifice the sacrifice of our mediator and such like which spéeches your men foolishly and vnlearnedly or rather impudently and vnconscionably alleage for their supposed sacrifice of the Masse They haue expounded their owne meaning as you haue heard and pitifully do your Rhemists labour and striue to winde themselues out of those expositions and cannot preuaile And as for the same spéeches of the Fathers as touching sacrifice we would not doubt â—â— speake in this case as they did but that your hereticall doctrine hath caused Gods people to conceiue of sacrifice otherwise then the Fathers intended Albeit vpon like occasions we are not far from that vehemencie of wordes which we finde to haue bene vsed by them nay we are no whit behinde them But thinke with your selfe M. Spence is not the death and passion of Christ the onely sacrifice for the foâ—giuenesse of sins Shame be on his face that will deny it What sacrifice then is there in the Eucharist Verily Cyprian saith The passion of Christ is the sacrifice Cypr. lib 2. epist 3. Pâ—oâ—p in psal 129. which we offer And Prosper What propitiation is there but sacrifice and what sacrifice but the killing of that lambe which hath taken away the sinne of the world and your owne counterfeit decretall of Alexander the first The passion of Christ is to be remembred Alexan. epist 1. to 1. concil in these sacrifices and the same to be offered to the Lord. But doth Christ really suffer die in the Sacrament Is he there sweating water and blood is he buffeted with fists spit in the face crowned with thornes derided accused condemned nailed to the crosse Indéed the auncient fathers say as touching the Sacrament Chrysostome thus While that death is performed and dreadfull sacrifice Chrysost in Acta hâ—m 21. De conâ—e diâ—t 2. cap. Quidâ—â—t sanâ—uâ— Cyp de caena domini Chrâ—â—ost in Encaenâ—jâ— Hâ—â—ron â—â— psa 95. and Gregorie Christ dâ—eth
spiritually vnderstood it shall giue you life Otherwise as Origen saith There is in the new Testament a letter Orig. in Leuit. hom 7. which killeth him that doth not spiritually vnderstand it For if thou follow according to the letter that that is written Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man drinke his blood that letter killeth For saith S. Austen it seemeth to commaund a horrible fact and hainous Aug. de doctr christ lib. 3. c. 16. matter Therfore it is a figure willing vs to communicate of the passiō of Christ and profitably to laie vp in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. Be hold and consider well what these men teach you that the spéeches which are vsed as touching eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ are figuratiue speeches that they are not literally to be vnderstood that we doe not bodily eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood And this is the plaine truth and simplicitie of the Fathers teaching the euidence whereof cannot be auoided but by those shifts which I mentioned before We extenuate them we excuse them by some deuised lie we oft denie them or faine of them some conuenient meaning But you vrge the circumstance of the text Which shal be giuen which shal be shead c. Marke well the speeches say you An argument péeuishly alleaged by Friar Campian and nothing at all to the Camp Rat. ◠purpose For when we say that bread and wine are the Sacraments of the bodie and blood of Christ do we not meane of the bodie which was giuen and the blood that was shead for vs Do we teach the receiuing of the bodie blood of Christ by faith any otherwise then being broken and shead for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes When S. Aushen saith The signe of the bodie Tertullian a figure of the bodie expounding the words This is my bodie do they not vnderstand Which is giuen c. This reason you may verie well spare hereafter The speeches you say are wonderfull as most true Yet the spéeches M. Spence are not so wonderfull as the things themselues that our wretched and sinfull bodies should by these Sacraments through the working of the holie Ghost be really and indéed vnited ioyned vnto the bodie of Iesus Christ being in heauen so as to be his members flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and receiue thereof such vertue and power as that though they be buried in the earth and consumed to dust and ashes yet they should be raised vp againe and made partakers of immortalitie and glorie that God should hereby effectually communicate and impart vnto vs the inestimable riches of his grace and the whole fruite and benefite of whatsoeuer Christ hath done or suffered in his bodie for mankinde forgiuenesse of sinnes iustification sanctification the blessing fauou◠of God and euerlasting life You may know M. Spence what your owne Oration saith Some not without probabilitie expound the truth of the flesh and blood of Christ to be the efficiencie thereof De consecr dist 2. cap. species that is the forgiuenesse of sinnes We adde somewhat to this probabilitie when we teach in the Sacrament a true and effectuall vniting of vs to the bodie of Christ whereby he dwelleth in vs and we in him he is one with vs and we with him whereby as he hath taken vpon him what is ours sinne and death so he yéeldeth vnto vs what is his righteousnesse and euerlasting life Which vnion with Christ is wrought in all those and in those only which do with true and liuely faith receiue these holie mysteries where as that Capernaitish eating and drinking of Christs bodie and blood which your doctrine yéeldeth is common to all gracelesse and prophane persons that I say nothing of those monstrous blasphemous and horrible conceits which some of your captaines haue fallen into by defence thereof But yet further you alleage the vniformenesse of the wordes of Christ in the Euangelists Mat. Mar. Luc. And in S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. all saying This is my bodie wheras the scripture where it meaneth not a thing literally doth vary in the vttering of it Which you speake vppon the warrant of some Allen or Parsons or Seminarie reader telling you so and you haue beléeued it But they haue deceiued you both in the on and in the other For in the like matter you shall find in Moses law by an vniforme and constant spéech that the sacrifices of the law are called expiations propitiations and attonements for sinne which were not so indéed but they were so called sacramentally because they were types and figures seales and assurances of the true attonement which should be wrought by the bloodsheading of our Lord Iesus Again if you had looked in S. Luke and Luc 22. 20. 1. cor 11. 25. S. Paul you should haue found the words This is my blood expressed by such maner of spéech as tendeth directly to the ouerthrow of your transubstantiation For there it is said This cup is the new Testament in my blood c where I hope you will not say that the cup is transubstantiated into the Testament but that the wordes must be figuratiuely vnderstood Then you must say that the cup that is the outward and visible element of wine deliuered in the cup is the seale of the new Testament couenant of grace which is dedicated and established by the bloodsheading of Iesus Christ by which seale we haue assurance offered vnto vs to be partakers through Christ of those benefits which God hath promised vnto the faithfull in the same Testament the summe whereof is set downe by the Prophet Ier 31. 32 c. Now if any man should take it thus Ier. 31. 32. This cup that is this my blood in the cup is the new Testament in my blood your selfe would say he spake foolishly and absurdly Thus therefore your collections from the text are no collections Some of your owne side no meane men haue confessed indéed that transubstantiation cannot be enforced by the words of the text In truth it cannot God open your eyes that you may sée his truth and subdue the affections of your heart that you may yéeld vnto it By that litle spéech which I haue had with you I perceiue you are too too far in loue with that whoore of Rome She flattereth you and maketh shew of goodly names and pretendeth great deuotion as the harlot in the Prouerbes I haue peace offeringes to day haue I paide my Prou. 7. 14. vowes and you beléeue whatsoeuer she saith vnto you I shewed you the expresse testimonies of the Fathers gainsaying her as touching the bookes of Canonicall scriptures but you thinke she may approue them for Canonicall which were not so with the Fathers I declared the impudencie of the Rhemish glosers in auouching the storie of the assumption of the virgin Mary controlled by their owne computation of
to you Bishops Priests and Deacons concerning the mysticall seruice Now if this were in this solemne manner agreed vppon shall we thinke that the same saint Iames would of his priuate authoritie without cause publsh another Liturgy to the Church And would not the Church vniuersally accordyng to the sanction and designement of the Apostles haue practised that forme of seruice which it cannot be proued to haue done Or if either of those Liturgies had bene of authority from such an Authour would Basill Chrysostome and others haue giuen forth other formes of Church-seruice not haue cleaued to the receiued and enioyned Apostolicke forme It were wel that these doubts were sufficiently cleared But the testimony of Gregory Bishop of Rome is inough to cracke the credit of these Liturgies who assureth vs t Gregor Mag. in Regist li. 7. cap. 63. that it was the maner of the Apostles to consecrate the sacrifice with saying onely the Lordes praier This giueth vs sufficiently to vnderstand that those pretended Liturgies vnder the name of saint Iames the Apostle where much is sayd beside the Lords prayer either were not at all or at least were not déemed authenticall at that time and therefore are of the same stampe with an 〈◊〉 number of â—ther forgeries and counterfeit writings which haue bene put foâ—th in the name of the Apostles and other famous meâ— Of that Liturgy also which the sixth Councell mentioneth vnder the name of S. Iames Theodorus Balsamon testifieth yâ— in his time so long ago it was u Theodor. Balsa in concil Constant 6. can 32. not founde nor knowne but quite worne out amongst them Whereby we haue iust cause to thinke that these that now are are other counterfeits set forth since that time Basils Liturgy w Chemnie in exam Trident concil de canone missae by the old translation is one by the new translation another and yet it is sayd also that the Syrians haue a third differing from both the former This is iust cause to make a man suspicious of them all Of Chrysostomes Liturgy how often haue they bene told that although it be likely inough that he left some forme of seruice in his Church yet that there is now no certaintie what it was the differenâ—e of copies being such as it is one published by Leo Tuscus another by Erasmus another by Pelargus and yet Pelargus affirmeth that he hath séene another copie at Rome differing from all these In one of these Chrysostome himselfe is prayed vnto and these togither with yâ— other Liturgies are alleaged for inuocation of saints But x Epiphani haeresi 7 5. contra Aeriâ—nos Epiphanius testifieth that the Church in his time did pray for Saints Martyrs Apostles c. To pray for them and to pray to them stand not togither Epiphanius his testimony is true Therefore these Liturgies are certainly false Againe Chrysostome himselfe is prayed for yea Pope Nicholas and the Emperour Alexius are prayed for also who neither of them were borne some hundreds of yeares after S. Chrysostomes time If they will say that these names were put in as the maner is to put in the names of Princes and Bishops to be prayed for while they liue then how commeth it to passe that those names continue there still vnto this day and that the names of those that succéeded were not put in place of them It appeareth vndoubtedly that there was patching and adding not only of names but of prayers and ceremonies also according to the â—ustome of times and places and the will of those hucksters that had these things in handling Now séeing that although Proclus and others do mention such Liturgies of Basill and Chrysostome yet by meanes of such alterations patcheries and forgeries it cannot be certaine vnto vs what Basill and Chrysostome left in their Liturgies what folly is it in the Answ and his fellowes to face vs out with the names of Basill and Chrysostome in such sort as they do That many steps of antiquitie are yet remainyng in them it is not denyed but those are directly contrary to the practise of the Roomish faction in these dayes and therefore yéeld not any allowance to their proceedings And whereas there are diuers particles translated from those auncient Liturgies into their Masse by occasion wherof they vaunt themselues as followers of antiquity surely they deale no otherwise herein then y Irenae lib. â— cap. 1. Irenaeus reproteth the Valentinian heretickes to haue dealt with the holy scriptures Who gathered here and there wordes names out of the scriptures with the which they painted their horrible and accursed heresies yâ— men might beléeue that the scripture spake of those things which they wickedly taught against the scripture As if a man should take a precious and â—ostly image of a prince facioned by a cunnyng workeman and breakyng it in péeces should of the péeces of it make an il-fauoured image of a Foxe say that the same is the goodly image which such a cunnyng workeman made to resemble such a Prince For so haue they taken diuers péeces of the auncient Liturgies and turned them to other vse and meaning then euer was dreamed of by their Authors and as Irenee speaketh From that which is according to nature to that which is against nature and yet forsooth tell vs that their Liturgie hath example and warrant from all those that were vsed in former times The prayers which then were made to God for the accepting of the peoples gifts and offerings for the celebration of the Sacrament these men absurdly apply to the body and blood of Christ and appoint the Priest to entreate God that he will looke downe mercifully thereupon and accept them The old Liturgies vsed an open commemoration of the death passion and resurrection of our Lorde Iesus Christ that the people might be put in minde therof according to his commandement The Popish priest vttereth the words but is enioyned to vtter them in silence so that the people neuer haue the hearing of them The old Liturgies craued of God grace and heauenly benediction in behalfe of the people who togither were partakers of the communion the Masse kéepeth the words but excludeth the people from the communion The like dealing I noted before concerning the mixture of water and the like follâ—weth in the next place concerning the name of the Masse By these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such spéeches and doings borrowe â—or 〈◊〉 rather from the old Church-seruice they go about to daâ—le the eyes of â—en thâ—t they may not sâ—e their fraude and falshood But an ape will be an ape still though he be â—clothed in purple the Masse though it firmeth thus to be decked with â—â—oures of antiquitie shall remaine nothing else but â—â—ish this and abhominable idoll It is but apish 〈…〉 tation truly to keepe the words of the Fathers and so absurdly to vary from the 〈…〉 tise and meaning of the Fathers P. Spence Sect. 6. VVHether
in their bodies also Then all soules are either good or euill Their portions if they be good ioy if they be euill torment when they go out of this world not the torment of Purgatory which is but for a time but the torment of hell because it continueth till the resurrection and then shall be encreased by the receiuing of their bodies to be partakers of the same torment What place leaueth Austen here for Purgatory or for any middle sort of men Surely none at all and therefore consequently excludeth all effect of praier or offering for the dead But I sâ—eke the Answ saith to helpe Dulcitiuâ— his reason and yet conf 〈…〉 d my selfe because both by the question and by the answere it appeareth that to pray or to offer for the dead was the churches practise at that time A great confusion and worthily wrought The Answ must first know that it was his ouersight to call it Dulcitius his reason which was alleaged for S. Austen reporteth it as a reason giuen by many in his time Then let him vnderstand also that I knew it to be the churches practise but question was then moued whether that which the church did were auaileable to the dead Dulcitius vpon that occasion was doubtful herein He sendeth to S. Austen to be resolued S. Austen telleth him that c August de 8. quaest Dulcit q. 2. many indeed said hereof that if any good might be to the dead in obteining ease much rather should the soule by it owne confession of sin finde ease then by oblations procured by other men Whereby it is plaine that though it were the churches practise yet that this practise of the church was disauowed and disliked by many in S. Auâ—â—ens 〈…〉 e and therefore not vniuersally entertained in the church The Answerer knâ—w well inough that thus much was sayd to him before but because he was ouer-pressed by the reason of those many vsed then against the custome of oblations and praiers for the dead he slippeth by and taketh hold of this that hereby the practise of the church in this point is manifest True say I in part not generally because it was gainsaied and disputed against by many of the church euen in those times Now he saith nothing neither of the men nor of their reason And verily Austen himselfe neither reproueth the men nor disproueth their reason nor by any reason approueth that which he himselfe affirmed on the other side but taking this custome as he found it he laboureth rather to shewe whom we may suppose to haue benefit after death by such praiers and offerings if there be any effect thereof then to proue that there is so P. Spence Sect. 8. A Sorie shift you haue to elude all that our side can bring out of the Fathers for the sacrifice a Doct. Allen saith that the name of sacrifices in the plurall number as is this fitteth not to the sacrifice of the Masse The sacrifices of the altar are forsooth by your cauill not offered by the priest but by euerie particular man as his oblations either for the Sacrament say you or for the reliefe of the poore the worst shift of a thousande Theodoret vpon the 8. to the Hebrues asketh why if Christ offered a perfect sacrifice and made all other sacrifices vnnecessarie the priests of the new Testament offer the mysticall sacrifice If the peoples charitable offerings were the meaning of the sacrifices of the altar what need either Theodoret or so many much more auncient Fathers that aske the selfe same question vpon the like obiection so much liked of your side namely Chrysostome vpon the same Chapter to moue any such question or doubt For when Christ abolished all the olde sacrifices of the law you cannot imagine that these Fathers so learned and so wise would euer spend labour or time to moue this b A deale of idle talke I denied not but that the Fathers do vse the name of sacrifice concernâ—ng the Loâ—dâ—s Supper For I gaue the reason thereof at large idle doubt whether he abolished all charitable offerings of the people either for the Sacrament or for the helpe of the poore Besides the question is moued of the sacrifice of the new Testament offered not by the people but by the priests That the people made such oblatioÌ„s we grant but that thereby it is prooued that there was no other oblation or sacrifice offered by the priest we deny and thinke it to be as vnreasonable as if your mad AtheniaÌ„ wold proue that God made no Moone because he made a Sunne One truth neuer shouldereth out another The same Theodoret to answer his owne question goeth further and thus solueth it It is cleare saith he to those that are learned in diuinitie that we the priests of the new Testament of whom the obiection was made not of the people do offer not another sacrifice but do celebrate a memorie of that one healthfull sacrifice for this our Lord did command Do ye this for a remembrance of me R. Abbot 8. VVHereas in the place of Austen before rehearsed I construed the sacrifices of the altar to be meant of the offerings of the people at the Communion the Answerer fondly collecteth thereof that we vse this for a sorie shift to elude put off all the testimonies of the Fathers concerning sacrifice I may iustly call it a fond collection That the name of Sacrifice is vsed of those offerings I shewed him by a Hieron in 1. Cor. 11. S. Hierom. But that in other places both S. Austen and others do applie the name of Sacrifice to the mysticall offering of the bodie and blood of Christ he knew well inough that I made no doubt inasmuch as it was a great part of my spéech following to declare what they ment in so saying Wherefore all that he speaketh of this point ariseth of his owne péeâ—ish and idle fancie and therfore I trouble not my selfe therewith P. Spence Sect. 9. TO your great obiection of S. Paul leauing a great heap of a VVhich because he could not answere he thought good to passe ouer as waste words waste words to say the best of them I answere the sacrifice of the law tooke not away sinnes but made only certaine legall expiations and therefore the chiefe good that they wrought in the soule was ex Adiuncto of a thing added to them by the goodnesse of the receiuers of them which was their godly faith and expectation of remission of sinnes to be wrought by the Messias by which faith they receiued iustification such as their b Their estate â—n the old law had not the same light of reuelation but the grace of iustification and regeneration was the same to them as it is to vs. See the answer to sect 20 estate in the olde lawe was capable of But Christ by his sacrifice which was done by his death for his death only could confirme his new Testament tooke away sinnes
Christ there is no more any offering for sin and therefore there is no true sacrifice in the Masse Nay saye the Rhemistes the texte meaneth that there is no second Baptisme to apply vnto vs a generall pardon or full forgiuenesse of sinnes contrary to the euidence of the text to the light of their owne consciences to the manifest expositions of the auncient Fathers Chrysostome Oecumenius Photius Theodoret Theophylact Primasius Ambrose as before I alleaged who all according to the drift of the text expound it against any further offering or sacrifice for sinne after that once offering vpon the Crosse Yea and it must necessarily be so vnderstood because the Apostle hereby concludeth against the many often offered sacrifices of the Iewes Which conclusion maketh nothing against their offerings or sacrifices vnlesse we vnderstand offering properly For what were it against their sacrificing that the Apostle should say there is no second baptisme to apply vnto vs full forgiuenesse of sins Now séeing this absurd vnreasonable glose of the Rhemists wil not serue turne neither could the Answ for shame write it thogh they were not ashamed to print it what other answer may we looke for at his hands Good sir saith he why dreame you that we thinke or professe to â—ley and crucifie Christ in our Masses His death was once and that once sufficient for euer and he dieth no more and then where is your obiection To whom I say againe Good sir my obiection hath not any sillable to charge you with affirming of Christes dying any more but proueth that after the once dying of Christ there is no more sacrifice for sinne and therefore that your Masse doth lie in taking vpon it to be a true propitiatorie sacrifice and then where is your answere Why did not your courage serue to make a direct answere to that that was opposed and if you could not answere why did not conscience preuaile with you to make you yeeld to the truth I prooue that there is now no more offering for sinne and he returneth me a sléeuelesse tale that they say not that Christ dieth any more and so runneth on to declare vnto me what maner of sacrifice it is which they offer which by the reason alleaged by me is ineuitably proued to be none at all If Christes bodie be really offered for sinne euery day in the Masse then there is yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an offering for sin But the Apostle saith that there is not now an offring for sinne Therefore Christ is not now any longer offered for sinne And therefore although the bodie of Christ be yet really remaining in heauen d Râ—m â— â— being raised from the dead to die no more and the same bodie be sometimes termed in our spéech the sacrifice for sinne yet is it not so called as hauing now the condition of a sacrifice for sin or as if it were now to be offered any more but only in respect that it was sacrificed once and by the vertue of that once sacrificing e Heb â— 2 appeareth in the sight of God for vs. In a word it is no otherwise so called but as Christ in the Reuelation is called the knobe not to be killed but f Apoc. 5. 6. 9. 12. that was killed and as the same bodie of Christ shall be called the sacrifice for sinne after the ende of the world when as the Saints of God shall thankfully record the sacrificing thereof thus g Apoc. 5. 9. Thou wast killed and hast redeemed vs to God by thy bloud out of euerie nation c. The end and vse of offering for sinne is to take away sinne to obtein remission of sinnes to sanctifie those that come vnto it Now when this end of offering for sinne is atchieued there is no further vse of an offering for sinne So that if the sacrifices of the old law h Heb. 10. 1. 2. had sanctified the commers thereunto they should after once offering haue ceased to bee offered as the Apostle telleth vs importing thereby that that sacrifice which doth sanctifie the commers thereunto as doth i cap. 10. 10. the bodie of Christ once offered néedeth not to be offered any more but that once And hereupon it is that he inferreth that séeing remission of sinnes is obteined by the offering of Christs bodie once therefore thenceforth there is no more offering for sinne neither of Christes bodie nor of any other thing because there is no ende or vse therof euen as when k Chrysost in Heb. 10. ho. 17. Ambros in Hebr. 10. a man hath gotten a medicine to heale his hurt it is néedlesse for him to séeke any other either of the same substance or of any other And therefore hereby he resolueth against all whether Heathenish or Iewish or Popish sacrificing for sinne as being to no ende or purpose because the ende of offering for sinne which is remission of sinnes is atteined alreadie by the death and bloodsheading of Iesus Christ And vnlesse we will vnderstand offering for sinne simply and vniuersally without exception and without that determining of it to any one sort of offering which the Answ vseth in tying it vnto Christes suffering and dying we betraie this whole disputation into the hands of the Iewes and Heathens as making nothing against their sacrificing for sin because it only proueth that Christ dieth no more not that there is no more offering for sinne But the Apostle would deny not only Christs dying any more but also all maner of Iewish and Heathenish offering for sinne Therefore the words must be absolutely and vniuersally vnderstood of offering for sinne after the once dying of our Lord Iesus Yet further let me tell him that if he will affirme the often offering of Christ he must say also that Christ often suffereth and is slaine For throughout the whole scripture he cannot alleage one place where the offering or sacrificing of Christ is otherwise vnderstood then of his death and passioÌ„ And this is plainly euicted out of the 9. to the Hebrues where the Apostle saith that Christ l He. 9. 25. 26. is entered into heauen to appeare now in the sight of God for vs not to offer himselfe often for then saith he he should haue often suffered since the foundation of the world Which reason of the Apostle hath no force at all if there be any other offering of Christ but only by suffering and death Which also is manifest out of the law of Moses where there was no offering or sacrifice of propitiation but by slaughter and bloodshead and where there was no sheading of blood there was no forgiuenesse as the m Heb. 9. 22. Apostle witnesseth Now séeing there is no sacrifice of propitiation in the newe Testament which was not prefigured in the lawe which the Apostle saith n Heb. 10. 1. had the shadow of the good things that were to come and the law prefigured none but sacrifice by
was once offered to take away the sins of many d cap. 10. 10. We are sanctified by the offering of Christes body once e cap. 10. 12. This man hauing offered one sacrifice for sinne sitteth for euer at the right hande of God This is all which the Scripture testifieth of the offering of Christ Now if Christ did offer himselfe but once and that once was by death vpon his Crosse then it followeth that he did not offer himselfe at the institution of the Sacrament and therefore commended not vnto vs any sacrifice to be done therein If they will say that he was but once offered in that manner namely with bloudshed but vnbloudly he offered himselfe beside and so is offered still they deale presumptuously against the holy Ghost and vse that sawcinesse with the word of God which no man may bee bold to doe with the lawes of men For if it holde in the lawes of men that f Regula iuris Non est distinguendum vbi non distinguit lex no man may distinguish where the law it selfe doth not warrant his distinction much more ought it to hold in the lawes and words of God Now séeing the holy Ghost by a generall word comprehending all manner of offering hath determined the offering of Christes body onely to once who is he that dare giue checke vnto his word and say It is a lie for he was offered twise once blouddily on the Crosse another time vnblouddily in the Sacrament so remaineth to be offered daily and infinite times in a day vnto the end of the world Especially séeing the Apostle vrgeth this againe and againe for a great and maine difference betwixt the sacrifices of the old Testament and the sacrifice of the new that the Priests there offered often but g Heb. 7. 27. Oecume ibid Heb. 10. 11. 12. Christ offered one onely sacrifice and that but once euen in this respect opposing this once offering not onely to the general sacrifice that was made h cap. 9. 7. once a yeare but also to the particular sacrifices that were offered i cap. 7. 27. 10. 11. euery day giuing to vnderstand that neither generally nor particularly neither in one maner nor other the body of Christ was to be offered any more but onely once He sheweth the greatnes of this sacrifice saith k Ambros in Heb. 7. S. Ambrose which being thus offered sufficeth for euer For this sacrifice was not daily to be offered c. but this man is of such power or worth that being once offered in the sacrifice of his fleshe it should not be needefull for any of the faithfull to offer for him any more It sufficed l Chrysost in Heb. 7. hō 13. saith Chrysostome though it were but one and but once offered Now this difference of the sacrifices of the two Testaments is vtterly taken away if by any distinction of the maner of offering we wil auouch y◠the sacrifice of the new Testament is often offered as were the sacrifices of the old Where I cannot omit to note the drunken spéech of the Rhemists as touching this point set down for safegard of their sacrifice who m Rhem. An◠not Heb. 10. 11 repeate often as they say that the Apostles reason and speaches of many Priestes and often sacrificing concerne the sacrifices of the law onely vnto which hee opposeth Christes sacrifice and Priesthood and speaketh no word of or against the sacrifice of the new Testament which is the sacrifice of Christes own Priesthood and is dayly done vnbloudily by the Priestes meaning hereby their sacrifice of the Masse I tearme it iustly a drunken spéech For séeing they are forced by the euidence of the text to grant that the Apostle in that respect opposeth the sacrifice priesthood of Christ against the old sacrifices priestood of the law which opposition cannot stād but only thus that there were many priests here but one there often offering here but once what doe they but talke like drunken men they know not what when notwithstanding in the very same respect they confound the Priesthood and sacrifice of Christ with the Priesthood and sacrifices of the law so that as there were many priests so here are many priests as there was often offering so is here also He affirmeth indéede there many Priests here but one there often offering here but once and therefore leaueth no place for any bastard distinction of any manner whereby the body of Christ may be saide to be often offered Furthermore against this deuised manner wee are instructed by that which is written n Heb. 9. 22. Without shedding of bloud there is no remission of sinnes For hereof we gather that if the Masse be a propitiation of sinne then there must be shedding of bloud in the Masse If there be shedding of bloud in the Masse it is not an vnblouddy sacrifice and therefore the assertion of an vnblouddy sacrifice in the Masse for the propitiation of sinne is euidently contrary to the word of God Now the bloud of Christ was shed for sinne but only once and that once vpon the Crosse Therefore Christ did offer himselfe for sinne but onely once and that vpon the Crosse and therefore nether did nor doth offer himselfe in the Sacrament Againe when we read that o Heb. 9. 27. 28 as it is appointed vnto men to die once so Christ was once offered to take away sinnes we are giuen to vnderstand that as well it may be saide that men to whō it is appointed to die once may afterwards in another manner die oftentimes as that Christ who is saide in the like sort to be offered for sinne but onely once should yet in another manner be offered for sinne times without number so long as the world standeth It is folly and madnesse to say the one it is madnesse and blasphemy to affyrme the other And so much the more for that it is plainely testified vnto vs that therefore hee néedeth not to be often offered because p Heb. 10. 14. by one oblation he hath for euer made perfect them that are sanctified Which making perfect is declared in the words following to be intended of the forgiuenes of sinnes Now if Christ néede daily to be offered for the forgiuenes of sinnes either generally or particularly or howsoeuer then he did not by one oblation or offering of himselfe make vs perfect in that behalfe If he did perfectly worke remission of sinnes by one offering of himselfe then he néedeth not thenceforth to bee offered for sinne and he that affirmeth the offering of him doth frustrate his death and deny the perfection of his former offering And therefore the Apostle inferreth as hath béene saide before q ver 18. Where remission of sinnes is there is no more offering for sinne As if he should say All sacrifice for sin is vaine after remission of sinnes once obtained which is the end of sacrifice for sinne
all people that once did suffer and neuer but once all the aforenamed torments But that which you infer for a conclusion is most vaine and false which is this The passioÌ„ is that we offer the passioÌ„ is offered not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Ergo the Churches sacrifice is not verily a sacrifice but in a mysterie for besides the forme being negatiue in the third figure is against art the Maior as I said before is false if you meane the passion only For I told you we haue in our sacrifice his passion in a memorie his bodie really If you meane not passion only then the conclusion the premisses hang togither by verie loose points Briefly Christs passion is offered in a mysterie only his bodie in sacrifice verily The first your authorities prooue and we confesse the latter part no Father euer denied no not the most eldest and auncient primatiue Church and it is so true that Caluin sticked not to condemne all the Fathers sith the Apostles of Iudaisme in that verie point for f An impudent and vnshamefast vntruth See the answere establishing a verie sacrifice of the Church so impudent a thing he tooke it to be to cast a myst vppon the Fathers wordes in that point prooue the latter point the first we confesse R. Abbot 10. HEre we may sée how the poore man maketh hard shift to credit himselfe by séeming to say somewhat when indéed he saith nothing at all For first he telleth me that wheresoeuer I reade of a remembrance memoriall and representation of sacrifice I must takâ— it for a full answere that thereby is meant a remembrance and representation of Christs death Not for a full but for a foolish answer say I. For to what other purpose can he imagine those words alleageâ— by vs but to auouch the remembrance of that one and only true sacrifice of Christs death against their defence of a continuall and oftentimes repeated sacrifice And séeing the Fathers speaking of their offering of Christ do recall and correct those termes as vnproperly spoken and put in place thereof that they rather celebrate the remembrance of his sacrifice as if he were now sacrificed indeed we conclude hereof neither can the Answ aâ—oyd it that they simply deny the true and reall offering of the bodie of Christ as before is the wed Secondly he saith that I wrangle in interpreting Sacrifice here in thâ—se places to be the Eucharist whereas it is meant of the offring of the same in a sacrifice But indéed he saith he knoweth not what For immediately before he expoundeth Sacrifice in these places to be meant of the death of Christ and how commeth it to passe now that it must be vnderstood of offering the Eucharist in a sacrifice But if his pen slipped and he put in these places meaning it of others where I say the Fathers call the Eucharist a sacrifice that which he saith is but Petitio principij and a begging of that to be yéelded for truth which I haue auowed and proued to be false The Eucharist I vnderstande to bee the celebration of the Sacrament with thankeful remembrance of the death of Christ This I say the Fathers doe often call sacrifice because the matter thereof is the sacrifice of Christes death not because Christ is therein verily sacrificed Thirdly I wrangle forsooth againe in bearing him in hand that the authorities alleaged do meane the thing represented to be Christes body whereas they vnderstand it to be Christes passion and death vpon the Crosse Where without doubt eyther the Answ wits or his honesty failed him very much For he would haue it seem that we intend not by the places of the fathers a representing of Christes passion and death but méerely of his body and yet he himselfe iustifieth the contrary straight waies after For within some fewe lines he alleageth my wordes directed to those places of the fathers that the death and passion of Christ is the whole matter and substance of this mystery To which I added also diuers more wordes to that purpose concluding that nothing is here remembred but Christes sacrificing himselfe vppon the Crosse For although we say that we represent the body and bloud of Christ whereof yet there was nothing spoken in this place yet as afterwards I tolde him we represent the body no otherwise but as broken and the bloud no otherwise but as shed for vs. Notwithstanding here though hauing not so much as a sillable whereto he may referre this spéech he telleth me that I wrangle in pretending the thing represented to be the body of Christ wheras it is his death and passion as if I excluded the representation of Christes death and passion which by his own confession I make the whole matter and purport of the Sacrament But this draffe he thought good enough wherewith to féede his corner companions and to perswade them that he had dealt very acutely and wittely in answering that that had béene saide vnto him He telleth me again that I ouer-reach in saying that the death and passion of Christ is the whole substance of this mystery Hée shoulde haue saide that I come short because I say not so much as he would haue me to say For saith he there are two thinges in our sacrifice a mysticall offering of the passion of Christ and a real offering of the body of Christ But neither scripture nor father â—uer commended to our practise any other sacrifice of Christ but only the mysticall offering of his passion Neither doe any of the authorities of the fathers so much tossed and tumbled by the Papists enforce any other as I alleaged the last time and the Answ saieth nothing to disprooue it Surely wonder it is if the matter were so cleare as these men would perswade vs that neuer any one of the fathers speaking so often of the sacrifice would once note this point expressely and distinctly that they had both a mysticall offering of the passion of Christ and a reall offering of his body besides no not when the maine drifte of their spéech pressed them so to doe if they had beléeued any such thing But they knew it not at all and therfore no maruaile that they saied nothing of it For where as the Answ telleth me that the Fathers giue reasons why it is a sacrifice indéede namely because the bloudy sacrifice of the crosse death of Christ is offered and sacrificed in aâ— vnbloudy sacrifice of his body he doth lewdly belie the fathers in fathering vppon them this new and Popish phrase of spéech wherewith the fathers were vtterly vnacquainted For although they sometimes call the Lordes Supper an vnblouddy sacrifice as they doe also the other a Oecumen in Heb. 13. seruice praiers of the Church to put a difference betwixt the Iewish carnal and the christian spirituall sacrifices as also betwixt the sacrifice of Christ vpon his crosse and the sacrifice of the church
multitude of the sacrifices of the law is taken away One is approued in the ende of the world once offered for the abolishing of sinne For the lambe of God hath taken away the sin of the world offering himselfe a sacrifice of a sweet sauour c. Where let the Answ note that in stéed of many sacrifices for sinne there is in the ende of the world but one and that one but once offered for the vtter abolishing of sinne so that there remaineth now no other srcrifice for vs to offer but thankesgiuing and the offering of our selues vnto God by our reasonable seruing of him Let me conclude with the words of S. Ambrose k Ambros in Heb. 10. There is now no more offering for sinne For one oblation of the bodie of Christ maketh perfect them that are sanctified as which worketh full forgiuenesse of sinnes Therefore we need not daily to purge with daily sacrifices as in the old law If we néed not daily to purge with daily sacrifice as they did in the olde law then surely the daily sacrifice of the Masse is superfluous and coÌ„sequently no sacrifice at all By these and sundry other testimonies of the old Fathers it is euident and cleare inough to those that will sée that they knew not nor were acquainted with this strange deuise of a continuall reall offering of the body of Christ Yea but the Answerer saith further that the matter is so true of the Fathers auouching this reall sacrifice that Caluin sticked not to condemne all the Fathers since the Apostles of Iudaisme in that very poynt for establishing a very sacrifice of the church so impudent a thing he tooke it to be to cast a myst vpon the Fathers words in that point If the Answ speake this of himselfe let him remember that which Solomon saith l Pro. 19 5 12. 22. A false witnesse shal not escape vnpunished and again Lying lips are an abhomination to the Lord. If he speake it vpon the warrant of any other let him remember this for a true saying hereafter m Pro. 14. 15. Eccle. 19 4 He that is hastie to giue credit is a foole Caluins own words do laie open the notable and shamelesse boldnesse of the Answ and his fellowes in this point n Institut li. 4. ca. 18. sect 10. If any man saith he oppose the sentences of the old Fathers gathered here and there and vpon their authoritie contend that the sacrifice which is done in the Lordes Supper is otherwise to be vnderstood then we expound it let this briefly serue for answere to him If the matter be to approue the deuise of that sacrifice which the Papists haue forged in the Masse the auncient Fathers giue no maintenance or defence to such sacriledge Indeed they vse the name of sacrifice but withall they expound that they meane nothing else but a memoriall of that true and onely sacrifice which Christ performed on the Crosse who is our onely priest as they euerie where shew c. Againe o ibid. sect 1â— he professeth that he seeth that they reteined a godly right sound iudgement concerning this whole mysterie neither findeth that they would any litle derogate from the only sacrifice of Christ Now therefore what conscience may I thinke there is in the Answerer that doubteth not to auouch so manifest and notorious a slaunder But he will alleage for himselfe yâ— Caluin though he confesse that the Fathers had a right and true iudgement concerning the Sacrament yet saith that p ibid. in actionis modo in the maner of their celebration they approached néerer to the Iewish maner of sacrificing then Christ had ordeined or was conuenient for the state of the Gospell But this say I cannot excuse the Answ from iust desert of being branded in the forehead with the letter C as a calumnious and slaunderous person For he chargeth Caluin to haue condemned the Fathers of Iudaisme for establishing a reall sacrifice of the church whereas Caluin absolutely deâ—ieth that there was in them any opinion of any reall sacrifice and only saith that in ceremonies they came néerer to the Iewish maner of sacrificing then was conuenient We know that the Papists come néerer to those rites and ceremonies wherewith the Heathens Painims haue worshipped their idol gods then is conuenient for Christians to do in the spirituall seruice of the true God And yet it followeth not that they establish those profane mysteries or opinions whereunto the same ceremonies were annexed So might Caluin truly say that the Fathers in ceremonies came too néer the Iewes and yet be farre as indéed he was from denying that they taught or established any reall sacrifice in the church In a word Caluin coÌ„demneth not the Fathers of Iudaisme but Papists of peruersnesse and wickednesse in abusing the writings of the Fathers For let me tell the Answ once againe that his maisters of Rhemes though they haue in diuers places of their Annotations scratched togither out of the Fathers all and more then all that may giue any shewe to countenance their sacrifice yet cannot bring any one place that goeth without the compasse of that reason of the name of sacrifice which in my former spéech I declared to stand without any true or reall sacrifice now to be performed For setting that downe which Cyprian saith that q Cypr. lib. 2. epist 3. the passion of Christ is the sacrifice which wee offer what termes of sacrifice can they alleage out of the Fathers which do not agrée to the passion of Christ It is the killing of the lambe of God the sacrifice of sacrifices the euerlasting quickening sacrifice the sacrifice of our Mediator the sacrifice of our price the eternall redemption both of body and soule Now sith the passion of Christ is not now really performed the sacrifice to which these spéeches are applied is not a sacrifice now really done but only in a mysterie and by remembrance Now although it be plaine inough by that that hath bene already said that there is no such sacrifice indéed as the Answ and his company do affirme yet supposing for the while that there is let vs sée what he will make of it or to what vse he will put it The vse of it as he telleth me in the former section is to apply vnto vs remission of sinnes purchased by the death of Christ only By which words he spoyleth his Masse of the nature of a propitiatory sacrifice For the true propitiatory sacrifice euen by the very signification of the word is that only which it selfe satisfieth for sinne and purchaseth by the vertue and force thereof forgiuenesse of sinnes and attonement with God Now therfore if forgiuenesse of sinnes be purchased by the death of Christ onely then it standeth not with the Masse to be a propitiatorie sacrifice His Rhemish companions tell him that the blood of Christ before his death was at his last supper sacrificed r Rhe. Annot.
he hath set vs frée who were otherwise prisoners of hell and bondslaues to the diuell and so according to the wordes of Cyprian he hath turned our captiuitie wherewith we were taken of old by the transgression of our father Adam and hath dispatched from vs the tormentes of hell whereunto wee were enthralled Nowe to what purpose did the Answe alleage these words of Cyprian or what aduantage doth hée dreame he hath in them He would finde his Limbus patrum here but it will not be For Cyprian speaketh expressely of deliuerance from hell torments whereof there are none in Limbo patrum as his maisters e Rhem. An not Luc. 16. 26 of Rhemes doe instruct him Now hauing vsed this péeuish and impertinent talk of thinges making nothing at all for his purpose yet as a man in a dreame he breaketh out into this fond presumption that the fathers are all theirs and that I should heare but that he is not disposed to oppose I haue not to do with maister Spence I perceiue but with a man wel séene in all the fathers But the fathers are his as they were his that said Ego f Dioscorus the hereticke Concil Chalcedo Act. 1. cum patribus eijcior The fathers and I are cast out both togither And that appeareth in the words of Cyprian now to be handled g Cyprian de vnct chris Our Lord saith hée at the table where he kept his last supper with his Apostles gaue with his owne handes bread and wine but vpon the crosse hee yeelded his body to the Souldiours hands to be wounded that syncere trueth and true synceritie being secretly imprinted in his Apostles might declare to the nations how bread and wine are his flesh and bloud and how causes agree to the effects and diuers names or kindes are reduced to one essence or substance and the thinges signifying and the things signified are counted by the same names Where it is plainly auouched that Christ at his last supper gaue bread wine What néedeth any more Yea but did Christ giue bare bread and wine saith the Answ absurdly and frowardly No say I for this bread and wine is the flesh and bloud of Christ as I before alleaged out of Cyprian according to the which S. Paule saith h 1. cor 10. 16. The bread which we breake is the communion of the body of Christ The cup of blessing is the communion of the bloud of Christ Therefore S. Austen calleth this bread i August de consecr dist 2. cap. Hoc est heauenly bread and Theodoret k Theodoret. dial 2. the bread of life and the same Cyprian saith that l Cypria de resurrect chri that which is seene namely the visible element of bread is accounted both in name and vertue the body of Christ namely because it conteineth sacramentally the whole vertue and benefite of the passion and death of our Lord Iesus Christ as before I shewed But let him remember that Cyprian saith it is bread and wine which is the flesh bloud of Christ whereas by his defence there is in the Sacrament neyther bread nor wine But Cyprian saith that diuerse names and kindes are reduced to one substance Doe you heare substance saith the Answ Help that sore if you can with all your cunning surely small cunning will serue to heale a sore where neither flesh nor skinne is broken or brused This is in trueth a verie ignorant and blind opposition The visible elements that are in substance bread and wine are in mysterie and signification the bodie and bloud of Christ and are so called as Cyprian before setteth downâ— When therefore bread being one substance is called not onely according to his substance bread but also by waie of Sacrament and mysterie the body of Christ when the wine being one substance is called not onely as it is Wine but also as it signifieth the bloud of Christ diuerse names or kindes are reduced to one substance And this Cyprian declareth when he addeth The signes and the things signified are called by the same names The bodie of Christ it selfe and the signe héereof which is bread are both called the body The bloud of Christ and the signe hereof which is wine are both called his bloud The body and bloud it selfe are so called indéed and trueth but the signes in their maner not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie yet so one substance is called by diuers names as the wordes before do specifie Nowe the place of Cyprian being as cléere as the sunne-light against transubstantiation as euerie eye may perceiue yet the Answ sendeth me to their learned treatises to sée what is there said of this and other places And what shall I finde there but such wretched and miserable cauils and shiftes as he himselfe hath borrowed from them And héere maister Spence as in your name he excuseth himselfe of his simplenesse and that he is no doctour which accordeth not with his vaunt before that hée could shew me this and that out of the fathers And I maruell that he should make excuse thus of his learning to a minister of our church so meane as I am séeing it is so péeuishly bragged amongst you commonly that there is litle learning to be found amongst the best of vs. Wheresoeuer he be I wish that his conscience and truth towardes God were but euen as much as his learning is P. Spence Sect. 16. THe same Cyprian you say lib. 2. Epistola 3. which is the famous Epistle ad Caecilium so much condemning you in so manie points about the sacrifice of the Church and of mixing of water which he said assuredly Christ did but I maruell you would for shame euer auouch it or point me to it for a A Popish bâ—agge See the aunswer to sect 2. euerie line of it is a knife to cut your throate You say that heere S. Cyprian saith that it was wine which Christ called his bloud Much to your purpose maister Abbot Who doubteth yet but that he tooke wine and not ale beere sydar metheglin or such like matter S. Cyprians meaning is most plaine against the Aquarios that it was b Did Christ call wine his bloud and yet dâ—d he meane that it was not wine wine mingled with water as in this Epistle he prooueth notably and not bare water as those Aquarij would haue it that he called his bloud that is to say he tooke wine and not bare water to make the Sacrament of and what is this to your purpose such testimonies are the fathers scrappes parings and crummes and not their sound testimonies R. Abbot 16. THe famous Epistle of Cyprian to Cecilius saith plainly Wee a Cypr. lib. 2. Epist 3. find that it was wine which Christ called his bloud as he saith twise beside in the same Epistle that by wine is represented the bloud of Christ Yea saith the Answ he meaneth that it was wine at the
Tertullian speaketh not of Melchisedech he doth not so much as intimate any thing of him and the Answ for that he read the place could not but know that there was nothing meant as touching Melchisedech and therefore in vpbraiding vs with stealing of scrappes out of the Fathers because we vse this place he giueth me occasion to charge him with voluntary and wilfull falsifying of their words But I leaue that to his owne conscience whether he did purposely séeke by this bad meanes to adde the more likelihood vnto a false tale Tertullian saith nothing here to intimate that the very creatures of bread and wine were vsed in the old Testament as figures of the body and blood of Christ but only expoundeth some places where the names of bread and wine are so vsed as that thereby should be signified the same bodie blood of Christ To this purpose he alleageth the words of Ieremy as the vulgar Latine text readeth them e Ier. 11. 19. Let vs cast the wood vpon his bread that is saith he the crosse vpon his bodie as noting that by the name of bread the Prophet signified the bodie of Christ Therefore he addeth Christ the reuealer of antiquities calling bread his bodie did sufficiently declare what his will was that bread should then signifie Whereby he giueth to vnderstand that as the Prophet did vse the name of bread to signifie the body of Christ so Christ himselfe to iustifie that spéech of the Prophet did institute bread it selfe to be the signe and Sacrament of his bodie and accordingly called it his bodie Another like spéech he reciteth concerning wine out of the words of Iacob the Patriarch f Gen. 49. 11. He shall wash his garment in wine and his cloathing in the blood of the grape Where by the garment and cloathing he vnderstandeth the bodie and flesh of Christ by wine the blood of Christ as if Iacob should foretell in those words that the bodie of Christ should be embrued with the shedding of his blood Hereupon he inferreth He that then figured wine in blood hath now consecrated his blood in wine noting hereby not that blood indéed was vsed for a figure of wine but that the name of the blood of the grape serued to signifie wine as prefiguring that wine it selâ—â— should be appointed to be the signe of the blood of Christ Now this was fulfilled by Christ when he consecrated his blood in wine that is to say made the Sacrament of his blood in wine or appointed wine in truth to be the Sacrament of his blood for signification whereof the name of wine had bene before vsed The old figure the refore of which Tertullian speaketh saying that we may acknowledge an olde figure in wine was in the vse of the names of bread and wine not of bread and wine indéed and that which by this olde figure and maner of speaking was intimated in the olde Testament Christ performed and fulfilled in the new when he consecrated and sanctified his creatures of bread and wine to be Sacraments and figures of his bodie and blood and by name accordingly called them his bodie and blood Which maner of speaking he had not approued but frustrated if in making the Sacrament he had destroyed the substance of bread and wine for then he could not haue called bread his bodie and wine his blood as Tertullian saith he did Now therefore that which the Answ saith that Figures are of the old Testament Christ fulfilleth them in the new maketh nothing against vs nay setting aside the error of the Answ it maketh wholly for vs. For he vainly fancieth Tertullian to say that the very elements of bread wine were vsed in the old Testament for figures of the bodie and blood of Christ and therefore that the same should not be againe appointed to that vse in the new Testament whereas Tertullian saith no more but only that the names or words of bread and wine were sometimes taken to signifie the same Now then let him remember that Turtullian auoucheth the fulfilling of this figure in this that Christ called bread his bodie and wine his blood and let him say with vs according to Tertullians minde that in the Sacrament it is bread and wine which is called the bodie and blood of Christ and that the meaning of Christs words is This bread is my bodie that is to say A Figure of my bodie Now hereby Tertullian proueth that Christ hath a true substantiall bodie For saith he It had bene no Figure except there were a true bodie For an emptie thing as is a fantasie might not haue bene capable of a Figure But here the Answ wold make vs beléeue that vnlesse Tertullian mean this of a Figure in the old Testament his saying is not true And this he proueth by Nigromancy for saith he the phantasticall bodies of spirits do exhibit to the eyes a certaine Figure or shape as the very Nigromancers do know But what motion I maruel came into the mans minde to diuert his spéech from mysticall and sacramentall figures instituted by Iesus Christ wherof Tertullian speaketh to figures and facions and shapes of diuels and spirits He was a blind man if he saw not his owne errour and folly but leaud and wretched if he sawe it and yet against his owne conscience would thus dally with Gods truth And why could he not conceiue that Tertullians wordes if they had concerned any such figures should haue bin false in respect of the old Testament as well as of the new because diuels and spirits had their figures and shapes as wel then as now Was it straunge vnto him that there are sacramentall figures in the new Testament to which the words of Tertullian might be fitly applied Surely S. Austen saith that g August in Psal 3. Christ admitted Iudas to that banquet wherein he commended to his Disciples the Figure of his body and blood So saith the old Father Ephrem that h Ephrem de natura dei noÌ„ scrutanda cap. 4. Christ blessed and brake the bread in figure of his bodie and blessed gaue the cup in Figure of his pretious blood Nay the Answ himselfe hath confessed i Sect. 10. before that the Fathers call the sacrifice which they speak of a figure of the death and passion of Christ Of such a figure Tertullian speaketh and reasoneth thus that there should neuer haue bin appointed in the Gospel a figure to represent the body of Christ except there had bene a true bodie to be represented thereby As for that cauill of his which he hath borrowed from Bellarmine that if Tertullian had not spoken of a figure in the old Testament he shuld not haue said fuisset but esset it is too too foolish and absurd and if he were in the Grammer schoole he should deserue to be laide ouer the forme to make him know that the verbe fuisset is rightly vsed by Tertullian with relation to Christs first
of Iesus Christ which he illustrateth by the storie of g Gen. 27. 15. 27. Iacob who came in the apparell of his elder brother Esau to receiue the blessing of Isaac his father For so are we presented before God to receiue the blessing of eternal life not in the ragged cloathes of that righteousnesse which is in our selues which is full of imperfection and weakenesse full of blots and staines and vnable to abide the triall of the iudgement of God but cloathed with the full and perfect obedience and righteousnesse of Iesus Christ which by the dispensation of the wisedome and mercy of God is reckoned vnto all that are Christs for theirs as effectually as if they themselues in their owne persons had performed the same Neither ought this to seeme strange vnto vs who know the like to haue befallen in the person of Iesus Christ For he knew no sinne neither was guile found in his mouth yet h 2. cor 5. 21. He was made sinne for vs he i 1. Pet. 2. 2â— bare our sinnes the k Esa 53. 6. Lord laid vpon him the iniquities of vs all Could our sinnes by imputation take hold vpon Christ to put him to death to inflict vpon the curse pronounced by the law shall not his righteousnesse by imputatioÌ„ stand auaileable for vs to yéelde vnto vs the blessing of euerlasting life Shall our sins be stronger against him then his righteousnesse is for vs God forbid Nay S. Austen truly saith l August Psal 21. He made our sinnes his sinnes that hee might make his righteousnesse our righteousnesse In humane things we sée and know that the suerties paiment is imputed vnto the debter for his discharge as if he himselfe had paide the debt Christ hath taken vpon him to be our suertie he hath made ful paiment of our debt both in bearing the punishment of sinne and performing the fulnesse of all righteousnesse What should let that his paiment also should not be imputed vnto vs God offering this fauour vnto man and man by grace accepting the offer of God Verily Christian religion hath taught vs thus to estéeme that whatsoeuer Christ did or suffered he did all for vs. For what néed had he to be made vnder the law so to worke to deserue for himselfe who from the beginning was the Lord of glorie to whom by right and inheritance did belong the kingdome of life and peace Therefore as his obedience in dying is imputed vnto vs to iustification from sinne so his obedience in working is imputed vnto vs to iustification vnto eternall life And therefore the scripture as it calleth him the m 1. Ioh. 2. 2 propitiation for our sinnes so it calleth him likewise n Iere. 23 6 the Lord our righteousnesse To which purpose the Apostle S. Paul saith that o 1. cor 1 30 he is made vnto vs of God wisdome righteousnes sanctificatioÌ„ and redemption Wisedome to couer our errour ignorance weaknesse of faith Righteousnesse in whose obedience we stand here iust and righteous before God and are accepted for his children being as yet sinners vnrighteous in our selues sanctification to purge vs from sinne and to restore in vs the image of God by litle and litle p 2. cor 3. 18 from glorie to glorie q Psa 84. 7 from strength to strength in this life till we â—e fully perfected at the resurrection of the dead Redemption in whom only we haue full and perfect attonement and satisfaction for all our sinnes by meanes whereof there is r Rom. 8. 1 no codemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus No lesse plainly saith he againe to the same effect Å¿ 2. Cor. 5. 21 Him which knew no sinne God made sinne for vs that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him Wherof S. Austen saith thus t August Enchiri ad Laurent cap. 41 He then was made sinne that we might be righteousnesse not our owne righteousnesse but the righteousnesse of God neither in our selues but in him euen as he in the similitude of sinfull flesh wherein he was crucified shewed foorth sinne not his owne sinne but our sinne neither being in him but in vs. Where first the Apostle and then out of the Apostle S. Austen giueth to vnderstand that as Christ was punished as a sinner for those sinnes which were not in him but in vs so we are accepted for righteous before God by that righteousnesse not which is in our selues but in him Yet it is so in him as that it is imputed vnto vs as being performed for vs and in our name and therefore by faith in Christ it is made ours euen as Christ himself is wholly ours By reason wherof it is called u Rom. 3. 21 22. The righteousnesse of God through the faith of Iesus Christ standing and being without the law and the refore by faith only Therfore is faith said to be reputed vnto vs for righteousnesse as in those words of S. Paul w Rom. â— 5 Oecum ibid. To him that worketh not that is as Oecumenius expoundeth it of Photius To him that hath no confidence by workes but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is imputed or counted for righteousnesse Not workes then but faith is counted for righteousnesse to the beléeuing man and as the Apostle x Gal. 2. 16 elsewhere saith We haue beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the faith of Christ and not by the workes of the law because that by the workes of the lawe no flesh shall be iustified Either there is not at all any iustification of man before God and so Christ shall haue died in vaine or this is his only iustificatioÌ„ which I haue described because as partly hath bene shewed and shall be shewed further there is no righteousnesse extant in man in this life whereby he can stand iust and blamelesse before the iudgement seat of God But that exclusion of works which I haue mentioned out of the Apostle the Answ restraineth onely to workes done by fréewill and by the law without the faith and grace of Christ A vaine exception the falshood whereof he that séeth not is altogither blinde albeit it is the onely starting hole which the Rhemists vse to auoid the euidence of the text The question of iustification by the lawe was moued concerning y Rhemi Annot Act 1â— 13 the conuerted gentiles as the Rhemistes confesse concerning the z Act. 15. 1. 10. brethren and Disciples as the text calleth them Of them the beleeeuing Pharisees required for iustification and saluation to a v. 1. â— be circumcised and to keepe the lawe of Moses The Apostle S. Paul handleth it concerning the Galathians which had b Gal 1. 6. 9. 3. 2 4. 27. receiued the Gospell which were baptised into Christ which had receiued the spirite which had suffered many things for the Gospell Them hauing béene for
defiled clothes Our cleannesse then is in Christ not in our selues in his innocency we appeare before God vndefiled and whiter then snow Not but that God cleanseth vs inwardly also but this clensing is yet but in part and therefore we haue still néed of a couer to hide the remaines of our vncleannesse Therefore howsoeuer the Answ scorneth a curtaine as he speaketh to be drawne before him to couer his sinnes yet S. Bernard embraceth the righteousnesse of Christ as a cloke or garment for that purpose O Lord saith he r Bernard â—â— Ca 〈…〉 〈◊〉 I will make mention of thy righteousnesse onely for that is mine also For thou art of God made righteousnesse vnto me Should I be afraid least that one righteousnesse be not enough for vs two It is not a short cloke or garment which caÌ„not couer two Thy righteousnes is for euer It is large and euerlasting and shall largely couer both thee and me And in me surely it couereth a multitude of sinnes but in thee O Lord what but the treasures of pietie the riches of goodnesse With this garment we desire to be clothed and to be found in Christ as Å¿ Phil. 3. 9. S. Paul saith not hauing our own righteousnesse which is by the law but the righteousnesse which is by the faith of Christ as knowing that otherwise we can neuer endure to stand before the face of God But we say saith the Answ that we haue inherent iustice If he haue so let him reape the benefite thereof but if a sinfull man haue opened his mouth against heauen and said I am iust his own conscience shall scourge him for it in due time Contrariwise he derideth imputed iustice as an ape of iustification but let him remember that therein he hath reuiled tâ—e spirite of God who in the fourth to the Romanes hath by that word expresly set forth the iustification of man before God t Rom. 4. 5. 6. 3. 23. To him that beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is imputed for righteousnesse Dauid declareth the blessednesse of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnes without works Abraham beleeued God and that was imputed to him for righteousnesse And this is not written for him onely that it was imputed to him for righteousnesse but for vs also to whom it shal be imputed beleeuing in him that raised vp Iesus our Lord from the dead c. Where saying in the future tense It shall be imputed to vs after that he had béen now a long time a worthy Apostle of Christ hee giueth to vnderstand that that imputing of righteousnesse without works as he hath before termed it was not only in the beginning but still to be his and our iustification in the sight of God and so excludeth that friuolous and shifting distinction of first and second iustification But thus doth the Apostle expresly auouch imputed righteousnesse And I maruell that the Answ and his fellowes thinke so strangely of imputing the righteousnesse of Christ vnto vs who yet defend the like imputing of the righteousnesse and merites of other men This they teach and practise as u Rhe. Annot. 2. Cor. 8. 14. concerning their own beggerly and sinfull deâ—otions their moonkish and frierly obseruations their workes of supererogation whereby they merite further then is néedfull for themselues and appoint this ouerplus to serue for the helpe and benefite of other being dispensed applied and imputed vnto them by a pardon from the Pope or from such as to whom he giueth commission in that behalfe So the Friars héere in England made men beléeue that w Out of the copy of a pardon graunted by the armelâ—te Friers in London in the yeere 1527. they gaue them participation of all the masses praiers fastinges watchinges preachings abstinences indulgences labours and al good workes that were done by the brethren of that order being heere in England Now with what face do these men denie that to the righteousnesse of Christ which thus blasphemously they yéeld to the supposed righteousnesse of sinfull men But so drunke are they with their owne fansies that whatsoeuer the holy Scripture saith it is but apishnesse if it be contrarie to their conceipt His description of iustification is but his owne and his fellowes deuise the bastard of the Iesuites and schoolemen Let him burie it where it was borne S. Paul by the spirite and word of God purposely treateth of iustification to the Romanes and Galatians to teach vs what it is and wherein it consisteth Him wee followe and out of him describe and set forth iustification in that maner as I haue declared before But to countenance his matter he nameth S. Austen againe in this place The best is hee doth but name him I must tel him that either he neuer read S. Austen or else vnderstandeth him not We confesse according to the word of God and the doctrine of S. Austen taken from thence that God iustifying vs and receiuing vs into his fauour by faith in Christ doth giue vnto vs his holy spirite to renew vs to holinesse and righteousnesse of life wherein wee are to encrease from day to day But yet this newnesse is not such in this life as whereby we can stand iust before the iudgement seate of God Nay we haue still to crie out x Rom. 7. â— 4 Vnhappie man that I am who shall deliuer mee from the bodie of this death and againe y Mat. 6. 12. O Lord forgiue vs our trespasses and againe z Psal 143. 2. Enter not into iudgement with thy seruaunt For in thy sight shall no man liuing be found righteous Thus hath Christian wisedome taught vs to confesse but what meaning doth Popish wisedome teach vs to make of this Christian confession We say forgiue vs our trespasses saith the Answ for veniall slips which hinder not iustice And this he falsly collecteth out of a place of S. Austen where there is no mention or word of any such thing But I alleaged to him that S. Austen affirmeth that the very Apostles themselues were to say so for this reason a August in â—sal 142. because no man liuing shal be found iust before God The Answ saith we say so for veniall slips which hinder not but that a man is iust S. Austen saith the Apostles themselues were to say so for this cause because no man liuing shall be found iust before God Why doth hee passe ouer this without answere and without proofe affirme that which is héereby ouerthrowen As for veniall sinnes we knowe none as touching their own nature because the scripture absolutely saith b Rom. 6. 23. The reward of sinne is death and c Gal 3. 10. Cuâ—sed is euerie one that continueth not in all thinges that are written in the law Therefore he that offendeth in any thing whatsoeuer is accursed by the lawe and the end of the curse is d Mat. 25. 41. euerlasting fire as our Sauiour Christ