again in this mysterie his flesh suffereth for the saluation of the people and Cyprian We sticke to the crosse we sucke the blood and fasten our tongues within the wounds of our redeemer and Chrysostome againe Good Lord the iudge himselfe is led to the iudgement seat the creator is set before the creature he which cannot be seene of the angels is spitted at by a seruant he tasteth gall and vâ—neger he is thrust in with a speare he is put into a graue c. In which maner of speaking S. Hierome saith Happie is he in whose heart Christ is euerie day borne and againe Christ is crucified for vs euerie day and S. Austen Then is Christ slaine vnto Aug. ouaesâ— Euan. li 2. q. 33. euery man when he beleeueth him to haue bene slaine Doe you thinke that these thinges are really done in the Sacrament as the words sound that Christ indeed suffereth dieth is burted that we cleaue to his crosse c S. Austen telleth you The offering of the De cons dist 2. cap. Hoc est 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 Séeing then the passion of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer and the passion of Christ is to be vnderstood in the Sacrament not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie it followeth that that sacrifice is likewise â—o to be vnderstood not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysserie and therefore that the sacrifice which you pretend is indéed sacriledge as I haue termed it and a manifest derogation from the sufficiency of Christs sacrifice vpon his crosse As touching the matter of Transubstantiation I alleaged vnto Gâ—las cont â—u yâ—h Nâ—st you the sentence of Geâ—asâ—â—â— Bishop of Rome There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine You answere me first that you suspect it to be corrupted by some of ours There is no cause M. Spence of that suspitioÌ„ but the shamelesse dealing of some leaud varlets of your side is notorious that way and infamous through all the Church of God Your owne clerkes cannot deny the truth of this allegation as they do not of many other sayings of the auncient Fathers as plainly contrary to your positions as this is Albeit Index Expurg in censura Bertrami they practise therein that which they professe in the Index Expurgatorius where they say In the old Catholicke Doctors we beare with many errours and we extenuate them excuse them by some deuised shift do oftentimes deny them and faine a conuenient meaning of them when they are opposed vnto vs in disputations or in contention with our aduersaries Indéed without these pretie shifts your men could finde no matter whereof to compile their answers But being taken for truly alleaged you say yet the whole faith of Christs Church in that point may not by his testimony be reproued against so many witnesses of scriptures and Fathers to the contrarie Whereas you should remember that Gelasius was Bishop of Rome that what he wrote he wrote it by way of iudgement and determination against an hereticke and therfore by your owne defence could not erre And if it had bene against the receiued faith of the Catholicke Church in those daies the heretickes against whom he wrote would haue returned it vpon him to his great reproach But he spake as other auncient Fathers had done before him as Theodor. dial 1. Theodoret He which called himselfe a vine did honour the visible elements and signes with the name of his bodie and blood not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature And againe The Dial. 2. mysticall signes after consecration do not go from their own nature for they continue in their former substance figure and forme c. chrysost ad caesarium Monach August apud â—edam in 1. cor 10. Chrysostome thus Before the bread be consecrated we call it bread but the grace of God sanctifying it by the ministerie of the priest it is freed froÌ„ the name of bread is vouchsafed the name of the Lords bodie although the nature of bread remaine in it Austen thus That which you see is bread and the cup which your eyes also do tell you De consect dist 2 cap. â—oc est But as touching that which your faith requireth for in â—ructioÌ„ bread is the bodie of Christ and the cup is his blood And againe This is it which we say which by all meanes we labour to approue that the sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things the visible forme of the elements and the inuisible flesh and blood of our Lorde Iesus Christ of the Sacrament and the matter of the Sacrament that is the bodie of Christ And that you may not take that visible forme of the elements for your emptie formes and accidentes without substance which and many other things your Censours aboue-named say The latter age of the Church subtilly and truly added by the holie Index Expurgat in censura Bertrami Ghost confessing thereby that these Popish subâ—ilties were not knowne at all to the auncient Fathers take withall that which he addeth Euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man for that Christ is true God true man because euery thing conteineth the nature and truth of those things whereof it is made By which rule you may vnderstand also the saying of Irenee The Eucharist Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. consisteth of two things an earthly and a heauenly namely so as that it conteineth the nature and truth of them both By these places and many other like it is euident that albeit in this Sacrament there is yéelded vnto the faith of the receiuer the bodie and blood of Christ and the whole power and vertue thereof to euerlasting life yet there ceaseth not to be the substance nature and truth of bread and wine Which is the purport of Gelasiuâ— his words By the Sacraments which we receiue of the bodie and blood of Christ we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet there ceaseth not to be the subsance or nature of bread and wine The force of which words and of the wordes of Theodoret you shall perceiue the better if you know how they are directed against Eutyches the hereticke The hereticke in Theodorets Dialogues by a comparison drawen from Dial. â— the sacrament wold shew how the bodie of Christ after his assumption into heauen was swallowed vp as it were of his diuinitie and so Christ ceased to be truly man As said he the bread and wine before the blessing are one thing but after the blessing become another and are changed so the bodie or humanitie of Christ whereby he was truly man before is after-his ascension glorification changed into the substance of God But Theodoret answereth him Thou art
his supper But S. Cyprian in his Epistle ad Caecilium so long ago 〈…〉 〈…〉 th it sure that Christ vsed both Let that Epistle for all these points be the stickeler betweene vs who saith e Cyprians words are thus In the sacrifice which is christ none but christ is to be followed Therefore we are not to follow the church of Rome beyond or beside that which Christ did In the sacrifice which is Christ Christ is to be followed euen to this verie purpose vsing those words Against which point to alleage S. Cyprian ad Pompeium is to alleage S. Cyprian against S. Cypriaâ— But let S. Cyprian saie thus much for vs to you If it be commanded in the Gospell or be conteined in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles to vse only wine let this traditioÌ„ then be obserued To make short wine is ex institutâ—one to put thereto water is Ex praecepto Ecclesiae which vpon your warrant being so long and so vniuersally vsed I dare not breake There arose about S. Cyprians time certaine fond innouators verie foolish fellowes who for temperance forsooth vsed no wine but all water only in the sacrifice of the Church These in the Catalogue of Heretickes written by S. Augustine Ad quod vult deum in the like Catalogue of Heretickes written by Philastrius Brixiamus Episcopus are called Aquarij Who saith he in the heauenly Sacraments offer onelie water and not that which the Catholicke and Apostolicke Church is accustomed to do The argument and drift of the afore-named Epistle of Saint Cyprian ad Caecilium lib. 2. Epist 3. is briefly set downe In the sacrifice of the Church neither water without wine nor wine without water ought to be offered The whole Epistle is for that matter notable and no doubt Saint Chrysostome meant of those Aquarij Saint Cyprian calleth it our Lords tradition and a thing ordâ—ined of God he saith our Lord both did it and also taught it The learned Fathers of the sixt Councell called it an order deliuered to the Church by God and say it was the tradition of the Apostles Clemens constitu Apost lib. 8. cap 17 saith likewise mingling of the cup with wine and water and consecrating it c. S. Iames in his Liturgie saith Likewise after he had supped taking the cup and mingling it with wine and water c. S. Basill in his Liturgie saith Likewise also taking the cup of the iuyce of the wine mixing giuing thanks c. S. Chrysostome in his Liturgie in putting wine into the Chalice said And one of the souldiers opened his side and forthwith issued blood and mingling it with water he saith And water and he that saw it hath borne witnesse and his witnesse is true Ioh. 19. S. Proclus a neare successor of his De traditione diuinae Liturgiae saith By these praiers they expected the comming of the holie Ghost that by his diuine presence he should make the bread and the wine mixed with water which were proposed for sacrifice the bodie and blood of our Sauiour Iesus Christ Theodoret Dialog 1. saith f Theodoret saith not he made it but he called it his blood That Christ made that which was mixed in the cup his blood Eusebius Emiss in ser 5. de Paschat saith that Christ himselfe by his example taught that we should consecrate the cup with wine mixed with water Concilium Carthagin 3. cap. 24. In which Austen was present saith thus That in the Sacrament of the bodie and blood of the Lord nothing else should be offered but that which the Lord deliuered that is bread and wine mixed with water Ambrosius lib de Sacramento cap. 4. lib. 5. cap. 10. affirmeth that wine and water must be put in the cup. Irenaeus lib. 5. cap. When saith he the mixed cup and the bread broken receiueth the word of God it is made the Eucharist of the bodie blood of the Lord. August tract 120. in Iohannem Isidore lib. 2. offic cap. 18. Beda in Comment Marci cap. 14. vpon those words This is the cup of my blood Anselmus in 26. Mat. Alexander neare to the Apostle saith let bread only and wine mingled with water be offered in the sacrifice of Masses There ought not to be offered in the cup of our Lord either wine only or water only but both togither mingled because both is read to haue followed out of the side of our Lord in his passion Io. 19. de Consent distinct 2. cap. in Sacramentorum Iustinus Apostol 2. Damascen lib. 4. cap. 14. Grego Nissâ—n for Catechetico as is alleaged by Euthimius in Panoplia lib. 2. titulo 21. Chrysostome homil 84. in Ioannem hom 24. in 1. Corinth Theophâ—â—ct in Iâ—annem cap. 9. See Bellarminus lib. 4. de Sacramento Eucharistiae cap. 1. 11. beside many other testimonies of all ages in both Greeke and Latin Church R. Abbot 2. AS touching this first point of mixture of water with wine in the Sacrament I shewed before that our Churches haue accounted it as a meere indifferent thing where it is vsed with that simplicitie wherwith it was first begun The maner of Countries where their wines are verie strong is to delaie them with water Christians would not neglect that commendable shew of sobrietie in their mysticall banquet whereof Heathen men had regard at their ordinary tables Therefore according to the maner of their countries they mingled water with their wine taking wine to be the institution of Christ but whether méere wine or delaied wine they knew it made no difference Albeit some there were that in regard of this sobrietie and temperancie went too far leauing Christes institution of wine and vsing only water in the Sacrament as a Cypr. lib. 2. epist 3. Cyprian intimateth of some of his predecessours To this mixture was added at length some signification either in Cyprians time or perhaps before As for that of b Epist 1. Concil tomo â— Alexander the first to that purpose that Epistle of his and the rest of them are sufficiently knowne to be counterfeit and bastard stuffe But thus this vsage and custome ranne his course till at length it sell with the rest into the maine Ocean of Popish corruptions and superstitions where the fathers errours were turned into pestilent heresies and those things that arose of the simplicitie of men for c August epist 119. ad exhortationem vitae melioris profitable admonition and exhortation only as they intended them were made matters of true deuotion and of the worship of God Our Churches therefore séeing this mixture abused in the church of Rome and accounted as a necessary mysterie of Christian religion without any warrant of the word of God thought conuenient vtterly to relinquish the same though otherwise occasion requiring it they haue estéemed it an indifferent thing And herein they haue followed the example of our Lorde and maister Iesus Christ who knew well inough that the washing of handes and cuppes
of eating and drinking Iob. 6. are not to be vnderstood properly but by a figure sect 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 30. That the Doctours of the Romish church by the defence of Transubstantiation haue bene driuen to most impious and damnable questions and assertions sect 29. That the place of the Gospell Luc. 22. 20. which they so much cauil vpon out of the Greeke maketh nothing at all for Transubstantiation as by diuerse other reasons so by the confession Bellarmine himselfe sect 31. That the assumption of the virgin Mary is a meere fable sect 33. That the Church hath no authoritie after the Apostles to authorize any scriptures and that we seclude no other bookes from the canon of the bible then the old church did sect 34. How wickedly the Papists deale in mangling and martyring the writings of the Fathers sect 35. That our doctrine of iustification before God by faith onely is the verie trueth which both the scriptures and out of them the Fathers haue manifestly taught that it maketh nothing against good workes that the place of S. Iames cap. 2. maketh nothing against it sect 36. May it please thee gentle Reader first of all to take notice of these two places of Chrysostome Gelasius which haue bene the occasion of all this controuersie for thy better satisfaction I haue noted them both in English and Latin though otherwise to auoyd both tediousnesse of writing and vnnecessarie charges of printing I haue thought good to set downe the places alleaged onely translated into English The place of Chrysostome against the vse of water in the cup of the Lords table CVius rei gratia non aquam sed vinum post resurrectionem bibit Chrysost in Math. hom 83. Perniciosam quandam haeresin radicitùs euellere voluit eorum qui aqua in mysterijs vtuntur Ita vt ostenderet quia quando hoc mysteriuÌ„ tradidit vnum tradidit etiam post resurrectionem in nuda mysterij mensae vino vsus est Exgenimine ait vitis quae certè vinum non aquam producit In English thus But why did Christ after his resurrection drinke not Water but Wine He would plucke vp by the rootes a certaine pernicious heresie of them which vse water in the Sacrament So that to shew that when he deliuered this Sacrament he deliuered wine euen after his resurrection also he vsed wine at the bare table of the Sacrament Of the fruite of the vine saith he which surely bringeth foorth wine and not water The place of Gelasius against Transubstantiation CErtè sacramenta quae sumimus corporis sanguinis Christi diuina Gelasius cont Eutych Nestor res est propter quod per eadem diuinae efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non desiuit substantia vel natura panis vini Et certe imago similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur Satis ergò nobis euidenter ostenditur hoc nohis in ipso Christo domino sentiendum quod in eius imagine profitemur celebramus et sumimus vt sicut in haenc scilicet in diuinam transeunt sancto spiritu perficiente substantiam permanent tamen in suae proprietate naturae sic illud ipsum mysterium principale cuius nobis efficientiam virtutemque veracitèr repraesentant ex quibus constat propriè permanentibus vnum Christum quia integrum verumque permaenere demon strant In English thus Verily the Sacraments which we receiue of the bodie and blood of Christ are a diuine thing by reason whereof we also by them are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet there ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine And surely an image or esemblance of the bodie and blood of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries It is therefore euidently inough shewed vnto vs that we must thinke the same in our Lord Iesus Christ which we professe celebrate and receiue in his image that as these namely the bread and wine do by the working of the holie Ghost passe ouer into a diuine substance and yet continue in the proprietie of their owne nature so they shew that that principall mysterie the efficiencie vertue wherof these do represent vnto vs doth abide one Christ because whole and true those natures properly remaining whereof he doth consist M. Spence hauing had my bookes to peruse these places sent me in writing this answere to them SIr I right hartily thanke you for the willing minde you hauâ— towards me Truly I should be verie vnkinde if I knew mâ— selfe vnaffectioned to so much good will I am in prison and pouertie otherwise I should be some way answerable to your friendlinesse In the meane season good will shall be readie for good will Touching the words of S. Chrysostome He would plucke vp by the rootes a certaine pernicious heresie of them which vse water in the Sacrament c. Read the 32. Canon of the sixth Councell holden at Constantinople and there you shall find vpon what occasion this golden mouth did vtter these words and not only that but also mention of S. Iames and S. Basils masse or sacrifice left to the church in writing The words of the Canon begin thus Because we know that in the country of the Armenians wine onely is offered at the holie table c. The heresie therefore against which he wrote was of the a Vntruth For neither doth Chrysostome intimate any thing against the Armenians or such as vse wine only neither was it heresie in theÌ„ that did so Armenians and the Aquarians the first whereof would vse onely wine the other onely water in the holie mysteries Against which vse being so directly against both the scriptures and custome of the primitiue church he wrote the same which he saith of pernicious heresie as before I cannot doubt of your hauing the Councels or some of them Your other booke conteining the words of Gelasius I wil not yet answere being printed at Basil where we suspect many good works to be corrupted abused But if it proue so to be yet the whole faith of Christs church in that point may not be reproued against so many witnesses of scriptures and fathers b Neither scripture not Father auoucheth the contrarie auouching the contrarie Nay what words should Christ haue vsed if he had meant to make his bodie blood of the bread and wine as we say he did other then these This is my bodie which shall be giuen c. And gaine for this is my blood of the new Testament which shal be shead for many for remission of sinnes Marke well the speeches and they be most wonderfull as most true All the world and writings therein c The Gospell it selfe is sufficient to perswade him that will be perswaded â—nforming vs of a true and naturall bodie of Christ and not of a fantasticall bodie in the fashion quantitie of a wafer cake cannot
taken in the nettes which thou thy selfe hast wouen For as the bread and wine albeit in vertue and power they implie the bodie and blood of Christ yet retaine still the substance truth of nature which they had before so the bodie of Christ albeit it be glorified and aduanced to high and excellent dignitie yet remaineth still the same in substance and propertie of nature as it was before Which saint Austen expresseth thus speaking of the bodie of Christ To August ep 57. which indeed he hath giuen immortalitie but hath not taken away the nature thereof If Euâ—yches were now aliue he would surely be a Papist Your new and grosse heresie of Transubstantiation had bene a good neast for him to shroude himselfe in For he might and would haue said that as the bread and wine in the sacrament after consecration do leaue their former substance and are changed into another so the bodie of Christ although it were first a true and naturall bodie yet after his ascension and glorification was chaunged into another nature and substance of the Godhead A meete couer cyp de caena domini for such a cup. You may remember that I shewed you how Cyprian doth exemplifie the matter of the sacrament by the diuinitie humanitie of Christ that as Iesus Christ though truly God yet was not letted thereby to be truly man so the sacrament though it implie sacramentally not only the vertue power but also the truth of the bodie and blood of Christ yet is not therby hindered from hauing in it the substance and nature of bread wine And as Christ was changed in nature not by leauing his former nature of Godhead but by taking to him the nature of man so bread and wine were chaunged in nature not by leauing their former nature substance but by hauing vnited vnto them by the working of the holie Ghost in such maner as I haue said the substance and effect of the bodie and blood of Iesus Christ But you cannot sée how the words of Christ This is my bodie c. can be vnderstood otherwise but of your Transubstantiation There is M. Spence a veile of preiudice lying before your heart which blindeth your eyes that you cannot sée it Otherwise you might know by the very spéeches of the auncient Fathers to whom you referre your selfe that Christ called bread and wine his bodie and blood and that after the same maner of sacramentall speaking which I noted vnto you before out of saint Austen Sacraments because August ep 23. of the resemblance do most commonly take the names of the things themselues which they do resemble Whereof he saith for example in the same place The Sacrament of Christes bodie is after a certaine maner the bodie of Christ But Cyprian telleth you Our Cypr. ll 1. ep 6. Lord called the bread made by the vniting of many cornes his bodie and the wine pressed out of many clusters and grapes hee called his blood And Chrysostome saith of bread in the sacrament The bread chrysost ad caesar Theod. dia. 1. is vouchsafed the name of our Lords bodie And Theodoret as before Christ honored the visible signes with the name of his body blood And S. Austen The bread is the bodie of Christ And Theodoret againe Aug. apâ—d Bâ—dam in 1. cor 10. Our Sauiour chaunged the names and gaue vnto his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his bodie And Cyprian againe Our Lorde gaue at the table with his owne handes bread Theod dial 1. Cypr. de vnct Chrismatis and wine and bread and wine are his flesh and blood The signes and the things signified are counted by one name And if you wold know the cause why Christ did vse this exchaunge of names Theodoret telleth you straightwaies after He would haue those that are partakers of the diuine mysteries not to regard the nature of those things which are seene but because of the changing of the names to beleeue the chaunge which is wrought by grace namely that our mindes may be fixed not vpon the signs but vpon the things signified therby as he that hath any thing assured vnto him by hand and seale respecteth not the paper or the writing or the seale but the things that are confirmed and assured vnto him hereby By these you may vnderstand that it was bread which Christ called his bodie and as Cypr. lib. 2. epâ—st 3. Aug. cont Adâ—m c2 12. Tertul cont Marcionem lib. 4. Cyprian saith That it was wine which he called his blood And let S. Austen tell you the same Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the sign of his body So Tertullian The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his bodie saying this is my body that is to say a figure of my bodie Wherby you may conceiue that bread and wine are not really chaunged into the bodie and blood as you teach but remaining in substance the same they were are in vse and propertie the signes and figures of the bodie and blood of Christ And as Gelasius addeth to the words before alleaged The image and resemblance of the Lords body and blood is celebrated in the exercise of the Sacraments Yet they are not naked and bare signes as you are wont hereupon to cauill but substantiall and effectuall signes or seales rather assuring our faith of the things signified thereby and deliuering as it were into our hands and possession the whole fruite and benefit of the death and passion of Iesus Christ But you will vrge perhaps that Tertullian saith Christ made the bread his bodie which words your men are wont to alleage out of the former part of the sentence guilefully concealing the end of the same Tertullian declareth his owne meaning that he vnderstandeth a figure of the bodie But you may further Ioh. 1. 1â— remember that the Gospell saith The word was made flesh and yet it ceased not to be the word so the bread is made the bodie of Christ and yet it ceaseth not to be the bread S. Austen saith August apud Bedam in 1. cor 10. Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his body blood which also he made vs to be and by his mercy we are that which we do receiue yet we are not transubstantiated into the bodie blood of Christ Vnderstand therefore that the bread is made the bodie of Christ after a certain maner and not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie As touching the bodily and Popish eating drinking of Christs flesh and blood grounded on this point of transubstantiation Christ our Sauiour said to the Iewes as S. Austen expoundeth his words August in Psal 98. Ye shall not eate this bodie which you see nor drinke that blood which they shall shead that shall crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament Being
the allegation of his passion and resurrection because they were once done and passed the memories of them cannot be the things themselues but a memorie only But his bodie euer remaining the memory of it may be also the very thing it selfe that S. Augustine in so many places affirmeth that you must not so rack this place to ouerthrow the other and to set him at bate with himselfe Ioyne therefore with this testimonie of S. Augustine another place of the same August in Sententijs Prosperi and by that learne to vnderstand his own meaning of his secundum quendam modum The place is thus It is his flesh which in the Sacrament we receiue couered in the forme of bread and it is his bloud which we drink vnder the figure and sauour of wine Namely flesh is a Sacrament of flesh and bloud a Sacrament of bloud By flesh and bloud both inuisible spirituall and to be vnderstoode is signified the visible and palpable body of our Lord Iesus Christ Heere you see by answere not by vs patched and clouted but b Vntrue for it cannot be shewed that these are his wordes and yet they serue not the Answ turne as shall appeare by himselfe set down he explicateth thus much that in both sides is true flesh and true bloud But now to his secundum quendam modum he telleth you that on the one side is flesh couered in the forme of bread in the Sacrament and bloud vnder the forme and sauour of wine inuisible spirituall and to be vnderstoode this for the maner of the one but on the earth and now in heauen a a visible and palpable body Yet remember that flesh is a Sacrament of flesh and bloud of bloud More I might say but infinite haue said it to them I send you R. Abbot 13. FOr the exposition of Christes wordes This is my body I shewed the testimonies of the ancient fathers that Christ called the bread and wine his body bloud taking for the ground of my speech that which S. Austen saith a Aug. Epis◠23. that Sacraments haue a resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments and that because of this resemblance they commonly take vnto them the names of the thinges themselues whereof they are sacramentes Now to this rule the Answerer saith nothing at all as neither he did before when I mentioned it concerning sacrifice whereas hée should haue taken it for his greatest enemie and therefore fought most strongly against it because héereby is discharged the greatest part of that which either he or his fellowes can obiect for their sacrifice reall presence and Transubstantiation But I gather hereby his wilfull and malicious resolution against plaine and euident trueth The wordes which he answereth next follow immediatly after the words alreadie mentioned As therefore saith S. b Ibid. Austen the sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certaine maner the bodie of Christ and the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is after a sort his bloud so the sacrament of faith namely baptisme is faith Whereby S. Austen exemplifieth that which he had said before that sacramēts because of their resemblance take the names of the things whereof they are sacramentes For euen so the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ is after a sorte that is by resemblance the body and bloud of Christ not verily and indeed then but after a sorte and by resemblance and so by resemblance called the bodie and the bloud of Christ for as the sacrament of the body is the bodie so the sacrament of faith is faith The sacrament of faith is not faith indeed but by questions and answeres of faith it betokeneth the faith of Christian men So therefore the sacrament of the body is not indéed the body but betokeneth the body of Christ that was giuen for vs and so because of this resemblance is called the body And this is the maner or sorte of which S. Austen speaketh not a maner of reall being but a maner of speaking and sacramentall betokening As for that which the Answ saith to note that maner that the sacrament is inuisibly but yet truely the body and so a memorie that it is the thing it selfe S. Austen acknowledgeth no such matter nay it is contrary to the whole drift and purpose of S. Austens spéech And beside it is vnreasonable and absurde that the same thing should be the sacrament and the thing it selfe the signe and the thing signified the memoriall and the thing remembred neither hangeth it togither by any better reason then as if a man should be said to be his owne father or a husband to be a husband in respect of himselfe or a Prince to be a Prince vnto himselfe and so to be both Prince and subiect Euery child knoweth that the sacrament of Christes bodie is the visible signe of Christes bodie as all sacraments are visible signes and the visible signe of Christes body is not the body it selfe Therefore the sacrament of Christes body is not the body it selfe Yea S. Austens saying as is before alleaged that the sacrifice of the Church consisteth of c De conse dist 2. cap. Ho◠est two things the sacrament which is the visible element and the matter of the sacrament which is the body of Christ maketh it plain enough y◠he took the sacrament of Christes body and the body it selfe to be two things and not one as the Answ absurdly conceiueth But yet he taketh vpon him to proue this absurditie by S. Austen himselfe and alleageth certaine wordes by which hée would haue me to vnderstand this place which hath béen alreadie spoken of The words are thus d De conse dist 2. cap. Hoc est It is his flesh which we receiue in the sacrament couered in the forme of bread and his bloud which we drinke vnder the forme and sauour of wine Namely flesh is a sacrament of flesh and bloud is a sacrament of bloud By the flesh and bloud both visible spirituall and intelligible is signified the visible and palpable bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ full of the grace of all vertues c. Now of these wordes the Answ as some other of his fellowes doe maketh a monstrous conclusion as if Christ had two kindes of flesh at one and the same time one visible another inuisible one in heauen another in earth e Tho. Aqui. Par. 3. qu. 76. art 3. one hauing the due proportion of a body the other without all proportion and hauing no difference of head or féete or any other parts one the same as it was borne of the virgin Mary the other like to the phantasie of Marcion and the Manichees of the nature of a spirit f Ibid art 4. whole in the whole cake and whole in euerie part of the cake so that though it be broken into a thousand péeces yet euerie one of them hath the whole body of Christ But we beléeue not any such
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
first which hee tooke to make the Sacrament but in being made the Sacrament it was no longer wine as if Cyprian had said thus Christ tooke wine and made it no wine and though it were now no wine yet he called wine his bloud Cyprians wordes are euident that Christ called wine his bloud and that by wine is represented his bloud which cannot be till it be made a sacrament Therefore in the Sacrament there is wine which representeth and is called the bloud of Christ Such testimonies he saith are the scrappes and parings and crummes of the fathers But let him remember that a crumme is enough to choke a man and so doth this testimonie choke him so that hee staggereth and stammereth out an answere whereof he himself can make no reason if he were enquired of it by word of mouth His other idle talke is answered b Sect. 2. before Pet. Spence Sect. 17. SAint Augustine ad Adimantum maketh so flatly against you that I wonder why you alleage it Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body Why should he doubt to say it was so when he knew it was so when he gaue the signe of his bodie But what signe a bare signe no sir but such a signe as contained in it the thing signified really how prooue you it Euen thus Hee writeth against the Manichees that condemned all the olde testament as being the euill Gods testament such was their vile blasphemie among other places they condemned this place of Leuiticus 17. Sanguis pecoris erit eius aâ—ima This place saith S. Augustine is spoken figuratiuely not that it is the very soule or life of the beast but that in it lieth the soule or life of the beast neither is the bloud a bare signification of the beasts soule but such a signe as containeth in it the very soule of the beast and therefore of the same speech he hath Quaestio 57. in Leuiticum made particular discourse where he hath these wordes We are to seeke out such speeches as by that which containeth do signifie that which is conteined â—â— because the life is holden in the body by the bloud for if the bloud be shed the life or soule departeth therefore by the bloud is most fâ—â—ly signified the soule and the bloud taketh the name thereof euen as the place wherein the Church assembled is called the Church You a I see the Answerer play with his owne fancie altogether stranâ—e from S. Austenâ— meaning as shall be shewed see he maketh in this place the bloud of the beast a signe of the beasts soule but such a signe as contained the soule in it Now in the other place ad Adimantum by you obiected S. Augustine forgat not this point of this place touched but in excusing that place of Leuiticus and interpreting it he exemplifieth it by the wordes of Christ which they admitted all the sorte of them as being the wordes of the good God of the new testament as they termed him saying I may interpret that precept to be set downe by way of signe For our Lord doubted not to say c. So that this place is brought by S. Augustine to shewe that in the B. Sacrament there is a signe containing the thing and therefore called by the name of the thing so in that of Leuiticus Moses called the bloud the soule of the beast because it is such a signe as containeth the soule of the beast really in it This exposition is irrefragable because it is b VVhich S. Austen himselfe neuer dreamed of S. August own exposition who could best expound his own meaning And against the Manichees he could not bring any other meaning possibly of This is my body but that For they confessed Christ to be really in the Sacrament in his bodie because the euill God had tied him or as they foolishly vttered it certaine peeces of him aswel in the Sacramentall bread as in other bread eares of corne stickes hearbes meates and all other creatures and that the elect Manichees by eating those things and after belching them out againe and otherwise auoiding them did let out at libertie the good God Christes body And therefore after these expositions agreeable to their heresie this place did fitly as S. Augustine bringeth it in expound that of Leuiticus As Christ in saying This is my body must meane as you Manichees expound it This is a signe of my body in which signe the partes of my body are bound euen so the bloud of the beast is the life is as much as the bloud of the beast is a signe of his life in which signe his life is contained Thus did S. Augustine excellently quoad homines answere the Manichees with their owne opinion And therefore to conclude S Augustine in calling it signum doth inferre most necessarie that his body is present because it is a signe in which the body is conteined R. Abbot 17. TO shew further that our Sauiour Christ said of verie bread This is my body and therefore that the Sacrament is not really and substantially but onely in signe and mysterie the body of Christ I alleaged the words of S. Austen Our a August cont Adimantum cap. 12. Lord doubted not to say This a is my body when he gaue the signe of his body The wordes are plaine that Christ in a certaine vnderstanding and meaning called that by the name of his body which is indéede but a signe of his bodie Now with this place of Austen the Answ dealeth as b Leu. deca 1. lib. 1. Cacus the théefe dealt with Hercules his Oxen when he drew them backward by the tailes into his caue So doth this man violently pull and draw the wordes of Austen backward into his den of reall presence and streineth them whether they wil or not to serue his turne in that behalfe But the lowing of the Oxen to their fellowes descried the theft of Cacus and the wordes following in S. Austen himselfe doe prooue that the Answ doth but play the théefe M. Harding was content to say that S. Austen in heate of disputation spake that which might be greatest aduantage against the hereticke not most agréeable to the trueth or to his owne meaning but little did he thinke that the place should serue to prooue any thing for his part But the Answ hath learned a tricke to make the wordes speake for reall presence which neuer was in S. Austens minde Forsooth hauing in hand against the Manichees to expound the wordes of Moses law The bloud is the soule or life he telleth them that the meaning thereof is that the bloud is a signe of life in which signe the soule or life is really conteined and to shew this we are tolde that he bringeth the words of Christ This is my body which he spake of the signe of his body but yet such a signe as doth really conteine the body and therefore we must thinke that the bodie of Christ
forsooth Gelasius must forget what he hath to proue and must say for you that the Sacrament is nothing but a signe and then howe serueth it for an argument against Eutyches if it be but bare brad in one nature onely whereas if you looke vpon the whole testimonie of Gelasius as I set it downe largely to you you shall see yea with halfe an eye that the meaning of these wordes An image and similitude of the body and bloud of the Lord is performed in the celebration of the mysteries is no other but this that his being in the Sacrament both in a diuine substance as himselfe tolde you and also ioyned with the naturall properties of bread is a figure and resemblance of his two natures remaining in heauen vnconfused Thus you care not howe foolishly you make the authour to speake so he affoord you wordes and sillables to make a shew Looke vpon Gelasius and bethinke your selfe I haue answered him at large Looke a in the end and there you shall find it because it was written before yours came to my hand I was loth to write it againe in his orderly place for that writing is somwhat painfull to my weake head and yeares Wherefore I craue you to beare with me in that matter R. Abbot 19. THe wordes of Gelasius are these An a Gelas cont Euty Nestor image or resemblance of the bodie and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries or sacraments Héereby Gelasius giueth to vnderstand that the sacrament is not the verie bodie of Christ but the image and resemblance of his body It is more plaine by that which he addeth We must therfore think the same of Christ himselfe which we professe in his image that is to say in the Sacrament Marke how he distinguisheth Christ himselfe and the image of Christ The Sacrament therefore which is the image of Christ is not Christ himselfe Thus the wordes themselues doe manifestly giue that for which I alleaged them But the Answ telleth me that I alleage Gelasius héere contrarie to his owne meaning euen by mine own confession How may that be Forsooth I would before haue Gelasius his drift to be that as Christ is in heaueÌ„ in two natures so héere vpon the earth in the sacrament is bread with the body and so both in heauen and héere would haue two seuerall natures but nowe in this place I would haue the Sacrament to be nothing but a signe and bare bread in one nature onely But hée knoweth that he speaketh vntrueth both in the one and in the other Of the former he himselfe hath acquited me before saying b Sect. 9. you would haue the Sacrament a memorie of Christ as though hee were absent Then belike I would not haue the bodie of Christ really present héere vpon the earth in the Sacrament Of the other I acquited my selfe in that very place which he taketh vpon him to answer For I added immediately vpon the alleaging of those words thus Yet are not the Sacraments naked bare signes as you are wont hereupon to cauill but substantiall and effectuall signs or seales rather assuring our faith of the things sealed therby and deliuering as it were into our hands and possession the whole fruite benefit of the death and passion of Iesus Christ To answere him to both in a word thus I say that as the water of Baptisme doth sacramentally imply the blood of Christ though the blood of Christ be in heauen so likewise the bread and wine in the Lordes Supper do sacramentally imply the bodie and blood of Christ though the same bodie and blood be in heauen and not vpon the earth And therefore neither did I before say nor do now that the Sacrament consisteth of two natures really being vpon earth but of bread and wine being on earth and the bodie and blood of Christ being in heauen the one receiued by the hand of the bodie the other only by the hand of the soule which only reacheth vnto heauen Againe as water in Baptisme is not therefore bare water because the blood of Christ is not there really present so no more is the bread of the Lords table bare bread although there be no reall presence of the bodie but it doth most effectually offer and yéelde vnto the beléeuing soule the assurance of the grace of God and of the forgiuenesse of sinnes That which he further addeth as touching the drift and purpose of Gelasius how lewdly it peruerteth his wordes and maketh them to serue fully for the heresie of Eutyches against which Gelasius writeth I haue declared before and so well haue I bethought my selfe héereof as that I doubt I may in that behalfe charge the Answ conscience with voluntarie and wilfull falshood and desperate fighting against God Pet. Spence Sect. 20. YOur terme of Seales applied to the Sacraments is done to an ill purpose to make the Sacramentes no better then the Iewes Sacramentes were To handle that matter would require a greater discourse which willingly I let passe But yet I must tel you that the said opinion is verie derogatorie to the a Vntrueth for the passioÌ„ of christ hath had his effect from the beginning of the world effect of Christes passion of the which the Sacraments of Christes Church take a farre more effectuall vertue then the Iewes Sacraments did Read our treatises of that matter for I list not to runne into that disputation R. Abbot 20. HE disliketh that I call the Sacramentes Seales Yet héere his owne conscience could tell him that we make not the Sacrament bare bread and wine as he and his fellows maliciously cauill Though waxe of it selfe bâ— but waxe yet when â—◠〈◊〉 with the Princes signeâ— it is treason to offer despight vnto it So whatsoeuer the bread and wine be of themselues yet when they are by the word of God as it were stamped and printed to be Sacramentes and seales it is the perill of the soule to abuse them or to come vnreuerently vnto them But why is not the terme of sâ—ales to be approoued in our sacraments Surely S. Austen calleth them visible a August lib. de catechâ—z â—ud ca. 26. hom 50. de v. Tit. poenâ—t Seales and why then is it amisse in vs Forsooth because it maketh our sacraments no better then the sacraments of the Iewes Indéede our Sacramentes are in number sewer for obseruation more easie in vse more cleane in signification more plaine and through the manifest reuelation of the Gospell more méete to excite and stirre vp our faith and in these respects they are better then the sacraments of the Iewes but as touching inward and spirituall grace they are both the same neither is there in that respect any reason to affirme our sacramentes to be better then theirs For they did b 1 Cor. 10. â— eate the same spirituall meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke that we doe The same I say that we
the testimonies of the ancient Fathers What I haue atteined vnto herein I leaue it to be esteemed by the wise and godly reader whose will and conuenient leysure doth serue to be exercised in such readings Whatsoeuer it is I commend it to the fauour of your good LL. Humbly crauing that my willingnesse and care may be allowed of howsoeuer my ablenesse be not so fully answerable to the weightinesse of the cause The God of all grace multiply his graces and blessings vppon your LL. and so direct you by his holy spirit in all faithfulnesse and care for the feedyng and guyding of his Church that in the end you may receiue that incorruptible crowne of glory which Iesus Christ shall yeeld vnto his faithfull seruants when he shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead Amen From Worcest Ianu. 7. 1593. Your LL. alwaies to be commanded in Iesus Christ Rob. Abbot The Preface to the Reader IT may be deemed good Christian Reader that in publishing this Pamphlet I neither bethought my selfe of my selfe nor of these times As touching my selfe I must acknowledge that by reason of many defectes I should haue bene discouraged from giuing any thing forth to the common view and censure of the world Especially these times being such and so aboundant in learning and knowledge as that it may seeme great prâ—sumption in any man to attempt the diuulging of any writing wherin there is not either for wit or learning somewhat more then may be expected of euery common and ordinary man Moreouer these matters of controuersy betwixt the Church of Rome and vs haue bene so throughly sifted and debated to the full by diuers men of singular learning and iudgement in this age that for such as I am to say any thing after them may seeme no other a matter then for Pan to pipe after Apollo his musicke and for an vnlearned Atturney to plead a cause after the pleading and debating of most learned counsell But yet the necessary regard of procuring due estimation to the trueth against the aduersaries secrete disgracinges hath mooued me to doe that in this behalfe which otherwise I could not haue thought conuenient Neither haue I iudged the conscience of mine owne slendernesse and inhability a sufficient reason to stay me here-from the case standing as it doth because I know that as in the bodily fight it is necessary for the winning of the field that not onely the Captaines and best experienced souldiours do vse their strength but also those that in experience and ablenesse are farre inferior vnto them so in this spirituall warfare and contending against the aduersaries of the Gospell of Christ not onely they that are of supreame excellency of learning and giftes but also they which are but as it were of the first order must as occasion serueth vse that ablenesse which God hath giuen them to iustifie the cause of the Gospell and to cleere it from those mistes of falsehood and errour wherewith the aduersaries labour to ouercast it and to hide it from being seene And although these matters haue bene already very sufficiently disputed of yet because it fareth with bookes as it doth with newes that whilest they are new fresh they are regarded and sought after but after a while they are in a maner buried so that if the aduersary stirre again though he bring nothing but that that was confuted before yet he is thought to be vnanswered except some speciall answere be returned to him therefore beside the commoditie which ariseth by the diuerse handling of the same matters seruing much for the more easie conceiuing and vnderstanding thereof as t S. Austen noteth it is in this respect also verie â— August de bap cont Donat. lib. 2. cap 1. behouefull and necessary for the Church of God that the same points be againe and againe discussed and truth from time against new aduersaries a new defended though in respect of the matter it selfe there needeth not be any thing further sayd then that which by diuers hath bene sayd already Therefore it shall not seeme vnreasonable that I though not worthy whose name should go forth into this publicke notice yet being occasioned thereto should after the labours of so many learned men employ my small talent to the confuting of such vaine gloses and shifts as an aduersary hath vsed against my selfe to darken the truth layd open and manifest before his eyes But for thy better vnderstanding gentle Reader and more full satisfaction as touching the necessitie of this my doing I will briefly declare the originall processe of the whole matter There was in the Castle of VVorcester a Priest named Paule Spence not of the Seminary but begotten to his order as I suppose in the tiâ—e of Queene Mary Vpon motion sundry times made vnto mâ—e I went vnto him to haue some speech with him concerning his profession The particulars of our speech either then or after I will not report least I should seem partial either for my self or against him The conclusion of my speech at that time was to wish him that hee would at some conuenient times resort to my studie that by the opportunitie of my bookes I might as occasion serued shew him those places and testimonies which I should alleage to him He promised that he would so that I would procure him licence I procured it of my L. the Bishop lately deceased I came to him againe and after some speech I required the performance of his promise He shewed himselfe too fro in the matter and in the end gaue me plaine answere that he was resolued and so he knew I was also and therfore that it was to no purpose for him so to doe I departed from him The next newes that I heard was a report giuen foorth that I had bene with him at the prison and that hee had stopped my mouth that I had nothing to say to him This is the accustomed maner of these men who are all so ranke of learning that the veriest asse of them if he do but once braie is able to astonish and confound any aduersary be he neuer so learned I went to him againe and vrged him as before He answered me in the same maner Aâ— length hee was perswaded by another man and came to mee I reasoned with him of sundry matters Being in speech as touching Transubstantiation I shewed him a saying of Cyprian b Cypr. lib. 2. ep 3. We find that it was wine which Christ called his blood But Cyprian saith withall That the cup was mixed which the Lord offered He left the matter in hand and began to demaund of mee what I thought of the mixture of the cup I answered him nothing of mine owne opinion but told him that Chrysostom called it c Chrysost in Mat. ho. â—3 A pernicious heresie He required me and I shewed him the place But returning to the former point I shewed him the words of Gelasius where he saith that
in the Sacraments of the bodie and blood of Christ d Gelas cont â—uty â—estor There ceaseth not to bee the substance or nature of bread and wine These two latter places haue bene the occasion of all this writing He sent to me within two or three daies after for my bookes to peruse the places that wheras he could not presently answer any thing by speâ—ch he might do somewhat by wâ—â—ting I receiued his answere and replied to the same againe by writing yet not intending because it stood not with my businesse otherwise to goe any further in this course but only for some aduertisement and instruction to him which I sawe hee needed and to giue him occasion of further conference by speech as I moued him in the end This happened neare the beginning of Lent in the yeare 1590. Towards Whitsuntide next following when I thought he had bene quiet and would haue medled no more he sent me an answere againe written at large to my reply But the answere in truth was none of his owne doing as is manifest partly by his owne confession and by that he shewed himselfe a straunger in his owne answeres when afterward in speech he was vpbraided with some of them by my selfe partly by the muttering report of his owne fellowes vaunting that though he were able to say litle yet some had the matter in hand that were able to say inough He himself indeed was not nor is of ablenesse to doe it as all men know that haue any knowledge of him He was neuer of any Vniuersitie and both professed and shewed himself in speech vtterly ignorant of Logicke wherof his deputie Answ pretendeth great skill I omit some other matters that I might mention for proofe hereof But thus I was vnwares drawne from P. Spence to tontrouersie and disputation with some other secret friend of his who for his learning might take vppon him to bee a defender of the Romish falshood I addressed my selfe to a confutation of this answer and thought to haue sent the same to M. Spence in writing but before I had fully perfected it which was in Iuly or August following he was by occasion of some infirmitie as was pretended set free from his imprisonment vpon suerties and so continueth till this time neither could I by such meanes as I vsed bring him foorth to receiue that which I had written Hereupon haue I bene traduced by the faction as a man conquered and ouercome as if I taught openly that which in dealing priuately with an aduersary I am not able to defend For the auoyding of this scandall I was diuerse times motioned to publish the whole matter but for some speciall reasons did forbeare It laie by me almost a whole yeare before I would resolue so to do At the length for the satisfying of such as might bee desirous to bee satisfied in this behalfe and that foolish men might haue no further occasion of their vaine imaginations and speeches I tooke it in hand as my great businesse otherwise would permit to peruse it againe and to adde some things for answere to Bellarmine as touching some points for which the Answ referreth me to him whose workes I had not at the first penning heereof and so I haue presumed Christian Reader to offer it vnto thy consideration I haue termed the whole discourse in respect of the principall purpose and argument of it A Mirror of Popish subtilties as wherein thou maist in part behold the vanitie wretchednesse of those answeres wherein these men account so great subtiltie and acutenesse of wit and learning as if the same being giuen there were nothing more to be saide against them In the publishing heereof I haue thought good to obserue this order First I haue set downe the aboue named places of Chrysostome and Gelasius Secondly M. Spence his Answere to those two places Thirdly my reply to that answere Fourthly the latter answere to my reply with a confutation thereof from point to point and a defense of the allegations and authorities vsed in the said reply Reade all and then iudge of the truth I protest I haue made conscience to write nothing but the truth neither hath any vaine curiositie led me to the publishing hereof but only the regard of iustifying the truth and that namely to those of the Citie and Countie of VVorcester whom my labours do most neerely and properly concerne If thou canst reape any frute or benefit by it I shal be heartily glad thereof and let vs both giue glorie vnto God If any see the truth herein and yet will maliciously kicke against it I passe by him with those words of the Apostle e Apoc. 22 11. He that is filthie let him be filthie still It is our part to propose the truth it is God onely that can giue men hearts to assent vnto it and f Mat. 11. 1 VVisedome shal be iustified of her children The God of all wisedome and knowledge enlighten vs more and more to the vnderstanding of his true religion subdue the pride and rebellion of our hearts that we may vnfainedly yeeld vnto it and giue vs constancie and perseuerance to continue in the same vnto the end that in our ende we may attaine to the endlesse fruition of his kingdome and glorie through Iesus Christ our Lord. Amen Rob. Abbot The speciall matters that are discussed in this Treatise THat the mixture of water in the cup of the Lord is not necessarie neither hath any sufficient warrant Defe sect 2. That the Liturgies which goe vnder the names of Iames Basil and Chrysostomes Masses as now they are extant are not theirs whose names they beare sect 5. That Popish praier for the dead hath no warrant from the ancientest church sec 7. That the sacrifice of the Masse is contradicted by the scriptures and Fathers that Bellarmin himself in seeking to approue it ouerthroweth it that the exceptions that are made against our reasons and proofes are vaine and friuolous sect 4. 9. 10. That Theodoret and Gelasius in disputing against the he esie of Eutyches do verie peremptorily determine against Transubstantiation sect 11. 12. That Tertullian Cyprian Chrysostome Austen do manifestly impugne the same error of Transubstantiation with a declaration of an obscure place alleaged vnder Austens name and a refutation of other exceptions that are made in the behalfe thereof sect 13. 14 15. 16. 17 18. 21. 22. That the expounding of the descending of Christ into hell of the torments anguish of his soule conteineth as touching the doctrine thereof nothing but the truth witnessed both by the scriptures and by the Fathers sest 15. That our sacraments are rightly called seales and in what respect they are preferred before the sacraments of the old Testament sect 20. 30. That the reall eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ is a leaude deuise and iudged by the Fathers to be wicked profane faithlesse and heathenish and that the words of Christ
the water to signifie the people as appeareth by those things that haue bene alleaged before Thus there is no certaintie or setled resolution when men will make mysteries without the warrant of the word of God Which things coÌ„sidered it hath not bene any superstitious contradicting humour but sober and aduised iudgement that hath moued vs to refuse this howsoeuer long and generally receiued custome But the Answ comming at length to set downe his conceit of the point in question is in a mammering cannot frame his wits to resolue any thing thereof For charging me first that I dare not deny flatly but would haue it séeme only propable that Christ added water with the wine whereas I alleaged therein but the opinion and words of his owne Doctours he calleth for S. Cyprian to be stickler betwéene vs in this point affirming it to be the institution of Christ and straightwaies as hauing forgotten himselfe he confesseth that the wine only is of the institution of Christ and the water of the ordinance of the Church and then again as vncertaine where â—o rest himselfe he runneth to Cyprian and others crauing their helpe and warrant to proue that it was appointed by our Sauiour Christ But truth is one and â—litteth not in this sort from one ground to another Concerning the Epistle of l cypria lib. 2. Epist 3. Cyprian to Cecilius which is that whereunto he referreth himselfe he telleth me m Sect. 16. afterwards that euery word thereof is a sword to cut my throate and maruelleth that I would for shame alleage it But this is but a Popish brag seruing to set a good shew vpon a bad cause and when truth faileth to outface the matter with Thrasonical words A man of meane discretion with indifferency of iudgement will easily conceiue that that Epistle maketh far more déeply against the Church of Romes doings then against any thing that we do It contrarieth vs in a smal matter of ceremony which we take to be no great matter whether it be vsed or not vsed as hath bene said but it conuinceth the Roomish harlot of capital and deadly wickednesse and damnable Apostasie from the Gospell of Iesus Christ For first he requireth water in the Sacrament togither with wine the one importing the people the other Christ to signifie that the people are vnited ioyned vnto Christ in being partakers of the Lords cup. And so n Thom. Aquin par 3. quae 74. art 7. Thomas Aquinas resolueth that water is no otherwise of the necessitie of the Sacrament but to signifie the peoples being partakers thereof What wisedome is it then in the Answ and his fellowes to vrge Cyprian for their defence of the mixture of water and yet vtterly to barre the people from being partakers of the Lordes cup which Cyprian intendeth by the same mixture o Mat. 23. 24 They straine out a Gnat and swallow a Camell contending with vs for an vncertaine and vnnecessary ceremony and themselues frowardly departing from that which I say not Cyprian in his Epistle but Iesus Christ in his Gospell hath manifestly and expresly commanded vnto them Secondly Cyprian giueth in the same Epistle diuers lessons which we desire to haue them bound vnto In the sacrifice which is Christ none but Christ is tâ— be followed And againe If only Christ be to be harkened vnto we are not to regard what any man hath done before vs but what Christ did first who is before all For we must not follow the custome of men but the truth of God And againe It is not lawfull to infringe those things that pertaine to the Sacrament of our redemption or by humane tradition to chaunge them to anie thing else then is appointed of God And againe We ought to do nothing but that which Christ did And againe That which it is certaine the Lord did let vs do By all which spéeches we are tyed to the institution of Iesus Christ and bounde to do nothing in the forme of this mysterie but that which we are assured he did first To which what the church of Rome can honestly answere I cannot tell in that she hath by her detractions from Christes institution committed sacriledge and by her additions made a mockery of his Sacrament setting the priest at the altar as a Squirrell at his bels to kéepe note and time in his duckings and turnings and kissings and crossings and listing vp and lotting downe and holding fore-finger and thumbe togither and ioyning togither both the hands and putting to the right eye and then to the left and a number such doltish and absurd toyes But for our selues we learne of Cyprian by those rules that vnlesse we can warrant our selues as we cannot that Christ instituted the Sacrament with water we may not admit it aâ— any part or matter of the Sacrament And to this purpose the words that I alleaged before out of the Epistle ad Pompeium are verie fit Being vrged with tradition he thus answereth p cypria epist ad Pompeium Whence is this tradition Descendeth it from the authoritie of the Lord or of the Gospell or commeth it from the precepts and Epistles of the Apostles For God testifieth that those things which are written must be done c. If therefore either it be commanded in the Gospell or be conteined in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostle let this tradition be obserued as holie importing that if it cannot be approued from thence it is not to be obserued But the Answ ful wisely and clerk like turneth the words of Cyprian to speake for him against vs. If saith he it be commanded in the Gospell to vse onely wine let this tradition be obserued By which reason he giueth to the Armenians whom he condemned before as good a proofe for vsing water and oyle in Baptisme as to himselfe for wine and water in the Lords supper For they might haue said for the one as he doth for the other that it is now here commanded to vse onely water and therefore that their adding of â—yle was not to be condemned But S. Cyprians words if he wold vse his reason to conceiue them wold teach him to reason thus We read in the Gospel of water for Baptisme of oyle we reade nothing therfore water only and not oyle is to be obserued So likewise we reade of wine for the Lords supper of water we reade nothing therefore wine onely and not water is to be enioyned For the condition of the words of God is this q Pro. 30. 6. Put nothing to his wordes least he reproue thee and thou be found a liar Now if Cyprian hauing laid this good foundation built any thing amisse thereon as in the matter of rebaptizing it is manifest that he did whilest he tooke that to be the sense of yâ— scripture which indéed is not that impeacheth not any whit the certaintie of that rule which he knew well inough was alwaies to stand good for the triall
and determination of the truth And therefore in these cases to alleage Cyprian against Cyprian is I hope no more hainous a matter then to appeale from Philip ouercome with sléepe to the same Philip throughly a waked out of sléepe The drift and purpose of that Epistle to Cecilius is to proue the necessitie of wine in the Sacrament against the heresie of those that vsed onely water without wine He referreth them herein to the institution of Christ set downe in the Gospell from which he telleth them they ought not to depart therefore that they ought to vse wine in the Lords cup as it is mentioned in the Gospell that Christ did And to this purpose are all those spéeches which he vseth of our Lords tradition of his doing and teaching Which manifestly appeareth as by the very scope of the whole Epistle so by that place namely where alleaging the words of Christ I will drinke no more of this fruite of the vine c. He inferreth thus Wherby we finde that the cup was mixed which the Lord offered c. Yet we finde not in this place any mixture of the cup we find only the fruite of the vine and this is the marke at which he aimeth in all that he vrgeth of Christes institution Of water he speaketh ioyntly I confesse and supposing I doubt not but it was vsed by Christ But he supposeth it only he proueth it not his suppose is no sufficient warrant Nay although he by the way admit and require the mixture of water in the Lords cuppe yet séeing he there referreth vs to the â—oote and originall of Christs institution in the Gospel and we find not there that Christ either ordeined or vsed any such mixture we hold our selues sufficiently warranted euen by Cyprian himselfe to do that we do in vsing wine only without any water But what meaneth the Answ to vrge Cyprian at all to prooue that Christ mingled water when he himselfe dare not vpon Cyprians word affirme so much For thus he maketh short the matter as he saith Wine is of the institution of Christ water is of the precept of the church If he can iustifie no more as indéed he cannot it is but folly and trifling to alleage any mans words that say any more And therfore all his other testimonies are superfluous They which say that Christ vsed water say more then he or the most of his dare say They which testifie the vse thereof in the primitiue Church proue a thing not denied or condemned where occasion requireth it for such reason and in such maner as hath bene before shewed Albeit they are partly forgeries as those out of Alexander out of Clemens Iames his Liturgie of which shall be spoken after partly vncertaine and doubtfull as those out of Chrysostomes and Basils Liturgies partly such as the Answ himselfe will not stand vpon the validitie thereof as that out of the sixth Councell partly manifest and wilfull falsifications as those out of Chrysostome in Ioh. hom 84. and 1. Cor. hom 24. the former only shewing that by water and blood issuing out of Christs side were imported both the Sacraments of the Church the other that out of Christes side flowed fountaines of water blood that should be healthfull to the whole world And what is that to the matter now in hand He referreth me ouer for further proofe of this matter to Bellarmine But Bellarmine saith nothing that néedeth further answere then I haue alreadie giuen Only let me tell him that I take Bellarmine for a Iesuit that is to say a man of a hard and vncircumcised forehead desperatly bent for the vpholding of the Pope to make shipwracke of his owne conscience Whose impudency appeareth herein that for the better colouring of his mixture of water r Bellarm. tom 2. cont 3. lib. 4. cap. 10. hée saith that it appeareth no more by the Gospell that Christ instituted the Sacrament with wine then with ale or béere or water only And therefore he denieth those words I will drinke no more of the fruite of the vine c. Å¿ Ibid. lib. 1. cap. 11. to be vnderstood of the cup of the Sacrament contrarie to the generall consent of the auncient Fathers t Clemens Alex in paeda lib 2. cap. 2. Clemens Alexandrinus u Cypr. lib. 2. epist 3. Cyprian w Chrysost in Maâ— hom 83. Chrysostome x August de consensu Euang li. 3. ca. 1. Austen y Hilar. in Mat. cano 30. Hilary z Theophyl in Mat. 26. Theophylact and others Yet to cloake the matter the better he would fain make a iarre betwixt the Fathers and saith that Hierome and Theophylact expound it not of the cup of the Lordes table but of the cup of the passeouer whereas in the places by him cited there is not a word tending to that purpose It is plain by the two Euangelists Mathew and Marke that our Sauior spake of the cup of the new Testament The difference that séemeth to be betwixt them and S. Luke was reconciled long ago by S. Austen as followeth after to be declared But hereby we may coniecture the honestie and truth of the Iesuit in other matters P. Spence Sect. 3. COncerning Bertrame there was in Carolus Magnus sonnes daies such a one suspected for one point especially in the Sacrament contra identitatem corporis or de duplici corpore Christi but this booke vnder his name is much worse Great learned men are out of doubt that it is a counterfeit booke wrong fathered and misbegotten not Bertrams but of Oecolampadius coyning So Caluins Catechisme in Greeke in the Preface is made an auncient booke newly founde againe So is a booke foysted in Roffensis name written by Bucer de certitudine salutis diuina misericordia besides many other such forged counterfeits See Bibliothecam Sixti Senensis Besides this counterfeit Bertrams reasoÌ„ is of no force for two causâ—s First how knoweth he for ought he can shew out of the a And how appeareth it â—y the new Testament thâ—t there should be any water vâ—ed at all new TestameÌ„t that the water with the wine is not chaunged in substance Or what necessitie is there for ought he knoweth or sheweth in this his reasonlesse reason that because the wine is chaunged therefore the water to for all his quia admixta est and for all his necesse est But by the way he b A need esse idle proofe proueth if he were not partus Supposititius the mixing of water so long ago as Ludouicus Charles sonne R. Abbot 3. AS touching Bertram whereas the Answ saith that he was suspected coÌ„cerning the Sacrament he doth leaudly vnconscionably slaunder him neither can he iustifie it by any shew of the storie of that time It is not probable that the Emperour would haue sought for his resolution vnlesse he had bene taken for a learned man of sound iudgement But he is dealt with
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
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
of the church mouth and eyes and spirit of the Church next Gods spirit a verie goodly noble and great part of the church far the best and fairest part of the church but their seuerall opinions are not the whole churches doctrine That question hath so many braunches that in this short discourse I cannot touch all the particularities thereof to our treatises therefore I refer you Was Gelasius Pope of Rome how proue it you if we deny it we maruell why you thinke so If he had bene Pope were all his bookes dogmaticke and definitiue b It skilleth not though he did not For Bellarmine telleth vs that it is most probable that the Pope cannot erre in his priuate iudgement It must be an Oracle therfore what soeuer he writeth whether as Pope or as a priuat man did he if he had bene Pope pronounce them pro tribunal◠Did he send them as responsa and decretall epistles Did neuer Popes write bookes and yet not in all points taken for Oracles Aeneas Siluius after he was Pope wrote much so did others You are wide and go astraie far from the state of that question I say no more but view our questions therein Theodoret Gelasius are answered at large whatsoeuer they thought they were far from your minde Theodoret at that time was so partiall as in the controuersie betweene him and Cyrill it appeareth that he was faine to recant ere he could bee reconciled And in these verie Dialogues we can shew you errors yea foule of his It is not vnlikely that hee followed sometimes the counsell that himselfe in the same Dialogues giueth that is to make a crooked wand straight to bend it as much the other way And now sir to come to Gelasius who in euerie point accordeth with Theodoret against the Eutychian heresie first he writeth thus Sapientia aedificauit sibi domum septiformis spiritus soliditate subnixam c. I will English it for the same cause Thus it is Wisedome that is Christ the wisedome of the father hath builded for it selfe an house grounded or leaning vpon the soundnesse of the seuenth fold spirit which should minister the foode or nourishment of Christs incarnation whereby or by which foode we are made partakers of the diuine nature Verily the Sacraments of the bodie blood of Christ which we receiue are a diuine thing for the which cause by the same also are we made partners of the diuine nature and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not to be or looseth not his being vtterly and is anihilated and becommeth nothing and certes in the action or celebration of the mysteries or Sacraments an image or similitude or resemblance of Christs bodie and blood is celebrated or practised It is therefore euident inough shewed vnto vs that we ought to thinke the same thing to bee in Christ our Lorde himselfe which we professe to be which we celebrate and which we receiue in his image he meaneth in the Sacrament that euen as they the Sacrament of bread and wine by the working of the holie Ghost do passe ouer or be chaunged into a diuine substance remaining neuerthelesse in the propertie of their nature right so do they shew that that verie principall mysterie it selfe by which he meaneth Christ God man now being in two natures one person in heauen whom the hereticke Eutyches would haue in heauen to haue lost his manhood and to be but God alone whose efficiencie or perfect nature and vertue they the sayd Sacraments do truly represent the things whereof it properly consisteth it is the two natures of the diuinitie and humanitie in one person still remaining doth remaine and continue one Christ because he is whole and truly being or consisting in his whole and true natures of God and man in one person This testimony of Gelasius might seeme perhaps to make somewhat for a Lutheran because it seemeth to affirme in the B. Sacrament to be two substances a diuine substance bread and wine but the Caluinist lacketh foure of his fiue wits to vrge it which maketh flat against him not only in the verie words but most chiefly in the drift of the argument against Eutyches which by the consideration c His circumstances serue only to blinde the eies of the reader The troubling of the riuer is for the aduantage of the fisher of the circumstances following shall most euidently appeare for that the verie words force of the reason or argument here made do proue Christs bodie to be really present which he denieth Eutyches the Abbot who was condemned in the Chalcedon Councell at which time Gelasius flourished held that our Sauiour Christ his deitie or diuine nature after his ascension into heauen did d As touching the substance not as touching the properties euen as the Papists say of the bread wine consume and anihilate or bring to nothing his humane nature So that by his heresie Christ now shuld be no more man but God alone The truth of the B. Sacrament that therein Christ was really continued was so commonly and firmely beleeued and professed in the holie church e That because neuer any Father taught it the Answerer is driuen to seeke proofe thereof from the heretickes that there were diuerse heretickes that vsed or rather abused the same for an argument pretensedly to confirme their heresies The Maniches to proue that the ill god such was their blasphemous heresie had imprisoned certaine parcels or peeces of the good God in these worldly creatures earthly things alleaged Christ whom they f Vntruth S. Austen doth not graunt it called the good God to be really in the Sacrament but S. Augustine graunting them Christ to be really therein saith hee is there by consecration not by creation or as it were imprisoned So touching our case of Gelasius the Eutychian against whom he wrote held Christ in heauen his humanitie being gone to be only God in like maner as his diuine nature only is in the Sacrament the bread and wine being anihilated and consumed vnto nothing g A leaud tale wholy deuised of the Answ himselfe Eutyches neuer imagined any such matter as shall appeare nothing therein remaining of the substantiall properties or natures of bread and wine but onely Christs diuine nature So certaine a veritie it was then currant in the whole church and to the verie heretickes that Christ is really in the B. Sacrament Whereupon by a similitude or resemblance taken from the Sacrament he wold haue nothing remaining in heauen of Christs humanitie but the same being vanished into nothing his Deitie only there to remain as the bread is cōsumed in the Sacrament Against this similitude Gelasius replieth not denying Christs bodie diuine nature to be really in the Sacrament which was and euer hath bene a generall currant and confessed truth which otherwise had serued his turne much better to deny and thereby had he more readily and directly reiected
nature of bread wine The words are plaine that in the Sacrament there remaineth the substance of bread and wine What should a man go about to cast a mist before the Sunne or by shifting and paltering to obscure that which is as cléere as the shining light Why do not the Answ and his fellowes say that Gelasius aboue a thousand yeares ago was a Caluinist and erreâ— in that point But he addeth further And surely in the exercise of the Sacraments there is celebrated an image resemblance of the bodie and blood of Christ Whereupon he inferreth thus against Eutyches It is therefore euidently inough shewed vnto vs that we must thinke the same in our Lord Iesus Christ which we professe celebrate and receiue in his image And what do we professe in his image that is in the Sacrament Forsooth saith the Papist we must professe that the substance of bread and wine is abolished and only certaine properties and shewes of bread and wine remaine Why then so must we thinke also of Christ himselfe that the substance of his manhood is extinguished and that there remain only certaine accidents and shewes thereof in which he liued here as a man was crucified as a man but was not man indéed which is the very thing that Eutyches desired But Gelasius telleth vs far otherwise that as these namely the bread and wine by the working of the holie Ghost do passe ouer into a diuine substance yet continue in the proprietie of their own nature so they shew that that principall mysterie the force and vertue whereof these do 〈◊〉 represent vnto vs doth continue one Christ whole and true those natures properly remaining whereof he doth consist Let the Answ marke well that we must think the same iâ— Christ as we do in the Sacrament his image If consecration then take away the substance of bread and wine as Papists teach then personall vniting of the manhood vnto God taketh away the substance of the manhood as Eutyches affirmed He knoweth I say he knoweth that the comparison vsed by Gelasius enforceth so much if it be applied to the disproofe of Eutyches his heresie rightly truly reported Now as Gelasius draweth his comparison from the Sacrament to Christ so doth S. Austen as Gratian alleageth him from Christ to yâ— Sacrament a De consecra dist 2. cap. Hoc est This is it which we say saith he which by all meanes we labor to approue that the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two things the visible forme of the elements and the inuisible flesh and blood of our Lorde Iesus Christ of the Sacrament and the matter of the Sacrament thâ—â— is the bodie of Christ euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man for that Christ is truly God and truly mâ—â— For euery thing conteineth the nature and truth of those thinges whereof it is made By which words it is most plaine and euâ—dent that as the person of Christ consisteth of the Godhead and manhood veriâ—â— and â—â—â—ly so the Sacrament consisting of the visible element and the â—odiâ— of Christ of an earthly thing a heauenly thing as b Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. Ireneus speaketh conteineth the nature and truth of them both and therefore the nature truth of bread and wine And if the truth then the substance as Gelasius reasoneth concerning Christ c Gelas con Eurych If he be truly man then there is in him the true substance of the nature of man because otherwise he cannot be truly man but abiding substantially trâ—e in the proprietie of his nature So if there be the truth of the outward elements in the Sacrament then there is in them their true substance For otherwise there cannot be the truth of them but as they abide substantially true in the proprietie of their nature This collection togither with the places of Austen and Ireneus I set downe before sufficiently prouing the falshood of Transubstantiation But the Answ thought good to passe it ouer without any mention because he could not finde any answere at all to it which serueth not for the maintenance of Eutyches his heresie as do all those shifts and collusions whereby he goeth about to darken the euidence and clearenesse of Gelasius his words Let vs sée now what good stuffe there is conteined in them In his first and fourth circumstances he bewraieth either his ignorance or else his partialitie and falshood For taking in hand by way of circumstance to set downe the heresie of Eutyches where he should haue done it wholly faithfully he doth it but in part and deceitfully that it may not séem to make so directly against his breadlesse bread For he restraineth it only to yâ— time after Christs ascension as if Eutyches had thought that the humanitie of Christ was not consumed till after the time that he was ascended Whereas Gelasius in the very next words to the place before alleaged giueth plainly to vnderstand that Eutyches meant the abolishing of the substance of the manhood euen while Christ was on the earth though he reteined the shew and aprearance of man yea and continued passible also by reason whereof he sayd his Godhead suffered and was crucified which suffering was the very substantiall propertie of the humane nature For Eutyches held not the annihilating of the properties of the manhood as the Answ imagineth but the conâ—ounding of them with the properties of the Godhead so yâ— the Godhead by those properties did suffered those things which belonged to the manhood And this appeareth plainly in the definition of the Chalcedon Councell where it is thus sayd d Concil chalced Act. 5. in definit They fondly imagine that there is but one nature of the Godhead and the flesh and so by a monstrous confusion of Christ they signifie that the diuine nature or Godhead is passible and subiect to suffering So that Eutyches held the same of Christ on the earth as the Papists do of the bread in the Sacrament that there was the shewe and appearance of man and the properties of the manhood remaining but the substance was consumed euen as these do hold that there is in the Sacrament a shew of bread and the properties of bread remaining but the substance of the bread is vanished How then shuld Gelasius go about to refute the heresie of Eutyches by the Sacrament if his opinion as touching the Sacrament had bene the same that the Papists now is Againe whereas he saith that Eutyches held that the bread was vtterly annihilated nothing remaining therin of the substantiall properties or natures thereof he deserueth the iust reproach of a false vnshame fast person For what a peruerse and wilfull man is he to deuise such a matter of his owne braines for proofe or likelihood wherof there is not so much as any shew to be found in any auncient writer Eutyches forsooth held that panietas viâ—eitas the breaddinesse of
religion by reason of any such opinion that Christ was really bound in them or in the eares of corne or branches of the vine because then all bread and all wine should haue béene matter of mystery and religion with them which was not so but it is made mysticall bread and wine by a certaine coÌ„secration namely whilest by the word of God they are dedicated and halowed to be sacrameÌ„ts and mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ The which consecrating halowing the same S. Austen elsewhere declareth thus concerning Baptisme m August â—n Ioha tri 8â— The word commeth to the element and it is mede a sacrament in an other place concerning the Lords supper thus n Idem de trâ—nit lib. 3. cap. 4. We call that the body of Christ which being taken of the fruites of the earth consecrated by mystical praier wee receiue in memory of the passion of our Lord. Now what is all this to the real presence which the Answerer saith S. Austen did graunt Not a word doth S. Austen vse to import it Nay he rather reiecteth it in that he saith that bread and wine are not vsed in sacrament as in respect of Christ really bound in them but are made only mystical by consecration where he denieth that reall presence which they fancied and putteth no other in place therof but only saith that the bread is made mysticall bread by consecration As for Transsubstantiation he is plainely enough against it also in the same place in that he calleth the sacrament the sacrament of bread and of the cuppe wherby we vnderstand that the sacrament is bread and in that he denieth that the church had the same religion concerning bread and wine that the Manichées had because it was not religion but sacriledge with the Manichées to tast wine importing hereby that it was wine which the church tooke tasted in the sacrament But the Papistes reall presence iumpeth with the Manichées imprisoning of Christ for they make Christ so fast bound by consecration to the formes of bread and wine that though ratts or mise or swine eate the same or though it lie in the mire yet it must not be thought but that the body of Christ is there stil euen till the formes be consumed and to thinke otherwise as Thomas Aquinas saith derogateth from the truth of the sacrament as after shal be declared To his sixt circumstance I answere him that the Lateran councell was the assembly of Gog and Magog to set the idoll Mauzim in his place That which they resolued against Berengarius they reselued against all the Fathers who neuer knew reall presence nor transsubstantiation As for Innodentius his breadinesse and wininesse panietas vineitas in the seauenth circumstance the Answ would not haue named it but that swine are delighted with mire and filth The eight circumstaÌ„ce also containeth only new Popish subtilties and deserueth no answere The putting in therof and others as impertinent by way of explication of Gelasius his wordes sheweth the falsehood of the Answ thinking nothing lesse then to deale plainely and seeking by friuolous tales and idle talke to lead the reader away from that which otherwise he cannot but sée The ninth circumstance telleth vs honestly that before the Laterane councell it was no heresy not to iumpe with Transsubstantiation And then belike a man might haue beene a Caluinist in that point as all the Fathers were and yet not to be accounted an hereticke At least he might haue said that the substaÌ„ces of bread wine did remaine in part but not wholly forsooth as perhappes saith the Answ some of the Fathers and namely Gelasius thought a ridiculous and childish fancy When we shew them plainely out of the Fathers that the substances of bread and wine remaine in the sacrament forsooth the Fathers thought that the substances of bread and wine remaine in part but not wholly What conscience may we thinke these men make of their answers Why doth he not bring somewhat out of the Fathers to approoue this fond sophistication vnhandsome dreame But it must be enough for vs that the Answ telleth vs that so it is But it is worth the noting that he telleth vs that it was not clearely defined before the Lateran councell what maner oâ— conuersion is in the sacrament No was Why did not the Apostles clearely know it or knowing it did they not deliuer it to yâ— church Did he which o Act. 20. 27. kept nothing back but declared all the councell of God kéepe backe this or did he deliuer it to the Ephesians and not deliuer it to the Romaines other churches To say the Apostles did not clearely know it is to make himselfe wiser then the Apostles To say they knew it but declared it not is to make them vnfaithful in their charge To say that the church receiued it cléerely deliuered and yet that it was neuer cléerely defined vntill the Lateran councell is a contradiction and impugneth that in the one part which is set downe in the other To say the church and namely the church of Rome receiued it and did afterwardes forgoe it is to make the church of Rome a very bad kéeper of the doctrines of the Apostles especially séeing the sacrament is a matter of continuall and daily vse But indéed we take that which he saith for true that Transsubstantiation was neuer cléerely defined before the Lateran councel But we tell him withall that we are very deinty to admit that for a doctrine of truth which for a thousand yeares and more after Christ was neuer cleerly knowen or defined in the church of God And because it was no heresy all that while not to iumpe with Transsubstantiation we are well assured that it is no heresy to leape from it now Now to returne to Gelasius the Answ findeth an hole or two in his wordes before alleaged whereby he would faine créepe out The wordes are thus There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine He addeth or nature saith the Answ to mollifie and interpret the word substance as importing that the naturall properties of bread and wine remaine though the substaÌ„ce be gone A very naturall answere Belike the substance remaineth or there ceaseth not to be the substance is as much as to say the substance is quite gone and vtterly ceased only the accidents remaine But Gelasius a little before speaketh in the very same sort concerning Christ and sheweth the meaning of his own wordes We say saith he that the propriety of each substance or nature abideth continually in Christ where most plainely by the same phrase of spéech he maketh substance and nature to import one thing And if we will follow the Answ exposition we must say here in the behalfe of Eutyches that not the substances themselues but the naturall properties of each substance abide stil in Christ because he saith substance or nature Againe a little before
for if he should call that which were before aire water or earth by the name of fire stones and bread aire earth and water would sooner cease to be and fire bread and stones would come in their place then God would call any creature by a wrong name He called bread his bodie therfore bread is vnderstanded to be made the body of Christ You saie the vnderstanding of man taketh his beginning of senses which i S. Austen saith that which you sâ—â— iâ— bread as your eyes also tell you He saith it is that which our eies tell vs it is tell me it is bread I saie in the matter belonging to faith my vnderstanding is informed by Gods word which telleth mee it is k In signification and mysterie after the maner of Sacraments but not in substance the bodie of Christ and Theodoret saith it is beleeued to be and it is worshipped for it is so And he giueth the same very word of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Worshipping to the holie mysteries the which in the same sentence he giueth to the immortall bodie of Christ sitting at the right hand of his father And no wonder for seeing it is one bodie whether it be worshipped in heauen or l Vigâ—lius saith that the flesh of Christ now that it is in heauen is not vpoÌ„ the earth Therfore seeing it is in heaueÌ„ it cannot be worshipped vpon the 〈◊〉 vpon the Altar one worship is alwaies due to it Thus it is witnessed by Theodoret that the holy mysteries of Christ are worshipped and adored not as the signes of his bodie and blood but as being indeed his bodie and his blood Therefore worship is not giuen to them as to images which represent a thing absent but as to mysticall signes which really contain the truth represented by them Looke Bellarmine lib. 2. de Sacrament cap. 27. pro horum testimonijs R. Abbot 12. NOw come to be handled the words of Theodoret whom the Answerer vseth in the same honest maner as he hath done Gelasius yet cannot stoppe his mouth but that he still standeth at defiance with Transubstantiation Theodoret in his Dialogues debateth the whole matter of Eutyches his heresie not only as Eutyches himselfe held it as before hath bene shewed but also as some would seeme afterwards to correct it by saying that though Christ reteined the substance of his manhood while he continued on the earth yet after his ascension it was turned into the Godhead as of which there was thenceforth no longer vse Now hauing disputed the matter at large and brought the heretick to this latter shift he taketh an argument from the Sacrament to proue the remaining and being of Christs bodie and blood For signes or samptars are not admitted but of such things as haue being Séeing therefore we receiue the mysticall signes in token of the bodie and blood of Christ it is certaine that the bodie and blood of Christ haue their owne nature and being Now the hereticke taketh occasion of this mention of the sacrament to reason thus a Euen as the signes of the Lords bodie and o Theodor. dial 2. blood before the priests inuocation are other things but after the inuocation are chaunged and made other then before so the Lords bodie after his assumption or taking vp into heauen is changed into the diuine substance Whereby being changed and made other he meaneth not any reall chaunging into the very body and blood of Christ for he denied that Christ had now any substantiall bodie neither doth he vnderstand the loosing of their owne former substance for he expresly yéeldeth the contrary as was shewed before in handling the place of Gelasius but only intendeth that they are other in vse and name being now made signs of the body blood of Christ which he once truly tooke but afterwards did foâ—go This is plaine inough by the circumstance of the place and by that which he had confessed before in the former Dialogue that the bread and wine were signes not of the diuine nature of Christ but of those things whose names they did beare namely the bodie blood But to the obiection Theodoret answereth thus Thou art taken in the net which thy selfe hast made For the mysticall signes do not depart from their owne nature after consecration For they coÌ„tinue in their former substance and figure and forme and may be seene and touched as before But they are vnderstood to be the same which they are made and are beleeued so and adored as being the same that they are beleeued Now therfore conferre the image with the principall and thou shalt see the likenesse For the figure must be like vnto the truth Verily that bodie of Christ hath also the same forme as before the same figure and circumscription and to speake all at once the same substance of a bodie But it is made immortal after his resurrectioÌ„ c. Here it is plainly auouched that the mysticall signes continue not only in figure and shape but also in substance the same that they were before and so as that in them we must take notice how Christ continueth the same in substance of his bodie after his ascension For the mysticall signes are the figure image of Christs bodie and the figure must be correspondent to the truth And therefore if we finde not the true and proper substance remaining in the mysticall signes neither can it be auouched in the truth that is in Christs bodie What construction now then shall we haue of these words Mary this The mysticall signes remaine in their former substance that is to say the formes haue a new subsistence by themselues and the accidents remaine without the substance Bread and wine after consecration remaine in their former substance that is to say there is the colour of bread and wine the taste of bread wine the force and strength of bread and wine the quantitie and qualitie of bread and wine but there is no substance of bread and wine I wonder whether these men be perswaded of the truth of these vnreasonable and senselesse expositions If they be it is fulfilled in them which is written b 2. Thes 2. 11 God shall send vpon them strong delusioÌ„ that they may beleeue lies which beleeued not the truth c. If not then c Esa 5. 20. Wo saith the Prophet to them that call good euill and euill good which put light for darkenesse and darknesse for light The thing is plaine inough The mysticall signes saith Theodoret remaine in their former substance What was their former substance The verie true and proper being or substance of bread wine They continue therfore in the true and proper being and substance of bread and wine But the Answerer goeth from substance which Theodoret nameth to subsistence of his owne forging and yet euen there confoundeth himselfe without recouery For what was their former subsistence Mary they subsisted before in the natures of
means of the receiuing of Gods grace in the sacrament Marry yet hée excepteth that it must be ioyned with the entrance of Christes body into our bodies and so by that diuine touching thereof wee are so vnited vnto him as man and woman by the coniunction of their bodies become one body and one flesh What a grosse and swinish imagination is this that by corporall entrance of Christes bodie into ours we must be made one with Christ as man and woman by corporall coniunction become one fleshe Saint Paul teacheth vs to loth this fancie when hee sayth f 1. cor 6. 16. 17. Knowe ye not that hee which coupleth himselfe with an harlot is one bodie For two sayth hee shall be one flesh But he that is ioyned vnto the Lord is one spirite Where by an opposition of the bodie and the spirite of the corporall ioyning of man and woman and the spirituall vniting of Christ and vs hée giueth plainly to vnderstand that the coniunction betwixt Christ and vs is not wrought by any bodily commixtion of substances as is the coniunction of man and woman but by the spirituall apprehension of the beléeuing soule receiuing through the holie Ghost the fruite and effect of the bodie of Christ being in heauen And this S. Cyprian notably declareth when he saith g The coniunction betwixt Christ vs neither mingleth our Cypri de caena domini persons nor vniteth our substances but coupleth our affections and conioyneth our willes and so the Church being made Christes bodie doth obey the head and the higher light being shed vpon the lower reaching with the fulnesse of his brightnesse from end to end doth abide whole with it selfe and yeeldeth it selfe whole to all the onenesse of that warmth doth so assist the bodie that it departeth not from the head By which words he sheweth that our coniunction with Christ is altogither spirituall and that we are made the bodie of Christ not by any corporall or bodily touching or bringing our substances togither but by the spirituall working of his effectuall power set foorth by a comparison of the sunne working in these inferiour bodies and yet abiding in heauen as before also I declared And as concerning the touching of Christ S. Ambrose saith h Ambros in Luc. 24 lib. 10. We touch not Christ by bodily handling but by faith c. Therefore saith he Neither on the earth neither in the earth nor after the flesh ought we to seeke thee O Christ if we will finde thee To the same effect also S. Austen speaketh by occasion of Christs words to Mary Magdalin i Ioh. 20 17. Touch me not for I am not yet ascended to my father k August in Ioh. tract 26. epist 59. Shee might not touch him standing on the earth saith he and how should she touch him being ascended to the father Yet thus euen thus he will be touched Thus is he touched of them of whom he is well touched being ascended to the father abiding with the father equall to the father And this touching he there expoundeth beleeuing as Ambrose doth Our touching of Christ then is our beléeuing in him not being here in the earth or on the earth but being ascended to the father and abiding with the father And as the sicke woman in the Gospell though with her hand touching but l Mat. 9. 20. 22. only the hemme of Christs garment yet whilest m Aug. ibid. vt supra by faith she touched Christ himselfe receiued vertue from him to make her whole So we although with our bodily hands we touch but onely the Sacrament which is but as it were the hemme of his garment yet whilst by faith we touch himselfe sitting at the right hand of God in heauen we receiue of him vertue and grace to euerlasting life Which vertues and effects séeing we receiue in Baptisme also as hath bene before shewed it is manifest that it is not by any such corporal touching as the Answ most absurdly hath expressed Here he cauilleth further concerning saint Paules words We are all partakers of one bread and one cup. By bread he saith must néedes be vnderstood the bodie of Christ for if we vnderstand it of bread indéed all are not partakers of one bread but many breads But his vnderstanding deceiueth him The Sacrament as he confesseth is a Sacrament of vnitie Christ would commend vnto vs this vnitie n Aust in Ioh. tra 26. Cypr. li. 1. epist 6. by being partakers of those things which of many are made one as bread of many graines wine of many grapes To this the name of one bread hath relation admonishing vs being many to become one But I hope the bodie of Christ shall not be said to be made of many cornes or grapes This bread therefore is not the very body of Christ But we are all partakers of one bread because the bread of the Sacrament though in substance of loaues it be many breads yet in vse and mysterie or signification is all one And so though the cup be diuerse according to the diuersitie of places yet in the same maner we are also said to be partakers of one cup. Pet. Spence Sect. 28. AS for Gratian I am sorie to see how fowly you abuse him did he doubt of the veritie of transubstantiation or of Christs presence All the whole part de consecratione doth proclaime the contrarie But the thing which some not vnproblably do expound in this place the truth of the flesh and blood to be the efficiency thereof that is the forgiuenesse of sinnes was not any words of Christ touching the Sacrament but the words of a praier which he a litle before mentioned which he meaneth by saying in this place which was quae nunc specie gerimus rerum veritate capiamus which had two senses as Gratiā telleth you the one was that we may once receiue in a manifest vision as it is indeed the bodie of Christ the which vnder the formes of bread and wine is celebrated The other sense of that praier was with some men thus that we may receiue the effect of those mysteries that is to say remission of sinnes in veritie whereof now in a Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine we celebrate the mysterie For you know this is a Sacrament of remission of sinnes which some saith Gratian vnderstood by the truth of the things in the said praier Is this to deny the reall presence but your mind is so wholly set vpon that point that like your merrie I dare not say mad Athenian all things sound against Christs presence and all the belles ring against Transubstantiation in your eares R. Abbot 28. THe praier of the auncient Church which I mentioned before Sect. 25. beside the exposition of Lanfrancus there set downe is reported by Gratian to haue bene otherwise expounded by some other The Church praied at the receiuing of the Sacrament y◠they might
horrible and blasphemous â—onceits which the Answ could not conâ—eiue out of my former words These are yâ— fruits of their Transubstantiation and reall presence that the verie bodie of Christ is receiued into the bellies of dâ—gs and swine and mice that it may be in the dirt in the bellies of vngodly men vntil the forms â—e consumed and digested beside other filthy matters i Antonin summ p. 3. tit 13. cap. 6. q. 3. de defectib Missae of vomiting vp the bodie of Christ and eating it again being vomited and drawing it out of the entrals of the mouse or other beast that hath eaten it c. which are most leathsome to any Christian eares to heare of 〈◊〉 yet very venturously disputed of and resolued vpon by Antoninâ—s no meaner a man then Archbishop of Florence and as I thinke Saincted by the Pope for his great paines Neuer any Capernaite more grosse neuer Manichée more blasphemous then these villainous imaginations which these caiâ—ifes haue published to the world and their reall presence standing they cannot resolue how to shift of these things but stagger as Harding did with it may be this and it may be that and it may be they know not what Therefore let the Ansvv now thinke with himselfe with what reason he bid me beware of bearing false witnesse against my neighbour Let him remember that théeues and malefactours do vsually call true euidence false witnesse but yet their honestie and truth is no whit the more S. Hierom saith that k Hierony in Esa 66. li. 18. they vvhich are louers of pleasures more then louers of God and are not holy both in bodie and spirite do neither eate the flesh of Christ nor drinke his blood whereof he himself speaketh in the sixth of Iohn He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life Where out of the words of Christ himselfe he secludeth not only bruit beasts but also vngodly and vnholy men from eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ Yet it may so be that not only vnholy prophane men but also bruite beasts may eate of the Romish host or Sacrament Therefore the Romish Sacrament is not the very flesh and blood of Christ as the Romish faction would beare vs in hand that it is P. Spence Sect. 30. THe conformitie of the words of the Euangelists and of S. Paul is so great a matter as that of it selfe it offereth good and great cause of noting it without the warning of any Allen Parsons or any other neuer so learned And your similitude of the sacrifices of the old lawe so agreeably vttered and yet by your leaue but by one Moses alone and not by three sundry Euangelistes and one Apostle as it is in this case fitteth not to this For Moses endewed with the spirite of God could not in any wordes imagine to attribute a A meere fansie Their Sacramentes yeelded the same fruite to them that ours do to vs. See sect 20. such a working force ex opere operato to the legall expiations which wrought ex adiuncto fidei and not of themselues as is to be giuen to the Sacramentes of Christ howsoeuer your side abase them as low as the verie Iewish Sacramentes I am glad that the plain consent of the Euangelistes and Saint Paul doth so little like you in this point R. Abbot 30. THere is vrged for the proofe of Transubstantiation the consent of the Euangelistes and S. Paul saying all alike This is my bodie whereas if they meant not to be vnderstood literally the one would haue expounded the other But the conformitie of these thrée Euangelistes and S. Paul is no stronger an argument as I haue tolde him to prooue Transubstantiation then the continuall calling of the old sacrifices of Moses law by the name of expiations and attonementes was to prooue that they were verily and indéed expiations and attonementes for sinne which yet were but types and figures thereof as the Sacrament is a figure and signe of the bodie and bloud of Christ The exception of the Answ that that was spoken but by one Moses this by thrée Euangelistes and one Apostle is vaine The holie Ghost spake in both places by whomsoeuer and if the Answ argument be good must néedes haue altered that spéech in Moses lawe But that the goodnesse of it is distrusted by his owne fellowes also it followeth after to be shewed That which he addeth in this place of the working force in both sacraments the old and the new is impertinent I spake not of the working force of either but of the like phrase of spéech concerning both But yet whereas he saith that the Sacraments of the new testament haue force by the very work wrought I must tel him that he speaketh without scripture without father a thing absurd in itselfe and contrary also to that which he hath said before If wee obtaine the effects of the Sacrament by receiuing Christ in fayth hope and charity togither with the entrance of his body into ours as he sayd before then the sacrament giueth not that grace by the very worke wrought as he sayth héere If it giue grace by the very worke wrought as he saith héere then it is not to be ascribed to fayth hope and charity as he sayth there The councell of Trent hath tolde vs that a man a Concil TrideÌ„t sess 6. ca. 9 may not assure himselfe that hée hath receiued the grace of God But if the sacraments yéeld graâ—â— by the very worke wrought a man may assure himselfe that he hath receiued grace because he may assure himselfe that he is baptised And what reason is there why infants naturals and franticke persons should be excluded from receiuing the Lords supper if the Sacrament haue his force of the verie worke done But S. Austen plainly refuteth this conceit as touching our sacraments b August in Ioh. tra 80. Whence hath the water such force saith he to touch the bodie and clense the heart but that the word worketh it and that not because it is spoken but because it is beleeued Therefore hee calleth it according to the Apostle c Rom. 10. 8. 9 The word of faith because if thou confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and beleeue in thine heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saued To this purpose he alleageth that God is said d Act. 15. 9. to clense the heart by faith and that of S. Peter that e 1. Pet. 3. 21. baptisme saueth vs not the washing away the filth of the flesh that is not for the very worke wrought but the answere of a good conscience towardes God To this effect Tertullian saith f Tertul de resurrect carnis The soule is sanctified not by the washing of water but by the answere of faith And S. Austen againe g August quae vet noui test q. 59. He cannot attaine the heauenly gift which thinketh
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