〈◊〉 come of the Hebrue word so graue and learned writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a That some as graue and learned as themselues of their owne side are ashamed to say the same that it were best for you first to disaproue their proofes if you can for it is so substantially done by them that I should but repeate their reasons here and so actum agere Who would weene any pith in this your cauill the dimissing of the Catechâ—mine E 〈…〉 minâ— and Pâ—â—nitentes was called Missa â—â—go this whole celebration was not called Missâ— b Belike the name of masse is a mungrell comming of Hebrue and Latin both of the Hebrue word Mâ—sah as though one truth cannot stand with another Great learneâ— men are of the minde that the old Fathers especially c VVho cannot be found once to haue named Missarum solennia S. â—â—gustine and S. Ambrose vse Missarum solemnia in the plurall number to declare that both the parts thereof that before the Catechumens dimission and the rest following beare all that name both which cannot stand with your dimission Touching receiuing in both kindes which by the way you talke of because you frame no argument about it my answere shall be to send you to our Treatises of that matter and Bellarmine lâ—b 4. de Sacramento from the tenth Chapter c. R. Abbot 6. THe deriuing of Masse from the Hebrue word Masah that the very originall of the word might séeme to import sacrifice â—s an il-fauoured whelpe lately tumbled out of the Iesuits kennell The word hath bene in vse these thousande yeares neuer in the Gréeke but in the Latin Church The most probable reason thereof giuen from time to time by Latin writers hath bene of the dimissing and sending away of such as did not communi 〈…〉 〈◊〉 a Gregor de exposi ord Roma li. 2. ex Cassandro in Liturg. 〈◊〉 gorie Bishop of Rome by b Isidor Origi lib. 6. Isidâ—re who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much in the â—eaâ—ching of Etymologies by c Cassian de canon orat psal modo li 2 cap. 7. Casseinus d Durand lib. 4. cap. 1. Durand e Beatus Rhena annot â—â— Tertul. cont Marc. lib. â— Beatus Rhenanus f Polyd. Virgil de inuent rerum li. â— ca. 12. Polydore Virgil and others and shall we beléeue an vpstart Iesuit whom the Pope licked to his fashion but yesterday that it is deriued from an Hebrew word g Bellarm. to 2 de Missa lib. 1. cap. 1. Bellarmine himselfe is ashamed of this deriuation It is but euen as if some idleheaded fellow should imagine some proportion of letters or likenesse of sillables betwixt any Latin and Hebrew words and should fondly here upon face it out that the one is deriued from the other If the Answ would haue had his Masse from an Hebrew word he should haue taken it rather from the word Massah as being a temptation and prouocation of the Lordes wrath or from h Dani. 11. 38. Mauzim the name of that idoll which the abhomination of desolation shall worship in stéed of the true God and honor with gold and siluer and precious stones c. As Daniel speaketh and fitteth iust to the Popish Masse Now if Missa Masse had his originall from that custome of dimission as by the testimonies of the abouenamed it is most likely and as was proued before by the most auncient vse of the word then though in dâ—course of time custome brought the word to signifie the celebration of the Sacrament as in my former answere I noted that it did yet that altereth not I trow the deriuation of the word nor forceth it to séek another theame And if the Answ will not beléeue me in this point yet let him beleeue Gregory Bishop of Rome who applying it to the very celebration of the Sacrament yet giueth still the same reason of the name i Gregor apud Cassandrum in Liturg. Missa the Masse is therefore so called for that they which ought not to be present at the holie Sacraments are willed to depart which is the same as mitti to be sent away Therefore vnlesse by the voice of the Deacon those that do not communicate be willed according to the manner of our auncestours to depart the seruice which by the vsuall name is called Masse is not rightly performed Let Durand also witnesse the same though differing somewhat from Gregory k Durand Rat diui lib. 4. cap. 1. The Masse of the faithfull is so called of dimissing or sending away because that being ended euerie one of the faithfull is dimissed or sent away to his owne home Now here I must put the Answ in minde that I alleaged in my former writing that the custome of dimissing or sending away such as communicate not and of the communicating of all that are present is vtterly worne out in the Church of Rome so that they haue herein greatly swarued from antiquitie and haue kept the word Mâ—ssâ— or Masse without the meaning of the word To which point be answereth nothing but yet let him â—stéeme with himselfe what censure Gregory in his wordes aboue-named for this cause giueth of his Popish Masse namely that it is not rightly and well celebrated Now then though his great learned men tell him that Missarum sâ—lâ—nnia with Ambrose and Austen do signifie both parts of the Masse that before the dimission and that after a wise saying of his who knoweth wel yâ— in his Masse there is no dimissioÌ„ at all yet that â—indereth not but that the Etymologie of the word Missa is the same still as I haue shewed out of Gregory and Durand Albeit I must tell him that as great learned men as they of whom he speaketh are out of doubt that neither Ambrose nor Austen euer â—â—med Missirum solâ—â—ia P. Spence Sect. 7. FOr praying for the dead and that the dead recâ—â—ue benefit therby and gaine as Chrysostome term thâ—t nothing maketh it so plain as that Aerius by the testimonie of Epithanius Augustine and Philastrius was accounted not an hereticke but an Arch-hereticke euen as well for that point as for two or three other pretie Puritane opinions now greatly vrged And of whom was he so accounted euen of the a Not of the whole church for that point For many of the church held the same and yet were not accounted hereticks See the answere whole Church as by the testimonie of the forenamed it is euident who made their Catologue only of open notorious knowne condemned Heretickes And because you shall not be blinded in Chrysostome as though his praier for the dead were only thankesgiuing lâ—t Chrysostome interprete Chrysostome who speaking of this verie sacrifice called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sacrifice not only Liturgia and of the most reuerend and dreadfull part thereof I meane the Consecration in his booke of his Dialogue di Sacerdotio saith that the priest praieth to God that he will
iustly and well perswade a Christian to beléeue the contrary in my opinion S. Mathew Mark Luke and Paul all writing This is my bodie whereas writing otherwise of one thing one saith If I in the finger of God cast out diuels c. Another If I in the spirit of God c. So that in d Vntrue as appeareth by the coÌ„ference of these places Mat. 5. 29. with Mar. 9. 3. Mar. 5. 39. with Luc. 6. 29. Mat. 20. 23. Mar. 10. 39. Mat. 21. 21. Mar. 11. 23. which are not taken literally and yet difler not in phrase of speech any matter where moe then one speak of the same thing euerie one hath more of the same thing to giue more light then another But in the matter of the Sacrament no whit so but in the verie substantiall point e Vntrue for they varie as touching the cup there is the same reason of the one part of the Sacrament as of the other See the reply Concil constanti 6. can 32 all deliuer the selfe same effectuall words Sir once againe thankes for your good Chrysostome and so I beséech to recall them that erre into the way of truth and euerlasting saluation A reply against the former answere to the places of Chrysostome and Gelasius THe willingnesse I haue to doe you good M. Spence I wish might take such effect with you as that God might be glorified by reuealing vnto you the knowledge of his truth I doubt not but it shall be so if you séeke it as you ought and where you ought Concerning the place of Chrysostome of vsing water in the Sacrament I finde it expounded as you answere me in Concil Constantinopol 6. ca. 32. of them that vsed water onely and no wine Albeit the wordes séeme to me plainly to enforce vpon the Reader another vnderstanding neither find I any reason why the Bishops of Armenia being a thousand vnder one Metropolitane may not be thought as méete iudges of Chrysostomes meaning as the Bishops of this Councell especially séeing it is not certaine either what time or by whom those Canons were made and appeare to be falsly fathered vpon the sixth generall Councell as Surius in his admonition Surius in admoniâ— ad Lector de can 6. synodi concil to 2. concerning those Canons giueth to vnderstand Yea and they are in diuers points reiected by your selues as is plaine also by Surius both in the same Preface and by some notes added to some of the Canons But I contend not of that point and as I condemne not in that respect the Churches which either haue vsed or doe vse that mixture only without opinion of superstition and necessitie so neither do I find reason why those Churches are to be condemned that rather follow as most assured the simplicitie of the institution of Iesus Christ where we finde mention of the fruite of the vine but nothing as touching water If you say as the Canon saith that this is to innouate those things which haue bene deliuered by tradition Cypri epist ad Pompeium I must answer you with Cyprians words Whence is this tradition Whether descending from the authoritie of the Lord and of the Gospell or comming from the Commandements and Epistles of the Apostles for that those things which are written must be done God testifieth c. If therefore either it be commanded in the Gospell or conteined in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles let this tradition be kept as holie Now séeing there is no testimony of the holie scripture to approue the necessitie of water I take your wordes directly contrary to the scriptures to be vnderstood rather of those which vse water only contrarie to the text then wine only according to the expresse mention of the text Your glose of the Canon De consecra dist 2. cap. sicut in glossa law doth tell that Doctors haue said that water is to be mingled in the cup only for honestie or decencie and therefore not of necessitie to the Sacrament And that amoÌ„gst others Thomas Aquinas granteth Polydore Virgil referreth the fist institution thereof to Alexander Plati in Alexander 1. Durand Rati diuin lib. 4. rubri de officio sacerdotis c. Thom. Aquin. pa 3. q. 7â— art 3 the first Bishop of Rome Pâ—atina séemeth to agrée with him So Durand saith Water is mingled in the cup with the wine by the institution of Pope Alexander the first And as touching Christes vsing of water Thomas Aquinas maketh it but a probabilitie and no certaine truth It is probably beleeued that our Lord instituted this Sacrament in wine mingled with water according to the manner of that country Your Councell of Trent saith no more It is supposed that our Lord did so And in a conference betwixt Anselmus a Bishop of Saxome and Nechâ—tes Patriarch of Nicomedia Anno domini Centur. Magdebur cap. 12. 1138. Neâ—hites obiecting that Christ our Sauiour did not vse water in the consecration Anselmus answereth by likelihood that he did so because in Palestina the maner is to mingle water with their wine Now if it were done according to the maner of that country then it was done to abate the strength of the wine and not for any such mysterie as some haue imagined In manie Countries where their wines are verie strong temperate sober men vse to qualifie and delaie the heate thereof by mingling water least it should cause any distemperature to the bodie And this the Gréeke Churches may séeme to haue respected who consecrated with méere wine as appeareth by Nâ—chites his spéech in the conference aboue-named as also by some editions of Chrysostomes Liturgie and afterwardes put in water when it was to be administred to the receiuers The reason which they vsed for not adding water before was this because Christ is not read to haue added water which accordeth with the words of Chrysostome alleaged by me But as I said before I stand not vpon this point Only I pray you to consider an argument of Bertram in his booke de corpo sangui domini ad Carol imperat taking Bertram de corpo sang domini his ground from this mixture Water saith he in the Sacrament beareth the image of the people Therefore if the wine sanctified by the seruice of the Ministers be bodily turned into the blood of Christ then the water also which is mingled withall must needs be bodily or substantially turned into the blood of the beleeuing people For where there is one sanctification there is consequently one working or effect and where there is the like reason there followeth also the like mysterie But we see in the water there is nothing turned bodily Consequently therefore in the wine there is nothing bodily shewed It is taken spiritually whatsoeuer is signified in the water as touching the bodie of the people It must needes therefore be taken spiritually whatsoeuer is signified in the wine concerning the blood of Christ
Which words amongst other it hath pleased those honest Censours of the King of Spains appointment to exempt from being Index Expâ— in censura Bertramâ— printed any more A shift wherewith the church of Romes factours haue made vs verie well acquainted in the workes of diuers Authors both old and new By the way as you touch this point you séeme to gleane for the defence of your Masse telling me that in the Canon aforesaid there is mention made of S. Iames and S. Basils Masse or Sacrifice left to the Church in writing By which spéech you put me in mind of that melancholy Athenian who standing at the sea shore would imagine of euery ship that he saw that it was his ship For in like sort whersoeuer you finde in any of the auncient Fathers mention made of the mysticall sacrifice you fancy it straight waies to be ment of your sacrilegious abhominable sacrifice of the Masse a cursed deuise of Satan therby to withhold men from the soueraign only sacrifice of the crosse of Christ Therfore wheras the Canon mentioneth only Sacrifice you alledge it to me Masse or Sacrifice But you shuld know that the Gréeke Fathers were not priuie to the name of your Masse how soeuer it please some of you to make a cogging argument to blinde the vnlearned by these titles S. Iames his Masse S. Chrysostomes Masse c. vsed by the translators but neuer meant by the Authors The Gréeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they vsed may rather import our diuine-seruice then your prophane Masse And if it must néedes signifie Masse you may turne the magistrate into a Rom 13. 6. The Minister of God Rom. 15. 27. Phil. 2. 25. to minister vnto Heb. 1 14. ministring spirits Act. 13. 2. as they were ministâ—ing to the Lord. Masse-priâ—st because he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you may say that to relieue the necessities of Saints is to say Masse because the Apostle vseth thereof the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Angels shall be called Massing spirits because they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You remember since you wold néeds enforce the Apostles saying Masse by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how wel to the purpose you may hereby vnderstand Your Masse you call of the word Missa you should indéed rather of the word Massa as being an heape of vnprofitable ceremonies and wicked prophanations of the Sacrament of Iesus Christ But Missa importeth not sacrifice as you pretend it doth The olde vse of the word Missa discloseth the great abuse of your Masse It noted the sending away of non-communicants none being permitted to staie while the Sacrament was ministred but only such as did communicate So doth S. Austen declare speaking Au. de Temp. ser 232. as touching the Catechumeni that is such as were yet but nouices in religion and vnder chatechising and therefore as yet not permitted to be partakers of the holie mysteries nor to be present at the celebration thereof Behold saith he after the Sermon there is missa a dimission or sending away of such as are catechumeni the faithfull abide still we shall come to the place of praier c. And in the fourth Councell of Carthage order is taken that the Bishop shall forbid concil carthag 4. can 84. none to enter into the Church and heare the word of God whether he be Gentile hereticke or Iew vsque ad missam vntill the dimission or sending away of the catechumeni There is no such dimission in your Masse and of those that staie none are ordinarily partakers of the Sacrament but only the Priest The people are spectatours only of his stage-like and trifling iestures and go as emptie home as they came thither But in processe of time custome drew this wâ—râ— to note the celebration of the Sacrament which was administred to such as remained after this dimission Whence it is that the pretended Liturgies of S. Iames Basil and Chrysostome are by the translators tearmed by the name of Masse Whereas those Liturgies I doubt not if they were written by those men whose names they beare as some of them assuredly were not or if being written by them they remained as their Authors left them as by the varietie of the editions of Chrysostomes Liturgie it is plain they do not would rather resemble our communion wherein both the Minister and the people communicate togither in both kinds then your Masse wherein the people are either idle lookers on or when they are communicants are by your sacriledge communicants in one kinde onely and secluded from the other contrary altogither to the practise of the primitiue Church or which is more to the expresse institution of our Sauiour Christ And this is to be séene by those steps of antiquitie which as yet are found in those Liturgies neither do I sée what great aduantage you haue by them to set any colour vpon your Popish Masse saue only to blinde the eyes of the simple and vnlearned And whereas you alledged to me that there was in them praier for the dead there is good cause to thinke that those praiers were at the first but commemorations and thankesgiuings for the departed in the faith of Christ for that in Chrysostomes Liturgie we finde according to that which then I answered you thus We offer vnto thee ô Lord this reasonable seruice for those chrysost â—â—gia which rest in the faith our Auncestors Fathers the Patriarches Prophets Apostles Preachers Euangeliâ—tes Martyres especially for the most holie and pure virgin Mary c. But it is contrary to the custome of your church to your doctrine to pray for the virgin Mary for Martyrs c. And you vse to that purpose the saying of S. Austen He doth iniury to the Martyr which praieth for a Martyr Therfore August de verb Apo. ser 17. these were only spéeches of thankesgiuing vnto God for his louing mercy shewed to those through Iesus Christ make nothing at all for your praier for the dead To this being the auncient custome oâ— the Church S. Austen alludeth when he saith When the Aug. Euchiâ— cap. 10. sacrifices either of the altar or of any almes are offered for all that are dead they are for them that are very good thankesgiuings c. which custome of thankesgiuing generally we also vse for all that are departed hence in the faith of Iesus Christ As for that which he addeth For them that are not verie euill they are propitiations c. we take it to be a superstitious conceit which after crept into yâ— church contraried by many in S. Austens time as may appeare in his booke of questions to Dulcitius where proposing the question of Dulcitius whether oblations for the dead did auaile them whereby it appeareth it was a matter controuersed in that time he answereth To this many say that if there might be any good done herein August de 8. quaest
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
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
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
herein as one Ioannes Scotus was a familiar friende of his who wrote a booke concerning the Sacrament to the same effect that Bertram did He was accounted no hereticke in his time but two hundreth yeares after when Berengarius pleaded the authoritie of the same booke it was condemned as hereticall in a Councell holden at Vercellae as a Lanfranc de sacram 〈…〉 char Lanfrancus testifieth who was present and an actour in the same matter So Beâ—tram who was Catholicke while he liued is now after so many hundreth yeares brought in suspiâ—ion to be an hereticke But the Answ owne fellowes the Authors of the b Index Expurgat in ceâ—sura Bertra Index Expurgatorius doe cleare Bertram from this suspition acknowledging him by these words that he was A Catholicke priest a Monke of the Abbie of Corbeie beloued and reuerenced of Carolus Caluus the Emperour and this verie same Bertram do they confesse to be the Authour of that booke which the Answerer would faine make vs beléeue to be a counterfeit They fréely confesse they must tollerate some errours in him as well as they do verie many in the auncient Doctors They say they would not wholy suppresse the booke least we should haue cause to say that they make away such antiquitie as serueth for vs. They confesse that it helpeth the historie of the time wherein Bertram liued The booke it selfe indéed doth shew it selfe so euidently to be of antiquitie that no man of any iudgement or conscience can gainsay it Yet saith the Answ learned men are of opinion that this was not Bertrams booke Who are those learned men Forsooth c Bristow in his reply to D. Fulk cap. 10. de 19. Bristow and Sander and some few other of the same marke whose word is inough to proue anie thing to be counterfeit But their authoritie is ouerwaied by the testimony and confession of those other of their owne company to whom these must giue place for commendation of learning It is no maruell that the Answ and those other his honest companions would haue the booke séeme counterfeit being written almost eight hundreth yeares agone so directly and of purpose against Transubstantiation The reason alleaged out of him carrieth with it that force that the Spanish censures in the Index aforesaid thought it not safe to let it continue but haue discharged it from the presse The Answerer full wisely passeth it ouer with How knoweth he and what necessitie is there without affirming any thing himselfe or so much as looking at the ground of that reason which is alleaged I would haue him peruse it once again As for his spéeches of those bookes of Caluin and Bucer falsly intituled I take them to be of the same sort as that the Thames stood stil when Friar Campian was executed for his treason Though any such thing were it is not for a Papist to speake of it seeing that they themselues in counterfeiting and falsifying of bookes haue passed all the impudency of former times P. Spence Sect. 4. YOur Athenian mad man was indeed a peeuish fellow and mee thinke they are not of the wisest that weene we haue no other defence for the Masse but the word Liturgia Where reade you this for an argument The Greekes call it Liturgia ergo it is the Masse Though Erasmus in the Acts of the Apostles translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they were sacrificing yet of his translation or of the word a Vntruth for it is a common argument The Answ is ashamed of his fellowes doings So M. Iewel vseth Doctor Harding no man frameth an argument for the name Missa except he were like your mad Athenian It is no new deuise to father vpon vs such arguments as we neuer thought of to triumph vpon the easie solution thereof R. Abbot 4. HEre the Answ is ashamed of the absurditie of his owne fellowes For he knoweth wel inough that their mouthes run ouer with these termes Basils Masse Chrysostomes Masse c. And that wheresoeuer they finde the Latin word Missa in any auncient writer they triumph thereof as hauing a proofe for their idolatrous Masse You know M. Spence that these are verie currant arguments with your selfe and those titles turne rounde vpon your tongue neither néede you to be ashamed thereof séeing D. Allen hath taught you to estéeme them so who taketh himselfe for a better Clerke then you are You know also when you tooke those words a Act. 13. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they were ministring to be a very good proofe for your Masse when you demanded of me to that purpose what the Gréeke wordes were But all these thinges the Answ is now ashamed of He telleth me that they do not say the Gréeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore it is the Masse No but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by some according to the phrase of their time translated Masse and that name of Masse thus translated some of his companions and namely you M. Spence deceitfully alleage to the simple ignorant as a strong proofe for the Popish Masse And this is that cogging and cosoning argument that I speake of wherewith you your selfe are deceiued as a very silly and ignorant man He telleth me further that though Erasmus translate sacrificantibus illis that is as they were sacrificing Act. 13. wheras the truth of the text is as they were ministring to the Lord yet of his translation or of the word no man frameth an argument for the name Missa No but yet for the Masse it selfe the b Rhem. Aâ—nota Act. 13. 2. Rhemists take an argument from thence and vnshamefastly and contrary to their knowledge and conscience say that the word signifieth they might haue translated saying Masse Wherof follow those absurdities that before I mentioned that the c Rom. 13. â— Magistrate is a Masse priest d Heb. 1. 14. that Angels are massing spirits that e Rom. 15 27. 2. Cor. 9. 12. to giue to the poore is to say Masse because the Apostle vseth the same Gréeke word of all these which they say doth signifie to say Masse But the Iesuit helpeth this lame reason of theirs by putting to it another lame legge He confesseth that the Gréeke worde f Bellarm. tom 2 con â— de Mâ—ssa lib. 1. cap. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth the execution of any publicke function or ministerie whatsoeuer But yet in this place he saith it must néedes be vnderstood of sacrificing because it is not simply said As they were ministring but as they were ministring to the Lord For it may not be vnderstood he saith of preaching the word or ministring the Sacraments because the preaching of the word and ministring the Sacraments is not to the Lord but to men He plaieth herein the part of a craftie Lawier who taking a bad cause in hand will séeke by shifting and faysting to preuaile because he faileth of good sound argument For
first he argueth from an imperfect and vnsufficient diuision in that he mentioneth only preaching the word and ministring the Sacraments and omitteth publicke praier where hée saw he had no colour to deny that the Minister in the exercise of publicke praier doth minister vnto the Lord and therfore that this place is not necessarily to be vnderstood of sacrifice because it may be expounded of praier And so doth the Syriacke interpreter take it translating thus As they had praied vnto the Lord. Secondly in that he saith that it cannot be vnderstood of the ministery of the word or Sacraments because preaching and ministering of the Sacraments is to men and not to the Lord he abuseth his reader and his owne conscience For he knoweth well inough that although the Minister preach not to the Lord nor minister the Sacraments to the Lord but to men yet in doing these duties vnto men he ministreth vnto the Lord. For whose Minister Officer he is in these things to him doth he minister He is in these things the Minister of the Lord. Therefore in these things he must be said to minister vnto the Lord. And so the Iesuit could not be ignorant but that g Chrysost Oecume in Act. 13. Chrysostome and Oecumenius out of him do expounde it writing vppon the same place What is as they were ministring It is to say as they were preaching Yea and Erasmus himselfe though he translated as they were sacrificing as the Iesuit vrgeth yet notwithstanding in his paraphrase and annotations giueth to vnderstand that he meaneth thereby nothing else but prophecying and teaching the doctrine of the Gospell accordingly as it is said in the text of them that ministred to the Lord that they were Prophets and Doctours To which purpose the Apostle S. Paule vseth both the word which hée here translateth and the word of sacrificing also Rom 15. 16. Grace is giuen to me of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that I should be the minister of Iesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sacrificing the Gospell of God that the offering vp of the Gentiles might be acceptable c. Where h Theophy Oecume in epist ad Rom. c. 25. Theophylact vseth this exposition My office of sacrificing is to preach the Gospell And Oecumenius this In bringing men to the faith he sacrificeth the Gospell of God By all which it appeareth that neither from the words of the text as they were ministring vnto the Lord nor yet from Erasmus his translation if it were admitted can follow any sufficient proofe for the warranting of the Popish Masse But the Iesuit knew that it was a sufficient answere to his argument to say that in preaching and ministring the Sacraments to men they might rightly be said to minister vnto the Lord because they did it to the honor of the Lord and in the seruice of the Lord. Therefore he thought good before-hand to adde an exception against this answer and that he doth full wel and learnedly If forsooth S. Luke had meant so he would not haue added any thing of their fasting because that should haue bene comprehended vnder the name of ministring For saith he he which fasteth doth in that sort minister to the Lord according to that Ro. 14. He which eateth eateth to the Lord and he which eateth not eateth not to the Lord. I will not here say where was the Iesuits conscience but where were his wittes or where was the care of not discrediting himselfe with his owne fellowes The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he graunteth to import the exercise of some publicke function or ministerie Now who was euer so absurd to imagine a publicke function ministery or office of fasting or that a man in fasting should be saide to execute an office or ministery He bringeth the Apostles wordes but to what purpose Doth the Apostle say He that eateth or he that eateth not to the Lord doth therein minister vnto the Lord Surely if in eatyng or not eatyng to the honour of the Lord a man shall bée saide to minister vnto the Lorde then in euery action that hee may doe hee shall execute a function or ministery to the Lorde because the Apostle saith i 1. Cor. 10. 31. Whether ye eate or drinke or whatsoeuer ye do do all to the glorie of God If this be absurd then his exception is absurd likewise as indéede it is To conclude this matter the disciples there assembled vsed after their accustomed maner praier preaching of the word and ministring of the Sacraments All these must be vnderstood in their ministration These may be vnderstood without any sacrifice of the Masse Therefore it is foolishly and absurdly done of any Papist to alleage this as a proofe of their sacrilegious Mâ—sse Now let the Answ say whether I father any other arguments vpon them then they them selues haue begotten Such brats vntowardly birthes they haue a great number and M. Iewels vsage towards M. Harding in this behalfe was no other but euen a right laying before him the vanitie and loosenesse of his allegations and reasons so piâ—uish and childish sometimes that they rather deserued scorne then any answere at all P. Spence Sect. 5. THat the Liturgies of S. Iames S. Basill Chrysostom were madâ— by them whose names they beare hath bene proued by good writers and by the common coÌ„sent of long continued custome of the Greeke Church so Proclus the auncient Bishop for that matter in the place aforenamed It would aske a long though an easie proofe But what your side hath said to the contrarie neuer yet proued the contrarie and is all too light to beare downe so well knowne and so commonly receiued a truth R. Abbot 5. AS touching the Liturgies of S. Iames Basill and Chrysostome if they be defended by the Church of Rome to be theirs the greater shame is it for the Church of Rome not to follow the example of those man vnder the authoritie and countenance of whose names they séeke so much to shroude themselues For as I said before so say I now againe that in those Liturgies and generall yâ—â—â— all records of the primitiue Churches seruice there is a description of our communion wherein both the Minister and the people communicate togither in both kindes not of the Roomish Masse wherein the people are either idle lookers on or when they are communicants communicate only in one kinde and are secluded from the other Now of the communion of the whole congregation by these records specified the Answ saith nothing at all as being abashed perhaps in that respect at the manifest Apostasie of the Church of Rome from the vniuersall and continuall practise of the auncient Church But for defence of their halfe and maimed receiuing he referreth me to their Treatises of that matter Where I could as willingly haue heard him say Aske my fellow if I be a théefe Why did he not rather referre himselfe to the institution of Christ set downe
Christ there is no more any offering for sin and therefore there is no true sacrifice in the Masse Nay saye the Rhemistes the texte meaneth that there is no second Baptisme to apply vnto vs a generall pardon or full forgiuenesse of sinnes contrary to the euidence of the text to the light of their owne consciences to the manifest expositions of the auncient Fathers Chrysostome Oecumenius Photius Theodoret Theophylact Primasius Ambrose as before I alleaged who all according to the drift of the text expound it against any further offering or sacrifice for sinne after that once offering vpon the Crosse Yea and it must necessarily be so vnderstood because the Apostle hereby concludeth against the many often offered sacrifices of the Iewes Which conclusion maketh nothing against their offerings or sacrifices vnlesse we vnderstand offering properly For what were it against their sacrificing that the Apostle should say there is no second baptisme to apply vnto vs full forgiuenesse of sins Now séeing this absurd vnreasonable glose of the Rhemists wil not serue turne neither could the Answ for shame write it thogh they were not ashamed to print it what other answer may we looke for at his hands Good sir saith he why dreame you that we thinke or professe to â—ley and crucifie Christ in our Masses His death was once and that once sufficient for euer and he dieth no more and then where is your obiection To whom I say againe Good sir my obiection hath not any sillable to charge you with affirming of Christes dying any more but proueth that after the once dying of Christ there is no more sacrifice for sinne and therefore that your Masse doth lie in taking vpon it to be a true propitiatorie sacrifice and then where is your answere Why did not your courage serue to make a direct answere to that that was opposed and if you could not answere why did not conscience preuaile with you to make you yeeld to the truth I prooue that there is now no more offering for sinne and he returneth me a sléeuelesse tale that they say not that Christ dieth any more and so runneth on to declare vnto me what maner of sacrifice it is which they offer which by the reason alleaged by me is ineuitably proued to be none at all If Christes bodie be really offered for sinne euery day in the Masse then there is yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an offering for sin But the Apostle saith that there is not now an offring for sinne Therefore Christ is not now any longer offered for sinne And therefore although the bodie of Christ be yet really remaining in heauen d Râ—m â— â— being raised from the dead to die no more and the same bodie be sometimes termed in our spéech the sacrifice for sinne yet is it not so called as hauing now the condition of a sacrifice for sin or as if it were now to be offered any more but only in respect that it was sacrificed once and by the vertue of that once sacrificing e Heb â— 2 appeareth in the sight of God for vs. In a word it is no otherwise so called but as Christ in the Reuelation is called the knobe not to be killed but f Apoc. 5. 6. 9. 12. that was killed and as the same bodie of Christ shall be called the sacrifice for sinne after the ende of the world when as the Saints of God shall thankfully record the sacrificing thereof thus g Apoc. 5. 9. Thou wast killed and hast redeemed vs to God by thy bloud out of euerie nation c. The end and vse of offering for sinne is to take away sinne to obtein remission of sinnes to sanctifie those that come vnto it Now when this end of offering for sinne is atchieued there is no further vse of an offering for sinne So that if the sacrifices of the old law h Heb. 10. 1. 2. had sanctified the commers thereunto they should after once offering haue ceased to bee offered as the Apostle telleth vs importing thereby that that sacrifice which doth sanctifie the commers thereunto as doth i cap. 10. 10. the bodie of Christ once offered néedeth not to be offered any more but that once And hereupon it is that he inferreth that séeing remission of sinnes is obteined by the offering of Christs bodie once therefore thenceforth there is no more offering for sinne neither of Christes bodie nor of any other thing because there is no ende or vse therof euen as when k Chrysost in Heb. 10. ho. 17. Ambros in Hebr. 10. a man hath gotten a medicine to heale his hurt it is néedlesse for him to séeke any other either of the same substance or of any other And therefore hereby he resolueth against all whether Heathenish or Iewish or Popish sacrificing for sinne as being to no ende or purpose because the ende of offering for sinne which is remission of sinnes is atteined alreadie by the death and bloodsheading of Iesus Christ And vnlesse we will vnderstand offering for sinne simply and vniuersally without exception and without that determining of it to any one sort of offering which the Answ vseth in tying it vnto Christes suffering and dying we betraie this whole disputation into the hands of the Iewes and Heathens as making nothing against their sacrificing for sin because it only proueth that Christ dieth no more not that there is no more offering for sinne But the Apostle would deny not only Christs dying any more but also all maner of Iewish and Heathenish offering for sinne Therefore the words must be absolutely and vniuersally vnderstood of offering for sinne after the once dying of our Lord Iesus Yet further let me tell him that if he will affirme the often offering of Christ he must say also that Christ often suffereth and is slaine For throughout the whole scripture he cannot alleage one place where the offering or sacrificing of Christ is otherwise vnderstood then of his death and passioÌ„ And this is plainly euicted out of the 9. to the Hebrues where the Apostle saith that Christ l He. 9. 25. 26. is entered into heauen to appeare now in the sight of God for vs not to offer himselfe often for then saith he he should haue often suffered since the foundation of the world Which reason of the Apostle hath no force at all if there be any other offering of Christ but only by suffering and death Which also is manifest out of the law of Moses where there was no offering or sacrifice of propitiation but by slaughter and bloodshead and where there was no sheading of blood there was no forgiuenesse as the m Heb. 9. 22. Apostle witnesseth Now séeing there is no sacrifice of propitiation in the newe Testament which was not prefigured in the lawe which the Apostle saith n Heb. 10. 1. had the shadow of the good things that were to come and the law prefigured none but sacrifice by
multitude of the sacrifices of the law is taken away One is approued in the ende of the world once offered for the abolishing of sinne For the lambe of God hath taken away the sin of the world offering himselfe a sacrifice of a sweet sauour c. Where let the Answ note that in stéed of many sacrifices for sinne there is in the ende of the world but one and that one but once offered for the vtter abolishing of sinne so that there remaineth now no other srcrifice for vs to offer but thankesgiuing and the offering of our selues vnto God by our reasonable seruing of him Let me conclude with the words of S. Ambrose k Ambros in Heb. 10. There is now no more offering for sinne For one oblation of the bodie of Christ maketh perfect them that are sanctified as which worketh full forgiuenesse of sinnes Therefore we need not daily to purge with daily sacrifices as in the old law If we néed not daily to purge with daily sacrifice as they did in the olde law then surely the daily sacrifice of the Masse is superfluous and coÌ„sequently no sacrifice at all By these and sundry other testimonies of the old Fathers it is euident and cleare inough to those that will sée that they knew not nor were acquainted with this strange deuise of a continuall reall offering of the body of Christ Yea but the Answerer saith further that the matter is so true of the Fathers auouching this reall sacrifice that Caluin sticked not to condemne all the Fathers since the Apostles of Iudaisme in that very poynt for establishing a very sacrifice of the church so impudent a thing he tooke it to be to cast a myst vpon the Fathers words in that point If the Answ speake this of himselfe let him remember that which Solomon saith l Pro. 19 5 12. 22. A false witnesse shal not escape vnpunished and again Lying lips are an abhomination to the Lord. If he speake it vpon the warrant of any other let him remember this for a true saying hereafter m Pro. 14. 15. Eccle. 19 4 He that is hastie to giue credit is a foole Caluins own words do laie open the notable and shamelesse boldnesse of the Answ and his fellowes in this point n Institut li. 4. ca. 18. sect 10. If any man saith he oppose the sentences of the old Fathers gathered here and there and vpon their authoritie contend that the sacrifice which is done in the Lordes Supper is otherwise to be vnderstood then we expound it let this briefly serue for answere to him If the matter be to approue the deuise of that sacrifice which the Papists haue forged in the Masse the auncient Fathers giue no maintenance or defence to such sacriledge Indeed they vse the name of sacrifice but withall they expound that they meane nothing else but a memoriall of that true and onely sacrifice which Christ performed on the Crosse who is our onely priest as they euerie where shew c. Againe o ibid. sect 1â— he professeth that he seeth that they reteined a godly right sound iudgement concerning this whole mysterie neither findeth that they would any litle derogate from the only sacrifice of Christ Now therefore what conscience may I thinke there is in the Answerer that doubteth not to auouch so manifest and notorious a slaunder But he will alleage for himselfe yâ— Caluin though he confesse that the Fathers had a right and true iudgement concerning the Sacrament yet saith that p ibid. in actionis modo in the maner of their celebration they approached néerer to the Iewish maner of sacrificing then Christ had ordeined or was conuenient for the state of the Gospell But this say I cannot excuse the Answ from iust desert of being branded in the forehead with the letter C as a calumnious and slaunderous person For he chargeth Caluin to haue condemned the Fathers of Iudaisme for establishing a reall sacrifice of the church whereas Caluin absolutely deâ—ieth that there was in them any opinion of any reall sacrifice and only saith that in ceremonies they came néerer to the Iewish maner of sacrificing then was conuenient We know that the Papists come néerer to those rites and ceremonies wherewith the Heathens Painims haue worshipped their idol gods then is conuenient for Christians to do in the spirituall seruice of the true God And yet it followeth not that they establish those profane mysteries or opinions whereunto the same ceremonies were annexed So might Caluin truly say that the Fathers in ceremonies came too néer the Iewes and yet be farre as indéed he was from denying that they taught or established any reall sacrifice in the church In a word Caluin coÌ„demneth not the Fathers of Iudaisme but Papists of peruersnesse and wickednesse in abusing the writings of the Fathers For let me tell the Answ once againe that his maisters of Rhemes though they haue in diuers places of their Annotations scratched togither out of the Fathers all and more then all that may giue any shewe to countenance their sacrifice yet cannot bring any one place that goeth without the compasse of that reason of the name of sacrifice which in my former spéech I declared to stand without any true or reall sacrifice now to be performed For setting that downe which Cyprian saith that q Cypr. lib. 2. epist 3. the passion of Christ is the sacrifice which wee offer what termes of sacrifice can they alleage out of the Fathers which do not agrée to the passion of Christ It is the killing of the lambe of God the sacrifice of sacrifices the euerlasting quickening sacrifice the sacrifice of our Mediator the sacrifice of our price the eternall redemption both of body and soule Now sith the passion of Christ is not now really performed the sacrifice to which these spéeches are applied is not a sacrifice now really done but only in a mysterie and by remembrance Now although it be plaine inough by that that hath bene already said that there is no such sacrifice indéed as the Answ and his company do affirme yet supposing for the while that there is let vs sée what he will make of it or to what vse he will put it The vse of it as he telleth me in the former section is to apply vnto vs remission of sinnes purchased by the death of Christ only By which words he spoyleth his Masse of the nature of a propitiatory sacrifice For the true propitiatory sacrifice euen by the very signification of the word is that only which it selfe satisfieth for sinne and purchaseth by the vertue and force thereof forgiuenesse of sinnes and attonement with God Now therfore if forgiuenesse of sinnes be purchased by the death of Christ onely then it standeth not with the Masse to be a propitiatorie sacrifice His Rhemish companions tell him that the blood of Christ before his death was at his last supper sacrificed r Rhe. Annot.
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
bodie that he set vpon the signe the name of his bodie that he honoured the mysticall signes with the name of his bodie and blood not chaunging their nature but adding grace vnto nature that the holie foode is the signe and figure of the body and blood of Christ And in this dialogue againe that the mystical signes of the bodie and blood of Christ are offered to God by the priests of God that the mysticall signes do represent the true bodie that they are the image and figure of Christs bodie and maketh a manifest difference betwixt the bodie it selfe and the mysticall signe which is called the bodie By all which spéeches he declareth that the mysticall signes are truly bread and wine yet by consecration made figures of the bodie and blood of Christ and called by the name of the bodie and blood of Christ as Sacraments are wont to be called by yâ— name of the things whereof they are Sacraments to lift vp our mindes from the beholding of the visible elements to the consideration of the thinges signified by them as Theodoret in the first Dialogue sheweth And therefore the Priest hath not in his hands the reall bodie of Christ to offer vp vnto God but only the mysticall signes which represent the bodie so that both Transubstantiation and reall presence and reall sacrifice are all ouerthrowne by Theodorets iudgement Now whereas the Answ vrgeth that we receiue the bodie and blood of Christ Theodoret indeed saith that he beléeueth that he is made a partaker thereof in receiuing the Sacrament We beleeue the same and it is our singular comfort But this receiuing of Christ is not really by the mouth into the bodie but spiritually by faith into the soule We say with the ancient Fathers that this food is not the food of the belly but of the mind not for the téeth to chew but for the conscience to be refreshed with S. Austen checketh that conceit of bodily eating e Aug in Ioh. â—â— 25. Why preparest thou thy teeth thy belly Beleeue thou hast eaten f ibid. tr 2â— For to beleeue in Christ this is saith he to eate the bread of life And acknowledging no other reall presence of Christ whereby we may receiue him and eate him but only in heauen he maketh one to demand of him g ibid tr 50. How shall I take hold of him being absent how shall I put vp my hand to heauen to take hold of him there Whereto he answereth Send vp thy faith and thou hast laid hold of him plainly confessing that there is no bodily presence of Christ here but that by faith he is to be receiued sitting in heauen That which the Answ further vrgeth of adoration is friuolous vnlesse he could shew it to be meant of diuine or godly honour that is which is proper vnto God Theodoret plainly referreth it to the mysticall signes but to giue diuine honour or adoration to mystical signes or to formes of bread and wine is manifest idolatrie The word of adoration here vsed by Theodoret is verie often vsed by the seuen interpreters in the Gréeke and by the vulgar Latine interpreter also not only for diuine adoration but also for ciuill worship And this diuerse signification h Aug. Quaest in Gen. lib. 1. cap. 61. S. Austen noteth vpon that which is written coÌ„cerning Abraham that i Gen 2â— 7. he adored the Princes of the Hittites as the Latine translation speaketh It is néedlesse to vse many proofes hereof séeing the Answ maisters the k Rhe. â—â—no tat Act. 1â— 25 Rhemists confesse that this word of adoration doth not alwaies note diuine worship but is commonly vsed in the scriptures towards men So the glose of the Canon law maketh a construction of adoration by which we may as it is there said l De conse dist 3. cap. â—â—nâ—rabâ—les Adore any sacred or holie thing or m Thom. Aquin 22. q 8. aâ— â— any excellent creature as Thomas Aquinas saith which adoration they expound by hauing reuerence thereof Therefore Theodoret referring adoration to the mysticall signes must not straightwaies be taken to vnderstand diuine honour and worship but only importeth a religious and holy regard and reuerence to be had thereof as being not now common bread and wine but diuine and heauenly mysteries sanctified by the word and spirit of God to most excellent and singular vse Which reuerence S. Austen ascribeth not only to the Lords Supper but also to the n Aug. de doct Chr lib. 3. ca 9. Sacrament of Baptisme by the Latine word Venerari So that the Answ can gather nothing out of Theodoret to serue his turne Wheras he further saith that Christ calleth nothing by a wrong name c. he sheweth his folly and péeuish ignorance Signes and Sacraments are vsually called by the names of the things whereof they are signes though in substance they be not the same and therefore are wrong named in respect of the substance but rightly and truly named in respect of the signification o 1 Cor. 10 2. The rock was Christ saith S. Paul He saith not saith p Idem quaest sup Leâ—it â—7 S. Austen The rocke signified Christ but speaketh as if it were Christ which yet was not he in substance but in signification Nothing is more vsuall either in sacred or prophane writings then thus to speake without transubstantiating one thing into another Christ saith that he is the vine and his father the husbandman must Christ therefore néeds be turned into a vine and the father into a husbandman He saith that we are his shéepe are we therefore turned into shéepe This must néeds follow if it be true which the Answ fondly speaketh of the misnaming of things But this is taken out of his blinde deuotions and serueth him as a reason wherby to seduce in corners silly and ignorant soules O saith he ye may not thinke that Christ will misname any thing and therefore when he called bread his bodie without doubt he turned it into his bodie Meane knowledge wil teach any man that this is but fond and childish trifling And thus much of Theodoret. Now that which was further added in my former discourse out of Austen Irenaeus for declaring and iustifying that which was spoken by Gelasius and Theodoret the Answ slily passeth ouer as being too manifest for him to cauill at But partly it hath alreadie and partly it will by and by méete with him againe P. Spence Sect. 13. YOur secundum quendam modum out of Saint Augustine ad Bonifacium epist 23. affirmeth the Sacrament of Christs bodie to be his bodie but the maner is the point for he was a S. Austen speaketh not of a maner of reall being but of a maner and forme of speaking and signifying See the Answere visible and passible on the earth in heauen in Maiestie in the Sacrament sacramentally and inuisibly but yet truly As for the examples vsed in
fantasticall body of Christ we read onely of a true and substantiall body wherein he is like vnto vs wherein hée sitteth at the right hand of God g August Ep ad Darda 57. in Ioh. tr 30. in some one place of heauen as S. Austen noteth and is there conteined by reason of the maner of a true body vntill hée come to iudge the quicke and the dead at which time he shal come in the same forme and substance of his body in which he went from hence to which we beleeue he hath giuen immortalitie but hath not taken from it the nature of a body yâ— it should be any where in that maner as yâ— Answ and his fellowes Marcion-like do teach We say as Vigilius also saith h 〈…〉 con 〈◊〉 the flesh of Christ when it was vpoÌ„ the earth was not in heauen and now because it is in heauen surely it is not on the earth As for the words which he alleageth I maruell how he can make them good to be S. Austens In all S. Austens works extant they are not found They are cited out of the sentences of Prosper and there they are not Beda hath many fragmentes of Austen but not a word of this i L 〈…〉 de sacra Eucha Lanfrancus vseth them as his owne wordes without any quotation of Austen and that writing against Berengarius where he would surely haue countenanced them with the name of Austen if they had béen his The trueth is for ought that I can perceiue Lanfrancus is the authour of them and they are his ilfauoured answere to Berengarius his allegation of S. Austens words which we haue now in hand Yet because Gratian by errour hath made S. Austen the reputed father of them mistaking be like Austen for Lanfrancus as very oftentimes he is found to put the names of Austen and others to those things which they neuer spake I wil doe the Answe that curtesie to take them for S. Austens words onely so that he wil not make S. Austen in this point to be at bate with himselfe First therefore according to the doctrine of S. Austen and all others who haue defined what sacraments be they are alwaies k Aug decate chiâ—rud ca. 26. visible signes and therefore to be discerned with the sense For l De dâ—ct C 〈…〉 l. 2. cap 1. a signe saith the same S. Austen is a thing which beside the shew that it offereth to the senses causeth by it somewhat else to come into the minde and vnderstanding In sacramentes therefore being signes m â—x ser ad infan Beda 1. Cor. 10. CoÌ„â— Maximi Aria lib. 3. cap. 22. one thing is seene another thing is vnderstoode by that which is séene therefore againe doth he call the sacrament n In Iohan. tra 80. a visible word because the visible creature being consecrated to the sacramentall vse doth in the vse thereof after a sorte set before our eyes that which the word of God deliuereth to our eares yea and doth as it were speake vnto vs also to admonish and put vs in minde of the things thereby so signified Now S. Austen doth verie precisely put difference o De consecr di 2. cap. Hoc est betwixt the sacrament which is the visible signe and the thing or matter of the sacrament p In Ioh. tr 26 so that in diuersitie of sacramentes yet the matter of the sacrament that is the thing signified may be the same and q Ibid. a man may be partaker of the sacrament or signe and yet haue no benefite at all of the thing signified Notwithstanding by reason of that relation which by the word of God is wrought betwixt the sacramental signe and the thing thereby signified r Epist 23. in quaest super Leuit. q. 75. the signe or sacrament as hath béen before said doth vsually take vnto it the name of the thing signified as Å¿ De consecr dist 2. cap. vtrum sub Gratian noteth againe vnder S. Austens name that the name of the bodie of Christ is giuen not onely to the verie bodie but also to the figure thereof which is outwardly perceiued But what shall we take this figure of the body to be by S. Austens iudgement Marry saith hée t Ex ser ad infan Beda 2. Cor. 10. that which you see is bread as your eyes also tell you which words the Answe hath left vnanswered as also the other v De conse dist 2. cap. Hoc est that the sacrament conteineth the nature and trueth of the visible element But by those wordes S. Austen referreth vs to our eyes and willeth vs to beléeue our eyes that it is verily bread Now then séeing that by his iudgment a sacrament is a visible signe and the visible signe in the Lordes supper is bread how may it stand with his doctrine that the flesh couered in the forme of bread is a sacrament of the flesh the bloud vnder the forme of wine is a sacrament of the bloud and that by the inuisible flesh is signified the visible body of Christ Surely if we take flesh to signifie truely and properly flesh this standeth not with S. Austens grounds For séeing flesh is not visible in the sacrament neither is there any appearance thereof to the sense nay it is called héere inuisible flesh it cannot be said to be a sacrament that is a visible thing Therefore we must séeke another meaning of the wordes flesh and bloud according to the other rule whereby the outward elementes take vnto them the names of the thinges represented by them By flesh and bloud then we vnderstand the visible elements which are called by these names and that not onely for that they doe signifie the true flesh and bloud of Christ but also as w August ser ad inâ—an aâ—ud Bed 1. cor 10. touching the spirituall fruite as S. Austen speaketh in x Ambros de sacram lib. 6. cap. 1. grace and vertue as saith saint Ambros y Cypria de caena d 〈…〉 de resuâ— chri concerning the inuisible efficiencie and vertue as Cyprian speaketh are the same to the faith of the receiuer according to that which Gratian saith concerning a prayer of the Church crauing to receiue the trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ that some not z De consâ—cr dist 2 cap. species without probable reason did expound that trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ to be the verie efficiencie or working thereof that is the forgiuenesse of sinnes Now because the visible element which is thus called flesh is no such thing in outward appearance neither hath anie shew of this vertue therefore it is said to be flesh couered in the forme of bread inuisible spirituall a matter of vnderstanding For sacramentes conteine those thinges which they conteine not openly but couertly not in appearance of the thinges themselues but vnder the signes of the visible
of bread is called by the name of flesh and the visible forme of wine by the name of blood Now it is called the inuisible and intelligible flesh of Christ because according to that forme flesh is not seene but vnderstoode and so the bloud Therefore the inuisible flesh is said to be a sacrament of the visible flesh because the forme of bread according to which that flesh is not seen is a sacrament of the visible flesh because by the inuisible flesh that that is by the forme according to which the flesh of Christ appeapeareth not flesh is signified the body of Christ which is visible and may be felt where it appeareth in his forme To this he addeth out of the other wordes of Austen that the bread is called the body being indeed the sacrament of the body of Christ not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie and so maketh S. Austen to expound that which before he sayth he had obscurely spoken Thus the Answ owne doctors though otherwise friendes to transubstantiation yet doe iustifie my exposition of this place and make it manifest that though the place be obscure at first sight yet by the common groundes of diuinitie it connot be construed so as that transubstantiation may necessarily be proued thereby Therefore I say still with Austen that the sacrament of the body of Christ is onely after a certaine maner the body of Christ namely not properly not in the trueth of the thing as the Answerer auoucheth but onely in a signifying mysterie betokening the same P. Spence Sect. 14. FOr your place of Chrysostome The bread is vouchsafed the name of the body c. For as for the place of S. Cypr. lib. 2. Epis 6. is such as deserueth no answer a CypriaÌ„ saith that Christ called the bread made of manie grains his body c. It is very bread therfore which is called the bodie only telling you that the bread wherof the sacrament was made was compact of many graines and the wine pressed foorth of many grapes which no baker nor vintner will denie which is smally to this purpose the place I say of Chrysost only flattereth you with these wordes b The wordes which I alleaged are thus The bread is vouchâ—afed the name 〈◊〉 the â—ody oâ— christ The nature of bread remaineth Why sir who denieth that the naturall properties of colour shape tast and feeding remaine no Catholique I am sure so that you see your testimonie out of him maketh not against vs nor auayleth you anie more then the painted fire warmed the old woman But the places of Chrysostome prouing the reall presence are so infinite that infinite madnesse it were M. Abbot and farre surmounting your Athenians madnesse to hazard my soule vpon such a testimonie as saith nothing against me R. Abbot 14. IN the places which I alleaged of Cyprian Chrysostome and Theodoret the Answ heart without doubt failed him For hée sawe it plainly euicted and proued by them and that so as that hee knew there was nothing for him to answere directly to the wordes that it is bread which in the sacrament is called the bodie of Christ and wine which is called his bloud Yet being vowed and sworne to his owne errour he will rather do or say any thing then yéeld vnto the trueth The places of Theodoret hée leaueth out quite who affirmeth that Christ honoured the visible signes with the name of his body and bloud that hée made exchange of names and gaue to his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his body To the places of Cyprian and Chrysostome he writeth somewhat but answereth nothing He taketh that which was not vrged and that which was to the point in question he slippeth by Let him remember what S. Austen saith a Aug. quaest ex yet â—â—st q. 14. He which concealeth the wordes of the matter in question is either an ignorant person or a wrangler studying rather for cauillinges then for doctrine The words of Cyprian are thus b Cypri lib. 1. Epist 6. Our Lord calleth bread made by the vniting of many cornes his body and wine pressed out of manie clusters and grapes he calleth his bloud To this hée saith childishly and vainly that it onely proueth that bread is made of many cornes and wine of many grapes shewing plainly that he made no conscience of his answere but was desirous to credite himselfe by writing somewhat howsoeuer But let Cyprian be further asked what is it that Christ calleth his bodie He saith it is bread What is it that Christ calleth his bloud It is wine Christ calleth the bread his body and the wine his bloud Now if there be neither bread nor wine in the sacrament as the Answ and his fellowes teach then Christ cannot call the bread his body nor the wine his bloud But because Christ calleth the bread his body and the wine his bloud therefore the meaning of these wordes This is my body This is my bloud is thus This bread is my body This wine is my bloud And because in proper spéech that cannot be true for so it c De consecr dist 2 ca. panis est is vnpossible as the glose of yâ— canon law saith that bread should be the body of Christ therefore it must be figuratiuely vnderstood This bread is the signe and sacrament of my body c. To this the words alleaged out of Chrysostome are verie pregnant d Chrysost ad Caesat Monachum The breadis vouchsafed the name of the body of Christ Why doth the Answ smoother vp these wordes and talke impertinently of that which in this place was not mentioned at all I talked not here of the nature remaining I tell him out of Chrysostome that after consecration it is bread which beareth the name of the body of Christ and let his owne conscience tell him whether that be any thing against him or not when as he and his companie say there is no bread remaining after consecration Chrysostome saith The bread is vouchsafed the name of the body of Christ The Papist saith There is no bread but the verie body of Christ it selfe As for his construction of the nature of bread remaining that is the colour shape taste and féeding without any substance of bread it maketh Chrysostome to speake fondly as himselfe vseth to doe namely thus The bread is vouchsafed the name of Christes body although there be no bread His infinite testimonies out of Chrysostome to prooue the reall presence are iust neuer a one He deceiâ—â—eth himselfe for want of the knowledge of that rule which Chrysostome himselfe giueth him vpon these wordes of Christ e chrys in Ioh. hom 46. The flesh profiteth nothing Hee meaneth it not saith he of the flesh it selfe God forbid But of those which carnally and fleshly vnderstand those thinges which are spoken And what is it to vnderstand carnally Marry simply as things are spoken
and not to bethinke any thing els For these things must not be iudged of as they seeme but all mysteries are to be considered with the inward eies that is to say spiritually The forging of this lesson maketh the Answ to play the Athenian mad man so that wheresoeuer he heareth of the body of Christ in the sacrament hée dreameth of his reall and carnall presence wheresoeuer he readeth of eating the flesh and drinking the bloud of Christ hée imagineth his carnall and Capernaitish feeding But let him vnderstand Chrisostome by Chrysostomes own rule and he shall finde nothing in him to stand him in any stéed for these grosse conceites P. Spence Sect. 15. YOur place of S. Cyprian Our Lord gaue at his supper bread and wine c. De vnctio Chrismat Besides many other places of S. Cyprian proouing the reall presence marke this place vnmaymed and tell me what you thinke of it and how you a I like it very well for hee saith plainly that Christ at his last supper gaue to his disciples with his own hands bread and wine like it But yet you make me maruell what you make in this Sermon prowling for a testimonie where the Sermon it selfe is wholly against you haue you in your church the vse b VVe neither haue it nor care to haue it because christ hath not taught of Chrisme so much in this sermon commended haue you retained c Dâ—gma tuum â—â—rdet cum te tua cuâ—pa remordet any shadowe of the publique and generall reconciliation of sinners spoken of him in this Sermon done by the Church with musick and common Iubilations and reioycings of the whole multitude in their reconciliation as heere S. Cyprian if you wil admit him for the authour of these Sermons wonderfull gallantly setteth out And withall doe ye like of this thing M. Abbot that he saith that it was done in that time by publique order of the Church when Christ as he vttereth it brought out the prisoners from hell Or as he saith a little before when as descending to hell he turned the olde captiuitie and led it captiue Or doe you like of this point that he left this example to his Church by tradition yet continuing that there should be in the Church absolution of sinners Thinke you Christ descended into hell I doubt you doe not except in that most pitifull damnable sorte to speake no worse of it which d It is horror to the Papist which is the speciall comfort of a true christian maÌ„ with horrour I must remember that hee should suffer hell tormentes himselfe vppon the Crosse What meant you then to put vs in minde of this booke so much condemning your practises and so notoriously testifying the auncient custom of hallowing of the oyle vpon this time of Christes passion to serue for all the yeare after And yet the fathers forsooth are yours against vs. I oppose nothing but wish to be quiet els you might heare whether they speake for vs. Thus then to the place he had shewed before that the Sacramentes one of the which hee maketh vnction by expresse word doe worke our ioyning to Christ for that coniunctions sake he inferreth Our Lord then at the table where he eate his last supper with his Apostles gaue with his owne handes bread and wine but vpon the crosse he yeelded his body to be wounded by the handes of the soulâ—iours But why or how to giue theÌ„ bare bread no But â—hat sincere trueth and true sinceritie being more secretly imprinted in the Apostles should declare vnto the nations What that the Sacramentes were bare e Not so but that being in tâ—en own nature but onely commoÌ„ creatures â—read wine yet by grace and by the worde of God they are to our faith not onely in name but in power the flesh bloud of christ the pledges of the grace of God the assuraÌ„ces of our immortalitie the seales of our redemption and as it were vessels wherin God setteth before vs all his promises of blessings that we may receiue and enioy the same bread and wine a deep high point forsooth in such secret figuratiue sort to be shewed No M. Abbot they should shew the nations How wine and bread are the flesh and bloud and in what sort the causes agree to the effects and diuers names or kindes are reduced or brought to one essence Do you heare essence they be brought to one essence or one substance helpe that sore if you can with all your cunning and the signes and the things signified are reckoned by the same names And he hath told you why they should be called by one name because as he said before with the same breath they were brought to one essence In the next period he termeth the Sacrament f Not because of the substaÌ„ce of iâ— but because of the mysterie and signification the tree of life Read what our side doth tell you vpon this and infinite such places in their bookes which my simplenesse is not worthy to beare or touch and yet you oppose me wil mine answers as though the credite of the cause hanged wholly vppon my small skill and learning or as though I must not beleeue the Catholique religion except I were a doctor in the same R. Abbot 15. THe Answerer being wéeried as it séemeth with the euidence of the testimonies cited against him and therefore desirous to take breath a while maketh an idle vagary in answering this place of a câ—prian de vnct chriâ—matis Cyprian and vrgeth me with other matters conteined and commended in that sermon which hée saith are not vsed or receiued in our Church as Chrisme absolution the descending of Christ into hell But I maruell whether he were well aduised or not when he wrote these thinges or whether hee vnderstood what Cyprian said To answere to them in order First hée demaundeth Haue you in your Church the vse of Chrisme so much in this sermon commended He bringeth no reason whereby to prooue anie necessitie of Chrisme and therefore it may be sufficient to answere him with the like demaund Haue you in your Church of Roome the custome of washing eche others feete vppon maundy thursday so much commended in this sermon and which you are here told that Christ b Hâ—â— soleâ—â—i d 〈…〉 tione omni tempore aâ—endum instituit instituted to be alwaies done with solemne deuotion in the vse wherof Saint c Ambros de sacram lib. 3. cap. 1. Ambrose also thought that his church of Millaine did more rightly then the old church of Roome in not vsing it He wil say the they haue lawfully refused this We say that we haue as lawfully refused the other These were arbitrary and indifferent ceremonies taken vp by the will of men and by the will of men and by the libertie of men to be refused againe d Staâ—ulen in Dâ—oni Aâ—cop Eccle. Hieraâ— Stapulensis vppon Dyonisius noteth many
and breaking him as the Prophet speaketh and as it were leading out his armies against him he in the meane time holding fast still vpon God to be his God who would bring him backe from these gates of death when he had finished the worke that was giuen him to doe but yet féeling nothing for the present whereby he might appeare to be his God But what can I say more of this spéech of Christ then Ferus hath said a man by profession of the church of Roome yet in many things not so grosse as Romanists commonly are Writing vppon these wordes of Christ he saith thus r Ferus in Matt 27. Here God the father dealeth with Christ not as a father but as a tyrant although hee be in the meane time of most louing affection towardes him This Christes being forsaken is the dread of our conscience for our sinnes feeling the iudgement of God and his eternall wrath and is so affected as if it were for euer forsaken and reiected from the face of God Christ of his mercie put himselfe into our cause and vndertooke the punishment that we had deserued Therefore on the one side wee see the people reuiling him the Pharisees blaspheming him c. On the other side we see God as an aduersarie forsaking him so that he crieth out why hast thou forsaken me Christ to deliuer sinners set himself in place of all sinners not playing the theefe or adulterer c but transferring vnto himself the stipend and wages the punishment and desert of sinners as colde heate hunger thirst feare trembling the horrour of death the horrour of hell despaire death hell it self that by feare he might ouercome feare by horrour despaire death hell might ouercome horror despaire death hell and in a word by Satan might ouercome Satan Thus by the testimonie of one of their own Prophets it is iustified that Christ Iesus suffered not onely a bodily death but also in his soule the waight of his fathers indignation and the very horrour of hell it selfe when he cried out and complained in that maner as hath béen declared And this is that which the scripture meaneth when it saith that ſ Gal. 3. 13. Christ was made a curse for vs to deliuer vs from the curse For as to be made sinne for vs importeth that he did beare the punishment of our sinnes so to be made a curse for vs importeth that he did beare the burden of our curse that is to say the full measure of the wrath of God that otherwise should haue lighted vpon vs. The fathers thought no lesse when they construed the 88. Psalme or the 87. as they reckon it to be the description of the passion of Christ Where we reade thus t Psal 88. 7. 1. 16. Thine indignation is set against me or lieth hard vppon me and thou hast vexed me with all thy stormes Lord why abhorrest thou my soule Thy wrathfull displeasure goeth ouer me and the feare of thee hath vndone me So is that Psal applied by u Athan. de interpret Psalm Arnob. Hieron in psal 87. Athanasius Arnobius and Hierome Austen also calleth the same w August in Psalm 87. a song of the passion of Christ though turning the wordes alleaged to another intention then they doe manifestly intimate vnto vs. Athanasius referring himselfe to those wordes Thy furie or indignation is set against me saith x Athanas de inter Psal Christ died not for that he was guiltie of sinnne himself but he suffered for vs and in himselfe did beare the wrath that was conceiued against vs for sinne euen as he saith elswhere y Idem in Euangel de pas cruce domi that he took the bitternesse of that wrath which arose by the transgression of the law and swallowed it vp and so made it void So z Hieron in Psal 87. Hierome bringeth in our Sauiour speaking out of these former wordes of the Psalme in this sort Thou hast brought vpon me that wrath and storme of thy furie and indignation which thou wouldst haue powred out vpon the nations because I haue taken vpon me their sinnes Yea Hilarie though a Hilar. de Trinit lib 10. elswhere in heate of contention with an hereticke he séeme vtterly to denie all passion and suffering of Christ whose verie opinion in effect I take it to be which b Ambros in Luc. cap. 22. lib. 10. S. Ambros reprooueth writing vpon Luke yet in his more aduised spéech of Sermon vpon one of the Psalmes he giueth a notable testimony to this trueth Christ c Hilar. in Psa 68. became subiect to the death of the Crosse the waters comming in euen vnto his soule when the violence of all sufferings beake forth euen to the death of the soule By and by after he sheweth his mind more plainly He descended euen to the depth not of the flesh only but of death it self and al the terror of that tempest which raged against vs lighted vpon him Thus therfore it is euident both by the authoritie of the scriptures and by the consent of the ancient fathers that Christ suffered for vs not only in body but also in soule that his suffering in soule was the enduring of the vttermost of that tempest of the wrath of God which should haue fallen vpon vs for sinne Which indéed should haue oppressed vs infinitely and without end because the infinite maiestie of God whom we had offended required an infinite satisfaction for the offence and the same could not be yéelded by vs but by infinite and endlesse bearing of his wrath But it neither would nor might hold Christ in that sort because the infinitenesse of the time was recompensed by the infinitenesse of the person who was not onely man but God also Now whereas it is vrged that one drop of the bloud of Christ was sufficient to redeeme the world I answere that it is folly héereof to conclude that he suffered not in his soule for vs and with as good reason they may conclude that he was not crowned with thornes spitted vpon mocked and reuiled c. Yea the he died not at all nor shed any more but one drop of bloud We are not to stand vpon the fancies of men what they will thinke enough to redéeme vs but wée must learne in the word of God what the Lord hath done for vs that we may accordingly admire his mercie and goodnesse and sing thanks and prayses vnto him Now that thus Christ descended into hell I know that otherwise he descended into hell though I stand not to denie it yet I dare not affirme it Neither is it any pittiful damnable and horrible matter to auouch this but it is a trueth to be professed and comfortable to be beléeued and the Answe in so condemning it doth but as S. Peter saith d ◠Pet. 2. 12. speake euill of those things which he knoweth not Now by this descending of Christ into hell
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
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
that which is more fit and conuenient to be spoken And if these men had thought that in proper spéech it is true that Christ is indéed offered or sacrificed to what purpose should they hauing mentioned the offering of him adioyne thus Or rather we worke the remembrance of a sacrifice as to mollifie that which was before hardly and vnproperly spoken Surely it had behoued the Answ for his honesties sake to shewe some reason why these men not talking of the death of Christ but expresly of the sacrifice which it is sayd the church did offer and hauing mentioned the offering of sacrifice and the offering of Christ should so recall their words and in effect say Nay we offer not a sacrifice indéed but rather performe the remembrance of a sacrifice But what can be more plaine then that of Theophylact m Theophyl in Heb. 10. We offer him the same alwaies or rather we make a remembrance of the offering of him as if he were now offerd or sacrificed Which words as if he were now offred make it as cleer as the sun-light that Christ is not now really and indéed offered in sacrifice For what reasonable man wold euer say as if he were now offered if he were perswaded that Christ is now indéed and verily offered To this purpose the words of Eusebius also are very pregnant n Euseb de demonstr Euan. lib. 1. cap. 10. Christ saith he offered a sacrifice to his father and ordeined that we should offer a remembrance thereof vnto God in steed of a sacrifice Then Christ ordeined not another sacrifice to be offered as Eusebius should haue saide if he had bene a Papist but in steed of a sacrifice in steed I say of a sacrifice he ordeined vnto vs to make a remembrance of his sacrifice Certainly these men if they had beléeued any such sacrifice as the Papists now take vpon them to practise could not haue omitted some plaine declaration thereof being in the places whence I alleaged these words so directly and fully occasioned thereto The same I say much more of Theodoret who so expresly proposeth the question of offering sacrifice o Theodor. in Heb. â— For if saith he the priesthood which is by the law be ended and the priest after the order of Melchisedec haue offered a sacrifice haue made that other sacrifices be not necessary why do the priests of the new Testament worke a mystical Liturgy or sacrifice Where if he would haue answered as a Papist he must haue sayd that they did indéed offer a very true sacrifice properly so called of the verie body and blood of Christ and that this derogateth not from the sacrifice of Christ vpon his Crosse but serueth to apply the same vnto vs and that all the spéeches of the Apostle against sacrificing doe touch onely the sacrifices of the Iewes But he as vnacquainted with these Popish deuises answereth simply plainly It is cleare to them that are instructed in diuine matters that we do not offer another sacrifice but do performe a remembrance of that one and healthfull sacrifice For this commandement the Lord himselfe gaue vs saying Do this in remembrance of me that by beholding the figures we might call to minde the sufferings that he vndertooke for vs c. By which words he plainly sheweth vs that after that one and healthfull sacrifice which Christ offered for vs which he expresseth by the sufferings of Christ the priests of the new Testament doe not now offer another sacrifice but performe onely a remembrance of that former sacrifice by those mysteries which Christ hath left to be celebrated in remembrance thereof Let S. Austen yet make this more plain saying that p August cont faustâ—m Manich. li. 2â— cap. 21. the flesh blood of Christs sacrifice was in his passion giuen in verie truth after his ascension is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance He maketh these diuers each from other to be giuen in verie truth and to be celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance applying the one to his passion the other to the Sacrament Now if to be giuen in verie truth belong to the Sacrament also then S. Austen speaketh vainly and idlely maketh a distinction without any difference But now opposing one to the other in verie truth and by a Sacrament of remembrance he sheweth that in the Sacrament of remembrance Christ is not really and truly sacrificed The Answ thought good to say nothing to that which I vrged concerning this opposition The other place of q August ep 23. Austen to Bonifacius I opened also somewhat vnto him and fully beforehand preuented him of his refuge in putting difference betwixt Christs death and Christ himselfe and yet forsooth all this maketh nothing against him The best kinde of bad answering when there is no good answere to serue the turne But S. Austen in that place noteth the offering of Christ r Semel in seipso singulis diebu in sacramento in himselfe to haue bene once that the offering which is sayd to be euery day is in a Sacrament or mysterie not in himself And to shew the cause why he is said in a Sacrament or mysterie to be offered euery day wheras in himselfe he was but once offered he saith that because Sacraments haue the resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments therefore they commonly take vnto them the names of the same things Euen as good Friday is said to be the day of Christs passion Sunday to be the day of Christes resurrection not because Christ suffereth euery good Friday or riseth againe euery Sunday but because these daies resemble and in course of time are answerable to those daies wherein Christ suffered and rose againe So therefore Christ is said to be offered euery day not because there is any reall sacrificing of him euery day but because his once offering of himselfe is daily in the Sacrament figured and remembred And this I shewed before out of the glose of the Canon law Å¿ De consâ—â—ra dist 2. cap. se mel in glosla Christ is offered that is the offering or sacrificing of Christ is represented and a memorie made of his passion Which words the Answ falsly and deceitfully extenuateth as if they serued no further but only to note a representation of Christs death and passion which he yéeldeth vnto Wheras the wordes serue to expounde what Austen and Prosper meant when they said that Christ is offered or sacrificed in a Sacrament and by the same exposition diminish the credit of the Roomish sacrifice For if these words The offering or sacrificing of Christ is represented and there is a memorie made of his passion be the true meaning of these words Christ is offered or sacrificed as the glose setteth downe what can be more euident to him that hath eyes to sée then that Austen and Prosper the other Fathers when they mention sacrifice as touching the
Lords Supper do not thereby meane that Christ is indéed and verily offered but only that his sacrifice is represented The collection that I made before and euen now noted again out of that place of S. Austen standeth firme sure to this purpose Namely that there is difference with Austen betwixt being offered in himself and being offered in a Sacrament or mysterie and that the name of offering or sacrificing when it is referred to the Sacrament is vsed not ex rebus ipsis for the truth of the thing it selfe but for the resemblance of the thing and therfore importeth not the offering of Christ in himselfe But this the Answ would not sée or take notice of because he should haue had nothing to write of this matter being therby excluded alreadie from all that he hath now said For his shift is â—o put difference betwixt Christes death and Christ himself and to say that Christ although he die no more yet is verily sacrificed in himselfe and my collection was before direct to the contrary that Christ is not now sacrificed in himselfe So that he sheweth himself a stout disputer to let the premisses go and deny the conclusion Now the necke of his sacrifice being thus broken in that it is proued that after the death of Christ there is no more offering for sinne that Christ is not now offered in himselfe but only the sacrificing of his body on the crosse celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance which yet is called by the name of sacrifice because sacraments are vsually called by the names of those things whereof they are Sacraments and we therein call to mind and shew Christs death and offering of himselfe as if he were then presently offered yet he setting a good face vpoÌ„ the matter when nothing else wil help him telleth me that these things touch him no more then the man in the Moone biddeth me to learne the state of the question better not to roue at random but to aime at the marke to put vp in my purse all those testimonies that I did alleage c. An easie and soone-made answere or rather an vnshamefast wretched shift But the yoong Crab must go as the olde Crab doth teach him and he must giue such answeres as other his forefathers haue bin wont to doe P. Spence Sect. 10. VVHerefore all the premisses considered whersoeuer all or any of your alleaged places do sound a remembrance memoriall and representation of a sacrifice and such like words take this for a full answere that they are memories and remembrances representations and if you wil figures too of the sacrifice of Christ But what sacrifice the sacrifice of his death the sacrifice of the Crosse which we do but represent for die any more he now cannot And because we doe not say that in our Masse Christ is crucified and dieth you do vs wrong so to burthen vs which in no Catholickes writing you can shew and therefore in pressing these authories against vs you touch vs no more then the man in the Moone but you wrankle two waies both in interpreting Sacrificium here in these places to be Eucharistia where it is meant of the offering the same in a sacrifice and not of it as it is absolutely a Sacrament only â—s though the Sacrament were but a remembrance figure or representation And also secondly herein you wrangle for that you would beare vs in hand the said authorities to mean the thing represented figured or recorded to be Christs bodie where they only call our sacrifice a remembrance figure and representation of Christes passion and death vpon the Crosse onely once done and now neuer more to be done or reiâ—erated but only to be recorded fygured and represented Learne better hereafter the state of your question and roue not at randome but aime at the marke and remember you fight not herein with vs but you skirmish with your aduersaries in theâ—ire with arguments fained forged and imagined of your selues Put a A patterne how to answer any thing easily and without any study vp therfore in your purse all your places of Chrysostom Ambrose Theâ—phylact Augustine Cyprian Aug. ad Bonaâ—acium the Glose de consecratiâ—â—e Cypriaâ— againe and Prosper Alexander the Pope and againe Chrysostome and Hâ—erome and Gregorie c. For they say nothing for you but what we confesse except you thinke vs so mad to thinke that we vse to crucifie and sley Christ in our Churches sacrifice an imagination fit for your merry gentleman the Athenian We must also tell you that you ouerreach in writing that the death and passion of Christ is the whole as much to say as the only matter substance so you terme it of this mysterie Christs reall bodie is the matter substance and thing offered in our sacrifice really but his passion is with all offered but as in a Commemoration So that our sacrifice hath b Nay it hath many things more then ouer Christ or any of his Apostles taught â—wo things two things Christs bodie really and his passion in a mysterie onely and a memorie Dolosus versaâ—ur in generalibus I wish you to speake more distinctly We graunt with you his passion but that only represented we haue also his bodie and blood and that verily present verily offered Else all that you can infer of the aforesaid authorities we also confesse so far as gladly as you do Sauing that wheras you saâ—e that it is no maâ—â—ell though the Fathers called this mysterie a sacrifice For they meant it was so called but was not so indeede that we yeelde not vnto For we saie the Fathers called it a sacrifice because they meant as they spake and no where denie it and we could shewe if there were any waight in your reasons to presse vs so farre where the Fathers giue reasons why it is a sacrifice because c A Roomish deuise which ther 's neuer knew the bloodie sacrifice of the Crosse and death are offered and sacrificed man vnbloodie sacrifice Châ—â—st himselfe being verily offered his death only recorded with thankesgiuing and by this vnbloodie sacrifice of Christs verie bodie the vertue of that bloodie sacrifice is daily applied to the faithfull And therefore where you aske whether Christ indeed doth d Either he really suffereâ—h and dâ—eth in the Masse or else he is not really offered The Fathers speake of both alike as I shewed really suffer in the Churches sacrifice or sweat water and blood or be condemned or nailed to the Crosse they are idle phantasticall questions But to answere you we do not thinke so Be of good cheare man we do not thinke so we neuer thought said or e Doct. Allen hath written that Christ iâ— verily slaine in the Masse wrote so Yet we thinke and till you come neerer the marke we will still so thinke that vnbloodily but really wee sacrifice and offer the same Christs verie true bodie and blood to the whole Trinitie for