of the church mouth and eyes and spirit of the Church next Gods spirit a verie goodly noble and great part of the church far the best and fairest part of the church but their seuerall opinions are not the whole churches doctrine That question hath so many braunches that in this short discourse I cannot touch all the particularities thereof to our treatises therefore I refer you Was Gelasius Pope of Rome how proue it you if we deny it we maruell why you thinke so If he had bene Pope were all his bookes dogmaticke and definitiue b It skilleth not though he did not For Bellarmine telleth vs that it is most probable that the Pope cannot erre in his priuate iudgement It must be an Oracle therfore what soeuer he writeth whether as Pope or as a priuat man did he if he had bene Pope pronounce them pro tribunal◠Did he send them as responsa and decretall epistles Did neuer Popes write bookes and yet not in all points taken for Oracles Aeneas Siluius after he was Pope wrote much so did others You are wide and go astraie far from the state of that question I say no more but view our questions therein Theodoret Gelasius are answered at large whatsoeuer they thought they were far from your minde Theodoret at that time was so partiall as in the controuersie betweene him and Cyrill it appeareth that he was faine to recant ere he could bee reconciled And in these verie Dialogues we can shew you errors yea foule of his It is not vnlikely that hee followed sometimes the counsell that himselfe in the same Dialogues giueth that is to make a crooked wand straight to bend it as much the other way And now sir to come to Gelasius who in euerie point accordeth with Theodoret against the Eutychian heresie first he writeth thus Sapientia aedificauit sibi domum septiformis spiritus soliditate subnixam c. I will English it for the same cause Thus it is Wisedome that is Christ the wisedome of the father hath builded for it selfe an house grounded or leaning vpon the soundnesse of the seuenth fold spirit which should minister the foode or nourishment of Christs incarnation whereby or by which foode we are made partakers of the diuine nature Verily the Sacraments of the bodie blood of Christ which we receiue are a diuine thing for the which cause by the same also are we made partners of the diuine nature and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not to be or looseth not his being vtterly and is anihilated and becommeth nothing and certes in the action or celebration of the mysteries or Sacraments an image or similitude or resemblance of Christs bodie and blood is celebrated or practised It is therefore euident inough shewed vnto vs that we ought to thinke the same thing to bee in Christ our Lorde himselfe which we professe to be which we celebrate and which we receiue in his image he meaneth in the Sacrament that euen as they the Sacrament of bread and wine by the working of the holie Ghost do passe ouer or be chaunged into a diuine substance remaining neuerthelesse in the propertie of their nature right so do they shew that that verie principall mysterie it selfe by which he meaneth Christ God man now being in two natures one person in heauen whom the hereticke Eutyches would haue in heauen to haue lost his manhood and to be but God alone whose efficiencie or perfect nature and vertue they the sayd Sacraments do truly represent the things whereof it properly consisteth it is the two natures of the diuinitie and humanitie in one person still remaining doth remaine and continue one Christ because he is whole and truly being or consisting in his whole and true natures of God and man in one person This testimony of Gelasius might seeme perhaps to make somewhat for a Lutheran because it seemeth to affirme in the B. Sacrament to be two substances a diuine substance bread and wine but the Caluinist lacketh foure of his fiue wits to vrge it which maketh flat against him not only in the verie words but most chiefly in the drift of the argument against Eutyches which by the consideration c His circumstances serue only to blinde the eies of the reader The troubling of the riuer is for the aduantage of the fisher of the circumstances following shall most euidently appeare for that the verie words force of the reason or argument here made do proue Christs bodie to be really present which he denieth Eutyches the Abbot who was condemned in the Chalcedon Councell at which time Gelasius flourished held that our Sauiour Christ his deitie or diuine nature after his ascension into heauen did d As touching the substance not as touching the properties euen as the Papists say of the bread wine consume and anihilate or bring to nothing his humane nature So that by his heresie Christ now shuld be no more man but God alone The truth of the B. Sacrament that therein Christ was really continued was so commonly and firmely beleeued and professed in the holie church e That because neuer any Father taught it the Answerer is driuen to seeke proofe thereof from the heretickes that there were diuerse heretickes that vsed or rather abused the same for an argument pretensedly to confirme their heresies The Maniches to proue that the ill god such was their blasphemous heresie had imprisoned certaine parcels or peeces of the good God in these worldly creatures earthly things alleaged Christ whom they f Vntruth S. Austen doth not graunt it called the good God to be really in the Sacrament but S. Augustine graunting them Christ to be really therein saith hee is there by consecration not by creation or as it were imprisoned So touching our case of Gelasius the Eutychian against whom he wrote held Christ in heauen his humanitie being gone to be only God in like maner as his diuine nature only is in the Sacrament the bread and wine being anihilated and consumed vnto nothing g A leaud tale wholy deuised of the Answ himselfe Eutyches neuer imagined any such matter as shall appeare nothing therein remaining of the substantiall properties or natures of bread and wine but onely Christs diuine nature So certaine a veritie it was then currant in the whole church and to the verie heretickes that Christ is really in the B. Sacrament Whereupon by a similitude or resemblance taken from the Sacrament he wold haue nothing remaining in heauen of Christs humanitie but the same being vanished into nothing his Deitie only there to remain as the bread is cōsumed in the Sacrament Against this similitude Gelasius replieth not denying Christs bodie diuine nature to be really in the Sacrament which was and euer hath bene a generall currant and confessed truth which otherwise had serued his turne much better to deny and thereby had he more readily and directly reiected
and reprooued the argument framed against him by that similitude But confessing that the Sacraments of bread wine do passe ouer and be turned into a diuine substance thereby granting a reall presence of Christ God and man and in effect transubstantiation only he denieth the bread to be anihilated or become nothing or as he termeth it desinere esse to cease from hauing any being at all Before Berengarius neuer any man held that h Vntruth for all the Fathers held the same as shall appear by many of them in that which followeth Christs bodie was not really in the Sacrament nor that the whole substance of bread and wine vnchaunged were in the Sacrament either without anie other substance as Zwinglius and Caluin holde or ioyned togither with Christs bodie by impanacion as Luther held but that the bread and wine by a conuersion were made Christs bodie blood which conuersion in the church of God in the greatest Councell that euer was held called the Laterane Councell where occasion was offered of the full search of the matter by Berengarius heresie by the instinct i Not of the holie Ghost but of the spirit of Sathan to bring in idolâ—try into the Temple of God of the holie Ghost most agreeable to the greatest number and the best learned of the Fathers defined to be by transubstantiation that is the whole substances of bread wine being turned into the whole substance of Christs body and blood his Godhead being ioyned thereto per concomitantiam Yet did Innocentius vnder whom that Councell was holden thus write that though the substance of the bread and wine were changed into Christ yet there remained not only the accidents or accidentall properties but also the naturall properties namely as he there speaketh panietas breadinesse to driue away hunger and vineitas wininesse to driue away thirst and the force or nature of nourishing So that this turning of the bread and wine into Christs bodie was not anihilation or vtter vanishing of the bread as Gelasius denieth not a naturall change as is wrought in naturall conuersions where the same matter remaining vnder both formes only the first forme is changed into an other forme I meane not forma accidentalis but forma essentialis by which things they haue their being and substance neither change of the matter that is vnder the essentiall forme the said essentiall forme remaining but in this wonderfull sacrifice is a most diuine and miraculous change of both the matter and essentiall forme of bread into the whole substance of Christs bodie And that was so established least by ioyning either the matter or the essentiall forme of bread with Christs bodie they should graunt k A waightie consideration verily and fit for the learning of such graue Fathers impersonation that is any substance sauing Christ to be personally vnited with Christ It was not a matter clearly l Christ and his Apostles neuer cleerly defined that there was any transubstantiation defined before the said Councell what kind of conuersion it was neither heresie not to iumpe in iust termes with transubstantiation before that time so that the reall presence were not denied as after Berengarius did nor the substance of bread wholy were affirmed to remaine as neuer any Father said Onely Gelasius to make a resemblance betweene the Sacrament which he calleth an image of Christs being in heauen and Christs two natures in one person in heauen which he termeth in this comparing of them togither the principall mysterie he saith two things first that the Sacrament is a diuine thing by which we are made partners of the diuine nature And that it is so because the Sacrament by the working of the holie Ghost doth passe ouer into a diuine substance What m He must say more or else it will not serue for transubstantiation See the answere more could he haue said for the reall presence or transubstantiation The second thing which to answere and stop the quarrelling hereticke he addeth is that the substance of bread and wine do not cease to be that is to say doth not vtterly perish into nothing but remaineth vnder the chaunge which word Substance he mollifieth and interpreteth by adding or nature of bread and by and by after he calleth it the propertie of the nature of bread where the heretickes for or which is a word interpreting the former haue foysted in substance and nature of bread So that Gelasius meant not that the whole substance of bread remaineth in the Sacrament but that not only the accidentall properties but also the verie essentiall properties as Innocentius before named also set downe of bread and wine do remaine and that was inough against the hereticke And n It may be that Gelasius did deny tâ—ansubstantiation because the church as then knew it not it may be that he being before the generall definition of the church did not much trouble himselfe with the exact search thereof thinking that the same matter or else the same essentiall forme remained in that blessed conuersion but not the whole substance that is the whole essentiall forme and the whole matter And so many in these daies held without heresie as S. Thomas contragentes declareth which now after the churches generall definitioÌ„ were damnable Otherwise if we would vrge the word Substantia in Gelasius and not admit Gelasius his qualification thereof and exposition of his vel natura proprietas naturâ— which euerie Catholicke admitteth this absurditie were too beastly and blasphemous for Gelasius so holy a Father and old fellow that Christs bodie were vnited personally or become one person with the bread so that Christ were one person of three natures the Godhead the manhood the breadhood which is most peeuish blasphemie And for Gelasius to admit o To admit the same to remaine without the substaâ—ce serued fitly and fully for the heresie of Eutyches See the answere the nature or substantiall properties to remaine as himselfe termeth them was inough to stop the Eutychian heretickes mouth who denied any naturall propertie to remaine at all in the Sacrament And therfore thus much is to be noted that the force of the coÌ„parison between Christs being in heauen in the blessed Sacrament is not in this point that in heauen he is in both substance of manhood and Godhead euen as in the Sacrament are two whole substances Christs body the whole substance of bread and wine But the similitude is herein that as in the diuine Sacrament with the verie true bodie of Christ which Gelasius calleth a diuine substance there are conioyned essentiall substantiall and naturall properties of bread and wine Euen so in heauen Christ in one person hath vnited all the naturall and essentiall properties of his two natures the Godhead and the manhood vnconfounded inuiolable whole and distinct which is as much as out of the heretickes obiection of the Sacrament he needed to reply or vrge against him
nature of bread wine The words are plaine that in the Sacrament there remaineth the substance of bread and wine What should a man go about to cast a mist before the Sunne or by shifting and paltering to obscure that which is as cléere as the shining light Why do not the Answ and his fellowes say that Gelasius aboue a thousand yeares ago was a Caluinist and erreâ— in that point But he addeth further And surely in the exercise of the Sacraments there is celebrated an image resemblance of the bodie and blood of Christ Whereupon he inferreth thus against Eutyches It is therefore euidently inough shewed vnto vs that we must thinke the same in our Lord Iesus Christ which we professe celebrate and receiue in his image And what do we professe in his image that is in the Sacrament Forsooth saith the Papist we must professe that the substance of bread and wine is abolished and only certaine properties and shewes of bread and wine remaine Why then so must we thinke also of Christ himselfe that the substance of his manhood is extinguished and that there remain only certaine accidents and shewes thereof in which he liued here as a man was crucified as a man but was not man indéed which is the very thing that Eutyches desired But Gelasius telleth vs far otherwise that as these namely the bread and wine by the working of the holie Ghost do passe ouer into a diuine substance yet continue in the proprietie of their own nature so they shew that that principall mysterie the force and vertue whereof these do 〈◊〉 represent vnto vs doth continue one Christ whole and true those natures properly remaining whereof he doth consist Let the Answ marke well that we must think the same iâ— Christ as we do in the Sacrament his image If consecration then take away the substance of bread and wine as Papists teach then personall vniting of the manhood vnto God taketh away the substance of the manhood as Eutyches affirmed He knoweth I say he knoweth that the comparison vsed by Gelasius enforceth so much if it be applied to the disproofe of Eutyches his heresie rightly truly reported Now as Gelasius draweth his comparison from the Sacrament to Christ so doth S. Austen as Gratian alleageth him from Christ to yâ— Sacrament a De consecra dist 2. cap. Hoc est This is it which we say saith he which by all meanes we labor to approue that the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two things the visible forme of the elements and the inuisible flesh and blood of our Lorde Iesus Christ of the Sacrament and the matter of the Sacrament thâ—â— is the bodie of Christ euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man for that Christ is truly God and truly mâ—â— For euery thing conteineth the nature and truth of those thinges whereof it is made By which words it is most plaine and euâ—dent that as the person of Christ consisteth of the Godhead and manhood veriâ—â— and â—â—â—ly so the Sacrament consisting of the visible element and the â—odiâ— of Christ of an earthly thing a heauenly thing as b Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. Ireneus speaketh conteineth the nature and truth of them both and therefore the nature truth of bread and wine And if the truth then the substance as Gelasius reasoneth concerning Christ c Gelas con Eurych If he be truly man then there is in him the true substance of the nature of man because otherwise he cannot be truly man but abiding substantially trâ—e in the proprietie of his nature So if there be the truth of the outward elements in the Sacrament then there is in them their true substance For otherwise there cannot be the truth of them but as they abide substantially true in the proprietie of their nature This collection togither with the places of Austen and Ireneus I set downe before sufficiently prouing the falshood of Transubstantiation But the Answ thought good to passe it ouer without any mention because he could not finde any answere at all to it which serueth not for the maintenance of Eutyches his heresie as do all those shifts and collusions whereby he goeth about to darken the euidence and clearenesse of Gelasius his words Let vs sée now what good stuffe there is conteined in them In his first and fourth circumstances he bewraieth either his ignorance or else his partialitie and falshood For taking in hand by way of circumstance to set downe the heresie of Eutyches where he should haue done it wholly faithfully he doth it but in part and deceitfully that it may not séem to make so directly against his breadlesse bread For he restraineth it only to yâ— time after Christs ascension as if Eutyches had thought that the humanitie of Christ was not consumed till after the time that he was ascended Whereas Gelasius in the very next words to the place before alleaged giueth plainly to vnderstand that Eutyches meant the abolishing of the substance of the manhood euen while Christ was on the earth though he reteined the shew and aprearance of man yea and continued passible also by reason whereof he sayd his Godhead suffered and was crucified which suffering was the very substantiall propertie of the humane nature For Eutyches held not the annihilating of the properties of the manhood as the Answ imagineth but the conâ—ounding of them with the properties of the Godhead so yâ— the Godhead by those properties did suffered those things which belonged to the manhood And this appeareth plainly in the definition of the Chalcedon Councell where it is thus sayd d Concil chalced Act. 5. in definit They fondly imagine that there is but one nature of the Godhead and the flesh and so by a monstrous confusion of Christ they signifie that the diuine nature or Godhead is passible and subiect to suffering So that Eutyches held the same of Christ on the earth as the Papists do of the bread in the Sacrament that there was the shewe and appearance of man and the properties of the manhood remaining but the substance was consumed euen as these do hold that there is in the Sacrament a shew of bread and the properties of bread remaining but the substance of the bread is vanished How then shuld Gelasius go about to refute the heresie of Eutyches by the Sacrament if his opinion as touching the Sacrament had bene the same that the Papists now is Againe whereas he saith that Eutyches held that the bread was vtterly annihilated nothing remaining therin of the substantiall properties or natures thereof he deserueth the iust reproach of a false vnshame fast person For what a peruerse and wilfull man is he to deuise such a matter of his owne braines for proofe or likelihood wherof there is not so much as any shew to be found in any auncient writer Eutyches forsooth held that panietas viâ—eitas the breaddinesse of
the bread and the winynesse of the wine were gone and Gelasius defended that the breadinesse and winynesse do still remaine though there be neither bread nor wine So his good maisters e Index Expurgat in censura Bertra the authors of the Index Expurgatorius to auoyd the euidence of Bertrams disputation say that he wrote against certaine men which held that there was not so much as the outward formes of bread and wine remaining in the sacrament but that that which was séene was the superficies or outside or skin of the body or flesh of Christ O leaud and vnconscionable men Where were these men or what story euer made mention of any such How dare they of their owne heads so boldly publish such vaine tales How doth that harlot of Rome be witch and enchaunt her louers that for her sake they care not what how foolishly absurdly falsly they speake so that it may serue them for a shift to blind the eyes of the vnlearned But the matter as touching Eutyches is plain by Theodoret that he yéelded and confessed that Christ in the deliuery of the mysteries called f Theodor. dial 1. To these things he answereth Ita nominauâ—t In coâ—â—esso est Hoc verâ— dixisti â—ta dico bread his bodie and wine his blood that he honoured these visible signes with the name of his bodie and blood not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature that these were the signes not of his Deitie but of those things whose names they did beare that is of his body blood which he acknowledged that Christ did truly take but hauing taken them changed them into his diuine nature With what face then doth the Answ say that the hereticke thought that the bread and wine were vtterly annihilated that nothing of their nature remained that the Sacrament was a matter onely of Christs diuine nature It were answere inough vnto him to laie open this his false and vnhonest dealing but yet I go forward In saying that Gelasius vsed these words by way of reply to Eutyches his comparison which he doth to the ende that hauing made of Eutyches his heresie what he list he may hew Gelasius his words to be an answere to that fancie of his he againe dealeth amisse with Gelasius For he of his owne accord vseth them to declare the point whereof he disputed namely that as the bread and wine in the Sacrament become diuine thinges so as that by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet they loose not their former substance so though the manhood of Christ by personall vnion with the Godhead be highly aduanced so that it is truly said that the man Christ is God yet he looseth not the substance and nature of the manhood But supposing that the hereticke had vrged Gelasius with that comparison and had affirmed the presence of Christs diuine nature only in the Sacrament how I maruell doth the Answ imagin that it had serued for a direct answere to haue denied the reall presence Should he haue denied the real presence of the diuine nature That none denieth because g Vigiâ— lib. 1. cont â—uty Plena sunt omnia filio nec est aâ—iquis locus diâ—initatis eius praesentia vacuus it is of the nature of the Godhead to be euery where Should he haue denied the reall presence of the bodie of Christ which is the very question How had that serued his turne against the hereticke which neither vrged him with reall presence of the body nor thought that Christ had any body at all What a wise man is this to write thus he knoweth not what without rime or reason without head or taile Surely for Gelasius to deny the reall presence in this place had bin to talke as the Answ doth beside the purpose foolishly idlely of matters wherof no occasion was giuâ—n to him In the second circumstance he setteth downe his Cuckowes note which he rehearseth again in yâ— fourth fifth sixth to fasten it in the eies memories of his secret readers as being a speciall pillar to vphold his cause He telleth me forsooth yâ— the real presence of yâ— body of Christ was a truth commonly knowne currant generally confessed in the primitiue church wherof notwithstanding neither he nor all his followes for him are able to giue any certaine and apparant proofe out of any of the Fathers writings But because the Fathers faile him he would prooue it by the heretickes who as he saith did reason from it as from a comon receiued truth to prooue their heresies It is a shamâ— we say to bely the Deuil why doth the Answ bely the hereticks to make theÌ„ yâ— witnesses of his real presence Indéed if it had béen a matter theÌ„ receiued it had serued fit for the heresies of Marceon Manes Apollinaris such like who taught that Christ had neuer any true bodie indéede but only a phantasy and shew of a body For they might and would haue said do ye not confesse that Christes body iâ— really in the sacrament yet nothing to be séen but the outward shew of bread and wine It is here it is there it is in euery priestes handes in euery piâ— in euery part of the world at once in the quantity and likenesse of a cake What is this else but a fancy of a body Thus they would haue reasoned if it had béene so beléeued especially when the auncient Fathers themselues gaue them occasioÌ„ therof by proouing that Christ had a true body because that the sacrament is vsed in token of his body and bloud wherein he suffered and was put to death for vs. But they vsed not a word to this purpose because there was no such thing then beléeued The manichées whom the Answ nameth in the third circumstance dreamed as S. Austen h Augst con faust Manich. lib. 20. ca. 11. declareth that Christ was really in the Sunne and Moone and vpon the crosse and hanging at euery bough c. and all at once S. Austen telleth them that Christ i Secundum corporalem praesentiam according to his bodily presence could not be at once in the Sunne and Moone and vpon the crosse and therby crosseth the real presence of the Papists wherby they hold christ corporally to be in heauen and in earth in this mans handes and that mans handes and infinite places and all at once contrary to the nature of a true body wherto S. Austen in those wordes alludeth Now wheras the Answ saith that S. Austen being vrged by the Manichée with the reall presence did graunt the same he lewdly abuseth S. Austen For the hereticke k ibid ca. 1. obiecting that the church vsed the bread and wine in the sacrament with the same superstitious conceipt which they maintained namely that Christ was realy bound in them S. Austen Answereth Å¿ Ibid. ca. 13. that the church did not vse the bread and wine for a sacrament of
of eating and drinking Iob. 6. are not to be vnderstood properly but by a figure sect 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 30. That the Doctours of the Romish church by the defence of Transubstantiation haue bene driuen to most impious and damnable questions and assertions sect 29. That the place of the Gospell Luc. 22. 20. which they so much cauil vpon out of the Greeke maketh nothing at all for Transubstantiation as by diuerse other reasons so by the confession Bellarmine himselfe sect 31. That the assumption of the virgin Mary is a meere fable sect 33. That the Church hath no authoritie after the Apostles to authorize any scriptures and that we seclude no other bookes from the canon of the bible then the old church did sect 34. How wickedly the Papists deale in mangling and martyring the writings of the Fathers sect 35. That our doctrine of iustification before God by faith onely is the verie trueth which both the scriptures and out of them the Fathers haue manifestly taught that it maketh nothing against good workes that the place of S. Iames cap. 2. maketh nothing against it sect 36. May it please thee gentle Reader first of all to take notice of these two places of Chrysostome Gelasius which haue bene the occasion of all this controuersie for thy better satisfaction I haue noted them both in English and Latin though otherwise to auoyd both tediousnesse of writing and vnnecessarie charges of printing I haue thought good to set downe the places alleaged onely translated into English The place of Chrysostome against the vse of water in the cup of the Lords table CVius rei gratia non aquam sed vinum post resurrectionem bibit Chrysost in Math. hom 83. Perniciosam quandam haeresin radicitùs euellere voluit eorum qui aqua in mysterijs vtuntur Ita vt ostenderet quia quando hoc mysteriuÌ„ tradidit vnum tradidit etiam post resurrectionem in nuda mysterij mensae vino vsus est Exgenimine ait vitis quae certè vinum non aquam producit In English thus But why did Christ after his resurrection drinke not Water but Wine He would plucke vp by the rootes a certaine pernicious heresie of them which vse water in the Sacrament So that to shew that when he deliuered this Sacrament he deliuered wine euen after his resurrection also he vsed wine at the bare table of the Sacrament Of the fruite of the vine saith he which surely bringeth foorth wine and not water The place of Gelasius against Transubstantiation CErtè sacramenta quae sumimus corporis sanguinis Christi diuina Gelasius cont Eutych Nestor res est propter quod per eadem diuinae efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non desiuit substantia vel natura panis vini Et certe imago similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur Satis ergò nobis euidenter ostenditur hoc nohis in ipso Christo domino sentiendum quod in eius imagine profitemur celebramus et sumimus vt sicut in haenc scilicet in diuinam transeunt sancto spiritu perficiente substantiam permanent tamen in suae proprietate naturae sic illud ipsum mysterium principale cuius nobis efficientiam virtutemque veracitèr repraesentant ex quibus constat propriè permanentibus vnum Christum quia integrum verumque permaenere demon strant In English thus Verily the Sacraments which we receiue of the bodie and blood of Christ are a diuine thing by reason whereof we also by them are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet there ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine And surely an image or esemblance of the bodie and blood of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries It is therefore euidently inough shewed vnto vs that we must thinke the same in our Lord Iesus Christ which we professe celebrate and receiue in his image that as these namely the bread and wine do by the working of the holie Ghost passe ouer into a diuine substance and yet continue in the proprietie of their owne nature so they shew that that principall mysterie the efficiencie vertue wherof these do represent vnto vs doth abide one Christ because whole and true those natures properly remaining whereof he doth consist M. Spence hauing had my bookes to peruse these places sent me in writing this answere to them SIr I right hartily thanke you for the willing minde you hauâ— towards me Truly I should be verie vnkinde if I knew mâ— selfe vnaffectioned to so much good will I am in prison and pouertie otherwise I should be some way answerable to your friendlinesse In the meane season good will shall be readie for good will Touching the words of S. Chrysostome He would plucke vp by the rootes a certaine pernicious heresie of them which vse water in the Sacrament c. Read the 32. Canon of the sixth Councell holden at Constantinople and there you shall find vpon what occasion this golden mouth did vtter these words and not only that but also mention of S. Iames and S. Basils masse or sacrifice left to the church in writing The words of the Canon begin thus Because we know that in the country of the Armenians wine onely is offered at the holie table c. The heresie therefore against which he wrote was of the a Vntruth For neither doth Chrysostome intimate any thing against the Armenians or such as vse wine only neither was it heresie in theÌ„ that did so Armenians and the Aquarians the first whereof would vse onely wine the other onely water in the holie mysteries Against which vse being so directly against both the scriptures and custome of the primitiue church he wrote the same which he saith of pernicious heresie as before I cannot doubt of your hauing the Councels or some of them Your other booke conteining the words of Gelasius I wil not yet answere being printed at Basil where we suspect many good works to be corrupted abused But if it proue so to be yet the whole faith of Christs church in that point may not be reproued against so many witnesses of scriptures and fathers b Neither scripture not Father auoucheth the contrarie auouching the contrarie Nay what words should Christ haue vsed if he had meant to make his bodie blood of the bread and wine as we say he did other then these This is my bodie which shall be giuen c. And gaine for this is my blood of the new Testament which shal be shead for many for remission of sinnes Marke well the speeches and they be most wonderfull as most true All the world and writings therein c The Gospell it selfe is sufficient to perswade him that will be perswaded â—nforming vs of a true and naturall bodie of Christ and not of a fantasticall bodie in the fashion quantitie of a wafer cake cannot
again in this mysterie his flesh suffereth for the saluation of the people and Cyprian We sticke to the crosse we sucke the blood and fasten our tongues within the wounds of our redeemer and Chrysostome againe Good Lord the iudge himselfe is led to the iudgement seat the creator is set before the creature he which cannot be seene of the angels is spitted at by a seruant he tasteth gall and vâ—neger he is thrust in with a speare he is put into a graue c. In which maner of speaking S. Hierome saith Happie is he in whose heart Christ is euerie day borne and againe Christ is crucified for vs euerie day and S. Austen Then is Christ slaine vnto Aug. ouaesâ— Euan. li 2. q. 33. euery man when he beleeueth him to haue bene slaine Doe you thinke that these thinges are really done in the Sacrament as the words sound that Christ indeed suffereth dieth is burted that we cleaue to his crosse c S. Austen telleth you The offering of the De cons dist 2. cap. Hoc est flesh which is performed by the hands of the priest is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Séeing then the passion of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer and the passion of Christ is to be vnderstood in the Sacrament not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie it followeth that that sacrifice is likewise â—o to be vnderstood not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysserie and therefore that the sacrifice which you pretend is indéed sacriledge as I haue termed it and a manifest derogation from the sufficiency of Christs sacrifice vpon his crosse As touching the matter of Transubstantiation I alleaged vnto Gâ—las cont â—u yâ—h Nâ—st you the sentence of Geâ—asâ—â—â— Bishop of Rome There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine You answere me first that you suspect it to be corrupted by some of ours There is no cause M. Spence of that suspitioÌ„ but the shamelesse dealing of some leaud varlets of your side is notorious that way and infamous through all the Church of God Your owne clerkes cannot deny the truth of this allegation as they do not of many other sayings of the auncient Fathers as plainly contrary to your positions as this is Albeit Index Expurg in censura Bertrami they practise therein that which they professe in the Index Expurgatorius where they say In the old Catholicke Doctors we beare with many errours and we extenuate them excuse them by some deuised shift do oftentimes deny them and faine a conuenient meaning of them when they are opposed vnto vs in disputations or in contention with our aduersaries Indéed without these pretie shifts your men could finde no matter whereof to compile their answers But being taken for truly alleaged you say yet the whole faith of Christs Church in that point may not by his testimony be reproued against so many witnesses of scriptures and Fathers to the contrarie Whereas you should remember that Gelasius was Bishop of Rome that what he wrote he wrote it by way of iudgement and determination against an hereticke and therfore by your owne defence could not erre And if it had bene against the receiued faith of the Catholicke Church in those daies the heretickes against whom he wrote would haue returned it vpon him to his great reproach But he spake as other auncient Fathers had done before him as Theodor. dial 1. Theodoret He which called himselfe a vine did honour the visible elements and signes with the name of his bodie and blood not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature And againe The Dial. 2. mysticall signes after consecration do not go from their own nature for they continue in their former substance figure and forme c. chrysost ad caesarium Monach August apud â—edam in 1. cor 10. Chrysostome thus Before the bread be consecrated we call it bread but the grace of God sanctifying it by the ministerie of the priest it is freed froÌ„ the name of bread is vouchsafed the name of the Lords bodie although the nature of bread remaine in it Austen thus That which you see is bread and the cup which your eyes also do tell you De consect dist 2 cap. â—oc est But as touching that which your faith requireth for in â—ructioÌ„ bread is the bodie of Christ and the cup is his blood And againe This is it which we say which by all meanes we labour to approue that the sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things the visible forme of the elements and the inuisible flesh and blood of our Lorde Iesus Christ of the Sacrament and the matter of the Sacrament that is the bodie of Christ And that you may not take that visible forme of the elements for your emptie formes and accidentes without substance which and many other things your Censours aboue-named say The latter age of the Church subtilly and truly added by the holie Index Expurgat in censura Bertrami Ghost confessing thereby that these Popish subâ—ilties were not knowne at all to the auncient Fathers take withall that which he addeth Euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man for that Christ is true God true man because euery thing conteineth the nature and truth of those things whereof it is made By which rule you may vnderstand also the saying of Irenee The Eucharist Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. consisteth of two things an earthly and a heauenly namely so as that it conteineth the nature and truth of them both By these places and many other like it is euident that albeit in this Sacrament there is yéelded vnto the faith of the receiuer the bodie and blood of Christ and the whole power and vertue thereof to euerlasting life yet there ceaseth not to be the substance nature and truth of bread and wine Which is the purport of Gelasiuâ— his words By the Sacraments which we receiue of the bodie and blood of Christ we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet there ceaseth not to be the subsance or nature of bread and wine The force of which words and of the wordes of Theodoret you shall perceiue the better if you know how they are directed against Eutyches the hereticke The hereticke in Theodorets Dialogues by a comparison drawen from Dial. â— the sacrament wold shew how the bodie of Christ after his assumption into heauen was swallowed vp as it were of his diuinitie and so Christ ceased to be truly man As said he the bread and wine before the blessing are one thing but after the blessing become another and are changed so the bodie or humanitie of Christ whereby he was truly man before is after-his ascension glorification changed into the substance of God But Theodoret answereth him Thou art
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
at that time and vpon that occasion Thus much of Gelasius whom you affirme for the Bishop of Rome but you cannot prooue it for this Gelasius was neuer Bishop of Rome R. Abbot 11. THe whole béeing of the sacrifice of the masse resteth vpon this next point of transsubstantiation which béeing ouerthrowen the sacrifice consequently falleth to the grounde Nowe that is plainly ouerthrowen by the testimonies of Gelasius and Theodoret amongst others in my former answere alledged who both expresly affirme the substance of bread and wine after consecration But to vnwind himselfe from the euidence of their words it is straunge to sée what miserable and wretched shiftes the Answerer vseth and all in vaine He taketh exception against this Gelasius that he was not Bishop of Rome Then though he were yet all that he wrote was not of authority because he did not pronounce it from his consistory chaire c. Thirdly whatsoeuer he thought he was farre from our mind Againe Theodoret was not of sound iudgement he had foule errors and to make a crooked wand straight he did bend it too much the other way that is to confound Eutyches his heresie he did plainely and flatly deny popishe transsubstantiation But all these shifts the Answerer in his owne conscience knewe to be vaine and friuolous Gelasius after that he was Bishoppe of Rome wrote fiue bookes against Eutiches and Nestorius The treatise whence I tooke those words that I alleadged goeth vnder his name as a part of one of those bookes Thus I finde it reported and no proofe giuen to disprooue it In the end of this treatise he exhorteth them to whom he writeth that as they did with one mind hold the Apostolike sea so they should constantly auouch that rule of Catholicke faith which he had declared out of the writinges of the Fathers that were before him making their holding with the Apostolicke sea a reason why they should giue héede to that which he had written Which may giue a good coniecture that it was Galasius Bishop of Rome and no other Gelasius that was the author of this booke But it is sufficient though it were not Gelasius Bishop of Rome yet that the booke is confessed to be authenticall so that a Bellarm. tom 2. de sacram 〈◊〉 lib 2. cap. 2â— Bellarmine himselfe taketh it to haue bene written by Gelasius Bishop of Caesaria before the councel of ChalcedoÌ„ which was in the yéere 455. b Gregor â—â— valent de reâ—lâ— praesent â—â— transubst 〈◊〉 â— cap. â— Gregory de Valentia in one place saith that the author of that booke was Gelasius of Caesaria as Bellarmine doth in c Idem de â—dololat lib. 2. cap. 5. another that it was Gennadius of Massilia As for Theodoret he was found no other but a Catholicke Bishop in the said councell of d Concil Calced Act. 8. Calcedon and so approoued by generall applause It séemeth that e Leo Epâ— 61. et conciâ— chalced Act. 8 Leo Bishop of Rome tooke him for no other by his letters written to him and for him That which the Answ saith of his recantatioÌ„ is a lewd and slaunderous tale Some stomacke he tooke against f Praefat. iâ— opeâ—a Theodoreâ— Cirill for his procéeding in the councell of Ephesus before he and his company were come Therupon he wrot against Ciril séeking to draw him into suspicion of heresie withoute cause This doing of his was greatly disliked of many and made him to be euill thought of Yet matters were ordered be twixt them and they reconciled ech to other But that he made any recantation of his opinions or was conuicted in that behalfe it is vnhonestly affirmed These shifts therfore not seruing the turne the Answ sifteth the wordes alleaged against him and to wrest them from their plaine and euident meaning he sticketh not to belie the Fathers to father new opinions vpon the old heretickes to deuise affirme matters of his owne head without any testimony or shew of testimony of antiquitie He telleth me that wheÌ„ it is said There ceaseth not to be the substance the meaning is the accedents remaine He wil haue the body of Christ to be made euery day of bread which we beléeue to haue bene once only made of the substance of the Virgin Mary He maketh as if the Fathers were as fond as he himselfe is to say that there remaineth the colour of bread the tast the strength the shewe of bread but yet there is no bread He maketh Gelasius to write he knew not what because forsooth he was before the generall definition of the church and made no exact search of the matter But why doth he not bring proofe of all these straunge fancies that here he hath set downe Is it enough for him to say what he list May I not say as Austin said to the hereticke g August cont epis sundâ— cap. 5. Thinkest thou I am so foolish to beleeue or not to beleeue as thou woldst haue me without any reason giuen He may be a Pythagoras perhaps to his own pupills but we do looke for more then his bare wordes But alas what do these men meane thus to dally with God and to wound their coÌ„sciences by striuing against apparant and manifest truth A Caluinist the Answ telleth me lacketh foure of his fiue wittes to alleage that place of Gelasius being as he saith both in words and in the drift of the argument against him But I tell him againe that the odde fifth witte of a Caluinist findeth strength enough in this place to quell a Papist and wil be himselfe nothing endamaged thereby As touching his circumstances which he setteth downe to explicate the same wordes of Gelasius they are for the most part grosse and shamelesse forgeries which serue indéede for nothing else but to leade a man a daunce round about from the sight of that which at the first sight is plaine enough It shall appeare that they are nothing else by the consideration of the originall and processe of the matter disputed of by Gelasius Nestorius the hereticke held a separation and disioyning of the two natures of Christ the godhead and the manhood and denied the personall vniting of them into one Christ and therefore condemned these spéeches that the Virgin Mary is the mother of God and that God suffered for our sins Against him the councel of Ephesus resolued out of the word of God that the godhead the manhood are substantially vnited into one person so that as the soule body make one man so God and man are one Christ as h Athan. in Sâ—mbolo Athanasius speaketh By reason of which vnion they defended it to be truly said that the Virgin Mary is the mother of God because she is the mother of him who is not only man but also God And so it is truly sayd that i Luc. 1. 35. Act. 20. 28. 1 cor 2. 8. Leo. epis 10. God was borne that God was wrapped
inswadling clouts that God was laid in the manger that God suffered and was buried and purchased himselfe a church with his precious bloud According to this truth Gelasius saith k Gelas cont Eutichen The whole man christ is God and Cirill saith that the name of the godhead is giuen vnto christ as man l ciril in â—oh lib. 11 cap. 22. Vigil contra Eutich lib. 4. To which purpose some of the m Concil coÌ„stant 6. act 4. in epla Agathoâ—is act 10. 17. Thom. 〈◊〉 par â— q. 16. art 3. ex Damascen auncient writers say that the flesh or manhood of Christ is deified not by chaunging of the manhood into godhead but by personal vniting of the one to the other wherby the thinges that are proper to the godhead are also dispensed vnto the manhood Now Eutiches whilest he contended against the heresie of Nestorius and would iustifie the spéeches aforesaid went as farre another way into another heresy and as Nestorius by distracting the natures made two persons and n Vigil lib. 2. cont Eutychen two Christes as Vigilius speaketh so he to make one person of Christ taught a confusion of the natures affirming that although Christ were truly incarnate and tooke flesh indéede yet that by the vniting of the fleshe vnto the godhead the flesh was swallowed vp of the godhead and ceased to be any longer flesh euen as a droppe of wine cast into the sea looseth his owne nature and becommeth water o Leo. epis 10. 11. Leo and p Euagr. eccl hist lib 2. ca. 18 Euagrius report the words of Eutiches in the ChalcedoÌ„ councel thus that he confessed that Christ before the vniting of the manhood with the godhead was of two natures but after that vniting there is said he but one nature in Christ And thus is his heresy set downe in q Definitio Cha cedo 1. concil Act. 5. the definition of the Chalcedon Councel Therfore though Christ was in the shape likenesse of man vpon the earth yet he held that he was not indéed man but onely God that it was not the manhood but the Godhead that was crucified So Vigilius testifieth r Vâ—gil cont â—at lib. 2. He affirmed saith he that the Godhead suffered which he wold proue as the same Å¿ Vigil â—bid Vigilius t Gelas cont â—uty Nestor Gelasius also declare out of 1. Cor. 2. If they had knowne they would not haue crucified the Lord of glorie Behold said he not the man Christ but the Lord of glory was crucified Vigilius againe saith that this heresie did u Vigil lib. 1. con Eutych refer to the contumely of the Godhead all things that Christ either spake or did according to the dispensation of the flesh whilest they contended that there was in him but the one only nature of the Godhead and w Idem lib. 4. elsewhere he setteth down by their own words that it was the Godhead that was seene and felt and handled with hands which they wold proue by the words of S. Iohn in the beginning of his first Epistle And in this respect both Vigilius and Gelasius say that this opinion implied the heresies of Apollinaris of the Manichees and Marcionites others which held that Christ had only x Putatiuum corpus an imaginary and no true bodie So Leo also vrgeth them that by their opinioÌ„ y Leo epist 81 Christ did all things counterfeitly and that not an humane bodie indeed but a fantasticall shew of a bodie appeared vnto the eyes of them that beheld therfore he calleth them Phantasmaticos Christianos Thus those things which concerne Christ properly as man Eutyches could not coÌ„ceiue to be rightly attributed vnto Christ by the name of God but by abolishing the nature of man Now there were also of Eutiches his faction who being conuicted of the absurdity of this opinion restrained the vanishing and consuming of the nature of his manhood to the time of his ascension of whom I shall speake afterward But in the meane time let the Answ here thinke whether I said rightly the last time that Eutyches if he were now aliue would surely be a Papist The absurd conceit of TransubstantiatioÌ„ serueth fit for his purpose and if it had bene in his time beléeued he would haue said Do ye not sée that after consecration there remaineth the colour and shewe and appearance of bread wine but yet there is not the substance of them for the substance is quite abolished by consecration Right so after the vniting of the two natures of Christ the substance of the humane nature is quite consumed though there appeare the facion and shape and likenesse yea and the doings and sufferings of a man This he would haue alleaged for colour of that shadow and phantasie of Christs humanitie which he defended here vpon the earth But this stood not with the doctrine of that time Nay whereas Eutyches could not vnderstand that those thinges which were done performed properly in the manhood are rightly said to haue bene done and performed by God by reason of the personall vniting of the manhood vnto the Godhead but would for the iustifying of this speech abolish the manhood and bring in the Godhead into the emptie facion and shape of a man euen as the Papists to make good the spéeches that are vsed oftentimes of the Sacrament to expresse the singular effect thereof do thrust out the substance of bread and wine and bring the very substance of Christs bodie and blood into the emptie formes and shewes of the same Gelasius by a comparison taken from the Sacrament according to the doctrine of his time sheweth him the vanitie of his opinion He setteth downe to that purpose these two grounds first that the Sacrament is an image or resemblance of the body and blood of Christ and therefore secondly that we must beléeue and professe the same of Christ himselfe that we do of his image Which both tend to this conclusion that as the Sacrament is a diuine and heauenly thing of excellent grace and vertue so that by it we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet there ceaseth not to be the substance of bread wine so Christ as touching his manhood is aduanced to most high excellency and maiestie by the vniting thereof vnto the Godhead into one person so that as man he is honoured adored of all creatures and all knées must bow vnto him and whatsoeuer was done or suffered by Christ as man is sayd to haue bene done and suffered by God and yet there ceaseth not to be in him the very true substance and nature of man z Gelas cont Euty chen Nestor Surely saith he the Sacraments which we receiue of the hodie and blood of Christ are a diuine thing by reason whereof we are by them made partakers of the diuine nature yet there ceaseth not to be the substance or
that he saith There is no substance but it is called a nature because if the nature of any thing being be remoued or taken away the substaÌ„ce also must needs be taken away By which it is plaine that Gelasius nameth nature no otherwise but to signify the very substance because euery substance is called a nature Otherwise when he nameth as oft he doth propriety of nature the Answerer must expound it to be meaÌ„t propriety of naturall properties which is more absurd then that his face can be bold to face it out It is certaine therfore that Gelasius by nature meaneth the very essentiall being of the thing And so the Answerer cannot but know that in that whole disputation concerning two natures in Christ Gelasius by two natures vnderstandeth two entire perfect substances as al the reâ—t of yâ— Fathers doe Only in this place Gelasius forgot himselfe and fell a sléepe and by nature would vnderstand naturall properties and accidents albeit his very drift was to shew by the abiding of the nature of bread and wine in the sacrament the abiding of the nature that is the true substantiall being of the manhood of Christ But yâ—t saith the Answ Gelasius saith that the bread and wine do passe ouer into a diuine substance We graunt the same For as Gelasius hath said before they are now diuine things because they are sacraments of Christes body bloud and by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature The visible element of the sacrament is no longer to be taken as a common or méere earthly substance but being sanctified by the word of Christ it is a diuine and heauenly thing And therfore doth p de consecr dist 2. ca. hoc est saint Austen call the bread of the sacrament heauenly bread and Cyprian calleth it q Cyprian de orat domin de caena domi the foode of saluation and of immortality and Theodoret calleth it r Theodor. dial 2. the bread of life and Bertram saith of it Å¿ Bertram de corp sang domini There is in it the spirit of Christ euen the power of the word of God not only feeding but also clensing the soule In respect therfore of this excellent grace and vertue it is rightly said that the bread and wine are now become a diuine substance But do they therfore loose their owne proper nature and substance Then we must thinke the like of the manhood of Christ For Gelasius saith that we must think the same in Christ which we professe in his image the sacrament If we thinke not so of the manhood of Christ then we must conceiue that bread and wine passe ouer into a diuine substaÌ„ce not by forgoing their owne substance and nature but t Theodor. dial 1. Non naturam mutans sed naturae graâ—iaÌ„ adâ—ciens by adding grace and spirituall blessing vnto nature as Theodoret rightly teacheth vs. So doth Dionisius whosoeuer he was say that we u Dyonis de eccles Hierar cap. 1. 3. stapulens edi are made God do passe ouer into God not because we chaunge our substance be made substantially Gods but because through our coÌ„munion with Iesus Christ we are by grace renued to the likenesse of God and effectually vnited vnto him So doth Vigilius say that w Vigil lib. 1. cont Eutych the nature of the flesh passed ouer into the person of the word but yet so as that saith he it was not consumed of the word So doth Leo Bishop of Rome say x Leo. epist 22 We receiuing the vertue of the heauenly foode do passe ouer into the flesh of Christ who is made our flesh Which S. Cyprian also saith and noteth the manuer therof y Cypri ser de caena dom We are vnited vnto Christ not by a corporall but by a spirituall passing ouer into him Cyrill speaketh in like sort that we are z Cyril in Ioh. lib. 1â— ca. 26. made one with Christ who by his flesh passed ouer vnto vs. Yet neither Christ by passing ouer vnto vs nor we by passing ouer into him do loose the propriety and truth of our former nature and substance By which it is plaine that the passing ouer into a diuine substance doth not enforce any changing of the substaÌ„ce and nature but only of the condition and vse of the substance And therfore Gelasius saith plainly that notwithstanding this passing ouer into a diuine substance yet the bread and wine continue still in the propriety of their owne nature which is the same which he had said before There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine For wheras the Answ would haue the coÌ„tinuing in the propriety of their owne nature to be vnderstood of the remaining of certaine properties of bread and wine without the substance it is too grosse and palpable shifting For in the whole disputation concerning two natures in our Sauiour Christ that phrase of spéech is continually vsed both by Gelasius Leo Vigilius and others to import the manhood of Christ not only in properties and qualities which Eutyches would haue admitted but also in truth and substance inuiolably being and remayning which he would not graunt Euery kind of thing hath his owne proper and distinct essence and being wherby it is seuered from all other thinges and from whence do issue immediatly certaine properties and qualities which are not incident vnto any other Now this own-nesse as I may call it and distinctnesse of essence being these Fathers expresse by propriety of nature affirming that Christ continueth in the proprietie of both natures namely so as that each nature the Godhead the maÌ„hood reteineth his own proper and distinct substance being Now seing that the abiding of the bread and wine in the propriety of their nature is vsed by Gelasius in the place alleaged to declare that continuance of the manhood of Christ it followeth necessarily that it must be vnderstoode of the remaining not only of the properties but also of the substance of bread and wine vnlesse we will ouer turne all that those Fathers haue disputed against Eutiches plead for him out of their owne wordes that though certaine properties and shewes of the manhood of Christ be remaining yet the substaÌ„ce therof is abolished But the Answ as guilty in his owne conscience of the vntruth vnsufficieÌ„cy of this answere flitteth from it saith as I noted before that it may be that Gelasius thought the somewhat of the substance did remaine and therfore was somewhat of our opinion at least wheras he had said before that whatsoeuer Gelasius thought he was far enough from our mind And yet such is his giddy head that by and by againe he saith that if substaÌ„ce be vnderstood for substance indéede then there should follow this great absurdity that Christ should be personally vnited vnto the bread and so should consist of thrée natures the Godhead the manhood and the
for if he should call that which were before aire water or earth by the name of fire stones and bread aire earth and water would sooner cease to be and fire bread and stones would come in their place then God would call any creature by a wrong name He called bread his bodie therfore bread is vnderstanded to be made the body of Christ You saie the vnderstanding of man taketh his beginning of senses which i S. Austen saith that which you sâ—â— iâ— bread as your eyes also tell you He saith it is that which our eies tell vs it is tell me it is bread I saie in the matter belonging to faith my vnderstanding is informed by Gods word which telleth mee it is k In signification and mysterie after the maner of Sacraments but not in substance the bodie of Christ and Theodoret saith it is beleeued to be and it is worshipped for it is so And he giueth the same very word of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Worshipping to the holie mysteries the which in the same sentence he giueth to the immortall bodie of Christ sitting at the right hand of his father And no wonder for seeing it is one bodie whether it be worshipped in heauen or l Vigâ—lius saith that the flesh of Christ now that it is in heauen is not vpoÌ„ the earth Therfore seeing it is in heaueÌ„ it cannot be worshipped vpon the 〈◊〉 vpon the Altar one worship is alwaies due to it Thus it is witnessed by Theodoret that the holy mysteries of Christ are worshipped and adored not as the signes of his bodie and blood but as being indeed his bodie and his blood Therefore worship is not giuen to them as to images which represent a thing absent but as to mysticall signes which really contain the truth represented by them Looke Bellarmine lib. 2. de Sacrament cap. 27. pro horum testimonijs R. Abbot 12. NOw come to be handled the words of Theodoret whom the Answerer vseth in the same honest maner as he hath done Gelasius yet cannot stoppe his mouth but that he still standeth at defiance with Transubstantiation Theodoret in his Dialogues debateth the whole matter of Eutyches his heresie not only as Eutyches himselfe held it as before hath bene shewed but also as some would seeme afterwards to correct it by saying that though Christ reteined the substance of his manhood while he continued on the earth yet after his ascension it was turned into the Godhead as of which there was thenceforth no longer vse Now hauing disputed the matter at large and brought the heretick to this latter shift he taketh an argument from the Sacrament to proue the remaining and being of Christs bodie and blood For signes or samptars are not admitted but of such things as haue being Séeing therefore we receiue the mysticall signes in token of the bodie and blood of Christ it is certaine that the bodie and blood of Christ haue their owne nature and being Now the hereticke taketh occasion of this mention of the sacrament to reason thus a Euen as the signes of the Lords bodie and o Theodor. dial 2. blood before the priests inuocation are other things but after the inuocation are chaunged and made other then before so the Lords bodie after his assumption or taking vp into heauen is changed into the diuine substance Whereby being changed and made other he meaneth not any reall chaunging into the very body and blood of Christ for he denied that Christ had now any substantiall bodie neither doth he vnderstand the loosing of their owne former substance for he expresly yéeldeth the contrary as was shewed before in handling the place of Gelasius but only intendeth that they are other in vse and name being now made signs of the body blood of Christ which he once truly tooke but afterwards did foâ—go This is plaine inough by the circumstance of the place and by that which he had confessed before in the former Dialogue that the bread and wine were signes not of the diuine nature of Christ but of those things whose names they did beare namely the bodie blood But to the obiection Theodoret answereth thus Thou art taken in the net which thy selfe hast made For the mysticall signes do not depart from their owne nature after consecration For they coÌ„tinue in their former substance and figure and forme and may be seene and touched as before But they are vnderstood to be the same which they are made and are beleeued so and adored as being the same that they are beleeued Now therfore conferre the image with the principall and thou shalt see the likenesse For the figure must be like vnto the truth Verily that bodie of Christ hath also the same forme as before the same figure and circumscription and to speake all at once the same substance of a bodie But it is made immortal after his resurrectioÌ„ c. Here it is plainly auouched that the mysticall signes continue not only in figure and shape but also in substance the same that they were before and so as that in them we must take notice how Christ continueth the same in substance of his bodie after his ascension For the mysticall signes are the figure image of Christs bodie and the figure must be correspondent to the truth And therefore if we finde not the true and proper substance remaining in the mysticall signes neither can it be auouched in the truth that is in Christs bodie What construction now then shall we haue of these words Mary this The mysticall signes remaine in their former substance that is to say the formes haue a new subsistence by themselues and the accidents remaine without the substance Bread and wine after consecration remaine in their former substance that is to say there is the colour of bread and wine the taste of bread wine the force and strength of bread and wine the quantitie and qualitie of bread and wine but there is no substance of bread and wine I wonder whether these men be perswaded of the truth of these vnreasonable and senselesse expositions If they be it is fulfilled in them which is written b 2. Thes 2. 11 God shall send vpon them strong delusioÌ„ that they may beleeue lies which beleeued not the truth c. If not then c Esa 5. 20. Wo saith the Prophet to them that call good euill and euill good which put light for darkenesse and darknesse for light The thing is plaine inough The mysticall signes saith Theodoret remaine in their former substance What was their former substance The verie true and proper being or substance of bread wine They continue therfore in the true and proper being and substance of bread and wine But the Answerer goeth from substance which Theodoret nameth to subsistence of his owne forging and yet euen there confoundeth himselfe without recouery For what was their former subsistence Mary they subsisted before in the natures of
elementes not visibly and corporally and to be perceiued with the eye but inuisibly and spiritually and to be conceiued with the vnderstanding Where I make not that conteining or couering or being vnder a physicall or locall matter but I meane it partly in respect of signification in which maner saint Austen saith that a August de catechi rud cap. 4. in the old Testament the new was hidden and that b Ibid epis 89. the incarnation of Christ was couered or hidden in the time of the old Testament the reason of which maner of spéech he elswhere maketh to be this c Ibid. de Baptiâ—mo cont Donat. lib. 1. cap. 15. because it was hiddenly signified So he saith againe that Christ did d â—bid in Ioh. tra 2â— couer grace in those wordes which hee vsed in the sixth of Iohn of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud meaning that he did obscurely signifie the same To this purpose Bertram saith as touching the sacrament that it e Bert. de coâ— sang domi sheweth one thing without in figure but within it doth represent another through the vnderstanding of faith partly in respect of the secret inuisible working of the spirite of God f Cypria de caena domini whose diuine maiestie as Cyprian speaketh doth neuer absent it selfe from the holy mysteries but doth though without appearing to the eie hiddenly worke the effect of that which is signified Thus we may say as touching Baptisme that it is the bloud of Christ couered or hidden in the visible element of water that doth clense vs from our sinnes In which maner the councel of Nice saith g concil Nice In fine ex cut hâ—r Tonstallo To. 1. concil Our Baptisme must be considered not with bodily eyes but with the eyes of the mind Thou seest water but consider the power of God couered or lying hidden in the water Thinke the water to be full of the sanctification of the holy Ghost and of diuine fire And thus doth Chrysostome declare the nature of all Christian mysteries in which saith he h Chrys in 1. cor hom 7. we see not that which we beleeue but we see one thing and beleeue another and therefore the beléeuing man is otherwise affected in them then the infidell For sayth he the infidell hearing of the water of Baptisme thinketh it to be meerely water but I doe not simply see that which I see but I behold it in the cleansing of the soule through the holy Ghost Heereupon hée compareth these mysteries to bookes which an vnlerned man taketh and séeth the letters but vnderstandeth nothing thereof But one that is learned findeth great matter laid vp or couered and hidden in them so the infidell hearing of our mysteries séemeth not to heare them but the expert Christian beholdeth great vertue in the things that are hidden in them Thus things which are signified by our mysteries are said to be couered hidden in theÌ„ because they are not perceiued with the bodily eie but only with the eie of the faithful and beleuing mind The meaning then of the words aboue named according to the doctrine of S. Austen must be thus that in the sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christ it is not meere bread wine that we receiue but it is in vnderstanding and spirituall grace and blessing the flesh and bloud of Christ not appearing so to the sense which discerneth onely bread and wine but yet as in all other mysteries of Christian Religion so in this fayth beholdeth heauenly grace couertly and hiddenly conteined through the holy Ghost and by the visible elementes perceiueth the inward force of the flesh and bloud of Iesus Christ The reason whereof is because the visible signes which beare the name of the flesh and bloud of Christ are Sacramentes and therefore not onely haue the name but conteine the force and power of that true flesh and blood of Christ where in he suffered for our sinnes And so by these visible things which thus inuisibly spiritually and only by way of vnderstanding and mysterie are the flesh and blood of Christ is signified that true body of Christ which is visible palpaple full of grace vertue maiestie and glory No other meaning can the Answ make of these wordes by S. Austen vnlesse he will contrarie those generally receiued groundes which Saint Austen setteth downe and surely hard it is to find in Austen that Christ hath one bodie visible palpable full of grace vertue maiestie and glorie another not so as these words import if they be vnderstood as the Answerer taketh them And if he will haue the word Forme as I knowe his meaning is to import such emptie formes as he maketh without substance S. Austen will deny him that for that he maketh it the generall name of the outward signe in all Sacraments when he defineth a Sacrament thus i De co 〈…〉 〈◊〉 dist â— ca. â—â—r It is a visible forme of inuisible grace But now if I séeme partiall in expounding these words let the same Saint Austen as Gratian citeth him euen in the verie next words iustifie this exposition For thus he saith k Ibid. cap. Hoc est The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is in it maner called the bodie of Christ whereas it is indeed the Sacrament of his bodie euen of that bodie which being visible and palpable was put vpon the Crosse and the offering of the same flesh which is performed by the hands of the priest is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Where S. Austen plainly calleth the heauenly bread of the Sacrament the flesh of Christ yet not as being flesh verily and indéed for then it shoâ—ld truly properly be called the body of Christ But now it is so called but only in it maner whereas it is indéed but a Sacrament of his bodie which manner he declareth in the other point to be not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie And if I be partiall here also let the glose expound it l Ibid in Gloâ— The heauenly bread that is the heauenly Sacrament which doth truly represent the flesh of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but vnproperly WherupoÌ„ it is said in it maner not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie that the meaning may be thus It is called the bodie of Christ that is the bodie of Christ is signified If this wil not serue let him heare also the maister of the sentences whom he may not dislike vnlesse he can say Hic magister non tenetur He hauing set downe the words which the Answ vrgeth saith thus m Sent. lib. 4. dist 10. Marke here diligently that S. Austen here vseth a trope or figure wherby the signs do beare the name of the things signified by them For here the visible forme
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
place he putteth me in minde to answere him with a saying of Luther Hoc scio pro certo quod si cum stercore certo Vinco vel vincor semper ego maculor But to the matter The b Timothean August de 〈…〉 e. ad 〈◊〉 in â—ine heretickes as S. Austen reporteth affirmed that the godhead of Christ was really changed into the manhoode This they would prooue by the wordes of the Gospell The word was made flesh which they expounded thus The diuine nature is turned or transubstantiated into the nature of man In like sort the Answ and some other cogging marchants of his part single out the wordes of Tertullian Christ made the bread his body and will needes haue vs to beleeue thereby that the bread is really turned and transubstantiated into the bodie of Christ They both argue alike vpon the word made For answere hereof I shewed how Tertullian expoundeth his owne meaning by these wordes that is to say a figure of his bodie Further I said that that phrase or maner of spéech Christ made the bread his bodie doth not enforce any Transubstantiation Which I shewed by comparing therewith the verie like spéech or phrase before alleaged out of the Gospell c Ioh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh For as it was absurdly gathered by the Timotheans that because the word was made flesh therefore it ceased to be the word so as fondly is it gathered by the Papists of Tertullians words that because the bread is made the bodie of Christ therfore it ceaseth to be bread The one enforceth not for the Timothean any transubstantiation of the word therefore neither doth the other for the Papist any transubstantiation of the bread The spéeches are like The word was made flesh the bread is made the bodie of Christ Now hath he not sent me a worthy answere to this The words of S. Iohn saith he what proue they touching the Sacrament What argument is this The word was made flesh the sense is the word assumpted flesh vnto it And it is not to be taken as the words do sound therefore this text This is my bodie is not to be taken as the words import A verie mightie vpstantiall argument Nay a very pithie sound answere and worthie to be registred in Vaticano I make a comparison betwixt the words of S. Iohn and the words of Tertullian and he answereth me of a comparison betwixt the words of Iohn the words of Christ How many mile to London A poke full of plummes Yet as a childe plaieth with a counter in stéed of a péece of gold so he delighteth himselfe in a rascall shift as if he had made a verie substantiall answere But sée yet further the extreame folly and ignorance of this man It is saith he as if you should reason thus I am the vine is a figuratiue speech therefore I am the light of the world is a figuratiue spéech And what is it not by a figure that Christ is called the light of the world Surely Christ is the light in respect of the darknesse of the world Séeing therefore darknesse is vnderstood figuratiuely in the world a man would thinke that that which is called light as opposite to this darknesse should be so called by a figure Light is properly a sensible qualitie and darkenesse the p 〈…〉 tion therof and both haue relation to the bodily eye They are by a Metaphore applied to the soule and so is Christ called light euen as he is elsewhere called d Mal 4. 2. The sunne of righteousnesse not properly I trow but by a figure vnlesse the Answ be of the Manichees minde who as Theodoret saith would sometimes say that e Theodo haerâ—t faâ—ul lib. â— Christ was the verie sunne Now therefore séeing that Christ is no otherwise called the light of the world then he is called a vine a yoong boy in the Vniuersitie will easily finde a Topicke place in Aristotle to prooue that this argument holdeth very well Christ is called a vine by a figure therefore he is also called the light of the world by a figure Further he saith But I pray you sir is this saying The world was made flesh like to This is my bodie I answere him Truly sir no. But yet these are like The word was made flesh and the bread is made the bodie of Christ as transubstantiation of the word cannot be proued by the one so transubstantiation of the bread cannot be proued by the other Whereas he demandeth whether bread stil remaining do assumpt vnto it Christes bodie into one person his question is idle I haue answered before that the vnion of Christ with the Sacrament is not personall or reall as he vnderstandeth reall but relatiue and sacramentall as in Baptisme also it is But as the word remaineth being personally vnited to the flesh so the bread remaineth being sacramentally vnited vnto Christ That which he saith of Luther is false Luther did not teach that the bodie of Christ was ioyned into one person with the bread But now I wish him to bethinke himselfe who it is that careth not what he say so that he say somewhat Now for further declaration of the words of Tertullian I alleaged a saying of S. Austen Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his bodie and blood which also he hath made vs and by his mercy we are the same that we receiue Wheras the Answ saith that the first part of this sentence serueth very wel for him it is but like the dotage of the melancholy Athenian We say with S. Austen that Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his bodie and blood yet not being on earth to be receiued by the mouth but f August in Ioh. tr â—0 Sitting in heauen to be receiued by faith But as Tertullian said Christ made the bread his bodie so here Austen saith Christ hath made vs his bodie and blood The maner of spéech is here also alike and therefore I inferred hereof that Tertullians words do no more proue yâ— the bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ then S. Austens do proue that there is a transubstantiatioÌ„ of vs into the bodie of Christ That which I excepted as touching those words Yet wee are not transubstantiated into the bodie of Christ the Answ falsifieth and peruerteth thus yet we are not transubstantiated into the Sacrament This is the faithfulnesse that he vseth But what answere maketh he Forsooth it would aske a long discourse to answere me and therefore he hath thought good not to answere me at all For as for that which he saith it serueth directly for me We are become one with Christ saith he let him speake as S. Austen speaketh we are made the bodie of Christ not by being transubstantiated into him but by being ioyned vnto him So say we that the bread is made the bodie of Christ not by being transubstantiated into his bodie but by hauing tied vnto it
cleane nor white as snow cleane and whiter then snow and not haue a curtaine only dravven to couer our sinnes onely Wee say that vve haue inherent iustice not imputed vvhich vve thinke to be but d A leaude wretch that derideth that which the holy Ghost hath expresly set downe an ape of iustification We say that iustification standeth of these integrall parts First e An vntowardly description of iustificatâ—on wherein remission of sinnes and reconcilement to God is put before faâ—â—h besidâ— dâ—uerse other peeuish follies that might therein be noted forgiuenesse of sins 2. Reconcilement to God 3. Renuing in faith hope and charitie 4. Charitie not vnperfect and begun but childelike and of another more diuine nature which wholy in kind differeth from that which is but begun 5. The ascribing to the inheritance of heauen And because you mention here S. Augustine vnderstand you that he noteth three sorts or degrees of iustification The first to make of vngodly iust The second He which is iust let him yet be iustified and feare not to be iustified vnto death that is to be made better and more iust The third Not the hearers of the law but the doers shall be iustified that is to haue the last finall revvard end and perfection of iustice Thus doth S. Augustine speake of it First concerning the tvvo first degrees thus he saith contra Iulianum li. 20. Iustification is giuen vs in this life by these f In which three things there is nothing at all to make for inherent iustice in this life but altogither and wholly against it For if there be iustice what place is there for forgiuenesse of sinnes or fighting against sinne three things first by the vvashing of regeneration vvhereby all sinnes are forgiuen After by fighting vvith vices from the guilt vvhereof vve vvere discharged and assoyled Thirdly vvhile our praier is heard vvherein vve say Forgiue vr our trespasses Thus far S. Augustine in that place So that here S. Augustine himselfe telleth you vvhat hee meaneth by Forgiue vs our trespasses the continuall veniall slips vvhich the verie best and iustest many times in the day fall into and yet iustice g Vntruth for the trespassing of iustice taketh away the name of being iust not taken away therby though their alacritie abated Veniall sinnes are beside charitie but not h He that is not with me is against me saith Christ so must we say alâ—o as tovching charitie against charitie And remember that no man of his owne state can assure himselfe but that he may feare and must crie out Enter not into iudgement c. and why i The very shift of the Pelagian heretickes See the answere in respect of the puritie of God no man neuer so good no nor Angell nor heauen is pure Man euen the best man of himselfe must say I am vnprofitable seruant Yet God calleth the iust not his seruants but his friends We must say we be vnprofitable seruants in very deed not profiting God a myte who was as happie and as glorious before he laid the foundation of the worlde as euer sithence Neither could k Christ as touching his humanitie is made an vnprofitable seruant Christs blessed humanitie or all he did in the flesh profit God any way who before wanted not any perfection nor could receiue any more benefit or good then before he had Thus I say must a man euen the best man humbly thinke of himselfe Yet S. Paul 2. Tim. 2. saith If any man cleanse himselfe from these he shal be a vessell sanctified to honour profitable for the Lord and why profitable Prepared or readie to euery good worke Reconcile therefore these places rightly and learne that Profitable is not ment to be profitable to God who receiueth no profit by all our vttermost endeuours but it is as much as seruing to such a good vse as God hath created vs too to his glorie and our saluation to honour him with our glorification A iustified cannot nor must not boast of his state which he is ignorant of but yet in good hope and therefore must abase himselfe before Gods Maiestie l VVe must abase himselfe to the center of the earth and yet thinke it may be that he is worthie inough to lift vp his head as high as heauen A preposterous and doubtfull humilitie to the very center of the earth But we supposing another man to be iustified may say that of him which himselfe cannot say of himselfe Now of the third degree of Iustification which is the end and perfitting of our iustice S. August epist 106. saith our hope shall be fully accomplished in the resurrection of the dead and when our hope shall be fulfilled then shall our iustification be fulfilled and accomplished So that you see by S. Augustine in these places our iustification hath a beginning an encrease and end R. Abbot 36. AS touching iustification hée fendeth me a deale of paltrie stuffe patched out of the heresie of the Pelagians the vain presumptions of the Schoolemen without any sounde argument out of the word of God neither maketh he any direct answer to that that was vrged against him The scripture is plain that a Rom. 3. 20. Gal. 2. 16 by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified in the sight of God b Rom 3. 28 that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law that c Gal. 3. 10. whosoeuer are of the works of the law are vnder the curse because it is written Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them and no man continueth in all d Iam. 3. 2. for in many things we offend all saith S. Iames. The Answ sheweth not he cannot shewe that the inherent righteousnesse of any man in this life is such as that thereby he can be presented holie and blamelesse and without fault in the sight of God which is the thing required The consciences and confessions of all the godly are against it S. Austen to whom the Answ referreth himselfe saith e August epist 29. The most perfect loue or charitie which cannot now be encreased is founde in no man so long as he liueth here and so long as it may be encreased surely that that is lesse then ought to be is of a default or vice By reason of which default or vice there is not a man iust vppon the earth which doth good and sinneth not By reason of which default no man liuing shall be found righteous in the sight of God And this is so true that f Pighius otherwise a heauy and deadly enemy to the Gospell is forced to subscribe to our f Pighi contro de iustificat doctrine in this point and to confesse that the righteousnesse whereby we stand iust before God is not our inherent righteousnesse according to the law but the imputed righteousnesse