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
religion by reason of any such opinion that Christ was really bound in them or in the eares of corne or branches of the vine because then all bread and all wine should haue béene matter of mystery and religion with them which was not so but it is made mysticall bread and wine by a certaine coÌ„secration namely whilest by the word of God they are dedicated and halowed to be sacrameÌ„ts and mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ The which consecrating halowing the same S. Austen elsewhere declareth thus concerning Baptisme m August â—n Ioha tri 8â— The word commeth to the element and it is mede a sacrament in an other place concerning the Lords supper thus n Idem de trâ—nit lib. 3. cap. 4. We call that the body of Christ which being taken of the fruites of the earth consecrated by mystical praier wee receiue in memory of the passion of our Lord. Now what is all this to the real presence which the Answerer saith S. Austen did graunt Not a word doth S. Austen vse to import it Nay he rather reiecteth it in that he saith that bread and wine are not vsed in sacrament as in respect of Christ really bound in them but are made only mystical by consecration where he denieth that reall presence which they fancied and putteth no other in place therof but only saith that the bread is made mysticall bread by consecration As for Transsubstantiation he is plainely enough against it also in the same place in that he calleth the sacrament the sacrament of bread and of the cuppe wherby we vnderstand that the sacrament is bread and in that he denieth that the church had the same religion concerning bread and wine that the Manichées had because it was not religion but sacriledge with the Manichées to tast wine importing hereby that it was wine which the church tooke tasted in the sacrament But the Papistes reall presence iumpeth with the Manichées imprisoning of Christ for they make Christ so fast bound by consecration to the formes of bread and wine that though ratts or mise or swine eate the same or though it lie in the mire yet it must not be thought but that the body of Christ is there stil euen till the formes be consumed and to thinke otherwise as Thomas Aquinas saith derogateth from the truth of the sacrament as after shal be declared To his sixt circumstance I answere him that the Lateran councell was the assembly of Gog and Magog to set the idoll Mauzim in his place That which they resolued against Berengarius they reselued against all the Fathers who neuer knew reall presence nor transsubstantiation As for Innodentius his breadinesse and wininesse panietas vineitas in the seauenth circumstance the Answ would not haue named it but that swine are delighted with mire and filth The eight circumstaÌ„ce also containeth only new Popish subtilties and deserueth no answere The putting in therof and others as impertinent by way of explication of Gelasius his wordes sheweth the falsehood of the Answ thinking nothing lesse then to deale plainely and seeking by friuolous tales and idle talke to lead the reader away from that which otherwise he cannot but sée The ninth circumstance telleth vs honestly that before the Laterane councell it was no heresy not to iumpe with Transsubstantiation And then belike a man might haue beene a Caluinist in that point as all the Fathers were and yet not to be accounted an hereticke At least he might haue said that the substaÌ„ces of bread wine did remaine in part but not wholly forsooth as perhappes saith the Answ some of the Fathers and namely Gelasius thought a ridiculous and childish fancy When we shew them plainely out of the Fathers that the substances of bread and wine remaine in the sacrament forsooth the Fathers thought that the substances of bread and wine remaine in part but not wholly What conscience may we thinke these men make of their answers Why doth he not bring somewhat out of the Fathers to approoue this fond sophistication vnhandsome dreame But it must be enough for vs that the Answ telleth vs that so it is But it is worth the noting that he telleth vs that it was not clearely defined before the Lateran councell what maner oâ— conuersion is in the sacrament No was Why did not the Apostles clearely know it or knowing it did they not deliuer it to yâ— church Did he which o Act. 20. 27. kept nothing back but declared all the councell of God kéepe backe this or did he deliuer it to the Ephesians and not deliuer it to the Romaines other churches To say the Apostles did not clearely know it is to make himselfe wiser then the Apostles To say they knew it but declared it not is to make them vnfaithful in their charge To say that the church receiued it cléerely deliuered and yet that it was neuer cléerely defined vntill the Lateran councell is a contradiction and impugneth that in the one part which is set downe in the other To say the church and namely the church of Rome receiued it and did afterwardes forgoe it is to make the church of Rome a very bad kéeper of the doctrines of the Apostles especially séeing the sacrament is a matter of continuall and daily vse But indéed we take that which he saith for true that Transsubstantiation was neuer cléerely defined before the Lateran councel But we tell him withall that we are very deinty to admit that for a doctrine of truth which for a thousand yeares and more after Christ was neuer cleerly knowen or defined in the church of God And because it was no heresy all that while not to iumpe with Transsubstantiation we are well assured that it is no heresy to leape from it now Now to returne to Gelasius the Answ findeth an hole or two in his wordes before alleaged whereby he would faine créepe out The wordes are thus There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine He addeth or nature saith the Answ to mollifie and interpret the word substance as importing that the naturall properties of bread and wine remaine though the substaÌ„ce be gone A very naturall answere Belike the substance remaineth or there ceaseth not to be the substance is as much as to say the substance is quite gone and vtterly ceased only the accidents remaine But Gelasius a little before speaketh in the very same sort concerning Christ and sheweth the meaning of his own wordes We say saith he that the propriety of each substance or nature abideth continually in Christ where most plainely by the same phrase of spéech he maketh substance and nature to import one thing And if we will follow the Answ exposition we must say here in the behalfe of Eutyches that not the substances themselues but the naturall properties of each substance abide stil in Christ because he saith substance or nature Againe a little before
breadhood as it pleaseth his wisedom-hood full vntowardly and vnhansomely to conceiue So that it may be by this dreame of his that Gelasius thought that Christ consisteth of thrée natures the Godhead the manhood and the breadhood because it may be that Gelasius vnderstood substance for substance indéed He hath well deserued for this his learned reason to be personally vnited vnto a cloakbag This idle fancy of his ariseth hereof that he vnderstandeth no other presence but reall and bodily nor other vniting but only personall But of presence Christ himselfe speaketh as touching himselfe a Mat. 18. 20. Wheresoeuer two or three are gathered togither in my name there am I in the midst of them yet we know he is not bodily present vnto all such Nay as touching bodily presence S. Austen saith according to the Gospell b August in Ioh. tract 50. He is ascended into heauen and is not here But according to his diuine maiestie according to his prouidence according to his vnspeakable and inuisible grace it is fulfilled which he said I will be with you alwaies vnto the ende of the world So saith Vigilius c Vigil cont Euty lib. 1. Christ is with vs and he is not with vs. According to the forme of a seruant hee is absent from vs according to the forme of God he is present with vs. Such is the presence of Christ in the sacrament euen d cypr. de caena domini the presence of his diuine power as Cyprian calleth it wherby it commeth to passe that as the Sun abiding bodily in the skie yet by effect and working is here on the earth cherishing and comforting all things according to their kinde so the sonne of righteousnes Iesus Christ though according to his bodily presence remaining only in heauen yet by his heauenly grace and spirite is effectually present vnto vs in his holy sacraments communicating himselfe fully and wholly vnto vs and ioyning vs most néerly vnto himselfe As for that grosse presence which Papists teach besides that it is vnnecessary it repugneth also to that truth of the manhood of Christ abiding in the proprietie of his owne nature which Gelasius defended and maketh for the heresies of Marcion Eutyches and others of whom I spake before Now as the presence of Christ in the sacrament is not carnall and bodily so no more is the vniting of Christ vnto the sacrament any bodily or carnall matter but spirituall and sacramentall whilest by the word of God and the working of the holy Ghost there is made that mutuall relation and respect betwixt the signe the thing signified and such a dependence of the one on the other that the signe spiritually implieth the force and vertue of the thing signified and the holy Ghost togither with the signe dispenseth through faith the fulnesse of that grace blessing which is conteined in the body and blood of Iesus Christ In which sort we beléeue also that Christ without any real presence is vnited to the sacrament of Baptisme whereby we put on Christ and are made members of his body flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones neither is there any more reason to mainteine any real presence in the one sacrament then there is in the other Thus therefore the remaining of the substance of bread doth not enforce any personall vniting of Christ vnto the bread No nor yet that supposed real presence of Christs body with the bread The Vbiquitaries when they teach that Christes body is really present in the sacrament yet thinke not that the same is personally vnited vnto it neither doth it follow of that opinion of theirs The Answ himselfe though in his conceit he receiue into his body yâ— reall body of Christ yet I hope will not thinke the same personally vnited vnto him no nor yet to those formes and naturall properties of bread and wine whereunder he saith the body of Christ lieth inuisibly hidden He saith that perhaps Gelasius and vndoubtedly others thought that some part of the substance of bread wine remained togither with the body of Christ yea and e Ferus â—n Math. cap. â—â— Ferus himselfe though a Papist yet séemeth to doubt whether the substance of bread remaine or not togither with the body and yet he will not gather I hope that they thought though the substance did remaine that the body of Christ was personally vnited vnto the same so that Christ should consâ—st of thrée natures the Godhead the manhood and the breadhood But what should I trouble my selfe with such senslesse and mad toyes seruing only to blot paper and coÌ„teining in them neither learning nor wit As for that which followeth it is but a new shew of the same baggage stuffe that I haue examined already and néedeth no further answere Only let me tell him that he wretchedly peruerteth the comparison made by Gelasius and maketh it fitly and rightly answerable to the heresie of Eutyches For as he saith that in the sacrament there is the very body of Christ hauing conioyned vnto it the naturall properties of bread and wine the substance being vanished so said Eutyches that in the person of Christ there was the Godhead retaining with it the properties of the manhood to be visible passible mortall c. but the substance and distinct nature of the manhood was consumed Again he wittingly and willingly falsifieth the state of the question which Gelasius disputed as though he reasoned to proue the continuing of the properties of the manhood not of the substance whereas the purpose of Gelasius is altogither concerning the substance and nature it selfe which to continue inuiolably notwithstanding the assuming therof vnto the godhead he sheweth by comparison of the sacrament where the substance of bread and wine remaineth notwithstanding they are adnanced to that honour to be the mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ These things are sufficiently bebated before I come to that that followeth P. Spence Sect. 12. NOw let vs conferre the places of Theodoretus by you alleaged with his owne sayings by you concealed Theodoretus disputing with an Eutychian who would Christ now to consist of the only nature of his Deitie and not any more of the humane nature which he tooke of the virgine doth reproue him by the example of the Sacrament of Christes Supper in the which Sacrament two thinges are founde one which is seene and that is the signe of bread and wine the other is not seene but vnderstanded and beleeued and that is the true bodie and blood of Christ That which is seene is said to remaine in his former substance nature figure and kinde In his substance a The mysticall signes remaine in their former substance that is they do not remaine in their former substance because the formes of bread and wine subsist by the power of God and haue their being now by themselues as they had it before in the nature of bread and wine The same formes remaine
matter but reason and trueth see the answere at large to steale scrappes out of the fathers and not to care for their drift and purposes but onely to patch vp matter for a shew and to the sale The figures be of the old testament in the newe testament Christ fulfilleth them It followeth But it had been no figure except there were a true bodie Surelie an emptie thing as is a phantasie can take no figure The Marcionites said Christ had a phantastical body that saith Tertullian could not haue a figure No can Doe not the phantasticall bodies of spirites exhibite to the eies a certaine figure or shape it is too well knowen to the verie Negromancers and the Apostles feared the like of Christ But he meaneth if Christ had no body at all but a phantasticall body Melchisedech in the old testament had vsed no figure of that in bread wine For of c Vntrueth for he talketh not of it and though hee had yet doth it not stand the Answ in any steed as shall appeare it he talketh so that that is a figure of my bodie must needs be interpreted thus This that is this figure of the old testament of bread and wine vsed by Melchisedech which I now fulfill est corpus meum is nowe become my bodie by my fulfilling in this my new testament in veritie a figure of the olde testament in a mysterie It followeth Or if therefore he made the bread his bodie because he wanted a true bodie then he should haue giuen the bread for vs. This illation of Tertullian can haue no wit nor sense if he meant not Christ to be really in his verie true bodie in the Sacrament It made for the vanitie of Marcion that bread should be crucified If Christ had giuen his Apostles bread onely and not his verie flesh then by Tertullians minde he must haue giuen a bready body or a body of bread to be also crucified so sure he was that the thing he gaue his Disciples was the same that was also afterward crucified What say you to this maister Abbot Marcion said that Christ had in steed of a heart a kind of fruit called a Pepon Why saith Tertullian did he not call a Pepon his bodie as well as the bread or rather after Marcions opinion his reason is because Marcion vnderstood not that bread was an olde figure of the bodie of Christ Lo your id est figura is by Tertullian as much as id est vetus figura an old figure Then by your minde Christ fulfilled not the old figure in veritie although Tertullian saith neuer so plainly he made the bread his bodie But gaue them the old figure therefore to end this testimonie of Tertullian I answere you that the premisses considered you must needes graunt that the same id est is not referred to corpus meum but to hoc That which in the old testament was a figure of my bodie is now being made so by my speaking dicendo omnipotentia verbi by the almightie power of the word as S. Cyprian de caena domini vttereth my bodie Note these points whereby it so appeareth by Tertullian to be meant First the scope of his fourth booke to prooue the figures of the old lawe and the fulfilling of the new Secondly Tertullian hath figura non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus If hee had meant a figure then in the new testament he had not said fuisset sed esset figura Thirdly when hee saith Christ called bread his bodie and not a Pepon as Marcions follie would haue him to haue spoken hee telleth that Marcion vnderstood not that bread was an ancient figure of his bodie so that Tertullian meaneth not the bread to be a new figure of his bodie instituted by Christ in his Supper of the new testament but an auncient figure of the olde testament vsed by Melchisedech Fourthly a little after this place he saith that Christ the reuealer of aniquities did sufficiently dâ—clare what hee would haue the bread to haue signified calling bread his bodie Wherby d Tertullians minde iâ— that the name of bread had bin vsed to import the body of Ch 〈…〉 â—â— prefigurâ—â—â—at bread indeede should be appointed to signifie the â—â—me body This he sayâ—h Ch 〈…〉 ful 〈…〉 〈◊〉 he took bread ind 〈…〉 and called it hiâ— body his mind is that Christ would haue the bread in the old testameÌ„t to haue signified his body to come not now instituting a new figure in bread Fifthly he saith a litle after thou maiest acknowledge the olde figure of bloud in the wine Lo the wine in the old testament was an ancient figure of his bloud What can plainlier vtter or expresse his meaning Lastly it followeth Now saith he it is at his maundy he consecrated his bloud in wine who then that is speaking certain words of Iacob the Patriarche euen by the said Iacob figured wine by bloud he attributeth e A Figure to the name of wine consecration to wine it selfe a figure to wine consecration to his bloud in wine a figure to the old law consecration to the new a figure to the olde lawe fulfilling thereof to the newe what meane you then maister Abbot to charge vs with guilefull concealing clipping and paring of Tertullian who deliuer him vnto you so roundly and so wholly wee play not with you as maister Iewell did who brought out of Opus imperfectum sermo 11. in Chrisostomes name in almost an hundreth places of his booke as putting great trust in the same these wordes against the Sacrament and against Chrisostome for that verie point in a notable Sermon of his made for that purpose In the vessels of the church is not contained the true body and bloud of Christ but a figure of his body and bloud Whereas the f An answere altogether vain and senslesse as the very wordes shew authour meaneth it of the vessels taken out of the temple of Ierusalem by Nabuchodonosor which point he guilefully suppressed For the authours wordes are these For if it be a sinne and dangerous to transferre holy vessels to priuate vses as Balthazar teacheth vs who drinking in the holy cups was therfore deposed from his kingdome and bereaued of his life if then it be thus dangerous to transferre these holie vessels to priuate vses in which is not the true body of Christ but a mysterie of his bodie is conteined c. You may see howe Balthazar was stolne out of the text to make those olde Churches vessels to be the vessels of our Christian temples Vpon those words of Tertullian how crossely you inferre your conclusion vppon your owne supposed sense of id est figura it may I hope appeare vnto you vpon the consideration of that which I haue discoursed concerning his testimonie except you could wage Tertullian to say that he made no comparison betweene a figure of the old testament and the veritie of the new answering the same and that he
instituting of bread to be the figure of his bodie Let him consider better whether this stand not with good construction to say Christ tooke bread and said therof This is my bodie that is to say a figure of my bodie But it had not bene or it should not haue bene a figure except there were a true bodie But yet he goeth farther Tertullian saith thus If Christ did therefore make bread his bodie because he wanted a true bodie then he should haue giuen the bread for vs. It made for the vanitie of Marcion that bread should be crucified These words saith he haue neither wit nor sense except it be supposed that Christs bodie is really in the Sacrament nay otherwise it must be bread that was crucified for vs. But except his wit and his sense did faile him he might find somwhat els in Tertullians words For stil he calleth the sacrameÌ„t bread putteth differeÌ„ce betwixt the bread that is called yâ— body and the true body it self so reasoneth against Marcion yâ— if Christ had not a true body indéed which he represented by bread in respect thereof called the same bread his body then the bread itselfe must be his bodie and consequently it was bread which was giuen and crucified for vs. But Marcion himselfe would not say that bread was crucified for vs Therefore he must néedes confesse that Christ had a true bodie figured by the bread And thus Tertullians reason against Marcion setteth downe bread in the Sacrament as a figure of Christes body and razeth the foundation of Popish Transubstantiation And this is yet againe plaine by these wordes to which he asketh me what I say that Christ called not a Pepon his body as he should haue done by Marcions opinion who held that Christ had in stéede of a heart a kinde of fruite called a Pepon but hee called bread his body because of the olde Figure namely because the Prophet vsing the name of bread to import the bodie of Christ did thereby prefigure that bread indéed should be appointed to be the figure and signe of the same bodie So that Christ did not renew an olde figure by consecrating or sanctifying the bread to be a figure of his bodie but fulfilled that in the trueth and substance of bread which Tertullian saith was foreshewed by the name of bread Thus much of Tertullians roundly wholly deliuered words where the Answ hath shewed as great folly in enlarging them as some other of his fellowes haue shewed falshood in clipping and paring them But to fill vp the measure of this follie he taketh vpon him by the way to censure Maister Iewell about a place alleaged out of the vnperfect worke vpon Math. Serm. 11. Which he doth in that péeuish and vaine sorte as that he sheweth himselfe to be led wholly with malice without any iudgment or discretion First he misliketh that he did alleage it in Chrisostomes name But why so Is it not as lawfull for maister Iewell or for the Church of England to doe so as it is for the Church of Roome and her followers k Sixt. Sâ—nâ—nâ— bâ—â—lâ—ot sanâ—â— 4 in lâ—â—n Câ—rysâ—st The Church of Rome readeth diuers homilies in their diuine seruice from thence vnder the name of Chrysostome Many sentences and propositions are brought thence vnder his name in the ordinarie gloses in the chaines of the explanations of the Gospels in the decrees of the Bistops of Roome in the Summaries of Diuinitie set forth by Diuines of great name as Sixtus Senensis himselfe a Papist giueth vs to vnderstand Why then should maister Iewell be blamed for alleaging that worke vnder Chrysostomes name when the Church of Roome by her example warranted him so to doe But yet hee will further make vs beléeue that the wordes doe not prooue that for which they are alleaged The wordes are these If l Chrysost in ope imperf hom 11. it be a dangerous matter to transferre holy vessels to priuate vses as Baltasar teacheth vs who drinking in the sacred cups was depriued of his kingdome and his life if then I say it be so dangerous to transferre to priuate vses these sanctified vessels in which is not the true body of Christ but a mysterie of his body is conteined c. Out of which wordes maister Iewell proueth yâ— in the sacred vessels there is not the true body of Christ as the Papistes dreame but onely a mysterie of his body The place is so plaine as nothing can be more plaine Now therefore what sayth the Answ to it Forsooth the authour meant these words of the vessels of the temple of Hierusalem which Nabuchodonosor tooke from thence and not of the vessels of our Christian Churches But what vessels I maruell were those in the temple of Hierusalem which conteined the mysterie of Christes body where did hee euer read or heare of any such Or if he can vnshamefastly face out such a matter how can he imagine that Chrysostome or the author whosoeuer would admonish his auditours that it was daungerous for them to abuse the vessels of the temple of Hierusalem which they neither had nor could haue to abuse Againe he saith not those holy vessels as pointing to the vessels of the temple but expresly these holy vessels vnderstanding them which he had then to vse Againe he saith not wherein was not but wherin is not the true body of Christ nor wherein was conteined but wherein is conteined the mysterie of his bodie All which being referred to the present time do plainly enough shew that hee spake of the vessels that then were present and therefore his wordes are a verie direct and substantiall proofe that in the vessels of Christian temples there is not the true body of Christ but onely a mysterie of his body Yea but there is mention of Baltazar there And what then Surely Baltasar is there brought in to teach vs as the authour speaketh Now what doth the example of Baltasar teach vs not to abuse the vessels of the temple of Hierusalem A senselesse conceite He teacheth vs not to abuse the vessels of our temples and Churches least offending as he did we be punished as he was For there is alwaies the same reason of the vse or abuse of holy thinges and particular examples are alwaies alleaged for confirmation and proofe of generall doctrines Surely the Answ was sodainly awaked out of his dreame when he conceiued this and set his handes to write before he was well aduised what he should write P. Spence Sect. 19. AS I haue dilated at large the meaning of Gelasius so I cannot but wonder at your repeating of him in this place so contrâ—â—ie to his meaning euen by your owne confession You woulde before haue Gelasius drift to be this that as in heauen Christ is in his two natures seuerall the godhead and the manhood so in the Sacrament with his body remaineth the bread thereby to haue hoth in heauen and here two seuerall natures Yet now
first which hee tooke to make the Sacrament but in being made the Sacrament it was no longer wine as if Cyprian had said thus Christ tooke wine and made it no wine and though it were now no wine yet he called wine his bloud Cyprians wordes are euident that Christ called wine his bloud and that by wine is represented his bloud which cannot be till it be made a sacrament Therefore in the Sacrament there is wine which representeth and is called the bloud of Christ Such testimonies he saith are the scrappes and parings and crummes of the fathers But let him remember that a crumme is enough to choke a man and so doth this testimonie choke him so that hee staggereth and stammereth out an answere whereof he himself can make no reason if he were enquired of it by word of mouth His other idle talke is answered b Sect. 2. before Pet. Spence Sect. 17. SAint Augustine ad Adimantum maketh so flatly against you that I wonder why you alleage it Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body Why should he doubt to say it was so when he knew it was so when he gaue the signe of his bodie But what signe a bare signe no sir but such a signe as contained in it the thing signified really how prooue you it Euen thus Hee writeth against the Manichees that condemned all the olde testament as being the euill Gods testament such was their vile blasphemie among other places they condemned this place of Leuiticus 17. Sanguis pecoris erit eius aâ—ima This place saith S. Augustine is spoken figuratiuely not that it is the very soule or life of the beast but that in it lieth the soule or life of the beast neither is the bloud a bare signification of the beasts soule but such a signe as containeth in it the very soule of the beast and therefore of the same speech he hath Quaestio 57. in Leuiticum made particular discourse where he hath these wordes We are to seeke out such speeches as by that which containeth do signifie that which is conteined â—â— because the life is holden in the body by the bloud for if the bloud be shed the life or soule departeth therefore by the bloud is most fâ—â—ly signified the soule and the bloud taketh the name thereof euen as the place wherein the Church assembled is called the Church You a I see the Answerer play with his owne fancie altogether stranâ—e from S. Austenâ— meaning as shall be shewed see he maketh in this place the bloud of the beast a signe of the beasts soule but such a signe as contained the soule in it Now in the other place ad Adimantum by you obiected S. Augustine forgat not this point of this place touched but in excusing that place of Leuiticus and interpreting it he exemplifieth it by the wordes of Christ which they admitted all the sorte of them as being the wordes of the good God of the new testament as they termed him saying I may interpret that precept to be set downe by way of signe For our Lord doubted not to say c. So that this place is brought by S. Augustine to shewe that in the B. Sacrament there is a signe containing the thing and therefore called by the name of the thing so in that of Leuiticus Moses called the bloud the soule of the beast because it is such a signe as containeth the soule of the beast really in it This exposition is irrefragable because it is b VVhich S. Austen himselfe neuer dreamed of S. August own exposition who could best expound his own meaning And against the Manichees he could not bring any other meaning possibly of This is my body but that For they confessed Christ to be really in the Sacrament in his bodie because the euill God had tied him or as they foolishly vttered it certaine peeces of him aswel in the Sacramentall bread as in other bread eares of corne stickes hearbes meates and all other creatures and that the elect Manichees by eating those things and after belching them out againe and otherwise auoiding them did let out at libertie the good God Christes body And therefore after these expositions agreeable to their heresie this place did fitly as S. Augustine bringeth it in expound that of Leuiticus As Christ in saying This is my body must meane as you Manichees expound it This is a signe of my body in which signe the partes of my body are bound euen so the bloud of the beast is the life is as much as the bloud of the beast is a signe of his life in which signe his life is contained Thus did S. Augustine excellently quoad homines answere the Manichees with their owne opinion And therefore to conclude S Augustine in calling it signum doth inferre most necessarie that his body is present because it is a signe in which the body is conteined R. Abbot 17. TO shew further that our Sauiour Christ said of verie bread This is my body and therefore that the Sacrament is not really and substantially but onely in signe and mysterie the body of Christ I alleaged the words of S. Austen Our a August cont Adimantum cap. 12. Lord doubted not to say This a is my body when he gaue the signe of his body The wordes are plaine that Christ in a certaine vnderstanding and meaning called that by the name of his body which is indéede but a signe of his bodie Now with this place of Austen the Answ dealeth as b Leu. deca 1. lib. 1. Cacus the théefe dealt with Hercules his Oxen when he drew them backward by the tailes into his caue So doth this man violently pull and draw the wordes of Austen backward into his den of reall presence and streineth them whether they wil or not to serue his turne in that behalfe But the lowing of the Oxen to their fellowes descried the theft of Cacus and the wordes following in S. Austen himselfe doe prooue that the Answ doth but play the théefe M. Harding was content to say that S. Austen in heate of disputation spake that which might be greatest aduantage against the hereticke not most agréeable to the trueth or to his owne meaning but little did he thinke that the place should serue to prooue any thing for his part But the Answ hath learned a tricke to make the wordes speake for reall presence which neuer was in S. Austens minde Forsooth hauing in hand against the Manichees to expound the wordes of Moses law The bloud is the soule or life he telleth them that the meaning thereof is that the bloud is a signe of life in which signe the soule or life is really conteined and to shew this we are tolde that he bringeth the words of Christ This is my body which he spake of the signe of his body but yet such a signe as doth really conteine the body and therefore we must thinke that the bodie of Christ
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
iustly and well perswade a Christian to beléeue the contrary in my opinion S. Mathew Mark Luke and Paul all writing This is my bodie whereas writing otherwise of one thing one saith If I in the finger of God cast out diuels c. Another If I in the spirit of God c. So that in d Vntrue as appeareth by the coÌ„ference of these places Mat. 5. 29. with Mar. 9. 3. Mar. 5. 39. with Luc. 6. 29. Mat. 20. 23. Mar. 10. 39. Mat. 21. 21. Mar. 11. 23. which are not taken literally and yet difler not in phrase of speech any matter where moe then one speak of the same thing euerie one hath more of the same thing to giue more light then another But in the matter of the Sacrament no whit so but in the verie substantiall point e Vntrue for they varie as touching the cup there is the same reason of the one part of the Sacrament as of the other See the reply Concil constanti 6. can 32 all deliuer the selfe same effectuall words Sir once againe thankes for your good Chrysostome and so I beséech to recall them that erre into the way of truth and euerlasting saluation A reply against the former answere to the places of Chrysostome and Gelasius THe willingnesse I haue to doe you good M. Spence I wish might take such effect with you as that God might be glorified by reuealing vnto you the knowledge of his truth I doubt not but it shall be so if you séeke it as you ought and where you ought Concerning the place of Chrysostome of vsing water in the Sacrament I finde it expounded as you answere me in Concil Constantinopol 6. ca. 32. of them that vsed water onely and no wine Albeit the wordes séeme to me plainly to enforce vpon the Reader another vnderstanding neither find I any reason why the Bishops of Armenia being a thousand vnder one Metropolitane may not be thought as méete iudges of Chrysostomes meaning as the Bishops of this Councell especially séeing it is not certaine either what time or by whom those Canons were made and appeare to be falsly fathered vpon the sixth generall Councell as Surius in his admonition Surius in admoniâ— ad Lector de can 6. synodi concil to 2. concerning those Canons giueth to vnderstand Yea and they are in diuers points reiected by your selues as is plaine also by Surius both in the same Preface and by some notes added to some of the Canons But I contend not of that point and as I condemne not in that respect the Churches which either haue vsed or doe vse that mixture only without opinion of superstition and necessitie so neither do I find reason why those Churches are to be condemned that rather follow as most assured the simplicitie of the institution of Iesus Christ where we finde mention of the fruite of the vine but nothing as touching water If you say as the Canon saith that this is to innouate those things which haue bene deliuered by tradition Cypri epist ad Pompeium I must answer you with Cyprians words Whence is this tradition Whether descending from the authoritie of the Lord and of the Gospell or comming from the Commandements and Epistles of the Apostles for that those things which are written must be done God testifieth c. If therefore either it be commanded in the Gospell or conteined in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles let this tradition be kept as holie Now séeing there is no testimony of the holie scripture to approue the necessitie of water I take your wordes directly contrary to the scriptures to be vnderstood rather of those which vse water only contrarie to the text then wine only according to the expresse mention of the text Your glose of the Canon De consecra dist 2. cap. sicut in glossa law doth tell that Doctors haue said that water is to be mingled in the cup only for honestie or decencie and therefore not of necessitie to the Sacrament And that amoÌ„gst others Thomas Aquinas granteth Polydore Virgil referreth the fist institution thereof to Alexander Plati in Alexander 1. Durand Rati diuin lib. 4. rubri de officio sacerdotis c. Thom. Aquin. pa 3. q. 7â— art 3 the first Bishop of Rome Pâ—atina séemeth to agrée with him So Durand saith Water is mingled in the cup with the wine by the institution of Pope Alexander the first And as touching Christes vsing of water Thomas Aquinas maketh it but a probabilitie and no certaine truth It is probably beleeued that our Lord instituted this Sacrament in wine mingled with water according to the manner of that country Your Councell of Trent saith no more It is supposed that our Lord did so And in a conference betwixt Anselmus a Bishop of Saxome and Nechâ—tes Patriarch of Nicomedia Anno domini Centur. Magdebur cap. 12. 1138. Neâ—hites obiecting that Christ our Sauiour did not vse water in the consecration Anselmus answereth by likelihood that he did so because in Palestina the maner is to mingle water with their wine Now if it were done according to the maner of that country then it was done to abate the strength of the wine and not for any such mysterie as some haue imagined In manie Countries where their wines are verie strong temperate sober men vse to qualifie and delaie the heate thereof by mingling water least it should cause any distemperature to the bodie And this the Gréeke Churches may séeme to haue respected who consecrated with méere wine as appeareth by Nâ—chites his spéech in the conference aboue-named as also by some editions of Chrysostomes Liturgie and afterwardes put in water when it was to be administred to the receiuers The reason which they vsed for not adding water before was this because Christ is not read to haue added water which accordeth with the words of Chrysostome alleaged by me But as I said before I stand not vpon this point Only I pray you to consider an argument of Bertram in his booke de corpo sangui domini ad Carol imperat taking Bertram de corpo sang domini his ground from this mixture Water saith he in the Sacrament beareth the image of the people Therefore if the wine sanctified by the seruice of the Ministers be bodily turned into the blood of Christ then the water also which is mingled withall must needs be bodily or substantially turned into the blood of the beleeuing people For where there is one sanctification there is consequently one working or effect and where there is the like reason there followeth also the like mysterie But we see in the water there is nothing turned bodily Consequently therefore in the wine there is nothing bodily shewed It is taken spiritually whatsoeuer is signified in the water as touching the bodie of the people It must needes therefore be taken spiritually whatsoeuer is signified in the wine concerning the blood of Christ