As for that which he asketh whether Christ doe not giue himselfe verily vnto vs wee say he doth and that wholly with all that is his yet not to be eaten with the mouth as being héere on earth but to be receiued by faith sitting in heauen as I said before out of S. Austen And this is enough for vs to prooue and in proouing wherof we confound that c Supr sect 22. grosse imagination as Cyrill calleth it of eating the fleshe of Christ with the mouth into the belly For that Christ at his supper giueth onely a figure and nothing else we néede not prooue it because it is not our assertion but the Answ cauill and a Popish slaunder As for the meaning of Christes wordes This is my body it is shewed before Christ did not lie to his Disciples nor beguile theÌ„ in so saying His Disciples were no Capernaites they were no Papistes They knew that Christ instituted deliuered a sacrament They knew that sacrameÌ„ts are called by the names of those things which they signifie whereof they had example in the name of the passeouer which they celebrated at the same time calling it the Passeouer which was indéede but a remembronce and signe thereof Therefore they vnderstood the meaning of Christ to be as the ancient Fathers expound it This is a Figure a signe a Sacrament of my bodie They saw the true bodie of Christ before theyr eyes They knewe that Christ had not a bodie at one and the same instant visible and inuisible with forme and without forme sitting at the table and yet inclosed in a little fragment or crust of bread These leaud and vntowardly fancies were not yet bredde They deliuered no such vnto vs and therefore we beléeue no such Let me thus conclude out of these two places this of Austen and that before of Origen He that vnderstandeth a figuratiue spéech according to the letter doth misunderstand it But he that vnderstandeth the eating and drinking of Christs flesh blood concerning the very eating of his flesh and drinking his blood with the mouth vnderstandeth a figuratiue spéech according to the letter Therefore he that so vnderstandeth the eating and drinking of Christs flesh and blood doth misunderstand it But the church of Rome doth so vnderstand it Therefore the Church of Rome doth vnderstand it amisse P. Spence Sect. 25. TO conclude we eate drinke in the blessed Sacrament Christs flesh and blood really truly and indeed but not bodily for so much I will graunt you taking bodily for after a grosse bodily maner but sacramentally figuratiuely and in a diuine mysterie in a figure not a figure of Rhetoricke or of Grammer but in a diuine figure but yet verie truly R. Abbot 25. HEre is now the Answ conclusion set downe without any premisses vpon his bare word namely that in the Sacrament they verily and truly eate and drinke the flesh and blood of Christ But against this presumed conclusion of his I oppose the auncient praier of the Church mentioned by a De corp san do Bertram b De sacr Euch. Lanfrancus and c De conse dist 2. ca. â—pecies Gratian Let thy Sacraments ô Lord worke in vs that which they containe that what we now celebrate in signe or resemblance we may in the truth of the things receiue the same They praied to receiue the truth of the things Of what things Namely of those the signe or resemblance whereof they celebrated in the Sacrament that is of the bodie and blood of Christ Then the Sacrament it selfe is not the truth of the bodie and blood but only the signe the image and resemblance therof For with what reason should they pray to receiue the truth of that which verily and truly they did receiue alreadie But their praier was that whereas they did now receiue but the image and signe of the bodie and blood of Christ they might in the kingdome of heauen enioy the thing it selfe the very bodie and very blood of Christ And hereof d Bertr de corp san dom Bertram in his booke very soundly concludeth that the bodie of Christ is not verily really in the Sacrament whose whole collection to that purpose being very strong the e Index Expuâ—â—n coâ—r Bertr Spanish censurers in their Index aboue named haue treacherously appointed to be left vnprinted as before I shewed of another place Lanfrancus to auoyd the euidence of this auncient praier so plainly contradicting the reall presence betaketh himselfe to an absurd shift whose words to that purpose being Gratian hath taken and put into the decrées in the chapter last before cited That Truth he saith is to be vnderstood of the manifestation and open reuealing of the bodie of Christ and affirmeth that the name of truth is diuerse times vsed in scripture to that meaning but yet alleageth not any one place to prooue it so Further he addeth that the word species doth sometime import the very Truth it selfe and so in that maier he will haue it vnderstood Then the meaning of the praier must be thus that they might receiue in truth that which they did now receiue in truth or that they might receiue in truth that is visibly and manifestly that which they now receiued in truth but inuisibly and vnder another shape But the Church as it is alwaies conuenient vsed their praier plainly and without these sophistications If they had meant so they had words inough to expresse their meaning neither néeded they to vse such doubtfull words to séeme to say one thing and yet to meane another They plainly oppose species and veritas the signe and the truth one against the other They would not put veritas in an vnproper signification as opposit to species and vnderstand it in proper signification included in the word species This were a very straunge and vnwonted kinde of speaking And therfore referring the signe or resemblance to the time present and the truth to the time to come they plainly shewe that there is not now in the Sacrament the very truth but only the resemblance of the bodie of Christ and therfore that we do not in the sacrament really and verily with our mouthes eate the bodie of Christ And this is most plainely affirmed by Hierome as Gratian citeth him in the decrées f â—e conse di 2 cap. de hac Surely saith he Of this sacrifice which is wonderfully made in remembrance of Christ a man may eate but of that which Christ offered vpon the altar of the crosse as touching it selfe no man may eate The hoste or sacrifice which Christ offered vppon the Crosse was his verie body and bloud The sacrament thereof he saith we doe receiue and eate but as touching it selfe no man may eat thereof Therefore no man may eate the very body and drinke the very bloud of Christ but these spéeches must be figuratiuely vnderstood as hath béen noted out of Austen And whereas the Answ saith for
is really present and conteined in the Sacrament or signe of his bodie Now this though it be a manifest vntrueth yet the Answ thought would carrie some shewe of trueth but yet because he would not haue vs abused by this shew to thinke that S. Austen did héere indéede auouch any reall presence or transubstantiation he telleth vs plainly in the end that S. Austen spakâ— according to the Manichees exposition of Christes words and answered them by their opinion not by his owne So that if S. Austen doe say any thing of reall presence he noteth the Manichees opinion but affirmeth it not himselfe and therefore giueth vs to vnderstand that the Papistes héerein take part with the Manichees rather then with him His answere in trueth is false and absurd and yet I would not that the reader should think it was deuised by him for he hath learned it of c Bellar. tom 2. de sacram Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 24. Bellermine their great Rabbine and from him hath patched two answeres into one But the matter standeth thus The Manichees condemned the olde testament as false and contrarie to the newe testament For in the new testament it is said d Math 10. 28. Feare not them which kill the body but are not able to hurt the soule c. Now in the old sayd they it is written the bloud is the soule and that is false for the bloud may be hurt and spilt as we know but the soule cannot be hurt as wee read in the gospel Againe the new testament saith that flesh e 1. cor 15. 50. and bloud cannot enter into the kingdome of God It is false therefore which the old testament saith that the bloud is the soule for then the soule shoulde not enter into the kingdome of God Therefore they blasphe mousâ—y auouched that the old testament was false and not to be beléeued To this cauillation of theirs S. Austen answereth that these wordes of the olde testament The bloud is the soule or life were spoken of the life of beastes not of the soule of man Of beastes it is said that the life of all flesh is the bloud thereof not that mans soule is his bloud And therefore they reasoned absurdly from that which was spoken of beastes to that that was said of the soule of man Further he answereth thus I may also interpret that commandement of not eating bloud because the bloud is the soule or life to be set downe by way of signe For our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the signe of his bodie signifying héereby that as Christ said in the new testament This is my body when as he gaue not his body indéed but only a signe of his body so Moses said in yâ— old testament The bloud is the life or soule not because it is so indéed but onely because it was appointed for the signe of life which is most euident against Transubstantiation and real presence Nay not so saith the Answ for the bloud is such a signe as doth really conteine the life and so the signe of Christes bodie must really conteine the body that the one signe may be answerable to the other But let me aske him doth the bloud really contein the life when the thing is dead or did either Moses or Austen intend to make the bloud a signe of life as the same bloud is in the body and the thing aliue and whole Was the Answ well in his wittes to send abroad such vntowardly imaginations or rather was not Bellermine a wretched and lewd man to go about with such fictions to dazle the eyes of his readers The precept is concerning those thinges that are taken and killed for meate that the bloud thereof should not be kept and vsed for meate because the bloud is the life saith God that is saith S. Austen it doth betoken life although the thing be now dead so that whether hâ—te or colde whether aliue or dead it was not lawfull for the Iewes to eat any bloud at all But if that spéech had béene vsed as in respect that the bloud doth now really conteine the life they might haue sayd when the thing was dead that now thâ—y might â—ate the bloud for now the bloud is not the life because the life is gone is not really conteined in it God would haue the bloud as touching the eating of it to betoken life and by this ceremoniall commandement of abstinence from bloud hee would giue to vnderstand howe he hateth and detesteth sauagenesse and cruâ—â—ty how hee would haue life to be regarded and fauoured as of other his creatures according to their kind whereof Salomon speaketh thus f Prou. 12. 10. The righteous man regardeth the life of his beast so especially of man whom he created according to his owne image concerning whome hee speaketh in the first giuing of this commandement as it were to shew the meaning and intent therof I g Gen. 9. 5. 6. will require your bloud wherein your liues are Who so sheddeth mans bloud by man shall his bloud be shed for in the image of God created he him Nowe in that other place which the Answ citeth out of the questions vpon Leuiticus S. Austen giueth reason why the life was signified by the bloud rather then by any thing els namely because h Aug. quaest sup Leuit. q. 57 the life is conteined or holden in the body by the bloud so that the bloud being shed the life departeth therefore the life was most fitly signified by the bloud and the bloud did take the name of life Which wordes do not signifie that bloud was a signe of life onely as now really conteined in it as the Answ fondly imagineth but that bloud euen of the things killed and dead was appointed to betoken and signifie life because the life of those things that are aliue is holden in yâ— body especially by thâ— bloud Neither is he helped any whit by that which he alleageth We must seeke for speeches signifying by that which containeth that which is contained as because the life or soule is holden in the body by the bloud therfore the bloud may take the name of life as the place wherin the Church assemble themselues is called also the Church For we know that the place of the assembling of yâ— Church is called the Church though there be nowe no body conteined in it onely because it is appointed to that vse and so the bloud was called the life and appointed to be a signe of the life or soule though the life were now dead and gone because in things that liue the bloud is a most speciall instrument of life whereby it is conteined and holden in the body But to put the matter out of doubt and to shew the Answ his folly S. Austen in yâ— end of the Chapter whence I alleaged the words in question saith thus So i Aug. cont Adimant ca. 12 is the bloud the
in the Sacraments of the bodie and blood of Christ d Gelas cont â—uty â—estor There ceaseth not to bee the substance or nature of bread and wine These two latter places haue bene the occasion of all this writing He sent to me within two or three daies after for my bookes to peruse the places that wheras he could not presently answer any thing by speâ—ch he might do somewhat by wâ—â—ting I receiued his answere and replied to the same againe by writing yet not intending because it stood not with my businesse otherwise to goe any further in this course but only for some aduertisement and instruction to him which I sawe hee needed and to giue him occasion of further conference by speech as I moued him in the end This happened neare the beginning of Lent in the yeare 1590. Towards Whitsuntide next following when I thought he had bene quiet and would haue medled no more he sent me an answere againe written at large to my reply But the answere in truth was none of his owne doing as is manifest partly by his owne confession and by that he shewed himselfe a straunger in his owne answeres when afterward in speech he was vpbraided with some of them by my selfe partly by the muttering report of his owne fellowes vaunting that though he were able to say litle yet some had the matter in hand that were able to say inough He himself indeed was not nor is of ablenesse to doe it as all men know that haue any knowledge of him He was neuer of any Vniuersitie and both professed and shewed himself in speech vtterly ignorant of Logicke wherof his deputie Answ pretendeth great skill I omit some other matters that I might mention for proofe hereof But thus I was vnwares drawne from P. Spence to tontrouersie and disputation with some other secret friend of his who for his learning might take vppon him to bee a defender of the Romish falshood I addressed my selfe to a confutation of this answer and thought to haue sent the same to M. Spence in writing but before I had fully perfected it which was in Iuly or August following he was by occasion of some infirmitie as was pretended set free from his imprisonment vpon suerties and so continueth till this time neither could I by such meanes as I vsed bring him foorth to receiue that which I had written Hereupon haue I bene traduced by the faction as a man conquered and ouercome as if I taught openly that which in dealing priuately with an aduersary I am not able to defend For the auoyding of this scandall I was diuerse times motioned to publish the whole matter but for some speciall reasons did forbeare It laie by me almost a whole yeare before I would resolue so to do At the length for the satisfying of such as might bee desirous to bee satisfied in this behalfe and that foolish men might haue no further occasion of their vaine imaginations and speeches I tooke it in hand as my great businesse otherwise would permit to peruse it againe and to adde some things for answere to Bellarmine as touching some points for which the Answ referreth me to him whose workes I had not at the first penning heereof and so I haue presumed Christian Reader to offer it vnto thy consideration I haue termed the whole discourse in respect of the principall purpose and argument of it A Mirror of Popish subtilties as wherein thou maist in part behold the vanitie wretchednesse of those answeres wherein these men account so great subtiltie and acutenesse of wit and learning as if the same being giuen there were nothing more to be saide against them In the publishing heereof I haue thought good to obserue this order First I haue set downe the aboue named places of Chrysostome and Gelasius Secondly M. Spence his Answere to those two places Thirdly my reply to that answere Fourthly the latter answere to my reply with a confutation thereof from point to point and a defense of the allegations and authorities vsed in the said reply Reade all and then iudge of the truth I protest I haue made conscience to write nothing but the truth neither hath any vaine curiositie led me to the publishing hereof but only the regard of iustifying the truth and that namely to those of the Citie and Countie of VVorcester whom my labours do most neerely and properly concerne If thou canst reape any frute or benefit by it I shal be heartily glad thereof and let vs both giue glorie vnto God If any see the truth herein and yet will maliciously kicke against it I passe by him with those words of the Apostle e Apoc. 22 11. He that is filthie let him be filthie still It is our part to propose the truth it is God onely that can giue men hearts to assent vnto it and f Mat. 11. 1 VVisedome shal be iustified of her children The God of all wisedome and knowledge enlighten vs more and more to the vnderstanding of his true religion subdue the pride and rebellion of our hearts that we may vnfainedly yeeld vnto it and giue vs constancie and perseuerance to continue in the same vnto the end that in our ende we may attaine to the endlesse fruition of his kingdome and glorie through Iesus Christ our Lord. Amen Rob. Abbot The speciall matters that are discussed in this Treatise THat the mixture of water in the cup of the Lord is not necessarie neither hath any sufficient warrant Defe sect 2. That the Liturgies which goe vnder the names of Iames Basil and Chrysostomes Masses as now they are extant are not theirs whose names they beare sect 5. That Popish praier for the dead hath no warrant from the ancientest church sec 7. That the sacrifice of the Masse is contradicted by the scriptures and Fathers that Bellarmin himself in seeking to approue it ouerthroweth it that the exceptions that are made against our reasons and proofes are vaine and friuolous sect 4. 9. 10. That Theodoret and Gelasius in disputing against the he esie of Eutyches do verie peremptorily determine against Transubstantiation sect 11. 12. That Tertullian Cyprian Chrysostome Austen do manifestly impugne the same error of Transubstantiation with a declaration of an obscure place alleaged vnder Austens name and a refutation of other exceptions that are made in the behalfe thereof sect 13. 14 15. 16. 17 18. 21. 22. That the expounding of the descending of Christ into hell of the torments anguish of his soule conteineth as touching the doctrine thereof nothing but the truth witnessed both by the scriptures and by the Fathers sest 15. That our sacraments are rightly called seales and in what respect they are preferred before the sacraments of the old Testament sect 20. 30. That the reall eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ is a leaude deuise and iudged by the Fathers to be wicked profane faithlesse and heathenish and that the words of Christ
not that we should daily purge with daily sacrifices as they did in the old law Did they sée none of these expositions yes without doubt they saw them and shut their eyes against them The Lord will require it in his due time But hereby we vnderstand the meaning of their words in their Preface to the Epistles that if in the scriptures there sound any thing to vs coÌ„trary to their doctrine we must assure our selues that we faile of the right sense So that be the words neuer so plain yet if they sound either to the auncient Fathers or to vs contrarie to the Romish doctrine we must thinke that neither the auncient Fathers nor we attaine to the right vnderstanding of the wordes But we are not so madde vpon the warrant of any Philosopher to say that snow is blacke so long as our eyes assure vs that snow is white I know here what you are readie to obiect namely that the Fathers in speaking of the Eucharist vse verie commonly a mention of sacrifice and cal the same by the name of sacrifice and all this you referre to the sacriledge of the Masse But you should not conceiue so of the Fathers as to thinke that they meant any thing contrarie to so expresse and manifest scripture so long as they do so plainly tel you what they meant in vsing the name of sacrifice You should remember the corrections which Chrysostome Ambrose do vse when Chrysost Ambros in Hebr. 10. naming their offering of sacrifice they adde Or rather wee worke the remembrance of a sacrifice You should take notice of the exposition of Theophylact Wee offer him the same alwaies or rather wee Theophy ibid. make a remembrance of the offering of him as if he were offered or sacrificed at this time and of the words of Eusebius After all hauing Euseb de demonstrat Euang lib. 1. cap. 10. Theodor. in Hebr. 8. wrought a wonderfull and excellent sacrifice vnto his father he offered for the saluation of vs all and ordained that wee should offer the remembrance therof vnto God in steed of a sacrifice and of Theodoret Why do the priests of the new Testament vse a mysticall Liturgie or sacrifice It is cleare to them that are instructed in diuine matters that we do not offer another sacrifice but do performe a remembrance of that one and sauing sacrifice For this commandement the Lord himselfe gaue Do this saith hee in the remembrance of me that by beholding the figures we might call to minde the sufferings which he vndertooke in our behalfe And of S. Austen The flesh August con faust Manich. lib. 20. ca. 2â— blood of this sacrifice was promised before the comming of Christ by sacrifices of resemblance in the passion of Christ it was giuen in verie truth after the ascension of Christ it is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance Learne by this place to put difference betwixt in verie truth and by a Sacrament of remembrance and learne by all these places that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice properly so called wherein Christ is really and properly and in verie truth sacrificed but a Sacrament a commomoration and remembrance of a sacrifice Adde hereunto if you will the words of saint Austen Was not Christ once offered in himselfe and yet in a mysterie or Sacrament August ep 23. he is euerie day offered for the people For if Sacraments had not a kinde of resemblance of those thinges whereof they are Sacraments they should not be Sacraments at all Now by reason of this resemblance they doe most commonly take the names of the things themselues Note in these words the difference betwixt being offered in himselfe and being offered in a Sacrament or mysterie learn that this spéech of being offered or sacrificed when it respecteth the Sacrament hath his vse and meaning not of the things themselues but of the resemblance of the things and therefore is not indéed to be offered in himselfe And therfore your owne glose of the Canon law expoundeth it Christ is sacrificed that is the sacrificing of him is represented De consec dist 2. cap. semel and there is a remembrance made of his passion The sacrifice of the death and passion of Jesus Christ is the whole matter and substance of this mysterie it is there proposed the remembrance thereof renued as if it were now done the thing resembled by outward signes of breaking the bread and powring the wine the hearts of men stirred vp as if they saw Christ nailed to yâ— crosse the sacrifice of this passion is presented by the faith praiers of the church vnto God thereby to haue forgiuenesse of sinnes nothing here remembred but Christes sacrificing himselfe vpon the crosse What maruell then though the Fathers called this mysterie a sacrifice though neuer imagining your sacrifice of the Masse What maruell though they will vs to behold in this Sacrament the sacrifice of our price the sacrifice of sacrifices the vnbloudie seruice of the sacrifice the sacrifice of our mediator and such like which spéeches your men foolishly and vnlearnedly or rather impudently and vnconscionably alleage for their supposed sacrifice of the Masse They haue expounded their owne meaning as you haue heard and pitifully do your Rhemists labour and striue to winde themselues out of those expositions and cannot preuaile And as for the same spéeches of the Fathers as touching sacrifice we would not doubt â—â— speake in this case as they did but that your hereticall doctrine hath caused Gods people to conceiue of sacrifice otherwise then the Fathers intended Albeit vpon like occasions we are not far from that vehemencie of wordes which we finde to haue bene vsed by them nay we are no whit behinde them But thinke with your selfe M. Spence is not the death and passion of Christ the onely sacrifice for the foâ—giuenesse of sins Shame be on his face that will deny it What sacrifice then is there in the Eucharist Verily Cyprian saith The passion of Christ is the sacrifice Cypr. lib 2. epist 3. Pâ—oâ—p in psal 129. which we offer And Prosper What propitiation is there but sacrifice and what sacrifice but the killing of that lambe which hath taken away the sinne of the world and your owne counterfeit decretall of Alexander the first The passion of Christ is to be remembred Alexan. epist 1. to 1. concil in these sacrifices and the same to be offered to the Lord. But doth Christ really suffer die in the Sacrament Is he there sweating water and blood is he buffeted with fists spit in the face crowned with thornes derided accused condemned nailed to the crosse Indéed the auncient fathers say as touching the Sacrament Chrysostome thus While that death is performed and dreadfull sacrifice Chrysost in Acta hâ—m 21. De conâ—e diâ—t 2. cap. Quidâ—â—t sanâ—uâ— Cyp de caena domini Chrâ—â—ost in Encaenâ—jâ— Hâ—â—ron â—â— psa 95. and Gregorie Christ dâ—eth
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
yeares But because the Roomish harlot hath approued this fable and the Rhemists do but sooth her in that which she hath affirmed you will rather then yâ—eld say that the supposed reporter of this storie being a Counsellor of Athens and this being done in Iudea was there for that purpose thrée or foure yeares before he was conuerted to Christianitie I shewed you the sophisâ—ry of the same honest men in peruerting the place before alleaged out of the tenth to the Hebruâ—s but because they haue set it down in fauour of the Romish Masse you will not goe from it though it be without shewe of reason and contrary to common sense To shewe the plaine euidence of scripture as touching our doctrine of iustification I cited those words That a man is iustified by faith without Rom. 3. 2â— Iam. 2. 21. 24. the workes of the law You crosse it with S. Iames his words That Abraham was iuâ—â—ified by workes and not by faith only I answere directly out of S. Paul If Abraham were iustified by workes he had Rom 4. 2. to reioyce but not with God by which place Oecumenius accordeth Oecumen in Rom. 4. the former two and by which conference it appeareth that whosoeuer is iustified by faith before God doth also approue his true faith by workes of righteousnesse before men but yet that no mans righteousnesse of workes is such as wherby he may stand holy blamelesse and without fault in the sight of God but that all are in this respect to cry out Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant for in thy sight no man liuing shal be iustified Wherupon S. Austen saith August in Pâ—al 142. saith Let the Apostles say forgiue vs our trespasses c. And when it shall be saide vnto them Why say you so what are your trespasses Let them answere because no man liuing shall be iustified in thy sight but you beléeue because your loue hath told you so that men are by the righteousnesse and merits of workes to be iustified in the sight of God Take héede M. Spence deceiue not your selfe There is but one heauen and one faith that bringeth thither God only hath reuealed that faith Séeke it there where he hath reuealed it Your ground is now only vppon men yet neither will Popery stand vppon that ground if you tie not your selfe to your new builders Bishop Iewel amongst others hath detected the vanitie of their building in many points But you say that one Steuens beyond the sea declared his bad dealing in his writing to that purpose But were you so simple to credit what Steuens said Doe you not know that many when they come to your Seminaries will haue some what to say whereby to commend themselues and to discredit vs and therefore when they want truth must néeds coyne lies One alleaged to me when I was in Oxford how Iewell had falsified a place out of Thomas Aquinas He spake it by heare-say as you do I went into a Library of verie auncient copâ—es and found it word for word as it was cited It was maruell that M. Harding could not finde that kinde of dealing It would haue giuen him good matter for a far more substantiall answere But I might as well vpon report tell you that Harding perplexed in mind néere his death wished that his soule might haue place with Bishop Iewels soule I haue heard that Hart the Iesuite being demanded thereof in the Tower could not make any great deniall of it But the truth lieth not in these matters As for Bishops Iewels writings I will lend you the booke if it please you It were maruell that no sillable or sentence should be mistaken in that multitude of allegations the sight whereof troubled M. Hardings minde as I conceiue by the Preface of his fond detection but for the substance of the cause and iustifying the points defended I will vndertake to make good vnto you the allegations for so many of the auncient Fathers as I haue and some of the principall you know I haue and can quickly get more And what I haue here written I will be readie to approue vnto you and to make plaine whatsoeuer is here for want of conuenient leisure briefly and therfore perhaps obscurely collected The God of peace guide vs in the way of peace and graunt vs to know his truth and to perseuere in the knowledge thereof vnto the ende A DEFENSE OF THE AVTHORITIES ALLEAGED IN THE REplie against the answere of P. Spence P. Spence Section first IN respect you wish me good and well M. Abbot I thanke you for it knowing it cannot proceed of an ill ground but at least of good nature which I do accept with desire of no lesse good to you then you to me but I hope rather much more Although there be choice oddes in our seuerall iudgements what is truly and indeede good which the one wisheth to the other For as from God who is essentially good all goodnesse proceedeth whatsoeuer so what faithfull seruant of God soeuer hee be that in God wisheth or willeth my good any way that may be called good indeed to him I thinke my selfe more beholding then for treasures of kingdomes of this world if he had them to beâ—â—ow vpon me If such good could be found in you as touching this cause betweene vs I would most thankfully accept it with no lesse estimatioÌ„ of your zeale and your person then pure affection to your charitie and care c. R. Abbot 1. SVch is the frowardnesse of mans nature that as S. Austen well noteth we are most commonly a Aug de nat grat cont Pelag. cap. 2â— more readie to seeke what we may answere to those things that are obiected against our errour then to consider how wholesome and good they are that thereby we may be freed from errour Which as it is generally true wheresoeuer the selfewill and pride of nature is not subdued ouerruled by good conscience and the feare of God so it is more particularly approued in you M. Spence by your vntowardly answere to that which I wrote vnto you which it séemeth you would néedes returne vnto me not as being perswaded that you could answere that that was alleaged vnto you but b August contra Gandentium lib 3. only for this cause least if you had holden your peace you should haue bene said to be conuicted as Austen told Gandentius the hereticke vpon the like occasion For to write somewhat or to say somewhat is not alwaies to answere and you though you haue taken paines to write much yet in your whole pamphlet haue answered nothing Which I call your pamphlet not because I take either the collections of the matter or the forme of enditing to be yours but because it came to me in your name and vnder your hand When I perused it I straightwaies perceiued that it was none of yours but that you had gotten the helpe of a secret friend who
the water to signifie the people as appeareth by those things that haue bene alleaged before Thus there is no certaintie or setled resolution when men will make mysteries without the warrant of the word of God Which things coÌ„sidered it hath not bene any superstitious contradicting humour but sober and aduised iudgement that hath moued vs to refuse this howsoeuer long and generally receiued custome But the Answ comming at length to set downe his conceit of the point in question is in a mammering cannot frame his wits to resolue any thing thereof For charging me first that I dare not deny flatly but would haue it séeme only propable that Christ added water with the wine whereas I alleaged therein but the opinion and words of his owne Doctours he calleth for S. Cyprian to be stickler betwéene vs in this point affirming it to be the institution of Christ and straightwaies as hauing forgotten himselfe he confesseth that the wine only is of the institution of Christ and the water of the ordinance of the Church and then again as vncertaine where â—o rest himselfe he runneth to Cyprian and others crauing their helpe and warrant to proue that it was appointed by our Sauiour Christ But truth is one and â—litteth not in this sort from one ground to another Concerning the Epistle of l cypria lib. 2. Epist 3. Cyprian to Cecilius which is that whereunto he referreth himselfe he telleth me m Sect. 16. afterwards that euery word thereof is a sword to cut my throate and maruelleth that I would for shame alleage it But this is but a Popish brag seruing to set a good shew vpon a bad cause and when truth faileth to outface the matter with Thrasonical words A man of meane discretion with indifferency of iudgement will easily conceiue that that Epistle maketh far more déeply against the Church of Romes doings then against any thing that we do It contrarieth vs in a smal matter of ceremony which we take to be no great matter whether it be vsed or not vsed as hath bene said but it conuinceth the Roomish harlot of capital and deadly wickednesse and damnable Apostasie from the Gospell of Iesus Christ For first he requireth water in the Sacrament togither with wine the one importing the people the other Christ to signifie that the people are vnited ioyned vnto Christ in being partakers of the Lords cup. And so n Thom. Aquin par 3. quae 74. art 7. Thomas Aquinas resolueth that water is no otherwise of the necessitie of the Sacrament but to signifie the peoples being partakers thereof What wisedome is it then in the Answ and his fellowes to vrge Cyprian for their defence of the mixture of water and yet vtterly to barre the people from being partakers of the Lordes cup which Cyprian intendeth by the same mixture o Mat. 23. 24 They straine out a Gnat and swallow a Camell contending with vs for an vncertaine and vnnecessary ceremony and themselues frowardly departing from that which I say not Cyprian in his Epistle but Iesus Christ in his Gospell hath manifestly and expresly commanded vnto them Secondly Cyprian giueth in the same Epistle diuers lessons which we desire to haue them bound vnto In the sacrifice which is Christ none but Christ is tâ— be followed And againe If only Christ be to be harkened vnto we are not to regard what any man hath done before vs but what Christ did first who is before all For we must not follow the custome of men but the truth of God And againe It is not lawfull to infringe those things that pertaine to the Sacrament of our redemption or by humane tradition to chaunge them to anie thing else then is appointed of God And againe We ought to do nothing but that which Christ did And againe That which it is certaine the Lord did let vs do By all which spéeches we are tyed to the institution of Iesus Christ and bounde to do nothing in the forme of this mysterie but that which we are assured he did first To which what the church of Rome can honestly answere I cannot tell in that she hath by her detractions from Christes institution committed sacriledge and by her additions made a mockery of his Sacrament setting the priest at the altar as a Squirrell at his bels to kéepe note and time in his duckings and turnings and kissings and crossings and listing vp and lotting downe and holding fore-finger and thumbe togither and ioyning togither both the hands and putting to the right eye and then to the left and a number such doltish and absurd toyes But for our selues we learne of Cyprian by those rules that vnlesse we can warrant our selues as we cannot that Christ instituted the Sacrament with water we may not admit it aâ— any part or matter of the Sacrament And to this purpose the words that I alleaged before out of the Epistle ad Pompeium are verie fit Being vrged with tradition he thus answereth p cypria epist ad Pompeium Whence is this tradition Descendeth it from the authoritie of the Lord or of the Gospell or commeth it from the precepts and Epistles of the Apostles For God testifieth that those things which are written must be done c. If therefore either it be commanded in the Gospell or be conteined in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostle let this tradition be obserued as holie importing that if it cannot be approued from thence it is not to be obserued But the Answ ful wisely and clerk like turneth the words of Cyprian to speake for him against vs. If saith he it be commanded in the Gospell to vse onely wine let this tradition be obserued By which reason he giueth to the Armenians whom he condemned before as good a proofe for vsing water and oyle in Baptisme as to himselfe for wine and water in the Lords supper For they might haue said for the one as he doth for the other that it is now here commanded to vse onely water and therefore that their adding of â—yle was not to be condemned But S. Cyprians words if he wold vse his reason to conceiue them wold teach him to reason thus We read in the Gospel of water for Baptisme of oyle we reade nothing therfore water only and not oyle is to be obserued So likewise we reade of wine for the Lords supper of water we reade nothing therefore wine onely and not water is to be enioyned For the condition of the words of God is this q Pro. 30. 6. Put nothing to his wordes least he reproue thee and thou be found a liar Now if Cyprian hauing laid this good foundation built any thing amisse thereon as in the matter of rebaptizing it is manifest that he did whilest he tooke that to be the sense of yâ— scripture which indéed is not that impeacheth not any whit the certaintie of that rule which he knew well inough was alwaies to stand good for the triall
herein as one Ioannes Scotus was a familiar friende of his who wrote a booke concerning the Sacrament to the same effect that Bertram did He was accounted no hereticke in his time but two hundreth yeares after when Berengarius pleaded the authoritie of the same booke it was condemned as hereticall in a Councell holden at Vercellae as a Lanfranc de sacram 〈…〉 char Lanfrancus testifieth who was present and an actour in the same matter So Beâ—tram who was Catholicke while he liued is now after so many hundreth yeares brought in suspiâ—ion to be an hereticke But the Answ owne fellowes the Authors of the b Index Expurgat in ceâ—sura Bertra Index Expurgatorius doe cleare Bertram from this suspition acknowledging him by these words that he was A Catholicke priest a Monke of the Abbie of Corbeie beloued and reuerenced of Carolus Caluus the Emperour and this verie same Bertram do they confesse to be the Authour of that booke which the Answerer would faine make vs beléeue to be a counterfeit They fréely confesse they must tollerate some errours in him as well as they do verie many in the auncient Doctors They say they would not wholy suppresse the booke least we should haue cause to say that they make away such antiquitie as serueth for vs. They confesse that it helpeth the historie of the time wherein Bertram liued The booke it selfe indéed doth shew it selfe so euidently to be of antiquitie that no man of any iudgement or conscience can gainsay it Yet saith the Answ learned men are of opinion that this was not Bertrams booke Who are those learned men Forsooth c Bristow in his reply to D. Fulk cap. 10. de 19. Bristow and Sander and some few other of the same marke whose word is inough to proue anie thing to be counterfeit But their authoritie is ouerwaied by the testimony and confession of those other of their owne company to whom these must giue place for commendation of learning It is no maruell that the Answ and those other his honest companions would haue the booke séeme counterfeit being written almost eight hundreth yeares agone so directly and of purpose against Transubstantiation The reason alleaged out of him carrieth with it that force that the Spanish censures in the Index aforesaid thought it not safe to let it continue but haue discharged it from the presse The Answerer full wisely passeth it ouer with How knoweth he and what necessitie is there without affirming any thing himselfe or so much as looking at the ground of that reason which is alleaged I would haue him peruse it once again As for his spéeches of those bookes of Caluin and Bucer falsly intituled I take them to be of the same sort as that the Thames stood stil when Friar Campian was executed for his treason Though any such thing were it is not for a Papist to speake of it seeing that they themselues in counterfeiting and falsifying of bookes haue passed all the impudency of former times P. Spence Sect. 4. YOur Athenian mad man was indeed a peeuish fellow and mee thinke they are not of the wisest that weene we haue no other defence for the Masse but the word Liturgia Where reade you this for an argument The Greekes call it Liturgia ergo it is the Masse Though Erasmus in the Acts of the Apostles translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they were sacrificing yet of his translation or of the word a Vntruth for it is a common argument The Answ is ashamed of his fellowes doings So M. Iewel vseth Doctor Harding no man frameth an argument for the name Missa except he were like your mad Athenian It is no new deuise to father vpon vs such arguments as we neuer thought of to triumph vpon the easie solution thereof R. Abbot 4. HEre the Answ is ashamed of the absurditie of his owne fellowes For he knoweth wel inough that their mouthes run ouer with these termes Basils Masse Chrysostomes Masse c. And that wheresoeuer they finde the Latin word Missa in any auncient writer they triumph thereof as hauing a proofe for their idolatrous Masse You know M. Spence that these are verie currant arguments with your selfe and those titles turne rounde vpon your tongue neither néede you to be ashamed thereof séeing D. Allen hath taught you to estéeme them so who taketh himselfe for a better Clerke then you are You know also when you tooke those words a Act. 13. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they were ministring to be a very good proofe for your Masse when you demanded of me to that purpose what the Gréeke wordes were But all these thinges the Answ is now ashamed of He telleth me that they do not say the Gréeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore it is the Masse No but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by some according to the phrase of their time translated Masse and that name of Masse thus translated some of his companions and namely you M. Spence deceitfully alleage to the simple ignorant as a strong proofe for the Popish Masse And this is that cogging and cosoning argument that I speake of wherewith you your selfe are deceiued as a very silly and ignorant man He telleth me further that though Erasmus translate sacrificantibus illis that is as they were sacrificing Act. 13. wheras the truth of the text is as they were ministring to the Lord yet of his translation or of the word no man frameth an argument for the name Missa No but yet for the Masse it selfe the b Rhem. Aâ—nota Act. 13. 2. Rhemists take an argument from thence and vnshamefastly and contrary to their knowledge and conscience say that the word signifieth they might haue translated saying Masse Wherof follow those absurdities that before I mentioned that the c Rom. 13. â— Magistrate is a Masse priest d Heb. 1. 14. that Angels are massing spirits that e Rom. 15 27. 2. Cor. 9. 12. to giue to the poore is to say Masse because the Apostle vseth the same Gréeke word of all these which they say doth signifie to say Masse But the Iesuit helpeth this lame reason of theirs by putting to it another lame legge He confesseth that the Gréeke worde f Bellarm. tom 2 con â— de Mâ—ssa lib. 1. cap. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth the execution of any publicke function or ministerie whatsoeuer But yet in this place he saith it must néedes be vnderstood of sacrificing because it is not simply said As they were ministring but as they were ministring to the Lord For it may not be vnderstood he saith of preaching the word or ministring the Sacraments because the preaching of the word and ministring the Sacraments is not to the Lord but to men He plaieth herein the part of a craftie Lawier who taking a bad cause in hand will séeke by shifting and faysting to preuaile because he faileth of good sound argument For
be mercifull to the sinnes of all not only liuing but also dead And I wonder with what face you alleage S. Augustine who distinctly b But that which he telleth he learned rather out of the schoole of Plato then out of the schoole of God He elsewhere speaketh far otherwise as shall appeare telleth you of some verie good some verie bad some neither verie good noâ— verie bad but of a middle sort and because hee would not leaue you any thing to helpe your selfe in this ease he telleth you how the Church vseth and in what seuerall sort for all three Where as though S. Augustine were no bodie you would helpe Dulâ—itius reason as well as you could but that verie reason confoundeth you For if the praier of the Church had not bene to craue Gods mercie for the dead but only to giue thanks for them what needed either that question to be made by Dulcitius of that which was not or that answer to be made by S. Augustine when he might haue denied that vse but the question of the one and the answere of the other proueth the Churches c But it proueth not the lawfulnesse of the churches practise practise What need I to answere herein our bookes are infinit to whom I referre you R. Abbot 7. AS touching praier for the dead we take that for a sufficient cause to refuse it which a Epiph. haer 75. Ephiphâ—nius confesseth that it is not taught by the holy scripture but obserued by traditioÌ„ receiued from the Fathers without scripture What men haue said or thought good in this behalfe we take not for Canonicall but examine it by the Canonicall scriptures according to that rule which the Fathers themselues haue prescribed The scripture telleth vs that b Apoc. 14. 13. they which die in the Lord are blessed and rest from their labors and therefore they néede not the helpe of our praiers If they die not in the Lord then no praiers can stand them in stéed So that praier for the dead is a matter of no effect and consequently a vaine vsage of the name of God That which the Fathers say according to this truth of Gods word we willingly embrace as that of Hierom c Cansa 13. q. 2. cap. In praesenti In this present worlde wee know that we may be helped either by the praiers or counsels each of other But when we shall come before the tribunall seate of Christ neither Iob nor Daniel nor Noe can make request for any man but euerie one must beare his owne burthen And that of Austâ—n d August in Ioh. trac 49. The rest which is giuen straightwaies after death euerie man then receiueth when he dieth if he be woorthie thereof Which worthinesse e Bernaâ—d in dedic eccle seâ— 5. Bernard declareth to be dignatione dinina non dignitate nostrae by Gods vouchsafing to accept vs as woorthie not by our worthinesse in our selues For as Chrysostom saith f Chrysost in ep ad colos hom 2. No man sheweth such conuersation of life as that hee may be worthie of the kingdome of heauen but it is wholy the gift of God himselfe To which effect Hierome also saith g Hierony in Esai lib. 6. c. 14. When the day of death or of iudgement shall come all hands shall faile because there shall no worke be found worthie of the iustice of God neither shall any man liuing be found righteous in his sight Now he that is not by Gods acceptation in Christ Iesus holden worthie when he dieth he neuer shall be by S. Austens iudgement For saith he h August epist 80. Such as euerie one dieth in this day such a one shal he be iudged at that day Now then if euerie one that is thought worthie of this rest do receiue it immediatly after death and he that is not thought worthie thereof at his death shall neuer be it followeth that euery one that receiueth the same rest receiueth it immediately after death and therefore néedeth not to be furthered vnto it by the praiers or deuotions of the liuing If contrary to this they haue taught other-where a place of paine where faithfull men are deteined from that rest they 〈…〉 here i◠〈◊〉 as men â— we 〈◊〉 not but they haue found wisedome in Jesus Christ to iouer their errour But the Papists have dealt with them here is as i Gen. 9. 22. Châ—m dâ—â—lt with his father Noe who in stéed of hâ—ding did rather publish and make knowne the nakednesse shame of his father For so haue they not sought to hide but to blaze abroad the imperfections and ouersightes of the auncient Fathers as k Vincent Lyâ—â—n cont haereses Vincent 〈…〉 Lyrinensis telleth the Donatists that they did when in the very like sort 〈◊〉 the Papists they cloaked their errour with the name of Cyprian and sundry other Bishops of former times We may say now of the auncient Fathers and the Papists as the same Vincentius said of Cyprian the Donatists l Ibid. 〈◊〉 chaunge of things The authoâ—rs of the same opinions are iudged Catholiâ—ke but the followers thereof are heretikes the maisters are pardoned but the schollers or learners are condemned the writers of the bookes wherin these opinions are shall without doubt be the children of the kingdome but hell shall be the place for the mainteineâ—s and abettours therof We doubt not indéed but that the auncient Fathers we â—â— Catholicke and godly Bishops and Pastors notwithstanding that as men they erred sometimes in their iudgements But we know the Papists to be wicked Apostates and Heretickes who wilfully and stubburnly maintaine the same errours against the plaine truth laide euidently before them out of the word of God That Aerius was condemned for an hereticke we know but we know withall that there were greater matters of heresie to condemne him for then deniall of praier or offering for the dead not only for two or thrée pretie Puritane points as the Answ speaketh but also for certaine points of Popery concerning mariage and eating of flesh as Philaster recordeth So that the Answ in condemning Aerius for such a knowne and notorious hereticke must pluck himselfe also by the nose m Basil de spir sanc ca. 2. 3. 4. Basil n Epiphan haer 75. Epiphanius and others note him also to haue bene a partaker of the heresie of Arius to haue sought further matter for defence thereof There was therefore sufficient cause for A 〈…〉 sme and Popery to condemne Aerius without any touching of him for gainsaying praier for the dead S. Austen noteth this indéed in the o August de haeres cap. 53. report of his heresie but yet giueth no such censure of those many in his time who auouched in effect the same that Aerius did that the oblations of the liuing were not auaileable for the dead whose words to that purpose I reported out of Austen to Dulcitius in my former
and therefore needed not to be reiterated Good sir why c The Answ dreame For no man charged him with any such assertion dream you that we think or professe to sley and crucifie Christ in our Masses His death was once and that once sufficient for euer and he dieth no more and then where is your obiection But our sacrifice which is the offering of Christ to his father is only to commemorate his said death once past therby to d If the Masse be but to procure the propitiation earned on the Crosse why is it defended to be a continual sacrifice of propitiation Absurd contradiction procure the said propitiation earned for vs on the Crosse by thanking him and praising him for the said sacrifice of the Crosse and to procure by the said Commemoration the pardon gotten by the great sacrifice of his death e A goodly couer for a cup of poison See the answere Remission of sinnes doth come by Baptisme by repentance or penance and by praier Do we therefore exclude Christes death No but these worke by the vertue of that and only by the vertue thereof are auaileable and need no other death of him to make them profitable and actiue for vs. And therefore all your testimonies go no further but that there needeth not now any f VVhy doth the church of Rome then daily offer for sinne new oblation for sinne but Christs death alreadie past because it is still and euer will remaine and continue most sufficient to take away sinnes and neuer will need any reiteration but is and will be still able strong and auaileable to giue force vertue and strength to all our Sacraments sacrifices and praiers to procure Gods mercy vnto vs for the merit thereof and by the influence only thereof And what haue we euer affirmed more And what geâ— you by this for all your testimonies by you alleaged of Theodoret Oecumenius Chrysostome Ambrose Augustine Primasius we graunt as seruing our turne prouing in our sacrifice a memory and a commemoration but of what of his death and what more of the same commaunded to be offered in a sacrifice to God for so much your owne testimonies doe say But doe they g They dâ— denye it in that they make the sacrifice wherof they sâ—ake no more but a memoriall oâ— his death deny that in this sacrifice we offer his body they doe not They say a memory we say of his death they call it a figure wee say of his sufferings You would haue it a memory of himselfe as though he were absent we say it is a memory a comemoration a representation of his own onely sacrifice that is of his death Here is the point betweene vs here lieth the narrow issue In this narrow difference of h VVhat sacricrifice is there saith Prosper but the â—â—lling of the Lambe of God Therfore as touching sacrifice Christ himself is not to bee coÌ„sidered â—ut only as dying See the answere himselfe and of his death you would snare hamper vs as though the verity of his body cannot stand with the remembring representing and signifying of his death And therefore our own glose as you tearme it telleth you it is a representation and memorial but of what of his oblation and passion That is it all our writers haue told you so oft and so learnedly but you will not heare you dissemble it because the state of the question lieth therein which you starte away from We say his body is offered in Sacrifice in the which a memory is made of his death by the which is applied to vs remission of sinnes purchased by his death onely R. Abbot 9. NOw at length we are come to the capital points of the sacrifice of the Masse and of transubstantiation two fowle monsters of the Church of Rome In the defence whereof the Answ hath shewed himselfe a bird of the same nest with them who very honestly and ingenuously confessed of themselues thus a Index expurgat in censura Bertram In the olde Catholicke Doctors we suffer very many errours and we extenuate them excuse them and by some deuised shifte we oftentimes deny them or faine of them some conuenient meaning whensoeuer they are opposed in disputations or in contention and controuersie with our aduersaries I might not here omit to put him in minde againe of this their pretty maner of answering our allegations disclosed and vttered by their owne confession sufficient to make any man distrustfull of their answers howsoeuer good colours they set vppon them But as touching the present matter he telleth me that he passeth ouer a great heape of my waste wordes and in déede I doe not maruell that hee doth so For in those waste wordes I noted a cursed blasphemy contained in their Masse which I spak of before namely that a greasie headed and filthy harted priest is brought in praying vnto God that he wil looke down with a mercifull countenance vppon his sonne Iesus Christ as though by the prayer of a sinfull and wicked man Christ must be accepted with the Father Secondly those wast words laid open the shame of the diuines of Rhemes as touching their glose vppon the place Heb. 10. b Heb. 10. 18. There is nowe no more offering for sinne An euerlasting testimony of their lewd and vngodly minde desperately bent to the peruerting of all truth The Answ as conuicted in his conscience of their grosse dealing herein slippeth by all and vseth not a worde to defend them or to excuse them but betaketh himselfe to another idle and vaine shifte Where being a man that groundeth himselfe much vppon the infinite treatises of his learned side he might haue thought with himselfe surely these are learned men they haue sifted the matter to the vttermost If any other exposition then that which they haue giuen would better stand they would rather haue vsed it But without doubt they saw that nothing will serue the turne Therefore it is bootelesse for me to séeke any other aunswere Thus I say should haue thought and so for the credit of his Rhemists haue ioyned with them to dubbe that which they so grosly had auouched Now he hath left them naked to the shame of the world and by his silence confesseth that their impudency is greater then hee can tell any way how to excuse But let vs sée how well and wisely he doth shift off all The question is whether there be any prepitiatorie offering or sacrifice for sinne after the sacrifice of Christ vppon his Crosse the Papists say they haue so in their Masse I proue out of the tenth to the Hebrews that there is no such c Heb. 10. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For wher forgiuenes of sinnes is * there is no more any offering or sacrifice for sinne But in the new Testament once confirmed by yâ— death of Christ there is forgiuenesse of sinnes Therefore in the new Testament once confirmed by the death of
office of Priesthood doth he execute who offered himselfe once and doth not offer sacrifice any more And how can it be that he should both sitte and yet execute the office of a Priest to offer sacrifice As it séemed strange to them that Christ should offer himselfe still in sacrifice yet withall sit at the right hand of God so no lesse strange séemeth it vnto vs and therefore we cannot beléeue the one because the Apostle hath taught vs against that to beléeue the other I wil adde onely one place more of Sainct Ambrose as touching this point of the offering of Christ whereby we may sufficiently vnderstand the meaning of the auncient Writers in the vse of the same wordes e Amb. Officlib 1. cap. 48. Now Christ is offered saith he but as man as receiuing or suffering his passion and he offereth himselfe as a Priest that he may forgiue our sinnes Here in an image or resemblance there in trueth where as an Aduocate he pleadeth for vs with the Father Where he sayeth indéede that Christ is offered and offereth himselfe but yet as suffering his passion which he doth not suffer really and therefore is not really offered in sacrifice but onely in a mystery Therefore he saith he is here offered not verily and in trueth as if his very body were here to be offered but in an image or reseÌ„blance by these signes which betoken his body and bloud For as Oecumenius saith out of Gregory f Oecumen in Heb. 10. The image containeth not the trueth though it be a manifest imitation of the trueth And therefore if the offering of Christ here on the earth be in an image then it is not in the very trueth As for the trueth of his body and bloud he telleth vs that it is not in earth but in Heauen where he offereth himselfe not by reall sacrifice but by presenting coÌ„tinually vnto his father in our behalfe that body wherein he was once sacrificed and thereby as by a continuall sacrifice making intercession to God for vs which he opposeth by pleading for vs as an Aduocate with the Father And therefore doeth Oecumenius expound g Oecumen in Heb. 8. that sacrificing of himselfe in Heauen to be nothing else but his making intercession for vs. For h Heb. 9. 24. his appearing in the sight of God for vs and sitting with the Father clothed with our flesh is as Theophylact noteth i Theophy in Heb. 7. a kinde of intercession to God in our behalfe as if the flesh it selfe did intreate God Therefore our offering of Christ standeth onely in this that by those mysteries of his body and bloud which he hath ordained for commemoration of his death and by our faith and prayers we doe as it were present vnto God the Father his sonne Iesus Christ sitting at the right hand of God in that body wherein hée was crucified for vs crauing for his sake as thus crucified for vs yâ— forgiuenesse of all our sinne So Christes offering of himselfe is nothing else but his continuall presence in the sight of God for vs in that body which he gaue to death for our sinnes by which euen as effectually as by vocall wordes he is saide k Heb. 12. 24. to speak good things for vs and to intreate God that he will be mercifull vnto vs. And this vndoubtedly is the vtermost that the fathers meant in al those spéeches of offering and sacrifice wherewith the Papistes would abuse vs. To be short the euidence of Scripture is against all sacrifice for sinne They bring no euidence of Scripture for it Some places indéede they alleadge but in no other manner then the olde Heretickes were wont to alledge the scriptures for defence of their heresies There is nothing to be séene in the places themselues to that purpose for which they are alleaged but we must rest onely vppon those constructions and collections which it pleaseth them to make thereof Against the euidence of scripture they except with a blinde distinction that hath no grounde from the holie Scripture and that which is there generally denyed they restraine without anye warrant to a particular manner Christ is not to be offered after his once offering as the scripture teacheth True say they not in that maner as he was once offered but in another maner he may We require it out of the scripture Otherwise we may haue all assertions of faith and religion impiously deluded For with as great reason when we say there is but one God it may be answered that in that maner as he is God there is but one but in another maner there are many when we saie there is but one redéemer it may be answered that in that maner as he is redéemer there is but one but in another maner there be many nay when it is sayd that Christ died but once as it is sayd he was offered but once why may it not as wel be said that in that maner as he died once he dieth no more but in another maner he dieth often as that he is offered no more indéed in that maner as he was offered before but in another maner he is offered often Therfore this licentious and presumed distinction is ioyned with impietie against God and serueth to giue a mocke to all the wordes of God and for this cause is to be detested of vs beside that it is as hath bene before shewed manifestly contradicted by the word of God Much more might here be added to shew the villany and abhomination of the sacrifice of the Masse But it shall suffice for my purpose to haue added this to that that I had sayd before where notwithstanding this matter was manifestly inough declared to satisfie the Answ had he bene as carefull to know the truth as he is wilfull to continue in his errour For do not the places which I alleaged before out of the Fathers exclude all reall offering sacrificing of Christ I will once againe set them downe particularly as thornes in the Answ eyes who being in his owne conscience ouercome with them answereth nothing distinctly but séeketh to go away in a mist of general words and because he can say nothing to the purpose thinketh it inough to say that none of these testimonies maketh against their sacrificing of Christ A pretie kind of answering and very agréeable to that that I alleaged before out of the Index But first l Chrysost â— Ambros in Heb. â—0 Chrysostome and Ambrose purposely speaking of the sacrifice of the church say thus We offer not another sacrifice but alwaies the same or rather we worke the remembrance of a sacrifice It is absurd to vse correction of spéech where the truth of yâ— thing is fully answerable already to the proper signification of the words For correction of spéech is a reuersing of that which is alreadie set downe as being hardly or not so fully or fitly spoken and therefore putteth in stéed thereof
conteined in the Roomish sacrifice wherby they haue made a mockery of the sonne of God and troden vnder their féete as a vile and base thing the sacred blood of Christ whereby we were redéemed But séeing that the applying of Christs death consisteth not in sacrificing with what reason do these men teach a sacrifice to apply the death of Christ vnto vs Why could they not as well without any new sacrifice make the priestes Memento and his intention a meanes to apply Christes death vnto vs as giue him power to sacrifice Christ againe and to apply that sacrifice to whom he will and by that to apply the other sacrifice of his death And what if the priest neuer so much as thinke vpon Christs death in his Masse but mumble it vp without consideration thereof how shall we thinke that he doth apply the death of Christ Last of all why may they not with as good reason say that Christ must be borne againe to apply vnto vs the benefit of his birth that he must suffer die and rise againe to apply vnto vs the vertue of his passion death and resurrection as that he must be sacrificed againe to apply vnto vs the benefit of his former sacrifice The former are absurd the Answ will say but by no reason which shall not also proue the absurditie of the latter The truth of applying as the verie word sheweth consisteth in offering and giuing of Christ vnto vs and our receiuing of him This is set foorth in the Sacrament by words of application Take ye eate ye and againe Drinke ye all of this where the bodie of Christ crucified and his blood shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes are by the outward elements as by seales and pledges proposed vnto vs and we willed to accept and receiue the same Which we do by true and liuely faith through the working of the holy Ghost and so are made partakers of the benefits of his death and passion to iustification and euerlasting life And this is the only meanes of application which the scripture teacheth briefly set downe by Saint Paul Rom. 3. c Rom. 3. 25. Him hath God set foorth to be an attonement not by continual offring him in sacrifice but by faith in his blood by faith I say apprehending and laying hold on him both in the hearing of the word and receiuing of the Sacraments Herein is our receiuing of Christ as S. Iohn sheweth expounding d Ioh 1. 12. receiuing by beleeuing so many as receiued him that is so many as beleeued in his name Now the papists ouerthwarting the ordinance of Iesus Christ make litle or no regard of Take ye eate ye being the two meanes of application appointed by Christ and practised by the primitiue Church but tell vs of a continuall sacrificing of Christ which doth by the intention of the priest for the very worke wrought obteine grace and apply vnto vs forgiuenesse of sinnes But in this point beside their manifest departing from the ordinance of God they again commit high treason against God in that they aduance so many other their abhominable and hatefull deuises to ride in the same chariot with the sacrifice of the body and blood of Iesus Christ For all the filth and rifraffe of the church of Rome whereby they wickedly teach men to séeke forgiuenesse of sinnes is shadowed and coloured with this conceit of applying vnto vs the death of Christ The sufferings of Saintes and Martyrs are e Rhe. Annot. Col. 1. 24. satisfactions for our sinnes they say But how Marry forsooth they take this vertue and force from Christs death and as a particular medicine apply vnto vs the generall medicine of his passion Their crossings their f Rhe. Annot. Mat. 10. 12. 1. Tim. â—5 Summe of religion taken out of Bristow and the order of confession Bishops blessings their holy water their Popes indulgences pardons their shauen crowns their munkish orders their whippings their shrifts their pilgrimages and offerings to idols their mumbling on their beades their Agnus Deis their kissing the pax and the remnant of this absurd rabble are very helpfull to the forgiuenesse of sinnes because as the Masse doth so do all these apply vnto vs the death of Christ Thus they haue multiplied their deuises as the starres and filled the world with their eâ—chauntments and sorceries of other sacrifices merits and satisfactions of their owne to giue effect and working to the sacrifice merit and satisfaction of Iesus Christ And these bastard and misbegotten trumperies because they are of themselues so apparantly iniurious to the crosse of Christ that the diuel thought they would neuer go for sale-able ware wheÌ„ they should be examined and tried except some deceitfull colour were set vpon them he hath therefore somewhat graced and countenanced with these termes of applying the death of Christ to mollifie and extenuate so much as might be the horrible blasphemy that is conteined therein And yet the blinde and ignorant people were not acquainted with this shift but persuaded themselues to find merit and forgiuenesse of sinnes in the méere exercise of these spirituall fornications and whoredomes whereto they were bewitched of their blinde leaders They might with as good reason haue tolde them that to runne a mans head against a wall to weare a straight paire of shooes vpon his féete to lie naked vpoÌ„ thorns to eat wormewood and gall to wash his hands before meate are meanes merits of the forgiuenesse of sins They will say these things are fond Alasse blind men that cannot sée the like folly and madnesse in those things which they themselues approue But thus they haue iustled the blood of Christ out of place and fulfilled that which S. Peter prophecied of them g 2. Pet. 2. 1. There shall be false teachers which priuily shall bring in damnable heresies euen denying the Lord that hath bought them c. And through couetousnesse with feined wordes shall they make marchandise of you c. Of such feined and whorish counterfeit words the h Rhe. Annot. 2. cor 2. 11. 1. Tim. 4. â— câ—ll 1. 24. paâ—sim writings of Papists are very full not sauouring at all of the holy scriptures but arising méerely of their owne deuise to cloake and couer the monstrous and filthie abhominations of the Roomish harlot P. Spence Sect. 11. VVHere we say as you coÌ„fesse that the testimony of one Gelasius or what other Doctor may not preiudicate the whole faith of them all generally we say so indeed yea we goe further and will yeeld you that Reijcimus singulos probamus omnes all of them togither or the greatest part of them consenting are the a The church of God is built vpoÌ„ the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2. that is vpon the old and new Testament But here both old and new Testament are iustled out of their place and the Doctors are made the mouth eyes and spirite
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
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
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
the allegation of his passion and resurrection because they were once done and passed the memories of them cannot be the things themselues but a memorie only But his bodie euer remaining the memory of it may be also the very thing it selfe that S. Augustine in so many places affirmeth that you must not so rack this place to ouerthrow the other and to set him at bate with himselfe Ioyne therefore with this testimonie of S. Augustine another place of the same August in Sententijs Prosperi and by that learne to vnderstand his own meaning of his secundum quendam modum The place is thus It is his flesh which in the Sacrament we receiue couered in the forme of bread and it is his bloud which we drink vnder the figure and sauour of wine Namely flesh is a Sacrament of flesh and bloud a Sacrament of bloud By flesh and bloud both inuisible spirituall and to be vnderstoode is signified the visible and palpable body of our Lord Iesus Christ Heere you see by answere not by vs patched and clouted but b Vntrue for it cannot be shewed that these are his wordes and yet they serue not the Answ turne as shall appeare by himselfe set down he explicateth thus much that in both sides is true flesh and true bloud But now to his secundum quendam modum he telleth you that on the one side is flesh couered in the forme of bread in the Sacrament and bloud vnder the forme and sauour of wine inuisible spirituall and to be vnderstoode this for the maner of the one but on the earth and now in heauen a a visible and palpable body Yet remember that flesh is a Sacrament of flesh and bloud of bloud More I might say but infinite haue said it to them I send you R. Abbot 13. FOr the exposition of Christes wordes This is my body I shewed the testimonies of the ancient fathers that Christ called the bread and wine his body bloud taking for the ground of my speech that which S. Austen saith a Aug. Epis◠23. that Sacraments haue a resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments and that because of this resemblance they commonly take vnto them the names of the thinges themselues whereof they are sacramentes Now to this rule the Answerer saith nothing at all as neither he did before when I mentioned it concerning sacrifice whereas hée should haue taken it for his greatest enemie and therefore fought most strongly against it because héereby is discharged the greatest part of that which either he or his fellowes can obiect for their sacrifice reall presence and Transubstantiation But I gather hereby his wilfull and malicious resolution against plaine and euident trueth The wordes which he answereth next follow immediatly after the words alreadie mentioned As therefore saith S. b Ibid. Austen the sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certaine maner the bodie of Christ and the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is after a sort his bloud so the sacrament of faith namely baptisme is faith Whereby S. Austen exemplifieth that which he had said before that sacramēts because of their resemblance take the names of the things whereof they are sacramentes For euen so the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ is after a sorte that is by resemblance the body and bloud of Christ not verily and indeed then but after a sorte and by resemblance and so by resemblance called the bodie and the bloud of Christ for as the sacrament of the body is the bodie so the sacrament of faith is faith The sacrament of faith is not faith indeed but by questions and answeres of faith it betokeneth the faith of Christian men So therefore the sacrament of the body is not indéed the body but betokeneth the body of Christ that was giuen for vs and so because of this resemblance is called the body And this is the maner or sorte of which S. Austen speaketh not a maner of reall being but a maner of speaking and sacramentall betokening As for that which the Answ saith to note that maner that the sacrament is inuisibly but yet truely the body and so a memorie that it is the thing it selfe S. Austen acknowledgeth no such matter nay it is contrary to the whole drift and purpose of S. Austens spéech And beside it is vnreasonable and absurde that the same thing should be the sacrament and the thing it selfe the signe and the thing signified the memoriall and the thing remembred neither hangeth it togither by any better reason then as if a man should be said to be his owne father or a husband to be a husband in respect of himselfe or a Prince to be a Prince vnto himselfe and so to be both Prince and subiect Euery child knoweth that the sacrament of Christes bodie is the visible signe of Christes bodie as all sacraments are visible signes and the visible signe of Christes body is not the body it selfe Therefore the sacrament of Christes body is not the body it selfe Yea S. Austens saying as is before alleaged that the sacrifice of the Church consisteth of c De conse dist 2. cap. Ho◠est two things the sacrament which is the visible element and the matter of the sacrament which is the body of Christ maketh it plain enough y◠he took the sacrament of Christes body and the body it selfe to be two things and not one as the Answ absurdly conceiueth But yet he taketh vpon him to proue this absurditie by S. Austen himselfe and alleageth certaine wordes by which hée would haue me to vnderstand this place which hath béen alreadie spoken of The words are thus d De conse dist 2. cap. Hoc est It is his flesh which we receiue in the sacrament couered in the forme of bread and his bloud which we drinke vnder the forme and sauour of wine Namely flesh is a sacrament of flesh and bloud is a sacrament of bloud By the flesh and bloud both visible spirituall and intelligible is signified the visible and palpable bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ full of the grace of all vertues c. Now of these wordes the Answ as some other of his fellowes doe maketh a monstrous conclusion as if Christ had two kindes of flesh at one and the same time one visible another inuisible one in heauen another in earth e Tho. Aqui. Par. 3. qu. 76. art 3. one hauing the due proportion of a body the other without all proportion and hauing no difference of head or féete or any other parts one the same as it was borne of the virgin Mary the other like to the phantasie of Marcion and the Manichees of the nature of a spirit f Ibid art 4. whole in the whole cake and whole in euerie part of the cake so that though it be broken into a thousand péeces yet euerie one of them hath the whole body of Christ But we beléeue not any such
fantasticall body of Christ we read onely of a true and substantiall body wherein he is like vnto vs wherein hée sitteth at the right hand of God g August Ep ad Darda 57. in Ioh. tr 30. in some one place of heauen as S. Austen noteth and is there conteined by reason of the maner of a true body vntill hée come to iudge the quicke and the dead at which time he shal come in the same forme and substance of his body in which he went from hence to which we beleeue he hath giuen immortalitie but hath not taken from it the nature of a body yâ— it should be any where in that maner as yâ— Answ and his fellowes Marcion-like do teach We say as Vigilius also saith h 〈…〉 con 〈◊〉 the flesh of Christ when it was vpoÌ„ the earth was not in heauen and now because it is in heauen surely it is not on the earth As for the words which he alleageth I maruell how he can make them good to be S. Austens In all S. Austens works extant they are not found They are cited out of the sentences of Prosper and there they are not Beda hath many fragmentes of Austen but not a word of this i L 〈…〉 de sacra Eucha Lanfrancus vseth them as his owne wordes without any quotation of Austen and that writing against Berengarius where he would surely haue countenanced them with the name of Austen if they had béen his The trueth is for ought that I can perceiue Lanfrancus is the authour of them and they are his ilfauoured answere to Berengarius his allegation of S. Austens words which we haue now in hand Yet because Gratian by errour hath made S. Austen the reputed father of them mistaking be like Austen for Lanfrancus as very oftentimes he is found to put the names of Austen and others to those things which they neuer spake I wil doe the Answe that curtesie to take them for S. Austens words onely so that he wil not make S. Austen in this point to be at bate with himselfe First therefore according to the doctrine of S. Austen and all others who haue defined what sacraments be they are alwaies k Aug decate chiâ—rud ca. 26. visible signes and therefore to be discerned with the sense For l De dâ—ct C 〈…〉 l. 2. cap 1. a signe saith the same S. Austen is a thing which beside the shew that it offereth to the senses causeth by it somewhat else to come into the minde and vnderstanding In sacramentes therefore being signes m â—x ser ad infan Beda 1. Cor. 10. CoÌ„â— Maximi Aria lib. 3. cap. 22. one thing is seene another thing is vnderstoode by that which is séene therefore againe doth he call the sacrament n In Iohan. tra 80. a visible word because the visible creature being consecrated to the sacramentall vse doth in the vse thereof after a sorte set before our eyes that which the word of God deliuereth to our eares yea and doth as it were speake vnto vs also to admonish and put vs in minde of the things thereby so signified Now S. Austen doth verie precisely put difference o De consecr di 2. cap. Hoc est betwixt the sacrament which is the visible signe and the thing or matter of the sacrament p In Ioh. tr 26 so that in diuersitie of sacramentes yet the matter of the sacrament that is the thing signified may be the same and q Ibid. a man may be partaker of the sacrament or signe and yet haue no benefite at all of the thing signified Notwithstanding by reason of that relation which by the word of God is wrought betwixt the sacramental signe and the thing thereby signified r Epist 23. in quaest super Leuit. q. 75. the signe or sacrament as hath béen before said doth vsually take vnto it the name of the thing signified as Å¿ De consecr dist 2. cap. vtrum sub Gratian noteth againe vnder S. Austens name that the name of the bodie of Christ is giuen not onely to the verie bodie but also to the figure thereof which is outwardly perceiued But what shall we take this figure of the body to be by S. Austens iudgement Marry saith hée t Ex ser ad infan Beda 2. Cor. 10. that which you see is bread as your eyes also tell you which words the Answe hath left vnanswered as also the other v De conse dist 2. cap. Hoc est that the sacrament conteineth the nature and trueth of the visible element But by those wordes S. Austen referreth vs to our eyes and willeth vs to beléeue our eyes that it is verily bread Now then séeing that by his iudgment a sacrament is a visible signe and the visible signe in the Lordes supper is bread how may it stand with his doctrine that the flesh couered in the forme of bread is a sacrament of the flesh the bloud vnder the forme of wine is a sacrament of the bloud and that by the inuisible flesh is signified the visible body of Christ Surely if we take flesh to signifie truely and properly flesh this standeth not with S. Austens grounds For séeing flesh is not visible in the sacrament neither is there any appearance thereof to the sense nay it is called héere inuisible flesh it cannot be said to be a sacrament that is a visible thing Therefore we must séeke another meaning of the wordes flesh and bloud according to the other rule whereby the outward elementes take vnto them the names of the thinges represented by them By flesh and bloud then we vnderstand the visible elements which are called by these names and that not onely for that they doe signifie the true flesh and bloud of Christ but also as w August ser ad inâ—an aâ—ud Bed 1. cor 10. touching the spirituall fruite as S. Austen speaketh in x Ambros de sacram lib. 6. cap. 1. grace and vertue as saith saint Ambros y Cypria de caena d 〈…〉 de resuâ— chri concerning the inuisible efficiencie and vertue as Cyprian speaketh are the same to the faith of the receiuer according to that which Gratian saith concerning a prayer of the Church crauing to receiue the trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ that some not z De consâ—cr dist 2 cap. species without probable reason did expound that trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ to be the verie efficiencie or working thereof that is the forgiuenesse of sinnes Now because the visible element which is thus called flesh is no such thing in outward appearance neither hath anie shew of this vertue therefore it is said to be flesh couered in the forme of bread inuisible spirituall a matter of vnderstanding For sacramentes conteine those thinges which they conteine not openly but couertly not in appearance of the thinges themselues but vnder the signes of the visible
and not to bethinke any thing els For these things must not be iudged of as they seeme but all mysteries are to be considered with the inward eies that is to say spiritually The forging of this lesson maketh the Answ to play the Athenian mad man so that wheresoeuer he heareth of the body of Christ in the sacrament hée dreameth of his reall and carnall presence wheresoeuer he readeth of eating the flesh and drinking the bloud of Christ hée imagineth his carnall and Capernaitish feeding But let him vnderstand Chrisostome by Chrysostomes own rule and he shall finde nothing in him to stand him in any stéed for these grosse conceites P. Spence Sect. 15. YOur place of S. Cyprian Our Lord gaue at his supper bread and wine c. De vnctio Chrismat Besides many other places of S. Cyprian proouing the reall presence marke this place vnmaymed and tell me what you thinke of it and how you a I like it very well for hee saith plainly that Christ at his last supper gaue to his disciples with his own hands bread and wine like it But yet you make me maruell what you make in this Sermon prowling for a testimonie where the Sermon it selfe is wholly against you haue you in your church the vse b VVe neither haue it nor care to haue it because christ hath not taught of Chrisme so much in this sermon commended haue you retained c Dâ—gma tuum â—â—rdet cum te tua cuâ—pa remordet any shadowe of the publique and generall reconciliation of sinners spoken of him in this Sermon done by the Church with musick and common Iubilations and reioycings of the whole multitude in their reconciliation as heere S. Cyprian if you wil admit him for the authour of these Sermons wonderfull gallantly setteth out And withall doe ye like of this thing M. Abbot that he saith that it was done in that time by publique order of the Church when Christ as he vttereth it brought out the prisoners from hell Or as he saith a little before when as descending to hell he turned the olde captiuitie and led it captiue Or doe you like of this point that he left this example to his Church by tradition yet continuing that there should be in the Church absolution of sinners Thinke you Christ descended into hell I doubt you doe not except in that most pitifull damnable sorte to speake no worse of it which d It is horror to the Papist which is the speciall comfort of a true christian maÌ„ with horrour I must remember that hee should suffer hell tormentes himselfe vppon the Crosse What meant you then to put vs in minde of this booke so much condemning your practises and so notoriously testifying the auncient custom of hallowing of the oyle vpon this time of Christes passion to serue for all the yeare after And yet the fathers forsooth are yours against vs. I oppose nothing but wish to be quiet els you might heare whether they speake for vs. Thus then to the place he had shewed before that the Sacramentes one of the which hee maketh vnction by expresse word doe worke our ioyning to Christ for that coniunctions sake he inferreth Our Lord then at the table where he eate his last supper with his Apostles gaue with his owne handes bread and wine but vpon the crosse he yeelded his body to be wounded by the handes of the soulâ—iours But why or how to giue theÌ„ bare bread no But â—hat sincere trueth and true sinceritie being more secretly imprinted in the Apostles should declare vnto the nations What that the Sacramentes were bare e Not so but that being in tâ—en own nature but onely commoÌ„ creatures â—read wine yet by grace and by the worde of God they are to our faith not onely in name but in power the flesh bloud of christ the pledges of the grace of God the assuraÌ„ces of our immortalitie the seales of our redemption and as it were vessels wherin God setteth before vs all his promises of blessings that we may receiue and enioy the same bread and wine a deep high point forsooth in such secret figuratiue sort to be shewed No M. Abbot they should shew the nations How wine and bread are the flesh and bloud and in what sort the causes agree to the effects and diuers names or kindes are reduced or brought to one essence Do you heare essence they be brought to one essence or one substance helpe that sore if you can with all your cunning and the signes and the things signified are reckoned by the same names And he hath told you why they should be called by one name because as he said before with the same breath they were brought to one essence In the next period he termeth the Sacrament f Not because of the substaÌ„ce of iâ— but because of the mysterie and signification the tree of life Read what our side doth tell you vpon this and infinite such places in their bookes which my simplenesse is not worthy to beare or touch and yet you oppose me wil mine answers as though the credite of the cause hanged wholly vppon my small skill and learning or as though I must not beleeue the Catholique religion except I were a doctor in the same R. Abbot 15. THe Answerer being wéeried as it séemeth with the euidence of the testimonies cited against him and therefore desirous to take breath a while maketh an idle vagary in answering this place of a câ—prian de vnct chriâ—matis Cyprian and vrgeth me with other matters conteined and commended in that sermon which hée saith are not vsed or receiued in our Church as Chrisme absolution the descending of Christ into hell But I maruell whether he were well aduised or not when he wrote these thinges or whether hee vnderstood what Cyprian said To answere to them in order First hée demaundeth Haue you in your Church the vse of Chrisme so much in this sermon commended He bringeth no reason whereby to prooue anie necessitie of Chrisme and therefore it may be sufficient to answere him with the like demaund Haue you in your Church of Roome the custome of washing eche others feete vppon maundy thursday so much commended in this sermon and which you are here told that Christ b Hâ—â— soleâ—â—i d 〈…〉 tione omni tempore aâ—endum instituit instituted to be alwaies done with solemne deuotion in the vse wherof Saint c Ambros de sacram lib. 3. cap. 1. Ambrose also thought that his church of Millaine did more rightly then the old church of Roome in not vsing it He wil say the they haue lawfully refused this We say that we haue as lawfully refused the other These were arbitrary and indifferent ceremonies taken vp by the will of men and by the will of men and by the libertie of men to be refused againe d Staâ—ulen in Dâ—oni Aâ—cop Eccle. Hieraâ— Stapulensis vppon Dyonisius noteth many
ceremonies obserued in the auncient Churches that are now omitted in the Church of Roome Though the Church of Rome were as sound as euer she was that we might say as Ambrose said that e Ambros de sacra liâ— 3. cap 1. we desire in all thinge to follow the Church of Roome yet we would say as he addeth We are men too that haue iudgement and vnderstanding as well as they of Rome and haue as great libertie in vsing or not vsing ceremonies as they haue Secondly he asketh me Haue you retained any shadow of the publicke and generall reconciliation of sinners spoken of in this sermon c. Let him turne the wordes and suppose me demaunding of him the same question concerning the Church of Roome Verily she hath it not she hath no shewe nor shadow of it neither the maner nor the matter of it The Answ in vpbraiding our Church with yâ— want hereof doth much more lay open the shame and reproch of his owne friendes The Church of Roome is she that hath broken the bonds of all discipline and made a mockerie of all religion in stéed of absoluing men she hath bound them faster in stéed of reconcilement to God she hath thrust them further off from God Whatsoeuer defect or want our Church hath in this be halfe it is but asker of that wound wherewith the Church of Roome had wounded vs and as a weakenesse remaining after a gréeuous and deadly sicknesse from whence we haue not as yet béen able perfectly to recouer our selues But thankes be vnto God that we haue before vs the substance of true absolution and reconciliation in the word of the gospel which the Church of Roome withholdeth from her Children We preach to the repentant absolution and attonement with God by the bloud of Iesus Christ wherby they finde comfort and release from the bondes of their sinnes and giue glorie vnto God Whereas the Church of Roome giuing men ashes in stéed of bread and setting before them the superstitious deuises of men in stéed of the soueraigne bloud of Christ and mocking them with the supposed absoluing words of a grumbling Popish Priest in stéed of the comfort of the gospell of Christ leaueth them either senselesse and not féeling their owne estate or restlesse and vnquiet whilest in the absolutions of sinfull men they finde no assured trust of being absolued and pardoned with God Concerning the descending of Christ into hell I doubt not but he speaketh what he thinketh but vnderstandeth not what he speaketh nor what he ought to thinke The iudgement of learned and godly men both old and new are very diuerse as touching the meaning of this point I preiudicate not the iudgement of any man that hath not in it a preiudice against yâ— word of God For my part I imbrace it as an article of the Créede and I take it that I am to conceiue euery article of the Créede as importing somewhat that entirely and properly concerneth my self either as touching my creation or saluation And therefore I simply reiect as a méere fancie the opinion of the Papists that Christ descended to Linebus patrum to fetch the fathers from thence But if for any respect properly touching our saluation it may be iustified that Christ in soule descended to the very place of hell as the very letter of the article doth import I willingly subscribe the same In the meane time that which the Answ cauilleth at which some learned men haue deliuered for the meaning of Christes descending into hell as touching the doctrine whether belonging to this article or to the other of his suffering I embrace and hold because I know it conteineth the certaine vndoubted trueth of the word of God and particularly toucheth the redemption of mine own soule We beléeue by the word of God that Iesus Christ the sonne of God is our redéemer not onely in his body but also in his soule that in both he hath paied a price for vs f Irene adu har lib. 5. giuing as Ireneus speaketh his soule for our soules and his flesh for our flesh not onely his flesh or bodie for our bodies but his soule also for our soules The scripture iustifieth so much He shall giue g Esa 33. 10. his soule an offering for sinne The storie of the passion of Christ iustifieth the same where before any thing ailed him as touching any bodily paine he is described vnto vs h Mat. 26. 37. to be sorrrowful greeuously troubled i Mar. 14. 33. to be afraid in great heauinesse k Luc. 22. 44. to be in an agonie yea such an agonie and so beyond measure afflicting him that the sweate was like drops of bloud trickling from him downe to the ground that the father thought it expedient to send l v. 43. an angell from heauen to comfort him that hee was driuen to crie â—ut m Math. 26. 3â— 3â— My soule is heauie euen vnto the death father if it be possible let this cup passe from me To referre these spéeches and affections to any bodâ—â—y sufferings were fond and childish sith as yet he suffered nothing in body but as he himselfe expresly teacheth they are to be construed immediatly of the passion and sufferinges of his soul Therefore Hierome saith n Hieron iâ— Eâ—a â—â— That which wee should haue suffered for our sinnes he suffered in our behalfe c. Whereby it is manifest that as his bodie being scourged and rent did beare the signes of that iniurie in stripes and blewnesse of woundes so his soule also did verily suffer greefe for vs least that partly a trueth partly a lie should be beleeued in Christ Whereby he testifieth that Christ suffered for vs both in body and soule and euen that that we should haue suffered for our sinnes and that if he comming in the nature of man to suffer for vs had suffered onely in body it should be in part a lie which wee beléeue of his suffering for vs because as touching his soule it should not be true S. Ambrose héereof saith thus o Ambrâ—s â—n Luc. ca. 22. lâ—â— 1â— de fide ad Grati. lib. 2. cap. 3. He laboured in his passion with deepe affection that because he destroyed our sinnes in his flesh he might also by the anguish of his soule abolish the anguish of our soules Which as it appeareth by those spéeches already mentioned at the first entrance of his passion so it is further most effectually shewed by his crying with a loud voice vpon the crosse My p Math. 27. 4â— God my God why hast thou forsaken me A mysterie the depth whereof the verie Angels themselues are not able throughly to search that the sonne of God should be humbled so farre for our sakes as to be for the time in our forlorne and desperate state vnder the burden of the wrath of God to féele his fathers indignation q Esa â—3 8 10. smiting him
and breaking him as the Prophet speaketh and as it were leading out his armies against him he in the meane time holding fast still vpon God to be his God who would bring him backe from these gates of death when he had finished the worke that was giuen him to doe but yet féeling nothing for the present whereby he might appeare to be his God But what can I say more of this spéech of Christ then Ferus hath said a man by profession of the church of Roome yet in many things not so grosse as Romanists commonly are Writing vppon these wordes of Christ he saith thus r Ferus in Matt 27. Here God the father dealeth with Christ not as a father but as a tyrant although hee be in the meane time of most louing affection towardes him This Christes being forsaken is the dread of our conscience for our sinnes feeling the iudgement of God and his eternall wrath and is so affected as if it were for euer forsaken and reiected from the face of God Christ of his mercie put himselfe into our cause and vndertooke the punishment that we had deserued Therefore on the one side wee see the people reuiling him the Pharisees blaspheming him c. On the other side we see God as an aduersarie forsaking him so that he crieth out why hast thou forsaken me Christ to deliuer sinners set himself in place of all sinners not playing the theefe or adulterer c but transferring vnto himself the stipend and wages the punishment and desert of sinners as colde heate hunger thirst feare trembling the horrour of death the horrour of hell despaire death hell it self that by feare he might ouercome feare by horrour despaire death hell might ouercome horror despaire death hell and in a word by Satan might ouercome Satan Thus by the testimonie of one of their own Prophets it is iustified that Christ Iesus suffered not onely a bodily death but also in his soule the waight of his fathers indignation and the very horrour of hell it selfe when he cried out and complained in that maner as hath béen declared And this is that which the scripture meaneth when it saith that ſ Gal. 3. 13. Christ was made a curse for vs to deliuer vs from the curse For as to be made sinne for vs importeth that he did beare the punishment of our sinnes so to be made a curse for vs importeth that he did beare the burden of our curse that is to say the full measure of the wrath of God that otherwise should haue lighted vpon vs. The fathers thought no lesse when they construed the 88. Psalme or the 87. as they reckon it to be the description of the passion of Christ Where we reade thus t Psal 88. 7. 1. 16. Thine indignation is set against me or lieth hard vppon me and thou hast vexed me with all thy stormes Lord why abhorrest thou my soule Thy wrathfull displeasure goeth ouer me and the feare of thee hath vndone me So is that Psal applied by u Athan. de interpret Psalm Arnob. Hieron in psal 87. Athanasius Arnobius and Hierome Austen also calleth the same w August in Psalm 87. a song of the passion of Christ though turning the wordes alleaged to another intention then they doe manifestly intimate vnto vs. Athanasius referring himselfe to those wordes Thy furie or indignation is set against me saith x Athanas de inter Psal Christ died not for that he was guiltie of sinnne himself but he suffered for vs and in himselfe did beare the wrath that was conceiued against vs for sinne euen as he saith elswhere y Idem in Euangel de pas cruce domi that he took the bitternesse of that wrath which arose by the transgression of the law and swallowed it vp and so made it void So z Hieron in Psal 87. Hierome bringeth in our Sauiour speaking out of these former wordes of the Psalme in this sort Thou hast brought vpon me that wrath and storme of thy furie and indignation which thou wouldst haue powred out vpon the nations because I haue taken vpon me their sinnes Yea Hilarie though a Hilar. de Trinit lib 10. elswhere in heate of contention with an hereticke he séeme vtterly to denie all passion and suffering of Christ whose verie opinion in effect I take it to be which b Ambros in Luc. cap. 22. lib. 10. S. Ambros reprooueth writing vpon Luke yet in his more aduised spéech of Sermon vpon one of the Psalmes he giueth a notable testimony to this trueth Christ c Hilar. in Psa 68. became subiect to the death of the Crosse the waters comming in euen vnto his soule when the violence of all sufferings beake forth euen to the death of the soule By and by after he sheweth his mind more plainly He descended euen to the depth not of the flesh only but of death it self and al the terror of that tempest which raged against vs lighted vpon him Thus therfore it is euident both by the authoritie of the scriptures and by the consent of the ancient fathers that Christ suffered for vs not only in body but also in soule that his suffering in soule was the enduring of the vttermost of that tempest of the wrath of God which should haue fallen vpon vs for sinne Which indéed should haue oppressed vs infinitely and without end because the infinite maiestie of God whom we had offended required an infinite satisfaction for the offence and the same could not be yéelded by vs but by infinite and endlesse bearing of his wrath But it neither would nor might hold Christ in that sort because the infinitenesse of the time was recompensed by the infinitenesse of the person who was not onely man but God also Now whereas it is vrged that one drop of the bloud of Christ was sufficient to redeeme the world I answere that it is folly héereof to conclude that he suffered not in his soule for vs and with as good reason they may conclude that he was not crowned with thornes spitted vpon mocked and reuiled c. Yea the he died not at all nor shed any more but one drop of bloud We are not to stand vpon the fancies of men what they will thinke enough to redéeme vs but wée must learne in the word of God what the Lord hath done for vs that we may accordingly admire his mercie and goodnesse and sing thanks and prayses vnto him Now that thus Christ descended into hell I know that otherwise he descended into hell though I stand not to denie it yet I dare not affirme it Neither is it any pittiful damnable and horrible matter to auouch this but it is a trueth to be professed and comfortable to be beléeued and the Answe in so condemning it doth but as S. Peter saith d ◠Pet. 2. 12. speake euill of those things which he knoweth not Now by this descending of Christ into hell
he hath set vs frée who were otherwise prisoners of hell and bondslaues to the diuell and so according to the wordes of Cyprian he hath turned our captiuitie wherewith we were taken of old by the transgression of our father Adam and hath dispatched from vs the tormentes of hell whereunto wee were enthralled Nowe to what purpose did the Answe alleage these words of Cyprian or what aduantage doth hée dreame he hath in them He would finde his Limbus patrum here but it will not be For Cyprian speaketh expressely of deliuerance from hell torments whereof there are none in Limbo patrum as his maisters e Rhem. An not Luc. 16. 26 of Rhemes doe instruct him Now hauing vsed this péeuish and impertinent talk of thinges making nothing at all for his purpose yet as a man in a dreame he breaketh out into this fond presumption that the fathers are all theirs and that I should heare but that he is not disposed to oppose I haue not to do with maister Spence I perceiue but with a man wel séene in all the fathers But the fathers are his as they were his that said Ego f Dioscorus the hereticke Concil Chalcedo Act. 1. cum patribus eijcior The fathers and I are cast out both togither And that appeareth in the words of Cyprian now to be handled g Cyprian de vnct chris Our Lord saith hée at the table where he kept his last supper with his Apostles gaue with his owne handes bread and wine but vpon the crosse hee yeelded his body to the Souldiours hands to be wounded that syncere trueth and true synceritie being secretly imprinted in his Apostles might declare to the nations how bread and wine are his flesh and bloud and how causes agree to the effects and diuers names or kindes are reduced to one essence or substance and the thinges signifying and the things signified are counted by the same names Where it is plainly auouched that Christ at his last supper gaue bread wine What néedeth any more Yea but did Christ giue bare bread and wine saith the Answ absurdly and frowardly No say I for this bread and wine is the flesh and bloud of Christ as I before alleaged out of Cyprian according to the which S. Paule saith h 1. cor 10. 16. The bread which we breake is the communion of the body of Christ The cup of blessing is the communion of the bloud of Christ Therefore S. Austen calleth this bread i August de consecr dist 2. cap. Hoc est heauenly bread and Theodoret k Theodoret. dial 2. the bread of life and the same Cyprian saith that l Cypria de resurrect chri that which is seene namely the visible element of bread is accounted both in name and vertue the body of Christ namely because it conteineth sacramentally the whole vertue and benefite of the passion and death of our Lord Iesus Christ as before I shewed But let him remember that Cyprian saith it is bread and wine which is the flesh bloud of Christ whereas by his defence there is in the Sacrament neyther bread nor wine But Cyprian saith that diuerse names and kindes are reduced to one substance Doe you heare substance saith the Answ Help that sore if you can with all your cunning surely small cunning will serue to heale a sore where neither flesh nor skinne is broken or brused This is in trueth a verie ignorant and blind opposition The visible elements that are in substance bread and wine are in mysterie and signification the bodie and bloud of Christ and are so called as Cyprian before setteth downâ— When therefore bread being one substance is called not onely according to his substance bread but also by waie of Sacrament and mysterie the body of Christ when the wine being one substance is called not onely as it is Wine but also as it signifieth the bloud of Christ diuerse names or kindes are reduced to one substance And this Cyprian declareth when he addeth The signes and the things signified are called by the same names The bodie of Christ it selfe and the signe héereof which is bread are both called the body The bloud of Christ and the signe hereof which is wine are both called his bloud The body and bloud it selfe are so called indéed and trueth but the signes in their maner not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie yet so one substance is called by diuers names as the wordes before do specifie Nowe the place of Cyprian being as cléere as the sunne-light against transubstantiation as euerie eye may perceiue yet the Answ sendeth me to their learned treatises to sée what is there said of this and other places And what shall I finde there but such wretched and miserable cauils and shiftes as he himselfe hath borrowed from them And héere maister Spence as in your name he excuseth himselfe of his simplenesse and that he is no doctour which accordeth not with his vaunt before that hée could shew me this and that out of the fathers And I maruell that he should make excuse thus of his learning to a minister of our church so meane as I am séeing it is so péeuishly bragged amongst you commonly that there is litle learning to be found amongst the best of vs. Wheresoeuer he be I wish that his conscience and truth towardes God were but euen as much as his learning is P. Spence Sect. 16. THe same Cyprian you say lib. 2. Epistola 3. which is the famous Epistle ad Caecilium so much condemning you in so manie points about the sacrifice of the Church and of mixing of water which he said assuredly Christ did but I maruell you would for shame euer auouch it or point me to it for a A Popish bâ—agge See the aunswer to sect 2. euerie line of it is a knife to cut your throate You say that heere S. Cyprian saith that it was wine which Christ called his bloud Much to your purpose maister Abbot Who doubteth yet but that he tooke wine and not ale beere sydar metheglin or such like matter S. Cyprians meaning is most plaine against the Aquarios that it was b Did Christ call wine his bloud and yet dâ—d he meane that it was not wine wine mingled with water as in this Epistle he prooueth notably and not bare water as those Aquarij would haue it that he called his bloud that is to say he tooke wine and not bare water to make the Sacrament of and what is this to your purpose such testimonies are the fathers scrappes parings and crummes and not their sound testimonies R. Abbot 16. THe famous Epistle of Cyprian to Cecilius saith plainly Wee a Cypr. lib. 2. Epist 3. find that it was wine which Christ called his bloud as he saith twise beside in the same Epistle that by wine is represented the bloud of Christ Yea saith the Answ he meaneth that it was wine at the
first which hee tooke to make the Sacrament but in being made the Sacrament it was no longer wine as if Cyprian had said thus Christ tooke wine and made it no wine and though it were now no wine yet he called wine his bloud Cyprians wordes are euident that Christ called wine his bloud and that by wine is represented his bloud which cannot be till it be made a sacrament Therefore in the Sacrament there is wine which representeth and is called the bloud of Christ Such testimonies he saith are the scrappes and parings and crummes of the fathers But let him remember that a crumme is enough to choke a man and so doth this testimonie choke him so that hee staggereth and stammereth out an answere whereof he himself can make no reason if he were enquired of it by word of mouth His other idle talke is answered b Sect. 2. before Pet. Spence Sect. 17. SAint Augustine ad Adimantum maketh so flatly against you that I wonder why you alleage it Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body Why should he doubt to say it was so when he knew it was so when he gaue the signe of his bodie But what signe a bare signe no sir but such a signe as contained in it the thing signified really how prooue you it Euen thus Hee writeth against the Manichees that condemned all the olde testament as being the euill Gods testament such was their vile blasphemie among other places they condemned this place of Leuiticus 17. Sanguis pecoris erit eius aâ—ima This place saith S. Augustine is spoken figuratiuely not that it is the very soule or life of the beast but that in it lieth the soule or life of the beast neither is the bloud a bare signification of the beasts soule but such a signe as containeth in it the very soule of the beast and therefore of the same speech he hath Quaestio 57. in Leuiticum made particular discourse where he hath these wordes We are to seeke out such speeches as by that which containeth do signifie that which is conteined â—â— because the life is holden in the body by the bloud for if the bloud be shed the life or soule departeth therefore by the bloud is most fâ—â—ly signified the soule and the bloud taketh the name thereof euen as the place wherein the Church assembled is called the Church You a I see the Answerer play with his owne fancie altogether stranâ—e from S. Austenâ— meaning as shall be shewed see he maketh in this place the bloud of the beast a signe of the beasts soule but such a signe as contained the soule in it Now in the other place ad Adimantum by you obiected S. Augustine forgat not this point of this place touched but in excusing that place of Leuiticus and interpreting it he exemplifieth it by the wordes of Christ which they admitted all the sorte of them as being the wordes of the good God of the new testament as they termed him saying I may interpret that precept to be set downe by way of signe For our Lord doubted not to say c. So that this place is brought by S. Augustine to shewe that in the B. Sacrament there is a signe containing the thing and therefore called by the name of the thing so in that of Leuiticus Moses called the bloud the soule of the beast because it is such a signe as containeth the soule of the beast really in it This exposition is irrefragable because it is b VVhich S. Austen himselfe neuer dreamed of S. August own exposition who could best expound his own meaning And against the Manichees he could not bring any other meaning possibly of This is my body but that For they confessed Christ to be really in the Sacrament in his bodie because the euill God had tied him or as they foolishly vttered it certaine peeces of him aswel in the Sacramentall bread as in other bread eares of corne stickes hearbes meates and all other creatures and that the elect Manichees by eating those things and after belching them out againe and otherwise auoiding them did let out at libertie the good God Christes body And therefore after these expositions agreeable to their heresie this place did fitly as S. Augustine bringeth it in expound that of Leuiticus As Christ in saying This is my body must meane as you Manichees expound it This is a signe of my body in which signe the partes of my body are bound euen so the bloud of the beast is the life is as much as the bloud of the beast is a signe of his life in which signe his life is contained Thus did S. Augustine excellently quoad homines answere the Manichees with their owne opinion And therefore to conclude S Augustine in calling it signum doth inferre most necessarie that his body is present because it is a signe in which the body is conteined R. Abbot 17. TO shew further that our Sauiour Christ said of verie bread This is my body and therefore that the Sacrament is not really and substantially but onely in signe and mysterie the body of Christ I alleaged the words of S. Austen Our a August cont Adimantum cap. 12. Lord doubted not to say This a is my body when he gaue the signe of his body The wordes are plaine that Christ in a certaine vnderstanding and meaning called that by the name of his body which is indéede but a signe of his bodie Now with this place of Austen the Answ dealeth as b Leu. deca 1. lib. 1. Cacus the théefe dealt with Hercules his Oxen when he drew them backward by the tailes into his caue So doth this man violently pull and draw the wordes of Austen backward into his den of reall presence and streineth them whether they wil or not to serue his turne in that behalfe But the lowing of the Oxen to their fellowes descried the theft of Cacus and the wordes following in S. Austen himselfe doe prooue that the Answ doth but play the théefe M. Harding was content to say that S. Austen in heate of disputation spake that which might be greatest aduantage against the hereticke not most agréeable to the trueth or to his owne meaning but little did he thinke that the place should serue to prooue any thing for his part But the Answ hath learned a tricke to make the wordes speake for reall presence which neuer was in S. Austens minde Forsooth hauing in hand against the Manichees to expound the wordes of Moses law The bloud is the soule or life he telleth them that the meaning thereof is that the bloud is a signe of life in which signe the soule or life is really conteined and to shew this we are tolde that he bringeth the words of Christ This is my body which he spake of the signe of his body but yet such a signe as doth really conteine the body and therefore we must thinke that the bodie of Christ
life as the rocke was Christ as the Apostle saith They dranke of the spirituall rocke which followed them and the rocke was Christ It is not said The rocke was Christ because the rocke did really conteine Christ No more then was it said The bloud is the life because it did really conteine the life but because it was ordained to be a signe of life though it selfe were altogether dead and cold And this doth S. Austen againe expresly note in another place saying It k August cont aduersa leg proph lib. 2. cap. 6. is said The bloud of al flesh is the life or soule thereof in like maner as it is said The rocke was Christ not because it was so indeed but because Christ was signified heereby The lawe would by the bloud signifie the life or soule a thing inuisible by a thing visible c. because the bloud is visibly as the soule is inuisibly the chiefest and most principall of all things whereof wee consist Héere is then a matter of signification onely not of any reall conteining vnlesse the Answ will be so fond as to say that the rocke did really conteine Christ But now of this maner of speaking The bloud is the life or soule when it is indéede but a signe thereof S. Austen giueth a like example in the words of our Sauiour Christ who saith he doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the signe of his body directly to this meaning that as Christ said This is my body when he gaue it into his Disciples handes not his bodie indéede but onely the signe and sacrament of his body and as the Apostle saith the rock was Christ when it was not Christ indéede but onely a signe of Christ so Moses said The bloud is the life not because it selfe was the life indéede but was onely appointed to be a signe of life And if the sacrament were indéed really the body of Christ what occasion should there be why Christ should doubt to say this is my body But either S. Austen speaketh vainly or els his words import that there might be occasion of doubting to say so And why but because it was not so indéede Yet saith he because it was the mysterie and signe of his body though not his body in substance and indéed therfore hee doubted not according to the maner of the scriptures in like case to say This is my body and so did Moses speake of the bloud Thus most manifestly and plainly I haue shewed that the Answ irrefragable exposition is nothing else but vnhonest and vnconscionable shifting P. Spence Sect. 18. BVt Tertullian killeth the Cow for he saith a figure of the body What if I prooue to you that you be as fowly deceaued or would deceiue in Tertullian as in the last place of S. Augustine This hath Tertullian in lib. 4. contra Marcionem The bread which hee tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his body Lo Tertullian saith Christ made the bread his body so say we and not you how made it he his body by speaking ouer it the wordes of consecration in saying this is my body that is a figure of my body Did Christ say to them This is the figure of my body But if he had yet by speaking those wordes hee had made it his body after Tertullians minde But the very trueth and all the point of the case heerein is in this that Tertullians words may haue two expositions one which you like of This is my body Two expositions of Tertullian that is the figure of my body the other which is our sense and the verie intended meaning of Tertullian is this This is my body This that is to say the figure of my body is my bodie To prooue this vnto you remember it is out of his fourth booke against Marcion which Marcion held the ill God of the old testament to be a deadly enimie to the good God of the new testament Marcion wrote a book called Antithesis or Antilogiae of contradictions and repugnances betweene the two testamentes Against that booke spendeth Tertullian the greatest part of his fourth booke shewing howe Christ the God of the new testament fulfilled and consecrated the old figures of the old testament as a friend and not as an enemie thereof and to that end thus he saith conferring places togither Christ in the daie time taught in the temple of Hierusalem he had foretold by O see In my temple they sâ—ught me and there I will dispute with them Againe he went apart into the mount Elaeon that is to the mount of Oliues Because Zacharie wrote and his feete shall stand in the mount Elaeon Againe they came togither early in the morning agreeable to Esay who saith Hee hath giuen me an eare to heare betimes in the morning If this be saith Tertullian to dissolue the prophesies what is to fulfill them Againe hee chose the passouer for his passion For Moses said before It shall be the passouer of the Lord. Yea saith Tertullian He shewed his affection or desire I haue earnestly desired to eat this passeouer with you c. O destroier of the law which desired also to keepe the passeouer Againe he might haue been betraied of a stranger sauing that the Psalme had before prophesied He which eateth bread with me will lifâ— vp his foote against me Yet further he might haue been betraied without reward saue that that should haue been for another Christ not for him which fulfilled the prophesies For it was written They haue sold the iust Yea the verie price that he was sold for Hieremie foretold They tooke the thirtie siluer peeces the price of him that was valued and gaue them for a potters field Thus farre in this one place among infinite other in the whole booke Tertullian sheweth Christ the God of the new testament to haue fulfilled the figures of the olde as being the one onely God of both Testaments And then by and by he inferreth as another example these wordes Therefore professing that he did greatlie desire to eate the passeouer as his owne for it was vnfit that God should desire anie thing of anothers whereby hee sheweth Christ to be the onely God of both testaments He made the bread which he tooke and distributed to his Disciples his bodie in saying This is my bodie that is the figure of my bodie What figure I beseech you meant he not the figure vsed a He did not meane any figure vsed by Melchisedech neither doth any way allude to it by Melchisedech of bread and wine meant he not a figure of the old Testament taken vsed and fulfilled by Christ in the newe is not that his drift Must Tertullian become an asse to serue your turne and forget his owne drift and purpose here and contrary what he hath so plainly spoken of the Sacrament in other his books This is b It is not foolish vaunting and bragging that must waigh this
would for your sake to helpe you to an argument pull backe his owne confession affirming himselfe to haue spoken de veteri Figura of the olde Figure or except you say his meaning was that Christ made his Supper to be an auncient figure of the old testament R. Abbot 18. HEre the Answerer beginneth with his iest Tertullian saith he killeth the Cowe I aunswere him if Transubstantiation be a Cowe Tertullian killeth the Cowe Hée stronglye gainsaieth it and will not abide it Thus hée speaketh a Tertul. cont Marcion li. 4. The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his bodie in saying This is my bodie that is to say a figure of my bodie But it had not bene a figure vnlesse there were a true bodie For an emptie thing as is a fantasie could receiue no figure Marcion the hereticke against whom he wrote held that Christ had not a true and reall bodie but only a fantasie and appearance and shew of a bodie Tertullian proueth by the Sacrament that Christ had a verie true bodie For the scripture is not wont to set down tokens and figures of things which haue not the truth of the things answerable vnto them Therefore séeing Christ in the Gospell gaue bread as a token and figure of his bodie saying This is my bodie that is to say a figure of my bodie it is certaine that Christ hath a true bodie correspondent to this figure Thus do b chrysost in Mat. hom 83. Theod. dâ—al 2. Iren adu haeres lib. 5. Chrysostome and other of the Fathers reason from the Sacrament to proue the veritie and truth of the passion and of the bodie of Iesus Christ To this place of Tertullian M. Harding confessing that Tertullian made these wordes This is a figure of my bodie the exposition of those words This is my bodie saith that his interpretatioÌ„ is not according to the right sense of Christs words and that in his contention he did not so much regard the exact vse of his words as how he might winne his purpose of his aduersary so maketh Tertullian to write he cared not what Campian being vrged with the same words in the Tower shifted the matter off that those words That is to say a figure of my bodie werâ— the exception of the hereticke and not Tertullians own words The Ans hath found in some other of his learned Treatises namely c Bellar. to 2. de sacram Euchar. lâ—b 2. cap 7. in Bellarmine another deuise for the saluing of this matter Wherby we may sée how these men are carried vp and downe with giddinesse and phrensie and being pressed with euidence of truth cannot finde any answere whereupon to rest themselues and therefore as ashamed each of others doings bestow their wits from day to day to deuise new collusions and shifts to saue themselues The Answ resting vpoÌ„ the credit of father Robert thinketh that there is great wit and reason in that which he hath written so that Tertullian must be an Asse if he meant otherwise then he expoundeth him but indéed getteth himselfe hereby a priuiledge to weare the eares to whomsoeuer it befall to be the Asse For his exposition beside that it is foolish and absurd maketh also expresly against himselfe and admitteth that which I desire and which he himselfe must néeds confesse to be the vndooing of Transubstantiation He maketh two expositions of Tertullians words the one ours and that thus This is my bodie that is to say this is a figure of my bodie and this being indéed the currant and direct passage of Tertullians words he disliketh and condemneth The other is theirs and as he would make vs beléeue the verie intended meaning of the words namely thus This is my bodie This that is to say the figure of my bodie is my bodie Whereby he briefly resolueth out of Tertullian a maruellous doubt wherof his Fathers were neuer able to determine any thing namely whereto the word This is to be applied For if it be sayd This bread which is the very truth then they sawe that Transubstantiation cannot stand Therefore haue they prophaned the sacred words of Christ with their cursed sophistications and haue most wretchedly tossed them too and fro to make a meaning of them that might serue for their purpose yet haue found none But the Answ setteth downe the meaning thus This figure of my bodie is my bodie So that the word This must be referred to the figure of the bodie And what figure The olde figure euen the same saith he that Melchisedech vsed And what was that olde figure Marry it was bread Then we haue the exposition of Christes words as we would haue it This is my bodie that is to say This bread is my bodie And this is manifest to be Tertullians mind by that he saith twise in this place that Christ called bread his bodie and in his booke against the Iewes saith in like sort that he called bread his bodie and in his first booke against Marcion saith againe that Christ represented his bodie by bread Now if Christ in the Sacrament call bread his bodie and by bread do represent his bodie then it followeth that in the Sacrament it is bread which is called the bodie of Christ and is so called because the bodie of Christ is represented thereby Therefore the meaning of Christs words must néeds be thus This bread is the figure of my bodie This were sufficient for the opening of Tertullians minde in this point but yet I will follow the Answ to sift the matter somewhat further I acknowledge first with him that Tertullians purpose in that place is to shewe that Christ fulfilled in the new Testament those things that were foretold and foreshewed in the old But as it was neuer prefigured in the old Testament that there should be a transubstantiation of the bread wine so no more doth Tertullian go about by any old figure to approue the same And if he had named Melchisedech or alluded vnto him any way as we are by this man borne in hand yet could it not haue bene to any other purpose but this that Melchisedech by bringing foorth bread and wine in figure of the Sacrament did signifie that Christ should appoint and institute bread and wine to be the tokens and signes of his bodie and blood and that Christ in the Gospell did fulfil the same So saith S. Hierom d Hieron in Mat. 26. Christ taketh bread goeth to the true SacrameÌ„t of the passeouer that as Melchisedech the priest of the high God in prefiguring of him offering bread and wine had done so he himselfe also might represent the truth of his bodie and blood Therfore though it be graunted that Tertullian speaketh of Melchisedech yet serueth it my purpose and not his that Christ instituted bread and wine to represent thereby the truth of his bodie and blood as Melchisedech had prefigured he should do But the truth is
Tertullian speaketh not of Melchisedech he doth not so much as intimate any thing of him and the Answ for that he read the place could not but know that there was nothing meant as touching Melchisedech and therefore in vpbraiding vs with stealing of scrappes out of the Fathers because we vse this place he giueth me occasion to charge him with voluntary and wilfull falsifying of their words But I leaue that to his owne conscience whether he did purposely séeke by this bad meanes to adde the more likelihood vnto a false tale Tertullian saith nothing here to intimate that the very creatures of bread and wine were vsed in the old Testament as figures of the body and blood of Christ but only expoundeth some places where the names of bread and wine are so vsed as that thereby should be signified the same bodie blood of Christ To this purpose he alleageth the words of Ieremy as the vulgar Latine text readeth them e Ier. 11. 19. Let vs cast the wood vpon his bread that is saith he the crosse vpon his bodie as noting that by the name of bread the Prophet signified the bodie of Christ Therefore he addeth Christ the reuealer of antiquities calling bread his bodie did sufficiently declare what his will was that bread should then signifie Whereby he giueth to vnderstand that as the Prophet did vse the name of bread to signifie the body of Christ so Christ himselfe to iustifie that spéech of the Prophet did institute bread it selfe to be the signe and Sacrament of his bodie and accordingly called it his bodie Another like spéech he reciteth concerning wine out of the words of Iacob the Patriarch f Gen. 49. 11. He shall wash his garment in wine and his cloathing in the blood of the grape Where by the garment and cloathing he vnderstandeth the bodie and flesh of Christ by wine the blood of Christ as if Iacob should foretell in those words that the bodie of Christ should be embrued with the shedding of his blood Hereupon he inferreth He that then figured wine in blood hath now consecrated his blood in wine noting hereby not that blood indéed was vsed for a figure of wine but that the name of the blood of the grape serued to signifie wine as prefiguring that wine it selâ—â— should be appointed to be the signe of the blood of Christ Now this was fulfilled by Christ when he consecrated his blood in wine that is to say made the Sacrament of his blood in wine or appointed wine in truth to be the Sacrament of his blood for signification whereof the name of wine had bene before vsed The old figure the refore of which Tertullian speaketh saying that we may acknowledge an olde figure in wine was in the vse of the names of bread and wine not of bread and wine indéed and that which by this olde figure and maner of speaking was intimated in the olde Testament Christ performed and fulfilled in the new when he consecrated and sanctified his creatures of bread and wine to be Sacraments and figures of his bodie and blood and by name accordingly called them his bodie and blood Which maner of speaking he had not approued but frustrated if in making the Sacrament he had destroyed the substance of bread and wine for then he could not haue called bread his bodie and wine his blood as Tertullian saith he did Now therefore that which the Answ saith that Figures are of the old Testament Christ fulfilleth them in the new maketh nothing against vs nay setting aside the error of the Answ it maketh wholly for vs. For he vainly fancieth Tertullian to say that the very elements of bread wine were vsed in the old Testament for figures of the bodie and blood of Christ and therefore that the same should not be againe appointed to that vse in the new Testament whereas Tertullian saith no more but only that the names or words of bread and wine were sometimes taken to signifie the same Now then let him remember that Turtullian auoucheth the fulfilling of this figure in this that Christ called bread his bodie and wine his blood and let him say with vs according to Tertullians minde that in the Sacrament it is bread and wine which is called the bodie and blood of Christ and that the meaning of Christs words is This bread is my bodie that is to say A Figure of my bodie Now hereby Tertullian proueth that Christ hath a true substantiall bodie For saith he It had bene no Figure except there were a true bodie For an emptie thing as is a fantasie might not haue bene capable of a Figure But here the Answ wold make vs beléeue that vnlesse Tertullian mean this of a Figure in the old Testament his saying is not true And this he proueth by Nigromancy for saith he the phantasticall bodies of spirits do exhibit to the eyes a certaine Figure or shape as the very Nigromancers do know But what motion I maruel came into the mans minde to diuert his spéech from mysticall and sacramentall figures instituted by Iesus Christ wherof Tertullian speaketh to figures and facions and shapes of diuels and spirits He was a blind man if he saw not his owne errour and folly but leaud and wretched if he sawe it and yet against his owne conscience would thus dally with Gods truth And why could he not conceiue that Tertullians wordes if they had concerned any such figures should haue bin false in respect of the old Testament as well as of the new because diuels and spirits had their figures and shapes as wel then as now Was it straunge vnto him that there are sacramentall figures in the new Testament to which the words of Tertullian might be fitly applied Surely S. Austen saith that g August in Psal 3. Christ admitted Iudas to that banquet wherein he commended to his Disciples the Figure of his body and blood So saith the old Father Ephrem that h Ephrem de natura dei noÌ„ scrutanda cap. 4. Christ blessed and brake the bread in figure of his bodie and blessed gaue the cup in Figure of his pretious blood Nay the Answ himselfe hath confessed i Sect. 10. before that the Fathers call the sacrifice which they speak of a figure of the death and passion of Christ Of such a figure Tertullian speaketh and reasoneth thus that there should neuer haue bin appointed in the Gospel a figure to represent the body of Christ except there had bene a true bodie to be represented thereby As for that cauill of his which he hath borrowed from Bellarmine that if Tertullian had not spoken of a figure in the old Testament he shuld not haue said fuisset but esset it is too too foolish and absurd and if he were in the Grammer schoole he should deserue to be laide ouer the forme to make him know that the verbe fuisset is rightly vsed by Tertullian with relation to Christs first
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
doe For they drank of the spirituall rocke which followed them the rock was Christ Christ therefore was their spirituall meate and drinke as well as ours and Iesus c Heb 13. 8. Christ yesterday and to day is the same and for euer The same therefore to them as he is to vs onely in difference of time To come in respect of them and already come in respect of vs. This the apostle further sheweth when he saith that they d 1. Cor. 10. 2. were baptised Which must be vnderstood either of the outward signe or of the inward grace of Baptisme But not of the outward signe therefore of the inward grace Therefore their Sacramentes offered the same inward grace that ours doe This S. Austen also plainly testifieth when he saith that e Aug. in Ioh. tr 26. their Sacramentes though in outward signes diuerse yet in the things signified and as hee speaketh straightwaies after in spirituall vertue were equall vnto ours and againe that f Ibid. tr 45. if a man respect the visible signe they did drinke an other thing but as touching signification and vnderstanding they dranke the same spirituall drinke that we doe which in both those places he prooueth by the same wordes of S. Paule which I haue alleaged and that by way of expounding the same wordes Which is to the shame of the diuines of Rhemes who so peruersly and contrarie to the verie light of the text labour to draw them to another meaning Now therfore whereas the Answ saith that this derogateth from the effect of Christes passion that our sacraments haue thence greater vertue then the Iewes sacramentes had it is but a presumptuous a foolish and vnprobable assertion without any likelihoode of trueth that may be gathered by the word of God We beléeue the vertue of Christes passion to haue béen no lesse to their saluation then it is to ours because we beléeue that Iesus Christ g Apoc. 13. 8. is the lambe slaine from the beginning of the world not onely in type and figure but in power grace also The h August lib. de natu gra cap. 44. same faith saued them saith S. Austen that saueth vs euen the faith of Iesus Christ the mediatour betwixt God and man the faith of his bloud the faith of his crosse the faith of his death and resurrection We beléeue therefore that their sacramentes hauing all relation to Christes passion as ours haue did yéeld no lesse benefite to them in Iesus Christ then ours doe to vs. Héere he referreth me againe to his learned treatises wherewith hee is so besotted himselfe that hee taketh euerie word in them to be an oracle albeit they be indéed as full of follies triflings and impudent falshoodes as his owne pamphlet is I am well enough acquainted with them alreadie But to call Sacramentes seales I learne of S. Paule Rom. 4. The name notably setteth forth the vse of them Seales serue for assurance of promises or couenantes to them to whom they are made Such are sacraments to assure our faith of the promises of God The deliuerie of seales giueth interest and right of the things sealed to them to whom they are deliuered The sacramentes of Iesus Christ doe giue as it were into our handes and possession through faith the whole prerogatiue of the benefite of Christes death and passion which is preached vnto vs in the word of the Gospell Therefore doth i Bernardus Ser. in caena domi Bernard fitly compare our sacraments to a ring by which a man is inuested and entered to the possession of his inheritance and whereof he may say The ring auaileth nothing but it is the inheritance that I sought for And euen so may we say that it is not the sacrament for it selfe but the things sealed and deliuered by the sacrament that we desire P. Spence Sect. 21. 22. THe place of S. Iohn The word was made flesh What prooueth it touching the Sacrament what kinde of argument is this In this saying The word was made flesh the sense is the worde assumpted flesh vnto it not changing his former nature and it is not to be taken as the wordes doe sound Ergo this text This is my body is not to be taken as the words import A verie a Cum insana dicis rides phrenetico c◠similis August cont Iulia. Pelag. lib 4. vpstantiall argument But do you remember that syllogizari non est ex particulari It is like as if I should argue thus I am a vine is a figuratiue speech Ergo I am the light of the world is also a figuratiue speech But I pray you Sir is this saying The word was made flesh like to This is my body doth bread still remaining assumpt vnto it into one person or into one suppositum Christes body Luther said so be you now of that minde This is to speake you wote not nor care not what so you say somewhat S. Augustine as Bede citeth him saith Christ hath commended vnto vs in this sacrament his body and bloud Saith he so me thinketh hee saith verie well for vs as we could wish him We thanke you for such texts heartily But he saith further which also he hath made vs and by his grace we are the same that we receiue What inferre you hereof and forsooth say you wee are not transubstantiated into the Sacrament A most wittie pithie and subtile peece of Logicke nihil supra logicke was good cheape when this stoode for good logicke A long discourse it would aske to answere you fullie and a verie goodly meditation is herein offered to our soules We are become one with Christ not by being transubstantiated into him but by being ioyned by the Sacrament vnto him as members to our head as many peeces of wood make one doore ship house or such like not one turned into an other but ioyned togither that they make one thing and so we become by this Sacrament his mysticall bodie as his members ioyned togither into one Remember for this point how diuinely Hilarius and Cyrillus haue written and leaue your prophane dealing in so waightie a cause especially so besides all reason and common sense R. Abbot 21. 22. IN these two sections the Answ plaieth Hickescorners part and by the way prooueth himselfe a mightie wise man I sée that to be true in him which a worthie man said a Iren lib. 1. cap. 9. Audax impudens res est anima quae inani aere calescit A rude and an impudent thing is the mind of that man that is tickled with vaine presumption and fansie Though he shew himselfe héere both an ignorant Blind-asinus and a peruerse wilfull wrangler yet he taketh vpon him as if no man had either Logicke or wit but onely he and solaceth himselfe with his termes of vpstantiall argument and good cheape logicke and most wittie pithie and subtill peece of Logicke By his naming of Luther in this
means of the receiuing of Gods grace in the sacrament Marry yet hée excepteth that it must be ioyned with the entrance of Christes body into our bodies and so by that diuine touching thereof wee are so vnited vnto him as man and woman by the coniunction of their bodies become one body and one flesh What a grosse and swinish imagination is this that by corporall entrance of Christes bodie into ours we must be made one with Christ as man and woman by corporall coniunction become one fleshe Saint Paul teacheth vs to loth this fancie when hee sayth f 1. cor 6. 16. 17. Knowe ye not that hee which coupleth himselfe with an harlot is one bodie For two sayth hee shall be one flesh But he that is ioyned vnto the Lord is one spirite Where by an opposition of the bodie and the spirite of the corporall ioyning of man and woman and the spirituall vniting of Christ and vs hée giueth plainly to vnderstand that the coniunction betwixt Christ and vs is not wrought by any bodily commixtion of substances as is the coniunction of man and woman but by the spirituall apprehension of the beléeuing soule receiuing through the holie Ghost the fruite and effect of the bodie of Christ being in heauen And this S. Cyprian notably declareth when he saith g The coniunction betwixt Christ vs neither mingleth our Cypri de caena domini persons nor vniteth our substances but coupleth our affections and conioyneth our willes and so the Church being made Christes bodie doth obey the head and the higher light being shed vpon the lower reaching with the fulnesse of his brightnesse from end to end doth abide whole with it selfe and yeeldeth it selfe whole to all the onenesse of that warmth doth so assist the bodie that it departeth not from the head By which words he sheweth that our coniunction with Christ is altogither spirituall and that we are made the bodie of Christ not by any corporall or bodily touching or bringing our substances togither but by the spirituall working of his effectuall power set foorth by a comparison of the sunne working in these inferiour bodies and yet abiding in heauen as before also I declared And as concerning the touching of Christ S. Ambrose saith h Ambros in Luc. 24 lib. 10. We touch not Christ by bodily handling but by faith c. Therefore saith he Neither on the earth neither in the earth nor after the flesh ought we to seeke thee O Christ if we will finde thee To the same effect also S. Austen speaketh by occasion of Christs words to Mary Magdalin i Ioh. 20 17. Touch me not for I am not yet ascended to my father k August in Ioh. tract 26. epist 59. Shee might not touch him standing on the earth saith he and how should she touch him being ascended to the father Yet thus euen thus he will be touched Thus is he touched of them of whom he is well touched being ascended to the father abiding with the father equall to the father And this touching he there expoundeth beleeuing as Ambrose doth Our touching of Christ then is our beléeuing in him not being here in the earth or on the earth but being ascended to the father and abiding with the father And as the sicke woman in the Gospell though with her hand touching but l Mat. 9. 20. 22. only the hemme of Christs garment yet whilest m Aug. ibid. vt supra by faith she touched Christ himselfe receiued vertue from him to make her whole So we although with our bodily hands we touch but onely the Sacrament which is but as it were the hemme of his garment yet whilst by faith we touch himselfe sitting at the right hand of God in heauen we receiue of him vertue and grace to euerlasting life Which vertues and effects séeing we receiue in Baptisme also as hath bene before shewed it is manifest that it is not by any such corporal touching as the Answ most absurdly hath expressed Here he cauilleth further concerning saint Paules words We are all partakers of one bread and one cup. By bread he saith must néedes be vnderstood the bodie of Christ for if we vnderstand it of bread indéed all are not partakers of one bread but many breads But his vnderstanding deceiueth him The Sacrament as he confesseth is a Sacrament of vnitie Christ would commend vnto vs this vnitie n Aust in Ioh. tra 26. Cypr. li. 1. epist 6. by being partakers of those things which of many are made one as bread of many graines wine of many grapes To this the name of one bread hath relation admonishing vs being many to become one But I hope the bodie of Christ shall not be said to be made of many cornes or grapes This bread therefore is not the very body of Christ But we are all partakers of one bread because the bread of the Sacrament though in substance of loaues it be many breads yet in vse and mysterie or signification is all one And so though the cup be diuerse according to the diuersitie of places yet in the same maner we are also said to be partakers of one cup. Pet. Spence Sect. 28. AS for Gratian I am sorie to see how fowly you abuse him did he doubt of the veritie of transubstantiation or of Christs presence All the whole part de consecratione doth proclaime the contrarie But the thing which some not vnproblably do expound in this place the truth of the flesh and blood to be the efficiency thereof that is the forgiuenesse of sinnes was not any words of Christ touching the Sacrament but the words of a praier which he a litle before mentioned which he meaneth by saying in this place which was quae nunc specie gerimus rerum veritate capiamus which had two senses as Gratiā telleth you the one was that we may once receiue in a manifest vision as it is indeed the bodie of Christ the which vnder the formes of bread and wine is celebrated The other sense of that praier was with some men thus that we may receiue the effect of those mysteries that is to say remission of sinnes in veritie whereof now in a Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine we celebrate the mysterie For you know this is a Sacrament of remission of sinnes which some saith Gratian vnderstood by the truth of the things in the said praier Is this to deny the reall presence but your mind is so wholly set vpon that point that like your merrie I dare not say mad Athenian all things sound against Christs presence and all the belles ring against Transubstantiation in your eares R. Abbot 28. THe praier of the auncient Church which I mentioned before Sect. 25. beside the exposition of Lanfrancus there set downe is reported by Gratian to haue bene otherwise expounded by some other The Church praied at the receiuing of the Sacrament y◠they might
a De consâ—â— dist 2. cap. species receiue the truth of the flesh blood of Christ Some saith Gratian not without probabilitie expound the truth of the flesh blood of Christ in this place to be the effect thereof that is the forgiuenesse of sins Whereby it is euident that those some did vnderstand the receiuing of the truth of Christs flesh and blood to be not that corporal eating and drinking which the church of Rome mainteineth but the participation of the effects of his passion that is forgiuenesse of sinnes according to that which was before declared out of S. Austen Now to note that in receiuing the effect and fruite of the flesh and blood of Christ we are said to be partakers of the same flesh and blood I alleaged this exposition in my former Treatise which doth plainly testifie the same But the Ans as a melancholy man imagining himselfe to be made of glasse and fearing euerie wall least he should be crackt in péeces thinketh his reall presence to be here disputed against and telleth me that I do fowly abuse Gratian in making him an aduersary of Transubstantiation reall presence and moreouer that those words do not serue for exposition of the words of Christ What Gratian thought I stand not vpon it may be he was as absurd in his conceits as the Answe is I speake of them whose expositioÌ„ he alleageth who as touching their church praier tell vs that a man in receiuing the effects of Christs flesh and blood is said to receiue the truth of his flesh and blood and this is all for which I alleaged it Albeit it séemeth to me indéed now a strong proofe against reall presence For if they had thought that they had receiued the very truth of the flesh and blood of Christ according to the substance in the sacrament they would haue vsed other words to eâ—presse the effects thereof and not pray againe to receiue the truth that is the effects But it skilleth not whether it be a proofe to this purpose or not There be belleâ— inough to ring against Transubstantiation and reall presence though the clapper of this should be pulled out It is fit inough to shew that for which I brought it and therefore all this answere of his is but a fond cauill P. Spence Sect. 29. YOu charge our doctrine with Caphemitish eating drinking of Christs bodie and of those monstrous blasphemous horrible conceits which some of our captaines haue fallen into As for those conceites I cannot conceiue what they might be on gods name and therefore will conceiue no answere to them till I vnderstand your conceits but referre thâ—se conceits to your owne conceit But you a Vntruth for the Capernaits thought they should eat with their mouthes the flesh of Christ and so do the Papists roaue wide from the marke in calling vs Capharnites for wee are farre inough from thinking to eate Christes bodie peece-meale as flesh in the shaâ—bles We eat him in a Sacrament whole inuiolable like the paschal Lambe without breaking a bone of him yeâ— not hurting of him nor brusing of him nor tearing of him with our teeth as the â—apâ—erâ—its dreamed of Remember what S. Thomas Aquinas a Papist in the office of the Sacrament saith and all the church singeth A sumente non concisus non confractus nec diuisus integer accipitur Which sequences Luther was very farre in loue withall a late Papist of Oxonfâ—rd sing not long sâ—thence in a most sweete tune of that same matter Sumeris sumptus rursuâ—â— sine fine resumi Neâ— tamen absumi diminuiuâ— potes Beware beare not false witnesse against your neighbours R. Abbot 29. I Charge them with the grosse errour of the Capernaits in their doctrine of eating Christs bodie and blood But he answereth me that I roaue wide from the marke in calling them Capernaits And why I pray Marry sir the Capernaits thought they should eate Christes bodie by péeces but they say they eate him whole Surely but that the iudgement of God is great vpon them it were wonder that such vnhaâ—soâ— imaginations should prenaile with reasonable men I haue spoken hereof a Sect. 23. before As for his sequences verses they may haue their coÌ„uenient vnderstanding without that absurd coÌ„struction of eating drinking which he maketh I told him of monstrous blasphemous horrible conceits that some captaines of his part haue râ—nne into by defence of that eating He answereth me very pleasantly that he vnderstandeth not those conceits but referreth those conceites to mine owne conceit But M. Spence you could haue tolde him what they were because you had bene before vrged therewith but could not stumble out any answere to them Let me tell him what they are I referre him first to the glose of the Canon law where he shall finde this conceit that b De conse dist 2. cap. Qui benè It is no great inconuenience to say that a Mouse receiueth the bodie of Christ seeing that most wicked men do also receiue it The maister of the sentences knoweth not what to conceiue hereof c Lib. 4. dist 13 What doth the mouse take or what doth he eate God knoweth saith he As for him he cannot tell Yet he holdeth that d Ibid. It may be foundly said that the bodie of Christ is not eaten of bruite beasts But he is noted for that in the margine Here the Maister is not holden and the e In erroribus condemn Paris Parisians set it downe for one of his errours not commonly receiued that he saith that the bruit croature doth not receiue the very body of Christ Let him looke the conceit of f Pat. 4. qu. 45. Alexander de Hales If a dog or a swine should swallow the whole consecrated host I see no reason why the bodie of Christ should not withall passe into the belly of the dog or swine He commendeth Thomas Aquinas by the name of a Papist and his catholicke church hath set him in his place next the Canonicall scriptures Let him looke the conceits of this Papist g Thom. Aqui. sum par 3. qu. 79. art 3. in res ad 3. Albeit saith he A mouse or a dog do eate the consecrated host yet the substance of the bodie of Christ ceaseth not to be vnder the forme of the breaâ— so long as the same form doth remain c. Aâ— also if it shuld be cast into the mire And again some haue said that straitwaies assoone as the SacrameÌ„t is touched of the mouse or dog there ceaseth to be the bodie of Christ but this saith he derogateth from the truth of the Sacrament And againe h Ibi. in corp arti The bodie of Christ doth so long contiâ—â—e vnder the sacrament all formes receiued by sinfull men as the substance of bread would remaine if it were there which ceaseth not to be by and by but remaineth vntill it be digested by naturall heate These are those
not that because Christ taking y◠bread said thereof This is my bodie therefore the bread was turned into his bodie And this is so good Logicke that diuerse great maisters of his side haue plainly confessed that the wordes of the Gospell notwithstanding the aforesaid consent do not enforce Transubstantiation as I told him before and he answereth nothing to it Yea Bellarmine himselfe who hath taken vpon him to be the Atlas of Popery at this time after that he hath sweat and trauailed to proue it by the scripture when he hath all done is content to confesse so much For being vrged that Scotus and Cameracensis do say that there is no so expresse place of scripture that it can enforce to admit of Transubstantiation he answereth a Bellar. tom 2. contr 3. li 3. cap. 23. This indeed is not altogither vnlikely For although the scripture which I haue alleaged before seeme to vs so cleare that it is able to force a man that is not ouerthwart yet whether it be so or not it may worthily bee doubted for that most learned sharpe witted men such as Scotus especially was do thinke the contrary It is sufficient for our discharge that the Iesuit confesseth that it may iustly be doubted whether Transubstantiation may be proued by the scripture or not and that it is likely that indeed it cannot The matter then is come to this passe that Transubstantiation must be beléeued because of the authoritie of the Church of Rome but otherwise that it cannot be prooued by the authoritie of the scripture But we dare not trust the Church of Rome so farre as to receiue any doctrine of her without the warrant of the scripture For we are of Chrysostomes minde b Chrisost in Psal 95. If any thing saith he be spoken without scripture the minde of the hearer halteth or hangeth in suspense But when there commeth out of the scripture the testimony of the voyce of God it confirmeth both the minde of the hearer and the words of the speaker They must prooue it vnto vs by the scripture or else wee cannot bee assured of it But they cannot agrée how to expounde the wordes of scripture for it and the scripture it selfe is manifestly against it Christ saith This is my bodie The word This doth demonstrate and point to somewhat And what may that be One of them saith one thing and another saith another thing in fine they cannot tell So that we must suppose that Christ said This I know not what is my bodie Bellarmine commeth after all the rest to resolue the matter and he telleth vs that we must vnderstand it thus c Bellar. tom 2 cont 3 lib. 1. ca. 10. 11. This that is conteined vnder the formes is my bodie But the question is the same againe what is that conteined vnder the formes To say it is the bodie before all the words of consecration be spoken they themselues will not allow But except the bodie it can be nothing else but bread It is bread therefore to which the word This is referred perforce must the words be thus taken This bread is my body which again must néeds haue this meaning This bread is the signe and Sacrament of my bodie and consequently ouerthrow Transubstantiation Moreouer what Christ brake bid his Disciples take and eate that they did take and eate It was bread which he brake and bid them take and eate for the words of consecration were not yet spoken Therfore it was bread which they did take and eate But that which they did eate Christ called his bodie Therefore Christ called bread his bodie and meant This bread is my bodie So likewise as touching the other part of the Sacrament we say that what Christ willed them to drinke that they did drinke But Christ willed them to drinke wine saying Drinke ye all of this and this was wine because there was yet no consecration Therfore they did drinke wine That which they did drinke Christ called his blood The words therefore of Christ must be thus meant This wine is my blood And so he expoundeth himselfe immediatly when he calleth it This frute of the vine shewing hereby to what we must referre the word This when he saith This is my blood namely to the frute of the vine that is to say wine To auoyd these things thus plainly gathered from the circumstances of the text many blind shifts haue bene deuised but one especially most worthy to be noted d Tho. Aquin. pag. 3. q. 78. art 1. that the Euangelists doe not report these matters of the institution of the Sacrament in that order as they were spoken and done by our Sauiour Christ Thus to serue their turne the Euangelists must be controlled and vpon their word we must beléeue that these things are not so orderly set downe as the matter required I might adde hereunto how the scripture vsually calleth the Sacrament c Act. 20. 7. 1. Cor. 10. 16. 11. 26. 27. 28 bread euen after consecration in the breaking distributing and eating thereof then which what should we require more to assure vs that in substance it is bread indéede And of this spéech they can giue no certaine reason neither but are carried vp and downe from fancie to another as appeareth by Lanfrancus saying f Lanfran lib. de sacram Euchar◠It is called bread either because it was made of bread and retaineth some qualities therof or because it feedeth the soule or because it is the bodie of the sonne of God who is the bread of Angels or in some other maner which may be conceiued of them that are better learned but cannot of me They care not what they say it is so that they grant it not to be that that it is in truth But thus do they deserue to be led vp and down from errour to errour and follie to follie as it were after a dauncing fire who refuse to be guided and directed by the cleare and shining light of the euident word of God By this that hath bene said it may appeare sufficiently how litle hold the Answ hath in the consent of the Euange lists for the proofe of his Transubstantiation euen by the confession of his owne fellowes to whose wisedome and learning he doth greatly trust But yet once againe to proue it by the Gospell we haue another argument wherein the Answ as a sawcie fellow taketh vpon him to censure controll M. Beza and M. Fulke in a matter of Gréeke construction as he did M. Caluin and B. Iewell in other matters before But what may it be that he presumeth so much on Forsooth the Gréeke in Luc. 22. is so plaine against our doctrine and for proofe of Transubstantiation that Beza was greatly troubled there with and was faine to say that either S. Luke spake false Gréeke or else that somewhat was foisted into the text This argument Gregory Martin and others haue runne out of breath
enough against a naked and bare collection from a point of doubtfull construction Which séeing they haue diuers of them béen alleaged by maister Fulke and others directly against the Answrers demaund and yet haue not receiued any tollerable answere it was but a scape of his wit to say that maister Fulke doth steale away from the state of the question and medleth not with it His other cauill out of the wordes of S. Luke that Christ before the sacrament said l Luc. 22. 17. he woulde drinke no more of the fruite of the vine till in his kindome and yet dranke after in the Sacrament whereby he would prooue the sacrament to be no wine was long agoe preuented by S. Austen who affirmeth that S. Luke m August de consen Euangeli lib. 3. ca. 1. according to his maner setteth downe the former mention of the cup by way of anticipation putting that before which is to be referred to somewhat following after and therfore vnderstandeth it of the cup of the new testament by and by after instituted and so reconcileth him to the other two Euangelistes Mathew and Marke But to helpe this argument the Answ is faine to varie from his good maisters of Rhemes For he expoundeth the kingdome of God to be after the resurrection but they vnderstand it n Rhem Annot Luc. 22. 17 of the celebration of the Sacrament of Christes bloud Whereof it followeth that Christ in the Sacrament dranke of the fruite of the vine as both Mathew and Marke set it downe and the auncient fathers doe expound it Let him go and be agréed with his fellowes before he vrge this argument againe P. Spence Sect. 32. IN the end you giue me councell how to behaue my selfe in these controuersies In all Christian charitie I thanke you and loue you for the same for you aduise me no worse then your selfe followe and in good faith I accept of it as proceeding from your great good will towards me and therefore againe and againe I thanke you And I will follow you in genere that is to haue care of my poore soule to feede it with the trueth of Gods word but expounded by his Catholique Church I must tell you plainly and therefore in specie in the particulars of the points of our beliefe I will not followe you You and I endeuour both to come to one resting place at night but in our daies iourney wee goe two sundrie waies I pray God send vs merily to meet in heauen Amen R. Abbot 32. MY councell M. Spence must stand for a witnesse against you at that day if you go on forward still to walke in the counsel of the vngodly In the meane time I againe aduise and counsell both you and your maister to cease to rebell fight against God or to say when he offereth himselfe vnto you we will none of thy waies I councell you indéede as you say to no other thing but that which I follow my selfe and I most humbly thank almightie God who hath giuen me his grace to follow the same and hath preserued me from that daunger wherein I haue béen oft falling away from him You will followe me you say in generall to haue a care to féed your soule with the trueth of Gods word Do so M. Spence doe so that is the foode of life that is the riuer of the water of life the heauenly Manna he that féedeth there shal surely finde life b August de pastor Feede there saith S. Austen that yee may feede safely and securely But you marre and poison this good foode with that which you adde You will feede your soule you say with the word of God but expounded by his Catholicke Church you meane the Church of Roome Which is as much as if you should say you wil not follow the word of God it selfe but that which it pleaseth the Church of Roome to make of the word of God Take héede of M. Spence Assure your selfe that though the Church of Roome doe maintaine c 2. Pet 2. ◠damnable heresies and d 1. Tim. 4. 1. doctrines of deuils contrarie to Gods word yet being wise as she is according to this worlde she will neuer expound the word of God against her selfe if it be in her to make the meaning of it When she expoundeth the Scriptures to make her selfe the Catholike Church and no such thing is to be found in the words of the scripture will you beléeue her in her owne cause It shal then be verified of you which Salomon saith e Prou. 1◠15. The foole will beleeue euerie thing Take the simplicitie of the word of God it self and be directed thereby f Prou. 8 9. The waies of God are plaine to him that will vnderstand God g Hiere in psal 8◠hath not written as Plato did that few should vnderstand but for the vnderstanding of all saith S. Hierome So that although there be depth enough in the word of God for the best learned to bestow his studie and labour in yet as Chrysostome and Austen teach vs h Chrysost in 2. Thess 2. August ep 3. Whatsoeuer things are necessarie they are manifest and i Aug. de doct Christ li. 2. c. 9. in those things which are manifestly set downe in the Scriptures are contained all things that pertaine to faith and conuersation of life Lay before you therefore those things which néed not the exposition of the Church of Roome When the scripture saith There is now no offering for sinne wil you take her exposition to say that there is When the scripture saith no man liuing shal be found iust in the sight of God shal she by her exposition make you beléeue that it is not so When the scripture saith Thou shalt not bow downe to or worship a carued or grauen image will you be perswaded by her expositions that you may I passe ouer the rest Iustly doe they deserue to be giuen ouer to errour and to be deluded with lies and lewd expositions which will not yéeld vnto God when he speaketh vnto them so plainly as néedeth no exposition It were worth the while to set downe héere a Catalogue of Romish expositions but that the conscience of you all that way appeareth sufficiently in this whole discourse You pray that we both going sundry wayes may méete in heauen But maister Spence it will not be in that way wherein you go Either you must say that there is no heauen or els that your way is not the way to heauen because the God of heauen hath gainsaid it God open your eyes that you may sée the right way that so we may ioyfully méete in heauen P. Spence Sect. 33. AS touching the escape of our Rhemistes in the account of our Ladies assumption The matter is verie sleight not tending any way to our saluation I meane to erre in that computation especially when they haue a The more impudēt they that hauing no certaine
admonisheth Further he telleth vs why we must say to God Enter not into iudgement with thy seruaunt for in thy sight no man liuing shal be found iust Because saith he in respect of the puritie of God no man nor angell nor heauen is pure Now I thought that it was but a word in iest when he defied the Pelagians before In this very maner and with this very aunswere did they séeke to shift off these wordes in the like case S. Hierome reporteth it thus e Hieroni. in epistola ad Ctesiphon This testimonie the Pelagians delude by a new reason vnder the name or shew of pietie They say that in comparison of God no man is iust or perfect He answereth them As though this were that which the scripture speaketh of surely it saith not No man liuing shal be found righteous but in thy sight no man liuing shal be found righteous When it saith in thy sight it will haue vs vnderstand that euen they which seeme holy vnto men are not holy as touching the notice and knowledge of God and God looking vpon and viewing all things whom the secrets of hearts cannot deceiue no man is iust Let him heare S. Hierome telling him againe that those wordes are not spoken as touching f Idem dial 1. cont Pelagia righteousnesse in comparison of God but as touching that righteousnesse which concerneth the frailtie of man S. Bernard giueth this reason why we are to cry so g Bernard in fest sanct ser 1 because all our righteousnesse euen our verie righteousnesse is found vnrighteousnesse if it be streightly iudged Therefore for this cause are we to pray in this sort because indéede we are not iust if God consider of vs and iudge vs according to that righteousnesse which is by workes The iustified man is ignorant of his state saith he and therefore may not boast thereof But the iustified man of whom the Scripture speaketh is not ignorant of his state for he h Râ—m 5. 1. 2. hath peace towardes God through Iesus Christ our Lord yea and that in such sort as that hee reioyceth vnder the hope of the glorie of God Now a man reioyceth or i Chrysost in ep ad Rom. hom 9. glorieth saith Chrysostome of those thinges which hee hath alreadie in hand But because the hope of things to come is as certaine and sure as of things alreadie giuen vs. Therefore saith S. Paul we doe alike glorie thereof But this glorying hee groundeth not vpon his workes for there he findeth no assurance but vpon confidence of the mercie and goodnesse of God towardes him in Iesus Christ k Bernar. de Euangel 7. pa. num serm 3. I consider the things saith S. Bernard wherin all my hope consisteth the loue of Gods adoption the truth of his promise and his ablenesse of performance Now let mine owne foolish thought murmure as much as it will saying Who art thou and how great is that glorie and by what merites hopest thou to obtaine it And I will boldly answere I know whom I haue beleeued and I am sure because he hath adopted me in exceeding great loue because he is true in his promise and able for the performance therof These three saith he do so confirme and strengthen my heart that no want of merites no consideration of mine owne vilenesse no estimation of the heauenly blisse can cast me downe from the height of my hope wherein I am firmely rooted This is the faith this is the assurance of the iustified man which the scripture teacheth this giueth him comfort in life and death in outward troubles and inward terrors in which there is no comfort if a man must be ignorant and doubtfull of his state The Answ intimateth further that the iustified man vseth those former spéeches by way of humbling himselfe before God l Bernar. de triplici custodia c. Indeed saith S. Bernard by vvay of humilitie but what against trueth Nay m Idem de verb. Esaiae serm 5. with no lesse truth then humilitie as we heard him say before n Aug. epis 89 in Psal 118. con 2. de nat grat cap. 36. not with counterfeit humilitie but with words of trueth as saint Austen saith concerning Daniel and o Idem de peccat merit remis lib. 2. cap 10. knowing in truth that it is so that there is noâ— a man that is iust in the sight of God as hee also speaketh out of Iob. His third iustification we know not by that name God in this life beginneth his good worke of sanctification in vs but it is yet but begunne p Rom. 8. 23. We haue receiued but the first fruites of the spirite saith S. Paul q Aug. de â—eÌ„p Serm 49. In comparison of that which we hope for at the resurrection saith S. Austen it is but dongue which wee haue in this life So that our r Idem de ciuit dei lib. 19. cap 27. righteousnesse in this life as he saith again consisteth rather in forgiuenesse of sinnes then in perfection of vertues But Å¿ 2. Pet. 3. 13. according to the promise of God we looke for newe heauens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousnesse t Rom 8. 23. We waite for the adoption and full redemption of out bodies u 1 Cor. 15. â—3 when this mortall shall put on immortalitie and this corruptible shall put on incorruption when sinne and death shal be no more and w 1. cor 13. 10. that which is perfect being come that which is now in part shal be done away Now because this our sanctification and righteousnesse is yet but vnperfect and in part therefore we resolue that the righteousnesse whereby we stand iust before God is only the righteousnes of Iesus Christ and that by inherent iustice no man liuing shal be found iust in his â—ight The cause why God doth not perfect vs in this life wee take to be this which S. Austen giueth x August de spiri lâ—tera cap 36. that the mouth euen of the righteous may be shut in their owne praise and not be opened but to the praise of God as S. Bernard saith y Bernard in cantie Ser. 50. that we may know at that day that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. The places which your simplicitie M. Spence as I gesse added in the margin to that which your authour had saide néede no great answere The two former are Apocryphall and prooue nothing Yet the one of them is nothing to the purpose z VVised 3. 15 the fruite of good workes is glorious the other is a false translation where in stéede of a Eccle. 16. 12. workes is put in merite of workes The third is of S. Paul b Rom. 2. 6. God will render vnto euery man according to his workes So we preach so wee enforme the people