religion by reason of any such opinion that Christ was really bound in them or in the eares of corne or branches of the vine because then all bread and all wine should haue béene matter of mystery and religion with them which was not so but it is made mysticall bread and wine by a certaine coÌ„secration namely whilest by the word of God they are dedicated and halowed to be sacrameÌ„ts and mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ The which consecrating halowing the same S. Austen elsewhere declareth thus concerning Baptisme m August â—n Ioha tri 8â— The word commeth to the element and it is mede a sacrament in an other place concerning the Lords supper thus n Idem de trâ—nit lib. 3. cap. 4. We call that the body of Christ which being taken of the fruites of the earth consecrated by mystical praier wee receiue in memory of the passion of our Lord. Now what is all this to the real presence which the Answerer saith S. Austen did graunt Not a word doth S. Austen vse to import it Nay he rather reiecteth it in that he saith that bread and wine are not vsed in sacrament as in respect of Christ really bound in them but are made only mystical by consecration where he denieth that reall presence which they fancied and putteth no other in place therof but only saith that the bread is made mysticall bread by consecration As for Transsubstantiation he is plainely enough against it also in the same place in that he calleth the sacrament the sacrament of bread and of the cuppe wherby we vnderstand that the sacrament is bread and in that he denieth that the church had the same religion concerning bread and wine that the Manichées had because it was not religion but sacriledge with the Manichées to tast wine importing hereby that it was wine which the church tooke tasted in the sacrament But the Papistes reall presence iumpeth with the Manichées imprisoning of Christ for they make Christ so fast bound by consecration to the formes of bread and wine that though ratts or mise or swine eate the same or though it lie in the mire yet it must not be thought but that the body of Christ is there stil euen till the formes be consumed and to thinke otherwise as Thomas Aquinas saith derogateth from the truth of the sacrament as after shal be declared To his sixt circumstance I answere him that the Lateran councell was the assembly of Gog and Magog to set the idoll Mauzim in his place That which they resolued against Berengarius they reselued against all the Fathers who neuer knew reall presence nor transsubstantiation As for Innodentius his breadinesse and wininesse panietas vineitas in the seauenth circumstance the Answ would not haue named it but that swine are delighted with mire and filth The eight circumstaÌ„ce also containeth only new Popish subtilties and deserueth no answere The putting in therof and others as impertinent by way of explication of Gelasius his wordes sheweth the falsehood of the Answ thinking nothing lesse then to deale plainely and seeking by friuolous tales and idle talke to lead the reader away from that which otherwise he cannot but sée The ninth circumstance telleth vs honestly that before the Laterane councell it was no heresy not to iumpe with Transsubstantiation And then belike a man might haue beene a Caluinist in that point as all the Fathers were and yet not to be accounted an hereticke At least he might haue said that the substaÌ„ces of bread wine did remaine in part but not wholly forsooth as perhappes saith the Answ some of the Fathers and namely Gelasius thought a ridiculous and childish fancy When we shew them plainely out of the Fathers that the substances of bread and wine remaine in the sacrament forsooth the Fathers thought that the substances of bread and wine remaine in part but not wholly What conscience may we thinke these men make of their answers Why doth he not bring somewhat out of the Fathers to approoue this fond sophistication vnhandsome dreame But it must be enough for vs that the Answ telleth vs that so it is But it is worth the noting that he telleth vs that it was not clearely defined before the Lateran councell what maner oâ— conuersion is in the sacrament No was Why did not the Apostles clearely know it or knowing it did they not deliuer it to yâ— church Did he which o Act. 20. 27. kept nothing back but declared all the councell of God kéepe backe this or did he deliuer it to the Ephesians and not deliuer it to the Romaines other churches To say the Apostles did not clearely know it is to make himselfe wiser then the Apostles To say they knew it but declared it not is to make them vnfaithful in their charge To say that the church receiued it cléerely deliuered and yet that it was neuer cléerely defined vntill the Lateran councell is a contradiction and impugneth that in the one part which is set downe in the other To say the church and namely the church of Rome receiued it and did afterwardes forgoe it is to make the church of Rome a very bad kéeper of the doctrines of the Apostles especially séeing the sacrament is a matter of continuall and daily vse But indéed we take that which he saith for true that Transsubstantiation was neuer cléerely defined before the Lateran councel But we tell him withall that we are very deinty to admit that for a doctrine of truth which for a thousand yeares and more after Christ was neuer cleerly knowen or defined in the church of God And because it was no heresy all that while not to iumpe with Transsubstantiation we are well assured that it is no heresy to leape from it now Now to returne to Gelasius the Answ findeth an hole or two in his wordes before alleaged whereby he would faine créepe out The wordes are thus There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine He addeth or nature saith the Answ to mollifie and interpret the word substance as importing that the naturall properties of bread and wine remaine though the substaÌ„ce be gone A very naturall answere Belike the substance remaineth or there ceaseth not to be the substance is as much as to say the substance is quite gone and vtterly ceased only the accidents remaine But Gelasius a little before speaketh in the very same sort concerning Christ and sheweth the meaning of his own wordes We say saith he that the propriety of each substance or nature abideth continually in Christ where most plainely by the same phrase of spéech he maketh substance and nature to import one thing And if we will follow the Answ exposition we must say here in the behalfe of Eutyches that not the substances themselues but the naturall properties of each substance abide stil in Christ because he saith substance or nature Againe a little before
in their former nature because they nourish no lesse then the substance of bread it selfe would haue done if it had remained They remain in the former shape and kind as being things that may be seene touched as they might before Theodoretus then hauing saide thus much for the one part of the Sacrament commeth also to shew the other part thereof For his minde is to declare that as there be two kinds of things in one Eucharist so the two natures of God and man are in one person of Christ Therefore the other nature besides the formes of bread and wine is the reall substance of Christs bodie and blood of which part thus he speaketh Intellâ—guntur autem esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur vâ—pote quae illa sunt quae creduntur the mysticall signes are vnderstanded to be those things which they were made and they are beleeued they are adored as being those things which they are beleeued to be Note that these mystica symbola are vnderstanded to be that they were made but what are they vnderstaÌ„ded to be that b They are truly vnderstood to be that in mystetie and siâ—nificatioÌ„ which in substance and nature they are not which they are not Nay syr that were false vnderstanding which falshood cannot be in the mysteries of Christ they are theÌ„ that indeed which they are vnderstanded to be What is it Theodoretus sheweth a little before that they were after consecration the body blood of Christ Therefore the mysticall signes are vnderstanded to be the bodie and blood not because they be not so but because they are so for that they were made his bodie and blood and so they are beleeued to be and are adored or kneeled and bowed vnto But how percase as bearing the image and signes of the bodie and blood of Christ No syr but as being c Strange diuinitie that mysticall 〈◊〉 should be indeed the bodie and bloud of Christ 〈…〉 mysticall sigâ—â— had bene of the virgine Mary Ioh. 1. Theophy in Ioh. 1. indeed the bodie and blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being those things which they are vnderstanded and beleeued to be They are Adored because they are the bodie and blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being and the word as meaneth in that place a truth of being as if it were vere existentia quae creâ—untur being indeed the things which they are beleeued to be So speaketh S. Iohn Viâ—imus gloriam eius gloriam quasi vnigeniti a patre we saw his glorie a glorie as of the only begotten of the father to wit we saw the glorie of him being indeed the only begotten of his father VpoÌ„ which place Theophylact saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in English as is not a word that betokeneth a similitude or likenesse but that confirmeth and betokeneth an vndoubted determination as when we see a King comming forth with great glory we say that he came forth as a King that is to say he came forth as being indeed a King So that by the iudgement of Theophylact that particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Theodoret vseth doth betoken an vndoubted being and determinate truth of that thing whereof we speake The holie mysteries are adored as being those things indeed which they are beleeued to be This place is such as cannot be reasonably answered vnto For the reason of adoring or giuing d Theodoret intendeth not to giue godly honour to the mystical signs for that were idolatry but only such reuerent vsage as is fit for holy things See the answere godly honour to the Sacrament of the altar is because it is indeed the bodie of Christ as it is beleeued to be But it is beleeued to be the bodie of Christ after consecration therefore it is adored as being the true bodie of Christ For Theodoret before hauing confessed the mysteries after consecration to be called the bodie and blood of Christ when it was demanded farther Doest thou beleeue that thou receiuest the bodie and blood of Christ he answereth to that question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ita credo I do beleeue so Now therefore he affirmeth those mysticall signes to be indeed after consecration the bodie and blood of Christ which they are beleeued to be and so beleeued that they are receiued of vs. Euerie word must be weighed because we haue to do with our aduersaries who must finde shifts or els their deceit will appeare to all the world First therefore let it be marked that after consecration the mysteries are called the bodie and blood Secondly that the mysteries are e They are vnderstood to be at made and beleeued to be mystical signes of the body blood and so are reuerently vsed though in substance they be but bread and wine This is all that Theodoret meaneth as shall appeare vnderstanded to be the bodie and blood of Christ Thirdly that they are made so Fourthly they are beleeued to be so Fiftly they are adored for that they are indeed those things which they are beleeued to be And last of all they are receiued The first saying second and the last ye can beare withall to wit that they are called the bodie and blood and are vnderstanded to be the bodie and blood and that the bodie blood are receiued For you wold haue them called so and not be so thereby making the namer of them a miscaller as one that calleth them by a wrong name Secondly you would haue them vnderstanded to be the bodie blood and yet not be so thereby shewing that you take pleasure in vntrue vnderstanding for no f S. Paul would haue the rock vnderstood to be Christ which indeed was not christ yet he was a good man good man wold haue a thing vnderstanded to be that which indeed it is not Againe you would the bodie and blood to be receiued How trow you In the faith of the man but g VVe receiue the truth of the bodie of Christ not by the mouth of our bodies but by the faith of our soules You haue turned faith into the mouth and the truth of the bodie into the fantasie of a bodie not in the truth of the bodie therby declaring that you diuide faith from truth as men that haue a perswasion of things that indeed be not so But to calling vnderstanding and receiuing Theodoret ioyneth also beleeuing adoring and being And the beliefe which he speaketh of is not referred to heauen but vnto the holie mysteries They are beleeued they are adored as being those things which they are beleeued to be h A peeuish and blind fansie Nothing is more vsual then to call the signe by the name of the thing signified though indeed it be not the same The thing that is called or named Christes bodie and blood is indeed that thing which it is called Christ can h misname nothing at all
bread and wine saith the Answerer And how now They subsist now by the power of God saith he and haue their being by themselues But that cannot be for they must abide in their former subsistence and that was in the natures of bread and wine Therefore there must still be bread and wine wherin these formes and mysticall signes must subsist And yet further if these words of Theodoret do not import the remaining of the very substance of bread wine the hereticke is not at al caught as Theodoret telleth him that he is For he hath to reply would haue replied if Transubstantiation had bene then beléeued As it is in the mysticall signes which are the image so must it be in the truth which is the body of Christ The mysticall signes loose their substance after consecration Therfore the body of Christ looseth his substance after his ascension But indéede the argument standeth firme against the hereticke with Theodoret as it did with Gelasius As it is in the mysticall signes so it must be in yâ— body of Christ The mysticall signes kéepe their substance after consecratioÌ„ Therfore Christs body remaineth the same substance after his ascension And thus the wordes goe currant both against Eutyches his confusion and popish transsubstantiation Now I cannot but maruel how the Answerer making Theodoret to speake so nicely and precisely of those Laterane subtilties of formes subsisting by themselues of naturall properties and figures and shapes remaining without any substance doth imagine that Theodoret being so long before the Laterane definition should be so throughly acquainted with these matters and so perfectly set them downe which yet as it is plainly confessed in the d Index Expurgat in censu Bertra quae subtilissimè verissimè posterior aetas addidit Index Expurgatorius haue bene since added in latter times and indéed were neuer knowne to the auncient Fathers Without doubt Theodoret was some Prophet and had some speciall reuelation to this purpose to know what should be agreed vpon in the Laterane Councell and maruell it is that for this cause he was not sainted in the Roman Calender But a liar they say should beare a braine and the Answ and his fellowes should remember that if these things were added since in later times as they themselues confesse then Theodoret had neuer any intelligence of them as indéed he had not To leaue this and to go forward he now entereth further into the words of Theodoret and openeth that which I concealed weigheth euery word at large and when all is done Parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus Theodoret as he saith hauing set down one part of the Sacrament which he calleth yâ— formes of bread and wine commeth to set downe the other to be the reall bodie and blood of Christ and that in these wordes The mysticall signes are vnderstood to be the same that they are made are so beleeued and adored as being the same that they are beleeued Now hereof he gathereth that they are vnderstood to be the bodie blood of Christ and it may not be a false vnderstanding therfore they are so indéede and so they are beléeued to be and adored not as being signes of the bodie and blood of Christ but as being the same indéed How pretily this man plaieth with a shadow and solaceth himselfe with a large description of his idle fancie Who told him I maruell that this was Theodorets meaning Surely he tooke it out of some of his learned Treatises and beléeued it as an Oracle Ex tripode But let me demaund of him are the formes of bread and wine vnderstood to be to be I say yâ— bodie blood of Christ are they beléeued to be so are they adored as being not signes but verily indeed the bodie and blood of Christ What new stuffe is this that formes of bread and wine be indéed Christs bodie and blood and must be adored with godly honor as the Answ meaneth adoratioÌ„ Is Christs bodie now become formes of bread and must we adore and worship formes of bread That is idolatry euen by the confession of his own side But he will except and tell me that not the formes but the bodie conteined vnder them is adored Yea but he hath told me alreadie and Theodorets words as he expoundeth them import no other that the formes are the bodie of Christ are adored as being so indéed Cleare it is that Theodoret referreth that adoration which he speaketh of to the mysticall signes So that the Answ must either make himselfe an idolater and must turne the bodie and blood of Christ into formes of bread and wine or else he must séeke a new construction of Theodorets words The meaning is plain The mystical signes before consecration are not mystical signes but méerly bread and wine By consecration they are made symbola mystica corporis sanguinis domini mysticall signes of the bodie and blood of Christ And notwithstanding that after consecration they continue in their former substance yet are they vnderstood and beléeued to be not only that which they are in substance but the same that they are made that is signes of the bodie and blood of Christ and are honoured and reuerenced as being translated from common vse to be as they are made mystical signes of Christs body and blood And this to be the plaine meaning of Theodoret it appeareth by that which he addeth immediatly for hauing thus set downe the mysticall signes though in substance bread and wine as they were before yet vnderstood to be the signes of Christs bodie and blood he addeth Confer then the image with the paterne or principall and thou shalt see the likenesse For the figure must be agreeable or answerable to the truth Where we sée that he calleth the mysticall signes which he hath spoken of the image and figure not for that which they are in substance but for that which they are vnderstood to be made and on the other side the bodie of Christ wherof they are the image and figure he calleth the patterne the principal the truth and inferreth hereof that as these signes though they be thus highly honoured to be the images the signes the figures of the bodie blood of Christ yet are in substance and nature the same still so the bodie of Christ thoughâ—t be now become immortall and not subiect to any corruption or weaknesse and be set at the right hand of God and worshipped of all creatures yet is stil a true bodie retaining the same forme figure circumscriptioÌ„ and substance that it had before Thus Theodoret will in no wise yéeld to be made a Patrone either of real presence or of Transubstantiation His iudgement is so cleare in these points that he sheweth but a naughtie and leaud minde whosoeuer shall go about to father any of these matters vpon him In the former Dialogue he saith plainly that Christ in the deliuerie of the mysteries called bread his
of bread is called by the name of flesh and the visible forme of wine by the name of blood Now it is called the inuisible and intelligible flesh of Christ because according to that forme flesh is not seene but vnderstoode and so the bloud Therefore the inuisible flesh is said to be a sacrament of the visible flesh because the forme of bread according to which that flesh is not seen is a sacrament of the visible flesh because by the inuisible flesh that that is by the forme according to which the flesh of Christ appeapeareth not flesh is signified the body of Christ which is visible and may be felt where it appeareth in his forme To this he addeth out of the other wordes of Austen that the bread is called the body being indeed the sacrament of the body of Christ not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie and so maketh S. Austen to expound that which before he sayth he had obscurely spoken Thus the Answ owne doctors though otherwise friendes to transubstantiation yet doe iustifie my exposition of this place and make it manifest that though the place be obscure at first sight yet by the common groundes of diuinitie it connot be construed so as that transubstantiation may necessarily be proued thereby Therefore I say still with Austen that the sacrament of the body of Christ is onely after a certaine maner the body of Christ namely not properly not in the trueth of the thing as the Answerer auoucheth but onely in a signifying mysterie betokening the same P. Spence Sect. 14. FOr your place of Chrysostome The bread is vouchsafed the name of the body c. For as for the place of S. Cypr. lib. 2. Epis 6. is such as deserueth no answer a CypriaÌ„ saith that Christ called the bread made of manie grains his body c. It is very bread therfore which is called the bodie only telling you that the bread wherof the sacrament was made was compact of many graines and the wine pressed foorth of many grapes which no baker nor vintner will denie which is smally to this purpose the place I say of Chrysost only flattereth you with these wordes b The wordes which I alleaged are thus The bread is vouchâ—afed the name 〈◊〉 the â—ody oâ— christ The nature of bread remaineth Why sir who denieth that the naturall properties of colour shape tast and feeding remaine no Catholique I am sure so that you see your testimonie out of him maketh not against vs nor auayleth you anie more then the painted fire warmed the old woman But the places of Chrysostome prouing the reall presence are so infinite that infinite madnesse it were M. Abbot and farre surmounting your Athenians madnesse to hazard my soule vpon such a testimonie as saith nothing against me R. Abbot 14. IN the places which I alleaged of Cyprian Chrysostome and Theodoret the Answ heart without doubt failed him For hée sawe it plainly euicted and proued by them and that so as that hee knew there was nothing for him to answere directly to the wordes that it is bread which in the sacrament is called the bodie of Christ and wine which is called his bloud Yet being vowed and sworne to his owne errour he will rather do or say any thing then yéeld vnto the trueth The places of Theodoret hée leaueth out quite who affirmeth that Christ honoured the visible signes with the name of his body and bloud that hée made exchange of names and gaue to his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his body To the places of Cyprian and Chrysostome he writeth somewhat but answereth nothing He taketh that which was not vrged and that which was to the point in question he slippeth by Let him remember what S. Austen saith a Aug. quaest ex yet â—â—st q. 14. He which concealeth the wordes of the matter in question is either an ignorant person or a wrangler studying rather for cauillinges then for doctrine The words of Cyprian are thus b Cypri lib. 1. Epist 6. Our Lord calleth bread made by the vniting of many cornes his body and wine pressed out of manie clusters and grapes he calleth his bloud To this hée saith childishly and vainly that it onely proueth that bread is made of many cornes and wine of many grapes shewing plainly that he made no conscience of his answere but was desirous to credite himselfe by writing somewhat howsoeuer But let Cyprian be further asked what is it that Christ calleth his bodie He saith it is bread What is it that Christ calleth his bloud It is wine Christ calleth the bread his body and the wine his bloud Now if there be neither bread nor wine in the sacrament as the Answ and his fellowes teach then Christ cannot call the bread his body nor the wine his bloud But because Christ calleth the bread his body and the wine his bloud therefore the meaning of these wordes This is my body This is my bloud is thus This bread is my body This wine is my bloud And because in proper spéech that cannot be true for so it c De consecr dist 2 ca. panis est is vnpossible as the glose of yâ— canon law saith that bread should be the body of Christ therefore it must be figuratiuely vnderstood This bread is the signe and sacrament of my body c. To this the words alleaged out of Chrysostome are verie pregnant d Chrysost ad Caesat Monachum The breadis vouchsafed the name of the body of Christ Why doth the Answ smoother vp these wordes and talke impertinently of that which in this place was not mentioned at all I talked not here of the nature remaining I tell him out of Chrysostome that after consecration it is bread which beareth the name of the body of Christ and let his owne conscience tell him whether that be any thing against him or not when as he and his companie say there is no bread remaining after consecration Chrysostome saith The bread is vouchsafed the name of the body of Christ The Papist saith There is no bread but the verie body of Christ it selfe As for his construction of the nature of bread remaining that is the colour shape taste and féeding without any substance of bread it maketh Chrysostome to speake fondly as himselfe vseth to doe namely thus The bread is vouchsafed the name of Christes body although there be no bread His infinite testimonies out of Chrysostome to prooue the reall presence are iust neuer a one He deceiâ—â—eth himselfe for want of the knowledge of that rule which Chrysostome himselfe giueth him vpon these wordes of Christ e chrys in Ioh. hom 46. The flesh profiteth nothing Hee meaneth it not saith he of the flesh it selfe God forbid But of those which carnally and fleshly vnderstand those thinges which are spoken And what is it to vnderstand carnally Marry simply as things are spoken
matter but reason and trueth see the answere at large to steale scrappes out of the fathers and not to care for their drift and purposes but onely to patch vp matter for a shew and to the sale The figures be of the old testament in the newe testament Christ fulfilleth them It followeth But it had been no figure except there were a true bodie Surelie an emptie thing as is a phantasie can take no figure The Marcionites said Christ had a phantastical body that saith Tertullian could not haue a figure No can Doe not the phantasticall bodies of spirites exhibite to the eies a certaine figure or shape it is too well knowen to the verie Negromancers and the Apostles feared the like of Christ But he meaneth if Christ had no body at all but a phantasticall body Melchisedech in the old testament had vsed no figure of that in bread wine For of c Vntrueth for he talketh not of it and though hee had yet doth it not stand the Answ in any steed as shall appeare it he talketh so that that is a figure of my bodie must needs be interpreted thus This that is this figure of the old testament of bread and wine vsed by Melchisedech which I now fulfill est corpus meum is nowe become my bodie by my fulfilling in this my new testament in veritie a figure of the olde testament in a mysterie It followeth Or if therefore he made the bread his bodie because he wanted a true bodie then he should haue giuen the bread for vs. This illation of Tertullian can haue no wit nor sense if he meant not Christ to be really in his verie true bodie in the Sacrament It made for the vanitie of Marcion that bread should be crucified If Christ had giuen his Apostles bread onely and not his verie flesh then by Tertullians minde he must haue giuen a bready body or a body of bread to be also crucified so sure he was that the thing he gaue his Disciples was the same that was also afterward crucified What say you to this maister Abbot Marcion said that Christ had in steed of a heart a kind of fruit called a Pepon Why saith Tertullian did he not call a Pepon his bodie as well as the bread or rather after Marcions opinion his reason is because Marcion vnderstood not that bread was an olde figure of the bodie of Christ Lo your id est figura is by Tertullian as much as id est vetus figura an old figure Then by your minde Christ fulfilled not the old figure in veritie although Tertullian saith neuer so plainly he made the bread his bodie But gaue them the old figure therefore to end this testimonie of Tertullian I answere you that the premisses considered you must needes graunt that the same id est is not referred to corpus meum but to hoc That which in the old testament was a figure of my bodie is now being made so by my speaking dicendo omnipotentia verbi by the almightie power of the word as S. Cyprian de caena domini vttereth my bodie Note these points whereby it so appeareth by Tertullian to be meant First the scope of his fourth booke to prooue the figures of the old lawe and the fulfilling of the new Secondly Tertullian hath figura non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus If hee had meant a figure then in the new testament he had not said fuisset sed esset figura Thirdly when hee saith Christ called bread his bodie and not a Pepon as Marcions follie would haue him to haue spoken hee telleth that Marcion vnderstood not that bread was an ancient figure of his bodie so that Tertullian meaneth not the bread to be a new figure of his bodie instituted by Christ in his Supper of the new testament but an auncient figure of the olde testament vsed by Melchisedech Fourthly a little after this place he saith that Christ the reuealer of aniquities did sufficiently dâ—clare what hee would haue the bread to haue signified calling bread his bodie Wherby d Tertullians minde iâ— that the name of bread had bin vsed to import the body of Ch 〈…〉 â—â— prefigurâ—â—â—at bread indeede should be appointed to signifie the â—â—me body This he sayâ—h Ch 〈…〉 ful 〈…〉 〈◊〉 he took bread ind 〈…〉 and called it hiâ— body his mind is that Christ would haue the bread in the old testameÌ„t to haue signified his body to come not now instituting a new figure in bread Fifthly he saith a litle after thou maiest acknowledge the olde figure of bloud in the wine Lo the wine in the old testament was an ancient figure of his bloud What can plainlier vtter or expresse his meaning Lastly it followeth Now saith he it is at his maundy he consecrated his bloud in wine who then that is speaking certain words of Iacob the Patriarche euen by the said Iacob figured wine by bloud he attributeth e A Figure to the name of wine consecration to wine it selfe a figure to wine consecration to his bloud in wine a figure to the old law consecration to the new a figure to the olde lawe fulfilling thereof to the newe what meane you then maister Abbot to charge vs with guilefull concealing clipping and paring of Tertullian who deliuer him vnto you so roundly and so wholly wee play not with you as maister Iewell did who brought out of Opus imperfectum sermo 11. in Chrisostomes name in almost an hundreth places of his booke as putting great trust in the same these wordes against the Sacrament and against Chrisostome for that verie point in a notable Sermon of his made for that purpose In the vessels of the church is not contained the true body and bloud of Christ but a figure of his body and bloud Whereas the f An answere altogether vain and senslesse as the very wordes shew authour meaneth it of the vessels taken out of the temple of Ierusalem by Nabuchodonosor which point he guilefully suppressed For the authours wordes are these For if it be a sinne and dangerous to transferre holy vessels to priuate vses as Balthazar teacheth vs who drinking in the holy cups was therfore deposed from his kingdome and bereaued of his life if then it be thus dangerous to transferre these holie vessels to priuate vses in which is not the true body of Christ but a mysterie of his bodie is conteined c. You may see howe Balthazar was stolne out of the text to make those olde Churches vessels to be the vessels of our Christian temples Vpon those words of Tertullian how crossely you inferre your conclusion vppon your owne supposed sense of id est figura it may I hope appeare vnto you vpon the consideration of that which I haue discoursed concerning his testimonie except you could wage Tertullian to say that he made no comparison betweene a figure of the old testament and the veritie of the new answering the same and that he
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
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
his supper But S. Cyprian in his Epistle ad Caecilium so long ago 〈…〉 〈…〉 th it sure that Christ vsed both Let that Epistle for all these points be the stickeler betweene vs who saith e Cyprians words are thus In the sacrifice which is christ none but christ is to be followed Therefore we are not to follow the church of Rome beyond or beside that which Christ did In the sacrifice which is Christ Christ is to be followed euen to this verie purpose vsing those words Against which point to alleage S. Cyprian ad Pompeium is to alleage S. Cyprian against S. Cypriaâ— But let S. Cyprian saie thus much for vs to you If it be commanded in the Gospell or be conteined in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles to vse only wine let this traditioÌ„ then be obserued To make short wine is ex institutâ—one to put thereto water is Ex praecepto Ecclesiae which vpon your warrant being so long and so vniuersally vsed I dare not breake There arose about S. Cyprians time certaine fond innouators verie foolish fellowes who for temperance forsooth vsed no wine but all water only in the sacrifice of the Church These in the Catalogue of Heretickes written by S. Augustine Ad quod vult deum in the like Catalogue of Heretickes written by Philastrius Brixiamus Episcopus are called Aquarij Who saith he in the heauenly Sacraments offer onelie water and not that which the Catholicke and Apostolicke Church is accustomed to do The argument and drift of the afore-named Epistle of Saint Cyprian ad Caecilium lib. 2. Epist 3. is briefly set downe In the sacrifice of the Church neither water without wine nor wine without water ought to be offered The whole Epistle is for that matter notable and no doubt Saint Chrysostome meant of those Aquarij Saint Cyprian calleth it our Lords tradition and a thing ordâ—ined of God he saith our Lord both did it and also taught it The learned Fathers of the sixt Councell called it an order deliuered to the Church by God and say it was the tradition of the Apostles Clemens constitu Apost lib. 8. cap 17 saith likewise mingling of the cup with wine and water and consecrating it c. S. Iames in his Liturgie saith Likewise after he had supped taking the cup and mingling it with wine and water c. S. Basill in his Liturgie saith Likewise also taking the cup of the iuyce of the wine mixing giuing thanks c. S. Chrysostome in his Liturgie in putting wine into the Chalice said And one of the souldiers opened his side and forthwith issued blood and mingling it with water he saith And water and he that saw it hath borne witnesse and his witnesse is true Ioh. 19. S. Proclus a neare successor of his De traditione diuinae Liturgiae saith By these praiers they expected the comming of the holie Ghost that by his diuine presence he should make the bread and the wine mixed with water which were proposed for sacrifice the bodie and blood of our Sauiour Iesus Christ Theodoret Dialog 1. saith f Theodoret saith not he made it but he called it his blood That Christ made that which was mixed in the cup his blood Eusebius Emiss in ser 5. de Paschat saith that Christ himselfe by his example taught that we should consecrate the cup with wine mixed with water Concilium Carthagin 3. cap. 24. In which Austen was present saith thus That in the Sacrament of the bodie and blood of the Lord nothing else should be offered but that which the Lord deliuered that is bread and wine mixed with water Ambrosius lib de Sacramento cap. 4. lib. 5. cap. 10. affirmeth that wine and water must be put in the cup. Irenaeus lib. 5. cap. When saith he the mixed cup and the bread broken receiueth the word of God it is made the Eucharist of the bodie blood of the Lord. August tract 120. in Iohannem Isidore lib. 2. offic cap. 18. Beda in Comment Marci cap. 14. vpon those words This is the cup of my blood Anselmus in 26. Mat. Alexander neare to the Apostle saith let bread only and wine mingled with water be offered in the sacrifice of Masses There ought not to be offered in the cup of our Lord either wine only or water only but both togither mingled because both is read to haue followed out of the side of our Lord in his passion Io. 19. de Consent distinct 2. cap. in Sacramentorum Iustinus Apostol 2. Damascen lib. 4. cap. 14. Grego Nissâ—n for Catechetico as is alleaged by Euthimius in Panoplia lib. 2. titulo 21. Chrysostome homil 84. in Ioannem hom 24. in 1. Corinth Theophâ—â—ct in Iâ—annem cap. 9. See Bellarminus lib. 4. de Sacramento Eucharistiae cap. 1. 11. beside many other testimonies of all ages in both Greeke and Latin Church R. Abbot 2. AS touching this first point of mixture of water with wine in the Sacrament I shewed before that our Churches haue accounted it as a meere indifferent thing where it is vsed with that simplicitie wherwith it was first begun The maner of Countries where their wines are verie strong is to delaie them with water Christians would not neglect that commendable shew of sobrietie in their mysticall banquet whereof Heathen men had regard at their ordinary tables Therefore according to the maner of their countries they mingled water with their wine taking wine to be the institution of Christ but whether méere wine or delaied wine they knew it made no difference Albeit some there were that in regard of this sobrietie and temperancie went too far leauing Christes institution of wine and vsing only water in the Sacrament as a Cypr. lib. 2. epist 3. Cyprian intimateth of some of his predecessours To this mixture was added at length some signification either in Cyprians time or perhaps before As for that of b Epist 1. Concil tomo â— Alexander the first to that purpose that Epistle of his and the rest of them are sufficiently knowne to be counterfeit and bastard stuffe But thus this vsage and custome ranne his course till at length it sell with the rest into the maine Ocean of Popish corruptions and superstitions where the fathers errours were turned into pestilent heresies and those things that arose of the simplicitie of men for c August epist 119. ad exhortationem vitae melioris profitable admonition and exhortation only as they intended them were made matters of true deuotion and of the worship of God Our Churches therefore séeing this mixture abused in the church of Rome and accounted as a necessary mysterie of Christian religion without any warrant of the word of God thought conuenient vtterly to relinquish the same though otherwise occasion requiring it they haue estéemed it an indifferent thing And herein they haue followed the example of our Lorde and maister Iesus Christ who knew well inough that the washing of handes and cuppes
was an indifferent thing and yet when he saw d Mat. 15. 2. c. the Scribes and Pharisies to put affiance of holinesse puritie in those washings so that they accounted them vncleane which omitted the same he did himselfe neglect and by his example as it séemeth moued his disciples to neglect that tradition of their Elders telling them that in vaine they did worship God teaching for doctrines the precepts of men In leauing the mixture of water we are not contraried by the e Mat 26. 2â— institution of Christ set downe in the Gospell I alleaged before f Anselm sax on Centur. Magdebur 12. cap. 9. that the Gréeke Church consecrated with wine onely and their reason because we reade not that Christ added water I shewed how Chrysostome as one edition of his g Chrysost Liturg per Leonem Tusc 〈…〉 Liturgie intendeth added water after the consecration as being no part of the institution of the Sacrament I noted that h Anselm vt supra Anselmus and i Tho. Aquin. pag. 3. qu 74. art 6. Thomas Aquinas notwithstanding the assertions of diuers auncient writers could make at the most but a probabilitie of Christs vsing water in this Sacrament And why probable because the maner of that Country is so to drinke their wine Wherof it may rightly be gathered yâ— though Christ did vse water as we do not finde that he did yet he did it but after the maner of that Country in drinking wine and not for any mysterie of the Sacrament I alleaged moreouer that k Polyd. Virgâ—l de inuent rerum li. 5. ca. 10. Polydore Virgil and l Platina in Alexan 1. Platina and m DuraÌ„d Ratio diui lib. 4. cap. de officio sacerdotis c. Durand referre this tradition to Alexander the first and so for their parts haue acquited vs from crossing the institution of Christ Also that n De consecra dist 2 caâ— sicut in glossa Doctors haue taught that water is vsed in the cup de honestate tantum namely by way of temperancie and sobrietie only and therefore not of any necessitie to the Sacrament Why would this man take vpon him to answere and yet slily passe ouer all these things with silence so directly pertaining to the point in question But to pardon his silence to take that which he doth say he breaketh out at the first dash and telleth me that if I finde the words of Chrysostome expounded as was answered before out of the Trullan Canons then I did but wrangle in alleaging them to another purpose contrary to the knowne meaning of the Authour But I wrangle not herein Whatsoeuer exposition it pleased those Fathers to make of Chrysostomes wordes thrée hundred yeares after Chrysostomes death the wordes themselues are most plaine to that purpose that I first noted them He demandeth this question o Chrysost in Mat. hom 83. Why did Christ after his resurrection drinke Not Water but VVine Where manifestly he nameth the drinking of wine and denieth water To this he answereth He would plucke vp by the rootes the pernicious heresie of them which vse Water in the Sacrament For to shew that when he deliuered this Sacrament he deliuered wine therefore did he vse wine also after his resurrection at the bare table of the Sacrament Of the fruite of the vine saith he which surely bringeth forth VVine and not VVater It is hard to suppose that Chrysostom wold say that Christ did drinke not water but wine to reproue the heresie of them which vse water in the Sacrament and yet himselfe haue intention of both wine water to be vsed in the Sacrament I cannot sée it to stand with any reason If the answere can let him follow his owne fancie As for the thing it selfe we doubt not but the Churches of God haue vsed their libertie in the practise thereof for that vppon occasion of the heresie of them that vsed onely water they in some places tooke away this ceremony as by the aforesaid place of Chrysostome the practise of the Armenians may be gathered in other places at least altered the maner of it that whereas it was wont to be added before consecration thenceforth it should be added after that it might be knowne that water was no entire part or matter of the Sacrament but vsed for other purpose indifferently as hath bene before saide The ground whereof Chrysostome as we sée maketh to be this that Christ mentioneth only the fruite of the vine which saith he bringeth forth wine and not water Now this adding of water after consecration as it appeareth by the testimonie of p Ex Ansel vt supra Nechites Patriarch of Nicomedia who affirmeth yâ— in their rites they swarued not from the auncient tradition of their Fathers and by one copie of the q Chrysost Liturg vt supra Liturgie that goeth vnder Chrysostomes name so it is further manifest by the testimonie of r Theod. Balsam Annota in concil Constant â— can â—2 Theodorus Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch in his annotations vpon that Canon of the sixth Councell whereof I now speake where he sheweth the same vse and addeth further which the aforesaid Liturgie also giueth to vnderstand that the water which they put in was hote water The reason whereof he affirmeth to haue bene this to signifie that water blood came out of the side of Christ not cold dead but warme quicke and liuely as implying vertue and power to quicken and make vs aliue spiritually to which mysterie the words of the Canon aforesaid séeme to haue relation in making mention of Chrysostomes Liturgie If water had bene taken to be any necessary matter of the Sacrament surely these men would not haue omitted to haue mingled it before consecration that so the Sacrament might be whole and perfect But hereby it is manifest that it was not so taken â— therfore by the iudgement of the auncient Churches we offend not as maiming the Sacrament of Christ in vsing wine only without mixture of water The exception which the Answ vseth against the Bishops of Armenia is false and feined For whatsoeuer he can pretend of some Armenians that did reuolt yet it is apparant that the Bishops of Armenia did approue the condemnation of Eutyches Dioscorus by their Å¿ concil chalced in episto illusttium personarum pro eod concilio Epistles written to Leo the Emperour in approbation of the Chalcedon Councell wherein they were condemned and with reproofe of that heresie for which they were condemned And that it may not be thought yâ— they did it only for that time they are found again in the t concil constant 6. act 17. 18 in subscript sixth Councell to subscribe against and condemne the heresie of Eutyches euen in that Councell which the Answ alleageth for the defence of his cause And therefore it is hereby manifest that they vsed not wine only with any such
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
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
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
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
place he putteth me in minde to answere him with a saying of Luther Hoc scio pro certo quod si cum stercore certo Vinco vel vincor semper ego maculor But to the matter The b Timothean August de 〈…〉 e. ad 〈◊〉 in â—ine heretickes as S. Austen reporteth affirmed that the godhead of Christ was really changed into the manhoode This they would prooue by the wordes of the Gospell The word was made flesh which they expounded thus The diuine nature is turned or transubstantiated into the nature of man In like sort the Answ and some other cogging marchants of his part single out the wordes of Tertullian Christ made the bread his body and will needes haue vs to beleeue thereby that the bread is really turned and transubstantiated into the bodie of Christ They both argue alike vpon the word made For answere hereof I shewed how Tertullian expoundeth his owne meaning by these wordes that is to say a figure of his bodie Further I said that that phrase or maner of spéech Christ made the bread his bodie doth not enforce any Transubstantiation Which I shewed by comparing therewith the verie like spéech or phrase before alleaged out of the Gospell c Ioh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh For as it was absurdly gathered by the Timotheans that because the word was made flesh therefore it ceased to be the word so as fondly is it gathered by the Papists of Tertullians words that because the bread is made the bodie of Christ therfore it ceaseth to be bread The one enforceth not for the Timothean any transubstantiation of the word therefore neither doth the other for the Papist any transubstantiation of the bread The spéeches are like The word was made flesh the bread is made the bodie of Christ Now hath he not sent me a worthy answere to this The words of S. Iohn saith he what proue they touching the Sacrament What argument is this The word was made flesh the sense is the word assumpted flesh vnto it And it is not to be taken as the words do sound therefore this text This is my bodie is not to be taken as the words import A verie mightie vpstantiall argument Nay a very pithie sound answere and worthie to be registred in Vaticano I make a comparison betwixt the words of S. Iohn and the words of Tertullian and he answereth me of a comparison betwixt the words of Iohn the words of Christ How many mile to London A poke full of plummes Yet as a childe plaieth with a counter in stéed of a péece of gold so he delighteth himselfe in a rascall shift as if he had made a verie substantiall answere But sée yet further the extreame folly and ignorance of this man It is saith he as if you should reason thus I am the vine is a figuratiue speech therefore I am the light of the world is a figuratiue spéech And what is it not by a figure that Christ is called the light of the world Surely Christ is the light in respect of the darknesse of the world Séeing therefore darknesse is vnderstood figuratiuely in the world a man would thinke that that which is called light as opposite to this darknesse should be so called by a figure Light is properly a sensible qualitie and darkenesse the p 〈…〉 tion therof and both haue relation to the bodily eye They are by a Metaphore applied to the soule and so is Christ called light euen as he is elsewhere called d Mal 4. 2. The sunne of righteousnesse not properly I trow but by a figure vnlesse the Answ be of the Manichees minde who as Theodoret saith would sometimes say that e Theodo haerâ—t faâ—ul lib. â— Christ was the verie sunne Now therefore séeing that Christ is no otherwise called the light of the world then he is called a vine a yoong boy in the Vniuersitie will easily finde a Topicke place in Aristotle to prooue that this argument holdeth very well Christ is called a vine by a figure therefore he is also called the light of the world by a figure Further he saith But I pray you sir is this saying The world was made flesh like to This is my bodie I answere him Truly sir no. But yet these are like The word was made flesh and the bread is made the bodie of Christ as transubstantiation of the word cannot be proued by the one so transubstantiation of the bread cannot be proued by the other Whereas he demandeth whether bread stil remaining do assumpt vnto it Christes bodie into one person his question is idle I haue answered before that the vnion of Christ with the Sacrament is not personall or reall as he vnderstandeth reall but relatiue and sacramentall as in Baptisme also it is But as the word remaineth being personally vnited to the flesh so the bread remaineth being sacramentally vnited vnto Christ That which he saith of Luther is false Luther did not teach that the bodie of Christ was ioyned into one person with the bread But now I wish him to bethinke himselfe who it is that careth not what he say so that he say somewhat Now for further declaration of the words of Tertullian I alleaged a saying of S. Austen Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his bodie and blood which also he hath made vs and by his mercy we are the same that we receiue Wheras the Answ saith that the first part of this sentence serueth very wel for him it is but like the dotage of the melancholy Athenian We say with S. Austen that Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his bodie and blood yet not being on earth to be receiued by the mouth but f August in Ioh. tr â—0 Sitting in heauen to be receiued by faith But as Tertullian said Christ made the bread his bodie so here Austen saith Christ hath made vs his bodie and blood The maner of spéech is here also alike and therefore I inferred hereof that Tertullians words do no more proue yâ— the bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ then S. Austens do proue that there is a transubstantiatioÌ„ of vs into the bodie of Christ That which I excepted as touching those words Yet wee are not transubstantiated into the bodie of Christ the Answ falsifieth and peruerteth thus yet we are not transubstantiated into the Sacrament This is the faithfulnesse that he vseth But what answere maketh he Forsooth it would aske a long discourse to answere me and therefore he hath thought good not to answere me at all For as for that which he saith it serueth directly for me We are become one with Christ saith he let him speake as S. Austen speaketh we are made the bodie of Christ not by being transubstantiated into him but by being ioyned vnto him So say we that the bread is made the bodie of Christ not by being transubstantiated into his bodie but by hauing tied vnto it
alreadie and therefore it will not serue the Answerers turn to carry him so farre as he would faine go That which he mentioneth first of false Gréeke is but his péeuishnesse and malice Beza nameth it Solaecophanes which is a figure noting an appearance of incongruitie by departure from the vsuall and ordinary course of Grammar construction The same hee noteth may be excused in this place as being borrowed from an Hebrew manner of speaking And whereas g Discou ca. 1. sect 39. Gregory Martin without regard of his owne credit auouched that not one example could be brought of the like constructtoÌ„ to be resolued as Beza translateth this M. Fulke sheweth him diuerse the very same in all respects as Col. 1. 26. Apoc. 1. 4. 5. and 3. 12. and 8. 9. And therefore a man might haue said to him as Austen saide to Iulian the Pelagian heretike h August coÌ„t Iul. Pelagâ—li 5. cap. 2. I am sory that you should so abuse the ignorance of them which know not the Greeke tongue that you would not feare the iudgement and censure of them that haue knowledge of it As touching the other point Beza indéed vpon some coniecture supposeth that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is shed for you might happily be added from the margin into the text as in other places sundrie haue obserued But yet he fréely and ingenuously confesseth that he found them in all copies generally that he saw and therefore leaueth them in the text entire and whole and translateth them as the words of the holy Ghost No man denieth the words no man maketh question of them but receiueth them for Canonicall scripture Therefore all that the Answ saith in that respect is but vaine cauilling Let vs consider the words of the text which he saith are so against vs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shead for you Here saith he the words which is shead for you must by the order of construction be referred to the cup and so the cup that is to say that in the cup shall be said to be shed for vs which must néeds be vnderstood of the blood of Christ whereof it must follow that that which was in the cup was the blood of Christ I answere him that there is no necessitie by the Gréeke construction to referre those words to the cup as is proued by the examples of the like construction before alleaged And in this point G. Martine was so taken tardie by M. Fulke for his bold asseueration that I doubt it was one matter that killed his heart The Answ by some secret intelligence belike hath learned to vrge the matter otherwise and leaueth Martin to go alone He denieth not therefore but that the like incongruities may be found but demaundeth reason why we should translate it to a sense that admitteth incongruitie of spéech and refuse the sense wherein the text is congrue inough Reasons inough haue bene giuen but they are not yet confuted and therefore it was folly to make any further mention of this matter First there is not found any one of the auncient Fathers either Gréeke or Latin that taketh the words otherwise then as we translate them Secondly i Basil Ascet defin 21. S. Basil expresly readeth the Gréeke according as Beza translateth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In my blood which blood is shed for you Whereby it is apparant that either the text was so read at that time as is likely for that Basil in that booke setteth downe thâ— very words of the scripture or at the least that he being a Bishop so famously learned and most â—loquent in the Gréeke tongue tooke the construction and sense of those words to be no otherwise Thirdly Erasmus in his translation dedicated to Leo the tenth Bishop of Rome and approued by him at which time he was knowne to be no enemy to Transubstantiation yet translated those words as Beza doth being a man I trow as well séene in Gréeke construction as Gregorie Martin was Fourthly what reasonable man will déeme that the Euangelist or Christ himselfe would thus speake This blood which is shedde for you is the newe Teshament in my blood or thus This blood is the newe Testament in my blood which I alleaged to the Answerer to be an absurd tautologie and he speaketh nothing at all whereby to defend it Moreouer it séemeth strange to me that the Euangelist setting downe the proper name of bloud to which shedding must be applied and that betwixt the word cup and the mention of shedding should notwithstanding intend the word shed to be referred rather to the cup which is further of and to say that the cup was shed for vs then to the proper name of bloud which is next vnto it and to which it properly belongeth Againe the bloud of Christ could not be in the cup without being shed and separated from his bodie and to this end did Christ beside the Sacrament of his bodie institute seuerally and distinctly the sacrament of his bloud thereby to betoken the shedding the issuing forth the seuering of the same bloud from his bodie in his passion for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes in respect whereof he saith This is my bloud which is shed for you Nowe his bloud was not shed or seuered from his bodie but in his passion For hee shed not his bloud twise Therefore the wordes of shedding cannot be referred to that in the cup. Seuenthly the bloud of Christ as the k Bellar. tom 2 conâ— â— lib. 1. cap. 11. Papistes themselues confesse is not in the cup till the wordes of consecration be all spoken Therefore when Christ had sayd no more but This cup the bloud was not yet there but onely wine and therefore the words which is shed for you cannot be referred to the cup because it was not wine which was shed for vs. Further also the Answ saith straightwaies after that Christ began to his Disciples of that which was in the cup. But wee cannot beléeue that Christ did eate himselfe or that he dranke the very bloud of his owne body Therefore we beléeue not that that in the cup was the bloud that was shedde for vs or that the Euangelist would intend to say This cup which is shed for you Last of all the Answ fellowes of farre greater worth then himselfe confesse partly that there is not at all partly that it may be iustly doubted whether there be or not any place of Scripture sufficient to prooue Transubstantiation as I haue before shewed Therefore they graunt that this place doth not necessarily require any such construction as whereby Transubstantiation should be concluded Whereby they giue to vnderstand that they themselues do know that all that they say both of this place and others is nothing els but cauilling without any certaine ground or assurance of truth These reasons I take it are sufficient and strong
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
Dâ—lcitij q. 2. after death how much rather should the soule it selfe procure rest for it selfe by it owne confession of sinnes there made then that an oblation should be procured for the rest thereof by other man A reason not without some weight if it be well considered But in that place afore-named of S. Austen I would not you should be deceiued to thinke yâ— he meaneth the sacrifices of the altar for the offering or sacrificing of the bodie and blood of Christ wheras indéed he meaneth it of the offerings as we also call them which euery particular man offered at the Sacrament which were employed either to the seruice of the Sacrament or to the reliefe of the poore or to other sacred and godly vses Which maner of offering Hierom in 1. Cor. 11. S. Hierome declareth vpon those words of the Apostle When ye come togither c. This he speaketh saith he because when they met in the church they offered their offerings seuerally and after the communion eating a supper in common they spent there in the church whatsoeuer remained vnto them of the sacrifices To which purpose sundrie other like places might be alleaged And this is one reason amongst the rest why sometimes we finde mention of sacrifice offered in the Sacrament But I know M. Spence what sacrifice it is that you meane a sacrifice properly so called of the verie bodie and blood of Christ propitiatory for the sinnes of quicke and dead offered really and indéed euery day by the hands of a wretched and sinfull priest who must intreat God in behalfe of the sacrifice of Christs bodie and blood that he will looke downe mercifully vpon it and accept it c. The verie naming of which things cannot but be loathsome to a true Christian heart which simply beléeueth out of the word of God that Christ hauing purged our sinnes by once offering himselfe vpon his crosse Heb. 1. 3. 9. 26. 28. Cap. â— 27. Cap. 10. 1â— is ascended into heauen neither needeth to be often offered because by that once offring he hath fully perfected the worke of one attonement and forgiuenesse of sinnes and therefore that there is now no other sacrifice or offering propitiatorie for sinne I say not only no other thing offered but no other offering or sacrificing for remission of sin Reade vprightly M. Spence and with féeling of conscience the 7. 9. and 10. to the Hebrewes The sayings are cleare as the sun-light and in vaine do your Rhemists struggle striue to darken the light of them There is none almost that knoweth anie thing as touching religion but can see how their commentarie is controlled by the text CoÌ„sider this argument out of the tenth chapter where there is forgiuenesse of sinnes there is no more offering for sinne By the sacrifice of Christ vpon his crosse there is forgiuenesse of sinnes for his blood was there shead for the forgiuenesse of sinnes Therefore after Christs sacrifice vpon his crosse there is no more offering for sinne The Apostle in that place reiecting the sacrifices of the old law as which could not sanctifie as touching the Hebr. 10. 1. 2. conscience those that came vnto them for if they could they should not haue bene often offered substitateth in place therof the true entier and only sacrifice of Christ vpon his crosse Who hauing a bodie 5. 7. fitted him commeth according to the will of his father into the world to sanctifie vs by the offering of his bodie once And whereas 10. 11. saith he the priests of the old law do daily and oftentimes offer their sacrifices an argument that they tooke not away sinne this man hauing offered one offering for sinne is gone into heauen not to offer vp himselfe often saith he chap. 9. for then he should haue often cap. 9. 25. suffered since the foundation of the world but waiting hencefoorth till his foes be made his footestoole inferring withall that he néedeth cap. 10. 13. 14. not to be often offered because by one offering or oblation of himselfe he hath perfected and that for euer them that are sanctified Now that he hath persected vs and therefore that there néedeth no other sacrifice or offering for sinne he proueth by the words of Ieremy 15. who defineth the new Testament the ground whereof is the bloodsheading of Iesus Christ by the forgiuenesse of sinnes concluding thereupon Now where remission of these is there is no more 18. offering for sinne Collect the Apostles reason thus If after that once offering there be no more offering for sinne then surely by that once offering he perfected vs. But after that once offering there is no more offering for sinne therefore by that once offering he hath perfected vs. The assumption or minor he proueth thus Where forgiuenesse of sinnes is there is no more offering for sinne But by that once offering there is forgiuenesse of sinnes therefore after that once offering there is no more offering for sinne Examine this collection and sée how it goeth hand in hand with the Apostles words Which is so peremptory resolute against the sacriledge of the masse that your Rhemists without any colour or shew of probabilitie by the text do force vpon the word oblation a straunge meaning as if the Apostle had said There is no Rhem. Annot. Hebr. 10. 18. second baptisme wherby we may haue applied vnto vs the full pardon and remission of our sinnes What should I here say I maâ— Campian rat 1 iustly retort vppon them the wordes of Campian What is it so â— there such peruersnesse such presumption and shamelesnesse in men Cicer. epist 12. lib. 5. Lucceio But they practise that which the Heathen Orator saith He whicâ— hath once passed the bounds of modestie and shamefastnesse muâ— needes shew himselfe lustily impudent and shamelesse What hatâ— the Apostle to do with Baptisme in this text Why did they noâ— shew how this sence hangeth vpon the words gone before Whâ— did they forgo the expositions of the Fathers of Chrysostome Hee chrysost Oecumen Theodor c in Hebr. 10. forgaue sinnes when he gaue the Testament and he gaue the Testament by sacrifice If therfore he forgaue sinnes by one oblation or sacrifice there needeth not now any seconde of Oecumenius out of Photius What need is there of many oblations seeing that one which Christ hath yeelded is sufficient to take away sinne Theodoret There is now no offering for sinne For it is superfluous forgiuenesse of sinne beeing giuen alreadie of Theophylact If remission of sinnes be graunted by one oblation what neede we now any second of Primasius for Christ which is our sacrifice is not to be offered againe for sinne For this was once done and needeth not to be done a second time of Ambrose for one offering of the bodie of Christ maketh perfect them that are sanctified as which giueth full and perfect remission of sinnes c. Wherfore it needeth
spiritually vnderstood it shall giue you life Otherwise as Origen saith There is in the new Testament a letter Orig. in Leuit. hom 7. which killeth him that doth not spiritually vnderstand it For if thou follow according to the letter that that is written Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man drinke his blood that letter killeth For saith S. Austen it seemeth to commaund a horrible fact and hainous Aug. de doctr christ lib. 3. c. 16. matter Therfore it is a figure willing vs to communicate of the passiō of Christ and profitably to laie vp in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. Be hold and consider well what these men teach you that the spéeches which are vsed as touching eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ are figuratiue speeches that they are not literally to be vnderstood that we doe not bodily eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood And this is the plaine truth and simplicitie of the Fathers teaching the euidence whereof cannot be auoided but by those shifts which I mentioned before We extenuate them we excuse them by some deuised lie we oft denie them or faine of them some conuenient meaning But you vrge the circumstance of the text Which shal be giuen which shal be shead c. Marke well the speeches say you An argument péeuishly alleaged by Friar Campian and nothing at all to the Camp Rat. ◠purpose For when we say that bread and wine are the Sacraments of the bodie and blood of Christ do we not meane of the bodie which was giuen and the blood that was shead for vs Do we teach the receiuing of the bodie blood of Christ by faith any otherwise then being broken and shead for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes When S. Aushen saith The signe of the bodie Tertullian a figure of the bodie expounding the words This is my bodie do they not vnderstand Which is giuen c. This reason you may verie well spare hereafter The speeches you say are wonderfull as most true Yet the spéeches M. Spence are not so wonderfull as the things themselues that our wretched and sinfull bodies should by these Sacraments through the working of the holie Ghost be really and indéed vnited ioyned vnto the bodie of Iesus Christ being in heauen so as to be his members flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and receiue thereof such vertue and power as that though they be buried in the earth and consumed to dust and ashes yet they should be raised vp againe and made partakers of immortalitie and glorie that God should hereby effectually communicate and impart vnto vs the inestimable riches of his grace and the whole fruite and benefite of whatsoeuer Christ hath done or suffered in his bodie for mankinde forgiuenesse of sinnes iustification sanctification the blessing fauou◠of God and euerlasting life You may know M. Spence what your owne Oration saith Some not without probabilitie expound the truth of the flesh and blood of Christ to be the efficiencie thereof De consecr dist 2. cap. species that is the forgiuenesse of sinnes We adde somewhat to this probabilitie when we teach in the Sacrament a true and effectuall vniting of vs to the bodie of Christ whereby he dwelleth in vs and we in him he is one with vs and we with him whereby as he hath taken vpon him what is ours sinne and death so he yéeldeth vnto vs what is his righteousnesse and euerlasting life Which vnion with Christ is wrought in all those and in those only which do with true and liuely faith receiue these holie mysteries where as that Capernaitish eating and drinking of Christs bodie and blood which your doctrine yéeldeth is common to all gracelesse and prophane persons that I say nothing of those monstrous blasphemous and horrible conceits which some of your captaines haue fallen into by defence thereof But yet further you alleage the vniformenesse of the wordes of Christ in the Euangelists Mat. Mar. Luc. And in S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. all saying This is my bodie wheras the scripture where it meaneth not a thing literally doth vary in the vttering of it Which you speake vppon the warrant of some Allen or Parsons or Seminarie reader telling you so and you haue beléeued it But they haue deceiued you both in the on and in the other For in the like matter you shall find in Moses law by an vniforme and constant spéech that the sacrifices of the law are called expiations propitiations and attonements for sinne which were not so indéed but they were so called sacramentally because they were types and figures seales and assurances of the true attonement which should be wrought by the bloodsheading of our Lord Iesus Again if you had looked in S. Luke and Luc 22. 20. 1. cor 11. 25. S. Paul you should haue found the words This is my blood expressed by such maner of spéech as tendeth directly to the ouerthrow of your transubstantiation For there it is said This cup is the new Testament in my blood c where I hope you will not say that the cup is transubstantiated into the Testament but that the wordes must be figuratiuely vnderstood Then you must say that the cup that is the outward and visible element of wine deliuered in the cup is the seale of the new Testament couenant of grace which is dedicated and established by the bloodsheading of Iesus Christ by which seale we haue assurance offered vnto vs to be partakers through Christ of those benefits which God hath promised vnto the faithfull in the same Testament the summe whereof is set downe by the Prophet Ier 31. 32 c. Now if any man should take it thus Ier. 31. 32. This cup that is this my blood in the cup is the new Testament in my blood your selfe would say he spake foolishly and absurdly Thus therefore your collections from the text are no collections Some of your owne side no meane men haue confessed indéed that transubstantiation cannot be enforced by the words of the text In truth it cannot God open your eyes that you may sée his truth and subdue the affections of your heart that you may yéeld vnto it By that litle spéech which I haue had with you I perceiue you are too too far in loue with that whoore of Rome She flattereth you and maketh shew of goodly names and pretendeth great deuotion as the harlot in the Prouerbes I haue peace offeringes to day haue I paide my Prou. 7. 14. vowes and you beléeue whatsoeuer she saith vnto you I shewed you the expresse testimonies of the Fathers gainsaying her as touching the bookes of Canonicall scriptures but you thinke she may approue them for Canonicall which were not so with the Fathers I declared the impudencie of the Rhemish glosers in auouching the storie of the assumption of the virgin Mary controlled by their owne computation of
was once offered to take away the sins of many d cap. 10. 10. We are sanctified by the offering of Christes body once e cap. 10. 12. This man hauing offered one sacrifice for sinne sitteth for euer at the right hande of God This is all which the Scripture testifieth of the offering of Christ Now if Christ did offer himselfe but once and that once was by death vpon his Crosse then it followeth that he did not offer himselfe at the institution of the Sacrament and therefore commended not vnto vs any sacrifice to be done therein If they will say that he was but once offered in that manner namely with bloudshed but vnbloudly he offered himselfe beside and so is offered still they deale presumptuously against the holy Ghost and vse that sawcinesse with the word of God which no man may bee bold to doe with the lawes of men For if it holde in the lawes of men that f Regula iuris Non est distinguendum vbi non distinguit lex no man may distinguish where the law it selfe doth not warrant his distinction much more ought it to hold in the lawes and words of God Now séeing the holy Ghost by a generall word comprehending all manner of offering hath determined the offering of Christes body onely to once who is he that dare giue checke vnto his word and say It is a lie for he was offered twise once blouddily on the Crosse another time vnblouddily in the Sacrament so remaineth to be offered daily and infinite times in a day vnto the end of the world Especially séeing the Apostle vrgeth this againe and againe for a great and maine difference betwixt the sacrifices of the old Testament and the sacrifice of the new that the Priests there offered often but g Heb. 7. 27. Oecume ibid Heb. 10. 11. 12. Christ offered one onely sacrifice and that but once euen in this respect opposing this once offering not onely to the general sacrifice that was made h cap. 9. 7. once a yeare but also to the particular sacrifices that were offered i cap. 7. 27. 10. 11. euery day giuing to vnderstand that neither generally nor particularly neither in one maner nor other the body of Christ was to be offered any more but onely once He sheweth the greatnes of this sacrifice saith k Ambros in Heb. 7. S. Ambrose which being thus offered sufficeth for euer For this sacrifice was not daily to be offered c. but this man is of such power or worth that being once offered in the sacrifice of his fleshe it should not be needefull for any of the faithfull to offer for him any more It sufficed l Chrysost in Heb. 7. hō 13. saith Chrysostome though it were but one and but once offered Now this difference of the sacrifices of the two Testaments is vtterly taken away if by any distinction of the maner of offering we wil auouch y◠the sacrifice of the new Testament is often offered as were the sacrifices of the old Where I cannot omit to note the drunken spéech of the Rhemists as touching this point set down for safegard of their sacrifice who m Rhem. An◠not Heb. 10. 11 repeate often as they say that the Apostles reason and speaches of many Priestes and often sacrificing concerne the sacrifices of the law onely vnto which hee opposeth Christes sacrifice and Priesthood and speaketh no word of or against the sacrifice of the new Testament which is the sacrifice of Christes own Priesthood and is dayly done vnbloudily by the Priestes meaning hereby their sacrifice of the Masse I tearme it iustly a drunken spéech For séeing they are forced by the euidence of the text to grant that the Apostle in that respect opposeth the sacrifice priesthood of Christ against the old sacrifices priestood of the law which opposition cannot stād but only thus that there were many priests here but one there often offering here but once what doe they but talke like drunken men they know not what when notwithstanding in the very same respect they confound the Priesthood and sacrifice of Christ with the Priesthood and sacrifices of the law so that as there were many priests so here are many priests as there was often offering so is here also He affirmeth indéede there many Priests here but one there often offering here but once and therefore leaueth no place for any bastard distinction of any manner whereby the body of Christ may be saide to be often offered Furthermore against this deuised manner wee are instructed by that which is written n Heb. 9. 22. Without shedding of bloud there is no remission of sinnes For hereof we gather that if the Masse be a propitiation of sinne then there must be shedding of bloud in the Masse If there be shedding of bloud in the Masse it is not an vnblouddy sacrifice and therefore the assertion of an vnblouddy sacrifice in the Masse for the propitiation of sinne is euidently contrary to the word of God Now the bloud of Christ was shed for sinne but only once and that once vpon the Crosse Therefore Christ did offer himselfe for sinne but onely once and that vpon the Crosse and therefore nether did nor doth offer himselfe in the Sacrament Againe when we read that o Heb. 9. 27. 28 as it is appointed vnto men to die once so Christ was once offered to take away sinnes we are giuen to vnderstand that as well it may be saide that men to whō it is appointed to die once may afterwards in another manner die oftentimes as that Christ who is saide in the like sort to be offered for sinne but onely once should yet in another manner be offered for sinne times without number so long as the world standeth It is folly and madnesse to say the one it is madnesse and blasphemy to affyrme the other And so much the more for that it is plainely testified vnto vs that therefore hee néedeth not to be often offered because p Heb. 10. 14. by one oblation he hath for euer made perfect them that are sanctified Which making perfect is declared in the words following to be intended of the forgiuenes of sinnes Now if Christ néede daily to be offered for the forgiuenes of sinnes either generally or particularly or howsoeuer then he did not by one oblation or offering of himselfe make vs perfect in that behalfe If he did perfectly worke remission of sinnes by one offering of himselfe then he néedeth not thenceforth to bee offered for sinne and he that affirmeth the offering of him doth frustrate his death and deny the perfection of his former offering And therefore the Apostle inferreth as hath béene saide before q ver 18. Where remission of sinnes is there is no more offering for sinne As if he should say All sacrifice for sin is vaine after remission of sinnes once obtained which is the end of sacrifice for sinne
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
nature of bread wine The words are plaine that in the Sacrament there remaineth the substance of bread and wine What should a man go about to cast a mist before the Sunne or by shifting and paltering to obscure that which is as cléere as the shining light Why do not the Answ and his fellowes say that Gelasius aboue a thousand yeares ago was a Caluinist and erreâ— in that point But he addeth further And surely in the exercise of the Sacraments there is celebrated an image resemblance of the bodie and blood of Christ Whereupon he inferreth thus against Eutyches It is therefore euidently inough shewed vnto vs that we must thinke the same in our Lord Iesus Christ which we professe celebrate and receiue in his image And what do we professe in his image that is in the Sacrament Forsooth saith the Papist we must professe that the substance of bread and wine is abolished and only certaine properties and shewes of bread and wine remaine Why then so must we thinke also of Christ himselfe that the substance of his manhood is extinguished and that there remain only certaine accidents and shewes thereof in which he liued here as a man was crucified as a man but was not man indéed which is the very thing that Eutyches desired But Gelasius telleth vs far otherwise that as these namely the bread and wine by the working of the holie Ghost do passe ouer into a diuine substance yet continue in the proprietie of their own nature so they shew that that principall mysterie the force and vertue whereof these do 〈◊〉 represent vnto vs doth continue one Christ whole and true those natures properly remaining whereof he doth consist Let the Answ marke well that we must think the same iâ— Christ as we do in the Sacrament his image If consecration then take away the substance of bread and wine as Papists teach then personall vniting of the manhood vnto God taketh away the substance of the manhood as Eutyches affirmed He knoweth I say he knoweth that the comparison vsed by Gelasius enforceth so much if it be applied to the disproofe of Eutyches his heresie rightly truly reported Now as Gelasius draweth his comparison from the Sacrament to Christ so doth S. Austen as Gratian alleageth him from Christ to yâ— Sacrament a De consecra dist 2. cap. Hoc est This is it which we say saith he which by all meanes we labor to approue that the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two things the visible forme of the elements and the inuisible flesh and blood of our Lorde Iesus Christ of the Sacrament and the matter of the Sacrament thâ—â— is the bodie of Christ euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man for that Christ is truly God and truly mâ—â— For euery thing conteineth the nature and truth of those thinges whereof it is made By which words it is most plaine and euâ—dent that as the person of Christ consisteth of the Godhead and manhood veriâ—â— and â—â—â—ly so the Sacrament consisting of the visible element and the â—odiâ— of Christ of an earthly thing a heauenly thing as b Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. Ireneus speaketh conteineth the nature and truth of them both and therefore the nature truth of bread and wine And if the truth then the substance as Gelasius reasoneth concerning Christ c Gelas con Eurych If he be truly man then there is in him the true substance of the nature of man because otherwise he cannot be truly man but abiding substantially trâ—e in the proprietie of his nature So if there be the truth of the outward elements in the Sacrament then there is in them their true substance For otherwise there cannot be the truth of them but as they abide substantially true in the proprietie of their nature This collection togither with the places of Austen and Ireneus I set downe before sufficiently prouing the falshood of Transubstantiation But the Answ thought good to passe it ouer without any mention because he could not finde any answere at all to it which serueth not for the maintenance of Eutyches his heresie as do all those shifts and collusions whereby he goeth about to darken the euidence and clearenesse of Gelasius his words Let vs sée now what good stuffe there is conteined in them In his first and fourth circumstances he bewraieth either his ignorance or else his partialitie and falshood For taking in hand by way of circumstance to set downe the heresie of Eutyches where he should haue done it wholly faithfully he doth it but in part and deceitfully that it may not séem to make so directly against his breadlesse bread For he restraineth it only to yâ— time after Christs ascension as if Eutyches had thought that the humanitie of Christ was not consumed till after the time that he was ascended Whereas Gelasius in the very next words to the place before alleaged giueth plainly to vnderstand that Eutyches meant the abolishing of the substance of the manhood euen while Christ was on the earth though he reteined the shew and aprearance of man yea and continued passible also by reason whereof he sayd his Godhead suffered and was crucified which suffering was the very substantiall propertie of the humane nature For Eutyches held not the annihilating of the properties of the manhood as the Answ imagineth but the conâ—ounding of them with the properties of the Godhead so yâ— the Godhead by those properties did suffered those things which belonged to the manhood And this appeareth plainly in the definition of the Chalcedon Councell where it is thus sayd d Concil chalced Act. 5. in definit They fondly imagine that there is but one nature of the Godhead and the flesh and so by a monstrous confusion of Christ they signifie that the diuine nature or Godhead is passible and subiect to suffering So that Eutyches held the same of Christ on the earth as the Papists do of the bread in the Sacrament that there was the shewe and appearance of man and the properties of the manhood remaining but the substance was consumed euen as these do hold that there is in the Sacrament a shew of bread and the properties of bread remaining but the substance of the bread is vanished How then shuld Gelasius go about to refute the heresie of Eutyches by the Sacrament if his opinion as touching the Sacrament had bene the same that the Papists now is Againe whereas he saith that Eutyches held that the bread was vtterly annihilated nothing remaining therin of the substantiall properties or natures thereof he deserueth the iust reproach of a false vnshame fast person For what a peruerse and wilfull man is he to deuise such a matter of his owne braines for proofe or likelihood wherof there is not so much as any shew to be found in any auncient writer Eutyches forsooth held that panietas viâ—eitas the breaddinesse of
the bread and the winynesse of the wine were gone and Gelasius defended that the breadinesse and winynesse do still remaine though there be neither bread nor wine So his good maisters e Index Expurgat in censura Bertra the authors of the Index Expurgatorius to auoyd the euidence of Bertrams disputation say that he wrote against certaine men which held that there was not so much as the outward formes of bread and wine remaining in the sacrament but that that which was séene was the superficies or outside or skin of the body or flesh of Christ O leaud and vnconscionable men Where were these men or what story euer made mention of any such How dare they of their owne heads so boldly publish such vaine tales How doth that harlot of Rome be witch and enchaunt her louers that for her sake they care not what how foolishly absurdly falsly they speake so that it may serue them for a shift to blind the eyes of the vnlearned But the matter as touching Eutyches is plain by Theodoret that he yéelded and confessed that Christ in the deliuery of the mysteries called f Theodor. dial 1. To these things he answereth Ita nominauâ—t In coâ—â—esso est Hoc verâ— dixisti â—ta dico bread his bodie and wine his blood that he honoured these visible signes with the name of his bodie and blood not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature that these were the signes not of his Deitie but of those things whose names they did beare that is of his body blood which he acknowledged that Christ did truly take but hauing taken them changed them into his diuine nature With what face then doth the Answ say that the hereticke thought that the bread and wine were vtterly annihilated that nothing of their nature remained that the Sacrament was a matter onely of Christs diuine nature It were answere inough vnto him to laie open this his false and vnhonest dealing but yet I go forward In saying that Gelasius vsed these words by way of reply to Eutyches his comparison which he doth to the ende that hauing made of Eutyches his heresie what he list he may hew Gelasius his words to be an answere to that fancie of his he againe dealeth amisse with Gelasius For he of his owne accord vseth them to declare the point whereof he disputed namely that as the bread and wine in the Sacrament become diuine thinges so as that by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet they loose not their former substance so though the manhood of Christ by personall vnion with the Godhead be highly aduanced so that it is truly said that the man Christ is God yet he looseth not the substance and nature of the manhood But supposing that the hereticke had vrged Gelasius with that comparison and had affirmed the presence of Christs diuine nature only in the Sacrament how I maruell doth the Answ imagin that it had serued for a direct answere to haue denied the reall presence Should he haue denied the real presence of the diuine nature That none denieth because g Vigiâ— lib. 1. cont â—uty Plena sunt omnia filio nec est aâ—iquis locus diâ—initatis eius praesentia vacuus it is of the nature of the Godhead to be euery where Should he haue denied the reall presence of the bodie of Christ which is the very question How had that serued his turne against the hereticke which neither vrged him with reall presence of the body nor thought that Christ had any body at all What a wise man is this to write thus he knoweth not what without rime or reason without head or taile Surely for Gelasius to deny the reall presence in this place had bin to talke as the Answ doth beside the purpose foolishly idlely of matters wherof no occasion was giuâ—n to him In the second circumstance he setteth downe his Cuckowes note which he rehearseth again in yâ— fourth fifth sixth to fasten it in the eies memories of his secret readers as being a speciall pillar to vphold his cause He telleth me forsooth yâ— the real presence of yâ— body of Christ was a truth commonly knowne currant generally confessed in the primitiue church wherof notwithstanding neither he nor all his followes for him are able to giue any certaine and apparant proofe out of any of the Fathers writings But because the Fathers faile him he would prooue it by the heretickes who as he saith did reason from it as from a comon receiued truth to prooue their heresies It is a shamâ— we say to bely the Deuil why doth the Answ bely the hereticks to make theÌ„ yâ— witnesses of his real presence Indéed if it had béen a matter theÌ„ receiued it had serued fit for the heresies of Marceon Manes Apollinaris such like who taught that Christ had neuer any true bodie indéede but only a phantasy and shew of a body For they might and would haue said do ye not confesse that Christes body iâ— really in the sacrament yet nothing to be séen but the outward shew of bread and wine It is here it is there it is in euery priestes handes in euery piâ— in euery part of the world at once in the quantity and likenesse of a cake What is this else but a fancy of a body Thus they would haue reasoned if it had béene so beléeued especially when the auncient Fathers themselues gaue them occasioÌ„ therof by proouing that Christ had a true body because that the sacrament is vsed in token of his body and bloud wherein he suffered and was put to death for vs. But they vsed not a word to this purpose because there was no such thing then beléeued The manichées whom the Answ nameth in the third circumstance dreamed as S. Austen h Augst con faust Manich. lib. 20. ca. 11. declareth that Christ was really in the Sunne and Moone and vpon the crosse and hanging at euery bough c. and all at once S. Austen telleth them that Christ i Secundum corporalem praesentiam according to his bodily presence could not be at once in the Sunne and Moone and vpon the crosse and therby crosseth the real presence of the Papists wherby they hold christ corporally to be in heauen and in earth in this mans handes and that mans handes and infinite places and all at once contrary to the nature of a true body wherto S. Austen in those wordes alludeth Now wheras the Answ saith that S. Austen being vrged by the Manichée with the reall presence did graunt the same he lewdly abuseth S. Austen For the hereticke k ibid ca. 1. obiecting that the church vsed the bread and wine in the sacrament with the same superstitious conceipt which they maintained namely that Christ was realy bound in them S. Austen Answereth Å¿ Ibid. ca. 13. that the church did not vse the bread and wine for a sacrament of
that he saith There is no substance but it is called a nature because if the nature of any thing being be remoued or taken away the substaÌ„ce also must needs be taken away By which it is plaine that Gelasius nameth nature no otherwise but to signify the very substance because euery substance is called a nature Otherwise when he nameth as oft he doth propriety of nature the Answerer must expound it to be meaÌ„t propriety of naturall properties which is more absurd then that his face can be bold to face it out It is certaine therfore that Gelasius by nature meaneth the very essentiall being of the thing And so the Answerer cannot but know that in that whole disputation concerning two natures in Christ Gelasius by two natures vnderstandeth two entire perfect substances as al the reâ—t of yâ— Fathers doe Only in this place Gelasius forgot himselfe and fell a sléepe and by nature would vnderstand naturall properties and accidents albeit his very drift was to shew by the abiding of the nature of bread and wine in the sacrament the abiding of the nature that is the true substantiall being of the manhood of Christ But yâ—t saith the Answ Gelasius saith that the bread and wine do passe ouer into a diuine substance We graunt the same For as Gelasius hath said before they are now diuine things because they are sacraments of Christes body bloud and by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature The visible element of the sacrament is no longer to be taken as a common or méere earthly substance but being sanctified by the word of Christ it is a diuine and heauenly thing And therfore doth p de consecr dist 2. ca. hoc est saint Austen call the bread of the sacrament heauenly bread and Cyprian calleth it q Cyprian de orat domin de caena domi the foode of saluation and of immortality and Theodoret calleth it r Theodor. dial 2. the bread of life and Bertram saith of it Å¿ Bertram de corp sang domini There is in it the spirit of Christ euen the power of the word of God not only feeding but also clensing the soule In respect therfore of this excellent grace and vertue it is rightly said that the bread and wine are now become a diuine substance But do they therfore loose their owne proper nature and substance Then we must thinke the like of the manhood of Christ For Gelasius saith that we must think the same in Christ which we professe in his image the sacrament If we thinke not so of the manhood of Christ then we must conceiue that bread and wine passe ouer into a diuine substaÌ„ce not by forgoing their owne substance and nature but t Theodor. dial 1. Non naturam mutans sed naturae graâ—iaÌ„ adâ—ciens by adding grace and spirituall blessing vnto nature as Theodoret rightly teacheth vs. So doth Dionisius whosoeuer he was say that we u Dyonis de eccles Hierar cap. 1. 3. stapulens edi are made God do passe ouer into God not because we chaunge our substance be made substantially Gods but because through our coÌ„munion with Iesus Christ we are by grace renued to the likenesse of God and effectually vnited vnto him So doth Vigilius say that w Vigil lib. 1. cont Eutych the nature of the flesh passed ouer into the person of the word but yet so as that saith he it was not consumed of the word So doth Leo Bishop of Rome say x Leo. epist 22 We receiuing the vertue of the heauenly foode do passe ouer into the flesh of Christ who is made our flesh Which S. Cyprian also saith and noteth the manuer therof y Cypri ser de caena dom We are vnited vnto Christ not by a corporall but by a spirituall passing ouer into him Cyrill speaketh in like sort that we are z Cyril in Ioh. lib. 1â— ca. 26. made one with Christ who by his flesh passed ouer vnto vs. Yet neither Christ by passing ouer vnto vs nor we by passing ouer into him do loose the propriety and truth of our former nature and substance By which it is plaine that the passing ouer into a diuine substance doth not enforce any changing of the substaÌ„ce and nature but only of the condition and vse of the substance And therfore Gelasius saith plainly that notwithstanding this passing ouer into a diuine substance yet the bread and wine continue still in the propriety of their owne nature which is the same which he had said before There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine For wheras the Answ would haue the coÌ„tinuing in the propriety of their owne nature to be vnderstood of the remaining of certaine properties of bread and wine without the substance it is too grosse and palpable shifting For in the whole disputation concerning two natures in our Sauiour Christ that phrase of spéech is continually vsed both by Gelasius Leo Vigilius and others to import the manhood of Christ not only in properties and qualities which Eutyches would haue admitted but also in truth and substance inuiolably being and remayning which he would not graunt Euery kind of thing hath his owne proper and distinct essence and being wherby it is seuered from all other thinges and from whence do issue immediatly certaine properties and qualities which are not incident vnto any other Now this own-nesse as I may call it and distinctnesse of essence being these Fathers expresse by propriety of nature affirming that Christ continueth in the proprietie of both natures namely so as that each nature the Godhead the maÌ„hood reteineth his own proper and distinct substance being Now seing that the abiding of the bread and wine in the propriety of their nature is vsed by Gelasius in the place alleaged to declare that continuance of the manhood of Christ it followeth necessarily that it must be vnderstoode of the remaining not only of the properties but also of the substance of bread and wine vnlesse we will ouer turne all that those Fathers haue disputed against Eutiches plead for him out of their owne wordes that though certaine properties and shewes of the manhood of Christ be remaining yet the substaÌ„ce therof is abolished But the Answ as guilty in his owne conscience of the vntruth vnsufficieÌ„cy of this answere flitteth from it saith as I noted before that it may be that Gelasius thought the somewhat of the substance did remaine and therfore was somewhat of our opinion at least wheras he had said before that whatsoeuer Gelasius thought he was far enough from our mind And yet such is his giddy head that by and by againe he saith that if substaÌ„ce be vnderstood for substance indéede then there should follow this great absurdity that Christ should be personally vnited vnto the bread and so should consist of thrée natures the Godhead the manhood and the
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
elementes not visibly and corporally and to be perceiued with the eye but inuisibly and spiritually and to be conceiued with the vnderstanding Where I make not that conteining or couering or being vnder a physicall or locall matter but I meane it partly in respect of signification in which maner saint Austen saith that a August de catechi rud cap. 4. in the old Testament the new was hidden and that b Ibid epis 89. the incarnation of Christ was couered or hidden in the time of the old Testament the reason of which maner of spéech he elswhere maketh to be this c Ibid. de Baptiâ—mo cont Donat. lib. 1. cap. 15. because it was hiddenly signified So he saith againe that Christ did d â—bid in Ioh. tra 2â— couer grace in those wordes which hee vsed in the sixth of Iohn of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud meaning that he did obscurely signifie the same To this purpose Bertram saith as touching the sacrament that it e Bert. de coâ— sang domi sheweth one thing without in figure but within it doth represent another through the vnderstanding of faith partly in respect of the secret inuisible working of the spirite of God f Cypria de caena domini whose diuine maiestie as Cyprian speaketh doth neuer absent it selfe from the holy mysteries but doth though without appearing to the eie hiddenly worke the effect of that which is signified Thus we may say as touching Baptisme that it is the bloud of Christ couered or hidden in the visible element of water that doth clense vs from our sinnes In which maner the councel of Nice saith g concil Nice In fine ex cut hâ—r Tonstallo To. 1. concil Our Baptisme must be considered not with bodily eyes but with the eyes of the mind Thou seest water but consider the power of God couered or lying hidden in the water Thinke the water to be full of the sanctification of the holy Ghost and of diuine fire And thus doth Chrysostome declare the nature of all Christian mysteries in which saith he h Chrys in 1. cor hom 7. we see not that which we beleeue but we see one thing and beleeue another and therefore the beléeuing man is otherwise affected in them then the infidell For sayth he the infidell hearing of the water of Baptisme thinketh it to be meerely water but I doe not simply see that which I see but I behold it in the cleansing of the soule through the holy Ghost Heereupon hée compareth these mysteries to bookes which an vnlerned man taketh and séeth the letters but vnderstandeth nothing thereof But one that is learned findeth great matter laid vp or couered and hidden in them so the infidell hearing of our mysteries séemeth not to heare them but the expert Christian beholdeth great vertue in the things that are hidden in them Thus things which are signified by our mysteries are said to be couered hidden in theÌ„ because they are not perceiued with the bodily eie but only with the eie of the faithful and beleuing mind The meaning then of the words aboue named according to the doctrine of S. Austen must be thus that in the sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christ it is not meere bread wine that we receiue but it is in vnderstanding and spirituall grace and blessing the flesh and bloud of Christ not appearing so to the sense which discerneth onely bread and wine but yet as in all other mysteries of Christian Religion so in this fayth beholdeth heauenly grace couertly and hiddenly conteined through the holy Ghost and by the visible elementes perceiueth the inward force of the flesh and bloud of Iesus Christ The reason whereof is because the visible signes which beare the name of the flesh and bloud of Christ are Sacramentes and therefore not onely haue the name but conteine the force and power of that true flesh and blood of Christ where in he suffered for our sinnes And so by these visible things which thus inuisibly spiritually and only by way of vnderstanding and mysterie are the flesh and blood of Christ is signified that true body of Christ which is visible palpaple full of grace vertue maiestie and glory No other meaning can the Answ make of these wordes by S. Austen vnlesse he will contrarie those generally receiued groundes which Saint Austen setteth downe and surely hard it is to find in Austen that Christ hath one bodie visible palpable full of grace vertue maiestie and glorie another not so as these words import if they be vnderstood as the Answerer taketh them And if he will haue the word Forme as I knowe his meaning is to import such emptie formes as he maketh without substance S. Austen will deny him that for that he maketh it the generall name of the outward signe in all Sacraments when he defineth a Sacrament thus i De co 〈…〉 〈◊〉 dist â— ca. â—â—r It is a visible forme of inuisible grace But now if I séeme partiall in expounding these words let the same Saint Austen as Gratian citeth him euen in the verie next words iustifie this exposition For thus he saith k Ibid. cap. Hoc est The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is in it maner called the bodie of Christ whereas it is indeed the Sacrament of his bodie euen of that bodie which being visible and palpable was put vpon the Crosse and the offering of the same flesh which is performed by the hands of the priest is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Where S. Austen plainly calleth the heauenly bread of the Sacrament the flesh of Christ yet not as being flesh verily and indéed for then it shoâ—ld truly properly be called the body of Christ But now it is so called but only in it maner whereas it is indéed but a Sacrament of his bodie which manner he declareth in the other point to be not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie And if I be partiall here also let the glose expound it l Ibid in Gloâ— The heauenly bread that is the heauenly Sacrament which doth truly represent the flesh of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but vnproperly WherupoÌ„ it is said in it maner not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie that the meaning may be thus It is called the bodie of Christ that is the bodie of Christ is signified If this wil not serue let him heare also the maister of the sentences whom he may not dislike vnlesse he can say Hic magister non tenetur He hauing set downe the words which the Answ vrgeth saith thus m Sent. lib. 4. dist 10. Marke here diligently that S. Austen here vseth a trope or figure wherby the signs do beare the name of the things signified by them For here the visible forme
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
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
by the word of God the promise of that grace and blessing that is yéelded vnto vs by and in the bodie and blood of Iesus Christ Or else let him shew what commission he and his fellowes haue to tell vs that the word Made must import transubstantiation in the place of Tertullian and in S. Austen must import none If they haue no such then let them giue vs leaue to say that as we are made the bodie of Christ not by chaunging our substance but by being vnited and ioyned vnto him so the bread of the sacrament is made the bodie of Christ not by the chaunging of the nature of it as Theodoret saith but g Theodor. diâ—l 1. by adding grace vnto nature not by changing the substance but by altering the condition and vse thereof not by loosing his former being but by hauing the bodie of Christ vnited vnto it in such sort as I haue before declared through the almightie power of the word of God and the vnspeakable working of the holy Ghost So that as S. Ambrose saith h Ambrâ—â— sacra lib. 4 cap. 4. The bread and wine are the same that they were yet are chaunged to other also They are the same in substance that they were before but as touching the vse the vertue power and effect thereof they are chaunged into other As for the meditation that is offered vnto vs by the words of S. Austen it is too diuine heauenly for the Answerers grosse and fleshly conceit who can imagine no other receiuing of Christ but by the mouth nor eating of his flesh but into the belly We become the mysticall bodie of Christ by Baptisme as S. Paul teacheth Eph. 5. 26. There we become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone There also as S. Austen noteth i August ser ad infan â—â—da 1. Cor. 10. We are made partakers of the bodie and blood of Christ so that though one die before he come to the Sacrament of the bread and the cup yet is he not depriued of the participation and benefit of that Sacrament seeing hee hath founde that alreadie which this Sacrament signifieth Into this holie communion and fellowship with Christ we grow more and more through faith in the exercise of the word and of the other sacrament he abiding in vs and we in him he ministring vnto vs and we receiuing of him through the holy Ghost the suck and iuice of his heauenly grace euen as branches from the Vine wherby as his members we are quickened to euerlasting life Hereof Cyril and Hilary haue written indéed very diuinely but they must haue readers that are as diuinely and spiritually minded not such as the Answ is who turneth all to his owne carnall and Capernaitish imagination He should gather from these that such as is our vniting and ioyning vnto Christ such is our eating of his flesh and drinking his blood Our vniting vnto Christ is mysticall and spirituall not carnall and bodily Therfore such also must our eating and drinking be As for that grosse and bodily eating Cyrill maketh a straunge absurd matter of it when k Cyril aduer Theodoret. anathe â—â— he saith to Theodoret Doest thou pronounce our Sacrament to be the eating of a man and prophanely vrge the mindes of them that beleeue to grosse imaginations and assaie to handle by humane conceits those things which are to be receiued by only pure and sincere faith By which wordes he plainly sheweth that the opinion of the Papists of the eating and drinking with the mouth the verie humane flesh and blood of Christ is a grosse and prophane imagination and therfore litle helpe may the Answ hope for to his purpose by any thing that Cyrill saith P. Spence Sect. 23. BVt S. Augustine saith Ye shall not eate this bodie which ye see and drinke that blood which they shall shead which shall crucifie me that is a S. Austen speakâ—â—h simplâ— of eating and dâ—inking â—ith the mouth and denieth the same of câ—tting in gobbets he saith nothing not to cut it in gobbets as the Capharnits imagined and as flesh to be bought in the shambles nor in this visible shape as it were Anthropophagi You must M. Abbot not snatch peeces of S. Augustine to make vp a patched testimony to serue your owne turne For so you may make your Doctor say what you will haue him But you must consider the circumstances of the place and thereafter iudge of the meaning as heere he talketh of the Capharnites butcherly Anthropophagicall imagination and therefore he telleth how we must eate Christs bodie I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament being spiritually vnderstood it shall giue you life c. As who should say b As who should say ye sâ—all not eate him in peeces but ye shall eâ—te him â—hole A miâ—â—rable anâ—were you shall not eate him cut in peeces but entire in a Sacrament in a most diuine sacramentall maner and in a spirituall high mysterie but yet most verily For you imagine c Spiritually importeth that it is a thing done by the spirit not by the bodie and therefore that we eate Christ by the faith of the heart not by the chewing of the teeth spiritually to be applied to the substance wheras it is to be referred to the maner We receiue his verie flesh not fleshly but spiritually We eate his verie bodie but not corporally or after a bodily maner as we eate common meates R. Abbot 23. FOr disproofe of that carnall eating and drinking and consequentlie of Transsubstantiation I alleaged Saint Austens exposition of Christes wordes in the sixth Chapter of saint Iohn concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood Saint Austen writing in Psal 98. falleth into treatie of the offence that many tooke at Christes words and sheweth the reason therof that they a August in Psal 98. tooke them foolishly they vnderstood them carnally and thought that he would cut them peeces of his flesh But if they had not bene hard hearted they would haue thought It is not without some cause that he saith this Surely there is some secret mysterie in it His disciples he instructed saith he and said vnto them It is the spirit that quickeneth c which he expoundeth thus Vnderstand spiritually that which I haue said Ye shall not eate this bodie which ye see nor drinke that blood which they shall shead which shall crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament Being spiritually vnderstoode it shall giue you life This place doth plainly denie that eating and drinking of the very flesh and bloud of Christ which the Capernaits dreamed of and telleth vs that we do not eat Christes verie flesh nor drinke his very bloud namely with the mouth and body but that for our eating and drinking wee haue a sacrament commended vnto vs which being though visibly celebrated yet spiritually vnderstood doth make vs partakers of the flesh and bloud of Christ to euerlasting life
What answere maketh the man to this Forsooth saint Austen meaneth that wée cut not Christes flesh in gobbets nor as it is to be bought in the shambles nor we eate him not in a visible shape c. So then belike saint Austen meant that we eate not Christes body péecemeale but we swallow him whole and so the difference betwixt the Capernaites and vs must be only this that they would eate him in péeces and we eate him whole And this onely difference doth the Answ afterwardes make betwixt 1. Sect. â— 9 the Capernites and them that they eate him in a sacrament whole inuiolable like the paschal lambe without breaking or brusing him whereas the Capernaites imagined that they should eat him in péeces as flesh in the shambles Which mad fancie of eating Christ whole Bellarmine goeth about to approoue by another fancie as mad as it For b Belâ—arm tom 2. conâ— 3. lib. 3. cap. 22. being vrged that it is a horrible vnnaturall thing and therefore not standing with pietie to eate the verie flesh of man he answereth that the horrour heereof is onely in respect of the hurting and mangling of it For otherwise a man would willingly eate or as he more mildly termeth it would receiue into him his friend whom hee tenderly and dearely loueth if he might take him in whole and without hurting him Vndoubtedly Bellarmine is a kind man to his friend that can find in his heart to eate him if he might eate him whole and without doing him any harme But to leaue him in his madnesse we sée héere how faine the Answ would shift himselfe from being a brother to the Capernaites and it will not be The Gospell simply noteth the errour of the Capernaites to haue consisted in this that they thought they should with their very mouthes eate and drinke the very flesh and bloud of Christ The same is the grosse conceite of the Papistes and the Gospell condemneth both alike The fond distinction of the maner maketh no difference in that behalfe As for saint Austen he declareth his meaning plainly in his sermon to the people Hée knoweth none of these maners and péeuish differences but speaking of eating and drinking with the mouth he giueth them to vnderstand that it is but the sacrament which they eate and drinke not the flesh and bloud it selfe Ye shall not eate the body ye shall not drinke the bloud I haue commended to you a Sacrament In another place intreating of the verie same matter hee noteth that Christ signified to his hearers that hee would goe vp into heauen whole that they might vnderstand that he spake not of that eating his very body c Aug. in Ioh. tra 27. They thought that hee would giue them his very body but he told them that he would go vp into heauen euen whole Thus that we may not thinke that either péecemeale or whole wée eate the very body he giueth vs to vnderstand that he is ascended to heauen entire whole To which purpose Athanasius also saith How d Athan serm in illud Chri. Qui dixerit verbum contra filium should it be that all the world should eate of his flesh which would suffice but a few men But therefore our Lord when he spake vnto his Apostles of the eating of his flesh made mention of his ascention vnto heauen that hee might withdraw them from corporall and fleshly vnderstanding And so the Answerer eating of Christ whole is indéed but a fiction and absurd shift Yet let him remember what saint Austen saith againe in another place concerning the eating of Christ in the sacrament Thus he saith When e Aug. ser de ver Euan. Beda 1. cor 10 we eat Christ we make not peeces of him Yet surely in the Sacrament we doe so and the faithfull know how they eate the flesh of Christ Euerie one taketh his peece When the grace is called peeces Christ is eaten peecemeale and yet continueth whole Hee is eaten peece-meale in the Sacrament and abideth entire and whole in heauen Where he heareth saint Austen directly contrary to his assertion saying that the flesh of Christ in the sacrament is eaten péecemeale signifying that it is not indéed the reall and very flesh of Christ and yéelding vs for proofe thereof this argument That flesh of Christ which is eaten with the mouth in the sacrament is eaten péecemeale The true and reall flesh of Christ is not eaten péecemeale Therefore that flesh of Christ which is eaten with the mouth in the sacrament is not the true and reall flesh of Christ and consequently it is so onely sacramentally and in a mysterie A sound answere to this argument without shifting would do very well Whereas he saith againe that they eate Christ in the sacrament without breaking him let him hearken what Chrysostome saith This f Chrysost in 1. cor 10. hom 24. breaking we may see in the Eucharist but not vppon the crosse nay rather the contrarie there for not a bone of him shall be broken saith God But that which he suffered not vpon the crosse hee suffereth in the Sacrifice and permitteth himselfe to be broken for thee Beholde how Chrysostome saith that Christ who was not broken vpoÌ„ the crosse is broken in the sacrament and suffereth that nowe which hee did not suffer then to be done whereof we may gather thus that séeing the sacrament is broken and the true and reall bodie of Christ cannot be broken therefore the sacrament is not the true and reall body of Christ but mystâ—cally sacramentally and so in the breaking of the sacrament the body is mystically and sacramentally broken Whereas saint Austen saith that we must spiritually vnderstand that which Christ saith of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud the Answ telleth me that spiritually must be referred to the maner of the flesh because we eate it not like fleshe or cut in péeces or as we eate common meates But if wee follow this construction of hâ—s it cannot be auoyded but that the wicked and vngodly also do spiritually eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud If spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ consist in this that we eat him â—ot 〈◊〉 flesh hewed or chopt in péeces the wicked by thâ— doctrine of the Church of Roome doe eate him so as well as the godly because they are in that respect alike partakers of the sacrament But S. Austen teacheth expresly out of the g Ioh. 6. 5â— wordes of Christ that h August in Ioh. tract 26. they onely which abide in Christ and Christ in them do spiritually eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud Therefore the Answ exposition as it is a lewd and a cursed glose so it is expresly contrarie to the doctrine of saint Austen Such answeres become him very well But what is meant by vnderstanding spiritually I shewed by the words of Origen which he deceitfully passeth by and leaueth
them without answere There i Orig. in Leuit hom ◠is saith he in the new testament a letter which killeth him that doth not listen to it spiritually For if thou follow according to the letter that which is written Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud that letter killeth Where he teacheth vs that to vnderstand spiritually is to vnderstand not according to the letter not as the wordes sound not simply as things are vttered as k Chrysostome Chrysost in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 46. speaketh but to gather another meaning imported by the wordes For example he alleageth that those wordes of eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his bloud must not be vnderstood according to the letter and as the wordes import but another spirituall construction must be made of them Which S. Austen verie effectually and to the purpose sheweth in the next place that followeth now to be handled Pet. Spence Sect. 24. YEa but S. August lib. 30. de doctr Christiana striketh vs dead He seemeth saith he to commaund a hainous matter Therefore it is a figure commanding c. This is your great Achilles so much magnified of your side But I beseech you sir did saint Augustine bring in this speech vpon the place This is my body onels vpon the place of saint Iohn Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. You know it was vpon the latter place For when Christ told them they should eate his flesh they might imagine as indeede they did that they should a A butcherly answere fit for the shambles S. Austen taught not the Capernaites but vs to vnderstand eating and drinking not properly but by a figure eat it in gobbets cut slashed and hewed and chopped as flesh to the pot or the broach yea monstrous and like the Cannibals man-hunting and man-eating beastly maner Heere therefore they must needes by saint Augustines rule flee to some other more milder sense and to a more humane meaning which was that he would exhibite himselfe to them in a sacrament in a mysticall sweet spirituall maner But what then ergo not verily Nego argumentum Did saint Augustine say so any where no verily But at his supper when he raught his Apostles the formes of bread and wine and tolde them not beguiling them nor lying to them that it was his body and bloud that he gaue them to eate and drinke where was now that flagitium and facinus What feare was heere of any such Capharnaticall bloudie imagination Nay here he let them see how he before meant to giue them his body when at Caphernaum he said Nisi manducaueritis c. And therfore heare the maner of exhibiting his body verie truely though in a sacrament to be verily eaten but not mangled our worried and torn in peeces giueth neither feare or need or occasion to S. Augustines rule proue that S. August meant it in this place that at his supper he gaue only a figure or els you prooue nothing R. Abbot 24. HEere S. Austens drist is to shewe what spéeches of the holy scripture are to be vnderstood properly and what figuratiuely and to another meaning then the wordes sound Of the latter sort he setteth downe this rule a Aug 〈…〉 6 If it be a speech that seemeth to command any haynous or wicked thing or to forbid the doing of good it is a figuratiue speech Whereof he had giuen this rule before b We must take heede that we take not a figuratiue speech according to the letter For to this belongeth that of the Apostle The letter killeth for when a man taketh a thing spoken by figure as if it were properly spoken hee doth carnally vnderstand it Héereof he giueth for example those wordes Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud c. Of this he saith It seemeth to commaund a hainous and wicked thing Therefore it is a figure that is to say a figuratiue spéech and therefore must not bee vnderstood as the wordes doe import The meaning of this figure he declareth It willeth vs to cōmunicate with the passion of Christ and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in our memorie that his fleshe was crucified and wounded for vs. Then by S. Austens iudgement the meaning of this figuratiue spéech of eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ is to apply vnto our selues the benefite of his passion and comfortably to record that his flesh was wounded and his bloud shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes Whereby it is euident that he neuer dreamed of that monstrous and lothsome eating and drinking which the church of Roome teacheth flesh bloud and bone as he was born of the virgin Mary as some of them Canniball and Capernait-like haue vttered This place the Answ saith is our great Achilles much magnified of our side The greater this Achilles is the more strongly it behooued him to haue fought against it But he saith nothing to it but that that is ridiculous and childish First he commeth in with a bald and impertinent question Did S Austen bring in this spéech vppon the place This is my body He did not so and what then Surely this is but to talke idlely and not to care what he saith so be say some what He bringeth it in for that purpose for which I alleaged it to expoūd the words of Christ in the sixth of Iohn of eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ and telleth vs that it is a figuratiue spéech and therefore must not be vnderstoode according to the proper signification of eating and drinking What saith this good man to it Forsooth the Capernaites when they heard Christ speake of this matter might imagine as indéed they did saith he that they should eat it in gobbets cut slashed and hewed c. Therfore they must néeds by S. Austens rule flee to a milder sense and to a more humane meaning Then belike S. Austen taught the Capernaites howe they should haue vnderstoode the wordes of Christ but hee teacheth not vs. For we are farre from imagining the eating of Christes fleshe in gobbets slashed hewed chopt in péeces as the Answ speaketh with his butcherly and barbarous termes Alas children sée the folly of these answeres S. Austen in that place giueth vs a rule of vnderstanding the scriptures He giueth this place for an example of his rule He teacheth vs that to eat and drink the flesh and bloud of Christ importeth a horrible and hainous thing if we vnderstand eating and drinking properly He talketh not of slashing or hewing but of eating and drinking and therefore telleth vs that wée must vnderstand eating and drinking not properly but by a figure He telleth vs what the meaning of it is as I haue shewed before Not a word to intimate any such Popish construction nay he condemneth it as a hainous and wicked imagination The matter is cléere Euery eye may discerne it
declaration of S. Austens meaning that we eate the flesh of Christ in a figure not in a figure of Rhetoricke or Grammer but in a diuine figure he may haue that iustly returned to him which S. Austen said of a forefather of his g Aug. cont aduer leg proph lib. 2. cap. 9. Imperita peritia de figurarum qualitate tractat He would seeme skilfull but talketh verie vnskilfully of the qualitie of Figures For if he were required a meaning of this his diuine figure no doubt it would prooue to be a verie disfigured and mishapen thing He had a fancie in his head wherein hee thought he had gone beyond al his fellowes he was glad y◠he had gotten occasion héere to vtter it But the Figure of which S. Austen speaketh is figurata locutio a figuratiue speech a Rhetoricke figure called a metaphore which is not to be vnderstood h August de doctr Christ lib. 3. cap. 5. 16. proprie or ad literam properly of according to the letter and as the wordes do barely signifie as before hath béene said because by the said figure the word is translated from his own proper signification to expresse another thing which in some respect is fitly and conueniently resembled thereby As for example because by beléeuing we do as it were lay hold vpon Christ apply him vnto our selues make him ours assure our selues of his body crucified and his bloud shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes to the reliefe comfort of our distressed and afflicted soules euen as in eating we take meate and receiue it into our stomacks and incorporate it into our selues to the cherishing and strengthning of our weake and féeble bodies therefore the word of eating which properly belongeth to the body is vsed to expresse the effect of beléeuing in Christ which appertaineth onely to the soule And thus doth S. Austen meane that there is a figure in these wordes of eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ as appeareth both in the place aboue mentioned as touching this figure and by his exposition of the same words vpon the sixth of Iohn P. Spence Sect. 26. GOdly men haue noted vpon these wordes Tradetur effundetur shal be giuen shal be shed that Christ vsed them by an Energie to signifie that the blessed Sacrament that he gaue to his Apostles was not his phantasticall or imaginatiue bodie but that verie bodie of his that was to be crucified tormented and slaine on the crosse I confesse those wordes not strong enough to compell a repining aduersarie but yet verie well able sweetly to allure a A seely foole that without tryall will beleeue whatsoeuer the church of Roome doth lewdly perswade him an obedient childe of the Catholique Church to beleeue her in this point hauing so many other infinite reasons ioyned thereunto But remember I oppose not neither will I neither may I by the laws but only much against my will I am drawne by you to answere your obiections according to my small talent Otherwise you should heare whether the fathers be ours or not or what wee might say to this effect R. Abbot 26. OF the words of Christ This is my bodie which shal be giuen This is my bloud which shal be shed The Answerer confesseth that that additiē which shal be giuen which shal be shed is not an argument strong enough against a repining aduersarie but yet able to allure an obedient childe of the Church It is vsed in corners indéede to seduce and be guile the ignorant but alas simple soules that suffer themselues to be deceiued with those argumentes which their seducers confesse to be no substantiall proofes I hold you one of those simple ones M. Spence who alleaged it to me for a verie good reason If Campion tooke it not to be so then was it great want of discretion in him a Camp Rat. 2 to alleage it as an argument to vniuersitie men who hee might know would soone take notice of his folly in that be halfe And héere I may not omit to note the peruerse dealing of the Answ godly men forsooth in this matter who when they are in hand with Transubstantiation will prooue it by the words of Christ thus that he said this is my bodie which shal be giuen This is my bloud which shal be shedde as the vulgar Latin readeth Lo say they Christ nameth the verie bodie and bloud that was after to be giuen and shed vpon the crosse therfore the sacrament is the verie body of Christ Thus M. Spence and his godly fellowes reason But when they are in hand with sacrifice they wil haue it thus My body which b Hard. Answ art 17. Di. 4. Rhem. Annot. Luc. 22. 19. is giuen my bloud which is shed in the present tense according to the gréeke and wil prooue héereby that Christ did euen at that present offer a sacrifice of his body and bloud that he gaue his body and shed his bloud because he saith not shal be giuen but is giuen nor shal be shed but is shed Thus they tosse the words of Christ as it were a tennise ball from one wall to another and suffer them not to rest in anie certaine meaning but turne them and winde them as their fickle and vnstable fancies giue them occasion The meaning of the wordes is one and certaine that the sacrament is a figure and signe of the body and bloud of Christ giuen and shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes His infinite other reasons and authorities of the Fathers which he baunteth hee could alleage are all of the same stampe as these are They are but wordes of course that he vseth to that purpose seruing to fright his obedient children but the children of God haue good experience that it is but foolish and idle talke P. Spence Sect. 27. I Confesse all that you say next following of the wonderfull speeches and also of the effectes of the blessed sacrament by our coniunction with Christ wrought thereby also of our resurrection iustification and sanctification sauing that you imagine with Caluine which before him no man imagined that wee receiue these effects and graces by a conduct of faith that sucketh a verie reall vertue flowing out of his verie flesh in heauen which to do needeth a Vntrue for God hath appointed both the one and the other to be meanes whereby our faith should more more lay hold vpon Christ and feed vpō him to eternal life no Sacrament at all but only to preach vnto vs and so Caluin saith himselfe that if our faith were quicke enough we might without the sacramentall signes receiue the Sacrament at all times and minutes of the day An imagination very metaphysicall bred in his own braine and hatched vp only by himselfe tending to the contempt and ouerthrow of the Sacrament But we say that we receiue all the said graces and effects most diuine by our spirituall receiuing of him in faith
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
horrible and blasphemous â—onceits which the Answ could not conâ—eiue out of my former words These are yâ— fruits of their Transubstantiation and reall presence that the verie bodie of Christ is receiued into the bellies of dâ—gs and swine and mice that it may be in the dirt in the bellies of vngodly men vntil the forms â—e consumed and digested beside other filthy matters i Antonin summ p. 3. tit 13. cap. 6. q. 3. de defectib Missae of vomiting vp the bodie of Christ and eating it again being vomited and drawing it out of the entrals of the mouse or other beast that hath eaten it c. which are most leathsome to any Christian eares to heare of 〈◊〉 yet very venturously disputed of and resolued vpon by Antoninâ—s no meaner a man then Archbishop of Florence and as I thinke Saincted by the Pope for his great paines Neuer any Capernaite more grosse neuer Manichée more blasphemous then these villainous imaginations which these caiâ—ifes haue published to the world and their reall presence standing they cannot resolue how to shift of these things but stagger as Harding did with it may be this and it may be that and it may be they know not what Therefore let the Ansvv now thinke with himselfe with what reason he bid me beware of bearing false witnesse against my neighbour Let him remember that théeues and malefactours do vsually call true euidence false witnesse but yet their honestie and truth is no whit the more S. Hierom saith that k Hierony in Esa 66. li. 18. they vvhich are louers of pleasures more then louers of God and are not holy both in bodie and spirite do neither eate the flesh of Christ nor drinke his blood whereof he himself speaketh in the sixth of Iohn He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life Where out of the words of Christ himselfe he secludeth not only bruit beasts but also vngodly and vnholy men from eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ Yet it may so be that not only vnholy prophane men but also bruite beasts may eate of the Romish host or Sacrament Therefore the Romish Sacrament is not the very flesh and blood of Christ as the Romish faction would beare vs in hand that it is P. Spence Sect. 30. THe conformitie of the words of the Euangelists and of S. Paul is so great a matter as that of it selfe it offereth good and great cause of noting it without the warning of any Allen Parsons or any other neuer so learned And your similitude of the sacrifices of the old lawe so agreeably vttered and yet by your leaue but by one Moses alone and not by three sundry Euangelistes and one Apostle as it is in this case fitteth not to this For Moses endewed with the spirite of God could not in any wordes imagine to attribute a A meere fansie Their Sacramentes yeelded the same fruite to them that ours do to vs. See sect 20. such a working force ex opere operato to the legall expiations which wrought ex adiuncto fidei and not of themselues as is to be giuen to the Sacramentes of Christ howsoeuer your side abase them as low as the verie Iewish Sacramentes I am glad that the plain consent of the Euangelistes and Saint Paul doth so little like you in this point R. Abbot 30. THere is vrged for the proofe of Transubstantiation the consent of the Euangelistes and S. Paul saying all alike This is my bodie whereas if they meant not to be vnderstood literally the one would haue expounded the other But the conformitie of these thrée Euangelistes and S. Paul is no stronger an argument as I haue tolde him to prooue Transubstantiation then the continuall calling of the old sacrifices of Moses law by the name of expiations and attonementes was to prooue that they were verily and indéed expiations and attonementes for sinne which yet were but types and figures thereof as the Sacrament is a figure and signe of the bodie and bloud of Christ The exception of the Answ that that was spoken but by one Moses this by thrée Euangelistes and one Apostle is vaine The holie Ghost spake in both places by whomsoeuer and if the Answ argument be good must néedes haue altered that spéech in Moses lawe But that the goodnesse of it is distrusted by his owne fellowes also it followeth after to be shewed That which he addeth in this place of the working force in both sacraments the old and the new is impertinent I spake not of the working force of either but of the like phrase of spéech concerning both But yet whereas he saith that the Sacraments of the new testament haue force by the very work wrought I must tel him that he speaketh without scripture without father a thing absurd in itselfe and contrary also to that which he hath said before If wee obtaine the effects of the Sacrament by receiuing Christ in fayth hope and charity togither with the entrance of his body into ours as he sayd before then the sacrament giueth not that grace by the very worke wrought as he sayth héere If it giue grace by the very worke wrought as he saith héere then it is not to be ascribed to fayth hope and charity as he sayth there The councell of Trent hath tolde vs that a man a Concil TrideÌ„t sess 6. ca. 9 may not assure himselfe that hée hath receiued the grace of God But if the sacraments yéeld graâ—â— by the very worke wrought a man may assure himselfe that he hath receiued grace because he may assure himselfe that he is baptised And what reason is there why infants naturals and franticke persons should be excluded from receiuing the Lords supper if the Sacrament haue his force of the verie worke done But S. Austen plainly refuteth this conceit as touching our sacraments b August in Ioh. tra 80. Whence hath the water such force saith he to touch the bodie and clense the heart but that the word worketh it and that not because it is spoken but because it is beleeued Therefore hee calleth it according to the Apostle c Rom. 10. 8. 9 The word of faith because if thou confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and beleeue in thine heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saued To this purpose he alleageth that God is said d Act. 15. 9. to clense the heart by faith and that of S. Peter that e 1. Pet. 3. 21. baptisme saueth vs not the washing away the filth of the flesh that is not for the very worke wrought but the answere of a good conscience towardes God To this effect Tertullian saith f Tertul de resurrect carnis The soule is sanctified not by the washing of water but by the answere of faith And S. Austen againe g August quae vet noui test q. 59. He cannot attaine the heauenly gift which thinketh
himselfe to be chaunged by the water and not by faith Héereby it is plaine that Baptisme hath his force not of the verie worke done but of true and vnfayned faith working in the heart good conscience towards God So as touching the other Sacrament S. Austen referreth the vertue and effect thereof h August in Ioh. tr 26. de ciuit dei li. 21. cap. 25. to our eating inwardly and in the heart and this eating inwardly hée expoundeth to be our beleeuing in Christ and resolueth that hée that by this beleeuing in Christ abideth not in Christ and Christ in him he doth not spiritually eate and drinke the flesh and bloud of Christ though he receiue the sacrament thereof Therefore neither doth this Sacrament auaile by the worke wroughâ— but onely by faith whereby we abide in Christ and Christ in vs. A miserable doctrine it is whereby men are borne in hand that comming without faith voyd of knowledge without repentance or any good motion yet they may receiue the effect of the sacraments whereas the Scripture so plainly affirmeth that i Rom 14. 23. whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne and that k Heb. 11. 6. without faith it is vnpossible to please God and therfore precisely chargeth euery man before he come to the Lords table l 1. cor 11. 28. to examine himselfe m 2 Cor. 13. 5. in that behalf But for disproofe of this assertion it is reason enough that there can be no reason nor probable shew of reason giuen whereby to prooue it Of the difference of the Iewes sacraments and ours I haue spoken before We abase neither but lift both verie high The consent of the Euangelists auaileth with me to make me yéeld to that which can be soundly prooued thereby not to euerie thing that froward and peruerse men will péeuishly fancie thereof P. Spence Sect. 31. YOu tell me a matter out of S. Luke 22. but in good sooth to what purpose I cannot imagine Who euer denied but it was Metonymia when he said this cup is the new testament or rather two tropes in one sentence For the cup is taken for Christes bloud in the cup and to be the new testament is to be the seale establishment promulgation and consecration of the newe testament Who euer denied it but because we say that the true body and bloud of Christ is contained in the sacramentall formes and that Christ saying This is my body spake plainly a Be like wheÌ„ you list there is a figure and when you list there is none You might vnderstand the one by a Figure as well as the other without a figure therefore must we meane so grosly that no where the scripture speaking of this matter vseth a figure Oâ— would you conclude thus in these wordes This cup is the new testament there is a figure ergo in these words This is my body Logick will be good cheape if this may go for currant But good sir let me be bold a little with you to put you in minde of this place of S. Luke that b A popish peeâ—ish brag See the aunswere Qui calix so troubled Beza that he wist not what to say to it but he imagined that either some sorie fellow had foysted it into the text or els that S. Luke spake false greeke so sure he was that the text was awry it made so sore against him For setting it downe by the participle as it is in greeke thus it soundeth hic calix nouum testamentum in sanguine meo pro vobis effusus Which must needes respect Calix for his substantiue and then the cup that is the liquor in the cup was shed for them and vs all which if it were wine let euerie good christian man iudge I hope he shed for our saluation a farre more pretious liquor then wine And doctor Fulke to salue this sore telleth vs that in many places of the greeke text of other Scriptures there is incongruitie Very true I confesse but it is smally to the purpose For where no sense will helpe the syntaxis there we must needs graunt incongrâ—itie But how c There are reasons enough to proue it See the answere prooued doctor Fulke that the sense wherein this place is congrue and according to grammer is not the true sense Or why should he not allow it for congrue being indeede congrue Or why should Beza imagine and he allovv of a sense that is not congrue when the text was congrue enough This point being the state of the question Doctor Fulke stealeth away from and medleth not vvith it because it vvas too plain for vs and against his sacramentarie doctrine As likevvise vvas that place of S. Luke vvhere drinking at his Supper in vvine to his Disciples before hee instituted the Sacrament he told them hee vvould drinke vvine no more till in his kingdome vvhich vvas after his resurrection and yet a litle after he d VVhat did Christ drinke his owne bloud we can not beleue it drank to them in the Sacrament vvhich if it had beene vvine hee had contraried his former speech an absurditie I thinke not to be admitted R. Abbot 31. FOr further answere as touching the conformitie vsed in these wordes This is my body I shewed how S. Luke and S. Paul varie from S. Mathew and S. Marke as touching the other part of the sacrament For whereas these say this is my bloud of the new testament c. The other say This cup is the new testament in my bloud c. And these latter wordes I shewed to â—e the ouerthrow of transubstantiation But the Answ in good sooth telleth me that he cannot sée to what purpose this is alleaged I pray you therefore M. Spence put him in minde of his headlesse reason which he hath vsed before Christ saith he will call nothing by a wrong name If he should call fire water earth by the names of ayre stones or bread they would sooner become ayre stones bread then he would misname any thing He did not lie to his Disciples he did not â—eguile them Therefore when he said This cup is the new Testament without doubt the cup was substantially turned into a Testament Nay not so saith he there is a figure here Yea and may a thing be called by a wrong name by a figure is there now a figure in these words Why then is the man so straight laced that he cannot yéeld a figure in the other words especially séeing the auncient Fathers so expresly expounde them by way of figure and neither he nor his can make any certaine exposition of them but by a figure But it followeth not he saith that because there is a figure in the one spéech therfore there is so also in yâ— other Yet say I if it follow not that because Christ taking the cup said thereof This cup is the new Testament therefore the cup was turned into the testament then it followeth
an auncient and vndoubted copy two Franciscan Friars came by authoritie and cancelled many shéetes thereof some in part some wholly and caused them to print other in their stéed not agréeing to the true bookes to Frelonius his great losse both of time and charges The like dealing b Ibid. he noteth of TurriaÌ„ that vnshamefast Iesuit in a Gréeke edition of the Canons of the Apostles In a print of Chrysostomes workes by Stelsius at Paris they haue razed out a most notable and vnanswerable place c Oper. imperf in Mat. hom 49. testifying that in the time of Antichrist there can be no warrant of true Christianitie nor other refuge for Christians being desirous to know the truth of faith but only the scriptures of God that they which would know cannot otherwise know which is the true Church of Christ but onely by the scriptures that Christ knowing the confusion that should be in the last daies did will that Christians desiring to haue assurance of true faith should flee to nothing else but to the scriptures because if they looke vnto other things they shall stumble and perish not knowing which is the true Church and hereby they shall light into the abhomination of desolatioÌ„ which standeth in the holy places of the church This whole place they haue falsly and treacherously left out And why because they take it to haue bin put in by an Arian hereticke as d Bellarm. to 1 cont 1. lib. 4. cap. 11. Bellarmine saith But what wretchednesse is there in this pretence when as they haue left in stil those places which make for the Arians indéed haue only taken away this which was not for the Arians turne but serued to confound themselues in a matter of controuersie betwixt them and vs. Thus e See Doct. Rainolds confer with â—aâ—t cha â— diuiâ— 2. Manutius and Pamelius in their editions of Cyprian the one at Rome the other at Anwerpe haue notoriously falsified a place in his Treatise de vnitate ecclesiae And whereas Cyprian expresly auoucheth by the vniuersall consent of all approued copies that the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was endued with equall fellowship both of honour and of power they haue foisted in other words importing a supremacy giuen by Christ vnto Peter and so make him in one sentence with one breath to speake contrary to himselfe Which impudencie and unpietie of theirs is so much the greater for that against the common consent and credit of so many copies both written and printed they would presume to alter the text of Cyprian vpon the warrant of two or thrée such copies as they themselues euidently saw knew to be corrupted so corrupted that they were faine euen for shame to varie in some things from that reading which they found in theÌ„ Thus haue the Spanish censurers vsed Bertram also as hath bene before shewed nipping him paring him where they haue thought good that he may not séeme too strong against their fantasticall conceit of TransubstantiatioÌ„ Now we may not wonder that they who haue bene thus bold with the auncient Fathers should presume a great deale further with later writers And therefore it néedeth not that I stand here to shew how they haue maimed the writings and censures of f Index Expurgat in castigaâ— operum August Tertul Hierony passim Beatus Rhenanus Ludouicus Viues Erasmus and other famous learned men whersoeuer they haue with great aduisement and iudgemeÌ„t noted the corruptions abuses of the Roomish church either in matters of maners or of doctrine This is that godly charitable dealing which the Answ commendeth and thinketh to be a very Christian and necessary course But were he not too much bewitched with the loue of a harlot he would not be so easily brought to flatter her in such vnhonest and hatefull doings Hereby it appeareth what confidence and hold Papists haue in the writings of the Fathers and that the Fathers if they were now aliue in the church of Rome and should speake as they haue written should be condemned for heretickes and their bookes carried to the fire to be burned with them P. Spence Sect. 36. YOu chop in the end to the matter of iustification A verie large race to course in To be short we say Faith iustifieth but that faith which worketh by loue We yeeld with S. Paule Not to him that worketh that is not to him that worketh with the respect of the law or by his free-will without the faith of Christ and his grace as the Iewes and Gentiles But to him that beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly c. Here you see he talketh of one that not only beleeueth God or that God is but in God which is to haue faith hope charitie And that we require in iustifying a Here we haue we say and we say but no prâ—ofe for that which they say and so they may say what they list We say Faith without workes is dead and yet being dead it is a true faith neuerthelesse We say this faith so quickened and formed with charitie doth iustifie that is maketh of wicked iust and withall we say that good workes done by him that is iustified or else they could not be good do iustifie that is as S. Iames saith they make faith perfect By Abrahams workes his faith was made perfect And not only before men as you would haue S. Iames to meane thereby to elude this cleare testimony for he telleth you as for only faith the diuels beleeue and tremble and hee saith faith to bee a ioynt-worker with workes in our iustification which is not by faith only but by workes and they do make a man more iust or increase our iustice They b An absurd contradiction they deserue it and yet it is â—â—eely â—iuen them â—f it be â—â—eely thâ—n it is not of desert deserue the reward though giuen them by Gods free mercie for Christes passions sake yet novv made their vvages and hyer by Gods ordinance and by the proportion and relation betvveene grace Sap. 3. 15. Eccl. 16. 2. Rom. 2. 6. and glorie We defie Pelagius that said vve might merit the first grace or remission of sinner yet vve say vvith S. Augustine that the kingdom of heauen is both gratuite or free because it is of grace purchased by Christs blood and yet vvithall saith he it is a thing deserued because it is due to workes vvhich vvorkes come of grace that vvas giuen freely by Christ We desire no better iudge of the true sense of Gods vvord in this point then S. Augustine himselfe to whom we appeale We say vvith S. Iohn Behold the lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world We say vve must put off the old man and put on the new We say vve must be noua conspersio Azimi We say vve must be c Yet the Answers owne conscience doth tell him that he is not
iustly and well perswade a Christian to beléeue the contrary in my opinion S. Mathew Mark Luke and Paul all writing This is my bodie whereas writing otherwise of one thing one saith If I in the finger of God cast out diuels c. Another If I in the spirit of God c. So that in d Vntrue as appeareth by the coÌ„ference of these places Mat. 5. 29. with Mar. 9. 3. Mar. 5. 39. with Luc. 6. 29. Mat. 20. 23. Mar. 10. 39. Mat. 21. 21. Mar. 11. 23. which are not taken literally and yet difler not in phrase of speech any matter where moe then one speak of the same thing euerie one hath more of the same thing to giue more light then another But in the matter of the Sacrament no whit so but in the verie substantiall point e Vntrue for they varie as touching the cup there is the same reason of the one part of the Sacrament as of the other See the reply Concil constanti 6. can 32 all deliuer the selfe same effectuall words Sir once againe thankes for your good Chrysostome and so I beséech to recall them that erre into the way of truth and euerlasting saluation A reply against the former answere to the places of Chrysostome and Gelasius THe willingnesse I haue to doe you good M. Spence I wish might take such effect with you as that God might be glorified by reuealing vnto you the knowledge of his truth I doubt not but it shall be so if you séeke it as you ought and where you ought Concerning the place of Chrysostome of vsing water in the Sacrament I finde it expounded as you answere me in Concil Constantinopol 6. ca. 32. of them that vsed water onely and no wine Albeit the wordes séeme to me plainly to enforce vpon the Reader another vnderstanding neither find I any reason why the Bishops of Armenia being a thousand vnder one Metropolitane may not be thought as méete iudges of Chrysostomes meaning as the Bishops of this Councell especially séeing it is not certaine either what time or by whom those Canons were made and appeare to be falsly fathered vpon the sixth generall Councell as Surius in his admonition Surius in admoniâ— ad Lector de can 6. synodi concil to 2. concerning those Canons giueth to vnderstand Yea and they are in diuers points reiected by your selues as is plaine also by Surius both in the same Preface and by some notes added to some of the Canons But I contend not of that point and as I condemne not in that respect the Churches which either haue vsed or doe vse that mixture only without opinion of superstition and necessitie so neither do I find reason why those Churches are to be condemned that rather follow as most assured the simplicitie of the institution of Iesus Christ where we finde mention of the fruite of the vine but nothing as touching water If you say as the Canon saith that this is to innouate those things which haue bene deliuered by tradition Cypri epist ad Pompeium I must answer you with Cyprians words Whence is this tradition Whether descending from the authoritie of the Lord and of the Gospell or comming from the Commandements and Epistles of the Apostles for that those things which are written must be done God testifieth c. If therefore either it be commanded in the Gospell or conteined in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles let this tradition be kept as holie Now séeing there is no testimony of the holie scripture to approue the necessitie of water I take your wordes directly contrary to the scriptures to be vnderstood rather of those which vse water only contrarie to the text then wine only according to the expresse mention of the text Your glose of the Canon De consecra dist 2. cap. sicut in glossa law doth tell that Doctors haue said that water is to be mingled in the cup only for honestie or decencie and therefore not of necessitie to the Sacrament And that amoÌ„gst others Thomas Aquinas granteth Polydore Virgil referreth the fist institution thereof to Alexander Plati in Alexander 1. Durand Rati diuin lib. 4. rubri de officio sacerdotis c. Thom. Aquin. pa 3. q. 7â— art 3 the first Bishop of Rome Pâ—atina séemeth to agrée with him So Durand saith Water is mingled in the cup with the wine by the institution of Pope Alexander the first And as touching Christes vsing of water Thomas Aquinas maketh it but a probabilitie and no certaine truth It is probably beleeued that our Lord instituted this Sacrament in wine mingled with water according to the manner of that country Your Councell of Trent saith no more It is supposed that our Lord did so And in a conference betwixt Anselmus a Bishop of Saxome and Nechâ—tes Patriarch of Nicomedia Anno domini Centur. Magdebur cap. 12. 1138. Neâ—hites obiecting that Christ our Sauiour did not vse water in the consecration Anselmus answereth by likelihood that he did so because in Palestina the maner is to mingle water with their wine Now if it were done according to the maner of that country then it was done to abate the strength of the wine and not for any such mysterie as some haue imagined In manie Countries where their wines are verie strong temperate sober men vse to qualifie and delaie the heate thereof by mingling water least it should cause any distemperature to the bodie And this the Gréeke Churches may séeme to haue respected who consecrated with méere wine as appeareth by Nâ—chites his spéech in the conference aboue-named as also by some editions of Chrysostomes Liturgie and afterwardes put in water when it was to be administred to the receiuers The reason which they vsed for not adding water before was this because Christ is not read to haue added water which accordeth with the words of Chrysostome alleaged by me But as I said before I stand not vpon this point Only I pray you to consider an argument of Bertram in his booke de corpo sangui domini ad Carol imperat taking Bertram de corpo sang domini his ground from this mixture Water saith he in the Sacrament beareth the image of the people Therefore if the wine sanctified by the seruice of the Ministers be bodily turned into the blood of Christ then the water also which is mingled withall must needs be bodily or substantially turned into the blood of the beleeuing people For where there is one sanctification there is consequently one working or effect and where there is the like reason there followeth also the like mysterie But we see in the water there is nothing turned bodily Consequently therefore in the wine there is nothing bodily shewed It is taken spiritually whatsoeuer is signified in the water as touching the bodie of the people It must needes therefore be taken spiritually whatsoeuer is signified in the wine concerning the blood of Christ
Which words amongst other it hath pleased those honest Censours of the King of Spains appointment to exempt from being Index Expâ— in censura Bertramâ— printed any more A shift wherewith the church of Romes factours haue made vs verie well acquainted in the workes of diuers Authors both old and new By the way as you touch this point you séeme to gleane for the defence of your Masse telling me that in the Canon aforesaid there is mention made of S. Iames and S. Basils Masse or Sacrifice left to the Church in writing By which spéech you put me in mind of that melancholy Athenian who standing at the sea shore would imagine of euery ship that he saw that it was his ship For in like sort whersoeuer you finde in any of the auncient Fathers mention made of the mysticall sacrifice you fancy it straight waies to be ment of your sacrilegious abhominable sacrifice of the Masse a cursed deuise of Satan therby to withhold men from the soueraign only sacrifice of the crosse of Christ Therfore wheras the Canon mentioneth only Sacrifice you alledge it to me Masse or Sacrifice But you shuld know that the Gréeke Fathers were not priuie to the name of your Masse how soeuer it please some of you to make a cogging argument to blinde the vnlearned by these titles S. Iames his Masse S. Chrysostomes Masse c. vsed by the translators but neuer meant by the Authors The Gréeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they vsed may rather import our diuine-seruice then your prophane Masse And if it must néedes signifie Masse you may turne the magistrate into a Rom 13. 6. The Minister of God Rom. 15. 27. Phil. 2. 25. to minister vnto Heb. 1 14. ministring spirits Act. 13. 2. as they were ministâ—ing to the Lord. Masse-priâ—st because he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you may say that to relieue the necessities of Saints is to say Masse because the Apostle vseth thereof the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Angels shall be called Massing spirits because they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You remember since you wold néeds enforce the Apostles saying Masse by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how wel to the purpose you may hereby vnderstand Your Masse you call of the word Missa you should indéed rather of the word Massa as being an heape of vnprofitable ceremonies and wicked prophanations of the Sacrament of Iesus Christ But Missa importeth not sacrifice as you pretend it doth The olde vse of the word Missa discloseth the great abuse of your Masse It noted the sending away of non-communicants none being permitted to staie while the Sacrament was ministred but only such as did communicate So doth S. Austen declare speaking Au. de Temp. ser 232. as touching the Catechumeni that is such as were yet but nouices in religion and vnder chatechising and therefore as yet not permitted to be partakers of the holie mysteries nor to be present at the celebration thereof Behold saith he after the Sermon there is missa a dimission or sending away of such as are catechumeni the faithfull abide still we shall come to the place of praier c. And in the fourth Councell of Carthage order is taken that the Bishop shall forbid concil carthag 4. can 84. none to enter into the Church and heare the word of God whether he be Gentile hereticke or Iew vsque ad missam vntill the dimission or sending away of the catechumeni There is no such dimission in your Masse and of those that staie none are ordinarily partakers of the Sacrament but only the Priest The people are spectatours only of his stage-like and trifling iestures and go as emptie home as they came thither But in processe of time custome drew this wâ—râ— to note the celebration of the Sacrament which was administred to such as remained after this dimission Whence it is that the pretended Liturgies of S. Iames Basil and Chrysostome are by the translators tearmed by the name of Masse Whereas those Liturgies I doubt not if they were written by those men whose names they beare as some of them assuredly were not or if being written by them they remained as their Authors left them as by the varietie of the editions of Chrysostomes Liturgie it is plain they do not would rather resemble our communion wherein both the Minister and the people communicate togither in both kinds then your Masse wherein the people are either idle lookers on or when they are communicants are by your sacriledge communicants in one kinde onely and secluded from the other contrary altogither to the practise of the primitiue Church or which is more to the expresse institution of our Sauiour Christ And this is to be séene by those steps of antiquitie which as yet are found in those Liturgies neither do I sée what great aduantage you haue by them to set any colour vpon your Popish Masse saue only to blinde the eyes of the simple and vnlearned And whereas you alledged to me that there was in them praier for the dead there is good cause to thinke that those praiers were at the first but commemorations and thankesgiuings for the departed in the faith of Christ for that in Chrysostomes Liturgie we finde according to that which then I answered you thus We offer vnto thee ô Lord this reasonable seruice for those chrysost â—â—gia which rest in the faith our Auncestors Fathers the Patriarches Prophets Apostles Preachers Euangeliâ—tes Martyres especially for the most holie and pure virgin Mary c. But it is contrary to the custome of your church to your doctrine to pray for the virgin Mary for Martyrs c. And you vse to that purpose the saying of S. Austen He doth iniury to the Martyr which praieth for a Martyr Therfore August de verb Apo. ser 17. these were only spéeches of thankesgiuing vnto God for his louing mercy shewed to those through Iesus Christ make nothing at all for your praier for the dead To this being the auncient custome oâ— the Church S. Austen alludeth when he saith When the Aug. Euchiâ— cap. 10. sacrifices either of the altar or of any almes are offered for all that are dead they are for them that are very good thankesgiuings c. which custome of thankesgiuing generally we also vse for all that are departed hence in the faith of Iesus Christ As for that which he addeth For them that are not verie euill they are propitiations c. we take it to be a superstitious conceit which after crept into yâ— church contraried by many in S. Austens time as may appeare in his booke of questions to Dulcitius where proposing the question of Dulcitius whether oblations for the dead did auaile them whereby it appeareth it was a matter controuersed in that time he answereth To this many say that if there might be any good done herein August de 8. quaest
inswadling clouts that God was laid in the manger that God suffered and was buried and purchased himselfe a church with his precious bloud According to this truth Gelasius saith k Gelas cont Eutichen The whole man christ is God and Cirill saith that the name of the godhead is giuen vnto christ as man l ciril in â—oh lib. 11 cap. 22. Vigil contra Eutich lib. 4. To which purpose some of the m Concil coÌ„stant 6. act 4. in epla Agathoâ—is act 10. 17. Thom. 〈◊〉 par â— q. 16. art 3. ex Damascen auncient writers say that the flesh or manhood of Christ is deified not by chaunging of the manhood into godhead but by personal vniting of the one to the other wherby the thinges that are proper to the godhead are also dispensed vnto the manhood Now Eutiches whilest he contended against the heresie of Nestorius and would iustifie the spéeches aforesaid went as farre another way into another heresy and as Nestorius by distracting the natures made two persons and n Vigil lib. 2. cont Eutychen two Christes as Vigilius speaketh so he to make one person of Christ taught a confusion of the natures affirming that although Christ were truly incarnate and tooke flesh indéede yet that by the vniting of the fleshe vnto the godhead the flesh was swallowed vp of the godhead and ceased to be any longer flesh euen as a droppe of wine cast into the sea looseth his owne nature and becommeth water o Leo. epis 10. 11. Leo and p Euagr. eccl hist lib 2. ca. 18 Euagrius report the words of Eutiches in the ChalcedoÌ„ councel thus that he confessed that Christ before the vniting of the manhood with the godhead was of two natures but after that vniting there is said he but one nature in Christ And thus is his heresy set downe in q Definitio Cha cedo 1. concil Act. 5. the definition of the Chalcedon Councel Therfore though Christ was in the shape likenesse of man vpon the earth yet he held that he was not indéed man but onely God that it was not the manhood but the Godhead that was crucified So Vigilius testifieth r Vâ—gil cont â—at lib. 2. He affirmed saith he that the Godhead suffered which he wold proue as the same Å¿ Vigil â—bid Vigilius t Gelas cont â—uty Nestor Gelasius also declare out of 1. Cor. 2. If they had knowne they would not haue crucified the Lord of glorie Behold said he not the man Christ but the Lord of glory was crucified Vigilius againe saith that this heresie did u Vigil lib. 1. con Eutych refer to the contumely of the Godhead all things that Christ either spake or did according to the dispensation of the flesh whilest they contended that there was in him but the one only nature of the Godhead and w Idem lib. 4. elsewhere he setteth down by their own words that it was the Godhead that was seene and felt and handled with hands which they wold proue by the words of S. Iohn in the beginning of his first Epistle And in this respect both Vigilius and Gelasius say that this opinion implied the heresies of Apollinaris of the Manichees and Marcionites others which held that Christ had only x Putatiuum corpus an imaginary and no true bodie So Leo also vrgeth them that by their opinioÌ„ y Leo epist 81 Christ did all things counterfeitly and that not an humane bodie indeed but a fantasticall shew of a bodie appeared vnto the eyes of them that beheld therfore he calleth them Phantasmaticos Christianos Thus those things which concerne Christ properly as man Eutyches could not coÌ„ceiue to be rightly attributed vnto Christ by the name of God but by abolishing the nature of man Now there were also of Eutiches his faction who being conuicted of the absurdity of this opinion restrained the vanishing and consuming of the nature of his manhood to the time of his ascension of whom I shall speake afterward But in the meane time let the Answ here thinke whether I said rightly the last time that Eutyches if he were now aliue would surely be a Papist The absurd conceit of TransubstantiatioÌ„ serueth fit for his purpose and if it had bene in his time beléeued he would haue said Do ye not sée that after consecration there remaineth the colour and shewe and appearance of bread wine but yet there is not the substance of them for the substance is quite abolished by consecration Right so after the vniting of the two natures of Christ the substance of the humane nature is quite consumed though there appeare the facion and shape and likenesse yea and the doings and sufferings of a man This he would haue alleaged for colour of that shadow and phantasie of Christs humanitie which he defended here vpon the earth But this stood not with the doctrine of that time Nay whereas Eutyches could not vnderstand that those thinges which were done performed properly in the manhood are rightly said to haue bene done and performed by God by reason of the personall vniting of the manhood vnto the Godhead but would for the iustifying of this speech abolish the manhood and bring in the Godhead into the emptie facion and shape of a man euen as the Papists to make good the spéeches that are vsed oftentimes of the Sacrament to expresse the singular effect thereof do thrust out the substance of bread and wine and bring the very substance of Christs bodie and blood into the emptie formes and shewes of the same Gelasius by a comparison taken from the Sacrament according to the doctrine of his time sheweth him the vanitie of his opinion He setteth downe to that purpose these two grounds first that the Sacrament is an image or resemblance of the body and blood of Christ and therefore secondly that we must beléeue and professe the same of Christ himselfe that we do of his image Which both tend to this conclusion that as the Sacrament is a diuine and heauenly thing of excellent grace and vertue so that by it we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet there ceaseth not to be the substance of bread wine so Christ as touching his manhood is aduanced to most high excellency and maiestie by the vniting thereof vnto the Godhead into one person so that as man he is honoured adored of all creatures and all knées must bow vnto him and whatsoeuer was done or suffered by Christ as man is sayd to haue bene done and suffered by God and yet there ceaseth not to be in him the very true substance and nature of man z Gelas cont Euty chen Nestor Surely saith he the Sacraments which we receiue of the hodie and blood of Christ are a diuine thing by reason whereof we are by them made partakers of the diuine nature yet there ceaseth not to be the substance or