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
bodie that he set vpon the signe the name of his bodie that he honoured the mysticall signes with the name of his bodie and blood not chaunging their nature but adding grace vnto nature that the holie foode is the signe and figure of the body and blood of Christ And in this dialogue againe that the mystical signes of the bodie and blood of Christ are offered to God by the priests of God that the mysticall signes do represent the true bodie that they are the image and figure of Christs bodie and maketh a manifest difference betwixt the bodie it selfe and the mysticall signe which is called the bodie By all which spéeches he declareth that the mysticall signes are truly bread and wine yet by consecration made figures of the bodie and blood of Christ and called by the name of the bodie and blood of Christ as Sacraments are wont to be called by yâ— name of the things whereof they are Sacraments to lift vp our mindes from the beholding of the visible elements to the consideration of the thinges signified by them as Theodoret in the first Dialogue sheweth And therefore the Priest hath not in his hands the reall bodie of Christ to offer vp vnto God but only the mysticall signes which represent the bodie so that both Transubstantiation and reall presence and reall sacrifice are all ouerthrowne by Theodorets iudgement Now whereas the Answ vrgeth that we receiue the bodie and blood of Christ Theodoret indeed saith that he beléeueth that he is made a partaker thereof in receiuing the Sacrament We beleeue the same and it is our singular comfort But this receiuing of Christ is not really by the mouth into the bodie but spiritually by faith into the soule We say with the ancient Fathers that this food is not the food of the belly but of the mind not for the téeth to chew but for the conscience to be refreshed with S. Austen checketh that conceit of bodily eating e Aug in Ioh. â—â— 25. Why preparest thou thy teeth thy belly Beleeue thou hast eaten f ibid. tr 2â— For to beleeue in Christ this is saith he to eate the bread of life And acknowledging no other reall presence of Christ whereby we may receiue him and eate him but only in heauen he maketh one to demand of him g ibid tr 50. How shall I take hold of him being absent how shall I put vp my hand to heauen to take hold of him there Whereto he answereth Send vp thy faith and thou hast laid hold of him plainly confessing that there is no bodily presence of Christ here but that by faith he is to be receiued sitting in heauen That which the Answ further vrgeth of adoration is friuolous vnlesse he could shew it to be meant of diuine or godly honour that is which is proper vnto God Theodoret plainly referreth it to the mysticall signes but to giue diuine honour or adoration to mystical signes or to formes of bread and wine is manifest idolatrie The word of adoration here vsed by Theodoret is verie often vsed by the seuen interpreters in the Gréeke and by the vulgar Latine interpreter also not only for diuine adoration but also for ciuill worship And this diuerse signification h Aug. Quaest in Gen. lib. 1. cap. 61. S. Austen noteth vpon that which is written coÌ„cerning Abraham that i Gen 2â— 7. he adored the Princes of the Hittites as the Latine translation speaketh It is néedlesse to vse many proofes hereof séeing the Answ maisters the k Rhe. â—â—no tat Act. 1â— 25 Rhemists confesse that this word of adoration doth not alwaies note diuine worship but is commonly vsed in the scriptures towards men So the glose of the Canon law maketh a construction of adoration by which we may as it is there said l De conse dist 3. cap. â—â—nâ—rabâ—les Adore any sacred or holie thing or m Thom. Aquin 22. q 8. aâ— â— any excellent creature as Thomas Aquinas saith which adoration they expound by hauing reuerence thereof Therefore Theodoret referring adoration to the mysticall signes must not straightwaies be taken to vnderstand diuine honour and worship but only importeth a religious and holy regard and reuerence to be had thereof as being not now common bread and wine but diuine and heauenly mysteries sanctified by the word and spirit of God to most excellent and singular vse Which reuerence S. Austen ascribeth not only to the Lords Supper but also to the n Aug. de doct Chr lib. 3. ca 9. Sacrament of Baptisme by the Latine word Venerari So that the Answ can gather nothing out of Theodoret to serue his turne Wheras he further saith that Christ calleth nothing by a wrong name c. he sheweth his folly and péeuish ignorance Signes and Sacraments are vsually called by the names of the things whereof they are signes though in substance they be not the same and therefore are wrong named in respect of the substance but rightly and truly named in respect of the signification o 1 Cor. 10 2. The rock was Christ saith S. Paul He saith not saith p Idem quaest sup Leâ—it â—7 S. Austen The rocke signified Christ but speaketh as if it were Christ which yet was not he in substance but in signification Nothing is more vsuall either in sacred or prophane writings then thus to speake without transubstantiating one thing into another Christ saith that he is the vine and his father the husbandman must Christ therefore néeds be turned into a vine and the father into a husbandman He saith that we are his shéepe are we therefore turned into shéepe This must néeds follow if it be true which the Answ fondly speaketh of the misnaming of things But this is taken out of his blinde deuotions and serueth him as a reason wherby to seduce in corners silly and ignorant soules O saith he ye may not thinke that Christ will misname any thing and therefore when he called bread his bodie without doubt he turned it into his bodie Meane knowledge wil teach any man that this is but fond and childish trifling And thus much of Theodoret. Now that which was further added in my former discourse out of Austen Irenaeus for declaring and iustifying that which was spoken by Gelasius and Theodoret the Answ slily passeth ouer as being too manifest for him to cauill at But partly it hath alreadie and partly it will by and by méete with him againe P. Spence Sect. 13. YOur secundum quendam modum out of Saint Augustine ad Bonifacium epist 23. affirmeth the Sacrament of Christs bodie to be his bodie but the maner is the point for he was a S. Austen speaketh not of a maner of reall being but of a maner and forme of speaking and signifying See the Answere visible and passible on the earth in heauen in Maiestie in the Sacrament sacramentally and inuisibly but yet truly As for the examples vsed in
office of Priesthood doth he execute who offered himselfe once and doth not offer sacrifice any more And how can it be that he should both sitte and yet execute the office of a Priest to offer sacrifice As it séemed strange to them that Christ should offer himselfe still in sacrifice yet withall sit at the right hand of God so no lesse strange séemeth it vnto vs and therefore we cannot beléeue the one because the Apostle hath taught vs against that to beléeue the other I wil adde onely one place more of Sainct Ambrose as touching this point of the offering of Christ whereby we may sufficiently vnderstand the meaning of the auncient Writers in the vse of the same wordes e Amb. Officlib 1. cap. 48. Now Christ is offered saith he but as man as receiuing or suffering his passion and he offereth himselfe as a Priest that he may forgiue our sinnes Here in an image or resemblance there in trueth where as an Aduocate he pleadeth for vs with the Father Where he sayeth indéede that Christ is offered and offereth himselfe but yet as suffering his passion which he doth not suffer really and therefore is not really offered in sacrifice but onely in a mystery Therefore he saith he is here offered not verily and in trueth as if his very body were here to be offered but in an image or reseÌ„blance by these signes which betoken his body and bloud For as Oecumenius saith out of Gregory f Oecumen in Heb. 10. The image containeth not the trueth though it be a manifest imitation of the trueth And therefore if the offering of Christ here on the earth be in an image then it is not in the very trueth As for the trueth of his body and bloud he telleth vs that it is not in earth but in Heauen where he offereth himselfe not by reall sacrifice but by presenting coÌ„tinually vnto his father in our behalfe that body wherein he was once sacrificed and thereby as by a continuall sacrifice making intercession to God for vs which he opposeth by pleading for vs as an Aduocate with the Father And therefore doeth Oecumenius expound g Oecumen in Heb. 8. that sacrificing of himselfe in Heauen to be nothing else but his making intercession for vs. For h Heb. 9. 24. his appearing in the sight of God for vs and sitting with the Father clothed with our flesh is as Theophylact noteth i Theophy in Heb. 7. a kinde of intercession to God in our behalfe as if the flesh it selfe did intreate God Therefore our offering of Christ standeth onely in this that by those mysteries of his body and bloud which he hath ordained for commemoration of his death and by our faith and prayers we doe as it were present vnto God the Father his sonne Iesus Christ sitting at the right hand of God in that body wherein hée was crucified for vs crauing for his sake as thus crucified for vs yâ— forgiuenesse of all our sinne So Christes offering of himselfe is nothing else but his continuall presence in the sight of God for vs in that body which he gaue to death for our sinnes by which euen as effectually as by vocall wordes he is saide k Heb. 12. 24. to speak good things for vs and to intreate God that he will be mercifull vnto vs. And this vndoubtedly is the vtermost that the fathers meant in al those spéeches of offering and sacrifice wherewith the Papistes would abuse vs. To be short the euidence of Scripture is against all sacrifice for sinne They bring no euidence of Scripture for it Some places indéede they alleadge but in no other manner then the olde Heretickes were wont to alledge the scriptures for defence of their heresies There is nothing to be séene in the places themselues to that purpose for which they are alleaged but we must rest onely vppon those constructions and collections which it pleaseth them to make thereof Against the euidence of scripture they except with a blinde distinction that hath no grounde from the holie Scripture and that which is there generally denyed they restraine without anye warrant to a particular manner Christ is not to be offered after his once offering as the scripture teacheth True say they not in that maner as he was once offered but in another maner he may We require it out of the scripture Otherwise we may haue all assertions of faith and religion impiously deluded For with as great reason when we say there is but one God it may be answered that in that maner as he is God there is but one but in another maner there are many when we saie there is but one redéemer it may be answered that in that maner as he is redéemer there is but one but in another maner there be many nay when it is sayd that Christ died but once as it is sayd he was offered but once why may it not as wel be said that in that maner as he died once he dieth no more but in another maner he dieth often as that he is offered no more indéed in that maner as he was offered before but in another maner he is offered often Therfore this licentious and presumed distinction is ioyned with impietie against God and serueth to giue a mocke to all the wordes of God and for this cause is to be detested of vs beside that it is as hath bene before shewed manifestly contradicted by the word of God Much more might here be added to shew the villany and abhomination of the sacrifice of the Masse But it shall suffice for my purpose to haue added this to that that I had sayd before where notwithstanding this matter was manifestly inough declared to satisfie the Answ had he bene as carefull to know the truth as he is wilfull to continue in his errour For do not the places which I alleaged before out of the Fathers exclude all reall offering sacrificing of Christ I will once againe set them downe particularly as thornes in the Answ eyes who being in his owne conscience ouercome with them answereth nothing distinctly but séeketh to go away in a mist of general words and because he can say nothing to the purpose thinketh it inough to say that none of these testimonies maketh against their sacrificing of Christ A pretie kind of answering and very agréeable to that that I alleaged before out of the Index But first l Chrysost â— Ambros in Heb. â—0 Chrysostome and Ambrose purposely speaking of the sacrifice of the church say thus We offer not another sacrifice but alwaies the same or rather we worke the remembrance of a sacrifice It is absurd to vse correction of spéech where the truth of yâ— thing is fully answerable already to the proper signification of the words For correction of spéech is a reuersing of that which is alreadie set downe as being hardly or not so fully or fitly spoken and therefore putteth in stéed thereof
fantasticall body of Christ we read onely of a true and substantiall body wherein he is like vnto vs wherein hée sitteth at the right hand of God g August Ep ad Darda 57. in Ioh. tr 30. in some one place of heauen as S. Austen noteth and is there conteined by reason of the maner of a true body vntill hée come to iudge the quicke and the dead at which time he shal come in the same forme and substance of his body in which he went from hence to which we beleeue he hath giuen immortalitie but hath not taken from it the nature of a body yâ— it should be any where in that maner as yâ— Answ and his fellowes Marcion-like do teach We say as Vigilius also saith h 〈…〉 con 〈◊〉 the flesh of Christ when it was vpoÌ„ the earth was not in heauen and now because it is in heauen surely it is not on the earth As for the words which he alleageth I maruell how he can make them good to be S. Austens In all S. Austens works extant they are not found They are cited out of the sentences of Prosper and there they are not Beda hath many fragmentes of Austen but not a word of this i L 〈…〉 de sacra Eucha Lanfrancus vseth them as his owne wordes without any quotation of Austen and that writing against Berengarius where he would surely haue countenanced them with the name of Austen if they had béen his The trueth is for ought that I can perceiue Lanfrancus is the authour of them and they are his ilfauoured answere to Berengarius his allegation of S. Austens words which we haue now in hand Yet because Gratian by errour hath made S. Austen the reputed father of them mistaking be like Austen for Lanfrancus as very oftentimes he is found to put the names of Austen and others to those things which they neuer spake I wil doe the Answe that curtesie to take them for S. Austens words onely so that he wil not make S. Austen in this point to be at bate with himselfe First therefore according to the doctrine of S. Austen and all others who haue defined what sacraments be they are alwaies k Aug decate chiâ—rud ca. 26. visible signes and therefore to be discerned with the sense For l De dâ—ct C 〈…〉 l. 2. cap 1. a signe saith the same S. Austen is a thing which beside the shew that it offereth to the senses causeth by it somewhat else to come into the minde and vnderstanding In sacramentes therefore being signes m â—x ser ad infan Beda 1. Cor. 10. CoÌ„â— Maximi Aria lib. 3. cap. 22. one thing is seene another thing is vnderstoode by that which is séene therefore againe doth he call the sacrament n In Iohan. tra 80. a visible word because the visible creature being consecrated to the sacramentall vse doth in the vse thereof after a sorte set before our eyes that which the word of God deliuereth to our eares yea and doth as it were speake vnto vs also to admonish and put vs in minde of the things thereby so signified Now S. Austen doth verie precisely put difference o De consecr di 2. cap. Hoc est betwixt the sacrament which is the visible signe and the thing or matter of the sacrament p In Ioh. tr 26 so that in diuersitie of sacramentes yet the matter of the sacrament that is the thing signified may be the same and q Ibid. a man may be partaker of the sacrament or signe and yet haue no benefite at all of the thing signified Notwithstanding by reason of that relation which by the word of God is wrought betwixt the sacramental signe and the thing thereby signified r Epist 23. in quaest super Leuit. q. 75. the signe or sacrament as hath béen before said doth vsually take vnto it the name of the thing signified as Å¿ De consecr dist 2. cap. vtrum sub Gratian noteth againe vnder S. Austens name that the name of the bodie of Christ is giuen not onely to the verie bodie but also to the figure thereof which is outwardly perceiued But what shall we take this figure of the body to be by S. Austens iudgement Marry saith hée t Ex ser ad infan Beda 2. Cor. 10. that which you see is bread as your eyes also tell you which words the Answe hath left vnanswered as also the other v De conse dist 2. cap. Hoc est that the sacrament conteineth the nature and trueth of the visible element But by those wordes S. Austen referreth vs to our eyes and willeth vs to beléeue our eyes that it is verily bread Now then séeing that by his iudgment a sacrament is a visible signe and the visible signe in the Lordes supper is bread how may it stand with his doctrine that the flesh couered in the forme of bread is a sacrament of the flesh the bloud vnder the forme of wine is a sacrament of the bloud and that by the inuisible flesh is signified the visible body of Christ Surely if we take flesh to signifie truely and properly flesh this standeth not with S. Austens grounds For séeing flesh is not visible in the sacrament neither is there any appearance thereof to the sense nay it is called héere inuisible flesh it cannot be said to be a sacrament that is a visible thing Therefore we must séeke another meaning of the wordes flesh and bloud according to the other rule whereby the outward elementes take vnto them the names of the thinges represented by them By flesh and bloud then we vnderstand the visible elements which are called by these names and that not onely for that they doe signifie the true flesh and bloud of Christ but also as w August ser ad inâ—an aâ—ud Bed 1. cor 10. touching the spirituall fruite as S. Austen speaketh in x Ambros de sacram lib. 6. cap. 1. grace and vertue as saith saint Ambros y Cypria de caena d 〈…〉 de resuâ— chri concerning the inuisible efficiencie and vertue as Cyprian speaketh are the same to the faith of the receiuer according to that which Gratian saith concerning a prayer of the Church crauing to receiue the trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ that some not z De consâ—cr dist 2 cap. species without probable reason did expound that trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ to be the verie efficiencie or working thereof that is the forgiuenesse of sinnes Now because the visible element which is thus called flesh is no such thing in outward appearance neither hath anie shew of this vertue therefore it is said to be flesh couered in the forme of bread inuisible spirituall a matter of vnderstanding For sacramentes conteine those thinges which they conteine not openly but couertly not in appearance of the thinges themselues but vnder the signes of the visible
forsooth Gelasius must forget what he hath to proue and must say for you that the Sacrament is nothing but a signe and then howe serueth it for an argument against Eutyches if it be but bare brad in one nature onely whereas if you looke vpon the whole testimonie of Gelasius as I set it downe largely to you you shall see yea with halfe an eye that the meaning of these wordes An image and similitude of the body and bloud of the Lord is performed in the celebration of the mysteries is no other but this that his being in the Sacrament both in a diuine substance as himselfe tolde you and also ioyned with the naturall properties of bread is a figure and resemblance of his two natures remaining in heauen vnconfused Thus you care not howe foolishly you make the authour to speake so he affoord you wordes and sillables to make a shew Looke vpon Gelasius and bethinke your selfe I haue answered him at large Looke a in the end and there you shall find it because it was written before yours came to my hand I was loth to write it againe in his orderly place for that writing is somwhat painfull to my weake head and yeares Wherefore I craue you to beare with me in that matter R. Abbot 19. THe wordes of Gelasius are these An a Gelas cont Euty Nestor image or resemblance of the bodie and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries or sacraments Héereby Gelasius giueth to vnderstand that the sacrament is not the verie bodie of Christ but the image and resemblance of his body It is more plaine by that which he addeth We must therfore think the same of Christ himselfe which we professe in his image that is to say in the Sacrament Marke how he distinguisheth Christ himselfe and the image of Christ The Sacrament therefore which is the image of Christ is not Christ himselfe Thus the wordes themselues doe manifestly giue that for which I alleaged them But the Answ telleth me that I alleage Gelasius héere contrarie to his owne meaning euen by mine own confession How may that be Forsooth I would before haue Gelasius his drift to be that as Christ is in heaueÌ„ in two natures so héere vpon the earth in the sacrament is bread with the body and so both in heauen and héere would haue two seuerall natures but nowe in this place I would haue the Sacrament to be nothing but a signe and bare bread in one nature onely But hée knoweth that he speaketh vntrueth both in the one and in the other Of the former he himselfe hath acquited me before saying b Sect. 9. you would haue the Sacrament a memorie of Christ as though hee were absent Then belike I would not haue the bodie of Christ really present héere vpon the earth in the Sacrament Of the other I acquited my selfe in that very place which he taketh vpon him to answer For I added immediately vpon the alleaging of those words thus Yet are not the Sacraments naked bare signes as you are wont hereupon to cauill but substantiall and effectuall signs or seales rather assuring our faith of the things sealed therby and deliuering as it were into our hands and possession the whole fruite benefit of the death and passion of Iesus Christ To answere him to both in a word thus I say that as the water of Baptisme doth sacramentally imply the blood of Christ though the blood of Christ be in heauen so likewise the bread and wine in the Lordes Supper do sacramentally imply the bodie and blood of Christ though the same bodie and blood be in heauen and not vpon the earth And therefore neither did I before say nor do now that the Sacrament consisteth of two natures really being vpon earth but of bread and wine being on earth and the bodie and blood of Christ being in heauen the one receiued by the hand of the bodie the other only by the hand of the soule which only reacheth vnto heauen Againe as water in Baptisme is not therefore bare water because the blood of Christ is not there really present so no more is the bread of the Lords table bare bread although there be no reall presence of the bodie but it doth most effectually offer and yéelde vnto the beléeuing soule the assurance of the grace of God and of the forgiuenesse of sinnes That which he further addeth as touching the drift and purpose of Gelasius how lewdly it peruerteth his wordes and maketh them to serue fully for the heresie of Eutyches against which Gelasius writeth I haue declared before and so well haue I bethought my selfe héereof as that I doubt I may in that behalfe charge the Answ conscience with voluntarie and wilfull falshood and desperate fighting against God Pet. Spence Sect. 20. YOur terme of Seales applied to the Sacraments is done to an ill purpose to make the Sacramentes no better then the Iewes Sacramentes were To handle that matter would require a greater discourse which willingly I let passe But yet I must tel you that the said opinion is verie derogatorie to the a Vntrueth for the passioÌ„ of christ hath had his effect from the beginning of the world effect of Christes passion of the which the Sacraments of Christes Church take a farre more effectuall vertue then the Iewes Sacraments did Read our treatises of that matter for I list not to runne into that disputation R. Abbot 20. HE disliketh that I call the Sacramentes Seales Yet héere his owne conscience could tell him that we make not the Sacrament bare bread and wine as he and his fellows maliciously cauill Though waxe of it selfe bâ— but waxe yet when â—◠〈◊〉 with the Princes signeâ— it is treason to offer despight vnto it So whatsoeuer the bread and wine be of themselues yet when they are by the word of God as it were stamped and printed to be Sacramentes and seales it is the perill of the soule to abuse them or to come vnreuerently vnto them But why is not the terme of sâ—ales to be approoued in our sacraments Surely S. Austen calleth them visible a August lib. de catechâ—z â—ud ca. 26. hom 50. de v. Tit. poenâ—t Seales and why then is it amisse in vs Forsooth because it maketh our sacraments no better then the sacraments of the Iewes Indéede our Sacramentes are in number sewer for obseruation more easie in vse more cleane in signification more plaine and through the manifest reuelation of the Gospell more méete to excite and stirre vp our faith and in these respects they are better then the sacraments of the Iewes but as touching inward and spirituall grace they are both the same neither is there in that respect any reason to affirme our sacramentes to be better then theirs For they did b 1 Cor. 10. â— eate the same spirituall meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke that we doe The same I say that we
place he putteth me in minde to answere him with a saying of Luther Hoc scio pro certo quod si cum stercore certo Vinco vel vincor semper ego maculor But to the matter The b Timothean August de 〈…〉 e. ad 〈◊〉 in â—ine heretickes as S. Austen reporteth affirmed that the godhead of Christ was really changed into the manhoode This they would prooue by the wordes of the Gospell The word was made flesh which they expounded thus The diuine nature is turned or transubstantiated into the nature of man In like sort the Answ and some other cogging marchants of his part single out the wordes of Tertullian Christ made the bread his body and will needes haue vs to beleeue thereby that the bread is really turned and transubstantiated into the bodie of Christ They both argue alike vpon the word made For answere hereof I shewed how Tertullian expoundeth his owne meaning by these wordes that is to say a figure of his bodie Further I said that that phrase or maner of spéech Christ made the bread his bodie doth not enforce any Transubstantiation Which I shewed by comparing therewith the verie like spéech or phrase before alleaged out of the Gospell c Ioh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh For as it was absurdly gathered by the Timotheans that because the word was made flesh therefore it ceased to be the word so as fondly is it gathered by the Papists of Tertullians words that because the bread is made the bodie of Christ therfore it ceaseth to be bread The one enforceth not for the Timothean any transubstantiation of the word therefore neither doth the other for the Papist any transubstantiation of the bread The spéeches are like The word was made flesh the bread is made the bodie of Christ Now hath he not sent me a worthy answere to this The words of S. Iohn saith he what proue they touching the Sacrament What argument is this The word was made flesh the sense is the word assumpted flesh vnto it And it is not to be taken as the words do sound therefore this text This is my bodie is not to be taken as the words import A verie mightie vpstantiall argument Nay a very pithie sound answere and worthie to be registred in Vaticano I make a comparison betwixt the words of S. Iohn and the words of Tertullian and he answereth me of a comparison betwixt the words of Iohn the words of Christ How many mile to London A poke full of plummes Yet as a childe plaieth with a counter in stéed of a péece of gold so he delighteth himselfe in a rascall shift as if he had made a verie substantiall answere But sée yet further the extreame folly and ignorance of this man It is saith he as if you should reason thus I am the vine is a figuratiue speech therefore I am the light of the world is a figuratiue spéech And what is it not by a figure that Christ is called the light of the world Surely Christ is the light in respect of the darknesse of the world Séeing therefore darknesse is vnderstood figuratiuely in the world a man would thinke that that which is called light as opposite to this darknesse should be so called by a figure Light is properly a sensible qualitie and darkenesse the p 〈…〉 tion therof and both haue relation to the bodily eye They are by a Metaphore applied to the soule and so is Christ called light euen as he is elsewhere called d Mal 4. 2. The sunne of righteousnesse not properly I trow but by a figure vnlesse the Answ be of the Manichees minde who as Theodoret saith would sometimes say that e Theodo haerâ—t faâ—ul lib. â— Christ was the verie sunne Now therefore séeing that Christ is no otherwise called the light of the world then he is called a vine a yoong boy in the Vniuersitie will easily finde a Topicke place in Aristotle to prooue that this argument holdeth very well Christ is called a vine by a figure therefore he is also called the light of the world by a figure Further he saith But I pray you sir is this saying The world was made flesh like to This is my bodie I answere him Truly sir no. But yet these are like The word was made flesh and the bread is made the bodie of Christ as transubstantiation of the word cannot be proued by the one so transubstantiation of the bread cannot be proued by the other Whereas he demandeth whether bread stil remaining do assumpt vnto it Christes bodie into one person his question is idle I haue answered before that the vnion of Christ with the Sacrament is not personall or reall as he vnderstandeth reall but relatiue and sacramentall as in Baptisme also it is But as the word remaineth being personally vnited to the flesh so the bread remaineth being sacramentally vnited vnto Christ That which he saith of Luther is false Luther did not teach that the bodie of Christ was ioyned into one person with the bread But now I wish him to bethinke himselfe who it is that careth not what he say so that he say somewhat Now for further declaration of the words of Tertullian I alleaged a saying of S. Austen Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his bodie and blood which also he hath made vs and by his mercy we are the same that we receiue Wheras the Answ saith that the first part of this sentence serueth very wel for him it is but like the dotage of the melancholy Athenian We say with S. Austen that Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his bodie and blood yet not being on earth to be receiued by the mouth but f August in Ioh. tr â—0 Sitting in heauen to be receiued by faith But as Tertullian said Christ made the bread his bodie so here Austen saith Christ hath made vs his bodie and blood The maner of spéech is here also alike and therefore I inferred hereof that Tertullians words do no more proue yâ— the bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ then S. Austens do proue that there is a transubstantiatioÌ„ of vs into the bodie of Christ That which I excepted as touching those words Yet wee are not transubstantiated into the bodie of Christ the Answ falsifieth and peruerteth thus yet we are not transubstantiated into the Sacrament This is the faithfulnesse that he vseth But what answere maketh he Forsooth it would aske a long discourse to answere me and therefore he hath thought good not to answere me at all For as for that which he saith it serueth directly for me We are become one with Christ saith he let him speake as S. Austen speaketh we are made the bodie of Christ not by being transubstantiated into him but by being ioyned vnto him So say we that the bread is made the bodie of Christ not by being transubstantiated into his bodie but by hauing tied vnto it
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
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
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
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
Christ there is no more any offering for sin and therefore there is no true sacrifice in the Masse Nay saye the Rhemistes the texte meaneth that there is no second Baptisme to apply vnto vs a generall pardon or full forgiuenesse of sinnes contrary to the euidence of the text to the light of their owne consciences to the manifest expositions of the auncient Fathers Chrysostome Oecumenius Photius Theodoret Theophylact Primasius Ambrose as before I alleaged who all according to the drift of the text expound it against any further offering or sacrifice for sinne after that once offering vpon the Crosse Yea and it must necessarily be so vnderstood because the Apostle hereby concludeth against the many often offered sacrifices of the Iewes Which conclusion maketh nothing against their offerings or sacrifices vnlesse we vnderstand offering properly For what were it against their sacrificing that the Apostle should say there is no second baptisme to apply vnto vs full forgiuenesse of sins Now séeing this absurd vnreasonable glose of the Rhemists wil not serue turne neither could the Answ for shame write it thogh they were not ashamed to print it what other answer may we looke for at his hands Good sir saith he why dreame you that we thinke or professe to â—ley and crucifie Christ in our Masses His death was once and that once sufficient for euer and he dieth no more and then where is your obiection To whom I say againe Good sir my obiection hath not any sillable to charge you with affirming of Christes dying any more but proueth that after the once dying of Christ there is no more sacrifice for sinne and therefore that your Masse doth lie in taking vpon it to be a true propitiatorie sacrifice and then where is your answere Why did not your courage serue to make a direct answere to that that was opposed and if you could not answere why did not conscience preuaile with you to make you yeeld to the truth I prooue that there is now no more offering for sinne and he returneth me a sléeuelesse tale that they say not that Christ dieth any more and so runneth on to declare vnto me what maner of sacrifice it is which they offer which by the reason alleaged by me is ineuitably proued to be none at all If Christes bodie be really offered for sinne euery day in the Masse then there is yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an offering for sin But the Apostle saith that there is not now an offring for sinne Therefore Christ is not now any longer offered for sinne And therefore although the bodie of Christ be yet really remaining in heauen d Râ—m â— â— being raised from the dead to die no more and the same bodie be sometimes termed in our spéech the sacrifice for sinne yet is it not so called as hauing now the condition of a sacrifice for sin or as if it were now to be offered any more but only in respect that it was sacrificed once and by the vertue of that once sacrificing e Heb â— 2 appeareth in the sight of God for vs. In a word it is no otherwise so called but as Christ in the Reuelation is called the knobe not to be killed but f Apoc. 5. 6. 9. 12. that was killed and as the same bodie of Christ shall be called the sacrifice for sinne after the ende of the world when as the Saints of God shall thankfully record the sacrificing thereof thus g Apoc. 5. 9. Thou wast killed and hast redeemed vs to God by thy bloud out of euerie nation c. The end and vse of offering for sinne is to take away sinne to obtein remission of sinnes to sanctifie those that come vnto it Now when this end of offering for sinne is atchieued there is no further vse of an offering for sinne So that if the sacrifices of the old law h Heb. 10. 1. 2. had sanctified the commers thereunto they should after once offering haue ceased to bee offered as the Apostle telleth vs importing thereby that that sacrifice which doth sanctifie the commers thereunto as doth i cap. 10. 10. the bodie of Christ once offered néedeth not to be offered any more but that once And hereupon it is that he inferreth that séeing remission of sinnes is obteined by the offering of Christs bodie once therefore thenceforth there is no more offering for sinne neither of Christes bodie nor of any other thing because there is no ende or vse therof euen as when k Chrysost in Heb. 10. ho. 17. Ambros in Hebr. 10. a man hath gotten a medicine to heale his hurt it is néedlesse for him to séeke any other either of the same substance or of any other And therefore hereby he resolueth against all whether Heathenish or Iewish or Popish sacrificing for sinne as being to no ende or purpose because the ende of offering for sinne which is remission of sinnes is atteined alreadie by the death and bloodsheading of Iesus Christ And vnlesse we will vnderstand offering for sinne simply and vniuersally without exception and without that determining of it to any one sort of offering which the Answ vseth in tying it vnto Christes suffering and dying we betraie this whole disputation into the hands of the Iewes and Heathens as making nothing against their sacrificing for sin because it only proueth that Christ dieth no more not that there is no more offering for sinne But the Apostle would deny not only Christs dying any more but also all maner of Iewish and Heathenish offering for sinne Therefore the words must be absolutely and vniuersally vnderstood of offering for sinne after the once dying of our Lord Iesus Yet further let me tell him that if he will affirme the often offering of Christ he must say also that Christ often suffereth and is slaine For throughout the whole scripture he cannot alleage one place where the offering or sacrificing of Christ is otherwise vnderstood then of his death and passioÌ„ And this is plainly euicted out of the 9. to the Hebrues where the Apostle saith that Christ l He. 9. 25. 26. is entered into heauen to appeare now in the sight of God for vs not to offer himselfe often for then saith he he should haue often suffered since the foundation of the world Which reason of the Apostle hath no force at all if there be any other offering of Christ but only by suffering and death Which also is manifest out of the law of Moses where there was no offering or sacrifice of propitiation but by slaughter and bloodshead and where there was no sheading of blood there was no forgiuenesse as the m Heb. 9. 22. Apostle witnesseth Now séeing there is no sacrifice of propitiation in the newe Testament which was not prefigured in the lawe which the Apostle saith n Heb. 10. 1. had the shadow of the good things that were to come and the law prefigured none but sacrifice by
Remission of sinnes is perfectly wrought and obtained by the once offering of Christ vpon the Crosse therefore after the once offering of Christ vpon the Crosse all offering or sacrifice for sinne is vaine and therefore it is none at all As for that which the Answ excepteth that remission of sinnes doth come by Baptisme repentance praier c. And yet wée doe not thereby exclude Christes death intending thereby as it séemeth that it followeth not that Christes death is excluded though remission of sinnes be affirmed to be wrought by the sacrifice of the Masse it is a friuolous and vaine shifte For what comparison is there betwixt the sacrifice which it selfe is defended to be a propitiation for sinne and repentance faith praier baptisme which doe not themselues worke forgiuenesse of sinnes but onely serue vs to receiue forgiuenesse of sinnes wrought onely by the death and bloudshedding of Iesus Christ As hunger prouoketh a man to desire meate so repentance stirreth him to séeke forgiuenesse of sinnes As a man craueth meate to relieue his hunger so praier craueth the forgiuenesse of sinnes As in a vessell meate is set before a man and offered vnto him so God in the word and Sacraments though in other sort setteth before vs and offereth vnto vs the effect of the bloud of Christ to the forgiuenesse of sinnes As the hande and mouth receiue the meate to the satisfying of hunger and comfort of the body so faith receiueth the benefite of Christes bloud to the forgiuenesse of sinnes But as neither the desire of meate nor the crauing for meate nor the vessell wherein meate is offered nor the hand and mouth that receiueth the meate haue themselues any vertue to féed the body but the force thereof belongeth onely to the meate so neither repentance nor praier nor the sacraments nor faith haue any vertue themselues of the remission of sinnes but onely are either occasions of séeking or meanes of offering and receiuing the death and passion of Christ to which only and entirely in it selfe is to be attributed the forgiuenesse of our sinnes Neither is it any other but a fantasticall toy which the Answ imagineth that these by an influence as he speaketh of the passion of Christ haue in themselues the efficiency of the forgiuenesse of sins in like maner if at least he will giue me leaue to expresse his minde by a comparison as the aire being warmed by the fire warmeth the body wherunto it is applied A méere deuise of Satan that men whilest they séek for forgiuenesse of sinnes where it is not may faile of it where it is and whilest they follow after a shadow by these deuises of influence from the bloud of Christ may misse of the substance in Iesus Christ himselfe The Scripture hath not taught vs that either our repentance or praiers or faith or sacraments are propitiations for our sinnes and therefore it is but a fonde shifte to gather from hence any maintenance for the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mosse I resolue therefore as before that séeing Christ Iesus by one offering hath perfected vs as touching the propitiation and attonement for our sinnes there is not now remaining any manner of offering whatsoeuer for propitiation of sinne But to goe somewhat further in this matter séeing they will néedes haue vs to beléeue a reall offering of the bodye of Christ what Priest will they appoint vs to offer the same Forsooth vnder pretence that this is r Concil Trident sessi 6. cap. 1. a cleane offering and such as cannot be defiled by the vnworthinesse of him that offereth they will haue vs to beléeue that euery varlet Priest comming blowing from the Alehouse or sweating from the stewes hath Christ at his becke to bring him from Heauen euery morning as ofte as hee list to offer him vp for the forgiuenesse of whose sinnes it pleaseth him But we will not beléeue this because the Scripture nameth vnto vs in this behalfe but one onely Priest which is ſ Heb. 3. 1. the high Priest of our profession one which is t Cap. 7. 26. holy harmelesse vndefiled seperated from sinners made higher then the heauens And séeing it maketh this difference betwixt the Priesthood of the law the Priesthood of Christ u Cap. 7 26. that the law maketh men high Priests that haue infirmity but the worde of the othe maketh the sonne who is consecrated for euer opposing Christ the sonne of God the Priest of the newe Testament to men of infirmity that were Priests by the law either this difference is idle and without ground and men of infirmity are Priests as wel in the Priesthood of Christ as in the priesthood of the lawe or else al men that haue infirmity and therefore all Popishe Priests are vtterly excluded from the priesthood of Christ Therfore as the councell of Ephesus saide so say we w Concil Ephes Epist ad Nestor We assigne not the name and office of priesthood to any other man but to Christ For he is made the mediatour betwixt God and man and the reconciler to peace offering himselfe a sacrifice of a sweet smelling sauour to God for vs. Whereas they say for the better countenancing of this their sacriledge that x Rhem. Annot Heb. 7. 23. marg Christ concurreth with the Priests in this action of offering vp himself they spurn at the text of the Scripture which telleth vs that y Heb. 7. 27. Christ needeth not daily to offer vp sacrifice and that hee z Cap. 9. 25. is gone into Heauen to appeare in the sight of God for vs not that he should offer himselfe often Nay when it saieth a Cap. 1. 31. Hauing by himselfe purged our sinnes he sitteth at the right hand of the maiesty in the highest places and againe b cap. 10. 12. This man after he had offered one sacrifice for sinnes sitteth for euer at the right hand of God expecting thenceforth till his foes be made his footestoole it opposeth Christes offering himselfe for sinne to his sitting at the right hand of God making the one a matter of humiliation the other of exaltation the one of infirmity the other of glory And therefore as humiliation and infirmity standeth not with exaltation and glory so the offering of Christ for sinne standeth not with his sitting at the right hand of God the Father This Chrysostome and Theophylact and out of them Oecumenius haue rightly obserued c Oecumen He. 7. ex chrysost in Heb. ◠hom 13. Theophyl ibid. When thou hearest him called the high Priest doe not thinke that he doeth still sacrifice himselfe for sinne For when he had done so once he ascended to his fathers Throne For it belongeth to the Minister and Priest to stand but this sitting signifyeth that he brought sacrifice once euen his owne body and afterward sate downe to be ministred vnto of the heauenly powers So Theodoret also d Theodor. in Hebr. 8. What
of the church mouth and eyes and spirit of the Church next Gods spirit a verie goodly noble and great part of the church far the best and fairest part of the church but their seuerall opinions are not the whole churches doctrine That question hath so many braunches that in this short discourse I cannot touch all the particularities thereof to our treatises therefore I refer you Was Gelasius Pope of Rome how proue it you if we deny it we maruell why you thinke so If he had bene Pope were all his bookes dogmaticke and definitiue b It skilleth not though he did not For Bellarmine telleth vs that it is most probable that the Pope cannot erre in his priuate iudgement It must be an Oracle therfore what soeuer he writeth whether as Pope or as a priuat man did he if he had bene Pope pronounce them pro tribunal◠Did he send them as responsa and decretall epistles Did neuer Popes write bookes and yet not in all points taken for Oracles Aeneas Siluius after he was Pope wrote much so did others You are wide and go astraie far from the state of that question I say no more but view our questions therein Theodoret Gelasius are answered at large whatsoeuer they thought they were far from your minde Theodoret at that time was so partiall as in the controuersie betweene him and Cyrill it appeareth that he was faine to recant ere he could bee reconciled And in these verie Dialogues we can shew you errors yea foule of his It is not vnlikely that hee followed sometimes the counsell that himselfe in the same Dialogues giueth that is to make a crooked wand straight to bend it as much the other way And now sir to come to Gelasius who in euerie point accordeth with Theodoret against the Eutychian heresie first he writeth thus Sapientia aedificauit sibi domum septiformis spiritus soliditate subnixam c. I will English it for the same cause Thus it is Wisedome that is Christ the wisedome of the father hath builded for it selfe an house grounded or leaning vpon the soundnesse of the seuenth fold spirit which should minister the foode or nourishment of Christs incarnation whereby or by which foode we are made partakers of the diuine nature Verily the Sacraments of the bodie blood of Christ which we receiue are a diuine thing for the which cause by the same also are we made partners of the diuine nature and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not to be or looseth not his being vtterly and is anihilated and becommeth nothing and certes in the action or celebration of the mysteries or Sacraments an image or similitude or resemblance of Christs bodie and blood is celebrated or practised It is therefore euident inough shewed vnto vs that we ought to thinke the same thing to bee in Christ our Lorde himselfe which we professe to be which we celebrate and which we receiue in his image he meaneth in the Sacrament that euen as they the Sacrament of bread and wine by the working of the holie Ghost do passe ouer or be chaunged into a diuine substance remaining neuerthelesse in the propertie of their nature right so do they shew that that verie principall mysterie it selfe by which he meaneth Christ God man now being in two natures one person in heauen whom the hereticke Eutyches would haue in heauen to haue lost his manhood and to be but God alone whose efficiencie or perfect nature and vertue they the sayd Sacraments do truly represent the things whereof it properly consisteth it is the two natures of the diuinitie and humanitie in one person still remaining doth remaine and continue one Christ because he is whole and truly being or consisting in his whole and true natures of God and man in one person This testimony of Gelasius might seeme perhaps to make somewhat for a Lutheran because it seemeth to affirme in the B. Sacrament to be two substances a diuine substance bread and wine but the Caluinist lacketh foure of his fiue wits to vrge it which maketh flat against him not only in the verie words but most chiefly in the drift of the argument against Eutyches which by the consideration c His circumstances serue only to blinde the eies of the reader The troubling of the riuer is for the aduantage of the fisher of the circumstances following shall most euidently appeare for that the verie words force of the reason or argument here made do proue Christs bodie to be really present which he denieth Eutyches the Abbot who was condemned in the Chalcedon Councell at which time Gelasius flourished held that our Sauiour Christ his deitie or diuine nature after his ascension into heauen did d As touching the substance not as touching the properties euen as the Papists say of the bread wine consume and anihilate or bring to nothing his humane nature So that by his heresie Christ now shuld be no more man but God alone The truth of the B. Sacrament that therein Christ was really continued was so commonly and firmely beleeued and professed in the holie church e That because neuer any Father taught it the Answerer is driuen to seeke proofe thereof from the heretickes that there were diuerse heretickes that vsed or rather abused the same for an argument pretensedly to confirme their heresies The Maniches to proue that the ill god such was their blasphemous heresie had imprisoned certaine parcels or peeces of the good God in these worldly creatures earthly things alleaged Christ whom they f Vntruth S. Austen doth not graunt it called the good God to be really in the Sacrament but S. Augustine graunting them Christ to be really therein saith hee is there by consecration not by creation or as it were imprisoned So touching our case of Gelasius the Eutychian against whom he wrote held Christ in heauen his humanitie being gone to be only God in like maner as his diuine nature only is in the Sacrament the bread and wine being anihilated and consumed vnto nothing g A leaud tale wholy deuised of the Answ himselfe Eutyches neuer imagined any such matter as shall appeare nothing therein remaining of the substantiall properties or natures of bread and wine but onely Christs diuine nature So certaine a veritie it was then currant in the whole church and to the verie heretickes that Christ is really in the B. Sacrament Whereupon by a similitude or resemblance taken from the Sacrament he wold haue nothing remaining in heauen of Christs humanitie but the same being vanished into nothing his Deitie only there to remain as the bread is cōsumed in the Sacrament Against this similitude Gelasius replieth not denying Christs bodie diuine nature to be really in the Sacrament which was and euer hath bene a generall currant and confessed truth which otherwise had serued his turne much better to deny and thereby had he more readily and directly reiected
and reprooued the argument framed against him by that similitude But confessing that the Sacraments of bread wine do passe ouer and be turned into a diuine substance thereby granting a reall presence of Christ God and man and in effect transubstantiation only he denieth the bread to be anihilated or become nothing or as he termeth it desinere esse to cease from hauing any being at all Before Berengarius neuer any man held that h Vntruth for all the Fathers held the same as shall appear by many of them in that which followeth Christs bodie was not really in the Sacrament nor that the whole substance of bread and wine vnchaunged were in the Sacrament either without anie other substance as Zwinglius and Caluin holde or ioyned togither with Christs bodie by impanacion as Luther held but that the bread and wine by a conuersion were made Christs bodie blood which conuersion in the church of God in the greatest Councell that euer was held called the Laterane Councell where occasion was offered of the full search of the matter by Berengarius heresie by the instinct i Not of the holie Ghost but of the spirit of Sathan to bring in idolâ—try into the Temple of God of the holie Ghost most agreeable to the greatest number and the best learned of the Fathers defined to be by transubstantiation that is the whole substances of bread wine being turned into the whole substance of Christs body and blood his Godhead being ioyned thereto per concomitantiam Yet did Innocentius vnder whom that Councell was holden thus write that though the substance of the bread and wine were changed into Christ yet there remained not only the accidents or accidentall properties but also the naturall properties namely as he there speaketh panietas breadinesse to driue away hunger and vineitas wininesse to driue away thirst and the force or nature of nourishing So that this turning of the bread and wine into Christs bodie was not anihilation or vtter vanishing of the bread as Gelasius denieth not a naturall change as is wrought in naturall conuersions where the same matter remaining vnder both formes only the first forme is changed into an other forme I meane not forma accidentalis but forma essentialis by which things they haue their being and substance neither change of the matter that is vnder the essentiall forme the said essentiall forme remaining but in this wonderfull sacrifice is a most diuine and miraculous change of both the matter and essentiall forme of bread into the whole substance of Christs bodie And that was so established least by ioyning either the matter or the essentiall forme of bread with Christs bodie they should graunt k A waightie consideration verily and fit for the learning of such graue Fathers impersonation that is any substance sauing Christ to be personally vnited with Christ It was not a matter clearly l Christ and his Apostles neuer cleerly defined that there was any transubstantiation defined before the said Councell what kind of conuersion it was neither heresie not to iumpe in iust termes with transubstantiation before that time so that the reall presence were not denied as after Berengarius did nor the substance of bread wholy were affirmed to remaine as neuer any Father said Onely Gelasius to make a resemblance betweene the Sacrament which he calleth an image of Christs being in heauen and Christs two natures in one person in heauen which he termeth in this comparing of them togither the principall mysterie he saith two things first that the Sacrament is a diuine thing by which we are made partners of the diuine nature And that it is so because the Sacrament by the working of the holie Ghost doth passe ouer into a diuine substance What m He must say more or else it will not serue for transubstantiation See the answere more could he haue said for the reall presence or transubstantiation The second thing which to answere and stop the quarrelling hereticke he addeth is that the substance of bread and wine do not cease to be that is to say doth not vtterly perish into nothing but remaineth vnder the chaunge which word Substance he mollifieth and interpreteth by adding or nature of bread and by and by after he calleth it the propertie of the nature of bread where the heretickes for or which is a word interpreting the former haue foysted in substance and nature of bread So that Gelasius meant not that the whole substance of bread remaineth in the Sacrament but that not only the accidentall properties but also the verie essentiall properties as Innocentius before named also set downe of bread and wine do remaine and that was inough against the hereticke And n It may be that Gelasius did deny tâ—ansubstantiation because the church as then knew it not it may be that he being before the generall definition of the church did not much trouble himselfe with the exact search thereof thinking that the same matter or else the same essentiall forme remained in that blessed conuersion but not the whole substance that is the whole essentiall forme and the whole matter And so many in these daies held without heresie as S. Thomas contragentes declareth which now after the churches generall definitioÌ„ were damnable Otherwise if we would vrge the word Substantia in Gelasius and not admit Gelasius his qualification thereof and exposition of his vel natura proprietas naturâ— which euerie Catholicke admitteth this absurditie were too beastly and blasphemous for Gelasius so holy a Father and old fellow that Christs bodie were vnited personally or become one person with the bread so that Christ were one person of three natures the Godhead the manhood the breadhood which is most peeuish blasphemie And for Gelasius to admit o To admit the same to remaine without the substaâ—ce serued fitly and fully for the heresie of Eutyches See the answere the nature or substantiall properties to remaine as himselfe termeth them was inough to stop the Eutychian heretickes mouth who denied any naturall propertie to remaine at all in the Sacrament And therfore thus much is to be noted that the force of the coÌ„parison between Christs being in heauen in the blessed Sacrament is not in this point that in heauen he is in both substance of manhood and Godhead euen as in the Sacrament are two whole substances Christs body the whole substance of bread and wine But the similitude is herein that as in the diuine Sacrament with the verie true bodie of Christ which Gelasius calleth a diuine substance there are conioyned essentiall substantiall and naturall properties of bread and wine Euen so in heauen Christ in one person hath vnited all the naturall and essentiall properties of his two natures the Godhead and the manhood vnconfounded inuiolable whole and distinct which is as much as out of the heretickes obiection of the Sacrament he needed to reply or vrge against him
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
instituting of bread to be the figure of his bodie Let him consider better whether this stand not with good construction to say Christ tooke bread and said therof This is my bodie that is to say a figure of my bodie But it had not bene or it should not haue bene a figure except there were a true bodie But yet he goeth farther Tertullian saith thus If Christ did therefore make bread his bodie because he wanted a true bodie then he should haue giuen the bread for vs. It made for the vanitie of Marcion that bread should be crucified These words saith he haue neither wit nor sense except it be supposed that Christs bodie is really in the Sacrament nay otherwise it must be bread that was crucified for vs. But except his wit and his sense did faile him he might find somwhat els in Tertullians words For stil he calleth the sacrameÌ„t bread putteth differeÌ„ce betwixt the bread that is called yâ— body and the true body it self so reasoneth against Marcion yâ— if Christ had not a true body indéed which he represented by bread in respect thereof called the same bread his body then the bread itselfe must be his bodie and consequently it was bread which was giuen and crucified for vs. But Marcion himselfe would not say that bread was crucified for vs Therefore he must néedes confesse that Christ had a true bodie figured by the bread And thus Tertullians reason against Marcion setteth downe bread in the Sacrament as a figure of Christes body and razeth the foundation of Popish Transubstantiation And this is yet againe plaine by these wordes to which he asketh me what I say that Christ called not a Pepon his body as he should haue done by Marcions opinion who held that Christ had in stéede of a heart a kinde of fruite called a Pepon but hee called bread his body because of the olde Figure namely because the Prophet vsing the name of bread to import the bodie of Christ did thereby prefigure that bread indéed should be appointed to be the figure and signe of the same bodie So that Christ did not renew an olde figure by consecrating or sanctifying the bread to be a figure of his bodie but fulfilled that in the trueth and substance of bread which Tertullian saith was foreshewed by the name of bread Thus much of Tertullians roundly wholly deliuered words where the Answ hath shewed as great folly in enlarging them as some other of his fellowes haue shewed falshood in clipping and paring them But to fill vp the measure of this follie he taketh vpon him by the way to censure Maister Iewell about a place alleaged out of the vnperfect worke vpon Math. Serm. 11. Which he doth in that péeuish and vaine sorte as that he sheweth himselfe to be led wholly with malice without any iudgment or discretion First he misliketh that he did alleage it in Chrisostomes name But why so Is it not as lawfull for maister Iewell or for the Church of England to doe so as it is for the Church of Roome and her followers k Sixt. Sâ—nâ—nâ— bâ—â—lâ—ot sanâ—â— 4 in lâ—â—n Câ—rysâ—st The Church of Rome readeth diuers homilies in their diuine seruice from thence vnder the name of Chrysostome Many sentences and propositions are brought thence vnder his name in the ordinarie gloses in the chaines of the explanations of the Gospels in the decrees of the Bistops of Roome in the Summaries of Diuinitie set forth by Diuines of great name as Sixtus Senensis himselfe a Papist giueth vs to vnderstand Why then should maister Iewell be blamed for alleaging that worke vnder Chrysostomes name when the Church of Roome by her example warranted him so to doe But yet hee will further make vs beléeue that the wordes doe not prooue that for which they are alleaged The wordes are these If l Chrysost in ope imperf hom 11. it be a dangerous matter to transferre holy vessels to priuate vses as Baltasar teacheth vs who drinking in the sacred cups was depriued of his kingdome and his life if then I say it be so dangerous to transferre to priuate vses these sanctified vessels in which is not the true body of Christ but a mysterie of his body is conteined c. Out of which wordes maister Iewell proueth yâ— in the sacred vessels there is not the true body of Christ as the Papistes dreame but onely a mysterie of his body The place is so plaine as nothing can be more plaine Now therefore what sayth the Answ to it Forsooth the authour meant these words of the vessels of the temple of Hierusalem which Nabuchodonosor tooke from thence and not of the vessels of our Christian Churches But what vessels I maruell were those in the temple of Hierusalem which conteined the mysterie of Christes body where did hee euer read or heare of any such Or if he can vnshamefastly face out such a matter how can he imagine that Chrysostome or the author whosoeuer would admonish his auditours that it was daungerous for them to abuse the vessels of the temple of Hierusalem which they neither had nor could haue to abuse Againe he saith not those holy vessels as pointing to the vessels of the temple but expresly these holy vessels vnderstanding them which he had then to vse Againe he saith not wherein was not but wherin is not the true body of Christ nor wherein was conteined but wherein is conteined the mysterie of his bodie All which being referred to the present time do plainly enough shew that hee spake of the vessels that then were present and therefore his wordes are a verie direct and substantiall proofe that in the vessels of Christian temples there is not the true body of Christ but onely a mysterie of his body Yea but there is mention of Baltazar there And what then Surely Baltasar is there brought in to teach vs as the authour speaketh Now what doth the example of Baltasar teach vs not to abuse the vessels of the temple of Hierusalem A senselesse conceite He teacheth vs not to abuse the vessels of our temples and Churches least offending as he did we be punished as he was For there is alwaies the same reason of the vse or abuse of holy thinges and particular examples are alwaies alleaged for confirmation and proofe of generall doctrines Surely the Answ was sodainly awaked out of his dreame when he conceiued this and set his handes to write before he was well aduised what he should write P. Spence Sect. 19. AS I haue dilated at large the meaning of Gelasius so I cannot but wonder at your repeating of him in this place so contrâ—â—ie to his meaning euen by your owne confession You woulde before haue Gelasius drift to be this that as in heauen Christ is in his two natures seuerall the godhead and the manhood so in the Sacrament with his body remaineth the bread thereby to haue hoth in heauen and here two seuerall natures Yet now
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
As for that which he asketh whether Christ doe not giue himselfe verily vnto vs wee say he doth and that wholly with all that is his yet not to be eaten with the mouth as being héere on earth but to be receiued by faith sitting in heauen as I said before out of S. Austen And this is enough for vs to prooue and in proouing wherof we confound that c Supr sect 22. grosse imagination as Cyrill calleth it of eating the fleshe of Christ with the mouth into the belly For that Christ at his supper giueth onely a figure and nothing else we néede not prooue it because it is not our assertion but the Answ cauill and a Popish slaunder As for the meaning of Christes wordes This is my body it is shewed before Christ did not lie to his Disciples nor beguile theÌ„ in so saying His Disciples were no Capernaites they were no Papistes They knew that Christ instituted deliuered a sacrament They knew that sacrameÌ„ts are called by the names of those things which they signifie whereof they had example in the name of the passeouer which they celebrated at the same time calling it the Passeouer which was indéede but a remembronce and signe thereof Therefore they vnderstood the meaning of Christ to be as the ancient Fathers expound it This is a Figure a signe a Sacrament of my bodie They saw the true bodie of Christ before theyr eyes They knewe that Christ had not a bodie at one and the same instant visible and inuisible with forme and without forme sitting at the table and yet inclosed in a little fragment or crust of bread These leaud and vntowardly fancies were not yet bredde They deliuered no such vnto vs and therefore we beléeue no such Let me thus conclude out of these two places this of Austen and that before of Origen He that vnderstandeth a figuratiue spéech according to the letter doth misunderstand it But he that vnderstandeth the eating and drinking of Christs flesh blood concerning the very eating of his flesh and drinking his blood with the mouth vnderstandeth a figuratiue spéech according to the letter Therefore he that so vnderstandeth the eating and drinking of Christs flesh and blood doth misunderstand it But the church of Rome doth so vnderstand it Therefore the Church of Rome doth vnderstand it amisse P. Spence Sect. 25. TO conclude we eate drinke in the blessed Sacrament Christs flesh and blood really truly and indeed but not bodily for so much I will graunt you taking bodily for after a grosse bodily maner but sacramentally figuratiuely and in a diuine mysterie in a figure not a figure of Rhetoricke or of Grammer but in a diuine figure but yet verie truly R. Abbot 25. HEre is now the Answ conclusion set downe without any premisses vpon his bare word namely that in the Sacrament they verily and truly eate and drinke the flesh and blood of Christ But against this presumed conclusion of his I oppose the auncient praier of the Church mentioned by a De corp san do Bertram b De sacr Euch. Lanfrancus and c De conse dist 2. ca. â—pecies Gratian Let thy Sacraments ô Lord worke in vs that which they containe that what we now celebrate in signe or resemblance we may in the truth of the things receiue the same They praied to receiue the truth of the things Of what things Namely of those the signe or resemblance whereof they celebrated in the Sacrament that is of the bodie and blood of Christ Then the Sacrament it selfe is not the truth of the bodie and blood but only the signe the image and resemblance therof For with what reason should they pray to receiue the truth of that which verily and truly they did receiue alreadie But their praier was that whereas they did now receiue but the image and signe of the bodie and blood of Christ they might in the kingdome of heauen enioy the thing it selfe the very bodie and very blood of Christ And hereof d Bertr de corp san dom Bertram in his booke very soundly concludeth that the bodie of Christ is not verily really in the Sacrament whose whole collection to that purpose being very strong the e Index Expuâ—â—n coâ—r Bertr Spanish censurers in their Index aboue named haue treacherously appointed to be left vnprinted as before I shewed of another place Lanfrancus to auoyd the euidence of this auncient praier so plainly contradicting the reall presence betaketh himselfe to an absurd shift whose words to that purpose being Gratian hath taken and put into the decrées in the chapter last before cited That Truth he saith is to be vnderstood of the manifestation and open reuealing of the bodie of Christ and affirmeth that the name of truth is diuerse times vsed in scripture to that meaning but yet alleageth not any one place to prooue it so Further he addeth that the word species doth sometime import the very Truth it selfe and so in that maier he will haue it vnderstood Then the meaning of the praier must be thus that they might receiue in truth that which they did now receiue in truth or that they might receiue in truth that is visibly and manifestly that which they now receiued in truth but inuisibly and vnder another shape But the Church as it is alwaies conuenient vsed their praier plainly and without these sophistications If they had meant so they had words inough to expresse their meaning neither néeded they to vse such doubtfull words to séeme to say one thing and yet to meane another They plainly oppose species and veritas the signe and the truth one against the other They would not put veritas in an vnproper signification as opposit to species and vnderstand it in proper signification included in the word species This were a very straunge and vnwonted kinde of speaking And therfore referring the signe or resemblance to the time present and the truth to the time to come they plainly shewe that there is not now in the Sacrament the very truth but only the resemblance of the bodie of Christ and therfore that we do not in the sacrament really and verily with our mouthes eate the bodie of Christ And this is most plainely affirmed by Hierome as Gratian citeth him in the decrées f â—e conse di 2 cap. de hac Surely saith he Of this sacrifice which is wonderfully made in remembrance of Christ a man may eate but of that which Christ offered vpon the altar of the crosse as touching it selfe no man may eate The hoste or sacrifice which Christ offered vppon the Crosse was his verie body and bloud The sacrament thereof he saith we doe receiue and eate but as touching it selfe no man may eat thereof Therefore no man may eate the very body and drinke the very bloud of Christ but these spéeches must be figuratiuely vnderstood as hath béen noted out of Austen And whereas the Answ saith for
enough against a naked and bare collection from a point of doubtfull construction Which séeing they haue diuers of them béen alleaged by maister Fulke and others directly against the Answrers demaund and yet haue not receiued any tollerable answere it was but a scape of his wit to say that maister Fulke doth steale away from the state of the question and medleth not with it His other cauill out of the wordes of S. Luke that Christ before the sacrament said l Luc. 22. 17. he woulde drinke no more of the fruite of the vine till in his kindome and yet dranke after in the Sacrament whereby he would prooue the sacrament to be no wine was long agoe preuented by S. Austen who affirmeth that S. Luke m August de consen Euangeli lib. 3. ca. 1. according to his maner setteth downe the former mention of the cup by way of anticipation putting that before which is to be referred to somewhat following after and therfore vnderstandeth it of the cup of the new testament by and by after instituted and so reconcileth him to the other two Euangelistes Mathew and Marke But to helpe this argument the Answ is faine to varie from his good maisters of Rhemes For he expoundeth the kingdome of God to be after the resurrection but they vnderstand it n Rhem Annot Luc. 22. 17 of the celebration of the Sacrament of Christes bloud Whereof it followeth that Christ in the Sacrament dranke of the fruite of the vine as both Mathew and Marke set it downe and the auncient fathers doe expound it Let him go and be agréed with his fellowes before he vrge this argument againe P. Spence Sect. 32. IN the end you giue me councell how to behaue my selfe in these controuersies In all Christian charitie I thanke you and loue you for the same for you aduise me no worse then your selfe followe and in good faith I accept of it as proceeding from your great good will towards me and therefore againe and againe I thanke you And I will follow you in genere that is to haue care of my poore soule to feede it with the trueth of Gods word but expounded by his Catholique Church I must tell you plainly and therefore in specie in the particulars of the points of our beliefe I will not followe you You and I endeuour both to come to one resting place at night but in our daies iourney wee goe two sundrie waies I pray God send vs merily to meet in heauen Amen R. Abbot 32. MY councell M. Spence must stand for a witnesse against you at that day if you go on forward still to walke in the counsel of the vngodly In the meane time I againe aduise and counsell both you and your maister to cease to rebell fight against God or to say when he offereth himselfe vnto you we will none of thy waies I councell you indéede as you say to no other thing but that which I follow my selfe and I most humbly thank almightie God who hath giuen me his grace to follow the same and hath preserued me from that daunger wherein I haue béen oft falling away from him You will followe me you say in generall to haue a care to féed your soule with the trueth of Gods word Do so M. Spence doe so that is the foode of life that is the riuer of the water of life the heauenly Manna he that féedeth there shal surely finde life b August de pastor Feede there saith S. Austen that yee may feede safely and securely But you marre and poison this good foode with that which you adde You will feede your soule you say with the word of God but expounded by his Catholicke Church you meane the Church of Roome Which is as much as if you should say you wil not follow the word of God it selfe but that which it pleaseth the Church of Roome to make of the word of God Take héede of M. Spence Assure your selfe that though the Church of Roome doe maintaine c 2. Pet 2. ◠damnable heresies and d 1. Tim. 4. 1. doctrines of deuils contrarie to Gods word yet being wise as she is according to this worlde she will neuer expound the word of God against her selfe if it be in her to make the meaning of it When she expoundeth the Scriptures to make her selfe the Catholike Church and no such thing is to be found in the words of the scripture will you beléeue her in her owne cause It shal then be verified of you which Salomon saith e Prou. 1◠15. The foole will beleeue euerie thing Take the simplicitie of the word of God it self and be directed thereby f Prou. 8 9. The waies of God are plaine to him that will vnderstand God g Hiere in psal 8◠hath not written as Plato did that few should vnderstand but for the vnderstanding of all saith S. Hierome So that although there be depth enough in the word of God for the best learned to bestow his studie and labour in yet as Chrysostome and Austen teach vs h Chrysost in 2. Thess 2. August ep 3. Whatsoeuer things are necessarie they are manifest and i Aug. de doct Christ li. 2. c. 9. in those things which are manifestly set downe in the Scriptures are contained all things that pertaine to faith and conuersation of life Lay before you therefore those things which néed not the exposition of the Church of Roome When the scripture saith There is now no offering for sinne wil you take her exposition to say that there is When the scripture saith no man liuing shal be found iust in the sight of God shal she by her exposition make you beléeue that it is not so When the scripture saith Thou shalt not bow downe to or worship a carued or grauen image will you be perswaded by her expositions that you may I passe ouer the rest Iustly doe they deserue to be giuen ouer to errour and to be deluded with lies and lewd expositions which will not yéeld vnto God when he speaketh vnto them so plainly as néedeth no exposition It were worth the while to set downe héere a Catalogue of Romish expositions but that the conscience of you all that way appeareth sufficiently in this whole discourse You pray that we both going sundry wayes may méete in heauen But maister Spence it will not be in that way wherein you go Either you must say that there is no heauen or els that your way is not the way to heauen because the God of heauen hath gainsaid it God open your eyes that you may sée the right way that so we may ioyfully méete in heauen P. Spence Sect. 33. AS touching the escape of our Rhemistes in the account of our Ladies assumption The matter is verie sleight not tending any way to our saluation I meane to erre in that computation especially when they haue a The more impudēt they that hauing no certaine