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
might more presume of his learning and reading as indéed he doth being as it séemeth far in loue with himselfe thinking nothing to be learned but that that he liketh of sitting vpon the circle of his owne braines and calling the scriptures and Doctors before him and charming them that whatsoeuer they speake or howsoeuer plainly yet they shall meane no otherwise then he will haue them to meane And straunge it is to sée what madde and vnreasonable meanings he fathereth vpon them whilest he séeketh to shift off their cleare and euident testimonies Which I perswade my selfe doe for the most part beare that sway in his conscience that he cannot extinguish the light thereof nor satisfie himselfe that he hath truly answered vnto them Whosoeuer he is I wish both him and you to remember that which S. Austen saith to Petilian the Donatist c August cont lite Petil. lib. 3. cap. 30. There is nothing more wretched or vnhappie then for a man not to yeeld to the truth wherewith he is so shut in that he cannot finde any way out Now if this matter had by your good dealing rested in priuate betwixt you me M. Spence as my intentioÌ„ was it should I wold not haue brought either your name or mine owne into this open light censure of men But sithence I perceiued both by your selfe and also otherwise that you had communicated the matter to your fellows who are wont to brag greatly both in corners and abroad if any thing of theirs remaine vnanswered truly howsoeuer you would be willing that I should sit downe as a conquered aduersary and so yéeld you some what wherof to triumph in secret amongst your disciples and followers and to be a means to subuert the faith of others I haue against this mischiefe thought it necessarie to publish this whole matter that though it be no good to you yet it may be good to them whom you séeke to hurt as Bernard saith d Bernard in Canti Ser. 6â— though the hereticke arise not from his filth yet the Church may be confirmed in the faith To come to your words you thank me for wishing you good I would you had accepted of the good that I wished you and then I would haue accepted of your thankes But you differ from me in iudgement what is good If I iudge of good one way and you another way who shall be iudge betwixt vs. Not your part for I say they are partiall for you Not our part for you say they are partiall for mée I must answere you with Optatus his words against the Donatists e Optat. cont Parmen Donat. lib. 5. No iudgement of this matter can be found in the earth we must require a iudge from heauen But why knocke we at heauen when we haue here the testament of Christ in the Gospell S. Paul saith f 2. Tim. 3. 15. The scriptures are able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus If your iudgement did entierly depend vpon the scriptures you I should not differ in iudgement But whilest you set one foote in the scriptures another foote beside the scriptures and g Hilar. de Trinit lib. 1. take not your vnderstanding from the sayings of the scriptures as Hilary saith you should but labor to draw the scriptures to those fond opinions which you haue presumed without the scriptures I maruell not that you go lame and halting in your iudgemeÌ„t and I cannot yéeld to iudge with you because you iudge without God Tertullian of olde said but I would not haue you thinke he spake it of the Papists h Tertul. de resurr carniâ— Take from hereticks their Heathenish conceits that they may decide their questions only by the scriptures and they cannot stand As for your regard of truth how great it is appeareth by your froward and wilfull answeres wherewith you shut your eyes against the cleare sun-light rather séeking shifts to cast a mist before it then framing your selfe to walke in the comfortable light thereof But to let that passe I will now leaue you to be a looker on in this matter and will henceforth apply my selfe to him that hath taken vpon him to be the Answerer for you P. Spence Sect. 2. IF ye finde S. Chrysostomes place so expounded as I haue set downe then is it but a I alleage it to no other purpose then the words theÌ„selues do manifestly yeeld See the answer wrangling to alleage it to the ende you do contrarie to Chrysostomes minde that is to vrge words contrary to the authors knowne meaning not caring for truth but to cauill If your thousand Bishops of Armenâ—a because of the b I opposed nuÌ„ber against number neither to be followed for their multitude but for their reason and proofe number do in this point which without them you fauour otherwise beare such a swaie with you why shall not the number of Bishops in other matters do the like if partialitie of iudgement would permit you would you haue a reason why your thousand of Armenian Bishops yea if they were ten thousand were not herein meete iudges theÌ„ woâ—e ye well they did wrangle as you do vpon Christes wordes against their owne consciences wresâ—ing words sillables to serue their sorie turne Why so Because the Armenians forsooke both the Latine and Greeke Church Anno dom 5 27. for that they condemned Eutyches and Dioscorus in the Calcedon Councell for denying the two natures of Christ and superstitiouslie they c But how or where doâ—h it appeare that they began to hold this point vpon that occasion held this point of wine alone fearing least the water mixed therewith should signifie Christs two natures as in the Greeke Latin Church it doth So that if your thousand Armenian Bishops moue you so you must be an Eutychian and for that cause must you forbeare water in the wine and then tell mee why your thousand Armenians must not moue you to hold with them that â—o childe is christened with water alone but with water and oyle as they hereticallie held besides many other d VVherof the Church of Rome hath verie great store toyish and most childish vanities I stand not vpon the validitio of the Trullane Canons of the sixt Councell but it is inough that besides their testimonie not de iure but de facto of the Churches mingling water with wine the sâ—me is otherwise by infinit testimonies proued to be vsed You condemne not you say the Churches that vse water and wine for that point but for their superstitious standing in it and shall not we condemne more iustly the superstitious contradicting humor of those that make a religion and a superstition to vse it with wine conteining so auncient and so vniuersall and so well witnessed a custome You dare not flatly denie it but you would haue it seeme only probable that Christ put water to the wine at
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
breadhood as it pleaseth his wisedom-hood full vntowardly and vnhansomely to conceiue So that it may be by this dreame of his that Gelasius thought that Christ consisteth of thrée natures the Godhead the manhood and the breadhood because it may be that Gelasius vnderstood substance for substance indéed He hath well deserued for this his learned reason to be personally vnited vnto a cloakbag This idle fancy of his ariseth hereof that he vnderstandeth no other presence but reall and bodily nor other vniting but only personall But of presence Christ himselfe speaketh as touching himselfe a Mat. 18. 20. Wheresoeuer two or three are gathered togither in my name there am I in the midst of them yet we know he is not bodily present vnto all such Nay as touching bodily presence S. Austen saith according to the Gospell b August in Ioh. tract 50. He is ascended into heauen and is not here But according to his diuine maiestie according to his prouidence according to his vnspeakable and inuisible grace it is fulfilled which he said I will be with you alwaies vnto the ende of the world So saith Vigilius c Vigil cont Euty lib. 1. Christ is with vs and he is not with vs. According to the forme of a seruant hee is absent from vs according to the forme of God he is present with vs. Such is the presence of Christ in the sacrament euen d cypr. de caena domini the presence of his diuine power as Cyprian calleth it wherby it commeth to passe that as the Sun abiding bodily in the skie yet by effect and working is here on the earth cherishing and comforting all things according to their kinde so the sonne of righteousnes Iesus Christ though according to his bodily presence remaining only in heauen yet by his heauenly grace and spirite is effectually present vnto vs in his holy sacraments communicating himselfe fully and wholly vnto vs and ioyning vs most néerly vnto himselfe As for that grosse presence which Papists teach besides that it is vnnecessary it repugneth also to that truth of the manhood of Christ abiding in the proprietie of his owne nature which Gelasius defended and maketh for the heresies of Marcion Eutyches and others of whom I spake before Now as the presence of Christ in the sacrament is not carnall and bodily so no more is the vniting of Christ vnto the sacrament any bodily or carnall matter but spirituall and sacramentall whilest by the word of God and the working of the holy Ghost there is made that mutuall relation and respect betwixt the signe the thing signified and such a dependence of the one on the other that the signe spiritually implieth the force and vertue of the thing signified and the holy Ghost togither with the signe dispenseth through faith the fulnesse of that grace blessing which is conteined in the body and blood of Iesus Christ In which sort we beléeue also that Christ without any real presence is vnited to the sacrament of Baptisme whereby we put on Christ and are made members of his body flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones neither is there any more reason to mainteine any real presence in the one sacrament then there is in the other Thus therefore the remaining of the substance of bread doth not enforce any personall vniting of Christ vnto the bread No nor yet that supposed real presence of Christs body with the bread The Vbiquitaries when they teach that Christes body is really present in the sacrament yet thinke not that the same is personally vnited vnto it neither doth it follow of that opinion of theirs The Answ himselfe though in his conceit he receiue into his body yâ— reall body of Christ yet I hope will not thinke the same personally vnited vnto him no nor yet to those formes and naturall properties of bread and wine whereunder he saith the body of Christ lieth inuisibly hidden He saith that perhaps Gelasius and vndoubtedly others thought that some part of the substance of bread wine remained togither with the body of Christ yea and e Ferus â—n Math. cap. â—â— Ferus himselfe though a Papist yet séemeth to doubt whether the substance of bread remaine or not togither with the body and yet he will not gather I hope that they thought though the substance did remaine that the body of Christ was personally vnited vnto the same so that Christ should consâ—st of thrée natures the Godhead the manhood and the breadhood But what should I trouble my selfe with such senslesse and mad toyes seruing only to blot paper and coÌ„teining in them neither learning nor wit As for that which followeth it is but a new shew of the same baggage stuffe that I haue examined already and néedeth no further answere Only let me tell him that he wretchedly peruerteth the comparison made by Gelasius and maketh it fitly and rightly answerable to the heresie of Eutyches For as he saith that in the sacrament there is the very body of Christ hauing conioyned vnto it the naturall properties of bread and wine the substance being vanished so said Eutyches that in the person of Christ there was the Godhead retaining with it the properties of the manhood to be visible passible mortall c. but the substance and distinct nature of the manhood was consumed Again he wittingly and willingly falsifieth the state of the question which Gelasius disputed as though he reasoned to proue the continuing of the properties of the manhood not of the substance whereas the purpose of Gelasius is altogither concerning the substance and nature it selfe which to continue inuiolably notwithstanding the assuming therof vnto the godhead he sheweth by comparison of the sacrament where the substance of bread and wine remaineth notwithstanding they are adnanced to that honour to be the mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ These things are sufficiently bebated before I come to that that followeth P. Spence Sect. 12. NOw let vs conferre the places of Theodoretus by you alleaged with his owne sayings by you concealed Theodoretus disputing with an Eutychian who would Christ now to consist of the only nature of his Deitie and not any more of the humane nature which he tooke of the virgine doth reproue him by the example of the Sacrament of Christes Supper in the which Sacrament two thinges are founde one which is seene and that is the signe of bread and wine the other is not seene but vnderstanded and beleeued and that is the true bodie and blood of Christ That which is seene is said to remaine in his former substance nature figure and kinde In his substance a The mysticall signes remaine in their former substance that is they do not remaine in their former substance because the formes of bread and wine subsist by the power of God and haue their being now by themselues as they had it before in the nature of bread and wine The same formes remaine
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
the allegation of his passion and resurrection because they were once done and passed the memories of them cannot be the things themselues but a memorie only But his bodie euer remaining the memory of it may be also the very thing it selfe that S. Augustine in so many places affirmeth that you must not so rack this place to ouerthrow the other and to set him at bate with himselfe Ioyne therefore with this testimonie of S. Augustine another place of the same August in Sententijs Prosperi and by that learne to vnderstand his own meaning of his secundum quendam modum The place is thus It is his flesh which in the Sacrament we receiue couered in the forme of bread and it is his bloud which we drink vnder the figure and sauour of wine Namely flesh is a Sacrament of flesh and bloud a Sacrament of bloud By flesh and bloud both inuisible spirituall and to be vnderstoode is signified the visible and palpable body of our Lord Iesus Christ Heere you see by answere not by vs patched and clouted but b Vntrue for it cannot be shewed that these are his wordes and yet they serue not the Answ turne as shall appeare by himselfe set down he explicateth thus much that in both sides is true flesh and true bloud But now to his secundum quendam modum he telleth you that on the one side is flesh couered in the forme of bread in the Sacrament and bloud vnder the forme and sauour of wine inuisible spirituall and to be vnderstoode this for the maner of the one but on the earth and now in heauen a a visible and palpable body Yet remember that flesh is a Sacrament of flesh and bloud of bloud More I might say but infinite haue said it to them I send you R. Abbot 13. FOr the exposition of Christes wordes This is my body I shewed the testimonies of the ancient fathers that Christ called the bread and wine his body bloud taking for the ground of my speech that which S. Austen saith a Aug. Epis◠23. that Sacraments haue a resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments and that because of this resemblance they commonly take vnto them the names of the thinges themselues whereof they are sacramentes Now to this rule the Answerer saith nothing at all as neither he did before when I mentioned it concerning sacrifice whereas hée should haue taken it for his greatest enemie and therefore fought most strongly against it because héereby is discharged the greatest part of that which either he or his fellowes can obiect for their sacrifice reall presence and Transubstantiation But I gather hereby his wilfull and malicious resolution against plaine and euident trueth The wordes which he answereth next follow immediatly after the words alreadie mentioned As therefore saith S. b Ibid. Austen the sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certaine maner the bodie of Christ and the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is after a sort his bloud so the sacrament of faith namely baptisme is faith Whereby S. Austen exemplifieth that which he had said before that sacramēts because of their resemblance take the names of the things whereof they are sacramentes For euen so the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ is after a sorte that is by resemblance the body and bloud of Christ not verily and indeed then but after a sorte and by resemblance and so by resemblance called the bodie and the bloud of Christ for as the sacrament of the body is the bodie so the sacrament of faith is faith The sacrament of faith is not faith indeed but by questions and answeres of faith it betokeneth the faith of Christian men So therefore the sacrament of the body is not indéed the body but betokeneth the body of Christ that was giuen for vs and so because of this resemblance is called the body And this is the maner or sorte of which S. Austen speaketh not a maner of reall being but a maner of speaking and sacramentall betokening As for that which the Answ saith to note that maner that the sacrament is inuisibly but yet truely the body and so a memorie that it is the thing it selfe S. Austen acknowledgeth no such matter nay it is contrary to the whole drift and purpose of S. Austens spéech And beside it is vnreasonable and absurde that the same thing should be the sacrament and the thing it selfe the signe and the thing signified the memoriall and the thing remembred neither hangeth it togither by any better reason then as if a man should be said to be his owne father or a husband to be a husband in respect of himselfe or a Prince to be a Prince vnto himselfe and so to be both Prince and subiect Euery child knoweth that the sacrament of Christes bodie is the visible signe of Christes bodie as all sacraments are visible signes and the visible signe of Christes body is not the body it selfe Therefore the sacrament of Christes body is not the body it selfe Yea S. Austens saying as is before alleaged that the sacrifice of the Church consisteth of c De conse dist 2. cap. Ho◠est two things the sacrament which is the visible element and the matter of the sacrament which is the body of Christ maketh it plain enough y◠he took the sacrament of Christes body and the body it selfe to be two things and not one as the Answ absurdly conceiueth But yet he taketh vpon him to proue this absurditie by S. Austen himselfe and alleageth certaine wordes by which hée would haue me to vnderstand this place which hath béen alreadie spoken of The words are thus d De conse dist 2. cap. Hoc est It is his flesh which we receiue in the sacrament couered in the forme of bread and his bloud which we drinke vnder the forme and sauour of wine Namely flesh is a sacrament of flesh and bloud is a sacrament of bloud By the flesh and bloud both visible spirituall and intelligible is signified the visible and palpable bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ full of the grace of all vertues c. Now of these wordes the Answ as some other of his fellowes doe maketh a monstrous conclusion as if Christ had two kindes of flesh at one and the same time one visible another inuisible one in heauen another in earth e Tho. Aqui. Par. 3. qu. 76. art 3. one hauing the due proportion of a body the other without all proportion and hauing no difference of head or féete or any other parts one the same as it was borne of the virgin Mary the other like to the phantasie of Marcion and the Manichees of the nature of a spirit f Ibid art 4. whole in the whole cake and whole in euerie part of the cake so that though it be broken into a thousand péeces yet euerie one of them hath the whole body of Christ But we beléeue not any such
fantasticall body of Christ we read onely of a true and substantiall body wherein he is like vnto vs wherein hée sitteth at the right hand of God g August Ep ad Darda 57. in Ioh. tr 30. in some one place of heauen as S. Austen noteth and is there conteined by reason of the maner of a true body vntill hée come to iudge the quicke and the dead at which time he shal come in the same forme and substance of his body in which he went from hence to which we beleeue he hath giuen immortalitie but hath not taken from it the nature of a body yâ— it should be any where in that maner as yâ— Answ and his fellowes Marcion-like do teach We say as Vigilius also saith h 〈…〉 con 〈◊〉 the flesh of Christ when it was vpoÌ„ the earth was not in heauen and now because it is in heauen surely it is not on the earth As for the words which he alleageth I maruell how he can make them good to be S. Austens In all S. Austens works extant they are not found They are cited out of the sentences of Prosper and there they are not Beda hath many fragmentes of Austen but not a word of this i L 〈…〉 de sacra Eucha Lanfrancus vseth them as his owne wordes without any quotation of Austen and that writing against Berengarius where he would surely haue countenanced them with the name of Austen if they had béen his The trueth is for ought that I can perceiue Lanfrancus is the authour of them and they are his ilfauoured answere to Berengarius his allegation of S. Austens words which we haue now in hand Yet because Gratian by errour hath made S. Austen the reputed father of them mistaking be like Austen for Lanfrancus as very oftentimes he is found to put the names of Austen and others to those things which they neuer spake I wil doe the Answe that curtesie to take them for S. Austens words onely so that he wil not make S. Austen in this point to be at bate with himselfe First therefore according to the doctrine of S. Austen and all others who haue defined what sacraments be they are alwaies k Aug decate chiâ—rud ca. 26. visible signes and therefore to be discerned with the sense For l De dâ—ct C 〈…〉 l. 2. cap 1. a signe saith the same S. Austen is a thing which beside the shew that it offereth to the senses causeth by it somewhat else to come into the minde and vnderstanding In sacramentes therefore being signes m â—x ser ad infan Beda 1. Cor. 10. CoÌ„â— Maximi Aria lib. 3. cap. 22. one thing is seene another thing is vnderstoode by that which is séene therefore againe doth he call the sacrament n In Iohan. tra 80. a visible word because the visible creature being consecrated to the sacramentall vse doth in the vse thereof after a sorte set before our eyes that which the word of God deliuereth to our eares yea and doth as it were speake vnto vs also to admonish and put vs in minde of the things thereby so signified Now S. Austen doth verie precisely put difference o De consecr di 2. cap. Hoc est betwixt the sacrament which is the visible signe and the thing or matter of the sacrament p In Ioh. tr 26 so that in diuersitie of sacramentes yet the matter of the sacrament that is the thing signified may be the same and q Ibid. a man may be partaker of the sacrament or signe and yet haue no benefite at all of the thing signified Notwithstanding by reason of that relation which by the word of God is wrought betwixt the sacramental signe and the thing thereby signified r Epist 23. in quaest super Leuit. q. 75. the signe or sacrament as hath béen before said doth vsually take vnto it the name of the thing signified as Å¿ De consecr dist 2. cap. vtrum sub Gratian noteth againe vnder S. Austens name that the name of the bodie of Christ is giuen not onely to the verie bodie but also to the figure thereof which is outwardly perceiued But what shall we take this figure of the body to be by S. Austens iudgement Marry saith hée t Ex ser ad infan Beda 2. Cor. 10. that which you see is bread as your eyes also tell you which words the Answe hath left vnanswered as also the other v De conse dist 2. cap. Hoc est that the sacrament conteineth the nature and trueth of the visible element But by those wordes S. Austen referreth vs to our eyes and willeth vs to beléeue our eyes that it is verily bread Now then séeing that by his iudgment a sacrament is a visible signe and the visible signe in the Lordes supper is bread how may it stand with his doctrine that the flesh couered in the forme of bread is a sacrament of the flesh the bloud vnder the forme of wine is a sacrament of the bloud and that by the inuisible flesh is signified the visible body of Christ Surely if we take flesh to signifie truely and properly flesh this standeth not with S. Austens grounds For séeing flesh is not visible in the sacrament neither is there any appearance thereof to the sense nay it is called héere inuisible flesh it cannot be said to be a sacrament that is a visible thing Therefore we must séeke another meaning of the wordes flesh and bloud according to the other rule whereby the outward elementes take vnto them the names of the thinges represented by them By flesh and bloud then we vnderstand the visible elements which are called by these names and that not onely for that they doe signifie the true flesh and bloud of Christ but also as w August ser ad inâ—an aâ—ud Bed 1. cor 10. touching the spirituall fruite as S. Austen speaketh in x Ambros de sacram lib. 6. cap. 1. grace and vertue as saith saint Ambros y Cypria de caena d 〈…〉 de resuâ— chri concerning the inuisible efficiencie and vertue as Cyprian speaketh are the same to the faith of the receiuer according to that which Gratian saith concerning a prayer of the Church crauing to receiue the trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ that some not z De consâ—cr dist 2 cap. species without probable reason did expound that trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ to be the verie efficiencie or working thereof that is the forgiuenesse of sinnes Now because the visible element which is thus called flesh is no such thing in outward appearance neither hath anie shew of this vertue therefore it is said to be flesh couered in the forme of bread inuisible spirituall a matter of vnderstanding For sacramentes conteine those thinges which they conteine not openly but couertly not in appearance of the thinges themselues but vnder the signes of the visible
ceremonies obserued in the auncient Churches that are now omitted in the Church of Roome Though the Church of Rome were as sound as euer she was that we might say as Ambrose said that e Ambros de sacra liâ— 3. cap 1. we desire in all thinge to follow the Church of Roome yet we would say as he addeth We are men too that haue iudgement and vnderstanding as well as they of Rome and haue as great libertie in vsing or not vsing ceremonies as they haue Secondly he asketh me Haue you retained any shadow of the publicke and generall reconciliation of sinners spoken of in this sermon c. Let him turne the wordes and suppose me demaunding of him the same question concerning the Church of Roome Verily she hath it not she hath no shewe nor shadow of it neither the maner nor the matter of it The Answ in vpbraiding our Church with yâ— want hereof doth much more lay open the shame and reproch of his owne friendes The Church of Roome is she that hath broken the bonds of all discipline and made a mockerie of all religion in stéed of absoluing men she hath bound them faster in stéed of reconcilement to God she hath thrust them further off from God Whatsoeuer defect or want our Church hath in this be halfe it is but asker of that wound wherewith the Church of Roome had wounded vs and as a weakenesse remaining after a gréeuous and deadly sicknesse from whence we haue not as yet béen able perfectly to recouer our selues But thankes be vnto God that we haue before vs the substance of true absolution and reconciliation in the word of the gospel which the Church of Roome withholdeth from her Children We preach to the repentant absolution and attonement with God by the bloud of Iesus Christ wherby they finde comfort and release from the bondes of their sinnes and giue glorie vnto God Whereas the Church of Roome giuing men ashes in stéed of bread and setting before them the superstitious deuises of men in stéed of the soueraigne bloud of Christ and mocking them with the supposed absoluing words of a grumbling Popish Priest in stéed of the comfort of the gospell of Christ leaueth them either senselesse and not féeling their owne estate or restlesse and vnquiet whilest in the absolutions of sinfull men they finde no assured trust of being absolued and pardoned with God Concerning the descending of Christ into hell I doubt not but he speaketh what he thinketh but vnderstandeth not what he speaketh nor what he ought to thinke The iudgement of learned and godly men both old and new are very diuerse as touching the meaning of this point I preiudicate not the iudgement of any man that hath not in it a preiudice against yâ— word of God For my part I imbrace it as an article of the Créede and I take it that I am to conceiue euery article of the Créede as importing somewhat that entirely and properly concerneth my self either as touching my creation or saluation And therefore I simply reiect as a méere fancie the opinion of the Papists that Christ descended to Linebus patrum to fetch the fathers from thence But if for any respect properly touching our saluation it may be iustified that Christ in soule descended to the very place of hell as the very letter of the article doth import I willingly subscribe the same In the meane time that which the Answ cauilleth at which some learned men haue deliuered for the meaning of Christes descending into hell as touching the doctrine whether belonging to this article or to the other of his suffering I embrace and hold because I know it conteineth the certaine vndoubted trueth of the word of God and particularly toucheth the redemption of mine own soule We beléeue by the word of God that Iesus Christ the sonne of God is our redéemer not onely in his body but also in his soule that in both he hath paied a price for vs f Irene adu har lib. 5. giuing as Ireneus speaketh his soule for our soules and his flesh for our flesh not onely his flesh or bodie for our bodies but his soule also for our soules The scripture iustifieth so much He shall giue g Esa 33. 10. his soule an offering for sinne The storie of the passion of Christ iustifieth the same where before any thing ailed him as touching any bodily paine he is described vnto vs h Mat. 26. 37. to be sorrrowful greeuously troubled i Mar. 14. 33. to be afraid in great heauinesse k Luc. 22. 44. to be in an agonie yea such an agonie and so beyond measure afflicting him that the sweate was like drops of bloud trickling from him downe to the ground that the father thought it expedient to send l v. 43. an angell from heauen to comfort him that hee was driuen to crie â—ut m Math. 26. 3â— 3â— My soule is heauie euen vnto the death father if it be possible let this cup passe from me To referre these spéeches and affections to any bodâ—â—y sufferings were fond and childish sith as yet he suffered nothing in body but as he himselfe expresly teacheth they are to be construed immediatly of the passion and sufferinges of his soul Therefore Hierome saith n Hieron iâ— Eâ—a â—â— That which wee should haue suffered for our sinnes he suffered in our behalfe c. Whereby it is manifest that as his bodie being scourged and rent did beare the signes of that iniurie in stripes and blewnesse of woundes so his soule also did verily suffer greefe for vs least that partly a trueth partly a lie should be beleeued in Christ Whereby he testifieth that Christ suffered for vs both in body and soule and euen that that we should haue suffered for our sinnes and that if he comming in the nature of man to suffer for vs had suffered onely in body it should be in part a lie which wee beléeue of his suffering for vs because as touching his soule it should not be true S. Ambrose héereof saith thus o Ambrâ—s â—n Luc. ca. 22. lâ—â— 1â— de fide ad Grati. lib. 2. cap. 3. He laboured in his passion with deepe affection that because he destroyed our sinnes in his flesh he might also by the anguish of his soule abolish the anguish of our soules Which as it appeareth by those spéeches already mentioned at the first entrance of his passion so it is further most effectually shewed by his crying with a loud voice vpon the crosse My p Math. 27. 4â— God my God why hast thou forsaken me A mysterie the depth whereof the verie Angels themselues are not able throughly to search that the sonne of God should be humbled so farre for our sakes as to be for the time in our forlorne and desperate state vnder the burden of the wrath of God to féele his fathers indignation q Esa â—3 8 10. smiting him
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
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
cleane nor white as snow cleane and whiter then snow and not haue a curtaine only dravven to couer our sinnes onely Wee say that vve haue inherent iustice not imputed vvhich vve thinke to be but d A leaude wretch that derideth that which the holy Ghost hath expresly set downe an ape of iustification We say that iustification standeth of these integrall parts First e An vntowardly description of iustificatâ—on wherein remission of sinnes and reconcilement to God is put before faâ—â—h besidâ— dâ—uerse other peeuish follies that might therein be noted forgiuenesse of sins 2. Reconcilement to God 3. Renuing in faith hope and charitie 4. Charitie not vnperfect and begun but childelike and of another more diuine nature which wholy in kind differeth from that which is but begun 5. The ascribing to the inheritance of heauen And because you mention here S. Augustine vnderstand you that he noteth three sorts or degrees of iustification The first to make of vngodly iust The second He which is iust let him yet be iustified and feare not to be iustified vnto death that is to be made better and more iust The third Not the hearers of the law but the doers shall be iustified that is to haue the last finall revvard end and perfection of iustice Thus doth S. Augustine speake of it First concerning the tvvo first degrees thus he saith contra Iulianum li. 20. Iustification is giuen vs in this life by these f In which three things there is nothing at all to make for inherent iustice in this life but altogither and wholly against it For if there be iustice what place is there for forgiuenesse of sinnes or fighting against sinne three things first by the vvashing of regeneration vvhereby all sinnes are forgiuen After by fighting vvith vices from the guilt vvhereof vve vvere discharged and assoyled Thirdly vvhile our praier is heard vvherein vve say Forgiue vr our trespasses Thus far S. Augustine in that place So that here S. Augustine himselfe telleth you vvhat hee meaneth by Forgiue vs our trespasses the continuall veniall slips vvhich the verie best and iustest many times in the day fall into and yet iustice g Vntruth for the trespassing of iustice taketh away the name of being iust not taken away therby though their alacritie abated Veniall sinnes are beside charitie but not h He that is not with me is against me saith Christ so must we say alâ—o as tovching charitie against charitie And remember that no man of his owne state can assure himselfe but that he may feare and must crie out Enter not into iudgement c. and why i The very shift of the Pelagian heretickes See the answere in respect of the puritie of God no man neuer so good no nor Angell nor heauen is pure Man euen the best man of himselfe must say I am vnprofitable seruant Yet God calleth the iust not his seruants but his friends We must say we be vnprofitable seruants in very deed not profiting God a myte who was as happie and as glorious before he laid the foundation of the worlde as euer sithence Neither could k Christ as touching his humanitie is made an vnprofitable seruant Christs blessed humanitie or all he did in the flesh profit God any way who before wanted not any perfection nor could receiue any more benefit or good then before he had Thus I say must a man euen the best man humbly thinke of himselfe Yet S. Paul 2. Tim. 2. saith If any man cleanse himselfe from these he shal be a vessell sanctified to honour profitable for the Lord and why profitable Prepared or readie to euery good worke Reconcile therefore these places rightly and learne that Profitable is not ment to be profitable to God who receiueth no profit by all our vttermost endeuours but it is as much as seruing to such a good vse as God hath created vs too to his glorie and our saluation to honour him with our glorification A iustified cannot nor must not boast of his state which he is ignorant of but yet in good hope and therefore must abase himselfe before Gods Maiestie l VVe must abase himselfe to the center of the earth and yet thinke it may be that he is worthie inough to lift vp his head as high as heauen A preposterous and doubtfull humilitie to the very center of the earth But we supposing another man to be iustified may say that of him which himselfe cannot say of himselfe Now of the third degree of Iustification which is the end and perfitting of our iustice S. August epist 106. saith our hope shall be fully accomplished in the resurrection of the dead and when our hope shall be fulfilled then shall our iustification be fulfilled and accomplished So that you see by S. Augustine in these places our iustification hath a beginning an encrease and end R. Abbot 36. AS touching iustification hée fendeth me a deale of paltrie stuffe patched out of the heresie of the Pelagians the vain presumptions of the Schoolemen without any sounde argument out of the word of God neither maketh he any direct answer to that that was vrged against him The scripture is plain that a Rom. 3. 20. Gal. 2. 16 by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified in the sight of God b Rom 3. 28 that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law that c Gal. 3. 10. whosoeuer are of the works of the law are vnder the curse because it is written Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them and no man continueth in all d Iam. 3. 2. for in many things we offend all saith S. Iames. The Answ sheweth not he cannot shewe that the inherent righteousnesse of any man in this life is such as that thereby he can be presented holie and blamelesse and without fault in the sight of God which is the thing required The consciences and confessions of all the godly are against it S. Austen to whom the Answ referreth himselfe saith e August epist 29. The most perfect loue or charitie which cannot now be encreased is founde in no man so long as he liueth here and so long as it may be encreased surely that that is lesse then ought to be is of a default or vice By reason of which default or vice there is not a man iust vppon the earth which doth good and sinneth not By reason of which default no man liuing shall be found righteous in the sight of God And this is so true that f Pighius otherwise a heauy and deadly enemy to the Gospell is forced to subscribe to our f Pighi contro de iustificat doctrine in this point and to confesse that the righteousnesse whereby we stand iust before God is not our inherent righteousnesse according to the law but the imputed righteousnesse