in the way of any to cause them either to fall away or to stand in doubt My silence might be and I doubt hath bene a fit occasion for you and your fellowes to worke vpon for the seducing of such ignorant persons in the Country as by occasion you haue to deale with and therfore I do not maruell that you do so instantly desire it The scornfull and disdainfull speeches wherwith your Author delighteth himselfe are fit to blind the eies of the vnlearned as if he had gotten some great victory That is indéed the common maner of Popish writing But let the Christian Reader iudge of all I wish him whosoeuer he is to consider further of his doing Let him remember the tribunall seat where he is to giue reckoning of it Let him beware that his conscience do not say vnto him Thou hast studied to answere with shifts and lyes What odde fellow that Steuens was of whom you speake I know not but I doubt not but he was an honest man at Rhemes Rome if he would say any thing to touch the credit of B. Iewel such as were Staphylus and Bolsecke and such other vile renegates You must as well giue me leaue to beléeue yâ— report which I mentioned of Hardings death as to your selfe to beléeue a runagates renegates tale of B. Iewel This Steuens you say carried letters to B. Iewel from Archbishop Parker to admonish him of some stippes in his booke It may be so But what were that to the substance of the matter if amongst infinit allegations he mistooke himselfe in some fewe Yea but he is charged by your side with infinite falsifications almost in euery line I doubt not but he is so charged For if you should not say that he wrote falsly how should you make men beléeue that you spoake truth The diuell when he will make men beléeue his lies commendeth his lies for truth condemneth the truth by the name of falshood and lies so the church of Rome séeking the ouerthrow of that truth which B. Iewel defended must néeds for the sauing of her owne honestie auouch that B. Iewel dâ—â—lt falsly in his writing The théefe being conuicted will yet crie out that he is falsly accused O what wringing and straining doth Harding vse to fasten vppon B. Iewel that discredit of falsifying and it still reboundeth to himselfe What passions doth he runne into sometimes in charging M. Iewel and all to saue himselfe some litle credit by vaine outcries and claimours The bookes are extant and men thanks be to God haue eies to sée whether of them plaied the iugler and whether the true man Out of doubt those falsifications are such prety matters as that one which the Answ mentioneth out of the vnperfect worke vppon Matthew whereof see sect 18. I wish the Reader to note it Your Seâ—t 18. termes of scholasticall conflict and force of arguing heat of words I passe ouer as not coÌ„cerning you but him yâ— hath taken the paines for you If he knew any thing misplaced why did he not place it aright If he saw any thing that might bréed to me occasion of offence why would he write it You wrote to me you say and to no bodie else If you had obserued that rule with me as it was fit you should haue done I would haue dealt accordingly but now you and your companions hauing dealt in the matter as you haue I might not suppresse your Pamphlet occasion being offered me to publish it without betraying the cause of God Once againe I exhort both you and yours to be wise for the safetie of your owne soules Fight not against God It b Act. 2â— 14. is hard to kicke against the prickes c Heb. 10. 31. A fearefull thing it is to fall into the hands of the liuing God If God say vnto you know me and you say we d Iob. 21. 14. will none of the knowledge of thy waies woe vnto you better had it bene for you that you had neuer bene borne Shifts and colours and lies and excuses will not serue the turne when you must come to answere before the throne of God God giue you grace to remember it in time that forgoing your owne waies of errour wilfulnesse you may embrace the waies of God vnto euerlasting life Amen FINIS Cyprian Florent lib. 4. epist 9. Habes tu literas meus ego tuas in dâ—e iudicij ante tribunal Christi vtrunque recitabitur You haue my writings and I haue yours at the day of iudgement both shal be recited before the tribunall seate of Christ
yeares But because the Roomish harlot hath approued this fable and the Rhemists do but sooth her in that which she hath affirmed you will rather then yâ—eld say that the supposed reporter of this storie being a Counsellor of Athens and this being done in Iudea was there for that purpose thrée or foure yeares before he was conuerted to Christianitie I shewed you the sophisâ—ry of the same honest men in peruerting the place before alleaged out of the tenth to the Hebruâ—s but because they haue set it down in fauour of the Romish Masse you will not goe from it though it be without shewe of reason and contrary to common sense To shewe the plaine euidence of scripture as touching our doctrine of iustification I cited those words That a man is iustified by faith without Rom. 3. 2â— Iam. 2. 21. 24. the workes of the law You crosse it with S. Iames his words That Abraham was iuâ—â—ified by workes and not by faith only I answere directly out of S. Paul If Abraham were iustified by workes he had Rom 4. 2. to reioyce but not with God by which place Oecumenius accordeth Oecumen in Rom. 4. the former two and by which conference it appeareth that whosoeuer is iustified by faith before God doth also approue his true faith by workes of righteousnesse before men but yet that no mans righteousnesse of workes is such as wherby he may stand holy blamelesse and without fault in the sight of God but that all are in this respect to cry out Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant for in thy sight no man liuing shal be iustified Wherupon S. Austen saith August in Pâ—al 142. saith Let the Apostles say forgiue vs our trespasses c. And when it shall be saide vnto them Why say you so what are your trespasses Let them answere because no man liuing shall be iustified in thy sight but you beléeue because your loue hath told you so that men are by the righteousnesse and merits of workes to be iustified in the sight of God Take héede M. Spence deceiue not your selfe There is but one heauen and one faith that bringeth thither God only hath reuealed that faith Séeke it there where he hath reuealed it Your ground is now only vppon men yet neither will Popery stand vppon that ground if you tie not your selfe to your new builders Bishop Iewel amongst others hath detected the vanitie of their building in many points But you say that one Steuens beyond the sea declared his bad dealing in his writing to that purpose But were you so simple to credit what Steuens said Doe you not know that many when they come to your Seminaries will haue some what to say whereby to commend themselues and to discredit vs and therefore when they want truth must néeds coyne lies One alleaged to me when I was in Oxford how Iewell had falsified a place out of Thomas Aquinas He spake it by heare-say as you do I went into a Library of verie auncient copâ—es and found it word for word as it was cited It was maruell that M. Harding could not finde that kinde of dealing It would haue giuen him good matter for a far more substantiall answere But I might as well vpon report tell you that Harding perplexed in mind néere his death wished that his soule might haue place with Bishop Iewels soule I haue heard that Hart the Iesuite being demanded thereof in the Tower could not make any great deniall of it But the truth lieth not in these matters As for Bishops Iewels writings I will lend you the booke if it please you It were maruell that no sillable or sentence should be mistaken in that multitude of allegations the sight whereof troubled M. Hardings minde as I conceiue by the Preface of his fond detection but for the substance of the cause and iustifying the points defended I will vndertake to make good vnto you the allegations for so many of the auncient Fathers as I haue and some of the principall you know I haue and can quickly get more And what I haue here written I will be readie to approue vnto you and to make plaine whatsoeuer is here for want of conuenient leisure briefly and therfore perhaps obscurely collected The God of peace guide vs in the way of peace and graunt vs to know his truth and to perseuere in the knowledge thereof vnto the ende A DEFENSE OF THE AVTHORITIES ALLEAGED IN THE REplie against the answere of P. Spence P. Spence Section first IN respect you wish me good and well M. Abbot I thanke you for it knowing it cannot proceed of an ill ground but at least of good nature which I do accept with desire of no lesse good to you then you to me but I hope rather much more Although there be choice oddes in our seuerall iudgements what is truly and indeede good which the one wisheth to the other For as from God who is essentially good all goodnesse proceedeth whatsoeuer so what faithfull seruant of God soeuer hee be that in God wisheth or willeth my good any way that may be called good indeed to him I thinke my selfe more beholding then for treasures of kingdomes of this world if he had them to beâ—â—ow vpon me If such good could be found in you as touching this cause betweene vs I would most thankfully accept it with no lesse estimatioÌ„ of your zeale and your person then pure affection to your charitie and care c. R. Abbot 1. SVch is the frowardnesse of mans nature that as S. Austen well noteth we are most commonly a Aug de nat grat cont Pelag. cap. 2â— more readie to seeke what we may answere to those things that are obiected against our errour then to consider how wholesome and good they are that thereby we may be freed from errour Which as it is generally true wheresoeuer the selfewill and pride of nature is not subdued ouerruled by good conscience and the feare of God so it is more particularly approued in you M. Spence by your vntowardly answere to that which I wrote vnto you which it séemeth you would néedes returne vnto me not as being perswaded that you could answere that that was alleaged vnto you but b August contra Gandentium lib 3. only for this cause least if you had holden your peace you should haue bene said to be conuicted as Austen told Gandentius the hereticke vpon the like occasion For to write somewhat or to say somewhat is not alwaies to answere and you though you haue taken paines to write much yet in your whole pamphlet haue answered nothing Which I call your pamphlet not because I take either the collections of the matter or the forme of enditing to be yours but because it came to me in your name and vnder your hand When I perused it I straightwaies perceiued that it was none of yours but that you had gotten the helpe of a secret friend who
Tertullian speaketh not of Melchisedech he doth not so much as intimate any thing of him and the Answ for that he read the place could not but know that there was nothing meant as touching Melchisedech and therefore in vpbraiding vs with stealing of scrappes out of the Fathers because we vse this place he giueth me occasion to charge him with voluntary and wilfull falsifying of their words But I leaue that to his owne conscience whether he did purposely séeke by this bad meanes to adde the more likelihood vnto a false tale Tertullian saith nothing here to intimate that the very creatures of bread and wine were vsed in the old Testament as figures of the body and blood of Christ but only expoundeth some places where the names of bread and wine are so vsed as that thereby should be signified the same bodie blood of Christ To this purpose he alleageth the words of Ieremy as the vulgar Latine text readeth them e Ier. 11. 19. Let vs cast the wood vpon his bread that is saith he the crosse vpon his bodie as noting that by the name of bread the Prophet signified the bodie of Christ Therefore he addeth Christ the reuealer of antiquities calling bread his bodie did sufficiently declare what his will was that bread should then signifie Whereby he giueth to vnderstand that as the Prophet did vse the name of bread to signifie the body of Christ so Christ himselfe to iustifie that spéech of the Prophet did institute bread it selfe to be the signe and Sacrament of his bodie and accordingly called it his bodie Another like spéech he reciteth concerning wine out of the words of Iacob the Patriarch f Gen. 49. 11. He shall wash his garment in wine and his cloathing in the blood of the grape Where by the garment and cloathing he vnderstandeth the bodie and flesh of Christ by wine the blood of Christ as if Iacob should foretell in those words that the bodie of Christ should be embrued with the shedding of his blood Hereupon he inferreth He that then figured wine in blood hath now consecrated his blood in wine noting hereby not that blood indéed was vsed for a figure of wine but that the name of the blood of the grape serued to signifie wine as prefiguring that wine it selâ—â— should be appointed to be the signe of the blood of Christ Now this was fulfilled by Christ when he consecrated his blood in wine that is to say made the Sacrament of his blood in wine or appointed wine in truth to be the Sacrament of his blood for signification whereof the name of wine had bene before vsed The old figure the refore of which Tertullian speaketh saying that we may acknowledge an olde figure in wine was in the vse of the names of bread and wine not of bread and wine indéed and that which by this olde figure and maner of speaking was intimated in the olde Testament Christ performed and fulfilled in the new when he consecrated and sanctified his creatures of bread and wine to be Sacraments and figures of his bodie and blood and by name accordingly called them his bodie and blood Which maner of speaking he had not approued but frustrated if in making the Sacrament he had destroyed the substance of bread and wine for then he could not haue called bread his bodie and wine his blood as Tertullian saith he did Now therefore that which the Answ saith that Figures are of the old Testament Christ fulfilleth them in the new maketh nothing against vs nay setting aside the error of the Answ it maketh wholly for vs. For he vainly fancieth Tertullian to say that the very elements of bread wine were vsed in the old Testament for figures of the bodie and blood of Christ and therefore that the same should not be againe appointed to that vse in the new Testament whereas Tertullian saith no more but only that the names or words of bread and wine were sometimes taken to signifie the same Now then let him remember that Turtullian auoucheth the fulfilling of this figure in this that Christ called bread his bodie and wine his blood and let him say with vs according to Tertullians minde that in the Sacrament it is bread and wine which is called the bodie and blood of Christ and that the meaning of Christs words is This bread is my bodie that is to say A Figure of my bodie Now hereby Tertullian proueth that Christ hath a true substantiall bodie For saith he It had bene no Figure except there were a true bodie For an emptie thing as is a fantasie might not haue bene capable of a Figure But here the Answ wold make vs beléeue that vnlesse Tertullian mean this of a Figure in the old Testament his saying is not true And this he proueth by Nigromancy for saith he the phantasticall bodies of spirits do exhibit to the eyes a certaine Figure or shape as the very Nigromancers do know But what motion I maruel came into the mans minde to diuert his spéech from mysticall and sacramentall figures instituted by Iesus Christ wherof Tertullian speaketh to figures and facions and shapes of diuels and spirits He was a blind man if he saw not his owne errour and folly but leaud and wretched if he sawe it and yet against his owne conscience would thus dally with Gods truth And why could he not conceiue that Tertullians wordes if they had concerned any such figures should haue bin false in respect of the old Testament as well as of the new because diuels and spirits had their figures and shapes as wel then as now Was it straunge vnto him that there are sacramentall figures in the new Testament to which the words of Tertullian might be fitly applied Surely S. Austen saith that g August in Psal 3. Christ admitted Iudas to that banquet wherein he commended to his Disciples the Figure of his body and blood So saith the old Father Ephrem that h Ephrem de natura dei noÌ„ scrutanda cap. 4. Christ blessed and brake the bread in figure of his bodie and blessed gaue the cup in Figure of his pretious blood Nay the Answ himselfe hath confessed i Sect. 10. before that the Fathers call the sacrifice which they speak of a figure of the death and passion of Christ Of such a figure Tertullian speaketh and reasoneth thus that there should neuer haue bin appointed in the Gospel a figure to represent the body of Christ except there had bene a true bodie to be represented thereby As for that cauill of his which he hath borrowed from Bellarmine that if Tertullian had not spoken of a figure in the old Testament he shuld not haue said fuisset but esset it is too too foolish and absurd and if he were in the Grammer schoole he should deserue to be laide ouer the forme to make him know that the verbe fuisset is rightly vsed by Tertullian with relation to Christs first
taken in the nettes which thou thy selfe hast wouen For as the bread and wine albeit in vertue and power they implie the bodie and blood of Christ yet retaine still the substance truth of nature which they had before so the bodie of Christ albeit it be glorified and aduanced to high and excellent dignitie yet remaineth still the same in substance and propertie of nature as it was before Which saint Austen expresseth thus speaking of the bodie of Christ To August ep 57. which indeed he hath giuen immortalitie but hath not taken away the nature thereof If Euâ—yches were now aliue he would surely be a Papist Your new and grosse heresie of Transubstantiation had bene a good neast for him to shroude himselfe in For he might and would haue said that as the bread and wine in the sacrament after consecration do leaue their former substance and are changed into another so the bodie of Christ although it were first a true and naturall bodie yet after his ascension and glorification was chaunged into another nature and substance of the Godhead A meete couer cyp de caena domini for such a cup. You may remember that I shewed you how Cyprian doth exemplifie the matter of the sacrament by the diuinitie humanitie of Christ that as Iesus Christ though truly God yet was not letted thereby to be truly man so the sacrament though it implie sacramentally not only the vertue power but also the truth of the bodie and blood of Christ yet is not therby hindered from hauing in it the substance and nature of bread wine And as Christ was changed in nature not by leauing his former nature of Godhead but by taking to him the nature of man so bread and wine were chaunged in nature not by leauing their former nature substance but by hauing vnited vnto them by the working of the holie Ghost in such maner as I haue said the substance and effect of the bodie and blood of Iesus Christ But you cannot sée how the words of Christ This is my bodie c. can be vnderstood otherwise but of your Transubstantiation There is M. Spence a veile of preiudice lying before your heart which blindeth your eyes that you cannot sée it Otherwise you might know by the very spéeches of the auncient Fathers to whom you referre your selfe that Christ called bread and wine his bodie and blood and that after the same maner of sacramentall speaking which I noted vnto you before out of saint Austen Sacraments because August ep 23. of the resemblance do most commonly take the names of the things themselues which they do resemble Whereof he saith for example in the same place The Sacrament of Christes bodie is after a certaine maner the bodie of Christ But Cyprian telleth you Our Cypr. ll 1. ep 6. Lord called the bread made by the vniting of many cornes his bodie and the wine pressed out of many clusters and grapes hee called his blood And Chrysostome saith of bread in the sacrament The bread chrysost ad caesar Theod. dia. 1. is vouchsafed the name of our Lords bodie And Theodoret as before Christ honored the visible signes with the name of his body blood And S. Austen The bread is the bodie of Christ And Theodoret againe Aug. apâ—d Bâ—dam in 1. cor 10. Our Sauiour chaunged the names and gaue vnto his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his bodie And Cyprian againe Our Lorde gaue at the table with his owne handes bread Theod dial 1. Cypr. de vnct Chrismatis and wine and bread and wine are his flesh and blood The signes and the things signified are counted by one name And if you wold know the cause why Christ did vse this exchaunge of names Theodoret telleth you straightwaies after He would haue those that are partakers of the diuine mysteries not to regard the nature of those things which are seene but because of the changing of the names to beleeue the chaunge which is wrought by grace namely that our mindes may be fixed not vpon the signs but vpon the things signified therby as he that hath any thing assured vnto him by hand and seale respecteth not the paper or the writing or the seale but the things that are confirmed and assured vnto him hereby By these you may vnderstand that it was bread which Christ called his bodie and as Cypr. lib. 2. epâ—st 3. Aug. cont Adâ—m c2 12. Tertul cont Marcionem lib. 4. Cyprian saith That it was wine which he called his blood And let S. Austen tell you the same Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the sign of his body So Tertullian The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his bodie saying this is my body that is to say a figure of my bodie Wherby you may conceiue that bread and wine are not really chaunged into the bodie and blood as you teach but remaining in substance the same they were are in vse and propertie the signes and figures of the bodie and blood of Christ And as Gelasius addeth to the words before alleaged The image and resemblance of the Lords body and blood is celebrated in the exercise of the Sacraments Yet they are not naked and bare signes as you are wont hereupon to cauill but substantiall and effectuall signes or seales rather assuring our faith of the things signified thereby and deliuering as it were into our hands and possession the whole fruite and benefit of the death and passion of Iesus Christ But you will vrge perhaps that Tertullian saith Christ made the bread his bodie which words your men are wont to alleage out of the former part of the sentence guilefully concealing the end of the same Tertullian declareth his owne meaning that he vnderstandeth a figure of the bodie But you may further Ioh. 1. 1â— remember that the Gospell saith The word was made flesh and yet it ceased not to be the word so the bread is made the bodie of Christ and yet it ceaseth not to be the bread S. Austen saith August apud Bedam in 1. cor 10. Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his body blood which also he made vs to be and by his mercy we are that which we do receiue yet we are not transubstantiated into the bodie blood of Christ Vnderstand therefore that the bread is made the bodie of Christ after a certain maner and not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie As touching the bodily and Popish eating drinking of Christs flesh and blood grounded on this point of transubstantiation Christ our Sauiour said to the Iewes as S. Austen expoundeth his words August in Psal 98. Ye shall not eate this bodie which you see nor drinke that blood which they shall shead that shall crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament Being
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
that which is more fit and conuenient to be spoken And if these men had thought that in proper spéech it is true that Christ is indéed offered or sacrificed to what purpose should they hauing mentioned the offering of him adioyne thus Or rather we worke the remembrance of a sacrifice as to mollifie that which was before hardly and vnproperly spoken Surely it had behoued the Answ for his honesties sake to shewe some reason why these men not talking of the death of Christ but expresly of the sacrifice which it is sayd the church did offer and hauing mentioned the offering of sacrifice and the offering of Christ should so recall their words and in effect say Nay we offer not a sacrifice indéed but rather performe the remembrance of a sacrifice But what can be more plaine then that of Theophylact m Theophyl in Heb. 10. We offer him the same alwaies or rather we make a remembrance of the offering of him as if he were now offerd or sacrificed Which words as if he were now offred make it as cleer as the sun-light that Christ is not now really and indéed offered in sacrifice For what reasonable man wold euer say as if he were now offered if he were perswaded that Christ is now indéed and verily offered To this purpose the words of Eusebius also are very pregnant n Euseb de demonstr Euan. lib. 1. cap. 10. Christ saith he offered a sacrifice to his father and ordeined that we should offer a remembrance thereof vnto God in steed of a sacrifice Then Christ ordeined not another sacrifice to be offered as Eusebius should haue saide if he had bene a Papist but in steed of a sacrifice in steed I say of a sacrifice he ordeined vnto vs to make a remembrance of his sacrifice Certainly these men if they had beléeued any such sacrifice as the Papists now take vpon them to practise could not haue omitted some plaine declaration thereof being in the places whence I alleaged these words so directly and fully occasioned thereto The same I say much more of Theodoret who so expresly proposeth the question of offering sacrifice o Theodor. in Heb. â— For if saith he the priesthood which is by the law be ended and the priest after the order of Melchisedec haue offered a sacrifice haue made that other sacrifices be not necessary why do the priests of the new Testament worke a mystical Liturgy or sacrifice Where if he would haue answered as a Papist he must haue sayd that they did indéed offer a very true sacrifice properly so called of the verie body and blood of Christ and that this derogateth not from the sacrifice of Christ vpon his Crosse but serueth to apply the same vnto vs and that all the spéeches of the Apostle against sacrificing doe touch onely the sacrifices of the Iewes But he as vnacquainted with these Popish deuises answereth simply plainly It is cleare to them that are instructed in diuine matters that we do not offer another sacrifice but do performe a remembrance of that one and healthfull sacrifice For this commandement the Lord himselfe gaue vs saying Do this in remembrance of me that by beholding the figures we might call to minde the sufferings that he vndertooke for vs c. By which words he plainly sheweth vs that after that one and healthfull sacrifice which Christ offered for vs which he expresseth by the sufferings of Christ the priests of the new Testament doe not now offer another sacrifice but performe onely a remembrance of that former sacrifice by those mysteries which Christ hath left to be celebrated in remembrance thereof Let S. Austen yet make this more plain saying that p August cont faustâ—m Manich. li. 2â— cap. 21. the flesh blood of Christs sacrifice was in his passion giuen in verie truth after his ascension is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance He maketh these diuers each from other to be giuen in verie truth and to be celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance applying the one to his passion the other to the Sacrament Now if to be giuen in verie truth belong to the Sacrament also then S. Austen speaketh vainly and idlely maketh a distinction without any difference But now opposing one to the other in verie truth and by a Sacrament of remembrance he sheweth that in the Sacrament of remembrance Christ is not really and truly sacrificed The Answ thought good to say nothing to that which I vrged concerning this opposition The other place of q August ep 23. Austen to Bonifacius I opened also somewhat vnto him and fully beforehand preuented him of his refuge in putting difference betwixt Christs death and Christ himselfe and yet forsooth all this maketh nothing against him The best kinde of bad answering when there is no good answere to serue the turne But S. Austen in that place noteth the offering of Christ r Semel in seipso singulis diebu in sacramento in himselfe to haue bene once that the offering which is sayd to be euery day is in a Sacrament or mysterie not in himself And to shew the cause why he is said in a Sacrament or mysterie to be offered euery day wheras in himselfe he was but once offered he saith that because Sacraments haue the resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments therefore they commonly take vnto them the names of the same things Euen as good Friday is said to be the day of Christs passion Sunday to be the day of Christes resurrection not because Christ suffereth euery good Friday or riseth againe euery Sunday but because these daies resemble and in course of time are answerable to those daies wherein Christ suffered and rose againe So therefore Christ is said to be offered euery day not because there is any reall sacrificing of him euery day but because his once offering of himselfe is daily in the Sacrament figured and remembred And this I shewed before out of the glose of the Canon law Å¿ De consâ—â—ra dist 2. cap. se mel in glosla Christ is offered that is the offering or sacrificing of Christ is represented and a memorie made of his passion Which words the Answ falsly and deceitfully extenuateth as if they serued no further but only to note a representation of Christs death and passion which he yéeldeth vnto Wheras the wordes serue to expounde what Austen and Prosper meant when they said that Christ is offered or sacrificed in a Sacrament and by the same exposition diminish the credit of the Roomish sacrifice For if these words The offering or sacrificing of Christ is represented and there is a memorie made of his passion be the true meaning of these words Christ is offered or sacrificed as the glose setteth downe what can be more euident to him that hath eyes to sée then that Austen and Prosper the other Fathers when they mention sacrifice as touching the
b clem Apost consti li. 6. ca. 23. Euseb de vita constant lib. 4. cap. 45. Concil Constanti 6. ca. 32. calling the one blouddy as being properly a sacrifice the other vnblouddy as being so but vnproperly and onely in a mystery as the place of Clemens whosoeuer he was doth plainely shew affirming it to bée celebrated by signes of the body and bloud of Christ not by the body it selfe and that of c Oecumen in Heb. 5. Oecumenius out of Photius that Christ first offered an vnblouddy sacrifice and then afterward hee offered his owne body also manifestly declaring that the vnblouddy sucrifice was not indéede the offering of y◠body of Christ yet to offer the blouddy sacrifice of Christes death in an vnblouddy sacrifice of his body to apply vnto vs the vertue of his bloudy sacrifice is a mishapen monster lately begotten in the time of Antichristian desolation and such as the ancient fathers neuer dreamed of And wisely did he deale to tel me that he could shew much and yet to shew nothing at all Now he telleth me againe here that which for enlarging his answere he hath so often idlely and vainely repeated that they are not of opinion that Christ suffereth or is slaine in their sacrifice which he saieth is an imagination fit for my merry gentleman the Athenian But surely it will fall to Doctor Allen to be that merry gentleman For he in great sadnesse telleth vs concerning Christ in their sacrifice That hee is d Allen. de Eucharist sacrif cap 1◠Verè mactatur verely slaine and offered in sacrifice and I hope the Answ wil take Doct. Allen for a Catholicke though he say that neuer any Catholicke did so write But let that passe as an vnsauery dreame of a drousie Cardinall the Answ will not say so Yet he may as well proue by the sayings of the Fathers ◠that Christ dieth and is crucified again in this mysterie as that he is verily sacrificed séeing that as I shewed him they no lesse plainly affirme the one then they do the other But the letter is not to be forced in the one What reason then so much to force it in the other Nay because they teach vs that the passion death of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer and the passion of Christ is here to be vnderstood not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie as S. Austen speaketh it foloweth that the sacrifice which we offer as touching y◠present act must be vnderstood a sacrifice not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie But here the Answ would saine lift me vp before I am downe telling me first that mine argument is against art because the forme is negatiue in the third figure But the man without doubt hath forgotten his Logicke For what proposition of all these is negatiue I maruell Mary this forsooth The passion of Christ is here to be vnderstood not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie and so the conclusion But if I should say to him that Campian and his fellows were executed not for religion but for treason would he not take it that I spake verie affirmatiuely that they were executed only for treason And why then could he not cōceiue that when I said The passion of Christ is to be vnderstood as touching the Sacrament not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie I affirmed this that the passion of Christ is to be vnderstood only in a signifying mysterie and the conclusion answerable thereto His Logicke rule of the negatiue particle Post copulam would haue taught him to vnderstand both the propositions affirmatiuely as I set them downe and then the forme shal not be negatiue in the third figure But this being made good the Maior or first proposition he saith is false if I meane it as I must that the passion of Christ is the whole sacrifice For there is as he saith beside the memory of the passion of Christ a reall offering also of the body of Christ The Maior is the saying of Cyprian as I alleaged e Cypri lib. 2. Epist 3. The passion of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer Yea but he saith not that it is the whole sacrifice saith the Answerer He saith not so indéed but yet his words import no lesse to any mans vnderstanding that is not froward But if that be not hence assured yet was it otherwise manifestly inough proued by the words of Prosper though the Answ would not see it because it should haue preuented him of his answere f Prosper in Psal 12◠What propitiation is there saith Prosper but sacrifice and what sacrifice but the killing or death of that lambe which hath taken away the sinnes of the world Now if there be no sacrifice of propitiation but only the death of the lamb◠that is the passiō of Christ as Prosper teacheth then the passion of Christ is the whole sacrifice that we offer Let him adde hereunto the words of S. Austen who telleth vs thus g August con aduer leg proph l. 1. c. 18 For the singular and only true sacrifice the blood of Christ was shed for vs. The bloodshedding of Christ then is the only true sacrifice therefore there is no other true sacrifice of Christ himselfe The bloodshedding of Christ is only represented in the Sacrament by a signifying mysterie and not performed in the truth of the thing Therefore the whole sacrifice that we offer is a representation only of a sacrifice by a signifying mysterie not any reall sacrificing in the truth of the thing Let Iustinus Martyr further iustifie this matter who auoucheth plainly h Iushin Martyr dial cum Tryph. That praiers thanksgiuing are the only sacrifices that Christians haue receiued to make that by their drie and moist nourishment that is the Sacrament or elements of bread and wine they may be admonished of those things which God the sonne of God hath suffered for them The Sacrament then of drie and moyst nourishment that is the Lordes supper contemeth no other sacrifices but praiers and thanksgiuings neither haue Christians receiued to vse therein any other sacrifice as Iustinus Martyr expresly defineth Then it followeth that Christians haue not receiued that which Papists teach to make any reall offering of the body of Christ but only an Eucharistical offering of the passiō of Christ in calling to minde by the vse of this holy Sacrament what God the sonne of God hath suffered for them Basil also witnesseth the same writing vpon these words of the prophesie of Esay i Basil in Esay cap. 1. What haue I to do with the multitude of your offerings c. God saith he reiecting multitude of offerings requireth of vs one namely that euery man reconcile and offer himselfe to God yeelding himselfe by reasonable seruice a liuing sacrifice offering to God the sacrifice of praise For the
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
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
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
bread and wine saith the Answerer And how now They subsist now by the power of God saith he and haue their being by themselues But that cannot be for they must abide in their former subsistence and that was in the natures of bread and wine Therefore there must still be bread and wine wherin these formes and mysticall signes must subsist And yet further if these words of Theodoret do not import the remaining of the very substance of bread wine the hereticke is not at al caught as Theodoret telleth him that he is For he hath to reply would haue replied if Transubstantiation had bene then beléeued As it is in the mysticall signes which are the image so must it be in the truth which is the body of Christ The mysticall signes loose their substance after consecration Therfore the body of Christ looseth his substance after his ascension But indéede the argument standeth firme against the hereticke with Theodoret as it did with Gelasius As it is in the mysticall signes so it must be in yâ— body of Christ The mysticall signes kéepe their substance after consecratioÌ„ Therfore Christs body remaineth the same substance after his ascension And thus the wordes goe currant both against Eutyches his confusion and popish transsubstantiation Now I cannot but maruel how the Answerer making Theodoret to speake so nicely and precisely of those Laterane subtilties of formes subsisting by themselues of naturall properties and figures and shapes remaining without any substance doth imagine that Theodoret being so long before the Laterane definition should be so throughly acquainted with these matters and so perfectly set them downe which yet as it is plainly confessed in the d Index Expurgat in censu Bertra quae subtilissimè verissimè posterior aetas addidit Index Expurgatorius haue bene since added in latter times and indéed were neuer knowne to the auncient Fathers Without doubt Theodoret was some Prophet and had some speciall reuelation to this purpose to know what should be agreed vpon in the Laterane Councell and maruell it is that for this cause he was not sainted in the Roman Calender But a liar they say should beare a braine and the Answ and his fellowes should remember that if these things were added since in later times as they themselues confesse then Theodoret had neuer any intelligence of them as indéed he had not To leaue this and to go forward he now entereth further into the words of Theodoret and openeth that which I concealed weigheth euery word at large and when all is done Parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus Theodoret as he saith hauing set down one part of the Sacrament which he calleth yâ— formes of bread and wine commeth to set downe the other to be the reall bodie and blood of Christ and that in these wordes The mysticall signes are vnderstood to be the same that they are made are so beleeued and adored as being the same that they are beleeued Now hereof he gathereth that they are vnderstood to be the bodie blood of Christ and it may not be a false vnderstanding therfore they are so indéede and so they are beléeued to be and adored not as being signes of the bodie and blood of Christ but as being the same indéed How pretily this man plaieth with a shadow and solaceth himselfe with a large description of his idle fancie Who told him I maruell that this was Theodorets meaning Surely he tooke it out of some of his learned Treatises and beléeued it as an Oracle Ex tripode But let me demaund of him are the formes of bread and wine vnderstood to be to be I say yâ— bodie blood of Christ are they beléeued to be so are they adored as being not signes but verily indeed the bodie and blood of Christ What new stuffe is this that formes of bread and wine be indéed Christs bodie and blood and must be adored with godly honor as the Answ meaneth adoratioÌ„ Is Christs bodie now become formes of bread and must we adore and worship formes of bread That is idolatry euen by the confession of his own side But he will except and tell me that not the formes but the bodie conteined vnder them is adored Yea but he hath told me alreadie and Theodorets words as he expoundeth them import no other that the formes are the bodie of Christ are adored as being so indéed Cleare it is that Theodoret referreth that adoration which he speaketh of to the mysticall signes So that the Answ must either make himselfe an idolater and must turne the bodie and blood of Christ into formes of bread and wine or else he must séeke a new construction of Theodorets words The meaning is plain The mystical signes before consecration are not mystical signes but méerly bread and wine By consecration they are made symbola mystica corporis sanguinis domini mysticall signes of the bodie and blood of Christ And notwithstanding that after consecration they continue in their former substance yet are they vnderstood and beléeued to be not only that which they are in substance but the same that they are made that is signes of the bodie and blood of Christ and are honoured and reuerenced as being translated from common vse to be as they are made mystical signes of Christs body and blood And this to be the plaine meaning of Theodoret it appeareth by that which he addeth immediatly for hauing thus set downe the mysticall signes though in substance bread and wine as they were before yet vnderstood to be the signes of Christs bodie and blood he addeth Confer then the image with the paterne or principall and thou shalt see the likenesse For the figure must be agreeable or answerable to the truth Where we sée that he calleth the mysticall signes which he hath spoken of the image and figure not for that which they are in substance but for that which they are vnderstood to be made and on the other side the bodie of Christ wherof they are the image and figure he calleth the patterne the principal the truth and inferreth hereof that as these signes though they be thus highly honoured to be the images the signes the figures of the bodie blood of Christ yet are in substance and nature the same still so the bodie of Christ thoughâ—t be now become immortall and not subiect to any corruption or weaknesse and be set at the right hand of God and worshipped of all creatures yet is stil a true bodie retaining the same forme figure circumscriptioÌ„ and substance that it had before Thus Theodoret will in no wise yéeld to be made a Patrone either of real presence or of Transubstantiation His iudgement is so cleare in these points that he sheweth but a naughtie and leaud minde whosoeuer shall go about to father any of these matters vpon him In the former Dialogue he saith plainly that Christ in the deliuerie of the mysteries called bread his
of bread is called by the name of flesh and the visible forme of wine by the name of blood Now it is called the inuisible and intelligible flesh of Christ because according to that forme flesh is not seene but vnderstoode and so the bloud Therefore the inuisible flesh is said to be a sacrament of the visible flesh because the forme of bread according to which that flesh is not seen is a sacrament of the visible flesh because by the inuisible flesh that that is by the forme according to which the flesh of Christ appeapeareth not flesh is signified the body of Christ which is visible and may be felt where it appeareth in his forme To this he addeth out of the other wordes of Austen that the bread is called the body being indeed the sacrament of the body of Christ not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie and so maketh S. Austen to expound that which before he sayth he had obscurely spoken Thus the Answ owne doctors though otherwise friendes to transubstantiation yet doe iustifie my exposition of this place and make it manifest that though the place be obscure at first sight yet by the common groundes of diuinitie it connot be construed so as that transubstantiation may necessarily be proued thereby Therefore I say still with Austen that the sacrament of the body of Christ is onely after a certaine maner the body of Christ namely not properly not in the trueth of the thing as the Answerer auoucheth but onely in a signifying mysterie betokening the same P. Spence Sect. 14. FOr your place of Chrysostome The bread is vouchsafed the name of the body c. For as for the place of S. Cypr. lib. 2. Epis 6. is such as deserueth no answer a CypriaÌ„ saith that Christ called the bread made of manie grains his body c. It is very bread therfore which is called the bodie only telling you that the bread wherof the sacrament was made was compact of many graines and the wine pressed foorth of many grapes which no baker nor vintner will denie which is smally to this purpose the place I say of Chrysost only flattereth you with these wordes b The wordes which I alleaged are thus The bread is vouchâ—afed the name 〈◊〉 the â—ody oâ— christ The nature of bread remaineth Why sir who denieth that the naturall properties of colour shape tast and feeding remaine no Catholique I am sure so that you see your testimonie out of him maketh not against vs nor auayleth you anie more then the painted fire warmed the old woman But the places of Chrysostome prouing the reall presence are so infinite that infinite madnesse it were M. Abbot and farre surmounting your Athenians madnesse to hazard my soule vpon such a testimonie as saith nothing against me R. Abbot 14. IN the places which I alleaged of Cyprian Chrysostome and Theodoret the Answ heart without doubt failed him For hée sawe it plainly euicted and proued by them and that so as that hee knew there was nothing for him to answere directly to the wordes that it is bread which in the sacrament is called the bodie of Christ and wine which is called his bloud Yet being vowed and sworne to his owne errour he will rather do or say any thing then yéeld vnto the trueth The places of Theodoret hée leaueth out quite who affirmeth that Christ honoured the visible signes with the name of his body and bloud that hée made exchange of names and gaue to his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his body To the places of Cyprian and Chrysostome he writeth somewhat but answereth nothing He taketh that which was not vrged and that which was to the point in question he slippeth by Let him remember what S. Austen saith a Aug. quaest ex yet â—â—st q. 14. He which concealeth the wordes of the matter in question is either an ignorant person or a wrangler studying rather for cauillinges then for doctrine The words of Cyprian are thus b Cypri lib. 1. Epist 6. Our Lord calleth bread made by the vniting of many cornes his body and wine pressed out of manie clusters and grapes he calleth his bloud To this hée saith childishly and vainly that it onely proueth that bread is made of many cornes and wine of many grapes shewing plainly that he made no conscience of his answere but was desirous to credite himselfe by writing somewhat howsoeuer But let Cyprian be further asked what is it that Christ calleth his bodie He saith it is bread What is it that Christ calleth his bloud It is wine Christ calleth the bread his body and the wine his bloud Now if there be neither bread nor wine in the sacrament as the Answ and his fellowes teach then Christ cannot call the bread his body nor the wine his bloud But because Christ calleth the bread his body and the wine his bloud therefore the meaning of these wordes This is my body This is my bloud is thus This bread is my body This wine is my bloud And because in proper spéech that cannot be true for so it c De consecr dist 2 ca. panis est is vnpossible as the glose of yâ— canon law saith that bread should be the body of Christ therefore it must be figuratiuely vnderstood This bread is the signe and sacrament of my body c. To this the words alleaged out of Chrysostome are verie pregnant d Chrysost ad Caesat Monachum The breadis vouchsafed the name of the body of Christ Why doth the Answ smoother vp these wordes and talke impertinently of that which in this place was not mentioned at all I talked not here of the nature remaining I tell him out of Chrysostome that after consecration it is bread which beareth the name of the body of Christ and let his owne conscience tell him whether that be any thing against him or not when as he and his companie say there is no bread remaining after consecration Chrysostome saith The bread is vouchsafed the name of the body of Christ The Papist saith There is no bread but the verie body of Christ it selfe As for his construction of the nature of bread remaining that is the colour shape taste and féeding without any substance of bread it maketh Chrysostome to speake fondly as himselfe vseth to doe namely thus The bread is vouchsafed the name of Christes body although there be no bread His infinite testimonies out of Chrysostome to prooue the reall presence are iust neuer a one He deceiâ—â—eth himselfe for want of the knowledge of that rule which Chrysostome himselfe giueth him vpon these wordes of Christ e chrys in Ioh. hom 46. The flesh profiteth nothing Hee meaneth it not saith he of the flesh it selfe God forbid But of those which carnally and fleshly vnderstand those thinges which are spoken And what is it to vnderstand carnally Marry simply as things are spoken
and breaking him as the Prophet speaketh and as it were leading out his armies against him he in the meane time holding fast still vpon God to be his God who would bring him backe from these gates of death when he had finished the worke that was giuen him to doe but yet féeling nothing for the present whereby he might appeare to be his God But what can I say more of this spéech of Christ then Ferus hath said a man by profession of the church of Roome yet in many things not so grosse as Romanists commonly are Writing vppon these wordes of Christ he saith thus r Ferus in Matt 27. Here God the father dealeth with Christ not as a father but as a tyrant although hee be in the meane time of most louing affection towardes him This Christes being forsaken is the dread of our conscience for our sinnes feeling the iudgement of God and his eternall wrath and is so affected as if it were for euer forsaken and reiected from the face of God Christ of his mercie put himselfe into our cause and vndertooke the punishment that we had deserued Therefore on the one side wee see the people reuiling him the Pharisees blaspheming him c. On the other side we see God as an aduersarie forsaking him so that he crieth out why hast thou forsaken me Christ to deliuer sinners set himself in place of all sinners not playing the theefe or adulterer c but transferring vnto himself the stipend and wages the punishment and desert of sinners as colde heate hunger thirst feare trembling the horrour of death the horrour of hell despaire death hell it self that by feare he might ouercome feare by horrour despaire death hell might ouercome horror despaire death hell and in a word by Satan might ouercome Satan Thus by the testimonie of one of their own Prophets it is iustified that Christ Iesus suffered not onely a bodily death but also in his soule the waight of his fathers indignation and the very horrour of hell it selfe when he cried out and complained in that maner as hath béen declared And this is that which the scripture meaneth when it saith that ſ Gal. 3. 13. Christ was made a curse for vs to deliuer vs from the curse For as to be made sinne for vs importeth that he did beare the punishment of our sinnes so to be made a curse for vs importeth that he did beare the burden of our curse that is to say the full measure of the wrath of God that otherwise should haue lighted vpon vs. The fathers thought no lesse when they construed the 88. Psalme or the 87. as they reckon it to be the description of the passion of Christ Where we reade thus t Psal 88. 7. 1. 16. Thine indignation is set against me or lieth hard vppon me and thou hast vexed me with all thy stormes Lord why abhorrest thou my soule Thy wrathfull displeasure goeth ouer me and the feare of thee hath vndone me So is that Psal applied by u Athan. de interpret Psalm Arnob. Hieron in psal 87. Athanasius Arnobius and Hierome Austen also calleth the same w August in Psalm 87. a song of the passion of Christ though turning the wordes alleaged to another intention then they doe manifestly intimate vnto vs. Athanasius referring himselfe to those wordes Thy furie or indignation is set against me saith x Athanas de inter Psal Christ died not for that he was guiltie of sinnne himself but he suffered for vs and in himselfe did beare the wrath that was conceiued against vs for sinne euen as he saith elswhere y Idem in Euangel de pas cruce domi that he took the bitternesse of that wrath which arose by the transgression of the law and swallowed it vp and so made it void So z Hieron in Psal 87. Hierome bringeth in our Sauiour speaking out of these former wordes of the Psalme in this sort Thou hast brought vpon me that wrath and storme of thy furie and indignation which thou wouldst haue powred out vpon the nations because I haue taken vpon me their sinnes Yea Hilarie though a Hilar. de Trinit lib 10. elswhere in heate of contention with an hereticke he séeme vtterly to denie all passion and suffering of Christ whose verie opinion in effect I take it to be which b Ambros in Luc. cap. 22. lib. 10. S. Ambros reprooueth writing vpon Luke yet in his more aduised spéech of Sermon vpon one of the Psalmes he giueth a notable testimony to this trueth Christ c Hilar. in Psa 68. became subiect to the death of the Crosse the waters comming in euen vnto his soule when the violence of all sufferings beake forth euen to the death of the soule By and by after he sheweth his mind more plainly He descended euen to the depth not of the flesh only but of death it self and al the terror of that tempest which raged against vs lighted vpon him Thus therfore it is euident both by the authoritie of the scriptures and by the consent of the ancient fathers that Christ suffered for vs not only in body but also in soule that his suffering in soule was the enduring of the vttermost of that tempest of the wrath of God which should haue fallen vpon vs for sinne Which indéed should haue oppressed vs infinitely and without end because the infinite maiestie of God whom we had offended required an infinite satisfaction for the offence and the same could not be yéelded by vs but by infinite and endlesse bearing of his wrath But it neither would nor might hold Christ in that sort because the infinitenesse of the time was recompensed by the infinitenesse of the person who was not onely man but God also Now whereas it is vrged that one drop of the bloud of Christ was sufficient to redeeme the world I answere that it is folly héereof to conclude that he suffered not in his soule for vs and with as good reason they may conclude that he was not crowned with thornes spitted vpon mocked and reuiled c. Yea the he died not at all nor shed any more but one drop of bloud We are not to stand vpon the fancies of men what they will thinke enough to redéeme vs but wée must learne in the word of God what the Lord hath done for vs that we may accordingly admire his mercie and goodnesse and sing thanks and prayses vnto him Now that thus Christ descended into hell I know that otherwise he descended into hell though I stand not to denie it yet I dare not affirme it Neither is it any pittiful damnable and horrible matter to auouch this but it is a trueth to be professed and comfortable to be beléeued and the Answe in so condemning it doth but as S. Peter saith d ◠Pet. 2. 12. speake euill of those things which he knoweth not Now by this descending of Christ into hell
first which hee tooke to make the Sacrament but in being made the Sacrament it was no longer wine as if Cyprian had said thus Christ tooke wine and made it no wine and though it were now no wine yet he called wine his bloud Cyprians wordes are euident that Christ called wine his bloud and that by wine is represented his bloud which cannot be till it be made a sacrament Therefore in the Sacrament there is wine which representeth and is called the bloud of Christ Such testimonies he saith are the scrappes and parings and crummes of the fathers But let him remember that a crumme is enough to choke a man and so doth this testimonie choke him so that hee staggereth and stammereth out an answere whereof he himself can make no reason if he were enquired of it by word of mouth His other idle talke is answered b Sect. 2. before Pet. Spence Sect. 17. SAint Augustine ad Adimantum maketh so flatly against you that I wonder why you alleage it Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body Why should he doubt to say it was so when he knew it was so when he gaue the signe of his bodie But what signe a bare signe no sir but such a signe as contained in it the thing signified really how prooue you it Euen thus Hee writeth against the Manichees that condemned all the olde testament as being the euill Gods testament such was their vile blasphemie among other places they condemned this place of Leuiticus 17. Sanguis pecoris erit eius aâ—ima This place saith S. Augustine is spoken figuratiuely not that it is the very soule or life of the beast but that in it lieth the soule or life of the beast neither is the bloud a bare signification of the beasts soule but such a signe as containeth in it the very soule of the beast and therefore of the same speech he hath Quaestio 57. in Leuiticum made particular discourse where he hath these wordes We are to seeke out such speeches as by that which containeth do signifie that which is conteined â—â— because the life is holden in the body by the bloud for if the bloud be shed the life or soule departeth therefore by the bloud is most fâ—â—ly signified the soule and the bloud taketh the name thereof euen as the place wherein the Church assembled is called the Church You a I see the Answerer play with his owne fancie altogether stranâ—e from S. Austenâ— meaning as shall be shewed see he maketh in this place the bloud of the beast a signe of the beasts soule but such a signe as contained the soule in it Now in the other place ad Adimantum by you obiected S. Augustine forgat not this point of this place touched but in excusing that place of Leuiticus and interpreting it he exemplifieth it by the wordes of Christ which they admitted all the sorte of them as being the wordes of the good God of the new testament as they termed him saying I may interpret that precept to be set downe by way of signe For our Lord doubted not to say c. So that this place is brought by S. Augustine to shewe that in the B. Sacrament there is a signe containing the thing and therefore called by the name of the thing so in that of Leuiticus Moses called the bloud the soule of the beast because it is such a signe as containeth the soule of the beast really in it This exposition is irrefragable because it is b VVhich S. Austen himselfe neuer dreamed of S. August own exposition who could best expound his own meaning And against the Manichees he could not bring any other meaning possibly of This is my body but that For they confessed Christ to be really in the Sacrament in his bodie because the euill God had tied him or as they foolishly vttered it certaine peeces of him aswel in the Sacramentall bread as in other bread eares of corne stickes hearbes meates and all other creatures and that the elect Manichees by eating those things and after belching them out againe and otherwise auoiding them did let out at libertie the good God Christes body And therefore after these expositions agreeable to their heresie this place did fitly as S. Augustine bringeth it in expound that of Leuiticus As Christ in saying This is my body must meane as you Manichees expound it This is a signe of my body in which signe the partes of my body are bound euen so the bloud of the beast is the life is as much as the bloud of the beast is a signe of his life in which signe his life is contained Thus did S. Augustine excellently quoad homines answere the Manichees with their owne opinion And therefore to conclude S Augustine in calling it signum doth inferre most necessarie that his body is present because it is a signe in which the body is conteined R. Abbot 17. TO shew further that our Sauiour Christ said of verie bread This is my body and therefore that the Sacrament is not really and substantially but onely in signe and mysterie the body of Christ I alleaged the words of S. Austen Our a August cont Adimantum cap. 12. Lord doubted not to say This a is my body when he gaue the signe of his body The wordes are plaine that Christ in a certaine vnderstanding and meaning called that by the name of his body which is indéede but a signe of his bodie Now with this place of Austen the Answ dealeth as b Leu. deca 1. lib. 1. Cacus the théefe dealt with Hercules his Oxen when he drew them backward by the tailes into his caue So doth this man violently pull and draw the wordes of Austen backward into his den of reall presence and streineth them whether they wil or not to serue his turne in that behalfe But the lowing of the Oxen to their fellowes descried the theft of Cacus and the wordes following in S. Austen himselfe doe prooue that the Answ doth but play the théefe M. Harding was content to say that S. Austen in heate of disputation spake that which might be greatest aduantage against the hereticke not most agréeable to the trueth or to his owne meaning but little did he thinke that the place should serue to prooue any thing for his part But the Answ hath learned a tricke to make the wordes speake for reall presence which neuer was in S. Austens minde Forsooth hauing in hand against the Manichees to expound the wordes of Moses law The bloud is the soule or life he telleth them that the meaning thereof is that the bloud is a signe of life in which signe the soule or life is really conteined and to shew this we are tolde that he bringeth the words of Christ This is my body which he spake of the signe of his body but yet such a signe as doth really conteine the body and therefore we must thinke that the bodie of Christ
would for your sake to helpe you to an argument pull backe his owne confession affirming himselfe to haue spoken de veteri Figura of the olde Figure or except you say his meaning was that Christ made his Supper to be an auncient figure of the old testament R. Abbot 18. HEre the Answerer beginneth with his iest Tertullian saith he killeth the Cowe I aunswere him if Transubstantiation be a Cowe Tertullian killeth the Cowe Hée stronglye gainsaieth it and will not abide it Thus hée speaketh a Tertul. cont Marcion li. 4. The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his bodie in saying This is my bodie that is to say a figure of my bodie But it had not bene a figure vnlesse there were a true bodie For an emptie thing as is a fantasie could receiue no figure Marcion the hereticke against whom he wrote held that Christ had not a true and reall bodie but only a fantasie and appearance and shew of a bodie Tertullian proueth by the Sacrament that Christ had a verie true bodie For the scripture is not wont to set down tokens and figures of things which haue not the truth of the things answerable vnto them Therefore séeing Christ in the Gospell gaue bread as a token and figure of his bodie saying This is my bodie that is to say a figure of my bodie it is certaine that Christ hath a true bodie correspondent to this figure Thus do b chrysost in Mat. hom 83. Theod. dâ—al 2. Iren adu haeres lib. 5. Chrysostome and other of the Fathers reason from the Sacrament to proue the veritie and truth of the passion and of the bodie of Iesus Christ To this place of Tertullian M. Harding confessing that Tertullian made these wordes This is a figure of my bodie the exposition of those words This is my bodie saith that his interpretatioÌ„ is not according to the right sense of Christs words and that in his contention he did not so much regard the exact vse of his words as how he might winne his purpose of his aduersary so maketh Tertullian to write he cared not what Campian being vrged with the same words in the Tower shifted the matter off that those words That is to say a figure of my bodie werâ— the exception of the hereticke and not Tertullians own words The Ans hath found in some other of his learned Treatises namely c Bellar. to 2. de sacram Euchar. lâ—b 2. cap 7. in Bellarmine another deuise for the saluing of this matter Wherby we may sée how these men are carried vp and downe with giddinesse and phrensie and being pressed with euidence of truth cannot finde any answere whereupon to rest themselues and therefore as ashamed each of others doings bestow their wits from day to day to deuise new collusions and shifts to saue themselues The Answ resting vpoÌ„ the credit of father Robert thinketh that there is great wit and reason in that which he hath written so that Tertullian must be an Asse if he meant otherwise then he expoundeth him but indéed getteth himselfe hereby a priuiledge to weare the eares to whomsoeuer it befall to be the Asse For his exposition beside that it is foolish and absurd maketh also expresly against himselfe and admitteth that which I desire and which he himselfe must néeds confesse to be the vndooing of Transubstantiation He maketh two expositions of Tertullians words the one ours and that thus This is my bodie that is to say this is a figure of my bodie and this being indéed the currant and direct passage of Tertullians words he disliketh and condemneth The other is theirs and as he would make vs beléeue the verie intended meaning of the words namely thus This is my bodie This that is to say the figure of my bodie is my bodie Whereby he briefly resolueth out of Tertullian a maruellous doubt wherof his Fathers were neuer able to determine any thing namely whereto the word This is to be applied For if it be sayd This bread which is the very truth then they sawe that Transubstantiation cannot stand Therefore haue they prophaned the sacred words of Christ with their cursed sophistications and haue most wretchedly tossed them too and fro to make a meaning of them that might serue for their purpose yet haue found none But the Answ setteth downe the meaning thus This figure of my bodie is my bodie So that the word This must be referred to the figure of the bodie And what figure The olde figure euen the same saith he that Melchisedech vsed And what was that olde figure Marry it was bread Then we haue the exposition of Christes words as we would haue it This is my bodie that is to say This bread is my bodie And this is manifest to be Tertullians mind by that he saith twise in this place that Christ called bread his bodie and in his booke against the Iewes saith in like sort that he called bread his bodie and in his first booke against Marcion saith againe that Christ represented his bodie by bread Now if Christ in the Sacrament call bread his bodie and by bread do represent his bodie then it followeth that in the Sacrament it is bread which is called the bodie of Christ and is so called because the bodie of Christ is represented thereby Therefore the meaning of Christs words must néeds be thus This bread is the figure of my bodie This were sufficient for the opening of Tertullians minde in this point but yet I will follow the Answ to sift the matter somewhat further I acknowledge first with him that Tertullians purpose in that place is to shewe that Christ fulfilled in the new Testament those things that were foretold and foreshewed in the old But as it was neuer prefigured in the old Testament that there should be a transubstantiation of the bread wine so no more doth Tertullian go about by any old figure to approue the same And if he had named Melchisedech or alluded vnto him any way as we are by this man borne in hand yet could it not haue bene to any other purpose but this that Melchisedech by bringing foorth bread and wine in figure of the Sacrament did signifie that Christ should appoint and institute bread and wine to be the tokens and signes of his bodie and blood and that Christ in the Gospell did fulfil the same So saith S. Hierom d Hieron in Mat. 26. Christ taketh bread goeth to the true SacrameÌ„t of the passeouer that as Melchisedech the priest of the high God in prefiguring of him offering bread and wine had done so he himselfe also might represent the truth of his bodie and blood Therfore though it be graunted that Tertullian speaketh of Melchisedech yet serueth it my purpose and not his that Christ instituted bread and wine to represent thereby the truth of his bodie and blood as Melchisedech had prefigured he should do But the truth is
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
of true faith for one b Ferus in Mat. 8. It is not alwaies faith saith he which we call faith For we call it faith to assent vnto those things which are proposed in the diuine histories and which the Church teacheth to be beleeued This the schoolemen call an vnformed faith and S. Iames a dead faith But what faith is that which is dead and wanteth his forme Verily this is not faith but a vaine opinion Farre otherwise doth the Scripture speake of faith For according to the scripture faith is no◠without confidence of Gods mercie promised in Iesus Christ This he sheweth by examples and places and concludeth thus To be short the faith which the scripture commendeth is notliing else but to trust vpon the free mercie of God This saith he is the true faith and in c In Mat. 27. another place To beleeue is to trust that God for Christ sake will not impute thy sinnes Thus the light of trueth caused Ferus to speake and to controll that senslesse fancie and imagination of faith which the schoolemen and Iesuites haue deuised and defended to delude the true doctrine of Christian faith His saying that faith is quickened and formed by charitie should haue béene prooued because I take not his saying to be a sufficient answere The d 1. Cor. 13. 13. Apostle reckoneth that faith whereby a man is called faithfull as a vertue distinct from charitie and therefore not formed by charitie but hauing a proper act and being by it selfe And so by it selfe it doth iustifie and though in the iustified man there be not onely faith but charitie and good works doe also necessarily follow yet in iustifying no work but faith onely taketh place e Aug. de fide oper cap. 1◠Good works saith Austen followe the iustified man they goe not before while he is yet to be iustified And therefore y◠which he addeth that works done by a iustified man do iustifie and as he saith anon after doe make more iust or encrease our iustice is méerely absurd For to speake of morall or inherent iustice of which he speaketh séeing that the iust man is as the trée and iust or good workes are as the fruite it is alike absurd to say that the good workes of a man do iustifie him or make him more iust as to say that the fruites do make the trée good or encrease the goodnesse of the trée f Mat. 7. 17. The good tree bringeth forth good fruite saith our sauiour Christ and the better the trée waxeth the better waxe the fruites but who euer heard that the betternesse of the fruits did worke the bettering of the trée But such vnreasonable fanties are fit enough to possesse the heads of vnreasonable men Yea but faith is made perfect by workes as S. Iames saith of Abraham that by his workes his faith was made perfect We graunt the same and expound it by the like phrase vsed by S. Paul g 2. cor 12. 9. The power of God is made perfect in weakenesse not for that the weaknesse of man addeth any perfection to the power of God but because in the weakenesse of man it is perfectly declared and approoued to be indéed the power of God according to that which he sayth in another place h 2. cor 4. 7. We haue this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellencie of this power might be of God and not of our selues So faith is made perfect by workes that is it is perfectly shewed or declared to be true and perfect as S. Iames teacheth vs to expound it when he saith I will shew thee my faith by my workes Thus doth Beda expound it manifestly i Beda in epist Iaco. cap. 2. His faith was made perfect by workes that is to say it was prooued by the practise or execution of workes that his faith was perfect in his heart Whereas it is vrged out of the same place of S. Iames that Abraham was iustified by workes I haue alreadie answered by the exception that S. Paul hath set downe k Rom. 4. 2 If Abraham were iustified by workes he had to reioyce but not before God The Gréeke Scholiast out of the Gréeke fathers sayth thus vpon those wordes l Oecumen in Rom. 4. What then Had not Abraham workes Yes But did they iustifie him God forbid Indeede he had workes so that if hee had beene brought in iudgement with the men with whom hee liued he should easily haue been iustified and preferred before them but to be iustified by his workes before God as worthy of the kindenesse and bountifulnes of God towards him he should neuer haue attained c. By what meanes then was he accompted worthie heereof By fayth onely c. Heereby saith he the answere is manifest how S. Paule saith that Abraham was iustified by faith and S. Iames that he was iustified by workes A man then we say is iustified by workes and must be iustified by workes but not before God Thus saith the Apostle manifestly and thus hath the auncient Church subscribed the wordes of the Apostle Now against these the Answ telleth me vpon his owne bare word that we are iustified by works in the sight of God but I cannot beare his word against the worde of God Further I must adde that that iustification before men by workes is nothing else with S. Iames but a proofe and declaration that a man is the same that he professeth himselfe to be a true christian man a true seruaunt and friend of God He speaketh to this effect Thou sayest thou hast faith but I would haue thée shewe it me For I beléeue it not except thou iustifie and prooue it to me by thy workes And that there is no other iustification by works let Thomas Aquinas himselfe teach vs m Thom. Aqui. i◠epist ad Gala cap. 3. lect 4. Workes saith he are not the cause that any man is iust with God but they are the practising and manifesting of iustice For no man is iustified by works with God but by the habite of Faith And anon after obiecting to himselfe the wordes of S. Iames was not Abraham iustified by workes he sayth that iustification is heere vnderstood as touching the exercise and declaration of iustice and that thus a man is iustified that is declared iust by his workes This iustification we require in all the faithful and affirme that there is no man a true professor of true pietie and religion but he that iustifieth himselfe so to be by the carefull ordering of his life and conuersation Yet he obiecteth that as touching onely faith S. Iames saith The deuils beleeue and tremble It is manifest héereby say I that S. Iames speaketh not of that faith which S. Paul meaneth when hée saith that a man is iustified by faith without workes For S. Paul speaketh of such a faith as n Act. 15. 9. whereby the heart is purified whereby o R◠10. 13. 14
admonisheth Further he telleth vs why we must say to God Enter not into iudgement with thy seruaunt for in thy sight no man liuing shal be found iust Because saith he in respect of the puritie of God no man nor angell nor heauen is pure Now I thought that it was but a word in iest when he defied the Pelagians before In this very maner and with this very aunswere did they séeke to shift off these wordes in the like case S. Hierome reporteth it thus e Hieroni. in epistola ad Ctesiphon This testimonie the Pelagians delude by a new reason vnder the name or shew of pietie They say that in comparison of God no man is iust or perfect He answereth them As though this were that which the scripture speaketh of surely it saith not No man liuing shal be found righteous but in thy sight no man liuing shal be found righteous When it saith in thy sight it will haue vs vnderstand that euen they which seeme holy vnto men are not holy as touching the notice and knowledge of God and God looking vpon and viewing all things whom the secrets of hearts cannot deceiue no man is iust Let him heare S. Hierome telling him againe that those wordes are not spoken as touching f Idem dial 1. cont Pelagia righteousnesse in comparison of God but as touching that righteousnesse which concerneth the frailtie of man S. Bernard giueth this reason why we are to cry so g Bernard in fest sanct ser 1 because all our righteousnesse euen our verie righteousnesse is found vnrighteousnesse if it be streightly iudged Therefore for this cause are we to pray in this sort because indéede we are not iust if God consider of vs and iudge vs according to that righteousnesse which is by workes The iustified man is ignorant of his state saith he and therefore may not boast thereof But the iustified man of whom the Scripture speaketh is not ignorant of his state for he h Râ—m 5. 1. 2. hath peace towardes God through Iesus Christ our Lord yea and that in such sort as that hee reioyceth vnder the hope of the glorie of God Now a man reioyceth or i Chrysost in ep ad Rom. hom 9. glorieth saith Chrysostome of those thinges which hee hath alreadie in hand But because the hope of things to come is as certaine and sure as of things alreadie giuen vs. Therefore saith S. Paul we doe alike glorie thereof But this glorying hee groundeth not vpon his workes for there he findeth no assurance but vpon confidence of the mercie and goodnesse of God towardes him in Iesus Christ k Bernar. de Euangel 7. pa. num serm 3. I consider the things saith S. Bernard wherin all my hope consisteth the loue of Gods adoption the truth of his promise and his ablenesse of performance Now let mine owne foolish thought murmure as much as it will saying Who art thou and how great is that glorie and by what merites hopest thou to obtaine it And I will boldly answere I know whom I haue beleeued and I am sure because he hath adopted me in exceeding great loue because he is true in his promise and able for the performance therof These three saith he do so confirme and strengthen my heart that no want of merites no consideration of mine owne vilenesse no estimation of the heauenly blisse can cast me downe from the height of my hope wherein I am firmely rooted This is the faith this is the assurance of the iustified man which the scripture teacheth this giueth him comfort in life and death in outward troubles and inward terrors in which there is no comfort if a man must be ignorant and doubtfull of his state The Answ intimateth further that the iustified man vseth those former spéeches by way of humbling himselfe before God l Bernar. de triplici custodia c. Indeed saith S. Bernard by vvay of humilitie but what against trueth Nay m Idem de verb. Esaiae serm 5. with no lesse truth then humilitie as we heard him say before n Aug. epis 89 in Psal 118. con 2. de nat grat cap. 36. not with counterfeit humilitie but with words of trueth as saint Austen saith concerning Daniel and o Idem de peccat merit remis lib. 2. cap 10. knowing in truth that it is so that there is noâ— a man that is iust in the sight of God as hee also speaketh out of Iob. His third iustification we know not by that name God in this life beginneth his good worke of sanctification in vs but it is yet but begunne p Rom. 8. 23. We haue receiued but the first fruites of the spirite saith S. Paul q Aug. de â—eÌ„p Serm 49. In comparison of that which we hope for at the resurrection saith S. Austen it is but dongue which wee haue in this life So that our r Idem de ciuit dei lib. 19. cap 27. righteousnesse in this life as he saith again consisteth rather in forgiuenesse of sinnes then in perfection of vertues But Å¿ 2. Pet. 3. 13. according to the promise of God we looke for newe heauens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousnesse t Rom 8. 23. We waite for the adoption and full redemption of out bodies u 1 Cor. 15. â—3 when this mortall shall put on immortalitie and this corruptible shall put on incorruption when sinne and death shal be no more and w 1. cor 13. 10. that which is perfect being come that which is now in part shal be done away Now because this our sanctification and righteousnesse is yet but vnperfect and in part therefore we resolue that the righteousnesse whereby we stand iust before God is only the righteousnes of Iesus Christ and that by inherent iustice no man liuing shal be found iust in his â—ight The cause why God doth not perfect vs in this life wee take to be this which S. Austen giueth x August de spiri lâ—tera cap 36. that the mouth euen of the righteous may be shut in their owne praise and not be opened but to the praise of God as S. Bernard saith y Bernard in cantie Ser. 50. that we may know at that day that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. The places which your simplicitie M. Spence as I gesse added in the margin to that which your authour had saide néede no great answere The two former are Apocryphall and prooue nothing Yet the one of them is nothing to the purpose z VVised 3. 15 the fruite of good workes is glorious the other is a false translation where in stéede of a Eccle. 16. 12. workes is put in merite of workes The third is of S. Paul b Rom. 2. 6. God will render vnto euery man according to his workes So we preach so wee enforme the people
of God The wordes of Christ agrée to it c Iohn â— 29. They that haue done good shall rise to the resurrection of life but they that haue done euill shall rise to the resurrection of condemnation The true faithfull man worketh according to his faith and as he is by his new birth made a good trée so he bringeth forth new and good fruites As he doth good so shall he receiue good though his goodnesse be neither of that valure that thereby hee can deserue that which he shall receiue nor so perfect as that thereby hee may stand iust and without fault in the sight of God as I haue before declared But to reason from this place in this sort God rendereth vnto the good man according to his good workes therefore a man is iustified by his workes is an vntowardly kinde of reasoning and the like as if a man should say The louing father requiteth good vnto his childe according to his obedience and good seruice therefore by his obedience and good seruice he is become his childe It is the birth that maketh the childe a childe Our iustification consisteth in this that God accepteth vs for his children This hee doth in our newe birth by d Gal. 3. 26. Iohn 1. 12. 13 faith in Christ Iesus Vnder the couerture of this iustification and new birth wee stand still before God as his children and e Rom. 8. 17. if children of God then heires of God and ioint-heires with Iesus Christ vnto euerlasting life Though afterward by his gace and as his children we do good and according to this good do receiue good yet it is absurd to say that by these our good doings we are iustified that is to say made the children of God and the heires of life which is a matter of birth and not of a working P. Spence the conclusion BVt what meane I to wade in this large sea Good sir forbeare â—e in this and all other controuersies hereafter which now I knowe not how your curtesies and good nature hath drawne me on to runne into I protest vnto you I am most vnwilling thereunto knowing my want of learning fearing therby to scandalize our most sound good Catholicke cause and being loth to exasperate the magistrate or to transgresse lawes or to endanger my selfe which you cannot help me out of if it be ill taken And therfore I professe I haue written to you and then to the fire fit to be seene of none and not ware to make any muster with I charge you therefore in the bowels of brotherly charitie and in friendly sort to hide this Pamphlet and keepe it from all mens eyes and eares as being written to your selfe alone and wrested out of me by your selfe and as it were exacted such a force hath the loue of you and your curtesies shewed vnto me haue such an interest in me I vvill not meddle vvith those odious comparisons of M. Ieweâ—l and D. Harding and of his vvishing at his death to be vvith M. Iewels soule vvhich I dare assure you by the report of those that vvere at his death vvas not so as it vvas told you Such fabulous reports are not too much to be leaned vnto by the vvise As for M. Steuens I stand not vpon the truth of his report yet the man vvas honest and then a fauourer of your side and a seruant vvith the Archbish of Canterbury Do. Parker vvho sent him vvith a Letter as he reported to M. Iewel to admonish him of certain slips in his booke to be reuoked But vvith those things as vvith his falsifyings of places of Fathers vvriters in euery leafe and almost in euery line charge him I say nothing as hauing litle to doe vvith the matter And so vvishing to you as to my selfe I most heartily rest here your vnfained vvel-vviller and vvil daily pray for you Only this I request you that if any vvord in this our scholasticall conflict be misplaced or breed occasion of offence as seeming ouer bitter I most humbly craue pardon For the force of arguing sometime breedeth heate of vvordes vvhere the minde meaneth vvell inough I vvrote this trifle to your selfe and to Vulcane to no bodie else You see tvvo Lavviers pleade egerly and angerly and as it vvere chide at the barre and yet dine togither full merily Once again I pray you suppresse this Pamphlet that neither others may be offended thereat nor let your Pulpit sound reproach of mee about it I beseech you And thus I commend you to the highest Your assured but vnable to do you good saue with my praier the poore prisoner Paul Spence The answere to the conclusion HE that euill doth hateth the light a Ioh. 3. 20. saith our Sauiour Ioh. 3. 20. neither commeth to the light least his deeds should be reproued If you haue spoken truth why are you so loth to haue it knowne what you haue spoken If your cause be iust why should it flie the light You are afraide you say least through want of learning you should scandalize your sound good Catholicke cause Your cause M. Spence is not sound Catholicke No no M. Spence it is a leaud cause and leaudly defended Your answer doth prooue so much not through your want of learning as you pretende but through the badnesse of it in it selfe Whatsoeuer excuse you pretend of your want of learning the truth is that for the substance of your answere it is the best learning that Bellarmine and the best of your side can yéeld vnto you and your excuse doth but argue a conscience and feare in you that the best learning of your side is naught easily ouerthrowne Albeit your learning M. Spence is not to be spoken of in the matter Your own fellowes haue giuen it out that though your learning be but small yet some other haue had the matter in handling that were able to say somewhat to the purpose You remember that you your selfe confessed so much to me in effect when you told me that you sent abroad for the collections of it and did not plainly deny but that another man was the Authour of the whole Now therfore séeing you would not conceale to your selfe that which I wrote priuately to you but would néeds send it abroad to haue it answered by others what reason haue you to require of me yâ— which you haue not done your selfe Verily if the matter had rested only in priuate betwixt you and me or if it had but only priuately concerned me I would neuer haue taken this course no nor if you would haue come forth to receiue mine answere in writing when I vsed meanes to that purpose But since that by meanes of you and your fellowes it hath gone abroad and hath touched the credit of the doctrine which I teach publickly both God and the world and my calling and conscience haue required of me not to suffer my concealing hereof in priuate to lye as a stumbling blocke