R. Abbot. 1.

SVch is the frowardnesse of mans nature, that as S. Austen well noteth, we are most commonly Aug de nat & grat. cont. Pelag. cap. 2 [...]. 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 [Page 2] 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 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 might more presume of his learning and reading, as indéed he doth, being as it séemeth far in loue with himselfe, thinking nothing to be learned but that that he liketh of, sitting vpon the circle of his owne braines, and calling the scrip­tures and Doctors before him, and charming them that whatsoe­uer they speake or howsoeuer plainly, yet they shall meane no o­therwise then he will haue them to meane. And straunge it is to sée what madde and vnreasonable meanings he fathereth vpon them, whilest he séeketh to shift off their cleare and euident testimonies. Which I perswade my selfe doe for the most part beare that sway in his conscience that he cannot extinguish the light thereof, nor sa­tisfie himselfe that he hath truly answered vnto them. Whosoeuer he is, I wish both him and you to remember that which S. Austen saith to Petilian the Donatist. August. cont. lite. Petil. lib. 3. cap. 30. There is nothing more wretched or vnhappie, then for a man not to yeeld to the truth wherewith he is so shut in, that he cannot finde any way out.

Now if this matter had by your good dealing rested in priuate betwixt you & me, M. Spence, as my intentiō was it should, I wold not haue brought either your name or mine owne into this open light & censure of men. But sithence I perceiued both by your selfe and also otherwise, that you had communicated the matter to your fellows, who are wont to brag greatly both in corners and abroad, if any thing of theirs remaine vnanswered; truly howsoeuer you would be willing that I should sit downe as a conquered aduersa­ry, and so yéeld you some what wherof to triumph in secret amongst [Page 3] your disciples and followers, and to be a means to subuert the faith of others, I haue against this mischiefe thought it necessarie to pub­lish this whole matter, that though it be no good to you, yet it may be good to them whom you séeke to hurt, & as Bernard saith; Bernard. in Canti Ser. 6 [...]. though the hereticke arise not from his filth, yet the Church may be confir­med in the faith. To come to your words you thank me for wishing you good: I would you had accepted of the good that I wished you, and then I would haue accepted of your thankes. But you differ from me in iudgement what is good. If I iudge of good one way, and you another way, who shall be iudge betwixt vs. Not your part, for I say they are partiall for you. Not our part, for you say they are partiall for mée. I must answere you with Optatus his words against the Donatists: Optat. cont. Parmen. Donat. lib. 5. No iudgement of this matter can be found in the earth, we must require a iudge from heauen. But why knocke we at heauen when we haue here the testament of Christ in the Gospell? S. Paul saith: 2. Tim. 3. 15. The scriptures are able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus. If your iudgement did entierly depend vpon the scriptures, you & I should not differ in iudgement. But whilest you set one foote in the scrip­tures, & another foote beside the scriptures, and Hilar. de Trinit. lib. 1. take not your vn­derstanding from the sayings of the scriptures, as Hilary saith you should, but labor to draw the scriptures to those fond opinions which you haue presumed without the scriptures, I maruell not that you go lame and halting in your iudgemēt, and I cannot yéeld to iudge with you, because you iudge without God. Tertullian of olde said, but I would not haue you thinke he spake it of the Papists: Tertul. de resurr. carni [...]. Take from hereticks their Heathenish conceits that they may decide their questions only by the scriptures, and they cannot stand. As for your regard of truth how great it is, appeareth by your froward and wil­full answeres, wherewith you shut your eyes against the cleare sun-light, rather séeking shifts to cast a mist before it, then framing your selfe to walke in the comfortable light thereof. But to let that passe, I will now leaue you to be a looker on in this matter, and will henceforth apply my selfe to him that hath taken vpon him to be the Answerer for you.

R. Abbot. 2.

AS touching this first point of mixture of water with wine in the Sacrament, I shewed before that our Churches haue accounted it as a meere indifferent thing where it is vsed with that simplicitie wherwith it was first begun. The ma­ner of Countries where their wines are verie strong, is to delaie them with water. Christians would not neglect that commendable shew of sobrietie in their mysticall banquet, whereof Heathen men had regard at their ordinary tables. Therefore according to the ma­ner of their countries they mingled water with their wine, taking wine to be the institution of Christ, but whether méere wine or de­laied wine, they knew it made no difference. Albeit some there were that in regard of this sobrietie and temperancie went too far, leauing Christes institution of wine, and vsing only water in the Sacrament, as Cypr. lib. 2. epist. 3. Cyprian intimateth of some of his predecessours. To this mixture was added at length some signification, either in Cyprians time or perhaps before. As for that of Epist. 1. Con­cil. tomo. [...]. Alexander the first to that purpose, that Epistle of his, and the rest of them are suffici­ently knowne to be counterfeit and bastard stuffe. But thus this vsage and custome ranne his course, till at length it sell with the [Page 7] rest into the maine Ocean of Popish corruptions and superstitions, where the fathers errours were turned into pestilent heresies, and those things that arose of the simplicitie of men for August. epist. 119. ad exhor­tationem vitae melioris. profitable ad­monition and exhortation only as they intended them, were made matters of true deuotion and of the worship of God. Our Churches therefore séeing this mixture abused in the church of Rome, and ac­counted as a necessary mysterie of Christian religion without any warrant of the word of God, thought conuenient vtterly to relin­quish the same, though otherwise occasion requiring it, they haue estéemed it an indifferent thing. And herein they haue followed the example of our Lorde and maister Iesus Christ, who knew well inough that the washing of handes and cuppes was an indifferent thing, and yet when he saw Mat. 15. 2. &c. the Scribes and Pharisies to put af­fiance of holinesse & puritie in those washings, so that they accoun­ted them vncleane which omitted the same, he did himselfe neglect and by his example, as it séemeth, moued his disciples to neglect that tradition of their Elders, telling them that in vaine they did worship God, teaching for doctrines the precepts of men.

In leauing the mixture of water, we are not contraried by the Mat 26. 2 [...]. institution of Christ set downe in the Gospell. I alleaged before Anselm. sax▪ on. Centur. Magdebur. 12. cap. 9. that the Gréeke Church consecrated with wine onely, and their reason because we reade not that Christ added water. I shewed how Chrysostome as one edition of his Chrysost. Li­turg. per Leo­nem Tusc [...] Liturgie intendeth, added wa­ter after the consecration, as being no part of the institution of the Sacrament. I noted that Anselm. vt supra. Anselmus and Tho. Aquin. pag. 3. qu 74. art. 6. Thomas Aquinas not­withstanding the assertions of diuers auncient writers could make at the most but a probabilitie of Christs vsing water in this Sacra­ment. And why probable? because the maner of that Country is so to drinke their wine. Wherof it may rightly be gathered, y^• though Christ did vse water as we do not finde that he did, yet he did it but after the maner of that Country in drinking wine, and not for any mysterie of the Sacrament. I alleaged moreouer that Polyd. Virg [...]l. de inuent. re­rum. li. 5. ca. 10. Polydore Virgil, and Platina in Alexan 1. Platina and Durād. Ra­tio. diui. lib. 4. cap. de officio sacerdotis, &c. Durand, referre this tradition to Alex­ander the first, and so for their parts haue acquited vs from crossing the institution of Christ. Also that De conse­cra dist. 2 ca [...]. sicut in glossa. Doctors haue taught that wa­ter is vsed in the cup de honestate tantum; namely by way of tempe­rancie and sobrietie only, and therefore not of any necessitie to the Sacrament. Why would this man take vpon him to answere, and [Page 8] yet slily passe ouer all these things with silence, so directly pertai­ning to the point in question? But to pardon his silence, & to take that which he doth say; he breaketh out at the first dash and telleth me that if I finde the words of Chrysostome expounded as was an­swered before out of the Trullan Canons, then I did but wrangle in alleaging them to another purpose contrary to the knowne mea­ning of the Authour. But I wrangle not herein. Whatsoeuer ex­position it pleased those Fathers to make of Chrysostomes wordes thrée hundred yeares after Chrysostomes death, the wordes them­selues are most plaine to that purpose that I first noted them. He demandeth this question: Chrysost. in Mat. hom. 83. Why did Christ after his resurrection drinke Not Water but VVine? Where manifestly he nameth the drinking of wine and denieth water. To this he answereth: He would plucke vp by the rootes the pernicious heresie of them which vse Water in the Sacrament. For to shew that when he deliuered this Sacrament, he deliuered wine, therefore did he vse wine also after his resurrection at the bare table of the Sacrament. Of the fruite of the vine, saith he, which surely bringeth forth VVine and not VVater. It is hard to suppose that Chrysostom wold say, that Christ did drinke not water but wine, to reproue the heresie of them which vse water in the Sacrament, and yet himselfe haue intention of both wine & wa­ter to be vsed in the Sacrament. I cannot sée it to stand with any reason. If the answere can, let him follow his owne fancie. As for the thing it selfe we doubt not, but the Churches of God haue vsed their libertie in the practise thereof, for that vppon occasion of the heresie of them that vsed onely water, they in some places tooke a­way this ceremony, as by the aforesaid place of Chrysostome, & the practise of the Armenians may be gathered: in other places at least altered the maner of it, that whereas it was wont to be added be­fore consecration, thenceforth it should be added after, that it might be knowne that water was no entire part or matter of the Sacra­ment, but vsed for other purpose indifferently, as hath bene before saide. The ground whereof Chrysostome as we sée maketh to be this, that Christ mentioneth only the fruite of the vine, which, saith he, bringeth forth wine and not water. Now this adding of water after consecration, as it appeareth by the testimonie of Ex Ansel. vt supra. Nechites Patriarch of Nicomedia, who affirmeth y^• in their rites they swar­ued not from the auncient tradition of their Fathers, and by one [Page 9] copie of the Chrysost. Li­turg. vt supra. Liturgie that goeth vnder Chrysostomes name; so it is further manifest by the testimonie of Theod. Bal­sam. Annota. in concil. Con­stant. [...]. can. [...]2. Theodorus Balsamon Pa­triarch of Antioch, in his annotations vpon that Canon of the sixth Councell, whereof I now speake, where he sheweth the same vse, and addeth further, which the aforesaid Liturgie also giueth to vn­derstand, that the water which they put in was hote water. The reason whereof he affirmeth to haue bene this; to signifie that wa­ter & blood came out of the side of Christ, not cold & dead, but warme, quicke, and liuely, as implying vertue and power to quicken and make vs aliue spiritually, to which mysterie the words of the Ca­non aforesaid séeme to haue relation in making mention of Chryso­stomes Liturgie. If water had bene taken to be any necessary mat­ter of the Sacrament, surely these men would not haue omitted to haue mingled it before consecration, that so the Sacrament might be whole and perfect. But hereby it is manifest that it was not so taken, [...] therfore by the iudgement of the auncient Churches, we of­fend not as maiming the Sacrament of Christ in vsing wine only without mixture of water.

The exception which the Answ. vseth against the Bishops of Armenia, is false and feined. For whatsoeuer he can pretend of some Armenians that did reuolt, yet it is apparant that the Bishops of Armenia did approue the condemnation of Eutyches & Dioscorus, by their concil. chal­ced. in episto. illusttium per­sonarum pro eod. concilio. Epistles written to Leo the Emperour in approbation of the Chalcedon Councell wherein they were condemned, and with reproofe of that heresie for which they were condemned. And that it may not be thought y^• they did it only for that time, they are found again in the concil con­stant. 6. act. 17. & 18 in sub­script. sixth Councell to subscribe against and condemne the heresie of Eutyches: euen in that Councell which the Answ. allea­geth for the defence of his cause. And therefore it is hereby manifest that they vsed not wine only with any such intentiō as he shifting­ly pretendeth. Nay it is further manifest by this, for that the Ibe­rians the neere neighbours of the Armenians, and inhabiting that part which was called Armenia interior, as Sozomen. hist. eccl. li. 2. cap. 6. Sozomen reporteth, did vse no water at all in the Sacrament, being notwithstanding sound in all points of faith and religion. Thus doth Theodore Bal­samon testifie of them: Theodor. Balsam. in con­cil. constan [...]i▪ 6. can. 32. The Iberians do put no water into the sa­cred cup, albeit they be otherwise verie sound in the faith. Moreouer the heresie of Eutyches conteined no such matter. He denied two-na­tures [Page 10] in Christ, but the Answ. cannot shewe that in regard of his heresie he denied the mixture of water, or that this mixture was in those times taken for a mysterie of two natures in Christ, or that the Fathers vsed any argument from thence for the proofe of two natures. That long afterwards it was drawne to that significati­on, I wote well, as it appeareth by Theod. Bal­sam. vt supra. Balsamon, Nicepho. hist. lib. 18. cap. 5 [...]. Nicephorus and Theophy. in Ioh. 19. Theophylact; but that construction being long after, serueth not to preiudice them who liued long before there was any such myste­rie intended by that mixture. The Councell intimateth no such thing intended by it, and who wil beléeue that those Fathers would note a defect in ceremonie, and so lightly passe ouer without any mention at all, the errour of doctrine whence that defect should be­gin: Chrysostome in the time of his banishment liued amongst the Sozomen. hist. eccl. li. 8. cap. 27. Armenians, and was greatly beloued and honoured of them. I doubt not but his practise amōgst them was according to the words which they alleaged from him, and that their maner both had [...]ene before, and afterwards continued the same that the Iberians was; to consecrate the cup of the Sacrament without any water; howso­euer in times long after succéeding by meanes of a new significati­on fancied of the mixture of water, it was forborne of some vpon a wrong and hereticall meaning. As for numbers and multitudes of men, how farre I estéeme them, the Ans. shall then perceiue, when occasion is giuen by any matter to make him answere. Though I [...]rged multitude against multitude for the exposition of the words of a man, yet I make not the assertion of any multitude a certaine argument of the truth of God. He that doth, what would he haue said when the Hieron. ad­uersus Lucefe­rianos. whole world groned vnder the burthen of Arianis­me; which contented Vincentius Lyrinens. adu. haereses. not it selfe with some few parts or portions of the Church, as other heresies for the most part, but as a pestilent infection spred it selfe through the whole, so that Constantius y^• Em­perour by reason of the [...]ewnesse of them that held with Athanasius in defence of the truth, tooke occasion to Theod. hist. eccl. li. 2. ca. 16. obiect vnto Liberius Bi­shop of Rome, that he was the only man in the world that tooke part with that wicked man, as he wickedly termed him. To whom Li­berius answered verie [...]itly: The word of faith is no whit dimini­shed by my standing alone in defence of it; though afterwards Hieron. in [...]a­talo. eccles. script. in for­tunatiano. he became fainthearted, and subscribed that heresie, which he had be­fore worthily resisted. The ground of faith is the certaine and vn­doubted [Page 11] word of God, not receiued from the thoughts and opinions of men, but from the Oracle of the holie scriptures. He that spea­keth from hence, though he speak alone is to be beléeued: but with­out this warrant in matters of faith, thousandes of thousandes are not to be regarded.

He noteth the Armenians of many toyish and childish vani­ties. But the vanities of the Armenians were neither so many nor so toyish and ridiculous as are the Iewish & Heathenish ceremo­nies of Poperie, and therefore Papists may not reproue them in that respect. Let Durandus his Rationale diuinorum, nay let the apish and vice-like fooleries of the Masse it selfe beare witnesse hereof.

Whereas he saith that the mixture of water and wine in the Gréeke and Latin Church, be tokeneth the two natures of Christ, it séemeth that the matter hath not bene well agreed vpon, for that Theophyl. [...] Ioh. 19. Theophylact maketh the wine to betoken the humanitie, and the water the diuinitie of Christ. Durand contrariwise Du [...]and Ra­tio. diui. lib. 4. cap. 30. de ob­latione. &c. affirmeth, that the water betokeneth the humanitie, and the wine the diuinitie. But the more auncient Fathers knew not this vncertaine myste­rie at all, and therefore neither do we care to be acquainted with it.

Now hauing vrged verie egerly the aforesaid Canon, and fea­ring belike that that might be turned to his preiudice, he telleth me at length, that he wil not stand vpon the validitie of those Trul­lan Canons. And no maruell. For he knoweth that by whomsoeuer they were made, they diuersly Can. 13. 36. 52. 55. crosse the dealings of the Church of Rome, and plucke vp by the rootes the best floure in that garden, the pretended supremacie of the Pope. Yea, saith he, but they beside infinit other testimonies, proue the Churches vse as touching the point in question. An vnnecessarie proofe of that which no man de­nieth. But let him conclude hereof, that it is certain that Christ in­stituted the Sacrament with water, or that it is a necessary part of the Sacrament, and his owne fellowes will checke him for his rashnesse, Thom. Aqui. par. 3. quae. 74. art 6. & 7. who neither dare a [...]ouch that Christ vsed water, & sim­plie confesse that there is no necessitie of water to make the Sacra­ment. And this latter Tom. 2 cont. 3. lib. 4. cap. [...]1. Bellarmine the Iesuit confesseth to be the iudgement of the Catholicke Church, and dareth not deny but that it is the cup of the Lord though water be wanting; whereof it fol­loweth, that neither was water instituted by our Sauiour Christ, (for then it should be holden as a thing simply necessary) neither do [Page 12] we in le [...]ing out water, [...]aile of any thing that of necessitie belon­geth to the Sacrament. Which being true, and no certaine proofe alleaged y^• Christ vsed any water, we list not to follow any vncer­tainties for truthes. We take y^• which we are sure Christ ordeined. They who haue not contented thēselues herewith, into what varie­tie are they runne? Some put in water before consecration, some af­ter: some hot water, some cold: some wil haue the mixture of them a memoriall of water & blood issuing out of Christs side at his passi­on: some a token of the natures of Christ; and of them some will haue the water to signifie the manhood, & the wine the Godhead; others the wine to signifie the manhood, & the water the Godhead: some againe will haue the wine to signifie Christ, and the water to signifie the people, as appeareth by those things that haue bene alleaged before. Thus there is no certaintie or setled resolution, when men will make mysteries without the warrant of the word of God. Which things cōsidered, it hath not bene any superstitious contradicting humour, but sober and aduised iudgement that hath moued vs to refuse this howsoeuer long and generally receiued cu­stome.

But the Answ. comming at length to set downe his conceit of the point in question, is in a mammering & cannot frame his wits to resolue any thing thereof. For charging me first that I dare not deny flatly, but would haue it séeme only propable that Christ ad­ded water with the wine, whereas I alleaged therein but the opi­nion and words of his owne Doctours, he calleth for S. Cyprian to be stickler betwéene vs in this point, affirming it to be the institu­tion of Christ, and straightwaies as hauing forgotten himselfe, he confesseth that the wine only is of the institution of Christ, and the water of the ordinance of the Church, and then again as vncertaine where [...]o rest himselfe, he runneth to Cyprian and others, crauing their helpe and warrant to proue that it was appointed by our Sa­uiour Christ. But truth is one, and [...]litteth not in this sort from one ground to another. Concerning the Epistle of cypria. lib. 2. Epist. 3. Cyprian to Cecilius which is that whereunto he referreth himselfe, he telleth me Sect. 16. af­terwards that euery word thereof is a sword to cut my throate, and maruelleth that I would for shame alleage it. But this is but a Popish brag seruing to set a good shew vpon a bad cause, and when truth faileth, to outface the matter with Thrasonical words. A man [Page 13] of meane discretion with indifferency of iudgement, will easily con­ceiue that that Epistle maketh far more déeply against the Church of Romes doings, then against any thing that we do. It contrarieth vs in a smal matter of ceremony, which we take to be no great mat­ter whether it be vsed or not vsed as hath bene said, but it conuin­ceth the Roomish harlot of capital and deadly wickednesse, and dam­nable Apostasie from y^e Gospell of Iesus Christ. For first, he requi­reth water in y^e Sacrament togither with wine, the one importing the people, the other Christ; to signifie that the people are vnited & ioyned vnto Christ in being partakers of the Lords cup. And so Thom. A­quin. par. 3. quae. 74. art. 7. Thomas Aquinas resolueth, that water is no otherwise of the ne­cessitie of the Sacrament, but to signifie the peoples being parta­kers thereof. What wisedome is it then in the Answ. and his fel­lowes to vrge Cyprian for their defence of the mixture of water, and yet vtterly to barre the people from being partakers of the Lordes cup, which Cyprian intendeth by the same mixture. Mat. 23. 24▪ They straine out a Gnat and swallow a Camell, contending with vs for an vncer­taine and vnnecessary ceremony, and themselues frowardly depar­ting from that, which, I say not Cyprian in his Epistle, but Iesus Christ in his Gospell hath manifestly and expresly commanded vn­to them.

Secondly, Cyprian giueth in the same Epistle diuers lessons which we desire to haue them bound vnto: In the sacrifice which is Christ, none but Christ is t [...] be followed. And againe: If only Christ be to be harkened vnto, we are not to regard what any man hath done before vs, but what Christ did first who is before all. For we must not follow the custome of men, but the truth of God. And againe: It is not lawfull to infringe those things that pertaine to the Sacrament of our redemption, or by humane tradition to chaunge them to anie thing else then is appointed of God. And againe: We ought to do nothing but that which Christ did; And againe; That which it is certaine the Lord did, let vs do. By all which spéeches we are tyed to the institution of Iesus Christ, and bounde to do nothing in the forme of this mysterie but that which we are assured he did first. To which what the church of Rome can honestly answere I cannot tell, in that she hath by her detractions from Christes institution committed sacriledge, and by her additions made a mockery of his Sacrament, setting the priest at the altar as a Squirrell at his bels [Page 14] to kéepe note and time in his duckings and turnings, and kissings and crossings, and listing vp and lotting downe, and holding fore­finger and thumbe togither, and ioyning togither both the hands, and putting to the right eye and then to the left, and a number such doltish and absurd toyes. But for our selues we learne of Cyprian by those rules, that vnlesse we can warrant our selues, as we can­not, that Christ instituted the Sacrament with water, we may not admit it a [...] any part or matter of the Sacrament. And to this pur­pose the words that I alleaged before out of the Epistle ad Pompei­um are verie fit. Being vrged with tradition, he thus answereth: cypria. epist. ad Pompeium. Whence is this tradition? Descendeth it from the authoritie of the Lord, or of the Gospell▪ or commeth it from the precepts and Epi­stles of the Apostles? For God testifieth that those things which are written must be done. &c. If therefore either it be commanded in the Gospell, or be conteined in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostle, let this tradition be obserued as holie; importing that if it cannot be ap­proued from thence, it is not to be obserued. But the Answ. ful wise­ly and clerk like, turneth the words of Cyprian to speake for him a­gainst vs. If, saith he, it be commanded in the Gospell to vse onely wine, let this tradition be obserued. By which reason he giueth to the Armenians, whom he condemned before, as good a proofe for vsing water and oyle in Baptisme, as to himselfe for wine and water in the Lords supper. For they might haue said for the one, as he doth for the other, that it is now here commanded to vse onely water, and therefore that their adding of [...]yle was not to be condemned. But S. Cyprians words, if he wold vse his reason to conceiue them, wold teach him to reason thus: We read in the Gospel of water for Baptisme; of oyle we reade nothing: therfore water only and not oyle is to be obserued. So likewise we reade of wine for the Lords supper, of water we reade nothing: therefore wine onely and not water is to be enioyned. For the condition of the words of God is this: Pro. 30. 6. Put nothing to his wordes least he reproue thee, and thou be found a liar. Now if Cyprian hauing laid this good foundation built any thing amisse thereon, as in the matter of rebaptizing it is ma­nifest that he did, whilest he tooke that to be the sense of y^• scripture which indéed is not, that impeacheth not any whit the certaintie of that rule, which he knew well inough was alwaies to stand good for the triall and determination of the truth. And therefore in these [Page 15] cases to alleage Cyprian against Cyprian, is I hope no more hai­nous a matter then to appeale from Philip ouercome with sléepe, to the same Philip throughly a waked out of sléepe. The drift and pur­pose of that Epistle to Cecilius, is to proue the necessitie of wine in the Sacrament, against the heresie of those that vsed onely water without wine. He referreth them herein to the institution of Christ set downe in the Gospell, from which he telleth them they ought not to depart, & therefore that they ought to vse wine in the Lords cup, as it is mentioned in the Gospell that Christ did. And to this purpose are all those spéeches which he vseth of our Lords tradition, of his doing and teaching. Which manifestly appeareth as by the very scope of the whole Epistle, so by that place namely where al­leaging the words of Christ, I will drinke no more of this fruite of the vine, &c. He inferreth thus; Wherby we finde that the cup was mixed which the Lord offered, &c. Yet we finde not in this place any mixture of the cup, we find only the fruite of the vine, and this is the marke at which he aimeth in all that he vrgeth of Christes institution. Of water he speaketh ioyntly, I confesse, and supposing, I doubt not, but it was vsed by Christ. But he supposeth it only: he proueth it not, & his suppose is no sufficient warrant. Nay although he by the way admit and require the mixture of water in the Lords cuppe, yet séeing he there referreth vs to the [...]oote and originall of Christs institution in the Gospel, and we find not there that Christ either ordeined or vsed any such mixture, we hold our selues suffi­ciently warranted euen by Cyprian himselfe to do that we do, in v­sing wine only without any water.

But what meaneth the Answ. to vrge Cyprian at all to prooue that Christ mingled water, when he himselfe dare not vpon Cypri­ans word, affirme so much. For thus he maketh short the matter as he saith: Wine is of the institution of Christ, water is of the precept of the church. If he can iustifie no more, as indéed he cannot, it is but folly and trifling to alleage any mans words that say any more. And therfore all his other testimonies are superfluous. They which say that Christ vsed water, say more then he or the most of his dare say. They which testifie the vse thereof in the primitiue Church, proue a thing not denied or condemned where occasion requireth it for such reason and in such maner as hath bene before shewed. Al­beit they are partly forgeries, as those out of Alexander, out of [Page 16] Clemens & Iames his Liturgie, of which shall be spoken after: part­ly vncertaine and doubtfull, as those out of Chrysostomes and Basils Liturgies: partly such as the Answ. himselfe will not stand vpon the validitie thereof, as that out of the sixth Councell; partly mani­fest and wilfull falsifications, as those out of Chrysostome in Ioh. hom. 84. and 1. Cor. hom. 24. the former only shewing that by water and blood issuing out of Christs side, were imported both the Sacra­ments of the Church: the other, that out of Christes side flowed fountaines of water & blood that should be healthfull to the whole world. And what is that to the matter now in hand?

He referreth me ouer for further proofe of this matter to Bel­larmine. But Bellarmine saith nothing that néedeth further answere then I haue alreadie giuen. Only let me tell him that I take Bel­larmine for a Iesuit, that is to say, a man of a hard and vncircumci­sed forehead, desperatly bent for the vpholding of the Pope, to make shipwracke of his owne conscience. Whose impudency appeareth herein, that for the better colouring of his mixture of water, Bellarm. tom. 2. cont. 3. lib. 4. cap. 10. hée saith, that it appeareth no more by the Gospell that Christ institu­ted the Sacrament with wine, then with ale, or béere, or water on­ly. And therefore he denieth those words, I will drinke no more of the fruite of the vine, &c. Ibid. lib. 1. cap. 11. to be vnderstood of the cup of the Sacra­ment, contrarie to the generall consent of the auncient Fathers, Clemens. A­lex. in paeda. lib 2. cap. 2. Clemens Alexandrinus, Cypr. lib. 2. epist. 3. Cyprian, Chrysost. in Ma [...]. hom. 83. Chrysostome, August. de consensu. E­uang. li. 3. ca. 1. Austen, Hilar. in Mat. cano. 30. Hi­lary, Theophyl. in Mat. 26. Theophylact, and others. Yet to cloake the matter the bet­ter, he would fain make a iarre betwixt the Fathers, and saith that Hierome and Theophylact expound it, not of the cup of the Lordes table, but of the cup of the passeouer; whereas in the places by him cited, there is not a word tending to that purpose. It is plain by the two Euangelists Mathew and Marke, that our Sauior spake of the cup of the new Testament. The difference that séemeth to be be­twixt them and S. Luke, was reconciled long ago by S. Austen, as followeth after to be declared. But hereby we may coniecture the honestie and truth of the Iesuit in other matters.

R. Abbot. 3.

AS touching Bertram, whereas the Answ. saith that he was suspected cōcerning the Sacrament, he doth leaudly & vncon­scionably slaunder him, neither can he iustifie it by any shew of the storie of that time. It is not probable that the Empe­rour would haue sought for his resolution, vnlesse he had bene ta­ken for a learned man & of sound iudgement. But he is dealt with herein as one Ioannes Scotus was, a familiar friende of his, who wrote a booke concerning the Sacrament to the same effect that Ber­tram did. He was accounted no hereticke in his time, but two hun­dreth yeares after, when Berengarius pleaded the authoritie of the same booke, it was condemned as hereticall in a Councell holden at Vercellae, as Lanfranc. de sacram. [...] ­char. Lanfrancus testifieth who was present, and an actour in the same matter. So Be [...]tram who was Catholicke while he li­ued, is now after so many hundreth yeares brought in suspi [...]ion to be an hereticke. But the Answ. owne fellowes, the Authors of the Index Ex­purgat▪ in ce [...] sura Bertra. Index Expurgatorius doe cleare Bertram from this suspition, ac­knowledging him by these words, that he was A Catholicke priest, a Monke of the Abbie of Corbeie, beloued and reuerenced of Caro­lus Caluus the Emperour; and this verie same Bertram do they con­fesse [Page 20] [...] [Page 21] [...] [Page 18] to be the Authour of that booke which the Answerer would faine make vs beléeue to be a counterfeit. They fréely confesse they must tollerate some errours in him, as well as they do verie many in the auncient Doctors. They say they would not wholy suppresse the booke, least we should haue cause to say that they make away such antiquitie as serueth for vs. They confesse that it helpeth the historie of the time wherein Bertram liued. The booke it selfe indéed doth shew it selfe so euidently to be of antiquitie, that no man of any iudgement or conscience can gainsay it. Yet, saith the Answ. learned men are of opinion that this was not Bertrams booke. Who are those learned men? Forsooth Bristow in his reply to D. Fulk. cap. 10. de 19. Bristow, and Sander and some few other of the same marke, whose word is inough to proue anie thing to be counterfeit. But their authoritie is ouerwaied by the testimony and confession of those other of their owne company, to whom these must giue place for commendation of learning. It is no maruell that the Answ. and those other his honest companions would haue the booke séeme counterfeit, being written almost eight hundreth yeares a­gone so directly and of purpose against Transubstantiation. The reason alleaged out of him, carrieth with it that force that the Spa­nish censures in the Index aforesaid▪ thought it not safe to let it con­tinue, but haue discharged it from the presse. The Answerer full wisely passeth it ouer, with How knoweth he, and what necessitie is there, without affirming any thing himselfe, or so much as looking at the ground of that reason which is alleaged. I would haue him peruse it once again. As for his spéeches of those bookes of Caluin and Bucer falsly intituled, I take them to be of the same sort, as that the Thames stood stil when Friar Campian was executed for his trea­son. Though any such thing were, it is not for a Papist to speake of it, seeing that they themselues in counterfeiting and falsifying of bookes haue passed all the impudency of former times.

R. Abbot. 4.

HEre the Answ. is ashamed of the absurditie of his owne fel­lowes. For he knoweth wel inough that their mouthes run ouer with these termes Basils Masse, Chrysostomes Masse, &c. And that wheresoeuer they finde the Latin word Missa, in any auncient writer they triumph thereof, as hauing a proofe for their idolatrous Masse. You know, M. Spence, that these are verie currant arguments with your selfe, and those titles turne rounde vpon your tongue, neither néede you to be ashamed thereof, séeing D. Allen hath taught you to estéeme them so, who taketh himselfe for a better Clerke then you are. You know also when you tooke those words Act. 13. 2. [...], as they were ministring, to be a very good proofe for your Masse, when you demanded of me to that purpose what the Gréeke wordes were. But all these thinges the Answ. is now ashamed of. He telleth me that they do not say, the Gréeke is [...], therefore it is the Masse. No but [...] is by some according to the phrase of their time translated Masse, and that name of Masse thus translated, some of his companions and namely you, M. Spence, deceitfully alleage to the simple & ig­norant, as a strong proofe for the Popish Masse. And this is that cog­ging and cosoning argument that I speake of, wherewith you your selfe are deceiued as a very silly and ignorant man. He telleth me further, that though Erasmus translate sacrificantibus illis, that is, as they were sacrificing. Act. 13. (wheras the truth of the text is, as they were ministring to the Lord) yet of his translation or of the word, no man frameth an argument for the name Missa. No, but yet for the Masse it selfe the Rhem. A [...] ­nota. Act. 13. 2. Rhemists take an argument from thence, and vnshamefastly and contrary to their knowledge and conscience say that the word signifieth, & they might haue translated saying Masse. Wherof follow those absurdities that before I mentioned, that the Rom. 13. [...]. Magistrate is a Masse priest; Heb. 1. 14. that Angels are massing spirits; [Page 20] that Rom. 15 27. 2. Cor. 9. 12. to giue to the poore is to say Masse, because the Apostle vseth the same Gréeke word of all these which they say doth signifie to say Masse. But the Iesuit helpeth this lame reason of theirs by putting to it another lame legge. He confesseth that the Gréeke worde Bellarm. tom. 2 con. [...] de M [...]ssa. lib. 1. cap. 13. [...] importeth the execution of any publicke function or mi­nisterie whatsoeuer. But yet in this place he saith it must néedes be vnderstood of sacrificing, because it is not simply said, As they were ministring, but as they were ministring to the Lord For it may not be vnderstood, he saith, of preaching the word or ministring the Sa­craments, because the preaching of the word and ministring the Sacraments, is not to the Lord but to men. He plaieth herein the part of a craftie Lawier, who taking a bad cause in hand will séeke by shifting and faysting to preuaile, because he faileth of good & sound argument. For first he argueth from an imperfect and vnsufficient diuision, in that he mentioneth only preaching the word and mini­string the Sacraments, and omitteth publicke praier, where hée saw he had no colour to deny that the Minister in the exercise of publicke praier doth minister vnto the Lord, and therfore that this place is not necessarily to be vnderstood of sacrifice, because it may be expounded of praier. And so doth the Syriacke interpreter take it, translating thus: As they had praied vnto the Lord. Secondly in that he saith that it cannot be vnderstood of the ministery of the word or Sacraments, because preaching and ministering of the Sacraments is to men and not to the Lord, he abuseth his reader and his owne conscience. For he knoweth well inough that although the Mini­ster preach not to the Lord, nor minister the Sacraments to the Lord, but to men, yet in doing these duties vnto men, he ministreth vnto the Lord. For whose Minister & Officer he is in these things, to him doth he minister. He is in these things the Minister of the Lord. Therefore in these things he must be said to minister vnto the Lord. And so the Iesuit could not be ignorant, but that Chrysost. & Oecume in Act. 13. Chry­sostome and Oecumenius out of him do expounde it writing vppon the same place; What is, as they were ministring? It is to say, as they were preaching. Yea and Erasmus himselfe though he translated, as they were sacrificing, as the Iesuit vrgeth, yet notwithstanding in his paraphrase and annotations giueth to vnderstand that he mea­neth thereby nothing else but prophecying and teaching the doctrine of the Gospell, accordingly as it is said in the text of them that mi­nistred [Page 21] to the Lord, that they were Prophets and Doctours. To which purpose the Apostle S. Paule vseth both the word which hée here translateth and the word of sacrificing also. Rom 15. 16. Grace is giuen to me of God, [...], that I should be the minister of Iesus Christ, [...], sacrificing the Gospell of God, that the offering vp of the Gentiles might be acceptable. &c. Where Theophy. & Oecume. in epist. ad Rom. c. 25. Theophylact vseth this exposition; My office of sacrificing is to preach the Gospell. And Oecumenius this; In bringing men to the faith, he sacrificeth the Gospell of God. By all which it appeareth, that neither from the words of the text, as they were ministring vn­to the Lord, nor yet from Erasmus his translation if it were admit­ted, can follow any sufficient proofe for the warranting of the Po­pish Masse. But the Iesuit knew that it was a sufficient answere to his argument, to say, that in preaching and ministring the Sa­craments to men, they might rightly be said to minister vnto the Lord, because they did it to the honor of the Lord, and in the seruice of the Lord. Therefore he thought good before-hand to adde an ex­ception against this answer, and that he doth full wel and learned­ly. If, forsooth, S. Luke had meant so, he would not haue added any thing of their fasting, because that should haue bene comprehended vnder the name of ministring. For saith he, he which fasteth doth in that sort minister to the Lord, according to that Ro. 14. He which eateth, eateth to the Lord, and he which eateth not, eateth not to the Lord. I will not here say, where was the Iesuits conscience; but where were his wittes? or where was the care of not discrediting himselfe with his owne fellowes? The word [...] he graun­teth to import the exercise of some publicke function or ministerie. Now who was euer so absurd to imagine a publicke function, mini­stery or office of fasting? or that a man in fasting should be saide to execute an office or ministery? He bringeth the Apostles wordes, but to what purpose? Doth the Apostle say, He that eateth, or he that eateth not to the Lord, doth therein minister vnto the Lord? Surely if in eatyng or not eatyng to the honour of the Lord, a man shall bée saide to minister vnto the Lorde, then in euery action that hee may doe, hee shall execute a function or mi­nistery to the Lorde, because the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 10. 31. Whether ye eate or drinke or whatsoeuer ye do, do all to the glorie of God. If this be absurd, then his exception is absurd likewise, as indéede it is. To [Page 22] conclude this matter, the disciples there assembled, vsed after their accustomed maner praier, preaching of the word, and ministring of the Sacraments. All these must be vnderstood in their ministrati­on. These may be vnderstood without any sacrifice of the Masse. Therefore it is foolishly and absurdly done of any Papist to alleage this as a proofe of their sacrilegious M [...]sse. Now let the Answ. say whether I father any other arguments vpon them, then they them selues haue begotten. Such brats & vntowardly birthes they haue a great number, and M. Iewels vsage towards M. Harding in this behalfe, was no other but euen a right laying before him the vani­tie and loosenesse of his allegations and reasons, so pi [...]uish and chil­dish sometimes, that they rather deserued scorne then any answere at all.

R. Abbot. 5.

AS touching the Liturgies of S. Iames, Basill; and Chrysostome, if they be defended by the Church of Rome to be theirs, the greater shame is it for the Church of Rome not to follow the exam­ple of those man, vnder the authoritie and countenance of whose names, they séeke so much to shroude themselues. For as I said be­fore, so say I now againe, that in those Liturgies and generall y [...] all records of the primitiue Churches seruice, there is a description of our communion, wherein both the Minister and the people com­municate togither in both kindes, not of the Roomish Masse, where­in the people are either idle lookers on, or when they are communi­cants, communicate only in one kinde, and are secluded from the other. Now of the communion of the whole congregation by these records specified, the Answ. saith nothing at all, as being abashed [Page 23] perhaps in that respect at the manifest Apostasie of the Church of Rome, from the vniuersall and continuall practise of the auncient Church. But for defence of their halfe and maimed receiuing, he referreth me to their Treatises of that matter. Where I could as willingly haue heard him say, Aske my fellow if I be a théefe. Why did he not rather referre himselfe to the institution of Christ, set downe in the Gospell, commended by S. Paul to the whole Church of Corinth, generally and without exception obserued in the primi­tiue Church, but that he chooseth rather to asswage his thirst by drinking of the miery and filthie puddles of the Church of Rome, then of the pure and cleare fountaine of the word of God. But all this notwithstanding how may we be assured or perswaded that the aforesaid Liturgies are theirs whose names they beare? For be­side that Liturgie which commonly goeth vnder the name of saint Iame [...] the Apostle, there is also Clem. Apo [...]t. Constit. lib 8. cap. 15. &c. another set downe in the first vo­lume of the Councels vnder his name. And whether of these Litur­gies will they require vs to accept of? Or séeing they will haue not only that seuerall Liturgie, but also the Constitutions vnder Cle­mens name to be both authenticall and good, what pretence haue they to say that S. Iames left two Liturgies in the Church? To say the truth they are both bastards. The common, Liturgie of S. Iames praieth for such as liue Iacobi Li­turgia Latine. in Monasteries, and I trow the Answ. can­not proue that there were any Monasteries for Christians in the Apostles times. But here Hard. Re­ioind. pa. 46. M. Harding excepteth that the Gréeke in that place is [...], that is to say, in exercise, which by his exposition importeth mon [...]stical and solitary life. And although they had not Monasteries of wealthy prouision such as ours in England were, yet he auoucheth that they had places, celles or houses where they liued solitarily in the exercise of vertue, not hauing to do with the world. But he abuseth his reader therein, neither could he iu­stifie any such monasticall life to haue bene vsed in [...] Iames his time. For whereas he alleageth Philo out of Eu [...]eb. hist. eccles lib. 2. cap. 17. Eusebius to proue it, he might haue found, if he had looked vpon Philo. de vita contemplat. Philo himselfe, that be wrote his booke not of Christian Monkes but of Iewish Essees. Whereof he maketh two sorts, the one liuing in action, the other incontemplation; as Ioseph. de bello Iuda. lib. 2. cap. 7. Iosephus also séemeth to note that they were not of one sort, when he mentioneth that some of them were mar­ried, and other some professed single life. Philo hauing written his [Page 24] booke▪ Quod [...] probus f [...]er of the one sort that liued in action, beginneth his other booke, whereof▪ Eusebius conceiu [...]d his opinion, t [...]us: Now that we haue spoken of the Essees that liue in action, it followeth that wee also speake of them that liue in contemplation. Here it is apparant that they of whom Philo writeth were called Essees, as Andrad. Ox­thod. Expli. li [...]. 2. Andradius and others confesse. But the name of Essees hath not bene found to be attributed to any of Christian profession, vntill Eusebius by errour mistooke that booke of Philo, and gaue oc­casion of the same errour to Hierome, Epiphanius, Sozomen and o­thers. Yet Hierome although Hierony. in Catalo. Mar­cus. & Philo. one where he vnderstandeth that booke of Christians, [...]oth in one▪ of Epist. ad Eu­stoch. de cu­stod. virginit. his Epistles manifestly refer it to the same sect of Iewish Monkes of which Iosephus writeth. But if this will not stop the Answerers mouth, let him take that which M. Harding confesseth and is true, that Philo wrote in the time of the Apostles, and then let him [...]aigh herewith these words of Phi­lo, concerning those of whom he writeth: Habent pris. corum com­mentarios qui huius sectae authores. &c. They haue, saith he, the Commentaries of their auncestours, who being the Authours of this sect, left many monuments of such allegories, &c. Auncestors then and men of elder times then Philo and the Apostles, were Authors of y^• sect of which Philo writeth. But I hope there were no Christi­an Monks before y^e time of y^• Apostles. Therfore this booke cānot be vnderstood of Christian Monkes, but of a sect whose beginning was before the Apostles times, such as were the Essees of the Iewes. And hereby appeareth the falshood of Bellarm. tom. 1. cont. 5. lib. 2. cap. 5. Bellarmine, who saith, that Philo giueth to vnderstand that he wrote of a sect which begā in his time, whereby he would haue it séeme likely that he wrote of some of Christian profession; whereas Philo expresly affirmeth the contra­ry as appeareth in the words alleaged. To let passe that which Phi­lo writeth of their obseruing the seuenth day, which was the Iewish Sabboth, and that with intention of speciall mysterie, otherwise then may be supposed of m [...]n e [...]tierly deuoted to Christian religi­on, me thinkes it is a thing not to be imagined that the same Philo taking vpon him to set downe exactly the discipline and profession of these men, should not so much as in one word intimate that they were Christians, if they had [...]ene so indéed. Straunge it is also that there should appeare no monument of this monasticall life in the Acts of the Apostles or in any of their Epistles, neither by way of storie, nor of precept, nor of gréeting them that vsed it, if it had bene [Page 25] in those first times of the Christian Church, as also that no other certaine record of times immediatly suc [...]éeding, should deliuer any such to our knowledge. Now whereas Andradius very presumptu­ously and without any reason giuen, Andrad. Oxthod Ex­pli. lib 2. affirmeth that those things which Philo writeth cannot agrée to any other but Christians, sure­ly he which shall reade that which Iosephus. An [...]iq. Iuda. lib. 18 cap. 2. & de bello▪ Iu­dai. lib. 2. ca. 7. Iosephus Plini. lib. 5. cap. [...]7. Plinie and So [...] de reb. o [...]b. me [...] orab. Solinus haue written of those Iewish Essees, shall find that there is nothing mentioned by Philo but what may well agree to them also. Séeing therefore it cannot be proued that there was any such monasticall life professed by Christians in the Apostles times, it followeth that we must néedes take that Liturgie which praieth for some as then professing it to be a méere forgery.

The other Liturgie vnder the name of saint Iames is reiected by the lyke reason. For therein prayer is made for Clem. con­stit. [...]post. lib. [...]. cap 18. Pro sub [...]co­nis, lect [...]s, Cantoribus. Subdeacons, Les­son-readers and singing men, whereas it is certaine that there were no such officers of the Church in saint Iames his time. But as tou­ching this Liturgy set downe by the counterfeit Clement, it is to be noted that it is said to haue bene endited by saint Iames in a solemne méeting of the Apostles where they were assembled of purpose to resolue Ibid cap. 2. of all ecclesiasticall order. In the ende whereof this gene­rall approbation is added: Ibid cap. 23. These things do we Apostles ordeine to you Bishops, Priests and Deacons concerning the mysticall seruice. Now if this were in this solemne manner agreed vppon, shall we thinke that the same saint Iames would of his priuate authoritie without cause publsh another Liturgy to the Church? And would not the Church vniuersally accordyng to the sanction and designe­ment of the Apostles haue practised that forme of seruice; which it cannot be proued to haue done? Or if either of those Liturgies had bene of authority from such an Authour, would Basill, Chrysostome, and others haue giuen forth other formes of Church-seruice, & not haue cleaued to the receiued and enioyned Apostolicke forme? It were wel that these doubts were sufficiently cleared. But the testi­mony of Gregory Bishop of Rome is inough to cracke the credit of these Liturgies, who assureth vs Gregor. Mag. in Regist▪ li. 7. cap. 63. that it was the maner of the Apo­stles to consecrate the sacrifice with saying onely the Lordes praier. This giueth vs sufficiently to vnderstand that those pretended Li­turgies vnder the name of saint Iames the Apostle, where much is sayd beside the Lords prayer, either were not at all, or at least were [Page 28] not déemed authenticall at that time, and therefore are of the same stampe, with an [...] number of [...]ther forgeries and counterfeit writings, which haue bene put fo [...]th in the name of the Apostles and other famous me [...]. Of that Liturgy also which the sixth Coun­cell mentioneth vnder the name of S. Iames, Theodorus Balsamon testifieth, y^• in his time so long ago it was Theodor. Balsa. in con­cil. Constant. 6. can. 32. not founde nor knowne, but quite worne out amongst them. Whereby we haue iust cause to thinke that these that now are, are other counterfeits, set forth since that time. Basils Liturgy Chemnie. in exam. Tri­dent. concil. de canone missae. by the old translation is one, by the new translation another, and yet it is sayd also that the Syrians haue a third differing from both the former. This is iust cause to make a man suspicious of them all.

Of Chrysostomes Liturgy how often haue they bene told, that although it be likely inough that he left some forme of seruice in his Church, yet that there is now no certaintie what it was, the diffe­ren [...]e of copies being such as it is; one published by Leo Tuscus, a­nother by Erasmus, another by Pelargus, and yet Pelargus affirmeth, that he hath séene another copie at▪ Rome differing from all these. In one of these Chrysostome himselfe is prayed vnto, and these to­gither with y^• other Liturgies are alleaged for inuocation of saints. But Epiphani. haeresi. 7 5. contra Aeri [...] ­nos. Epiphanius testifieth, that the Church in his time did pray for Saints, Martyrs, Apostles, &c. To pray for them and to pray to them stand not togither. Epiphanius his testimony is true. There­fore these Liturgies are certainly false. Againe Chrysostome him­selfe is prayed for, yea Pope Nicholas and the Emperour Alexius are prayed for also, who neither of them were borne some hundreds of yeares after S. Chrysostomes time. If they will say that these names were put in, as the maner is, to put in the names of Prin­ces and Bishops to be prayed for while they liue, then how com­meth it to passe that those names continue there still vnto this day, and that the names of those that succéeded were not put in place of them? It appeareth vndoubtedly that there was patching and ad­ding not only of names, but of prayers and ceremonies also, accor­ding to the [...]ustome of times and places, and the will of those huck­sters that had these things in handling. Now séeing that although Proclus and others do mention such Liturgies of Basill and Chryso­stome, yet by meanes of such alterations, patcheries and forgeries, it cannot be certaine vnto vs what Basill and Chrysostome left in [Page 29] their Liturgies: what folly is it in the Answ. and his fellowes, to face vs out with the names of Basill and Chrysostome in such sort as they do. That many steps of antiquitie are yet remainyng in them, it is not denyed; but those are directly contrary to the practise of the Roomish faction in these dayes, and therefore yéeld not any allow­ance to their proceedings. And whereas there are diuers particles translated from those auncient Liturgies into their Masse, by occa­sion wherof they vaunt themselues as followers of antiquity, sure­ly they deale no otherwise herein then Irenae. lib. [...]. cap. 1. Irenaeus reproteth the Va­lentinian heretickes to haue dealt with the holy scriptures. Who gathered here and there wordes & names out of the scriptures with the which they painted their horrible and accursed heresies, y^• men might beléeue that the scripture spake of those things, which they wickedly taught against the scripture. As if a man should take a precious and [...]ostly image of a prince, facioned by a cunnyng worke­man, and breakyng it in péeces, should of the péeces of it make an il-fauoured image of a Foxe, & say that the same is the goodly image which such a cunnyng workeman made to resemble such a Prince. For so haue they taken diuers péeces of the auncient Liturgies and turned them to other vse and meaning then euer was dreamed of by their Authors, and as Irenee speaketh, From that which is accor­ding to nature, to that which is against nature, and yet forsooth tell vs that their Liturgie hath example and warrant from all those that were vsed in former times. The prayers which then were made to God for the accepting of the peoples gifts and offerings for the cele­bration of the Sacrament, these men absurdly apply to the body and blood of Christ, and appoint the Priest to entreate God that he will looke downe mercifully thereupon and accept them. The old Litur­gies vsed an open commemoration of the death, passion, and resur­rection of our Lorde Iesus Christ, that the people might be put in minde therof, according to his commandement: The Popish priest vttereth the words, but is enioyned to vtter them in silence, so that the people neuer haue the hearing of them. The old Liturgies cra­ued of God grace and heauenly benediction, in behalfe of the people who togither were partakers of the communion: the Masse kéepeth the words, but excludeth the people from the communion. The like dealing I noted before concerning the mixture of water; and the like foll [...]weth in the next place concerning the name of the Masse. [Page 28] [...] [Page 29] [...] [Page 30] By these [...] such spéeches and doings borrowe [...]or [...] rather from the old Church-seruice, they go about to da [...]le the eyes of [...]en th [...]t they may not s [...]e their fraude and falshood. But an ape will be an ape still though he be [...]clothed in purple, & the Masse though it firmeth thus to be decked with [...]oures of antiquitie, shall remaine nothing else but [...]ish this and abhominable idoll. It is but apish [...]tation truly▪ to keepe the words of the Fathers, and so ab­surdly to vary from the [...]tise and meaning of the Fathers.

R. Abbot. 6.

THe deriuing of Masse from the Hebrue word Masah, that the very originall of the word might séeme to import sacrifice, [...]s an il-fauoured whelpe, lately tumbled out of the Iesuits kennell: The word hath bene in vse these thousande yeares, neuer in the Gréeke but in the Latin Church. The most probable reason thereof giuen from time to time by Latin writers, hath bene of the dimis­sing and sending away of such as did not communi [...] [...] Gregor. de exposi. ord. Roma. li. 2. ex Cassandro in Liturg. [...] ­gorie Bishop of Rome; by Isidor. Ori­gi. lib. 6. Isid [...]re who [...] much in the [...]ea [...] ­ching [Page 31] of Etymologies, by Cassian. de canon. orat. & psal. modo. li 2 cap. 7. Casseinus, Durand. lib. 4. cap. 1. Durand, Beatus Rhe­na. annot. [...] Tertul. cont. Marc. lib. [...]. Beatus Rhenanus, Polyd. Vir­gil. de inuent. rerum. li. [...]. ca. 12. Polydore Virgil and others, and shall we beléeue an vpstart Iesuit whom the Pope licked to his fashion but yesterday, that it is deri­ued from an Hebrew word? Bellarm. to. 2 de Missa. lib. 1. cap. 1. Bellarmine himselfe is ashamed of this deriuation. It is but euen as if some idleheaded fellow should imagine some proportion of letters or likenesse of sillables betwixt any Latin and Hebrew words, and should fondly here upon face it out, that the one is deriued from the other. If the Answ. would haue had his Masse from an Hebrew word, he should haue taken it rather from the word Massah, as being a temptation and prouocati­on of the Lordes wrath: or from Dani. 11. 38. Mauzim the name of that idoll which the abhomination of desolation shall worship in stéed of the true God, and honor with gold, and siluer, and precious stones, &c. As Daniel speaketh and fitteth iust to the Popish Masse. Now if Missa, Masse had his originall from that custome of dimission, as by the testimonies of the abouenamed it is most likely, and as was proued before by the most auncient vse of the word, then though in d [...]course of time, custome brought the word to signifie the celebra­tion of the Sacrament, as in my former answere I noted that it did, yet that altereth not, I trow, the deriuation of the word, nor for­ceth it to séek another theame. And if the Answ. will not beléeue me in this point, yet let him beleeue Gregory Bishop of Rome, who applying it to the very celebration of the Sacrament, yet giueth still the same reason of the name. Gregor. apud Cassandrum. in Liturg. Missa, the Masse, is therefore so called, for that they which ought not to be present at the holie Sa­craments, are willed to depart: which is the same, as (mitti) to be sent away. Therefore vnlesse by the voice of the Deacon those that do not communicate, be willed according to the manner of our aunce­stours to depart, the seruice which by the vsuall name is called Masse, is not rightly performed. Let Durand also witnesse the same, though differing somewhat from Gregory: Durand. Rat diui. lib. 4. cap. 1. The Masse of the faithfull is so called of dimissing or sending away, because that being ended, eue­rie one of the faithfull is dimissed or sent away to his owne home. Now here I must put the Answ. in minde that I alleaged in my former writing that the custome of dimissing or sending away such as communicate not, and of the communicating of all that are pre­sent, is vtterly worne out in the Church of Rome, so that they haue herein greatly swarued from antiquitie, and haue kept the word [Page 32] M [...]ss [...] or Masse without the meaning of the word. To which point be answereth nothing; but yet let him [...]stéeme with himselfe, what censure Gregory in his wordes aboue-named for this cause giueth of his Popish Masse, namely that it is not rightly and well celebra­ted. Now then though his great learned men tell him that Missa­rum s [...]l [...]nnia with Ambrose and Austen do signifie both parts of the Masse, that before the dimission and that after (a wise saying of his, who knoweth wel y^• in his Masse there is no dimissiō at all) yet that [...]indereth not but that the Etymologie of the word Missa, is the same still as I haue shewed out of Gregory and Durand. Albeit I must tell him that as great learned men as they of whom he spea­keth, are out of doubt that neither Ambrose nor Austen euer [...] ­med Missirum sol [...]ia.

R. Abbot. 7.

AS touching praier for the dead, we take that for a sufficient cause to refuse it, which Epiph. haer. 75. Ephiph [...]nius confesseth; that it is not taught by the holy scripture, but obserued by traditiō receiued from the Fathers without scripture. What men haue said or thought good in this behalfe we take not for Canonicall, but examine it by the Canonicall scriptures, according to that rule which the Fa­thers themselues haue prescribed. The scripture telleth vs that Apoc. 14. 13. they which die in the Lord are blessed and rest from their labors, and therefore they néede not the helpe of our praiers. If they die not in the Lord, then no praiers can stand them in stéed. So that praier for the dead is a matter of no effect, and consequently a vaine vsage of the name of God. That which the Fathers say according to this truth of Gods word, we willingly embrace: as that of Hierom: Cansa. 13. q. 2. cap. In praesenti. In this present worlde wee know that we may be helped either by the praiers or counsels each of other. But when we shall come before the tribunall seate of Christ, neither Iob, nor Daniel, nor Noe, can make request for any man, but euerie one must beare his owne burthen. And that of Aust [...]n: August. in Ioh. trac. 49. The rest, which is giuen straightwaies after death, euerie man then receiueth when he dieth, if he be woorthie thereof. Which worthinesse Berna [...]d. in dedic. eccle. se [...]. 5. Bernard declareth to be dignatione di­nina, non dignitate nostrae: by Gods vouchsafing to accept vs as woor­thie, not by our worthinesse in our selues. For as Chrysostom saith: Chrysost. in ep. ad colos. hom. 2. No man sheweth such conuersation of life, as that hee may be wor­thie of the kingdome of heauen, but it is wholy the gift of God him­selfe. To which effect Hierome also saith: Hierony. in Esai. lib. 6. c. 14. When the day of death or of iudgement shall come, all hands shall faile, because there shall no worke be found worthie of the iustice of God, neither shall any man liuing be found righteous in his sight. Now he that is not by Gods [Page 34] acceptation in Christ Iesus holden worthie when he dieth; he ne­uer shall be by S. Austens iudgement. For, saith he, August. epist. 80. Such as eue­rie one dieth in this day, such a one shal he be iudged at that day. Now then if euerie one that is thought worthie of this rest, do receiue it immediatly after death, and he that is not thought worthie thereof at his death, shall neuer be, it followeth that euery one that recei­ueth the same rest, receiueth it immediately after death, and there­fore néedeth not to be furthered vnto it by the praiers or deuotions of the liuing. If contrary to this they haue taught other-where a place of paine; where faithfull men are deteined from that rest, they [...]here i [...] [...] as men, [...] we [...] not but they haue found wisedome in Jesus Christ to iouer their errour. But the Papists have dealt with them here is as Gen. 9. 22. Ch [...]m d [...]lt with his father Noe, who in stéed of h [...]ding, did rather publish and make knowne y^e na­kednesse & shame of his father. For so haue they not sought to hide, but to blaze abroad the imperfections and ouersightes of the aunci­ent Fathers, as Vincent. Ly­ [...]n. cont. hae­reses. Vincent [...] Lyrinensis telleth the Donatists that they did, when in the very like sort, [...] the Papists, they cloa­ked their errour with the name of Cyprian, and sundry other Bi­shops of former times. We may say now of the auncient Fathers and the Papists; as the same, Vincentius said of Cyprian & the Do­natists: Ibid. [...] chaunge of things: The autho [...]rs of the same opinions are iudged Catholi [...]ke, but the followers thereof, are here­tikes: the maisters are pardoned, but the schollers or learners are con­demned: the writers of the bookes (wherin these opinions are) shall without doubt be the children of the kingdome; but hell shall be the place for the mainteine [...]s and abettours therof. We doubt not indéed but that the auncient Fathers we [...] Catholicke and godly Bishops and Pastors, notwithstanding that as men they erred sometimes in their iudgements. But we know the Papists to be wicked Apo­states and Heretickes, who wilfully and stubburnly maintaine the same errours against the plaine truth laide euidently before them out of the word of God.

That Aerius was condemned for an hereticke we know: but we know withall that there were greater matters of heresie to con­demne him for, then deniall of praier or offering for the dead; not only for two or thrée pretie Puritane points as the Answ. speaketh, but also for certaine points of Popery concerning mariage and ea­ting [Page 35] of flesh, as Philaster recordeth. So that the Answ. in condem­ning Aerius for such a knowne and notorious hereticke, must pluck himselfe also by the nose. Basil. de spir. sanc. ca. 2. 3. 4. Basil, Epiphan. haer. 75. Epiphanius, and others note him also to haue bene a partaker of the heresie of Arius, & to haue sought further matter for defence thereof. There was therefore sufficient cause for A [...]sme and Popery to condemne Aerius without any touching of him for gainsaying praier for the dead. S. Austen no­teth this indéed in the August. de haeres cap. 53. report of his heresie; but yet giueth no such censure of those many in his time, who auouched in effect the same that Aerius did, that the oblations of the liuing were not auaileable for the dead, whose words to that purpose I reported out of Austen to Dulcitius, in my former reply. And as for the praier for the dead, which Epiphan. haere. 75. Epiphanius defendeth against Aerius, it was no such as Pa­pists now teach, not only for that it was vsed as a testimony of their beliefe, that the dead were not vtterly perished, but liued with the Lord, whereas Papists defend it only in behalfe of them that are in Purgatory: but also that it was vsed Ibid. for the Patriarches, Pro­phets, Apostles, &c. to put difference betwixt Christ and all other men, by the honor which is done to him, whilest he only is acknow­ledged to be perfectly iust, & is worshipped, & praied vnto, & al others acknowledged to be such y^• they were to be praied for. Wheras the church of Rome now praieth not for Saints, but praieth vnto them, & so yéeldeth vnto them that honor which the ancient Church reser­ued as a special prerogatiue to Christ alone. Now as touching this maner of praying for Apostles, Prophets, Martyres, &c. which I mentioned. the Answ. saith nothing at all. Only to no purpose he bringeth a spéech of Chrysostom to proue that there was in his time praier for the forgiuenesse of the sinnes of the dead. But doe those wordes serue for exposition of that which I alleaged out of Chryso­stomes Liturgie? If they do, then he must say that that reasonable seruice was offered for the sinnes of the blessed virgin. If not, then were they idlely brought in. For I alleaged that spéech as taken from the auncient vse of the Church long before Chrysostoms time; which because it importeth only thankesgiuing, therefore giueth sufficie [...]t cause: to thinke that in the beginning they vsed only com­memoration & thankesgiuing for the faithfull dead in Christ; how­soeuer by litle and litle through the subtiltie of Montanus his here­sie, there was added to [...]ither in Chrysostoms time or before, such [Page 36] praiers as he speaketh of and offering [...] for the be [...] site of the dead. That Chrysostom hath somwhat tending heretal, i [...] [...]as not deniedr Mat. 19. 8. but it is sufficient for our defence that I frō the beginning it was not so. And yet that praying for the forgiuenesse of the si [...] of the dead, if there be nothing more said by Chrysostome, maketh nothing for Popish praier for the dead. For this resteth only vpon Purgatory torments, and is not intended for any other purpose but for deliue­rance from thence: whereas it plainly appeareth by the supposed Dionysius, that the auncienter Church praied in that sort for them, of whom notwithstanding they were assured Dionys. A­reo. [...]ccles. hierarch. cap. vltimo. that they were come to rest, that they were blessed and happie; that they were not chaun­ged to worse but to better state then they had here, that they were now compartners with the Saintes which had bene before from the beginning of the world: and therefore in so praying, thought of no­thing losse then Purgatory paines. The saying of S. Austen which the Answ. vrge this thus: August. En­ch [...]r. ca. 110. The sacrifices of the altar or of whatsoe­uer almes when they are offered for all the dead that haue bene bap­tised are thankesgiuings for such as are verie good: for such as are no [...] verie bad, they are propitiations or attonements: for those that are verie bad, they are, though no benefit to the dead, yet some kinde of comfort to the liuing. The first part of which wordes confirmeth that which I said before of the auncient custome, not of praying but of thankesgiuing for he faithfull departed in Christ. In the other two he yéelded too much to those superstitions which tradition and later custome had brought in without the word of God, whilest be­ing busied in matters of greater waight and importance, he omit­ted throughly to examine and trie his opinion in this point, with the true and euen w [...]ights of the same word. Whereas the Answ. telleth me that by this meanes we make no bodie of S. Austen, I answere him concerning Austen as Austen himselfe answered the Donatists concerning Cyprian: August. cont. cresco. lib. 2. ca. 31. 32. We do no iniury to him when we distinguish any writings of his from the authoritie of the holy scrip­tures. Whatsoeuer therein agreeth to the authoritie of the scriptures, we receiue it with his commendation; but what agreeth not therto, by his leaue we refuse it, and as the s [...]e Austen answered also to the Pelagians concerning Ambrose: Idem de grat. christi cont. pel & Cele. li. 1. c. 23 He was a learned and godlie man but not to be compared to the authority of the Canonical scrip­tures. Shall we be said to make no [...] of Dauid, because we re­fuse [Page 37] to follow him in cōmitting adultery and murthers? or of Peter because we will not deny Christ or cause the Gentiles to play the Iewes? or of Iohn because we will not fall downe and worship an Angell? or of Cyprian because we will not yéeld to his errour of re­baptising? August cont. Cresco. lib. 1. cap. 32 & li. 2. cap 32. & de vnico bapt. cont. Petil. ca 13 & cont. Gandent. li. 2. cap. 23. surely as we account our selues incomparably inferi­our to these renowmed and famous seruants of God, and yet refuse to follow them in that which they thought and did amisse: so we at­tribute excéeding much to Austen, we admire his learning, we ho­nour his labours, we estéeme of his iudgement, and yet with that libertie whereunto the Lord hath called vs, we deny to follow him in this whereof we cannot haue our consciences assured by the vn­doubted warrant of the word of God. And as lawfull we hold it for our selues so to do in this point, as for y^e Papists to reiect his August. de bono viduita­tis. ca. [...]. [...]0. 11 sound iudgement of the vnlawfulnesse of dissoluing. & breaking such mar­riages as are contracted after vow and protestation of single life. But as touching the matter in hand of propitiation & attonement for sinne, we holde fast that which S. Iohn teacheth vs and g [...]e no farther: 1. Ioh. 2. 2. We haue an aduocate with the father Iesus Christ the iust, and he is the propitiation for our sinnes. We beléeue no other merit of the forgiuenesse thereof, but only his passion and death: in the participation whereof whosoeuer dieth, we assure rur selues he is immediatly receiued into Paradise with Iesus Christ, euen as was Luc. 23. 43. Cypr. de caena domini ad fi­nem. the théefe who vpon the Crosse began to beleeue in Iesus Christ. And to this purpose I oppose against that thrée-membred diuision of Austen, another of his consisting only of two parts [...]ugust. in Io [...]. [...]ract. 49. All soules when they goe out of this worlde haue their diuers places of receipt. The good haue ioy: the euill haue torment. But when the resurrecti­on shall come, both the ioy of the good shall be greater, and the tor­ments of the euill shall be more grieuous: when as they shall be tor­mented in their bodies also. Then all soules are either good or euill. Their portions if they be good, ioy: if they be euill, torment when they go out of this world, not the torment of Purgatory, which is but for a time; but the torment of hell because it continueth till the resurrection, and then shall be encreased by the receiuing of their bodies to be partakers of the same torment. What place leaueth Austen here for Purgatory, or for any middle sort of men? Surely none at all, and therefore consequently excludeth all effect of praier or offering for the dead.

But I s [...]eke, the Answ. saith, to helpe Dulcitiu [...] his reason and yet conf [...]d my selfe, because both by the question and by the an­swere it appeareth that to pray or to offer for the dead was the chur­ches practise at that time. A great confusion, and worthily wrought. The Answ. must first know that it was his ouersight to call it Dul­citius his reason which was alleaged; for S. Austen reporteth it as a reason giuen by many in his time. Then let him vnderstand also that I knew it to be the churches practise, but question was then moued whether that which the church did were auaileable to the dead. Dulcitius vpon that occasion was doubtful herein. He sendeth to S. Austen to be resolued. S. Austen telleth him that August. de 8. quaest. Dulcit. q. 2. many in­deed said hereof, that if any good might be to the dead in obteining ease, much rather should the soule by it owne confession of sin finde ease, then by oblations procured by other men. Whereby it is plaine that though it were the churches practise, yet that this practise of the church was disauowed and disliked by many in S. Au [...]ens [...]e, and therefore not vniuersally entertained in the church. The An­swerer kn [...]w well inough that thus much was sayd to him before, but because he was ouer-pressed by the reason of those many, vsed then against the custome of oblations and praiers for the dead, he slippeth by and taketh hold of this, that hereby the practise of the church in this point is manifest. True, say I, in part, not generally, because it was gainsaied and disputed against by many of the church euen in those times. Now he saith nothing, neither of the men nor of their reason. And verily Austen himselfe neither reproueth the men, nor disproueth their reason, nor by any reason approueth that which he himselfe affirmed on the other side; but taking this cu­stome as he found it▪ he laboureth rather to shewe whom we may suppose to haue benefit after death by such praiers and offerings, if there be any effect thereof, then to proue that there is so.

R. Abbot. 8.

VVHereas in the place of Austen before rehearsed, I construed the sacrifices of the altar to be meant of the offerings of the people at the Communion, the An­swerer fondly collecteth thereof, that we vse this for a sorie shift to elude & put off all the testimonies of the Fathers con­cerning sacrifice. I may iustly call it a fond collection. That y^e name of Sacrifice is vsed of those offerings, I shewed him by Hieron. in 1. Cor. 11. S. Hierom. But that in other places both S. Austen and others do applie the name of Sacrifice to the mysticall offering of the bodie and blood of Christ, he knew well inough that I made no doubt, inasmuch as it was a great part of my spéech following, to declare what they ment [Page 40] in so saying. Wherefore all that he speaketh of this point ariseth of his owne pée [...]ish and idle fancie, and therfore I trouble not my selfe therewith.

R. Abbot. 9.

NOw at length we are come to the capital points of the sacrifice of the Masse and of transubstantiation, two fowle monsters of the Church of Rome. In the defence whereof the Answ. hath she­wed himselfe a bird of the same nest with them, who very honestly and ingenuously confessed of themselues thus. Index ex­purgat in cen­sura Bertram. In the olde Catho­licke Doctors we suffer very many errours, and we extenuate them, excuse them, and by some deuised shifte we oftentimes deny them, or faine of them some conuenient meaning, whensoeuer they are op­posed in disputations or in contention and controuersie with our ad­uersaries. I might not here omit to put him in minde againe of this their pretty maner of answering our allegations, disclosed and vt­tered by their owne confession, sufficient to make any man distrust­full of their answers, howsoeuer good colours they set vppon them. But as touching the present matter he telleth me that he passeth o­uer a great heape of my waste wordes: and in déede I doe not mar­uell [Page 42] that hee doth so. For in those waste wordes I noted a cursed blasphemy contained in their Masse, which I spak of before, name­ly that a greasie headed and filthy harted priest is brought in, pray­ing vnto God that he wil looke down with a mercifull countenance vppon his sonne Iesus Christ, as though by the prayer of a sinfull and wicked man Christ must be accepted with the Father. Second­ly those wast words laid open the shame of the diuines of Rhemes, as touching their glose vppon the place Heb. 10. Heb. 10. 18. There is nowe no more offering for sinne. An euerlasting testimony of their lewd and vngodly minde, desperately bent to the peruerting of all truth. The Answ. as conuicted in his conscience of their grosse dealing herein, slippeth by all, and vseth not a worde to defend them or to excuse them, but betaketh himselfe to another idle and vaine shifte. Where being a man that groundeth himselfe much vppon the infi­nite treatises of his learned side, he might haue thought with him­selfe; surely these are learned men; they haue sifted the matter to the vttermost: If any other exposition then that which they haue gi­uen would better stand, they would rather haue vsed it. But with­out doubt they saw that nothing will serue the turne. Therefore it is bootelesse for me to séeke any other aunswere. Thus I say should haue thought and so for the credit of his Rhemists haue ioy­ned with them to dubbe that which they so grosly had auouched. Now he hath left them naked to the shame of the world, and by his silence confesseth that their impudency is greater then hee can tell any way how to excuse: But let vs sée how well and wisely he doth shift off all. The question is whether there be any prepitiatorie of­fering or sacrifice for sinne after the sacrifice of Christ vppon his Crosse: the Papists say they haue so in their Masse. I proue out of the tenth to the Hebrews that there is no such. Heb. 10. 18. [...]. For wher forgiuenes of sinnes is, * there is no more any offering or sacrifice for sinne. But in the new Testament once confirmed by y^• death of Christ there is forgiuenesse of sinnes. Therefore in the new Testament once con­firmed by the death of Christ, there is no more any offering for sin, and therefore there is no true sacrifice in the Masse. Nay, saye the Rhemistes the texte meaneth that there is no second Baptisme to apply vnto vs a generall pardon or full forgiuenesse of sinnes, con­trary to the euidence of the text▪ to the light of their owne conscien­ces, to the manifest expositions of the auncient Fathers. Chryso­stome, [Page 43] Oecumenius, Photius, Theodoret, Theophylact, Primasius, Ambrose, as before I alleaged; who all according to the drift of the text expound it against any further offering or sacrifice for sinne af­ter that once offering vpon the Crosse. Yea and it must necessarily be so vnderstood, because the Apostle hereby concludeth against the many & often offered sacrifices of the Iewes. Which conclusion ma­keth nothing against their offerings or sacrifices, vnlesse we vn­derstand offering properly. For what were it against their sacrifi­cing that the Apostle should say; there is no second baptisme to ap­ply vnto vs full forgiuenesse of sins? Now séeing this absurd & vn­reasonable glose of the Rhemists wil not serue turne, neither could the Answ. for shame write it, thogh they were not ashamed to print it, what other answer may we looke for at his hands? Good sir, saith he, why dreame you that we thinke or professe to [...]ley and crucifie Christ in our Masses? His death was once, and that once sufficient for euer, and he dieth no more, and then where is your obiection? To whom I say againe; Good sir, my obiection hath not any sillable to charge you with affirming of Christes dying any more, but pro­ueth that after the once dying of Christ, there is no more sacrifice for sinne, and therefore that your Masse doth lie in taking vpon it to be a true propitiatorie sacrifice, and then where is your answere? Why did not your courage serue to make a direct answere to that that was opposed; and if you could not answere, why did not con­science preuaile with you to make you yeeld to the truth? I prooue that there is now no more offering for sinne, and he returneth me a sléeuelesse tale that they say not that Christ dieth any more, and so runneth on to declare vnto me what maner of sacrifice it is which they offer, which by the reason alleaged by me is ineuitably proued to be none at all. If Christes bodie be really offered for sinne euery day in the Masse, then there is yet [...], an of­fering for sin. But the Apostle saith, that there is not now an offring for sinne▪ Therefore Christ is not now any longer offered for sinne. And therefore although the bodie of Christ be yet really remaining in heauen R [...]m. [...]. [...]. being raised from the dead to die no more, and the same bodie be sometimes termed in our spéech the sacrifice for sinne, yet is it not so called as hauing now the condition of a sacrifice for sin, or as if it were now to be offered any more, but only in respect that it was sacrificed once, and by the vertue of that once sacrificing Heb [...]. 2▪ ap­peareth [Page 44] in the sight of God for vs. In a word, it is no otherwise so called, but as Christ in the Reuelation is called the knobe, not to be killed but Apoc. 5. 6. 9. 12. that was killed, and as the same bodie of Christ shall be called the sacrifice for sinne after the ende of the world, when as the Saints of God shall thankfully record the sacrificing thereof thus: Apoc. 5. 9. Thou wast killed and hast redeemed vs to God by thy bloud out of euerie nation, &c. The end and vse of offering for sinne is to take a­way sinne, to obtein remission of sinnes, to sanctifie those that come vnto it. Now when this end of offering for sinne is atchieued, there is no further vse of an offering for sinne. So that if the sacrifices of the old law Heb. 10. 1. 2. had sanctified the commers thereunto, they should after once offering haue ceased to bee offered as the Apostle telleth vs: importing thereby that that sacrifice which doth sanctifie the com­mers thereunto, as doth cap. 10. 10. the bodie of Christ once offered, néedeth not to be offered any more but that once. And hereupon it is that he inferreth, that séeing remission of sinnes is obteined by the offering of Christs bodie once, therefore thenceforth there is no more offe­ring for sinne, neither of Christes bodie nor of any other thing, be­cause there is no ende or vse therof, euen as when Chrysost. in Heb. 10. ho. 17. Ambros. in Hebr. 10. a man hath got­ten a medicine to heale his hurt, it is néedlesse for him to séeke any other, either of the same substance or of any other. And therefore hereby he resolueth against all, whether Heathenish or Iewish or Popish sacrificing for sinne, as being to no ende or purpose, because the ende of offering for sinne, which is, remission of sinnes, is attei­ned alreadie by the death and bloodsheading of Iesus Christ. And vnlesse we will vnderstand offering for sinne, simply and vniuersal­ly without exception, and without that determining of it to any one sort of offering which the Answ. vseth in tying it vnto Christes suf­fering and dying, we betraie this whole disputation into the hands of the Iewes and Heathens, as making nothing against their sa­crificing for sin, because it only proueth that Christ dieth no more, not that there is no more offering for sinne. But the Apostle would deny not only Christs dying any more, but also all maner of Iewish and Heathenish offering for sinne. Therefore the words must be ab­solutely and vniuersally vnderstood of offering for sinne after the once dying of our Lord Iesus.

Yet further let me tell him that if he will affirme the often offe­ring of Christ, he must say also that Christ often suffereth and is [Page 45] slaine. For throughout the whole scripture he cannot alleage one place where the offering or sacrificing of Christ is otherwise vn­derstood then of his death and passiō. And this is plainly euicted out of the 9. to the Hebrues, where the Apostle saith, that Christ He. 9. 25. 26. is en­tered into heauen to appeare now in the sight of God for vs, not to offer himselfe often; for then, saith he, he should haue often suffered since the foundation of the world. Which reason of the Apostle hath no force at all if there be any other offering of Christ but only by suffering and death. Which also is manifest out of the law of Mo­ses, where there was no offering or sacrifice of propitiation, but by slaughter and bloodshead, and where there was no sheading of blood, there was no forgiuenesse, as the Heb. 9. 22. Apostle witnesseth. Now séeing there is no sacrifice of propitiation in the newe Testament which was not prefigured in the lawe, which the Apostle saith Heb. 10. 1. had the shadow of the good things that were to come, and the law prefigu­red none but sacrifice by bloodshead and death, it followeth that in the new Testament there is no sacrifice propitiatorie but onely by death. And therefore if Christ be often offered, he dieth often. But he dieth no more, saith the Answ. Therefore, say I, h [...] i [...] [...] no more. This reason standeth [...]o [...]ptorie and sure [...] [...]eall sacrifice in the Masse, [...] those groundes which the Answe­rers maisters haue bene forced to yéeld vnto, that either he must néedes graunt that there is a reall death and destruction of the bo­die of Christ in the Masse, or else that there is not any reall offering or sacrificing of the same. For sacrifice, saith Bellar. to 2. de Missa. lib. 1. ca. 2. 15. 27. Bellarmine, requireth a changing and consuming, a killing & destroying of the thing sacri­ficed; and a true and reall sacrifice importeth a true and reall death or destruction of the thing that is offered in sacrifice. If therefore there be in the Masse a true and reall sacrifice of the body of Christ, there must néedes be a true and reall destroying of the same bodie. If this will not be graunted, then the other must be denied, and so the Popish sacrifice must fall to the ground. The Iesuit hauing set downe these things in such manner cap. 27. vt supra. as that he hath conuicted the Masse-priest to be a murtherer and destroyer of the bodie of Christ and passing slily ouer the matter with his omissis, setteth downe af­terward his suppose for the resoluing of this doubt and auoyding of this hainous crime: but so as that it séemeth he was euen at his wits end to deuise a shift to salue the matter. He will haue conse­cration [Page 46] to belong to the essence of the sacrifice, and it selfe to be sa­crificing. But consecration, I trow, importeth not a destroying of the body of Christ. Nay let him remember the old saying, Sacerdos est creator creatoris sui: The priest is the maker of his maker. And how but by consecration? Then it should séeme he doth not marre but make the body of Christ by consecration, and therefore doth no sacrifice therein. Yea but, saith he, by consecration the body of Christ is ordeined to be truly and really destroyed. Not sacrificed then by consecration but ordeined to be sacrificed. For the act of sacrificing is the act of destroying the thing sacrificed. For, as the ibid. Iesuit saith, if the priest in the old law had receiued a shéepe for sacrifice and pro­céeded so farre as to strike the stroake for killing the shéep, yet if by any accident the stroake had bene hindered, it had bene no sacrifice. And therefore Abraham as he saith againe, though he bounde his sonne and laied him on the altar, and so ordeined him to be slain, yet for that he did not really kill his sonne, did not really sacrifice him but only in will. And therefore though consecration be performed, yet there is no sacrifice hitherto but only in purpose & will, because there is no chaunge or destroying of the thing to be sacrificed. But yet further, how is the body of Christ ordeined by consecration to be destroied? forsooth because it therby receiueth y^• condition of meate, and therefore is ordeined to be eaten, and consequently to be alte­red and destroyed as we know it commeth to passe in meate. But where did he read that eating was an act of sacrificing? Surely he himselfe cap. 2. vt su­pra. reckoning all the formes and maners of the destroying of things sacrificed in the old lawe, where many things sacrificed were appointed to be eaten by Aaron and his sonnes, yet could not finde that eating was any part of sacrificing, but defineth the de­stroying to haue bene either by killing as of liuing thinges, or by burning as of solide things without life; or by effusion and powring out as of liquid or moyst things. Then by his owne confessiō it was not eating that did make the sacrifice. And so much he cap. 27. confesseth here as touching the peoples eating. But why should not the peo­ples eating as well accomplish the sacrifice as the priests, séeing the body of Christ is as well destroyed by their eating as by his? Let it be answered with Nemoscit. Again what sacrifice shall we say was performed by Christ, séeing we do not reade in the Gospell that he himselfe did eate, but only gaue to his disciples to eate? And if that [Page 47] must be supposed which he defendeth, that the sacrifice was really and substantially Christ himselfe, how may we be perswaded that he did eate himselfe, as he must néeds do if he did then sacrifice him­selfe, because, he being then the priest, it must be his eating y^• must make vp the sacrifice? Moreouer what if it so fall out that neither the people nor the priest eate thereof, is there a sacrifice or not? To say that there is, is contrary to his own definition of sacrifice, which cannot be without destroying, and destroying here must be eating. To say, there is not, ouerthroweth his other position that sacrifice is done in consecration, as where he saith towards the end of y^e chap­ter that Apostoli cō ­secrando sa­crificabant. Immolatio consecratione perficitur. the Apostles in consecrating did sacrifice, and out of Gre­gory that sacrifice is performed by consecration. And yet againe I maruell how it may be sayd, that the body of Christ is truly and re­ally destroyed in the priests eating thereof. Doth it verely go into his body as meate there to be altered and digested and chaunged in substance? No, saith Bellarmine, the body of Christ féeleth no hurt in it selfe, neither doth it loose his naturall being, but only esse sacra­mentale, his sacramentall being. But sacramentall being is esse modi, not esse rei; a being touching the maner of the thing, not touching the thing it selfe. Now if there be a destroying only of the maner of the thing, not of the thing it selfe, then it cannot be sayd that there is any sacrifice done of the thing it selfe, because sacrifice importeth the destroying not of any maner or circumstance, but of the thing it selfe that is sacrificed. Otherwise Isaac hauing bene bound & laied vpon the altar in maner of a sacrifice, though he were not indéede slaine, yet shall be said to haue bene properly sacrificed, because be­ing vnbound and taken from thence he hath lost that maner of be­ing wherein he was vpon the altar. It were absurd to affirme this. Therfore it is absurd also to affirme the other. In a word, a true and reall destroying of a thing, importeth more then a méere difference in circumstance and respect. Séeing then that sacrifice importeth a true and reall destroying of the thing sacrificed, and that there can­not be any true & reall destroying of the body of Christ in the Masse, except we will say he is there verely slaine, it followeth that vnlesse we will say that Christ is verely slaine, there cannot be auouched any true and reall sacrifice of the Masse. That the Answ. will not graunt in any wise. Therefore consequently he must forgo his sa­crifice. The mad Iesuit could not tell what to say to this point, and [Page 48] yet was resolued to say somewhat. He saw it faulty which his fel­lowes had set downe, and yet neither was hee able to resolue the matter so but that he is ouerthrowne by his owne grounds. And therefore he speaketh warely with Arbitror, I suppose, as fearing least he himselfe should be taken tardy. I maruaile that he béeing at Rome, so néere the Pope the Oracle of the Church who pronoun­ceth without errour from his consistory chaire, could not obtain of him the certaine and vndoubted trueth of this matter, but must thus féede men with his owne vaine ghesses and supposals. The trueth is, neither the Pope himselfe nor both his Seminaries of Rhemes and Rome doe know what to determine of this point, and should not we be wise men to beléeue them as touching a sacrifice, of which they themselues are not agréed how it is done or wherein it doth consist?

But the nullity of this fained and counterfait sacrifice I further shewed before by answering the obiection concerning the Fathers often speech of sacrifice. For I declared that they themselues plain­ly expound themselues not to meane any true & reall sacrifice pro­perly so called, but onely a mystery, a sacrament, a resemblance, a remembrance of a sacrifice, as their owne wordes alleaged doe te­stifie. To this he saith that those testimonies doe prooue that there is a commemoration indéede of Christes death and sufferings, but not that they doe not in their sacrifice really and indéede offer his body. Then he telleth me full wisely what difference there is bée­twixt vs and them; that we say; there is a memory of Christ him­selfe as being absent; and they say; there is a memory of his one onely sacrifice, that is, of his death. Herein he saith lieth the narrow issue to put a difference betwixt Christes death and Christ himself, importing hereby that there is a remembrance of Christes death in the Masse, and besides that a true and reall offering of Christ him­selfe. This he telleth me is the state of the question, which we al­waies start from and will not sée. Where I may say of him as S. Austen said of the Hereticke: August. cōr. aduer. legis & prophe. lib. 1. cap. 23. Quàm eleganter sibi videtur iste ver­ba discutere atque discernere, nesciens quid loquatur. How trimly doeth this man seeme to himselfe to sifte and discerne wordes and speeches, and knoweth not what he saieth. For first where he saith that their sacrifice is onely to commemorate the death of Christ once past, hée crosseth his owne assertion. For if they onely commemorate the [Page 49] death of Christ, then they doe not really offer him. If they doe re­ally offer him, they doe not only commemorate his death. Second­ly he saith that there néedeth not now any newe oblation or sacrifice for sinne after Christes death already past, because his death is still sufficient and auaileable to take awaye sinne, and yet hee addeth, that the same death of Christ giueth force and vertue to their sacri­fice, which they say is a sacrifice propitiatory to take away sinne. If there néede no other sacrifice for sinne after Christes death, howe doeth his death giue force and vertue to their sacrifice for sinne? Belike hee woulde haue vs to vnderstand, that their sacrifice is but a méere fansie and no sacrifice in deede. Surely it is folly Vigil. cont. Eutych. lib. 4. as Vigilius saith. For a man to goe about to re­fute that which withall hee is proued not to deny. Thirdly where he saith, that wee would haue the Sacrament a remembrance of Christ himself whereas they intend it of his death, he sheweth him­selfe to bee too much delighted with idle talke. For if hee haue but common sense he may vnderstand by that that I said vnto him, that we vse the Sacrament entirely as a remembrāce of Christs death, and so defend it against their counterfaite and imagined reall sacri­fice. Fourthly he saith againe, we are commanded beside the me­mory of Christes death to offer the same death in a sacrifice to God, and yet after he saith, it is onely to be recorded, figured and repre­sented. But to passe ouer these ouerthwart and crosse fancies of brai [...]sicke and vnstable heads which confound themselues in their owne spéeches, and taking vppon them to be 1. Tim. 1. 7. the only Doctors of the Law, yet vnderstand not what they speake nor whereof they af­firme: Let vs come to the state of the question which hee setteth downe, namely whether beside the memory of Christes d [...]ath and passion, there be in the Masse a true and reall offering or sacrificing of the body and bloud of Christ. In which point we haue dalied mar­uailously all this while, and haue béene greatly too blame for going so wide from the question proposed. For the question hath béene whether the body and bloud of Christ be verely and in déede offered or sacrificed in the Masse, or not: and we haue still very directly pro­ued, that the body and bloud of Christ is not verily and indéed offered or sacrificed in the Masse; that there is not any sacrifice done for sin in the Masse truely and properly so called: that the Masse is an ab­hominable sacriledge, and wicked profaning of the Sacrament of [Page 50] Christ. For first if they will defend a sacrifice, they must defend it by the institution of Christ. But let it bee resolued what a sacrifice is, and what is there in the institutiō of Christ that giueth so much as any shadow of a sacrifice? Bellar. tom. 2. de Missa. lib. 1. cap. 2. To a true sacrifice, saieth Bellarmine and that truely, is required that that which is offered to God in sacri­fice, be verily destroied, that is, be so changed as that it cease to be (not onely in vse but in substance) that that it was before. But what is there in the action of Christ answerable to this condition of a sa­crifice? Is there any man so madde as to say that the body of Christ was there verily destroied? or is there any shew of any such mat­ter? it is more then senselesse to imagine it? Nowe it hath beene shewed before what a srurre the Iesuit keepeth to vpholde the sacri­fice of the Masse together with this definition, and yet all in vaine. Moreouer where may we haue it assured vnto vs that Christ did sacrifice himselfe twise? The Scripture precisely telleth vs▪ that he offered himselfe but once, which was by his death. Heb. 7. 27. He needed not daily to offer vp sacrifice, for that did he once when he offered vp himselfe. Cap. 9. 12. By his owne bloud entred he in once into the holy place. Cap. 9. 26. In the end of the world hee hath appeared once to put away sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe. Cap. 9. 27. As it is appointed to men to die once: so Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many. cap. 10. 10. We are sanctified by the offering of Christes body once. cap. 10. 12. This man ha­uing offered one sacrifice for sinne, sitteth for euer at the right hande of God. This is all which the Scripture testifieth of the offering of Christ. Now if Christ did offer himselfe but once, and that once was by death vpon his Crosse, then it followeth that he did not offer himselfe at the institution of the Sacrament, and therefore commended not vnto vs any sacrifice to be done therein. If they will say that he was but once offered in that manner, namely with bloudshed, but vnbloudly he offered himselfe beside and so is offe­red still, they deale presumptuously against the holy Ghost, and vse that sawcinesse with the word of God, which no man may bee bold to doe with the lawes of men. For if it holde in the lawes of men that Regula iuris. Non est dis­tinguendum, vbi non dis­tinguit lex. no man may distinguish where the law it selfe doth not warrant his distinction, much more ought it to hold in the lawes and words of God. Now séeing the holy Ghost by a generall word compre­hending all manner of offering hath determined the offering of Christes body onely to once, who is he that dare giue checke vnto [Page 51] his word, and say: It is a lie: for he was offered twise, once bloud­dily on the Crosse, another time vnblouddily in the Sacrament, & so remaineth to be offered daily and infinite times in a day vnto the end of the world. Especially séeing the Apostle vrgeth this a­gaine and againe for a great and maine difference betwixt the sa­crifices of the old Testament, and the sacrifice of the new, that the Priests there offered often, but Heb. 7. 27. Oecume. ibid Heb. 10. 11. 12. Christ offered one onely sacrifice and that but once; euen in this respect opposing this once offering not onely to the general sacrifice that was made cap. 9. 7. once a yeare, but also to the particular sacrifices that were offered cap. 7. 27. & 10. 11. euery day, giuing to vnderstand that neither generally nor particularly, neither in one maner nor other, the body of Christ was to be offered any more but onely once. He sheweth the greatnes of this sacrifice, saith Ambros. in Heb. 7. S. Ambrose, which being thus offered sufficeth for euer. For this sacri­fice was not daily to be offered, &c. but this man is of such power or worth that being once offered in the sacrifice of his fleshe, it should not be needefull for any of the faithfull to offer for him any more. It sufficed, Chrysost. in Heb. 7. hō. 13. saith Chrysostome, though it were but one, and but once of­fered. Now this difference of the sacrifices of the two Testaments is vtterly taken away, if by any distinction of the maner of offering we wil auouch y^• the sacrifice of the new Testament is often offered as were the sacrifices of the old. Where I cannot omit to note the drunken spéech of the Rhemists as touching this point, set down for safegard of their sacrifice, who Rhem. An [...] not. Heb. 10. 11 repeate often, as they say, that the Apostles reason and speaches of many Priestes and often sacrificing concerne the sacrifices of the law onely, vnto which hee opposeth Christes sacrifice and Priesthood, and speaketh no word of or against the sacrifice of the new Testament, which is the sacrifice of Christes own Priesthood, and is dayly done vnbloudily by the Priestes, mea­ning hereby their sacrifice of the Masse. I tearme it iustly a drun­ken spéech: For séeing they are forced by the euidence of the text to grant that the Apostle in that respect opposeth the sacrifice & priest­hood of Christ against the old sacrifices & priestood of the law, which opposition cannot stād but only thus, that there were many priests, here but one: there often offering, here but once: what doe they but talke like drunken men they know not what, when notwith­standing in the very same respect they confound the Priesthood and sacrifice of Christ with the Priesthood and sacrifices of the law, so [Page 52] that as there were many priests, so here are many priests; as there was often offering, so is here also. He affirmeth indéede there ma­ny Priests, here but one; there often offering, here but once; and therefore leaueth no place for any bastard distinction of any manner whereby the body of Christ may be saide to be often offered. Fur­thermore against this deuised manner wee are instructed by that which is written. Heb. 9. 22. Without shedding of bloud, there is no remissi­on of sinnes. For hereof we gather that if the Masse be a propitia­tion of sinne, then there must be shedding of bloud in the Masse. If there be shedding of bloud in the Masse, it is not an vnblouddy sa­crifice, and therefore the assertion of an vnblouddy sacrifice in the Masse for the propitiation of sinne is euidently contrary to the word of God. Now the bloud of Christ was shed for sinne but only once, and that once vpon the Crosse. Therefore Christ did offer himselfe for sinne but onely once and that vpon the Crosse, and therefore ne­ther did nor doth offer himselfe in the Sacrament. Againe when we read that Heb. 9. 27. 28 as it is appointed vnto men to die once, so Christ was once offered to take away sinnes: we are giuen to vnderstand that as well it may be saide that men to whō it is appointed to die once may afterwards in another manner die oftentimes, as that Christ who is saide in the like sort to be offered for sinne but onely once, should yet in another manner be offered for sinne times without number, so long as the world standeth. It is folly and madnesse to say the one; it is madnesse and blasphemy to affyrme the other. And so much the more for that it is plainely testified vnto vs, that therefore hee néedeth not to be often offered because Heb. 10. 14. by one oblation he hath for euer made perfect them that are sanctified. Which making perfect is declared in the words following to be intended of the forgiuenes of sinnes. Now if Christ néede daily to be offered for the forgiuenes of sinnes either generally or particularly or howsoeuer, then he did not by one oblation or offering of himselfe make vs perfect in that behalfe. If he did perfectly worke remission of sinnes by one offe­ring of himselfe, then he néedeth not thenceforth to bee offered for sinne, and he that affirmeth the offering of him, doth frustrate his death and deny the perfection of his former offering. And therefore the Apostle inferreth as hath béene saide before, ver. 18. Where remission of sinnes is, there is no more offering for sinne: As if he should say: All sacrifice for sin is vaine after remission of sinnes once obtained, [Page 53] which is the end of sacrifice for sinne. Remission of sinnes is perfect­ly wrought and obtained by the once offering of Christ vpon the Crosse; therefore after the once offering of Christ vpon the Crosse, all offering or sacrifice for sinne is vaine, and therefore it is none at all. As for that which the Answ. excepteth, that remission of sinnes doth come by Baptisme, repentance, praier, &c. And yet wée doe not thereby exclude Christes death; intending thereby as it séemeth that it followeth not that Christes death is excluded, though remis­sion of sinnes be affirmed to be wrought by the sacrifice of the Masse it is a friuolous and vaine shifte. For what comparison is there betwixt the sacrifice which it selfe is defended to be a propitiation for sinne, and repentance, faith, praier, baptisme, which doe not themselues worke forgiuenesse of sinnes, but onely serue vs to re­ceiue forgiuenesse of sinnes, wrought onely by the death and bloud­shedding of Iesus Christ? As hunger prouoketh a man to desire meate, so repentance stirreth him to séeke forgiuenesse of sinnes. As a man craueth meate to relieue his hunger, so praier craueth the forgiuenesse of sinnes. As in a vessell meate is set before a man and offered vnto him, so God in the word and Sacraments though in o­ther sort, setteth before vs and offereth vnto vs the effect of the bloud of Christ to the forgiuenesse of sinnes. As the hande and mouth re­ceiue the meate to the satisfying of hunger and comfort of the body, so faith receiueth the benefite of Christes bloud to the forgiuenesse of sinnes. But as neither the desire of meate, nor the crauing for meate, nor the vessell wherein meate is offered, nor the hand and mouth that receiueth the meate haue themselues any vertue to féed the body, but the force thereof belongeth onely to the meate; so nei­ther repentance, nor praier, nor the sacraments, nor faith, haue a­ny vertue themselues of the remission of sinnes, but onely are ei­ther occasions of séeking, or meanes of offering and receiuing the death and passion of Christ, to which only and entirely in it selfe is to be attributed the forgiuenesse of our sinnes. Neither is it any o­ther but a fantasticall toy which the Answ. imagineth that these by an influence, as he speaketh, of the passion of Christ haue in them­selues the efficiency of the forgiuenesse of sins; in like maner (if at least he will giue me leaue to expresse his minde by a comparison) as the aire, being warmed by the fire, warmeth the body wherun­to it is applied. A méere deuise of Satan that men whilest they séek [Page 54] for forgiuenesse of sinnes where it is not, may faile of it where it is, and whilest they follow after a shadow by these deuises of influence from the bloud of Christ, may misse of the substance in Iesus Christ himselfe. The Scripture hath not taught vs that either our repen­tance, or praiers, or faith, or sacraments, are propitiations for our sinnes, and therefore it is but a fonde shifte to gather from hence a­ny maintenance for the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mosse. I resolue therefore as before that séeing Christ Iesus by one offering hath perfected vs as touching the propitiation and attonement for our sinnes, there is not now remaining any manner of offering what­soeuer for propitiation of sinne.

But to goe somewhat further in this matter séeing they will néedes haue vs to beléeue a reall offering of the bodye of Christ, what Priest will they appoint vs to offer the same▪ Forsooth vnder pretence that this is Concil. Tri­dent. sessi. 6. cap. 1. a cleane offering and such as cannot be defiled by the vnworthinesse of him that offereth, they will haue vs to be­léeue that euery varlet Priest comming blowing from the Alehouse or sweating from the stewes hath Christ at his becke to bring him from Heauen euery morning as ofte as hee list to offer him vp for the forgiuenesse of whose sinnes it pleaseth him. But we will not beléeue this, because the Scripture nameth vnto vs in this behalfe but one onely Priest, which is Heb. 3. 1. the high Priest of our profession, one which is Cap. 7. 26. holy, harmelesse, vndefiled, seperated from sinners, made higher then the heauens. And séeing it maketh this difference betwixt the Priesthood of the law & the Priesthood of Christ Cap. 7 26. that the law maketh men high Priests that haue infirmity, but the worde of the othe maketh the sonne who is consecrated for euer, opposing Christ the sonne of God, the Priest of the newe Testament to men of infirmity that were Priests by the law, either this difference is idle and without ground, and men of infirmity are Priests as wel in the Priesthood of Christ as in the priesthood of the lawe, or else al men that haue infirmity, and therefore all Popishe Priests, are vt­terly excluded from the priesthood of Christ. Therfore as the coun­cell of Ephesus saide, so say we: Concil. E­phes. Epist. ad Nestor. We assigne not the name and of­fice of priesthood to any other man but to Christ. For he is made the mediatour betwixt God and man, and the reconciler to peace, offe­ring himselfe a sacrifice of a sweet smelling sauour to God for vs. Whereas they say for the better countenancing of this their sacri­ledge, [Page 55] that Rhem. An­not. Heb. 7. 23. marg. Christ concurreth with the Priests in this action of offe­ring vp himself, they spurn at the text of y^e Scripture which telleth vs that Heb. 7. 27.▪ Christ needeth not daily to offer vp sacrifice, and that hee Cap. 9. 25. is gone into Heauen to appeare in the sight of God for vs, not that he should offer himselfe often. Nay when it saieth. Cap. 1. 31. Hauing by himselfe purged our sinnes he sitteth at the right hand of the maiesty in the highest places, and againe; cap. 10. 12. This man after he had offered one sacrifice for sinnes, sitteth for euer at the right hand of God, ex­pecting thenceforth till his foes be made his footestoole: it opposeth Christes offering himselfe for sinne to his sitting at the right hand of God, making the one a matter of humiliation, the other of exal­tation; the one of infirmity, the other of glory. And therefore as hu­miliation and infirmity standeth not with exaltation and glory, so the offering of Christ for sinne standeth not with his sitting at the right hand of God the Father. This Chrysostome and Theophylact and out of them Oecumenius haue rightly obserued. Oecumen. He. 7. ex chry­sost. in Heb. [...]. hom. 13. The­ophyl. ibid. When thou hearest him called the high Priest, doe not thinke that he doeth still sacrifice himselfe for sinne. For when he had done so once, he ascen­ded to his fathers Throne. For it belongeth to the Minister and Priest to stand, but this sitting signifyeth that he brought sacrifice once euen his owne body, and afterward sate downe to be ministred vnto of the heauenly powers. So Theodoret also: Theodor. in Hebr. 8. What 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. 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 [Page 56] 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 resē ­blance by these signes which betoken his body and bloud. For as Oecumenius saith out of Gregory, 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 cōtinually 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 Oecumen. in Heb. 8. that sacrificing of himselfe in Heauen to be nothing else but his making intercession for vs. For 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, 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 y^• 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 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 [Page 57] 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 Chrysost. [...] Ambros in Heb. [...]0. Chrysostome and Ambrose purposely speaking of the sacrifice of the church, say thus: We offer not another sacrifice [Page 58] 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 y^• 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? 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: 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 y^e 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. Theodor. in Heb. [...]. 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 [Page 59] 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 August. cont. faust [...]m Manich. li. 2 [...]. 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 y^e 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 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 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, [Page 60] & 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: De cons [...]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 Lords Supper, do not thereby meane that Christ is indéed and verily offered, but only that his sacrifice is represented. The collection that I made before and euen now no­ted again out of that place of S. Austen, standeth firme & sure to this purpose. Namely that there is difference with Austen betwixt being offered in himself, and being offered in a Sacrament or myste­rie, and that the name of offering or sacrificing when it is referred to the Sacrament is vsed not ex rebus ipsis, for the truth of the thing it selfe, but for the resemblance of the thing, and therfore importeth not the offering of Christ in himselfe. But this the Answ. would not sée or take notice of, because he should haue had nothing to write of this matter, being therby excluded alreadie from all that he hath [Page 61] now said▪ For his shift is [...]o put difference betwixt Christes death and Christ himself, and to say that Christ although he die no more, yet is verily sacrificed in himselfe: and my collection was before direct to the contrary that Christ is not now sacrificed in himselfe. So that he sheweth himself a stout disputer to let the premisses go, and deny the conclusion. Now the necke of his sacrifice being thus broken in that it is proued that after the death of Christ there is no more offering for sinne, that Christ is not now offered in himselfe, but only the sacrificing of his body on the crosse, celebrated by a Sa­crament of remembrance which yet is called by the name of sacri­fice, because sacraments are vsually called by the names of those things whereof they are Sacraments, and we therein call to mind and shew Christs death and offering of himselfe as if he were then presently offered, yet he, setting a good face vpō the matter when nothing else wil help him, telleth me that these things touch him no more then the man in the Moone, & biddeth me to learne the state of the questi­on better, not to roue at random but to aime at the marke, & to put vp in my purse all those testimonies that I did alleage, &c. An easie and soone-made answere or rather an vnshamefast & wretched shift. But the yoong Crab must go as the olde Crab doth teach him, and he must giue such answeres as other his forefathers haue bin wont to doe.

R. Abbot. 10.

HEre we may sée how the poore man maketh hard shift to credit himselfe by séeming to say somewhat, when indéed he saith no­thing at all. For first he telleth me that wheresoeuer I reade of a remembrance, memoriall, and representation of sacrifice, I must tak [...] it for a full answere, that thereby is meant a remembrance and re­presentation of Christs death. Not for a full, but for a foolish answer, say I. For to what other purpose can he imagine those words allea­ge [...] [Page 64] by vs, but to auouch the remembrance of that one and only true sacrifice of Christs death against their defence of a continuall and of­tentimes repeated sacrifice? And séeing the Fathers speaking of their offering of Christ, do recall and correct those termes as vn­properly spoken, and put in place thereof that they rather celebrate the remembrance of his sacrifice, as if he were now sacrificed indeed, we conclude hereof, neither can the Answ. a [...]oyd it, that they simply deny the true and reall offering of the bodie of Christ, as before is the wed. Secondly, he saith that I wrangle in interpreting Sacri­fice here in th [...]se places to be the Eucharist, whereas it is meant of the offring of the same in a sacrifice. But indéed he saith he knoweth not what. For immediately before he expoundeth Sacrifice in these places to be meant of the death of Christ, and how commeth it to passe now that it must be vnderstood of offering the Eucharist in a sacrifice? But if his pen slipped, and he put in (these places) meaning it of others, where I say the Fathers call the Eucharist a sacrifice, that which he saith is but Petitio principij, and a begging of that to be yéelded for truth, which I haue auowed and proued to be false, The Eucharist I vnderstande to bee the celebration of the Sacra­ment with thankeful remembrance of the death of Christ. This I say the Fathers doe often call sacrifice, because the matter thereof is the sacrifice of Christes death, not because Christ is therein ve­rily sacrificed. Thirdly I wrangle forsooth againe in bearing him in hand that the authorities alleaged do meane the thing represen­ted to be Christes body, whereas they vnderstand it to be Christes passion, and death vpon the Crosse. Where without doubt eyther the Answ. wits or his honesty failed him very much. For he would haue it seem that we intend not by the places of the fathers a repre­senting of Christes passion and death, but méerely of his body, and yet he himselfe iustifieth the contrary straight waies after. For within some fewe lines he alleageth my wordes directed to those places of the fathers, that the death and passion of Christ is the whole matter and substance of this mystery. To which I added al­so diuers more wordes to that purpose, concluding that nothing is here remembred, but Christes sacrificing himselfe vppon y^e Crosse. For although we say that we represent the body and bloud of Christ whereof yet there was nothing spoken in this place, yet as after­wards I tolde him, we represent the body no otherwise but as bro­ken, [Page 65] and the bloud no otherwise but as shed for vs. Notwithstan­ding here, though hauing not so much as a sillable whereto he may referre this spéech, he telleth me that I wrangle in pretending the thing represented to be y^e body of Christ, wheras it is his death and passion; as if I excluded the representation of Christes death and passion, which by his own confession I make the whole matter and purport of the Sacrament. But this draffe he thought good enough, wherewith to féede his corner companions, and to perswade them that he had dealt very acutely and wittely in answering that that had béene saide vnto him.

He telleth me again that I ouer-reach in saying that the death and passion of Christ is the whole substance of this mystery. Hée shoulde haue saide that I come short, because I say not so much as he would haue me to say. For, saith he, there are two thinges in our sacrifice; a mysticall offering of the passion of Christ, and a real offering of the body of Christ. But neither scripture nor father [...] ­uer commended to our practise any other sacrifice of Christ, but on­ly the mysticall offering of his passion. Neither doe any of the au­thorities of the fathers so much tossed and tumbled by the Papists enforce any other, as I alleaged the last time, and the Answ. saieth nothing to disprooue it. Surely wonder it is, if the matter were so cleare as these men would perswade vs, that neuer any one of the fathers speaking so often of the sacrifice would once note this point expressely and distinctly that they had both a mysticall offering of the passion of Christ and a reall offering of his body besides: no not when the maine drifte of their spéech pressed them so to doe, if they had beléeued any such thing. But they knew it not at all, and ther­fore no maruaile that they saied nothing of it. For where as the Answ. telleth me that the Fathers giue reasons why it is a sacri­fice indéede, namely because the bloudy sacrifice of the crosse & death of Christ is offered and sacrificed in a [...] vnbloudy sacrifice of his bo­dy, he doth lewdly belie the fathers in fathering vppon them this new and Popish phrase of spéech, wherewith the fathers were vt­terly vnacquainted. For although they sometimes call the Lordes Supper an vnblouddy sacrifice, as they doe also the other Oecumen. in Heb. 13. seruice & praiers of the Church to put a difference betwixt the Iewish carnal and the christian spirituall sacrifices, as also betwixt the sacrifice of Christ vpon his crosse, and the sacrifice of the church clem. Apost. consti. li. 6. ca. 23. Euseb. de vita constant. lib. 4. cap. 45. Concil. Con­stanti. 6. ca. 32. calling the [Page 66] 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 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 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. [Page 67] 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: 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 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: 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 [Page 68] the truth of the thing. Let Iustinus Martyr further iustifie this mat­ter▪ who auoucheth plainly 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 y^e 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: 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 multitude of the sacrifices of the law is taken away. One is appro­ued in the ende of the world, once offered for the abolishing of sinne. For the lambe of God hath taken away the sin of the world, offering himselfe a sacrifice of a sweet sauour, &c. Where let the Answ. note, that in stéed of many sacrifices for sinne, there is in the ende of the world but one, and that one but once offered for the vtter abolishing of sinne; so that there remaineth now no▪ other srcrifice for vs to of­fer, but thankesgiuing and the offering of our selues vnto God by our reasonable seruing of him. Let me conclude with the words of S. Ambrose: Ambros. in Heb. 10. There is now no more offering for sinne. For one ob­lation of the bodie of Christ maketh perfect them that are sanctified, as which worketh full forgiuenesse of sinnes. Therefore we need not daily to purge with daily sacrifices as in the old law. If we néed not daily to purge with daily sacrifice as they did in the olde law, then surely the daily sacrifice of the Masse is superfluous, and cōsequent­ly no sacrifice at all. By these and sundry other testimonies of the old Fathers, it is euident and cleare inough to those that will sée, that they knew not nor were acquainted with this strange deuise of a continuall reall offering of the body of Christ. Yea but the An­swerer [Page 69] saith further, that the matter is so true of the Fathers auou­ching this reall sacrifice, that Caluin sticked not to condemne all the Fathers since the Apostles of Iudaisme in that very poynt for esta­blishing a very sacrifice of the church: so impudent a thing he tooke it to be to cast a myst vpon the Fathers words in that point. If the Answ. speake this of himselfe, let him remember that which Solo­mon saith: Pro. 19 5 & 12. 22. A false witnesse shal not escape vnpunished: and again: Lying lips are an abhomination to the Lord. If he speake it vpon the warrant of any other, let him remember this for a true saying here­after: Pro. 14. 15. Eccle. 19 4▪ He that is hastie to giue credit, is a foole. Caluins own words do laie open the notable and shamelesse boldnesse of the Answ. and his fellowes in this point: Institut. li. 4. ca. 18. sect. 10. If any man, saith he, oppose the senten­ces of the old Fathers gathered here and there, and vpon their autho­ritie contend that the sacrifice which is done in the Lordes Supper is otherwise to be vnderstood then we expound it, let this briefly serue for answere to him. If the matter be to approue the deuise of that sa­crifice which the Papists haue forged in the Masse, the auncient Fa­thers giue no maintenance or defence to such sacriledge. Indeed they vse the name of sacrifice, but withall they expound that they meane nothing else but a memoriall of that true and onely sacrifice which Christ performed on the Crosse, who is our onely priest, as they eue­rie where shew, &c. Againe ibid. sect. 1 [...]. he professeth that he seeth that they re­teined a godly & right sound iudgement concerning this whole my­sterie▪ neither findeth that they would any litle derogate from the on­ly sacrifice of Christ. Now therefore what conscience may I thinke there is in the Answerer, that doubteth not to auouch so manifest and notorious a slaunder? But he will alleage for himselfe y^• Cal­uin though he confesse that the Fathers had a right and true iudge­ment concerning the Sacrament, yet saith that ibid. in actionis modo, in the maner of their celebration they approached néerer to the Iewish maner of sacrificing, then Christ had ordeined, or was conuenient for the state of the Gospell. But this, say I, cannot excuse the Answ. from iust desert of being branded in the forehead with the letter C, as a calumnious and slaunderous person. For he chargeth Caluin to haue condemned the Fathers of Iudaisme for establishing a re­all sacrifice of the church, whereas Caluin absolutely de [...]ieth that there was in them any opinion of any reall sacrifice, and only saith, that in ceremonies they came néerer to the Iewish maner of sacri­ficing [Page 70] then was conuenient. We know that the Papists come née­rer to those rites and ceremonies wherewith the Heathens & Pai­nims haue worshipped their idol gods, then is conuenient for Chri­stians to do in the spirituall seruice of the true God. And yet it fol­loweth not that they establish those profane mysteries or opinions whereunto the same ceremonies were annexed. So might Caluin truly say, that the Fathers in ceremonies came too néer the Iewes, and yet be farre, as indéed he was, from denying that they taught or established any reall sacrifice in the church. In a word, Caluin cō ­demneth not the Fathers of Iudaisme, but Papists of peruersnesse and wickednesse in abusing the writings of the Fathers. For let me tell the Answ. once againe, that his maisters of Rhemes though they haue in diuers places of their Annotations scratched togither out of the Fathers all and more then all, that may giue any shewe to countenance their sacrifice, yet cannot bring any one place that goeth without the compasse of that reason of the name of sacrifice, which in my former spéech I declared to stand without any true or reall sacrifice now to be performed. For setting that downe which Cyprian saith that Cypr. lib. 2. epist. 3. the passion of Christ is the sacrifice which wee offer, what termes of sacrifice can they alleage out of the Fathers which do not agrée to the passion of Christ? It is the killing of the lambe of God, the sacrifice of sacrifices, the euerlasting quickening sacrifice, the sacrifice of our Mediator, the sacrifice of our price, the eternall redemption both of body and soule. Now sith the passion of Christ is not now really performed, the sacrifice to which these spéeches are applied, is not a sacrifice now really done, but only in a mysterie and by remembrance. Now although it be plaine inough by that that hath bene already said, that there is no such sacrifice in­déed as the Answ. and his company do affirme, yet supposing for the while that there is, let vs sée what he will make of it, or to what vse he will put it. The vse of it, as he telleth me in the former secti­on, is to apply vnto vs remission of sinnes, purchased by the death of Christ only. By which words he spoyleth his Masse of the nature of a propitiatory sacrifice. For the true propitiatory sacrifice euen by the very signification of the word, is that only which it selfe sa­tisfieth for sinne, and purchaseth by the vertue and force thereof, for­giuenesse of sinnes and attonement with God. Now therfore if for­giuenesse of sinnes be purchased by the death of Christ onely, then [Page 71] it standeth not with the Masse to be a propitiatorie sacrifice. His Rhemish companions tell him that the blood of Christ before his death was at his last supper sacrificed Rhe. Annot. Luc. 2 [...]. 20. for propitiation or for par­don of sinne. So Bellarmine saith, that Christ at his supper offered a sacrifice Bellar. to▪ 2. de Miss [...]. lib. 2. cap. 2. for the Apostles sinnes, and with a mouth of blasphemy a­uoucheth that the Masse is such a sacrifice as doth purge, abolish, forgiue sinnes: that it doth abolish the sinne of the world, doth saue from eternall destruction, doth make attonement with God for our sinnes: falsifying and misconstruing to this purpose diuers testimo­nies of the auncient fathers. In like sort the councell of Trent de­termineth it to be such a sacrifice as doth Concil. Tri­dent. sess. 6. cap. 2. verily worke propitiation for sinne, and appease God, because it is the same with that vpon the Crosse, differing only in the maner of offering, and therefore it can. 3. cur­seth those that deny it to be such. Wherby it appeareth that the An­swerers fellowes do not thinke that remission of sinnes is purcha­sed only by the death of Christ. And therfore when they say as some­times they do, that the death of Christ is Rhe. Annot. H [...]b. 7. 27. the one full sufficient raunsome for the redemption of all sinnes, or as he saith here, that remission of sinnes is purchased by the death of Christ only, they do but plaie mock-holy day, and delude the ignorant reader with de­ceitfull and double meaning words. The death of Christ is a suffi­cient raunsome, they say: but we must vnderstand it of a generall raunsome: and therefore so, as that there is beside that a particular raunsome or redemption in the Masse, of the same effect & working particularly, as the death of Christ is generally. And therefore they call their sacrifice of the Masse Rhe. Ann [...] H [...]b. 10. 11. a particular redemption, and in that sense, the euerlasting redemption both of bodie and soule. So this man when he saith, that remission of sinnes is purchased onely by the death of Christ, must be vnderstood belike to meane it of the ge­nerall purchase, not to deny a particular purchase thereof in the Masse also. Or if he meane simply as he speaketh, that there is not at all either generally or particularly any purchase of the forgiue­nesse of sinnes in the Masse, then let him curse the church of Rome that hath cursed him, and let him returne into the bosome of the church of Christ, to professe with vs that truth which the church of Rome hath impiously condemned. But to come to that matter of applying, which he saith is the vse of their sacrifice, we may note therein the notable fraud and shifting of the diuell, wherby he hath [Page 72] practised and pr [...]uailed in the church of Rome to defeate the people of the benefit of Christs redemption. For whereas Christ had left vnto his church two speciall meanes to offer and apply vnto vs the fruite of his death, the liuely preaching of the word and the vse of his holy Sacraments, the diuell hath so wrought that Apoc. 7. 1. the wind of the word of God should not blow vpon the earth, that men should not haue so much as any priuate vse of the booke of God; that their very church-seruice should be in a language which they did not vn­derstand. As for the Sacraments he hath miserably corrupted the one, and vtterly i [...] a maner abandoned the people from the vse of the other, and instéed thereof, hath deluded them with a theatricall shew and vaine opinion of a sacrifice, whereby to procure to them­selues forgiuenesse of sinnes. Truely it had bene more méete that these men should haue carefully vsed those meanes of applicati­on which Christ appointed to his Church, then thus thrust vppon men other meanes of their owne deuising. But this deuise of theirs is vnreasonable also and without sense. A sacrifice forsooth to apply a sacrifice; a propitiatiō to apply a propitiatiō: a redemptiō to apply a redemption; as if a man would fondly require a medicine to ap­ply a medicine, and a plaister to apply a plaister. Verily séeing that as Cyprian saith, Cypri. de Bapt. Christi. & manifest. Trinit. the sacrifice which Christ offered vpon the crosse standeth so acceptable in the good pleasure of God, and abideth so in perpetuall force and vertue, as that that oblation is no lesse effectuall in the sight of the father at this day, then it was that day when as wa­ter and blood issued out of his wounded side, and the stripes still abi­ding in his bodie do exact the paiment of mans saluation and the sti­pend due vnto his obedience, it cannot but be vtterly absurd & sense­lesse, to say that we must euery day offer Christ a-new in sacrifice, to apply vnto vs the benefit of his former sacrifice. Moreouer the act of sacrificing importeth not applying vnto vs but offering vnto God: and it is one thing to offer sacrifice vnto God, another to ap­ply the benefite of a sacrifice vnto man, euen as it is one thing to make a plaister for a sore, and another thing to laie the plaister to the sore. So that they themselues are forced to graunt, that y^• méere sacrificing is not the applying of the sacrifice. Wherein then is the application? Marry forsooth Hard▪ Rei. oind. pa. 5. 6. in the intention & praier of the priest. For whomsoeuer he doth thinke vpon in his Memento, & to whom­soeuer he intendeth the benefit of his sacrifice, to him is applied the [Page 73] passion and death of Christ, and that for the verie worke wrought, though there be neither good minde nor good motion in him for whō it is done. Now the priest most commonly is a seruiceable man, and readie for his paie to giue his attendance. One commeth to him for himselfe, another for his friend, another for a soule in purgatorie, a­nother for his swine and cattle, and he hath Christ at commande­ment to offer him vp in sacrifice for the good of them all, and for so much or so much mony, a man shal haue so many or so many Masses as he shall thinke méete to serue the turne, either for himself or for his. For (for the better vtterance of this bad ware) they will not haue it thought, nay Prouin [...]. Constit. Lin­wood. titulo de celebrat. Missarum. God forbid that any Catholicke should thinke that one Masse deuoutly celebrated, doth profit a man as much as a thousand Masses said with like deuotion. For though Christ be of in­finit vertue, yet he dispenseth not himselfe all at once. Otherwise it were inough for a man whē he is dead to haue one only Masse, which in no case is tollerable to thinke. Now therefore it is good for a man to haue Masse vpon Masse, and neuer leaue massing, & for his mas­sing he must remember paying, and yet when he hath all done, he is no whit the néere; for after he is dead, he must yet haue more massing to helpe his soule to heauen, and thereof he must bethinke himselfe when he maketh his will. These horrible and cursed do­ings are conteined in the Roomish sacrifice, wherby they haue made a mockery of the sonne of God, and troden vnder their féete as a vile and base thing the sacred blood of Christ whereby we were redée­med. But séeing that the applying of Christs death consisteth not in sacrificing, with what reason do these men teach a sacrifice to apply the death of Christ vnto vs? Why could they not as well without any new sacrifice make the priestes Memento and his intention a meanes to apply Christes death vnto vs, as giue him power to sa­crifice Christ againe, and to apply that sacrifice to whom he will, and by that to apply the other sacrifice of his death? And what if the priest neuer so much as thinke vpon Christs death in his Masse, but mumble it vp without consideration thereof, how shall we thinke that he doth apply the death of Christ? Last of all, why may they not with as good reason say, that Christ must be borne againe to ap­ply vnto vs the benefit of his birth: that he must suffer, die and rise againe, to apply vnto vs the vertue of his passion, death, and resur­rection, as that he must be sacrificed againe to apply vnto vs the be­nefit [Page 74] of his former sacrifice? The former are absurd, the Answ. will say, but by no reason which shall not also proue the absurditie of the latter. The truth of applying, as the verie word sheweth, consisteth in offering and giuing of Christ vnto vs, and our receiuing of him. This is set foorth in the Sacrament by words of application; Take ye; eate ye; and againe: Drinke ye all of this, where the bodie of Christ crucified, and his blood shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes, are by the outward elements as by seales and pledges proposed vn­to vs, and we willed to accept and receiue the same. Which we do by true and liuely faith through the working of the holy Ghost, and so are made partakers of the benefits of his death and passion to iu­stification and euerlasting life. And this is the only meanes of ap­plication which the scripture teacheth, briefly set downe by Saint Paul, Rom. 3. Rom. 3. 25. Him hath God set foorth to be an attonement, not by continual offring him in sacrifice, but by faith in his blood: by faith, I say, apprehending and laying hold on him both in the hearing of the word and receiuing of the Sacraments. Herein is our recei­uing of Christ, as S. Iohn sheweth, expounding Ioh 1. 12. receiuing by be­leeuing: so many as receiued him, that is, so many as beleeued in his name. Now the papists ouerthwarting y^e ordinance of Iesus Christ, make litle or no regard of Take ye, eate ye; being the two meanes of application, appointed by Christ and practised by the primitiue Church, but tell vs of a continuall sacrificing of Christ, which doth by the intention of the priest for the very worke wrought obteine grace, and apply vnto vs forgiuenesse of sinnes. But in this point beside their manifest departing from the ordinance of God, they a­gain commit high treason against God, in that they aduance so ma­ny other their abhominable and hatefull deuises, to ride in the same chariot with the sacrifice of the body and blood of Iesus Christ. For all the filth and rifraffe of the church of Rome, whereby they wic­kedly teach men to séeke forgiuenesse of sinnes, is shadowed and co­loured with this conceit of applying vnto vs the death of Christ. The sufferings of Saintes and Martyrs are Rhe. Annot. Col. 1. 24. satisfactions for our sinnes, they say. But how? Marry forsooth, they take this vertue and force from Christs death, and as a particular medicine apply vnto vs the generall medicine of his passion. Their crossings, their Rhe. Annot. Mat. 10. 12. & 1. Tim. [...]5. Summe of re­ligion taken out of Bristow, and the order of confession. Bi­shops blessings, their holy water, their Popes indulgences & par­dons, their shauen crowns, their munkish orders, their whippings, [Page 75] their shrifts, their pilgrimages, and offerings to idols, their mum­bling on their beades, their Agnus Deis, their kissing the pax, and the remnant of this absurd rabble are very helpfull to the forgiue­nesse of sinnes, because as the Masse doth, so do all these apply vnto vs the death of Christ. Thus they haue multiplied their deuises as the starres, and filled the world with their e [...]chauntments and sor­ceries of other sacrifices, merits and satisfactions of their owne, to giue effect and working to the sacrifice, merit, and satisfaction of Ie­sus Christ. And these bastard and misbegotten trumperies, because they are of themselues so apparantly iniurious to y^e crosse of Christ, that the diuel thought they would neuer go for sale-able ware whē they should be examined and tried, except some deceitfull colour were set vpon them, he hath therefore somewhat graced and coun­tenanced with these termes of applying the death of Christ, to mol­lifie and extenuate, so much as might be, the horrible blasphemy that is conteined therein. And yet the blinde and ignorant people were not acquainted with this shift, but persuaded themselues to find me­rit and forgiuenesse of sinnes in the méere exercise of these spiritu­all fornications and whoredomes, whereto they were bewitched of their blinde leaders. They might with as good reason haue tolde them that to runne a mans head against a wall, to weare a straight paire of shooes vpon his féete, to lie naked vpō thorns, to eat worme­wood and gall, to wash his hands before meate are meanes & me­rits of the forgiuenesse of sins. They will say these things are fond. Alasse blind men that cannot sée the like folly and madnesse in those things which they themselues approue. But thus they haue iustled the blood of Christ out of place, and fulfilled that which S. Peter pro­phecied of them: 2. Pet. 2. 1. There shall be false teachers which priuily shall bring in damnable heresies, euen denying the Lord that hath bought them, &c. And through couetousnesse with feined wordes shall they make marchandise of you, &c. Of such feined and whorish counter­feit words the Rhe. Annot. 2. cor. 2. 11. & 1. Tim. 4. [...]. & c [...]ll. 1. 24. & pa [...]sim. writings of Papists are very full, not sauouring at all of the holy scriptures, but arising méerely of their owne deuise, to cloake and couer the monstrous and filthie abhominations of the Roomish harlot.

R. Abbot. 11.

THe whole béeing of the sacrifice of the masse resteth vpon this next point of transsubstantiation: which béeing ouerthrowen, [Page 81] the sacrifice consequently falleth to the grounde. Nowe that is plainly ouerthrowen by the testimonies of Gelasius and Theodoret amongst others in my former answere alledged, who both expresly affirme the substance of bread and wine after consecration. But to vnwind himselfe from the euidence of their words, it is straunge to sée what miserable and wretched shiftes the Answerer vseth: and all in vaine. He taketh exception against this Gelasius, that he was not Bishop of Rome. Then though he were, yet all that he wrote was not of authority, because he did not pronounce it from his con­sistory chaire. &c. Thirdly whatsoeuer he thought, he was farre from our mind. Againe Theodoret was not of sound iudgement: he had foule errors: and to make a crooked wand straight, he did bend it too much the other way: that is, to confound Eutyches his heresie, he did plainely and flatly deny popishe transsubstantiation. But all these shifts the Answerer in his owne conscience knewe to be vaine and friuolous. Gelasius after that he was Bishoppe of Rome wrote fiue bookes against Eutiches and Nestorius. The treatise whence I tooke those words that I alleadged, goeth vnder his name as a part of one of those bookes. Thus I finde it repor­ted, and no proofe giuen to disprooue it. In the end of this treatise, he exhorteth them to whom he writeth that as they did with one mind hold the Apostolike sea, so they should constantly auouch that rule of Catholicke faith which he had declared out of the writinges of the▪ Fathers that were before him, making their holding with the Apostolicke sea, a reason why they should giue héede to that which he had written. Which may giue a good coniecture that it was Galasius Bishop of Rome, and no other Gelasius that was the author of this booke. But it is sufficient though it were not Gela­sius Bishop of Rome, yet that the booke is confessed to be authen­ticall, so that Bellarm. tom. 2. de sa­cram. [...] lib 2. cap. 2 [...]. Bellarmine himselfe taketh it to haue bene written by Gelasius Bishop of Caesaria before the councel of Chalcedō which was in the yéere 455. Gregor. [...] valent. de re [...] l [...] praesent. [...] transubst. [...] [...] cap. [...]. Gregory de Valentia in one place saith that the author of that booke was Gelasius of Caesaria, as Bellarmine doth; in Idem de [...] dololat. lib. 2. cap. 5. another, that it was Gennadius of Massilia. As for Theodoret he was found no other but a Catholicke Bishop in the said councell of Concil▪ Calced. Act. 8. Calcedon, and so approoued by generall applause. It séemeth that Leo Ep [...] 61. et conci [...]. chalced. Act. 8 Leo Bishop of Rome tooke him for no other▪ by his letters written to him and for him. That which the Answ. saith of his recantatiō, [Page 82] is a lewd and slaunderous tale. Some stomacke he tooke against Praefat. i [...] o­pe [...]a Theodo­re [...]. Cirill for his procéeding in the councell of Ephesus, before he and his company were come. Therupon he wrot against Ciril, séeking to draw him into suspicion of heresie withoute cause. This doing of his was greatly disliked of many, and made him to be euill thought of. Yet matters were ordered be twixt them, and they reconciled ech to other. But that he made any recantation of his opinions or was conuicted in that behalfe, it is vnhonestly affirmed. These shifts therfore not seruing the turne, the Answ. sifteth the wordes alleaged against him, and to wrest them from their plaine and eui­dent meaning, he sticketh not to belie the Fathers; to father new o­pinions vpon the old heretickes, to deuise & affirme matters of his owne head without any testimony, or shew of testimony of antiqui­tie. He telleth me that whē it is said, There ceaseth not to be the substance, the meaning is; the accedents remaine. He wil haue the body of Christ to be made euery day of bread, which we beléeue to haue bene once only made of the substance of the Virgin Mary. He ma­keth as if the Fathers were as fond as he himselfe is; to say that there remaineth the colour of bread, the tast, the strength, the shewe of bread, but yet there is no bread. He maketh Gelasius to write he knew not what, because forsooth he was before the generall defini­tion of the church, and made no exact search of the matter. But why doth he not bring proofe of all these straunge fancies that here he hath set downe? Is it enough for him to say what he list? May I not say as Austin said to the hereticke: August. cont. epis. sund [...]. cap. 5. Thinkest thou I am so foolish to beleeue, or not to beleeue as thou woldst haue me without any rea­son giuen? He may be a Pythagoras perhaps to his own pupills, but we do looke for more then his bare wordes. But alas what do these men meane thus to dally with God, and to wound their cōsciences by striuing against apparant and manifest truth? A Caluinist, the Answ. telleth me lacketh foure of his fiue wittes, to alleage that place of Gelasius, being, (as he saith,) both in words and in the drift of the argument against him. But I tell him againe that the odde fifth witte of a Caluinist, findeth strength enough in this place, to quell a Papist, and wilbe himselfe nothing endamaged thereby. As touching his circumstances, which he setteth downe to explicate the same wordes of Gelasius, they are for the most part, grosse and shamelesse forgeries, which serue indéede for nothing else, but to [Page 83] leade a man a daunce round about, from the sight of that which at the first sight is plaine enough. It shall appeare that they are no­thing else, by the consideration of the originall, and processe of the matter disputed of by Gelasius.

Nestorius the hereticke held a separation, and disioyning of the two natures of Christ, the godhead and the manhood, and denied the personall vniting of them into one Christ, and therefore condem­ned these spéeches, that the Virgin Mary is the mother of God, and that God suffered for our sins. Against him the councel of Ephesus resolued out of the word of God, that the godhead & the manhood, are substantially vnited into one person; so that as the soule & body make one man, so God and man are one Christ, as Athan. in S [...]mbolo. Athanasius speaketh. By reason of which vnion they defended it, to be truly said that the Virgin Mary is the mother of God, because she is the mother of him who is not only man, but also God. And so it is truly sayd that Luc. 1. 35. Act. 20. 28. 1 cor. 2. 8. Leo. epis. 10. God was borne, that God was wrapped inswadling clouts, that God was laid in the manger, that God suffered and was buried, and purchased himselfe a church with his precious bloud. Accor­ding to this truth Gelasius saith: Gelas cont. Eutichen. The whole man christ is God: and Cirill saith that the name of the godhead is giuen vnto christ as man. l ciril in [...]oh. lib. 11 cap. 22. Vigil. contra Eutich. lib. 4. To which purpose some of the Concil. cō ­stant. 6. act. 4. in epla. Aga­tho [...]is▪ & act. 10. & 17. Thom. [...] par. [...]. q. 16. art. 3. ex Da­mascen. auncient writers say that the flesh or manhood of Christ is deified, not by chaunging of the manhood into godhead, but by personal vniting of the one to the other, wher­by the thinges that are proper to the godhead are also dispensed vn­to the manhood. Now Eutiches whilest he contended against the heresie of Nestorius, and would iustifie the spéeches aforesaid, went as farre another way into another heresy, and as Nestorius by di­stracting the natures, made two persons, and Vigil. lib. 2. cont. Euty­chen. two Christes, as Vi­gilius speaketh▪ so he to make one person of Christ taught a confusi­on of the natures, affirming that although Christ were truly in­carnate and tooke flesh indéede, yet that by the vniting of the fleshe vnto the godhead, the flesh was swallowed vp of the godhead, and ceased to be any longer flesh, euen as a droppe of wine cast into the sea looseth his owne nature, and becommeth water. Leo. epis▪ 10. & 11. Leo and Euagr. eccl. hist. lib 2. ca. 18 E­uagrius report the words of Eutiches in the Chalcedō councel thus; that he confessed that Christ before the vniting of the manhood with the godhead was of two natures, but after that vniting, there is, said he, but one nature in Christ. And thus is his heresy set downe in [Page 84] Definitio Cha cedo 1. concil Act. 5. the definition of the Chalcedon Councel. Therfore though Christ was in the shape & likenesse of man vpon the earth, yet he held that he was not indéed man but onely God; & that it was not the man­hood but the Godhead that was crucified. So Vigilius testifieth: V [...]gil cont. [...]at. lib. 2. He affirmed, saith he, that the Godhead suffered; which he wold proue, as the same Vigil. [...]bid. Vigilius & Gelas. cont. [...]uty. & Ne­stor. Gelasius also declare, out of 1. Cor. 2. If they had knowne, they would not haue crucified the Lord of glorie. Be­hold, said he, not y^e man Christ, but the Lord of glory was crucified. Vigilius againe saith, that this heresie did Vigil. lib. 1. con. Eutych. refer to the contumely of the Godhead, all things that Christ either spake or did according to the dispensation of the flesh, whilest they contended that there was in him but the one only nature of the Godhead: and Idem lib. 4. elsewhere he setteth down by their own words, that it was the Godhead that was seene and felt and handled with hands, which they wold proue by the words of S. Iohn, in the beginning of his first Epistle. And in this respect both Vigilius and Gelasius say, that this opinion implied the heresies of Apollinaris, of the Manichees and Marcionites, & others which held that Christ had only Putatiuum corpus. an imaginary and no true bodie. So Leo also vrgeth them that by their opiniō Leo epist. 81 Christ did all things counterfeitly, and that not an humane bodie indeed, but a fantasticall shew of a bodie appeared vnto the eyes of them that beheld: & ther­fore he calleth them Phantasmaticos Christianos. Thus those things which concerne Christ properly as man, Eutyches could not cōceiue to be rightly attributed vnto Christ by the name of God, but by a­bolishing the nature of man. Now there were also of Eutiches his faction, who being conuicted of the absurdity of this opinion, restrai­ned the vanishing and consuming of the nature of his manhood to the time of his ascension, of whom I shall speake afterward. But in the meane time, let the Answ. here thinke whether I said rightly the last time, that Eutyches if he were now aliue, would surely be a Papist. The absurd conceit of Transubstantiatiō serueth fit for his purpose, and if it had bene in his time beléeued, he would haue said: Do ye not sée that after consecration there remaineth the colour, and shewe, and appearance of bread & wine, but yet there is not the substance of them; for the substance is quite abolished by consecra­tion? Right so after the vniting of the two natures of Christ, the substance of the humane nature is quite consumed, though there appeare the facion and shape and likenesse, yea and the doings and [Page 85] sufferings of a man. This he would haue alleaged for colour of that shadow and phantasie of Christs humanitie which he defended here vpon the earth. But this stood not with the doctrine of that time. Nay, whereas Eutyches could not vnderstand that those thinges which were done & performed properly in the manhood, are rightly said to haue bene done and performed by God, by reason of the per­sonall vniting of the manhood vnto the Godhead, but would for the iustifying of this speech abolish the manhood, and bring in the God­head into the emptie facion and shape of a man (euen as the Papists to make good the spéeches that are vsed oftentimes of y^e Sacrament to expresse the singular effect thereof, do thrust out the substance of bread and wine, and bring the very substance of Christs bodie and blood into the emptie formes and shewes of the same) Gelasius by a comparison taken from the Sacrament according to the doctrine of his time, sheweth him the vanitie of his opinion. He setteth downe to that purpose these two grounds, first that the Sacrament▪ is an image or resemblance of the body and blood of Christ, and therefore secondly, that we must beléeue and professe the same of Christ him­selfe, that we do of his image. Which both tend to this conclusion, that as the Sacrament is a diuine and heauenly thing of excellent grace and vertue, so that by it we are made partakers of the diuine nature, and yet there ceaseth not to be the substance of bread & wine: so Christ as touching his manhood is aduanced to most high excel­lency and maiestie, by the vniting thereof vnto the Godhead into one person, so that as man he is honoured & adored of all creatures, and all knées must bow vnto him, and whatsoeuer was done or suf­fered by Christ as man, is sayd to haue bene done and suffered by God, and yet there ceaseth not to be in him the very true substance and nature of man. Gelas. cont. Euty chen & Nestor. Surely, saith he, the Sacraments which we re­ceiue of the hodie and blood of Christ are a diuine thing: by reason whereof we are by them made partakers of the diuine nature, & yet there ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread & wine. The words are plaine, that in the Sacrament there remaineth the sub­stance of bread and wine. What should a man go about to cast a mist before the Sunne, or by shifting and paltering to obscure that which is as cléere as the shining light? Why do not the Answ. and his fel­lowes say, that Gelasius aboue a thousand yeares ago was a Calui­nist, and erre [...] in that point? But he addeth further: And surely in [Page 86] the exercise of the Sacraments, there is celebrated an image & resem­blance of the bodie and blood of Christ. Whereupon he inferreth thus against Eutyches: It is therefore euidently inough shewed vn­to vs that we must thinke the same in our Lord Iesus Christ which we professe & celebrate, and receiue in his image. And what do we pro­fesse in his image, that is, in the Sacrament? Forsooth saith the Pa­pist, we must professe that the substance of bread and wine is aboli­shed, and only certaine properties and shewes of bread and wine re­maine. Why then so must we thinke also of Christ himselfe, that the substance of his manhood is extinguished, and that there remain only certaine accidents and shewes thereof, in which he liued here as a man, & was crucified as a man, but was not man indéed, which is the very thing that Eutyches desired. But Gelasius telleth vs far otherwise, that as these, namely, the bread and wine, by the working of the holie Ghost do passe ouer into a diuine substance, & yet conti­nue in the proprietie of their own nature, so they shew that that prin­cipall mysterie, the force and vertue whereof these do [...] represent vnto vs, doth continue one Christ whole and true, those natures pro­perly remaining whereof he doth consist. Let the Answ. marke well that we must think the same i [...] Christ, as we do in the Sacrament his image. If consecration then take away the substance of bread and wine as Papists teach, then personall vniting of the manhood vnto God, taketh away the substance of the manhood as Eutyches affirmed. He knoweth, I say, he knoweth that the comparison vsed by Gelasius enforceth so much if it be applied to the disproofe of Eu­tyches his heresie rightly & truly reported. Now as Gelasius draw­eth his comparison from the Sacrament to Christ, so doth S. Au­sten as Gratian alleageth him from Christ to y^• Sacrament: De conse­cra. dist. 2. cap. Hoc est. This is it which we say, saith he, which by all meanes we labor to approue, that the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two things, the visible forme of the elements, and the inuisible flesh and blood of our Lorde Iesus Christ: of the Sacrament and the matter of the Sacrament, th [...] is, the bodie of Christ: euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man, for that Christ is truly▪ God and truly m [...] ▪ For euery thing conteineth the nature and truth of those thinges whereof it is made. By which words it is most plaine and eu [...]dent, that as the person of Christ consisteth of the Godhead and manhood veri [...] and [...]ly: so the Sacrament consisting of the visible element and the [...]odi [...] of [Page 87] Christ, of an earthly thing & a heauenly thing, as Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. Ireneus speaketh, conteineth the nature and truth of them both: and therefore the na­ture & truth of bread and wine. And if the truth, then the substance as Gelasius reasoneth concerning Christ: Gelas. con. Eurych. If he be truly man, then there is in him the true substance of the nature of man: because o­therwise he cannot be truly man, but abiding substantially tr [...]e in the proprietie of his nature. So if there be the truth of the outward ele­ments in the Sacrament, then there is in them their true substance. For otherwise there cannot be the truth of them, but as they abide substantially true in the proprietie of their nature. This collection togither with the places of Austen and Ireneus I set downe before, sufficiently prouing the falshood of Transubstantiation. But the Answ. thought good to passe it ouer without any mention, because he could not finde any answere at all to it, which serueth not for the maintenance of Eutyches his heresie; as do all those shifts and col­lusions whereby he goeth about to darken the euidence and cleare­nesse of Gelasius his words. Let vs sée now what good stuffe there is conteined in them. In his first and fourth circumstances, he be­wraieth either his ignorance or else his partialitie and falshood. For taking in hand by way of circumstance to set downe the heresie of Eutyches, where he should haue done it wholly & faithfully, he doth it but in part and deceitfully, that it may not séem to make so direct­ly against his breadlesse bread. For he restraineth it only to y^• time after Christs ascension, as if Eutyches had thought that the humani­tie of Christ was not consumed till after the time that he was as­cended. Whereas Gelasius in the very next words to the place be­fore alleaged, giueth plainly to vnderstand that Eutyches meant the abolishing of the substance of the manhood euen while Christ was on the earth, though he reteined the shew and aprearance of man, yea and continued passible also, by reason whereof, he sayd his God­head suffered and was crucified, which suffering was the very sub­stantiall propertie of the humane nature. For Eutyches held not the annihilating of the properties of the manhood, as the Answ. imagi­neth, but the con [...]ounding of them with the properties of the God­head, so y^• the Godhead by those properties did & suffered those things which belonged to the manhood. And this appeareth plainly in the definition of the Chalcedon Councell, where it is thus sayd: Concil. chal­ced. Act. 5. in definit. They fondly imagine that there is but one nature of the Godhead and the [Page 88] flesh, and so by a monstrous confusion of Christ, they signifie that the diuine nature or Godhead is passible and subiect to suffering. So that Eutyches held the same of Christ on the earth, as the Papists do of the bread in the Sacrament, that there was the shewe and appea­rance of man, and the properties of the manhood remaining, but the substance was consumed: euen as these do hold that there is in the Sacrament a shew of bread, and the properties of bread remaining, but the substance of the bread is vanished. How then shuld Gelasius go about to refute the heresie of Eutyches by the Sacrament, if his opinion as touching the Sacrament had bene the same that the Papists now is. Againe whereas he saith that Eutyches held that the bread was vtterly annihilated, nothing remaining therin of the substantiall properties or natures thereof, he deserueth the iust re­proach of a false & vnshame fast person. For what a peruerse and wil­full man is he to deuise such a matter of his owne braines, for proofe or likelihood wherof, there is not so much as any shew to be found in any auncient writer. Eutyches forsooth held that panietas & vi [...]eitas, the breaddinesse of the bread, and the winynesse of the wine were gone, and Gelasius defended that the breadinesse and winynesse do still remaine, though there be neither bread nor wine. So his good maisters Index Ex­purgat. in cen­sura Bertra. the authors of the Index Expurgatorius to auoyd the eui­dence of Bertrams disputation, say, that he wrote against certaine men which held that there was not so much as the outward formes of bread and wine remaining in the sacrament, but that that which was séene was the superficies or outside, or skin of the body or flesh of Christ. O leaud and vnconscionable men. Where were these men, or what story euer made mention of any such? How dare they of their owne heads so boldly publish such vaine tales? How doth that harlot of Rome be witch and enchaunt her louers, that for her sake they care not what, how foolishly, absurdly, falsly they speake, so that it may serue them for a shift to blind the eyes of the vnlearned? But the matter as touching Eutyches is plain by Theodoret, that he yéel­ded and confessed that Christ in the deliuery of the mysteries, called Theodor. dial. 1. To these things he an­swereth: Ita nominau [...]t. In co [...]esso est. Hoc ver [...] dix­isti. [...]ta dico. bread his bodie, and wine his blood, that he honoured these visible signes with the name of his bodie and blood, not changing their na­ture, but adding grace vnto nature; that these were the signes not of his Deitie, but of those things whose names they did beare, that is of his body & blood, which he acknowledged that Christ did truly [Page 89] take, but hauing taken them, changed them into his diuine nature. With what face then doth the Answ. say, that the hereticke thought that the bread and wine were vtterly annihilated, that nothing of their nature remained, that the Sacrament was a matter onely of Christs diuine nature? It were answere inough vnto him, to laie open this his false and vnhonest dealing; but yet I go forward.

In saying that Gelasius vsed these words by way of reply to Euty­ches his comparison (which he doth to the ende that hauing made of Eutyches his heresie what he list, he may hew Gelasius his words to be an answere to that fancie of his) he againe dealeth amisse with Gelasius. For he of his owne accord vseth them, to declare the point whereof he disputed; namely, that as the bread and wine in the Sa­crament become diuine thinges, so as that by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature, and yet they loose not their former substance: so though the manhood of Christ, by personall vnion with the Godhead be highly aduanced, so that it is truly said that the man Christ is God, yet he looseth not the substance and nature of the man­hood. But supposing that the hereticke had vrged Gelasius with that comparison, and had affirmed the presence of Christs diuine nature only in the Sacrament, how I maruell doth the Answ. imagin that it had serued for a direct answere, to haue denied the reall presence? Should he haue denied the real presence of the diuine nature? That none denieth, because Vigi [...]. lib. 1. cont. [...]uty. Plena sunt omnia filio, nec est a [...]iquis locus di [...]ini­tatis eius prae­sentia vacuus. it is of the nature of the Godhead to be eue­ry where. Should he haue denied the reall presence of the bodie of Christ, which is the very question? How had that serued his turne against the hereticke, which neither vrged him with reall presence of the body, nor thought that Christ had any body at all? What a wise man is this to write thus, he knoweth not what, without rime or reason, without head or taile. Surely for Gelasius to deny the reall presence in this place, had bin to talke, as the Answ. doth, beside the purpose, foolishly & idlely, of matters wherof no occasion was giu [...]n to him.

In the second circumstance he setteth downe his Cuckowes note which he rehearseth again in y^• fourth, fifth, & sixth, to fasten it in the eies & memories of his secret readers, as being a speciall pillar to vphold his cause. He telleth me forsooth, y^• the real presence of y^• body of Christ was a truth commonly knowne, currant & generally con­fessed in y^e primitiue church, wherof notwithstanding neither he nor [Page 90] all his followes for him are able to giue any certaine and apparant proofe out of any of the Fathers writings. But because the Fathers faile him, he would prooue it by the heretickes, who as he saith did reason from it▪ as from a comon receiued truth, to prooue their here­sies. It is a sham [...], we say, to bely the Deuil, & why doth y^e Answ. be­ly y^e hereticks, to make thē y^• witnesses of his real presence? Indéed if it had béen a matter thē receiued; it had serued fit for the heresies of Marceon, Manes, Apollinaris & such like, who taught that Christ had neuer any true bodie indéede, but only a phantasy and shew of a body. For they might and would haue said: do ye not confesse that Christes body i [...] really in the sacrament, yet nothing to be séen but the outward shew of bread and wine. It is here, it is there, it is in euery priestes handes, in euery pi [...], in euery part of the world at once in the quantity and likenesse of a cake. What is this else but a fancy of a body? Thus they would haue reasoned, if it had béene so beléeued; especially when the auncient Fathers themselues, gaue them occasiō therof by proouing that Christ had a true body, because that the sacrament is vsed in token of his body and bloud, wherein he suffered and was put to death for vs. But they vsed not a word to this purpose because there was no such thing then beléeued.

The manichées whom the Answ. nameth in the third circum­stance, dreamed as S. Austen Augst. con. faust. Manich. lib. 20. ca. 11. declareth that Christ was really in the Sunne and Moone and vpon the crosse, and hanging at euery bough. &c. and all at once. S. Austen telleth them that Christ Secundum corporalem praesentiam. accor­ding to his bodily presence, could not be at once in the Sunne and Moone, and vpon the crosse, and therby crosseth the real presence of the Papists, wherby they hold christ corporally to be in heauen and in earth, in this mans handes, and that mans handes and infinite places, and all at once: contrary to the nature of a true body, wher­to S. Austen in those wordes alludeth. Now wheras the Answ. saith, that S. Austen being vrged by the Manichée, with the reall presence did graunt the same, he lewdly abuseth S. Austen. For the hereticke ibid ca. 1. obiecting that the church vsed the bread and wine in the sacrament, with the same superstitious conceipt which they maintained, namely that Christ was realy bound in them: S. Au­sten Answereth, Ibid. ca. 13. that the church did not vse the bread and wine for a sacrament of religion, by reason of any such opinion, that Christ was really bound in them, or in the eares of corne, or branches of the [Page 91] vine, because then all bread and all wine should haue béene matter of mystery and religion with them; which was not so: but it is made mysticall bread and wine, by a certaine cōsecration, namely, whilest by the word of God, they are dedicated and halowed to be sacramēts and mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ. The which conse­crating & halowing, the same S. Austen elsewhere declareth thus concerning Baptisme: August. [...]n Ioha. tri. 8 [...]. The word commeth to the element and it is mede a sacrament; & in an other place concerning the Lords sup­per, thus: Idem de tr [...] ­nit. lib. 3. cap. 4. We call that the body of Christ, which being taken of the fruites of the earth, & consecrated by mystical praier, wee receiue in memory of the passion of our Lord. Now, what is all this to the real presence, which the Answerer saith S. Austen did graunt? Not a word doth S. Austen vse to import it. Nay he rather reiecteth it in that he saith, that bread and wine are not vsed in sacrament, as in respect of Christ really bound in them, but are made only mysti­cal by consecration; where he denieth that reall presence which they fancied, and putteth no other in place therof, but only saith that the bread is made mysticall bread by consecration. As for Transsub­stantiation, he is plainely enough against it also in the same place, in that he calleth the sacrament, the sacrament of bread and of the cuppe; wherby we vnderstand that the sacrament is bread, and in that he denieth that the church had the same religion concerning bread and wine, that the Manichées had, because it was not religion but sacriledge with the Manichées to tast wine, importing hereby, that it was wine, which the church tooke & tasted in the sacrament. But the Papistes reall presence, iumpeth with the Manichées im­prisoning of Christ; for they make Christ so fast bound by consecra­tion to the formes of bread and wine, that though ratts or mise or swine eate the same, or though it lie in the mire, yet it must not be thought but that the body of Christ is there stil, euen till the formes be consumed, and to thinke otherwise, as Thomas Aquinas saith de­rogateth from the truth of the sacrament, as after shalbe declared.

To his sixt circumstance I answere him that the Lateran coun­cell was the assembly of Gog and Magog, to set the idoll Mauzim in his place. That which they resolued against Berengarius, they reselued against all the Fathers; who neuer knew reall presence, nor transsubstantiation.

As for Innodentius his breadinesse and wininesse, panietas & vi­neitas, [Page 92] in the seauenth circumstance, the Answ▪ would not haue na­med it but that swine are delighted with mire and filth.

The eight circumstāce also containeth only new Popish subtil­ties and deserueth no answere. The putting in therof and others as impertinent by way of explication of Gelasius his wordes shew­eth the falsehood of the Answ. thinking nothing lesse then to deale plainely, and seeking by friuolous tales and idle talke to lead the reader away from that which otherwise he cannot but sée.

The ninth circumstance telleth vs honestly, that before the La­terane councell, it was no heresy not to iumpe with Transsubstan­tiation. And then belike a man might haue beene a Caluinist in that point, as all the Fathers were, and yet not to be accounted an here­ticke. At least he might haue said that the substāces of bread & wine did remaine in part, but not wholly forsooth; as perhappes saith the Answ▪ some of the Fathers▪ and namely Gelasius thought: a ridicu­lous and childish fancy. When we shew them plainely out of the Fathers that the substances of bread and wine remaine in the sacra­ment, forsooth the Fathers thought that the substances of bread and wine, remaine in part but not wholly. What conscience may we thinke these men make of their answers? Why doth he not bring somewhat out of the Fathers, to approoue this fond sophistication & vnhandsome dreame? But it must be enough for vs, that the Answ. telleth vs that so it is.

But it is worth the noting that he telleth vs, that it was not clearely defined before the Lateran councell, what maner o [...] con­uersion is in the sacrament. No was? Why, did not the Apostles clearely know it? or knowing it, did they not deliuer it to y^• church? Did he which Act. 20. 27. kept nothing back, but declared all the councell of God, kéepe backe this? or did he deliuer it to the Ephesians and not deliuer it to the Romaines & other churches? To say the Apostles did not clearely know it, is to make himselfe wiser then the A­postles. To say they knew it but declared it not, is to make them vnfaithful in their charge. To say that the church receiued it cléere­ly deliuered, and yet that it was neuer cléerely defined, vntill the Lateran councell, is a contradiction, and impugneth that in the one part which is set downe in the other. To say the church, and name­ly the church of Rome receiued it, and did afterwardes forgoe it, is to make the church of Rome, a very bad kéeper of the doctrines of [Page 93] the Apostles, especially séeing the sacrament is a matter of continu­all and daily vse. But indéed we take that which he saith for true, that Transsubstantiation was neuer cléerely defined, before the Lateran councel. But we tell him withall, that we are very dein­ty to admit that for a doctrine of truth, which for a thousand yeares and more after Christ, was neuer cleerly knowen or defined in the church of God. And because it was no heresy all that while, not to iumpe with Transsubstantiation, we are well assured that it is no heresy to leape from it now.

Now to returne to Gelasius, the Answ. findeth an hole or two in his wordes before alleaged, whereby he would faine créepe out. The wordes are thus: There ceaseth not to be the substance, or na­ture of bread and wine. He addeth (or nature) saith the Answ. to mollifie and interpret the word substance, as importing that the naturall properties of bread and wine remaine though the substāce be gone. A very naturall answere. Belike the substance remai­neth, or there ceaseth not to be the substance, is as much as to say: the substance is quite gone and vtterly ceased, & only the accidents remaine. But Gelasius a little before speaketh in the very same sort concerning Christ, and sheweth the meaning of his own wordes: We say, saith he, that the propriety of each substance or nature, abi­deth continually in Christ, where most plainely by the same phrase of spéech he maketh substance and nature to import one thing. And if we will follow the Answ. exposition, we must say here in the be­halfe of Eutyches that not the substances themselues, but the natu­rall properties of each substance abide stil in Christ, because he saith substance or nature. Againe a little before that, he saith: There is no substance but it is called a nature, because if the nature of any thing being, be remoued or taken away, the substāce also must needs be taken away. By which it is plaine, that Gelasius nameth nature, no otherwise, but to signify the very substance, because euery sub­stance is called a nature. Otherwise when he nameth as oft he doth; propriety of nature, the Answerer must expound it to be meāt propriety of naturall properties, which is more absurd then that his face can be bold to face it out. It is certaine therfore that Gelasius by nature meaneth the very essentiall being of the thing. And so the Answerer cannot but know that in that whole disputation concer­ning two natures in Christ, Gelasius by two natures vnderstan­deth [Page 94] two entire & perfect substances as al the re [...]t of y^• Fathers doe. Only in this place Gelasius forgot himselfe and fell a sléepe, and by nature▪ would vnderstand naturall properties and accidents, albe­it his very drift was to shew by the abiding of the nature of bread and wine in the sacrament, the abiding of the nature, that is, the true substantiall being of the manhood of Christ.

But y [...]t saith the Answ. Gelasius saith that the bread and wine do passe ouer into a diuine substance. We graunt the same. For as Gelasius hath said before, they are now diuine things because they are sacraments of Christes body & bloud, and by them we are made par­takers of the diuine nature. The visible element of the sacrament is no longer to be taken as a common or méere earthly substance, but being sanctified by the word of Christ, it is a diuine and heauen­ly thing. And therfore doth de consecr. dist. 2. ca. hoc est. saint Austen call the bread of the sa­crament heauenly bread, and Cyprian calleth it Cyprian. de orat. domin. & de caena domi. the foode of salua­tion and of immortality, and Theodoret calleth it Theodor. dial. 2. the bread of life, and Bertram saith of it: Bertram de corp. & sang. domini. There is in it the spirit of Christ, euen the power of the word of God, not only feeding but also clensing the soule. In respect therfore of this excellent grace and vertue, it is rightly said that the bread and wine are now become a diuine sub­stance? But do they therfore loose their owne proper nature and sub­stance? Then we must thinke the like of the manhood of Christ. For Gelasius saith that we must think the same in Christ which we professe in his image, the sacrament. If we thinke not so of the man­hood of Christ, then we must conceiue that bread and wine passe o­uer into a diuine substāce, not by forgoing their owne substance and nature, but Theodor. dial. 1. Non naturam mutans, sed naturae gra [...]iā ad [...]ciens by adding grace and spirituall blessing vnto nature as Theodoret rightly teacheth vs. So doth Dionisius, whosoeuer he was, say; that we Dyonis. de eccles. Hierar. cap. 1. & 3. stapulens. edi are made God, & do passe ouer into God, not be­cause we chaunge our substance & be made substantially Gods, but because through our cōmunion with Iesus Christ we are by grace renued to the likenesse of God, and effectually vnited vnto him. So doth Vigilius say, that Vigil. lib. 1. cont. Eutych. the nature of the flesh passed ouer into the person of the word, but yet so as that saith he, it was not consumed of the word. So doth Leo Bishop of Rome say: Leo. epist 22 We receiuing the vertue of the heauenly foode do passe ouer into the flesh of Christ, who is made our flesh. Which S. Cyprian also saith, and noteth the manuer therof: Cypri. ser. de caena. dom. We are vnited vnto Christ, not by a corporall, but [Page 95] by a spirituall passing ouer into him. Cyrill speaketh in like sort that we are Cyril. in Ioh. lib. 1 [...]. ca. 26. made one with Christ who by his flesh passed ouer vnto vs. Yet neither Christ by passing ouer vnto vs, nor we by passing ouer into him do loose the propriety and truth of our former nature and substance. By which it is plaine that the passing ouer into a diuine substance doth not enforce any changing of the substāce and nature, but only of the condition and vse of the substance. And therfore Ge­lasius saith plainly that notwithstanding this passing ouer into a di­uine substance, yet the bread and wine continue still in the proprie­ty of their owne nature, which is the same which he had said before: There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine. For wheras the Answ. would haue the cōtinuing in the propriety of their owne nature to be vnderstood of the remaining of certaine properties of bread and wine without the substance, it is too grosse and palpable shifting. For in the whole disputation concerning two natures in our Sauiour Christ, that phrase of spéech is conti­nually vsed both by Gelasius, Leo, Vigilius and others to import the manhood of Christ not only in properties and qualities, which Eu­tyches would haue admitted, but also in truth and substance inuio­lably being and remayning, which he would not graunt. Euery kind of thing hath his owne proper and distinct essence and being, wherby it is seuered from all other thinges, and from whence do issue immediatly certaine properties and qualities which are not incident vnto any other. Now this own-nesse as I may call it, and distinctnesse of essence & being, these Fathers expresse by proprie­ty of nature, affirming that Christ continueth in the proprietie of both natures, namely so, as that each nature the Godhead & the mā ­hood reteineth his own proper and distinct substance & being. Now seing that the abiding of the bread and wine in the propriety of their nature, is vsed by Gelasius in the place alleaged to declare that continuance of the manhood of Christ, it followeth necessarily that it must be vnderstoode of the remaining not only of the properties but also of the substance of bread and wine: vnlesse we will ouer turne all that those Fathers haue disputed against Eutiches, & plead for him out of their owne wordes that though certaine properties and shewes of the manhood of Christ be remaining, yet the substāce therof is abolished. But the Answ. as guilty in his owne conscience of the vntruth & vnsufficiēcy of this answere flitteth from it & saith [Page 96] as I noted before, that it may be that Gelasius thought y^e somewhat of the substance did remaine, and therfore was somewhat of our o­pinion at least, wheras he had said before that whatsoeuer Gelasius thought, he was far enough from our mind. And yet such is his gid­dy head that by and by againe he saith that if substāce be vnderstood for substance indéede, then there should follow this great absurdity that Christ should be personally vnited vnto the bread, and so should consist of thrée natures, the Godhead, the manhood, and the 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: 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, 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: 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 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 [Page 97] 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 y^• 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 Ferus [...]n Math. cap. [...] 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 cons [...]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 cōteining 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 [Page 98] 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.

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 y^e 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, [Page 102] 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 fo [...]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 cōtinue 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 resurrectiō, &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 [Page 103] 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, 2. Thes. 2. 11 God shall send vpon them strong delusiō that they may beleeue lies, which beleeued not the truth, &c. If not, then 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 y^• body of Christ. [Page 104] The mysticall signes kéepe their substance after consecratiō. 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 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 y^• 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, y^• bodie & blood of Christ, are they belée­ued [Page 105] 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 adoratiō. 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 [Page 106] though [...]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, circumscriptiō, 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 bodie; that he set vpon the signe the name of his bodie; that he honoured the mysticall signes with the name of his bodie and blood, not chaunging their nature, but adding grace vn­to nature; that the holie foode is the signe and figure of the body and blood of Christ. And in this dialogue againe, that the mystical signes of the bodie and blood of Christ are offered to God by the priests of God; that the mysticall signes do represent the true bodie: that they are the image and figure of Christs bodie; and maketh a manifest dif­ference betwixt the bodie it selfe and the mysticall signe which is cal­led the bodie. By all which spéeches he declareth that the mysticall signes are truly bread and wine, yet by consecration made figures of the bodie and blood of Christ, and called by the name of the bodie and blood of Christ, as Sacraments are wont to be called by y^• name of the things whereof they are Sacraments, to lift vp our mindes from the beholding of the visible elements, to the consideration of the thinges signified by them, as Theodoret in the first Dialogue sheweth. And therefore the Priest hath not in his hands the reall bodie of Christ to offer vp vnto God, but only the mysticall signes which represent the bodie; so that both Transubstantiation, and re­all presence, and reall sacrifice, are all ouerthrowne by Theodorets iudgement. Now whereas the Answ. vrgeth that we receiue the bodie and blood of Christ, Theodoret indeed saith, that he beléeueth that he is made a partaker thereof in receiuing the Sacrament. We beleeue the same, and it is our singular comfort. But this receiuing of Christ is not really by the mouth into the bodie, but spiritually by faith into the soule. We say with the ancient Fathers, that this food is not the food of the belly but of the mind, not for the téeth to chew, but for the conscience to be refreshed with. S. Austen checketh that conceit of bodily eating; Aug in Ioh. [...]. 25. Why preparest thou thy teeth & thy bel­ly? [Page 107] Beleeue & thou hast eaten. ibid. tr. 2 [...]. For to beleeue in Christ, this is, saith he, to eate the bread of life. And acknowledging no other reall pre­sence of Christ, whereby we may receiue him and eate him but only in heauen, he maketh one to demand of him, ibid tr. 50. How shall I take hold of him being absent? how shall I put vp my hand to heauen to take hold of him there? Whereto he answereth: Send vp thy faith and thou hast laid hold of him; plainly confessing that there is no bodi­ly presence of Christ here, but that by faith he is to be receiued sit­ting in heauen.

That which the Answ. further vrgeth of adoration, is friuolous, vnlesse he could shew it to be meant of diuine or godly honour, that is, which is proper vnto God. Theodoret plainly referreth it to the mysticall signes; but to giue diuine honour or adoration to mystical signes, or to formes of bread and wine, is manifest idolatrie. The word of adoration here vsed by Theodoret, is verie often vsed by the seuen interpreters in the Gréeke, and by the vulgar Latine inter­preter also not only for diuine adoration, but also for ciuill worship. And this diuerse signification Aug. Quaest. in Gen. lib. 1. cap. 61. S. Austen noteth vpon that which is written cōcerning Abraham, that Gen 2 [...] 7. he adored y^e Princes of the Hit­tites, as the Latine translation speaketh. It is néedlesse to vse many proofes hereof, séeing the Answ. maisters the Rhe. [...]no. tat. Act. 1 [...]. 25▪ Rhemists confesse that this word of adoration doth not alwaies note diuine worship; but is commonly vsed in the scriptures towards men. So the glose of the▪ Canon law maketh a construction of adoration, by which we may, as it is there said, De conse. dist. 3. cap. [...] n [...]rab [...]les. Adore any sacred or holie thing; or Thom. Aquin. 22. q 8. a [...]. [...]. any excellent creature as Thomas Aquinas saith, which adoration they expound by hauing reuerence thereof. Therefore Theodoret refer­ring adoration to the mysticall signes, must not straightwaies be ta­ken to vnderstand diuine honour and worship, but only importeth a religious and holy regard and reuerence to be had thereof, as being not now common bread and wine, but diuine and heauenly myste­ries, sanctified by the word and spirit of God to most excellent and singular vse. Which reuerence S. Austen ascribeth not only to the Lords Supper, but also to the Aug. de doct▪ Chr lib. 3. ca 9. Sacrament of Baptisme, by the La­tine word Venerari. So that the Answ. can gather nothing out of Theodoret to serue his turne. Wheras he further saith, that Christ calleth nothing by a wrong name, &c. he sheweth his folly and pée­uish ignorance. Signes and Sacraments are vsually called by the [Page 108] names of the things whereof they are signes, though in substance they be not the same, and therefore are wrong named in respect of the substance, but rightly and truly named in respect of the significa­tion, 1 Cor. 10 2. The rock was Christ, saith S. Paul. He saith not, saith Idem. quaest. sup. Le [...]it. [...]7. S. Au­sten, The rocke signified Christ, but speaketh as if it were Christ, which yet was not he in substance but in signification. Nothing is more vsuall either in sacred or prophane writings, then thus to speake without transubstantiating one thing into another. Christ saith, that he is the vine and his father the husbandman; must Christ therefore néeds be turned into a vine, and the father into a husband­man? He saith that we are his shéepe, are we therefore turned into shéepe? This must néeds follow, if it be true which the Answ. fond­ly speaketh of the misnaming of things. But this is taken out of his blinde deuotions, and serueth him as a reason wherby to seduce in corners silly and ignorant soules; O, saith he, ye may not thinke that Christ will misname any thing, and therefore when he called bread his bodie, without doubt he turned it into his bodie. Meane knowledge wil teach any man that this is but fond and childish tri­fling. And thus much of Theodoret. Now that which was further added in my former discourse out of Austen & Irenaeus, for declaring and iustifying that which was spoken by Gelasius and Theodoret, the Answ. slily passeth ouer, as being too manifest for him to cauill at. But partly it hath alreadie, and partly it will by and by méete with him againe.

R. Abbot. 13.

FOr the exposition of Christes wordes, This is my body, I shewed the testimonies of the ancient fathers, that Christ cal­led the bread and wine his body & bloud, taking for the ground of my speech that which S. Austen saith: Aug. Epis [...] ▪ 23. that Sacraments haue a resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments, and that because of this resemblance they commonly take vnto them the names of the thinges themselues, whereof they are sacramentes. Now to this rule the Answerer saith nothing at all, as neither he did before when I mentioned it concerning sacrifice, whereas hée should haue taken it for his greatest enemie, and therefore fought most strongly against it, because héereby is discharged the greatest part of that which either he or his fellowes can obiect for their sa­crifice, reall presence and Transubstantiation. But I gather here­by his wilfull and malicious resolution against plaine and euident trueth. The wordes which he answereth next, follow immediatly after the words alreadie mentioned. As therefore saith S. Ibid. Austen, the sacrament of the body of Christ, is after a certaine maner the [Page 110] bodie of Christ, and the sacrament of the bloud of Christ, is after a sort his bloud: so the sacrament of faith, namely baptisme, is faith. Whereby S. Austen exemplifieth that which he had said before, that sacramēts because of their resemblance take the names of y^e things whereof they are sacramentes. For euen so the sacrament of the bo­die and bloud of Christ, is after a sorte, that is, by resemblance the body and bloud of Christ: not verily and indeed then, but after a sorte and by resemblance, and so by resemblance called the bodie and the bloud of Christ: for as the sacrament of the body, is the bo­die, so the sacrament of faith, is faith. The sacrament of faith, is not faith indeed, but by questions and answeres of faith, it betoke­neth the faith of Christian men. So therefore the sacrament of the body, is not indéed the body, but betokeneth the body of Christ that was giuen for vs, and so because of this resemblance is called the body. And this is the maner or sorte of which S. Austen speaketh, not a maner of reall being, but a maner of speaking and sacramentall betokening. As for that which the Answ. saith, to note that maner that the sacrament is inuisibly but yet truely the body, and so a me­morie, that it is the thing it selfe, S. Austen acknowledgeth no such matter, nay it is contrary to the whole drift and purpose of S. Au­stens spéech. And beside it is vnreasonable and absurde, that the same thing should be the sacrament, and the thing it selfe, the signe and the thing signified: the memoriall and the thing remembred: neither hangeth it togither by any better reason, then as if a man should be said to be his owne father, or a husband to be a husband in respect of himselfe, or a Prince to be a Prince vnto himselfe, and so to be both Prince and subiect. Euery child knoweth that the sacra­ment of Christes bodie, is the visible signe of Christes bodie, as all sacraments are visible signes: and the visible signe of Christes body is not the body it selfe. Therefore the sacrament of Christes body is not the body it selfe: Yea, S. Austens saying as is before alleaged that the sacrifice of the Church consisteth of De conse. dist. 2. cap. Ho [...] est. two things: the sacra­ment which is the visible element, and the matter of the sacrament which is the body of Christ, maketh it plain enough y^• he took the sa­crament of Christes body, and the body it selfe to be two things, and not one, as the Answ. absurdly conceiueth. But yet he taketh vpon him to proue this absurditie by S. Austen himselfe, and alleageth certaine wordes, by which hée would haue me to vnderstand this [Page 111] place which hath béen alreadie spoken of. The words are thus: De conse. dist. 2. cap. Hoc est. It is his flesh which we receiue in the sacrament couered in the forme of bread, and his bloud which we drinke vnder the forme and sauour of wine. Namely flesh is a sacrament of flesh, and bloud is a sacrament of bloud. By the flesh and bloud, both visible, spirituall, and intelli­gible, is signified the visible and palpable bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ, full of the grace of all vertues, &c. Now of these wordes the Answ. as some other of his fellowes doe, maketh a monstrous con­clusion, as if Christ had two kindes of flesh at one and the same time, one visible, another inuisible: one in heauen, another in earth: Tho. Aqui. Par. 3. qu. 76. art. 3. one hauing the due proportion of a body, the other without all pro­portion, and hauing no difference of head or féete, or any other parts: one the same as it was borne of the virgin Mary: the other like to the phantasie of Marcion and the Manichees, of the nature of a spirit, Ibid art. 4. whole in the whole cake, and whole in euerie part of the cake, so that though it be broken into a thousand péeces, yet euerie one of them hath the whole body of Christ. But we beléeue not any such fantasticall body of Christ: we read onely of a true and substantiall body, wherein he is like vnto vs, wherein hée sitteth at the right hand of God August. Ep▪ ad Darda. 57. & in Ioh. tr. 30. in some one place of heauen, as S. Austen noteth, and is there conteined, by reason of the maner of a true body, vntill hée come to iudge the quicke and the dead, at which time he shal come in the same forme and substance of his body, in which he went from hence, to which we beleeue he hath giuen immortalitie, but hath not taken from it the nature of a body, y^• it should be any where in that maner as y^• Answ. and his fellowes. Marcion-like do teach. We say as Vigilius also saith: [...] con. [...] the flesh of Christ when it was vpō the earth, was not in heauen, and now because it is in heauen, surely it is not on the earth. As for the words which he alleageth, I maruell how he can make them good to be S. Austens. In all S. Austens works extant, they are not found. They are cited out of the sentences of Prosper, and there they are not. Beda hath many fragmentes of Austen, but not a word of this. L [...] de sacra. Eu­cha. Lanfrancus vseth them as his owne wordes without any quotation of Austen, and that writing against Beren­garius where he would surely haue countenanced them with the name of Austen if they had béen his. The trueth is for ought that I can perceiue, Lanfrancus is the authour of them, and they are his il­fauoured answere to Berengarius his allegation of S. Austens words [Page 112] which we haue now in hand. Yet because Gratian by errour hath made S. Austen the reputed father of them, mistaking be like Au­sten for Lanfrancus, as very oftentimes he is found to put the names of Austen, and others to those things which they neuer spake, I wil doe the Answe. that curtesie to take them for S. Austens words, one­ly so that he wil not make S. Austen in this point to be at bate with himselfe. First therefore according to the doctrine of S. Austen and all others who haue defined what sacraments be, they are alwaies Aug decate chi [...]rud. ca. 26. visible signes, and therefore to be discerned with the sense. For, De d [...]ct. C [...]l. 2. cap 1. a signe saith the same S. Austen, is a thing which beside the shew that it offereth to the senses, causeth by it somewhat else to come into the minde and vnderstanding. In sacramentes therefore being signes, [...]x ser. ad infan. Beda. 1. Cor. 10. Cō [...]. Maximi. Aria. lib. 3. cap. 22. one thing is seene, another thing is vnderstoode by that which is séene; & therefore againe doth he call the sacrament In Iohan. tra. 80. a visible word, because the visible creature being consecrated to the sacramentall vse, doth in the vse thereof after a sorte, set before our eyes that which the word of God deliuereth to our eares, yea and doth as it were speake vnto vs also to admonish and put vs in minde of the things thereby so signified. Now S. Austen doth verie precisely put difference De consecr. di. 2. cap. Hoc est. betwixt the sacrament which is the visible signe, and the thing or matter of the sacrament; In Ioh. tr. 26 so that in diuersitie of sacra­mentes, yet the matter of the sacrament, that is, the thing signi­fied may be the same, and Ibid. a man may be partaker of the sacra­ment or signe, and yet haue no benefite at all of the thing signified. Notwithstanding by reason of that relation which by the word of God is wrought betwixt the sacramental signe, and the thing there­by signified, Epist. 23. & in quaest. super Leuit. q. 75. the signe or sacrament, as hath béen before said, doth vsually take vnto it the name of the thing signified; as De consecr. dist. 2. cap. vtrum sub. Gratian no­teth againe vnder S. Austens name, that the name of the bodie of Christ, is giuen not onely to the verie bodie, but also to the figure thereof, which is outwardly perceiued. But what shall we take this figure of the body to be by S. Austens iudgement? Marry, saith hée, Ex ser. ad in­fan. Beda. 2. Cor. 10. that which you see, is bread, as your eyes also tell you: which words the Answe. hath left vnanswered, as also the other De conse. dist. 2. cap. Hoc est. that the sacra­ment conteineth the nature and trueth of the visible element. But by those wordes S. Austen referreth vs to our eyes, and willeth vs to beléeue our eyes that it is verily bread. Now then séeing that by his iudgment a sacrament is a visible signe, and the visible signe in [Page 113] the Lordes supper is bread, how may it stand with his doctrine that the flesh couered▪ in the forme of bread, is a sacrament of the flesh, & the bloud vnder the forme of wine, is a sacrament of the bloud, and that by the inuisible flesh is signified the visible body of Christ. Sure­ly if we take flesh to signifie truely and properly flesh, this standeth not with S. Austens grounds. For séeing flesh is not visible in the sacrament, neither is there any appearance thereof to the sense: nay it is called héere inuisible flesh, it cannot be said to be a sacrament, that is, a visible thing. Therefore we must séeke another meaning of the wordes, flesh and bloud, according to the other rule, whereby the outward elementes take vnto them the names of the thinges represented by them. By flesh and bloud then we vnderstand the visible elements which are called by these names, and that not one­ly for that they doe signifie the true flesh and bloud of Christ, but also as August. ser. ad in [...]an. a [...]ud Bed. 1. cor. 10. touching the spirituall fruite, as S. Austen speaketh: in Ambros. de sacram. lib. 6. cap. 1. grace and vertue, as saith saint Ambros: Cypria de caena d [...]. & de resu [...]. chri. concerning the inuisible effici­encie and vertue, as Cyprian speaketh, are the same to the faith of the receiuer; according to that which Gratian saith, concerning a prayer of the Church, crauing to receiue the trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ, that some not De cons [...]cr. dist. 2 cap. species. without probable reason did ex­pound that trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ, to be the verie ef­ficiencie or working thereof, that is, the forgiuenesse of sinnes. Now because the visible element which is thus called flesh is no such thing in outward appearance, neither hath anie shew of this ver­tue: therefore it is said to be flesh couered in the forme of bread, inui­sible, spirituall, a matter of vnderstanding. For sacramentes con­teine those thinges which they conteine, not openly but couertly; not in appearance of the thinges themselues, but vnder the signes of the visible elementes, not visibly and corporally and to be percei­ued with the eye, but inuisibly and spiritually, and to be conceiued with the vnderstanding. Where I make not that conteining or co­uering or being vnder, a physicall or locall matter, but I meane it; partly in respect of signification (in which maner saint Austen saith that August. de catechi. rud. cap. 4. in the old Testament, the new was hidden, and that Ibid epis. 89. the incar­nation of Christ was couered or hidden in the time of the old Testa­ment; the reason of which maner of spéech, he elswhere maketh to be this, Ibid. de Bap­ti [...]mo. cont. Donat. lib. 1. cap. 15. because it was hiddenly signified. So he saith againe that Christ did [...]bid in Ioh. tra. 2 [...]. couer grace in those wordes which hee vsed in the [Page 114] sixth of Iohn, of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud, meaning that he did obscurely signifie the same. To this purpose Bertram saith, as touching the sacrament, that it Bert. de co [...]. & sang. domi. sheweth one thing with­out in figure, but within it doth represent another, through the vn­derstanding of faith:) partly in respect of the secret & inuisible wor­king of the spirite of God, Cypria. de caena domini. whose diuine maiestie, as Cyprian spea­keth, doth neuer absent it selfe from the holy mysteries, but doth, though without appearing to the eie, hiddenly worke the effect of that which is signified. Thus we may say as touching Baptisme, that it is the bloud of Christ couered or hidden in the visible ele­ment of water that doth clense vs from our sinnes. In which ma­ner, the councel of Nice saith. concil. Nice. In fine ex cut. h [...]r. Tonstallo. To. 1. concil. Our Baptisme must be considered, not with bodily eyes, but with the eyes of the mind. Thou seest wa­ter, but consider the power of God, couered or lying hidden in the water. Thinke the water to be full of the sanctification of the holy Ghost, and of diuine fire. And thus doth Chrysostome declare the nature of all Christian mysteries, in which, saith he, Chrys. in 1. cor. hom. 7. we see not that which we beleeue, but we see one thing and beleeue another, and therefore the beléeuing man is otherwise affected in them, then the infidell. For, sayth he, the infidell hearing of the water of Bap­tisme, thinketh it to be meerely water, but I doe not simply see that which I see, but I behold it in the cleansing of the soule through the holy Ghost. Heereupon hée compareth these mysteries to bookes, which an vnlerned man taketh, and séeth the letters, but vnderstan­deth nothing thereof. But one that is learned findeth great mat­ter laid vp or couered, and hidden in them: so the infidell hearing of our mysteries, séemeth not to heare them, but the expert Chri­stian beholdeth great vertue in the things that are hidden in them. Thus things which are signified by our mysteries are said to be co­uered & hidden in thē, because they are not perceiued with the bodily eie, but only with y^e eie of the faithful and beleuing mind The mea­ning then of the words aboue named according to the doctrine of S. Austen, must be thus: that in the sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christ, it is not meere bread & wine that we receiue, but it is in vn­derstanding and spirituall grace and blessing the flesh and bloud of Christ, not appearing so to the sense, which discerneth onely bread and wine, but yet, as in all other mysteries of Christian Reli­gion, so in this fayth beholdeth heauenly grace couertly and [Page 115] hiddenly conteined through the holy Ghost, and by the visible elementes perceiueth the inward force of the flesh and bloud of Ie­sus Christ. The reason whereof, is because the visible signes which beare the name of the flesh, and bloud of Christ, are Sa­cramentes, and therefore not onely haue the name, but conteine the force and power of that true flesh and blood of Christ where in he suffered for our sinnes. And so by these visible things which thus in­uisibly, spiritually, and only by way of vnderstanding and mysterie, are the flesh and blood of Christ, is signified that true body of Christ which is visible, palpaple, full of grace, vertue, maiestie, and glory. No other meaning can the Answ. make of these wordes by S. Au­sten, vnlesse he will contrarie those generally receiued groundes which Saint Austen setteth downe: and surely hard it is to find in Austen that Christ hath one bodie visible, palpable, full of grace, ver­tue, maiestie, and glorie, another not so, as these words import, if they be vnderstood as the Answerer taketh them. And if he will haue the word Forme, as I knowe his meaning is, to import such emptie formes as he maketh, without substance, S. Austen will deny him that, for that he maketh it the generall name of the outward signe in all Sacraments, when he defineth a Sacrament thus: De co [...]. [...]. dist. [...]. ca. [...]r. It is a visible forme of inuisible grace. But now if I séeme partiall in ex­pounding these words, let the same Saint Austen as Gratian citeth him, euen in the verie next words iustifie this exposition. For thus he saith: Ibid. cap. Hoc est. The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is in it maner called the bodie of Christ, whereas it is indeed the Sacrament of his bodie, euen of that bodie which being visible and palpable was put vpon the Crosse, and the offering of the same flesh which is per­formed by the hands of the priest, is called the passion, death and cru­cifying of Christ, not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying my­sterie. Where S. Austen plainly calleth the heauenly bread of the Sacrament the flesh of Christ, yet not as being flesh verily and in­déed, for then it sho [...]ld truly & properly be called the body of Christ. But now it is so called, but only in it maner, whereas it is indéed but a Sacrament of his bodie, which manner he declareth in the o­ther point to be not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying my­sterie. And if I be partiall here also, let the glose expound it: Ibid in Glo [...]. The heauenly bread, that is, the heauenly Sacrament which doth truly re­present the flesh of Christ, is called the bodie of Christ, but vnpro­perly. [Page 116] Wherupō it is said, in it maner, & not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mysterie; that the meaning may be thus: It is cal­led the bodie of Christ, that is, the bodie of Christ is signified. If this wil not serue, let him heare also the maister of the sentences, whom he may not dislike, vnlesse he can say: Hic magister non tenetur. He hauing set downe the words which the Answ. vrgeth, saith thus: Sent. lib. 4. dist. 10. Marke here diligently that S. Austen here vseth a trope or figure, wherby the signs do beare the name of the things signified by them. For here the visible forme 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.

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 y^e 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; Aug. quaest. ex yet. [...]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: 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 [Page 118] 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 De consecr. dist. 2▪ ca. panis est. is vnpossible, as the glose of y^• 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: 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 decei [...]eth himselfe for want of the knowledge of that rule, which Chrysostome himselfe giueth him vpon these wordes of Christ, 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 not to bethinke any thing els. For these things must not be iudged of as they seeme, but all mysteries are to be conside­red with the inward eies, that is to say, spiritually. The forging of this lesson maketh the Answ. to play the Athenian mad man, so that wheresoeuer he heareth of the body of Christ in the sacrament, hée dreameth of his reall and carnall presence; wheresoeuer he readeth [Page 119] of eating the flesh, and drinking the bloud of Christ, hée imagi­neth his carnall and Capernaitish feeding. But let him vnderstand Chrisostome by Chrysostomes own rule, and he shall finde nothing in him to stand him in any stéed for these grosse conceites.

R. Abbot. 15.

THe Answerer being wéeried as it séemeth with the euidence of the testimonies cited against him, and therefore desirous to take breath a while, maketh an idle vagary in answering this place of c [...]prian. de vnct. chri [...]ma­tis. Cyprian, and vrgeth me with other matters conteined and commended in that sermon, which hée saith are not vsed or receiued in our Church, as Chrisme, absolution, the descen­ding of Christ into hell. But I maruell whether he were well ad­uised or not, when he wrote these thinges, or whether hee vnder­stood what Cyprian said. To answere to them in order: First hée demaundeth: Haue you in your Church the vse of Chrisme so much in this sermon commended? He bringeth no reason whereby to prooue anie necessitie of Chrisme, and therefore it may be sufficient to answere him with the like demaund: Haue you in your Church of Roome the custome of washing eche others feete vppon maundy [Page 121] thursday so much commended in this sermon, and which you are here told that Christ H [...] sole [...]i d [...]tione omni tempore a [...]endum in­stituit. instituted to be alwaies done with solemne deuotion, in the vse wherof Saint Ambros. de sacram. lib. 3. cap. 1. Ambrose also thought that his church of Millaine did more rightly, then the old church of Roome in not vsing it: He wil say y^e they haue lawfully refused this. We say that we haue as lawfully refused the other. These were arbitrary and indifferent ceremonies, taken vp by the will of men, and by the will of men▪ and by the libertie of men to be refused againe. Sta [...]ulen. in D [...]oni. A [...]cop. Eccle. Hiera [...]. Sta­pulensis vppon Dyonisius noteth many ceremonies obserued in the auncient Churches, that are now omitted in the Church of Roome. Though the Church of Rome were as sound as euer she was, that we might say as Ambrose said; that Ambros de sacra. li [...]. 3. cap 1. we desire in all thinge, to fol­low the Church of Roome, yet we would say as he addeth; We are men too, that haue iudgement and vnderstanding, as well as they of Rome, and haue as great libertie in vsing or not vsing cere­monies as they haue. Secondly, he asketh me; Haue you retained any shadow of the publicke and generall reconciliation of sinners spoken of in this sermon, &c. Let him turne the wordes, and suppose me demaunding of him the same question concerning the Church of Roome. Verily she hath it not: she hath no shewe nor shadow of it: neither the maner, nor the matter of it. The Answ. in vpbrai­ding our Church with y^• want hereof, doth much more lay open the shame and reproch of his owne friendes. The Church of Roome is she that hath broken the bonds of all discipline, and made a mocke­rie of all religion: in stéed of absoluing men, she hath bound them faster: in stéed of reconcilement to God, she hath thrust them further off from God. Whatsoeuer defect or want our Church hath in this be halfe, it is but asker of that wound, wherewith the Church of Roome had wounded vs, and as a weakenesse remaining after a gréeuous and deadly sicknesse from whence we haue not as yet béen able perfectly to recouer our selues. But thankes be vnto God that we haue before vs the substance of true absolution and reconci­liation in the word of the gospel, which the Church of Roome with­holdeth from her Children. We preach to the repentant absoluti­on and attonement with God by the bloud of Iesus Christ; wherby they finde comfort, and release from the bondes of their sinnes, and giue glorie vnto God. Whereas the Church of Roome giuing men ashes in stéed of bread, and setting before them the superstiti­ous [Page 122] deuises of men in stéed of the soueraigne bloud of Christ: and mocking them with the supposed absoluing words of a grumbling Popish Priest in stéed of the comfort of the gospell of Christ, leaueth them either senselesse, and not féeling their owne estate, or restlesse and vnquiet whilest in the absolutions of sinfull men they finde no assured trust of being absolued and pardoned with God.

Concerning the descending of Christ into hell, I doubt not but he speaketh what he thinketh, but vnderstandeth not what he spea­keth, nor what he ought to thinke. The iudgement of learned and godly men, both old and new are very diuerse, as touching the mea­ning of this point. I preiudicate not the iudgement of any man that hath not in it a preiudice against y^• word of God. For my part I im­brace it as an article of the Créede, and I take it that I am to con­ceiue euery article of the Créede, as importing somewhat that en­tirely and properly concerneth my self, either as touching my crea­tion or saluation. And therefore I simply reiect as a méere fancie, the opinion of the Papists, that Christ descended to Linebus patrum, to fetch the fathers from thence. But if for any respect properly touching our saluation, it may be iustified that Christ in soule de­scended to the very place of hell, as the very letter of the article doth import, I willingly subscribe the same. In the meane time that which the Answ. cauilleth at, which some learned men haue deli­uered for the meaning of Christes descending into hell, as touching the doctrine, whether belonging to this article, or to the other of his suffering, I embrace and hold because I know it conteineth the cer­taine & vndoubted trueth of the word of God, and particularly tou­cheth the redemption of mine own soule. We beléeue by the word of God, that Iesus Christ the sonne of God, is our redéemer not onely in his body, but also in his soule; that in both he hath paied a price for vs, Irene. adu. har. lib. 5. giuing, as Ireneus speaketh, his soule for our soules, and his flesh for our flesh: not onely his flesh or bodie for our bodies, but his soule also for our soules. The scripture iustifieth so much: He shall giue Esa. 33. 10. his soule an offering for sinne. The storie of the passion of Christ iustifieth the same, where before any thing ailed him as tou­ching any bodily paine, he is described vnto vs Mat. 26. 37. to be sorrrowful & greeuously troubled: Mar. 14. 33. to be afraid & in great heauinesse: Luc. 22. 44. to be in an agonie, yea such an agonie, and so beyond measure afflicting him, that the sweate was like drops of bloud, trickling from him downe [Page 123] to the ground: that the father thought it expedient to send v. 43. an an­gell from heauen to comfort him: that hee was driuen to crie [...]ut; Math. 26. 3 [...]. 3 [...]. My soule is heauie euen vnto the death: father if it be possible, let this cup passe from me. To referre these spéeches and affections to any bod [...]y sufferings were fond and childish, sith as yet he suffered nothing in body, but as he himselfe expresly teacheth, they are to be construed immediatly of the passion and sufferinges of his soul. Therefore Hierome saith: Hieron. i [...] E [...]a [...]. That which wee should haue suffered for our sinnes, he suffered in our behalfe, &c. Whereby it is manifest that as his bodie being scourged and rent, did beare the signes of that iniurie in stripes and blewnesse of woundes, so his soule also did ve­rily suffer greefe for vs, least that partly a trueth, & partly a lie should be beleeued in Christ. Whereby he testifieth that Christ suffered for vs, both in body and soule, and euen that that we should haue suf­fered for our sinnes; and that if he comming in the nature of man to suffer for vs, had suffered onely in body, it should be in part a lie which wee beléeue of his suffering for vs, because as touching his soule it should not be true. S. Ambrose héereof saith thus: Ambr [...]s. [...]n Luc. ca. 22. l [...]. 1 [...]. & de fide ad Grati. lib. 2. cap. 3. He laboured in his passion with deepe affection, that because he de­stroyed our sinnes in his flesh, he might also by the anguish of his soule abolish the anguish of our soules. Which as it appeareth by those spéeches already mentioned at the first entrance of his passion, so it is further most effectually shewed, by his crying with a loud voice vpon the crosse: My Math. 27. 4 [...] God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. A mysterie, the depth whereof, the verie Angels themselues are not able throughly to search, that the sonne of God should be humbled so farre for our sakes, as to be for the time in our forlorne and desperate state vnder the burden of the wrath of God, to féele his fathers indignation Esa. [...]3. 8 10. smiting him, and breaking him, as the Pro­phet speaketh, and as it were leading out his armies against him: he in the meane time holding fast still vpon God to be his God, who would bring him backe from these gates of death, when he had finished the worke that was giuen him to doe, but yet féeling no­thing for the present, whereby he might appeare to be his God. But what can I say more of this spéech of Christ then Ferus hath said, a man by profession of the church of Roome: yet in many things not so grosse as Romanists commonly are. Writing vppon these wordes of Christ, he saith thus: Ferus in Matt 27. Here God the father dealeth with [Page 124] 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 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: 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 Athan. de in­terpret. Psalm. Arnob. & Hie­ron. in psal. 87. Athanasius, Arnobius, and Hierome. Austen also calleth the same 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, Athanas. de inter. Psal. Christ died not for that he was guiltie of sinnne himself, but [Page 125] he suffered for vs, and in himselfe did beare the wrath that was con­ceiued against vs for sinne: euen as he saith elswhere: 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 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 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 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 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 y^e 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 y^e 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 y^e 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 [Page 126] 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 [...]. Pet. 2. 12. speake euill of those things which he knoweth not. Now by this descending of Christ into hell, he hath set vs frée, who were otherwise prisoners of hell and bondslaues to the diuell, and so according to the wordes of Cyprian, he hath turned our cap­tiuitie, wherewith we were taken of old, by the transgression of our father Adam, and hath dispatched from vs the tormentes of hell, whereunto wee were enthralled. Nowe to what purpose did the Answe. alleage these words of Cyprian, or what aduantage doth hée dreame he hath in them: He would finde his Limbus patrum here, but it will not be. For Cyprian speaketh expressely of deliuerance from hell torments, whereof there are none in Limbo patrum, as his maisters Rhem. An not. Luc. 16. 26 of Rhemes doe instruct him. Now hauing vsed this pée­uish and impertinent talk of thinges making nothing at all for his purpose, yet as a man in a dreame, he breaketh out into this fond presumption, that the fathers are all theirs, and that I should heare but that he is not disposed to oppose. I haue not to do with maister Spence, I perceiue but with a man wel séene in all the fathers. But the fathers are his, as they were his that said, Ego Dioscorus the hereticke. Concil. Chal­cedo. Act. 1. cum patribus eij­cior. The fathers and I are cast out both togither. And that appeareth in the words of Cyprian now to be handled. Cyprian. de vnct. chris. Our Lord, saith hée, at the table where he kept his last supper with his Apostles, gaue with his owne handes bread and wine, but vpon the crosse hee yeel­ded his body to the Souldiours hands to be wounded, that syncere trueth and true synceritie being secretly imprinted in his Apostles, might declare to the nations how bread and wine are his flesh and bloud; and how causes agree to the effects, and diuers names or kindes are reduced to one essence or substance, and the thinges signifying, and the things signified are counted by the same names. Where it is plainly auouched that Christ at his last supper gaue bread & wine. What néedeth any more? Yea but did Christ giue bare bread and wine, saith the Answ. absurdly and frowardly? No say I, for this bread and wine is the flesh and bloud of Christ, as I before alleaged [Page 127] out of Cyprian, according to the which S. Paule saith, 1. cor. 10. 16. The bread which we breake is the communion of the body of Christ. The cup of blessing is the communion of the bloud of Christ. Therefore S. Austen calleth this bread, August. de consecr. dist. 2. cap. Hoc est. heauenly bread, and Theodoret Theodoret. dial. 2. the bread of life, and the same Cyprian saith that Cypria. de resurrect chri. that which is seene, namely the visible element of bread, is accounted both in name and vertue the body of Christ, namely because it conteineth sacramen­tally the whole vertue and benefite of the passion and death of our Lord Iesus Christ, as before I shewed. But let him remember that Cyprian saith it is bread and wine, which is the flesh & bloud of Christ, whereas by his defence there is in the Sacrament, ney­ther bread nor wine. But Cyprian saith, that diuerse names and kindes are reduced to one substance. Doe you heare substance, saith the Answ. Help that sore if you can with all your cunning: surely small cunning will serue to heale a sore, where neither flesh nor skinne is broken or brused. This is in trueth a verie ignorant and blind opposition. The visible elements that are in substance bread and wine, are in mysterie and signification, the bodie and bloud of Christ, and are so called as Cyprian before setteth down [...]. When therefore bread being one substance, is called not onely according to his substance, bread: but also by waie of Sacrament and mysterie the body of Christ, when the wine being one substance, is called not onely as it is, Wine, but also as it signifieth, the bloud of Christ, diuerse names or kindes are reduced to one substance. And this Cy­prian declareth when he addeth; The signes and the things signified are called by the same names. The bodie of Christ it selfe, and the signe héereof which is bread, are both called the body. The bloud of Christ, and the signe hereof which is wine, are both called his bloud. The body and bloud it selfe are so called indéed, and trueth; but the signes in their maner, not in the trueth of the thing▪ but in a sig­nifying mysterie: yet so one substance is called by diuers names, as the wordes before do specifie. Nowe the place of Cyprian being as cléere as the sunne-light against transubstantiation, as euerie eye may perceiue, yet the Answ. sendeth me to their learned treati­ses to sée what is there said of this and other places. And what shall I finde there but such wretched and miserable cauils and shiftes, as he himselfe hath borrowed from them. And héere, maister Spence, as in your name he excuseth himselfe of his simplenesse, and that he [Page 128] is no doctour: which accordeth not with his▪ vaunt before, that hée could shew me this and that out of the fathers. And I maruell that he should make excuse thus of his learning to a minister of our church, so meane as I am, séeing it is so péeuishly bragged amongst you commonly, that there is litle learning to be found amongst the best of vs. Wheresoeuer he be, I wish that his conscience and truth towardes God, were but euen as much as his learning is.

R. Abbot. 16.

THe famous Epistle of Cyprian to Cecilius saith plainly; Wee Cypr. lib. 2. Epist. 3.find that it▪ was wine which Christ called his bloud, as he saith twise beside in the same Epistle, that by wine is represented the bloud of Christ. Yea saith the Answ. he meaneth that it was wine at the first which hee tooke to make the Sacrament, but in being made the Sacrament, it was no longer wine, as if Cyprian had said thus: Christ tooke wine, and made it no wine, and though it were now no wine, yet he called wine his bloud. Cyprians wordes are euident, that Christ called wine his bloud, and that by wine is represented his bloud, which cannot be till it be made a sacrament. [Page 129] 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 Sect. 2. before.

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 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 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 [Page 131] into his den of reall presence, and streineth them whether they wil or not to serue his turne in that behalfe. But the lowing of the Oxen to their fellowes descried the theft of Cacus, and the wordes following in S. Austen himselfe doe prooue that the Answ. doth but play the théefe. M. Harding was content to say that S. Austen in heate of disputation spake that which might be greatest aduantage against the hereticke, not most agréeable to the trueth, or to his owne meaning: but little did he thinke that the place should serue to prooue any thing for his part. But the Answ. hath learned a tricke to make the wordes speake for reall presence, which neuer was in S. Austens minde. Forsooth hauing in hand against the Ma­nichees to expound the wordes of Moses law, The bloud is the soule or life: he telleth them that the meaning thereof is, that the bloud is a signe of life, in which signe, the soule or life is really conteined, and to shew this we are tolde that he bringeth the words of Christ, This is my body, which he spake of the signe of his body: but yet such a signe as doth really conteine the body, and therefore we must thinke that the bodie of Christ is really present, and conteined in the Sacrament or signe of his bodie. Now this though it be a ma­nifest vntrueth, yet the Answ. thought would carrie some shewe of trueth, but yet because he would not haue vs abused by this shew, to thinke that S. Austen did héere indéede auouch any reall presence, or transubstantiation, he telleth vs plainly in the end, that S. Austen spak [...] according to the Manichees exposition of Christes words, and answered them by their opinion, not by his owne. So that if S. Austen doe say any thing of reall presence, he noteth the Manichees opinion, but affirmeth it not himselfe, and therefore giueth vs to vnderstand that the Papistes héerein take part with the Manichees rather then with him. His answere in trueth is false and absurd, and yet I would not that the reader should think it was deuised by him, for he hath learned it of Bellar. tom. 2. de sacram. Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 24. Bellermine their great Rabbine, and from him hath patched two answeres into one. But the matter standeth thus. The Manichees condemned the olde testament as false and contrarie to the newe testament. For in the new testa­ment it is said, Math 10. 28. Feare not them which kill the body, but are not a­ble to hurt the soule, &c. Now in the old sayd they, it is written, the bloud is the soule, and that is false: for the bloud may be hurt and spilt as we know, but the soule cannot be hurt, as wee read in the [Page 132] gospel. Againe, the new testament saith that flesh 1. cor. 15. 50. and bloud can­not enter into the kingdome of God. It is false therefore which the old testament saith that the bloud is the soule, for then the soule shoulde not enter into the kingdome of God. Therefore they blasphe mous [...]y auouched that the old testament was false and not to be beléeued. To this cauillation of theirs, S. Austen answereth that these wordes of the olde testament, The bloud is the soule or life, were spoken of the life of beastes, not of the soule of man. Of beastes it is said that the life of all flesh is the bloud thereof, not that mans soule is his bloud. And therefore they reasoned absurdly from that which was spoken of beastes to that that was said of the soule of man. Further he answereth thus; I may also interpret that com­mandement (of not eating bloud, because the bloud is the soule or life) to be set downe by way of signe. For our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gaue the signe of his bodie: signifying héereby that as Christ said in the new testament, This is my body, when as he gaue not his body indéed, but only a signe of his body; so Moses said in y^• old testament, The bloud is the life or soule, not be­cause it is so indéed, but onely because it was appointed for the signe of life: which is most euident against Transubstantiation and real presence. Nay, not so, saith the Answ. for the bloud is such a signe as doth really conteine the life, and so the signe of Christes bodie must really conteine the body; that the one signe may be answera­ble to the other. But let me aske him: doth the bloud really contein the life when the thing is dead? or did either Moses or Austen in­tend to make the bloud a signe of life, as the same bloud is in the body, and the thing aliue and whole? Was the Answ. well in his wittes to send abroad such vntowardly imaginations? or rather was not Bellermine a wretched, and lewd man to go about with such fictions to dazle the eyes of his readers? The precept is con­cerning those thinges that are taken and killed for meate, that the bloud thereof should not be kept and vsed for meate, because the bloud is the life, saith God, that is, saith S. Austen▪ it doth betoken life, although the thing be now dead, so that whether h [...]te or colde, whether aliue or dead, it was not lawfull for the Iewes to eat any bloud at all. But if that spéech had béene vsed as in respect that the bloud doth now really conteine the life, they might haue sayd when the thing was dead, that now th [...]y might [...]ate the bloud; for [Page 133] now the bloud is not the life, because the life is gone, & is not really conteined in it. God would haue the bloud, as touching the eating of it, to betoken life, and by this ceremoniall commandement of ab­stinence from bloud, hee would giue to vnderstand howe he ha­teth and detesteth sauagenesse and cru [...]ty: how hee would haue life to be regarded and fauoured as of other his creatures according to their kind whereof Salomon speaketh thus, Prou. 12. 10. The righteous man regardeth the life of his beast, so especially of man whom he created according to his owne image, concerning whome hee speaketh in the first giuing of this commandement, as it were to shew the mea­ning and intent therof: I Gen. 9. 5. 6. will require your bloud, wherein your liues are. Who so sheddeth mans bloud, by man shall his bloud be shed: for in the image of God created he him. Nowe in that other place which the Answ. citeth out of the questions vpon Leuiticus, S. Austen giueth reason why the life was signified by the bloud ra­ther then by any thing els: namely, because Aug. quaest. sup. Leuit. q. 57 the life is conteined or holden in the body by the bloud; so that the bloud being shed, the life departeth, therefore the life was most fitly signified by the bloud, and the bloud did take the name of life. Which wordes do not signi­fie that bloud was a signe of life onely as now really conteined in it, as the Answ. fondly imagineth, but that bloud euen of the things killed and dead was appointed to betoken and signifie life, because the life of those things that are aliue, is holden in y^• body, especially by th [...] bloud. Neither is he helped any whit by that which he al­leageth: We must seeke for speeches signifying by that which con­taineth that which is contained, as because the life or soule is holden in the body by the bloud: therfore the bloud may take the name of life, as the place wherin the Church assemble themselues, is called also the Church. For we know that the place of the assembling of y^• Church is called the Church though there be nowe no body conteined in it, onely because it is appointed to that vse, and so the bloud was cal­led the life, and appointed to be a signe of the life or soule, though the life were now dead and gone, because in things that liue, the bloud is a most speciall instrument of life, whereby it is conteined and holden in the body. But to put the matter out of doubt, and to shew the Answ. his folly. S. Austen in y^• end of the Chapter whence I alleaged the words in question saith thus: So Aug. cont. A­dimant. ca. 12▪ is the bloud the life as the rocke was Christ, as the Apostle saith, They dranke of the [Page 134] spirituall rocke which followed them, and the rocke was Christ. It is not said, The rocke was Christ because the rocke did really con­teine Christ. No more then was it said, The bloud is the life, be­cause it did really conteine the life, but because it was ordained to be a signe of life, though it selfe were altogether dead and cold. And this doth S. Austen againe expresly note in another place, saying, It August. cont. aduersa leg. & proph. lib. 2. cap. 6. is said. The bloud of al flesh is the life or▪ soule thereof, in like ma­ner as it is said, The rocke was Christ, not because it was so indeed, but because Christ was signified heereby. The lawe would by the bloud signifie the life or soule, a thing inuisible by a thing visible, &c. because the bloud is visibly as the soule is inuisibly the chiefest and most principall of all things whereof wee consist Héere is then a matter of signification onely, not of any reall conteining vnlesse the Answ. will be so fond as to say that the rocke did really conteine Christ. But now of this maner of speaking, The bloud is the life or soule, when it is indéede but a signe thereof, S. Austen giueth a like example in the words of our Sauiour Christ, who, saith he, doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gaue the signe of his body: di­rectly to this meaning that as Christ said, This is my body, when he gaue it into his Disciples handes, not his bodie indéede, but onely the signe and sacrament of his body, and as the Apostle saith, the rock was Christ, when it was not Christ indéede, but onely a signe of Christ, so Moses said, The bloud is the life, not because it selfe was the life indéede, but was onely appointed to be a signe of life. And if the sacrament were indéed & really the body of Christ, what occasion should there be why Christ should doubt to say, this is my body: But either S. Austen speaketh vainly, or els his words import that there might be occasion of doubting to say so. And why, but because it was not so indéede? Yet, saith he, because it was the mysterie and signe of his body, though not his body in substance and indéed, ther­fore hee doubted not, according to the maner of the scriptures in like case, to say, This is my body: and so did Moses speake of the bloud. Thus most manifestly and plainly I haue shewed that the Answ. irrefragable exposition, is nothing else but vnhonest and vn­conscionable shifting.

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 Tertul. cont. Marcion. li. 4. The [Page 139] 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 chrysost in Mat. hom. 83. Theod. d [...]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 interpretatiō 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, wer [...] the exception of the hereticke and not Tertullians own words. The Ans. hath found in some other of his learned Treatises, name­ly Bellar. to. 2. de sacram. Euchar. l [...]b. 2. cap 7. in Bellarmine another deuise for y^e 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 vpō 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 [Page 140] 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 [Page 141] 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 y^e same. So saith S. Hierom: Hieron. in Mat. 26. Christ taketh bread & goeth to the true Sacra­mēt of the passeouer that as Melchisedech the priest of the high God in prefiguring of him, offering bread and wine had done, so he him­selfe also might represent the truth of his bodie and blood. Therfore though it be graunted that Tertullian speaketh of Melchisedech, yet serueth it my purpose and not his; that Christ instituted bread and wine, to represent thereby the truth of his bodie and blood, as Mel­chisedech had prefigured he should do. But the truth is, Tertullian speaketh not of Melchisedech: he doth not so much as intimate any thing of him; and the Answ. for that he read the place could not but know that there was nothing meant as touching Melchisedech, and therefore in vpbraiding vs with stealing of scrappes out of the Fathers, because we vse this place, he giueth me occasion to charge him with voluntary and wilfull falsifying of their words. But I leaue that to his owne conscience, whether he did purposely séeke by this bad meanes to adde the more likelihood vnto a false tale. Ter­tullian saith nothing here to intimate that y^e 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, 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, Gen. 49. 11. He shall wash his [Page 142] 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 y^e 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 sel [...] should be appointed to be the signe of y^e 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 [Page 143] 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 y^e new Testament, to which the words of Tertullian might be fitly applied. Surely S. Austen saith, that 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 Ephrem. de natura dei nō 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 Sect. 10. before that the Fathers call the sacrifice which they speak of, a figure of the death and passion of Christ. Of such a figure Ter­tullian speaketh and reasoneth thus, that there should neuer haue bin appointed in the Gospel a figure to represent the body of Christ, except there had bene a true bodie to be represented thereby. As for that cauill of his which he hath borrowed from Bellarmine, that if Tertullian had not spoken of a figure in the old Testament, he shuld not haue said, fuisset, but esset, it is too too foolish and absurd, and if he were in the Grammer schoole, he should deserue to be laide ouer the forme, to make him know that the verbe fuisset is rightly vsed by Tertullian, with relation to Christs first instituting of bread to be the figure of his bodie. Let him consider better, whether this stand not with good construction to say; Christ tooke bread and said therof, [Page 144] This is my bodie, that is to say, a figure of my bodie. But it had not bene, or it should not haue bene a figure except there were a true bo­die. But yet he goeth farther: Tertullian saith thus: If Christ did therefore make bread his bodie because he wanted a true bodie, then he should haue giuen the bread for vs. It made for the vanitie of Mar­cion, that bread should be crucified. These words saith he, haue nei­ther wit nor sense, except it be supposed that Christs bodie is really in the Sacrament, nay otherwise it must be bread that was crucifi­ed for vs. But except his wit and his sense did faile him, he might find somwhat els in Tertullians words. For stil he calleth y^e sacramēt bread, & putteth differēce betwixt the bread that is called y^• body and y^e true body it self, & so reasoneth against Marcion, y^• if Christ had not a true body indéed which he represented by bread, & in respect there­of called the same bread his body, then the bread itselfe must be his bodie, and consequently it was bread which was giuen and cruci­fied for vs. But Marcion himselfe would not say that bread was crucified for vs: Therefore he must néedes confesse that Christ had a true bodie figured by the bread. And thus Tertullians reason a­gainst Marcion setteth downe bread in the Sacrament as a figure of Christes body, and razeth the foundation of Popish Transubstan­tiation. And this is yet againe plaine by these wordes, to which he asketh me what I say, that Christ called not a Pepon his body as he should haue done by Marcions opinion, who held that Christ had in stéede of a heart, a kinde of fruite called a Pepon: but hee called bread his body because of the olde Figure, namely because the Pro­phet vsing the name of bread to import the bodie of Christ, did there­by prefigure that bread indéed should be appointed to be the figure and signe of the same bodie. So that Christ did not renew an olde figure by consecrating or sanctifying the bread to be a figure of his bodie, but fulfilled that in the trueth and substance of bread, which Tertullian saith was foreshewed by the name of bread. Thus much of Tertullians roundly & wholly deliuered words, where the Answ. hath shewed as great folly, in enlarging them, as some other of his fellowes haue shewed falshood in clipping and paring them. But to fill vp the measure of this follie, he taketh vpon him by the way to censure Maister Iewell about a place alleaged out of the vnper­fect worke vpon Math. Serm. 11. Which he doth in that péeuish and vaine sorte, as that he sheweth himselfe to be led wholly with ma­lice [Page 145] without any iudgment or discretion. First he misliketh that he did alleage it in Chrisostomes name. But why so? Is it not as law­full for maister Iewell or for the Church of England to doe so, as it is for the Church of Roome and her followers? Sixt. S [...]n [...]n [...]. b [...]l [...]ot. san [...] 4 in l [...]n. C [...]ry­s [...]st. The Church of Rome readeth diuers homilies in their diuine seruice from thence vn­der the name of Chrysostome. Many sentences and propositions are brought thence vnder his name in the ordinarie gloses, in the chaines of the explanations of the Gospels, in the decrees of the Bistops of Roome, in the Summaries of Diuinitie set forth by Diuines of great name, as Sixtus Senensis himselfe a Papist giueth vs to vnder­stand. Why then should maister Iewell be blamed for alleaging that worke vnder Chrysostomes name, when the Church of Roome by her example warranted him so to doe. But yet hee will further make vs beléeue that the wordes doe not prooue that for which they are alleaged. The wordes are these: If Chrysost in ope. imperf. hom. 11. it be a dangerous matter to transferre holy vessels to priuate vses, as Baltasar teacheth vs, who drinking in the sacred cups was depriued of his kingdome and his life, if then I say it be so dangerous, to transferre to priuate vses these sanc­tified vessels in which is not the true body of Christ but a mysterie of his body is conteined. &c. Out of which wordes maister Iewell pro­ueth y^• in the sacred vessels there is not the true body of Christ, as the Papistes dreame, but onely a mysterie of his body. The place is so plaine as nothing can be more plaine. Now therefore what sayth the Answ. to it? Forsooth the authour meant these words of the ves­sels of the temple of Hierusalem, which Nabuchodonosor tooke from thence, and not of the vessels of our Christian Churches. But what vessels I maruell were those in the temple of Hierusalem which conteined the mysterie of Christes body? where did hee euer read or heare of any such? Or if he can vnshamefastly face out such a matter, how can he imagine that Chrysostome or the author who­soeuer would admonish his auditours, that it was daungerous for them to abuse the vessels of the temple of Hierusalem, which they neither had nor could haue to abuse? Againe, he saith not those holy vessels as pointing to the vessels of the temple, but expresly these ho­ly vessels, vnderstanding them which he had then to vse. Againe he saith not, wherein was not, but wherin is not the true body of Christ, nor wherein was conteined, but wherein is conteined the mysterie of his bodie. All which being referred to the present time, do plainly [Page 146] enough shew that hee spake of the vessels that then were present: and therefore his wordes are a verie direct and substantiall proofe, that in the vessels of Christian temples there is not the true bo­dy of Christ, but onely a mysterie of his body. Yea but there is men­tion of Baltazar there. And what then? Surely Baltasar is there brought in to teach vs, as the authour speaketh. Now what doth the example of Baltasar teach vs? not to abuse the vessels of the tem­ple of Hierusalem? A senselesse conceite. He teacheth vs not to a­buse the vessels of our temples and Churches, least offending as he did, we be punished as he was. For there is alwaies the same rea­son of the vse or abuse of holy thinges; and particular examples are alwaies alleaged for confirmation and proofe of generall doctrines. Surely the Answ. was sodainly awaked out of his dreame when he conceiued this, and set his handes to write before he was well aduised what he should write.

R. Abbot. 19.

THe wordes of Gelasius are these: An Gelas. cont. Euty. & Ne­stor. image or resemblance of the bodie and bloud of Christ, is celebrated in the action of the mysteries or sacraments. Héereby Gelasius giueth to vn­derstand that the sacrament is not the verie bodie of Christ, but the image and resemblance of his body. It is more plaine by that which he addeth: We must therfore think the same of Christ himselfe, which we professe in his image, that is to say, in the Sacra­ment. Marke how he distinguisheth Christ himselfe, and the image of Christ. The Sacrament therefore which is the image of Christ, is not Christ himselfe. Thus the wordes themselues doe mani­festly giue that for which I alleaged them. But the Answ. telleth me that I alleage Gelasius héere contrarie to his owne meaning, euen by mine own confession. How may that be? Forsooth I would before haue Gelasius his drift to be that as Christ is in heauē in two natures: so héere vpon the earth in the sacrament is bread with the body, and so both in heauen and héere would haue two seuerall na­tures: but nowe in this place I would haue the Sacrament to be nothing but a signe, and bare bread in one nature onely. But hée knoweth that he speaketh vntrueth both in the one and in the other. Of the former he himselfe hath acquited me before, saying; Sect. 9. you would haue the Sacrament a memorie of Christ as though hee were absent. Then belike I would not haue the bodie of Christ really present héere vpon the earth in the Sacrament. Of the other I ac­quited my selfe in that very place which he taketh vpon him to an­swer. For I added immediately vpon the alleaging of those words, thus. Yet are not the Sacraments naked & bare signes as you are wont hereupon to cauill, but substantiall and effectuall signs or seales rather, assuring our faith of the things sealed therby, and deliuering as it were into our hands and possession, the whole fruite & benefit of the death and passion of Iesus Christ. To answere him to both in a word, thus [Page 148] I say: that as the water of Baptisme doth sacramentally imply the blood of Christ, though the blood of Christ be in heauen: so likewise the bread and wine in the Lordes Supper, do sacramentally imply the bodie and blood of Christ, though the same bodie and blood be in heauen and not vpon the earth. And therefore neither did I before say nor do now, that the Sacrament consisteth of two natures, real­ly being vpon earth, but of bread and wine being on earth, and the bodie and blood of Christ being in heauen: the one receiued by the hand of the bodie; the other only by the hand of the soule, which only reacheth vnto heauen. Againe, as water in Baptisme is not there­fore bare water, because the blood of Christ is not there really pre­sent; so no more is the bread of the Lords table bare bread, although there be no reall presence of the bodie, but it doth most effectually of­fer and yéelde vnto the beléeuing soule the assurance of the grace of God, and of the forgiuenesse of sinnes. That which he further addeth as touching the drift and purpose of Gelasius how lewdly it peruer­teth his wordes and maketh them to serue fully for the heresie of Eutyches against which Gelasius writeth, I haue declared before, and so well haue I bethought my selfe héereof, as that I doubt I may in that behalfe, charge the Answ. conscience with voluntarie and wilfull falshood and desperate fighting against God.

R. Abbot. 20.

HE disliketh that I call the Sacramentes Seales. Yet héere his owne conscience could tell him that we make not the Sacra­ment bare bread and wine, as he and his fellows maliciously cauill. [Page 149] Though waxe of it selfe b [...] but waxe, yet when [...] [...] with the Princes signe [...], it is treason to offer despight vnto it. So whatsoeuer the bread and wine be of themselues, yet when they are by the word of God, as it were stamped and printed to be Sacra­mentes and seales, it is the perill of the soule to abuse them, or to come vnreuerently vnto them. But why is not the terme of s [...]ales to be approoued in our sacraments? Surely S. Austen calleth them visible August. lib. de catech [...]z. [...]ud. ca. 26. & hom. 50. de v. Tit. poen [...]t. Seales, and why then is it amisse in vs? Forsooth because it maketh our sacraments no better then the sacraments of the Iewes. Indéede our Sacramentes are in number sewer, for obseruati­on more easie, in vse more cleane, in signification more plaine, and through the manifest reuelation of the Gospell more méete to excite and stirre vp our faith, and in these respects they are better then the sacraments of the Iewes: but as touching inward and spi­rituall grace, they are both the same: neither is there in that respect any reason to affirme our sacramentes to be better then theirs. For they▪ did 1 Cor. 10. [...]. eate the same spirituall meate, and drinke the same spirituall drinke, that we doe, The same, I say, that we doe,: For they drank of the spirituall rocke which followed them, & the rock was Christ. Christ therefore was their spirituall meate and drinke as well as ours: and Iesus Heb 13. 8. Christ yesterday and to day is the same, and for euer. The same therefore to them as he is to vs, onely in difference of time, To come, in respect of them, and already come, in respect of vs. This the apostle further sheweth when he saith that they 1. Cor. 10. 2. were baptised. Which must be vnderstood either of the outward signe, or of the inward grace of Baptisme. But not of the outward signe: therefore of the inward grace. Therefore their Sacramentes offe­red the same inward grace that ours doe. This S. Austen also plain­ly testifieth, when he saith, that Aug. in Ioh. tr. 26. their Sacramentes, though in out­ward signes diuerse: yet in the things signified; and as hee speaketh straightwaies after, in spirituall vertue were equall vnto ours, and againe, that Ibid. tr. 45. if a man respect the visible signe, they did drinke an o­ther thing, but as touching signification and vnderstanding they dranke the same spirituall drinke, that we doe, which in both those places he prooueth by the same wordes of S. Paule which I haue al­leaged, and that by way of expounding the same wordes. Which is to the shame of the diuines of Rhemes, who so peruersly and con­trarie to the verie light of the text, labour to draw them to another [Page 150] meaning. Now therfore whereas the Answ. saith that this deroga­teth from the effect of Christes passion, & that our sacraments haue thence greater vertue then the Iewes sacramentes had, it is but a presumptuous, a foolish, and vnprobable assertion, without any like­lihoode of trueth, that may be gathered by the word of God. We be­léeue the vertue of Christes passion to haue béen no lesse to their sal­uation, then it is to ours, because we beléeue that Iesus Christ Apoc. 13. 8. is the lambe slaine from the beginning of the world, not onely in type and figure, but in power & grace also. The August. lib. de natu & gra. cap. 44. same faith saued them, saith S. Austen that saueth vs, euen the faith of Iesus Christ the me­diatour betwixt God and man, the faith of his bloud, the faith of his crosse, the faith of his death and resurrection. We beléeue therefore that their sacramentes, hauing all relation to Christes passion as ours haue, did yéeld no lesse benefite to them in Iesus Christ then ours doe to vs. Héere he referreth me againe to his learned trea­tises, wherewith hee is so besotted himselfe that hee taketh euerie word in them to be an oracle, albeit they be indéed as full of follies, triflings, and impudent falshoodes as his owne pamphlet is. I am well enough acquainted with them alreadie. But to call Sacra­mentes seales, I learne of S. Paule. Rom. 4. The name notably set­teth forth the vse of them. Seales serue for assurance of promises or couenantes to them to whom they are made. Such are sacra­ments to assure our faith of the promises of God. The deliuerie of seales giueth interest and right of the things sealed, to them to whom they are deliuered. The sacramentes of Iesus Christ doe giue as it were into our handes and possession through faith, the whole prerogatiue of the benefite of Christes death and passion, which is preached vnto vs in the word of the Gospell. Therefore doth Bernardus Ser. in caena domi. Bernard fitly compare our sacraments to a ring, by which a man is inuested and entered to the possession of his inheritance, and whereof he may say, The ring auaileth nothing, but it is the inheri­tance that I sought for. And euen so may we say that it is not the sa­crament for it selfe, but the things sealed and deliuered by the sa­crament that we desire.

R. Abbot. 21. 22.

IN these two sections the Answ. plaieth Hickescorners part, and by the way prooueth himselfe a mightie wise man. I sée that to be true in him which a worthie man said: Iren lib. 1. cap. 9. Audax & impudens res est anima quae inani aere calescit: A rude and an impudent thing is the mind of that man that is tickled with vaine presumption and fansie. Though he shew himselfe héere both an ignorant Blind-asinus, and [Page 152] a peruerse & wilfull wrangler, yet he taketh vpon him as if no man had either Logicke or wit, but onely he, and solaceth himselfe with his termes of vpstantiall argument, and good cheape logicke, and most wittie, pithie, and subtill peece of Logicke. By his naming of Luther in this place he putteth me in minde to answere him with a saying of Luther: Hoc scio pro certo quod si cum stercore certo, Vinco vel vincor semper ego maculor. But to the matter. The b Timothean August. de [...]e. ad [...] in [...]ine. heretickes, as S. Austen reporteth, affirmed that the godhead of Christ was really changed into the manhoode. This they would prooue by the wordes of the Gospell. The word was made flesh, which they expounded thus. The diuine nature is turned or transub­stantiated into the nature of man. In like sort the Answ. and some other cogging marchants of his part single out the wordes of Ter­tullian: Christ made the bread his body, and will needes haue vs to beleeue thereby that the bread is really turned and transubstantia­ted into the bodie of Christ. They both argue alike vpon the word made. For answere hereof I shewed how Tertullian expoundeth his owne meaning by these wordes, that is to say, a figure of his bodie. Further I said, that that phrase or maner of spéech Christ made the bread his bodie, doth not enforce any Transubstantiation. Which I shewed by comparing therewith the verie like spéech or phrase be­fore alleaged out of the Gospell, Ioh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh. For as it was absurdly gathered by the Timotheans, that because the word was made flesh, therefore it ceased to be the word; so as fondly is it gathered by the Papists of Tertullians words, that because the bread is made the bodie of Christ, therfore it ceaseth to be bread. The one enforceth not for the Timothean any transubstantiation of the word, therefore neither doth the other for the Papist, any transub­stantiation of the bread. The spéeches are like: The word was made flesh: the bread is made the bodie of Christ. Now hath he not sent me a worthy answere to this? The words of S. Iohn saith he, what proue they touching the Sacrament? What argument is this? The word was made flesh, the sense is, the word assumpted flesh vnto it. And it is not to be taken as the words do sound, therefore this text, This is my bodie, is not to be taken as the words import. A verie mightie vpstantiall argument. Nay a very pithie & sound answere, and worthie to be registred in Vaticano. I make a comparison be­twixt the words of S. Iohn, and the words of Tertullian; and he an­swereth [Page 153] me of a comparison betwixt the words of Iohn & the words of Christ. How many mile to London? A poke full of plummes. Yet as a childe plaieth with a counter in stéed of a péece of gold, so he de­lighteth himselfe in a rascall shift, as if he had made a verie substan­tiall answere. But sée yet further the extreame folly and ignorance of this man. It is saith he, as if you should reason thus: I am the vine is a figuratiue speech, therefore I am the light of the world, is a figu­ratiue spéech. And what? is it not by a figure that Christ is called the light of the world. Surely Christ is the light, in respect of the darknesse of the world. Séeing therefore darknesse is vnderstood fi­guratiuely in the world, a man would thinke that that which is cal­led light as opposite to this darknesse, should be so called by a figure. Light is properly a sensible qualitie, and darkenesse the p [...]tion therof: and both haue relation to the bodily eye. They are by a Me­taphore applied to the soule, and so is Christ called light: euen as he is elsewhere called▪ Mal 4. 2. The sunne of righteousnesse, not properly I trow, but by a figure, vnlesse the Answ. be of the Manichees minde, who as Theodoret saith, would sometimes say, that Theodo. hae­r [...]t. fa [...]ul. lib. [...]. Christ was the verie sunne. Now therefore séeing that Christ is no otherwise cal­led the light of the world, then he is called a vine, a yoong boy in the Vniuersitie will easily finde a Topicke place in Aristotle, to prooue that this argument holdeth very well, Christ is called a vine by a fi­gure, therefore he is also called the light of the world by a figure. Further he saith: But I pray you sir is this saying, The world was made flesh, like to This is my bodie? I answere him, Truly sir, no. But yet these are like, The word was made flesh, and the bread is made the bodie of Christ, & as transubstantiation of the word can­not be proued by the one, so transubstantiation of the bread cannot be proued by the other▪ Whereas he demandeth whether bread stil remaining, do assumpt vnto it Christes bodie into one person, his question is idle. I haue answered before, that the vnion of Christ with the Sacrament is not personall or reall as he vnderstandeth reall; but relatiue and sacramentall, as in Baptisme also it is. But as the word remaineth being personally vnited to the flesh, so the bread remaineth being sacramentally vnited vnto Christ. That which he saith of Luther is false. Luther did not teach that the bodie of Christ was ioyned into one person with the bread. But now I wish him to bethinke himselfe who it is that careth not what he say, [Page 154] so that he say somewhat.

Now for further declaration of the words of Tertullian, I allea­ged a saying of S. Austen: Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his bodie and blood; which also he hath made vs, and by his mercy we are the same that we receiue. Wheras the Answ. saith, that the first part of this sentence serueth very wel for him, it is but like the dotage of the melancholy Athenian. We say with S. Au­sten, that Christ hath commended vnto vs in this Sacrament his bodie and blood, yet not being on earth to be receiued by the mouth, but August. in Ioh. tr. [...]0. Sitting in heauen to be receiued by faith. But as Tertullian said; Christ made the bread his bodie, so here Austen saith: Christ hath made vs his bodie and blood. The maner of spéech is here also alike; and therefore I inferred hereof, that Tertullians words do no more proue y^• the bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ, then S. Austens do proue, that there is a transubstantiatiō of vs in­to the bodie of Christ. That which I excepted as touching those words; Yet wee are not transubstantiated into the bodie of Christ, the Answ. falsifieth and peruerteth thus; yet we are not transubstan­tiated into the Sacrament. This is the faithfulnesse that he vseth. But what answere maketh he? Forsooth it would aske a long dis­course to answere me: and therefore he hath thought good not to an­swere me at all. For as for that which he saith, it serueth directly for me. We are become one with Christ; saith he: let him speake as S. Austen speaketh; we are made the bodie of Christ, not by being transubstantiated into him, but by being ioyned vnto him. So say we, that the bread is made the bodie of Christ, not by being tran­substantiated into his bodie, but by hauing tied vnto it by the word of God the promise of that grace and blessing that is yéelded vnto vs by and in the bodie and blood of Iesus Christ. Or else let him shew what commission he and his fellowes haue to tell vs that the word Made, must import transubstantiation in the place of Tertullian, and in S. Austen must import none. If they haue no such, then let them giue vs leaue to say, that as we are made the bodie of Christ, not by chaunging our substance, but by being vnited and ioyned vn­to him: so the bread of the sacrament is made the bodie of Christ, not by the chaunging of the nature of it, as Theodoret saith, but Theodor. di [...]l 1. by adding grace vnto nature; not by changing y^e substance, but by alte­ring the condition and vse thereof: not by loosing his former being, [Page 155] but by hauing y^e bodie of Christ vnited vnto it, in such sort as I haue before declared, through the almightie power of the word of God, and the vnspeakable working of the holy Ghost. So that as S. Am­brose saith, Ambr [...] sacra. lib. 4 cap. 4. The bread and wine are the same that they were, & yet are chaunged to other also. They are the same in substance that they were before; but as touching the vse, the vertue, power, and effect thereof, they are chaunged into other. As for the meditation that is offered vnto vs by the words of S. Austen, it is too diuine & heauenly for the Answerers grosse and fleshly conceit, who can imagine no o­ther receiuing of Christ, but by the mouth, nor eating of his flesh, but into the belly. We become the mysticall bodie of Christ by Bap­tisme, as S. Paul teacheth, Eph. 5. 26. There we become flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone. There also as S. Austen noteth, August. ser. ad infan. [...]da▪ 1. Cor. 10. We are made partakers of the bodie and blood of Christ, so that though one die before he come to the Sacrament of the bread and the cup, yet is he not depriued of the participation and benefit of that Sacrament, seeing hee hath founde that alreadie which this Sacrament signifieth. Into this holie communion and fellowship with Christ, we grow more and more through faith in the exercise of the word and of the other sacrament, he abiding in vs and we in him, he ministring vn­to vs, and we receiuing of him through the holy Ghost, the suck and iuice of his heauenly grace, euen as branches from the Vine, wher­by as his members we are quickened to euerlasting life. Hereof Cyril and Hilary haue written indéed very diuinely, but they must haue readers that are as diuinely and spiritually minded, not such as the Answ. is, who turneth all to his owne carnall and Capernai­tish imagination. He should gather from these, that such as is our vniting and ioyning vnto Christ, such is our eating of his flesh and drinking his blood. Our vniting vnto Christ is mysticall and spiri­tuall, not carnall and bodily. Therfore such also must our eating and drinking be. As for that grosse and bodily eating, Cyrill maketh a straunge & absurd matter of it, when Cyril. aduer. Theodoret. anathe. [...]. he saith to Theodoret: Doest thou pronounce our Sacrament to be the eating of a man, and pro­phanely vrge the mindes of them that beleeue, to grosse imaginati­ons, and assaie to handle by humane conceits, those things which are to be receiued by only pure and sincere faith? By which wordes he plainly sheweth, that the opinion of the Papists of the eating and drinking with the mouth the verie humane flesh and blood of Christ [Page 158] is a grosse and prophane imagination, and therfore litle helpe may the Answ. hope for to his purpose, by any thing that Cyrill saith.

R. Abbot. 23.

FOr disproofe of that carnall eating and drinking, and conse­quentlie of Transsubstantiation, I alleaged Saint Austens ex­position of Christes wordes in the sixth Chapter of saint Iohn, concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood. Saint Austen writing in Psal. 98. falleth into treatie of the offence that many tooke at Christes words, and sheweth the reason therof, that they August in Psal. 98. tooke them foolishly, they vnderstood them carnally, and thought that he would cut them peeces of his flesh. But if they had not bene hard hearted, they would haue thought: It is not without some cause that he saith this. Surely there is some secret mysterie in it. His disciples he instructed, saith he, and said vnto them: It is the spi­rit that quickeneth, &c which he expoundeth thus: Vnderstand spi­ritually [Page 159] that which I haue said: Ye shall not eate this bodie which ye see, nor drinke that blood which they shall shead which shall crucifie me. I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament. Being spiritually vn­derstoode, it shall giue you life. This place doth plainly denie that eating and drinking of the very flesh and bloud of Christ, which the Capernaits dreamed of, and telleth vs that we do not eat Christes verie flesh; nor drinke his very bloud, namely with the mouth and body: but that for our eating and drinking wee haue a sacrament commended vnto vs, which being though visibly celebrated, yet spi­ritually vnderstood, doth make vs partakers of the flesh and bloud of Christ to euerlasting life. What answere maketh the man to this? Forsooth, saint Austen meaneth that wée cut not Christes flesh in gobbets, nor as it is to be bought in the shambles, nor we eate him not in a visible shape, &c. So then belike saint Austen meant, that we eate not Christes body péecemeale, but we swallow him whole: and so the difference betwixt the Capernaites and vs, must be only this, that they would eate him in péeces, and we eate him whole. And this onely difference doth the Answ. afterwardes make be­twixt1. Sect. [...] 9▪ the Capernites and them, that they eate him in a sacrament, whole, inuiolable, like the paschal lambe, without breaking or bru­sing him: whereas the Capernaites imagined that they should eat him in péeces, as flesh in the shambles. Which mad fancie of ea­ting Christ whole, Bellarmine goeth about to approoue by another fancie as mad as it. For Bel [...]arm. tom 2. con [...]. 3. lib. 3. cap. 22. being vrged that it is a horrible & vnna­turall thing, and therefore not standing with pietie to eate the ve­rie flesh of man, he answereth that the horrour heereof is onely in respect of the hurting and mangling of it. For otherwise a man would willingly eate, or as he more mildly termeth it, would re­ceiue into him his friend whom hee tenderly and dearely loueth, if he might take him in whole and without hurting him. Vndoubted­ly Bellarmine is a kind man to his friend, that can find in his heart to eate him if he might eate him whole, and without doing him a­ny harme. But to leaue him in his madnesse, we sée héere how faine the Answ. would shift himselfe from being a brother to the Caper­naites, and it will not be. The Gospell simply noteth the errour of the Capernaites to haue consisted in this, that they thought they should with their very mouthes eate and drinke the very flesh and bloud of Christ. The same is the grosse conceite of the Papistes: [Page 160] and the Gospell condemneth both alike. The fond distinction of the maner maketh no difference in that behalfe. As for saint Austen, he declareth his meaning plainly in his sermon to the people. Hée knoweth none of these maners and péeuish differences, but spea­king of eating and drinking with the mouth, he giueth them to vn­derstand that it is but the sacrament which they eate and drinke, not the flesh and bloud it selfe. Ye shall not eate the body, ye shall not drinke the bloud. I haue commended to you a Sacrament. In another place intreating of the verie same matter, hee noteth that Christ signified to his hearers, that hee would goe vp into heauen whole, that they might vnderstand that he spake not of that eating his very body. Aug. in Ioh. tra. 27. They thought that hee would giue them his very body, but he told them that he would go vp into heauen, euen whole. Thus that we may not thinke that either péecemeale or whole wée eate the very body, he giueth vs to vnderstand that he is ascended to heauen entire & whole. To which purpose Athanasius also saith: How Athan: serm. in illud Chri. Qui dixerit verbum con­tra filium. should it be that all the world should eate of his flesh which would suffice but a few men? But therefore our Lord, when he spake vnto his Apostles of the eating of his flesh, made mention of his as­cention vnto heauen, that hee might withdraw them from corporall and fleshly vnderstanding. And so the Answerer eating of Christ whole, is indéed but a fiction and absurd shift. Yet let him remem­ber what saint Austen saith againe in another place concerning the eating of Christ in the sacrament. Thus he saith: When Aug. ser. de ver. Euan. Beda. 1. cor. 10 we eat Christ, we make not peeces of him. Yet surely in the Sacrament we doe so, and the faithfull know how they eate the flesh of Christ. E­uerie one taketh his peece. When the grace is called peeces. Christ is eaten peecemeale, and yet continueth whole. Hee is eaten peece­meale in the Sacrament, and abideth entire and whole in heauen. Where he heareth saint Austen directly contrary to his assertion, saying that the flesh of Christ in the sacrament is eaten péecemeale, signifying that it is not indéed the reall and very flesh of Christ, and yéelding vs for proofe thereof this argument: That flesh of Christ which is eaten with the mouth in the sacrament, is eaten péece­meale. The true and reall flesh of Christ is not eaten péecemeale. Therefore that flesh of Christ which is eaten with the mouth in the sacrament is not the true and reall flesh of Christ, and consequently it is so onely sacramentally and in a mysterie. A sound answere to [Page 161] this argument without shifting would do very well. Whereas he saith againe, that they eate Christ in the sacrament without brea­king him, let him hearken what Chrysostome saith: This Chrysost. in 1. cor. 10. hom. 24. breaking we may see in the Eucharist, but not vppon the crosse, nay rather the contrarie there, for not a bone of him shall be broken, saith God. But that which he suffered not vpon the crosse, hee suffereth in the Sacri­fice, and permitteth himselfe to be broken for thee. Beholde how Chrysostome saith that Christ who was not broken vpō the crosse, is broken in the sacrament, and suffereth that nowe, which hee did not suffer then to be done: whereof we may gather thus, that séeing the sacrament is broken, and the true and reall bodie of Christ can­not be broken, therefore the sacrament is not the true and reall bo­dy of Christ, but myst [...]cally & sacramentally, and so in the breaking of the sacrament, the body is mystically and sacramentally broken. Whereas saint Austen saith that we must spiritually vnderstand that which Christ saith of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud: the Answ. telleth me that spiritually must be referred to the maner of the flesh, because we eate it not like fleshe, or cut in péeces, or as we eate common meates. But if wee follow this construction of h [...]s, it cannot be auoyded, but that the wicked and vngodly also do spi­ritually eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud. If spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ consist in this that we eat him [...]ot [...] flesh, hewed or chopt in péeces, the wicked by th [...] doctrine of the Church of Roome doe eate him so as well as the godly, because they are in that respect alike partakers of the sa­crament. But S. Austen teacheth expresly out of the Ioh. 6. 5 [...] wordes of Christ, that August. in Ioh. tract. 26. they onely which abide in Christ, and Christ in them, do spiritually eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud. There­fore the Answ. exposition as it is a lewd and a cursed glose: so it is expresly contrarie to the doctrine of saint Austen. Such answeres become him very well. But what is meant by vnderstanding spi­ritually, I shewed by the words of Origen, which he deceitfully pas­seth by, and leaueth them without answere. There Orig. in Le­uit. hom. [...]. is, saith he, in the new testament a letter, which killeth him that doth not listen to it spiritually. For if thou follow according to the letter that which is written, Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, that letter killeth. Where he teacheth vs that to vnderstand spiritually, is to vnderstand, not according to the letter, not as the [Page 162] wordes sound, not simply as things are vttered, as k Chrysostome Chrysost in [...] 46. speaketh, but to gather another meaning imported by the wordes. For example he alleageth, that those wordes of eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his bloud, must not be vnderstood according to the letter, and as the wordes import, but another spirituall con­struction must be made of them. Which S. Austen verie effectually and to the purpose sheweth in the next place that followeth now to be handled.

R. Abbot. 24.

HEere S. Austens drist is to shewe what spéeches of the holy scripture are to be vnderstood properly, and what figura­tiuely, and to another meaning then the wordes sound. Of the latter sort, he setteth downe this rule: Aug [...] 6 If it be a speech that seemeth to command any haynous or wicked thing, or to forbid the doing of good, it is a figuratiue speech. Whereof he had giuen this rule before: [...]. We must take heede that we take not a figuratiue speech according to the letter. For to this belongeth that of the Apo­stle: The letter killeth: for when a man taketh a thing spoken by fi­gure, as if it were properly spoken, hee doth carnally vnderstand it. Héereof he giueth for example those wordes; Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, &c. Of this he saith: It see­meth to commaund a hainous and wicked thing. Therefore it is a figure, that is to say, a figuratiue spéech, and therefore must not bee vnderstood as the wordes doe import. The meaning of this figure, he declareth, It willeth vs to cōmunicate with the passion of Christ, and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in our memorie that his fleshe was crucified and wounded for vs. Then by S. Austens iudgement, the meaning of this figuratiue spéech of eating and drinking y^e flesh and bloud of Christ is, to apply vnto our selues the benefite of his passion, and comfortably to record that his flesh was wounded, and his bloud shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes. Whereby it is euident that he neuer dreamed of that monstrous and lothsome ea­ting and drinking, which the church of Roome teacheth, flesh, bloud, and bone as he was born of the virgin Mary, as some of them Can­niball, and Capernait-like haue vttered. This place the Answ saith is our great Achilles, much magnified of our side. The grea­ter this Achilles is, the more strongly it behooued him to haue fought against it. But he saith nothing to it, but that that is ridi­culous and childish. First he commeth in with a bald and imperti­nent question; Did S Austen bring in this spéech vppon the place, This is my body? He did not so, and what then? Surely this is but to talke idlely, and not to care what he saith, so be say some what. He bringeth it in for that purpose for which I alleaged it, to expoūd the words of Christ in the sixth of Iohn, of eating and drinking the flesh [Page 164] and bloud of Christ, and telleth vs that it is a figuratiue spéech, and therefore must not be vnderstoode according to the proper significa­tion of eating and drinking. What saith this good man to it? For­sooth the Capernaites when they heard Christ speake of this mat­ter, might imagine, as indéed they did, saith he, that they should eat it in gobbets, cut, slashed and hewed, &c. Therfore they must néeds by S. Austens rule flee to a milder sense, and to a more humane mea­ning. Then belike S. Austen taught the Capernaites howe they should haue vnderstoode the wordes of Christ, but hee teacheth not vs. For we are farre from imagining the eating of Christes fleshe in gobbets, slashed, hewed, chopt in péeces, as the Answ. speaketh with his butcherly and barbarous termes. Alas children sée the folly of these answeres. S. Austen in that place giueth vs a rule of vnderstanding the scriptures. He giueth this place for an example of his rule. He teacheth vs that to eat and drink the flesh and bloud of Christ importeth a horrible and hainous thing, if we vnderstand eating and drinking properly. He talketh not of slashing or hew­ing, but of eating and drinking, and therefore telleth vs that wée must vnderstand eating and drinking not properly, but by a figure. He telleth vs what the meaning of it is, as I haue shewed before. Not a word to intimate any such Popish construction: nay he con­demneth it as a hainous and wicked imagination. The matter is cléere. Euery eye may discerne it. 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 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 thē in so saying. His Disciples were no Capernaites, they were no Papistes. They knew that Christ instituted & deliuered a sacrament. They knew that sacramēts are called by the names of those things which they signifie, whereof they had example in the name of the passeouer, [Page 165] 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.

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 De corp. & san. do. Bertram, De sacr. Euch. Lanfrancus, and De conse. dist. 2. ca. [...]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 [Page 166] 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 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 Index Ex­pu [...]n co [...]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 [Page 167] 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: [...]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 declaration of S. Austens meaning that we eate the flesh of Christ in a figure, not in a figure of Rhetoricke or Grammer, but in a di­uine figure, he may haue that iustly returned to him which S. Au­sten said of a forefather of his: Aug. cont. aduer. leg. & proph. lib. 2. cap. 9. Imperita peritia de figurarum quali­tate tractat: He would seeme skilfull, but talketh verie vnskilfully of the qualitie of Figures. For if he were required a meaning of this his diuine figure, no doubt it would prooue to be a verie disfigured and mishapen thing. He had a fancie in his head, wherein hee thought he had gone beyond al his fellowes, & he was glad y^• he had gotten occasion héere to vtter it. But the Figure of which S. Austen speaketh is figurata locutio, a figuratiue speech, a Rhetoricke figure called a metaphore, which is not to be vnderstood August. de doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 5. & 16. proprie or ad lite­ram, properly, of according to the letter, and as the wordes do bare­ly signifie, as before hath béene said, because by the said figure the word is translated from his own proper signification, to expresse an­other thing, which in some respect is fitly and conueniently resem­bled thereby. As for example because by beléeuing we do as it were lay hold vpon Christ, apply him vnto our selues, make him ours, assure our selues of his body crucified; and his bloud shed for the for­giuenesse of our sinnes to the reliefe & comfort of our distressed and afflicted soules, euen as in eating we take meate and receiue it in­to our stomacks and incorporate it into our selues, to the cherishing and strengthning of our weake and féeble bodies; therefore the word of eating which properly belongeth to the body, is vsed to ex­presse [Page 168] the effect of beléeuing in Christ which appertaineth onely to the soule. And thus doth S. Austen meane that there is a figure in these wordes of eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ, as appeareth both in the place aboue mentioned as touching this fi­gure, and by his exposition of the same words vpon the sixth of Iohn.

R. Abbot. 26.

OF the words of Christ, This is my bodie which shalbe giuen, This is my bloud which shalbe shed. The Answerer confes­seth that that additiē, which shalbe giuen, which shalbe shed, is not an argument strong enough against a repining ad­uersarie, but yet able to allure an obedient childe of the Church. It is vsed in corners indéede to seduce and be guile the ignorant; but a­las simple soules that suffer themselues to be deceiued with those argumentes, which their seducers confesse to be no substantiall proofes. I hold you one of those simple ones, M. Spence, who allea­ged it to me for a verie good reason. If Campion tooke it not to be so, then was it great want of discretion in him Camp. Rat. 2 to alleage it as an argument to vniuersitie men, who hee might know would soone take notice of his folly in that be halfe. And héere I may not omit [Page 169] to note the peruerse dealing of the Answ. godly men forsooth in this matter, who when they are in hand with Transubstantiation will prooue it by the words of Christ thus, that he said: this is my bodie which shalbe giuen, This is my bloud which shalbe shedde, as the vulgar Latin readeth. Lo, say they, Christ nameth the verie bodie and bloud that was after to be giuen and shed vpon the crosse; ther­fore the sacrament is the verie body of Christ. Thus M. Spence and his godly fellowes reason. But when they are in hand with sacrifice, they wil haue it thus: My body which Hard. Answ. art. 17. Di. 4. Rhem. Annot. Luc. 22. 19. is giuen; my bloud which is shed, in the present tense according to the gréeke, and wil prooue héereby that Christ did euen at that present offer a sacrifice of his body and bloud, that he gaue his body and shed his bloud, be­cause he saith not, shalbe giuen, but is giuen, nor shalbe shed, but is shed. Thus they tosse the words of Christ as it were a tennise ball from one wall to another, and suffer them not to rest in anie cer­taine meaning, but turne them and winde them as their fickle and vnstable fancies giue them occasion. The meaning of the wordes is one and certaine, that the sacrament is a figure and signe of the body and bloud of Christ giuen and shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes. His infinite other reasons and authorities of the Fathers which he baunteth hee could alleage, are all of the same stampe as these are. They are but wordes of course that he vseth to that pur­pose, seruing to fright his obedient children: but the children of God haue good experience, that it is but foolish and idle talke.

R. Abbot. 27.

HE confesseth those excellent and heauenly effects of the Sa­crament which I set downe, sauing that I follow Caluins metaphysical imagination, as he termeth it, that we receiue the same effects in the sacrament by faith. Caluins iudge­ment in that point is indéed more metaphysicall then that a méere naturall should vnderstand it. Hée knew well enough that Chri­stians come not to their sacraments as swine to a trough, as if they were to receiue the graces of God with their bodily mouthes, and therefore that it must be the hand of the soule, Augu. in Ioh. tra. 50. which is faith that must receiue the same, both in the word and in the sacrament: He found by comparing the spéeches of Ioh. 6. 47. 54 Christ in the sixth of Iohn, that by beléeuing in Christ wee eate and drinke the flesh and bloud of Christ, and consequently receiue all the vertues and graces that a­rise from thence to vs. He found that S. Austen did so expound it: To August. in Ioh. tra. 26. beleeue in Christ, saith he, that is to eate the bread of life. He that beleeueth in him eateth him. He knew that the fathers of the old testament receiued the same graces that we doe, and that they receiued them by faith, and that we haue cor. 4. 13. the same spirite of faith as they had, and therefore by faith are made partakers of the same graces as they were. He knew that God had appointed both the [Page 171] word and Sacramentes to be meanes both to beginne and also to continue, vphold, & increase our faith, that by this faith in the exer­cise of the same word & sacraments we might more & more grow in­to societie and vnity with Christ vntil we attaine to the fulnesse of our perfection. Now whereas the Answ. obiecteth that if our ea­ting and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ be onely by faith, then we may eate and drinke the same at any time without any sa­crament, I would haue him know that we take not the same eating and drinking to be any momentany action, but the continuall ex­ercise of a liuely faith. For although the minde perhaps by reason of the present occasion be most effectually bestowed to this exercise, either in the vse of the word, or especially of the sacrament, and of the sacrament so much the more by how much visible and apparant signes and tokens are more forcible to moue vs then onely words, yet we know that neither the word nor the sacraments haue onely a present effect, but serue to settle and continue Christ in our con­sciences in such sort that he may be a continual meat for our soules to féede vpon: that by the assured beliefe of his body giuen, and his bloud shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes, our heartes may be chéered continually, and comforted against al the occasions of doubt and distrustfulnesse: which from day to day, and from houre to houre arise to disquiet our mindes. And as Abraham our father though he had faithfully embraced the promise of God, and the couenant, of his grace, yet néeded the sacrament of circumcision for a seale of the same couenant, thereby to be vpholden in the continuall assu­rance thereof; so we though we haue once by the word of the Gos­pel and participation of his sacraments, receiued Christ to be the food and sustenance of our soules, yet that we loose not Christ again, and the comfort of his grace, our fayth néedeth to be continually ex­ercised and strengthened by the offering and yéelding of Christ vn­to vs in his word and sacraments, which else through the want of these meanes would faile, decay and dye in vs, euen as we sée the body to perish for want of his dayly foode. Which I note for the a­uoiding of that cauil which perhaps the Answ. would mooue against that that hath béen said: that if we may eate the flesh and bloud of Christ without any sacrament, then we need not any sacrament for the doing thereof. For although we do by fayth eate and drinke the same when there is no sacrament: yet it followeth not thereof that [Page 172] the sacrament is néedlesse, because the Sacrament is one of those speciall and most effectuall meanes whereby God offereth and gi­ueth Christ vnto vs, with all his benefites to be ours, that our faith may lay hold vpon him and receiue him to make him the continuall food and sustenance of our soules. And if the aforesaid eating and drinking import not such an action as may be at al times and with­out the sacrament, what shall we say of those that are hindered from euer being partakers of the Sacrament, as the théefe that was cru­cified with Christ, but that they are consequently secluded from euelasting life. For Christ sayth: Ioh. 6. 53. Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud, ye shall not haue euerlasting life. If then the eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ can­not be without the sacrament, it followeth that he which receiueth not the sacrament faileth of eternall life. But to say so, is erronious and damnable doctrine. Therefore the eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ, signifieth such a thing as may be done at all times and without the sacrament.

But now that the Answ. hath so reiected that maner of receiuing the grace of Christ in the sacrament which Caluin taught, let vs sée how he will haue the same to be receiued. He saith we haue it by our spirituall receiuing of Christ in faith, hope, and charitie. But this hangeth not well togither with that which he saith afterward of the sacraments, yéelding their effect by the very worke wrought, and therefore without any of these. Let that be reserued to his due place. But héere we haue him confessing that fayth is one means of the receiuing of Gods grace in the sacrament. Marry yet hée ex­cepteth that it must be ioyned with the entrance of Christes body into our bodies, and so by that diuine touching thereof, wee are so vnited vnto him, as man and woman by the coniunction of their bodies become one body and one flesh. What a grosse and swinish imagination is this, that by corporall entrance of Christes bodie into ours, we must be made one with Christ, as man and woman by corporall coniunction become one fleshe? Saint Paul teacheth vs to loth this fancie, when hee sayth: 1. cor. 6. 16. 17. Knowe ye not that hee which coupleth himselfe with an harlot, is one bodie. For two, sayth hee, shall be one flesh. But he that is ioyned vnto the Lord, is one spirite. Where by an opposition of the bodie and the spirite, of the corporall ioyning of man and woman, and the spirituall vni­ting [Page 173] of Christ and vs, hée giueth plainly to vnderstand that the coniunction betwixt Christ and vs, is not wrought by any bodily commixtion of substances as is the coniunction of man and woman, but by the spirituall apprehension of the beléeuing soule, receiuing through the holie Ghost the fruite and effect of the bodie of Christ being in heauen. And this S. Cyprian notably declareth when he saith: g The coniunction betwixt Christ & vs neither mingleth our Cypri. de cae­na domini. persons, nor vniteth our substances, but coupleth our affections and conioyneth our willes, and so the Church being made Christes bodie doth obey the head, and the higher light being shed vpon the lower, & reaching with the fulnesse of his brightnesse from end to end, doth abide whole with it selfe, and yeeldeth it selfe whole to all, & the one­nesse of that warmth doth so assist the bodie, that it departeth not from the head. By which words he sheweth, that our coniunction with Christ is altogither spirituall, and that we are made the bodie of Christ not by any corporall or bodily touching or bringing our substances togither, but by the spirituall working of his effectuall power, set foorth by a comparison of the sunne, working in these in­feriour bodies, and yet abiding in heauen, as before also I declared. And as concerning the touching of Christ, S. Ambrose saith: Ambros. in Luc. 24 lib. 10. We touch not Christ by bodily handling, but by faith, &c. Therefore, saith he, Neither on the earth, neither in the earth, nor after the flesh, ought we to seeke thee, O Christ, if we will finde thee. To the same effect, also S. Austen speaketh by occasion of Christs words to Mary Magdalin: Ioh. 20 17. Touch me not: for I am not yet ascended to my father. August. in Ioh. tract. 26. & epist. 59. Shee might not touch him standing on the earth, saith he, and how should she touch him being ascended to the father? Yet thus, euen thus he will be touched. Thus is he touched of them of whom he is well touched, being ascended to the father, abiding with the father, equall to the father. And this touching he there expoundeth, belee­uing as Ambrose doth. Our touching of Christ then is our belée­uing in him, not being here in the earth, or on the earth, but being ascended to the father and abiding with the father. And as the sicke woman in the Gospell though with her hand touching but Mat. 9. 20. 22. only the hemme of Christs garment, yet whilest Aug. ibid. vt supra. by faith she touched Christ himselfe, receiued vertue from him to make her whole: So we although with our bodily hands we touch but onely the Sacra­ment which is but as it were the hemme of his garment, yet whilst [Page 178] by faith we touch himselfe, sitting at the right hand of God in hea­uen, we receiue of him vertue and grace to euerlasting life. Which vertues and effects séeing we receiue in Baptisme also, as hath bene before shewed, it is manifest, that it is not by any such corporal tou­ching as the Answ. most absurdly hath expressed. Here he cauilleth further concerning saint Paules words: We are all partakers of one bread, and one cup. By bread, he saith, must néedes be vnderstood the bodie of Christ, for if we vnderstand it of bread indéed, all are not partakers of one bread, but many breads. But his vnderstanding deceiueth him. The Sacrament, as he confesseth, is a Sacrament of vnitie. Christ would commend vnto vs this vnitie Aust. in Ioh. tra. 26. Cypr. li. 1. epist. 6. by being par­takers of those things, which of many are made one, as bread of ma­ny graines, & wine of many grapes. To this the name of one bread hath relation, admonishing vs being many, to become one. But I hope the bodie of Christ shall not be said to be made of many cornes or grapes. This bread therefore is not the very body of Christ. But we are all partakers of one bread, because the bread of the Sacra­ment though in substance of loaues it be many breads, yet in vse and mysterie or signification is all one. And so though the cup be diuerse according to the diuersitie of places, yet in the same maner we are also said to be partakers of one cup.

R. Abbot. 28.

THe praier of the auncient Church which I mentioned before, Sect. 25. beside the exposition of Lanfrancus there set downe, is reported by Gratian to haue bene otherwise expounded by some o­ther. The Church praied at the receiuing of the Sacrament, y^• they might De cons [...]. dist 2. cap. species. receiue the truth of the flesh & blood of Christ. Some saith Gratian, not without probabilitie, expound the truth of the flesh & blood of Christ in this place, to be the effect thereof, that is, the for­giuenesse of sins. Whereby it is euident, that those some did vnder­stand the receiuing of the truth of Christs flesh and blood to be, not that corporal eating and drinking which the church of Rome main­teineth, but the participation of the effects of his passion, that is, for­giuenesse of sinnes, according to that which was before declared out of S. Austen. Now to note that in receiuing the effect and fruite of the flesh and blood of Christ, we are said to be partakers of the same flesh and blood, I alleaged this exposition in my former Treatise, which doth plainly testifie the same. But the Ans. as a melancholy man, imagining himselfe to be made of glasse, and fearing euerie wall, least he should be crackt in péeces, thinketh his reall presence to be here disputed against, and telleth me that I do fowly abuse Gratian, in making him an aduersary of Transubstantiation & reall presence, and moreouer that those words do not serue for exposition of the words of Christ. What Gratian thought, I stand not vpon: it may be he was as absurd in his conceits as the Answe. is. I speake of them whose expositiō he alleageth, who as touching their church praier, tell vs that a man in receiuing the effects of Christs flesh and blood, is said to receiue the truth of his flesh and blood, and this is all for which I alleaged it. Albeit it séemeth to me indéed now a strong proofe against reall presence. For if they had thought that they had receiued the very truth of the flesh and blood of Christ, according to the substance in the sacrament, they would haue vsed other words [Page 180] to e [...]presse the effects thereof, and not pray againe to receiue the truth, that is, the effects. But it skilleth not whether it be a proofe to this purpose or not. There be belle [...] inough to ring against Tran­substantiation and reall presence, though the clapper of this should be pulled out. It is fit inough to shew that for which I brought it, and therefore all this answere of his is but a fond cauill.

R. Abbot. 29.

I Charge them with the grosse errour of the Capernaits in their doctrine of eating Christs bodie and blood. But he answereth me that I roaue wide from the marke in calling them Capernaits. And why I pray? Marry sir, the Capernaits thought they should eate Christes bodie by péeces, but they say they eate him whole. Surely but that the iudgement of God is great vpon them, it were wonder that such vnha [...]so [...] imaginations should prenaile with rea­sonable [Page 181] men. I haue spoken hereof Sect. 23. before. As for his sequences & verses, they may haue their cōuenient vnderstanding without that absurd cōstruction of eating & drinking which he maketh. I told him of monstrous, blasphemous, & horrible conceits that some captaines of his part haue r [...]nne into by defence of that eating. He answereth me very pleasantly, that he vnderstandeth not those conceits, but re­ferreth those conceites to mine owne conceit. But M. Spence you could haue tolde him what they were, because you had bene before vrged therewith, but could not stumble out any answere to them. Let me tell him what they are. I referre him first to the glose of the Canon law, where he shall finde this conceit, that De conse, dist. 2. cap. Qui benè. It is no great in­conuenience to say, that a Mouse receiueth the bodie of Christ, see­ing that most wicked men do also receiue it. The maister of the sen­tences knoweth not what to conceiue hereof Lib. 4. dist. 13▪ What doth the mouse take, or what doth he eate? God knoweth, saith he. As for him, he cannot tell. Yet he holdeth that Ibid. It may be foundly said, that the bo­die of Christ is not eaten of bruite beasts. But he is noted for that in the margine▪ Here the Maister is not holden, and the In erroribus condemn. Pa­ris. Parisians set it downe for one of his errours not commonly receiued: that he saith, that the bruit croature doth not receiue the very body of Christ. Let him looke the conceit of Pat. 4. qu. 45. Alexander de Hales. If a dog or a swine should swallow the whole consecrated host, I see no reason why the bodie of Christ should not withall passe into the belly of the dog or swine▪ He commendeth Thomas Aquinas by the name of a Papist, and his catholicke church, hath set him in his place, next the Cano­nicall scriptures. Let him looke the conceits of this Papist: Thom. Aqui. sum. par. 3. qu. 79. art. 3. in res. ad. 3. Albe­it, saith he, A mouse or a dog do eate the consecrated host, yet the sub­stance of the bodie of Christ ceaseth not to be vnder the forme, (of the brea [...]) so long as the same form doth remain, &c. A [...] also if it shuld be cast into the mire. And again; some haue said that straitwaies assoone as the Sacramēt is touched of the mouse or dog, there ceaseth to be the bodie of Christ: but this, saith he, derogateth from the truth of the Sacrament. And againe: Ibi. in corp. arti. The bodie of Christ doth so long conti­ [...]e vnder the sacrament all formes receiued by sinfull men, as the sub­stance of bread would remaine if it were there: which ceaseth not to be by and by, but remaineth vntill it be digested by naturall heate. These are those horrible and blasphemous [...]onceits which the An­sw. could not con [...]eiue out of my former words. These are y^• fruits of [Page 182] their Transubstantiation and reall presence, that the verie bodie of Christ is receiued into the bellies of d [...]gs and swine and mice, that it may be in the dirt & in the bellies of vngodly men, vntil the forms [...]e consumed and digested, beside other filthy matters, Antonin. summ. p. 3. tit. 13. cap. 6. q. 3. de defectib. Missae. of vomiting vp the bodie of Christ, and eating it again being vomited, and draw­ing it out of the entrals of the mouse or other beast that hath eaten it, &c. which are most leathsome to any Christian eares to heare of, [...] yet very venturously disputed of and resolued vpon by Antoni­n [...]s, no meaner a man then Archbishop of Florence, and as I thinke Saincted by the Pope for his great paines. Neuer any Capernaite more grosse, neuer Manichée more blasphemous, then these villai­nous imaginations which these cai [...]ifes haue published to y^e world, and their reall presence standing, they cannot resolue how to shift of these things, but stagger as Harding did with, it may be this, and it may be that, and it may be they know not what. Therefore let the Ansvv. now thinke with himselfe, with what reason he bid me be­ware of bearing false witnesse against my neighbour. Let him re­member that théeues and malefactours do vsually call true euidence false witnesse, but yet their honestie and truth is no whit the more. S. Hierom saith, that Hierony. in Esa. 66. li. 18. they vvhich are louers of pleasures more then louers of God, and are not holy both in bodie and spirite, do neither eate the flesh of Christ nor drinke his blood, whereof he himself spea­keth in the sixth of Iohn, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternall life. Where out of the words of Christ himselfe, he secludeth not only bruit beasts, but also vngodly and vnholy men from eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ. Yet it may so be that not only vnholy & prophane men, but also bruite beasts may eate of the Romish host or Sacrament. Therefore the Romish Sa­crament is not the very flesh and blood of Christ, as the Romish fac­tion would beare vs in hand that it is.

R. Abbot. 30.

THere is vrged for the proofe of Transubstantiation the con­sent of the Euangelistes, and S. Paul saying all alike, This is my bodie; whereas if they meant not to be vnderstood li­terally, the one would haue expounded the other. But the conformitie of these thrée Euangelistes, and S. Paul is no stronger an argument, as I haue tolde him, to prooue Transubstantiation, then the continuall calling of the old sacrifices of Moses law by the name of expiations and attonementes, was to prooue that they were verily and indéed expiations and attonementes for sinne, which yet were but types and figures thereof, as the Sacrament is a figure and signe of the bodie and bloud of Christ. The exception of the Answ. that that was spoken but by one Moses, & this by thrée Euan­gelistes and one Apostle is vaine. The holie Ghost spake in both places by whomsoeuer, and if the Answ. argument be good, must néedes haue altered that spéech in Moses lawe. But that the good­nesse of it is distrusted by his owne fellowes also: it followeth after to be shewed. That which he addeth in this place of the working force in both sacraments, the old and the new, is impertinent. I spake not of the working force of either, but of the like phrase of spéech concerning both. But yet whereas he saith that the Sacra­ments of the new testament haue force by the very work wrought, I must tel him that he speaketh without scripture, without father, a thing absurd in itselfe, and contrary also to that which he hath said before. If wee obtaine the effects of the Sacrament by receiuing Christ in fayth, hope and charity togither with the entrance of his body into ours, as he sayd before, then the sacrament giueth not that grace by the very worke wrought, as he sayth héere. If it giue grace [Page 184] by the very worke wrought, as he saith héere, then it is not to be a­scribed to fayth, hope and charity as he sayth there. The councell of Trent hath tolde vs that a man Concil. Tri­dēt. sess. 6. ca. 9 may not assure himselfe that hée hath receiued the grace of God. But if the sacraments yéeld gra [...] by the very worke wrought, a man may assure himselfe that he hath receiued grace, because he may assure himselfe that he is baptised. And what reason is there why infants, naturals and franticke per­sons should be excluded from receiuing the Lords supper, if the Sa­crament haue his force of the verie worke done. But S. Austen plainly refuteth this conceit as touching our sacraments: August in Ioh. tra. 80. Whence hath the water such force, saith he, to touch the bodie, and clense the heart: but that the word worketh it, and that not because it is spo­ken, but because it is beleeued. Therefore hee calleth it according to the Apostle, Rom. 10. 8. 9 The word of faith, because if thou confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and beleeue in thine heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saued. To this purpose he alleageth that God is said Act. 15. 9. to clense the heart by faith▪ and that of S. Peter, that 1. Pet. 3. 21. baptisme saueth vs, not the washing away the filth of the flesh, (that is, not for the very worke wrought) but the answere of a good conscience towardes God. To this effect Tertullian saith: Tertul de resurrect car­nis. The soule is sanctified, not by the washing of water, but by the answere of faith. And S. Austen againe: August. quae vet. & noui. test. q. 59. He cannot attaine the heauenly gift which thinketh himselfe to be chaunged by the water, and not by faith. Héereby it is plaine that Baptisme hath his force not of the verie worke done, but of true and vnfayned faith working in the heart good conscience towards God. So as touching the other Sa­crament, S. Austen referreth the vertue and effect thereof August. in Ioh. tr. 26. & de ciuit. dei. li. 21. cap. 25. to our eating inwardly and in the heart, and this eating inwardly hée expoundeth to be our beleeuing in Christ, and resolueth that hée that by this beleeuing in Christ, abideth not in Christ, and Christ in him, he doth not spiritually eate and drinke the flesh and bloud of Christ, though he receiue the sacrament thereof. Therefore neither doth this Sacrament auaile by the worke wrough [...], but onely by faith whereby we abide in Christ, and Christ in vs. A miserable doctrine it is whereby men are borne in hand that comming with­out faith, voyd of knowledge, without repentance or any good mo­tion, yet they may receiue the effect of the sacraments whereas the Scripture so plainly affirmeth that Rom 14. 23. whatsoeuer is not of faith, is [Page 185] sinne, and that Heb. 11. 6. without faith it is vnpossible to please God; and therfore precisely chargeth euery man before he come to the Lords table 1. cor. 11. 28. to examine himselfe 2 Cor. 13. 5. in that behalf. But for disproofe of this assertion, it is reason enough that there can be no reason nor proba­ble shew of reason giuen whereby to prooue it. Of the difference of the Iewes sacraments and ours, I haue spoken before. We abase neither, but lift both verie high. The consent of the Euangelists auaileth with me to make me yéeld to that which can be soundly prooued thereby, not to euerie thing that froward and peruerse men will péeuishly fancie thereof.

R. Abbot. 31.

FOr further answere as touching the conformitie vsed in these wordes, This is my body, I shewed how S. Luke, and S. Paul varie from S. Mathew and S. Marke, as touching the other part of the sacrament. For whereas these say: this is my bloud of the new testament, &c. The other say, This cup is the new testa­ment in my bloud. &c. And these latter wordes I shewed to [...]e the ouerthrow of transubstantiation. But the Answ. in good sooth tel­leth me that he cannot sée to what purpose this is alleaged. I pray you therefore, M. Spence, put him in minde of his headlesse reason which he hath vsed before. Christ, saith he, will call nothing by a wrong name. If he should call fire, water, earth by the names of ayre, stones or bread, they would sooner become ayre, stones & bread, then he would misname any thing. He did not lie to his Disciples: he did not [...]eguile them. Therefore when he said: This cup is the new Testament, without doubt the cup was substantially turned in­to a Testament. Nay not so, saith he: there is a figure here. Yea? and may a thing be called by a wrong name by a figure? & is there now a figure in these words? Why then is the man so straight la­ced that he cannot yéeld a figure in the other words, especially séeing the auncient Fathers so expresly expounde them by way of figure, [Page 187] and neither he nor his, can make any certaine exposition of them but by a figure. But it followeth not, he saith, that because there is a figure in the one spéech, therfore there is so also in y^• other. Yet, say I, if it follow not that because Christ taking the cup said thereof, This cup is the new Testament, therefore the cup was turned into the testament, then it followeth not, that because Christ taking y^• bread said thereof: This is my bodie, therefore the bread was turned into his bodie. And this is so good Logicke that diuerse great maisters of his side haue plainly confessed that the wordes of the Gospell not­withstanding the aforesaid consent do not enforce Transubstantia­tion, as I told him before, and he answereth nothing to it. Yea Bel­larmine himselfe who hath taken vpon him to be the Atlas of Pope­ry at this time, after that he hath sweat and trauailed to proue it by the scripture, when he hath all done, is content to confesse so much. For being vrged that Scotus and Cameracensis do say, that there is no so expresse place of scripture, that it can enforce to admit of Tran­substantiation, he answereth: Bellar. tom. 2. contr. 3. li 3. cap. 23. This indeed is not altogither vnlike­ly. For although the scripture, which I haue alleaged before, seeme to vs so cleare that it is able to force a man that is not ouerthwart, yet whether it be so or not, it may worthily bee doubted; for that most learned & sharpe witted men, such as Scotus especially was, do thinke the contrary. It is sufficient for our discharge, that the Iesuit confes­seth that it may iustly be doubted whether Transubstantiation may be proued by the scripture or not, and that it is likely that indeed it cannot. The matter then is come to this passe, that Transubstan­tiation must be beléeued because of the authoritie of the Church of Rome, but otherwise that it cannot be prooued by the authoritie of the scripture. But we dare not trust the Church of Rome so farre as to receiue any doctrine of her without the warrant of the scripture. For we are of Chrysostomes minde: Chrisost. in Psal 95. If any thing saith he, be spo­ken without scripture, the minde of the hearer halteth or hangeth in suspense. But when there commeth out of the scripture the testimo­ny of the voyce of God, it confirmeth both the minde of the hea­rer and the words of the speaker. They must prooue it vnto vs by the scripture, or else wee cannot bee assured of it. But they cannot agrée how to expounde the wordes of scripture for it, and the scripture it selfe is manifestly against it. Christ saith: This is my bodie. The word This, doth demonstrate and point to some­what. [Page 188] And what may that be? One of them saith one thing, and ano­ther saith another thing, & in fine, they cannot tell. So that we must suppose that Christ said, This I know not what is my bodie. Bellar­mine commeth after all the rest to resolue the matter, and he telleth vs that we must vnderstand it thus: Bellar. tom 2 cont 3 lib. 1. ca. 10. 11. This that is conteined vnder the formes is my bodie. But the question is the same againe, what is that conteined vnder the formes? To say it is the bodie before all the words of consecration be spoken, they themselues will not al­low. But except the bodie, it can be nothing else but bread. It is bread therefore to which the word This is referred, & perforce must the words be thus taken, This bread is my body: which again must néeds haue this meaning, This bread is the signe and Sacrament of my bodie, and consequently ouerthrow Transubstantiation. More­ouer what Christ brake & bid his Disciples take and eate, that they did take and eate. It was bread which he brake and bid them take and eate: for the words of consecration were not yet spoken. Ther­fore it was bread which they did take and eate. But that which they did eate, Christ called his bodie. Therefore Christ called bread his bodie, and meant, This bread is my bodie. So likewise as touching the other part of the Sacrament, we say, that what Christ willed them to drinke, that they did drinke. But Christ willed them to drinke wine, saying, Drinke ye all of this, and this was wine, because there was yet no consecration. Therfore they did drinke wine. That which they did drinke, Christ called his blood. The words therefore of Christ must be thus meant, This wine is my blood. And so he ex­poundeth himselfe immediatly, when he calleth it: This frute of the vine, shewing hereby to what we must referre the word This, when he saith, This is my blood, namely to the frute of the vine, that is to say, wine. To auoyd these things thus plainly gathered from the circumstances of the text, many blind shifts haue bene deuised; but one especially most worthy to be noted Tho. Aquin. pag. 3. q. 78. art. 1. that the Euangelists doe not report these matters of the institution of the Sacrament in that order as they were spoken and done by our Sauiour Christ. Thus to serue their turne, the Euangelists must be controlled, and vpon their word we must beléeue that these things are not so orderly set downe as the matter required. I might adde hereunto how the scrip­ture vsually calleth the Sacrament Act. 20. 7. 1. Cor. 10. 16. & 11. 26. 27. 28 bread, euen after consecration in the breaking & distributing and eating thereof; then which what [Page 189] should we require more to assure vs that in substance it is bread in­déede? And of this spéech they can giue no certaine reason neither, but are carried vp and downe from fancie to another, as appeareth by Lanfrancus, saying; Lanfran lib. de sacram. Euchar [...]. It is called bread either because it was made of bread and retaineth some qualities therof, or because it feedeth the soule, or because it is the bodie of the sonne of God who is the bread of Angels, or in some other maner which may be conceiued of them that are better learned, but cannot of me. They care not what they say it is, so that they grant it not to be that that it is in truth. But thus do they deserue to be led vp and down from errour to errour, and follie to follie, as it were after a dauncing fire, who refuse to be guided and directed by the cleare and shining light of the euident word of God. By this that hath bene said, it may appeare sufficient­ly how litle hold the Answ. hath in the consent of the Euange lists, for the proofe of his Transubstantiation, euen by the confession of his owne fellowes, to whose wisedome and learning he doth greatly trust.

But yet once againe to proue it by the Gospell, we haue another argument, wherein the Answ. as a sawcie fellow taketh vpon him to censure & controll M. Beza and M. Fulke, in a matter of Gréeke construction, as he did M. Caluin and B. Iewell, in other matters be­fore. But what may it be that he presumeth so much on. Forsooth the Gréeke in Luc. 22. is so plaine against our doctrine and for proofe of Transubstantiation, that Beza was greatly troubled there with, and was faine to say that either S. Luke spake false Gréeke, or else that somewhat was foisted into the text. This argument Gregory Mar­tin and others, haue runne out of breath alreadie, and therefore it will not serue the Answerers turn to carry him so farre as he would faine go. That which he mentioneth first of false Gréeke, is but his péeuishnesse and malice. Beza nameth it Solaecophanes, which is a figure noting an appearance of incongruitie by departure from the vsuall and ordinary course of Grammar construction. The same hee noteth may be excused in this place as being borrowed from an Hebrew manner of speaking. And whereas Discou ca. 1. sect. 39. Gregory Martin without regard of his owne credit, auouched, that not one example could be brought of the like constructtō to be resolued as Beza trans­lateth this, M. Fulke sheweth him diuerse the very same in all re­spects, as Col. 1. 26. Apoc. 1. 4. 5. and 3. 12. and 8. 9. And therefore a [Page 190] man might haue said to him as Austen saide to Iulian the Pelagian heretike: August cōt. Iul. Pelag [...]li. 5. cap. 2. I am sory that you should so abuse the ignorance of them which know not the Greeke tongue, that you would not feare the iudgement and censure of them that haue knowledge of it

As touching the other point, Beza indéed vpon some coniecture, supposeth that the words [...], which is shed for you, might happily be added from the margin into the text, as in other places sundrie haue obserued. But yet he fréely and inge­nuously confesseth, that he found them in all copies generally that he saw, and therefore leaueth them in the text entire and whole, and translateth them as the words of the holy Ghost. No man denieth the words: no man maketh question of them, but receiueth them for Canonicall scripture. Therefore all that the Answ. saith in that respect is but vaine cauilling. Let vs consider the words of the text which he saith are so against vs. [...]. This cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shead for you. Here saith he the words, which is shead for you, must by the order of construction be referred to the cup, and so the cup, that is to say, that in the cup shall be said to be shed for vs, which must néeds be vnderstood of the blood of Christ: whereof it must follow, that that which was in the cup was the blood of Christ. I answere him that there is no necessitie by the Gréeke construction to referre those words to the cup, as is pro­ued by the examples of the like construction before alleaged. And in this point G. Martine was so taken tardie by M. Fulke for his bold asseueration, that I doubt it was one matter that killed his heart. The Answ. by some secret intelligence belike hath learned to vrge the matter otherwise, and leaueth Martin to go alone. He denieth not therefore but that the like incongruities may be found, but de­maundeth reason why we should translate it to a sense that admit­teth incongruitie of spéech, and refuse the sense wherein the text is congrue inough. Reasons inough haue bene giuen, but they are not yet confuted, and therefore it was folly to make any further menti­on of this matter. First there is not found any one of the auncient Fathers either Gréeke or Latin, that taketh the words otherwise then as we translate them. Secondly Basil. Ascet. defin. 21. S. Basil expresly readeth the Gréeke according as Beza translateth it: [...], [...]: In my blood, which (blood) is shed for you. [Page 191] Whereby it is apparant that either y^e text was so read at that time, as is likely, for that Basil in that booke setteth downe th [...] very words of the scripture; or at the least that he being a Bishop so famously learned and most [...]loquent in the Gréeke tongue tooke the construc­tion and sense of those words to be no otherwise. Thirdly Erasmus in his translation dedicated to Leo the tenth, Bishop of Rome, and approued by him, at which time he was knowne to be no enemy to Transubstantiation, yet translated those words as Beza doth, being a man I trow as well séene in Gréeke construction, as Gregorie Martin was. Fourthly, what reasonable man will déeme that the Euangelist or Christ himselfe would thus speake, This blood, which is shedde for you, is the newe Teshament in my blood: or thus: This blood is the newe Testament in my blood: which I alleaged to the Answerer to be an absurd tautologie, and he spea­keth nothing at all whereby to defend it. Moreouer it séemeth strange to me that the Euangelist setting downe the proper name of bloud: to which shedding must be applied, and that betwixt the word cup, and the mention of shedding, should notwithstanding in­tend the word shed to be referred rather to the cup which is further of, and to say that the cup was shed for vs, then to the proper name of bloud which is next vnto it, and to which it properly belongeth. Againe, the bloud of Christ could not be in the cup without being shed and separated from his bodie: and to this end did Christ be­side the Sacrament of his bodie institute seuerally and distinctly the sacrament of his bloud, thereby to betoken the shedding, the is­suing forth, the seuering of the same bloud from his bodie in his pas­sion for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes; in respect whereof he saith: This is my bloud which is shed for you. Nowe his bloud was not shed or seuered from his bodie, but in his passion: For hee shed not his bloud twise. Therefore the wordes of shedding cannot be re­ferred to that in the cup. Seuenthly, the bloud of Christ, as the Bellar. tom. 2 con [...]. [...]. lib. 1. cap. 11. Papistes themselues confesse, is not in the cup till the wordes of consecration be all spoken. Therefore when Christ had sayd no more but This cup, the bloud was not yet there, but onely wine: and therefore the words which is shed for you cannot be referred to the cup: because it was not wine which was shed for vs. Further also, the Answ. saith straightwaies after that Christ began to his Disciples of that which was in the cup. But wee cannot beléeue [Page 192] that Christ did eate himselfe, or that he dranke the very bloud of his owne body. Therefore we beléeue not that that in the cup was the bloud that was shedde for vs, or that the Euangelist would in­tend to say: This cup which is shed for you. Last of all, the Answ. fellowes, of farre greater worth then himselfe confesse, partly that there is not at all, partly that it may be iustly doubted whether there be or not any place of Scripture sufficient to prooue Transub­stantiation, as I haue before shewed. Therefore they graunt that this place doth not necessarily require any such construction, as whereby Transubstantiation should be concluded. Whereby they giue to vnderstand that they themselues do know that all that they say both of this place and others is nothing els but cauilling with­out any certaine ground or assurance of truth. These reasons I take it are sufficient and strong enough against a naked and bare collec­tion from a point of doubtfull construction. Which séeing they haue diuers of them béen alleaged by maister Fulke and others directly against the Answrers demaund, and yet haue not receiued any tollerable answere, it was but a scape of his wit to say that maister Fulke doth steale away from the state of the question, and medleth not with it.

His other cauill out of the wordes of S. Luke that Christ before the sacrament said Luc. 22. 17. he woulde drinke no more of the fruite of the vine, till in his kindome, and yet dranke after in the Sacrament whereby he would prooue the sacrament to be no wine, was long agoe preuented by S. Austen, who affirmeth that S. Luke August de consen. Euan­geli. lib. 3. ca. 1. accor­ding to his maner setteth downe the former mention of the cup by way of anticipation, putting that before which is to be referred to somewhat following after, and therfore vnderstandeth it of the cup of the new testament by and by after instituted, and so reconcileth him to the other two Euangelistes, Mathew and Marke. But to helpe this argument: the Answ. is faine to varie from his good mai­sters of Rhemes. For he expoundeth the kingdome of God to be after the resurrection, but they vnderstand it Rhem An­not. Luc. 22. 17 of the celebration of the Sacrament of Christes bloud. Whereof it followeth that Christ in the Sacrament dranke of the fruite of the vine, as both Mathew and Marke set it downe, and the auncient fathers doe ex­pound it. Let him go and be agréed with his fellowes before he vrge this argument againe.

R. Abbot. 32.

MY councell M. Spence must stand for a witnesse against you at that day if you go on forward still to walke in the counsel of the vngodly. In the meane time, I againe aduise and counsell both you and your maister to cease to rebell & fight against God, or to say when he offereth himselfe vnto you, we will none of thy waies. I councell you indéede as you say to no other thing, but that which I follow my selfe, and I most humbly thank almightie God, who hath giuen me his grace to follow the same, and hath preserued me from that daunger wherein I haue béen oft falling away from him. You will followe me you say in generall to haue a care to féed your soule with the trueth of Gods word. Do so M. Spence, doe so: that is the foode of life; that is the riuer of the water of life, the heauenly Manna: he that féedeth there shal surely finde life. August. de pastor. Feede there, saith S. Austen, that yee may feede safely and securely. But you marre and poison this good foode with that which you adde. You will feede your soule you say with the word of God, but expounded by his Catholicke Church: you meane the Church of Roome. Which is as much as if you should say, you wil not follow the word of God it selfe, but that which it pleaseth the Church of Roome to make of the word of God. Take héede of M. [Page 194] Spence. Assure your selfe that though the Church of Roome doe maintaine 2. Pet 2. [...]. damnable heresies and 1. Tim. 4. 1. doctrines of deuils contrarie to Gods word, yet being wise, as she is, according to this worlde, she will neuer expound the word of God against her selfe if it be in her to make the meaning of it. When she expoundeth the Scrip­tures to make her selfe the Catholike Church, and no such thing is to be found in the words of the scripture, will you beléeue her in her owne cause. It shal then be verified of you which Salomon saith: Prou. 1 [...]. 15. The foole will beleeue euerie thing. Take the simplicitie of the word of God it self, and be directed thereby. Prou. 8 9. The waies of God are plaine to him that will vnderstand. God Hiere. in psal. 8 [...]. hath not written as Plato did, that few should vnderstand, but for the vnderstanding of all, saith S. Hierome. So that although there be depth enough in the word of God, for the best learned to bestow his studie and labour in, yet as Chrysostome and Austen teach vs: Chrysost. in 2. Thess. 2. August. ep. 3. Whatsoeuer things are neces­sarie, they are manifest: and Aug. de doct. Christ. li. 2. c. 9. in those things which are manifestly set downe in the Scriptures, are contained all things that pertaine to faith and conuersation of life. Lay before you therefore those things which néed not the exposition of the Church of Roome. When the scripture saith: There is now no offering for sinne, wil you take her exposition to say that there is? When the scripture saith: no man liuing shalbe found iust in the sight of God, shal she by her exposition make you beléeue that it is not so? When the scripture saith; Thou shalt not bow downe to, or worship a carued or grauen image▪ will you be perswaded by her expositions that you may? I passe ouer the rest. Iustly doe they deserue to be giuen ouer to errour, and to be deluded with lies and lewd expositions, which will not yéeld vn­to God when he speaketh vnto them so plainly as néedeth no expo­sition. It were worth the while to set downe héere a Catalogue of Romish expositions, but that the conscience of you all that way appeareth sufficiently in this whole discourse. You pray that we both going sundry wayes, may méete in heauen. But maister Spence it will not be in that way wherein you go. Either you must say that there is no heauen, or els that your way is not the way to heauen, because the God of heauen hath gainsaid it. God open your eyes that you may sée the right way that so we may ioyfully méete in heauen.

R. Abbot. 33.

HE excuseth the ouersight of his Rhemistes about the tale of the Assumption of the virgin Mary. But why doth he here again omit to say any thing for their exposition of y^e words. Heb. 10. O impudent men that would commit such appa­rant falshood: for excuse wherof, a man as impudent as themselues can deuise no shift at all. I say as impudent as themselues, because he sheweth himselfe so in the matter now in hand. The Assump­tion is proued by the reason that I alleaged to be a méere fable. The Remistes that report it, mention the longest time that shée is said to haue liued, namely 63. yéeres: and yet that will not helpe the matter. But the Answ. saith that Epiphanius, who of so good authoritie and of so great antiquitie alloweth of that report of Dio­sius, saith she dyed at 70 yéeres of her age, as farre, saith he, as I re­member. A naughtie man and of a lewd remembrance that can re­member a thing that he neuer read. Where doth Epiphanius say so, or where doth he allow or so much as name that report of Dio­nysius? Where is the trueth or conscience of this man? If any such thing had béene, his Remistes would haue béen glad of such [...] pa­trone. But Epiphanius tooke no notice thereof. Epiphan. haer 78. contr. Antidicoma­riantas. Whether the holy virgin, saith he, be dead and buried, her falling a sleepe is in ho­nour, &c. Or whether she were put to death, her glorie is among the martyrs, &c: or whether she haue remained, (for it is not impossible to God to do all that he wil) for her end is known to no man: it is not conuenient to honour saintes more then is meete, but to honour their Lord. Where in plain words he giueth to vnderstand, y^t there was nothing in his time knowen or receiued concerning this matter. Nay the Masse-booke it selfe checketh the wilfulnesse of these men in the assertion héereof, where the lesson for the assumption day go­ing as it séemeth vnder the name of Hierome calleth the storie of the departure hence of the B. virgin Lect. in festo Assumpt. an apocryphall writing: and saith, that nothing can be auouched thereof, but that she dyed as that day: that it was doubted of whether she were assumpted with her bo­die [Page 197] or not, that it was not knowen whether shee was raised againe or not, although some did go about to auouch so, and all this to the end that Paul and Eustochium should not take things vncertaine for certaine. In the Sermons de sanctis in S. Austens workes there is a Sermon as it is thought of Fulbertus, which affirmeth likewise that De sanct. ser. 35. no catholike historie did testifie the assumption, that the apo­cryphall writings thereof were not allowed to be read, that none of the latine writers had spoken any thing plainly of her death, and con­cludeth thus; It remaineth therefore that man do not lyingly faine that to be manifest and knowen, which God would haue to remaine hidden and vnknowen. What then shall wée accompt the Rhe­mistes, but lyers that so boldly auouch this fable as certaine with­out any certaine proofe thereof. It is manifest héereby that no re­port of any Dionysius was as touching this point receiued for Ca­tholicke historie. But for proofe that that Dionysius of whom the Answ. speaketh of is a counterfeit, I referre him to those reasons Conferre with Hart. chap. 8 diu. 2 that D. Rainoldes giueth thereof, till the same reasons be fully answered. That he is auncient, we denie not, but yet an auncient counterfeite. That all the learned men that euer wrote haue con­fessed this Dionysius to be S. Pauls Disciple, it is vnhonestly and vnshamefastly spoken: neither can he iustifie it by any one of great antiquitie. So is that y^• he saith of so many fathers confessing, and none denying the assumption of the virgin Mary, as appeareth by that that hath béen said. In refusing this storie of the assumption we enuie not to the blessed virgin her felicitie, but wee condemne Papistes of wilfulnesse and folly in alleaging vncertaine fables for certaine and approoued trueths.

R. Abbot. 34.

AS touching the books of scripture, Hierome testifieth thus of those bookes that we seclude from the canon: Hiero. in prolo. Galeato They are not saith he, in the canon, they must be put amongst the Apocryphall writings. And again, Idem. prae­fat. in libros solomo. The Church readeth them, but yet receiueth them not amongest canonicall Scriptures. Ruffin. in expos. symb. apud. Cypri. Ruffinus that liued at the same time expresly witnesseth the same, and that as he sayth, out of the monuments of the Fathers. So doth Euseb eccle. hist. lib. 4. c 25. Eusebius out of Melito. So Athanas. in synopsi Athanasius: So Epiphan. de mensu. & pon­deri. Epiphanius; So the Concil. Lao­di. ca. 59. councell of Laodicea. And must we now in the end of the world beléeue the Roomish La­pidarie that these are Canonicall bookes? Her obedient children may be so foolish as to beléeue her warrant herein: but we know her héereby to be, not a true Lapidarie, but a false and presumptu­ous harlot. The canonicall bookes that truely are such, haue béen receiued for such from the beginning. So doth S. Austen terme them Augustin. cont. Cresco. lib. 2. cap. 31. & de bap. con. Dona. lib. ca. 3. canonem constitutum, and confirmatum: the canon appointed, set downe and confirmed. Whatsoeuer bookes were not then set downe, deliuered and receiued for such, they cannot now be war­ranted to be such. If any man through simplicitie did afterwardes call in question any of those bookes, as some did the Reuelation, the [Page 199] Epistles to the Hebrewes, and of S. Iames, the Church did rightly correct their errour in that behalfe, not newly approouing them for canonicall which were not so taken before, but defending them to be canonicall as they had béen before receiued. And therefore the world doth not sée that the Church of Christ did that then which the Synagogue of Roome presumeth now, in that contrarie to the iudgement of that Church she taketh vpon her to make them cano­nicall, which were not from the beginning deliuered to the Church for such. Neither doe we in the canon of scriptures follow our own priuate spirite, but the expresse testimonie and consent of the anci­ent Church. As for his hypocriticall spéeches of the help and work of the holy Ghost, they are but the same that the Mo [...]tanistes, the Marcionites, the Valentinians and other olde heretickes did vse, who when they taught against the holy ghost, yet pretended the in­stinct and inspiration of the holy Ghost.

R. Abbot. 35.

THis defence of the Index Expurgatorius is shamelesse. The au­thours of it knew so much well inough, and therefore would haue had it kept close; but the prouidence of God hath to their re­proach brought it to light. It is not méete that the iudgements of learned men either old or new, should be subiect to the fancies of a few wilful persons that they may dislike in them, and put out what [Page 200] pleaseth them. But welfare a childe that though his mother plaie the théefe and the harlot neuer so much, yet will boldly stand in de­fence of her that she is an honest woman. And indéed I maruell not that this dealing séemeth verie tollerable and lawfull with these men, because I know that the corrupting and deprauing & forging of bookes is a very speciall meanes and helpe for the vpholding and patronaging of the Roomish abhominations. Falshood cannot be vp­holden but by falshood, and he that taketh a bad cause in hand, must néeds vse bad meanes to colour and cloake his euill doing. Thus Francise. Iunius in prae­fat. indic. Ex­purga. Franciscus Iunius reporteth, that being at Lyons in France, in the yeare of our Lord 1559. and comming to the Correctour of Frelo­nius his print, with whom he was familiarly acquainted, the same Correctour shewed him a very faire print of Ambrose his workes. Which when Iunius commended, the Corrector told him, that not­withstanding the fairenesse of it, yet if he were to buy▪ Ambrose, he would rather buy it in any other copie thē in that. The reason wher­of he told him; for that whereas they had printed the booke faithful­ly according to an auncient and vndoubted copy, two Franciscan Fri­ars came by authoritie and cancelled many shéetes thereof, some in part, some wholly, and caused them to print other in their stéed, not agréeing to the true bookes; to Frelonius his great losse both of time and charges. The like dealing Ibid. he noteth of Turriā, that vnshame­fast Iesuit, in a Gréeke edition of the Canons of the Apostles. In a print of Chrysostomes workes by Stelsius at Paris, they haue▪ razed out a most notable and vnanswerable place Oper. im­perf. in Mat. hom. 49. testifying that in the time of Antichrist, there can be no warrant of true Christianitie, nor other refuge for Christians being desirous to know the truth of faith, but only the scriptures of God, that they which would know, cannot otherwise know which is the true Church of Christ but onely by the scriptures; that Christ knowing the confusion that should be in the last daies, did will that Christians desiring to haue assurance of true faith, should flee to nothing else but to the scriptures: because if they looke vnto other things, they shall stumble and perish, not knowing which is the true Church, and hereby they shall light into the abho­mination of desolatiō which standeth in the holy places of the church. This whole place they haue falsly and treacherously left out. And why? because they take it to haue bin put in by an Arian hereticke, as Bellarm. to. 1 cont. 1. lib. 4. cap. 11. Bellarmine saith. But what wretchednesse is there in this pre­tence, [Page 201] when as they haue left in stil those places which make for the Arians indéed, & haue only taken away this which was not for the Arians turne, but serued to confound themselues in a matter of con­trouersie betwixt them and vs. Thus See Doct. Rainolds con­fer. with [...]a [...]t. cha. [...]. diui [...]. 2. Manutius and Pamelius in their editions of Cyprian, the one at Rome, the other at Anwerpe, haue notoriously falsified a place in his Treatise de vnitate ecclesiae. And whereas Cyprian expresly auoucheth by the vniuersall consent of all approued copies, that the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was endued with equall fellowship both of honour and of power, they haue foisted in other words importing a supremacy gi­uen by Christ vnto Peter, and so make him in one sentence & with one breath to speake contrary to himselfe. Which impudencie and unpietie of theirs is so much the greater, for that against the com­mon consent and credit of so many copies both written and printed, they would presume to alter the text of Cyprian vpon the warrant of two or thrée such copies as they themselues euidently saw & knew to be corrupted, & so corrupted that they were faine euen for shame to varie in some things from that reading which they found in thē. Thus haue the Spanish censurers vsed Bertram also, as hath bene before shewed, nipping him & paring him where they haue thought good, that he may not séeme too strong against their fantasticall con­ceit of Transubstantiatiō. Now we may not wonder that they who haue bene thus bold with the auncient Fathers, should presume a great deale further with later writers. And therefore it néedeth not that I stand here to shew how they haue maimed the writings and censures of Index. Ex­purgat. in ca­stiga [...]. operum August. Ter­tul. Hierony. & passim. Beatus Rhenanus, Ludouicus Viues, Erasmus, and other famous learned men whersoeuer they haue with great aduisement and iudgemēt, noted the corruptions & abuses of the Roomish church either in matters of maners or of doctrine. This is that godly & cha­ritable dealing which the Answ. commendeth, and thinketh to be a very Christian and necessary course. But were he not too much be­witched with the loue of a harlot, he would not be so easily brought to flatter her in such vnhonest and hatefull doings. Hereby it appea­reth what confidence and hold Papists haue in the writings of the Fathers, and that the Fathers if they were now aliue in the church of Rome, and should speake as they haue written, should be condem­ned for heretickes, and their bookes carried to the fire to be burned with them.

R. Abbot. 36.

AS touching iustification, hée fendeth me a deale of paltrie stuffe patched out of the heresie of the Pelagians, & the vain presumptions of the Schoolemen without any sounde argu­ment out of the word of God; neither maketh he any direct answer to that that was vrged against him. The scripture is plain, that Rom. 3. 20. Gal. 2. 16 by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified in the sight of God; Rom 3. 28 that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law: that Gal. 3. 10. whosoeuer are of the works of the law are vnder the curse, because it is written; Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them: and no man continueth in all: Iam. 3. 2. for in many things we offend all, saith S. Iames. The Answ. sheweth not, he cannot shewe that the inherent righteousnesse of any man in this life is such, as that thereby he can be presented holie and blamelesse and without fault in the sight of God, which is the thing required. The consciences and confessions of all the godly are against it. S. Austen to whom the Answ. refer­reth himselfe, saith: August. epist. 29. The most perfect loue or charitie which can­not now be encreased, is founde in no man so long as he liueth here: and so long as it may be encreased, surely that that is lesse then ought to be, is of a default or vice. By reason of which default or vice, there is not a man iust vppon the earth which doth good and sinneth not. By reason, of which default, no man liuing shall be found righteous in the sight of God. And this is so true that ^f Pighius, otherwise a [Page 205] heauy and deadly enemy to the Gospell, is forced to subscribe to ourf Pighi. con­tro. de iusti­ficat. doctrine in this point, and to confesse that the righteousnesse where­by we stand iust before God, is not our inherent righteousnesse ac­cording to the law, but the imputed righteousnesse of Iesus Christ; which he illustrateth by the storie of Gen. 27. 15. 27. Iacob, who came in the appa­rell of his elder brother Esau, to receiue the blessing of Isaac his fa­ther. For so are we presented before God to receiue the blessing of eternal life, not in the ragged cloathes of that righteousnesse which is in our selues, which is full of imperfection and weakenesse, full of blots and staines, and vnable to abide the triall of the iudgement of God, but cloathed with the full and perfect obedience and righte­ousnesse of Iesus Christ, which by the dispensation of the wisedome and mercy of God, is reckoned vnto all that are Christs for theirs, as effectually as if they themselues in their owne persons had per­formed the same. Neither ought this to seeme strange vnto vs, who know the like to haue befallen in the person of Iesus Christ. For he knew no sinne, neither was guile found in his mouth; yet 2. cor. 5. 21. He was made sinne for vs, he 1. Pet. 2. 2 [...]. bare our sinnes, the Esa. 53. 6. Lord laid vpon him the iniquities of vs all. Could our sinnes by imputation take hold vpon Christ to put him to death, & to inflict vpon the curse pronounced by the law, & shall not his righteousnesse by imputatiō stand auaileable for vs to yéelde vnto vs the blessing of euerlasting life? Shall our sins be stronger against him then his righteousnesse is for vs? God forbid, Nay, S. Austen truly saith: August. Psal 21. He made our sinnes his sinnes, that hee might make his righteousnesse our righteousnesse. In hu­mane things we sée and know that the suerties paiment is impu­ted vnto the debter for his discharge, as if he himselfe had paide the debt. Christ hath taken vpon him to be our suertie; he hath made ful paiment of our debt, both in bearing the punishment of sinne, and performing the fulnesse of all righteousnesse. What should let that his paiment also should not be imputed vnto vs, God offering this fauour vnto man, and man by grace accepting the offer of God? Ve­rily Christian religion hath taught vs thus to estéeme that whatso­euer Christ did or suffered, he did all for vs. For what néed had he to be made vnder the law, & so to worke & to deserue for himselfe, who from the beginning was the Lord of glorie, to whom by right and inheritance did belong the kingdome of life and peace? Therefore as his obedience in dying is imputed vnto vs to iustification from [Page 206] sinne, so his obedience in working is imputed vnto vs to iustificati­on vnto eternall life. And therefore the scripture as it calleth him the 1. Ioh. 2. 2 propitiation for our sinnes, so it calleth him likewise Iere. 23 6 the Lord our righteousnesse. To which purpose y^e Apostle S. Paul saith, that 1. cor. 1 30 he is made vnto vs of God wisdome, righteousnes, sanctificatiō, and redemption. Wisedome to couer our errour, ignorance, & weak­nesse of faith; Righteousnesse, in whose obedience we stand here iust and righteous before God, and are accepted for his children, being as yet sinners & vnrighteous in our selues: sanctification to purge vs from sinne, and to restore in vs the image of God by litle and li­tle 2. cor. 3. 18 from glorie to glorie Psa. 84. 7 from strength to strength, in this life, till we [...]e fully perfected at the resurrection of the dead: Redemption, in whom only we haue full and perfect attonement and satisfaction for all our sinnes, by meanes whereof, there is Rom. 8. 1 no codemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus. No lesse plainly saith he againe to the same effect. 2. Cor. 5. 21 Him which knew no sinne, God made sinne for vs, that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him. Wher­of S. Austen saith thus: August. En­chiri. ad Lau­rent. cap. 41 He then was made sinne, that we might be righteousnesse, not our owne righteousnesse, but the righteousnesse of God, neither in our selues but in him, euen as he in the similitude of sinfull flesh wherein he was crucified shewed foorth sinne, not his owne sinne, but our sinne, neither being in him, but in vs. Where first the Apostle and then out of the Apostle, S. Austen giueth to vn­derstand, that as Christ was punished as a sinner for those sinnes which were not in him but in vs, so we are accepted for righteous before God, by that righteousnesse not which is in our selues but in him. Yet it is so in him, as that it is imputed vnto vs as being per­formed for vs and in our name, and therefore by faith in Christ it is made ours, euen as Christ himself is wholly ours. By reason wher­of it is called Rom. 3. 21 22. The righteousnesse of God through the faith of Iesus Christ, standing and being without the law, and the refore by faith only. Therfore is faith said to be reputed vnto vs for righteousnesse, as in those words of S. Paul, Rom. [...]. 5 Oecum. ibid. To him that worketh not (that is as Oecumenius expoundeth it of Photius. To him that hath no confi­dence by workes) but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly, his faith is imputed or counted for righteousnesse. Not workes then but faith is counted for, righteousnesse to the beléeuing man, and as the Apostle Gal. 2. 16 elsewhere saith, We haue beleeued in Christ, that we [Page 207] might be iustified by the faith of Christ, and not by the workes of the law, because that by the workes of the lawe no flesh shall be iustified. Either there is not at all any iustification of man before God, and so Christ shall haue died in vaine; or this is his only iustificatiō which I haue described, because as partly hath bene shewed, and shall be shewed further, there is no righteousnesse extant in man in this life, whereby he can stand iust and blamelesse before the iudgement seat of God.

But that exclusion of works which I haue mentioned out of the Apostle, the Answ. restraineth onely to workes done by fréewill, and by the law without the faith and grace of Christ. A vaine ex­ception, the falshood whereof he that séeth not, is altogither blinde, albeit it is the onely starting hole, which the Rhemists vse to auoid the euidence of the text. The question of iustification by the lawe was moued concerning Rhemi. An­not. Act 1 [...]. 13 the conuerted gentiles, as the Rhemistes confesse, concerning the Act. 15. 1. 10. brethren and Disciples, as the text calleth them. Of them the beleeeuing Pharisees required for iustification and saluation to v. 1. [...]. be circumcised and to keepe the lawe of Moses. The Apostle S. Paul handleth it concerning the Galathians, which had Gal 1. 6. 9. & 3. 2 4. 27. receiued the Gospell, which were baptised into Christ, which had receiued the spirite, which had suffered many things for the Gos­pell. Them hauing béene for some space professors of the faith of Christ the false Apostles had perswaded to ioyne with their belée­uing, in Christ the kéeping of the law thereby to be iustified. Con­cerning these men and the like conuerted to the faith of Christ, bap­tised into Christ, being Disciples and brethren, the Apostle deter­mineth this matter that Gal. 2. 16. Rom. 3 21. 28. they must be iustified by faith, and not by the workes of the law, yea without the workes of the law, and that not of the ceremoniall law onely, but of that law also Rom. 3. [...]0 by which commeth the knovvledge of sinne, which saith Cap. 7. 7. Thou shalt not lust; which pronounceth; Gal. 3. 10. Cursed is euerie one that continueth not in all thinges that are vvritten in this lavve; which saith, Rom. 1 5. Ga [...]. 3. 1 [...]. Hee that doth these things shall liue in them, that is to say of the morall law as S. Aug [...]st. de spir. [...] ca. 8. & 14. Austen also gathereth by the same places. Therfore not onely ce­remoniall workes, nor onely workes of nature and fréewill, but all workes whatsoeuer either before baptisme or after baptisme, either before grace or in grace are secluded from iustification, and onely faith in Christ is our righteousnesse before God. Yea and that so, [Page 208] as that the Apostle against that distinction of workes done in the grace of Christ, saith expresly: Gal. 5 4. Ye are abolished from Christ, yee are fallen from grace, whosoeuer are iustified (that is, doe séeke iusti­fication) by the lavv. So that hee which being come to the grace of Christ shall thenceforth séeke to be iustified by the works of the law done in the state of the same grace, voideth himselfe of Christ, and falleth away from the grace of God. And therefore Abraham him­selfe is set forth vnto vs as a paterne of iustification by faith, wth­out workes, not in his first iustification as the Roomish language hath taught men to speake, but Gen. 12. [...]. 5. 6. 7. 8. &c. after that he had obeied the voyce of God to depart out of his owne countrey, had trauailed many countries as God directed him, had built many altars vnto the name of the Lord, had called vpon him and serued him a long time, as appeareth in Genesis from the twelfth chap. to the fiftéenth. Euen then was it said: Gen. 15. 6. Abraham beleeued the Lord, and he counted that to him for righteousnesse. Whence the Apostle thus reasoneth: Rom. 4. 2. If Abraham vvere iustified by vvorkes, he had to reioyce, but not vvith God. For vvhat saith the Scripture. Abraham beleeued God, and that vvas counted to him for righteousnesse. Wherein he infer­reth that because the scripture pronounceth of Abraham after his long seruing of God, and many good workes done, yet that not his workes as Chrysost. in Epist. ad Rom. hom. 8. Chrysostome rightly gathereth: but onely his fayth was counted to him for righteousnesse, therefore that howsoeuer he might with men by works, yet with God hee was not iustified by workes but onely by faith. Abraham was the Rom. 4. 11. Father of the faith­full, and therefore all that are iustified, must be iustified according to that patterne which the word of God hath set forth concerning him, and therefore not by workes, but by faith onely.

Now that the true iustifying faith is not separated from charitie and good workes we willingly confesse, because it Gal. 3. 14. receiueth the promise of the spirite, the effect whereof is noted in the declarati­on of the promise: Ezec. 36. 27. I vvill put my spirite vvithin you and cause you to vvalke in my statutes, and yee shall keepe my iudge­mentes and do them. Yet notwithstanding as the diuers mem­bers of the bodie necessarily concurring for the perfecting of the whole, haue euery one their seuerall office: so these vertues of the soule, namely faith and charitie, though they alwaies méete in the regenerate man, yet in office and function are distinct ech from o­ther. [Page 209] The office of iustifying belongeth only vnto faith, euen as the office of séeing belongeth onely to the eie, the office of hearing one­ly to the eare, &c. And therefore the defining of beleeuing in God by the hauing of faith, hope and charitie, as the Answ. setteth downe, is a verie preposterous and vnorderly definition, and no other then as if a man taking in hand to tell what it is to sée, should say it is to haue eies, eares and nose. Beléefe in God is set forth by the Créede; charitie and workes, by the ten Commaundements: they may not be confounded one with the other. Doubtlesse it were ve­rie strange to thinke that when a man saith; I beleeue in God the father, &c. he should meane thereby, I haue faith, hope, and chari­tie; or that Christ when he said to the blinde man in the Gospell: Iohn 9. 3 5. Doest thou beleeue in the sonne of God, did intend to aske him whether he had faith, hope and charitie. Cyprian telleth vs what it is to beléeue in God: namely, Cypria. de dup. martyr. to place the confidence of our whole felicitie in God onely, which though it neuer be without the loue of God, yet euerie mans vnderstanding may giue him that the act of beléeuing is one, the act of louing is another. Whereas hee saith that faith without works though it be dead, yet it is a true faith, he speaketh indéed Roomishly, but that is ignorantly and absurdly. For that onely is the true faith, whereby a man is called truely faithful, so that the saints of God in whom it is, are by a speciall and proper name termed Ephes 1. 1. the faithfull, and col. 1. 2. faithfull brethren, which it selfe is called by the Apostle Tit. 1. 1. the faith of the elect; by which he saith Gal. 3. 26. we are the children of God: which hath this promise Ioh. 3. 3 [...]. that euerie one that beleeueth in Christ, hath eternall life: which hath no place in the carnall worldling, as our sauiour noteth saying: Ioh. 5. 44. How can ye be­leeue which receiue honour one of another, and seek not the honour that commeth of God onely: whereby a man not onely beléeueth that God is, or that God is true in that which he saith, but also ap­lieth vnto himselfe the promises of God, assuring himselfe of the benefite thereof to the forgiuenesse of sinnes and eternall life by the mediation of Iesus Christ. S. Bernard therefore saith that a man Berna. ser. 1. in Annunc. Mar. hath but the beginning of faith vntill hee come to this to be­leeue that his sinnes are forgiuen him by Iesus Christ, and that this is that which the Apostle saith that a man is freely iustified by faith. Fe­rus the preacher of Mentz as he smelled diuerse corruptions in the doctrine of the Church of Roome, so hee noted the misconstruing of [Page 210] true faith for one. 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 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 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. 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. 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: 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; 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: 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: 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: 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 [Page 212] 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; 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 Act. 15. 9. whereby the heart is purified, whereby R [...]. 10. 13. 14 God is inuocated and called vpon, whereby Bernar. ser. 1 in Annūc. Mar. we beleeue that our sinnes are forgiuen vs by the bloud of Iesus Christ, which is not a faith incident to deuils or vngodly men. But S. Iames speaketh of such a faith as is incident not onely to euill men, but euen to the deuill himselfe. This difference of the vnderstanding of fayth is obserued by Oecumenius of whom I spake before, that Oecumē. in ep. [...]ac. cap. 2. S. Iames speaketh of a bare assent according to which we know the deuils be­leeued that Christ was the sonne of God, but that S. Paul by faith im­porteth some further consequence arising out of the affection of man ioyned with a firme & stedfast consenting to that which he is said to beléeue. The one speaking of iustification before God, teacheth vs that we are iustified by faith onely, according to the true meaning of fayth which the scripture intendeth. The other speaking of iu­stificatiō before men, teacheth that a man is not iustified or shewed to be a true christian man by a naked and bare assenting vnto some points of religion, which hypocrites call faith, but hee must by his fruites testifie and shew that he is a true follower of Iesus Christ. For men doe not accompt a man religious for a bare profession of [Page 213] faith, but they estéeme of a mans faith and profession as they sée it appeare in his conuersation and doings. And therefore as Abra­hams fayth wrought with workes to iustifie him to be the friend of God, so must our profession of fayth also haue good workes concur­ring with it to shew vs to be the true Disciples of Iesus Christ. O­therwise as the bode without the soule is dead, So Faith without workes is dead also. Where hee compareth faith to the bodie, and works to the soule: not as faith importeth vnfained trust and con­fidence towardes God: but as it is a profession of faith and religion before men, as he himselfe teacheth vs in saying: What auaileth it that a man saith he hath Faith, &c. For if we will consider faith and workes as touching the eyes of God: then faith is the soule, and workes are the body: so that no workes are liuely and acceptable vnto God, séeme they neuer so beautifull before men, except they be quickened and made aliue by a true and liuely faith, so that as S. Austen. August. de nupt. & [...]ouen. li. 1. cap. 3. & cont [...] [...]el. l. 4 c 3. & Re­tract. [...] c. [...]. oftentimes affirmeth, and the Heb. [...]1. [...]. Apostle to the Hebrewes confirmeth, they deserue not those names of vertue and iustice, by which they are vsually called, so long as they grow not from this roote. But if we will speake of faith and workes as they are refer­red vnto the eyes of men, there faith is indéede the body and works are the life and soule, so that no wordes or profession can make men beléeue that thou hast in thée faith or religion so long as sinne and fil­thinesse hath sway and dominion in thy life. Such a faith therefore, or rather a saying that thou hast faith, as S. Iames termeth it, is dead; and so farre are men from approouing it or thée for it, as that they rather abhorre and loth it as a rotten and stincking carion, and take occasion thereby to blaspheme and speake euill of that faith and reli­gion which thou takest vpon thée to professe. Thus I haue the more at large discoursed this place of S. Iames because the Answerer and his fellowes thinke they haue greatest hold therein for their iustification by workes.

From iustification he choppeth to merite, and there defieth Pe­lagius which said that we might merite the first grace and forgiue­nesse of sinnes. But let him take Pelagius by the hand, & be friends with him againe: for hee knoweth that it is the doctrine of his part that though not ex condigno, yet ex congruo, a man may merite the first grace. As touching merite we are satisfied by the wordes of Christ that wee haue none at all: Luc. 17. 10. When yee haue done all that is [Page 214] commaunded you, say, We are vnprofitable seruants, wee haue done that that was our duetie to doe. But the Answ. expoundeth these wordes as not making against merite. We are called vnprofita­ble seruauntes, not because we merite nothing, but because we doe not yéeld any profite vnto God, who was as happy and glorious before the foundation of the world as euer since. And héere like a drunken man depriued of wit and reason, and not knowing whi­ther he goeth, he bringeth Christ as man within the number of vn­profitable seruantes, because he doth not profite God anie way, nor yéeld him any benefite or good. But that very example should haue put him in minde to séeke another meaning of vnprofitable ser­uaunts. Christes owne wordes would haue taught it him, if hée would haue listened thereto: Doth the maister thanke his seruant, because he did that that he commanded him? I trow not: So likewise when you haue done all that is commaunded, say, we are vnprofitable seruaunts, &c. Whereby Christ giueth vs to vnderstand that though we did all which is commaunded vs which no man doth, yet that we cannot require so much as thanks at the handes of God, because in doing all we do but our duetie, and that that we are bound vnto: and in that respect are vnprofitable seruauntes. And therefore if he giue vs thankes or any reward, or call vs not seruaunts but friends, it is of his owne kindnesse and goodnesse, not of any merite or de­sert of ours, whereby hee should stand bound vnto vs. Thus did Chrysostome, take it. Chrys. in E­pist. ad colos. hom. 2. No man, saith he, sheweth such conuersati­on of life, as that he may be worthy of the kingdome, but it is wholly the gift of God. Therefore he also saith, when yee haue done all, say, we are vnprofitable seruauntes. So doth Beda expound it, Beda in Luc. 17. We are vnprofitable seruauntes, because the sufferings of this time are not worthie of the glorie to come, as in another place: Which crowneth thee in mercie and compassion. He saith not, in thy merites, because by whose mercy we are preuented that we may humbly serue him, by his gift we are crowned to reigne with him on high. So is it vnder­stood by Marke the heremite: Marc. Herē. lib. de his qui pu [...]ant se ope­ribus iustifi­cari. Our Lord willing to shewe that wee are debters of the whole law, & that the adoption of children is free­ly giuen vs by his bloud, saith, when ye haue done all, say, wee are vn­profitable seruauntes. Therefore the kingdome of heauen is not the wages of vvorkes, but the grace of our maister prepared for his faith­full seruauntes. This is then our vnprofitablenesse that we do not [Page 215] merite or deserue any thing at Gods handes for any thing that we doe, which I hope agréeth not to Christ, who though hee yéel­ded no benefite vnto God, yet deserued of God for vs the kingdome of euerlasting life. As for that which he obiecteth out of 2. Tim. 2. 21. 2. Tim. 2. I take his exposition for true, but nothing contrary to that that I haue said. We serue for such good vse as God hath created vs and appointed vs vnto, and yet in doing all we doe but our duetie, and therefore what can we be said to deserue thereby?

Whereas he affirmeth that the kingdome of heauen is gratuite and frée, that is, yéelded by grace, and yet deserued also by works, he gainsaieth the Apostle who telleth him, Rom. 11. 6. If it be of grace, it is not of workes, otherwise grace is no grace. For as S. Austen saith, Aug. cont. pelag & ce [...]est. lib. 2. cap. 24. Grace cannot be called grace in any respect, vnlesse it be free in euerie re­spect: and Epist. 105. it is not free, saith he againe, if it be not freely giuen, but rendered vnto workes. Yet the Answ. shrowdeth himselfe vn­der the name of S. Austen, and to him he appealeth to prooue that heauen is merited by workes, but he did wisely to alleage no place of Austen to that purpose. S. Austens iudgement is cléere euerie where that eternall life is the frée grace and gift of God, because al­though we haue good workes: yet our good workes also come from that grace whereby God of his owne good will, and frée promise in Iesus Christ hath intended to vs glorification and euerlasting life. August. in Psal. 109. God saith he, hath made himselfe a debter vnto vs, not by receiuing any thing of vs, but promising all things vnto vs, and therefore saith he in another place, In Psal. 32. & 83. We say not vnto him, Lord, repay that which thou hast receiued, but pay that which thou hast promised. And so S. Bernard according to the doctrine of Saint Austen, calleth the crowne of heauen by S. Paules word [...]ernar de lib. arb [...]. & grat. a crowne of iustice, but not of mans iustice, but of the iustice of God. For it is iust with God to pay that which he oweth, and he oweth that which hee hath promi­sed. And this, saith he, is the iustice of 2. Tim. [...]. 8. which the Apostle presu­meth, euen the promise of God. Whereby it appeareth that S. Austen though he vse the name of merite oftentimes, yet vnder­standeth it not as whereby we properly deserue, but which it plea­seth God of his grace to accept as our merite, and by his promise vouchsafeth to reward it, or rather to yéeld vnto vs vnder the name of reward thereof, that which is indéede his méere promise and gift. And this is most euident and vndemably prooued by S. Austens [Page 216] wordes in the place aboue cited: August in Psal. 1 [...]9. God promised to vs men com­munion with God, immortalitie to vs being mortall, iustification to vs sinners, glorification to vs castawaies. Whatsoeuer he promised, he promised to vs being vnworthy, that it might not be promised as a reward to workes, but being grace it might according to the name be freely giuen; because, that a man liueth iustly, so farre as man can liue iustly, it is nothing of mans desert, but of the gift of God This one place setteth forth vnto vs sufficiently the iudgement of S. Au­sten, as touching this whole point. And to this accordeth y^• saying of Basill: Ba [...]in ps. 11▪ [...]. Eternal rest is laid vp for thē which lawfully fight the fight of this life not to be rendered for the merite of workes, but prepared by the grace of our bountifull God for all those that trust in him. How farre differeth the spirite that spake in these men from that proud and blasphemous spirite that now speaketh in the Church of Roome, out of whose mouth the Rhemistes tell vs Rhem Annot. H [...]. [...]. 10. that good workes be truely meritorious and the verie cause of saluation, so farre that God should be vniust if hee rendered not heauen for the same. Where may the man be found, I maruelll, whose workes are so far meritorious that God must be vniust, if for the merite thereof hée render not heauen vnto him? But this arrogant and more then Pelagian vaunt of merite, is in verie expresse and direct termes contradicted by S. Bernard: Bernard▪ de▪ lib arbit. & g [...]at. If saith he, we will properly speake of those which we call our merites, they are the way to the kingdome, and not the cause of our obtaining the kingdome. And in another place thus: Ibid in An­ [...] Mar [...]ae. Serm. 1. The merites of men are not such as that eternall life should be due vnto vs for them by right, or as that God should doe iniurie if he gaue it not for the same. For to say nothing that all our merites are the giftes of God, and so man is rather a debter vnto God for them, then God vnto man, what are all merites to so great glorie? and briefly, who is better then the Prophet Dauid, who yet was faine to say, O Lord enter not into iudgement with thy seruaunt. Let no man then deceiue himselfe, &c. The Rhemistes say that our me­rites are the verie cause of saluation: S. Bernard saith they are not so. They say that God should be vniust if hee rendered not heauen for them; he saith that God should doe no iniurie therein. They say, heauen is Rhem An­not. 2. Tim. 4 8 our owne right deserued by workes: hee saith it is not due vnto vs by right for our workes. In like sort doe th [...]y ouer­thwart those testimonies of Chrysostome, Beda, Marke, Austen, Ba­sill, [Page 217] which I haue mentioned before, and yet forsooth they teach no­thing but that which the aun [...]t fathers haue vniuersally re­ceiued.

We must, saith the Answ. be cleane, and whiter then snow. But saith the scripture, Prou. [...] Who can say, my heart is cleane? I am cleane from my sinne? If none, as in trueth none can, then can none by that that is in himselfe be reckoned for iust in the sight of God. Hi­lary rightly and truely admonisheth vs as touching this point H [...]l [...]r. [...]pud. Aug [...]st [...] that our bodies are the matter of all vices, by reason whereof being pol­luted and filthy, wee haue nothing innocent in vs, nothing cleane. Euen our best workes are blemished and stained with the blot of originall corruption, the remaines wherof sticke fast in vs whilest we continue in this life: so that the Apostle in the midst of his gra­ces and good workes is forced to crie out, Rom. 7. 14 I am carnall and sold vn­der sinne. And therefore S. Bernard teacheth vs to confesse of our righteousnesse that it is Bern [...] de [...] not pure or cleane, except wee will per­haps presume that we are better then they who with no lesse trueth then humilitie said, All our righteousnesses are like vncleane and de­filed clothes. Our cleannesse then is in Christ, not in our selues, in his innocency we appeare before God vndefiled and whiter then snow. Not but that God cleanseth vs inwardly also, but this clen­sing is yet but in part, and therefore we haue still néed of a couer to hide the remaines of our vncleannesse. Therefore howsoeuer the Answ. scorneth a curtaine, as he speaketh to be drawne before him to couer his sinnes, yet S. Bernard embraceth the righteousnesse of Christ as a cloke or garment for that purpose. O Lord, saith he, Bernard [...] Ca [...] [...] I will make mention of thy righteousnesse onely▪ for that is mine also. For thou art of God made righteousnesse vnto me. Should I be afraid least that one righteousnesse be not enough for vs two? It is not a short cloke or garment which cānot couer two. Thy righteousnes is for euer. It is large and euerlasting, and shall largely couer both thee and me. And in me surely it couereth a multitude of sinnes, but in thee O Lord what but the treasures of pietie, the riches of goodnesse. With this garment we desire to be clothed, and to be found in Christ, as Phil. 3. 9. S. Paul saith, not hauing our own righteousnesse which is by the law, but the righteousnesse which is by the faith of Christ, as knowing that otherwise we can neuer endure to stand before the face of God.

But we say, saith the Answ. that we haue inherent iustice. If he haue so, let him reape the benefite thereof: but if a sinfull man haue opened his mouth against heauen, and said I am iust, his own conscience shall scourge him for it in due time. Contrariwise he de­rideth imputed iustice as an ape of iustification, but let him re­member that therein he hath reuiled t [...]e spirite of God who in the fourth to the Romanes, hath by that word expresly set forth the iu­stification of man before God. Rom. 4. 5. 6. 3. 23. To him that beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly, his faith is imputed for righteousnesse. Dauid declareth the blessednesse of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnes without works. Abraham beleeued God, and that was imputed to him for righteousnesse. And this is not written for him onely that it was imputed to him for righteousnesse; but for vs also to whom it shalbe imputed, beleeuing in him that raised vp Iesus our Lord from the dead, &c. Where saying in the future tense, It shall be imputed to vs, after that he had béen now a long time a worthy Apostle of Christ, hee giueth to vnderstand that that imputing of righteousnesse without works, as he hath before termed it, was not only in the beginning, but still to be his and our iustification in the sight of God, and so excludeth that friuolous and shifting distinction of first and second iustification. But thus doth the Apostle expresly auouch imputed righteousnesse. And I maruell that the Answ. and his fellowes thinke so strangely of imputing the righteousnesse of Christ vnto vs, who yet defend the like imputing of the righteous­nesse and merites of other men. This they teach and practise as Rhe. Annot. 2. Cor. 8. 14. concerning their own beggerly and sinfull de [...]otions, their moon­kish and frierly obseruations, their workes of supererogation, whereby they merite further then is néedfull for themselues, and appoint this ouerplus to serue for the helpe and benefite of other being dispensed, applied and imputed vnto them by a pardon from the Pope, or from such as to whom he giueth commission in that be­halfe. So the Friars héere in England made men beléeue that Out of the copy of a par­don graunted by the arme­l [...]te Friers in London in the yeere, 1527. they gaue them participation of all the masses, praiers, fastinges, watchinges, preachings, abstinences, indulgences, labours and al good workes that were done by the brethren of that order being heere in England. Now with what face do these men denie that to the righ­teousnesse of Christ, which thus blasphemously they yéeld to the supposed righteousnesse of sinfull men? But so drunke are they with [Page 219] their owne fansies that whatsoeuer the holy Scripture saith, it is but apishnesse if it be contrarie to their conceipt.

His description of iustification is but his owne and his fellowes deuise, the bastard of the Iesuites and schoolemen. Let him burie it where it was borne. S. Paul by the spirite and word of God pur­posely treateth of iustification to the Romanes and Galatians to teach vs what it is, and wherein it consisteth. Him wee followe and out of him describe and set forth iustification in that maner as I haue declared before. But to countenance his matter he nameth S. Au­sten againe in this place. The best is hee doth but name him. I must tel him that either he neuer read S. Austen, or else vnderstan­deth him not. We confesse according to the word of God, and the doctrine of S. Austen taken from thence that God iustifying vs, and receiuing vs into his fauour by faith in Christ, doth giue vnto vs his holy spirite to renew vs to holinesse and righteousnesse of life▪ wherein wee are to encrease from day to day. But yet this new­nesse is not such in this life, as whereby we can stand iust before the iudgement seate of God. Nay we haue still to crie out; Rom. 7. [...]. 4 Vn­happie man that I am who shall deliuer mee from the bodie of this death, and againe, Mat. 6. 12. O Lord forgiue vs our trespasses, and againe Psal. 143. 2. Enter not into iudgement with thy seruaunt, For in thy sight shall no man liuing be found righteous. Thus hath Christian wisedome taught vs to confesse, but what meaning doth Popish wisedome teach vs to make of this Christian confession. We say forgiue vs our trespasses, saith the Answ. for veniall slips which hinder not iu­stice. And this he falsly collecteth out of a place of S. Austen, where there is no mention or word of any such thing. But I alleaged to him that S. Austen affirmeth that the very Apostles themselues were to say so for this reason, August. in [...]sal. 142. because no man liuing shalbe found iust before God. The Answ. saith, we say so for veniall slips which hinder not, but that a man is iust: S. Austen saith, the Apostles themselues were to say so for this cause, because no man liuing shall be found iust before God. Why doth hee passe ouer this without answere, and without proofe affirme that which is héereby ouer­throwen. As for veniall sinnes we knowe none as touching their own nature, because the scripture absolutely saith: Rom. 6. 23. The reward of sinne is death, and Gal 3. 10. Cu [...]sed is euerie one that continueth not in all thinges that are written in the law. Therefore he that offendeth in [Page 220] any thing whatsoeuer is accursed by the lawe, and the end of the curse is Mat. 25. 41. euerlasting fire, as our Sauiour Christ 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 shalbe 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. 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 shalbe found righteous, but in thy sight no man liuing shalbe 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 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, 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 R [...]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 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, [Page 221] but vpon confidence of the mercie and goodnesse of God towardes him in Iesus Christ. 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. Bernar. de triplici custo­dia. &c. Indeed, saith S. Bernard, by vvay of humilitie, but what? against trueth? Nay, Idem de verb. Esaiae. serm 5. with no lesse truth then humilitie as we heard him say before 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 Idem de peccat. merit. & remis. lib. 2. cap 10. knowing in truth that it is so that there is no [...] 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. Rom. 8. 23. We haue receiued but the first fruites of the spirite, saith S. Paul. Aug. de [...]ēp. 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 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 2. Pet. 3. 13. according to the promise of God we looke for newe heauens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousnesse. Rom 8. 23. We waite for the adoption and full redemption of out bodies, 1 Cor. 15. [...]3 when this mortall shall put on immortalitie, and this corruptible shall put on incorruption, when sinne and death shalbe no more, and 1. cor. 13. 10. that which is perfect being come that which is now in part shalbe done away. Now be­cause [Page 222] 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 shalbe found iust in his [...]ight. The cause why God doth not perfect vs in this life wee take to be this which S. Austen giueth August. de spiri. & l [...]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, 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, VVised. 3. 15 the fruite of good workes is glorious: the other is a false translation where in stéede of Eccle. 16. 12. workes, is put in merite of workes. The third is of S. Paul, 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, Iohn [...]. 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 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 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 [Page 223] 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.