A Mirror of Popish SUBTLETIES: Discovering sundry wretched and miserable evasions and shifts which a secret cavilling Papist in the behalf of one Paul Spence Priest, yet living and lately prisoner in the Castle of Worcester, hath gathered out of Sanders, Bellarmine, and others, for the avoiding and discrediting of sundry allegations of scriptures and Fathers, against the doctrine of the Church of Rome, concerning Sacraments, the sacrifice of the Mass, Transubstantiation, justification, etc.  
Written by Rob. Abbot, Minister of the word of God in the City of Worcester.  
The contents see in the next Page after the Preface to the Reader.  
Perused and allowed.  
TC VIRESSIT WLNERE VERITAS   printer's seal 
LONDON Printed by Thomas Creed, for Thomas Woodcock, dwelling in Paul's Churchyard. 1594.   

TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, THE L. Archbishop of Canterbury his Grace, Primate and Metropolitan of all England: and to the right reverend Father in God, the L. Bishop of Worcester, R. A. wisheth all abundance of grace and peace, with everlasting life.  
Reverend Fathers, it may seem perhaps some presumption in me, to be thus bold to use your LL. names for the countenancing of this Pamphlet, which neither for the matter of it, nor for the occasion, may seem worthy of the notice or sight of so grave and learned Fathers. Notwithstanding being drawn to the publication hereof, partly by the importunity of adversaries, partly by the desire and expectation of friends, I thought it very requisite both in respect of the cause itself, and in respect of mine own private duty, to offer these my simple labours to the protection of your LL. The matter hereof in the beginning was only private betwixt myself and a Romish Priest, one Paul Spence, detained as then in the Castle of Worcester, now, I know not upon what occasion, living at his liberty abroad. But when by speech and report it was drawn to occasion of public scandal, the adversary bragging in secret of a victory, and others doubting what to think thereof, because they saw not to the contrary, I judged it necessary after long debating & deliberating with myself, to let all men see how little reason there was of any such insolent triumph: supposing that it might be turned upon me for a matter of just reproof and blame, if my concealing hereof should cause any disadvantage to the truth, or any discredit of that Ministry & service which under your LL. I execute in the place where I am. Now I must profess that my thus doing, is only for the City of Worcester and others thereabout, for their satisfaction in this cause, wherein I know many of them have desired to be satisfied. Your LL. are both by special occasion affectioned to the place. I know my pains shallbe the better accepted with them, if it shall be vouchsafed your LL. gracious and favourable acceptation. Moreover, the favour which I have received of both your LL of the one, in commending me to the place where I am: of the other, in yielding me special patronage & eountenance therein, hath bound me to yield unto you these my first fruits, though but as a handful of water, yet a testimony of my dutiful and thankful mind. And if it shall find no other cause to be liked of, yet in this I doubt not but it shall be approved that it is a just defence of truth against the vain cavillations of error. The special drift of my writing, is to approve concerning the matters that are here in hand, our faithful & upright dealing in alleging the Fathers against the doctrine of the church of Rome. Whose proctor's for a time used the name of the catholic church, as a fray-bug to terrify all men from speaking against them. But when they were perforce urged to the scriptures, they cried out that we expound the scriptures amiss, and otherwise then the ancient Fathers did understand them. Being further pressed with the testimonies and authorities of the ancient Fathers, they still notwithstanding exclaim that we abuse them also, and allege them to other purpose then ever they intended. A strange matter that the plain words both of the scriptures and of the Fathers, being so expressly for us, yet their meaning and purpose, as these men pretend, should be altogether against us. But whilst they endeavour to justify this, either open exclamation, or privy whispering, it is strange to see how strangely and madly they deal. 
a Eccl. 19 24.  There is, saith the wise man, a subtlety that is fine, but it is unrighteous: and there is that wresteth the open and manifest law. Verily there is nothing so evident, nothing so manifest, but these men have a special faculty to turn it out of the way that it would go, and by a distinction of this manner and that manner, to set a meaning upon it which never came into the meaning of him that wrote it. In which practice and occupation, it falleth out with them which Ireneus said of the heretics of his time: 
b Iren lib. ●. cap. 1●.  There is none perfect amongst them, but such a one as doth not ably cog and lie. Indeed lies cannot be defended but by lying, and false gloss must serve to maintain false and erroneous assertions. Which is not a little to be seen in this libel or pamphlet which I have here to refute, the Author whereof taketh upon him like a cunning Alchemist, to turn every thing into what he list, & as if he supposed us to be men bewitched and transformed into beasts, sticketh not to make such constructions of the scriptures and Father's sayings, as no man that hath but the common reason and understanding of a man, can but see to be lewdly and unreasonably devised. Whereat I should the less marvel, if they were only this man's devise: I would impute this folly to him only. But now he hath taken the most of them out of their learned Treatises forsooth, to which he oft referreth me, as if they were the Oracle of all truth. So that the spirit of this frenzy and madness goeth through the heads of them all, whereby it cometh to pass that they take delight in those things which they cannot but know to be absurd. That their masters know so much, it seemeth to us apparent, for that they forbidden their scholars and followers to be acquainted with any of our writings wherein their absurdities and falsehoods are laid open: and whereas we in answering them, propose both theirs and ours indifferently to all men to be judged of, they give their pupils some liberty to read their books, but it is damnation for them to touch any of ours. Such scholars would be suspicious of such masters, but that they are marvelously blinded with prejudice and self will. Now as many other by other occasions, so I the least of all by occasion offered to me, have taken upon me for this present matter, to show I will not say how vainly & fond, but wickedly and unshamefastly they deal in perverting (they call it answering) the testimonies of the ancient Fathers. What I have attained unto herein, I leave it to be esteemed by the wise and godly reader, whose will and convenient leisure doth serve to be exercised in such readings. Whatsoever it is, I commend it to the favour of your good LL. Humbly craving that my willingness and care may be allowed of, howsoever my ableness be not so fully answerable to the weightiness of the cause. The God of all grace multiply his graces and blessings upon your LL. and so direct you by his holy spirit in all faithfulness and care for the feeding and guiding of his Church, that in the end you may receive that incorruptible crown of glory, which jesus Christ shall yield unto his faithful servants when he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.  
Amen. From Worcest. janu. 7. 1593. Your LL. always to be commanded in jesus Christ. Rob. Abbot.   

The Preface to the Reader.  
IT may be deemed, good Christian Reader, that in publishing this Pamphlet I neither bethought myself of myself nor of these times. As touching myself I must acknowledge, that by reason of many defects, I should have been discouraged from giving any thing forth to the common view and censure of the world. Especially these times being such and so abundant in learning and knowledge, as that it may seem great presumption in any man, to attempt the divulging of any writing wherein there is not either for wit or learning, somewhat more than may be expected of every common and ordinary man. Moreover these matters of controversy betwixt the Church of Rome and us, have been so thoroughly sifted and debated to the full by divers men of singular learning and judgement in this age, that for such as I am, to say any thing after them, may seem no other a matter then for Pan to pipe after Apollo his music, and for an unlearned Attorney to plead a cause after the pleading and debating of most learned counsel. But yet the necessary regard of procuring due estimation to the truth against the adversaries secret disgracinges, hath moved me to do that in this behalf which otherwise I could not have thought convenient. Neither have I judged the conscience of mine own slenderness and inability a sufficient reason to stay me here-from, the case standing as it doth, because I know that as in the bodily fight it is necessary for the winning of the field, that not only the Captains and best experienced soldiers, do use their strength, but also those that in experience and ableness are far inferior unto them, so in this spiritual warfare and contending against the adversaries of the Gospel of Christ, not only they that are of supreme excellency of learning and gifts, but also they which are but as it were of the first order, must as occasion serveth use that ableness which God hath given them to justify the cause of the Gospel, and to clear it from those mists of falsehood and error, wherewith the adversaries labour to overcast it, and to hide it from being seen. And although these matters have been already very sufficiently disputed of, yet because it fareth with books as it doth with news, that whilst they are new & fresh they are regarded and sought after, but after a while they are in a manner buried, so that if the adversary stir again, though he bring nothing but that that was confuted before, yet he is thought to be unanswered, except some special answer be returned to him, therefore beside the commodity which ariseth by the diverse handling of the same matters, serving much for the more easy conceiving and understanding thereof, as ᵗ S. Austen noteth, it is in this respect also very 
● August. de bap count Donat. lib. 2. cap 1.  behoveful and necessary for the Church of God, that the same points be again and again discussed, and truth from time against new adversaries a new defended, though in respect of the matter itself, there needeth not be any thing further said, then that which by divers hath been said already. Therefore it shall not seem unreasonable that I though not worthy, whose name should go forth into this public notice, yet being occasioned thereto, should after the labours of so many learned men, employ my small talon to the confuting of such vain gloss and shifts as an adversary hath used against myself to darken the truth laid open and manifest before his eyes. But for thy better understanding, gentle Reader, and more full satisfaction as touching the necessity of this my doing, I will briefly declare the original & process of the whole matter.  
There was in the Castle of Worcester, a Priest named Paul Spence, not of the Seminary, but begotten to his order as I suppose, in the ti●e of Queen Mary. Upon motion sundry times made unto m●e, I went unto him to have some speech with him concerning his profession. The particulars of our speech either then or after, I will not report, lest I should seem partial either for myself or against him. The conclusion of my speech at that time, was to wish him that he would at some convenient times resort to my study, that by the opportunity of my books I might, as occasion served, show him those places and testimonies which I should allege to him. He promised that he would▪ so that I would procure him licence. I procured it of my L. the Bishop lately deceased. I came to him again, and after some speech I required the performance of his promise. He showed himself too & fro in the matter, and in the end gave me plain answer that he was resolved, and so he knew I was also, and therefore that it was to no purpose for him so to do. I departed from him. The next news that I heard, was a report given forth that I had been with him at the prison, and that he had stopped my mouth that I had nothing to say to him. This is the accustomed manner of these men, who are all so rank of learning, that the veriest ass of them if he do but once bray, is able to astonish and confound any adversary be he never so learned. I went to him again, and urged him as before. He answered me in the same manner. A● length he was persuaded by another man and came to me. I reasoned with him of sundry matters. Being in speech as touching Transubstantiation, I showed him a saying of Cyprian: 
b Cypr. lib. 2. ep. 3.  We find that it was wine which Christ called his blood. But Cyprian saith withal, That the cup was mixed which the Lord offered. He left the matter in hand, and began to demand of me what I thought of the mixture of the cup, I answered him nothing of mine own opinion, but told him that Chrysostom called it 
c Chrysost. in Mat. ho. ●3.  A pernicious heresy. He required me and I showed him the place. But returning to the former point, I showed him the words of Gelasius where he saith, that in the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, 
d Gelas. count ●uty. & ●estor.  There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine. These two latter places have been the occasion of all this writing. He sent to me within two or three days after for my books, to peruse the places, that whereas he could not presently answer any thing by spe●ch, he might do somewhat by w●●ting. I received his answer, and replied to the same again by writing; yet not intending, because it stood not with my business otherwise, to go any further in this course, but only for some advertisement and instruction to him which I saw he needed, and to give him occasion of further conference by speech, as I moved him in the end. This happened near the beginning of Lent, in the year 1590. Towards Whitsuntide next following, when I thought he had been quiet and would have meddled no more, he sent me an answer again written at large to my reply. But the answer in truth was none of his own doing, as is manifest partly by his own confession, and by that he showed himself a stranger in his own answers, when afterward in speech he was upbraided with some of them by myself: partly by the muttering report of his own fellows, vaunting that though he were able to say little, yet some had the matter in hand that were able to say enough. He himself indeed was not, nor is of ableness to do it, as all men know that have any knowledge of him. He was never of any University, and both professed and showed himself in speech utterly ignorant of Logic, whereof his deputy Answ. pretendeth great skill. I omit some other matters that I might mention for proof hereof. But thus I was unwares drawn from P. Spence, to tontroversie and disputation with some other secret friend of his, who for his learning might take upon him to be a defender of the Romish falsehood. I addressed myself to a confutation of this answer, and thought to have sent the same to M. Spence in writing; but before I had fully perfected it, which was in july or August following, he was by occasion of some infirmity as was pretended, set free from his imprisonment upon sureties, and so continueth till this time, neither could I by such means as I used, bring him forth to receive that which I had written. Hereupon have I been traduced by the faction as a man conquered and overcome, as if I taught openly, that which in dealing privately with an adversary I am not able to defend. For the avoiding of this scandal, I was diverse times motioned to publish the whole matter, but for some special reasons did forbear. It lay by me almost a whole year, before I would resolve so to do. At the length, for the satisfying of such as might be desirous to be satisfied in this behalf, and that foolish men might have no further occasion of their vain imaginations and speeches, I took it in hand as my great business otherwise would permit, to peruse it again, and to add some things for answer to Bellarmine, as touching some points for which the Answ. referreth me to him, whose works I had not at the first penning hereof, and so I have presumed, Christian Reader, to offer it unto thy consideration. I have termed the whole discourse in respect of the principal purpose and argument of it, A Mirror of Popish subtleties, as wherein thou mayst in part behold the vanity & wretchedness of those answers wherein these men account so great subtlety and acuteness of wit and learning, as if the same being given, there were nothing more to be said against them. In the publishing hereof, I have thought good to observe this order. First I have set down the above named places of chrysostom and Gelasius. Secondly, M. Spence his Answer to those two places. Thirdly, my reply to that answer. Fourthly, the latter answer to my reply, with a confutation thereof, from point to point, and a defence of the allegations and authorities used in the said reply. Read all, and then judge of the truth. I protest, I have made conscience to write nothing but the truth: neither hath any vain curiosity led me to the publishing hereof, but only the regard of justifying the truth, and that namely to those of the City and County of Worcester, whom my labours do most nearly and properly concern. If thou canst reap any fruit or benefit by it, I shallbe hearty glad thereof, and let us both give glory unto God. If any see the truth herein, and yet will maliciously kick against it, I pass by him with those words of the Apostle; 
e Apoc. 22 11.  He that is filthy, let him be filthy still. It is our part to propose the truth: it is God only that can give men hearts to assent unto it, and 
f Mat. 11. 1.  Wisdom shallbe justified of her children. The God of all wisdom and knowledge, enlighten us more and more to the understanding of his true religion; subdue the pride and rebellion of our hearts, that we may unfeignedly yield unto it, and give us constancy and perseverance to continue in the same unto the end, that in our end we may attain to the endless fruition of his kingdom and glory, through jesus Christ our Lord.  
Amen. Rob. Abbot.   

The special matters that are discussed in this Treatise.  

THat the mixture of water in the cup of the Lord is not necessary, neither hath any sufficient warrant. Deaf. sect. 2.  
That the Liturgies which go under the names of james, Basil, and Chrysostom's Masses, as now they are extant, are not theirs whose names they bear. sect. 5.  
That Popish prayer for the dead hath no warrant from the ancientest church, sec. 7.  
That the sacrifice of the Mass is contradicted by the scriptures and Fathers, that Bellarmin himself in seeking to approve it, overthroweth it; that the exceptions that are made against our reasons and proofs, are vain and frivolous, sect 4. 9 10.  
That Theodoret and Gelasius, in disputing against the he esie of Eutyches, do very peremptorily determine against Transubstantiation sect 11. 12.  
That Tertullian, Cyprian, chrysostom, Austen, do manifestly impugn the same error of Transubstantiation, with a declaration of an obscure place alleged under▪ Austin's name, and a refutation of other exceptions that are made in the behalf thereof. sect. 13. 14 15. 16. 17 18. 21. 22.  
That the expounding of the descending of Christ into hell, of the torments & anguish of his soul, containeth, as touching the doctrine thereof, nothing but the truth witnessed both by the scriptures and by the Fathers. sest. 15.  
That our sacraments are rightly called seals, and in what respect they are preferred before the sacraments of the old Testament, sect. 20. 30.  
That the real eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ is a lewd devise, and judged by the Fathers to be wicked, profane, faithless, and heathenish, and that the words of Christ, of eating and drinking, job. 6. are not to be understood properly but by a figure. sect. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 30.  
That the Doctors of the Romish church by the defence of Transubstantiation have been driven to most impious and damnable questions and assertions. sect. 29.  
That the place of the Gospel Luc. 22. 20. which they so much cavil upon out of the Greek, maketh nothing at all for Transubstantiation, as by diverse other reasons, so by the confession Bellarmine himself. sect 31.  
That the assumption of the virgin Mary, is a mere fable sect. 33.  
That the Church hath no authority after the Apostles, to authorize any scriptures and that we seclude no other books from the canon of the bible, than the old church did. sect. 34.  
How wickedly the Papists deal in mangling and martyring the writings of the Fathers. sect. 35.  
That our doctrine of justification before God by faith only, is the very truth which both the scriptures and out of them, the Fathers have manifestly taught: that it maketh nothing against good works: that the place of S. james, cap. 2. maketh nothing against it. sect. 36.    

May it please thee, gentle Reader, first of all to take notice of these two places of chrysostom & Gelasius, which have been the occasion of all this controversy: for thy better satisfaction I have noted them both in English and Latin, though otherwise to avoid both tediousness of writing and unnecessary charges of printing, I have thought good to set down the places alleged only translated into English.  

The place of chrysostom against the use of water in the cup of the Lords table.  
CVius rei gratia non aquam sed vinum post resurrectionem bibit? 
Chrysost. in Math. hom. 83.  Perniciosam quandam haeresin radicitùs evellere voluit, eorum qui aqua in mysterijs utuntur. Ita ut ostenderet quia & quando hoc mysterium tradidit, unum tradidit: etiam post resurrectionem in nuda mysterij mensae vino usus est. Exgenimine, ait, vitis, quae certè vinum, non aquam producit.  
In English thus:  
But why did Christ after his resurrection drink not Water but Wine? He would pluck up by the roots a certain pernicious heresy; of them which use water in the Sacrament. So that to show that when he delivered this Sacrament, he delivered wine, even after his resurrection also he used wine at the bare table of the Sacrament. Of the fruit of the vine, saith he, which surely bringeth forth wine and not water.   

The place of Gelasius against Transubstantiation.  
CErtè sacramenta quae sumimus corporis & sanguinis Christi, divina 
Gelasius count Eutych. & Nestor.  res est; propter quod & per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae, & tamen esse non desivit substantia vel natura panis & vini. Et certe imago & similitudo corporis & sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Satis ergò nobis evidenter ostenditur, hoc nohis in ipso Christo domino sentiendum, quod in eius imagine profitemur, celebramus et sumimus, ut sicut in haenc, scilicet in divinam transeunt, sancto spiritu perficiente, substantiam, permanent tamen in suae proprietate naturae: sic illud ipsum mysterium principale, cuius nobis efficientiam virtutemque veracitèr repraesentant, ex quibus constat propriè permanentibus, unum Christum, quia integrum verumque permaenere demon strant.  
In English thus:  
Verily the Sacraments which we receive of the body and blood of Christ are a divine thing, by reason whereof, we also by them are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet there ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine. And surely an image or esemblance of the body and blood of Christ, is celebrated in the action of the mysteries. It is therefore evidently enough showed unto us; that we must think the same in our Lord jesus Christ, which we profess, celebrate and receive in his image, that as these (namely the bread and wine) do by the working of the holy Ghost pass over into a divine substance, and yet continue in the propriety of their own nature; so they show that that principal mystery, the efficiency & virtue whereof these do represent unto us, doth abide one Christ; because whole and true; those natures properly remaining, whereof he doth consist.   

M. Spence having had my books to peruse these places, sent me in writing this answer to them.  
SIr, I right heartily thank you for the willing mind you hau● towards me. Truly I should be very unkind if I knew m● self unaffectioned to so much good will. I am in prison and poverty, otherwise I should be some way answerable to your friendliness. In the mean season good will shall be ready for good will. Touching the words of S. chrysostom: He would pluck up by the roots a certain pernicious heresy of them which use water in the Sacrament, etc. Read the 32. Canon of the sixth Council holden at Constantinople, and there you shall find upon what occasion this golden mouth did utter these words, and not only that, but also mention of S. james, and S. Basils' mass or sacrifice left to the church in writing. The words of the Canon begin thus: Because we know that in the country of the Armenians, wine only is offered at the holy table, etc. The heresy therefore against which he wrote was of the 
a Untruth. For neither doth chrysostom intimate any thing against the Armenians or such as use wine only: neither was it heresy in them that did so.  Armenians, and the Aquarians: the first whereof would use only wine, the other only water in the holy mysteries. Against which use being so directly against both the scriptures and custom of the primitive church, he wrote the same which he saith of pernicious heresy, as before, I cannot doubt of your having the Counsels or some of them.  
Your other book containing the words of Gelasius, I will not yet answer, being printed at Basil, where we suspect many good works to be corrupted & abused. But if it prove so to be, yet the whole faith of Christ's church in that point may not be reproved, against so many witnesses of scriptures and fathers 
b Neither scripture not Father avoucheth the contrary.  avouching the contrary. Nay what words should Christ have used if he had meant to make his body & blood of the bread and wine as we say he did, other than these: This is my body which shall be given, etc. And gain: for this is my blood of the new Testament which shallbe shed for many for remission of sins. Mark well the speeches and they be most wonderful as most true. All the world and writings therein 
c The Gospel itself is sufficient to persuade him that will be persuaded, informing us of a true and natural body of Christ, and not of a fantastical body in the fashion & quantity of a wafer cake.  cannot justly and well persuade a Christian to believe the contrary in my opinion: S. Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul all writing, This is my body; whereas writing otherwise of one thing, one saith; If I in the finger of God cast out devils, etc. Another, If I in the spirit of God, etc. So that in 
d Untrue, as appeareth by the conference of these places Mat. 5. 29. with Mar. 9 3. Mar. 5. 39 with Luc. 6. 29. Mat. 20. 23. Mar. 10. 39 Mat. 21. 21. Mar. 11. 23. which are not taken literally, and yet difler not in phrase of speech.  any matter where more than one speak of the same thing, every one hath more of the same thing to give more light than another. But in the matter of the Sacrament no whit so, but in the very substantial point 
e Untrue: for they vary as touching the cup, & there is the same reason of the one part of the Sacrament, as of the other. See the reply. Concil. constanti. 6. can. 32  all deliver the self same effectual words.  
Sir, once again thanks for your good chrysostom, and so I beseech to recall them that err into the way of truth and everlasting salvation.   

A reply against the former answer to the places of chrysostom and Gelasius.  
THe willingness I have to do you good, M. Spence, I wish might take such effect with you, as that God might be glorified by revealing unto you the knowledge of his truth. I doubt not but it shall be so, if you seek it as you ought, and where you ought. Concerning the place of chrysostom, of using water in the Sacrament, I find it expounded as you answer me, in Concil. Constantinopol 6. ca 32. of them that used water only and no wine. Albeit the words seem to me plainly to enforce upon the Reader another understanding neither find I any reason why the Bishops of Armenia being a thousand under one Metropolitan, may not be thought as meet judges of Chrysostom's meaning, as the Bishops of this Council; especially seeing it is not certain either what time or by whom those Canons were made, and appear to be falsely fathered upon the sixth general Council as Surius in his admonition 
Surius in admoni●. ad Lector. de can. 6. synodi. council. to. 2.  concerning those Canons giveth to understand. Yea and they are in divers points rejected by yourselves, as is plain also by Surius both in the same Preface, and by some notes added to some of the Canons. But I contend not of that point, and as I condemn not in that respect the Churches which either have used or do use that mixture, only without opinion of superstition and necessity; so neither do I find reason why those Churches are to be condemned that rather follow as most assured the simplicity of the institution of jesus Christ, where we find mention of the fruit of the vine, but nothing as touching water. If you say as the Canon saith, that this is to innovate those things which have been delivered by tradition, 
Cypri. epist. ad Pompeium.  I must answer you with Cyprians words; Whence is this tradition? Whether descending from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or coming from the Commandments and Epistles of the Apostles? for that those things which are written must be done, God testifieth, etc. If therefore either it be commanded in the Gospel or contained in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles, let this tradition be kept as holy. Now, seeing there is no testimony of the holy scripture to approve the necessity of water, I take your words (directly contrary to the scriptures) to be understood rather of those which use water only contrary to the text, than wine only according to the express mention of the text. Your gloze of the Canon 
De consecra. dist. 2. cap. sicut in glossa.  law doth tell that Doctors have said, that water is to be mingled in the cup only for honesty or decency, and therefore not of necessity to the Sacrament. And that amongst others Thomas Aquinas granteth. Polydore Virgil referreth the fist institution thereof to Alexander 
Plati. in Alexander 1. Durand. Rati. divin. lib. 4. rubri: de officio sacerdotis, etc. Thom. Aquin. pa 3. q. 7●. art. 3  the first, Bishop of Rome. P●atina seemeth to agree with him. So Durand saith: Water is mingled in the cup with the wine, by the institution of Pope Alexander the first. And as touching Christ's using of water, Thomas Aquinas maketh it but a probability and no certain truth: It is probably believed that our Lord instituted this Sacrament in wine mingled with water according to the manner of that country. Your Council of Trent saith no more: It is supposed that our Lord did so. And in a conference betwixt Anselmus a Bishop of Saxome, and Nech●tes Patriarch of Nicomedia, Anno domini 
Centur. Magdebur. cap. 12.  1138. Ne●hites objecting that Christ our Saviour did not use water in the consecration, Anselmus answereth by likelihood that he did so, because in Palestina the manner is to mingle water with their wine. Now if it were done according to the manner of that country, than it was done to abate the strength of the wine and not for any such mystery as some have imagined. In many Countries where their wines are very strong, temperate & sober men use to qualify and delay the heat thereof by mingling water, lest it should cause any distemperature to the body. And this the Greek Churches may seem to have respected who consecrated with mere wine, as appeareth by N●chites his speech in the conference abovenamed; as also by some editions of Chrysostom's Liturgy, and afterwards put in water when it was to be administered to the receivers. The reason which they used for not adding water before, was this, because Christ is not read to have added water; which accordeth with the words of chrysostom alleged by me. But as I said before, I stand not upon this point. Only I pray you to consider an argument of Bertram in his book de corpo. & sangui. domini. ad Carol imperat. taking 
Bertram. de corpo. & sang. domini.  his ground from this mixture. Water, saith he, in the Sacrament beareth the image of the people. Therefore if the wine sanctified by the service of the Ministers, be bodily turned into the blood of Christ, than the water also which is mingled withal, must needs be bodily or substantially turned into the blood of the believing people. For where there is one sanctification there is consequently one working or effect, and where there is the like reason, there followeth also the like mystery. But we see in the water there is nothing turned bodily. Consequently therefore in the wine there is nothing bodily showed. It is taken spiritually whatsoever is signified in the water as touching the body of the people. It must needs therefore be taken spiritually whatsoever is signified in the wine concerning the blood of Christ. Which words amongst other, it hath pleased those honest censors of the King of Spain's appointment, to exempt from being 
Index Exp● in censura Bertram●.  printed any more. A shift wherewith the church of Rome's factors have made us very well acquainted in the works of divers Authors both old and new.  
By the way as you touch this point, you seem to glean for the defence of your Mass, telling me that in the Canon aforesaid, there is mention made of S. james and S. Basils' Mass or Sacrifice left to the Church in writing. By which speech you put me in mind of that melancholy Athenian, who standing at the sea shore would imagine of every ship that he saw that it was his ship. For in like sort wheresoever you find in any of the ancient Fathers mention made of the mystical sacrifice, you fancy it strait ways to be meant of your sacrilegious & abominable sacrifice of the Mass: a cursed devise of Satan thereby to withhold men from the sovereign & only sacrifice of the cross of Christ. Therefore whereas the Canon mentioneth only Sacrifice, you allege it to me Mass or Sacrifice. But you should know that the Greek Fathers were not privy to the name of your Mass, how soever it please some of you to make a cogging argument to blind the unlearned by these titles, S. james his Mass, S. Chrysostom's Mass, etc. used by the translators, but never meant by the Authors. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they used, may rather import our divine-seruice then your profane Mass. And if it must needs signify Mass, you may turn the magistrate into a 
Rom▪ 13. 6. The Minister of God. Rom. 15. 27. Phil. 2. 25. to minister unto. Heb. 1 14. ministering spirits. Act. 13. 2. as they were ministering to the Lord.  Masse-priest because he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & you may say that to relieve the necessities of Saints is to say Mass, because the Apostle useth thereof the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Angels shall be called Massing spirits, because they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You remember since you would needs enforce the Apostles saying Mass by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. how well to the purpose you may hereby understand. Your Mass you call of the word Missa (you should indeed rather of the word Massa, as being an heap of unprofitable ceremonies and wicked profanations of the Sacrament of jesus Christ). But Missa importeth not sacrifice as you pretend it doth. The old use of the word Missa, discloseth the great abuse of your Mass. It noted the sending away of non-communicants; none being permitted to stay while the Sacrament was ministered, but only such as did communicate. So doth S. Austen declare, speaking 
Au. de Temp. ser. 232.  as touching the Catechumeni, that is, such as were yet but novices in religion and under catechizing, and therefore as yet not permitted to be partakers of the holy mysteries, nor to be present at the celebration thereof. Behold saith he, after the Sermon there is (missa) a dismission or sending away of such as are catechumeni: the faithful abide still; we shall come to the place of prayer; etc. And in the fourth Council of Carthage, order is taken that the Bishop shall forbid 
council. carthag. 4. can. 84.  none to enter into the Church and hear the word of God, whether he be Gentile, heretic or jew, usque ad missam, until the dismission or sending away of the catechumeni. There is no such dismission in your Mass, and of those that stay, none are ordinarily partakers of the Sacrament, but only the Priest. The people are spectators only of his stage-like and trifling gestures, and go as empty home as they came thither. But in process of time custom drew this w●r● to note the celebration of the Sacrament, which was administered to such as remained after this dismission. Whence it is that the pretended Liturgies of S. james, Basil, and chrysostom, are by the translators termed by the name of Mass. Whereas those Liturgies, I doubt not, if they were written by those men whose names they bear, as some of them assuredly were not, or if being written by them they remained as their Authors left them, as by the variety of the editions of Chrysostom's Liturgy it is plain they do not, would rather resemble our communion wherein both the Minister and the people communicate together in both kinds, than your Mass wherein the people are either idle lookers on, or when they are communicants, are by your sacrilege communicants in one kind only, and secluded from the other; contrary altogether to the practice of the primitive Church, or which is more, to the express institution of our Saviour Christ. And this is to be seen by those steps of antiquity which as yet are found in those Liturgies: neither do I see what great advantage you have by them to set any colour upon your Popish Mass, save only to blind the eyes of the simple and unlearned. And whereas you alleged to me that there was in them prayer for the dead, there is good cause to think that those prayers were at the first but commemorations and thanksgivings for the departed in the faith of Christ; for that in Chrysostom's Liturgy we find, according to that which then I answered you, thus: We offer unto thee, o Lord, this reasonable service for those 
chrysost ●●gia.  which rest in the faith, our Ancestors, Fathers, the patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Preachers, Evangelists, Martyrs, especially for the most holy and pure virgin Mary, etc. But it is contrary to the custom of your church & to your doctrine, to pray for the virgin Mary, for Martyrs, etc. And you use to that purpose the saying of S. Austen, He doth injury to the Martyr, which prayeth for a Martyr. Therefore 
August. de verb Apo. ser. 17.  these were only speeches of thanksgiving unto God for his loving mercy showed to those through jesus Christ, & make nothing at all for your prayer for the dead. To this being the ancient custom o● the Church, S. Austen alludeth when he saith: When the 
Aug. Euchi●. cap. 10.  sacrifices either of the altar or of any alms are offered for all that are dead, they are for them that are very good thanksgivings, etc. which custom of thanksgiving generally we also use for all that are departed hence in the faith of jesus Christ. As for that which he addeth: For them that are not very evil, they are propitiations, etc. we take it to be a superstitious conceit which after crept into the church, contraried by many in S. Austin's time, as may appear in his book of questions to Dulcitius, where proposing the question of Dulcitius, whether oblations for the dead did avail them (whereby it appeareth it was a matter controversed in that time) he answereth: To this many say that if there might be any good done herein 
August de 8. quaest. D●lcitij q. 2.  after death, how much rather should the soul itself procure rest for itself by it own confession of sins there made, then that an oblation should be procured for the rest thereof by other man? A reason not without some weight if it be well considered.  
But in that place aforenamed of S. Austen, I would not you should be deceived to think that he meaneth the sacrifices of the altar, for the offering or sacrificing of the body and blood of Christ, whereas indeed he meaneth it of the offerings (as we also call them) which every particular man offered at the Sacrament, which were employed either to the service of the Sacrament, or to the relief of the poor, or to other sacred and godly uses. Which manner of offering 
Hierom in 1. Cor. 11.  S. Hierome declareth upon those words of the Apostle: When ye come together, etc. This he speaketh, saith he, because when they met in the church, they offered their offerings severally, and after the communion, eating a supper in common, they spent there in the church whatsoever remained unto them of the sacrifices. To which purpose sundry other like places might be alleged. And this is one reason amongst the rest, why sometimes we find mention of sacrifice offered in the Sacrament.  
But I know, M. Spence, what sacrifice it is that you mean: a sacrifice properly so called of the very body and blood of Christ, propitiatory for the sins of quick and dead, offered really and indeed every day by the hands of a wretched and sinful priest, who must entreat God in behalf of the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, that he will look down mercifully upon it and accept it, etc. The very naming of which things cannot but be loathsome to a true Christian heart, which simply believeth out of the word of God that Christ having purged our sins by once offering himself upon his cross 
Heb. 1. 3. & 9 26. 28. Cap. ●. 27. Cap. 10. 1●.  is ascended into heaven, neither needeth to be often offered because by that once offering he hath fully perfected the work of one atonement and forgiveness of sins, and therefore that there is now no other sacrifice or offering propitiatory for sin: I say not only no other thing offered, but no other offering or sacrificing for remission of sin. Read uprightly, M. Spence, and with feeling of conscience the 7. 9 and 10. to the Hebrews. The sayings are clear as the sun-light, and in vain do your Rhemists struggle & strive to darken the light of them. There is none almost that knoweth any thing as touching religion, but can see how their commentary is controlled by the text. Consider this argument out of the tenth chapter: where there is forgiveness of sins there is no more offering for sin. By the sacrifice of Christ upon his cross there is forgiveness of sins: for his blood was there shed for the forgiveness of sins. Therefore after Christ's sacrifice upon his cross there is no more offering for sin. The Apostle in that place rejecting the sacrifices of the old law, as which could not sanctify as touching the 
Hebr. 10. 1. 2.  conscience those that came unto them (for if they could, they should not have been often offered) substitateth in place thereof the true, entire, and only sacrifice of Christ upon his cross. Who having a body 
5. 7.  fitted him, cometh according to the will of his father into the world to sanctify us by the offering of his body once. And whereas, 
10. 11.  saith he, the priests of the old law do daily and oftentimes offer their sacrifices (an argument that they took not away sin) this man having offered one offering for sin, is gone into heaven not to offer up himself often, saith he, chap. 9 for then he should have often 
cap. 9 25.  suffered since the foundation of the world, but waiting henceforth till his foes be made his footstool: inferring withal, that he needeth 
cap. 10. 13. 14.  not to be often offered because by one offering or oblation of himself, he hath perfected and that for ever them that are sanctified. Now that he hath perfected us, and therefore that there needeth no other sacrifice or offering for sin, he proveth by the words of jeremy, 
15.  who defineth the new Testament, the ground whereof is the bloodsheading of jesus Christ by the forgiveness of sins, concluding thereupon; Now where remission of these is, there is no more 
18.  offering for sin. Collect the Apostles reason thus: If after that once offering there be no more offering for sin, then surely by that once offering he perfected us. But after that once offering there is no more offering for sin; therefore by that once offering he hath perfected us. The assumption or minor he proveth thus: Where forgiveness of sins is, there is no more offering for sin. But by that once offering there is forgiveness of sins; therefore after that once offering there is no more offering for sin. Examine this collection and see how it goeth hand in hand with the Apostles words. Which is so peremptory & resolute against the sacrilege of the mass▪ that your Rhemists without any colour or show of probability by the text, do force upon the word oblation a strange meaning, as if the Apostle had said; There is no 
Rhem. Annot. Hebr. 10. 18.  second baptism whereby we may have applied unto us the full pardon and remission of our sins. What should I here say? I ma● 
Campian. rat. 1  justly retort upon them the words of Campian: What? is it so? ● there such perverseness, such presumption, and shamelessness in men 
Cicer. epist. 12. lib. 5. Lucceio.  But they practise that which the Heathen Orator saith: He whic● hath once passed the bounds of modesty and shamefastness, mu● needs show himself lustily impudent and shameless. What hat● the Apostle to do with Baptism in this text? Why did they no● show how this sense hangeth upon the words gone before? Wh● did they forego the expositions of the Fathers? of chrysostom: He 
chrysost. Oecumen. Theodor. etc.▪ in Hebr. 10.  forgave sins when he gave the Testament, and he gave the Testament by sacrifice. If therefore he forgave sins by one oblation or sacrifice, there needeth not now any second: of Oecumenius out of Photius: What need is there of many oblations, seeing that one which Christ hath yielded is sufficient to take away sin? Theodoret: There is now no offering for sin. For it is superfluous, forgiveness of sin being given already: of Theophylact: If remission of sins be granted by one oblation, what need we now any second: of Primasius: for Christ which is our sacrifice is not to be offered again for sin. For this was once done and needeth not to be done a second time: of Ambrose: for one offering of the body of Christ maketh perfect them that are sanctified, as which giveth full and perfect remission of sins, etc. Wherefore it needeth not that we should daily purge with daily sacrifices as they did in the old law. Did they see none of these expositions? yes without doubt, they saw them and shut their eyes against them. The Lord will require it in his due time. But hereby we understand the meaning of their words in their Preface to the Epistles, that if in the scriptures there sound any thing to us contrary to their doctrine, we must assure ourselves that we fail of the right sense. So that be the words never so plain, yet if they sound either to the ancient Fathers or to us contrary to the Romish doctrine, we must think that neither the ancient Fathers nor we attain to the right understanding of the words. But we are not so mad upon the warrant of any Philosopher to say that snow is black, so long as our eyes assure us that snow is white.  
I know here what you are ready to object; namely, that the Fathers in speaking of the Eucharist, use very commonly a mention of sacrifice, and call the same by the name of sacrifice, and all this you refer to the sacrilege of the Mass. But you should not conceive so of the Fathers, as to think that they meant any thing contrary to so express and manifest scripture, so long as they do so plainly tell you what they meant in using the name of sacrifice. You should remember the corrections which chrysostom & Ambrose do use when 
Chrysost. & Ambros. in Hebr. 10.  naming their offering of sacrifice they add, Or rather we work the remembrance of a sacrifice. You should take notice of the exposition of Theophylact; We offer him the same always, or rather we 
Theophy. ibid.  make a remembrance of the offering of him, as if he were offered or sacrificed at this time: and of the words of Eusebius, After all having 
Euseb. de demonstrat. evang. lib. 1. cap. 10. Theodor. in Hebr. 8.  wrought a wonderful and excellent sacrifice unto his father, he offered for the salvation of us all and ordained that we should offer the remembrance thereof unto God in steed of a sacrifice: and of Theodoret: Why do the priests of the new Testament use a mystical Liturgy or sacrifice? It is clear to them that are instructed in divine matters that we do not offer another sacrifice, but do perform a remembrance of that one and saving sacrifice. For this commandment the Lord himself gave; Do this, saith he, in the remembrance of me; that by beholding the figures, we might call to mind the sufferings which he undertook in our behalf. And of S. Austen: The flesh 
August. con. faust. Manich. lib. 20. ca 2●.  & blood of this sacrifice was promised before the coming of Christ by sacrifices of resemblance: in the passion of Christ it was given in very truth: after the ascension of Christ it is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance. Learn by this place to put difference betwixt in very truth, and by a Sacrament of remembrance, and learn by all these places, that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice properly so called, wherein Christ is really and properly and in very truth sacrificed, but a Sacrament, a commomoration and remembrance of a sacrifice. Add hereunto if you will the words of saint Austen: Was not Christ once offered in himself, and yet in a mystery or Sacrament 
August. ep. 23.  he is every day offered for the people? For if Sacraments had not a kind of resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments, they should not be Sacraments at all. Now by reason of this resemblance they do most commonly take the names of the things themselves. Note in these words the difference betwixt being offered in himself, and being offered in a Sacrament or mystery, & learn that this speech of being offered or sacrificed, when it respecteth the Sacrament, hath his use and meaning not of the things themselves, but of the resemblance of the things, and therefore is not indeed to be offered in himself. And therefore your own gloze of the Canon law expoundeth it: Christ is sacrificed, that is, the sacrificing of him is represented, 
De consec. dist. 2. cap. semel.  and there is a remembrance made of his passion▪ The sacrifice of the death and passion of Jesus Christ is the whole matter and substance of this mystery: it is there proposed: the remembrance thereof renewed as if it were now done; the thing resembled by outward signs of breaking the bread and pouring the wine: the hearts of men stirred up as if they saw Christ nailed to the cross: the sacrifice of this passion is presented by the faith & prayers of the church unto God, thereby to have forgiveness of sins: nothing here remembered but Christ's sacrificing himself upon the cross. What marvel then though the Fathers called this mystery a sacrifice, though never imagining your sacrifice of the Mass? What marvel though they will us to behold in this Sacrament the sacrifice of our price; the sacrifice of sacrifices, the unbloody service of the sacrifice, the sacrifice of our mediator and such like: which speeches your men foolishly and unlearnedly or rather impudently and unconscionably allege for their supposed sacrifice of the Mass. They have expounded their own meaning as you have heard, and pitifully do your Rhemists' labour and strive to wind themselves out of those expositions and cannot prevail. And as for the same speeches of the Fathers as touching sacrifice, we would not doubt ●● speak in this case as they did, but that your heretical doctrine hath caused God's people to conceive of sacrifice otherwise then the Fathers intended. Albeit upon like occasions we are not far from that vehemency of words which we find to have been used by them, nay we are no whit behind them.  
But think with yourself, M. Spence is not the death and passion of Christ the only sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins? Shame be on his face that will deny it. What sacrifice then is there in the Eucharist? Verily Cyprian saith; The passion of Christ is the sacrifice 
Cypr. lib 2. epist. 3. P●o●p. in psal. 129.  which we offer. And Prosper: What propitiation is there but sacrifice, and what sacrifice but the kill of that lamb, which hath taken away the sin of the world: and your own counterfeit decretal of Alexander the first: The passion of Christ is to be remembered 
Alexan. epist. 1. to. 1. council.  in these sacrifices, and the same to be offered to the Lord. But doth Christ really suffer & die in the Sacrament? Is he there sweeting water and blood? is he buffeted with fists, spit in the face, crowned with thorns, derided, accused, condemned, nailed to the cross. Indeed the ancient fathers say as touching the Sacrament, chrysostom thus: While that death is performed and dreadful sacrifice: 
Chrysost in Acta h●m. 21. De con●e. di●t. 2. cap. Quiddit san●u●. Cyp de caena domini. Chr●●ost. in Encaen●j●. H●●ron ●● psa. 95.  and Gregory: Christ death again in this mystery; his flesh suffereth for the salvation of the people: and Cyprian, We stick to the cross, we suck the blood and fasten our tongues within the wounds of our redeemer; and chrysostom again: Good Lord, the judge himself is led to the judgement seat, the creator is set before the creature: he which cannot be seen of the angels is spitted at by a servant, he tasteth gall and vinegar, he is thrust in with a spear, he is put into a grave, etc. In which manner of speaking S. Hierome saith: Happy is he in whose heart Christ is every day borne: and again: Christ is crucified for us every day: and S. Austen: Then is Christ slain unto 
Aug. ouaes●. evan. li 2. q. 33.  every man when he believeth him to have been slain. Do you think that these things are really done in the Sacrament as the words sound? that Christ indeed suffereth, dieth, is burted; that we cleave to his cross, & c? S. Austen telleth you: The offering of the 
De cons. dist. 2. cap. Hoc est.  flesh which is performed by the hands of the priest is called the passion, death, and crucifying of Christ not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery. Seeing then the passion of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer, and the passion of Christ is to be understood in the Sacrament, not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery: it followeth that that sacrifice is likewise ●o to be understood, not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mysserie, and therefore that the sacrifice which you pretend, is indeed sacrilege as I have termed it, and a manifest derogation from the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice upon his cross.  
As touching the matter of Transubstantiation, I alleged unto 
G●las. count ●u y●h. & N●st.  you the sentence of Gelastic Bishop of Rome: There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine. You answer me first, that you suspect it to be corrupted by some of ours. There is no cause M. Spence, of that suspicion: but the shameless dealing of some lewd varlets of your side is notorious that way, and infamous through all the Church of God. Your own clerks cannot deny the truth of this allegation, as they do not of many other sayings of the ancient Fathers, as plainly contrary to your positions as this is. Albeit 
Index Expurg. in censura Bertrami.  they practise therein that which they profess in the Index Expurgatorius, where they say: In the old Catholic Doctors we bear with many errors, and we extenuate them, excuse them, & by some devised shift do oftentimes deny them, and feign a convenient meaning of them when they are opposed unto us in disputations, or in contention with our adversaries. Indeed without these pretty shifts your men could find no matter whereof to compile their answers. But being taken for truly alleged, you say, yet the whole faith of Christ's Church in that point may not by his testimony be reproved against so many witnesses of scriptures and Fathers to the contrary. Whereas you should remember that Gelasius was Bishop of Rome, & that what he wrote, he wrote it by way of judgement and determination against an heretic, and therefore by your own defence could not err. And if it had been against the received faith of the Catholic Church in those days, the heretics against whom he wrote, would have returned it upon him to his great reproach. But he spoke as other ancient Fathers had done before him, as 
Theodor. dial. 1.  Theodoret: He which called himself a vine, did honour the visible elements and signs with the name of his body and blood, not changing their nature, but adding grace unto nature. And again; The 
Dial. 2.  mystical signs after consecration do not go from their own nature, for they continue in their former substance, figure and form, etc. 
chrysost. ad caesarium Monach. August. apud ●edam. in 1. cor 10.  chrysostom thus: Before the bread be consecrated, we call it bread, but the grace of God sanctifying it by the ministery of the priest, it is freed from the name of bread, & is vouchsafed the name of the Lords body, although the nature of bread remain in it. Austen thus: That which you see is bread and the cup, which your eyes also do tell you. 
De consect. dist. 2 cap. ●oc est.  But as touching that which your faith requireth for in ●ruction, bread is the body of Christ, and the cup is his blood. And again: This is it which we say, which by all means we labour to approve, that the sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things; the visible form of the elements, and the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord jesus Christ: of the Sacrament and the matter of the Sacrament, that is, the body of Christ. And that you may not take that visible form of the elements for your empty forms and accidents without substance, which and many other things your censors abovenamed say, The latter age of the Church subtly and truly added by the holy 
Index Expurgat. in censura Bertrami.  Ghost, confessing thereby that these Popish subtleties were not known at all to the ancient Fathers, take withal that which he addeth: Even as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man, for that Christ is true God, & true man: because every thing containeth the nature and truth of those things, whereof it is made. By which rule you may understand also the saying of Irenee: The Eucharist 
Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34.  consisteth of two things, an earthly and a heavenly; namely so as that it containeth the nature and truth of them both. By these places and many other like it is evident, that albeit in this Sacrament there is yielded unto the faith of the receiver the body and blood of Christ, and the whole power and virtue thereof to everlasting life, yet there ceaseth not to be the substance, nature and truth of bread and wine. Which is the purport of Gelasiu● his words; By the Sacraments which we receive of the body and blood of Christ, we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet there ceaseth not to be the subsance or nature of bread and wine. The force of which words, and of the words of Theodoret you shall perceive the better, if you know how they are directed against Eutyches the heretic. The heretic in Theodoret's Dialogues by a comparison drawn from 
Dial. ●.  the sacrament, would show how the body of Christ after his assumption into heaven was swallowed up, as it were, of his divinity, and so Christ ceased to be truly man. As, said he, the bread and wine before the blessing are one thing, but after the blessing become another, and are changed: so the body or humanity of Christ whereby he was truly man before, is after-his ascension & glorification changed into the substance of God. But Theodoret answereth him; Thou art taken in the nets which thou thyself hast woven. For as the bread and wine, albeit in virtue and power they imply the body and blood of Christ, yet retain still the substance & truth of nature which they had before; so the body of Christ albeit it be glorified and advanced to high and excellent dignity, yet remaineth still the same in substance and property of nature as it was before. Which saint Austen expresseth thus, speaking of the body of Christ: To 
August. ep. 57  which indeed he hath given immortality, but hath not taken away the nature thereof. If Eu●yches were now alive, he would surely be a Papist. Your new and gross heresy of Transubstantiation had been a good nest for him to shroud himself in. For he might and would have said, that as the bread and wine in the sacrament after consecration do leave their former substance, and are changed into another, so the body of Christ, although it were first a true and natural body, yet after his ascension and glorification was changed into another nature and substance of the Godhead. A meet cover 
cyp. de caena domini.  for such a cup. You may remember that I showed you how Cyprian doth exemplify the matter of the sacrament, by the divinity & humanity of Christ, that as jesus Christ though truly God, yet was not letted thereby to be truly man; so the sacrament though it imply sacramentally not only the virtue & power, but also the truth of the body and blood of Christ, yet is not thereby hindered from having in it the substance and nature of bread & wine. And as Christ was changed in nature, not by leaving his former nature of Godhead, but by taking to him the nature of man, so bread and wine were changed in nature not by leaving their former nature & substance, but by having united unto them by the working of the holy Ghost in such manner as I have said, the substance and effect of the body and blood of jesus Christ.  
But you cannot see how the words of Christ, This is my body, etc. can be understood otherwise but of your Transubstantiation. There is, M. Spence, a veil of prejudice lying before your heart, which blindeth your eyes that you cannot see it. Otherwise you might know by the very speeches of the ancient Fathers to whom you refer yourself, that Christ called bread and wine his body and blood: and that after the same manner of sacramental speaking which I noted unto you before out of saint Austen: Sacraments because 
August. ep. 23.  of the resemblance, do most commonly take the names of the things themselves which they do resemble. Whereof he saith for example in the same place. The Sacrament of Christ's body is after a certain manner the body of Christ. But Cyprian telleth you: Our 
Cypr. ll. 1. ep. 6.  Lord called the bread made by the uniting of many corns his body, and the wine pressed out of many clusters and grapes he called his blood. And chrysostom saith of bread in the sacrament; The bread 
chrysost. ad caesar. Theod. dia. 1.  is vouchsafed the name of our Lord's body. And Theodoret as before; Christ honoured the visible signs with the name of his body & blood. And S. Austen: The bread is the body of Christ. And Theodoret again: 
Aug. ap●d B●dam in 1. cor. 10.  Our Saviour changed the names, and gave unto his body the name of the sign, and to the sign the name of his body. And Cyprian again: Our Lord gave at the table with his own hands bread 
Theod dial. 1. Cypr. de unct. Chrismatis.  and wine, and: bread and wine are his flesh and blood. The signs and the things signified are counted by one name. And if you would know the cause why Christ did use this exchange of names, Theodoret telleth you straightways after: He would have those that are partakers of the divine mysteries not to regard the nature of those things which are seen, but because of the changing of the names to believe the change which is wrought by grace: namely, that our minds may be fixed not upon the signs, but upon the things signified thereby; as he that hath any thing assured unto him by hand and seal, respecteth not the paper or the writing or the seal, but the things that are confirmed and assured unto him hereby. By these you may understand that it was bread which Christ called his body, and as 
Cypr. lib. 2. ep●st. 3. Aug. count Ad●m. c2. 12. Tertul count Marcionem. lib. 4.  Cyprian saith, That it was wine which he called his blood. And let S. Austen tell you the same: Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. So Tertullian; The bread which Christ took and distributed to his disciples he made his body, saying, this is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body.; Whereby you may conceive that bread and wine are not really changed into the body and blood, as you teach, but remaining in substance the same they were, are in use and property the signs and figures of the body and blood of Christ. And as Gelasius addeth to the words before alleged; The image and resemblance of the Lords body and blood is celebrated in the exercise of the Sacraments. Yet they are not naked and bare signs, as you are wont hereupon to cavil, but substantial and effectual signs or seals rather, assuring our faith of the things signified thereby, and delivering as it were into our hands and possession the whole fruit and benefit of the death and passion of jesus Christ. But you will urge perhaps that Tertullian saith; Christ made the bread his body: which words your men are wont to allege out of the former part of the sentence, guilefully concealing the end of the same. Tertullian declareth his own meaning, that he understandeth a figure of the body. But you may further 
joh. 1. 1●.  remember that the Gospel saith; The word was made flesh, and yet it ceased not to be the word: so the bread is made the body of Christ, and yet it ceaseth not to be the bread. S. Austen saith: 
August. apud Bedam in 1. cor. 10.  Christ hath commended unto us in this Sacrament his body & blood, which also he made us to be; and by his mercy we are that which we do receive: yet we are not transubstantiated into the body & blood of Christ. Understand therefore that the bread is made the body of Christ after a certain manner, and not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery.  
As touching the bodily and Popish eating & drinking of Christ's flesh and blood grounded on this point of transubstantiation, Christ our Saviour said to the jews as S. Austen expoundeth his words, 
August. in Psal 98.  Ye shall not eat this body which you see, nor drink that blood which they shall shed that shall crucify me. I have commended unto you a Sacrament. Being spiritually understood, it shall give you life. Otherwise as Origen saith: There is in the new Testament a letter 
Orig. in Leuit. hom. 7.  which killeth him that doth not spiritually understand it. For if thou follow according to the letter that that is written, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man & drink his blood, that letter killeth▪ For saith S. Austen, it seemeth to command a horrible fact and heinous 
Aug. de doctr. christ. lib. 3. c. 16.  matter. Therefore it is a figure, willing us to communicate of the passion of Christ, and profitably to lay up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. Be hold and consider well what these men teach you, that the speeches which are used as touching eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ are figurative speeches; that they are not literally to be understood; that we do not bodily eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood. And this is the plain truth and simplicity of the Father's teaching, the evidence whereof cannot be avoided but by those shifts which I mentioned before: We extenuate them, we excuse them; by some devised lie we oft deny them, or feign of them some convenient meaning.  
But you urge the circumstance of the text. Which shallbe given: which shallbe shed, etc. Mark well the speeches, say you. An argument peevishly alleged by Friar Campian, and nothing at all to the 
Camp. Rat. ●.  purpose. For when we say that bread and wine are the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, do we not mean, of the body which was given, and the blood that was shed for us? Do we teach the receiving of the body & blood of Christ by faith any otherwise then being broken and shed for the forgiveness of our sins? When S. Aushen saith, The sign of the body, & Tertullian, a figure of the body, expounding the words, This is my body, do they not understand, Which is given, etc. This reason you may very well spare hereafter.  
The speeches, you say, are wonderful, as most true. Yet the speeches, M. Spence, are not so wonderful as the things themselves, that our wretched and sinful bodies should by these Sacraments through the working of the holy Ghost be really and indeed united & joined unto the body of jesus Christ being in heaven, so as to be his members, flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, and receive thereof such virtue and power as that though they be buried in the earth and consumed to dust and ashes, yet they should be raised up again and made partakers of immortality and glory: that God should hereby effectually communicate and impart unto us the inestimable riches of his grace, and the whole fruit and benefit of whatsoever Christ hath done or suffered in his body for mankind, forgiveness of sins, justification, sanctification, the blessing & fauou● of God and everlasting life. You may know M. Spence what your own Oration saith: Some not without probability expound the truth of the flesh and blood of Christ to be the efficiency thereof, 
De consecr. dist 2. cap. species.  that is, the forgiveness of sins. We add somewhat to this probability, when we teach in the Sacrament a true and effectual uniting of us to the body of Christ, whereby he dwelleth in us and we in him, he is one with us and we with him, whereby as he hath taken upon him what is ours, sin and death: so he yieldeth unto us what is his, righteousness and everlasting life. Which union with Christ is wrought in all those, and in those only which do with true and lively faith receive these holy mysteries: where as that Capernaitish eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood which your doctrine yieldeth, is common to all graceless and profane persons; that I say nothing of those monstrous, blasphemous, and horrible conceits which some of your captains have fallen into by defence thereof.  
But yet further you allege the uniformenesse of the words of Christ in the Evangelists Mat. Mar. Luc. And in S. Paul, 1. Cor. 11. all saying: This is my body, whereas the scripture where it meaneth not a thing literally doth vary in the uttering of it. Which you speak upon the warrant of some Allen, or Parsons, or Seminary reader telling you so and you have believed it. But they have deceived you, both in the on & and in the other. For in the like matter you shall find in Moses law by an uniform and constant speech, that the sacrifices of the law are called expiations, propitiations and atonements for sin, which were not so indeed, but they were so called sacramentally, because they were types and figures, seals and assurances of the true atonement which should be wrought by the bloodsheading of our Lord jesus. Again, if you had looked in S. Luke and 
Luc 22. 20. 1. cor. 11. 25.  S. Paul, you should have found the words, This is my blood, expressed by such manner of speech as tendeth directly to the overthrow of your transubstantiation. For there it is said; This cup is the new Testament in my blood, etc. where I hope you will not say, that the cup is transubstantiated into the Testament, but that the words must be figuratively understood. Then you must say, that the cup, that is, the outward and visible element of wine delivered in the cup, is the seal of the new Testament & covenant of grace, which is dedicated and established by the bloodsheading of jesus Christ: by which seal we have assurance offered unto us to be partakers through Christ of those benefits which God hath promised unto the faithful in the same Testament; the sum whereof is set down by the Prophet Ier, 31. 32, etc. Now if any man should take it thus: 
jer. 31. 32.  This cup, that is, this my blood in the cup is the new Testament in my blood, yourself would say, he spoke foolishly and absurdly.  
Thus therefore your collections from the text are no collections. Some of your own side, no mean men, have confessed indeed that transubstantiation cannot be enforced by the words of the text. In truth it cannot. God open your eyes that you may see his truth and subdue the affections of your heart, that you may yield unto it. By that little speech which I have had with you, I perceive you are too too far in love with that whore of Rome. She flattereth you, and maketh show of goodly names, and pretendeth great devotion, as the harlot in the proverbs: I have peace offerings; to day have I paid my 
Prou. 7. 14.  vows: and you believe whatsoever she saith unto you. I showed you the express testimonies of the Fathers, gainsaying her as touching the books of Canonical scriptures: but you think she may approve them for Canonical which were not so with the Fathers. I declared the impudency of the Rhemish glosers, in avouching the story of the assumption of the virgin Mary, controlled by their own computation of years. But because the Roomish harlot hath approved this fable, and the Rhemists do but soothe her in that which she hath affirmed, you will, rather than y●eld, say that the supposed reporter of this story being a Counsellor of Athens, and this being done in judea, was there for that purpose three or four years before he was converted to Christianity. I showed you the sophistry of the same honest men in perverting the place before alleged out of the tenth to the Hebru●s: but because they have set it down in favour of the Romish Mass, you will not go from it, though it be without show of reason and contrary to common sense. To show the plain evidence of scripture as touching our doctrine of justification, I cited those words, That a man is justified by faith without 
Rom. 3. 2●. jam. 2. 21. 24.  the works of the law. You cross it with S. james his words, That Abraham was justified by works, and not by faith only. I answer directly out of S. Paul: If Abraham were justified by works, he had 
Rom 4. 2.  to rejoice, but not with God: by which place Oecumenius accordeth 
Oecumen. in Rom. 4.  the former two, and by which conference it appeareth, that whosoever is justified by faith before God, doth also approve his true faith by works of righteousness before men, but yet that no man's righteousness of works is such, as whereby he may stand holy & blameless and without fault in the sight of God, but that all are in this respect to cry out; Enter not into judgement with thy servant; for in thy sight no man living shallbe justified. Whereupon S. Austen saith: 
August. in P●al. 142.  saith: Let the Apostles say; forgive us our trespasses, etc. And when it shall be said unto them, Why say you so? what are your trespasses; Let them answer: because no man living shall be justified in thy sight: but you believe because your love hath told you so, that men are by the righteousness and merits of works to be justified in the sight of God.  
Take heed, M. Spence, deceive not yourself. There is but one heaven and one faith that bringeth thither. God only hath revealed that faith. Seek it there where he hath revealed it. Your ground is now only upon men: yet neither will Popery stand upon that ground, if you tie not yourself to your new builders. Bishop jewel amongst others, hath detected the vanity of their building in many points. But you say that one Steuens beyond the sea, declared his bad dealing in his writing to that purpose. But were you so simple to credit what Steuens said? Do you not know that many when they come to your Seminaries will have some what to say, whereby to commend themselves and to discredit us, and therefore when they want truth, must needs coin lies? One alleged to me when I was in Oxford, how jewel had falsified a place out of Thomas Aquinas. He spoke it by hearsay as you do. I went into a Library of very ancient cop●es, and found it word for word as it was cited. It was marvel that M. Harding could not find that kind of dealing. It would have given him good matter for a far more substantial answer. But I might as well upon report tell you that Harding perplexed in mind near his death, wished that his soul might have place with Bishop jewels soul. I have heard that Hart the jesuite being demanded thereof in the Tower, could not make any great denial of it. But the truth lieth not in these matters. As for Bishop's jewels writings, I will lend you the book if it please you. It were marvel that no syllable or sentence should be mistaken in that multitude of allegations, the sight whereof troubled M. Hardings mind, as I conceive by the Preface of his fond detection; but for the substance of the cause, and justifying the points defended, I will undertake to make good unto you the allegations, for so many of the ancient Fathers as I have, and some of the principal you know I have, and can quickly get more. And what I have here written, I will be ready to approve unto you, and to make plain whatsoever is here for want of convenient leisure briefly, and therefore perhaps obscurely collected. The God of peace guide us in the way of peace, and grant us to know his truth, and to persevere in the knowledge thereof unto the end.    

A DEFENSE OF THE AUTHORITIES ALLEGED IN THE Reply against the answer of P. Spence.  

P. Spence. Section first.  
IN respect you wish me good and well, (M. Abbot) I thank you for it, knowing it cannot proceed of an ill ground, but at least of good nature, which I do accept, with desire of no less good to you, than you to me, but I hope rather much more, Although there be choice, & odds in our several judgements, what is truly and indeed good, which the one wisheth to the other. For as from God (who is essentially good) all goodness proceedeth whatsoever: so what faithful servant of God soever he be, that in God wisheth or willeth my good any way, that may be called good indeed, to him I think myself more beholding, then for treasures of kingdoms of this world, if he had them to be●●ow upon me. If such good could be found in you, (as touching this cause between us) I would most thankfully accept it, with no less estimation of your zeal and your person, then pure affection to your charity and care, etc.  

R. Abbot. 1.  
Such is the frowardness of man's nature, that as S. Austen well noteth, we are most commonly 
a Aug de not & great. count Pelag. cap. 2●.  more ready to seek what we may answer to those things that are objected against our error, then to consider how wholesome and good they are, that thereby we may be freed from error. Which as it is generally true wheresoever the selfewill and pride of nature is not subdued & overruled by good conscience and the fear of God, so it is more particularly approved in you, M. Spence, by your untowardly answer to that which I wrote unto you, which it seemeth you would needs return unto me not as being persuaded that you could answer that that was alleged unto you, but 
b August. contra Gandentium. lib 3.  only for this cause, lest if you had holden your peace, you should have been said to be convicted, as Austen told Gandentius the heretic upon the like occasion. For to write somewhat or to say somewhat, is not always to answer; and you, though you have taken pains to write much, yet in your whole pamphlet have answered nothing. Which I call your pamphlet, not because I take either the collections of the matter or the form of inditing to be yours, but because it came to me in your name and under your hand. When I perused it, I straightways perceived that it was none of yours, but that you had gotten the help of a secret friend, who might more presume of his learning and reading, as indeed he doth, being as it seemeth far in love with himself, thinking nothing to be learned but that that he liketh of, sitting upon the circle of his own brains, and calling the scriptures and Doctors before him, and charming them that whatsoever they speak or howsoever plainly, yet they shall mean no otherwise then he will have them to mean. And strange it is to see what mad and unreasonable meanings he fathereth upon them, whilst he seeketh to shift off their clear and evident testimonies. Which I persuade myself do for the most part bear that sway in his conscience that he cannot extinguish the light thereof, nor satisfy himself that he hath truly answered unto them. Whosoever he is, I wish both him and you to remember that which S. Austen saith to Petilian the Donatist. 
c August. count lite. Petil. lib. 3. cap. 30.  There is nothing more wretched or unhappy, then for a man not to yield to the truth wherewith he is so shut in, that he cannot find any way out.  
Now if this matter had by your good dealing rested in private betwixt you & me, M. Spence, as my intention was it should, I would not have brought either your name or mine own into this open light & censure of men. But sithence I perceived both by yourself 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 remain unanswered; truly howsoever you would be willing that I should sit down as a conquered adversary, and so yield you some what whereof to triumph in secret amongst your disciples and followers, and to be a means to subvert the faith of others, I have against this mischief thought it necessary to publish this whole matter, that though it be no good to you, yet it may be good to them whom you seek to hurt, & as Bernard saith; 
d Bernard. in Canti Ser. 6●.  though the heretic 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 have accepted of your thanks. But you differ from me in judgement what is good. If I judge of good one way, and you another way, who shall be judge betwixt us. Not your part, for I say they are partial for you. Not our part, for you say they are partial for me. I must answer you with Optatus his words against the Donatists: 
e Optat. cont. Parmen. Donat. lib. 5.  No judgement of this matter can be found in the earth, we must require a judge from heaven. But why knock we at heaven when we have here the testament of Christ in the Gospel? S. Paul saith: 
f 2. Tim. 3. 15.  The scriptures are able to make a man wise unto salvation through the faith which is in Christ jesus. If your judgement did entirely depend upon the scriptures, you & I should not differ in judgement. But whilst you set one foot in the scriptures, & another foot beside the scriptures, and 
g Hilar. de Trinit. lib. 1.  take not your understanding from the sayings of the scriptures, as Hilary saith you should, but labour to draw the scriptures to those fond opinions which you have presumed without the scriptures, I marvel not that you go lame and halting in your judgement, and I cannot yield to judge with you, because you judge without God. Tertullian of old said, but I would not have you think he spoke it of the Papists: 
h Tertul. de resurr. carni●.  Take from heretics 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 wilful answers, wherewith you shut your eyes against the clear sun-light, rather seeking shifts to cast a mist before it, then framing yourself to walk in the comfortable light thereof. But to let that pass, I will now leave you to be a looker on in this matter, and will henceforth apply myself to him that hath taken upon him to be the Answerer for you.    

P. Spence. Sect. 2.  
IF ye find S. Chrysostom's place so expounded as I have set down, then is it but 
a I allege it to no other purpose then the words themselves do manifestly yield. See the answer  wrangling to allege it to the end you do, contrary to Chrysostom's mind: that is to urge words contrary to the authors known meaning▪ not caring for truth but to cavil. If your thousand Bishops of Armen●a because of the 
b I opposed number against number, neither to be followed for their multitude but for their reason and proof  number, do in this point (which without them you favour otherwise) bear such a sway with you, why shall not the number of Bishops in other matters do the like, if partiality of judgement would permit you? would you have a reason why your thousand of Armenian Bishops (yea if they were ten thousand) were not herein meet judges: them wo●e ye well, they did wrangle, as you do, upon Christ's words against their own consciences, wres●ing words & syllables to serve their sorry turn. Why so? Because the Armenians forsook both the Latin and Greek Church, Anno dom. 5 27. for that they condemned Eutyches, and Dioscorus, in the Chalcedon Council, for denying the two natures of Christ: and superstitiously they 
c But how or where do●h it appear that they began to hold this point upon that occasion?  held this point of wine alone, fearing lest the water mixed therewith, should signify Christ's two natures, as in the Greek & Latin Church it doth. So that if your thousand Armenian Bishops move you so, you must be an Eutychian, and for that cause must you forbear water in the wine: and then tell me why your thousand Armenians must not move you to hold with them, that ●o child is christened with water alone, but with water and oil as they hereticallie held, besides many other 
d Whereof the Church of Rome hath very great store.  toyish and most childish vanities. I stand not upon the validitio of the Trullane Canons of the sixth Council, but it is enough, that besides their testimony, not de iure but de facto, of the Churches mingling water with wine, the s●me is otherwise by infinite testimonies proved to be used. You condemn not you say, the Churches that use water and wine for that point, but for their superstitious standing in it, and shall not we condemn more justly the superstitious contradicting humour of those that make a religion, and a superstition to use it with wine, containing so ancient and so universal and so well witnessed a custom? You dare not flatly deny it, but you would have it seem only probable, that Christ put water to the wine at his supper. But S. Cyprian in his Epistle ad Caecilium so long ago 〈…〉 〈…〉 th' it sure that Christ used both. Let that Epistle for all these points be the stickeler between us: who saith: 
e Cyprians words are thus: In the sacrifice which is christ none but christ is to be followed. Therefore we are not to follow the church of Rome▪ beyond or beside that which Christ did.  In the sacrifice which is Christ, Christ is to be followed, even to this very purpose using those words. Against which point to allege S. Cyprian ad Pompeium, is to allege S. Cyprian against S. Cypria●. But let S. Cyprian say thus much for us to you. If it be commanded in the Gospel, or be contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles to use only wine, let this tradition then be observed. To make short, wine is ex institut●one, to put thereto water is Ex praecepto Ecclesiae, which upon your warrant, (being so long and so universally used) I dare not break. There arose about S. Cyprians time, certain fond innovators very foolish fellows, who for temperance forsooth, used no wine, but all water only in the sacrifice of the Church. These in the Catalogue of Heretics written by S. Augustine, Ad quod vult deum, & in the like Catalogue of Heretics written by Philastrius Brixiamus Episcopus, are called Aquarij, Who (saith he) in the heavenly Sacraments offer only water, and not that which the Catholic and Apostolic Church is accustomed to do. The argument and drift of the aforenamed Epistle, of Saint Cyprian, ad Caecilium lib. 2. Epist. 3. is briefly set down, In the sacrifice of the Church neither water without wine, nor wine without water ought to be offered. The whole Epistle is for that matter notable, and no doubt, Saint chrysostom meant of those Aquarij. Saint Cyprian calleth it our Lord's tradition, and a thing ordained of God: he saith our Lord both did it, and also taught it. The learned Fathers of the sixth Council, called it an order, delivered to the Church by God, and say it was the tradition of the Apostles. Clemens constitu. Apost. lib. 8. cap, 17 saith likewise mingling of the cup with wine and water, and consecrating it, etc. S. james in his Liturgy saith: Likewise after he had supped taking the cup and mingling it with wine and water, etc. S. Basill in his Liturgy saith: Likewise also taking the cup, of the juice of the wine, mixing, giving thanks, etc. S. chrysostom in his Liturgy, in putting wine into the Chalice, said: And one of the soldiers opened his side and forthwith issued blood (and mingling it with water he saith.) And water and he that saw it, hath borne witness, and his witness is true. joh. 19 S. Proclus a near successor of his, De traditione divinae Liturgiae saith. By these prayers they expected the coming of the holy Ghost, that by his divine presence he should make the bread and the wine mixed with water, which were proposed for sacrifice, the body and blood of our Saviour jesus Christ. Theodoret, Dialog. 1. saith, 
f Theodoret saith not, he made it, but he called it his blood.  That Christ made that which was mixed in the cup his blood. Eusebius Emiss. in ser. 5. de Paschat, saith: that Christ himself by his example taught that we should consecrate the cup with wine mixed with water. Concilium Carthagin. 3. cap. 24. In which Austen was present, saith thus: That in the Sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, nothing else should be offered but that which the Lord delivered, that is, bread, and wine mixed with water. Ambrose lib de Sacramento cap. 4. & lib. 5. cap. 10. affirmeth that wine and water must be put in the cup. Irenaeus lib. 5. cap. When, saith he, the mixed cup and the bread broken receiveth the word of God, it is made the Eucharist of the body & blood of the Lord. August. tract. 120. in johannem▪ Isidore lib. 2. office cap. 18. Beda in Comment. Marci cap. 14. upon those words, This is the cup of my blood. Anselmus in 26. Mat. Alexander near to the Apostle saith: let bread only and wine mingled with water be offered in the sacrifice of Masses. There ought not to be offered in the cup of our Lord, either wine only, or water only, but both together mingled, because both is read to have followed out of the side of our Lord in his passion. Io. 19 de Consent. distinct. 2. cap. in Sacramentorum. justinus Apostol. 2. Damascen. lib. 4. cap. 14. Grego▪ Niss●n for. Catechetico as is alleged by Euthimius in Panoplia lib. 2. titulo 21. chrysostom homil. 84. in joannem, & hom. 24. in 1. Corinth. Theoph●●ct▪ in I●annem cap. 9 See Bellarminus lib. 4. de Sacramento Eucharistiae, cap. 1. 11. beside many other testimonies of all ages, in both Greek and Latin Church.  

R. Abbot. 2.  
AS touching this first point of mixture of water with wine in the Sacrament, I showed before that our Churches have accounted it as a mere indifferent thing where it is used with that simplicity wherewith it was first begun. The manner of Countries where their wines are very strong, is to delay them with water. Christian's would not neglect that commendable show of sobriety in their mystical banquet, whereof Heathen men had regard at their ordinary tables. Therefore according to the manner of their countries they mingled water with their wine, taking wine to be the institution of Christ, but whether mere wine or delayed wine, they knew it made no difference. Albeit some there were that in regard of this sobriety and temperancy went too far, leaving Christ's institution of wine, and using only water in the Sacrament, as 
a Cypr. lib. 2. epist. 3.  Cyprian intimateth of some of his predecessors. To this mixture was added at length some signification, either in Cyprians time or perhaps before. As for that of 
b Epist. 1. Concil. tomo. ●.  Alexander the first to that purpose, that Epistle of his, and the rest of them are sufficiently known to be counterfeit and bastard stuff. But thus this usage and custom ran his course, till at length it sell with the rest into the main Ocean of Popish corruptions and superstitions, where the father's errors were turned into pestilent heresies, and those things that arose of the simplicity of men for 
c August. epist. 119. ad exhortationem vitae melioris.  profitable admonition and exhortation only as they intended them, were made matters of true devotion and of the worship of God. Our Churches therefore seeing this mixture abused in the church of Rome, and accounted as a necessary mystery of Christian religion without any warrant of the word of God, thought convenient utterly to relinquish the same, though otherwise occasion requiring it, they have esteemed it an indifferent thing. And herein they have followed the example of our Lord and master jesus Christ, who knew well enough that the washing of hands and cups was an indifferent thing, and yet when he saw 
d Mat. 15. 2. etc.  the Scribes and pharisees to put affiance of holiness & purity in those washings, so that they accounted them unclean which omitted the same, he did himself neglect and by his example, as it seemeth, moved his disciples to neglect that tradition of their Elders, telling them that in vain they did worship God, teaching for doctrines the precepts of men.  
In leaving the mixture of water, we are not contraried by the 
e Mat 26. 2●.  institution of Christ set down in the Gospel. I alleged before 
f Anselm. sax▪ on. Centur. Magdebur. 12. cap. 9  that the Greek Church consecrated with wine only, and their reason because we read not that Christ added water. I showed how chrysostom as one edition of his 
g Chrysost. Liturg. per Leonem Tusc 〈…〉  Liturgy intendeth, added water after the consecration, as being no part of the institution of the Sacrament. I noted that 
h Anselm. ut supra.  Anselmus and 
i Tho. Aquin. pag. 3. qu 74. art. 6.  Thomas Aquinas notwithstanding the assertions of divers ancient writers could make at the most but a probability of Christ's using water in this Sacrament. And why probable? because the manner of that Country is so to drink their wine. Whereof it may rightly be gathered, that though Christ did use water as we do not find that he did, yet he did it but after the manner of that Country in drinking wine, and not for any mystery of the Sacrament. I alleged moreover that 
k Polyd. Virg●l. de invent. rerum. li. 5. ca 10.  Polydore Virgil, and 
l Platina in Alexan 1.  Platina and 
m Durand. Ratio. diui. lib. 4. cap. de officio sacerdotis, etc.  Durand, refer this tradition to Alexander the first, and so for their parts have acquitted us from crossing the institution of Christ. Also that 
n De consecra dist. 2 ca●. sicut in glossa.  Doctors have taught that water is used in the cup de honestate tantum; namely by way of temperancy and sobriety only, and therefore not of any necessity to the Sacrament. Why would this man take upon him to answer, and yet slily pass over 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 find the words of chrysostom expounded as was answered before out of the Trullan Canons, than I did but wrangle in alleging them to another purpose contrary to the known meaning of the Author. But I wrangle not herein. Whatsoever exposition it pleased those Fathers to make of Chrysostom's words three hundred years after Chrysostom's death, the words themselves are most plain to that purpose that I first noted them. He demandeth this question: 
o Chrysost. in Mat. hom. 83.  Why did Christ after his resurrection drink Not Water but Wine? Where manifestly he nameth the drinking of wine and denieth water. To this he answereth: He would pluck up by the roots the pernicious heresy of them which use Water in the Sacrament. For to show that when he delivered this Sacrament, he delivered wine, therefore did he use wine also after his resurrection at the bare table of the Sacrament. Of the fruit of the vine, saith he, which surely bringeth forth Wine and not Water. It is hard to suppose that Chrysostom would say, that Christ did drink not water but wine, to reprove the heresy of them which use water in the Sacrament, and yet himself have intention of both wine & water to be used in the Sacrament. I cannot see it to stand with any reason. If the answer can, let him follow his own fancy. As for the thing itself we doubt not, but the Churches of God have used their liberty in the practice thereof, for that upon occasion of the heresy of them that used only water, they in some places took away this ceremony, as by the aforesaid place of chrysostom, & the practice of the Armenians may be gathered: in other places at least altered the manner of it, that whereas it was wont to be added before consecration, thenceforth it should be added after, that it might be known that water was no entire part or matter of the Sacrament, but used for other purpose indifferently, as hath been before said. The ground whereof chrysostom as we see maketh to be this, that Christ mentioneth only the fruit of the vine, which, saith he, bringeth forth wine and not water. Now this adding of water after consecration, as it appeareth by the testimony of 
p Ex Ansel. ut supra.  Nechites Patriarch of Nicomedia, who affirmeth that in their rites they swerved not from the ancient tradition of their Fathers, and by one copy of the 
q Chrysost. Liturg. ut supra.  Liturgy that goeth under Chrysostom's name; so it is further manifest by the testimony of 
r Theod. Balsam. Annota. in council. Constant. ●. can. ●2.  Theodorus Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch, in his annotations upon that Canon of the sixth Council, whereof I now speak, where he showeth the same use, and addeth further, which the aforesaid Liturgy also giveth to understand, that the water which they put in was hot water. The reason whereof he affirmeth to have been this; to signify that water & blood came out of the side of Christ, not cold & dead, but warm, quick, and lively, as implying virtue and power to quicken and make us alive spiritually, to which mystery the words of the Canon aforesaid seem to have relation in making mention of Chrysostom's Liturgy. If water had been taken to be any necessary matter of the Sacrament, surely these men would not have omitted to have mingled it before consecration, that so the Sacrament might be whole and perfect. But hereby it is manifest that it was not so taken, ● therefore by the judgement of the ancient Churches, we offend not as maiming the Sacrament of Christ in using wine only without mixture of water.  
The exception which the Answ. useth against the Bishops of Armenia, is false and feigned. For whatsoever he can pretend of some Armenians that did revolt, yet it is apparent that the Bishops of Armenia did approve the condemnation of Eutyches & Dioscorus, by their 
s council. chalced. in episto. illusttium personarum pro eod. concilio.  Epistles written to Leo the Emperor in approbation of the Chalcedon Council wherein they were condemned, and with reproof of that heresy for which they were condemned. And that it may not be thought that they did it only for that time, they are found again in the 
t council constant. 6. act. 17. & 18 in subscript.  sixth Council to subscribe against and condemn the heresy of Eutyches: even in that Council which the Answ. allegeth for the defence of his cause. And therefore it is hereby manifest that they used not wine only with any such intention as he shiftingly pretendeth. Nay it is further manifest by this, for that the Iberians the near neighbours of the Armenians, and inhabiting that part which was called Armenia interior, as 
u Sozomen. hist. eccl. li. 2. cap. 6.  Sozomen reporteth, did use no water at all in the Sacrament, being notwithstanding sound in all points of faith and religion. Thus doth Theodore Balsamon testify of them: 
w Theodor. Balsam. in council. constan●i▪ 6. can. 32.  The Iberians do put no water into the sacred cup, albeit they be otherwise very sound in the faith. Moreover the heresy of Eutyches contained no such matter. He denied two-natures in Christ, but the Answ. cannot show that in regard of his heresy he denied the mixture of water, or that this mixture was in those times taken for a mystery of two natures in Christ, or that the Fathers used any argument from thence for the proof of two natures. That long afterwards it was drawn to that signification, I wot well, as it appeareth by 
x Theod. Balsam. ut supra.  Balsamon, 
y Nicepho. hist. lib. 18. cap. 5●.  Nicephorus and 
z Theophy. in joh. 19  Theophylact; but that construction being long after, serveth not to prejudice them who lived long before there was any such mystery intended by that mixture. The Council intimateth no such thing intended by it, and who will believe that those Fathers would note a defect in ceremony, and so lightly pass over without any mention at all, the error of doctrine whence that defect should begin: chrysostom in the time of his banishment lived amongst the 
a Sozomen. hist. eccl. li. 8. cap. 27.  Armenians, and was greatly beloved and honoured of them. I doubt not but his practice amongst them was according to the words which they alleged from him, and that their manner both had e'en before, and afterwards continued the same that the Iberians was; to consecrate the cup of the Sacrament without any water; howsoever in times long after succeeding by means of a new signification fancied of the mixture of water, it was forborn of some upon a wrong and heretical meaning. As for numbers and multitudes of men, how far I esteem them, the Ans. shall then perceive, when occasion is given by any matter to make him answer. 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 certain argument of the truth of God. He that doth, what would he have said when the 
b Hieron. adversus Luceferianos.  whole world groaned under the burden of Arianism; which contented 
c Vincentius Lyrinens. adu. haereses.  not itself with some few parts or portions of the Church, as other heresies for the most part, but as a pestilent infection spread itself through the whole, so that Constantius the Emperor by reason of the ●ewnesse of them that held with Athanasius in defence of the truth, took occasion to 
d Theod. hist. eccl. li. 2. ca 16.  object unto Liberius Bishop of Rome, that he was the only man in the world that took part with that wicked man, as he wickedly termed him. To whom Liberius answered very ●itly: The word of faith is no whit diminished by my standing alone in defence of it; though afterwards 
e Hieron. in catalo. eccles. script. in fortunatiano.  he became faint-hearted, and subscribed that heresy, which he had before worthily resisted. The ground of faith is the certain and undoubted word of God, not received from the thoughts and opinions of men, but from the Oracle of the holy scriptures. He that speaketh from hence, though he speak alone is to be believed: but without this warrant in matters of faith, thousands of thousands 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 jewish & Heathenish ceremonies of Popery, and therefore Papists may not reprove them in that respect. Let Durandus his Rationale divinorum, nay let the apish and vice-like fooleries of the Mass itself bear witness hereof.  
Whereas he saith that the mixture of water and wine in the Greek and Latin Church, be tokeneth the two natures of Christ, it seemeth that the matter hath not been well agreed upon, for that 
f Theophyl. ●● joh. 19  Theophylact maketh the wine to betoken the humanity, and the water the divinity of Christ. Durand contrariwise 
g Du●and Ratio. diui. lib. 4. cap. 30. de oblatione. etc.  affirmeth, that the water betokeneth the humanity, and the wine the divinity. But the more ancient Fathers knew not this uncertain mystery at all, and therefore neither do we care to be acquainted with it.  
Now having urged very eagerly the aforesaid Canon, and fearing belike that that might be turned to his prejudice, he telleth me at length, that he will not stand upon the validity of those Trullan Canons. And no marvel. For he knoweth that by whomsoever they were made, they diversly 
h Can. 13. 36. 52. 55.  cross the dealings of the Church of Rome, and pluck up by the roots the best flower in that garden, the pretended supremacy of the Pope. Yea, saith he, but they beside infinite other testimonies, prove the Churches use as touching the point in question. An unnecessary proof 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 own fellows will check him for his rashness, 
i Thom. Aqui. par. 3. quae. 74. art 6. & 7.  who neither dare avouch that Christ used water, & simply confess that there is no necessity of water to make the Sacrament. And this latter 
k Tom. 2 cont. 3. lib. 4. cap. ●1.  Bellarmine the jesuit confesseth to be the judgement of the Catholic 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 Saviour Christ, (for then it should be holden as a thing simply necessary) neither do we in le●●ing out water, ●aile of any thing that of necessity belongeth to the Sacrament. Which being true, and no certain proof alleged that Christ used any water, we list not to follow any uncertainties for truths. We take the which we are sure Christ ordained. They who have not contented themselves herewith, into what variety are they run? Some put in water before consecration, some after: some hot water, some cold: some will have the mixture of them a memorial of water & blood issuing out of Christ's side at his passion: some a token of the natures of Christ; and of them some will have the water to signify the manhood, & the wine the Godhead; others the wine to signify the manhood, & the water the Godhead: some again will have the wine to signify Christ, and the water to signify the people, as appeareth by those things that have been alleged before. Thus there is no certainty or settled resolution, when men will make mysteries without the warrant of the word of God. Which things considered, it hath not been any superstitious contradicting humour, but sober and advised judgement that hath moved us to refuse this howsoever long and generally received custom.  
But the Answ. coming at length to set down his conceit of the point in question, is in a mammering & cannot frame his wits to resolve any thing thereof. For charging me first that I dare not deny flatly, but would have it seem only probable that Christ added water with the wine, whereas I alleged therein but the opinion and words of his own Doctors, he calleth for S. Cyprian to be stickler between us in this point, affirming it to be the institution of Christ, and straightways as having forgotten himself, 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 uncertain where ●o rest himself, he runneth to Cyprian and others, craving their help and warrant to prove that it was appointed by our Saviour Christ. But truth is one, and ●litteth not in this sort from one ground to another. Concerning the Epistle of 
l cypria. lib. 2. Epist. 3.  Cyprian to Cecilius which is that whereunto he referreth himself, he telleth me 
m Sect. 16.  afterwards that every word thereof is a sword to cut my throat, and marveleth that I would for shame allege it. But this is but a Popish brag serving to set a good show upon a bad cause, and when truth faileth, to outface the matter with Thrasonical words. A man of mean discretion with indifferency of judgement, will easily conceive that that Epistle maketh far more deeply against the Church of Rome's doings, then against any thing that we do. It cotrarieth us in a small matter of ceremony, which we take to be no great matter whether it be used or not used as hath been said, but it convinceth the Roomish harlot of capital and deadly wickedness, and damnable Apostasy from the Gospel of jesus Christ. For first, he requireth water in the Sacrament together with wine, the one importing the people, the other Christ; to signify that the people are united & joined unto Christ in being partakers of the Lords cup. And so 
n Thom. Aquin. par. 3. quae. 74. art. 7.  Thomas Aquinas resolveth, that water is no otherwise of the necessity of the Sacrament, but to signify the people's being partakers thereof. What wisdom is it then in the Answ. and his fellows to urge Cyprian for their defence of the mixture of water, and yet utterly to bar the people from being partakers of the lords cup, which Cyprian intendeth by the same mixture. 
o Mat. 23. 24.  They strain out a Gnat and swallow a Camel, contending with us for an uncertain and unnecessary ceremony, and themselves frowardly departing from that, which, I say not Cyprian in his Epistle, but jesus Christ in his Gospel hath manifestly and expressly commanded unto them.  
Secondly, Cyprian giveth in the same Epistle divers lessons which we desire to have them bound unto: In the sacrifice which is Christ, none but Christ is t● be followed. And again: If only Christ be to be hearkened unto, we are not to regard what any man hath done before us, but what Christ did first who is before all. For we must not follow the custom of men, but the truth of God. And again: It is not lawful to infringe those things that pertain to the Sacrament of our redemption, or by human tradition to change them to any thing else then is appointed of God. And again: We ought to do nothing but that which Christ did; And again; That which it is certain the Lord did, let us do. By all which speeches we are tied to the institution of jesus Christ, and bound to do nothing in the form of this mystery but that which we are assured he did first. To which what the church of Rome can honestly answer I cannot tell, in that she hath by her detractions from Christ's institution committed sacrilege, and by her additions made a mockery of his Sacrament, setting the priest at the altar as a Squirrel at his bells to keep note and time in his duckings and turnings, and kiss and cross, and listing up and lotting down, and holding forefinger and thumb together, and joining together both the hands, and putting to the right eye and then to the left, and a number such doltish and absurd toys. But for ourselves we learn of Cyprian by those rules, that unless we can warrant ourselves, 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 alleged before out of the Epistle ad Pompeium are very fit. Being urged with tradition, he thus answereth: 
p cypria. epist. ad Pompeium.  Whence is this tradition? Descendeth it from the authority of the Lord, or of the Gospel▪ or cometh it from the precepts and Epistles of the Apostles? For God testifieth that those things which are written must be done. etc. If therefore either it be commanded in the Gospel, or be contained in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostle, let this tradition be observed as holy; importing that if it cannot be approved from thence, it is not to be observed. But the Answ. full wisely and clerk like, turneth the words of Cyprian to speak for him against us. If, saith he, it be commanded in the Gospel to use only wine, let this tradition be observed. By which reason he giveth to the Armenians, whom he condemned before, as good a proof for using water and oil in Baptism, as to himself for wine and water in the Lord's supper. For they might have said for the one, as he doth for the other, that it is now here commanded to use only water, and therefore that their adding of ●yle was not to be condemned. But S. Cyprians words, if he would use his reason to conceive them, would teach him to reason thus: We read in the Gospel of water for Baptism; of oil we read nothing: therefore water only and not oil is to be observed. So likewise we read of wine for the Lords supper, of water we read nothing: therefore wine only and not water is to be enjoined. For the condition of the words of God is this: 
q Pro. 30. 6.  Put nothing to his words lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Now if Cyprian having laid this good foundation built any thing amiss thereon, as in the matter of rebaptizing it is manifest that he did, whilst he took that to be the sense of the scripture which indeed is not, that impeacheth not any whit the certainty of that rule, which he knew well enough was always to stand good for the trial and determination of the truth. And therefore in these cases to allege Cyprian against Cyprian, is I hope no more heinous a matter then to appeal from Philip overcome with sleep, to the same Philip thoroughly a waked out of sleep. The drift and purpose of that Epistle to Cecilius, is to prove the necessity of wine in the Sacrament, against the heresy of those that used only water without wine. He referreth them herein to the institution of Christ set down in the Gospel, from which he telleth them they ought not to departed, & therefore that they ought to use wine in the Lord's cup, as it is mentioned in the Gospel that Christ did. And to this purpose are all those speeches which he useth of our Lord's tradition, of his doing and teaching. Which manifestly appeareth as by the very scope of the whole Epistle, so by that place namely where alleging the words of Christ, I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine, etc. He inferreth thus; Whereby we find that the cup was mixed which the Lord offered, etc. Yet we find not in this place any mixture of the cup, we find only the fruit of the vine, and this is the mark at which he aimeth in all that he urgeth of Christ's institution. Of water he speaketh jointly, I confess, and supposing, I doubt not, but it was used by Christ. But he supposeth it only: he proveth it not, & his suppose is no sufficient warrant. Nay although he by the way admit and require the mixture of water in the Lord's cup, yet seeing he there referreth us to the ●oote and original of Christ's institution in the Gospel, and we find not there that Christ either ordained or used any such mixture, we hold ourselves sufficiently warranted even by Cyprian himself to do that we do, in using wine only without any water.  
But what meaneth the Answ. to urge Cyprian at all to prove that Christ mingled water, when he himself dare not upon Cyprians word, affirm 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 justify no more, as indeed he cannot, it is but folly and trifling to allege any man's words that say any more. And therefore all his other testimonies are superfluous. They which say that Christ used water, say more than he or the most of his dare say. They which testify the use thereof in the primitive Church, prove a thing not denied or condemned where occasion requireth it for such reason and in such manner as hath been before showed. Albeit they are partly forgeries, as those out of Alexander, out of Clemens & james his Liturgy, of which shall be spoken after: partly uncertain and doubtful, as those out of Chrysostom's and Basils' Liturgies: partly such as the Answ. himself will not stand upon the validity thereof, as that out of the sixth Council; partly manifest and wilful falsifications, as those out of chrysostom in joh. hom. 84. and 1. Cor. hom. 24. the former only showing that by water and blood issuing out of Christ's side, were imported both the Sacraments of the Church: the other, that out of Christ's side flowed fountains of water & blood that should be healthful to the whole world. And what is that to the matter now in hand?  
He referreth me over for further proof of this matter to Bellarmine. But Bellarmine saith nothing that needeth further answer than I have already given. Only let me tell him that I take Bellarmine for a jesuit, that is to say, a man of a hard and uncircumcised forehead, desperately bend for the upholding of the Pope, to make shipwreck of his own conscience. Whose impudence appeareth herein, that for the better colouring of his mixture of water, 
r Bellarm. tom. 2. cont. 3. lib. 4. cap. 10.  he saith, that it appeareth no more by the Gospel that Christ instituted the Sacrament with wine, then with ale, or beer, or water only. And therefore he denieth those words, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, etc. 
s Ibid. lib. 1. cap. 11.  to be understood of the cup of the Sacrament, contrary to the general consent of the ancient Fathers, 
t Clemens. Alex. in paeda. lib 2. cap. 2.  Clemens Alexandrinus, 
u Cypr. lib. 2. epist. 3.  Cyprian, 
w Chrysost. in Ma●. hom. 83.  chrysostom, 
x August. de consensu. evang. li. 3. ca 1.  Austen, 
y Hilar. in Mat. cano. 30.  Hilary, 
z Theophyl. in Mat. 26.  Theophylact, and others. Yet to cloak the matter the better, he would fain make a jar betwixt the Fathers, and saith that Hierome and Theophylact expound it, not of the cup of the lords table, but of the cup of the passover; whereas in the places by him cited, there is not a word tending to that purpose. It is plain by the two Evangelists Matthew and Mark, that our Saviour spoke of the cup of the new Testament. The difference that seemeth to be betwixt them and S. Luke, was reconciled long ago by S. Austen, as followeth after to be declared. But hereby we may conjecture the honesty and truth of the jesuit in other matters.    

P. Spence. Sect. 3.  
COncerning Bertrame, there was in Carolus Magnus sons days, such a one suspected for one point, especially in the Sacrament contra identitatem corporis, or de duplici corpore Christi: but this book under his name, is much worse. Great learned men are out of doubt that it is a counterfeit book, wrong fathered, and misbegotten, not bertram's, but of Oecolampadius coining. So calvin's Catechism in Greek in the Preface is made an ancient book, newly found again. So is a book foisted in Roffensis name, written by Bucer de certitudine salutis & divina misericordia, besides many other such forged counterfeits. See Bibliothecam Sixti Senensis. Besides this counterfeit bertram's reason is of no force: for two caus●s. First how knoweth he, (for aught he can show out of the 
a And how appeareth it ●y the new Testament th●t there should be any water used at all?  new Testament) that the water with the wine is not changed in substance? Or what necessity is there for aught he knoweth or showeth in this his reasonless reason, that because the wine is changed, therefore the water to, for all his quia admixta est, and for all his necesse est? But by the way he 
b A need esse & idle proof  proveth, (if he were not partus Supposititius) the mixing of water so long ago as Ludovicus Charles son.  

R. Abbot. 3.  
AS touching Bertram, whereas the Answ. saith that he was suspected concerning the Sacrament, he doth lewdly & unconscionably slander him, neither can he justify it by any show of the story of that time. It is not probable that the Emperor would have sought for his resolution, unless he had been taken for a learned man & of sound judgement. But he is dealt with herein as one joannes Scotus was, a familiar friend of his, who wrote a book concerning the Sacrament to the same effect that Bertram did. He was accounted no heretic in his time, but two hundredth years after, when Berengarius pleaded the authority of the same book, it was condemned as heretical in a Council holden at Vercellae, as 
a Lanfranc. de sacram. 〈…〉 char.  Lanfrancus testifieth who was present, and an actor in the same matter. So Be●tram who was Catholic while he lived, is now after so many hundredth years brought in suspi●ion to be an heretic. But the Answ. own fellows, the Authors of the 
b Index Expurgat▪ in ce●sura Bertra.  Index Expurgatorius do clear Bertram from this suspicion, acknowledging him by these words, that he was A Catholic priest, a Monk of the Abbey of Corbeie, beloved and reverenced of Carolus calvus the Emperor; and this very same Bertram do they confess to be the Author of that book which the Answerer would feign make us believe to be a counterfeit. They freely confess they must tolerate some errors in him, as well as they do very many in the ancient Doctors. They say they would not wholly suppress the book, lest we should have cause to say that they make away such antiquity as serveth for us. They confess that it helpeth the history of the time wherein Bertram lived. The book itself indeed doth show itself so evidently to be of antiquity, that no man of any judgement or conscience can gainsay it. Yet, saith the Answ. learned men are of opinion that this was not bertram's book. Who are those learned men? Forsooth 
c Bristol in his reply to D. Fulk. cap. 10. de 19  Bristol, and Saunder and some few other of the same mark, whose word is enough to prove any thing to be counterfeit. But their authority is overwaied by the testimony and confession of those other of their own company, to whom these must give place for commendation of learning. It is no marvel that the Answ. and those other his honest companions would have the book seem counterfeit, being written almost eight hundredth years agone so directly and of purpose against Transubstantiation. The reason alleged 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 have discharged it from the press. The Answerer full wisely passeth it over, with How knoweth he, and what necessity is there, without affirming any thing himself, or so much as looking at the ground of that reason which is alleged. I would have him peruse it once again. As for his speeches of those books of Caluin and Bucer falsely entitled, I take them to be of the same sort, as that the Thames stood still when Friar Campian was executed for his treason. Though any such thing were, it is not for a Papist to speak of it, seeing that they themselves in counterfeiting and falsifying of books have passed all the impudence of former times.    

P. Spence. Sect. 4.  
YOur Athenian mad man, was indeed a peevish fellow, and me think they are not of the wisest that ween, we have no other defence for the Mass but the word Liturgia. Where read you this for an argument? The Greeks' call it Liturgia, ergo it is the Mass. Though Erasmus in the Acts of the Apostles translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they were sacrificing, yet of his translation, or of the word 
a Untruth, for it is a common argument. The Answ. is ashamed of his fellows doings. So M. jewel useth Doctor Harding.  no man frameth an argument for the name Missa, except he were like your mad Athenian. It is no new devise to father upon us such arguments as we never thought of, to triumph upon the easy solution thereof.  

R. Abbot. 4.  
HEre the Answ. is ashamed of the absurdity of his own fellows. For he knoweth well enough that their mouths run over with these terms Basils' Mass, Chrysostom's Mass, etc. And that wheresoever they find the Latin word Missa, in any ancient writer they triumph thereof, as having a proof for their idolatrous Mass. You know, M. Spence, that these are very currant arguments with yourself, and those titles turn round upon your tongue, neither need you to be ashamed thereof, seeing D. Allen hath taught you to esteem them so, who taketh himself for a better Clerk than you are. You know also when you took those words 
a Act. 13. 2.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as they were ministering, to be a very good proof for your Mass, when you demanded of me to that purpose what the Greek words were. But all these things the Answ. is now ashamed of. He telleth me that they do not say, the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore it is the Mass. No but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by some according to the phrase of their time translated Mass, and that name of Mass thus translated, some of his companions and namely you, M. Spence, deceitfully allege to the simple & ignorant, as a strong proof for the Popish Mass. And this is that cogging and cozening argument that I speak of, wherewith you yourself are deceived 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. (whereas the truth of the text is, as they were ministering 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 Mass itself the 
b Rhem. A●nota. Act. 13. 2.  Rhemists take an argument from thence, and unshamefastly and contrary to their knowledge and conscience say that the word signifieth, & they might have translated saying Mass. Whereof follow those absurdities that before I mentioned, that the 
c Rom. 13. ●.  Magistrate is a Mass priest; 
d Heb. 1. 14.  that Angels are massing spirits; that 
e Rom. 15 27. 2. Cor. 9 12.  to give to the poor is to say Mass, because the Apostle useth the same Greek word of all these which they say doth signify to say Mass. But the jesuit helpeth this lame reason of theirs by putting to it another lame leg. He confesseth that the Greek word 
f Bellarm. tom. 2 con. ● de M●ssa. lib. 1. cap. 13.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth the execution of any public function or ministery whatsoever. But yet in this place he saith it must needs be understood of sacrificing, because it is not simply said, As they were ministering, but as they were ministering to the Lord For it may not be understood, he saith, of preaching the word or ministering the Sacraments, because the preaching of the word and ministering the Sacraments, is not to the Lord but to men. He playeth herein the part of a crafty Lawyer, who taking a bad cause in hand will seek by shifting and faysting to prevail, because he faileth of good & sound argument. For first he argueth from an imperfect and unsufficient division, in that he mentioneth only preaching the word and ministering the Sacraments, and omitteth public prayer, where he saw he had no colour to deny that the Minister in the exercise of public prayer doth minister unto the Lord, and therefore that this place is not necessarily to be understood of sacrifice, because it may be expounded of prayer. And so doth the Syriac interpreter take it, translating thus: As they had prayed unto the Lord. Secondly in that he saith that it cannot be understood of the ministry 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 own conscience. For he knoweth well enough that although the Minister preach not to the Lord, nor minister the Sacraments to the Lord, but to men, yet in doing these duties unto men, he ministereth unto 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 unto the Lord. And so the jesuit could not be ignorant, but that 
g Chrysost. & Oecume in Act. 13.  chrysostom and Oecumenius out of him do expound it writing upon the same place; What is, as they were ministering? It is to say, as they were preaching. Yea and Erasmus himself though he translated, as they were sacrificing, as the jesuit urgeth, yet notwithstanding in his paraphrase and annotations giveth to understand that he meaneth thereby nothing else but prophesying and teaching the doctrine of the Gospel, accordingly as it is said in the text of them that ministered to the Lord, that they were Prophets and Doctors. To which purpose the Apostle S. Paul useth both the word which he here translateth and the word of sacrificing also. Rom 15. 16. Grace is given to me of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that I should be the minister of jesus Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sacrificing the Gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable. etc. Where 
h Theophy. & Oecume. in epist. ad Rom. c. 25.  Theophylact useth this exposition; My office of sacrificing is to preach the Gospel. And Oecumenius this; In bringing men to the faith, he sacrificeth the Gospel of God. By all which it appeareth, that neither from the words of the text, as they were ministering unto the Lord, nor yet from Erasmus his translation if it were admitted, can follow any sufficient proof for the warranting of the Popish Mass. But the jesuit knew that it was a sufficient answer to his argument, to say, that in preaching and ministering the Sacraments to men, they might rightly be said to minister unto the Lord, because they did it to the honour of the Lord, and in the service of the Lord. Therefore he thought good beforehand to add an exception against this answer, and that he doth full well and learnedly. If, forsooth, S. Luke had meant so, he would not have added any thing of their fasting, because that should have been comprehended under the name of ministering. 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 jesuits conscience; but where were his wits? or where was the care of not discrediting himself with his own fellows? The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he granteth to import the exercise of some public function or ministery. Now who was ever so absurd to imagine a public function, ministry or office of fasting? or that a man in fasting should be said to execute an office or ministry? He bringeth the Apostles words, but to what purpose? Doth the Apostle say, He that eateth, or he that eateth not to the Lord, doth therein minister unto the Lord? Surely if in eating or not eating to the honour of the Lord, a man shall be said to minister unto the Lord, then in every action that he may do, he shall execute a function or ministry to the Lord, because the Apostle saith 
i 1. Cor. 10. 31.  Whether ye eat or drink or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. If this be absurd, than his exception is absurd likewise, as indeed it is. To conclude this matter, the disciples there assembled, used after their accustomed manner prayer, preaching of the word, and ministering of the Sacraments. All these must be understood in their ministration. These may be understood without any sacrifice of the Mass. Therefore it is foolishly and absurdly done of any Papist to allege this as a proof of their sacrilegious M●sse. Now let the Answ. say whether I father any other arguments upon them, than they themselves have begotten. Such brats & untowardly births they have a great number, and M. jewels usage towards M. Harding in this behalf, was no other but even a right laying before him the vanity and looseness of his allegations and reasons, so peevish and childish sometimes, that they rather deserved scorn then any answer at all.    

P. Spence. Sect. 5.  
THat the Liturgies of S. james, S. Basill & Chrysostom were mad● by them, whose names they bear, hath been proved by good writers, and by the common consent of long continued custom of the Greek Church; so Proclus the ancient Bishop for that matter in the place aforenamed. It would ask a long, though an easy proof. But what your side hath said to the contrary, never yet proved the contrary, and is all too light to bear down so well known and so commonly received a truth.  

R. Abbot. 5.  
AS touching the Liturgies of S. james, Basill; and chrysostom, 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, under the authority and countenance of whose names, they seek so much to shroud themselves. For as I said before, so say I now again, that in those Liturgies and general y●●● all records of the primitive Church's service, there is a description of our communion, wherein both the Minister and the people communicate together in both kinds, not of the Roomish Mass, wherein the people are either idle lookers on, or when they are communicants, communicate only in one kind, 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 perhaps in that respect at the manifest Apostasy of the Church of Rome, from the universal and continual practice of the ancient Church. But for defence of their half and maimed receiving, he referreth me to their Treatises of that matter. Where I could as willingly have heard him say, Ask my fellow if I be a thief. Why did he not rather refer himself to the institution of Christ, set down in the Gospel, commended by S. Paul to the whole Church of Corinth, generally and without exception observed in the primitive Church, but that he chooseth rather to assuage his thirst by drinking of the miry and filthy puddles of the Church of Rome, then of the pure and clear fountain of the word of God. But all this notwithstanding how may we be assured or persuaded that the aforesaid Liturgies are theirs whose names they bear? For beside that Liturgy which commonly goeth under the name of saint Iame● the Apostle, there is also 
a Clem. Apo●t. Constit. lib 8. cap. 15. etc.  another set down in the first volume of the Counsels under his name. And whether of these Liturgies will they require us to accept of? Or seeing they will have not only that several Liturgy, but also the Constitutions under Clemens name to be both authentical and good, what pretence have they to say that S. james left two Liturgies in the Church? To say the truth they are both bastards. The common, Liturgy of S. james prayeth for such as live 
b jacobi Liturgia Latin.  in Monasteries, and I trow the Answ. cannot prove that there were any Monasteries for Christians in the Apostles times. But here 
c Hard. Rejoind. pa. 46.  M. Harding excepteth that the Greek in that place is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, in exercise, which by his exposition importeth monastical and solitary life. And although they had not Monasteries of wealthy provision such as ours in England were, yet he avoucheth that they had places, celles or houses where they lived solitarily in the exercise of virtue, not having to do with the world. But he abuseth his reader therein, neither could he justify any such monastical life to have been used in 〈◊〉 james his time. For whereas he allegeth Philo out of 
d Eu●eb. hist. eccles lib. 2. cap. 17.  Eusebius to prove it, he might have found, if he had looked upon 
e Philo. de vita contemplate.  Philo himself, that be wrote his book not of Christian Monks but of jewish Essees. Whereof he maketh two sorts, the one living in action, the other incontemplation; as 
f joseph. de bello juda. lib. 2. cap. 7.  josephus also seemeth 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 having written his book▪ Quod 〈◊〉 probus f 〈…〉 o of the one sort that lived in action, beginneth his other book, whereof▪ Eusebius conceiu●d his opinion, t●us: Now that we have spoken of the Essees that live in action, it followeth that we also speak of them that live in contemplation. Here it is apparent that they of whom Philo writeth were called Essees, as 
g Andrad. Oxthod. Expli. li●. 2.  Andradius and others confess. But the name of Essees hath not been found to be attributed to any of Christian profession, until Eusebius by error mistook that book of Philo, and gave occasion of the same error to Hierome, Epiphanius, Sozomen and others. Yet Hierome although 
h Hierony. in Catalo. Marcus. & Philo.  one where he understandeth that book of Christians, ●oth in one▪ of 
i Epist. ad Eustoch. de custod. virginit.  his Epistles manifestly refer it to the same sect of jewish Monks of which josephus 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: 
k Habent pris. corum commentarios qui huius sectae authores. etc.  They have, saith he, the Commentaries of their ancestors, who being the Authors of this sect, left many monuments of such allegories, etc. Ancestors then and men of elder times than Philo and the Apostles, were Authors of the sect of which Philo writeth. But I hope there were no Christian Monks before the time of the Apostles. Therefore this book cannot be understood of Christian Monks, but of a sect whose beginning was before the Apostles times, such as were the Essees of the jews. And hereby appeareth the falsehood of 
l Bellarm. tom. 1. cont. 5. lib. 2. cap. 5.  Bellarmine, who saith, that Philo giveth to understand that he wrote of a sect which begun in his time, whereby he would have it seem likely that he wrote of some of Christian profession; whereas Philo expressly affirmeth the contrary as appeareth in the words alleged. To let pass that which Philo writeth of their observing the seventh day, which was the jewish Sabbath, and that with intention of special mystery, otherwise then may be supposed of m●n entirely devoted to Christian religion, me thinks it is a thing not to be imagined that the same Philo taking upon him to set down exactly the discipline and profession of these men, should not so much as in one word intimate that they were Christians, if they had e'en so indeed. Strange it is also that there should appear no monument of this monastical life in the Acts of the Apostles or in any of their Epistles, neither by way of story, nor of precept, nor of greeting them that used it, if it had been in those first times of the Christian Church, as also that no other certain record of times immediately suc●éeding, should deliver any such to our knowledge. Now whereas Andradius very presumptuously and without any reason given, 
m Andrad. Oxthod Expli. lib 2.  affirmeth that those things which Philo writeth cannot agree to any other but Christians, surely he which shall read that which 
n josephus. An●iq. juda. lib. 18 cap. 2. & de bello▪ judai. lib. 2. ca 7.  josephus 
o Plini. lib. 5. cap. ●7.  Pliny and 
p So●● de reb. orb. me● orab.  Solinus have written of those jewish Essees, shall find that there is nothing mentioned by Philo but what may well agree to them also. Seeing therefore it cannot be proved that there was any such monastical life professed by Christians in the Apostles times, it followeth that we must needs take that Liturgy which prayeth for some as then professing it to be a mere forgery.  
The other Liturgy under the name of saint james is rejected by the like reason. For therein prayer is made for 
q Clem. constit. apost. lib. ●. cap 18. Pro sub 〈…〉 conis, lect 〈…〉 s, Cantoribus.  Subdeacons', Lesson-readers and singing men, whereas it is certain that there were no such officers of the Church in saint james his time. But as touching this Liturgy set down by the counterfeit Clement, it is to be noted that it is said to have been indited by saint james in a solemn meeting of the Apostles where they were assembled of purpose to resolve 
r Ibid cap. 2.  of all ecclesiastical order. In the end whereof this general approbation is added: 
s Ibid cap. 23.  These things do we Apostles ordain to you Bishops, Priests and Deacons concerning the mystical service. Now if this were in this solemn manner agreed upon, shall we think that the same saint james would of his private authority without cause publsh another Liturgy to the Church? And would not the Church universally according to the sanction and designment of the Apostles have practised that form of service; which it cannot be proved to have done? Or if either of those Liturgies had been of authority from such an Author, would Basill, chrysostom, and others have given forth other forms of church-service, & not have cleaved to the received and enjoined Apostolic form? It were well that these doubts were sufficiently cleared. But the testimony of Gregory Bishop of Rome is enough to crack the credit of these Liturgies, who assureth us 
t Gregor. Mag. in Regist▪ li. 7. cap. 63.  that it was the manner of the Apostles to consecrate the sacrifice with saying only the lords prayer. This giveth us sufficiently to understand that those pretended Liturgies under the name of saint james the Apostle, where much is said beside the Lord's prayer, either were not at all, or at least were not deemed authentical at that time, and therefore are of the same stamp, with an 〈◊〉 number of ●ther forgeries and counterfeit writings, which have been put fo●th in the name of the Apostles and other famous me●. Of that Liturgy also which the sixth Council mentioneth under the name of S. james, Theodorus Balsamon testifieth, that in his time so long ago it was 
u Theodor. Balsa. in council. Constant. 6. can. 32.  not found nor known, but quite worn out amongst them. Whereby we have just cause to think that these that now are, are other counterfeits, set forth since that time. Basils' Liturgy 
w Chemnie. in exam. Trident. council. de canon missae.  by the old translation is one, by the new translation another, and yet it is said also that the Syrians have a third differing from both the former. This is just cause to make a man suspicious of them all.  
Of Chrysostom's Liturgy how often have they been told, that although it be likely enough that he left some form of service in his Church, yet that there is now no certainty what it was, the difference 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 seen another copy at▪ Rome differing from all these. In one of these chrysostom himself is prayed unto, and these together with that other Liturgies are alleged for invocation of saints. But 
x Epiphani. haeresi. 7 5. contra Aeri●nos.  Epiphanius testifieth, that the Church in his time did pray for Saints, Martyrs, Apostles, etc. To pray for them and to pray to them stand not together. Epiphanius his testimony is true. Therefore these Liturgies are certainly false. Again chrysostom himself is prayed for, yea Pope Nicholas and the Emperor Alexius are prayed for also, who neither of them were borne some hundreds of years after S. Chrysostom's time. If they will say that these names were put in, as the manner is, to put in the names of Princes and Bishops to be prayed for while they live, then how cometh it to pass that those names continue there still unto this day, and that the names of those that succeeded were not put in place of them? It appeareth undoubtedly that there was patching and adding not only of names, but of prayers and ceremonies also, according to the custom of times and places, and the will of those hucksters that had these things in handling. Now seeing that although Proclus and others do mention such Liturgies of Basill and chrysostom, yet by means of such alterations, patcheries and forgeries, it cannot be certain unto us what Basill and chrysostom left in their Liturgies: what folly is it in the Answ. and his fellows, to face us out with the names of Basill and chrysostom in such sort as they do. That many steps of antiquity are yet remaining in them, it is not denied; but those are directly contrary to the practice of the Roomish faction in these days, and therefore yield not any allowance to their proceed. And whereas there are divers particles translated from those ancient Liturgies into their Mass, by occasion whereof they vaunt themselves as followers of antiquity, surely they deal no otherwise herein then 
y Irenae. lib. ●. cap. 1.  Irenaeus reproteth the Valentinian heretics to have dealt with the holy scriptures. Who gathered here and there words & names out of the scriptures with the which they painted their horrible and accursed heresies, that men might believe that the scripture spoke of those things, which they wickedly taught against the scripture. As if a man should take a precious and ●ostly image of a prince, fashioned by a cunning workman, and breaking it in pieces, should of the pieces of it make an ill-favoured image of a Fox, & say that the same is the goodly image which such a cunning workman made to resemble such a Prince. For so have they taken divers pieces of the ancient Liturgies and turned them to other use and meaning then ever was dreamt 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 us that their Liturgy hath example and warrant from all those that were used in former times. The prayers which then were made to God for the accepting of the people's 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 entreat God that he will look down mercifully thereupon and accept them. The old Liturgies used an open commemoration of the death, passion, and resurrection of our Lord jesus Christ, that the people might be put in mind thereof, according to his commandment: The Popish priest uttereth the words, but is enjoined to utter them in silence, so that the people never have the hearing of them. The old Liturgies craved of God grace and heavenly benediction, in behalf of the people who together were partakers of the communion: the Mass keepeth the words, but excludeth the people from the communion. The like dealing I noted before concerning the mixture of water; and the like followeth in the next place concerning the name of the Mass. By these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such speeches and doings borrow ●or 〈◊〉 rather from the old church-service, they go about to da●le the eyes of ●en th●t they may not s●e their fraud and falsehood. But an ape will be an ape still though he be yclothed in purple, & the Mass though it firmeth thus to be decked with ●●oures of antiquity, shall remain nothing else but ●●ish this and abominable idol. It is but apish 〈…〉 tation truly▪ to keep the words of the Fathers, and so absurdly to vary from the 〈…〉 'tice and meaning of the Fathers.    

P. Spence. Sect. 6.  
whether 〈◊〉 come of the Hebrew word, so grave and learned writer's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
a That some as grave and learned as themselves of their own side, are ashamed to say the same.  that it were best for you first to disaprove their proofs▪ if you can, for it is so substantially done by them, that I should but repeat their reasons here, and so actum agere. Who would ween any pith in this your cavil? the dimissing of the Catech●mine, E 〈…〉 min● and P●●nitentes, was called Missa, ●●go this whole celebration was not called Miss● 
b Belike the name of mass is a apparel coming of Hebrew and Latin both.  of the Hebrew word M●sah, as though one truth cannot stand with another. Great learne● men are of the mind that the old Fathers, especially 
c Who cannot be found once to have named Missarum solennia.  S. ●●gustine; and S. Ambrose use Missarum solemnia, in the plural number, to declare that both the parts thereof, that before the Catechumens' dismission, and the rest following bear all that name▪ both which cannot stand with your dismission. Touching receiving in both kinds which by the way you talk of, because you frame no argument about it, my answer shall be to send you to our Treatises of that matter, and Bellarmine l●b. 4. de Sacramento, from the tenth Chapter, etc.  

R. Abbot. 6.  
THe deriving of Mass from the Hebrew word Masah, that the very original of the word might seem to import sacrifice, ●s an ill-favoured whelp, lately tumbled out of the jesuits kennel: The word hath been in use these thousand years, never in the Greek but in the Latin Church. The most probable reason thereof given from time to time by Latin writers, hath been of the dimissing and sending away of such as did not communi 〈…〉 〈◊〉 
a Gregor. de exposi. ord.. li. 2. ex Cassandro in Liturg.  〈◊〉 gory Bishop of Rome; by 
b Isidor. Origi. lib. 6.  Isid●re who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much in the searching of Etymologies, by 
c Cassian. de canon. orat. & psal. modo. li 2 cap. 7.  Casseinus, 
d Durand. lib. 4. cap. 1.  Durand, 
e Beatus Rhena. annot. ●● Tertul. count Marc. lib. ●.  Beatus Rhenanus, 
f Polyd. Virgil. de invent. rerum. li. ●. ca 12.  Polydore Virgil and others, and shall we believe an upstart jesuit whom the Pope licked to his fashion but yesterday, that it is derived from an Hebrew word? 
g Bellarm. to. 2 de Missa. lib. 1. cap. 1.  Bellarmine himself is ashamed of this derivation. It is but even as if some idleheaded fellow should imagine some proportion of letters or likeness of syllables betwixt any Latin and Hebrew words, and should fond here upon face it out, that the one is derived from the other. If the Answ. would have had his Mass from an Hebrew word, he should have taken it rather from the word Massah, as being a temptation and provocation of the lords wrath: or from 
h Dani. 11. 38.  Mauzim the name of that idol which the abomination of desolation shall worship in steed of the true God, and honour with gold, and silver, and precious stones, etc. As Daniel speaketh and fitteth just to the Popish Mass. Now if Missa, Mass had his original from that custom of dismission, as by the testimonies of the abovenamed it is most likely, and as was proved before by the most ancient use of the word, then though in decourse of time, custom brought the word to signify the celebration of the Sacrament, as in my former answer I noted that it did, yet that altereth not, I trow, the derivation of the word, nor forceth it to seek another theme. And if the Answ. will not believe me in this point, yet let him believe Gregory Bishop of Rome, who applying it to the very celebration of the Sacrament, yet giveth still the same reason of the name. 
i Gregor. apud Cassandrum. in Liturg.  Missa, the Mass, is therefore so called, for that they which ought not to be present at the holy Sacraments, are willed to departed: which is the same, as (mitti) to be sent away. Therefore unless by the voice of the Deacon those that do not communicate, be willed according to the manner of our ancestors to departed, the service which by the usual name is called Mass, is not rightly performed. Let Durand also witness the same, though differing somewhat from Gregory: 
k Durand. Rat diui. lib. 4. cap. 1.  The Mass of the faithful is so called of dimissing or sending away, because that being ended, every one of the faithful is dismissed or sent away to his own home. Now here I must put the Answ. in mind that I alleged in my former writing that the custom of dimissing or sending away such as communicate not, and of the communicating of all that are present, is utterly worn out in the Church of Rome, so that they have herein greatly swerved from antiquity, and have kept the word M●ss● or Mass without the meaning of the word. To which point be answereth nothing; but yet let him esteem with himself, what censure Gregory in his words abovenamed for this cause giveth of his Popish Mass, namely that it is not rightly and well celebrated. Now than though his great learned men tell him that Missarum s●l●nnia with Ambrose and Austen do signify both parts of the Mass, that before the dismission and that after (a wise saying of his, who knoweth well that in his Mass there is no dismission at all) yet that hindereth not but that the Etymology of the word Missa, is the same still as I have showed 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 ever ●●med Missirum sol●●ia.    

P. Spence. Sect. 7.  
FOr praying for the dead, and that the dead rec●●ue benefit thereby, and gain as chrysostom term th●t, nothing maketh it so plain, as that Aerius by the testimony of Epithanius, Augustine and Philastrius, was accounted not an heretic but an Archhereticke, even as well for that point, as for two or three other pretty Puritan opinions now greatly urged: And of whom was he so accounted? even of the 
a Not of the whole church for that point. For many of the church held the same, and yet were not accounted heretics. See the answer.  whole Church, as by the testimony of the forenamed it is evident, who made their Catalogue only of open, notorious, & known condemned Heretics. And because you shall not be blinded in chrysostom, as though his prayer for the dead were only thanksgiving, l●t chrysostom interpret chrysostom, who speaking of this very sacrifice (called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sacrifice not only Liturgia) and of the most reverend and dreadful part thereof, I mean the Consecration in his book of his Dialogue, di Sacerdotio saith, that the priest prayeth to God that he will be merciful to the sins of all, not only living but also dead. And I wonder with what face you allege S. Augustine, who distinctly 
b But that which he telleth, he learned rather out of the school of Plato, then out of the school of God. He elsewhere speaketh far otherwise, as shall appear.  telleth you of some very good, some very bad, some neither very good, no● very bad, but of a middle sort, and because he would not leave you any thing to help yourself in this ease, he telleth you how the Church useth, and in what several sort for all three. Where as though S. Augustine were no body, you would help Dul●itius reason▪ as well as you could, but that very reason confoundeth you. For if the prayer of the Church had not been to crave God's mercy for the dead, but only to give thanks for them, what needed either that question to be made by Dulcitius of that which was not, or that answer to be made by S. Augustine when he might have denied that use? but the question of the one, and the answer of the other, proveth the Church's 
c But it proveth not the lawfulness of the churches practise.  practice. What need I to answer herein? our books are infinite, to whom I refer you.  

R. Abbot. 7.  
AS touching prayer for the dead, we take that for a sufficient cause to refuse it, which 
a Epiph. haer. 75.  Ephiph●nius confesseth; that it is not taught by the holy scripture, but observed by tradition received from the Fathers without scripture. What men have said or thought good in this behalf we take not for Canonical, but examine it by the Canonical scriptures, according to that rule which the Fathers themselves have prescribed. The scripture telleth us that 
b Apoc. 14. 13.  they which die in the Lord are blessed and rest from their labours, and therefore they need not the help of our prayers. If they die not in the Lord, than no prayers can stand them in steed. So that prayer for the dead is a matter of no effect, and consequently a vain usage of the name of God. That which the Fathers say according to this truth of God's word, we willingly embrace: as that of Hierom: 
c Cansa. 13. q. 2. cap. In praesenti.  In this present world we know that we may be helped either by the prayers or counsels each of other. But when we shall come before the tribunal seat of Christ, neither job, nor Daniel, nor No, can make request for any man, but every one must bear his own burden. And that of Aust●n: 
d August. in joh. trac. 49.  The rest, which is given straightways after death, every man than receiveth when he dieth, if he be worthy thereof. Which worthiness 
e Berna●d. in dedic. eccle. se●. 5.  Bernard declareth to be dignatione dinina, non dignitate nostrae: by Gods vouchsafing to accept us as worthy, not by our worthiness in ourselves. For as Chrysostom saith: 
f Chrysost. in ep. ad colos. hom. 2.  No man showeth such conversation of life, as that he may be worthy of the kingdom of heaven, but it is wholly the gift of God himself. To which effect Hierome also saith: 
g Hierony. in Esai. lib. 6. c. 14.  When the day of death or of judgement shall come, all hands shall fail, because there shall no work be found worthy of the justice of God, neither shall any man living be found righteous in his sight. Now he that is not by God's acceptation in Christ jesus holden worthy when he dieth; he never shall be by S. Austin's judgement. For, saith he, 
h August. epist. 80.  Such as every one dieth in this day, such a one shall he be judged at that day. Now than if every one that is thought worthy of this rest, do receive it immediately after death, and he that is not thought worthy thereof at his death, shall never be, it followeth that every one that receiveth the same rest, receiveth it immediately after death, and therefore needeth not to be furthered unto it by the prayers or devotions of the living. If contrary to this they have taught otherwhere a place of pain; where faithful men are detained from that rest, they 〈…〉 here i● 〈◊〉 as men, ● we 〈◊〉 not but they have found wisdom in Jesus Christ to iover their error. But the Papists have dealt with them here is as 
i Gen. 9 22.  Ch●m d●●lt with his father No, who in steed of hiding, did rather publish and make known the nakedness & shame of his father. For so have they not sought to hide, but to blaze abroad the imperfections and oversightes of the ancient Fathers, as 
k Vincent. Ly●●n. count haereses.  Vincent 〈…〉 Lyrinensis telleth the Donatists that they did, when in the very like sort, 〈◊〉 the Papists, they cloaked their error with the name of Cyprian, and sundry other Bishops of former times. We may say now of the ancient Fathers and the Papists; as the same, Vincentius said of Cyprian & the Donatists: 
l Ibid.  〈◊〉 change of things: The authors of the same opinions are judged Catholi●ke, but the followers thereof, are heretics: the masters are pardoned, but the scholars or learners are condemned: the writers of the books (wherein these opinions are) shall without doubt be the children of the kingdom; but hell shall be the place for the maintainers and abettors thereof. We doubt not indeed but that the ancient Fathers we ●● Catholic and godly Bishops and Pastors, notwithstanding that as men they erred sometimes in their judgements. But we know the Papists to be wicked Apostates and Heretics, who wilfully and stubbornly maintain the same errors against the plain truth laid evidently before them out of the word of God.  
That Aerius was condemned for an heretic we know: but we know withal that there were greater matters of heresy to condemn him for, then denial of prayer or offering for the dead; not only for two or three pretty Puritan points as the Answ. speaketh, but also for certain points of Popery concerning marriage and eating of flesh, as Philaster recordeth. So that the Answ. in condemning Aerius for such a known and notorious heretic, must pluck himself also by the nose. 
m Basil. de spir. sanc. ca 2. 3. 4.  Basil, 
n Epiphan. haer. 75.  Epiphanius, and others note him also to have been a partaker of the heresy of Arius, & to have sought further matter for defence thereof. There was therefore sufficient cause for A 〈…〉 sme and Popery to condemn Aerius without any touching of him for gainsaying prayer for the dead. S. Austen noteth this indeed in the 
o August. de haeres cap. 53.  report of his heresy; but yet giveth no such censure of those many in his time, who avouched in effect the same that Aerius did, that the oblations of the living were not available for the dead, whose words to that purpose I reported out of Austen to Dulcitius, in my former reply. And as for the prayer for the dead, which 
p Epiphan. hear. 75.  Epiphanius defendeth against Aerius, it was no such as Papists now teach, not only for that it was used as a testimony of their belief, that the dead were not utterly perished, but lived with the Lord, whereas Papists defend it only in behalf of them that are in Purgatory: but also that it was used 
q Ibid.  for the patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, etc. to put difference betwixt Christ and all other men, by the honour which is done to him, whilst he only is acknowledged to be perfectly just, & is worshipped, & prayed unto, & all others acknowledged to be such that they were to be prayed for. Whereas the church of Rome now prayeth not for Saints, but prayeth unto them, & so yieldeth unto them that honour which the ancient Church reserved as a special prerogative to Christ alone. Now as touching this manner of praying for Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, etc. which I mentioned. the Answ. saith nothing at all. Only to no purpose he bringeth a speech of Chrysostom to prove that there was in his time prayer for the forgiveness of the sins of the dead. But do those words serve for exposition of that which I alleged out of Chrysostom's Liturgy? If they do, than he must say that that reasonable service was offered for the sins of the blessed virgin. If not, then were they idly brought in. For I alleged that speech as taken from the ancient use of the Church long before Chrysostoms' time; which because it importeth only thanksgiving, therefore giveth sufficient cause: to think that in the beginning they used only commemoration & thanksgiving for the faithful dead in Christ; howsoever by little and little through the subtlety of Montanus his heresy, there was added to 〈…〉 ither in Chrysostoms' time or before, such prayers as he speaketh of and offerings for the be 〈…〉 site of the dead. That Chrysostom hath somewhat tending heretal, i●●as not denied 
r Mat. 19 8.  but it is sufficient for our defence that I from the beginning it was not so. And yet that praying for the forgiveness of the si●● of the dead, if there be nothing more said by chrysostom, maketh nothing for Popish prayer for the dead. For this resteth only upon Purgatory torments, and is not intended for any other purpose but for deliverance from thence: whereas it plainly appeareth by the supposed Dionysius, that the ancienter Church prayed in that sort for them, of whom notwithstanding they were assured 
s Dionys. Areo. eccles. hierarch. cap. ultimo.  that they were come to rest, that they were blessed and happy; that they were not changed to worse but to better state than they had here, that they were now compartners with the Saints which had been before from the beginning of the world: and therefore in so praying, thought of nothing loss than Purgatory pains. The saying of S. Austen which the Answ. urge this thus: 
t August. Ench●r. ca 110.  The sacrifices of the altar or of whatsoever alms when they are offered for all the dead that have been baptized are thanksgivings for such as are very good: for such as are no● very bad, they are propitiations or atonements: for those that are very bad, they are, though no benefit to the dead, yet some kind of comfort to the living. The first part of which words confirmeth that which I said before of the ancient custom, not of praying but of thanksgiving for he faithful departed in Christ. In the other two he yielded too much to those superstitions which tradition and later custom had brought in without the word of God, whilst being busied in matters of greater weight and importance, he omitted thoroughly to examine and try his opinion in this point, with the true and even w●ights of the same word. Whereas the Answ. telleth me that by this means we make no body of S. Austen, I answer him concerning Austen as Austen himself answered the Donatists concerning Cyprian: 
u August. count cresco. lib. 2. ca 31. 32.  We do no injury to him when we distinguish any writings of his from the authority of the holy scriptures. Whatsoever therein agreeth to the authority of the scriptures, we receive it with his commendation; but what agreeth not thereto, by his leave we refuse it, and as the s 〈…〉 e Austen answered also to the Pelagians concerning Ambrose: 
w Idem de great. christi cont. pel & Cele. li. 1. c. 23  He was a learned and godly man but not to be compared to the authority of the Canonical scriptures. Shall we be said to make no 〈◊〉 of David, because we refuse to follow him in committing adultery and murders? or of Peter because we will not deny Christ or cause the Gentiles to play the jews? or of john because we will not fall down and worship an Angel? or of Cyprian because we will not yield to his error of rebaptising? 
x August count Cresco. lib. 1. cap. 32 & li. 2. cap 32. & de unico bapt. count Petil. ca 13 & cont. Gandent. li. 2. cap. 23.  surely as we account ourselves incomparably inferior to these renowned and famous servants of God, and yet refuse to follow them in that which they thought and did amiss: so we attribute exceeding much to Austen, we admire his learning, we honour his labours, we esteem of his judgement, and yet with that liberty whereunto the Lord hath called us, we deny to follow him in this whereof we cannot have our consciences assured by the undoubted warrant of the word of God. And as lawful we hold it for ourselves so to do in this point, as for the Papists to reject his 
y August. de bono viduitatis. ca ●. ●0. 11  sound judgement of the unlawfulness of dissolving. & breaking such marriages as are contracted after vow and protestation of single life. But as touching the matter in hand of propitiation & atonement for sin, we hold fast that which S. john teacheth us and g●e no farther: 
z 1. joh. 2. 2.  We have an advocate with the father jesus Christ the just, and he is the propitiation for our sins. We believe no other merit of the forgiveness thereof, but only his passion and death: in the participation whereof whosoever dieth, we assure rur selves he is immediately received into Paradise with jesus Christ, even as was 
a Luc. 23. 43. Cypr. de caena domini ad finem.  the thief who upon the Cross began to believe in jesus Christ. And to this purpose I oppose against that thrée-membred division of Austen, another of his consisting only of two parts 
b august. in Io●. ●ract. 49.  All souls when they go out of this world have their divers places of receipt. The good have joy: the evil have torment. But when the resurrection shall come, both the joy of the good shall be greater, and the torments of the evil shall be more grievous: when as they shall be tormented in their bodies also. Then all souls are either good or evil. Their portions if they be good, joy: if they be evil, 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 increased by the receiving of their bodies to be partakers of the same torment. What place leaveth Austen here for Purgatory, or for any middle sort of men? Surely none at all, and therefore consequently excludeth all effect of prayer or offering for the dead.  
But I s●eke, the Answ. saith, to help Dulcitiu● his reason and yet conf 〈…〉 d myself, because both by the question and by the answer 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 oversight to call it Dulcitius his reason which was alleged; for S. Austen reporteth it as a reason given by many in his time. Then let him understand also that I knew it to be the church's practice, but question was then moved whether that which the church did were available to the dead. Dulcitius upon that occasion was doubtful herein. He sendeth to S. Austen to be resolved. S. Austen telleth him that 
c August. de 8. quaest. Dulcit. q. 2.  many indeed said hereof, that if any good might be to the dead in obtaining ease, much rather should the soul by it own confession of sin find ease, then by oblations procured by other men. Whereby it is plain that though it were the churches practise, yet that this practice of the church was disavowed and disliked by many in S. Au●●ens 〈…〉 e, and therefore not universally entertained in the church. The Answerer kn●w well enough that thus much was said to him before, but because he was over-pressed by the reason of those many, used then against the custom of oblations and prayers for the dead, he slippeth by and taketh hold of this, that hereby the practice 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 even in those times. Now he saith nothing, neither of the men nor of their reason. And verily Austen himself neither reproveth the men, nor disproveth their reason, nor by any reason approveth that which he himself affirmed on the other side; but taking this custom as he found it▪ he laboureth rather to show whom we may suppose to have benefit after death by such prayers and offerings, if there be any effect thereof, then to prove that there is so.    

P. Spence. Sect. 8.  
A Sorry shift you have to elude all that our side can bring out of the Fathers for the sacrifice. 
a Doct. Allen saith that the name of sacrifices in the plural number as is this, fitteth not to the sacrifice of the Mass.  The sacrifices of the altar, are forsooth by your cavil not offered by the priest, but by every particular man as his oblations either for the Sacrament (say you) or for the relief of the poor, the worst shift of a thousand. Theodoret upon the 8. to the Hebrues, asketh why (if Christ offered a perfect sacrifice and made all other sacrifices unnecessary) the priests of the new Testament offer the mystical sacrifice? If the people's charitable offerings were the meaning of the sacrifices of the altar, what need either Theodoret or so many much more ancient Fathers that ask the self same question upon the like objection, so much liked of your side, namely chrysostom upon the same Chapter, to move any such question or doubt? For when Christ abolished all the old sacrifices of the law, you cannot imagine that these Fathers so learned and so wise, would ever spend labour, or time to move this 
b A deal of idle talk. I denied not but that the Fathers do use the name of sacrifice concerning the Lord's Supper. For I gave the reason thereof at large.  idle doubt, whether he abolished all charitable offerings of the people, either for the Sacrament or for the help of the poor. Besides the question is moved of the sacrifice of the new Testament offered, not by the people, but by the priests. That the people made such oblations, we grant, but that thereby it is proved that there was no other oblation or sacrifice offered by the priest, we deny, and think it to be as unreasonable as if your mad Athenian would prove that God made no Moon, because he made a Sun. One truth never shouldereth out another. The same Theodoret to answer his own question goeth further, and thus solueth it. It is clear saith he to those that are learned in divinity, that we the priests of the new Testament (of whom the objection was made, not of the people) do offer not another sacrifice, but do celebrate a memory of that one healthful sacrifice, for this our Lord did command, Do ye this for a remembrance of me.  

R. Abbot. 8.  
WHereas 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 fond collecteth thereof, that we use this for a sorry shift to elude & put off all the testimonies of the Father's concerning sacrifice. I may justly call it a fond collection. That the name of Sacrifice is used of those offerings, I showed him by 
a Hieron. in 1. Cor. 11.  S. Hierom. But that in other places both S. Austen and others do apply the name of Sacrifice to the mystical offering of the body and blood of Christ, he knew well enough that I made no doubt, inasmuch as it was a great part of my speech following, to declare what they meant in so saying. Wherefore all that he speaketh of this point ariseth of his own peevish and idle fancy, and therefore I trouble not myself therewith.    

P. Spence. Sect. 9  
TO your great objection of S. Paul leaving a great heap of 
a Which because he could not answer, he thought good to pass over as waste words.  waste words (to say the best of them) I answer: the sacrifice of the law took not away sins, but made only certain legal expiations, and therefore the chief good that they wrought in the soul was ex Adiuncto of a thing added to them, by the goodness of the receivers of them, which was their godly faith, and expectation of remission of sins to be wrought by the Messiah, by which faith they received justification such as their 
b Their estate ●n the old law had not the same light of revelation: but the grace of justification and regeneration was the same to them as it is to us. See the answer to sect. 20  estate in the old law was capable of. But Christ by his sacrifice which was done by his death (for his death only could confirm his new Testament) took away sins, and therefore needed not to be reiterated. Good sir why 
c The Answ. dream. For no man charged him with any such assertion.  dream you that we think or profess to slay and crucify Christ in our Masses? His death was once, and that once sufficient for ever, and he dieth no more, and then where is your objection? But our sacrifice which is the offering of Christ to his father, is only to commemorate his said death once past, thereby to 
d If the Mass be but to procure the propitiation earned on the Cross, why is it defended to be a continual sacrifice of propitiation. Absurd contradiction.  procure the said propitiation earned for us on the Cross by thanking him, and praising him, for the said sacrifice of the Cross, and to procure by the said Commemoration, the pardon gotten by the great sacrifice of his death. 
e A goodly cover for a cup of poison. See the answer.  Remission of sins doth come by Baptism, by repentance, or penance and by prayer. Do we therefore exclude Christ's death? No; but these work by the virtue of that, and only by the virtue thereof are available and need no other death of him to make them profitable and active for us. And therefore all your testimonies go no further, but that there needeth not now any 
f Why doth the church of Rome then daily offer for sin?  new oblation for sin, but Christ's death already past, because it is still and ever will remain and continue most sufficient to take away sins, and never will need any reiteration, but is and will be still, able, strong, and available to give force, virtue, and strength, to all our Sacraments, sacrifices and prayers to procure God's mercy unto us for the merit thereof, and by the influence only thereof. And what have we ever affirmed more? And what ge● you by this? for all your testimonies by you alleged of Theodoret, Oecumenius, chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Primasius, we grant as serving our turn, proving in our sacrifice a memory and a commemoration, but of what? of his death, and what more? of the same commanded to be offered in a sacrifice to God, for so much your own testimonies do say. But do they 
g They d● deny it▪ in that they make the sacrifice whereof they s●ake no more but a memorial o● his death.  deny that in this sacrifice we offer his body? they do not; They say a memory, we say of his death; they call it a figure, we say of his sufferings. You would have it a memory of himself as though he were absent, we say it is a memory, a comemoration, a representation of his own only sacrifice, that is of his death. Here is the point between us, here lieth the narrow issue. In this narrow difference of 
h What sacricrifice is there saith Prosper, but the ●●lling of the Lamb of God? Therefore as touching sacrifice Christ himself is not to be considered ●ut only as dying, See the answer.  himself, and of his death, you would snare & hamper us, as though the verity of his body cannot stand with the remembering, representing and signifying of his death. And therefore our own gloze (as you term it) telleth you it is a representation and memorial, but of what? of his oblation and passion. That is it all our writers have told you so oft and so learnedly: but you will not hear, you dissemble it because the state of the question lieth therein which you start away from. We say his body is offered in Sacrifice in the which a memory is made of his death, by the which is applied to us remission of sins purchased by his death only.  

R. Abbot. 9  
NOw at length we are come to the capital points of the sacrifice of the Mass and of transubstantiation, two fowl monsters of the Church of Rome. In the defence whereof the Answ. hath showed himself a bird of the same nest with them, who very honestly and ingenuously confessed of themselves thus. 
a Index expurgat in censura Bertram.  In the old Catholic Doctors we suffer very many errors, and we extenuate them, excuse them, and by some devised shift we oftentimes deny them, or feign of them some convenient meaning, whensoever they are opposed in disputations or in contention and controversy with our adversaries. I might not here omit to put him in mind again of this their pretty manner of answering our allegations, disclosed and uttered by their own confession, sufficient to make any man distrustful of their answers, howsoever good colours they set upon them. But as touching the present matter he telleth me that he passeth over a great heap of my waste words: and in deed I do not marvel that he doth so. For in those waste words I noted a cursed blasphemy contained in their Mass, which I spoke of before, namely that a greasy headed and filthy hearted priest is brought in, praying unto God that he will look down with a merciful countenance upon his son jesus Christ, as though by the prayer of a sinful and wicked man Christ must be accepted with the Father. Secondly those waste words laid open the shame of the divines of Rheims, as touching their gloze upon the place Heb. 10. 
b Heb. 10. 18.  There is now no more offering for sin. An everlasting testimony of their lewd and ungodly mind, desperately bend to the perverting of all truth. The Answ. as convicted in his conscience of their gross dealing herein, slippeth by all, and useth not a word to defend them or to excuse them, but betaketh himself to another idle and vain shift. Where being a man that groundeth himself much upon the infinite treatises of his learned side, he might have thought with himself; surely these are learned men; they have sifted the matter to the uttermost: If any other exposition then that which they have given would better stand, they would rather have used it. But without doubt they saw that nothing will serve the turn. Therefore it is bootless for me to seek any other answer. Thus I say should have thought and so for the credit of his Rhemists have joined with them to dub that which they so grossly had avouched. Now he hath left them naked to the shame of the world, and by his silence confesseth that their impudence is greater than he can tell any way how to excuse: But let us see how well and wisely he doth shift off all. The question is whether there be any prepitiatorie offering or sacrifice for sin after the sacrifice of Christ upon his Cross: the Papists say they have so in their Mass. I prove out of the tenth to the Hebrews that there is no such. 
c Heb. 10. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  For where forgiveness of sins is, * there is no more any offering or sacrifice for sin. But in the new Testament once confirmed by the death of Christ there is forgiveness of sins. 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 Mass. Nay, say the Rhemistes the text meaneth that there is no second Baptism to apply unto us a general pardon or full forgiveness of sins, contrary to the evidence of the text▪ to the light of their own consciences, to the manifest expositions of the ancient Fathers. chrysostom, Oecumenius, Photius, Theodoret, Theophylact, Primasius, Ambrose, as before I alleged; who all according to the drift of the text expound it against any further offering or sacrifice for sin after that once offering upon the Cross. Yea and it must necessarily be so understood, because the Apostle hereby concludeth against the many & often offered sacrifices of the jews. Which conclusion maketh nothing against their offerings or sacrifices, unless we understand offering properly. For what were it against their sacrificing that the Apostle should say; there is no second baptism to apply unto us full forgiveness of sins? Now seeing this absurd & unreasonable gloze of the Rhemists will not serve turn, neither could the Answ. for shame write it, though they were not ashamed to print it, what other answer may we look for at his hands? Good sir, saith he, why dream you that we think or profess to ●ley and crucify Christ in our Masses? His death was once, and that once sufficient for ever, and he dieth no more, and then where is your objection? To whom I say again; Good sir, my objection hath not any syllable to charge you with affirming of Christ's dying any more, but proveth that after the once dying of Christ, there is no more sacrifice for sin, and therefore that your Mass doth lie in taking upon it to be a true propitiatory sacrifice, and then where is your answer? Why did not your courage serve to make a direct answer to that that was opposed; and if you could not answer, why did not conscience prevail with you to make you yield to the truth? I prove that there is now no more offering for sin, and he returneth me a sléevelesse tale that they say not that Christ dieth any more, and so runneth on to declare unto me what manner of sacrifice it is which they offer, which by the reason alleged by me is inevitably proved to be none at all. If Christ's body be really offered for sin every day in the Mass, than there is yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an offering for sin. But the Apostle saith, that there is not now an offering for sin▪ Therefore Christ is not now any longer offered for sin. And therefore although the body of Christ be yet really remaining in heaven 
d R●m. ●. ●.  being raised from the dead to die no more, and the same body be sometimes termed in our speech the sacrifice for sin, yet is it not so called as having 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 virtue of that once sacrificing 
e Heb ●. 2.  appeareth in the sight of God for us. In a word, it is no otherwise so called, but as Christ in the Revelation is called the knob, not to be killed but 
f Apoc. 5. 6. 9 12.  that was killed, and as the same body of Christ shall be called the sacrifice for sin after the end of the world, when as the Saints of God shall thankfully record the sacrificing thereof thus: 
g Apoc. 5. 9  Thou wast killed and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every nation, etc. The end and use of offering for sin is to take away sin, to obtain remission of sins, to sanctify those that come unto it. Now when this end of offering for sin is achieved, there is no further use of an offering for sin. So that if the sacrifices of the old law 
h Heb. 10. 1. 2.  had sanctified the comers thereunto, they should after once offering have ceased to be offered as the Apostle telleth us: importing thereby that that sacrifice which doth sanctify the comers thereunto, as doth 
i cap. 10. 10.  the body of Christ once offered, needeth not to be offered any more but that once. And hereupon it is that he inferreth, that seeing remission of sins is obtained by the offering of Christ's body once, therefore thenceforth there is no more offering for sin, neither of Christ's body nor of any other thing, because there is no end or use thereof, even as when 
k Chrysost. in Heb. 10. ho. 17. Ambros. in Hebr. 10.  a man hath gotten a medicine to heal his hurt, it is needless for him to seek any other, either of the same substance or of any other. And therefore hereby he resolveth against all, whether Heathenish or jewish or Popish sacrificing for sin, as being to no end or purpose, because the end of offering for sin, which is, remission of sins, is attained already by the death and bloodsheading of jesus Christ. And unless we will understand offering for sin, simply and universally without exception, and without that determining of it to any one sort of offering which the Answ. useth in tying it unto Christ's suffering and dying, we betray this whole disputation into the hands of the jews and Heathens, as making nothing against their sacrificing for sin, because it only proveth that Christ dieth no more, not that there is no more offering for sin. But the Apostle would deny not only Christ's dying any more, but also all manner of jewish and Heathenish offering for sin. Therefore the words must be absolutely and universally understood of offering for sin after the once dying of our Lord jesus.  
Yet further let me tell him that if he will affirm the often offering of Christ, he must say also that Christ often suffereth and is slain. For throughout the whole scripture he cannot allege one place where the offering or sacrificing of Christ is otherwise understood then of his death and passion. And this is plainly evicted out of the 9 to the Hebrues, where the Apostle saith, that Christ 
l Herald 9 25. 26.  is entered into heaven to appear now in the sight of God for us, not to offer himself often; for then, saith he, he should have 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 shedding of blood, there was no forgiveness, as the 
m Heb. 9 22.  Apostle witnesseth. Now seeing there is no sacrifice of propitiation in the new Testament which was not prefigured in the law, which the Apostle saith 
n Heb. 10. 1.  had the shadow of the good things that were to come, and the law prefigured none but sacrifice by bloodshead and death, it followeth that in the new Testament there is no sacrifice propitiatory but only 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 Mass, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those grounds which the Answerers masters have been forced to yield unto, that either he must needs grant that there is a real death and destruction of the body of Christ in the Mass, or else that there is not any real offering or sacrificing of the same. For sacrifice, saith 
o Bellar. to 2. de Missa. lib. 1. ca 2. 15. 27.  Bellarmine, requireth a changing and consuming, a kill & destroying of the thing sacrificed; and a true and real sacrifice importeth a true and real death or destruction of the thing that is offered in sacrifice. If therefore there be in the Mass a true and real sacrifice of the body of Christ, there must needs be a true and real destroying of the same body. If this will not be granted, than the other must be denied, and so the Popish sacrifice must fall to the ground. The jesuit having set down these things in such manner 
p cap. 27. ut supra.  as that he hath convicted the masspriest to be a murderer and destroyer of the body of Christ and passing slily over the matter with his omissis, setteth down afterward his suppose for the resolving of this doubt and avoiding of this heinous crime: but so as that it seemeth he was even at his wits end to devise a shift to salve the matter. He will have consecration to belong to the essence of the sacrifice, and itself 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 seem he doth not mar 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 ordained to be truly and really destroyed. Not sacrificed then by consecration but ordained to be sacrificed. For the act of sacrificing is the act of destroying the thing sacrificed. For, as the 
q ibid.  jesuit saith, if the priest in the old law had received a sheep for sacrifice and proceeded so far as to strike the stroke for killing the sheep, yet if by any accident the stroke had been hindered, it had been no sacrifice. And therefore Abraham as he saith again, though he bound his son and laid him on the altar, and so ordained him to be slain, yet for that he did not really kill his son, 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 change or destroying of the thing to be sacrificed. But yet further, how is the body of Christ ordained by consecration to be destroyed? forsooth because it thereby receiveth the condition of meat, and therefore is ordained to be eaten, and consequently to be altered and destroyed as we know it cometh to pass in meat. But where did he read that eating was an act of sacrificing? Surely he himself 
r cap. 2. ut supra.  reckoning all the forms and manners of the destroying of things sacrificed in the old law, where many things sacrificed were appointed to be eaten by Aaron and his sons, yet could not find that eating was any part of sacrificing, but defineth the destroying to have been either by killing as of living things, or by burning as of  things without life; or by effusion and pouring out as of liquid or moist things. Then by his own confession it was not eating that did make the sacrifice. And so much he 
s cap. 27.  confesseth here as touching the people's eating. But why should not the people's eating as well accomplish the sacrifice as the priests, seeing 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, seeing we do not read in the Gospel that he himself did eat, but only gave to his disciples to eat? And if that must be supposed which he defendeth, that the sacrifice was really and substantially Christ himself, how may we be persuaded that he did eat himself, as he must needs do if he did then sacrifice himself, because, he being then the priest, it must be his eating y● must make up the sacrifice? Moreover what if it so fall out that neither the people nor the priest eat 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, overthroweth his other position that sacrifice is done in consecration, as where he saith towards the end of the chapter that 
t Apostoli consecrando sacrificabant. Immolatio consecratione perficitur.  the Apostles in consecrating did sacrifice, and out of Gregory that sacrifice is performed by consecration. And yet again I marvel how it may be said, that the body of Christ is truly and really destroyed in the priests eating thereof. Doth it verily go into his body as meat there to be altered and digested and changed in substance? No, saith Bellarmine, the body of Christ feeleth no hurt in itself, neither doth it lose his natural being, but only esse sacramentale, his sacramental being. But sacramental being is esse modi, not esse rei; a being touching the manner of the thing, not touching the thing itself. Now if there be a destroying only of the manner of the thing, not of the thing itself, than it cannot be said that there is any sacrifice done of the thing itself, because sacrifice importeth the destroying not of any manner or circumstance, but of the thing itself that is sacrificed. Otherwise Isaac having been bound & laid upon the altar in manner of a sacrifice, though he were not indeed slain, yet shall be said to have been properly sacrificed, because being unbound and taken from thence he hath lost that manner of being wherein he was upon the altar. It were absurd to affirm this. Therefore it is absurd also to affirm the other. In a word, a true and real destroying of a thing, importeth more than a mere difference in circumstance and respect. Seeing then that sacrifice importeth a true and real destroying of the thing sacrificed, and that there cannot be any true & real destroying of the body of Christ in the Mass, except we will say he is there verily slain, it followeth that unless we will say that Christ is verily slain, there cannot be avouched any true and real sacrifice of the Mass. That the Answ. will not grant in any wise. Therefore consequently he must forego his sacrifice. The mad jesuit could not tell what to say to this point, and yet was resolved to say somewhat. He saw it faulty which his fellows had set down, and yet neither was he able to resolve the matter so but that he is overthrown by his own grounds. And therefore he speaketh warily with Arbitror, I suppose, as fearing lest he himself should be taken tardy. I marvel that he being at Rome, so near the Pope the Oracle of the Church who pronounceth without error from his consistory chair, could not obtain of him the certain and undoubted truth of this matter, but must thus feed men with his own vain guesses and supposals. The truth is, neither the Pope himself nor both his Seminaries of Rheims and Rome do know what to determine of this point, and should not we be wise men to believe them as touching a sacrifice, of which they themselves are not agreed how it is done or wherein it doth consist?  
But the nullity of this feigned and counterfeit sacrifice I further showed before by answering the objection concerning the Fathers often speech of sacrifice. For I declared that they themselves plainly expound themselves not to mean any true & real sacrifice properly so called, but only a mystery, a sacrament, a resemblance, a remembrance of a sacrifice, as their own words alleged do testify. To this he saith that those testimonies do prove that there is a commemoration indeed of Christ's death and sufferings, but not that they do not in their sacrifice really and indeed offer his body. Then he telleth me full wisely what difference there is betwixt us and them; that we say; there is a memory of Christ himself as being absent; and they say; there is a memory of his one only sacrifice, that is, of his death. Herein he saith lieth the narrow issue to put a difference betwixt Christ's death and Christ himself, importing hereby that there is a remembrance of Christ's death in the Mass, and besides that a true and real offering of Christ himself. This he telleth me is the state of the question, which we always start from and will not see. Where I may say of him as S. Austen said of the Heretic: 
u August. conr. adver. legis & prophe. lib. 1. cap. 23.  Quàm eleganter sibi videtur iste verba discutere atque discernere, nesciens quid loquatur. How trimly doth this man seem to himself to sift and discern words and speeches, and knoweth not what he saith. For first where he saith that their sacrifice is only to commemorate the death of Christ once passed, he crosseth his own assertion. For if they only commemorate the death of Christ, than they do not really offer him. If they do really offer him, they do not only commemorate his death. Secondly he saith that there needeth not now any new oblation or sacrifice for sin after Christ's death already past, because his death is still sufficient and available to take away sin, and yet he addeth, that the same death of Christ giveth force and virtue to their sacrifice, which they say is a sacrifice propitiatory to take away sin. If there need no other sacrifice for sin after Christ's death, how doth his death give force and virtue to their sacrifice for sin? Belike he would have us to understand, that their sacrifice is but a mere fancy and no sacrifice in deed. Surely it is folly 
w Vigil. count Eutych. lib. 4.  as Vigilius saith. For a man to go about to refute that which withal he is proved not to deny. Thirdly where he saith, that we would have the Sacrament a remembrance of Christ himself whereas they intent it of his death, he showeth himself to be too much delighted with idle talk. For if he have but common sense he may understand by that that I said unto him, that we use the Sacrament entirely as a remembrance of Christ's death, and so defend it against their counterfeit and imagined real sacrifice. Fourthly he saith again, we are commanded beside the memory of Christ's death to offer the same death in a sacrifice to God, and yet after he saith, it is only to be recorded, figured and represented. But to pass over these overthwart and cross fancies of brainsick and unstable heads which confound themselves in their own speeches, and taking upon them to be 
x 1. Tim. 1. 7.  the only Doctors of the Law, yet understand not what they speak nor whereof they affirm: Let us come to the state of the question which he setteth down, namely whether beside the memory of Christ's d●ath and passion, there be in the Mass a true and real offering or sacrificing of the body and blood of Christ. In which point we have dallied marvelously all this while, and have been greatly too blame for going so wide from the question proposed. For the question hath been whether the body and blood of Christ be verily and in deed offered or sacrificed in the Mass, or not: and we have still very directly proved, that the body and blood of Christ is not verily and indeed offered or sacrificed in the Mass; that there is not any sacrifice done for sin in the Mass truly and properly so called: that the Mass is an abominable sacrilege, and wicked profaning of the Sacrament of Christ. For first if they will defend a sacrifice, they must defend it by the institution of Christ. But let it be resolved what a sacrifice is, and what is there in the institution of Christ that giveth so much as any shadow of a sacrifice? 
y Bellar. tom. 2. de Missa. lib. 1. cap. 2.  To a true sacrifice, saith Bellarmine and that truly, is required that that which is offered to God in sacrifice, be verily destroyed, that is, be so changed as that it cease to be (not only in use 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 mad as to say that the body of Christ was there verily destroyed? or is there any show of any such matter? it is more than senseless to imagine it? Now it hath been showed before what a srurre the jesuit keepeth to uphold the sacrifice of the Mass together with this definition, and yet all in vain. Moreover where may we have it assured unto us that Christ did sacrifice himself twice? The Scripture precisely telleth us▪ that he offered himself but once, which was by his death. 
z Heb. 7. 27.  He needed not daily to offer up sacrifice, for that did he once when he offered up himself. 
a Cap. 9 12.  By his own blood entered he in once into the holy place. 
b Cap. 9 26.  In the end of the world he hath appeared once to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 
c Cap. 9 27.  As it is appointed to men to die once: so Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many. 
d cap. 10. 10.  We are sanctified by the offering of Christ's body once. 
e cap. 10. 12.  This man having offered one sacrifice for sin, sitteth for ever at the right hand of God. This is all which the Scripture testifieth of the offering of Christ. Now if Christ did offer himself but once, and that once was by death upon his Cross, than it followeth that he did not offer himself at the institution of the Sacrament, and therefore commended not unto us any sacrifice to be done therein. If they will say that he was but once offered in that manner, namely with bloodshed, but unbloudly he offered himself beside and so is offered still, they deal presumptuously against the holy Ghost, and use that sauciness with the word of God, which no man may be bold to do with the laws of men. For if it hold in the laws of men that 
f Regula juris. Non est distinguendum, ubi non distinguit lex.  no man may distinguish where the law itself doth not warrant his distinction, much more ought it to hold in the laws and words of God. Now seeing the holy Ghost by a general word comprehending all manner of offering hath determined the offering of Christ's body only to once, who is he that dare give check unto his word, and say: It is a lie: for he was offered twice, once blouddily on the Cross, another time unblouddily in the Sacrament, & so remaineth to be offered daily and infinite times in a day unto the end of the world. Especially seeing the Apostle urgeth this again and again for a great and main difference betwixt the sacrifices of the old Testament, and the sacrifice of the new, that the Priests there offered often, but 
g Heb. 7. 27. Oecume. ibid. Heb. 10. 11. 12.  Christ offered one only sacrifice and that but once; even in this respect opposing this once offering not only to the general sacrifice that was made 
h cap. 9 7.  once a year, but also to the particular sacrifices that were offered 
i cap. 7. 27. & 10. 11.  every day, giving to understand that neither generally nor particularly, neither in one manner nor other, the body of Christ was to be offered any more but only once. He showeth the greatness of this sacrifice, saith 
k Ambros. in Heb. 7.  S. Ambrose, which being thus offered sufficeth for ever. For this sacrifice was not daily to be offered, etc. but this man is of such power or worth that being once offered in the sacrifice of his flesh, it should not be needful for any of the faithful to offer for him any more. It sufficed, 
l Chrysost. in Heb. 7. hom. 13.  saith chrysostom, though it were but one, and but once offered. Now this difference of the sacrifices of the two Testaments is utterly taken away, if by any distinction of the manner of offering we will avouch that the sacrifice of the new Testament is often offered as were the sacrifices of the old. Where I cannot omit to note the drunken speech of the Rhemists as touching this point, set down for safeguard of their sacrifice, who 
m Rhem. An● not. Heb. 10. 11  repeat often, as they say, that the Apostles reason and speeches of many Priests and often sacrificing concern the sacrifices of the law only, unto which he opposeth Christ's sacrifice and Priesthood, and speaketh no word of or against the sacrifice of the new Testament, which is the sacrifice of Christ's own Priesthood, and is daily done unbloodily by the Priests, meaning hereby their sacrifice of the Mass. I term it justly a drunken speech: For seeing they are forced by the evidence of the text to grant that the Apostle in that respect opposeth the sacrifice & priesthood of Christ against the old sacrifices & priesthood of the law, which opposition cannot stand but only thus, that there were many priests, here but one: there often offering, here but once: what do they but talk like drunken men they know not what, when notwithstanding in the very same respect they confound the Priesthood and sacrifice of Christ with the Priesthood and sacrifices of the law, so that as there were many priests, so here are many priests; as there was often offering, so is here also. He affirmeth indeed there many Priests, here but one; there often offering, here but once; and therefore leaveth no place for any bastard distinction of any manner whereby the body of Christ may be said to be often offered. Furthermore against this devised manner we are instructed by that which is written. 
n Heb. 9 22.  Without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. For hereof we gather that if the Mass be a propitiation of sin, than there must be shedding of blood in the Mass. If there be shedding of blood in the Mass, it is not an unbloody sacrifice, and therefore the assertion of an unbloody sacrifice in the Mass for the propitiation of sin is evidently contrary to the word of God. Now the blood of Christ was shed for sin but only once, and that once upon the Cross. Therefore Christ did offer himself for sin but only once and that upon the Cross, and therefore neither did nor doth offer himself in the Sacrament. Again when we read that 
o Heb. 9 27. 28  as it is appointed unto men to die once, so Christ was once offered to take away sins: we are given to understand that as well it may be said that men to whom it is appointed to die once may afterwards in another manner die oftentimes, as that Christ who is said in the like sort to be offered for sin but only once, should yet in another manner be offered for sin times without number, so long as the world standeth. It is folly and madness to say the one; it is madness and blasphemy to affirm the other. And so much the more for that it is plainly testified unto us, that therefore he needeth not to be often offered because 
p Heb. 10. 14.  by one oblation he hath for ever made perfect them that are sanctified. Which making perfect is declared in the words following to be intended of the forgiveness of sins. Now if Christ need daily to be offered for the forgiveness of sins either generally or particularly or howsoever, than he did not by one oblation or offering of himself make us perfect in that behalf. If he did perfectly work remission of sins by one offering of himself, than he needeth not thenceforth to be offered for sin, 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 been said before, 
q ver. 18.  Where remission of sins is, there is no more offering for sin: As if he should say: All sacrifice for sin is vain after remission of sins once obtained, which is the end of sacrifice for sin. Remission of sins is perfectly wrought and obtained by the once offering of Christ upon the Cross; therefore after the once offering of Christ upon the Cross, all offering or sacrifice for sin is vain, and therefore it is none at all. As for that which the Answ. excepteth, that remission of sins doth come by Baptism, repentance, prayer, etc. And yet we do not thereby exclude Christ's death; intending thereby as it seemeth that it followeth not that Christ's death is excluded, though remission of sins be affirmed to be wrought by the sacrifice of the Mass it is a frivolous and vain shift. For what comparison is there betwixt the sacrifice which itself is defended to be a propitiation for sin, and repentance, faith, prayer, baptism, which do not themselves work forgiveness of sins, but only serve us to receive forgiveness of sins, wrought only by the death and bloodshedding of jesus Christ? As hunger provoketh a man to desire meat, so repentance stirreth him to seek forgiveness of sins. As a man craveth meat to relieve his hunger, so prayer craveth the forgiveness of sins. As in a vessel meat is set before a man and offered unto him, so God in the word and Sacraments though in other sort, setteth before us and offereth unto us the effect of the blood of Christ to the forgiveness of sins. As the hand and mouth receive the meat to the satisfying of hunger and comfort of the body, so faith receiveth the benefit of Christ's blood to the forgiveness of sins. But as neither the desire of meat, nor the craving for meat, nor the vessel wherein meat is offered, nor the hand and mouth that receiveth the meat have themselves any virtue to feed the body, but the force thereof belongeth only to the meat; so neither repentance, nor prayer, nor the sacraments, nor faith, have any virtue themselves of the remission of sins, but only are either occasions of seeking, or means of offering and receiving the death and passion of Christ, to which only and entirely in itself is to be attributed the forgiveness of our sins. Neither is it any other but a fantastical toy which the Answ. imagineth that these by an influence, as he speaketh, of the passion of Christ have in themselves the efficiency of the forgiveness of sins; in like manner (if at least he will give me leave to express his mind by a comparison) as the air, being warmed by the fire, warmeth the body whereunto it is applied. A mere devise of Satan that men whilst they seek for forgiveness of sins where it is not, may fail of it where it is, and whilst they follow after a shadow by these devices of influence from the blood of Christ, may miss of the substance in jesus Christ himself. The Scripture hath not taught us that either our repentance, or prayers, or faith, or sacraments, are propitiations for our sins, and therefore it is but a fond shift to gather from hence any maintenance for the propitiatory sacrifice of the Moss. I resolve therefore as before that seeing Christ jesus by one offering hath perfected us as touching the propitiation and atonement for our sins, there is not now remaining any manner of offering whatsoever for propitiation of sin.  
But to go somewhat further in this matter seeing they will needs have us to believe a real offering of the body of Christ, what Priest will they appoint us to offer the same▪ Forsooth under pretence that this is 
r Concil. Trident. sessi. 6. cap. 1.  a clean offering and such as cannot be defiled by the unworthiness of him that offereth, they will have us to believe that every varlet Priest coming blowing from the Alehouse or sweeting from the stews hath Christ at his beck to bring him from Heaven every morning as oft as he list to offer him up for the forgiveness of whose sins it pleaseth him. But we will not believe this, because the Scripture nameth unto us in this behalf but one only Priest, which is 
s Heb. 3. 1.  the high Priest of our profession, one which is 
t Cap. 7. 26.  holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, made higher than the heavens. And seeing it maketh this difference betwixt the Priesthood of the law & the Priesthood of Christ 
u Cap. 7 26.  that the law maketh men high Priests that have infirmity, but the word of the oath maketh the son who is consecrated for ever, opposing Christ the son of God, the Priest of the new 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 well in the Priesthood of Christ as in the priesthood of the law, or else all men that have infirmity, and therefore all Popish Priests, are utterly excluded from the priesthood of Christ. Therefore as the council of Ephesus said, so say we: 
w Concil. Ephes. Epist. ad Nestor.  We assign not the name and office of priesthood to any other man but to Christ. For he is made the mediator betwixt God and man, and the reconciler to peace, offering himself a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour to God for us. Whereas they say for the better countenancing of this their sacrilege, that 
x Rhem. Annot. Heb. 7. 23. mark  Christ concurreth with the Priests in this action of offering up himself, they spurn at the text of the Scripture which telleth us that 
y Heb. 7. 27..  Christ needeth not daily to offer up sacrifice, and that he 
z Cap. 9 25.  is gone into Heaven to appear in the sight of God for us, not that he should offer himself often. Nay when it saith. 
a Cap. 1. 31.  Having by himself purged our sins he sitteth at the right hand of the majesty in the highest places, and again; 
b cap. 10. 12.  This man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, sitteth for ever at the right hand of God, expecting thenceforth till his foes be made his footstool: it opposeth Christ's offering himself for sin 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 sin standeth not with his sitting at the right hand of God the Father. This chrysostom and Theophylact and out of them Oecumenius have rightly observed. 
c Oecumen. Herald 7. ex chrysost. in Heb. ●. hom. 13. Theophyl. ibid.  When thou hearest him called the high Priest, do not think that he doth still sacrifice himself for sin. For when he had done so once, he ascended to his father's Throne. For it belongeth to the Minister and Priest to stand, but this sitting signifieth that he brought sacrifice once even his own body, and afterward sat down to be ministered unto of the heavenly powers. So Theodoret also: 
d Theodor. in Hebr. 8.  What office of Priesthood doth he execute who offered himself once, and doth not offer sacrifice any more? And how can it be that he should both sit and yet execute the office of a Priest, to offer sacrifice. As it seemed strange to them that Christ should offer himself still in sacrifice, & yet withal sit at the right hand of God, so no less strange seemeth it unto us, and therefore we cannot believe the one, because the Apostle hath taught us against that to believe the other. I will add only one place more of Saint Ambrose as touching this point of the offering of Christ, whereby we may sufficiently understand the meaning of the ancient Writers in the use of the same words. 
e Amb. Officlib. 1. cap. 48.  Now Christ is offered, saith he, but as man, as receiving or suffering his passion, and he offereth himself as a Priest, that he may forgive our sins. Here in an image or resemblance: there in truth, where as an Advocate, he pleadeth for us with the Father. Where he sayeth indeed that Christ is offered, and offereth himself; but yet as suffering his passion, which he doth not suffer really and therefore is not really offered in sacrifice, but only in a mystery. Therefore he saith he is here offered not verily and in truth, as if his very body were here to be offered but in an image or resemblance by these signs which betoken his body and blood. For as Oecumenius saith out of Gregory, 
f Oecumen. in Heb. 10.  The image containeth not the truth, though it be a manifest imitation of the truth. And therefore if the offering of Christ here on the earth be in an image, than it is not in the very truth. As for the truth of his body and blood, he telleth us that it is not in earth but in Heaven, where he offereth himself, not by real sacrifice but by presenting continually unto his father in our behalf that body wherein he was once sacrificed, and thereby as by a continual sacrifice making intercession to God for us: which he opposeth by pleading for us as an Advocate with the Father. And therefore doth Oecumenius expound 
g Oecumen. in Heb. 8.  that sacrificing of himself in Heaven to be nothing else but his making intercession for us. For 
h Heb. 9 24.  his appearing in the sight of God for us, and sitting with the Father clothed with our flesh, is as Theophylact noteth, 
i Theophy. in Heb. 7.  a kind of intercession to God in our behalf, as if the flesh itself did entreat God. Therefore our offering of Christ standeth only in this that by those mysteries of his body and blood which he hath ordained for commemoration of his death, and by our faith and prayers we do as it were present unto God the Father, his son jesus Christ sitting at the right hand of God in that body wherein he was crucified for us, craving for his sake as thus crucified for us the forgiveness of all our sin. So Christ's offering of himself is nothing else but his continual presence in the sight of God for us, in that body which he gave to death for our sins, by which even as effectually as by vocal words he is said 
k Heb. 12. 24.  to speak good things for us, and to entreat God that he will be merciful unto us. And this undoubtedly is the utermost that the fathers meant in all those speeches of offering and sacrifice wherewith the Papists would abuse us. To be short, the evidence of Scripture is against all sacrifice for sin. They bring no evidence of Scripture for it. Some places indeed they allege, but in no other manner than the old Heretics were wont to allege the scriptures for defence of their heresies. There is nothing to be seen in the places themselves to that purpose for which they are alleged, but we must rest only upon those constructions and collections which it pleaseth them to make thereof. Against the evidence of scripture they except with a blind distinction that hath no ground from the holy Scripture, and that which is there generally denied, they restrain without any 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 manner as he was once offered, but in another manner he may. We require it out of the scripture. Otherwise we may have 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 manner as he is God there is but one, but in another manner there are many: when we say there is but one redeemer, it may be answered that in that manner as he is redeemer, there is but one, but in another manner, there be many: nay when it is said, that Christ died but once, as it is said he was offered but once, why may it not as well be said, that in that manner as he died once, he dieth no more, but in another manner he dieth often, as that he is offered no more indeed in that manner as he was offered before, but in another manner he is offered often. Therefore this licentious and presumed distinction is joined with impiety against God, and serveth to give a mock to all the words of God, and for this cause is to be detested of us, beside that it is, as hath been before showed, manifestly contradicted by the word of God. Much more might here be added, to show the villainy and abomination of the sacrifice of the Mass. But it shall suffice for my purpose to have added this to that that I had said before; where notwithstanding this matter was manifestly enough declared to satisfy the Answ. had he been as careful to know the truth, as he is wilful to continue in his error. For do not the places which I alleged before out of the Fathers, exclude all real offering & sacrificing of Christ? I will once again set them down particularly as thorns in the Answ. eyes, who being in his own conscience overcome with them, answereth nothing distinctly, but seeketh to go away in a mist of general words, and because he can say nothing to the purpose, thinketh it enough to say that none of these testimonies maketh against their sacrificing of Christ. A pretty kind of answering and very agreeable to that that I alleged before out of the Index. But first 
l Chrysost. ● Ambros in Heb. ●0.  chrysostom and Ambrose purposely speaking of the sacrifice of the church, say thus: We offer not another sacrifice but always the same, or rather we work the remembrance of a sacrifice. It is absurd to use correction of speech where the truth of the thing is fully answerable already to the proper signification of the words. For correction of speech is a reversing of that which is already set down, as being hardly or not so fully or fitly spoken, and therefore putteth in steed thereof that which is more fit and convenient to be spoken. And if these men had thought that in proper speech it is true that Christ is indeed offered or sacrificed, to what purpose should they, having mentioned the offering of him, adjoin thus; Or rather we work the remembrance of a sacrifice, as to mollify that which was before hardly and unproperly spoken. Surely it had behoved the Answ. for his honesties sake to show some reason why these men not talking of the death of Christ, but expressly of the sacrifice which it is said the church did offer, and having 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 indeed, but rather perform the remembrance of a sacrifice. But what can be more plain than that of Theophylact? 
m Theophyl. in Heb. 10.  We offer him the same always, or rather we make a remembrance of the offering of him, as if he were now offered or sacrificed. Which words as if he were now offered, make it as clear as the sun-light, that Christ is not now really and indeed offered in sacrifice. For what reasonable man would ever say, as if he were now offered, if he were persuaded that Christ is now indeed and verily offered. To this purpose the words of Eusebius also are very pregnant: 
n Euseb. de demonstr evan. lib. 1. cap. 10.  Christ, saith he, offered a sacrifice to his father, and ordained that we should offer a remembrance thereof unto God in steed of a sacrifice. Then Christ ordained not another sacrifice to be offered as Eusebius should have said if he had been a Papist, but in steed of a sacrifice, in steed, I say, of a sacrifice he ordained unto us to make a remembrance of his sacrifice. Certainly these men if they had believed any such sacrifice as the Papists now take upon them to practise, could not have omitted some plain declaration thereof, being in the places whence I alleged these words so directly and fully occasioned thereto. The same I say much more of Theodoret, who so expressly proposeth the question of offering sacrifice. 
o Theodor. in Heb. ●.  For if, saith he, the priesthood which is by the law be ended, and the priest after the order of Melchisedec have offered a sacrifice, & have made that other sacrifices be not necessary, why do the priests of the new Testament work a mystical Liturgy or sacrifice? Where if he would have answered as a Papist, he must have said that they did indeed offer a very true sacrifice, properly so called of the very body and blood of Christ, and that this derogateth not from the sacrifice of Christ upon his Cross, but serveth to apply the same unto us, and that all the speeches of the Apostle against sacrificing do touch only the sacrifices of the jews. But he as unacquainted with these Popish devices answereth simply & plainly: It is clear to them that are instructed in divine matters, that we do not offer another sacrifice, but do perform a remembrance of that one and healthful sacrifice. For this commandment the Lord himself gave us, saying, Do this in remembrance of me, that by beholding the figures we might call to mind the sufferings that he undertook for us, etc. By which words he plainly showeth us, that after that one and healthful sacrifice which Christ offered for us, which he expresseth by the sufferings of Christ, the priests of the new Testament do not now offer another sacrifice but perform only a remembrance of that former sacrifice, by those mysteries which Christ hath left to be celebrated in remembrance thereof. Let S. Austen yet make this more plain, saying that 
p August. count faust●m Manich. li. 2●. cap. 21.  the flesh & blood of Christ's sacrifice was in his passion given in very truth: after his ascension is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance. He maketh these divers each from other, to be given in very truth, and to be celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance, applying the one to his passion, the other to the Sacrament. Now if to be given in very truth belong to the Sacrament also, then S. Austen speaketh vainly and idly, & maketh a distinction without any difference. But now opposing one to the other, in very truth and by a Sacrament of remembrance, he showeth that in the Sacrament of remembrance Christ is not really and truly sacrificed. The Answ. thought good to say nothing to that which I urged concerning this opposition. The other place of 
q August. ep. 23.  Austen to Bonifacius, I opened also somewhat unto him, and fully beforehand prevented him of his refuge in putting difference betwixt Christ's death and Christ himself: and yet forsooth all this maketh nothing against him. The best kind of bad answering when there is no good answer to serve the turn. But S. Austen in that place noteth the offering of Christ 
r Semel in seipso singulis diebu in sacramento.  in himself to have been once, & that the offering which is said to be every day is in a Sacrament or mystery, & not in himself. And to show the cause why he is said in a Sacrament or mystery to be offered every day, whereas in himself he was but once offered, he saith, that because Sacraments have the resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments, therefore they commonly take unto them the names of the same things. Even as good Friday is said to be the day of Christ's passion, & Sunday to be the day of Christ's resurrection, not because Christ suffereth every good Friday or riseth again every Sunday, but because these days resemble and in course of time are answerable to those days wherein Christ suffered and rose again. So therefore Christ is said to be offered every day, not because there is any real sacrificing of him every day, but because his once offering of himself is daily in the Sacrament figured and remembered. And this I showed before out of the gloze of the Canon law: 
s 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 memory made of his passion. Which words the Answ. falsely and deceitfully extenuateth, as if they served no further but only to note a representation of Christ's death and passion which he yieldeth unto. Whereas the words serve to expound 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 memory made of his passion, be the true meaning of these words, Christ is offered or sacrificed, as the gloze setteth down, what can be more evident to him that hath eyes to see, then that Austen and Prosper & the other Fathers when they mention sacrifice as touching the Lords Supper, do not thereby mean that Christ is indeed and verily offered, but only that his sacrifice is represented. The collection that I made before and even now noted again out of that place of S. Austen, standeth firm & sure to this purpose. Namely that there is difference with Austen betwixt being offered in himself, and being offered in a Sacrament or mystery, and that the name of offering or sacrificing when it is referred to the Sacrament is used not ex rebus ipsis, for the truth of the thing itself, but for the resemblance of the thing, and therefore importeth not the offering of Christ in himself. But this the Answ. would not see or take notice of, because he should have had nothing to write of this matter, being thereby excluded already from all that he hath now said▪ For his shift is ●o put difference betwixt Christ's death and Christ himself, and to say that Christ although he die no more, yet is verily sacrificed in himself: and my collection was before direct to the contrary that Christ is not now sacrificed in himself. So that he showeth himself a stout disputer to let the premises go, and deny the conclusion. Now the neck of his sacrifice being thus broken in that it is proved that after the death of Christ there is no more offering for sin, that Christ is not now offered in himself, but only the sacrificing of his body on the cross, celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance which yet is called by the name of sacrifice, because sacraments are usually called by the names of those things whereof they are Sacraments, and we therein call to mind and show Christ's death and offering of himself as if he were then presently offered, yet he, setting a good face upon the matter when nothing else will help him, telleth me that these things touch him no more than the man in the Moon, & biddeth me to learn the state of the question better, not to rove at random but to aim at the mark, & to put up in my purse all those testimonies that I did allege, etc. An easy and soone-made answer or rather an unshamefast & wretched shift. But the young Crab must go as the old Crab doth teach him, and he must give such answers as other his forefathers have been wont to do.    

P. Spence. Sect. 10.  
WHerefore all the premises considered, wheresoever all or any of your alleged places do sound a remembrance, memorial, and representation of a sacrifice, and such like words, take this for a full answer, that they are memories, and remembrances, representations, and if you will figures too of the sacrifice of Christ. But what sacrifice? the sacrifice of his death, the sacrifice of the Cross, which we do but represent, for die any more he now cannot. And because we do not say that in our Mass Christ is crucified and dieth: you do us wrong so to burden us, which in no Catholics writing you can show: and therefore in pressing these authories against us, you touch us no more than the man in the Moon; but you wrankle two ways, both in interpreting Sacrificium, here in these places to be Eucharistia, where it is meant of the offering the same in a sacrifice, and not of it as it is absolutely a Sacrament only: ●s though the Sacrament were but a remembrance; figure, or representation. And also secondly herein you wrangle, for that you would bear us in hand, the said authorities to mean, the thing represented, figured or recorded to be Christ's body, where they only call our sacrifice a remembrance, figure, and representation of Christ's passion and death upon the Cross, only once done and now never more to be done or reiterated, but only to be recorded, figured and represented. Learn better hereafter the state of your question, and rove not at random but aim at the mark: and remember you fight not herein with us, but you skirmish with your adversaries in the●ire▪ with arguments feigned, forged, and imagined of yourselves.  
Put 
a A pattern how to answer any thing easily and without any study.  up therefore in your purse all your places of Chrysostom, Ambrose, The●phylact, Augustine, Cyprian, Aug. ad Bona●acium, the Gloze de consecrati●●e, Cyprian again and Prosper, Alexander the Pope, and again chrysostom and H●erome and Gregory, etc. For they say nothing for you▪ but what we confess, except you think us so mad, to think that we use to crucify, and slay Christ in our Church's sacrifice▪ an imagination fit for your merry gentleman the Athenian. We must also tell you, that you overreach in writing, that the death and passion of Christ is the whole (as much to say as the only) matter & substance (so you term it) of this mystery. Christ's real body is the matter, substance, and thing offered in our sacrifice really, but his passion is with all offered but as in a Commemoration. So that our sacrifice hath 
b Nay it hath many things more than over Christ or any of his Apostles taught too things.  two things, Christ's body really, and his passion in a mystery only▪ and a memory Dolosus versa●ur in generalibus, I wish you to speak more distinctly. We grant with you his passion, but that only represented; we have also his body and blood and that verily present, verily offered. Else all that you can infer of the aforesaid authorities, we also confess so far as gladly as you do: Saving that whereas you sa●e, that it is no ma●●ell though the Fathers called this mystery a sacrifice▪ For they meant it was so called, but was not so indeed, that we yield not unto. For we say the Fathers called it a sacrifice, because they meant as they spoke and no where deny it, and we could show if there were any weight in your reasons to press us so far, where the Fathers give reasons why it is a sacrifice, because 
c A Roomish devise which thers never knew.  the bloody sacrifice of the Cross▪ and death are offered and sacrificed man unbloody sacrifice; Ch●●st himself being verily offered, his death only recorded with thanksgiving: and by this unbloody sacrifice of Christ's very body, the virtue of that bloody sacrifice is daily applied to the faithful. And therefore where you ask whether Christ indeed doth 
d Either he really suffers and death in the Mass, or else he is not really offered. The Fathers speak of both alike, as I showed.  really suffer in the Church's sacrifice, or sweat water and blood, or be condemned or nailed to the Cross, they are idle fantastical questions. But to answer you, we do not think so. Be of good cheer man: we do not think so, we never thought said or 
e Doct. Allen hath written that Christ i● verily slain in the Mass  wrote so. Yet we think (and till you come nearer the mark we will still so think) that unbloodily, but really we sacrifice and offer the same Christ's very true body and blood, to the whole Trinity for all people, that once did suffer, and never but once all the aforenamed torments. But that which you infer for a conclusion, is most vain and false, which is this. The passion is that we offer, the passion is offered, not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery. Ergo the Churches sacrifice is not verily a sacrifice, but in a mystery, for besides the form being negative in the third figure is against art, the Mayor as I said before is false, if you mean the passion only. For I told you we have in our sacrifice his passion in a memory, his body really. If you mean not passion only, than the conclusion & the premises hang together by very lose points. Briefly Christ's passion is offered in a mystery only: his body in sacrifice verily. The first your authorities prove, and we confess: the latter part, no Father ever denied, no not the most eldest and ancient primitive Church, and it is so true, that Caluin sticked not to condemn all the Fathers, sith the Apostles of judaisme in that very point, for 
f An impudent and unshamefast untruth. See the answer.  establishing a very sacrifice of the Church, so impudent a thing he took it to be, to cast a mist upon the Father's words in that point, prove the latter point, the first we confess.  

R. Abbot. 10.  
HEre we may see how the poor man maketh hard shift to credit himself by seeming to say somewhat, when indeed he saith nothing at all. For first he telleth me that wheresoever I read of a remembrance, memorial, and representation of sacrifice, I must tak● it for a full answer, that thereby is meant a remembrance and representation of Christ's death. Not for a full, but for a foolish answer, say I. For to what other purpose can he imagine those words alleged by us, but to avouch the remembrance of that one and only true sacrifice of Christ's death against their defence of a continual and oftentimes repeated sacrifice? And seeing the Father's speaking of their offering of Christ, do recall and correct those terms as unproperly 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. avoid it, that they simply deny the true and real offering of the body 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 offering of the same in a sacrifice. But indeed 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 cometh it to pass now that it must be understood 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 yielded for truth, which I have avowed and proved to be false, The Eucharist I understand to be the celebration of the Sacrament with thankful remembrance of the death of Christ. This I say the Fathers do often call sacrifice, because the matter thereof is the sacrifice of Christ's death, not because Christ is therein verily sacrificed. Thirdly I wrangle forsooth again in bearing him in hand that the authorities alleged do mean the thing represented to be Christ's body, whereas they understand it to be Christ's passion, and death upon the Cross. Where without doubt either the Answ. wits or his honesty failed him very much. For he would have it seem that we intent not by the places of the fathers a representing of Christ's passion and death, but merely of his body, and yet he himself justifieth the contrary strait ways after. For within some few lines he allegeth my words 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 divers more words to that purpose, concluding that nothing is here remembered, but Christ's sacrificing himself upon the cross. For although we say that we represent the body and blood of Christ whereof yet there was nothing spoken in this place, yet as afterwards I told him, we represent the body no otherwise but as broken, and the blood no otherwise but as shed for us. Notwithstanding here, though having not so much as a syllable whereto he may refer this speech, he telleth me that I wrangle in pretending the thing represented to be the body of Christ, whereas it is his death and passion; as if I excluded the representation of Christ's death and passion, which by his own confession I make the whole matter and purport of the Sacrament. But this draff he thought good enough, wherewith to feed his corner companions, and to persuade them that he had dealt very acutely and wittily in answering that that had been said unto him.  
He telleth me again that I overreach in saying that the death and passion of Christ is the whole substance of this mystery. He should have said that I come short, because I say not so much as he would have me to say. For, saith he, there are two things in our sacrifice; a mystical offering of the passion of Christ, and a real offering of the body of Christ. But neither scripture nor father ●uer commended to our practice any other sacrifice of Christ, but only the mystical offering of his passion. Neither do any of the authorities of the fathers so much tossed and tumbled by the Papists enforce any other, as I alleged the last time, and the Answ. saith nothing to disprove it. Surely wonder it is, if the matter were so clear as these men would persuade us, that never any one of the father's speaking so often of the sacrifice would once note this point expressly and distinctly that they had both a mystical offering of the passion of Christ and a real offering of his body beside: no not when the main drift of their speech pressed them so to do, if they had believed any such thing. But they knew it not at all, and therefore no marvel that they said nothing of it. For where as the Answ. telleth me that the Fathers give reasons why it is a sacrifice indeed, namely because the bloody sacrifice of the cross & death of Christ is offered and sacrificed in a● unbloody sacrifice of his body, he doth lewdly bely the fathers in fathering upon them this new and Popish phrase of speech, wherewith the fathers were utterly unacquainted. For although they sometimes call the lords Supper an unbloody sacrifice, as they do also the other 
a Oecumen. in Heb. 13.  service & prayers of the Church to put a difference betwixt the jewish carnal and the christian spiritual sacrifices, as also betwixt the sacrifice of Christ upon his cross, and the sacrifice of the church 
b clem. Apost. consti. li. 6. ca 23. Euseb. de vita constant. lib. 4. cap. 45. Concil. Constanti. 6. ca 32.  calling the one bloody as being properly a sacrifice, the other unbloody as being so but unproperly and only in a mystery (as the place of Clemens, whosoever he was, doth plainly show, affirming it to be celebrated by signs of the body and blood of Christ, not by the body itself, and that of 
c Oecumen. in Heb. 5.  Oecumenius out of Photius, that Christ first offered an unbloody sacrifice and then afterward he offered his own body also, manifestly declaring that the unbloody sucrifice was not indeed the offering of the body of Christ) yet to offer the bloody sacrifice of Christ's death in an unbloody sacrifice of his body to apply unto us the virtue of his bloody sacrifice, is a misshapen monster, lately begotten in the time of Antichristian desolation, and such as the ancient fathers never dreamt of. And wisely did he deal to tell me that he could show much, and yet to show nothing at all.  
Now he telleth me again here that, which for enlarging his answer, he hath so often idly and vainly repeated that they are not of opinion that Christ suffereth or is slain in their sacrifice, which he saith 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 sadness telleth us concerning Christ in their sacrifice; That he is 
d Allen. de Eucharist. sacrif. cap 1●. Verè mactatur.  verily slain and offered in sacrifice; and I hope the Answ. will take Doct. Allen for a Catholic, though he say that never any Catholic did so write. But let that pass as an unsavoury dream of a drowsy Cardinal; the Answ. will not say so. Yet he may as well prove by the sayings of the Fathers, ● that Christ dieth and is crucified again in this mystery, as that he is verily sacrificed, seeing that, as I showed him, they no less plainly affirm the one than 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 us that the passion & death of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer, and the passion of Christ is here to be understood not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery, as S. Austen speaketh, it followeth that the sacrifice which we offer, as touching the present act must be understood a sacrifice not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mystery. But here the Answ. would sane lift me up before I am down, telling me first that mine argument is against art, because the form is negative in the third figure. But the man without doubt hath forgotten his Logic. For what proposition of all these is negative, I marvel? Marry this forsooth: The passion of Christ is here to be understood not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mystery, 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 spoke very affirmatively that they were executed only for treason. And why then could he not conceive, that when I said; The passion of Christ is to be understood (as touching the Sacrament) not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery, I affirmed this, that the passion of Christ is to be understood only in a signifying mystery, and the conclusion answerable thereto. His Logic rule of the negative particle Post copulam, would have taught him to understand both the propositions affirmatively, as I set them down: and then the form shall not be negative in the third figure. But this being made good, the Mayor or first proposition he saith is false, if I mean 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 real offering also of the body of Christ. The Mayor is the saying of Cyprian; as I alleged: 
e Cypri. lib. 2. Epist. 3.  The passion of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer. Yea, but he saith not that it is the whole sacrifice, saith the Answerer. He saith not so indeed, but yet his words import no less to any man's understanding that is not froward. But if that be not hence assured, yet was it otherwise manifestly enough proved by the words of Prosper, though the Answ. would not see it, because it should have prevented him of his answer 
f Prosper. in Psal. 12●.  What propitiation is there, saith Prosper, but sacrifice, and what sacrifice but the kill or death of that lamb which hath taken away the sins of the world? Now if there be no sacrifice of propitiation but only the death of the lamb●, that is, the passion of Christ, as Prosper teacheth, than the passion of Christ is the whole sacrifice that we offer. Let him add hereunto the words of S. Austen; who telleth us thus: 
g August con. adver. leg. & proph. l. 1. c. 18  For the singular and only true sacrifice the blood of Christ was shed for us. The bloodshedding of Christ then is the only true sacrifice; therefore there is no other true sacrifice of Christ himself. The bloodshedding of Christ is only represented in the Sacrament by a signifying mystery, 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 mystery, not any real sacrificing in the truth of the thing. Let justinus Martyr further justify this matter▪ who avoucheth plainly 
h jushin. Martyr. dial. cum Tryph.  That prayers & thanksgiving are the only sacrifices that Christians have received to make: that by their dry and moist nourishment (that is, the Sacrament or elements of bread and wine) they may be admonished of those things which God the son of God hath suffered for them. The Sacrament then of dry and moist nourishment, that is, the lords supper, contemeth no other sacrifices but prayers and thanksgivings, neither have Christians received to use therein any other sacrifice, as justinus Martyr expressly defineth. Then it followeth that Christians have not received that which Papists teach, to make any real offering of the body of Christ, but only an Eucharistical offering of the passion of Christ, in calling to mind by the use of this holy Sacrament what God the son of God hath suffered for them. Basil also witnesseth the same, writing upon these words of the prophesy of Esay: 
i Basil. in Esay. cap. 1.  What have I to do with the multitude of your offerings, etc. God, saith he, rejecting multitude of offerings, requireth of us one; namely that every man reconcile and offer himself to God, yielding himself by reasonable service a living sacrifice, offering to God the sacrifice of praise. For the multitude of the sacrifices of the law is taken away. One is approved in the end of the world, once offered for the abolishing of sin. For the lamb of God hath taken away the sin of the world, offering himself a sacrifice of a sweet savour, etc. Where let the Answ. note, that in steed of many sacrifices for sin, there is in the end of the world but one, and that one but once offered for the utter abolishing of sin; so that there remaineth now no▪ other srcrifice for us to offer, but thanksgiving and the offering of ourselves unto God by our reasonable serving of him. Let me conclude with the words of S. Ambrose: 
k Ambros. in Heb. 10.  There is now no more offering for sin. For one oblation of the body of Christ maketh perfect them that are sanctified, as which worketh full forgiveness of sins. Therefore we need not daily to purge with daily sacrifices as in the old law. If we need not daily to purge with daily sacrifice as they did in the old law, then surely the daily sacrifice of the Mass is superfluous, and consequently no sacrifice at all. By these and sundry other testimonies of the old Fathers, it is evident and clear enough to those that will see, that they knew not nor were acquainted with this strange devise of a continual real offering of the body of Christ. Yea but the Answerer saith further, that the matter is so true of the Father's avouching this real sacrifice, that Caluin sticked not to condemn all the Fathers since the Apostles of judaisme in that very point for establishing a very sacrifice of the church: so impudent a thing he took it to be to cast a mist upon the Father's words in that point. If the Answ. speak this of himself, let him remember that which Solomon saith: 
l Pro. 19 5 & 12. 22.  A false witness shall not escape unpunished: and again: Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord. If he speak it upon the warrant of any other, let him remember this for a true saying hereafter: 
m Pro. 14. 15. Eccle. 19 4.  He that is hasty to give credit, is a fool. calvin's own words do lay open the notable and shameless boldness of the Answ. and his fellows in this point: 
n Institut. li. 4. ca 18. sect. 10.  If any man, saith he, oppose the sentences of the old Fathers gathered here and there, and upon their authority contend that the sacrifice which is done in the lords Supper is otherwise to be understood than we expound it, let this briefly serve for answer to him. If the matter be to approve the devise of that sacrifice which the Papists have forged in the Mass, the ancient Fathers give no maintenance or defence to such sacrilege. Indeed they use the name of sacrifice, but withal they expound that they mean nothing else but a memorial of that true and only sacrifice which Christ performed on the Cross, who is our only priest, as they every where show, etc. Again 
o ibid. sect. 1●.  he professeth that he seethe that they retained a godly & right sound judgement concerning this whole mystery▪ neither findeth that they would any little derogate from the only sacrifice of Christ. Now therefore what conscience may I think there is in the Answerer, that doubteth not to avouch so manifest and notorious a slander? But he will allege for himself that Caluin though he confess that the Fathers had a right and true judgement concerning the Sacrament, yet saith that 
p ibid.  in actionis modo, in the manner of their celebration they approached nearer to the jewish manner of sacrificing, than Christ had ordained, or was convenient for the state of the Gospel. But this, say I, cannot excuse the Answ. from just desert of being branded in the forehead with the letter C, as a calumnious and slanderous person. For he chargeth Caluin to have condemned the Fathers of judaisme for establishing a real sacrifice of the church, whereas Caluin absolutely de●ieth that there was in them any opinion of any real sacrifice, and only saith, that in ceremonies they came nearer to the jewish manner of sacrificing then was convenient. We know that the Papists come nearer to those rites and ceremonies wherewith the Heathens & paynim have worshipped their idol gods, then is convenient for Christians to do in the spiritual service 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 near the jews, and yet be far, as indeed he was, from denying that they taught or established any real sacrifice in the church. In a word, Caluin condemneth not the Fathers of judaisme, but Papists of perverseness and wickedness in abusing the writings of the Fathers. For let me tell the Answ. once again, that his masters of Rheims though they have in divers places of their Annotations scratched together out of the Fathers all and more than all, that may give any show to countenance their sacrifice, yet cannot bring any one place that goeth without the compass of that reason of the name of sacrifice, which in my former speech I declared to stand without any true or real sacrifice now to be performed. For setting that down which Cyprian saith that 
q Cypr. lib. 2. epist. 3.  the passion of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer, what terms of sacrifice can they allege out of the Fathers which do not agree to the passion of Christ? It is the kill of the lamb of God, the sacrifice of sacrifices, the everlasting quickening sacrifice, the sacrifice of our Mediator, the sacrifice of our price, the eternal redemption both of body and soul. Now sith the passion of Christ is not now really performed, the sacrifice to which these speeches are applied, is not a sacrifice now really done, but only in a mystery and by remembrance. Now although it be plain enough by that that hath been already said, that there is no such sacrifice indeed as the Answ. and his company do affirm, yet supposing for the while that there is, let us see what he will make of it, or to what use he will put it. The use of it, as he telleth me in the former section, is to apply unto us remission of sins, purchased by the death of Christ only. By which words he spoileth his Mass of the nature of a propitiatory sacrifice. For the true propitiatory sacrifice even by the very signification of the word, is that only which itself satisfieth for sin, and purchaseth by the virtue and force thereof, forgiveness of sins and atonement with God. Now therefore if forgiveness of sins be purchased by the death of Christ only, than it standeth not with the Mass to be a propitiatory sacrifice. His Rhemish companions tell him that the blood of Christ before his death was at his last supper sacrificed 
r Rhe. Annot. Luc. 2●. 20.  for propitiation or for pardon of sin. So Bellarmine saith, that Christ at his supper offered a sacrifice 
s Bellar. to▪ 2. de Miss●. lib. 2. cap. 2.  for the Apostles sins, and with a mouth of blasphemy avoucheth that the Mass is such a sacrifice as doth purge, abolish, forgive sins: that it doth abolish the sin of the world, doth save from eternal destruction, doth make atonement with God for our sins: falsifying and misconstruing to this purpose divers testimonies of the ancient fathers. In like sort the council of Trent determineth it to be such a sacrifice as doth 
t Concil. Trident. sess. 6. cap. 2.  verily work propitiation for sin, and appease God, because it is the same with that upon the Cross, differing only in the manner of offering, and therefore it 
u can. 3.  curseth those that deny it to be such. Whereby it appeareth that the Answerers fellows do not think that remission of sins is purchased only by the death of Christ. And therefore when they say as sometimes they do, that the death of Christ is 
w Rhe. Annot. H●b. 7. 27.  the one full sufficient ransom for the redemption of all sins, or as he saith here, that remission of sins is purchased by the death of Christ only, they do but play mock-holy day, and delude the ignorant reader with deceitful and double meaning words. The death of Christ is a sufficient ransom, they say: but we must understand it of a general ransom: and therefore so, as that there is beside that a particular ransom or redemption in the Mass, of the same effect & working particularly, as the death of Christ is generally. And therefore they call their sacrifice of the Mass 
x Rhe. Ann●● H●b. 10. 11.  a particular redemption, and in that sense, the everlasting redemption both of body and soul. So this man when he saith, that remission of sins is purchased only by the death of Christ, must be understood belike to mean it of the general purchase, not to deny a particular purchase thereof in the Mass also. Or if he mean simply as he speaketh, that there is not at all either generally or particularly any purchase of the forgiveness of sins in the Mass, then let him curse the church of Rome that hath cursed him, and let him return into the bosom of the church of Christ, to profess with us that truth which the church of Rome hath impiously condemned. But to come to that matter of applying, which he saith is the use of their sacrifice, we may note therein the notable fraud and shifting of the devil, whereby he hath practised and prevailed in the church of Rome to defeat the people of the benefit of Christ's redemption. For whereas Christ had left unto his church two special means to offer and apply unto us the fruit of his death, the lively preaching of the word and the use of his holy Sacraments, the devil hath so wrought that 
y Apoc. 7. 1.  the wind of the word of God should not blow upon the earth, that men should not have so much as any private use of the book of God; that their very church-service should be in a language which they did not understand. As for the Sacraments he hath miserably corrupted the one, and utterly i● a manner abandoned the people from the use of the other, and instead thereof, hath deluded them with a theatrical show and vain opinion of a sacrifice, whereby to procure to themselves forgiveness of sins. Truly it had been more meet that these men should have carefully used those means of application which Christ appointed to his Church, than thus thrust upon men other means of their own devising. But this devise of theirs is unreasonable also and without sense. A sacrifice forsooth to apply a sacrifice; a propitiation to apply a propitiation: a redemption to apply a redemption; as if a man would fond require a medicine to apply a medicine, and a plaster to apply a plaster. Verily seeing that as Cyprian saith, 
z Cypri. de Bapt. Christi. & manifest. Trinit.  the sacrifice which Christ offered upon the cross standeth so acceptable in the good pleasure of God, and abideth so in perpetual force and virtue, as that that oblation is no less effectual in the sight of the father at this day, than it was that day when as water and blood issued out of his wounded side, and the stripes still abiding in his body do exact the payment of man's salvation and the stipend due unto his obedience, it cannot but be utterly absurd & senseless, to say that we must every day offer Christ anew in sacrifice, to apply unto us the benefit of his former sacrifice. Moreover the act of sacrificing importeth not applying unto us but offering unto God: and it is one thing to offer sacrifice unto God, another to apply the benefit of a sacrifice unto man, even as it is one thing to make a plaster for a sore, and another thing to lay the plaster to the sore. So that they themselves are forced to grant, that the mere sacrificing is not the applying of the sacrifice. Wherein then is the application? Marry forsooth 
a Hard▪ Rei. oind. pa. 5. 6.  in the intention & prayer of the priest. For whomsoever he doth think upon in his Memento, & to whomsoever he intendeth the benefit of his sacrifice, to him is applied the passion and death of Christ, and that for the very work wrought, though there be neither good mind nor good motion in him for whom it is done. Now the priest most commonly is a serviceable man, and ready for his pay to give his attendance. One cometh to him for himself, another for his friend, another for a soul in purgatory, another for his swine and cattle, and he hath Christ at commandment to offer him up in sacrifice for the good of them all, and for so much or so much money, a man shall have so many or so many Masses as he shall think meet to serve the turn, either for himself or for his. For (for the better utterance of this bad ware) they will not have it thought, nay 
b Prouin●. Constit. Linwood. titulo de celebrat. Missarum.  God forbidden that any Catholic should think that one Mass devoutly celebrated, doth profit a man as much as a thousand Masses said with like devotion. For though Christ be of infinite virtue, yet he dispenseth not himself all at once. Otherwise it were enough for a man when he is dead to have one only Mass, which in no case is tolerable to think. Now therefore it is good for a man to have Mass upon Mass, and never leave massing, & for his massing he must remember paying, and yet when he hath all done, he is no whit the near; for after he is dead, he must yet have more massing to help his soul to heaven, and thereof he must bethink himself when he maketh his will. These horrible and cursed doings are contained in the Roomish sacrifice, whereby they have made a mockery of the son of God, and trodden under their feet as a vile and base thing the sacred blood of Christ whereby we were redeemed. But seeing that the applying of Christ's death consisteth not in sacrificing, with what reason do these men teach a sacrifice to apply the death of Christ unto us? Why could they not as well without any new sacrifice make the priests Memento and his intention a means to apply Christ's death unto us, as give him power to sacrifice Christ again, 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 never so much as think upon Christ's death in his Mass, but mumble it up without consideration thereof, how shall we think 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 again to apply unto us the benefit of his birth: that he must suffer, die and rise again, to apply unto us the virtue of his passion, death, and resurrection, as that he must be sacrificed again to apply unto us the benefit of his former sacrifice? The former are absurd, the Answ. will say, but by no reason which shall not also prove the absurdity of the latter. The truth of applying, as the very word showeth, consisteth in offering and giving of Christ unto us, and our receiving of him. This is set forth in the Sacrament by words of application; Take ye; eat ye; and again: Drink ye all of this, where the body of Christ crucified, and his blood shed for the forgiveness of our sins, are by the outward elements as by seals and pledges proposed unto us, and we willed to accept and receive the same. Which we do by true and lively faith through the working of the holy Ghost, and so are made partakers of the benefits of his death and passion to justification and everlasting life. And this is the only means of application which the scripture teacheth, briefly set down by Saint Paul, Rom. 3. 
c Rom. 3. 25.  Him hath God set forth to be an atonement, not by continual offering 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 receiving of the Sacraments. Herein is our receiving of Christ, as S. john showeth, expounding 
d Ioh 1. 12.  receiving by believing: so many as received him, that is, so many as believed in his name. Now the papists overthwarting the ordinance of jesus Christ, make little or no regard of Take ye, eat ye; being the two means of application, appointed by Christ and practised by the primitive Church, but tell us of a continual sacrificing of Christ, which doth by the intention of the priest for the very work wrought obtain grace, and apply unto us forgiveness of sins. But in this point beside their manifest departing from the ordinance of God, they again commit high treason against God, in that they advance so many other their abominable and hateful devices, to ride in the same chariot with the sacrifice of the body and blood of jesus Christ. For all the filth and rifraff of the church of Rome, whereby they wickedly teach men to seek forgiveness of sins, is shadowed and coloured with this conceit of applying unto us the death of Christ. The sufferings of Saints and Martyrs are 
e Rhe. Annot. Col. 1. 24.  satisfactions for our sins, they say. But how? Marry forsooth, they take this virtue and force from Christ's death, and as a particular medicine apply unto us the general medicine of his passion. Their cross, their 
f Rhe. Annot. Mat. 10. 12. & 1. Tim. ●5. sum of religion taken out of Bristol, and the order of confession.  Bishop's blessings, their holy water, their Pope's indulgences & pardons, their shaven crowns, their munkish orders, their whip, their shrifts, their pilgrimages, and offerings to idols, their mumbling on their beads, their Agnus This, their kissing the pax, and the remnant of this absurd rabble are very helpful to the forgiveness of sins, because as the Mass doth, so do all these apply unto us the death of Christ. Thus they have multiplied their devices as the stars, and filled the world with their enchantments and sorceries of other sacrifices, merits and satisfactions of their own, to give effect and working to the sacrifice, merit, and satisfaction of jesus Christ. And these bastard and misbegotten trumperies, because they are of themselves so apparently injurious to the cross of Christ, that the devil thought they would never go for sale-able ware when they should be examined and tried, except some deceitful colour were set upon them, he hath therefore somewhat graced and countenanced with these terms of applying the death of Christ, to mollify and extenuate, so much as might be, the horrible blasphemy that is contained therein. And yet the blind and ignorant people were not acquainted with this shift, but persuaded themselves to find merit and forgiveness of sins in the mere exercise of these spiritual fornications and whoredoms, whereto they were bewitched of their blind leaders. They might with as good reason have told them that to run a man's head against a wall, to wear a strait pair of shoes upon his feet, to lie naked upon thorns, to eat wormwood and gall, to wash his hands before meat are means & merits of the forgiveness of sins. They will say these things are fond. Alas blind men that cannot see the like folly and madness in those things which they themselves approve. But thus they have justled the blood of Christ out of place, and fulfilled that which S. Peter prophesied of them: 
g 2. Pet. 2. 1.  There shall be false teachers which privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that hath bought them, etc. And through covetousness with feigned words shall they make merchandise of you, etc. Of such feigned and whorish counterfeit words the 
h Rhe. Annot. 2. cor. 2. 11. & 1. Tim. 4. ●. & c●ll. 1. 24. & pa●sim.  writings of Papists are very full, not savouring at all of the holy scriptures, but arising merely of their own devise, to cloak and cover the monstrous and filthy abominations of the Roomish harlot.    

P. Spence. Sect. 11.  
WHere we say, (as you confess) that the testimony of one Gelasius, or what other Doctor may not prejudicate the whole faith of them all generally, we say so indeed; yea we go further and will yield you that Reijcimus singulos, probamus omnes; all of them together, or the greatest part of them consenting, are the 
a The church of God is built upon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets. Ephes. 2. that is, upon the old and new Testament. But here both old and new Testament are justled out of their place, and the Doctors are made the mouth & eyes, and spirit of the church.  mouth and eyes, and spirit, of the Church (next Gods spirit:) a very goodly, noble, and great part of the church, far the best and fairest part of the church: but their several opinions are not the whole church's doctrine. That question hath so many branches, that in this short discourse, I cannot touch all the particularities thereof, to our treatises therefore I refer you. Was Gelasius Pope of Rome? how prove it you, if we deny it? we marvel why you think so. If he had been Pope, were all his books dogmaticke, and definitive? 
b It skilleth not though he did not▪ For Bellarmine telleth us that it is most probable that the Pope cannot err in his private judgement. It must be an Oracle therefore what soever he writeth whether as Pope or as a private man.  did he (if he had been Pope) pronounce them pro tribunals? Did he send them as responsa, and decretal epistles? Did never Popes write books, and yet not in all points taken for Oracles? Aeneas Silvius after he was Pope wrote much, so did others. You are wide and go astray far from the state of that question; I say no more, but view our questions therein. Theodoret & Gelasius are answered at large, whatsoever they thought they were far from your mind. Theodoret at that time was so partial, as in the controversy between him and cyril it appeareth, that he was feign to recant ere he could be reconciled. And in these very Dialogues we can show you errors, yea foul of his. It is not unlikely that he followed sometimes the counsel that himself in the same Dialogues giveth, that is, to make a crooked wand strait, to bend it as much the other way. And now sir to come to Gelasius, who in every point accordeth with Theodoret against the Eutychian heresy, first he writeth thus: Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum septiformis spiritus soliditate subnixam, etc. I will English it, for the same cause. Thus it is: Wisdom that is Christ the wisdom of the father, hath builded for itself an house grounded or leaning upon the soundness of the seventh fold spirit, which should minister the food or nourishment of Christ's incarnation, whereby or by which food, we are made partakers of the divine nature. Verily the Sacraments of the body & blood of Christ which we receive, are a divine thing, for the which cause by the same also, are we made partners of the divine nature, and yet the substance or nature of bread, and wine ceaseth not to be, (or looseth not his being utterly, and is annihilated and becometh nothing) and certes in the action (or celebration) of the mysteries, (or Sacraments) an image or similitude (or resemblance) of Christ's body and blood is celebrated (or practised.) It is therefore evident enough showed unto us, that we ought to think the same thing to be in Christ our Lord himself, which we profess to be, which we celebrate, and which we receive in his image: (he meaneth in the Sacrament) that even as they, (the Sacrament of bread and wine) by the working of the holy Ghost do pass over, (or be changed) into a divine substance, remaining nevertheless in the property of their nature, right so do they show, that that very principal mystery itself: (by which he meaneth Christ, God, & man: now being in two natures, one person in heaven whom the heretic Eutyches would have in heaven to have lost his manhood, and to be but God alone) whose efficiency (or perfect nature) and virtue they (the said Sacraments) do truly represent, the things whereof it properly consisteth (it is the two natures of the divinity and humanity in one person) still remaining, doth remain and continue one▪ Christ (because he is whole and truly being, or consisting in his whole and true natures of God and man in one person.) This testimony of Gelasius might seem perhaps to make somewhat for a Lutheran, because it seemeth to affirm in the B. Sacrament to be two substances, a divine substance, & bread and wine: but the Caluinist lacketh four of his five wits to urge it, which maketh flat against him, not only in the very words, but most chief in the drift of the argument against Eutyches, which by the consideration 
c His circumstances serve only to blind the eyes of the reader. The troubling of the river is for the advantage of the fisher.  of the circumstances following, shall most evidently appear: for that the very words & force of the reason or argument, here made, do prove Christ's body to be really present, which he denieth. Eutyches the Abbot, who was condemned in the Chalcedon Council, at which time Gelasius flourished, held that our Saviour Christ his deity or divine nature, after his ascension into heaven, did 
d As touching the substance not as touching the properties: even as the Papists say of the bread & wine.  consume and annihilate or bring to nothing his human nature: So that by his heresy Christ now should be no more man but God alone. The truth of the B. Sacrament, that therein Christ was really continued, was so commonly and firmly believed and professed in the holy church, 
e That because never any Father taught it, the Answerer is driven to seek proof thereof from the heretics  that there were diverse heretics that used, (or rather abused) the same for an argument pretensedly to confirm their heresies. The Manichees to prove that the ill god (such was their blasphemous heresy) had imprisoned certain parcels or pieces of the good God in these worldly creatures & earthly things, alleged Christ (whom they 
f Untruth. S. Austen doth not grant it.  called the good God) to be really in the Sacrament, but S. Augustine granting them Christ to be really therein saith he, is there by consecration, not by creation: or as it were imprisoned. So touching our case of Gelasius, the Eutychian against whom he wrote, held Christ in heaven his humanity being gone, to be only God in like manner as his divine nature only is in the Sacrament, the bread and wine being annihilated and consumed unto nothing: 
g A lewd tale wholly devised of the Answ. himself. Eutyches never imagined any such matter, as shall appear.  nothing therein remaining of the substantial properties or natures of bread and wine, but only Christ's divine nature. So certain a verity it was then currant in the whole church, and to the very heretics that Christ is really in the B. Sacrament. Whereupon by a similitude or resemblance taken from the Sacrament, he would have nothing remaining in heaven of Christ's humanity: but the same being vanished into nothing, his Deity only there to remain, as the bread is consumed in the Sacrament. Against this similitude Gelasius replieth, not denying Christ's body & divine nature to be really in the Sacrament, which was and ever hath been a general, currant, and confessed truth: which otherwise had served his turn much better to deny, and thereby had he more readily and directly rejected and reproved the argument framed against him by that similitude. But confessing that the Sacraments of bread & wine, do pass over and be turned into a divine substance, thereby granting a real presence of Christ God and man, and in effect transubstantiation: only he denieth the bread to be annihilated or become nothing, or as he termeth it desinere esse, to cease from having any being at all. Before Berengarius never any man held that 
h Untruth: for all the Fathers held the same, as shall appear by many of them in that which followeth.  Christ's body was not really in the Sacrament, nor that the whole substance of bread and wine unchanged, were in the Sacrament either without any other substance, as Zwinglius and Caluin hold, or joined together with Christ's body by impanation as Luther held: but that the bread and wine by a conversion were made Christ's body & blood, which conversion in the church of God in the greatest Council that ever was held, called the Lateran Council, where occasion was offered of the full search of the matter by Berengarius heresy, by the instinct 
i Not of the holy Ghost but of the spirit of Satan to bring in idolatry into the Temple of God.  of the holy Ghost, most agreeable to the greatest number, and the best learned of the Fathers defined to be by transubstantiation, that is the whole substances of bread & wine being turned into the whole substance of Christ's body and blood, his Godhead being joined thereto per concomitantiam. Yet did Innocentius, under whom that Council was holden, thus write; that though the substance of the bread and wine were changed into Christ, yet there remained not only the accidents or accidental properties, but also the natural properties, namely as he there speaketh panietas, breadinesse to drive away hunger, and vineitas wininesse to drive away thirst, and the force or nature of nourishing. So that this turning of the bread and wine into Christ's body, was not anihilation or utter vanishing of the bread as Gelasius denieth: not a natural change as is wrought in natural conversions, where the same matter remaining under both forms, only the first form is changed into an other form, I mean not forma accidentalis, but forma essentialis, by which things they have their being and substance: neither change of the matter that is under the essential form, the said essential form remaining: but in this wonderful sacrifice, is a most divine, and miraculous change of both the matter, and essential form of bread into the whole substance of Christ's body. And that was so established least by joining either the matter or the essential form of bread with Christ's body, they should grant 
k A weighty consideration verily, and fit for the learning of such grave Fathers  impersonation, that is any substance saving Christ to be personally united with Christ. It was not a matter clearly 
l Christ and his Apostles never clearly defined that there was any transubstantiation.  defined before the said Council, what kind of conversion it was, neither heresy not to jump in just terms with transubstantiation before that time, so that the real presence were not denied as after Berengarius did, nor the substance of bread wholly were affirmed to remain, as never any Father said. Only Gelasius to make a resemblance between the Sacrament, which he calleth an image of Christ's being in heaven, and Christ's two natures in one person in heaven, which he termeth in this comparing of them together, the principal mystery, he saith two things, first that the Sacrament is a divine thing, by which we are made partners of the divine nature. And that it is so, because the Sacrament by the working of the holy Ghost doth pass over into a divine substance. What 
m He must say more or else it will not serve for transubstantiation. See the answer.  more could he have said for the real presence or transubstantiation? The second thing which to answer and stop the quarreling heretic, he addeth, is, that the substance of bread and wine do not cease to be, that is to say, doth not utterly perish into nothing, but remaineth under the change, which word Substance he mollifieth and interpreteth by adding or nature of bread, and by and by after, he calleth it the property of the nature of bread, where the heretics for or, which is a word interpreting the former, have foisted in substance and nature of bread. So that Gelasius meant not that the whole substance of bread remaineth in the Sacrament, but that, not only the accidental properties, but also the very essential properties (as Innocentius before named also set down) of bread, and wine do remain, and that was enough against the heretic. And 
n It may be that Gelasius did deny transubstantiation, because the church as then knew it not.  it may be, that he being before the general definition of the church, did not much trouble himself with the exact search thereof, thinking that the same matter or else the same essential form, remained in that blessed conversion, but not the whole substance, that is, the whole essential form and the whole matter. And so many in these days held without heresy, as S. Thomas contragentes declareth, which now after the churches general definition were damnable. Otherwise if we would urge the word Substantia in Gelasius, and not admit Gelasius his qualification thereof and exposition of his vel natura & proprietas nature, which every Catholic admitteth, this absurdity were too beastly, and blasphemous for Gelasius so holy a Father and old fellow, that Christ's body were united personally, or become one person with the bread: so that Christ were one person of three natures, the Godhead, the manhood, & the breadhood, which is most peevish blasphemy. And for Gelasius to admit 
o To admit the same to remain without the substance served fitly and fully for the heresy of Eutyches. See the answer.  the nature or substantial properties to remain, as himself termeth them, was enough to stop the Eutychian heretics mouth, who denied any natural property to remain at all in the Sacrament. And therefore thus much is to be noted, that the force of the comparison between Christ's being in heaven, & in the blessed Sacrament is not in this point, that in heaven he is in both substance of manhood, and Godhead, even as in the Sacrament are two whole substances, Christ's body & the whole substance of bread and wine. But the similitude is herein, that as in the divine Sacrament, with the very true body of Christ which Gelasius calleth a divine substance, there are conjoined essential, substantial, and natural properties of bread and wine: Even so in heaven Christ in one person hath united all the natural, and essential properties of his two natures, the Godhead, and the manhood, unconfounded, inviolable, whole and distinct: which is as much as out of the heretics objection of the Sacrament, he needed to reply or urge against him at that time, and upon that occasion. Thus much of Gelasius, whom you affirm for the Bishop of Rome, but you cannot prove it, for this Gelasius was never Bishop of Rome.  

R. Abbot. 11.  
THe whole being of the sacrifice of the mass resteth upon this next point of transubstantiation: which being overthrown, the sacrifice consequently falleth to the ground. Now that is plainly overthrown by the testimonies of Gelasius and Theodoret amongst others in my former answer alleged, who both expressly affirm the substance of bread and wine after consecration. But to unwind himself from the evidence of their words, it is strange to see what miserable and wretched shifts the Answerer useth: and all in vain. 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 chair. etc. Thirdly whatsoever he thought, he was far from our mind. Again Theodoret was not of sound judgement: he had foul errors: and to make a crooked wand strait, he did bend it too much the other way: that is, to confound Eutyches his heresy, he did plainly and flatly deny popish transubstantiation. But all these shifts the Answerer in his own conscience knew to be vain and frivolous. Gelasius after that he was Bishop of Rome wrote five books against Eutiches and Nestorius. The treatise whence I took those words that I alleged, goeth under his name as a part of one of those books. Thus I find it reported, and no proof given to disprove it. In the end of this treatise, he exhorteth them to whom he writeth that as they did with one mind hold the Apostolic sea, so they should constantly avouch that rule of Catholic faith which he had declared out of the writings of the▪ Fathers that were before him, making their holding with the Apostolic sea, a reason why they should give heed to that which he had written. Which may give a good conjecture that it was Galasius Bishop of Rome, and no other Gelasius that was the author of this book. But it is sufficient though it were not Gelasius Bishop of Rome, yet that the book is confessed to be authentical, so that 
a Bellarm. tom. 2. de sacram. 〈◊〉 lib 2. cap. 2●.  Bellarmine himself taketh it to have been written by Gelasius Bishop of Caesaria before the council of Chalcedom which was in the year 455. 
b Gregor. ●● valent. de re●l● present. ●● transubst. 〈◊〉 ● cap. ●.  Gregory de Valentia in one place saith that the author of that book was Gelasius of Caesaria, as Bellarmine doth; in 
c Idem de ●dololat. lib. 2. cap. 5.  another, that it was Gennadius of Massilia. As for Theodoret he was found no other but a Catholic Bishop in the said council of 
d Council▪ Calced. Act. 8.  Chalcedon, and so approved by general applause. It seemeth that 
e Leo Ep● 61. et council. chalced. Act. 8  Leo Bishop of Rome took him for no other▪ by his letters written to him and for him. That which the Answ. saith of his recantation, is a lewd and slanderous tale. Some stomach he took against 
f Praefat. i● ope●a Theodore●.  Cirill for his proceeding in the council of Ephesus, before he and his company were come. Thereupon he wrote against Ciril, seeking to draw him into suspicion of heresy without cause. This doing of his was greatly disliked of many, and made him to be evil thought of. Yet matters were ordered be twixt them, and they reconciled each to other. But that he made any recantation of his opinions or was convicted in that behalf, it is unhonestly affirmed. These shifts therefore not serving the turn, the Answ. sifteth the words alleged against him, and to wrest them from their plain and evident meaning, he sticketh not to bely the Fathers; to father new opinions upon the old heretics, to devise & affirm matters of his own head without any testimony, or show of testimony of antiquity. He telleth me that when it is said, There ceaseth not to be the substance, the meaning is; the accedents remain. He will have the body of Christ to be made every day of bread, which we believe to have been once only made of the substance of the Virgin Mary. He maketh as if the Fathers were as fond as he himself is; to say that there remaineth the colour of bread, the taste, the strength, the show of bread, but yet there is no bread. He maketh Gelasius to write he knew not what, because forsooth he was before the general definition of the church, and made no exact search of the matter. But why doth he not bring proof of all these strange fancies that here he hath set down? Is it enough for him to say what he list? May I not say as Austin said to the heretic: 
g August. count epis. sund●. cap. 5.  Thinkest thou I am so foolish to believe, or not to believe as thou wouldst have me without any reason given? He may be a Pythagoras perhaps to his own pupils, but we do look for more than his bare words. But alas what do these men mean thus to dally with God, and to wound their consciences by striving against apparent and manifest truth? A Caluinist, the Answ. telleth me lacketh four of his five wits, to allege that place of Gelasius, being, (as he saith,) both in words and in the drift of the argument against him. But I tell him again that the odd fifth wit of a Caluinist, findeth strength enough in this place, to quell a Papist, and willbe himself nothing endamaged thereby. As touching his circumstances, which he setteth down to explicate the same words of Gelasius, they are for the most part, gross and shameless forgeries, which serve indeed for nothing else, but to lead a man a dance round about, from the sight of that which at the first sight is plain enough. It shall appear that they are nothing else, by the consideration of the original, and process of the matter disputed of by Gelasius.  
Nestorius' the heretic held a separation, and disjoining of the two natures of Christ, the godhead and the manhood, and denied the personal uniting of them into one Christ, and therefore condemned these speeches, that the Virgin Mary is the mother of God, and that God suffered for our sins. Against him the council of Ephesus resolved out of the word of God, that the godhead & the manhood, are substantially united into one person; so that as the soul & body make one man, so God and man are one Christ, as 
h Athan. in S●mbolo.  Athanasius speaketh. By reason of which union 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 said that 
i 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 himself a church with his precious blood. According to this truth Gelasius saith: 
k Gelas' cont. Eutichen.  The whole man christ is God: and Cirill saith that the name of the godhead is given unto christ as man. 
l ciril in ●oh. lib. 11 cap. 22. Vigil. contra Eutich. lib. 4.  To which purpose some of the 
m Concil. constant. 6. act. 4. in epla. Agatho●is▪ & act. 10. & 17. Thom. 〈◊〉 par. ●. q. 16. art. 3. ex Damascen.  ancient writers say that the flesh or manhood of Christ is deified, not by changing of the manhood into godhead, but by personal uniting of the one to the other, whereby the things that are proper to the godhead are also dispensed unto the manhood. Now Eutiches whilst he contended against the heresy of Nestorius, and would justify the speeches aforesaid, went as far another way into another heresy, and as Nestorius by distracting the natures, made two persons, and 
n Vigil. lib. 2. cont. Eutychen.  two Christ's, 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 took flesh indeed, yet that by the uniting of the flesh unto the godhead, the flesh was swallowed up of the godhead, and ceased to be any longer flesh, even as a drop of wine cast into the sea looseth his own nature, and becometh water. 
o Leo. epis▪ 10. & 11.  Leo and 
p evagr. eccl. hist. lib 2. ca 18  Euagrius report the words of Eutiches in the Chalcedom council thus; that he confessed that Christ before the uniting of the manhood with the godhead was of two natures, but after that uniting, there is, said he, but one nature in Christ. And thus is his heresy set down in 
q Definitio Cha cedo 1. council Act. 5.  the definition of the Chalcedon Council. Therefore though Christ was in the shape & likeness of man upon the earth, yet he held that he was not indeed man but only God; & that it was not the manhood but the Godhead that was crucified. So Vigilius testifieth: 
r Vigil cont. ●at. lib. 2.  He affirmed, saith he, that the Godhead suffered; which he would prove, as the same 
s Vigil. abide.  Vigilius & 
t Gelas. count ●uty. & Nestor.  Gelasius also declare, out of 1. Cor. 2. If they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Behold, said he, not the man Christ, but the Lord of glory was crucified. Vigilius again saith, that this heresy did 
u Vigil. lib. 1. con. Eutych.  refer to the contumely of the Godhead, all things that Christ either spoke or did according to the dispensation of the flesh, whilst they contended that there was in him but the one only nature of the Godhead: and 
w Idem lib. 4.  elsewhere he setteth down by their own words, that it was the Godhead that was seen and felt and handled with hands, which they would prove by the words of S. john, in the beginning of his first Epistle. And in this respect both Vigilius and Gelasius say, that this opinion implied the heresies of Apollinaris, of the Manichees and Marcionites, & others which held that Christ had only 
x Putatiwm corpus.  an imaginary and no true body. So Leo also urgeth them that by their opinion 
y Leo epist. 81  Christ did all things counterfeitly, and that not an human body indeed, but a fantastical show of a body appeared unto the eyes of them that beheld: & therefore he calleth them Phantasmaticos Christianos. Thus those things which concern Christ properly as man, Eutyches could not conceive to be rightly attributed unto Christ by the name of God, but by abolishing the nature of man. Now there were also of Eutiches his faction, who being convicted 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 speak afterward. But in the mean time, let the Answ. here think whether I said rightly the last time, that Eutyches if he were now alive, would surely be a Papist. The absurd conceit of Transubstantiation serveth fit for his purpose, and if it had been in his time believed, he would have said: Do ye not see that after consecration there remaineth the colour, and show, 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 uniting of the two natures of Christ, the substance of the human nature is quite consumed, though there appear the fashion and shape and likeness, yea and the doings and sufferings of a man. This he would have alleged for colour of that shadow and fantasy of Christ's humanity which he defended here upon the earth. But this stood not with the doctrine of that time. Nay, whereas Eutyches could not understand that those things which were done & performed properly in the manhood, are rightly said to have been done and performed by God, by reason of the personal uniting of the manhood unto the Godhead, but would for the justifying of this speech abolish the manhood, and bring in the Godhead into the empty fashion and shape of a man (even as the Papists to make good the speeches that are used oftentimes of the Sacrament to express the singular effect thereof, do thrust out the substance of bread and wine, and bring the very substance of Christ's body and blood into the empty forms and shows of the same) Gelasius by a comparison taken from the Sacrament according to the doctrine of his time, showeth him the vanity of his opinion. He setteth down 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 believe and profess the same of Christ himself, that we do of his image. Which both tend to this conclusion, that as the Sacrament is a divine and heavenly thing of excellent grace and virtue, so that by it we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet there ceaseth not to be the substance of bread & wine: so Christ as touching his manhood is advanced to most high excellency and majesty, by the uniting thereof unto the Godhead into one person, so that as man he is honoured & adored of all creatures, and all knees must bow unto him, and whatsoever was done or suffered by Christ as man, is said to have been done and suffered by God, and yet there ceaseth not to be in him the very true substance and nature of man. 
z Gelas. count Euty chen & Nestor.  Surely, saith he, the Sacraments which we receive of the hody and blood of Christ are a divine thing: by reason whereof we are by them made partakers of the divine nature, & yet there ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread & wine. The words are plain, that in the Sacrament there remaineth the substance of bread and wine. What should a man go about to cast a mist before the Sun, or by shifting and paltering to obscure that which is as clear as the shining light? Why do not the Answ. and his fellows say, that Gelasius above a thousand years ago was a Caluinist, and erre● in that point? But he addeth further: And surely in the exercise of the Sacraments, there is celebrated an image & resemblance of the body and blood of Christ. Whereupon he inferreth thus against Eutyches: It is therefore evidently enough showed unto us that we must think the same in our Lord jesus Christ which we profess & celebrate, and receive in his image. And what do we profess in his image, that is, in the Sacrament? Forsooth saith the Papist, we must profess that the substance of bread and wine is abolished, and only certain properties and shows of bread and wine remain. Why then so must we think also of Christ himself, that the substance of his manhood is extinguished, and that there remain only certain accidents and shows thereof, in which he lived here as a man, & was crucified as a man, but was not man indeed, which is the very thing that Eutyches desired. But Gelasius telleth us far otherwise, that as these, namely, the bread and wine, by the working of the holy Ghost do pass over into a divine substance, & yet continue in the propriety of their own nature, so they show that that principal mystery, the force and virtue whereof these do 〈◊〉 represent unto us, doth continue one Christ whole and true, those natures properly remaining whereof he doth consist. Let the Answ. mark 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 personal uniting of the manhood unto God, taketh away the substance of the manhood as Eutyches affirmed. He knoweth, I say, he knoweth that the comparison used by Gelasius enforceth so much if it be applied to the disproof of Eutyches his heresy rightly & truly reported. Now as Gelasius draweth his comparison from the Sacrament to Christ, so doth S. Austen as Gratian allegeth him from Christ to the Sacrament: 
a De consecra. dist. 2. cap. Hoc est.  This is it which we say, saith he, which by all means we labour to approve, that the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two things, the visible form of the elements, and the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord jesus Christ: of the Sacrament and the matter of the Sacrament, th●● is, the body of Christ: even as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man, for that Christ is truly▪ God and truly m●●▪ For every thing containeth the nature and truth of those things whereof it is made. By which words it is most plain and evident, 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 Christ, of an earthly thing & a heavenly thing, as 
b Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34.  Ireneus speaketh, containeth the nature and truth of them both: and therefore the nature & truth of bread and wine. And if the truth, than the substance as Gelasius reasoneth concerning Christ: 
c Gelas. con. Eurych.  If he be truly man, than 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 propriety of his nature. So if there be the truth of the outward elements in the Sacrament, than there is in them their true substance. For otherwise there cannot be the truth of them, but as they abide substantially true in the propriety of their nature. This collection together with the places of Austen and Ireneus I set down before, sufficiently proving the falsehood of Transubstantiation. But the Answ. thought good to pass it over without any mention, because he could not find any answer at all to it, which serveth not for the maintenance of Eutyches his heresy; as do all those shifts and collusions whereby he goeth about to darken the evidence and clearness of Gelasius his words. Let us see now what good stuff there is contained in them. In his first and fourth circumstances, he bewrayeth either his ignorance or else his partiality and falsehood. For taking in hand by way of circumstance to set down the heresy of Eutyches, where he should have done it wholly & faithfully, he doth it but in part and deceitfully, that it may not seem to make so directly against his breadlesse bread. For he restraineth it only to the time after Christ's ascension, as if Eutyches had thought that the humanity of Christ was not consumed till after the time that he was ascended. Whereas Gelasius in the very next words to the place before alleged, giveth plainly to understand that Eutyches meant the abolishing of the substance of the manhood even while Christ was on the earth, though he retained the show and aprearance of man, yea and continued passable also, by reason whereof, he said his Godhead suffered and was crucified, which suffering was the very substantial property of the human nature. For Eutyches held not the annihilating of the properties of the manhood, as the Answ. imagineth, but the confounding of them with the properties of the Godhead, so that the Godhead by those properties did & suffered those things which belonged to the manhood. And this appeareth plainly in the definition of the Chalcedon Council, where it is thus said: 
d Concil. chalced. Act. 5. in definite.  They fond imagine that there is but one nature of the Godhead and the flesh, and so by a monstrous confusion of Christ, they signify that the divine nature or Godhead is passable and subject 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 show and appearance of man, and the properties of the manhood remaining, but the substance was consumed: even as these do hold that there is in the Sacrament a show of bread, and the properties of bread remaining, but the substance of the bread is vanished. How then should Gelasius go about to refute the heresy of Eutyches by the Sacrament, if his opinion as touching the Sacrament had been the same that the Papists now is. Again whereas he saith that Eutyches held that the bread was utterly annihilated, nothing remaining therein of the substantial properties or natures thereof, he deserveth the just reproach of a false & unshame fast person. For what a perverse and wilful man is he to devise such a matter of his own brains, for proof or likelihood whereof, there is not so much as any show to be found in any ancient 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 remain, though there be neither bread nor wine. So his good masters 
e Index Expurgat. in censura Bertra.  the authors of the Index Expurgatorius to avoid the evidence of bertram's disputation, say, that he wrote against certain men which held that there was not so much as the outward forms of bread and wine remaining in the sacrament, but that that which was seen was the superficies or outside, or skin of the body or flesh of Christ. O lewd and unconscionable men. Where were these men, or what story ever made mention of any such? How dare they of their own heads so boldly publish such vain tales? How doth that harlot of Rome be witch and enchant her lovers, that for her sake they care not what, how foolishly, absurdly, falsely they speak, so that it may serve them for a shift to blind the eyes of the unlearned? But the matter as touching Eutyches is plain by Theodoret, that he yielded and confessed that Christ in the delivery of the mysteries, called 
f Theodor. dial. 1. To these things he answereth: Ita nominau●t. In co●●esso est. Hoc ver● dixisti. ●ta dico.  bread his body, and wine his blood, that he honoured these visible signs with the name of his body and blood, not changing their nature, but adding grace unto nature; that these were the signs not of his Deity, but of those things whose names they did bear, that is of his body & blood, which he acknowledged that Christ did truly take, but having taken them, changed them into his divine nature. With what face then doth the Answ. say, that the heretic thought that the bread and wine were utterly annihilated, that nothing of their nature remained, that the Sacrament was a matter only of Christ's divine nature? It were answer enough unto him, to lay open this his false and unhonest dealing; but yet I go forward.  
In saying that Gelasius used these words by way of reply to Eutyches his comparison (which he doth to the end that having made of Eutyches his heresy what he list, he may hue Gelasius his words to be an answer to that fancy of his) he again dealeth amiss with Gelasius. For he of his own accord useth them, to declare the point whereof he disputed; namely, that as the bread and wine in the Sacrament become divine things, so as that by them we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet they lose not their former substance: so though the manhood of Christ, by personal union with the Godhead be highly advanced, 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 heretic had urged Gelasius with that comparison, and had affirmed the presence of Christ's divine nature only in the Sacrament, how I marvel doth the Answ. imagine that it had served for a direct answer, to have denied the real presence? Should he have denied the real presence of the divine nature? That none denieth, because 
g 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 every where. Should he have denied the real presence of the body of Christ, which is the very question? How had that served his turn against the heretic, which neither urged him with real 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 rhyme or reason, without head or tail. Surely for Gelasius to deny the real presence in this place, had been to talk, as the Answ. doth, beside the purpose, foolishly & idly, of matters whereof no occasion was giu●n to him.  
In the second circumstance he setteth down his Cuckoo's note which he rehearseth again in the fourth, fifth, & sixth, to fasten it in the eyes & memories of his secret readers, as being a special pillar to uphold his cause. He telleth me forsooth, that the real presence of the body of Christ was a truth commonly known, currant & generally confessed in the primitive church, whereof notwithstanding neither he nor all his follows for him are able to give any certain and apparent proof out of any of the Father's writings. But because the Fathers fail him, he would prove it by the heretics, who as he saith did reason from it▪ as from a common received truth, to prove their heresies. It is a sham●, we say, to belly the Devil, & why doth the Answ. belly the heretics, to make them the witnesses of his real presence? Indeed if it had been a matter then received; it had served fit for the heresies of Marceon, Manes, Apollinaris & such like, who taught that Christ had never any true body indeed, but only a fantasy and show of a body. For they might and would have said: do ye not confess that Christ's body i● really in the sacrament, yet nothing to be seen but the outward show of bread and wine. It is here, it is there, it is in every priests hands, in every pi●, in every part of the world at once in the quantity and likeness of a cake. What is this else but a fancy of a body? Thus they would have reasoned, if it had been so believed; especially when the ancient Fathers themselves, gave them occasion thereof by proving that Christ had a true body, because that the sacrament is used in token of his body and blood, wherein he suffered and was put to death for us. But they used not a word to this purpose because there was no such thing then believed.  
The manichées whom the Answ. nameth in the third circumstance, dreamt as S. Austen 
h Augst. con. faust. Manich. lib. 20. ca 11.  declareth that Christ was really in the Sun and Moon and upon the cross, and hanging at every bough. etc. and all at once. S. Austen telleth them that Christ 
i Secundum corporalem praesentiam.  according to his bodily presence, could not be at once in the Sun and Moon, and upon the cross, and thereby crosseth the real presence of the Papists, whereby they hold christ corporally to be in heaven and in earth, in this man's hands, and that man's hands and infinite places, and all at once: contrary to the nature of a true body, whereto S. Austen in those words alludeth. Now whereas the Answ. saith, that S. Austen being urged by the Manichée, with the real presence did grant the same, he lewdly abuseth S. Austen. For the heretic 
k ibid. ca 1.  objecting that the church used the bread and wine in the sacrament, with the same superstitious conceit which they maintained, namely that Christ was really bound in them: S. Austen Answereth, 
s Ibid. ca 13.  that the church did not use 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 ears of corn, or branches of the vine, because then all bread and all wine should have been matter of mystery and religion with them; which was not so: but it is made mystical bread and wine, by a certain consecration, namely, whilst by the word of God, they are dedicated and hallowed to be sacraments and mysteries of the body and blood of Christ. The which consecrating & hallowing, the same S. Austen elsewhere declareth thus concerning Baptism: 
m August. ●n Ioha. tri. 8●.  The word cometh to the element and it is meed a sacrament; & in an other place concerning the Lord's supper, thus: 
n Idem de tr●nit. lib. 3. cap. 4.  We call that the body of Christ, which being taken of the fruits of the earth, & consecrated by mystical prayer, we receive in memory of the passion of our Lord. Now, what is all this to the real presence, which the Answerer saith S. Austen did grant? Not a word doth S. Austen use to import it. Nay he rather rejecteth it in that he saith, that bread and wine are not used in sacrament, as in respect of Christ really bound in them, but are made only mystical by consecration; where he denieth that real presence which they fancied, and putteth no other in place thereof, but only saith that the bread is made mystical bread by consecration. As for Transubstantiation, he is plainly enough against it also in the same place, in that he calleth the sacrament, the sacrament of bread and of the cup; whereby we understand 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 sacrilege with the Manichées to taste wine, importing hereby, that it was wine, which the church took & tasted in the sacrament. But the Papists real presence, jumpeth with the Manichées imprisoning of Christ; for they make Christ so fast bound by consecration to the forms of bread and wine, that though rats or mice or swine eat the same, or though it lie in the mire, yet it must not be thought but that the body of Christ is there still, even till the forms be consumed, and to think otherwise, as Thomas Aquinas saith derogateth from the truth of the sacrament, as after shallbe declared.  
To his sixth circumstance I answer him that the Lateran council was the assembly of Gog and Magog, to set the idol Mauzim in his place. That which they resolved against Berengarius, they reselued against all the Fathers; who never knew real presence, nor transubstantiation.  
As for Innodentius his breadinesse and wininesse, panietas & vineitas, in the seventh circumstance, the Answ▪ would not have named it but that swine are delighted with mire and filth.  
The eight circumstance also containeth only new Popish subtleties and deserveth no answer. The putting in thereof and others as impertinent by way of explication of Gelasius his words showeth the falsehood of the Answ. thinking nothing less than to deal plainly, and seeking by frivolous tales and idle talk to lead the reader away from that which otherwise he cannot but see.  
The ninth circumstance telleth us honestly, that before the Lateran council, it was no heresy not to jump with Transubstantiation. And then belike a man might have been a Caluinist in that point, as all the Fathers were, and yet not to be accounted an heretic. At least he might have said that the substances of bread & wine did remain in part, but not wholly forsooth; as perhaps saith the Answ▪ some of the Fathers▪ and namely Gelasius thought: a ridiculous and childish fancy. When we show them plainly out of the Fathers that the substances of bread and wine remain in the sacrament, forsooth the Father's thought that the substances of bread and wine, remain in part but not wholly. What conscience may we think these men make of their answers? Why doth he not bring somewhat out of the Fathers, to approve this fond sophistication & unhandsome dream? But it must be enough for us, that the Answ. telleth us that so it is.  
But it is worth the noting that he telleth us, that it was not clearly defined before the Lateran council, what manner o● conversion is in the sacrament. No was? Why, did not the Apostles clearly know it? or knowing it, did they not deliver it to the church? Did he which 
o Act. 20. 27.  kept nothing back, but declared all the council of God, keep back this? or did he deliver it to the Ephesians and not deliver it to the Romans' & other churches? To say the Apostles did not clearly know it, is to make himself wiser than the Apostles. To say they knew it but declared it not, is to make them unfaithful in their charge. To say that the church received it clearly delivered, and yet that it was never clearly defined, until the Lateran council, is a contradiction, and impugneth that in the one part which is set down in the other. To say the church, and namely the church of Rome received it, and did afterwards forego it, is to make the church of Rome, a very bad keeper of the doctrines of the Apostles, especially seeing the sacrament is a matter of continual and daily use. But indeed we take that which he saith for true, that Transubstantiation was never clearly defined, before the Lateran council. But we tell him withal, that we are very dainty to admit that for a doctrine of truth, which for a thousand years and more after Christ, was never clearly known or defined in the church of God. And because it was no heresy all that while, not to jump with Transubstantiation, we are well assured that it is no heresy to leap from it now.  
Now to return to Gelasius, the Answ. findeth an hole or two in his words before alleged, whereby he would feign creep out. The words are thus: There ceaseth not to be the substance, or nature of bread and wine. He addeth (or nature) saith the Answ. to mollify and interpret the word substance, as importing that the natural properties of bread and wine remain though the substance be gone. A very natural answer. Belike the substance remaineth, or there ceaseth not to be the substance, is as much as to say: the substance is quite gone and utterly ceased, & only the accidents remain. But Gelasius a little before speaketh in the very same sort concerning Christ, and showeth the meaning of his own words: We say, saith he, that the propriety of each substance or nature, abideth continually in Christ, where most plainly by the same phrase of speech he maketh substance and nature to import one thing. And if we will follow the Answ. exposition, we must say here in the behalf of Eutyches that not the substances themselves, but the natural properties of each substance abide still in Christ, because he saith substance or nature. Again 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 removed or taken away, the substance also must needs be taken away. By which it is plain, that Gelasius nameth nature, no otherwise, but to signify the very substance, because every substance is called a nature. Otherwise when he nameth as oft he doth; propriety of nature, the Answerer must expound it to be meant propriety of natural properties, which is more absurd than that his face can be bold to face it out. It is certain therefore that Gelasius by nature meaneth the very essential 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 understandeth two entire & perfect substances as all the re●t of the Father's do. Only in this place Gelasius forgot himself and fell a sleep, and by nature▪ would understand natural properties and accidents, albeit his very drift was to show by the abiding of the nature of bread and wine in the sacrament, the abiding of the nature, that is, the true substantial being of the manhood of Christ.  
But y●t saith the Answ. Gelasius saith that the bread and wine do pass over into a divine substance. We grant the same. For as Gelasius hath said before, they are now divine things because they are sacraments of Christ's body & blood, and by them we are made partakers of the divine nature. The visible element of the sacrament is no longer to be taken as a common or mere earthly substance, but being sanctified by the word of Christ, it is a divine and heavenly thing. And therefore doth 
p de consecr. dist. 2. ca hoc est.  saint Austen call the bread of the sacrament heavenly bread, and Cyprian calleth it 
q Cyprian. de orat. domin. & de caena domi.  the food of salvation and of immortality, and Theodoret calleth it 
r Theodor. dial. 2.  the bread of life, and Bertram saith of it: 
s Bertram de corp. & sang. domini.  There is in it the spirit of Christ, even the power of the word of God, not only feeding but also cleansing the soul. In respect therefore of this excellent grace and virtue, it is rightly said that the bread and wine are now become a divine substance? But do they therefore lose their own proper nature and substance? Then we must think the like of the manhood of Christ. For Gelasius saith that we must think the same in Christ which we profess in his image, the sacrament. If we think not so of the manhood of Christ, than we must conceive that bread and wine pass over into a divine substance, not by foregoing their own substance and nature, but 
t Theodor. dial. 1. Non naturam mutans, sed naturae gra●iā ad●ciens  by adding grace and spiritual blessing unto nature as Theodoret rightly teacheth us. So doth Dionysius, whosoever he was, say; that we 
u Dyonis. de eccles. Hierar. cap. 1. & 3. stapulens. edi  are made God, & do pass over into God, not because we change our substance & be made substantially Gods, but because through our communion with jesus Christ we are by grace renewed to the likeness of God, and effectually united unto him. So doth Vigilius say, that 
w Vigil. lib. 1. cont. Eutych.  the nature of the flesh passed over into the person of the word, but yet so as that saith he, it was not consumed of the word. So doth Leo Bishop of Rome say: 
x Leo. epist 22  We receiving the virtue of the heavenly food do pass over into the flesh of Christ, who is made our flesh. Which S. Cyprian also saith, and noteth the manuer thereof: 
y Cypri. ser. de caena. dom.  We are united unto Christ, not by a corporal, but by a spiritual passing over into him. Cyrill speaketh in like sort that we are 
z Cyril. in joh. lib. 1●. ca 26.  made one with Christ who by his flesh passed over unto us. Yet neither Christ by passing over unto us, nor we by passing over into him do lose the propriety and truth of our former nature and substance. By which it is plain that the passing over into a divine substance doth not enforce any changing of the substance and nature, but only of the condition and use of the substance. And therefore Gelasius saith plainly that notwithstanding this passing over into a divine substance, yet the bread and wine continue still in the propriety of their own nature, which is the same which he had said before: There ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine. For whereas the Answ. would have the continuing in the propriety of their own nature to be understood of the remaining of certain properties of bread and wine without the substance, it is too gross and palpable shifting. For in the whole disputation concerning two natures in our Saviour Christ, that phrase of speech is continually used both by Gelasius, Leo, Vigilius and others to import the manhood of Christ not only in properties and qualities, which Eutyches would have admitted, but also in truth and substance inviolably being and remaining, which he would not grant. Every kind of thing hath his own proper and distinct essence and being, whereby it is severed from all other things, and from whence do issue immediately certain properties and qualities which are not incident unto any other. Now this own-nesse as I may call it, and distinctness of essence & being, these Fathers express by propriety of nature, affirming that Christ continueth in the propriety of both natures, namely so, as that each nature the Godhead & the manhood retaineth his own proper and distinct substance & being. Now seeing that the abiding of the bread and wine in the propriety of their nature, is used by Gelasius in the place alleged to declare that continuance of the manhood of Christ, it followeth necessarily that it must be understood of the remaining not only of the properties but also of the substance of bread and wine: unless we will over turn all that those Fathers have disputed against Eutiches, & plead for him out of their own words that though certain properties and shows of the manhood of Christ be remaining, yet the substance thereof is abolished. But the Answ. as guilty in his own conscience of the untruth & unsufficiency of this answer flitteth from it & saith as I noted before, that it may be that Gelasius thought the somewhat of the substance did remain, and therefore was somewhat of our opinion at least, whereas he had said before that whatsoever Gelasius thought, he was far enough from our mind. And yet such is his giddy head that by and by again he saith that if substance be understood for substance indeed, then there should follow this great absurdity that Christ should be personally united unto the bread, and so should consist of three natures, the Godhead, the manhood, and the breadhood, as it pleaseth his wisedom-hood full untowardly, and unhansomely to conceive. So that it may be by this dream of his, that Gelasius thought that Christ consisteth of three natures, the Godhead, the manhood, and the breadhood, because it may be that Gelasius understood substance for substance indeed. He hath well deserved for this his learned reason to be personally united unto a cloak-bag. This idle fancy of his ariseth hereof, that he understandeth no other presence but real and bodily, nor other uniting but only personal. But of presence, Christ himself speaketh as touching himself: 
a Mat. 18. 20.  Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them: yet we know he is not bodily present unto all such. Nay as touching bodily presence, S. Austen saith according to the Gospel, 
b August. in joh. tract. 50.  He is ascended into heaven and is not here. But according to his divine majesty, according to his providence, according to his unspeakable and invisible grace, it is fulfilled which he said: I will be with you always unto the end of the world. So saith Vigilius: 
c Vigil. count Euty. lib. 1.  Christ is with us, and he is not with us. According to the form of a servant, he is absent from us; according to the form of God, he is present with us. Such is the presence of Christ in the sacrament, even 
d cypr. de caena domini.  the presence of his divine power, as Cyprian calleth it, whereby it cometh to pass, that as the Sun abiding bodily in the sky, yet by effect and working is here on the earth, cherishing and comforting all things according to their kind, so the son of righteousness jesus Christ, though according to his bodily presence remaining only in heaven, yet by his heavenly grace and spirit is effectually present unto us in his holy sacraments, communicating himself fully and wholly unto us, and joining us most nearly unto himself. As for that gross presence which Papists teach, besides that it is unnecessary, it repugneth also to that truth of the manhood of Christ, abiding in the propriety of his own nature, which Gelasius defended and maketh for the heresies of Martion, Eutyches and others of whom I spoke before. Now as the presence of Christ in the sacrament is not carnal and bodily, so no more is the uniting of Christ unto the sacrament any bodily or carnal matter, but spiritual and sacramental: whilst by the word of God and the working of the holy Ghost, there is made that mutual relation and respect betwixt the sign & the thing signified, and such a dependence of the one on the other, that the sign spiritually implieth the force and virtue of the thing signified, and the holy Ghost together with the sign, dispenseth through faith the fullness of that grace & blessing which is contained in the body and blood of jesus Christ. In which sort we believe also that Christ without any real presence is united to the sacrament of Baptism, 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 maintain any real presence in the one sacrament, than there is in the other. Thus therefore the remaining of the substance of bread, doth not enforce any personal uniting of Christ unto the bread. No, nor yet that supposed real presence of Christ's body with the bread. The Ubiquitaries when they teach that Christ's body is really present in the sacrament, yet think not that the same is personally united unto it, neither doth it follow of that opinion of theirs. The Answ. himself, though in his conceit he receive into his body the real body of Christ, yet I, hope will not think the same personally united unto him, no nor yet to those forms and natural properties of bread and wine, whereunder he saith, the body of Christ lieth invisibly hidden. He saith that perhaps Gelasius, and undoubtedly others thought that some part of the substance of bread & wine remained together with the body of Christ, yea and 
e Ferus ●n Math. cap. ●●  Ferus himself though a Papist, yet seemeth to doubt whether the substance of bread remain or not together with the body, and yet he will not gather I hope, that they thought though the substance did remain, that the body of Christ was personally united unto the same, so that Christ should consist of three natures, the Godhead, the manhood, and the breadhood. But what should I trouble myself with such senseless and mad toys, serving only to blot paper, and containing in them neither learning nor wit. As for that which followeth, it is but a new show of the same baggage stuff that I have examined already, and needeth no further answer. Only let me tell him, that he wretchedly perverteth the comparison made by Gelasius, and maketh it fitly and rightly answerable to the heresy of Eutyches. For as he saith, that in the sacrament there is the very body of Christ, having conjoined unto it the natural 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, passable, mortal, etc. 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 prove the continuing of the properties of the manhood, not of the substance: whereas the purpose of Gelasius is altogether concerning the substance and nature itself: which to continue inviolably, notwithstanding the assuming thereof unto the godhead, he showeth 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 blood of Christ. These things are sufficiently bebated before: I come to that that followeth.    

P. Spence. Sect. 12.  
NOw let us confer the places of Theodoretus by you alleged, with his own sayings by you concealed. Theodoretus disputing with an Eutychian, who would Christ now to consist of the only nature of his Deity, and not any more of the human nature, which he took of the virgin, doth reprove him by the example of the Sacrament of Christ's Supper, in the which Sacrament two things are found: one which is seen, and that is the sign of bread and wine: the other is not seen but understanded and believed, and that is the true body and blood of Christ. That which is seen is said to remain in his former substance, nature, figure, and kind. In his substance, 
a The mystical signs remain in their former substance; that is, they do not remain in their former substance.  because the forms of bread and wine subsist by the power of God, and have their being now by themselves as they had it before, in the nature of bread and wine. The same forms remain in their former nature, because they nourish no less, than the substance of bread itself would have done, if it had remained. They remain in the former shape and kind, as being things that may be seen & touched, as they might before. Theodoretus then having said thus much for the one part of the Sacrament, cometh also to show the other part thereof. For his mind is to declare, that as there be two kinds of things in one Eucharist, so the two natures of God and man are in one person of Christ. Therefore the other nature (besides the forms of bread and wine) is the real substance of Christ's body and blood, of which part, thus he speaketh, Intell●guntur autem (esse) quae facta sunt & creduntur, & adorantur v●pote quae illa sunt, quae creduntur; the mystical signs are understanded to be those things which they were made, and they are believed, & they are adored, as being those things which they are believed to be. Note that these mystica symbola are understanded to be that they were made, but what? are they understanded to be that 
b They are truly understood to be that in mystetie and signification▪ which in substance and nature they are not.  which they are not? Nay sir, that were false understanding, which falsehood cannot be in the mysteries of Christ, they are then that indeed which they are understanded to be. What is it? Theodoretus showeth a little before, that they were after consecration the body & blood of Christ. Therefore the mystical signs are understanded to be the body and blood, not because they be not so, but because they are so: for that they were made his body and blood, and so they are believed to be, and are adored, or kneeled, and bowed unto. But how? percase as bearing the image and signs of the body and blood of Christ. No sir; but as being 
c Strange divinity that mystical 〈◊〉 should be indeed the body and blood of Christ. 〈…〉 mystical sig●● had been of the virgin Mary. joh. 1. Theophy in joh. 1.  indeed the body and blood of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; as being those things which they are understanded, and believed to be. They are Adored, because they are the body and blood of Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being; (and the word (as) meaneth in that place a truth of being, as if it were vere existentia quae cre●untur, being indeed the things which they are believed to be. So speaketh S. john, Vi●imus gloriam eius, gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre, we saw his glory, a glory, as of the only begotten of the father, to wit we saw the glory of him being indeed the only begotten of his father. Upon which place Theophylact saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. This particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in English (as) is not a word that betokeneth a similitude or likeness; but that confirmeth and betokeneth an undoubted determination, as when we see a King coming forth with great glory, we say, that he came forth as a King: that is to say, he came forth as being indeed a King. So that by the judgement of Theophylact, that particle (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which Theodoret useth, doth betoken an undoubted being and determinate truth of that thing whereof we speak. The holy mysteries are adored, as being those things indeed which they are believed to be▪ This place is such as cannot be reasonably answered unto. For the reason of adoring or giving 
d Theodoret intendeth not to give godly honour to the mystical signs, for that were idolatry, but only such reverent usage as is fit for holy things See the answer.  godly honour to the Sacrament of the altar is, because it is indeed the body of Christ, as it is believed to be. But it is believed to be the body of Christ after consecration, therefore it is adored as being the true body of Christ. For Theodoret, before having confessed, the mysteries after consecration to be called the body and blood of Christ, when it was demanded farther: Dost thou believe that thou receivest the body and blood of Christ? he answereth to that question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ita credo, I do believe so. Now therefore he affirmeth those mystical signs to be indeed after consecration the body and blood of Christ, which they are believed to be, and so believed that they are received of us. Every word must be weighed because we have to do with our adversaries, who must find shifts, or else their deceit will appear to all the world. First therefore let it be marked, that after consecration the mysteries are called the body and blood. Secondly, that the mysteries are 
e They are understood to be & at made, and believed to be mystical signs of the body & blood, and so are reverently used, though in substance they be but bread and wine. This is all that Theodoret meaneth, as shall appear.  understanded to be the body and blood of Christ. Thirdly that they are made so. Fourthly they are believed to be so. Fiftly they are adored, for that they are indeed those things which they are believed to be. And last of all they are received. The first saying, second, and the last ye can bear withal: to wit, that they are called the body and blood, and are understanded to be the body and blood: and that the body & blood are received. For you would have them called so, and not be so: thereby making the namer of them a miscaller, as one that calleth them by a wrong name. Secondly you would have them understanded to be the body & blood, and yet not be so: thereby showing that you take pleasure in untrue understanding: for no 
f S. Paul would have the rock understood to be Christ, which indeed was not christ, & yet he was a good man.  good man would have a thing understanded to be that, which indeed it is not. Again, you would the body and blood to be received. How trow you? In the faith of the man, but 
g We receive the truth of the body of Christ, not by the mouth of our bodies, but by the faith of our souls. You have turned faith into the mouth, and the truth of the body into the fantasy of a body.  not in the truth of the body; thereby declaring that you divide faith from truth, as men that have a persuasion of things that indeed be not so. But to calling, understanding, and receiving; Theodoret joineth also, believing, adoring, and being. And the belief which he speaketh of, is not referred to heaven: but unto the holy mysteries. They are believed, they are adored, as being those things which they are believed to be. 
h A peevish and blind fancy. Nothing is more usual then to call the sign by the name of the thing signified, though indeed it be not the same.  The thing that is called or named Christ's body and blood, is indeed that thing which it is called: Christ can h misname nothing at all: for if he should call that which were before air, water, or earth, by the name of fire, stones, and bread, air, earth, and water, would sooner cease to be, and fire, bread and stones would come in their place, than God would call any creature by a wrong name. He called bread his body, therefore bread is understanded to be made the body of Christ. You say the understanding of man taketh his beginning of senses, which 
i S. Austen saith, that which you s●● i● bread, as your eyes also tell you. He saith it is that which our eyes tell us it is  tell me it is bread. I say in the matter belonging to faith, my understanding is informed by God's word: which telleth me, it is 
k In signification and mystery after the manner of Sacraments, but not in substance.  the body of Christ: and Theodoret saith, it is believed to be, and it is worshipped, for it is so. And he giveth the same very word of 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Worshipping to the holy mysteries, the which in the same sentence he giveth to the immortal body of Christ, sitting at the right hand of his father. And no wonder, for seeing it is one body, whether it be worshipped in heaven or 
l Vig●lius saith, that the flesh of Christ now that it is in heaven, is not upon the earth. Therefore seeing it is in heaven, it cannot be worshipped upon the 〈◊〉  upon the Altar: one worship is always due to it. Thus it is witnessed by Theodoret, that the holy mysteries of Christ are worshipped and adored: not as the signs of his body and blood, but as being indeed his body and his blood. Therefore worship is not given to them as to images, which represent a thing absent, but as to mystical signs which really contain the truth represented by them. Look Bellarmine lib. 2. de Sacrament. cap. 27. pro horum testimonijs.  

R. Abbot. 12.  
NOw come to be handled the words of Theodoret, whom the Answerer useth in the same honest manner as he hath done Gelasius; yet cannot stop his mouth but that he still standeth at defiance with Transubstantiation. Theodoret in his Dialogues debateth the whole matter of Eutyches his heresy, not only as Eutyches himself held it as before hath been showed, but also as some would seem afterwards to correct it, by saying that though Christ retained the substance of his manhood while he continued on the earth, yet after his ascension it was turned into the Godhead▪ as of which there was thenceforth no longer use. Now having disputed the matter at large, and brought the heretic to this latter shift, he taketh an argument from the Sacrament, to prove the remaining and being of Christ's body and blood. For signs or samptars are not admitted, but of such things as have being. Seeing therefore we receive the mystical signs in token of the body and blood of Christ, it is certain that the body and blood of Christ have their own nature and being. Now the heretic taketh occasion of this mention of the sacrament to reason thus: a Even as the signs of the Lords body and 
oh Theodor. dial. 2.  blood before the priest's invocation are other things, but after the invocation are changed and made other then before: so the Lords body after his assumption or taking up into heaven, is changed into the divine substance. Whereby being changed and made other, he meaneth not any real changing into the very body and blood of Christ, for he denied that Christ had now any substantial body, neither doth he understand the losing of their own former substance, for he expressly yieldeth the contrary, as was showed before in handling the place of Gelasius, but only intendeth that they are other in use and name, being now made signs of the body & blood of Christ, which he once truly took, but afterwards did forgo. This is plain enough by the circumstance of the place, and by that which he had confessed before in the former Dialogue, that the bread and wine were signs not of the divine nature of Christ, but of those things whose names they did bear, namely the body & blood. But to the objection Theodoret answereth thus: Thou art taken in the net, which thyself hast made. For the mystical signs do not departed from their own nature after consecration. For they continued in their former substance, and figure and form, and may be seen and touched as before. But they are understood to be the same which they are made, and are believed so, and adored as being the same that they are believed. Now therefore confer the image with the principal, and thou shalt see the likeness. For the figure must be like unto the truth. Verily that body of Christ hath also the same form as before, the same figure, and circumscription, and to speak all at once, the same substance of a body. But it is made immortal after his resurrection, etc. Here it is plainly avouched, that the mystical signs 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 body after his ascension. For the mystical signs are the figure & image of Christ's body, and the figure must be correspondent to the truth. And therefore if we find not the true and proper substance remaining in the mystical signs, neither can it be avouched in the truth, that is in Christ's body. What construction now then shall we have of these words? Marry this. The mystical signs remain in their former substance, that is to say, the forms have a new subsistence by themselves, and the accidents remain without the substance. Bread and wine after consecration remain 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 quantity and quality of bread and wine, but there is no substance of bread and wine. I wonder whether these men be persuaded of the truth of these unreasonable and senseless expositions. If they be, it is fulfilled in them which is written, 
b 2. Thes. 2. 11  God shall send upon them strong delusion that they may believe lies, which believed not the truth, etc. If not, than 
c Esa. 5. 20.  Woe saith the Prophet, to them that call good evil, and evil good, which put light for darkness, and darkness for light. The thing is plain enough. The mystical signs saith Theodoret, remain in their former substance. What was their former substance? The very true and proper being or substance of bread & wine. They continue therefore 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 own forging; and yet even there confoundeth himself without recovery. For what was their former subsistence? Marry, 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 have their being by themselves. 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 wherein these forms and mystical signs must subsist. And yet further, if these words of Theodoret do not import the remaining of the very substance of bread & wine, the heretic is not at all caught, as Theodoret telleth him that he is. For he hath to reply, & would have replied if Transubstantiation had been then believed. As it is in the mystical signs which are the image, so must it be in the truth, which is, the body of Christ. The mystical signs lose their substance after consecration. Therefore the body of Christ looseth his substance after his ascension. But indeed the argument standeth firm against the heretic with Theodoret, as it did with Gelasius. As it is in the mystical signs, so it must be in the body of Christ. The mystical signs keep their substance after consecration. Therefore Christ's body remaineth the same substance after his ascension. And thus the words go currant both against Eutyches his confusion and popish transubstantiation. Now I cannot but marvel how the Answerer making Theodoret to speak so nicely and precisely of those Lateran subtleties, of forms subsisting by themselves, of natural properties and figures and shapes remaining without any substance, doth imagine that Theodoret being so long before the Lateran definition, should be so thoroughly acquainted with these matters, and so perfectly set them down, which yet, as it is plainly confessed in the 
d Index Expurgat. in censu. Bertra. quae subtilissimè & verissimè posterior aetas addidit.  Index Expurgatorius, have been since added in latter times, and indeed were never known to the ancient Fathers. Without doubt Theodoret was some Prophet, and had some special revelation to this purpose, to know what should be agreed upon in the Lateran Council; and marvel it is, that for this cause he was not sainted in the Roman Calendar. But a liar they say should bear a brain, and the Answ. and his fellows should remember, that if these things were added since in later times, as they themselves confess, than Theodoret had never any intelligence of them as indeed he had not. To leave this and to go forward; he now entereth further into the words of Theodoret, and openeth that which I concealed, & weigheth every word at large, and when all is done, Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Theodoret, as he saith, having set down one part of the Sacrament which he calleth the forms of bread and wine, cometh to set down the other to be the real body and blood of Christ, and that in these words: The mystical signs are understood to be the same that they are made, & are so believed, and adored as being the same that they are believed. Now hereof he gathereth, that they are understood to be the body & blood of Christ, and it may not be a false understanding, therefore they are so indeed: and so they are believed to be, and adored not as being signs of the body and blood of Christ, but as being the same indeed. How prettily this man playeth with a shadow, and solaceth himself with a large description of his idle fancy. Who told him, I marvel, that this was Theodoret's meaning? Surely he took it out of some of his learned Treatises▪ and believed it as an Oracle Ex tripod. But let me demand of him, are the forms of bread and wine understood to be, to be, I say, the body & blood of Christ, are they believed to be so; are they adored as being not signs, but verily & indeed the body and blood of Christ? What new stuff is this, that forms of bread and wine be indeed Christ's body and blood, and must be adored with godly honour, as the Answ. meaneth adoration. Is Christ's body now become forms of bread; and must we adore and worship forms of bread? That is idolatry even by the confession of his own side. But he will except and tell me that, not the forms, but the body contained under them is adored? Yea but he hath told me already, and Theodoret's words as he expoundeth them import no other, that the forms are the body of Christ & are adored as being so indeed. Clear it is, that Theodoret referreth that adoration, which he speaketh of, to the mystical signs. So that the Answ. must either make himself an idolater, and must turn the body and blood of Christ into forms of bread and wine, or else he must seek a new construction of Theodoret's words. The meaning is plain. The mystical signs before consecration are (not mystical signs but) méerly bread and wine. By consecration they are made symbola mystica corporis & sanguinis domini: mystical signs of the body and blood of Christ. And notwithstanding that after consecration they continue in their former substance, yet are they understood and believed to be not only that which they are in substance, but the same that they are made, that is, signs of the body and blood of Christ, and are honoured and reverenced as being translated from common use to be, as they are made, mystical signs of Christ's body and blood. And this to be the plain meaning of Theodoret, it appeareth by that which he addeth immediately; for having thus set down the mystical signs, though in substance bread and wine as they were before, yet understood to be the signs of Christ's body and blood, he addeth: Confer then the image with the pattern or principal, and thou shalt see the likeness. For the figure must be agreeable or answerable to the truth. Where we see that he calleth the mystical signs which he hath spoken of, the image and figure, not for that which they are in substance, but for that which they are understood to be made: and on the other side, the body of Christ whereof they are the image and figure, he calleth the pattern, the principal, the truth; and inferreth hereof, that as these signs though they be thus highly honoured to be the images, the signs, the figures of the body & blood of Christ, yet are in substance and nature the same still▪ so the body of Christ thought be now become immortal, and not subject to any corruption or weakness, and be set at the right hand of God, and worshipped of all creatures, yet is still a true body, retaining the same form, figure, circumscription, and substance that it had before. Thus Theodoret will in no wise yield to be made a Patron, either of real presence, or of Transubstantiation. His judgement is so clear in these points, that he showeth but a naughty and lewd mind, whosoever shall go about to father any of these matters upon him. In the former Dialogue he saith plainly; that Christ in the delivery of the mysteries called bread his body; that he set upon the sign the name of his body; that he honoured the mystical signs with the name of his body and blood, not changing their nature, but adding grace unto nature; that the holy food is the sign and figure of the body and blood of Christ. And in this dialogue again, that the mystical signs of the body and blood of Christ are offered to God by the priests of God; that the mystical signs do represent the true body: that they are the image and figure of Christ's body; and maketh a manifest difference betwixt the body itself and the mystical sign which is called the body. By all which speeches he declareth that the mystical signs are truly bread and wine, yet by consecration made figures of the body and blood of Christ, and called by the name of the body and blood of Christ, as Sacraments are wont to be called by the name of the things whereof they are Sacraments, to lift up our minds from the beholding of the visible elements, to the consideration of the things signified by them, as Theodoret in the first Dialogue showeth. And therefore the Priest hath not in his hands the real body of Christ to offer up unto God, but only the mystical signs which represent the body; so that both Transubstantiation, and real presence, and real sacrifice, are all overthrown by Theodoret's judgement. Now whereas the Answ. urgeth that we receive the body and blood of Christ, Theodoret indeed saith, that he believeth that he is made a partaker thereof in receiving the Sacrament. We believe the same, and it is our singular comfort. But this receiving of Christ is not really by the mouth into the body, but spiritually by faith into the soul. We say with the ancient Fathers, that this food is not the food of the belly but of the mind, not for the teeth to chew, but for the conscience to be refreshed with. S. Austen checketh that conceit of bodily eating; 
e Aug in joh. ●●. 25.  Why preparest thou thy teeth & thy belly? Believe & thou hast eaten. 
f ibid. tr. 2●.  For to believe in Christ, this is, saith he, to eat the bread of life. And acknowledging no other real presence of Christ, whereby we may receive him and eat him but only in heaven, he maketh one to demand of him, 
g ibid. tr. 50.  How shall I take hold of him being absent? how shall I put up my hand to heaven to take hold of him there? Whereto he answereth: Send up 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 received sitting in heaven.  
That which the Answ. further urgeth of adoration, is frivolous, unless he could show it to be meant of divine or godly honour, that is, which is proper unto God. Theodoret plainly referreth it to the mystical signs; but to give divine honour or adoration to mystical signs, or to forms of bread and wine, is manifest idolatry. The word of adoration here used by Theodoret, is very often used by the seven interpreters in the Greek, and by the vulgar Latin interpreter also not only for divine adoration, but also for civil worship. And this diverse signification 
h Aug. Quaest. in Gen. lib. 1. cap. 61.  S. Austen noteth upon that which is written concerning Abraham, that 
i Gen 2● 7.  he adored the Princes of the Hittites, as the Latin translation speaketh. It is needless to use many proofs hereof, seeing the Answ. masters the 
k Rhe. ●●no. tat. Act. 1●. 25.  Rhemists confess that this word of adoration doth not always note divine worship; but is commonly used in the scriptures towards men. So the gloze of the▪ Canon law maketh a construction of adoration, by which we may, as it is there said, 
l De conse. dist. 3. cap. ●●n●rab●les.  Adore any sacred or holy thing; or 
m Thom. Aquin. 22. q 8. a●. ●.  any excellent creature as Thomas Aquinas saith, which adoration they expound by having reverence thereof. Therefore Theodoret referring adoration to the mystical signs, must not straightways be taken to understand divine honour and worship, but only importeth a religious and holy regard and reverence to be had thereof, as being not now common bread and wine, but divine and heavenly mysteries, sanctified by the word and spirit of God to most excellent and singular use. Which reverence S. Austen ascribeth not only to the Lords Supper, but also to the 
n Aug. de doct▪ Chr lib. 3. ca 9  Sacrament of Baptism, by the Latin word Venerari. So that the Answ. can gather nothing out of Theodoret to serve his turn. Whereas he further saith, that Christ calleth nothing by a wrong name, etc. he showeth his folly and peevish ignorance. Signs and Sacraments are usually called by the names of the things whereof they are signs, though in substance they be not the same, and therefore are wrong named in respect of the substance, but rightly and truly named in respect of the signification, 
o 1 Cor. 10 2.  The rock was Christ, saith S. Paul. He saith not, saith 
p Idem. quaest. sup. Le●it. ●7.  S. Austen, The rock signified Christ, but speaketh as if it were Christ, which yet was not he in substance but in signification. Nothing is more usual either in sacred or profane writings, than thus to speak without transubstantiating one thing into another. Christ saith, that he is the vine and his father the husbandman; must Christ therefore needs be turned into a vine, and the father into a husbandman? He saith that we are his sheep, are we therefore turned into sheep? This must needs follow, if it be true which the Answ. fond speaketh of the misnaming of things. But this is taken out of his blind devotions, and serveth him as a reason whereby to seduce in corners silly and ignorant souls; O, saith he, ye may not think that Christ will misname any thing, and therefore when he called bread his body, without doubt he turned it into his body. Mean knowledge will 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 justifying that which was spoken by Gelasius and Theodoret, the Answ. slily passeth over, as being too manifest for him to cavil at. But partly it hath already, and partly it will by and by meet with him again.    

P. Spence. Sect. 13.  
YOur secundum quendam modum out of Saint Augustine ad Bonifacium epist. 23. affirmeth the Sacrament of Christ's body to be his body, but the manner is the point: for he was 
a S. Austen speaketh not of a manner of real being, but of a manner and form of speaking and signifying. See the Answer.  visible and passable on the earth, in heaven in Majesty, in the Sacrament sacramentally, and invisibly: but yet truly. As for the examples used in the allegation of his passion, and resurrection, because they were once done and passed, the memories of them cannot be the things themselves, but a memory only. But his body ever remaining, the memory of it may be also the very thing itself, & that S. Augustine in so many places affirmeth that you must not so rack this place to overthrow the other, and to set him at bate with himself. join therefore with this testimony of S. Augustine, another place of the same August. in Sententijs Prosperi, and by that learn to understand his own meaning of his secundum quendam modum. The place is thus: It is his flesh which in the Sacrament we receive covered in the form of bread, and it is his blood which we drink under the figure and savour of wine. Namely, flesh is a Sacrament of flesh, and blood a Sacrament of blood. By flesh and blood, both invisible, spiritual, and to be understood, is signified the visible and palpable body of our Lord jesus Christ.  
Hear you see by answer not by us patched and clouted, but 
b Untrue: for it cannot be showed that these are his words: and yet they serve not the Answ. turn as shall appear.  by himself set down he explicateth thus much, that in both sides is true flesh, and true blood. But now to his secundum quendam modum, he telleth you that on the one side is flesh covered in the form of bread in the Sacrament, and blood under the form and savour of wine: invisible, spiritual, and to be understood: this for the manner of the one: but on the earth, and now in heaven a a visible and palpable body. Yet remember that flesh is a Sacrament of flesh, and blood of blood. More I might say, but infinite have said it: to them I send you.  

R. Abbot. 13.  
FOr the exposition of Christ's words, This is my body, I showed the testimonies of the ancient fathers, that Christ called the bread and wine his body & blood, taking for the ground of my speech that which S. Austen saith: 
a Aug. Epis●▪ 23.  that Sacraments have a resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments, and that because of this resemblance they commonly take unto them the names of the things themselves, whereof they are sacraments. Now to this rule the Answerer saith nothing at all, as neither he did before when I mentioned it concerning sacrifice, whereas he should have taken it for his greatest enemy, and therefore fought most strongly against it, because hereby is discharged the greatest part of that which either he or his fellows can object for their sacrifice, real presence and Transubstantiation. But I gather hereby his wilful and malicious resolution against plain and evident truth. The words which he answereth next, follow immediately after the words already mentioned. As therefore saith S. 
b Ibid.  Austen, the sacrament of the body of Christ, is after a certain manner the body of Christ, and the sacrament of the blood of Christ, is after a sort his blood: so the sacrament of faith, namely baptism, is faith. Whereby S. Austen exemplifieth that which he had said before, that sacraments because of their resemblance take the names of the things whereof they are sacraments. For even so the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, is after a sort, that is, by resemblance the body and blood of Christ: not verily and indeed then, but after a sort and by resemblance, and so by resemblance called the body and the blood of Christ: for as the sacrament of the body, is the body, so the sacrament of faith, is faith. The sacrament of faith, is not faith indeed, but by questions and answers of faith, it betokeneth the faith of Christian men. So therefore the sacrament of the body, is not indeed the body, but betokeneth the body of Christ that was given for us, and so because of this resemblance is called the body. And this is the manner or sort of which S. Austen speaketh, not a manner of real being, but a manner of speaking and sacramental betokening. As for that which the Answ. saith, to note that manner that the sacrament is invisibly but yet truly the body, and so a memory, that it is the thing itself, S. Austen acknowledgeth no such matter, nay it is contrary to the whole drift and purpose of S. Austin's speech. And beside it is unreasonable and absurd, that the same thing should be the sacrament, and the thing itself, the sign and the thing signified: the memorial and the thing remembered: neither hangeth it together by any better reason, then as if a man should be said to be his own father, or a husband to be a husband in respect of himself, or a Prince to be a Prince unto himself, and so to be both Prince and subject. Every child knoweth that the sacrament of Christ's body, is the visible sign of Christ's body, as all sacraments are visible signs: and the visible sign of Christ's body is not the body itself. Therefore the sacrament of Christ's body is not the body itself: Yea, S. Austin's saying as is before alleged that the sacrifice of the Church consisteth of 
c De conse. dist. 2. cap. Ho● est.  two things: the sacrament which is the visible element, and the matter of the sacrament which is the body of Christ, maketh it plain enough that he took the sacrament of Christ's body, and the body itself to be two things, and not one, as the Answ. absurdly conceiveth. But yet he taketh upon him to prove this absurdity by S. Austen himself, and allegeth certain words, by which he would have me to understand this place which hath been already spoken of. The words are thus: 
d De conse. dist. 2. cap. Hoc est.  It is his flesh which we receive in the sacrament covered in the form of bread, and his blood which we drink under the form and savour of wine. Namely flesh is a sacrament of flesh, and blood is a sacrament of blood. By the flesh and blood, both visible, spiritual, and intelligible, is signified the visible and palpable body of our Lord jesus Christ, full of the grace of all virtues, etc. Now of these words the Answ. as some other of his fellows do, maketh a monstrous conclusion, as if Christ had two kinds of flesh at one and the same time, one visible, another invisible: one in heaven, another in earth: 
e Tho. Aqui. Par. 3. qu. 76. art. 3.  one having the due proportion of a body, the other without all proportion, and having no difference of head or feet, or any other parts: one the same as it was borne of the virgin Mary: the other like to the fantasy of Martion and the Manichees, of the nature of a spirit, 
f Ibid art. 4.  whole in the whole cake, and whole in every part of the cake, so that though it be broken into a thousand pieces, yet every one of them hath the whole body of Christ. But we believe not any such fantastical body of Christ: we read only of a true and substantial body, wherein he is like unto us, wherein he sitteth at the right hand of God 
g August. Ep.▪ ad Darda. 57 & in joh. tr. 30.  in some one place of heaven, as S. Austen noteth, and is there contained, by reason of the manner of a true body, until he come to judge the quick and the dead, at which time he shall come in the same form and substance of his body, in which he went from hence, to which we believe he hath given immortality, but hath not taken from it the nature of a body, that it should be any where in that manner as the Answ. and his fellows. Marcion-like do teach. We say as Vigilius also saith: 
h 〈…〉 con. 〈◊〉  the flesh of Christ when it was upon the earth, was not in heaven, and now because it is in heaven, surely it is not on the earth. As for the words which he allegeth, I marvel how he can make them good to be S. Austin's. In all S. Austin's works extant, they are not found. They are cited out of the sentences of Prosper, and there they are not. Beda hath many fragments of Austen, but not a word of this. 
i L 〈…〉 de sacra. Eucha.  Lanfrancus useth them as his own words without any quotation of Austen, and that writing against Berengarius where he would surely have countenanced them with the name of Austen if they had been his. The truth is for aught that I can perceive, Lanfrancus is the author of them, and they are his ill-favoured answer to Berengarius his allegation of S. Austin's words which we have now in hand. Yet because Gratian by error 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 never spoke, I will do the answer. that courtesy to take them for S. Austin's words, only so that he will not make S. Austen in this point to be at bate with himself. First therefore according to the doctrine of S. Austen and all others who have defined what sacraments be, they are always 
k Aug decate chi●rud. ca 26.  visible signs, and therefore to be discerned with the sense. For, 
l De d●ct. C 〈…〉 l. 2. cap 1.  a sign saith the same S. Austen, is a thing which beside the show that it offereth to the senses, causeth by it somewhat else to come into the mind and understanding. In sacraments therefore being signs, 
m ●x ser. ad infan. Beda. 1. Cor. 10. Cō●. Maximi. Aria. lib. 3. cap. 22.  one thing is seen, another thing is understood by that which is seen; & therefore again doth he call the sacrament 
n In johan. tra. 80.  a visible word, because the visible creature being consecrated to the sacramental use, doth in the use thereof after a sort, set before our eyes that which the word of God delivereth to our ears, yea and doth as it were speak unto us also to admonish and put us in mind of the things thereby so signified. Now S. Austen doth very precisely put difference 
o De consecr. di. 2. cap. Hoc est.  betwixt the sacrament which is the visible sign, and the thing or matter of the sacrament; 
p In joh. tr. 26  so that in diversity of sacraments, yet the matter of the sacrament, that is, the thing signified may be the same, and 
q Ibid.  a man may be partaker of the sacrament or sign, and yet have no benefit at all of the thing signified. Notwithstanding by reason of that relation which by the word of God is wrought betwixt the sacramental sign, and the thing thereby signified, 
r Epist. 23. & in quaest. super Levit. q. 75.  the sign or sacrament, as hath been before said, doth usually take unto it the name of the thing signified; as 
s De consecr. dist. 2. cap. utrum sub.  Gratian noteth again under S. Austin's name, that the name of the body of Christ, is given not only to the very body, but also to the figure thereof, which is outwardly perceived. But what shall we take this figure of the body to be by S. Austin's judgement? Marry, saith he, 
t Ex ser. ad infan. Beda. 2. Cor. 10.  that which you see, is bread, as your eyes also tell you: which words the answer. hath left unanswered, as also the other 
v De conse. dist. 2. cap. Hoc est.  that the sacrament containeth the nature and truth of the visible element. But by those words S. Austen referreth us to our eyes, and willeth us to believe our eyes that it is verily bread. Now then seeing that by his judgement a sacrament is a visible sign, and the visible sign in the lords supper is bread, how may it stand with his doctrine that the flesh covered▪ in the form of bread, is a sacrament of the flesh, & the blood under the form of wine, is a sacrament of the blood, and that by the invisible flesh is signified the visible body of Christ. Surely if we take flesh to signify truly and properly flesh, this standeth not with S. Austin's grounds. For seeing flesh is not visible in the sacrament, neither is there any appearance thereof to the sense: nay it is called here invisible flesh, it cannot be said to be a sacrament, that is, a visible thing. Therefore we must seek another meaning of the words, flesh and blood, according to the other rule, whereby the outward elements take unto them the names of the things represented by them. By flesh and blood than we understand the visible elements which are called by these names, and that not only for that they do signify the true flesh and blood of Christ, but also as 
w August. ser. ad in●an. abud Bed. 1. cor. 10.  touching the spiritual fruit, as S. Austen speaketh: in 
x Ambros. de sacram. lib. 6. cap. 1.  grace and virtue, as saith saint Ambros: 
y Cypria de caena d 〈…〉. & de resu●. chri.  concerning the invisible efficiency and virtue, as Cyprian speaketh, are the same to the faith of the receiver; according to that which Gratian saith, concerning a prayer of the Church, craving to receive the truth of the flesh and blood of Christ, that some not 
z De cons●cr. dist. 2 cap. species.  without probable reason did expound that truth of the flesh and blood of Christ, to be the very efficiency or working thereof, that is, the forgiveness of sins. Now because the visible element which is thus called flesh is no such thing in outward appearance, neither hath any show of this virtue: therefore it is said to be flesh covered in the form of bread, invisible, spiritual, a matter of understanding. For sacraments contain those things which they contain, not openly but covertly; not in appearance of the things themselves, but under the signs of the visible elements, not visibly and corporally and to be perceived with the eye, but invisibly and spiritually, and to be conceived with the understanding. Where I make not that containing or covering or being under, a physical or local matter, but I mean it; partly in respect of signification (in which manner saint Austen saith that 
a August. de catechi. rud. cap. 4.  in the old Testament, the new was hidden, and that 
b Ibid epis. 89.  the incarnation of Christ was covered or hidden in the time of the old Testament; the reason of which manner of speech, he elsewhere maketh to be this, 
c Ibid. de Bapti●mo. count Donat. lib. 1. cap. 15.  because it was hiddenly signified. So he saith again that Christ did 
d abide in joh. tra. 2●.  cover grace in those words which he used in the sixth of john, of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, meaning that he did obscurely signify the same. To this purpose Bertram saith, as touching the sacrament, that it 
e Bert. de co●. & sang. domi.  showeth one thing without in figure, but within it doth represent another, through the understanding of faith:) partly in respect of the secret & invisible working of the spirit of God, 
f Cypria. de caena domini.  whose divine majesty, as Cyprian speaketh, doth never absent itself from the holy mysteries, but doth, though without appearing to the eye, hiddenly work the effect of that which is signified. Thus we may say as touching Baptism, that it is the blood of Christ covered or hidden in the visible element of water that doth cleanse us from our sins. In which manner, the council of Nice saith. 
g council. Nice. In fine ex cut. h●r. Tonstallo. To. 1. council.  Our Baptism must be considered, not with bodily eyes, but with the eyes of the mind. Thou seest water, but consider the power of God, covered or lying hidden in the water. Think the water to be full of the sanctification of the holy Ghost, and of divine fire. And thus doth chrysostom declare the nature of all Christian mysteries, in which, saith he, 
h Chrys. in 1. cor. hom. 7.  we see not that which we believe, but we see one thing and believe another, and therefore the believing man is otherwise affected in them, than the infidel. For, saith he, the infidel hearing of the water of Baptism, thinketh it to be merely water, but I do not simply see that which I see, but I behold it in the cleansing of the soul through the holy Ghost. Hereupon he compareth these mysteries to books, which an unlearned man taketh, and seeth the letters, but understandeth nothing thereof. But one that is learned findeth great matter laid up or covered, and hidden in them: so the infidel hearing of our mysteries, seemeth not to hear them, but the expert Christian beholdeth great virtue in the things that are hidden in them. Thus things which are signified by our mysteries are said to be covered & hidden in them, because they are not perceived with the bodily eye, but only with the eye of the faithful and believing mind The meaning then of the words above named according to the doctrine of S. Austen, must be thus: that in the sacrament of the flesh and blood of Christ, it is not mere bread & wine that we receive, but it is in understanding and spiritual grace and blessing the flesh and blood of Christ, not appearing so to the sense, which discerneth only bread and wine, but yet, as in all other mysteries of Christian Religion, so in this faith beholdeth heavenly grace covertly and hiddenly contained through the holy Ghost, and by the visible elements perceiveth the inward force of the flesh and blood of jesus Christ. The reason whereof, is because the visible signs which bear the name of the flesh, and blood of Christ, are Sacraments, and therefore not only have the name, but contain the force and power of that true flesh and blood of Christ where in he suffered for our sins. And so by these visible things which thus invisibly, spiritually, and only by way of understanding and mystery, are the flesh and blood of Christ, is signified that true body of Christ which is visible, palpaple, full of grace, virtue, majesty, and glory. No other meaning can the Answ. make of these words by S. Austen, unless he will contrary those generally received grounds which Saint Austen setteth down: and surely hard it is to find in Austen that Christ hath one body visible, palpable, full of grace, virtue, majesty, and glory, another not so, as these words import, if they be understood as the Answerer taketh them. And if he will have the word Form, as I know his meaning is, to import such empty forms as he maketh, without substance, S. Austen will deny him that, for that he maketh it the general name of the outward sign in all Sacraments, when he defineth a Sacrament thus: 
i De co 〈…〉. 〈◊〉. dist. ●. ca ●●r.  It is a visible form of invisible grace. But now if I seem partial in expounding these words, let the same Saint Austen as Gratian citeth him, even in the very next words justify this exposition. For thus he saith: 
k Ibid. cap. Hoc est.  The heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is in it manner called the body of Christ, whereas it is indeed the Sacrament of his body, even of that body which being visible and palpable was put upon the Cross, 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 mystery. Where S. Austen plainly calleth the heavenly bread of the Sacrament the flesh of Christ, yet not as being flesh verily and indeed, for than it should truly & properly be called the body of Christ. But now it is so called, but only in it manner, whereas it is indeed but a Sacrament of his body, which manner he declareth in the other point to be not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery. And if I be partial here also, let the gloze expound it: 
l Ibid in Glo●.  The heavenly bread, that is, the heavenly Sacrament which doth truly represent the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ, but unproperly. Whereupon it is said, in it manner, & not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery; that the meaning may be thus: It is called the body of Christ, that is, the body of Christ is signified. If this will not serve, let him hear also the master of the sentences, whom he may not dislike, unless he can say: Hic magister non tenetur. He having set down the words which the Answ. urgeth, saith thus: 
m Sent. lib. 4. dist. 10.  Mark here diligently that S. Austen here useth a trope or figure, whereby the signs do bear the name of the things signified by them. For here the visible form of bread is called by the name of flesh, and the visible form of wine by the name of blood. Now it is called the invisible and intelligible flesh of Christ, because according to that form, flesh is not seen, but understood, and so the blood. Therefore the invisible flesh is said to be a sacrament of the visible flesh, because the form of bread according to which that flesh is not seen, is a sacrament of the visible flesh; because by the invisible flesh, that that is, by the form, 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 form. To this he addeth out of the other words of Austen, that the bread is called the body, being indeed the sacrament of the body of Christ, not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery, and so maketh S. Austen to expound that which before he saith, he had obscurely spoken. Thus the Answ. own doctors though otherwise friends to transubstantiation, yet do justify my exposition of this place, and make it manifest, that though the place be obscure at first sight, yet by the common grounds of divinity it cannot be construed so, as that transubstantiation may necessarily be proved thereby. Therefore I say still with Austen that the sacrament of the body of Christ, is only after a certain manner the body of Christ, namely, not properly, not in the truth of the thing, as the Answerer avoucheth: but only in a signifying mystery betokening the same.    

P. Spence. Sect. 14.  
FOr your place of chrysostom. The bread is vouchsafed the name of the body, etc. For as for the place of S. Cypr. lib. 2. Epis. 6. is such as deserveth no answer, 
a Cyprian. saith that Christ called the bread▪ made of many grains his body, etc. It is very bread therefore which is called the body.  only telling you that the bread whereof the sacrament was made, was compact of many grains, and the wine pressed forth of many grapes, which no baker nor vintner will deny, which is smally to this purpose: the place I say of Chrysost. only flattereth you, with these words. 
b The words which I alleged are thus: The bread is vouchsafed the name 〈◊〉 the ●ody o● christ.  The nature of bread remaineth. Why sir? who denieth that the natural properties of colour, shape, taste, and feeding remain? no Catholic I am sure, so that you see your testimony out of him maketh not against us, nor availeth you any more than the painted fire warmed the old woman. But the places of chrysostom proving the real presence are so infinite, that infinite madness it were (M. Abbot) and far surmounting your Athenians madness, to hazard my soul upon such a testimony as saith nothing against me.  

R. Abbot. 14.  
IN the places which I alleged of Cyprian, chrysostom, and Theodoret the Answ. heart without doubt failed him. For he saw it plainly evicted and proved by them, and that so as that he knew there was nothing for him to answer directly to the words that it is bread which in the sacrament is called the body of Christ, and wine which is called his blood. Yet being vowed and sworn to his own error, he will rather do or say any thing then yield unto the truth. The places of Theodoret, he leaveth out quite, who affirmeth that Christ honoured the visible signs with the name of his body and blood; that he made exchange of names, and gave to his body the name of the sign, and to the sign the name of his body. To the places of Cyprian and chrysostom, he writeth somewhat, but answereth nothing. He taketh that which was not urged, and that which was to the point in question he slippeth by. Let him remember what S. Austen saith; 
a Aug. quaest. ex yet. ●●st. q. 14.  He which concealeth the words of the matter in question, is either an ignorant person or a wrangler, studying rather for cavillinges then for doctrine.  
The words of Cyprian are thus: 
b Cypri lib. 1. Epist. 6.  Our Lord calleth bread made by the uniting of many corns, his body; and wine pressed out of many clusters and grapes, he calleth his blood. To this he saith childishly and vainly, that it only proveth that bread is made of many corns, and wine of many grapes, showing plainly that he made no conscience of his answer, but was desirous to credit himself by writing somewhat howsoever. But let Cyprian be further asked: what is it that Christ calleth his body? He saith, it is bread. What is it that Christ calleth his blood? It is wine. Christ calleth the bread his body, and the wine his blood. Now if there be neither bread nor wine in the sacrament, as the Answ. and his fellows teach, than Christ cannot call the bread his body, nor the wine his blood. But because Christ calleth the bread his body, and the wine his blood: therefore the meaning of these words, This is my body, This is my blood, is thus: This bread is my body, This wine is my blood. And because in proper speech that cannot be true (for so it 
c De consecr. dist. 2▪ ca panis est.  is unpossible, as the gloze of the canon law saith, that bread should be the body of Christ:) therefore it must be figuratively understood: This bread is the sign and sacrament of my body, etc. To this the words alleged out of chrysostom are very pregnant: 
d Chrysost. ad Caesat. Monachum.  The breadis vouchsafed the name of the body of Christ. Why doth the Answ. smother up these words, and talk 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 chrysostom, that after consecration it is bread which beareth the name of the body of Christ, and let his own conscience tell him whether that be any thing against him or not, when as he and his company say, there is no bread remaining after consecration. chrysostom saith: The bread is vouchsafed the name of the body of Christ. The Papist saith: There is no bread, but the very body of Christ itself. As for his construction of the nature of bread remaining, that is, the colour, shape, taste, and feeding, without any substance of bread: it maketh chrysostom to speak fond as himself useth to do, namely thus: The bread is vouchsafed the name of Christ's body, although there be no bread. His infinite testimonies out of chrysostom, to prove the real presence are just never a one. He decei●●eth himself for want of the knowledge of that rule, which chrysostom himself giveth him upon these words of Christ, 
e chries. in joh. hom. 46.  The flesh profiteth nothing. He meaneth it not, saith he, of the flesh itself; God forbidden. But of those which carnally and fleshly understand those things which are spoken. And what is it to understand carnally? Marry, simply as things are spoken, and not to bethink any thing else. For these things must not be judged of as they seem, but all mysteries are to be considered with the inward eyes, that is to say, spiritually. The forging of this lesson maketh the Answ. to play the Athenian mad man, so that wheresoever he heareth of the body of Christ in the sacrament, he dreameth of his real and carnal presence; wheresoever he readeth of eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of Christ, he imagineth his carnal and Capernaitish feeding. But let him understand chrysostom by Chrysostom's own rule, and he shall find nothing in him to stand him in any steed for these gross conceits.    

P. Spence. Sect. 15.  
YOur place of S. Cyprian, Our Lord gave at his supper bread and wine, etc. De unctio. Chrismat. Besides many other places of S. Cyprian proving the real presence: mark this place unmaymed, and tell me what you think of it, and how you 
a I like it very well: for he saith plainly that Christ at his last supper gave to his disciples with his own hands bread and wine.  like it. But yet you make me marvel what you make in this Sermon prowling for a testimony, where the Sermon itself is wholly against you: have you in your church the use 
b We neither have it nor care to have it, because christ hath not taught.  of Chrism so much in this sermon commended▪ have you retained 
c D●gma tuum ●●rdet, cum te tua cu●pa remordet.  any shadow of the public and general reconciliation of sinners spoken of him in this Sermon, done by the Church with music and common jubilations, and rejoicings of the whole multitude in their reconciliation; as here S. Cyprian, if you will admit him for the author of these Sermons, wonderful gallantly setteth out. And withal do ye like of this thing (M. Abbot) that he saith that it was done in that time by public order of the Church, when Christ as he uttereth it, brought out the prisoners from hell. Or as he saith a little before, when as descending to hell he turned the old captivity, and led it captive? Or do you like of this point, that he left this example to his Church by tradition, yet continuing that there should be in the Church absolution of sinners? Think you Christ descended into hell? I doubt you do not, except in that most pitiful damnable sort (to speak no worse of it) which 
d It is horror to the Papist, which is the special comfort of a true christian man.  with horror I must remember, that he should suffer hell torments himself upon the Cross. What meant you then to put us in mind of this book so much condemning your practices, and so notoriously testifying the ancient custom of hallowing of the oil upon this time of Christ's passion, to serve for all the year after? And yet the fathers forsooth are yours against us. I oppose nothing but wish to be quiet, else you might hear whether they speak for us. Thus then to the place: he had showed before that the Sacraments, (one of the which he maketh unction by express word,) do work our joining to Christ: & for that conjunctions sake he inferreth: Our Lord then at the table where he eat his last supper with his Apostles, gave with his own hands bread and wine, but upon the cross he yielded his body to be wounded by the hands of the soldiers. But why? or how? to give them bare bread? no: But ●hat sincere truth, and true sincerity, being more secretly imprinted in the Apostles, should declare unto the nations: What? that the Sacraments were bare 
e Not so, but that being in t●en own nature, but only common creatures: ●read & wine, yet by grace and by the word of God they are to our faith not only in name, but in power the flesh & blood of christ, the pledges of the grace of God, the assurances of our immortality, the seals of our redemption, and as it were vessels wherein God setteth before us all his promises of blessings that we may receive and enjoy the same.  bread and wine? a deep high point forsooth in such secret figurative sort to be showed: No (M. Abbot) they should show the nations How wine and bread are the flesh and blood, and in what sort the causes agree to the effects, and divers names or kinds are reduced or brought to one essence. Do you hear essence? they be brought to one essence, or one substance: (help that sore if you can with all your cunning:) and the signs and the things signified, are reckoned by the same names. And he hath told you why they should be called by one name, because (as he said before with the same breath) they were brought to one essence. In the next period he termeth the Sacrament 
f Not because of the substance of i●, but because of the mystery and signification.  the tree of life. Read what our side doth tell you upon this and infinite such places in their books: which my simpleness is not worthy to bear or touch: and yet you oppose me & will mine answers as though the credit of the cause hanged wholly upon my small skill and learning: or as though I must not believe the Catholic religion except I were a doctor in the same.  

R. Abbot. 15.  
THe Answerer being wearied as it seemeth with the evidence of the testimonies cited against him, and therefore desirous to take breath a while, maketh an idle vagary in answering this place of 
a c●prian. de unct. chri●matis.  Cyprian, and urgeth me with other matters contained and commended in that sermon, which he saith are not used or received in our Church, as Chrism, absolution, the descending of Christ into hell. But I marvel whether he were well advised or not, when he wrote these things, or whether he understood what Cyprian said. To answer to them in order: First he demandeth: Have you in your Church the use of Chrism so much in this sermon commended? He bringeth no reason whereby to prove any necessity of Chrism, and therefore it may be sufficient to answer him with the like demand: Have you in your Church of Room the custom of washing each others feet upon maundy thursday so much commended in this sermon, and which you are here told that Christ 
b H●● sole●●i d 〈…〉 tione omni tempore a●endum instituit.  instituted to be always done with solemn devotion, in the use whereof Saint 
c Ambros. de sacram. lib. 3. cap. 1.  Ambrose also thought that his church of Milan did more rightly, than the old church of Room in not using it: He will say the they have lawfully refused this. We say that we have as lawfully refused the other. These were arbitrary and indifferent ceremonies, taken up by the will of men, and by the will of men▪ and by the liberty of men to be refused again. 
d Sta●ulen. in D●oni. Account. Eccle. Hiera●.  Stapulensis upon Dyonisius noteth many ceremonies observed in the ancient Churches, that are now omitted in the Church of Room. Though the Church of Rome were as sound as ever she was, that we might say as Ambrose said; that 
e Ambros de sacra. li●. 3. cap 1.  we desire in all thing, to follow the Church of Room, yet we would say as he addeth; We are men too, that have judgement and understanding, as well as they of Rome, and have as great liberty in using or not using ceremonies as they have. Secondly, he asketh me; Have you retained any shadow of the public and general reconciliation of sinners spoken of in this sermon, etc. Let him turn the words, and suppose me demanding of him the same question concerning the Church of Room. Verily she hath it not: she hath no show nor shadow of it: neither the manner, nor the matter of it. The Answ. in upbraiding our Church with the want hereof, doth much more lay open the shame and reproach of his own friends. The Church of Room is she that hath broken the bonds of all discipline, and made a mockery of all religion: in steed of absolving men, she hath bound them faster: in steed of reconcilement to God, she hath thrust them further off from God. Whatsoever defect or want our Church hath in this be half, it is but asker of that wound, wherewith the Church of Room had wounded us, and as a weakness remaining after a grievous and deadly sickness from whence we have not as yet been able perfectly to recover ourselves. But thanks be unto God that we have before us the substance of true absolution and reconciliation in the word of the gospel, which the Church of Room withholdeth from her Children. We preach to the repentant absolution and atonement with God by the blood of jesus Christ; whereby they find comfort, and release from the bonds of their sins, and give glory unto God. Whereas the Church of Room giving men ashes in steed of bread, and setting before them the superstitious devices of men in steed of the sovereign blood of Christ: and mocking them with the supposed absolving words of a grumbling Popish Priest in steed of the comfort of the gospel of Christ, leaveth them either senseless, and not feeling their own estate, or restless and unquiet whilst in the absolutions of sinful men they find no assured trust of being absolved and pardoned with God.  
Concerning the descending of Christ into hell, I doubt not but he speaketh what he thinketh, but understandeth not what he speaketh, nor what he ought to think. The judgement of learned and godly men, both old and new are very diverse, as touching the meaning of this point. I prejudicate not the judgement of any man that hath not in it a prejudice against the word of God. For my part I embrace it as an article of the creed, and I take it that I am to conceive every article of the creed, as importing somewhat that entirely and properly concerneth myself, either as touching my creation or salvation. And therefore I simply reject as a mere fancy, 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 salvation, it may be justified that Christ in soul descended to the very place of hell, as the very letter of the article doth import, I willingly subscribe the same. In the mean time that which the Answ. cavilleth at, which some learned men have delivered for the meaning of Christ's 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 containeth the certain & undoubted truth of the word of God, and particularly toucheth the redemption of mine own soul. We believe by the word of God, that jesus Christ the son of God, is our redeemer not only in his body, but also in his soul; that in both he hath paid a price for us, 
f Irene. adu. har. lib. 5.  giving, as Ireneus speaketh, his soul for our souls, and his flesh for our flesh: not only his flesh or body for our bodies, but his soul also for our souls. The scripture justifieth so much: He shall give 
g Esa. 33. 10.  his soul an offering for sin. The story of the passion of Christ justifieth the same, where before any thing ailed him as touching any bodily pain, he is described unto us 
h Mat. 26. 37.  to be sorrrowful & grievously troubled: 
i Mar. 14. 33.  to be afraid & in great heaviness: 
k Luc. 22. 44.  to be in an agony, yea such an agony, and so beyond measure afflicting him, that the sweat was like drops of blood, trickling from him down to the ground: that the father thought it expedient to send 
l v. 43.  an angel from heaven to comfort him: that he was driven to cry ●ut; 
m Math. 26. 3●. 3●.  My soul is heavy even unto the death: father if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. To refer these speeches and affections to any bod●●y sufferings were fond and childish, sith as yet he suffered nothing in body, but as he himself expressly teacheth, they are to be construed immediately of the passion and sufferings of his soul. Therefore Hierome saith: 
n Hieron. i● E●a ●●.  That which we should have suffered for our sins, he suffered in our behalf, etc. Whereby it is manifest that as his body being scourged and rend, did bear the signs of that injury in stripes and blueness of wounds, so his soul also did verily suffer grief for us, lest that partly a truth, & partly a lie should be believed in Christ. Whereby he testifieth that Christ suffered for us, both in body and soul, and even that that we should have suffered for our sins; and that if he coming in the nature of man to suffer for us, had suffered only in body, it should be in part a lie which we believe of his suffering for us, because as touching his soul it should not be true. S. Ambrose hereof saith thus: 
o Ambr●s. ●n Luc. ca 22. l●●. 1●. & de fide ad Grati. lib. 2. cap. 3.  He laboured in his passion with deep affection, that because he destroyed our sins in his flesh, he might also by the anguish of his soul abolish the anguish of our souls. Which as it appeareth by those speeches already mentioned at the first entrance of his passion, so it is further most effectually showed, by his crying with a loud voice upon the cross: My 
p Math. 27. 4●  God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. A mystery, the depth whereof, the very Angels themselves are not able thoroughly to search, that the son of God should be humbled so far for our sakes, as to be for the time in our forlorn and desperate state under the burden of the wrath of God, to feel his father's indignation 
q 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 mean time holding fast still upon God to be his God, who would bring him back from these gates of death, when he had finished the work that was given him to do, but yet feeling nothing for the present, whereby he might appear to be his God. But what can I say more of this speech of Christ then Ferus hath said, a man by profession of the church of Room: yet in many things not so gross as Romanists commonly are. Writing upon these words of Christ, he saith thus: 
r Ferus in Matt 27.  Here God the father dealeth with Christ, not as a father, but as a tyrant, although he be in the mean time of most loving affection towards him. This Christ's being forsaken is the dread of our conscience for our sins, feeling the judgement of God, and his eternal wrath: and is so affected, as if it were for ever forsaken and rejected from the face of God. Christ of his mercy put himself into our cause, and undertook the punishment that we had deserved. Therefore on the one side we see the people reviling him, the Pharisees blaspheming him, etc. On the other side we see God as an adversary forsaking him; so that he crieth out, why hast thou forsaken me. Christ to deliver sinners, set himself in place of all sinners, not playing the thief, or adulterer. &c: but transferring unto himself the stipend and wages, the punishment and desert of sinners, as cold, heat, hunger, thirst, fear, trembling, the horror of death, the horror of hell, despair, death, hell itself, that by fear he might overcome fear, by horror, despair, death, hell, might overcome horror, despair, death, hell, and in a word by Satan might overcome Satan. Thus by the testimony of one of their own Prophets, it is justified that Christ jesus suffered not only a bodily death, but also in his soul the weight of his father's indignation, and the very horror of hell itself, when he cried out and complained in that manner as hath been declared. And this is that which the scripture meaneth when it saith that 
s Gal. 3. 13.  Christ was made a curse for us to deliver us from the curse. For as to be made sin for us, importeth that he did bear the punishment of our sins, so to be made a curse for us, importeth that he did bear the burden of our curse, that is to say, the full measure of the wrath of God, that otherwise should have lighted upon us. The father's thought no less, when they construed the 88 Psalm, or the 87. as they reckon it to be the description of the passion of Christ. Where we read thus: 
t Psal. 88 7. 1. 16.  Thine indignation is set against me, or lieth hard upon me, and thou hast vexed me with all thy storms. Lord why abhorrest thou my soul? Thy wrathful displeasure goeth over me, and the fear of thee hath undone me. So is that Psal. applied by 
u Athan. de interpret. Psalm. Arnob. & Hieron. in psal. 87.  Athanasius, Arnobius, and Hierome. Austen also calleth the same 
w August. in Psalm. 87.  a song of the passion of Christ, though turning the words alleged to another intention than they do manifestly intimate unto us. Athanasius referring himself to those words; Thy fury or indignation is set against me, saith, 
x Athanas. de inter. Psal.  Christ died not for that he was guilty of sin himself, but he suffered for us, and in himself did bear the wrath that was conceived against us for sin: even as he saith elsewhere: 
y Idem in evangel de pas. & cruce domi.  that he took the bitterness of that wrath which arose by the transgression of the law, and swallowed it up and so made it void. So 
z Hieron. in Psal. 87.  Hierome bringeth in our Saviour, speaking out of these former words of the Psalm in this sort: Thou hast brought upon me that wrath and storm of thy fury and indignation, which thou wouldst have powered out upon the nations, because I have taken upon me their sins: Yea Hilary though 
a Hilar. de Trinit. lib▪ 10.  elsewhere in heat of contention with an heretic he seem utterly to deny all passion and suffering of Christ, whose very opinion in effect, I take it to be which 
b Ambros. in Luc. cap. 22. lib. 10.  S. Ambros reproveth, writing upon Luke; yet in his more advised speech of Sermon upon one of the Psalms, he giveth a notable testimony to this truth: Christ 
c Hilar. in Psa. 68  became subject to the death of the Cross, the waters coming in even unto his soul, when the violence of all sufferings beak forth, even to the death of the soul. By and by after he showeth his mind more plainly: He descended even to the depth, not of the flesh only, but of death itself: and all the terror of that tempest which raged against us, lighted upon him. Thus therefore it is evident, both by the authority of the scriptures, and by the consent of the ancient fathers that Christ suffered for us not only in body, but also in soul, & that his suffering in soul was the enduring of the uttermost of that tempest of the wrath of God, which should have fallen upon us for sin. Which indeed should have oppressed us infinitely and without end, because the infinite majesty of God, whom we had offended, required an infinite satisfaction for the offence, and the same could not be yielded by us, but by infinite and endless bearing of his wrath. But it neither would nor might hold Christ in that sort, because the infiniteness of the time was recompensed by the infiniteness of the person, who was not only man but God also. Now whereas it is urged that one drop of the blood of Christ, was sufficient to redeem the world, I answer that it is folly hereof to conclude, that he suffered not in his soul for us, and with as good reason they may conclude, that he was not crowned with thorns, spitted upon, mocked and reviled, etc. Yea the he died not at all, nor shed any more but one drop of blood. We are not to stand upon the fancies of men what they will think enough to redeem us, but we must learn in the word of God, what the Lord hath done for us, that we may accordingly admire his mercy and goodness, and sing thanks and praises unto him. Now that thus Christ descended into hell, I know: that otherwise he descended into hell, though I stand not to deny it, yet I dare not affirm it: Neither is it any pitiful & damnable and horrible matter to avouch this, but it is a truth to be professed, and comfortable to be believed, and the answer. in so condemning it, doth but as S. Peter saith 
d ●. Pet. 2. 12.  speak evil of those things which he knoweth not. Now by this descending of Christ into hell, he hath set us free, who were otherwise prisoners of hell and bondslaves to the devil, and so according to the words of Cyprian, he hath turned our captivity, wherewith we were taken of old, by the transgression of our father Adam, and hath dispatched from us the torments of hell, whereunto we were enthralled. Now to what purpose did the answer. allege these words of Cyprian, or what advantage doth he dream he hath in them: He would find his Limbus patrum here, but it will not be. For Cyprian speaketh expressly of deliverance from hell torments, whereof there are none in Limbo patrum, as his masters 
e Rhem. Annot Luc. 16. 26  of Rheims do instruct him. Now having used this peevish and impertinent talk of things making nothing at all for his purpose, yet as a man in a dream, he breaketh out into this fond presumption, that the fathers are all theirs, and that I should hear but that he is not disposed to oppose. I have not to do with master Spence, I perceive but with a man well seen in all the fathers. But the fathers are his, as they were his that said, Ego 
f Dioscorus the heretic. Concil. Chalcedo. Act. 1.  cum patribus eijcior. The fathers and I are cast out both together. And that appeareth in the words of Cyprian now to be handled. 
g Cyprian. de unct. chris.  Our Lord, saith he, at the table where he kept his last supper with his Apostles, gave with his own hands bread and wine, but upon the cross he yielded his body to the Soldiers hands to be wounded, that sincere truth and true sincerity being secretly imprinted in his Apostles, might declare to the nations how bread and wine are his flesh and blood; and how causes agree to the effects, and divers names or kinds are reduced to one essence or substance, and the things signifying, and the things signified are counted by the same names. Where it is plainly avouched that Christ at his last supper gave bread & wine. What needeth any more? Yea but did Christ give bare bread and wine, saith the Answ. absurdly and frowardly? No say I, for this bread and wine is the flesh and blood of Christ, as I before alleged out of Cyprian, according to the which S. Paul saith, 
h 1. cor. 10. 16.  The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ. The cup of blessing is the communion of the blood of Christ. Therefore S. Austen calleth this bread, 
i August. de consecr. dist. 2. cap. Hoc est.  heavenly bread, and Theodoret 
k Theodoret. dial. 2.  the bread of life, and the same Cyprian saith that 
l Cypria. de resurrect chri.  that which is seen, namely the visible element of bread, is accounted both in name and virtue the body of Christ, namely because it containeth sacramentally the whole virtue and benefit of the passion and death of our Lord jesus Christ, as before I showed. But let him remember that Cyprian saith it is bread and wine, which is the flesh & blood of Christ, whereas by his defence there is in the Sacrament, neither bread nor wine. But Cyprian saith, that diverse names and kinds are reduced to one substance. Do you hear substance, saith the Answ. Help that sore if you can with all your cunning: surely small cunning will serve to heal a sore, where neither flesh nor skin is broken or bruised. This is in truth a very ignorant and blind opposition. The visible elements that are in substance bread and wine, are in mystery and signification, the body and blood of Christ, and are so called as Cyprian before setteth down. When therefore bread being one substance, is called not only according to his substance, bread: but also by way of Sacrament and mystery the body of Christ, when the wine being one substance, is called not only as it is, Wine, but also as it signifieth, the blood of Christ, diverse names or kinds are reduced to one substance. And this Cyprian declareth when he addeth; The signs and the things signified are called by the same names. The body of Christ itself, and the sign hereof which is bread, are both called the body. The blood of Christ, and the sign hereof which is wine, are both called his blood. The body and blood itself are so called indeed, and truth; but the signs in their manner, not in the truth of the thing▪ but in a signifying mystery: yet so one substance is called by divers names, as the words before do specify. Now the place of Cyprian being as clear as the sunne-light against transubstantiation, as every eye may perceive, yet the Answ. sendeth me to their learned treatises to see what is there said of this and other places. And what shall I find there but such wretched and miserable cavils and shifts, as he himself hath borrowed from them. And here, master Spence, as in your name he excuseth himself of his simpleness, and that he is no doctor: which accordeth not with his▪ vaunt before, that he could show me this and that out of the fathers. And I marvel that he should make excuse thus of his learning to a minister of our church, so mean as I am, seeing it is so peevishly bragged amongst you commonly, that there is little learning to be found amongst the best of us. Wheresoever he be, I wish that his conscience and truth towards God, were but even as much as his learning is.    

P. Spence. Sect. 16.  
THe same Cyprian you say, lib. 2. Epistola. 3. which is the famous Epistle, ad Caecilium, so much condemning you in so many points about the sacrifice of the Church, and of mixing of water, which he said assuredly Christ did: but I marvel you would for shame ever avouch it, or point me to it, (for 
a A Popish brag. See the answer to sect. 2.  every line of it is a knife to cut your throat.) You say that here S. Cyprian saith that it was wine which Christ called his blood: Much to your purpose (master Abbot.) Who doubteth yet but that he took wine and not ale, beer, sydar, metheglin, or such like matter? S. Cyprians meaning is most plain against the Aquarios, that it was 
b Did Christ call wine his blood, and yet d●d he mean that it was not wine.  wine (mingled with water, as in this Epistle he proveth notably) and not bare water as those Aquarij would have it, that he called his blood, that is to say, he took wine, and not bare water to make the Sacrament of: and what is this to your purpose? such testimonies are the father's scraps, parings, and crumbs, and not their sound testimonies.  

R. Abbot. 16.  
THe famous Epistle of Cyprian to Cecilius saith plainly; We 
a Cypr. lib. 2. Epist. 3.  find that it▪ was wine which Christ called his blood, as he saith twice beside in the same Epistle, that by wine is represented the blood of Christ. Yea saith the Answ. he meaneth that it was wine at the first which he took to make the Sacrament, but in being made the Sacrament, it was no longer wine, as if Cyprian had said thus: Christ took wine, and made it no wine, and though it were now no wine, yet he called wine his blood. Cyprians words are evident, that Christ called wine his blood, and that by wine is represented his blood, which cannot be till it be made a sacrament. Therefore in the Sacrament there is wine which representeth, and is called the blood of Christ: Such testimonies, he saith, are the scraps, and parings, and crumbs of the fathers. But let him remember that a crumb is enough to choke a man, and so doth this testimony choke him, so that he staggereth and stammereth out an answer; whereof he himself can make no reason, if he were inquired of it by word of mouth. His other idle talk is answered 
b Sect. 2.  before.    

Pet. Spence. Sect. 17.  
SAint Augustine, ad Adimantum maketh so flatly against you: that I wonder why you allege it. Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body. (Why should he doubt to say it was so, when he knew it was so)? when he gave the sign of his body. But what sign? a bare sign? no sir: but such a sign as contained in it the thing signified really, how prove you it▪ Even thus. He writeth against the Manichees that condemned all the old testament, as being the evil God's testament, (such was their vile blasphemy:) among other places they condemned this place of Leviticus 17. Sanguis pecoris erit eius a●ima. This place saith S. Augustine is spoken figuratively, not that it is the very soul or life of the beast, but that in it lieth the soul or life of the beast: neither is the blood a bare signification of the beasts soul, but such a sign as containeth in it the very soul of the beast, and therefore of the same speech he hath Quaestio. 57 in Leviticum, made particular discourse, where he hath these words. We are to seek out such speeches as by that which containeth do signify that which is contained, ●● because the life is holden in the body by the blood, (for if the blood be shed, the life or soul departeth) therefore by the blood is most f●●ly signified the soul, and the blood taketh the name thereof: even as the place wherein the Church assembled, is called the Church. You 
a I see the Answerer play with his own fancy altogether stran●e from S. Austen● meaning as shall be showed.  see he maketh in this place the blood of the beast a sign of the beasts soul, but such a sign as contained the soul in it. Now in the other place, ad Adimantum by you objected, S. Augustine forgot not this point of this place touched, but in excusing that place of Leviticus, and interpreting it, he exemplifieth it by the words of Christ, which they admitted all the sort of them, as being the words of the good God, of the new testament (as they termed him) saying: I may interpret that precept to be set down by way of sign. For our Lord doubted not to say, etc. So that this place is brought by S. Augustine, to show that in the B. Sacrament there is a sign, containing the thing, and therefore called by the name of the thing: so in that of Leviticus, Moses called the blood, the soul of the beast, because it is such a sign, as containeth the soul of the beast really in it. This exposition is irrefragable, because it is 
b Which S. Austen himself never dreamt of.  S. August▪ own exposition, who could best expound his own meaning. And against the Manichees he could not bring any other meaning possibly of This is my body, but that. For they confessed Christ to be really in the Sacrament in his body, because the evil God had tied him, or (as they foolishly uttered it) certain pieces of him, aswell in the Sacramental bread, as in other bread, ears of corn, sticks, herbs, meats, and all other creatures: and that the elect Manichees by eating those things, and after belching them out again, and otherwise avoiding them, did let out at liberty the good God Christ's body. And therefore after these expositions, agreeable to their heresy, this place did fitly (as S. Augustine bringeth it in) expound that of Leviticus. As Christ in saying, This is my body: must mean as you Manichees expound it, This is a sign of my body, in which sign the parts of my body are bound, even so the blood of the beast is the life, is as much as the blood of the beast is a sign of his life, in which sign his life is contained. Thus did S. Augustine excellently, quoad homines, answer the Manichees with their own opinion. And therefore to conclude S Augustine in calling it, signum doth infer most necessary that his body is present, because it is a sign, in which the body is contained.  

R. Abbot. 17.  
TO show further that our Saviour Christ said of very bread, This is my body, and therefore that the Sacrament is not really and substantially, but only in sign and mystery the body of Christ, I alleged the words of S. Austen; Our 
a August. count Adimantum. cap. 12.  Lord doubted not to say, This a is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. The words are plain, that Christ in a certain understanding and meaning called that by the name of his body, which is indeed but a sign of his body. Now with this place of Austen the Answ. dealeth as 
b Leu. deca. 1. lib. 1.  Cacus the thief dealt with Hercules his Oxen, when he drew them backward by the tails into his cave. So doth this man violently pull and draw the words of Austen backward into his den of real presence, and straingeth them whether they will or not to serve his turn in that behalf. But the lowing of the Oxen to their fellows descried the theft of Cacus, and the words following in S. Austen himself do prove that the Answ. doth but play the thief. M. Harding was content to say that S. Austen in heat of disputation spoke that which might be greatest advantage against the heretic, not most agreeable to the truth, or to his own meaning: but little did he think that the place should serve to prove any thing for his part. But the Answ. hath learned a trick to make the words speak for real presence, which never was in S. Austin's mind. Forsooth having in hand against the Manichees to expound the words of Moses law, The blood is the soul or life: he telleth them that the meaning thereof is, that the blood is a sign of life, in which sign, the soul or life is really contained, and to show this we are told that he bringeth the words of Christ, This is my body, which he spoke of the sign of his body: but yet such a sign as doth really contain the body, and therefore we must think that the body of Christ is really present, and contained in the Sacrament or sign of his body. Now this though it be a manifest untruth, yet the Answ. thought would carry some show of truth, but yet because he would not have us abused by this show, to think that S. Austen did here indeed avouch any real presence, or transubstantiation, he telleth us plainly in the end, that S. Austen spak● according to the Manichees exposition of Christ's words, and answered them by their opinion, not by his own. So that if S. Austen do say any thing of real presence, he noteth the Manichees opinion, but affirmeth it not himself, and therefore giveth us to understand that the Papists herein take part with the Manichees rather than with him. His answer in truth is false and absurd, and yet I would not that the reader should think it was devised by him, for he hath learned it of 
c Bellar. tom. 2. de sacram. Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 24.  Bellermine their great rabbin, and from him hath patched two answers into one. But the matter standeth thus. The Manichees condemned the old testament as false and contrary to the new testament. For in the new testament it is said, 
d Math 10. 28.  Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to hurt the soul, etc. Now in the old said they, it is written, the blood is the soul, and that is false: for the blood may be hurt and spilled as we know, but the soul cannot be hurt, as we read in the gospel. Again, the new testament saith that flesh 
e 1. cor. 15. 50.  and blood cannot enter into the kingdom of God. It is false therefore which the old testament saith that the blood is the soul, for then the soul should not enter into the kingdom of God. Therefore they blasphemously avouched that the old testament was false and not to be believed. To this cavillation of theirs, S. Austen answereth that these words of the old testament, The blood is the soul or life, were spoken of the life of beasts, not of the soul of man. Of beasts it is said that the life of all flesh is the blood thereof, not that man's soul is his blood. And therefore they reasoned absurdly from that which was spoken of beasts to that that was said of the soul of man. Further he answereth thus; I may also interpret that commandment (of not eating blood, because the blood is the soul or life) to be set down by way of sign. For our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body: signifying hereby that as Christ said in the new testament, This is my body, when as he gave not his body indeed, but only a sign of his body; so Moses said in the old testament, The blood is the life or soul, not because it is so indeed, but only because it was appointed for the sign of life: which is most evident against Transubstantiation and real presence. Nay, not so, saith the Answ. for the blood is such a sign as doth really contain the life, and so the sign of Christ's body must really contain the body; that the one sign may be answerable to the other. But let me ask him: doth the blood really contain the life when the thing is dead? or did either Moses or Austen intent to make the blood a sign of life, as the same blood is in the body, and the thing alive and whole? Was the Answ. well in his wits to send abroad such untowardly imaginations? or rather was not Bellermine a wretched, and lewd man to go about with such fictions to dazzle the eyes of his readers? The precept is concerning those things that are taken and killed for meat, that the blood thereof should not be kept and used for meat, because the blood 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 cold, whether alive or dead, it was not lawful for the jews to eat any blood at all. But if that speech had been used as in respect that the blood doth now really contain the life, they might have said when the thing was dead, that now th●y might ●ate the blood; for now the blood is not the life, because the life is gone, & is not really contained in it. God would have the blood, as touching the eating of it, to betoken life, and by this ceremonial commandment of abstinence from blood, he would give to understand how he hateth and detesteth savageness and cru●●ty: how he would have life to be regarded and favoured as of other his creatures according to their kind whereof Solomon speaketh thus, 
f Prou. 12. 10.  The righteous man regardeth the life of his beast, so especially of man whom he created according to his own image, concerning whom he speaketh in the first giving of this commandment, as it were to show the meaning and intent thereof: I 
g Gen. 9 5. 6.  will require your blood, wherein your lives are. Who so sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God created he him. Now in that other place which the Answ. citeth out of the questions upon Leviticus, S. Austen giveth reason why the life was signified by the blood rather than by any thing else: namely, because 
h Aug. quaest. sup. Levit. q. 57  the life is contained or holden in the body by the blood; so that the blood being shed, the life departeth, therefore the life was most fitly signified by the blood, and the blood did take the name of life. Which words do not signify that blood was a sign of life only as now really contained in it, as the Answ. fond imagineth, but that blood even of the things killed and dead was appointed to betoken and signify life, because the life of those things that are alive, is holden in the body, especially by th● blood. Neither is he helped any whit by that which he allegeth: We must seek for speeches signifying by that which containeth that which is contained, as because the life or soul is holden in the body by the blood: therefore the blood may take the name of life, as the place wherein the Church assemble themselves, is called also the Church. For we know that the place of the assembling of the Church is called the Church though there be now no body contained in it, only because it is appointed to that use, and so the blood was called the life, and appointed to be a sign of the life or soul, though the life were now dead and gone, because in things that live, the blood is a most special instrument of life, whereby it is contained and holden in the body. But to put the matter out of doubt, and to show the Answ. his folly. S. Austen in the end of the Chapter whence I alleged the words in question saith thus: So 
i Aug. count Adimant. ca 12.  is the blood the life as the rock was Christ, as the Apostle saith, They drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ. It is not said, The rock was Christ because the rock did really contain Christ. No more than was it said, The blood is the life, because it did really contain the life, but because it was ordained to be a sign of life, though itself were altogether dead and cold. And this doth S. Austen again expressly note in another place, saying, It 
k August. count adversa leg. & proph. lib. 2. cap. 6.  is said. The blood of all flesh is the life or▪ soul thereof, in like manner as it is said, The rock was Christ, not because it was so indeed, but because Christ was signified hereby. The law would by the blood signify the life or soul, a thing invisible by a thing visible, etc. because the blood is visibly as the soul is invisibly the chiefest and most principal of all things whereof we consist Here is then a matter of signification only, not of any real containing unless the Answ. will be so fond as to say that the rock did really contain Christ. But now of this manner of speaking, The blood is the life or soul, when it is indeed but a sign thereof, S. Austen giveth a like example in the words of our Saviour Christ, who, saith he, doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body: directly to this meaning that as Christ said, This is my body, when he gave it into his Disciples hands, not his body indeed, but only the sign and sacrament of his body, and as the Apostle saith, the rock was Christ, when it was not Christ indeed, but only a sign of Christ, so Moses said, The blood is the life, not because itself was the life indeed, but was only appointed to be a sign of life. And if the sacrament were indeed & 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 else his words import that there might be occasion of doubting to say so. And why, but because it was not so indeed? Yet, saith he, because it was the mystery and sign of his body, though not his body in substance and indeed, therefore he doubted not, according to the manner of the scriptures in like case, to say, This is my body: and so did Moses speak of the blood. Thus most manifestly and plainly I have showed that the Answ. irrefragable exposition, is nothing else but unhonest and unconscionable shifting.    

P. Spence. Sect. 18.  
But Tertullian killeth the Cow: for he saith: a figure of the body. What if I prove to you, that you be as foully deceived or would deceive in Tertullian as in the last place of S. Augustine? This hath Tertullian in lib. 4. contra Marcionem, The bread which he took and distributed to his disciples, he made his body. Lo Tertullian saith Christ made the bread his body, so say we, and not you, how made it he his body? by speaking over it the words of consecration: in saying, this is my body, that is, a figure of my body. Did Christ say to them, This is the figure of my body? But if he had, yet by speaking those words, he had made it his body, after Tertullia's mind. But the very truth and all the point of the case herein, is in this, that Tertullia's words may have two expositions: one which you like of, This is my body, 
Two expositions of Tertullian.  that is, the figure of my body: the other which is our sense, and the very intended meaning of Tertullian is this, This is my body, This, that is to say, the figure of my body is my body. To prove this unto you, remember it is out of his fourth book against Martion, which Martion held the ill God of the old testament, to be a deadly enemy to the good God of the new testament. Martion wrote a book called Antithesis or Antilogiae of contradictions, and repugnances between the two testaments. Against that book spendeth Tertullian the greatest part of his fourth book, showing how Christ the God of the new testament fulfilled, and consecrated the old figures of the old testament as a friend, and not as an enemy thereof: and to that end thus he saith: conferring places together, Christ in the day time taught in the temple of Jerusalem: he had foretold by O see: In my temple they s●ught me, and there I will dispute with them. Again, he went apart into the mount Elaeon, that is, to the mount of Olives. Because Zacharie wrote, and his feet shall stand in the mount Elaeon. Again, they came together early in the morning, agreeable to Esay, who saith: He hath given me an ear to hear betimes in the morning. If this be saith Tertullian to dissolve the prophecies, what is to fulfil them. Again, he chose the passouer for his passion. For Moses said before: It shall be the passouer of the Lord. Yea saith Tertullian, He showed his affection or desire: I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you, etc. O destroyer of the law, which desired also to keep the passover. Again, he might have been betrayed of a stranger, saving that the Psalm had before prophesied, He which eateth bread with me, will lif● up his foot against me. Yet further, he might have been betrayed without reward, save that that should have been for another Christ, not for him which fulfilled the prophecies. For it was written, They have sold the just. Yea the very price that he was sold for, Hieremie foretold. They took the thirty silver pieces, the price of him that was valued, and gave them for a potter's field. Thus far in this one place among infinite other in the whole book, Tertullian showeth Christ the God of the new testament to have fulfilled the figures of the old, as being the one only God of both Testaments. And then by and by he inferreth as another example these words. Therefore professing that he did greatly desire to eat the passover as his own (for it was unfit that God should desire any thing of another's) whereby he showeth Christ to be the only God of both testaments. He made the bread which he took and distributed to his Disciples his body▪ in saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. What figure I beseech you? meant he not the figure used 
a He did not mean any figure used by Melchisedech, neither doth any way allude to it.  by Melchisedech, of bread and wine? meant he not a figure of the old Testament, taken, used, and fulfilled by Christ in the new? is not that his drift? Must Tertullian become an ass to serve your turn, and forget his own drift and purpose here, and contrary what he hath so plainly spoken of the Sacrament in other his books? This is 
b It is not foolish vaunting and bragging that must weigh this matter, but reason and truth, see the answer at large.  to steal scraps out of the fathers, and not to care for their drift and purposes, but only to patch up matter for a show and to the sale. The figures be of the old testament, in the new testament Christ fulfilleth them. It followeth: But it had been no figure except there were a true body. Surely an empty thing as is a fantasy can take no figure. The Marcionites, said Christ had a fantastical body: that saith Tertullian, could not have a figure. No can? Do not the fantastical bodies of spirits exhibit to the eyes a certain figure or shape? it is too well known to the very necromancers, and the Apostles feared the like of Christ. But he meaneth if Christ had no body at all, but a fantastical body, Melchisedech in the old testament, had used no figure of that in bread & wine. For of 
c Untruth: for he talketh not of it, and though he had, yet doth it not stand the Answ. in any steed as shall appear.  it he talketh, so that that is a figure of my body, must needs be interpreted thus: This: that is, this figure of the old testament of bread and wine, used by Melchisedech, which I now fulfil, est corpus meum, is now become my body by my fulfilling in this my new testament in verity, a figure of the old testament in a mystery. It followeth: Or if therefore he made the bread his body because he wanted a true body, than he should have given the bread for us. This illation of Tertullian can have no wit nor sense, if he meant not Christ to be really in his very true body in the Sacrament. It made for the vanity of Martion, that bread should be crucified. If Christ had given his Apostles bread only, and not his very flesh, then by Tertullia's mind, he must have given a bready body, or a body of bread to be also crucified: so sure he was that the thing he gave his Disciples, was the same that was also afterward crucified, What say you to this master Abbot▪ Martion said that Christ had in steed of a heart, a kind of fruit called a Pepon. Why saith Tertullian did he not call a Pepon his body, as well as the bread, or rather after Martions' opinion? his reason is, because Martion understood not that bread was an old figure of the body of Christ. Lo your id est figura, is by Tertullian as much as id est, vetus figura, an old figure. Then by your mind Christ fulfilled not the old figure in verity, although Tertullian saith never so plainly he made the bread his body: But gave them the old figure: therefore to end this testimony of Tertullian, I answer you, that the premises considered, you must needs grant that the same (id est) is not referred to corpus meum, but to hoc. That which in the old testament was a figure of my body, is now, being made so by my speaking dicendo & omnipotentia verbi, by the almighty power of the word, as S. Cyprian de caena domini uttereth, my body. Note these points whereby it so appeareth by Tertullian to be meant. First the scope of his fourth book, to prove the figures of the old law, and the fulfilling of the new. Secondly Tertullian hath figura non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus: If he had meant a figure then in the new testament, he had not said fuisset sed esset figura. Thirdly when he saith Christ called bread his body, and not a Pepon (as Martions folly would have him to have spoken) he telleth that Martion understood not that bread was an ancient figure of his body, so that Tertullian meaneth not the bread to be a new figure of his body, instituted by Christ in his Supper of the new testament, but an ancient figure of the old testament, used by Melchisedech. Fourthly, a little after this place he saith, that Christ the revealer of aniquities did sufficiently declare what he would have the bread to have signified, calling bread his body: Whereby 
d Tertullia's mind i●, that the name of bread had been used to import the body of Ch 〈…〉 ●● prefigur●●●at bread indeed should be appointed to signify the ●●me body. This he saith, Changed 〈…〉 full 〈…〉 〈◊〉 he took bread ind 〈…〉 and called it hi● body.  his mind is that Christ would have the bread in the old testament, to have signified his body to come, not now instituting a new figure in bread. Fifthly, he saith a little after, thou mayest acknowledge the old figure of blood in the wine. Lo the wine in the old testament was an ancient figure of his blood. What can plainlier utter or express his meaning? Lastly, it followeth: Now saith he, (it is at his maundy) he consecrated his blood in wine, who then (that is speaking certain words of jacob the patriarch even by the said jacob) figured wine by blood. he attributeth 
e A Figure to the name of wine consecration to wine itself.  a figure to wine, consecration to his blood in wine: a figure to the old law, consecration to the new, a figure to the old law, fulfilling thereof to the new: what mean you then master Abbot to charge us with guileful concealing, clipping, and paring of Tertullian, who deliver him unto you so roundly, and so wholly? we play not with you as master jewel did, who brought out of Opus imperfectum sermo. 11. in Chrisostomes' name, in almost an hundredth places of his book (as putting great trust in the same) these words against the Sacrament, and against chrysostom, for that very point in a notable Sermon of his made for that purpose:) In the vessels of the church is not contained the true body and blood of Christ, but a figure of his body and blood. Whereas the 
f An answer altogether vain and senseless, as the very words show.  author meaneth it of the vessels, taken out of the temple of jerusalem by Nabuchodonosor, which point he guilefully suppressed. For the authors words are these: For if it be a sin, and dangerous to transfer holy vessels to private uses, as Balthasar teacheth us, who drinking in the holy cups was therefore deposed from his kingdom, and bereaved of his life, if then it be thus dangerous to transfer these holy vessels to private uses, in which is not the true body of Christ, but a mystery of his body is contained, etc. You may see how Balthasar was stolen out of the text, to make those old Church's vessels, to be the vessels of our Christian temples. Upon those words of Tertullian how crossly you infer your conclusion upon your own supposed sense of id est figura: it may I hope appear unto you, upon the consideration of that which I have discoursed, concerning his testimony, except you could wage Tertullian to say that he made no comparison between a figure of the old testament, and the verity of the new, answering the same: and that he would for your sake to help you to an argument, pull back his own confession, affirming himself to have spoken de veteri Figura, of the old Figure, or except you say his meaning was that Christ made his Supper, to be an ancient figure of the old testament.  

R. Abbot. 18.  
HEre the Answerer beginneth with his jest. Tertullian saith he, killeth the Cow. I answer him; if Transubstantiation be a Cow, Tertullian killeth the Cow. He strongly gainsaieth it and will not abide it. Thus he speaketh 
a Tertul. count Martion. li. 4.  The bread which Christ took and distributed to his disciples he made his body, in saying, This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body. But it had not been a figure unless there were a true body. For an empty thing as is a fantasy, could receive no figure. Martion the heretic against whom he wrote, held that Christ had not a true and real body, but only a fantasy and appearance and show of a body. Tertullian proveth by the Sacrament, that Christ had a very true body. For the scripture is not wont to set down tokens and figures of things, which have not the truth of the things answerable unto them. Therefore seeing Christ in the Gospel gave bread as a token and figure of his body, saying, This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body, it is certain that Christ hath a true body correspondent to this figure. Thus do 
b chrysost in Mat. hom. 83. Theod. d●al. 2. Iren adu▪ haeres. lib. 5.  chrysostom and other of the Father's reason from the Sacrament to prove the verity and truth of the passion and of the body of jesus Christ. To this place of Tertullian M. Harding confessing that Tertullian made these words, This is a figure of my body, the exposition of those words, This is my body, saith that his interpretation is not according to the right sense of Christ's words, and that in his contention he did not so much regard the exact use of his words, as how he might win his purpose of his adversary, & so maketh Tertullian to write he cared not what. Campian being urged with the same words in the Tower, shifted the matter off, that those words, That is to say, a figure of my body, wer● the exception of the heretic and not Tertullias own words. The Ans. hath found in some other of his learned Treatises, namely 
c Bellar. to. 2. de sacram. Euchar. l●b. 2. cap 7.  in Bellarmine another devise for the salving of this matter. Whereby we may see how these men are carried up and down with giddiness and frenzy, and being pressed with evidence of truth, cannot find any answer whereupon to rest themselves, and therefore as ashamed each of others doings, bestow their wits from day to day to devise new collusions and shifts to save themselves. The Answ. resting upon 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 Ass if he meant otherwise then he expoundeth him: but indeed getteth himself hereby a privilege to wear the ears to whomsoever it befall to be the Ass. For his exposition beside that it is foolish and absurd, maketh also expressly against himself, and admitteth that which I desire, and which he himself must needs confess to be the undoing of Transubstantiation. He maketh two expositions of Tertullia's words: the one ours and that thus; This is my body, that is to say, this is a figure of my body: and this being indeed the currant and direct passage of Tertullia's words, he disliketh and condemneth. The other is theirs, and as he would make us believe the very intended meaning of the words, namely thus, This is my body: This, that is to say, the figure of my body is my body. Whereby he briefly resolveth out of Tertullian a marvelous doubt whereof his Fathers were never able to determine any thing; namely, whereto the word This is to be applied. For if it be said, This bread which is the very truth, than they saw that Transubstantiation cannot stand. Therefore have they profaned the sacred words of Christ with their cursed sophistications, and have most wretchedly tossed them too and fro to make a meaning of them that might serve for their purpose, & yet have found none. But the Answ. setteth down the meaning thus: This figure of my body is my body. So that the word This, must be referred to the figure of the body. And what figure? The old figure even the same saith he that Melchisedech used. And what was that old figure? Marry it was bread. Then we have the exposition of Christ's words as we would have it; This is my body, that is to say, This bread is my body. And this is manifest to be Tertullia's mind, by that he saith twice in this place, that Christ called bread his body; and in his book against the jews saith in like sort that he called bread his body; and in his first book against Martion, saith again that Christ represented his body by bread. Now if Christ in the Sacrament call bread his body, and by bread do represent his body, than it followeth that in the Sacrament it is bread which is called the body of Christ, and is so called, because the body of Christ is represented thereby. Therefore the meaning of Christ's words must needs be thus; This bread is the figure of my body. This were sufficient for the opening of Tertullia's mind in this point, but yet I will follow the Answ. to sift the matter somewhat further. I acknowledge first with him, that Tertullia's purpose in that place is to show that Christ fulfilled in the new Testament those things that were foretold and foreshowed in the old. But as it was never 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 approve the same. And if he had named Melchisedech, or alluded unto him any way as we are by this man borne in hand, yet could it not have been to any other purpose but this, that Melchisedech by bringing forth bread and wine in figure of the Sacrament, did signify that Christ should appoint and institute bread and wine to be the tokens and signs of his body and blood; and that Christ in the Gospel did fulfil the same. So saith S. Hierom: 
d Hieron. in Mat. 26.  Christ taketh bread & goeth to the true Sacrament of the passover that as Melchisedech the priest of the high God in prefiguring of him, offering bread and wine had done, so he himself also might represent the truth of his body and blood. Therefore though it be granted that Tertullian speaketh of Melchisedech, yet serveth it my purpose and not his; that Christ instituted bread and wine, to represent thereby the truth of his body 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 upbraiding us with stealing of scraps out of the Fathers, because we use this place, he giveth me occasion to charge him with voluntary and wilful falsifying of their words. But I leave that to his own conscience, whether he did purposely seek by this bad means to add the more likelihood unto a false tale. Tertullian saith nothing here to intimate that the very creatures of bread and wine were used 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 used, as that thereby should be signified the same body & blood of Christ. To this purpose he allegeth the words of jeremy as the vulgar Latin text readeth them, 
e jer. 11. 19  Let us cast the wood upon his bread, that is, saith he, the cross upon his body, as noting that by the name of bread the Prophet signified the body of Christ. Therefore he addeth, Christ the revealer of antiquities, calling bread his body, did sufficiently declare what his will was that bread should then signify. Whereby he giveth to understand that as the Prophet did use the name of bread to signify the body of Christ, so Christ himself to justify that speech of the Prophet, did institute bread itself to be the sign and Sacrament of his body, and accordingly called it his body. Another like speech he reciteth concerning wine out of the words of jacob the Patriarch, 
f Gen. 49. 11.  He shall wash his garment in wine, and his clothing in the blood of the grape. Where by the garment and clothing, he understandeth the body and flesh of Christ, by wine the blood of Christ, as if jacob should foretell in those words that the body of Christ should be imbrued with the shedding of his blood. Hereupon he inferreth; He that then figured wine in blood, hath now consecrated his blood in wine; noting hereby not that blood indeed was used for a figure of wine, but that the name of the blood of the grape served to signify wine, as prefiguring that wine it sel●● should be appointed to be the sign of the blood of Christ. Now this was fulfilled by Christ when he consecrated his blood in wine, that is to say, made the Sacrament of his blood in wine, or appointed wine in truth to be the Sacrament of his blood, for signification whereof, the name of wine had been before used. The old figure therefore of which Tertullian speaketh, saying; that we may acknowledge an old figure in wine, was in the use of the names of bread and wine, not of bread and wine indeed: and that which by this old figure and manner of speaking was intimated in the old 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 body and blood, and by name accordingly called them his body and blood. Which manner of speaking he had not approved but frustrated, if in making the Sacrament he had destroyed the substance of bread and wine: for than he could not have called bread his body 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 us, nay setting aside the error of the Answ. it maketh wholly for us. For he vainly fancieth Tertullian, to say that the very elements of bread & wine were used in the old Testament for figures of the body and blood of Christ, and therefore that the same should not be again appointed to that use in the new Testament, whereas Tertullian saith no more but only that the names or words of bread and wine were sometimes taken to signify the same. Now then let him remember that Turtullian avoucheth the fulfilling of this figure in this, that Christ called bread his body and wine his blood, and let him say with us according to Tertullia's mind, that in the Sacrament it is bread and wine which is called the body and blood of Christ; and that the meaning of Christ's words is, This bread is my body, that is to say, A Figure of my body. Now hereby Tertullian proveth, that Christ hath a true substantial body. For saith he, It had been no Figure except there were a true body. For an empty thing as is a fantasy, might not have been capable of a Figure. But here the Answ. would make us believe, that unless Tertullian mean this of a Figure in the old Testament, his saying is not true. And this he proveth by Necromancy: for saith he, the fantastical bodies of spirits do exhibit to the eyes a certain Figure or shape, as the very Nigromancers do know. But what motion I marvel came into the man's mind to divert his speech from mystical and sacramental figures instituted by jesus Christ whereof Tertullian speaketh, to figures and fashions, and shapes of devils and spirits. He was a blind man if he saw not his own error and folly, but lewd and wretched if he saw it, and yet against his own conscience would thus dally with God's truth. And why could he not conceive that Tertullia's words if they had concerned any such figures, should have been false in respect of the old Testament as well as of the new, because devils and spirits had their figures and shapes as well then as now. Was it strange unto him that there are sacramental figures in the new Testament, to which the words of Tertullian might be fitly applied. Surely S. Austen saith, that 
g August. in Psal. 3.  Christ admitted judas to that banquet, wherein he commended to his Disciples the Figure of his body and blood. So saith the old Father Ephrem, that 
h Ephrem. de natura dei non scrutanda. cap. 4.  Christ blessed and broke the bread in figure of his body, and blessed & gave the cup in Figure of his precious blood. Nay the Answ. himself hath confessed 
i Sect. 10.  before that the Fathers call the sacrifice which they speak of, a figure of the death and passion of Christ. Of such a figure Tertullian speaketh and reasoneth thus, that there should never have been appointed in the Gospel a figure to represent the body of Christ, except there had been a true body to be represented thereby. As for that cavil of his which he hath borrowed from Bellarmine, that if Tertullian had not spoken of a figure in the old Testament, he should not have said, fuisset, but esset, it is too too foolish and absurd, and if he were in the Grammar school, he should deserve to be laid over the form, to make him know that the verb fuisset is rightly used by Tertullian, with relation to Christ's first instituting of bread to be the figure of his body. Let him consider better, whether this stand not with good construction to say; Christ took bread and said thereof, This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body. But it had not been, or it should not have been a figure except there were a true body. But yet he goeth farther: Tertullian saith thus: If Christ did therefore make bread his body because he wanted a true body, than he should have given the bread for us. It made for the vanity of Martion, that bread should be crucified. These words saith he, have neither wit nor sense, except it be supposed that Christ's body is really in the Sacrament, nay otherwise it must be bread that was crucified for us. But except his wit and his sense did fail him, he might find somewhat else in Tertullia's words. For still he calleth the sacrament bread, & putteth difference betwixt the bread that is called the body and the true body itself, & so reasoneth against Martion, that if Christ had not a true body indeed which he represented by bread, & in respect thereof called the same bread his body, than the bread itself must be his body, and consequently it was bread which was given and crucified for us. But Martion himself would not say that bread was crucified for us: Therefore he must needs confess that Christ had a true body figured by the bread. And thus Tertullia's reason against Martion setteth down bread in the Sacrament as a figure of Christ's body, and razeth the foundation of Popish Transubstantiation. And this is yet again plain by these words, to which he asketh me what I say, that Christ called not a Pepon his body as he should have done by Martions' opinion, who held that Christ had in steed of a heart, a kind of fruit called a Pepon: but he called bread his body because of the old Figure, namely because the Prophet using the name of bread to import the body of Christ, did thereby prefigure that bread indeed should be appointed to be the figure and sign of the same body. So that Christ did not renew an old figure by consecrating or sanctifying the bread to be a figure of his body, but fulfilled that in the truth and substance of bread, which Tertullian saith was foreshowed by the name of bread. Thus much of Tertullias roundly & wholly delivered words, where the Answ. hath showed as great folly, in enlarging them, as some other of his fellows have showed falsehood in clipping and paring them. But to fill up the measure of this folly, he taketh upon him by the way to censure Master jewel about a place alleged out of the unperfect work upon Math. Serm. 11. Which he doth in that peevish and vain sort, as that he showeth himself to be led wholly with malice without any judgement or discretion. First he misliketh that he did allege it in Chrisostomes' name. But why so? Is it not as lawful for master jewel or for the Church of England to do so, as it is for the Church of Room and her followers? 
k Sixt. S●n●n●. b●●l●ot. san●● 4 in l●●n. C●rys●st.  The Church of Rome readeth divers homilies in their divine service from thence under the name of chrysostom. Many sentences and propositions are brought thence under his name in the ordinary gloss, in the chains of the explanations of the Gospels, in the decrees of the Bistops of Room, in the Summaries of Divinity set forth by Divines of great name, as Sixtus Senensis himself a Papist giveth us to understand. Why then should master jewel be blamed for alleging that work under Chrysostom's name, when the Church of Room by her example warranted him so to do. But yet he will further make us believe that the words do not prove that for which they are alleged. The words are these: If 
l Chrysost in . imperf. hom. 11.  it be a dangerous matter to transfer holy vessels to private uses, as Balthasar teacheth us, who drinking in the sacred cups was deprived of his kingdom and his life, if then I say it be so dangerous, to transfer to private uses these sanctified vessels in which is not the true body of Christ but a mystery of his body is contained. etc. Out of which words master jewel proveth that in the sacred vessels there is not the true body of Christ, as the Papists dream, but only a mystery of his body. The place is so plain as nothing can be more plain. Now therefore what saith the Answ. to it? Forsooth the author meant these words of the vessels of the temple of Jerusalem, which Nabuchodonosor took from thence, and not of the vessels of our Christian Churches. But what vessels I marvel were those in the temple of Jerusalem which contained the mystery of Christ's body? where did he ever read or hear of any such? Or if he can unshamefastly face out such a matter, how can he imagine that chrysostom or the author whosoever would admonish his auditors, that it was dangerous for them to abuse the vessels of the temple of Jerusalem, which they neither had nor could have to abuse? Again, he saith not those holy vessels as pointing to the vessels of the temple, but expressly these holy vessels, understanding them which he had then to use. Again he saith not, wherein was not, but wherein is not the true body of Christ, nor wherein was contained, but wherein is contained the mystery of his body. All which being referred to the present time, do plainly enough show that he spoke of the vessels that then were present: and therefore his words are a very direct and substantial proof, that in the vessels of Christian temples there is not the true body of Christ, but only a mystery of his body. Yea but there is mention of Balthasar there. And what then? Surely Balthasar is there brought in to teach us, as the author speaketh. Now what doth the example of Balthasar teach us? not to abuse the vessels of the temple of Jerusalem? A senseless conceit. He teacheth us not to abuse the vessels of our temples and Churches, least offending as he did, we be punished as he was. For there is always the same reason of the use or abuse of holy things; and particular examples are always alleged for confirmation and proof of general doctrines. Surely the Answ. was suddenly awaked out of his dream when he conceived this, and set his hands to write before he was well advised what he should write.    

P. Spence. Sect. 19  
AS I have dilated at large the meaning of Gelasius, so I cannot but wonder at your repeating of him in this place, so contrary to his meaning even by your own confession. You would before have Gelasius drift to be this, that as in heaven Christ is in his two natures several, the godhead, and the manhood: so in the Sacrament with his body remaineth the bread, thereby to have▪ both in heaven, and here two several natures. Yet now forsooth Gelasius must forget what he hath to prove, and must say for you that the Sacrament is nothing but a sign: and then how serveth it for an argument against Eutyches, if it be but bare brad in one nature only: whereas if you look upon the whole testimony of Gelasius, as I set it down largely to you, you shall see, yea with half an eye that the meaning of these words. (An image and similitude of the body and blood of the Lord is performed in the celebration of the mysteries) is no other but this, that his being in the Sacrament, both in a divine substance, as himself told you, and also joined with the natural properties of bread, is a figure and resemblance of his two natures remaining in heaven unconfused. Thus you care not how foolishly you make the author to speak, so he afford you words and syllables to make a show. Look upon Gelasius and bethink yourself. I have answered him at large: Look 
a  in the end and there you shall find it, because it was written before yours came to my hand▪ I was loath to write it again in his orderly place, for that writing is somewhat painful to my weak head and years. Wherefore I crave you to bear with me in that matter.  

R. Abbot. 19  
THe words of Gelasius are these: An 
a Gelas. count Euty. & Nestor.  image or resemblance of the body and blood of Christ, is celebrated in the action of the mysteries or sacraments. Hereby Gelasius giveth to understand that the sacrament is not the very body of Christ, but the image and resemblance of his body. It is more plain by that which he addeth: We must therefore think the same of Christ himself, which we profess in his image, that is to say, in the Sacrament. Mark how he distinguisheth Christ himself, and the image of Christ. The Sacrament therefore which is the image of Christ, is not Christ himself. Thus the words themselves do manifestly give that for which I alleged them. But the Answ. telleth me that I allege Gelasius here contrary to his own meaning, even by mine own confession. How may that be? Forsooth I would before have Gelasius his drift to be that as Christ is in heaven in two natures: so here upon the earth in the sacrament is bread with the body, and so both in heaven and here would have two several natures: but now in this place I would have the Sacrament to be nothing but a sign, and bare bread in one nature only. But he knoweth that he speaketh untruth both in the one and in the other. Of the former he himself hath acquitted me before, saying; 
b Sect. 9  you would have the Sacrament a memory of Christ as though he were absent. Then belike I would not have the body of Christ really present here upon the earth in the Sacrament. Of the other I acquitted myself in that very place which he taketh upon him to answer. For I added immediately upon the alleging of those words, thus. Yet are not the Sacraments naked & bare signs as you are wont hereupon to cavil, but substantial and effectual signs or seals rather, assuring our faith of the things sealed thereby, and delivering as it were into our hands and possession, the whole fruit & benefit of the death and passion of jesus Christ. To answer him to both in a word, thus I say: that as the water of Baptism doth sacramentally imply the blood of Christ, though the blood of Christ be in heaven: so likewise the bread and wine in the lords Supper, do sacramentally imply the body and blood of Christ, though the same body and blood be in heaven and not upon the earth. And therefore neither did I before say nor do now, that the Sacrament consisteth of two natures, really being upon earth, but of bread and wine being on earth, and the body and blood of Christ being in heaven: the one received by the hand of the body; the other only by the hand of the soul, which only reacheth unto heaven. Again, as water in Baptism 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 real presence of the body, but it doth most effectually offer and yield unto the believing soul the assurance of the grace of God, and of the forgiveness of sins. That which he further addeth as touching the drift and purpose of Gelasius how lewdly it perverteth his words and maketh them to serve fully for the heresy of Eutyches against which Gelasius writeth, I have declared before, and so well have I bethought myself hereof, as that I doubt I may in that behalf, charge the Answ. conscience with voluntary and wilful falsehood and desperate fight against God.    

Pet. Spence. Sect. 20.  
YOur term of Seals applied to the Sacraments is done to an ill purpose, to make the Sacraments no better than the jews Sacraments were. To handle that matter would require a greater discourse, which willingly I let pass: But yet I must tell you that the said opinion is very derogatory to the 
a Untruth: for the passion of christ hath had his effect from the beginning of the world.  effect of Christ's passion, of the which the Sacraments of Christ's Church take a far more effectual virtue, than the jews Sacraments did. Read our treatises of that matter, for I list not to run into that disputation.  

R. Abbot. 20.  
HE disliketh that I call the Sacraments Seals. Yet here his own conscience could tell him that we make not the Sacrament bare bread and wine, as he and his fellows maliciously cavil. Though wax of itself b● but wax, yet when ●● 〈◊〉 with the Prince's signe●, it is treason to offer despite unto it. So whatsoever the bread and wine be of themselves, yet when they are by the word of God, as it were stamped and printed to be Sacraments and seals, it is the peril of the soul to abuse them, or to come unreverently unto them. But why is not the term of s●ales to be approved in our sacraments? Surely S. Austen calleth them visible 
a August. lib. de catech●z. ●ud. ca 26. & hom. 50. de v. Tit. poen●t.  Seals, and why then is it amiss in us? Forsooth because it maketh our sacraments no better than the sacraments of the jews. Indeed our Sacraments are in number sewer, for observation more easy, in use more clean, in signification more plain, and through the manifest revelation of the Gospel more meet to excite and stir up our faith, and in these respects they are better than the sacraments of the jews: but as touching inward and spiritual grace, they are both the same: neither is there in that respect any reason to affirm our sacraments to be better than theirs. For they▪ did 
b 1 Cor. 10. ●.  eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink, that we do, The same, I say, that we do,: For they drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, & the rock was Christ. Christ therefore was their spiritual meat and drink as well as ours: and jesus 
c Heb 13. 8.  Christ yesterday and to day is the same, and for ever. The same therefore to them as he is to us, only in difference of time, To come, in respect of them, and already come, in respect of us. This the apostle further showeth when he saith that they 
d 1. Cor. 10. 2.  were baptized. Which must be understood either of the outward sign, or of the inward grace of Baptism. But not of the outward sign: therefore of the inward grace. Therefore their Sacraments offered the same inward grace that ours do. This S. Austen also plainly testifieth, when he saith, that 
e Aug. in joh. tr. 26.  their Sacraments, though in outward signs diverse: yet in the things signified; and as he speaketh straightways after, in spiritual virtue were equal unto ours, and again, that 
f Ibid. tr. 45.  if a man respect the visible sign, they did drink an other thing, but as touching signification and understanding they drank the same spiritual drink, that we do, which in both those places he proveth by the same words of S. Paul which I have alleged, and that by way of expounding the same words. Which is to the shame of the divines of Rheims, who so perversely and contrary to the very light of the text, labour to draw them to another meaning. Now therefore whereas the Answ. saith that this derogateth from the effect of Christ's passion, & that our sacraments have thence greater virtue than the jews sacraments had, it is but a presumptuous, a foolish, and unprobable assertion, without any likelihood of truth, that may be gathered by the word of God. We believe the virtue of Christ's passion to have been no less to their salvation, than it is to ours, because we believe that jesus Christ 
g Apoc. 13. 8.  is the lamb slain from the beginning of the world, not only in type and figure, but in power & grace also. The 
h August. lib. de natu & gra. cap. 44.  same faith saved them, saith S. Austen that saveth us, even the faith of jesus Christ the mediator betwixt God and man, the faith of his blood, the faith of his cross, the faith of his death and resurrection. We believe therefore that their sacraments, having all relation to Christ's passion as ours have, did yield no less benefit to them in jesus Christ then ours do to us. Here he referreth me again to his learned treatises, wherewith he is so besotted himself that he taketh every word in them to be an oracle, albeit they be indeed as full of follies, triflings, and impudent falsehoods as his own pamphlet is. I am well enough acquainted with them already. But to call Sacraments seals, I learn of S. Paul. Rom. 4. The name notably setteth forth the use of them. Seals serve for assurance of promises or covenants to them to whom they are made. Such are sacraments to assure our faith of the promises of God. The delivery of seals giveth interest and right of the things sealed, to them to whom they are delivered. The sacraments of jesus Christ do give as it were into our hands and possession through faith, the whole prerogative of the benefit of Christ's death and passion, which is preached unto us in the word of the Gospel. Therefore doth 
i Bernardus Ser. in caena domi.  Bernard fitly compare our sacraments to a ring, by which a man is invested and entered to the possession of his inheritance, and whereof he may say, The ring availeth nothing, but it is the inheritance that I sought for. And even so may we say that it is not the sacrament for itself, but the things sealed and delivered by the sacrament that we desire.    

P. Spence. Sect. 21. & 22.  
THe place of S. john, The word was made flesh, What proveth it touching the Sacrament? what kind of argument is this? In this saying, The word was made flesh: the sense is, the word assumpted flesh unto it, not changing his former nature, and it is not to be taken as the words do sound, Ergo this text, This is my body, is not to be taken as the words import. A very 
a Cum insana dicis & rides, phrenetico c● similis. August. count julia. Pelag. lib▪ 4.  upstantiall argument. But do you remember that syllogizari non est ex particulari? It is like as if I should argue thus, I am a vine, is a figurative speech, Ergo I am the light of the world, is also a figurative speech. But I pray you Sir is this saying, The word was made flesh, like to This is my body? doth bread still remaining assumpt unto it into one person, or into one suppositum, Christ's body? Luther said so, be you now of that mind? This is to speak you wot not, nor care not what, so you say somewhat▪ S. Augustine as Bede citeth him, saith: Christ hath commended unto us in this sacrament his body and blood. Saith he so? me thinketh he saith very well for us, as we could wish him. We thank you for such texts hearty. But he saith further, which also he hath made us, and by his grace we are the same that we receive. What infer you hereof? and forsooth (say you) we are not transubstantiated into the Sacrament. A most witty, pithy, and subtle piece of Logic, nihil supra: logic was good cheap when this stood for good logic. A long discourse it would ask to answer you fully, and a very goodly meditation is herein offered to our souls. We are become one with Christ, not by being transubstantiated into him, but by being joined by the Sacrament unto him, as members to our head, as many pieces of wood make one door, ship, house, or such like, not one turned into an other, but joined together that they make one thing: and so we become by this Sacrament his mystical body, as his members joined together into one. Remember for this point how divinely Hilarius and Cyrillus have written, and leave your profane dealing in so weighty a cause, especially so besides all reason, and common sense.  

R. Abbot. 21. 22.  
IN these two sections the Answ. playeth Hickescorners part, and by the way proveth himself a mighty wise man. I see that to be true in him which a worthy man said: 
a 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 vain presumption and fancy. Though he show himself here both an ignorant Blindasinus, and a perverse & wilful wrangler, yet he taketh upon him as if no man had either Logic or wit, but only he, and solaceth himself with his terms of upstantiall argument, and good cheap logic, and most witty, pithy, and subtle piece of Logic. By his naming of Luther in this place he putteth me in mind to answer 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.  heretics, as S. Austen reporteth, affirmed that the godhead of Christ was really changed into the manhood. This they would prove by the words of the Gospel. The word was made flesh, which they expounded thus. The divine nature is turned or transubstantiated into the nature of man. In like sort the Answ. and some other cogging merchants of his part single out the words of Tertullian: Christ made the bread his body, and will needs have us to believe thereby that the bread is really turned and transubstantiated into the body of Christ. They both argue alike upon the word made. For answer hereof I showed how Tertullian expoundeth his own meaning by these words, that is to say, a figure of his body. Further I said, that that phrase or manner of speech Christ made the bread his body, doth not enforce any Transubstantiation. Which I showed by comparing therewith the very like speech or phrase before alleged out of the Gospel, 
c joh. 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 fond is it gathered by the Papists of Tertullias words, that because the bread is made the body of Christ, therefore 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 speeches are like: The word was made flesh: the bread is made the body of Christ. Now hath he not sent me a worthy answer to this? The words of S. john saith he, what prove they touching the Sacrament? What argument is this? The word was made flesh, the sense is, the word assumpted flesh unto it. And it is not to be taken as the words do sound, therefore this text, This is my body, is not to be taken as the words import. A very mighty upstantiall argument. Nay a very pithy & sound answer, and worthy to be registered in Vaticano. I make a comparison betwixt the words of S. john, and the words of Tertullian; and he answereth me of a comparison betwixt the words of john & the words of Christ. How many mile to London? A poke full of plums. Yet as a child playeth with a counter in steed of a piece of gold, so he delighteth himself in a rascal shift, as if he had made a very substantial answer. But see yet further the extreme folly and ignorance of this man. It is saith he, as if you should reason thus: I am the vine is a figurative speech, therefore I am the light of the world, is a figurative speech. 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 darkness of the world. Seeing therefore darkness is understood figuratively in the world, a man would think that that which is called light as opposite to this darkness, should be so called by a figure. Light is properly a sensible quality, and darkness the p 〈…〉tion thereof: and both have relation to the bodily eye. They are by a Metaphor applied to the soul, and so is Christ called light: even as he is elsewhere called▪ 
d Mal 4. 2.  The sun of righteousness, not properly I trow, but by a figure, unless the Answ. be of the Manichees mind, who as Theodoret saith, would sometimes say, that 
e Theodo. haer●t. fa●ul. lib. ●.  Christ was the very sun. Now therefore seeing that Christ is no otherwise called the light of the world, than he is called a vine, a young boy in the University will easily find a Topicke place in Aristotle, to prove 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 body? I answer him, Truly sir, no. But yet these are like, The word was made flesh, and the bread is made the body of Christ, & as transubstantiation of the word cannot be proved by the one, so transubstantiation of the bread cannot be proved by the other▪ Whereas he demandeth whether bread still remaining, do assumpt unto it Christ's body into one person, his question is idle. I have answered before, that the union of Christ with the Sacrament is not personal or real as he understandeth real; but relative and sacramental, as in Baptism also it is. But as the word remaineth being personally united to the flesh, so the bread remaineth being sacramentally united unto Christ. That which he saith of Luther is false. Luther did not teach that the body of Christ was joined into one person with the bread. But now I wish him to bethink himself who it is that careth not what he say, so that he say somewhat.  
Now for further declaration of the words of Tertullian, I alleged a saying of S. Austen: Christ hath commended unto us in this Sacrament his body and blood; which also he hath made us, and by his mercy we are the same that we receive. Whereas the Answ. saith, that the first part of this sentence serveth very well for him, it is but like the dotage of the melancholy Athenian. We say with S. Austen, that Christ hath commended unto us in this Sacrament his body and blood, yet not being on earth to be received by the mouth, but 
f August. in joh. tr. ●0.  Sitting in heaven to be received by faith. But as Tertullian said; Christ made the bread his body, so here Austen saith: Christ hath made us his body and blood. The manner of speech is here also alike; and therefore I inferred hereof, that Tertullia's words do no more prove that the bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ, then S. Austin's do prove, that there is a transubstantiation of us into the body of Christ. That which I excepted as touching those words; Yet we are not transubstantiated into the body of Christ, the Answ. falsifieth and perverteth thus; yet we are not transubstantiated into the Sacrament. This is the faithfulness that he useth. But what answer maketh he? Forsooth it would ask a long discourse to answer me: and therefore he hath thought good not to answer me at all. For as for that which he saith, it serveth directly for me. We are become one with Christ; saith he: let him speak as S. Austen speaketh; we are made the body of Christ, not by being transubstantiated into him, but by being joined unto him. So say we, that the bread is made the body of Christ, not by being transubstantiated into his body, but by having tied unto it by the word of God the promise of that grace and blessing that is yielded unto us by and in the body and blood of jesus Christ. Or else let him show what commission he and his fellows have to tell us that the word Made, must import transubstantiation in the place of Tertullian, and in S. Austen must import none. If they have no such, then let them give us leave to say, that as we are made the body of Christ, not by changing our substance, but by being united and joined unto him: so the bread of the sacrament is made the body of Christ, not by the changing of the nature of it, as Theodoret saith, but 
g Theodor. di●l 1.  by adding grace unto nature; not by changing the substance, but by altering the condition and use thereof: not by losing his former being, but by having the body of Christ united unto it, in such sort as I have before declared, through the almighty power of the word of God, and the unspeakable working of the holy Ghost. So that as S. Ambrose saith, 
h Ambr●● sacra. lib. 4 cap. 4.  The bread and wine are the same that they were, & yet are changed to other also. They are the same in substance that they were before; but as touching the use, the virtue, power, and effect thereof, they are changed into other. As for the meditation that is offered unto us by the words of S. Austen, it is too divine & heavenly for the Answerers gross and fleshly conceit, who can imagine no other receiving of Christ, but by the mouth, nor eating of his flesh, but into the belly. We become the mystical body of Christ by Baptism, as S. Paul teacheth, Eph. 5. 26. There we become flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone. There also as S. Austen noteth, 
i August. ser. ad infan. ●●da▪ 1. Cor. 10.  We are made partakers of the body 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 deprived of the participation and benefit of that Sacrament, seeing he hath found that already which this Sacrament signifieth. Into this holy 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 us and we in him, he ministering unto us, and we receiving of him through the holy Ghost, the suck and juice of his heavenly grace, even as branches from the Vine, whereby as his members we are quickened to everlasting life. Hereof Cyril and Hilary have written indeed very divinely, but they must have readers that are as divinely and spiritually minded, not such as the Answ. is, who turneth all to his own carnal and Capernaitish imagination. He should gather from these, that such as is our uniting and joining unto Christ, such is our eating of his flesh and drinking his blood. Our uniting unto Christ is mystical and spiritual, not carnal and bodily. Therefore such also must our eating and drinking be. As for that gross and bodily eating, Cyrill maketh a strange & absurd matter of it, when 
k Cyril. adver. Theodoret. anathe. ●●.  he saith to Theodoret: Dost thou pronounce our Sacrament to be the eating of a man, and profanely urge the minds of them that believe, to gross imaginations, and assay to handle by human conceits, those things which are to be received by only pure and sincere faith? By which words he plainly showeth, that the opinion of the Papists of the eating and drinking with the mouth the very human flesh and blood of Christ is a gross and profane imagination, and therefore little help may the Answ. hope for to his purpose, by any thing that Cyrill saith.    

P. Spence. Sect. 23.  
But S. Augustine saith, Ye shall not eat this body which ye see, and drink that blood which they shall shed, which shall crucify me; that is, 
a S. Austen speaks simpl● of eating and drinking ●ith the mouth, and denieth the same: of c●tting in gobbets he saith nothing.  not to cut it in gobbets, as the Capharnits imagined, and as flesh to be bought in the shambles, nor in this visible shape as it were Anthropophagis. You must M. Abbot not snatch pieces of S. Augustine, to make up a patched testimony to serve your own turn. For so you may make your Doctor say what you will have him. But you must consider the circumstances of the place, and thereafter judge of the meaning: as here he talketh of the Capharnites butcherly anthropophagical imagination, and therefore he telleth how we must eat Christ's body. I have commended unto you a Sacrament: being spiritually understood, it shall give you life, etc. As who should say, 
b As who should say, ye s●all not eat him in pieces but ye shall e●te him ●hole A mi●●rable answer.  you shall not eat him cut in pieces, but entire in a Sacrament, in a most divine sacramental manner, and in a spiritual high mystery: but yet most verily. For you imagine 
c Spiritually importeth that it is a thing done by the spirit, not by the body, and therefore that we eat Christ by the faith of the heart, not by the chewing of the teeth.  spiritually to be applied to the substance, whereas it is to be referred to the manner. We receive his very flesh not fleshly, but spiritually. We eat his very body, but not corporally or after a bodily manner, as we eat common meats.  

R. Abbot. 23.  
FOr disproof of that carnal eating and drinking, and consequently of Transubstantiation, I alleged Saint Austin's exposition of Christ's words in the sixth Chapter of saint john, concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood. Saint Austen writing in Psal. 98. falleth into treaty of the offence that many took at Christ's words, and showeth the reason thereof, that they 
a August in Psal. 98.  took them foolishly, they understood them carnally, and thought that he would cut them pieces of his flesh. But if they had not been hard hearted, they would have thought: It is not without some cause that he saith this. Surely there is some secret mystery in it. His disciples he instructed, saith he, and said unto them: It is the spirit that quickeneth, etc. which he expoundeth thus: Understand spiritually that which I have said: Ye shall not eat this body which ye see, nor drink that blood which they shall shed which shall crucify me. I have commended unto you a Sacrament. Being spiritually understood, it shall give you life. This place doth plainly deny that eating and drinking of the very flesh and blood of Christ, which the Capernaits dreamt of, and telleth us that we do not eat Christ's very flesh; nor drink his very blood, namely with the mouth and body: but that for our eating and drinking we have a sacrament commended unto us, which being though visibly celebrated, yet spiritually understood, doth make us partakers of the flesh and blood of Christ to everlasting life. What answer maketh the man to this? Forsooth, saint Austen meaneth that we cut not Christ's flesh in gobbets, nor as it is to be bought in the shambles, nor we eat him not in a visible shape, etc. So then belike saint Austen meant, that we eat not Christ's body piecemeal, but we swallow him whole: and so the difference betwixt the Capernaites and us, must be only this, that they would eat him in pieces, and we eat him whole. And this only difference doth the Answ. afterwards make betwixt 
1. Sect. ● 9.  the Capernites and them, that they eat him in a sacrament, whole, inviolable, like the paschal lamb, without breaking or bruising him: whereas the Capernaites imagined that they should eat him in pieces, as flesh in the shambles. Which mad fancy of eating Christ whole, Bellarmine goeth about to approve by another fancy as mad as it. For 
b Bellarm. tom 2. con●. 3. lib. 3. cap. 22.  being urged that it is a horrible & unnatural thing, and therefore not standing with piety to eat the very flesh of man, he answereth that the horror hereof is only in respect of the hurting and mangling of it. For otherwise a man would willingly eat, or as he more mildly termeth it, would receive into him his friend whom he tenderly and dearly loveth, if he might take him in whole and without hurting him. Undoubtedly Bellarmine is a kind man to his friend, that can find in his heart to eat him if he might eat him whole, and without doing him any harm. But to leave him in his madness, we see here how feign the Answ. would shift himself from being a brother to the Capernaites, and it will not be. The Gospel simply noteth the error of the Capernaites to have consisted in this, that they thought they should with their very mouths eat and drink the very flesh and blood of Christ. The same is the gross conceit of the Papists: and the Gospel condemneth both alike. The fond distinction of the manner maketh no difference in that behalf. As for saint Austen, he declareth his meaning plainly in his sermon to the people. He knoweth none of these manners and peevish differences, but speaking of eating and drinking with the mouth, he giveth them to understand that it is but the sacrament which they eat and drink, not the flesh and blood itself. Ye shall not eat the body, ye shall not drink the blood. I have commended to you a Sacrament. In another place entreating of the very same matter, he noteth that Christ signified to his hearers, that he would go up into heaven whole, that they might understand that he spoke not of that eating his very body. 
c Aug. in joh. tra. 27.  They thought that he would give them his very body, but he told them that he would go up into heaven, even whole. Thus that we may not think that either péecemeale or whole we eat the very body, he giveth us to understand that he is ascended to heaven entire & whole. To which purpose Athanasius also saith: How 
d Athan: serm. in illud Chri. Qui dixerit verbum contra filium.  should it be that all the world should eat of his flesh which would suffice but a few men? But therefore our Lord, when he spoke unto his Apostles of the eating of his flesh, made mention of his ascension unto heaven, that he might withdraw them from corporal and fleshly understanding. And so the Answerer eating of Christ whole, is indeed but a fiction and absurd shift. Yet let him remember what saint Austen saith again in another place concerning the eating of Christ in the sacrament. Thus he saith: When 
e Aug. ser. de ver. evan. Beda. 1. cor. 10  we eat Christ, we make not pieces of him. Yet surely in the Sacrament we do so, and the faithful know how they eat the flesh of Christ. Every one taketh his piece. When the grace is called pieces. Christ is eaten piecemeal, and yet continueth whole. He is eaten piece-meal in the Sacrament, and abideth entire and whole in heaven. Where he heareth saint Austen directly contrary to his assertion, saying that the flesh of Christ in the sacrament is eaten piecemeal, signifying that it is not indeed the real and very flesh of Christ, and yielding us for proof thereof this argument: That flesh of Christ which is eaten with the mouth in the sacrament, is eaten piecemeal. The true and real flesh of Christ is not eaten piecemeal. Therefore that flesh of Christ which is eaten with the mouth in the sacrament is not the true and real flesh of Christ, and consequently it is so only sacramentally and in a mystery. A sound answer to this argument without shifting would do very well. Whereas he saith again, that they eat Christ in the sacrament without breaking him, let him hearken what chrysostom saith: This 
f Chrysost. in 1. cor. 10. hom. 24.  breaking we may see in the Eucharist, but not upon the cross, nay rather the contrary there, for not a bone of him shall be broken, saith God. But that which he suffered not upon the cross, he suffereth in the Sacrifice, and permitteth himself to be broken for thee. Behold how chrysostom saith that Christ who was not broken upon the cross, is broken in the sacrament, and suffereth that now, which he did not suffer then to be done: whereof we may gather thus, that seeing the sacrament is broken, and the true and real body of Christ cannot be broken, therefore the sacrament is not the true and real body of Christ, but mystically & sacramentally, and so in the breaking of the sacrament, the body is mystically and sacramentally broken. Whereas saint Austen saith that we must spiritually understand that which Christ saith of eating his flesh and drinking his blood: the Answ. telleth me that spiritually must be referred to the manner of the flesh, because we eat it not like flesh, or cut in pieces, or as we eat common meats. But if we follow this construction of h●s, it cannot be avoided, but that the wicked and ungodly also do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood. If spiritual eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ consist in this that we eat him ●ot 〈◊〉 flesh, hewed or chopped in pieces, the wicked by th● doctrine of the Church of Room do eat him so as well as the godly, because they are in that respect alike partakers of the sacrament. But S. Austen teacheth expressly out of the 
g joh. 6. 5●  words of Christ, that 
h August. in joh. tract. 26.  they only which abide in Christ, and Christ in them, do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood. Therefore the Answ. exposition as it is a lewd and a cursed gloze: so it is expressly contrary to the doctrine of saint Austen. Such answers become him very well. But what is meant by understanding spiritually, I showed by the words of Origen, which he deceitfully passeth by, and leaveth them without answer. There 
i Orig. in Leuit. hom. ●.  is, saith he, in the new testament a letter, which killeth him that doth not listen to it spiritually. For if thou follow according to the letter that which is written, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, that letter killeth. Where he teacheth us that to understand spiritually, is to understand, not according to the letter, not as the words sound, not simply as things are uttered, as k chrysostom 
Chrysost in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 46.  speaketh, but to gather another meaning imported by the words. For example he allegeth, that those words of eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood, must not be understood according to the letter, and as the words import, but another spiritual construction must be made of them. Which S. Austen very effectually and to the purpose showeth in the next place that followeth now to be handled.    

Pet. Spence. Sect. 24.  
YEa but S. August. lib. 30. de doctr. Christiana striketh us dead. He seemeth, saith he, to command a heinous matter. Therefore it is a figure commanding, etc. This is your great Achilles so much magnified of your side. But I beseech you sir, did saint Augustine bring in this speech upon the place, This is my body: onels upon the place of saint john, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man. etc. You know it was upon the latter place. For when Christ told them they should eat his flesh, they might imagine, as indeed they did, that they should 
a A butcherly answer, & fit for the shambles. S. Austen taught not the Capernaites, but us to understand eating and drinking not properly, but by a figure.  eat it in gobbets cut, slashed and hewed, and chopped as flesh to the pot or the broach, yea monstrous and like the Cannibals, man-hunting and man-eating beastly manner: Hear therefore they must needs by saint Augustine's rule flee to some other more milder sense, and to a more human meaning, which was that he would exhibit himself to them in a sacrament in a mystical, sweet, spiritual manner. But what then? ergo not verily? Nego argumentum. Did saint Augustine say so any where? no verily. But at his supper when he reached his Apostles the forms of bread and wine, and told them (not beguiling them nor lying to them) that it was his body and blood that he gave them to eat and drink, where was now that flagitium and facinus? What fear was here of any such Capharnaticall bloody imagination? Nay here he let them see, how he before meant to give them his body when at Caphernaum he said. Nisi manducaveritis, etc. And therefore hear the manner of exhibiting his body very truly, though in a sacrament to be verily eaten, but not mangled our worried, and torn in pieces, giveth neither fear or need or occasion to S. Augustine's rule: prove that S. August. meant it in this place that at his supper he gave only a figure, or else you prove nothing.  

R. Abbot. 24.  
Here S. Austin's drift is to show what speeches of the holy scripture are to be understood properly, and what figuratively, and to another meaning then the words sound. Of the latter sort, he setteth down this rule: 
a Aug 〈…〉 6  If it be a speech that seemeth to command any heinous or wicked thing, or to forbid the doing of good, it is a figurative speech. Whereof he had given this rule before: 
b .  We must take heed that we take not a figurative 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, he doth carnally understand it. Hereof he giveth for example those words; Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, etc. Of this he saith: It seemeth to command a heinous and wicked thing. Therefore it is a figure, that is to say, a figurative speech, and therefore must not be understood as the words do import. The meaning of this figure, he declareth, It willeth us to communicate with the passion of Christ, and sweetly and profitably to lay up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. Then by S. Austin's judgement, the meaning of this figurative speech of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ is, to apply unto ourselves the benefit of his passion, and comfortably to record that his flesh was wounded, and his blood shed for the forgiveness of our sins. Whereby it is evident that he never dreamt of that monstrous and loathsome eating and drinking, which the church of Room teacheth, flesh, blood, and bone as he was born of the virgin Mary, as some of them Cannibal, and Capernait-like have uttered. This place the Answ saith is our great Achilles, much magnified of our side. The greater this Achilles is, the more strongly it behoved him to have fought against it. But he saith nothing to it, but that that is ridiculous and childish. First he cometh in with a bald and impertinent question; Did S Austen bring in this speech upon the place, This is my body? He did not so, and what then? Surely this is but to talk idly, and not to care what he saith, so be say some what. He bringeth it in for that purpose for which I alleged it, to expound the words of Christ in the sixth of john, of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ, and telleth us that it is a figurative speech, and therefore must not be understood according to the proper signification of eating and drinking. What saith this good man to it? Forsooth the Capernaites when they heard Christ speak of this matter, might imagine, as indeed they did, saith he, that they should eat it in gobbets, cut, slashed and hewed, etc. Therefore they must needs by S. Austin's rule flee to a milder sense, and to a more human meaning. Then belike S. Austen taught the Capernaites how they should have understood the words of Christ, but he teacheth not us. For we are far from imagining the eating of Christ's flesh in gobbets, slashed, hewed, chopped in pieces, as the Answ. speaketh with his butcherly and barbarous terms. Alas children see the folly of these answers. S. Austen in that place giveth us a rule of understanding the scriptures. He giveth this place for an example of his rule. He teacheth us that to eat and drink the flesh and blood of Christ importeth a horrible and heinous thing, if we understand eating and drinking properly. He talketh not of slashing or hewing, but of eating and drinking, and therefore telleth us that we must understand eating and drinking not properly, but by a figure. He telleth us what the meaning of it is, as I have showed before. Not a word to intimate any such Popish construction: nay he condemneth it as a heinous and wicked imagination. The matter is clear. Every eye may discern it. As for that which he asketh whether Christ do not give himself verily unto us, we say he doth, and that wholly with all that is his; yet not to be eaten with the mouth as being here on earth, but to be received by faith sitting in heaven, as I said before out of S. Austen. And this is enough for us to prove, and in proving whereof we confound that 
c Supr. sect. 22.  gross imagination, as Cyrill calleth it of eating the flesh of Christ, with the mouth into the belly. For that Christ at his supper giveth only a figure and nothing else: we need not prove it, because it is not our assertion, but the Answ. cavil and a Popish slander. As for the meaning of Christ's words, This is my body, it is showed before. Christ did not lie to his Disciples, nor beguile them in so saying. His Disciples were no Capernaites, they were no Papists. They knew that Christ instituted & delivered a sacrament. They knew that sacraments are called by the names of those things which they signify, whereof they had example in the name of the passover, which they celebrated at the same time, calling it the Passeover, which was indeed but a remembronce and sign thereof. Therefore they understood the meaning of Christ to be as the ancient Fathers expound it: This is a Figure, a sign, a Sacrament of my body. They saw the true body of Christ before their eyes. They knew that Christ had not a body at one and the same instant visible and invisible, with form and without form, sitting at the table, and yet enclosed in a little fragment or crust of bread. These lewd and untowardly fancies were not yet bred. They delivered no such unto us, and therefore we believe no such. Let me thus conclude out of these two places, this of Austen and that before of Origen: He that understandeth a figurative speech according to the letter, doth misunderstand it. But he that understandeth the eating and drinking of Christ's flesh & blood concerning the very eating of his flesh and drinking his blood with the mouth, understandeth a figurative speech according to the letter. Therefore he that so understandeth the eating and drinking of Christ's flesh and blood, doth misunderstand it. But the church of Rome doth so understand it. Therefore the Church of Rome doth understand it amiss.    

P. Spence. Sect. 25.  
TO conclude, we eat & drink in the blessed Sacrament Christ's flesh and blood really, truly, and indeed, but not bodily (for so much I will grant you) taking bodily, for after a gross bodily manner but sacramentally, figuratively and in a divine mystery: in a figure, not a figure of Rhetoric or of Grammar, but in a divine figure, but yet very truly.  

R. Abbot. 25.  
HEre is now the Answ. conclusion set down without any premises upon his bare word, namely that in the Sacrament they verily and truly eat and drink the flesh and blood of Christ. But against this presumed conclusion of his, I oppose the ancient prayer of the Church, mentioned by 
a De corp. & san. do.  Bertram, 
b De sacr. Euch.  Lanfrancus, and 
c De conse. dist. 2. ca species.  Gratian,: Let thy Sacraments, o Lord, work in us that which they contain, that what we now celebrate in sign or resemblance, we may in the truth of the things receive the same. They prayed to receive the truth of the things. Of what things? Namely of those, the sign or resemblance whereof they celebrated in the Sacrament, that is, of the body and blood of Christ. Then the Sacrament itself is not the truth of the body and blood, but only the sign, the image and resemblance thereof. For with what reason should they pray to receive the truth of that, which verily and truly they did receive already? But their prayer was, that whereas they did now receive but the image and sign of the body and blood of Christ, they might in the kingdom of heaven enjoy the thing itself; the very body and very blood of Christ. And hereof 
d Bertr. de corp. & san. dom.  Bertram in his book very sound concludeth, that the body of Christ is not verily & really in the Sacrament, whose whole collection to that purpose being very strong, the 
e Index Expu●●n co●r. Bertr.  Spanish censurers in their Index above named, have treacherously appointed to be left vnprinted, as before I showed of another place. Lanfrancus to avoid the evidence of this ancient prayer, so plainly contradicting the real presence, betaketh himself to an absurd shift, whose words to that purpose being, Gratian hath taken and put into the decrees in the chapter last before cited. That Truth, he saith, is to be understood of the manifestation and open revealing of the body of Christ: and affirmeth that the name of truth is diverse times used in scripture to that meaning, but yet allegeth not any one place to prove it so. Further he addeth, that the word species doth sometime import the very Truth itself, and so in that maier he will have it understood. Then the meaning of the prayer must be thus; that they might receive in truth, that which they did now receive in truth: or that they might receive in truth, that is visibly and manifestly, that which they now received in truth, but invisibly and under another shape. But the Church, as it is always convenient, used their prayer plainly and without these sophistications. If they had meant so, they had words enough to express their meaning, neither needed they to use such doubtful words, to seem to say one thing and yet to mean another. They plainly oppose species and veritas: the sign and the truth one against the other. They would not put veritas in an unproper signification, as opposite to species, and understand it in proper signification included in the word species. This were a very strange and unwonted kind of speaking. And therefore referring the sign or resemblance to the time present, and the truth to the time to come, they plainly show that there is not now in the Sacrament the very truth, but only the resemblance of the body of Christ, and therefore that we do not in the sacrament really and verily with our mouths eat the body of Christ. And this is most plainly affirmed by Hierome as Gratian citeth him in the decrees: 
f ●e conse. di. 2 cap. de hac.  Surely, saith he, Of this sacrifice which is wonderfully made in remembrance of Christ, a man may eat: but of that which Christ offered upon the altar of the cross as touching itself, no man may eat. The host or sacrifice which Christ offered upon the Cross was his very body and blood. The sacrament thereof, he saith we do receive and eat, but as touching itself, no man may eat thereof. Therefore no man may eat the very body and drink the very blood of Christ, but these speeches must be figuratively understood, as hath been noted out of Austen. And whereas the Answ. saith for declaration of S. Austin's meaning that we eat the flesh of Christ in a figure, not in a figure of Rhetoric or Grammar, but in a divine figure, he may have that justly returned to him which S. Austen said of a forefather of his: 
g Aug. count adver. leg. & proph. lib. 2. cap. 9  Imperita peritia de figurarum qualitate tractat: He would seem skilful, but talketh very unskilfully of the quality of Figures. For if he were required a meaning of this his divine figure, no doubt it would prove to be a very disfigured and misshapen thing. He had a fancy in his head, wherein he thought he had gone beyond all his fellows, & he was glad that he had gotten occasion here to utter it. But the Figure of which S. Austen speaketh is figurata locutio, a figurative speech, a Rhetoric figure called a metaphor, which is not to be understood 
h August. de doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 5. & 16.  proprie or ad literam, properly, of according to the letter, and as the words do barely signify, as before hath been said, because by the said figure the word is translated from his own proper signification, to express another thing, which in some respect is fitly and conveniently resembled thereby. As for example because by believing we do as it were lay hold upon Christ, apply him unto ourselves, make him ours, assure ourselves of his body crucified; and his blood shed for the forgiveness of our sins to the relief & comfort of our distressed and afflicted souls, even as in eating we take meat and receive it into our stomachs and incorporate it into ourselves, to the cherishing and strengthening of our weak and feeble bodies; therefore the word of eating which properly belongeth to the body, is used to express the effect of believing in Christ which appertaineth only to the soul. And thus doth S. Austen mean that there is a figure in these words of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ, as appeareth both in the place above mentioned as touching this figure, and by his exposition of the same words upon the sixth of john.    

P. Spence. Sect. 26.  
GOdly men have noted upon these words Tradetur & effundetur, shallbe given, shallbe shed, that Christ used them by an Energy to signify that the blessed Sacrament, that he gave to his Apostles, was not his fantastical, or imaginative body: but that very body of his that was to be crucified, tormented, and slain on the cross. I confess those words not strong enough to compel a repining adversary, but yet very well able sweetly to allure 
a A silly fool that without trial will believe whatsoever the church of Room doth lewdly persuade him.  an obedient child of the Catholic Church to believe her in this point, having so many other infinite reasons joined thereunto. But remember I oppose not, neither will I, neither may I by the laws, but only much against my will I am drawn by you to answer your objections according to my small talon. Otherwise you should hear whether the fathers be ours or not, or what we might say to this effect.  

R. Abbot. 26.  
OF the words of Christ, This is my body which shallbe given, This is my blood which shallbe shed. The Answerer confesseth that that additien, which shallbe given, which shallbe shed, is not an argument strong enough against a repining adversary, but yet able to allure an obedient child of the Church. It is used in corners indeed to seduce and be guile the ignorant; but alas simple souls that suffer themselves to be deceived with those arguments, which their seducers confess to be no substantial proofs. I hold you one of those simple ones, M. Spence, who alleged it to me for a very good reason. If Campion took it not to be so, then was it great want of discretion in him 
a Camp. Rat. 2  to allege it as an argument to university men, who he might know would soon take notice of his folly in that be half. And here I may not omit to note the perverse dealing of the Answ. godly men forsooth in this matter, who when they are in hand with Transubstantiation will prove it by the words of Christ thus, that he said: this is my body which shallbe given, This is my blood which shallbe shed, as the vulgar Latin readeth. Lo, say they, Christ nameth the very body and blood that was after to be given and shed upon the cross; therefore the sacrament is the very body of Christ. Thus M. Spence and his godly fellows reason. But when they are in hand with sacrifice, they will have it thus: My body which 
b Hard. Answ. art. 17. Di. 4. Rhem. Annot. Luc. 22. 19  is given; my blood which is shed, in the present tense according to the Greek, and will prove hereby that Christ did even at that present offer a sacrifice of his body and blood, that he gave his body and shed his blood, because he saith not, shallbe given, but is given, nor shallbe shed, but is shed. Thus they toss the words of Christ as it were a tennis ball from one wall to another, and suffer them not to rest in any certain meaning, but turn them and wind them as their fickle and unstable fancies give them occasion. The meaning of the words is one and certain, that the sacrament is a figure and sign of the body and blood of Christ given and shed for the forgiveness of our sins. His infinite other reasons and authorities of the Fathers which he baunteth he could allege, are all of the same stamp as these are. They are but words of course that he useth to that purpose, serving to fright his obedient children: but the children of God have good experience, that it is but foolish and idle talk.    

P. Spence. Sect. 27.  
I Confess all that you say next following of the wonderful speeches, and also of the effects of the blessed sacrament by our conjunction with Christ wrought thereby, & also of our resurrection, justification, and sanctification, saving that you imagine with calvin, (which before him no man imagined) that we receive these effects, and graces by a conduct of faith, that sucketh a very real virtue, flowing out of his very flesh in heaven: which to do needeth 
a Untrue, for God hath appointed both the one and the other to be means whereby our faith should more & more lay hold upon Christ, and feed upon him to eternal life.  no Sacrament at all, but only to preach unto us, and so Caluin saith himself, that if our faith were quick enough, we might without the sacramental signs receive the Sacrament at all times, and minutes of the day. An imagination very metaphysical, bred in his own brain, and hatched up only by himself, tending to the contempt and overthrow of the Sacrament. But we say that we receive all the said graces and effects most divine by our spiritual receiving of him in faith, hope and charity, joined with the entrance of his blessed body into ours, & so by that divine touching thereof, we are so united to him, as man and woman by the conjunction of their bodies; become one body or one flesh according to S. Paul: For we being many are one bread and one body, all which are partakers of one bread and one cup. 1. Cor. 10. This same, one bread and one cup, whereof we participate, is Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament received, which by entering into our bodies, and touching us; maketh us all one 
b In that manner do we eat Christ, as he maketh us one amongst ourselves, & one with him. This is not done by bodily touching: therefore neither do we eat him by bodily feeding.  amongst ourselves, and one with him, this being a Sacrament of unity. And it is to be understood of Christ, not of very bread, which cannot be one in so many places of the christian world, but 
c It is one bread in mystery throughout all the world, even as it is one cup.  divers breads. We do therefore participate of one bread in the blessed Sacrament, which is Christ.  

R. Abbot. 27.  
HE confesseth those excellent and heavenly effects of the Sacrament which I set down, saving that I follow Caluins metaphysical imagination, as he termeth it, that we receive the same effects in the sacrament by faith. Caluins' judgement in that point is indeed more metaphysical than that a mere natural should understand it. He knew well enough that Christians come not to their sacraments as swine to a trough, as if they were to receive the graces of God with their bodily mouths, and therefore that it must be the hand of the soul, 
a Augu. in joh. tra. 50.  which is faith that must receive the same, both in the word and in the sacrament: He found by comparing the speeches of 
b joh. 6. 47. 54  Christ in the sixth of john, that by believing in Christ we eat and drink the flesh and blood of Christ, and consequently receive all the virtues and graces that arise from thence to us. He found that S. Austen did so expound it: To 
c August. in joh. tra. 26.  believe in Christ, saith he, that is to eat the bread of life. He that believeth in him eateth him. He knew that the fathers of the old testament received the same graces that we do, and that they received them by faith, and that we have 
d cor. 4. 13.  the same spirit 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 word and Sacraments to be means both to begin and also to continue, uphold, & increase our faith, that by this faith in the exercise of the same word & sacraments we might more & more grow into society and unity with Christ until we attain to the fullness of our perfection. Now whereas the Answ. objecteth that if our eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ be only by faith, than we may eat and drink the same at any time without any sacrament, I would have him know that we take not the same eating and drinking to be any momentany action, but the continual exercise of a lively faith. For although the mind perhaps by reason of the present occasion be most effectually bestowed to this exercise, either in the use of the word, or especially of the sacrament, and of the sacrament so much the more by how much visible and apparent signs and tokens are more forcible to move us then only words, yet we know that neither the word nor the sacraments have only a present effect, but serve to settle and continue Christ in our consciences in such sort that he may be a continual meat for our souls to feed upon: that by the assured belief of his body given, and his blood shed for the forgiveness of our sins, our hearts may be cheered continually, and comforted against all the occasions of doubt and distrustfulness: which from day to day, and from hour to hour arise to disquiet our minds. And as Abraham our father though he had faithfully embraced the promise of God, and the covenant, of his grace, yet needed the sacrament of circumcision for a seal of the same covenant, thereby to be upholden in the continual assurance thereof; so we though we have once by the word of the Gospel and participation of his sacraments, received Christ to be the food and sustenance of our souls, yet that we lose not Christ again, and the comfort of his grace, our faith needeth to be continually exercised and strengthened by the offering and yielding of Christ unto us in his word and sacraments, which else through the want of these means would fail, decay and die in us, even as we see the body to perish for want of his daily food. Which I note for the avoiding of that cavil which perhaps the Answ. would move against that that hath been said: that if we may eat the flesh and blood of Christ without any sacrament, than we need not any sacrament for the doing thereof. For although we do by faith eat and drink the same when there is no sacrament: yet it followeth not thereof that the sacrament is needless, because the Sacrament is one of those special and most effectual means whereby God offereth and giveth Christ unto us, with all his benefits to be ours, that our faith may lay hold upon him and receive him to make him the continual food and sustenance of our souls. And if the aforesaid eating and drinking import not such an action as may be at all times and without the sacrament, what shall we say of those that are hindered from ever being partakers of the Sacrament, as the thief that was crucified with Christ, but that they are consequently secluded from everlasting life. For Christ saith: 
e joh. 6. 53.  Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, ye shall not have everlasting life. If then the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ cannot be without the sacrament, it followeth that he which receiveth not the sacrament faileth of eternal life. But to say so, is erroneous and damnable doctrine. Therefore the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ, signifieth such a thing as may be done at all times and without the sacrament.  
But now that the Answ. hath so rejected that manner of receiving the grace of Christ in the sacrament which Caluin taught, let us see how he will have the same to be received. He saith we have it by our spiritual receiving of Christ in faith, hope, and charity. But this hangeth not well together with that which he saith afterward of the sacraments, yielding their effect by the very work wrought, and therefore without any of these. Let that be reserved to his due place. But here we have him confessing that faith is one means of the receiving of God's grace in the sacrament. Marry yet he excepteth that it must be joined with the entrance of Christ's body into our bodies, and so by that divine touching thereof, we are so united unto him, as man and woman by the conjunction of their bodies become one body and one flesh. What a gross and swinish imagination is this, that by corporal entrance of Christ's body into ours, we must be made one with Christ, as man and woman by corporal conjunction become one flesh? Saint Paul teacheth us to loath this fancy, when he saith: 
f 1. cor. 6. 16. 17.  Know ye not that he which coupleth himself with an harlot, is one body. For two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord, is one spirit. Where by an opposition of the body and the spirit, of the corporal joining of man and woman, and the spiritual uniting of Christ and us, he giveth plainly to understand that the conjunction betwixt Christ and us, is not wrought by any bodily commixtion of substances as is the conjunction of man and woman, but by the spiritual apprehension of the believing soul, receiving through the holy Ghost the fruit and effect of the body of Christ being in heaven. And this S. Cyprian notably declareth when he saith: g The conjunction betwixt Christ & us neither mingleth our 
Cypri. de caena domini.  persons, nor uniteth our substances, but coupleth our affections and conjoineth our wills, and so the Church being made Christ's body doth obey the head, and the higher light being shed upon the lower, & reaching with the fullness of his brightness from end to end, doth abide whole with itself, and yieldeth itself whole to all, & the oneness of that warmth doth so assist the body, that it departeth not from the head. By which words he showeth, that our conjunction with Christ is altogether spiritual, and that we are made the body of Christ not by any corporal or bodily touching or bringing our substances together, but by the spiritual working of his effectual power, set forth by a comparison of the sun, working in these inferior bodies, and yet abiding in heaven, as before also I declared. And as concerning the touching of Christ, S. Ambrose saith: 
h Ambros. in Luc. 24 lib. 10.  We touch not Christ by bodily handling, but by faith, etc. Therefore, saith he, Neither on the earth, neither in the earth, nor after the flesh, ought we to seek thee, O Christ, if we will find thee. To the same effect, also S. Austen speaketh by occasion of Christ's words to Mary Magdalin: 
i joh. 20 17.  Touch me not: for I am not yet ascended to my father. 
k August. in joh. tract. 26. & epist. 59  She might not touch him standing on the earth, saith he, and how should she touch him being ascended to the father? Yet thus, even 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, equal to the father. And this touching he there expoundeth, believing as Ambrose doth. Our touching of Christ then is our believing 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 sick woman in the Gospel though with her hand touching but 
l Mat. 9 20. 22.  only the hem of Christ's garment, yet whilst 
m Aug. ibid. ut supra.  by faith she touched Christ himself, received virtue from him to make her whole: So we although with our bodily hands we touch but only the Sacrament which is but as it were the hem of his garment, yet whilst by faith we touch himself, sitting at the right hand of God in heaven, we receive of him virtue and grace to everlasting life. Which virtues and effects seeing we receive in Baptism also, as hath been before showed, it is manifest, that it is not by any such corporal touching as the Answ. most absurdly hath expressed. Here he cavilleth further concerning saint Paul's words: We are all partakers of one bread, and one cup. By bread, he saith, must needs be understood the body of Christ, for if we understand it of bread indeed, all are not partakers of one bread, but many breads. But his understanding deceiveth him. The Sacrament, as he confesseth, is a Sacrament of unity. Christ would commend unto us this unity 
n Aust. in joh. tra. 26. Cypr. li. 1. epist. 6.  by being partakers of those things, which of many are made one, as bread of many grains, & wine of many grapes. To this the name of one bread hath relation, admonishing us being many, to become one. But I hope the body of Christ shall not be said to be made of many corns 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 loaves it be many breads, yet in use and mystery or signification is all one. And so though the cup be diverse according to the diversity of places, yet in the same manner we are also said to be partakers of one cup.    

Pet. Spence. Sect. 28.  
AS for Gratian, I am sorry to see how foully you abuse him, did he doubt of the verity of transubstantiation, or of Christ's presence? All the whole part de consecratione, doth proclaim the contrary. But the thing which some not unproblably do expound in this place, the truth of the flesh and blood to be the efficiency thereof: that is, the forgiveness of sins; was not any words of Christ touching the Sacrament, but the words of a prayer which he a little before mentioned, which he meaneth by saying in this place: which was quae nunc specie gerimus, rerum veritate capiamus, which had two senses (as Gratian telleth you) the one was, that we may once receive in a manifest vision▪ as it is indeed the body of Christ, the which under the forms of bread and wine is celebrated. The other sense of that prayer was, with some men thus: that we may receive the effect of those mysteries, that is to say remission of sins in verity, whereof now in a Sacrament under the forms of bread and wine we celebrate the mystery. For you know this is a Sacrament of remission of sins, which some, (saith Gratian,) understood by the truth of the things in the said prayer. Is this to deny the real presence? but your mind is so wholly set upon that point, that (like your merry, I dare not say mad Athenian) all things sound against Christ's presence, and all the bells ring against Transubstantiation in your ears.  

R. Abbot. 28.  
THe prayer of the ancient Church which I mentioned before, Sect. 25. beside the exposition of Lanfrancus there set down, is reported by Gratian to have been otherwise expounded by some other. The Church prayed at the receiving of the Sacrament, that they might 
a De cons●●. dist 2. cap. species.  receive the truth of the flesh & blood of Christ. Some saith Gratian, not without probability, expound the truth of the flesh & blood of Christ in this place, to be the effect thereof, that is, the forgiveness of sins. Whereby it is evident, that those some did understand the receiving of the truth of Christ's flesh and blood to be, not that corporal eating and drinking which the church of Rome maintaineth, but the participation of the effects of his passion, that is, forgiveness of sins, according to that which was before declared out of S. Austen. Now to note that in receiving the effect and fruit of the flesh and blood of Christ, we are said to be partakers of the same flesh and blood, I alleged this exposition in my former Treatise, which doth plainly testify the same. But the Ans. as a melancholy man, imagining himself to be made of glass, and fearing every wall, lest he should be cracked in pieces, thinketh his real presence to be here disputed against, and telleth me that I do foully abuse Gratian, in making him an adversary of Transubstantiation & real presence, and moreover that those words do not serve for exposition of the words of Christ. What Gratian thought, I stand not upon: it may be he was as absurd in his conceits as the answer. is. I speak of them whose exposition he allegeth, who as touching their church prayer, tell us that a man in receiving the effects of Christ's flesh and blood, is said to receive the truth of his flesh and blood, and this is all for which I alleged it. Albeit it seemeth to me indeed now a strong proof against real presence. For if they had thought that they had received the very truth of the flesh and blood of Christ, according to the substance in the sacrament, they would have used other words to empress the effects thereof, and not pray again to receive the truth, that is, the effects. But it skilleth not whether it be a proof to this purpose or not. There be belle● enough to ring against Transubstantiation and real presence, though the clapper of this should be pulled out. It is fit enough to show that for which I brought it, and therefore all this answer of his is but a fond cavil.    

P. Spence. Sect. 29.  
YOu charge our doctrine with Caphemitish eating & drinking of Christ's body: and of those monstrous, blasphemous, & horrible conceits, which some of our captains have fallen into. As for those conceits, I cannot conceive what they might be on god's name▪ and therefore will conceive no answer to them, till I understand your conceits, but refer th●se conceits to your own conceit. But you 
a Untruth, for the Capernaits thought they should eat with their mouths the flesh of Christ, and so do the Papists.  roave wide from the mark, in calling us Capharnites, for we are far enough from thinking to eat Christ's body piece-meal, as flesh in the shambles▪ We eat him in a Sacrament whole, inviolable, like the paschal Lamb, without breaking a bone of him▪ ye● not hurting of him, nor bruising of him, nor tearing of him with our teeth as the ●ap●er●its dreamt of. Remember what S. Thomas Aquinas a Papist in the office of the Sacrament saith, and all the church singeth A sument non concisus, non confractus, nec divisus, integer accipitur. Which sequences Luther was very far in love withal, & a late Papist of Oxonf●rd sing not long since in a most sweet tune of that same matter: Sumeris, & sumptus rursu●● sine fine resumi, Ne● tamen absumi diminuiu● potes. Beware, bear not false witness against your neighbours.  

R. Abbot. 29.  
I Charge them with the gross error of the Capernaits in their doctrine of eating Christ's body and blood. But he answereth me that I roave wide from the mark in calling them Capernaits. And why I pray? Marry sir, the Capernaits thought they should eat Christ's body by pieces, but they say they eat him whole. Surely but that the judgement of God is great upon them, it were wonder that such vnha●so● imaginations should prenaile with reasonable men. I have spoken hereof 
a Sect. 23.  before. As for his sequences & verses, they may have their convenient understanding without that absurd construction of eating & drinking which he maketh. I told him of monstrous, blasphemous, & horrible conceits that some captains of his part have r●nne into by defence of that eating. He answereth me very pleasantly, that he understandeth not those conceits, but referreth those conceits to mine own conceit. But M. Spence you could have told him what they were, because you had been before urged therewith, but could not stumble out any answer to them. Let me tell him what they are. I refer him first to the gloze of the Canon law, where he shall find this conceit, that 
b De conse, dist. 2. cap. Qui benè.  It is no great inconvenience to say, that a Mouse receiveth the body of Christ, seeing that most wicked men do also receive it. The master of the sentences knoweth not what to conceive hereof 
c Lib. 4. dist. 13.  What doth the mouse take, or what doth he eat? God knoweth, saith he. As for him, he cannot tell. Yet he holdeth that 
d Ibid.  It may be fondly said, that the body of Christ is not eaten of bruit beasts. But he is noted for that in the margin▪ Here the Master is not holden, and the 
e In erroribus condemn. Paris.  Parisians set it down for one of his errors not commonly received: that he saith, that the bruit croature doth not receive the very body of Christ. Let him look the conceit of 
f Pat. 4. qu. 45.  Alexander de Hales. If a dog or a swine should swallow the whole consecrated host, I see no reason why the body of Christ should not withal pass into the belly of the dog or swine▪ He commendeth Thomas Aquinas by the name of a Papist, and his catholic church, hath set him in his place, next the Canonical scriptures. Let him look the conceits of this Papist: 
g Thom. Aqui. sum. par. 3. qu. 79. art. 3. in res. ad. 3.  Albeit, saith he, A mouse or a dog do eat the consecrated host, yet the substance of the body of Christ ceaseth not to be under the form, (of the brea●) so long as the same form doth remain, etc. A● also if it should be cast into the mire. And again; some have said that straightway assoon as the Sacrament is touched of the mouse or dog, there ceaseth to be the body of Christ: but this, saith he, derogateth from the truth of the Sacrament. And again: 
h Ibi. in corp. arti.  The body of Christ doth so long conti●●e under the sacrament all forms received by sinful men, as the substance of bread would remain if it were there: which ceaseth not to be by and by, but remaineth until it be digested by natural heat. These are those horrible and blasphemous conceits which the Answ. could not conceive out of my former words. These are the fruits of their Transubstantiation and real presence, that the very body of Christ is received into the bellies of d●gs and swine and mice, that it may be in the dirt & in the bellies of ungodly men, until the forms ●e consumed and digested, beside other filthy matters, 
i Antonin. sum. p. 3. tit. 13. cap. 6. q. 3. de defectib. Missae.  of vomiting up the body of Christ, and eating it again being vomited, and drawing it out of the entrails of the mouse or other beast that hath eaten it, etc. which are most leathsome to any Christian ears to hear of, 〈◊〉 yet very venturously disputed of and resolved upon by Antonin●s, no meaner a man then Archbishop of Florence, and as I think Sainted by the Pope for his great pains. Never any Capernaite more gross, never Manichée more blasphemous, than these villainous imaginations which these caitiffs have published to the world, and their real presence standing, they cannot resolve 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 Answ. now think with himself, with what reason he bid me beware of bearing false witness against my neighbour. Let him remember that thieves and malefactors do usually call true evidence false witness, but yet their honesty and truth is no whit the more. S. Hierom saith, that 
k Hierony. in Esa. 66. li. 18.  they which are lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God, and are not holy both in body and spirit, do neither eat the flesh of Christ nor drink his blood, whereof he himself speaketh in the sixth of john, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life. Where out of the words of Christ himself, he secludeth not only bruit beasts, but also ungodly and unholy men from eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ. Yet it may so be that not only unholy & profane men, but also bruit beasts may eat of the Romish host or Sacrament. Therefore the Romish Sacrament is not the very flesh and blood of Christ, as the Romish faction would bear us in hand that it is.    

P. Spence. Sect. 30.  
THe conformity of the words of the Evangelists, and of S. Paul is so great a matter, as that of itself it offereth good and great cause of noting it, without the warning of any Allen, Parsons, or any other never so learned. And your similitude of the sacrifices of the old law so agreeably uttered, (and yet by your leave but by one Moses alone, and not by three sundry Evangelists, and one Apostle, as it is in this case) fitteth not to this. For Moses endued with the spirit of God, could not in any words imagine to attribute 
a A mere fancy. Their Sacraments yielded the same fruit to them that ours do to us. See sect. 20.  such a working force, ex opere operato to the legal expiations (which wrought ex adiuncto fidei, and not of themselves) as is to be given to the Sacraments of Christ, howsoever your side abase them as low as the very jewish Sacraments. I am glad that the plain consent of the Evangelists, and Saint Paul doth so little like you in this point.  

R. Abbot. 30.  
THere is urged for the proof of Transubstantiation the consent of the Evangelists, and S. Paul saying all alike, This is my body; whereas if they meant not to be understood literally, the one would have expounded the other. But the conformity of these three Evangelists, and S. Paul is no stronger an argument, as I have told him, to prove Transubstantiation, than the continual calling of the old sacrifices of Moses law by the name of expiations and attonementes, was to prove that they were verily and indeed expiations and attonementes for sin, which yet were but types and figures thereof, as the Sacrament is a figure and sign of the body and blood of Christ. The exception of the Answ. that that was spoken but by one Moses, & this by three Evangelists and one Apostle is vain. The holy Ghost spoke in both places by whomsoever, and if the Answ. argument be good, must needs have altered that speech in Moses law. But that the goodness of it is disinherited by his own fellows also: it followeth after to be showed. That which he addeth in this place of the working force in both sacraments, the old and the new, is impertinent. I spoke not of the working force of either, but of the like phrase of speech concerning both. But yet whereas he saith that the Sacraments of the new testament have force by the very work wrought, I must tell him that he speaketh without scripture, without father, a thing absurd in itself, and contrary also to that which he hath said before. If we obtain the effects of the Sacrament by receiving Christ in faith, hope and charity together with the entrance of his body into ours, as he said before, than the sacrament giveth not that grace by the very work wrought, as he saith here. If it give grace by the very work wrought, as he saith here, than it is not to be ascribed to faith, hope and charity as he saith there. The council of Trent hath told us that a man 
a Concil. Trident. sess. 6. ca 9  may not assure himself that he hath received the grace of God. But if the sacraments yield gra●● by the very work wrought, a man may assure himself that he hath received grace, because he may assure himself that he is baptized. And what reason is there why infants, naturals and frantic persons should be excluded from receiving the Lords supper, if the Sacrament have his force of the very work done. But S. Austen plainly refuteth this conceit as touching our sacraments: 
b August in joh. tra. 80.  Whence hath the water such force, saith he, to touch the body, and cleanse the heart: but that the word worketh it, and that not because it is spoken, but because it is believed. Therefore he calleth it according to the Apostle, 
c Rom. 10. 8. 9  The word of faith, because if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord jesus, and believe in thine heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. To this purpose he allegeth that God is said 
d Act. 15. 9  to cleanse the heart by faith▪ and that of S. Peter, that 
e 1. Pet. 3. 21.  baptism saveth us, not the washing away the filth of the flesh, (that is, not for the very work wrought) but the answer of a good conscience towards God. To this effect Tertullian saith: 
f Tertul de resurrect carnis.  The soul is sanctified, not by the washing of water, but by the answer of faith. And S. Austen again: 
g August. quae vet. & novi. test. q. 59  He cannot attain the heavenly gift which thinketh himself to be changed by the water, and not by faith. Hereby it is plain that Baptism hath his force not of the very work done, but of true and unfeigned faith working in the heart good conscience towards God. So as touching the other Sacrament, S. Austen referreth the virtue and effect thereof 
h August. in joh. tr. 26. & de civit. dei. li. 21. cap. 25.  to our eating inwardly and in the heart, and this eating inwardly he expoundeth to be our believing in Christ, and resolveth that he that by this believing in Christ, abideth not in Christ, and Christ in him, he doth not spiritually eat and drink the flesh and blood of Christ, though he receive the sacrament thereof. Therefore neither doth this Sacrament avail by the work wrought, but only by faith whereby we abide in Christ, and Christ in us. A miserable doctrine it is whereby men are borne in hand that coming without faith, void of knowledge, without repentance or any good motion, yet they may receive the effect of the sacraments whereas the Scripture so plainly affirmeth that 
i Rom 14. 23.  whatsoever is not of faith, is sin, and that 
k Heb. 11. 6.  without faith it is unpossible to please God; and therefore precisely chargeth every man before he come to the Lords table 
l 1. cor. 11. 28.  to examine himself 
m 2 Cor. 13. 5.  in that behalf. But for disproof of this assertion, it is reason enough that there can be no reason nor probable show of reason given whereby to prove it. Of the difference of the jews sacraments and ours, I have spoken before. We abase neither, but lift both very high. The consent of the Evangelists availeth with me to make me yield to that which can be sound proved thereby, not to every thing that froward and perverse men will peevishly fancy thereof.    

P. Spence. Sect. 31.  
YOu tell me a matter out of S. Luke, 22. but in good sooth to what purpose I cannot imagine. Who ever denied but it was Metonymia, when he said this cup is the new testament or rather two tropes in one sentence. For the cup is taken for Christ's blood in the cup, and to be the new testament is to be the seal, establishment, promulgation and consecration of the new testament. Who ever denied it? but because we say that the true body and blood of Christ is contained in the sacramental forms, and that Christ saying, This is my body, spoke plainly 
a Be like when you list, there is a figure, and when you list, there is none. You might understand the one by a Figure, as well as the other.  without a figure: therefore must we mean so grossly, that no where the scripture speaking of this matter useth a figure? O● would you conclude thus, in these words? This cup is the new testament, there is a figure, ergo in these words, This is my body? Logic will be good cheap if this may go for currant. But good sir let me be bold a little with you to put you in mind of this place of S. Luke, that 
b A popish & peevish brag. See the answer. Qui calix.  so troubled Beza, that he witted not what to say to it, but he imagined that either some sorry fellow had foisted it into the text, or else that S. Luke spoke false greek so sure he was that the text was awry, it made so sore against him. For setting it down by the participle as it is in greek thus it soundeth, hic calix nowm testamentum in sanguine meo pro vobis effusus. Which must needs respect Calix for his substantive, and then the cup, that is, the liquor in the cup, was shed for them and us all, which if it were wine, let every good christian man judge. I hope he shed for our salvation a far more precious liquor then wine. And doctor Fulke to salve this sore, telleth us that in many places of the greek text of other Scriptures there is incongruity. Very true, I confess but it is smally to the purpose. For where no sense will help the syntaxis, there we must needs grant incongr●itie. But how 
c There are reasons enough to prove it. See the answer.  proved doctor Fulke that the sense wherein this place is congrue and according to grammar, is not the true sense? Or why should he not allow it for congrue being indeed congrue? Or why should Beza imagine, and he allow of a sense, that is not congrue when the text was congrue enough? This point being the state of the question, Doctor Fulke stealeth away from and meddleth not with it: because it was too plain for us and against his sacramentary doctrine. As likewise was that place of S. Luke, where drinking at his Supper in wine to his Disciples, before he instituted the Sacrament, he told them he would drink wine no more till in his kingdom, which was after his resurrection, and yet a little after he 
d What did Christ drink his own blood? we can not believe it.  drank to them in the Sacrament, which if it had been wine, he had contraried his former speech: an absurdity I think not to be admitted.  

R. Abbot. 31.  
FOr further answer as touching the conformity used in these words, This is my body, I showed how S. Luke, and S. Paul vary from S. Matthew and S. Mark, as touching the other part of the sacrament. For whereas these say: this is my blood of the new testament, etc. The other say, This cup is the new testament in my blood. etc. And these latter words I showed to ●e the overthrow of transubstantiation. But the Answ. in good sooth telleth me that he cannot see to what purpose this is alleged. I pray you therefore, M. Spence, put him in mind of his headless reason which he hath used before. Christ, saith he, will call nothing by a wrong name. If he should call fire, water, earth by the names of air, stones or bread, they would sooner become air, stones & bread, than he would misname any thing. He did not lie to his Disciples: he did not beguile 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 strait laced that he cannot yield a figure in the other words, especially seeing the ancient Fathers so expressly expound them by way of figure, and neither he nor his, can make any certain exposition of them but by a figure. But it followeth not, he saith, that because there is a figure in the one speech, therefore there is so also in that 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, than it followeth not, that because Christ taking the bread said thereof: This is my body, therefore the bread was turned into his body. And this is so good Logic that diverse great masters of his side have plainly confessed that the words of the Gospel notwithstanding the aforesaid consent do not enforce Transubstantiation, as I told him before, and he answereth nothing to it. Yea Bellarmine himself who hath taken upon him to be the Atlas of Popery at this time, after that he hath sweat and travailed to prove it by the scripture, when he hath all done, is content to confess so much. For being urged that Scotus and Cameracensis do say, that there is no so express place of scripture, that it can enforce to admit of Transubstantiation, he answereth: 
a Bellar. tom. 2. contr. 3. li 3. cap. 23.  This indeed is not altogether unlikely. For although the scripture, which I have alleged before, seem to us so clear that it is able to force a man that is not overthwart, yet whether it be so or not, it may worthily be doubted; for that most learned & sharp witted men, such as Scotus especially was, do think the contrary. It is sufficient for our discharge, that the jesuit confesseth that it may justly be doubted whether Transubstantiation may be proved by the scripture or not, and that it is likely that indeed it cannot. The matter than is come to this pass, that Transubstantiation must be believed because of the authority of the Church of Rome, but otherwise that it cannot be proved by the authority of the scripture. But we dare not trust the Church of Rome so far as to receive any doctrine of her without the warrant of the scripture. For we are of Chrysostom's mind: 
b Chrisost. in Psal 95.  If any thing saith he, be spoken without scripture, the mind of the hearer halteth or hangeth in suspense. But when there cometh out of the scripture the testimony of the voice of God, it confirmeth both the mind of the hearer and the words of the speaker. They must prove it unto us by the scripture, or else we cannot be assured of it. But they cannot agree how to expound the words of scripture for it, and the scripture itself is manifestly against it. Christ saith: This is my body. The word This, doth demonstrate and point to somewhat. And what may that be? One of them saith one thing, and another saith another thing, & in fine, they cannot tell. So that we must suppose that Christ said, This I know not what is my body. Bellarmine cometh after all the rest to resolve the matter, and he telleth us that we must understand it thus: 
c Bellar. tom 2 cont 3 lib. 1. ca 10. 11.  This that is contained under the forms is my body. But the question is the same again, what is that contained under the forms? To say it is the body before all the words of consecration be spoken, they themselves will not allow. But except the body, 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 needs have this meaning, This bread is the sign and Sacrament of my body, and consequently overthrow Transubstantiation. Moreover what Christ broke & bid his Disciples take and eat, that they did take and eat. It was bread which he broke and bid them take and eat: for the words of consecration were not yet spoken. Therefore it was bread which they did take and eat. But that which they did eat, Christ called his body. Therefore Christ called bread his body, and meant, This bread is my body. So likewise as touching the other part of the Sacrament, we say, that what Christ willed them to drink, that they did drink. But Christ willed them to drink wine, saying, Drink ye all of this, and this was wine, because there was yet no consecration. Therefore they did drink wine. That which they did drink, Christ called his blood. The words therefore of Christ must be thus meant, This wine is my blood. And so he expoundeth himself immediately, when he calleth it: This fruit of the vine, showing hereby to what we must refer the word This, when he saith, This is my blood, namely to the fruit of the vine, that is to say, wine. To avoid these things thus plainly gathered from the circumstances of the text, many blind shifts have been devised; but one especially most worthy to be noted 
d Tho. Aquin. pag. 3. q. 78. art. 1.  that the Evangelists do not report these matters of the institution of the Sacrament in that order as they were spoken and done by our Saviour Christ. Thus to serve their turn, the Evangelists must be controlled, and upon their word we must believe that these things are not so orderly set down as the matter required. I might add hereunto how the scripture usually calleth the Sacrament 
c Act. 20. 7. 1. Cor. 10. 16. & 11. 26. 27. 28  bread, even after consecration in the breaking & distributing and eating thereof; than which what should we require more to assure us that in substance it is bread indeed? And of this speech they can give no certain reason neither, but are carried up and down from fancy to another, as appeareth by Lanfrancus, saying; 
f Lanfran lib. de sacram. Euchar●.  It is called bread either because it was made of bread and retaineth some qualities thereof, or because it feedeth the soul, or because it is the body of the son of God who is the bread of Angels, or in some other manner which may be conceived 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 deserve to be led up and down from error to error, and folly to folly, as it were after a dancing fire, who refuse to be guided and directed by the clear and shining light of the evident word of God. By this that hath been said, it may appear sufficiently how little hold the Answ. hath in the consent of the Euange lists, for the proof of his Transubstantiation, even by the confession of his own fellows, to whose wisdom and learning he doth greatly trust.  
But yet once again to prove it by the Gospel, we have another argument, wherein the Answ. as a saucy fellow taketh upon him to censure & control M. Beza and M. Fulke, in a matter of Greek construction, as he did M. Caluin and B. jewel, in other matters before. But what may it be that he presumeth so much on. Forsooth the Greek in Luc. 22. is so plain against our doctrine and for proof of Transubstantiation, that Beza was greatly troubled there with, and was feign to say that either S. Luke spoke false Greek, or else that somewhat was foisted into the text. This argument Gregory Martin and others, have run out of breath already, and therefore it will not serve the Answerers turn to carry him so far as he would feign go. That which he mentioneth first of false Greek, is but his peevishness and malice. Beza nameth it Solaecophanes, which is a figure noting an appearance of incongruity by departure from the usual and ordinary course of Grammar construction. The same he noteth may be excused in this place as being borrowed from an Hebrew manner of speaking. And whereas 
g Discou ca 1. sect. 39  Gregory Martin without regard of his own credit, avouched, that not one example could be brought of the like constructton to be resolved as Beza translateth this, M. Fulke showeth him diverse the very same in all respects, as Col. 1. 26. Apoc. 1. 4. 5. and 3. 12. and 8. 9 And therefore a man might have said to him as Austen said to julian the Pelagian heretic: 
h August cont. jul. Pelag●li. 5. cap. 2.  I am sorry that you should so abuse the ignorance of them which know not the Greek tongue, that you would not fear the judgement and censure of them that have knowledge of it  
As touching the other point, Beza indeed upon some conjecture, supposeth that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is shed for you, might happily be added from the margin into the text, as in other places sundry have observed. But yet he freely and ingenuously confesseth, that he found them in all copies generally that he saw, and therefore leaveth 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 receiveth them for Canonical scripture. Therefore all that the Answ. saith in that respect is but vain cavilling. Let us consider the words of the text which he saith are so against us. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you. Here saith he the words, which is shed 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 us, which must needs be understood of the blood of Christ: whereof it must follow, that that which was in the cup was the blood of Christ. I answer him that there is no necessity by the Greek construction to refer those words to the cup, as is proved by the examples of the like construction before alleged. And in this point G. Martin was so taken tardy by M. Fulke for his bold asseveration, that I doubt it was one matter that killed his heart. The Answ. by some secret intelligence belike hath learned to urge the matter otherwise, and leaveth Martin to go alone. He denieth not therefore but that the like incongruities may be found, but demandeth reason why we should translate it to a sense that admitteth incongruity of speech, and refuse the sense wherein the text is congrue enough. Reasons enough have been given, 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 ancient Fathers either Greek or Latin, that taketh the words otherwise then as we translate them. Secondly 
i Basil. Ascet. defin. 21.  S. Basil expressly readeth the Greek according as Beza translateth it: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: In my blood, which (blood) is shed for you. Whereby it is apparent that either the text was so read at that time, as is likely, for that Basil in that book setteth down th● very words of the scripture; or at the least that he being a Bishop so famously learned and most eloquent in the Greek tongue took 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 approved by him, at which time he was known to be no enemy to Transubstantiation, yet translated those words as Beza doth, being a man I trow as well seen in Greek construction, as Gregory Martin was. Fourthly, what reasonable man will deem that the Evangelist or Christ himself would thus speak, This blood, which is shed for you, is the new Teshament in my blood: or thus: This blood is the new Testament in my blood: which I alleged to the Answerer to be an absurd tautology, and he speaketh nothing at all whereby to defend it. Moreover it seemeth strange to me that the Evangelist setting down the proper name of blood: 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 us, then to the proper name of blood which is next unto it, and to which it properly belongeth. Again, the blood of Christ could not be in the cup without being shed and separated from his body: and to this end did Christ beside the Sacrament of his body institute severally and distinctly the sacrament of his blood, thereby to betoken the shedding, the issuing forth, the severing of the same blood from his body in his passion for the forgiveness of our sins; in respect whereof he saith: This is my blood which is shed for you. Now his blood was not shed or severed from his body, but in his passion: For he shed not his blood twice. Therefore the words of shedding cannot be referred to that in the cup. Seventhly, the blood of Christ, as the 
k Bellar. tom. 2 con●. ●. lib. 1. cap. 11.  Papists themselves confess, is not in the cup till the words of consecration be all spoken. Therefore when Christ had said no more but This cup, the blood was not yet there, but only 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 us. Further also, the Answ. saith straightways after that Christ began to his Disciples of that which was in the cup. But we cannot believe that Christ did eat himself, or that he drank the very blood of his own body. Therefore we believe not that that in the cup was the blood that was shed for us, or that the Evangelist would intend to say: This cup which is shed for you. Last of all, the Answ. fellows, of far greater worth than himself confess, partly that there is not at all, partly that it may be justly doubted whether there be or not any place of Scripture sufficient to prove Transubstantiation, as I have before showed. Therefore they grant that this place doth not necessarily require any such construction, as whereby Transubstantiation should be concluded. Whereby they give to understand that they themselves do know that all that they say both of this place and others is nothing else but cavilling without any certain 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 doubtful construction. Which seeing they have divers of them been alleged by master Fulke and others directly against the Answrers' demand, and yet have not received any tolerable answer, it was but a escape of his wit to say that master Fulke doth steal away from the state of the question, and meddleth not with it.  
His other cavil out of the words of S. Luke that Christ before the sacrament said 
l Luc. 22. 17.  he would drink no more of the fruit of the vine, till in his kingdom, and yet drank after in the Sacrament whereby he would prove the sacrament to be no wine, was long ago prevented by S. Austen, who affirmeth that S. Luke 
m August de consen. Euangeli. lib. 3. ca 1.  according to his manner setteth down the former mention of the cup by way of anticipation, putting that before which is to be referred to somewhat following after, and therefore understandeth it of the cup of the new testament by and by after instituted, and so reconcileth him to the other two Evangelists, Matthew and Mark. But to help this argument: the Answ. is feign to vary from his good masters of Rheims. For he expoundeth the kingdom of God to be after the resurrection, but they understand it 
n Rhem Annot. Luc. 22. 17  of the celebration of the Sacrament of Christ's blood. Whereof it followeth that Christ in the Sacrament drank of the fruit of the vine, as both Matthew and Mark set it down, and the ancient fathers do expound it. Let him go and be agreed with his fellows before he urge this argument again.    

P. Spence. Sect. 32.  
IN the end you give me council how to behave myself in these controversies. In all Christian charity I thank you, and love you for the same: for you advise me no worse than yourself follow and in good faith I accept of it as proceeding from your great good will towards me, and therefore again and again I thank you. And I will follow you in genere, that is to have care of my poor soul, to feed it with the truth of God's word, but expounded by his Catholic Church, I must tell you plainly: and therefore in specie in the particulars of the points of our belief, I will not follow you. You and I endeavour both to come to one resting place at night but in our days journey we go two sundry ways, I pray God send us merrily to meet in heaven, Amen.  

R. Abbot. 32.  
MY council M. Spence must stand for a witness against you at that day if you go on forward still to walk in the counsel of the ungodly. In the mean time, I again advise and counsel both you and your master to cease to rebel & fight against God, or to say when he offereth himself unto you, we will none of thy ways. I council you indeed as you say to no other thing, but that which I follow myself, and I most humbly thank almighty God, who hath given me his grace to follow the same, and hath preserved me from that danger wherein I have been oft falling away from him. You will follow me you say in general to have a care to feed your soul with the truth of God's word. Do so M. Spence, do so: that is the food of life; that is the river of the water of life, the heavenly Manna: he that feedeth there shall surely find life. 
b August. de pastor.  Feed there, saith S. Austen, that ye may feed safely and securely. But you mar and poison this good food with that which you add. You will feed your soul you say with the word of God, but expounded by his Catholic Church: you mean the Church of Room. Which is as much as if you should say, you will not follow the word of God itself, but that which it pleaseth the Church of Room to make of the word of God. Take heed of M. Spence. Assure yourself that though the Church of Room do maintain 
c 2. Pet 2. ●.  damnable heresies and 
d 1. Tim. 4. 1.  doctrines of devils contrary to God's word, yet being wise, as she is, according to this world, she will never expound the word of God against herself if it be in her to make the meaning of it. When she expoundeth the Scriptures to make herself the Catholic Church, and no such thing is to be found in the words of the scripture, will you believe her in her own cause. It shall then be verified of you which Solomon saith: 
e Prou. 1●. 15.  The fool will believe every thing. Take the simplicity of the word of God itself, and be directed thereby. 
f Prou. 8 9  The ways of God are plain to him that will understand. God 
g Heir. in psal. 8●.  hath not written as Plato did, that few should understand, but for the understanding of all, saith S. Hierome. So that although there be depth enough in the word of God, for the best learned to bestow his study and labour in, yet as chrysostom and Austen teach us: 
h Chrysost. in 2. Thess. 2. August. ep. 3.  Whatsoever things are necessary, they are manifest: and 
i Aug. de doct. Christ. li. 2. c. 9  in those things which are manifestly set down in the Scriptures, are contained all things that pertain to faith and conversation of life. Lay before you therefore those things which need not the exposition of the Church of Room. When the scripture saith: There is now no offering for sin, will you take her exposition to say that there is? When the scripture saith: no man living shallbe found just in the sight of God, shall she by her exposition make you believe that it is not so? When the scripture saith; Thou shalt not bow down to, or worship a carved or graven image▪ will you be persuaded by her expositions that you may? I pass over the rest. justly do they deserve to be given over to error, and to be deluded with lies and lewd expositions, which will not yield unto God when he speaketh unto them so plainly as needeth no exposition. It were worth the while to set down here 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 ways, may meet in heaven. But master Spence it will not be in that way wherein you go. Either you must say that there is no heaven, or else that your way is not the way to heaven, because the God of heaven hath gainsaid it. God open your eyes that you may see the right way that so we may joyfully meet in heaven.    

P. Spence. Sect. 33.  
AS touching the escape of our Rhemistes in the account of our Lady's assumption: The matter is very sleight, not tending any way to our salvation: I mean, to err in that computation: especially when they have 
a The more impudent they that having no certain authority to direct them, do so resolutely affirm that whereof they are not certain.  no certain authority therein to direct them. Some said she was martyred according to the saying of Simeon, The sword shall go through thy soul. Some said she survived Christ's ascension but three years, Eusebius in Chronico, saith she died at 59 or thereabouts. The most common reckoning faith, she departed at 63. years of her age. Epiphanius 
b Untruth, lewd and unshamefast: Dyonisius hath no such thing.  who of so good authority, and of so great antiquity alloweth of that report of Dyonisius, saith she died at 70. years, or thereabout of her age (as far as I remember) and then may Dionysius words well stand with that report. In this so uncertain a matter what side would you have our Rhemists to take? they showed what the common opinion was, not defining any thing, and therefore could not be impeached for any oversight. They did not declare therein their own judgements; but told you what was the common-opinion of her age, and of the time of her passage out of this mortality. How then can you say they are overreached by their own computation concerning Dionysius? do they say the common opinion of her age only to be true? and reject the r●st? They do not, but only set down both, but define of neither, what error then or oversight at all? but imagine the worst: they forgot themselves in their account. A high matter in a low house, it is neither felony, nor treason, nor heresy, nor venial sin. But you would, I smell you, have them reject Dionysius report. Dionysius whom Erasinus, though without commission or reason he censure him for another Dionysius yet he yieldeth him to be very ancient: but saving him all 
c Untruth: they do not say that that Dionysius that was the author of that narration o● fable was the scholar of S. Paul.  the learned men that ever were of both Greek and Latin Church admit for S. Paul's disciple the Apostle of France, without doubt or controversy. Or because the writers agree not upon the time of our Lady's decease, do you doubt whether she be departed or no? Or be you angry and envy her felicity to be assumpted? I dare avouch it that she was higher in favour with God then either Enoch or Eltas. To be plain with you, I take it to be impiety to deny her assumption, so constantly confessed of the whole Church, so solemnly celebrated, so long and anciently kept, by so many ancient fathers confessed, and by none denied, and now of late only by yourselves without any other warrant, reason, or probability controlled.  

R. Abbot. 33.  
HE excuseth the oversight 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 the words. Heb. 10. O impudent men that would commit such apparent falsehood: for excuse whereof, a man as impudent as themselves can devise no shift at all. I say as impudent as themselves, because he showeth himself so in the matter now in hand. The Assumption is proved by the reason that I alleged to be a mere fable. The Remistes that report it, mention the longest time that she is said to have lived, namely 63. years: and yet that will not help the matter. But the Answ. saith that Epiphanius, who of so good authority and of so great antiquity alloweth of that report of Diosius, saith she died at 70 years of her age, as far, saith he, as I remember. A naughty man and of a lewd remembrance that can remember a thing that he never read. Where doth Epiphanius say so, or where doth he allow or so much as name that report of Dionysius? Where is the truth or conscience of this man? If any such thing had been, his Remistes would have been glad of such ● patron. But Epiphanius took no notice thereof. 
a Epiphan. haer 78. contr. Antidicomariantas.  Whether the holy virgin, saith he, be dead and buried, her falling a sleep is in honour, etc. Or whether she were put to death, her glory is among the martyrs, &c: or whether she have remained, (for it is not impossible to God to do all that he will) for her end is known to no man: it is not convenient to honour saints more than is meet, but to honour their Lord. Where in plain words he giveth to understand, that there was nothing in his time known or received concerning this matter. Nay the Mass-book itself checketh the wilfulness of these men in the assertion hereof, where the lesson for the assumption day going as it seemeth under the name of Hierome calleth the story of the departure hence of the B. virgin 
b Lect. in festo Assumpt.  an apocryphal writing: and saith, that nothing can be avouched thereof, but that she died as that day: that it was doubted of whether she were assumpted with her body or not, that it was not known whether she was raised again or not, although some did go about to avouch so, and all this to the end that Paul and Eustochium should not take things uncertain for certain. In the Sermons de sanctis in S. Austin's works there is a Sermon as it is thought of Fulbertus, which affirmeth likewise that 
c De sanct. ser. 35.  no catholic history did testify the assumption, that the apocryphal writings thereof were not allowed to be read, that none of the latin writers had spoken any thing plainly of her death, and concludeth thus; It remaineth therefore that man do not lyingly feign that to be manifest and known, which God would have to remain hidden and unknown. What then shall we account the Rhemistes, but liars that so boldly avouch this fable as certain without any certain proof thereof. It is manifest hereby that no report of any Dionysius was as touching this point received for Catholic history. But for proof that that Dionysius of whom the Answ. speaketh of is a counterfeit, I refer him to those reasons 
d Confer with Hart. chap. 8 diu. 2  that D. Rainoldes giveth thereof, till the same reasons be fully answered. That he is ancient, we deny not, but yet an ancient counterfeit. That all the learned men that ever wrote have confessed this Dionysius to be S. Paul's Disciple, it is unhonestly and unshamefastly spoken: neither can he justify it by any one of great antiquity. So is that that he saith of so many father's confessing, and none denying the assumption of the virgin Mary, as appeareth by that that hath been said. In refusing this story of the assumption we envy not to the blessed virgin her felicity, but we condemn Papists of wilfulness and folly in alleging uncertain fables for certain and approved truths.    

P. Spence. Sect. 34.  
AS touching Canonical Scripture, the Church doth not give them their goodness, truth, force, and virtue, but the holy Ghost only who wrote them, being as sound, good, true, and perfect, if they lay hid under the ground and never seen, as now being allowed of. But the Church playeth herein like a Lapidary, who by his long 
a The great skill of the Church of Room to discern those books to be canonicail which the Apostles and primitive Church could not discern to be so.  skill discerneth a true diamond from the counterfeit, but the virtue he giveth not to it, but that came of the first creation. And so the Church by the illumination of the holy ghost is taught not to make scriptures, nor to give truth to the books of the holy Ghost▪ but to discern which be the holy Ghosts books, and which be not. I ask you whether the Apocalypse and S. james Epistle besides other▪ books of Scripture be not (as Caluin and Beza, against Luther confess them to be) Canonical Scripture. I am sure you will say they be. Then whether were they 
b If they had not been received at the first they might not have been received afterward.  at the first received of the whole Church▪ for such or no? I ask you further whether the Churches general acceptation of them, after due examination of them by the help of the holy ghost, had made them any truer or better than they were before? If not, why then did not the Church receive them generally at the first? or why do you rather wrangle about it that all the world seethe was done in these books? The cause why you would not have the Church determine the canonical Scriptures is because your private spirit being enemy to 
c That is, to the wilful fancies of a few Romish prelate's.  the general spirit and sentence of the whole Church, you will rather seem to prefer your own judgement then accept the work of the holy ghost.  

R. Abbot. 34.  
AS touching the books of scripture, Hierome testifieth thus of those books that we seclude from the canon: 
a Hiero. in prolo. Galeato  They are not saith he, in the canon, they must be put amongst the Apocryphal writings. And again, 
b Idem. praefat. in libros solomo.  The Church readeth them, but yet receiveth them not amongst canonical Scriptures. 
c Ruffin. in expos. symb. apud. Cypri.  Ruffinus that lived at the same time expressly witnesseth the same, and that as he saith, out of the monuments of the Fathers. So doth 
d Euseb eccle. hist. lib. 4. c 25.  Eusebius out of Melito. So 
e Athanas. in synopsi  Athanasius: So 
f Epiphan. de mensu. & ponderi.  Epiphanius; So the 
g Concil. Laodi. ca 59  council of Laodicea. And must we now in the end of the world believe the Roomish Lapidary that these are Canonical books? Her obedient children may be so foolish as to believe her warrant herein: but we know her hereby to be, not a true Lapidary, but a false and presumptuous harlot. The canonical books that truly are such, have been received for such from the beginning. So doth S. Austen term them 
h Augustin. count Cresco. lib. 2. cap. 31. & de bap. con. Dona. lib. ca 3.  canonem constitutum, and confirmatum: the canon appointed, set down and confirmed. Whatsoever books were not then set down, delivered and received for such, they cannot now be warranted to be such. If any man through simplicity did afterwards call in question any of those books, as some did the Revelation, the Epistles to the Hebrews, and of S. james, the Church did rightly correct their error in that behalf, not newly approving them for canonical which were not so taken before, but defending them to be canonical as they had been before received. And therefore the world doth not see that the Church of Christ did that then which the Synagogue of Room presumeth now, in that contrary to the judgement of that Church she taketh upon her to make them canonical, which were not from the beginning delivered to the Church for such. Neither do we in the canon of scriptures follow our own private spirit, but the express testimony and consent of the ancient Church. As for his hypocritical speeches of the help and work of the holy Ghost, they are but the same that the Mo●tanistes, the Marcionites, the Valentinians and other old heretics did use, who when they taught against the holy ghost, yet pretended the instinct and inspiration of the holy Ghost.    

P. Spence. Sect. 35.  
INdex Expurgatorius altereth no Doctors words but where it is certain that heretics have corrupted or 
a T 〈…〉 t● say, where the church of R 〈…〉 see●● any 〈◊〉 contrary ●o her fa●●e doctrine. The Fathers speak like heretics, when they say any thing contrary to her learning.  where all the world knoweth their private opinions were amiss and erroneous, there it giveth a note thereof truly. In later writers it noteth what is suspicious, and to be taken heed of: in forged books & heretics books and heretical editions, and heretical prefaces, censures, and notes, or heretical commentaries: it controlleth them, and great 
b It is great charity in the church of R●me to blot out as heretical, whatsoever is contrary to their damnable heresies.  charity so to do. All which is good, and therefore unjustly to be found fault with, but of such whose backs being galled, do wince at that book set out with great judgements to teach us to beware of heretics corruptions and traps.  

R. Abbot. 35.  
THis defence of the Index Expurgatorius is shameless. The authors of it knew so much well enough, and therefore would have had it kept close; but the providence of God hath to their reproach brought it to light. It is not meet that the judgements of learned men either old or new, should be subject to the fancies of a few wilful persons that they may dislike in them, and put out what pleaseth them. But welfare a child that though his mother play the thief and the harlot never so much, yet will boldly stand in defence of her that she is an honest woman. And indeed I marvel not that this dealing seemeth very tolerable and lawful with these men, because I know that the corrupting and depraving & forging of books is a very special means and help for the upholding and patronaging of the Roomish abominations. Falsehood cannot be upholden but by falsehood, and he that taketh a bad cause in hand, must needs use bad means to colour and cloak his evil doing. Thus 
a Francise. junius in praefat. indic. Expurga.  Franciscus junius reporteth, that being at Lions in France, in the year of our Lord 1559. and coming to the Corrector of Frelonius his print, with whom he was familiarly acquainted, the same Corrector showed him a very fair print of Ambrose his works. Which when junius commended, the Corrector told him, that notwithstanding the fairness of it, yet if he were to buy▪ Ambrose, he would rather buy it in any other copy than in that. The reason whereof he told him; for that whereas they had printed the book faithfully according to an ancient and undoubted copy, two Franciscan Friars came by authority and canceled many sheeets thereof, some in part, some wholly, and caused them to print other in their steed, not agreeing to the true books; to Frelonius his great loss both of time and charges. The like dealing 
b Ibid.  he noteth of Turrian, that unshamefast jesuit, in a Greek edition of the Canons of the Apostles. In a print of Chrysostom's works by Stelsius at Paris, they have▪ razed out a most notable and unanswerable place 
c Oper. imperf. in Mat. hom. 49.  testifying that in the time of Antichrist, there can be no warrant of true Christianity, 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 only by the scriptures; that Christ knowing the confusion that should be in the last days, did will that Christians desiring to have assurance of true faith, should flee to nothing else but to the scriptures: because if they look unto other things, they shall stumble and perish, not knowing which is the true Church, and hereby they shall light into the abomination of desolation which standeth in the holy places of the church. This whole place they have falsely and treacherously left out. And why? because they take it to have been put in by an Arian heretic, as 
d Bellarm. to. 1 cont. 1. lib. 4. cap. 11.  Bellarmine saith. But what wretchedness is there in this pretence, when as they have left in still those places which make for the Arians indeed, & have only taken away this which was not for the Arians turn, but served to confound themselves in a matter of controversy betwixt them and us. Thus 
e 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 Antwerp, have notoriously falsified a place in his Treatise de unitate ecclesiae. And whereas Cyprian expressly avoucheth by the universal consent of all approved copies, that the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was endued with equal fellowship both of honour and of power, they have foisted in other words importing a supremacy given by Christ unto Peter, and so make him in one sentence & with one breath to speak contrary to himself. Which impudency 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 upon the warrant of two or three such copies as they themselves evidently see & knew to be corrupted, & so corrupted that they were feign even for shame to vary in some things from that reading which they found in them. Thus have the Spanish censurers used Bertram also, as hath been before showed, nipping him & paring him where they have thought good, that he may not seem too strong against their fantastical conceit of Transubstantiation. Now we may not wonder that they who have been thus bold with the ancient Fathers, should presume a great deal further with later writers. And therefore it needeth not that I stand here to show how they have maimed the writings and censures of 
f Index. Expurgat. in castiga●. operum August. Tertul. Hierony. & passim.  Beatus Rhenanus, Ludovicus Vives, Erasmus, and other famous learned men wheresoever they have with great advisement and judgement, noted the corruptions & abuses of the Roomish church either in matters of manners 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 love of a harlot, he would not be so easily brought to flatter her in such unhonest and hateful doings. Hereby it appeareth what confidence and hold Papists have in the writings of the Fathers, and that the Fathers if they were now alive in the church of Rome, and should speak as they have written, should be condemned for heretics, and their books carried to the fire to be burned with them.    

P. Spence. Sect. 36.  
YOu chop in the end to the matter of justification. A very large race to course in. To be short we say, Faith justifieth, but that faith which worketh by love. We yield with S. Paul, Not to him that worketh, that is, not to him that worketh with the respect of the law, or by his free-will without the faith of Christ and his grace, as the jews and Gentiles, But to him that believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, etc. Here you see he talketh of one that not only believeth God or that God is, but in God, which is to have faith, hope, & charity. And that we require in justifying, 
a Here we have, we say and we say, but no proof for that which they say, and so they may say what they list.  We say Faith without works is dead and yet being dead, it is a true faith nevertheless. We say this faith so quickened and form with charity doth justify, that is, maketh of wicked just and withal we say, that good works done by him that is justified, or else they could not be good, do justify, that is, as S. james saith, they make faith perfect. By Abraham's works his faith was made perfect. And not only before men as you would have S. james to mean; thereby to elude this clear testimony: for he telleth you as for only faith the devils believe and tremble, and he saith faith to be a joint-worker with works in our justification, which is not by faith only but by works: and they do make a man more just, or increase our justice. They 
b An absurd contradiction: they deserve it, and yet it is ●●eely ●iuen them. ●f it be ●●eely, th●n it is not of desert.  deserve the reward though given them by God's free mercy for Christ's passions sake; yet now made their wages and higher by God's ordinance, and by the proportion and relation between grace 
Sap. 3. 15. Eccl. 16. 2. Rom. 2. 6.  and glory We defy Pelagius that said we might merit the first grace, or remission of sinner: yet we say with S. Augustine, that the kingdom of heaven is both gratuite, or free, because it is of grace purchased by Christ's blood; and yet withal saith he, it is a thing deserved because it is due to works; which works come of grace that was given freely by Christ. We desire no better judge of the true sense of God's word in this point, than S. Augustine himself, to whom we appeal. We say with S. john, Behold the lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world. We say we must put off the old man, and put on the new. We say we must be nova conspersio, & Azimi. We say we must be 
c Yet the Answers own conscience doth tell him that he is not clean, nor. white as snow.  clean and whiter than snow, and not have a curtain only drawn to cover our sins only. We say that we have inherent justice, not imputed, which we think to be but 
d A lewd wretch that derideth that which the holy Ghost hath expressly set down.  an ape of justification. We say that justification standeth of these integral parts. First 
e An untowardly description of justification, wherein remission of sins and reconcilement to God is put before fa●●h, beside d●uerse other peevish follies that might therein be noted.  forgiveness of sins. 2. Reconcilement to God. 3. Renewing in faith, hope, and charity. 4. Charity not unperfect and begun, but childelike and of another more divine nature, & which wholly in kind differeth from that which is but begun. 5. The ascribing to the inheritance of heaven. And because you mention here S. Augustine, understand you that he noteth three sorts or degrees of justification. The first to make of ungodly just. The second, He which is just, let him yet be justified, and fear not to be justified unto death, that is, to be made better and more just. The third, Not the hearers of the law but the doers shall be justified; that is, to have the last final reward, end, and perfection of justice. Thus doth S. Augustine speak of it. First, concerning the two first degrees thus he saith, contra julianum, li. 20. justification is given us in this life, by these 
f In which three things there is nothing at all to make for inherent justice in this life, but altogether and wholly against it. For if there be justice, what place is there for forgiveness of sins, or fight against sin.  three things: first by the washing of regeneration, whereby all sins are forgiven, After by fight with vices from the guilt whereof we were discharged and assoiled. Thirdly while our prayer is heard wherein we say, Forgive ur our trespasses. Thus far S. Augustine in that place. So that here S. Augustine himself telleth you what he meaneth by Forgive us our trespasses, the continual venial slips which the very best and justest many times in the day fall into, and yet justice 
g Untruth, for the trespassing of justice, taketh away the name of being just.  not taken away thereby, though their alacrity abated. Venial sins are beside charity, but not 
h He that is not with me, is against me, saith Christ▪ so must we say also as touching charity.  against charity. And remember that no man of his own state can assure himself but that he may fear, and must cry out, Enter not into judgement, etc. and why? 
i The very shift of the Pelagian heretics. See the answer.  in respect of the purity of God no man never so good, no nor Angel, nor heaven, is pure. Man even the best man of himself, must say, I am unprofitable servant. Yet God calleth the just not his servants but his friends. We must say we be unprofitable servants, in very deed not profiting God a mite, who was as happy and as glorious before he laid the foundation of the world as ever sithence. Neither could 
k Christ as touching his humanity, is made an unprofitable servant.  Christ's blessed humanity, or all he did in the flesh profit God any way, who before wanted not any perfection, nor could receive any more benefit or good then before he had. Thus I say must a man (even the best man) humbly think of himself. Yet S. Paul 2. Tim. 2. saith, If any man cleanse himself from these, he shall be a vessel sanctified to honour profitable for the Lord: and why profitable? Prepared or ready to every good work. Reconcile therefore these places rightly, and learn that Profitable, is not meant to be profitable to God who receiveth no profit by all our uttermost endeavours: but it is as much as serving to such a good use as God hath created us too, to his glory and our salvation, to honour him with our glorification. A justified cannot nor must not boast of his state which he is ignorant of (but yet in good hope) and therefore must abase himself before God's Majesty 
l We must abase himself to the centre of the earth, and yet think it may be that he is worthy enough to lift up his head as high as heaven. A preposterous and doubtful humility.  to the very centre of the earth. But we supposing another man to be justified, may say that of him, which himself cannot say of himself. Now of the third degree of justification, which is the end and perfitting of our justice, S. August. epist. 106. saith, our hope shall be fully accomplished in the resurrection of the dead, and when our hope shall be fulfilled, then shall our justification be fulfilled and accomplished. So that you see by S. Augustine in these places our justification hath a beginning, an increase, and end.  

R. Abbot. 36.  
AS touching justification, he fendeth me a deal of paltry stuff patched out of the heresy of the Pelagians, & the vain presumptions of the Schoolmen without any sound argument out of the word of God; neither maketh he any direct answer to that that was urged against him. The scripture is plain, that 
a Rom. 3. 20. Gal. 2. 16  by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified in the sight of God; 
b Rom 3. 28  that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law: that 
c Gal. 3. 10.  whosoever are of the works of the law are under the curse, because it is written; Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them: and no man continueth in all: 
d jam. 3. 2.  for in many things we offend all, saith S. james. The Answ. showeth not, he cannot show that the inherent righteousness of any man in this life is such, as that thereby he can be presented holy and blameless 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 himself, saith: 
e August. epist. 29.  The most perfect love or charity which cannot now be increased, is found in no man so long as he liveth here: and so long as it may be increased, surely that that is less than ought to be, is of a default or vice. By reason of which default or vice, there is not a man just upon the earth which doth good and sinneth not. By reason, of which default, no man living shall be found righteous in the sight of God. And this is so true that ᶠ Pighius, otherwise a heavy and deadly enemy to the Gospel, is forced to subscribe to our 
f Pighi. contro. de justificat.  doctrine in this point, and to confess that the righteousness whereby we stand just before God, is not our inherent righteousness according to the law, but the imputed righteousness of jesus Christ; which he illustrateth by the story of 
g Gen. 27. 15. 27.  jacob, who came in the apparel of his elder brother Esau, to receive the blessing of Isaac his father. For so are we presented before God to receive the blessing of eternal life, not in the ragged clothes of that righteousness which is in ourselves, which is full of imperfection and weakness, full of blots and stains, and unable to abide the trial of the judgement of God, but clothed with the full and perfect obedience and righteousness of jesus Christ, which by the dispensation of the wisdom and mercy of God, is reckoned unto all that are Christ's for theirs, as effectually as if they themselves in their own persons had performed the same. Neither ought this to seem strange unto us, who know the like to have befallen in the person of jesus Christ. For he knew no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; yet 
h 2. cor. 5. 21.  He was made sin for us, he 
i 1. Pet. 2. 2●.  bore our sins, the 
k Esa. 53. 6.  Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all. Can our sins by imputation take hold upon Christ to put him to death, & to inflict upon the curse pronounced by the law, & shall not his righteousness by imputation stand available for us to yield unto us the blessing of everlasting life? Shall our sins be stronger against him than his righteousness is for us? God forbidden, Nay, S. Austen truly saith: 
l August. Psal 21.  He made our sins his sins, that he might make his righteousness our righteousness. In human things we see and know that the sureties payment is imputed unto the debtor for his discharge, as if he himself had paid the debt. Christ hath taken upon him to be our surety; he hath made full payment of our debt, both in bearing the punishment of sin, and performing the fullness of all righteousness. What should let that his payment also should not be imputed unto us, God offering this favour unto man, and man by grace accepting the offer of God? Verily Christian religion hath taught us thus to esteem that whatsoever Christ did or suffered, he did all for us. For what need had he to be made under the law, & so to work & to deserve for himself, who from the beginning was the Lord of glory, to whom by right and inheritance did belong the kingdom of life and peace? Therefore as his obedience in dying is imputed unto us to justification from sin, so his obedience in working is imputed unto us to justification unto eternal life. And therefore the scripture as it calleth him the 
m 1. joh. 2. 2  propitiation for our sins, so it calleth him likewise 
n jere. 23 6  the Lord our righteousness. To which purpose the Apostle S. Paul saith, that 
o 1. cor. 1 30  he is made unto us of God wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. Wisdom to cover our error, ignorance, & weakness of faith; Righteousness, in whose obedience we stand here just and righteous before God, and are accepted for his children, being as yet sinners & unrighteous in ourselves: sanctification to purge us from sin, and to restore in us the image of God by little and little 
p 2. cor. 3. 18  from glory to glory 
q 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 have full and perfect atonement and satisfaction for all our sins, by means whereof, there is 
r Rom. 8. 1  no codemnation to them that are in Christ jesus. No less plainly saith he again to the same effect. 
s 2. Cor. 5. 21  Him which knew no sin, God made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Whereof S. Austen saith thus: 
t August. Enchiri. ad Laurent. cap. 41  He than was made sin, that we might be righteousness, not our own righteousness, but the righteousness of God, neither in ourselves but in him, even as he in the similitude of sinful flesh wherein he was crucified showed forth sin, not his own sin, but our sin, neither being in him, but in us. Where first the Apostle and then out of the Apostle, S. Austen giveth to understand, that as Christ was punished as a sinner for those sins which were not in him but in us, so we are accepted for righteous before God, by that righteousness not which is in ourselves but in him. Yet it is so in him, as that it is imputed unto us as being performed for us and in our name, and therefore by faith in Christ it is made ours, even as Christ himself is wholly ours. By reason whereof it is called 
u Rom. 3. 21 22.  The righteousness of God through the faith of jesus Christ, standing and being without the law, and therefore by faith only. Therefore is faith said to be reputed unto us for righteousness, as in those words of S. Paul, 
w Rom. ●. 5 Oecum. ibid.  To him that worketh not (that is as Oecumenius expoundeth it of Photius. To him that hath no confidence by works) but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is imputed or counted for righteousness. Not works then but faith is counted for, righteousness to the believing man, and as the Apostle 
x Gal. 2. 16  elsewhere saith, We have believed in Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law, because that by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. Either there is not at all any justification of man before God, and so Christ shall have died in vain; or this is his only justification which I have described, because as partly hath been showed, and shall be showed further, there is no righteousness extant in man in this life, whereby he can stand just and blameless before the judgement seat of God.  
But that exclusion of works which I have mentioned out of the Apostle, the Answ. restraineth only to works done by free-will, and by the law without the faith and grace of Christ. A vain exception, the falsehood whereof he that seeth not, is altogether blind, albeit it is the only starting hole, which the Rhemists use to avoid the evidence of the text. The question of justification by the law was moved concerning 
y Rhemi. Annot. Act 1●. 13  the converted gentiles, as the Rhemistes confess, concerning the 
z Act. 15. 1. 10.  brethren and Disciples, as the text calleth them. Of them the beleeeving Pharisees required for justification and salvation to 
a v. 1. ●.  be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses. The Apostle S. Paul handleth it concerning the Galathians, which had 
b Gal 1. 6. 9 & 3. 2 4. 27.  received the Gospel, which were baptized into Christ, which had received the spirit, which had suffered many things for the Gospel. Them having been for some space professors of the faith of Christ the false Apostles had persuaded to join with their believing, in Christ the keeping of the law thereby to be justified. Concerning these men and the like converted to the faith of Christ, baptized into Christ, being Disciples and brethren, the Apostle determineth this matter that 
c Gal. 2. 16. Rom. 3 21. 28.  they must be justified by faith, and not by the works of the law, yea without the works of the law, and that not of the ceremonial law only, but of that law also 
d Rom. 3. ●0  by which cometh the knowledge of sin, which saith 
e Cap. 7. 7.  Thou shalt not lust; which pronounceth; 
f Gal. 3. 10.  Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in this law; which saith, 
g Rom. 1 5. Ga●. 3. 1●.  He that doth these things shall live in them, that is to say of the moral law as S. 
h Aug●st. de spir. ● ca 8. & 14.  Austen also gathereth by the same places. Therefore not only ceremonial works, nor only works of nature and free-will, but all works whatsoever either before baptism or after baptism, either before grace or in grace are secluded from justification, and only faith in Christ is our righteousness before God. Yea and that so, as that the Apostle against that distinction of works done in the grace of Christ, saith expressly: 
i Gal. 5 4.  Ye are abolished from Christ, ye are fallen from grace, whosoever are justified (that is, do seek justification) by the la. So that he which being come to the grace of Christ shall thenceforth seek to be justified by the works of the law done in the state of the same grace, voideth himself of Christ, and falleth away from the grace of God. And therefore Abraham himself is set forth unto us as a pattern of justification by faith, without works, not in his first justification as the Roomish language hath taught men to speak, but 
k Gen. 12. ●. 5. 6. 7. 8. etc.  after that he had obeyed the voice of God to departed out of his own country, had travailed many countries as God directed him, had built many altars unto the name of the Lord, had called upon him and served him a long time, as appeareth in Genesis from the twelfth chap. to the fifteenth. Even than was it said: 
l Gen. 15. 6.  Abraham believed the Lord, and he counted that to him for righteousness. Whence the Apostle thus reasoneth: 
m Rom. 4. 2.  If Abraham were justified by works, he had to rejoice, but not with God. For what saith the Scripture. Abraham believed God, and that was counted to him for righteousness. Wherein he inferreth that because the scripture pronounceth of Abraham after his long serving of God, and many good works done, yet that not his works as 
n Chrysost. in Epist. ad Rom. hom. 8.  chrysostom rightly gathereth: but only his faith was counted to him for righteousness, therefore that howsoever he might with men by works, yet with God he was not justified by works but only by faith. Abraham was the 
o Rom. 4. 11.  Father of the faithful, and therefore all that are justified, must be justified according to that pattern which the word of God hath set forth concerning him, and therefore not by works, but by faith only.  
Now that the true justifying faith is not separated from charity and good works we willingly confess, because it 
p Gal. 3. 14.  receiveth the promise of the spirit, the effect whereof is noted in the declaration of the promise: 
q Ezec. 36. 27.  I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgements and do them. Yet notwithstanding as the divers members of the body necessarily concurring for the perfecting of the whole, have every one their several office: so these virtues of the soul, namely faith and charity, though they always meet in the regenerate man, yet in office and function are distinct each from other. The office of justifying belongeth only unto faith, even as the office of seeing belongeth only to the eye, the office of hearing only to the ear, etc. And therefore the defining of believing in God by the having of faith, hope and charity, as the Answ. setteth down, is a very preposterous and unorderly definition, and no other than as if a man taking in hand to tell what it is to see, should say it is to have eyes, ears and nose. Belief in God is set forth by the creed; charity and works, by the ten Commandments: they may not be confounded one with the other. Doubtless it were very strange to think that when a man saith; I believe in God the father, etc. he should mean thereby, I have faith, hope, and charity; or that Christ when he said to the blind man in the Gospel: 
r john 9 3 5.  Dost thou believe in the son of God, did intend to ask him whether he had faith, hope and charity. Cyprian telleth us what it is to believe in God: namely, 
s Cypria. de dup. martyr.  to place the confidence of our whole felicity in God only, which though it never be without the love of God, yet every man's understanding may give him that the act of believing is one, the act of loving is another. Whereas he saith that faith without works though it be dead, yet it is a true faith, he speaketh indeed Roomishly, but that is ignorantly and absurdly. For that only is the true faith, whereby a man is called truly faithful, so that the saints of God in whom it is, are by a special and proper name termed 
t Ephes 1. 1.  the faithful, and 
u col. 1. 2.  faithful brethren, which itself is called by the Apostle 
w Tit. 1. 1.  the faith of the elect; by which he saith 
x Gal. 3. 26.  we are the children of God: which hath this promise 
y joh. 3. 3●.  that every one that believeth in Christ, hath eternal life: which hath no place in the carnal worldling, as our saviour noteth saying: 
z joh. 5. 44.  How can ye believe which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh of God only: whereby a man not only believeth that God is, or that God is true in that which he saith, but also aplieth unto himself the promises of God, assuring himself of the benefit thereof to the forgiveness of sins and eternal life by the mediation of jesus Christ. S. Bernard therefore saith that a man 
a Berna. ser. 1. in Annunc. Mar.  hath but the beginning of faith until he come to this to believe that his sins are forgiven him by jesus Christ, and that this is that which the Apostle saith that a man is freely justified by faith. Ferus the preacher of Mentz as he smelled diverse corruptions in the doctrine of the Church of Room, so he noted the misconstruing of true faith for one. 
b Ferus in Mat. 8.  It is not always faith, saith he, which we call faith. For we call it faith to assent unto those things which are proposed in the divine histories, and which the Church teacheth to be believed This the schoolmen call an unformed faith, and S. james, a dead faith. But▪ what faith is that which is dead and wanteth his form. Verily this is not faith but a vain opinion. far otherwise doth the Scripture speak of faith. For according to the scripture faith is no● without confidence of God's mercy promised in jesus Christ. This he showeth by examples and places and concludeth thus: To be short the faith which the scripture commendeth is notliing else but to trust upon the free mercy of God. This, saith he, is the true faith: and in 
c In Mat. 27.  another place: To believe is to trust that God for Christ sake will not impute thy sins. Thus the light of truth caused Ferus to speak, and to control that senseless fancy and imagination of faith which the schoolmen and jesuits have devised and defended to delude the true doctrine of Christian faith.  
His saying that faith is quickened and form by charity should have been proved; because I take not his saying to be a sufficient answer. The 
d 1. Cor. 13. 13.  Apostle reckoneth that faith whereby a man is called faithful as a virtue distinct from charity, and therefore not form by charity but having a proper act and being by itself. And so by itself it doth justify, and though in the justified man, there be not only faith, but charity and good works do also necessarily follow, yet in justifying no work but faith only taketh place. 
e Aug. de fide & oper. cap. 1●  Good works, saith Austen, follow the justified man, they go not before while he is yet to be justified. And therefore the which he addeth that works done by a justified man do justify, and as he saith anon after, do make more just or increase our justice, is merely absurd: For to speak of moral or inherent justice of which he speaketh, seeing that the just man is as the tree, and just or good works are as the fruit, it is alike absurd to say that the good works of a man do justify him or make him more just, as to say that the fruits do make the tree good, or increase the goodness of the tree. 
f Mat. 7. 17.  The good tree bringeth forth good fruit, saith our saviour Christ, and the better the tree waxeth, the better wax the fruits, but who ever heard that the betterness of the fruits did work the bettering of the tree? But such unreasonable fanties are fit enough to possess the heads of unreasonable men.  
Yea but faith is made perfect by works, as S. james saith of Abraham, that by his works his faith was made perfect. We grant the same and expound it by the like phrase used by S. Paul: 
g 2. cor. 12. 9  The power of God is made perfect in weakness; not for that the weakness of man addeth any perfection to the power of God, but because in the weakness of man, it is perfectly declared and approved to be indeed the power of God, according to that which he saith in another place; 
h 2. cor. 4. 7.  We have this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency of this power might be of God, and not of ourselves. So faith is made perfect by works, that is, it is perfectly showed or declared to be true and perfect, as S. james teacheth us to expound it when he saith: I will show thee my faith by my works. Thus doth Beda expound it manifestly: 
i Beda in epist. jaco. cap. 2.  His faith was made perfect by works, that is to say, it was proved by the practice or execution of works that his faith was perfect in his heart.  
Whereas it is urged out of the same place of S. james that Abraham was justified by works, I have already answered by the exception that S. Paul hath set down: 
k Rom. 4. 2  If Abraham were justified by works, he had to rejoice, but not before God. The Greek Scholiast out of the Greek fathers saith thus upon those words: 
l Oecumen. in Rom. 4.  What then? Had not Abraham works? Yes. But did they justify him? God forbidden. Indeed he had works, so that if he had been brought in judgement with the men with whom he lived he should easily have been justified and preferred before them, but to be justified by his works before God as worthy of the kindness and bountifulness of God towards him, he should never have attained, etc. By what means then was he accounted worthy hereof? By faith only, etc. Hereby, saith he, the answer is manifest how S. Paul saith that Abraham was justified by faith, and S. james that he was justified by works. A man then, we say, is justified by works, and must be justified by works, but not before God. Thus saith the Apostle manifestly, and thus hath the ancient Church subscribed the words of the Apostle. Now against these the Answ. telleth me upon his own bare word that we are justified by works in the sight of God: but I cannot bear his word against the word of God. Further I must add that that justification before men by works, is nothing else with S. james, but a proof and declaration that a man is the same that he professeth himself to be: a true christian man, a true servant and friend of God. He speaketh to this effect: Thou sayest thou hast faith, but I would have thee show it me. For I believe it not except thou justify and prove it to me by thy works. And that there is no other justification by works, let Thomas Aquinas himself teach us; 
m Thom. Aqui. i● epist. ad Gala. cap. 3. lect. 4.  Works saith he, are not the cause that any man is just with God: but they are the practising and manifesting of justice. For no man is justified by works with God, but by the habit of Faith. And anon after objecting to himself the words of S. james, was not Abraham justified by works, he saith that justification is here understood as touching the exercise and declaration of justice, and that thus a man is justified, that is, declared just by his works. This justification we require in all the faithful, and affirm that there is no man a true professor of true piety and religion, but he that justifieth himself so to be by the careful ordering of his life and conversation.  
Yet he objecteth that as touching only faith, S. james saith; The devils believe and tremble. It is manifest hereby▪ say I, that S. james speaketh not of that faith which S. Paul meaneth, when he saith that a man is justified by faith without works. For S. Paul speaketh of such a faith as 
n Act. 15. 9  whereby the heart is purified, whereby 
o R●. 10. 13. 14  God is invocated and called upon, whereby 
p Bernar. ser. 1 in Annunc. Mar.  we believe that our sins are forgiven us by the blood of jesus Christ, which is not a faith incident to devils or ungodly men. But S. james speaketh of such a faith as is incident not only to evil men, but even to the devil himself. This difference of the understanding of faith is observed by Oecumenius of whom I spoke before, that 
q Oecumen. in ep. ●ac. cap. 2.  S. james speaketh of a bare assent according to which we know the devils believed that Christ was the son of God, but that S. Paul by faith importeth some further consequence arising out of the affection of man joined with a firm & steadfast consenting to that which he is said to believe. The one speaking of justification before God, teacheth us that we are justified by faith only, according to the true meaning of faith which the scripture intendeth. The other speaking of justification before men, teacheth that a man is not justified or showed to be a true christian man by a naked and bare assenting unto some points of religion, which hypocrites call faith, but he must by his fruits testify and show that he is a true follower of jesus Christ. For men do not account a man religious for a bare profession of faith, but they esteem of a man's faith and profession as they see it appear in his conversation and doings. And therefore as Abraham's faith wrought with works to justify him to be the friend of God, so must our profession of faith also have good works concurring with it to show us to be the true Disciples of jesus Christ. Otherwise as the bode without the soul is dead, So Faith without works is dead also. Where he compareth faith to the body, and works to the soul: not as faith importeth unfeigned trust and confidence towards God: but as it is a profession of faith and religion before men, as he himself teacheth us in saying: What availeth it that a man saith he hath Faith, etc. For if we will consider faith and works as touching the eyes of God: then faith is the soul, and works are the body: so that no works are lively and acceptable unto God, seem they never so beautiful before men, except they be quickened and made alive by a true and lively faith, so that as S. Austen. 
r August. de nupt. & ●ouen. li. 1. cap. 3. & count 〈◊〉 ●el. l. 4 c 3. & Retract. 〈◊〉 c. ●.  oftentimes affirmeth, and the 
s Heb. ●1. ●.  Apostle to the Hebrews confirmeth, they deserve not those names of virtue and justice, by which they are usually called, so long as they grow not from this root. But if we will speak of faith and works as they are referred unto the eyes of men, there faith is indeed the body and works are the life and soul, so that no words or profession can make men believe that thou hast in thee faith or religion so long as sin and filthiness hath sway and dominion in thy life. Such a faith therefore, or rather a saying that thou hast faith, as S. james termeth it, is dead; and so far are men from approving it or thee for it, as that they rather abhor and loath it as a rotten and stinking carrion, and take occasion thereby to blaspheme and speak evil of that faith and religion which thou takest upon thee to profess. Thus I have the more at large discoursed this place of S. james because the Answerer and his fellows think they have greatest hold therein for their justification by works.  
From justification he choppeth to merit, and there defieth Pelagius which said that we might merit the first grace and forgiveness of sins. But let him take Pelagius by the hand, & be friends with him again: for he knoweth that it is the doctrine of his part that though not ex condigno, yet ex congruo, a man may merit the first grace. As touching merit we are satisfied by the words of Christ that we have none at all: 
t Luc. 17. 10.  When ye have done all that is commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants, we have done that that was our duty to do. But the Answ. expoundeth these words as not making against merit. We are called unprofitable servants, not because we merit nothing, but because we do not yield any profit unto God, who was as happy and glorious before the foundation of the world as ever since. And here like a drunken man deprived of wit and reason, and not knowing whither he goeth, he bringeth Christ as man within the number of unprofitable servants, because he doth not profit God any way, nor yield him any benefit or good. But that very example should have put him in mind to seek another meaning of unprofitable servants. Christ's own words would have taught it him, if he would have listened thereto: Doth the master thank his servant, because he did that that he commanded him? I trow not: So likewise when you have done all that is commanded, say, we are unprofitable servants, etc. Whereby Christ giveth us to understand that though we did all which is commanded us which no man doth, yet that we cannot require so much as thanks at the hands of God, because in doing all we do but our duty, and that that we are bound unto: and in that respect are unprofitable servants. And therefore if he give us thanks or any reward, or call us not servants but friends, it is of his own kindness and goodness, not of any merit or desert of ours, whereby he should stand bound unto us. Thus did chrysostom, take it. 
u Chrys. in Epist. ad colos. hom. 2.  No man, saith he, showeth such conversation of life, as that he may be worthy of the kingdom, but it is wholly the gift of God. Therefore he also saith, when ye have done all, say, we are unprofitable servants. So doth Beda expound it, 
w Beda in Luc. 17.  We are unprofitable servants, because the sufferings of this time are not worthy of the glory to come, as in another place: Which crowneth thee in mercy and compassion. He saith not, in thy merits, because by whose mercy we are prevented that we may humbly serve him, by his gift we are crowned to reign with him on high. So is it understood by Mark the eremite: 
x Marc. Heren. lib. de his qui pu●ant se operibus justificari.  Our Lord willing to show that we are debtor of the whole law, & that the adoption of children is freely given us by his blood, saith, when ye have done all, say, we are unprofitable servants. Therefore the kingdom of heaven is not the wages of works, but the grace of our master prepared for his faithful servants. This is then our unprofitableness that we do not merit or deserve any thing at God's hands for any thing that we do, which I hope agreeth not to Christ, who though he yielded no benefit unto God, yet deserved of God for us the kingdom of everlasting life. As for that which he objecteth out of 
y 2. Tim. 2. 21.  2. Tim. 2. I take his exposition for true, but nothing contrary to that that I have said. We serve for such good use as God hath created us and appointed us unto, and yet in doing all we do but our duty, and therefore what can we be said to deserve thereby?  
Whereas he affirmeth that the kingdom of heaven is gratuite and free, that is, yielded by grace, and yet deserved also by works, he gainsaieth the Apostle who telleth him, 
z Rom. 11. 6.  If it be of grace, it is not of works, otherwise grace is no grace. For as S. Austen saith, 
a Aug. count pelag & celest. lib. 2. cap. 24.  Grace cannot be called grace in any respect, unless it be free in every respect: and 
b Epist. 105.  it is not free, saith he again, if it be not freely given, but rendered unto works. Yet the Answ. shroudeth himself under the name of S. Austen, and to him he appealeth to prove that heaven is merited by works, but he did wisely to allege no place of Austen to that purpose. S. Austin's judgement is clear every where that eternal life is the free grace and gift of God, because although we have good works: yet our good works also come from that grace whereby God of his own good will, and free promise in jesus Christ hath intended to us glorification and everlasting life. 
c August. in Psal. 109.  God saith he, hath made himself a debtor unto us, not by receiving any thing of us, but promising all things unto us, and therefore saith he in another place, 
d In Psal. 32. & 83.  We say not unto him, Lord, repay that which thou hast received, but pay that which thou hast promised. And so S. Bernard according to the doctrine of Saint Austen, calleth the crown of heaven by S. Paul's word 
e ●ernar de lib. arb●●. & great.  a crown of justice, but not of man's justice, but of the justice of God. For it is just with God to pay that which he oweth, and he oweth that which he hath promised. And this, saith he, is the justice of 
f 2. Tim. ●. 8.  which the Apostle presumeth, even the promise of God. Whereby it appeareth that S. Austen though he use the name of merit oftentimes, yet understandeth it not as whereby we properly deserve, but which it pleaseth God of his grace to accept as our merit, and by his promise vouchsafeth to reward it, or rather to yield unto us under the name of reward thereof, that which is indeed his mere promise and gift. And this is most evident and undemably proved by S. Austin's words in the place above cited: 
g August in Psal. 1●9.  God promised to us men communion with God, immortality to us being mortal, justification to us sinners, glorification to us castaways. Whatsoever he promised, he promised to us being unworthy, that it might not be promised as a reward to works, but being grace it might according to the name be freely given; because, that a man liveth justly, so far as man can live justly, it is nothing of man's desert, but of the gift of God This one place setteth forth unto us sufficiently the judgement of S. Austen, as touching this whole point. And to this accordeth the saying of Basill: 
h Ba●in ps. 11▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Eternal rest is laid up for them which lawfully fight the fight of this life not to be rendered for the merit of works, but prepared by the grace of our bountiful God for all those that trust in him. How far differeth the spirit that spoke in these men from that proud and blasphemous spirit that now speaketh in the Church of Room, out of whose mouth the Rhemistes tell us 
i Rhem Annot. H●●. ●. 10.  that good works be truly meritorious and the very cause of salvation, so far that God should be unjust if he rendered not heaven for the same. Where may the man be found, I maruelll, whose works are so far meritorious that God must be unjust, if for the merit thereof he render not heaven unto him? But this arrogant and more than Pelagian vaunt of merit, is in very express and direct terms contradicted by S. Bernard: 
k Bernard▪ de▪ lib arbit. & g●at.  If saith he, we will properly speak of those which we call our merits, they are the way to the kingdom, and not the cause of our obtaining the kingdom. And in another place thus: 
l Ibid in An 〈…〉 Mar●ae. Serm. 1.  The merits of men are not such as that eternal life should be due unto us for them by right, or as that God should do injury if he gave it not for the same. For to say nothing that all our merits are the gifts of God, and so man is rather a debtor unto God for them, than God unto man, what are all merits to so great glory? and briefly, who is better than the Prophet David, who yet was feign to say, O Lord enter not into judgement with thy servant. Let no man then deceive himself, etc. The Rhemistes say that our merits are the very cause of salvation: S. Bernard saith they are not so. They say that God should be unjust if he rendered not heaven for them; he saith that God should do no injury therein. They say, heaven is 
m Rhem Annot. 2. Tim. 4 8  our own right deserved by works: he saith it is not due unto us by right for our works. In like sort do th●y overthwart those testimonies of chrysostom, Beda, Mark, Austen, Basill, which I have mentioned before, and yet forsooth they teach nothing but that which the aun〈…〉t fathers have universally received.  
We must, saith the Answ. be clean, and whiter than snow. But saith the scripture, 
n Prou. 〈◊〉  Who can say, my heart is clean? I am clean from my sin? If none, as in truth none can, then can none by that that is in himself be reckoned for just in the sight of God. Hilary rightly and truly admonisheth us as touching this point 
o H●l●r. ●pud. Aug●st 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  that our bodies are the matter of all vices, by reason whereof being polluted and filthy, we have nothing innocent in us, nothing clean. Even our best works are blemished and stained with the blot of original corruption, the remains whereof stick fast in us whilst we continue in this life: so that the Apostle in the midst of his graces and good works is forced to cry out, 
p Rom. 7. 14  I am carnal and sold under sin. And therefore S. Bernard teacheth us to confess of our righteousness that it is 
q Bern●● de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  not pure or clean, except we will perhaps presume that we are better than they who with no less truth than humility said, All our righteousnesses are like unclean and defiled clothes. Our cleanness then is in Christ, not in ourselves, in his innocency we appear before God undefiled and whiter than snow. Not but that God cleanseth us inwardly also, but this cleansing is yet but in part, and therefore we have still need of a cover to hide the remains of our uncleanness. Therefore howsoever the Answ. scorneth a curtain, as he speaketh to be drawn before him to cover his sins, yet S. Bernard embraceth the righteousness of Christ as a cloak or garment for that purpose. O Lord, saith he, 
r Bernard ●● Ca 〈…〉 〈◊〉  I will make mention of thy righteousness only▪ for that is mine also. For thou art of God made righteousness unto me. Should I be afraid lest that one righteousness be not enough for us two? It is not a short cloak or garment which cannot cover two. Thy righteousness is for ever. It is large and everlasting, and shall largely cover both thee and me. And in me surely it covereth a multitude of sins, but in thee O Lord what but the treasures of piety, the riches of goodness. With this garment we desire to be clothed, and to be found in Christ, as 
s Phil. 3. 9  S. Paul saith, not having our own righteousness which is by the law, but the righteousness which is by the faith of Christ, as knowing that otherwise we can never endure to stand before the face of God.  
But we say, saith the Answ. that we have inherent justice. If he have so, let him reap the benefit thereof: but if a sinful man have opened his mouth against heaven, and said I am just, his own conscience shall scourge him for it in due time. Contrariwise he derideth imputed justice as an ape of justification, but let him remember that therein he hath reviled t●e spirit of God who in the fourth to the Romans, hath by that word expressly set forth the justification of man before God. 
t Rom. 4. 5. 6. 3. 23.  To him that believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is imputed for righteousness. David declareth the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works. Abraham believed God, and that was imputed to him for righteousness. And this is not written for him only that it was imputed to him for righteousness; but for us also to whom it shallbe imputed, believing in him that raised up jesus our Lord from the dead, etc. Where saying in the future tense, It shall be imputed to us, after that he had been now a long time a worthy Apostle of Christ, he giveth to understand that that imputing of righteousness without works, as he hath before termed it, was not only in the beginning, but still to be his and our justification in the sight of God, and so excludeth that frivolous and shifting distinction of first and second justification. But thus doth the Apostle expressly avouch imputed righteousness. And I marvel that the Answ. and his fellows think so strangely of imputing the righteousness of Christ unto us, who yet defend the like imputing of the righteousness and merits of other men. This they teach and practise as 
u Rhe. Annot. 2. Cor. 8. 14.  concerning their own beggarly and sinful devotions, their moonkish and friarly observations, their works of supererogation, whereby they merit further than is needful for themselves, and appoint this overplus to serve for the help and benefit of other being dispensed, applied and imputed unto them by a pardon from the Pope, or from such as to whom he giveth commission in that behalf. So the Friars here in England made men believe that 
w Out of the copy of a pardon granted by the armel●te Friars in London in the year, 1527.  they gave them participation of all the masses, prayers, fastings, watchings, preachings, abstinences, indulgences, labours and all good works that were done by the brethren of that order being here in England. Now with what face do these men deny that to the righteousness of Christ, which thus blasphemously they yield to the supposed righteousness of sinful men? But so drunk are they with their own fancies that whatsoever the holy Scripture saith, it is but apishness if it be contrary to their conceit.  
His description of justification is but his own and his fellows devise, the bastard of the jesuits and schoolmen. Let him bury it where it was borne. S. Paul by the spirit and word of God purposely treateth of justification to the Romans and Galatians to teach us what it is, and wherein it consisteth. Him we follow and out of him describe and set forth justification in that manner as I have declared before. But to countenance his matter he nameth S. Austen again in this place. The best is he doth but name him. I must tell him that either he never read S. Austen, or else understandeth him not. We confess according to the word of God, and the doctrine of S. Austen taken from thence that God justifying us, and receiving us into his favour by faith in Christ, doth give unto us his holy spirit to renew us to holiness and righteousness of life▪ wherein we are to increase from day to day. But yet this newness is not such in this life, as whereby we can stand just before the judgement seat of God. Nay we have still to cry out; 
x Rom. 7. ●. 4  Unhappy man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death, and again, 
y Mat. 6. 12.  O Lord forgive us our trespasses, and again 
z Psal. 143. 2.  Enter not into judgement with thy servant, For in thy sight shall no man living be found righteous. Thus hath Christian wisdom taught us to confess, but what meaning doth Popish wisdom teach us to make of this Christian confession. We say forgive us our trespasses, saith the Answ. for venial slips which hinder not justice. And this he falsely collecteth out of a place of S. Austen, where there is no mention or word of any such thing. But I alleged to him that S. Austen affirmeth that the very Apostles themselves were to say so for this reason, 
a August. in ●sal. 142.  because no man living shallbe found just before God. The Answ. saith, we say so for venial slips which hinder not, but that a man is just: S. Austen saith, the Apostles themselves were to say so for this cause, because no man living shall be found just before God. Why doth he pass over this without answer, and without proof affirm that which is hereby overthrown. As for venial sins we know none as touching their own nature, because the scripture absolutely saith: 
b Rom. 6. 23.  The reward of sin is death, and 
c Gal 3. 10.  Cu●sed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the law. Therefore he that offendeth in any thing whatsoever is accursed by the law, and the end of the curse is 
d Mat. 25. 41.  everlasting fire, as our Saviour Christ admonisheth.  
Further he telleth us, why we must say to God, Enter not into judgement with thy servant: for in thy sight no man living shallbe found just. Because, saith he, in respect of the purity of God no man nor angel nor heaven is pure. Now I thought that it was but a word in jest, when he defied the Pelagians before. In this very manner, and with this very answer did they seek to shift off these words in the like case. S. Hierome reporteth it thus. 
e Hieroni. in epistola ad Ctesiphon.  This testimony the Pelagians delude by a new reason under the name or show of piety. They say that in comparison of God no man is just or perfect. He answereth them, As though this were that which the scripture speaketh of: surely it saith not, No man living shallbe found righteous, but in thy sight no man living shallbe found righteous. When it saith, in thy sight, it will have us understand that even they which seem holy unto men, are not holy as touching the notice and knowledge of God, and God looking upon and viewing all things, whom the secrets of hearts cannot deceive, no man is just. Let him hear S. Hierome telling him again that those words are not spoken as touching 
f Idem. dial. 1. cont. Pelagia.  righteousness in comparison of God, but as touching that righteousness which concerneth the frailty of man. S. Bernard giveth this reason why we are to cry, so, 
g Bernard. in fest. sanct. ser. 1  because all our righteousness even our very righteousness is found unrighteousness if it be straightly judged. Therefore for this cause are we to pray in this sort because indeed we are not just if God consider of us, and judge us according to that righteousness which is by works.  
The justified man is ignorant of his state, saith he, and therefore may not boast thereof. But the justified man of whom the Scripture speaketh, is not ignorant of his state: for he 
h R●m. 5. 1. 2.  hath peace towards God through jesus Christ our Lord, yea and that in such sort as that he rejoiceth under the hope of the glory of God. Now a man rejoiceth or 
i Chrysost. in ep. ad Rom. hom. 9  glorieth, saith chrysostom, of those things which he hath already in hand. But because the hope of things to come is as certain and sure as of things already given us. Therefore saith S. Paul we do alike glory thereof. But this glorying he groundeth not upon his works, for there he findeth no assurance, but upon confidence of the mercy and goodness of God towards him in jesus Christ. 
k Bernar. de Euangel. 7. pa. num. serm. 3.  I consider the things, saith S. Bernard, wherein all my hope consisteth, the love of God's adoption, the truth of his promise, and his ableness of performance. Now let mine own foolish thought murmur as much as it will, saying: Who art thou, and how great is that glory, and by what merits hopest thou to obtain it? And I will boldly answer, I know whom I have believed, and I am sure because he hath adopted me in exceeding great love, because he is true in his promise, and able for the performance thereof. These three saith he, do so confirm and strengthen my heart, that no want of merits, no consideration of mine own vileness, no estimation of the heavenly bliss can cast me down from the height of my hope, wherein I am firmly rooted. This is the faith, this is the assurance of the justified man which the scripture teacheth, this giveth 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 doubtful of his state.  
The Answ. intimateth further that the justified man useth those former speeches by way of humbling himself before God. 
l Bernar. de triplici custodia. etc.  Indeed, saith S. Bernard, by way of humility, but what? against truth? Nay, 
m Idem de verb. Esaiae. serm 5.  with no less truth than humility as we heard him say before 
n Aug. epis. 89 & in Psal. 118. con. 2. & de nat. & great. cap. 36.  not with counterfeit humility, but with words of truth, as saint Austen saith concerning Daniel, and 
o Idem de peccat. merit. & remis. lib. 2. cap 10.  knowing in truth that it is so that there is no● a man that is just in the sight of God, as he also speaketh out of job.  
His third justification we know not by that name. God in this life beginneth his good work of sanctification in us, but it is yet but begun. 
p Rom. 8. 23.  We have received but the first fruits of the spirit, saith S. Paul. 
q Aug. de ●emp. Serm 49.  In comparison of that which we hope for at the resurrection, saith S. Austen, it is but dung which we have in this life. So that our 
r Idem de civit. dei. lib. 19 cap 27.  righteousness in this life, as he saith again, consisteth rather in forgiveness of sins, then in perfection of virtues. But 
s 2. Pet. 3. 13.  according to the promise of God we look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. 
t Rom 8. 23.  We wait for the adoption and full redemption of out bodies, 
u 1 Cor. 15. ●3  when this mortal shall put on immortality, and this corruptible shall put on incorruption, when sin and death shallbe no more, and 
w 1. cor. 13. 10.  that which is perfect being come that which is now in part shallbe done away. Now because this our sanctification and righteousness is yet but unperfect and in part, therefore we resolve that the righteousness whereby we stand just before God, is only the righteousness of jesus Christ, and that by inherent justice no man living shallbe found just in his ●ight. The cause why God doth not perfect us in this life we take to be this which S. Austen giveth 
x August. de spiri. & l●tera. cap 36.  that the mouth even of the righteous may be shut in their own praise, and not be opened but to the praise of God: & as S. Bernard saith, 
y Bernard. in cantie. Ser. 50.  that we may know at that day, that not for the works of righteousness which we have done, but of his own mercy he hath saved us.  
The places which your simplicity, M. Spence, as I guess, added in the margin to that which your author had said, need no great answer. The two former are Apocryphal and prove nothing. Yet the one of them is nothing to the purpose, 
z Wised. 3. 15  the fruit of good works is glorious: the other is a false translation where in steed of 
a Eccle. 16. 12.  works, is put in merit of works. The third is of S. Paul, 
b Rom. 2. 6.  God will render unto every man according to his works▪ So we preach, so we inform the people of God. The words of Christ agree to it, 
c john ●. 29.  They that have done good, shall rise to the resurrection of life, but they that have done evil shall rise to the resurrection of condemnation. The true faithful man worketh according to his faith, and as he is by his new birth made a good tree, so he bringeth forth new and good fruits. As he doth good, so shall he receive good, though his goodness be neither of that valour, that thereby he can deserve that which he shall receive: nor so perfect as that thereby he may stand just and without fault in the sight of God, as I have before declared. But to reason from this place in this sort, God rendereth unto the good man according to his good works, therefore a man is justified by his works, is an untowardly kind of reasoning, and the like as if a man should say: The loving father requiteth good unto his child according to his obedience and good service: therefore by his obedience and good service he is become his child. It is the birth that maketh the child a child. Our justification consisteth in this, that God accepteth us for his children. This he doth in our new birth by 
d Gal. 3. 26. john. 1. 12. 13  faith in Christ jesus. Under the coverture of this justification and new birth we stand still before God as his children, and 
e Rom. 8. 17.  if children of God, than heirs of God and joint-heires with jesus Christ unto everlasting life. Though afterward by his gace, and as his children we do good, and according to this good do receive good: yet it is absurd to say that by these our good doings we are justified, that is to say: made the children of God, and the heirs of life, which is a matter of birth and not of a working.    


P. Spence the conclusion.  
But what mean I to wade in this large sea? Good sir forbear ●e in this and all other controversies hereafter, which now I know not how your courtesies and good nature hath drawn me on to run into. I protest unto you I am most unwilling thereunto, knowing my want of learning, fearing thereby to scandalise our most sound, good Catholic cause, and being loath to exasperate the magistrate, or to transgress laws, or to endanger myself, which you cannot help me out of if it be ill taken. And therefore I profess I have written to you, and then to the fire, fit to be seen of none, and not aware to make any muster with. I charge you therefore in the bowels of brotherly charity, and in friendly sort, to hide this Pamphlet, and keep it from all men's eyes and ears, as being written to yourself alone, and wrested out of me by yourself, and as it were exacted: such a force hath the love of you, and your courtesies showed unto me, have such an interest in me. I will not meddle with those odious comparisons of M. jewel and D. Harding, and of his wishing at his death to be with M. jewels soul: which I dare assure you by the report of those that were at his death, was not so as it was told you. Such fabulous reports are not too much to be leaned unto by the wise. As for M. Steuens, I stand not upon the truth of his report, yet the man was honest and then a favourer of your side, and a servant with the Archbish▪ of Canterbury, Do. Parker who sent him with a Letter (as he reported) to M. jewel, to admonish him of certain slips in his book to be revoked. But with those things as with his falsifyings of places of Fathers & writers in every leaf, and almost in every line, charge him. I say nothing as having little to do with the matter. And so wishing to you as to myself, I most hearty rest here your unfeigned well-willer, and will daily pray for you. Only this I request you that if any word in this our scholastical conflict be misplaced or breed occasion of offence, as seeming over bitter, I most humbly crave pardon. For the force of arguing sometime breedeth heat of words, where the mind meaneth well enough. I written this trifle to yourself and to Vulcan, & to no body else. You see two lawyers plead eagerly and angrily, and as it were chide at the bar, and yet dine together full merrily. Once again I pray you suppress this Pamphlet, that neither others may be offended thereat, nor let your Pulpit sound reproach of me about it, I beseech you. And thus I commend you to the highest.  
Your assured but unable to do you good, save with my prayer, the poor prisoner Paul Spence.   

The answer to the conclusion.  
HE that evil doth hateth the light, 
a joh. 3. 20.  saith our Saviour. joh. 3. 20. neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. If you have spoken truth, why are you so loath to have it known what you have spoken? If your cause be just, why should it fly the light. You are afraid, you say, least through want of learning you should scandalise your sound good Catholic cause. Your cause M. Spence is not sound & Catholic. No, no, M. Spence, it is a lewd cause and lewdly defended. Your answer doth prove so much, not through your want of learning, as you pretend▪ but through the badness of it in itself. Whatsoever excuse you pretend of your want of learning, the truth is, that for the substance of your answer, it is the best learning that Bellarmine and the best of your side can yield unto you, and your excuse doth but argue a conscience and fear in you, that the best learning of your side is nought & easily overthrown. Albeit your learning M. Spence is not to be spoken of in the matter. Your own fellows have given it out, that though your learning be but small, yet some other have had the matter in handling that were able to say somewhat to the purpose. You remember that you yourself confessed so much to me in effect, when you told me that you sent abroad for the collections of it, and did not plainly deny but that another man was the Author of the whole. Now therefore seeing you would not conceal to yourself that which I wrote privately to you, but would needs send it abroad to have it answered by others, what reason have you to require of me the which you have not done yourself? Verily, if the matter had rested only in private betwixt you and me, or if it had but only privately concerned me, I would never have taken this course; no nor if you would have come forth to receive mine answer in writing, when I used means to that purpose. But since that by means of you and your fellows, it hath gone abroad and hath touched the credit of the doctrine which I teach publicly, both God and the world, and my calling and conscience have required of me, not to suffer my concealing hereof in private, to lie as a stumbling block in the way of any, to cause them either to fall away or to stand in doubt. My silence might be and I doubt hath been, a fit occasion for you and your fellows to work upon, for the seducing of such ignorant persons in the Country as by occasion you have to deal with, and therefore I do not marvel that you do so instantly desire it. The scornful and disdainful speeches wherewith your Author delighteth himself, are fit to blind the eyes of the unlearned, as if he had gotten some great victory. That is indeed the common manner of Popish writing. But let the Christian Reader judge of all. I wish him whosoever he is, to consider further of his doing. Let him remember the tribunal seat where he is to give reckoning of it. Let him beware that his conscience do not say unto him, Thou hast studied to answer with shifts and lies. What odd fellow that Steuens was of whom you speak, I know not. but I doubt not but he was an honest man at Rheims & Rome, if he would say any thing to touch the credit of B. jewel, such as were Staphylus and Bolsecke, and such other vile renegates. You must as well give me leave to believe the report which I mentioned of Hardings death, as to yourself to believe a runagates & renegates tale of B. jewel. This Steuens you say, carried letter's to B. jewel from Archbishop Parker, to admonish him of some stippes in his book. It may be so. But what were that to the substance of the matter, if amongst infinite allegations he mistook himself in some few? Yea but he is charged by your side with infinite falsifications almost in every line. I doubt not but he is so charged. For if you should not say that he wrote falsely, how should you make men believe that you spoke truth? The devil when he will make men believe his lies, commendeth his lies for truth, & condemneth the truth by the name of falsehood and lies: so the church of Rome seeking the overthrow of that truth which B. jewel defended, must needs for the saving of her own honesty avouch that B. jewel d●●lt falsely in his writing. The thief being convicted, will yet cry out that he is falsely accused. O what wring and straining doth Harding use to fasten upon B. jewel that discredit of falsifying, and it still reboundeth to himself. What passions doth he run into sometimes, in charging M. jewel, and all to save himself some little credit by vain outcries and claimours. The books are extant, and men thanks be to God, have eyes to see whether of them played the juggler, and whether the true man. Out of doubt those falsifications are such pretty matters, as that one which the Answ. mentioneth out of the unperfect work upon Matthew, whereof see sect. 18. I wish the Reader to note it. Your 
Se●t. 18.  terms of scholastical conflict and force of arguing & heat of words, I pass over as not concerning you, but him that hath taken the pains for you. If he knew any thing misplaced, why did he not place it aright? If he saw any thing that might breed to me occasion of offence, why would he write it? You wrote to me, you say, and to no body else. If you had observed that rule with me, as it was fit you should have done, I would have dealt accordingly: but now you and your companions having dealt in the matter as you have, I might not suppress your Pamphlet, occasion being offered me to publish it, without betraying the cause of God. Once again I exhort both you and yours to be wise for the safety of your own souls. Fight not against God. It 
b Act. 2●. 14.  is hard to kick against the pricks. 
c Heb. 10. 31.  A fearful thing it is to fall into the hands of the living God. If God say unto you, know me, and you say, we 
d job. 21. 14.  will none of the knowledge of thy ways, woe unto you: better had it been for you that you had never been borne. Shifts and colours, and lies, and excuses, will not serve the turn, when you must come to answer before the throne of God. God give you grace to remember it in time, that foregoing your own ways of error & wilfulness, you may embrace the ways of God unto everlasting life.  
Amen.    
FINIS.  
 
Cyprian. Florent. lib. 4. epist. 9 Habes tu literas meus & ego tuas: in d●e judicij ante tribunal Christi utrunque recitabitur.  
You have my writings and I have yours: at the day of judgement both shallbe recited before the tribunal seat of Christ.